HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/23/2002L
•
A
MINUTES ATTACHED
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
AGENDA
TUESDAY, JULY 23, 2002 - 9:00 A.M.
County Commission Chamber
County Administration Building
1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Ruth M. Stanbridge, Chaiiinan
John W. Tippin, Vice Chaiiinan
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
9:00 a.m. 1.
2.
3.
CALL TO ORDER
INVOCATION
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
BACKUP
PAGES
James E Chandler
4. ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA /
EMERGENCY ITEMS
ADDITIONS: 1 1.F.2. Teamsters (Labor and Trades) Collective Bargaining Agreement
11.G.d. Emergency Repair of Bridge #880063 Located at CR510 & 82nd Avenue
WITHDRAWN: 9.B.2. Re Hamrick's Auto Body
ADDITIONAL BACKUP: 7.E. Re Water Main Extk,nsion in San Sebastian Springs Unit IV
5. PROCLAMATION and PRESENTATIONS
None
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Regular Meeting of June 18, 2002
7. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval. of Warrants
(memorandum dated July 12, 2002)
B Board of Zoning Adjustments
(memorandum dated July 11, 2002)
1-10
11
1
•
•
L..
7. CONSENT AGENDA (cont'd.):
C. Resignation from the Public Library Advisory Board
(memorandum dated July 15, 2002)
CKUP
PAGES
12-13
D. Appointment to Public Library Advisory Board
(memorandum dated July 15, 2002) 14-15
E Water Main Extension Along CR -512 & Water Service
to Lots 148 and 149 in San Sebastian Springs Unit IV
(memorandum dated July 15, 2002)
F. GHA Grand Harbor, Ltd Request for Final Plat Approval
for Sunset Trace — Grand Harbor Plat 28
(memorandum dated July 12, 2002)
G. GHA Grand Harbor, Ltd Request for Final Plat Approval
for Sunset Cove — Grand Harbor Plat 27
(memorandum dated July 12, 2002)
H. Fidelity Federal Bank & Trust's Request for Extension of
Site Plan Approval for a Bank/Office Building and a Retail
Building
(memorandum dated July 15, 2002)
I. GHA Harbor, Ltd Request for Final Plat Approval for
Marina Village Site "B' — Grand Harbor Plat 25
(memorandum dated July 15, 2002)
Oak Chase Development LLD, Request for Final Plat
Approval for Oak Chase Phase III
(memorandum dated July 12, 2002)
K. Mosby and Associates, Inc., Request for Release of
Easements at 960 37th Place (Medical Service Center
Subdivision)
(memorandum dated July 10, 2002)
L. Request by C. N. Kirrie to Release a 15 -foot Drainage
Easement from the North End of his Property in Roseland
(memorandum dated July 12, 2002)
M. Request for Floodplain Cut and Fill Balance Waiver for
Pelican Bay Estates Subdivision
(memorandum dated July 12, 2002)
2
16-31
32-45
46 59
60-66
67-83
84-95
96-102
103-108
109-111
•
8. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS and
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
None
9. PUBLIC ITEMS
A. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Postponement of Advertised Public Hearing on
Proposed Draft Offer to Lost Tree Village Corpora-
tion for Purchase of the Lost Tree Islands
(memorandum dated July 17, 2002)
2. AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE
AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FOR
4.72 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST
CORNER OF CR -510 AND US -1 FROM OCR, OFFICE,
COMMERCIAL, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND CH,
HEAVY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, TO CG GENERAL
COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AND PROVIDING CODI-
FICATION, SEVERABILITY, AND EFFECTIVE DATE
J. Richard Graves' request to rezone 4.72 acres from
OCR and CH, to CG (Quasi -Judicial)
(memorandum dated July 15, 2002)
•
BACKUP
PAGES-
112
AGES
112
113-126
B. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
1. Request from Brian Heady to Speak
(letter dated July 14, 2002) 127
2. Request to discuss Hamrick's Auto Body and the
cracking of the building caused by the County road
compactor
(memorandum dated July 17, 2002)
C. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEMS
Scheduled for Public Workshop August 6, 2002:
Children's Services Advisory Committee 2002 Needs
Assessment Workshop
10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS
None
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
A. Community Development
1. Board Consideration to Accept Donation of the
Wabasso Scrub Addition" LAAC Site (Legislative)
(memorandum dated July 17, 2002)
128
129
130-136
3
8
�Y.
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS (cont'd.):
A. Community Development (cont'd.):
2. Consideration of Draft Letter to the Department
of Community Affairs Transmitting Comments
on the City of Fellsmere's Draft Comprehensive
Plan Amendment
(memorandum dated July 12, 2002)
Consideration of the North Indian River Drive
Zoning Study
(memorandum dated July 10, 2002)
Emergency Services
BACKUP
PAGES
137-144
145-162
General Services
Supervisor of Elections Office Space, Change Order #2
(memorandum dated July 16, 2002)
Leisure Service
None
163-177
Office of Management and Budget
None
Human Resources
Collective Bargaining Strategy Meeting
(following conclusion of BCC meeting)
(memorandum dated July 16, 2002)
Public Works
1. Vero Lake Estates Stormwater Improvements,
Phase I — Additional Section 319(h) Non -Point
Source Program Management Grant for $226,808
(memorandum dated July 15, 2002)
179-196
Stoimwater Cost -Share Agreement Between St.
Johns River Water Management District and Indian
River County for Roadway Paving and Drainage
Improvements — Contract No. SF620AA
(memorandum dated July 8, 2002)
Amendment No. 3 to the North County Regional
Park Professional Architectural Services Agreement
(memorandum dated July 9, 2002)
197-208
209-213
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS (cont'd.):
H. Utilities
None
Human Services
None
BACKUP
PAGES
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 DISTRICTS/BOARDS
A. Emergency Services District
Solid Waste Disposal District
None
Environmental Control Board
15. ADJOURNMENT
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need to
ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made which includes the testimony and evidence
upon which the appeal will be based.
Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting may contact the County's
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Coordinator at 567-8000 x1223 at least 48 hours in advance of
meeting.
Indian River County WebSite: http://bccl.co.indian-river.fLus
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.
•
INDEX TO MINUTES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MEETING OF JULY 23, 2002
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. INVOCATION
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1
4. ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS 2
5. PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS 2
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JUKE 18, 2002 2
7. CONSENT AGENDA 3
7.A. Approval of Warrants 3
7 B Board of Zoning Adjustment - Christopher Marine Elected Chairman and
Fred Plair Elected Vice -Chairman for 2002 11
7.C. Resignation of Scarlett Chesser from Public Library Advisory Board 11
7.D. Appointment of Mary Louise Scheidt to the Public Library Advisory Board
12
7 E Water Main Extension Along CR -512 and Water Service to Lots 148 (Ted
J. Kwarchak, Jr. & Mary Sue Kwarchak, 13 West End Lane) and 149
(Michael P. McKnight & Lynn A. McKnight, 14 West End Lane) in San
Sebastian Springs Unit IV (Subject to Receipt of Signed Agreements from
the Parties) 13
7.F. GHA Grand Harbor, Ltd. - Final Plat Approval for Sunset Trace - Grand
Harbor Plat 28 15
7.G. GHA Grand Harbor, Ltd. - Final Plat Approval for Sunset Cove - Grand
Harbor Plat 27 17
7.H. Fidelity Federal Bank & Trust - Extension of Site Plan Approval for a
Bank/Office Building and a Retail Building (South Side of SR 60, West of
58th Avenue) 19
1
nu
D;.
7.I. GHA Harbor, Ltd. - Final Plat Approval for Marina Village Site "B" -
Grand Harbor Plat 25
7.J. Oak Chase Development LLD - Final Plat Approval for Oak Chase Phase
III 23
7.K. Resolution No. 2002-047 - Release of Easements at 960 37th Place
(Medical Service Center Subdivision) - Requested by Mosby and
Associates, Inc. (Flinchum, Randall & J. Russell) 25
7 L Resolution No. 2002-048 - Release 15 -foot Drainage Easement from North
End of C N. Kirrie's Property in Roseland 28
7.M. Floodplain Cut and Fill Balance Waiver for Pelican Bay Estates
Subdivision
21
33
9.A.1. PUBLIC HEARING POSTPONED - ADVERTISED - ON PROPOSED DRAFT
OFFER TO LOST TREE VILLAGE CORPORATION FOR PURCHASE OF
THE LOST TREE ISLANDS 34
9.A.2. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE NO. 2002-024 - J RICHARD GRAVES'
REQUEST TO REZONE 4 72 ACRES FROM OCR AND CH, TO CG (Quasi -
Judicial) 35
9 B 1 PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM - BRIAN HEADY REQUEST TO SPEAK 45
9 B 2 PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM - HAMRICK'S AUTO BODY - BUILDING
CRACKS CAUSED BY THE COUNTY'S ROAD COMPACTOR 46
9.C. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEMS - SCHEDULED FOR AUGUST 6, 2002 PUBLIC
WORKSHOP - CHILDREN'S SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2002
NEEDS ASSESSMENT WORKSHOP 46
11.A.1.
11.A.2.
"WABASSO SCRUB ADDITION LAAC SITE - ACCEPT DONATION
IN CONJUNCTION WITH PARK PLACE MOBILE HOME PARK
DEVELOPMENT EXPANSION 46
CONSIDERATION OF DRAFT LEI TER TO THE DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY AFFAIRS TRANSMITTING COMMENTS ON THE
CITY OF FELLSMERE'S DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT
50
11.A.3. CONSIDERATION OF THE NORTH INDIAN RIVER DRIVE ZONING
STUDY 57
2
DE'1
•
11.C. SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS OFFICE SPACE - G. E CAPITAL
MODULAR SPACE - CHANGE ORDER #2 69
11.F.1. COLLECTIVE BARGAINING STRATEGY MEETING - IAFF, LOCAL
2201 AND TEAMSTERS , LOCAL 769 (LABOR & TRADES AND
PARAMEDICS) 71
11.F.2. CONSIDERATION OF TEAMSTERS, LOCAL 769 (LABOR &
TRADES) COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT 71
11.G.1. VERO LAKE ESTATES STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS, PHASE I
- ADDITIONAL SECTION 319(h) NON -POINT SOURCE PROGRAM
MANAGEMENT GRANT THROUGH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FOR $226,808 (DEP
CONTRACT NO. WM803) 72
11.0.2.
STORMWATER COST-SHARF GRANT AGREEMENT WITH ST.
JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT FOR ROADWAY
PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS - CONTRACT NO. SF620AA
74
11.0.3. NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL PARK PROFESSIONAL
ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES AGREEMENT (SCOPE OF SERVICES
AND COMPENSATION - FLOOD DAMAGE ON SITE) - BRAD
SMITH ASSOCIATES, INC., AMENDMENT NO. 3 76
11.G.4. EMERGENCY REPAIR OF BRIDGE #880063 LOCATED AT CR510
AND 82ND AVENUE 77
13.A. CHAIRMAN STANBRIDGE - UPDATES - 78
14.A. EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT 79
14 B SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT 79
14.C. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD 79
3
r, r-,
•
July 23, 2002
The Board of County Commissioners ofIndian River County, Florida, met in Regular
Session at the County Commission Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on
Tuesday, July 23, 2002. Present were Ruth Stanbridge, Chairman; John W. Tippin, Vice
Chairman; Commissioners Fran B. Adams; Caroline D. Ginn; and Kenneth R. Macht. Also
present were James E. Chandler, County Administrator; Paul G. Bangel, County Attorney;
and Patricia Ridgely, Deputy Clerk.
1. CALL TO ORDER
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m.
2. INVOCATION
Commissioner Tippin delivered the invocation.
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Administrator Chandler led the Pledge to the Flag.
July 23, 2002
1
4. ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY
ITEMS
Chairman Stanbridge advised that there was additional backup for Item 7 E and Item
9.B.2. had been withdrawn. There were two emergency additional items: 11.F.2.- Teamsters
(Labor and Trades) Collective Bargaining Agreement and 11.G.4. - Emergency Repair of
Bridge #880063 Located at CR510 and 82nd Avenue.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Ginn the Board unanimously made the above
changes to the agenda.
5. PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS
None.
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JUNE 18, 2002
The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or additions to the Minutes of the
Regular Meeting of June 18, 2002. There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Vice
Chairman Tippin, the Board unanimously approved the minutes
of June 18, 2002, as written and distributed.
July 23, 2002
2
1
•
7. CONSENT AGENDA
7.A. Approval of Warrants
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 12, 2002:
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DATE: July 12, 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 5, 2002 to July 11 2002.
Attachment:
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Vice
Chairman Tippin, the Board unanimously approved the list of
warrants issued by the Clerk for the period July 5-11, 2002, as
requested
July 23, 2002
3
•
CHECK
NUMBER
O 021844
0021845
O 021846
O 021847
O 021848
O 021849
O 021850
0021851
O 021852
O 021853
0021854
O 021855
O 021856
O 326563
O 326564
0326565
O 326566
O 326567
O 326568
O 326569
0326570
.0326571
0326572
O 326573
O 326574
O 326575
0326576
O 326577
O 326578
O 326579
O 326580
O 326581
0326582
O 326583
O 326584
O 326585
0326586
O 326587
0326588
O 326589
0326590
O 326591
O 326592
0326593
O 326594
O 326595
O 326596
0326597
O 326598
O 326599
O 326600
O 326601.
