HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/13/2001 (2)MINUTES ATTACHED
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
A G E N D A
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2001 - 9:00 A.M.
County Commission Chamber
County Administration Building
1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Caroline D. Ginn, Chairman District 5
Ruth M. Stanbridge Vice Chairman District 2
Fran B. Adams District 1
Kenneth R. Macht District 3
John W. Tippin District 4
9:00 a.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER
James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Paul G. Bangel, County Attorney
Kimberly Massung, Executive Aide to BCC
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
2, INVOCATION Rev. Randolph Matthews
Immanuel AME Zion
3, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Paul G. Bangel
4, ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA /
EMERGENCY ITEMS
BACKUP
PAGES
ADDITIONS: 7.M. Access Now, Inc., et al., v. Los Angeles Dodgers, et al.
12. Sebast ian-FeIIsmere Highway - Request from City of Sebastian Concerning Name Change
DELL "CIONS: 9.B.2.
Request
from Tommy McDougatd to
discuss the Landfill
9.B.4.
Request
from Sandra Clinger of Save
the Manatee Club to Discuss Manatee Protection Plan
13.A.
Chairman
Ginn - Space Needs Committee
Update
5. PROCLAMATION and PRESENTATIONS
A. Presentation of Proclamation Designating the week of
November 11, 2001 as Homelessness and Housing
Awareness Week 1
B. Presentation of Proclamation Designating the week of
November 18-241 2001 as Christian Heritage Week in
Indian River County 2
6, APPROVAL OF MINUTES
None
L « t
l
L
7• CONSENT AGENDA BACKUP
A. Received & Placed on File in Office of Clerk to the Board: PAGES
Report of Convictions October 2001
B. Approval of warrants
(memorandum dated October 31, 200 1) 3-9
C. Sheriff's Dept. — Budget Amendment & Early Retire-
ment of Lease Purchase Debt
(letter dated October 30, 2001) 10-12
D. Sheriff's Constitutional Officers Financial Report for
FY Ending 09/30/2001
(letter dated October 31, 2001) 13-16
E. Tax Collector's Constitutional Officers Financial
Report for FY Ending 09/30/01
(letter dated October 31, 2001) 17-21
F. Property Appraiser's Constitutional Officers
Financial Report for FY Ending 09/30/01
(letter dated October 24, 2001) 22-25
G. Windsor Properties Inc., Request for Final Planned
Development (PD) Plat Approval for Windsor Plat
22 (Block 49 Golf Cottages)
(memorandum dated November 6, 200 1) 26-36
H. CR512 — I-95 to Roseland Road — Request for Partial
Release of Retainage
(memorandum dated November 6, 2001) 37-42
I. Payments to Vendors of Court Related Costs
(memorandum dated October 31, 2001) 43-44
J. Domestic Wastewater Residual Agreement — Harris Corp.
(memorandum dated November 13, 2 00 1) 45-51
K. Marian E. Fell / Assistant County Attorney II
Employee Agreement
(memorandum dated November 7, 200 1) 52-59
L. Temporary Water Service Agreement — IRC and
First Presbyterian Church of Sebastian
(memorandum dated November 2, 200 1) 60-73
.-
;_ t i;e
8• CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS and BACKUP
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES PAGES
None
90 PUBLIC ITEMS
A. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Yukon Land Corporation's Request to Amend
the Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate ±142
Acres from R to L-1, and to Rezone those ±142
Acres from A-1 to RS -3 (Legislative)
(memorandum dated November 5, 200 1) 74-108
2. Indeco, Inc.'s Request to Amend Figure 4.13 of
the Transportation Element of the Comprehen-
sive Plan to Delete 25th Street, SW, Between
20th Avenue and 27th Avenue (Legislative)
(memorandum dated November 5, 2001) 109-122
3. County Initiated Request to Amend the Com-
prehensive Plan to Redesignate ±88.5 Acres
from L-2 and C-2 to C-1, and to Rezone those
±88.5 Acres from RS -6 and RSA to Con -1; to
Amend the Comprehensive Plan to Redesig-
nate ±66 Acres from L-2 to C-1, and to Rezone
those ±66 Acres from RM -6 and RS -6 to Con -1;
to Amend the Comprehensive Plan to Redesig-
nate ±59.5 Acres from C-2 to C-1, and to Rezone
those ±59.5 Acres from RS -3 to Con -1; to Amend
the Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate ±19 Acres
from L-2 to C-1, and to Rezone those ±19 Acres
from RM -6 to Con -1; and to Amend the Com-
prehensive Plan to Redesignate ±1.5 Acres from
L-1 to C-1, and to Rezone those ±1.5 Acres from
RM -3 to Con -1 (Legislative)
(memorandum dated November 5, 2001) 123-152
4. Request for Planned Development (PD) Special
Exception Approval for a Project to be Known as
Kenwood Village (Legislative)
(memorandum dated November 2, 2001) 153-180
Be PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
1. Request from Brian T. Heady to discuss "deception,
lies, and other statements by Commissioners"
(letter dated November 6 2 00 1) 181
i
Es `t
9. PUBLIC ITEMS (cont'd : BACKUP
B. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS (cont'd )• PAGES
2. Request from Tommy McDo Li gald to discuss
the Landfill
(memorandum dated November 7, 2001) 182
3. Request from Ralph Sexton and others to speak
regarding "Save Our Shores"
(no backup provided)
4. Request from Sandra Clinger of Save the Manatee
Club to discuss Manatee Protection Plan
(letter dated November 7, 2001) 183
C. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEMS
1. Scheduled for Public Hearing December 4, 2001:
LDR amendment ordinance to modify open
space requirements for commercial/industrial
planned development (PD) zoning districts
(initiated by staff) (Legislative)
2. Scheduled for Public Hearing Dec. 11, 2001:
a) Applicant's request to modify certain
approved conceptual planned develop-
ment plan intemal front yard setbacks
for a portion of the Old Orchid PD
project (Legislative)
b) Applicant's request to modify the zoning
reverter date in the planned development
zoning ordinance for The Colony PD
project (Legislative)
(memorandum dated November 5, 2001) 184-185
10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS
None
11, DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
12.
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS (cont'd.):
C. General Services
Contract Approval with Chilberg Construction
Company, Inc., for the Construction of Sheriff's
Evidence Storage Addition
(memorandum dated November 6, 200 1)
D. Leisure Services
None
E. Office of Management and Budget
None
F. Personnel
None
G. Public Works
1. North County Regional Park — Constriction of
Swimming Pools; Constriction Manager Phase
11 Contract — Guarantee Maximum Price
(memorandum dated November 2, 200 1)
2. License Agreement for use of County Right-of-
way Public Bank Sign, 1450 U.S. Highway I
(memorandum dated November 7, 200 1)
H. Utilities
1. Non -Exclusive Professional Engineering Agree-
ments for Continuing Consulting Services
(memorandum dated September 27, 2001)
2. IRC Regional Sludge Evaluation & System
Improvement
(memorandum dated October 29, 200 1)
3. Coalition for the Homeless of IRC, Inc.
Off -Site Utilities Construction Agreement
Approval of Change Order No. 1 and Request
for Final Payment
(memorandum dated October 15, 2001)
I. Human Services
None
COUNTY ATTOR�NTEY
None
'60
BACKUP
PAGES
186-241
242-244
245-252
253-339
340-352
353-371
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS
A. Chairman Caroline Do Ginn
Space Needs Committee — Update
(no backup provided)
B. Vice Chairman Ruth M@ Stanbrid e
Updates
C. Commissioner Fran B. Adams
D. Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht
E. Commissioner John W. Tiepin
14, SPECIAL DISTRICTS/BOARDS
A. Emergency Services District
None
B. Solid Waste Disposal District
None
C. Environmental Control Board
None
15, ADJOURNMENT
BACKUP
PAGES
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need to
ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made which includes the testimony and evidence
upon which the appeal will be based.
Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting may contact the County's
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Coordinator at 567-8000 x1223 at least 48 hours in advance of
meeting.
Indian River County WebSite: http://bccl.co.indian-river.fl.us
Full agenda back-up material is available for review in the Board of County Commission Office,
Indian River County Main Library, IRC Courthouse Law Library, and North County Library
Meeting may be broadcast live on AT & T Cable Channel 13 — rebroadcast continuously Thursday 1: 00
p.m. until Friday morning and Saturday 12: 00 noon until 5:00 p.m.
Meeting broadcast same as above on AT & T Broadband, Channel 27 in Sebastian.
1
INDEX TO MINUTES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MEETING OF NOVEMBER 13, 2001
CALL TO ORDER.. I ........ 1
2. INVOCATION....................................................1
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ........................................ 1
4. ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS ..... 1
5.A. PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF NOVEMBER 1 I, 20011
AS HOMELESSNESS AND HOUSING AWARENESS WEEK ............ 2
5.13 PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF NOVEMBER 18, 20015
AS CHRISTIAN HERITAGE WEEK IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ....... 3
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES .......................... .
7. CONSENT AGENDA .............................................. 5
7.A. Reports 5
7.B. Approval of Warrants . 5
7.C. Sheriff's Department - Budget Amendment and Early Retirement of Lease
Purchase Debt on Records Management System Following Settlement of
LOGISYS Lawsuit .......................................... 10
7.D. Sheriff's Constitutional Officers Financial Report for FY Ending
09/30/2001 ...............1......... I ....................... 12
7.E. Tax Collector's Constitutional Officers Financial Report for FY Ending
9/30/01 .. ..............I... 13
7.F. Property Appraiser's Constitutional Officers Financial Report for FY
Ending 9/30/01 .............................................14
7.G. Windsor Properties, Inc., Request for Final Planned Development (PD)
Plat Approval for Windsor Plat 22 (Block 49 Golf Cottages) ......... 15
7.H. CR512 - I-95 to Roseland Road - Masteller & Moler, Inc. - Partial Release
of Retainage ..................... I ......... I ... I.. I ....... 1. 17
1
PJ i 1 �J i
ca:
t 6 ;
7.I. Payments to Vendors of Court Related Costs ...................... 19
71 Domestic Wastewater Residual Agreement - Harris Corporation - GCSD.
Melbourne, Florida .......................................... 20
7.K. Employment Agreement - Marian E. Fell, Assistant County Attorney II
21
7.L. Temporary Water Service Agreement with First Presbyterian Church of
Sebastian..................................................23
7.M. Access Now, Inc., et al., v. Los Angeles Dodgers, et al.; Case No. 01-CV-
14259/Civ/Paine............................................24
9.A.1. PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION NO. 2001-115 - TRANSMIT YUKON
LAND CORPORATION'S REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN TO REDESIGNATE ±142 ACRES FROM R TO L-1, AND TO REZONE
THOSE ±142 ACRES FROM A-1 TO RS -3 (Legislative) ................. 25
9.A.2. PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION NO. 2001-116 - TRANSMIT INDECO,
INC. 'S REQUEST TO AMEND FIGURE 4.13 OF THE TRANSPORTATION
ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO DELETE 25TH STREET
SW, BETWEEN 20TH AND 27TH AVENUES (Legislative) ........ I ..... 40
9.A.3. PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION NO. 2001-117 - TRANSMIT COUNTY -
INITIATED REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO
REDESIGNATE AND REZONE FIVE (5) PUBLICLY OWNED
ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE PARCELS TO C-1 AND CON -I
(HARMONY OAKS - ±88.5 ACRES; OSLO RIVERFRONT SOUTH - ±66
ACRES; ROUND ISLAND SOUTH - ±59.5 ACRES; ANSTALT - ±19 ACRES;
SPALLONE -±1.5 ACRES) (Legislative) .... I . , . , .... I . . ............ 1 46
9.A.4, PUBLIC HEARING - KENWOOD VILLAGE - PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
(PD) SPECIAL EXCEPTION APPROVAL - KENWOOD VILLAGE
DEVELOPMENT CORP . ................ I . , ....................... 57
9.13.1. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM - BRIAN T. HEADY TO DISCUSS
"DECEPTION, LIES, AND OTHER STATEMENTS BY COMMISSIONERS"
..............................................................69
9.13.2. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM - REQUEST FROM TOMMY McDOUGALD
TO DISCUSS THE LANDFILL ............................. I ... I ... 70
2
7 2
9.13.3. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM - REQUEST FROM RALPH SEXTON AND
OTHERS TO SPEAK REGARDING "SAVE OUR SHORES" ............ 71
9.13.4. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM - REQUEST FROM SANDRA CLINGER OF
SAVE THE MANATEE CLUB TO DISCUSS MANATEE PROTECTION
PLAN..............I.................................0.00...1.. 73
9.C.I. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEM - SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON
DECEMBER 4, 200 1 : ................. I .... I ...................... 74
LDR AMENDMENT ORDINANCE TO MODIFY OPEN SPACE
REQUIREMENTS FOR COMMERCIAL -INDUSTRIAL PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT (PD) ZONING DISTRICTS (Legislative - Initiated by
Staff) ....................1.1.10
9.C.2. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEMS - SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC HEARING
DECEMBER 11, 2001: ............................................ 74
APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO MODIFY CERTAIN APPROVED
CONCEPTUAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PLAN INTERNAL
FRONT YARD SETBACKS FOR A PORTION OF THE OLD ORCHID
PD PROJECT (Legislative) ...... I . , . , ...... I ........ I .... 1..174
APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO MODIFY THE ZONING REVERTER
DATE IN THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING ORDINANCE
FOR THE COLONY PD PROJECT (Legislative) ... 1. 1.. 1 .... I.. M. 74
11.C. SHERIFF'S EVIDENCE STORAGE ADDITION - CONTRACT FOR
CONSTRUCTION - CHILBERG CONSTRUCTION ..1.1.1.......0..... 75
11.G.1. NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL PARK - CONSTRUCTION OF
SWIMMING POOLS; CONSTRUCTION MANAGER PHASE II
CONTRACT - GUARANTEE MAXIMUM PRICE (PROCTOR
CONSTRUCTION & WELLER POOLS) 1. 1 ...... I .............. 77
1 I.G.2. LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR USE OF COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAY
PUBLIC BANK SIGN, 1450 U.S. HIGHWAY 1 1. 1 ............... 80
11.H.1. NON-EXCLUSIVE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING AGREEMENTS
FOR CONTINUUM CONSULTING SERVICES - METCALF & EDDY,
INC.; KIMLEY-HORN, INC.; CDM, INC.; MASTELLER & MOLER,
INC.; PBS & J; WCG, INC. ..... I ....... I ...... I .............. 81
3
I I.H.2. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY REGIONAL SLUDGE FACILITY
EVALUATION REPORT (TASK 200) & SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT -
WORK AUTHORIZATION NUMBER 6 - WCG, INC .............. 83
I I.H.3. COALITION FOR THE HOMELESS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
INC. - OFF-SITE UTILITIES CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT
APPROVAL OF CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 AND REQUEST FOR FINAL
PAYMENT................................................85
12.A. CITY OF SEBASTIAN'S REQUEST TO RENAME A PORTION OF
SEBASTIAN-FELLSMERE HIGHWAY (FELLSMERE ROAD/CR512) .... 86
12.13. INTRODUCTION OF NEW ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY II MARIAN
E. FELL ....................................................... 88
13.A. CHAIRMAN GINN - SPACE NEEDS COMMITTEE - UPDATE ......... 89
13.13. VICE CHAIRMAN STANBRIDGE - UPDATES ..... 1. 1.. 1 ...... I 89
SPECIAL REPORT - SALE OF $11005000 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS,
SERIES 2001 (ENVIRONMENTAL LAND ACQUISITION) .... I.. I ..... 89
14.A. EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT ......... 1 . 1 1 . 4 .......... I .. I . 1 89
14.13. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT . I ............................ 89
14.C. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD . I .......................... 89
E
November 13, 2001
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, met in Regular
Session at the County Commission Chambers, 1840 25`h Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Tuesday,
November 13, 2001. Present were Caroline D. Ginn, Chairman; Ruth Stanbridge, Vice Chairman;
Commissioners Fran B. Adams; Kenneth R. Macht; 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
Rev. Randolph Matthews, Immanuel AME Zion, delivered the invocation.
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
County Attorney Paul Bangel led the Pledge to the Flag.
4. ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY
ITEMS
Chairman Ginn announced that Items 9.13.2, 9.13.4., and 13.A. have been deleted from
today's agenda: Then Chairman Ginn announced the following additions:
Item 7.M. Access Now, Inc., et al., v. Los Angeles Dodgers, et al.
Item 12. Sebastian-Fellsmere Highway
November 13, 2001
1
R1 c' 70
There were no other additions or deletions requested at this time, however, at the conclusion
of the meeting. Assistant Administrator Baird announced the sale of the M 1,000,000 Bonds for the
acquisition of environmental lands.
5.A. PR
11.2001.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Vice
Chairman Stanbridge, the Board unanimously made the above
changes to the agenda.
n7
ESSNESS
X
FOR
Chairman Ginn read the following proclamation into the record.
VIN
DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF NOVEMBER 11, 2001
AS HOMELESSNESS AND HOUSING AWARENESS WEEK
WE
WHEREAS, the Homeless Assistance Center of Indian River County has
provided emergency shelter, food, clothing, hygiene, counseling and employment
assistance to over 21554 indigent people and homeless families this year; and -
WHEREAS, despite Indian River County boasting one of the highest per capita
passive incomes nationwide, the average "working poor" income of Indian River County
is $650 per month, and
WHEREAS, 46% or 709 of the 1,503 homeless people served in the programs
offered by the Homeless Assistance Center were families with children; and
WHEREAS, the Junior League of Indian River has set November 11th and 17th
as food drive days at Publix, Winn Dixie and Wal-Mart; and
WHEREAS, the Homeless Assistance Center, in cooperation with the Florida
Coalition for the Homeless, as part of Homelessness and Housing Awareness Week,
desires to raise awareness of this issue and its severity in our County.
November 13, 2001
2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that the week of November
11, 2001, be designated as
HOMELESSNESS AND HOUSING AWARENESS WEEK
Adopted this 13`r' day of November, 2001.
BOARD
OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN
RIVER
COUNTY,
FLORIDA
Caroline D. Ginn, Ch
man
Susan Rux, Executive Director of the Homeless Assistance Center, accepted the
proclamation with thanks. Ms. Rux then gave statistics on homelessness, housing, and hunger,
linking that information to statistics concerning the service provided by the Homeless Assistance
Center. She advised that perishable foods (at 720 4`h Street) and non-perishable foods (at 2525 St.
Lucie Avenue) are always welcome at their two facilities.
5.B P
I
GE WEE
COUNTY
Chairman Ginn read the following proclamation into the record. It was accepted by Robert
Johnson with thanks on behalf of the American Family Association.
November 13, 2001
3
Vii;
DESIGNATING NOVEMBER 18 - 24, 2001, AS
CHRISTIAN HERITAGE WEEK IN
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
WHEREAS, during the season and in the spirit of Thanksgiving, it is right and just to
recognize the contributions and sacrifices of our Founding Fathers; and
WHEREAS, the preamble of the Constitution of the State of Florida provides: "We,
the people of the State of Florida, being grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional
liberty, in order to secure its benefits, perfect our government, insure domestic tranquility,
maintain public order, and guarantee equal civil and political rights to all...."; and
WHEREAS, the Constitution of the State of Florida guarantees the free exercise of
religion, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners opens its meetings with an
invocation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED by the Board of County Commissioners
of Indian River County, Florida, that the week of November 18-24, 2001, be known,
designated, and set aside. as
CHRISTIAN HERITAGE WEEK
in Indian River County, in recognition of the American Family Association's contribution to
the quality of life in Indian River County.
Adopted this 13th day of November, 2001.
November 1372001
CI
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Caroline D. Ginn, Chainfian
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
None.
7e CONSENT AGENDA
Z.A. Reports
The following report has been placed on file in the Office of the Clerk to the Board:
Report of Convictions, October 2001
7. A Approval of Warrants
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of October 31, 2001:
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DATE: OCTOBER 31. 2001
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 26, 2001 to October 31. 2001.
