HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/20/2001 (2)MINUTES ATTACHED
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
AGENDA
TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2001 - 9:00 A.M.
County Commission Chamber
County Administration Building
1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960
(4OUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Caroline D. Ginn, Chairman District 5
Ruth M. Stanbridge, Vice Chairman District 2
Fran B. Adams
Kenneth R. Macht
John W. Tippin
District 1
District 3
District 4
James E Chandler, County Administrator
Paul G. Bangel, County Attorney
Kimberly Massung, Executive Aide to BCC
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
CALL TO ORDER
INVOCATION
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Comm. Ruth M. Stanbridge
ADDITIONS/DELETIONS to the AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
BACKUP
PAGES
ADDITIONS: 7.L. Proclamation and Retirement Award Honoring William A. Green
on his Retirement effective March 22 2001
13.A. Appointment of Chairman to serve on Cultural Council board
PROCLAMATION and PRESENTATIONS
Presentation of Proclarna.tion Def3ign.ating March 18 --24, 2001 as
National Visiting Nurse Association Week in Indian River County
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
None
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Received & Placed on File ire Office of Clark the Board:
Report of Convictions, February, 2101
Approval of Warrants
(memorandum dated March 8, 2001)
EK 1 1 7 PG 14 6 2
CONSENT AGENDA (cont'd.):
C. Proclamation Designating March 21, 2001 as Retired
Senior Volunteer Program Day in Indian River County
D. Sheriff's Department: COPS MORE 2001 Grant
Application
(Letter dated March 9, 2001)
BACKUP
PAGES
Appointment to the Indian River County Extension Advisory
Council
(memorandum dated March 12, 2001)
Notification from the Indian River County Hospital District
of their Appointment to the Council of Public Officials (COPO)
(memorandum dated March 8, 2001)
Board approval of Florida Communities Trust Cost -Share
Agreement Extensions / Addenda for: Oslo River -front South;
North Sebastian C.A. Addition; and Wabasso Scrub C.A.
Addition LAAC Sites
(memorandum dated March 14, 2001)
John Marcheso Request for Partial Release of Easement at
1971 West Cayman Road (Summerplace Sub Unit 4)
(memorandum dated March 12, 2001)
Sheriff Out -of -County Prisoner Revenue, Budget Amend-
ment 016
(memorandum dated March 14, 2001)
Marathon Ashland Petroleum Request for Release of
Easement at 9009 20th Street
(memorandum dated March 12, 2001)
Miscellaneous Budget Amendment 015
(memorandum dated March 14, 2001)
CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS and
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
None
•
•
9. PUBLIC ITEMS
A. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, AMENDING THE FOLLOWING CHAPTER
OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
(LDRS): CHAPTER 911, ZONING; AND PROVID-
ING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PRO-
VISIONS, CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY AND
EFFECTIVE DATE
LDR Amendment North Barrier Island Corridor
Special Regulations (Legislative)
(memorandum dated March 7, 2001)
2. Smigiel Partners XII Limited, Inc.'s Request to Modify
the P.D. Plan and Recreation Tract Area Condition of
P.D. Approval for the Legend Lakes P.D. Plan Approval
(Legislative)
(memorandum dated March 9, 2001)
3. AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE
AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FOR
±1 ACRE LOCATED AT 1000 OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY,
FROM IG, GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, TO
CH, HEAVY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT; AND
DESCRIBED HEREIN AND PROVIDING
SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE
Marcus L Cutrone's Request to Rezone ±1 Acre
from IG to CH (Quasi -Judicial)
(memorandum dated March 5, 2001)
4. AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE
ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY
CHANGING THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNA-
TION FOR ±180 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTH-
EAST CORNER OF 85TH STREET AND 90TH AVENUE,
FROM R, RURAL RESIDENTIAL (UP TO 1 UNIT/
ACRE), TO L-1, LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL -1 (UP
TO 3 UNITS/ACP.E); AND PROVIDING SEVER-
ABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE
Yukon Land Corporation and Daniel L Spencer's
Request to Amend the Comprehensive Plan to Redesig-
nate ±180 acres from R to L-1 and to rezone those ±180
acres from A-1 to RS -3 (Legislative)
(memorandum dated March 5, 2001)
B1(Ii7PG116L.
•
BACKLP
PAGES
109-203
204-228
229-241
242-277
.74
9. PUBLIC ITEMS (cont'd.)
A. PUBLIC HEARINGS (cont'd.)
5. AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA AMENDING FIGURE 4-13 OF THE
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT OF THE INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO
REMOVE 8151 STREET BETWEEN 58t1i AVENUE
AND OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY; AND PROVIDING
SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE
Red Stick Golf Club, Inc.'s Request to Amend Figure
4.13 of the Transportation Element of the Comprehen-
sive Plan to Delete 8151 Street, Between 58th Avenue
and Old Dixie Highway (Legislative)
(memorandum dated March 5, 2001)
6. AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE
ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
REGARDING AGRICULTURAL PLANNED DEVE-
LOPMENTS; AND PROVIDING SEVERABILITY
AND EFFECTIVE DATE
County Initiated Request to Amend The Future Land
Use Element, The Coastal Management Element, The
Potable Water Sub -Element, and the Sanitary Sewer Sub -
Element of the County's Comprehensive Plan (Legislative)
(memorandum dated March 9, 2001) 300-374
7 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, AMENDING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
ELEMENT OF THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMPRE-
HENSIVE PLAN; AND PROVIDING SEVERABILITY AND
EFFECTIVE DATE (Legislative)
(memorandum dated March 5, 2001) 375-394
BK P
BACKUP
PAGES
278-299
8. AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMIS-
SIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMEND-
ING INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CODE SECTION 209.04
`DISPOSITION OF PROCEEDS", OF CODE CHAPTER 209,
`LOCAL OPTION GAS TAX', TO CLARIFY LOCAL GOVERN-
MENT REPORTING TIMEFRAMES• PROVIDING FOR CODI-
FICATION; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PRO-
VIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE
(memorandum dated March 12 2001)
395-400
PUBLIC ITEMS (cont'd.)
B. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
BACKUP
PAGES
Request from Arnold Grobman to speak regarding the
Indian River County Pay Plan & Classification Study 401
PUBLIC NOTICE ITEMS
None
10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS
None
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
A. Community Development
1. Board Consideration of Proposed Informational
Brochure about the County Environmental Lands
Program
(memorandum dated March 14, 2001)
402 405
Indian River County's Appeal of a Planning and
Zoning Commission Denial of a Request for Night-
time Use of the County Gun Range
(memorandum dated March 12, 2001)
Emergency Services
None
General Services
None
Leisure Services
None
406-428
Office of Management and Budget
None
Personnel
None
Public Works
Right -of -Way Acquisition 16th Street between 6e and
74th Avenues Street Paving and Drainage Improvements
Marjorie L Bradley, Trustee
(memorandum dated March 8, 2001)
429-439
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS (cont'd.):
H. Utilities
Developer's Agreement with Margo Stanford (for
water main replacement on 9th Place & 9`h Street
between 6th Ave. and 7th Ave.)
(memorandum dated January 30, 2001)
Human Services
None
BACKUP
PAGES
440-450
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY
None
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS
A. Chairman Caroline D. Ginn
Vice Chairman Ruth M. Stanbridge
1. Updates
(no backup provided)
Permission to prepare Historic Preservation Grant for
Old Winter Beach Elementary School
(no backup provided)
Commissioner Fran B. Adams
Request for consultant from ESDAC
(memorandum dated March 13, 2001)
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht
Remarks about Affordable Housing
(no backup provided)
Commissioner John W. Tippin
14. SPECIAL DISTRICTSBOARDS
A. Emergency Services District
None
Solid Waste Disposal District
None
Environmental Control Board
15. ADJOURNMENT
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need to
ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made which includes the testimony and evidence
upon which the appeal will be based.
Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting may contact the County's
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Coordinator at 567-8000 x1223 at least 48 hours in advance of
meeting.
Indian River County WebSite: http://bccl.co.indian-river.fl.us
Full agenda back-up material is available for review in the Board of County Commission Office,
Indian River County Main Library, IRC Courthouse Law Library, and North County Library
Meeting may be broadcast live on AT & 7' Cable Channel 13
Rebroadcast continuously Thursday 1:00 p.m. until Friday morning and Saturday 12:00 noon until
5:00 p.m.
Bl( 1 SPG 6
•
INDEX TO MINUTES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MEETING OF MARCH 20, 2001
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. INVOCATION
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1
4. ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA/14MERGENCY ITEMS 1
1
1
5.A. PROCLAMATION AND PRESENTATIONS - PROCLAMATION -
NATIONAL VISITING NURSE ASSOCIATION WFEK - MARCH 18-24, 2001
2
6.A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 3
7. CONSENT AGENDA 3
7.A. Reports 3
7 B Approval of Warrants 3
7.C. Proclamation Designating March 21, 2001 as Retired Senior Volunteer
Program (RSVP) Day 12
7 D Sheriff's Department - COPS MORE 2001 Grant Application 13
7 E Appointment by Vice Chairman Stanbridge (District 2) of Glenn R.
Schuessler to the Indian River County Extension Advisory Council 14
7.F. Notification from Indian River County Hospital District of their
Appointment of Dr Burton Lee to the Council of Public Officials (COPO)
15
7.G. Florida Communities Trust Cost -Share Agreements - Oslo Riverfront South
(Addendum 2), North Sebastian Conservation Area Addition (Addendum
3), and Wabasso Scrub Conservation Area Addition (Addendum 3) (LAAC)
15
7.H. Resolution No. 2001-026 - John Marcheso - Partial Release of Easement at
1971 West Cayman Road (Lot 6, Block 8, Summerplace Subdivision Unit
4) 17
7.I. Budget Amendment 016 - Sheriff Roy Raymond - Out -of -County Prisoner
Revenue 22
1
BIC 1 17 PG 4 6 9
•
7.J. Resolution No. 2001-027 Marathon Ashland Petroleum - Release of
Easement at 9009 20th Street (Indian River Farms Company Subdivision -
Tract 9, Section 3, Township 33 South, Range 38 East) 25
7.K. Miscellaneous Budget Amendment 015 30
7 L Proclamation and Retirement Award to William A. Green on His
Retirement from Public Works Department, Road and Bridge Division . 46
9.A.1. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE NO. 2001-003 - LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATION (LDR) AMENDMENT - NORTH BARRIER ISLAND
CORRIDOR SPECIAL REGULATIONS -ADOPTION AND APPOINTMENTS
TO NORTH BARRIER ISLAND CORRIDOR ON-GOING REVIEW
COMMITTEE (BILL GLYNN, ERNIE POLVERARI, AND BILL JOHNSON)
(Legislative) 49
9.A.2. PUBLIC HEARING - SMIGIEL PARTNERS XII LIMITED, INC. - REQUEST
TO MODIFY THE PD PLAN AND RECREATION TRACT AREA CONDITION
OF PD APPROVAL - LEGEND LAKES PD PLAN APPROVAL (Legislative)
90
9.A.3. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE NO. 2001-004 - MARCUS L CUTRONE'S
REQUEST TO REZONE +1 ACRE AT 1000 OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY FROM IG
TO CH (Quasi -Judicial) 94
9.A.4. YUKON LAND CORPORATION AND DANIEL L SPENCER'S REQUEST TO
AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO REDESIGNATE 1 180 ACRES
FROM RTO L-1 AND TO REZONE THOSE ±180 ACRES FROM A-1 TO RS -3
(NOT APPROVED) (Legislative) 102
9.A.5. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE NO. 2001-005 - RED STICK GOLF CLUB,
INC. - AMEND FIGURE 4-13 OF THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT OF
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO REMOVE 81ST STREET, BETWEEN
58TH AVENUE AND OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY (Legislative) 115
9.A.6. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE NOS. 2001-006, -007, -008, -009, -010 -
COUNTY -INITIATED AMENDMENTS TO THE FUTURE LAND USE
ELEMENT, THE COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT, THE POTABLE
WATER SUB -ELEMENT, AND THE SANITARY SEWER SUB -ELEMENT OF
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (AG PDS, CARIBBEAN FRUIT FLY HOST
PLANTS, CLARIFY FUTURE LAND USE MAP, UTILITY SERVICES TO AG
PDS, POST -DISASTER RECOVERY & REDEVELOPMENT) (I egislatk e)
126
2
•
9.A.7. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE NO. 2001-011 - COUNTY -INITIATED
REQUEST TO UPDATE THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT OF
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (Legislative) 159
9.A.8 PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE NO. 2001-012 AMENDING THE "LOCAL
OPTION GAS TAX" ORDINANCE 167
9.B. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM - ARNOLD GROBMAN TO SPEAK
REGARDING THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PAY PLAN AND
CLASSIFICATION STUDY (CODY & ASSOCIATES) 177
11.A.1.
11.A.2.
PROPOSED INFORMATIONAL BROCHURE CONCERNING THE
ENVIRONMENTAL LANDS ACQUISITION PROGRAM (LAAC) . 180
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY - APPEAL OF A PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION DENIAL OF A REQUEST FOR NIGHTTIME USE OF
THE COUNTY GUN RANGE 185
11.G. RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION - PAVING AND DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS/PROJECT NO. 9920 - 16TH STREET BETWEEN 66TH
AND 74TH AVENUES - MARJORIE L BRADLEY, TRUSTEE 190
11.H. DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT WITH MARGO STANFORD FOR WATER
MAIN REPLACEMENT ON 9TH PLACE AND 9TH STREET BETWEEN 6TH
AND 7TH AVENUES 191
13.A. CHAIRMAN GINN - CULTURAL COUNCIL REQUEST FOR
REPRESENTATIVE OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS -
CHAIRMAN TO SERVE
193
13 B 1 VICE CHAIRMAN STANBRIDGE - UPDATES 194
13 B 2 VICE CHAIRMAN STANBRIDGE - PERMISSION GRANTED TO
PREPARE HISTORIC PRESERVATION GRANT FOR OLD WINTER
BEACH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 194
13.C. COMMISSIONER ADAMS - REQUEST FOR OUTSIDE CONSULTANT TO
EVALUATE EMERGENCY SERVICES (FIREFIGHTERS AND
PARAMEDICS) LEVEL OF SERVICE FROM ESDAC (EMERGENCY
SERVICES DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE) 195
3
BKII7PG 47I
•
19d!)18g
13.D. COMMISSIONER MACHT - REMARKS ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING
14.A. EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT 197
14.B. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT 197
14 C ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD 197
•
•
March 20, 2001
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, met in Regular
Session at the County Commission Chambers, 1840 25th Street. Vero Beach, Florida. on
Tuesday, March 20, 2001. Present were Caroline D. Ginn. Chairman; Ruth Stanbridge.
Vice Chairman; Fran B. Adams, Kenneth R. Macht; and John W. Tippin. Also present were
James E Chandler, County Administrator; Paul G. Bangel, County Attorney; and Patricia
Ridgely. Deputy Clerk.
1. CALL TO ORDER
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m.
2. INVOCATION
Commissioner Tippin delivered the invocation.
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Vice Chairman Stanbridge led the Pledge to the Flag.
4. ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY
ITEMS
Chairman Ginn announced the following additions to the agenda 7 L , Proclamation
and Retirement Award Honoring William A. Green (Road & Bridge Division); and 13.A.,
Appointment to Cultural Council Board.
March 20, 2001
1
BK Ii/►PG1473
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Vice
Chairman Stanbridge, the Board unanimously made the above
additions to the agenda.
5.A. PROCLAMATION AND PRESENTATIONS - PROCLAMATION
- NATIONAL VISITING NURSE ASSOCIATION WEEK - MARCH 18-
24, 2001
Chairman Ginn read the following proclamation and presented it to Carol Kanarek,
who accepted it with thanks on behalf of the Visiting Nurse Association.
PROCLAMATION
DESIGNATING MARCH 18 THROUGH 24, 2001
AS NATIONAL VISITING NURSE ASSOCIATION WEEK
Whereas, the Visiting Nurse Association (VNA) of the Treasure Coast has, for more than 25 years,
brought specialized care to homes throughout Indian River County, enabling patients to shorten their hospital
stays, speed their recovery and maintain their independence; and
Whereas, the VNA of the Treasure Coast was the first home health agency in Indian River County and
continues to be the area's only non-profit home health and hospice agency; and
Whereas, the VNA of the Treasure Coast is accredited with commendation by the Joint Commission on
Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) which recognizes the agency's staff and volunteers with
JCAHO's highest level of accreditation, signifying exemplary performance in meeting national quality
standards; and
Whereas, the VNA of the Treasure Coast has grown, and continues to grow, to meet the needs of its
patients by bnnging IV therapy and high-tech care to homes as early as 1986; incorporating into the agency
the county's only licensed Hospice care program in 1987; initiating Health Care on Wheels, the mobile unit
serving residents in every comer of the county, in 1992; and building, equipping and endowing Indian River
County's first hospice house for terminally ill patients, which opened in May 2000; and
Whereas, the VNA of the Treasure Coast is one of Indian River County's largest employers, consisting
of more than 300 registered nurses, home health aides, therapists, administrative staff, health care outreach
employees, social workers, and bereavement counselors; and
Whereas, increased public awareness and understanding of home and hospice care will serve to
strengthen the services available throughout the community and will help ensure that such emotionally
supportive, cost-effective alternatives are available to all citizens.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that March 18 through 24, 2001, be officially observed as
NATIONAL VISITING NURSE ASSOCIATION WEEK
March 20, 2001
2
BK Iii PG 147 L,
•
in Indian River County, and encourage the support and participation of all citizens in leaming more about the
critical need forhome health care and hospice services in our community.
Adopted this 20th day of March, 2001.
0
• V /•
4
6.A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
None.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Caroline D. Ginn, Chairma
7. CONSENT AGENDA
7.A. Reports
Received and placed on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board
Report of Convictions. February 2001
7.B. Approval of Warrants
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 8, 2000:
March 20, 2001
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DATE: MARCH 8, 2001
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF WARRANTS
FROM: EDWIN M. FRY, JR., FINANCE DIRECTOR
In compliance with Chapter 136.06, Florida Statutes, all warrants issued by the
Board of County Commissioners are to be recorded in the Board minutes.
3
8K 1 1 7 PG 'r 7 5
•
Approval is requested for the attached List of warrants, issued by the Clerk to
the Board, for the time period of March 1, 2001 to March 8, 2001.
Attachment:
ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Stanbridge, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved the list
of warrants issued by the Clerk to the Board for the period
March 1-8, 2001, as requested.
CHECK
NUMBER
O 021050
O 021051
0021052
0021053
O 021054
0021055
O 021056
0021057
0021058
O 021059
0021060
O 021061
0021062
O 021063
0021064
O 021065
0298395
O 298396
O 298397
0298398
O 298399
O 298400
O 298401
O 298402
O 298403
O 298404
O 298405
O 298406
O 298407
O 298408
O 298409
O 298410
O 298411
0298412
O 298413
O 298414
O 298415
0298416
O 298417
NAME
AETNA LIFE INSURANCE AND
FLORIDA RETIREMENT SYSTEM
KRUCZKIEWICZ, LORIANE
BUREAU FOR CHILD SUPPORT ENFOR
IRS - ACS
CHAPTER 13 TRUSTEE
VERO BEACH FIREFIGHTERS ASSOC.
INDIAN RIVER FEDERAL CREDIT
COLONIAL LIFE & ACCIDENT
NACO/SOUTHEAST
SALEM TRUST COMPANY
WISCONSIN SUPPORT COLLECTIONS
SAN DIEGO COUNTY OFFICE OF THE
FL SDU
AMERICAN FAMILY LIFE ASSURANCE
AMERICAN DENTAL PLAN (FLORIDA)
ALLIED UNIVERSAL CORP
ALPHA ACE HARDWARE
AMERICAN CONCRETE INDUSTRIES,
APPLE INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO
APPLE MACHINE & SUPPLY CO
AUTO SUPPLY CO OF VERO BEACH,
AWARD COMPANY OF AMERICA
ABS PUMPS, INC
ALTIERI, DR JOSEPH J
ALL FLORIDA COFFEE & BOTTLED
A A ELECTRIC SE, INC
A T & T WIRELESS SERVICES
A T & T
AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE
A V MEDIA SERVICE, INC
AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOC
ALBERTSON'S
AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION
ADVANCE MARKING SYSTEMS
AUTO PARTS OF VERO, INC
ARCHITECTS & DESIGNERS CLUB
ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
APA
March 20, 2001
PG X76
4
CHECK
DATE
2001-03-01
2001-03-01
2001-03-01
2001-03-01
2001-03-01
2001-03-01
2001-03-01
2001-03-01
2001-03-01
2001-03-01
2001-03-01
2001-03-01
2001-03-01
2001-03-01
2001-03-07
2001-03-07
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
CHECK
AMOUNT
1,041.04
265,589.34
138.50
115.38
50.00
664.73
2,540.00
79,621.76
213.83
9,151.56
443.36
23.08
120.92
7,585.84
162.86
1,074.18
2,663.76
83.21
1,370.00
1,947.09
129.39
602.09
197.00
1,629.32
300.00
59.90
95.58
36.25
314.81
25,103.87
544.73
35.65
299.29
195.00
27.05
1,309.18
179.76
6,290.17
135.00
•
CHECK
NUMBER
O 298418
0298419
0298420
O 298421
O 298422
0298423
O 298424
O 298425
O 298426
O 298427
O 298428
O 298429
0298430
O 298431
0298432
O 298433
O 298434
0298435
0298436
O 298437
O 298438
O 298439
0298440
0298441
O 298442
O 298443
O 298444
O 298445
O 298446
O 298447
0298448
O 298449
0298450
O 298451
0298452
0298453
0298454
O 298455
O 298456
O 298457
O 298458
0298459
O 298460
O 298461
O 298462
O 298463
O 298464
O 298465
0298466
0298467
0298468
0298469
O 298470
0298471
0298472
O 298473
O 298474
O 298475
March 20, 2001
NAME
A T & T
AIR COMPRESSOR WORKS INC
ABC PRINTING CO
A T & T MEDIA SERVICES
ABDO PUBLISHING CO
ACTION WELDING SUPPLY INC
AERC.COM, INC
BAIRD, JOSEPH A
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BERNAN ASSOCIATES
BILL'S TV SERVICE CENTER, INC
BRAKE EDUCATIONAL MEDIA, INC
BRUGNOLI, ROBERT J PHD
BARTON, JEFFREY K -CLERK
BARTON, JEFFREY K -CLERK
BUDDE, GREGORY G
BARTON, JEFFREY K
BAKER & TAYLOR INC
BRODART CO
BLATUS, JAMES
BOUYSSOU, STEPHANE H
BOYNTON PUMP & IRRIGATION
BEVERAGE STOP, THE
BOOKS ON TAPE INC
BAKER & TAYLOR ENTERTAINMENT
BETROCK INFORMATION SYSTEMS,
BELLSOUTH PUBLIC COMMUNICATION
BMG
BEST WESTERN FLORIDA MALL
BRODEN, RICHARD W JR
B IG KIDS PRODUCTIONS INC
B IOCUBE, INC
BELLSOUTH
CAMERON & BARKLEY COMPANY
CAMP, DRESSER & MCKEE, INC
CHANDLER EQUIPMENT CO, INC
CITRUS MOTEL
COMMUNICATIONS INT'L INC
CORBIN, SHIRLEY E
CRAMER, CHARLES A
CHEMSEARCH
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
COASTAL REFINING & MARKETING
CLINIC PHARMACY
CHEMETRICS, INC
CLAY'S ASPHALT MAINTENANCE,INC
CHIVERS NORTH AMERICA
CALLAWAY GOLF COMPANY
CLEANNET USA
CRITTENDEN GOLFINC
CITY ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO
COMPAQ COMPUTER CORP
CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDENT
CENTER FOR EMOTIONAL AND -
COLUMBIA HOUSE
CULTURAL COUNCIL OF INDIAN
COACH AND ATHLETIC DIRECTOR
CLEVELAND GOLF CO., INC.
5
CHECK
DATE
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
CHECK
AMOUNT
24.01
2,965.00
123.89
50.00
1,247.45
229.00
595.38
150.00
4,448.60
54.00
198.85
291.00
500.00
3,852.00
58.50
962.50
2,500.00
2,038.46
112.62
175.00
397.00
312.92
90.00
300.25
188.73
69.95
30.38
206.19
265.00
52.12
159.45
2,497.25
357.05
146.21
8,760.12
109.95
255.00
674.51
73.50
82.68
160.59
40,771.20
19,102.46
131.36
224.58
5,800.00
48.45
79.99
20,537.72
48.00
1,014.14
956.00
195.00
28.50
275.89
10,165.83
17.95
716.88
BK iPG 477
•
CHECK
NUMBER
0298476
O 298477
0298478
O 298479
O 298480
0298481
0298482
0298483
O 298484
O 298485
O 298486
O 298487
O 298488
O 298489
0298490
O 298491
0298492
O 298493
0298494
O 298495
O 298496
0298497
O 298498
O 298499
O 298500
O 298-501
O 298502
0298503
0298504
O 298505
0298506
O 298507
0298508
O 298509
O 298510
O 298511
0298512
0298513
O 298514
0298515
O 298516
O 298517
O 298518
O 298519
0298520
O 298521
0298522
0298523
O 298524
O 298525
O 298526
O 298527
O 298528
O 298529
O 298530
O 298531
O 298532
O 298533
O 298534
March 20, 2001
0I\
NAME
CIBA SPECIALTY CHEMICALS
CONTINENTAL SHELF ASSOC INC
CAICE SOFTWARE CORPORATION
CENTRAL LOCATING SERVICE, LTD
CARLSBAD BAGS
DEMCO INC
DEPENDABLE DODGE, INC
DICKERSON-FLORIDA, INC
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS
DON SMITH'S PAINT STORE, INC
DUNLOP SLAZENGER CORP
DATA SUPPLIES, INC
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
DIVE RESCUE INT'L, INC
DATA FLOW SYSTEMS, INC
DEAF SERVICE CENTER OF THE
DADE PAPER COMPANY
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
DOWNTOWN PRODUCE INC
DANIEL KELL TELEPHONE
DOUBLE TREE HOTEL
DOCTORS' CLINIC
DOLPHIN DATA PRODUCTS INC
D IVINE SERVICE ENTERPRISES INC
DMG-MAXIMUS INC
E -Z BREW COFFEE SERVICE, INC
ERRETT, NANCY
EBSCO SUBSCRIPTION SERVICES
E G P INC
ELPEX, INC
EXPEDITER INC, THE
ENGINEERED CASTINGS, INC
ELITE TITLE OF THE TREASURE
EVERGLADES FARM
FEDEX
FISHER SCIENTIFIC
FLORIDA BAR, THE
FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY CO
FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF
FLORIDA COCA-COLA BOTTLING CO
FLORIDA FIRE CHIEFS
FLORIDA LIBRARY ASSOCIATION
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
FLORIDA RURAL WATER
FLORIDA WATER RESOURCES
FIRE PROTECTION PUBLICATIONS
FOOTJOY
FLOWERS BAKING COMPANY OF
FLORIDA CHAPTER INTERNATIONAL
FLOW -TECHNOLOGY
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
FLORIDA LITERACY COLIATION,INC
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE
FALZONE, KATHY
FLORIDAFFINITY, INC
FLORIDA DATABASE SYSTEMS, INC
FLORIDA GAME & FISH COMMISSION
F & W PUBLICATIONS INC
FACTS ON FILE INC
PG 1478
6
CHECK
DATE
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
CHECK
AMOUNT
7,779.24
33,000.00
1,000.00
591.00
77.00
72.35.
37.73
1,041.39
58.46
569.56
2,136.46
799.65
500.00
350.98
1,704.60
625.00
533.85
75.00
197.55
150.00
250.00
2,745.00
97.30
295.00
5,000.00
60.00
6.00
4.90
371.00
398.18
30.22
2,356.00
10,000.00
1,127.31
16.26
134.49
210.00
150.00
198.50
333.45
50.00
427.00
42,848.80
25.00
266.70
30.00
2,383.16
244.88
150.00
188.23
58.04
40.00
100.00
58.30
5,176.50
8,800.00
14.97
17.21
212.50
•
CHECK
NUMBER
O 298535
0298536
O 298537
O 298538
0298539
O 298540
0298541
0298542
0298543
O 298544
0298545
O 298546
0298547
0298548
0298549
O 298550
0298551
029855
O 29855
029855
029855
O 298556
O 298557
0298558
0298559
O 298560
0298561
0298562
0298563
0298564
0298565
0298566
0298567
0298568
0298569
0298570
0298571
0298572
0298573
0298574
0298575
O 298576
O 298577
0298578
0298579
0298580
0298581
0298582
0298583
0298584
0298585
0298586
0298587
0298588
0298589
0298590
0298591
0298592 J
0298593
NAME
FREIGHTLINER TRUCKS OF SOUTH
FIRSTLAB
FRANK'S HANG-UP
FULLER, APRIL L
FLORIDA HEALTHY KIDS CORP
FIRST UNION
FLORIDA ASSOC OF CNTY SOCIAL
GALE GROUP, THE
GATOR LUMBER COMPANY
GAYLORD BROTHERS, INC
GENERAL GMC, TRUCK
GOODKNIGHT LAWN EQUIPMENT, INC
GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO INC
GROLIER PUBLISHING COMPANY
GREYHOUND LINES, INC.
GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER
GINN, CAROLINE D
2 GORMAN PAT
3 GORDONS ART REFERENCE INC
4 GALE INSULATION
5 GORHAM, JONATHAN
GOUGE, AIMEE
GUTTER KING
GULLETT, WILLIAM AND
GREENHAVEN PRESS INC
HAMMOND & SMITH, P A
HARBOR BRANCH OCEANOGRAPH, INC
HARRIS SANITATION, INC
HUNTER AUTO SUPPLIES
HYATT ORLANDO
HELD, PATRICIA BARGO
HAESTAD METHODS
HACH COMPANY
HILL MANUFACTURING
HIGHLANDS ANIMAL HOSPITAL
HALLIDAY, TODD
HOGE, WENDY
HAFNER, TROY
HARTSFIELD, KAREN K
HERLAN, KAYLA
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
INDIAN RIVER BATTERY, INC
INDIAN RIVER BLUEPRINT CO INC
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY UTILITY
INGRAM LIBRARY SERVICES
INDIAN RIVER CONTRACTING CORP
INFORMATION PUBLICATIONS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
INVESTIGATIVE SUPPORT
IBM CORPORATION
INDIAN RIVER ALL -FAB, INC
INDIANA CASH DRAWER CO
IVEY, RACHEL
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SHERIFF'S
INTERMEDIA COMMUNICATIONS
IPC/MAGNUM
IRRIGATION CONSULTANTS UNLIMIT
ANET'S AUTO TRIM & GLASS
CARLSON, JOYCE M JOHNSTON
March 20, 2001
7
CHECK
DATE
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
O 01-03-08
O 01-03-08
O 01-03-08
O 01-03-08
001-03-08
O 01-03-08
O 01-03-08
O 01-03-08
O 01-03-08
001-03-08
001-03-08
001-03-08
O 1-03-08
O 1-03-08
O 1-03-08
O 1-03-08
01-03-08
O 1-03-08
O 1-03-08
O 1-03-08
01-03-08
O 1-03-08
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
BKI
CHECK
AMOUNT
43.40
182._C
53.96
63.08
2,083.33
8,863.19
70.00
2,332.16
26.89
578.03
300.81
78.57
143.14
224.72
198.00
437.74
304.84
250.00
202.00
219.00
110.66
154.50
1,830.00
90.00
18.66
18,850.00
52.50
52_.38
62.52
112.00
73.50
95.00
12,220.60
122.67
15.00
10,895.00
78.68
21,169.00
56.00
113.31
75.00
772.50
169.29
2,731.93
16.72
4,998.45
84.00
9,898.10
400.00
47.00
443.62
117.51
6.00
350.00
53.28
50.00
65.99
200.00
90.06
7 PG 1479
•
CHECK
NUMBER
029859
029859
029859
029859
029859
029859
029860
029860
029860
029860
029860
029860
029860
029860
029860
029860
0298610
0298611
0298612
0298613
0298614
0298615
0298616
0298617
0298618
O 298619
0298620
0298621
O 298622
0298623
0298624
0298625
O 298626
0298627
O 298628
O 298629
O 298630
O 298631
0298632
298633
298634
298635
298636
298637
298638
298639
298640
298641
298642
298643
298644
298645
98646
98647
98648
98649
98650
NAME
4 JANITORIAL DEPOT OF AMERICA
5 JOHNSON CONTROLS INC
6 JIM WALTERS HOMES
7 JENNINGS, ANTOINE
8 JEROME, CRAIG P.
9 JLT INSURANCE SERVICES
0 JONES, RANDY
1 JONES CHEMICALS, INC
2 POWELL, MARY D
3 KELLY TRACTOR CO
4 KING REPORTING SERVICE, INC
5 K & M ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC
6 KELLER, JENAE
7 KELLY, MICHAEL
8 KENDALL, WILLIAM L AND
9 LONG, JAMES T ESQUIRE
LAB SAFETY SUPPLY, INC
LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC.
LEWIS, RUTH A
L B SMITH, INC
LIGHT SOURCE BUSINESS SYSTEMS
LOPRESTI, ETTA
LESCO, INC
LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC
LOISLAW COM INC
MACMILLAN OIL COMPANY
MARSHALL CAVENDISH CORP
MILNER DOCUMENT PRODUCTS
MUNICIPAL SUPPLY &
MARTIN'S LAMAR UNIFORMS
MICRO WAREHOUSE
MEDICAL RECORD SERVICES, INC
MORNINGSTAR, INC
MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY COMPANY
MORA, CHRISTOPHER R
MIDWEST TAPE EXCHANGE
MTW ROOFING COMPANY
MARC INDUSTRIES
MURPHY, DEBBIE
0 METTLER-TOLEDO
0 MCGRIFF, APRIL
0 NOLTE, DAVID C
0 NEW HORIZONS OF THE
O NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC
O NAPIER, WILLIAM M
O NORTHERN SAFETY COMPANY
O NU CO 2, INC
O NIKE USA, INC
O NEST FAMILY
O NICHOLS, KRISTIN
0 NEWSTAR MEDIA, INC
O OFFICE PRODUCTS &
O 2 OXMOOR HOUSE
02 ON IT'S WAY
02 OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
02 OFFICE DEPOT, INC
02 ODOM WILLIAM
FLORIDA, INC
TREASURE
VIDEO
SERVICE
March 20, 2001
BIS
EVERETT
8
CHECK
DATE
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
CHECK
AMOUNT
462.71
650.00
16.47
360.00
150.00
1,100.00
200.00
2,513.82
133.98
30.76
143.25
63.60
37.33
125.00
14.82
10,800.00
319.36
2,225.42
48.60
3,118.37
184.99
6.00
544.21
124.68
1,348.00
4,413.92
445.15
470.79
1,902.50
8,223.35
265.62
17.76
495.00
447.44
94.60
73.48
3,336.00
351.33
147.00
422.00
460.92
2,200.00
3,159.29
23.70
38.86
195.53
91.73
1,509.12
507.15
22.53
31.86
1,214.26
14.44
938.75
52.70
806.68
54.07
• •
CHECK
NUMBER
0298651
0298652-
0298653
C298654
O 298655
O 298656
O 298657
O 298658
0298659
O 298660
0298661
O 298662
O 298663
O 298664
O 298665
O 298666
0298667
NAME
PEPSI -COLA COMPANY
PETTY CASH
PETRILLA, FRED J, PHD
POSTMASTER
PAVCO CONSTRUCTION, INC
PARKS RENTAL
PRECISION CONTRACTING
PRESS JOURNAL
PALM AIRE & ELECTRIC
PARK, LYNN
PING, INC
POWERPLAN
PLAZA RESORT AND SPA
QUALITY BOOKS, INC
RINGHAVER
RYAN, STEPHEN R
ROBINSON EQUIPMENT COMPANY,INC
O 298668 REGO, THOMAS A
O 298669 RECORDED BOOKS, LLC
0298670 R & G SOD FARMS
O 298671 REXEL CONSOLIDATED
O 298672 ROGER DEAN CHEVROLET
O 298673 RHINEHART, VALERIE
0298674 SCOTT'S SPORTING GOODS
O 298675 SEBASTIAN VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPT
0298676 SEWELL HARDWARE CO, INC
0298677 SOUTHERN EAGLE DISTRIBUTING,
0298678 STURGIS LUMBER & PLYWOOD CO
0298679 SUN COAST WELDING SUPPLIES INC
0298680 SUNSHINE PHYSICAL THERAPY
0298681 SCHOOL DISTRICT OF IRC
O 298682 SUBSTANCE ABUSE COUNCIL
O 298683 SUN BELT MEDICAL SUPPLY, INC
0298684 SOLINET
0298685 SUPERIOR PRINTING
O 298686 SAFECO, INC
O 298687 SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF
0298688 SOUTH FLORIDA TRANE
0298689 SEBASTIAN, CITY OF
O 298690 SNOBERGER, RUTH ANN
0298691 STEVENS PRINTING
0298692 SOUTHEASTERN EMERGENCY EQUIP
0298693 SMITH, VICKY
0298694 SAFETY PRODUCTS INC
O 298695 STAGE & SCREEN
O 298696 SUN VIEWS
0298697 SUNCOAST COUNSELING &
0298698 SEBASTIAN OFFICE SUPPLY
O 298699 SANDOVAL, ERIC S
0298700 SMYTH SYSTEMS
0298701 SOUTHWICK HOUSE
0298702 SHELL CREDIT CARD CENTER
O 298703 SAVE THE MOMENT
O 298704 SMITH, CAROL
O 298705 TEN -8 FIRE EQUIPMENT, INC
0298706 TITLEIST
0298707 SMITH, TERRY L
0298708 TARGET STORE
March 20, 2001
9
CHECK
DATE
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-06
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
CHECK
AMOUNT
275.00
43.61
500.00
15,000.00
6,300.00
333.3E
2,145.00
122.00
410.00
173.58
699.71
67.97
84.00
142.84
607.75
31.25
144.28
83.15
632.80
255.00
101.13
47.08
810.90
238.90
7,000.00
50.38
816.30
1,179.21
328.05
135.00
833.75
11,896.19
518.60
457.72
1,934.10
476.00
505.50
2,968.75
6,836.64
46.60
184.00
340.73
88.00
24.95
38.99
124.15
2,175.00
85.96
154.50
613.40
18.45
40.23
82.00
168.00
1,608.75
374.64
97.21
337.88
BK ' 7 PG 1481
CHECK NAME
NUMBER
O 298709 TREASURE COAST BRANCH APWA
0298710 TELECOMMUNICATIONS BOOK CLUB
0298711 TREASURE COAST NEWSPAPERS
0298712 USA TODAY
0298713 UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA
O 298714 US TOY CO/CONSTRUCTIVE PLAY -
0298715 US FILTER DISTRIBUTION GROUP
O 298716 VELDE FORD, INC
O 298717 VERO BEACH, CITY OF
0298718 VERO BEACH, CITY OF
0298719 VERO CHEMICAL DISTRIBUTORS,INC
O 298720 VERO LAWNMOWER CENTER, INC
O 298721 VILLAGE ANIMAL CLINIC
O 298722 VERO MARINE CENTER, INC
0298723 VERO BEACH, CITY OF
O 298724 VERO BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
0298725 VERO BEARING & BOLT
0298726 VETERANS COUNCIL OF INDIAN
O 298727 VASILAS, DARCY
0298728 WAL-MART STORES, INC
O 298729 WALSH, LYNN
0298730 WOLSTENHOLME, SHIRLEY
O 298731 WILLHOFF, PATSY
0298732 WILLIAM THIES & SONS, INC
0298733 WHEELER PUBLISHING, INC
O 298734 WORKERS COMPENSATION SEMINARS
O 298735 WEST GROUP PAYMENT CTR
0298736 XEROX CORPORATION
0298737 XEROX CORP
0298738 ZIEGLER, MICHAEL R
O 298739 ZEPHYRHILLS NATURAL SPRING
O 298740 BROOKE, SAMUEL
O 298741 SYBIL INVESTMENTS
0298742 PROCTOR CONST
0298743 MGB CONST
O 298744 ED SCHLITT INC
0298745 CROOM CONST
0298746 BARTH CONST
0298747 KINGSLEY, PATRICIA
0298748 CHANNING CORP
O 298749 BAROT, BHASKAR
O 298750 BROOKS, HAROLD JR
0298751 PIGOTT, MICHAEL
O 298752
0298753
0298754
O 298755
O 298756
0298757
O 298758
O 298759
O 298760
0298761
O 298762
O 298763
O 298764
O 298765
0298766
March 20, 2001
BK
RICHTON,
TERRELL,
DOHERTY,
HARRY
WILLIS
CONOR
JACOBS, RANDALL D
RIGHTON, HARRY
MOORE, AQUILA
BURGOON BERGER CONST CO
CHEEK, CALDWELL B
MINICOZZI, MARJORIE R
MGB CONSTRUCTION
HOLIDAY BUILDERS
WALKER, CARL
LEINBERGER, ROBERT
KOUSPOS, MARIAN I
MARTINEZ, JOSE C
1') 82
10
CHECK
DATE
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
CHECK
AMOUNT
50.00
89.45
359.10
107.00
430.00
106.16
33,372.04
11544.74
4,525.10
81.02
50.16
14.36
662.50
18.95
1,760.74
50.00
300.46
4,176.03
49.70
12.17
40.60
43.18
130.00
201.60
202.10
165.00
202.00
1,540.00
189.42
454.76
17.75
228.40
147.40
14.17
42.51
11.93
26.41
50.55
28.24
68.92
28.78
6.31
30.64
85.16
5.32
30.87
46.78
16.30
6.47
50.75
76.19
24.89
50.00
56.56
38.18
63.11
23.56
70.91
• •
CHECK
NUMBEF-
0298767
0298768_
O 298769
0298770
0298771
O 298772
O 298773
0298774
0298775
0298776
O 298777
0298778
O 298779
O 298780
0298781
0298782
O 298783
0298784
0298785
O 298786
0298787
0298788
O 298789
O 298790
O 298791
O 298792
O 298793
O 298794
O 298795
0298796
0298797
O 298798
O 298799
O 298800
O 298801
0298802
0298803
0298804
0298805
O 298806
0298807
O 298808
O 298809
O 298810 D
0298811 L
O 298812 V
O 298813 L
O 298814 P
O 298815 B
NAME
TILLIS, BRYANT
NEWBOLD, JEFFERY AND
CORBEIL, PAMELA L
MC CLURE, WILLIAM H
MGB CONSTRUCTION INC
HASENNAUER, WILLIAM
GROZA BUILDERS INC
EDWARDS, CHIQUITA COBB
GRAFF, CHARLES AND
ROBBINS, GLENN L AND
MORRISON, SILAS AND
CAMERON CORPORATION
HINZMAN, FRANK D
RUEST, DAVID W
JUTRAS, HENRY E
ROSTIEN, RICHARD A
PORTUGAL, GUADALUPE
UPDIKE, JOHN J
HRUSOVSKY, JOHN M
MARTINEZ, HECTOR APARICIO
ATHERTON, VINCENT
EXPRESS DEALS INC
WHITFORD, GILBERT
JONES, COURTNEY H
GLOVER, RANDOLPH E
BUCKINGHAM, JUDY
EATON, GINA
MC GRATH, THOMAS
FRANCIS, TRACEY
WEISS, DALE A
LEGENDARY CONSTRUCTION INC
BACK OPEN WARDROBE SPECIALISTS
FOGG, JUSTIN
PIGOTT, MICHAEL A
CREATIVE CHOICE HOMES
MEROSIER, ERIC
THOMPSON, RENNIE S
FISHER, DONALD AND
ROBERTSON, RONALD
BAILEY, ELLEN
CLOS, WILLIAM
TURNER, JANE R
KAMPHUIS, RUSSELL W
AN/ELS, LINDA
ONE PALM LEISURE PRODUCTS INC
CC
OPEZ, FLORA
ETERS, DONALD L AND
IANCANIELLO, SUZANNE
March 20, 2001
11
CHECK
DATE
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
2001-03-08
CHECK
AMOUNT
50.60
11.37
45.72
93.58
30.67
35.34
25.10
39.86
40.96
40.70
2.61
88.57
12.16
35.40
19.00
100.27
17.06
11.56
57.14
27.33
91.71
56.44
47.09
10.12
54.38
24.89
13.26
52.10
37.13
14.05
77.81
21.01
32.75
39.75
40.51
51.90
30.23
39.55
39.39
35.90
37.60
100.00
50.00
24.09
89.55
305.74
73.85
30.11
40.47
971,565.69
BK s'ii PG
83
7. C. Proclamation Designating March 21, 2001 as Retired Senior
Volunteer Program (RSVP) Day
PROCLAMATION
DESIGNATING MARCH 21, 2001 AS
RETIRED SENIOR VOLUNTEER PROGRAM DAY
IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
WHEREAS, for the past sixteen years, the Retired Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP)
of Indian River County has worked with over 75 non-profit agencies or organizations in Indian
River County to help in filling their volunteer needs; and
WHEREAS, RSVP volunteers are senior citizens, age 55 or more, who volunteer their
time, talents, and experiences of a lifetime to the community; and
WHEREAS, in 2000 these wonderful, caring sharing seniors contributed 90,000 hours
of volunteer service to Indian Rjver County; and
WHEREAS, on March 21, 2001 the Retired Senior Volunteer Program will hold a
recognition luncheon for the 650 members of this outstanding organization:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that March 21, 2001 be
designated as
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 of our
county.
