HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/7/2000MINUTES ATTACHED
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
AGENDA
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2000 - 9:00 A.M.
County Commission Chamber
County Administration Building
184025 th 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
9:00 a.m. 1.
2.
3.
4.
CALL TO ORDER
INVOCATION
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Paul G. Bangel, County Attorney
Kimberly Massung, Executive Aide to BCC
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
Comm. Ruth M. Stanbridge
BACKUP
PAGES
ADDITIONS/DELETIONS to the AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
ADDITIONS: 72.
Treasure Coast Sqdn. Civil Air Patrol - Use Fairgrounds for Model Rocketry Program
7.A.A.
Emergency Services District Advisory Committee Appointments
13.13.
Report on Sub -Standard Living Conditions of Elderly in Wabasso area
DELETION: 9.13.7.
Public Discussion Item - Frank Zorc - Sub -Standard Living Conditions of Elderly in the
Wabasso Area
5. PROCLAMATION and PRESENTATIONS
Presentation of Proclamation Designating Month of November, 2000
as National Hospice Month in Indian River County
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Special Meeting of September 12, 2000
B. Special Meeting of October 9, 2000
BI{ I IS PG 6 9
1
7. CONSENT AGENDA BACKUPPAGES
A. Approval of Warrants
(memorandum dated October 19, 2000) 2-9
B. David C. Nolte, Property Appraiser — Annual Report
for Year Ending September 30, 2000
(letter dated October 30, 2000) 10-13
C. Gary C. Wheeler, Sheriff — Annual Report for Year Ending
September 30, 2000
(letter dated October 30, 2000) 14-18
D. Proclamation Designating October 27, 2000 as Beachland
Elementary School Day 19
E. Resignation of Robert Swift from Space Needs Committee
(letter dated October 21, 2000) 20
F. Appointments to Children's Services Advisory Committee
Sub -Committees
(memorandum dated October 30, 2000) 21
G. Out of County Travel Request for Commissioners to attend
Beach Preservation 2001 in Orlando, FL
(memorandum dated October 18, 2000) 22-30
H. Request for Authorization to Release Final Payment
Including Retainage Held for: The Rockridge Area Sewer
System — Horizontal Drilling Project
(memorandum dated October 19, 2000) 31-34
I. Approval of Public official Bonds for Trustees of IRC
Hospital District
(memorandum dated November 1, 2000) 35-41
J. Out -of -County Travel Approval Request by County Attorney
to Attend Meeting of Florida Association of County Attorneys
(memorandum dated October 31, 2000) 42
K. County Canvassing Board
(memorandum dated October 26, 2000) 43
L. Kay Clem, Supervisor of Elections: Annual Report for
Year Ending September 30, 2000
(memorandum dated November 1, 2000) 44-46
BACKUP
7. CONSENT AGENDA (cont'd.): PAGES
M. Out -of -County Travel Approval Request for Commissioners
and Staff to Attend NACo Conference in Washington, DC 47
N. Resolution abolishing the Gifford Housing Improvement
Committee and discharging its members 48-49
O. Resolution abolishing the Local Energy Management
Committee and discharging its members 50-51
P. Children Services Advisory — Contracts for 2000-2001
Grants
(memorandum dated October 31, 2000) 52-55
Q. Appointment of Chuck Mechling to replace Bob Swift
on Space Needs Committee
(memorandum dated November 1, 2000) 56
R. Resolution Authorizing Sub -Lease of North County Park
to Sebastian Area Soccer Association, Inc.
(memorandum dated November 1, 2000) 57-61
S. Vero Lake Estates Stormwater Improvements Project —
Final Pay Request and Release of Retainage from Carter
Associates, Inc.
(memorandum dated October 20, 2000) 62-63
T. Request for Floodplain Cut and Fill Balance Waiver for
Seasons Community Subdivision
(memorandum dated November 1, 2000) 6467
U. Pierre Raymond Request for Partial Release of Easement at
7425 30`x' Court (Copelands Landing Sub Phase II)
(memorandum dated October 17, 2000) 68-73
V. Appointment of Comm. Ken Macht to the Treasure Coast Sports
Commission
(memorandum dated November 1, 2000) 74
W. Appointments of Comm. Caroline Ginn and Comm. Ruth
Stanbridge to the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council
(memorandum dated November 1, 2000) 75-76
X. Old School Restoration Advisory Group
(memorandum dated November 1, 2000) 77
1"r 1 6, 1J
BACKUP
7. CONSENT AGENDA (cont'd.): PAGES
Y. 43�d Avenue Widening and Drainage Improvements for
Public Work Roadway Project
Regional Lift Station and Force Main
Release of Retainage for Professional Services
(memorandum dated October 23, 2000) 78-90
8. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS and
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
None
9. PUBLIC ITEMS
A. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA CREATING THE EAST GIFFORD
WATERSHED AREA MUNICIPAL SERVICE
BENEFIT UNIT; PURPOSE; DETERMINATION
OF COST OF SERVICE; PROPERTY OWNER
y ADVISORY GROUP; LEVY OF ASSESSMENT,
ADOPTION OF BUDGET; DISPOSITION OF
PROCEEDS FROM THE LEVY OF ASSESSMENT;
PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION; PROVIDING
FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE
Establishment of Municipal Service Benefit Unit
East Gifford Stormwater Watershed Area
(memorandum dated October 27, 2000) 91-99
a) Resolution of the Board of County Commis-
sioners of Indian River County, Florida,
Electing to use the Uniform Method for the
Levy, Collection and Enforcement of Non
Ad Valorem Assessments Pursuant to Florida
Statute 197.3632 within the East Gifford Water-
shed Area Municipal Service Benefit Unit 100-103
2. Westgate Colony Sewer Assessment, Resolution III
(memorandum dated October 17, 2000) 104-118
BK 15 PG 696
6
9.
0
BACKUP
PAGES
PUBLIC ITEMS (cont'd.):
A. PUBLIC HEARINGS (cont'd.):
3. Yukon Land Corporation and Daniel N. Spencer's request
to amend the Comprehensive Plan to redesignate ±180
acres located at the northeast corner of 90'h Ave.
and 85`h St. from F, Rural Residential (up to 1 unit/acre),
to L-1, Low -Density Residential -1 (up to 3 units/acre); and
to rezone those ±180 acres from A-1, Agricultural District
(up to 1 unit/5 acres), to RS -3, Single -Family Residential
District (up to 3 units/acre) (Legislative)
(memorandum dated October 25, 2000)
119-143
4. Red Stick Golf Club, Inc.'s request to amend Figure 4.13
of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan
to delete 81S` Street, between 58`h Ave. and Old Dixie
Highway (Legislative)
(memorandum dated October 30, 2000) 144156
5. County -initiated request to amend the text of the Capital
Improvements Element Comprehensive Plan Legislative)
(memorandum dated October 31, 2000)
157-169
6. County -initiated request to amend the text of the Future
Land Use Element, the Recreation and Open Space
Element, the Coastal Management Element, the Sanitary
Sewer Sub -Element, and the Potable Water Sub -Element
of the Comprehensive Plan (Legislative)
(memorandum dated October 26, 2000) 170-200
7. Approval of Purchase of the Simmons and Andre Parcels of
the Oyster Bar Salt Marsh Environmental Land Acquisition
Proj ect (Legislative)
(memorandum dated October 31, 2000) 201-216
8. First Hearing on Proposed LDR Amendments: Civic and
Social Membership Clubs; Group Homes and ALFs in the
MED District (Legislative)
(memorandum dated October 31, 2000) 217-242
9. Final Hearing on Proposed LDR Amendments: Limitations
on Roosters and Allowance for Road Names (Legislative)
(memorandum dated October 31, 2000) 243-263
10. Approval of Purchase Contract: Proctor Parcel Adjacent
to the Fischer -Sebastian River Property (Legislative)
(memorandum dated October 31, 2000) 264-274
BACKUP
9. PUBLIC ITEMS (confd.l: PAGES
B. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
1. Request from Mr. & Mrs. Vernon Slavens to
Speak Regarding Proposed Retention Pond
Behind Their Property in Wauregan Subdivision
(memorandum dated October 9, 2000) 275-278
(postponed from October 24, 2000 meeting)
2. Request by Richard Hutchinson, resident of Heritage
Village Park, to discuss Mobile Home Park Real
Estate Taxes
(memorandum dated October 16, 2000) 279
3. Request from Christine Browning to be heard regarding
Oslo citizens "not being considered, and treated equally
as other tax paying citizens when plans are made and
drawn up for this county"
(letter dated October 30, 2000) 280-314
4. Discussion Relating to Conditions of Board's Approval
of The Colony Planned Development
(letter dated October 30, 2000) 315
5. Attorney Michael O'Haire's Appeal on Behalf of Ken
Godfrey of a Planning and Zoning Commission Decision
to Deny a Site Plan and Administrative Permit Applica-
tion for a Sand Mine at CR507 (Babcock) and 99th Street
(memorandum dated November 1, 2000) 316-374
6. Request by Sidney W. Turner to discuss "the Barrier
Island Coalition, the North Barrier Island Task Force,
and views on following decorum"
(letter dated October 30, 2000) 375
7. Request by Frank Zorc to discuss "Extreme -Sub Standard
Living Conditions of elderly in the Wabasso areas"
(letter dated October 31, 2000) 376
C. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEMS
1. Public Hearings Scheduled for November 14, 2000
a) Lake Grace LLC Request for Conceptual and
Preliminary Planned Development Approval
for a 66 Lot Planned Development (Legislative)
i ,.
9. PUBLIC ITEMS (cont'd.): BACKUP
C. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEMS (cont'd.): PAGES
1. b) Marsh Island Development Company LLC's
Request for Planned Development Special
Exception Use and Preliminary Planned Deve-
lopment Plan/Plat Approval for a 33 Unit
Development known as Marsh Island (Legislative)
2. Public Hearing Scheduled for November 21, 2000)
a) Proposed LDR Amendments: Second Hearing
(Legislative)
Civic and Social Membership Clubs
Group Homes and Adult Living Facilities in
the MED District
(memorandum dated October 31, 2000) 377-378
10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS
None
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
A. Community Development
None
B. Emergency Services
Approval of the 2000/2001 Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
for Shelter Retrofit Project Applications
(memorandum dated November 1, 2000) 379407
C. General Services
None
D. Leisure Services
None
E. Office of Management and Budget
None
F. Personnel
None
G. Public Works
1. Status report regarding recent beach erosion
(no backup material provided)
BACKUP
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS (cont'd.): PAGES
G. Public Works (cont'd.):
2. Right -of -Way Acquisition — Oslo Road Sidewalk
Project— Johnnie B. Jenkins
(memorandum dated October 17, 2000) 408-413
3. Shooting Range Buildings — Change Order No. 2
(memorandum dated October 30, 2000) 414-421
4. Gifford Stormwater Improvements — Carter Associates,
Inc. Assistance in Preparation of Florida Department of
Environmental Protection Grant Application
(memorandum dated October 20, 2000) 422-425
5. Amendment No. 2 to the North County Regional Park
Professional Architectural Services Agreement
(memorandum dated October 30, 2000) 426-430
6. Florida Power & Light, Facilities Relocation Agreement
Kings Highway Phase II
(memorandum dated October 20, 2000) 431-459
H. Utilities
1. Anita Park Subdivision, 37`h & 38`h Streets — Petition
Water Service — Preliminary Assessment Resolutions
Iand II
(memorandum dated October 23, 2000) 460-474
I. Human Services
None
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY
None
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS
A. Chairman Fran B. Adams
B. Vice Chairman Caroline D. Ginn
BK 115 PG 700
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS (cont'd.): BACKUP
C. Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht PAGES
D. Commissioner Ruth Stanbridge
E. Commissioner John W. Tippin
14. SPECIAL DISTRICTSBOARDS
A. Emergency Services District
None
B. Solid Waste Disposal District
1. Approval of Minutes — meeting of Oct. 17, 2000
2. Implement Groundwater Monitoring Plans for Four
Closed Landfill Sites — South Winter Beach Site, Oslo
Site, Roseland Site, and Wabasso Site
(memorandum dated October 16, 2000) 475-504
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.R.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.
BK 1 15 PG 70 1
I
INDEX TO MINUTES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MEETING OF NOVEMBER 7, 2000
1. CALL TO ORDER ................................................. 1
2. INVOCATION ...................................... 1
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ......................................... 1
4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA ..................................... 1
5. PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING NATIONAL HOSPICE MONTH -
NOVEMBER 2000 .................................................2
6.A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 12, 2000 ..................... 3
6.13. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - OCTOBER 9, 2000 ........................ 3
7. CONSENT AGENDA .............................................. 4
7.A. Approval of Warrants ......................................... 4
7.13. David C. Nolte, Property Appraiser - Annual Report for Year Ending
September 30, 2000 ..........................................11
7.C. Gary C. Wheeler, Sheriff - Annual Report for Year Ending September 30,
2000 ...................................................... 15
7.D. Proclamation Designating October 27, 2000 as Beachland Elementary
SchoolDay ................................................. 19
7.E. Resignation of Robert Swift from Space Needs Committee ........... 20
7.F. Appointments to Children's Advisory Committee Sub -Committees (Needs
Assessment & Planning Sub -Committee and Grant Review Sub -Committee)
21
7.G. Out -of -County Travel - Commissioners to Attend Beach Preservation 2001
in Orlando - February 7-9, 2001 ................................ 22
TH. Final Payment and Release of Retainage for Rockridge Area Sewer System
- Horizontal Drilling Project - Tri -Sure Corporation ................. 23
BK 1 15 PG 702
7.I.
Public Official Bonds for Indian River County Hospital District Trustees
Approved - Harry J. Bolwell, George H.C. Lawrence, and Thomas N.
Segura....................................................
24
7.J.
Out -of -County Travel - County Attorney to Attend Meeting of Florida
Association of County Attorneys - Tallahassee - Nov. 16, 2000 .......
25
7.K.
County Canvassing Board - Chairman Fran B. Adams Replace Substitute
Appointee Commissioner John W. Tippin ........................
26
7.L.
Supervisor of Elections Kay Clem - Annual Report for Year Ending
September 30, 2000 ..........................................27
7.M.
Out -of -County Travel - Commissioners and Staff Attend NACo (National
Association of Counties) Conference in Washington, D.C. ........
28
7.N.
Resolution No. 2000-133 Abolishing Gifford Housing Improvement
Committee and Discharging its Members (Inactive Committee) .......
28
7.0.
Resolution No. 2000-134 Abolishing Local Energy Management
Committee and Discharging its Members (Inactive Committee) .......
30
7.P.
Children's Services Advisory Committee - Contracts for FY 2000-2001
Grant Funding..............................................31
7.Q.
Space Needs Committee - Appointment of Chuck Mechling to Replace Bob
Swift (Developer's Representative) ..............................
33
7.R.
Resolution No. 2000-135 Authorizing Sub -Lease of Portion of North
County Regional Park to Sebastian Area Soccer Association, Inc.......
34
7.S.
Vero Lake Estates Stormwater Improvements Project - Final Pay Request
and Release of Retainage - Carter Associates, Inc. (Project No. 8226 -
Work Order Nos. 3 and 6) .....................................
39
7.T.
Floodplain Cut and Fill Balance Waiver - Seasons Community Subdivision
- K. Hovnanian Companies of Florida, Inc. - Kimley-Horn & Associates,
Inc........................................................40
7.U.
Resolution No. 2000-136 - Partial Release of Easement at 7425 30th Court
(Copelands Landing Sub Phase II) - Requested by Pierre Raymond ....
41
7.V.
Appointment of Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht to the Treasure Coast
Sports Commission (Replacing Commissioner John W. Tippin) .......
45
7.W.
Appointment of Vice Chairman Ginn and Commissioner Stanbridge to
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council for 2001 ................
46
7.X.
Fellsmere Old School Restoration Advisory Group (ad hoc) - Appointment
of Commissioner Ruth M. Stanbridge as Chairman .................
47
7.Y.
43rd Avenue Widening and Drainage Improvements - (Project 960 1) -
Regional Lift Station and Force Main - Release of Retainage - Carter
Associates, Inc . .............................................
47
72.
Fairgrounds - Treasure Coast Squadron of Civil Air Patrol - Model
Rocketry Program - November 19, 2000 ..........................
49
2
BK 1 15PG 703
7.AA. Appointments to the Emergency Services District Advisory Committee
..........................................................50
9.A.1. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE NO. 2000-035 CREATING THE EAST
GIFFORD WATERSHED AREA MUNICIPAL SERVICE BENEFIT UNIT and
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-137 ELECTING TO USE THE UNIFORM METHOD
FOR THE LEVY, COLLECTION AND ENFORCEMENT OF NON AD
VALOREM ASSESSMENTS PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTE 197.3632
...............................................................51
9.A.2. PUBLIC HEARING - WESTGATE COLONY SEWER ASSESSMENT -
RESOLUTION III (NOT ADOPTED) ................................. 65
9.A.3. PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION NO. 2000-138 - YUKON LAND
CORPORATION AND DANIEL L. SPENCER'S REQUEST TO AMEND THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO REDESIGNATE APPROXIMATELY 180
ACRES FROM R TO L-1 AND TO REZONE SAME FROM A-1 TO RS -3
(Legislative)..................................................... 73
9.A.4. PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION NO. 2000-139 - RED STICK GOLF
CLUB, INC.'S REQUEST TO AMEND FIGURE 4.13 OF THE
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO
DELETE 81st STREET, BETWEEN 58th AVENUE AND OLD DIXIE
HIGHWAY (Legislative) ........................................... 86
9.A.5. PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION NO. 2000-140 - COUNTY -INITIATED
REQUEST TO AMEND THE TEXT OF THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (Legislative) ............. 93
9.A.6. PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION NO. 2000-141 - COUNTY -INITIATED
REQUEST TO AMEND THE TEXT OF THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT,
THE RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT, THE COASTAL
MANAGEMENT ELEMENT, THE SANITARY SEWER SUB -ELEMENT, AND
THE POTABLE WATER SUB -ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
(Legislative).................................................... 100
9.A.7. ENVIRONMENTAL LAND ACQUISITION PROJECT - APPROVE
PURCHASE OF THE SIMMONS AND ANDRE PARCELS OF THE OYSTER
BAR SALT MARSH (Legislative) ................................... 122
3
BK 1 15 PG 704
9.A.8. PUBLIC HEARING - FIRST HEARING ON PROPOSED (LAND
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS) LDR AMENDMENTS: a) CIVIC AND
SOCIAL MEMBERSHIP CLUBS and b) GROUP HOMES AND ALFs IN THE
MED DISTRICT (Legislative) ...................................... 128
9.A.9. PUBLIC HEARING - FINAL HEARING ON PROPOSED (LAND
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS) LDR AMENDMENTS: a) LIMITATIONS
ON ROOSTERS AND b) ORDINANCE NO. 2000-036 - ALLOWANCE FOR
ROAD NAMES (Legislative) ....................................... 132
9.A.10. PUBLIC HEARING - PURCHASE CONTRACT APPROVAL -
ENVIRONMENTAL LAND ACQUISITION - PROCTOR PARCEL ADJACENT
TO THE FISCHER-SEBASTIAN RIVER PROPERTY (Legislative) ....... 146
9.13.1. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM - REQUEST FROM MR. & MRS. VERNON
SLAVENS TO SPEAK REGARDING PROPOSED RETENTION POND
BEHIND THEIR PROPERTY IN WAUREGAN SUBDIVISION (postponed from
October 24, 2000) ................................................ 152
9.13.2. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM - REQUEST BY RICHARD HUTCHINSON,
RESIDENT OF HERITAGE VILLAGE PARK, TO DISCUSS MOBILE HOME
PARK REAL ESTATE TAXES ..................................... 154
9.13.3. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM - REQUEST FROM CHRISTINE BROWNING
TO BE HEARD REGARDING OSLO CITIZENS "NOT BEING CONSIDERED,
AND TREATED EQUALLY AS OTHER TAXPAYING CITIZENS WHEN
PLANS ARE MADE AND DRAWN UP FOR THIS COUNTY" .......... 156
9.B.4. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM - DISCUSSION RELATING TO CONDITIONS
OF BOARD'S APPROVAL OF THE COLONY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
.............................................................. 162
9.13.5. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM - ATTORNEY MICHAEL O'HAIRE'S APPEAL
ON BEHALF OF KEN GODFREY OF A PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION DECISION TO DENY A SITE PLAN AND ADMINISTRATIVE
PERMIT APPLICATION FOR A SAND MINE AT CR -507 (BABCOCK) AND
99th STREET (Quasi -Judicial) ...................................... 165
0
BK 1 15 PG 705
•
9.13.6. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM - REQUESTED BY SIDNEY W. TURNER TO
DISCUSS "THE BARRIER ISLAND COALITION, THE NORTH BARRIER
ISLAND TASK FORCE, AND VIEWS ON FOLLOWING DECORUM" ... 174
9.B.7. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM - REQUEST BY FRANK ZORC TO DISCUSS
"EXTREME SUB -STANDARD LIVING CONDITIONS OF ELDERLY IN THE
WABASSO AREAS" ............................................. 174
9.C.1. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEMS - PUBLIC HEARINGS SCHEDULED FOR
NOVEMBER 14, 2000 ............................................ 175
a) Lake Grace LLC Request for Conceptual and Preliminary Planned
Development Approval for a 66 -Lot Planned Development (Legislative)
......................................................... 175
b) Marsh Island Development Company LLC's Request for Planned
Development Special Exception Use and Preliminary Planned Development
Plan/Plat Approval for a 33 -unit Development Known as Marsh Island
(Legislative) ............................................... 175
9.C.2. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEMS - PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED FOR
NOVEMBER 21, 2000 ............................................ 175
a) Proposed LDR Amendments: Second Hearing on Civic and Social
Membership Clubs and Group Homes and Adult Living Facilities in the
MED District .............................................. 175
I I .B. SHELTER RETROFIT PROJECT APPLICATIONS (SCHOOLS) FOR 2000/2001
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM - EMERGENCY SERVICES
DIRECTOR DOUGLAS WRIGHT APPOINTED AUTHORIZED APPLICANT
AGENT........................................................ 176
I I.G. 1. STATUS REPORT REGARDING RECENT BEACH EROSION .... 177
I I .G.2. RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION - OSLO ROAD SIDEWALK PROJECT
- JOHNNIE B. JENKINS.................................... 177
I I .G.3. SHOOTING RANGE BUILDINGS - CHANGE ORDER NO.2 -
WILLIAM GLOVER, INC. (PROJECT #9629B) ................. 179
5 BK 1 15 PG 706
•
I I .G.4. GIFFORD STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT - CARTER
ASSOCIATES, INC. - ASSISTANCE IN PREPARATION OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION GRANT
APPLICATION (Project No. 9219) ............................ 181
I I.G.5. NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL PARK PROFESSIONAL
ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES AGREEMENT - BRAD SMITH
ASSOCIATES, INC. - AMENDMENT NO.2 .................... 183
I I.G.6. FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT - FACILITIES RELOCATION
AGREEMENTS - KINGS HIGHWAY PHASE II ................. 184
I I.H.1 RESOLUTION NOS. 2000-142 AND 2000-143 - ANITA PARK
SUBDIVISION, 37TH AND 38TH STREETS - PETITION WATER
SERVICES - PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT RESOLUTIONS I AND II
..................................................................... 186
13.D. VICE CHAIRMAN GINN - REPORT ON SUB -STANDARD LIVING
CONDITIONS OF ELDERLY IN THE WABASSO AREA ......... 197
14.A. EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT ......................... 197
14.13. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT ........................ 197
14.C. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD ...................... 197
6
BK 1 15 PG 707
•
November 7, 2000
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, met in Special
Session at the County Commission Chambers, 1840 25" Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on
Tuesday, November 7, 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
Commissioner Tippin delivered the invocation.
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Stanbridge led the Pledge to the Flag.
4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
Chairman Adams announced the addition of items 7.Z., Treasure Coast Squadron of
Civil Air Patrol Request to Use Fairgrounds for Model Rocketry Program on November 19,
2000, and 7.AA., Emergency Services District Advisory Committee Appointments. She also
announced that Frank Zorc requested the deletion of item 9.B.7.
November 7, 2000
1
BK 1 15 PG 708
•
Vice Chairman Ginn requested the addition of 13.B., a report on living conditions of
the elderly in the Wabasso area.
ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Ginn, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously made the
requested above changes to the agenda.
5. PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING NATIONAL HOSPICE
MONTH - NOVEMBER 2000
Chairman Adams read the following proclamation and presented it to Dorothy Hindert
who accepted it with thanks on behalf of the Visiting Nurses Association (VNA) which is
now in its 25`' year of providing health care to the residents of Indian River County.
PROCLAMATION
DESIGNATING THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER, 2000
AS NATIONAL HOSPICE MONTH
IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
WHEREAS, VNA Hospice is a program of the Visiting Nurse Association of the Treasure Coast
and provides specialized care to patients throughout Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, VNA Hospice was the first, and remains the area's only, non-profit licensed and
Medicare certified hospice agency; and
WHEREAS, VNA Hospice is the local provider of palliative care, focusing on patient comfort, pant
relief and family support and is committed to improving quality of life for many months, not just final days;
and
WHEREAS, individuals have a renewed focus on end -of -life care and are now placing great
importance on dying well, just as they have always emphasized living well; and
WHEREAS, VNA Hospice continues to grow to meet the needs of individuals and their families
by addressing the physical, mental, emotional and spiritual needs of patients in their homes; and
WHEREAS, VNA Hospice, through the generosity of the community, built, equipped and endowed
the recently opened VNA Hospice House, the area's first residence for terminally ill patients; and
WHEREAS, increased public awareness and understanding of hospice and palliative care will serve
' I to strengthen the services available throughout the community and will help ensure that such emotionally
supportive, cost-effective alternatives are available to all citizens; and
November 7, 2000
2
BK 1 15 PG 709
0
WHEREAS, VNA Hospice has joined member organizations of the National Hospice and Palliative
Care Organization in commemorating November, 2000 as National Hospice Month, and is calling on all
Americans to observe this occasion with appropriate ceremonies and activities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that November, 2000 is designated as
NATIONAL HOSPICE MONTH
in Indian River County and encourage the support and participation of all citizens in learning more about
hospice and palliative care services in our community.
ADOPTED this 7th day of November, 2000.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
' G ,
6.A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 12, 2000
The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or additions to the Minutes of the
Regular Meeting of September 12, 2000. There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge, SECONDED BY
Vice Chairman Ginn, the Board unanimously approved the
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 12, 2000, as
written and distributed.
6.B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - OCTOBER 9, 2000
The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or additions to the Minutes of the
Regular Meeting of October 9, 2000. There were none.
November 7, 2000
3
•
ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge, SECONDED BY
Vice Chairman Ginn, the Board unanimously approved the
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 9, 2000, as written
and distributed.
7. CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Macht requested that item 7.13. be separated from the Consent Agenda.
(See 7.13. for correction/clarification - Commissioner Macht actually requested separation
of item 7.V.)
Vice Chairman Ginn requested the separation of 7.P.
Z.A. Approval of Warrants
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of October 19, 2000:
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DATE: OCTOBER 19, 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 October 12, 2000 to October 19, 2000.
Attachment:
November 7, 2000
4
BK 1 15 PG 71 1
•
ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge, SECONDED BY
Vice Chairman Ginn, the Board unanimously approved the list
of warrants issued by the Clerk to the Board for the period
October 12-19, 2000, as requested.
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0020807
NACO/SOUTHEAST
2000-10-12
8,419.58
0291075
ACE PLUMBING, INC
2000-10-19
243.91
0291076
ACTION TRANSMISSION AND
2000-10-19
547.62
0291077
ALBERTSONS SOUTHCO #4357
2000-10-19
339.43
0291078
APPLE INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO
2000-10-19
212.54
0291079
ATCO TOOL SUPPLY
2000-10-19
239.29
0291080
AUTO SUPPLY CO OF VERO BEACH,
2000-10-19
282.70
0291081
ATLANTIC REPORTING
2000-10-19
34.25
0291082
ABS PUMPS, INC
2000-10-19
32,052.00
0291083
AQUAGENI%
2000-10-19
281.00
0291084
ADAM'S MARK HOTEL
2000-10-19
712.00
0291085
ADAMS, FRAN B
2000-10-19
361.72
0291086
A T & T
2000-10-19
16.05
0291087
ASHBROOK CORPORATION
2000-10-19
3,235.00
0291088
AUTO PARTS OF VERO, INC
2000-10-19
956.92
0291089
ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
2000-10-19
7,833.78
0291090
AMERICAN REPORTING
2000-10-19
2,292.50
0291091
ARCH
2000-10-19
446.31
0291092
A T & T
2000-10-19
48.25
0291093
AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL
2000-10-19
170.00
0291094
AMERICAN ENGINEERING SERVICES
2000-10-19
1,683.76
0291095
ANCOR CORF INC.
2000-10-19
255.60
0291096
ABC PRINTING CO
2000-10-19
168.06
0291097
AKE, RICHARD -CLERK OF CIRCUIT
2000-10-19
28.00
0291098
ACTION WELDING SUPPLY INC
2000-10-19
22.80
0291099
ALIANO, JODI
2000-10-19
55.00
0291100
BAKER DISTRIBUTING CO
2000-10-19
295.93
0291101
BARTON, JEFFREY K -CLERK
2000-10-19
3,861.50
0291102
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
2000-10-19
3,376.83
0291103
BENSONS LOCK SERVICE
2000-10-19
55.00
0291104
BETTER BUSINESS FORMS, INC
2000-10-19
559.79
0291105
BLACKHAWK QUARRY COMPANY
2000-10-19
1,038.72
0291106
BRAD SMITH ASSOCIATES, INC
2000-10-19
9,779.55
0291107
BAKER & TAYLOR INC
2000-10-19
1,634.74
0291108
BOYNTON PUMP & IRRIGATION
2000-10-19
24.15
0291109
BFI WASTE SYSTEMS
2000-10-19
228.32
0291110
BRYANT, MILLER AND OLIVE, P A
2000-10-19
8,994.96
0291111
BELLSOUTH MOBILITY
2000-10-19
205.20
0291112
BELLSOUTH
2000-10-19
28,060.86
0291113
BIOCYCLE
2000-10-19
43.00
0291114
BREVARD ANESTHESIA SERVICES
2000-10-19
1,100.99
0291115
BREVARD REHABILITATION MED
2000-10-19
892.00
0291116
BOYES & FARINA P A
2000-10-19
107.67
0291117
BUZA, PAUL W DO
2000-10-19
26.10
0291118
BASS-CARLTON SOD INC
2000-10-19
161.00
0291119
BOND, EDWIN
2000-10-19
72.00
November 7, 2000
5
BK 115 PG 712
•
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0291120
BELLSOUTH
2000-10-19
1,740.58
0291121
CAMERON & BARKLEY COMPANY
2000-10-19
187.20
0291122
CAMP, DRESSER & MCKEE, INC
2000-10-19
11,748.80
0291123
CHLORINATORS, INC
2000-10-19
508.80
0291124
CHUCK'S ELECTRIC MOTORS, INC
2000-10-19
1,498.00
0291125
CITRUS MOTEL
2000-10-19
78.00
0291126
COLD AIR DISTRIBUTORS
2000-10-19
141.56
0291127
COMMUNICATIONS INT'L INC
2000-10-19
2,038.77
0291128
CORBIN, SHIRLEY E
2000-10-19
115.50
0291129
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
2000-10-19
=44,765.47
0291130
CLINIC PHARMACY
2000-10-19
231.10
0291131
CHASTAIN, JAMES
2000-10-19
11.02
0291132
COMP -AIR SERVICE CO
2000-10-19
397.15
0291133
CLIFF BERRY ENVIRONMENTAL
2000-10-19
595.00
0291134
COLLINS & AIRMAN
2000-10-19
3,424.96
0291135
CUES, INC
2000-10-19
390.50
0291136
CITY ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO
2000-10-19
432.14
0291137
C4 IMAGING SYSTEMS INC
2000-10-19
40.32
0291138
CARDIOLOGY & MEDICINE
2000-10-19
18,99
0291139
CLEARSHIELD OF INDIAN RIVER CO
2000-10-19
10,894.24
0291140
CENTER FOR EMOTIONAL AND
2000-10-19
28.50
0291141
COPYCO, LIBERTY DIV OF
2000-10-19
118.53
0291142
CORVEL
2000-10-19
438.26
0291143
COLSON, RENE
2000-10-19
51.62
0291144
CITGO PETROLEUM CORP
2000-10-19
4,209.99
0291145
CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
2000-10-19
12.00
0291146
COMMUNITY ASPHALT CORP
2000-10-19
111,289.57
0291147
CROWNS PLAZA AIRPORT
2000-10-19
75.00
0291148
CENTRAL AIR CONDITIONING &
2000-10-19
121.17
0291149
DAILY COURIER SERVICE
2000-10-19
440.00
0291150
DAVES SPORTING GOODS
2000-10-19
241.50.
0291151
DELTA SUPPLY CO
2000-10-19
34.39
0291152
DOCTOR'S CLINIC
2000-10-19
551.07
0291153
DATA SUPPLIES, INC
2000-10-19
663.18
0291154
DATA FLOW SYSTEMS, INC
2000-10-19
1,747.45
0291155
DAVIS, BRENDA
2000-10-19
29,87
0291156
DILLARD, LASSIE
2000-10-19
16.73
0291157
DOUBLE TREE HOTEL
2000-10-19
246.00
0291158
DTN CORPORATION
2000-10-19
3,336.00
0291159
DILLON, EDWARD D
2000-10-19
300.00
0291160
DOCTOR'S CLINIC
2000-10-19
1,993.40
0291161
DEAN, RINGERS, MORGAN AND
2000-10-19
4,407.97
0291162
ECKERD CORPORATION
2000-10-19
133.01
0291163
EMERGENCY MEDICINE ASSOCIATES
2000-10-19
49.00
0291164
ECOLOGICAL ASSOCIATES INC
2000-10-19
4,055.62
0291165
0291166
FATHER & SON APPLIANCE CO
2000-10-19
220.00
0291167
FEDEX
FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF EXT
2000-10-19
65.14
0291168
FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY CO
2000-10-19
2000-10-19
70.00
0291169
FLINCHUM CONSTRUCTION CO, INC
2000-10-19
8,134.00
500.00
0291170
FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF
2000-10-19
12,054.00
0291171
FLORIDA ENGINEERING SOCIETY
2000-10-19
0291172
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
2000-10-19
178.10
24,628.01
0291173
FLORIDA SLUDGE, INC
2000-10-19
3,339.00
0291174
FLORIDA ANIMAL CONTROL
2000-10-19
200.00
0291175
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS
2000-10-19
4,319.53
0291176
FLORIDAFFINITY, INC
2000-10-19
6,018.00
November 7, 2000
6
8K 1 15 PG 713
CHECK NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOIINT
0291177 FACTICON, INC
2000-10-19
159.50
0291178 FEAFCS TREASURER
2000-10-19
90.00
0291179 FIRESTONE TIRE & SERVICE
2000-10-19
11860.80
0291180 FRAME, THOMAS W
2000-10-19
84,78
0291181 FULLER, APRIL L
2000-10-19
30.90
0291182 FLORIDA ROCK INDUSTRIES, INC
2000-10-19
23,554.21
0291183 FEMA CONFERENCE
2000-10-19
390.00
0291184 FOSTER MD, THOMAS R
2000-10-19
16.00
0291185 FLORIDA BEAT, KIDS CORP
2000-10-19
6,249.99
0291186 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE
2000-10-19
10,000.00
0291187 GALE GROUP, THE
2000-10-19
190.77
0291188 GENERAL GMC, TRUCK
2000-10-19
144.83
0291189 GENE'S AUTO GLASS
2000-10-19
90.00
0291190 GOODKNIGHT LAWN EQUIPMENT, INC
2000-10-19
78.80
0291191 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO INC
2000-10-19
46.86
0291192 GREYHOUND LINES, INC.
2000-10-19
474.50
0291193 GULFCOAST FIRE & SAFETY CO INC
2000-10-19
600.00
0291194 GOLLNICK, PEGGY
2000-10-19
150.50
0291195 GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
2000-10-19
713.11
0291196 GARY ROBERTS NURSERY AND
2000-10-19
436.50
0291197 GREEN & METCALF, PA
2000-10-19
36.00
0291198 GE AUTOMATION SERVICES, INC
2000-10-19
510.00
0291199 GENTIVA HEALTH SVC-VERO
2000-10-19
1,156.00
0291200 GRAMS, CATHERINE RUTH
2000-10-19
300.00
0291201 H W WILSON CO
2000-10-19
240.00
0291202 HARRIS SANITATION, INC
2000-10-19
60.49
0291203 HEINTZELMANS TRUCK CENTER
2000-10-19
21,996.00
0291204 HILL DONNELLY CORPORATION
2000-10-19
102.05
0291205 HYATT ORLANDO
2000-10-19
594.00
0291206 HUDSON PUMP
2000-10-19
1,776.75
0291207 HELD, PATRICIA BARGO
2000-10-19
234.00
0291208 HIBISCUS CHILDREN'S CENTER
2000-10-19
2,083.37
0291209 HACH COMPANY
2000-10-19
127.63
0291210 HERZOG, SANDRA
2000-10-19
1,205.03
0291211 HIGHLANDS ANIMAL HOSPITAL
2000-10-19
0291212 HEALTHSOUTH TREASURE COAST
2000-10-19
189.40
0291213 HOMETOWN PET CARE CENTER
2000-10-19
1,529.57
0291214 HOLIDAY BUILDERS
2000-10-19
178.85
0291215 HERITAGE MICROFILM
2000-10-19
4,000.00
0291216 HOMETOWN SUPERMARKET
2000-10-19
1,650.00
0291217 HENDERSON, KATHERINE
2000-10-19
500.00
0291218 HAMMONDS, KEVIN
2000-10-19
1,062.12
0291219 HOLIDAY INN170.70
2000-10-19
0291220 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
2000-10-19
150.00
0291221 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SOLID
2000-10-19
73,734.12
0291222 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY HEALTH1,940.93
2000-10-19
0291223 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
2000-10-19
2,980.00
0291224 INDIAN RIVER BATTERY INC
225.00
0291225 INDIAN RIVER BLUEPRINT CO INC
2000-10-19
349.95
0291226 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY UTILITY
2000-10-19
58.17
0291227 INDIAN RIVER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
2000-10-19
410.73
0291228 IBM CORPORATION
2000-10-19
6.213.51
0291229 INDIAN RIVER ALL -FAB INC
2000-10-19
1,091.77
0291230 IRON OFFICE SOLUTIONS
6,240.35
0291231 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ALLIANCE
2000-10-19
2000-10-19
237.60
0291232 IMI -NET, INC
2000-10-19
145.84
0291233 ISLAND BUILDING CO
2000-10-19
450.00
0291234 IRRIGATION CONSULTANTS UNLIMIT
2000-10-19
500.00
86.62
November 7, 2000
7
BX 1 15 PG 714
�1
U
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NEER
DATE
AMOUNT
0291235
INDIAN RIVER HAND
2000-10-19
1,367.82
0291236
JACKSON ELECTRONICS
2000-10-19
79.90
0291237
JANIE DEAN CHEVROLET, INC
2000-10-19
141.70
0291238
CARLSON, JOYCE M JOHNSTON
2000-10-19
121.50
0291239
JIMMY'S TREE SERVICE, INC
2000-10-19
145.00
0291240
JANITORIAL DEPOT OF AMERICA
2000-10-19
823.09
0291241
JONES CHEMICALS, INC
2000-10-19
11,417.23
0291242
KURTZ, ERIC C MD
2000-10-19
167.00
0291243
K S M ENGINEERING & TESTING
2000-10-19
160.00
0291244
K -MART 87294
2000-10-19
245.25
0291245
KAMRAN & COMPANY. INC
2000-10-19
8,799.00
0291246
KELLY CONSTRUCTION
2000-10-19
12,500.00
0291247
LUCAS WATERPROOFING CO, INC
2000-10-19
130.00
0291248
LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC.
2000-10-19
715.10
0291249
L B SMITH, INC
2000-10-19
70.13
0291250
LIGHT SOURCE BUSINESS SYSTEMS
2000-10-19
340.50
0291251
LFI VERO BEACH, INC
2000-10-19
3,508.28
0291252
LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES
2000-10-19
215.80
0291253
MAXWELL PLUMBING, INC
2000-10-19
477.76
0291254
MAXWELL & SON, INC
2000-10-19
20.02
0291255
MCCORKLE RADIOLOGY
2000-10-19
10.00
0291256
MILNER DOCUMENT PRODUCTS
2000-10-19
890.43
0291257
MOON, NANCY
2000-10-19
500.00
0291258
MORGAN AND EKLUND, INC
2000-10-19
1,327.50
0291259
MATRX MEDICAL REPAIR CTR
2000-10-19
634.50
0291260
MICRO WAREHOUSE
2000-10-19
312.94
0291261
MASTELLER & MOLER, INC
2000-10-19
19,926.00
0291262
MORROW, SUE
2000-10-19
150.84
0291263
MEDICAL RECORD SERVICES, INC
2000-10-19
14.78
0291264
MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY COMPANY
2000-10-19
98.46
0291265
MCDONALD SERVICES, INC
2000-10-19
2,707.00
0291266
MENZ, NICHOLE
2000-10-19
338.82
0291267
M C B COLLECTION SERVICES
2000-10-19
24.05
0291268
MARC INDUSTRIES
2000-10-19
1,073.97
0291269
MEDCHECK
2000-10-19
434.60
0291270
MIKE'S GARAGE, INC
2000-10-19
1,931.62
0291271
MCGUIRE, GEORGE SEAN
2000-10-19
339.01
0291272
MITCHELL TRAINING, INC
2000-10-19
2,600.00
0291273
MAXWELL, KIMBERLY
2000-10-19
23.17
0291274
MEDICAL RECORDS SERVICES, INC
2000-10-19
179,88
0291275
MORTON SALT
2000-10-19
1,050.70
0291276
MAYNARD, DON
2000-10-19
500.00
0291277
NACD LEAGUE CITY
2000-10-19
95.21
0291278
NATIONWIDE ADVERTISING
2000-10-19
759.68
0291279
NEW HORIZONS OF THE TREASURE
2000-10-19
2,955.93
0291280
NATIONAL TECHNICAL COMMUNI-
2000-10-19
400.00
0291281
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
2000-10-19
1,670.00
0291282
NEWMAN'S POWER SYSTEMS
2000-10-19
137.50
0291283
NATIONS RENT
2000-10-19
2,035.00
0291284
OFFICE PRODUCTS & SERVICE
2000-10-19
4,244.46
0291285
ON IT'S WAY
2000-10-19
36.28
0291286
OFFICE DEPOT, INC
2000-10-19
4,509.60
0291287
OSCEOLA PHARMACY
2000-10-19
155.00
0291288
PEACE RIVER ELECTRIC
2000-10-19
36.48
0291289
PERKINS INDIAN RIVER PHARMACY
2000-10-19
77.41
0291290
P B S & J
2000-10-19
1,400.00
0291291
PETTY CASH
2000-10-19
9,78
November 7, 2000
8
BK 115 PG 715
•
CHECK NAME
NUMBER
0291292
PORT PETROLEUM, INC
0291293
PERCONTI DATA SYSTEMS, INC
0291294
PRESS JOURNAL
0291295
PAX -MAIL
0291296
PRECISION CONTRACTING
0291297
PHYSICIANS DESK REFERENCE
0291298
PERKINS MEDICAL SUPPLY
0291299
PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION
0291300
PUBLIX PHARMACY
0291301
PROFORMA
0291302
PESHA, JESSICA
0291303
PIONEER COVER -ALL
0291304 PARKIS, LAWRENCE
0291305 P D I GRAPHICS
0291306 QUICK FIX, THE
0291307 RADIOSHACX
0291308 RELIABLE SEPTIC AND SERVICES
0291309 RIFKIN, SHELDON H PHD
0291310
RINGHAVER
0291311
REDSTONE, MICHAEL
0291312
RIORDAN, MICHAEL C PSY.D.