Attachment:
EMF:AH
November 13, 2001
5
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Vice
Chairman Stanbridge, the Board unanimously approved the list of
warrants issued by the Clerk to the Board for the period October 26-
31, 2001, as requested.
CHECK NAME CHECK CHECK
NUMBER DATE AMOUNT
0021438 UNUM LIFE INSUANCE 2001-10-26 3,947.98
0021439 TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO 769 2001-10-26 3,983.03
0021440 TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO 769 2001-10-26 1,858.12
0306699 MARRIOTT COURTYARD 2001-07-26 .00 VOID
0307878 FLORIDA GAS TRANSMISSION 2001-08-16 .00 VOID
0309039 CLIMATIC HEATING & A/C 2001-09-06 .00 VOID
0309399 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF 2001-09-13 .00 VOID
0311141 OCALA HILTON/SILVER SPRINGS 2001-10-11 .00 VOID
0311208 TREASURE COAST REGIONAL 2001-10-11 .00 VOID
0311449 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF 2001-10-18 .00 VOID
0311480 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF 2001-10-18 .00 VOID
0311505 HAMPTON INN 2001-10-18 .00 VOID
0312256 A A FIRE EQUIPMENT, INC 2001-10-31 82.25
0312257 ADVANCED GARAGE DOORS, INC 2001-10-31 11150.00
0312258 AERO PRODUCTS CORPORATION 2001-10-31 12.00
0312259 APPLE INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO 2001-10-31 21326.97
0312260 APPLE MACHINE & SUPPLY CO 2001-10-31 291.31
0312261 AUTO SUPPLY CO OF VERO BEACH, 2001-10-31 705.73
0312262 ABS PUMPS, INC 2001-10-31 148.54
0312263 AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE 2001-10-31 88,339.20
0312264 ALL COUNTY MOWER & EQUIP CO 2001-10-31 16.86
0312265 AUTO PARTS OF VERO, INC 2001-10-31 1,442.86
0312266 AMERICAN REPORTING 2001-10-31 25.00
0312267 ABCO GARAGE DOOR CO 2001-10-31 85.00
0312268 A T & T 2001-10-31 31.72
0312269 AERC_COM, INC 2001-10-31 1,232.28
0312270 AKINS, JAMES 2001-10-31 135.00
0312271 AT&T, CUSTOMWER ACCT NUMBER 2001-10-31 93.61
0312272 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2001-10-31 31628.81
0312273 BILL BRYANT & ASSOCIATES, INC 2001-10-31 29,979.24
0312274 BLACKHAWK QUARRY COMPANY 2001-10-31 4,532.29
0312275 BARTON, JEFFREY K- CLERK 2001-10-31 219,108.83
0312276 BARTON, JEFFREY K -CLERK 2001-10-31 21018.50
0312277 BARNETT BAIL BONDS 2001-10-31 472.00
0312278 BAKER & TAYLOR INC 2001-10-31 910.33
0312279 BRODART CO 2001-10-31 6,107.38
0312280 BOWKER 2001-10-31 297.00
0312281 BOYNTON PUMP & IRRIGATION 2001-10-31 350.35
0312282 BEVERAGE STOP, THE 2001-10-31 170.00
0312283 BLAKESLEE MAINTENANCE 2002-10-31 150.00
0312264 BOOKS CN TAPE INC 2001-10-31 192.00
0312285 BELLSOUTH 2001-10-31 8,065.45
0312286 BELLSOUTH PUBLIC COMMUNICATION 2001-10-31 131.40
0312287 BLAKESLEE, ANN 2001-10-31 100.00
0312288 BREVARD TITLE, INC 2001-10-31 22.15
0312269 BAKER, PAMELA A 2001-10-31 750.00
0312290 BANGEL, PAUL G 2001-10-31 410.48
0312291 BRIGGS EQUIPMENT 2001-10-31 181.92
November 13, 2001
CHECK NAME CHECK CHECK
NUMBER DATE AMOUNT
0312292 BARROW, MARIA E 2001-10-31 40.00
0312293 BAUCHMAN, BERTA B H 2001-10-31 40.00
0312294 BARAJAS, ALMA ROSA 2001-10-31 40.00
0312295 BATTERY ZONE 2001-10-31 691.20
0312296 BELLSOUTH 2001-10-31 731.02
0312297 CAMP, DRESSER & MCKEE, INC 2001-10-31 67,034.92
0312298 CARTER ASSOCIATES, INC 2001-10-31 3,740.00
0312299 COMMUNICATIONS INT'L INC 2001-10-31 25.00
0312300 COX, CYNTHIA L 2001-10-31 48.00
0312301 CHILBERG CONSTRUCTION CO 2001-10-31 141,568.00
0312302 CHIVERS NORTH AMERICA 2001-10-31 64.60
0312303 CES 2001-10-31 1,625.CO
0312304 CENTER FOR EMOTIONAL AND 2001-10-31 456.00
0312305 COSNER MFG CO 2001-10-31 1,113.45
0312306 CHEVRON 2001-10-31 20.80
0312307 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS 2001-10-31 57.03
0312308 COMMERCIAL TITLE SERVICE,INC 2001-10-31 7,500.00
0312309 COOL, KIMBERLY 2001-10-31 195.00
0312310 DELTA SUPPLY CO 2001-10-31 131.72
0312311 DEMCO INC 2001-10-31 161.72
0312312 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF 2001-10-31 21762.15
0312313 DEPENDABLE DODGE, INC 2001-10-31 24.45
0312314 DICKERSON-FLORIDA, INC 2001-10-31 4,506.49
0312315 DIRECTOR, KENNETH L MD PA 2001-10-31 175.00
0312316 DOW, HOWELL, GILMORE, 2001-10-31 1,996.03
0312317 DATA SUPPLIES, INC 2001-10-31 162.79
0312318 DADE PAPER COMPANY 2001-10-31 229.21
0312319 DOWNTOWN PRODUCE INC 2001-10-31 118.70
0312320 DOYLE, STEVE 2001-10-31 19.72
0312321 DEWEESE, GERALD 2001-10-31 39.00
0312322 EXPEDITER INC, THE 2001-10-31 40.52
0312323 EWING, MARSHA 2001-10-31 15.00
0312324 EVERGLADES FARM 2001-10-31 383.86
0312325 EZ BOOKS 2001-10-31 203.25
0312326 EMERGENCY FILM GROUP 2001-10-31 303.00
0312327 FEDEX 2001-10-31 112.22
0312328 FISHER SCIENTIFIC 2001-10-31 178.45
0312329 FLORIDA COCA-COLA BOTTLING CO 2001-10-31 246.90
0312330 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY 2001-10-31 4,989.96
0312331 FLORIDA WATER & POLLUTION 2001-10-31 20.00
0312332 FLOWERS BAKING COMPANY OF 2001-10-31 101.29
0312333 FLINN, SHEILA I 2001-10-31 101.50
0312334 FLORIDA MUNICIPAL INSURANCE 2001-10-31 873.00
0312335 FLORIDA ANIMAL LEAGUE 2001-10-31 15.00
0312336 FLORIDA CLINICAL PRACTICE 2001-10-31 635.00
0312337 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT 2001-10-31 3,040.03
0312338 FIRESTONE TIRE & SERVICE 2001-10-31 264.80
0312339 4IMPRINT INC 2001-10-31 2,038.32
0312340 FILL=ATE INC 2001-10-31 69.23
0312341 FAQS PRESS 2001-10-31 15.95
0312342 FAZI0f RENE 2001-10-31 34.00
0312343 GALE GROUP, THE 2001-10-31 818.15
0312344 GAYLORD BROTHERS, INC 2001-10-31 861.07
0312345 GOODKNIGHT LAWN EQUIPMENT, INC 2001-10-31 19.00
0312346 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER 2001-10-31 67.00
0312347 GREENE, ROBERT E 2001-10-31 1,976.56
0312348 GINN, CAROLINE D 2001-10-31 27,96
0312349 H W WILSON CO 2001-10-31 481.00
0312350 HIGHSMITH, INC 2001-10-31 128.95
0312351 HOLIDAY INN SELECT 2001-10-31 138.00
November 13, 2001
II
CHECK NAME CHECK CHECK
NUMBER DATE AMOUNT
0312352 HUDSON PUMP & EQUIPMENT 2001-10-31 31227.75
0312353 HAISLEY-HOBBS FUNERAL HOM 2001-10-31 800.0
0312354 HIGHLANDS ANIMAL HOSPITAL 2001-10-31 144.50
0312355 HARRIS, GREGORY PHD CVE 2001-10-31 1,540.85
0312356 HERNANDEZ, JUDITH ESQ 2001-10-31 51909.03
0312357 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 2001-10-31 62,082.16
031235S INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 2001-10-31 175.00
0312359 INDIAN RIVER BATTERY, INC 2001-10-31 356.30
0312360 INDIAN RIVER BLUEPRINT CO INC 2001-10-31 50.96
0312361 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY UTILITY 2001-10-31 802.64
0312362 INGRAM LIBRARY SERVICES 2001-10-31 92.54
0312363 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 2001-10-31 1,390.10
0312364 INDIAN RIVER ALL -FAB, INC 2001-10-31 333.28
0312365 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS 2001-10-31 312.94
0312366 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 2001-10-31 85,997.00
0312367 INTERMEDIA COMMUNICATIONS 2001-10-31 70.43
0312366 IRRIGATION CONSULTANTS UNLIMIT 2001-10-31 35.49
0312369 JAFFE, ROBERT F, ES 2001-10-31 150.00
0312370 KEATING, ROBERT M 2001-10-31 67.00
0312371 KNIGHT & MATHIS, INC 2001-10-31 54.58
0312372 KELLY TRACTOR CO 2001-10-31 122.38
0312373 KANO LABORATORIES, INC 2001-10-31 152.89
0312374 KAPLAN, KAREN DC 2001-10-31 200.00
0312375 KEMIRON INC 2001-10-31 742.78
0312376 LONG, JAMES T ESQUIRE 2001-10-31 6,600.00
0312377 LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC. 2001-10-31 561.22
0312378 LIBRARY CORP THE 2001-10-31 3,095.00
0312379 L B SMITH, INC 2001-10-31 489.50
0312380 LIGHT SOURCE BUSINESS SYSTEMS 2001-10-31 175.00
0312381 LFI VERO BEACH, INC 2001-10-31 51536.98
0312382 LOWE'S COMPANIES,INC 2001-10-31 200.66
0312383 LIBPARY OF CONGRESS 2001-10-31 15.00
0312384 LAW BOOK SERVICES 2001-10-31 235.00
0312385 LSH ENTERPRISES 2001-10-31 625.00
0312386 LANDIA INC 2001-10-31 932.50
0312387 LOWTHER CREMATION SERVICES INC 2001-10-31 300.00
0312388 MAXWELL PLUMBING, INC 2001-10-31 16.20
0312389 INDIAN RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE 2001-10-31 191100.16
0312390 MIKES GARAGE 2001-10-31 35.00
0312391 MARRIOTT - PALM BEACH GARDENS 2001-10-31 194.00
0312392 MARRIOTT-PALM BEACH GARDENS 2001-10-31 194.00
0312393 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY COMPANY 2001-10-31 102.33
0312394 MURRAY, HELEN LMHC 2001-10-31 80.00
0312395 MIDWEST TAPE EXCHANGE 2001-10-31 27.98
0312396 MARC INDUSTRIES 2001-10-31 1,739.87
0312397 MEDCHECK 2001-10-31 610.19
0312398 MAX DAVIS ASSOCIATES INC 2001-10-31 191.01
0312399 MITCHELL TRAINING, INC 2001-10-31 2,250.00
0312400 MCCULLY, WILLIAM KEITH 2001-10-31 78.38
0312401 MITTEN, JOHN 2001-10-31 50.00
0312402 MOODY VIDEO 2001-10-31 50.35
0312403 MOCK, GORDON AND 2001-10-31 11000.00
0312404 MIRANDA, FERNANDO G MD 2001-10-31 750.00
0312405 NOLTE, DAVID C 2001-10-31 1,100.00
0312406 NORTH SOUTH SUPPLY INC 2001-10-31 82.34
0312407 NICOSIA, ROGER J DO 2001-10-31 1,500.00
0312408 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS 2001-10-31 582.63
November 13, 2001
0
W
i
CHECK NAME
NUMBER
0312409
0312410
0312411
0312412
0312413
0312414
0312415
0312416
0312417
0312418
0312419
0312420
0312421
0312422
0312423
0312424
0312425
0312426
0312427
0312428
0312429
0312430
0312431
0312432
0312433
0312434
0312435
0312436
0312437
0312438
0312439
0312440
0312441
0312442
0312443
0312444
0312445
0312446
0312447
0312448
0312449
0312450
0312451
0312452
0312453
0312454
0312455
0312456
0312457
0312458
0312459
0312460
0312461
0312462
0312463
0312464
0312465
0312466
0312467
November 13, 2001
NORTHERN SAFETY COMPANY
NEC BUSINESS NETWORK SOLUTIONS
NITYANANDA, MOKSHA
OFFICE PRODUCTS & SERVICE
ON IT'S WAY
ODYSSEY MANUFACTURING CO
PARKS RENTAL INC
PERKINS INDIAN RIVER PHARMACY
POSTMASTER
PETRILLA, FRED J, PHD
POSTMASTER
POSTMASTER
PELICAN ISLAND AUDUBON
PHILOSOPHY DOCUMENTATION CENTR
PROQUEST INFORMATION AND
QUALITY BUILDERS
PRIMEDIA WORKPLACE LEARNING
RAMADA INN NORTH
RINKER MATERIALS
RESEARCH GRANT GUIDES
ROBINSON EQUIPMENT COMPANY,INC
RICHMOND HYDRAULICS INC
RECORDED BOOKS, LLC
RUBBER STAMP EXPRESS & MORE
RELIABLE POLY JOHN SERVICES
RIA GROUP
ROYAL CUP COFFEE
REXEL CONSOLIDATED
REGIONS INTERSTATE BILLING
REAM, MARIAN
ROGER DEAN CHEVROLET
ROBBINS, ALBERT DO
SCOTT'S SPORTING GOODS
SEWELL HARDWARE CO, INC
SEXUAL ASSAULT ASSISTANCE
SOUTHERN EAGLE DISTRIBUTING,
STURGIS LUMBER & PLYWOOD CO
SOLINET
SMITH, GARY
SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF
STEVENS PRINTING
STANDARD & POOR'S
STANBRIDGE, RUTH
SOUTHERN/ALARM PARTNERS
SAFETY PRODUCTS INC
SUNSHINE STATE ONE CALL
STAGE & SCREEN
SIRS MANDARIN INC
SEBASTIAN OFFICE SUPPLY
SANTORO, RALPH V AND
SAMOLE, PAULA
SILVA, JENNIFER
SMITH, DEAN
SWEENEY, REBECCA
TRUGREEN CHEMLAWN
T A P SOD
SCRIPPS TREASURE COAST
TARGET STORES COMMERCIAL
TEMPEST PUBLISHING
E
CHECK CHECK
DATE AMOUNT
2001-10-31
2001-10-31
2001-10-31
2001-10-31
2001-10-31
2001-10-31
2001-10-31
174.3E
279.00
325.00
1,675.03
487.25
2,272.50
280.50
2001-10-31
2001-10-31
2001-10-31
2001-10-31
2001-10-31
2001-10-31
2001-10-31
2001-10-31
2001-10-31
2001-10-31
2001-10-31
87.94
15,000.00
500.00
100.00
136.00
25,000.00
36.00
6,535.52
300.00
25.00
151.80
2001-10-31
2001-10-31
2001-10-31
7,195,32
79.00
100.75
2001-10-31
2001-10-31
2001-10-31
2001-10-31
2001-10-31
2001-10-31
2001-10-31
486.42
360.00
41.21
243.68
930.04
137.60
71.25
2001-10-31
2001-10-31
2001-10-31
2001-10-31
2001-10-31
2001-10-31
2001-10-31
2001-10-31
2001-10-31
2001-10-31
2001-10-31
6.67
75.00
210.51
1,088.00
28.00
18.74
4,964.16
346.65
32.04
418.89
150.00
2001-10-31
399.42
2001-10-31
2001-10-31
2001-10-31
2001-10-31
2001-10-31
2001-10-31
229.00
4,382.21
25.72
145.00
113.00
726.55
2001-10-31
51.33
2001-10-31
2001-10-31
21590.00
26.24
2001-10-31
2001-10-31
19.91
671.00
2001-10-31
2001-10-31
2001-10-31
;.19.50
47.00
945.92
2001-10-31
2001-10-31
2001-10-31
2001-10-31
2001-10-31
20.00
11211.15
485.76
73.53
115.00
CHECK NAME CHECK
NUMBER DATE
0312468 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2001-10-31
0312469 U S FILTER DISTRIBUTION GROUP 2001-10-31
0312470 VERO BEACH, CITY OF 2001-10-31
0312471 VERO BEACH, CITY OF 2001-10-31
0312472 VERO BEACH, CITY OF 2001-10-31
0312473 VERO BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT 2001-10-31
0312474 VERO BEARING & BOLT 2001-10-31
0312475 VETERANS INFORMATION SERVICE 2001-10-31
0312476 WAL-MART PHARMACY, INC 2001-10-31
0312477 WILLHOFF, PATSY 2001-10-31
0312478 WILLIAM THIES & SONS, INC 2001-10-31
0312479 WHEELER PUBLISHING, INC 2001-10-31
0312480 WALGREENS PHARMACY 2001-10-31
0312481 WILLIAMS FAMILY MEDICINE 2001-10-31
0312482 W W GRAINGER INC 2001-10-31
0312483 WILKINS BROTHERS, INC 2001-10-31
0312464 XEROX CORPORATION 2001-10-31
0312485 MILLER, JOSEPH 2001-10-31
7. C. Sheriff's D
Followi,
•
tent -
E
Y,
The Board reviewed a letter of October 30, 2001:
4055 41St AVENUE
October 30, 2001
CHECK
AMOUNT
26.10
6,071.28
4,054.34
9,462.50
166.39
50.00
201.96
120.00
206.13
130.00
116.40
2,465.00
765.56
29.00
337.17
70.08
392.00
1,317.16
2,511,567.79
?h
t
CONSENT AGENDA
ROY RAYMOND • INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
MEMBER FLORIDA SHERIFFSASSOCIATION
MEMBER OF NATIONAL 514ERIFFS' ASSOCIAIION
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960-1808
The Honorable Caroline D. Ginn, Chairman
Indian River Board of County Commissioners
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960-3394
Re: Budget Amendment & Early Retirement of Lease Purchase Debt
November 13, 2001
10
PHONE (561) 569-6700
I'U t�
Dear Chairman Ginn:
This letter is a request to amend my fiscal year 2001-2002 Operatin; Budget and approve early
retirement of my lease purchase debt.
Early retirement of the outstanding lease purchase debt on my records management system
would result in the savings of $5,005.00 in interest costs.
The cost to retire the outstanding debt is $165,366.00. The amount budgeted for FY 2002 lease
payments is $90,098.00, leaving an amount of $75,268.00 needed to retire the debt early.
The amount required to be budgeted for lease payments in FY2003 is 581,481.62.
I am in the process of sending the board $2,886.00 of unused lease escrow funds, 516,639.00
interest earned on the lease escrow account, and $75,000.00 resulting from a lawsuit settlement
with the previous records management system vendor (LOGISYS).
I request the board amend my FY2002 budget by the amount of the LOGISYS lawsuit settlement
($75,000) in order to realize the $5,005.00 interest savings through early retirement of the lease
purchase debt.
Please place this item on the Consent Agenda at your earliest convenience. If you have a
question or need additional information, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Roy Raymond
RR: heh
Attachment
The 173rd Internationally Accredited Law Enforcement Agency
Accredited by the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Incorporated
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Vice
Chairman Stanbridge, the Board unanimously amended the Sheriff's
FY 2001-02 Budget in the amount of $75,000 (the LOGISYS lawsuit
settlement) in order to realize an interest savings of $5,005 through
early retirement of the lease purchase debt, as requested.
