HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/19/2002MINUTES ATTACHED
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
County Commission Chamber
County Administration Building
1840 25`h Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Ruth M. Stanbridge, Chairman
John lti . Tlppin, Vice Chair man
Fran B. Adams
Caroline D. Ginn
Kenneth R. Macht
D istrict 2
D istrict 4
D istrict 1
D istrict 5
District 3
James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Paul G. Bangel, County Attorney
Kimberly Massung, Executive Aide to BCC
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
9:00 a.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER BACKUP
PAGES
INVOCATION Chaplain Ray Scent
Indian River Memorial Hospital
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE James E. Chandler
ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA /
EMERGENCY ITEMS
ADDITIONS: 12. Fred Mensing's Letter Concerning the Simonye Property Purchase
13.C. Redistricting Update by Commissioner Fran Adams
5. PROCLAMATION and PRESENTATIONS
A. Presentation of Proclamation Honoring Patricia
Callahan on her Retirement Effective March 28, 2002
Presentation by Nan Griggs of the Workforce Develop-
ment Board of the Treasure Coast, Region 20
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
lone
iz
7 CONSENT AGENDA
A. Received & Placed on File in Office of Clerk to the Board:
1) Sheriffs D.U.I. Impoundment and Immobilization
Trust Fund Report for the 4th Quarter of 2001
2) I.R. Soil and Water Conservation District (a) Agenda
for meeting of 3/11/02; (b) Minutes of 01/14/02
meeting; (c) Water Table Observation Wells Report
of 01/20/02, and (d) Activities Report for Jan , 2002
BACKUP
PAGES
B. Approval of Warrants
(memorandum dated March 7, 2002) 3-10
C. Miscellaneous Budget Amendment 009
(memorandum dated March 13, 2002) 11-14
D. Annual Financial Report
(memorandum dated March 12, 2002) 15-23
E. MACE Grant (Multi -Agency Criminal Enforcement
Unit) — Project Generated Income — Budget Amendment
007
(memorandum dated March 11, 2002)
F. Health Insurance Policy
(memorandum dated March 13, 2002)
G. Consideration of Consultant Contract for CDBG
Application Services
(memorandum dated March 13, 2002)
24-29
30
31-36
H. Proclamation Designating March 20, 2002 as Retired
Senior Volunteer Program Day in Indian River County 37
I. Repair Livestock Pavilion — Final Payment
(Release of Retainage)
(memorandum dated March 11, 2002)
38-39
J. Indian River Courts P19 — Modification to Contract for
Construction of Required Improvements
(memorandum dated March 12, 2002)
40-50
K. Windsor Properties Inc. Request for Final Planned Deve-
lopment (PD) Plat Approval for Windsor Plat 24
(Equestrian Center)
(memorandum dated March 7, 2002)
51-65
002
0
CONSENT AGENDA (cont'd.):
L Request to Pull Letter of Credit for Hunters' Run
Subdivision Remaining Required Improvements
(memorandum dated March 13, 2002)
CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS and
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
one
PUBLIC ITEMS
A. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. AN ORDIIv ANCE OF IN 1)IAN RIVER COLTY,
FLORIDA, AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE
MAP OF THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY CHANGING
THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR 142 ACRES
LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF 85th
STREET, AND 90th AVENL.E FROM R TO L-1
AND PROVIDING CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY,
AND EFFECTIVE DATE
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 March 8, 2002)
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, AMENDING THE TRANSPORTATION
ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
REGARDING THE FUTURE ROADWAY CLASSI-
FICATION MAP; AND PROVIDING SEVERABILITY
AND EFFECTIVE DATE
Indeco, Inc.'s Request to Amend Figure 4.13 of the
Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan
to Delete 25th Street, SW, Between 20th Avenue and
27th Avenue (Legislative)
(memorandum dated March 8, 2002)
9. PUBLIC ITEMS (cont'd.):
A. PUBLIC HEARINGS (cont'd.):
3. AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, AMENDING 1'HE FUTURE LAND USE
MAP OF THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY CHANGING
THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR 88.5 ACRES
LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF US 1, WEST OF
INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ON THE NORTH SIDE
OF THE SAINT LUCIE COUNTY LII` H, FROM L-2
AND C-2 TO C-1; BY CHANGING THE LAND USE
DESIGNATION FOR 66 ACRES LOCATED ON THE
SOUTH SIDE OF 9" STREET S.W. EAST OF US 1,
FROM L-2 TO C-1; BY CHANGING THE LAND USE
DESIGNATION FOR 59.5 ACRES, LOCATED ON
THE WEST SIDE OF SR AIA, SOUTH OF ROUND
ISLAND PARK, FROM C-1 TO C-1 BY CHANGING
THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR 19 ACRES
LOCATED ON THE SOUTH END OF 130"' STREET
RIGHT OF WAY WEST OF THE FEC RAILWAY
FROM L-2 TO C-1; AND BY CHANGING THE
LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR 1.5 ACRES
LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF SR AIA ALONG
THE NORTH BORDER OF GOLDEN SANDS PARK,
FROM L-1 TO C-1; AND PROVIDING CODIFICATION,
SEVERABILITY, AND EFFECTIVE DATE
(Legislative)
(memorandum dated March 11, 2002)
4. AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA ESTABLISHING NEW REQUIREMENTS
FOR WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS
FACILITIES, AMENDING THE FOLLOWING
CHAPTERS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS (LDRS): CHAPTER 911 ZONING;
CHAPTER 971, REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC LAND
USES; AND PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CON-
FLICTING PROVISIONS, CODIFICATION, SEVER-
ABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE
Request to Adopt an Interim Wireless Telecommuni-
cations Facilities Ordinance, Amending Section
971.44 and Various Sections of LDR Chapter 911
(First Hearing) (Legislative)
(memorandum dated March 13, 2002)
B. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
None
BACKUP
PAGES
147-192
193-274
0 0 I
PUBLIC ITEMS (cont'd.):
C. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEMS
\one
10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
A. Community Development
one
Emergency Services
1. Approval of Agreement Between Indian River
County and DRC, Inc. for Disaster Public Assistance
Services
(memorandum dated March 5, 2002)
Acceptance of Federally Funded Subgrant Agree-
ment and Approval of Core Processes, Inc. to Provide
Training
(memorandum dated February 22, 2002)
General Services
Change Orders 7 and 8, Main Library / Bill Bryant and
Associates, Inc.
(memorandum dated March 12, 2002)
Leisure Services
281-319
320-351
Office of Management and Budget
2002/2003 Budget Workshop/Hearing Schedule
(memorandum dated March 12, 2002)
Personnel
None
Public Works
1. Beach Preservation Plan Funding — Sector 1 and 2
Beach Nourishment — (North County)
Amendment No. 4 to DNP
(memorandum dated March 11, 2002)
Final Draft — Habitat Conservation Plan for
Sea Turtles
(memorandum dated March 11, 2002)
353-365
366-368
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS (cont'd.):
G. Public Works (cont'd.):
3. Right -if -Way Acquisition — 58th Avenue, Phase II
C. Reed Knight, Jr. and Jan R. Knight
(memorandum dated March 12, 2002)
369-374
Utilities
1. Developer's Agreement for Barber Street Walgreens
(memorandum dated January 31, 2002)
Consulting Services Contract with Carter Associates
to Construct 16" Master Planned Water Main Along
Indian River Boulevard
(memorandum dated February 28, 2002)
Human Services
Homeless Services Council Technical Application for
2002 HUD Grant
(memorandum dated March 12, 2002)
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY
None
375-390
391-426
427-428
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS
A. Chairman Ruth M. Stanbridge
Updates
Vice Chairman John W. Tippin
Commissioner Fran B. Adams
Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht
14. SPECIAL DISTRICTS/BOARDS
A. Emergency Services District
None
B. Solid Waste Disposal District
1. Approval of Minutes — Meeting of 3/5/02
2. Approval of Minutes — Meeting of 3/12/02
3. Class I Landfill Operations Contract
(memorandum dated March 5, 2002)
4. Solid Waste Disposal District Engineering
Services and Permitting Assistance (2001)
(memorandum dated March 6, 2002)
Retention of Outside Counsel by Solid Waste
Disposal District
(memorandum dated March 11, 2002)
C. Environmental Control Board
None
15. ADJOURNMENT
•
BACKUP
PAGES
429-430
431-446
447-454
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://bcc1.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.
of
•
INDEX TO MINUTES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MEETING OF MARCH 19, 2002
1. CALL TO ORDER 1
2. INVOCATION 1
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
•
1
4. ADDITIO\ S/DELETIO\ S TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS 1
5. PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS 2
S.A. PROCLAMATION HONORING PATRICIA CALLAHAN ON HER
RETIREMENT EFFECTIVE MARCH 28, 2002 2
5.B. PRESENTATION BY NAN GRIGGS OF THE WORKFORCE
DEVELOPMENT BOARD OF THE TREASURE COAST, REGION 20 3
6.A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4
7. CONSENT AGENDA 4
7.A. Reports 4
7 B Approval of Warrants 4
7.C. Miscellaneous Budget Amendment 009 10
7.D. Clerk - Annual Financial Report 14
7 E MACE Grant (Multi -Agency Criminal Enforcement Unit) - Project
Generated Income - Budget Amendment 007 15
7.F. County Employees' Health Insurance Policy - Dependent Health Insurance
Costs 16
7.G. CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) Application Services
Contract - Fred Fox Enterprises, Inc. 17
7.H. Proclamation - Retired Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP) Day - March 20,
2002 19
1
Li L.
7.I. Repair Fairground's Livestock Pavilion - Jim Wright Construction, Inc. -
Final Payment/Release of Retainage 20
71 Indian River Courts Limited Partnership - Modification to Contract for
Construction of Requirement Improvements - Cash Deposit and Escrow
Agreement - Indian River Courts PD (The Florida Apartment Club, Inc.)
21
7.K. Windsor Properties, Inc. (Torwest, Inc.) - Contract for Construction of
Requirement Improvements - Cash Deposit and Escrow Agreement - Final
Planned Development (PD) Plat Approval for Windsor Plat 24 (Equestrian
Center) 23
7 L Resolution No. 2002-016 - Hunters' Run Subdivision - Pull Letter of
Credit - Modification to Contract for Construction of Required
Improvements (Brackett Family Limited Partnership) 25
9.A.1. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE NO. 2002-011 AND ORDINANCE NO
2002-012 - AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - REDESIGNATE +142 ACRES FROM R TO L-1
AND REZONE THOSE +142 ACES FROM A-1 TO RS -3 - REQUEST OF
YUKON LAND CORPORATION AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF 85TH
STREET AND 90TH AVENUE (Legislative) 29
9.A.2. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE NO. 2002-013 AMENDS THE
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN -
FUTURE ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION MAP - DELETES 25TH STREET
SW BETWEEN 20TH AND 27TH AVENUES - INDECO, INC (Legislative)
48
9.A.3. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE NO. 2002-014 AND 2002-015 -
AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REDESIGNATING 5 PARCELS TO C-1 AND
REZONING THOSE 5 PARCELS TO CON -1 - HARMONY OAKS, OSLO
RIVERFRONT SOUTH, ROUND ISLAND SOUTH, ANSTALT, SPALLONE
(Legislative)
57
9.A.4. PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED INTERIM WIRELESS
TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES ORDINANCE AMENDING
SECTION 971.44 AND VARIOUS SECTIONS OF LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS CHAPTER 911 - FIRST HEARING (Legislative) 77
9.B PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS 86
2
BR
•
9.C. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEMS
11 13 1
11.B.2.
11.C.
86
DISASTER PUBLIC ASSISTANCE SERVICES CONTRACT - DRC,
INC.
86
ACCEPTANCE OF FEDERALLY FUNDED SUBGRANT
AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AFFAIRS (FDCA) - DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT -
BID PROCESS WAIVED - SERVICE PROVIDER AGREEMENT WITH
CORE PROCESSES, INC. FOR TRAINING
89
MAIN LIBRARY EXPANSION AND RENOVATION - CHANGE
ORDERS 7 AND 8 - BILL BRYANT AND ASSOCIATES, INC. .... 91
•
11 E BUDGET WORKSHOP & HEARING SCHEDULE - FISCAL YEAR 2002/03
93
11.0.1.
11.G.2.
BEACH PRESERVATION PLAN FUNDING - SECTORS 1 AND 2
BEACH NOURISHMENT (AMBERSAND/WABASSO BEACH
RESTORATION PROJECT - NORTH COUNTY) - AMENDMENT 4 TO
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGREEMENT NO. 98IR1 94
HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN FOR THE PROTECTION OF SEA
TURTLES ON ERODING BEACHES IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY -
FINAL DRAFT FOR SUBMISSION TO U. S. FISH & WILDLIFE
SERVICE
96
11.0.3. RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION - 58TH AVENUE, PHASE II - C.
REED KNIGHT, JR. AND JAN R. KNIGHT 98
11.H.1. WALGREENS - BARBER STREET & US# 1- SOUTHERN
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INC. - DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT
FOR UTILITIES
100
11.14.2.
CONSULTING SERVICES CONTRACT - WORK ORDER NO 2 -
CARTER ASSOCIATES, INC. - MASTER PLANNED 16" WATER
MAIN ALONG INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD 102
3
11.I. HOMELESS SERVICES COUNCIL TECHNICAL APPLICATIONS FOR 2002
HUD GRANTS - SUPPORTIVE HOUSING PROGRAM - HOMELESS
MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM (HMIS) - FL29B109002 AND
FL29B109003 103
12.A. FRED MENSING'S LETTER CONCERNING THE SIMONYE PROPERTY
PURCHASE 105
13.A. CHAIRMAN STANBRIDGE - UPDATES 110
13.C. COMMISSIONER ADAMS - REDISTRICTING UPDATE 110
14 A EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT 110
14.B. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT 110
14.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD 111
4
8i; 12? 0 i 1
March 19, 2002
The Board ofCounty Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, met in Regular
Session at the County Commission Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on
Tuesday, March 19, 2002. Present were Ruth Stanbridge, Chairman; John W. Tippin, Vice
Chairman; Commissioners Fran B. Adams; Caroline D. Ginn; and Kenneth R. Macht. 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
Chaplain Ray Scent, Indian River Memorial Hospital, delivered the invocation.
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Administrator Chandler led the Pledge to the Flag.
4. ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY
ITEMS
Commissioner Adams requested the addition of two items: 12. Fred Mensing s Letter
Concerning the Simonye Property Purchase and 13.C. Redistricting Update.
March 19, 2002
1
p:
•
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously added the above
items to the agenda.
5. PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS
5.A. PROCLAMATION HONORING PATRICIA CALLAHAN ON HER
RETIREMENT EFFECTIVE MARCH 28, 2002
Chairman Stanbridge read the following proclamation into the record and presented
it to Pat Callahan who was excited and honored to receive it and to retire. Mrs. Callahan
expressed thanks to her husband, various employees, and former Commissioners for their
help and support. She thanked each of the Commissioners for their unique contributions to
the recreation program and facilities. She pointed out the new and special and remarkable
parks and facilities in the county and urged everyone to visit and use them.
PROCLAMATION
HONORING PATRICIA CALLAHAN
ON HER RETIREMENT
EFFECTIVE MARCH 28 2002
WHEREAS, Patricia Callahan has been the Vero Beach/Indian River County
Recreation Director since 1987; and
WHEREAS, over the past 15 years, County recreational programs and facilities
have grown by leaps and bounds, encompassing the entire County; and
WHEREAS, Pat has been instrumental in all phases of recreation from Mighty
Mites T -Ball to Senior Group Fitness, and activities for every age in between; and
WHEREAS, Pat's leadership and dedication have set- an example for
lifeguards, coaches, gymnastic teachers, teen counselors, pool operators, facility
managers and ball field officials, to keep the programs running smoothly and
March 19, 2002
2
BEC
• •
WHEREAS, Pat is best known as a Seminole Booster with a big smile,
twinkling eyes and bottled water; and
WHEREAS, Pat's "can -do" attitude and positive approach have earned the
respect and admiration of the community, and she will be sorely missed by her friends
and co-workers.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that the Board expresses its
deep appreciation for the services Patricia Callahan has performed on behalf of Indian
River County, and extends heartfelt wishes for a happy retirement and success in future
endeavors.
Adopted this 19th day of March, 2002.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
P2
•
Ruth M. Stanbridge, Chai an
Commissioners expressed their thanks and best wishes. The audience enthusiastically
gave her a standing ovation.
5.B. PRESENTATION BY NAN GRIGGS OF THE WORKFORCE
DEVELOPMENT BOARD OF THE TREASURE COAST, REGION 20
Nan Griggs gave a comprehensive report on the mission, operations, and
accomplishments of the Workforce Development Board of the Treasure Coast. She
reviewed the information contained in their annual report and two brochures and explained
how both workers and employers have been assisted by the services the board offers. The
report and brochures have been placed along with the backup in the Office of the Clerk to
the Board.
March 19, 2002
3
Commissioners expressed to Ms. Griggs their appreciation for her dedication and
commitment. Ms. Griggs retirement was recently announced.
6.A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
None.
7. CONSENT AGENDA
7.A. Reports
The following reports were received and placed on file in the Office of the Clerk to
the Board:
Sheriff's D.U.I. Impoundment and Immobilization Trust Fund
Report for the 4' Quarter of 2001
Indian River Soil and Water Conservation District (a) Agenda
for meeting of 3/11/02; (b) Minutes of 1/14/02 meeting; (c)
Water Table Observation Wells Report of 1/20/02; and (d)
Activities Report for January 2002
7.B. Approval of Warrants
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 7, 2002:
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DATE: March 7, 2002
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF WARRANTS
FROM:
EDWIN M. FRY, JR., FINANCE DIRECTOR
March 19, 2002
4
015
• •
In compliance with Chapter 136.06, Florida Statutes, all warrants issued by the Board of County
Commissioners are to be recorded in the Board minutes.
Approval is requested for the attached list of warrants, issued by the Clerk to the Board, for the
time period of March 1, 2002 to March 7, 2002.
Attachment:
EMF: AN
CHECK
NUMBER
O 021627
O 021628
O 021629
O 021630
O 021631
O 021632
O 021633
O 021634
O 021635
O 021636
O 021637
O 021638
O 021639
O 021640
O 021641
O 319078
O 319079
O 319080
O 319081
O 319082
O 319083
O 319084
O 319085
O 319086
O 319087
O 319088
O 319089
O 319090
O 319091
O 319092
O 319093
O 319094
O 319095
O 319096
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved the list
of warrants issued by the Clerk to the Board for the period
March 1-7, 2002, as requested.
NAME
AETNA LIFE INSURANCE AND
KRUCZKIEWICZ, LORIANE
STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT
BUREAU FOR CHILD SUPPORT ENFOR
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
IRS - ACS
CHAPTER 13 TRUSTEE
VERO BEACH FIREFIGHTERS ASSOC.
INDIAN RIVER FEDERAL CREDIT
COLONIAL LIFE & ACCIDENT
NACO/SOUTHEAST
SALEM TRUST COMPANY
SAN DIEGO COUNTY OFFICE OF THE
FL SDU
AMERICAN FAMILY LIFE ASSURANCE
AMAZON.COM CREDIT
AERO PRODUCTS CORPORATION
ALLIED UNIVERSAL CORP
APPLE INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO
AUTO SUPPLY CO OF VERO BEACH,
ALL RITE WATER CONDITIONING
ADDISON OIL CO
AUTO PARTS OF VERO, INC
ALL FLORIDA REALTY
A T & T
ANCOR CORE INC.
AMERITREND HOMES
AHEAD HEADGEAR INC
ALDEN RISK MANAGEMENT
AMERICA THE BEAUTIFUL FUND
AERC.COM, INC
ARNOLD AIR CONDITIONING INC
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BERNAN ASSOCIATES
March 19, 2002
5
CHECK
DATE
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
- 03-01
- 03-01
- 03-01
- 03-01
- 03-01
- 03-01
-03-01
- 03-01
- 03-01
- 03-01
- 03-01
- 03-01
- 03-01
- 03-01
- 03-01
- 03-07
- 03-07
- 03-07
- 03-07
- 03-07
- 03-07
- 03-07
- 03-07
- 03-07
- 03-07
- 03-07
- 03-07
- 03-07
- 03-07
- 03-07
- 03-07
- 03-07
- 03-07
-03-07
CHECK
AMOUNT
1,125.89
138.50
37.75
115.38
50.00
50.00
639.86
2,500.00
80,636.33
193.86
9,897.20
245.16
132.46
8,108.96
162.86
199.95
1,098.70
7,375.55
1,435.73
422.66
105.20
246.13
306.96
41.08
52.04
232.80
2,000.00
489.07
20,524.20
24.95
382.16
3,530.00
1,288.39
54.00
CHECK
NUMBER
031909
O 31909
O 31909
O 31910
O 31910
O 31910
O 31910
O 319104
O 319105
0319106
O 319107
O 319108
O 319109
O 319110
O 319111
O 319112
O 319113
O 319114
O 319115
O 319116
O 319117
O 319118
0319119
O 319120
O 319121
O 319122
O 319123
O 319124
O 319125
0319126
0319127
0319128
O 319129
O 319130
O 319131
O 319132
O 319133
O 319134
O 319135
O 319136
O 319137
O 319138
O 319139
O 319140
O 319141
O 319142
O 319143
0319144
O 319145
O 319146
O 319147
O 319148 D
O 319149 D
O 319150 D
O 319151 D
O 319152 D
O 319153 D
O 319154 D
NAME
7 BLACKHAWK QUARRY COMPANY
8 BARTON, JEFFREY K -CLERK
9 BRIDGESTONE SPORTS, INC
O BARTON, JEFFREY K
1 BREVARD COUNTY CLERK OF
2 BAKER & TAYLOR INC
3 BRODART CO
BAKER & TAYLOR ENTERTAINMENT
BEN RAILROAD TIES
BROWN, DONALD JR
BELLSOUTH-COMMUNICATION
BOWMAN, KATHLEEN
BREVARD ORTHOPAEDIC CLINIC
BEAZER HOMES, INC
BLUE CROSS/BLUE SHIELD OF
BLANKEN, RICHARD
BELLSOUTH
BELLSOUTH PUBLIC COMMUNICATION
BEST WESTERN FLORIDA MALL
BLACKMON, SHANITA
BANGEL, PAUL G
BLAST OFF PRESSURING CLEANING,
BARDWELL, MELISSA HALL
BLAIR, RONALD
BELLSOUTH
CABOT LODGE
CAMP, DRESSER & MCKEE, INC
CARTER ASSOCIATES, INC
CHANDLER EQUIPMENT CO, INC
COLD AIR DISTRIBUTORS
COMMUNICATIONS INT'L INC
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
COLE PALMER INSTRUMENT CO
CENTRAL FLORIDA PRIMA
CHILBERG CONSTRUCTION CO
COUNCIL ON EDUCATION IN
CARSONITE INTERNATIONAL CORP
CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDENT
CENTER FOR EMOTIONAL AND
COLUMBIA HOUSE
CLASSIC TREE SERVICE OF VERO
COURT REPORTERS, INC
COASTAL ORTHOPAEDIC &
CRAGIN, AMY, INDIVIDUALLY AND
CENTRAL FLORIDA HAND CENTER
DAILY COURIER SERVICE
DATA SUPPLIES, INC
DAVES SPORTING GOODS
D ICKERSON-FLORIDA, INC
D IRECTOR, KENNETH L MD PA
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS
OW, HOWELL, GILMORE,
AVIDSON TITLES, INC
EAF SERVICE CENTER OF THE
ELRAY STAKES & SHAVINGS INC
UI TV AD FUND
ILLARD, CASSIE
ELL MARKETING L.P.