Adopted this 20th day of March, 2001.
March 20, 2001
61<
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Caroline D Ginn, Cha an
12
J
• •
7.D. Sheriff's Department - COPS MORE 2001 Grant Application
The Board reviewed a letter of March 9. 2001:
beriff
ROY RAYMOND • INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
•1 I1
c!.1EE ^c
n dT,Or.
T.Dua_ _.,EPIFFc: =SSC:i>T;Ord
r
4055 41st AVENUE
March 9. 2001
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960-1808 PHONE (5611569-6700
Honorable Caroline D. Ginn, Chairman
Board of County Commissioners
Indian River County
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Dear Commissioner Ginn,
The Indian River County Sheriff's Office is pleased to inform you of our COPS MORE 2001
grant application for $86,250. The successful award of this grant would allow the Sheriffs Office
to purchase an Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) The Sheriff's Office shall
provide 25% matching funds ($28,750) from the Law Enforcement Forfeiture Trust Fund.
The Automated Fingerprint Identification System will significantly enhance the Sheriffs Office
ability to identify suspects of crimes and the state of the art technology shall be shared with all of
the municipal agencies within the county.
The attached application must be signed by the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners
in order to officially apply for the grant award We respectfully ask that the attached document be
placed on the consent agenda for the March 20, 2001, meeting.
Should you have any questions, feel free to contact Chuck Kirby at 978-6418.
Sincerely,
Roy Raymond, Sheriff
Indian River County
RR/cck
Attachments
erN
{fitait:.•,
The 173rd Internationally Accredited Law Enforcement Agency
Accredited by the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies. Incorporated
Marcn 20, 2001
13
BK 5
ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Stanbridge, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved the
COPS MORE 2001 grant application in the amount of $86,250
and authorized the Chairman to execute the same, as requested.
COPY OF GRANT APPLICATION IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
7.E. Appointment by Vice Chairman Stanbridge (District 2) of Glenn
R. Schuessler to the Indian River County Extension Advisory Council
The Board reviewed a memorandum of March 12, 2001:
To:
Date:
Subject:
From:
Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
March 12, 2001
Appointment to the Indian River County Extension Advisory Council
Ruth M. Stanbridge
Commissioner
I would like to appoint Glenn R. Schuessler as my representative for District 2 on the Indian
River County Extension Advisory Council for a three year term.
Attachment — Letter dated March 1, 2001
RMS/kim
ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Stanbridge, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously acknowledged
Anna & John Vice Chairman Stanbridge's appointment of Glenn
R. Schuessler to the Indian River County Extension Advisory
Council.
March 20, 2001
BK 86
14
• •
7. F. Notification from Indian River County Hospital District of their
Appointment of Dr. Burton Lee to the Council of Public Officials
(COPO)
The Board reviewed a memorandum of March 8, 2001:
Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
Date: March 8, 2001
Subject: Notification from the Indian River County Hospital District of their
Appointment to the Council of Public Officials (COPO)
From. Kimberly Massung
Executive Aide
Per the attached letter dated March 7, 2001, the Indian River County Hospital District's
representative to COPO is Dr. Burton Lee.
Attachment
/kim
ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Stanbridge, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Tippet, the Board unanimously acknowledged
the appointment of Dr. Burton Lee to the Council of Public
Officials by Indian River County Hospital District.
7. G. Florida Communities Trust Cost -Share Agreements - Oslo
Riverfront South (Addendum 2), North Sebastian Conservation Area
Addition (Addendum 3), and Wabasso Scrub Conservation Area
Addition (Addendum 3) (LAAO)
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 14, 2001:
March 20, 2001
15
BK
487
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. Keating, AICP
Community Development Director
Roland M. DeBloi c1CP
Chief, Environmental Planning
March 14, 2001
RE• Board Approval of Florida Communities Trust Cost -Share Agree ent Extensions/
Addenda for: Oslo Riverfront South; North Sebastian C.A. Addition; and Wabasso
Scrub C.A. Addition LAAC Sites
11
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of March 20, 2001.
DFSCRIPTION ANI) ('ONDITIONS
Attached. for the Board's approval consideration. are Addenda to Conceptual Approval Agreements relating
to the following Florida Communities Trust (FCT) environmental land acquisition cost -share projects: Oslo
Riverfront South; North Sebastian C.A. Addition: and the Wabasso Scrub C.A. Addition. The proposed
addenda. already approved by the FCT. will extend the grant project deadlines six months beyond the current
grant expiration dates.
Status of Pro ects
•
Oslo Riverfront South
The Oslo Riverfront South "Addendum 2 to Conceptual Approval Agreement" will extend the FCT gram
until August 28, 2001. Indian River County. in coordination with the FCT, has closed on two of the three
ownerships in the project. The remaining "Diamond parcel" is currently under negotiation. This extension
will allow for continuing negotiations relating to the Diamond parcel.
• North Sebastian C.A. Addition
The North Sebastian Conservation Area Addition "Addendum 3 to Conceptual Approval Agreement" will
extend the FCT grant until August 28, 2001 The County purchased the subject property in March 1999, and
is seeking cost -share reimbursement under the FCT grant. Appraisals and other acquisition documents have
been reviewed and accepted by FCT staff. What remains is for the County to revise the current management
plan for the North Sebastian Conservation Area to include the addition. An extension to the CAA is
requested to allow finalization of management plan revisions in conjunction with a project plan.
•
Wabasso Scrub C.A. Addition
The Wabasso Scrub Conservation Area Addition "Addendum 3 to Conceptual Approval Agreement" will
extend the FCT grant until August 28, 2001. County staff is currently negouatmg a purchase contract for
this one -ownership addition to the Wabasso Scrub Conservation Area. and is hopeful that a contract will be
forthcoming in the next few months. The grant extension will allow staff to finalize a purchase contract and
project plan.
March 20, 2001
E; r '-88
16
• •
RECOMMEND4TIQv
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the Board Chairman to execute the
attached agreement addenda for the Oslo Riverfront South: North Sebastian C.A. Addition: and Wabasso
Scrub C.A. Addition LAAC projects.
&TT4CHMFNTS
1. "Addendum 2 to Conceptual Approval Agreement" for the Oslo Riverfront South project.
_2. "Addendum 3 to Conceptual Approval Agreement" for the North Sebastian CA Addition project.
3. "Addendum 3 to Conceptual Approval Agreement" for the Wabasso Scrub CA Addition nroiect.
ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Stanbridge, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously authorized the
Chairman to execute the proposed addenda for the Oslo
Riverfront South: North Sebastian Conservation Area Addition:
and Wabasso Scrub Conservation Area Addition LAAC
projects as recommended in the memorandum.
COPIES OF PARTIALLY EXECUTED ADDENDA (3)
ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
7.H. Resolution No. 2001-026 - John Marcheso - Partial Release of
Easement at 1971 West Cayman Road (Lot 6, Block 8, Summerplace
Subdivision Unit 4)
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 12, 2001:
March 20, 2001
17
8K i 7 PG 1489
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE:
{
Robert M. Keating. AICP
Community Development Director
THROUGH: Roland M. DeBIo.. CP
Chief. Environmental Planning
& Code Enforcement
FROM: Kelly Zedek
Code Enforcement Officer
DATE: 3/12/01
RE JOHN MARCHESO REQUEST FOR PARTIAL RELEASE OF EASEMENT
AT 1971 WEST CAYMAN ROAD (SUMMERPLACE SUB UNIT 4)
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of Count_
Commissioners at its regular meeting of March 20, 2001.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The County has been petitioned by John Marcheso. owner of a lot at 1971 West Cayman Road. for
release of a two foot wide portion of a twelve foot wide drainage and utility easement. The purpose
of the easement release request is for the construction of a pool and screen enclosure (see attached
map).
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The request has been reviewed by Bell South Communications Florida Power & Light Corporation:
T C.I. Cable Corporation: the Indian River County Utilities Department: the County Road & Bridge
and Engineering Divisions; and the County surveyor. None of the utility, providers or reviewing
agencies expressed an objection to the requested release of easement. Therefore, it is staff's
position that the requested easement release would have no adverse impact to utilities being
supplied to the subject properties or to other properties.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board, through adoption of the attached resolution, release a portion of
the drainage and utility easement. as more particularly described in said resolution.
ATTACHMENTS
Proposed County Resolution Abandoning Easement
Map depicting easement (portion) proposed for release
March 20, 2001
18
• •
1')
ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Stanbridge SECONDED BY
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution No. 2001-026 releasing a portion of an easement on
Lot 6. Block 8. Summerplace Subdivision Unit 4.
DOCUMENTARY STAMPS
DEED $ 70
NOTES
RESOLUTION NO. 2001 - 026 JEFFREY K. BARTON, CLERK
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, RELEASING
A PORTION OF AN EASEMENT ON LOT 6, BLOCK 8, SUMMERPLACE
SUBDIVISION UNIT 4
IN THE RECORLE OF
JEFFREY K. BAHTON
CLERK CIRCUIT CC _SRT
INDIAN RIVER CC. rL.r.
WHEREAS, Indian River County has an interest in a drainage and utility easement on Lot
6, Block 8, of Summerplace Subdivision Unit 4; and
WHEREAS, the retention of a portion of the easement, as described below, serves no public
purpose;
MESIB
N
Q1
co
W
0
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida that: a
N
This release of easement is executed byIndian River County,rn
a political subdivision of the State
of Florida whose mailing address is 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960, Grantor, to
-n
N
' JOHN MARCHESO
15925 N HAYDEN LAKE RD w
I. (,i
c) HAYDEN LAKE, ID 83835
(1 •---
- f 0 his successors in interest, heirs and assigns, as Grantee, as follows:
0
Indian River County does hereby release and abandon all right, title, and interest that it may
have in the following described easement portion:
I— U
c_, C the north two feet of the south twelve foot wide drainage and utility easement of Lot 6,
p .� L j Block 8, Summerplace Subdivision Unit 4, according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book
4.)
I *- C; 8, Page 22 of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida
aC, j THIS RESOLUTION was moved for adoption by Commissioner Stanbridge dge seconded J
by Commissioner Ti DDM , and adopted on the 20th day of
March 2001, by the following vote: c" )
I CO
CJ
Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn1/40
Aye )
Commissioner Ruth Stanbridge Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R Macht Aye N
a\
Commissioner John W. Tippin AYe N
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye C.JI
March 20, 2001
19
BK 1 to PG 1491
RESOLUTION NO. 2001- 026
The Chairman declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 20th day of
March ,2001
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
0.115 •
'0
•
Caroline D
Attested Bys t.:1
•
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER
Deputy Clerk
.
•
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 20th day of March
2001, by CAROLINE D. GINN, as Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida, and by ''-'4 • •. • Deputy Clerk for JEFFREY K.
BARTON, Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, who are
personally known to me
NOTARY PUBLIC
em
Printed Name Kimhnrly F M/ssung
Commission No.: CC855436
Commission Expiration: Jul y 15, 2003
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
William G. Collins II
Deputy County Attorney
ease.bccdoc
proj/apl.no. 97070118/26157
March 20, 2001
8K 1 PG 4 9 2
20
Kimberly E Maesung
:.. MY COMMISSION Y CC855436 EXPIRES
July 15, 2003
BONDED THRU TROY FAN INSURANCE INC
.ar-24-00 23:24 The Unive
- __12/19/97 13:15 V:. _ 485 8222
12/19/97 _ 12:36 $l. :07 567 7,I.o
ty Club
HNIi .UH111 1rd
MAP OF SURVEY
curt -mutt or wT4OR12ATor Li. 1.2•
CAYMAN LOAD WEST
r _,
lbLD1LTAdAD (PONATE naw) =
69.95'(R) 412 4.
T[\}
TC
2/ WIDE
EASE lei Ew7'
POR'TIC11..I TO
RCA 454\46.-
10.11'
0
ti
V
0
4
N
31 3
•
CeuC-
%WE
•A..) 111.14Ku
14472
slum STDRv.C.B.5>RE5,
rr.r.—'•st.19..
DF.E r •9.51
a./•
L 1!
3
^
12. �-.�•
YID
ow
„ o
0
me
CP o
Pa• pecde
71aL7227
L72Z7
11 .29 R
t 15.29'(-)
• tar
loam e
LOT 2
Moat 8
Accetdtnf to Nip Ho. 1206EC000)2. hand 023 of 149.. fitted
Hay ). I9i). Ode ►reprty lion in Flom; 2o•t X.
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1971 CATWfKIROAD VEST
SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32950
•
•
-OTD SWM SURYTllMO k ra►►NG WC.
DOD N91 CORM► rrunOMM. TMA iWt ..bib
"WOVE Of WC %DAMN R TO SIAW TMC
11044D Mari •0.4774E It YOu1C.n N 1
uSt It pima r, Maar, SUR, TOM MO. 5442.
tlI MS••fl•T.tt O.TID i-211-111.
COPMIOHT 1004 SUM fuiYl'WO .aa ratPDta Inc.
M V•uo W149V1 1HE INEELWIC l -D TMLO•IKIM•L KO= or A rGglJictnw furor aro sasPM
791 S•ART•0!'4OOTHKARLAMO^SALCY.S010L LE GOTMMAM: RIVERSIDE RATIONAL PANK
OF FLORIDA. SECURITY TITLE OF INDIAN RIVER, INC.: OLD RIPL1LUC
KAT1ntAL TITLE IKSU1MCr ConPAKT
rra' jr tS
y • wawa 0010411•14.1•10••
awe Bal el.,a
— -TiIM a••..uu..RR e.�M
wa� w
Vs
Itoraka Wit •
re
• pram
ater•
. *••. •mal Nm teen.
�.�t�y •; • OS
— ▪ ~iP_pt!•••
Ct-w••..
- Gala ••
0 • WNW! •e• •tee
0 - •1•M •w lama
cap . a.•r IMP
• • Mama as
r SWIM Man
..r
• t
• • laNle
W
r..aeR
6 : L
a-{::S'.P'e'I 1..r
t -r•rMM
• _.. M, .�..–•�.
O - 10.10 .••_ feat •
• • wa • a ••rave I . •.•P nw 111••••a]• ,ea •.•a•!
0 •as•a•
WINDTOA! MOTS:
1. w Peer w Mr m SIC rr • ee A masa ways e•w
-e-
ens
SIC 1.1 SO testa.
i awarry K ono* 0 r' was Ira • ee
• La acr. woo OEN,. - . w OA see 'Ma
mom MSCw rl LOOKS
l erani 111 Ana pat M•'7 40,0 •• Sal • W 1•••
L rt 4.1 raw 111. 1.1r�s.�w•/Ite - •� — .•e we •wasp.•
9 at aws al alma
Is wwf usaw Mos
uww. la.. -I —
\M•l�e•.1 Ilea •e�,U• R Y.1.
• mamma ; •I rw/ ae =0.1141o•
v.a c~n
.• riv r 41:...1-1 —
.R VI_!/aam /S9_ le.M4e 1•M •—e ,- lt...S MP I110441 .••O
9 •j •V.�..
lead
.DATE
V 14
•
IIIMPAIEnS7
mat
urt MiO$ OUMMERP
6loLACE OW IT or
•t
110111ia M PsT MOIL 9 rwc LL 7•wc nr••e%
V //O/A.•es Mato..
a_. In•v its
aal►ow/st
MUCMW 71OFri r
P
ye WWI WY
t 0C x.• and MC
1rr .0 Ut T.0 RAM A 10.0.0 •r P10►Q1,IM•. s:Frc.>es
.L ae•1'A' .errW RATRE ODOL I%IMU•MT TO LCCTOM !74.27
LD+ 6 &) o ck 8 um,�} �J
March 20, 2001
21
smuTH * 1
tur.vey N0 A, I
MAPPINC, 11440.
PG 1493
•
I-" . u..,
7.L Budget Amendment 016 - Sheriff Roy Raymond - Out -of -
County Prisoner Revenue
The Board reviewed a Memorandum ofMarch 14, 2001and a letter of March 9, 2001:
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: March 14, 2001
SUBJECT: Sheriff Out -of -County Prisoner Revenue
Budget Amendment 016
THROUGH: Joseph A. Baird
Assistant County Administrators
FROM: Jason E. Brown
Budget Manager
Description and Conditions
The Sheriff's Department has requested a budget amendment for Out -of -County Prisoner revenues for the
current fiscal year (see attached letter dated March 9, 2001). This request is for an amendment of
$544,773, which would include actual prisoner revenues for October 2000 through February 2001
estimated revenues for the remainder of FY 2000/01, and additional funds from the school district.
Prison revenues from other counties has dropped off considerably this year. Therefore, the Sheriff is
utilizing excess federal prisoner revenues to fund the difference. Additionally, the Indian River County
School District will provide the department $16 923 for funding startup costs of a COPS In Schools Grant.
The attached entry appropriates funding for this request.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached budget amendment.
Distribution
Roy Raymond, Sheriff
Harry Hall, Comptroller
Attachments
Letter from Sheriff, dated March 9, 2001
March 20, 2001
BK
Indian River County
Approved
Date
Administrator
Legal
Budget
Department
Risk Management
4e
•
r
ROY RAYMOND • INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
MF MAT i <;RIDA SHERIFFS ASSOCAT101-
MfMPFR (l( NATIONAL SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION
4055 41s1 AVENUE
March 9, 2001
VERO BEACH. FLORIDA 32960-1808 PHONE (561) 569-67C.
The Honorable Caroline D. Ginn, Chairman
Indian River Board of County Commissioners
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960-3394
Re: Budget Adjustment, Out -Of -County Inmate Revenue
Dear Chairman Ginn:
This letter is a request to amend our fiscal year 2000-2001 Operating Budget. For the months of October
2000 through February 2001, we generated prisoner revenue totaling $545,910 detailed below:
Actual:
March 20, 2001
October:
U.S. Marshal 1442 inmate days at $60.00 per day
Charlotte County - 98 inmate days at $45.00 per day
I.N.S.- 422 inmates at $60.00 per aay
October Total Revenue
November:
U.S. Marshal - 1415 inmate days at $60.00 per day
I.N.S - 395 inmates at $60.00 per day
November Total Revenue
December:
U.S. Marshal - 1667 inmate days at $60.00 per day
I.N.S - 310 inmates at $60.00 per day
December Total Revenue
January:
U.S. Marshal - 1557 inmate days at $60.00 per day
I.N.S - 228 inmates at $60.00 per day
January Total Revenue
February:
U.S. Marshal - 1514 inmate days at $60.00 per day
I.N.S.- 75 inmates at $60.00 per day
February Total Revenue
23
$ 86,520
4,410
25,320
$ 116,250
S 84,900
23.700
$ 108,600
S 100,020
18,600
$ 118,620
S 93,420
13.680
$ 107,100
S 90,840
4.500
$ 95,340
BK Ii7PGJ495
•
We estimate the revenue for March through September to be $595,140:
Recap:
March through September:
U S. Marshal - 1417 inmate days per month at $60.00 per day
Charlotte County (has own facility)
I.N.S. (has own facility)
March through September Total Revenue
U.S. Marshal - 17514 inmate days at $60.00 per day
Charlotte County - 98 inmate days at $45.00 per day
I.N.S. 1430 inmate days at $60.00 per day
Total Revenue
$ 595,140
0
0
$ 595,140
$1,050,840
4,410
85.800
$1,141,050
As the funds are received they will be forwarded to you for deposit into the County's General Fund.
Our current budget earmarks $613,200 of inmate revenue for the county. That leaves an excess of
$527,850 ( $1.141.050 total revenue - 613.200 budgeted to county).
Additionally, the Indian River County School District will be providing us with $16,923 in start up costs
related to the COPS In Schools Grant.
We are asking to amend our budget by $544,773 (5527.850 excess prisoner revenue + $16,923 from the
school district) to fund the Aviation Component, offset the expense of housing prisoners, pay down some
non-recurring salary items (terminating employees buy out, buy back some of the employee vacation
balance, etc.), and purchase a patrol cruiser.
Off the $527,850 excess prisoner revenue, the first $15.00 of each inmate day will be used to offset the
expense of housing the prisoners. This represents $131,962. These monies will be distributed as
follows:
Corrections Food For Jail
Corrections Salaries
Total Corrections
The balance of the revenue will be distributed as follows:
Aviation Salaries
Aviation Operating Expense
Law Enforcement Salanes (non-recurring)
Law Enforcement Capital Outlay
Total Law Enforcement
$ 21,450
110.512
$ 131,962
$ 180,000
60,000
150,747
22,064
$ 412,811
I am requesting this item be placed on the Agenda at your earliest convenience.
If you have any questions or any further information is required, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Roy Raymond, Sheriff
RR:mej
March 20, 2001
24
BK 1I PG 1195
• •
ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Stanbridge, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved Budget
Amendment 016. as recommended.
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
FROM: Jason E. Brown ,
Budget Manager K
BUDGET AMENDMENT: 016
DATE: March 14, 2001
7.J. Resolution No. 2001-027 Marathon Ashland Petroleum -
Release of Easement at 9009 20th Street (Indian River Farms
Company Subdivision - Tract 9, Section 3, Township 33 South, Range
38 East)
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 12, 2001:
March 20, 2001
25
BK 117 PGL97
Entry
Number
Fund/Department/
Account Name
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
1.
REVENUES
GENERAL FUND/ Out -of -County
Prisoner Revenues
001-000-341-057.00
$527,850
$0
GENERAL FUND/ Sheriff Revenues
001-000-341-052.00
$16,923
$0
EXPENSES
GENERAL FUND/ Sheriff/
Corrections
001-600-586-099.14
$131,962
$0
GENERAL FUND/ Sheriff/ Law
Enforcement
001-600-586-099.04
$412,811
$0
7.J. Resolution No. 2001-027 Marathon Ashland Petroleum -
Release of Easement at 9009 20th Street (Indian River Farms
Company Subdivision - Tract 9, Section 3, Township 33 South, Range
38 East)
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 12, 2001:
March 20, 2001
25
BK 117 PGL97
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE:
tTpir,z_ 4:i
Robert M. Keating, AICP
Community Development Director
THROUGH: Roland M. DeBloisP
Chief. Environmental Planning
& Code Enforcement
FROM: Kelly Zedek
Code Enforcement Officer
DATE: 3/12/01
RE: MARATHON ASHLAND PETROLEUM REQUEST FOR RELEASE OF
EASEMENT AT 9009 20TH STREET
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissione-rs at its regular meeting of March 20, 2001.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The County has been petitioned by Marathon Ashland Petroleum. owner of a parcel at 9009 20th
Street. for release of a twenty foot wide drainage and utility easement. The purpose of the easement
release request is to allow for the construction of a stormwater pond and an access road between
the subject commercial property and a neighboring business (see attached map).
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The request has been reviewed by Bell South Communications. Florida Power & Light Corporation:
T C.I. Cable Corporation; the Indian River County Utilities Department: the County Road & Bridge
and Engineering Divisions; and the County surveyor. None of the utility. providers or reviewing
agencies expressed an objection to the requested release of easement. Therefore. it is staff s
position that the requested easement release would have no adverse impact to utilities being
supplied to the subject properties or to other properties.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board. through adoption of the attached resolution. release the drainage
and utility easement, as more particularly described in said resolution.
ATTACHMENTS
Proposed County Resolution Abandoning Easement
Map depicting easement proposed for release
March 20, 2001
G 4 9
26
• •
ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Stanbridge, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 2001-027 releasing an easement on a certain parcel
located at the Northeast Corner of Tract 9. Section 3. Township
33 South, Range 38 East. Indian River Farms Company
Subdivision.
IN THE RECORDS OF
JEFFREY K. BARTON
CLERK CIRCUIT COURT
INDIAN RIVER CO., FLA.
RESOLUTION NO. 2001 - 027
DOCUMENTARY STAMPS
DEED S-7
NOTES
JEFFREY K. BARTON. CLERK
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, RELEASING
AN EASEMENT ON A CERTAIN PARCEL LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST
CORNER OF TRACT 9, SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST,
INDIAN RIVER FARMS COMPANY SUBDIVISION
WHEREAS, Indian River County has an interest in a drainage and utility easement on a
certain parcel at the northeast corner of Tract 9, Section 3, Township 33 South, Range 38 East, in
Indian River Farms Company Subdivision; and
WHEREAS, the retention of the easement, as described below, serves no public purpose;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida that:
This release of easement is executed by Indian River County, a political subdivision of the State
of Florida whose mailing address is 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960, Grantor, to
MARATHON ASHLAND PETROLEUM, LLC
254 SOUTH CR 427
SUITE 124
w LONGWOOD, FL 32750
co
V o
lL rn
tL N its successors in interest, heirs and assigns, as Grantee, as follows:
O co
GO u -i o Indian River County does hereby release and abandon all right, title, and interest that it may
Lhave in the following described easement(s):
i O
C
CJ .i,
r C%
I- 0
O 4 O i
'll
{' >- co CCI
0 THIS RESOLUTION was moved for adoption by Commissioner Stanbrt dqe , seconded
by Commissioner Tippi n and adopted on the 20th dayof
a,
P
U March 2001, by the following vote:
the south twenty feet of the following described property: Indian River Farms Co. Sub PBS
2-25, that parcel 200 feet by 200 feet at the NE corner of Tract 9 in the NE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of
Section 3, Township 33 S, Range 38 E, as recorded in Record Book 367 PP 273 (OR BK 464 PP
297), of the public records of Indian River County.
U Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn Aye
Commissioner Ruth Stanbridge Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Ayp
March 20, 2001 Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye
Commissioner Fran B. Adams AVP
27
BX1I 7 PG 499
0
RESOLUTION NO. 2001- 027
The Chairman declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 20th
March ,2001
n7 t.
t\ .
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
"'By
.Caroline It Ginn, Chairman
Attested B02,22e�i
Deputy Clerk
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER
•
day of
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 20th day of March
2001, by CAROLINE D. GINN, as Chairman of the$oard of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida, and by , Deputy Clerk for JEFFREY K.
BARTON, Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, who are
personally known to me
NOTARY PUBLIC
Printed Na
Commission No.: CC855436
Commission Expiration: July 15, 2003
Kimberly E! Massung
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
William G. Collins II
Deputy County Attorney
ease.bccdoc
proj/apl. no. 2000090131/25955
March 20, 2001
8K i
-“-e—t
28
Kimberly E. Massung
MY COMMISSION f CC855436 WIRES
BONDED THRUUTROY $�OI�RANCE RSC
CO
CO
v
c-�
N
CT
N
CO
• •
ft- (233dS;
4106
nes.
w
rC -C 1OI.)3S 3k^ .Sr3
r
.1,3N21+.1•.e5v
1It .7Ntx)AA
13Yd1. iN39cIOvNv91
•
• arm
•
,Lt
0
0'
(
•
,Z9
•
fat
Ie
. e
• 'twin .0
--Q. ° to
�¢p
•
"dnn..
Ltel
•
• •
c^g z
w.
mIC�CiEy/4- yr_
2 a F m
O<Inx O
wa H
ill
1 LT) N w ' 3
W
h
•
0
6
O
IPO
M
0
Z
F
5
cr
$c
•6
In
CC
CC
:0
(a
J
W
H
0
)I3V8135 `JNIQII
. ,949•
t1RQ n•
•
T2Lfl •
i ice_
-art - -k�
al • b•. �°DO.
L` _Rr2" 10, _ J L. _
•r�—tri
•
•
•
z
Z
<
0 ocj o 01 ao
r
l 7 p isalO 1:00V71411 RI
•
siva"
'OOZ •3,St,Ot.00'N
L _I
4`-
I'.
,L9'69
K
A
March 20, 2001
29
6
BK
2
F 2
17 PC 501
7.K. Miscellaneous Budget Amendment 015
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 14, 2001:
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE. March 14, 2001
SUBJECT: Miscellaneous Budget Amendment 015
THROUGH: Joseph A. Baird
Assistant County Administrato
FROM: Jason E Brown ro
Budget Manager
Description and Conditions
The attached budget amendment is to appropriate funding for the following:
1. On January 2, 2001, the Board of Commissioners approved a Public Transit Block Grant (PTBG)
application with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). The attached entry appropriates
funding in the amount of $242,183.
On May 16, 2000, the Board of Commissioners approved an EMPA Competitive Grant for the
development of a County Wide Wildfire Mitigation Plan. The attached entry appropriates these
grant funds.
3. The attached entry appropnates funding for the Classification and Compensation Plan Study as
approved by the Board of Commissioners Funding will be provided by a combination of reserves
for contingency, fund reserves, and other sources.
4. Dunng FY 1998/99, the County purchased Fire Stations 8 and 9 from the Sebastian Volunteer Fire
Department for five annual payments of $7 000. The attached entry appropriates funding for this
year's payment from Emergency Services District contingencies.
5. On March 13, 2001, the Board of Commissioners approved co -sponsoring a presentation on the
Indian River County economy with the Chamber of Commerce and Indian River Community
College. The attached entry appropriates funding from General Fund contingencies.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached budget amendment.
ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Stanbridge, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved
miscellaneous budget amendment 015, as recommended in the
memorandum.
March 20, 2001
ui(
2
30
• •
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
From: Jason E. Brown
BUDGET AMENDMENT: 015
DATE: March 14. 2001
uuuyCI
IVIVI...y...
Entry
Number
Fund/Depart?ment/
Account`Name
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
1.
REVENUES
GENERAL FUND / Florida Public Transit
Block Grant -
001-000-334-045.00
$242.183
EXPENSES
GENERAL FUND
Comm. Transportation
/ Council on Aging/
Coordinator
001-110-541-088 23
$242.183
2.
REVENUES
GENERAL
Mitigation
FUND/ EMPA Wildfire
Plan Grant
001-000-334-296.00
$45.500
EXPENSES
GENERAL
Management/
FUND/ Emergency
Other Contractual
001-208-525-033.49
S45.500
3.
REVENUES
RENTAL ASSISTANCE / Interest
Investments
108-000-361-010.00
$715
IRCLHAP/SHIP / IRCLHAP/SHIP Program
/Interest Investments
123-000-361-010.00
$312
GUN RANGE / Miscellaneous Income
412-000-343-067.00
$663
BUILDING DEPARTMENT / Cash
Forward
441-000-389-040.00
$9,104
UTILITY SERVICES/Cash Forward
471-000-389-040.00
$29.303
FLEET MANAGEMENT / Interest
Investments
501-000-361-010.00
$1,763
EXPENSES
GENERAL
Regular
FUND / B.C.C. Operations /
Salanes
001-101-511-011.12
$78
GENERAL
Social
FUND / B.C.C.
Security Matching
Operations /
001-101-511-012.11
$6
GENERAL FUND / B.C.C.
Retirement Contnbution
Operations /
-
001-101-511-012.12
$8
GENERAL FUND / County Attomey /
Regular Salanes
001-102-514-011.12
$2.212
GENERAL FUND / County
Social Secunty Matching
Attorney /
001-102-514-012.11
$137
GENERAL FUND / County
Retirement Contnbution
Attomey /
001-102-514-012.12
$262
March 20, 2001
31
Bn 17 PG 503
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
From. Jason E Brown
Budget Manager
BUDGET AMENDMENT: 015
DATE: March 14, 2001
Entry
Number
Fund/Depjartment/
Account Name
GENERAL FUND / County Attorney /
Worker's Compensation
GENERAL FUND / County Attorney /
Medicare Matching
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
001-102-514-012.14
$8
GENERAL FUND / County Attorney / Life
Insurance
001-102-514-012.17
$32
001-102-514-012.13
GENERAL FUND / Recreation / Regular
Salaries
001-108-572-011.12
GENERAL FUND / Recreation / Social
Security Matching
001-108-572-012.11
$7
$1,437
GENERAL FUND / Recreation /
Retirement Contribution
GENERAL FUND / Recreation / Worker's
Compensation
001-108-572-012.12
$87
$137
001-108-572-012.14
GENERAL FUND / Recreation / Medicare
Matching
001-108-572-012.17
GENERAL FUND / Recreation / Regular
Salanes
GENERAL FUND / Recreation / Social
Secunty Matching
001-108-572-011.13
$90
$21
$692
001-108-572-012.11
GENERAL FUND / Recreation /
Retirement Contnbution
GENERAL FUND / Recreation / Worker's
Compensation
001-108-572-012.12
$42
$71
GENERAL FUND / Recreation / Medicare
Matching
001-108-572-012.14
$46
001-108-572-012.17
GENERAL FUND / Main Library / Regular
Salanes
GENERAL FUND / Main Library / Social
Secunty Matching
GENERAL FUND / Main Library /
Retirement Contnbution
001-109-571-011.12
$10
54.914
001-109-571-012.11
$306
GENERAL FUND / Main Library / Worker's
Compensation
001-109-571-012.12
$495
001-109-571-012.14
GENERAL FUND / Main Library /
Medicare Matching
001-109-571-012.17
GENERAL FUND / Main Library / Life
Insurance
GENERAL FUND / Main Library / Regular
Salanes
GENERAL FUND / Main Library / Social
Security Matching
001-109-571-012.13
$17
$70
$15
001-109-571-011.13
$262
001-109-571-012.11
March 20, 2001
32
BR i .7'5.014 PL
$20
•
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
From. Jason E. Brown
Budget Manager 1
BUDGET AMENDMENT: 015
DATE: March 14, 2001
GENERAL FUND / yaw library / Regular
Salaries
001-119-714-011.12
$866
GENERAL FUND / Law Library / Social
Security Matching
GENERAL FUND / Law Library /
Retirement Contribution
001-119-714-012.11
$54
GENERAL FUND / Law Library / Medicare
Matching
GENERAL FUND / Administrator
Operations / Regular Salaries
001-119-714-012.12
S88
001-119-714-012.17
$16
GENERAL FUND / Administrator
Operations / Social Security Matching
GENERAL FUND / Administrator
Operations / Retirement Contribution
001-201-512-011.12
$2.303
001-201-512-012.11
$144
GENERAL FUND / Administrator
Operations / Worker's Compensation
GENERAL FUND / Administrator
Operations / Medicare Matching
GENERAL FUND / Administrator
Operations / Life Insurance
001-201-512-012.12
$391
001-201-512-012.14
$30
001-201-512-012.17
$35
GENERAL FUND / General Services /
Regular Salaries
GENERAL FUND / General Services /
Social Security Matching
GENERAL FUND / General Services /
Retirement Contnbution
001-201-512-012.13
$7
001-202-513-011.12
$630
001-202-513-012.11
$40
001-202-513-012.12
$62
March 20, 2001
33
BES 117 PG 505
•
Entry
Number
Fund/Depahment/
Account Name
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
GENERAL FUND / Main Library /
Retirement Contnbution
001-109-571-012.12
$28
GENERAL
Regular
FUND / North County Library /
Salaries
001-112-571-011.12
$3,784
GENERAL FUND / North County Library /
Social Security Matching
001-112-571-012.11
$235
GENERAL FUND / North County Library /
Retirement Contribution
001-112-571-012.12
$390
GENERAL FUND
Worker's Compensation
/ North County Library /
001-112-571-012.14
$15
GENERAL FUND /
Medicare Matching
North County Library /
001-112-571-012.17
$55
GENERAL FUND / North County Library /
Life Insurance
001-112-571-012.13
$12
GENERAL FUND / North County Library /
Regular Salaries
001-112-571-011.13
$17
GENERAL FUND / yaw library / Regular
Salaries
001-119-714-011.12
$866
GENERAL FUND / Law Library / Social
Security Matching
GENERAL FUND / Law Library /
Retirement Contribution
001-119-714-012.11
$54
GENERAL FUND / Law Library / Medicare
Matching
GENERAL FUND / Administrator
Operations / Regular Salaries
001-119-714-012.12
S88
001-119-714-012.17
$16
GENERAL FUND / Administrator
Operations / Social Security Matching
GENERAL FUND / Administrator
Operations / Retirement Contribution
001-201-512-011.12
$2.303
001-201-512-012.11
$144
GENERAL FUND / Administrator
Operations / Worker's Compensation
GENERAL FUND / Administrator
Operations / Medicare Matching
GENERAL FUND / Administrator
Operations / Life Insurance
001-201-512-012.12
$391
001-201-512-012.14
$30
001-201-512-012.17
$35
GENERAL FUND / General Services /
Regular Salaries
GENERAL FUND / General Services /
Social Security Matching
GENERAL FUND / General Services /
Retirement Contnbution
001-201-512-012.13
$7
001-202-513-011.12
$630
001-202-513-012.11
$40
001-202-513-012.12
$62
March 20, 2001
33
BES 117 PG 505
•
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
From: Jason E. Brown
Budget Manager
BUDGET AMENDMENT: 015
DATE March 14, 2001
Retirement Contribution
GENERAL FUND / Veterans Services /
Medicare Matching
001-206-553-012 12
$88
001-206-553-012.17
GENERAL FUND / Emergency
Management / Regular Salanes
001-208-525-011.12
GENERAL FUND / Emergency
Management / Social Secunty Matching
GENERAL FUND / Emergency
Management / Retirement Contribution
GENERAL FUND / Emergency
Management / Worker's Compensation
001-208-525-012.11
$15
$1,842
$114
001-208-525-012.12
$244
001-208-525-012.14
GENERAL FUND / Emergency
Management / Medicare Matching
GENERAL FUND / Emergency
Management / Life Insurance
001-208-525-012.17
$7
$27
GENERAL FUND / Parks / Regular
Salanes
001-208-525-012.13
$6
001-210-572-011.12
GENERAL FUND / Parks / Social Secunty
Matching
GENERAL FUND / Parks / Retirement
Contnbution
001-210-572-012.11
$10,342
$641
GENERAL FUND / Parks / Worker's
Compensation
001-210-572-012.12
001-210-572-012.14
$1,077
$581
March 20, 2001
34
Entry
Number
Fund/Department/
Account Name
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
GENERAL FUND /
Medicare Matching
General Services /
001-202-513-012.17
$13
GENERAL FUND / Personnel Office / -
Regular Salanes
001-203-513-011.12
$2,597
GENERAL FUND / Personnel
Social Security Matching
Office /
001-203-513-012.11
$161
GENERAL FUND / Personnel Office /
Retirement Contribution
001-203-513-012 12
$250
GENERAL FUND
Worker's Compensation
/ Personnel Office /
001-203-513-012.14
$9
GENERAL FUND / Personnel Office /
Medicare Matching
001-203-513-012.17
$38
GENERAL FUND / Personnel Office / Life
Insurance
001-203-513-012.13
$9
GENERAL
Regular
FUND / Veterans Services /
Salaries
001-206-553-011.12
$829
GENERAL FUND / Veterans Services /
Social Secunty Matching
001-206-553-012.11
$51
GENERAL FUND /
Veterans Saniirnc
Retirement Contribution
GENERAL FUND / Veterans Services /
Medicare Matching
001-206-553-012 12
$88
001-206-553-012.17
GENERAL FUND / Emergency
Management / Regular Salanes
001-208-525-011.12
GENERAL FUND / Emergency
Management / Social Secunty Matching
GENERAL FUND / Emergency
Management / Retirement Contribution
GENERAL FUND / Emergency
Management / Worker's Compensation
001-208-525-012.11
$15
$1,842
$114
001-208-525-012.12
$244
001-208-525-012.14
GENERAL FUND / Emergency
Management / Medicare Matching
GENERAL FUND / Emergency
Management / Life Insurance
001-208-525-012.17
$7
$27
GENERAL FUND / Parks / Regular
Salanes
001-208-525-012.13
$6
001-210-572-011.12
GENERAL FUND / Parks / Social Secunty
Matching
GENERAL FUND / Parks / Retirement
Contnbution
001-210-572-012.11
$10,342
$641
GENERAL FUND / Parks / Worker's
Compensation
001-210-572-012.12
001-210-572-012.14
$1,077
$581
March 20, 2001
34
• •
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
From. Jason E. Brown
Entry
Number
Budget Manager
Fund/Department/
Account Name
GENERAL FUND / Parks / Medicare
Matching
Account Number
BUDGET AMENDMENT: 015
DATE: March 14. 2001
Increase
Decrease
001-210-572-012.17
$149
GENERAL FUND / Parks / Life Insurance
G ENERAL FUND / Welfare / Regular
Salaries
G ENERAL FUND / Welfare / Social
Security Matching
001-210-572-012.13
$35
001-211-564-011.12
$222
001-211-564-012.11
G ENERAL FUND / Welfare / Retirement
Contribution
GENERAL FUND / AG Extension /
Regular Salaries
001-211-564-012.12
$18
$25
GENERAL FUND / AG Extension / Social
Security Matching
G ENERAL FUND / AG Extension /
Retirement Contribution
G ENERAL FUND / AG Extension /
Medicare Matching
001-212-537-011.12
$440
001-212-537-012 11
$27
001-212-537-012.12
$47
001-212-537-012.17
G ENERAL FUND / Youth Guidance
Counselor / Regular Salaries
GENERAL FUND / Youth Guidance
Counselor / Social Security Matching
GENERAL FUND / Youth Guidance
Counselor / Retirement Contribution
GENERAL FUND / Youth Guidance
Counselor / Medicare Matching
001-213-523-011.12
$6
$641
001-213-523-012.11
$40
001-213-523-012.12
001-213-523-012.17
GENERAL FUND / Youth Guidance
Counselor / Regular Salaries
GENERAL FUND / Youth Guidance
Counselor / Social Secunty Matching
GENERAL FUND / Youth Guidance
Counselor / Retirement Contnbution
GENERAL FUND / Youth Guidance
Counselor / Medicare Matchinq
001-213-523-011.17
001-213-523-012.11
001-213-523-012.12
$66
$11
$582
$36
$60
GENERAL FUND / Purchasing / Regular
Salanes
GENERAL FUND / Purchasing / Social
Security Matching
GENERAL FUND / Purchasing /
Retirement Contnbution
GENERAL FUND / Purchasing / Medicare
Matching
March 20, 2001
35
001-213-523-012.17
001-216-513-011.12
001-216-513-012.11
$10
$645
001-216-513-012.12
001-216-513-012.17
$40
$66
$11
BK 1 17 PG 5 0 7
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
From.