November 13, 2001
11
ZA Sheriff's Constit
Ending 09/30/2001
conal Officers Financi.
The Board reviewed a letter of October 31, 2001:
4055 41st AVENUE
October 31, 2001
ROY RAYMOND • INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
MEMBER FLORIDA SHERIFFSASSOCIATION
MEMBER OF NATIONAL SHERIFFS' ASSOCIATION
VERO BEACH. FLORIDA 32960-1808
The Honorable Caroline D. Ginn, Chairman
Indian River Board of County Commissioners
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960-3394
Dear Chairman Ginn:
PHONE (561) 569-670C
Attached is check number 44235 in the amount of $374,581.88, which represents funds due to
the Board of County Commissioners as detailed below:
Fund 016, General Fund Reversion $ 571832.07
Federal Prisoner Revenue 198,780.00
Interest Income 21,854.54
Interest on Escrow Account 16,638.47
Unused Escrow Funds 206.50
Fines/Forfeitures 1,590.00
Lawsuit Settlement 752000.00
Total $ 3747581.88
If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mr. Harry Hall at
978-6406.
Sincerely,
Roy Raymond, Sheriff
Harry E. Hall, Comp roller
-L
The 173rd Internationally Accredited Law Enforcement Agency
Accredited by the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Incorporated
November 13, 2001
6,
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Vice
Chairman Stanbridge, the Board unanimously accepted the Sheriff's
Constitutional Officers Financial Report for FY Ending 09/30/2001.
Z.F. Tax Collector's Constitutional Officers Fi,
Ending 9/3"]
The Board reviewed a letter of October 31, 2001:
CHARLES W. SEMBLER
October 31, 2001 Teti Collector
Honorable Mrs. Caroline Ginn
Chairman, Board of County Commissioners
Indian River County
1840 25" Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Dear Chairman Ginn:
I am enclosing the 2001 Excess Fee Report of the Indian River County Tax
Collector's Office.
Total income for fees from all sources for 2001 was $3, 914,553.76; total
expenditures were $2,112.564.42 and the excess fees were $1,801,989.34. This
breaks down to $1,574,154.34 being returned to the Board of County Commissions
up from $1, 470,732.23 last year and $227,835.00 being returned to the other taxing
districts, up from $217,771.00 last year.
Comparable figures for 2000 includes total income from all sources $3,686,573.95;
total expenditures were $1,998,070.69; producing excess fee of $1,688,503.26.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Charles W. Sembler
Tax Collector
CWS:cw
Enclosure
November 13, 2001
P.O. Box 1509 - VERO BE4CH. FL 32961-1509
PHONE: (561) 567-8000 - F.�x. (561) 770-5009
www. MvIndianRive rCotin R.coin
A
NOV 0 5 �
CLERK TC T' -1E BOARD
Z Fe
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Vice
Chairman Stanbridge, the Board unanimously accepted the Tax
Collector's Constitutional Officers Financial Report for FY Ending
09/30/01.
iser's Constituti
for FY Ending 9/3"]
nal Ut iters Financi
The Board reviewed a letter of October 24, 2001:
WE ARE HERE
TO SERVE YOU,
184025TH STREET
VERO BEACH, FL
32960
(561)567-8000x469
SUN -COM 224-1469
FAx(561)770-5087
E-mail: prop -appraiser
@indian-river.fl.us
INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF
ASSESSING OFFICERS
FLORIDA CHAPTER IAAO
HONORARY MEMBER
TENNESSEE CHAPTER
IAAO
IAAO
MEMBER OF THE YEAR
1989
AMERICAN SOCIETY OF
APPRAISERS
PROFESSIONAL
APPRAISERS
ASSOCIATION OF FLORIDA
FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF
^ROPERTY APPRAISERS
David C. Nolte, ASA
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER
October 24, 2001
Ed Fry
Director of Finance
1840 25h Street
Vero Beach, Fl 32960
Dr. Ed,
Enclosed please find a copy of our annual report for the year ending September 30, 2001,
Sincerely,
David C. Nolte,
Property Appraiser
DCN/ds
November 13, 2001
14
Pi Ait
c 3 v U 0
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Vice
Chairman Stanbridge, the Board unanimously accepted the Property
Appraiser's Constitutional Officers Financial Report for FY Ending
09/3 0/01.
7. G. Windsor Properties, Inc., Reauest for
ment (PD) Plat Approval for Windsor Plat
Cottages)
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 6, 2001:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DEPARTMENT DHEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. Keating, W ICP
Community Development Director
/16
THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP
Planning Director
FROM: John W. McCoy, AICP/��
Senior Planner, Current Development
DATE: November 6, 2001
ri
in
SUBJECT: Windsor Properties Inc. Request for Final Planned Development (PD) Plat
Approval for Windsor Plat 22 (Block 49 Golf Cottages)
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of November 137 2001.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Windsor plat 22 creates S single-family residential lots and 4 tracts from a 2.48 acre parcel. The
proposed tracts are to be used for landscaping, drainage, and future development. The subject
development is located in the southwest section of the North Village at the Windsor Development.
ANALYSIS
At its regular meeting of November 9th, 2000, the Planning and Zoning Commission granted
preliminary PD plan/plat approval for Windsor Plat 22. The applicant, Windsor Properties, Inc.,
November 13, 2001
15
r
is requesting final plat approval through its agent, Knight, McGui
submitted the following: re &Associates, Inc., and has
A final plat in conformance with the approved preliminary PD plar/plat.
2. A certified engineer's cost estimate for construction of the remaining required
improvements.
3. A contract for construction for the remaining required improvements.
4. A Letter of Credit to guarantee the contract for construction.
The applicant has not constructed any of the required improvements, and will need to bond -out for
all of the required improvements. The certified cost estimate for these remaining improvements has
been approved by the Public Works Department and the County Department of Utility Services. The
contract for construction has been reviewed and approved by the County Attorney s Office. All
requirements of final plat approval have been met.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the analysis, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners:
1. Grant final plat approval for Windsor Plat 22, and
2. Authorize the Chairman to sign the contract for construction and accept the posted
security.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Application
2. Location Map
3. Final Plat
4. Contract for Construction (Draft)
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Vice
Chairman Stanbridge, the Board unanimously granted final plat
approval for Windsor Plat 22, and authorized the Chairman to sign
the contract for construction and accept the posted security, as
recommended in the memorandum.
CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
November 13, 2001
16
Bi
7.H. CR512 - 145 to Roseland Road - Masteller & M
ial Release of RetainaLre
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 6, 2001:
TO: James Chandler, County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E., Public Works Director �2SENT AGENDA
FROM: Christopher J. Kafer, Jr., P.E., County Enginee
SUBTECT: CR 512 — IRC Project No. 9611, I-95 to Rosel)indRoad
REQUEST FOR PARTIAL RELEASE OF RETAINAGE
DATE: November 6, 2001
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Indian River County entered into a Professional Engineering Services Agreement with Masteller &
Moler, Inc. on January 21, 1997. The original compensation amount was $471,500.00. Four (4)
amendments to the agreement have been executed which changed the compensation amount to
$696,518.00. On August 21, 2001 the Board of County Commissioners approved partial release of
retainage (5%) for the overall Design and Supplemental Services, Task 1, in the amount of
$211000.00.
Amendment No. I, executed July 21, 1998, added the following to the agreement:
Task II Construction Phasing $97550.00
Task III Drainage Design Expansion $4,100.00
Task IV City of Sebastian, Additional Services
related to Bloosom Ditch Diversion System $15,260.00
Amendment No. 4, executed September 19, 2000, added a feasibility study to expand Stormwater
Basin #A for a lump sum of $23,550.00.
Work on Task II is complete and $8,595.00 has been paid to date. We have $955.00 remaining (10%
retainage) to pay_ Task III is complete and $3,690.00 has been paid. We have $410.00 remaining
(10% retainage )
to pay. Task IV is complete and $13,734.00 has been paid.
We have $1,526.00
remaining (10%
retainage) to pay. The Feasibility Study is complete at 60% ($14,130.00)
and
$12,1287.25 has
been paid. The Feasibility Study will not be completed to
100%
as it has been
determined the Stormwater
Basin #A expansion wall not be feasible. We have
$2,001.75
remaining
to
be paid
(10%
retainage for the
work
completed).
The Consultant is requesting a partial release of retainage for Tasks II, III & IV and final payment
and release of retainage for the Feasibility Study. Payment for 5% of the retaininage for Tasks IL III
and IV will be $477.50, $205.00 and $763.00 respectively, and full payment for Feasibility Study is
$2,001.75 for a total of $3,447.25. This amount will leave the County with 5% retainage for
November 13, 2001
17
Ai t
Tasks II, III & IV. The Professional Engineer ng ServIC-cs Agreemen
of retainage. t does not cover partial release
5% retainage will be adequate for any adjustments to the plans under the current
The remaining
scope of work.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Alternative No I - Approve the Consultant's request for partial release of retainage for Tasks 11 III
and IV and final payment and release of retainage for the Feasibility Study in the amount of
$3,447.25.
Alternative No. 2 - Deny the Consultant's request for partial release of retainage for Tasks II, III and
fV and deny request for payment in full for the Feasibility Study.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends Alternative No. 1. Funding to be from Account No. 101-157-541-067.73.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Invoice No. 9649LC-7 from Masteller & Moler, Inc. dated September 30, 2001
2. Invoice No. 9649LD-3 from Masteller & Moler, Inc. dated September 30, 2001
3. Invoice No. 9649LE-8 from Masteller & Moler, Inc. dated September 30, 2001
4. Invoice No. 9649LI-4 from Masteller & Moler, Inc_ dated September 30, 2001
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Vice
Chairman Stanbridge, the Board unanimously approved Alternative
No. 1 (approved the Consultant's request for partial release of
retainage for Tasks II, III, and IV and final payment and release of
retainage for the Feasibility Study in the amount of $3,447.25 to
Masteller & Moler, Inc., as recommended in the memorandum.
November 13, 2001
DOCUMENTS ARE ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
U Payments to Vendors of Court Related Cos
c
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of October 31, 2001:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH: Paul G. Bangel, County Attorney ')L'
FROM: Michael C. Zito, Assistant County Attorne�
DATE: October 31, 2001
SUBJECT: Payments to Vendors of Court Related Costs
The Office of the County Attorney has processed and approved payment to the following vendors for tie weeks of
October 11 2001 through October 29, 2001. Listed below are the vendors and the amount of each court -related
cost.
VENDOR: PAYMENT TYPE: AMOUNT:
American Reporting Transcription 69.00
Sheila I. Flinn Transcription 70.00
James T. Long, Esq. Public Defender Conflicts (8) 4,800.00
Robert J. Brugnoli, Ph.D. Expert Witness 11050.00
Eleanor English Witness Coordination 75.12
Gregory C. Landrum, Psy.D. Indigent as to Costs 575.00
Hammond & Smith, P.A. Indigent Dependency Cases (20) 195056.00
Linda Seymour Transcription 287.00
Madge A. Bradford Transcription 52.50
Janet C. Prosper Transcription 28.00
Madge A. Bradford Transcription 14.00
Madge A. Bradford Transcription 66.50
Treasure Coast Court Reporter Transcription 81.00
Cristi Martin Transcription 38.50
Madge A. Bradford Transcription 77.00
Marsha Ewing State Attorney Costs 2.00
Madge A. Bradford Transcription 66.50
Maria Barrow Court Interpreter 175.00
Linda Seymour Transcription 56.00
American Reporting Transcription 58.00
Marcia Geisler-Steiner Transcription 164 50
Berta B. H. Bauchman Court Interpreter 30.00
Suncoast Counseling Clinical Evaluation 587.50
Karleen DeBalaker, Clerk State Attorney Costs 6.00
Medical Record Services State Attorney Costs 14695
Michael C. Riordan, Psy. D. Expert Witness 276.50
Lynda McGinnis, LPN Clinical Evaluation 80.00
Garry Edwards, Ph.D, Clinical Evaluation 175.00
Berthold E. Schwarz, M.D. Transcription 150.00
Karleen F. DeBlaker State Attorney Costs 6.00
Suncoast Counseling Clinical Evaluation 537.50
Michael C. Riordan, Psy.D. Clinical Evaluation 1,150.00
Howard Forman, Clerk State Attorney Costs 18.00
Federal Express Public Defender Costs 14.82
Suncoast Counseling Clinical Evaluation 537.50
Gregory C. Landrum, Psy.D. Clinical Evaluation 675.00
Wuesthoff Reference Lab State Attorney Costs 160.00
Alma Rosa Barajas Court Interpreter 40.00
Howard Forman, Clerk State Attorney Costs 5.00
Medical Record Services State Attorney Costs 18.37
George Koverdan Court Interpreter 524.40
Maria E. Barrow Court Interpreter 40.00
Berta B. H. Bauchman Court Interpreter 40.00
November 13, 2001
19
Solai Gagel
Sheila I. Flinn
Janet C. Prosper-
Pamela
rosperPamela G Phelps
Linda Seymour
Crisit Martin
Donna Speirs
Cristi Martin
Patricia B. Held
AT&T
State Attorney County Account
Unishippers
Unishippers
Unishippers
Marsha Ewing, Clerk
Sheila I. Flinn
American Reporting
Rene Fazio, Court Reporter
Suncoast Counseling
Federal Express
Eleanor English
Alma Rosa Barajas
Alma Rosa Barajas
Kenneth L. Director, M.D.
Fred J. Petrilla, Ph.D.
Helen Murray, L.H.M.C.
James T. Long, Esq.
James T. Long, Esq.
James T. Long, Esq.
Madge A. Bradford
Cristi Martin
Cristi Martin
Total
NO ACTION REQUIRED OR TAKEN.
U. Domesti
- GCSD, Melb
Court Interpreter
40.00
Transcription
38.50
Transcription
10.00
Transcription
91.00
Transcription
143.50
Transcription
129.50
Transcription
70.00
Transcription
133.00
Transcription
217.00
State Attorney Costs
93.61
State Attorney Costs
175.00
State Attorney Costs
22.40
State Attorney Costs
20.78
State Attorney Costs
10.14
State Attorney Costs
15.00
Transcription
63.00
Transcription
25.00
Transcription
34.00
Clinical Evaluation
537.50
Public Defender Costs
23.02
Witness Coordination
21029.31
Court Interpreter
40.00
Court Interpreter
40.00
Clinical Evaluation
175.00
Clinical Evaluation
500.00
Clinical Evaluation
80.00
Public Defender Conflicts
(Juv.)
600.00
Public Defender Conflicts
(Felony)
51400.00
Public Defender Conflicts
(Misc.)
600.00
Transcription
56.00
Transcription
175.00
Transcription
56.00
$43,783.42
idualA
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 13, 2001:
DATE: NOVEMBER 13, 2001
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: W. ERIK OLSON, DIRECTOF UTILITY SERVICES
PREPARED JOYCE H. DAUGHERTY
11
BY: STAFF ASSISTANT IV
SUBJECT: DOMESTIC WASTEWATER RESIDUAL AGREEMENT
HARRIS CORPORATION-GCSD, MELBOURNE, FL.
November 13, 2001
- Harris
tE c . U € t_t P•I
ati
BACKGROUND:
Hams Corp. - GCSD, owns and operates a domestic wastewater treatment facility permitted as the
1025 West Nasa Boulevard, Mail Stop 45, Melbourne, Brevard County, Florida. Attached herewith is an
Agreement for Treatment and Disposal of Domestic Wastewater Residuals.
ANALYSIS:
The County operates and maintains a publicly -owned Residual Management Facility, (dewatering
facility), at the Central Regional WWTF, Florida Permit Number FLA -010434-001, which is capable of
accepting domestic wastewater residuals from outside sources. The facility has been given approval, and
is operating under Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) permit, in compliance with
Florida Administrative Code, (FAC), Chapter 62-640, to properly treat and dispose of domestic
wastewater residuals.
The Customer, (Harris Corp. - GCSD.) is required to engage the services of a licensed, insured hauler
to bring the wastewater residuals from Hams Corp. Facility to the Central Regional WWTF for treatment.
Hams Corp. will be charged the prevailing rates as shown on the Schedule of Water and Sewer Rates,
Fees, and Charges, attached to the Agreement and labeled "Exhibit A".
RFCOMNIENDaTIONS:
The Staff of the Department of Utilities Services recommends that the Board of County
Commissioners approve the attached Domestic Wastewater Residual Agreement as presented, and
authorize the Chairman to execute the same.
sjd`,jhd
Attachments
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Vice
Chairman Stanbridge, the Board unanimously approved the proposed
Domestic Wastewater Residual Agreement with Harris Corporation.,
as presented, and authorized the Chairman to execute the same, as
recommended in the memorandum.
I {;
AGREEMENT Nit!i!-B£ ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
WHEN EXECUTED AND RECEIVED
7.K. Employment Agreement - Marian E. Fel
Attorney II
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 7, 2001:
November 13, 2001
tan
21 ,e
Eli drt J :.i
November 7, 2001
MEMORANDUM
To: Board of County Commissioners
From: Paul G. Bangel, County Attorney�la{
Re: Employment Agreement; Marian E. Fell, Assistant County Attorney II
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners consent to the
employment of Marian E. Fell as an Assistant County Attorney II beginning November 13,
2001, approve the attached proposed employment agreement, authorize the chairman to
execute the agreement, and approve the reclassification of an Assistant County Attorney
I position to Assistant County Attorney II.
Discussion:
Following Michael C. Zito's departure from the County Attorney's Office I have
selected Marian E. Fell, who has been an attorney for about seventeen years, and who has
about six years' experience as a local government attorney. Her resume and a few
recommendation letters are attached.
Pursuant to Section 101.06, The Code of Indian River County, attorneys hired after
March 2000 are at will contract employees.
PGB
Attachment
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Vice
Chairman Stanbridge, the Board unanimously approved the contract
for employment of Marian E Fell, as an Assistant County Attorney II,
as recommended. (See also Item 12.)
November 13, 2001
CONTRACT IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
22
7.L.
r
Church of Sebastian
c.
Service Agree
ith Fi
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 2, 2001:
DATE: NOVENLBER Z, 2001
TO: JANLES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: W. ERIK OLSON
DLRECTOR OF UTIEITY SERVICES
PREPARED JAMES D. CHAS
AND MANAGER OFS S MENT PROJECTS
STAFFED BY: DEPARTMENT O UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: TEMPORARY WATER SERVICE
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AND FIRST
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF SEBASTIAN
BACKGROUND
The First Presbyterian Church of Sebastian has requested that a temporary service be installed from the
water line on Main Street to service their property at 1405 Louisiana Avenue, Sebastian , Florida prior to
the installation of a water main on Louisiana Avenue (North).
ANALYSIS
The Agreement states that the Indian River County Department of Utility Services shall provide
temporary water service to the First Presbyterian Church of Sebastian , until such time that a water line
may be constructed on Louisiana Avenue by Assessment. Payment of all fees required to make this
connection, and participation in the assessment, which may involve reconnecting to this water line as
required by the Indian River County Department of Utility Services, has been agreed to by
RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the
attached Agreement with the First Presbyterian Church of Sebastian on the Consent Auenda_
JDCi b
Attachments
November 13, 2001
23
i
,an
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Vice
Chairman Stanbridge, the Board unanimously approved the proposed
agreement with the First Presbyterian Church of Sebastian, as
recommended in the memorandum.
&C of) RdCd AGREEMENT IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
7.M. Access Now Inc. et al. v. Los Angeles Dod ers et al. • Case No.
01-CV44259/Civ/Paine
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 9, 2001:
November 9, 2001
MEMORANDUM
To: Board of County Commissioners
From: Paul G. Bangel, County Attorney V66 I i
Re: Access Now Inc., et al., v. Los Angeles Dodgers, et al.; Case No. 01-Cv-
14259/Civ/Paine
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners ratify and approve the
engagement of Carol C. Lumpkin, Esquire, and the law firm of Akerman, Senterfitt, and
Eidson, to represent Indian River County in the above -referenced case.