0291313
RUBBER STAMP EXPRESS & MORE
0291314
RCL DEVELOPMENT
0291315
RITZ CAMERA CENTERS
0291316
RAPP, PAMELA
0291317
ROMANO, CHRISTINA
0291318
RIVERSIDE LEASING CO
0291319
RUDEN,MCCLOSKY,SMITH,SCHUSTER
0291320
SCOTTY'S, INC
0291321
SEWELL HARDWARE CO, INC
0291322
STATE ATTORNEY 19TH CIRCUIT
0291323
STATE OF FLORIDA
0291324
STURGIS LUMBER & PLYWOOD CO
0291325
SERVICE REFRIGERATION CO, INC
0291326
SAFESPACE INC
0291327
SKAGGS, PAUL MD
0291328
SUBSTANCE ABUSE COUNCIL
0291329
SUN BELT MEDICAL SUPPLY, INC
0291330
SWANA
0291331
SAFECO, INC
0291332
STEWART MINING INDUSTRIES INC
0291333
SIMPLEX TIME RECORDER CO
0291334
SOUTHERN SECURITY SYSTEMS OF
0291335
SAFETY PRODUCTS INC
0291336
SEBASTIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT
0291337
SECURITY SERVICES OF AMERICA
0291338
SUNGARD BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC
0291339
SPHERION CORPORATION
0291340
SUNCOAST COUNSELING &
0291341
SUTHERLAND SERVICES INC
0291342
ST JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMNT
0291343
SEBASTIAN POWER CENTER RENTAL
0291344
STEWART, SARAH LYNN
0291345
TAMPA ARMATURE WORKS, INC
0291346
TREASURE COAST REFUSE
0291347 TINDALE OLIVER & ASSOC., INC
0291348 TABAR, JEFFREY
0291349 TRUGREEN CHEMLAWN
November 7, 2000
CHECK
CHECK
DATE
AMOUNT
2000-10-19
1,099.75
2000-10-19
10,000.00
2000-10-19
122.00
2000-10-19
11.35
2000-10-19
1,200.00
2000-10-19
59.95
2000-10-19
109.80
2000-10-19
36.00
2000-10-19
27.85
2000-10-19
19.95
2000-10-19
33.47
2000-10-19
892,22
2000-10-19
475.00
2000-10-19
100.71
2000-10-19
539.25
2000-10-19
88.92
2000-10-19
125.00
2000-10-19
650.00
2000-10-19
4,475.44
2000-10-19
95.94
2000-10-19
3,025.00
2000-10-19
7.44
2000-10-19
11000.00
2000-10-19
110.00
2000-10-19
24.00
2000-10-19
10.30
2000-10-19
614.00
2000-10-19
11,426.37
2000-10-19
55.21
2000-10-19
221.53
2000-10-19
12,122.40
2000-10-19
4,559.51
2000-10-19
47.49
2000-10-19
157.97
2000-10-19
1,250.00
2000-10-19
10.00
2000-10-19
177.00
2000-10-19
1,922.55
2000-10-19
238.00
2000-10-19
94.00
2000-10-19
3,564.28
2000-10-19
697.45
2000-10-19
50.00
2000-10-19
87.40
2000-10-19
25.00
2000-10-19
504.00
2000-10-19
4,760.73
2000-10-19
207.00
2000-10-19
1,450.00
2000-10-19
520.00
2000-10-19
19,425.97
2000-10-19
67.90
2000-10-19
33.47
2000-10-19
2,994.00
2000-10-19
40,218.01
2000-10-19
9,625.19
2000-10-19
365.76
2000-10-19
700.00
9
BK 1 15 PG 71 6
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0291350
SMITH, TERRY L
2000-10-19
39.73
029135-1
TREASURE COAST COURT
2000-10-19
81.00
0291352
TRAVEL BY PEGASUS
2000-10-19
542.00
0291353
TREASURE COAST NEWSPAPERS
2000-10-19
594.00
0291354
THYSSEN MIAMI ELEVATOR
2000-10-19
1,958.00
0291355
T M D AND ASSOCIATES, INC
2000-10-19
846.00
0291356
T & T ELECTRIC
2000-10-19
80.00
0291357
TOULSON CONSTRUCTION
2000-10-19
500.00
0291358
UTILITY SERVICE CO, INC
2000-10-19
173,882.00
0291359
US FILTER DISTRIBUTION GROUP
2000-10-19
13,018.26
0291360
UNISHIPPERS
2000-10-19
34.56
0291361
UNITED SIGN CO
2000-10-19
35.76
0291362
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE
2000-10-19
10.63
0291363
UNIVERSITY MEDICAL & FORENSIC
2000-10-19
808.64
0291364
UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA, THE
2000-10-19
275.00
0291365
VERO BEACH, CITY OF
2000-10-19
16,432.64
0291366
VERO LAWNMOWER CENTER, INC
2000-10-19
99.85
0291367
VERO ORTHOPAEDICS
2000-10-19
40.00
0291368
VERO BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
2000-10-19
325.00
0291369
VERO BEARING & BOLT
2000-10-19
149.12
0291370
VERO ORTHOPAEDICS
2000-10-19
34.00
0291371
WAL-MART STORES, INC
2000-10-19
296.88
0291372
WALSH, LYNN
2000-10-19
319.09
0291373
WATER ENVIRONMENT FEDERATION
2000-10-19
105.00
0291374
W W GRAINGER, INC
2000-10-19
61.11
0291375
WAL-MART STORES, INC
2000-10-19
202.04
0291376
WINN DI%IE STORES INC
2000-10-19
906.17
0291377
WAL-MART PHARMACY, INC
2000-10-19
470.23
0291378
WILLHOFF, PATSY
2000-10-19
104.00
0291379
WATERWORKS CAR WASH
2000-10-19
137.50
0291380
WOOD, BOB
2000-10-19
160.90
0291381
WEST GROUP PAYMENT CTR
2000-10-19
2,642.05
0291382
WASTE MANAGEMENT
2000-10-19
86,844.12
0291383
WOLF ROOFING & SIDING
2000-10-19
3,572.00
0291384
WALGREEN CO
2000-10-19
290.61
0291385
WASHINGTON, SHIRLEY
2000-10-19
500.00
0291386
WILSON, GEORGE
2000-10-19
1,300.00
0291387
YAVORSKY'S TRUCK SERVICE,INC
2000-10-19
53.59
0291388
MURPHY, DOUGLAS
2000-10-19
108.20
0291389
DAVIS, SIMEL
2000-10-19
98.31
November 7, 2000
10
BK 1 15 PG 717
1,120,433.89
7.B. David C. Nolte, Property Appraiser - Annual Report for Year
Ending September 30, 2000
The Board reviewed a letter of October 30, 2000 and attached reports:
David C. Nolte, ASA
WE ARE HERE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER
TO SERVE YOU!
October 30, 2000
RECEIVE[
* * Hon. Fran Adams OCT 3 0 2000
gyp. Board of County Commissioners
1840 25" Street BOARD OF COUNTY
Vero Beach, F132960 COMMISSION
1940 25TH STREET
VERO BEACH, FL Dear Fran,
32990
Enclosed please find a copy of our annual report for the year ending September 30. 2000.
Sincerely,
597-80005
SuH-Com 224.1469
FAX (
FAx (581)770-5087087
E-mail: prop-appmiser
@indian-river.9.us
David C. Nolte, ASA
Property Appraiser
November 7, 2000
11
EK 1 15 PG 718
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,FLORIDA
PROPERTY APPRAISER
BALANCE SHEET
ALL FUND TYPES AND ACCOUNT GROUPS
FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,2000
ASSETS
CASH -UNRESTRICTED
PETTY CASH
EQUITY IN POOLED CASH
ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE
DUE FROM OTHER FUNDS
DUE FROM OTHER GOVERNMENTS
INVESTMENTS
OTHER ASSETS
OTHER ASSETS
OTHER ASSETS
AMOUNT TO PROVIDE -OTHER W18ILTIES
TOTAL ASSETS
LIABILITIES AND FUND EQUITY
LIABILITIES:
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
DUE TO OTHER FUNDS
DUE TO BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DUE TO STATE OF FLORIDA
DUE TO OTHER GOVERNMENTS
DEPOSITS
OTHER LUIBILJTIES
OTHER LUIBWTIES
OTHER LIABILITIES
CAPITAL LEASES
ACCRUED COMPENSATED ABSENCES
TOTAL LIABILITIES
FUND EQUITY:
FUND BALANCE
TOTAL FUND EQUITY
TOTAL LJABWTIES AND FUND EQUITY
GENERAL
ACCOUNTNUMBER FUND
101
102 $60
104 $160,140
115 $21,671
131
133
151
188
SPECIAL AGENCY
REVENUE FUND FUND
NON AD VALOREM DEFERRED GENERALLONG
PROJECTS COMPENSATION TERM DEBT
$57,352
$181,871 $D $o $57,352
202
$132,295
207
$120
208
208
$57,382
208
$46,905
220
$2,551
238
239
$57,352
$161,871 $0 $0
$57,382
Q
....m.. ....m.......
Q
Q
271.20 $o
N
so 10 7o
:D
n
$181,871 $0 $0
$57,352
0
no
F*
8v
•
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
PROPERTY APPRAISER
STATEMENT OF REVENUES,EXPENDITURES AND
CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES -BUDGET AND ACTUAL
ALL GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,2000
CHARGES FOR SERVICES:
RECORDING OF LEGAL INSTRUMENTS
SALE OF MAPS AND PUBLICATIONS
COPYING CHARGES
COUNTY OFFICERS COMMISSIONS
OTHER CHARGES AND FEES
MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES:
INTEREST
SURPLUS FURNITURE i EQUIPMENT
OTHER REVENUES
OTHER REVENUES
TOTAL REVENUES
EXPENDITURES
GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES:
FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE:
PERSONAL SERVICES
OPERATING EXPENDITURES
CAPITAL OUTLAY
DEBT SERVICE:
PRINCIPAL RETIREMENT
INTEREST
OTHER DEBT SERVICE
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
EXCESS OF REVENUES OVER(UNDER) EXPENDITURES
OTHER FINANCING SOURCMUSES)
TRANSFERSIN
LEASE PURCHASE PROCEEDS
TRANSFERS OUT
TOTAL OTHER FINANCING SOURCES(USES)
EXCESS OF REVENUES AND OTHER SOURCES OVER
(UNDER) EXPENDITURES AND OTHER USES
FUND BALANCES 10/01/99
FUND BALANCES 9!30199
0
ACCOUNT NUMBER
341.10
341.34
341.40
341.80
341.90
361.10
364.41
$13.10
$13.30
513.60
M
am
CERTIFICATION
I do solemnly swear that the information reported herein Is a true, correct and complete report
- revenues and expand
s of ply Office f� ending September 30, 2000
signal—
. :
SPECIAL REVENUE FUND
GENERAL FUND
NON AD VALOREM PROJECTS
VARIANCE
VARIANCE
BUDGET
ACTUAL
FAVORABLE
(UNFAVORABLE)
BUDGET
FAVORABLE
ACTUAL (UNFAVORABLE)
$32,276
$32,276
50
$6119
$669
s0
5$428,181
$2,428,181
so
$104,471
$102,878
($1,493)
54.250
$4,256
so
$2,588,597
$2,588,380
52,763
s0
$0
50
$2,120,272
$2,090,258
$30.014
$0
$358,802
9358.888
$1.137
so
$87,000
$74.009
$12,991
$1,269
$1,269
So
$254
$254
so
$2,585,897
92,521,455
$44,142
s0
s0
s0
50
$46.903
$411.905
s0
s0
s0
s0
so
1$46,905)
(54111905)
so
(5411,905)
(946,905)
to
s0
S0
O
O
so
So
so
so
50
50
N
$0
50
s0
i.
0
z
M
am
r 1
U
PROPERTY APPRAISER
10101/99 BALANCE ADDITIONS
DEDUCTIONS 9130/00 BALANCE
CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS
INVESTMENTS
50
ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE
DUE FROM OTHER GOVERNMENTS
INVENTORIES
INT REC ON INVESTMENTS
TOTAL ASSETS
50 50
:0
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
(�J
DUE TO OTHER GOVERNMENTS
DUE TO OTHER FUNDS
DEFERRED COMPENSATION
50
ESCROW DEPOSITS
Lam.)
cls
TOTAL LUU30JTIES
f0 50
$0 50
.........
.....mo.
...............m....
^" Ln
EXCESS FEES
AMOUNT DISTRIBUTED OR DUE
PERCENTAGE
...�
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BCC
$37,961.66
82.0
OTHER GOVERNMENT
EMERGENCY SERVICES
54,810.76
9,46%
ST. JOHITS RIVER WMD
$1,116.34
2,40%
SEBASTIAN INLET DISTRICT
$51.60
0.12%
MOSQUITO CONTROL DISTRICT
5642.60
1,32%
HOSPITAL MAINTENANCE
$1,913.73
3.05%
FLORIDA INLAND NAVIGATION DISTRICT
$107.98
0.25%
LAND ACQUISITION BOND
5600.39
1.35%
0
N
TOTAL
$49,905.20
100.„00%
rZ,
it
z
.7
When this item was called because it was separated, Commissioner Macht advised
it was not 7.B. he wished to separate, it was 7.V., as in Victory.
ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Ginn, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously
acknowledged receipt of Property Appraiser David Nolte's
Annual Report.
7.C. Ga y;y C. Wheeler. Siff - Annual Report for Year Ending
September 30, 2000
The Board reviewed a letter of October 30, 2000:
��jerif f =•
GARY C. WHEELER • INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
'.+EMBEQ FL0.7i0A SHERIF=E ASS�C:A'ON
YEMSE� OF NATIONAL -SSCCiAT1O1.
4055 41st AVENUE VERO BEACH. FLORIDA 32960-1808 PHONE (561) 569-670C
October 30, 2000
The Honorable Fran B. Adams, Chairman
Indian River Board of County Commissioners
1840 25`s Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960-3394
Dear Commissioner Adams,
Attached is check number 38753 in the amount of $544,220.01, which represents funds
due to the Board of County Commissioners as detailed below:
Fund 016, General Fund Reversion
$ 261,504.64
Out of County Prisoner Revenue
25,095.00
Federal Prisoner Revenue
224,820.00
Interest Income
19,464.05
Other Revenue — Probation
25.00
Other Revenue — Auction Surplus
5,900.00
Law Enforcement Trust Fund
7.411.32
November 7, 2000
15
$ 544,220.01
BKIi5PG722
r
0
If you have any questions or any further information is required, please contact the
undersigned at 978-6406.
Sincerely,
Gary C. Wheeler, Sheriff
Harry E. Hall, Comptroller
cc: Joseph A. Baird, Budget Director
Ed Fry, Finance Director
Harry Hall
The 173rd Internationally Accredited Law Enforcement Agency
Accredited by the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies. Incorporated
Indian River County ShertfPs Department
Due To BCC
Qeptember 30,2000
Batch Description
11046 Interest 9100
11074 U.S.Marshall 6100
11074 U.S.Marshall 7100
11074 U.S.Marshall 8/00
11074 U.S.Marshall 9/00
11145 OCP INS 8/00
11145 OCP INS 9/00
11145 Charlotte 8/00
11145 Charlotte 9/00
11081 Probation/ 289925
11145 Auction Surplus
O Reversion
Fund 160 -Law EnIorce
Trust Fund
0160002080000100
1600002080000100
TOTAL
November 7, 2000
OCP Federal
Amou Irrte Prisoners Prisoners Reversion Other
19464.05 19464.05
35640.00
35640.00
49020.00
49020.00
56520.00
56520.00
83640.00
83840.00
13440.00
13440.00
16020.00
16020.00
1080.00
1080.00
-5445.00
-5445.00
25.00
5900.00
261504.64
7411.32
261504.64
25.00
5900.00
7411.32
544220.01 19464.05 25095.00 224620.00 261504.64 13336.32
536808.69
7411.32
544220.01
16
BK 115 PG 723
E
DATE: 10/30/00 IRCSO/SUMMARY SHEET
DESCRIPTION:
ACCOUNT NU?vMER:
AMOUNT
GENERAL REVERSION
FUND 016
S 261,504.64
AUTO SET LZNfl NT REPAIRS
001-000-341-052.00
S
CIVIL & WEAPONS
001-000-341-052.00
S
EDUCATION/2ND S
103-600-521-035-43
S
FEDERAL PRISONERS
001-000-341-052.00
S 224,820.00
0 C P REVENUE
FINES & FORFEITURES
112-000-351-020.00
$ 25,095.00
S 7s nn
H R S CASES
001-000-369-040.00
S
GROUP HEALTH INSURANCE
001-000-202-000.00
S
INTEREST
001-000-361-033.00
S , 0 4F4 ns
MSC. REVENUE (TIRES)
001-000-369-090.00
$
REFUND / PRIOR YEARS
001-000-369-030.00
S
GENERAL FUND
001-000-369-040.00
S
SPECIAL GUARD DUTY
001-000-341-052.00
S
SP.LAWEIVFORCE✓=
112-000-351-020.00
s ,4,, 37
MACE FORFEITURE
126-000-351-020.00
S
OTHER. (OMAIN)AUCTION SURPLUS
$ 5.900.00
AUCTION SURPLUS
TOTAL:
S 544,220.01
November 7, 2000
17
BKf1PG724
I
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE LGF-3
STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES & CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE -BUDGET & ACTUAL
FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000
GENERAL FUND
EXPENDITURES
516.00 JUDICIAL
PERSONAL SERVICES
OPERATING EXPENSE
CAPITAL OUTLAY
CONTINGENCY
TOTAL GENERAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
521.00 LAW ENFORCEMENT
PERSONAL SERVICES
OPERATING EXPENSE
CAPITAL OUTLAY
BUDGET ACTUAL VARIANCE
I I
876,617 1 875,268 1 1,349
7,808 I 6,773 I 1,035
i I 0
I I
I I
I i
884,425 1 882,042 1 2,383
12,998,419
2,640,323
264,163
523.00 CORRECTIONS
PERSONAL SERVICES i 5,674,048
OPERATING EXPENSE 1 1,555,815
CAPITAL OUTLAY 1
I �
521.99 LAW ENFORCEMENT CONTINGENCY
523.99 CORRECTIONS CONTINGENCY 1
1 '
TOTAL PUBLIC SAFETY 1 23,132,768 1
I '
I I
DEBT SERVICE I I
PRINCIPAL 1 109,646 1
INTEREST 1 3,468 1
I
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 1 24,130,307 1
I
12,969,070 1
29,349
2,604,203 1
36,120
262,604 1
I
1,559
I
5,673,846 1
202
1,363,923 1
191,892
I
I
I
I
0
22,873,647 1 259,121
109,646 1 0
3,468 1 0
23.868,802 1 261,505
I I I
EXCESS OF REVENUES OVER(UNDER) EXPENDITURE:1 (24,130,307) 1 (23,868,802) 1
1
OTHER FINANCING SOURCES AND (USES) I I I
261,505
APPROPRIATION FROM BCC
1 23,614,584 1
23,614,584 1
HOUSING PRISONER REVENUE
1 507,465 1
507,465 I
I
OTHER REVENUE, SALE OF SURPLUS PROPERTY
1 8,258 1
8,258 (
I
OPERATING TRANSFERS OUT -BCC
1 1
I I
(261,505) 1
1
(261,505) 1
1
TOTAL OTHER FINANCING SOURCES AND (USES)
I I
i
1 24,130,307 1
1
1
1
I
(261,505) 1
I
23,868,802 1
EXCESS OF REVENUES AND OTHER SOURCES
I I
I
I
I
OVER(UNDER) EXPENDITURES & OTHER USES
-0- 1
-0- 1
-0- 1
FUND BALANCE -END OF YEAR
I I
1 -0- I
I
-0- I
I
-0- I
November 7, 2000
•
18
BK 1 15 PG 725
0
•
•
ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge, SECONDED BY
Vice Chairman Ginn, the Board unanimously acknowledged
receipt of Sheriff Gary Wheeler's Annual Report.
7.D. Proclamation Designating October 27, 2000 as Beachland
Elementary School Day
The Board reviewed the proclamation below:
PROCLAMATION
DESIGNATING OCTOBER 27, 2000, AS
BEACHLAND ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. DAY
WHEREAS, the fourth grade classes at Beachland Elementary School have made
it a class project to go to the Iadian River County Court House and the Indian River
County Administration Building; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Noriega, Ms. Beckham, Ms. Ingram and Ms. Richardson's
classes have chosen to visit the Commission Office to team mote about how their local
government works; and
WHEREAS, while at the Commission Office the students met some of the
Commissioners and participated in a pretend commission meeting with their classmates
in the role of the Indian River County Commission, and
WHEREAS, while m the Commrission Chambers they were given a presentation
by the Indian River County Emergency Services Department on hurricanes.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. FLORIDA that
October 27, 2000, be designated as
BEA CIMAND ELEMENTARYSCHOOL DAY
Adopted this 27* day of October, 2000
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY: CJ7 a'A
Fran B. Adams, Chairman
November 7, 2000
19
BK 1 15 PG 726
ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge, SECONDED BY
Vice Chairman Ginn, the Board unanimously proclaimed that
October 27, 2000 be designated as Beachland Elementary
School Day in Indian River County.
7.E. Resignation of Robert Swift from Space Needs Committee
The Board reviewed a letter of October 21, 2000:
Rivet C
4.
Kooert B. S.4t
October 21, 2000
MS Fran Adams
Chair, Indian River County Board of Commissioners
1840 25'° Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32060
Dear Fran, r
It has been most rewarding to have served an various advisory boards to the
Commission. Somehow I seemed to have loaded myself up with appointments to the
PSAC. LAAC and onu ittee. I have gained insight into
our community and the people who so ably serve it and have no doubt that I have
gained more out the experience than I have contributed.
So, it is with deep regret that 1 submit this letter of resignation from those
committees as I will be returning to the Greenbrier resort in West Virginia. I have
accepted the position leading the development team for The Greenbrier Sporting
Club, a new residential community being developed by the resort. While Macy and I
will be relocating to the Lzwisburg area, we will maintain close ties to Vero Brach
and will, we trust, visit often - especially during the winter.
I wish you and the Board best wishes for continued success. Please fdl free to call
on me if I can ever be of any assistance.
Sincerely,
L
RS
November 7, 2000
20
BK 1 15 PG 727
•
•
ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge, SECONDED BY
Vice Chairman Ginn, the Board unanimously and regretfully
acknowledged the resignation of Robert Swift from the Space
Needs Committee.
Z.F. Appointments to Children's Advisory Committee Sub -
Committees (Needs Assessment & Planning Sub -Committee and
Grant Review Sub -Committee)
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of October 30, 2000:
TO: Indian River County Board of County Commissioners
FROM: JOYCE JOHNSTON-CARLSON
DATE: October 30, 2000
SUBJECT: COMMITTEE MEMBERS NAMES TO BE SUBMITTED TO
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Following for approval is a list of names of the Children's Service Advisory Committee sub-
committees.
Children's Services Advisory -Committee Board Members
Jean Kline, Chairperson
Dr. Roger Dearing
Ken Macht.
omm nily Representatives
Rolf Bibow
Melinda Gielow
Hulda Grobman
Donna Hirschfield Maurer
Beverly O'Neill
AI Swanson (or designated representative of the Department of Children and Families)
Kay Youngbluth
Children's Services Adylsory Committee Board Members
Judge Paul Kanarek
Ken Macht
Alan Polackwich, Sr., Chairperson
Joan N. Woodhouse
November 7, 2000
21
ommuni Representatives
Louis J. Aprile
C. J. "Kip" Jacoby
Ann Kellum
Mark Livingston
Donna Hirschfield Maurer
Beverly O'Neill
Al Sammartino
s" 4
I
ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge, SECONDED BY
Vice Chairman Ginn, the Board unanimously appointed the
listed members to the Needs Assessment & Planning Sub-
- Committee and the Grant Review Sub -Committee of the
Children's Advisory Committee, as requested in the
memorandum.
7. G. Out -of -County Travel - Commissioners to Attend Beach
Preservation 2001 in Orlando - February 7-9,, 2001
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of October 18, 2000:
TO:
Tim Chandler
County Administrator
DATE:
October 18, 2000
SUBJECT:
AGENDA ITEMS FOR NOVEMBER 7, 2000
FROM:
Kimberly E. Massung
Executive Aide
Consent A enda:
Out of County Travel — Request for Commissioners to attend Beach Preservation 2001— The 14`h
Annual National Conference on Beach Preservation Technology to be held in Orlando, FL
February 7-9, 2001.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge, SECONDED BY
Vice Chairman Ginn, the Board unanimously approved out -of -
county travel for the Commissioners to attend Beach
Preservation 2001 - 14" Annual National Conference on Beach
Preservation Technology to be held in Orlando February 7-9,
2001.
November 7, 2000
22
B6� 1 15 PG 729
_I
•
7.H. Final Payment and Release of Retainage for Rockridge Area
Sewer Svstem - Horizontal Drilling Project - Tri -Sure Corporation
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of October 19, 2000:
DATE: OCTOBER 19, 2000
TO:
JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
THRU:
r
DONALD R. HUBBS, P.E.
c). Paid to Date $72820.80
Final Payment Due Contractor I 38.091.20
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SE S
PREPARED
STEVEN J. DOYLE. P.E.
AND STAFFED
CAPITAL PROJECTS MANAGER
BY:
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY UTILITIFS
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO RELEASE FINAL PAYMENT INCLUDING
RETAINAGE HELD FOR THE ROCKRIDGE AREA SEWER SYSTEM —
HORIZONTAL DRILLING PROJECT
IRC PROJECT NO. US -98 -09 -CS
BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS
On March 21, 2000 the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners approved a contract with Tri.
Sure Corporation. (Contractor) for the installation for force main in the Rockridge sewerage collection area
At this time, Tri -Sure Corporation has completed construction of the sewer force mains. The Utility
Department: has relinquished payment for portions of the completed work and has received acceptance from Staff
along with the required record drawings. Tri -Sure Corporation is requesting final payment including the release
of retainage held (Exhibit -B).
RECOMMENDED ACTION
The Staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of Coup Commissioners authorize
Staff to allow for the Release of Retainage for satisfactory completion of construction services in the amount of
$8.091.20 and authorize the Chairman to execute same, as presented.
LIST OF EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A. Request for Release of Retainage as presented by Contractor dated September 25, 2000
November 7, 2000
23
BK 1 15 PG 7 3 0
•
Description Amount
a. Original Estimated Project Cost 386.060.00
b. Actual Project Cost (1001% completion) 380.912.00
c). Paid to Date $72820.80
Final Payment Due Contractor I 38.091.20
RECOMMENDED ACTION
The Staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of Coup Commissioners authorize
Staff to allow for the Release of Retainage for satisfactory completion of construction services in the amount of
$8.091.20 and authorize the Chairman to execute same, as presented.
LIST OF EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A. Request for Release of Retainage as presented by Contractor dated September 25, 2000
November 7, 2000
23
BK 1 15 PG 7 3 0
•
ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge, SECONDED BY
Vice Chairman Ginn, the Board unanimously authorized release
of retainage for satisfactory completion of construction services
to Tri -Sure Corporation in the amount of $8,091.20 and
authorized the Chairman to execute same, as recommended in
the memorandum.
RELEASE OF RETAINAGE IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
U. Public Oficial Bonds for Indian River County Hospital District
Trustees A ,proved - Harry J. Bolwell George H. C. Lawrence$ and
Thomas N. Segura
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 1, 2000:
To: Board of County Commissioners
Date: November 1, 2000
From: PJ Jones, Clerk to the Board
Re: Approval of Public Official Bonds
It would be appreciated if you would approve the attached Public Official Bonds for
Trustees of the Indian River County Hospital District:
November 7, 2000
Harry J. Bolwell
George H.C. Lawrence
Thomas N. Segura
24
BK 1 15 PG 73 1
ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge, SECONDED BY
Vice Chairman Ginn, the Board unanimously approved the
public official bonds for Trustees of the Indian River County
Hospital District, as requested.
7.J. Out -of -County Travel - County Attorney to Attend Meeting of
Florida Association of CountyAttornevs - Tallahassee -Nov. 16.2000
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of October 31, 2000:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Paul G. Bangel — County Attorney,/,�J�
DATE: October 31, 2000
SUBJECT: Request by County Attorney to Travel to Meeting
of Florida Association of County Attorneys
I respectfully request authorization to travel to a meeting of the Florida
Association of County Attorneys on Thursday, November 16, 2000, in
Tallahassee, Florida. It is anticipated that participating in the Florida Association
of County Attorneys and keeping informed of other county attorneys' activities will
enhance my efforts on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge, SECONDED BY
Vice Chairman Ginn, the Board unanimously approved out -of -
county travel for the County Attorney to attend a meeting of the
Florida Association of County Attorneys in Tallahassee,
November 16, 2000, as requested.
November 7, 2000
25
BK 1 15 PG 732
7.K. County Canvassing Board - Chairman Fran A Adams Replace
Substitute Appointee Commissioner John W. Tiff in
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of October 26, 2000:
To: Board of County Commissioners
From: Paul G. Bangel, County AttorneyTx� 1011*100
Re: County Canvassing Board
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners rescind the substitute
appointment of Commissioner John W. T'ippin and as his alternate, Commissioner Ruth
Stanbridge, to the County Canvassing Board, and revert to the ordinary operation of
Section 102.141(1), Florida Statutes (2000), which provides for service on the County
Canvassing Board bythe chairof the Board of County Commissioners, effective November
7, 2000.
Discussion:
On August 8, 2000, the Board of County Commissioners approved the appointment
of Commissioner John W. Tippin and as his alternate, Commissioner Ruth Stanbridge, to
substitute for Chairman Adams on the County Canvassing Board. Absent certain
circumstances set forth in Section 102.141 (1), Florida Statutes, ordinarily the chairman of
the Board of County Commissioners serves on the County Canvassing Board.
PGB
cc: Kay Clem, Supervisor of Elections
ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge, SECONDED BY
Vice Chairman Ginn, the Board unanimously rescinded their
appointment of Commissioner Tippin and his alternate,
Commissioner Stanbridge, to the County's Canvassing Board
and appointed Chairman Adams as set forth in Section
102.141(1), Florida Statutes, as recommended in the
memorandum.
November 7, 2000
26
BK 1 15 PG 733
U. Sopervisor of Elections Kay Clem - Annual Report for Year
Ending September 30, 2000
The Board reviewed a letter of October 31, 2000:
Say Clem
Supervisor of Elections
Indian River County. Florida
October 31, 2000
Honorable Fran Adams, Chairman
Board of County Commissioners
Indian River County
Vero Beach, FL
Dear Chairman Adams::
Enclosed is our check #5681 in the amount of $34,449.98 which represents money due to
the Board for the fiscal year 10/1/99 to 9/30/00.
A summary of our reimbursement is as follows:
$16,401.00 City Elections reimbursement
$ 737.71 Excess Budgeted Retirement
$ 8,190.54 Money Mkt. Interest
$ 7,751.19 Lists, Lables & Copies Income
$ 55.87 Candidate Late Filing Fees
$ 438.00 Candidate Qualifying Fees
$ 875.67 Excess 99/2000 Budget
$34 449.98 Total Reimbursement to BOCC
Please advise if additional information is required.
Sin rely,
Iftilit'",
Supervisor of Elections
1840 25th Street. Suite N-109 - Fero Beach. FL ;2960-3396 • (561) 56"-818' - FAX (561) "0 -536 -
November 7, 2000
27
EBIK 115 PG 734
ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge, SECONDED BY
Vice Chairman Ginn, the Board unanimously acknowledged
receipt of Supervisor of Elections Kay Clem's Annual Report.
7.M. Out -of -County Travel - Commissioners and StaffAttend
NACo (NationalAssociation of Counties) Conference in Washington.
D.C.
The Board reviewed the information presented in the backup.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge, SECONDED BY
Vice Chairman Ginn, the Board unanimously approved out -of -
county travel for Commissioners and staff to attend the NACo
Conference in Washington, D.C.
7.N. Resolution No. 2000-133 Abolishing Gifford Housing
Improvement Committee and Discharging its Members (Inactive
Committee)
The Board reviewed the proposed resolution presented in the backup.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge, SECONDED BY
Vice Chairman Ginn, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution No. 2000-133 abolishing the Gifford Housing
Improvement Committee and discharging its members.
November 7, 2000
BK 1 152 PG 735
0 0
•
Resolution 2000-133
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, ABOLISHING THE
GIFFORD HOUSING IMPROVEMENT
COMMITTEE AND DISCHARGING ITS
MEMBERS.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 103.04, The Code of Indian River County
(Ordinance 90-20), the executive aide to the Board of County Commissioners keeps a
current list of all advisory board resolutions with a current roster of their membership; and
WHEREAS, formation of the Gifford Housing Improvement Committee preceded the
adoption of Indian River County Ordinance 90-20; and
WHEREAS, the Gifford Housing Improvement Committee has not held a meeting
in several years,
NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved bythe Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida, that the Gifford Housing Improvement Committee is hereby
abolished, and the members of the Gifford Housing Improvement Committee are hereby
discharged of their duties in connection therewith.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner
Stanbridge and the motion was seconded by Commissioner
Ginn , and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Fran B. Adams Aye
Vice Chairman Caroline D. Ginn Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Commissioner Ruth Stanbridge _ idAye
Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye
November 7, 2000
29
BK 115 PG 736
0
11
Resolution 2000- 133
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this
7th day of November , 2000.
Attest: J. K. Barton, Cie
Deputy Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
By , �_ 7._ !r i•
Fran B. Adams
Chairman
7.0. Resolution No. 2000-134AbolishingLocal EneW Management
Committee and DischaYging its Members (Inactive Committee
The Board reviewed the proposed resolution presented in the backup.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge, SECONDED BY
Vice Chairman Ginn, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution No. 2000-134 abolishing the Local Energy
Management Committee and discharging its members.
Resolution 2000-134
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, ABOLISHING THE
LOCAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
AND DISCHARGING ITS MEMBERS.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 103.04, The Code of Indian River County
(Ordinance 90-20), the executive aide to the Board of County Commissioners keeps a
current list of all advisory board resolutions with a current roster of their membership; and
WHEREAS, formation of the Local Energy Management Committee preceded the
adoption of Indian River County Ordinance 90-20; and
November 7, 2000
30
BK 195 PG 737
0 0
•
Resolution 2000-134
WHEREAS, the Local Energy Management Committee has not held a meeting in
several years,
NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida, that the Local Energy Management Committee is hereby abolished,
and the members of the Local Energy Management Committee are hereby discharged of
their duties in connection therewith.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner
Stanbridge and the motion was seconded by Commissioner
Ginn , and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Fran B. Adams Aye
Vice Chairman Caroline D. Ginn Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Commissioner Ruth Stanbridge Aye
Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this
7th day of November , 2000.
Att J. K. Barton,
B cry
Deputy Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
By
Fran B. Adams
Chairman
7.P. Children's Services Advisoa Committee - Contracts for FY
2000-2001 Grant Funding
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of October 31, 2000:
November 7, 2000
31
BK 115 PG 7 3 8
TO: Indian River County Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Joyce Johnston -Carlson
DATE: October 31, 2000
SUBJECT: Contracts for 2000-2001 Grants
Staff requests signature of the Chairperson on the following Contracts for the grant year 2000-
2001. A copy of ' contract is attached.
Agency Name
Program Name
Boys and Girls Clubs
Start-up Funds
Catholic Charities
Samaritan Center
CCCR
Children in Centers
CCCR
Psychological Support
Children's Home Society
Independent Living
Cultural Council
Summer Camp for At Risk Kids
Cultural Council
Scholarship Program for At Risk kids
Exchange Club Castle
In -Home Parent Education
Gifford Youth Center
Parenthood Development
Healthy Start
Healthy Families
Healthy Start
TLC Newborn
Hibiscus Children's Center
Crises "Nursery" Center (ages 0-18)
Indian River Memorial
Camp Manatee
Indian River Memorial
KdCare
Northside Agape Mnst.
HOPE
Safe Space, Inc.
Domestic Violence Cldms Outreach Svs
Substance Abuse Council
Right Choice Program
Substance Abuse Council
Life Skills Program
Volunteer Action Center
Youth Volunteer Corps
$ Recommended
25,000.00
50,000.00
156,775.00
7,300.00
20,000.00
50,000.00
34,425.00
35,000.00
75,000.00
40,000.00
15,000.00
25,000.00
20,000.00
25,000.00
25,000.00
26,500.00
40,000.00
30,000.00
50,000.00
Vice Chairman Ginn advised that she would be voting against providing funding for
CCCR for psychological support because we have F.D.L.R.S. (Florida Diagnostic &
Learning Resources System) here which is underutilized and provides the same services
without charge.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Tippin, the Board approved funding to various
agencies and authorized the Chairman to execute the contracts
for the 2000-2001 grants by a vote of 4-1 (Vice Chairman Ginn
opposed), as requested and as set out in the memorandum.
November 7, 2000
32
BK 1 15 PG 7 3 9
(CLERK'S NOTE: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY HOSPITAL - KID CARE
WAS INADVERTENTLY INCLUDED. - SEE MEMO OF 12/4/00)
CONTRACTS ARE ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
AS FOLLOWS:
BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
SAMARITAN CENTER
CCCR - CHILDREN IN CENTERS
CCCR - PSYCHOLOGICAL SUPPORT
CHILDREN'S HOME SOCIETY - INDEPENDENT LIVING PROGRAM
CULTURAL COUNCIL - SUMMER CAMP PROGRAM
CULTURAL COUNCIL - SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM
EXCHANGE CLUB CASTLE - IN-HOME PARENTING
GIFFORD YOUTH ACTIVITIES CENTER - PARENTHOOD DEVELOPMENT
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY HEALTHY START - HEALTHY FAMILIES
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY HEALTHY START - TLC NEWBORN
HIBISCUS CHILDREN'S CENTER - CRISES NURSERY
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY HOSPITAL - CAMP MANATEE
NORTHSIDE AGAPE MINISTRIES, INC. - PROJECT H.O.P.E.
SAFE SPACE, INC. - DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OUTREACH
SUBSTANCE ABUSE COUNCIL - RIGHT CHOICE PROGRAM
SUBSTANCE ABUSE COUNCIL - LIFE SKILLS PROGRAM
VOLUNTEER ACTION CENTER - YOUTH VOLUNTEER CORPS
7.Q. Space Needs Committee - Appointment of Chuck Mechling to
Replace Bob Swift (Developer's Representative,
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 1, 2000:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Caroline D. Ginn
DATE: November 1, 2000
RE: Space Needs Committee
I would like to appoint Mr. Chuck Mechling to replace Bob Swift as a
Developer's Representative on the Space Needs Committee.
November 7, 2000
33
BK 115 PG 740
•
ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge, SECONDED BY
Vice Chairman Ginn, the Board unanimously appointed Chuck
Mechling to replace Bob Swift as a developer's representative
on the Space Needs Committee, as requested in the
memorandum.
7.R. Resolution No. 2000-135 Authorizing Sub -Lease of Portion of
North Couniv Regional Park to Sebastian Area Soccer Association,
Inc.
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 1, 2000:
To: Board of County Commissioners
From: Paul G. Bangel, County Attorney
Re: Sebastian Area Soccer Association, Inc.; North County Area Park
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the attached
proposed resolution authorizing the sublease of a portion of the North County Area Park
to the Sebastian Area Soccer Association, Inc., forthe purpose of developing, constructing,
and maintaining, soccer fields.
Discussion:
Subject to prior written approval by the Board of Trustees of the Internal
Improvement Trust Fund of the State of Florida, lessor, and by the Department of
Environmental Protection, Office of Coastal and Aquatic Managed Areas of the State of
Florida (successor in interestto the Division of Marine Resources), sublessor, the attached
proposed resolution authorizes the sublease of a portion of the North County Area Park
to the Sebastian Area Soccer Association, Inc., forthe purpose of developing, constructing,
and maintaining soccer fields.
November 7, 2000
34
GK 1 15 PG 7 4 1
ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge, SECONDED BY
Vice Chairman Ginn, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution No. 2000-135 authorizing, subject to the approval of
the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund
of the State of Florida and by the Department of Environmental
Protection, Office of Coastal and Aquatic Managed Areas of the
State of Florida (successor in interest to the Division of Marine
Resources), the sublease of real property located at North
County Regional Park to the Sebastian Area Soccer Association,
Inc.
RESOLUTION 2000-135
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, AUTHORIZING, SUBJECT TO
APPROVAL BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST
FUND OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA AND BY
THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION, OFFICE OF COASTAL AND
AQUATIC MANAGED AREAS OF THE STATE
OF FLORIDA (SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO
THE DIVISION OF MARINE RESOURCES),
THE SUBLEASE OF REAL PROPERTY
LOCATED AT NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL
PARK TO THE SEBASTIAN AREA SOCCER
ASSOCIATION, INC.
WHEREAS, Indian River County is the sublessee of property located at the North
County Regional Park in Indian River County, Florida, and more particularly described on
Exhibit "A", which is attached hereto and incorporated herein; and
WHEREAS, Sebastian Area Soccer Association, Inc., a corporation not for profit
organized under the laws of the State of Florida, has applied to the Board of County
Commissioners for a sublease of the property described in Exhibit "A",
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County as follows:
November 7, 2000
35
6K 1 15 PG 7 4 2
Resolution 2000- 135
Sebastian Area Soccer Association, Inc., having applied to the Board of
County Commissioners for a sublease of the real property described in Exhibit "A" and
located at North County Regional Park in Indian River County, Florida, the Board of County
Commissioners is satisfied that the subject property is required for public or community
interest and welfare, and is not needed for county purposes other than providing
recreational soccer playing fields in the North County Regional Park.
2. Subject to prior written approval by the Board of Trustees of the Internal
Improvement Trust Fund of the State of Florida and by the Department of Environmental
Protection, Office of Coastal and Aquatic Managed Areas of the State of Florida (successor
in interest to the Division of Marine Resources), the Board of County Commissioners
authorizes the sublease of real property described in Exhibit "A" to Sebastian Area Soccer
Association, Inc., for a term of twenty (20) years, renewable for additional twenty year
periods but not beyond March 28, 2046, unless the underlying lease agreement with the
Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund of the State of Florida and the
sublease agreement with the Department of Environmental Protection, Office of Coastal
and Aquatic Managed Areas of the State of Florida (successor in interest to the Division
of Marine Resources) are extended to accommodate further extensions, for two hundred
dollars ($200.00) per year rent, for the purpose of developing, constructing, and providing,
recreational soccer playing fields in the North County Regional Park for the use and
enjoyment of soccer enthusiasts, according to terms contained in a separate sublease
agreement.
November 7, 2000
36
BK 115 PG 743
0 0
Resolution 2000-135
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Stanbridge ,
and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Gi nn , and, upon
being put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Fran B. Adams
Aye
Vice Chairman Caroline D. Ginn
Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht
Aye
Commissioner Ruth Stanbridge
Aye
Commissioner John W. Tippin
Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this
7th day of NnvemhPr , 2000.
Atte Barton,�C,I
By
I�
Deputy Clerk
November 7, 2000
37
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
Fran B. Adams, Chairman
APPROVED AS TO FORM
AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
PAUL G. AtJGE
COUNTY TTORNEY
EK 1 15 PG 744
C]
C";
0
5:
w
d
M
i�
N
O
Ko
N
` N
c
O
Y N
N
J
3
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
GRAPHIC SCALE
300 0 150 300 600
( IN FEET )
1 inch = 300 ft.
I
2295.93'
1/4 Section Line
Commence at the center of Section 22, Township 31 South, Range 38 East and run N 89'21'45" W, along the 1/4 sectior
line, a distance of 2,295.93 feet to a POINT OF BEGINNING. Then run
N 0'27'34" E, parallel with the West line of Section 22, c distance of 773.29 feet to a point in the North County Regional
Pork boundary, lying N 67'20'05" E c distance of 398.33 feet from the West line of Section 22. Then run
S 89'32'26" E a distance of 850 feet to a point. Then run
S 0'27'34" W a distance of 850 feet to a point. Then run
N 89'32'26" W a distance of 850 feet to a point in the aforesaid boundary, lying S 57'09'37" W a distance of
433.77 feet from the West line of Section 22. Then run
N 0'27'34" E a distance of 76.71 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Containing 722,500 square feet, or 16.59 acres.
Now lying in Indian River County, Florida.
CEIMFICA71ON
I, Charles A. Cramer, hereby certify that I am a registered Professional Surveyor and Mapper licensed to practice in
the stote of Florida, that this sketch was made under my immediate supervision, and that it is accurate and correct.