Jason E. Brown
Budget Manager
BUDGET AMENDMENT. 015
DATE: March 14. 2001
GENERAL FUND /Office of Mgmt &
Budget / Social Security Matchin
q
001-229-513-012.11
$148
GENERAL FUND / Office of Mgmt &
B udget / Retirement Contnbution
001-229-513-012.12
$370
G ENERAL FUND / Office of Mgmt &
B udget / Worker's Compensation
001-229-513-012.14
$25
G ENERAL FUND / Office of Mgmt &
B udget / Medicare Matching
001-229-513-012.17
$35
GENERAL FUND / Office of Mgmt &
Budget / Life Insurance
001-229-513-012.13
$7
GENERAL FUND / FPL Grant
Expenditures / Regular Salaries
001-237-525-011.12
$394
GENERAL FUND / FPL Grant
Expenditures / Social Security Matching
001-237-525-012.11
$24
GENERAL FUND / FPL Grant
Expenditures / Retirement Contribution
001-237-525-012.12
$39
GENERAL FUND / FPL Grant
Expenditures / Medicare Matching
001-237-525-012.17
$7
GENERAL FUND / Emergency Base
Grant / Regular Salanes
001-238-525-01 t.12
$778
GENERAL FUND / Emergency Base
Grant / Social Secunty Matching
001-238-525-012.11
$48
GENERAL FUND / Emergency Base
Grant / Retirement Contnbution
001-238-525-012.12
$80
GENERAL FUND / Emergency Base
Grant / Medicare Matching
001-238-525-012.17
$14
GENERAL FUND / Computer Services /
Regular Salanes
001-241-513-011.12
$327
March 20, 2001
BK
36
Entry
Number
Fund/Department/
Account Name
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
GENERAL
Regular
FUND / Building and Grounds /
Salaries
001-220-519-011.12
$8.101
GENERAL FUND / Building
Social Secunty Matching
and Grounds /
001-220-519-012.11
$503
GENERAL FUND / Building and Grounds /
Retirement Contribution
001-220-519-012.12
$840
GENERAL FUND
Worker's Compensation
/ Building and Grounds /
001-220-519-012.14
$431
GENERAL FUND /
Medicare Matching
Building and Grounds /
001-220-519-012.17
$117
GENERAL FUND / Budding and Grounds
Life Insurance
/
001-220-519-012.13
$26
GENERAL FUND / Office of Mgmt &
Budget / Regular Salaries
001-229-513-011.12
$2,377
GENERAL FUND /Office of Mgmt &
Budget / Social Security Matchin
q
001-229-513-012.11
$148
GENERAL FUND / Office of Mgmt &
B udget / Retirement Contnbution
001-229-513-012.12
$370
G ENERAL FUND / Office of Mgmt &
B udget / Worker's Compensation
001-229-513-012.14
$25
G ENERAL FUND / Office of Mgmt &
B udget / Medicare Matching
001-229-513-012.17
$35
GENERAL FUND / Office of Mgmt &
Budget / Life Insurance
001-229-513-012.13
$7
GENERAL FUND / FPL Grant
Expenditures / Regular Salaries
001-237-525-011.12
$394
GENERAL FUND / FPL Grant
Expenditures / Social Security Matching
001-237-525-012.11
$24
GENERAL FUND / FPL Grant
Expenditures / Retirement Contribution
001-237-525-012.12
$39
GENERAL FUND / FPL Grant
Expenditures / Medicare Matching
001-237-525-012.17
$7
GENERAL FUND / Emergency Base
Grant / Regular Salanes
001-238-525-01 t.12
$778
GENERAL FUND / Emergency Base
Grant / Social Secunty Matching
001-238-525-012.11
$48
GENERAL FUND / Emergency Base
Grant / Retirement Contnbution
001-238-525-012.12
$80
GENERAL FUND / Emergency Base
Grant / Medicare Matching
001-238-525-012.17
$14
GENERAL FUND / Computer Services /
Regular Salanes
001-241-513-011.12
$327
March 20, 2001
BK
36
• •
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
From. Jason E. Brown
Budget Manager
BUDGET AMENDMENT: 015
DATE: March 14. 2001
Entry
Number
Fund/Department/
Account Name
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
GENERAL FUND / Computer Services /
Social Security Matching
001-241-513-012.11
$20
GENERAL FUND / Computer Services l
Retirement Contribution
001-241-513-012.12
$30
GENERAL FUND / Computer Services /
Medicare Matching
001-241-513-012.17
$6
GENERAL FUND / County Animal Control
/ Regular Salaries
001-250-562-011.12
$1 260
G ENERAL FUND / County Animal Control
/ Social Secunty Matching
001-250-562-012.11
$78
G ENERAL FUND / County Animal Control
/ Retirement Contribution
001-250-562-012.12
$125
GENERAL FUND / County Animal Control
/ Worker's Compensation
001-250-562-012.14
S56
G ENERAL FUND / County Animal Control
/ Medicare Matching
001-250-562-012.17
$22
GENERAL FUND / Mailroom/ Switchboard
/ Regular Salaries
001-251-519-011.12
$76
GENERAL FUND / Mailroom/ Switchboard
/ Retirement Contribution
001-251-519-012.12
$8
GENERAL FUND / Probation / Regular
Salaries
001-908-523-011.12
$1.832
GENERAL FUND / Probation / Social
Secunty Matching
001-908-523-012.11
$114
GENERAL FUND / Probation / Retirement
Contribution
001-908-523-012.12
$185
GENERAL FUND / Probation / Worker's
Compensation
001-908-523-012.14
$6
GENERAL FUND / Probation / Medicare
Matching
001-908-523-012.17
$27
GENERAL FUND / Probation / Life
Insurance
001-908-523-012.13
$5
GENERAL FUND / Reserve for
Contingencies
001-199-581-099.91
MUNICIPAL SERVICE FUND / Recreation
/ Regular Salaries
004-108-572-011.12
$423
$61,343
MUNICIPAL SERVICE FUND / Recreation
/ Social Secunty Matching
004 108-572-012.11
$26
MUNICIPAL SERVICE FUND / Recreation
/ Retirement Contnbution
004-108-572-012.12
$42
MUNICIPAL SERVICE FUND / Recreation
/ Workers Compensation
004-108-572-012.14
$26
March 20, 2001
37
BK 1 rG50J9
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
From: Jason E. Brown
Bud et Manager
BUDGET AMENDMENT: 015
DATE: March 14, 2001
March 20, 2001
0
38
Entry
Number
Fund/Department/
Account dame
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
MUNICIPAL SERVICE FUND / Recreation
/ Medicare Matching
004-108-572-012.17
$7
MUNICIPAL
/ Regular
SERVICE FUND / Recreation
Salaries
004-108-572-011.13
$425
MUNICIPAL SERVICE FUND / Recreation
/ Social Security Matching
004-108-572-012.11
$26
MUNICIPAL SERVICE FUND / Recreation
/ Retirement Contribution
004-108-572-012.12
$46
MUNICIPAL SERVICE
/ Worker's Compensation
FUND / Recreation
004-108-572-012.14
$26
MUNICIPAL SERVICE
/ Medicare Matching
FUND / Recreation
004-108-572-012.17
$7
MUNICIPAL
And Development
SERVICE FUND / Planning
/ Regular Salaries
004-204-515-011.12
$479
MUNICIPAL
And Development
Matching
SERVICE FUND / Planning
/ Social Secunty
004-204-515-012.11
$30
MUNICIPAL SERVICE FUND / Planning
And Development / Retirement
Contnbution
004-204-515-012.12
$53
MUNICIPAL
And Development
SERVICE FUND / Planning
/ Medicare Matching
004-204-515-012 17
$9
MUNICIPAL SERVICE
Planning / Regular
FUND / County
Salanes
004-205-515-011.12
$2.353
MUNICIPAL
Planning
SERVICE FUND / County
/ Social Security Matching
004-205-515-012.11
$147
MUNICIPAL
Planning
SERVICE FUND / County
/ Retirement Contribution
004-205-515-012.12
S239
MUNICIPAL
Planning
SERVICE FUND
/ Worker's Compensation
/ County
004-205-515-012.14
$8
MUNICIPAL
Planning
SERVICE FUND / County
/ Medicare Matching
004-205-515-012.17
$33
MUNICIPAL SERVICE FUND / County
Planning / Life Insurance
004-205-515-012.13
$7
MUNICIPAL SERVICE
Code Enforce / Regular
FUND / Env Plan/
Salanes
004-207-524-011.12
$1,336
MUNICIPAL SERVICE FUND / Env Plan/
Code Enforce / Social Security Matching
004-207-524-012.11
$83
MUNICIPAL SERVICE FUND / Env Plan/
Code Enforce / Retirement Contribution
004-207-524-012.12
$135
MUNICIPAL SERVICE FUND
Code Enforce / Worker's Compensation
/ Env Plan/
004-207-524-012.14
$9
March 20, 2001
0
38
•
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
From. Jason E. Brown
BUDGET AMENDMENT: 015
DATE: March 14, 2001
March 20, 2001
39
BK 1 7 PG 51 1
•
Entry
Number
Fund/Department/
Account Name
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
MUNICIPAL SERVICE FUND / Env
Code Enforce / Medicare Matching
Plan/
004-207-524-012.17
$24
MUNICIPAL
Regular
SERVICE FUND / Parks /-
Salaries
004-210-572-011.12
$676
MUNICIPAL
Social
SERVICE FUND
Security Matching
/ Parks /
004-210-572-012.11
$42
MUNICIPAL SERVICE FUND
Retirement Contnbution
/ Parks /
004-210-572-012.12
$70
MUNICIPAL SERVICE
Medicare Matching
FUND / Parks /
004-210-572-012.17
$12
MUNICIPAL SERVICE
Telecommunications
FUND /
/ Regular Salaries
004-234-537-011.12
$413
MUNICIPAL SERVICE FUND /
Telecommunications / Social Security
Matching
004-234-537-012.11
$26
MUNICIPAL SERVICE FUND /
Telecommunications / Retirement
Contnbution
004-234-537-012.12
$42
MUNICIPAL SERVICE FUND /
Telecommunications / Medicare Matching
004-234-537-012.17
$7
MUNICIPAL
for Contingencies
SERVICE FUND / Reserve
004-199-581-099.91
$7 287
RENTAL ASSISTANCE
Assistance
/ Rental
/ Regular Salaries
108-222-564-011.12
$587
RENTAL ASSISTANCE / Rental
Assistance / Social Secunty Matching
108-222-564-012.11
$36
RENTAL ASSISTANCE / Rental
Assistance / Retirement Contnbution
108-222-564-012.12
$81
RENTAL ASSISTANCE / Rental
Assistance / Medicare Matching
108-222-564-012.17
$11
TRANSPORTATION
Bndqes
/ Regular
FUND / Roads and
Salanes
111-214-541-011.12
$25,314
TRANSPORTATION
Bndqes
/ Social
FUND / Roads
Secunty Matching
and
-
111-214-541-012.11
$1,568
TRANSPORTATION
Bndges
FUND / Roads and
/ Retirement Contnbution
111-214-541-012.12
$2.542
TRANSPORTATION FUND
Bndges / Worker's Compensation
/ Roads and
111-214-541-012.14
$1,329
TRANSPORTATION
Bndges
FUND
/ Medicare Matching
/ Roads and
111-214-541-012.17
$366
March 20, 2001
39
BK 1 7 PG 51 1
•
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
From. Jason E. Brown
Entry
Number
Budget Manager
Fund/Depaitment/
Account Name
TRANSPORTATION FUND / Roads and
Bndges / Life Insurance
TRANSPORTATION FUND / Roads and
Bridges / Regular Salaries
TRANSPORTATION FUND / Public Works
/ Regular Salaries
TRANSPORTATION FUND / Public Works
/ Social Security Matching
TRANSPORTATION FUND / Public Works
/ Retirement Contnbuton
TRANSPORTATION FUND / Public Works
/ Worker's Compensation
TRANSPORTATION FUND / Public Works
/ Medicare Matching
TRANSPORTATION FUND / Public Works
/ Life Insurance
TRANSPORTATION FUND / County
Engmeennq / Regular Salanes
TRANSPORTATION FUND / County
Enqineenng / Social Security Matching
TRANSPORTATION FUND / County
Enqineenng / Retirement Contnbution
TRANSPORTATION FUND / County
Enqineenng / Worker's Compensation
TRANSPORTATION FUND / County
Engineennq / Medicare Matching
TRANSPORTATION FUND / County
Engmeennq / Life Insurance
BUDGET AMENDMENT• 015
Account Number
111-214-541-012.13
111-214-541-011.13
111-243-519 011.12
111-243-519-012.11
DATE: March 14, 2001
Increase
Decrease
$84
$49
$3,274
111-243-519-012.12
111-243-519-012.14
111-243-519-012.17
111-243-519-012 13
111-244-541-011.12
111-244-541-012.11
111-244-541-012.12
111-244-541-012.14
111-244-541-012.17
$202
$331
$12
$48
$10
$9,504
$590
$974
$41
TRANSPORTATION FUND / Traffic
Engineering / Regular Salaries
TRANSPORTATION FUND / Traffic
Engmeennq / Social Security Matching
TRANSPORTATION FUND / Traffic
Enqineenng / Retirement Contnbution
111-244-541-012.13
111-245-541-011.12
111-245-541-012.11
$138
$32
$3,559
TRANSPORTATION FUND / Traffic
Engmeennq / Workers Compensation
TRANSPORTATION FUND / Traffic
Enqineenng / Medicare Matching
TRANSPORTATION FUND / Traffic
Enqineenng / Life Insurance
111-245-541-012.12
111-245-541-012.14
111-245-541-012.17
$221
$373
$14
TRANSPORTATION FUND / Reserve for
Contingencies
March 20, 2001
BK
40
111-245-541-012.13
111-199-581-099.92
$51
$12
$30.638
• •
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
From. Jason E. Brown
Bud et Manager
BUDGET AMENDMENT: 015
DATE: March 14. 2001
March 20, 2001
41
BKiI PG 513
Entry
Number
Fund/Department/
Account Name
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
TRANSPORTATION FUND / Cash
Forward
111-199-581-099.91
$20,000
EMERGENCY
Services / Regular
SERVICE DISTRICT / Fire
Salaries
114-120-522-011.12
$25 250
EMERGENCY SERVICE DISTRICT
Services / Social Secunty Matching
/ Fire
114-120-522-012.11
$1,564
EMERGENCY SERVICE DISTRICT /fire
Services / Retirement Contnbution
114-120-522-012.12
$4,962
EMERGENCY SERVICE
Services / Worker's Compensation
DISTRICT / Fire
114-120-522-012.14
$1,229
EMERGENCY SERVICE DISTRICT
Services / Medicare Matching
/ Fire
114-120-522-012.17
$371
EMERGENCY SERVICE DISTRICT / Fire
Services / Life Insurance
114-120-522-012.13
$79
EMERGENCY SERVICE
Advanced Life Support
DISTRICT
/ Regular
/
Salaries
114-253-526-011.12
$1,960
EMERGENCY SERVICE DISTRICT /
Advanced Life Support / Social Security
Matching
114-253-526-012.11
$121
EMERGENCY SERVICE DISTRICT /
Advanced Life Support / Retirement -
Contnbution
114-253-526-012.12
$197
EMERGENCY
Advanced
Compensation
SERVICE DISTRICT /
Life Support / Worker's
114-253-526-012.14
$46
EMERGENCY
Advanced
Matching
SERVICE DISTRICT /
Life Support / Medicare
114-253-526-012.17
$28
EMERGENCY SERVICE
Advanced Life Support
DISTRICT /
/ Life Insurance
114-253-526-012.13
$6
EMERGENCY SERVICE DISTRICT /
Reserve for Contingencies
114-120-522-099.91
$33.455
EMERGENCY SERVICE DISTRICT /
Reserve for Contingencies
-
114-253-526-099.91
$2,358
IRCLHAP/SHIP
/ Regular
/ IRCLHAP/SHIP Program
Salanes
123-228-569-011.12
$263
IRCLHAP/SHIP / IRCLHAP/SHIP Program
/ Social Security Matching
123-228-569-012.11
$16
IRCLHAP/SHIP / IRCLHAP/SHIP Program
/ Retirement Contnbution
123-228-569-012.12
$28
March 20, 2001
41
BKiI PG 513
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
From. Jason E. Brown L
Entry
Number
Budget Manager
Fund/Depprtment/
AccountWame
IRCLHAP/SHIP / IRCLHAP/SHIP Program
/ Medicare Matching
Account Number
BUDGET AMENDMENT- 015
DATE: March 14, 2001
Increase
Decrease
123-228-569-012.17
GUN RANGE / Recreation / Regular
Salaries
412-108-575-011.12
$5
$560
GUN RANGE / Recreation / Social
Security Matching
412-108-575-012.11
$35
GUN RANGE / Recreation / Retirement
Contribution
412-108-575-012.12
$47
GUN RANGE / Recreation / Worker's
Compensation
412-108-575-012.14
$11
GUN RANGE / Recreation / Medicare
Matching
412-108-575-012.17
$10
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT /
Refuse Disposal / Regular Salaries
411-209-534-011.12
$720
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT /
Refuse Disposal / Social Security
Matching
411-209-534-012.11
$45
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT /
Refuse Disposal / Retirement Contnbution
411-209-534-012.12
$92
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT /
Refuse Disposal / Workers Compensation
411-209-534-012.14
$87
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT /
Refuse Disposal / Medicare Matching
411-209-534-012.17
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT /
Sanitary Landfill / Regular Salaries
411-217-534-011.12
$12
$3,613
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT /
Sanitary Landfill / Social Security Matching
411-217-534-012.11
$225
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT /
Sanitary Landfill / Retirement Contribution
411-217-534-012.12
$348
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT /
Sanitary Landfill / Workers Compensation
411-217-534-012.14
$188
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT /
Sanitary Landfill / Medicare Matching
411-217-534-012.17
$53
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT /
Sanitary Landfill / Life Insurance
411-217-534-012.13
$13
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT /
Recycling / Regular Salaries
411-255-534-011.12
March 20, 2001
42
8 PG514
$7,518
• •
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
From. Jason E. Brown
Budget Manager
Entry
Number
Fund/Department/
Account Name
Account Number
BUDGET AMENDMENT: 015
DATE: March 14. 2001
March 20, 2001
43
3M H PG 515
SOLID WASTE
Recycling
DISPOSAL DISTRICT /
/ Social Security Matching
411-255-534-012.11
$465
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT /
Recycling / Retirement Contnbution
411-255-534-012.12
$755
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
Recychnq / Worker's Compensation
DISTRICT /
411-255-534-012.14
$648
SOLID WASTE
Recycling
DISPOSAL DISTRICT
/ Medicare Matching
/
411-255-534-012.17
$110
SOLID WASTE
Recycling
DISPOSAL DISTRICT /
/ Life Insurance
411-255-534-012.13
$25
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT /
Cash Forward
411-217-534-099.92
$14,917
GOLF
Regular
COURSE / Food And Beverage /
Salaries
418-232-572-011.12
$282
GOLF COURSE / Food
Social Secunty Matching
And Beverage /
418-232-572-012.11
$17
GOLF COURSE / Food And Beverage /
Retirement Contribution
418-232-572-012.12
$22
GOLF COURSE
Worker's Compensation
/ Food And Beverage /
418-232-572-012.14
$9
GOLF COURSE /
Medicare Matching
Food And Beverage /
418-232-572-012.17
$4 -
GOLF
Operations
COURSE / Admin/Clubhse
/ Regular Salanes
418-236-572-011.12
$1,662
GOLF COURSE / Admin/Clubhse
Operations / Social Secunty Matching
418-236-572-012.11
$103
GOLF
Operations
COURSE / Admin/Clubhse
/ Retirement Contnbution
418-236-572-012.12
$120
GOLF
Operations
COURSE / Admin/Clubhse
/ Worker's Compensation
418-236-572-012.14
$102
GOLF
Operations
COURSE / Admin/Clubhse
/ Medicare Matching
418-236-572-012.17
$23
GOLF
Operations
COURSE / Admin/Clubhse
/ Life Insurance
418-236-572-012.13
$6
GOLF
Operations
COURSE / Admin/Clubhse
/ Regular Salanes
418-236-572-011.13
$152
GOLF
Operations
COURSE / Admin/Clubhse
/ Social Security Matching
418-236-572-012.11
$13
GOLF
Operations
COURSE / Admin/Clubhse
/ Retirement Contnbution
418-236-572-012.12
$15
GOLF COURSE / Cash Forward
418-236-572.099.92
$2,530
March 20, 2001
43
3M H PG 515
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
From. Jason E. Brown
Budget Manager
BUDGET AMENDMENT: 015
DATE: March 14, 2001
Entry Fund/Depahrnent/
Number Account Name Account Number Increase Decrease
BUILDING DEPARTMENT / Budding
Department / Regular Salanes 441-233-524-011.12
BUILDING DEPARTMENT / Building $7.665
Department / Social Security Matching 441-233-524-012.11 $476
BUILDING DEPARTMENT / Building
Department / Retirement Contribution 441-233-524-012.12 $780
BUILDING DEPARTMENT / Budding
Department / Worker's Compensation 441-233-524-012.14 $47
BUILDING DEPARTMENT / Budding
Department / Medicare Matching 441 233-524-012.17 $111
BUILDING DEPARTMENT / Budding
Department / Life Insurance 441-233-524-012.13 $25
UTILITY SERVICES / Wastewater
Treatment / Regular Salaries 471-218-536-011.12
UTILITY SERVICES / Wastewater $3,917
Treatment / Social Secunty Matching 471-218-536-012.11 $245
UTILITY SERVICES / Wastewater
Treatment / Retirement Contnbution 471-218-536-012.12
UTILITY SERVICES / Wastewater $393
Treatment / Worker's Compensation 471-218-536-012.14
UTILITY SERVICES / Wastewater $135
Treatment / Medicare Matching 471-218-536-012.17 $56
UTILITY SERVICES / Wastewater
Treatment / Life Insurance 471-218-536-012.13 $13
UTILITY SERVICES / Water Production /
Regular Salaries 471-219-536-011.12
UTILITY SERVICES / Water Production / $2.097
Social Security Matching 471-219-536-012.11
UTILITY SERVICES / Water Production / $146
Retirement Contnbution 471-219-536-012.12
UTILITY SERVICES / Water Production / $211
Worker's Compensation 471-219-536-012.14 $73
UTILITY SERVICES / Water Production /
Medicare Matching 471-219-536-012.17 $31
UTILITY SERVICES / Water Production /
Life Insurance 471-219-536-012.13 $6
UTILITY SERVICES / General &
Engineering / Regular Salaries 471-235-536-011.12
UTILITY SERVICES / General & $4,820
Engineennq / Social Secunty Matching 471-235-536-012.11 $298
UTILITY SERVICES / General &
Engineenng / Retirement Contribution 471-235-536-012.12 $504
March 20, 2001
BK
X 516
44
•
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
From. Jason E. Brown
Budget Manager
BUDGET AMENDMENT: 015
DATE: March 14, 2001
March 20, 2001
45
BK 1 1 7 PG 517
•
Entry
Number
Fund/Department/
Account' Name
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
UTILITY
Engineering
SERVICES
/ General
/ Worker's Compensation
&
471-235-536-012.14
$16
UTILITY
Engineering
SERVICES
/ General &
/ Medicare Matching
471-235-536-012.17
$70
UTILITY
Engineering
SERVICES
/ General &
/ Life Insurance
471-235-536-012.13
$14
UTILITY
Regular
SERVICES / Customer Service /
Salaries
471-265-536-011.12
$6 212
UTILITY
Social
SERVICES / Customer
Security Matching
Service /
471-265-536-012.11
$384
UTILITY SERVICES / Customer Service /
Retirement Contribution
471-265-536-012.12
$621
UTILITY SERVICES
Worker's Compensation
/ Customer Service /
471-265-536-012.14
$149
UTILITY SERVICES
Medicare Matching
/ Customer Service /
471-265-536-012.17
$90
UTILITY SERVICES / Customer Service /
Life Insurance
471-265-536-012.13
$18
UTILITY SERVICES / Wastewater
Collection / Regular Salaries
471-268-536-011.12
$1,303
UTILITY SERVICES / Wastewater
Collection / Social Security Matching
471-268-536-012.11
$81
UTILITY SERVICES / Wastewater
Collection / Retirement Contribution
471-268-536-012.12
$122
UTILITY SERVICES / Wastewater
Collection / Worker's Compensation
471-268-536-012.14
$49
UTILITY SERVICES / Wastewater
Collection / Medicare Matching
471-268-536-012.17
$19
UTILITY
Regular
SERVICES / Water Distribution /
Salaries
471-269-536-011.12
$5,940
UTILITY SERVICES / Water
Social Security Matching
Distribution /
471-269-536-012.11
$368
UTILITY SERVICES / Water Distnbution /
Retirement Contnbution
471-269-536-012.12
$594
UTILITY SERVICES
Worker's Compensation
/ Water Distnbution /
471-269-536-012.14
$204
UTILITY SERVICES / Water Distribution /
Medicare Matching
471-269-536-012.17
$85
UTILITY SERVICES / Water Distnbution /
Life Insurance
471-269-536-012.13
$19
FLEET MANAGEMENT
Maintenance / Regular
/ Vehicle
Salanes
501-242-591-011.12
$1,445
March 20, 2001
45
BK 1 1 7 PG 517
•
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
BUDGET AMENDMENT: 015
DATE: March 14 2001
7.L. Proclamation and Retirement Award to William A. Green on His
Retirement from Public Works Department, Road and Bridge
Division
March 20, 2001
Entry
Number
Fund/Department/
Account Mame
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
FLEET MANAGEMENT / Vehicle
Maintenance / Social Secunty Matching
501-242-591-012.11
$91
FLEET MANAGEMENT / Vehicle
Maintenance / Retirement Contribution
501-242-591-012.12
$146
FLEET MANAGEMENT / Vehicle
Maintenance / Worker's Compensation
501-242-591-012.14
$54
FLEET MANAGEMENT / Vehicle
Maintenance / Medicare Matching
501-242-591-012.17
$22
FLEET MANAGEMENT / Vehicle
Maintenance / Life Insurance
501-242-591-012.13
$5
4.
EXPENSES
EMERGENCY SERVICE DISTRICT / Fire
Services / Station Payments
114-120-522-066.11
$7,000
EMERGENCY SERVICE DISTRICT / Fire
Services / Contingencies
114-120-522-099.91
$7,000
5.
EXPENSES
GENERAL FUND / B.C.C. Operations /
Professional Services
001-101-511-033.49
$4,250
GENERAL
Contingencies
FUND / Reserves for
001-199 581-099.91
$4 250
7.L. Proclamation and Retirement Award to William A. Green on His
Retirement from Public Works Department, Road and Bridge
Division
March 20, 2001
PROCLAMATION
HONORING WILLIAM A. GREEN
ON HIS RETIREMENT EFFECTIVE
MARCH 22, 2001
WHERE AS Bill has announced his retirement from the Public Works Department, Road & Bridge
Division, and Indian River County Board of County Commissioners effective March 22. 2001; and
WHERE AS Bill has been employed with Indian River County since July 18, 1986. During his tenure
with the County, Bill began as a Grader Operator on the Petition Paving crew. Then in 1987, he was promoted
to Finish Grader Operator, and he performed his duty in this capacity with Pride and Excellence for the next
five years. In October of 1991, Bill transferred to the position of Operator I where his job was to grade the
unpaved roads in Fellsmere, Roseland and Wabasso which is the position he holds today; and
WHEREAS, Bill has always received excellent or above average evaluations; and
WHEREAS Bill served the Road & Bridge Division, Indian River County and its citizens with
commitment and dedication. Those of us who have worked with Bill and those who have traveled the roads
in his care will sorely miss him and on this day of Retirement wish him many wonderful years of joy and
happiness; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLADVIED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FLORIDA that the Board expresses their deep appreciation for the dedicated
service William A. Green has given to Indian River County over the past fourteen years;
The Public Works Department of Indian River County wishes to express their appreciation to Bill for
an outstanding career on behalf of Indian River County and extend our heartfelt wishes for his success in his
future endeavors.
Dated this 20th day of March 2001.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY -S
Caroline Ginn, hairman
March 20, 2001
BK 1 1 7 PG 5 1 9
(This is to ratify that
We Ilea 4 gz
is !Intim prrsrntrb this
Erfirrmrn# Awath
fnr nutstanting prrfnrmanrr aid) faithful
set -flirt to
9ndian %iue4, Ccrar4
/'a g ecus*
fnr G cs2 een years of srruirr
boost 2a4iis
March 20, 2001
•
9.A.1. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE NO. 2001-003 - LAND
DEVELOPMENT REGULATION (LDR) AMENDMENT - NORTH
BARRIER ISLAND CORRIDOR SPECIAL REGULATIONS -
ADOPTION AND APPOINTMENTS TO NORTH BARRIER ISLAND
CORRIDOR ON-GOING REVIEW COMMITTEE (BILL GLYNN,
ERNIE POLVERARI, AND BILL JOHNSON) (Legislative)
PROOF OF PUBLICATION IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK FO THE BOARD
Planning Director Stan Boling reviewed a Memorandum of March 7, 2001 with the
aid of a site map (page 115 of the backup) and color -enhanced locator maps (pages 119 and
I ?0 of the backup):
TO: James Chandler, Countv Administrator
DIV I HEAD CONCURRENCE:
X24 ,
Robert M. Keating, AICP�
Community Development Dire r
FROM: Stan Boling. P
Planning Director
DATE: March 7. 2001
SUBJECT: LDR Amendment. North Barrier Island Corridor Special Regulations
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its meeting of March 20 2001.
BACKGROUND:
As an outgrowth of the Wabasso Corridor Plan and subsequent CR 510 East Corridor planning
activities and regulations. the Board of County Commissioners established the North Barrier Island
Task Force to formulate and help implement special corridor regulations for the North Barrier Island.
The Board indicated that a new corridor of special regulation should run along SR A I -.A. north of
the town of Indian River Shores. and along CR 510. and should emulate the Wabasso Corridor and
CR 510 East Corridor requirements. Subsequently, the Task Force met on November 16 and
December 12, 2000 and unanimously recommended that the Board of County Commissioners adopt
the proposed North Barrier Island Corridor special regulations (LDRs).
March 20, 2001
49
BK 11/PG521
as
■ PZC AND PSAC Consideration:
Both the Professional Services Advisory Committee (PSAC) and the Planning and Zoning
Commission (PZC) have reviewed the proposed regulations. On January 15. 2001, the PSAC voted
to recommend approval of the regulations with some minor modifications. Staff agreed with these
modifications and incorporated them into the proposal considered by the PZC at its January 25, 2001
meeting. At its meeting the, PZC discussed the issue of special corridor lighting regulations. Citing
concerns about sea turtle lighting and "over lighting", the PZC voted to recommend approval of the
modified regulations with further changes that would prohibit, rather than merely shield, certain
types of lighting (such as high pressure sodium and mercury vapor) within the corridor. Because
such a prohibition would involve technical development issues, staff informed the PZC that staff
would present these proposed changes to the PSAC which would review the con-idor lighting issue
and provide its recommendation to the Board on that issue.
When the PSAC considered the corridor lighting issue at its February 15, 2001 meeting, it concluded
that light shielding and lighting intensity issues should be addressed. However, the PSAC differed
with the PZC's recommended approach. The PSAC recommends putting the current "standard
corridor" light shielding requirements into the proposed regulattons0and addressing the lighting
intensity issue later, with technical standards rather than by imposing a blanket prohibition on certain
types of lighting. Based on the PSAC's recommendation. the PSAC and staff are researching various
approaches to address lighting intensity and will be making separate recommendations on that issue
in the future. Staff agrees with the PSAC s approach and desires to move forward with corridor
regulations rather than delaying adoption to allow time to address technical lighting details.
Thus. the PZC recommends that the Board adopt the North Barrier Island Corridor special
regulations with the lighting subsection of those regulations to contain a prohibition of certain types
of lighting (see attachment #9). The PSAC and staff recommend that the Board adopt the North
Barrier Island Corridor special regulations with the lighting subsection of the regulations requiring
shielding of lighting but no outright prohibitions.
ANALYSIS:
• North Barrier Island Development: Predominately Residential
The north barrier island is almost entirely zoned for residential and conservation uses. Remaining
agriculturally zoned properties (south side of CR 510 west of Jungle Trail. and the north Jungle Trail
area), are designated on the Comprehensive Plan for future residential development The only
commercially zoned area in the unincorporated area of the county on the North Barrier Island is at
CR 510 and SR A -1-A. That commercial area is small and contains the restaurant and inn portion
of the Disney residential resort. the Wabasso beach shops and offices. and the office/commercial
building at the northwest comer of CR 510 and SR A -1-A In essence. there is no vacant commercial
acreage in the unincorporated area and it is anticipated that no additional commercial land use
designation amendments/rezonings would be approved on the North Barrer Island. Therefore.
further development of the North Barrier Island will consist of a few new residential projects. some
single family home re -builds", public improvements, and perhaps some redevelopment of existing
office/commercial facilities.
• Models: Wabasso Corridor and CR 510 East Corridor Regulations
The Wabasso Corridor Plan was initially adopted in 1995 and originally focused on non-residential
development and public projects (e.g. road projects, Causeway landscaping). The Wabasso Corridor
March 20, 2001
BKii1PG522
50
A
•
Plan covers mainland and North Barrier Island areas (see attachment #2). Subsequently, that plan
and corresponding development regulations were amended to address certain aspects of residential
development by incorporating elements of the SR 60 Corridor Plan (adopted 1998). More recently
additional requirements. which focus primarily on residential issues, were applied to a sub -area of
the Wabasso Corridor Plan area That sub -area is known as the CR 510 East Corridor which runs
along CR 510 from US#1 to the Atlantic Ocean (see attachment #3). The result is that the Wabasso
Corridor and CR 510 East Corridor requirements are a comprehensive set of development
regulations for non-residential and residential development that already apply to a portion of the
North Barrier Island. As such. they are an appropriate model for the entire North Barrier Island, and
the North Barrier Island Task Force used them as a model As a result. the proposed North Barrier
Island regulations consist of the Wabasso Corridor and CR 510 East Corridor regulations. with only
minor adjustments.
• North Barrier Island Corridor Area:
The area affected by the proposed regulations is limited to a fairly small but visually prominent area
along CR 510 and SR A -1-A. In accordance with the area defined in the CR 510 East Corridor
regulations, the North Barrier Island Corridor is proposed to cover the area within 300' of the
centerline of CR 510. as well as the area within 300 of the centerline of SR AA. Thus. the corridor
includes road right-of-way and the first ±250' of parcel depth along both sides of CR 510 and SR A-
1 -A ( see attachment #4). The proposed corridor area runs long CR 510 and SR A -1-A from the west
shore of the Indian River Lagoon to the Atlantic Ocean. and along SR A -I -A from the Town of
Indian River Shores to the Sebastian Inlet. Although the corridor "skips o'er" the corporate cite
limits of the Town of Orchid. Orchid s town manager served on the task force, and supports the
corridor plan and regulations
• Proposed Regulations:
The proposed regulations will not apply to development or redevelopment of residential single
family homes and accessory uses/structures to such homes. Other types of development and
redevelopment projects (site plans. PDs, subdivisions will be subject to the regulations, which
include:
.
Upgraded SR A -1-A and CR 510 landscaping and foundation planting
requirements (same as CR 510 East Condor and SR 60 Corridor)
. Entry feature restrictions (same as CR 510 East Corridor)
•
•
•
•
Signage restrictions (same as Wabasso Corridor, CR 510 East Corridor and
SR 60 Corridor)
Architectural/building standards (same as CR 510 East Corridor and SR 60
Corridor)
Lighting Requirements
Note: Staff and the PSAC recommend adoption of the county's "standard"
corridor light shielding requirements. The Planning and Zoning Commission
recommends prohibiting certain types of lighting.
CR 510 planting theme (same as Wabasso Corridor and CR 510 East
Corridor)
March 20, 2001
51
61< 1 1 75 3
77.7
An on-going review committee to co -review with staff projects located within
the corridor (same as Wabasso Corridor and SR 60 Comdor)
Non -conformities and "compatible properties" requirements (same as SR 60
Corridor)
• Public sector development guidelines (adapted from SR 60 Corridor)
The substance of these proposed regulations is the same as the Wabasso, CR 510 East. and SR 60
corridor requirements which have previously been reviewed by the Professional Services Advisory
Committee Planning and Zoning Commission and Board of County Commissioners.
There are some modifications needed to the existing Wabasso Corridor special regulations. These
modifications involve deleting the CR 510 East Corridor requirements within LDR Section 911.18
since those requirements are being replaced by the North Barrier Island Corridor requirements of
section 911.20. In addition. the boundaries of the Wabasso Corridor along a portion of CR 510 need
to be amended to properly define the eastern limits of the Wabasso Corridor and the western limits
of the North Barrier Island Corridor. The result of the proposed boundary adjustment is that the
Wabasso Corridor and North Barrier Island Comdor will overlap only along the segment of CR 510
that traverses the Indian River Lagoon As a result, projects proposed along that CR 510 segment
will be reviewed by the on-going review committees of both task forces.
• On-going Review Committee
Both the Wabasso and SR 60 corridor regulations include the involvement of citizens via on-going
review committees. Members of these committees are contacted by staff regarding development
proposals within the corridors and members provide project review input at various public meetings
(i.e pre -application conferences, TRC. PZC. and BCC meetings). Such a committee is needed for
the North Barrier Island Corridor To establish this group, the Board needs to appoint members to
it. The North Barrier Island Task Force has recommended that the Board appoint the following
people to serve on the North Barrier Island Corridor On-going Review Committee:
- Bill Glynn
- Ernie Polverari
- Bi11 Johnson
Staff notes that these three people have served on the North Barrier Island Task Force and have
extensive knowledge of the corridor area and planning process.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners.
(1) Adopt the proposed North Barrier Island Corridor special regulations ordinance as recommended
by staff in attachment #5. and
(2) Appoint the following people as members of the North Barrier Island Corridor On-going Review
Committee: Bill Glynn. Ernie Polverari. and Bill Johnson.
March 20, 2001
BK 1 b 524
ATTACHMENTS:
1. North Barrier Island Zoning Map
'_. Wabasso Corridor Plan Area Map
CR 510 East Corridor Map
1. North Barrier Island Corridor Area Map
�. Proposed North Barrier Island Special Regulations Ordinance
6. North Barrier Island Task Force Minutes
PZC Minutes
8. PSAC Minutes
9. PZC Recommended Lighting Prohibitation Wording
Vice Chairman Stanbridge wanted to be certain that the signage regulations would not
prohibit signage concerning historic preservation sites and she wanted to make it perfectly
clear that this ordinance had nothing to do with Jungle Trail.
Chairman Ginn expressed her negative opinion of planting grass that gives the
appearance of being "dead", and Commissioner Tippin interjected that it is a native grass and
that during a drought it always looks dead.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in
this matter.
William G. Glynn, 1802 Barefoot Place, Vero Beach, spoke in favor of the proposed
ordinance, and reminded the Commissioners they can make changes in the future if
necessary.
Chairman Ginn thanked him for serving, and Vice Chairman Stanbridge agreed the
committee had done an excellent job.
Chip Landers, 132018th Avenue SW, spoke as a realtor about private property rights.
He espoused that it is not within the realm of government to dictate the use of property, they
can encourage but should not legislate.