March 19, 2002
6
CHECK
DATE
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07.
2002-03-07
CHECK
AMOUNT
171.00
4,767.50
207.36
2,500.00
5.00
1,046.46
13,637.90
381.89
325.00
365.00
607.50
65.20
355.00
1,500.00
41,862.10
12.50
679.55
460.99
78.00
136.47
257.87
725.00
23.10
60.00
473.84
55.00
61,497.95
8,956.72
360.20
555.47
355.60
27,193.09
63.31
20.00
153,333.00
160.00
824.36
9.75
114.00
21.57
485.00
62.00
27.00
7,250.00
56.00
547.00
182.79
16.38
433.92
77.00
44.54
8,380.34
4,908.25
625.00
356.40
50.00
38.62
1,311.00
•
CHECK
NUMBER
NAME
O 319155 ERRETT, NANCY
0319156 E G P, INC
O 319157 EWING, MARSHA
O 319158 ECOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC
0319159 FISHER SCIENTIFIC
0319160 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
0319161 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
0319162 FLORIDA TIRE RECYCLING, INC
0319163 FIRST NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST
0319164 FLORIDA VETERINARY LEAGUE
0319165 F & W PUBLICATIONS INC
0.319166 FLORIDA CLINICAL PRACTICE
0319167 FELIX EQUITIES, INC
FLORIDA PAIN MANAGEMENT ASSOC
FEDERAL EXPRESS
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
FREELY, WILLIAM
GALE GROUP, THE
GAYLORD BROTHERS, INC
GOODKNIGHT LAWN EQUIPMENT, INC
GULF ICE SYSTEMS, INC
GOLDCOAST ANESTHESIA ASSOC
7 GINN, CAROLINE D
8 GORHAM, JONATHAN
9 GREAT -FULLY DEAD PEST MGMT INC
0 GHA GRAND HARBOR LTD
HES, INC
HIGHSMITH, INC
HUNTER AUTO SUPPLIES
HAWK'S NEST GOLF CLUB INC
HACH COMPANY
HOLIDAY INN UNIVERSITY CENTER
HILL MANUFACTURING
HUSSAMy, OMAR MD
HIGHLANDS ANIMAL HOSPITAL
HEALTHSOUTH TREASURE COAST
HOLIDAY BUILDERS
HANSEN, SUSAN
HUNTER, TAMIKA
HOMELAND IRRIGATION CENTER
HEALTHSOUTH MELBOURNE S.C.
HARRIS, GREGORY PHD CVE
HILTON DAYTONA BEACH
HARRIGAN, TEANNA
HONIG DO, ALBERT
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SOLID
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
INDIAN RIVER BATTERY, INC
INDIAN RIVER BLUEPRINT CO INC
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY UTILITY
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF
INGRAM LIBRARY SERVICES
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
INDIAN RIVER FARMS WATER
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF
NDIAN RIVER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
NDIAN RIVER ALL -FAB, INC
O 319168
O 319169
O 319170
O 319171
O 319172
O 319173
O 319174
O 319175
O 319176
O 31917
O 31917
O 31917
O 31918
O 319181
O 319182
O 319183
O 319184
O 319185
O 319186
O 319187
O 319188
O 319189
O 319190
O 319191
O 319192
O 319193
O 319194
O 319195
O 319196
O 319197
O 319198
O 319199
O 319200
O 319201
O 319202
O 319203
O 319204
O 319205
O 319206
O 319207
O 319208
O 319209
O 319210
O 319211 I
O 319212 I
March 19, 2002
CHECK
DATE
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
O 02-03-07
O 02-03-07
O 02-03-07
O 02-03-07
O 02-03-07
O 02-03-07
002-03-07
O 02-03-07
002-03-07
O 02-03-07
O 02-03-07
O 2-03-07
O 2-03-07
O 2-03-07
O 2-03-07
O 2-03-07
O 2-03-07
O 2-03-07
O 2-03-07
O 2-03-07
2-03-07
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
200
7
CHECK
AMOUNT
81.98
390.00
2.00
2,916.67
63.03
965.04
6,202.52
1,131.60
9.30
65.00
43.98
49.00
238,467.48
115.00
17.10
480.00
23.05
1,318.82
36.85
108.79
3,164.50
289.80
183.98
37.79
783.00
73.76
683.00
159.03
182.36
10,260.63
427.32
68.00
123.03
408.00
61.00
450.72
2,500.00
116.87
136.47
18.83
3,289.81
795.15
594.00
18.02
15.95
119,226.71
131.45
150.00
185.00
147.52
1,960.32
761.50
158.62
100.00
300.00
1,000.00
1,216.82
1,371.87
DV
Lit
•
CHECK
NUMBER
O 319213
O 319214
O 319215
O 319216
O 319217
O 319218
O 319219
O 319220
O 319221
O 319222
O 319223
O 319224
O 319225
O 319226
O 319227
O 319228
O 319229
O 319230
O 319231
O 319232
O 319233
0319234
0319235
0319236
O 319237
O 319238
0319239
O 319240
O 319241
O 319242
O 319243
O 319244
0319245
O 319246
O 319247
O 319248
O 319249
O 319250
O 319251
O 319252
O 319253
0319254
O 319255
O 319256
0319257
O 319258
O 319259
O 319260
O 319261
0319262
O 319263
0319264
O 319265
O 319266
O 319267
O 319268
O 319269
O 319270
0319271
NAME
March 19, 2002
IRC EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE -
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
IMI -NET, INC
INTERMEDIA COMMUNICATIONS
IPC/MAGNUM
J IM WRIGHT CONSTRUCTION
JACKSON, JOHN A JR
JANITORIAL DEPOT OF AMERICA
JEFFERSON, CHRISTOPHER
JONES, ELVIN JR
JANOSEK AGENCY, THE
KNIGHT & MATHIS, INC
KLUCINEC, MONA
KURTZ, ERIC C MD
K S M ENGINEERING
KNOWLES, CYRIL
KELLER, JENAE
KUESTERSTEFFEN,
KIRBY VETERINARY
KNOWLES,CYRIL
INDIAN RIVER CHARTER
LESCO, INC
LOWE'S COMPANIES,
L B SMITH, INC
L IGHT SOURCE BUSINESS
LAPSCO INC
LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC
MARSHALL CAVENDISH CORP
MIKES GARAGE
MUNICIPAL CODE CORPORATION
MATRX MEDICAL, INC
MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY
M G B CONSTRUCTION
MIDWEST TAPE EXCHANGE
MEDCHECK
MCGUIRE, GEORGE SEAN
MITCHELL TRAINING, INC
MURPHY, DEBBIE
MELBOURNE INTERNAL MEDICINE
MOULTON, JESSE
MEDIA BASICS VIDEO
MUSCLE MIXES MUSIC, INC
M -R HOMES
NORTH SOUTH SUPPLY INC
NATURAL CONCEPTS, INC
NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC VIDEO
NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS
NORTHERN SAFETY COMPANY
NAPIER, WILLIAM MATT
NOWLIN, TIAIRA
NEW HORIZONS COMPUTER LEARNING
NELSON,ROGER
OFFICE PRODUCTS & SERVICE
OMNI JACKSONVILLE HOTEL
OMNIGRAPHICS, INC
OFFICE DEPOT, INC
PARKS RENTAL INC
PERKINS INDIAN RIVER PHARMACY
PETTY CASH
A
& TESTING
MIKE
HOSPITAL
INC.
SYSTEMS
COMPANY
8
CHECK
DATE
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
CHECK
AMOUNT
282,443.50
47.19
900.00
81.07
50.00
27,675.00
46.91
1,210.26
20.00
41.20
40.00
2,675.00
17.45
177.00
740.00
1,039.84
43.77
315.00
32.00
5.00
500.00
1,720.00
1,013.81
3,679.14
54.50
391.00
47.52
31.80
20.00
434.35
1,635.79
296.09
1,000.00
862.56
1,311.50
246.79
3,400.00
210.56
58.00
41.20
16.45
104.50
500.00
333.19
22.72
47.40
114.37
470.10
61.48
18.02
2,200.00
16.69
361.98
930.00
54.89
1,349.83
153.60
42.09
61.79
•
CHECK NAME
NUMBER
0319272 PUBLIC DEFENDER
0319273 PORT CONSOLIDATED
0319274 POSTMASTER
0319275 PERSONNEL PLUS
0319276 PROFORMA
0319277 PENWORTHY
0319278 P B S & J
0319279 PERMA-FIX
319280 PAIN & ANESTHESIA, PA
319281 PESHA, JESSICA
319282 POINTE WEST LTD
319283 PROFESSIONAL DIVING INDUSTRIES
319284 PICKERING, REBECCA LMT
319285 PERRY, ELDON
319286 POLK DIRECTORIES
319287 RELIABLE SEPTIC AND SERVICES
19288 RINGHAVER EQUIPMENT COMPANY
19289 RUSSELL CONCRETE, INC
19290 ROBERTS & REYNOLDS PA
19291 RECORDED BOOKS, LLC
19292 R & G SOD FARMS
19293 RUBBER STAMP EXPRESS & MORE
19294 RELIABLE POLY JOHN SERVICES
19295 REXEL CONSOLIDATED
9296 RESER, MIKE
9297 RHODES, TOM
9298 SEWELL HARDWARE CO, INC
9299 ST LUCIE BATTERY & TIRE, INC
9300 STURGIS LUMBER & PLYWOOD CO
9301 SUNSHINE PHYSICAL THERAPY
9302 SALEM PRESS, INC
9303 SOUTHERN SEWER EQUIPMENT SALES
9304 SUBSTANCE ABUSE COUNCIL
305 SOLINET
306 STEWART MINING INDUSTRIES INC
307 SOUTH FLORIDA TRANE
308 SEBASTIAN, CITY OF.
309 SEBASTIAN RIVER MEDICAL CENTER
310 SEBASTIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT
311 SUNCOAST COUNSELING &
312 SCOTTO, LIBERTA
13 SEMBLER, CHARLES W
14 SUNTREE PARTNERS, THE
15 SALEH, M I MD
16 SERRA, RACHEL
17 SUNNYTECH INC- FL
18 SVI SYSTEMS INC
19 SHELL CREDIT CARD CENTER
20 SCHEURER, DEAN LMT
1 TEN -8 FIRE EQUIPMENT, INC
2 TITLEIST
3 TEAM EQUIPMENT,
4 SMITH, TERRY L
5 TREASURE COAST REFUSE
6 TARGET STORES COMMERCIAL
7 THORRY, ANDREW
8 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
U S F
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O 3
O 3
O 3
03
03
O 3
O 3
O 3
O 31
O 31
O 31
O 31
O 31
O 31
O 31
O 31
O 31
O 319
O 319
O 319
0319
O 319
O 319
0319
0319
O 3193
O 3193
O 3193
O 3193
O 3193
O 3193
03193
O 3193
O 31932
O 31932
O 31932
O 31932
031932
031932
031932
O 31932
O 319329
INC
COMPANY, THE
INC
March 19, 2002
ILTER DISTRIBUTION GROUP
CHECK
DATE
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
9
CHECK
AMOUNT
5,190.41
714.21
136.00
570.00
279.30
373.66
10,296.00
477.00
308.88
38.62
13,005.36
2,234.22
144.00
612.40
452.50
150.00
12,772.51
150.00
14,173.11
393.15
130.00
46.50
118.68
1,535.78
24.29
59.00
156.59
925.60
79.80
2,687.00
289.80
334.44
13,052.89
561.82
165.00
2,968.75
7,859.89
363.93
100.00
537.50
21.83
50.85
46,204.65
51.06
19.31
747.89
45.00
60.01
216.00
40,318.50
443.76
629.34
52.20
251.34
345.94
240.00
250.00
71,271.56
•
CHECK
NUMBER
O 319330
O 319331
O 319332
O 319333
O 319334
O 319335
O 319336
O 319337
O 319338
O 319339
O 319340
O 319341
O 319342
O 319343
O 319344
O 319345
O 319346
O 319347
O 319348
O 319349
O 319350
O 319351
O 319352
O 319353
O 319354
O 319355
O 319356
O 319357
O 319358
O 319359
O 319360
O 319361
NAME
URGENT CARE WEST
UNIPSYCH BENEFITS OF FL,INC
UNISHIPPERS
VERO BEACH, CITY OF
VERO LAWNMOWER CENTER, INC
VERO BEACH, CITY OF
VERO BEACH, CITY OF
VERO RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES
VERO ORTHOPAEDICS
VERO BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
VOLUNTEER ACTION CENTER
VERO COLLISION CENTER
VETERANS COUNCIL OF INDIAN
VERO BEACH WOMAN'S CLUB, INC
WILSON'S PETROLEUM EQ INC
W W GRAINGER, INC
WIGINTON FIRE SYSTEMS
WILLHOFF, PATSY
WHEELER PUBLISHING, INC
WILSON, MARGARET F
WHEATLEY, ALAN
WRITER'S BOOKSTORE, THE
WASTE MANAGEMENT
WILLIAMS FAMILY MEDICINE
WALKER, KEITH
WELLER POOL CONSTRUCTORS INC
WRIGHT, TOM
XEROX CORPORATION
ZEPHYRHILLS NATURAL SPRING
ZORC, FRANK L
ANGELONE, RANIERO
GELD, TONIA
CHECK
DATE
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
2002-03-07
7. C. Miscellaneous Budget Amendment 009
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 13, 2002:
March 19, 2002
10
CHECK
AMOUNT
111.00
5,040.20
17.78
24,259.75
138.10
1,683.74
37.49
32.00
184.00
25.00
6,472.05
1,061.75
4,745.78
945.00
143.90
119.88
1,950.00
130.00
214.10
120.64
8.20
22.25
433.11
37.00
240.00
219,412.00
906.83
289.94
5.00
500.00
118.80
444.00
1,763,908.73
•
To: Members of the
Board of County Commissioners
Through: Joseph A. Baird
Assistant County Administrator
From. Jason E. Brown
Budget Manager
Date: March 13, 2002
Subject: Miscellaneous
Budget Amendment 009
Description and Conditions
The attached budget amendment appropriates funding necessary for the following:
1. The Florida East Coast (FEC) Railroad has invoiced the County for several railroad crossing
projects this year. In accordance with our rail crossing license agreement, the County is
obligated to pay for improvements to crossings made by the railroad. The attached entry
appropriates funding from Secondary Roads cash forward.
2. The Emergency Services Distnct has incurred expenses for an outside negotiator for union
contracts. Emergency Services District cash forward will provide funding.
3. Our auditors required accrual of one of the payments to Holmes Regional Medical Center in
the last fiscal year The attached entry appropnates funding.
4. The Sheriff has requested a budget amendment for Federal pnsoner revenue in the amount of
$327,360. This represents half of the projected revenue for this fiscal year. The attached
entry appropriates funding.
5. The Sheriff has requested a budget amendment in order to purchase an airboat for patrol and
emergency search/evacuation at a cost of $25,055. Funding is available from surplus property
sales revenue in the amount of $30,055. The attached entry appropriates funding in the
amount of $25,055.
6. On December 24, 2001, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) executed a Public
Transportation Block Grant for the 2001/2002 fiscal year with Indian River County. The
attached entry appropriates these grant funds.
7. Indian River County libranes have received donations and contributions totaling $24,877. The
attached entry appropriates these funds.
8. Indian River County receives an Edward Byrne Memorial drug grant. This grant requires a
25% local match. Part of this match is provided by a transfer from the General Fund. The
attached entry appropriates funding.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Board of Commissioners approve the attached budget amendment.
March 19, 2002
11
•
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
Budget Amendment 009, as recommended in the memorandum.
March 19, 2002
12
r, ri
t1 r
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
Entry
Number
Fund/ DepLrtrr ent/
Account Dame
1.
Revenues
Secondary Roads Fund/ Cash
Forward —October 1
109-000-389-040.00
$150,000
$0
Expenses
Secondary Roads Fund/ FEC
Payments
109-214-541-034.46
$150,000
$0
2.
Revenues
Emergency Services District/
Cash Forward —October 1
114-000-389-040.00
$20,000
$0
Expenses
Emergency Services District/ Fire
Services/ Other Professional
114-120-522-033.19
$20,000
$0
3.
Expenses
General Fund/ Sheriff's
Department/ Hospital
001-600-521-033.17
$0
$58,280
General
Contingencies
Fund/ Reserve for
001-199-581-099.91
$58,280
$0
4.
Revenues
General Fund/ Sheriff—Out-of-
County Prisoner Revenue
001 000 341 057.00
$327,360
$0
Expenses
General Fund/ Sheriff's
Department/ Law Enforcement
001-600-586-099.04
$150,000
$0
General Fund/ Sheriffs
Department/ Corrections
001-600-586-099.14
$177,360
$0
5.
Revenues
General Fund/ Sheriff Revenue
001-000-341-052.00
$25,055
$0
Expenses
General Fund/ Sheriffs
Department/ Law Enforcement
001-600-586-099.04
$25,055
$0
March 19, 2002
12
r, ri
t1 r
•
To: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
From: Jason E. Brown
Budget Manager
Entry
Number
Account Number
•
Budget Amendment: 009
Date: March 13, 2002
Revenues
Expenses
$276,499
General Fund/ Council on Aging —
Communit Transportation Coord. 001-110-541-088.23
$276,499
General Fund/
Libra
G eneral Fund/
Libra Books
G eneral Fund/
Count Libra
Donations — Main
Donations — Mail
Donations — North
Books
001-000-366-095.00 $9,500
$13,777
$1,600
001-000-366-103.00
001-000-366-100.00
Expenses
General Fund/ Main Library/
Books
General Fund/ Main Library/
Youth Books
General Fund/ Main Library/
Preservation
G eneral Fund/ Main Library/ EDP
E. ui.ment
G eneral Fund/ North County
Libra / Dues & Membershi.s
General Fund/ North County
Libra / Audiovisual
General Fund/ North County
Libra / Elderl Books
001-109-571-035.45
001-109-571-038.11
001-109-571-038.96
001-109-571-066.47
$7,000
$1,000
$2,621
001-112-571-035.42
001-112-571-035.48
001-112-571-038.31
Drug Abuse Grant/ Fund
Transfers In
Drug Abuse Grant/ Miscellaneous
Revenue
121-000-381-020.00
121-000-369-090.00
Expenses
General Fund/ Fund Transfers Out
001-199-581-099.21
001-199-581-099.91
$45,000
March 19, 2002
13
•
7.D. Clerk - Annual Financial Report
The Board reviewed a memorandum of March 12, 2002:
TO: THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
DATE: MARCH 12, 2002
SUBJECT: ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT
FROM: EDWIN M. FRY, JR., FINANCE DIRECTOR
Section 218.32, Florida Statutes, requires that each unit of local government submit a financial report
covering its operations during the previous fiscal year. The report must be submitted within 45 days
after the completion of the audit report, but no later than 12 months after the end of the fiscal year.
The Indian River County Annual Local Government Financial Report for the fiscal year 2000 - 2001
has been prepared and is ready to be submitted to the Department of Banking and Finance in
Tallahassee. The report is to be signed by the Chief Financial Officer and the Chairman of the Board
of County Commissioners.
I respectfully request the Board of County Commissioners authorize the Chairman to sign the
County's Annual Local Government Financial Report for the fiscal year 2000 - 2001.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously authorized the
Chairman to sign the County's Annual Local Government
Financial Report for the fiscal year 2000-2001, as requested in
the memorandum.
March 19, 2002
COPY OF SIGNED REPORT IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
14
•
•
7.E. M.A. C.E. Grant (Multi Agency Criminal Enforcement Unit) -
Project Generated Income - Budget Amendment 007
The Board reviewed a memorandum of March 11, 2002:
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: March 11, 2002
THROUGH: Joseph A. Baird N 1 l
Assistant County Administrator ministrator
FROM: Jason E. Brown
Budget Manager
SUBJECT: M.A.C.E. Grant (Mu ti -Agency Criminal Enforcement Unit)
Project Generated I ome
Budget Amendment 007
Background and Analysis
The M.A.C.E. Unit is requesting authorization to utilize Project Generated Income (PGI) in the
amount of $23,000 00. This M.A.C.E. Unit Income was generated from confiscated property in
drug related activities. Funds will be distributed to the Indian River County Sheriff's Office
M.A.C.E. Unit for operating expense increase, due to some major investigations earlier in the
year.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the utilization of Project
Generated Income totaling $23,000.00 and authorize the attached Budget Amendment
necessary to release the funds.
Attachments
Budget Amendment 007
Letter from Sheriff's Office
Projected Generated Income Report
Project Generated Income Agreement
March 19, 2002
15
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved the
utilization of Project Generated Income totaling $23,000 and
authorized the proposed budget amendment 007 necessary to
release the funds, as recommended in the memorandum.