O 326602
0326603
O 326604
0326605
O 326606
O 326607
July 23, 2002
NAME
KNOWLES, CYRIL
GERRY, RAYMOND
NORMAN, J. CLINTON
ADDISON, GLEN
SANIBEL HARBOUR RESORT & SPA
SANIBEL HARBOUR RESORT & SPA
HIGHMARK LIFE INSURANCE
IRC EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE -
IRC EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE-
UNIPSYCH BENEFITS OF FL,INC
ALDEN RISK MANAGEMENT
BLUE CROSS/BLUE SHIELD OF
HIGHMARK LIFE INSURANCE
A A FIRE EOUIPMENT, INC
•
ACE PLUMBING, INC
AERO PRODUCTS CORPORATION
APPLE MACHINE & SUPPLY CO
ATCO TOOL SUPPLY
ATLANTIC ROOFING OF
ACTION DIESEL INJECTION
A T & T WIRELESS SERVICES
ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
AMERICAN REPORTING
ALAN DALE WILLIAMS TRACTOR
A T & T
APOLLO ENTERPRISES
APPLIED TECHNOLOGY AND
AMERITREND HOMES
ACE TOOL CO
AVERY DENNISON CORP
A M ENGINEERING & TESTING INC
ACTION WELDING SUPPLY INC
AHEAD HEADGEAR INC
ALDEN RISK MANAGEMENT
ARMY/NAVY OUTDOORS
A T & T
AT&T BROADBAND
AMERICAN ENGINEERING SERVICES
AT&T BROADBAND
ALARM PARTNERS
BARTH CONSTRUCTION
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BIO -SERVICES OF VERO, INC
BARTON, JEFFREY K -CLERK
BARTON, JEFFREY K -CLERK
BURGOON BERGER
BARTON, JEFFREY K
BAKER & TAYLOR INC
BRODART CO
BAKER & TAYLOR ENTERTAINMENT
BRANDTS & FLETCHERS APPLIANCE
BARNEY, JUAN
BOOKS ON TAPE INC
BEAZER HOMES, INC
BETTER COPY CENTER, A
BROGNANO, WILLIAM
BLUE CROSS/BLUE SHIELD OF
HMG
4
CHECK
DATE
2002-07-05
2002-07-05
2002-07-05
2002-07-05
2002-07-08
2002-07-08
2002-07-10
2002-07-10
2002-07-10
2002-07-10
2002-07-10
2002-07-10
2002-07-10
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
CHECK
AMOUNT
1,039.84
783.76
196.09
461.66
357.00
357.00
4,216.30
34,187.50
11,385.50
574.20
2,338.20
4,769.10
270.00
1,344.60
290.50
552.20
103.68
111.86
32,271.30
483.80
29.94
7,410.66
280.00
1,160.00
62.22
56.74
34,916.30
500.00
249.77
2,591.00
288.00
34.92
1,007.69
20,472.24
67.00
873.64
39.95
20,398.50
4,137.05
693.00
114,236.10
6,097.11
75.00
6,478.50
32.55
500.00
6,911.95
480.28
658.21
588.00
98.70
500.00
69.00
500.00
101.15
500.00
41,756.12
5.58
n+►
bry
s
•
CHECK
NUMBER
O 326608
O 326609
O 326610
O 326611
O 326612
0326613
O 326614
O 326615
O 326616
O 326617
O 326618
O 326619
O 326620
0326621
O 326622
O 326623
0326624
O 326625
O 326626
0326627
O 326628
O 326629
O 326630
0326631
0326632
O 326633
O 326634
O 326635
O 326636
NAME
BREVARD ASSOCIATED COURT
BUSHNELL CORP
BANGEL, PAUL G
BARAJAS, ALMA ROSA
BOXWOOD TECHNOLOGY, INC
BLACK, KIM
BRACKEN, PATRICK
BOND, MELANIE
BELLSOUTH
CAMP, DRESSER & MCKEE, INC
CARTER ASSOCIATES, INC
CLEMENTS PEST CONTROL
COLD AIR DISTRIBUTORS
COMMUNICATIONS INT'L INC
CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC
CATHOLIC CHARITIES
MILBERG CONSTRUCTION CO
OALITION FOR THE HOMELESS
ORVEL CORPORATION
ALL ONE, INC
OOK, TERRY
ROSSROADS ANIMAL HOSPITAL
OMMUNITY CHILD CARE RESOURCES
ORPORATION OF THE PRESIDENT
ENTER FOR EMOTIONAL AND
APE PUBLICATIONS INC
ORPORATION OF THE PRESIDENT
AROUEST AUTO PARTS
OMMUNITY ASPHALT CORP
ALLAWAY GOLF BALL CO
RAIL ELECTRIC
INGULAR WIRELESS
I MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS INC
OICEPOINT BUSINESS &
APMAN, FLORA REEVES
CCONE, BRENDA
L BUILDERS, INC
ILY COURIER SERVICE
VES COMMUNICATIONS
LTA SUPPLY CO
MCO INC
ORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
PENDABLE DODGE, INC
CKERSON-FLORIDA, INC
VIS, BETTY
TA SUPPLIES, INC
RIDA DEPARTMENT OF
IDSON TITLES, INC
E PAPER COMPANY
IGNED TRAFFIC
NTOWN PRODUCE INC
BLETREE HOTEL
TAPHONE
NELL, NANCY L
BREW COFFEE SERVICE, INC
ILDOUNE BOWLING LANES
UND & DRITENBAS
NG, MARSHA
•
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
O 326637 C
O 326638 C
O 326639 C
O 326640 CG
0326641 CH
O 326642 CH
O 326643 CI
O 326644 CA
O 326645 DA
0326646 DA
O 326647 DE
0326648 DE
O 326649 FL
O 326650 DE
O 326651 DI
0326652 DA
O 326653 DA
0326654 FLO
O 326655 DAV
O 326656 DAD
0326657 DES
O 326658 DOW
0326659 DOU
O 326660 DIC
O 326661 DWI
O 326662 E -Z
O 326663 ERC
O 326664 EDL
O 326665 EWI
July 23, 2002
CHECK
DATE
2002-G7-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
5
CHECK
AMOUNT
228.50
65.00
145.33
80.00
100.00
500.00
500.00
136.00
400.73
5,330.90
25,138.62
43.00
3,695.06
9,764.20
291.18
4,526.21
12,269.00
4,203.76
540.28
75.00
136.32
15.00
35,555.54
9.75
855.00
409.00
150.00
413.69
743.58
1,005.66
500.00
1,520.83
138,901.20
25.00
283.67
45.00
500.00
725.00
180.00
21.77
717.42
2,375.31
124.50
1,381.93
177.06
182.79
50.00
1,698.04
272.84
1,585.84
165.90
178.00
126.00
720.00
323.75
393.75
1,023.30
12.00
r•..r
Li‘
CHECK
NUMBER
0326666
O 326667
O 326668
O 326669
O 326670
0326671
O 326672
0326673
0326674
O 326675
0326676
O 326677
0326678
0326679
O 326680
0326681
0326682
0326683
0326684
0326685
0326686
O 326687
O 326688
0326689
O 326690
O 326691
O 326692
O 326693
0326694
O 326695
0326696
0326697
O 326698
O 326699
0326700
O 326701
0326702
O 326703
O 326704
0326705
O 326706
O 326707
0326708
O 326709
O 326710
O 326711
0326712
O 326713
0326714
O 326715
O 326716
O 326717
O 326718
0326719
0326720
O 326721
July 23, 2002
NAME
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SERVICES
EVERGLADES FARM
EVANS, JIM
ELY, SAMUEL R
FEDEX
FELLSMERE, CITY OF
FISHER SCIENTIFIC
FLORIDA
FLORIDA
FLORIDA
FLORIDA
FLORIDA
FLORIDA
FLORIDA
FLORIDA
FLOWERS
COOPERATIVE EXTENSION
EAST COAST RAILWAY LLC
BOLT AND NUT CO
COCA-COLA BOTTLING CO
DEPARTMENT OF LAW
ENGINEERING SOCIETY
POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
SLUDGE, INC
BAKING COMPANY OF
FLORIDA TIRE RECYCLING, INC
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE
FIRST NATIONAL BANK
FIREFIGHTERS BOOKSTORE
FELLSMERE POLICE DEPARTMENT
FLORIDA VETERINARY LEAGUE
F & W PUBLICATIONS INC
FACTICON, INC
FACTS ON FILE INC
FREIGHTLINER TRUCKS OF SOUTH
FIRESTONE TIRE & SERVICE
FLORIDA PAIN MANAGEMENT ASSOC
FIRST UNION
FLORIDA HIGHWAY PATROL
FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INS
FLINN COURT REPORTING
FIRST AMERICAN TITLE
GALE GROUP, THE
GOODKNIGHT LAWN EQUIPMENT, INC
GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO INC
GOLF MAGAZINE
GEE, DAVID
FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE
GORHAM, JONATHAN
GOUGE, EMILY
GAGED, SALOI
GREAT -FULLY DEAD PEST MGMT INC
GODFREY, JENNIFER
HUMANE SOCIETY OF VERO BEACH
HUNTER AUTO SUPPLIES
HILL MANUFACTURING
HOOSE, CLIFFORD
HELD, PATRICIA BARGO
HACH COMPANY
HOMETOWN PET CARE CENTER
HOLIDAY BUILDERS
HOLMES, IDA
HANSEN, SUSAN
HOME DEPOT
CHECK
DATE
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002=07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
CHECK
AMOUNT
650.10
818.07
650.00
500.00
42.40
42.96
90.86
6,428.50
1,097.75
237.08
677.10
255.00
15.00
14,516.06
26,476.10
65.91
1,109.31
624.00
129.43
55.00
490.00
25.00
350.00
144.94
1,025.00
31.50
1,688.90
1,184.77
37.00
17,911.64
50.00
12.69
196.00
147.44
1,303.84
174.60
166.44
24.00
209.40
3,609.41
121.18
108.15
80.00
8.00
500.00
28,260.00
819.32
284.82
44.08
241.50
571.70
15.00
500.00
45.24
129.05
475.00
•
CHECK
NUMBER
0326722
0326723
O 326724
O 326725
0326726
O 326727
0326728
0326729
0326730
0326731
O 326732
O 326733
O 326734
O 326735
O 326736
NAME
HOMELAND IRRIGATION CENTER
HIGHMARK LIFE INSURANCE
HEISEY ESQ, MICHAEL
HILLARY, NICHOLAS AND LARAMIE
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SOLID
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY HEALTH
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY HEALTH
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
INDIAN RIVER BATTERY, INC
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY UTILITY
INDIAN RIVER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
INDIAN RIVER TITLE CORP
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SCHOOL
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
IBM CORPORATION
O 326737 INTERLIGHT
O 326738 IRC EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE -
0326739 INDIAN RIVER SHORES POLICE
O 326740 INDIAN RIVER SURGICAL ASSOC
0326741 JANITORIAL DEPOT OF AMERICA
0326742 KELLER, LEA
O 326743 KELLY TRACTOR CO
O 326744 KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES, INC
0326745 KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES, INC
O 326746 K S M ENGINEERING & TESTING
O 326747 K -MART #7294
O 326748 KAREN. POWER TOWER, INC
O 326749 KLEIN, BURY & ASSOCIATES, INC
O 326750 KELLER, JENAE
O 326751 KEMIRON INC
O 326752 KIRBY, WILLIAM
O 326753 LONG, JAMES T ESO_UIRE
O 326754 LEGACY BUILDING SYSTEMS
O 326755 LANDERS, PETRA
O 326756 LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC.
O 326757 LEWIS, RUTH A
O 326758 L B SMITH, INC
O 326759 LABOR FINDERS
0325760 LAPSCO INC
0326761 LOWE'S COMPANIES,INC
O 326762 LANGSTON, HESS, BOLTON,ZNOSKO
0326763 MARTIN, KRISTINE
O 326764 MIKES GARAGE
O 326765 MIDWEST TAPE EXCHANGE
O 326766 MR BOB PORTABLE TOILET RENTAL
0326767 MGB CONSTRUCTION INC
O 326768 MEDICAL SERVICES COMPANY, INC
O 326769 MURPHY, DEBBIE
O 326770 METTLER-TOLEDO FLORIDA, INC
0326771 MORSE, MARY ANNE
O 326772 MEDICAL RECORDS SERVICES, INC
O 326773 MERCEDES HOMES INC
O 326774 MIERAS, MOLLY
O 326775 MUNIS INC
0326776 MEHTA,SONAL
0326777 NATIONAL TECHNICAL COMMUNI-
O 326778 NEXTEL CCMMUNICATIONS
O 326779 NORTRAX SE L.L.C.
July 23, 2002
CHECK
DATE
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
7
CHECK
AMOUNT
199.94
8,673.80
8.70
161.50
3,365.39
132.50
50.00
480.00
506.50
734.42
10,330.24
500.11
862.50
350.00
1,023.59
53.60
277,894.20
25.00
1,045.50
2,444.01
172.02
140.92
1,136.25
1,509.99
345.00
115.03
1,270.00
688.50
38.62
1,022.27
500.00
8,100.00
480.00
58.20
819.65
50.92
1,084.86
1,617.44
587.80
268.68
503.38
11.65
160.00
296.87
366.00
500.00
79.10
122.50
3,000.00
6.00
418.80
1,000.00
19.31
488,986.25
5.00
131.25
523.67
2,825.16
CHECK
NUMBER
O 326780
O 326781
O 326782
O 326783
O 326784
O 326785
O 326786
O 326787
O 326788
O 326789
O 326790
O 326791
O 326792
0326793
0326794
0326795
O 326796
O 326797
O 326798
O 326799
0326800
O 326801
O 326802
O 326803
0326804
0326805
O 326806
O 326807
O 326808
O 326809
O 326810
0326811
O 326812
0326813
0326814
O 326815
0326816
O 326817
0326818
O 326819
O 326820
O 326821
O 326822
0326823
O 326824
O 326825
O 326826
0326827
O 326828
O 326829
O 326830
0326831
O 326832
O 326833
0326834
O 326835
O 326836
0326837
July 23, 2002
NAME
NORTHSIDE AGAPE MINISTRIES
NOWLIN, TIAIRA
OFFICE PRODUCTS & SERVICE
OXMOOR HOUSE
OFFICE DEPOT, INC
O 'HAIRE, QUINN & CHANDLER
ON ITS WAY
PARAGON ELECTRIC, INC
PARKS RENTAL INC
PEACE RIVER ELECTRIC
PETERSON'S
PUBLIC DEFENDER
P B S & J
PETTY CASH
P INEWOODS ANIMAL HOSPITAL
PHOENIX AGENCY, INC THE
PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION
PROFESSIONAL CASE MANAGEMENT
P IPPIN PROPERTIES, INC
PERSONNEL PLUS INC
PROFORMA
P B S & J
PETERSON, KIM
PERKINELMER INSTRUMENTS
POLK FAMILY REUNION
ROBINSON, NIKKI
R GEORGE & ASSOCIATES, INC
RECORDED BOOKS, LLC
RAPP, PAMELA
REAM, CHARLES R
ROGER DEAN CHEVROLET
RESEARCH TECHNOLOGY
SECURITY TITLE OF INDIAN
SEWELL HARDWARE CO, INC
SOUTHSIDE VETERINARY HOSPITAL
S T LUCIE BATTERY & TIRE, INC
SUNRISE TRACTOR & EOUIPMNT INC
STEWART TITLE OF INDIAN RIVER
SAFESPACE INC
S UBWAY STAMP SHOP INC
SOUTHERN SEWER EQUIPMENT SALES
S UBSTANCE ABUSE COUNCIL
S PALDING
SELIG INDUSTRIES
S TEWART MINING INDUSTRIES INC
S IMPLEX TIME RECORDER CO
SHEPKE, GEORGIANNA
SAFETY PRODUCTS INC
S TAGE & SCREEN
SUMMIT CONSTRUCTION MGMT INC
S CHOLASTIC SPORTS INC
S EBASTIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT
SUNCOAST COUNSELING &
S PEIRS, DONNA
SKATE FACTORY
STORAGE SOLUTIONS
SECURITY FIRST TITLE
SEYMOUR, LINDA
8
CHECK
DATE
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
CHECK
AMOUNT
8,012.05
19.31
510.60
24.91
3,474.97
171.27
69.40
9,664.01
702.44
194.84
26.37
5,017.83
1,400.00
53.08
15.00
18,000.00
71.17
115.75
600.00
1,140.00
74.50
3,185.00
25.72
705.26
50.00
5.00
19,614.09
939.25
24.00
75.00
52.58
2,579.00
62.35
12.70
15.00
106.90
28.02
336.09
2,115.38
39.58
538.92
9,400.16
317.28
439.02
5,010.71
1,095.90
221.52
491.22
49.46
69,300.00
59.50
75.00
1,275.00
126.00
1,804.00
231.54
7.24
245.00
Q'!
Ln
•
CHECK
NUMBER
0326838
O 326839
0326840
O 326841
O 326842
0326843
O 326844
0326845
O 326846
O 326847
O 326848
O 326849
O 326850
O 326851
O 326852
0326853
0326854
O 326855
0326856
O 326857
O 326858
0326859
O 326860
O 326861
0326862
0326863
0326864
O 326865
O 326866
0326867
0326868
0326869
0326870
O 326871
O 326872
O 326873
O 326874
O 326875
O 326876
O 326877
O 326878
O 326879
O 326880
O 326881
O 326882
O 326883
O 326884
O 326885
O 326886
O 326887
O 326888
O 326889
O 326890
O 326891
O 326892
O 326893
O 326894
0326895
NAME
SERRA, RACHEL
SILVERMAN, DOUG
SMITH & COMPANY, INC
SUNSHINE PHYSICAL THERAPY
SYNDISTAR INC
SONNEBORN RUTTER COONEY AND
TITLEIST
TEAM EQUIPMENT, INC
TIPPIN, JOHN W
TESNOW, RONALD L
TRUGREEN CHEMLAWN
TREASURE COAST BUILDERS INC
TEAGUE, ROSEMARY
TREASURE COAST REFUSE
SCRIPPS TREASURE COAST
THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR CORP
TARGET STORES COMMERCIAL
TOZZOLO, STEVIE
TOTAL TRUCK PARTS INC
TRIO PHOENIX PRODUCTIONS
UNIVERSAL SIGNS & ACCESSORIES
ULVERSCROFT LARGE PRINT
U S FILTER DISTRIBUTION GROUP
UNIPSYCH BENEFITS OF FL,INC
VELDE FORD, INC
VERO BEACH BOOK CENTER
VERO BEACH, CITY OF
VERO CHEMICAL DISTRIBUTORS,INC
VERO LAWNMOWER CENTER, INC
VIRGIL'S RADIATOR WORKS
VILLARS, RICHARD
VERO BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
VERO BOWL
VERO COLLISION CENTER
VILLENEUVE, CYNTHIA
WAL-MART
WALSH, LYNN
WILLIAM THIES & SONS, INC
WILSON, MARGARET F
WEST GROUP PAYMENT CTR
WASTE MANAGEMENT
WALGREEN COMPANY
WILLIAMSON, LESLIE K
W W GRAINGER INC
W C G, INC
WILSON, RICHARD A.
WRIGHT, LAUREL
XEROX CORPORATION
YORK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
ZIEGLER, MICHAEL R
ZORC, R & SONS BUILDERS INC
ZETA TECHNOLOGY INC
WODTKE, RUSSELL
BRAY, ROBERT
MORRIS, PHILLIP
ASH, ROBERT & DOREEN
WEATHERINGTON, MARY
MC CLELLAND, LUCY
July 23, 2002
CHECK
DATE
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
9
CHECK
AMOUNT
19.31
67.32
835,158.58
15.00
290.00
94.50
1,929.60
541.41
18.27
307.09
105.00
500.00
66.46
674.00
4,215.52
1,958.00
106.56
38.62
1,216.22
33.15
1,477.00
612.45
3,045.02
5,027.44
1,481.13
89.95
66,011.68
657.40
422.46
650.00
63.00
304.41
1,687.50
200.00
84.00
61.59
18.56
445.00
118.90
678.25
610.48
2,463.16
210.00
341.88
2,000.00
500.00
38.62
772.60
3,935.00
148.10
500.00
9,720.00
295.97
349.92
23.77
42.51
48.10
3.15
L�1
CHECK
NUMBER
O 326896
O 326897
O 326898
O 326899
0326900
O 326901
0326902
0326903
O 326904
0326905
0326906
0326907
0326908
0326909
0326910
0326911
0326912.
0326913
0326914
0326915
0326916
0326917
O 326918
0326919
0326920
O 326921
O 326922
O 326923
0326924
0326925
0326926
O 326927
0326928
O 326929
0326930
O 326931
O 326932
O 326933
O 326934
O 326935
0326936
O 326937
0326938
0326939
0326940
0326941
0326942
O 326943
0326944
O 326945
O 326946
0326947
O 326948
0326949
0326950
0326951
0326952
0326953
NAME
S TEWART, LARRY
BURGOON & BERGER CONST CO
MURRAY, SUSAN
ITS MASTEC
MC CLENDON, ALICE
RYAN, DENNIS
MAC ISAAC, WARREN
S ZETELA, CAROLE
HERRN, DEAN
THOMAS, ERNESTINE
FRIEDMAN, LOUISE
CLOSET ELEGANCE INC
BURGOON BERGER CONST CO
S TEWART, DAVID
KELLY, STEVE
HOLIDAY BUILDERS
MERCEDES HOMES INC
WILLIAMS, WILBERT
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY
AAC BUILDERS INC
GHO VERO BEACH INC
WILLIAMS, MELISSA
BARBATO, JOHN
MGB CONSTRUCTION INC
NALBANTOGLU, ARTIN & JAKLIN
D I ROCCO CONSTRUCTION
FRENCH, BRYAN & APRIL
SMITH, CRYSTAL M
WELLINGTON HOMES
PASSAGE ISLAND HOMES
THEIS, BRENDA
CHANNING CORP XXIX
ELLERMAN, KEITH
E STATE OF EMERY SAVOIE
WESTFAHL, ARLINE
REED, DEBORAH
COAKLEY, MATT OR MELANIE
DAVE GOLDEN HOMES
MAINSTREET AT VERO BEACH INC
WIECZOREK, EDWARD P
O 'BRIEN, REED
LOAR, DERYL B
WELLER, REBECCA
BUONICONTI, TERESA
FLAVIN, JOHN M
P IZZO, JAMES
VOUTSINAS, SUSAN
ROSSI, JACQELINE
MAGE, CHRISTINE
S ERVICEMASTER
COLE, MICHELE
MOORE DR, ROBERT L
ADVANCED CUSTOM CARPENTRY
FIVE OAKS PROPERTIES
HARTWELL GROVE
BOBBY ALLISON WIRELESS INC/NEW
GBJ VERO BEACH LLC
LEE, ALAN K & SUSAN THWEATT
July 23, 2002
CHECK
DATE
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
2002-07-11
10
CHECK
AMOUNT
13.00
199.36
33.60
87.10
35.02
26.85
44.78
22.87
105.64
49.80
30.33
47.68
192.17
52.58
33.73
511.37
61.83
61.54
55.91
38.59
186.54
29.49
20.15
113.85
36.58
51.90
16.54
10.08
26.39
74.08
91.65
24.91
73.58
17.06
47.15
39.26
36.47
35.31
56.64
56.64
29.58
19.75
19.92
48.46
32.18
70.43
7.89
57.25
3.80
91.61
32.46
31.07
35.63
91.50
90.96
11.20
76.73
87.00
2,701,851.94
nu
0e
a
7.B. Board of Zoning Adjustment - Christopher Marine Elected
Chairman and Fred Plair Elected Vice -Chairman for 2002
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 11, 2002:
To: Members of the Board of County Commissioners
Date: July 11, 2002
Subject: Board of Zoning Adjustments (BZA)
From. Kim Massung, Executive Aide
At the BZA meeting on June 13, 2002, the members elected Mr. Christopher Marine as
Chairman and Mr. Fred Ram as Vice -Chairman of the BZA for 2002.
