HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/16/2002MINUTES ATTACHED
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
County Commission Chamber
County Administration Building
1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Ruth M. Stanbridge, Chairman
John W. Tippin, Vice Chairman
Fran B. Adams
Caroline D. Ginn
Kenneth R. Macht
District 2
District 4
District 1
District 5
District 3
James E Chandler, County Administrator
Paul G. Bangel, County Attorney
Kimberly Massung, Executive Aide to BCC
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
CALL TO ORDER
INVOCATION
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
BACKUP
PAGES
Comm. Kenneth R. Macht
ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA /
EMERGENCY ITEMS
Additional backup for Item 9.A.2., Public Hearing - Ansley Park Development Corp.
Additional backup for Item 9.A.4., Public Hearing - Beuttell Development.
Delete Item 9.B.1., Public Discussion Item - Island View Property Development Ltd. (Leonard
Hatala)
Delete Item 9.B.2., Public Discussion Item - James R. Maxwell.
PROCLAMATION and PRESENTATIONS
Paul Tntaik of US Fish & Wildlife will present Revenue Sharing
Check to Commission for the Pelican Island and Archie Carr
Wildlife Refuges
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
None
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Received and placed on file in office of Clerk to the Board:
Fellsmere Water Control District Annual Budget for FY
2002-03
Approval of Warrants
(memorandum dated July 3, 2002) 1-10
t
7 CONSENT AGENDA (cont'd.):
C. Resignation of Member at Large from the Historic
Resources Association Committee (HRAC)
(memorandum dated July 8, 2002)
D. Out -of -County Travel by Commissioners to Attend
the 46th Annual Florida Shore and Beach Preservation
Association Annual Conference
(memorandum dated July 5, 2002)
E Notification of appointment to the MPO Citizens Advisory
Committee (CAC) from the City of Vero Beach
(memorandum dated July 9, 2002)
F. Release of Four Temporary Construction Easements -
4th Street Widening & Improvement
(memorandum dated July 9, 2002)
G. Dennis and Scarlet Brigman request for partial release of
easement at 4420 22nd Place SW (The Grove Subdivision)
(memorandum dated July 10, 2002)
H. Interlocal Agreement between Indian River County and
School District for Summer Recreational Program
(memorandum dated July 10, 2002)
CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS and
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
Supervisor of Elections:
Voting Systems Assistance Agreement
(memorandum dated July 9, 2002)
9. PUBLIC ITEMS
A. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1 Board Consideration to Approve Purchase of the
Hallstrom Farmstead LAAC Site (Legislative)
(memorandum .dated July 10, 2002)
2. Request for Planned Development (PD) Special
Exception Use and Preliminary PD Plan/Plat
Approval for a Project to be Known as Ansley
Park (Legislative)
(memorandum dated July 8, 2002)
v
t\
2
,Th
t
BACKUP
PAGES
11
12-20
21-22
23-35
36-40
41-47
48 54
55-101
102-124
£a
3
•
9. PUBLIC ITEMS (cont'd.):
A. PUBLIC HEARINGS (cont'd.):
3. AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDI-
NANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING
MAP FOR 17.9 ACRES LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF 33rd STREET AND
66th AVENUE, FROM A-1, AGRICULTURAL
DISTRICT (UP TO 1 UNIT/5 ACRES), TO RS -6
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
(UP TO 6 UNITS/ACRE); AND PROVIDING
CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY, AND
EFFECTIVE DATE
Sidney Banack's request to rezone 17.9 acres
from A-1 to RS -6 (Quasi -Judicial)
(memorandum dated July 3, 2002)
4. Beuttell Development's request to amend the
Comprehensive Plan to redesignate approximately
80.48 acres from AG -1 to R; to rezone the subject
property from A-1 to RS -1; and to expand the
urban service area to include those approximately
80.48 acres (Legislative)
(memorandum dated July 3, 2002)
B. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
1. Request from Steve Henderson, Attorney for Leonard
Hatala, to discuss Board of County Commission recon-
sideration of extension of site plan approval for Island
View Project
(letter dated July 3, 2002)
2. Request from James R. Maxwell to discuss County
returning monies for county water hookup, and rein-
statement of utilities assessment lien for property at
920 Truman Street, Sebastian
(letter dated July 1, 2002)
C. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEMS
1. Scheduled for Public Hearing August 6, 2002:
Bobbi J Subdivision, 36th Court, Petition Water
Service, Resolution III
(memorandum dated July 9, 2002)
10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS
None
•
BACKUP
PAGES
125-144
145-176
177
178
179
i1 E ! ;j
3
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS BACKUP
A. Community Development PAGES
None
Emergency Services
1. Approval to purchase capital equipment with
Radiological Emergency Preparedness Grant
Funds
(memorandum dated July 5, 2002)
180-187
Approval of FY 02/03 Hazardous Materials
Emergency Planning State Funded Subgrant
Agreement Contract Number 03CP-11-10-40-
01-166
(memorandum dated July 5, 2002)
188-214
General Services
1. Change Orders 9, 10, & 11 — Main Library / Bill
Bryant & Associates, Inc.
(memorandum dated June 24, 2002)
215-223
Authorization to Sell Real Property to Highest Bidder
(memorandum dated July 9, 2002) 224-230
Request to Extend Contract with CleanNet USA
Commercial Cleaning Services
(memorandum dated July 10, 2002)
Leisure Services
None
231-237
Office of Management and Budget
Human Resources
None
Public Works
1. Request by Kim Vecchio to begin maintenance of
93rd & 95th Streets west of 141st Ave. (Park Lateral)
in Fellsmere
(letter dated July 1, 2002)
238-244
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS (coned.):BACKUP
H. Utilities PAGES
1. Developer's Agreement with Rexford Builders,
Inc. for water main replacement on 5th St. SW
east of Old Dixie Highway
(memorandum dated July 5, 2002) 245-257
Human Services
None
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY
None
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS
A. Chairman Ruth M. Stanbridge
Updates
Vice Chairman John W. Tippin
Commissioner Fran B. Adams
Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht
14. SPECIAL DISTRICTSBOARDS
A. Emergency Services District
None
Solid Waste Disposal District
None
Environmental Control Board
None
15. ADJOURNMENT
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need to
ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made which includes the testimony and evidence
upon which the appeal will be based.
Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting may contact the County's
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Coordinator at 567-8000 x1223 at least 48 hours in advance of
meeting.
Indian River County WebSite: http://bccl.co.indian-river.fl.us
Full agenda back-up material is available for review in the Board of County Commission Office,
Indian River County Main Library, IRC Courthouse Law Library, and North County Library
Meeting may be broadcast live on AT & T Cable Channel 13 — rebroadcast continuously Thursday 1:00
.p.m. until Friday morning and Saturday 12:00 noon until 5:00 p.m.
Meeting broadcast same as above on AT & T Broadband, Channel 27 in Sebastian.
BE' I F'•s
6
• •
INDEX TO MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
JULY 16, 2002
1 CALL TO ORDER
2. I\VOCATION -1-
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE -1-
4. ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS -2-
-1-
5. PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS -2-
U.S. Fish & Wildlife, Paul Tritaik, Refuge Manager - Presentation of Revenue
Sharing Check for Pelican Island and Archie Carr Wildlife Refuges . . -2-
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES -3-
7. CONSENT AGENDA -3-
7.A. Reports -3-
7.B. List of Warrants -3-
7.C. Historic Resources Advisory Committee - Resignation of Arline Westfahl
-11-
JULY 16, 2002
1
7.D. Out -of -County Travel - 46th Annual Florida Shore and Beach Preservation
Association Annual Conference - Captiva Island, Florida - September 25-
27, 2002 - All Commissioners -I2-
7 E MPO Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) - City of Vero Beach
Appointment of Charles Vogt to Replace Jay Smith -13-
7.F. 4th Street Widening and Improvements - Release of Temporary
Construction Easements (1) Waters, (2) York, (3) Tell, and (4)
Mastromatteo -14-
7.G. Resolution 2002-046 Releasing a Portion of an Easement on Lot 9, Block
A, The Grove Subdivision (Dennis and Scarlet Brigman - 4420 11th Place
SW) -15-
7.H. Summer Recreational Program - Interlocal Agreement with Indian River
County School District for Use of Pelican Island, Highlands and Citrus
Elementary Schools and Oslo Middle School -18-
8. SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS - DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DIVISION OF
ELECTIONS VOTING SYSTEMS ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT -19-
9.A.1. PUBLIC HEARING - PURCHASE OF HALLSTROM FARMSTEAD LAAC
SITE (THOMAS HARRINGTON AND ST. LUCIE DEVELOPMENT CORP. -
HALLSTROM PROPERTIES, INC. - FLORIDA COMMUNITIES TRUST)
(Legislative) -20-
JULY 16, 2002
-2-
rnE
•
9.A.2. PUBLIC HEARING - ANSLEY PARK DEVELOPMENT CORP. - REQUEST
FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE AND
PRELIMINARY PLANNED ED DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PLAT APPROVAL FOR
ANSLEY PARK (Legislative) -29-
9.A.3. PUBLIC HF,ARING - ORDINANCE 2002-023 AMENDING THE ZONING
ORDINANCE AND ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FOR 17.9 ACRES
LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF 33RD STREET AND 66TM
AVENUE FROM A-1 TO RS -6 (SIDNEY BANACK) (Quasi -Judicial) .... -42-
9.A.4. PUBLIC HEARING - BI-AUTTELL DEVELOPMENT - DE\IAL OF REQUEST
TO REDESIGNATE 80.48 ACRES FROM AG -1 TO R; TO REZONE THOSE
80.48 ACRES FROM A-1 TO RS -1; AND TO EXPAND THE URBAN
SERVICE AREA (Legislative) -58-
9.B.1. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS - ISLAND VIEW PROPERTY
DEVELOPMENT LTD. (LEONARD HATALA) - ATTORNEY STEVE
HENDERSON (RECONSIDERATION OF BOARD ACTION OF JULY 2, 2002
REGARDING REQUF ST TO EXTEND SITE PLAN APPROVAL TO JUNE
14, 2002) -80-
9 B 2 PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS - JAMES R. MAXWELL - ASSESSMENT
LIEN FOR 920 TRUMAN STREET, SEBASTIAN - DISCUSS RETURNING
MONIES FOR WATER HOOKUP AND UTILITIES ASSESSMENT LIEN
-81-
JULY 16, 2002
-3-
•
9.C. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEMS - SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON
AUGUST 6, 2002 -81-
1. Bobbi J Subdivision, 36' Court, Petition Water Service, Resolution III
-81-
11.B.1. FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY
PREPAREDNESS GRANT FUNDS - REQUEST TO PURCHASE
CAPITAL EQUIPMENT (ARROW -TECH - PULCIR, INC.) -82-
11.B.2. FY 2002-03 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS EMERGENCY PLANNING
STATE FUNDED SUBGRANT AGREEMENT - CONTRACT #03CP-
11-10-40-01-166 - FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AFFAIRS -84-
11.C.1. MAIN LIBRARY RENOVATIONS - BILL BRYANT & ASSOCIATES,
INC. - CHANGE ORDERS 9, 10 AND 11 -85-
11.C.2. LOT 11, BLOCK 9, VERO BEACH ESTATES SUBDIVISION -
AUTHORIZATION TO SELL REAL PROPERTY TO HIGHES I
BIDDER -86-
11.C.3. CLEANNET USA - COMMERCIAL CLEANING SERVICES -
EXTENSION OF CONTRACT -88-
JULY 16, 2002
-4-
n 01.
•
11.G.1. KIM VECCHIO - REQUEST TO HAVF COUNTY BEGIN
MAINTENANCE OF 93RD AND 95TH STREETS WEST OF 141ST
AVENUb (PARK LATERAL) (WEST FELLSMERE AND
SOUTHEAST WILLOW STREET AREAS) -89-
11.H.1.
REXFORD BUILDERS, INC. - WATER MAIN REPLACFMFNT ON
5TH STREET SOUTHWEST FAST OF OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY (380 5TH
STREET SW) -93-
13.A. CHAIRMAN RUTH M. STANBRIDGE - UPDATES - LOST TREE
ISLANDS (FLORIDA FOREVER PROGRAM) - FLORIDA
COMMUNITIES TRUST MEETING OF JULY 24, 2002 -
TALLAHASSEE -94-
DOCUMENTS TO BE ADDED TO THE RECORD (Proof of Publication
for Notice of Unclaimed Moneys - Bonds Deposited with the Clerk of the
Circuit Court Prior to January 1, 2001) -95-
14.A. EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT -95-
14.B. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT -95-
14.C. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD
JULY 16, 2002
-5-
u�
-95-
•
• •
July 16, 2002
REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
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, July 16, 2002, at 9:00 a.m. Present were Ruth M. Stanbridge, Chairman; John W.
Tippin, Vice Chairman; Fran B. Adams; Caroline D. Ginn; and Kenneth R. Macht. Also
present were Joe Baird, Assistant County Administrator; Paul G. Bangel, County Attorney;
and Patricia "PJ" Jones, Deputy Clerk.
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Stanbridge called the meeting to order.
2. INVOCATION
Commissioner Ginn delivered the Invocation.
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Macht led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
JULY 16, 2002
u
4. ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY
ITEMS
Chairman Stanbridge requested the following changes to today's Agenda:
1. Additional backup for Item 9.A.2., Public Hearing - Ansley Park
Development Corp.
2. Additional backup for Item 9.A.4., Public Hearing - Beuttell Development.
3. Delete Item 9 B 1 , Public Discussion Item - Island View Property
Development Ltd (Leonard Hatala).
4. Delete Item 9.B.2., Public Discussion Item - James R. Maxwell.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED
by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously
made the above changes to the Agenda.
5. PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS
U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE, PAUL TRITAIK, REFUGE MANAGER - PRESENTATION
OF REVENUE SHARING CHECK FOR PELICAN ISLAND AND ARCHIE CARR
WILDLIFE REFUGES
Paul Tritaik expressed his pleasure in presenting the revenue sharing check in the
amount of $57,118 to the County. He requested that the Chairman execute and return the
County Compliant Certification and receipt for the funds (COPIES ARE ON FILE IN THE
OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD).
JULY 16, 2002
-2-
• •
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
None.
7. CONSENT AGENDA
7.A. REPORTS
The following has been received and is on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board:
1. Fellsmere Water Control District Annual Budget for FY 2002-03
7.B. LIST OF WARRANTS
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 3, 2002:
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DATE: July 3, 2002
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF WARRANTS
FROM: EDWIN M. FRY, JR., FINANCE DIRECTOR
In compliance with Chapter 136.06, Florida Statutes, all warrants issued by the Board of County
Commissioners are to be recorded in the Board minutes.
Approval is requested for the attached list of warrants, issued by the Clerk to the Board, for the
time period of July 1, 2002 to July 3, 2002.
JULY 16, 2002
-3-
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams,
SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board
unanimously approved the list of Warrants as issued
by the Clerk to the Board for July 1-3, 2002, as
recommended by staff.
CHECK NAME
NUMBER
0021827 AETNA LIFE INSURANCE AND
0021828 KRUCZKIEWICZ, LORIANE
0021829 STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT
0021830 BUREAU FOR CHILD SUPPORT ENFOR
0021831 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
0021832 IRS - ACS
0021833 CHAPTER 13 TRUSTEE
0021834 VERO BEACH FIREFIGHTERS ASSOC.
0021835 INDIAN RIVER FEDERAL CREDIT
0021836 COLONIAL LIFE & ACCIDENT
0021837 FLORIDA DEPT OF EDUCATION
0021838 NACO/SOUTHEAST
0021839 SALEM TRUST COMPANY
0021840 SAN DIEGO COUNTY OFFICE OF THE
0021841 FL SDU
0021842 AMERICAN DENTAL PLAN (FLORIDA)
0021843 AMERICAN FAMILY LIFE ASSURANCE
0326178 A A FIRE EQUIPMENT, INC
0326179 ACE PLUMBING, INC
0326180 ACTION ANSWERING SERVICE
0326181 ADAMSON, RONALD
0326182 ABS PUMPS, INC
0326183 ALL POWER SERVICES, INC
0326184 AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF
0326185 ANESTHESIA OF INDIAN RIVER, INC
0326186 A T & T
0326187 AMERIGAS
0326188 A T & T
0326189 ATLANTIC DRILLING SUPPLY, INC
0326190 APOLLO ENTERPRISES
0326191 AMERITREND HOMES
0326192 ALBERTSON'S
0326193 ABSOLUTE PROTECTION TEAM
0326194 AKINS, JAMES
0326195 ALFORD, ISAIAH
0326196 AUTULLO, JEANNE
JULY 16, 2002
-4-
CHECK
DATE
2002-07-02
2002-07-02
2002-07-02
2002-07-02
2002-07-02
2002-07-02
2002-07-02
2002-07-02
2002-07-02
2002-07-02
2002-07-02
2002-07-02
2002-07-02
2002-07-02
2002-07-02
2002-07-02
2002-07-02
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03.
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
CHECK
AMOUNT
1,125.89
138.50
37.75
92.31
50.00
50.00
639.86
2,500.00
80,484.33
193.86
132.00
10,239.26
130.41
132.46
8,689.24
956.08
156.26
832.25
76.00
302.94
530.63
2,545.79
325.00
100.00
238.68
80.46
20.59
38.27
277.00
1,204.44
1,000.00
1,140.50
53.50
136.84
300.00
392.81
nt
Di
• •
O 326197 A A A TOOL BUILDING AND
O 325198 ADVANCED XEROGRAPHIES IMAGING
0326199 ALARM PARTNERS
O 326200 BOARD OF COUNTY
0326201 BETTER BUSINESS
O 326202 BREVARD RENTALS,
O 326203
O 326204
0326205
O 326206
O 326207
0326208
O 326209
0326210
O 326211
O 326212
O 326213
O 326214
0326215
O 326216
0326217
O 326218
O 326219
0326220
O 326221
0326222
0326223
O 326224
O 326225
O 326226
O 326227
O 326228
0326229
O 326230
0326231
O 326232
O 326233
O 326234
O 326235
O 326236
0326237
O 326238
0326239
O 326240
0326241 DATA SUPPLIES, INC
O 326242 DEGRAFFENREID, JAMES
0326243 DEAF SERVICE CENTER OF THE
0326244 DONNELLY, BARBARA
O 326245 DUNKELBERGER ENGINEERING &
0326246 DILLARD, CASSIE
0326247 DARRISAW, DANARD
O 326248 DONLEY, CHESTER
O 326249 ELLISON EDUCATIONAL EQUIP, INC
0326250 EMERGENCY MEDICINE ASSOCIATES
0326251 FEDEX
0326252 FISHER SCIENTIFIC
O 326253 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR &
0326254 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
0326255 FLORIDA RECREATION & PARK
O 326256 FLOWERS BAKING COMPANY OF
O 326257 FLORIDA TIRE RECYCLING, INC
0326258 FWPCOA
O 326259 FLOW -TECHNOLOGY
O 326260 FLORIDA VETERINARY LEAGUE
O 326261 FIRE ENGINEERING
COMMISSIONERS
FORMS, INC
INC
BRIDGESTONE SPORTS USA INC
BURGOON BERGER
BAKER & TAYLOR INC
BRODART CO
BLAKESLEE MAINTENANCE
BOOKS ON TAPE INC
BEAZER HOMES, INC
BELLSOUTH PUBLIC COMMUNICATION
BREVARD ORTHHOPAEDIC CLINIC
BLACKMON, SHANITA
BREMAR INC. DBA
BOWLES, AARON
BLIDGEN, WILLIAM
BULLARD, REUN
BELLSOUTH
CAMP, DRESSER & MCKEE, INC
CHUCK'S ELECTRIC MOTORS, INC
CITRUS MOTEL
COMMUNICATIONS INT'L INC
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
COMPUTER SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY
CORVEL CORPORATION
CALL ONE, INC
CARSONITE INTERNATIONAL CORP
CLIFFORD, MIKE
CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDENT
COLUMBIA HOUSE
CULTURAL COUNCIL OF INDIAN
CLARRY, ALISON
CORE PROCESSES, INC
CONNOR, JIM
CARNICELLA, JAMES
CAL BUILDERS, INC
DAILY COURIER SERVICE
DAVES SPORTING GOODS
DELTA SUPPLY CO
DICXERSON-FLORIDA, INC
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS
JULY 16, 2002
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
3,546.00
350.00
110.00
5,386.29
331.27
472.89
87.36
1,000.00
1,017.76
503.99
200.00
389.40
500.00
406.95
37.00
100.43
1,069.18
89.55
19.05
171.88
84.57
6,625.58
300.00
108.00
1,053.65
37,192.21
250.00
1,050.67
25.00
780.00
200.00
39.00
21.57
3,986.65
43.32
5,080.00
20.50
80.17
500.00
860.00
143.50
190.80
1,171.92
40.17
150.94
25.52
625.00
6.96
4,550.85
19.32
168.00
130.63
220.25
89.00
55.32
176.59
38,226.64
10,073.15
430.00
45.46
1,035.00
20.00
94.33
148.00
29.50
Ott
I ` ,
O 326262 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT
0326263 FIRSTLAB
O 326264 FIRESTONE TIRE & SERVICE
O 326265 FLORIDA PAIN MANAGEMENT ASSOC
O 326266 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INS
O 326267 FIRST LAB
O 326268 FLORIDA ENERGY GAUGE, THE
0326269 FELL, MARIAN E
0326270 FLESCHER, ROSEMARY
O 326271 GALE GROUP, THE
O 326272 GOODKNIGHT LAWN EQUIPMENT,
O 326273 GALLS INC
0326274 GREYHOUND LINES, INC.
0326275 GARCIA, ARTURO L
0326276 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER
0326277 GIFFORD GROVES, LTD
O 326278 GINN, CAROLINE D
0326279 GANIO, CARL DPM
O 326280 GOUGE, EMILY
0326281 GREAT -FULLY DEAD PEST MGMT INC
0326282 GOULD, COOKSEY,FENNEL, ONEIL,
O 326283 HICKMAN'S BRAKE & ALIGNMENT
0326284 HORNUNG'S PRO GOLF SALES, INC
0326285 HUNTER AUTO SUPPLIES
0326286 HYATT SARASOTA
0326287 HUSTONS COMMERCIAL INTERIORS
O 326288 HACH COMPANY
0326289 HOLMES REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER
0326290 HUSSAMY, OMAR MD
O 326291 HEALTHSOUTH INDIAN RIVER
0326292 HEALTHSOUTH TREASURE COAST
0326293 HOLIDAY BUILDERS
0326294 HOMELAND IRRIGATION CENTER
O 326295 HUBERT, LATOSHIA
O 326296 HODGE,KERRI
0326297 HEALTH & NUTRITION CENTER
O 326298 HAMRICK, STEPHEN & BETTY
0326299 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SOLID
0326300 INDIAN RIVER BATTERY, INC
0326301 INDIAN RIVER BLUEPRINT CO INC
O 326302 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY UTILITY
0326303 INDIAN RIVER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
0326304 I B M CORP-DVU
0326305 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
0326306 INDIAN RIVER ALL -FAB, INC
0326307 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY UTILITY
0326308 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY HEALTHY
0326309 IMI -NET, INC
0326310 INTERMEDIA COMMUNICATIONS
0326311 INTERSTATE BATTERY OF FLORIDA
0326312 INDIAN RIVER HAND REHAB INC
0326313 INDIAN RIVER WALK-IN CARE
0326314 INNOVATIVE DOCUMENT
0326315 JANITORIAL DEPOT OF AMERICA
0326316 JOHNSON CONTROLS INC
0326317 KEPAJI
0326318 JONES, ELVIN JR
0326319 JONES, DONALD
0326320 KRUGER CONSTRUCTION CORP
0326321 K -MART #7294
0326322 RID'S KRUSADE, INC
0326323 KELLER, JENAE
0326324 KEMIRON INC
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
INC 2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
JULY 16, 2002
-6-
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
1,980.24
558.00
31.20
37.00
458.68
217.00
186.79
156.22
24.00
1,497.81
18.82
13.98
479.50
500.00
39.00
335.00
3.85
33.30
123.60
928.00
171.27.