Discussion:
The above -referenced lawsuit naming Indian River County, inter glia,and alleging
Americans with Disabilities Act violations at Dodgertown, was served on Commissioner
Macht. Since the November 6, 2001, meeting of the Board of County Commissioners, at
which the Board authorized engagement of other counsel, I have ascertained that the law
firm of Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A., will handle the County's defense at the Los
Angeles Dodgers' expense.
PGB
cc: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Carol C. Lumpkin, Esquire
November 13, 2001
24
9.A.1.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Vice
Chairman Stanbridge, the Board unanimously ratified and approved
the engagement of Carol C. Lumpkin, Esquire, and the law firm of
Akerman, Senterfitt, and Eidson, to represent Indian River County in
the above -referenced case, as recommended by the County Attorney
in his memorandum.
I
m
UTION N
01-115 -
TRANSMIT YUKON LAND CORPORATION'S REQUEST TO AMEND
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO REDESIGNATE ±142 ACRES
FROM R TO L4AND TO REZONE THOSE ±142 ACRES 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 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 this
Memorandum of November 5, 2001 using a PowerPoint outline (on file with the backup) to aid in
his presentation:
TO: James E. Chandler; County Administrator
kvelopment Director
U �-
THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICP; Chief, Long -Range Planning -
FROM: John Wachtel; Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning G�
November 13, 2001
25
E
DATE: November 5, 2001
RE: Yukon Land Corporation's Request to Amend The Comprehensive Plan to
Redesignate ±142 Acres From R to L-1, And to Rezone Those ±142 Acres From
A-1 to RS -3
PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER: LUDA 2001-08-0013
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of November 13, 2001.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
This request is to amend the Comprehensive Plan to redesignate ±142 acres from R, Rural
Residential (up to 1 umt/acre), to L-1, Low -Density Residential -1 (up to 3 units/acre); and to rezone
those ±142 acres from A-1, Agricultural District (up to 1 unit/5 acres), to RS -3, Single -Family
Residential District (up to 3 units/acre). Depicted in Figures 1 and 2, the subject property is located
at the northeast corner of the intersection of 85" Street (the easUwest portion of CR 510, also known
as Wabasso Road) and 90" 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 units/acre.
On September 27, 2001, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4 to 2 to recommend that the
Board of County Commissioners deny the proposed land use amendment.
Figure 1: Land Use Designation and Location of the Subject Property
C.R. 512
C/I
e..
4
v e
7 =• .a
_ Q _
Z
Sebastian River 0 R
Nigh School
c• ..a ca Ln
21
zi
r L-1
3�
EMU
-;
_ � LLLLLLL� .
-71
R. 510 - a ass - 851f -
Street
November 13, 2001
Figure 2: Zoning and Location of the Subject Property
C.R. 512
CG
Ar -1 ..
T
CL
_ TIA ,
>I - s
RS -3 - - A-1 s
C Z = 3
Sebastian River
High School
-
.�e r
Ln
h
Jy -la e — LL wi}"Y�y'. y^xdl-�P"y91C'1e#. A-1
V
a- 34
7¢r t'a.t y y 4� e wi 1
-4"amu �� s
�'- trk 1i "F rf iy ��Ct+. le .t.Yye�h� r+r1l
.: 1s1o�A 1 a asci 85}h Street I �j - -
.I.
Previous Application
The subject property was part of a July 2000 plan amendment request to redesignate ±180 acres from
R to L-1. The July 2000 amendment request included the subject property plus a ±38 acre tract
located along the west half of the subject property's north boundary. The following summarizes
actions taken on the July 2000 plan amendment request.
• On September 28, 2000, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6 to 0 to recorrunend
that the Board of County Commissioners approve the request.
• On October 19, 2000, the Professional Services Advisory Committee voted 6 to 0
recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve the request.
• On November 7, 2000, the Board of County Commissioners voted 5 to 0 to transmit the
request to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for their review.
• Consistent with state regulations, DCA reviewed the proposed amendment and prepared an
Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report (dated February 9, 2001),
which planning staff received on February 12, 2001. The DCA ORC Report did not contain
any objections or comments relating to the proposed amendment.
• At a March 20, 2001, public hearing, the Board of County Comrnissioners, citing negative
impacts on the St. Sebastian River and stormwater management problems, voted 5 to 0 deny
he request.
November 13, 2001
27
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Review Procedures
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 2001
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 (as in this case) 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 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
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 transnutted 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.
Existing Land Use Pattern
The subject property is zoned A-1 and consists of citrus groves and several agricultural buildings.
Properties to the north, south and east are also zoned A-1. Citrus groves with an occasional single-
family residence or storage building exist on land abutting the site on the north and east.
Between 90`h Avenue and 58`h 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 CR 510, is outside the USA, that land
is the site of a north county elementary school that is currently under construction. East of the school
site, on the south side of CR 510, citrus groves are the primary land use.
To the west of the site, across a 275 foot wide drainage canal right-of-way and 90`h 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, on the west side of 90th Avenue, is Sebastian River High School.
November 13, 2001
Future Land Use Pattern
The subject property and properties to the north are designated R, Rural Residential, on the county's
future land use map. The R designation permits residential uses with densities up to 1 unit/acre-
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 east and west of the subject
property, land is designated L-1, Low -Density Residential -1. Land more than a quarter rrle north
of the subject property is also designated L-1. The L-1 designation permits residential uses with
densities up to 3 units/acre.
Environment
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.
Utilities and Services
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.
Transportation System
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 proms ammed for expansion to four lanes and 160 feet of public road right-
of-way by 2020.
ANALYSIS
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.
Concurrency of Public Facilities
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, Stormwater Management, and Recreation (Future Land Use Policy 3.1).
The adequate provision of these services is necessary to ensure the continued quality of life enjoyed
by the community. The Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations(Ll)Rs) require
November 13, 2001
29
that new development be reviewed to ensure that the minimum acceptable standards for these
services and facilities are maintained.
Policy 3.2 of the Future Land Use Element states that no development shall be approved unless it
is consistent with the concurrency management system component of the Capital Improvements
Element. For 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:
I. Size of Area to be Redesignated: ±142 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: 142 Single -Family Units
5. Most Intense Use of Subject Property
Under Proposed Land Use Designation: 426 Single -Family Units
Transportation
As part of the concurrency review process, the applicant has submitted a Trak 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 426 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 426
single-family residential units, resulting in water consumption at a rate of 426 Equivalent Residential
Units (ERU), or 106,500 gallons/day. This is based upon a level of service of 250 gallons/ERU/day.
November 13, 2001
30
rJ
vt °
i R %j
Development on the subject property would be served by the North County Reverse Osmosis Plant,
which currently has a remaining capacity of more than 11500,000 gallons/day and can accommodate
the additional demand generated by the proposed land use amendment.
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 426 Equivalent Residential
Units (ERU), or 106,500 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 184,600 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 426 units would
be anticipated to house approximately 980 people (2.3 X 426). 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 1,930 (980 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.
Stormwater Management
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. For that
reason, development of this site would not increase downstream flooding for a 25 year/24 hour
design storm.
Although the minimum floor elevation level of service standards do not apply (because the property
does not tie within a floodplain), 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 3,711,312 square feet, or 852 acres. The maximum runoff volume,
based on that amount of impervious surface and the 25 year/24 hour design storm, would be
approximately 3,909,876 cubic feet. In order to maintain the county's adopted level of service, the
applicant would be required to retain approximately 1,299,373 cubic feet of runoff on-site. With the
soil characteristics of the subject property, it is estimated that the peak pre -development runoff rate
is 176.2 cubic feet/second.
November 13, 2001
31
Based upon staff, s analysis, the stormwater management level of service standards would be met by
limitin_ off-site discharge to its peak pre -development rate of 1762 cub
retention of the 1ic feeUsecond and requiring
,299,;7; cubic feet of runoff for the most intense use of the propene.
As with all development, amore detailed review will be conducted during the development approval
process.
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.
LOS (Acres per 1,000 Population)
4.0
Concurrency Summary
PARK INFORMATION
Project Demand (Acres)
3.92
Surplus Park Acreage
1,164
Based upon the analysis conducted, staff has determined that all concurrency -mandated facilities,
including stormwater management, 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.
Consistency with Comprehensive Plan
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 163.31 77(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 objectives 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:
November 13, 2001
32
• 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.
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 Citv of
Sebastian was designated R from 90"' Avenue to 66" Avenue. As a result, the subject property was
bounded on the west 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 from R to L-1.
That 1994 amendment affected the subject property in the followine two ways.
• The site is now bounded on two 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 west of the subject property (across 90" Avenue), was completed in the mid -1990's.
Additionally, a new elementary school is now under construction on land located directly south of
the subject property (across 85" 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
pernutted 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 construction of these schools has occurred since plan adoption.
For those reasons, 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.
November 13, 2001
33
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
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
3. 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;
0 Sanitary sewer lines are within a half mile of the site;
0 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 two sides by L-1 designated land, and within a quarter mile of L-1
designated land on a third side.
For these reasons, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 7.11.
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.
November 13, 2001
34
Compatibilitv with the Surroundin.a Area
Development under the requested land use designation and zoning district is anticipated to be
compatible with surrounding areas. Because the site is bounded on two sides by L-1 designated land,
the request is for the expansion of an existing land use designation pattern. At +12 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 Al 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 desi.anations
allow for more cost efficient, compact and affordable development. The land use desicynation 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 enouah 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.
Potential Impact on Environmental Qualitv
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.
There is one primary environmental benefit associated with developing the site as a single-family
subdivision. That benefit is the county requirement that stormwater runoff be treated (usually via
detention areas) prior to being discharged. In contrast, there are no such county requirements for
active agricultural operations.
For these reasons, significant adverse environmental impacts associated with this request are not
anticipated.
CONCLUSION
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 criter- _Ia, 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.
RECOMtiIENDATION
Based on the analysis, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners transmit the
proposed land use amendment to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for their review, by
approving the attached Transmittal Resolution.
November 13, 2001
35
ATTACHMENTS
1. Summary Page
?. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation Amendment Application
3. Rezoning Application
4. Detailed Transportation Concurrency Analysis
5. Approved Minutes of the September 27, 2001, Planning and Zoning Commission Meetine
6. Transmittal Resolution
Vice Chairman Stanbridge noted this has been scaled down from 180 to 142 acres and was
denied previously. In her opinion, this proposal was a reaction to the School Board plan for a school
in that area. She was unhappy because she was beginning to see a pattern.
Director Keating explained the rationale and development on this site will allow children to
walk to the school.
Commissioner Adams recalled the Board's main concern the first time this came before them
was the wetland area and runoff into the river. There was no concern with the school. The school,
therefore, had no bearing on this proposal, but probably added credence. The protection of the river
was of the most importance to her and that concern has been removed from the plan.
Chairman Ginn agreed and noted this is within the urban service area, but Vice Chairman
Stanbridge pointed out it is still within the floodplain.
Commissioner Adams disagreed that it was within the floodplain and discussion ensued.
Commissioner Adams stressed it is within the urban service area and the Board needs to be
consistent.
Vice Chairman Stanbridge continued to express concern about the floodplain but that will
have to be addressed in their plans for development.
Director Keating produced a map and pointed out the floodplain areas and according to the
FEMA maps this site is not located in the 100 -year floodplain.
Vice Chairman Stanbridge commented that FEMA has been known to be wrong.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this
matter.
November 13, 2001
WO
Bruce Barkett, representing the applicant, thanked Director Keating for the presentation and
advised that Joe Schulke, the engineer, was in the audience and could address drainage or floodplain
issues if desired. Also present was Pierre Paquette, President of the Yukon Land Corporation. He
noted that Long -Range Planning Chief Sasan Rohani was quoted recently in the newspaper
identifying the north county/Sebastian area as one of the fastest growing in the county. Approval
would not be sprawl, growth should be contained within the urban service area.
Sheri Reichert, 772 Cavern Terrace, Sebastian, was pleased to move her family here recently
to escape sprawl, development and overburdened schools. Sebastian River High School already has
too many students. Sebastian is supposed to double its population within 30 years, but that will
happen even quicker when big developments come in. She felt existing neighborhoods should be
built out first. The new school is being built because existing schools are overcrowded.
Rene Renzi, 340 Waverly Place, asked the basis of the Planning and Zoning Commission's
denial, and Chairman Ginn gave the history of this proposal.
Director Keating stated that it appeared to him from their discussion that the P&Z members
were reacting to the Board's previous decision.
Richard Baker, 322 North Blue Island Lane, Sebastian, favored denial and recommended
the community follow the Comprehensive Plan. He thought approval of this will increase taxes by
requiring more public services and bringing more congestion to the roads.
Brian Heady wanted to hear a presentation from the P&Z before the Board votes. He stated
there are more elementary student stations than there are students. This school was a long-standing
promise to the residents. The State has refused funding so the taxpayers are paying for it.
Chairman Ginn advised that the P&Z minutes were in the backup. It was only very briefly
discussed and the concern was that the site was in the floodplain.
It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the Chairman closed the public
hearing.
November 13, 2001
37
tf
1
t
9
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Tippin, the Board adopted (4-1, Vice Chairman
Stanbridge opposed) Resolution No. 2001-115 approving 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. 2001-115
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
2001 amendment submittal window, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on this comprehensive plan
amendment request on September 27, 2001, after due public notice, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency recommended that the Board of County
Commissioners deny transmittal of the comprehensive plan amendment listed below; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County held a Transmittal
Public Hearing on November 13, 2001, 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:
I. 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:
November 13, 2001
IN
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-115
Request to amend the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan from R,
Rural Residential (up to I unit/acre), to L-1, Low -Density Residential -1 (up to 3
units/acre), for ±142 acres located at the northeast corner of 85" Street and 90`h
Avenue.
The forgoing Resolution was offered by Commissioner Adams
Commissioner Ti ppi n and seconded by
and upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Caroline D. Ginn Aye
Vice -Chairman Ruth M. Stanbridge _Nay
Commissioner Fran B. Adams
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht °— A�yP
Commissioner John W. Tippin n
y_ P
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted at a public hearing held
this 13" day of November 2001.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORID
:!BY: ATTES�� ,
Caroline D. Ginn, C firman
I/ Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
William G. Collins II, Deputy County Attorney
AS TO PLANNING MATTERS
Robert M. Keating, AICP
Community Development
Indian River Co. Approved Date
Admin. f �� d O
Legal
Budget
Dept.
Risk Mor
f:Acd\u\jw\lu\yukon2\transmital res.wpd
November 13, 2001
39
EPA
9,A,2, PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUr
TRANSMIT INDECO, INC 'S REQUEST TO A
THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT OF T]
PLAN TO DELETE 25TH STREET SW, BETH
AVENUES (Legislative)
PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF ADVERTISEMENT FOR HEARING
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
Oe 2001-116 —
IGURE 4.13 OF
IPREHENSIVE
TH AND 27TH
Community Development Director Robert 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 this
Memorandum of November 5, 2001 using a PowerPoint outline (on file with the backup) to aid in
his presentation:
TO: James E. Chandler; County Administrator
DEP MENT H7AD CONCURRENCE
�/ r/.Lae s✓ i�—
M. -eating, Al P; Co munit}jD -elopment Director
THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICP; Chief, Long -Range Planning S "W"
FROM: John Wachtel; Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning��i)
DATE: November 5, 2001
RE: Indeco, Inc.'s Request to Amend Figure 4.13 of the Transportation Element of
the Comprehensive Plan to Delete 25" Street, SW, Between 20'hAvenue and 27"'
Avenue
PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER: CPTA 2001-05-0202
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of November 13, 2001.
November 13, 2001
Ell
UZ
`w S
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
This is a request by Indeco, 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 25`h Street, SW as a Rural Major Collector
Roadway from 43rd Avenue east to 12`h Avenue. The request is to remove the portion of 25`h Street,
SW located between 20`h Avenue and 27`h Avenue (also known as Emerson Avenue and CR 607).
Attachment 2 shows Fiaure 4.13 as it currently exists; Attachment 3 shows the Proposed Figure 4.13.
On September 27, 2001, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6 to 0 to recommend that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed comprehensive plan text amendment.
BACKGROUND
For 25`h Street, SW, no right-of-way currently exists between 20`h Avenue and 27`h Avenue_ East of
20`h Avenue and west of 27`h Avenue, 25`h Street, SW exists as part of platted subdivisions and
functions like a small local road. Currently, the county does not have any plans to extend 25`h Street,
SW to connect 20`h Avenue and 27`h Avenue.
The issue of removing a portion of 25`h Street, SW from the Thoroughfare Plan Map is related to the
proposed Falcon Trace residential development_ According to a Preliminary Plat application
submitted by the applicant, Falcon Trace is proposed to be a 290 acre development that will consist
of 327 single-family units and an IS hole golf course. The entire project is generally located between
20`h Avenue and 27`h Avenue; and between 17`h Street, SW and 25`h Street, SW. The Falcon Trace
project is scheduled for review by the Planning and Zoning Commission on November S, 2001.
Despite the fact that several factors (including the existing development patterns and the lack of
existing right-of-way) indicate that the subject portion of 25`h Street, SW will never be built, the
applicant has submitted this request for two reasons_ The first reason is to retain the land that would
be reserved for public road right-of-way if the subject portion of 25" Street, SW remained a
Thoroughfare Plan Map roadway.
The second reason the applicant has proposed deleting the subject portion of 25" Street, SW is
related to compatibility issues between major roads and residential developments. While the county
has many residential developments along major roads, those developments usually provide
substantial setbacks and buffers to mitigate the noise, lights and odors associated with major roads.
By removing the road from the comprehensive plan, the applicant reduces the chances that the road
will ever be built and that impacts associated with the road will need to be mitigated.
ANALYSIS
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 25`h Street, SW between 27`h Avenue and 20" 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
November 13, 2001
41
providing more than orae route to most destinations. For that reason, the grid system, gencmlly,
reduces congestion, aids hurricane evacuation, and should be preserved.
There is, however, another factor, unique to 25" Street, SW, that indicates that the referenced
segment could be deleted without adverse impacts_ That factor is that the subject segment of 25"
Street, SW could attract traffic from only one side, the north side. The south side of the road is
bounded by a drainage canal with 100 feet of right-of-way. South of that canal, in St. Lucie County,
is a two lane road. The only access from Indian River County to that road is from 27" Avenue or
one of the major roads west of 27`h Avenue.
Considering those conditions, even if 25`h Street, SW were built, it is unlikely that it would ever
serve enough traffic to warrant its designation on the Thoroughfare Plan Map. For that reason,
removing the referenced portion of 25" Street, SW is unlikely to impact service levels of other
county roads or hurricane evacuation times. For those 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. Of particular applicability to this proposed amendment are the following
policies.
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 25`h Street, SW. Because 25"Street, SW could
draw traffic from only one side of the street; and because another parallel street is available, 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.
November 13, 2001
42
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 fulfil] the county's legal
C to provide facilities and services, or to preserve or achieve full use of existin
facilities; g
b. whether the project increases efficiency of use of existing facilities, prevents or reduces
future improvement cost, 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.
Because of low anticipated traffic volumes (due to development of only one side of the street) a
project constructing 25`h Street, SW between 20" Avenue and 27`h Avenue is not consistent with any
of the above guidelines. Therefore, the referenced segment of 25" Street, SW 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 12.
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.
CONCLliSION
The proposed amendment corrects an oversight in the comprehensive plan. Although 25" Street is
unlikely to be constructed, its location is such that even if it were built it would serve development
only on one side of the road. For that reason, even if that segment of 25" Street were built, traffic
volume would not likely warrant Thoroughfare Plan Map designation. Additionally, a parallel two-
lane road already exists in St. Lucie County. In contrast, the referenced segment of 25"Street does
not currently exist and there are no plans to build it. For those reasons, it is unlikely that that portion
of 25"Street will ever be constructed and designation on the Thoroughfare Plan Map is not
necessary. Staff supports the request.