INFORMATION FOR THE RECORD. NO ACTION REQUIRED OR TAKEN
7.C. Resignation of Scarlett Chesser from Public Library Advisory
Board
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 15, 2002:
To: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
Date: July 15, 2002
Subject: RESIGNATION FROM THE PUBLIC LIBRARY ADVISIORY BOARD
(PLAB)
From: Ruth M. Stanbridge
Chairman
Scarlett Chesser has submitted the attached resignation letter dated July 3, 2002 from the Public
Library Advisory Board.
Attachment — Letter dated July 3, 2002
July 23, 2002
11
0A
0
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Vice
Chairman Tippin, the Board unanimously- acknowledged the
resignation of Scarlett Chesser from the Public Library
Advisory Board.
7.D. Appointment of Mary Louise Scheidt to the Public Library
Advisory Board
The Board reviewed a memorandum of July 15, 2002:
To: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
Date: July 15, 2002
Subject: APPOINTMENT TO PUBLIC LIBRARY ADVISIORY BOARD (PLAB)
From: Ruth M. Stanbridge
Chairman
Attached please find the resume of Mary Louise Scheidt, who I would like to appoint as my
representative for District 2 on PLAB' Members of this Board serve a four year term and this
term will be up for reappointment in January 2004. This appointment fills the vacancy of
Scarlett Chesser.
Attachment —Mary Louise Scheidt Resume
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Vice
Chairman Tippin, the Board unanimously accepted the
appointment of Mary Louise Scheidt to the Public Library
Advisory Board.
July 23, 2002
12
l' 4'
b1
t
7.E. Water Main Extension Along CR -512 and Water Service to Lots
148 (Ted J. Kwarchak, Jr. & Mary Sue Kwarchak, 13 West End Lane)
and 149 (Michael P. McKnight & Lynn A. McKnight, 14 West End
Lane) in San Sebastian Springs Unit IV (Subject to Receipt of Signed
Agreements from the Parties)
The Board reviewed memoranda of -July 15, 2002 and July 19, 2002:
DATE: MONDAY JULY 15, 2002
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
THRU: W. ERIK OLSON, DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
J
PREPARED STEVEN J. DOYLE, P.E.
AND ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
STAFFED BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICE
SUBJECT: WATER MAIN EXTENSION ALONG CR -512 & WATER SERVICE TO
LOTS 148 & 149 IN SAN SEBASTIAN SPRINGS UNIT IV
BACKGROUND:
The Department has been requested by several area residents of San Sebastian Springs to extend
water service to their homes. Three property owners have signed temporary water service
agreements and service has been provided to lots 12, 121 and 123 from the water main on
Gardenia Street. Ted J. Kwarchak Jr. & Mary Sue Kwarchak, 13 West End Lane (Lot 148) and
Michael P. McKnight & Lynn A McKnight, 14 West End Lane (Lot 149) have requested that
water service be provided to their homes from the County's water main on CR -512.
ANALYSIS:
There is currently a 12 -inch County owned water main along CR -512 that can be extended to
service Lots 148 and 149 Extending the water main will further benefit the surrounding
community should future water distribution system improvements be requested.
Interest is growing for installing County water lines in San Sebastian Springs. A water main
extension between Lots 148 & 149 can be utilized to serve the San Sebastian Springs
community, if a future water assessment project is instituted. The owners of lots 148 & 149 have
provided easements that will allow service to their homes and provide an access entry for
July 23, 2002
13
nit
9
installing County water to the subdivision. These owners have committed to endorsing
Temporary Water Service Agreements (see attached agreements), which obligate them to
participate in a future water assessment project. The owners will be paying the direct costs for
the installation of a fire hydrant If an assessment moves forward in this neighborhood then the
fire hydrant costs will be applied toward their share of a future water assessment
Staff has solicited the assistance of the County's Labor Contractor, (George E. French, Inc.) to
construct the improvements. The estimated total cnnstruction cost of labor and matenals for
extending a water main from CR -512 is $14,638.65 ($8,744.51 for labor and $5,894.14 for
materials). The cost of the water main extension will be recovered if a future water assessment
project is instituted in the area.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County
Commissioners approve the following:
a) Approve a water main extension from the County water line on CR -512 through Lots 148
& Lot 149.
b) Approve Attachment -A - Work Authorization Directive to the County's Labor Contractor
(George E. French, Inc) in the total amount of $14,638.65 to perform the work.
c) Authorize the Chairman to execute the attached Work Authorization Directive.
d) Authorize the Chairman to execute the attached Temporary
Service Agreement.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment -A Work Authorization Directive to George E. French Inc. in the total amount of
$14,638.65
Attachment -B Temporary Water Service Agreements
DATE:
TO:
THRU•
FROM:
SUBJECT:
JULY 19, 2002
JAMES E. CHANDLER, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR �, /,
W. ERIK OLSON, DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
STEVEN J. DOYLE, ASST DIR. OF UTILITY SERVICES
JAMES D. CHASTAIN, MANAGER — ASSESSMENT PROJEC
AGENDA FOR JULY 23, 2002 — RE:
WATER MAIN EXTENSION ALONG CR -512 & WATER
SERVICE TO LOTS 148 & 149 IN SAN SEBASTIAN SPRINGS
UNIT IV
The above captioned Agenda Item, Water Main Extension Along CR -512 — Water
Service to Lots 148 and 149 in San Sebastian Springs — Unit IV, is being submitted on
July 23, 2002,for conceptual approval only subject to such time as we receive the signed
agreements from the parties, Mr & Mrs. P. McKnight, and Mr. & Mrs. Ted J. Kwarchak.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to call.
July 23, 2002
14
• •
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Vice
Chairman Tippin, the Board unanimously approved a) a water
main extension from the County water line on CR -512 through
Lots 148 and 149, b) approved attachment A - Work
Authorization Directive to the County's Labor Contractor
(George E French, Inc.) In the total amount of $14,638.65 to
perform the work, c) authorized the Chairman to execute the
Work Authorization Directive, and d) authorized the Chairman
to execute the Temporary Service Agreement, all as
recommended in the memorandum. All of the above are subject
to receipt of signed agreements.
DOCUMENTS WILL BE ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO DIE BOARD
WHEN EXECUTED AND RECEIVED
7.F. GHA Grand Harbor, Ltd. - Final Plat Approval for Sunset Trace
- Grand Harbor Plat 28
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 12, 2002:
TO: James E. Chandler; County Administrator
MENT HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Obert i 1. Keating, AICPvelopment Director
THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP; Planning Dire
FROM: Mark Zans, Senior Planner, Current Development
DATE: July 12, 2002
SUBJECT: GHA Grand Harbor, Ltd. Request for Final Plat Approval for Sunset Trace—
Grand Harbor Plat 28
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of
County Commissioners at its regular meeting of July 23, 2002.
July 23, 2002
15
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS:
Sunset Trace - Grand Harbor Plat 28 is a subdivision of a 0.99 -acre parcel into 2 multi -family
duplex units (4 lots), and one other tract that will be used for landscaping The subject property is
part of the overall Grand Harbor Planned Development (PD) and is consistent with the approved
Grand Harbor conceptual PD plan. The subject site is located in the River Club area of the
overall Grand Harbor development, is zoned RM -6, and has an M-1 land use designation.
On April 26, 2001, the Planning and Zoning Commission granted preliminary PD plan/plat
approval for Sunset Trace - Grand Harbor Plat 28. The applicant subsequently obtained a land
development permit and commenced construction of the project. The applicant is proposing to
"bond -out" for completion of the remaining required improvements as allowed by the land
development regulations (LDRs). Now, the applicant is requesting final plat approval and has
submitted the following:
1. A final plat in conformance with the approved preliminary PD plan/plat;
2. An Engineers Certified Cost Estimate for the remaining required improvements;
3. A completed Contract for Construction of remaining required improvements; and
4. A Cash Deposit and Escrow Agreement to guarantee the Contract.
ANALYSIS:
All of the required subdivision improvements have been completed except for some final asphalt
work The applicant is proposing to "bond -out" for the asphalt work as provided for in the
county's LDRs. Public Works has reviewed and approved the submitted Engineer's Certified
Cost Estimate for the remaining work and corresponding cash escrow amount. The County
Attorney's Office has reviewed and approved the submitted Contract for Construction. The cash
escrow, which represents 115% of the estimated cost for the remaining asphalt work, has been
submitted_ It should be noted that all improvements within the Grand Harbor development will
be pnvate, with the exception of certain utilities facilities that will be dedicated and guaranteed
to Indian River County as required by the Utility Services Department.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the above analysis, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant
final plat approval for Sunset Trace - Grand Harbor Plat 28 and authorize the Chaiiinan to
execute the submitted Contract for Constriction and the Cash Deposit and Escrow Agreement.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Application
2. Location Map
3. Plat Layout
4. Contract for Construction
5. Cash Deposit and Escrow Agreement
July 23, 2002
16
•
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Vice
Chairman Tippin, the Board unanimously granted final plat
approval for Sunset Trace - Grand Harbor Plat 28, and
authorized the Chairman to execute the submitted Contract for
Construction and the Cash Deposit and Escrow Agreement, as
recommended in the memorandum.
COPIES OF DOCUMENTS ARE ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
7. G. GHA Grand Harbor, Ltd. - Final Plat Approval for Sunset Cove
- Grand Harbor Plat 27
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 12, 2002:
TO: James E. Chandler; County Administrator
' • • TMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE:
illeAlfr Ai
adif
obert M. Keating, AICP
THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP; Planning Ditor
evelopment Director
FROM: Mark Zans, Senior Planner, Current Development
DATE: July 12, 2002
SUBJECT: GHA Grand Harbor, Ltd. Request for Final Plat Approval for Sunset Cove —
Grand Harbor Plat 27
It is requested that the data herein presented be given foiuial consideration by the Board of
County Commissioners at its regular meeting of July 23, 2002.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS:
Sunset Cove - Grand Harbor Plat 27 is a subdivision of a 3.28 -acre parcel into 11 single-family
lots and two tracts that will be used for landscaping and stoimwater management. The subject
property is part of the overall Grand Harbor Planned Development (PD) and is consistent with
the approved Grand Harbor conceptual PD plan. The subject site is located in the River Club
July 23, 2002
17
Ulf
4
area of the overall Grand Harbor development, is zoned RM -6 and RS -6, and has an M-1 land
use designation.
On April 26 2001, the Planning and Zoning Commission granted preliminary PD plan/plat
approval for Grand Harbor Plat 27. The applicant subsequently obtained a land development
permit and commenced construction of the project. The applicant is proposing to "bond -out" for
completion of the remaining required improvements as allowed by the land development
regulations (LDRs). Now, the applicant is requesting final plat approval and has submitted the
following:
1. A final plat in conformance with the approved preliminary PD plan/plat;
2. A Engineers Certified Cost Estimate for the remaining required improvements;
3. A completed Contract for Construction of remaining required improvements, and
4. A Cash Deposit and Escrow Agreement to guarantee the Contract.
ANALYSIS:
All of the required subdivision improvements have been completed except for some final asphalt
work. The applicant is proposing to "bond -out" for the asphalt work as provided for in the
county's LDRs. Public Works has reviewed and approved the submitted Engineer's Certified
Cost Estimate and corresponding cash escrow amount. The County Attorney's Office has
reviewed and approvedthe submitted Contract for Construction. The cash escrow amount,which
represents 115% of the estimated cost forthe remaining asphalt work, has been submitted. It
should be noted that all improvements within the Grand Harbor development will be private,
with the exception of certain utilities facilities that will be dedicated and guaranteed to Indian
River County as required by the Utility Services Department.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the above analysis, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant
final plat approval for Sunset Cove - Grand Harbor Plat 27 and authorize the Chairman to
execute the submitted Contract for Construction and the Cash Deposit and Escrow Agreement.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Application
2. Location Map
3. Plat Layout
4. Contract for Construction
5. Cash Deposit and Escrow Agreement
July 23, 2002
18
U1
7
•
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Vice
Chairman Tippin, the Board unanimously granted final plat
approval for Sunset Cove - Grand Harbor Plat 27, and
authorized the Chairman to execute the submitted Contract for
Construction and the Cash Deposit and Escrow Agreement, as
recommended in the memorandum.
COPIES OF DOCUMENTS ARE ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
7.H. Fidelity Federal Bank & Trust - Extension of Site Plan Approval
for a Bank/Office Building and a Retail Building (South Side of SR
60, West of 58th Avenue)
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 15, 2002:
TO:
James E. Chandler; County Administrator
MENT HEAD CONCURRENCE:
r
Robert M. Keating, AICP
THROUGH: Stan Boling, CP; Planning Director
evelopment Director
FROM: Peter J. Radke; Senior Planner, Current Developmen
DATE: July 15, 2002
SUBJECT: Fidelity Federal Bank & Trust's Request for Extension of Site Plan Approval for
a Bank/Office Building and a Retail Building
SP -MA -O1-09-64 / 2001040116-27493
It is requested that the data herein presented be given foimal consideration by the Board of
County Commissioners at its regular meeting of July 23, 2002.
July 23, 2002
19
nor
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS:
On August 9, 2001, the Planning and Zoning Commission granted conditional major site plan
approval to construct ar 8,184 square foot bank/office building and to construct an 8,000 sq. ft.
retail building located on the south side of SR 60, west of 58th Avenue, adjacent to the Eckerds
building The current expiration date of the site plan approval is August 9, 2002.
The project applicant filed a request to extend the site plan approval expiration date on June 28,
2002. Due to construction delays in completing several other bank branches, the applicant was
required to delay construction activities of this Vero Beach branch. Pursuant to site plan
regulations, the extension request may now be considered by the Board of County
Commissioners because the request was submitted prior to the approval expiration date.
ANALYSIS:
Although the LDRs have been amended since the time of project review and approval, the
members of the Technical Review Committee (TRC) concur that subsequent amendments as
applied to the subject project are not significant enough to require substantial revisions or
redesign of the project. All TRC staff members have recently approved the applicant's request
for site plan extension.
As allowed under provisions of the LDRs, the developer is requesting a full one-year extension
of the site plan approval expiration date. Pursuant to Chapter 914 of the LDRs, the Board of
County Commissioners may deny approve, or approve with additional conditions the requested
site plan extension. Staff has no objections to the Board granting the request since the previously
approved site plan and corresponding approval conditions substantially conform to existing LDR
requirements.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve Fidelity Federal Bank &
Trust's request for a one-year extension of the conditional site plan approval with all origin&
approval conditions to remain in effect. The new site plan approval expiration date will be
August 9, 2003.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Request Letter
2. Location Map
3. Site Plan
4. List of Approval Conditions
July 23, 2002
•
20
•
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Vice
Chairman Tippin, the Board unanimously approved Fidelity
Federal Bank & Trust's request for a one-year extension of the
conditional site plan approval with all original approval
conditions to remain in effect, as recommended in the
memorandum. The new site plan approval expiration date will
be August 9, 2003.
7.1. GHA Harbor, Ltd. - Final Plat Approval for Marina Village Site
"B" - Grand Harbor Plat 25
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 15, 2002:
TO: James E. Chandler; County Administrator
DEP: • TMFNT HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. Keating, A CP; ommunityjevelopment Director
THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP; Planning Direc or
FROM: Peter J. Radke; Senior Planner, Current Development
DATE: July 15, 2002
SUBJECT: GHA Harbor, Ltd.'s Request for Final Plat Approval for Marina Village Site `B"—
Grand Harbor Plat 25
It is requested that the data herein presented be given foinial consideration by the Board of
County Commissioners at its regular meeting of July 23, 2002.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS:
Grand Harbor Plat 25 is a subdivision of a 4.05 -acre parcel into 8 attached single-family lots, a
multi- family tract (12 units), and a commercial tract. The subject property is part of the overall
Grand Harbor Planned Development (PD) and is consistent with the Grand Harbor conceptual
PD plan. The subject site is located in the northeast portion of the overall Grand Harbor
July 23, 2002
21
development, is zoned CG, General Commercial, and has a C/I, Commercia/Industrial land use
designation.
On December 14, 2000 the Planning and Zoning Commission granted preliminary PD plan/plat
approval for Grand Harbor Plat 25. The applicant has subsequently obtained a land development
permit and commenced construction of the project. The applicant is proposing to ' bond -out" for
completion of the remaining required improvements as allowed by the land development
regulations (LDRs). Now, the applicant is requesting final plat approval and has submitted the
following.