March 20, 2001
BKfliPG525
Planning Director Stan Boling responded that there were no architectural requirements
in this proposed ordinance. It deals with site plans and PD entryways. The log cabin
prohibition is not in this ordinance.
Mr. Glynn advised he is also a member of the Board of Realtors and commented this
proposed ordinance took two years to bring to this point. He pointed out that the residents
of Summerplace support it as does the Disney Resort and (Town of Orchid Town Manager)
Ernie Polverari. He believed that government was not trying to tell anyone how to develop
their property.
Vice Chairman Stanbridge pointed out that the proposed regulations are detailed in
the memorandum on pages 111-112.
It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the Chairman closed the
public hearing.
ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Stanbridge, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 2001-003 amending the Land Development
Regulations (LDRs), Chapter 911, Zoning, (North Barrier Island
Corridor Special Regulations) and appointed Bill Glynn, Ernie
Polverari, and Bill Johnson to the North Barrier Island Corridor
On-going Review Committee.
(CLERK'S NOTE • FIGURES 1-13 REFERRED TO IN THIS
ORDINANCE ARE ON FILE WITH THE ORIGINAL IN THE
OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD )
March 20, 2001
54
BK
^ 26
17; •
ORDINANCE NO. 2001-003
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
FOLLOWING CHAPTER OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (LDRS):
CHAPTER 911, ZONING; AND PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING
PROVISIONS, CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA THAT THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY LAND
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (LDRS) BE AMENDED AS FOLLOWS:
1. North Barrier Island Special Corridor Regulations
The North Barrier Island Corridor special development regulations are hereby established by
creating Zoning Chapter 911 subsection 911.20, to read as follows:
Section 911.20 North Barrier Island Corridor special development regulations
(1) Purpose and intent. The overall purpose and intent of these regulations is to:
(a) Preserve and enhance the appearance of the North Barrier Island community,
particularly with respect to the scenic appearance of CR 510 and SR A -1-A.
(b) Recognize, preserve. and enhance the character of the north barrier island
community;
(c) Increase property values in the north barrier island;
(d) Prevent the establishment of incompatible land uses and unattractive developments
in the corridor;
(e) Make the north barrier island area consistent with the following vision statement:
The scenic North Barrier Island area will retain the feeling of
an uncluttered. well maintained residential community
Attractive landscaping and special development design
considerations for private development and public sector
projects will preserve and enhance the natural beauty and
scenic vistas that give the North Barrier Island area its
special character. Additionally the area will be
characterized by scenic, safe, and uncongested roads. and by
low-rise, low-density residential neighborhoods.
March 20, 2001
BK II7PG527
ORDINANCE NO. 2001-003
(2) Boundaries of the North Barrier Island Corridor. The boundaries ofBarrier North
Corridor are as shown on the county's official zonin atlas. Gene allthe the boundaries cover
the area within three hundred (300) feet of either side of the centerline of CR 510 from the
edge of the western shore of the Indian River La • oon to the Atlantic Ocean, and the area
within 300 feet of either side of the centerline of SR A -1-A from the northern limits of the
Town of Indian river Shores to the Sebastian Inlet.
ecifc develo
ment re
Barrier Island Corridor, the following s
ment that re
ulations within the North Barrier Island Corridor. In the North
ecial re ulations shall a
re-develo
or re-develo
vires site
ment of individual sin
homes. S.ecial regulations, as s
develo ment site
le-farnil
Iv to new develo
royal, and shall not a
homes and accesso
ecified herein, shall a
ment or
to develo ment
uses/structures to such
to all new develo
Ian .ro'ects within the North Barrier Island Corridor, as defied herein
re -
Prohibited uses: The following land uses shall be prohibited:
I • Outdoor display of automobiles/motorized vehicles for sale or rental
2• Outdoor display of mobile homes for sale or rental
3. Outdoor display of boats for sale or rental;
4. Drive-in theaters;
5. Recycling centers;
6• Commercial telecommunications towers:
7. Flea markets;
8. Transient merchant uses: and
9. Tem.orant sales events that reuire tem.orary use .ermits and are conducted
outside of enclosed buildings.
S.ecificall
(within
there shall be no outside dis.lay of merchandise on
or easements) or rights-of-wa
ublic nohts-of-wa
merchandise shall be allowed on
1
zoning district re
ublic sidewalks
Outside dis.lay of
rovided, however that outside
buildin • s occu.ied by
on sidewalks abuttin
no the merchandise. All other uses shall com
ulations.
Iv with a
icable
(b) Restricted uses and North Barrier Island Corridor s.ecial re; ulations:
1. Within the .Ian area, vehicle ba s or stalls such as those associated with
March 20, 2001
ORDINANCE NO. 2001-003
vehicle repair and car wash uses are allowed IF such bays or stalls are
oriented and screened from view of SR A -1-A and CR 510 by provision of
a Type "B" buffer with four foot opaque feature.
2 Real estate signs: Real estate signs are allowed as authorized in the counts
sign ordinance (Chapter 956). However, no real estate sign shall remain on
display for more than fifteen (15) days after the date of closing
3. Special buffer for multi -family, planned development. and subdivision
projects: Multi -family, planned development. and subdivision projects shall
provide the CR 510 and SR A -1-A landscape buffer (as specified herein) with
a six-foot opaque feature. Where a wall or fence is used. such wall or fence
shall be located within the middle one-third of the buffer strip's width
(measured perpendicular to CR 510 and A -1-A), and landscaping material
shall be planted on each side of the wall or fence.
Canopy fascia restrictions: Any canopy (such as for a gas station. car wash,
or drive through facility) that is wholly or partially within seventy-five (75)
feet of the CR 510 or SR A -1-A road right-of-way shall meet the following
requirements concerning maximum fascia height (this pertains to all fascia
on the above described canopy. including any canopy facia that continues
beyond the seventy -five-foot limit).
Roof Slope
Distance
Maximum
Facia Height
Less than 10 feet
8 inches
10 to 20 feet
12 inches
Greater than 20 feet
16 inches
5. Fiberglass and asphalt shingles: Fiberglass and asphalt shingles
(except in residentially designated areas) are prohibited on any roof which is
visible from any roadway and/or residentially designated area, unless such
shingles are an upgraded shingle designed to imitate something other than
asphalt or fiberglass (e g. shake or tile). Such imitations may be approved by
March 20, 2001
SKEi7PG529
ORDINANCE NO. 2001-003
the planning and zoning, after a recommendation from the on-going review
committee, if the following criteria are satisfied:
The product shall appear authentic from the closest distance that it
will be viewed by the general public.
The product shall be substantial Thin flimsy imitations are
unacceptable.
c. The product shall hold up as well as the product it is imitating. That
is it must be fabricated in such a way that it will retain its original
shape, appearance, and color, as well as the product it is imitating.
3_ The product's color shall resemble the color of the product it is
imitating
6. Project entry features: Project entry features such as walls and archways shall
be Limited to a maximum height of eight (8) feet above the project grade. In
addition, where a wall or archway is proposed, foundation plantings shall be
provided on the CR 510 and SR A -1-A sides of such wall or archway as
specified herein for commercial buildings up to twelve (12) feet high. Said
foundation plantings shall be credited toward satisfying any required CR 510
and SR A -1-A landscape buffer. Project entry features such as guardhouses
which have sloped roofs are allowed if located no closer than one hundred
twenty-five (125) feet from the centerline of CR 510 and/or SR A -1-A and
are no taller than twenty (20) feet above grade at the top of the highest roof
element.
(c) Exemptions.
Electrical substations and similar uses that prohibit access by the public onto
the site may be exempted from architectural/building requirements, if the
exempted building(s) and equipment will be visually screened from adjacent
properties and roadways.
Historic Buildings and Resources: In accordance with future land use element
objective 8 and LDR Chapter 933, historic buildings and resources identified
in the "Histonc Properties Survey of Indian River County, Florida" or
identified by the Historic Resources Advisory Committee, and located within
the North Barrier Island Comdor are exempt from special North Barrier Island
Comdor Plan requirements to the extent that applying the special Comdor
March 20, 2001
ORDINANCE NO. 2001-003
requirements would:
a. Conflict with the preservation or restoration of a historic building or
resource. or
Threaten or destroy the historical significance of an identified historic
building or resource
Said exemption shall be reviewed by and be granted by the planning and
zoning commission upon receiving a recommendation from staff and the
Historic Resources Advisory Committee.
3. Individual single-family homes and uses and structures accessory to
individual single-family homes shall be exempt from the North Barrier Island
Corridor special regulations.
(d) Special sign regulations.
(1) Scope: These special regulations consist of additional requirements above
and beyond the county sign ordinance and shall supersede any less restrictive
provisions found in the sign ordinance All signs shall comply with the
requirements of the sign ordinance except as modified by these special sign
regulations.
(2) Approval for change of sign design required: Any exterior change to North
Barrier Island Corridor signage which was originally required to comply with
these special sign regulations shall require review and approval by the
community development department. Such changes shall include, but not be
limited to, changes of: sign area (square footage). sign copy area (square
footage). height. shape. style. location. colors. materials or method of
illumination. Routine maintenance and replacement of materials which do not
affect the approved design shall be exempt from this review and approval.
Changes to signs not originally required to comply with these special sign
regulations are addressed in the "nonconforming signs" section of these
regulations.
(3) Prohibited signs (this is in addition to sign ordinance section 956.12
prohibitions): The following are prohibited:
Prohibited signs:
March 20, 2001
BKII7PG531
ORDINANCE NO. 2001-003
a. Lights or illuminations that flash, move, rotate, scintillate, blink,
flicker, or vary in intensity or color. Public signs permitted pursuant
to sign ordinance section 956.11(2)(b) are excluded from this
prohibition and are allowed.
Electronic message boards and message centers, electronic adjustable
alternation displays. or any sign that automatically displays words,
numerals, and or characters in a programmed manner. Traffic
regulatory and directional signs permitted pursuant to sign ordinance
section 956.11(2)(b) are excluded from this prohibition and are
allowed.
c. Portable or trailer style changeable copy signs.
d. Signs with the optical illusion of movement by means of a design that
presents a pattern capable of giving the illusion of motion or changing
of copy.
e. Strings of light bulbs used on non-residential structures for
commercial purposes. other than traditional holiday decorations at the
appropriate time of the year.
Signs that emit audible sound, odor, or visible matter, such as smoke
or steam.
Plastic or glass sign faces (including but not limited to: acrylic.
Lexana. or Plexiglask). High density polyurethane and PVC are
exempt from this prohibition. Portions of a sign which are changeable
copy are exempt from this prohibition When used in conjunction
with cut-out or routered metal cabinets. plastic used only for copy or
logos is exempt from this prohibition. Plastic used for illuminated
individual channel letters or logos is exempt from this prohibition
Although highly discouraged. a plastic sign face will be allowed only
when all of the following requirements are met for the plastic portions
of a sign:
i. Plastic shall be pan formed faced (embossed and/or debossed
copy and logos are encouraged).
ii. Regardless of the opaqueness of a sign, all plastic signage
backgrounds shall be a dark color to reduce light transmission
March 20, 2001
ORDINANCE NO. 2001-003
from signage background); white background shall not be
allowed. All signage background colors shall be limited to
those colors with a formula having a minimum black content
of eleven (I 1) percent, and a maximum white content of
forty-nine (49). Color formulas will be based on the Pantone
Matching Systemk.
iii. All color must be applied on the "second surface" (inside face
of plastic).
iv. Nothing shall be applied to the "first surface" (outside face of
plastic) (i e. paint. vinyl, etc.,)
Neon and similar tube. fiber optic, and intense linear lighting systems.
where the neon or lighting tube or fiber is visible.
Plywood used for permanent signs.
Any material used in such a manner for a permanent sign that results
in a flat sign without dimension. having a semblance to a "plywood
or temporary looking sign."
Installation of an additional sign (or signs) that does not harmonize
with the design or materials of the initial sign. such as:
i. Rear illuminated plastic faced sign with a "wood look" front
illuminated sign.
ii. Combination of signs with cabinets, faces or structure of
awkwardly different materials or proportions.
iii. Attachment or mounting of signs where mounting hardware
is left exposed.
iv. Signs with different color cabinets. frames, or structure.
1. Individual styrofoam, plastic or wood letters or the like exceeding
four (4) inches in height for use on any permanent monument.
freestanding, roof, wall, or facade signs. This prohibition does not
apply to illuminated individual metal channel letters or the plastic
March 20, 2001
BK i 7 FG 5 3 3
ORDINANCE NO. 2001-003
letter typically used for changeable copy signs.
(4) Signs that are encouraged:
a. Shaped and fashioned "wood look" multi level signs (i.e.; sand
blasted or carved), and signs having durable sign cabinet material
such as high density polyurethane and PVC, rather than actual wood
or MDO.
b. Internally illuminated aluminum cabinet with textured finish, and cut-
out inset or push through acrylic letters. (Note that color may be
applied to the "first surface" on push through acrylic letters for this
type of sign.)
c. Backlit reverse pan channel letters (opaque faced) mounted on sign
that is harmonious with the project's architecture
d Signage that relates to the building's style of architecture and
materials.
e. Thematic signage.
f. Changeable copy signs that have a dark opaque background with
translucent lettering.
(5) Reduction in sign sizes and dimensions; Modifications to Table 1
(freestanding signs) and Table 2 (wall signs), Schedule of Regulations for
Permanent Signs Requiring Permits, Chapter 956 sign ordinance
a. Freestanding signs:
Maximum cumulative signage: Reduce to fifty (50) percent of
what is allowed in Table 1.
ii. Maximum signage on a single face: Reduce to fifty (50)
percent of what is allowed in Table 1.
iii. Maximum height: Reduce to thirty (30) percent of what is
allowed in Table 1, but no less than six (6) feet and no greater
than ten (10) feet
March 20, 2001
ORDINANCE NO. 2001-003
iv. For development involving sites of forty (40) acres or more.
the ten (10) foot sign height requirement may be waived by
the board of county commissioners if the development project
applicant prepares and the board of county commissioners
approves a sign package that reduces the total sign area
otherwise allowed under the corridor plan and sign ordinance
by ten (10) percent or more. Outparcels on larger sites shall
comply with the six (6) feet to ten (10) foot height limitations
specified above.
v. Required setbacks from property lines or right-of-way: One
(1) foot subject to satisfaction of sight distance requirements.
vi. Number of allowable signs per street frontage: No waivers
shall be approved that would reduce the required minimum of
two hundred (200) feet of separation between signs along the
same street frontage found in Footnote #2 of Table 1 of the
sign ordinance. (See Figure F -I at the end of Section 911.18)
b. Wall/facade signs.
i. Maximum sign area allowed: Reduce to fifty (50) percent of
what is allowed in Table 2.
(6) Colors:
The following colors are encouraged for signage:
i. Use of earth -tone colors and pastels.
H. Darker backgrounds with light color sign copy.
iii. Use of colors that match or are compatible with the project's
architecture.
iv. Colors such as medium or dark bronze are acceptable and
encouraged. Polished or weathered true bronze brass. or
copper metal finishes are acceptable and encouraged. Precious
metal colors are allowed on sand blasted or carved "wood
look' style signs.
b. The following colors are prohibited for signage:
March 20, 2001
BK i 7 PG 535
ORDINANCE NO. 2001-003
i. The use of shiny or bright metallic or mill finish colors (i.e.;
rold, silver. bronze, chrome, aluminum, stainless steel, etc.).
ii. The use of garish colors, such as fluorescent.
The use of black for signage background. Changeable copy
signage is excluded from this prohibition.
(7) Multi -tenant spaces: Applicants of proposed multi -tenant projects, such as
shopping centers, out parcels, industrial complexes and parks, and office
complexes and parks, shall submit a sign program for review and approval.
This sign program shall identify the coordination and consistency of design,
colors, materials, illumination, and locations of signage. In a multi -tenant
project where no established pattern. as described above exists, the owner of
the multi -tenant project shall submit a sign program for approval prior to
issuance of any new sign permits for a tenant space.
(8) Design criteria and additional restrictions:
a. Freestanding signage:
All freestanding signs shall be of a wide -based monument
style. Pole signs are discouraged, but may be permitted when
the supporting structures are completely screened from view
with landscaping or berm features. Said Landscaping and/or
bermmg shall cover and screen the entire area beneath the
sign at time of certificate of occupancy (C.O.) issuance, and
thereafter.
ii. Any freestanding signs constructed from flat panel material.
such as high density polyurethane. MDO, sheet metal, or the
like. shall have a distance of no less than eight (8) inches from
face to face, and shall be enclosed on all sides to cover the
internal frame.
b. Freestanding changeable copy signs:
i. Where a freestanding changeable copy sign is allowed, no
more than eighty (80) percent of the sign face area shall be
March 20, 2001
ORDINANCE NO. 2001-003
comprised of changeable copy area.
Wall/facade signage:
The maximum vertical dimension of a facade or wall sign
shall not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the building
height.
ii. Awnings with lettering shall be considered wall signs. Where
lettering is used on an awning. the area of lettering shall be
included in the percentage limitation of a project's sign area.A
iii. Lettering. logos. and trim colors on canopy facia shall be
considered a wall sign and shall be limited to thirty-three (33)
percent of the facia area of any one elevation. Internally
illuminated signs shall not be placed on a canopy structure.
and no sign shall be placed above the facia on a canopy
structure.
iv'. Wall signs (facade signs) are prohibited on roofs with a slope
less than 20:12 (rise:run) pitch. Wall signs mounted on a roof
shall be enclosed on all sides to cover the internal frame and
its connection to the roof. Also see IRC LDR's Section
956.12(1)(o).
Changeable copy wall signs for theaters:
i. Theaters may utilize up to eighty (80) percent of actual sign
area for display of names of films, plays or other
performances currently showing.
Illumination:
All external flood sign illumination shall be mounted at grade.
directly in front of the sign area. Light source shall be
completely shielded from oncoming motorist's view.
(9) Window signs: "Window signs" shall include permanently affixed window
signs. temporary window signs. and any signs or displays located within three
(3) feet of the window, door. or storefront. Window signs shall not exceed ten
(10) percent of the window storefront area (window panes and framing) per
store or business, and in no case shall exceed fifty (50) square feet per store
March 20, 2001
BK 117 PG 537
ORDINANCE NO. 2001-003
or business. Street address numbers and lettering, and flyers or posters related
to not for profit events and organizations, shall not count as window signage
"Open " ' closed," hours of operations and identification window signage
totaling up to four (4) square feet shall not count as window signage.
(10) Nonconforming signs: It is the intent of these regulations to allow
nonconforming signs to continue until they are no longer used or become
hazardous, and to encourage conformance to these special sign regulations.
A "compatible freestanding sign" shall be defined as any freestanding sign
permitted prior to the adoption of these special regulations and conforming
to the North Barrier Island Corridor Plan maximum height requirements for
a freestanding sign, and monument style for a freestanding sign.
a. Nonconforming signs are subject to the following:
i. Nonconforming signs or nonconforming sign structures on -
sites abandoned for twelve (12) or more consecutive months
shall not be permitted for reuse.
ii. Except as otherwise provided herein, there may be a change
of tenancy or ownership of a nonconforming sign. without the
loss of nonconforming status, if the site is not abandoned for
twelve (12) or more consecutive months and if there is no
change of use of the site. Also, change of tenancy or
ownership shall not affect the status of a non -conforming sign
that serves multiple tenants.
iii. Colors of a nonconforming sign shall not be changed from
those existing at the time of the adoption of this Code. unless
new colors comply with the North Barrier Island Corridor
special color requirements
iv. A nonconforming sign shall not be enlarged or increased in
any way from its lawful size at the time of the adoption of
these special regulations.
March 20, 2001
BK 7PG538
t:xcept
as specified
below, nonconforming freestanding signs shall be
brought into conformity with the requirements
of a "compatible
freestanding sign' on or before September
I, 2005. If a
property
owner documents to the community
development
director
that
the
cost of lowering a nonconformity sign to a conforming
height
would
March 20, 2001
BK 7PG538
ORDINANCE NO. 2001-003
exceed fifty (50) percent of the cost to replace the sign, and the
building official verifies the appropriateness of the estimated
replacement cost. then the sign shall not need to be made a
"compatible freestanding sign." However, when such an exemption
applies, the property owner shall provide landscaping around the base
or support structures of such a sign to visually screen the pole. subject
to sight distance requirements. as approved by the community
development director. -�
(1 1) Architectural/building standards.
(I) Prohibited architectural styles: The following are prohibited:
a. Corporate signature or commercial prototype architecture,
unless such is consistent with these special corridor
requirements. Examples of such prohibited architecture
include flat roofed convenience stores. gas stations. and
canopies for gas stations. car washes. and drive through
facilities lsee Figure F-3 at the end of Section 911.18).
b. Any kitsch architecture (such as a building that does not
resemble a typical structure), including: structures or elements
that resemble an exaggerated plant fish. edible food, or other
such items such as giant oranges, ice cream cones. dinosaurs.
c. Any architecture having a historical reference that is so
different from current design philosophy that such reference
is inconsistent and/or incompatible with surrounding
structures. Examples of such include: igloos, domes or
geodesic domes. Quonset style structures, teepees western
"false fronts." medieval castles. caves. and the like
(2) Architectural/building exemptions and special requirements:
a. Electrical substations and similar uses: Electrical substations
and similar uses that prohibit access by the public into the site
may be exempted from all architecturaUbuilding requirements
by the community development director if the exempted
building(s) and equipment will be visually screened from
adjacent properties and roadways.
b. Historic Buildings and Resources: In accordance with Future
March 20, 2001
BKiI7PG539
ORDINANCE NO. 2001-003
Land Use Element objective
8 and LDR Chapter
933, historic
buildings and resources identified in the "Historic
Properties
Survey of Indian River County, Florida", or identified
by the
Historic Resources Advisory Committee, and located within
the Wabasso corridor are exempt
from special
Wabasso
Corridor Plan requirements
to the
extent that
applying the
special
Corridor Plan requirements
would:
Conflict with the preservation or restoration of a
historic building or resource. or
2. Threaten or destroy the historical significance of an
identified historic building or resource.
Said exemption shall be reviewed by and may be granted by
the Planning and Zoning Commission upon receiving a
recommendation from staff and the Historic Resources
Advisory Committee.
(3) General design criteria:
a. Buildings with facades fronting on more than one street shall
have similar design considerations (e.g. exterior finish, roof
treatment, building articulation, entrance features. and
window placement) and consistent detailing on all street
frontages.
b. General prohibitions and restrictions:
Hat. blank, unarticulated, or massive facades fronting
on a roadway, exclusive access drive or residentially
designated area are prohibited. Facades fronting such
roads, drives. or areas shall be designed to incorporate
architectural elements providing breaks in the planes
of exterior walls and/or roofs to articulate the building
and to lessen the appearance of excessive mass.
Facades should incorporate elements relating to
human scale, and can be divided by use of:
proportional expression of structure. openings,
arcades, canopies, fenestration, changes in materials,
cornice details, molding details. changes in the heights
of different sections of the building, and the like
March 20, 2001
ORDINANCE NO. 2001-003
(ste..in • or slo
of a
with a low sloped roof is
unarticulated, or massive facades will be
.et wall in con'unction
ohibitedi Flat. blank.
ermined on
the sides and rear of a building where "blank facade
rovided for such building
lantings section for
foundation
lantin
s
facade faces (see foundation
re
uirements).
The following materials or systems are
osed
a finish and/or ex
metal
concrete masonry units),
]vwood or textured G
allowed for soffit material.
��. w 11VVCU
anels, smooth finish concrete block (standard
recast concrete tee systems,
wood. Plywood shall be
Plastic or metal is
walls or trim. Plastic is
for slo
Althou
rohibited as a finish material for
rohibited as a finish material
ed roofs. visible roof structures, and facias
eneral. certain metal and
oducts may be
h rohibited in
astic construction
planning a roved by the
r and zoning commission upon a 1l ritten
request and product sample submitted
applicant The planning and zoning by the
approve use of the material if the foll�ngicriteriacma
are satisfied:
• The product shall appear authentic from the
closest distance that it will be viewed b the
genera_ 1EL
The product shall be substantial Thin and
flimsy imitations are unacceptable.
roduct shall hold u
product it is imitating
fabricated in such a wa
on inal sha
as the product it
as well as the
Thatis, imust be
that it will retain its
pearance, and color, as well
s imitatine.
The product's color shall resemble the color of
the product it is imitating
iv. An ex osed masonry in a stack bond
is rohibited.
March 20, 2001
111 PG 541
ORDINANCE NO. 2001-003
v. Lighting structures or strip lighting that follows the
form of the building, parts of the building, or building
elements is prohibited.
vi. Neon and similar tube and fiber optic lighting and
similar linear lighting systems, where the neon or
lighting tube or fiber is visible. is prohibited (this
restriction includes site signage).
vii. Backlit transparent or translucent architectural
elements, backlit architectural elements, as well as
illuminated or backlit awnings and roof mounted
elements are prohibited. This does not prohibit the use
of glass blocks. This does not prohibit the use of an
illuminated sign attached to a building.
viii. Facades that appear to be primarily awnings are
prohibited An awning shall not run continuously for
more than thirty (30) percent of the length of any
single facade. Gaps between awning segments shall be
at least twenty-four (24) inches wide. Placement of
awning segments shall relate to building features (e.g
doorways and windows), where possible. Awnings
shall not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the area
of any single facade.
ix. Drive -up windows shall not be located on a building
facade that faces a residential area or a roadway unless
architecturally integrated into the building and
screened by landscaping equivalent to the material in
a local road buffer that runs the length of the drive-
through lane and its speakers shall be oriented so as
not to project sound toward residential areas.
Accessory structures, including sheds. out buildings,
dumpster enclosures, and screening structures, shall
match the style, finish, and color of the site's main
building. Metal utility sheds and temporary car
canopies are prohibited.
(12) Roofs: All buildings and accessory structures within the plan
sloped roofs (slope pitch at least 4:12) visible from every direction shall
unless
March 20, 2001
ORDINANCE NO. 2001-003
visible flat roof, parapet roof. or other such roof design is determined by the
community development director or his designee to be an integral feature of
a recognized architectural style.
1. Sloped roofs. including mansards. shall have a minimum vertical rise
of six feet (not including fascia). Where flat roofs are allowed by the
community development director or his designee. buildings and
accessory structures may have flat roof systems where flat roof areas
are not visible at six (6) feet above grade from all directions.
The ridge or plane of a roof (or visible roof structure) that runs
parallel (or slightly parallel) with a roadway shall not run continuous
for more than one hundred (100) feet without offsetting or jogging
(vertically or horizontally) the roof ridge or plane a minimum of
sixteen (16) inches (see Figure B-2 at the end of Section 911.19)
Low slope roofs and parapet walls allowed by the community
development director or his designee are excluded from this
requirement.
3. Roofing materials are prohibited for use as a finish material on
parapets or any surface with a slope greater than 30:12 (rise:run). up
to and including vertical surfaces. This pertains only to those surfaces
visible from adjacent property, exclusive access drives or roadways.
(See Figures F-2 and F-3 at the end of section 911.18)
(e) Colors and building graphics.
(1) The following building graphics are prohibited: polka dots. circles. vertical
stripes diagonal stripes or lines. plaids animals and symbols such as
lightning bolts. However, legally registered trademarks which directly relate
to the building occupant (not trademarks of products or services sold or
displayed) are allowed. subject to applicable sign and color regulations.
(2) Color standards. All buildings and accessory structures within the North
Barrier Island Corridor shall be limited to the following colors.
a. Base building colors: Base building colors relate to wall and parapet
wall areas and shall be limited to the colors listed in the North Barrier
Island Corridor Master Color List. These colors consist of white and
light neutral colors in the warm range.
b. Secondary building colors: Secondary building colors relate to larger
trim areas and shall be limited to the colors listed in the North Barrier
March 20, 2001
BKII7PG543
ORDINANCE NO. 2001-003
Island Corridor Master Color List. Secondary building colors shall
not exceed thirty (30) percent of the surface area of any one building
facade elevation. These colors consist of a mid-range intensity of the
base building colors and complimentary colors, and include all base
building colors.
Trim colors: Trim colors are used for accent of smaller trim areas, are
the brightest group of colors allowed, and include all base building
and secondary building colors Use of metallic colors (i.e,: gold,
silver, bronze. chrome, etc) and use of garish colors, such as
fluorescent colors (e.g. hot pink. shocking yellow), are prohibited.
Trim colors shall not exceed ten (10) percent of the surface area of
any one building facade elevation. Where trim colors are used in a
building facade sign, the trim color area of the facade sign shall be
included in the percentage limitation on the trim color surface area.
d. Roof colors (requirements for roofs that are visible from a roadway
and/or residentially designated area): Metal roof colors shall be
limited to the colors listed in the North Barrier Island Corridor Master
Color List's "Metal Roof Colors' , which is the same as for the SR 60
corridor. These colors consist of natural mill finish, white. light
neutral colors in the warm range. blue. and a limited number of earth -
tone colors. Mixing or alternating colors of metal panels is prohibited.
For non-metal roofs, other than natural variations in color or color
blends within a tile, the mixing or alternating of roof color in the
same roof material is prohibited. Colors and color blends shall not be
contrary to the intent of this code. Color for roofing which is glazed,
slum coated, or artificially colored on the surface by any other means
shall be limited to the same colors as approved for metal roofs.
Natural finish materials: The color requirements listed above shall
not apply to the colors of true natural finish materials such as brick
stone, terra cotta, concrete roof tiles, slate, integrally colored concrete
masonry units, copper, and wood. Colors commonly found in natural
materials are acceptable, unless such material has been artificially
colored in a manner which would be contrary to the intent of these
requirements. Black, gray blue, or extremely dark colors for brick.
concrete masonry units, roofing, wood or stone is prohibited. (This
provision shall not prohibit the use of colors for natural finish roofing
materials that match those colors approved for metal roofs )
Awning colors: Awning colors may include base building colors
and/or secondary building colors and/or trim colors. However,
secondary building colors and trim color area used for awnings shall
March 20, 2001
ORDINANCE NO. 2001-003
be included in the percentage limitation on the secondary building_
color and trim color surface area of a facade.
(3) The North Barrier Island Corridor Master Color List and the approved color
board are the same as for the SR 60 Corridor Plan and the Wabasso Corridor
Plan, and shall be maintained by and made available by planning staff. The
list can be mailed or faxed upon request.
(f) Special screening and lighting: Within the plan area, mechanical equipment ("ground.
building_. and roof mounted), including air conditioning units. pumps, meters. walk-in
coolers. and similar equipment shall be visually screened from surrounding properties
and roadwa} s using architectural features. fencing. walls. or landscaping
In addition to required landscaping. all loading/unloading docking areas located
adjacent to residentially designated areas and/or roadways shall be provided with a
solid wall at least eight (8) feet in height above the loading area grade to buffer
adjacent roadways and residential sites from noises and sights associated with docks.
Manmade opaque screens which are visible from any public or private right-of-way
or street, or any residentially designated area, shall be constructed of a material which
is architecturally similar in design. color and finish to the principal structure.
Screening.
All telephones, vending machines, or any facility dispensing
merchandise or a service on private property shall be confined to a
space built into the building or buildings. or enclosed in a separate
structure compatible with the main building's architecture. These
areas are to be designed with the safety of the user in mind. Public
phones and ATMs should have twenty -four-hour access.
ii. No advertising will be allowed on any exposed amenity or facility
such as benches or trash containers.
iii. Screening of chain link fencing. Where chain link or similar fencing
is allowed to be used (e.g. around stormwater ponds), such fencing
shall be green or black and shall be located and landscaped so as to
visually screen the fencing from public view.
Lighting. The use of thematic and decorative site lighting is
encouraged. Low
lights of a modest scale can be used along with feature lighting that
emphasizes
plants trees, entrances, and exits. Light bollards are encouraged
along
pedestrian
paths. The color of the Light sources (lamp)
should be
consistent throughout the
project. Color of site lighting luminaries,
poles, and
the like shall be limited to dark bronze black, or dark green (decorative
fixtures attached to buildings are exempt
from fixture color requirement).
March 20, 2001
ORDINANCE NO. 2001-003
Li • htin
considerabl
s not to be used as a form of advertisin
more attention to the buildin • or
da . Site li htin • shall be desi • ned to direct 1i
avoid an
ance to the nei
hbors from bri
• or in a manner that draws
rounds at ni • ht than in the
ht into the sroseri . It is to
htness or lare.
i. Roadway style luminaries (fixtures) such as cobra heads. headsNema and
the like are srohibited. Wall sack and flood li • ht luminaries are •rohibited
where the light source would be visible from a roadwa . •arking area
and/or residential) desi:nated area. Hi • h intensit dischar e (e. • . high
•ressure sodium, metal halide, mercu valor, tungsten halogen) lighting
fixtures mounted on soles hi her than eighteen (18) feet above .arkin• lot
arade and under canosies shall be directed Be •endicular to the ground.
A • 'roved lightin: shall shield 11 • htin • from roadwa , s arkin • , residential,
and conservation areas. Other than decorative and low level/low hei ht
li • htin • , no 1i:ht source or lens shall sro"ect above or below a fixture box,
shield, or canopy.
(See Figures F-12 and F-13 at the end of section 911.19)
CR 510 and SR A -I -A landsca.e bu er: Within the •Ian area the
following landscape requirements shall a1
PP Y"
(1) Increased cano,v tree size. All canotrees re•uired under normal
landsca sin • and buffering re•uirements and s
Island corridor •lan re
ulrements for
shall have a minimum hei
ssread of six (6) feet at time of
used as cano
ecial North Barrier
ro ects within the corridor
ht of twelve (12) feet and minimum
lanting. Palm tree clusters may be
ecified in the landsca
alm trees shall have a minimum clear trunk of
e ordinance.
The county -wide 1
shall a
excess
andscasin• re•uirements of LDR Chaster 926
as noted herein. The followin landsca•e buffer
long the entire length of a site's CR 510 and SR
xcept for approved driveways:
shall be provided a
A -1-A frontages, e
Buffer Width
March 20, 2001
ORDINANCE NO. 2001-003
20 feet or more
4 canopy trees
5 understory trees Continuous hedge*:
1 1/2--2 i/z high at planting
Berm. 1 1/2--3 feet high*
15 feet
4.5 canopy trees
5.5 understory trees continuous hedge*:
1 1/2--2 'ii feet high at planting
Berm: 1 1/2--2 'h high*
10 feet
5 canopy trees
6 understory trees
Continuous hedge*: 2 1/2--3 feet high at
planting
Berm: 1--1' feet high*
*Note: The intent of the hedge and berm combination is to provide a visual
screen four (4) feet high above the grade of the project site parking area.
Therefore. at the time of a certificate of occupancy (CO) for the project site, the
combination of berming and hedging shall provide a four feet visual screen.
Undulations in the berm and corresponding hedge height are encouraged.
Hedge shrubs shall be planted no further apart than twenty-four (24) inches on
center, in a serpentine pattern along the length of the buffer strip. Berms shall
have a slope no steeper than three (3) horizontal to one vertical and shall be
continuous along the length of the buffer strip, except where berm
modifications may be necessary for tree preservation as determined by the
community development director or his designee.
To provide a less formal appearance, clustering trees along the buffer strip is
encouraged and uniform spacing of trees is discouraged, except where used to
emphasize a particular planting theme or development style.
(See Figures F-4 and F-5 at the end of section 911.18 and apply to CR 510 and
SR A -1-A)
Landscape buffer along other streets in the corridor: In addition to
standard Chapter 926 requirements for landscaping between rights-
of-way and parking areas, such landscape strips within the corridor
must also contain two (2) understory trees for every thirty (30)
lineal feet of the required landscape strip.
March 20, 2001
BR 117PG547
ORDINANCE NO. 2001-003
Landscape buffer along commercial/residential border: Within the
corridor, where compatibility buffer yards are required by Chapter
911 regulations, two (2) additional understory trees per thirty (30)
lineal feet of required buffer strip shall be provided.
Foundation plantings: Foundation plantings shall be required as
stated below for non-residential buildings.
Along the front, sides and rear of buildings, the following
foundation planting landscape strips shall be provided in
accordance with the building height:
Building Height
Foundation Planting Strip Depth'
Up to 12' high
12' to 25' high
Over 25' high
IIA distance
measured perpendicular to the building, from the foundation outward
Within such foundation planting landscape strips, the following.
landscaping shall be provided;
a. Forty (40) percent of the foundation perimeter (excluding
entrance ways and overhead doors) along all building faces
shall be landscaped, as follows:
*For buildings up to 12' in height
Minimum planting area depth:
Minimum plant material required:
*1 palm tree or appropriate canopy tree for
every 10 lineal feet of planting strip
(clustered)
March 20, 2001
ORDINANCE NO. 2001-003
March 20, 2001
BK 117 PG 5149
*1 understory tree for every 20 lineal feet of
required
planting strip
*3 shrubs for every 10 square
feet of required
planting area
*Ground cover, flowering
plants or sod in the
remaining
planting area
*For buildings of 12' to 25' in height
Minimum
planting area depth:
10'
Minimum
planting material required:
*1 canopy
tree for every 10 lineal feet of
required
planting strip
(3
palms with a
minimum
height of 12' each may be
substituted for each canopy
tree)
*1 understory tree for every 20 lineal feet of
required
planting strip
*3 shrubs for every 10 square
feet of required
planting area
*Ground cover. flowering
plants or sod in the
remaining
planting area
*For buildings over 25' in height
Minimum
planting area depth:
15'
Minimum
plant material require&
*1 canopy
tree for every 7 lineal feet of
required
planting stnp
(3
palms with a
minimum
height of 16' each may be
substituted for each canopy
tree)
March 20, 2001
BK 117 PG 5149
ORDINANCE NO. 2001-003
b. The following modifications are allowed upon approval from the
community development director or his designee:
1. Foundation planting strips may be located away from
buildings to avoid conflicts with architectural features (e.g.,
roof overhangs), driveways, and vehicular areas serving
drive -up windows.
2. The depth of foundation planting strips may be modified if
the overall minimum area covered by the foundation
plantings proposed meets or exceeds the area encompassed
by a typical layout.
Increased foundation plantings for "blank facade" building faces.
As referenced in the architecturaUbuilding standards section of this
plan, 'blank facade" building faces that are unarticulated are
allowed if foundation plantings are provided as specified above
with a one hundred (100) percent increase (doubling) in required
plant material quantities (as specified above).
(See Figure F-7 through F-10 at the end of section 911.19)
Landscape planting theme requirements: All property adjacent to
CR 510 within the corridor has been placed into one of two (2)
landscaping theme categories. There are no specific landscape
theme categories along SR A -1-A. Within each CR 510 theme
category, required landscape plantings shall be limited to certain
species, as specified below, with the exception that sod. annuals, or
hardscape may be used in groundcover areas.
1. Formal Palm theme: CR 510 between the west shore of the Indian
River Lagoon and the eastern foot of the bridge:
March 20, 2001
*1 understory tree for every 10 lineal feet of
required
planting strip
*3 shrubs for every 10 square
feet of required
planting area
*Ground cover. flowering
plants or sod in the
remaining planting area
b. The following modifications are allowed upon approval from the
community development director or his designee:
1. Foundation planting strips may be located away from
buildings to avoid conflicts with architectural features (e.g.,
roof overhangs), driveways, and vehicular areas serving
drive -up windows.
2. The depth of foundation planting strips may be modified if
the overall minimum area covered by the foundation
plantings proposed meets or exceeds the area encompassed
by a typical layout.
Increased foundation plantings for "blank facade" building faces.
As referenced in the architecturaUbuilding standards section of this
plan, 'blank facade" building faces that are unarticulated are
allowed if foundation plantings are provided as specified above
with a one hundred (100) percent increase (doubling) in required
plant material quantities (as specified above).
(See Figure F-7 through F-10 at the end of section 911.19)
Landscape planting theme requirements: All property adjacent to
CR 510 within the corridor has been placed into one of two (2)
landscaping theme categories. There are no specific landscape
theme categories along SR A -1-A. Within each CR 510 theme
category, required landscape plantings shall be limited to certain
species, as specified below, with the exception that sod. annuals, or
hardscape may be used in groundcover areas.
1. Formal Palm theme: CR 510 between the west shore of the Indian
River Lagoon and the eastern foot of the bridge:
March 20, 2001
• .
ORDINANCE NO. 2001-003
Street tree: (Canopy. Min. 8 foot clear trunk)
Washington robusta
Washington Palm
Supporting shade tree: (Canopy, Min. 12 to 14 foot height by 67foot spread)
Quercus virginiana
Live Oak
Accent trees: (Understor•, Min. 8 foot height by 4 to 6 foot spread)
Ligustrum lucidum
Nerium oleander
Myrica cerifera
Shrubs: (Min. 24 inch height)
Nerium oleander
Myrica cerifera
Ligustrum lucidum
Viburnum suspensum
Coccoloba uvifera
Livistona chinensis
Groundcover: (Min. 10 to 12 inch height)
Tree Ligustrum
Oleander tree
Wax Myrtle
Oleander
Wax Myrtle
Ligustrum
Sandankwa Viburnum
Seagrape
Chinese Fan Palm
Raphiolepis indica I Indian Hawthorn
March 20, 2001
OK 117 PG 551
Ilex vomitoria
ORDINANCE NO. 2001-003
Liriope muscari "Evergreen Giant"
Pittosporum tobira "variegata"
Pittosporum tobira
Ixora "Nora Grant"
Carissa grandiflora
Yaupon Holly
Evergreen Giant Liriope
Variegated Pittosporum
Green Pittosporum
Nora Grant Ixora
Natal Plum
2 Informal Palm theme: SR AlA/CR 510 intersection west to the
eastern foot of the bridge:
Street trees: (Canopy, 10 to 16 foot clear trunk)
Washingtonia robusta
Sabal palmetto
Washington Palm
Cabbage Palm
Supporting shade tree: (Canopy, 12 to 14 foot height)
Quercus virginiana
Live Oak
Accent trees: (Understory, Min. 8 foot height by 4 to 6 foot spread)
Nerium oleander
Myrica cerifera
Ligustrum lucidum
Shrubs: (Min. 24 inch height)
March 20, 2001
Bit 1i=; 52
80
Oleander Tree
Wax Myrtle
Tree Ligustrum
• •
ORDINANCE NO. 2001-003
Scaevola
Nerium oleander
Elaeaanus
Mvrica cerifera
Ligustrum lucidum
Viburnum suspensum
Tripsacum dactyloides
Coccoloba uvifera
Groundcover: (Min. 10 to 12 inch height)
Lantana
Liriope muscari "Evergreen Giant"
Carissa grandiflora
Pittosporum tobira "variegata"
Ilex vomitoria
Raphiolepis indica
Inkberry
Oleander
Silverthorn
Wax Myrtle
Li2ustrum
Sandankwa Viburnum
Fakahatchee Grass
Seagrape
Lantana
Evergreen Giant Liriope
Natal Plum
Variegated Pittosporum
Yaupon Holly
Indian Hawthorn
(4) Review of development projects by North Barrier Island task force members. The
board of county commissioners shall appoint a group of task force members,
participants, and design professionals (3 to 6 persons) to be known as the "North
Barrier Island on-going review task force". Members of the on-going review task
force are authorized to review and comment on development project proposals
within the North Barrier Island Corridor. Task force members will be notified by
planning staff regarding pre -application conferences and TRC meetings at which
March 20, 2001
81
53
ORDINANCE NO. 2001-003
proposals for development within the comdor are reviewed and commented upon.