I further certify that this sketch meets the Minimum Technical standards as described in Chapter 61G17 of the Florida
MIStrat
ive Code, pursuant to F.S. Chapter 472.
Q 3�sluo zc�oo
P.O.C.
4'x4' C.M. F)d�.
Center Secti
22-31-38
3
0
Y
0:
a
U
Z
J
3
0
Charles A. Cromer, P.S.M. Reg. #4094 � THIS IS NOT A SURVEY
Indian River County Surveyor SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION a
1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960 PREPARED FOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
(561) 567-8000
•
7.S. Vero Lake Estates Stormwater Improvements Project - Final Pad
Reguest and Release of Retainage - Carter Associates. Inc. (Pro'ect
No. 8226 - Work Order Nos. 3 and 6)
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of October 20, 2000:
TO: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E., Public Works DirectCONSENT AGENDA
FROM: Christopher J. Kafer, Jr., P.E., County Engine
SUBJECT: VERO LAKE ESTATES STORMWATER ROVEMENTS PROJECT
IRC Project No. 8226, Work Order No. 3 and Work Order No. 6, Final Pay Request
and Release of Retainage from Carter Associates, Inc.
DATE: October 20, 2000
DFSC RTPTION AND CONDMONS
The Board of County Commissioners executed Work Order No. 3 in the amount of $58,130.00 on
July 13, 1999 and Work Order No. 6 in the amount of $6,955.00 on April 18, 2000. The work
specified has been completed by Carter Associates, Inc. within the time set for completion. The
work has been accepted by the County Engineer. The Engineering Division as previously paid
$57,556.13 towards these Work Orders.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANAT.YSTS
Alternative No -1 - Approve the final pay request in the amount of S7,481.87 which includes the
balance due and retainage.
Alternative No -2 - Deny the final pay request.
Staff recommends Alternative No. 1. Funding to be from Account Number 185-214-541-033.13
ATTACHMFNTS
Invoice No. 9824C-15 from Carter Associates, Inc. dated October 10. 2000.
November 7, 2000
39
a
•
ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge, SECONDED BY
Vice Chairman Ginn, the Board unanimously approved the final
pay request in the amount of $7,481.87 which includes the
balance due and retainage to Carter Associates, Inc., as
recommended in the Memorandum.
COPY OF APPROVED INVOICE IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
7. T. Floodplain Cut and Fill Balance Waiver - Seasons Community
Subdivision - K. Hovnanian Companies of Florida, Inc. - Kimley-
Horn & Associates, Inc. (SE Corner of CR -510 and Jungle Trail)
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 1, 2000:
TO: James Chandler, County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E., Public Works
FROM: Christopher J. Kafer, Jr., P.E., County Engineer'
SUBJECT: Request for Floodplain Cut and Fill Balance W er for Seasons Community
Subdivision
REFERENCE: PD -00-05-09 / 99110063-24744
DATE: November 1, 2000
Kimlev-Horn & Associates, Inc., on behalf of K. Hovnanian Companies of Florida, Inc., the
developer of Seasons Community Subdivision is requesting a waiver of the cut and fill balance
requirement of Section 930.07(2)(d) of the Stormwater Management and Flood Protection
Ordinance. The project is located at the southeast comer of CR 510 and Jungle Trail. The site is
located in special flood hazard area Zone AE with base flood elevation of 4.8 feet N.G.V.D. The
ten year still water elevation is 4.8 feet. The proposed displacement of the floodplain below 4.8 feet
for which the waiver is requested is for 1,056,159 cubic yards (24.24 acre-feet) as indicated in the
attached letter from the applicant's engineer dated November 1. 2000.
November 7, 2000
40
BK 1 15 PG 747
C�
The project meets the cut and fill balance waiver criteria provided in Section 930.07(2)(d)1. of being
situated in an estuarine environment within the 100 year floodplain along the Indian River and in
staff's opinion it appears that all other Stormwater Management and Flood Protection Ordinance
requirements can be met without adverse impact on other lands in the estuarine environment.
A separate request for a Land Development Permit has been received by the Public Works
Department.
Alternative No_ 1
Approve the cut and fill balance waiver request.
Alternative No. 2
Deny the waiver request and require re -design to accomplish an on-site balance of cut and fill.
Staff recommends approval of Alternative No. 1.
1. Letter from Peter J. Van Rens, P.E., Kimley-Hom & Associates, Inc., dated November 1,
2000.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge, SECONDED BY
Vice Chairman Ginn, the Board unanimously approved the cut
and fill balance waiver request for Seasons Community
Subdivision, as recommended in the memorandum.
7. U. Resolution No. 2000-136 - Partial Release of Easement at 7425
30th Court (Lot 50 Copelands Landing Subdivision Phase II) -
Requested by Pierre Raymond
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of October 17, 2000:
November 7, 2000
EF
BK 1 15 PG 748
•
r
C:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DEPTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. Keating, AICP
Community Development irector
THROUGH: Roland M. DeBlois�AIICCP
Chief, Environmental Planning
& Code Enforcement
FROM: Kelly Zedek
Code Enforcement Officer
DATE: 10/17/2000
RE: PIERRE RAYMOND REQUEST FOR PARTIAL RELEASE OF EASEMENT
AT 7425 30TH COURT (COPELANDS LANDING SUB PHASE In
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of November 7, 2000.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The County has been petitioned by PIERRE RAYMOND, owner of a lot at 7425 30th Court, for
partial release of a thirty-one foot wide rear yard drainage easement on the lot. The purpose of the
easement release request is to allow for construction of a stemwall and pool for a single family
home (see attached map).
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The request has been reviewed by Bell South Communications: Florida Power & Light Corporation:
T.C.I. Cable Corporation: the Indian River County Utilities Department: the County Road & Bridge
and Engineering Divisions; the County surveyor, and the Copelands Landing Property Owners
Association. Reviewing utility providers have no objection to the proposed partial easement release,
under the condition that there be no construction beyond the proposed stemwall, due to an
underdrain that exists in the easement (west of the easement portion proposed for release). Since
the underdrain is in the portion of the easement that is not proposed to be released for construction,
it is staff's position that the requested easement release would have no adverse impact to utilities
being supplied to the subject properties or to other properties.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board, through adoption of the attached resolution, release the eastern
nine feet of the thirty-one foot wide rear yard drainage easement at 7425 30th Court, as more
particularly described in said resolution.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Proposed County Resolution Abandoning Easement
2. Map(s) depicting easement proposed for release
3. Copy of petition for easement release
November 7, 2000
42
BK l 15 PG 7 4 9
C:
•
ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge, SECONDED BY
Vice Chairman Ginn, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution No. 2000-136 releasing a portion of an easement on
Lot 50 of Copelands Landing Subdivision, Phase II.
DOCUMENTARY STAMPS
DEED S•% 0
NOTES
J
S RESOLUTION NO. 2000-136 JEFFREY K. BARTON, CLERK
• /jO INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
,
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, RELEASING
A PORTION OF AN EASEMENT ON LOT 50 OFCOPELANDS LANDING
N
SUBDIVISION, PHASE H IN THE RECORDS OF
GN
JEFFREY K. SMTON
CLERK CIRCWT COURT
C.
INDIAN RWER CO.. FLA.
G�
WHEREAS, Indian River County has an interest in a drainage easement on Lot 50 of
COPELANDS LANDING SUBDIVISION, PHASE II; and
J WHEREAS, the retention of a portion of the easement, as described below, serves no public
purpose;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
c
River County, Florida that:
o
z
0
This partial release of easement is executed by Indian River County, a political subdivision of
the State of Florida, whose mailing address is 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960,
7-1
Grantor, to
PIERRE RAYMOND
c"
7425 30TH COURT
SEBASTIAN, FL 32958
his successors in interest, heirs and assigns, as Grantee, as follows:
Indian River County does hereby release and abandon all right, title, and interest that it may
have in the following described easement portion:
the eastern nine Jeet of the western thirty-one Joot wide rear yard drainage easement oj
Lot 50, Copelands Landing Subdivision Phase 11, as recorded in Plat Book 13, Pages 80 and 80A,
of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida
THIS RESOLUTION was moved for adoption by Commissioner Stanbri dye , seconded
by Commissioner Gi nn , and adopted on the 7th day of
November 2000, by the following vote:
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Ave
Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn Ayp
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Ave
'+=
Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye
Commissioner Ruth Stanbridge Ayp
November 7, 2000
T
43
Bit 1 15 PG 750
•
RESOLUTION No. 2000-136
The Chairman declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 7th day of
November ,2000.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Fran B. Adams
Chalrm�
Ali•
Attested
Deputy Clerk
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 7th day of November
2000, by FRAN B. ADAMS, as Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, and by . Deputy Clerk for JEFFREY K. BARTON,
Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, who are personally
known to me.
NOTARY PUBLIC
K[mberE Mamq
MY COhRdISSION l CC855t36 EXPIRES
]uN 15, 2003
fes'` 1N =FAW&S"ANMLNC
Printed Name.
—Kimberly Er4a. s,ung—
Commission No.: rrarrnzu
Commission Expiration:
APPROVED AS TO FORM
AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY:
William G. Collins II
Deputy County Attorney
cm.doc
proj/apl. no. 2000080132/24569
November 7, 2000
44
BK 1 15 PG 7 51
•
7. V. Appointment of Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht to the
Treasure Coast Snorts Commission (ftlacing Commissioner John
W in
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 1, 2000:
To:
Members of the
Board of County Commissioners
Date:
November 1, 2000
Subject:
TREASURE COAST SPORTS COMMISSION APPOINTMENT
From:
Fran B. Adams
Chairman
Effective with the next meeting of the Treasure Coast Sports Commission, I am appointing
Commissioner Kenneth R.Macht to replace Commissioner John W. Tippin to serve on this
committee as Indian River County's representative.
Commissioner Macht separated this item for discussion. He MOVED that the item
be deferred for one week. (MOTION DIED for lack of a second.)
Chairman Adams advised that this matter had been approved at a previous meeting.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board again appointed
Commissioner Macht as the Board's representative to the
Treasure Coast Sports Committee.
Commissioner Macht advised that he would respond by not attending.
When Chairman Adams advised that "we shoot non -attendees", Commissioner Macht
advised it was "worth being shot over."
Commissioner Tippin quipped that Commissioner Macht needed to learn something
about sportsmanship.
November 7, 2000
M11
�_J
z W. Appointment of Vice Chairman Ginn and Commissioner
Stanbridge to Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council for 2001
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 1, 2000:
To: Members of the
Board of County Commissioners
Date: November 1, 2000
Subject: TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL (TCRPC)
APPOINTMENTS
From: Fran B. Adams
Chairman
Effective with the December 15th meeting of the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council
(TCRPC), the following appointments will represent Indian River County for the year 2001:
Commissioner Caroline Ginn
Alternate — Commissioner Fran B. Adams
Commissioner Ruth M. Stanbridge
Alternate — Commissioner John W. Tippin
ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge, SECONDED BY
Vice Chairman Ginn, the Board unanimously appointed Vice
Chairman Ginn as representative and Chairman Adams as
alternate and Commissioner Stanbridge as representative and -
Commissioner Tippin as alternate to the Treasure Coast
Regional Planning Council for 2001.
November 7, 2000
r�
u
46
BK 115 PG 753
•
•
7.X. Fellsmere Old School Restoration Adviso&v„ Groin (ad hoc) -
Appointment of Commissioner Ruth A Stanbridge as Chairman
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 1, 2000:
To:
Members of the
Board of County Commissioners
Date:
November 1, 2000
- Subject:
OLD SCHOOL RESTORATION ADVISORY GROUP
From:
Fran B. Adams
Chairman
On October 17, 2000, the Board approved Joel Tyson, Korky Korker and Barbara Robinson to
serve on the Old School Restoration Advisory Group. Since Commissioner Ruth Stanbridge is
the County Historian, I am appointing her to serve as Chairman of this committee.
This will be an ad hoc committee with input in the restoration process of the Old Fellsmere
School.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge, SECONDED BY
Vice Chairman Ginn, the Board unanimously approved the
appointment of Commissioner Stanbridge to serve as Chairman
of the Old Fellsmere School Restoration Advisory Group (an ad
hoc committee).
7. Y. 43rd Avenue Widening and Drainage Improvements - (Prow ect
9601) - Regional Lift Station and Force Main - Release of Retainage
- Carter Associates. Inc.
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of October 23, 2000:
November 7, 2000
47
•
-I
DATE:
OCTOBER 23p", 2000
TO:
JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM:
DONALD R. HUBBS. P. ll T—
DIRECTOR OF UT L1 TY SI3R
PREPARED
STEVEN J. DOYLE. P.E. \'
AND STAFFED
CAPITAL PROJECTS MANAGER
BY:
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY UTILITIES i J
SUBJECT:
43RD AVENUE WIDENING AND DRt IMAGE IMPROVEMENTS for PUBLIC
WORK ROADWAY PROJECT (IRC Project No. 9601)
REGIONAL LIFT STATION AND FORCE MAIN
RELEASE OF RETAINAGE FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
BACKGROUND
On November 3, 1998, the Board of County Commissioners authorized professional services for the
design, permitting and construction services to Carter Associates (See Attachment -A) for the design of a
regional lift station and force main along 43`d Avenue between 26`b Street and 8t6 Street in advance of
Public Works roadway and drainage improvements. This effort was performed in concert with the
Department of Public Works Roadway Widening and Drainage Improvement Project. Public Works has
placed the 43`' Avenue Widening and Drainage Project on hold pending completion of another Public
Work (Kings Highway Phase II.).
Due to the delay, Carter Associates Inc. has requested release of retainage for professional services
rendered to date. Area businesses adjacent to this portion of 43'd Avenue are currently served by the City
of Vero Beach wastewater collection system. The utility portion of the pmject has been placed on
temporary hold until such time that area business and residents request an extension of the County's
wastewater collection system. The County Attorney's Office has reviewed the professional service
agreement and has determined that in order to release a portion of the retainage held, the project must be
either comocted in fill or terminated. Therefore, it is recommended that the project be terminated as
presented and that Pay request #7 be issued as Final.
ANALYSIS
Carter Associates Inc. has been paid $7,439.17 for utility work performed to date. The work
performed to date includes the design of the lift station and a preliminary site plan of the proposed lift
station. The project may eventually go forward when requested and the effort performed to date by Carter
will prove beneficial in the future. Approve Pay Request #7 (final) including the release of all retainage
held in the total amount of $826.58.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County Commissioners
approve Carter Associates Inc for the release of remmage held as indicated in Attachment -B as presented
and authorize the Chairman to terminate the project.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment -A: Amendment no 5 dated October 1998 and approved by the Board of County
Commissioners on November 3, 1998
Attachment -B: Invoice from Carter Associates Inc. dated July 11, 2000.
November 7, 2000
0 0
ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge, SECONDED BY
Vice Chairman Ginn, the Board unanimously approved pay
request #7 (final) and release of retainage for professional
services to Carter Associates, Inc. in the amount of $826.58 as
indicated in Attachment -B as presented and authorized the
Chairman to terminate the project, as recommended in the
memorandum.
DOCUMENTS WILL BE PLACED ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
WHEN EXECUTED AND RECEIVED
7.Z. Fairgrounds - Treasure Coast Squadron of Civil Air Patrol -
Model Rocketry Program - November 19, 2000
The Board reviewed the recommendation of the Parks and Recreation Committee
from their meeting on November 2, 2000.
At the meeting of the Parks and Recreation Committee on Thursday, November
2, 2000, the following motion was made:
ON MOTION BY Dale Klaus, SECONDED BY Susan
Wilson, the Committee voted unanimously (6-0) to
recommend that the Board of County Commissioners
allow the Treasure Coast Squadron of Civil Air Patrol
to use the County Fair Grounds for their model
rocketry program on Sunday, November 19, 2000
November 7, 2000
49
BK 1 15PG 756
ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge, SECONDED BY
Vice Chairman Ginn, the Board unanimously approved the use
of the County's Fairgrounds for the Treasure Coast Squadron of
Civil Air Patrol for their model rocketry program on Sunday,
November 19, 2000, as recommended by the Parks and
Recreation Committee.
7.AA. Amointments to the Emergency Services District Adviso.
Committee
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 7, 2000:
To: Members of the
Board of County Commissioners
Date: November 7, 2000
Subject: APPOINTMENTS TO THE EMERGENCY SERVICE DISTRICT
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
From: Fran B. Adams
Chairman
At the Board meeting on October 3, 2000, the Board of County Commissioners approved
Resolution 2000-124 amending the Emergency Services District Advisory Committee.
This committee, as amended, is to consist of one member from the Board of County
Commissioners to serve as Chairman, five members appointed respectively by each member of
the Board of County Commissioners and one member from the City of Fellsmere, City of
Sebastian, City of Vero Beach and the Town of Orchid.
The following names have been received to date:
District 1
District 2
District 3
District 4
District 5
City of Fellsmere
City of Sebastian
City of Vero Beach
Town of Orchid
Chairman
November 7, 2000
- Bill Ramsey, Jr.
- Celeste Rinehart
- Jay Smith
- John A McCants
- Walter Barnes
- Art Neuberger
- Ernie Polverari
- Fran B. Adams
50
BK 115 PG 757
•
ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge, SECONDED BY
Vice Chairman Ginn, the Board unanimously accepted the list
of appointments to the Emergency Services District Advisory
Committee as listed in the memorandum and noted there were
two vacancies (Districts 3 and 4).
9.A.1. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE NO. 2000-035
CREATING THE EAST GIFFORD WATERSHED AREA MUNICIPAL
SERVICE BENEFIT UNIT and RESOLUTION NO. 2000-137
ELECTING TO USE THE UNIFORM METHOD FOR THE LEVY
COLLECTION AND ENFORCEMENT OF NON AD VALOREM
ASSESSMENTS PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTE 197.3632
PROOF OF PUBLICATION IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
Public Works Director James W. Davis reviewed a Memorandum of October 27, 2000
with the aid of a graphic displayed on the overhead to show the area to be affected by this
assessment.
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Public Hearing for Establishment of Municipal Service Benefit
Unit East Gifford Stormwater Watershed Area
DATE: October 27, 2000
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The East Gifford Area south of 43rd Street, north of South Gifford
Road, west of the FEC Railroad, and east of the Indian River Farms
Water Control District contains approximately 43 acres, which
November 7, 2000
51
BK 1 15 PG 758
•
r
0
currently has poor drainage. This area is immediately outside of
the Indian River Farms Water Control District and is assessed no
drainage assessments that the western portion of Gifford west of
28'h Avenue currently pays. The County staff and Carter Associates,
consultants for the County, have designed a $580,000 stormwater
improvement project for this area. Grants in the amount of $50,000
have been obtained. Staff has applied for and received an
additional $264,400 grant from the State. The grant evaluation
gives 20 points if the area has a stormwater utility or Municipal
Service Benefit Unit for stormwater projects and maintenance.
In speaking with the effected property owners at a workshop on
September 7, 2000, it is advisable to establish a MSBU at this time
to provide funds for the project. A per parcel (less than 1 acre)
assessment will be $15 per year, similar to the Vero Lake Estates
MSTU for stormwater. Since there are approximately 140 parcels in
the area, the MSBU will collect approximately $2,100 per year
beginning in the 2001/2002 fiscal year.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The alternatives are as follows:
Alternative No 1
After considering public input at the Public Hearing, establish a
MSBU to include the East Gifford Watershed area that is not
currently under the authority of an existing drainage district. The
East Gifford MSBU would contribute its fair share of the
construction and maintenance cost when work is needed. Approve the
implementing Ordinance attached.
Alternative No 2
Not establish a MSBU for the watershed area and deny approval of
the Ordinance. This may leave a poor drainage area of the Gifford
Community without a funding mechanism for maintenance and
construction. It is highly likely that the grant would not be
obtained.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Recommendation is to open the public hearing and after public
input, staff recommends approving the ordinance establishing the -
MSBU, and also recommends approving the resolution, authorizing the
uniform method of levy, collection and enforcement of the
assessment within the MSBU.
ATTACfDD;NT
Implementation Ordinance
Resolution No. 2000 -
November 7, 2000
52
8K1l5PG759
Commissioner Stanbridge commented that this will be one of the first projects of the
revitalization in the Gifford area and will help with the poor drainage there. This will also
achieve about 20 points on any grants applications.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in
this matter.
Juanita Andrews, 2110 42°d Street, asked for an explanation of the drainage program
and the relationship to the grants. She asked also about the $15 per year assessment and for
how long it would be assessed.
Director Davis advised that the MSBU would be in place at the discretion of the
Board of County Commissioners for as long as they deem it necessary to be in place. The
budget for the MSBU will be determined yearly, but most of the MSBU's currently in place
have been very stable per parcel acre per year. In the beginning, it will be $15; depending
on the cost -of -living, it could increase in the future.
Ms. Andrews had been at the informational meeting in September and asked when
the project was scheduled to begin and how long it would take.
Director Davis advised that it would depend on how quickly the land for the pond
could be acquired; he expected the construction would begin sometime next year and would
take approximately nine months.
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 Tippin, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance No. 2000-035 creating the East Gifford Watershed
November 7, 2000
53
BK 1! 5 PG 7 6 0
F,
0
Area Municipal Service Benefit Unit; purpose; determination of
cost of service; property owner advisory group; levy of
assessment, adoption of budget; disposition of proceeds from
the levy of assessment; providing for codification; providing for
severability; and providing for an effective date.
ORDINANCE NO. 2000-035
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
CREATING THE EAST GIFFORD WATERSHED AREA
MUNICIPAL SERVICE BENEFIT UNIT; PURPOSE;
DETERMINATION OF COST OF SERVICE; PROPERTY
OWNER ADVISORY GROUP; LEVY OF ASSESSMENT,
ADOPTION OF BUDGET; DISPOSITION OF PROCEEDS
FROM THE LEVY OF ASSESSMENT; PROVIDING FOR
CODIFICATION; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the East Gifford Watershed Area south of 43'd Street of the county is
comprised of approximately 43 acres for which adequate drainage maintenance and improvements
is vitally necessary; and
WHEREAS, the level of services required to upgrade existing conditions to an
acceptable state and to provide continual maintenance thereof greatly exceeds the ability of County
forces to provide such services; and
WHEREAS, the property owners of the area have expressed a willingness to fund
the necessary improvements through a specially established MSBU; and
WHEREAS, the Board finds that establishment of a Municipal Service Benefit Unit
to fund the desired additional improvements will further the interest of the public, and property
owners and residents of the area.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that:
SECTION 1: AMENDMENT.
Section 200. Indian River County Code is hereby amended to add Part III, Stormwater and
Sections 200.30.01 through 200.30.05 as follows:
November 7, 2000
54
BK 115 PG 761
0
•
ORDINANCE NO.: 2000-035
PART M. STORMWATER.
SECTION 200.30.01_ CREATION OF THE EAST GIFFORD WATERSHED
AREA MUNICIPAL SERVICE BENEFIT UNIT.
There is hereby established in Indian River County, the East Gifford Watershed Area
Municipal Service Benefit Unit under the authority of, and with all those powers conferred by, the
Constitution of the State of Florida and Florida Statutes 125.01 (1.) (q) and (r). The real property
included within the boundaries of this Municipal Service Benefit Unit and subject to all provisions
hereof is described as follows:
For a POINT OF BEGINNING, the intersection of the East line of the West one-half
of Tract 5, Section 26, Township 32 South, Range 39 East, according to the last
general plat of the lands of the Indian River Farms Company recorded in Plat Book
2, Page 25 of the Public Records of St. Lucie County, Florida, and the quarter -section
line (the South line of Tract 5 lying within the 41 st Street right-of-way), and run
North, along the said East line, to a point lying 105 feet North of the South line of the
Annie Gray Battle Tract. Then run
Northwesterly to a point lying in the North line of Tract 5, 50 feet East of the East
right-of-way of 27th Avenue. Then run
West to the East right-of-way of 28th Avenue. Then run
North, along the 28th Avenue, to the centerline of 43rd Street. Then run
East, along the centerline of 43rd Street, as shown on Plats 1, 2, and 3 of the Hillcrest
Subdivision, to its intersection with the center of the main track of the Florida East
Coast Railway. Then run
Southeasterly, along the track center, to its intersection with the quarter -section line
in the 41 st Street right-of-way. Then run
West, along the quarter -section line, to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Now lying in
Indian River County, Florida.
SECTION002 .30.02 PURPOSE
1. This Municipal Service Benefit Unit is created for the purposes of funding
improvements of the existing drainage system and maintenance of the improved drainage system
within the boundaries of the unit; identification of improvements necessary to provide optimum
drainage of all rights-of-way and of the properties within the unit; funding the acquisition of
easements, rights-of-way, or other properties necessary for the required improvements; funding the
engineering, construction, and maintenance of those improvements deemed necessary or desirable;
and to fund all reasonable expenses and services related to any of the foregoing activities.
2. The Municipal Service Benefit Unit may fund all or any of the aforementioned
services or improvements through either current year funding or bonds, provided any debt instrument
November 7, 2000
55
BK 115 PG 762
•
I
ORDINANCE NO.: 2000- 035
or obligation made must be repayable solely from revenues collected by the Municipal Service
Benefit Unit pursuant to the authority and means provided by this ordinance.
SECTION 200.30.02 DETERMINATION OF COST OF SERVICE,•
PROPERTY OWNERS ADVISORY GROUP
1. The Board of County Commissioners shall determine each year the estimated cost
Of providing those services or improvements contemplated within the unit boundaries for the ensuing
County fiscal year.
2. In determining both the level and cost of services for any given year, the Board shall
consider the recommendations of an advisory group composed of three (3) persons who are the
owners of property within the boundaries of the unit. The advisory group members shall be
appointed at large upon motion of the Board of County Commissioners from a list of interested
individuals or nominees. Advisory group members shall serve at the pleasure of the Board of
County Commissioners. All official action taken or recommendations made shall be by affirmative
vote of no less than a majority of the full membership of the group. The advisory group shall offer
it recommendations in writing to the Board from time to time through the office of the Public Works
Director. All advisory group activities shall be subject to the Florida Sunshine Law, Florida Statute
286.011. The Board of County Commissioners shall have sole discretion to determine the final level
of funding or services for any given fiscal year.
SECTION 200.30.04 LEVY OF ASSESSMENTS: ADOPTION OF BUDGET
1. The Board of County Commissioners hereby authorizes a levy of a special
assessment under the authority of the second sentence of Section 9 (b) Article VII of the Constitution
of the State of Florida and Florida Statutes 125.01 (q) in an amount to be determined annually by
the Board of County Commissioners based on an assessment per parcel/acre within the East Gifford
Watershed Area Municipal Service Benefit Unit.
2. Pursuant to said authority, the Board hereby further authorizes the levying and
collection of special assessments in a uniform manner for those Municipal Service Benefit Unit
expenditures which are determined to provide a reasonably uniform special benefit to all those
properties within the benefit unit against which such special assessment is made.
3. Special assessments authorized by this section shall be levied and a budget prepared
and adopted by the County Commission at the same time and in the same manner as the Board
prepares and adopts its annual budget and levies taxes as provided by law.
4. All special assessments authorized under this section shall be assessed, levied,
collected, remitted to and accounted for at the same time and in the same manner as the assessments,
levies, collection, and remittance of taxes to the General Fund by the County Commission as
provided by law. The budget for this Benefit Unit in each year shall contain that portion of the
estimated cost of providing services hereunder, including debt service, for which costs will be
incurred in the given year.
November 7, 2000
56
BKIi5PG763
0 0
ORDINANCE NO. 2000-035
SECTION 200.30.05 DISPOSITION OF PROCEEDS FROM LEVY OF
ASSESSMENTS
All funds obtained by the levy of an assessment on the real property within the boundaries
of the East Gifford Watershed Area Municipal Service Benefit Unit shall be maintained in a separate
account and used solely for the purpose of providing those services set forth above.
SECTION 2 CODIFICATION.
It is the intention of the Board of County Commissioners that the provisions of this
ordinance shall become and be made a part of the Indian River County Code and the word
"ordinance" may be changed to "section," "article," or other appropriate word or phrase and the
sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered or re -lettered to accomplish such intention; providing,
however, that Sections 2, 3, and 4 shall not be codified.
SECTION 3 SEVERABILITY
If any section, subsection, sentence, part thereof, 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 of this ordinance, and it shall be construed to have been the legislative intent to
pass the ordinance without such unconstitutional, invalid or inoperative.
SECTION 3 EFFECTIVE DATE
Certified copies of this ordinance, as enacted, shall be filed by the Clerk with the Office of
the Secretary of the State of the State of Florida within ten days after enactment, and this ordinance
shall take effect upon filing.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida, on this 7th day of November , 2000.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal on the 27th day of
Oct. , 2000, for a public hearing to be held on the 7th day of Noy, , 2000, at which
time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner Macht , seconded by Commissioner
Ti pni n , and adopted by the following vote:
November 7, 2000
Chairman Fran B. Adams
Vice Chairman Caroline D. Ginn
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht
Commissioner Ruth M. Stanbridge
Commissioner John W. Tippin
57
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
BK 1 15 PG 764
ORDINANCE NO. 2000-035
The Chairman thereupon declared the ordinance duly passed and adopted this 7th day of
November , 2000.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMIVIISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Z-
Fran B. Adams, Chairman
Jeffrey K. B lerk
B7'
j
DClerk !
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
By (' 1 �x ( it'
Wm. G. Collins, H, Deputy County Attorney
Effective Date: This ordinance was filed with the Deparnnent of State on ; day of
Y\h2000.
November 7, 2000
BK 1 5815 PG 765
40 0
•
ml
U)
2
m
0
N
I
A
N
28th Avenue
I \\ \j
27th Avenue
N
\ `\ \N I
I E. Line of W. 1/2 1 1 r--`�. �`6��\`
.�.\
1 of Tract 5 I \ �i�
Sec. )A-32-39
25th `.Averiue o '
!f°\,\\ r
►, r=tv24t-h'yCourt
h, A
LK
ice,`\\\
-hsNs
o
ACAD DWG. FILE: ANNIGRAY.DWG Plotted 8-29-00
November 7, 2000
59
�
I Ire)L
A
rW
I a
I U)
I CD
I CD
l
Z U)
O Q
CD
O
CIO
C)
0
CD
•
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
For a POINT OF BEGINNING, the intersection of the East line of the West one—half of Tract 5,
Section 26, Township 32 South, Range 39 East, according to the lost general plat of the lands of
the Indian River Forms Company recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 25 of the Public Records of
St. Lucie County, Florida, and the quarter—section line (the South line of Tract 5 lying within the
41st Street right—of—way), and run
North, along the said East line, to a point lying 105 feet North of the South line of the
Annie Gray Battle Tract. Then run
Northwesterly to a point lying in the North line of Tract 5, 50 feet East of the East right—of—
way of 27th Avenue. Then run
West to the East right—of—way of 28th Avenue. Then run
North, along 28th Avenue, to the centerline of 43rd Street. Then run
East, along the centerline of 43rd Street, as shown on Plats 1, 2, and 3 of the Hillcrest
9.0
Subdivision, to its intersection with the center of the main track of the Florida East Coast
[�
Railway. Then run
Southeasterly, along the track center, to its intersection with the quarter—section line in the
o
41st Street right—of—way. Then run
i
West, along the quarter—section line, to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Now lying in Indian River County, Florida.
ao
v
0
a
Y
co
CBMFlCATI0N
I, Charles A. Cromer, hereby certify that I am a registered Professional Surveyor and Mapper licensed to practice in
the state of Florida, that this sketch was mode under my immediate supervision, and that it is accurate and correct.
I further certify that this sketch meets the Minimum Technical standards as described in Chapter 61G17 of the Florida
Administrative Code, pursuant to F.S. Chapter 472.
Charles A. Cramer, P.S.M. Reg,
Indian River County Surveyor
1840 25th Street, Vero Beach,
(561) 567-8000
L
c�
3
0
a
z
Z
a
u.i
c�
3
a
/90c" 6 0 ZooTHIS IS NOT A SURVEY a
x/4094 Date SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION a
PREPARED FOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
FL 32960
SHEET 2 of 2 J
11
L71
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution No. 2000-137 electing to use the uniform method for
the levy, collection, and enforcement of non ad valorem
assessments pursuant to Florida Statute 197.3632 within the
East Gifford Watershed Area Municipal Service Benefit Unit.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-137
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, ELECTING TO USE THE UNIFORM
METHOD FOR THE LEVY, COLLECTION, AND
ENFORCEMENT OF NON AD VALOREM
ASSESSMENTS PURSUANT TO FLORIDA
STATUTE 197.3632 WITHIN THE EAST GIFFORD
WATERSHED AREA MUNICIPAL SERVICE
BENEFIT UNIT.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County
has created by ordinance the East Gifford Watershed Area Municipal Service
Benefit Unit; and
WHEREAS, that ordinance authorized the levy and collection of special
assessments in a uniform manner for those MSBU expenditures which are
determined to provide a reasonably uniform special benefit to all properties
within the benefit unit against which such special assessments are made; and
further provided for the assessments to be levied in the same manner as taxes;
and further provided for the assessment, levy, collection, remittance and
accounting for said assessments at the same time and manner as taxes to the
general fund; and
WHEREAS, Florida Statute 197.3632(3)(a) requires the Board of County
Commissioners to adopt a resolution at a public hearing clearly stating its intent
to use the unifoFm method of collecting such assessment; stating the need for
November 7, 2000
61
•
,
0
RESOLUTION NO. 2000- 137
the levy; and including a legal description of the boundaries of the property; and
requiring that the local goveming board shall send a copy of the resolution by
United States Mail to the Property Appraiser, Tax Collector and the Department
of Revenue by January 10th of the following year, and
WHEREAS, a notice of intent to adopt this resolution electing to use the
uniform method for collecting the assessment has been published for four
consecutive weeks preceding this public hearing in the Vero Beach Press
Joumal.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA as follows:
1. The Board of County Commissioners hereby elects to utilize the
uniform method for levy, collection, and enforcement of non ad valorem
assessments as set out in Florida Statuate 197.3632 for the East Gifford
Watershed Area Municipal Service Benefit Unit.
2. The levy of the assessment is needed because the approximately
43 acres within the benefited area vitally needs improved drainage facilities and
maintenance, and services required greatly exceed the current ability of County
forces to provide those services. The benefited area is immediately outside the
Indian River Farms Water Control District and is currently assessed no drainage
assessments that the portion of Gifford west of 28th Avenue currently pays.
Further, the establishment of the MSBU will enhance Indian River County's
ability to obtain state stormwater improvement grants for the benefited area.
3. The property included within the East Gifford Watershed Area
Municipal Service Benefit Unit is described as:
For a POINT OF BEGINNING, the intersection of the East line of
the West one-half of Tract 5, Section 26, Township 32 South,
Range 39 East, according to the last general plat of the lands of
the Indian River Farms Company recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 25
of the Public Records of St. Lucie County, Florida, and the quarter -
November 7, 2000
62
6K 1 15 PG 769
0
•
RESOLUTION NO. 2000- 1 a7
section line (the South line of Tract 5 lying within the 41st Street
right-of-way), and run
North, along the said East line, to a point lying 105 feet North of the
South line of the Annie Gray Battle Tract. Then run
Northwesterly to a point lying in the North line of Tract 5, 50 feet
East of the East right-of-way of 27th Avenue. Then run
West to the East right-of-way of 28th Avenue. Then run
North, along the 28th Avenue, to the centerline of 43rd Street.
Then run
East, along the centerline of 43rd Street, as shown on Plats 1, 2,
and 3 of the Hillcrest Subdivision, to its intersection with the center
of the main track of the Florida East Coast Railway. Then run
Southeasterly, along the track center, to its intersection with the
quarter -section line in the 41st Street right-of-way. Then run
West, along the quarter -section line, to the POINT OF
BEGINNING. Now lying in Indian River County, Florida.
and as depicted below:
n
43rd Street
-- -J L--------------��i�/ ��//�; Scole:
I17 -•-r-;-/» r----i'�--' I V /%i Not to Scole
1 ., , 1; I jiillCresll Iubdivisioh''\Y
Via ' I A'/�Ll y--,Ic
NOLIh�_LV ir�c�-'r---I
y_.sr
IN 1 I 1
'lot
I I Ivl /' ' / �' •� t
i L_-- J .L '.�_t J• l�_r- �y__r_J L_.:7 -Lr of
41ad'Ploc@., ,
--lug----•rr---.ldf7�• .,
Ail/
.I.1 / jt;, o
I I: 1 Y/ /
Itl LJ/
pal ISI \
z� ----_- L �L L_iinepl�Mnie Gr Q lgffriet 1 a
- >--j7
mn
,Q.
A. 1:
---
----------------- ----------------
Section Line &
� 41st Street
November 7, 2000
63
•
RESOLUTION NO. 2000- 137
4. Upon adoption of this resolution, the Clerk to the Board is directed
to mail a copy of this resolution by United States Mail to the Indian River County
Property Appraiser, the Indian River County Tax Collector and the Department of
Revenue by January 10, 2001.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Macht , and
the motion was seconded by Commissioner Ti ppi n , and, upon being put to
a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Fran B. Adams Ave
Vice Chairman Caroline D. Ginn _Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Ayp
Commissioner John W. Tippin Ave
Commissioner Ruth M. Stanbridge Ave
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this 7th day of November, 2000.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
Fran B. Adams, Chairman
A •Jeffrey K. B ,Clerk
Deputy Clerk
November 7, 2000
APPROVED AS TO FORM
AND LEGAL SUFFICZ14CY
W!!LLIAM G. COLLINS I
DEPUTY COUNTY ATTORNEY
64
BK 115 PG 771
0 0
9.A.2. PUBLIC HEARING - WESTGATE COLONY SEWER
ASSESSMENT - RESOLUTION III (NOT ADOPTED)
PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF ADVERTISEMENT FOR HEARING
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
Assistant Utilities Department Director Jeff Smith reviewed Memoranda of October
27 and November 6, 2000.
DATE: OCTOBER 27, 2000
TO: JAMES &CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: DONALD R. HUBBS, P. .
_;�DIRECTOR OF UTILITY S S
PREPARED JAS D.CHAST
ME
AND STAFFED MANAGER OF SE MENT PROJECTS
BY: DEPARTMENT UTILITY SERVICES
WESTGATE COLONY SUBDIVISION PETITION SEWER
SERVICE (79TH& 80TH AVENUES, 79THCOURT& 21ST
STREET, NORTH OF STATE ROAD 60)
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. US -98 -19 -CS
RESOLUTION M PUBLIC HEARING
BACKGROUND
On October 17, 2000, the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners
approved Resolution I (2000-129) and Resolution II (2000-130). Resolution I, contained
the preliminary assessment roll describing the project and cost. Resolution H set the date
of the public hearing for the subject project. Property owners have been notified of the
public hearing by mail. Resolution I (2000-129) was published in the Vero Beach Press
Journal on October 23, 2000. (See Agenda Item and implementation of the Oct. 17, 2000
meeting Attachment 1).
ANALYSIS
Design of the sewer collection system is complete. An informational meeting was held
for the benefit of the property owners on October 25, 2000.
The Westgate Colony subdivision consists of 79 lots (72 parcel ID's). Eight of the
property Owners own 1.5 to 2 platted lots. There are 18 non owner occupied homes
(many are rentals), and there are five vacant lots. The 44 signatures on the petition
represents ownership of 47 lots, which is 69% of the subdivision's 68 homes (591/6 of the
79 lots and 61% of the total square footage to be assessed).
The copy of the petitioner's letter dated March 23,(Attachment 2) 1998 explains several
concerns, among which are:
November 7, 2000
65
9K 1 15 PG 772
1. Many of the homes are experiencing problems with their septic systems.
2. Three of the property owners have had to replace their septic systems, with costly,
unattractive, elevated, mounded above -ground level systems.
3. The negative effect of such above -ground systems on their property values.
Prior Assessment History
Typical lot sizes are 0.21 acre and are "undersized" as defined in Indian River County's
Comprehensive Plan. This subdivision received County water service in the Phase III
Water Expansion Project. The final assessment for that project was approved by the
Board of County Commissioners on August 10, 1994. Seventy-eight percent (78%) of
the water assessments have been paid in full. (See schedule of parcels, lot sizes, and map,
which displays the area to benefit from the assessment project, Attachment 3).
Proposed Assessment
On December 13, 1999, staff held an informational meeting with 39 property owners
attending. The meeting included an overview of the project and an explanation of gravity
versus low-pressure force main (grinder pump station) systems, advantages and
disadvantages of each. The owners agreed with staff's proposal of a low-pressure force
main, with each owner owning, maintaining and operating their own grinder pump
station, with as estimated cost of S 4,100.00 installed. Another meeting was held on
September 11, 2000 to consider 3 options, which include a Gravity System and to obtain
input from the owners. An easement across property north of Westgate Colony to a
county lift station, has now been offered which would make the Gravity Sewer system
feasible. The proposed easement allows design and routing of the wastewater collection
northerly, and east to an existing lift station, located northeast of the subdivision. The
low pressure force main project design routed the system easterly along the north side of
State Road 60 and north to the same existing lift station. There were 29 owners (including
spouses) attending the September 11, 2000 meeting and 6 responded by telephone. 17
owners signed recommending a gravity sewer system. 4 owners signed preferring the
low pressure force main option. Staff is now recommending and proposing installation of
a gravity sewage collection system.
Typical lot sizes are 0.2149 acre (9,360 average square feet), with a few homes on 1.5 to
2 lots and there are five residential parcels, which are greater than 0.50 acre (21,780
square feet approximate) in size. In an effort to soften or equalize these disproportionate
size parcels, staff proposes a maximum assessment not greater than 18,720 square feet
which is that of 2 typical 72 ft x 130 ft lots (0.43 acre). This will affect seven parcels.
The attached map displays the area to benefit from the assessment project. The attached
Resolution III will confirm and approve the preliminary assessment. The total estimated
cost to be assessed is $ 542,400.00 The estimated cost per square foot is 0.701679
(rounded).(See estimated project cost -Attachments 4 & 5 & assessment roll). The actual
assessed cost as with any such project will be determined based on actual competitive bid
prices.
This project is to be funded through the assessment of property owners along the
proposed sewer line route. In the interim, financing will be through the Assessment Fund
(473), account number 473-000-169-371.00. If needed, inter -fund borrowing will be
available from the capacity fee fund 472.
November 7, 2000
66
BK 115 PG 773
REECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County
Commissioners approve the attached Resolution III, which affirms the preliminary
assessment on the subject project. _
Attachments:
Attachment 1 -Implementation of Oct. 17, 2000 BCC meeting
Attachment 2 -Petitioner's letter
Attachment 3 -Summary schedule of parcels ,&
Plat Map of area to be served
Attachment 4 -Assessment roll—
Attachment 5 -Estimated project cost
DATE:: NOVEMBER 6, 2000
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
THRU: DONALD R. HUBBS, P. E..
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SE
FROM:: JAMES D. CHAST
MANAGER OF S PROJECTS
SUBJ:: PUBLIC HEARING — NOVEMBER 7, 2000
WESTGATE COLONY SUBDIVISION PETITION SEWER
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. US -98 -19 -DS
On October 3, 2000 a petition was received to cancel the above project, signed by 32 owners. The
343,260 square feet of these 32 owners properties, to be assessed equals 44.4% of the total 773,082 square
feet in the proposed assessment project.
The original petition contained 44 signatures, representing ownership of 47 of the 79 lots (69%). An
additional supporter signed for the project at an informational meeting on 9/11/00. Of the above 32
signatures to cancel the project 17 were original signers. This leaves 28 surviving supporters, owners of
300,491 square feet of property 38.8% of the total proposed assessable property.
Thelma Torlucci and Bob Greco are the petitioners and have advised that they expect to return on Monday
Nov. 6t° with additional signatures.
Based upon the present situation, given that the County's petition policy calls for a majority interest in
order to move forward, the staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the project move
forward only when a clear majority exists.
November 7, 2000
67
BK 1 15 PG 774
F,
Mr. Smith advised that very recently staff had received four more petitions to cancel
the project. This brought the numbers to 36 owners for cancellation which represents
343,260 square feet of the properties or 51.43% of the total. Twenty-eight surviving
supporters of the original petition remain. Because of the lack of majority of owners
favoring the project, staff is now recommending the project not move forward.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in
this matter.