COPY OF PARTIALLY EXECUTED AGREEMENT IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
FROM: Jason E. Brown
Budget Manager
Entry
Number
Fund/Depactrient/
Account Name
BUDGET AMENDMENT: 007
DATE: March 19, 2002
Account Number I Increase I Decrease
1. 1 REVENUES
M.A.C.E. UNIT TRUST FUND/
Project Generated Income
126-000-351-020.00
$23,000 1 so
EXPENSES
M.A.C.E. UNIT TRUST FUND/
Law Enforcement Expenditures
126-600-521-099.04
$23,000 $0
7. F. County Employees' Health Insurance Policy - Dependent Health
Insurance Costs
The Board reviewed a memorandum of March 13 2002:
March 19, 2002
16
• •
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Joseph A. Baird, Assistant County Administrator:Y
DATE: March 13, 2002
SUBJECT: Health Insurance Policy
We have begun working on the budget for 2002/2003 fiscal year. One of the projected
expenses in the budget instructions is health insurance. Employee contributions are an
important part of the overall cost containment of a health insurance program. In order to project
the insurance costs, we must make an assumption of the portion of the dependent health
insurance costs the employees will pay, and the portion the County pays. This has been
inconsistent with Constitutional Officers charging their employees different amounts for
dependent health insurance than the Board of County Commissioners.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve a Health Insurance
policy that requires all participants in the County's health insurance plan pay the same for
dependent coverage unless there is a union or labor contract or law that dictates differently.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved a
health insurance policy that requires all participants in the
County's health insurance plan to pay the same amounts for
dependent coverage unless there is a union or labor contract or
law that dictates differently, as recommended in the
memorandum.
7.G. CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) Application
Services Contract - Fred Fox Enterprises, Inc.
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 13, 2002:
March 19, 2002
17
Uit
TO:
THROUGH:
FROM:
DATE:
Tames E. Chandler; County Administrator
ION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. Keating, AIC
Community Development Dire
Sasan Rohani, AICP
Chief Long -Range Planning
Randy Deshazo /
Economic Development Planner
March 13, 2002
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF CONSULTANT CONTRACT FOR CDBG
APPLICATION SERVICES
It is requested that the following information be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of March 19, 2002.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
On October 23, 2001, the Board of County Commissioners, at an advertised public hearing,
authorized community development staff to apply for a Housing Rehabiliation Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) for the east Gifford area The Board also authorized staff to
initiate the process of selecting a consultant to prepare the CDBG application and administer the
grant, if awarded.
On February 12, 2002, the Board ofCounty Commissioners approved the county's CDBG consultant
selection committee's consultant selection prioritization list and authorized staff to begin contract
negotiations with the number one ranked firm, Fred Fox Enterprises, Inc.
Since then, staff has successfully negotiated a contract for application services with the top-ranked
firm, Fred Fox Enterprises, Inc The proposed contract states that the CDBG consultant will prepare
Indian River County's Housing Rehabiliation CDBG application and submit the application to the
Department of Community Affairs (DCA), for the sum of $5,000, payable only if the county is
awarded a Housing Rehabilitation CDBG grant If the county is not awarded the grant, the county
will not be charged for the application services. The proposed contract is attached to this staff report
(Attachment 1).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners:
approve the proposed contract between the Board of County Commissioners and Fred Fox
Enterprises for the preparation of a Housing Rehabiliation CDBG application; and
authorize the Chairman to execute the contract upon approval.
March 19, 2002
18
• •
ATTACHMENT
1.)
Proposed contract between the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners and
Fred Fox Enterprises, Inc. for the preparation of a Housing Rehabilation Community
Development Block Grant application.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved the
proposed contract with Fred Fx Enterprises for the preparation
of a Housing Rehabilitation CDBG application; and authorized
the Chairman to execute the contract upon approval, as
recommended in the memorandum.
CONTRACT IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
7.H. Proclamation - Retired Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP) Day -
March 20, 2002
The Chairman entered the following proclamation for the record:
PROCLAMATION
DESIGNATING MARCH 20, 2002 AS
RETIRED SENIOR VOLUNTEER PROGRAM DAY
IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
WHEREAS, in 1985 the Council on Aging applied for and became the sponsor for the
Retired and Senior Volunteer Program of Indian River County (RSVP), a nationwide program
administered by the Corporation for National Service; and
WHEREAS, members of RSVP are mature adults, age 55 or older, who are recruited
and placed in non-profit organizations, parks, public schools, libraries and government
agency offices in Indian River County; and
March 19, 2002
19
tJ t.i.iU
1
WHEREAS, over the past 17 years, RSVP members have contributed over 1.4 million
hours of service, and currently over 730 RSVP volunteers are placed in 82 non-profit
agencies or organizations throughout the County; and
WHEREAS, RSVP volunteers put their skills and life experiences to work for their
community, serving from a few hours to many hours a week. RSVP is a cost effective way to
help solve problems in education, public safety human needs and the environment and
WHEREAS, by becoming involved in RSVP, mature adults stay active and live longer,
healthier and more fulfilling lives. RSVP members choose how and where they want to
serve, while developing new friendships, additional skills and community awareness through
their participation in volunteerism.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
designated as
COMMISSIONERS OF. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that March 20, 2002, be
RSVP DAY
in Indian River County, Florida. The Board urges all citizens of Indian River County to
support the Retired Senior Volunteer Program, and the Board further wishes to express
appreciation for the unselfish dedication of time and talents of these deserving citizens.
Adopted this 19th day of March, 2002.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Ruth M. Stanbridge, C
firman
7.I. Repair Fairground's Livestock Pavilion - Jim Wright
Construction, Inc. - Final Payment/Release of Retainage
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 11, 2002:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E
Public Works Director
Terry B. Thompson, P.E.(_.
Capital Projects Manager'
March 19, 2002
20
CONSENT
PG 0 3 I
• •
FROM:
SUBJECT:
G. Sean McGuire, P.E.
Project Engineer
Repair Livestock Pavilion
IRC Project 0116
Final Payment (Release of Retainage)
DATE: March 11, 2002
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
This project was awarded to Jim Wright Construction, Inc. on October 2, 2001 with a contract
amount of $152,000. Work was substantially completed on the contract completion date of January
22, 2002.
All "punch list" deficiencies in the work have been repaired and all warranties and other contract
required close-out documents have been submitted. Jim Wright has requested, and is entitled to,
a full release of retainage.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the final payment for release of retainage, in the amount
of $15,200 Funding is from account #315-210-572-066.51.
ATTACHMENT
Application for Payment No. 5 — Final (Release of Retainage)
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously authorized the
final payment for release of retainage, in the amount of $15,200
to Jim Wright Construction, Inc., as recommended in the
memorandum.
DOCUMFN F WILL BE ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
WHEN EXECUTED AND RECEIVED
7.J. Indian River Courts Limited Partnership - Modification to
Contract for Construction of Requirement Improvements - Cash
Deposit and Escrow Agreement - Indian River Courts PD (The
Florida Apartment Club, Inc.)
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 12, 2002:
March 19, 2002
21
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM:C-William G. Collins II - Deputy County Attorney
DATE: March 12, 2002
SUBJECT: Indian River Courts PD - Modification to Contract for Construction
of Required Improvements
On April 10, 2001 the Board of County Commissioners approved Contract for
Construction of Required Improvements No. PD -99 -08 -09 -CFC (98100061-
23306) in connection with the plat of Indian River Courts, P.D. Security in the
form of a Performance Bond in the amount of $113,177.25 was posted with
Indian River County to guarantee the installation of required improvements.
All required improvements have been completed with the exception of sidewalks
and landscaping, and the developer's agent has requested a 1 -year extension of
time to complete those two improvements (see agent's letter attached)
Substitute security in the form of cash in the amount of $29,296.25 has been
posted. The $29 296 25 represents 115% of the cost of construction of both the
sidewalk and landscaping improvements and that amount has been approved by
both the Planning and Engineering Departments.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the attached Modification to Contract for Construction of
Required Improvements No. PD -99 -08 -09 -CFC (98100061-23306) extending the
completion date to April 9, 2003 be approved, and that the Chairman of the
Board of County Commissioners be authorized to execute said Modification
along with the accompanying Cash Deposit and Escrow Agreement.
Nhm
Attachments
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved the
Modification to Contract for Construction of Required
Improvements No. PD -99 -08 -09 -CFC (98100061-23306)
extending the completion date to April 9, 2003, and authorized
the Chairman to execute the modification along with the
accompanying Cash Deposit and Escrow Agreement, as
recommended in the memorandum.
March 19, 2002
22
r;
• •
COPIES OF DOCUMENTS ARE ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
7.K. Windsor Properties, Inc. (Torwest, Inc.) - Contract for
Construction of Requirement Improvements - Cash Deposit and
Escrow Agreement - Final Planned Development (PD) Plat Approval
for Windsor Plat 24 (Equestrian Center2
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 7, 2002:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DEP.kTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE:
4..i
ice? I
obert M. Keating, AICP
Community Development Direct
THROUGH: Stan Boling�I P
Planning Director
FROM: 'Mark Zans
Senior Planner, Current Development
DATE: March 7, 2002
SUBJECT: Windsor Properties Inc. Request for Final Planned Development (PD) Plat
Approval for Windsor Plat 24 (Equestrian Center)
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of
County Commissioners at its regular meeting of March 19, 2002.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Windsor Plat 24 creates 7 single-family residential lots and 2 special recreational tracts from a
19.09 acre parcel. The proposed tracts are to be used for barns, paddocks, and a polo field. The
subject development is located in the northeast section of the overall Windsor Development, on
the west side of S.R. A -1-A.
ANALYSIS:
At its regular meeting of November 9, 2000, the Planning and Zoning Commission granted
preliminary PD plan/plat approval and site plan approval for Windsor Plat 24. The applicant
March 19, 2002
23
1)
Windsor Properties, Inc., is requesting final plat approval through its agent, Knight, McGuire &
Associates, Inc., and has submitted the following:
1. A final plat in confoimance with the approved preliminary PD plan/plat.
2. A certified engineer's cost estimate for constriction of the remaining required
improvements.
3. A contract for construction for the remaining required improvements.
4. A Cash Deposit and Escrow Agreement to guarantee the contract for construction.
The applicant has constricted some of the required subdivision improvements, and will need to
bond -out for the remaining required improvements The certified cost estimate for these
remaining improvements has been approved by the Public Works Department, Planning
Department, and the County Department of Utility Services. The contract for constniction has
been reviewed and approved by the County Attorney's Office. Upon execution of the contract
and acceptance of the posted security, all requirements of final plat approval will have been met.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the analysis, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners:
1. Grant final plat approval for Windsor Plat 24, and
2. Authorize the Chairman to sign the contract for construction and sign the Cash
Escrow Agreement.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Application
2. Location Map
3. Final Plat
4. Contract for Construction (Draft)
5• Cash Deposit and Escrow Agreement
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously granted final plat
approval for Windsor Plat 24 and authorized the Chairman to
sign the Contract for Construction of Required Improvements
and the Cash Escrow Agreement, as recommended in the
memorandum.
March 19, 2002
COPIES OF DOCUMENTS ARE FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
24
0!
Uik
• •
7.L. Resolution No. 2002-016 - Hunters' Run Subdivision - Pull
Letter of Credit - Cash Deposit and Escrow Agreement - Modification
to Contract for Construction of Required Improvements (Brackett
Family Limited Partnership)
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 13, 2002:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
RTME\T HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. Keating, AT
Community Developmet t Direct
THROUGH: Stan Boling, AJCP
Planning Director
DATE: March 13, 2002
FROM: John W. McCoy, AICP y\
Senior Planner, Current Development
SUBJECT: Request to Pull Letter of Credit for Hunters Run Subdivision Remaining
Required Improvements
SD -01-07-10/2000070021
It is requested that the information provided herein be given formal consideration by the Indian River
County Board of County Commissioners at its meeting of March 19, 2002.
BACKGROUND:
Hunters Run is a single phase subdivision approved for 42 single-family lots. It is located on the
south side of Oslo Rond, west of 43rd Avenue. On July 10, 2001, the final plat for Hunters Run,
along with a contract for the construction of remaining improvements and a letter of credit to secure
the contract, were approved by the Board of County Commissioners. The contract and financial
security guarantee completion of required improvements. While construction of subdivision
improvements is ongoing, the developer has not yet requested any inspections. There are a variety
of required improvements that have not been completed at this time.
The remaining improvements are guaranteed by a letter of credit that is due to expire on March 31,
2002. As of the date of this report, no letter of credit extension or substitution has been received,
although the developer has requested to extend the completion date to July 1, 2002 and post alternate
security in the form of cash. To ensure that the remaining improvements aie completed, the Board
needs to authorize staff to pull the letter of credit before the March 31" expiration date To
accommodate the stated desire of the developer to substitute the financial secunty, the Board may
also authorize an extension of the construction completion date and authorize acceptance of
substitute financial security in the four of cash.
March 19, 2002
25
LTA
t-1 !'}
ANALYSIS:
The LDRs allow for developers to obtain final plat approval for a subdivision without completing
the required subdivision improvements, provided the developer enters into a contract for constriction
and posts financial security to guarantee construction of the improvements. The required
improvements may be bonded for a period of up to 1 year, and that one year deadline may be
extended.
In this instance, the Hunter's Run final plat was approved on July 10, 2001. To ensure construction
of the required subdivision improvements, a contract for construction and financial security were
approved with the plat. The Security (letter of credit) is scheduled to expire on March 31, 2002, but
developer could extend the contract for construction to July 1, 2002 and provide cash as substitution
accompanied by a cash deposit and escrow agreement. Such an extension is reasonable and should
accommodate completion of the remaining required improvements.
Staff has no objection to the Board authorizing extension of the date for completion of required
improvements to July 1, 2002. As of the date of this report, however, the developer has submitted
neither the documents necessary to extend the completion date nor substitute financial security. To
ensure completion of the required improvements, the Board needs to authorize staff to pull the
existing letter of credit by adopting the attached resolution. To accommodate the developer's request
to extend the completion date and offer substitute security, the Board should extend the completion
date to July 1, 2002 and authorize acceptance of substitute security in an amount acceptable to the
County Engineer, if the developer provides the necessary items for such extension and substitution
on or before March 25, 2002
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners:
Adopt the attached resolution authorizing staff to pull the existing letter of credit
unless the conditions of item #2 (below) are met.
Approve an extended iiiiprovement completion date of July 1, 2002 and accept
substitute financial security in an amount acceptable to the County Engineer, in lieu
of pulling the existing letter of credit referenced above, if the developer provides
county staff the items necessary for such an extension and security substitution on
or before March 25, 2002.
If item #2 above is met, authorize the Chairman to execute the attached modification
to contract for construction of required improvements and cash deposit and escrow
agreement.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Developer's Request
2. Location Map
3. Existing Letter of Credit (copy)
4. Resolution to Pull the Existing Letter of Credit
5. Modification
6. Cash Deposit and Escrow Agreement
March 19, 2002
26
•
• •
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution No. 2002-016 declaring default by Brackett Family
Limited Partnership in its obligation to complete required
improvements to Hunter's Run Subdivision, and authorizing
staff to make sight draft against Indian River National Bank
Irrevocable Letter of Credit No. 01-0092 dated June 11, 2001.
RESOLUTION NO. 2002-016
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, DECLARING DEFAULT BY BRACKETT
FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP IN ITS
OBLIGATION TO COMPLETE REQUIRED
IMPROVEMENTS TO HUNTER'S RUN
SUBDIVISION AND AUTHORIZING STAFF TO
MAKE SIGHT DRAFT AGAINST INDIAN RIVER
NATIONAL BANK IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF
CREDIT NO. 01-0092 DATED JUNE 11, 2001.
WHEREAS, on July 10, 2001 Brackett Family Limited Partnership, by and
through its General Partner, Robert L. Brackett, entered into a Contract for
Construction of Required Improvements No. SD -01 -01 -01 -CFC (2000070021),
relating to Hunter's Run Subdivision; and
WHEREAS, that agreement required all subdivision improvements to be
constructed on or before December 31, 2001; and
WHEREAS, that agreement to construct required subdivision
improvements has not been complied with; and
WHEREAS, in order to guarantee performance of the contract, the
developer provided Indian River National Bank Irrevocable Letter of Credit No.
01-0092 dated June 11, 2001 in the amount of $851,536.13,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA:
March 19, 2002
27
1. That Brackett Family Limited Partnership has defaulted under the
terms of the aforementioned Contract for Construction of Required
Improvements.
2. Draft in the amount of $851,536.13 represents the amount required
by the County to fulfill the performance of said Contract for Construction of
Required Improvements.
3. Office of Management and Budget is directed to present this
Resolution together with a sight draft marked "DRAWN ON IRREVOCABLE
LETTER OF CREDIT NO. 01-0092 OF INDIAN RIVER NATIONAL BANK" to the
office of Indian River National Bank located at 958 20th Place, Vero Beach,
Florida, on or before March 31, 2002.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Ginn , and
the motion was seconded by Commissioner Adams , and, upon being put to
a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Ruth M Stanbridge
Vice Chairman John W. Tippin
Commissioner Fran B. Adams
Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht
Aye
Aye
Aye
AyP
Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this 19thday of March, 2002.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Jeffrey K.:: - , Clerk
Deputy Clerk
B y aaZ
Ruth M Stanbridge, Ch firman
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Ah;D LEG .L SUFFICIENCY
BY 4S
WILLIAM G. COLLINS II
DEPUTY COUNTY ATTORNEY
COPIES OF MODIFICATION TO CONTRACT AND CASH DEPOSIT & ESCROW AGREEMENT
ARF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
March 19, 2002
28
• •
9.A.1. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE NO. 2002-011 AND
ORDINANCE NO. 2002-012 - AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE
MAP OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - REDESIGNATE +142
ACRES FROM R TO L-1 AND REZONE THOSE +142 ACES FROM A-1
TO RS -3 - REQUEST OF YUKON LAND CORPORATION AT THE
NORTHEAST CORDER OF 85TH STREET AND 90TH AVENUE
(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 second public hearing before the Board of
County Commissioners on this amendment request. The Board had previously transmitted
this application to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) in Tallahassee for their 60 -
day review. The DCA had no objections and the Board can now move toward adoption of
the ordinance amending the Comp Plan.
Director Keating reviewed a Memorandum of March 8, 2002 with the aid of a
PowerPoint presentation. He specified that the subject property is within the urban service
area and is an excellent location for development for various reasons. He recommended
adoption of both ordinances.
TO: James E. Chandler; County Administrator
DFPATMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE
41
��
obert M. Keating, AICP; ommuui,tyevelopmeut Director
THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, MCP; Chief, Long -Range Planning
FROM: Randy Deshazo; Planner, Long -Range Plannmg2'.
DATE: March S, 2002
March 19, 2002
29
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 2001-03-0013
It is requested that the following information be given foiival consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of March 19, 2002.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
This request is to amend the Comprehensive Plan to redesignate ±142 acres from R, Rural
Residential(up to 1 unit/acre), to L-1, Low -Density Residential -1 (up to 3 units/acre); and to rezone
those ±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). DE.picted in Figures 1 and 2, the subject property is located
at the northeast comer of the intersection of 85`h Street (the east/west portion of CR 510, also known
as Wabasso Road) and 90`h 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.
PAST ACTIONS
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.
On November 13, 2001, the Board of County Commissioners voted 4 to 1 to transmit the proposed
comprehensive plan text amendment request to the Florida Department of Community Affairs
(DCA) for its review.
ORC REPORT
Consisted with state regulations, DCA reviewed the proposed amendment and prepared an
Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report (dated February 1, 2002), which
planning staff received on Febniary 4, 2002. The DCA ORC Report, Attachment 7 at the end of this
staff report, does not contain any objections or comments relating to the proposed amendment.
March 19, 2002
30
•
•
Figure 1: Land Use Designation and Location of the Subject Property
C.R. 512
C/I
u i
j•in.� Hyl=r4 _�L+_
L1
Sebastian River
High School
•
•
L-1
March 19, 2002
C.R. 510
Vi abasso Ra.
AG -1
31
85€5 Street
Uri
•
sSEI
C.R. 510
Vi abasso Ra.
AG -1
31
85€5 Street
Uri
•
Figure 2: Toning and Location of the Subject Propery
C.R. 512
CL
RS -3
Sebastian River
High School
0
alai a
1
0
8
0
r 6
1
a
1
Yi
tr
a
•
4rE •01
st
e
Ala
OMNI
a
19
ltco
•
• f.
Previous Application
A-1
't
C.R. 510
A-1 Via -bassi Rd.
a.
851 Street
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 recommend
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.
March 19, 2002
32
•
• At a March 20, 2001, public hearing, the Board of County Commissioners, citing negative
impacts on the St. Sebastian River and stormwater management problems, voted 5 to 0 deny
the request.
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
neighbonng 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 transmitted to DCA for
a final determination of compliance with state law. The effective date of the amendment adoption
ordinances is when the amendment is found "in compliance" by DCA.
Existinz Land Use Pattern
The subject property is zoned A-1 and consists of citnrs 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 LSA, 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 90th Avenue, land is
zoned RS -3 and contains the Vero Lake Estates Subdivision of single-family residences. At this
March 19, 2002
33
•
time, the majority oflots in that approximately 2,500 acre subdivision are vacant. Immediately north
of Vero Lake Estates, on the west side of 90`h Avenue, is Sebastian River High School.
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 peintits 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 mile north
of the subject property is also designated L-1. The L-1 designation penults residential uses with
densities up to 3 units acre.
E nvironment
B eing 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 programmed for expansion to four lanes and 160 feet of public road right-
of-way by 2020.
ANtiLYSIS
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
March 19, 2002
34
•
by the community. The Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations (LDRs) require
that new development be reviewed to ensure that the minimum acceptable standards for these
services and facilities are maintained.
Policy 3.2 of the Future Land Use Element states that no development shall be approved unless it
is consistent with the concurrency management system component of the Capital Improvements
Element. For land use amendment and rezoning requests, conditional concurrency review is
required.