Staff and on-going review task force members will work with applicants to ensure
that every effort is made to save protected trees. No protected trees shall be
removed unless it is absolutely necessary to accommodate a proposed site plan.
(5) Special regulations for administrative approval, minor site plan projects. In the
North Barrier Island Corridor plan area, non-residential and mixed use
development and re -development that requires administrative approval or minor
site plan approval shall comply with the previously described special regulations
for new major development, within the administrative approval or minor site plan
project's area of development/redevelopment. The project's area of
development/redevelopment is the area of the site containing buildings, additions,
structures, facilities or improvements proposed by the applicant or required to
serve those items proposed by the applicant. As an example, a small building
addition that requires additional parking spaces would result in a project area of
development/redevelopment that includes the addition and the parking lot addition
and adjacent required landscape areas.
(6) Non-conforniities. Within the North Barrier Island Corridor Plan area, legally
established existing development and uses that do not comply with these special
regulations are grandfathered -in under the countywide nonconformities
regulations of LDR Chapter 904. All nonconforming uses and structures are
governed by the LDR Chapter 904 regulations.
In addition. within the North Barrier Island corridor plan area the following non -
conformities regulations shall apply:
March 20, 2001
(a)
(b)
nforming propem
It is the intent of this chapter to allow
regulations.
Continuance of nonconforming property: A nonconforming,
property may be continued. subject to the following provisions:
Use of nonconforming structures abandoned for a period of twelve
(12) or more consecutive months (cross-reference LDR section
904.08) located on a nonconforming property shall not be
permitted until the property is brought into compliance with the
B{ G 5
82
EmEr
but also to encourage their
nonconforming
properties to continue,
conformity to what
shall be referred to as a ' compatible
property."
A "compatible
property
' shall be considered in compliance
with
the intent
of the
North
Barrier Island Corridor special
regulations.
For the
purposes of the North Barrier Island Corridor special
regulations
"compatible
property" is defined as anv
property
with
improvements
permitted
prior to adoption
of these special
regulations
that
conform
to the CR 510 and SR A -1-A and
landscape
buffer, color, and signage requirements
of these special
regulations.
Continuance of nonconforming property: A nonconforming,
property may be continued. subject to the following provisions:
Use of nonconforming structures abandoned for a period of twelve
(12) or more consecutive months (cross-reference LDR section
904.08) located on a nonconforming property shall not be
permitted until the property is brought into compliance with the
B{ G 5
82
EmEr
ORDINANCE NO. 2001-003
requirements of a compatible property.
2 Except as otherwise provided herein. there may be a change of
tenancy or ownership of a nonconforming property. without the
loss of nonconforming status, if use of the nonconforming
structures is not abandoned for a period of twelve (12) or more
consecutive months.
3. Colors of a structure located on a nonconforming property shall not
be changed from those existing at the time of the adoption of these
special regulations, unless the new, to -be -painted colors comply
with the North Barrier Island Corridor Plan special color
regulations.
Projects on nonconforming properties requiring a building permit
(excluding permits for roofs or minor repairs or improvements
required by law) shall be required to bring the property into
compliance as a "compatible property."
A structure located on a nonconforming property shall not be
enlarged or increased in any way from its lawful size at the time of
the adoption of these special regulations. Where such changes are
made a building permit and compliance with the requirements of a
compatible property" are required for the enlargement or addition.
(7) Variances.
Variances from these special corridor regulations shall be
processed pursuant to the procedures and timeframes of Section
70.001, Florida Statutes. The planning and zoning commission
shall recommend variances to the board of county commissioners
for final action.
The planning and zoning commission is authorized to propose
settlements of claims under Chapter 70, Florida Statutes, through
any means set out in section 70.001(4)(c).
Criteria. The planning and zoning commission shall not approve a
variance or other proposal for relief unless to finds the following:
The corridor regulation directly restricts or limits the use of real
property such that the property owner is permanently unable to
attain the reasonable, investment -backed expectation for the
existing use of the real property or a vested right to a specific use
of the real property with respect to the real property as a whole: or
2. That the property owner is left with existing or vested uses that are
March 20, 2001
ORDINANCE NO. 2001-003
unreasonable such that the property owner bears permanently a
disproportionate share of a burden imposed for the good of the
public which in fairness should be borne by the public at large;
and
The relief granted protects the public interest served by the
regulations at issue and is the appropriate relief necessary to
prevent the corridor regulations from inordinately burdening the
real property.
(8) Public Sector Development Guidelines
The following design enhancements are guidelines that shall be considered in the
design of roadway projects and other public sector improvements within the CR
510 and SR A -1-A right-of-way:
1. Providing irrigation coverage within medians and interchanges,
and along roadway edges.
Providing curbed medians and roadway edges in a manner that
allows for planting and maintaining more substantive landscaping
materials such as canopy trees.
3. Providing a separated "recreational path" system (used by
pedestrians and bicyclists) that meanders along the corridor and is
integrated into the pedestrian systems of individual sites.
4. Planting live oaks. cabbage palms, washingtonian palms. pines,
crepe myrtles. wax myrtles and other canopy and understory trees
found or used within the corridor. No symmetrical arrangement of
material is required.
5. Providing landscaping, berming and other features that are
consistent with line of sight guidelines to signify and enhance the
appearance of intersections. access points, medians. and traffic
islands and separators.
6. Providing lighting for streets and the separated recreational
pedestrian path system with lighting structures that blend in with
the surroundings or complement the built environment.
Using dark colors for support poles and structures used for such
things as lighting, traffic signals, utilities, and signs, so that such
structures do not "stand out" but blend into the surroundings.
Minimizing the number of poles and support structures by
eliminating redundant signs and co -locating signs, street lighting,
March 20, 2001
•
ORDINANCE NO. 2001-003
and other structures supported by poles.
9. Providing pavers and special surface treatments to accent
landscape areas. intersections access points. medians. traffic
islands and separators. and crosswalks.
10. Eliminating or reducing overhead transmission and service lines
and poles.
2. Elimination of CR 510 East Corridor Sub -Area and Regulations
Portions of zoning chapter 911 subsection 911.18(3) are hereby amended as follows:
(3) Specific development regulations within the Wabasso Corridor. In the Wabasso
Corridor, the following special regulations shall apply to new non-residential and mixed
use (combination of residential/commercial) development that requires major site plan
approval. SpcLialicgalatio1is. as spccificd shall apply t., all d1/4.,.L1 Y<<1_ it
•
(a) Prohibited uses: The following land uses shall be prohibited:
1. Outdoor display of automobiles/motorized vehicles for sale or rental.
2. Outdoor display of mobile homes for sale or rental.
3. Outdoor display of boats for sale or rental;
4. Drive-in theaters;
5. Recycling centers;
6. Transmission towers;
7. Flea markets;
8. Transient merchant uses; and
9. Temporary sales events that require temporary use permits and are conducted
outside of enclosed buildings.
Specifically, there shall be no outside display of merchandise on public sidewalks
(within public rights-of-way or easements) or rights-of-way. Outside display of
merchandise shall be allowed on private property; provided, however, that outside
display of merchandise is allowed only on sidewalks abutting buildings occupied by
the business displaying the merchandise. All other uses shall comply with applicable
zoning district regulations.
•
March 20, 2001
85
81(a17i0557
ORDINANCE NO. 2001-003
(b) Rt.strict.,d ascs aad CR 510 East Co,f;do, spLc;a1 ,csulat;e„s.
a- Real Estatr SipR, a1 Estate, signs arc alluwcd as
estate s,gn shall roma;n e,1 d;splay fe, ,ne,C t11a,
V el ctVsIng
b- Spe1 al if ,alt; fiz,h;l a„d plu,,,,�1 dr �rlap„le,
Qday a Qui., t1IL
Lf stip S w,dtl1 (uicuSu,
e- Log Cabins. Leg cabins slrsl1 be prwhibitLd cast of thy. oicst
J. Ca„Jpti ftZSi.La 3 Lul(VI,J. An)ta„a0 (Sac{, aS fe,
Roof Slupc
nlu,h
Eesstlrm, 10 fL
10 to 20 fLLt
5;,1cL3
C&atL, tha„ 20 fact
16 ;nchLs
e-. T;Lt,glus3 arid a3phultshi„g1e-s. FibLrglass a,th-asplralt
March 20, 2001
ORDINANCE NO. 2001-003
f. ?V nr-riirt. UT Ming .3i5r1.i. Ne1T eellfuriniag signs shall be
uD�.,..[ (e [11., IIullLunte1!mng Sign rcgwatteus apyllcatAc Ye tni. e\ Cl
11C 11LJ to t11C ..e 11T111u111t'l al.%' cleprrn,rrt'1 11.,Ctvr tna
v1 u1� a u�uCV111v11Ill Ii' 51t'l] LV a COf IOiiflu1:; [1C1.1I %
l& Lt Cu ipag s1g1T.
ptierr applies, talc prupcm
W a1lJ a11LL a1 ..11WaYJ J1I3II VL 11IILL..0 .O a T
abOfc tl1C pi ("JCL L
a1C11A4a), an Sp is 1Tc c1n IOfeeul icrcid1 ! nlldings tip to ter ttC(1=l
fcct high. Said fuundatien plantings shall b., cn.dit.,d to 1 at d satisfy int, an)
icquit cd CR 5101a11.1a.,UY., Luff. 1. I1�., t l 11t1S f.,at,.1�� su..i1 a,
-) fl...t f1V111 tI1 . a..1 tLI 1111. -
3. Adjustment of the Wabasso Corridor Eastern Boundary Along CR 510
Zoning chapter 911 section 911.18(2) is hereby amended as follows:
(2) Boundaries of the Wabasso Corridor. The boundaries of the Wabasso Corridor
shown on the county's official zoning atlas. Generally, the boundaries run along US 1 from
77th Street (all sides of the 77th Street/US 1 intersection) to 95th Street and along CR 510
from 66th Avenues (all sides of the 66th Avenue/CR 510 intersection to the At}antic O1.csn
eastern shore of the Indian River Lagoon.
4. Repeal of Conflicting Provisions
All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby
repealed to the extent of such conflict. All special Acts of the legislature applying only to the
March 20, 2001
BX1i PG 559
ORDINANCE NO. 2001-003
unincorporated portion of the Indian River County which conflict with the provisions of this
ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict.
5. Codification
The provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated into the County Code and the word
` Ordinance" may be changed to "section", "article", or other appropriate word, and the
sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or re -lettered to accomplish such intentions.
6. Severability
If any section, part of a sentence, paragraph, phrase or word of this ordinance is for any
reason held to be unconstitutional inoperative or void, such holdings shall not affect the
remaining portions hereof and it shall be construed to have been the legislative intent to pass
this ordinance without such unconstitutional, invalid or inoperative part.
7. Effective Date
This ordinance shall take effect upon filing with the Florida Secretary of State.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal on the 8th day of
March 2001, for a public hearing to be held on the 20th day of March , 2001,
time it
was which moved for adoption by Commr
seconded by Commissioner Adams
The ordinance was adopted by a vote of:
Chairman Caroline D. Ginn
Vice Chairman Ruth M. Stanbridge
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht
Commissioner John W. Tippin
Commissioner Fran B. Adams
ssioner Stanbridge
, and adopted by the following vote:
e
Aye
Aye
Aye
Ave
The Chairman thereupon declared the ordinance duly passed and adopted this
day of March , 2001.
March 20, 2001
88
6<
20th
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
ORDINANCE NO. 2001- 003
Caroline D. Ginn
Chairman
Filed with the Florida Department of State on the � day of
Sir tvr k, 2001.
William G. Collins
Deputy County Attorney
APPROVED AS TO PLANNING MATTERS
Robert M. Keating, AQP
Community Development Director
March 20, 2001
BM 1 1, PG 56 1
9.A.2. PUBLIC HEARING - SMIGIEL PARTNERS XII LIMITED,
INC. - REQUEST TO MODIFY THE PD PLAN AND RECREATION
TRACT AREA CONDITION OF PD APPROVAL - LEGEND LAKES PD
PLAN APPROVAL (Legislative)
PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF ADVERTISEMENT FOR HEARING
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
Planning Director Stan Boling reviewed a Memorandum of March 9, 2001 using a
location map (page 208 in the backup) to aid in his presentation:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVI ION HEAD CONCURRENCE
fi
Ad
•
Robert M. Keating. AICP
Community Development Director
FROM: Stan Boling AICP
Planning Director
DATE: March 9. 2001
SUBJECT: Smigiel Partners XII Limited. Inc.'s Request to Modify the P.D. Plan and
Recreation Tract Area Condition of P D Approval for the Legend Lakes P.D
Plan Approval
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of March 20. 2001.
BACKGROUND:
At its January 9. 2001 meeting., the Board of County Commissioners voted 4 to 1 to approve the
Legend Lakes P.D. (Planned Development) plan and special exception use request with
recommended conditions, and with an extra condition added by the Board which requires the
applicant to "...double the recreation areas..." shown on the January 9th P D plan. As stated by staff
at that meeting, such a doubling of the recreation tract areas would probably eliminate about 7 or 8
lots from the project.
After the January 9th meeting, the applicant contacted staff and indicated that he had some post -
meeting discussions with some commissioners. As a follow-up. the applicant requested that the
Board agree to reconsider the recreation u -act condition and approve a related P.D. plan modification.
March 20, 2001
BK l 1 / PG 562
90
• •
At its February 20, 2001 meeting, the Board agreed to reconsider the condition and a P.D. plan
modification at a public hearing. The applicant has now submitted a revised P.D. plan along with
a request to modify the original recreation tract condition and staff has scheduled this public hearing
for this matter. The hearing has been properly noticed and advertised at the applicant's expense.
Therefore. the Board is now to consider the proposed P D plan modification and a modification to
the original approval condition relating to recreation tract area.
ANALYSIS:
The P.D. ordinance (Chapter 915) sets forth recreation area requirements that correspond to the
number of proposed residential units. Under Chapter 915 standards pedestrian paths. recreation
areas, playgrounds, playfields. and active recreation facilities like tennis courts may all count toward
meeting the P. D. recreation area requirement. For the Legend Lakes project. 1.97 acres of recreation
area is required Under the January 91" ("old plan') 2.8 acres of recreation area (including 3
recreation tracts totaling 2.2 acres) was provided. The revised P.D. plan adds one lot to the
southeastern recreation tract resulting in a total recreation area of 3.1 acres (includes 3 recreation
tracts totaling 2.5 acres. On the expanded tract. the revised P D plan proposes two tennis courts,
a small parking area. and a grassed playfield/playground area. By expanding the tract by one lot. the
total number of lots within the project is reduced from 164 to 163 lots.
The proposed changes are summarized as follows:
January 9th/ "Old" Plan Revised Plan
164 lots
2.08 units/acre
2.8 acres recreation area
163 lots
2.06 units/acre
3.1 acres recreation area
Staff has reviewed the proposed changes and supports approval of the revised P.D. plan with all
originally recommended approval conditions together with a new condition that requires 3.1 acres
of total recreation area as shown on the revised P.D. plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the revised P.D. plan for the
Legend Lakes project, with the following conditions:
1. That 3.1 acres of recreation area be provided as shown on the revised P.D. plan.
2. Caribbean fruit fly host plants are prohibited within the project area.
3. That prior to issuance of a land development permit, the applicant shall obtain from
planning staff approval of detailed. final landscape plans for the required buffers.
entry landscape areas. and recreation areas.
a. The Oslo Road buffer shall meet or exceed the standards for a Type "B"
buffer with 6' opaque feature and shall not include the use of a wooden fence.
and
March 20, 2001
b. The northern boundary buffer shall meet or exceed Type "C" buffer
standards
91
31{117PG 563
That prior to or via the final plat, the applicant shall:
Dedicate without compensation the 10' and 30' strips of right-of-way required
to bring the Oslo Road right-of-way width up to 60', and
b. Place restrictions on the properly that prohibits the planting of Caribbean
fruit fly host plants.
That prior to issuance of a certificate of completion for Phase III,
a. The westbound tight -turn lane for the project's Oslo Road entrance shall be
complete and
b. 5`h Street SW shall be paved from the 5`h Street SW entrance to 43rd Avenue
or 58th Avenue and
c. The required westbound left -tum lane for the project's 5th Street SW entrance
shall be complete.
A TTA CHMENTS:
1. Applicant's Request
1.
Location Map
3. January 9th, 2001 Board of County Co
4. Proposed Changes to Approval Conditio sss[oners Minutes. Including Staff Report
5. "Old" P.D. Plan and Revised P.D. Plan
Planning Director Stan Boling responded to Chairman Ginn's and Vice Chairman
Stanbridge's concerns about the 100 -year flood plan, maintenance, playground equipment,
and the new percentage of open space.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in
this matter.
Randy Mosby, Mosby & Associates, advised that the only thing he wanted to add is
that Smigiel has found in development of their projects that having isolated recreational areas
that are wooded tends to create more problems for the community than having wide open
March 20, 2001
92
•
•
areas. Eighteen percent of the development is in lakes and they do not get full credit for
open space in the lakes.
Vice Chairman Stanbridge pointed out that is the penalty for building in a flood plain.
In response to Chairman Ginn concerning aeration of the stormwater pond, Mr.
Mosby responded that the design meets all the water quality requirements from St. Johns
River Water Management District and there will not be cattails growing on the banks. His
clients were present and Chairman Ginn indicated she would like to ask them the same
question.
There was a brief discussion about aeration and requirements of SJRWMD, and
Community Development Director Robert M. Keating commented that the County
previously required littoral zones. Our regulations are now in accord with SJRWMD which
has the experts.
Mr. Mosby advised that what was learned about littoral zones is that they are rodent
hazards which is one of the reasons SJRWMD removed them from their requirements.
This remark created quite a reaction from the Commissioners that no one wants to do
maintenance in littoral zones. Vice Chairman Stanbridge thought it was unfortunate that
engineers do not always know how to design them.
John Green, of Smigiel Partners, 22 Hastings Lane, Boynton Beach, Florida, advised
that aeration of the lake has not been under consideration at this point, but they would be
amicable to looking into that if it becomes a requirement. The landscape architect is
designing some native plants that will go along the lake banks for visual enhancement, but
not a littoral zone.
There was a brief but lighthearted discussion about whether or not the lake would be
stocked and Commissioner Tippin volunteered to help.
March 20, 2001
93
BK H7PG565
From the description of the lake by Mr. Green, Vice Chairman Stanbridge thought
they may get a natural littoral zone.
It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the Chairman closed the
public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved the
revised P D plan for the Legend Lakes project with the
conditions as set forth in the memorandum.
9.A.3. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE NO. 2001-004 - MARCUS
L. CUTRONE'S REQUEST TO REZONE f1 ACRE AT 1000 OLD DIXIE
HIGHWAY FROM IG TO CH (Quasi -Judicial)
PROOF OF PUBLICATION IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
Community Development Director Robert M. Keating reviewed a Memorandum of
March 5, 2001 using Power Point R (copy on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board) to
aid in his presentation:
TO: James E. Chandler; County Administrator
DEPART ENT HEAD CONCURRENCE
Robert M. Keating, AICP; Community Development Director
THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICP; Chief, Long -Range Planning -7
FROM: John Wachtel; Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning
DATE: March 5, 2001
RE: Marcus L. Cutrone's Request to Rezone ±1 Acre from IG TO CH
(RZON 2000-05-0170)
March 20, 2001
BK ! PG 566
94
11 is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of March 20, 2001.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
This is a request to rezone ±1 acre from IG. General Industrial District. to CH. Heavy Commercial
District. The subject properly, depicted in Figure 1. is located at 1000 Old Dixie Highway. The
applicant, who also owns the CH zoned parcel bordering the subject property on the north. intends
to develop both sites under the same zoning district.
On February 8, 2001. the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 7 to 0 to recommend that the
Board of County Commissioners approve this request to rezone the subject properly from IG to CH.
Existing Land Use Pattern
The IG zoned subject property contains three repair and storage buildings. To the south and east of
the subject propeny, land is also zoned IG. Those sites contain various industrial businesses used
for storage and repair. Land abutting the subject property on the north is zoned CH and contains a
boat and recreational vehicle storage business. Land to the west of the subject propeny, across Old
Figure 1: Location and Zoning of the Subject Property
said.
"g: J. A. H A R K I S
01, ISO
0 38
379.
QUARE
9TH LA.
March 20, 2001
Dixie Highway, is zoned RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential District, and contains several
residences. Just south of those residences. along the west side of Old Dixie Highway, is a retail strip
center zoned CL, Limited Commercial District.
Future Land Use Pattern
The subject property and all adjacent properties to the north, south, and east are designated C/I,
CommerciaU Industrial, on the future land use map. The C/I designation permits various commercial
and industrial zoning districts. To the west of the subject property, across Old Dixie Highway, land
is designated L-2, Low -Density Residential -2 The L-2 designation allows residential uses with
densities of up to 6 units/acre. To the north and south of the L-2 designated area, land along the west
side of Old Dixie Highway is designated C/I.
Environment
The subject property is a developed site containing no wetlands or native upland habitat. The site
is not designated as environmentally important or environmentally sensitive by the comprehensive
plan. According to Flood Insurance Rating Maps. the subject property does not contain any flood
hazard areas.
Utilities and Services
The site is within the Urban Service Area of the county. Potable water distribution lines extend to
the site from the South County Reverse Osmosis Plant. Wastewater collection lines extend to within
a quarter mile of the site from the South County Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Transportation System
The site is bounded on the west by Old Dixie Highway. Classified as an urban collector roadway
on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map. this segment of Old Dixie Highway is a two lane road
with approximately 80 feet of public road right-of-way. This portion of Old Dixie Highway is
programmed for expansion to four lanes by 2020.
Zoning District Differences
There are some similarities and some differences between the existing IG zoning district and the
proposed CH district. The differences between the districts are best illustrated by their purpose
statements. These purpose statements are as follows:
• CH. Heavy Commercial District. The CH district is intended to provide areas for
establishments engaging in wholesale trade major repair services and restricted light
manufacturing activities. The CH district is further intended to provide support services
necessary for the development of commercial and industrial uses allowed within other non-
residential zoning districts.
March 20, 2001
J68
96
•
• IG. General Industrial District. The IG district is intended to provide areas where a broad
range of industrial activities may locate and operate without significant adverse impacts upon
nearby properties. The IG district is further intended to promote the establishment of
employment centers which are accessible to the transportation system and other necessary
urban services.
In terns of permitted uses, the principal difference between the CH and IG zoning districts is that
most manufacturing uses that are permitted within the IG zoning district (such as the manufacturing
of tobacco products. textile products, lumber and wood, furniture and fixtures. rubber products.
drugs and pharmaceuticals, footwear, and electronic equipment) are not allowed within the CH
zoning distnct. As a transitional type of zoning district having more intense uses than general
commercial districts and less intense uses than industrial districts, the CH district is oriented to uses
such as warehouses. contractor trades. and repair establishments. In contrast. the IG district is
programmed to accommodate employment and industrial centers. The IG district should be located
in an area that can accommodate adverse impacts associated with industrial uses.
ANALYSIS
In this section. an analysis of the reasonableness of the rezoning request will be presented.
Specifically. this section will include:
• an analysis of the request's impact on public facilities;
• an analysis of the request's consistency with the county's comprehensive plan:
• an analysis of the request's compatibility with the surrounding area• and
• an analysis of 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. The adequate provision of
these services is necessary to ensure the continued quality of life enjoyed by the community. The
comprehensive plan also requires 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 rezoning requests, conditional concurrency review is required.
Conditional concurrency review examines the available capacity of each facility with respect to a
proposed project. Since 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 zoning district. For commercial or industrial rezoning requests. the most intense use
(according to the county's comprehensive plan and land development regulations) is retail
commercial with 10.000 square feet of gross floor area per acre of land proposed for rezoning. The
site information used for the concurrency analysis is as follows:
1. Size of Area to be Rezoned: ±1 acre
2. Land Use Designation: CIL Commercial/Industrial
March 20, 2001
97
BK 1 1 7 PG 569
•
3. Existing Zoning District: IG, General Industrial
4. Proposed Zoning District: CH, Heavy Commercial
5. Most Intense Use Under Existing Zoning District:
±10,000 sq. ft. of Retail Commercial (Shopping Center in the 6th Edition ITE Manual)
6. Most Intense Use Under Proposed Zoning District:
±10,000 sq. ft of Retail Commercial (Shopping Center in the 6t° Edition ITE Manual)
As per section 910.07(2) of the Concurrency Management Chapter of the county's land development
regulations, projects which do not increase density or intensity of use are exempt from concurrency
requirements. This rezoning request is exempt from concurrency review because the requested
zoning would not increase the use intensity of the site.
By changing the zoning of the subject properly from IG to CH. some commercial uses not currently
allowed would be permitted on the site. However. because the most intense use of the property
would be the same with either zoning district. changing the property's zoning from IG to CH would
not create additional impacts on any concurrency facilities
In this case. a detailed concurrency analysis will be done in conjunction with site development. That
concurrency analysis will address facility service levels and demand.
Compatibility with the Surrounding Area
Some sites in Indian River County can be appropriate for either CH or IG zoning. Such sites should
be within the urban service area and have easy access to the county transportation system
Additionally. those sites should be separated from existing and future residential development. The
subject property meets those criteria
Located within the county's urban service area, and near railroad tracks and a major road.
development of the site under either the existing IG or the requested CH zoning district would be
compatible with surrounding areas. Because property to the north of the subject property is zoned
CH. the request is for an expansion of an existing zoning pattern.
Compatibility problems are most likely to occur where residential and non-residential uses abut. In
this case, however the site is bounded on three sides by C/I designated land, while the nearest
residential land is separated from the subject property by a major road.
In fact. in terms of noise. lights. and other potential impacts generated by development, the
manufacturing and industrial uses allowed in the IG district are generally more intense than the repair
and storage uses allowed in the CH district. For example, while both districts allow auto/boat repair
and various types of storage facilities, only the IG district allows manufacturing. machine shops,
metal industries, packing houses. and other industrial uses. For those reasons. development of the
subject property under the requested CH district is not anticipated to increase incompatibilities with
surrounding areas.
Consistency with Comprehensive Plan
Rezoning requests are reviewed for consistency with all policies of the comprehensive plan.
Rezonings must also be consistent with the overall designation of land uses as depicted on the Future
March 20, 2001
6R 1 1 7 PG 5 70
98
•
Land Use Map, which include agriculture. residential. recreation. conservation, and commercial and
industrial land uses and their densities. Commercial and industrial land uses are located in nodes
throughout the unincorporated areas of Indian River County
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. While all comprehensive plan policies are
important, some have more applicability than others in reviewing rezoning requests. Of particular
applicability for this request are Future Land Use Element Policies 1.15 and 1.16.
Future Land Use Element Policies 1.15 and 1.16
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.16 states that the commercial/industrial land use designation shall
permit uses that include wholesale trade and distribution . storage/warehousing, repair services. and
other similar uses. In addition, Future Land Use Element Policy 1.15 states that all
commercial/industrial uses must be located within the county's urban service area.
Since the subject property is located within the county's urban service area. and the requested CH
district is intended for uses permitted within the commercial/industrial land use designation the
request is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policies 1.15 and 1.16.
While the referenced policies are particularly applicable to this request. other comprehensive plan
policies and objectives also have relevance. For that reason. staff evaluated the 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.
Potential Impact on Environmental Quality
Environmental protection regulations are the same for both the IG and the CH zoning districts.
Because the subject property is not environmentally significant or environmentally important.
development of the site will not impact significant natural resources.
CONCLUSION
The requested zoning is compatible with the surrounding area. and is consistent with the goals.
objectives. and policies of the comprehensive plan. Rezoning the site, as requested. will have no
negative impacts on environmental quality or the provision of public facilities and services. The
subject property is located in an area deemed suitable for heavy commercial uses. The request meets
all applicable criteria. For those reasons. staff supports the request.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the analysis. staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the Board
of County Commissioners approve this request to rezone the subject property from IG to CH.
March 20, 2001
99
BK 1 1 7 PG 571
•
ATTACHMENTS
1. Summary Page
2. Rezoning Application
3. Approved Minutes of the February 8. 2001. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
4. Rezoning Ordinance
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in
this matter. There being none, she closed the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED BY Vice
Chairman Stanbridge, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance No. 2001-004 amending the Zoning Ordinance and
the Accompanying Zoning Map for 1 1 acre located at 1000 Old
Dixie Highway, from IG, General Industrial District, to CH,
Heavy Commercial District, and described therein, and
providing severability and effective date.
ORDINANCE NO. 2001- 004
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE ZONING
ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FOR ±1 ACRE LOCA 1 ED AT 1000
OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY, FROM IG. GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, TO CH, HEAVY
COMMERCIAL DISTRICT; AND DESCRIBED HEREIN. AND PROVIDING 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, Flonda, did
publish and send its Notice of Intent to rezone the hereinafter described property; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that this rezoning is in
conformance with the Comprehensive Plan of Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has held a public hearing pursuant to this
rezoning request. at which parties in interest and citizens were heard;
March 20, 2001
BK 1 17 572
100
•
ORDINANCE NO. 2001-004
NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED. by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Flonda, that the zoning of the following described property situated in Indian River
County, Florida. to -wit:
THE NORTH ONE ACRE OF THAT PART LYING EAST OF THE OLD DIXIE
HIGHWAY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERT\ , TO WIT:
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER
OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 12. TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH RANGE
39 EAST. THEN RUN EAST 7.83 CHAINS, THEN SOUTH 220 YARDS. THEN WEST
7.83 CHAINS, THEN RUN NORTH 220 YARDS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
LESS PUBLIC ROAD RIGHT -OF WAY.
Be changed from IG, General Industrial District. to CH. Heavy Commercial District.
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in said Land Development
Regulations.
This ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County.
Florida, on this 20th day of March. 2001.
This ordinance was advertised in the Press -Journal on the 7th day of March. 2001. for a public
hearing to be held on the 20th day of March. 2001, at which time it was moved for adoption by
Commissioner Macht , seconded by Commissioner Stanbri dge , and
adopted by the following vote:
Chairman Caroline D Ginn Aye
Vice -Chairman Ruth M. Stanbridge Aye
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BY: '.
Caroline D. Ginn, Cha nnanan
ATTEST BY:
ti
Jefrey_ . Barton, Clerk
This ordinance was filed with the Department of State on the following date:
March 20, 2001
101
1
/
BK 1!, &573
•
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
sifiC
William G. Collins II, Deputy County Attorney
APPROVED AS TO PLANNING MATTERS
Indian Ave Ca
AOCOver
Oats
Admin
Legal
/E.L
-,': - ;- f^ /
Budget
7\t--
3 i/
Dept
I,
!,Li
,/ �/
f
. ;2 /,
Risk Mgr.
_
cd\u\v \j \rz\c u trone\ord. w pd
9.A.4. YUKON LAND CORPORATION AND DANIEL L.
SPENCER'S REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
TO REDESIGNATE ±180 ACRES FROM R TO L-1 AND TO REZONE
THOSE ±180 ACRES FROM A-1 TO RS -3 (NOT APPROVED)
(Legislative)
PROOF OF PUBLICATION IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
Community Development Director Robert M. Keating reviewed a Memorandum of
March 5. 2001 using Power Point® (copy on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board)
which included a site map of the subject property to aid in his presentation. Director
Keating further advised that this, omprehens ve Plan amendmen
ttr
items and gave a general overview of the Comp Plan Amendment Process.
TO: James E. Chandler; County Administrator
DEPARTMtNT.HEAD CONCURRE CE
i 1i
,AGif
Robert M. Keating, AICV; Community Development Director
THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICP; Chief, Long -Range Planning
it
FROM: John Wachtel; Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning
DATE:
March 20, 2001
BK
March 5, 2001
Yukon Land Corporation and Daniel L. Spencer's Request to Amend the
Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate ±180 acres from R to L-1 and to Rezone
those ±180 acres from A-1 to RS -3
PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER: LUDA 2000-07-0179
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of March 20. 2001.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
This request is to amend the Comprehensive Plan to redesignate ±180 acres from R. Rural
Residential (up to 1 unit/acre), to L-1, Low -Density Residential -1 (up to 3 units/acre); and to rezone
those ±180 acres from A-1. Agricultural District (up to I unit/5 acres). to RS -3. Single -Family
Residential District (up to 3 units/acre). Depicted in Figures 1 and 2. [he subject property is located
at the northeast comer of the intersection of 85° 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.
Figure 1: Land Use Designation and Location of Subject Property
C.R. 5121
Sebastian River
High School
it I ._;..__.. raTi __
r
.•iiti
,
•" 24I •d �`• 'r l' •iri s
...1.51!) 'a• Liffa� ,ir] W.
-y•,..r. a.
• artLiYai•.' LjJ1 ." •'� W
i�d r . `w'
5J 'Up
j..1..I
EHe
March 20, 2001
BK 117 575
Sebastian River
High School
Past Actions
On September 28. 2000, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6 to 0 to recommend that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed amendment and rezoning. On October 19.
2000, the Professional Services Advisory Committee voted 6 to 0 recommend that the Board of
County Cornmissioners approve the proposed amendment and rezoning. On November 7, 2000, the
Board of County Commissioners voted 5 to 0 to transmit the proposed land use designation
amendment request to the Honda Department -of Community Affairs (DCA) for their review.
ORC Report
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 Attachment 8 at the end of
this staff report. does not contain any objections or conunents relating to the proposed amendment
March 20, 2001
:RS3
•
;..i.
.
Past Actions
On September 28. 2000, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6 to 0 to recommend that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed amendment and rezoning. On October 19.
2000, the Professional Services Advisory Committee voted 6 to 0 recommend that the Board of
County Cornmissioners approve the proposed amendment and rezoning. On November 7, 2000, the
Board of County Commissioners voted 5 to 0 to transmit the proposed land use designation
amendment request to the Honda Department -of Community Affairs (DCA) for their review.
ORC Report
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 Attachment 8 at the end of
this staff report. does not contain any objections or conunents relating to the proposed amendment
March 20, 2001
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 Honda Statutes. plan amendments are limited to twice per calendar year. For that
reason. the county accepts general plan amendment applications only during the "window.' months
of January and July. In this case. the subject application was submitted during the July 2000
window.
The procedures for reviewing comprehensive plan amendments involve several steps. First, the
Planning and Zoning Commission. as the Local Planning Agency, conducts a public hearing to
review the request. The Commission has the option to recommend approval or denial of the
Comprehensive Plan amendment request to the Board of County Commissioners. Also. the Planning
and Zoning Commission may recommend approval of or deny any associated rezoning request. If
the rezoning request is denied. only the land use amendment request is forwarded to the Board
unless the denial to rezone is appealed.
Following Planning and Zoning Commission action. the Board of County Commissioners conducts
two public hearings. The first of those hearings is for a preliminary decision on the land use
amendment request. At that hearing, the Board determines whether or not the land use amendment
warrants transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for further
consideration. A Board of County Commissioners decision not to transmit the land use amendment
to DCA constitutes denial of both the land use amendment and rezoning requests
If the land use amendment is transmitted. DCA conducts a review which includes soliciting
comments from the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council. several state agencies, and
neighboring local govemments. After its review. DCA compiles its objections, if it has any, in an
Objections Recommendations. and Comments (ORC) Report, and transmits that report to the
county. After staff addresses any issues that were raised in the ORC Report. the second and final
Board of County Commissioners public hearing is conducted. The Board takes final action to
approve or deny the land use amendment and rezoning requests at that time. If the Board approves
the requests. the amendment is transmitted to DCA for a final determination of compliance with state
law. The effective date of the amendment adoption ordinance is when the amendment is found "in
compliance" by DCA.
Existing Land Use Pattern
The subject property is zoned A-1 and consists of citrus groves, several agricultural storage
buildings. and a single-family residence with a pond. Properties to the north, south and east also
consist of A-1 zoned citrus groves with an occasional single-family residence or storage building.
The citrus groves along the site's northernmost boundary appear to be abandoned.
Between 90'" Avenue and 58th 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 851" Street. is outside the USA and
currently consists of citrus groves that land is the future site of a north county elementary school.
To the west of the site. across a 275 foot wide drainage canal right-of-way and 90'" Avenue. land is
zoned RS -3 and contains the Vero Lake Estates Subdivision of single-family residences. At this
time. the majority of lots in that approximately 2.500 acre subdivision are vacant. Immediately north
of Vero Lake Estates is Sebastian River High School.
March 20, 2001
105
BK 1i7PG577
Future Land Use Pattern
The subject property and properties to the northeast are designated R, Rural Residential. on the
county s future land use map The R designation permits residential uses with densities up to 1
unit/acre. South of the subject property, land is outside the county s urban service area, and is
designated AG -1, Agricultural -1, on the county's future land use map. The AG -1 designation
permits agricultural uses and residential uses with densities up to 1 unit/5 acres. To the north, east
and west of the subject property land is designated L-1, Low -Density Residential -1. The L-1
designation permits residential uses with densities up to 3 units/acre.
Environment
Being a citrus grove, no native upland plant communities exist on the site. Examination of aerial
photographs, however, indicate that there may be an emergent freshwater wetland associated with
the St. Sebastian River on the site. Federal Emergency Management Agency maps indicate that the
site is not within a flood hazard area.
Utilities and Services
The site is within the Urban Service Area of the county. Potable water distribution lines extend from
the North County Reverse Osmosis Plant along CR 510 adjacent to the site Wastewater collection
lines from the North Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant extend along CR 512, to approximately
half a mile from the site.
Transportation System
The subject property abuts CR 510 which is classified as a
roadway thoroughfare plan map. This segment of CR
approximately 100 feet of existing public road right-of-way.
this segment of CR 510 is programmed for expansion to four
of -way by 2020.
ANALYSIS
rural minor arterial road on the future
510 is a two lane paved road with
According to the comprehensive plan,
lanes and 160 feet of public road right -
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.
March 20, 2001
mov
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, Drainage and Recreation (Future Land Use Policy 3.1). The adequate
provision 01 mese services is necessary to ensure the continued quality of life enjoyed by the
community. The Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations (LDRs) require that new
development be reviewed to ensure that the minimum acceptable standards for these services and
facilities are maintained.
Policy 3.2 of the Future Land Use Element states that no development shall be approved unless it
is consistent with the concurrency management system component of the Capital Improvements
Element. For land use amendment and rezoning requests, conditional concurrency review is
required.
Conditional concurrency review examines the available capacity of each facility with respect to a
proposed project. Since land use amendment and rezoning requests are not projects county
regulations call for the concurrency review to be based upon the most intense use of the subject
property based upon the requested land use designation. For residential land use designation
requests, the most intense use (according to the County's Comprehensive Plan and LDRs) is the
maximum number of units that could be built on the site. given the size of the property and the
maximum density under the proposed land use designation. The site information used for the
concurrency analysis is as follows:
1. Size of Area to be Redesignated: ±180 acres
2. Existing Land Use Designation: R. Rural Residential (up to 1 unit/acre)
3. Proposed Land Use Designation: L-1, Low -Density Residential -1 (up to 3 units/acre)
4. Most Intense Use of Subject Property
Under Current Land Use Designation: 180 Single -Family Units
5. Most Intense Use of Subject Property
Under Proposed Land Use Designation: 540 Single -Family Units
Transportation
As part of the concurrency review process. the applicant has submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis
(TIA). The county's Traffic Engineering Division has reviewed and approved that TIA. A TIA
reports the number of peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips that would be generated by the
most intense use of the subject property under the proposed land use designation, and assigns those
trips to impacted roads. Impacted roads are defined in section 910.09(4)(b)3 of the county's LDRs
as roadway segments which receive five percent (5%) or more of the project traffic or fifty (50) or
more project trips, whichever is less
According to the approved TIA. the existing level of service on impacted roadways would not be
lowered by the traffic generated by development of 540 single-family units on the subject property.
Attachment 4 of this staff report contains a more detailed transportation concurrency analysis.
March 20, 2001
107
22-2
222
BK 117 579
Water
With the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment, the subject property could accommodate 540
single-family residential units, resulting in water consumption at a rate of 540 Equivalent Residential
Units (ERU), or 135.000 gallons/day. This is based upon a level of service of 250 gallons/ERU/day
Development on the subject property would be served by the North County Reverse Osmosis Plant
which currently has a remaining capacity of more than 1,500,000 gallons/day and can accommodate
the additional demand generated by the proposed land use amendment.
Wastewater
Based upon the most intense use allowed under the proposed land use amendment, development of
the property will have a wastewater generation rate of approximately 540 Equivalent Residential
Units (ERU), or 135.000 gallons/day. This is based upon a level of service of 250 gallons/ERU/day
County wastewater service is available to the site from the North Regional Wastewater Treatment
Plant, which currently has a remaining capacity of over 180 000 gallons/day and can accommodate
the additional wastewater generated by the subject request.
Solid Waste
Solid waste service includes pick-up by private operators and disposal at the county landfill. The
county's adopted level of service standard for landfill capacity is L97 cubic yards/person/year With
the county's average of approximately 2.3 persons/unit. a residential development of 540 units would
be anticipated to house approximately 1.242 people (2.3 X 540). For the subject request to meet the
county's adopted level of service standard of 1.97 cubic yards/person/year. the landfill must have
enough capacity to accommodate approximately 2.447 (1.242 X 1.97) cubic yards/year.