Robert Halliday, 2155 79' Court, felt the sewer project was the best thing for the
subdivision in the long run. He was concerned about the above -ground replacement system
for old septic systems and understood they would decrease property values and cause flood
water not to dissipate in their already low-lying neighborhood. He has already experienced
backups during heavy rains which cause great inconvenience for personal hygiene. He felt
these problems would increase as development comes to the adjacent undeveloped
properties. He was also concerned that the neighborhood would have more rentals as the
property values decreased.
Thelma Torlucci, 2075 79' Avenue, agreed that some people have sewer problems
in the older homes and pointed out that the previous speaker lived in one of the older areas.
The newer homes, however, have no problems. She has already paid the expense for the
above -ground installation and would be further assessed $6,500 for this project. She
believed it was the expense that people opposed.
Pat Kehoe, a neighbor of the first speaker, advised that he had 18 loads of dirt
brought in after having experienced problems. He provided for drainage on his property to
the County swales and has not had a problem since. His assessment would be $22,000 for
one house, by the square footage method, but he was getting only a one household vote.
November 7, 2000
68
BK 1 15 PG 775
Having only one vote, he felt he should pay one household assessment or about $7,500. The
neighborhood has standing water problems, but he should not have to subsidize the solution.
Chairman Adams noted that Mr. Kehoe's assessment before the Board today was
$17,000 not $22,000.
Mike Keeney, 7976 211 Street, has lived in Westgate since 1979 and has had septic
problems from the beginning. It is very embarrassing to have to use the gas station down the
street when these problems occur. He was also concerned about raw sewage seeping into
his backyard. He had new drainfields installed in 1980, 1986, and had them extended in
1992. The system still does not work and he has no more room for any additional drain
fields or a lift station. He cannot expand or add another bathroom until this problem is
resolved. He wanted the County to bring the sewers to his neighborhood.
Erle Downey, 2125 79t' Avenue, expressed concern for his child and other children
who were playing in the rainwater which he believed was contaminated with raw sewage.
It was a health problem for everyone in the neighborhood that needed to be resolved.
J. C. Griffin owns a house on 79t' Avenue. Every time there is a 4-5 inch rain, his
rental tenant calls him. Although it is a burden to pay the assessment, he felt the sewers
would help everyone in the long run and would increase property values.
Howard Edwards, 2106 79' Court, spoke in favor of the sewer project because the
property values have diminished due to the above -ground septic systems which are ugly and
only a temporary fix. They cost between $3,500 and $4,500 to install, but can run higher,
and payment is expected immediately. The sewer system cost averages $5,284 for an
average household which can be paid over time and is a permanent fix. Development is
happening around Westgate; if the sewers are installed that will take care of the septic
problems and swales could then take care of the rain runoff.
Kelly Childers, 2036 79' Avenue, spoke against the sewer project advising that she
November 7, 2000
BK 115 PG 776
0
I
has no problem since she put in a new drainfield about 10 years ago. Her neighbor has an
above -ground system and she had no objection to its appearance nor did she have a drainage
problem because of it. She did not have the money to pay annually on the $6,700
assessment. She was very concerned because the County would place a lien on her property
and could foreclose on the lien and take away her home if she was unable to pay.
Tracy Scarborough, 2046 79`' Avenue, thought several drainfields could be
purchased with the same money that an assessment and connection would cost. He has had
no problem since he put in his raised drainfield. He did not understand how the repayment
system would be handled and did not know how people on fixed incomes could afford to
pay, especially if they had already paid for a new septic system.
Stephanie Pooley, 2146 79' Court, was unhappy that at the informational meeting,
the above -ground septic "mounds" were referred to as "Indian burial grounds." She is a
descendant of a Native American Indian and thanked everyone for not using that term today.
She wondered if a grant might help. She was opposed to the assessment.
Brian Jones, 2056 79" Avenue, was opposed to the sewer project because he could
not afford it and had no problem with his drainfield, which he had replaced about three years
ago. It seemed to him that the majority in the neighborhood were not having problems.
It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the Chairman closed the
public hearing.
Chairman Adams felt the main problem is cost; she recalled that the initial concern
for the sewer lines was translocation of sewage into the river.
Mr. Smith believed cost was the major factor in the petition against the sewer project.
He gave an historical account of the project since 1998 when the Board first authorized it.
November 7, 2000
70
BK 1 15 PG 777
•
It was designed then as a low pressure force main, but it may be possible now to use a
gravity system utilizing an easement along the north side of the property from the Kennedy
property which will be developed soon. That would be a more cost-effective option.
Another meeting on November I I' with the owners at Westgate was held to notify the
residents and they voted to go with the gravity sewer system. He then described the
maintenance costs attendant to a low pressure force main as opposed to the gravity system.
Chairman Adams saw assessment figures ranging from $5,300 to $13,000, and Mr.
Smith explained that staff had tried to equalize the assessments as much as possible and they
were reduced a little bit on some of the properties and re -allocated to other properties to
make it more fair.
Mr. Smith also stated that the department's policy is to cover the cost by assessment
for the prof ect. Sewer systems are more expensive than water systems because of permitting
and treatment process. He then explained how attaching to a low pressure system would
necessitate the property owner's purchase of a "grinder station" as well as payment for its
installation and maintenance and plus the connection pipes.
Chairman Adams understood correctly that Kennedy will have sewers when they
develop their subdivision. She believed that the people who were having most of the
problems were on the same street, and wondered if those people were close enough to take
advantage of the Kennedy subdivision.
Capital Projects Manager Steve Doyle advised that Assessment Projects Manager
James D. "Dan" Chastain will take a look at each of the platted sites to see who is for or
against the project and take it from there. It may be geographically possible to move half
the project ahead with the intent of using the gravity system.
Chairman Adams felt that all the people who spoke in favor of the project were
located near one another and asked staff to take a look and see what relief can be provided
November 7, 2000
71
BK 1 15 PG 778
•
,
0
for those homeowners. She pointed out this would be a sizeable reinvestment into the
properties, which would be included in the initial cost and financing of new construction.
Mr. Doyle thought it possible to work through Community Development during the
development stage of the Kennedy property. He suggested it would be best to use the gravity
system because of future and long-term costs for the low pressure force main. Either
installation could be financed through the County for ten years, while the additional future
maintenance costs of the low pressure system could not be.
Commissioner Stanbridge thought the county was going through a phase of having to
retrofit many of the older neighborhoods and there is definitely a cost to that.
Mr. Doyle assured the Board that staff was working toward bringing the costs down
through competitive bidding and in-house engineering design.
Chairman Adams pointed out that at 70 cents per square foot, it was a very costly
system without question. If that cost could be reduced 50%, it would be wonderful.
At the request of Vice Chairman Ginn, Mr. Smith explained the assessment and
financing system used by the County: The final assessment could be financed over a ten-
year period, at the prevailing interest rate approved by the Board at the beginning of each
calendar year (now 8-1/2%). This payback would begin one year after completion of the
project and would be payable annually at 1/10th of the principal each year plus accrued
interest. The assessment could be paid in full without interest if paid within 90 days of the
assessment date. Monthly payments could be accepted which would reduce the annual
interest on the simple interest method used by the County.
Vice Chairman Ginn suggested the Board defer the matter until it can be determined
if the project could be worked in with the Kennedy property.
County Attorney Bangel was concerned that this might require a motion to bring the
matter back.
November 7, 2000
72
BK 1 15 PG 7 7 9
0
Chairman Adams, Vice Chairman Ginn, and Commissioner Stanbridge agreed this
should be a completely new process, and Administrator Chandler concurred pointing out
there will be a different assessment roll and different costs.
ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Ginn, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously agreed not to
move forward with the project because the majority of the
owners did not favor the project, with the understanding that
- staff will be working with the people who are in dire need for
assistance regarding sewer problems.
9.A.3. PUBLIC HEARING -RESOLUTION NO. 2000-138 -YUKON
LAND CORPORATION AND DANIEL L. SPENCER'S REQUEST TO
AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO REDESIGNATE
APPROXIMATELY 180 ACRES FROM R TO L-1 AND TO REZONE
SAME FROM A-1 TO RS -3 (Legislative)
PROOF OF PUBLICATION IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
Community Development Director Robert M. Keating reviewed the Comp Plan
amendment process, advising that this is the first public hearing before the Board of County
Commissioners on this amendment request. If the Board approves the transmittal of this
application to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) in Tallahassee for their 60 -day
review, a second and final public hearing will be scheduled to consider any comments made
by the DCA and whetherlo adopt an ordinance amending the Comp Plan. If the Board
denies the transmittal of an application to the DCA, the application process will come to an
end.
November 7, 2000
73
r I
denies the transmittal of an application to the DCA, the application process will come to an
end.
Director Keating then reviewed a Memorandum of October 25, 2000 aided by a
Power Point® presentation as well as site maps:
TO: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
D MENT HEAD CONCURRENCE
Robe M. Keating, AICP;'C mmuni evelopment Director
THROUGH: Sasan Robani, AICP; Chief, Long -Range Planning
s �/l
FROM: John Wachtel; Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning
L)
DATE: October 25, 2000
RE: Yukon Land Corporation and Daniel L. Spencer's Request to Amend the
Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate *180 acres from R to L-1 and to Rezone
those *180 acres from A-1 to RS -3
PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER: LUDA 2000-07-0179
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of November 7, 2000.
This request is to amend the Comprehensive Plan to redesignate *180 acres from R, Rural
Residential (up to 1 unit/acre), to L-1, Low -Density Residential -1 (up to 3 units/acre); and to rezone
those *180 acres from A-1, Agricultural District (up to 1 unit/5 acres), to RS -3, Single -Family
Residential District (up to 3 unitsiacre). Depicted in Figures 1 and 2, the subject property is located
at the northeast comer of the intersection of 85th Street (the east/west portion of CR 510, also ]mown
as Wabasso Road) and 9& Avenue (the north/south portion of CR 510). The purpose of this request
is to secure the necessary land use designation to develop the site with residential uses at a density
of 3 unitsiacre.
On September 28, 2000, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6 to 0 recommend that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed amendment and rezoning.
On October 19, 2000, the Professional Services Advisory Committee voted 6 to 0 recommend that
the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed amendment and rezoning.
November 7, 2000
74
8KI15PG781
Figure 1: Land Use Designation and Location of buoject
CJL Su _
I
C/I L-1_
Sebastian River
High Sdwal R \
no
4131 gun.
g
_
November 7, 2000
75
■ nmorehensiv���^ smendment Review ProcestureS
Although the number of plan amendments that a local government may consider is not limited, the
frequency with which local governments can amend their comprehensive plan is regulated by state
law. According to Florida Statutes, plan amendments are limited to twice per calendar year. For that
reason, the county accepts general plan amendment applications only during the "window" months
of January and July. In this case, the subject application was submitted during the July 2000
window.
The procedures for reviewing comprehensive plan amendments involve several steps. First, the
Planning and Zoning Commission, as the Local Planning Agency, conducts a public hearing to
review the request. The Commission has the option to recommend approval or denial of the
Comprehensive Plan amendment request to the Board of County Commissioners. Also, the Planning
and Zoning Commission may recommend approval of or deny any associated rezoning request. If
the rezoning request is denied, only the land use amendment request is forwarded to the Board,
unless the denial to rezone is appealed.
Following Planning and Zoning Commission action, the Board of County Commissioners conducts
two public hearings. The first of those hearings is for a preliminary decision on the land use
amendment request. At that hearing, the Board determines whether or not the land use amendment
warrants transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for further
consideration. A Board of County Commissioners decision not to transmit the land use amendment
to DCA constitutes denial of both the land use amendment and rezoning requests.
If the land use amendment is transmitted, DCA conducts a review which includes soliciting
comments from the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, several state agencies, and
neighboring local governments. After its review, DCA compiles its objections, if it has any, in an
Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report, and transmits that report to the
county. After staff addresses any issues that were raised in the ORC Report, the second and final
Board of County Commissioners public hearing is conducted. The Board takes final action to
approve or deny the land use amendment and rezoning requests at that time. If the Board approves
the requests, the amendment is transmitted to DCA for a final determination of compliance with state
law. The effective date of the amendment adoption ordinances is when the amendment is found "in
compliance" by DCA.
At this time, the Board of County Commissioners is to review the subject request and determine
whether or not to transmit it to DCA for its review.
Fx1sting I and Tc Pattern
The subject property is zoned A-1 and consists of citrus groves, several agricultural storage
buildings, and a single-family residence with a pond. Properties to the north, south and east also
consist of A-1 zoned citrus groves with an occasional single-family residence or storage building.
The citrus groves along the site's northernmost boundary appear to be abandoned.
Between 90`" Avenue and 58' Avenue, CR 510 is the boundary of the Urban Service Area (USA)
with land north of CR 510 being in the USA and land south of CR 510 being outside the USA.
Although the land directly south of the subject property,. across 851h Street, is outside the USA and
currently consists of citrus groves, that land is the future site of a north county elementary school.
November 7, 2000
76
BK 1 15 PG 783
•
To the west of the site, across a 275 foot wide drainage canal right-of-way and 90th Avenue, land is
zoned RS -3 and contains the Vero Lake Estates Subdivision of single-family residences. At this
time, the majority of lots in that approximately 2,500 acre subdivision are vacant. Immediately north
of Vero Lake Estates is Sebastian River High School.
The subject property and properties to the northeast are designated R, Rural Residential, on the
county's future land use trap. The R designation permits residential uses with densities up to 1
univacre. South of the subject property, land is outside the county's urban service area, and is
designated AG -1, Agricultural -1, on the county's future land use map. The AG -1 designation
permits agricultural uses and residential uses with densities up to 1 unit/5 acres. To the north, east,
and west of the subject property, land is designated L-1, Low -Density Residential -1. The L-1
designation permits residential uses with densities up to 3 units/acre.
Being a citrus grove, no native upland plant communities exist on the site. Examination of aerial
photographs, however, indicate that there may be an emergent freshwater wetland associated with
the St. Sebastian River on the site. Federal Emergency Management Agency maps indicate that the
site is not within a flood hazard area.
The site is within the Urban Service Area of the county. Potable water distribution lines extend from
the North County Reverse Osmosis Plant along CR 510 adjacent to the site. Wastewater collection
lines from the North Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant extend along CR 512, approximately half
a mile from the site.
The subject property abuts CR 510 which is classified as a rural minor arterial road on the future
roadway thoroughfare plan map. This segment of CR 510 is a two lane paved road with
approximately 100 feet of existing public road right-of-way. According to the comprehensive plan,
this segment of CR 510 is programmed for expansion to four lanes and 160 feet of public road right-
of-way by 2020.
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the land use amendment request will be
presented. Specifically, this analysis will address:
• the request's impact on public facilities;
• the request's consistency with the county's comprehensive plan;
• the request's compatibility with the surrounding area; and
• the request's potential impact on environmental quality.
This site is located within the county Urban Service Area, an area deemed suited for urban scale
development. The Comprehensive Plan establishes standards for: Transportation, Potable Water,
Wastewater, Solid Waste, Drainage and Recreation (Future Land Use Policy 3.1). The adequate
provision of these services is necessary to ensure the continued quality of life enjoyed by the
community. The Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations (LDRs) require that new
November 7, 2000
77
•
development be reviewed to ensure that the minimum acceptable standards for these services and
facilities are maintained.
Policy 3.2 of the Future Land Use Element states that no development shall be approved unless it
is consistent with the concurrency management system component of the Capital Improvements
Element. For land use amendment and rezoning requests, conditional concurrency review is
required.
Conditional concurrency review examines the available capacity of each facility with respect to a
proposed project. Since land use amendment and rezoning requests are not projects, county
regulations call for the concurrency review to be based upon the most intense use of the subject
property based upon the requested land use designation. For residential land use designation
requests, the most intense use (according to the County's Comprehensive Plan and LDRs) is the
maximum number of units that could be built on the site, given the size of the property and the
maximum density under the proposed land use designation. The site information used for the
concurrency analysis is as follows:
1. Size of Area to be Redesignated: ±180 acres
2. Existing Land Use Designation: R. Rural Residential (up to 1 unit/acre) .
3. Proposed Land Use Designation: L-1, Low -Density Residential -1 (up to 3 units/acre)
4. Most Intense Use of Subject Property
Under Current Land Use Designation: 180 Single -Family Units
5. Most Intense Use of Subject Property
Under Proposed Land Use Designation: 540 Single -Family Units
Transportation
As part of the concurrency review process, the applicant has submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis
(TIA). The county's Traffic Engineering Division has reviewed and approved that TIA. A TIA
reports the number of peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips that would be generated by the
most intense use of the subject property under the proposed land use designation, and assigns those
trips to impacted roads. Impacted roads are defined in section 910.09(4)(b)3 of the county's LDRs
as roadway segments which receive five percent (5%) or more of the project traffic or fifty (50) or
more project trips, whichever is less.
According to the approved TIA, the existing level of service on impacted roadways would not be
lowered by the traffic generated by development of 540 single-family units on the subject property. -
Attachment 4 of this staff report contains a more detailed transportation concurrency analysis.
Water
With the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment, the subject property could accommodate 540
single-family residential units, resulting in water consumption at a rate of 540 Equivalent Residential
Units (ERU), or 135,000 gallons/day. This is based upon a level of service of 250 gallons/ERU/day.
Development on the subject property would be served by the North County Reverse Osmosis Plant,
which currently has a remaining capacity of more than 1,500,000 gallons/day and can accommodate
the additional demand generated by the proposed land use amendment.
November 7, 2000
78
BK 115 PG 7 8 5
-I
0
Wastewater
Based upon the most intense use allowed under the proposed land use amendment, development of
the property will have a wastewater generation rate of approximately 540 Equivalent Residential
Units (ERU), or 135,000 gallons/day. This is based upon a level of service of 250 gallons/ERU/day.
County wastewater service is available to the site from the North Regional Wastewater Treatment
Plant, which currently has a remaining capacity of over 180,000 gallons/day and can accommodate
the additional wastewater generated by the subject request.
Solid Waste
Solid waste service includes pick-up by private operators and disposal at the county landfill. The
county's adopted level of service standard for landfill capacity is 1.97 cubic yards/person/year. With
the county's average of approximately 2.3 persons/unit, a residential development of 540 units
would be anticipated to house approximately 1,242 people (2.3 X 540). For the subject request to
meet the county's adopted level of service standard of 1.97 cubic yards/person/year, the landfill must
have enough capacity to accommodate approximately 2,447 (1,242 X 1.97) cubic yards/year.
A review of the solid waste capacity for the active segment of the county landfill indicates the
availability of more than 800,000 cubic yards. The active segment of the landfill has a four year
capacity, and the landfill has expansion capacity beyond 2010. Based on the analysis, staff
determined that the county landfill can accommodate the additional solid waste generated by the site
under the proposed land use designation.
Drainage
All developments are reviewed for compliance with county stormwater regulations which require
on-site retention, preservation of floodplain storage and minimum finished floor elevations. In
addition, development proposals must meet the discharge requirements of the county Stormwater
Management Ordinance. The subject property is located within the M-3 Drainage Basin. Therefore,
development on the site would be prohibited from discharging any runoff in excess of the pre -
development rate.
In this case, the minimum floor elevation level of service standards do not apply, since the property
does not lie within a floodplain. However, both the on-site retention and discharge standards apply.
With the most intense use of this site under the proposed amendment, the maximum area of
impervious surface would be approximately 4,704,480 square feet, or 108 acres. The maximum
runoff volume, based on that amount of impervious surface and the 25 year/24 hour design storm,
would be approximately 4,956,181 cubic feet. In order to maintain the county's adopted level of
service, the applicant would be required to retain approximately 1,638,725 cubic feet of runoff on-
site. With the soil characteristics of the subject property, it is estimated that the pre -development
runoff rate is 224 cubic feet/second.
Based upon staffs analysis, the drainage level of service standards would be met by limiting off-site
discharge to its pre -development rate of 224 cubic feet/second and requiring retention of the
1,638,725 cubic feet of runoff for the most intense use of the property.
As with all development, a more detailed review will be conducted during the development approval
process.
November 7, 2000
79
BK 115 PG 786
Recreation
A review of county recreation facilities and the projected demand that would result from the most
intense development that could occur on the subject property under the proposed land use
designation indicates that the adopted level of service would be maintained. The following table
illustrates the additional park demand associated with the proposed development of the property and
the existing surplus park acreage.
PARK INFORMATION
LOS (Acres per 1,000 Population)
Project Demand (Acres)
Surplus Park Acreage
4.0
1 4.968
1.164
Concurrency Summary
Based upon the analysis conducted, staff has determined that all concurrency -mandated facilities,
including drainage, roads, solid waste, recreation, water, and wastewater, have adequate capacity to
accommodate the most intense use of the subject property under the proposed land use amendment.
Therefore, the concurrency test has been satisfied for the subject request.
Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning requests are reviewed for consistency with all policies
of the Comprehensive Plan. As per section 800.07(1) of the County Code, the "Comprehensive Plan
may only be amended in such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of the plan pursuant to
Section 163.3177(2), F.S." Amendments and rezonings must also show consistency with the overall
designation of land uses as depicted on the Future Land Use Map, which includes agricultural,
residential, recreational, conservation, and commercial and industrial land uses and their densities.
The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of the comprehensive plan. Policies
are statements in the plan that identify the actions which the county will take in order to direct the
community's development. As courses of action committed to by the county, policies provide the
basis for all county land development decisions—including plan amendment and rezoning decisions.
While all comprehensive plan policies are important, some have more applicability than others in
reviewing plan amendment and rezoning requests. Of particular applicability for this request are the
following objective and policies:
Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3
The most important policy to consider in evaluating a plan amendment request for consistency with
the county's Comprehensive Plan is Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3. This policy requires that
at least one of four criteria be met in order to approve a land use amendment request. These criteria
are:
• the proposed amendment will correct a mistake in the approved plan;
• the proposed amendment will correct an oversight in the approved plan;
• the proposed amendment involves a swap or reconfiguration of land uses at separate sites,
and that swap or reconfiguration will not increase the overall land use density or intensity
depicted on the Future Land Use Map; or
• the proposed amendment is warranted based on a substantial change in circumstances
affecting the subject property.
November 7, 2000
80
BK 1 15 PG 787
•
Based on its analysis, staff feels that the proposed land use amendment meets Policy 14.3's fourth
criterion.
When the comprehensive plan was adopted in 1990, the area between CR 510 and the City of
Sebastian was designated R from 90'b Avenue to 666'Avenue. As a result, the subject property was
bounded on two sides by L-1 designated land, but was part of a larger contiguous area of R
designated land.
In 1994, however, the adjacent 159 acres to the east of the site were redesignated to R. That 1994
amendment affected the subject property.in the following two ways.
• The site is now surrounded on three sides by L-1 designated land, and
• The site is no longer part of a larger contiguous area of R designated land.
While the redesignation of adjacent land is not always justification for a land use amendment, in this
case it is relevant for the above reasons.
Another change affecting the site involves public schools. The new Sebastian River High School,
located just west of the subject property (just across go" Avenue), was completed in the mid -1990's.
Additionally, a new elementary school is now planned to be located just south of the subject property
(just across 85'h Street).
Allowing a slightly denser land use designation near these schools makes sense for the following
reasons.
• These schools will attract families with children. Generally, housing at a density of up to 3
units/acre is more affordable for families with children than the up to 1 unit/acre density
permitted under the current land use designation.
• The entire subject property is within one mile of both school sites. That proximity allows
residents on the subject property to walk or bike to the school sites, thus reducing automobile
trips and student reliance on others for transportation.
The siting (and in the case of the high school, the construction) of these schools has occurred since
plan adoption.
Therefore, the redesignation of adjacent land and the "across the street" siting of both a high school
and an elementary school constitute a change in circumstances affecting the subject property.
Since these actions constitute a change in circumstances, the fourth criterion of Future Land Use
Element Policy 14.3 has been met, and the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use
Element Policy 14.3.
Future Land Use Element Objective 1 and Policies 2.2 and 4.1
This objective and these policies state that Indian River County will have an efficient and compact
land use pattern which encourages infill development within the existing urban service area and
maintains the county's overall low density character. By increasing the density of land currently
within the urban service area, as opposed to expanding the urban service area, the county can
November 7, 2000
81
0
efficiently support growth without creating urban sprawl or sacrificing compactness. Furthermore,
with a density of up to 3 units/acre, the requested L-1 land use designation maintains the overall low
density character of the county. For these reasons, the proposed amendment is consistent with
Future Land Use Element Objective 1 and Policies 2.2 and 4.1.
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.11
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.11 states that the L-1 land use designation is intended for areas
which are:
1. suitable for urban and suburban scale development;
2. within the urban service area; and
located in proximity to existing urban centers.
Although the subject property and much of the surrounding area is currently used for agriculture, the
site is now, as it was when the comprehensive plan was found "in compliance" by DCA, appropriate
for low density residential development. Factors that demonstrate that the subject property meets
each of Future Land Use Element Policy 1.11's criteria include the following.
• The site is located within the urban service area;
• The site is located on a major road;
• Potable water service is available to the site;
• Sanitary sewer lines are within a half mile of the site;
• The site is located near an existing public high school, an existing public middle school, and
the site of a future public elementary school;
• The site is located near the City of Sebastian;
• The site is located near the CR 510/CR 512 commercial/industrial node; and
• The site is bounded on three sides by L-1 designated land.
For these reasons, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 1.11.
Summary of Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan
While the referenced objective and policies are particularly applicable to this request, other
comprehensive plan policies and objectives also have relevance. For that reason, staff evaluated the
subject request for consistency with all applicable plan policies and objectives. Based upon that
analysis, staff determined that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Development under the requested land use designation and zoning district is anticipated to be
compatible with surrounding areas. Because the site is bounded on three sides by L-1 designated
land, the request is for the expansion of an existing land use designation pattern. At t 180 acres, the
site is large enough to provide buffers if necessary.
Other factors indicate that the subject property is an appropriate site for L-1 designated land. For
example, the large lot size required under the R designation often makes development prohibitively
expensive, especially where utility service is available. This is demonstrated by the fact that, other
than agricultural buildings on A-1 zoned land, there has been no development on R designated
property in the county since the plan was adopted. In contrast, other residential land use
November 7, 2000
82
BKi{5PG789
designations allow for more cost efficient, compact and affordable development. The land use
designation closest to R. in terms of permitted density, is L-1, which is clearly feasible for normal
residential development.
The 1994 redesignation from R to L-1 of the land along the subject property's east boundary resulted
in part from a determination by the county that the 1 unit/acre maximum development allowed under
the R land use designation neither contributes to agricultural preservation nor allows enough density
for feasible, normal single family residential development. Therefore, redesignating other similar
areas along CR 510 to L-1 is appropriate.
For these reasons, redesignating the subject property to L-1 is anticipated to be compatible with
surrounding areas.
Environmental impacts of residential development on the subject property would be essentially the
same under either the existing or the proposed land use designation. Being a citrus grove, the site
contains no native upland plant habitat. Any wetlands that are located on the site and are identified
in an approved environmental survey are protected by federal, state, and county regulations. For
these reasons, significant adverse environmental impacts associated with this request are not
anticipated.
Based on the analysis, staff has determined that the requested land use designation is compatible
with surrounding areas, consistent with the comprehensive plan, meets all concurrency criteria, will
have no negative impacts on environmental quality, and meets all applicable land use designation
amendment criteria. Most importantly, the subject property is located in an area deemed suited for
low density residential uses. For these reasons, staff supports the request to amend the land use
designation of the subject property from R to L-1.
Based on the analysis performed, staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that
the Board of County Commissioners transmit this request to DCA.
1. Summary Page
2. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation Amendment Application
3. Rezoning Application
4. Detailed Transportation Concurrency Analysis
5. Approved Minutes of the September 28, 2000, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
6. Unapproved Minutes of the October 19, 2000, Professional Services Advisory Committee
Meeting
7. Transmittal Resolution
November 7, 2000
83
SK 1 15 PG 790
FF'- 'I
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in
this matter. There being none, she closed the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED BY Vice
Chairman Ginn, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution No.
2000-13 8 approving the transmittal of a proposed amendment to
the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan to the State of
Florida Department of Community Affairs for its review.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-138
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPROVING THE TRANSMITTAL OF A PROPOSED AMENDMENT
TO THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO THE STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR ITS REVIEW.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian River County
Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 1990, and
WHEREAS, the county received comprehensive plan amendment applications during its July
2000 amendment submittal window, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on this comprehensive plan
amendment request on September 28, 2000, after due public notice, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency voted 6 to 0 to recommend that the Board of County
Commissioners approve the comprehensive plan amendment listed below; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County held a Transmittal
Public Hearing on November 7, 2000, after advertising pursuant to F.S. 163.3184(15)(b)(1), and
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners announced at the transmittal public
hearing its intention to advertise and hold a final public hearing at the adoption stage of the plan
amendment process.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA THAT:
November 7, 2000
84
BK 115 PC 791
1. The above recitals are ratified in their entirety.
2. The following proposed amendment is approved for transmittal to the State of
Florida Department of Community Affairs:
Request to amend the Future Land Use Map -of the Comprehensive Plan from R,
Rural Residential (up to 1 unit/acre), to L-1, Low -Density Residential -1 (up to 3
units/acre), for ±180 acres located at the northeast corner of 85h Street and 9011
Avenue.
The forgoing Resolution was offered by Commissioner _ Ti ppi n and seconded by
Commissioner Gi nn and upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Fran B. Adams Ave
vice -Chairman Caroline D. Ginn Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Ave
Commissioner Ruth M. Stanbridge Aye
Commissioner John W. Tippin -ye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted at a public hearing held
this 7h day of November 2000.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
i
Fran B. Adams, Chairman
ATTEST: 4ef�FraeyK. Barton, Clerk /
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
William G. Collins II, Deputy County Attorney
APPROVED AS TO PLANNING MATTERS
4
Roo Keating, CPty Development Dir for
November 7, 2000
85
moan Riva Ca Att a c,l Ja:c
Atlmin I u G
Legal
ii
Buaget.
Dept. ,
Risk Mgr
r
CLERK'S NOTE: VISUAL AIDS USED BY DIRECTOR KEATING
ARE ON FILE WITH THE BACKUP
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD.
9.A.4. PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION NO. 2000-139 - RED
STICK GOLF CLUB, INUS REQUEST TO AMEND FIGURE 4.13 OF
THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN TO DELETE 81st STREET, BETWEEN 58th AVENUE AND OLD
DIXIE HIGHWAY (Legislative)
PROOF OF PUBLICATION IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
Community Development Director Robert M. Keating reviewed the Comp Plan
amendment process, advising that this is the first public hearing before the Board of County
Commissioners on this amendment request. If the Board approves the transmittal of this
application to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) in Tallahassee for their 60 -day
review, a second and final public hearing will be scheduled to consider any comments made
by the DCA and whether to adopt an ordinance amending the Comp Plan. If the Board
denies the transmittal of an application to the DCA, the application process will come to an
end. Director Keating then reviewed a Memorandum of October 30, 2000 aided by a Power
Point® presentation:
TO: James E. Chandler; County Adminsitrator
DEP ENT HEAD CONCURRENCE
11114
Obert A Keating, ' CP; CAM evelopment Director
THROUGH: Sasan Rohani. AICP; Chief, Long -Range Planning S' ;','
FROM: John Wachtel; Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning L'
Planning/
DATE: October 30, 2000
November 7, 2000
86
BK 1 15 PG 7 9 3
RE: Red Stick Golf Club, Inc.'s Request to Amend Figure 4.13 of the Transportation
Element of the Comprehensive Plan to Delete 81" Street, Between 58" Avenue
and Old Dixie Highway
PLATT AMENDMENT NUMBER: CPTA 98-10-0172
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of November 7, 2000.
This is a request by Red Stick Golf Club, Inc. to amend Figure 4.13 of the Transportation Element
of the Comprehensive Plan. That figure is the Future Roadway Functional Classification Map, also
known as the Thoroughfare Plan Map. Figure 4.13 identifies 81St Street as a Rural Major Collector
Roadway from 82"d Avenue east to US 1. The request is to remove the portion of 8151 Street located
between 58' Avenue and Old Dixie Highway. Attachment 2 shows Figure 4.13 as it currently
exists; Attachment 3 shows the Proposed Figure 4.13.
On September 28, 2000, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6 to 0 to recommend that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed amendment and delete 8181 Street, between
58' Avenue and Old Dixie Highway, from the Thoroughfare Plan Map.
On October 19, 2000, the Professional Services Advisory Committee voted 3 to 3 on a motion to
recommend approval of the proposed amendment.
BACKGROUND
The issue of removing a portion of 81$ Street from the Thoroughfare Plan Map was first raised when
the applicant applied for approval for a 315 acre, 18 hole golf course with a clubhouse and
maintenance facility. The entire project is known as Red Stick Golf Club and is generally located
between 58" Avenue (Kings Highway) and Old Dixie Highway; and between CR 510 (85`" Street)
and 77" Street (Hobart Road). On March 2, 1999, the Board of County Commissioners approved
a Conceptual Plan and a Planned Development (PD) rezoning for the Red Stick Golf Club project.
On April 8, 1999, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the preliminary plan/plat with
conditions. The site plan for the development has been released, and the golf course is currently
under construction.
When the PD application was submitted, staff reviewed the application and determined that 8151
Street, as shown on the Thoroughfare Plan Map, bisected the project, even though no right-of-way
for that segment existed. At that time, staff recognized that the county had to chose one of the
following two options:
purchase the right-of-way now to preserve that segment of 81St Street; or
approve the golf course now and, if necessary, purchase the right-of-way in the future at a
significantly higher price.
The golf course approval itself is one reason why a future purchase would be much more expensive.
For reasons discussed in the analysis portion of this staff report, staff determined that the subject
segment of 8V Street is unlikely to ever be needed or constructed. Therefore, staff determined, and
the Board agreed, that it was not necessary to purchase the right-of-way now.
November 7, 2000
87
s
Although the county declined to try to purchase the 81 s[ Street right -of --way when the golf course
project was reviewed, the referenced portion of 81St Street remains on the Thoroughfare Plan Map.
While the existing lack ofright-of-way and se
this portion of 81' Street will never be buiveral other factors discussed in this report indicate that
It, the applicant has chosen to apply to remove the
referenced portion of 81' Street from the county's long range plans.
This section will present an analysis of the reasonableness of the proposed amendment, followed by
a discussion of the consistency of the proposed amendment with the comprehensive plan.
ANALYSIS OF REASONABLENESS OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT
Currently, there is no right -of --way for 81- Street between Old Dixie Highway and 581" Avenue and
no plans, long term or short term, to acquire that right -of --way. These facts alone do not justify
deleting a road segment from the Thoroughfare Plan Map, particularly a segment that is within the
urban service area. In fact, the established grid system of roads significantly benefits the county by
providing more than one route to most destinations. For that reason, the grid system, generally.
reduces congestion, aids hurricane evacuation, and should be preserved.
There are, however, other factors that indicate that the referenced segment could be deleted without
adverse impacts. The first factor is that 81" Street does not have a railroad crossing. Because
permission for a new railroad crossing is nearly impossible to obtain, 81" Street will probably never
have one. For that reason, the segment of 81' Street between Old Dixie Highway and 58" Avenue
is not now, and likely will never be, connected. Furthermore, both CR 510, half a mile to the north,
and 77" Street, half a mile to the south, are Thoroughfare Plan Roads with railroad crossings. As
a result, the adjacent segments of the grid system are intact in each direction.
In other words, nearly all trips on 81 St Street will be diverted to CR 510 or 77" Street at either 5811
Avenue or Old Dixie Highway, regardless of whether or not the segment is deleted from the
Thoroughfare Plan Map.
For that reason, removing the referenced portion of 81 n Street is unlikely to impact service levels
of other county roads or hurricane evacuation times. Therefore, the proposed amendment is
reasonable.
CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Staff reviews each comprehensive plan amendment request for consisten
Policies of the comprehensive plan. cy with all applicable As per Section 800.07(1) of the county code, the
"comprehensive plan may only be amended in such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of
the plan pursuant to Section 163.3177(2) F.S."
The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of the comprehensive plan. Policies
are statements in the plan which identify the actions which the county will take in order to direct the
community's development. As courses of action committed to by the county, policies provide the
basis for all county land development related decisions—including plan amendment decisions. While
all comprehensive plan policies are important, some have more applicability than others in reviewing
Plan amendment requests. Of Particular applicability to this proposed amendment are the following
policies.
November 7, 2000
88
_I
•
Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3
In evaluating any comprehensive plan text amendment request, the most important consideration is
Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3. This policy requires that at least one of three criteria be met
in order to approve a comprehensive plan text amendment. These criteria are:
• a mistake in the approved plan; _
• an oversight in the approved plan; or
• a substantial change in circumstances.
Staff's position is that the proposed amendment request meets the second criteria of Future Land Use
Element Policy 14.3.
When the comprehensive plan was adopted in 1990, and again when it was revised in 1998 as a
result of the Evaluation and Appraisal Process, the county failed to consider the special
circumstances concerning the referenced segment of 81' Street. Because 8181 Street does not have
a railroad crossing, it is not connected, and likely never will be connected, between 58`s Avenue and
_ Old Dixie Highway. Therefore, there was no need to include the referenced segment on the
Thoroughfare Plan Map. For that reason, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land
Use Element Policy 14.3.
Transportation Element Policy 1.2
This policy sets the following guidelines for the evaluation and ranking of road projects:
a. whether the project is needed to protect public health and safety, to fulfill the county's legal
commitment to provide facilities and services, or to preserve or achieve full use of existing
facilities;
b. whether the project increases efficiency of use of existing facilities, prevents or reduces
future improvement costs, provides service to developed areas lacking full service, or
promotes in -fill development;
C. whether the project represents a logical extension of facilities and services within a
designated urban service area;
d. whether the project is the most cost effective alternative; and
e. whether the project provides the least adverse impact to the environment of the options.
Construction of 81E1 Street between 58' Avenue and Old Dixie Highway, without a railroad crossing,
is not consistent with any of the above guidelines. Therefore, the referenced segment of 8151 Street
does not need to be a Thoroughfare Plan road, and the request to remove that segment from the
Thoroughfare Plan Map is consistent with Transportation Element Policy 1.2.
Consistency Summary
As part of its consistency analysis, staff compared the proposed request to all applicable objectives
and policies in the plan and found no conflicts. Therefore, the request is consistent with the
comprehensive plan.
CONCLINIO111
The proposed amendment corrects an oversight in the comprehensive plan. The referenced segment
is now, and will likely always be, without a railroad crossing. Therefore, 81St Street will probably
November 7, 2000
8k 1 15 PG 796
•
always be unconnected between 58" Avenue and Old Dixie Highway. For that reason, it is unlikely
that that segment will ever be constructed, and designation on the Thoroughfare Plan Map is not
necessary. Staff supports the request.
Based on the analysis, staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the Board
of County Commissioners amend Transportation Element Figure 4.13 to remove 81 " Street, between
58" Avenue and Old Dixie Highway.
1. Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment Application
2. Existing Figure 4.13
3. Proposed Figure 4.13.
4. Approved Minutes of the September 28, 2000, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
5. Unapproved Minutes of the October 19, 2000, Professional Services Advisory Committee
Meeting
6. Transmittal Resolution
In response to Vice Chairman Ginn, Director Keating advised that three opposing
votes were cast by members of the Professional Services Advisory Committee because a
similar item at that meeting was not recommended by staff and the three members questioned
why both items were not treated the same.
Commissioner Macht thought the decision about a railroad crossing concerning the
Hawk's Nest development a few years prior had created a concern and he was a little
suspicious about this thoroughfare closing.
Chairman Adams advised that she had no concern because railroad crossings at SR510
and at 77`' Street are nearby. She agreed that the county would probably not get another
railroad crossing from the Florida East Coast RR; she is not concerned about this one but is
concerned about one at 53`d Street.
November 7, 2000
90
Bit 115 PG 7 9 7
•
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in
this matter.
Bruce Barkett, 756 Beachland Boulevard, advised that he was present on behalf of
the applicant if the Commissioners had any questions. They support staffs recommendation
and that of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the Chairman closed the
public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution No. 2000-139 approving the transmittal of a
proposed amendment to the Indian River County
Comprehensive Plan to the State of Florida Department of
Community Affairs for its review.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000- 13 9
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPROVING THE TRANSMITTAL OF A PROPOSED AMENDMENT
TO THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO THE STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR ITS REVIEW.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian River County
Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 1990, and
WHEREAS, the county received comprehensive plan amendment applications during its July
2000 amendment submittal window, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on this comprehensive plan
amendment request on September 28, 2000, after due public notice, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency voted 6 to 0 to recommend that the Board of County
Commissioners approve the comprehensive plan amendment listed below; and
November 7, 2000
91
BK 1 6 5 PG 798
•
RESOLUTION NO. 2000- 139
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County held a Transmittal
Public Hearing on November 7, 2000, after advertising pursuant to F.S. 163.3184(15)(b)(1), and
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners announced at the transmittal public
hearing its intention to advertise and hold a final public hearing at the adoption stage of the plan
amendment process.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA THAT:
1. The above recitals are ratified in their entirety.
2. The following proposed amendment is approved for transmittal to the State of
Florida Department of Community Affairs:
Request to amend Figure 4.13 of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive
Plan to delete 8? Street, between 58" Avenue and Old Dixie Highway.
The forgoing Resolution was offered by Commissioner Stanbridge and seconded by
Commissioner Ti ppi n and upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Fran B. Adams Aye
Vice -Chairman Caroline D. Ginn Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Commissioner Ruth M. Stanbridge dye
Commissioner John W. Tippin _ AyP
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted at a public hearing held
this 7' day of November 2000.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
1 ter—. � •.
Fran B. Adams, Chairman
ATTEST. \
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk
d Date
inman Rim Ca
Arm Ove
Adm+rt
Legat
i
+ /d
auagfO
— 103 F'
Dept
RisK Mgr
+ +
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY APPROVED AS TO PLANNING MATTERS
William G. Collins II, Deputy County Attorney obert M. Keating, AI P
Community Development D rector
November 7, 2000
92
BK 1 15 PG 7 9 9
CLERK'S NOTE: VISUAL AIDS USED BY DIRECTOR KEATING
ARE ON FILE WITH THE BACKUP
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD.
9.A.5. PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION NO. 2000-140 -
COUNTY -INITIATED REQUEST TO AMEND THE TEXT OF THE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN (Legislative
PROOF OF PUBLICATION IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
Community Development Director Robert M. Keating reviewed the Comp Plan
amendment process, advising that this is the first public hearing before the Board of County
Commissioners on this amendment request. If the Board approves the transmittal of this
application to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) in Tallahassee for their 60 -day
review, a second and final public hearing will be scheduled to consider any comments made
by the DCA and whether to adopt an ordinance amending the Comp Plan. If the Board
denies the transmittal of an application to the DCA, the application process will come to an
end.
Director Keating then reviewed a Memorandum of October 31, 2000:
TO: James E. Chandler; County Administrator
DEP&IMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE
Robert M. Keating, AICP; C mmuniAA
velopment Director
THROUGH: Sawn Rohani, MCPS
�_
Chief, Long -Range Planning
FROM: Peter J. Radke X ,
Economic Development Planner, Long -Range Planning
DATE: October 31, 2000
November 7, 2000
93
BK 1 15 PG 800
RE: County Initiated Request to Update the Capital Improvements Element of the
Comprehensive Plan
Plan Amendment Number: CPTA 2000-07-0162
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of November 7. 2000.
DESCRIPTIONS AND CONDITIONS
On February 13, 1990. Indian River County adopted its comprehensive plan. As required by state
law, all development activities must be consistent with the comprehensive plan. and all county
activities must conform to plan policies. Occasionally, the plan must be updated to reflect the latest
and best available information and to address changed conditions. Additionally, the plan must
periodically be reviewed and revised in order to reflect the community's changing needs and desires.
Also, the plan, itself, requires regular amendment of certain elements. For example, the capital
improvements element (CIE) of the plan needs to be amended approximately every two years. This
is required both by plan policy and by state regulations. For those reasons, the county has initiated
this amendment.
At this time, the county is initiating a comprehensive plan text amendment to update the CIE. One
component of the CIE is a seven-year capital improvements program. As amended in 1998, that
seven-year program currently addresses fiscal years 1998 thru 2004. Since two years of the existing
program have been completed and since Florida law requires that a local comprehensive plan contain
at least a five-year capital improvements program, the county must revise its program to reflect the
appropriate time period.