248.27
80.35
141.02
570.00
17,066.77
466.06
907.50
1,714.00
5,174.62
125.34
500.00
22.68
218.75
172.13
28.00
26.20
588.45
357.40
7.28
3,040.58
1,442.88
50.00
175.00
411.99
87.13
4,444.44
450.00
56.48
69.45
745.06
111.00
25,848.00
700.45
708.50
185.00
46.35
42.00
30.00
36.78
365.64
38.63
3,153.82
nil
0.
• •
0326325 KIRBY VETERINARY HOSPITAL
0326326 KING, STACY
O 326327 LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC.
0326328 LABOR FINDERS
O 326329 LESCO, INC
0326330 LOWE'S COMPANIES,INC
0326331 LANGSTON, HESS, BOLTON,ZNOSKO
0326332 LAB SAFETY SUPPLY INC
O 326333 MIKES GARAGE
O 326334 MUNICIPAL CODE CORPORATION
O 326335 MATRX MEDICAL INC
O 326336 3M LMN8940
O 326337 MIDWEST TAPE EXCHANGE
O 326338 MARRONE, JOSEPH
O 326339 MEDICAL SERVICES COMPANY, INC
0326340 MEDICINE SHOPPE
O 326341 MORTON SALT
O 326342 MALLAMS, JOHN H, PHD
0326343 MAXFLI GOLF
O 326344 MOODY, RUTHIE
0326345 MULLER HOMES, INC
0326346 MIERAS, MOLLY
O 326347 MPC, INC
O 326348 MILLER, DENNIS W OR
O 326349 MIDLANTIC DATA SYSTEMS
O 326350 MIRANDA, FERNANDO G MD
O 326351 NATIONWIDE ADVERTISING
0326352 NORTH SOUTH SUPPLY INC
O 326353 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS
0326354 NAPIER, WILLIAM MATT
O 326355 NOWLIN, TIAIRA
0326356 NEW LIFE REHAB INC
0326357 NUNES, PATRICIA
0326358 NEON LITE DISPLAYS INC
O 326359 OFFICE PRODUCTS & SERVICE
0326360 OSCEOLA PHARMACY
O 326361 ORTHOPAEDIC FIXATION SYSTEMS
O 326362 OSLO TRADE CENTER
0326363 P B S & J
0326364 PERKINS MEDICAL SUPPLY
O 326365 PORT CONSOLIDATED
O 326366 PERCONTI DATA SYSTEMS, INC
O 326367 PEEK TRAFFIC SYSTEMS, INC
0326368 PETERS, JAMES
O 326369 PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION
O 326370 PERSONNEL PLUS INC
O 326371 PING, INC
0326372 PC WEATHER PRODUCTS
O 326373 PARALEE COMPANY INC
O 326374 PREFERRED GOVERNMENTAL CLAIM
0326375 PAGE, KALIBBIA
0326376 PATTERSON, NANCY
O 326377 POWERS, SUNNIYI
O 326378 RINGHAVER EQUIPMENT COMPANY
O 326379 ROBERTS & REYNOLDS PA
0326380 RAFULS, DEBORAH
0326381 RECORDED BOOKS, LLC
0326382 RELIABLE POLY JOHN SERVICES
0326383 RAIKES, JENNIFER
0326384 RAPP, PAMELA
O 326385 ROMERO, BARBARA
0326386 RIZIO, HOWARD
O 326387 SEWELL HARDWARE CO, INC
JULY 16, 2002
- 7-
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
96.00
181.50
1,601.13
1,102.80
50.00
6.47
2,594.80
1,993.00
105.00
74.32
685.00
1,640.00
255.84
66.00
72.00
84.49
2,118.31
80.75
731.04
273.00
500.00
19.31
4,290.00
70.00
4,752.00
750.00
545.83
6.22
522.58
59.74
57.94
375.00
300.00
30.00
385.48
123.70
522.00
500.00
1,400.00
17.95
191.96
1,600.00
1,794.75
15.39
81.84
570.00
230.86
495.00
375.00
3,300.00
257.50
330.75
144.00
215.08
13,957.08
29.20
158.40
112.68
270.00
60.00
28.91
420.98
14.35
1
O 326388
O 326389
0326390
0326391
0326392
0326393
0326394
0326395
0326396
0326397
0326398
0326399
0326400
0326401
0326402
0326403
0326404
0326405
0326406
0326407
0326408
0326409
0326410
0326411
0326412
0326413
0326414
0326415
0326416
0326417
O 326418
0326419
O 326420
0326421
O 326422
O 326423
0326424
O 326425
0326426
O 326427
O 326428
O 326429
0326430
O 326431
0326432
O 326433
O 326434
O 326435
O 326436
O 326437
O 326438
O 326439
O 326440
0326441
0326442
O 326443
0326444
0326445
0326446
0326447
O 326448
0326449
O 326450
O 326451
JULY 16, 2002
SOUTHERN EAGLE DISTRIBUTING,
STATE ATTORNEY OFFICE
S TURGIS LUMBER & PLYWOOD CO
S UNSHINE PHYSICAL THERAPY
SUN TELEPHONE, INC
SEMBLER, CHARLES W
S IGNS IN A DAY
STEWART MINING INDUSTRIES INC
SEBASTIAN, CITY OF
S IMS, MATTHEW
SUMMERLIN SEVEN SEAS INC
SECURITY FIRST TITLE PARTNERS
SOUTHERN EMBROIDERY WORKS
SEBASTIAN OFFICE SUPPLY
SKATE FACTORY
SALEM, M I MD
SERRA, RACHEL
SCHMIDT, JOHN
SUYDAM, RICHARD ESTATE OF
SVI SYSTEMS INC
SHELL CREDIT CARD CENTER
SEQUOIA VOTING SYSTEMS
REITANO ENTERPRISES, INC
SUNSHINE PHYSICAL THERAPY
TITLEIST
TEAM EQUIPMENT, INC
TRAMMELL, DENISE
SCRIPPS TREASURE COAST
TARGET STORES COMMERCIAL
TOZZOLO, STEVIE
TEAM USA LLC
THOMAS, JAMEKA
TESTAMERICA INC
TIGER CORPORATION
TUCKER, JEROMY MICHAEL
TESTAMERICA INC
UNIVERSAL SIGNS & ACCESSORIES
ULVERSCROFT LARGE PRINT
U S FILTER DISTRIBUTION GROUP
URGENT CARE WEST
VELDE FORD, INC
VERO BEACH VOLUNTEER FIRE
VERO BEACH, CITY OF
VERO BEACH, CITY OF
VERO LAWNMOWER CENTER, INC
VERO BEACH, CITY OF
VERO LAKE ESTATES VOLUNTEER
VERO ORTHOPAEDICS
VERO BOWL
VERO BEARING & BOLT
VERO BEACH, CITY OF
VETERANS COUNCIL OF INDIAN
VERO BEACH WOMAN'S CLUB, INC
VISTA GARDENS ASSOCIATION INC
VANHOUSEN, SANDRA P
WOODY'S PRINTING
WAL-MART PHARMACY INC
WILLHOFF, PATSY
WOOD'N NICHOLS
WAUSAU TILE INC
WEST GROUP PAYMENT CTR
WILLIAMS FAMILY MEDICINE
WALKER, KEITH
W W GRAINGER INC
-8-
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
119.60
14,507.28
39.58
1,116.00
2,008.00
50.85
375.00
138.20
9,240.10
255.20
2,200.00
10,000.00
77.75
63.96
987.25
85.10
77.25
45:00
51.89
135.00
83.07
2,100.00
500.00
60.00
3,622.57
202.80
167.52
323.84
89.69
77.25
2,191.14
132.00
375.00
87,111.73
300.00
344.00
2,470.00
6.75
36,888.08
1,488.00
24.13
11.00
5,820.50
83.53.
163.20
1,683.74
26.00
2,329.94
567.00
21.99
385.06
3,917.58
280.00
50.00
40.00
427.00
239.51
130.00
440.00
3,509.00
84.00
37.00
180.00
22.71
• •
0326452
0326453
O 326454
0326455
0326456
O 326457
O 326458
0326459
O 326460
O 326461
O 326462
O 326463
0326464
0326465
O 326466
0326467
0326468
O 326469
0326470
0326471
O 326472
O 326473
0326474
O 326475
0326476
O 326477
O 326478
O 326479
O 326480
O 326481
O 326482
O 326483
O 326484
O 326485
O 326486
O 326487
0326488
O 326489
O 326490
O 326491
0326492
0326493
O 326494
0326495
O 326496
O 326497
O 326498
O 326499
O 326500
0326501
0326502
O 326503
O 326504
O 326505
0326506
O 326507
O 326508
0326509
O 326510
JULY 16, 2002
WILSON, STEVEN
WIDEBERG, SEAN
ZEPHYRHILLS NATURAL SPRING
ZEDEK, KELLY
HILLERY, DORIS
ENDRES, BRUCE
MILLER, JOSEPH
VILLENEUVE, RICHARD
LICARI, LINDA
PHIPPS, DAVID
ROYAL, THOMAS
DELGADO, ANDRES
EVERETT, MELVIN
ZAPPIA, FRANK
BEACHLAND MILLWORK INC
QUALITY OPTICAL SERVICES
LOGSDON, HUGH D
ROBB, BAYARD
BURGOON BERGER CONST CO
R ZORC & SONS BUILDERS, INC
FRENCH, ALAN M & NANCY L
MGB CONSTRUCTION
ERA ASSOC REALTY
MORGAN, YOLANDA
HOLIDAY BUILDERS
HERAN, DEAN
TRAVEL GALLERY OF SEB INC
PRYOR JR, ELIGHA
WETHERINGTON, WILSON L
RODEN, HERMAN
LARAMORE, TAMRA
NEWMAN, PAUL J
WARREN, MARY ANN
ARMSTRONG, BARBARA
GHO VERO BEACH, INC
SWIECA, PATRICIA & LEE
CHAMBLISS, SHARON
MAC ISAAC, WARREN
HAMILTON, RICHARD E
MGB CONSTRUCTION, INC
ROLLE, MAURICE
CONRADO, THOMAS
BOYCE, WALTER & PATRICIA
EMERICK MANAGEMENT
KELLY, CHAD
BENECHE, BENIRA
MC COMBS, DEBORAH A
HAIR, KELVIN
PASSAGE ISLAND HOMES
HINZMAN, FRANK D
HAHN, PATRYCYIA
DUFFY, WILLIAM
SMITH, GARY E
AMERITREND HOMES
VON GAL, CLINT
RUPPERT, DAVID P
LEE, MARLA S
SCHMIDT, KATHARINE P
HARTLESS, GEORGE A
-9-
2002-07-03 /
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
365.65
198.00
5.00
35.00
827.44
594.00
454.52
296.67
476.80
443.92
641.26
917.84
594.00
376.20
33.76
23.56
32.60
81.43
276.46
101.08
40.26
3.69
84.53
8.40
468.34
7.45
25.83
74.36
78.40
95.71
26.45
55.95
35.65
40.17
148.62
50.21
96.60
42.67
20.82
40.10
63.87
87.39
5.66
50.27
18.90
44.54
18.30
79.44
133.60
86.67
6.63
59.91
37.26
96.51
26.71
61.71
76.02
72.09
37.10
O 32651
O 326512
0326513
0326514
O 326515
0326516
0326517
O 326518
1 CHANNING CORP XXIX
PENNEY, CLARENCE
GRANT, TABITHA & STATON
SMALLEY, DONALD E
ZBOROWSKI, JOHN
MOLANDER, MARIE
STRICKLAND, ALLENE
GIAMBARRESE, ANN
MORRIS, PHILIP
GRAVING, HANNAH
ST LOUISE, JEAN L
PARK PLACE MHC
LEGENDARY CONSTRUCITON INC
DI DOMENICO, DALE M
CREEL, JUSTIN
WILLIAMSON, JANIE
PENLY, RICHARD & VICKIE
BAPTISTE, EDDY
GAYESKI, THOMAS OR DIANE
FALCONE, SALLY
FRATCHER, HEATHER
KNIGHT, STEPHANIE
RYAN, DENNIS
MORRIS, JOSEPH
HAMNER, VIRGINIA C
SHELTON JR, JOZEF
STEWART, KIMBERLY
TAYLOR, FLOYD RAY
BASTINE, KEITH & SYLVIA
KEHRT, CHRISTOPHER
WILKERSON, KENISHA
MACE, DARREN
CROWELL, JASON
KAZI, YANET & OMAR
ARIZA, JOSE D
FALZONE, SALVATORE P
O'CONNOR, BRENDA & JEFFREY
FORTINA, ROBERT
BECK, MELISSA
CAREY JR, WILLIAM A
THIEL, KEVIN J
MURRAY, SUSAN
JACKSON, BONNIE S
HOLLOMAN, SHERRI & BOBBY
CUNDY, JEROME G
RILEY, JUDY M
SHAW, DAVID R
JACKSON, KURT
GONZALEZ, TONY
YOUNG, JAMES A
ADGETT, MARK A
IBSON, JOHN
O 326519
O 326520
0326521
0326522
0326523
0326524
O 326525
O 326526
0326527
O 326528
0326529
0326530
O 326531
O 326532
0326533
0326534
0326535
0326536
0326537
0326538
0326539
0326540
0326541
0326542
0326543
0326544
O 326545
0326546
0326547
O 326548
O 326549
0326550
0326551
O 326552
0326553
O 326554
0326555
0326556
0326557
O 326558
O 326559
0326560
0326561 P
0326562 G
JULY 16, 2002
-10-
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
2002-07-03
18.09
73.12
85.54
70.09
36.12
71.55
29.03
19.95
28.01
69.40
38.28
126.72
281.75
17.51
76.71
5.47
42.91
11.78
43.29
42.33
58.95
30.57
3.20
53.24
24.23
51.22
51.69
52.12
45.66
1.17
57.12
33.70
56.29
57.32
35.21
37.11
22.26
56.77
28.58
61.80
58.75
53.71
66.90
14.35
5.00
5.19
43.65
37.78
44.44
17.46
50.00
300.00
592,005.25
• •
7. C. HISTORIC RESOURCES ADVISORY COMMITTEE - RESIGNATION OF
ARLINE WESTFAHL
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 8, 2002:
To:
Date:
Subject:
From.
Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
July 8, 2002
RESIGNATION OF MEMBER AT LARGE FROM THE
HISTORIC RESOURCES ADVISORY COMMITTEE (HRAC)
Ruth M. Stanbridge
Commissioner
Arline Westfahl has given me her verbal resignation from the HRAC. Due to relocating from
this area it is necessary that she resign immediately. Arline served as a member at large and a
replacement for this position will be forthcoming.
JULY 16, 2002
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams
SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board
unanimously accepted, with regret, the resignation
of Arline Westfahl from the Historic Resources
Advisory Committee, as requested.
-11-
7.D. OUT -OF -COUNTY TRAVEL - 46TH ANNUAL FLORIDA SHORE AND BEACH
PRESER VA TION ASSOCIATION ANNUAL CONFERENCE - CAPTIVA
ISLAND, FLORIDA - SEPTEMBER 25-27, 2002 - ALL COMMISSIONERS
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 5, 2002:
To: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
Date: July 5, 2002
Subject: OUT OF COUNTY TRAVEL BY COMMISSIONERS TO ATTEND THE 46TH
ANNUAL FLORIDA SHORE AND BEACH PRESERVATION ASSOCIATION
ANNUAL CONFERENCE
From. Kimberly E. Massung
Executive Aide to the Commission
Permission is requested for out of county travel for Commissioners to attend the 46th
Annual Florida Shore & Beach Preservation Association Annual Conference to be held
September 25 -27th, 2002 at Captiva Island, FL
JULY 16, 2002
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams,
SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board
unanimously approved out -of -county travel for all
Commissioners to attend the 46th Annual Florida
Shore and Beach Preservation Association Annual
Conference on September 25-27, 2002, as requested.
-12-
• •
7.E. MPO CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CAC) - CITY OF VERO BEACH
APPOINTMENT OF CHARLES VOGT TO REPLACE JAY SMITH
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 9, 2002:
Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
Date: July 9, 2002
Subject: NOTIFICATION OF APPOINTMENT TO THE
MPO CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CAC)
FROM THE CITY OF VERO BEACH
From. Kimberly E. Massung
Executive Aide to the Commission
At the City of Vero Beach City Council meeting on July 2 2002, Mr Charles Vogt was
appointed to the MPO CAC. Mr. Vogt will be replacing Mr. Jay Smith who is now
serving as a City Council member.
JULY 16, 2002
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams,
SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board
unanimously acknowledged the City of Vero
Beach's appointment of Charles Vogt to the MPO
Citizens Advisory Committee to replace Mr. Jay
Smith who is now serving as a City Council
member.
-13-
Bri
r
7. F. 4TH STREET WIDENING AAD IMPROVEMENTS - RELEASE OF TEMPORARY
CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS (1) WATERS, (2) YORK, O TELL, AND (4
MASTROMATTEO
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 9, 2002:
Paul G. Bangcl, County Attorney"
William G. Collins II, Deputy County Attorney`
Manan E. Fell, Assistant County Attorney
JULY 16, 2002
'Board Certified, City, County and Local Government Law
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: ea R. Keller, CLA, Legal Assistant
THROUGH: Paul G. Bangel, County Attorney /3
DATE: July 9, 2002
SUBJECT: Release of Four Temporary Construction
Easements — 4th Street Widening & Improvement
Discussion:
In connection with the widening and improvement of 4t' Street, the County
obtained temporary construction easements from four of the adjacent property
owners. At the time the temporary easements were obtained they were to be
valid only until the construction work was completed. The roadway improvement
work has been finished, and in order for the four property owners' titles to reflect
that the temporary construction easements are no longer in existence we have
prepared the attached releases.
Recommendation:
Authorize the Chairman to execute the attached four Temporary Construction
Easement Releases.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams,
SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board
unanimously authorized the Chairman to execute the
4 Temporary Construction Easement Releases, as
recommended by staff.
RELEASES WILL BE RECORDED IN THE OFFICIAL
RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
-14-
o
t;
•
7. G. RESOLUTION 2002-046 RELEASING A PORTION OF AN EASEMENT ON
LOT 9, BLOCKA, THE GROVE SUBDIVISION (DENNIS AND SCARLET
BRIGMAN- 442011TH PLACE SW)
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 10, 2002:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH:
D
AR
LENT HEAD CONCURRENCE:
4.
...drilall ALA
• o ert M. Keating, AICP
Community Development Di
ctor
Roland M. DeBlo'.,'• L
Chief, Environ ental Planning
& Code Enforcement
P
DATE: 7/10/02
FROM: Kelly Zedek
Code Enforcement Officer
RE Dennis and Scarlet Brigman Request for Partial Release of Easement at 4420
llth Place SW (The Grove Subdivision)
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of July 16, 2002.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The County has been petitioned by Dennis and Scarlet Brigman, owners of a lot at 4420 1 lth Place
SW, for release of a three-foot wide portion of a ten -foot wide side yard drainage and utility
easement. The purpose of the requested easement release is to accomodate a driveway (see
attached plot plan).
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 Depai talent; 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 partial 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, partially release the
drainage and utility easement, as more particularly described in said resolution.
JULY 16, 2002
-15-
pli
•
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams,
SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board
unanimously adopted Resolution 2002 046 releasing
a portion of an easement on Lot 9, Block A, The
Grove Subdivision (Dennis and Scarlet Brigman -
4420 11th Place SW).
RESOLUTION NO. 2002 - 046
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, RELEASING
A PORTION OF AN EASEMENT ON LOT 9, BLOCK A, THE GROVE
SUBDIVISION
WHEREAS, Indian River County has an interest in a drainage and utility easement on Lot
9, Block A of The Grove Subdivision; and
WHEREAS, the retention of a portion of the easement, as described below, serves no public
purpose;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida that:
This partial release of easement is executed by Indian River County, a political subdivision of
the State of Florida, whose mailing address is 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960,
Grantor, to
DENNIS J. BRIGMAN & SCARLET L BRIGMAN
4420 11TH PLACE SW
VERO BEACH, FL 32968
their successors in interest, heirs and assigns, as Grantee, as follows:
Indian River County does hereby release and abandon all right, title, and interest that it may
have in the following described easement portion:
the west three feet of the east ten foot wide side yard drainage and utility easement of Lot
9, Block A, The Grove Subdivision, LESS AND EXCEPT the north fifty feet and the south ten feet
thereof according to the plat recorded in Plat Book 13, Page 77 of the Public Records of Indian
River County, Florida.
JULY 16, 2002
-16-
•
RESOLUTION NO. 2002- 046
THIS RESOLUTION was moved for adoption by Commissioner Adams , seconded
by Commissioner G1 nn , and adopted on the 16th day of
1u1 y 2002, by the following vote:
Commissioner Ruth M. Stanbridge
Commissioner John W. Tippin
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht
Commissioner Fran B. Adams
Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn
The Chairman declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 16th day of
July , 2002.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF I_NDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
Ruth M. Stanbridge, Cha man
Attested_Br:J '1 ? ti ";>1.4->i.