A review of the solid waste capacity for the active segment of the county landfill indicates the
availability of more than 800,000 cubic yards. The active segment of the landfill has a four year
capacity, and the landfill has expansion capacity beyond 2010. Based on the analysis, staff
determined that the county Landfill can accommodate the additional solid waste generated by the site
under the proposed land use designation.
Drainage
All developments are reviewed for compliance with county stormwater regulations which require
on-site retention, preservation of floodplain storage and minimum finished floor elevations. In
addition, development proposals must meet the discharge requirements of the county Stormwater
iManageinent Ordinance. i ne subject property is located within the M-3 Drainage Basin. Therefore,
development on the site would be prohibited from discharging any runoff in excess of the pre -
development rate.
In this case. the minimum floor elevation level of service standards do not apply, since the property
does not lie within a floodplain. However, both the on-site retention and discharge standards apply.
With the most intense use of this site under the proposed amendment, the maximum area of
impervious surface would be approximately 4,704.480 square feet, or 108 acres. The maximum
runoff volume, based on that amount of impervious surface and the 25 year/24 hour design storm.
would be approximately 4,956.181 cubic feet. In order to maintain the county s adopted level of
March 20, 2001
BK 1
r.
0
108
•
service. the applicant would be required to retain approximately 1.638,725 cubic feet of runoff on-
site. With the soil characteristics of the subject propeny, it is estimated that the pre -development
runoff rate is 224 cubic feet/second
Based upon staffs analysis. the drainage level of service standards would be met by limiting off-site
discharge to its pre -development rate of 224 cubic feet/second and requiring retention of the
1.638.725 cubic feet of runoff for the most intense use of the property.
As with all development. a more detailed review will be conducted during the development approval
process.
Recreation
A review of county recreation facilities and the projected demand that would result from the most
intense development that could occur on the subject property under the proposed land use
designation indicates that the adopted level of service would be maintained. The following table
illustrates the additional park demand associated with the proposed development of the property and
the existing surplus park acreage.
Concurrency Summary
Based upon the analysis conducted. staff has determined that all concurrency -mandated facilities,
including drainage, roads. solid waste, recreation, water, and wastewater, have adequate capacity to
accommodate the most intense use of the subject property under the proposed land use amendment.
Therefore. the concurrency test has been satisfied for the subject request.
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 objective and policies:
March 20, 2001
109
BK Ii7rPG581
PARK
INFORMATION
LOS (Acres per 1.000 Population)
Project Demand (Acres)
Surplus Park Acreage
4.0
4.968
1.164
Concurrency Summary
Based upon the analysis conducted. staff has determined that all concurrency -mandated facilities,
including drainage, roads. solid waste, recreation, water, and wastewater, have adequate capacity to
accommodate the most intense use of the subject property under the proposed land use amendment.
Therefore. the concurrency test has been satisfied for the subject request.
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 objective and policies:
March 20, 2001
109
BK Ii7rPG581
•
Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3
The most important policy to consider in evaluating a plan amendment request for consistency with
the county's Comprehensive Plan is Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3. This policy requires that
at (east 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.
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 two sides by L-1 designated land, but was part of a larger contiguous area of R
designated land.
In 1994, however, the adjacent 159 acres to the east of the site were redesignated to R. That 1994
amendment affected the subject property in the following two ways.
• The site is now surrounded on three sides by L-1 designated land; and
• The site is no longer part of a larger contiguous area of R designated land.
While the redesignation of adjacent land is not always justification for a land use amendment, in this
case it is relevant for the above reasons.
Another change affecting the site involves public schools. The new Sebastian River High School,
located just west of the subject property (just across 90th Avenue), was completed in the mid -1990's.
Additionally, a new elementary school is now planned to be located just south of the subject property
(just across 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 in the case of the high school. the construction) of these schools has occurred since
plan adoption.
March 20, 2001
BKI
PC 582
110
E€
r.,
,04
Therefore, the redesignation of adjacent land and the "across the street" siting of both a high school
and an elementary school constitute a change in circumstances affecting the subject property.
Since these actions constitute a change in circumstances. the fourth criterion of Future Land Use
Element Policy 14.3 has been met. and the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use
Element Policy 14.3
Future Land Use Element Objective 1 and Policies 2.2 and 4.1
This objective and these policies state that Indian River County will have an efficient and compact
land use pattern which encourages infill development within the existing urban service area and
maintains the county's overall low density character. By increasing the density of land currently
within the urban service area, as opposed to expanding the urban service area, the county can
efficiently support growth without creating urban sprawl or sacrificing compactness. Furthermore,
with a density of up to 3 units/acre. the requested L-1 land use designation maintains the overall low
density character of the county. For these reasons. the proposed amendment is consistent with Future
Land Use Element Objective 1 and Policies 2.2 and 4.1.
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.11
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.11 states that the L-1 land use designation is intended for areas
which are:
1. suitable for urban and suburban scale development;
?. within the urban service area: and
3. located in proximity to existing urban centers.
Although the subject property and much of the surrounding area is currently used for agriculture, the
site is now. as it was when the comprehensive plan was found "in compliance" by DCA, appropriate
for low density residential development. Factors that demonstrate that the subject property meets
each of Future Land Use Element Policy 1.11's criteria include the following.
• The site is located within the urban service area;
• The site is located on a major road;
• Potable water service is available to the site;
• Sanitary sewer lines are within a half mile of the site:
• The site is located near an existing public high school, an existing public middle school. and
the site of a future public elementary school
• The site is located near the City of Sebastian:
• The site is located near the CR 510/CR 512 commercial/industrial node; and
• The site is bounded on three sides by L-1 designated land.
For these reasons, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 1.11.
March 20, 2001
111
Biz
583
iMmEmi
,,u
r
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 three sides by L-1 designated
land the request is for the expansion of an existing land use designation pattern. At ±180 acres, the
site is large enough to provide buffers if necessary
Other factors indicate that the subject property is an appropriate site for L-1 designated land. For
example, the large lot size required under the R designation often makes development prohibitively
expensive, especially where utility service is available. This is demonstrated by the fact that, other
than agricultural buildings on A-1 zoned land, there has been no development on R designated
property in the county since the plan was adopted. In contrast, other residential land use 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 pan from a determination by the county that the 1 unit/acre maximum development allowed under
the R land use designation neither contributes to agricultural preservation nor allows enough density
for feasible. normal single family residential development. Therefore, redesignating other similar
areas along CR 510 to L-1 is appropriate.
For these reasons, redesignating the subject property to L-1 is anticipated to be compatible with
surrounding areas.
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. For
these reasons. significant adverse environmental impacts associated with this request are not
anticipated.
CONCLUSION
Based on the analysis, staff has determined that the requested land use designation and zoning
district are compatible with surrounding areas, consistent with the comprehensive plan, meet all
concurrency criteria, will have no negative impacts on environmental quality, and meet all applicable
land use designation amendment and rezoning criteria. Most importantly, the subject property is
located in an area deemed suited for low density residential uses. For these reasons. staff supports
March 20, 2001
B i e
58L
112
07,
4
the request to amend the land use designation of the subject property from R to L-1 and to rezone
the site from A-1 to RS -3.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the analysis performed, staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that
the Board of County Commissioners approve the request to redesignate and rezone the subject
property by adopting the attached ordinances.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Summary Page
1. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation Amendment Application
3. Rezoning Application
4. Detailed Transportation Concurrency Analysis
5. Approved Minutes of the September 28, 2000. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
6. Approved Minutes of the October 19. 2000, Professional Services Advisory Committee
Meeting
7. Approved Minutes of the November 7. 2000, Board of County Commissioners Meeting
8. DCA's ORC Report
9. Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Designation Amendment Ordinance
10. Rezoning Ordinance
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.
Commissioner Adams had concerns that redesignating from R to L-1 would increase
pressure on the headwaters of the St. Sebastian River. Also the piece next to this is for sale
and she felt the Commission was duped when it came before them 6 years ago. It was
destined to go on the commercial market and is still there. She believed there is a place for
L-1 but felt it was not necessary to go RS -3 right up to I-95 and butt into conservation or
other A-1 properties. She believed it is necessary to have a step-down. Also it is not in the
urban service area. If developers want to develop RS -3, then they need to find the right
location. She felt the request is not compatible with this neighborhood and recommended
the Board not grant the rezoning at this time.
March 20, 2001
•
113
QE I I r PG 585
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED
BY Vice Chairman Stanbridge, not to grant the rezoning (later
clarified to include not amending the Comprehensive Plan
Future Land Use Designation).
Under discussion, Vice Chairman Stanbridge recalled the last time this was brought
to the Board, she questioned the property as being in the flow plan of the St. Sebastian River.
Also, historically, the canal system that runs along CR 512 actually connects with the flow
plan through Vero Lake Estates. Corralling the stormwater in the Vero Lake Estates area is
being worked on diligently. Many of those lots are in a flow plain and now the County is
having to take care of that situation. She suggested this might be considered sprawl which
might create a new village or a new town. She had problems with it and did not want to put
anyone else in harm's way.
It was established that this project would be located within the urban service area and
when developed would be required to meet all stormwater criteria for the site.
Vice Chairman Stanbridge understood but felt it would impact other properties.
Chairman Ginn observed that several creeks throughout the property empty into the
river, and Vice Chairman Stanbridge explained the areas have been channelized, advised of
the master stormwater plan in the district, and told how the County is working on Vero Lake
Estates drainage problems Tremendous dollars are being spent to get control of the
stormwater drainage. To add additional homes in the area does not compute. What the
Board allows in this area will affect those living in many of the other surrounding properties.
In response to the inquiry, Commissioner Adams clarified that her motion included
not amending the Comprehensive Plan in this matter because it would not be appropriate due
to the proximity of the headwaters of the St. Sebastian River. Also it would create a domino
March 20, 2001
effect by allowing 500 homes where 180 are now permitted. Lthe developer wants to
develop 500 homes, it will need to be done in and RS -3/L-1 area.
Vice Chairman Stanbridge recounted a recent discussion at the Treasure Coast
Metropolitan Planning Organization concerning growth management and the fact that the
schools moving to the less expensive AG areas are dragging the development with them: this
is a very small example. Under the new growth management, the schools and the local
governments will have to work together to find ways not to create a sprawl.
Chairman Ginn thought it would be ripe for annexation to the City of Sebastian
because it is adjacent to the city limits.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion
carried unanimously. (Not approved.)
9.A.5. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE N(). 2001-005 - RED
STICK GOLF CLUB, INC. - AMEND FIGURE 4-13 OF THE
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
TO REMOVE 81ST STREET, BETWEEN 58TH AVENUE AND OLD
DIXIE HIGHWAY (Legislative)
PROOF OF PUBLICATION IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
Community Development Director Robert M. Keating reviewed a Memorandum of
March 5, 2001 using Power Point® (copy on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board) to
aid in his presentation:
March 20, 2001
TO: James E. Chandler; County Administrator
DEPARTMENT. HEAD CONCURRENCE
lee is -e-te
Robert M. Keating, AICP; Community Dey4lopment Director
/S'
THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICP; Chief, Long-Range Planning
March 5, 2001
Red Stick Golf Club, Inc.'s Request to Amend Figure 4.1.3 of the Transportation
Element of the Comprehensive Plan to Delete 8151 Street, Between 58th Avenue
and Old Dixie Highway
PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER: CPTA 98-10-0172
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of March 20. 2001.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
This is a request by Red Stick Golf Club. Inc. to amend Figure 4.13 of the Transportation Element
of the Comprehensive Plan. That figure is the Future Roadway Functional Classification Map, also
known as the Thoroughfare Plan Map. Figure 4.13 identifies 8151 Street as a Rural Major Collector
Roadway from 82s Avenue east to US I. The request is to remove the portion of 81s' Street located
• between 58th Avenue and Old Dixie Highway. Attachment 2 shows Figure 4.13 as it currently exists;
Attachment 3 shows the Proposed Figure 4.13.
PAST ACTIONS
On September 28, 2000. the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6 to 0 :o recommend that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed amendment and delete 8151 Street. between
581h Avenue and Old Dixie Highway. from the Thoroughfare Plan Map On October 19. 2000. the
Professional Services Advisory Committee voted 3 to 3 on a motion to recommend approval of the
proposed amendment. On November 7. 2000. the Board of County Commissioners voted 5 to 0 to
transmit the proposed amendment to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for their
review.
ORC REPORT
Consistent with state regulations. DCA reviewed the proposed amendment and prepared an
Objections. Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report (dated Febniary 9. 2001). which
planning staff received on February 12. 2001. 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 20, 2001
BACKGROUND
The issue of removing a portion of 81" Street from the Thoroughfare Plan Map was first raised when
the applicant applied for approval for the Red Stick Golf Club, a 315 acre, 18 hole golf course with
a clubhouse and maintenance facility. The project is generally located between 58`" Avenue (Kings
Highway) and Old Dixie Highway: and between CR 510 (85`° Street) and 77th Street (Hobart Road).
On March 2. 1999. the Board of County Commissioners approved a Conceptual Plan and a Planned
Development (PD) rezoning for the Red Stick Golf Club project. On April 8, 1999, the Planning
and Zoning Commission approved the preliminary plan/plat with conditions. The site plan for the
development has been released. and the entire project has been completed.
When the PD application was submitted. staff reviewed the application and determined that 81"
Street. as shown on the Thoroughfare Plan Map, bisected the project. even though no right-of-way
for that segment existed. At that time staff recognized that the county had to chose one of the
following two options:
purchase the right-of-way now to
approve the golf course now and.
significantly higher price.
preserve that segment of 81" Street; or
if necessary, purchase the right-of-way in the future at a
The golf course approval itself is one reason why a future purchase would be much more expensive.
For reasons discussed in the analysis portion of this staff report. staff determined that the subject
segment of 8151 Street is unlikely to ever be needed or constructed. Therefore. staff determined and
the Board agreed. that it was not necessary to purchase the right-of-way now.
Although the county declined to try to purchase the 81s' Street right-of-way when the golf course
project was reviewed, the referenced portion of 81" Street remains on the Thoroughfare Plan Map.
While the existing lack of right-of-way and several other factors discussed in this report indicate that
this portion of 81 ' Street will never be built. the applicant has chosen to apply to remove the
referenced portion of 8151 Street from the county s long range plans
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 8151 Street between Old Dixie Highway and 58th Avenue and
no plans. long term or short term. to acquire that right-of-way. These facts alone do not justify
deleting a road segment from the Thoroughfare Plan Map, particularly a segment that is within the
urban service area. In fact. the established grid system of roads significantly benefits the county by
providing more than one route to most destinations. For that reason, the grid system. generally.
reduces congestion, aids hurricane evacuation, and should be preserved
March 20, 2001
117
BK 1 '6 5 8 9
7.3,4
There are. however. other factors that indicate that the referenced segment could be deleted without
adverse impacts. The first factor is that 81' Street does not have a railroad crossing. Because
permission for a new railroad crossing is nearly impossible to obtain. 81' Street will probably never
have one. For that reason, the segment of 81 ' Street between Old Dixie Highway and 58th Avenue
is not now, and likely will never be. connected. Furthermore. both CR 510, half a mile to the north.
and 77' Street half a mile to the south. are Thoroughfare Plan Roads with railroad crossings. As
a result. the adjacent segments of thegrid system are intact in each direction.
In other words. nearly all trips on 81" Street will be diverted to CR 510 or 77th Street at either 58'h
Avenue or Old Dixie Highway. regardless of whether or not the segment is deleted from the
Thoroughfare Plan Map.
For that reason. removing the referenced portion of 81" Street is unlikely to impact service levels of
other county roads or hurricane evacuation times. Therefore. the proposed amendment is reasonable
CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Staff reviews each comprehensive plan amendment request for consistency with all applicable
policies of the comprehensive plan. As per Section 800.07(1) of the counts 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 pans 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 criterion of Future Land
Use Element Policy 14 3.
When the comprehensive plan was adopted in 1990. and again when it was revised in 1998 as a
result of the Evaluation and Appraisal Process, the county failed to consider the special
circumstances concerning the referenced segment of 81" Street. Because 81" Street does not have
a railroad crossing. it is not connected. and likely never will be connected. between 58`h Avenue and
Old Dixie Highway. Therefore, there was no need to include the referenced segment on the
Thoroughfare Plan Map For that reason. the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land
Use Element Folic) 14.3.
March 20, 2001
BK !
118
•
Transportation Element Policy 1.2
This policy sets the following guidelines for the evaluation and ranking of road projects:
a. whether the project is needed to protect public health and safety. to fulfill the county's legal
commitment to provide facilities and services. or to preserve or achieve full use of existing
facilities:
b. whether the project increases efficiency of use of existing facilities. prevents or reduces
future improvement costs. provides service to developed areas lacking full service. or
promotes in -fill development:
whether the project represents a logical extension of facilities and services within a
designated urban service area:
d. whether the project is the most cost effective alternative: and
e. whether the project provides the least adverse impact to the environment of the options.
Construction of 8151 Street between 58th Avenue and Old Dixie Highway. without a railroad crossing.
is not consistent with any of the above guidelines. Therefore, the referenced segment of 8151 Street
does not need to be a Thoroughfare Plan road. and the request to remove that segment from the
Thoroughfare Plan Map is consistent with Transportation Element Policv 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. The referenced segment
is now. and will likely always be, without a railroad crossing. Therefore, 8P' Street will probably
always be unconnected between 58th Avenue and Old Dixie Highway. For that reason. it is unlikely
that that segment will ever be constructed. and designation on the Thoroughfare Plan Map is not
necessary. Staff supports the request.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the analysis, staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the Board
of County Commissioners amend Transportation Element Figure 4.13 to remove 8151 Street. between
58'h Avenue and Old Dixie Highway.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment Application
Existing Figure 4.13
3. Proposed Figure 4.13.
4. Approved Minutes of the September 28. 2000. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
5. Approved Minutes of the October 19, 2000. Professional Services Advisory Committee
Meeting
6. Approved Minutes of the November 7, 2000. Board of County Commissioners Meeting
7_ DCA's ORC Report
8. Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment Ordinance
March 20, 2001
4
119
BK IE7PG 91
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in
this matter.
Bob Johnson, Coral Wind, Vero Beach, asked what the taxpayer is getting in return
for removing this road from the MPO traffic plan.
Commissioner Adams responded that the County is saving money by not having to
purchase the right-of-way, and Chairman Ginn added that once developed the County will
be receiving taxes on it.
Commissioner Macht thought this would be the third time a road has been removed
for a golf course. He also wondered what the saturation level is for golf courses, since we
already have about 30 of them. He brought this issue forward not because he has anything
against golf courses, but they do use a significant amount of water from the mainland and
many individuals' wells have gone to salinity. He felt there were significant reasons they
should not have allowed a golf course at 53`d Avenue and Storm Grove Road. He suggested
the County start thinking about the desirability of allowing more golf courses and wanted
staff to bring forward an update of the road grid plan. He suggested the County make a
preliminary determination not to remove any more roads, or to decide which roads will not
be eliminated in order to preclude future requests. He felt removal of the road in this request
was alright.
Vice Chairman Stanbridge advised that if all goes well with the stormwater plan, we
will be selling the water to the golf courses.
Chairman Ginn felt it important to stick with the grid to avoid problems, but she felt
this request would not impact anything.
March 20, 2001
BK i / PG 5 9 2
120
4
•
Bruce Barkett advised he was present on behalf of the applicant should the
Commissioners have any questions.
Renee Renzi, 340 Waverly Place, wanted to know if this road already exists or if it
is a planned road.
Chairman Ginn responded that there is no road there now and there is no right-of-way
either.
It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the Chairman closed the
public hearing.
ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Stanbridge, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance No. 2001-005 amending Figure 4-13 of the
Transportation Element of the Indian River County
Comprehensive Plan to remove 81' Street between 58th Avenue
and Old Dixie Highway.
ORDINANCE NO. 2001- 005
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. AMENDING FIGURE 4-13 OF
THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT OF THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN TO REMOVE 81ST STREET BETWEEN 58TH AVENUE AND OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY;
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
2000 amendment submittal window, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on all comprehensive plan
amendment requests on September 28. 2000, after due public notice. and
March 20, 2001
121
BK i 7 PG 593
ORDINANCE NO. 2001- 005
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 7, 2000, after advertising pursuant to F.S. 163.3184(15)(b)(1) and (c),
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,
WHEREAS, the Florida Department of Community Affairs received this Comprehensive
Plan Amendment on December 4, 2000, 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 Flonda Department of Community Affairs on February 12, 2001,
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 20, 2001, 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, Honda. 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 Honda Department
of Community Affairs and one (1) copy is directed to be transmitted to the Treasure Coast Regional
Planning Council.
March 20, 2001
•
ORDINANCE NO 2uu 1
SECTION 2. Amendments to tic Pia:.
Figure 4-13 of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan is revised. as shown
on Attachment A. to delete 81' Street between 58' Avenue and Old Dixie Highway.
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.
e
This ordinance was advertised in the Press -Journal on the 7`h day of March. 2001. for a public
hearing to be held on the 20th day of March. 2001, at which time it was moleed for adoption by
Commissioner Stanbri dge , seconded by Commissioner Ti ppi n and
adopted by the following vote:
Chairman Caroline D. Ginn Aye
Vice -Chairman Ruth M. Stanbridge Aye
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Commissioner John W. Tippin Ay
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BY: -t0-te.#c.e.- /C J• n
Caroline D. Ginn, Chai an
ATTEST BY:
March 20, 2001
•
Jeffrey _K- rton, ClerkAL3y \A
123 J -
<
�<L G�2<c��c 7
123
BK t 1 7 PG 595
ORDINANCE NO. 2001- 005 Q�
Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of Florida this,a 1 day of ' 1, '001
Acknowledgment from the Department of State received on thiseilday o 001 at
A.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 PLANNING MATTERS
Robert M. Keating, AICP
Community Development Director
cd\u\v\j\cpta\ju100 \red-stick\ord.wpd
$Anl It. Cs
Apsr Ove°
r- Dii le
Adman
I
Legal
/C '
-- f/ems
eudye t
nkr-
»7/l
DIOL
/.7
Risk Mgr.
_____ _.
March 20, 2001
ATTACHMENT A
ria
0
March 20, 2001
9.A.6. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE NOS. 2001-006, -007, -
008, -009, -010 - COUNTY -INITIATED AMENDMENTS TO THE
FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT, THE COASTAL MANAGEMENT
ELEMENT, THE POTABLE WATER SUB -ELEMENT, AND THE
SANITARY SEWER SUB -ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN (AG PDS, CARIBBEAN FRUIT FLY HOST PLANTS, CLARIFY
FUTURE LAND USE MAP, UTILITY SERVICES TO AG PDS, POST -
DISASTER RECOVERY & REDEVELOPMENT) (Legislative)
PROOF OF PUBLICATION IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
Community Development Director Robert M. Keating reviewed a Memorandum of
March 9, 2001 using Power Point R (copy on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board) to
aid in his presentation:
TO: James E. Chandler; County Administrator
DEP ENT HEAD CONCURRENCE
Robert M. Keating, AICP; C munity I$elopment Director
THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICP; Chief, Long -Range Planning S iti•
John Wachtel; Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning
March 9, 2001
County Initiated Request to Amend The Future Land Use Element, The Coastal
Management Element, The Potable Water Sub -Element, and The Sanitary
Sewer Sub -Element of the County's Comprehensive Plan
PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER: CPTA 2000-07-0161
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of March 20. 2001.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
On February 13, 1990, Indian River County adopted its comprehensive plan. On March 17, 1998.
as part of the Evaluation and Appraisal Process that plan was substantially updated. As required
by state law, all development activities must be consistent with the comprehensive plan. and all
county activities must conform to plan policies. Occasionally, the plan must be updated to reflect
the latest and best available information and to address changed conditions. Additionally, the plan
must periodically be reviewed and revised in order to reflect the community's changing needs and
desires. For those reasons, the county has initiated this amendment.
March 20, 2001
After a recent review of the plan, staff determined that several elements need to be revised. The
affected elements are the Future Land Use Element. the Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element. the Potable
Water Sub -Element, and the Coastal Management Element. The proposed amendments are related
to Agricultural Planned Developments (PDs ). Caribbean Fruit Fly host plants. the Future Land Use
Map, utility service for agricultural businesses located outside the urban service area. and post -
disaster recovery and redevelopment.
As originally submitted, the proposed amendment also contained revisions to the Recreation and
Open Space Element relating to arts and cultural activities. At the transmittal public hearing
however. the Board of County Commissioners decided to consider that portion of the proposed
amendment separately and at a later date. For that reason. the arts and culture related re%isions to
the Recreation and Open Space Element are no longer part of this proposed amendment. Those
revisions will be considered with the plan amendments submitted during the January 2001
comprehensive plan amendment submittal window.
The proposed additions and deletions to the plan are shown on Attachment 2. In this attachment.
deletions are indicated by atLik‘. tin uu_ i3. while additions are shown as double underlined.
The Board of County Commissioners is now to decide whether or not to adopt the requested
amendment.
PAST ACTIONS
On September 28, 2000. the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5 to 1 to recommend that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed amendments as shown on Attachment 2. On
October 19. 2000. the Professional Services Advisory Committee voted 4 to 2 to recommend that
the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed amendments as shown on Attachment
2. On November 7. 2000. the Board of County Commissioners voted 5 to 0 transmit the proposed
amendment to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for their review.
ORC REPORT
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 Attachment 6 at the end of
this staff report. does not contain any objections relating to the proposed amendment.
The ORC Report did, however. contain two recommendations pertaining to the proposed
amendment. In contrast to objections, recommendations cannot be used as a basis for finding an
adopted amendment not in compliance.
The first recommendation is that the county keep those portions of Coastal Management Element
Policy 7.4 that pertain to post -disaster redevelopment. DCA's other recommendation is related to
the proposed changes to Agricultural Planned Developments. DCA recommends that the county
consider keeping the existing clustering and Planned Development requirement, but make it
mandatory only for larger parcels such as 40 acres or more. Each of those recommendations will
be discussed in the analysis section of this staff report under the applicable category.
March 20, 2001
DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENTS BY CATEGORY
The proposed amendments can be grouped into five categories based on their subject. Each subject
category of amendments is described below.
Optional Agricultural PDs
The proposed amendments to the Future Land -Jse Element make Agricultural PDs optional, rather
than mandatory. for residential development outside the urban service area.
Agricultural PDs are residential subdivisions located on agriculturally designated land (agriculturally
designated land is outside of the county's urban service area). Other types of PDs are permitted only
within the urban service area. The county's comprehensive plan and land development regulations
currently require residential subdivisions of two or more lots (other than a one time lot split) on
agriculturally designated land to be approved as Agricultural PDs. Within Agricultural PDs, and
PDs in general special negotiated regulations allow developers additional flexibility in terms of
subdivision and lot design (to meet market demand), as long as certain minimum standards are
maintained. Among those standards is the requirement that residential density not exceed the density
allowed by the underlying land use designation. In addition to providing developers with more
design flexibility, the PD process also gives the Board of County Commissioners more discretion.
compared to regular subdivision projects, with respect to project approvals.
There are two key requirements that are applicable to Agricultural PDs, but not applicable to non -
Agricultural PDs. The first is that lots cannot exceed one acre in size, while the second is that lots
must be clustered on a relatively small portion of the overall project property. The remainder of the
site. regardless of its ownership. must remain in open space (either as natural: agricultural; or to a
limited degree. recreational areas) for as long as the property retains an agricultural land use
designation.
Over the past few years. several proposed Agricultural PDs have been considered by the Board of
County Commissioners at public hearings. In reviewing those proposals, both the public and the
Board questioned whether Agricultural PDs and clustering should be required and whether there
were benefits associated with clustering.
As a result of that questioning, the following public meetings on this issue were conducted:
• two Board of County Commissioners workshops:
• two Agricultural Advisory Committee workshops; and
• one Professional Services Advisory Committee meeting.
At the April 4.2000, Board of County Commissioners meeting, the Board instructed staff to initiate
a plan amendment to eliminate the requirement that any residential development of agriculturally
designated land must be approved as an Agricultural PD.
The revisions related to Agricultural PDs involve changes to the Land Use Analysis section of the
Future Land Use Element, and to Future Land Use Element Policies 1.10 and 5.8. In addition to
eliminating the Agricultural PD requirement. those revisions make Agricultural PDs and clustering
an optional (rather than required) development type for agriculturally designated land.
While the revisions eliminate the requirement that residential development of agriculturally
designated areas be done only through the Agricultural PD process with clustering required. the
March 20, 2001
amendment also makes some changes to the soon to be optional Agricultural PD requirements.
Those changes include the following:
• The open space area must be under the ownership of a single entity and maintained as open
space in perpetuity. through a conservation and/or agricultural preservation easement.
• The clustered lots must be grouped together in a compact. contiguous manner.
• Golf courses are not permitted as part of Agricultural PDs.
Caribbean Fruit Fly Host Plants
As part of the Evaluation and Appraisal Process. the county added a policy restricting Caribbean
Fruit Fly 'host ' plants in certain types of new development on agriculturally designated land. The
existence of Caribbean Fruit Fly host plants near active citrus groves can adversely affect protocol
approval of grove fruit. For that reason. the county adopted a policy that requires the following
special conditions for Administrative Permit. Special Exception and/or Planned Development
approN,al of projects on agriculturally designated land:
Caribbean Fruit Fly host plants shall be prohibited on the subject site. That prohibition shall
be enforceable through the county code enforcement board; and
A deed restriction shall be recorded and established on the subject site. That deed restriction
shall prohibit the occurrence of Caribbean Fruit Fly host plants on the subject site and shall
be acceptable to the county attorney's office.
Because many active citrus groves continue to exist within the urban service area. on non -
agriculturally designated land. the proposed amendment expands these restrictions to those areas.
The revisions related to Caribbean Fruit Fly host plants involve changes to Future Land Use Element
Policy 6.5.
Clarification of the Future Land Use Map
This is a minor non -substantive amendment intended to clarify the Future Land Use Map. Currently,
the comprehensive plan contains two maps (Future Land Use Element Figures 2.31a and 2.31b)
depicting land use designations and the urban service area. Because these maps are difficult to read.
the proposed amendment replaces references to those maps with references to a more accurate. more
legible and larger scale version. The proposed amendment does not change any land use designation
or urban service area boundary.
The revisions related to clarification of the Future Land Use Map involve Future Land Use Element
Policies 1.1 and 2.1; and portions of Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element Policy 5.8. and Potable Water Sub -
Element Policy 5.7.
Utility Service to Agricultural Areas
With few exceptions. the extension of utility service outside the urban service area is prohibited.
This amendment makes two changes related to those exceptions. The first change clarifies and
ensures that any approved development or activity on agriculturally designated land (outside the
urban service area) can receive necessary utility service if the lack of utilities is determined to be a
health threat.
March 20, 2001
The proposed amendment also allows potable water service to any approved agricultural business
if the business is located near the urban service area. To qualify for this allowance. at least a portion
of the business's development site must be located within one mile of a public roadway which serves
as an urban service area boundary.
The utility service revisions related to agricultural areas involve Future Land Use Element Policy
6.1. Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element Policy 5.8. and Potable Water Sub -Element Policy 5.7.
Post -Disaster Recovery and Redevelopment
Coastal Management Element Objective 7 and the eight policies associated with that objective
involve post -disaster recovery and redevelopment. Specifically. Objective 7 and Policies 7.2. 7.3.
and 7.4 call for the development and adoption of a Local Mitigation Strategy (LMS) as an annex to
the County's Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan. In November. 1999. the Board of
County Commissioners adopted an LMS. That action implemented and completed Policies 7.2, 7.3
and 7.4. which can now be deleted. The proposed amendment will revise Objective 7; create a new
Policy 7.2 to ensure implementation of the LMS: delete Policies 7.3, and 7.4; and renumber the
remaining policies.
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
Optional Agricultural PDs
The key component of Agricultural PDs is the requirement to cluster lots. In theory, there are several
advantages associated with this requirement. Those advantages are:
is Clustering preserves agricultural uses;
Clustering discourages urban sprawl;
3. Clustered development can be served more efficiently; and
4. Clustering allows incremental, rather than "leap frog " expansion of the urban service area.
During public discussions on the subject. however. the Board of County Commissioners made
several findings indicating that the Agricultural PD process is not achieving its goals of preserving
agriculture and open space, or discouraging urban sprawl. As a whole. the Board's findings indicate
that clustering through the Agricultural PD process should be changed to an option, rather than
remaining a requirement. Those findings are as follows:
The Agricultural PD process is lengthy and expensive, particularly for small (40 acres or
less) land owners. Most Agricultural PDs have been within this size category.
The community prefers allowing both the clustered and the unclustered development options
to be available to owners of agriculturally designated land.
Even if the Agricultural PD process were made optional. an incentive to use it remains. That
incentive is that the ability to connect to centralized utility service remains available only to
Agricultural PDs.
March 20, 2001
Most other Flonda counties do not require clustering; some allow it as an option. some do
not allow it at all
The existing lot size pattern within one to one and half miles from the urban service area is
currently dominated by lots of ten acres or less in size.
Clustering does not preserve agricultural operations. Generally. farmers do not divide their
property into a residential portion and an agricultural portion. Because their agricultural
operations must be separate from non-agricultural uses, they farm their entire property until
the market indicates it is no longer profitable then the entire property is converted to a non-
agricultural use.
The current urban service area should not be expanded. The 5 -acre to 10 -acre "ranchette"
lots along the urban service area boundary act as a "greenbelt" to prevent urban service area
expansion and eventually to control growth.
In addition to making Agricultural PDs optional. the proposed amendment strengthens and clarifies
the intent and requirements of Agncultural PDs. The proposed amendment specifically states the
following:
• Clustered means grouped together in a compact. contiguous manner.
• The open space area must be under the ownership of a single -entity.
• Golf courses shall not be permitted as part of Agricultural PDs.
These changes to the Agricultural PD option emphasize and protect the rural character of land
outside the urban service area.
The county has recognized several problems with the Agricultural PD process. Those problems have
been noted and discussed earlier in this section. The proposed amendment addresses those problems
by making the process optional and by "tightening" the regulations for those who choose the
Agricultural PD option.
For these reasons. the proposed amendment is reasonable.
DCA Recommendation
DCA recommends that the Agricultural PD and clustering requirement be retained for tracts of 40
or more acres. Although intended to preserve open space and agricultural land. this proposal would
be of little use because it applies to so few parcels in the areas where Agricultural PDs tend to occur
In those areas nearly all existing tracts are less than 40 acres in size.
Caribbean Fruit Fly Host Plants
The restrictions on Caribbean fruit fly host plants are necessary to protect citrus production. one of
the county's largest industries. While these restrictions are currently in place on agriculturally
designated land. many active citrus groves exist within the urban service area. The proposed
amendment expands these restrictions to include developments within the urban service area. For
these reasons. the proposed amendment is reasonable.
March 20, 2001
Clarification of the Future Land Use Map
The Future Land Use Maps referred to in the policies of the comprehensive plan have a small scale,
are maintained by hand, and are difficult to read. Those maps consist of different shadings and
cross -hatchings laid over an 11" by 17" base map that is then reduced to letter size. In the past those
maps have generated confusion regarding land use designation boundaries. In contrast, the county
now has the ability to produce large scale, precise, computer generated, color maps. The proposed
amendment ensures that the computer generated map will be the official county land use map and
will be used to determine land use designation and urban service area boundaries. For these reasons
the proposed amendment is reasonable.
Utility Service to Agricultural Areas
Although not changing permitted uses on agriculturally designated land, these revisions to the
comprehensive plan increase the opportunities -for approved agricultural businesses located outside
the urban service area to connect to centralized potable water and sanitary sewer service. By
allowing such connections, the proposed amendment will positively impact juice making plants.
packing houses, and other agricultural businesses.
The proposed amendment will reduce health risks and encourage agricultural businesses to locate
near the urban service area. The incentive to locate near the urban service area is the provision that,
unless a health risk is involved, service can be provided only to approved agricultural businesses
located within one mile of the urban service area.
For these reasons, the proposed amendment is reasonable.
Post -Disaster Recovery and Redevelopment
Objective 7 of the Coastal Management Element and its associated policies indicate that the county
shall complete certain tasks within certain timeframes. One of those tasks, the development and
adoption of a Local Mitigation Strategy (LMS) as an annex to the County's Comprehensive
Emergency Management Plan, has recently been completed. The proposed amendment revises
Objective 7 and its policies to reflect that the LMS task has been completed, that the
recommendations of the LMS are being implemented Therefore, the proposed amendment is
reasonable.
DCA Recommendation
Planning staff contacted DCA about DCA's recommendation. During that conversation DCA
indicated that it was not clear to them that the all the pans of Policy 7.4 had been completed and that
the county would implement the LMS recommendations. To address DCA's concern, staff has
included Policy 7 2 which specifically states that the county will maintain and implement the LMS.
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."
March 20, 2001
The goals. objectives and policies are the most important parts of the comprehensive plan. Policies
are statements in the plan which identify the actions which the county will take in order to direct the
community's development. As courses of action committed to by the county, policies provide the
basis for all county land development related decisions --including plan amendment decisions.
While all comprehensive plan policies are important. some have more applicability than others in
reviewing plan amendment requests. Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3. however. is applicable
to all plan amendment requests. For that reason. this section will begin with a discussion of how
each proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3. Following that
discussion. there will be a section detailing how each proposed amendment is consistent with the rest
of the comprehensive plan.
Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3
In evaluating any comprehensive plan text amendment request. the most important consideration is
Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3. This policy requires that at least one of three criteria be met
in order to approve a comprehensive plan text amendment. These criteria are:
• the proposed amendment corrects a mistake in the approved plan:
• the proposed amendment corrects an oversight in the approved plan: or
• the proposed amendment is warranted based on a substantial change in circumstances.
The following table identifies which of Policy 14.3's criteria applies to each proposed amendment.
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
CRITERIA
Mistake 1 Oversight l Change in Circumstances
Optional Agricultural PDs
Caribbean Fruit Fly Host Plants
Clarification of the Future Land Use Map
X( acquired computer
capability
Utility Service to Agricultural Areas
Post -Disaster Recovery & Redevelopment
X (LMS completed)
When the plan was adopted, oversights related to Agricultural PDs and clustering occurred. As
detailed previously. public testimony before the Board described several reasons why required
clustering of residential development on agriculturally designated land does not benefit the county
At the time the plan was adopted, the county overlooked those facts, including the fact that the
existing lot size pattern within one to one and half miles of the urban service area is currently
dominated by lots of ten acres or Less in size.
Overlooking those facts constitutes an oversight. For that reason, the proposed amendment making
Agricultural PDs optional meets the second critenon of Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3 and
is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3
An oversight also occurred when the county included only agriculturally designated land when the
county adopted Future land Use Element Policy 6.5 as part of the Evaluation and Appraisal Process.
March 20, 2001
Since Policy 6.5's restrictions on Caribbean Fruit Fly host plants could also benefit the many active
citrus groves within the urban service area. those restnctions should have been applied countywide
Limiting the provisions of Policy 6.5 to agriculturally designated land constitutes an oversight. For
that reason. the proposed amendment expanding the restrictions on Caribbean Fruit Fly host plants
meets the second criterion of Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3 and is consistent with Future
Land Use Element Policy 14.3.
The proposed amendment involving utility service to agricultural areas also corrects an oversight.
In that case. the county previously overlooked the fact that juice making plants and other legitimate
approved agricultural businesses located on agriculturally designated land may need centralized
utility services to operate. For that reason. the proposed amendment allowing utility service to
agricultural Areas meeting certain criteria meets the second criterion of Future Land Use Element
Policy 14.3 and is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3
Summary of Consistency with Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3
Each proposed plan amendment is necessary either because of a change in circumstances or to
correct an oversight. Therefore, each meets either the second or the third criterion of Future Land
Use Element Policy 14.3. For that reason. all of the proposed amendments are consistent with
Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3.
Optional Agricultural PDs
Future Land Use Element Objective 6 promotes the preservation of active agricultural operations.
Conventional wisdom indicates that clustered residential development of agriculturally designated
land preserves agricultural operations by allowing most of the property to continue to be used for
agriculture. Except for a few large tracts, however it is not feasible for Indian River County farmers
to use a portion of their land (even up to 80%) for agriculture, while another portion contains
residences. Due to incompatibilities. residences on a portion of a site essentially prohibit agricultural
use of an entire site. Therefore clustering does not protect agricultural operations: and eliminating
the clustering requirement does not impede agricultural protection For these reasons, the proposed
amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element Objective 6.
The proposed amendment is also consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 2.3. That policy
requires development at densities greater than 1 unit/5 acres to be located within the urban service
area. The proposed amendment does not change any densities or land use designations. In fact, by
allowing 5 acre lots along the urban service area boundary, the proposed amendment discourages
urban service area expansion.
Caribbean Fruit Fly Host Plants
Future Land Use Element Objective 6 and its policies promote protection of active agricultural
operations in the county. Future Land Use Element Policies 6.3 and 6.4 specifically protect
agriculture within the urban service area. The proposed amendment also works to protect agriculture
within the urban service area. For that reason, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future
Land Use Element Objective 6 and Future Land Use Element Policies 6.3 and 6.4.
Utility Service to Agricultural Areas
The proposed amendment is consistent with Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element Policy 2.4 and Potable
Water Sub -Element Policy 2.4. Those policies commit the county to providing utilities to areas of
the county where the lack of utilities is determined to be a health risk. The proposed amendment
March 20, 2001
specifically allows utility connections where the lack of utilities is determined to be a health risk.
For that reason. the proposed amendment is consistent with Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element Policy 2 4
and Potable Water Sub -Element Policy 2.4.
Consistency Summary
As part of its consistency analysis, staff compared the proposed amendments (including the
amendments associated with Post -Disaster Recovery and Redevelopment. and Clarification of the
Future Land Use Map) to all applicable objectives and policies in the plan and found no conflicts.
Therefore, the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
CONCLUSION
The proposed amendment updates the plan to better reflect current conditions and circumstances.
The proposed revisions eliminate policies that have been implemented: clarify the plan: facilitate the
elimination of public health risks; and promote agricultural businesses and economic development.