While some of the improvements identified and budgeted in the current capital improvements
program have already been accomplished and therefore should be deleted from the program, other
improvements need to be re-evaluated in terms of costs, revenues, and prioritization. In addition,
new projects may need to be added to the county's capital improvements program. At the time of
plan adoption, it was known that the capital improvements program would become outdated each
year, therefore, one of the policies of the CIE (policy 1. 1). as adopted, requires annual evaluation and
update of the capital improvements program. Also, state regulations mandate that the CIE be
amended if conditions change to warrant it.
The capital improvements program is an important part of the CIE. Since the program incorporates
improvements reflected in other plan elements and incorporates estimates and projections reflected _
in other portions of the CIE, revisions to the seven-year program require an amendment to the CIE
as a whole.
Planning and Zoning Commission
On September 28, 2000, at an advertised public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
6 to 0 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners transmit the proposed text amendment
to the State Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for its review.
November 7, 2000
94
BK 1 15 PG 801
1
•
Professional Services Advisory Committee
On October 19, 2000, the Professional Services Advisory Committee voted 6 to 0 to recommend that
the Board of County Commissioners transmit the proposed text amendment to the State Department
of Community Affairs (DCA) for its review. —
ANALYSIS
In revising the capital improvements element (CIE), staff used much the same methodology as it
employed in preparing the original element. This involved coordinating with the budget and finance
departments to obtain data on past revenues and expenditures as well as projected future revenue and
expenditure amounts. Then, each county department was contacted to determine the status of its
capital improvements program. For each department, information on completed projects, proposed
projects, costs, revenues, prioritization, and other factors was collected. Based upon these data,
planning staff revised the various tables and the text of the CIE. The result is an accurate and up-to-
date capital improvements program with revisions having been made in the CIE generally to
demonstrate internal consistency and financial feasibility. The revised capital improvements element
is on file in the Board of County Commissioners office.
Capital Improvements Program
Table 6.22 of the CIE (attachment two) lists all programmed capital improvements for fiscal years
2002 through 2008 for each comprehensive plan element. In addition to the comprehensive plan
element categories shown in table 6.22, an emergency services category was added to table 6.22.
Conservation capital projects listed in table 6.22 of the CIE focus on improvements to conservation
lands that have been purchased in previous years by the county. These planned improvements
include creating public access points to conservation areas, constructing docks, and building trails.
Emergency services capital projects proposed for the next seven fiscal years include renovations to
two existing emergency services stations and the construction of a new station in the Grand Harbor
area.
Capital improvement projects related to recreation and open space include improvements to existing
recreation areas throughout the entire county and the construction of a new recreation area in the
north county. The north county park, to be located on 121 acres of the Sebastian Buffer Preserve,
north of CR 512 and west of Sebastian River Middle School, will consist of a pool complex. four-
plex multi-purpose ball fields, a soccer complex, a playground, open space, a stormwater lake and
a maintenance building. At this time, the north county park is in the design stage of development.
All of the recreation and open space projects identified in table 6.22 will be paid for with one cent
local option sales tax funds.
Potable water and sanitary sewer capital improvement projects are planned throughout the entire
unincorporated county as well as within those municipalities served by county utilities. Major
projects planned for fiscal years 2002 through 2008 include potable water line extensions in the north
and south county, wastewater line extensions in the CR 512 commercial corridor, expansion of the
north county reverse osmosis plant, and expansion of the west regional wastewater treatment plant.
The majority of the potable water and wastewater projects will be funded through capacity charges.
Solid Waste capital improvement activities involve the purchase of capital equipment. Among the
equipment that will purchased by the Solid Waste Disposal District are dump trucks, roll -off trucks.
roll -off containers, and loaders.
November 7, 2000
95
R t 4
0
Capital improvements to county maintained roads are generally funded by traffic impact fee revenue.
Some expenditures are also funded by the State of Florida, developers, and other local governments.
Table 6.22 lists new projects, including intersection improvements and road widenings, programmed
throughout the county.
Existing Conditions and Analysis Sections
In addition to the changes made to table 6.22, all of the data in the existing conditions and analysis
sections have been updated to reflect current conditions. These data include past revenue and
expenditure figures for county operations as well as projected revenue and expenditure figures for
county operations.
Goal, Objectives, and Policies Section
In total, five objectives are being recommended for revision, seven policies are being recommended
for revision, and one policy is being recommended for deletion. Based on the new time horizon set
for the capital improvements program, the time horizon for all five capital improvements element
objectives was revised to 2008. Policy 4.4 is being recommended for deletion because the action
of policy 4.4 is a duplication of the action of policy 4.1. Seven policies are being recommended for
revision, due in large part to the restructuring of water and sewer impact fees into capacity charges.
Revisions to the objectives and policies of the capital improvements element are labeled with a
double underline; deletions to the objectives and policies are labeled with swikeea . These revisions
and deletions are incorporated in the revised capital improvements element on file in the Board of
County Commissioners office.
Consistencv with the Comprehensive Plan
Comprehensive plan amendment requests are reviewed for consistency with all policies of the
comprehensive plan. As per section 800.07(1) of the county code, the "comprehensive plan may be
amended only in such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of the plan pursuant to section
163.3177(2).F.S."
The goals, objectives and policies are the most important pans of the comprehensive plan. Policies
are statements in the plan that identify the actions which the county will take in order to direct the
community's development. As courses of action committed to by the county, policies provide the
basis for all county land development decisions. While all comprehensive plan policies are
important, some have more applicability than others in reviewing plan amendment requests. Of
particular applicability for these amendment requests is the following policy:
Future Land Use Policy 14.3
The most important policy to consider in evaluating a plan amendment request for consistency with
the county's comprehensive plan is future land use element policy 14.3. This policy requires that one
of three criteria be met in order to approve a comprehensive plan text amendment request. These
criteria are:
the proposed amendment corrects a mistake in the approved plan;
the proposed amendment corrects an oversight in the approved plan; or
the proposed amendment is warranted based on a substantial change in
circumstances.
November 7, 2000
96
6K I IS PG 803
•
Based upon its analysis, staff feels that the proposed amendment to the capital improvements
element (CIE) meets the third criterion of policy 14.3 of the future land use element. Revisions to
the CIE, particularly the capital improvements program, are necessary to reflect changes in
circumstances. In that period since the CIE was last revised, capital improvements have been
completed; others have been added; revenue projections have changed, and priorities have been
modified. These circumstances warrant the amendment.
Capital Improvements Element Policies 1.1, 1.2. 1.3, 1.7, 1.10, and 1.11
Capital improvements element policies 1.1. 1.2, 1.3. 1.7, 1.10 and 1.11 require the County to
maintain and implement a capital improvements program which is evaluated and updated annually.
These policies also describe how the county will evaluate and prioritize capital improvements. By
updating the capital improvements program in accordance with these requirements, the proposed
amendment is consistent with these policies.
Capital Improvements Element Policy 1.9
_ Capital improvements element policy 1.9 states that the county shall include all capital expenditures
in excess of $25,00 in its schedule of improvements. The proposed amendment identifies all capital
expenditures in excess of $25,000. Therefore, the proposed amendment is consistent with capital
improvements element Policy 1.9.
While the referenced policies are particularly applicable to this request, other comprehensive plan
policies and objectives also have relevance. For that reason. staff evaluated the amendment requests
for consistency with all applicable plan policies and objectives. Based upon that analysis, staff
determined that the requests are consistent with the comprehensive plan.
ALTERNATIVES
With respect to the proposed comprehensive plan text amendment, the Board of County
Commissioners has three alternatives. These are to:
1. Deny transmittal of this amendment to the Department of Community Affairs;
2. Approve transmittal of this amendment to the Department of Community Affairs; or
3. Approve transmittal of this amendment, with changes, to the Department of
Community Affairs.
CONCLUSION
It is staff s position that the proposed amendment to the capital improvements element will enhance
the comprehensive plan. Also, it has been demonstrated that this amendment maintains the plan's
internal consistency. For those reasons. staff feels that the proposed amendment should be
transmitted to the Department of Community Affairs for review.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the analysis conducted, staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that
the Board of County Commissioners approve this amendment for transmittal to DCA for review.
ATTACHMENTS
1.) Application
2.) Approved Planning and Zoning Commission minutes from 09/28/00 meeting
3.) Unapproved Professional Services Advisory Committee minutes from 10/19/00 meeting
4.) Transmittal Resolution
November 7, 2000
97
•
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in
this matter. There being none, she closed the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED BY Vice
Chairman Ginn, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution No.
2000-140 approving the transmittal of a proposed amendment to
the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan to the State of
Florida Department of Community Affairs for its review.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-140
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPROVING THE TRANSMITTAL OF A PROPOSED AMENDMENT
TO THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO THE STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR ITS REVIEW.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian River County
Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 1990, and
WHEREAS, the county received comprehensive plan amendment applications during its July
2000 amendment submittal window, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on this comprehensive plan
amendment request on September 28, 2000, after due public notice, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency voted 6 to 0 to recommend that the Board of County
Commissioners approve the comprehensive plan amendment listed below; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County held a Transmittal
Public Hearing on November 7, 2000, after advertising pursuant to F.S. 163.3184(15)(b)(1), and
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners announced at the transmittal public
hearing its intention to advertise and hold a final public hearing at the adoption stage of the plan
amendment process.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA THAT:
1. The above recitals are ratified in their entirety.
November 7, 2000
98
BK 1 15 PG 805
•
RESOLUTION NO. 2000- 140
2. The following proposed amendment is approved—for transmittal to the State of
Florida Department of Community Affairs:
Request to amend the Capital Improvements Element of the Comprehensive Plan to
update the existing conditions section, the analysis section, the goal, objectives, and
policies section, the schedule of capital improvements, and the priority transportation
capital improvements program.
The forgoing Resolution was offered by Commissioner Ti ppi n and seconded by
Commissioner Gi nn and upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Fran B. Adams Aye
Vice -Chairman Caroline D. Ginn Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Commissioner Ruth M. Stanbridge Aye
Commissioner John W. Tippin AyP
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted at a public hearing held
this 7' day of November 2000.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Fran B. Adams, Chairman
ATTEST:,
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
7
William G. Collins II, Deputy County Attorney
APPROVED AS TO PLANNING MATTERS
i
Robert Nf Khatffig, AICP
Community Development Direct r 7'
November 7, 2000
�netn Aw- Ca IAp��orea
Aam�n
i
Legal r
Dept
Risk Mgr.
Date
MIMMEWIt
•
9.A.6. PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION NO. 2000-141 -
COUNTY -INITIATED REQUEST TO AMEND THE TEXT OF THE
FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT, THE RECREATION AND OPEN
SPACE ELEMENT, THE COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT, THE
SANITARY SEWER SUB -ELEMENT, AND THE POTABLE WATER
SUB -ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (Legislative)
PROOF OF PUBLICATION IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
Community Development Director Robert M. Keating reviewed the Comp Plan
amendment process, advising that this is the first public hearing before the Board of County
Commissioners on this amendment request. If the Board approves the transmittal of this
application to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) in Tallahassee for their 60 -day
review, a second and final public hearing will be scheduled to consider any comments made
by the DCA and whether to adopt an ordinance amending the Comp Plan. If the Board
denies the transmittal of an application to the DCA, the application process will come to an
end.
Community Development Director Robert M. Keating reviewed a Memorandum of
October 26, 2000:
TO: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
DEYAIWMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE
Z/
Robert M. Keating, CP; Coni unity Dev opment Director
THROUGH: Sasan Rohani. AICP; Chief, Long -Range Planning
� l
FROM: John Wachtel; Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning
DATE: October 26, 2000
RE: County Initiated Request to Amend The Future Land Use Element, The
Recreation and Open Space Element, The Coastal Management Element, The
Potable Water Sub -Element, and The Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element of the
County's Comprehensive Plan
November 7, 2000
100
8K 195 PG 807
•
PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER: CPTA 2000-07-0161
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of November 7, 2000.
On February 13, 1990, Indian River County adopted its comprehensive plan. On March 17, 1998,
as part of the Evaluation and Appraisal Process, that plan was substantially updated. As required
by state law, all development activities must be consistent with the comprehensive plan, and all
county activities must conform to plan policies. Occasionally, the plan must be updated to reflect
the latest and best available information and to address changed conditions. Additionally, the plan
must periodically be reviewed and revised in order to reflect the community's changing needs and
desires. For those reasons, the county has initiated this amendment.
After a recent review of the plan, staff determined that several elements need to be revised. The
affected elements are the Future Land Use Element, the Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element, the Potable
Water Sub -Element, the Coastal Management Element, and the Recreation and Open Space Element.
The proposed amendments are related to Agricultural Planned Developments (PDs), Caribbean Fruit
Fly host plants, the Future Land Use Map, utility service for agricultural businesses located outside
the urban service area, post -disaster recovery and redevelopment; and arts and cultural objectives.
The proposed additions and deletions to the plan are shown on Attachment 2. In this attachment.
deletions are indicated by strike throughs, while additions are shown as underlined.
On September 28, 2000, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5 to 1 to recommend that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed amendments as shown on Attachment 2.
On October 19, 2000, the Professional Services Advisory Committee voted 4 to 2 to recommend that
the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed amendments as shown on Attachment
2.
DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENTS BY CATEGORY
The proposed amendments can be grouped into six categories based on their subject. Each subject
category of amendments is described below.
Optional Agricultural PDs
The proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element make Agricultural PDs optional, rather
than mandatory, for residential development outside the urban service area.
Agricultural PDs are residential subdivisions located on agriculturally designated land (agriculturally
designated land is outside of the county's urban service area). Other types of PDs are permitted only
within the urban service area. The county's comprehensive plan and land development regulations
currently require residential subdivisions of two or more lots (other than a one time lot split) on
agriculturally designated land to be approved as Agricultural PDs. Within Agricultural PDs, and
PDs in general, special negotiated regulations allow developers additional flexibility in terms of
subdivision and lot design (to meet market demand), as long as certain minimum standards are
maintained. Among those standards is the requirement that the residential density of Agricultural
November 7, 2000
101
rOr
•
PDs shall not exceed the density allowed by the underlying land use designation. In addition to
providing developers with more design flexibility, the PD process also gives the Board of County
Commissioners more discretion, compared to regular subdivision projects, with respect to project
approvals.
There are two key requirements that are applicable to Agricultural PDs, but not applicable to non -
Agricultural PDs. The first is that lots cannot exceed one acre in size, while the second is that lots
must be clustered on a relatively small portion of the overall project property. The remainder of the
site, regardless of its ownership, must remain in open space (either as natural; agricultural; or to a
limited degree, recreational, areas) for as long as the property retains an agricultural land use
designation.
Over the past few years, several proposed Agricultural PDs have been considered by the Board of
County Commissioners at public hearings. In reviewing those proposals, both the public and the
Board questioned whether Agricultural PDs and clustering should be required and whether there
were benefits associated with clustering.
As a result of that questioning, the following public meetings on this issue were conducted:
• two Board of County Commissioners workshops;
• two Agricultural Advisory Committee workshops; and
• one Professional Services Advisory Committee meeting.
At the April 4, 2000, Board of County Commissioners meeting, the Board instructed staff to initiate
a plan amendment to eliminate the requirement that any residential development of agriculturally
designated land must be approved as an Agricultural PD.
The revisions related to Agricultural PDs involve changes to the Land Use Analysis section of the
Future Land Use Element, and to Future Land Use Element Policies 1.10 and 5.8. In addition to
eliminating the Agricultural PD requirement, those revisions make Agricultural PDs and clustering
an optional (rather than required) development type for agriculturally designated land.
While the revisions eliminate the requirement that residential development of agriculturally,
designated areas be done only through the Agricultural PD process with clustering required, the
amendment also makes some changes to the soon to be optional Agricultural PD requirements.
Those changes include the following:
• The open space area must be under the ownership of a single entity and maintained as open
space, in perpetuity, through a conservation and/or agricultural preservation easement. 1
• The clustered lots must be grouped together in a compact, contiguous manner.
• Golf courses are not permitted as part of Agricultural PDs.
Caribbean Fruit Fly Host Plants
As part of the Evaluation and Appraisal Process, the county added a policy restricting Caribbean
Fruit Fly "host' plants in certain types of new development on agriculturally designated land. The
existence of Caribbean Fruit Fly host plants near active citrus groves can adversely affect protocol
approval of grove fruit. For that reason, the county adopted a policy that requires the following
special conditions for Administrative Permit, Special Exception and/or Planned Development
approval of projects on agriculturally designated land:
November 7, 2000
102
iL: & 1 15 P 8
0 1
•
• Caribbean Fruit Fly host plants shall be prohibited on the subject site. That prohibition shall
be enforceable through the county code enforcement board; and
• A deed restriction shall be recorded and established on the subject site. That deed restriction
shall prohibit the occurrence of Caribbean Fruit Fly host -plants on the subject site and shall
be acceptable to the county attorney's office.
Because many active citrus groves continue to exist within the urban service area, on non -
agriculturally designated land, the proposed amendment expands these restrictions to those areas.
The revisions related to Caribbean Fruit Fly host plants involve changes to Future Land Use Element
Policy 6.5.
Clarification of the Future Land Use Map
This is a minor non -substantive amendment intended to clarify the Future Land Use Map. Currently,
the comprehensive plan contains two maps (Future Land Use Element Figures 2.31a and 2.31b)
depicting land use designations and the urban service area Because these maps are difficult to read,
the proposed amendment replaces references to those maps with references to a more accurate, more
legible, and larger scale version. The proposed amendment does not change any land use
designation or urban service area boundaries.
The revisions related to clarification of the Future Land Use Map involve Future Land Use Element
Policies 1.1 and 2.1; and portions of Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element Policy 5.8, and Potable Water
Sub -Element Policy 5.7.
Utility Service to Agricultural Businesses
With few exceptions, the extension of utility service outside the urban service area is prohibited.
This amendment makes two changes related to those exceptions. The first change clarifies and
ensures that approved agricultural businesses operating on agriculturally designated land (outside
the urban service area) can receive necessary utility service if the lack of utilities is determined to
be a health threat.
The proposed amendment also allows potable water service to any approved agricultural business
if the business is located near the urban service area. Specifically, at least a portion of the business's
development site must be located within one mile of a public roadway which serves as an urban
service area boundary.
The utility service revisions related to agricultural businesses involve Future Land Use Element
Policy 6. 1, Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element Policy 5.8, and Potable Water Sub -Element Policy 5.7.
Post -Disaster Recovery and Redevelopment
Coastal Management Element Objective 7 and the eight policies associated with that objective
involve post -disaster recovery and redevelopment. Specifically, Objective 7 and Policies 7.2, 7.3,
and 7.4 call for the development and adoption of a Local Mitigation Strategy (LMS) as an annex to
the County's Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan. In November, 1999, the Board of
County Commissioners adopted an LMS. That action implemented and completed Policies 7.2, 7.3,
and 7.4, which can now be deleted. The proposed amendment will revise Objective 7; delete
Policies 7.2, 7.3, and 7.4; and renumber the remaining policies.
November 7, 2000
103
•
Arts and Culture
Citing several community benefits associated with cultural activities, the Board of Countv
Commissioners, on April 11, 2000, instructed staff to initiate a comprehensive plan amendment to
add a cultural element to the comprehensive plan. Since that time, staff has worked with the Cultural
Council which is the county's designated Local Arts Agency on several aspects of this project.
The development of a new element requires several phases, including an inventory of existing
conditions and facilities. For a cultural element, facilities could include auditoriums, theaters (indoor
and outdoor), museums, galleries, and classrooms. Conditions could include an inventory of arts
organizations, the size of their membership, and how many people use the various facilities. This
phase could also include a description of the condition of the facilities.
Currently, an acceptable inventory of existing conditions and facilities is not available. The Cultural
Council, however, has offered to help develop one for the future.
Recognizing that without an inventory of existing conditions and facilities a new element could not
be developed, it was determined that as an interim step, prior to the development of a new element,
a new goal and two new objectives involving cultural activities could be added to the Recreation and
Open Space Element. Both objectives are associated with several policies. The proposed goal,
objectives and policies would replace an existing objective and policy addressing arts and culture.
The proposed goal, objectives and policies were developed in coordination with, and with input
from, the Cultural Council and its members. The goal, objectives, and policies intend to promote
and stabilize local art and culture activities.
The revisions related to arts and culture delete Recreation and Open Space Element Objective 11 and
Policy 11.1, and create new Recreation and Open Space Goal 2; Objectives 2.1 and 2.2; and Policies
2.1.1 to 2.1.4 and 2.2.1 to 2.2.7.
ANAs YM
This section will present an analysis of the reasonableness of the proposed amendment, followed by
a discussion of the consistency of the proposed amendment with the comprehensive plan.
ANALYSIS OF REASONABLENESS OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT
Optional Agricultural PDs
The key component of Agricultural PDs is the requirement to cluster lots. In theory, there are
several advantages associated with this requirement. Those advantages are:
1. Clustering preserves agricultural uses;
2. Clustering discourages urban sprawl;
3. Clustered development can be served more efficiently; and
4. Clustering allows incremental, rather than "leap frog," expansion of the urban service area.
During public discussions on the subject, however, the Board of County Commissioners made
several findings indicating that the Agricultural PD process is not achieving its goals of preserving
agriculture and open space, or discouraging urban sprawl. As a whole, the Board's findings indicate
that clustering through the Agricultural PD process should be changed to an option, rather than
remaining a requirement. Those findings are as follows:
November 7, 2000
104
BK 1 15 PG 8 11
The Agricultural PD and clustering requirement is lengthy and expensive, particularly for
small (40 acres or less) land owners. Most Agricultural PDs have been within this size
category.
2. The community prefers allowing both the clustered and the unclustered development options
to be available to owners of agriculturally designated land.
3. Even if the Agricultural PD process were made optional, at least two incentives to use it
remain. Those incentives are as follows:
a. The ability to connect to centralized utility service remains available only to
Agricultural PDs; and
b. The ability to add residential lots on the open space portion of the Agricultural PD
if the urban service area is expanded and the land use designation of the site is
changed to allow greater density.
4. Most other Florida counties do not require clustering; some allow it as an option, some do
not allow it at all.
5. The existing lot size pattern within one to one and half miles from the urban service area is
currently dominated by lots of ten acres or less in size.
6. Clustering does not preserve agricultural operations. Generally, fanners do not divide their
property into a residential portion and an agricultural portion. Because their agricultural
operations must be separate from non-agricultural uses, they farm their entire property until
the market indicates it is no longer profitable; then the entire property is converted to a non-
agricultural use.
7. The current urban service area should not be expanded. The 5 -acre to 10 -acre "ranchette"
lots along the urban service area boundary act as a "greenbelt" to prevent urban service area
expansion and eventually to control growth.
In addition to making Agricultural PDs optional, the proposed amendment clarifies the intent and
requirements of Agricultural PDs. The proposed amendment specifically states the following;
• Clustered means grouped together in a compact, contiguous manner.
• The open space area must be under the ownership of a single -entity.
• Golf courses shall not be permitted as part of Agricultural PDs.
The proposed changes to Agricultural PDs provide the following benefits to the county:
• They work to direct non-agricultural uses, such as golf courses, into the urban service area,
rather than on agricultural land.
• They work to maintain the agricultural character of the land.
• They reduce potential incompatibilities by ensuring new lots are compact and contiguous.
That development pattern decreases the length of the residential/agricultural border which
is where most incompatibilities occur. The clustering requirement also facilitates the
provision of buffers.
• They facilitate the targeted, incremental expansion of the urban service area, if needed.
For these reasons, the proposed amendment is reasonable.
November 7, 2000
105
BK 1 15 PG 812
Caribbean Fruit Fly Host Plants
The restrictions on Caribbean fruit fly host plants are necessary to protect citrus production, one of
the county's largest industries. While these restrictions are currently in place on agriculturally
designated land, many active citrus groves exist within the urban service area. The proposed
amendgient expands these restrictions to include developments within the urban service area. For
these reasons, the proposed amendment is reasonable.
Clarification of the Future Land Use Map
The Future Land Use Maps referred to in the policies of the comprehensive plan have a small scale,
are maintained by hand, and are difficult to read. Those maps consist of different shadings and
cross -hatchings laid over an 11" by 17" base map that is then reduced to letter size. In the past, those
maps have generated confusion regarding land use designation boundaries. In contrast, the county
has the ability to produce large scale, precise, computer generated, color maps. The proposed
amendment ensures that the computer generated map will be the official county land use map and
will be used to determine land use designation and urban service area boundaries. For these reasons,
the proposed amendment is reasonable.
Utility Service to Agricultural Businesses
Although not changing permitted uses on agriculturally designated land, these revisions to the
comprehensive plan increase the opportunities for approved agricultural businesses located outside
the urban service area to connect to centralized potable water and sanitary sewer service. By
allowing such connections, the proposed amendment will positively impact juice making plants,
packing houses, and other agricultural businesses.
The proposed amendment will reduce health risks and encourage agricultural businesses to ►ocate
near the urban service area. The incentive to locate near the urban service area is the provision that,
unless a health risk is involved, service can be provided only to approved agricultural businesses
located within one mile of the urban service area.
For these reasons, the proposed amendment is reasonable.
Post -Disaster Recovery and Redevelopment
Objective 7 of the Coastal Management Element and its associated policies indicate that the county
shall complete certain tasks within certain timeframes. One of those tasks, the development and
adoption of a Local Mitigation Strategy (LMS) as an annex to the County's Comprehensive
Emergency Management Plan, has recently been completed. The proposed amendment revises
Objective 7 and its policies to reflect that the LMS task has been completed. Therefore, the proposed
amendment is reasonable.
Arts and Culture
The proposed amendment sets responsibilities for both the public and private sectors. These
responsibilities are in the form of objectives and policies that call for cooperation and coordination
between the county and cultural organizations, exploration of funding sources, determination of the
economic and social impact of cultural activities, investigation into the feasibility of constructing
a performing arts center, examination of Art in Public Places Programs, and development of an
inventory of cultural assets. If these objectives and policies are achieved and implemented,
opportunities to participate in arts and cultural activities will be enhanced.
November 7, 2000
106
BK 115 PC 813
•
It has been demonstrated that arts and cultural activities can positively impact the county in the
following areas: —
• enhanced quality of life;
• increased tourism revenue;
• strengthened economy; and
• increased achievement in schools.
For these reasons, the proposed amendment is reasonable.
CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Staff reviews each comprehensive plan amendment request for consistency with all applicable
policies of the comprehensive plan. As per Section 800.07(1) of the county code, the
"comprehensive plan may only be amended in such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of
the plan pursuant to Section 163.3177(2) F.S."
The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of the comprehensive plan. Policies
are statements in the plan which identify the actions which the county will take in order to direct the
community's development. As courses of action committed to by the county, policies provide the
basis for all county land development related decisions --including plan amendment decisions.
While all comprehensive plan policies are important, some have more applicability than others in
reviewing plan amendment requests. Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3, however, is applicable
to all plan amendment requests. For that reason, this section will begin with a discussion of how
each proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3. Following that
discussion, there will be a section detailing how each -proposed amendment is consistent with the rest
of the comprehensive plan.
Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3
In evaluating any comprehensive plan text amendment request, the most important consideration is
Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3. This policy requires that at least one of three criteria be met
in order to approve a comprehensive plan text amendment. These criteria are:
• the proposed amendment corrects a mistake in the approved plan;
• the proposed amendment corrects an oversight in the approved plan; or
• the proposed amendment is warranted based on a substantial change in circumstances.
The following table identifies which of Policy 14.3's criteria applies to each proposed amendment
November 7, 2000
107
BK 1 15 PG 8 14
•
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
CRITERIA
Mistake
Oversi ht
Chan a in Circumstances
Optional Agricultural PDs
X
Caribbean Fruit Fly Host Plants
X
Clarification of the Future Land Use Map
X( acquired computer
capability)
Utility Service to Agricultural Businesses
X
Post-Disaster Recovery & Redevelopment
X (LMS completed)
Arts & Culture
I X (Board initiative)
When the plan was adopted, oversights related to Agricultural PDs and clustering occurred. As
detailed previously, public testimony before the Board described several reasons why required
clustering of residential development on agriculturally designated land does not benefit the county.
At the time the plan was adopted, the county overlooked those facts, including the fact that the
existing lot size pattern within one to one .and half miles of the urban service area is currently
dominated by lots of ten acres or less in size.
Overlooking those facts constitutes an oversight. For that reason, the proposed amendment making
Agricultural PDs optional meets the second criterion of Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3 and
is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3.
An oversight also occurred when the county included only agriculturally designated land when the
county adopted Future land Use Element Policy 6.5 as part of the Evaluation and Appraisal Process.
Since Policy 6.5's restrictions on Caribbean Fruit Fly host plants could also benefit the many active
citrus groves within the urban service area, those restrictions should have been applied countywide.
Limiting the provisions of Policy 6.5 to agriculturally designated land constitutes an oversight. For
that reason, the proposed amendment expanding the restrictions on Caribbean Fruit Fly host plants
meets the second criterion of Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3 and is consistent with Future
Land Use Element Policy 14.3.
The proposed amendment involving utility service to agricultural businesses also corrects an
oversight. In that case, the county previously overlooked the fact that juice making plants and other
legitimate approved agricultural businesses located on agriculturally designated land may need
centralized utility services to operate. For that reason, the proposed amendment allowing utility
service to agricultural businesses meeting certain criteria meets the second criterion of Future Land
Use Element Policy 14.3 and is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3.
Each proposed plan amendment is necessary either because of a change in circumstances or to
correct an oversight. Therefore, each meets either the second or the third criterion of Future Land
Use Element Policy 14.3. For that reason, all of the proposed amendments are consistent with
Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3.
Optional Agricultural PDs
Future Land Use Element Objective 6 promotes the preservation of active agricultural operations.
Conventional wisdom indicates that clustered residential development of agriculturally designated
November 7, 2000
108
BK 115 PG 815
•
land preserves agricultural operations by allowing most of the property to continue to be used for
agriculture. Except for a few large tracts, however, it is not feasible for Indian River County farmers
to use a portion of their land (even up to 80%) for agriculture, while another portion contains
residences. Due to incompatibilities, residences on a portion of a site essentially prohibit agricultural
use of an entire site. Therefore, clustering does not protect agricultural operations; and eliminating
the clustering requirement does not impede agricultural protection. For these reasons, the proposed
amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element Objective 6.
The proposed amendment is also consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 2.3. That policy
requires development at densities greater than 1 unit/5 acres to be located within the urban service
area. The proposed amendment does not change any densities or land use designations. In fact, by
allowing 5 acre lots along the urban service area boundary, the proposed amendment discourages
urban service area expansion.
Caribbean Fruit Fly Host Plants
Future Land Use Element Objective 6 and its policies promote protection of active agricultural
operations in the county. Future Land Use Element- Policies 6.3 and 6.4 specifically protect
agriculture within the urban service area The proposed amendment also works to protect agriculture
within the urban service area For that reason, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future
Land Use Element Objective 6 and Future Land Use Element Policies 6.3 and 6.4.
Utility Service to Agricultural Businesses
The proposed amendment is consistent with Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element Policy 2.4 and Potable
Water Sub -Element Policy 2.4. Those policies commit the county to providing utilities to areas of
the county where the lack of utilities is determined to be a health risk. The proposed amendment
specifically allows utility connections where the lack of utilities is determined to be a health risk.
For that reason, the proposed amendment is consistent with Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element Policy 2.4
and Potable Water Sub -Element Policy 2.4.
Arts and Culture
Several comprehensive plan objectives are related to the proposed arts and culture amendment.
Objective 9 of the Future Land Use Element promotes aesthetic development. That objective is
particularly consistent with proposed Policy 2.1.5 which calls for incentives for development
projects that provide space for cultural and art exhibits, and Policy 2.2.4 which calls for a study of
Art in Public Places Programs.
The proposed amendment is also consistent with Economic Development Element Objective 1
concerning lowering the county's unemployment rate and Economic Development Element
Objective 6 concerning tourism development. Several studies indicate that art and cultural programs
have a large positive impact on local economies. Additionally, an active arts and cultural
community is often cited as an amenity used to attract new businesses and industries. Economic
Development Element Policy 6.1 specifically notes that cultural offerings attract tourism. For these
reasons, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element Objective 9;
Economic Development Element Objectives 1 and 6; and Economic Development Element Policy
6.1.
November 7, 2000
��
BK 115 PG 816
•
Consistency Summary
As part of its consistency analysis, staff compared the proposed amendments (including the
amendments associated with Post -Disaster Recovery and Redevelopment, and Clarification of the
Future Land Use Map) to all applicable objectives and policies in the plan and found no conflicts.
Therefore, the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
The proposed amendment updates the plan to better reflect current conditions and circumstances.
The proposed revisions eliminate policies that have been implemented, clarify the plan, and promote
agricultural businesses, tourism, and economic development. The revisions are reasonable and
consistent with the comprehensive plan. Staff supports the request.
uFrnMMFNDATLO N
Based on the analysis, staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the Board
of County Commissioners adopt the proposed amendments shown on Attachment 2.
1. Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment Application
2. Proposed Revisions to the Comprehensive Plan
3. Approved Minutes of the September 28, 2000, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
4. Unapproved Minutes of the October 19, 2000, Professional Services Advisory Committee
Meeting
5. Transmittal Resolution
Director Keating advised of the proposed changes concerning Caribbean Fruit Fly
host plants, the clarification of the Future Land Use Map, utility service extension outside
the urban service area to agricultural businesses, post -disaster recovery and redevelopment,
optional agricultural PD's, and arts and culture. He described in detail two of the items,4.e.,
optional agricultural PD's and arts and culture which he felt might be somewhat
controversial. He believed staff had followed the Board's direction in both of these items.
He advised of recommendations for approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission,
Professional Services Advisory Committee, and Cultural Council.
November 7, 2000
110
BK 115 PG 817
Vice Chairman Ginn pointed out inconsistences on pages 172 and 175 concerning the
open space policy under the Agricultural PD process.
Director Keating concurred and explained that all -of the conservation easements that
are associated with AG PD's are temporary if the Board expands the urban service area and
decides to allow houses in the area.
Commissioner Stanbridge understood that would occur whenever the urban service
area gets to a certain point.
Based on concerns regarding this information, Vice Chairman Ginn asked that each
of the six items be considered separately.
Chairman Adams determined and there was consensus that each item would then have
its own public hearing, motion, and vote.
Commissioner Stanbridge pointed out that there are other organizations besides the
Cultural Council which had an interest in the Arts and Culture amendment, and Chairman
Adams suggested she hold those concerns for the hearing on that amendment.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in
regarding to the AG PD amendment.
Vice Chairman Ginn indicated that she would be unable to support a motion to
approve the recommendation because someday someone would be able to put in anything,
and Chairman Adams understood her concern.
Seeing no speakers, Chairman Adams closed the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED by
Commissioner Macht, the Board failed to approve staffs
recommendation as written by a vote of 2 in favor
November 7, 2000
111
•
(Commissioner Tippin and Commissioner Macht) and 3
opposed (Commissioner Stanbridge, Vice Chairman Ginn, and
Chairman Adams) .
Commissioner Macht concluded the Board was back to "clustering", and Vice
Chairman Ginn stated there was a conflict in the language. _
Chairman Adams suggested an amendment might take care of the conflict.
MOTION WAS MADE by Vice Chairman Ginn, SECONDED
by Commissioner Stanbridge, to approve staff's
recommendation and amend the first line on page 176 (p. 7 of
the document) to read "The open space area must be under the
ownership of a single entity, must be maintained in perpetuity
as open space and conservation."
On County Attorney Bangel's suggestion, because of the amendment, Chairman
Adams reopened the public hearing.
Michael O'Haire advised that he would hate to see the change not implemented.
It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the Chairman closed the
public hearing.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion
carried unanimously. (P. 176 of the backup amended)
(Resolution No. 2000-141 [3.A.])
November 7, 2000
112
BK 1 15 PG 319
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard
concerning the Caribbean Fruit Fly host plants amendment. There being none, she closed
the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge, SECONDED BY
Vice Chairman Ginn, the Board unanimously approved staff's
recommendation concerning the Caribbean Fruit Fly host plants
amendment. (Resolution No. 2000-141 [3.B.])
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard
concerning clarification of the Future Land Use Map. There being none, she closed the
public hearing.
ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Ginn, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously approved
staff s recommendation concerning clarification of the Future
Land Use Map amendment. (Resolution No. 2000-141 [3.C])
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard
concerning the amendment to extend utility service to agricultural businesses outside the
urban service area. There being none, she closed the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge, SECONDED BY
Vice Chairman Ginn, the Board unanimously approved staff s
recommendation concerning the amendment to extend utility
service to agricultural businesses outside the urban service area.
(Resolution No. 2000-141 [3.D.])
November 7, 2000
113
BK 1 15 PG 820
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard
concerning the post -disaster recovery and redevelopment amendment. There being none, she
closed the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Ginn, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously approved
staff's recommendation concerning the post -disaster recovery
and redevelopment amendment. (Resolution 2000-141 [3.E.])
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard
concerning the arts and culture amendment. There being none, she closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Stanbridge pointed out that there are other cultural organizations that
are not under the Cultural Council's umbrella and she wanted assurance that the other
groups would not have to be part of the Council in order to share some of the benefits which
might come from the amendment.
Director Keating thought there was nothing in the amendment that would preclude any
other organization from getting funds or benefits.
Commissioner Macht compared it to the Chamber of Commerce and tourism because
there are many who do not belong to the Chamber and it is not binding on them.
Vice Chairman Ginn quoted from minutes of the March 21, 1995 meeting of the
Board of County Commissioners concerning the creation of the Cultural Council which was
established at the request of the 41 cultural organizations in Indian River County to provide
education, seek grant funds for the organizations, and serve as an information resource. She
recounted her understanding from an early meeting prior to the creation of the Council that
the art organizations in the community would support the Cultural Council, not that it would
November 7, 2000
114
09 1 15 PG 8 21
0 0
171
become an element of the Comprehensive Plan, and that it would seek tax dollars. She
believed the arts community has done a superb job locally and it has been done by the private
sector. She worried when government gets involved. The recommendation under
consideration went far beyond what she could approve and she had met with staff to learn
how this had come forward. She then read a copy of what had come in from the Cultural
Council. She found it unbelievable what the Council expected and recommended and felt
that staff s recommendation went much too far. She quoted proposed Policy 2.2.3. on page
191 of the backup for the benefit of the public.
Vice Chairman Ginn went on to say that the Board had given her the task of
determining space needs. She offered the task back to them because she could not comply
with this policy for one. She felt the Cultural Council's #I goal was county tax funding and
she objected to it because this had not become one of the best art communities in America
with local tax dollars but with private funds. She thought it was because government was
not involved. Support came from volunteers and the community. She believed there was no
need for a performing arts center and stated that centers must be subsidized because they do
not make money. She applauded the art community which has done it without government
intervention or largesse. She could not support this amendment and felt that what is in our
Comprehensive Plan should not be enlarged because she thought it was sufficient and
adequate.
November 7, 2000
115
EK 1 15 PG 822
I
Commissioner Stanbridge noted that she was on the Planning and Zoning Commission
when the- cultural element was put into the Comprehensive Plan to encourage all the cultural
organizations. She was concerned about Policy 2.2.2.
Commissioner Stanbridge commented that "culture" has gone into eco -heritage, parks,
refuges, and historical areas without the organizations whose mission statements are specific
to those matters. She did not want the Cultural Council expanding into other groups'
missions and causing competition in the community for government dollars available for all
the groups. She would like to see what was determined in the 1980's fleshed out so the
Board could be more encouraging to the arts and cultural communities, but she could not go
along with the broad brush and agreed with Vice Chairman Ginn that it was unfair to give
her a mission on space needs and then tie on an additional mission.
Commissioner Macht disagreed with Commissioners Ginn and Stanbridge and listed
his involvement with the arts community. He felt that arts and culture has become a major
economic factor in our community. He thought limiting the Cultural Council in our
community was not in the best interest of the community or our cultural organizations and
that should be apparent in the number of organizations, the sizes of their annual budgets, and
their capital commitments. The study for a performing arts center is limited to a study to
determine whether there is a need for one and is not binding. Commissioner Macht then
MOVED approval of staff s recommendation.
Motion DIED for lack of a second.
Vice Chairman Ginn was very appreciative of the Cultural Council and all the arts
November 7, 2000
116
BKI15Pv323
organizations, but felt that all has been accomplished without government largesse.
Commissioner Macht suggested that the public hearing be reopened so people present
could comment on this issue. —
The Chairman reopened the public hearing on the arts and cultural element.
Keith Pelan advised that he served on the Cultural Council and helped write the
element before the Board. He believed that the cultural organization could not fully support
operating the Cultural Council. The original intent of the element was to expand upon some
of the things that the Cultural Council would like to accomplish and needed the County's
support, financial or whatever. If the Board wants- to delete the study for a performing arts
center, that would not be a problem. If it continues to be a problem, the item could be tabled
and workshopped with the Board. He felt there were some parts of the proposal which
should
not be dropped and hoped they could be continued.
Chairman Adams specified that she was concerned about Policy 2.1.4. (The County
shall continue to allow its buildings and grounds to be used for cultural and artistic exhibits
and performances.) It should not be a mandate, but decided on a case-by-case basis. She
also felt that 2.2.5. (Each summer the Cultural Council may organize and operate an Arts
Camp for the children of Indian River County.) did not belong in the County's
Comprehensive Plan.
Raz Allen, 3939 Ocean Drive, appeared representing the Atlantic Classical Orchestra
which is beginning its 10' year in Vero Beach. It has 34 professional musicians who
perform in Vero Beach and Stuart. They present four concerts each year and bring
enjoyment to the community. She pointed out that there are wonderful facilities here, yet
they are not always available to cultural organizations who need to plan two years ahead.
November 7, 2000
117
8K 1 15 PG 824
Because of scheduling of performances and rehearsals, it is difficult to find a location which
is required for an orchestral group. There is a need to look to the future for cultural activity
and she hoped the Board would consider in the long-range plan the opportunity of providing
places for the cultural organizations to perform and give them some assistance. There is a
limit to what an organization can expect from private donations. Any help the Board can
give to this and other groups would be appreciated.
In response to Vice Chairman Ginn's inquiry, Mrs. Allen advised that the orchestra
performs at the First Baptist Church. They did a study via a questionnaire on the Sebastian
High School's performing arts center and learned that most of their patrons were unwilling
to travel 40 minutes to Sebastian, particularly at night and that had to be ruled out. Also, the
school functions come first, but two-year planning is difficult under those circumstances.
Herb Woodall, 19 Park Avenue, advised he was part of the committee that looked at
the building for expansion of the Vero Beach High School auditorium. He is chairman of
the Cultural Advisory Committee and president of the Indian River Symphonic Association.
Two-year planning is also difficult for them to use a school facility. He had agreed to lead
the assessment of the arts. This was proposed for the Comprehensive Plan so it would be
official and they would be able to get the funding from outside the county to do that study
at little or no cost to the County. Without putting it in the Comp Plan, he thought they might
not be able to get the funding to do a needs assessment. The County would receive from that
assessment what the cultural organizations see in the future for the community.
Vice Chairman Ginn wondered it Mr. Woodall had spoken with Mr. Brackett about
the old movie theater, which may or may not be a workable solution.
Mr. Woodall advised that his group now uses the Community Church because it has
the biggest auditorium outside of the Sebastian Performing Arts Center. They expect 960
people at the concert they will be holding there the next evening and no other location has
November 7, 2000
118
BK 6 65 PG 325
0 0
•
that much seating.
Commissioner Stanbridge questioned the necessity of this being in the Comp Plan,
and Mr. Woodall advised that a group would be doing4he assessment as spelled out in that
document.
Chairman Adams asked what group would do the study, and Mr. Pelan advised that
the Cultural Council was selected to participate with the Americans for the Arts in a study
which will be at a nominal cost. They are doing a cultural needs assessment of the county
for us which will take about a year to complete. When that is completed, there will be a
better understanding of what is needed.
Both Chairman Adams and Commissioner Stanbridge stated it did not have to be in
the Comprehensive Plan, and Vice Chairman Ginn reiterated that the Center for the Arts was
done by private donations.