Conditional concurrency review examines the available capacity of each facility with respect to a
proposed project. Since land use amendment and rezoning requests are not projects county
regulations call for the concurrency review to be based upon the most intense use of the subject
property based upon the requested land use designation. For residential land use designation
requests, the most intense use (according to the County's Comprehensive Plan and LDRs) is the
maximum number of units that could be built on the site, given the size of the property and the
maximum density under the proposed land use designation. The site information used for the
concurrency analysis is as follows:
1. Size of Area to be Redesignated: ±142 acres
2. Existing Land Use Designation: R, Rural Residential (up to 1 unit/acre)
3. Proposed Land Lse Designation: L-1, Low -Density Residential -1 (up to 3 units/acre)
4. Most Intense Use of Subject Property
Under Current Land Use Designation:
5. Most Intense Use of Subject Property
Under Proposed Land Use Designation:
142 Single -Family Units
426 Single -Family Units
Transportation
As part of the concurrency review process the applicant has submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis
(TIA). The county's Traffic Engineering Division has reviewed and approved that TIA. A TIA
reports the number of peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips that would be generated by the
most intense use of the subject property under the proposed land use designation, and assigns those
trips to impacted roads. Impacted roads are defined in section 910.09(4)(b)3 of the county's LDRs
as roadway segments which receive five percent (5%) or more of the project traffic or fifty (50) or
more project trips, whichever is less.
According to the approved TIA, the existing level of service on impacted roadways would not be
lowered by the traffic generated by development of 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 of250 gallons/ERU/day
Development on the subject property would be served by the North County Reverse Osmosis Plant
which currently has a remaining capacity of more than 1,500,000 gallons/day and can accommodate
the additional demand generated by the proposed land use amendment.
March 19, 2002
35
ui!
1
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 w ith
the county s average of approximately 2.3 persons/unit, a residential development of 426 units
would be anticipated to hot.se 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
deteiunned 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 stoiuiwater 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 storin.
Although the minimum floor elevation level of service standaids do not apply (because the property
does not lie 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 3,71 1,312 square feet, or 85.2 acres. The maximum runoff volume,
based on that amount of impervious surface and the 25 year/24 hour design storui, 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/seccnd.
Based upon staffs analysis, the stoiniwater management level of service standards would be met
by limiting off-site discharge to its peak pre -development rate of 176.2 cubic feet/second and
requiring retention of the 1,299,373 cubic feet of runoff for the most intense use of the property.
As with all development, a more detailed review will be conducted during the development approval
process.
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
March 19, 2002
36
•
designation indicates that the adopted level of service would be maintained. The following table
illustrates the additional park demand associatedwith the proposed development of the property and
the existing surplus park acreage.
Concurreucy Summary
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 163.3177(2), F.S." Amendments and rezonings must also show consistency with the overall
designation of land uses as depicted on the Future Land Use Map which includes agricultural
residential, recreational, conservation, and commercial and industrial land uses and their densities
The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of the comprehensive plan. Policies
are statements in the plan that identify the actions which the county will take in order to direct the
community's development As courses of action committed to by the county, policies provide the
basis for all county land development decisions --including plan amendment and rezoning decisions.
While all comprehensive plan policies are important, some have more applicability than others in
reviewing plan amendment and rezoning requests. Of particular applicability for this request are the
following objectives and policies:
Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3
The most important policy to consider in evaluating a pian amendment request for consistency with
the county's Comprehensive Plan is Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3 This policy requires that
at least one of four criteria be met in order to approve a land use amendment request. These criteria
are:
• the proposed amendment will correct a mistake in the approved plan;
• the proposed amendment will correct an oversight in the approved plan;
• the proposed amendment involves a swap or reconfiguration of land uses at separate sites,
and that swap or reconfiguration will not increase the overall land use density or intensity
depicted on the Future Land Use Map; or
• the proposed amendment is warranted based on a substantial change in circumstances
affecting the subject property.
Based on its analysis, staff feels that the proposed land use amendment meets Policy 14.3's fourth
criterion.
March 19, 2002
37
•
PARK INFORMATION
LOS (Acres per 1,00 Population)
Project Demand (Acres)
Surplus Park Acreage
4.0
3.92
1,164
Concurreucy Summary
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 163.3177(2), F.S." Amendments and rezonings must also show consistency with the overall
designation of land uses as depicted on the Future Land Use Map which includes agricultural
residential, recreational, conservation, and commercial and industrial land uses and their densities
The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of the comprehensive plan. Policies
are statements in the plan that identify the actions which the county will take in order to direct the
community's development As courses of action committed to by the county, policies provide the
basis for all county land development decisions --including plan amendment and rezoning decisions.
While all comprehensive plan policies are important, some have more applicability than others in
reviewing plan amendment and rezoning requests. Of particular applicability for this request are the
following objectives and policies:
Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3
The most important policy to consider in evaluating a pian amendment request for consistency with
the county's Comprehensive Plan is Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3 This policy requires that
at least one of four criteria be met in order to approve a land use amendment request. These criteria
are:
• the proposed amendment will correct a mistake in the approved plan;
• the proposed amendment will correct an oversight in the approved plan;
• the proposed amendment involves a swap or reconfiguration of land uses at separate sites,
and that swap or reconfiguration will not increase the overall land use density or intensity
depicted on the Future Land Use Map; or
• the proposed amendment is warranted based on a substantial change in circumstances
affecting the subject property.
Based on its analysis, staff feels that the proposed land use amendment meets Policy 14.3's fourth
criterion.
March 19, 2002
37
•
When the comprehensive plan was adopted in 1990, the area between CR 510 and the City of
Sebastian was designated R from 90th Avenue to 66th 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 following 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 90th 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 85th Street).
Allowing a slightly denser land use designation near these schools makes sense for the following
reasons.
• These schools will attract families with children. Generally, housing at a density of up to 3
units/acre is more affordable for families with children than the up to 1 unit/acre density
permitted under the current land use designation.
• The entire subject property is within one mile of both school sites. That proximity allows
residents on the subject property to walk or bike to the school sites, thus reducing automobile
trips and student reliance on others for transportation.
The siting and constniction 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 L se
Element Policy 14.3
Future Land Use Element Objective 1 and Policies 2.2 and 4.1
This objective and these policies state that Indian River County will have an efficient and compact
land use pattern which encourages infill development within the existing urban service area and
maintains the county's overall low density character. By increasing the density of land currently
within the urban service area, as opposed to expanding the urban service area, the county can
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.
March 19, 2002
38
•
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 tor agriculture, the
site is now, as it was when the comprehensi‘ e plan was found "in compliance" by DCA, appropriate
for low density residential development. Factors that demonstrate that the subject property meets
each of Future Land Use Element Policy 1.11's criteria include the following.
• The site is located within the urban service area;
• The site is located on a major road;
• Potable water service is available to the site;
• Sanitary sewer lines are within a half mile of the site;
• The site is located near an existing public high school, an existing public middle school, and
the site of a future public elementary school.
• The site is located near the City of Sebastian;
• The site is located near the CR 510/CR 512 commercial/industrial node; and
• The site is bounded on 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 1.11.
Summary of Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan
While the referenced objective and policies are particularly applicable to this request, other
comprehensive plan policies and objectives also have relevance. For that reason, staff evaluated the
subject request for consistency with all applicable plan policies and objectives. Based upon that
analysis, staff determined that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Compatibility with the Surrounding 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 ±142 acres, the
site is large enough to provide buffers if necessary.
Other factors indicate that the subject property is an appropriate site for L-1 designated land. For
example, the large lot size required under the R designation often makes development prohibitively
expensive, especially where utility service is available. This is demonstrated by the fact that, other
than agricultural buildings on A-1 zoned land, there has been no development on R designated
property in the county since the pian was adopted. In contrast, other residential land use
designations allow for more cost efficient, compact and affordable development. The land use
designation closest to R, in terms of permitted density, is L-1, which is clearly feasible for normal
residential development.
The 1994 redesignation from R to L-1 of the land along the subject property's east boundary resulted
in part from a deteunination by the county that the 1 unit/acre maximum development allowed under
March 19, 2002
39
•
•
the R land use designation neither contributes to agricultural preservation nor allows enough density
for feasible, not [nal 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 Quality
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 stouuwater runoff be treated (usually via
detention areas) pnor 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 deteiniined that the requested land use designation is compatible
with surrounding areas, consistent with the comprehensive plan, meets all concurrency critena, 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 and rezone the subject property from A-1 to RS -3.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the analysis, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the
proposed land use amendment and rezoning request, by approving the attached ordinances.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Summary Page
2. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation Amendment Application
3. Rezoning Application
4. Detailed Transportation Concurrency Analysis
5. Approved Minutes of the September 27, 2001, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
6. Approved Minutes of the November 13, 2001 Board of County Commissioners Transmittal
Hearing
7. DCA's ORC Report
8. Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Designation Amendment Ordinance
9. Rezoning Ordinance
March 19, 2002
SUMMARY PAGE
GENERAL
Applicant:
Location:
Acreage:
Yukon Land Corporation (Pierre Paquette)
NE corner of 85`h Street and 90`h Avenue
±142
Existing Land Use Designation: R, Rural Residential (up to 1 unit/acre)
Requested Land Use Designation: L-1, L -Density Residential -1 (up to 3 units/acre)
Existing Zoning: A-1, Agricultural District (up to 1 unit/5 acres)
Requested Zoning: RS -3, Single -Family Residential District (up to 3 units/acre)
Existing Land Use: Citrus grove
ADJACENT LAND
North & East: Citrus groves; zoned A-1
South: Elementary School under construction; zoned A-1
West: Single-family subdivision, High School; zoned RS -3
INFRASTRUCTURE
Water available, sewer half a mile; access from CR 510
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
Possible emergent freshwater wetlands
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approval
Planning and Zoning
BCC Transmittal
BCC Final Hearing
Staff Contact:
John Wachtel
John Wachtel
Randy Deshazo
`
; 7-/ II
Date Advertised:
September 14, 2001
October 31, 2001
March 6, 2002
# of
Surrounding
21
21
21
Property Owners
Notified.
II
S
r•
Date Notification
eh•
as
September 13, 2001
November 2, 2001
March 5, 2002
•
Mailed:
Date
Sign
Posted:
September 13, 2001
November 2, 2001
March 5, 2002
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approval
CL
`
; 7-/ II
II
S
r•
eh•
as
•
u• -
a
Sartzatian live.
Hl0h Schaal/
i
lL
l Sekina
Az
R!^
!
i
x
R._
�1
-•tri
L
'
FiJ1r
Iw
r
'iS i
, i
A-
....�
ae:ar lu
HILO w....•1
}
1
R
'
L.
FI
F
..
Mil
r j
ilii
7 fJ
I L
.
R.
II1
F;P„t
AG 1 1 Cr— 9511 NntI
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approval
March 19, 2002
CL
`
; 7-/ II
II
r•
eh•
as
•
u• -
a
Sartzatian live.
Hl0h Schaal/
Az
R!^
!
i
x
R._
�1
-•tri
L
M1
� .•
•
Iw
r
'iS i
, i
A-
t
}
z
(3
p
..
si1=e...
r j
March 19, 2002
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in
this matter.
Joseph Schulke, of Schulke, Bittle, & Stoddard LLC, 1140 7`h Court, Vero Beach,
advised he was appearing on behalf of the applicant. The staff report is comprehensive and
very accurate and he believed the recommendations were based on a sound analysis and
there were no DCA objections. He stressed the property is the urban service area, adjacent
to a major road (CR510), near water and sewer hookups on the west and south property
lines, near schools, supports urban growth, and there will be no adverse environmental
impacts. He hoped the Board would vote in favor of the application and stood ready to
respond to any 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
Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance
No. 2002-011 amending the Future Land Use Map of the Future
Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan by changing the
land use designation for 142 acres located at the northeast
corner of 85`h Street and 90`h Avenue from R to L-1.
ORDINANCE NO. 2002-011
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE FUTURE
LAND USE MAP OF THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR 142 ACRES LOCATED AT
THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF 85TH STREET AND 90TH AVENUE FROM R TO L-1;
AND PROVIDING CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian River County
Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 1990, and
March 19, 2002
42
p
5 3 P
tj
•
F�_
•
•
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 made a recommendation regarding this
comprehensive plan amendment to the Board of County Commissioners, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County held a Transmittal
Public Hearing on November 13, 2001, after advertising pursuant to F.S. 163.3184(15)(b)1 and
(c), and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners approved the transmittal of this
comprehensive plan amendment to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for their
review and comment, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners announced at the transmittal public hearing
its intention to hold and advertise a final public hearing at the adoption stage of this plan
amendment, and
WHEREAS, the Florida Department of Community Affairs received this Comprehensive Plan
Amendment on November 26, 2001, for the State review pursuant to F.S.163.3184(4), and
WHEREAS, Indian River County received the Objections, Recommendations, and Comments
(ORC) Report from the Florida Department of Community Affairs on February 4, 2002, and
WHEREAS, the ORC Report contained no objections or comments regarding this
Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County held a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Adoption Public Hearing on March 19, 2002, after
advertising pursuant to Chapter 163.3184(15)(b)2 and (c), FS and Chapter 125.66(4), FS;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAIN
River County, Florida, that:
ED, by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
SECTION\ 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Adoption and Transmittal
The amendment to the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan identified in Section 2 is
hereby adopted, and three (3) copies are directed to be transmitted to the State of Florida
Department of Community Affairs and one (1) copy is directed to be transmitted to the Treasure
Coast Regional Planning Council.
March 19, 2002
43
•
C.
9 51
•
SECTION 2. Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan
With respect to the following described properties situated in Indian River County, Florida to
wit:
THE EAST 89.19 ACRES OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 31
SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST. SAID PARCEL LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA. LESS RIGHTS OF WAY AND EASEMENTS OF RECORD.
AND
THE WEST 38.31 ACRES OF THE EAST 127.5 ACRES OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF
SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 31 SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST. SAID PARCEL LYING
AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FLORIDA. LESS RIGHTS OF WAY
AND EASEMENTS OF RECORD.
AND
THE WEST 17.60 ACRES OF THE EAST 145.1 ACRES OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF
SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 31 SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST. SAID PARCEL LYING
AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. LESS RIGHTS OF WAY
AND EASEMENTS OF RECORD.
are changed from R, Rural Residential (up to 1 unit/acre) to L-1, Low -Density
Residential -1 (up to 3 units/acre), and the Future Land Use Map is hereby revised
accordingly.
SECTION 3. Repeal of Conflicting Provisions
All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby
repealed to the extent of such conflict.
SECTION 4. Severability
It is declared to be the intent of the Board of County Commissioners that if any provision of
this ordinance and therefore, the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan Amendment is for
any reason finally held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such
provision shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall
not affect the validity of the remaining provisions.
SECTION 5. Effective Date
The effective date of this ordinance, and therefore, this plan amendment, shall be the date a
final order is issued by the Department of Community Affairs or Administration Commission
finding the amendment in compliance with Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes, whichever
occurs earlier. No development orders, development permits, or land uses dependent on this
amendment may be issued or commence before it has become effective. If a final order of
noncompliance is issued by the Administration Commission, this amendment may nevertheless
be made effective by adoption at a public meeting after public notice of a resolution affirming its
effective status, a copy of which resolution shall be sent to the Florida Department of
Community Affairs, Division of Resource Planning and Management Plan Processing Team.
March 19, 2002
44
Mar
•
This ordinance was advertised in the Press -Journal on the
public heanng to be held on the 19th day of March, 2002, at
adoption by Commissioner Adams
, and adopted by the following vote:
Chairman
Vice -Chairman
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Ruth M. Stanbridge
John W. Tippin
Fran B. Adams
Kenneth R. Macht
Caroline D. Ginn
6th day of March, 2002, for a
which time it was moved for
, seconded by Commissioner Gi nn
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
ATTEST B
ete ccs
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk
Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of Florida this day of
2002.
Acknowledgment from the Department of State received on this day of , 2002, at
A.M./P.M. and filed in the office of the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida.
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
William G. Collins II, Deputy County Attorney
APPROVED AS TO PLANK
G MATTERS
R6bert M. Keating,
March 19, 2002
Indian River Co.
Approved
Date
I /
Admin.
Legal
>l:
t
Budget
r`.
Dept.
ill
/..2-
//,_.;
Risk Mgr.
March 19, 2002
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance
No. 2002-012 amending the Zoning Ordinance and the
accompanying zoning map for 142 acres, located at the north-
east corner of 85' Street and 90th Avenue, from A-1 to RS -3.
ORDINANCE NO. 2002-0i 2
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE ZONING
ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FOR 142 ACRES, LOCATED
AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF 85TH STREET AND 90TH AVENUE, FROM A-1 TO RS -
3; AND PROVIDING CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY, AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the local planning agency
on such matters, has held a public hearing and subsequently made a recommendation regarding
this rezoning request; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, did
publish its Notice of Intent to rezone the hereinafter described property; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has deteimined that this rezoning is in
conformance with the Comprehensive Plan of Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has held a public hearing pursuant to
this rezoning request, at which parties in interest and citizens were heard;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida, that the zoning of the following described properties situated in Indian
River County, Florida, to -wit:
THE EAST 89.19 ACRES OF THE SOUTHWEST 'A OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 31
SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST. SAID PARCEL LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA LESS RIGHTS OF WAY AND EASEMENTS OF RECORD.
AND
THE WEST 38.31 ACRES OF THE EAST 127.5 ACRES OF THE SOUTHWEST '/ OF
SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 31 SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST. SAID PARCEL LYING
AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA LESS RIGHTS OF WAY
AND EASEMENTS OF RECORD.
AND
THE WEST 17.60 ACRES OF THE EAST 145.1 ACRES OF THE SOUTHWEST ;4 OF
SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 31 SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST. SAID PARCEL LYING
AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA LESS RIGHTS OF WAY
AND EASEMENTS OF RECORD.
March 19, 2002
46
U it
L.:.
are changed from A-1, Agricultural District (up to 1 unit/ 5 acres), to RS -3, Single Family
Residential District (up to 3 units/acre).
All with the meaning and intent as set forth and described in said Land Development
Regulations.
Effective Date: This ordinance shall become effective upon the issuance by the State Department
of Community Affairs of a Notice of Intent to find the related Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Designation Amendment contained in Ordinance \umber 2002- in compliance in accordance
with s. 163.3184(9) or the issuance of a final order by the Administration Commission finding
the referenced amendment in compliance with s. 163.3184(10).
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida,
on this 19`h' day of March, 2002.
This ordinance was advertised in the Press -Journal on the 6`h day of March, 2002, for a public
hearing to be held on the 19`h day of March, 2002, at which time it was moved for adoption by
Commissioner Adams ,seconded by Commissioner Gi nn
and adopted by the following vote:
Chairman Ruth M. Stanbridge
Vice -Chairman John W. Tippin
Commissioner Fran B. Adams
Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
BOARD OF COLT TY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
Ruth M. Stanbridge, ' airman
ATTEST 13\
Jeffrey K. Barton, C erk
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
William G. Collins II, Deputy County Attorney
APPROVED AS TO PEAL
G MATTERS
Robert M. Keating, AICP
Community Development Dire tor
March 19, 2002
9.A.2. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE NO. 2002-013 AMENDS
THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN - FUTURE ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION MAP - DELETES
25TH STREET SW BETWEEN 20TH AND 27TH AVENUES - INDECO,
INC. (Legislative)
PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF ADVERTISEMENT FOR HEARING
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 second public sharing before the Board of
County Commissioners on this amendment request. The Board had previously transmitted
this application to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) In Tallahassee for their 60 -
day review. The DCA had no objections and the Board can now move toward adoption of
the ordinance amending the Comp Plan.
Director Keating reviewed a Memorandum of March 8, 2002 with the aid of a
PowerPoint presentation. He specified that staff is generally protective of the grid roadway
plan, but went on to explain the unique circumstances in this instance. He recommended
adoption of the ordinance.
TO: James E. Chandler; County Administrator
DE
TMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE
Robert M. Keatin
AICP;
•
Air
ommunit
I
evelopment Director
r
THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICP; Chief, Long- " ange Planning, -C'77
FROM: Randy Deshazo; Planner, Long -Range Planning�7
DATE: March 8, 2002
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"' Avenue and 27th
Avenue
PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER: CPTA 2001-05-0202
March 19, 2002
48
5
•
555 -5-
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of March 19, 2002.
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 25th Street, SW as a Rural Major Collector
Roadway from 43rd Avenue east to 12th 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 the Proposed Figure 4.13.
PAST ACTIONS
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.
On November 13, 2001, the Board of County Commissioners voted 5 to 0 to transmit the proposed
comprehensive plan text amendment request to the Florida Department of Community Affairs
(DCA) for its review.
ORC REPORT
Consisted with state regulations, DCA reviewed the proposed amendment and prepared an
Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report (dated February 1, 2002), which
planning staff received on February 4, 2002. The DCA ORC Report, Attachment 5 at the end of this
staff report, does not contain any objections or comments relating to the proposed amendment.
BACKGROUND
For 25th Street, SW, no right-of-way currently exists between 20th Avenue and 27`h Avenue. East of
20th Avenue and west of 27`h Avenue, 25th 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 25th Street
SW to connect 20`h Avenue and 27th 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 ‘1,i11 consist
of 327 single-family units and an 18 hole golf course. The entire project is generally located
between 20`h Avenue and 27`h Avenue; and between 17th Street, SW and 25th Street, SW
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 25th Street, SW remained a
Thoroughfare Plan Map roadway.
The second reason that the applicant has proposed deleting the subject portion of25`h 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.
March 19, 2002
49
•
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 25th Street, SW between 27th Avenue and 20`h Avenue and no
plans, long teini or short teinr, to acquire that right-of-way. These facts alone do not justify deleting
a road segment from the Thoroughfare Plan Map, particularly a segment that is within the urban
service area. In fact, the established grid system of roads significantly benefits the county by
providing more than one route to most destinations. For that reason, the grid system, generally,
reduces congestion, aids hurricane evacuation, and should be preserved.
There is, however another factor, unique to 25th Street, SW, that indicates that the referenced
segment could be deleted without adverse impacts. That factor is that the subject segment of 25`h
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 27th Avenue or
one of the major roads west of 27`h Avenue.