The revisions are reasonable and consistent with the comprehensive plan. 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 amendments shown on Attachment 2.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment Application
2. Proposed Revisions to the Comprehensive Plan
3. Approved Minutes of the September 28. 2000. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
4. Approved Minutes of the October 19, 2000, Professional Services Advisory Comrnittee
Meeting
5. Approved Minutes of the November 7; 2000. Board of County Commissioners Meeting
6. DCA's ORC Report
7. Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment Ordinance (Optional Agricultural PDs)
8. Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment Ordinance (Caribbean Fruit Fly Host Plants)
9. Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment Ordinance (Clanfication of the FLUM) -
10. Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment Ordinance (Utility Service to Agricultural Areas)
11. Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment Ordinance (Post -Disaster Recovery and
Redevelopment)
Chairman Ginn referred to page 306 and wanted to make certain at the second bullet
(The open space area must be under the ownership of a single -entity.) that it is "in
perpetuity" such as is stated on page 303, and Director Keating assured her that it was in the
ordinance on page 314.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in
this matter.
March 20, 2001
Toni Robinson, 1111 Indian Mound Trail, speaking as an individual, wished to point
out there have been a lot of studies on clustering which indicate it has been very beneficial
in many areas for holding off sprawl. She knew the Commissioners were aware of all the
land available for development inside the urban service area, how costly it is to extend
utilities outside the urban service area which, if done on a piecemeal basis, is even more
expensive and that new development does not cover those costs. She also pointed out that
the areas between I-95 and the urban service area are a water recharge area and that water
needs will increase as the county develops. She thought the Board should move slowly and
consider these points very closely. She noticed while traveling in Europe recently that
people live in the towns and use the open areas for farmland. She felt there was a lesson to
be learned.
Chairman Ginn commented that it is hoped that these proposed ordinances will
address that.
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. 2001-006 amending the Future Land Use
Element of the Comprehensive Plan regarding Agricultural
Planned Developments.
ORDINANCE NO. 2001- 006
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. FLORIDA AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND
USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REGARDING AGRICULTURAL
PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS; AND PROVIDING SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian River County
Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 1990. and
March 20, 2001
WHEREAS. the county received comprehensive plan amendment applications during its July
2000 amendment submittal window. and
WHEREAS. the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on all comprehensive plan
amendment requests on September 28, 2000. 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 7. 2000. after advertising pursuant to F.S. 163.3184(15 )(b)(1) and (c).
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,
WHEREAS, the Florida Department of Community Affairs received this Comprehensive
Plan Amendment on December 4, 2000, 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 12, 2001,
WHEREAS, the ORC Report contained no objections 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 20. 2001. after advertising
pursuant to F.S.163.3184(15)(b);
March 20, 2001
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
The data and analysis, Policy 1.10. and Policy 5.8 of the Future Land Use Element of the
Comprehensive Plan are revised. as 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, Honda 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.
This ordinance was advertised in the Press -Journal on the 7`h day of March. 2001, for a public
hearing to be held on the 20th day of March. 2001. at which time it was moved for adoption by
Commissioner Adams , seconded by Commissioner Tippin and
adopted by the following vote:
Chairman Caroline D. Ginn Aye
Vice -Chairman Ruth M. Stanbridge Aye
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht 'ye
Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye
March 20, 2001
Br{ 117PG610
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
ATTEST BY:
Jef rey arson, Clerk
Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of Florida this. day day o).\,_„.k;'2001
Acknowledgment from the Department of State received on this >rdav YthC, 001. at
A.M./Mat. 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 PLANNING MATTERS
Robert M. Keating. AICP
Community Development Director f
cd\u\v\j\cpta\ju100 \ci-revisions\ag pd ord.wpd
March 20, 2001
BR II7PG611
ATTACHMENT A
FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT
Page 58; Development Opportunities section of the Land Use Analysis
Agricultural Planned Developments
An Agricultural Planned Development (PD) is a type of development which is optional on
agriculturally designated land located outside of the urban service area. Agricultural PDs permit the
normally allowable residential density on agriculturally designated land to be clustered into a small
area of the project, on building lots no greater than 1 acre in size. The remainder of the project area
is preserved as agricultural, conservation, and/or recreational open space. With this type of
development, farm lands, natural areas, and open space can be preserved in large, contiguous areas
in a manner that preserves agricultural character and functionality.
During the 1990 to 1999 time period, the county approved 10 agricultural PDs. Because such
developments preserve open space, agricultural uses and the rural character of certain areas of the
county the county should take actions to encourage agricultural PDs. Such actions could include
amending the county's land development regulations to streamline the Agricultural PD process.
while continuing to ensure the clustering of Lots and the preservation of large areas of agricultural
or recreational open space.
Policy 1.10
Development of agriculturally designated lands shall be limited to the following:
Agricultural Uses such as Farming. Groves, Range and Livestock Activities and Forestry
Excavation Activities
Agricultural Planned Developments consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 5.8
Single -Family Residential Uses
• up to 1 unit/lot or parcel on legally established non -conforming lots or parcels of
record existing on October 1, 1990
• up to 1 unit/5 acres in AG -1 designated areas
• up to 1 unit/10 acres in AG -2 designated areas
• up to 1 unit/20 acres in AG -3 designated areas
Agricultural Research Uses
Agriculturally Related Businesses
Recreational Uses
Public Facilities
Institutional Uses
Public Schools (Public schools shall be permitted on agriculturally designated lands only
within mixed use projects and traditional neighborhood design projects, or
on sites located outside of. but contiguous to, the urban service area
boundary.)
March 20, 2001
•
policy 5.8
All Planned Development (PD) projects approved in any agriculturally designated area shall meet
the following criteria:
The density of the project shall not exceed the maximum density of the underlying land use
designation; no density transfers from off-site lands. and no density bonuses shall be permitted
within PD projects in agriculturally designated areas.
Residential lots created through the PD process shall not exceed one acre in size, with the remainder
of the area designated as open space• all residential lots must be clustered together to limit the impact
of development on agricultural lands. Clustered means grouped together in a compact. contiguous
manner
The open space area must be under the ownership of a single entity and maintained as open space.
in perpetuity. through a conservation and/or agricultural preservation easement.
Open space areas shall be retained as natural areas or used for agricultural uses: however. up to thirty
percent of the open space area may be used for recreational purposes in AG -1 areas: up to twenty-
five percent of the open space area may be used for recreational purposes in AG -2 areas and up to
twenty percent of the open space area may be used for recreational purposes in AG -3 areas. Golf
Courses shall not be permitted as part of Agricultural PDs.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance No. 2001-007 amending the Future Land Use
Element of the Comprehensive Plan regarding Caribbean Fruit
Fly Host Plants.
ORDINANCE NO. 2001- 007
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. FLORIDA, AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND
USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REGARDING CARIBBEAN FRUIT FLY
HOST PLANTS; 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
2000 amendment submittal window, and
March 20, 2001
141
61<117PG6i3
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on all comprehensive plan
amendment requests on September 28, 2000, 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 7, 2000, after advertising pursuant to F.S. 163.3184(15)(6)(1) and (c),
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,
WHEREAS, the Florida Department of Community Affairs received this Comprehensive
Plan Amendment on December 4, 2000, 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 12, 2001,
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 20. 2001, 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:
March 20, 2001
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
Policy 6.5 of the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan is revised. as 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 I63.3184(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.
This ordinance was advertised in the Press -Journal on the 7'h day of March. 2001, for a public
hearing to be held on the 20'h day of March, 2001. at which time it was moved for adoption by
Commissioner Adams . seconded by Commissioner
adopted by the following vote: Ti PPi n and
March 20, 2001
Chairman Caroline D. Ginn
Vice -Chairman Ruth M. Stanbridge
Commissioner Fran B. Adams
Commissioner Kenneth R Macht
Commissioner John W. Tippin
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
143
H7PG615
•
4.4
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BY: `�, C),
Caroline D. Ginn, Chaifman
ATTEST BY:
Jeffrey Barton, Clerk %
cy
Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of Florida this r / day of I'Ct- 2001
Acknowledgment from the Department of State received on this > /day of :(„.1, . C, 2001, at
A.M.Rliff4. and filed in the office of the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Honda.
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
William G. -Collins II. Deputy County Attorney
APPROVED AS TO PLANNING MATTERS
i
i11, ;»
Robert M. Keating, AICP
Community Development Director
1
Iv Cr
cd\u\v\jAcpta\ju100 \ci-revisions\fruit fly ord.wpd
ATTACHMENT A
FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT
dm Pen Ct
Admin
Legal
Budget
Dept
Risk Mgr.
Aov o. eu
Policy 6.5
Indian River County land development regulations shall require the following special conditions for
Affidavit of Exemption, Administrative Permit, Special Exception and/or Planned Development
approval of projects on agriculturally designated land: and for Administrative Permit. Special
Exception and/or Planned Development approval of projects within the urban service area that are
located near active citrus groves:
• Caribbean Fruit Fly host plants shall be prohibited on the subject site. That prohibition shall
be enforceable through the county code enforcement board; and
• A deed restriction shall be recorded and established on the subject site. That deed restriction
shall prohibit the occurrence of Caribbean Fruit Fly host plants on the subject site and shall
be acceptable to the county attorney's office.
March 20, 2001
6K117P3616
144
•
R"F
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Tippin. the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance No. 2001-008 amending the Future Land Use
Element, the Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element. and the Potable
Water Sub -Element of the Comprehensive Plan regarding the
Clarification of the Future Land Use Map.
ORDINANCE NO. 2001- 008
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND
USE ELEMENT, THE SANITARY SEWER SUB -ELEMENT AND THE POTABLE WATER
SUB -ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REGARDING THE CLARIFICATION OF
THE FUTURE LAND USE 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
2000 amendment submittal window, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on all comprehensive plan
amendment requests on September 28, 2000. 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 7, 2000. 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
March 20, 2001
vo�
145
BK 17 PG 617
•
WHEREAS, the Florida Department of Community Affairs received this Comprehensive
Plan Amendment on December 4, 2000, 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 12, 2001,
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 20, 2001. 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 Honda 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
Policies 1.1 and 2.1 of the Future Land Use Element: Policy 5.8 of the Sanitary Sewer Sub -
Element; and Policy 5.7 of the Potable Water Sub -Element of the Comprehensive Plan are revised.
as 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.
March 20, 2001
146
B( 7Pbb18
•
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 perrmts, 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 he made effective by
adoption ata public meeting after public notice of a resolution affirming its effective status. a copy
of which resolution shall be sent to the Florida Department of Community Affairs, Division of
Resource Planning and Management. Plan Processing Team.
This ordinance was advertised in the Press -Journal on the 71 day of March. 2001. for a public
hearing to be held on the 20'h day of March. 2001. at which time it was mos ed for adoption by
Commissioner Adams . seconded by Commissioner Ti ppi n and
adopted by the following vote:
Chairman Caroline D. Ginn AyP
Vice -Chairman Ruth M. Stanbridge Aye
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BY:
/C1nCaroline D. Ginn, Chai n
•
ATTEST BY: � l'=...�'�.�+—�.-�
Jeffrey-K—Barton, Clerk )
Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of Florida this ' day of\ , 2001
C\J
Acknowledgment from the Department of State received on this�'day of„\'V�-:001. at
A.M.I 1. and filed in the office of the Clerk of the Board of County Comrrussioners of Indian River
County, Florida.
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
William G. Collins II, Deputy County Attorney
March 20, 2001
APPROVED AS TO PLANNING MATTERS
a
�yact
Robert M. Keating, AICP
Community Development Director
cd\u\v\j\cpta\jul00 \ci-revisions\clarify flum ord.wpd
147
E.; 11? PG 619
ATTACHMENT A
FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT
Policy 1.11
Indian River County hereby adopts the Future Land Use goal. objectives, policies as well as Figures
2.8, 2.17. 2.19, 2.20, 1./1, 2.22, 2 23, 2.25. 2.27, and 2.29; and The Official Future Land Use Map.
Policy 2.1
Indian River County hereby adopts the 2020 Urban Service Area depicted on the County's Official
Future Land Use Map. The Urban Service Area includes land where services necessary to support
urban development are available at levels identified in this and other elements of the Comprehensive
Plan.
At a minimum, those services shall include centralized utilities service, improved roadways, solid
waste disposal, stormwater management, police protection, fire protection, educational facilities, and
park and recreational facilities.
SANITARY SEWER SUB -ELEMENT
Policy 5.8
Consistent with the policies of the Future Land Use Element of this plan, provision of centralized
sanitary sewer service shall be limited to the following:
• Areas within the Urban Service Area;
Areas where the county has legal commitments to provide facilities and services as of the
date of adoption of this plan;
Areas outside of the Urban Service Area that are located east of I-95, where at least a portion
of the site fronts on a public roadway which serves as an Urban Service Area boundary as
depicted on the Official Future Land Use Map. These areas are subject to the following
provisions:
The maximum density of such land shall be as shown on the Future Land Use Map,
and the provision of centralized sanitary sewer service shall not be justification for
an increase in maximum density;
Sanitary sewer line extensions shall be limited to laterals and minor lines connecting
land uses to main lines; and
In no case shall centralized sanitary sewer lines be permitted to extend more than 500
feet from the centerline of a roadway which is an Urban Service Area boundary.
March 20, 2001
Development projects located outside of the Urban Service Area that meet the criteria of the
policies of the Future Land Use Element for:
clustering of residential development within agricultural areas:
clustering of residential development within privately owned upland conservation
areas:
o clustering development within mixed use districts; or
o traditional neighborhood design communities.
POTABLE WATER SUB -ELEMENT
Policy 5.7
Consistent with the policies of the Future Land Use Element of this plan. provision of potable water
service shall be limited to the following:
• Areas within the Urban Service Area:
• Areas where the county has legal commitments to provide facilities and services as of the
date of adoption of this plan:
Areas outside of the Urban Service Area that are located east of I-95. where at least a portion
of the site fronts on a public roadway which serves as an Urban Service Area boundary as
depicted on the Official Future Land Use Map. These areas are subject to the following
provisions:
The maximum density of such land shall be as shown on the Official Future Land
Use Map. and the provision of centralized potable water service shalt not be
justification for an increase in maximum density;
Potable water line extensions shall be limited to laterals and minor lines connecting
land uses to main lines; and
In no case shall centralized potable water lines be permitted to extend more than 500
feet from the centerline of a roadway which is an Urban Service Area boundary.
Development projects located outside of the Urban Service Area that meet the criteria of the
policies of the Future Land Use Element for:
o clustering of residential development within agricultural areas:
o clustering of residential development within privately owned upland conservation
areas;
o clustering development within mixed use districts; or
o traditional neighborhood design communities.
March 20, 2001
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance No. 2001-009 amending the Future Land Use
Element, the Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element, and the Potable
Water Sub -Element of the Comprehensive Plan regarding the
provision of utility services to agricultural businesses.
sok
ORDINANCE NO. 2001- 009
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. FLORIDA AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND
USE ELEMENT THE SANITARY SEWER SUB -ELEMENT AND THE POTABLE WATER
SUB -ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REGARDING THE PROVISION OF
UTILITY SERVICES TO AGRICULTURAL BUSINESSES• 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
2000 amendment submittal window, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on all comprehensive plan
amendment requests on September 28. 2000, 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 7. 2000, 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
March 20, 2001
DPI
150
WHEREAS. the Honda Department of Community Affairs received this Comprehensive
Plan Amendment on December 4. 2000, 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 11 2001,
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 20, 2001. 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 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
Policy 6.1 of the Future Land Use Element; Policy 5.8 of the Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element;
and Policy 5.7 of the Potable Water Sub -Element of the Comprehensive Plan are revised, as 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.
March 20, 2001
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.
This ordinance was advertised in the Press -Journal on the 7th day of March. 2001, for a public
hearing to be held on the 20th day of March, 2001, at which time it was moved for adoption by
Commissioner Adams , seconded by Commissioner
adopted by the following vote: Ti ppi n and
Chairman Caroline D. Ginn Aye
Vice -Chairman Ruth M. Stanbridge Aye
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R Macht Aye
Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BY: � J�
Caroline D. Ginn. Chairrntin
ATTEST BY:
Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of Florida this ' day of 'CV L. 2001
Acknowledgment from the Department of State received on this,:j1 day of I 1T 1'1,12001. at
A.M./P.A. 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
March 20, 2001
Aij
Robert M. Kteating, AICP i,
Community Development Director
ATTACHMENT A
FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT
Policy 6.1
Indian River County shall not provide public services or facilities which would induce or encourage
[he development of agriculturally designated lands except in the following instances:
• To provide for the health and safety of existing residents in a manner consistent with Sanitan_
Sewer Sub -Element Policy 2.4 and Potable Water Sub -Element Policy 2.4;
• Lots or portions of lots which front on a public roadway that serves as an urban service
boundary. as long as the provision of utility service is consistent with Potable Water Sub -
Element Policy 5.7 and Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element Policy 5.8;
• Agricultural Planned Developments:
• Traditional Neighborhood Design Developments that meet the requirements of policies 18.1,
18.2. 18.3 of the Future Land Use Element:
• New Town Districts that meet the requirements of policies 1.34 and 1.35 of the Future Land
Use Element: and
• Approved agricultural businesses where at least a portion of the development site is located
within one mile of a public roadway which serves as an Urban Service Area boundary as
depicted on the Official Future Land Use Map.
SANITARY SEWER SUB -ELEMENT
Policy 5.8
Consistent with the policies of the Future Land Use Element of this plan, provision of centralized
sanitary sewer service shall be limited to the following:
Areas within the Urban Service Area:
Areas where the county has legal commitments to provide facilities and services as of the
date of adoption of this plan;
Areas outside of the Urban Service Area that are located east of I-95. where at least a portion
of the site fronts on a public roadway which serves as an Urban Service Area boundary as
depicted on the Future Land Use Element Figures 2.31a and 2.31b. These areas are subject
to the following provisions:
The maximum density of such land shall be as shown on the Future Land Use Map.
and the provision of centralized sanitary sewer service shall not be justification for
an increase in maximum density;
Sanitary sewer line extensions shall be limited to laterals and minor lines connecting
land uses to main lines; and
In no case shall centralized sanitary sewer lines be permitted to extend more than 500
feet from the centerline of a roadway which is an Urban Service Area boundary.
Development projects located outside of the Urban Service Area that meet the criteria of the
policies of the Future Land Use Element for:
March 20, 2001
BK I 7PG625
o clustering of residential development within agricultural areas;
o clustering of residential development within privately owned upland conservation
areas;
o clustering development within mixed use districts; or
o traditional neighborhood design communities.
• Areas where, consistent with Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element Policy 2.4, the lack of centralized
sanitary sewer service is determined to be a public health threat.
POTABLE WATER SUB -ELEMENT
Policy 5.7
Consistent with the policies of the Future Land Use Element of this plan, provision of potable water
service shall be limited to the following:
• Areas within the Urban Service Area;
• Areas where the county has legal commitments to provide facilities and services as of the
date of adoption of this plan;
• Areas outside of the Urban Service Area that are located east of I-95, where at least a portion
of the site fronts on a public roadway which serves as an Urban Service Area boundary as
depicted on the Future Land Use Element Figures 2.31a and 2.31b. These areas are subject
to the following provisions:
o The maximum density of such land shall be as shown on the Future Land Use Map,
and the provision of centralized potable water service shall not be justification for an
increase in maximum density;
o Potable water line extensions shall be limited to laterals and minor lines connecting
land uses to main lines; and
o In no case shall centralized potable water lines be permitted to extend more than 500
feet from the centerline of a roadway which is an Urban Service Area boundary.
• Development projects located outside of the Urban Service Area that meet the criteria of the
policies of the Future Land Use Element for:
o clustering of residential development within agricultural areas;
o clustering of residential development within privately owned upland conservation
areas; _
o clustering development within mixed use districts; or
o traditional neighborhood design communities.
• Areas where, consistent with Potable Water Sub -Element Policy 2.4, the risk of private well
contamination is determined to be unacceptably high.
• Approved agricultural businesses where at least a portion of the development site is located
within one mile of a public roadway which serves as an Urban Service Area boundary as
depicted on the Official Future Land Use Map.
March 20, 2001
BK I17PG626
154
.04
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams. SECONDED BY
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance No. 2001-010 amending the Coastal Management
Element of the Comprehensive Plan regarding Post Disaster
Recovery and Redevelopment.
ORDINANCE NO. 2001- 010
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. FLORIDA. AMENDING THE COASTAL
MANAGEMENT ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REGARDING POST
DISASTER RECOVERY AND REDEVELOPMENT 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
2000 amendment submittal window, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on all comprehensive plan
amendment requests on September 28, 2000, 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 7. 2000. after advertising pursuant to F.S. 163.3184(15)(b)(1) and (c).
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.
March 20, 2001
WHEREAS, the Florida Department of Community Affairs received this Comprehensive
Plan Amendment on December 4, 2000, 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 Honda Department of Community Affairs on February 12, 2001,
and
WHEREAS. the ORC Report contained no objections 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 20, 2001, 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, Flonda, 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 transrrutted 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
Objective 7 and Policies 7.1 to 7.8 of the Coastal Management Element of the
Comprehensive Plan are revised. as 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. Severabilitv
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.
March 20, 2001
156
EK !17PG628
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 ma) 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 T" day of March. 2001, for a public
hearing to be held on the 20th day of March. 2001. at which time it was mored for adoption by
Commissioner Adams , seconded by Commissioner
adopted by the following vote: Ttpp i n and
Chairman Caroline D. Ginn Aye
Vice -Chairman Ruth M. Stanbridge Aye
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R Macht Aye
Commissioner John W. Tippin Ave
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
Caroline D. Ginn, Chairman
ATTEST BY:
Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of Florida this: day oPh ti� r' 2001
Acknowledgment from the Department of State received on thic41 day of oC
A.M.Q. 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 PLANNING MATTERS
March 20, 2001
_Z:
Robert M. Keating, AICP
Community Development Director
BK 1 1 7 PG 6 2 9
ATTACHMENT A
COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
OBJECTIVE 7 Post -Disaster Recovery and Redevelopment
Consistent with the requirements of Chapter 163, F.S. and DCA Rule 9J-5, F.A.C., the county
shall have a Local Mitigation Strategy (LMS), as an annex to the Indian River County
Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (CEMP). The LMS shall list and prioritize
disaster mitigation projects.
Policy 7.1: Consistent with the CEMP, the county will perform an initial damage assessment,
immediately following a natural disaster event. in order to determine the extent of damage and
prioritize allocation of recovery resources. If the scope of damage exceeds the county s ability to
recover, the county shall declare a local state of emergency, pursuant to Chapter 252, F.S. and
County Ordinance# 91-18. Once a local state of emergency has been declared, the county will
request assistance from the Florida Division of Emergency Management (FDEM).
Policy 7.2: The County shall continue to maintain its LMS, and to implement the short-term and
long-term recommendations contained in the LMS.
Policy 7.3: Following a natural disaster, principal structures and uses located eastward of the County
Dune Stabilization Setback Line (DSSL) which sustain greater than 50 percent of MAI (Member of
Appraisal Institute) assessed current market value damage from a naturally occurring storm shall be
required to relocate upland of their location and. when possible, westward of the DSSL. Prior to
reconstruction, principal structures east of the 1987 State Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL)
exhibiting damage from a naturally occurring storm event, greater than 50 percent of MAI assessed
market value. shall be required to obtain all applicable permits and comply with all applicable
building codes concerning coastal construction.
Policy 7.4: Consistent with National Hood Insurance Program (NFIP) requirements, any structure
predating 1989 FEMA Hood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and located within a flood hazard area
that sustains "substantial damage" due to a natural disaster (i.e. repair costs that exceed 50% or more
of the building's value) shall be required to be elevated a minimum of six (6) inches above the base
flood elevation (BFE), as depicted on current FIRMs.
Policy 7.5: Consistent with NFIP requirements, any proposed "substantial improvement" (Le.
additions, renovations, or modifications that exceed 50% or more of the building's value) to a pre -
FIRM structure located within a within a flood hazard area shall be required to be elevated a
minimum of six (6) inches above the BFE. as depicted on current FIRMs The list contained in
Annex IV of the CEMP will be used to determine the total value of `substantial improvement.
Policy 7.6: The county shall continue to regulate development and manage natural resources within
the Coastal Zone by:
Continuing to enforce LDR Chapter 932 - Coastal Management, and LDR Chapter 402 -
Coastal Construction Code;
Preserving flood storage capacity in the 100 year floodplain, in accordance with the policies
listed under Objective 5 of [he Stormwater Management Sub -Element;
Maintaining or reducing land use density allowances in the Coastal High Hazard Area
(CHHA) in accordance with the policies under Objective 17 of the Future Land Use Element
and Objective 11 of this element:
March 20, 2001
158
BK PB 30
Minimizing beach and dune disturbance in accordance with Coastal Management Element
Policy 4.8 and County Code Chapter 932: and
Reviewing, in coordination with the FDEP Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems. all
emergency seawall permit applications within the unincorporated area of Indian River
County and within the City Limits of Vero Beach.
(CLERK'S NOTE AT APPROXIMATELY 10:15 A.M.,
CHAIRMAN GIN— CALLED A BRIEF RECESS. AT
APPROXIMATELY 10:20 A.M., THE CHAIRMAN
RECONVENED THE MEETING.)
9.A.7. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE NO. 2001-011 COUNTY -
INITIATED REQUEST TO UPDATE THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (Legislative)
PROOF OF PUBLICATION IS ON FILE
IN THF OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
Community Development Director Robert M. Keating reviewed a Memorandum of
March 5, 2001 using Power Point R (copy on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board) to
aid in his presentation:
TO: James E. Chandler; County Administrator
DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE
Wilbert VI. Keating, AICP; Community De elopment Director
THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICP; Chief, Long -Range Planning -5 1/
FROM: John Wachtel; Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning 1
DATE: March 5, 2001
March 20, 2001
RE•
County Initiated Request to Update the Capital Improvements Element of the
Comprehensive Plan
Plan Amendment Number: CPTA 2000-07-0162
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of March 20, 2001.
DESCRIPTIONS AND CONDITIONS
On February 13, 1990. Indian River County adopted its comprehensive plan. As required by state
law all development activities must be consistent with the comprehensive plan. and all county
activities must conform to plan policies. Occasionally, the plan must be updated to reflect the latest
and best available information and w address changed conditions. Additionally, the plan must
penodically be reviewed and revised in order to reflect the community's changing needs and desires.
Also. the plan. itself, requires regular amendment of certain elements. For example. the capital
improvements element (CIE) of the plan needs to be amended approximately every two years. This
is required both by plan policy and by state regulations. For those reasons, the county has initiated
this amendment.
At this time. the county is initiating a comprehensive plan text amendment to update the CIE. One
component of the CIE is a seven-year capital improvements program. As amended in 1998, that
seven-year program currently addresses fiscal years 1998 thru 2004. Since two years of the existing
program have been completed and since Florida law requires that a local comprehensive plan contain
at least a five-year capital improvements program. the county must revise its program to reflect the
appropriate time period.
While some of the improvements identified and budgeted in the current capital improvements
program have already been accomplished and therefore should be deleted from the program. other
improvements need to be re-evaluated in terms of costs, revenues, and prioritization. In addition,
new projects may need to be added to the county's capital improvements program. At the time of
plan adoption. it was known that the capital improvements program would become outdated each
year; therefore. one of the policies of the CIE (policy 1.1). as adopted. requires annual evaluation and
update of the capital improvements program. Also. state regulations mandate that the CIE be
amended if conditions change to warrant it.
The capital improvements program is an important
improvements reflected in other plan elements and
in other portions of the CIE, revisions to the seven
as a whole.
Past Actions
part of the CIE. Since the program incorporates
incorporates estimates and projections reflected
-year program require an amendment to the CIE
On September 28. 2000. at an advertised public hearing. the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
6 to 0 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed amendment.
On October 19. 2000. the Professional Services Advisory Committee voted 6 to 0 to recommend that
the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed amendment. On November 7, 2000. the
Board of County Commissioners voted 5 to 0 to transmit the proposed amendment to the Honda
Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for their review.
March 20, 2001
BK
160
•
sr
ORC Report
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 Attachment 5 at the end of
this staff report. does not contain any objections or comments relating to the proposed amendment.
ANALYSIS
In revising the capital improvements element (CIE), staff used much the same methodology as it
employed in preparing the original element. This involved coordinating with the budget and finance
departments to obtain data on past revenues and expenditures as well as projected future revenue and
expenditure amounts. Then. each county department was contacted to determine the status of its
capital improvements program. For each department. information on completed projects, proposed
projects. costs. revenues, prioritization and other factors was collected. Based upon these data
planning staff revised the various tables and the text of the CIE. The result is an accurate and up-to-
date capital improvements program with revisions having been made in the CIE generally to
demonstrate internal consistency and financial feasibility. The revised capital improvements element
is on file in the Board of County Commissioners office.
Capital Improvements Program
Table 6.22 of the CIE lists all programmed capital improvements for fiscal years 2002 through 2008
for each comprehensive plan element. In addition to the comprehensive plan element categories
shown in table 6 22, an emergency services category was added to table 6 22.
Conservation capital projects listed in table 6.22 of the CIE focus on improvements to conservation
lands that have been purchased in prey ious years by the county. These planned improvements
include creating public access points to conservation areas. constructing docks, and building trails.
Emergency services capital projects proposed for the next seven fiscal years include renovations to
two existing emergency services stations and the construction of a new station in the Grand Harbor
area.
Capital improvement projects related to recreation and open space include improvements to existing
recreation areas throughout the entire county and the construction of a new recreation area in the
north county. The north county park. to be located on 121 acres of the Sebastian Buffer Preserve,
north of CR 512 and west of Sebastian River Middle School, will consist of a pool complex. four-
plex multi purpose ball fields. a soccer complex, a playground. open space. stormwater lakes and
maintenance buildings At this time. the north county park is in the design stage of development
All of the recreation and open space projects identified in table 6.22 will be paid for with one cent
local option sales tax funds.
Potable water and sanitary sewer capital improvement projects are planned throughout the entire
unincorporated county as well as within those municipalities served by county utilities. Major
projects planned for fiscal years 2002 through 2008 include potable water line extensions in the north
and south county, wastewater line extensions in the CR 512 commercial corridor, expansion of the
north county reverse osmosis plant. and expansion of the west regional wastewater treatment plant.
The majority of the potable water and wastewater projects will be funded through capacity charges.
Solid Waste capital improvement activities involve the purchase of capital equipment. Among the
equipment that will purchased by the Solid Waste Disposal District are dump trucks, roll -off trucks,
roll -off containers, and loaders.
March 20, 2001
161
BK 117P6633
•
Capital improvements to county maintained roads are generally funded by traffic impact fee revenue.
Some expenditures are also funded by the State of Honda. developers, and other local governments.
Table 6.22 lists new projects, including intersection improvements and road widenings, programmed
throughout the county.
Existing Conditions and Analysis Sections
In addition to the changes made to table 6.22. all of the data in the existing conditions and analysis
sections have been updated to reflect current conditions. These data include past revenue and
expenditure figures for county operations as well as projected revenue and expenditure figures for
county operations.
Goal, Objectives, and Policies Section
In total. five objectives are being recommended for revision, seven policies are being recommended
for revision. and one policy is being recommended for deletion. Based on the new time horizon set
for the capital improvements program. the time horizon for all five capital improvements element
objectives was revised to 2008. Policy 4.4 is being recommended for deletion because the action
of policy 4.4 is a duplication of the action of policy 4.1. Seven policies are being recommended for
revision. due in large pan to the restructuring of water and sewer impact fees into capacity charges.
Revisions to the objectives and policies of the capital improvements element are labeled with a
double underline; deletions to the objectives and policies are labeled with mikevut. These revisions
and deletions are incorporated in the revised capital improvements element on file in the Board of
County Commissioners office.
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan
Comprehensive plan amendment requests are reviewed for consistency with all policies of the
comprehensive plan. As per section 800.07(1) of the county code. the "comprehensive plan may be
amended only in such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of the plan pursuant to section
..163.3177(2) F.S."
The goals. objectives and policies are the most important 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. While all comprehensive plan policies are
important. some have more applicability than others in reviewing plan amendment requests. Of
particular applicability for these amendment requests is the following policy:
• Future Land Use Policy 14.3
The most important policy to consider in evaluating a plan amendment request for consistency with
the county's comprehensive plan is future land use element policy 14.3. This policy requires that
one of three criteria be met in order to approve a comprehensive plan text amendment request (one
of four criteria must be met for land use amendment requests). These criteria are:
• the proposed amendment corrects a mistake in the approved plan;
• the proposed amendment corrects an oversight in the approved plan; or
• the proposed amendment is warranted based on a substantial change in circumstances.
March 20, 2001
8K
162
•
Based upon its analysis. staff feels that the proposed amendment to the capital improvements
element (CIE) meets the third criterion of policy 14.3 of the future land use element. Revisions to
the CIE, particularly the capital improvements program. are necessary to reflect changes in
circumstances. In that period since the CIE was last revised, capital improvements have been
completed: others have been added: revenue projections have changed. and priorities have been
modified. These circumstances warrant the amendment.
Capital Improvements Element Policies 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.7, 1.10, and 1.11
Capital improvements element policies 1.1. 1.2. 1.3. 1.7. 1.10 and 1.11 require the County to
maintain and implement a capital improvements program which is evaluated and updated annually.
These policies also describe how the county will evaluate and prioritize capital improvements. By
updating the capital improvements program in accordance with these requirements. the proposed
amendment is consistent with these policies.
Capital Improvements Element Policy 1.9
Capital improvements element policy 1.9 states that the county shall include all capital expenditures
in excess of 525.000 in its schedule of improvements. The proposed amendment identifies all capital
expenditures in excess of 525.000. Therefore. the proposed amendment is consistent with capital
improvements element Policy 1.9.
While the referenced policies are particularly applicable to this request. other comprehensive plan
policies and objectives also have relevance. For that reason. staff evaluated the amendment requests
for consistency with all applicable plan policies and objectives. Based upon that analysis. staff
determined that the requests are consistent with the comprehensive plan
ALTERNATIVES
With respect to the proposed comprehensive plan text amendment. the Board of County
Commissioners has three alternatives. These are to:
1. Deny the proposed amendment:
2. Adopt the proposed amendment: or
3. Adopt the proposed amendment, with changes.
CONCLUSION
Staff's position is that the proposed amendment to the capital improvements element will enhance
the comprehensive plan. Also, it has been demonstrated that this amendment maintains the plan's
internal consistency. For those reasons. staff supports the adoption of the proposed amendment.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the analysis conducted. staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that
the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed amendment.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Application
1. Approved Minutes of the September 28. 2000. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
3. Approved Minutes of the October 19, 2000, Professional Services Advisory Committee
Meeting
4. Approved Minutes of the November 7. 2000, Board of County Commissioners Meeting
5. DCA's ORC Report `
6. Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment Ordinance
March 20, 2001
163
BK {'
•
PG 335
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 Tippin, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance No. 2001-011 amending the Capital Improvements
Element of the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan.
ORDINANCE NO. 2001-011
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. AMENDING THE CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT OF THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN;
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
2000 amendment submittal window, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on all comprehensive plan
amendment requests on September 28, 2000, 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 7, 2000, 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
Alarch 20, 2001
BK PG
1.64
r
WHEREAS, the Honda Department of Community Affairs received this Comprehensive
Plan Amendment on December 4, 2000, 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 12, 2001.
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 20. 2001. 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 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
The Capital Improvements Element of the Comprehensive Plan. as revised, as shown in
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
March 20, 2001
165
OK II/PGo37
•
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.
This ordinance was advertised in the Press -Journal on the 7th day of March, 2001, for a public
hearing to be held on the 20th day of March, 2001, at which time it was moved for adoption by
Commissioner Adams , seconded by Commissioner
adopted by the following vote: Ti ppi n and
Chairman Caroline D. Ginn Aye
Vice -Chairman Ruth M. Stanbridge Aye
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R Macht Aye
Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
Caroline D. Ginn, Chairrn
Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of Florida this - j day o6VAtz , 2001
Acknowledgment from the Department of State received on this )1da o ' " I
�> �, '``2001, at
A.M./Etta. 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 PLANNING MATTERS
1 `-' t
Robert M. Keating, AICP
Community Development Director
March 20, 2001
•
9.A.8 PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE NO. 2001-012
AMENDING THE "LOCAL OPTION GAS TAX" ORDINANCE
PROOF OF PUBLICATION IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK FO THE BOARD
Deputy County Attorney Will Collins reviewed a Memorandum of March 12, 2001:
TO: The Board of County Commissioners
FROM: , CWilliam G. Collins 11 - Deputy County Attorney
DATE: March 12, 2001
SUBJECT: Proposed Ordinance Amendment to the Local Option Gas Tax
On August 22, 2000, the Board of County Commissioners held the public hearing
required every two years to discuss the method of distribution of the local option
gas tax revenues pursuant to Indian River County Code Section 209.04(a). At
that time representatives of the City of Sebastian appeared objecting to the
practice of recalculating percentages for distribution bi-annually rather than
annually. At the hearing on August 22, 2000, the Board approved the formula
methodology and the new distribution percentages as recommended by staff to
be effective for the fiscal year 01/02. At that time the staff was directed to
research the problem and advise the Board
A meeting was held October 13, 2000 on the subject of the local option gas tax.
In attendance were then Chairman Adams, City Manager Terrence Moore, City
Attorney Richard Stringer, Assistant County Administrator Joe Baird, Public
Works Director James Davis and me.
At that meeting, Public Work Director Davis expressed that he had been having
difficulty getting all the information reported by the municipalities in a timely
manner The ordinance requires him to certify the recalculated distributions by
April 15th of each year, however last year the hearing on the matter was not held
until August 22nd. While the ordinance calls for the distribution of the proceeds
to become effective September 1st of each year, the recalculated distribution
was not provided to the state until mid-September with an effective date of the
following September 1st.
The City of Sebastian representatives objected to the nearly 1 -year delay in
distnbution, arguing that it was detrimental to their city which is a fast-growing
municipality, with commensurate road -building needs.
Parties to that meeting agreed that the distribution of proceeds should be
recalculated annually per our current ordinance. It was determined that some
earlier reporting timeframes, both from the municipalities and the county, would
allow the goals of timely distribution to be met. Information received from the
Department of Revenue indicates that they need any information about
recalculated distributions at least 60 days prior to the effective date of the
distribution.
March 20, 2001
167
B1< 17 PG 639
The ordinance amendments presented attempt to clarify reporting timeframes
and allow all activities to be performed early enough for the Department of
Revenue to make the recalculated distribution of the proceeds September 1st of
the same year as the recalculated distributions are reported. The net effect of
the change will be to ensure annual recalculation of the gas tax distribution. The
year 2001 recalculation would be effective September 1, 2001, thus superseding
the Board's approval of the distribution percentages shown on the 2000 local
option gas tax chart already sent to the state for the fiscal year 01/02.
A second outcome of the October 13th meeting was to inquire whether the
Department of Revenue can make the 2000 formula approved last August
retroactive to September 1, 2000. That matter has not been resolved and would
have implications for other municipalities besides Sebastian.
RECOMMENDATION:
Open the public hearing and after receiving public input, adopt the ordinance
amending Section 209.04 of the Code of Indian River County "Disposition of
Proceeds' of the Local Option Gas Tax Ordinance to clarify reporting timeframes
and effective dates of recalculated distributions.
Attorney Collins advised that he had just spoken with Virginia Gilbert, the Manager
of Indian River Shores, who apologized she was unable to attend. She indicated that she was
generally in favor of the more definite reporting time frames and supportive of the ordinance.
He also spoke to the Department of Revenue with respect to the issue of whether the
distribution could be made retroactive to last September l s`. They advised it was up to the
parties to the Interlocal Agreements as to whether they want to attempt to make it retroactive
or not. To do so would penalize the City of Vero Beach whose growth is not as rapid as the
City of Sebastian's. The State will honor whatever the County and the municipalities agree
upon. If an agreement cannot be worked out, the statutes provide for recalculation every 10
years based on the last 5 years transportation expenditures. So, it is to no one's advantage
to break or drop the existing interlocal agreements. He recommended the public hearing be
opened after which any adjustments they wish could be made. He suggested it is time to
work together and see it as an effort to get a better reporting system with more timely
distributions rather than try to go back and modify the interlocal agreements, which he
March 20, 2001
168
BK117PG6L0
•
44444
thought would be a fairly difficult task.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in
this matter.
City of Sebastian City Attorney Richard Stringer felt the ordinance under
consideration makes things more clear. He suggested the following be inserted in the new
paragraph concerning reporting of information, subsection (b), since all the information
necessary is public record: " ... based upon the previous year's information, or other reliable
public information ... .
That would prevent any entity from cutting back on their
expenditures, being silent, and prospering.
Commissioner Adams questioned whether the April 30th date should be pushed up to
April 15`h, and Attorney Collins advised he had picked April 30th because the ordinance will
not become effective until sent to Tallahassee. He wanted at least a month for Public Works
Director James W. Davis to get the information from the municipalities and allowed another
6 weeks to do the calculations and send them to Tallahassee.
Attorney Stringer stressed the important of the effective date as the figures being used
would all be based on the prior year's experience. That equates to a 2 -year delay and
translates to a great impact with the growth Sebastian and Fellsmere are experiencing. He
asked that the ordinance be effective as of September as is already in the agreement.
County Attorney Bangel suggested the insertion referenced above be "or other reliable
information", after which there was a brief discussion as to whether it should be "available"
or "reliable" or "available reliable" information.
Attorney Stringer referred to the minutes of the August 2000 meeting when the
hearings were held. He stated the Board actually deferred action on the effective date and
March 20, 2001
169
BKiPG 641
44.
4
read from the minutes indicating that the formula was approved, but not the effective date.
There was a brief discussion as to using a retroactive date, and Attorney Collins
reiterated the information he received from the Department of Revenue.
Attorney Stringer stressed that the effective date was not specified last year, so
nothing would be changed should the calculations be based on last year's figures. There is
no distinction between "June of each year" when recalculating and "September of each year"
when it takes effect.
Attorney Collins agreed with Attorney Stringer; the practice has not been that way,
however. Information has been going to the State after the September 15t deadline, so they
have been distributing it the following September. The attempt now was to get the reporting
done early enough that September 1St really means "this year" and not a year from now.
September 1st is the date that our ordinance says that the re -certified calculation of
distribution will go into effect. This has been used since the mid -1980's and our reporting
date has always been September P. It seems the statutes give you two alternatives, to
continue re -certifying the formula for redistribution as of September 1st or with newly
imposed taxes January Pt.