Deputy Clerk
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 16th day of Jul y
2002, by RUTH M. STANBRIDGE, as Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida, and byPF,TRiC,+h 'P.11 ;O`dr$ , 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
l j'7„ l�, C �,
K7mhPrly E 'MRSSUn
Printed Name(
Commission No.: CC855436
Commission Expiration: July 15, 2003
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
William G. Collins II
Deputy County Attorney
ease.bccdoc
proj/apl.no. 2001060071/29495
JULY 16, 2002
-17-
Kimberly E. Massung
MY COMMISSION * CC855436 EXPIRES
July 15, 2003
BONDED THRU TROY FAIN INSURANCE, INC
n!f
•
kJ ea
7. H. SUMMER RECREATIONAL PROGRAM- INTERLOCAL A GREEMENT WITH
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR USE OF PELICAN
ISLAND, HIGHLANDS AND CITRUS ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS AND OSLO
MIDDLE SCHOOL
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 10, 2002:
JULY 16, 2002
TO:
THRU •
FROM:
DATE:
Board of County Conunissioners
James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Joseph A. Baird, Assistant County Administrator
Michael Redstone, Interim Director
Recreation Department
July 10, 2002
SUBJECT: Interlocal Agreement to Utilize Schools for the Summer
Recreation Program
The attached agreement between Indian River County and the School District is necessary to
implement the summer recreation programs at the following four (4) schools:
Pelican Island Elementary
Highlands Elementary
Oslo Middle School
Citrus Elementary
It is requested the agreement be approved and signed by the Chairman.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams,
SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board
unanimously approved the Interlocal Agreement for
Summer Recreational Program with the School
District of Indian River County, as recommended by
staff.
AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE
OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
-18-
o
• •
8. SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS - DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
DIVISION OF ELECTIONS VOTING SYSTEMS ASSISTANCE
AGREEMENT
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 9, 2002:
Kay Clem
Supervisor of Elections
Indian River County, Florida
MEMO
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: KAY CLEM&,
DATE: JULY 9, 2002 \
RE• VOTING SYSTEMS ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT
Please review the enclosed Memorandum of Agreement for the voting
systems assistance and approve the agreement for the Division of Elections.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
JULY 16, 2002
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams,
SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board
unanimously approved the Memorandum of
Agreement with the State of Florida, Department of
State, Division of Elections, as requested.
AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE
OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
-19-
9.A.1. PUBLIC HEARING - PURCHASE OF HALLSTROM
FARMSTEAD LAAC SITE (THOMAS HARRINGTON
AND ST. LUCIE DEVELOPMENT CORP. - HALLSTROM
PROPERTIES, INC. - FLORIDA COMMUNITIES TRUST)
(Legislative)
PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF ADVERTISEMENT FOR HEARING IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK TO THE BOARD
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 10, 2002:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DE • •• NI -ENT Hr AD CONCURRENCE:
o.ert M. Keating, AICP
Community Development Director
FROM: Roland M. DeBI CP
Chief, Environmental Planning
DATE: July 10, 2002
SUBJECT: Board Consideration to Approve Purchase of the Hallstrom Farmstead LAAC Site
It is requested that the Board of County Commissioners formally consider the following information at the
Board's meetmg of July 16, 2002.
SUMMARY
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners purchase the St. Lucie Development
Corporation and Hallstrom Properties, Inc- parcels of the "Hallstrom Farmstead" LAAC Site with land
acquisition bond funds. The proposed purchase option contacts (already executed by the sellers) are
summarized as follows:
Purchaser: Indian River County Board of County Commissioners / Flonda Communities Trust
(County will hold title)
Seller: St. Lucie Development. Corporation
Hallstrom Properties, Inc
Cost -Share: Florida Communities Trust (75%)
(includes share of acquisition costs)
JULY 16, 2002
-20-
• •
Total Price:
Other Costs:
County Bonds
Expenditure
St. Lucie Development Corp.. $460,000.00 (32.8 acres; $14,024 per acre overall)
Hallstrom Properties, Inc.: 51,150.000.00 (60.4 acres; $ 19,040 per acre overall)
Total: $1,610,000 (-93 acres, —517,312.00 per acre overall)
+335,000 (appraisals, survey, environ. audit, other acquisition costs)
±$477,500 (not including initial management costs)
Acreage: +93 acres (± 85 acres upland, +8 acr„ s wetland)
LAAC Recommendation: The County Land Acquisition Advisory Committee (LAAC), at its meeting ofJune
26, 2002, voted 9 to 4 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve purchase of the
Hallstrom Farmstead properties under the terms of the option agreements. The LAAC also voted 10 to 3 to
recommend that the Board approve the Conceptual Management Plan for the Hallstrom Farmstead (see
attached).
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The subject +93 acre St. Lucie Development and Hallstrom Properties parcels are adjacent to the five acre
Hallstrom House" property at 1723 Old Dixie Highway SE owned by the Indian River County Historical
Society. The Hallstrom residence was recently approved for listing on the National Register of Historic
Places.
On July 25, 2001, the Hallstrom Farmstead project was added to the LAAC acquisition list as an unranked
"emergency acquisition.' At that time, it was recommended by staff (and endorsed by LAAC) that the
County's funding contributiori towards the overall project would be purchase of the environmentally
significant St. Lucie Development scrub parcel. The County has since been awarded a 75% cost -share grant
from the Florida Communities Trust (FCT) for purchase of the overall Farmstead project.
During the past year, the county's acquisition consultant, in coordination with county staff, has overseen pre-
acquisition tasks and conducted negotiations. Since the sellers recently accepted and executed purchase
contract Option Agreements for the properties, appraisal results and other confidential information can now
be released.
Confidentiality; Advertised Public Meeting
Procedures adopted by the Board of County Commissioners for environmental land acquisition include
confidentiality of appraisals. In accordance with the County's Land Acquisition Guide, and Section 125 355
of the Florida Statutes, appraisals can be released for public infoi cation once an option agreement is
executed between a seller and the County. Regarding the Hallstrom Farmstead parcels, option agreements
have been executed (binding the sellers to negotiated purchase prices) and subsequently the appraisals were
released from confidentiality.
When a county exercises its confidentiality right in purchasing real property, Section 125.355, F.S. requires
that the county approve the purchase at a public meeting not less than 30 days after the appraisal is released
and public notice of the meeting is given Since the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners
pursuant to authority delegated by the Board, executed purchase options for the parcels more than 30 days
ago and since the appraisals were made public at that time, the Board must now consider whether to exercise
its purchase options. Consistent with Chapter 125, F.S. requirements, this decision will be made at the July
16, 2002 public meeting of the Board of County Commissioners. By having given 30 days public notice of
this proposed action, the County will have complied with Chapter 125 requirements as well as LAAC Guide
requirements to hold a public hearing before purchasing property with land acquisition bond funds.
LAAC Recommendation
As indicated in the summary section of this memorandum, the LAAC, at its meeting on July 16, 2002, voted
9 to 4 to recommend that the Board approve the purchase contracts. The LAAC also voted 10 to 3 to
recommend that the Board approve the Conceptual Management Plan (see attached unapproved minutes).
JULY 16, 2002
-21-
Site Characteristics
The following table summarizes the characteristics of the two ownerships within the Hallstrom Fat instead
project.
Property
Size (Acres)
Zoning
Tax Assessed Value
Environmental
Characteristics
Hallstrom Properties,
Inc. (portions of two tax
parcels)
60.37
46.73 acres: RS -6
Single -Family
Residential (6 units/ac)
13.64 acres: CH Heavy
Commercial (east of Old
Dixie)
$954,440 (includes
portions of tax parcels
east of railroad tracks
that are not part of the
I,AAC project)
West of Old Dixie: "old
field" and old grove with
exotics and some native
scrub vegetation.
East of Old Dixie:
Upland hammock w/
some exotics, —8 acre
forested wetland along
east boundary (near
railroad tracks). Also
contains historic
structures of the
Hallstrom Farmstead.
St. Lucie Development
Corporation (one tax
parcel)
32.81
RS -6 Single -Family
Residential (6 units/ac)
$128,290
Sand pine scrub adjacent
to canal, open sand area,
some off-road vehicle
disturbance.
TOTAL
93.18 acres
N/A
$1,082,730
N/A
Acquisition Cost -Share & Property Management
Two issues that are important to staff with respect to all proposed purchases are obtaining cost -share
assistance in property acquisition and addressing management costs.
• Cost -Share
Indian River County has been awarded a grant from the Florida Communities Trust for 75% cost -share
funding, including 75% of pre-acquisition expenditures (e.g survey, environmental audit, appraisals)
• Management
A Conceptual Management Plan has been drafted in fulfillment of FCT requirements (see attached). The
proposed use of the property is resource enhancement and management by means of exotic species removal
and native plant community restoration, with compatible passive recreation facilities in the form of nature
trails and informational displays. .Another main aspect of the plan, relating to the historic/cultural resources
of the property, is coordinated management between the County and the Indian River County Historical
Society. As presented in the management plan, the County will work in partnership with the Historical
Society to combine natural resource enhancement with cultural resource preservation and educational
programs. Table 1 on Page 24 of the draft management plan summaries estimated costs and funding relating
to management of the property (see Attachment # 2).
Appraisals
In accordance with the County Land Acquisition Guide and FCT procedures, two independent appraisals
were obtained to determine an "approved appraised value" for each of the two ownerships in the project.
Armfield-Wagner Appraisal & Research, Inc. and Wmgo & Associates, Inc. conducted the appraisals. The
appraised values and negotiated purchase prices for the parcels are summarized as follows.
JULY 16, 2002
-22-
• •
ILALLSTROM FARMSTEAD
Property
Approx. Acres
Appraised Value(s)
Approved Appraised
Value
Negotiated Price (%
of Approved
Appraised Value)
Upland
Wetland
Hallstrom Properties,
Inc. (two parcels)
52.37
8.0
Armfield: 1,325,000
Wingo: 1,366,000
1,366,000
1,150,000 (84%)
St. Lucie Development
Corporation
32.31
0.0
Armfield: 500,000
Wingo: 492,150
500,000
460,000 (92%)
Total:
85.18 ac.
8.0 ac.
(N/A)
$1,866,000
$1,610,000 (86%)
The combined negotiated purchase price of $1,610,000 is +86% of the overall approved appraised value for
the subject parcels.
Contracts
In coming to terms with county staff on the negotiated purchase price (subject to County Commission
approval), the sellers have executed standard FCT purchase contract Option Agreements. Copies of the
contracts are attached to this staff report. FCT standardized contracts were used because FCT will participate
as a cost -share partner in the purchase.
ANALYSIS
As with all LAAC site purchase negotiations, staff's objective was to negotiate a purchase price at or below
the approved appraised value, which has been done.In July 2001,when the Hallstrom Farmstead project was
initially presented to the LAAC for consideration, it was recommended by staff (and endorsed by LAAC)
that the County's funding contribution towards the overall project would be purchase of the environmentally
significant St. Lucie Development scrub parcel. As presented to LAAC m July 2001, the Historical Society
was willing to make up the difference in funding to fulfill the required local match (of 25% towards the 75%
FCT grant) if the St. Lucie Development purchase pnce did not fulfill the local 25% match. As it turns out,
the $460,000 purchase price of the St. Lucie Development parcel fulfills (and exceeds) 25% of the overall
project cost. As such, rather than contribute toward purchase cost, it is staff's position that the Historical
Society's contribution toward the project is best served at the management level, assisting with site
improvements, with management of the site's cultural resources, and with educational programs.
Comprehensive Plan Acquisition Commitment
As reflected in the goals, objectives and policies of its Comprehensive Plan, Indian River County recognizes
the importance of conserving native vegetative communities, particularly native vegetation areas serving as
objectives and policies in this category, particularly relating to the gopher tortoises and other listed species
endemic to xeric scrub habitat.
Conservation Policy 6.2 of the 2020 County Comprehensive Plan commits the County to acquire a minimum
of 100 acres of xeric scrub habitat for conservation purposes. Although the County has fulfilled this minimum
acreage requirement, the subject property contributes to this policy by conserving ±35 acres of sand pine
scrub.
In addition, the acquisition of the Hallstrom Farmstead parcels will further the county's objectives to provide
open space and passive recreational facilities within the Urban Service Area of the county. The project site
will allow an opportunity for educational trails and an opportunity for the County to educate the public about
ecological issues as well as cultural resources.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached conceptual management
plan and exercise of the Hallstrom Properties, Inc. and St. Lucie Development Corporation option contracts,
and authorize staff to proceed with closing on the subject properties in coordination with the Florida
Communities Trust
JULY 16, 2002
-73-
ATTACHMENTS:
•
•
•
•
•
Maps of the Hallstrorn Fail 'stead
Summary of estimated management costs (Table 1 of Conceptual Management Plan)
Unapproved minutes excerpt from 06/26/02 LAAC meeting
Option Agreements
Conceptual Management Plan (on file in the County Commission Office)
N
itirmtt
JECT P
(DIXIE
HEIGHTS)
loom IF
!eeeeeRst.
VLA WACO
OPERTY
Ai IS
voliggiingg
Ml
(PLANTATION RIDGE)
JULY 16, 2002
ral
Negnalikno
nit a
▪ Ea VA
umramos
nil-Gfa. AMISS DRIVE
-24-
60
• •
TABLE 1
HALLSTROM FARMSTEAD CONSERVATION AREA
ESTIMATED iiIANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT COSTS
1. Resource Management*
Boundary fence
Gates
Plant/Animal Surveys and Mapping
Archaeological/Cultural Landscape Assessment
Exotic Plant Removal and Revegetation
Exotic Plant Re -Treatment
Public Access Improvements**
Interpretive center (pole barn)
Restroom
Pathways and Trails
Interpretive signs
Bicycle rack
Picnic table (8)
Parking area (15 cars)
Entrance sign
Subtotal
Subtotal
Total Resource Management/Development Costs
3. Annual Maintenance/Operations Costs**
**
JULY 16, 2002
Resource Management (Monitoring;
exotic plant eradication)
Routine facilities maintenance
Educational and Interpretive Programs
Total Annual Operational Costs
37,500.00
400.00
$1,500.00
6,500.00
$ 10,000.00
2,500.00
$58,400.00
$10,000.00
25,000.00
10,000.00
5,000.00
500.00
2,000.00
15,000.00
250.00
$67,750.00
5126,150.00
54,000.00
1,000.00
3,000.00
58,000.00
Funding Sources: Environmental Lands Acquisition Bond Program,
County Mitigation Accounts, County Tree Removal Violations Accounts,
County Parks Division Operations Budget, DHR Grants Programs, Indian
River County Historical Society, Volunteers and Donations.
Funding Sources: County and Parks Division Capital Improvements
Budget, DHR Grants, Indian River County Historical Society, Volunteers
and Donations materials or labor from individuals or businesses in the
local area.
FCT Draft
24
-25-
i0
Chief Environmental Planner and staff advisor to the Land Acquisitions Advisory
Committee Roland DeBlois stated that this property is located just north of Vero Beach
Highlands and is surrounded by a 5 -acre property owned by the Indian River County
Historical Society which contains the Hallstrom house now fisted on the National Register
of Historic Places. This purchase will be 75% funded by Florida Communities Trust but the
County will have 100% title to the property. The estimated total bond expenditure will be
$477,000. There are some historic outbuildings associated with the farmstead and the house
is on the National Register of Historic Places and will be a real plus for the County. While
the site has historic aspects, there are also environmentally significant portions, particularly
25 acres of pine scrub which does equal and exceed 25% of the project cost. He also noted
that the property will receive points from the state regarding the County's stormwater plan.
The purchase price equals 86% of the appraised value of the land and will benefit the
County's implementation of its Comprehensive Plan. This property offers a unique
opportunity in that the Historical Society has a presence on the site and has regular
visitations to their property which includes an on-site museum. The County can enter a
cooperative effort with that organization to assist in the management plan for the property.
FCT requires a conceptual management plan which has been developed, reviewed and
endorsed by the LAAC. There will be a separate parking area with restrooms just to the
north of the house and trails will lead to the natural areas Staff hopes to cut management
costs substantially through the use of volunteers.
Commissioner Ginn questioned the emergency addition of this property, and Mr.
DeBlois noted that it was added on July 1st because of an imminent sale.
Mr DeBlois continued that this property will be a part of the conceptual stormwater
plan and the greenway plan. The Lateral J canal runs adjacent to the property and there is
JULY 16, 2002
-26-
n � ;113
nr(�. '1
• •
an opportunity to tie into the greenway to the north. He then pointed out that because of the
listing on the National Register there is an opportunity for the project to qualify for a special
category of funding up to S500,000 which would take care of the entire capital outlay, not
the ongoing operations but the trails and other accessories.
Commissioner Ginn expressed her concern about the deduction of $603,650 from the
total LAAC balance of $11,057,386 when there is a possibility of purchasing the Lost Tree
Islands at S8,000,000, leaving only a small balance in the funds. She felt that this possibly
could be too far afield from the original goal for the LAAC funds.
Mr. DeBlois emphasized that the management costs would all be obtained from other
sources and should not be deducted from the LAAC funds.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard
regarding this matter.
Jim Granse, 36 Pine Arbor Lane, a concerned citizen and a member ofthe Taxpayers
Association and the Land Acquisition Advisory Committee, felt this property should not be
funded with LAAC dollars.
Anna Jackson, Executive Director of the Indian River County Historical Society,
stated she is the caretaker at the Hallstrom house. This is a historical property and includes
a cultural landscape with a sensitive scrub area and wildlife. The Society has pictures of the
Hallstrom family which show how they lived and hunted on the property. We have many
volunteers from the community as well as school groups such as Highlands Elementary
School. This is a wonderful example of historical and environmental conservation.
JULY 16, 2002
-27-
Y L.
Chip Landers, 1295 45th Court SW, representing the Hallstrom family, noted that
the County is considering this property on an emergency basis because there is a pending
contract. Should the County not purchase the property, it will be sold and developed.
The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to be heard regarding this matter. There
being none, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Macht commented that the LAAC criteria includes environmentally
and recreationally significant lands, as well as lands which require restoration. This property
certainly qualifies for restoration as it is scarred from recreational vehicles. We also need
to consider that this property will be helpful in the recharge of the aquifer. 2003 will be the
200t' anniversary of the purchase of Pelican Island Refuge, which was considered
to be an unconstitutional action at the time it was purchased. Who would want to reverse
that decision? Government does have some latitude with spending monies in these areas
Also, we have set aside $8,000,000 for the purchase of the Lost Tree Islands which have no
historical or environmental significance and will have to be totally cleaned and restored.
These judgments are made on a totality of the factors involved.
Commissioner Ginn questioned whether the historical category had been added to the
LAAC Guide, and Mr. DeBlois responded that the wording has been approved but the
Guide needs to be codified.
Commissioner Ginn directed staff to be sure that gets done and commented that she
believed she would be pleased in 10 years that she voted for this purchase but she was
concerned about the expenditure of the funds.
JULY 16, 2002
-28-
EC
• •
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht,
SECO\DFD by Commissioner Adams, the Board
unanimously approved the conceptual management
plan and exercise of the Hallstrom Properties, Inc.
and St. Lucie Development Corporation option
contracts, and authorized staff to proceed with
closing on the subject properties in coordination
with the Florida Communities Trust, as
recommended by staff.
I (I /OS /M) COCCl/lit Ts
OPTION AGREEMENTS&RE ON FILE IN
THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
9.A.2. PUBLIC HEARING - ANSLEY PARK DEVELOPMENT
CORP. - REQUEST FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE AND PRELIMINARY
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PLAT APPROVAL
FOR ANSLEY PARK (Legislative)
PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF ADVERTISEMENT FOR HEARING IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK TO THE BOARD
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 8, 2002:
JULY 16, 2002
-29-
Li‘
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
ENT HEAD CONCURRENCE
R Bert M. Keating, AICP
Community Development ! irector
v
THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP
Planning Director
FROM: John W. McCoy, AICP 1 W
Senior Planner, Current Development
DATE: July 8, 2002
SUBJECT: Request for Planned Development (PD) Special Exception Use and Preliminary
PD Plan/Plat Approval for a Project to be Known as Ansley Park
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of July 16, 2002.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS:
Schulke, Bittle, & Stoddard, Inc., on behalf of Ansley Park Development Corp., is requesting
planned development (PD) special exception use and preliminary PD plan/plat approval for a project
to be known as `Ansley Park '. The site is located on the south side of 9`h Street S.W. (Oslo Road) in
the 3000 block, just east of Grovenor Estates and Sterling Lakes Estates. The applicant is requesting
PD approval to obtain waivers (reductions) in lot size, lot width, setbacks, and right-of-way width in
return for greater aesthetic amenities, wetlands preservation and increased tree preservation.
The project proposes 90 single-family detached homes on individual lots at an overall density of 1 79
units per acre. When this project was considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the plan
proposed 101 single family detached homes on individual lots at an overall density of 2 01 units per
acre. Since the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, the applicant has revised the plan to
reduce the number of lots and made additional changes to the plan which staff will detail in the
analysis.
Previously, a different applicant submitted a request to rezone the subject property from RS -3 to RS -
6. That request was denied by the Board of County Commissioners. Thus the property is still zoned
RS -3. Now, the present developer has filed for PD special exception use approval under the site's
RS -3 zoning in order to develop the property as proposed.
• Planning and Zoning Commission Action
At its regular meeting of June 13, 2002, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously
(6-0) to recommend conditional approval of the proposed PD special exception use request based on
a design with 101 single family lots, rather than the 90 lot design presently proposed. The action by
the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the preliminary PD plat design subject to the Board
of County Commissioner's action on the special exception use request.
JULY 16, 2002
-30-
I 5
30-
15
• •
As part of its action, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended changes to two conditions
in the staff report. One recommended Planning and Zoning Commission change was to eliminate
condition 4B which related to the requirement for the applicant to pave 31st Avenue SW or to
escrow his fairshare of the paving cost. The other Planning and Zoning Commission recommended
condition change was that the applicant be required to pave 13th Street SW from 27`h Avenue to the
project entrance and escrow funds corresponding to the cost of paving 13th Street S.W. from the
project entrance to 31st Avenue S W., rather than paving the entire segment.
Since the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, staff has modified its recommendations to be
consistent with the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendations. More detail on project
design and recommended conditions is presented in the analysis section.
The Board is now to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the special exception use request.