1. A final plat in conformance with the approved preliminary PD plan/plat;
2 An Engineers Certified Cost Estimate for the remaining required improvements;
3. A completed Contract for Construction of remaining required improvements; and
4. A Cash Deposit and Escrow Agreement to guarantee the Contract.
ANALYSIS:
Most but not all of the required subdivision improvements have been completed. The applicant
is proposing to `bond -out for the remaining required subdivision improvements as provided for
in the county's LDRs. Public Works has reviewed and approved the submitted Engineer's
Certified Cost Estimate and corresponding cash escrow amount. The County Attorney's Office
has reviewed and approved the submitted Contract for Constriction. The cash escrow, which
represents 115% of the estimated cost to construct the required improvements, has been
submitted. It should be noted that all improvements within the Grand Harbor development will
be private, with the exception of certain utilities facilities that will be dedicated and guaranteed
to Indian River County as required by the Utility Services Department.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the above analysis, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant
final plat approval for Grand Harbor Plat 25 and authorize the Chairman to execute the submitted
Contract for Construction of remaining required improvements and the Cash Deposit and Escrow
Agreement.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Application
2. Location Map
3. Plat Layout
4. Contract for Construction
5. Cash Deposit and Escrow Agreement
July 23, 2002
22
Inei2n Pivu Ca
Approved
Date
Admin.
ES
Budgeit
IMINIMM
W��i
a/iiI
Risk Mgr.`�`1111
s Gz
•
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Vice
Chairman Tippin, the Board unanimously granted final plat
approval for Grand Harbor Plat 25 and authorized the Chairman
to execute the submitted Contract for Construction of remaining
required improvements and the Cash Deposit and Escrow
Agreement, as recommended in the memorandum.
COPIES OF COIV FRAC I' AND AGREEMENT ARF ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
7.J. Oak Chase Development LLD - Final Plat Approval for Oak
Chase Phase III
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 12, 2002:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
N HEAD CONCURRENCE:
obert M. eating, AI P
Community Development D rector
THROUGH• Stan Boling, AICP
Planning Director
F ROM: Mark Zans 7c
Senior Planner, Current Development
DATE: July 12, 2002
SUBJECT: Oak Chase Development LLC, Request for Final Plat Approval for Oak
Chase Phase III
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of
County Commissioners at its regular meeting of July 23, 2002.
July 23, 2002
23
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Oak Chase Phase III is a 24 -lot, 9.66 -acre final phase of a three-phase subdivision project.
Located on the south side of 37th Street, and east of 66th Avenue, the property is zoned RS -
3 (Residential Single-family, up to 3 unitlacre) and has an L-1 (Low Density 1 up to 3 units
/acre) land use designation. The density of Phase Iii is 2.47 units per acre. Oak Chase
Phase I and Phase II have been platted and constructed; Phase III is mostly constructed.
Oak Chase Phase HI encompassed in this final plat, is located immediately north of Phase
II and provides for an extension of the roadway from Phase II and a subdivision entrance
on 37th Street.
At its regular meeting of April 8, 1999, the Planning and Zoning Commission ranted
preliminary plat approval for the overall subdivision (all three phases). The applicant is
bonding out some remaining required improvements as part of the final plat approval
process. The owner, Oak Chase Development L.L.C., through its agent Carter Associates
Inc, is now requesting final plat approval and has submitted the following:
1. A final plat in substantial conformance with the approved preliminary plat.
2. A Certified Engineer's Cost estimate for remaining required improvements.
3. A Contract for Construction for the remaining required subdivision
improvements.
4. A Security arrangement guaranteeing the contract for construction.
ANALYSIS:
•
A majority of the required Phase III subdivision improvements have been constructed,
with the exception of some infrastructure items. Consistent with county regulations, the
developer wishes to ' bond out' for construction of the remaining required improvements.
An engineer's certified cost estimate for completion of the remaining required
improvements has been reviewed and approved by Public Works Department, Utilities
Services Department, and the Community Development Department The developer also
has submitted a copy of the Contract for Construction of Required Improvements. The
contract, which is on a standard form, has been approved by the County Attorney s Office.
All subdivision improvements are pnvately dedicated with the exception of the utility
system, which is separately warranted through the Department of Utility Services.
Therefore, no subdivision warranty and maintenance agreement is required.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the above analysis, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners
grant final plat approval for Oak Chase Phase III, authorize the Chairman to execute the
Contract for Construction and any security documents, and accept the security.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Application
2. Location Map
3. Plat Graphic
4. Contract for Construction
July 23, 2002
24
•
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Vice
Chairman Tippin, the Board unanimously granted final plat
approval for Oak Chase Phase III, authorized the Chairman to
execute the Contracts for Construction and any security
documents, and accepted the security, as recommended in the
memorandum.
COPY OF CONTRACT IS O\ FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO TIIE BOARD
7.K. Resolution No. 2002-047 - Release of Easements at 960 37th
Place (Medical Service Center Subdivision) - Requested by Mosby and
Associates, Inc. (Flinchum, Randall & J. Russell)
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 10, 2002:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
ENT HEAD CONCURRENCE:
o.ert : . Keating, AICP
Community Development Di
THROUGH: Roland M. DeB1oi CP
Chief, Environmental Planning
& Code Enforcement
FROM: Kelly Zedek
Code Enforcement Officer
DATE: 7/10/02
RE- Mosby and Associates, Inc., Request for Release of Easements at 960 37th
Place (Medical Service Center Subdivision)
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formai consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of Julv 23, 2002.
July 23, 2002
25
it
rn
DESCRIPTION A
1) CONDITIONS
The County has been petitioned by Mosby and Associates. Inc., on behalf of Randall Flinchum and
J. Russell Flinchum, co-owners of two lots at 960 37th Place in Medical Service Center
Subdivision for release of portions of easements (with a combined width of 70 feet) on the lots.
The purpose of the easement release request is to accommodate the development of a medical
service center on the property.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The request has been reviewed by Bell South Communications. Florida Power & Light Corporation;
T C.I. Cable Corporation; the Indian River County Utilities Department; the County Road & Bridge
and Engineering Divisions; and the County surveyor.The Engineering Division and the Utilities
Department have approved release of portions of the easements, under the condition that the north
25 feet of the easements be retained for drainage purposes. Therefore, it is staff's position that
release of all but the north 25 feet of the (combined) easements would have no adverse impact to
utilities being supplied to the subject properties or to other properties.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board, through adoption of the attached resolution, release the drainage
and utility easements, as more particularly described in said resolution.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Proposed County Resolution Abandoning Easement
Z. Map(s) depicting easement proposed for release
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Vice
Chairman Tippin, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution
No. 2002-047 releasing portions of easements on Lots 5 and 6
of Medical Service Center Subdivision.
RESOLUTION NO. 2002 - 047
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, RELEASING
PORTIONS OF EASEMENTS ON LOTS 5 ANI) 6 OF MEDICAL SERVICE
CENTER SUBDIVISION
WHEREAS, Indian River County has an interest in drainage and utility easements on Lots
5 and 6 of Medical Service Center Subdivision; and
WHEREAS, the retention of portions of the easements, as described below, serves no public
purpose;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida that:
July 23, 2002
26
•
RESOLUTION NO. 2002- 047
This release of portions of easements 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
J. RUSSELL FLINCHUM AND RANDALL FL
P O BOX 3989
VERO BEACH, FL 32961-3989
CHUM
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(s):
the south forty-five (45) feet of the north seventy (70) feet of Lots 5 and 6, Medical Service
Center Subdivision, according to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 13, Page 18A of the Public
Records of Indian River County, Florida.
THIS RESOLUTION was moved for adoption by Commissioner Adams , seconded
by Commissioner Ti ppi n , and adopted on the 23rd day of
Jul y 2002, by the following vote:
Commissioner Ruth M. Stanbridge Aye
Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye_
Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn Aye
The Chairman declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 23rd da of
July , 2002. Y
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY (�C n s
Ruth M,Starrbr'dge, Ch irman
Attested B'
Deputy Clerk
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this v(34.,2 day of
2002, by RUTH M. STAV-BRIDGE, as Chairman of the Board of County Commi ion s of Indian
July 23, 2002
27
River County, Florida, and by PATRICIA @P RICG Deputy Clerk for JEFFREY K.
BARTON, Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners ofIndian River County, Florida who are
personally known to me.
NOTARY PUBLIC
1
Printed Nam -- h-erly E. ,a 550r)
Commission No.: CG8,53y,'�.
Commission Expiration: 7—/5"-e3
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
�fir� `"ttr
William G. Collins II
Deputy County Attorney
7.L. Resolution No. 2002-048 - Release 15 foot Drainage Easement
from North End of C. N. Kirrie's Property in Roseland
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 12, 2002:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: William G. Collins I I — Deputy County Attorney
DATE: July 12, 2002
SUBJECT: Request by C.N. Kirrie to Release a 15 -foot Drainage Easement
from the North End of his Property in Roseland
December 15, 1970 the County was deeded a 67 -foot right-of-way for a public
road and/or drainage ditches over the north 67 feet of the westerly one half of Lot
27, A A. Berry's Subdivision of Section 21 of the Fleming Grant. This road is also
identified as 80th Avenue or Estes Street
Subsequently on April 26, 1978 Christopher N. Kirrie quitclaimed to the County
an easement for drainage and utilities over the 40 feet lying immediately south of
80th Avenue, on the north end of his property. The east 30 feet of Mr. Kirne's
property was already burdened by a drainage easement. A drainage ditch was
constructed on the east 30 feet and north 40 feet of Mr. Kirne's property.
In late 1998 and in 1999 the County embarked on a mayor drainage improvement
program which relocated the ditch into the 67 -foot right-of-way of 80th Avenue,
from the north 40 feet of Mr. Kirrie's property.
July 23, 2002
28
•
Mr, Kirne requested release of the 40 -foot drainage and utility easement which
he granted the County in 1978. On November 4, 2000 the Board of County
Commissioners granted a release of only the South 25 feet of that 40 -foot
easement because the Public Works Department wished to retain the north 15
feet of Mr. Kirrie's land to maintain the ditch from its south side. -
Mr. Kime requested that the County maintain the ditch from the north side within
the 67 -foot road and drainage right-of-way, accessing the property via an 11 -foot
nght-of-way created by court order recorded in 1967 at O.R. Book 254, Page
266, Public Records of Indian River County which order establishes an 11 -foot
public right-of-way accessing 129th Street to the east.
Over the past 1% years the Road and Bridge Division has improved the access
from the ditch to 129th Street, such that maintenance of the ditch is now possible
from the north side.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the attached Resolution and authorize the Chairman to execute it
thereby releasing the easement from the portions of Kirne's property therein
described.
WGC/nhm
Attachment: Resolution abandoning a portion of the easement
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Vice
Chairman Tippet, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution
No. 2002-048 releasing a portion of an easement on the
westerly one-half of Lot 27, A. A. Berry Subdivision.
RESOLUTION NO. 2002- 048
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, RELEASING A PORTION OF AN
EASEMENT ON THE WESTERLY ONE-HALF OF LOT
27, A. A BERRY SUBDIVISION.
WHEREAS, Indian River County has an interest in a drainage and utility
easement on the Westerly one half of Lot 27, A. A. Berry Subdivision, recorded at
O.R. Book 566, Page 886, Public Records of Indian River County, Florida; and
WHEREAS, the retention of a portion of the easement, as described below,
serves no public purpose,
July 23, 2002
29
0
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that this release of a
portion of an 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
Christopher N. Kirrie
P. O. Box 144
Roseland, FL 32957-0144
his successors in interest, heirs and assigns, as Grantee, as follows:
Indian River County does hereby release and abandon all right, title, and
interest that it may have in the following described easement portion:
The North 15 feet of the South 40 feet of the North
107 feet of the Westerly 'h of Lot 27, A. A. Berry
Subdivision, recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 14 of the
Public Records of St Lucie County, Florida LESS
the Westerly 25 feet and also LESS the Easterly 30
feet thereof. Now Tying in Indian River County,
Florida.
THIS RESOLUTION was moved for adoption by Commissioner Adams , and
the motion was seconded by Commissioner Ti ppi n , and, upon being put to a
vote, the vote was as follows:
Ruth M. Stanbridge, Chairman Aye
John W. Tippin, Vice Chairman Aye
Fran B. Adams Aye
Caroline D. Ginn Aye
Kenneth R. Macht Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted
this 23rd day of July, 2002.
July 23, 2002
30
•
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
B
-A —T ST: Jeffrey K�$ar n, Clerk
}
Deputy Clerk G
July 23, 2002
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER
P2 c.574'
Ruth M. Stanbridge, Clf`airman
SEAL
The foregoing Instrument was acknowledged before me this 23rd day of July, 2002,
By RUTH M. STANBRIDGE, as Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Honda, and by r ACFYUCIA. M. RU[JGcL' , Deputy Clerk
for JEFFREY K. BARTON, Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida, who are personally known to me.
Kimberly E. Massung
sa,s1;1:11 ..e- MY COMMISSION # CC855436 EXPIRES
rte•vz July 15, 2003
miilaiTs BONDED THREE TROY FAIN INSURANCE, INC
Approved as to form and
legal sufficiency
)C Wit/
r
William G. Collins II
Deputy County Attorney
NOTARY PUBLIC:
/l Lttl2cvy
Printed Name. /aKin-, b ',/v E- 474ss4"a
Commission No.: CC8ss /31.
Commission Expiration: _ / go -o `3
31
r3 2
•
(n
0
ACAD DWG. FILE: 95048511.DWG V3 Plotted 7-17-02
•
7. M. Floodplain Cut and Fill Balance Waiver for Pelican Bay Estates
Subdivision
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 12, 2002:
TO: James Chandler, County Administrator
THROUGH:
James W. Davis, P.E., Public Works Director
AND
Christopher J. Kafer, Jr., P.E., County Enginee
CONSENT AGENDA
FROM: David B. Cox, P E , Senior Civil Engineers}
SUBJECT: Request for Floodplain Cut and Fill Balance Waiver for Pelican Bay Estates
Subdivision
REFERENCE: SD -99-05-08 / LDP Application No. 97010033-30615
DATE: July 12, 2002
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Knight, McGuire & Associates, Inc , on behalf of Harold Olsen, the developer of Pelican Bay Estates
Subdivision has requested a waiver of the cut and fill balance requirement of S ection 930 07(2)(d) of
the Stounwater Management and Flood Protection Ordinance Pelican Bay Estates Subdivision
received preliminary plat approval from the Planning & Zoning Commission on April 26, 2001. The
project is located approximately 500 feet north of Round Island Park on the west side of the State
Road A -1-A. The site is located in special flood hazard area Zone AE with a base flood elevation of
5.0 feet and 6.0 feet N G V D The ten-year still water elevation is 2.7 feet. The proposed
displacement of the floodplain below 4.0 feet for which the waiver is requested is 329 cubic yards as
indicated in the attached letter from the applicant's engineer dated July 3, 2002.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The project meets the cut and fill balance waiver criteria provided in Section 930.07(2)(d)1 of being
situated m an estuarine environment within the 100 year floodplain along the Indian River and it
appears that all other Stormwater Management and Flood Protection Ordinance requirements can be
met without adverse impact on other lands in the estuarine environment.
Alternative No. 1
Approve the cut and fill balance waiver request.
Alternative No. 2
Deny the waiver request and require re -design to accomplish an on-site balance of cut and fill
July 23, 2002
33
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends approval of Alternative No. 1.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Letter from David M. Fisher dated July 3, 2002.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Vice
Chairman Tippin, the Board unanimously approved the cut and
fill balance waiver request (Alternative No. 1), as recommended
in the memorandum.
9.A.1. PUBLIC HEARING POSTPONED - ADVERTISED - ON
PROPOSED DRAFT OFFER TO LOST TREE VILLAGE
CORPORATION FOR PURCHASE OF THE LOST TREE ISLANDS
This matter has been postponed per the following memorandum dated July 17, 2002:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH: Joseph A. Baird
Assistant County Administrator
1
Robert M. Keating, AICPud�{�
Community Development Director
FROM: Roland M. DeBlo , CP.
Chief, Environmental Planning
DATE: July 17, 2002
SUBJECT: POSTPONEMENT OF ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED DRAFT
OFFER TO LOST TREE VILLAGE CORPORATION FOR PURCHASE OF THE
LOST TREE ISLANDS
Several months ago, the County contracted with The Conservation Fund (TCF) to negotiate purchase of the
Lost Tree Islands. On June 21, 2002, county staff, as directed by TCF, advertised a public hearing for the July
July 23, 2002
34
•
9.A.2.
23 Board meeting for the Board to consider a proposed draft offer to Lost Tree Village Corporation for
purchase of the Lost Tree Islands
Recently, however, TCF has informed county staff that negotiations are still in progress, and a draft purchase
contract is not yet available for Board consideration. For that reason, TCF has advised staff that the advertised
July 23 hearing warrants postponement.
Consequently, staff is postponing the scheduled public hearing on the Lost Tree Islands proposed draft
purchase offer, and will reschedule the hearing at such time when TCF has negotiated a draft purchase contract
for Board consideration.
PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE NO. 2002-024 - J.
RICHARD GRAVES' RE 1 UEST TO REZONE 4.72 ACRES FROM OCR
AND CH TO CG 1 uasi-Judicial
PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF ADVERTISEMENT FOR HEARING
IS ON FII E IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK 10 fHE BOARD
Community Development Director Robert Keating reviewed a Memorandum ofJuly
15, 2002 using a Power Point outline (on file with the backup for the meeting):
TO: James E. Chandler; County Administrator
IENT HEAD CONCURRENCE
Robert NI. Keating, AI Pmmunity DP elopment Director
THRU: Sasan Rohani, AICP; Chief, Long -Range Planning -
FROM:
Randy Deshazo; Long -Range Planner?