Considering those conditions, even if 25th 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`h 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.
Staffs position is that the proposed amendment request meets the second criteria ofFuture Land Use
Element Policy 14.3.
March 19, 2002
50
nu 1
GA I
0 6 I
•
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`h 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.
Transportation Element Policy 1.2
This policy sets the following guidelines for the evaluation and ranking of road projects:
a. whether the project is needed to protect public health and safety, to fulfill the county's legal
commitment to provide facilities and services, or to preserve or achieve full use of existing
facilities;
whether the project increases efficiency of use of existing facilities, prevents or reduces
future improvement cost, provides service to developed areas lacking frill 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
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 25th Street, SW between 20`h Avenue and 27th Avenue is not consistent with any
of the above guidelines. Therefore, the referenced segment of 25`h 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 1.2.
Consistency Summary
As part of its consistency analysis, staff compared the proposed request to all applicable objectives
and policies in the plan and found no conflicts Therefore, the request is consistent with the
comprehensive plan.
CONCLUSION
The proposed amendment corrects an oversight in the comprehensive plan. Although 25th Street,
SW 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`h Street, SW
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`h Street SW does not currently exist and there are no plans to build it. For those
reasons, it is unlikely that that portion of 25`h Street, SW will ever be constructed and designation
on the Thoroughfare Plan Map is not necessary. Staff supports the request.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the analysis, staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the Board
of County Commissioners approve the proposed comprehensive plan text amendment by approving
the attached ordinance.
March 19, 2002
51
•
ATTACHMENTS
1. Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment Application
2. Proposed Figure 4.13 of the Future Roadway Functional Classification Map of the
Comprehensive Plan's Transportation Element
3. Approved Minutes of the September 27, 2001, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
4. Approved Minutes of the November 13, 2001 Board of County Commissioners Transmittal
Heating
5. DCA's ORC report
6. Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment Ordinance
Chairman Stanbridge asked about the canal system, and Director Keating was pretty
sure it was an Indian River Farms Water Management District canal.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in
this matter.
Steve Moler, Masteller and Moler, advised he was representing Indeco, Inc. to
support staff's recommendation and respond to any 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
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance No. 2002-013 amending the Transportation Element
of the Comprehensive Plan regarding the Future Roadway
Classification Map.
March 19, 2002
52
QV
2 F.
1��
Ordinance 2002- 013
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REGARDING
THE FUTURE ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION MAP; AND PROVIDING
SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian River
County Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 1990, and
WHEREAS, the county received comprehensive plan amendment applications
during its July 2001 amendment submittal window, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on all
comprehensive plan amendment requests on September 27, 2001, after due public
notice, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency made a recommendation regarding this
comprehensive plan amendment to the Board of County Commissioners, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County held a
Transmittal Public Hearing on November 13, 2001, after advertising pursuant to F.S.
163.3184(15)(b)(1) and (c), and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners approved the transmittal of
this comprehensive plan amendment to the Florida Department of Community Affairs
for their review and comment, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners announced at the transmittal
public hearing its intention to hold and advertise a final public hearing at the adoption
stage of this plan amendment, and
WHEREAS, the Florida Department of Community Affairs received this
Comprehensive Plan Amendment on November 26, 2001, for the State review pursuant
to F.S.163.3184(4), and
WHEREAS, Indian River County received the Objections, Recommendations,
and Comments (ORC) Report from the Florida Department of Community Affairs on
February 4, 2002, and
WHEREAS, the ORC Report contained no objections regarding this
Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and
March 19, 2002
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County held a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Adoption Public Hearing on March 19, 2002, after
advertising pursuant to F.S. 163.3184(15)(b);
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that:
SECTION 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Adoption and Transmittal
The amendment to the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan identified in
Section 2 is hereby adopted and three (3) copies are directed to be transmitted to the
State of Flonda Department of Community Affairs and one (1) copy is directed to be
transmitted to the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council.
SECTION 2. Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan
Figure 4.13 of the Transportation Element, the Future Roadway Functional
Classification Map, is amended by removing the portion of 25`h Street SW located
between 20`h Avenue and 27th Avenue. The amendment to Figure 4.13 is shown on
Attachment A.
SECTION 3. Repeal of Conflicting Provisions
All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida which conflict with the provisions of
this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict.
SECTION 4. Severability
It is declared to be the intent of the Board of County Commissioners that if any
provision of this ordinance and therefore the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan
Amendment is for any reason finally held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of
competent jurisdiction, such provision shall be deemed a separate, distinct and
independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining
provisions
SECTION 5. Effective Date
The effective date of this ordinance, and therefore, this plan amendment, shall be
the date a final order is issued by the Department of Community Affairs or
Administration Commission finding the amendment in compliance with Section
163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes, whichever occurs earlier. No development orders,
development permits, or land uses dependent on this amendment may be issued or
commence before it has become effective. If a final order of noncompliance is issued by
the Administration Commission, this amendment may nevertheless be made effective by
adoption at a public meeting after public notice of a resolution affirming its effective
status, a copy of which resolution shall be sent to the Florida Department of Community
Affairs, Division of Resource Planning and Management, Plan Processing Team.
March 19, 2002
This ordinance was advertised in the Press -Journal on the 6th day of March, 2002,
for a public hearing to be held on the 19th day of March, 2002, at which time it was
moved for adoption by Commissioner Adams , seconded by Commissioner
Ti ppi n , and adopted by the following vote:
Chairman Ruth M. Stanbridge
Vice-Chaiiman John W. Tippin
Commissioner Fran B. Adams
Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht
Aye
'ye
Aye
Aye
A3ce
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
ATTEST BYE-'`�'7 L« -x.;/171
,J,.? Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk
Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of Florida this day of
, 2002
Acknowledgment from the Department of State received on this day of , 2002,
at A.M./P.M. and filed in the office of the Clerk of the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida.
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
Ltd
William G. Collins II Deputy County Attorney
APPROVED AS TO PLANNING MATTERS
RoGert M. Keating, AICP
Community Development Dire for
March 19, 2002
Ordinance 2002- ATTACHMENT A
March 19, 2002
•
9.A.3. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE NO. 2002-014 AND 2002-
015 - AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REDESIGNATING 5 PARCELS TO C-1 AND
REZONING THOSE 5 PARCELS TO CON -1 HARMONY OAKS, OSLO
RIVERFRONT SOUTH, ROUND ISLAND SOUTH, ANSTALT,
SPALLONE (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 second public hearing before the Board of
County Commissioners on this amendment request. The Board had previously transmitted
this application to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) in Tallahassee for their 60 -
day review. The DCA had no objections and the Board can now move toward adoption of
the ordinance amending the Comp Plan.
Director Keating reviewed a Memorandum of March 11, 2002 using location maps
to point out the location of the five parcels proposed for redesignation and rezoning
amendments. He recommended adoption of both ordinances in the backup.
TO: Jamts E. Chandler; County Administrator
DE'PAR NIENT HEAD CONCURRENCE
�: 4 .� { .<
- obert M. Keating, AICP;'lommunity I.es, elopment Director
THROUGH• Sasan Rohani, AICP; Chief, Long -Range Planning Vet'
FROM: Randy Deshazo; Planner, Long -Range Planning
DATE: March 11, 2002
a
RE: County Initiated Request to Amend The Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate
±33.5 Acres from L-2 and C-2 to C-1, And to Rezone Those ±38.5 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
March 19, 2002
57
Olt
nlf
t~
0 0
•
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 ±1.5 Acres From RM -3 to Con -1
PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER: LUDA 2001-07-0201
It is requested that the following infoiination be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of March 19, 2002.
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 foam 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.
March 19, 2002
58
1 CI
SUBJECT
PROPERTY 1
SUBJECT
PROPERTY 2
SUBJECT
PROPERTY 3
SUBJECT
PROPERTY 4
SUBJECT
PROPERTY 5
KNOWN
AS
Harmony Oaks
Oslo Riverfront South
Round Island
South
Anstalt
Spallone
GENERAL
East side of US 1; West
South side of 9'"
West
LOCATION
side of Indian River
Street, SW (Oslo
side of SR A I A;
South of Round Island
South end of 130th Street
(Gibson Street)
East side of SR AIA,
Lagoon; North side of
St. Lucie County line
Road); East of US 1
Park
right -of-
way; West side of FEC
Railway
along the north border
of Golden Sands Park
SIZE
IN
ACRES
88.5
66
59.5
19
1.5
TYPE
OF
coastal hammock;
xeric scrub; coastal
HABITAT
estuarine wetlands;
hammock; estuarine
maritime hanmtock;
estuarine wetlands
xeric scrub; pine flahvoods;
savanna
coastal strand
freshwater wetlands
wetlands; freshwater-
wetlands
wetlands; primary
recharge area for the
surficial groundwater
aquifer
CURRENT
L-2, Low -Density
L-2, Low -Density
C-2, Privately
LAND
USE
Residential -2 (up to 6
Residential -2 (up to 6
owned
Estruarine Wetland
L-2, Low -Density
Residential
L-1, Low -Density
DESIGNATION
DU/A); C-2, Privately
DU/A)
(up to l DU/40 acres)
-2 (up to 6
DU/A)
Residential -1 (up to 3
DU/A)
owned Estruarine
Wetland (up to 1
DU/40 acres)
PROPOSED
C-1, Publicly Owned or
C -I, Publicly Owned
C-1, Publicly
LAND
USE
Controlled
or Controlled
Owned
or Controlled
C-1, Publicly Owned or
Controlled
C-1, Publicly Owned or
DESIGNATION
Conservation -1 (zero
Conservation -1 (zero
Conservation-] (zero
Conservation -1
(zero density)
Controlled
Conservation
density)
density)
density)
-1 (zero
density)
CURRENT
RS -6, SF Residential
RM -6, MF Residential
RS SF
ZONING
Dist. (up to 6 DU/A);
Dist. (up to 6 DU/A);
-3, Residential
Dist. (up to 3 DU/A)
RM -6, MF Residential Dist.
6
RM -3, MF Residential
RS -1, SF Residential
Dist. (up to 1 DU/A)
RS -6, SF Residential
Dist. (up to 6 DU/A)
(up to DU/A)
Dist. (up to 3 DU/A)
PROPOSED
Con -1, Public Lands
Con -I, Public Lands
Con Public
ZONING
Conservation District
Conservation District
-1, Lands
Conservation District
Con -1, Public Lands
Conservation
Con -1, Public Lands
(zero density)
(zero density)
(zero density)
District (zero
density)
Conservation District
(zero density)
March 19, 2002
58
1 CI
•
PAST ACTIONS
On September 27, 2001, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6 to 0 to recommend that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed land use amendment.
On November 13, 2001, the Board of County Commissioners voted 5 to 0 to transmit the proposed
land use amendment to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA).
ORC REPORT
Consisted with state regulations, DCA reviewed the proposed amendment and prepared an
Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report (dated February 1, 2002), which
planning staff received on February 4, 2002. The DCA ORC Report, Attachment 5 at the end of this
staff report, does not contain any objections or comments relating to the proposed amendment.
Existing 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 pnmarily
of wetlands. Land adjacent to the subject property, north of the site s eastern portion, is zoned RS -1
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 1'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`h 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.
March 19, 2002
59
n„ •'7
}N l
0
•
•
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.
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 areawhereSubject Property 5 is located, land (like Subject Property 5) that is located east of
SR Al A is zoned RM -3, while land west of SR Al A 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 A1A) 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 peirnits 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/I, Commercial/Industrial.
The C/I designation peiuiits vanous 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 island 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 9th Street, SW, is
designated M-2, Medium -Density Residential -2, on the county s future land use map. The M-2
designation pezznrts residential uses with densities up to 10 units/acre.
March 19, 2002
60
1)1
07!
•
•
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.
The REC designation peirnits various public parks and recreational facilities. Lands to the east of
Subject Property 3, across SR Al A, 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. his property is within an "AE" 100 year floodplain, with a
minimum base flood elevation requirement of five feet \ GVD.
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 xenc scnib coastal hammock, estuarine wetlands, and freshwater wetlands.
This property is within an "AE100 year floodplain, with a minimum base flood elevation
requirement of five feet \GVD.
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 \orth 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 scnib. Bald eagles and sandhill cranes also use the 'SCA. Additionally, this property is a
primary recharge area for the surficial groundwater aquifer According to Flood Insurance Rating
Maps, the site is located outside of a flood hazard area.
March 19, 2002
61
•
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.
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 A l A 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 A1A is a two lane road with
approximately 100 feet of existing public road nght-of-way. There are no plans to expand this
segment of SR A 1A.
Subject Property 4
Subject Property 4 is located at the end of the right-of-way of 130`h Street. That street, however, has
not been constructed all the way to Subject Property 4. In fact, a road barrier blocks use of 130th
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 A1A provides access to Subject Property 3.
future roadway thoroughfare plan map, this
approximately 100 feet of existing public road
segment of SR A1A.
Classified as a rural minor arterial roadway on the
portion of SR A1A is a two lane road with
right-of-way. There are no plans to expand this
March 19, 2002
•
ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the application will be presented. This section
will include the following:
• an analysis of the proposed amendment's impact on public facilities;
• an analysis of the proposed amendment's compatibility with surrounding areas;
• an analysis of the proposed amendment's consistency with the comprehensive plan; and
• an analysis of the proposed amendment's potential impact on environmental quality.
Concurrency 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, Stoiinwater 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
deteuniination 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 teuiis 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.
March 19, 2002
63
'
0r, 07
14
•
Consistency with Comprehensive Plan
Land use amendment and rezoning requests are reviewed for consistency with all policies of the
comprehensive plan. As per section 800.07(1) of the land development regulations, the
"comprehensive plan may only be amended in such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of
the plan pursuant to Section 163.3177(2), FS." Amendments must also show consistency with the
overall designation of land uses as depicted on the Future Land Use Map, which includes
agricultural, residential, recreational, conservation, and commercial and industrial land uses and their
densities.
The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of the comprehensive plan. Policies
are statements in the plan which identify actions which the county will take in order to airect the
community's development. As courses of action committed to by the county, policies provide the
basis for all county land development related decisions --including plan amendment and rezoning
decisions. While all comprehensive plan objectives and policies are important, some have more
applicability than others in reviewing plan amendment and rezoning requests. Of particular
applicability for this request are the following policies.
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 change in circumstances
affecting the subject property; or
• The proposed amendment involves a swap or reconfiguration of land use designations at
separate sites and that swap or reconfiguration will not increase the overall land use density
or intensity depicted on the Future Land Use Map.
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 1.5 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 nornial 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.
March 19, 2002
64
QV
075
•
•
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.
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 adopt the proposed land use amendment and rezone the subject properties
by approving the attached ordinances.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Land Use Designation Amendment Application
2. Rezoning Application
3. Subject Property 1 Land Use Designation Location Map
4. Subject Property 1 Zoning Location Map
5. Subject Property 2 Land Use Designation Location Map
6. Subject Property 2 Zoning Location Map
7. Subject Property 3 Land Use Designation Location Map
8. Subject Property 3 Zoning Location Map
9. Subject Property 4 Land Use Designation Location Map
10. Subject Property 4 Zoning Location Map
11. Subject Property 5 Land Use Designation Location Map
12. Subject Property 5 Zoning Location Map
13. Approved Minutes of the September 27, 2001, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
14. Approved Minutes of the November 13, 2001, Board of County Commissioners Transmittal
Hearing
15. DCA's ORC Report
16. Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Designation Amendment Ordinance
17. Rezoning Ordinance
March 19, 2002
65
rt. e1
1/6
•
Commissioner Adams noted that this represents 235 acres of land being put into
conservation and 1200 units off the development roll.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in
this matter. There being none, she closed the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance No. 2002-014 amending the Future Land Use Map
of the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan by
changing the Land Use Designation for 88.5 acres located on
the east side of US 1, west of Indian River Lagoon on the north
side of the Saint Lucie County Line, from L-2 and C-2 to C-1;
by changing the Land Use Designation for 66 acres located on
the south side of 9th Street S.W. east of US 1, from L-2 to C-1;
by changing the Land Use Designation for 59.5 acres, located
on the west side of SR AIA, south of Round Island Park, from
C-2 to C-1; by changing the Land Use Designation for 19 acres
located on the south end of 130th Street right of way west of the
FEC Railway, from L-2 to C-1; and by changing the Land Use
Designation for 1.5 acres located on the east side of SR Al A
along the north border of Golden Sands Park, from L-1 to C-1.
March 19, 2002
ORDINANCE NO. 2002- 014
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE FUTURE
LAND USE MAP OF THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR 88.5 ACRES LOCATED ON
THE EAST SIDE OF US 1, WEST OF INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ON THE NORTH SIDE OF
THE SAINT LUCIE COUNTY LINE, FROM L-2 AND C-2 TO C-1; BY CHANGING THE
LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR 66 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 9'
STREET S.W. EAST OF US 1, FROM L-2 TO C-1; BY CHANGING THE LAND USE
DESIGNATION FOR 59 5 ACRES, LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF SR AIA, SOUTH
OF ROUND ISLAND PARK FROM C-2 TO C-l; BY CHANGING THE LAND USE
DESIGNATION FOR 19 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH END OF 130Th STREET
RIGHT OF WAY WEST OF THE FEC RAILWAY, FROM L-2 TO C-1; AND BY
CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR 1.5 ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST
SIDE OF SR AlA ALONG THE NORTH BORDER OF GOLDEN SANDS PARK, FROM L-1
TO C-1; AND PROVIDING CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY, AND EFFECTIVE DATE
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian River County
Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 1990, and
WHEREAS, the county received comprehensive plan amendment applications during its July
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 made a recommendation regarding this
comprehensive plan amendment to the Board of County Commissioners, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County held a Transmittal
Public Hearing on November 13, 2001, after advertising pursuant to F.S. 163.3184(15)(b)1 and
(c), and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners approved the transmittal of this
comprehensive plan amendment to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for their
review and comment, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners announced at the transmittal public hearing
its intention to hold and advertise a final public hearing at the adoption stage of this plan
amendment, and
WHEREAS, the Florida Department of Community Affairs received this Comprehensive Plan
Amendment on November 26, 2001, for the State review pursuant to F.S.163.3184(4), and
WHEREAS, Indian River County received the Objections, Recommendations, and Comments
(ORC) Report from the Florida Department of Community Affairs on February 4, 2002, and
March 19, 2002
WHEREAS, the ORC Report contained no objections or comments regarding this
Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County held a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Adoption Public Hearing on March 19, 2002, after
advertising pursuant to Chapter 163.3184(15)(b)2 and (c), FS and Chapter 125.66(4), FS;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida, that:
SECTION 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Adoption and Transmittal
The amendment to the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan identified in Section 2 is
hereby adopted, and three (3) copies are directed to be transmitted to the State of Florida
Department of Community Affairs and one (1) copy is directed to be transmitted to the Treasure
Coast Regional Planning Council.
SECTION 2. Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan
With respect to the following described properties situated in Indian River County, Florida to
wit:
TRACT 'B' (CONSERVATION)
ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 14 PAGE
71 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA SAID
LANDS LYING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
AND
SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SOUTHEAST QUARTER LYING EAST OF EAST
RIGHT OF WAY OF US NO 1 EXCEPT THAT PART AS SHOWN ON PLAT OF
VERO BEACH SHORES UNIT 1 AND ALSO LESS THAT PORTION OF OR BOOK
1212 PAGE 882.
AND
THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST ''A OF THE SOUTHEAST 'A OF SECTION
31 TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH RANGE 40 EAST LYING EASTERLY OF THE
EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1 AND THE
EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILROAD AND
SOUTHERLY OF THE PLAT OF VERO SHORES -UNIT ONE AS RECORDED IN
PLAT BOOK 5 PAGE 52 OF THE PCBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA
TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH,
RANGE 40 EAST INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA LYING SOUTHERLY OF
THE EASTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT 1 BLOCK 15
SAID PLAT OF VERO SHORES UNIT ONE.
March 19, 2002
68
PG 079
•
AND
AND
AND
LESS AND EXCEPT THE FOLLOWING:
BEGINI\TNG AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 6 BLOCK 12 VERO
SHORES UNIT ONE AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 5 PAGE 52 IN THE CLERK
OF THE CIRCUIT COURT S OFFICE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FLORIDA,
THENCE FOLLOWING ALONG THE VARIOUS COURSES ON THE SOUTH SIDE
OF SAID PLAT BOUNDARY SOUTH 89° 15' 36" EAST FOR 635.00 FEET, THENCE
SOUTH 00° 44' 24" WEST FOR 15 00 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 89° 15' 36' EAST
FOR 93.79 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 44° 15' 25' EAST FOR 44.14 FEET, THENCE
NORTH 45° 44' 24" EAST FOR 30.00 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 89° 15' 36" EAST FOR
37.58 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 44° 15' 36" EAST FOR 30.00 FEET, THENCE NORTH
45° 44' 13" EAST FOR 44.14 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 89° 15' 36' EAST FOR 247.58
FEET THENCE SOUTH 44° 15' 25" EAST FOR 44.14 FEET, THENCE NORTH 45°
44' 24" EAST FOR 30 00 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 89° 15' 36' EAST FOR 37.58
FEET THENCE SOUTH 44° 15 36" EAST FOR 30.00 FEET, THENCE NORTH 45°
44' 13' EAST FOR 44.14 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 89° 15' 36' EAST FOR 93.79 FEET
TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 1 BLOCK 15 OF SAID PLAT THENCE
CONTINUE SOUTH 89° 15' 36" EAST FOR 425.00 FEET THENCE SOUTH 00° 44'
24" WEST FOR 630.00 FEET, THENCE NORTH 89° 15' 36" WEST FOR 1,780.00
FEET, THENCE NORTH 00° 44' 24" EAST FOR 645.00 FEET TO THE PLACE AND
POINT OF BEGINNING.
Are changed 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), and the Future Lind Use Map is hereby revised accordingly.
THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 30,
TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE 40 EAST INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA;
THE EAST 455 FEET OF SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST
ONE-QUARTER OF SECTION 30, LESS AND EXCEPTING THE SOUTH 680 FEET
THEREOF -
THE WEST 1450 FEET OF THE SOUTH ONE-HALF OF THE NORTHEAST ONE-
QUARTER OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE 40 EAST; LESS AND
EXCEPTING THE SOUTH 680 FEET THEREOF. LESS AND EXCEPTING DITCH
RIGHT OF WAY AS RECORDED IN DEED BOOK 83, PAGE 49, PUBLIC
RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, AND ALL LYING AND BEING IN
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FLORIDA
Are changed from L-2, Low -Density Residential -2 (up to 6 units/acre), to C-1, Publicly
Owned Conservation -1 (zero density) and the Future Land Use Map is hereby revised
accordingly.
March 19, 2002
69
p„
Uli
•
•
AND
AND
AND
THAT PART OF LOTS 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 AND 24,
LYING WEST OF THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY ROAD A -1-A, ACCORDING TO
THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 4, PAGE 23, PUBLIC
RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY FLORIDA; SAID LANDS NOW LYING AND
BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FLORIDA.
Are changed from C-2, Privately Owned Conservation -2 (up to 1 unit/40 acres), to C-1,
Publicly Owned Conservation -1 (zero density), and the Future Land Use Map is hereby
revised accordingly.
LOTS 3 AND 4, A.A. BERRY'S SUBDIVISION OF SECTION 30, OF FLEMING
GRANT, REVISED FROM CARTER SURVEY, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT
RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 14, PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE
COUNTY FLORIDA, NOW LYING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
Are changed from L-2, Low -Density Residential -2 (up to 6 units/acre), to C-1, Publicly
Owned Conservation -1 (zero density), and the Future Land Use Map is hereby revised
accordingly.
THE SOUTH 300 FEET OF THE NORTH 600 FEET OF GOVERNMENT LOT 2,
SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 31 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST LYING EAST OF SR A -1-
A LESS AND EXCEPT THE SOUTH 200 FEET THEREOF. SMD LAND LYING
AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
Is changed from L-1, Low -Density Residential -1 (up to 3 units/acre), to C-1, Publicly
Owned Conservation -1 (zero density), and the Future Land Use Map is hereby revised
accordingly.
SECTION 3. Re
eal of Conflicting Provisions
All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby
repealed to the extent of such conflict.
SECTION 4. Seve_ r_ ability
It is declared to be the intent of the Board of County Commissioners that if any provision of
this ordinance and therefore, the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan Amendment is for
any reason finally held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such
provision shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall
not affect the validity of the remaining provisions.
SECTION 5. Effective
The effective date of this ordinance, and therefore, this plan amendment, shall be the date a
final order is issued by the Department of Community Affairs or Administration Commission
finding the amendment in compliance with Section 163.3184 1 b Florida Statutes, whichever
March 19, 2002
70
0 8 1
occurs earlier. No development orders, development permits, or land uses dependent on this
amendment may be issued or commence before it has become effective. If a final order of
noncompliance is issued by the Administration Commission, this amendment may nevertheless
be made effective by adoption at a public meeting after public notice of a resolution affirming its
effective status, a copy of which resolution shall be sent to the Florida Department of
Community Affairs, Division of Resource Planning and Management Plan Processing Team.
This ordinance was advertised in the Press -Journal on the 6th day of March, 2002, for a
public heanng to be held on the l9"' day of March, 2002, at which time it was moved for
adoption by Commissioner Adams
, and adopted by the following vote:
Chailtnan
Vice -Charman
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
, seconded by Commissioner Macht
Ruth M. Stanbridge
John W. Tippin
Fran B. Adams
Kenneth R Macht
Caroline D. Ginn
Ay
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
ATTEST BY ' Ltc.u_ er ,
Jeffrey K. Barton, Cler
Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of Florida this
2002.
Acknowledgment from the Department of State received on this day of 2002, at
A.M./P.M. and filed in the office of the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida.
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
Indian River Co.
Approved
William G. Collins II, Deputy County Attorney
Budget
VED AS TO PLANNING MATTERS
Risk Mgr.
obert M. Keating, AICP; Co
March 19, 2002
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance No. 2002-015 amending the Zoning Ordinance and
the accompanying Zoning Map by rezoning 88.5 acres located
on the east side of US 1, west of Indian River Lagoon on the
north side of the Saint Lucie County line, from RS -6 and RS -1
to CON -1; rezoning 66 acres located on the south side of 9'
Street SW east of US 1, from RM -6 to RS -6 to CON -1;
rezoning 59.5 acres, located on the west side of SR A1A, south
of Round Island Park, from RS -3 to CON -1; rezoning 19 acres
located on the south end of 130th Street right of way west of the
FEC Railway from RM -6 to CON -1; and rezoning 1.5 acres
located on the east side of SR A1A long the north border of
Golden Sands Park, from RM -3 to CON -1.
ORDINANCE NO. 2002-0i 5
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP BY
REZONING 88.5 ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF US 1, WEST OF
INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE SAINT LUCIE
COUNTY LINE, FROM RS -6 AND RS -1 TO CON -1; REZONING 66 ACRES
LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 9TH STREET S.W. EAST OF US 1, FROM
RM -6 AND RS -6 TO CON -1; REZONING 59.5 ACRES, LOCATED ON THE WEST
SIDE OF SR AlA SOUTH OF ROUND ISLAND PARK, FROM RS -3 TO CON -1;
REZONING 19 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH END OF 130TH STREET
RIGHT OF WAY WFST OF THE FEC RAILWAY, FROM RM -6 TO CON -1; AND
REZONING 1.5 ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF SR A1A ALONG THE
NORTH BORDER OF GOLDEN SANDS PARK, FROM RM -3 TO CON -1; AND
PROVIDING CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the local planning
agency on such matters, has held a public hearing and subsequently made a
recommendation regarding this rezoning request; and
March 19, 2002
72
DI/
Wit
7 7
taw
n
1
•
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida, did publish its Notice of Intent to rezone the hereinafter described property; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that this
rezoning is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan of Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has held two public hearings
pursuant to this rezoning request, at which parties in interest and citizens were heard;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, that the zoning of the following described properties
situated in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit:
TRACT `B' (CONSERVATION)
ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK
14 PAGE 71 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA SAID LANDS LYING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FLORIDA.
AND
SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SOUTHEAST QUARTER LYING EAST OF
EAST RIGHT OF WAY OF US NO 1 EXCEPT THAT PART AS SHOWN ON
PLAT OF VERO BEACH SHORES UNI1 1 AND ALSO LESS THAT
PORTION OF OR BOOK 1212 PAGE 882.
AND
THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST %4 OF THE SOUTHEAST ''A OF
SECTION 31 TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH RANGE 40 EAST LYING EASTERLY
OF THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1 AND
THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF FLORIDA EAST COAST
RAILROAD AND SOUTHERLY OF THE PLAT OF VERO SHORES -UNIT
ONE AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 5 PAGE 52 OF THE PUBLIC
RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FLORIDA
TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 33
SOUTH RANGE 40 EAST INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA LYING
SOUTHERLY OF THE EASTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE SOUTH
LINE OF LOT 1 BLOCK 15 SAID PLAT OF VERO SHORES UNIT ONE.
LESS AND EXCEPT THE FOLLO\
March 19, 2002
G:
BEGI\-'MING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 6 BLOCK 12 VERO
SHORES UNIT ONE AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 5 PAGE 52 IN THE
CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT'S OFFICE OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, THENCE FOLLOWING ALONG THE VARIOUS
COURSES ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF SAID PLAT BOUNDARY SOUTH 89°
15' 36" EAST FOR 635.00 FEET THENCE SOUTH 00° 44' 24" WEST FOR
15.00 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 89° 15' 36" EAST FOR 93.79 FEET, THENCE
SOUTH 44° 15 25" EAST FOR 44 14 FEET, THENCE NORTH 45° 44 24"
73
Bi{
13
•
EAST FOR 30.00 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 89° 15' 36" EAST FOR 37.58
FEET, THENCE SOUTH 44° 15' 36" EAST FOR 30.00 FEET THENCE
NORTH 45° 44 13" EAST FOR 44.14 FEET THENCE SOUTH 89° 15 36"
EAST FOR 247.58 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 44° 15' 25" EAST FOR 44.14
FEET, THENCE NORTH 45° 44' 24" EAST FOR 30.00 FEET, THENCE
SOUTH 89° 15' 36' EAST FOR 37.58 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 44° 15 36"
EAST FOR 30.00 FEET, THENCE NORTH 45° 44' 13" EAST FOR 44.14
FEET, THENCE SOUTH 89° 15 36" EAST FOR 93.79 FEET TO THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 1, BLOCK 15 OF SAID PLAT THENCE
CONTINUE SOUTH 89° 15' 36" EAST FOR 425.00 FEET THENCE SOUTH
00° 44' 24' WEST FOR 630.00 FEET, THENCE NORTH 89° 15' 36" WEST
FOR 1,78000 FEET, THENCE NORTH 00° 44' 24' EAST FOR 645.00 FEET
TO THE PLACE AND POINT OF BEGINNING.
Are changed from RS -6, Single Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre), and RS -
1, Single Family Residential District (up to 1 unit/1 acre) to Con -1, Public Lands
Conservation Distnct (zero density).
AND
The zoning of the following described properties situated in Indian River County,
Florida, to -wit
AND
AND
THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF
SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE 40 EAST, INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA
THE EAST 455 FEET OF SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF THE
NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF SECTION 30 LESS AND EXCEPTING
THE SOUTH 680 FEET THEREOF -
THE WEST 1450 FEET OF THE SOUTH ONE-HALF OF THE NORTHEAST
ONE- QUARTER OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE 40
EAST; LESS AND EXCEPTING THE SOUTH 680 FEET THEREOF. LESS
AND EXCEPTING DITCH RIGHT OF WAY AS RECORDED IN DEED
BOOK 83, PAGE 49, PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
AND ALL LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
Are changed from RM -6, Multiple Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre), and
RS -6, Single Family Residential District (up to 6 units/ acre), to Con -1, Public Lands
Conservation District (zero density).
March 19, 2002
74
•
AND
The zoning of the following described properties situated in Indian River County,
Florida, to -wit:
THAT PART OF LOTS 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 AND 24, KANSAS CITY
COLONY, LYING WEST OF THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY ROAD A -1-A,
ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED N PLAT BOOK 4,
PAGE 23, PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA; SAID
LANDS NOW LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA.
Are changed from RS -3, Single Family Residential District (up to 3 units/acre), to Con -
1, Public Lands Conservation District (zero density).
AND
The zoning of the following described properties situated in Indian River County,
Florida, to -wit:
LOTS 3 AND 4, A.A. BERRY'S SUBDIVISION OF SECTION 30, OF
FLEMING GRANT, REVISED FROM CARTER SURVEY, ACCORDING TO
THE PLAT RECORDED N PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 14, PUBLIC RECORDS
OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, NOW LYING IN INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA.
Are changed from RM -6, Multiple Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre), to
Con -1, Public Lands Conservation District (zero density).
AND
The zoning of the following described property situated in Indian River County, Florida,
to -wit:
THE SOUTH 300 FEET OF THE NORTH 600 FEET OF GOVERNMENT LOT
2, SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 31 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST LYING EAST
OF SR A -1-A, LESS AND EXCEPT THE SOUTH 200 FEET THEREOF.
SAID LAND LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
Is changed from RM -3, Multiple Family Residential District (up to 3 units/acre), to Con -
1, Public Lands Conservation District (zero density).
All with the meaning and intent as set forth and described in said Land Development
Regulations.
Effective Date: This ordinance shall become effective upon the issuance by the State
Department of Community Affairs of a Notice of Intent to find the related
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation Amendment contained in Ordinance
Number 2002- in compliance in accordance with s. 163.3184(9) or the issuance of a
final order by the Administration Commission finding the referenced amendment in
compliance with s. 163.3184(10).
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida, on this 19` day of March, 2002.
March 19, 2002
75
1
J2
(J 6
•
This ordinance was advertised in the Press -Journal on the 6th day of March, 2002, for a
public hearing to be held on the 19th day of March, 2002, at which time it was moved for
adoption by Commissioner Adams , seconded by Commissioner
, and adopted by the following vote: Macht
Chairman Ruth M. Stanbridge
Vice-Chaiiman John W. Tippin
Commissioner Fran B. Adams
Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht
Aye
AyP
_. Aye
Aye
AyP
ATTEST B.✓��2cc _ C
_ Jeffrey K. Barton, Cler
Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of Florida this
, 2002.
Acknowledgment from the Department of State received on this day of , 2002,
at A.M./P.M. and filed in the office of the Clerk of the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida.
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SLTFICIENCY
`CJS 11[{ /
William G. Collins II, Deputy County Attorney
Approved
Legal
March 19, 2002
•
•
9.A.4. PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED INTERIM WIRELESS
TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES ORDINANCE AMENDING
SECTION 971.44 AND VARIOUS SECTIONS OF LAND
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS CHAPTER 911 - FIRST HEARING
(Legislative)
PROOF OF PUBLICATION IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 13. 2002:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
TMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE:
2 ,
Robert M. Keating, AIC
Community Development Director
FROM: Stan Boling, CP
Planning Director
DATE: March 13, 2002
SUBJECT: Request to Adopt an Interim Wireless Telecommunications Facilities
Ordinance, Amending Section 971.44 and Various Sections of LDR
Chapter 911 [FIRST HEARING]
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board
of County Commissioners at its meeting of March 19, 2002.
BACKGROUND
In January 2001, the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) enacted a moratorium on
accepting applications for new telecommunications towers to allow the county time to
select and hire a consultant to develop a wireless master plan and re -write the county's
existing telecommunications facilities land development regulations (LDRs) especially
in regard to wireless facilities. Emphasis was placed on controlling wireless facilities
because there is increasing demand for authorization to constnict "tower -like" wireless
facility structures and those structures are sometimes controversial.
Since adoption, the moratorium has been extended twice and is now in effect until April
7, 2002. The moratorium ordinance allows approval of collocations and tower re -builds
but prohibits construction of new towers (for wireless and non -wireless facilities) on new
sites.
March 19, 2002
77
L
Ur•
•
In February and March of 2001, the county issued an RFP (Request for Proposals) and
then went through the interview, selection, and negotiation process to hire a consultant.
As a result, the county entered into a contract with CityScape Siting and Management,
Inc of Coral Springs, Florida in June 2001 to perform specific wireless master planning
and regulation re-wnting tasks. Since that time,
two d of County
Commissioners/Planning and Zoning Commission public work hopsBoarand a teleconference
with wireless services providers have been held to gain input and direction on desired
outcomes and proposed regulations. At the last workshop, held on November 13, 2001
CityScape presented and received comments on the proposed interim wireless facilities
ordinance. That proposed ordinance, revised since the November 13th workshop, is the
subject of this proposed LDR amendment ordinance.
The overall process being followed by CityScape and the county is as follows:
1 Develop and adopt an interim wireless telecommunications facilities ordinance to
process individual applications. (Note: certain applications will require expert
review and corresponding special fees.)
a. Upon adoption, terminate the moratorium.
2. Complete development of and adopt a wireless master plan, which includes: an
inventory of (maps and data) and RF (radio frequency) engineering analysis
(coverage and capacity) of existing wireless facilities; participation of willing
wireless services providers (by "application" to CityScape with technical
infotuiation); an analysis and estimate of future demand for wireless services
(providers, coverage, capacity); and delineation and mapping of "pre -approved"
site areas for specific facility types.
3. Refine and make desired adjustments to the interim ordinance, resulting in a final
set of adopted wireless facilities land development regulations.
Once adopted, the wireless master plan will allow wireless providers an opportunity to
obtain staff level approval for the locations and facility types delineated in the wireless
master plan. Consequently, wireless services providers will have an incentive to use this
streamlined "pre -approval" process. In addition, the county will use the wireless plan to
evaluate individual requests. Alternatively, wireless providers may operate "outside of'
the wireless master plan and individually apply for approval of proposed facilities under
the wireless facilities land development regulations contained in the proposed ordinance
in subsection 971.44(5) (see attachment #5).
The attached ordinance is the proposed interim ordinance to regulate individual wireless
communications facility applications, and represents step 1 of the process described
above. Although this is the "interim" ordinance, it is comprehensive and contains all of
the components of a final ordinance (see attachment #5).
At its January 24, 2002 meeting, the Professional Services Advisory Committee (PSAC)
considered the proposed ordinance and voted 6-0 to recommend that the BCC adopt it. In
addition, the PSAC also voted 7-0 to recommend that the BCC eventually adopt a
wireless master plan that allows wireless facilities on public properties (see attachment
#4). At its February 28, 2002 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) held
a public hearing and voted 6-0 to recommend that the BCC adopt the ordinance with
March 19, 2002
78
•
several minor changes (see attachment #5). Those changes have now been incorporated
into the proposed ordinance (see attachment #6).
The BCC is to consider the proposed ordinance at two public hearings scheduled for
March 19th and April 2nd , 2002. Two hearings are necessary because the ordinance, if
adopted will change the table of listed uses in the zoning code (Chapter 911). The two
hearing format will allow the Board the opportunity at the March 19th hearing to provide
direction for any desired changes that can then be reviewed in final form at the April 2nd
hearing. Adoption of an ordinance at the April 2nd hearing will "beat" the April 7, 2002
moratorium expiration date.
ANNALYSIS
Currently, all types of commercial telecommunications facilities (wireless and non -
wireless) are regulated under LDR sections 971.44(1) and 917.06(8); section 971.44(4)
applies only to taller amateur radio facilities [see attachment #1].
The proposed LDR amendments do not change the requirements of these existing LDR
sections Rather, the proposed amendments specify that the existing commercial tower
regulations of 971.44(1) will apply to non -wireless facilities (e.g. radio, T;V., broadcast
and receiving facilities). Wireless facilities will be controlled by a new subsection of
regulations contained in the proposed ordinance. That subsection, to be codified as
subsection 971.44(5), consists of a revised version of the ordinance presented by
CityScape at the November 13`h workshop. For reference purposes, that section of the
proposed ordinance is currently coded to show the changes that have been made to it
since the November 13`h workshop. Such changes include those recommended by the
PZC at its February 28, 2002 meeting.
• Summary of New Regulations
The proposed interim ordinance specifically applies the existing 971.44(1) criteria to non -
wireless telecommunications towers and facihties. It also contains the propose° new
wireless facilities regulations. The proposed wireless facility regulations contain aspects
that are similar to the existing 971.44(1) regulations. Several of the main requirements,
however, are new and/or more stringent than current requirements, as summarized below.
The proposed Subsection 971.44(5):
1. Specifies the hierarchy of preferred facility types, from the most desirable to least
desirable, as follows:
a. Collocation (on existing tower/antenna support)
b. Attached (to non -antenna support structure such as a building, utility pole,
water tower)
c. Replacement (of existing tower/antenna support structure)
d. Stealth (previously termed "camouflaged" tower)
e. New (new tower/antenna support structure on a new site) [see attachment
#6, pg. 17].
2. Defines and allows use of "breakpoint tecmology" whereby engineered stress points
in structures are designed to better control weather -induced tower failures [pp. 13 &
20].
March 19, 2002
79
Bir I 4
•
3. Specifies and differentiates between the antenna/tower height exemption in non-
commercial/industrial districts (proposed to be 35') and commercial/industrial
districts (proposed to remain at 70 ) [pg. 18].
4. Prohibits lattice type and guyed towers; allows only monopole, stealth, attachments,
and collocations (pp. 19 & 21).
5. In accordance with the chart on page 19:
a. Better delineates facility types by category (collocation, attached,
replacement, stealth, new non -stealth).
b. Tightens requirements in A-1 (Agricultural 1) zoned areas by requiring all
new non -stealth facilities to receive special exception approval.
c. Treats A-1 zoned properties within the Urban Service Area and in
specified areas west of the Urban Service Area the same as the RFD
(Rural Fringe Development) zoning district, thereby prohibiting new non -
stealth (e.g. monopole towers) facilities in those A-1 zoned areas. Such
A-1 areas are either designated for future residential use or located just
outside of the Urban Service Area and have been identified as having rural
"residential" characteristics.
6. Limits the height of all new wireless facilities to a maximum of 150' [pp. 21, 35].
7. Establishes height regulations in proximity to private airstrips (e.g. Aerodrome, Fly -in
Ranches) not addressed by the county's existing airport zoning regulations which
apply to general aviation airports only (Vero Beach, Sebastian, New Hibiscus
airports) [pp. 24 & 25].
8. For new non -stealth facilities:
a. Requires photo -simulations from vantage points on adjacent occupied
structures and roads, and mitigation of adverse effects on adjacent roads
and properties [pg. 27].
b- For non -stealth facilities over 70 feet in height, requires specific
engineering analysis and certification that the proposed facility's coverage
or capacity cannot be achieved by another type of facility (e.g. collocation,
replacement tower, stealth facility) [pp. 27-29].
9. Formats special regulations by facility type [pp.19-36].
10. For new stealth facilities, requires PZC approval and requires photo -simulations from
vantage points at adjacent occupied structures and roads. Through presentation of
said photo simulations, an applicant must demonstrate that the placement, height, and
design of the facility results in a facility that is not readily identifiable as a wireless
facility and that blends into the surrounding area [pp. 35 & 26].
a. For new stealth facilities over 70 feet in height, requires the same
engineering analysis and certification described in 8.b. above to justify the
need, location, and height of the proposed stealth facility [pg. 36].
March 19, 2002
80
nU
•
11. Specifies expert engineering review requirements and fees for all wireless facilities
special exception use requests and requests requiring technical radio frequency
engineering analysis [pp. 36 & 37]. Note: to implement this provision, staff seeks the
BCC's authorization to proceed with a Request for Qualifications (RDQ) for RF
engineering films that do not perform work for wireless services providers. Such
authorization is included in staff's recommendation at the end of this report.
12. Contains "enabling language" to develop and adopt the Wireless Master Plan and use
it as an alternative to individual applications processed under the 971.44(5)
regulations. The Wireless Master Plan will ` pre -approve" site areas for various types
of wireless facilities and will be used as a tool to evaluate individual applications filed
under the proposed 971.44(5) regulations [pp. 33 & 39].