RECOMNIENDATION
Based on the analysis, staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that Che Board
of County Comrrussioners transmit the proposed land use amendment to the Florida Department of
Community Affairs for their review, by approving the attached Transmittal Resolution.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment Application
2. Existing Figure 4.13
3. Proposed Figure 4.13
4. Approved Minutes of the September 27, 2001, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
5_ Transmittal Resolution
November 13, 2001
43
matter.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this
Steve Moler, representing the applicant, advised that he was available for questions.
It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the Chairman closed the public
hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Vice
Chairman Stanbridge, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution No.
2001-116 approving 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. 2001-116
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
2001 amendment submittal window, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on this comprehensive plan
amendment request on September 27, 2001, 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 13, 2001, 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
November 13, 2001
CE1
t
l t
RESOLUTION NO. 200t- 116
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 25" Street, SW, between 20t" Avenue and 27`h Avenue.
The forgoing Resolution was offered by Commissioner Adams and seconded by
Commissioner tanbri dce and upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Caroline D. Ginn Aye
Vice -Chairman Ruth M. Stanbridge Aye
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Commissioner John W. Tippin —Ayp
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted at a public hearing held
this 13" day of November 2001. `
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY: Z: Jr � L1�A4
Caroline D. Ginn, Chair
ATTES
C2
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
William G. Collins II, Deputy County Attorney
AS TO PLANNING MATTERS
R'(Jbert M. Keating, AIC P
Community Development Directbr
November 13, 2001
LR
Maw Rivj Ca
Approve)
Dale
Admin.
- foo
tri �; C'
LegaiL�O
6"dgel
Devi
9
Nish Mgr
9.A.3. p
ri
4 AND
(Legislative
i
Vol
GAMIN U - RESOLUr
-INITIATED REQUE
AN TO REDESIGNATE
NVIRONMENTALLY
(HARMONY OAKS -
NE -
PROOF OF PUBLICATION 1S ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
5
-117
- ±5
Community Development Director Robert 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 this
Memorandum of November 5, 2001 while displaying a PowerPoint outline (on file with the backup):
TO: ,Tames E. Chandler; County Administrator
DF&AR' XIENT HEAD CONCURRENCE
ert M. Keating, A CI ; Community De elopment Director
THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICP; Chief, Long-Range/Planning S t�
FROM: John Wachtel; Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning
DATE: November 5, 2001
RE: County Initiated Request to Amend The Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate
±88.5 Acres from L-2 and C-2 to C-1, And to Rezone Those ±88.5 Acres From
RS -6 and RS -1 to Con -1; to Amend the Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate ±66
Acres From L-2 to C-1, And to Rezone Those ±66 Acres From RM -6 and RS -6
to Con -1; to Amend The Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate ±59.5 Acres From
C-2 to C-1, And to Rezone Those ±59.5 Acres From RS -3 to Con -1; to Amend
November 13, 2001
46
the Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate ±19 Acres From L-2 to C-1, And to
Rezone Those ±19 Acres From RM -6 to Con -1; And to Amend The
Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate ±1.5 Acres From L-1 to C-1, And to Rezone
Those ±15 Acres From RM -3 to Con4
PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER: LUDA 2001-07-0201
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of November 13, 2001.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
This is a county initiated request involving five separate parcels, each of which contains
environmentally sensitive and environmentally important land now under some form of public
ownership. Attachments 3 to 12 at the end of this staff report show the locations, land use
designations, and zoning districts of the subject properties. Summarized in the table below, this
request involves changing both the land use designation and the zoning of each site. The purpose
of this request is to secure the necessary land use designation and zoning to reflect the subject
properties' public ownership and to ensure that the subject properties' environmental significance
will be preserved.
SUBJECT SUBJECT SUBJECT SUBJECT SUBJECT
PROPERTY 1 PROPERTI' 2 PROPERTY 3 PROPERTY 4 PROPERTY S
KNOWN AS Harmony Oaks Oslo Riverfrom South Round Island South Anstalt
Spallone
GENERAL East side of US 1; West South side of 9'" West side of SR AIA; South end of 1301" Street East side of SR AIA,
LOCATION side of Indian River Street, SW (Oslo South of Round Island (Gibson Street) right -of- along the north border
Lagoon; North side of Road); East of US 1 Park
St. Lucie County line way; West side of FEC of Golden Sands Park
Railway
SIZE IN ACRES 88.5 66 59.5 lg
1.5
TYPE OF coastal hammock; xeric scrub; coastal maritime hammock; xeric scrub; pine flatwoods; coastal strand
HABITAT estuarine wetlands; hammock; estuarine estuarine wetlands savanna wetlands; primary
freshwater wetlands wetlands; freshwater recharge area for the
wetlands surficial groundwater
aquifer
CURRENT L-2, Low -Density L-2, Low -Density C-2, Privately owned L-2, Low -Density
esi Low -Density
rin
LAND USE Residential -2 (up to 6 Residential -2 (up to 6 Estruae Wetland Residential -2 (up to 6 Residential-
Residential -1 (up to 3
DESIGNATION DU/A); C-2, Privately DU/A) (up to I DU/40 acres) DU/A) DU/A
owned Estruarine )
Wetland (up to 1
DU/40 acres)
PROPOSED C-1, Publicly Owned ork
Publicly Owned C-1, Publicly Owned C-1, Publicly Owned or C -I, Publicly Owned or
LAND USE Controlled ontrolled or Controlled Controlled Conservation -I Controlled
DESIGNATION Conservation -I (zero servation -1 (zero Conservation -I (zero (zero density) Conservation -1 (zero
density) ity) densrtY)density)CURRENT RS -6, SF Residential 6, MF Residential RS -3, SF Residential RM -6, MF Residential Dist. RM -3, MF Residential
ZONING Dist. (up to 6 DU/A); s. (up to 6 DU/A); Dist. (up to 3 DU/A) (u 6 DU/A
RS -1, SF Residential RS -6, SF Residential p to ) Dist. (up to 3 DU/A)
Dist. (up to 1 DU/A) Dist. (up to 6 DU/A)
PROPOSED Con -1, Public Lands Con -1, Public Lands Con -1, Public Lands Con -1, Public Lands
Con -1, Public Lans
ZONING Conservation District Conservation District Conservation District Conservation District (zero Conservation District
(zero density) (zero density) (zero density) density) (zero density)
November 13, 2001
47
l I fn J 2 1 �� t :� ,
On September .2-7,2001, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6 to 0 to recommend that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed land use amendment.
Existin.0 Land Use Pattern
Subject Property 1
The eastern portion of Subject Property 1, along the Indian River Lagoon, is zoned RS -1, while the
western portion of Subject Property 1 is zoned RS -6. The site is undeveloped and consists primarily
of wetlands. Land adjacent to the subject property, north of the site's eastern portion, is zoned RS -I
and consists mostly of undeveloped wetlands. Land abutting the site's western portion is zoned RS -
6 and consists of undeveloped wetlands and the Vero Shores subdivision of single-family homes.
To the west of the subject property, between US 1 and the FEC Railway, land is zoned IL, Light
Industrial District, and contains a boat manufacturing business.
Land abutting the site on the south, in St. Lucie County, consists of a small citrus grove and vacant
wooded land. The western part of that land in St. Lucie County is zoned RS -2, Residential Single -
Family -2. As in Indian River County, St. Lucie County's RS -2 zoning district allows single-family
residential uses at a density of up to 2 units/acre.
The eastern part of land abutting Subject Property I's south boundary (in St. Lucie County) is zoned
RC, Residential Conservation. The RC zoning district allows single-family residential uses at a
density of up to 1 unit/5 acres.
Subject Property 2
The central and southernmost portions of Subject Property 2 are zoned RS -6, while the remaining
portions are zoned RM -6. In this area of the county, land along US 1 is primarily zoned CG, General
Commercial District, with occasional areas of CH, Heavy Commercial District, and CL, Limited
Commercial District. Automobile sales are the primary use. The exception is the RMH-8, Mobile -
Home Residential District (up to 8 units/acre), zoned Tanglewood Mobile Home Park.
East of the commercial areas along US 1, land along the south side of 9" Street, SW is zoned RM -6.
That land is vacant except for two single family houses.
East of Subject Property 2, land primarily consists of undeveloped wetlands. Except for an RS -6
zoned strip of land adjacent to Subject Property 2, that land is zoned RS -1.
South of Subject Property 2 is the RS -6 zoned River Shores Estates subdivision of single-family
homes.
Subject Property 3
Subject Property 3 and adjacent properties on the north, south and east are zoned RS -3. The lagoon
islands just west of the site are zoned RS -1. Land along Subject Property 3's north border contains
part.,of Round Island Park. Properties abutting Subject Property 3's south boundary, and properties
to the east of Subject Property 3, across SR AIA, contain wooded lots, some developed with single-
family residences.
November 13, 2001
Rub
�9 h
Subject Property 4
Subject Property 4, zoned RM -6, is an enclave of county land bordered on all sides by land within
the City of Sebastian. This property is part of the 407 acre North Sebastian Conservation Area
(NSCA). Land abutting Subject Property 4 on three sides is part of the NSCA and is zoned C,
Conservation District, by the City of Sebastian. The FEC Railway is the Subject Property's other
boundary. Land between the FEC Railway and US 1 consists of stores, offices and other general
commercial type uses. That area is zoned CR, Commercial Riverfront, by the City of Sebastian.
Subject Property 5
In the area where Subject Property 5 is located, land (like Subject Property 5) that is located east of
SR AIA is zoned RM -3, while land west of SR AIA is zoned RS -3. Subject Property 5 is bounded
on the north by a single-family residence, on the south by Golden Sands County Park, on the west
(across SR AIA) by the Windsor Golf Course, and on the east by the Atlantic Ocean.
Future Land Use Pattern
Subject Property 1
The western portion of Subject Property 1 and lands to the north are designated L-2, Low -Density
Residential -2, on the county's future land use map. The L-2 designation permits residential uses
with densities up to 6 units/acre.
In this area of the county, land along the west bank of the Indian River Lagoon, including the eastern
Portion of Subject Property 1, are designated C-2, Privately Owned Estuarine Wetlands
Conservation -2. The C-2 designation permits residential uses with densities up to lunit/40 acres on
site or off site density transfer credits of up to 1 unit/acre.
Properties to the west of Subject Property 1, across US 1, are designated C/1, Commercial/Industrial.
The C/I designation permits various commercial and industrial zoning districts.
The western portion of land south of the site, in St. Lucie County, is designated RU, Residential
Urban, on St. Lucie County's future land use map. The RU designation allows residential
development at a density of up to 5 units/acre. Land along the west bank of the Indian River Lagoon
on the south side of Subject Property 1 is designated RC, Residential Conservation, on St. Lucie
County's future land use map. The RC designation allows residential development at a density of
up to 1 unit/5 acres.
Subject Property 2
Subject Property 2 and adjacent properties to the south, east and west are designated L-2 on the
county's future land use map. The exception is land to the west of the southern 600 feet of the site.
That land is designated C/I. Land to the north of Subject Property 2, across 9" Street, SW, is
designated M-2, Medium -Density Residential -2, on the county's future land use map. The M-2
designation permits residential uses with densities up to 10 units/acre.
Subject Property 3
Subject Property 3 and the property to the south are designated C-2. Round Island Park, which abuts
Subject Property 3 on the north, is designated REC, Recreation, on the county's future land use map.
November 13, 2001
I•
Ws i.. •^..s lar
The REC designation permits various public parks and recreational facilities. Lands to the east of
Subject Property 3, across SR AIA, are designated L-1, Low -Density Residential -1, on the county's
future land use map. The L-1 designation permits residential uses with densities up to 3 units/acre.
Subject Property 4
Subject Property 4 is designated L-2 on the county's future land use map. Lands to the north, south,
and west, are designated C, Conservation, on the City of Sebastian's future land use map. Land to
the east of Subject Property 4, across the FEC Railway, is designated RMU, Riverfront Mixed Use,
on the City of Sebastian's future land use map.
Subject Property 5
Subject Property 5 and properties to the north and west are designated L-1. Land adjacent to Subject
Property 5 on the south is designated REC.
Environment
Subject Property 1
Providing habitat wading birds and fish, Subject Property 1 contains coastal hammock, estuarine
wetlands, and freshwater wetlands. This property is within an "AE" 100 year floodplain, with a
minimum base flood elevation requirement of five feet NGVD.
Subject Property 2
Acquired as an addition to the ±298 acre Oslo Riverfront Conservation Area, Subject Property 2
contains several types of habitats which are used by many species of birds. Included among Subject
Property 2's habitats are xeric scrub, coastal hammock, estuarine wetlands, and freshwater wetlands.
This property is within an "AE" 100 year floodplain, with a minimum base flood elevation
requirement of five feet NGVD.
Subject Property 3
Located adjacent to the Indian River Lagoon, Subject Property 3 consists of maritime hammock and
estuarine wetlands. The property is within an "AE" 100 year floodplain, with a minimum base flood
elevation requirement of five feet NGVD.
Subject Property 4
Subject Property 4 is part of the 407 acre North Sebastian Conservation Area (NSCA). That area
consists of xeric scrub, pine flatwoods and savanna wetlands. The NSCA contains important habitat
for Florida scrub jays, gopher tortoises, eastern indigo snakes, and other rare species endemic to
coastal scrub. Bald eagles and sandhill cranes also use the NSCA. Additionally, this property is a
primary recharge area for the sur -ficial groundwater aquifer. According to Flood Insurance Rating
Maps, the site is located outside of a flood hazard area.
Subject Property 5
Containing coastal strand habitat and used by sea turtles for nesting, Subject Property 5 is located
within the Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge and adjacent to Golden Sands County Park. Except
for the easternmost portions, this site is located outside of a flood hazard area.
November 13, 2001
50
Utilities and Services
All subject sites are within the county's urban service area. Both potable water and wastewater
service are available to Subject Properties 1, 2, and 5. Only potable water service is available to
Subject Property 3, which is located in the City of Vero Beach service area. County potable water
and wastewater services are not available to Subject Property 4.
Transportation System
Subject Property 1
Subject Property 1 abuts US 1. Classified as an urban principal arterial roadway on the future
roadway thoroughfare plan map, US 1 is a four lane road with approximately 130 to 160 feet of
existing public road right-of-way. US 1 is programmed for expansion to six lanes by 2010.
Subject Property 2
Subject Property 2 has frontage on Oslo Road. Although the future roadway thoroughfare plan map
depicts Oslo Road, west of US 1, as an urban principal arterial roadway, the portion of Oslo Road
adjacent to Subject Property 2 is a two lane unpaved local road with approximately 100 feet of
existing public road right-of-way. There are no plans to expand this segment of Oslo Road.
Subject Property 3
SR AIA forms Subject Property 3's east boundary. Classified as an urban principal arterial roadway
on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map, this portion of SR AIA is a two lane road with
approximately 100 feet of existing public road right-of-way. There are no plans to expand this
segment of SR AIA.
Subject Property 4
Subject Property 4 is located at the end of the right-of-way of 130` Street. That street, however, has
not been constructed all the way to Subject Property 4. In fact, a road barrier blocks use of 130`
Street well before it reaches Subject Property 4. Because the site is in the middle of the North
Sebastian Conservation Area, the county has applied to have the 100 foot wide right-of-way between
Subject Property 4 and the road barrier abandoned.
Subject Property 5
SR AIA provides access to Subject Property 3. Classified as a rural minor arterial roadway on the
future roadway thoroughfare plan map, this portion of SR AIA is a two lane road with approximately
100 feet of existing public road right-of-way. There are no plans to expand this segment of SR AIA.
ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the application will be presented. This section
will include the following:
0 an analysis of the proposed amendment's impact on public facilities;
• an analysis of the proposed amendment's compatibility with surrounding areas;
• an analysis of the proposed amendment's consistency with the comprehensive plan; and
• an analysis of the proposed amendment's potential impact on environmental quality.
November 13, 2001
51
Coneurrencv of Public Facilities
All the sites are located within the County Urban Service Area, an area deemed suited for urban scale
development. The comprehensive plan establishes standards for: Transportation, Potable Water,
Wastewater, Solid Waste, Stormwater Management, and Recreation (Future Land Use Policy 3.1).
The adequate provision of these services is necessary to ensure the continued quality of life enjoyed
by the community. To ensure that the minimum acceptable standards for these services and facilities
are maintained, the comprehensive plan requires that new development be reviewed. For land use
designation amendment requests, this review is undertaken as part of the conditional concurrency
determination application process.
As per section 910.07(2) of the Concurrency Management Chapter of the County's Land
Development Regulations, projects which do not increase land use density or intensity are exempt
from concurrency requirements. For the subject request, ±117 acres of L-2 designated land, ±116
acres of C-2 designated land, and ±1.5 acres of L-1 designated land with a total development
potential of ±708 units will be replaced with ±234.5 acres of C-1 designated land. Since C-1
designated property has zero density, the proposed amendment will result in a decrease of ±708 units
in the overall development potential of the subject properties. Because of that overall decrease in
land use intensity of ±708 units, this land use amendment request is exempt from concurrency
review.
It is important to note that adoption of the proposed land use amendment will not impact any public
facilities or services.
Compatibility with the Surrounding Area
Under the requested C-1 land use designation, there will be no development on the subject properties
except for minor facilities associated with passive recreation activities. For that reason, the subject
request will enhance compatibility between the sites and surrounding land uses.
In contrast to the ±708 units allowed under the existing land use designations, development under
the requested land use designation will be limited to conservation uses and passive recreational uses.
In terms of traffic, noise, and aesthetics, the impacts associated with uses allowed under the proposed
C-1 land use designation will be significantly less than those that would occur with development
under the existing land use designations. In fact, the passive recreational uses allowed under the
requested zoning district will serve as an amenity for nearby residential uses.
Additionally, because these sites are located adjacent to or near existing conservation areas, the
request may enhance the environmental quality of those areas.
For these reasons, staff has determined that the requested land use amendment is compatible with
the surrounding area.
Consistency with Comprehensive Plan
Land use amendment and rezoning requests are reviewed for consistency with all policies of the
comprehensive plan. As per section 800.07(1) of the land development regulations, the
"comprehensive plan may only be amended in such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of
November 13, 2001
52
t s j o C,
the plan pursuant to Section 163.3177(?), FS." Amendments must also show consistency with the
overall designation of land uses as depicted on the Future Land Use Map, which includes
agricultural, residential, recreational, conservation, and commercial and industrial land uses and their
densities.
The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of the comprehensive plan. Policies
are statements in the plan which identify actions which the county will take in order to direct the
community's development. As courses of action committed to by the county, policies provide the
basis for all county land development related decisions --including plan amendment and rezoning
decisions. While all comprehensive plan objectives and policies are important, some have more
applicability than others in reviewing plan amendment and rezoning requests. Ofparticular
applicability for this request are the following policies.
Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3
In evaluating a land use amendment request, the most important consideration is Future Land Use
Element Policy 14.3. This policy requires that one of four criteria be met in order to approve a land
use amendment request. These criteria are:
• The proposed amendment will correct a mistake in the approved plan;
• The proposed amendment will correct an oversight in the approved plan;
• The proposed amendment is warranted based on a substantial chance in circumstances
affecting the subject property; or
• The proposed amendment involves a swap or reconfiguration of land use designations at
separate sites and that swap or reconfiguration will not increase the overall land use density
or intensity depicted on the Future Land Use Map.
The proposed land use amendment meets the policy's third criterion.
On February 13, 1990, when the comprehensive plan was adopted, the subject properties were in
private ownership. At that time, the sites were correctly designated for residential uses. Since then,
the sites have been purchased for conservation purposes. The acquisition of the sites by public
agencies constitutes a substantial change in circumstances affecting the subject properties and meets
the third criterion of Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3. Therefore, the proposed amendment is
consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3.
Future Land Use Element Policies 15 and 1.6
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.5 states that the conservation land use designations are applied
to those areas which are vital or essential to the normal functions of ecosystems and have been
identified in the Conservation Element as meriting preservation. Future Land Use Element Policy
1.6 limits the use of C-1 designated land to conservation and passive recreational uses.
As publicly owned sites containing wetlands and native upland habitat, each of the subject properties
meets those criteria. For those reasons, the request is consistent with Future Land Use Element
Policies 1.5 and 1.6.