DATE: July 15, 2002
RE• J. Richard Graves' request to rezone 4.72 acres from OCR and CH, to
CG
It is requested that the following information be given formal consideration by the Board
of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of July 23, 2002.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
This is a request to rezone 4.72 acres from OCR, Office, Commercial, Residential
District, and CH, Heavy Commercial District, to CG, General Commercial District. The
subject properties are located at the southwest corner of CR 510 and US 1, and are
depicted on the figure below The purpose of this request is to secure the necessary
July 23, 2002
35
EM
zoning to develop the subject properties with a use allowed by the proposed zoning
district.
On June 27, 2002, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend that the
Board of County Comrmssioners rezone the property as requested.
Existing Land Use Pattern
Zoned OCR and CH, the subject properties contain a water tower, an abandoned gas
station, and unoccupied single-family and multi -family units. To the north, land is zoned
CH, and contains an abandoned gas station. To the northwest, land is zoned CG, and
contains a packing house To the south of the site, land is zoned OCR and contains
single-family homes To the east of the site, land is zoned CL, Limited Commercial, and
contains a tackle shop and veterinarian's office. To the west of the site, land is zoned CH
and contains an active citrus packing plant.
Future Land Use Pattern
The subject property and all surrounding properties are designated C/I, Commercial/
Industrial, on the comprehensive plan's future land use map. The C/I designation permits
various commercial and industrial zoning districts.
Environment
The subject property is not designated as environmentally important or environmentally
sensitive by the comprehensive plan. As an altered site this property does not support
any native habitat. According to Flood Insurance Rating Maps, the subject property does
not contain any flood hazard areas.
July 23, 2002
36
•
Utilities and Services
The site is within the Urban Service Area of the county. Wastewater service is available
to the site from the North Region Wastewater Treatment Plant, while
service is available to the site from the North Count Reverse Os
Y potable water
Transportation System Osmosis Plant.
The site is bounded on the east by US 1. Classified as a rural
on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map,principal artoual arnedway
with approximately 120 feet of public road rithis segment of US 1 is a four -lane road
right-of-way. Currently, there are no plans to
expand this portion of US 1.
The site is bounded on the west b
collector roadway by Old Dixie Highway. Classified as a
Dixie toHighway on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map,this segment
of Old
is a two lane road with approximately 60 feet of
Currently, there are no plans to expand this portion of Old Dixie Highway.
gment Old
public road right -of --way
The site is bounded on the north by�hway.
future is bo thoroughfare CR 510. Classified as a niral
Y ghfare plan map, this segmenta minor arterial on the
approximately 80 feet of public road right-of-way. of CR 510 is a two-lane road with
programmed to be expanded to four lanes by 2020. Currently this
segment of CR 510 is
Presently, 84`h Place cuts through the subject properties, and is the subject of a
Right of
Way abandonment application.
Zoning District Differences
In terms ofe
p rmitted uses, there are both similarities and differences between the existing
CH and OCR districts and the proposed CG district. While the CH district is oriented to
uses such as warehouses, packinghouses, contractor trades,
the OCR zoning district is designed for office co and repair establishments, and
that is compatible with nearby commercial, and residential development
office, and service co neighborhoods, the CG district is
mmercial development. intended for retail,
The differences between the districts are best illustrated b
, found in the coon Y their u
follows: county's land development tease statements.
These purpose statements
pment regulations, are as
OCR, Office, Commercial, Residential District. The OCR
Residential district is intended to provide areas for the developmentOffice Co
office, co Commercial,
commercial, and residential activities in a manner that will be compatible
with surrounding
neighborhoods. The OCR district is further intended to
land use controls for ensuring the separation of potentially incompatible activities,
such as intense co provide
commercial uses, from established residential areas.
CH, Heavy Commercial District. The CH
intended to provide areas for establishments engaging i vy Commsale t
repair services and restricted light� district is
ging in wholesale trade, major
further intended to provide support manufacturing activities. The CH district is
commercial and industrial usesallowedc withines
for the development
districts.other non-residential zoningf
July 23, 2002
37
CG, General Commercial District. The CG, General Commercial, district is
intended to provide areas for the development of general retail sales and selected
service activities. The CG district is not intended to provide for heavy
commercial activities, such as commercial service uses, heavy repair services or
industrial uses
ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the rezoning request will be
presented. Specifically, this section will include:
o an analysis of the request's impact on public facilities;
o an analysis of the request's consistency with the county's comprehensive plan,
o an analysis of the request's dompatibility with the surrounding area; and
o 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 Drainage, and Recreation. The
adequate provision of these services is necessary to ensure the continued quality of life
enjoyed by the community. The comprehensive plan also requires that new development
be reviewed to ensure that the minimum acceptable standards for these services and
facilities are maintained.
Policy 3.2 of the Future Land Use Element states that no development shall be approved
unless it is consistent with the concurrency management system component of the Capital
Improvements Element. For rezoning requests, conditional concurrency review is
required.
Conditional concurrency review examines the available capacity of each facility with
respect to a proposed project. Since rezoning requests are not projects, county
regulations call for the concurrency review to be based upon the most intense use of the
subject property based upon the requested zoning distnct. For commercial rezoning
requests, the most intense use (according to the county's land development regulations) is
retail commercial with 10,000 square feet of gross floor area per acre of land proposed
for rezoning. The site information used for the concurrency analysis is as follows:
1. Size of Area to be Rezoned: 4.72 acres
2. Existing Zoning District:
CH, Heavy Commercial
OCR, Office, Commercial, Residential
3. Proposed Zoning District:
CG, General Commercial
4. Most Intense Use Under Existing Zoning District:
47,200 sq. ft. of Retail Commercial (Shopping Center in the 6th Edition ITE
Manual)
July 23, 2002
38
nu?
pit
27
5. Most Intense Use Under Proposed Zoning District:
47,200 sq. ft. of Retail Commercial (Shopping Center in the 6th Edition ITE
Manual).
As per section 910.07(2) of the Concurrency Management Chapter of the County's Land
Development Regulations, projects which do not increase density or intensity of use are
exempt from concurrency requirements. This rezoning request is exempt from
concurrency review because the requested zoning would not increase the use intensity of
the site.
By changing the zoning of the subject property from CH and OCR to CG, some
commercial uses not currently allowed would be permitted on the site. However, because
the most intense use of the property would be the same with either zoning district,
changing the property's zoning from CH and OCR to CG would not create additional
impacts on any concurrency facilities.
In this case, a detailed concurrency analysis will be done in conjunction with any new
development or changes of use on site. That concurrency analysis will address facility
service levels and demand.
Compatibility with the Surrounding Area
Located at the intersection of three major roads, the subject property is surrounded by
commercial/industrial designated land. For that reason, compatibility is not a major
concern associated with this request. Generally, sites such as the subject property that
front on major roads may be appropriate for any one of several different commercial
zoning districts, including CL, CG, and CH In fact, this area of the county already
reflects that type of mixed zoning.
The proposed CG district generally allows retail, service, and office uses. Although the
CH and OCR districts allow some of the same uses, the CG district is generally more
oriented towards retail uses. The transportation and access requirements of the uses
permitted in each of those districts dictate the need for frontage on or near major roads.
Therefore, lots with frontage on US 1, CR 510, and/or OId Dixie Highway are.
appropriate for CG, CH, OCR or CL zoning.
Land to the northwest of the subject properties is zoned CG, and, therefore, the request
will result in a continuation of an existing zoning district.
For those reasons, development of the site under the requested CG district would be
compatible with surrounding areas
Consistency with Comprehensive Plan
Rezoning requests are reviewed for consistency with all policies of the comprehensive
plan. Rezonings must also be consistent with the overall designation of land uses as
depicted on the Future Land Use Map, which include agriculture, residential, recreation,
conservation, and commercial and industrial land uses and their densities. Commercial
and industrial land uses are located in nodes throughout the unincorporated areas of
Indian River County.
July 23, 2002
39
The goals objectives, and policies are the most important parts of the comprehensive
plan. Policies are statements in the plan that identify the actions which the county will
take in order to direct the community's development. As courses of action committed to
by the county, policies provide the basis for all county land development decisions.
While all comprehensive plan policies are important, some have more applicability than
others in reviewing rezoning requests. Of particular applicability for this request are
Future Land Use Element Policies 1.15 and 1.16.
Future Land Use Element Policies 1.15 and 1.16
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.15 states that all commercial/industrial uses must be
located within the county's urban service area. Future Land Use Element Policy 1.16
states that the commercial/industrial land use designation shall permit uses that include
retail trade, services and other similar uses.
Since the subject property is located within the county's urban service area, and the
requested CG district is intended for uses permitted within the commercial/industrial land
use designation, the request is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policies 1.15 and
1.16.
While the referenced policies are particularly apphcable to this request, other
comprehensive plan policies and objectives also have relevance For that reason, staff
evaluated the subject request for consistency with all applicable plan policies and
objectives. Based upon that analysis, staff determined that the request is consistent with
the comprehensive plan
Potential Im
act on Environmental Quality
Environmental protection regulations are the
districts. Because the subject property
environmentally important, development of
resources.
CONCLUSION
same for the CH, OCR, and the CG zoning
is not environmentally significant or
the site will not impact significant natural
The requested zoning is compatible with the surrounding area, and is consistent with the
goals, objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plan. Rezoning the site, as
requested, will have no negative impacts on environmental quality or the provision of
public facilities and services. The subject property is located in an area deemed suitable
for general commercial uses. The request meets all applicable criteria. For those
reasons, staff supports the request.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the analysis, the Planning and Zoning Commission and staff recommend that
the Board of County Commissioners approve this request to rezone the subject property
from OCR and CH to CG by adopting the attached ordinance.
July 23, 2002
40
•
ATTACHMENTS
1. Summary Page
2. Rezoning Application
3. Approved Minutes of the June 27,
Commission
4. Ordinance
GENERAL
Applicant: J. Richard Graves
Location: Southwest corner of CR 510 and US 1
Acreage: 4.72
Land Use Designation: C/I, Commercial/Industrial
Existing Zoning: CH, Heavy Commercial District, OCR, Office,
Commercial, Residential
Requested Zoning: CG, General Commercial
Existing Land Use: Unoccupied residential, water tower, abandoned gas station
ADJACENT LAND
North: Abandoned gas station, zoned CH
South: Single-family residences, zoned OCR
East: Small store and veterinarian's office zoned CL
West: Citrus packing plant, zoned CH
%nn,
eeting of the Planning and Zoning
SUMMARY PAGE
INFRASTRUCTURE
Site is bounded by Old Dixie Highway, CR 510, and US 1; Water lines available;
Wastewater available
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
None
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
P&Z
BCC
Staff Contact:
Randy Deshazo
Randy Deshazo
Date Advertised:
June 14, 2002
July 10, 2002
# of Surrounding
Property Owners
Notified:
18
18
Date Notification
Mailed:
June 14, 2002
July 15, 2002
Date S'an Posted:
June 18, 2002
July 12, 2002
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approval
July 23, 2002
ATTACHMENT
41
CG
.,-
35
Al
a
a
n
CL
an
RM -6
113
1
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in
this matter.
Bill Glynn, 1802 Barefoot Place, Vero Beach, advised he was speaking as the
president of North Beach Civic Association and they fully support this down -zoning and
have every confidence that Richard Graves' development will be done in good taste.
It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the Chairman closed the
public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance No. 2002-024 amending the zoning ordinance and
the accompanying zoning map for 4.72 acres located at the
southwest corner of CR -510 and US -1 from OCR, Office
Commercial, Residential District, and CH, Heavy Commercial
District, to CG, General Commercial District; and providing
codification, severability, and effective date.
ORDINANCE NO. 2002-024
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMEN -DING THE ZONING
ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FOR 4.72 ACRES LOCATED AT
THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF CR -510 AND US -1 FROM OCR OFFICE COMMERCIAL,
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND CH, HEAVY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, TO CG GENERAL
COMMERCIAL DISTRICT; 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 recomrnendation 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
July 23, 2002
42
1
•
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that this rezoning is in
confoimance with the Comprehensive Plan of Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has held a public hearing pursuant to this
rezoning request, at which parties in interest and citizens were heard;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDALNED, 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:
SITUATED IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER AND BEING A
PART OF GRAVES ADDITION TO WABASSO SUBDIVISION AS RECORDED IN PLAT
BOOK 2 PAGE 41 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY BOUNDED AND DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
ALL THAT PART OF BLOCK 2, OF SAID GRAVES ADDITION, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BOUNDED ON THE EAST BY THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF U.S. HIGHWAY
NO 1; BOUNDED ON THE SOUTH BY THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID BLOCK 2; BOUNDED ON
THE WEST BY THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF OLD DIXIF HIGHWAY
BOUNDED ON THE NORTH BY THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF WABASSO ROAD
CONTAINING 1.81 ACRES MORE OR LESS.
is changed from CH, Heavy Commercial District to CG, General Commercial District;
AND
SITUATED IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER AND BEING A PART
OF GRAVES ADDITION TO WABASSO SUBDIVISION AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 2,
PAGE 41 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND BEENG
MORE PARTICULARLY BOUNDED AND DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
ALL THAT PART OF BLOCK 3, OF SAID GRAVES ADDITION, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BOUNDED ON THE EAST BY THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF U.S. HIGHWAY
NO. 1; BOUNDED ON THE SOUTH BY THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID BLOCK 3; BOUNDED
ON THE WEST BY THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY;
BOUNDED ON THE NORTH BY THE NORTH LINE OF SAID BLOCK 3; CONTAINLNG 2.91
ACRES MORE OR LESS.
is changed from OCR, Office, Commercial, Residential District to CG, General Commercial District.
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in said Land Development
Regulations.
This ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State.
July 23, 2002
43
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida, on this 23rd day ofJuly, 2002.
This ordinance was advertised in the Press -Journal on the 10th day ofJuly, 2002, for a public
hearing to be held on the 23rd day of July, 2002 at which time it was moved for adoption by
Commissioner Adams , seconded by Commissioner Macht , and adopted by
the following vote:
Chairman Ruth M Stanbridge
Vice -Chairman John W Tippin
Commissioner Fran B. Adams
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht
Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BY: E.92,
er
Ruth M. Stanbridge, Chairman
ATTEST BY:
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk
re"
cz
This ordinance was filed with the Department of State on the following date: L ;, % 1Th ere �—
i
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
(ii _ —)` ( ((:c.: c <(
William G. Collins II, Deputy County Attorney
APPROVED AS TO PLAITING MATTERS
1
AL.
Robert M. Keating, AI
unity
Indian River Co.
Approved
Date
Admin.
Legal
L (.-
-7
7.,%
Budget
C -4(7/l
/
'/o .
Dept.
Or -Al
Risk Mgr.
July 23, 2002
elopment Director
44
r l�
G1
•
9.B.1. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM - BRIAN HEADY REQUEST
TO SPEAK
The Board reviewed a letter of July 14, 2002:
Brian T. Heady
406 19th Street
Vero Beach, Fl 32960
July 14, 2002
Chairm. County Commission
P.largaret Gunter
Indian River County Commission Members
Vero Beach Florida 32960
Dear County Commission Commissioners:
Please place me on the citizen input public discussion portion of your agenda for
the next meeting. I request to speak to the Indian River County Commission about a
minority opinion and saving tax dollars. If time permits I also request time to speak
briefly about the obligation to uphold your oaths of office with regard to citizens.
At the following meeting I also request time to speak. The reason I am making a
request for two meetings is I know my remarks will last longer than the new imposition
of time limits on citizens wishing to address their elected representatives.
If you have any questions I can be reached by telephone at 778-1028.
Sincerel
Brian T. Heady
Brian Heady emphasized the importance of minority opinions. He submitted that
the Commissioners should listen to minority opinions before they spend $26 million on a
new Administration Building. He believed the Committee should have had the ability to
hear the minority opinion and not just the information provided to them. He was not
faulting the Committee but the conclusion they reached was because they did not have all
the facts presented to them. He believed there are alternatives and he wanted to voice his
minority opinion in opposition to this spending.
July 23, 2002
45
;,„
1
•
9.B.2. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM - HAMRICK'S AUTO BODY -
BUILDING CRACKS CAUSED BY THE COUNTY'S ROAD
COMPACTOR
Item withdrawn.
9.C. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEMS - SCHEDULED FOR AUGUST 6, 2002
PUBLIC WORKSHOP - CHILDREN'S SERVICES ADVISORY
COMMITTEE 2002 NEEDS ASSESSMENT WORKSHOP
The Chairman announced the above public workshop.
11.A.1. "WABASSO SCRUB ADDITION" LAAC SITE - ACCEPT
DONATION IN CONJUNCTION WITH PARK PLACE MOBILE HOME
PARK DEVELOPMENT EXPANSION
Environmental & Code Enforcement Chief Roland DeBlois reviewed the
memorandum of July 17, 2002, while an aerial photo of the area pinpointing the location
was displayed:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
M , T HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. eating, AICP
Community Development Director
FROM: Roland M. DeBlois ICP
Chief, Environmental Planning
DATE: July 17, 2002
SUBJECT: Board Consideration to Accept Donation of the "Wabasso Scrub Addition" LAAC Site
July 23, 2002
46
•
It is requested that the Board of County Commissioners formally consider the following information at the
Board's meeting of July 23, 2002.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The "Wabasso Scrub Addition" is approximately 6.5 acres immediately north of and contiguous to the
County's --111 acre Wabasso Scrub Conservation Area (see attached map). The subject property, consisting of
oak scrub on the south portion of Park Place Development in the City of Sebastian, has been on the County
Land Acquisition Advisory Committee s (LAAC's) site list since 1997. Currently, the Wabasso Scrub
Addition ranks 8 out of 16 sites on the LAAC site list
In 1999, the County applied for and was awarded a 50% cost -share grant from the Florida Communities Trust
to acquire the Wabasso Scrub Addition. That grant, however, expired due to the owner's unwillingness to sell
the property at the County's appraised value.