Pursuant to Section 971.05 of the LDRs the Board is to consider the appropriateness of the
requested use for the subject site and surrounding area. The Board may attach any conditions and
safeguards necessary to mitigate and to ensure compatibility of the use with the surrounding area.
• PD Project Process
The process involved in review and approval of the subject PD application is as follows:
Approval Needed Reviewing_ Body
1. Conceptual Plan/Special Exception PZC & BCC
?• Preliminary PD Plan/Plat PZC
>• Land Development Perinit (LDP) or Waiver Staff
Final PD (plat)
BCC
The applicant is now requesting approval of the first two steps. If the request is approved by the
Board of County Commissioners, the applicant will need to obtain an LDP or LDP waiver from the
Public Works department for the design of required PD improvements.
ANALYSIS:
Note: The design considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission proposed 101 single family
lots versus the present proposal of 90 single family lots. Various lot width and other minor design
changes also differentiate the Planning and Zoning approved plan from the present proposal. Where
design changes have occurred, staff will „
1. Size of PD Area:
48.12 acres
2. Zoning Classifications: RS -3, Residential Single -Family (up to 3 units/acre)
3. Land Use Designations:
L-2, Low Density Residential 2 (up to 6 units/acre)
4. Phasing: The project is proposed to be constructed in one phase.
5. Density:
6. Open Space:
JULY 16, 2002
Overall Site: Maximum Allowed:
Presently proposed:
3 units/acre (144 units)
OI w<its/acre (IOI writs)
1.79 units/acre (90 units)
Required: 40% (17.40 acres)
Provided: 57.3% (27.59 acres)
-31-
Note: Includes common green areas and recreation tracts, pedestrian ways, credit as provided
for in the LDRs for 4.73 acres of lake area, and minimum of 30% open space on each lot.
7. Recreation Area and Pedestrian Improvements: The proposed project satisfies the PD
ordinance recreation area requirements as follows:
Required Recreation Area:
Provided Recreation Area:
1.21 acres
1.41 acres (includes recreation/park tracts and pedestrian
systems)
The PD plan proposes an internal pedestrian system consisting of a 4' wide sidewalk along
one side of the project's roadways. Pedestrian improvements also include access' to the
recreation tracts The proposed internal pedestrian system will connect to an external
sidewalk to be constructed on 13th Street S.W , and to the project's Oslo Road entrance.
8. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North* Sub -lateral Canal, 9th Street (Oslo Road), Shopping Center, Vacant/CG
South: 13th Street S.W., Sub -lateral Canal The ColonyPD/PD
East: Mobile Home Park, Single Family, Vacant/RS-3 CL
West: 31' Avenue S.W., Grovenor Estates, Sterling Lake Estates, RS -3
9. Traffic Circulation: The development will be accessed from 13th Street S.W. and 9th Street
S.W (Oslo Road). Access from 13th Street S.W. is required and considered the primary
access, since 13th Street S.W. (a collector road) is a lower functional classification roadway
than Oslo Road (an arterial road). The access to 13th Street S.W. will be a full movement
roadway connection and will necessitate the paving of 13th Street S.W. from the project
entrance to 27th Avenue S.W. The applicant has agreed to pave 13th Street S.W. to the
project entrance.
Access to 9th Street S.W. (Oslo Road) will be right -in, nght-out, and le$ -in movements only.
All lots will be accessed from internal private local roads to be constructed with the
development. The local internal road system will connect 9th Street S.W. to 13th Street S.W.
Traffic Engineering has reviewed and approved both the internal circulation plan and the
project traffic impact statement submitted by the applicant's traffic consultant. The results of
the approved traffic impact analysis indicate that there are no required off-site traffic
improvements, other than the referenced road paving required with this project, and none are
proposed.
10. Stormwater Management: The public works department has approved the conceptual
stouuwater management plan and will review the detailed stormwater management plan with
the land development permit. The stormwater management system proposes to use three
inter -connected lakes which will outfall to the sub -lateral canal located along the south side
of 13th Street S W
11. Utilities: The site is required to connect to County water and sewer services, and the
applicant proposes to connect. These utility provisions have been approved by the County
Department of Utility Services and the Department of Health
JULY 16, 2002
-32-
7
• •
12. Dedication and Improvements:
• Right -of -Way :
- 13th Street S.W.: Presently, there is 30' of right-of-way existing for 13th Street S.W.,
with the county Thoroughfare Plan requiring an ultimate width of 90'. To create the 60'
minimum local road right-of-way width, the applicant will dedicate 30' to the county,
without compensation. The local road right-of-way needs to be dedicated prior to or via
final plat approval. The plan accommodates acquisition of the additional 30' for the
Thoroughfare Plan right-of-way. This additional 30' of right-of-way will be acquired
outside of the development review process.
- 31st Avenue S.W.: Presently there is 35' of right-of-way for 31St Avenue S W., which is
a local road requiring 60' of right-of-way. The applicant is dedicating an additional 25',
without compensation, to create the minimum 60' of local road right-of-way. The
additional 25' of right-of-way will need to be dedicated prior to or via the final plat
• Paving 13`h Street S. W : Since access to 13th Street S.W. is required, the applicant must
pave 13th Street S.W. from the nearest paved public road (27th Avenue S.W.) to the
project's 13th Street S.W. entrance and escrow his fairshare for paving the remainder. The
applicant has been working with Public Works to design the improvement, and had
proposed paving past the project entrance to 315t Avenue S.W. At the Planning and
Zoning Commission public hearing, however, residents from Grovenor Estates objected
to the paving of 13th Street S.W. to 31st Avenue S W. Consequently, the Planning and
Zoning Commission's recommendation calls for the applicant to pave 13th Street S.W
from 27th Avenue S.W. to the project entrance and escrow the cost of paving the
remainder of 13th Street S.W. to 31st Avenue S.W. Since the Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting, staff has modified its recommendation to be consistent with the
Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation. The paving of 13th Street S.W.
from 27th Avenue S.W. to the project entrance and the escrow of funds must be complete
prior to the issuance of a certificate of completion for the subdivision.
• Paving 3151 Avenue S.W. Since 31st Avenue S.W. is a half street that the applicant is not
proposing to access, the LDRs do not require paving or the escrow of the applicant's
fairshare of the paving cost. Through the PD process, however, the Board of County
Commissioners has the authority to require the developer to provide for all or part of the
paving of 31st Avenue S.W.
As part of the PD development review process, staff infolnied the developer that he would
be responsible for escrowing his fairshare of the cost of paving of 31st Avenue S.W. As
an alternative, the applicant proposed to enter into a developer's agreement to provide for
the paving of 31st Avenue S.W. At the Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing,
area residents strenuously objected to the paving of 31st Avenue S W Because of those
objections, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to recommend that the Board of
County Commissioners not require the paving or escrow for paving of 31st Avenue, S.W
Staff has since changed its recommendation to correspond to the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendation.
Staff's initial proposal to require the applicant to pave 31st Avenue S.W. or escrow his
fairshare of the paving did not relate to Ansley Park residents using 31st Avenue S.W. It
is not anticipated that any project tnps will use that roadway. Instead staff's rationale was
that, through an escrow condition, the applicant could be required to pay his proportionate
share of the cost of paving. If the Ansley Park project is approved as proposed with no
project access from 31st Avenue S.W., there would be no opportunity in the future to get a
JULY 16, 2002
-33-
petition paving project approved for 31" Avenue S.W., since Ansley Park residents would
not benefit from the paving of 31S` Avenue S.W. and therefore would not be required to
pay for a share of the 3151 Avenue S.W. paving.
• Sidewalks: The previously described internal project sidewalks will be located within
private right-of-way and common areas and will be owned and maintained by a private
property owners association. In addition, a 5 wide public sidewalk will be built or
bonded for along the site's 13`h Street S.W. frontage prior to issuance of a certificate of
completion.
• Street Lights. Streetlights will be provided at all street entrances, intersections, and
curves and will be owned and maintained by a private property owners association.
• Stormwater and Recreation Tracts: Stormwater tracts, easements, and recreation tracts
will be the responsibility of a private property owners association.
• Murphy Act Easement: There is a Murphy Act Easement which covers a portion of the
site's north end, adjacent to 9th Street S.W. (Oslo Road) Since the County does not
want to acquire any9`h Street S.W. (Oslo Road) right-of-way from the site, Public Works
supports release of the Murphy Act Easement for this site. Because the Murphy Act
Easement covers an area proposed for green space, the easement will need to be released
prior to issuance of an LDP.
13. Environmental Issues:
• Wetlands: The site contains 4.96 acres ofjurisdictional wetlands, the majority of which
are located in the southeast comer of the project. The applicant is proposing to impact
(fill) two of the site's small isolated wetlands totaling 0.68 acres and mitigate that impact
on-site by placing conservation easements over the larger 3.83 acre wetland located in the
southeast corner of the site and a small isolated wetland located along the site's west
border. The conservation easements will need to be established prior to or via the final
plat. In addition, the applicant will need to obtain all junsdictional pennits for the
wetlands mitigation prior to issuance of an LDP Required mitigation must be completed
prior to issuance of a certificate of completion.
Native Upland Setaside• Since the site is over 5 acres and contains native uplands, the
native upland setaside regulations apply to this site. The majority of the site (33.68 out of
48.12 acres) is native upland habitat. To satisfy the 5.05 acre (15%) setaside requirement
the applicant proposes to establish 5.53 acres (16.41%) of uplands conservation
easements over various tracts within the project.
Since many of the proposed upland tracts are 30' deep and are adjacent to rear yards,
environmental planning staff is requiring that a fence or other barrier be placed between
the lots and the conservation tract during construction of the subdivision improvements.
The fence or barrier design will need to be approved prior to issuance of an LDP.
• Tree Preservation: On the site, there are a number of protected and "specimen" trees
which the applicant is working to save All protected and specimen trees within the
proposed buffer and preservation areas are to be preserved. Some of the waiver requests
are designed to save trees on individual lots. In an effort to preserve trees, the applicant is
proposing to micro -site individual homes on lots and has provided a tree survey exhibit
which details which lots have protected oak trees and will be subject to special tree
preservation efforts This exhibit will be used through the subdivision and single family
home review and construction processes to ensure that trees are preserved on those
specific lots.
JULY 16, 2002
-34-
•
There are several other P D projects, including Kenwood Village and the Oaks of Vero,
which have employed similar tree preservation/micro siting techniques. The techniques
used for Ansley Park will be slightly different due to the density of trees on certain lots.
For Ansley Park the applicant has committed to saving as many trees as possible on the
individual lots.
14. Waivers: The PD plan proposes to reduce the minimum lot size from the RS -3 zoning
district required 12,000 square feet to 9,000 square feet. The PD plan also proposes to reduce
the minimum lot width from 80' to 75', the minimum right-of-way from width 50' to 40 the
minimum front and rear yard setbacks from 25' to 20', and the minimum side yard setback
from 15' to 7.5 . These requested waivers are mitigated by proposed buffers, conservation
tracts, increased minimum open space, common recreational amenities, and increased tree
preservation. In addition, the parameters are generally consistent with the adjacent Grovenor
Estates development. It should be noted that the land use for the site is L-2, which allows up
to 6 units/acre; however, the subject and surrounding residential sites are all zoned RS -3 (up
to 3 units/acre) The Grovenor Estates lots, as platted, do not meet RS -3 size and dimension
requirements. Therefore, under the LDRs, the less stringent RS -6 setbacks apply
The project density of 1.79 units per acre is consistent with modern conventional (non -PD)
RS -3 subdivisions. These generally range in density from 1.5 to 2.6 units per acre depending
upon how stoiuiwater management is designed. In this case, the applicant's design trades
some lot area for common area (preservation areas and perimeter buffers). With a
conventional (non -PD) RS -3 subdivision, the common area would instead be part of
individual lots. The result would be bigger lots but less common area — although the density
would be the same under either option. Similar to the Kenwood Village PD design, this plan
incorporates perimeter buffers which provide a compatibility measure to compensate for the
smaller lots on the perimeter. In essence, the applicant's design does not spread the 1.79
units/acre over as much land as a conventional (non -PD) RS -3 subdivision would, but
provides a more compact developed area. The preservation area, perimeter buffers and
density of 1.79 units/acre provide a development design which is compatible with the
adjacent area.
The requested waivers are summarized and compared in the table below:
JULY 16, 2002
-3J-
•
RS -3 Minimum Standard
Proposed Ansley Park
Minimum Standard
Lot Size
12,000 sq. ft.
9,000 sq.ft.
8,040 sq. ft
Lot Width
80 ft.
75'
66 ft
Front and Rear Yard Setback
25 ft. (Grovenor Estates uses
20 ft.)
20 ft.
Side Yard Setback
15 ft. (Grovenor Estates uses
10 ft.)
7.5 ft.
Perimeter Setback and Buffer
25 ft. No buffer required.
(Grovenor Estates uses 20 ft.)
30 ft. perimeter conservation
Buffering by Type "C" and
'B" buffers.
Right -of -Way
50 ft. curb and gutter
40 ft. curb and gutter *
JULY 16, 2002
-3J-
•
*Note: The applicant is proposing a 40' wide right-of-way with 10 utility and drainage easements
on either side of the right-of-way. This will form a 60' road and utility corridor and act like a
conventional 60' wide local road right-of-way. This arrangement allows for al] necessary
infrastructure improvements and has been approved in other PD projects.
15. Buffers and Setbacks: Buffering is required and proposed as follows:
These buffer provisions meet or exceed normal LDR and PD buffer requirements. Most of
the buffering will be done through the preservation of existing vegetation and infill planting,
were necessary, to meet the buffer criteria. Final, detailed landscape plans for required
buffers, common areas, and recreation/park tracts must be submitted to planning staff and
approved prior to land development permit issuance.
16. Concurrency : The applicant has committed to obtaining a final concurrency certificate prior
to issuance of each single-family building permit and has acknowledged all concurrency
requirements. Therefore, all concurrency requirements related to PD plan and special
exception use approval have been satisfied.
17. Caribbean Fruit Fly Host Plant: The County Comprehensive Plan requires that Caribbean
fruit fly host plants be prohibited within PDs located in general areas that have active citrus
groves. This project is located in such an area; therefore, the prohibition regulation applies
The applicant has indicated that he has no objection to creating a restriction that would
prohibit host plants on the subject property. Such restriction must be included in the
project's covenants and restrictions which will be reviewed at the time of fmal plat
application as an attachment.
18. Public Benefits: The benefits of the development are the proposed buffers conservation
tracts, increased minimum open space, common recreational amenities, increased tree
preservation and a pedestrian system. A public benefit statement from the applicant has been
attached (see attachment #4).
JULY 16, 2002
-36-
Perimeter
Minimum Required PD
Buffer
Proposed Buffer
East
Type "C" buffer (10' wide)
with 25' wide building
setback for home.
Type "C" buffer (30' wide
conservation area)
West (adjacent to residential)
Type ' C ' buffer (10' wide)
with 25' wide building
setback for home.
Type "B" buffer (30'wide
conservation area).
North (adjacent to Sub -lateral
Canal)
Type "C" buffer (10' wide)
with 25' wide building
setback for home.
Type "C" buffer with berm
and landscape to provide 6'
opaque feature within the
100' deep landscape Tract.
South (adjacent to
Commercial)
Type "C" buffer (10' wide)
with 25' wide building
setback for home
Type "C" buffer (30' wide
conservation area).
These buffer provisions meet or exceed normal LDR and PD buffer requirements. Most of
the buffering will be done through the preservation of existing vegetation and infill planting,
were necessary, to meet the buffer criteria. Final, detailed landscape plans for required
buffers, common areas, and recreation/park tracts must be submitted to planning staff and
approved prior to land development permit issuance.
16. Concurrency : The applicant has committed to obtaining a final concurrency certificate prior
to issuance of each single-family building permit and has acknowledged all concurrency
requirements. Therefore, all concurrency requirements related to PD plan and special
exception use approval have been satisfied.
17. Caribbean Fruit Fly Host Plant: The County Comprehensive Plan requires that Caribbean
fruit fly host plants be prohibited within PDs located in general areas that have active citrus
groves. This project is located in such an area; therefore, the prohibition regulation applies
The applicant has indicated that he has no objection to creating a restriction that would
prohibit host plants on the subject property. Such restriction must be included in the
project's covenants and restrictions which will be reviewed at the time of fmal plat
application as an attachment.
18. Public Benefits: The benefits of the development are the proposed buffers conservation
tracts, increased minimum open space, common recreational amenities, increased tree
preservation and a pedestrian system. A public benefit statement from the applicant has been
attached (see attachment #4).
JULY 16, 2002
-36-
•
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the above analysis, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners rant PD
special exception use approval for "Ansley Park ', with the following conditions•
1. That Caribbean fruit fly host plants are prohibited within the project area.
2. That prior to the issuance of a land development permit, the developer shall:
a• Obtain release of the Murphy Act Easement, and
b. Provide a fence or barrier, that is acceptable to environmental planning staff,
between the lots and conservation area, and
c. Obtain planning division approval of detailed, final landscape plans for the
proposed buffers, common areas, and recreation/park tracts, and
d. Obtain planning staff approval of a detailed tree preservation plan, and
Obtain planning staff approval of the tree preservation plan including a
graphic exhibit, as described in item #13 of this report.
3. That prior to or via the final plat, the developer shall:
a. Dedicate the depicted upland and wetland conservation easements, and
b• Install the depicted and approved perimeter buffer(s), and
c• Place a restriction on the property that prohibits the planting of Caribbean
fruit fly host plants.
d• Dedicate without compensation the site's share of the local road right-of-way
for 13th Street S.W. and 31' Avenue S.W.
That prior to issuance of a certificate of completion, the applicant shall pave 13`h
Street S.W. from 27th Avenue S.W. to the project entrance, construct or bond the
sidewalk along the project's 13`h Street S.W. frontage, and escrow his fairshare for
paving the remainder of the site's 13th Street SW. frontage.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Application
2• Location Map
3. Proposed Preliminary PD Plans & Graphics
4. Plat considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission
5. Oslo Road Landscape Berm Cross-section
6. Letter provided by Applicant
7. Partial Tree Survey over proposed preliminary plat
8. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
JULY 16, 2002
-37-
•
1
1
J
3r
P
+I
I
a
x
1
4
rn
I
n
I
Pa
M
of
W
13
3r
71
+I
-rr
W
1
L
H
4
* ! W
I! 11.-.i
Pa
M
of
W
..,
.
Y
1
13
■
71
+I
SR
W
K
is
1.11
* ! W
I! 11.-.i
AT TA CHMEKI
•
Planning Director Stan Boling noted that the developer is proposing some change to
the plans submitted to P&Z Everything will remain the same with the exception of the
number of lots and density which the developer is proposing to reduce. The plan presented
to P&Z contained 101 lots and the plan now contains only 90 lots which brings the density
down to 1.79 units per acre. The block adjacent to Grovenor Estates contained 12 lots and
now contains only 10 lots. When 31st Avenue is paved in the future, the cost will come
solely from Grovenor Estates. The recommendation is for this developer not to participate
in the paving of 31st Avenue and to pave 13th Street from 27th Avenue only to the entrance
of this development. Staff is also recommending the deletion of Item 2(d) from the
recommendations and changing Item 2(e) to read "a final detailed tree preservation plan".
Commissioner Ginn questioned the stormwater areas, and Director Boling responded
that the entrance off Oslo Road contains the landscape berm all along the Oslo Road
frontage, then the stormwater tract, and then the first lots. By making the landscaping a part
of the entrance to the development, we are more assured of the maintenance of the
landscaping.
Commissioner Ginn wanted to be certain that all stormwater tracts contain access for
cleaning, and Director Boling noted that the requirement is a minimum 15 -foot easement for
maintenance. There is also a requirement that the developer connect to County water and
sewer.
Director Boling responded to questioning from Commissioner Adams regarding
protected trees, that a lot of care is being taken to preserve the trees.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in
this matter.
JULY 16, 2002
-39-
•
Bob Johnson, 535 39th Court SW, questioned whether the residents of this
development would be allowed to go west on Oslo from their entrance, and Director Boling
responded that they cannot go west from that entrance because of the distance to the 27th
Avenue intersection.
Susie Schuble, 1205 SW 33`d Avenue in Grovenor Estates, 'expressed her
appreciation to the developer for downsizing the project. Her main concern was for the
wildlife in the area and she believed that this will help. She also mentioned that a bobcat
had recently been seen in Grovenor Estates and questioned whether there were someone who
could capture and relocate this cat.
Chairman Stanbridge stated that bobcats have a range of about 15 miles and they will
find their own safe harbor.
Mark Brackett, 1915 34th Avenue, thanked Director Boling and his staff for their
work on this project, and requested that the developer be allowed an option of either paving
or escrowing the money for paving of 13th Street SW to 27th Avenue.
Chairman Stanbridge then asked that a letter from Donna Rutledge, 1276 32nd
Avenue SW, be entered into the record expressing her concerns over development and
traffic in the area (LETTER IS ON FILE WITH THF BACKUP FOR TODAY'S
MEETING).
George Mahoney, 3220 10th Street SW, thought the homes were too close together
and did not agree that the paving of 31' Avenue should be the responsibility of the Grovenor
Estates residents. He also mentioned that he had seen 2 panthers in the area.
JULY 16, 2002
-40-
0v
•
The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to be heard with regard to this matter.
There being none, she closed the public hearing.
JULY 16, 2002
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED
by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously
granted special exception use approval for "Ansley
Park" with the following conditions: (1) that
Caribbean fruit fly host plants are prohibited within
the project area; (2) that prior to the issuance of a
land development permit, the developer shall (a)
obtain release of the Murphy Act Easement, (b)
provide a fence or barrier that is acceptable to
environmental planning staff between the lots and
conservation area, (c) obtain planning division
approval of detailed final landscape plans for the
proposed buffers, common areas, and
recreation/park tracts, (d) obtain planning staff
and (e)
obtain planning staff approval of a final detailed the
tree preservation plan including a graphic exhibit as
described in Item #13 of staff's report; (3) that prior
to or via the final plat, the developer shall: (a)
dedicate the depicted upland and wetland
conservation easements, (b) install the depicted and
approved perimeter buffer(s), (c) place a restriction
-41-
•
on the property that prohibits the planting of
Caribbean fruit fly host plants, and (d) dedicate
without compensation the site's share of the local
road right-of-way for 13th Street SW and 31st
Avenue SW; and (4) that prior to issuance of a
certificate of completion, the applicant shall pave
13th Street SW from 27th Avenue SW to the project
entrance, construct or bond the sidewalk along the
project's 13th Street SW frontage and pave or escrow
his fairshare for the remainder of the site's 13th
Street SW frontage; with the corrections noted.