Mr. Pelan pointed out that the CFA had received a million dollars from the State, and
Vice Chairman Ginn stressed that the CFA had started small and once the other organizations
get organized, they, too, could apply for available grants.
Vice Chairman Ginn could not support this issue being in the Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner Stanbridge pointed out that the Historical Society exists on grants and
the money is out there.
Commissioner Macht argued there was as much justification for having this in the
Plan as having an Economic Element and for the same reasons as it conduces to the benefit
of the citizens of Indian River County. He found it difficult to understand the reluctance.
Vice Chairman Ginn pointed out the reasons for the Economic Element and the need
for economic development in this county especially back in 1990. We have an abundance
of performing arts centers. She granted that they did not meet everyone's needs. We have
been recognized as one of the best small town art communities in Florida and the nation.
November 7, 2000
119
BK 1 15 PG 826
To move the meeting forward, Chairman Adams suggested the policy be tabled and
brought back in 30 days, which Director Keating indicated could be done or wait til the next
window in January.
Vice Chairman Ginn thought there is a need to expand the policy already in place.
Chairman Adams and Commissioner Stanbridge agreed.
Commissioner Macht stressed that a lot of time was spent on this by the late
Commissioner Carolyn Eggert and past Commissioner Richard Bird and himself and to flush -
it down the drain was not something he wanted to see.
Chairman Adams thought it could not be solved at this meeting and recognized the
next speaker.
Ed Holtz, Chairman of the Board of the Cultural Council and past Chairman of the
CFA, felt that there is a need to do some "missionary work" with Vice Chairman Ginn and
Commissioner Stanbridge because of their concerns. He thought that he and another past
president, also present, could help them to understand the goals and the closeness of the
Cultural Council and the CFA.
Vice Chairman Ginn asked how many of the original 41 organizations are supporting
the Cultural Council, and Mr. Holtz advised there are about 16 depending on when they last
paid their dues. She then asked if Mr. Holtz was aware of the requests given to staff by the
Cultural Council, and he was familiar with them and felt her concern for the performing arts
was not justified.
Vice Chairman Ginn still felt this should not be in the Comprehensive Plan and
pointed out that objective #1 was all about financial support and a dedicated source for
funding the arts and cultural activities. The second objective has to do with exploring other
cultural assets.
Mr. Holtz stressed that the Cultural Council was working with staff at the direction
November 7, 2000
120
BXII5PG827
of the Board and that public funding is a reality in cultural efforts.
Vice Chairman Ginn reiterated the motion that established the local art agency. That
was the mandate from the Commission and what is already in the Comprehensive Plan and
it does not go beyond that. She could support something that is already in the Plan, but not
what is proposed today which goes far beyond that.
At Commissioner Macht's request, Chairman Adams reiterated her suggestion for the
Commissioners to give their comments to staff and bring back the product back for public
hearing.
Commissioner Stanbridge and Vice Chairman Ginn suggested it be brought back for
the next cycle.
Chairman Adams recognized the next speaker and suggested that speaker be brief.
Tom Manwaring, 1015 39th Avenue, spoke in support of the amendment and pointed
out that bringing events to the community brings in dollars also.
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 Tippin, the Board unanimously agreed to give
their comments to staff on the policies and changes each
Commissioner wished to see regarding arts and culture, hoping
they could agree upon the resulting recommendations, and bring
the matter back for public hearing.
CHAIRMAN ADAMS CALLED A BRIEF RECESS AT 11:03 A.M. AND RECONVENED
AT 11:13 A.M. WITH CHAIRMAN ADAMS, VICE CHAIRMAN GINN, COMMISSIONERS
MACHT AND TIPPIN PRESENT. COMMISSIONER STANBRIDGE RETURNED TO THE
MEETING SOON AFTER THE CHAIRMAN READ THE TITLE ON THE NEXT ITEM.
November 7, 2000
121
BK a 15 PG 328
•
RESOLUTION NO. 2000- 141
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPROVING THE TRANSMITTAL OF A PROPOSED AMENDMENT
TO THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO THE STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR ITS REVIEW.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian River County
Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 1990, and
WHEREAS, the county received comprehensive plan amendment applications during its July
2000 amendment submittal window, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on this comprehensive plan
amendment request on September 28, 2000, after due public notice, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency voted 5 to 1 to recommend that the Board of County
Commissioners approve the comprehensive plan amendment listed below; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County held a Transmittal
Public Hearing on November 7, 2000, after advertising pursuant to F.S. 163.3184(15)(b)(1), and
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners announced at the transmittal public
hearing its intention to advertise and hold a final public hearing at the adoption stage of the plan
amendment process.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE TT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA THAT:
The above recitals are ratified in their entirety.
2. The following proposed amendment is approved for transmittal to the State of
Florida Department of Community Affairs:
Request to amend the Future Land Use Element, the Coastal Management Element
the Potable Water Sub -Element, and the Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element of the
Comprehensive Plan.
3. Transmittal motions were made by the subject category of the amendment, as
follows:
A. Optional Agricultural Planned Developments: Motion by Vice -Chairman
Caroline D. Ginn, Seconded by Commissioner Ruth M. Stanbridge;
B. Restrictions on Caribbean Fruit Fly Host Plants: Motion by Commissioner
Ruth M. Stanbridge, Seconded by Vice -Chairman Caroline D. Ginn;
C. Clarification of the Future Land Use Map: Motion by Vice -Chairman
Caroline D. Ghm, Seconded by Commissioner Ruth M. Stanbridge;
November 7, 2000
121A
BKIf5PG329
RESOLUTION NO. 2000- 141
D. Provision of Utility Service to AgricuUaral Businesses: Motion by
Commissioner Ruth M. Stanbridge, Seconded by Vice -Chairman Caroline D.
Ginn; and
E. Post Disaster Recovery and Redevelopment: Motion by Vice -Chairman
Caroline D. Ginn, Seconded by Commissioner Ruth M. Stanbridge.
The forgoing Resolution was put to a vote, and the vote was as follows:
Chairman Fran B. Adams Ave
Vice -Chairman Caroline D. Ginn Aye
_ Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Commissioner Ruth M. Stanbridge Aye
Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted at a public hearing held
this 7h day of November 2000.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Fran B. Adams, Chairman
ATTEST:
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
William G. Collins II, Deputy County Attorney
APPROVED AS TO PLANNING MATTERS
Robert M. Keating, AICP
Community Development Dir for
November 7, 2000
121B
9.A.7. ENVIRONMENTAL LAND ACQUISITION PROJECT -
APPROVE PURCHASE OF THE SIMMONS AND ANDRE PARCELS
OF THE OYSTER BAR SALT MARSH (Legislative)
PROOF OF PUBLICATION IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
Chief Environmental Planner Roland M. DeBlois reviewed a Memorandum of
October 31, 2000 aided by a site map and aerial photograph projected on the overhead:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DEP MENT HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert W Keating, AICD
Community Development Dir ctor
FROM: Roland M. DeBloi . AICP
Chief, Environmental Planning
DATE: October 31, 2000
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF PURCHASE OF THE SIMMONS AND ANDRE PARCELS
OF THE OYSTER BAR SALT MARSH ENVIRONMENTAL LAND
ACQUISITION PROJECT
It is requested that the information herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of November 7, 2000.
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners purchase (with bond funds) the Simmons
and Andre parcels of the Oyster Bar Salt Marsh LAAC project. The proposed purchase contracts
(already executed by the sellers) are summarized as follows:
Purchaser: Indian River County Board of County Commissioners / Florida Communities Trust
(Indian River County will hold title)
Seller: Marie Simmons (1/2) & Universal Life Church c/o P. Sabonjohn (1/2) (four parcels)
Laura Andre (four parcels)
Cost -Share: Florida Communities Trust (50%) (includes share of acquisition costs)
Total Price: $640,000 (average ±$7.063 per acre overall)
Other Costs: ±$25,000 (survey, environ. audit, title insurance)
County Rands
Finen iture. ±$332,500 (approximate, not including initial management costs)
November 7, 2000
122
6K 115 PG 831
•
Acreage: ± 90.61 acres (± 5.93 ac. uplands, ±.84.68 ac. wetlands)
t.AAC Recommendation: The County Land Acquisition Advisory Committee (LAAC), at its meeting on
October 25, 2000, voted unanimously to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners purchase the
subject parcels.
Princig ai Condition: Closing subject to County Commission and FCT Governing Body approval
The proposed acquisition consists of eight of the nineteen tax parcels in the Oyster Bar Salt Marsh project.
and —91 acres (-62 %) of the total —147 acre project. The overall project was approved in 1998 as a Florida
Communities Trust (FCT) 50150 cost -share project.
Oyster Bar Salt Marsh was added to the LAAC acquisition list in 1997. The project is ranked 11 out of 13
sites on the current LAAC acquisition list. County bond funds are available for the purchase under the first
series $15 million bond issuance (see Attachment #5).
In its application for state cost -share funding, the County chose to be the lead agency for pre-acquisition
tasks and negotiations. During the past year, the county's acquisition consultant, in coordination with county
staff. has conducted pre-acquisition tasks and negotiations. Since the sellers recently accepted and executed
purchase contract Option Agreements, appraisal results and other confidential information can now be
released.
Procedures adopted by the Board of County Commissioners for environmental land acquisition include
confidentiality of appraisals. In accordance with the County's Land Acquisition Guide, and Section 125.355
of the Florida Statutes, appraisals can be released for public information once an option agreement is
executed between a seller and the County. Regarding the Simmons and Andre parcels, option agreements
have been executed (binding the sellers to a negotiated purchase price), and subsequently the appraisals were
released from confidentiality.
When a county exercises its confidentiality right in purchasing real property, Section 125.355, F.S. requires
that the county approve the purchase at a public meeting not less than 30 days after appraisals are released
and public notice of the meeting is given. Since the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners,
pursuant to authority delegated by the Board, executed a purchase option for the Simmons and Andre parcels,
and since appraisals of the parcels were made public at that time, the Board must now consider whether to
exercise its purchase option. Consistent with Chapter 125. F.S. requirements, this decision will be made at
the November 7, 2000 public meeting of the Board of County Commissioners. By having given 30 days
public notice of this proposed action, the County will have complied with Chapter 125 requirements as well
as LAAC Guide requirements to hold a public hearing before purchasing property with land acquisition bond
funds.
The County Land Acquisition Advisory Committee, at its meeting on October 25, 2000, voted 12-0 to
recommend that the Board approve the purchase contracts.
The eight parcels' natural areas include impounded salt marsh (± 85 acres), and tropical maritime hammock
with some Brazilian pepper disturbance (± 5.93 upland acres). The parcels have ± 865 feet of road frontage
on SR AIA. The upland portion of the property is zoned RS -3, Single -Family Residential, up to 3 units per
acre. The wetlands portion of the property is zoned Con -2, Conservation, 1 unit per 40 acres (with a transfer
of density right (TDR) of 1 unit per acre).
November 7, 2000
123
•
The northern four subject parcels under contract are owned by Marie Simmons (1/2) & Universal Life
Church c/o Peter Sabonjohn, Trustee(1/2), with the remaining four parcels under contract owned by Laura
Andre. The current tax assessed value of the parcels is $392,354 (Simmons - $178,630; Andre - $213,724).
Two issues which are important to staff with respect to all proposed purchases are obtaining cost share
assistance in property acquisition and addressing management costs.
Cost -Share
As previously indicated, Indian River County has been awarded a 50% cost -share grant from the FCT for
the purchase, including 500/o of pre-acquisition expenditures (e.g., environmental audit, survey, appraisals).
Management Costs
Besides cost share, management cost is always an issue with environmental land acquisition. The FCT
program, which is highly competitive statewide, awards points for projects based on the provision of
resource-based public access facilities. In order to qualify for FCT cost -share funding, the County obligated
itself in its FCT application to provide limited access and resource-based facilities on the overall project
property.
Specifically, conditions of the Conceptual Approval Agreement include County provision of nature trails,
including a wetland boardwalk, on the overall Oyster Bar Salt Marsh project property. Habitat management
(e.g., exotic plant removal) is also required under the cost -share agreement. Because the overall Oyster Bar
Salt Marsh is nearby to Round Island County Park, which has parking and restroom facilities among other
improvements, public access improvements on the subject parcels will be minimal. A bicycle path
connection along S.R. AIA can be used for access to the property from Round Island Park (Riverside).
Relating to long term management, the property will be incorporated into the county -wide park system and
managed by the County Parks Division in coordination with county environmental planning staff. Volunteer
groups will be asked to assist the County with certain aspects of property management such as nature trail
up -keep and litter patrol.
A draft management plan for the overall project has been drafted (see Attachment #2). The plan reflects the
management aspects described herein, and is subject to approval by the Board of County Commissioners
and the Governing Body of the FCT prior to County closing on the property. Page 21 of the draft
management plan summarizes anticipated management costs of the overall Oyster Bar Salt Marsh project
(see Attachment #3).
Allowance of Duck Hunting
The Oyster Bar Salt Marsh is currently used by duck hunters during a brief hunting season in the Fall of each
Year. The County Commission has received a number of letters in the past from hunters urging the County
to allow duck hunting to continue if the Oyster Bar Salt Marsh is purchased by the County. A concern
expressed by hunters is that two previously hunted sites, the Oslo Riverfront Conservation Area (ORCA)
and the Round Island South Conservation Area, are now closed to hunting due to County purchase of the
lands for conservation.
County staff s position is that it is compatible, for this particular project, for the County to allow continuation
of duck hunting at the marsh, which has occurred for many years on a seasonal basis as regulated by the
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Compared to the ORCA property, which is actively
used by school groups and other groups for environmental education excursions, the Oyster Bar Salt Marsh
property, which is relatively remote from development, is more appropriate for seasonal hunting. LAAC,
at its meeting on October 25, considered the duck hunting issue and voted to support the allowance of the
hunting to continue as "status quo." with the understanding that the County could always reconsider the
allowance if it becomes a public nuisance or land management conflict.
November 7, 2000
124
GK 1 15 PG 8 3 3
In accordance with County Land Acquisition Guide and FCT procedures, two independent appraisals were
obtained to determine an approved appraised value for each of the two ownerships. The "approved appraised
value," per State and LAAC Guide procedures, is the higher value of the two appraisals. For the two
appraisals to be acceptable for determining an approved value, the values of the two appraisals must diverge
20% or less from each other.
In addition, the FCT requires that the two obtained appraisals be reviewed and approved by a third,
independent review appraiser. Attached is an excerpt from the appraisal review report for the overall project,
summarizing the appraisers' valuations of the subject Simmons and Andre parcels (Attachment # 4).
The appraisal firms selected were Armfield -Wagner Appraisal & Research. Inc., and W. H. Benson &
Company. The appraised values for the properties are summarized as follows.
Ownership
Approx. Acres
Appraised Values
Approved Appraised
Negotiated Price (%
Value
I
of Approved
Upland
I wetland
Appraised Value)
Simmons
2.13
j 45.20
Annfield: 5287,000
5287,000
5240.000 (83.6%)
Benson: 5275,000
Andre
3.80
39.48
Annfield: 5357,000
5410.000
5400,000 (97.6%)
Benson: 5410.000
Total:
5.93 ac.
1 84.68 ac.
(N/A)
$697.000
5640.000 (91.8%)
The combined negotiated purchase prices of $640.000 is ± 92% of the overall approved appraised value for
the subject parcels.
In coming to terms with FCT and county staff on the negotiated purchase prices (subject to County
Commission and FCT approval), the sellers have executed standard FCT purchase contract Option
Agreements with minor modifications. Copies of the contracts are attached to this staff report.
F-MMMLY.1
As with all LAAC site purchase negotiations, staff's objective is to negotiate a purchase price at or below
the approved appraised value, and staff has fulfilled that objective in this case. The negotiated purchase price
of the Simmons parcels is below the average of the two appraisals (-84% of the approved appraised value).
The negotiated purchase price of the Andre parcels, however, is —92% of the approved appraised value.
higher than the average of the two appraisals. Because the negotiated purchase price of the Andre parcels
is higher than the average of the appraised values, approval of the Andre land purchase will require a "super -
majority" (4 out of 5) vote of the County Commission.
The appraisals of the Simmons and Andre parcels were based on estimates of upland and wetland acres, short
of a formal survey that will be required prior to closing. The option agreements reference that if
upland/wetland acreage estimates change based on the survey, thus affecting property value, the seller (or
the County) may opt not to sell or buy under the current option. If such an adjustment occurs, staff will bring
the matter back to the Board for further consideration.
Conservation Policy 6.3 of the 2020 County Comprehensive Plan commits the County to acquire a minimum
of 100 acres of coastal tropical hammock for conservation purposes. Although the County has fulfilled this
November 7, 2000
125
a
minimum acreage requirement, the subject three parcels contribute to this policy by conserving ± 5.93 acres
of tropical hammock. The purchase would also further objectives in the County comprehensive plan relating
to open space, recreation, flood plain protection, and rare species conservation.
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve exercise of the purchase contract for
the Simmons and Andre parcels of the Oyster Bar Salt Marsh LAAC site, and authorize staff to proceed with
closing on the subject parcels in coordination with the Florida Corrtmunities Trust as a 50% cost -share
partner. Moreover, staff recommends that the Board approved the attached management plan for transmittal
to the FCT for FCT approval prior to closing.
1. Map of Oyster Bar Salt Marsh project and the Simmons and Andre parcels
2. Draft Oyster Bar Salt Marsh conceptual management plan (on file in the County Commission Office)
3. Excerpt from draft conceptual management plan regarding management cost estimates
4. Excerpt from review appraisal report relating to the Simmons and Andre parcels
5. Estimate of county funds available for purchase under the V serve bond issuance
6. tion Agreements (on file in the County Commission Office)—�CO�/N
November 7, 2000
126
BKIi5PG335
Vice Chairman Ginn asked about the County's chances to purchase the middle parcel
so we can connect all the land we own, and Mr. DeBlois advised that staff is actively in
negotiations for the middle parcel as well as for the others within the overall boundaries. He
thought the County has a pretty good opportunity to succeed in those negotiations, but should
negotiations on the connecting parcel fail, staff believes that, given their sizes, the parcels
already owned still have the public benefit and stand alone from the standpoint of marsh
restoration and access opportunity.
In response to Commissioner Stanbridge's inquiry, Mr. DeBlois advised this is
actually an Indian River Lagoon Blue Way Project and is considered a phase one Blue Way
project. That is supported from a regional standpoint as part of that five -county project.
There are various opportunities for partnership depending on negotiations.
Commissioner Stanbridge believed there were probably grant funds available because
of the duck hunting aspect if any of the parcels were in need of restoration.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in
this matter. There being none, she closed the public hearing.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Macht to approve
staff's recommendation.
In making the motion, Commissioner Macht wanted to exclude hunting unless there
is some surefire way to determine that only steel shot is being used.
Commissioner Stanbridge believed that would be determined by one of the agencies
and thought it was probably mandatory in Florida that a certain shot is used.
Commissioner Macht commented that it may be mandatory, but it is very difficult
because you can buy all the lead shot you want, therefore, maybe hunting should just be
November 7, 2000
127
prohibited completely.
Vice Chairman Ginn hated to do that because it is already in use and Commissioner
Stanbridge agreed and could not support a hunting prohibition.
Mr. DeBlois advised that staff would have no objection to proceeding with the
allowance under the condition that it is investigated and ensured that the steel shot is used.
MOTION WAS AMENDED to approve staff's recommendation
with the assurance that staff ensures only the use of steel shot
and was SECONDED by Commissioner Stanbridge.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion
as amended carried unanimously. (Approved exercise of the
purchase contract for the Simmons and Andre parcels of the
Oyster Bar Salt Marsh LAAC site, and authorized staff to
proceed with the closing on the subject parcels in coordination
with the Florida Communities Trust as a 50% cost -share partner,
and approved the proposed management plan for transmittal to
the FCT for their approval prior to closing, and sought
assurances to ensure that only steel shot be used for hunting
purposes.)
9.A.8. PUBLIC HEARING - FIRST HEARING ON PROPOSED
(LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS) LDR AMENDMENTS: a)
CIVIC AND SOCIAL MEMBERSHIP CLUBS and b) GROUP HOMES
AND ALFs IN THE MED DISTRICT (Legislative)
PROOF OF PUBLICATION IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
November 7, 2000
128
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of October 31, 2000:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DI ION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
<l
Robert M. Keating, AICP
Community Development Director
- FROM: Stan Boling, AICP
Planning Director
DATE: October 31, 2000
SUBJECT: First Hearing on Proposed LDR Amendments: Civic and Social Membership
Clubs, and Group Homes and ALFs in the MED District
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its meeting of November 7, 2000.
BACKGROUND:
The following two land development regulation (LDR) amendments are now to be considered:
1. Civic and Social Membership Clubs (BCC - initiated)
2. Group Homes and Adult Living Facilities (ALFs) in the MED District (Staff -
initiated)
These two amendments were initially scheduled for a first hearing, along with other LDR
amendment proposals, at the October 24, 2000 Board of County Commissioners meeting. However,
due to a Press Journal advertizing error, these two proposals could not be heard at that meeting.
Staff has had these two proposals re-advertized for the Board's November 7' and 21'. 2000
meetings. As such; these amendments can now be considered.
Staff has drafted an individual ordinance for each amendment. A copy of each of these proposed
LDR amendment ordinances is attached (see attachments 2 and 3).
These amendments are being reviewed at two hearings (November 71 and November 21s). The
Board is now to consider each amendment and is to direct staff to make any desired changes. In
response to Board direction, and any format sufficiency comments from the County Attorney's
Office, staff will prepare revised, "final" ordinances for the Board to act on at a second public
hearing which is scheduled for November 21, 2000.
November 7, 2000
129
BK 1 15 PG 838
ANALYSIS:
■ Civic and Social Membership Clubs (BCC - initiated)
At its August 8. 2000 meeting, the Board directed staff to propose an LDR amendment to allow
Civic and Social Membership Clubs as special exception uses in areas similar to the non-commercial
properties located between the Indian River Mall and 26d' Street (see attachment #3). That area is
zoned agricultural, contains large parcels, and has an M-1, Medium Density Residential (up to 8
units/acre) land use designation.
Currently, county LDRs allow civic and social membership clubs in the MED, CL, and CG
commercial districts only. Accordingly, existing social clubs in the unincorporated county are
located in commercial districts (e.g. Polish American Club and the Moose Lodge). Thus, the current
LDRs treat these types of club uses similar to restaurants and bars, uses which are purely commercial
in nature. The Board's direction is to treat such clubs similar to a type of "community service" use,
such as a not-for-profit facility or theater or community center. Thus, the essential use question is
whether or not social clubs should be treated as a bar/restaurant commercial type of use or as a
community service type of use. Based upon the Board's direction, staff has drafted an LDR
amendment that treats social clubs as a community service type use with strict conditions.
Under the proposed LDR amendment, civic and social membership clubs would be allowed as
special exception uses in M-1 and M-2 (the county's highest density residential) designated areas
only, on sites that front on a Thoroughfare Plan road and that have sufficient area to accommodate
significant setbacks. The proposed setback and buffering criteria were derived from existing criteria
for community centers and schools that are located in residentially designated areas. These setbacks
(50' to 100') and buffering requirements are necessary to ensure compatibility with adjacent
residential uses, and will ensure that such clubs would be located on larger sites (probably 2 or more
acres in size to accommodate the facility and special setbacks).
If the proposed amendment is adopted, then social clubs will continue to be permitted uses in
commercial districts and will be allowed as special exception uses only in M-1 and M-2 designated
areas in the A-1, RM -8, and RM -10 districts, subject to special criteria.
PSAC Recommendation: Voted 6-1 to deny the proposed amendment, keep the
commercial district requirement for social clubs, and amend
the LDRs to allow social clubs in the CH district where bars
and restaurants are currently allowed.
PZC Recommendation: Voted 41 to approve the proposed ordinance to allow social
clubs as special exception uses in M-1 and M-2 areas.
Staff Recommendation: To approve the proposed LDR amendment, based on the
Board's directive.
Group Homes and ALFs in the MED District
The MED (Medical) district is designed to include medical uses and uses that complement medical
uses and exclude uses that can and should be accommodated outside of a medical node.
Consequently, the MED district allows family counseling services, but does not allow retail
department stores. Some uses which have health care and residential characteristics, such as nursing
homes. are specifically listed allemiitted uses in the MED district. Although group homes and
November 7, 2000
130
adult congregate living facilities are similar to nursing homes and complement medical uses, the
MED district does not currently specifically allow such uses:—Even so, the county has interpreted
group home and ACLF (ALF) uses to be less intense types of "nursing home" uses and has allowed
them in the MED district based on that interpretation (e.g. National Health Corporation and Hospice
House projects). This interpretation is logical and needs to be codified. The proposed staff -initiated
amendment would specify that group homes and ALFs are permitted institutional uses in the MED
district.
PSAC Recommendation: Voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance.
PZC Recommendation: Voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance.
Staff Recommendation: Approve the proposed ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION:
Planning staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners:
Direct staff to make any necessary changes to the proposed ordinances, and
2. Announce its intentions to take final action on the proposed ordinances at the Board
hearing scheduled for 9:05 am on November 21, 2000 to be held in the County
Commission Chambers.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Board of County Commissioners Minutes: Civic and Social Membership Clubs
2. Proposed Ordinance: Civic and Social Membership Clubs
3. Proposed Ordinance: Group Homes and Adult Living Facilities (ALFs) in the MED
District
4. Chart: Financial Impacts on Affordable Housing
5. PSAC Minutes (9/26/00 Meeting)
6. PZC Minutes (10/12/00 Meeting)
Planning Director Stan Boling presented the proposed amendments to the Board.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in
this matter. There being none, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
November 7, 2000
131
BK 1 15 PG 840
ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously announced its
intention to take final action on the proposed ordinance on Civic
and Social Membership Clubs in the MED District at the Board
hearing scheduled for 9:05 a.m. on November 21, 2000, to be
held in the County Commission Chambers.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge, SECONDED BY
Vice Chairman Ginn, the Board unanimously announced its
intention to take final action on the proposed ordinance on
Group Homes and ALFs in the MED District at the Board
hearing scheduled for 9:05 a.m. on November 21, 2000, to be
held in the County Commission Chambers.
9.A.9. PUBLIC HEARING - FINAL HEARING ON PROPOSED
(LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS) LDR AMENDMENTS:
a) LIMITATIONS ON ROOSTERS AND b) ORDINANCE NO. 2000-036 -
ALLOWANCE FOR ROAD NAMES (Legislative)
PROOF OF PUBLICATION IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
Planning Director Stan Boling reviewed a Memorandum of October 31, 2000 -and
advised that no changes had been made to the amendments on the two proposed ordinances
since first reading:
November 7, 2000
132
BK 115 PG 841
•
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DI_7N1,11 HEAD CONCURRENCE:
1 �l
Robert M. Keating, AICP
Community Development irector
**-
FROM: Stan Boling, AICP
Planning Director
DATE: October 31, 2000
SUBJECT: Final Hearing on Proposed LDR Amendments: Limitations on Roosters and
Allowance for Road Names
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its meeting of November 7, 2000.
BACKGROUND:
At its regular meeting of October 24, 2000, the Board of County Commissioners held the first of two
public hearings on the following two proposed LDR amendment ordinances:
1. Limitations on Roosters (BCC -initiated)
2. Allowance for Road Names (BCC - initiated)
At the October 20 meeting, the Board of County Commissioners considered recommendations and
public input, did not direct staff to make any changes to either of the proposed ordinances, and
indicated its intent to approve each of the proposed ordinances at the November 7. 2000 final hearing
(see attachment #1). Each of the proposed ordinances is in final form and ready for Board adoption.
ANALYSIS:
Rooster Limitations
At the October 24' meeting, after lengthy input, the Board voted 3-2 to bring back unchanged the
proposed LDR amendment ordinance on rooster limitations for final adoption. That ordinance is in
final form (see attachment #2) and would categorize a use involving the breeding and keeping of 25
or more roosters as a "specialty farm". Such specialty farms would be allowed in the agricultural
districts (A-1, A-2, and A-3) as an administrative permit use. Under the ordinance, administrative
permit use approval for a specialty farm would require a 75' setback and Type 'B" buffer with a 6'
opaque feature between property boundaries and the area where the specialty animals are kept. Also,
the ordinance would allow the 75' setback to be reduced to the normal agricultural district setback
(30) if the specialty animals are kept in an enclosed, sound proofed structure.
November 7, 2000
133
•
It should be noted that both the existing and proposed definition of "specialty farm" would _
categorize the raising of exotic animals and birds (e.g peacocks) as a specialty farm use. Under the
existing and proposed ordinance, the raising of animals or birds that are not considered livestock,
household pets (e.g. dogs, cats, rabbits), or poultry would be considered a specialty farm use. Under
the proposed ordinance, the only change to the definition of "specialty farm" is to specifically define
the care of 25 or more roosters as a specialty farm use.
• Allowance for Road Names
At the October 241i meeting, the Board voted 5-0 to bring back unchanged the proposed LDR
amendment ordinance on use of road names. That ordinance, which would allow use of road names
(rather than road numbers) for new private roads, is in final form for Board adoption (see attachment
#3).
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the two attached LDR amendment
ordinances.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Excerpts of Draft Minutes from October 24, 2000 Board of County Commissioners Meeting
2. Ordinance on Rooster Limitations
3. Ordinance on Use of Road Names
4. Chart of Financial Impacts on Affordable Housing
Vice Chairman Ginn asked Deputy County Attorney Collins to clarify the
"grandfathering" of the Wilson farm.
Deputy County Attorney Will Collins explained that typically when a use is
established it is considered legal; if the regulations subsequently change, it is considered to
be a legal non -conformity. Under our Code, it can continue so long as it is not increased or
expanded in size. In this case, staff had made a determination that roosters were poultry and
poultry was allowed in an agricultural zone. The question as to whether they should be
grandfathered is a little difficult because of the latest ruling from the PZC, that roosters are
not poultry, they have never been permitted, and thus they were never legally established.
Vice Chairman Ginn stated that the Department of Agriculture uses the term
"domestic fowl" and the County has never had a definition of "poultry"
November 7, 2000
134
BK 1 15 PG 843
Director Boling concurred that the County had not previously defined "poultry", but
there is a definition in the proposed ordinance.
Attorney Collins thought people could believe that a rooster was poultry. He further
believed that one of the issues is what kind of rooster, one running around the barnyard or
one that is chained up and bred for shipping out of state.
Commissioner Stanbridge advised that under bona fide agriculture the DOA does
define poultry, and Chairman Adams added that they define agricultural production as being
"for food or fiber."
Commissioner Macht found it amazing the amount oftime the Board has spent on pot-
bellied pigs and roosters.
Vice Chairman Ginn understood that the Wilson farm would not be grandfathered.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard on
the rooster amendment:
Scarlet Chesser, 10420134th, appealed to the Board to place stringent restrictions on
rooster -raising operations. She expounded on the definition of poultry under the Florida
Statutes, opining that it would not include game -fighting roosters because they do not fit the
specific use of providing food or fiber. She requested the Board recognize the Florida
Statutes as being the defining authority and place these types of operations under regulation
and formulate the appropriate restrictions. She felt there were other remedies to the possible
error when County employees recommended that raisers of roosters move to an agricultural
area. She questioned what has happened to the rights of peace and quiet enjoyment of the
neighbors by allowing a gamecock farm to operate in an agricultural zone without a permit.
They were asking for a complete ban of these operations in the county. She further reviewed
her comments from the last hearing on this matter.
November 7, 2000
135
Regina Chesser, 10420 134' Court, was confused about the grandfathering issue
because the Wilson farm would not be grandfathered because it was not complying with the
right -to -farm act and it was established as a nuisance within the first year.
Attorney Collins advised that the confusion was because they were talking about two
different issues and explained both. All rooster -raising operations would require specialty
farm permits if the Board makes a decision in that direction.
Director Boling reiterated the specific provisions of the proposed ordinance. -
Cornelius Crawford, 2025 Slocum Road, Haines City (Polk County), Florida,
advised he raises gamecock on this 5 acres. He advised that none of the people raising
gamecock in the state fall under a specialty license. He cited Ch. 570 F.S.: Agriculture
means a science and art of production of plants and animals useful to humans, as well as
other portions of the Statutes. He was certain the roosters were "useful" to the Wilsons
because they were making a living with them. He had put four children through school as
a disabled "farm boy" by raising and selling roosters as his means of income. He referred
to a letter from Patty Davis, Division of Animal and Industry, Department of Agriculture.
Chairman Adams questioned and was very concerned because the letter was not
signed, nor was it on letterhead, and Mr. Crawford advised it was sent by a computer.
Vice Chairman Ginn pointed out that in the letter it spoke of poultry as food.
John Stewart, attorney at 3355 Ocean Drive, appeared representing Mr. Wilson and
Ms. Lupo. He was perplexed that the Commission was trying to determine what is poultry
and what is agriculture. He submitted a letter from William C. Gier, Assistant Chief Animal
Disease Control Division of Animal Industry, Florida Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services, (Clerk's office did not receive a copy) which states that the raising of
game birds is considered a viable agricultural industry in the state. He believed the
motivating factor behind this is that people do not like the purpose for which these roosters
November 7, 2000
136
are raised and that basis would not be upheld by a court of law. The only other issue is
noise. He submitted that the definition of poultry in the Statutes cited by Ms. Chesser was
not inclusive of everything that is considered poultry, but that chapter regulates the sale of
poultry that is used for eggs and for food purposes and therefore the definition is specific to
that action. The Wilson farm operation was moved to an A-1 zoned property on the
recommendation of staff and they tried to comply with County regulations. He recounted
that staff had made the determination in a July 2000 memo that the Wilson rooster -raising
complied with current regulations. He also quoted from Future Land Use Policy 1.4 and
believed it gave credence to staff's determination. He also quoted from Objective No. 6.2
from the same document concerning the development of agricultural lands. He displayed an
aerial of the Wilson -Lupo land and area advising of the appropriateness of the location for
the use. He compared that to the Future Land Use Map in support as well. He pointed out
the noise issues which he spoke of in the past. He asked whether the County should make
rules to regulate the entire county because of a problem between two neighboring
landowners. He believed this was an issue about someone's sole means of making a living
which should be a consideration in the Board's decision in this matter. He submitted that
the Board should allow this bona fide agricultural use on the Wilson -Lupo farm to continue
and disregard the issue of why the roosters are being raised.
Commissioner Macht and Chairman Adams disputed some of Mr. Stewart's
definitions, statements and citations.
Mr. Stewart pointed out that there is no Statute that says roosters are illegal to raise.
Orlando Riera Gomez, 9921 SW 157th Terrace, Miami, appeared as president of the
Florida Game Fowl Breeders Association representing the 20,000 fanciers and breeders in
the state of Florida. The members produce fowl for profit as well as for food and eggs. The
birds are used for various purposes, sport, food and fiber. Agriculture in Florida is not just
November 7, 2000
137
food or fiber. Anytime there is a restriction on agriculture, all agriculture is restricted. He
pointed out that many other species are used for food and sport. He suggested that the
County was taking something and making it something it was not: a chicken is a chicken.
This issue was about someone's complaint about noise. He thought it was a mistake to
legislate for one complaint. He suggested they treat this issue as a noise complaint.
Chairman Adams asked Mr. Gomez to describe the entertainment provided by these
roosters, and he replied it was the testing of fowl to see if they would be allowed to
reproduce.
Commissioner Macht wondered if that meant people stood around watching for two
chickens to mate.
Wayne Henderson, 11120 CR507, Fellsmere, questioned the grandfathering and
whether a rooster is poultry. He wondered if this issue would affect his raising of pet
chickens after having done it for 11 years. He stressed that his chickens were not fighting
chickens.
Chairman Adams stated that if he has 25 or more roosters, then his farm would
become a specialty farm.
Mr. Henderson thought his chicken -raising should not be affected by a complaint over
noise. He wanted to go on record by saying he felt that the County did not have a right to
regulate or tell him how many chickens -or roosters or ducks, etc. he could have on his five
acres.
John Luke, 14050 109' Street, has lived in this county all his life and has had game
chickens since he was 4 years old. He described his chicken and other fowl farming in
detail, all of which are considered game fowl. He advised of his time with folks from the
University of Mississippi's poultry division which infuses game fowl into their domestic
poultry to increase their disease immunity which has been bred out of poultry in the pursuit
November 7, 2000
138
BK 1 15 PG 847
of weight. He sells eggs, gives them to the church, to the kids for Easter, sells chickens for
eating, and ships them all over the world and that is how he makes his living. He felt this
regulation would affect his life and urged the Commission to leave agriculture as it is.
Commissioner Stanbridge pointed out that bona fide agriculture does not have noise
limits; the specialty farms would have the noise limit.
Director Boling advised that the noise ordinance does not apply in any of the
agricultural zoning districts.
Luke.
There was discussion to clarify whether the proposed legislation would affect Mr.
Kathryn Henderson, 11120 CR 507, has had her chicken pens in the same spot for
11 years; she had about 47 roosters. She thought this was not right because she bought
agricultural land and that the Board should not take her birds away from her.
Willis Wilson, 13400 103`d Street, Fellsmere, asked why the Board was pushing the
issue. He asked if it was because they did not like roosters or did not like the end result. The
end result was no one's business as long as it is done legally. The country he sends his
chickens to is run by the government (Phillippines). The people who have complained about
his roosters crowing at 1 AM do not even live in the house, but are living in Brevard County.
He felt the Board was fighting a battle for those people at the County's expense. The County
told him to move there and told him he did not need a special license after he applied for one.
He has lived in the county with his roosters since 1979 and if he cannot continue to raise
them he would be forced to do something else with his land, maybe hogs with feed slopping.
There is no law at present governing his roosters and he was encouraged to move to that
property. Property Appraiser David Nolte had pulled his AG exemption after the Board
started up about the roosters. He did not appeal because he knew it would have to go before
Board of County Commissioners for approval. There should be no restriction on
November 7, 2000
139
BX 1 15 PG 8 4
agricultural land. He suggested they go down 105' and 103' Streets to see how dirty and
cluttered they are. He urged them to come to his place which is clean and does not smell.
Chairman Adams believed the Property Appraiser issue also had to do with the fact
that Mr. Wilson was not on that property as of January 1'.
Commissioner Stanbridge pointed out that the Value Adjustment Board has members
of the School Board who sit on it so he would have had a hearing if he had appealed.
Charles Rawlerson lives in Brevard County but has a game farm in Fellsmere on the -
corner of 107' Street and Babcock. Before moving his farm to Indian River County, he got
a letter stating that he could raise poultry, chickens, livestock, anything that he wanted to on
his property. He moved his farm to Indian River County because the land was less costly
and he works in Indian River County and there were other people he knew here. He was
concerned because he would not be grandfathered yet had been given permission. He
questioned what else the County would regulate concerning agricultural property and where
it would go to in the state from this county. He thought they really needed to think about
their decision because they really need agricultural property; the small farmers are what
made this county and supply people because the large farms are going away.
Lynette Kirk, 13440 99' Street, lived in the area and felt people had the right to raise
the animals they choose; if people do not want farm sounds, they should not move to
agricultural communities. Farm animals -are noisy and create smells. People like herself who
grew up with it are accepting of it, but if people do not like it, find another place to live.
It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the Chairman closed the
public hearing.
Chairman Adams stated for the record that she had received over four complaints for
this, not just the Chesser complaint.
November 7, 2000
140
OK 1 15 PG 8 4 9
0 0
II •
Vice Chairman Ginn advised she had visited the Wilson farm Friday afternoon and
when she was talking with Mr. Wilson she forgot the roosters were there. She drove to
where the Chessers live and the sound was very muted.—She felt that State law did not help
in this issue and it had to be decided locally. She believed that the Chessers should have
realized they were moving to an agriculture area and she did not want to put these kinds of
limits on agriculture even though she did not appreciate raising animals for fighting. She
believed that was a separate issue and needed to set her feelings on that aside. She would
vote against this amendment, but suggested the Board instruct their attorney and that they
enact some kind of land use regulation for future farms of this type consistent with the right -
to -farm act.
MOTION WAS MADE by Vice Chairman Ginn, SECONDED
by Commissioner Macht, not to adopt the proposed ordinance
relating to raising roosters (specialty farm) and to instruct the
County Attorney, pursuant to his memorandum of August 17,
2000, to look at providing the Board means to curtail the
proliferation of game farms in the county.
In seconding, Commissioner Macht advised that he had done further research in this
matter and has relied on item 4.D. of County Attorney Bangel's memorandum dated August
17`" for voting in support of the motion. He found Mr. Luke's testimony convincing. He
thought people would be injured who were long-time farmers and relied on farming for their
income.
Commissioner Stanbridge agreed that Mr. Luke definitely had a bona fide agricultural
operation which is large and would need more than 25 roosters.
November 7, 2000
141
BK 1 15 PG 850
Vice Chairman Ginn believed State law did not help the Board in this matter.
Discussion ensued.
Commissioner Tippin felt this type of regulation was going beyond the scope of what
the County Commission should be doing. He thought it might lead to a proliferation of all
kinds of feuding and fighting.
County Attorney Bangel asked if Vice Chairman Ginn was looking for a regulation
that would apply only to future uses or perhaps would it make some sense to insert some
kind of amortization of existing uses so they would have to come into compliance within a
certain amount of time.
Vice Chairman Ginn stated she did not have anything in particular in mind except
County Attorney Bangel's memo indicated that the Board may enact regulations consistent
with the right -to -farm act.
County Attorney Bangel advised he would look into it.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion
carried 4-1 (Chairman Adams opposed). (Proposed ordinance
not adopted.)
Director Boling advised that the next ordinance under consideration would allow in
all cases new private roads to be named. The vote at the first hearing was 5-0 to bring it
forward unchanged and it is now in final form for their approval.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in
this matter. There being none, she closed the public hearing.
November 7, 2000
142
OK 1 15 PG 8 51
0 0
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance No. 2000-036 regarding allowances for road names,
amending the following Chapter of the Land Development
Regulations (LDRS): Chapter 951, Road Addressing, and
providing for repeal of conflicting provisions, codification,
severability and effective date.
ORDINANCE 2000- 036
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA REGARDING
ALLOWANCES FOR ROAD NAMES, AMENDING THE FOLLOWING
CHAPTER OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (LDRS):
CHAPTER 951, ROAD ADDRESSING; 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. The requirements for naming roads in LDR section 951.05(4) are hereby amended to read
as follows:
(4) Named roads.-
(a)
oads.
(a) The requirement of number designations for roads in the unincorporated
county shall not apply to named roads established prior to the effective date
of this chapter (October 1, 1990).
(b) All new roads established in the unincorporated county shall be issued a
number designation in conformance with the grid pattern as described herein,
with the following exceptions:
1. Continuations of existing, named roads (roads with name
designations only), or
2. Roads on the barrier island, or
3. Private roads.
(c). Proposed road names shall not duplicate, or closely approximate the name of
an existing or approved road.
November 7, 2000
143 OK
1 15 PG 852
ORDINANCE 2000 --ML
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. 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.
S. 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 uth day of
October 2000, and the 28th day of October 2000, for public hearings to be held
on the 24th day of October 2000, and the 7th day of November 2000, at
which time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner Marht , seconded by
Commissioner Stanbridge , and adopted by the following vote;
The ordinance was adopted by a vote of :
Chairman Fran B. Adams AXP
Vice Chairman Caroline D. Ginn Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht _dye
Commissioner John W. Tippin AyP
Commissioner Ruth M. Stanbridge Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the ordinance duly passed and adopted this
7th day of __ Novemb r 2000,
November 7, 2000
144
GK 1 95 PG 853
0 0
•
ORDINANCE 2000- 036
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
Attest: K. Barton, Clerk
�Q C11_
B lj��µ f By Fran B. Adams
Deputy Clerk — v Chairman
Filed with the Florida Department of State on the ;2 day of , 2000.