• Rebel Road/Nextel Example
The impetus for the telecommunications regulations re -write and the wireless master plan
development was the application by Nextel for its "Rebel Road" wireless facility
monopole tower. That application was for a 150' monopole tower located at the rear of
the Immanuel Baptist Church site, located west of 58th Avenue and north of 5th Street
S.W Under the existing regulations, that application was approved by the PZC but
denied by the Board on appeal. On further appeal, the Board's denial was overturned by
a court decision, and the application was subsequently approved Nextel has applied for
and will shortly obtain peumits for construction of the tower.
Under the existing regulations, extel's proposed 150' monopole tower was ultimately
approved as an administrative permit use in the A-1 zoning district (Agriculture 1, up to 1
umt/5 acres). With the proposed regulations, the only type of new wireless facility
allowed within the A-1 zoned area east of 66th Avenue and south of S.R. 60 (which
includes the subject site) would be a "stealth" facility. Thus, under the proposed
regulations, a new monopole tower could not be located on the site.
While the new regulations would allow a stealth facility up to 150 feet tall on the subject
site, these regulations would require the stealth facility to be designed and located on the
site so as to meet the "Stealth Wireless Communications Facility" definition, which is as
follows:
"Stealth Wireless Communications Facility means a wireless communications
facility, ancillary structure, or equipment enclosure that is not readily
identifiable as such, and is designed to blend into its surroundings and be
aesthetically compatible with existing and proposed uses on a site and the
surrounding area. A stealth facility may have a secondary function. Examples
of stealth facilities include but are not limited to the following: church steeple,
bell tower, spire, clock tower, cupola, light standard, flagpole with a flag, or
tree."
This allowance for stealth facilities u
conventional church steeples and fl
exceptions to the county s buildin
911.15(1)(a)].
p to 150 feet tall is consistent with the fact that
agpoles are already allowed at that height as
g height requirement [reference LDR section
Under the proposed regulations, the applicant would also be required to provide photo -
simulations of the proposed stealth tower from vantage points at adjacent occupied
March 19, 2002
•
81
D111) d �
Uig I
1
strictures and 58th Avenue. These photo -simulations would be required to demonstrate
that the proposed facility's placement, height, and design meet the stealth facility
definition Compliance with these regulations would be reviewed by staff and the PZC in
accordance with administrative peiiuit review procedures.
For a stealth facility over 70 feet tall, the applicant would also be required to provide
radio frequency engineering infounation and analysis to justify the need, location, and
height of the proposed stealth facility. Such analysis would require expert review. Once
such engineering justification is submitted, reviewed, and accepted, a stealth facility of
that height would need to be accommodated on the subject site.
Therefore, under the new regulations the county could not deny a stealth facility (e.g.
church steeple or flag pole with flag) up to 150 feet tall on the subject site upon a
demonstration by the applicant that the stealth facility's need, location, and height are
justified by engineering analysis and that the proposed facility meets the definition of
stealth wireless facility. Under the new regulations, such a `justified" facility would be
deemed necessary to meet demonstrated wireless services needs and designed to
adequately address aesthetic impacts. In this manner, the new regulations balance
community aesthetic standards and the county's legal obligation to reasonably
accommodate legitimate wireless services needs.
• Conclusion
In staff's opinion, the proposed interim ordinance addresses the concerns expressed by
the Board of County Commissioners and the Planning and Zoning Commission at the
public workshops, and addresses the concerns expressed by wireless services providers.
Other issues and concerns can be re -addressed or further addressed by the wireless master
plan and final regulations to be considered in the future.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners:
1. Direct staff to make any desired changes to the proposed ordinance; and
2. Authorize staff to initiate an RFQ (Request for Qualifications) for RF engineering
finis that do not work for wireless services providers to implement the expert review
provisions of the proposed regulations; and
Announce its intention to adopt an ordinance and teiininate the existing moratorium
on applications for new towers at its April 2, 2002 regular meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
1. LDR Section 971.44(1), 917.06(8), and 971.44(4)
2. July 2001 Workshop Minutes
3. November 2001 Workshop Minutes
4. January 24, 2002 PSAC Minutes
5. February 78, 2002 PZC Minutes (Unapproved)
6. Proposed Interim Ordinance
7. Master Plan Timeline (Infounation Only; No Action)
March 19, 2002
82
•
•
Planning Director Stan Boling advised this was the first of two public hearings on
this proposed ordinance. He gave a brief history of this matter as contained in the above
memorandum. He specified there are three minor changes. There are two general items, one
of which is to keep intact the existing regulations for non -wireless facilities, such as a radio
broadcast tower. Most of the applications are for wireless facilities which will be governed
by the new regulations in the proposed ordinance. These regulations are more stringent and
have more requirements. He also reviewed the recommendations as set out in the above
memorandum. He pointed out 4 votes will be necessary to allow the second public hearing
to be held before 5 p.m.
Anthony Lepore, Vice President and general counsel for CityScape Citing and
Management, advised that Director Boling had stated just about everything he was planning
to say, so he invited questions and then he had some questions of the Commissioners to
determine future direction.
Commissioner Ginn wondered if we should 1) require providers to use the latest
technologies in providing capacity and coverage and 2) require smaller unobtrusive
technology so that within a certain time frame ugly towers would be eliminated.
Mr Lepore explained that he has included a "state-of-the-art" provision in other
jurisdictions which can be included in this interim ordinance or in the final plan.
Commissioner Ginn asked that it be done now and Mr Lepore advised it could be
included as it is literally only one paragraph.
Mr. Lepore then began his questions of the Commissioners. First, he wanted to
confirm that the Board wants to continue to include various public facilities in the inventory
of available locations where wireless sites can be located in the process of developing the
Master Plan. He also wanted to confirm that the Board wished to include buildings in the
inventory of available locations. If this proposed interim ordinance is adopted on second
March 19, 2002
83
�li i !. i li 09 ,�
reading then a final plan could be brought to the Board in 120-150 days.
There was CONSENSUS to exclude libraries and schools as potential sites.
Commissioner Macht asked if those would come to the Board as special exceptions,
and Mr. Lepore replied in the affirmative.
Commissioner Adams asked if, since the last meeting, Mr. Lepore had met with
industry representatives and if everyone had an opportunity for input, and Mr. Lepore
responded that he met with all the industry representatives and some of them had come to
the P&Z meeting and a number of items were reviewed there as well.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in
this matter.
Jon Shamres, an attorney with Alan Gabriel, appeared representing Nextel. He had
met with staff and staff had substantially addressed their mayor concerns. He anticipated a
couple of minor items would be addressed before the end of this hearing and, if so, he
supported the ordinance as it has been revised.
Sherri Brower, 736 34`'' Terrace, representing the amateur radio operators as their
local government liaison, had one minor concern on page 248, paragraph (7), that speaks
about Section 971.44(4) and should be 971.44(1).
Director Boling explained that was correct and was the first of his three items. He
really appreciated "many eyes looking at this".
Ms. Brower, as a taxpayer, had a couple of questions concerning how the non-
commercial towers will be treated.
Mr. Lepore replied that the new regulations specifically deal with personal wireless
March 19, 2002
84
GIi
l
5
•
communication services so, by way of exclusion, you would be referred back to the existing
ordinance language which talks about amateur, commercial, general mobile, but does not
address non-commercial. He thought perhaps it was simply a question of adding a minor
amendment to the existing ordinance, a reference to non-commercial like citizen band. The
amateurs' antennae, because of the size, is generally the one that is regulated. Citizen bands
are generally not an issue.
It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the Chairman closed the
public hearing.
Director Boling advised of two other minor changes. The first was on Page 260
under (4); the notice to surrounding property owners will be sent out by County staff Also,
at the bottom of Page 264, f.2., the strike -through is to be eliminated on hotel, multifamily,
institutional, or public building. With the Board's concurrence, staff wanted to make those
changes.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously approved staffs
recommendation as follows: 1) directed staff to make any
desired changes to the proposed ordinance; and 2) authorized
staff to initiate an RFQ for RF engineering firms that do not
work for wireless service providers to implement the expert
review provisions of the proposed regulations; and 3)
announced its intention to adopt an ordinance and terminate the
existing moratorium on applications for new towers at its April
2, 2002, regular meeting.
March 19, 2002
85
•
THE CHAIRMAN DECLARED A 5 -MINUTE RECESS AT
10:05 A.M. THE MEETING WAS RECONVENED AT 10:13
A.M. WITH ALL MEMBERS PRESENT. _.
9.B PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
None.
9.C. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEMS
None.
1.1.B.1. DISASTER PUBLIC ASSISTANCE SERVICES CONTRACT -
DRC, INC.
Emergency Services Director John King reviewed a Memorandum of March 5, 2002:
TO: Honorable Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH• James E. Chandler, County Administrator
THROUGH• John King, Director it•
Department of Eme cy rvices
FROM: Nathan McCollum, Emergency Management Coordinator
Department of Emergency Services
DATE: March 5, 2002
SUBJECT: Approval of Agreement Between Indian River County and DRC, Inc. for Disaster Public
Assistance Services.
As part of the Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan for Indian River County, the Emergency
Management Division must adequately plan for recovery after any disaster. For the most part, our county and
municipal departments have recovered well from Hurricane David, Hurricane Erin, Hurricane Floyd, and
Hurricane Irene. However, should the county experience a catastrophic disaster event such as Hurricane
Andrew, Hurricane Mitch, Hurricane Hugo, or the September 11, 2001, attack, county govemment would
need aid in providing adequate recovery services.
March 19, 2002
86
r Obi
•
When a catastrophic diaster occurs, the President of the United States, through the Federal Emergency
Management Agency ( MA), will provide a Presidential Disaster Declaration. This declaration allows for
the following types of ederal aid:
Public Assistance - This provides financial assistance for governmental expenses such as
personnel overtime, debris removal, beach restoration, parks and recreation repair, road repair,
utility repair, etc.
2. Individual Assistance - This provides financial assistance to the general public for emergency
needs and property repair.
3. Hazard Mitigation - This provides financial assistance to government and the general public for
mitigation projects.
FEMA will provide assistance to the general public for Individual Assistance and Hazard Mitigation. FEMA
will provide financial aid for Public Assistance to the county, but very little manpower or equipment will be
supplied. Therefore, the county will need to organize recovery resources from companies who have survived
the disaster. Furthermore, in a catastrophic disaster much of the county and municipal workforce would not
be immediately able to work because of disaster damage and/or personal tragedy.
Because all of the counties in Florida would need assistance during a catastrophic disaster event, numerous
disaster service companies have responded to Requests for Proposals (RFP) submitted by county government.
Most recently, Martin County Emergency Management completed an in-depth review process with companies
that responded to their RFP (RFP 138-01). As a result of the Martin County review, they have selected DRC,
Inc. to provide Public Assistance during disasters. Martin County Emergency Management found that DRC,
Inc. has an excellent reputation for service and cooperation. DRC, Inc. also has a staff well versed in both
Florida and FEMA disaster declaration cost and reimbursement policies. Fowler Florida Division of
Emergency Management Director Joseph Myers and former FEMA Director James Lee Witt provide much
of the expertise during the DRC, Inc. disaster response. DRC, Inc. utilizes the services of companies such as
Waste Management Services, Harris Sanitation, etc., which are agencies already conducting business within
the county.
The Emergency Management Division is in agreement with Martin County's selection ofDRC, Inc. as the most
qualified disaster responder for our area. Although the current pricing for equipment and services follows
FEMA's standards for reimbursement, this agreement does not mandate this requirement due to frequent
FEMA modifications. Indian River County would be eligible for 75% reimbursement from FEMA and 12.5%
reimbursement from the State of Florida. This is a standard reimbursement with or without the use of a
disaster service company.
DRC, Inc. does not require any retainer fee and the Board must approve a Notice to Proceed before any
commencement of services. If needed, the Notice to Proceed would likely be included in the State of Local
Emergency issued by the Board. Simply, this contract has no expense unless we have a catastrophic disaster
in Indian River County. It should be noted as far back as we can go in history, Indian River County has
never had a catastrophic disaster that would have required the Board to use DRC, Inc. Events
experienced by Indian River County similar to Hurricane Erin, Hurricane Floyd, Hurricane Irene, etc. could
be handled by local government without the use of DRC, Inc.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends foregoing the Request for Proposal process and accept Martin County's recommendation
from RFP 138-01 dated September 25, 2001. Staff further recommends approval of the Agreement between
Indian River County and DRC, Inc for disaster related services utilizing the terms and conditions included in
the Martin County/DRC, Inc. Agreement.
March 19, 2002
87
•
•
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Two (2) Original Agreements Between Indian River County and DRC, Inc.
2. Letter From Joseph Myers Providing Terms of RNP 133-01 to Indian River County
3. Martin County Agreement with DRC, Inc.
Director King hoped the County would never need to use this contract. He referred
to an attachment that did not make it into the backup and apologized because it did not. He
hoped the Commissioners had an opportunity to review the copy that was placed in their
office. (COPY IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD WITH
THE BACKUP FOR THE MEETING.) He explained the three generic groups of disasters
and how they are handled: those with little damage, some with local damage, and a
catastrophic disaster. It is the catastrophic disaster that this agreement will assist in addition
to the 75% FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) will cover. He read from the
contract how it would specifically apply to this type of disaster (Exhibit 1, PRICE) This
contract would be activated only when the Board declares a necessity because of actual
damage, a local declaration, or we are in the process of trying to recover the community and
need outside help that cannot be supplied by other local governments to assist us.
Commissioner Adams thanked Director King for the additional information which
she had reviewed. It was good to know there are people who can come in and help with
recovery from a disaster. In looking at the numbers in the information that had been placed
in the Commission office, she was assuming that the numbers/costs for tasks were standard.
Director King assured Commissioner Adams that the rates parallel FEMA's rate
schedule. He explained that a work sheet is actually prepared with a rate schedule that states
the amount of the reimbursement. Anytime there is a local disaster, it is going to cost the
local government money to recover from it. DRC and Grubbs are probably the two most -
March 19, 2002
88
•
l`.... Em.. [ L� ii 9
•
recognized companies in the southeastern United States who do this type of work. Grubbs
has already signed a contract with Brevard County, so we could possibly be competing with
Brevard for services from Grubbs. From his investigation, he believed that DRC is the one
he would recommend. He specified we would only use the company for those things which
we could not do ourselves.
Commissioner Ginn wanted an opportunity to review this contract more fully and
bring it back at the next meeting, but agreed to go forward since Commissioner Adams
expressed satisfaction and had gone over the matter very carefully and had several
conversations with Director King. Commissioner Ginn indicated that she will review the
additional information in the office; she would bring it back to the next meeting if necessary.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved
foregoing the RFP process and accepted Martin County's
recommendation from RFP 138-01 dated September 25, 2001
and approved the Agreement with DRC, Inc. for disaster -related
services utilizing the terms and conditions included in the
Martin County/DRC, Inc. agreement.
CONTRACT IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
11.B.2. ACCEPTANCE OF FEDERALLY FUNDED SUBGRANT
AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AFFAIRS (FDCA) - DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT - BID
PROCESS WAIVED - SERVICE PROVIDER AGREEMENT WITH
CORE PROCESSES, INC. FOR TRAINING
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of February 22, 2002:
March 19, 2002
89
•
TO: Honorable Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH• James E. Chandler, County Administrator
THROUGH* John King, Director
Department of Eme
1
ncy
ervices
FROM: Nathan McCollum, Emergency Management Coordinator
Department of Emergency Services
DATE: February 22, 2002
SUBJECT: Acceptance of Federally Funded Subgrant Agreement and Approval of Core Processes, Inc.
to Provide Training.
As part of the county's overall disaster planning, the Emergency Management Division is required fo provide
adequate terrorism preparedness for all agencies. In 2000, a committee was formed utilizing the expertise of
all public safety agencies to identify needs and develop an adequate plan for terrorism. Part of the committee's
efforts was to obtain a grant which would provide adequate funding for terrorism training and education.
Emergency Management staff submitted an application to participate in the Federally Funded Subgrant with
the Department of Community Affairs/Division of Emergency Management. On February 12, 2002, we
received notice of application approval and acceptance ofthe scope of work. Although no capital or operating
purchases can be completed with this grant, it will provide funding for essential training of all county public
safety agencies. The scope of work consists of the following items agreed upon by the committee:
1. Review of current terrorism plans, SOP's, for adequate response and recovery.
2. Develop and perform a terrorism response incident command training workshop.
3. Develop and perform a terrorism awareness training model.
4. Conduct a multi -agency tabletop terrorism exercise.
5. Complete a final report on contract -related items.
The total amount provided in this Agreement is $50,000.00. This is a 100% funded grant and requires no
additional funds from Indian River County. All tasks must be completed by June 30, 2002.
The committee discussed the need for outside training if the county was approved for this grant. The
committee felt that professional terrorism trainers and exercisers would aid the public safety agencies in
identifying necessary response and recovery planning issues. Staffhas spoken with Core Processes, Inc. about
this project. Core Processes, Inc. is a nationally recognized terrorism training agency with previous contracts
with the State of Florida Division of Emergency Management and Flonda Department of Law Enforcement,
Highlands County, Charlotte County, Lee County and Pasco County. Staff is recommending approval of Core
Processes, Inc. for this project utilizing the Pasco County Request for Proposal (RFP 01039).
Staff has high confidence in the ability of Core Processes, Inc. to provide the services required in this
Agreement and our scope of work is consistent with the Pasco County RFP
March 19, 2002
90
•
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the Federally Funded Subgrant Agreement between Indian River County and
the Department of Community Affairs/Division of Emergency Management (Contract Number #02 -PR -70-07-
38-01-004) in the amount of $50,000.00. Staff further recommends foregoing the bid process and approving
the Service Provider Agreement between Indian River County and Core Processes, Inc. in the amount of
$49,807.00.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Four (4) original copies of the Federally Funded Subgrant Agreement
2. Two (2) original copies of the Service Provider Agreement
3. County Grant Form
4. Copy of Pasco County Purchase Order
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously approved the
Federally Funded Subgrant Agreement with the Department of
Community Affairs/Division of Emergency Management
(Contract Number 1102 -PR -70-07-38-01-004) in the amount of
$50,000, approved foregoing the bid process and approved the
Service Provider Agreement with Core Processes, Inc. in the
amount of $49,807.00, all as recommended in the
memorandum.
COPY OF FEDERALLY FUNDED SUBGRANT AND
SERVICE PROVIDER AGREEMENTS ARE ON FIE E
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
11.C. MAIN LIBRARY EXPANSION AND RENOVATION
CHANGE ORDERS 7 AND 8 - BILL BRYANT AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 12, 2002:
March 19, 2002
91
/ ? ')`1
el\ i t. :I
•
Date:
To:
Tbru:
From:
Subject:
March 12, 2002
The Honorable Board of County Commissioners
James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Thomas W. Frame, General Services Director
Change Orders # 7 & 8, Main Library/Bill Bryant & Associates, Inc.
BACKGROUND:
Attached are memoranda from Lynn Williams regarding Change Orders # 7 & 8.
Change Order # 7 is in the amount of $2,321.93 for changes of sprinkler heads in the meeting
room area at the Main Library.
Change Order # 8 is the final figure requested by Bill Bryant & Associates, Inc. for the
reconstruction of the restrooms on the first floor of the Main Library. The amount of the
proposed Change Order is $30,599 for the restrooms and $1,187.74 for electrical work resulting
in a total of $31,786.74. When the emergency request for the reconstruction of the restrooms
was submitted to the Board of county Commissioners on February 19`h, I had indicated that the
work would not exceed $36,987. The Board's approval was subject to the final change order not
exceeding the $36,987 estimate, and fouual change order was to brought back to the Board
The approval of these two change orders will increase the contract amount to $1,651,813.60
Please note that there are attachments that are copies of Change Orders # 7 & 8 initialed by
William Bryant. This is to acknowledge some minor errors of not more than ten cents, which
was incorrect in its initial submission.
RECOMMENDATION:
In light of the needed reasons identified for these changes, Change Orders # 7 & 8 have been
reviewed and recommended by the supervising architect, and staff recommends approval of both
Change Orders # 7 & 8 subject to the Change Orders being corrected for mathematical
correctness prior to the signature by the Chaiiuuan.
March 19, 2002
92
•
1.10
3
•
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved
Change Orders #7 & 8 subject to the Change Orders being
corrected for mathematical correctness prior to the signature by
the Chairman, as recommended in the memorandum.
CHANGE ORDERS ARE ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
11.E. BUDGET WORKSHOP & HEARING SCHEDULE - FISCAL
YEAR 2002/03
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 12, 2002:
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
THROUGH: Joseph A. Baird
Assistant County Administrator
FROM: Jason E. Brown
Budget Manager
DATE: March 12, 2002
SUBJECT: 2002/2003 Budget Works op/Hearing Schedule
Descriptions and Conditions
Each year, staff presents options for a proposed schedule for budget workshops and hearings
to the Board of County Commissioners. Presented below for consideration are options for the
proposed 2002/2003 budget workshop and hearing dates. Two different options have been
presented for the budget workshop dates and for the tentative and final budget hearings.
March 19, 2002
93
011
•
Budget Workshops:
Option 1
Option 2
Budget Packet distributed to the
Board of Commissioners
July 8, 2002
Monday
July 12, 2002
Friday
Scheduled Budget Workshops
July 10 11, 2002
Wednesday -Thursday
July 17-18, 2002
Wednesday -Thursday
March 19, 2002
93
011
•
Budget Hearings:
Option 1
Option 2
Public Hearing on Tentative
budget & proposed millage rates
September 5, 2002
Thursday, at 5:01 p.m.
September 10, 2002
Tuesday, at 5:01 p.m.
Final Budget Hearing to adopt
budget and millage rates
September 12, 2002
Thursday, at 5:01 p.m.
September 17, 2002
Tuesday, at 5:01 p.m.
Commissioner Macht indicated his preference for dates listed under Option 2 for the
workshop.
Commissioner Adams suggested they use the dates under Option 2 for both the
workshop and the public hearings.
After a brief discussion, there was CONSENSUS to hold the budget workshops and
budget hearings on the dates listed in the memorandum under Option 2. (Packet distribution
to Commissioners on July 12, 2002; Workshops: July 17 and 18, 2002; Hearings September
10 and 17, 2002, at 5:01 p.m.)