9.A.3. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE 2002-023 AMENDING
THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ACCOMPANYING
ZONING MAP FOR 17.9 ACRES LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHWEST CORDER OF 33RD STREET AND 66TH
AVENUE FROM A-1 TO RS -6 (SIDNEY BANACK) (Quasi -
Judicial)
PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF ADVERTISEMENT FOR HEARING IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK TO THE BOARD
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 3, 2002:
JULY 16, 2002
-42-
n
TO: James E. Chandler; County Administrator
NT, HEAD CONCURRENCE
Robeft M. eating, AICP; Com unity Deve o ment Director
THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICP; Chief, Long -Range P anning •
FROM: Randy Deshazo; Planner, Long -Range P anning'
DATE: July 3, 2002
RE' Sidney Banack's request to rezone 17.9 acres from A-1 to RS -6 (RZON 2002-
04 0022)
It is requested that the following infoimation be given founal consideration by the Board of
County Commissioners at its regular meeting of July 16, 2002.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
This request is to rezone 17 9 acres from A-1, Agricultural District (up to 1 unit/5 acres), to RS -
6, Single -Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre) The subject property is located at the
southwest corner of 33`d Street and 66th Avenue. The purpose of this request is to secure the
zoning necessary to develop the site at a density consistent with the allowed density of its
comprehensive plan land use designation.
On May 23, 2002, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5 to 0 to recommend that the
Board of County Commissioners rezone the subject property to RS -6
Existing Land Use Pattern
Generally, this area of the county contains a mix of agricultural and residential uses. The subject
property and surrounding properties on the north, northeast, and west are zoned A-1, and contain
citrus groves. Properties to the west and northeast contain single-family residences Further
northeast is the Oak Chase subdivision. Land to the east of the subject property is zoned RS -3,
Single -Family Residential District (up to 3 »nits/acre), and contains a single-family residence
and abandoned groves. Land to the south is zoned RS -6 and contains active citrus groves.
JULY 16, 2002
-43-
•
Future Land Use Pattern
Land along the south side of 33rd Street, including the entire subject property and land abutting
the subject property on the south and east, is designated L-2, Low -Density Residential -2, on the
county Future Land Use Map. The L-2 designation permits residential uses with densities up to
6 units/acre. Land to the north of the subject property is designated as AG -1, Agriculture -1 (up
to 1 unit/5 acres), on the Future Land Use Map and lies outside the Urban Service Area. Land
abutting the subject property on the west and northeast is designated L-1, Low -Density
Residential -1, on the county Future Land Use Map. The L-1 designation permits residential uses
with densities up to 3 units/acre.
Environment
Being a citrus grove, the subject property is an altered site and is not designated as
environmentally important or environmentally sensitive by the comprehensive plan. No
wetlands or native upland habitat exist on site. 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. Wastewater service is available to the
site from the Central Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant, while potable water service is
available to the site from the South County Reverse Osmosis Plant.
Transportation System
The property's north boundary abuts 33rd Street. Classified as a collector road on the future
roadway thoroughfare plan map, this segment of 331d Street is a 2 -lane unpaved road with
approximately 30 feet of existing public road right-of-way. This segment of 33rd Street is not
currently programmed for expansion.
The property's east boundary abuts 66th Avenue. Classified as a rural major collector road on the
future roadway thoroughfare plan map, this segment of 66th Avenue is a 2 -lane paved road with
50 to 85 feet of existing public road right-of-way. This segment of 66th Avenue is currently
programmed for expansion to four lanes and 136 feet of public road right-of-way by 2020.
JULY 16, 2002
-44-
•
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 and Land Development Regulations (LDRs) also 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 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. For residential rezoning requests, the most intense use (according to the
County's 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 zoning. The site information used for
the concurrency analysis is as follows:
1. Size of Area to be Rezoned: 17.9 acres
2. Existing Zoning District. A-1, Agricultural District (up to 1 unit/5 acres)
3. Proposed Zoning District:
RS -6, Single -Family Residential District (up to 6
units/acres)
4. Most Intense Use of Subject Property
Under Existing Zoning District:
5. Most Intense Use of Subject Property
Under Proposed Zoning District:
Transportation
3 Single -Family Units
107 Single -Family Units
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 zoning district and assigns those
tnps 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.
JULY 16, 2002
-45-
•
According to the approved TLA, the existing level of service on impacted roadways would not be
lowered by the traffic generated by development of 107 single-family units on the subject
property.
Water
With the proposed zoning, the subject property could accommodate 107 residential units,
resulting in water consumption at a rate of 107 Equivalent Residential Units (ERU), or 26,750
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 South County Reverse Osmosis Plant, which currently
has sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional demand generated by the proposed
rezoning.
Wastewater
Based upon the most intense use allowed under the proposed zoning, development of the
property will have a wastewater generation rate of approximately 107 Equivalent Residential
Units (ERU), or 26,750 gallons/day. This is based upon the level of service standard of 250
gallons/ERU/day County wastewater service is available to the site from the Central Regional
Wastewater Treatment Plant, which currently has sufficient capacity to accommodate the
additional wastewater generated by the subject request.
Solid Waste
Solid waste service includes pick-up by private operators and disposal at the county landfill. The
county's adopted level of service standard for Landfill capacity is 1.97 cubic yards/person/year.
With the county's average of approximately 2.3 persons/unit, a 107 unit residential development
would be anticipated to house approximately 246 people (2.3 X 107). 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 484.8 (246 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 2 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 zomng district.
Stormwater Management
All developments are reviewed for compliance with county stormwater regulations which require
on-site retention, preservation of floodplain storage and minimum finished floor elevations In
addition, development proposals must meet the discharge requirements of the county Stormwater
Management Ordinance. Since the site is located within the M-1 Drainage Basin and the Indian
River Farms Water Control District (IRFWCD), development on the property will be prohibited
from discharging any runoff in excess of two inches in a twenty-four hour period, which is the
approved IRFWCD discharge 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. Based upon staff's analysis, the stormwater management level of service
standard would be met by limiting off-site discharge to the IRFWCD's maximum discharge rate
of two inches in twenty-four hours, and requiring retention of 341,048 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.
JULY 16, 2002
Recreation
A review of county recreation facilities and the projected demand that would result from the
most intense development that could occur on the property under the proposed zoning district
indicates that the adopted levels of service would be maintained. The table below illustrates the
additional park demand associated with the proposed development of the property and the
existing surplus acreage.
Concurrency Summary
Based upon the analysis conducted, staff has determined that all concurrency -mandated facilities,
including stormwater management, roads, solid waste, recreation, water, and wastewater, have
adequate capacity to accommodate the most intense use of the subject property under the
proposed zoning district. Therefore, the concurrency test has been satisfied for the subject
request.
Consistency with Comprehensive Plan
Rezoning requests are reviewed for consistency with all applicable policies of the comprehensive
plan. Rezomngs must also be consistent with the overall designation of land uses as depicted on
the Future Land Use Map, which include agriculture, residential, recreation, conservation, and
commercial and industnal 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. While all comprehensive plan
policies are important, some have more applicability than others in reviewing rezoning requests.
Of particular applicability for this request are the following objectives and policies.
Future Land Use Element Objective 1
Future Land Use Element Objective 1 states that the county will have a compact land use pattern
which reduces urban sprawl By allowing the site to be developed in a manner that is consistent
with the site's land use designation, the request allows a more compact land use pattern within
the urban service area and reduces the chances that urban sprawl will occur. For these reasons,
the request is consistent with Future Land Use Element Objective 1.
Future Land Use Element Policies 1.11 and 1.12
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.12 states that the L-2, Low -Density Residential -2, land use
designation is intended for residential uses with densities up to 6 units/acre. In addition, Future
Land Use Element Policy 1.11 states that these residential uses must be located within the urban
service area.
Since the subject property is located within an area designated as L-2 on the county's Future
Land Use Map and is located within the county's urban service area, and the proposed zoning
districts would permit residential uses no greater than the 6 units/acre permitted by the L-2
designation, the proposed request is consistent with Policies 1.11 and 1.12.
JULY 16, 2002
Park Infoimation
LOS (Acres
per 1,000 Population)
Project
Demand (Acres)
Surplus Acreage
4.0
.98
1,164
Concurrency Summary
Based upon the analysis conducted, staff has determined that all concurrency -mandated facilities,
including stormwater management, roads, solid waste, recreation, water, and wastewater, have
adequate capacity to accommodate the most intense use of the subject property under the
proposed zoning district. Therefore, the concurrency test has been satisfied for the subject
request.
Consistency with Comprehensive Plan
Rezoning requests are reviewed for consistency with all applicable policies of the comprehensive
plan. Rezomngs must also be consistent with the overall designation of land uses as depicted on
the Future Land Use Map, which include agriculture, residential, recreation, conservation, and
commercial and industnal 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. While all comprehensive plan
policies are important, some have more applicability than others in reviewing rezoning requests.
Of particular applicability for this request are the following objectives and policies.
Future Land Use Element Objective 1
Future Land Use Element Objective 1 states that the county will have a compact land use pattern
which reduces urban sprawl By allowing the site to be developed in a manner that is consistent
with the site's land use designation, the request allows a more compact land use pattern within
the urban service area and reduces the chances that urban sprawl will occur. For these reasons,
the request is consistent with Future Land Use Element Objective 1.
Future Land Use Element Policies 1.11 and 1.12
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.12 states that the L-2, Low -Density Residential -2, land use
designation is intended for residential uses with densities up to 6 units/acre. In addition, Future
Land Use Element Policy 1.11 states that these residential uses must be located within the urban
service area.
Since the subject property is located within an area designated as L-2 on the county's Future
Land Use Map and is located within the county's urban service area, and the proposed zoning
districts would permit residential uses no greater than the 6 units/acre permitted by the L-2
designation, the proposed request is consistent with Policies 1.11 and 1.12.
JULY 16, 2002
Future Land Use Element Policy 2.2
Future Land Use Element Policy 2.2 states that the county shall encourage and direct growth into
the urban service area through zoning and LDRs. Since the proposed rezoning would allow and
encourage more development on the subject property, and the subject property is within the
urban service area the request implements Future Land Use Element Policy 2 2.
Transportation Element Objective 11 and Policy 11.1
Transportation Element Objective 11 and Policy 11.1 state that the county will increase densities
in the urbanized area and along major transportation corridors in order to facilitate future mass
transit provision. Since the proposed rezoning will increase the allowed density along and near
several major transportation corridors this request implements Transportation Element Objective
11 and Policy 11.1.
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, staffs position is that the
request is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Compatibility with the Surrounding Area
Staff's position is that the requested zoning district is appropriate for the site and that
development under this zoning district would be compatible with surrounding land uses.
Because land directly south of the subject property is zoned RS -6, the request is for a
continuation of an existing single-family residential zoning pattern. Land to the east of the
subject property, across 66th Avenue, is also zoned single-family residential. Although currently
undeveloped and zoned RS -3, that property is separated from the subject property by 66th
Avenue. Consequently, the proposed RS -6 zoning would not be incompatible with that site.
Similarly, incompatibilities between the subject property and adjacent A-1 zoned land are not
anticipated. Land to the west is within the urban service area, is designated L-1, and is expected
to be eventually converted to residential uses.
To the north, the property is zoned A-1 and lies outside the urban service area. Since the urban
service area line delineates the boundary between urban type development and agricultural uses,
the line establishes an interface between residential uses and agricultural uses. At a
residential/agncultural interface, there is a need to closely consider compatibility issues.
In this case, 33rd Street separates the subject property from the agricultural area to the north.
Increasing that separation even more is an Indian River Farms Water Control District canal
located on the south side of 33rd Street. With both the roadway and canal, sixty feet of right-of-
way separate the subject property from the agricultural land to the north. Since the county's land
development regulations require a minimum front yard setback of twenty feet, the minimum
separation between urban and agricultural uses will be eighty feet in this area. That separation
distance should minimize noise, spray drift, and other potential agricultural impacts on the
subject property.
Generally accepted planning principles dictate that there be a clear separation between urban and
rural uses. This rezoning will ensure that. By establishing the RS -6 zoning line consistent with
the L-2 land use designation line, 33rd Street and the adjacent canal will constitute the clear
separation between urban and rural uses and will provide the necessary setback/buffer to
minimize impacts.
JULY 16, 2002
-48-
{
•
With respect to zoning, the county's policy has always been to retain agricultural zoning on
property rather than changing it when the underlying land use designation changes. This not
only reflects the county's policy of using agricultural zoning within the urban service area as a
"holding" category, but also recognizes that urbanization occurs incrementally with various
tracts remaining agricultural for longer periods.
Two factors, however, indicate that an urban type of zoning district would be appropriate for this
portion of the county. The first factor is the underlying designation on the Future Land Use
Map. This area is within the urban service area and is deemed appropriate for residential
development with densities of up to 6 units/acre.
Equally important is the development pattern in that portion of the county. Located near a C/I
node, a regional mall, Dodgertown, and Vero Beach Municipal Airport, the site is within a fast
growing corridor. Additionally, that area has convenient access to the county's transportation
system. These factors indicate a trend toward continued urbanization in that portion of the
county
For these reasons, staff feels that the requested RS -6 zoning district would be compatible with
development in the surrounding area.
Potential Impact 011 Environmental Quality
The environmental impacts of development on the subject property are not a major concern.
Being a citrus grove, the site has been altered and contains no environmentally important land,
such as wetlands or sensitive uplands. For those reasons, no adverse environmental impacts
associated with this request are anticipated.
CONCLUSION
Based on the analysis, staff has determined that the requested zoning district is compatible with
surrounding areas, is consistent with the comprehensive plan, meets all concurrency criteria, will
have no negative impacts on environmental quality, and meets all applicable rezoning criteria
Most importantly, the subject property is located in an area deemed suited for low-density single-
family uses. For these reasons, staff supports the request.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the analysis conducted, the Planning and Zoning Commission and staff recommend
that the Board of County Commissioners rezone the subject property from A-1 to RS -6 by
approving the attached ordinance.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Summary Page
2. Rezoning Application
3. Approved minutes of the May 23, 2002, meeting of the Planning and Zoning
Commission
4. Ordinance
JULY 16, 2002
-49-
r;�
•
SUMMARY PAGE
GENERAL
Applicant Sidney Banack
Location: Southwest corner of 33rd Street and 66th Avenue
Acreage: 17.9
Land Use Designation: L-2, Low -Density Residential -2 (up to 6 units/acres)
Existing Zoning: A-1, Agricultural District (up to 1 unit/5 acres)
Requested Zoning: RS -6, Single -Family Residential District (up to
units/acre)
Existing Land Use: Citrus grove
ADJACENT LAND
North, East and West: Citrus groves zoned A-1 or RS -3, Single -Family
Residential District (up to 3 units/acre)
South: zoned RS -6, Single -Family Residential Dist. (up to 6 units/acre)
INFRASTRUCTURE
Water and sewer available; access from 33rd Street and 66t Avenue
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
None
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff supports the request
ATTACHMENT 1
Planning and Zoning
Commission
Board of County
Commissioners
Staff
Contact:
.r.
Randy Deshazo
Randy Deshazo
Rag.
Date Advertised:
May 10, 2002
July 3, 2002
rel
_
# of Surrounding Property
10
11
Owner
--A-1
Notifications:
A-1
a iooi:
Date
Notification
Mailed:
..
May 10, 2002
June 28, 2002
as
a
P
RS
Date
Sian
-3
Posted:
May 10, 2002
June 28, 2002
--
i
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff supports the request
ATTACHMENT 1
JULY 16, 2002
-
.r.
y.
Rag.
..
rel
_
--A-1
A-1
a iooi:
..
ted`
as
a
P
RS
it
-3
--
i
JULY 16, 2002
•
Community Development Director Bob Keating presented the project for the Board
with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation (COPY OF WHICH IS ON FILE WITH THE
BACKUP FOR TODAY'S MEETING). He noted that the urban service area boundary is
on the northern property line of this project, giving a good transition between rural and
urban development.
Commissioner Ginn questioned whether the owner is entitled to this change under
the County's Land Development Regulations, and Deputy County Attorney Will Collins
responded that, if the rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and complies with
the Land Development Regulations, the rezoning should be approved unless maintaining the
existing zoning accomplishes a legitimate and not arbitrary or unreasonable use.
Commissioner Macht felt that the density requested is too severe for that area, and
Commissioner Ginn agreed that she could not vote for this density.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard
regarding this matter.
Rivers Anderson, 6750 33`d Street, stated that he worked for the County when the
zoning regulations were first instituted and was on the first variance board where he
acquired some insight into the purposes behind zoning regulations. He expressed his
pleasure that the Planning & Zoning Commission and the Board recognize the importance
of planned development. He felt that the recommendation of 56 units per acre in this area
would stick out like a sore thumb. All the people living in that area would have to pass
directly in front of this property and they all live on 5, 10 or 20 acre pieces of land. All of
the rest of the land in that area is zoned for 1 unit per 5 acres and he did not believe this
JULY 16, 2002
-51-
E;i
a
v%1
density belongs in the area. It was his understanding that 33`d Street residents are being
served by a 4 inch spaghetti sewer line and he was quite concerned about that size line being
able to maintain service. He also believed that there are almost 300 acres which are planned
to be rezoned for 6 to 8 units per acre and felt that the County does not need anymore of that
type of zoning at this time. He has a grove and stated that he would not be able to keep that
grove going except for the fact that all his equipment is paid for. He asked that the Board
not grant rezoning for 6 units per acre and cited his concern for the increase in trespassers.
Russell Payne expressed his concern with the density also and stated that the
increased density increases the property value for the developer but diminishes the property
value of the homeowners in the area. That density will also affect current residents'
lifestyles. He felt a more gradual approach to higher density should be required and stated
that his family had dreamed for some time of being able to afford a residence on 5 acres.
That dream is now being tarnished by development. He felt he could live with 2 or 3 units
per acre but 6 was just too much.
Robert Adair, 7060 33`d Street, Executive Director of the Kerr Center, had concerns
about the compatibility of the development and the separation between urban and rural
development. The agricultural use in the area is not just citrus, but also livestock and
organic produce. He felt the odors of the fertilizers and animals would create a problem and
that the buffers were not adequate.
Director Keating responded that an agricultural buffer is required whenever
developed property abuts agricultural property so this development would be required to
install agricultural buffers along the north, west and east property lines.
JULY 16, 2002
-52-
th1
•
Mr Adair then made a presentation showing the concerns of the agricultural property
owners (COPY OF PRESENTATION IS ON FILE WITH THE BACKUP FOR TODAY' S
MEETING). Farmers and residents have different purposes for the land. While farmers are
concerned about constraints on agricultural operations, exotic pests, trespassing and
vandalism, homeowners are concerned about noise, spraying of fertilizers and pesticides,
and odors. A spray operator has to wear ear protection and tests have been done from 40
feet away at almost 100 decibels of sound. He felt it would be unfair to the surrounding
property owners to have to deal with these conflicting situations and asked the Board to help
keep the neighborhood intact.
Hazel Gerbhardt, 6815 33`d Street, stated that their property borders the property in
question to the west. She emphasized that rumors that their property was slated for
development were news to them. They plan to live there in peace until the good Lord takes
them and then pass the property on to their children. The Banacks have been good
neighbors but they don't live in the area. Most of the neighbors who do live there have
spoken today in opposition to the density requested because they like the peace and quiet of
country living. She asked the Board to think what it will do to the quality of their lives
before they vote on this issue and asked them to think how they would feel if this were being
proposed next door to their homes. She also felt that this development would not only affect
their property but all the neighbors who live west on 33' Avenue.
Robert Nall, 7102 33rd Street, stated that he is here as a private citizen and also as
an attorney representing the interests of Hazel and Louis Gephardt, the Kerr Center, and Bob
and Diane Barrett. He was opposed to that level of density in the area. The Board does have
the discretion and latitude to lower the density requested and that action would withstand
JULY 16, 2002
-5i-
•
any type of challenge in court. That level of density is clearly incompatible with the
surrounding area. The neighbors are not asking the Board to deny the request, just to lower
the density. He referred to the traffic situation and road development in the next few years
He stated that his mother and his daughter were involved in an accident at 33' Avenue and
66th Street sometime ago and his mother was killed.
Ben Bailey, 941 Sandfly Lane, stated that he had been involved with planning for the
City and for the County and felt the Board had been smart in the way they approached the
zoning in this area by keeping the urban service area close to SR -60 and Lateral A. The time
for citrus in this area has come and gone. It is now eaten up with diaprepes. This is not a
pristine country area any more and he supported the request for rezoning.
Attorney Bruce Barkett, 756 Beachland Boulevard, representing Sid and Rusty
Banack, stated that the County's Land Use Plan permits up to 6 units per acre on this
property. 66th Avenue is a major collector road slated for expansion, water and sewer are
available, and the traffic analysis shows no degradation. The property is inside the urban
service area and the request has been supported by staff and the Planning & Zoning
Commission. His client would not object to an agricultural buffer on the north side of the
property which would require a 25 -foot setback with a Type B buffer.
Sid Banack, 6125 Atlantic Boulevard, complimented staff on an outstanding job and
stated that they are not asking for anything they are not entitled to. They have complied with
all the regulations. There are a lot of people coming into the County who cannot afford to
live on 5 or 10 acres and housing must be provided for them. Even with RS -6 zoning, they
would only be able to put 3.8 units per acre on this property and he requested that the Board
JULY 16, 2002
nr tic
E" iJ s 1
-54-
grant the request.
The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to be heard regarding this matter. There
being none, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Macht believed that the applicant has a right to the rezoning but felt
that RS -3 would be sufficient and would not impact the applicant's rights.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Macht to
approve the request for rezoning at the level of RS -
3.
Chairman Stanbridge announced that the MOTION DIES FOR LACK OF A
SECOND.
Commissioner Ginn felt the rezoning was not compatible with the surrounding area.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Ginn to
deny the request for rezoning.
Chairman Stanbridge announced that the MOTION DIES FOR LACK OF A
SECOND.
JULY 16, 2002
ON MOTION by Commissioner Tippin,
SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board,
by a 3-2 vote (Commissioners Macht and Ginn
opposed) adopted Ordinance 2002-023 amending
the Zoning Ordinance and the accompanying Zoning
Map for 17.9 acres located at the southwest corner
of 33rd Street and 66`h Avenue from A-1, agricultural
district (up to 1 unit/5 acres) to RS -6, single-family
residential district (up to 6 units/acre) (Sidney
Banack).