As part of the staff analysis, all applicable policies in the comprehensive plan were considered.
Based upon that analysis, staff determined that the proposed land use designation amendment is
consistent with the comprehensive plan.
November 13, 2001
53
U'`
Potential Impact on Environmental Quality
The sites' existing land use designations offer only limited environmental protections. Development
of residentially zoned land would be required to preserve only 10 or 15 percent of the upland habitat
of the sites. In contrast, under the proposed land use designation, the entire area of each site will be
preserved, and development will be limited to conservation and compatible passive recreational uses.
Although the sites are publicly owned and could be developed as public parks under the existing land
use designations, the proposed land use designation provides the sites with additional protection
from development. By prohibiting most types of development on the sites, the proposed request will
ensure that the environmental quality of the sites will be preserved.
For these reasons, the proposed land use amendment is anticipated to positively impact the
environmental quality of the subject properties.
CONCLUSION
Based on the analysis, staff has determined that the proposed amendment is consistent with the
comprehensive plan, compatible with all surrounding land uses, and will cause no adverse impacts
on the provision of public services. The proposed changes ensure the preservation of
environmentally sensitive and important habitat. For these reasons, staff supports the request.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the analysis, staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the Board
of County Commissioners transmit the proposed land use amendment to the Florida Department of
Community Affairs for their review, by approving the attached Transmittal Resolution.
ATTACHMENTS
I.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
S.
9.
10
11
12.
13.
14.
Land Use Designation Amendment Application
Rezoning Application
Subject Property 1 Land Use Designation Location Map
Subject Property 1 Zoning Location Map
Subject Property 2 Land Use Designation Location Map
Subject Property 2 Zoning Location Map
Subject Property 3 Land Use Designation Location Map
Subject Property 3 Zoning Location Map
Subject Property 4 Land Use Designation Location Map
Subject Property 4 Zoning Location Map
Subject Property 5 Land Use Designation Location Map
Subject Property 5 Zoning Location Map
Approved Minutes of the September 27, 2001, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Transmittal Resolution
November 13, 2001
54
-..�.f 2 k -a
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this
matter.
Rene Renzi, 340 Waverly Place, indicated her enthusiastic support.
It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the Chairman closed the public
hearing.
ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Stanbridge, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution
No. 2001-117 approving 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. 2001-117
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
2001 amendment submittal window, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on this comprehensive plan
amendment request on September 27, 2001, after due public notice, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency voted 6 to 0 to recommend that the Board of County
Commissioners transmit the comprehensive plan amendment listed below; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County held a Transmittal
Public Hearing on November 13, 2001, after advertising pursuant to F.S. 163.3184(15)(b)(1), and
November 13, 2001
55
RESOLUTION NO. 2001- 117
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners announced at the transmittal public hearing
its intention to hold and advertise a final public hearing at the adoption stage of the plan amendment
process.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA THAT:
L 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:
a. Request to amend the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan from L-2, Low -
Density Residential -2 (up to 6 units/acre), and C-2, Privately Owned Conservation -2 (up
to 1 unit/40 acres), to C-1, Publicly Owned Conservation -1 (zero density), for ±88.5
acres located on the north side of the St. Lucie County Line, between US I and the Indian
River Lagoon; and
b. Request to amend the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan from L-2, Low -
Density Residential -2 (up to 6 units/acre), to C-1, Publicly Owned Conservation -1 (zero
density), for ±66 acres located on the south side of 9`' Street, SW (Oslo Road), east of
US 1; and
1
r.;
c. Request to amend the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan from C-2,
s Privately Owned Conservation -2 (up to 1 unit/40 acres), to C-1, Publicly Owned
Conservation -1 (zero density), for ±59.5 acres located on the west side of SR A 1 A, south
of Round Island Park; and
I d. Request to amend the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan from L-2, Low -
Density Residential -2 (up to 6 units/acre), to C-1, Publicly Owned Conservation -1 (zero
density), for ±19 acres located at the south end of 130`h Street (Gibson Street) right-of-
way, on the west side of the Florida East Coast Railway; and
e. Request to amend the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan from L-1, Low -
Density Residential -1 (up to 3 units/acre), to C-1, Publicly Owned Conservation -1 (zero
density), for ±1.5 acres located on the east side of SR AIA, along the north boundary of
Golden Sands Park.
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:
November 13, 2001
Chairman Caroline D. Ginn
Vice -Chairman Ruth M. Stanbridge
Commissioner Fran B. Adams
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht
Commissioner John W. Tippin
W1
_,Aye
Aye
Aye
Ave
Ave
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-117
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted at a public hearing held
this 13`h day of November 2001.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY: ¢ l61 ATTES
Caroline D. Gin
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
ZZ,
William G. Collins 11, Deputy County Attorney Indian River Co- Approved
Date
Admin. I
�l
APPROVED AS TO PLANNING MATTERS Legal to
Budget 11 6101
Robert M. Keating, AICP
Community Development
9.A.4. PUBLIC HEARING - KENWOOD VILLAGE - PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT (PD) SPECIAL EXCEPTION APPROVAL
KENWOOD VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT CORP.
PROOF OF PUBLICATION IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
Planning Director Stan Boling reviewed a Memorandum of November 2, 2001 using color
maps and an aerial view of the area to enhance his presentation:
November 13, 2001
57
TO
THROUGH
FROM
DATE
James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DE�fMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. Keating, AICP
Community Development Director
'4 6 t/
Stan Boling, AICP
Planning Director
John W. McCoy, AICP/� M
Senior Planner, Current Development
November 2, 2001
SUBJECT: Request for Planned Development (PD) Special Exception Approval for a
Project to be Known as Kenwood Village
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of November 13, 2001.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS•
Mosby & Associates, Inc., on behalf of Kenwood Village Development Corp., is requesting planned
development (PD) special exception use and preliminary PD plan/plat approval for a project to be
known as "Kenwood Village". The site is located on the south side of 5`h Street S.W. in the 3700
block, between the Coral Wind subdivision and the Walking Horse Hammock subdivision. The
applicant is requesting PD approval to obtain waivers (reductions) in lot size, lot width , setbacks,
and right-of-way width in return for greater aesthetic amenities and increased tree preservation. The
project proposes 109 single-family detached homes on individual lots.
The applicant has previously submitted two applications for this site. Both of those applications
proposed conventional subdivision designs that met the conventional RS -3 zoning district
regulations. Those applications were both approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The
first application was submitted in January 2001, and proposed 82 lots on 41.7 acres at a density of
2.0 units/acre. This application was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission at its meeting
of February 22, 2001. The second application was submitted in May 2001, and proposed 91 lots on
41.7 acres at a density of 2.19 units/acre. That application was approved by the Planning and Zoning
Commission at its meeting of June 14, 2001, and is currently the active application for this property.
Subsequent to the 91 lot approval, the applicant re-evaluated the project design and submitted a
planned development P.D. special exception use and preliminary P.D. plan application. The subject
P.D. submittal is the third application for development of the site. If approved, it will supersede the
previous approval.
0 PD Project Process
The process involved in review and approval of the subject PD application is as follows:
November 13, 2001
W
Approval Needed Reviewing Body
1. Conceptual Plan/Special Exception PZC & BCC
2. Preliminary PD Plan/Plat PZC
3. Land Development Permit (LDP) or Waiver Staff
4. Final PD (plat) BCC
The applicant is now requesting approval of the first two steps. If approved by the Board of County
Commissioners, the applicant will need to obtain from public works an LDP or LDP waiver for the
design of required PD improvements.
• Planning and Zoning Commission Action
At its regular meeting of September 27, 2001, the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) voted
unanimously (6-0) to recommend Board approval of the P.D. special exception use request, and
granted conditional preliminary PD plat/plan approval subject to the Board's action on the planned
development special exception use request. The PZC action included a recommendation that all lots
along the site's east perimeter (abutting Walking Horse Hammock) be increased from a minimum
size of 9,100 square feet to 10,000 square feet and to delete pedestrian connections to the adjacent
neighborhoods. The applicant has revised the proposed P.D. plan to increase the lot sizes accordingly
but not remove the pedestrian connections, and that is the plan being presented to the BCC.
The Board is now to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the special exception use request.
Pursuant to Section 971.05 of the LDRs, the Board is to consider the appropriateness of the
requested use for the subject site and surrounding area. The board may attach any conditions and
safeguards necessary to mitigate and to ensure compatibility of the use with the surrounding area.
ANALYSIS
0.
1. Size of PD Area: 43.85 acres
2. Zoning Classifications: RS -3, Residential Single -Family (up to u
CH, Heavy Commercial mts� acre)
3. Land Use Designations: L-21Low Density Residential 2 (up to 6 units/acre)
C/I, Commercial Industrial
Note: There is a 50' strip of CH zoning at the south project boundary which will be used as
a conservation tract. That use is acceptable as accessory to a residential development.
4. Phasing: The project is proposed to be constructed in one phase.
5. Density: Overall Site: Maximum Allowed: 3 units/acre (131 units)
Proposed: 2.49 units/acre (109 units)
Note: At the staff's request, the applicant has prepared a plan that maximizes the design for
a conventional RS -3 layout. That design yields 121 lots on 43.85 acres for a density of 2.76
units/acre. The greater yield is achieved by not having a centralized stormwater management
facility, but by using wide side and rear yard swales to accommodate the stormwater
management within the yard area. A subdivision which recently was constructed with such
November 13, 2001
59
J J
a stormwater design is Heron Crest. Using that stormwater design, the Heron Crest
development achieved a density of 2.6 units/acre and met the RS -3 zoning district criteria.
6. Open Space: Required: 40% (17.40 acres)
Provided: 52% (22.81 acres)
Note: Includes minimum of 40% open space on each lot, common green areas and recreation
tracts, pedestrian ways, and credit as provided for in the LDRs for 5.22 acres of lake area
r_
(total lake area is 6.33 acres).
7. Recreation Area and Pedestrian Improvements: The proposed project satisfies the PD
ordinance recreation area requirements as follows:
Required Recreation Area:
Provided Recreation Area:
1.31 acres
2.38 acres (includes recreation/park tracts and pedestrian
systems)
The PD plan proposes an internalpedestrian system consisting of a 5' wide sidewalk along
both sides of the project's roadways. Pedestrian improvements also include access to each
lake. The pedestrian system will provide for pedestrian connections to Walking Horse
Hammock subdivision to the east and Coral Wind subdivision to the west. The
recreation/park tracts are all connected to the project's proposed internal pedestrian system.
8. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North: Sub -lateral Canal, 5`h Street S.W. single family homes/RS-3
South: Vacant/CH
East: Walking Horse Hammock/RS-3
West: Coral Wind, Grove/RS-3
9. Traffic Circulation: As required by the LDRs, a traffic impact analysis was prepared by the
applicant and reviewed and approved by Traffic Engineering. That analysis indicates that
a west -bound left turn lane at the project's 5`h Street S.W. entrance is required. A left turn
lane is depicted as a proposed improvement on the PD plan. The turn lane improvements
must be completed prior to issuance of a certificate of completion.
The project will have a hill movement access point on 5`h Street S.W., which will be the only
regular access point to the proposed subdivision. There is an emergency access connection
which is proposed to connect to 5`h Street S.W. from the western cul-de-sac. Internal
circulation is provided by a main north/south road, which provides access to a "loop"
roadway at the south end of the site and provides access to three cul-de-sacs on the west side
of the project.
10. Stormwater Management: The public works department has approved the conceptual
stormwater management plan and will review the details of the stormwater management plan
with the land development permit. The stormwater management system proposes to use five
inter -connected Lakes, which will out -fall to the canal along the south side of 5" Street S.W.
11. Utilities: The site is required to connect to County water and sewer services, and the
applicant proposes to connect. These utility provisions have been approved by the County
Department of Utility Services and the Department of Health.
November 13, 2001
0
12. Dedication and Improvements:
• Ri,;ht-of-GVay : Because a sub -lateral canal is located between 5" Street S.W. and the
subject site, no additional 5" Street S.W. right-of-way is required from the site.
• Sidewalks: The previously described internal project sidewalks will be located within
private right-of-way and common areas and will be owned and maintained by a private
property owners association.
• Street Lights: Streetlights will be provided at all street entrances, intersections, and
curves and will be owned and maintained by a private property owners association.
• Stormwater and Recreation Tracts: Stormwater tracts and easements, and recreation
tracts will be the responsibility of a private property owners association.
• Murphy Act Easement: There is a Murphy Act Easement which covers a portion of the
site's north end, by 5`h Street S.W. Since the County does not want to acquire any 5`h
Street S.W. right-of-way from the site, the easement will not affect the proposed design.
Because the Murphy Act Easement does cover an area proposed for green space and lots,
the easement will need to be released prior to issuance of an LDP.
13. Environmental Issues:
• Wetlands: Environmental planning staff has confirmed that there are no wetlands
on the site, Therefore, no wetlands regulations apply.
• Native Upland Setaside: Since the site is over 5 acres and contains native
uplands, the native upland setaside regulations apply to this site. A large portion
of the site is native upland habitat, with the southern portion and the eastern 1/3
of the site of the project containing upland habitat. The applicant proposes to
establish a conservation easement over the south 70' of the site to satisfy a
Portion of the setaside requirement. The remaining portion of the requirement
will need to be met through fee -in -lieu of preservation. The fee will need to be
paid prior to the issuance of an LDP, while the conservation easement will be
established via the final plat.
• Tree Preservation: The developer has identified certain lots that will have
restricted footprints in order to preserve trees. The lots with restricted footprints
will include lots 1, 23 31 41 6, 13, 14, 15, 23, 24, 34, 56, and 103. As a condition
of approval, the footprint on these lots will be restricted as depicted on the
preliminary plat to provide tree preservation for these lots. The requested lot
size and setback reductions will allow for increased buffer and common area
tracts, and restricted building footprint areas, which will provide for increased
tree preservation on the project site.
14: Waivers: The PD plan proposes to reduce the minimum lot size from 12,000 square feet to
9,100 square feet. The PD plan also proposes a reduction in the minimum lot width from SO'
to 70', minimum right-of-way width from 50' to 40', front yard setbacks from 25' to 20', and
side yard setbacks width from 15' to 3'. The requested waivers are mitigated by the proposed
buffers, conservation tract, increased minimum open space, common recreational amenities,
increased tree preservation and a pedestrian system inter -connected with the adjacent
developments. It should be noted that the land use for the site is L-2, which allows up to 6
units/acre; however, the subject and surrounding residential sites are all zoned RS -3 (up to
3 units/acre).
November 13, 2001
61
One PD project which was recently approved, the Oaks of Vero, that has an L-2 land use
designation, is zoned RS -3, and is adjacent to property developed as RS -2 and RS -3. That
Project site contains 70.40 acres and is located at the northeast corner of 12`h Street and 58`'
Avenue/Lateral B Canal_ The Oaks of Vero was approved at a density of 2.32 unitsiacre,
with 9,100 square foot lots internal to the subdivision with 20' front yard setbacks, 7.5' side
yard setbacks,25' rear yard setbacks, and 70' lot widths. The lots along the south and west
Perimeter were approved at 10,500 square feet, with 20' front yard setbacks, 10' side yard
setbacks, 30' rear yard setbacks and 70' width. The north and east perimeter lots were
approved at 12,000 square feet with 80' of lot width and a 20' front yard setback. The right-
of-way was reduced from 50' to 40'. In the proposed design of Kenwood Village, the
applicant has chosen not to provide larger lots on the perimeter, but instead to provide a
transitional area. Therefore, there is a precedent for granting PD approval for a project
similar to Kenwood Village.
The requested waivers are summarized and compared in the table below
RS -3 Minimum Standard Proposed Kenwood Village
Minimum Standard
Lot Size 12,000 sq. ft. 9,100 sq. ft.
Lot Width 80 ft. 70 ft.
Lot Width 90 ft. 75 ft.
(comer lots)
Front yard Setback 25 ft. 20 ft.
Sideyard Setback 15 ft. 8 ft./10 ft. * (minimum 20'
cumulative side yard setback
per lot.)
Rear yard Setback 25 ft. 25 ft. * (20 ft. "no build"
zone on perimeter.)
Right -of --Way 50 ft. curb and gutter 40 ft. curb and gutter
*Note 1: The applicant is proposing a standard side yard setback of 10', which can be reduced to
8' in order to save trees. When the side yard setback is reduced to 8', the side yard on the opposite
side of the house will be expanded a corresponding amount (i.e. to 12') to keep a minimum of 20'
of side yard setback for the individual lot. This allows the footprint of the home to be shifted, but
not a larger footprint than evenly applied 10' side yard setbacks. This provision will allow homes
to be within 16' of one another, if both homes are shifted toward the common side lot line.
`Note 2: Where lots are adjacent to the project perimeters, there will be a 20' wide no build zone
or 70' conservation tract with an additional 5' setback for the principal structure to create a minimum
25' setback from the project perimeter for the principal structure. Pools, deck and screen enclosures
would be allowed in the 5' setback, but not to encroach in the 20' no build zone that provides space
for the Type `B" buffer, or the 70' conservation tract. There will be a 35' no build zone on the
recreation tract. These no build zones will be depicted on the final plat.
Note 3' The applicant is proposing a 40' wide right-of-way with 10' utility and drainage easements
on either side of the right-of-way which will form a 60' road and utility corridor and act like a
conventional 60' wide local road right-of-way. This arrangement allows for all necessary
infrastructure improvements and has been approved in other PD projects.
November 13, 2001
62
ell
1`1t ^ �
L
5. Buffers and Setbacks: Buffering is required and proposed as follows
Perimeter Minimum Required PD Proposed Buffer
Buffer
East Type "C" buffer (10' wide) Type "B" buffer (20' wide),
with 25' wide building 20' no build zone, with 25'
setback for home. building setback for home.
Type "C" buffer (10' wide) Type `B" buffer (20'wide),
West (adjacent to residential) with 25' wide building 20' no build zone, with 25'
setback for home. building setback for home.
West (adjacent to citrus Active agricultural and PD Active agricultural and PD
grove) perimeter buffer: equates to a perimeter buffer: equates to a
25' wide Type "B" buffer 25' wide Type "B" buffer
with a 6' opaque feature with with a 6' opaque feature.
25' wide building setback. Landscape is proposed for the
opaque feature.
North (adjacent to Sub -lateral Type =buildina
20' wide no build zone and
Canal) with 2Type "C" buffer, with 25'
setbacbuilding setback for home.
South (adjacent to A 70' conservation area,
Commercial) No required buffer equivalent to a Type "A"
buffer.
These buffer provisions meet or exceed normal LDR and PD buffer requirements. Final,
detailed landscape plans for required buffers, common areas, and recreation/park tracts must
be submitted to planning staff and approved prior to land development permit issuance.
These plans must depict the proposed street trees and transplanted trees referenced in the
applicant's letter.
16. Concurrency: The applicant has committed to obtaining a final concurrency certificate prior
to issuance of each single-family building permit and has acknowledged all concurrency
requirements. Therefore, all concurrency requirements related to PD plan and special
exception use approval have been satisfied.
17. Caribbean Fruit Fly Host Plant: The County Comprehensive Plan requires that Caribbean
fruit fly host plants be prohibited within PDs located in general areas that have active citrus
groves. This project is located in such an area; therefore, the prohibition regulation applies.
The applicant has indicated that he has no objection to creating a restriction that would
prohibit host plants on the subject property. Such restriction must be included in the
project's covenants and restrictions, which will be reviewed at the time of final plat
application.
18. Public Benefits: Through the review process, the staff asked the applicant to provide a
conventional subdivision design that met the RS -3 zoning district criteria and yielded the
same or greater number of lots. The applicant provided such a plan for 121 lots (12 more
than the PD proposal). The conventional subdivision design distributes the stormwater
system throughout the project in a series of side and rear lot swales contained within
easements on individual lots (see attachment #4). Under such a design, the site grade would
be greatly altered to create enough volume in the swales for the stormwater; the side and rear
yards are low and the house pads are high. Such grade changes would prevent most tree
preservation. The design yielded 121 lots or a density of 2.76 units/acre.