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM
Wi iam G. Collins
Deputy County Attorney
November 7, 2000
APPROVED AS TO PLANNING MATTERS
Robert M. Keating, AICP
Community Development Di t
145
OK 1 15 PG 854
•
9.A.10. PUBLIC HEARING -PURCHASE CONTRACT APPROVAL
- ENVIRONMENTAL LAND ACQUISITION - PROCTOR PARCEL
ADJACENT TO THE FISCHER-SEBASTIAN RIVER PROPERTY
(Legislative)
PROOF OF PUBLICATION IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
Chief Environmental Planner Roland M. DeBlois reviewed a Memorandum of
October 31, 2000 with the aid of a site map and other location references displayed on the
overhead:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
D,A MENT HEAD CONCURRENCE:
(7 //
i
,,
Robert M. Keating. AICP ;
Community Development rector
FROM: Roland M. DeBI . CP
Chief, Environmental Planning
DATE: October 31, 2000
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF PURCHASE CONTRACT: PROCTOR PARCEL
ADJACENT TO THE FISCHER-SEBASTIAN RIVER PROPERTY
It is requested that the information herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of November 7, 2000.
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners purchase, partially with environmental
land bond funds and partially with Public Works project funds. a parcel owned by Craig Proctor
adjacent to the County owned Fischer -Sebastian River conservation property. The proposed purchase
contract (already executed by the seller) is summarized as follows: —
Purchaser: Board of County Commissioners (Indian River County will hold title)
Sellec: Craig T. Proctor
Funding So.r /Purpose: Environmental land bond funds (Account # 125-146-539-033.19),
matched with $8,000 (-27% match) in Public Works funds (Account #315-214-541-066.12. Optional
Sales Tax/Right-of-Way Acquisition): purchase relates to a canoe launch and parking area being
designed for public access to the Fischer -Sebastian River conservation property.
Tntat Price: $30,000 (±$29.126 per acre)
Other Costs: ±$200 (title insurance)
County Bonds
&Wn i r : ±$22,200
November 7, 2000
146
BK 1 15 PG 855
0 0
•
Awnw. ± 1.03 acres
T.AAV Recommentiation., On October 25, 2000, the County Land Acquisition Advisory Committee (LAAC),
voted unanimously to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners purchase the subject parcel.
Principal Ben Purchase Purchase will allow County to minimize public access disturbance to natural areas that
would otherwise occur, and will avoid a potential private land/ public access use conflict.
The proposed acquisition consists of a 1.03 acre parcel adjacent to the south end of the Fischer -Sebastian
River conservation property, on the west side of the South Prong of the St. Sebastian River (see attached
maps).
The —95 acre Fischer -Sebastian River property was purchased by the County in January 1997 with
environmental land bond funds. The County is pursuing cost -share reimbursement for the Fischer tract under
the State Conservation and Recreation Lands (CARL) program. Just recently, on August 22. 2000. the Board
of County Commissioners approved an option agreement with the State for $605.000 in reimbursement. In
exchange, the Fischer property will become a part of the St. Sebastian River Buffer Preserve. Closing of the
reimbursement is expected by the end of this calendar year.
In the meantime, under the direction of the County Commission, County engineering staff has obtained a
Florida Recreational Development Assistance Program (MAP) cost -share giant to construct a public canoe
launch facility on the Fischer tract, on the west side of the South Prong, just north of C.R. 512. During the
past year, as County engineering staff proceeded to design the facility, it became apparent that purchase of
the Proctor parcel would be necessary for practical design of the access. For that reason, staff obtained an
appraisal of the Proctor parcel, and directed the county's acquisition consultant to negotiate a purchase
contract. Since the seller recently executed a purchase contract, this matter is now being presented to the
Board of County Commissioners for consideration.
The County Land Acquisition Advisory Committee (LAAO), at its meeting on October 25. 2000. voted 12-0
to recommend that the Board approve the purchase contract. LAAC also recommended that Environmental
land bond funds and Public Works project fimds be used to buy the property, as recommended by staff and
explained in this memorandum.
The 1.03 acre Proctor parcel consists entirely of uplands. The site contains scrubby flatwood vegetation; a
number of fire roads transect the parcel. A 60 -foot wide County right-of-way easement, dedicated to the
County when the Fischer tract was purchased, abuts the parcel to the west. North and east of the parcel is
the Fischer -Sebastian River conservation tract. Although the Proctor parcel is located in the unincorporated
county, it is an enclave, surrounded to the north, east, and west by land within the City of Sebastian. The
Proctor parcel is zoned A-1, Agricultural District, up to one unit per five acres, and has a Future Land Use
Designation of L-1, Low Density Residential, up to three units per acre.
The property is owned by Craig T. Proctor. The current tax assessed value of the parcel is $8,760.
Acquisition Cost-Shareprenerty lti:anagg�g�
As previously indicated, the train purposes of the proposed acquisition are to allow for practical design of
a canoe launch public access and to minimize impacts to native upland habitat on the Fischer property that
would otherwise occur. Also, the acquisition will avoid an adjacent land use/ land management conflict that
November 7, 2000
147
BK 115 PG 856
would arise if the property was developed as a residence, whereby public access would then have to "horse
shoe" around the property.
Because there is a Public Works project design need. as well as a benefit to conservation lands, the proposal
is to cost -share Public Works funds with county environmental land bond funds. $8.000 in Public Work
project funds are available for the acquisition, which amounts to a —27% match with environmental land
bond funds.
Relating to long term management. the canoe launch facility will be incorporated into the county -wide park
system and managed by the County Parks Division. The overall Fischer -Sebastian River property will be
managed by the State as part of the St. Sebastian Buffer Preserve.
In accordance with County Land Acquisition Guide procedures, only one appraisal was required to determine
an appraised value for negotiations. The single appraisal allowance applies only to properties valued at less
than $500,000. The appraisal firm selected was Armfield -Wagner Appraisal & Research, Inc. The appraised
value for the property is summarized as follows.
Ownership
Approx. Acres
Appraised Value
Negotiated Price (% of
Appraised Value)
11
Upland Wetland
fCraig T. Proctor 1 1.03 1' 0.00 1 S22.500 530.000 (133%) II
In coming to terms with county staff on the negotiated purchase price (subject to County Commission
approval), the seller has executed a standard Florida real estate contract. A copy of the contract is attached
to this staff report.
The Proctor parcel is not on the current LAAC acquisition list as a distinct project. Moreover, the Fischer -
Sebastian River tract has been taken offthe list, because it has been acquired. Notwithstanding, county staffs
position is that the Proctor purchase can be considered under County environmental land program
procedures, consistent with the County Land Acquisition Guide. Since the Proctor parcel is contiguous to
the Fischer tract and will serve to provide passive recreational access, while minimizing impacts to natural
lands on the Fischer tract, the Proctor parcel can be considered a boundary amendment to the existing
Fischer -Sebastian River LAAC site. From another standpoint, the Proctor purchase can be considered
consistent with the Guide as an "emergency acquisition," such that there is a need to consider the purchase
outside of the normal nomination and ranking time frames in order to meet canoe launch design needs and _
FRDAP grant time constraints, as well as to capitalize on the seller's willingness to sell at this time. LAAC,
in its consideration of the purchase at its October 25, 2000 meeting, agreed with staffs interpretation of
Guide procedures and recommended that the Board proceed with the purchase.
As with all LAAC site purchase negotiations, staffs objective is to negotiate a purchase price at or below
the approved appraised value. In that respect. efforts were made to negotiate the Proctor purchase below the
appraised value of $22,500. The seller, however, was not willing to sell at less than 530.000. Due to the
relative low cost of the property compared to canoe launch design costs and compared to other environmental
land purchases, as well as the need to acquire the parcel for practical design. habitat impact minimization.
and avoidance of adjacent land use conflicts, staff decided to proceed with obtaining a purchase contract at
the seller's price of $30.000, 133% of the appraised value.
November 7, 2000
148
BK 1 15 PG 81 5 7
C,
Because the negotiated purchase price of the Proctor parcel is higher than the appraised value, approval of
the purchase will require a "super -majority" (4 out of 5) vote of the County Commission.
RFCOMMFNDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached purchase contract for the
Proctor parcel, and authorize the Board Chairman to execute the contract. Staff recommends that
environmental land bond funds (Account # 125-146-539-033.19) and Public Works project funds (Account #315-
214-541-066.12, Optional Sales Tax/Right-of-Way Acquisition) be used for the purchase, as explained herein. Staff
also recommends that the Board authorize staff to proceed with closing on the subject parcel.
I . Maps of the Proctor parcel
2. Site plan of canoe launch facility
3. Purchase contract
November 7, 2000
149
0R PG 8 5 8
•
U
='
(Fischer%aloe Island SlDj
!9111
MMAMUIE
IMA 3
I� I s tWA
MIR V00
SEBASTIAN iiI
L Z —
O SUBJECT PROCTOR PROPERTY
1. 03 ACRES; ZONED A-1, AGRICULTUR$ UP TO 1 UNIT/3 AC
(LEGAL NONCONFORMING PARCEL)
1
November 7, 2000
150
B1{ 1 15 PG 859
0 40
•
PROGToR PAROL
...J �C Or Op p1�00
is
J...
. ........
Nppfrd lirr
s
ypw �■ CQMI. W mural O) oaOlk Mer4t iffi _ e ----. .-.
w Irr lwycwnmp M..s _ _ W.i— OW.?AfI -;/It
In response to Commissioners' inquiries, Mr. DeBlois indicated the access route (to
the proposed canoe launch site) on a graphic displayed on the overhead and explained that
it is the only appropriate place for the launch site.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in
this matter. There being none, she closed the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously approved the
purchase contract for the Proctor parcel, authorized the
Chairman to execute the contract, directed that environmental
land bond funds and Public Works project funds as explained be
November 7, 2000
151
•
used for the purchase, and authorized staff to proceed with the
closing on the subject parcel.
CONTRACT IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
9.B.1. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM - REQUEST FROM MR. &
MRS. VERNON SLAVENS TO SPEAK REGARDING PROPOSED
RETENTION POND BEHIND THEIR PROPERTY IN WAUREGAN
SUBDIVISION (Postponed from October 24, 2000)
The Board reviewed a letter of October 9, 2000 and a memorandum of October 13,
2000, as follows:
FROM: Mr. &Mr. Veron Slavens October 9, 2000
and Residents of Wauregan
Subdivision—Roseland, FI
TO: Indian River County Administrator.
4141 41st Street
Vero Beach, Fl.
We would like to get on the next county commissioners meeting agenda.
SUBJECT: The five (S) acer retention pond planned between the back of our homes and the
railroad tracks. We feel this would impact our Subdivision in numberous negative ways.
HEALTH HAZZARDS—WELL WATER QUALITY—PROPERTY DEVALUATION—
INCREASED NOISE LEVEL FROM TRAINS—DESTRUCTION OF NATURAL
HABITAT FOR ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES.
IE: GROPHER TORTOISES—SCRUB JAYS—INDIGO SNAKES.
Plus other Florida natives plants and animals.
We will also be in contact with the Department of Environmental Protection as we do
not know of any Environmental Impact Studies that have been done.
Thank you:
November 7, 2000
152
GK 115 PG 861
0 0
•
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: East Roseland Stormwater Improvements - 133sd Place (Manatee
Avenue) clearing between 80ih Avenue and 78th Court
REF. LETTER: Mr. & Mrs. Veron Slavens and residents of Wauregan
Subdivision - Roseland, FL. To Indian River County
Administrator dated 10/09/00
DATE: October 13, 2000
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Mr. Slavens lives at 7895 134th Street _in Roseland. He and his
neighbors have recently observed County survey crews surveying 133rd
Place between 78th Court and 80th Avenue. The purpose of the County
survey is to determine the feasibility of the County constructing
1150 linear feet of shell/marl roads along 133rd Place and 79th
Avenue to access Mr. Mark Hanson's lots in exchange for Mr. Hanson
deeding a portion of a 4.83 acre tract of land north of 135th Street
to the County for a stormwater treatment pond. Mr. Hanson
requested this exchange instead of the County paying his $120,000
asking price for the 4.83 acre tract of multifamily zoned land.
Mr. Hanson's 150' deep lots lie between 133d Place and the 150'
deep lots owned by Mr. Slaven and his neighbors.
Once the survey crew has flagged the right-of-way, an environmental
specialist will inspect the 133rd Place right-of-way for an
environmental evaluation.
ALTERNATIVES ANDANALYSIS
The survey crews are simply clearing survey lines to flag the
right-of-way. There does appear to be some wetland plants in the
area, but the extent of environmentally sensitive lands has not
been determined. The County can proceed to evaluate the area or
cease work and simply purchase the 4.83 acre parcel from Mr. Hanson
for fair market value. Mr. Hanson has 18 lots along 133rd Place
that he would like to access. They are shown in yellow on the East
attached drawing. The limits of 133rd Place and 79th Avenue are
shown in green. The 4.83 acre stormwater pond is shown outlined in
yellow and labeled "proposed stormwater pond." Mr. Slavens and his
neighbors own lots 1-6, Blocks 47,48, and 51.
November 7, 2000
153
•
ATTACHMENT
1. Drawing
2. Letter from Veron Slaven to Indian River County Administrator
dated October 9, 2000
Vernon Slavens, 7895 134' Street, Roseland, distributed a handout to the
Commissioners (not received by Clerk), and advised this matter came to his attention when
land near his house was being surveyed for a proposed roadway. The survey crew advised
that a 5 -acre water retention pond was being put in behind his property. Public Works
Director James W. Davis advised him that was not being done and later advised that it was
being done. He asked for clarification and wanted something in writing. He had a problem
with this being done to accommodate Mr. Mark Hanson and Mr. Robert Denton so they can
access their property at the taxpayers' expense. He believed more research should be done
before spending taxpayers' dollars. He stated the homeowners in the area had not been
notified of the plans. He was concerned about devaluation of his property, deterioration of
his well water quality, increased noise level and traffic with a potential for crime, as well as
the impact on endangered species in the area. He felt it was not needed nor wanted in his
residential subdivision.
NO ACTION REQUIRED OR TAKEN.
9.B.2. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM - REQUEST BY RICHARD
HUTCHINSON, RESIDENT OF HERITAGE VILLAGE PARK, TO
DISCUSS MOBILE HOME PARK REAL ESTATE TAXES
The Board reviewed a letter of October 16, 2000:
November 7, 2000
0 0
•
•
a—le C. e
je...o F--
Richard Hutchison, 318 Heritage Blvd., Vero Beach, sought the Board's support at
the State and local level toward some of the problems that mobile home park owners face,
specifically in his case regarding ad valorem taxes. He advised that Heritage Village was
owned by M.H.C. (Manufactured Home Corporation) and is on the tax rolls as Gatorland
Vista. This large corporation owns 170 communities in 26 states with more than 57,000
home sites. He inquired if there is a move afoot in the County to assess mobile home parks
at even higher rates in the future. Increases in ad valorem taxes impact greatly on the mobile
home owners and site renters because they are paying the rent and also the property taxes.
November 7, 2000
155
•
The increase for this year of $45,885 or 43.7%. This would have been a 100% increase had
there not been a change in the office of Property Appraiser David Nolte, about which he felt
the Commissioners had a hand. An increase of $113,000 in the taxes of Countryside North
caused M.H.C. to engage a representative to petition the Value Adjustment Board. Their
reduction went down to $17,000, a $93,000 savings to M.H.C., the taxpayer. Taxes and
rentals in Heritage Village have increased in the last 15 years by over 280% with the CPI
increasing only 72%. Most of the residents are on Social Security and cannot handle the
increases. He believed the residents of Heritage Village are the only mobile home
owners/renters that pay ad valorem taxes. He referred to a letter from Senator Patsy Kurth
who has been working at the State level to get relief from taxes for mobile homeowners
without success. In her letter, Senator Kurth requested support at the local level. He realized
he had no rights in his complaint, since M.H.C. was the owner of record. He thanked the
Board for listening.
NO ACTION REQUIRED OR TAKEN.
9.B.3. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM - REQUEST FROM
CHRISTINE BROWNING TO BE HEARD REGARDING OSLO
CITIZENS "NOT BEING CONSIDERED, AND TREATED EQUALLY
AS OTHER TAXPAYING CITIZENS WHEN PLANS ARE MADE AND
DRAWN UP FOR THIS COUNTY" —
The Board reviewed a letter of October 30, 2000 and a Memorandum of November
1, 2000:
November 7, 2000
156
BK 1 15 PG 865
0
Monday, October 30.2000
To: JAMES CHANDLER. County Administrator
1840 25n Street
Vero Beach. FL 32960 _
Dear Mr. Chandler:
This is a request to be on the agenda for the next Indian River County meeting to be held on
Tuesday, 11/07/2000.
We, the Citizens of Oslo feel that we are not being considered, and treated equally as other tax -paying
citizens when plans are made, and drawn up, for this county.
We have spoken to Terry Thompson, and James Davis. regarding this matter, to no avail. So, consequently
we are now requesting to go before the Board of County Commissioners to be heard on this matter.
Thanking you in advance for your cooperation and help.
Sin e4j'.
i
Christine Bro ing
810 9t° Street W. Oslo Rd
Mail ( 1926 Highland Dr SW
Vero Beach. FL 32962
Telephone (561) 569-4226
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director/ �!
SUBJECT: Request by Christine Browning for County to Construct Oslo
Road Sidewalk in Area of Future Road Widening
DATE: November 1, 2000
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
_ The Oslo Road sidewalk between Timber Ridge and 18C° Avenue SW is
95% complete. The County Public Works Department assumed
management and construction of this DOT ISTEA Enhancement Project
earlier this summer. The consultant for the Oslo Road widening
project designed the sidewalk within the 100' wide Murphy Act
Right -of -Way approximately 11' from Mrs. Browning's house. Mrs.
Browning's house is approximately 20' within the Murphy Act Right -
of -Way. Her property is 65' wide by 150' deep. The County Public
Works Department shifted the sidewalk 8' further away from the
November 7, 2000
157
•
'A
house so that the north edge of the sidewalk is approximately 19'
from the south edge of her rental house. While County crews were
preparing the sidewalk subgrade and FPL was preparing to relocate
a guy wire, Mrs. Browning objected to the design and requested work
to stop. The County crews have ceased from pouring the sidewalk.
On Friday, Oct. 27, Commissioner Adams and Public Works staff met
Mrs. Browning and her family at the site. At that time, the County
offered to shift the sidewalk further away from her house an
additional 18' to a total of approximately 37' from her house.
This location will place the sidewalk 2' from the existing electric
pole line and at the north edge of Oslo Road widening projected to
be constructed in 2001/2002. The existing road will be widened 16'
to the north to accommodate a third lane and paved shoulder. When
the meeting concluded last Friday, Mrs. Browning still was not
content, but a compromise was reached. On Monday, Oct. 30, Mrs.
Browning called the County staff to object to the compromise
location and now wants the sidewalk placed in the future road
widening area near the existing road. County crews have not
returned to the job.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Mrs. Browning is of the opinion that the County is unfairly taking
her land and that the Murphy Act right-of-way is not valid. No
documentation has been received from Mrs. Browning by staff to
substantiate her position. The County Attorney's office has
researched the Murphy Act Law and that legal opinion is attached
(Feb. 19, 1997 memo from Will Collins to Matt Napier). The County
staff has ordered a title search of the right-of-way in front of
Mrs. Browning's land and the Murphy Act Right -of -Way was discovered
(TIIF Deed #712, Deed Book 40, Page 494) dated June 24, 1946. She
purchased her land in 1965. No releases have been found.
Mrs. Browning has stated that the County has purchased other Murphy
Act Right -of -Way in the past.- This is true in a few circumstances
previous to the County obtaining a Murphy Act search in 1995 along
all County roads or when evidence is presented that the Murphy Act
is not valid or clear.
The alternatives are as follows:
Alternative No. 1
Proceed to construct the
approximately 27' from
meeting with her on Oct.
relocated across her 65'
will place the sidewalk
along Oslo Road.
November 7, 2000
sidewalk in County Murphy Act Right -of -Way
Mrs. Browning's house as discussed at the
27, 2000. The sidewalk may have to be
frontage when Oslo Road is widened. This
2' behind the existing utility pole line
158
BK 1 15 PG 8 6 7
40 0
•
VNIM4
1. Owner & Encumbrance Report ,(
2. Map of Oslo Road — GL S- -E'.. /Z ..�v✓/✓ e -e e -1
3. Murphy Act Road Reservation dated NOV-. 7, 1997 from Florida
Land Title Association Convention
4. Memo from Will Collins to Matt Napier dated February 19, 1997
5. Memo from Ron Calahan to Terry Thompson dated Oct. 31, 2000
Alternative No. 2
Place the sidewalk along the existing north edge of Oslo Road
pavement where Mrs. Browning requests. This will place pedestrians
(including young children walking to Thompson Elementary School)
within the DOT Greenbook 18' clear zone. There are several
locations where the sidewalk has been poured within Murphy Act
Right-of-way along Oslo Road and other roads in the County. This
sidewalk will have to be relocated when Oslo Road is widened. Mrs.
Browning has requested that we move Oslo Road south when it is
widened. This will require culverting the IRFWCD Sublateral Canal
at a cost of $285,400.
RECON—HENDATIONB AND FUNDING
Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 at this time.
Christine Browning disagreed with Public Works Director James W. Davis' response
concerning her problem. She specified that the property is not a rental, but is occupied by
family members. It was owned by her father prior to 1965, who deeded it to her because she
was paying the mortgage and taxes. She believed the County was unfairly taking her
property for the sidewalk on Oslo Road and complained that it was going to be too close to
her front door. She stated she had not been contacted prior to the initial work and was
advised that she did not own that property and something about a Murphy Law was
mentioned. She submitted photographs (not received by Clerk) to enhance her presentation
and her complaint on the location of the sidewalk. She described the sidewalk as meandering
anyway and asked the Board for some kind of relief. She suggested there was plenty of room
to move the sidewalk more toward the roadway to the other side of the light pole in her yard.
Public Works Director James W. Davis explained that the Oslo Road sidewalk project
November 7, 2000
159 BK 1 15 PG U 6 8
•
was originally a FDOT (Florida Department of Transportation) project funded with ISTEA
enhancement grant funds. There have been public meetings and other opportunities for the
public to learn about it and get involved. County staff does not go door-to-door on FDOT
projects. He advised of meetings with the PTA of Thompson Elementary School and with
Joe Wiggins of the Oslo Concerned Citizens League during this 3 to 4 year project. The
County realized that the FDOT's design had the sidewalk pushed far from the roadway,
occupying most of the Murphy property. This had an adverse impact on many of the
properties and was not in conformance with the widening project that the County has for
Oslo Road which will, hopefully, be built next year. Last summer when the project was
transferred to the County, it was redesigned. He displayed a graphic to help the Board
visualize the project. He pointed out that the County intends to widen the road in the future
and add a lane which will take the roadway right up to the existing telephone pole. Putting
the sidewalk where Mrs. Browning suggested will place it in the roadway when the widening
of Oslo Road occurs. He advised of a compromise to put the sidewalk just behind the
telephone pole line and a curb and gutter will have to be built at that location. The house is
a greater distance from the road than most front yard setbacks. Evidently Mrs. Browning
does not agree with the compromise location. Moving the roadway to the south would cause
a great expense ($287,000) to culvert that section of the Indian River Farms Water Control
District sub -lateral canal. They do propose a culvert to the west where some of the
businesses are located; the road will actually shift to the south in those locations because of
the non-availability of right-of-way there. _
Mr. Wiggins stated that this has been more like an 8 to 9 year project. He was only
concerned about getting the sidewalk in for the safety of the children. The sidewalk was one
of the early goals of the Oslo Concerned Citizens and it has been redesigned 3 or 4 times.
Numerous accidents have occurred on Oslo Road because there has been no sidewalk. He
November 7, 2000
160
BK 115 PG 869
1�J
felt the County was doing a great job on the sidewalk. He suggested the Board try to reach
a compromise with Mrs. Browning.
Kevin Browning, 1920 Highlands Drive SW, advised that he is a school teacher who
loves children and is concerned about their safety. He felt the issue in this matter was
fairness and equity. This issue is more about 100 feet of his family's property and the
Murphy Act. He pointed out that Mr. Wiggins is not the property owner who is being
directly affected by this sidewalk project, nor is he the victim of a Murphy easement.
County Right -of -Way Agent Matt Napier advised of his meetings with Mrs. Browning
and described them as mostly on a positive note. He had explained to her that the County
has a Murphy Reservation Easement along that part of Oslo Road which goes out 100 feet
from the centerline of the road. He also explained that he did not believe there was any
intent to use the entire 100 feet at any time in the foreseeable future. He had given her a
copy of a release application and recommended that she apply to the State to get the balance
of the Murphy Reservation Easement released to her so she would never have to worry about
it again. In his meetings with Mrs. Browning and Capital Projects Manager Terry
Thompson, they had never told her that her property did not belong to her and the County
could just take her property anytime they wanted. The County is not out to strong-arm
anyone or take property without just compensation. Where there are Murphy Reservation
areas, the County uses them when possible.
Commissioner Macht felt the Murphy Act was unfair because title companies could
not be held responsible for discovering Murphy law properties. He wondered if it would be
worthwhile to just arbitrarily abrogate the Murphy Act considerations in our county, just go
ahead and compensate people for taking their property when it is necessary.
Chairman Adams pointed out this was about a sidewalk on Oslo Road and that the
road was scheduled to be widened in a year. She concurred that the sidewalk issue had been
November 7, 2000
161
J11MR0=11
0
going on for as long as she had been on the Board. The County took over the project from
FDOT because the Commissioners were not happy with the alignment and the timing. She
summarized the issue, the alternatives presented by staff, and commented there is no perfect
answer. Chairman Adams called for some action in this matter so the sidewalk could move
along and Mrs. Browning could get on with her life.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED BY _
Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously approved
proceeding to construct the sidewalk in County Murphy Act
Right -of -Way approximately 27' from Mrs. Browning's house
as discussed at the meeting with her on October 27, 2000; the
sidewalk may have to be relocated across her 65' frontage when
Oslo Road is widened which would place the sidewalk T behind
the existing utility pole line along Oslo Road. (Alternative No.
1, as recommended by staff in the memorandum.)
(CLERK'S NOTE: CHAIRMAN ADAMS DECLARED A
BRIEF RECESS AT APPROXIMATELY 1:44 PM. SHE
RECONVENED THE MEETING AT APPROXIMATELY 2:02
PM.)
9.B.4. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM -DISCUSSION RELATING TO
CONDITIONS OF BOARD'S APPROVAL OF THE COLONY
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
The Board reviewed a Letter of October 30, 2000:
November 7, 2000
162
BK 1 15 PG 8 71
-
Collins, Brown, Calclwell,
Barlett & Garavaglia
a,ARTWim
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
las BEACK AM HOULEWW
MOW= 6 9Arocurr
VERO �'�s F7.ORmA 92889
PLEI.gE REPLY TO
CALVW IL BROWN
W41AM ML CALOW01
®JEAN A- COAA MW
POST OPFlCE BOX M-9SB6
VWW BEAOL PLORmA
OIOR(iE 4 rte. "%AR,..
92YM-S>!sS
WCHA L -% WMAVAOLIA
LMA N. TVIOKOMON—
x81.291-4949
TELEFAX: 5s1-296-9219
W ERNEM CBMVEROLAW.CW
'MA"'Z" CV LAWS W MFM;M PLANNNG
October 30, 2000
"BOARD CMrIPJEO RGI. ESTATE LAWYER
—MASTER OP LAWS W REAL PROPERTY OEVEI.OPMRM
Via US Mail & Facsimile - 770-5334
Fran Adams, Chairman
Board of County Commissioners
Indian River County
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Re: The Colony PD
Dear Fran:
On behalf of The Gralia Group, applicant for The Colony Planned Development recently approved
by the County Commission with conditions. I respectfully request that you put this matter on the agenda for
the November 7th Board meeting so that we can ask the Commission to schedule this item for reconsideration
at its November2I st meeting. The procedure we have confirmed with the County Attorney's office provides
that at its November 7th meeting, the full Board can vote to schedule a hearing to reconsider any one of the
conditions attached to the approval of the PD at its November 21 st meeting, provided notice is published for
the November 21 st meeting.
We hope to present a plan which will allow The Gralia Group to assist the County with its
construction ofa bridge at 17th Street, allow the project its entrance off of 43rd Avenue, and satisfy all safety
issues.
Please put this item on the November 7th agenda under Chairman's matters so that we can at least
have the opportunity to address the Board on November 21 st.
I
Very truly ars, r�
BRUCE BARKETT
/mjw
cc: Ernest A. Gmlia. III. President (via US Mail & Facsimile - 413-525-0313)
Scott B. McGuire, P.E. (via US Mail & Facsimile - 569-1455)
Mr. Dick Bird (via US Mail & Facsimile - 778-8502)
County Commissioners (via US Mail & Facsimile - 770-5334)
Paul G. Bangel, County Attorney (via US Mail & Facsimile - 770-5095)
Robert M. Keating, AICP (via US Mail & Facsimile - 770-5333)
163
November 7, 2000
Bruce Barkett, 756 Beachland Blvd., attorney for The Gralia Group and their
application for The Colony Planned Development, briefly described the project, the action
the Board had taken previously on this application, and their concerns for not approving it.
He advised that he had subsequently met several times with Public Works Director James
W. Davis and offered suggestions to handle those concerns as well as protect the
marketability of his client's project. He advised that the bridging of the drainage canal will
be considered by the St. Johns River Management District on November 16`". He described -
how those concerns could be addressed and respectfully asked the Board to schedule a public
hearing to reconsider the project with the modifications on November 21, 2000.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED
BY Commissioner Tippin, to reconsider The Colony Planned
Development at a public hearing scheduled for November 21,
2000, for which the applicant will pay for publication of notice.
Under discussion, Public Works Director James W. Davis responded to Commissioner
Stanbridge about traffic concerns and stated that while he was still not in favor of private
bridges over drainage canals, he will concede to the decision of the drainage district and not
impose his feeling on that.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion
carried 4-1 (Commissioner Stanbridge opposed). _
November 7, 2000
164
BK 1 15 PG 373
9.B.5. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM - ATTORNEY MICHAEL
O'HAIRE'S APPEAL ON BEHALF OF KEN GODFREY OF A
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION_ DECISION TO DENY A
SITE PLAN AND ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR
A SAND MINE AT CR507 (BABCOCK) AND 99th STREET (Quasi -
Judicial
Planning Director Stan Boling reviewed a Memorandum of November 1, 2000 aided
by an aerial photograph, site map and graphic of the specific area:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIV N HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. Keating, AICP
Community Development Dhrector
4-31
FROM: Stan Boling, AICP
Planning Director
DATE: November 1, 2000
SUBJECT: Attorney Michael O'Haire's Appeal on Behalf of Ken Godfrey of a Planning
and Zoning commission Decision to Deny a Site Plan and Administrative
Permit Application for a Sand Mine at CR 507 (Babcock) and 99a' Street
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of November 7, 2000.
BACKGROUND:
At its September 14, 2000 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 7-0 to deny a site
plan and administrative permit application from Ken Godfrey for a sand mine on a site at CR 507
(Babcock) and 991e Street. Subsequently, Attorney Michael O'Haire, on behalf of Mr. Godfrey,
appealed that decision, and staff has scheduled the appeal to accommodate the appellant's schedule.
For reference, staffs report on the Godfrey sand mine application and the Planning and Zoning
Commission minutes are attached (see attachment #2). According to the county's land development
regulations (LDRs), appeals of decisions of the Planning and Zoning Commission are considered
by the Board of County Commissioners, which is authorized to review the Commission's decision
and approve, approve with conditions or deny the subject site plan and administrative permit
application.
November 7, 2000
165
The site plan and administrative permit application now under appeal was submitted by Mosby &
Associates, Inc. on behalf of Ken Godfrey. The application is for a 17.25 acre excavation area (16
acres to become "lake" area) on a project site that consists of a 38 acre grove property in the
unincorporated county and a small adjacent property located within the City of Fellsmere (see
attachment #2). The portion of the project in the unincorporated area of the county is zoned A-1
(Agricultural up to 1 unit/5 acres) a zoning district which allows mining operations as an
administrative permit use only. The portion within the City of Fellsmere is zoned industrial.
Because the project site is located in both the city and county, the proposal is subject to approval by
both jurisdictions.
The site plan/administrative permit application proposes excavation and training on the 38 acre
county site and proposes a segment of the project's "on-site haul road" on the city site. Under the
LDRs, the mining operation is not a permitted, "by right" use. Rather, it is an administrative permit
(conditional) use that can be granted only if applicable criteria and conditions, as well as normal site
plan standards, are satisfied.
Staffs review of the application indicated that it failed to meet a traffic access standard that applies
to site plan projects and did not meet specific access standards that apply to mining operations.
Accordingly, staff recommended denial. The Planning and Zoning Commission agreed with staffs
analysis and denied the application. That decision has been appealed to the Board which is now to
consider the site plan/administrative permit application and the Planning and Zoning Commission's
decision to deny the application. The Board may uphold or overturn the Planning and Zoning
Commission's decision. In doing so, the Board may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the
project application.
ANALYSIS:
The county's land development regulations (LDRs) provide criteria for the Board to use in its review
of the appeal of the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision on the site plan/administrative
permit application. These criteria, based on LDR section 902.07 (see attachment #3), are as follows:
(1) Did the Planning and Zoning Commission fail to follow the appropriate review
procedures?
(2) Did the Planning and Zoning Commission act in an arbitrary or capricious manner?
(3) Did the Planning and Zoning Commission fail to consider adequately the effects of
the proposed development upon surrounding properties, traffic circulation or public
health, safety and welfare?
(4) Did the Planning and Zoning Commission fail to evaluate the application with
respect to the comprehensive plan and land development regulations of Indian River
County?
The Board is to consider each of these criteria and make findings in all 4 areas addressed by the
criteria. Staff s analysis of the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision in regard to the 4
criteria are is follows:
November 7, 2000
166
BK 1 15 PG 875
0 0
(1) Did the Planning and Zoning Commission fail to follow the appropriate review
procedures?
- The Planning and Zoning Commission considered the application at a
regularly scheduled meeting. In fact, the Commission several times approved
requests by the applicant to postpone consideration of the proposal. At the
September 14, 2000 meeting, the Commission heard comments from and
questioned staff, the applicant's representatives, and interested parties and
gave lengthy consideration to the proposal. The motion to deny was properly
made, and a vote was taken as reflected in the meeting minutes (see
attachment #2). In addition, staff has coordinated with the appellant and has
followed proper timeframes and procedures regarding the appeal. All
appropriate review procedures have been followed. Therefore, the Planning
and Zoning Commission did not fail to follow the appropriate review
procedures.
(2) Did the Planning and Zoning Commission act in an arbitrary or capricious manner?
During consideration of the application, the Planning and Zoning
Commission questioned staff, interested parties, and the applicant's
representatives regarding factual matters, planning issues, the LDRs,
engineering, and legal issues. The Commission acted on a clear presentation
and understanding of the facts, LDRs, and legal requirements. The
Commission's action was based upon logical fmdings that the application
failed to meet applicable LDR standards. Thus, the Planning and Zoning
Commission did not act in an arbitrary or capricious manner.
(3) Did the Planning and Zoning Commission fail to consider adequately the effects of
the proposed development upon surrounding properties, traffic circulation or public
health, safety and welfare?
The Commission heard from adjacent property owners and considered the
LDR standards related to impacts on surrounding properties. In addition, the
Commission considered the recommendation of the County Traffic Engineer
to deny the application based upon a failure to meet a site access traffic
standard. In addition, the Commission considered analysis presented by staff
that showed that the application failed to satisfy a mining project access
criterion. Thus, the Commission did not fail to consider adequately the
effects of the proposed development upon surrounding properties, traffic
circulation or public health, safety and welfare.
(4) Did the Planning and Zoning Commission fail to evaluate the application with
respect to the comprehensive plan and land development regulations of Indian River
County?
The Commission based its decision on the Comprehensive Plan and LDRs.
In regard to the Comprehensive Plan, the site's AG -1 land use designation
November 7, 2000
167
BK 1 15 PG 876
A
allows the proposed excavation activity but only in accordance with the
special conditions of the LDRs that apply to mining proposals. In regard to
the LDRs, the proposal faded to meet the following requirements:
A Traffic regulation 952.12(2)(a) and (g) [see attachment #4] permits
only one ingress/egress driveway for projects unless public works
permits more than one such driveway based upon parcel size, trip
generation, road frontage, and other design considerations. The
County Traffic Engineer of the Public Works Department determined
that the project's 3 proposed ingress/egress driveway connections to
the project site area (2 connections to 99' Street and 1 connection to
CR 507) are not justified and do not meet 952.12(2)(a) and (g).
B. Specific land use criterion (for mining) 971.22(1)(b)3. requires that
all requirements of Chapter 934 (excavation and mining regulations)
must be satisfied, and section 934.07(1) requires that all section
971.22 specific land use criteria for mining be satisfied. Because
section 971.22(1)(b)4 is not satisfied (see discussion below), neither
section 934.07(1) nor 971.22(1)(b)3 is satisfied.
C. Specific land use criterion (for mining) 971.22(1)(b)4 requires that
the proposed project have direct access to either a collector or arterial
roadway, or to a local road that serves only non-residential uses. The
proposed project does not have direct access to a collector or arterial
roadway. The site has frontage on two local roads (101a Street and
99'h Street), and on a collector road [CR 507 (Babcock)]. The
proposed access to CR 507 is not direct. Rather, it directly accesses
99' Street and then continues to CR 507. Such access is not direct in
regard to CR 507. Thus, there is no direct access to a collector or
arterial road.
In addition, the proposed direct access to 99'h Street violates the
971.22(1)(b)4 prohibition of accessing local roads that serve
residences. Ninety-ninth Street clearly meets the LDR definition of
"Road, local" (see attachment#5) and does serve residences that are
located immediately east of the project site. Thus, 99f° Street cannot
be used as the project's access, since it is a local road that serves
residential uses. Therefore, the application fails to meet the
requirements of 971.22(1)(b)4.
As noted in staffs report to the Planning and Zoning Commission, Chapter
934 requires that the project's onsite haul road be located at least 300' from
the nearest residence. Because the subject site is surrounded by many
residences, there is no point along the 38 acre site's CR 507 frontage that can
meet the 300' separation requirement. Consequently, the applicant has
proposed to access CR 507 further south where the 300' setback can be
satisfied. However, moving the driveway south requires a connection to 99th
Street which, as explained above, fails to meet access requirements.
November 7, 2000
168
BK 115 PG 877
Thus, the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision to deny the project was based upon findings
that the application did not meet all applicable LDRs. Therefore, the Commission did not fail to
evaluate the application with respect to the Comprehensive Plan and the LDRs.
Staff s conclusion is that the Planning and Zoning Commission -did not fail in any of the 4 areas of
appeal review.
Appellant's Issues
The appeal letter appears to raise two issues which are the basis of the appeal. The appellant's fust
issue is an assertion that the Planning and Zoning Commission's denial was based on "...refusing to
consider the application conditioned on approval of the City of Fellsmere". However, it is clear that
the Planning and Zoning Commission did consider and act on the application without first requiring
City approval and acted based upon failure of the application to meet county LDRs. The supposed
"Catch-22" argument raised by the appellant simply does not exist.
The second issue raised by the appellant is that 99' Street is not a public road but a "driveway", and
as such can be crossed for direct access to CR 507. However, public ownership and maintenance
of 99'' Street are not even relevant to its classification under the county LDRs as a local road. As
previously stated, 996 Street clearly meets the county definition of a local road (see attachment #5)
and truly functions as a local road providing access to multiple parcels under separate ownership.
Therefore, the section 971.22(b)4 prohibition on mining operations using local roads that serve
residences applies to the subject application, and the application fails that requirement.
Summary
Mining operations are conditional uses in the A- I district and, therefore, cannot be considered a "by -
right" use. There are many sites in the A-1 district that cannot meet all of the mining criteria of
Chapter 934 and section 971.22, and the subject site is one such site. The application does not
demonstrate satisfaction with LDR section 952.12(2)(a) and (g); 971.22(1)(b)3; 934.07(1); and
971.22(1)(b)4. Therefore, the Planning and Zoning Commission properly denied the application.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the above analysis, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners:
1. Make a finding that the Planning and Zoning Commission did not fail in any of the
4 appeal review areas, and
2. Uphold the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision to deny the site
plan/administrative permit application.
1. Appeal Letter and Correspondence
2. Planning and Zoning Commission Report with Approved Minutes
3. LDR Section 902.07
4. LDR Sections That the Applicant Has Not Satisfied
5. LDR Definition of "Road, local"
November 7, 2000
IIT
Director Boling reviewed the criteria to be considered in this appeal and staff's
recommendation.
Michael O'Haire, attorney representing the appellant, stressed that "project site" is
a defined term under 901.03 in the LDR's and a key factor in this matter. He described in
detail the location of Mr. Godfrey's property as to roadways, zoning, and other topographical
characteristics of the surrounding properties. He advised of Mr. Godfrey's plans to mine the
38 -acre property, create a lake for water retention, and to build his future home there. He
chronicled all Mr. Godfrey's attempts to establish a route for hauling dirt including hiring
Randy Mosby to plat his property. He argued that information presented by staff
misrepresented the real situation. He stated the "project site" does not consist of two areas,
but the excavated site on the site plan and a 1 00'perimeter around the excavation. When Mr.
Godfrey leaves a 100' perimeter around the pit, he has left the project site under the land
development regulations, but even if that were not the case, when he crosses his property line
and enters the property of the FWCD and then over to a third area of ownership, he is clearly
off his sand mining site. He presented various documents for the record including minutes
from the Fellsmere City Council meeting. (Clerk did not receive these at the meeting, but has
requested same from Mr. O'Haire's office.) He believed one of the City's consent agenda
items was outside the Sunshine and outside the jurisdiction of the City. He then questioned
the wisdom of the pertinent LDR's relative to use of Babcock. This appeal was based on
improper consideration by the PZC because the members were not provided with the
definition of "project site" from the LDR's. He asked the Board to reverse their decision and
find that they had acted on incomplete information. He believed Mr. Godfrey and other
property owners should be able to rely on the LDR's. He stressed that no part of Mr.
Godfrey's property was within the city limits of Fellsmere and, therefore, the City had no
jurisdiction in this matter.
November 7, 2000
170
BK 1 15 PG 879
Chairman Adams suggested the matter be brought back to the PZC since the access
road is a new issue, and Mr. O'Haire advised that he had no problem with that. His
experience has been that the members of PZC relied solely on staff's recommendations and
presentations.
Director Boling believed most of Mr. O'Haire's arguments were heard by the PZC,
but did not recall use of the ELMO then nor whether the definition of "project site" was
discussed. He explained the reason for the parenthetical inclusion of the word "mining" in
the definition and cited 934.07(3) to be used in conjunction and read it aloud.
Mr. O'Haire again stressed that a property owner relies on what is in the LDR's when
buying and using a piece of property and reiterated the key is the definition of "project site".
Ralph Evans, an attorney, appeared representing RMR Partnership, owners of
property to the immediate south in the industrial, area who desire that the site plan be denied.
Warren Dill, city attorney for the City of Fellsmere, distributed some graphics
(copies received by the Clerk and placed in the backup for the meeting). He refuted Mr.
O'Haire's statements and advised that the City Council is opposed to this project and has
asked him to relay that to the Board of County Commissioners. He found Mr. O'Haire's
presentation lacked any factual reasons why the application should be approved. The site
plan before them was newly amended; the City was opposed because it does not meet the
requirements for an administrative use permit and because adverse impacts will be generated
by heavy truck traffic going through Fellsmere, creating noise as well as fumes. The initial
site plan showed 264 trips per day which for some reason has been reduced to 121 trips per
day while nothing else changed. Seventy percent of those trips would go directly through
the city. He cited statistics to illustrate this was not a small project and is expected to last
10 years. He reviewed the pertinence of each of his handouts. He believed that the PZC
denied this initially primarily because of the adverse impacts and because the applicant could
November 7, 2000
171 OX 115 PG 380
not meet the 300' separation requirement. The adverse impacts (determined by scale,
duration and nature of the use) are what causes it to require an administrative permit. The
City is opposed to the permit because of the noise, the fumes, and the 10 -year duration.
These are the reasons why the City in 1977 decided to not allow stand-alone sand mines
within city limits. He suggested that the Board consider the adverse impacts on the
surrounding area and that an integral part of the project lies within the city. He then
reviewed the three reasons presented by their staff for denial of the appeal. He stressed that
99' Street is a local public road, not private property. He summarized that the project does
not meet all the County's specific land use criteria, does not meet the County's traffic
requirements, sand mining is not allowed in the city, and the project does not meet the
purpose and intent section of the administrative permit requirements. This property is not
suited for the use and he requested the Board to uphold the decision of the PZC to not allow
the issuance of an administrative permit and to not approve the site plan.