ORDINANCE NO. 2002- 023
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE ZONING
ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FOR 17 9 ACRES LOCATED
AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF 33RD STREET AND 66TH AVENUE, FROM A-1,
AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT (UP TO 1 UNIT/5 ACRES), TO RS -6 SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (UP TO 6 UNITS/ACRE); AND PROVIDING CODIFICATION,
SEVERABILITY, AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the Local planning agency on
such matters, has held a public hearing and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this
rezoning request; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, did
publish 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;
JULY 16, 2002
ORDINANCE NO. 2002-023
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida, that the zoning of the following described property situated in Indian River
County, Florida, to -wit:
THE NORTH 624 FEET LESS RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR ROAD PURPOSES AND
DRAINAGE DITCHES AS NOW ESTABLISHED, OF TRACT 9, SECTIO\ 31,
TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, AS SUCH TRACT IS DESIGNATED ON
LAST GENERAL PLAT OF LANDS OF THE INDIAN RIVER FARMS COMPANY
FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ST. LUCIE
COUNTY, FLORIDA; SAID LAND NOW LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA.
is changed from A-1, Agricultural District (up to 1 unit/5 acres) to RS -6, Single-family Residential
District (up to 6 units/acre).
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 16th day of July, 2002.
This ordinance was advertised in the Press -Journal on the 3`d day of July, 2002, for a public
hearing to be held on the 16th day of July, 2002, at which time it was moved for adoption by
Commissioner Ti ppi n , seconded by Commissioner Adams , and adopted by
the following vote:
Chairman Ruth M. Stanbridge
Vice -Chairman John W. Tippin
Commissioner Fran B. Adams
Conunissioner Kenneth R Macht
Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn
Aye
Aye
Aye
Nay
Nay
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
ATTEST BY
Jeffrey K. Barton, Cjeric
This ordinance was filed with the Department of State on the following date:
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
... c'
William G. Collins II, Deputy County Attorney
JULY 16, 2002
ORDINANCE NO. 2002- 023
'ED AS TO PLANNING MATTERS
Robert M. Keating, ACCP; Communitypevelopment Director
9.A.4. PUBLIC HEARING - BEUTTELL DEVELOPMENT -
DENIAL OF REQUEST TO REDESIGNATE 80.48 ACRES
FROM AG -1 TO R; TO REZONE THOSE 80.48 ACRES
FROM A-1 TO RS -1; AND TO EXPAND THE URBAN
SERVICE AREA) (Legislative)
PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF ADVERTISEMENT FOR HEARING IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK TO THE BOARD
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 3, 2002:
TO: James E. Chandler; County Administrator
D . AR MENT HEAD CONCURRENCE
Lit /4
%Robert M. Keating, AICP; Con munity Devjlopment Director
THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICP; Chief, Long -Range, tanning
FROM: Randy Deshazo, Long -Range Planning
DATE: July 3, 2002
Beuttell Development's Request to Amend the Comprehensive Plan to
Redesignate Approximately 80.48 Acres from AG -1 to R; to Rezone the Subject
Property from A-1 to RS -1; and to Expand the Urban Service Area to Include
Those Approximately 80.48 Acres
JULY 16, 2002
Indian River Co.
Approved
Date
/t
U
Admin.
T
7 tt
Legal
L"(:. - ,
-
7 / �Iz
Budget
I
Dept.�i'✓1.
{ �
1‹
.....f
•
Risk Mgr.
II
—
9.A.4. PUBLIC HEARING - BEUTTELL DEVELOPMENT -
DENIAL OF REQUEST TO REDESIGNATE 80.48 ACRES
FROM AG -1 TO R; TO REZONE THOSE 80.48 ACRES
FROM A-1 TO RS -1; AND TO EXPAND THE URBAN
SERVICE AREA) (Legislative)
PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF ADVERTISEMENT FOR HEARING IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK TO THE BOARD
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 3, 2002:
TO: James E. Chandler; County Administrator
D . AR MENT HEAD CONCURRENCE
Lit /4
%Robert M. Keating, AICP; Con munity Devjlopment Director
THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICP; Chief, Long -Range, tanning
FROM: Randy Deshazo, Long -Range Planning
DATE: July 3, 2002
Beuttell Development's Request to Amend the Comprehensive Plan to
Redesignate Approximately 80.48 Acres from AG -1 to R; to Rezone the Subject
Property from A-1 to RS -1; and to Expand the Urban Service Area to Include
Those Approximately 80.48 Acres
JULY 16, 2002
1
PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER: LUDA 20-01-0178
It is requested that the following information be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of July 16, 2002.
SUMMARY
This request is to amend the Comprehensive Plan designation for ±80.48 acres, to
rezone that property, and to expand the Urban Service Area to cover that 80.48 acres.
Subject Property Location:
Subject Property Size:
Existing Land Use Designation:
Requested Land Use Designation:
Existing Zoning:
Requested Zoning.
East side of 82nd Avenue, between 151 Street
S.W. and 5`11 Street S.W.
± 80.48
AG -1 Agricultural -1 (up to 1 unit/5
acres)
R, Rural Residential (up to 1 unit/ acre)
A-1, Agricultural -1 District (up to 1 unit/5
acres)
RS -1, Single -Family Residential District (up
to 1 unit/acre)
ANALYSIS SUMMARY
STAFF AND PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION: Deny
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
This request is to amend the Comprehensive Plan to redesignate approximately 80.48 acres from AG -1,
Agricultural -1 (up to 1 unit/5 acres), to R, Rural Residential (up to 1 unit/acre); to rezone the subject
propery from A-1 (up to 1 unit/5 acres) to RS -1 (up to 1 unit/acre); and to expand the Urban Service
Area to include those 80.48 acres. Depicted in Figure 1, the subject property is located on the east side
of 82' Avenue (Ranch Road), between 151 Street, SW (R.D. Carter Road) and 5th Street, SW (Rebel
Road). The purpose of this request is to secure the necessary land use and zoning designations to develop
the site with residential uses at an urban density.
JULY 16, 2002
-59-
•
h ,c i..
1j
Analysis Areas
Staff Determination
Concurrency of Public Facilities
Meets concurrency test, however,
meeting the concurrency test is not
justification for land use change
Consistency with the county's
comprehensive plan
Not consistent with county's
comprehensive plan
Compatibility with the surrounding area
Not compatible with the surrounding
area
Potential impact on environmental quality
No additional environmental impact
Urban Service Area expansion
Not consistent with expansion policy
STAFF AND PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION: Deny
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
This request is to amend the Comprehensive Plan to redesignate approximately 80.48 acres from AG -1,
Agricultural -1 (up to 1 unit/5 acres), to R, Rural Residential (up to 1 unit/acre); to rezone the subject
propery from A-1 (up to 1 unit/5 acres) to RS -1 (up to 1 unit/acre); and to expand the Urban Service
Area to include those 80.48 acres. Depicted in Figure 1, the subject property is located on the east side
of 82' Avenue (Ranch Road), between 151 Street, SW (R.D. Carter Road) and 5th Street, SW (Rebel
Road). The purpose of this request is to secure the necessary land use and zoning designations to develop
the site with residential uses at an urban density.
JULY 16, 2002
-59-
•
h ,c i..
1j
On April 11, 2002, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5 to 1 recommend that the Board of
County Commissioners deny the proposed amendment and rezoning.
Existing Land Use Pattern
The subject property is zoned A-1, Agricultural District (up to 1 unit/5 acres), and consists ofamix
of
wooded pasture, native uplands, wetlands, and ponds. To the east adjacent to the northern portion oldie
subject property, there is a small citrus grove and then seven single f
ad�acenttothe southern portion ofthe roe g family residences. Landeastofand
djac
subject e property rtyisundevelopedpasture.MIofthelandtotheeastofthe
p rtyis zoned A-1. The pattern. ofA-1 zoned rangeland continues north of the subject property,
across 1St Street S.W. Aprivately constructed road track exists onland '
across 82' Avenue from the subject property. This land is zoned A-1.immediately to thewestofand
To the southwest of the subject property is the Indian River Aerodrome, a subdivision ofsingle-family
residences on large lots That subdivision is zoned Air -1 Airfield/Residential District. South of the subject
property, land consists of citrus groves and is zoned A-1.
JULY 16, 2002
•
Future Land Use Pattern
The subject property and land to the north and east are designated AG -1, Aiicultural-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 west ofthe subject property, across 82nd Avenue, land is designated L-1, Low -
Density Residential -1. The L-1 designation permits residential uses with densities up to 3 units/acre. Land
to the south of the subject propery is designated C/I, Commercialflndustrial. The C/I designation permits
various commercial and industrial zoning districts.
Environment
The±80 acres of the site consist of undisturbed wooded pasture, native uplands, wetlands, and ponds
The northernmost 40 acres are more heavily wooded than the southern half. According to Flood Insurance
Rating Maps, the subject property is not within a flood hazard area.
Utilities and Services
The site is outside the Urban Service Area (USA) ofthe county. Potable water distribution lines extend
from the South County Reverse Osmosis Plant along 82nd Avenue (a USA boundary) adjacent to the site
Wastewater collection lines from the West Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant also extend along 82nd
Avenue adjacent to the site.
Transportation Svstem
The site is bounded on the west by 82nd Avenue. Classified as a rural principal arterial roadway on the
future roadway thoroughfare plan map, this segment of 82nd Avenue is a two-lane road with approximately
60 feet of public road right-of-way 82nd Avenue is planned as a future four lane roadway within a
proposed 136 foot public road right-of-way alignment
The site is bounded on the north by 15` Street, SW and on the south by 5th Street, SW. Both of those
roads are classified as rural major collector roadways on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map. First
Street, SW is a two-lane dirt road with 30 feet of public road right-of-way. Fifth Street, SW is a ten foot
wide grass travelway within 30 feet ofpubhc road right-of-way. Neither of those roads is currentlyplanned
for future expansion.
Previous Amendment Request
In January, 2000, a land use amendment request for the subject 80.48 acre property and an adjacent
115.22 acres was submitted to the county. That request was to amend the land use designation ofthe
195.7 acres from AG -1, Agricultural -1 (up tp 1 unit/5 acres), to L-1, Low Density Residential -1 (up to
3 units/acre), and to expand the USA to include the property. Following review and discussion, the
Planning and Zoning Commission, at its May 11 2000 meeting, recommended denial of this request. The
amendment was then scheduled for the Board of County Commissioners consideration at a public hearing
on July 11, 2000. The applicant, however withdrew his request prior to the scheduled Board hearing.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Review Procedures
Although the number ofplan 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. Accorcing
to Flonda Statutes, plan amendments are limited to twice per calendar year. For that reason, the county
For nt
tha
JULY 16, 2002
•
•
t.r
accepts general plan amendment applications only during the `window" months offanuary and July. In this
case, the subject application was submitted dunng the January 2002 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. Lithe 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 apreliminary 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 ofboth the land
use amendment and rezoning request.
If the land use amendment is transmitted, DCA conducts a review which includes soliciting comments from
the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, several state agencies, and neighboring local governments.
After its review, DCA compiles its objections, if it has any, in an Objections Recommendations, and
Comments (ORC) Report, and transmits that report to the county. After staff addresses any issues that
were raised in the ORC Report, the second and final Board of County Commissioners public hearing is
conducted. The Board takes final action to approve or deny the land use amendment and rezoning request
at that time. If the Board approves the requests, the amendment is transmitted to DCA for a final
determination ofcompliance with state law. The effective date ofthe amendment adoption ordinances is
when the amendment is found "in compliance" by DCA.
At this time, the Board of County Commissioners is to review the subject comprehensive plan amendment
request and determine whether or not to transmit it to DCA for its review.
ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis ofthe reasonableness ofthe land use amendment request will be presented.
Specifically, this analysis will address:
• concurrency of public facilities;
• consistency with the county's comprehensive plan;
• compatibility with the surrounding area;
• potential impact on environmental quality;
• urban service area expansion issues. and
• site development options.
Concurrency of Public Facilities
This site is located "adjacent to" and "outside of the county Urban Service Area; therefore, the property
is not suited for urban scale development. Regardless, the Comprehensive Plan establishes minimum
development standards for: Transportation, Potable Water, Wastewater, Solid Waste, Drainage and
Recreation (Future Land Use Policy 3.1). The adequate provision of these services is necessary to ensure
the continued quality of life enjoyed by the community. The Comprehensive Plan and Land Development
Regulations (LDRs) require that new development be reviewed to ensure that the minimum acceptable
standards for these services and facilities are maintained.
JULY 16, 2002
11
L.
o 7
L►. f
-62-
•
•
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 Comprehensive Plan amendment requests, conditional concurrency review is required.
Conditional concurrency review examines the available capacity of each facility with respect to aproposed
project. Since Comprehensive Plan amendment 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 Comprehensive Plan amendment requests, the most intense
use (according to the County's LDRs) is the maximum number ofunits 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: Approximately 80.48 acres
2. Existing Land Use Designation: AG -1, Agricultural -1 (up to 1 unit/5 acres)
3. Proposed Land Use Designation: R, Rural Residential -1 (up to 1 unit/acre)
4. Most Intense Use of Subject Property
Under Current Land Use Designation: 16 Single -Family Units
5. Most Intense Use of Subject Property
Under Proposed Land Use Designation: 80 Single -Family Units
Transportation
A review of the traffic impacts that would result from the development of the property indicates that the
existing level of service ` D" or better on 82nd Avenue and other impacted roads would not be lowered.
The site information used for deteuutining traffic impacts is as follows:
Existing. Land Use Designation
1. Residential Use Identified in 6th Edition ITE Manual: Single -Family
2. For Single -Family Units in 6`h Edition ITE Manual:
a. Average Weekday Trip Ends: 10.1/unit
b. P.M. Peak Hour Trip Ends: 1.01/unit
c. Inbound (P M. Peak Hour): 64%
i. Northbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 62%
ii. Southbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 38%
d. Outbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 36%
i. Northbound (P M. Peak Hour): 38%
ii. Southbound (P M. Peak Hour): 62%
Peak Direction of 82' Avenue, from 9`h Street, SW to 4th Street: Northbound
4. Formula for Determining Number ofPeak Hour/Peak Season/Peak Direction Trips Generated:
Number of Units X P.M. Peak Hour Rate X Inbound P.M. Percentage X Inbound -
Northbound Percentage (16 X 1.01 X .64 X .62 = 6.4)
JULY 16, 2002
-63-
5. Formula for Determining Number of Average Weekday Trips Generated:
Number of Units X Average Weekday Rate (16 X 10.1 = 161)
Proposed Land Use Designation
1. Residential Use Identified in 6th Edition ITE Manual: Single -Family
2. For Single -Family Units in 6th Edition ITE Manual:
a. Average Weekday Trip Ends: 10.1/unit
b. P.M. Peak Hour Trip Ends: 1.01/unit
c. Inbound (P M. Peak Hour): 64%
i. Northbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 62%
H. Southbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 38%
3. Outbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 36%
i. Northbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 38%
ii. Southbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 62%
3. Peak Direction of 82"d Avenue, from 9th Street, SW to 4th Street: Northbound
4. Formula for Determining Number of Peak Hour/Peak Season/Peak Direction Trips Generated:
Number of Units X P.M. Peak Hour Rate X Inbound P.M. Percentage X Inbound -
Northbound Percentage (80 X 1.01 X .64 X .62= 32.1
Formula for Determining Number of Average Weekday Trips Generated:
Number of Units X Average Weekday Rate (80 X 10.1 = 808)
6. Traffic Capacity on this segment of 82"d Avenue, at a Level of Service "D": 820 peak hour/peak
season/peak direction trips
7. Total Segment Demand (existing volume + vested volume) on this segment of 82"d Avenue: 141
peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips
The number of Average Weekday Trip Ends associated with the most intense use of the subject property
under the existing land use designation is 161. This was determined by multiplying the 16 units (most
intense use) by ITE's single-family residential factor of 10.1 Average Daily Trip Ends/unit
The number ofAverage Weekday Trip Ends associated with the most intense use of the subject property
under the proposed land use designation is 808. This was deteiniined by multiplying the 80 units (most
intense use), by ITE's single-family residential factor of 10.1 Average Daily Trip Ends/unit.
Since the county's transportation level of service is based on peak hour/peak season/peak direction
characteristics, the transportation concurrency analysis addresses project traffic occurring in the peak hour
and affecting the peak direction of impacted roadways According to ITE, the proposed use generates
more volume in the p.m. peak hour than in thea m peak hour. Therefore, the p m. peak hour was used
in the transportation concurrency analysis. The peak direction during the p.m. peak hour on 82nd Avenue
is northbound.
JULY 16, 2002
-64
U1 ( I
•
Given those conditions, the number ofpeak hour/peak season/peak direction trips that would be generated
bythe most intense use of the subject property under the existing land use designation was calculated to
be 6.4. This was determinedbymultiplying the total number ofunits allowed (16) under the existing land
use designation byITE 's factor of 1 01 p.m peak hour trips/unit, to determine the total number of trips
generated. Of these trips, 64% of the 6.4 will be inbound and 36% will be outbound. Of the inbound trips,
62% or 4 will be northbound.
To determine the number ofpeak hour/peak season/peak direction trips that would be generated bythe
most intense use of the subject property under the proposed land use designation, the total number ofunits
allowed under the proposed amendment (80) was multiplied by ITE 's factor of 1.01 p.m. peak hour
trips/unit to determine the total number of trips generated (81) Ofthese trips, 64% will be inbound and
36% will be outbound. Of the inbound trips, 62% or 50 will be northbound Therefore the most intense
use of the subject property under the proposed land use designation would generate 26 (32 - 6 = 26) more
peak hour/peak season/peak direction traps than the 6 that would be generated bythe most intense use of
the subject property under the existing land use designation.
Using a modified gravitymodel and a hand assignment, the peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips
generated by the proposed use were then assigned to impacted roads on the network. 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 of the project trips, whichever is less.
Capacities for all roadway segments in Indian River County are calculated and updated annually, utilizing
the latest and best available peak season traffic characteristics and applying the Florida Department of
Transportation Level ofService Handbook approved methodology. Available capacity is the total capacity
less existing and committed (vested) traffic volumes, this is updated daily based upon vesting associated
with project approvals.
The traffic capacity for the segment of 82nd Avenue adjacent to this site is 820 trips (peak hour/peak
season/peak direction) at Level of Service (LOS) "D," while the Total Segment Demand (existing traffic
volume + vested traffic volume) on this segment of 82"d Avenue is 141 trips (peak hour/peak season/peak
direction). The additional 32 peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips created bythe most intense use
of the subject property under the proposed amendment would increase the Total Segment Demand peak
hour/peak season/peak direction trips for this segment of 82' Avenue to approximately 173.
Based on the above analysis, staff determined that 82nd Avenue and all other impacted roads can
accommodate the additional trips without decreasing their existing levels of service.
Table 1 identifies each of the impacted roadway segments associated with the proposed land use
designation. As indicated in Table 1, sufficient capacity is available on all of the segments to accommodate
the projected traffic associated with the request.
Table 1: Traffic Concurrency Deteiruination
Impacted Road Segments
(peak hour/peak season/peak direction)
Link
Road
From
To
Segment
Capacity
LOS "D"
Existing Demand
Total
Segme
rat
Dema
Available
Segment
Capacity
Project
Demand
Positive
Concurren
cy Deter -
nnnation
Existing
Volume
Vested
Volume
1915E
S.R.60
1-95
32nd
Ave
1,890
999
704
nd
1,714
176
11
Y
JULY 16, 2002
f,,,
Lid i
•
-65-
Segment
Capacity
'.OS "D"
Existing Demand
Existing
Volume
Vested
Volume
Total
Segue
nt
Available
Segment
Capacity
Project
1915
W
S.R. 60
.."„a
1 _.,......,,, 1 urination
1-95
82m
Ave
1,890
1,131
633
1,770
126
6
y
1920E
S.R. 60
82nd
Ave
66th Ave
2,270
1,045
584
1,641
641
12
Y
1920
W
S.R. 60
82^d
Ave
66th Ave
2,270
1,174
416
1,603
680
13
Y
1925E
S.R. 60
661° Ave
58th Ave
2,840
1,155
598
1,756
1,087
3
Y
1925
W
S.R. 60 66th Ave 58th Ave
2410N
Oslo Ro
2410S
Oslo Rd
2420S
Oslo Rd
2420N
Oslo Rd
2530E
Oslo Rd
Oslo Rd
2540E
2540
W
Oslo Rd
Oslo Rd
2550E
Oslo Rd
Oslo Rd
2905N
Oslo Rd
2905S
Oslo Rd
2910N
Oslo Rd
2910S
3005N
Oslo Rd
Oslo Rd
3005S
Oslo Rd
3010N
3010S
3015N
JULY 16, 2002
•
Link
Road
From
To
Segment
Capacity
LOS "D"
Existing Demand
Total
Available
Segment
Capacity
Project
Demand
Positive
Concurren
cy Deter -
mination
Existing
Volume
Vested
Volume
Segme
nt
Dema
30I5S
58'"
Ave
8th St
12t St
760
373
85
nd
461
299
2
Y
3020N
58th
Ave
12th St
16th St
880
466
108
575
305
1
Y
3020S
58ih
Ave
12t St
16th St
880
495
106
603
277
1
Y
3310N
82" Ave
Oslo Rd
41h St
820
106
35
160
660
9
Y
3310S
82"Avc
Oslo Rd
4t St
820
129
27
190
630
34
Y
3320N
7
82" Ave
4t1 St
12th St
760
139
53
210
550
18 ..
Y
3320S
82" Ave
4th St
12t St
760
1 1.6
51
199
561
32
Y
3330N
82" Ave
12th St
S.R. 60
760
193
89
298
462
16
Y
3330S
32'° Ave
12t St
S.R. 60
760
187
81
297
463
29
Y
Water
With the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment, the subj ect property could accommodate 80 single-
family residential units, resulting in water consumption at a rate of 80 Equivalent Residential Units (ERU),
or 20,000 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 South CouCountyReverse Osmosis Plant, which currentlyhas
a remaining capacity of more than 4 500 000 gallons/day and can accommodate the additional demand
generated by the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment.
Wastewater
Based upon the most intense use allowed under the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment,
development of the property will have a wastewater generation rate of approximately 80 Equivalent
Residential Units (ERU), or 20,000 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 West Regional Wastewater
Treatment Plant, which currently has a remaining capacity of over 1,000,000 gallons/day and can
accommodate the additional wastewater generated by the subject request.