The owner of Park Place is now proposing to expand the development to build -out the project's undeveloped
land. Relating to that expansion, habitat of the federally listed Florida scrub jay is proposed to be impacted.
Consequently, the owner, through R.L. Weigt Environmental Consultants, Inc (RLW), has applied for an
Incidental Take Permit (ITP) from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to "take" 6.93 acres of occupied scrub -
jay habitat for development.
As required for the ITP, RLW has drafted a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for the Park Place development
expansion. As partial mitigation for proposed impacts to scrub jay habitat, the owner has agreed to donate the
6.5 acre Wabasso Scrub Addition to the County for incorporation into the Wabasso Scrub Conservation Area.
ANALYSIS
It is a policy of the County, as adopted in the County Land Acquisition Guide, to encourage donations of
environmentally significant lands as preferred to County fee -simple purchase. In this case, the owner is
proposing to donate the property 100% fee -title to the County, with no encumbrances or third -party rights. The
County, however, will be responsible for managing the property's habitat in perpetuity in accordance with the
County's Sebastian Area -Wide Florida Scrub -Jay Habitat Conservation Plan (March 2002).
RLW has advised county staff that, in conjunction with the donation, the Park Place owner has agreed to
relocate and expand the County's fencing of the Wabasso Scrub Conservation Area to compass the donated
Addition, at no cost to the County. From the standpoint of annual maintenance, the Addition will become a
part of the Wabasso Scrub Conservation Area with minimal (if any) additional management costs.
Although the Wabasso Scrub Addition is to be donated, there are still closing costs associated with the
acquisition Those costs, however, will be minimal compared to the altemative of County purchase of the
property.
LAAC Review
At the LAAC's meeting on June 26, 2002, staff reported the proposed donation to the LAAC. Although
the LAAC did not vote on the matter, it was the consensus of the LAAC that the donation was a preferred
alternative to purchase of the site, and that the, County should proceed with acceptance of the donation.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners accept donation of the "Wabasso Scrub Addition"
as a northern expansion of the Wabasso Scrub Conservation Area, and authorize staff to close the acquisition.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Maps of the Wabasso Scrub Addition
2. Excerpt from the Park Place Habitat Conservation Plan
July 23, 2002
47
r
•
SUBJECT
PR OPER TY
3nSail re aim' ha
(W AJASSO
COMMUNIi7 ?All)
(IASL ?LACK MOIRE
HONE COMMUN777)
(JOHNS ISLAND WEST
GOLF COURSE,
(WAJASSO IOUS
CONSEUYA77ON AJUA)
"W,4BASSO SCRUB ADDITION"
July 23, 2002
PARK PLACE
SCHULKE, BITTLE & STODDARD. L.L.C.
July 23, 2002
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously accepted the
donation of the "Wabasso Scrub Addition" as a northern
expansion of the Wabasso Scrub Conservation Area, and
authorized staff to close the acquisition, as recommended in the
memorandum.
11.A.2. CONSIDERATION OF DRAFT LETTER TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS TRANSMITTING
COMMENTS ON THE CITY OF FELLSMERE'S DRAFT
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
Community Development Director Robert Keating reviewed a Memorandum ofJuly
12, 2002, with a locator drawing displayed on the overhead:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
1+'ROM: Robert M. Keating, AICP 1
Community Development Director
DATE: July 12 2002
SUBJECT: Consideration of Draft letter to the Department of Community Affairs
Transmitting comments on the City of Fellsmere s draft Comprehensive
Plan Amendment
It is requested that the information provided herein be given formal consideration by the Board
of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of July 23, 2002
•
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
On June 28, 2002, County planning staff received correspondence from the Florida Department
of Community Affairs (DCA), soliciting comments on the City of Fellsmere's proposed
comprehensive plan amendment. DCA's deadline for accepting comments is July 26, 2002.
The draft Fellsmere comprehensive plan amendment is essentially a proposed new
comprehensive plan for the City. Because the City recently annexed a ± 3,800 acre tract of
unincorporated county land, state law requires that the City amend its comprehensive plan to
July 23, 2002
assign a land use designation to the annexed land as well as to modify any plan provisions
necessitated by the annexation Instead of amending its existing comprehensive plan just to
reflect the annexed area, the City has opted to prepare a completely new plan.
The City's proposed new plan has been submitted to DCA as a draft comprehensive plan
amendment. Through its review process, DCA has requested comments on the amendment/new
plan from surrounding local governments, state agencies, and the regional planning council
Within 60 days of the City s comprehensive plan amendment transmittal, DCA will issue an
ORC (objections, recommendations, comments) report. In preparing the ORC, DCA will
consider any comments from the County as well as comments from other agencies, groups, or
individuals.
Because of Florida's annexation laws, the County had no authority to object to Felismere's
recent annexation of 3,800 acres of unincorporated county land. The County does, however,
have an opportunity to affect the City's land use designation of the referenced 3,800 acres. That
opportunity is afforded to the County through the state's comprehensive plan amendment
process.
Since receipt of Fellsmere's proposed new comprehensive plan, staff has reviewed the document
and prepared comments. Those comments have been compiled in the attached draft letter written
to DCA for the Chairman's signature. It is now the Board's responsibility to review the draft
letter, make any changes, and either approve or not approve transmittal of the letter to DCA.
ANALYSIS
Although the City's proposed comprehensive plan is a completely new document, the principal
concern with the plan relates to the recently annexed 3,800 acres of unincorporated county land
Because the plan, once approved, will dictate how that land can be developed, the policies in the
plan are important.
Currently, the 3,800 acre tract still has its County land use designation. That County land use
designation limits most of the property to agricultural uses with a residential allowance of 1 unit
to 5 acres and 1 unit to 10 acres. The portion of the property in the southwest quadrant of the
I-95/CR512 interchange has a commercial/industrial designation.
The County's land use designation for the property is based on several factors. One is the
County's residential land use allocation ratio That ratio is about 3, indicating that the County
already has three times as much land as is needed to accommodate the projected 2020
population. Besides the lack of need for additional residential development, other factors that
influenced the County's land use designation were: surrounding land uses, urban sprawl
prevention, and protection of the site's environmental resources.
Obviously, the County's restrictive land use regulations applicable to the 3,800 acre tract
constituted the principal motivation for the landowner to annex to Fellsmere. With that
annexation and this plan amendment, the landowner will have circumvented the County's overall
long range plan. A similar initiative is being considered by the City of Sebastian, where more
than 2,000 acres of unincorporated County land outside of the urban service area boundary are
proposed for annexation and re -designation for urban development
With respect to the Fellsmere comprehensive plan amendment, staff's comments are itemized in
the attached draft letter. The principal comments are that the City has not provided a
justification of the need for the significant increase in development potential; has not provided
any restrictions to limit urban sprawl; and does not depict any transportation system for the 3,800
July 23, 2002
acre tract. Even more important, however, is that the plan lacks substance, deferring most policy
setting to a future update of the City's land development code
ENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners review the draft letter to the DCA,
make any necessary revisions, authorize the chairman to sign the letter, and authorize staff to
transmit the letter to DCA.
Attachments:
Draft letter to the Florida Department of Community Affairs, transmitting the County's
comments on the City of Fellsmere's draft comprehensive plan amendment.
Copy of draft proposed revised City of Fellsmere's comprehensive plan ( on file in Board
of County Commissioners office).
Director Keating explained staff's objections in detail and recommended the
Chairman be authorized to sign the letter of objection.
Chairman Stanbridge was concerned about roads (Transportation Element) and
inquired if a master plan was included in this Comprehensive Plan amendment, and Director
Keating advised that the plan does not show any transportation system within the Pine Grove
property nor had a technically accepted method of traffic projection been used. Chairman
Stanbridge also understood the property was outside the County's urban service area, and
Director Keating specified that only the northeast corner of the property is within the urban
service area.
Mayor Joel Tyson of Fellsmere appreciated the opportunity to address the County's
concerns and stated he had learned of this in Sunday's newspaper. If they had met with
staff, they probably could have eliminated some of the concerns. He called on John Little
who had worked closely with the principals on this project.
John Little (retired City Manager of Vero Beach) advised he is working as a part-
time consultant to Fellsmere. He complained that Fellsmere should have known a week ago
that this was coming before the Board. He recounted a history of the annexation and their
July 23, 2002
work with the developers. He understood the property is outside of the County's urban
service area but stressed that it is inside the City's urban service area. The annexation
agreement calls for the developer to front the money for the utility needs or will build them
to the City's specifications and turn them over to the City. This arrangement was discussed
with the County's Utility staff a year ago. At that time, County staff had indicated a desire
to expand the County's utilities plants if possible. He agreed that a large plant would be
more efficient and language concerning that was included in the developer's agreement.
Mr. Little next addressed the concern as to the number of homes that had been
mentioned. He enumerated the other uses which are planned and/or required for the
property. He specified there will not be 7,000 homes; they might get 3,000 homes. He
further specified that the build -out projections are for 30 years, not overnight.
Mr. Little then addressed conservation concerns and itemized the conservation
acreage set -asides in Fellsmere's vicinity. He predicted that if current plans are followed,
Fellsmere will be surrounded by 20,000 conservation acres.
Next, Mr. Little specified that other interlocal agreements with the County are
already in place. The central business district is connected and paying for water & sewer
with the County and he thought the arrangement is working fine. Fellsmere would be glad
to buy all their water from the County at a good price.
In conclusion, Mr. Little thought the comment about the road situation was
reasonable and needs to be addressed. He agreed there is a legitimate concern about ingress
and egress. He advised that they have hired two professional planning consultants and have
already presented some plans and had a "mixed use" disagreement resolved by Tallahassee.
He believed, in respect to County staffs position on in -fill, that this development is inside
City limits and the County should not take an opposing position. He respectfully asked the
Board not to adopt staffs recommendation.
July 23, 2002
Mayor Tyson advised that Jim Goggins and Attorney Allen Millege, representatives
of the Ansin Corporation, were present.
Commissioner Macht suggested postponement of further discussion to have staffs
coordinate this, and Mr. Little advised that some dates have already been set in Tallahassee
and he hated to see it delayed.
In response to Commissioner Ginn's inquiry, Mr. Little advised that they do not have
a master plan for the property but it has been discussed with the developer.
Mr. Little continued that he would like to see a master plan. In his discussions with
Mr Millege he recognized that the company's concerns are real; how do you plan for a 30 -
year build -out in today's economy. The developer believes that market conditions will
determine the build -out. Mr. Little suggested that a master site plan be done which can be
changed as needed.
Commissioner Ginn referred to the comments from the Treasure Coast Regional
Planning Council which were the same as staffs. She thought it would be sufficient to send
just the TCRPC comments.
Chairman Stanbridge believed this project would hit the development of regional
impact (DRI) threshold, if it still exists. It will be looked at by many agencies even at this
level. When a site plan is submitted, it will be looked at again.
Mayor Tyson thought that the Ansin representatives had a statement regarding the
road issue.
Allen Millege, attorney from Broward County, introduced Jim Goggins, a vice
president of the principal entity, the Ansin family, a media and development concern in
Florida and elsewhere. They have been involved in a very substantial development in South
Florida, principally a very large distribution/light industrial area. They see opportunities at
the Fellsmere location for a large distribution location with its proximity to I-95. Traffic
July 23, 2002
EMEM
54
Gi
u
3
JAI
studies have indicated that CR512, as a planned 4 -lane road, has the capacity to the year
2020 for the traffic this development would add. In regard to issues about a master plan, the
developers have been working about 1-1/2 yrs with the St. Johns River Water Management
District. Because of the physical history of this site, with the levy of the Fellsmere Water
Management District on the west, a ridge, and I-95 to the east, there are a lot of physical
constraints on how this property can be managed. Because of the many physical
requirements, negotiations, and other constraints on this property, it is difficult to submit a
master plan at this time. After that phase comes together, transportation issues will be
addressed. They have drawings now but exactly how the roads will intersect with CR512
depends on how the environmental concerns have to be addressed. He specified that before
the first spade is turned, there will be a physical plan with SJRWMD and then a master plan
will be done. The Comprehensive Plan tells generally what you are going to do, so
investments can begin in the other components. Fellsmere's planners are comfortable with
this because they have set forth in the plan all the kinds of structures that will be in their
Land Development Regulations. He suggested that was what made County staff
uncomfortable. He called it a "chicken and egg" which relies on trust and similar aims. He
thought a very high quality development could be brought to this region; one that will make
a rural community much stronger. From a regional standpoint, he believed lots of jobs and
a variety of housing choices will result.
Commissioner Adams believed that their intentions are good and even though this
project is subject to the City's decisions, the County does not want problems requiring
additional expenses for infrastructure or services. She understood that to have a master plan
now is like molding Jello. This development also has the potential of moving Fellsmere's
downtown because it will be bigger than anything else that exists. She was comfortable that
all issues can be resolved. The potential for jobs and residential is a good thing. She
July 23, 2002
47
•
55
i
mim
lqt
thought the partnership could be good but there could be new players down the road who
could change everything; a master plan would provide a level of comfort. This property will
have a visual impact five miles down the highway and the visual impact of Indian River
County must look good. She intended to help them make it look good.
Commissioner Macht believed the most important feature of the property to be the
northeast corner. He hoped that industrial development of some significance could result
because the County needs an industrial park in the worst way.
Mr. Little commented that he told Mr Miliege in the very beginning: "There will
never be another Vero Lake Estates." He had specified that the infrastructure and roads will
be in place in advance.
There was a brief discussion as to how to proceed. Commissioner Adams suggested
a letter stating that the Commission agrees in principal. They could still send the letter with
staffs concerns.
Chairman Stanbridge suggested that they add to the new letter that they would all be
working together to make the plan for this property work for the City and for future plans.
Commissioner Ginn credited Mike Busha of the TCRPC and advised that he had
offered help to Fellsmere. They would be willing to do a charette. Her two concerns had
to do with traffic, particularly that all traffic did not spill onto CR512, and that there would
be another roadway out to the west. She also specified that some kind of grid be maintained.
The corner portion of commercial industrial seemed excessive to her. She asked the status
of the 4-laning of CR512 and was advised it has not been scheduled yet west of I-95. This
could accelerate the need.
Vice Chairman Tippin saw this as an opportunity for economic development and a
partnership to work with the developer.
July 23, 2002
56
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously agreed to
transmit the comments from staff to DCA along with a letter
from the Board stating that the Commissioners are in support of
the planned development and will be working very closely with
the City of Fellsmere (copy of both letters are on file in the
office of the Clerk to the Board).
CITY OF FELLSMERE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2002
DATA INVENTORY & ANALYSIS AND GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES
HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE BACKUP FOR 1 HIS ITEM
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
11.A.3. CONSIDERATION OF THE NORTH INDIAN RIVER DRIVE
ZONING STUDY
Community Development Director Robert Keating reviewed a Memorandum of July
10, 2002 with a PowerPoint presentation (on file with the backup for the meeting):
TO: James E. Chandler; County Administrator
PART IENT HEAD CONCURREI CE
—aridalk 401-1
ert M. Keating, AIC
THROUGH- Sasan Rohani, AICP 5�.
Chief, Long -Range Planning
DATE: July 10, 2002
Consideration of the North Indian River Drive Zoning Study
It is requested that the following information be given formal consideration by the Board of
County Commissioners at its regular meeting of July 23, 2002.
July 23, 2002
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Recently, the County Planning and Zoning Commission granted site plan approval for the Inlet at
Sebastian project an 82 unit multi -family residential development in Roseland. Located east of
U.S.#1 and south of Roseland Road, that project has generated concern from surrounding
residents.
Because of that concern, Planning and Zoning Commissioner Donna Keyes appeared at the June
18, 2002 meeting of the Board of County Commissioners, and requested that the Board direct
staff to evaluate the potential of eliminating all multi -family zoning in the north Indian River
Drive area. The Board concurred with that request and directed staff to undertake a rezoning
study. This is that study.
• Study Area
The study area for the project is shown in the figure below. The area is bounded on the west by
US 1, and on the east by the Indian River Lagoon, and lies between the City of Sebastian limits
on the south and the north county line on the north. These boundaries contain approximately 270
acres, comprising both commercial and residential zoning districts.
• Existing Conditions
Attachment 1, Zoning Map, depicts the current zoning pattern of the study area and
unincorporated county land adjacent to the study area.
Within the study area, nearly 101 acres are zoned multiple -family residential (RM -6, up to 6
units/acre, and RM -8, up to 8 units/acre). Of those 101 multi -family zoned acres, approximately
50 acres are vacant, nearly 28 acres are developed with single-family residences, and 18 acres
are either developed or site plan approved for multi -family. The 18 acres of developed/site plan
approved land consists of the Inlet at Sebastian site, six lots developed with duplexes, and one lot
containing a quadraplex Attachment 2 shows those parcels which are developed with/or site
plan approved for multi -family uses, while Attachment 3 depicts those multi -family zoned
parcels having existing single-family uses.
Besides the multi -family zoned land, there are 69 acres of single-family residential zoning within
the study area. Of those 69 acres, nearly 50 acres are developed with single-family residential
uses, while almost all of the remaining 19 acres are vacant. The remaining residential land in the
study area is zoned RMH-8, mobile home residential, up to 8 units/acre. Of the 35 acres of
RMH-8 zoned land, all but two acres are developed with mobile homes.
In addition to the residentially zoned land, the study area contains about 65 acres of
commercially zoned land. Commercial districts within the study area are CL, Limited
Commercial, CG, General Commercial, and OCR, Office, Commercial, Residential. Only 22
acres of the commercially zoned land are developed with commercial uses The remaining land
is either vacant or contains non -conforming uses
• Background
Currently, the largest zoning district in the study area is RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential
District (up to 6 units/acre). Land zoned RM -6 totals approximately 95 acres. The next largest
zoning district, comprising approximately 69 acres, is RS -6, Single -Family Residential District
(up to 6 units/acre).