11.G.1. BEACH PRESERVATION PLAN FUNDING - SECTORS 1
AND 2 BEACH NOURISHMENT (AMBERSAND/WABASSO BEACH
RESTORATION PROJECT - NORTH COUNTY) - AMENDMENT 4 TO
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGREEMENT NO. 98IR1
Environmental Analyst Jonathan C. Gorham, Ph.D. reviewed a Memorandum of
March 11, 2002:
March 19, 2002
94
•
Qv
•
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director
FROM: Jonathan C. Gorham, Ph.D. --`
Environmental Analyst � V
SUBJECT: Beach Preservation Plan Funding - Sector 1 and 2 Beach
Nourishment - (North County)
Amendment No. 4 to DEP Contract No. 9cI�1
DATE: March 11, 2002
DESCRIPTION AND CO
ITIONS
The cost sharing agreement between the County and the State
D epartment of Environmental Protection (DEP) for the Sector 1 and 2
beach renourishment projects is contained in DEP Contract No.
98IR1. This Contract requires periodic revision as project
schedules and anticipated costs change. The previous contracts
included funding for design, permitting, and Habitat Conservation
P lan development. As the County and State move closer to building
t he Sector 1&2 project, the attached Amendment No. 4 adds
additional funding for construction and monitoring of the project.
The result is that the State will fund $8,164,136 of the project
and the County share is $3,652,711.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
S taff recommends approval of Amendment No. 4 and the execution of
t he attached documents. Local share of project costs to be from the
County Beach Preservation Fund 128-144-572
ATTACHMENT
Amendment No. 4
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously approved
Amendment No. 4 and the execution of the documents, as
recommended in the memorandum.
March 19, 2002
AMENDMENT 4 (98IR1) IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
95
r
•
11.G.2. HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN FOR THE PROTECTION
OF SEA TURTLES ON ERODING BEACHES IN INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY - FINAL DRAFT FOR SUBMISSION TO U. S. FISH &
WILDLIFE SERVICE
Environmental Analyst Jonathan C. Gorham, Ph.D. reviewed a Memorandum of
March 11, 2002 and expressed great pleasure in bringing this plan to the Board:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
THROUGH; James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Directo
FROM:
6
Jonathan C. Gorham, Ph.D. 7(1
Environmental Analyst
SUBJECT: Final Draft
Habitat Conservation Plan for Sea Turtles
DATE: March 11, 2002
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
On October 12, 1999, the County contracted with Ecological
Associates, Inc. to develop a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) as
stipulated in a legal agreement resulting from conservation group
lawsuits over the issuance by the County of emergency permits for
seawall construction. The HCP, when approved by the US Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS), will allow the County to issue permits
for emergency shoreline protection without incurring legal
liability under the Endangered Species Act for actions potentially
harmful to sea turtles. The HCP will support the County efforts in
placement of beach compatible fill along the shorelines of the
Atlantic Ocean within sea turtle habitat areas. The HCP will also
allow the seawalls that were the subject of the original
litigation, Summerplace seawalls and Gerstner seawall, to remain in
their current locations. In exchange for this authorization, the
County will agree to undertake a program of sea turtle conservation
activities outlined in the HCP, which will result in a 4:1
mitigation ratio (see page IX). Staff is seeking authorization to
submit the HCP to USFWS and request issuance of an Incidental Take
Permit. Estimated costs for implementing the sea turtle
conservation activities are included with the final draft HCP. A
substantially complete HCP was presented to the Beach and Shore
Advisory Committee on October 15, 2001, where it was discussed and
accepted. Staff feels that the HCP as written provides clear and
ample benefit to sea turtles at a reasonable cost to the County.
March 19, 2002
96
BK I
0i
• •
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends acceptance of the final draft HCP and
authorization for submittal to USFWS Funding for HCP
implementation to be from the Beach Preservation Fund 128-144-572.
Additionally, $57,102.00 for HCP implementation has been granted to
the County under the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration Coastal Impact Assistance Program award No.
NA170Z2109.
ATTACHMENTS
Final Draft Habitat Conservation Plan
HCP Implementation Costs
G »i LE % /tJ
_ z�� ��GiCF
Bob Ernest, Ecological Consultants, Inc., gave a briefpresentation summarizing the
important parts of the HCP using a PowerPoint outline with color photographs on the
ELMO. (CLERK'S MEMO: A COPY OF THE PRESENTATION HAS BEEN FILED
WITH THE BACKUP IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD.)
Commissioner Adams commented this sounded easy but it took 2-1/2 years to put it
all together by working with all the agencies involved as well as the stakeholders and
property owners' groups. It has been a real challenge to put it together and extremely
frustrating at times. It is an incredible document and good for the turtles and for us, too.
Chairman Stanbridge recalled her trip to Tallahassee in February with County
Attorney Paul Bangel to work out some "hiccups". She thanked Mr. Gorham for doing a
fabulous job in pushing this through all the mazes.
Mr. Gorham advised that under the terms of the HCP the County has 3 months from
the date of incidental take permit issuance to prepare a detailed budget for implementing the
program and submitting it to the Fish & Wildlife Service. He called their attention to the
preliminary estimate (page 368) of what a professionally run program would cost to
implement the HCP. The estimate includes a number of first year start-up costs ($132,200)
and then annual recurring costs ($74.000). Since the incidental take permit is good for 30
March 19, 2002
97
DU
UR i
.1 108
years, and the HCP is a 30 -year program, he believed a sound goal would be to bring as
many of these tasks in-house as possible and as soon as practical. Some aspects of this HCP
will be of direct benefit to our other County programs, such as the sea turtle nesting
monitoring, which will be required for permitting of beach renourishment projects. The
County has been awarded a one-time $57,000 grant from the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration for HCP implementation. Other than that, the County will need
to provide all funding. The FDEP provided a 75% cost share for producing the HCP. At
present, they do not contemplate cost-sharing the implementation. He thought that might
be a promising area for lobbying in Tallahassee since the HCP covers emergency shoreline
protection, which is in large measure the responsibility of the FDEP.
In response to Commissioner Ginn's inquiry, Mr. Ernest advised this is the second
HCP in the state, Volusia County had the first for beach driving. Indian River County's is
the first HCP that deals with shoreline protection measures.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously accepted the final
draft HCP and authorized its submittal to the USFWS for HCP
implementation to be from the Beach Preservation Fund 128-
144-572.
HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
11.G.3. RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION - 58TH AVENUE, PHASE
II - C. REED KNIGHT, JR. AND JAN R. KNIGHT
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 12, 2002:
March 19, 2002
98
nu
Dk
1
• •
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E/_Th
Public Works Director
10.
Terry Thompson, P.E. (j
Capital Projects manager
FROM: William M. Napier, SRPA, SRA on/
Right -of -Way Agent 4-7
SUBJECT: Right -of -Way Acquisition, 58"' Avenue, Phase II
C Reed Knight, Jr. & Jan R. Knight
DATE: March 12, 2002
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIQN5
Additional right-of-way is needed along the west side of 58`h Avenue, south of Oslo Road,
to facilitate the 58`h Avenue, Phase II Improvements. The proposed right-of-way measures
76.0 feet x 915.00 feet, and contains a total area of 1 596 acre.
The Sellers have executed a Contract for Sale and Purchase in the amount of $28,735.00
which is based on $18,000.00 per acre. This price -per -acre is typical of other recent right-
of-way purchases the County has made, and is in line with the market for the area.
In addition to the right-of-way cost, the County will have to relocate a flow well by elbowing
and restubbing it at a cost of approximately $1,500.00, and relocate a pasture fence at a
cost of approximately $4,955 00. The County will also have to pay attorneys fees of
$2,373.50 to Michael O'Haire; therefore, the total cost of this transaction is $37,563.50
There are no appraisal fees.
RECO1v1ME_LJDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve the $28,735.00 land
purchase plus $2,373.50 attorney fees, and approximate cost of $1,500.00 for the well
relocation, and $4,955 cost of relocating the fence, for a total expenditure of $37,56150
and authorize the Chairman to execute the contract.
Funding to be from Account #315-214-541-066.12
ATTACHMENT
1) Contract for Sale and Purchase
March 19, 2002
99
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously approved the
$28,735 land purchase plus $2,373.50 attorney fees, and
approximate cost of $1,500 for the well relocation, and $4,955
cost of relocating the fence, for a total expenditure of
$37,563.50 and authorized the Chairman to execute the
contract, as recommended in the memorandum.
COPY OF CONTRACT IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
11.H.1. WALGREENS - BARBER STREET & US#1- SOUTHERN
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INC. - DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT
FOR UTILITIES
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of January 31, 2002:
DATE:
TO:
PROM:
PREPARED
AND STAPLED
B Y:
JANUARY 31, 2002
JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADM JSTRATOR
W. ERIK OLSON �v
DIRECTOR OF UTILITYRVICES
MICHAEL C. HOTCHKISS, P E
INTERIM CAPITAL PROJECTS MANAGER
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES fie
c j1/2 ilei"
SUBJECT: DEVELOPERS AGREEMENT FOR BARBER STREET WALGREENS
RACKCIROI TND
SOUTHERN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INC. is constructing a Walgreens store at the southwest
comer of Barber Street and U.S. Highway 1. In order to accommodate the complex, a 12" diameter
water main will have to be relocated and an abandoned 6" force main will have to be removed (see
Exhibit "C" of attached developer's agreement with SOUTHERN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES,
INC.).
The store is being constructed at a location previously owned by Nelson Hyatt. The County previously
entered into a developer's agreement with Mr. Hyatt on January 14, 1997 (see attached copy of
March 19, 2002
100
•
developer's agreement between City of Sebastian, Indian River County and Nelson Hyatt), m which
the County agreed to relocate all conflicting utilities from the subject site at the time of development.
Since utility relocations are required because of a Barber Street road realignment, the County Public
Works Department has agreed to share in the relocation costs with the Utilities Department.
Attached is a proposed developer's agreement with SOUTHERN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES,
INC. for reimbursement of the relocated water main and removal of the abandoned force main. The
Developer's Agreement is stipulated to reimburse the Developer for the County s share of the water
main and removal of the force math with monthly payments on a percent complete basis with final
payment remitted upon acceptance by and dedication to the County (SC — 1.A and 1B. of attached
agreement).
ANALYSIS
The water main relocation will comprise installing approximately 775 linear feet of 12" diameter
water main around the site, together with removal of 560 linear feet of 12" diameter water main and
500 linear feet of 6' diameter force main. SOUTHERN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INC. has
agreed to enter into a cost sharing agreement with the County to relocate the utilities in conjunction
with the site development.
As shown in Exhibit B of the attached agreement, the estimated cost sharing between the developer
and the County is as follows:
Developer's Share
County's Share
Total Project Cost
$ 9,843.75
$76,114.65
$85,958.40
Relocation of the water main will allow the County to coordinate expansion of the water
distribution system with development of the site. The County's total share of $76,114.65 will be
shared equally between the Public Works Department and the Utilities Department. The Public
Works Department share of $38,057.32 will be funded from the Traffic Impact Fee Fund, District
3, Account \umber 101-153-541-068.50. The Utilities Department share of $38,057.33 will be
funded from the Renewal and Replacement Fund, Account \umber 471-000-169-543.00.
PECOMMFIN DATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County
Commissioners approve the attached developer's agreement with SOUTHERN DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES, INC. as presented and authorize the Chairman to execute the same.
MCHImch
Attachments
March 19, 2002
101
011 L L' u
12
•
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved the
proposed developer's agreement with Southern Development
Services, Inc. as presented and authorized the Chairman to
execute the same, as recommended in the memorandum.
AGREEMENT IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
11.H.2. CONSULTING SERVICES CONTRACT - WORK ORDER
NO. 2 - CARTER ASSOCIATES, INC. - MASTER PLANNED 16"
WATER MAIN ALONG INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of February 28, 2002:
DALE:
TO:
FROM:
PREPARED &
STAFFED BY:
SUBJECT:
FEBRUARY 28, 2002
JAMES E. CHANDLER, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
W. ERIK OLSON, DIRECTOR OF U IILTTY SERVICE
MICHAEL C. HOTCHKISS, Y.E. /
01
IN I ERIM CAPITAL PROJECTS MANAGER
CONSULTING SERVICES CON IRACT WITH CARPER
ASSOCIA I ES TO CONSTRUCT 16" VIAS I ER PLANNED WA I'ER
MAIN ALONG INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD
BACKGROUND -
On July 3, 2001 the Board of County Commissioners approved termination of a developer's agreement
with Asset Channels Telecom, Inc., release of payment to sub consultants for services rendered and
negotiation of an agreement with Carter Associates for professional services associated with
construction of a 16" master planned water main along Indian River Boulevard from 8th Street to 37"'
Street (see Attachment 1 for minutes of meeting) Included as Attachment 2 is said contract with
Carter Associates Staff is now requesting the Board's approval of the subject contract.
ANAT,YSTS•
The proposed contract shown in Exhibit A of Attachment 2 is part of a master agreement (Attachment
2) that was approved with Carter Associates on September 28, 1993. The master agreement is still
March 19, 2002
102
rnin J
rb ! I
• •
valid based on Paragraph 7.1, which indicates that the agreement termination is executed thirty days
after receiving written notice from one of the parties to the agreement (i.e. no written notice was
generated). The provisions of the contract call for Carter Associates to provide bid documents,
bidding services and services during construction for a lump sum fee of $55,000.00.
RFCOMMFIYnATIONis
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County Commissioners
approve the attached contract with Carter Associates in the amount of $55,000.00 and authorize the
Chanuian to execute same, as presented.
ATTR C ITIWF NTS•
Attachment 1 - Minutes from July 3, 2001 BCC Meeting
Attachment 2 — Standard Form of Agreement between Indian River County and Carter
Associates for Professional Services
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved the
proposed Work Order No. 2 with Carter Associates, Inc., in the
amount of $55,000, and authorized the Chairman to execute
same, as presented and as recommended in the memorandum.
WORK ORDER NO. 2 IS ON FILE
WITH A COPY OF THE CONTRACT OF 9/28/93
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK 10 THE BOARD
11.I. HOMELESS SERVICES COUNCIL TECHNICAL APPLICATIONS
FOR 2002 HUD GRANTS - SUPPORTIVE HOUSING PROGRAM -
HOMELESS MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM (HMIS) -
FL29B109002 AND FL29B109003
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 12, 2002:
March 19, 2002
103
To: Board of County Commissioners
From. Joyce Johnston Carlson, Director--
Human
irector—Human Services Department
Subject: HUD Technical Application
Date: March 12, 2002
Subject: Request for authorization by the Board of Commissioners to allow the Chair of the
Commission to sign the technical applications for two HUD Awards.
As you know, the County served as the applicant for a Continuum of Care SuperNofa competition which
was awarded $772,621.00 in the 2001 HUD funding cycle. Two of the three awarded project, as described
below require the submission of technical applications, which will require the signature of the Chairperson
of the Board of Commissioners They are as follows:
Project Title: FL29B109002- Family Options Transitional
HUD Award $210,191.00
Match: S 42,039.00 - Communities Foundations of Texas and Homeless Assistance Center Inc.
The County is the selectee, as it was last year.
This award provides funding for program staff to allow families living at the Samaritan Center, The
Homeless Resource Center and the Family OPTIONS Transitional Housing Program to receive specialized
educational and employment training and assistance with securing and maintaining permanent affordable
housing.
Specially developed training modules, following the ` Choose Get, Keep Models" for vocational rehabilitation
will be delivered both onsite and off site in a training lab equipped to simulate a working environment and a
regular classroom.
Project Title: FL29B109003:A CoC Wide HMIS
HUD Award 5108,530.00
Match is $27,133.00 - Indian River Homeless Services --Council, Inc.
The County is the selectee, as it was last year.
This award allows funding for the purchase of "Service Point Software", the required computer hardware,
licenses and mtemet access to equip at least ten local provider agencies with the ability to case manage clients
and make appropriate referrals. Agencies include County Human Services, SafeSpace, Samaritan Center,
Mental Health Association, Homeless Assistance Center, Salvation Army, Children's Home Society, Council
on Aging, New Horizons, Hibiscus and Children's Horne Society. The selected system, "Service Point", will
meet the HUD mandate for a Homeless Management Information System (HINTS). It was built specifically for
human service agencies by Bowman Internet Systems. Interagency information exchange takes place via a
secure server and the software is capable of tracking all clients, not just the homeless. The system also includes
a web site for use by all provider agencies in the Continuum. The award includes on-site training for provider
agencies.
The County will serve as the fiscal agent as it did with the prior year's HUD award. There is no required
County match for either of these projects. I am asking that the Board consider authorizing the Chairperson to
sign the technical applications at the County Commission meeting on March 19, 2002. They are due to HUD
in Jacksonville by March 25, 2002. The applications will be available after March 13, for your review in the
Commissioners office. Please feel free to ask questions or request further information.
March 19, 2002
104
•
• •
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved the
applications and authorized the Chairman to execute same, as
requested in the memorandum.
COPY OF EACH DOCUMENT IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
12.A. FRED MENSING'S LETTER CONCERNING THE SIMONYE
PROPERTY PURCHASE
The Board reviewed a letter from Fred Mensing received by FAX on March 11, 2002,
as follows:
2ad2 ._. td
PILI V _ 11/4"
u na.A.A'CLn-} "L'c U
RECEIVED Jzn, /Z_
MAR 11 2002 RECEIVED
BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSION
MAR 1 2 2002
COUNTYATTp
OFFICE
S
ti
Mzs
kJ/.?
1
1 ivt� i � p
ALso
r Li02r
PAF
C.0Py� Iv
M2S ST&•- ivc.,e
B+STR+BU 40 14 -USI
Commissionertfrtehin,
mimslrotor
Anorney
Personnel
fl-
Communalhaler
r- a
Finance
OMB
Fmr g Gn
Risk Mal.
Bshm
M2 "Be Ie.
---- r' A -per hlo I S
cSD
- -_F -52.x— 6 Y�
o Sr
March 19, 2002
Tflsrt • fi 327c
105
Est
116
03/11/2002 12:50 5615850642
•
o
MENSING
AN> C/�/ PaoY"t
7Auvlens
PAGE 02
t ✓UI.O �c (C' �l�.
L.
O r'
Cr -t-( tcA4 a D
D �
&KJ& ucc3 Lt C, 0
o Pr -
c�- 1 S
)1e. ESQ
CDCDo
c
CD (tA-S SkeG(
(p ec_-AT-tot 9
LS o
wee
11 C
roc vD
March 19, 2002
moor
(1.As
csc
106
n t./
!Dl
�7
•
ME
E3/11/2002 12:50 5615890642
MENSTNG PAGE E3
1 C4
0cA i C�-c i 1
A. c- C e 5
.i
1, >(;
o- LAU4-j
`I --e 1 L L
sem"' CCc��rzs C4
CCs rC C C-�- _
eirr AA}
AS7- 30 L5
S
C
,/(11-i wAs C22c �� ed C1R loY
eeC 179
[s
A KO CX
e\NA \LA.
CCCPAr4ckeS 1Thcs(---D
�n-/-1
r1J !c U5e2
March 19, 2002
O
v n
?/
107
l S L
r9 C3 d
IS
CA• S
esti r
18
•
03/11/2002 12:50 5615990642 MENSING PAGE 04
c- ks T iY T t L S
R_CTEcrilki .0 Li 120 Ewe/K.9r-
-R-
t. L s \_ ° igc Eic Optic.
n e_eS GTS
March 19, 2002
County Attorney Paul Bangel advised that it had come to his attention that there may
be an adverse interest in the access strip in connection with the Simonye property acquisition
which the Board approved last week. He thought the Board might want to consider this
before closing on the property. That strip will be conveyed by quitclaim and the County
would receive only whatever interest the grantor had. He called on Mr. Collins to explain
their options.
Deputy County Attorney William G. Collins, II, reviewed Mr. Mensing's FAX above.
He explained that from a practical point, access is not a critical issue as far as the quit claim
is concerned since we do have access. He pointed out the location on an aerial photo
displayed on the overhead. Environmental & Code Enforcement Chief Roland DeBlois had
walked the property and it was not overgrown with Brazilian peppers as claimed by Mr.
Mensing. If defects in the title are found, the County can either accept title as is, with no
price reduction, extend the time to cure defects, or terminate the agreement. He believed Mr.
Simonye would not have time to cure the defects before going north and he recommended
going to closing on the property. He stated it would be up to the Mensings to assert their
interest in court and he knew of no reason why it would be of use to them since they could
not build a house on a 60' strip.
Mr. Collins responded to questions on the ownership of the property as claimed by
Mr. Mensing. It is an issue, but he believed it was not one that should cancel the purchase
of the five acres for conservation purposes and he once again recommended closing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously agreed to the
recommendation to move forward with the closing on the
Simonye property.
March 19, 2002
13.A.
None.
CHAIRMAN STANBRIDGE - UPDATES
13.C. COMMISSIONER ADAMS - REDISTRICTING UPDATE
Commissioner Adams presented maps of the Florida Congressional and House
districts as they now are and described how the latest proposal would affect Indian River
County districts and who would be representing us. She commented that there are only a
few weeks left in the Legislative Session and she hoped that the redistricting would be
completed by the end of next week.
Commissioner Adams thanked Executive Aide Kimberly Massung and staff for
helping to put the maps together.
(CLERK'S NOTE • THE MAPS USED BY COMMISSIONER
ADAMS ARE ON FILE WITH THE BACKUP FOR THE
MEETING.)
14.A. EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT
None.
14.13. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
The Chairman announced that at the conclusion of the Board of County
Commissioners meeting, the Commissioners would sit as the Commissioners of the Solid
Waste Disposal District. Those minutes are being written separately.
March 19, 2002
110
Sri
121
14.C. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD
None.
There being no further business, upon motion duly made and seconded, the Chairman
adjourned the meeting at 11:05 A.M.
ATTEST:
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk
Minutes approved
March 19, 2002
at 5a -4'14_14e
Ruth M. Stanbridge, Chairman