Solid Waste
Solid waste service includes pick-up by private operators and disposal at the county landfill. The county's
adopted level of service standard for landfill capacity is 1.97 cubic yards/person/year. With the county's
average of approximately 2.3 persons/unit, a residential development of 80 units would be anticipated to
house approximately 184 people (2.3 X 80). 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 362.48 (184 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 820,000 cubic yards. The active segment of the landfill has a four year capacity, and the
landfill has expansion capacitybeyond 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
JULY 16, 2002
•
-67-
Stormwater (Drainage)
All developments are reviewed for compliance with county stonnwater regulations which require on-site
retention, preservation of floodplain storage and minimum finished floor elevations In addition,
development proposals must meet the discharge requirements ofthe county Stormwater Management
Ordinance. Since the site is located within the M-1 Drainage Basin and the Indian River Farms Water
Control District (IRFWCD), development on the property will be prohibited from discharging any runoff
in excess of two inches in a twenty-four hour period, which is the approved IRFWCD discharge rate.
In this case, the minimum floor elevation level ofservice 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 ofthis site under the proposed amendment, the maximum area of impervious surface
would be approximately 40.24 acres The maximum runoff volume, based on that amount of impervious
surface and the 25 year/24 hour design storm, and given the IRFWCD two inch discharge requirement,
would be approximately 2,353,417 cubic feet. In order.to maintain the county's adopted level ofservice,
the applicant would be required to retain approximately 1,769,132 cubic feet ofrunoffon-site. With the
soil characteristics ofthe subject property, it is estimated that the pre -development runoffrate is 277.43
cubic feet/second.
Based upon staff's analysis, the drainage level of service standard would be met by limiting off-site
discharge to the IRFWCD 's maximum discharge rate of two inches m twenty-four hours, and requiring
retention of the 1,769,132 cubic feet of runoff for the most intense use of the property.
As with all development, amore. detailed review will be conducted during the development approval
process.
Recreation
A review of county recreation facilities and the projected demand that would result from the most intense
development that could occur on the subject property under the proposed land use designation indicates
that the adopted level of service would be maintained. The following table illustrates the additional park
demand associated with the proposed development ofthe property and the existing surplus park acreage.
Concurrency Summary
Based on the analysis conducted, staffhas determined that all concurrency -mandated facilities, including
drainage, roads, solid waste, water, wastewater, and parks, have adequate capacity to accommodate the
most intense use of the subject property under the proposed land use designation.
While all services and facilities have adequate capacity to accommodate the most intense use ofthe subject
property under the proposed land use designation, this positive concurrency test, by itself, is not an
indication that the subject property is appropriate for urban intensity development.
JULY 16, 2002
-68-
t3
( 1 '
PARK INFORMATION
LOS (Acres per 1,000 Population)
Project Demand (Acres)
Surplus Park Acreage
4.0
0.736
1,164
Concurrency Summary
Based on the analysis conducted, staffhas determined that all concurrency -mandated facilities, including
drainage, roads, solid waste, water, wastewater, and parks, have adequate capacity to accommodate the
most intense use of the subject property under the proposed land use designation.
While all services and facilities have adequate capacity to accommodate the most intense use ofthe subject
property under the proposed land use designation, this positive concurrency test, by itself, is not an
indication that the subject property is appropriate for urban intensity development.
JULY 16, 2002
-68-
t3
( 1 '
•
Passing the concurrency test justifies the proposed land use amendment only ifthe proposed land use
designation is consistent with all other comprehensive plan policies and compatible with surrounding areas
In Indian River County, available capacity for services does not dictate development patterns; rather, the
comprehensive plan dictates the location of services.
Consistency with 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 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 must also show consistency with the overall designation of land uses as
depicted on the Future Land Use Map, which mcludes 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 decisions While all comprehensive plan policies
are important, some have more applicability than others in reviewing plan amendment requests. Of
particular applicability for this request are the following objectives and policies:
Urban Service Area Expansion Policy
In the past two years, the Board of County Commissioners has spent considerable time addressing the issue
of urban service area expansion. This issue arose with the January, 2000 Clontz comprehensive plan
amendment request, and was resolved with the October, 2001 plan amendment establishing a T,
Transitional, land use designation category.
The adoption ofthat land use designation established the county's urban service area expansion policy.
After considering several alternatives, including one which would have expanded the urban service area
boundary to include the subject Buettell property and other land bordering roads having utility lines and
serving as urban service area boundaries, the Board set a narrow urban service area expansion policy
That policy allows urban service area expansion only for properties abutting a commercial/industrial node
where that node is more than 70% developed.
Although the subject property does abut a commercial/industrial node, that node is only 25% developed.
Therefore, this request is not consistent with the county's urban service area expansion policy.
Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3
One of the most important policies to consider in evaluating a plan amendment request for consistency with
the county's Comprehensive Plan is Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3. This policy requires that at
least one of four criteria be met in order to approve a land use amendment request. These criteria are:
• the proposed amendment will correct a mistake in the approved plan;
• the proposed amendment will correct an oversight in the approved plan;
• the proposed amendment involves a swap or reconfiguration of land uses at separate sites, and that
swap or reconfiguration will not increase the overall land use density or intensity depicted on the
Future Land Use Map, or
• the proposed amendment is warranted based on a substantial change in circumstances affecting the
subject property.
JULY 16, 2002
-69-
t ) i 0
•
Staff's position is that this land use amendment request does not meet any ofthe criteria ofFuture Land
Use Element Policy 14.3.
In June of 1991, the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan was adopted. That plan assigned an
agricultural land use designation to the subject property. The AG -1 land use designation was assigned for
the following reasons:
• The predominant land use in the south part ofthe county, west of 58`s Avenue, was agricultural;
and
• Based on population proj ections, an oversupply o f urb an designated land, both residential and
commercialmdustrial, existed in the county; therefore, there was no need to designate additional
urban land.
During the 1996 to 1998 time period, the county conducted an Evaluation and Appraisal of the plan
adopted in 1991. That evaluation and appraisal affirmed the above circumstances. Based on the
development characteristics listed above the property's land use designation assigned in 1991 was correct
then, was affirmed in the county's Evaluation and Appraisal Report, and still is correct today.
Since no substantial changes affecting the subject property have occurred since June 1991, the proposed
amendment does not meet anyofthe criteria identified above. Therefore, the request is not consistent
with Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3.
Future Land Use Element Objective 1 and Policy 4.1; Transportation Element Objective 11 and
Policy 11.1; and Housing Element Policy 1.2
These Objectives and 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 reduces urban
sprawl. Urban sprawl refers to scattered, untimely, poorly planned urban development that occurs in urban
fringe and rural areas and frequently invades land important for environmental protection, natural resource
protection, and agricultural production. This Comprehensive Plan amendment request would allow the
sprawling type of development described in the previous paragraph. Since the subject site is far from
existing urban centers, it is likely that urban density residential development on the site would generate more
frequent and longer automobile trips than urban density residential development within the existing urban
service area.
For these reasons, the request does not promote an efficient and compact land use pattern, therefore, the
request is not consistent with Future Land Use Element Objective 1 and Policy 4.1; Transportation
Element Objective 11 and Policy 11.1; and Housing Element Policy 1.2
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.1
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.1 requires Indian River County to adopt a Future Land Use Map This
map illustrates the land use designation pattern for the entire county. According to the Future Land Use
Map, approximately 33,292 acres of Indian River County are designated for residential land uses.
Using the map with its assigned densities along with projections of the county's population allows for the
calculation of a Residential Allocation Ratio (RAR). An RAR compares the number ofresidential units
allowed by the Future Land Use Map during a certain time period to the number ofresidential units needed
during that time period. Along with historic land use patterns and other factors, an RAR can be a useful
JULY 16, 2002
-70-
•
tool to determine the county's residential land use needs. Comparing the expected need with the existing
acreage ofresidentially designated land, Indian River County has an RAR of±3.0. A 3 0 RAR indicates
that the county currently has three times the amount of residentially designated land needed to
accommodate the county's population in 2020.
Another way to interpret a 3.0 RAR is in terms ofhow long the county's supply of residentially desianted
land is anticipated to last. Given that a 1.0 RAR is anticipated to last 20 years (from 2000 to 2020), a 3.0
RAR indicates that the county has approximately a 60 year supply of residentially designated land.
This is important because it means that currently there is a great deal ofland within the urban service area
that is served by public services and facilities, and is designated for residential uses yet remains vacant.
That is th;- land where the Comprehensive Plan intends for growth to occur. Developing a large portion
of that land before expanding the urban service area is an example ofinfill development Expanding the
urban service area, as proposed by the subject amendment, discourages infill development (the
development of land currently within the urban service area) and promotes sprawl.
Based on existing conditions, as well as existing population growth patterns, designating the subject
property R, Rural Residential, would be premature. As indicated above, Indian River County's RAR
demonstrates that a need to redesignate the subject property to R Rural Residential, does not exist.
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.11
This policy states that "the Low-DensityResidential Land Use Designations are intended for areas which
are suitable for urban and suburban scale development and mtensities." Policy 1.11 further states that these
areas "shall be limited to lands that are located within the urban service area and near existing urban
centers. '
The following factors indicate that the site is not currently suitable for urban or suburban scale development
and intensity, and that the site is not near any existing urban centers.
• The site is two and ahalfmiles from SR 60 and further from the county's other urban centers such
as the SR 60/58`h Avenue node, the US 1 Corridor, and the cities of Vero Beach and Sebastian.
• In this area, both 1s` Street, SW and 5`h Street, SW are unpaved roads without programmed
improvements.
• The Indian River Aerodrome is the only residential subdivision within one mile of the site.
• To the south of the subject property, across 5th Street, SW, is the ±495 acre Oslo Road/74t
Avenue Commercial/Industrial Node. The amount ofland devoted to various use categories
indicates that non -urban uses dominate the node. Vacant land accounts for ±120 acres (±24%
of the node); citrus and pasture land make up ±252.5 acres (±51% of the node); and
commercial/industrial uses comprise only±122 5 acres (±25% of the node).
For these reasons, the subject property is not currently suitable for the R, Rural Residential, land use
designation; therefore, the request is not consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 1.11.
JULY 16, 2002
-71-
fait
Lii
•
Summary of Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan
While the referenced objectives 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 plan policies and objectives. Based upon that analysis, staff determined that the request
is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Compatibility with the Surrounding Area
Staffs position is that granting the request to redesignate the subject property to R, Rural Residential, could
result m development that would be incompatible with surrounding areas.
Past experience suggests that incompatibilities are more likely to occur where residential land borders
agricultural land. Because active agricultural operations often involve noise, odors, and spraying,
agricultural operations canhave adverse impacts on residential development. Conversely, residential
development can impact agricultural operations.
Currently, lands bordering the subject property on the north and east are, like the subject property,
agriculturally designated. Therefore current land use designations ensure compatibility between the subject
property and lands to the north and east.
Property to the south is also compatible with the existing land use designation ofthe subject property.
Although designated for urban use, lands bordering the subject property on the south contain active citrus
groves. Even when the property to the south is developed, there should not be any incompatibilities with
the agricultural use of the subject property. That is because the property to the south is designated
commercial/industrial, and commercial/industrial uses are more compatible with agricultural uses then are
residential uses.
While the property to the west is designated residential, 5'h Street S.W. provides an effective buffer and
separation between that property and the agricultural uses on the subject property. That physical
separation reduces any potential incompatibilities between agricultural use ofthe subject property and
residential uses to the west.
If the subject property's land use designation were changed from AG -1 to R, the length of the
agricultural/residential interface would increase significantly. Whereas current land use plan designations
ensure that residential and agricultural uses will not directly abut, that would not be the case with the
proposed amendment. Instead of 82`a Avenue separating residential and agricultural land use designations,
the amendment if adopted, would create a±2,600 foot unbuffered, unseparated agncultural interface on
the east boundary of the subject property. That could result in potential incompatibilities.
For these reasons, urban development ofthe subject property, at this time, would be incompatible with
surrounding areas
Potential Impact on Environmental Quality
Generally, development of the site is anticipated to have relatively minor impacts on environmental quality.
Regardless of land use designation, the wetlands on the site are protected by federal, state and local
regulations. While residential development is subject to the county's 10-15% native upland plant
community preservation requirement, agricultural uses are exempt from that requirement. Consequently,
JULY 16, 2002
-72-
rte
os\
ty
57
•
the proposed land use amendment will not have significant adverse impacts on important environmental
resources.
Urban Service Area Expansion Issues
There are three principal issues associated with urban service area expansion. These are:
• Timing - Is there a need to expand the urban service area at this time?
• Location - When the urban service area warrants expansion, where should that occur?
• Development Pattern - When the urban service area warrants expansion, should the expansion
area be allowed to develop in a single -use, non -connected, sprawl manner or should it be required
to develop in a better planned manner?
Urban Service Area Expansion: Timing
The above analysis demonstrates that the urban service area does not warrant expansion at this time. Not
only is there significant land available for development within the urban service area, the county's
Residential Allocation Ratio indicates that there is no need for expansion.
Urban Service Area Expansion: Location
When circumstances warrant expansion ofthe urban service area, the expansion should occur only after
an analysis of where that expansion should occur. There are many areas of the county which are adjacent
to the current urban service area, adjacent to arterial roads, and adjacent to public utility lines. Those areas
may also be near other public facilities such as schools and parks.
Approving this request without assessing whether this would be the best area for expansion could result
in an inefficient land use pattern. In addition, approval of this request would make it difficult to deny similar
requests along the urban service area boundary throughout the county.
Urban Service Area Expansion: Development Pattern
When circumstances warrant expansion ofthe urban service area, the county will have two choices as to
the development pattern in the expansion area. The first alternative would be for the county to apply one
of the current land use plan designations to the expansion area. This would produce a development pattern
of single -use residential areas with non -connected subdivisions, having limited pedestrian opportunities,
without a mix of uses, and inefficient to serve with public facilities
The second option would be for the county not to expand the urban service area for traditional
development Instead, the countycould choose to expand the urban service area only when the expansion
area will be developed in a traditional neighborhood development pattern.
Site Development Options
Recent legislation in the State ofFlorida (the Bert Harris Property Rights Act) gives land owners certain
rights associated with their property's land use designation. With the passage of the Bert Harris Property
Rights Act, land owners may petition for compensation when the development potential of their property
is reduced. In other words, the proposed amendment, if adopted, cannot be "un -done" in the future
without compensating the applicant.
JULY 16, 2002
-73-
;,1/ -,
1 at u
•
In addition to several agricultural, recreational, and institutional site development options, the applicant has
the following four residential site development options.
1) The applicant can create a subdivision or apply for an affidavit of exemption to create 16 five -acre
lots.
2) The applicant can create an agricultural planned development with 16 one -acre or smaller lots
clustered together on a portion ofthe site The remainder of the site could be used for agriculture
or open space, with a portion available for recreational uses.
3) The applicant can work with adjacent property owners to the west and south, within the urban
service area, to create a Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND) project. The county's TND
option was created based on the recommendations of the county's Evaluation and Appraisal
Report (EAR). The EAR identified TNDs as a preferred development option for the county
Additionally, the EAR recognized that since expansion of the urban service area would be
premature for the foreseeable future allowing TNDs to straddle the urban service area boundary
could be used as an incentive for the development of TNDs and as an alternative to urban service
area expansion.
4) The applicant can work with other owners ofland outside ofthe urban service area and proximate
to the subject property to consolidate land holdings and develop a new town project as allowed
by comprehensive plan policy 1.34.
CONCLUSION
Based on the analysis, staffhas determined that the requested Comprehensive Plan amendment conflicts
with the comprehensive plan, specifically, the request conflicts with Future Land Use Element Objective
1 and Policies 1.1, 1.11, 14.3, and 4.1; Transportation Element Objective 11 and Policy 11.1, and
Housing Element Policy 1.2. The analysis also indicates that the proposed amendment increases the
likelihood of the occurrence ofland use mcompatibihties. By granting the proposed amendment request,
the county would encourage similar requests in the future and lose its opportunity to create an efficient, non -
sprawl development pattern in the future. Most importantly, the subject property is located in an area that
currently is suited for agricultural or other non -urban uses, not urban density residential development.
For these reasons, staff does not support the request to change the subj ect property's current land use
designation.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the analysis conducted, the Planning and Zoning Commission and staffrecommend that the Board
of County Commissioners deny this request to change the land use designation and zoning of the subject
property and to expand the urban service area.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Summary Page
2. "Beutell Justification for Land Use Designation Change"
3. Rezoning and Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation Amendment Applications
4. Minutes of the April 11, 2002 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission
5. Transmittal resolution
JULY 16, 2002
-74-
of
(rr
SUMMARY PAGE
GENERAL
Applicant: Beuttell Development, LLC
Location: East side of 82nd Avenue between l5t Street, SW and 5th Street, SW
Acreage: Approximately 80.48
Existing Land Use Designation: AG -1, Agricultural -1 (up to 1 unit/5 acres)
Requested Land Use Designation: R, Rural Residential -1 (up to 1 unit/acre)
Existing Zoning: A-1, Agricultural Distnct (up to 1 unit/5 acres)
Requested Zoning: RS -1, Single Family Residential District (up to 1 unit/acre)
Existing Land Use: Wooded pasture, native uplands, wetlands, and ponds
ADJACENT LAND
North (north of 1" St.. SW): Rangeland; zoned A-1
South: Citrus groves; zoned A-1
East: Rangeland, uplands, wetlands, and seven single-family residence; zoned A-1
West: Private road track; zoned A-1
INFRASTRUCTURE
Water and sewer available; access from 82"d Avenue; 151 Street,
SW; and 5th Street, SW
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
Wetlands ponds, native uplands
lir IY
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
Planning and Zoning
Commission
Board of County
Commissioners
Staff
Contact:
--
Michael Brillhart
Randy Deshazo
L -1:n
Date
7;
March 29, 2002
July 3, 2002
# of
Surrounding
Property
I�
39
Vpy
Date Notification
Mailed:
f`
March 28, 2002
•-J
Date
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Denial
JULY 16, 2002
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
Planning and Zoning
Commission
Board of County
Commissioners
Staff
Contact:
Michael Brillhart
Randy Deshazo
Date
Advertised:
March 29, 2002
July 3, 2002
# of
Surrounding
Property
39
39
Owners Notified:
Date Notification
Mailed:
March 28, 2002
June 28, 2002
Date
Sign
Posted:
March 29, 2002
June 28, 2002
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Denial
JULY 16, 2002
Community Development Director Robert Keating reviewed the Comprehensive Plan
amendment process, advising that this is the first public hearing before the Board of County
Commissioners on this amendment request. If the Board approves the transmittal of this
application to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) in Tallahassee for their 60 -day
review, a second and final public hearing will be scheduled to consider any comments made
by the DCA and whether to adopt an ordinance amending the Comprehensive Plan. If the
Board denies the transmittal of an application to the DCA, the application process will come
to an end.
Director Keating noted that there is a sign -in sheet for anyone wishing to speak to this
matter. The names and addresses will be furnished to the Department of Community Affairs
so they can notify the speaker of any further action on the matter. He then proceeded with
his PowerPoint presentation (COPY OF WHICH IS ON FILE WITH THE BACKUP FOR
TODAY'S MEETING). Staff believes this request is inconsistent with the urban service
area policy adopted last October with reference to the Clontz property when the "T" Land
Use Designation was initiated. This property almost meets the criteria for that designation
with the exception that the node which the property abuts is only 25% developed. At the
time of the initiation of that designation, one of the alternatives considered was to
redesignate a significant amount ofproperty to include this particular property and to expand
the urban service area.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard with
regard to this matter.
JULY 16, 2002
ire
361
-76-
•
John Dean, 2116 27`" Avenue, gave a presentation using handouts
(PRESENTATION BOOKLETS ARE ON FILE WITH THE BACKUP FOR TODAY'S
MEETING).
Mr. Dean expressed his opinion that the Beuttell property should have been included
in the `'T" Land Use Designation at the time of the institution of that designation. He asked
that the letters from C. W Emanuel and Ray Smith, included in his presentation booklet, be
added to the record. He believed that, had the boundary line been drawn with a magic
marker rather than a fine line pen, the land would have been included at that time. He also
believed that the boundary line was totally irregular and arbitrary.
David Gay, 1465 6th Street, spoke in opposition to adding the Beuttell land and noted
that the pictures in Mr. Dean's presentation of neighboring homes are of homes that are all
located on 5 -acre tracts.
Joannie Keith stated that she has lived in the area for 16 years and has a 5 -acre tract.
She was opposed to the plan.
Steven Hughes, 7805 1st Street SW, was also opposed to the plan and felt the zoning
should be kept at 1 unit for a 5 -acre tract.
Philip Hype stated that he lives at Indian River Aerodrome and is opposed to the
plan. He reported that Mr. Beuttell had indicated his plans were for a quality development
but had also said that the property will be sold to a developer once the rezoning has been
approved.
JULY 16, 2002
-77-
,.1
•
George Beuttell, 5000 16th Street, pointed out that the road is called Ranch Road,
not Airport Road, and when Indian River Aerodrome was developed his grove was still
active and his family raised no objections. He commented that he had previously come to
the Board for an L-1 designation, which is what the property across the street is designated.
Because of the neighbors' opposition, they withdrew that request and are now applying for
a density of 1 unit per acre which is more compatible with the area. This would be a good
buffer for all the properties in that area.
Anthony Lancaster, 74' Avenue, stated that his family has owned a ranch in that
area for 30 years and is opposed to the development. If you put 80 single-family homes in
that area with cows, you will have problems. Also, the airplanes do acrobatics in that area
and there would be problems with noise and the possibility of crashes into homes.
John Schumann, 8225 5t' Street SW, noted that this land is surrounded by
agricultural land and commercial/industrial land. Indian River Aerodrome was developed
in that area because it was a remote location and they were assured that it would be
surrounded with agricultural lands as a buffer zone. He expressed his concern that a housing
development located directly under the Aerodrome's traffic pattern would result in
complaints about engine noise. He asked the Board to accept the recommendations of the
Planning & Zoning Commission and staff to deny this request.
B. J. McClure, 395 IN ieuport Drive, stated that no one is trying to restrict Mr.
Beuttell's right to development of his land but everyone is concerned about the high density
being requested. The last time he checked there were in excess of 2,000 parcels for sale in
this county at 3 units per acre within the urban service area which would not indicate a need
JULY 16, 2002
063
•
to increase the density in an area that far from the urban center. He then discussed Chapter
333 of the Florida Statutes which relates to aviation and mandates that every county develop
a zoning and land use plan consistent with airport usage. Some of the planes owned by
Aerodrome residents have no mufflers and are flown at all hours of the day and night. Some
of these are antique planes and some of the planes perform aerobatics in the area. They have
an excellent safety record but accidents do happen. He also noted that there had been no
mention of the cost to taxpayers should the urban service area be expanded at this time. He
strongly urged the Board to oppose the request.