July 23, 2002
58
•
J
In the past, however, different zoning patterns have existed. From 1963 to 1975, the
predominant zoning in the study area was commercial, followed by single-family residential
zomng. At that time there was little land zoned for multi -family uses. From 1975 to 1985, the
zomng pattern shifted to predominantly multiple -family zoning districts, followed by mobile
home districts and single-family districts. Since 1985, the zoning pattern in the study area has
been essentially the same as it is at present.
Over time, the trend in the study area has been a reduction of commercial zoning and an increase
in residential zoning. Early on, commercial zoning existed along both US 1 and Indian River
Drive. Beginning in the 1970s, commercial zoning along Indian River Drive was gradually
replaced by residential zoning until the zoning pattern came to resemble the pattern today, where
commercial districts abut U.S. #1, and residential zoning prevails in the remaining areas.
Table 1 summarizes the zoning acreage in the study area by residential zoning district.
Table 1: Residential zoning districts along Indian River Drive
Zoning
District
Acres
per
Zoning
District
Acreage
developed
with Multi-
family
Acreage developed
with Single-family
or Mobile Homes
Vacant
residential
Acreage
Acreage of Non -
conforming uses
RM -6
94.93
17.04*
27.75
45.57
4.57
RM -8
6.25
.94
0
5.31
0
RNIH-8
35.14
0
32.768
1.23
1.15
RS -6
68.68
0
49.64
18.62
0.42
Total
205
17.98
110.15
70.73
6.14
* Includes Inlet at Sebastian (about 14 acres). ¶In RMH-8, acres developed with mobile homes
• Existing Land Use Pattern
The study area contains vacant residential and commercial land, single-family subdivisions and
mobile homes. Currently, there is relatively little multiple -family development overall, and
July 23, 2002
within the multiple -family zoned districts, there is more single-family residential development
than multi -family development. Attachments 2 and 3 depict these conditions. Land to the west
of the study area is zoned CL, Limited Commercial, MED, Medical, CG, General Commercial,
and RMH-8, Mobile Home (up to 8 units/acre). These districts contain a hospital, vacant
commercial land and mobile home communities, respectively. Along the southern boundary is
the City of Sebastian Within the City of Sebastian, land is zoned CWR, Commercial Waterfront
Residential District and consists of vacant land and commercial uses To the east of the study
area is the Indian River Lagoon. To the north of the study area is the St. Sebastian River
• Future Land Use Pattern
The study area is designated as M-1, Medium -Density Residential -1, and C/I,
Commercial/Industrial, on the county Future Land Use Map. The M-1 designation permits
residential uses with densities up to 8 units/acre. The Commercial/Industrial designation permits
commercial and industrial uses.
• Environment
The study area contains several ecological communities. An estuarine community exists along
the immediate shoreline of the Indian River Lagoon Vegetation in this area generally consists of
cordgrass, mangroves, rushes, sea -oxeye daisy, and other similar estuarine vegetation. Further
inland (west of Indian River Drive), there are areas of maritime hammock intermixed with
freshwater wetland areas. The vegetation in the freshwater wetland areas is a mix of maples,
laurel oaks, red bays, and ferns. The maritime hammock areas consist largely of live oaks, some
red bay, cabbage palms, and various tropical hardwoods
The soils in the area between Indian River Drive and Old Dixie Highway have hydric
characteristics which allow for and support the freshwater wetland areas West of Old Dixie
Highway the ecological community is sand pine scrub with vegetation consisting of sand pine,
scrub hickory, and various other scrub species. There are no documented occurrences of any
federal or state listed animal species within the subject area; however, habitat is suitable for the
gopher tortoise and eastern Indigo snake.
Also, there are documented areas of archaeological resources. These areas may have both
historical and/or pre -historical significance. According to Flood Insurance Rating Maps, the
study area along the coastline lies within the AE flood plain, while the inland area does not
contain any flood hazard areas.
• Utilities and Services
The study area is within the Urban Service Area of the county. Wastewater service is available
to the study area along Indian River Drive from the North Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant,
while potable water service is available in the study area from the North County Reverse
Osmosis Plant.
• Transportation System
The study area is bounded on the west by US 1. Classified as a rural principal arterial on the
future roadway thoroughfare plan map, this segment of US 1 is a four -lane public road with 100
feet of right of way. Roseland Road cuts through the study area. Classified as a rural major
collector on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map, this segment of Roseland Road is a two-
lane road with 80 feet of public road right-of-way.
July 23, 2002
60
•
ANALYSIS
The purpose of this analysis is to assess the zoning pattern within the study area. Of particular
concern is whether the multi -family zoning in the area is appropriate.
Generally, the land use/zoning pattern for an area is established based on physical characteristics,
historic development, and general planning principles. That is also the case in the study area.
• Multi -Family Uses, Generally
Since the focus of this zoning pattern analysis is multi -family zoning, it is important to consider
the characteristics of multi -family uses generally Like all major land use categories, multi-
family uses are addressed in the County's comprehensive plan. In fact, the comprehensive plan
articulates the county's overall multi -family development policy.
Within the comprehensive plan, one series of policies promotes diversity of development in the
county. Through objective 5 of the Land Use Element of the plan and that objective s associated
policies, the county recognizes that multi -family residential uses are an important part of meeting
the housing needs of current and future county residents.
While objective 5 reflects the need for multi -family development in the County, Policy 1.41 of
the Land Use Element establishes general critena as to where multi -family residential uses
should be located. According to that policy multi -family zoning districts are appropriate:
➢ adjacent to arterial and collector roads, particularly to buffer single-family areas, and
➢ adjacent to commercial uses, particularly to buffer single-family areas
That policy also indicates that single family zoning districts should be "separated from major
commercial areas and industrial areas."
Throughout the County, multi -family development has occurred consistent with those locational
principles. As would be expected, most multi -family projects are located along S R. 60, US. #1,
A1A, and Indian River Boulevard. Some of those multi -family developments are situated such
that they buffer single-family uses from commercial areas. Other multi -family uses are
incorporated within large development projects, such as Grand Harbor, where single-family and
multi -family uses exist in close proximity.
Within the county, many multi -family developments are high-end projects. These are mostly
oceanfront or riverfront projects. Because multi -family development often produces the best
yield for high value oceanfront and riverfront property, there is a significant amount of
oceanfront/riverfront land zoned for multi -family uses in the City of Vero Beach, Town of Indian
River shores, Town of Orchid, and the unincorporated county.
One final point to consider is that multi -family zoning allows both single-family residential and
multi -family residential as permitted uses. This is significant for two reasons. First, it
demonstrates that single-family and multi -family are generally compatible uses Second, it
provides that single-family homes may be constructed on small multi -family lots.
• Physical Characteristics
The natural and man-made physical characteristics of the study area have had an influence on the
area's zoning pattern. Most prominent among these characteristics is U.S. #1. Throughout the
county, almost all land along U.S. #1 is zoned either commercial, industrial, or multi -family
residential. Within the study area, land bordering U.S. #1 is zoned commercial.
July 23, 2002
61
•
'"x'50
That commercial zoning along the high volume, high speed, multi -lane U.S. #1 is appropriate.
As the study area narrows to the north the zoning changes from general commercial to limited
commercial, an appropriate lessening of commercial intensity with the narrowing of the land.
Besides U.S. #1, there are other physical characteristics affecting land use in the area. One of
those is the Indian River Lagoon. In this area, the Lagoon is closer to U.S. #1 than in most areas
of the county. An even more unusual feature is the location of two roads parallel to U.S. #1 and
situated between U.S. #1 and the Lagoon. These roads, Old Dixie and Indian River Drive, have
the effect of dividing the area into smaller segments.
• Historical Development
Within the study area are some of the oldest subdivisions in the county. Several were platted
before Indian River County was created in 1925. These are generally located along Indian River
Drive.
Over time, a diversity of uses has been established in the study area. In the late 1960's, a mobile
home subdivision was established in the southern part of the study area. Consequently, the
southern section of the study area is zoned for mobile homes On Attachment 1, zoning map, the
mobile home area has an RMH-8 zoning designation
North of Roseland Road, all of the non -commercially zoned area is zoned single-family
residential. The single-family zoning in that part of the study area was established in conjunction
with the platting of the River Trees subdivision in 1976. Although
land use planning perspective, the River Trees plat established single-family recommended
adjacentlto
commercially zoned property fronting U.S. #1.
South of Roseland Road, there are two other subdivisions which, like River Trees, are zoned RS -
6 and have Lots which abut commercially zoned property. Because most of this commercially
zoned property is currently undeveloped, compatibility problems between the single-family
homes and the commercial land have not yet developed.
Overall, the historic development pattern has resulted in multi -family zoning within the study
area being located exclusively south of Roseland Road and mostly north of the mobile home
development in the south part of the study area. This same pattern has resulted in most of the
multi -family zoned property being relatively small lots or parcels.
Because of the small lots and parcels as well as the general lack of water and sewer, many of the
multi -family zoned lots in the study area have been developed with single-family uses This is
shown in Attachment 3.
• General Planning Principles
One of the principal objectives of land use planning is to site land uses in such a way as to
promote land use compatibility and avoid land use conflicts. Because of physical characteristics
and historic development, however, land use conflicts cannot always be avoided. Where land
use conflicts cannot be avoided, various techniques such as setbacks and buffers are often
employed to minimize compatibility problems.
Generally, commercial uses and single-family residential uses are considered incompatible. This
incompatibility occurs because of the characteristics of these two uses. While commercial uses
often have off-site impacts such as noise; light, traffic, late night activity, and others, single-
family uses have limited area or site design alternatives to mitigate those impacts.
July 23, 2002
62
lit
b
1
cif
•
414
For those reasons, it is preferable, where possible, to site multi -family residential between single-
family areas and commercial uses or •between single-family areas and multi -lane roadways.
Because of the site design flexibility of multi -family there are more opportunities to mitigate
commercial impacts with multi -family than with single-family. Multi -family development is
also considered as a good transition between mobile homes and single-family.
Given these considerations, several conclusions can be drawn regarding the zoning pattern in the
study area. First, the multi -family zoning in the south part of the study area is reasonable since it
abuts mobile home development that is mostly on the west side of Old Dixie, but in one area
extends to Indian River Drive. Attachment 1 shows the multi -family zoned properties adjacent
to the mobile home (RNII-I-8) area. Because most of this multi -family zoned area is
characterized by relatively small lots and parcels, the area will most likely continue to develop
with single-family homes and occasional duplexes.
The second conclusion is that the multi -family zoning of the property west of Old Dixie is
reasonable. Although there are only five multi -family zoned parcels west of Old Dixie two of
these are larger parcels, and both of these larger parcels abut commercially zoned property that
has U.S. #1 frontage. One of these parcels is the site of Inlet at Sebastian the recently approved
82 unit multi -family project.
The final conclusion is less definitive and relates to the multi -family zoned property between Old
Dixie and the Indian River Lagoon, north of the mobile home area. Characterized mostly by
smaller lots and parcels, with the exception of the Inlet at Sebastian tract, this area is generally
limited to single-family or duplex uses because of the lot sizes. As shown on Attachment 3,
almost half of the multi -family zoned parcels between Old Dixie and the Indian River Lagoon
are developed with single-family uses. While this indicates that single-family zoning could be
appropriate in this area, it also indicates that future development will probably continue to be
primarily single-family, even if the multi -family zoning is not changed.
Considering the study area as a whole, a number of factors indicate that the existing multi -family
zoning is appropriate. Those areas where multi -family zorung is most appropriate are those
lands abutting commercial and mobile home zoned areas. In other parts of the study area,
particularly on land east of Old Dixie, single-family zoning could be appropriate, given the small
size of the lots and parcels.
• Nlulti-Familv Resource/Infrastructure Impacts
One concern that often arises with multi -family development relates to resource/infrastructure
impacts. Because more dwelling units can be built under multi -family zoning than under single-
family zoning, many people believe that multi -family development will result in significant
traffic impacts, major drainage problems, and destruction of natural areas. That is not the case.
On a multi -family zoned site, an applicant can_ usually obtain a yield close to the maximum
allowed by the site's zoning. For example, the 14 acre, RM -6 zoned Inlet at Sebastian site
accommodated an 82 unit project. If that property had been zoned single-family (RS -6), the site
probably could not have accommodated more than 50 conventional single-family lots — and even
that assumes impacting the site's wetlands and mitigating those impacts off-site
Because multi -family units produce significantly fewer trips than single-family units, the 82 unit
Inlet at Sebastian project will produce only about 4 percent more traffic than a fifty lot single-
family subdivision on the same property. That occurs because multi -family units generate 5.86
trips per day, while single family units generate 9.57 trips per day.
July 23, 2002
63
zy
-34
With respect to drainage, both single-family and multi -family projects are subject to the same
requirements in terms of retention/detention, discharge, and treatment. Although drainage
impacts would be similar with both project types, multi -family developments will generally have
a lower per unit drainage impact, because multi -family units usually have less square footage, a
smaller footprint (because of multistory design), and less parking and driveway area than single
family.
In terms of natural and archeological resources, multi -family development generally has less
impact than single-family. Since multi -family development concentrates dwelling units while
single-family development disperses dwelling units, multi -family projects have more flexibility
in siting building footprints outside of wetlands and other natural areas. The Inlet at Sebastian
project is an example of this. That project design provides 67 percent open space, allowing
preservation of wetlands areas, native uplands areas, and archeological resource areas.
Overall, a multi -family project will generally have slightly more traffic impacts, about the same
drainage impacts, and fewer natural resource impacts than a single-family development project
on the same site.
• Legal Considerations
Regardless of land use, infrastructure, and natural resource considerations, there are legal issues
associated with a county initiated rezoning of property from multi -family to single-family.
While the impact of such a change may be insignificant on small lots or parcels, such a change
would significantly impact the few larger tracts that exist. Even more important is the fact that
no rezoning action would affect the Inlet at Sebastian project. Because that project has received
site plan approval, it is considered grandfathered in, and may proceed to construction regardless
of any rezoning action.
Other properties in the study area, however, would be affected by a rezoning of multi -family
zoned property to RS -6. Because of the Bert Harris Property Rights Act, any land owner whose
property is "inordinately burdened" by the rezoning would be entitled to relief from the County.
Given the Act's definition of inordinately burdened and recognizing that RM -6 provides more
value to most properties than RS -6, most land owners in the study would be entitled to
compensation from the County if their property were rezoned from RM -6 to RS -6 and if they
took legal action.
Given the number of small lots and parcels as well as the number of existing single-family
homes on land zoned RM -6 most property owners would probably consent to an RM -6 to RS -6
rezoning That was the case on the north barrier island, where no property owners objected to a
rezoning of all multi -family zoned land to single-family. In the North Indian River Drive Study
area, however there is a high probability that some property owners would object to a rezoning
action changing all multi -family zoned property to RS -6
ALTERNATIVES
As with any proposed rezoning action, there are various alternatives for the North Indian River
Drive area. In this case, the three principal alternatives are: to rezone all multi -family zoned
land in the study area to single-family, to rezone some of the multi -family zoned land to
single-family, or to make no change to the current zoning pattern in the study area. Each of
those alternatives is addressed below.
July 23, 2002
64
•
• Rezone all multi -family zoned property
Rezoning of all multi -family zoned properties in the study area to single-family will produce
several outcomes The principal advantage is that development on smaller lots and parcels will
be limited to single-family uses. This will ensure that futuredevelopment will be compatible
with past development, where single-family homes have been built on most of the multi -family
zoned lots.
There will be some disadvantages with such a rezoning One is that single-family zoning will
abut commercial zoning, producing future potential land use conflicts Another disadvantage is
that such a rezoning will create non -conformities on those lots/parcels where multi -family
development (duplex, triplex, quadraplex) has occurred. Even excluding the Inlet at Sebastian
site, such a rezoning would make seven lots non -conforming. Finally, such a rezoning could
result in Bert Hams claims and financial judgments against the county
• Rezone some multi -family zoned property
A second alternative is to rezone all multi -family property east of Old Dixie to single-family.
This would have all of the advantages of the first alternative, but fewer disadvantages. Because
the multi -family zoned property abutting commercially zoned land would not be rezoned, this
alternative will not produce potential single-family/commercial land use conflicts. Also, since
the multi -family zoned parcels west of Old Dixie are mostly larger tracts, maintaining the multi-
family zoning designation for those properties will reduce potential Bert Harris claims from the
properties most likely to be the subject of such an action.
Like the first alternative, this option will still produce some non -conformities. Also, this
alternative still may produce Bert Harris claims from landowners east of Old Dixie.
• No Change
The final alternative is taking no action and maintaining the current zoning in the study area.
The principal difference between this option and the alternative of rezoning just the property east
of Old Dixie is that with this no change alternative the property east of Old Dixie will not be
limited to single-family uses. Given the property configuration of the land east of Old Dixie,
however, it can be expected that most development in that area will be single-family uses with
the occasional duplex triplex, or quadraplex. Consequently, the difference between rezoning the
property east of Old Dixie to single-family and retaining that property's existing multi -family
zoning will not be significant.
• Alternatives Analysis
Of the three alternatives, the no change alternative will be the least problematic, with no Bert
Harris challenges and probably little impact on future development. Conversely, the rezone all
land in the study area to single-family would be most impactive, creating more potential Bert
Harris actions and creating potential commercial/single-family land use conflicts on the
remaining large parcel west of Old Dixie.
Because of the large number of multi -family parcels developed with single-family uses east of
Old Dixie, rezoning that area (with the exception of the Inlet at Sebastian property) is a
possibility. That would result in non -conformities being created on seven lots/parcels unless
those parcels retained their multi -family zoning. If this alternative is chosen, there should be a
survey of property owners to determine the number of supporters/opponents.
July 23, 2002
65
r` n
141
RECONLNIENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners make no change to the current
zoning pattern in the study area. Alternatively, staff recommends that the Board consider
rezoning those multi -family parcels east of Old Dixie to singe -family with a final decision to be
made after a survey of property owners to determine how many consent to such a rezoning.