November 13, 2001
63
11, 1Z 1 P ¢ rv9
r
t'
t<
In addition, the staff asked the applicant to provide a letter indicating the public benefits of
the project, and justify the benefits. That letter is attachment ;:5 to the staff report.
Essentially, the developer has indicated that the PD design yields an economically feasible
number of lots, and allows use of large centralized stormwater tracts. By using such tracts,
instead of swales on lots, the grade through the development can be kept close to natural,
providing for a number of tree preservation opportunities. Also, the PD design allows
creation of off -lot preservation area and common green spaces.
j In conclusion, the proposed Kenwood Village PD has aspects which are similar to the
[ previously approved Oaks of Vero PD, in terms of its proximity to other developed property
and zoning districts, the scope of the waivers requested and tree preservation special
measures proposed. The project includes benefits such as 'Increased common open space
and recreation area, pedestrian inter -connections, internal pedestrian system, and special
provisions for preserving trees on-site. In addition, the project proposes a density less than
that of a conventional subdivision and has a design which is better than what could be
allowed through the conventional subdivision process.
RECOMMENDATION•
Based on the above analysis, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant PD
special exception use approval for "Kenwood Village with the following conditions:
1. That Caribbean fruit fly host plants are prohibited within the project area.
2. That prior to the issuance of a land development permit, the developer shall:
a. Obtain release of the Murphy Act Easement, and
b. Pay to the county the fee -in -lieu of preservation funds necessary to meet the
county upland set-aside requirement, and
C. Obtain planning division approval of detailed, final landscape plans for the
proposed buffers, common areas, and recreation/park tracts.
3. That prior to or via the final plat, the developer shall:
a. Dedicate the depicted upland conservation easement, and
b. Install or bond out the depicted and approved perimeter buffer(s), and
C. Place a restriction on the property that prohibits the planting of Caribbean
fruit fly host plants_
d. Depict the 20' no build zone for the perimeter lots and 35' no build zone for
the recreation tract on the final plat.
4. That prior to issuance of a certificate of completion, the applicant shall construct the
left turn lane on 5"' Street S.W.
5. That the applicant shall have the homes micro -sited on the lots mentioned in the tree
preservation section of the staff report, and the building footprints shall be restricted
as depict on the approved preliminary plat.
November 13, 2001
64
L
D1K 1 r.1
The staff further recommends that the Board find that it is
Chapter 971 to review the PD special empowered under the provisions of
exception applied for, and that the granting of the special
exception will not adversely affect the public interest. The Board finds that the application satisfies
the general and specific criteria required for special exception approval and that the conditions stated
above are adequate to ensure compatibility between the special except
on use and surrounding land
ATTACHMENTS:
1 Application
2. Location Map Inman Hrv<r Cu Approved DTIC
3. Preliminary PD Plans & Graphics Admin. 7> 7 ��
4. Conventional Design provided by Applicant Legal C- j;
5. Letter provided by Applicant Budge, 17 -7 of
6. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Dead. "/7
Fisk Mgr
In response to Vice Chairman Stanbridge concerning micro -siting for trees on the property,
Director Boling advised that a tree survey has been done and a tree protection plan will be done
which will be reflected on the final plat with setbacks and restrictions noted so that lot owners,
contractors, and staff will know years into the future the location of the trees.
Commissioner Adams noted the ability to micro -site is one of the values of planned
developments. With respect to her question about 12 -inch or less caliper trees, Director Boling
suggested the developer address that concern.
Chairman Ginn was concerned about the active agriculture on the west boundary and the 25 -
foot setback, squeezing out agriculture, and the "no net loss"
Discussion on a failed proposal for easing the transition was held and Director Boling noted
that the area is residential under the Comprehensive Plan, is within the urban service area, and the
agriculture in this area will be allowed to continue albeit in an interim situation.
Mark Brackett, 1915 34`h Avenue, spoke as a representative of the development company.
It is anticipated that the trees (6"-28") in the "building pad" will not be moved because of the
expense and high failure rate, but the developer proposes to bring in not -less -than 109 new oak trees
to tree line all of the streets. The plan designates that the front corner of each lot will be planted with
an oak tree to subsidize the trees which are to be saved by designated building pads. He noted that
the size of the stormwater retention areas has been increased in order to be able to lower the site.
November 13, 2001
M
A big reason for tree loss is adding fill around it. By increasing the lake size, the amount of fill is
lessened. Many efforts have gone into the planning for saving significant trees, including sacrificing
lots. In response to Commissioner Adams understanding, Mr. Brackett confirmed that efforts will
be made during construction to save the trees that are outside the building envelope. He added that
during construction, the trees will be fenced off with orange safety fence. He gave further assurances
of the efforts he will make in order to save more oak trees.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this
matter.
Robert Johnson, Coral Wind Development, complimented Mr. Brackett on trying to widen
housing development on the Coral Wind side, however, he objected to staff's proposals for
interconnecting sidewalks to the adjoining developments. He wanted that requirement deleted. It
might have been good if 5`h Street SW did not have a new sidewalk which provides a lot of safe
walking opportunity. Coral Wind does not have sidewalks; he thought connecting sidewalks would
add unnecessary congestion in Coral Wind and a security risk with strangers walking around.
Commissioner Adams felt that pedestrian access would be beneficial, but it was up to the
property owners.
Jim Davis, 510 Oh Place SW on Lot 10 of Walking Horse Hammock Subdivision, had a
couple of concerns, one of which is the lighting for the recreation area located just southwest of his
two-story home. He did not want lights shining in his upstairs bedrooms and requested they be
shielded from his subdivision. He was also concerned about the narrow deep lots. He urged
retention of the large trees on the east property line and that the homes be sited toward the front of
i
the lots away from Walking Horse Hammock. He encouraged leaving as much native vegetation as
possible. He knew Mr. Brackett would do a nice job.
Chairman Ginn agreed about the recreation and expressed concern about noisy sports.
November 13, 2001
66
sr r) l
Mr. Brackett advised that a pool will be there and stated there would be 30 feet of existing
natural vegetation left there. There will be rules that will require the recreation area be shut down
at night, perhaps 10 pm, and the lights will be on a timer. No basketball is planned for the area and
he advised he would not object to have that in writing. He elaborated on the size of the pool and
landscaping.
p g.
Director Boling added that they will still have to submit and receive site plan approval and
pointed out that this has a 35 -foot wide buffer, not 30 as shown on the drawing. Since this is a PD
special exception, if the Board wishes to prohibit some ball/court recreation, it could be added, as
well as lighting requirements. The best defined shielding standards are in the corridor plans and
those could be applied if the Board wished to make that a condition of approval on the recreation
tract.
Chairman Ginn thought prohibition of ball/court recreation should be included.
Commissioner Adams thought eliminating sports during the day because of the noise was too
limiting, and Chairman Ginn was concerned about night hours.
Ruth Livingston, 655 40" Avenue SW, recalled the tree problems with developers on Jungle
Trail and suggested formation of a volunteer group composed of people with a horticultural
background to monitor the trees.
Chairman Ginn believed this developer was different, but thought perhaps the County did
need an urban forester. She will put it on the agenda for the next meeting.
Richard Baker, 522 North Blue Island Lane, Sebastian, agreed an urban forester is
desperately needed. He thought connecting sidewalks was probably a good idea and healthy for Vero
Beach. He was concerned about having read in the local paper that ordinary subdivisions do not
require saving trees.
Community Development Director Robert Keating elucidated on the upland preservation
requirements for planned developments as compared to those for subdivisions where there is no
requirement to preserve individual trees.
November 13, 2001
67
Mr. Baker felt it is a tragedy that we are losing all our oaks. He believed the density for this
project is too high and predicted it will not be a pretty place.
It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the Chairman closed the public
hearing.
Commissioner Tippin commented as a nearby resident in Oak Hammock and recalled how
the area looked when his father used it to hunt deer and turkeys. Commissioner Tippin purchased
his property in 1969 because of the oaks and he has the largest live oak, he believes, on the west side
t of the river. He is "very prejudiced about the oaks", but because the PD will allow more control and
bigger buffers he will support this as long as Mr. Brackett understands he will be watching closely.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED by
Commissioner Macht, to approve staff's recommendation.
Discussion was held about the sidewalks (included in staff's recommendation) and the
lighting and recreation.
MOTION WAS AMENDED by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED
by Commissioner Macht, to include "no noisy recreation".
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion
carried unanimously.
CHAIRMAN GINN DECLARED A FIVE-MINUTE RECESS AT 10:35 AM. THE
MEETING WAS RECONVENED AT 10:42 AM WITH ALL MEMBERS
PRESENT.
November 13, 2001
SK is tr i -p FIG
9.B.1. PUBLIC DI
DISCUSS "DECEPTIC
ITEM -
COMMISSIONERS"
The Board reviewed a letter of November 6, 2001:
Brian T. Heady
406 19`fi street
Vero Beach, FI 32960
November 6, 2001
Caroline Ginn
Margaret Gunter
Indian River County Commission
Vero Beach Florida 32960
Dear County Commission Commissioners:
T
Please place me on the citizen input public discussion portion of your agenda for
the second meeting in November. My discussion will be about "deception. lies and other
statements by Commissioners."
It is unfortunate that your words and actions make it necessary to present this
important information to the Commission and the public. If _you have any questions I can
be reached by telephone at 778-1028.
Sincer�y,
Brian T. Heady r%
�1
11
Brian Heady took issue with Chairman Ginn's, Commissioner Macht's, and Vice Chairman
Stanbridge's comments after his remarks at the last meeting. He believed his accusations,
allegations, and facts to be accurate and asked that Chairman Ginn state anything which was not.
Chairman Ginn stated that Mr. Heady inferred that an elected official or perhaps someone
on staff had accepted some sort of bribe and she assured him that such is not the case. She pointed
out that Mr. Heady saw things from his perspective, but the entire story would come out (regarding
the touch screen election machine vendor) at the next meeting. She assured him there was no
thought of anyone doing anything illegal at any time.
November 13, 2001
Me
Mr. Heady claimed he never accused Chairman Ginn or any Commissioner of accepting a
bribe from the company chosen. He commented that Commissioner Macht stated he never listens
to Mr. Heady.
Chairman Ginn stated that she would not allow personal attacks.
Mr. Heady stated that Commissioner Macht apparently felt that he was ordained with special
understanding, whereupon Chairman Ginn ruled Mr. Heady out -of -order and requested he leave the
podium.
Mr. Heady refused to leave saying he was not finished, whereupon Chairman Ginn asked that
he be escorted out.
Commissioner Adams interjected that Mr. Heady's remarks were based on a personal matter
and not an issue of public importance. She respectfully requested that Mr. Heady and Chairman
Ginn get together with Administrator Chandler to discuss the problem and bringback
recommendation to the Commission. aca
Chairman Ginn indicated her willingness for such a meeting.
Mr. Heady continued saying the statements to which he referred were not private
conversations, but public conversations and he was entitled to an opportunity to speak to them
Publicly. He asked for permission to continue, but Chairman Ginn refused.
Mr. Heady asked by what authority she was denying him the right to address the
Commission, and Chairman Ginn responded that he was not bringing an issue to the podium. Mr.
Heady continued and Chairman Ginn insisted he leave.
After more back and forth and a request for a deputy or someone to escort him out, Mr.
Heady took leave of the podium and the Chambers.
9.B.2e PUBLIC D]
MCDOUGALD TO DI'
Removed from agenda.
November 13, 2001
70
T
vf-
A 1 2 .: FIG
3
9.Be3.
SEXT
I
T
IML
GG
II
SHORES"
Ralph Sexton, representing Save our Shores, pointed out the seriousness of erosion on the
beaches due to the recent heavy waves. He advised that anything the Board could do to help the
property owners would be appreciated. He credited the PEP reef with protecting the areas for four
weeks, but two-thirds of the sand came back after the storm. He thought the measurements taken
of the PEP reef area beach were taken at the wrong times and requested that the Board ask the Corps
of Engineers to come back to re -measure.
Bill Glynn, 1802 Barefoot Place, representing the North Beach Civic Association and Save
our Shores, gave an historical account of what has been going on with the beaches and the measures
taken to try to re -nourish the various areas. He stated that the beach erosion affects everybody in the
county. He commented on excerpts he read from a recent article that appeared in the Press Journal
concerning shortfalls in the State's budget. He felt that the environmental community was
responsible for the delays experienced in beach project permits in the small counties in Florida and
was very concerned about it. He suggested serious ground rules be set for negotiations. He asked
when a new Coastal Engineer would be hired. He asked if we were going to lose our State funding.
He asked about the source of funding for Areas 1 and 2. There are several homes which need
emergency permits for seawalls. He predicted that more seawalls will be needed if the beach
reclamation program is not done soon. He asked if FEMA has been approached or will be
approached for money. Last, he asked whether the County would be requesting Federal funding
especially for Areas 3 and 5 adding that there should be sufficient time to apply for them. He asked
that a report be made in response to his questions.
In response to Chairman Ginn's inquiry on the status of the HCP (Habitat Conservation
Plan), Public Works Director James Davis advised that the final draft was delivered and there was
a stakeholders meeting last week from which some directions were derived and staff would be
working on those. Some areas need more work and the consultants have been told to expedite it.
He hoped to have a new draft by the end of the year to submit to the appropriate agencies.
November 13, 2001
71
As to filling the position of Coastal Engineer, Administrator Chandler advised that few
applications have been received, one person had withdrawn and took other employment. Recruiting
has been difficult; the salary is competitive.
Chairman Ginn was concerned about the delaying tactics of the State regulatory agencies and
was very concerned that the County is in danger of losing funding and advised that she would try to
see the Governor.
Director Davis had not heard about any danger of losing State funds, the requests were
submitted with the normal cycle. Another letter was sent recently about the borrow area from the
south instead of the north borrow area and he has not yet had a response.
Penny Chandler, Chamber of Commerce, recounted how area sand has been lost and the
business community is very concerned
number one reason people come here.
Tourism is a key to our local economy. Beaches are the
She felt that continued loss of the beaches willgive hotels
less reason to build or re -build in our area. She urged the Board to do whatever possible and stressed
that the Chamber is there to support their efforts.
Cheryl Gerstner, 2035 Surfside Terrace, vice-president of the South Beach Property Owners
Association, treasurer of Save Our Shores, Downdrift Coalition Board member, and a realtor, was
present to support the effort to get some help for the beachfront owners and mentioned that their
homes represent huge tax dollars. She asked for the Board's advice for the three organizations she
was representing. It is no longer the issue for a few beachfront property owners but whole
communities representing huge tax dollars. She also asked where the environmental people were
years ago since protection issues involve such a long process.
Discussion ensued which included historical efforts to build up the sand and install seawalls
in certain areas
Vice Chairman Stanbridge agreed there is a logjam in Tallahassee and felt the
approvals for the emergency seawalls need to be moved along.
Ms. Gerstner felt the HCP is not near completion but Vice Chairman Stanbridge and
Commissioner Adams disagreed, saying that it is very close. Commissioner Adams asked what Ms.
Gerstner expected the Board to do.
November 13, 2001
72
r 'L 6
I
L �
IJI' i
Ms. Gerstner asked if the Commissioners could go to the State and let them know that the
HCP will not be in place in time for those four in Summerplace and others who need protection.
Commissioner Adams was willing to do whatever would work, but if the Board had not
initiated the HCP, the homeowners would be on their own trying to get permission from the State.
Commissioner Adams stated she was happy to do anything to help.
Commissioner Macht commented on loss of optimum areas for turtle eggs to mature. He
spoke of his involvement since 1985 and a campaign mounted to scuttle a plan that had been
developed at no cost to the taxpayers. Because we have already "fooled with Mother Nature", all
the levels of government involved previously should be involved in helping to remedy the problems.
He told of a successful program in St. Augustine which would work here. He felt the pressure needs
to be put on the State. He also was still an advocate of suing the Federal and State governments for
their contributions to beach erosion.
Chairman Ginn advised she would consider going to Tallahassee to see what she can do and
thought it would be beneficial if 2 or 3 Commissioners went.
9.B.4.
OF
I
r:1
ra
PROTECTION PLAN
Removed from agenda. (Copy of letter requesting removal from the agenda is on file with
the backup in the office of the Clerk to the Board.)
November 13, 2001
73
Eli
9.C.1. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEM - SCHEDULED FOR P
HEARING ON DECEMBER 4.2001:
LDR AMENDMENT ORDINANCE TO MODIFY OPEN
SPACE REQUIREMENTS. FOR COMMERCIAL -
IND USTRIAL PLANNED DE VEL OPMENT PD
ZONING DISTRICTS (Legislative Initiated b S� taif)
Mel PUBLIC NOTICE ITEMS — SCHED
HEARING DECEMBER 11.2001:
APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO MODIFY CERTAIN
APPROVED CONCEPTUAL PLANNED
DE VEL OPMENT PLAN INTERNAL FRONT YARD
SE TBA CKS FOR A PORTION OF THE OLD ORCHID
PD PROJECT (Legislative)
APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO MODIFY THE ZONING
REVERTER DATE IN T11F PT 4 ATArVn
DEVELOPMENT ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE
COLONY PD PROJECT (LegislatiVe)
The Chairman read a Memorandum of November 5, 2001 into the record as follows:
November 13, 2001
74
t7 '2 H1
1, i 3
TO
FROM
DATE
SUBJECT
James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE:
'4��� r,n
Robe ting, AIC , Community Development Director
Stan Boling, AICP
Planning Director
November 5, 2001
Notice of Scheduled Public Hearings for Upcoming Board Meeting
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of November 13, 2001.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Please be advised that the following public hearings have been scheduled for Board consideration,
as follows.
December 4 2001 Meetinn
1. LDR (land development regulations) amendment ordinance to modify open space
requirements for commercial/industrial planned development (P.D.) zoning districts
(Initiated by Staff). [Legislative)
December 11 2001 Meeting
1. Applicant's request to modify certain approved conceptual planned development (P.D.) plan
internal front yard setbacks for a portion of the Old Orchid P.D. project. [Legislative]
2. Applicant's request to modify the zoning reverter date in the planned development (P.D.)
zoning ordinance for The Colony P.D. project. [Legislative]
RECOMMENDATION:
The above referenced public hearing dates are provided for the Board's information. No action is
needed.
NO ACTION REQUIRED OR TAKEN.
E
t RAC 1' FOR CONSTRUCTION - CHILBEI
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 6,2001:
November 13, 2001
75
T
it i C ;` ; kit. li
II I
Date: November 6, 2001
To: The Honorable Board of County Commissioners
Thru: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
From: Thomas W. Frame, General Services Director -
Subject: Contract Approval with Chilberg Construction Company, Inc., for the
Construction of Sheriff's Evidence Storage Addition
EXHIBIT: Proposed Agreement between County and Contractor
BACKGROUND:
On October 16, 2001, the Board of County Commissioners awarded to Chilberg Construction
Company, Inc., the bid for the improvements to the Sheriff's Evidence Storage Addition.
Chilberg Construction was the lowest complying bidder and had bid a price of $104,827.00 for
the work as requested within the bid documents. The contractor has included as part of his bid a
time period of 80 consecutive calendar days to complete the work.
I have attached a document entitled "Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and
Contractor where the basis of payment is a Stipulated Sum," AIA Document A101-1997, 1997
Edition. This particular document has the recommended modification as recommended by the
National Construction Law Center, Inc. The recommendations were also included into the
documents prepared by the architect and approved by the County Attorney's office. Specifically,
AIA Document A201-1997, as modified with recommendations of the Construction Law Center ,
Inc., is part of this agreement as referenced within the a reement and as part of the Project
Manual prepared by Dow -Howell -Gilmore -Associates, Inc_
Chilberg has submitted all necessary bonds and insurance. The Contract documents have been
reviewed and approved by the County Attorney's office.
RECOMENDATION:
Staff requests the Board's approval of the attached agreement subject to final review and
approval of County Attorney, and authorization for the Chairman to execute said agreement.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously approved the proposed
agreement subject to final review and approval of the County
Attorney, and authorized the Chairman to execute the agreement, as
recommended in the memorandum.