The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to be heard with regard to this matter.
There being none, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Chairman Stanbridge asked Executive Aide Kimberly Massung to read into the
record a letter from Energy Resources Group in opposition to the request (COPY OF
LETTER IS ON FILE WITH THE BACKUP FOR TODAY'S MEETING).
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Ginn,
SECONDED by Commissioner Macht, to deny the
request.
Commissioner Macht questioned whether the Board could legally approve the
request, and Deputy County Attorney Will Collins stated that, in order to meet the criteria.
the commercial/industrial node abutting the property would have to be 70% developed
before the request could be approved.
JULY 16, 2002
-79-
4
•
Commissioner Adams commented that the Clontz development was a site of greater
than 20 acres, the adjoining node was over 70% built out, water and sewer were available,
and there was a major arterial road. None of the other developments considered at that time
fell into those categories.
Chairman Stanbridge noted that the Beuttell property would be a candidate for an
affidavit of exemption application or for an agricultural PD application.
MOTION WAS CLARIFIED by Commissioner
Ginn, SECONDED by Commissioner Macht, to
approve the recommendation of staff to deny this
request to change the land use designation and
zoning of the subject property and to expand the
urban service area.
THE CI 'AIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and
the Motion passed unanimously.
9.B.1. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS - ISLAND VIEW
PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT LTD. (LEONARD
HATALA) - ATTORNEY STEVE HENDERSON
(RECONSIDERATION OF BOARD ACTION OF JULY 2,
2002 REGARDING REQUEST TO EXTEND SITE PLAN
APPROVAL TO JUNE 14, 2002)
Deleted.
JULY 16, 2002
-80-
• •
9.B.2. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS - JAMES R. MAXWELL -
ASSESSMENT LIEN FOR 920 TRUMAN STREET,
SEBASTIAN - DISCUSS RETURNING MONIES FOR
WATER HOOKUP AND UTILITIES ASSESSMENT LIEN
Deleted.
9.C. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEMS - SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC
HEARING ON AUGUST 6, 2002
1. BOBBI J SUBDIVISION, 36"' COURT, PETITION WATER SERVICE,
RESOLUTION III
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 9, 2002:
DATE:
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
SUBJ:
JULY 16, 2002
JULY 9, 2002
MARGARET GUNTER
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY/ASSISTANT
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
W. ERIK OLSON
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
JAMES D. CHASTN )�
MANAGER OF,ASS_E>SSi
LENT PROJECTS
PUBLIC NOTICE ITEM FOR BCC - 8/6 PUBLIC HEARING
BOBBI J. SUBDIVISION, PRELIMINARY WATER ASSESSMENT
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UCP -2060
-81-
M!!
66
The following item is scheduled for public hearing on August 6, 2002. Please include this notice in the
agenda for the meeting prior on July 23 2002
BOBBI J. SUBDIVISION 36TH COURT, PETITION WATER SERVICE
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UCP -2060
RESOLUTION III
NO ACTION REQUIRED OR TAKEN
11.B.1. FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT RADIOLOGICAL
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS GRANT FUNDS -
REQUEST TO PURCHASE CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
(ARROW -TECH - PULCIR, INC.)
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 5, 2002:
TO: Honorable Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
FROM: John King, Director
Department of Emeig�efcy services.
DATE: July 5, 2002
1
SUBJECT: Approval to Purchase Capital Equipment with Radiological Emergency Preparedness
Grant Funds
It is respectfully requested that the information contained herein be given formal consideration by the
Board of County Commissioners at its regular scheduled meeting of July 16, 2002.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Indian River County is a host county within the Florida Radiological Emergency Management Plan
for Nuclear Power Plants and receives grant funds from Florida Power & Light (FP&L) for
implementation of these planning concepts. On May 16, 2000 the Board of County Commissioners
approved a two-year agreement with FP&L for funding totaling $140,000 for Fiscal Years 2000/01
and 2001/02. In accordance with the Agreement, unallocated grant funds must be returned.
LY 16, 2002
-82-
r i
r �'
L 3
During the term of this agreement, the County realized savings of nearly $30,000 In negotiations
for next year's agreement, FP&L Representative Peter Bailey has recommended that Indian River
County use the surplus funds to purchase certain radiological monitoring instrumentation consistent
with equipment used by other counties having responsibilities to the St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
Indian River County has nearly $30,000 in unallocated radiological preparedness grant funds. FP&L
emergency planners agree that approximately 100,000 persons could be evacuated through Indian
River County in the event of an accident at the St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant and they further
recognize that the monitoring equipment we have is dated and deteriorating In fact, much of our
monitoring equipment is "Cold War" surplus equipment.
FP&L has agreed (see attachment) to utilize these excess funds for replacement monitoring
equipment. As a condition of the capital purchases, FP&L has provided specific vendors and
equipment these funds can be used for. The requested capital purchases include:
1. Two (2) Ludlum Model 52-1 Portable Portal Monitors, with case $18,000
2. Twenty-four (24) Ludlum Model 44-9y Pancake Probes 4,560
3. Forty (40) Arrow -Tech 0-500mr CDV-139 Dosimeters 2,400
Total $24,960
FP&L has provided similar monitoring equipment to the risk counties (St. Lucie and Martin) and
prefers to maintain uniformity in make and model to the host counties. The alternative is to return
the excess funds to FP&L and purchase comparable equipment from local funds as our monitoring
equipment becomes inoperable
RECOM1MIENDATION:
Staff recommends the Board approve the purchase of the capital equipment noted above from
unallocated funds from the FY -2000/01 and FY -20001/02 Radiological Emergency Preparedness
Agreement Staff also requests to sole source purchase the equipment from the vendors selected by
FP&L.
JULY 16, 2002
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED
by Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously
approved the purchase of the capital equipment from
unallocated funds from the FY 2000-01 and FY
2001-02 Radiological Emergency Preparedness
Agreement and authorized staff to sole source
purchase the equipment from the vendors selected
by FP&L (Arrow -Tech and Pulcir, Inc.), as
recommended by staff.
-83-
•
11.B.2. FY 2002-03 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS EMERGENCY
PLANNING STATE FUNDED SUBGRANT AGREEMENT
CONTRACT #03CP-11-10-40-01-166 - FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 5, 2002:
TO: Honorable Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH: James Chandler, County Administrator
THROUGH: John King, Director
Department of Emer ncy ervices
FROM: Nathan McCollum, Emergency Management Coordinator
Department of Emergency Services
DATE: July 5, 2002
J`/
SUBJECT: Approval of FY 02/03 Hazardous Materials Emergency Planning State Funded Subgrant
Agreement Contract Number 03CP 11 10 40 01 166.
On October 17, 1986, the Superfund Amendments and Re -authorization Act (SARA) was enacted into law.
Title III of the SARA legislation established requirements for federal, state, and local governments as well as
industry regarding emergency planning and reporting on hazardous/toxic chemicals. Subsequently, Indian
River County Emergency Management Division developed and maintains a Hazardous Materials Emergency
Plan which was endorsed by the Department of Community Affairs. Modifications to this plan are made
annually with the last update approved by the Board of County Commissioners on March 12, 2002.
Recognizing the threat posed by hazardous materials to both the population and the environment, the State
Legislature has extended grant funds to update Indian River County's Hazardous Materials Emergency Plan.
The Department of Community Affairs/Division of Emergency Management administers the Hazardous
Materials Emergency Planning Agreement with each Florida county. These funds are used to enhance
hazardous materials planning, response, and education for Indian River County. The attached agreement is
consistent with prior agreements and awards Indian River County Emergency Management a gross total of
$4,239.00 for FY 02/03. This is a 100% funded agreement and does not require any matching funds. Because
this agreement begins late in our budget cycle, staff recommends no expenditures at this time. The Emergency
Management Division will include funding and expenditures from this agreement with the Emergency
Management Preparedness Agreement which will be presented to the Board early in the 02/03 fiscal year.
JULY 16, 2002
Di‘
r
b
-84-
•
RECOMMENDATION:
ION:
In order to continue providing a strong Emergency Management Hazardous Materials Program in Indian River
County, staffrecommends approval ofthe FY 02/03 Hazardous Material Emergency Planning Agreement and
authorize the Chairman to execute appropriate documents.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams,
SECONDED by Commissioner Tippet, the Board
unanimously approved the FY 2002-03 Hazardous
Materials Emergency Planning Agreement and
authorized the Chairman to execute the appropriate
documents; as recommended by staff.
AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE
OF 'I HE CLERK TO THE BOARD
11.C.1. MAIN LIBRARY RENOVATIONS - BILL BRYANT &
ASSOCIATES, INC. - CHANGE ORDERS 9, 10 AND 11
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of June 24, 2002:
•
Date: June 24, 2002
To: The Honorable Board of County Commissioners
Thru: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
From. Thomas W. Frame, General Services Director---e&stcd C-1)•
Subject: Change Order # 9, 10 & 11, Main Library/Bill Bryant & Associates, Inc.
BACKGROUND:
Attached are memoranda from Lynn Williams regarding Change Order # 9, 10 & 11. Change
Order #9 is the result of replacing three pieces of glass ($1,501.08. Change Order #10 is for
installation of electrical service to the HVAC (Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning) system
($721.85). Change Order #11 is to comply with requests from the Fire Inspector and
requirements of the Fire Code ($5,117.24). These are the last change orders for the Main
Library Construction Contract
The approval of these change orders ($7,340.17) along with the previous eight change orders
will increase the contract amount by $56,153.77 to a total of to $1,659,153.77. This increase
represents a 4 % increase in the original construction bid amount ($1 603,000).
Substantial Completion is pending for this project. The contractor's representative has indicated
a date of July 16 2002.
JLY 16, 2002
-8J-
721
cmh
•
0
RECOMMENDATION:
In light of the needed reasons identified for these changes, Change Orders # 9, 10 & 11 have
been reviewed and recommended by the supervising architect, and staff recommends approval of
Change Orders # 9, 10 & 11.
Commissioner Ginn questioned whether the electrical service for the HVAC system
was missed by the contractor, and General Services Director Tom Frame responded that it
should have been included.
Commissioner Ginn then questioned whether the errors and omissions insurance
coverage might help with this, and Commissioner Adams did not want to hold up
completion of the project.
Commissioner Ginn then directed staff to attempt to collect on that coverage after -
the -fact.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Tippin,
SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board
unanimously approved Change Orders 9, 10 and 11,
as recommended by staff
11.C.2. LOT 11, BLOCK 9, VERO BEACH ESTATES
SUBDIVISION - AUTHORIZATION TO SELL REAL
PROPERTY TO HIGHEST BIDDER
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 9, 2002:
JULY 16, 2002
-86-
St
1
•
Date:
To:
Thru:
From.
Subject:
July 9, 2002
The Honorable Board of County Commissioners
James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Thomas W. Frame, General Services Director/ 1-,.GC-dC�
Authorization to Sell Real Property to Highest Bidder
BACKGROUND:
Currently, Indian River County owns Lot 11, Block 9, Vero Beach Estates Subdivision. This lot and
several others were dedicated for use as a nght-of-way for the connection of Eagle Drive between Date
Palm Road and Beachland Boulevard. That dedication was established by resolution of the Board of
County Commissioners on October 3, 1944. Sometime prior to May 29, 1990, the City of Vero Beach
and Indian River County divested interest in the lots to each other and this particular lot was one that
ended up in the possession of Indian River County.
On July 1, 1997, the Board adopted Resolution No. 97-64 that in effect set aside the 1944 dedication
resolution affecting various lots including Lot 11, Block 9, Vero Beach Estates.
The General Services office has received an inquiry into the potential sale of the lot. It appears that the
lot could be sold to the highest bidder if that was the desire of the Board. The lot is only 50 feet in width
and would be best used for a residential purpose. The residential use to the immediate east used the
property at one time as a mean of ingress/egress. The garage appears to be on the north end of the
structure, farthest portion of the structure from Cypress Road. This property would probably be best
acquired by the adjacent properties for their expansion opportunities
According to records in the Property Appraisers office, the suggested new appraisal of the property would
be $65,030 and the market value would be $76,500. The return of this property back into private
ownership and placement on the tax roll is probably the best action that could be taken. Establishing a
minimum bid price and authorizing the sale of the property by public auction would likely result in the
best return on any anticipated sale.
RE COMMENDATION:
Authonze the sale of the property (Lot
noticed by the auctioneer and including a
the highest bidder.
11, Block9, (Vero Beach Estates) by public auction properly
minimum bid amount of $76,500 with the bid to be awarded to
After discussion, CONSENSUS WAS REACHFD to direct staff to first obtain an
appraisal on this property and bring that information back to the Board.
JULY 16, 2002
ui
072
-87-
11.C.3. CLEANNET USA - COMMERCIAL CLEANING
SERVICES - EXTENSION OF CONTRACT
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 10, 2002:
Date:
To:
Thru:
From.
Subject:
July 10, 2002
The Honorable Board of County Commissioners
James E. Chandler, County Administrator 11
Thomas W. Frame, General Services Director JL4 1D. A
Request to Extend Contract with CleanNet USA Commercial Cleaning
Services
BACKGROUND:
Currently, Indian River County uses a contract custodial firm, CleanNet USA, for custodial services for
the Courthouse, Administrative Annex, Main and North Libraries, the Health Depaittnent, the Sheriff's
Office, and the North County Annex offices. In addition to the normal custodial services, CleanNet
provides a porter/attendant who is available during working/operation hours of the Courthouse.
Prior to the use of CleanNet, the County received numerous complaints relative to the service delivery,
To address the needed improvements in custodial service delivery, the County solicited proposals through
the use of a Request for Proposals as opposed to a low bid award only. After a thorough review and
analysis the County opted to contract with CleanNet.
Since the use of CleanNet, the County has received positive comments as evidenced by the attached
letters that have been received over the various time periods that CleanNet has provided service.
During the time period that we have used the services of CleanNet, the cost has remained very reasonable.
The unit cost has only been increased once during the total time that we have utilized their services. In
Fiscal Year 1996-97 CleanNet requested a 3 % increase in the base cost which has remained the same
since then. In 1999, the contract was renewed for an additional three years with no price increase.
It is time again to consider whether to renew our contract with CleanNet. They are requesting an increase
of 3 %, which will remained fixed for the entire three-year contract period. Considering the fine service
and the limited price increases that have been requested, it would be prudent to extend the agreement for
an additional three years. That would mean that over a penod from 1993 through September of 2005
(approximately 12 years), the base cost would have only risen by two 3 % increases
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the extension of the custodial services provided by CleanNet for an additional three-
year penod at a price not to exceed 3 % over the entire three-year period.
JULY 16, 2002
-88-
OK
3 373
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams.
SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board
unanimously approved the extension of the custodial
services provided by CleanNet USA for an
additional 3 -year period at a price not to exceed 3%
over the entire 3 -year period, as recommended by
staff.
11.G.1. KIM VECCHIO - REQUEST TO HAVE COUNTY BEGIN
MAINTENANCE OF 93RD AND 95TH STREETS WEST OF
141' AVENUE (PARK LATERAL) (WEST FELLSMERE
AND SOUTHEAST WILLOW STREET AREAS)
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 10, 2002:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Request by Kim Vecchio'to Construct and Maintain
93rd & 95th Streets West of 141st Avenue (Park Lateral)
in Fellsmere
REF. LETTER: Letter to Board of County Commissioners from Kimberly
Vecchio dated July 1, 2002
DATE: July 10, 2002
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Mrs. Kimberly Vecchio, recent property owner along 93rd Street and
95th Street west of 1415t Avenue (Park Lateral Canal Road) in
Fellsmere, is requesting the County to construct and maintain 93rd
Street and 95th Street 7/10's of a mile west of 141St Avenue. Staff
JULY 16, 2002
•
i,^ 1I,
w_J `-r
-89-
has investigated the request and due to the location of utility
poles, canals, and trees, there is not enough room to build a safe
adequate road.
The right-of-ways are not County right-of-ways, but are owned by
property owners within the Fellsmere Farms Water Control District.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Since we are receiving numerous requests for road improvement and
maintenance in the Fellsmere area, staff recommends the
establishment of MSBU's (Special Taxing Districts) to fund
improvements of the roads in the west Fellsmere area, as well as
the southeast Willow Street area. An MSBU ordinance could be
prepared prior to Jan. 1, 2003 for .the FY 03/04 tax year.
ATTACHMENT
Letters from surrounding property owners
Public Works Director Jim Davis stated that he had received several requests recently
regarding maintenance of the streets in that area. The County could not design or build
roads in that area that would meet the Department of Transportation Green Book standards.
Staff is reluctant to grade the path that currently exists as there is inadequate drainage. There
is also the question of where the funds would come from to improve these roads as most of
the residents have indicated they would not be willing to contribute to a taxing district to
raise funds for that purpose.
Commissioner Adams noted that this has been discussed since 1993. The issue is
much larger than this request and is not going to go away with the growth in that area.
People are buying property in the area with the assumption that the County takes care of the
roads A taxing district is the only solution unless the County wants to raise the gas tax or
some other revenue producing source. She estimated there would be more than 100 miles
of roads which need to be brought up to standard with the attendant problems, such as
JULY 16, 2002
-90-
5
drainage, utilities and rights-of-way. Another problem is that Director Davis' staff is
overwhelmed with work at this point in time. Growth is booming in the northwestern
portion of the County and we need to address this problem. She asked the Board to move
forward with establishing an MSBU and an aggressive program to begin addressing these
problems.
Jimmy Morgan, 9146 86``' Place, stated that he has already given the County one 35 -
foot right-of-way and will do whatever has to be done to improve the situation.
Harold Platt, 1515 Malabar Road, stated that his family at one time had owned all
the property encircling the City of Fellsmere but is now selling off more and more property.
Agriculture in that area is basically phasing itself out. He put a road in at 93`d Street as he
owns the property on both sides of that road and his daughter and her family live at the end
of that road. There is no profit in the property owner putting in a road before selling off the
property. He believed that the agricultural families in the area have been paying taxes to
the County for many years with little or no benefit to themselves and now the County should
step up to the plate. He asked the Board to help the residents with this problem.
JULY 16, 2002
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Adams,
SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, that the
County move forward with a program to improve
the roads in the northwest section of the County and
that staff bring back a Request for Qualifications for
a consultant to speed up the process.
-91-
e;e _7 '.J O
•
Chairman Stanbridge questioned whether there are grant opportunities in that area,
and Director Davis noted that they are not as prevalent as stormwater grants but staff will
certainly investigate that possibility.
Commissioner Adams questioned whether staff would be able to give the residents
some assistance in the meantime, such as using graders in the area, although she knew that
93rd and 95`h Streets could not be properly maintained because of the location of the utility
poles and trees.
Director Davis was reluctant to put the County in the position of accepting
responsibility for these substandard roads.
Commissioner Macht felt that time should be given to Director Davis to allow him
to investigate the situation before making any decisions.
JULY 16, 2002
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and
the motion passed unanimously.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht,
SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board
unanimously instructed staff to bring a report to the
Board on the impact this project would have on the
Public Works Department to include finances,
personnel and equipment, to fund improvements of
the roads in the northwest section of the County.
-92-
377
11.H.1. REXFORD BUILDERS, INC. - WATER MAIN
REPLACEMENT ON 5TH STREET SOUTHWEST EAST
OF OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY (380 5TH STREET SW)
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 5, 2002:
DATE: JULY 5, 2002
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: W. ERIK OLSON Sot -
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
PREPARED AARON J. BOWLES, P E
AND STAFFED ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITIES
SUBJECT: DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT WITH REXFORD BUILDERS, INC. (FOR
WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT ON 5TH STREET S.W. EAST OF OLD DIXIE
HIGHWAY)
BACKGROTTND R, ANAT Y.STS
Rexford Builders, Inc. is proposing expansion of an existing commercial development located at 380 5th St. SW.
Rexford Builders is proposing to extend the existing water main from the right-of-way through their subject
property and provide a fire hydrant and required easement.
Currently there is an existing transite water main located along 5th Street SW east of Old Dixie Highway. In an
effort to reduce the amount of transite pipe being utilized within the County's service area, the Utilities
Department has requested the Developer install a PVC water main adjacent to the existing transite main, abandon
the transite water main in place, and connect the existing services and proposed fire service to the new PVC water
main.
Attached is a proposed Developer's Agreement with Rexford Builders, Inc. for full reimbursement of the
proposed PVC water main. The Developer's Agreement is stipulated to reimburse the Developer for the
County's share of the water main based on itemized invoices of installed materials on a percentage complete
basis -less 10.% retainage, monthly, with final payment and release of retainage at the time said facilities are
dedicated to the County (SC — 1.A of attached agreement).
As shown in Exhibit - B of the attached Agreement, the County's Share for installing the recommended
improvements is tabulated below and included in the attached Developer's Agreement is as follows:
Description
County's Share
Water Distribution Svstem
$26,035.50
Total Project Cost 1 $26.035.50
JULY 16, 2002
-93-
D
•
0
RECOMMEND ATTON•
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.
T.TST OF ATTACHMENTS•
Attachment -A. Proposed Developer's Agreement
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams,
SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board
unanimously approved the Agreement with Rexford
Builders, Inc. for the Construction of Off -Site
Utilities and authorized the Chairman to execute
same, as recommended by staff.
AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE
OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
13.A. CHAIRMAN RUTH M. STANBRIDGE - UPDATES - LOST
TREE ISLANDS (FLORIDA FOREVER PROGRAM) -
FLORIDA COMMUNITIES TRUST MEETING OF JULY
24, 2002 - TALLAHASSEE
Chairman Stanbridge noted that she will attend the Florida Communities Trust
Meeting of July 24, 2002, in Tallahassee regarding the Florida Forever Program as it relates
to Lost Tree Islands funding and handed out a copy of the Agenda (COPY IS ON FILE
WITH THE BACKUP FOR TODAY'S MEETING).
JULY 16, 2002
-94-
�� et
i1 1 �..
0 J
J
DOCUMENTS TO BE ADDED TO THE RECORD
The following has been received and is on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board:
Proof of Publication for Notice of Unclaimed Moneys (Bonds Deposited with the
Clerk of the Circuit Court prior to January 1, 2001).
14.A. EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT
None.
14.B. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
None.
14.C. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD
None.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the
Board adjourned at 1:28 p.m.
ATTEST:
J.
n, Clerk Ruth M. Stanbridge, Chairman
Minutes Approved:
JULY 16, 2002
-95-
iii
•