Bert Ruege, 13920 99th Street, lives west of the project site and thought a sand mine
was not the best use of that property. He stated that no one would want to have a sand mine
in their corridor plan.
John Miller, 103 Clubhouse Circle, Jupiter, owns 10 acres next to Mr. Ruege and
thought this was a bad idea.
Tom Ellis, 13440 99`' Street, has lived there all his life and has had no prior problem
with Mr. Godfrey, but in this matter Mr. Godfrey cannot meet requirements or abide by the
rules. The road is already heavily used and it is not private. He asked if the Commissioners
would want a sand mine near them and urged them to turn down the project.
Dale Gradenbauer, 542 Fleming Street, Sebastian, owns the property north of the
sand mine which had been a jungle he had made beautiful. He hated to have the land value
diminish because of a sand mine. Everyone he has talked with is against it and he implored
November 7, 2000
172
6t1 1 15 PG 88 1
0 0
the Board to not allow it. He suggested Mr. Godfrey go out further into the country to have
his sand mine.
Jennifer Godfrey,129 N. Hickory Street, stated -that they have been in business since
1989 and been hauling through the town of Fellsmere from the C54 Canal which comes
down Babcock Street and Broadway and it will continue. They will continue to buy fill as
long as it is there. She reminded everyone that they plan to live there one day and it will be
nice and clean like their place on Hickory and Pine.
Mr. O'Haire reiterated Mrs. Godfrey's comments adding that there will be no more
noise or fumes through Fellsmere than are there right now. He accused the City of Fellsmere
Council of actions outside of the Sunshine Law and blindsiding a property owner for
property outside their city limits. He concluded by asking the Board to grant the appeal.
County Attorney Bangel pointed out that the direct access to an arterial roadway
refers to mining sites and not project sites.
Linette Kirk, 13440 99`' Street, advised that property owners in the area have
children who ride school buses which stop at Babcock and 99' Street. She was concerned
about the children who had to walk along the road to the bus stop now and in the future.
Yes, there are already trucks on the road, but granting this appeal would put more trucks
there causing danger to the children going to and coming from the bus stop.
Kenny Godfrey, 129 North Hickory, pointed out there are six other mining operations
in the county. He was sure there were children walking in their vicinity also and he had
heard of no children being killed. He claimed the County has stopped him from building his
house on the subject property because of the County's regulations, because he wants his
house close to the lake. He will have children some day, but has been incurring legal
expenses to do what he wants with his property. He predicted this property would be prettier
than any other when he is able to do his project and he will leave the existing trees which
November 7, 2000
173
i5 PG 882
will block the lake from view. He also planned to build a berm on the Babcock frontage.
He did not know he was such a hated person who has lived all his life in Fellsmere and taken
good care of his properties.
There were no further persons wishing to speak and Chairman Adams closed the
public discussion portion of this matter.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge, SECONDED BY
Vice Chairman Ginn, the Board unanimously approved staffs
recommendation, made a finding that the Planning and Zoning
Commission did not fail in any of the four appeal review areas,
and upheld the PZC's decision to deny the site
plan/administrative permit application.
9.B.6. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM -REQUESTED BY SIDNEY W.
TURNER TO DISCUSS "THE BARRIER ISLAND COALITION THE
NORTH BARRIER ISLAND TASK FORCE AND VIEWS ON
FOLLOWING DECORUM"
Mr. Turner was not present when the item was called.
9.B.7. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM -REQUEST BY FRANK ZORC
TO DISCUSS "EXTREME SUB -STANDARD LIVING CONDITIONS OF
ELDERLY IN THE WABASSO AREAS"
This item was withdrawn by Mr. Zorc.
November 7, 2000
174
BK 1 15 PG 883
9.C.1. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEMS - PUBLIC HEARINGS
SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 14, 2000
I Lake Grace LLC Request for Conceptual and Preliminary
Planned Development App-
roval for a 66 -Lot Planned Development
(Legislative
Marsh Island Development Company LLC's Request for
Planned Development Special Exception Use and Preliminary
Planned Development Plan/PlatApproval for a 33 -unit Development
Known as Marsh IslandL gislative) -
Chairman Adams announced the proposed hearings as set out in the October 31, 2000
memorandum.
NO ACTION REQUIRED OR TAKEN.
9.C.2. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEMS - PUBLIC HEARING
SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 21, 2000
I Proposed LDRAmendments: Second Hearing on Civic and
Social Membership Clubs and Group Homes and Adult Living
Facilities in the MED District
Chairman Adams announced the proposed hearing as set out in the October 31, 2000
memorandum..
NO ACTION REQUIRED OR TAKEN.
November 7, 2000
175
11.B. SHELTER RETROFIT PROJECT APPLICATIONS
(SCHOOLS) FOR 2000/2001 HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT
PROGRAM - EMERGENCY SERVICES DIRECTOR DOUGLAS
WRIGHT APPOINTED AUTHORIZED APPLICANT AGENT
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 1, 2000:
TO: Honorable Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH: Douglas Wright, Director
Department of Emergency Services
FROM: Nathan McCollum, Emergency Management Coordinator /t/AL1 L
Department of Emergency Services
DATE: November 1, 2000
SUBJECT: Approval of the 2000/2001 Hazard Mitigation Grant Program for Shelter Retrofit Project
Applications
As a result of the significant hurricane threats over the last few years, the Department of Community Affairs
was ordered to identify and mitigate the shelter deficit problems in Florida. During 1999, the Division of
Emergency Management identified numerous counties that had a lack of shelter space and some counties which
had no shelter space that would survive a strong hurricane. Because of the high number of shelter deficit
problems, the Florida Legislature and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) have assigned
hazard mitigation funds for shelter retrofit projects.
The Florida Division of Emergency Management will produce one grant application representing all 67
counties. The application will be submitted to FEMA for approval and federal fimding. The funding approved
by the Florida Legislature will be used to supplement the hazard mitigation grant received from FEMA. After
approval, the Florida Division ofEmergency Management will administer the funding to each county for shelter
retrofit projects previously identified. Indian River County has twelve (12) window protection and retrofit
projects which were submitted during the 1999 shelter study.
Although the Florida Division of Emergency Management will submit only one application for all counties, the
individual county applications must be completed and kept on file. Furthermore, the Florida Division of
Emergency Management will use these applications to allocate the funding should hazard mitigation grants
be awarded. Submission of the applications does not bind Indian River County to any contracts or funding -
allocation. The applications only identify a request to mitigate the shelter deficit problems in Indian River
County. Should FEMA approve the Florida Division of Emergency Management application, funding
contracts would then be submitted to the Board for approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval ofthe 2000/2001 Hazard Mitigation Grant Program For Shelter Retrofit Project
applications for Indian River County. Staff further recommends the appointment of Douglas Wright as the
Authorized Applicant Agent for these applications.
November 7, 2000
176
BK 1 15 PG 885
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Oslo Middle School Application -2 Originals
2. Sebastian River Middle School Application -2 Originals
3. Freshman Learning Center Application-ZOriginals
4. Highlands Elementary School Application -2 Originals
5. Glendale Elementary School Application -2 Originals
6. Gifford Middle School Application -2 Originals
7. Sebastian River High School Application -2 Originals
8. Sebastian Elementary School Application -2 Originals
9. Vero Beach High School Application -2 Originals
10. Fellsmere Elementary School Application -2 Originals
11. Pelican Island Elementary School Application -2 Originals
12. Thompson Elementary School Application -2 Originals
ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge, SECONDED BY
Vice Chairman Ginn, the Board unanimously approved the
2000/2001 Hazard Mitigation Grant Program for Shelter Retrofit
Project applications for Indian River County and appointed
Douglas Wright as the Authorized Applicant Agent for the
applications.
12 HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM APPLICATIONS FOR
SHELTER RETROFIT PROJECTS ARE ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
11.G.1. STATUS REPORT REGARDING RECENT BEACH
EROSION
Postponed to November 14, 2000.
11.G.2. RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION - OSLO ROAD
SIDEWALK PROJECT - JOHNNIE B. JENKINS
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of October 17, 2000:
November 7, 2000
177
BK I IS PG 886
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
Terry B. Thompson, P.E.
Capital Projects Manager'
FROM: William M. Napier, SRPA, SRA
Right -of -Way Agent ��
SUBJECT: Right -of -Way Acquisition
Oslo Road Sidewalk Project
Johnnie B. Jenkins
DATE: October 17, 2000
Additional right-of-way of forty feet (40') along the north side of Oslo Road is needed for
the proposed sidewalk and for future road widening. The Seller has executed a contract
at a price of $.40 per square foot for the C -L zoned land. This price per square foot is one-
half of actual market value, based on staffs' analysis of comparable sales in the area. The
County had title work done which showed a 100 foot Murphy road reservation along this
property; however, there was a discrepancy in the chain of title which left questions as to
the validity of the Murphy reservation on this particular parcel. The result was that the
parties negotiated a purchase price of the right-of-way at one-half of the market value,
subject to Board approval.
The total Contract Price is $5,251.20, based on a total of 13,128 square feet according to
the legal description prepared by the County Surveyor. There are no appraisal or attorney
fees.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve the $5,251.20 purchase
and authorize the Chairman to execute the contract.
Funding to be from Account #315-214-541-066.12
ATTACHMENT
1) Contract
2) Legal Description
ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge, SECONDED BY
Vice Chairman Ginn, the Board unanimously approved the
$5,251.20 purchase ofright-of-way from Johnnie B. Jenkins and
authorized the Chairman to execute the contract.
November 7, 2000
CONTRACT IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
178
BK 1 15 PG 8 7
11.G.3. SHOOTING RANGE BUILDINGS - CHANGE ORDER NO.
2 - WILLIAM GLOVER, INC. (PROJECT #9629B)
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of October 30, 2000:
TO:
James Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH:
James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
Terry B. Thompson, P.E. _ 44
Capital Projects Manager
FROM:
G. Sean P.E. �'�,,`
project Engineee,
SUBJECT:
Shooting Range 'Buildings
IRC Project #9629B
Change Order No. 2
DATE:
October 30, 2000
This project was awarded to William Glover, Inc. on August 1, 2000 along with Change
Order No. 1 to reduce the scope of the project and deduct ($105,255.14) from the contract
amount. That resulted in a net available balance of $31,891.78 in the project budget. Staff
subsequently met with Mr. Ed Tyer of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission to decide how to best spend those funds. The attached Change Order No.
2 "buys back" a few of the items that were previously removed by Change Order No. 1, it
also changes the specification for the shotgun target throwing machines to be all 110V
hard wired and controlled, removes several new trees that are unnecessary due to the
quantity of existing trees that have been preserved, and substitutes a permanent concrete
building for the range office in lieu of the originally specified modular building. All of these
changes total to a net add of $31,478.91, which will increase the contract price from the
current $506,993.57, to a new amount of $538,472.48.
This change order also includes 9 days for weather related delays that have affected the
progress of the work to date. These days, added to the current contract completion date
of January 3, 2001, gives an adjusted contract completion date of January 12, 2001. We
expect to have additional weather related delays as the months of November, December,
and January have a combined historical average of 16 days of rain. Assuming that our
project is further delayed by that number of days, then we would expect our contractor to
be substantially complete on January 28, 2001. After that milestone is achieved we will
need to inspect the project, issue a "punch list" of deficiencies for the contractor to correct,
allow them a reasonable amount of time to make the corrections and to train our staff to
operate the installed facilities, then re -inspect to verify the corrections so that we can take
over the project. These tasks normally require several weeks to accomplish. We intend
to work very closely with Glover in order to expedite this close-out process by conducting
preliminary inspections and testing/training systems as they are installed. Even so, a
reasonable planning date to take over the range would be February 6, 2001.
November 7, 2000
179 BN 1 15PG 8
The concrete office building will take several weeks longer to complete. This change order
includes an additional 45 days, just for that item. The new completion date for the building
will be February 17, 2001. This items may also be affected by future weather delays and
will require a close-out period, as well. Therefore, a reasonable planning date to take over
use of the building would be March 13, 2001. In order to open the range to public use prior
to having the office building ready, a temporary mobile office could be used. This building
could include both an office and restrooms, or just restrooms as the rifle and pistol ranges
each have "Range Control Booths" that may suffice as offices for a short time. The cost
to rent an office/bathroom unit would be approximately $1,000.00.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
No further funding is available in the gun range budget. The cost of a temporary
office/bathroom building will have to be paid by another source.
Alternative #1
Approve Change Order No. 2 as presented with a permanent concrete building and plan
to either rent a temporary building or hold -off opening the range until the permanent
building is complete.
Alternative #2
Revise Change Order No. 2 to leave out the permanent concrete building and direct Glover
to provide the modular building that is currently in the contract.
Alternative #3
Reject Change Order No. 2 and request that Glover provide an additional price to
"accelerate" the construction of the project by hiring more crews to work double shifts, 7
days a week, to meet the current contract date.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends Alternative #1 whereby Change Order No. 2 is approved for a net
addition of $31,478.91 to the current contract amount of $506,993.57, to give a new
contract amount of $538,472.48. Also approve the 9 day time extension for weather-
related delays and revise the contract completion date to be January 12, 2001. Further,
approve the 45 day time extension to design, permit, and construct a permanent concrete
office building, to be completed on February 17, 2001. Funding is from the FFWCC P.O.
#57701606134 account # 312-108-575-066.51.
Change Order #2
Letters from William Glover, Inc., dated September 28, 2000 and October 23, 2000
November 7, 2000
180
•
ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Ginn, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously approved
Change Order No. 2 to the contract with William Glover, Inc.,
as presented, with a permanent concrete building for a net
addition of $31,478.91 and plan to either rent a temporary
building or hold off opening the range until the permanent
building is complete. (Alternative #1) Also approved a 9 -day
time extension for weather-related delays and revised the
contract completion date to January 12, 2001, and approved a
45 -day time extension to design, permit, and construct a
permanent concrete office building to be completed on February
17, 2001, all as recommended in the memorandum.
CHANGE ORDER IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
I LGA GIFFORD STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT -
CARTER ASSOCIATES, INC. - ASSISTANCE IN PREPARATION OF
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
GRANT APPLICATION (Project No. 9219)
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of October 20, 2000:
TO: James Chandler, County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E., Public Works Director
FROM: Christopher J. Kafer, Jr., P.E., County Engine
SUBJECT: Gifford Stormwater Improvements Project, IRC Project No. 9219 - Carter
Associates, Inc. Assistance in Preparation of Florida Department of
Environmental Protection Grant Application
DATE: October 20, 2000
November 7, 2000
181
EK 1 15 PG 8 9 0
•
The Indian River County Board of County Commissioners executed Professional Civil Services
Master Agreement with Carter Associates, Inc. on October 6, 1998. On June 30, 2000 Carter
Associates worked directly with Indian River County's Grant Consultant, Amy Adams of Cape
Canaveral Scientific, Inc. and provided exhibits and technical assistance in the development of the
FDEP Grant Application. Carter Associates, Inc. has submitted Invoice No. 9824G-1 dated October
10, 2000 requesting payment in the amount of $795.00 for the aforementioned services.
Alternative No -1 - Approve payment to Carter Associates, Inc. Invoice No. 9824G-1 for Gifford
Stormwater Grant Application for Professional Engineering Services Rendered in the amount of
$795.00.
Alternative No. 2 - Deny payment of Carter Associates, Inc. Invoice No. 9824G-1.
Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 and requests the Board of County Commissioners to direct the
Chairman to approve payment to Carter Associates, Inc. in the amount of $795.00. Funding to be
from Account No. 315-243-538-068.11.
1. Letter from Carter Associates, Inc. dated October 10, 2000.
2. Carter Associates, Inc. Invoice No. 9824G-1
ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge, SECONDED BY
Vice Chairman Ginn, the Board unanimously approved payment
to Carter Associates, Inc. for Invoice No. 9824G-1 in the
amount of $795.00 (Alternative No. 1).
November 7, 2000
COPY OF APPROVED INVOICE IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
BX1
1215PG891
0 0
II.G.5. NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL PARK PROFESSIONAL
ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES AGREEMENT - BRAD SMITH
ASSOCIATES, INC. - AMENDMENT NO.2
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of October 30, 2000:
TO: James Chandler, County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E., Public Works
FROM: Christopher J. Kafer, Jr., P.E., County
_ SUBJECT: Amendment No. 2 to the North County Regional Park Professional
Architectural Services Agreement - IRC Project No. 9926
DATE: October 30, 2000
On March 21, 2000 the Board executed a Professional Architectural Services Agreement with Brad
Smith Associates, Inc. for design services for the above subject project in the amount of
$249,070.00. On June 13, 2000 the Board executed Amendment No. 1 to the Professional
Architectural Services Agreement for Additional Services in the amount of $9,500.00. Attached is
Amendment No. 2 for additional services to include wetland impact and mitigation for the United
States Army Corp. of Engineers Permit Application for an additional fee of $4,200.00.
Alternative No_ 1 - The Board of County Commissioners approve Amendment No. 2 to the
Professional Architectural Services Agreement for North County Regional Park with Brad Smith
Associates, Inc. and that the Board direct the Chairman to execute this Amendment No. 2 on their
behalf.
Alternative No -2 - Not to approve this Amendment.
Staff recommends approval of Alternative No. 1; funding from account no. 315-108-572-066.29.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Amendment No. 2 to the Professional Architectural Services Agreement with Brad Smith
Associates, Inc.
2. Memo from Brad Smith Associates, Inc. outlining additional services to be provided.
November 7, 2000
183
BK 1155 PG 8 9 2
ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge, SECONDED BY
Vice Chairman Ginn, the Board unanimously approved
Amendment No. 2 to the Professional Architectural Services
Agreement for North County Regional Park with Brad Smith
Associates, Inc. and directed the Chairman to execute the
amendment, as recommended in the memorandum.
AMENDMENT NO.2 IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
11.G.6. FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT- FACILITIES RELOCATION
AGREEMENTS - KINGS HIGHWAY PHASE II
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of October 20, 2000:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.
Public Works Directoo
FROM: Terry B. Thompson, P.E. I�
Capital Projects Manage
SUBJECT: Florida Power & Light, Facilities Relocation Agreement
Kings Highway Phase II
DATE: October 20, 2000
Attached are two (2) Facility Relocation Agreements between Indian River County and
Florida Power & Light Company (FP&L) to relocate transmission and distribution facilities —
for the construction of Kings Highway (58"' Avenue) Phase II Improvements.
One of the Agreements provides for relocating seven transmission poles and associated
distribution facilities along 121" Street east of Kings Highway. These poles must be
relocated for the replacement of the 121" Street bridge over the Lateral "B" Canal.
The estimated cost of this relocation work is $320,521.00 for the transmission facilities and
$66,752.00 for the distribution facilities. The Agreement notes that final billing will reflect
actual field costs not to exceed 110% of the total estimated cost ($426,000.30). After the
relocation work is complete, FP&L will send a final invoice with actual costs to the County
for remittance.
November 7, 2000
184
09115 PG 893
The -County has acquired all the necessary right-of-way on 12' Street and will issue a
FP&L a notice to proceed for the relocation work on 12" Street following Board approval
of the Agreements. Time of facilities relocation completion is approximately six months
from the time of notification to proceed.
The other Agreement provides for relocating the distribution lines on Kings Highway to the
new west right-of-way line from 8'" Street to Oslo Road. The estimated cost of this work
is $306,569.00. Final billing for this work will also reflect actual field costs not -to -exceed
110% of the total estimated cost ($337,225.90).
The County has not acquired all the right-of-way necessary for the relocation of facilities
on Kings Highway. A status report on the remaining right-of-way and retention parcels
needed for Kings Highway Phase II Improvements is attached.
It is the County's intent to advertise the Kings Highway Phase II Improvements for bid in
November 2000, Bids will be opened in December and a recommendation for award will
be brought to the Board in January, 2001. The contract will include a four month material
procurement/utility relocation period with construction commencing in April or May, 2001.
The County will use the procurement/utility relocation period to finalize right-of-way
acquisitions.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends that the Board approve the Facility Relocation Agreements, at a not -to -
exceed cost of $426,000.30 and $337,225.90 for a total not -to -exceed cost of $763,229.20.
Funding is from Account #101-158-541-067.31.
ATTACHMENT
Agreement
Memo from Matt Napier to Terry Thompson, dated October 18, 2000
ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge, SECONDED BY
Vice Chairman Ginn, the Board unanimously approved the
Facility Relocation Agreements at a not -to -exceed cost of
$426,000.30 and $337,225.90 for a total not -to -exceed cost of
$763,229.20, as recommended in the memorandum.
November 7, 2000
AGREEMENTS APE ON FILE
WITH ADDENDA -,DF 12/19/00
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
a
185
0
11.H.1 RESOLUTION NOS. 2000-142 AND 2000-143 - ANITA PARK
SUBDIVISION, 37TH AND 38TH STREETS - PETITION WATER
SERVICES - PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT RESOLUTIONS I AND II
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of October 23, 2000:
DATE: OCTOBER 23, 2000
TO:
JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM:
DONALD R. HUBBS, P.E.
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SE�t
PREPARED
JAMES D. CHAST
AND STAFFED
MANAGER OF S MENT PROJECTS
BY:
DEPARTMENT rrY SERVICES
SUBJECT: ANITA PARK SUBDIVISION, 37TH & 38TH STREETS
PETITION WATER SERVICE
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. L W -00 -08 -DS
PREIXM NARY ASSESSMENT RESOLUTIONS I AND II
BACKGROUND
On April 4, 2000, the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners unanimously
authorized staff to proceed with the design engineering necessary, in order to proceed with the
above project. Design has been completed by the Department of Utility Services staff. We are now
ready to begin the assessment process associated with this project (See attached EXHIBIT I -
agenda item and minutes of the above referenced meeting, -EXHIBIT 2- Plat Map and EXHIBIT 3 -
Estimated Project Cost and Preliminary Assessment Roll).
ANALYSIS
There are 45 platted residential lots, which may benefit from this proposed water line on 37" & 38"
Streets, ( a portion of ANITA Park Subdivision.) The owners signatures represent primary owner -
occupants. Owners of the 20 lots whom have not supported the petition, include the following (see
attached Exhibit 4 —Schedule of Properties.)
Six are rental properties; some of these owners are out of state; three are vacant lots; two include a
home with two lots (owner deceased) in probate, and one sale is pending, with verbal support from
the prospective purchaser, according to the petitioner.
The owners of 25 lots, 56% of the lots, have signed the petition, and a purchaser (sale pending) has
given verbal approval (58%). The properties are typically 0.17 of an acre. The attached map
displays the area to benefit from the assessment project ( see attached EXHIBIT 2- Plat Map).
November 7, 2000
186
BK 1 15 PG 895
0 0
•
Indian River County's Comprehensive Plan states, "The County's water system shall be expanded
to supply the potable water needs of the eastern half of the County during the period 1986-
2005."(See attached EXHIBIT 5, page 4 of the Potable Water Sub -element, and page 22 of the
Sanitary Sewer Sub -element). This project is to be paid throughxhe assessment of property owner;
along the proposed water line route. In the interim, fimding will be from the Assessment Fund No.
473-000-169-487.00.
Attached are Resolutions I and II for the assessment project The total estimated project cost and
amount to be assessed, including engineering and administration is $ 100,343.00. The estimated
cost per square foot is $ 0.283264 (rounded),(See attached EXHIBIT 3 -Assessment Roll).
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County
Commissioners approve the attached resolutions, which approve the preliminary assessment roll
and establish the public hearing date.
LIST OF EXHIBITS:
I -BCC minutes April 4, 2000
2 -Plat Map
3 -Estimated Project Cost &Preliminary Assessment Roll —
4 -Schedule of Properties
5 -Page 4 Potable Water Sub -element
ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge, SECONDED BY
Vice Chairman Ginn, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution No. 2000-142 providing for the expansion of the
County's water system to Anita Park Subdivision (37' and 381
Streets); providing the total estimated cost, method of payment
of assessments, number of annual installments, and description
of the area specifically served.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000- 142
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR
EXPANSION OF THE COUNTY'S WATER SYSTEM TO ANITA PARK
SUBDIVISION (37TH AND 38TH STREETS); PROVIDING THE TOTAL
ESTIMATED COST, METHOD OF PAYMENT OF ASSESSMENTS,
NUMBER OF ANNUAL INSTALLMENTS, AND DESCRIPTION OF THE
AREA SPECIFICALLY SERVED.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County has determined
that the improvements herein described are necessary to promote the public welfare of the
county and has determined to defray the cost thereof by special assessments against certain
properties to be serviced by a water main extension to Anita Park Subdivision (3r and 38`"
Streets), hereinafter referred to as Project No. UW -00 -08 -DS;
November 7, 2000
187
PG 8 9 6
.7
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows:
The County does hereby determine that a water line should be installed to benefit 45 lots on
37'" and 38"' Streets in the area east of 58'' Avenue and west of 56' Avenue in Indian River
County, Florida, and, pursuant to Section 206.02 of The Code of Indian River County,
further described as all lots and lands adjoining and contiguous or bounding and abutting
upon the improvements or specially benefited thereby and further designated by the
assessment plat with respect to the special assessments, and that the cost thereof shall be
specially assessed in accordance with the provisions of Sections 206.01 through 206.09 of
The Code of Indian River County.
2. The total estimated cost to be assessed is $100,343.00 or $0.283264 per square foot to be
paid by the property specially benefited as shown on the assessment plat on file with the
Department of Utility Services. Assessments are to be levied against all lots and lands
adjoining and contiguous or bounding and abutting upon the improvements or specially
benefited thereby and further designated by the assessment plat with respect to the special
assessments.
3. A special assessment in the amount of $0.283264 per square foot shall be assessed
against each of the properties designated on the assessment plat. This assessment may
be raised or lowered by action of the Board of County Commissioners after the public
hearing, at the same meeting, as required by the referenced County Code.
4. The special assessments shall be due and payable and may be paid in full within 90 days
after the date of the resolution of the Board with respect to credits against the special
assessments after completion of the improvements (the "Credit Date") without interest. If
not paid in full, the special assessments may be paid in ten equal yearly installments of
principal plus interest. If not paid when due, there shall be added a penalty of 1-1/2% of the
principal not paid when due. The unpaid balance of the special assessments shall bear
interest until paid at a rate to be determined by the Board of County Commissioners when
the project is completed.
5. There is presently on file with the Department of Utility Services a plat showing the area to
be assessed, plans and specifications, and an estimate of the cost of the proposed
improvements. All of these are open to inspection by the public at the Department of Utility
Services.
6. An assessment roll with respect to the special assessments shall promptly be prepared in
connection with the special assessments.
7. Upon the adoption of this resolution, the Indian River County Utility Services Department
shall cause this resolution (along with a map showing the areas to be served) to be
published at least one time in the Vero Beach Press Journal before the public hearing as
required by Section 206.04. —
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Stanbridge , and the motion was
seconded by Commissioner Gi nn and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as
follows:
Chairman Fran B. Adams
Aye
Vice Chairman Caroline D. Ginn
Aye
Commissioner John W. Tippin
Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht
Aye
Commissioner Ruth Stanbridge
Aye
November 7, 2000
188
BK 1 15 PG 897
•
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 7th day
of November, 2000.
Attest- K. Barton, Clleerj
Deputy Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Fran B. Adams, Chairman
ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge, SECONDED BY
Vice Chairman Ginn, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution No. 2000-143 setting a time and place at which the
owners of properties located in Anita Park Subdivision (3 7t' and
38`x' Streets, east of 581 Avenue and west of 56' Avenue) and
other interested persons may appear before the Board of County
Commissioners and be heard as to the propriety and advisability
of constructing the water main extension, as to the cost thereof,
as to the manner of payment therefor, and as to the amount
thereof to be specially assessed against each property benefitted
thereby.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000- 143
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, SETTING A TIME
AND PLACE AT WHICH THE OWNERS OF PROPERTIES LOCATED IN
ANITA PARK SUBDIVISION (37TH AND 38TH STREETS, EAST OF 58TH
AVENUE AND WEST OF 56TH AVENUE) AND OTHER INTERESTED
PERSONS, MAY APPEAR BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AND BE HEARD AS TO THE PROPRIETY AND
ADVISABILITY OF CONSTRUCTING THE WATER MAIN EXTENSION, AS
TO THE COST THEREOF, AS TO THE MANNER OF PAYMENT
THEREFOR, AND AS TO THE AMOUNT THEREOF TO BE SPECIALLY
ASSESSED AGAINST EACH PROPERTY BENEFITED THEREBY.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County has, by
Resolution No. 2000-142 , determined that it is necessary for the public welfare of the citizens
of the county, and particularly as to those living, working, and owning property within the area
described hereafter, that a waterline be installed to serve 45 lots located on 37'" and 38'"
Streets east of 58'" Avenue and west of 56'" Avenue; and
November 7, 2000
189
WHEREAS, it has been determined that the cost to be specially assessed with respect
thereto shall be $0.283264 per square foot; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has caused an assessment roll to be
completed and filed with the Clerk to the Board; and
WHEREAS, Section 206.06 of The Code of Indian River County provides that the Board
of County Commissioners shall fix a time and place at which the owners of the properties to be
assessed or any other persons interested therein may appear before the Board of County
Commissioners and be heard as to the propriety and advisability of constructing such water
main extension, as to the cost thereof, as to the manner of payment therefor, and as to the
amount thereof to be assessed against each property benefited thereby,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows:
1. The County Commission shall meet at the County Commission Chambers in the County
Administration Building at the hour of 9:05 a.m. on Tuesday, December 12, 2000, at which
time the owners of the properties to be assessed and any other interested persons may
appear before said Commission and be heard in regard thereto. The area to be improved
and the properties to be specially benefited are more particularly described upon the
assessment plat and the assessment roll with regard to the special assessments.
2. All persons interested in the construction of said improvements and the special
assessments against the properties to be specially benefited may review the assessment
plat showing the area to be assessed, the assessment roll, the plans and specifications for
said improvements, and an estimate of the cost thereof at the office of the Department of
Utility Services any week day from 8:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m.
3. Notice of the time and place of this public hearing shall be given by two publications in the
Press Journal Newspaper one week apart. The last publication shall be at least one week
prior to the date of the hearing.
4. The Indian River County Department of Utility Services shall give the owner of each property
to be specially assessed at least ten days notice in writing of such time and place, which
shall be served by mailing a copy of such notice to each of such property owners at his last
known address.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Stanbri dge , and the motion
was seconded by Commissioner ninn , and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as
follows:
Chairman Fran B. Adams
Aye
Vice Chairman Caroline D. Ginn
Aye
Commissioner John W. Tippin
Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht
Aye
Commissioner Ruth Stanbridge
Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 7th day
of November, 2000.
A K. Barton, CI
Deputy Clerk
November 7, 2000
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
Fran B. Adams, Chairman
.0
fr 1 15 FIG 8 9 9
•
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT 10-12-2000
ANITA PARK SUBDIVISION - 37TH & 38TH STREETS -WATER SERVICE
J.D.C.
PARCEL # 28 32 39 00007 0020 00009.0 SQ. FT. 16,076 ASSESSMENT 4,553.76
OWNER ESSLINGER, FLORA M.
5706 38TH ST
VERO BEACH, FL 32960-1806
LEGAL ANITA PARK SUB PBI 4 - 66
LOTS 9 & 10 BLK 2
PARCEL # 28 32 39 00007 0020 00011.0 SQ. FT. 7,331 ASSESSMENT 2,076.61
OWNER ROWE, CHARLOTTE S _
5726 38TH ST
VERO BEACH, FL 32966-1806
LEGAL ANITA PARK SUB PBI 4 - 66
LOT 11 BLK 2
PARCEL # 28 32 39 00007 0020 00012.0 SQ. FT. 7,331 ASSESSMENT 2,076.61
OWNER ROBBINS, THOMAS L
5730 38TH ST
VERO BEACH, FL 32966-1806
LEGAL ANITA PARK SUB PBI 4 - 66
LOT 12 BLK 2
PARCEL # 28 32 39 00007 0020 00013.0 SQ. FT. 14,662 ASSESSMENT 4,153.22
OWNER VAUGHN, WAYNE A & DONNA L
5746 38TH ST
VERO BEACH, FL 32960-1806
LEGAL ANITA PARK SUB PBI 4 - 66
LOT 13 & 14 BLK 2
PARCEL # 28 32 39 00007 0020 00015.0 SQ. FT. 16,076 ASSESSMENT 4,553.76
OWNER RIDENOUR, FAY A
5766 38TH ST
VERO BEACH, FL 32960-1806
LEGAL ANITA PARK SUB PBI 4 - 66
LOT 15 & 16 BLK 2
PARCEL # 28 32 39 00007 0030 00001.0 SQ. FT. 8,745 ASSESSMENT 2,477.15
OWNER STILLMAN, CHARLES J
PO BOX 690001
VERO BEACH, FL 32969-0001
LEGAL ANITA PARK SUB PBI 4 - 66
LOT 1 BLK 3
November 7, 2000
191
•
I
PARCEL # 28 32 39 00007 0030 00002.0 SQ. FT. 7,331 ASSESSMENT 2,076.61
OWNER STILLMAN, CHARLES J
PO BOX 690001
VERO BEACH, FL 32969-0001
LEGAL ANITA PARK SUB PBI 4 - 66
LOT 2 BLK 3
PARCEL # 28 32 39 00007 0030 00003.0 SQ. FT. 7,331 ASSESSMENT 2,076.61
OWNER EMS ENTERPRISES INC.
2966 59TH AV
VERO BEACH, FL 32966-6464
LEGAL ANITA PARK SUB PBI 4 - 66
LOT 3 BLK 3
PARCEL # 28 32 39 00007 0030 00004.0 SQ. FT. 7,331 ASSESSMENT 2,076.61
OWNER SCHER, DONALD J (TR) & MORNA G.
3705 57TH AV
VERO BEACH, FL 32966-1824
LEGAL ANITA PARK SUB PBI 4 - 66
LOT 4 BLK 3
PARCEL # 28 32 39 00007 0030 00005.0 SQ. FT. 14,662 ASSESSMENT 4,153.22
OWNER IPPOLITO, VINCENT (TRS) & HELEN (TRS)
990 SEMINOLE DR
ROCKLEDGE, FL 32955 - 2808
LEGAL ANITA PARK SUB PBI 4 - 66
LOT S&6 BLK3
PARCEL # 28 32 39 00007 0030 00007.0 SQ. FT. 7,331 ASSESSMENT 2,076.61
OWNER ALLEN, BERNICE
5715 38TH ST
VERO BEACH, FL 32966-1805 -
LEGAL ANITA PARK SUB PBI 4 - 66
LOT 7 BLK 3
PARCEL # 28 32 39 00007 0030 00008.0 SQ. FT. 8,745 ASSESSMENT 2,477.15
OWNER SILBA, ANGELO A & BETTY D
5705 38TH ST
VERO BEACH, FL 32966-1805
LEGAL ANITA PARK SUB PBI 4 - 66
LOT 8 BLK 3
November 7, 2000
192
B91ISFIG 901
0 0
0
PARCEL # 28 32 39 00007 0030 00009.0 SQ. FT. 8,798 ASSESSMENT 2,492.16
OWNER SCHER, DONALD J (TOK) (TR) & MORNA
3705 57TH AV
VERO BEACH, FL 32966-1824
LEGAL ANITA PARK SUB PBI 4 - 66
LOT 9 BLK 3
PARCEL # 28 32 39 00007 0030 00010.0 SQ. FT. 7,368 ASSESSMENT 2,087.09
OWNER SCHOFIELD, STEPHEN L
5716 37TH ST
VERO BEACH, FL 32960-1876
LEGAL ANITA PARK SUB PBI 4 - 66
LOT 10 BLK 3
PARCEL # 28 32 39 00007 0030 00011.0 SQ. FT. 14,720 ASSESSMENT 4,169.65
OWNER WINKLER, JOSEPH JR & CARLA M
5736 37TH ST
VERO BEACH, FL 32966-1876 -
LEGAL ANITA PARK SUB PBI 4 - 66
LOT 11 & 12 BLK 3
PARCEL # 28 32 39 00007 0030 00013.0 SQ. FT. 7,352 ASSESSMENT 2,082.56
OWNER BLACK, WILLIAM V & PATIENCE (DEC)
5746 37TH ST
VERO BEACH, FL 32960-1876
LEGAL ANITA PARK SUB PBI 4 - 66
LOT 13 BLK 3
PARCEL # 28 32 39 00007 0030 00014.0 SQ. FT. 7,347 ASSESSMENT 2,081.14
OWNER MOODY, BILLIE P & WAYNE H
5756 37TH ST
VERO BEACH, FL 32966-1876
LEGAL ANITA PARK SUB PBI 4 - 66
LOT 14 BLK 3
PARCEL # 28 32 39 00007 0030 00015.0 SQ. FT. 7,342 ASSESSMENT 2,079.73
OWNER JAHOLKOWSKI, PAUL (TR)
MAIL 109010TH LN
VERO BEACH, FL 32960
LEGAL ANITA PARK SUB PBI 4 - 66
LOT 15 BLK 3
PROPERTY 5766 37TH ST
PARCEL # 28 32 39 00007 0030 00016.0 SQ. FT. 8,751 ASSESSMENT 2478.85
OWNER JAHOLKOWSKI, PAUL (TR)
MAIL 109010TH LN
VERO BEACH, FL 32960
LEGAL ANITA PARK SUB PBI 4 - 66
LOT 16 BLK 3
PROPERTY 5776 37TH STREET
November 7, 2000
193
BN1i5FIG 902
PARCEL* 28 32 39 00007 0050 00008.0 SQ. FT. 8,905 ASSESSMENT 2,522.47
OWNER BRUGGEMAN, ELIZABETH
MAIL RTE 295
RICHMOND, MA 01254
LEGAL ANITA PARK SUB PBI 4 - 66
LOT 8 BLK 5
PROPERTY 5606 38TH STREET
PARCEL # 28 32 39 00007 0050 00009.0 SQ. FT. 8,113 ASSESSMENT 2,298.12
OWNER HAMPTON, ROBERT G. & MICHELLE G.
MAIL 5616 38TH STREET
VERO BEACH, FL 32966
LEGAL ANITA PARK SUB PBI 4 - 66
LOT 9&E4 FT OF LT 10
BLOCKS
PARCEL # 28 32 39 00007 0050 00010.0 SQ. FT. 7,331 ASSESSMENT 2,076.61
OWNER GUZMAN, JOSE & YOLANDA
MAIL P O BOX 274
WINTER BEACH, FL 32971
LEGAL ANITA PARK SUB PBI 4 - 66
LOT 10, LESS E 4 FT BLK 5
PROPERTY 38TH STREET
PARCEL # 28 32 39 00007 0050 00011.0 SQ. FT. 7,722 ASSESSMENT 2,187.37
OWNER ZORC, RICHARD J
MAIL 4 SEAHORSE LN
VERO BEACH, FL 32960
LEGAL ANITA PARK SUB PBI 4 - 66
LOT 11 BLK 5
PROPERTY 5646 38TH ST
PARCEL* 28 32 39 00007 0050 00012.0 SQ. FT. 7,722 ASSESSMENT 2,187.37
OWNER GUADAGNO, NICHOLAS &
MAIL 1710 46TH AVE
VERO BEACH, FL 32966
LEGAL ANITA PARK SUB PBI 4 - 66
LOTS 12 BLK 5
PROPERTY 38TH STREET
PARCEL # 28 32 39 00007 0050 00013.0 SQ. FT. 7,723 ASSESSMENT 2,187.65
OWNER GRUSKOS, HENRY & VMAN J
MAIL 5646 38TH ST
VERO BEACH, FL 32966-1802
LEGAL ANITA PARK SUB PBI 4 - 66
LOTS 13 BLK 5
PROPERTY 5656 38TH STREET
PARCEL # 28 32 39 00007 0050 00014.0 SQ. FT. 8,846 ASSESSMENT 2,505.76
OWNER SWEAT, BETTY J
1307 HWY 34 WEST
NEWMAN, GA 30263-5665
LEGAL ANITA PARK SUB PBI 4 - 66
LOT 14 BLK 5
November 7, 2000
194
BK 1 15 PG 903
PARCEL # 28 32 39 00007 0060 00001.0 SQ. FT. 16,569 ASSESSMENT 4,693.41
OWNER SMITH, RICHARD M JR & MELINDA M
5665 38TH ST
VERO BEACH, FL 32966-1801
LEGAL ANITA PARK SUB PBI 4 - 66
LOTS 1 & 2 BLK 6
PARCEL # 28 32 39 00007 0060 00003.0 SQ. FT. 11,583 ASSESSMENT 3,281.05
OWNER FOSTER, GRAHAM LEE & DEBORAH LYNN
5645 38TH ST
VERO BEACH, FL 32966-1801
LEGAL ANITA PARK SUB PBI 4 - 66
LOTS 3 & W 1/2 OF LOT 4 BLK 6
PARCEL # 28 32 39 00007 0060 00004.0 SQ. FT. 11,583 ASSESSMENT 3,281.05
OWNER CHESSER, PHILLIP KEITH
5625 38TH ST
VERO BEACH, FL 32966-1801
LEGAL ANITA PARK SUB PBI 4 - 66
E M OF LOT 4 & ALL OF LOT 5, BLK 6
PARCEL # 28 32 39 00007 0060 00006.0 SQ. FT. 16,624 ASSESSMENT 4,708.99
OWNER DARCY, DENNIS S.
5605 38TH ST
VERO BEACH, FL 32968-1801
LEGAL ANITA PARK SUB PBI 4 - 66
LOTS 6&7,BLK 6
PARCEL # 28 32 39 00007 0060 00008.0 SQ. FT. 9,003 ASSESSMENT 2,55023
OWNER MONTGOMERY, JOSEPHINE
3705 56TH AV
VERO BEACH, FL 32966-1847
LEGAL ANITA PARK SUB PBI 4 - 66
LOT 8, BLK 6
PARCEL # 28 32 39 00007 0060 00009.0 SQ. FT. 7,806 ASSESSMENT 2,211.16
OWNER BARBIERI, GEORGE J & LORENA L
5616 37TH ST
VERO BEACH, FL 32960-1804
LEGAL ANITA PARK SUB PBI 4 - 66
LOT 9, BLK 6
November 7, 2000
195
PARCEL* 28 32 39 00007 0060 00010.0 SQ. FT. 7,801 ASSESSMENT 2,209.75
OWNER BLACKBURN, JOSEPH R JR & JENNIFER
5626 37TH ST
VERO BEACH, FL 32960-1804
LEGAL ANITA PARK SUB PBI 4 - 66
LOT 10, BLK 6
PARCEL # 28 32 39 00007 0060 00011.0 SQ. FT. 7,795 ASSESSMENT 2,208.05
OWNER CHESSER, PHILIIP O & ELAINE S
1501 EASTLAKE LN
SEBASTIAN, FL 32958-6583
LEGAL ANITA PARK SUB PBI 4 - 66
LOT 11 , BLK 6
PARCEL # 28 32 39 00007 0060 00012.0 SQ. FT. 15,572 ASSESSMENT 4,410.99
OWNER MCCONKEY, JOHN M & LINDA M
5646 37TH ST
VERO BEACH, FL 32960-1804
LEGAL ANITA PARK SUB PBI 4 - 66
LOTS 12 & 13, BLK 6
PARCEL # 28 32 39 00007 0060 00014.0 SQ. FT. 8,910 ASSESSMENT 2,523.89
OWNER TOYE, CHARLES A & JANICE M
5676 37TH ST
VERO BEACH, FL 32960-1880
LEGAL ANITA PARK SUB PBI 4 - 66
LOTS 14, BLK 6
TOTAL ESTIMATED SQUARE FOOTAGE TO BE 354,238
ASSESSED
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT TOTAL $ 100,343.00
November 7, 2000
196
1 0 0
* �R 0
O.D. VICE CHAIRMAN GINN - REPORT ON SUB -STANDARD
LIVING CONDITIONS OF ELDERLY IN THE WABASSO AREA
This item was deferred to November 14, 2000.
H.A. EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT
None.
A.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.
A.C. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD
None.
There being no further business, upon motion duly made and seconded, the Chairman
adjourned the meeting at 3:28 p.m.
ATTEST:
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk
Minutes approve,,
November 7, 2000
197
Fran B. Adams, Chairman