November 13, 2001
AGREEMEN T8 1,1� E U !✓
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLL I'6THE BOARD
76
C --t' f?c'c DeT 6, Cj De:lcceWf&,v7:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
111
FROM: James W. Davis,
Public Works Director -
SUBJECT: North County Regional Park
1. Construction of Swimming Pools
2. Construction Manager Phase II Contract -
Guarantee Maximum Price
DATE: November 2, 2001
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The Public Works Department is ready to proceed with construction
of the North County Regional Park_. US Army Corps of Engineers and
St. Johns River Water Management District permits have been
received.
CONSTRUCTION OF SWIMMING POOLS
The Construction Manager, Proctor Construction Co., was selected in
July 2000 to perform Construction Manager -at -Risk. Services under
the Competitive Consultant Negotiation Act (CCNA) process as
required by Florida Statutes. On page 4 of the Const ruction
Managers contract (dated Oct. 10, 2000), Paragraph 1.4, the project
was identified as "Phase I for the Project", which included the
swimming pools. The intent was that the swimming pools would be
under the Construction Manager's contract for coordination and
project management, and that that costs for the pools would be
agreed upon by "piggy backing" other governmental entity bids for
similar pools recently built in Florida (e.g. City of Kissimmee and
City of Tallahassee projects) or by bidding.
The Phase I Construction Manager's work, to "value engineer" the
Project progressed. Proctor Construction Co. and County staff
advertised for subcontract bids for the swimming pools to determine
if better prices for the Pools could be obtained in the
construction marketplace, rather than "piggy -backing" other bids.
A request for bids was published in the Vero Beach Press Journal
and the "Florida Construction Bulletin" by Construction Market Data
CMD Group, a highly regarded construction bidding publication sent
to over 2000 contractors in the southeastern US. This publication
is also available via the Internet. As a result cif this bid
process, the swimming pools were bid by two bidders under the
Construction Manager's contract. The low bid was submitted by
Weller Pools at a bid of $2,061,967. The second low bidder, The
November 13, 2001
77
F
Pool People with offices in Pompano Beach, Fl., bid $2,860,000 for
the activity pool and a Myrtha Olympic size pool, and an alternate
f o f a:l act �-i'_Y p001 and COii'c�
�.�ional poured
concrete Olympic pool. The low bid by Weller Pools was $438,033
below the June 7, 2000 Board approved pool budget of $2,500,000.
The Construction Manager fee of 100 ($206,196.70) and 20 for
insurance and bonds ($41,240) would result in a cost of
$2,3091403.70. In communicating with Proctor Construction Company,
the County could save the 120 ($2471436.70) by directly contracting
with Weller Pools. Proctor has agreed to coordinate the work, and
Weller Pools would provide the Performance Bond, Payment Bond, and
15 -year pool liner guarantee. This direct contracting is allowable
by Florida Statues Section 255.20 since construction management
services to publicly bid and coordinate the work is applicable, and
the County purchasing ordinance regarding Request for Proposals and
bids has been complied with.
POOL BUILDINGS AND SITE WORK
The Part II Construction Manager's agreement is being prepared and
will establish a Guaranteed Maximum Price of $3,352,892 for all
site work, pool buildings and pool coordination work. The
construction time is 10 months from the date of a notice -to -
proceed. Estimated completion is November 1, 2002.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Alternative No. 1
Include the construction of swimming pools, buildings,
and site work under the Construction Manager's Part II
contract for a total cost of $6,020,295.70. The actual
Part T contract cost would be $5,662,295.70 since A/E
fees and permits are paid directly by the County.
Alternative No. 2
Contract directly with Weller Pools for the two pools at
a cost of $2,061,967 as bid and prepare the Part II
Construction Manager's contract for all pool buildings
and site work at a cost of $3,352,892. The result is a
construction cost of $514141859. Total project costs,
including A/E and permit fees, would be $5,772,859, which
is $27,141 under the previous $5.8 million budget
approved by the Board on April 10, 2001.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends Alternative No. 2 whereby the County staff
prepares the Part II Construction Manager's contract with a
Guaranteed Maximum Price of $3,352,892 for buildings and site work
and a contract with Weiler Pools for an Olympic pool and activity
Pool at a cost of $2,061,967. The actual contracts will be
presented next week. Funding to be from State of Florida FRDAP
grant $150,000 and Local Option 1C Sales Tax $5,375,000, Park_
Development Fund $125,000, Tree Fine Fund $50,000, and CR512
Widening Joint Retention Pond funding $100,000, for a total of
approximately $5.8 million.
November 13, 2001
m
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY
Vice Chairman Stanbridge to approve Alternative No. 2 as
recommended by staff.
Public Works Director James Davis responded to questions of Chairman Ginn regarding the
exceptions under the Weller Pool contract, the reason why the County was able to get a lower bid,
the reason why the County was unable to piggyback on the contracts of other cities in Florida, the
bulkhead remaining under the contract, and other matters relative to the Weller contract.
Administrator Chandler responded to Chairman Ginn's questions concerning capital projects
and that the operating budget for this project is provided for in the current fiscal year. He also
advised of projections of sales tax and that State funding assistance was yet unknown awaiting the
end result of the Legislative session.
It was established during this question and answer period that one bulkhead remains under
the contract, but the second bulkhead (to divide the Olympic pool) is not included at this time
tracks will be there for that bulkhead so it could be added in the future.
The
Chairman Ginn thought it might be wise to cut back on capital projects because of the current
economy, Commissioner Adams responded that this project already has the funding set aside and
delay will raise construction costs. She felt it would be inappropriate to stop because we don't know
what the State is going to do.
Discussion ensued and the Board spoke about the attendance at the Gifford pool which will
soon have the fees restructured.
Frank Coffey, 5015 Fairway Circle, was concerned that the heating of the main pool is not
in the Weller bid.
Following a discussion on the heating of the pool, Director Davis advised that heating the
pool would be quite expensive and is not in this contract.
There was further discussion on heating the pool, and Commissioner Tippin called the
question.
November 13, 2001
79
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion
carried 4-1 (Chairman Ginn opposed). (Approved Alternative No.
2 to contract directly with Weller Pools for the two pools at a cost of
$2,061,967 as bid and prepare the Part II Construction Manager's
Contract for all pool buildings and site work at a cost of $3,352,892.
The result is a construction cost of $53414,859. Total project costs,
including A/E and permit fees, would be $51772,859, which is
$27,141 under the previous $5.8 million budget approved by the
Board on April 10, 2001. Staff will prepare the Part II Construction
Manager's Contract with a Guaranteed Maximum Price of
$3,352,892 for buildings and site work and a contract with Weller
Pools for an Olympic pool and activity pool at a cost of $2,061,967.
The actual contracts will be presented next week. Funding to be
from State of Florida FRDAP grant $150,000 and Local Option 1 ¢
Sales Tax $5,375,000, Park Development Fund $125,000, Tree Fine
fund $50,000, and CR512 Widening Joint Retention Pond funding
$100,000, for a total of approximately $5.8 million.)
11.Gel LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR USE OF
WAY PUBLIC BANK SIGN 1450 U.S. HIGHWA
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 7, 2001:
Date November 7, 2001
To James Chandler, County Administrator
From James W Davis, Public Works Director{ vl
Subject: License Agreement for use of County Right-of--way-Public Bank Sign
1450 U.S. Highway 1
Ref. Letter: Steve Henderson to William Collins dated 11/5/01
November 13, 2001
M
Description and Conditions
The attorney for Public Bank, Steve Henderson, is requesting a license agreement to
allow a bank sign to remain in a County R/W parcel along 1450 US 1 behind the existing
sidewalk. This R/W parcel was granted to the County when Barnett Bank was developed
to meet future Thoroughfare Plan requirements.
Alternatives and Analvsis
The Community Development Dept. has issued a sign permit subject to the license
agreement being issued. The County is being indemnified from any damages to person or
Property as a result of the sign.
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the attached License Agreement.
Attachment Ref. Letter and License Agreement
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved the License
for use of County Right -of -Way between Indian River County and
Public Bank at 1450 US Highway I, Vero Beach, Florida, as
recommended in the memorandum.
COPY OF RECORDED LICENSE IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
11.H.1. NON-EXCLUSIVE PROFESSIONA
AGREEMENTS FOR CONTINUUM CONSUL
METCALF & EDDY INC.;. KIMLEY-HORN
MASTELLER & MOLER INC.; PBS & J• WCG ]
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of September 27, 2001:
DATE: SEPTEMBER 27, 2001
TO: JAMES CHANDLER, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
THROUGH: W. ERIK OLSON, DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICE
FROM: GENE A. RAUTH, OPERATIONS MANAGER ENP' ��
SUBJECT: NON-EXCLUSIVE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING
AGREEMENTS FOR CONTINUING CONSLT,TING SERVICES
November 13, 2001
ROM
VJ
ERING
ICES -
T>v� .
Bili 1210 F , __ 3 ;D
BACKGROUND -
On July 20, 2001, the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners gave approval for
Staff to enter into negotiations for a Non-exclusive Professional Engineering Agreement for
Continuing Consulting Services with the following six firms:
Staff has since negotiated a non-exclusive agreement with each of the six firms. As requested by
the Board, three specific firms will be utilized for the water production and distribution area.
Three specific firms will be utilized for the wastewater treatment and collection area.
ANALYSIS:
These two-year agreements with each of the Consultants are to be considered as Non-exclusive
Master Agreements between the Consultants and the County. These agreements are to be used
on an as needed basis with prior Board approval. The project limits shall be identified in
individual work authorizations and approved by the Board prior to issuance of any Notice to
Proceed. (For details of these agreements, please see the attached agreements).
RECOMMENDATION•
The staff of the department of utility services recommends that the board of county
cornmissioners approve each of six non-exclusive professional engineering agreements for continuing
consulting services.
GAR\jhd
Attachments: (6)
November 13, 2001
,A
ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Stanbridge, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved each of six
(Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.; Kimley-Horn, Inc.; CDM, Inc.; Masteller &
Moler, Inc.; PBS & J; WCG, Inc.) non-exclusive professional
engineering agreements for continuing consulting services, as
recommended in the memorandum.
AGREEMENTS ARE ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
HeHel INDIAN RIVER COUNTY REGIONAL SLUDGE F
EVALUATION REPORT (TASK 200) & SYSTEM IMPROV]
WORK AUTHORIZATION NUMBER 6 — WCG INC.
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of October 29, 2001:
DATE:
OCTOBER 29, 2001
TO: JAMES E. CHA-NDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
THROUGH: W. ERIK OLSON, DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES yj
FROM: GENE A. RAUTH, OPERATIONS MANAGERGk�
SUBJECT: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY REGIONAL SLUDGE FACILITY
EVALUATION AND SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
BACKGROUND
On June 13, 2000, the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners (BCC)
authorized staff to proceed with an evaluation of the Sludge Processing Facility to
quantify additional processing cost savings and necessary modifications to the facility
(see attached agenda item dated June 5, 2000). As explained in the earlier agenda item,
as part of this authorization the staff of the Department of Utility Services utilized its
continuing service consultant, WCG, Inc., to perform the evaluation.
ANALYSIS
WCG, Inc. has completed its evaluation of the Regional Sludge Processing Facility and
has since submitted their written report, which is currently on file in the BCC office. As
part of the WCG, Inc. written report, a list of critical, suggested, and optional
recommendations were made for operational and mechanical improvements. Staff has
November 13, 2001
MK
reviewed these recommendations and determined that specific improvement and prudent
modifications to the odor control systems should be made at this time. In order to
proceed further the Department of Utility Services staff has requested WCG, Inc. prepare
a Work Authorization to design and construct the necessary modification and
improvements. Work Authorization Number 6 in the amount of $170, 621.00 is attached.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends the Board of County
Commissioners accepts and approves the attached Work Authorization Number 6 with
WCG, Inc., in the amount of $170,621.00.
FUNDING SOURCE
Account Number 471-000-169-387.00
LIST OF EXHIBITS•
1. Agenda Item dated June 5, 2000
2- Work Authorization Number 6
MOTION WAS MADE by Vice Chairman Stanbridge, SECONDED
by Commissioner Adams, to approve staff's recommendation.
County Attorney Paul Bangel clarified that this item was under the existing contract with
WCG.
Chairman Ginn noted that this work authorization did not come before the Utilities Advisory
Committee.
Utilities Director Erik Olson explained that he had committed to resolving some immediate
needs when talking with the UAC. WCG had done the initial study in January which very clearly
pointed out some immediate needs concerning odor control. This work authorization covers those
remedies; in order to expedite resolution of the problem it was determined that WCG should do the
work.
November 13, 2001
'� of
•
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion
carried unanimously. (The Board accepted and approved Work
Authorization Number 6 with WCG, Inc., in the amount of
$170,621.00.)
WORK AUTHORIZATION NO. 6 AND
REGIONAL SLUDGE FACILITY - TASK 200 - EVALUATION REPORT IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
1 he Board reviewed a Memorandum of October 15, 2001:
DATE: OCTOBER 15, 2001
T0: JAMES E. CHANDLER, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: W. ERIK OLSON
DIRECTOR OF UTIL RVICES
PREPARED AARON J. BOWLES, P.E.
AND STAFFED ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
BY. DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: COALITION FOR THE HOMELESS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, INC.
OFF-SITE UTILITIES CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT
WTP NO. 473-000-169-508
APPROVAL OF CHANGE ORDER NO. I & REQUEST FOR FINAL PAYMENT
BACK( ROI iND•
On November 21, 2000 the Board of County Commissioners entered into a Developer's Agreement Nvith
Coalition for the Homeless of Indian River County
amount of $144 , Inc. (see attached agenda item and minutes -Attachment 1) in the
,139 to provide sanitary sewer service to the above referenced project. The project is now complete
and the Department of Utility Services is prepared to make final payment to the Contractor.
ANAT YSTS-
The Developer was previously paid $11,035.40 for 7.6% of the original cost. The bid quantities used during the
bidding process are based on estimated quantities. Change Order No. 1 adjusts the estimated bid quantities based on
actual quantities installed. Change Order No. 1 results in a net increase of 54,378.15. Change Order No I is
presented as Attachment -B.
The change order increase ($4,378.15) results in a 3.0% increase to the originally approved contract and adjusts
the final contract amotmt to 51487517.15. Utilities staff is now requesting final payment to Coalition for the
November 13, 2001
M
J
Homeless of Indium Diver County, Inc. in the amount of $129,775.75. This final payment amount includes file
Developer's contribution of $7 706.00 and the release of all retainage held.
RECO aAfFNpATI()N,
FocalThe staff of the Department of c held Sery cps reconunends that dle Board of Comnty Connnissioners approve
Payment includ ng all re ainage held, inclusive of Change Order No. 1, in the total amount of $129,775.75 to
Coalition for the Homeless of Indian River County, Inc. as presented in Attachment B
LIST OE AITA r Tx'vmS
Attaclunent A) Approved Developer's Agreement dated November 21
Attachment B) Final Pay Request inclusive of Change Order 91. , 2000
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously approved Final
Payment including all retainage held, inclusive of Change Order
No. l ., in the total amount of $129,775.75 to Coalition for the
Homeless of Indian River County, Inc., as presented in Attachment
B, and as recommended in the memorandum.
DOCUMENTS ARE ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
12.A.
PORT
T
�-�L"" 1 xt"L
N �.L3IDIE11(: 1J I GH WAY FELLSMERE
ROAD/CR512)
County Attorney Paul Bangel reviewed a Memorandum of November 9, 2001, and a letter
of October 30, 2001:
November 9, 2001
To: Board of County Commissioners
From: Paul G. Bangel, County Attorney
Re: Sebastian-Fellsmere Highway
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners defer ruling on the City
of Sebastian's request that the County rename Sebastian-Fellsmere Highway within the
County's jurisdiction pending receipt of the City's final proposal, and pending evaluation
and recommendation by the Emergency Services Department, the Public Works
Department, the Community Development Department, and the County Attorney's Office.
November 13, 2001
�: .
C°,e S'1 # q•, y k
4 1 _ I '.a
Discussion:
Attached is a copy of a letterfrom Terrence R. Moore, City Manager, requesting that
the portion of Sebastian-Fellsmere Highway within the County's jurisdiction be renamed
to Sebastian Boulevard. Mr. Moore indicates that the favored name is Sebastian
Boulevard and that the City Council may consider a resolution formally adopting a name
change at its meeting on November 14. It is my suggestion that the Board of County
Commissioners defer ruling on the request pending receipt of the City's final proposal, and
pending evaluation and recommendation by the Emergency Services Department, the
Public Works Department, the Community Development Department, and the County
Attorney's Office.
;T-;
1225 Main Street — Sebastian, Florida 32958
Phone: 561-589-5330
Fax: 561589SWo
crty@crtyofsebmdan.org
October 30, 2001
The Honorable Caroline Ginn
& Indian River County Board of Commissioners
1840 251 Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Dear Chair Ginn and Board of Commissioners:
-riSTRIBLITION LIST
'nmmissioners
Administrator
Attorney.
Personnel
Public worl�2!/-v�
Community De .
Utilities
Finance
WX
Emerg. Sery
Risk Mgt.
Other.
2vvt_114 17)f ! a J
During the October 24'h Regular City Council Meeting, the Council agreed to pursue the
renaming of Fellsmere Road (County Road 512) from Interstate 95 to the river. The
City seeks the County's permission to rename the portion of the road in the County's
jurisdiction. Although not officially adopted, Sebastian Boulevard is the favored name
change for Fellsmere Road in the Sebastian corporate limits.
Upon receiving the County's response, the City attorney will draft a resolution formally
adopting the name change during the November 14"' City Council meeting. Please let
us know if a road name change is possible between Interstate 95 and just west of the
City limits. You may also feel free to contact me by calling (561) 388-8203 should you
have questions and/or concerns that any of you may wish to address.
I errer
City Manager
TM#rjw
cc: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
November 13, 2001
MON
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Adams, to defer this item as recommended by the
County Attorney.
Under discussion, Vice Chairman Stanbridge advised of a memorandum she sent to the
Commissioners and the County Attorney's office clarifying the original name which was Sebastian -
Fellsmere Highway. Sebastian's name was part of the original name and CR512 cannot be changed.
She thought it should remain as Sebastian-Fellsmere Highway and could not see why the name
should be changed.
Chairman Ginn agreed.
County Attorney Paul Bangel suggested the Board could send that message to the City of
Sebastian.
Discussion ensued.
There was CONSENSUS; the Board wanted input from pertinent departments as well as the
City's final proposal as to what portion of the road they wished to rename.
County Attorney Paul Bangel understood that the City Council did vote on their favored
name. He wished to address the legal propriety of their request.
Vice Chairman Stanbridge believed this name came up at the charrette.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion
carried unanimously.
12.B. INTRODUCTION OF NEW ASSISTANT COUNTY
ATTORNEY II MARIAN E. FELL
County Attorney Paul Bangel introduced Assistant County Attorney II Marian E. Fell who
was in the audience. The Commissioners joined in welcoming her
November 13, 2001
U
(See also Item 7.K.)
13eAe
UPDATE
Removed from Agenda due to time constraints. Chairman Ginn will give report at next
meeting.
13A V
No report.
I
Assistant County Administrator Joe Baird was pleased to�announce that he County was
successful in obtaining an excellent bond rate of 3.982715% from William R. Hough & Co. in the
sale of the $11,000,000, 15 -year, environmental land acquisition bonds. The six bids received were
very competitive with two of them being under 4%. The bonds have received a AAA rating from
Standard & Poors.
The Commissioners expressed their enthusiastic pleasure at this welcome news.
14.A.
None.
14A
None.
14.C. ENVIRONMENTAL C
None.
November 13, 2001
There being no further business, upon motion duly made and seconded, the Chairman
adjourned the meeting at 12:01 p.m.
ATTEST:
Minutes approved
November 13, 2001
.E
Caroline D. Ginn, Chai an
ppr
Jettrey K. Barton, Clerk
tj