Commissioner Adams thought the intent and the fair thing to do was to evaluate it on
an annual basis. She felt the situation needed to be rectified.
Joel Tyson. Mayor of Fellsmere, wanted to remind the Board that Fellsmere is
growing and needs to be recognized. One of the problems, due to growth, is they are getting
priced out of the grant business because of homes being built by former migrant workers.
Also, there is more wear and tear on the streets and equipment due to the growth. He
stressed it was necessary to get the available funds in a timely manner so they can maintain
what they already have there. He believed with the expansion of the sewer lines, more
growth will be felt.
March 20, 2001
170
BK o / P6 642
•
•
City of Vero Beach Public Works Director Cliff Suthard advised that the City's
percentage has decreased since the inception of the tax and Interlocal Agreement. Originally
it was at 19% and now is a little less than 14%. He agreed with the ordinance and with
timely submission of the information and the suggestion by Attorney Stringer. Obviously,
they would not ask that the Board make it retroactive. He understood the other areas were
having growth, but the City of Vero Beach is impacted by the growth throughout the county
as the county's crossroads The City's construction cost per lane mile is significantly greater
than in the other areas because of the urban requirements, such as curbs and gutters.
Chairman Ginn felt the municipalities should have the obligation to get the
information to Public Works Director James W. Davis in a timely manner.
Mr. Davis advised that recently the municipalities have been more responsive than in
the early years. It is quite an effort to get all the figures together and that was a reason for
the past method of reporting and computing every two years. He suggested the Finance
Department, under the Clerk of the Court, might be able to further comment on the
availability of the transportation expenditures. Because the State's fiscal year period differs
from the County's, there is a bit of a problem receiving the audited numbers from the State.
Population figures are now current with the recent 2000 census, and are estimated in the
between years Lane miles are easy for his department to calculate. It would be great if the
cities would put a reminder in their tickler files, and report as soon as the information is
available.
It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the Chairman closed the
public hearing.
March 20, 2001
171
BX 1 s 7 PS 5 L 3
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED
BY Vice Chairman Stanbridge, to adopt the proposed ordinance
adding "or other reliable information' in the third paragraph of
Section 1(b), and making it retroactive to September 1'.
(Commissioner Adams clarified that she wanted to make sure
that what is overpaid this year is adjusted for next year, so the
municipalities will be able plan for it and not have the
difference taken away from what has already been spent. Vice
Chairman Stanbridge agreed that was her concern.) (Clerk's
note: This motion was subsequently split into two motions.)
Attorney Collins interjected that he believed the State will require that all the
municipalities agree to this.
Chairman Ginn suggested the Board split the motion and vote on the ordinance
separate from the retroactive issue, and both Commissioner Adams and Vice Chairman
Stanbridge agreed.
County Attorney Bangel suggested insertion of the following to further clarify: "... or
other reliable information, whichever is more recent, ..." in order to be sure to have the most
recent information.
Discussion ensued as to the placement of this phrase and it was established and agreed
that County Attorney Bangel's suggested insertion would be inserted following the words
"... based upon the previous years' information ...."
Commissioner Tippin felt the retroactive part might get messy and too involved and
it might be better to leave the retroactive part out.
March 20, 2001
Bit 1 1 7 PG 6 qtr
172
MOTION WAS RESTATED by Commissioner Adams.
SECONDED by Vice Chairman Stanbridge, to adopt the
proposed ordinance as amended.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion
carried unanimously. (Ordinance No. 2001-012 adopted, as
amended, amending Indian River County Code Section 209.04
"Disposition of Proceeds", of Code Chapter 209, "Local Option
Gas Tax", to clarify local government reporting time frames.)
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED
by Commissioner Macht, to make it retroactive as previously
discussed.
Under discussion, Commissioner Adams noted the changes with retroactive figures
would be: $19,000 increase for Indian River County, $40,000 increase for City of Sebastian,
$73,000 decrease for City of Vero Beach, $14,000 increase for City of Fellsmere, $7,000
decrease for the Town of Indian River Shores.
Vice Chairman Stanbridge wanted to clarify that if the interlocal agreements between
the County and all the municipalities cannot be reached, then this motion will have no effect.
Attorney Collins advised that he would contact the Department of Revenue to
determine exactly what they need; if we can give that to them, we will. If we cannot come
to an agreement, we will have done our best, and he will come back to the Commission either
way.
March 20, 2001
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion
carried unanimously. (Retroactive as discussed.)
ORDINANCE NO, 2001- 012
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA AMENDING INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
CODE SECTION 209 04 "DISPOSITION OF
PROCEEDS", OF CODE CHAPTER 209, "LOCAL
OPTION GAS TAX", TO CLARIFY LOCAL
GOVERNMENT REPORTING TIMEFRAMES;
PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION; PROVIDING
FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Section 336.025, Florida Statutes authorizes the levy of a local
option gas tax and
WHEREAS, Indian River County adopted an ordinance establishing said tax
(Chapter 209, Indian River County Code); and
WHEREAS, certain reporting timeframes as set out in Indian River County
Code Section 209.04(b) when combined with the Department of Revenue reporting
requirements effectively delay the revised distribution of tax proceeds by almost a
year
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
SECTION 1, AMENDMENT.
Section 209.04 of the Code of Indian River County is hereby amended to read as
follows:
Section 209.04 Disposition of proceeds.
(a) The disposition of proceeds shall be pursuant to interlocal agreement with
one or more of the municipalities located therein, representing a majority of
the population of the incorporated area within the county. Said agreement
shall provide a distribution formula for dividing the entire proceeds of the local
option gas tax among the county government and all eligible municipalities
within the county. Said formula is set forth in paragraph (b) of this section.
The method of distribution of the local option gas tax revenues shall be
reviewed and a public hearing held in May at least every two (2) years by the
parties to the agreement.
(b) Each year, during the term of the imposition of this tax, the division and
distribution of tax proceeds under this article shall be evaluated and
recalculated based upon the following formula:
March 20, 2001
3M I I
174
•
The percentage of total revenue allocated to each eligible entity equals one-
third (1/3) of the entity's percentage of total equivalent lane miles of road plus
one-third (1/3) of the entity's percentage of transportation expenditures over
the previous five (5) years plus one-third (1/3) of the entity's total percentage
of population residing in the area based upon the 1984 most recent estimate
from the Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research.
Each
eligible entity
(municipality) shall
report
the
above
information
to
the
Indian
River County
Public
Works
Director
by
Apnl
30th
of
each
year
Should
the
above
information
not
be
reported
to
the
Public
Works
Director
by
April
30th
of
each
year,
the
Public
Works
Director
shall
recalculate
the
distribution
of
proceeds
based
upon
the
previous
year's
information,
or
other
reliable
information,
whichever
is more
recent,
for
each
non
-reporting
eligible
entity
(municipality).
By August June 15 of each year, the county shall provide the Florida State
Department of Revenue a certified copy of the distribution proportions
established by interlocal agreement under this section. The revised
distribution of tax proceeds shall become effective on September 1 of eeslh
the same year.
(c) If, during the term of the imposition of this tax, the county or any of the
municipalities become ineligible to receive a share of the local option gas tax
for any reason, any funds otherwise undistributed because of ineligibility shall
be distributed by the department of revenue to eligible governments within
Indian River County in proportion to other monies distributed pursuant to this
section.
(d) The distribution formula established herein shall also govern the division and
distribution of proceeds of the local option gas tax imposed through August
31 but not collected otherwise available for distribution until after August 31,
of the year this levy terminates.
SECTION 2. CODIFICATION.
It is the intention of the Board of County Commissioners that the provisions of
this ordinance shall become and be made a part of the Indian River County Code
and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section,' "article," or other appropriate
word or phrase and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered or relettered
to accomplish such intention; providing, however, that Sections 2, 3, and 4 shall not
be codified
SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY.
If any section, or any sentence, paragraph, phrase, or word of this ordinance
is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, inoperative, or void, such holding shall
not affect the remaining portions of this ordinance, and it shall be construed to
have been the legislative intent to pass the ordinance without such unconstitutional,
invalid or inoperative part
March 20, 2001
•
175
n� l r Pb 647
SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.
Certified copies of this ordinance, as enacted, shall be filed by the Clerk with
the Office of the Secretary of State and the Department of Revenue of the State of
Florida within ten days after enactment, and this ordinance shall take effect upon
filing with the Secretary of State.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida on this 20ttday of March 2001.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal on the 10th
day of March, 2001, for a public hearing to be held on the 20th day of March, 2001,
at which time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner Adams
seconded by Commissioner Stanbridge , and adopted by the following vote:
Chairman Caroline D. Ginn Aye
Vice Chairman Ruth M. Stanbridge Aye
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the ordinance duly passed and adopted
this 20th day of March, 2001.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
ATTEST: Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk
Bye zei4uc�<_ 3
Deputy Clerk
Effective,Date: , This ordinance was filed with the Department of State on ,0,Ai
day of _, 1\, , 2001, and becomes effective j .
APPROVED AS TO FORM
AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
B Y �2'-� �C° a `
WILLIAM G. COLLINS II
DEPUTY COUNTY ATTORNEY'
(CLERK'S NOTE: CORRESPONDENCE PERTINENT
TO THIS ORDINANCE HAS BEEN ATTACHED TO THE
ORIGINAL ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK
TO THE BOARD.)
March 20, 2001
9.B. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM - ARNOLD GROBMAN TO SPEAK
REGARDING THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PAY PLA
CLASSIFICATION STUDY CODY & ASSOCIATES NAND
Mr. Arnold Grobman, 855 Live Oak Lane, read his letter of March 20, 2001:
Amold Grobman
855 Live Oak Lane
Vero Beach, FL 32963
March 20, 2001
Comments on the Pay Plan: The Plan has serious flaws as it pertains to our librarians
A. There are four groups of professional public employees in Indian River County with these
charactenstics:
a, college education required,
b. work directly with the public (or a portion thereof), and
c. perform their services in a public building
B. The four groups are:
1. Nurses caring for patients in the IRMH. The Hospital is govemed by an elected
Board of Trustees.
2. Teachers educating young people in the public schools. The public schools are
governed by an elected School Board.
3. Faculty members educating young adults in the Indian River Community College.
The College is governed by a Board of Trustees appointed by the Governor.
4. Librarians providing library services to a cross section of the population in three
Library locations. The Libraries are part of the General Services Department of
County Government and report to the Director of General Services.
D. The Pay Plan is a result of the study of the work and compensation of the employees in the
General Services Department and takes no notice of the special professional status of
the libranans
E The appropriate comparison of librarians, within the county, should be with teachers,
nurses and faculty members.
F. An altemative appropriate comparison for Indian River County libranans would be with
libranans of comparable Florida counties.
G A possible solution to the serious flaw in the Pay Plan would be to remove the librarians
from the Plan and to design an altemative plan for them based on steps E and F.
March 20, 2001
Commissioner Macht commented that Mr. Grobman produced another study in the
past. He also felt the Cody study is flawed in several respects and that our Librarians in
general are very much underpaid. He spoke of another study done by an interested member
of the library that delves a little bit deeper into some of the other inequities which the
Commissioners will receive at the appropriate time. The key that affects the Library is that
Cody based all decisions on the assertion that this is not a "library system". The Florida
Department of Libraries was astonished that the consultant would have made such an
assertion when indeed our Library is a system. This information will be given to appropriate
staff for, he hoped, a modification of the pay levels and assignment of levels and grades.
Chairman Ginn noticed in the summary that it says Indian River County positions
were matched with comparable jobs in the listed library systems. Perhaps they did not mean
to include it as a library system.
But Commissioner Macht advised that the Cody report stated it was not a system. He
also believed there are some other inconsistencies. He had a feeling there was a lot more
"boiler -plate" and a lot less real sampling of the various positions covered.
Commissioner Adams was certain that was the case. Since the report came out it
seemed that everyone was under the illusion it would result in an automatic pay raise, rather
than a classification study. She has not heard anything positive said about it.
Chairman Ginn thought the County should establish a policy to do a study such as this
every 7 years; it has been too long and it is very difficult to catch up.
Vice Chairman Stanbridge thought that when a Personnel Director is hired that will
help to bring us up to speed without having to wait so long. That person would be able to
look at job descriptions and see what is going on in our county.
Commissioner Macht recalled a recent remark on why the report took so long was
that the information was all in the computer and that it was just held to make it look good.
March 20, 2001
Administrator Chandler guaranteed that was not the case.
Chairman Ginn had great respect for Cody and Associates who did excellent work for
the City of Vero Beach. She felt they tried their best, it is not an easy call.
Assistant Administrator Baird explained he had checked to find out the difference
between library systems. He learned that it affects the top two positions. St. Lucie County's
Library Director gets paid more, but all the other positions in their library get paid less than
us by $1 an hour. He then reviewed a survey recap that Cody had provided and other
pertinent data. (Clerk's Note: This information is on file with the backup for the meeting.)
Assistant Administrator Baird advised that Indian River County tries to be above-average.
He believed that no one got a decrease in pay at the Library. No pay ranges were decreased.
He thought people had hoped pay increases would be greater, but everyone thinks they
deserve more. He called the study fair, reasonable and within the market. If we start to
entertain individual departments or individual requests, we will never be finished. This was
a pay classification study not a pay study.
Further discussion ensued and Assistant Administrator Baird submitted additional
figures.
Mr. Grobman returned to the podium. In addition to other information he specified
that Martin and Collier Counties have demographics the same as Indian River County. He
gave the starting salaries in 1998 for Librarians as follows: Indian River County $20,157;
Martin $25,976, and Collier $25,584. He presented additional dollars information for the
Assistant Directors.
Administrator Chandler observed there is still a tendency to forget this was a
classification study and it was not performed just for our Library system. He pointed out that
educational requirements are also taken into consideration for Planning and Engineering
positions, not dust the Library. Following the recommendations of this report will not put
March 20, 2001
BX I PG 6 51
us at the top, but will keep us competitive and help to retain our employees. This study is
for all our classifications, not just the Library.
(CLERK'S NOTE CHARTS USED BY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR
BAIRD AND THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS HAVE BEEN
FILED WITH THE BACKUP FOR THIS MEETING.)
11.A.1. PROPOSED INFORMATIONAL BROCHURE
CONCERNING THE ENVIRONMENTAL LANDS ACQUISITION
PROGRAM (LAAC)
Chief Environmental Planner Roland M. DeBlois reviewed a Memorandum of March
14, 2001:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
Robert M. Keating. AICP
Community Development Director
FROM: Roland M. DeBlois. AICP
Chief. Environmental Planning
DATE: March 14. 2001
SUBJECT: Board Consideration of Proposed Informational Brochure About the Count -y
Environmental Lands Program
It is requested that the information herein presented be elven formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of March 20 2001.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
At an October 2000 meeting of the Land Acquisition Advisory Committee (LAAC), Mr. Frank Coffee suggested that
the County develop an informational brochure about the environmental lands program for distribution to residents in
Indian River County. To that end. on November 21. 2000. the Board of County Commissioners approved the idea and
Mr. Coffee was appointed to organize a Task Group to develop a brochure.
The Task Group, which met four times. consisted of the following members:
- Frank Coffey
- George Watson
- Robert Brown
- George Gross
- Milt Thomas
Bea Gardner
- Janice Broda
The staff advisor was Roland DeBlois. Also participating in discussions was Dr. Richard Baker. Attached is a copy of
the draft brochure that was developed by the Task Group and reviewed by the LAAC.
March 20, 2001
LAAC Recommendation
At its meeting of February 28, 2001, the LAAC reviewed a draft of the brochure and voted 9 to 3 to recommend that
the brochure be accepted as wntten, with an allowance of minor "tweaking" by environmental planning staff and the
County Budget Manager regarding certain figures and references in the brochure. The brochure has since been slightly
revised based on staff input. The latest revised draft is anached for the Board's approval consideration.
ANALYSIS
Task Group Discussions
One of the main issues of discussion at the Task Group meetings pertained to whether the brochure should focus more
on the current and future monetary costs of the program. or instead focus more on the public benefits of the conserved
lands. The resulting draft brochure represents a compromise of these two viewpoints, in that it explains the benefits of
the program but also summarizes certain costs. On the issue of costs, the Task Group discussed the difficulty of
providing a comprehensive analysis and summary in the brochure of the actual costs/benefits of the program. given the
multitude of offsetting factors that come into play. In the end, it was the consensus of the Task Group to use rounded
figures under a few main categories of costs and expenditures (see brochure "Program Costs").
The Task Group also considered different formats for the information. The Group discussed the altemanves of a booklet
or newspaper insert, each of which could provide more details of the program and of the acquired sites. The consensus
of the Group was to go with an 8 ';. x 14 inch (legal size) brochure. to keep expense in check. It was also discussed that.
for purposes of mailing the information to county citizens, the level of detail of the attached brochure was appropriate
vs. something more or less detailed.
LAAC Discussion
At the February 28, 2001 LAAC meeting, discussions ensued as to whether the brochure should contain more
information about the benefits of the program, such as the economic benefits of "ecotourism" and protecting the Indian
River Lagoon and associated economic values. It was also discussed whether or not the brochure "background"
information should focus on the County's commitment in its comprehensive plan to acquire certain acres of native
uplands to make up the difference between county and regional native upland set-aside requirements. Staffs position
is that it is not possible to provide comprehensive detail about the 10— year acquisition program in a mail -out brochure.
and the level of detail in the latest draft brochure is appropriate.
The location map in the brochure of acquired conservation areas was a point of discussion at the LAAC meeting. Some
members felt the map would be difficult for the general public to understand. Others thought the map should oniv show
sites acquired under the program. and should not include "other conserved land." The malonry of the LAAC voted,
however. to recommend that the map be left as is.
Cost Estimate
Using tax roll information as a basis for addresses for mail -out of the brochure, approximately 70.000 copies of the
brochure would need to be published. It is estimated that copying, mail -out. and postage would cost between 516.000
and 820.000. Environmental land bond funds are eligible for use to pay for the cost of brochure production and mailing.
RECOMMFNDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached informational brochure and authorize
staff to obtain bids for brochure production and mail -out, with costs to be paid with environmental bond funds.
1TTACHNIFNT
Draft Environmental Lands Program Informational Brochure
March 20, 2001
Vice Chairman Stanbridge inquired about the additional costs for an expanded size
for the brochure. and Mr. DeBlois advised that one of the members of the committee worked
for a publishing company and provided estimates for the costs and indicated it would not be
a significant increase in expense.
Frank Coffey, 1335 River Ridge Drive, advised that when he suggested this brochure
he did not expect to work on it himself, but in doing so he set forth certain important
objectives which governed the committee's efforts. Those objectives are: to develop a
proposed brochure which would compile available factual information for the residents of
Indian River County on the environmentally sensitive lands which have been purchased by
the County using funds provided by the 1992 tax bond referendum, funds from the state and
other identified sources. He was never asked, nor was it part of the assignment, to justify the
cost of purchasing the lands which in his opinion was the responsibility of the LAAC (Land
Acquisition Advisory Committee). It was impossible to include information from the LAAC
studies or how they arrived at their recommendations in this brochure but they were
discussed. Many scenarios for brochure design were discussed, but the committee concluded
that it should be very concise document that could be mailed to the taxpayers giving a broad
overview of what had been accomplished in the past 10 years. He selected the members of
the group and three of them were present, namely: George Gross, Bea Gardner, and Milt
Thomas. Many meetings and discussions were held, under the Sunshine Law even though
not required, and under the guidance of Chief Environmental Planner Roland M. DeBlois
their hard work developed this brochure. He expressed appreciation to Commissioner Macht
for allowing him to chair the committee and to all the members who worked so diligently to
bring it forth.
Chairman Ginn thanked Mr. Coffey. She was pleased with the brochure and thought
it could not be improved. She presumed it would be printed as presented.
March 20, 2001
bic 1 e PG 5 t
182
Commissioner Macht also credited Mr. Coffey and advised it was hammered out at
the last LAAC meeting. He thanked Mr Coffey, the members of the committee and
members of the LAAC for their good work.
Commissioner Adams noted that the map of the northwest portion of the county had
again been put in as an insert to the full county. She asked if it would ever be possible to
show it without an insert, but as a contiguous county.
Mr. DeBlois advised that the map size was an issue; that was a part of the suggestion
for the increased size of the brochure. There were other issues as well which he enumerated.
Commissioner Adams thought color usage was confusing in the area of the Carson -
Platt tract. She thought that expanding the map would help that confusion.
Commissioner Macht took the blame for the red stripes because he was anxious to
show that on the western bank of the estuary from the south city limits of Vero Beach to
virtually the county -line that we control nearly all of that shoreline which is so important to
the protection of the Lagoon.
Vice Chairman Stanbridge agreed that it is important to show the county as a whole,
not segmented on the map. Environmentally, it is important to connect properties, greenways
or corridors, which is what our neighboring counties are doing. Our south county
stormwater tract will benefit from the utilization of these lands as well. She noted that in
the brochure she saw a lot of costs, but not a lot of costs associated with benefits. She
thought there was a lot of cost -benefit for those areas besides for the scrub jay because it
recharges our aquifer to the benefit for those who are not connected to municipal systems.
She felt it important for the public to know that there is more involved here than just cost and
that the benefits have a dollar amount.
In response to Commissioner Macht, Mr DeBlois advised that the format, etc., are
on computer.
March 20, 2001
Commissioner Macht asked if fixing the map would be possible, and Mr. DeBlois
advised it could be done.
Vice Chairman Stanbridge reiterated her suggestion that the public be given more
information on the origination of the program and the desired result.
Commissioner Adams thought the information was very good; Vice Chairman
Stanbridge agreed it was very concise.
Bea Gardner, 986 25th Street. agreed that it is important to show the map of the
county as a whole. She credited Milt Thomas for his "words" ability. As an artist -type, she
demonstrated how the map could be extended in a certain way and the words wrapped
around the expanded map. This should allow for accommodation of the same amount of
words. She thought that would be a real asset and give everyone a very good view of the
entire county. She agreed with Vice Chairman Stanbridge that more information should be
included, but felt that anyone receiving this brochure could get a real good idea of what the
County has spent the taxpayers' money on. She commended Mr Coffey for his abilities as
chairman.
Vice Chairman Stanbridge reiterated her point of establishing a cost value so people
could know of the benefit other than it is pretty to look at.
Although she had no problem following the colors, Chairman Ginn thought it might
be less confusing if all of the properties the County has purchased were in green.
Commissioner Adams thought the color codes showed the different types of habitat,
but that is not explained.
Mr. Coffey commented on the color scheme and pointed out that colors of the
numbers are related to help people orientate themselves. He assured the Commissioners that
the issue was discussed many times as to how to quantify the cost benefits. He pointed out
that the loss of tax revenue was not included at all in the brochure.
March 20, 2001
PG 6 5 6
184
Vice Chairman Stanbridge stated that many people think the land is being purchased
for scrub jays and do not realize it is a re -charge area. It takes a lot to convince them that the
scrub land has more than one benefit. The same goes for the property along the Lagoon.
Once again, Mr. Coffey referred back to the objective established for the committee.
Discussion ensued.
Commissioner Macht suggested there might be future brochures on specific tracts, and
Mr. Coffey advised that one of the suggestions within the committee was a booklet that the
Chamber of Commerce might spearhead.
Commissioner Adams noted a difference of approximately $1.4 million on the
program costs, and Mr. DeBlois advised that staff would double check the figures. He
thought there was an explanation but was not able to recall it at the moment.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved the
brochure with corrections as discussed.
The Commissioners expressed their thanks to the committee.
11.A.2. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY - APPEAL OF A PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMISSION DENIAL OF A REQUEST FOR NIGHTTIME
USE OF THE COUNTY GUN RANGE
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 12, 2001:
March 20, 2001
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
At-G4:4Th Rex -
Robert M. Keating, AICP
Community Development Director
1)
THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP
Planning Director
Ei{ iir'PG657
FROM:
DATE:
John W. McCoy. AICP 'ON 4\1\
Senior Planner. Current Development
March 12, 2001
SUBJECT: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY'S APPEAL OF A PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION DENIAL OF A REQUEST FOR NIGHTTIME USE OF THE
COUNTY GUN RANGE
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County.
Commissioners at its regular meeting of March 20, 2001.
BACKGROUND
Indian River County is completing construction of a public gun range located north of the terminus
of 102nd Terrace and east of I-95, within the St. Sebastian River Buffer Preserve. The project site
encompasses a 318 acre portion of the overall Preserve, which contains 6 800 acres and is currently
zoned and designated for conservation uses ( CON -1. C-1). As gun range construction nears
completion. the county is now finalizing the operational aspects of the range. One such aspect
includes limited nighttime operation to accommodate use by the public after normal workday hours.
When the Planning and Zoning Commission granted site plan and administrative permit approval for
the gun range on October 8. 1998 it's approval included a condition that operation of the range be
limited to daytime use only. At that time the applicant (county) did not anticipate the need for
nighttime use and did not submit a lighting plan or object to the condition. However, recently the
county determined that operation of the gun range until 9:00 p.m. would be needed to allow
opportunities for public use after normal daytime work hours. Based on that determination the
county requested Planning and Zoning Commission approval to modify the daytime use condition
to allow operation of the range until 9:00 p.m. Lighting plan information was included with the
request. At its March 8, 2001 meeting the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 2 to 3 on a
motion to approve the county s request. That motion did not pass, which effectively denied the
request (see attachment #2).
The applicant (county) is now appealing the Commission's decision, seeking to overturn the denial
and obtain Board approval to allow operation of the gun range until 9:00 p.m. nightly. According
to the county's land development regulations (LDRs), appeals of decisions of the Planning and
Zoning Commission are considered by the Board of County Commissioners. The Board is now to
review the Commissions' decision and grant or deny the appeal and corresponding request, with or
without conditions.
ANALYSIS:
The county's land development regulations (LDRs) provide criteria for the Board to use in its review
of an appeal of a Planning and Zoning Commission decision. These criteria. based on LDR section
902.07 (see attachment #5), are as follows:
(1) Did the Planning and Zoning Commission fail to follow the appropriate review
procedures?
(2) Did the Planning and Zoning Commission act in an arbitrary or capricious manner?
March 20, 2001
186
Emx
(3) Did the Planning and Zoning Commission fail to consider adequately the effects of
the proposed development upon surrounding properties. traffic circulation or public
health. safety and welfare?
(4) Did the Planning and Zoning Commission fail to evaluate the application with respect
to the comprehensive plan and land development regulations of Indian River County?
The Board is to consider each of these criteria and make findings in all 4 areas addressed by the
criteria. Staffs analysis of the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision in regard to the 4
criteria is as follows:
(1) Did the Planning and Zoning Commission fail to follow the appropriate review
procedures?
The Planning and Zoning Commission considered the request at a regularly
scheduled meeting and discussed the request in some detail. There were
planning and public works staff available at the meeting to respond to
questions. A motion to approve was properly made and the motion failed.
thus denying the request. Therefore, in staff's opinion, the Planning and
Zoning Commission did not fail to follow proper procedures in consideration
of the subject request
(2) Did the Planning and Zoning Commission act in an arbitrary or capricious manner?
During consideration of the request. the Planning and Zoning Commission
discussed concerns regarding possible "light pollution" that might occur
within the Buffer Preserve if the hours of operation were extended. During
discussion. staff indicated that the lights could be turned off at 9:00 p.m.,
which would limit the hours of artificial lighting. Despite the proposed time
limitation on outdoor lighting Commissioners expressed concerns that any
outdoor lighting could pose an intrusion into a conservation area. In
conjunction with these concerns, Commissioners expressed doubts that any
nighttime use of the site is necessary. Thus, the rationale- for the
Commission's denial was that the potential for light pollution effects should
be avoided all together since nighttime use of the range. and corresponding
outdoor lighting. seemed unnecessary.
The applicant has stated that operation of the facility until 9:00 p.m. is needed
to accommodate "the working public.' that primarily consists of daytime
workers. At the Commission meeting there was no evidence presented or
argument made to refute the applicant's assertion that nighttime use is
necessary to accommodate the public gun range use. Therefore. staff s
analysis is that the Commission's conclusion that there is no need for
nighttime gun range use was arbitrary.
(3) Did the Planning and Zoning Commission fail to consider adequately the effects of
the proposed development upon surrounding properties. traffic circulation or public
health, safety and welfare?
March 20, 2001
The Commission's concerns appear to have been founded on possible
negative effects that nighttime lighting until 9:00 p.m. could have on
187
B{ 11? PG 659
•
surrounding conservation lands. Such concerns relate to effects upon
surrounding properties. Therefore staff's analysis is that the Commission did
not fail to consider adequately the effects on surrounding properties.
(4) Did the Planning and Zoning Commission fail to evaluate the application with
respect to the comprehensive plan and land development regulations of Indian River
County?
The light pollution concerns of some of the Planning and Zoning Commission
members appears to have been based on a perceived conflict between conservation
uses and nighttime lighting. However, the CON -1 district specifically and the LDRs
generally do not prohibit such lighting. Such lighting in CON -1 areas can be
necessary for public access and recreation uses. Examples of such circumstances
include lighting of boat ramps for night and early morning use or lighting of camping
areas.
As detailed in attachment #3. the gun range was originally approved as a "public
park ' administrative permit use -under the site's 1998 A-1 (Agriculture) zoning. The
applicable public park specific use criteria address lighting in section 971.40(7)(d)2.,
as follows:
tel
Any recreational use equipped with Lighting to allow the use of the
facility after sunset shall be designed such that:
All lights are shielded from shining into residentially
designated adjacent properties; and
b. Hours of operation and/or special design techniques are used
to mitigate noise impacts, especially during evening and
nighttime hours."
The site is not located near any residentially designated properties. thus criterion 2.a
is met. The Planning and Zoning Commission staff report on the county's extended
hours request (attachment #1) provided details on criterion 2.b. in regard to lighting
design and hours of operation limitations. Essentially. all range lighting is proposed
to be shielded and focused directly on target areas with little spill over. In addition
proposed site lighting (street and parking lot lighting) will be the minimum needed
to provide adequate traffic safety for the proposed nighttime hours of operation. All
lighting can be turned off at 9:00 p.m
The Commission decision appears to have been based on criteria 2a. and 2b. as
referenced above. However those criteria provide for regulating rather than
prohibiting nighttime lighting. In staffs opinion, the proposed lighting design and
limited hours of operation are sufficient to meet criteria 2a and 2b. The
Commission appears to have applied a more stringent lighting standard than is
provided for in the county LDRs. Thus. the outright prohibition of nighttime lighting
that resulted from the Commissions decision was not based in the LDRs. Therefore.
the Planning and Zoning Commission did fail to properly evaluate the request with
respect to the county's (LDRs). _
March 20, 2001
St's 1
188
SUMMARY:
The Commission's conclusion that limited nighttime use of the range is unnecessary was arbitrary.
In addition. the decision failed to properly apply the LDRs by prohibiting rather than regulating
nighttime lighting. The limited lighting and hours of operation that the applicant proposed can
reasonably balance light pollution concerns and public use of a portion of the Preserve. and can meet
the applicable LDR requirements. Therefore. the Commission's decision to deny the request should
be o‘enurned and the applicant's request approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the above analysis. staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners:
(1) Find that the Planning and Zoning Commission failed in regard to criteria 2 and 4. as
stated in this report, and
(2) Uphold the appeal, overturn the Planning and Zoning Commission's denial. and grant
approval for use of the gun range until 9:00 p.m. nightly, as requested.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Staff Report for Extended Hours Request (includes back-up from 1998 application)
2. Draft P&ZC Minutes for Extended Hours Request
3. Applicant's Appeal Memo
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously 1) found that the
Planning and Zoning Commission failed in regard to criteria 2
and 4, as stated in the above memorandum, and 2) upheld the
appeal, overturned the Planning and Zoning Commission's
denial, and granted approval for use of the gun range until 9:00
p.m. nightly, as requested, as recommended in the
memorandum.
March 20, 2001
11.G. RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION - PAVING AND
DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS/PROJECT NO. 9920 - 16TH STREET
BETWEEN 66TH AND 74TH AVENUES - MARJORIE L. BRADLEY~
TRUSTEE
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 8, 2001:
TO: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
THROUGH:
James W. Davis, P.E., Public Works Director
AND
Christopher J. Kafer, Jr., P.E., County Enginee
FROM: Ronald L. Callahan, SRA, Right -of -Way Agent
SUBJECT: Right -of -Way Acquisition
16th Street between 66th and 741h Avenues
Street Paving and Drainage Improvements/Project No. 9920
Marjorie L. Bradley, Trustee
•
•
,Qh
DATE: March 8, 2001
DESCRIPTIONS AND CONDITIONS
An additional 70 feet (70') of right-of-way is needed along the north side of 16ih Street between
66`h and 74`h Avenues to accommodate a paving and drainage road improvement project. The
owner has executed a contract at a negotiated price of 525.000.00 per acre for this A-1 zoned
land, which has a Land Use Designation of M-1, 8 -units per acre. This price per acre is
comparable to other similar land use parcels the County has recently purchased in the same area
and through evaluations.
The contract price is 314,487.20. The purchase price for the land is 313,800.00 based on 0.552
acres (S25.000 per acre x 0.552 acres = S13 800.00). The balance of the purchase price is in the
form of a site improvement, which consists of reimbursing the property owner for the
construction and relocation of 343.6'of pasture fencing totaling 3687.20. There are no appraisal
or attorney's fees. Other terms and conditions in the contract are as follows:
a) The S14,487.20 will be net to the seller. There will be no expenses taken from the contract
price;
b) There will be no assessments levied against the property for the completion of this project.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
None
March 20, 2001
Bt(662
190
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends that the Board of County. Commissioners approve the S14.48 20 purchase
and authorize the Chairman to execute the contract.
Funding. with be from Account = 315-214-541 066.12
ATTACHMENTS
1.Two copies of the Purchase Contract each with Legal Description and Sketch
2. One notarized and signed copy of the "Disclosure of Beneficial Interest ' Form
ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Stanbridge, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved the
$14,487.20 purchase from Marjorie L Bradley, Trustee, 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. DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT WITH MARGO STANFORD
FOR WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT ON 9TH PLACE AND 9TH
STREET BETWEEN 6TH AND 7TH AVENUES
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of January 30, 2001:
DATE:
TO:
JANUARY 30. 2001
JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: DONALD R. HUBBS.'P.E.
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY S l
PREPARED AARON J. BOWLES. P.E.
AND STAFFED ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER �(
BY• DEPARTMENT OF UTILITIES �(�1
SUBJECT: DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT WITH MARGO STANFORD (FOR WATER
MAIN REPLACEMENT ON 9T" PLACE & 9T" STREET BETWEEN 6`h AVE.
AND 7TH AVE)
March 20, 2001
BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS
Margo Stanford (Developer) is constructing an Assisted Living Facility (ALF) at 615 9th Place. In
conjunction with the construction of the Assisted Living Facility proposed by Margo Stanford, the
Department of Utilities request that the Developer enter into an Agreement to replace existing undersized
water mains serving their development and the surrounding community. The existing water mains
serving area residents is constructed of 2 -inch diameter pipe. It is recommended that the existing under-
sized (2 -inch dia.) water distribution system be replaced with the minimum 6 -inch diameter water main
required meeting FDEP standard. The existing properties are provided potable water via 2 -inch diameter
water mains located along the rear lot lines of the designated properties. It is recommended that the
existing 2 -inch water mains be replaced with 6 -inch diameter mains to improve system pressure and
increase available fire flow. The proposed 6 -inch mains will be relocated from the rear lot lines to the
road right-of-wav for accessibility and ease of maintenance.
As shown in Exhibit - B of the attached Agreement, the County Share and Developer's share for
installing the recommended improvements is tabulated below and included in the attached Developer's
Agreement is as follows:
Description
Developer's Share
County's Share
Total Protect Cost
Water Distribution System
S72.143.50
S73.043.50
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County Commissioners
approve the attached Developer's agreement as presented & authorizes the Chairman to execute the
same.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment -A. : Proposed Developer's Agreement with Margot Stanford
ACCOUNT INFORMATION:
ACCOUNT NO: 471-169448 NAME: Replacement and Renewal Fund AMOUNT: 573.043.50
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Vice
Chairman Stanbridge, the Board unanimously approved the
proposed Developer's Agreement with Margo Stanford and
authorized the Chairman to execute the same, as recommended
in the memorandum.
AGREEMENT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF OFF-SITE UTILITIES
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
March 20, 2001
•
13.A. CHAIRMAN GINN - CULTURAL COUNCIL REQUEST FOR
REPRESENTATIVE OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS -
CHAIRMAN TO SERVE
Chairman Ginn explained that the Cultural Council has requested that a member of
the Board of County Commissioners sit on their Board as a member in an ex -officio position.
The County Attorney advised her it could be done. They are also under the Sunshine Law
since they accept government funding. The position will be rotated each year and they have
asked her to be on the board this year. She felt it should be approved by the Commission and
also the issue of rotation.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED
by Commissioner Adams, that Chairman Ginn be the Board's
representative to the Board of the Cultural Council.
Neither the maker nor the seconded wanted to comment on the rotation.
Chairman Ginn assured them the chairman will be rotating next year.
Commissioner Macht was concerned because he was a member of the Cultural
Council and frequently attends the Board meetings.
After hearing that Commissioner Macht was not a member of the Board, but only of
the organization, County Attorney Bangel advised that would be fine.
There was further discussion on different scenarios which might pose a problem, and
Commissioner Macht suggested that County Attorney Bangel further check into this matter
and if it is a problem, he will not attend the Cultural Council's Board meetings.
March 20, 2001
193
Bi{ i
65
dN
13.B.1. VICE CHAIRMAN STANBRIDGE - UPDATES
Vice Chairman Stanbridge advised that she had no updates to report.
13.B.2. VICE CHAIRMAN STANBRIDGE - PERMISSION
GRANTED TO PREPARE HISTORIC PRESERVATION GRANT FOR
OLD WINTER BEACH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Vice Chairman Stanbridge reviewed a Memorandum of March 15, 2001:
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
March 15, 2001
Board of County Commissioners (BCC)
Commissioner Ruth Stanbridge
Grant Application
I would like to propose that a historic preservation grant application be submitted in the May
cycle for the restoration and adaptive use of he old Winter Beach Elementary School
The building is structurally sound and, simply needs some TLC. This grant would address
stabilization, which includes roof, windows, doors, painting, etc. Also, I would be adding some
"hardening" such as hurricane shutters There will not be a need for a cash match because the
value of the property and cost for connection to the County's water system would be higher than
the grant request of approximately $30,000.00.
For many years, this school was the home for the HeadStart Program. At present, there is
another non-profit day care that would like to lease this building and expand this program. This
program will include many of the children that are now on the waiting list from Agriculture
Labor Program Inc. (ALPI). Also, this expansion would include some additional day care
workers which I believe will be coming from the on-eoing training program at the college.
The adaptive use as a day care would be very appropriate for this building. The location on U.S.
1 between Wabasso and Gifford is also significant because it will be convenient for parents who
are working on the barrier island and in the citrus packinghouses along this corridor.
ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Stanbridge, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved an
historic preservation grant application be prepared for the Old
Winter Beach Elementary School, as requested.
March 20, 2001
8K
194
4
13.C. COMMISSIONER ADAMS - REQUEST FOR OUTSIDE
CONSULTANT TO EVALUATE EMERGENCY SERVICES
(FIREFIGHTERS AND PARAMEDICS) LEVEL OF SERVICE FROM
ESDAC (EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT ADVISORY
COMMITTEE)
Commissioner Adams reviewed a Memorandum of March 13, 2001:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Fran B. Adams, Chairman, ESDAC
DATE March 13, 2001
RE• Recommendation
At the last meeting of the Emergency Services District Advisory
Committee the recommendation was made to go to an outside
consultant to evaluate the level of service in emergency services and
make recommendations.
The Emergency Services Department will draw up a Request for
Proposal to be brought back to the Commission for approval. Thank
you
•
Commissioner Macht questioned whether it was really necessary to go forward with
the recommendation of the ESDAC, and Chairman Ginn felt it was a policy decision but
asked Administrator Chandler to comment on the need for a consultant.
Administrator Chandler recounted that a plan was made last year by staff looking at
a fire -based rescue system and our level of services. In that plan, the costs that were
generated were not carried forward because it was not cost-effective. That information was
relayed to the ESDAC at their first meeting. At the last meeting, there was a presentation
by IAFF (International Association of Firefighters) which had a differing view. There was
also a presentation by the Teamsters representing the paramedics with still a third view. He
thought the committee felt we need an outside consultant because of all the differing views.
From a staff perspective, if we are going to pursue looking at our level of services, we
March 20, 2001
195
BXi
, 667
believe it should be an outside, independent consultant as opposed to staff doing yet another
study, or the IAFF, or the Teamsters. The fundamental question is, is there a need for change
in the manner in which we deliver our services. From his perspective, he thought the County
had quite an excellent level of services both in fire and rescue, particularly fora community
of our size.
Commissioner Macht felt that Administrator Chandler's opinion is shared by many
others who have been very complimentary of our emergency services.
Commissioner Adams thought that ESDAC felt the issue was over their head and that
it was too politically charged at this point. The ultimate decision rests with the Board of
County Commissioners. Obviously, if nothing is done, a lot of money will be saved. But
the Board will need to address the issue sometime.
In response to Vice Chairman Stanbridge concerning a time frame, Administrator
Chandler thought it would take several months since a draft RFP would have to be developed
to come back before the Board.
Commissioner Macht felt a great deal of money would be expended to solve a
political situation and suggested putting it off for several months.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED BY
Chairman Ginn, the Board unanimously agreed not to take any
action on this recommendation.
March 20, 2001
B1(i i /' 668
-t
196
13.D. COMMISSIONER MACHT - REMARKS ABOUT
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
To illustrate the need for affordable housing here, Commissioner Macht advised that
he recently advertised a small house in the city limits for rent for $550.00 per month. He
received 127 phone calls the first day about it and is still receiving calls. He has now recived
over 250 calls. He felt that pointed up the County's need for availability of affordable
housing.
14.B. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
None.
There being no further business, upon motion duly made and seconded, the Chairman
adjourned the meeting at 12:13 p.m.
ATTEST:
Minutes approved
March 20, 2001