Attachments:
1 . Zoning Map
2. Multi -family Zoned Lots with Developed/Site Plan Approved Multi -family Uses
3. Multi -family Zoned Lots with Developed Single-family Uses
4. Future Land Use Map
5. Aerial with Zoning Overlay
6. Water Service Map
7. Sewer Service Map
At the conclusion ofhis presentation, Director Keating responded to Commissioners'
questions concerning the area under consideration (depth of the commercial corridor on
US# 1 and ownership of the multifamily parcels).
Chairman Stanbridge expressed concern about building right on the river's edge with
the density (RM -8) assigned.
Chairman Stanbridge offered the opportunity for speakers to address this issue.
Jeff Hickman, 134th St., Roseland, hoped for cooperation in order to achieve
something for which everyone can be proud. He read his presentation into the record. (Not
submitted to the Clerk.) It is important to preserve and nurture the proper land use at the
intersection of US# 1 and Old Dixie Highway. He believed that in addition to buffers, height
restriction is critical and should be limited to two stories. Proper commercial hours of
operation of proper business types will eliminate noise and late night activity. The memo
makes an assumption that future development will "probably" continue to be primarily
July 23, 2002
66
roi
ph
5
•
single-family even if multi -family zoning is not changed. He felt this was an opportunity
to guide future land use. He suggested the multi -family properties be rezoned as RS -3.
Jerry Hall, 7711 Roseland Road, believed that in the panic to address this issue the
proponents of the petition, including him, may have gone in the wrong direction. That
petition speaks for itself and he is not against it. In speaking for himself, based on
interviews with others, the overriding concern is height and density allowed in the current
zoning. He believed, because we are facing unprecedented growth, it is a mistake to believe
that future development in the area will continue as in the past. Now is the time for
foresight, not hindsight. Previously, residents expected that multi -family zoning might mean
an occasional duplex or four-plex. Now, however, they felt blind -sided by the height and
density of the proposed Inlet at Sebastian apartment development. Concerning the Bert
Harris Act, homeowners have made investments and they have a right to expect their
property values to be protected and not reduced by inappropriate development. He asked
the Board to reduce the density from 6 to 8 units per acre to 3 or 4, and to reduce the
maximum height to 25 feet or 2 stories.
Sherry Reikert, 772 Cavern Terrace in Sebastian, owns property in Roseland and
will be building a single-family house there on her multi -family zoned property. As
president of the Friends of Historic Roseland, she reported that the Board of Directors
recently voted unanimously to support the rezoning efforts being requested by the citizens
of Roseland, in order to preserve its history and lifestyle. She read from her letter and a
brochure about Historic Roseland. (Both are on file with the backup for the meeting.) She
expressed concern for the tree canopy and wildlife in the area and respectfully asked the
Board to reduce the density.
Bill Howington, 7730 Roseland Road, advised his biggest concern is traffic impact.
The Inlet and any future multi -family developments should have outlet roads directly onto
July 23, 2002
67
Sei
we
US#1 so the traffic impact will not be as great.
Marcia Hall, 7711 Roseland Road, asked the Board to keep in mind that the areas
of the study that are west of Old Dixie Highway are uphill from the river. She also noted
concern for endangered species and submitted photographs of gopher tortoises sighted Just
north of 34' Street to the north of The Inlet site. (Photographs are on file with the backup
for the meeting.) She thanked the Board for requesting the study and staff for their effort
in preparing it in such a short time. She read the title of the Petition she submitted for the
record and advised there were 370 signatures. (Petition is on file with the backup for the
meeting.) She closed by saying that the Board's decisions on this matter will become their
legacy and the property owners' destiny. She asked that they please make their decisions
carefully.
C. N. Kirrie, Roseland, has lived in Roseland a lot longer than others. He believed
the property has generally developed according to the need in the area. The growth over the
40 years he has been there has increased the population 10-12 fold and has found its own
way in both commercial and residential growth. He agreed with Director Keating who has
"hit it on the head". To impose more restrictions means more government and he believes
that less government is better. The Friends of Historic Roseland do not represent the bulk
of the people in Roseland, nor does he. He believed that Roseland is doing okay without any
help.
Chairman Stanbridge asked if a limit of 2 stories is an option, and Director Keating
recalled that a lot of time was spent last year on height restrictions and specified that height
requirements are an issue that a lot of people do not understand. He explained the changes
made at that time.
Chairman Stanbridge appreciated the calmness of the Roseland folks for working
with staff on this.
July 23, 2002
68
57
•
Vice Chairman Tippin observed that most people do not realize that we were the
second county in Florida to pass height restrictions and Indian River County is considered
to have the tightest land development regulations in the state of Florida.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Adams,
SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, to have staff move
forward and look at the multi -family parcels east of Old Dixie
Highway, visit with the owners of those parcels, and come back
with their survey to see if the owners would be willing to
consent to a rezoning and see if we can have single-family
zoning along the river to both protect the river and maintain the
integrity of what has begun.
Chairman Stanbridge indicated her support for the motion.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion
carried unanimously.
11.C. SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS OFFICE SPACE - G. E.
CAPITAL MODULAR SPACE - CHANGE ORDER #2
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 16, 2002:
Date:
To:
Thru:
From.
Subject:
July 16, 2002
The Honorable Board of County Commissioners
James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Thomas W. Frame, General Services Director
ca)ct
Supervisor of Elections Office Space, Change Order # 2
July 23, 2002
69
BACKGROUND:
On April 23, 2002, the Board of County Commissioners approved the lease agreement with G.E. Capital
Modular Space for a monthly charge of $5,894 ($70,728 annually)
In the transmittal memorandum dated April 17, 2002, to the Board for the meeting held on April 23`d, it
was identified that the basic set-up charges rose by $3,000 due to the increased wind load requirement of
140 miles per hour zone. I also noted that there were additional charges to provide for specific plumbing
and electrical configurations along with telephony and data lines and jacks.
The total one time charge was quoted and approved at the April 23, 2002 meeting at $57,244. The
contract was subsequently executed with $33,626 in one time charges. Unfortunately, the charges for the
plumbing, electrical and voice and data lines ($23,618) were unintentionally excluded. If those items had
been included, the one time charge should have been $57,244 as approved by the Board. These items
need to be included as part of the needed set-up.
To insure that we obtained those services, I contacted G.E. Capital and requested to receive a necessary
change order to obtain these needed services at the price as originally quoted and approved.
The attached change order is the document necessary to include these previous approved services and
does not raise the cost above previously quoted costs. The change order merely includes what should
have been included and which was omitted by err.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the proposed Change Order # 2 to provide for additional plumbing, electrical and voice and data
lines for an amount not to exceed $23,618 and authorize the Chairman to execute the Change Order # 2
accordingly.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED BY Vice
Chairman Tippin, the Board unanimously approved Change
Order #2 to provide for additional plumbing, electrical and
voice and data lines for an amount not -to -exceed $23,618 and
authorized the Chairman to execute the Change Order #2, as
recommended in the memorandum.
July 23, 2002
CHANGE ORDER IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
70
Di{
f
•
11.F.1. COLLECTIVE BARGAINING STRATEGY MEETING -
IAFF, LOCAL 2201 AND TEAMSTERS, LOCAL 769 (LABOR &
TRADES AND PARAMEDICS)
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 16, 2002:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
FROM: James Camicell 2
Human ResourcsDirector
SUBJECT: Executive Session
DATE: July 16, 2002
I am recommending you consider requesting a collective bargaining strategy meeting with the Board
of County Commissioners. I would be prepared to summarize the status of each of our three
bargaining units on July 23, 2002.
Commissioners agreed to meet following this meeting in Conference Room B.
11.F.2. CONSIDERATION OF TEAMSTERS, LOCAL 769 (LABOR
& TRADES) COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 22, 2002:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
FROM: Jim Carnicella
Human Reso c s Director
DATE: July 22, 2002
SUBJECT: Teamsters (Labor and Trades) Collective Bargaining Agreement
Attached for your consideration is the proposed labor and tradescollective bargaining agreement
with Teamsters Local No. 769. Also attached is a summary of the changes made in the
agreement.
The terms were negotiated and agreed to by the County and Teamster bargaining teams. The
agreement was submitted to the Teamster membership and ratified on July 19, 2002. Staff
recommends approval of the agreement.
Attachments
July 23, 2002
71
This item was moved up on the agenda before 11.A.1. on agreement of the
Commissioners. but is inserted here for agenda continuity.
Human Resources Director James E Carnicella requested the Board approve the
Agreement with the Teamsters (Labor and Trades), Local 769.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED BY Vice
Chairman Tippin, the Board unanimously approved the
agreement as submitted.
CONTRACT IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
11.G.1. VERO LAKE ESTATES STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS,
PHASE I - ADDITIONAL SECTION 319(h) NON -POINT SOURCE
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT GRANT THROUGH THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FOR $226,808
(DEP CONTRACT NO. WM803)
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 15, 2002:
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY giYER
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
STORMWATER ENGINEERING DIVISION
1840 25TH STREET
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960-3365
Phone: (561) 567-8000, ext. 1562 ; Suncom. 224-1562 LORI��
Fax: (561) 778-9391
TO:
THROUGH:
FROM
SUBJECT:
DATE:
July 23, 2002
MEMORANDUM
James Chandler, County Administrator
James W. Davis, P.E., Public Works Director
W. Keith McCully, P.E., Esq., Stormwater Engineerg234
VERO LAKE ESTATES STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS,
PHASE I — ADDITIONAL SECTION 319(b) NON -POINT SOURCE
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT GRANT FOR $226,808
July 15, 2002
72
BF(
L
6!
•
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The County has a $400,000 Section 319(h) Non -Point Source Program Management Grant
(319(h) Grant) for the Phase I Vero Lake Estates Stormwater Improvements Project, through the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). We recently applied for additional
Section 319(h) Grant finding for the project and have been awarded an increase of $226,808
This makes the total 319(h) Grant award equal to $626,808. Attached is Amendment No. 1 to
DEP Contract No. WM803, awarding the grant increase.
The purpose of this memorandum is to request the Board to accept the Grant and authorize the
Chairperson to sign it on behalf of the County.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the Chairman to execute
attached Amendment No. 1 to our existing Section 319(h) Grant (DEP Contract No. WM803),
awarding the County an additional $226,808.
FUNDING
N/A
ATTACILMFNTS
Amendment No. 1 to DEP Contract No. WM803, prepared by DEP — two original copies.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Vice
Chairman Tippin, the Board unanimously authorized the
Chairman to execute Amendment No. 1 to our existing Section
319(h) Grant (DEP Contract No. WM803), awarding the
County an additional $226,808, as recommended in the
memorandum.
July 23, 2002
AMENDMENT AND ATTACHMENT ARE ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
73
11.G.2. STORMWATER COST -SHARE GRANT AGREEMENT
WITH ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT FOR
ROADWAY PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS -
CONTRACT NO. SF620AA
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 8, 2002:
TO: James Chandler, County Administrator
THROUGH* James W. Davis, P E , Public Works Director
FROM W. Keith McCully, P.E., Esq., Stormwater Engineer
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
ATE: July 8, 2002
STORMWATER COST -SHARE AGREEMENT BETWEEN ST. JOHNS
RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AND INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY FOR ROADWAY PAVING AND DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS — CONTRACT NO. SF620AA
On November 15, 2001, the Stormwater Engineering Division applied fora Cost -Share
Grant with St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD), to pave
approximately 7.2 miles of roads between the One -Mile Ridge and the Indian River
Lagoon (Lagoon). In Indian River County, stormwater runoff containing huge amounts
of suspended solids regularly flows into the Lagoon The draft East Indian River County
Master Stormwater Management Plan Interim Report estimates that over 2,427 tons of
suspended solids are carried into the Lagoon each year from just the Indian River
Farms Water Control District s (IRFWCD) Main and South Relief Canals
Studies by Joel Steward (SJRWMD) and others, indicate that the presence of high
quantities of suspended solids in the Lagoon is a leading factor in the decline of the
Lagoon's seagrass coverage. The suspended solids reduce the penetration of Tight
through the water column, and when they settle, the solids cover the seagrass leaves
and the Lagoon bottom on which the seagrass grows. Boat propellers and wind/wave
action can cause the settled solids to re -suspend, increasing turbidity. Seagrass
coverage is an important focal point in estimating the Lagoon's health. In fact, the goal
of the East Indian River County Master Stormwater Management Plan is to return the
seagrass coverage in the County's section of the Lagoon to pre -1943 levels. More
seagrass coverage corresponds to clearer, cleaner water and is an indicator of a
healthy, diverse ecosystem. Therefore, one way to create a more favorable
environment for seagrass growth is to eliminate the sources of the suspended solids
present in the stormwater runoff entering the Lagoon.
A notable source of these suspended solids are unpaved Indian River County roads
from which stormwater runoff collects fine silty material such as marl Indian River
County maintains approximately 238.4 miles of unpaved roads. The Indian River
July 23, 2002
74
7
County Division of Public Works estimates that during fiscal year 2000-2001, up to
65,700 tons of road material was washed from these roads directly into the Lagoon or
into ditches and canals that indirectly discharge into the Lagoon. If these roads are
paved a tremendous source of stormwater borne suspended solids will be eliminated,
and the suspended solids loading to the Lagoon will be significantly decreased. If the
amount of suspended solids carried into the Lagoon by stormwater runoff is decreased,
then the clarity of the Lagoon's water will be increased. This will create a healthier
environment for seagrass and ultimately lead to enhanced seagrass coverage and
growth rate.
SJRWMD has awarded the County a $100,000 Grant to apply towards paving
approximately 7.2 miles of roads that drain directly or indirectly into the Lagoon. This
represents nearly 20.89 acres of land area that will no longer contribute fine suspended
solids to stormwater runoff. Another 40.20 acres (assuming an average 70 -foot wide
road right-of-way) will receive improved stormwater treatment through the construction
of grass swales or other treatment systems. In total over 61 acres of contributing area
will receive significant stormwater treatment improvements, making a very positive
impact on the Lagoon. We estimate that up to 1,985 tons of suspended solids may be
removed from current Lagoon loading each year, by paving these 7.2 miles of roads.
The total estimated cost to pave 7.2 miles of roads is $3,361 980.
Although the total project cost is approximately $3.4 million, per a telephone
conversation on July 11, 2002 with Ms. Connie Rozier, Contracts Administrator with
SJRWMD the County does not need spend the estimated $3.4 million and complete all
19 individual road projects to collect the $100 000 grant funding. To satisfy the grant
requirements and collect the grant money, the County must show only that our
expenditures for the road paving projects during the two-year grant penod exceed
$100,000 (the amount of the grant). The number of road projects constructed during
the two-year period is irrelevant; only the expenditure by the County of funds in excess
of the grant amount is important
The purpose of this agenda item is to request the Commission to approve the attached
$100,000 Cost -Share Grant for signature by the Chairperson.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached Ccst-
Share Grant between SJRWMD and Indian River County, and authorize the
Chairperson to sign the Grant on behalf of the County.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Stormwater Cost -Share Agreement Between St. Johns River Water Manacement
District And Indian River County For Roadwa P
I
morovements — avino And Draina
Contract No. SF620AA. (two copies)
July 23, 2002
75
•
e
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED BY Vice
Chairman Tippin, the Board unanimously approved the cost -
share grant between St. Johns River Water Management District
and Indian River County, and authorized the Chairman to sign
the Grant on behalf of the County, as recommended in the
Memorandum.
COST -SHARE AGREEMENT IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
11.G.3. NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL PARK PROFESSIONAL
ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES AGREEMENT (SCOPE OF SERVICES
AND COMPENSATION - FLOOD DAMAGE ON SITE - BRAD SMITH
ASSOCIATES, INC., AMENDMENT NO. 3
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 9, 2002:
TO: James Chandler, County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E., Public Works Director
FROM: Christopher J. Kafer, Jr., P.E.; County Engineer
SUBJECT:
Amendment No. 3 to the North County • gional Park Professional
Architectural Services Agreement - IRC Project No. 9926
DATE: July 9, 2002
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
On March 21, 2000 the Board executed a Professional Architectural Services Agreement with Brad
Smith Associates, Inc. for design services for the above subject project in the amount of
$249 070.00. On June 13, 2000 the Board executed Amendment No. 1 to the Professional
Architectural Services Agreement for Additional Services in the amount of $9,500.00. On
November 7, 2000 the Board executed Amendment No. 2 to the Professional Architectural Services
Agreement for Additional Services in the amount of $4,200.00. Attached is Amendment No. 3 for
additional services to include open-ended consulting services relative to flood damage on site for an
additional fee not to exceed $7,500.00. Original fee amount was $249,070 00. Additional fee
July 23, 2002
76
•
amount for Amendment #1 was 39,500.00, Amendment No. 2 was 34,200.00, and proposed
Amendment No. 3 is 37,500.00 for a new agreement fee amount of 5270,270.00.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Alternative No. 1 - The Board of County Commissioners approve Amendment No. 3 to the
Professional Architectural Services Agreement for North County Regional Park with Brad Smith
Associates, Inc. and that the Board direct the Chairman to execute this Amendment No. 3 on their
behalf.
Alternative No. 2 - Not to approve Amendment No. 3.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends approval of Alternative No. 1; funding from account no. 315-199-581-099.91.
ATTACILMENTS
Amendment No. 3 to the Professional Architectural Services Agreement with Brad Smith
Associates, Inc.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously approved
Amendment No. 3 to the Professional Architectural Services
Agreement for North County Regional Park with Brad Smith
Associates, Inc. (Alternative No. 1), and directed the Chairman
to execute same, as recommended in the memorandum.
AMENDMENTS ARE ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
11.G.4. EMERGENCY REPAIR OF BRIDGE #880063 LOCATED AT
CR510 AND 82ND AVENUE
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 22, 2002:
July 23, 2002
77
f
Lf
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
James W. Davi
Public Works
July 22, 2002
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Several pilings on the 82ri6 Avenue bridge need replacement. Staff
has received a proposal from Sheltra & Sons to install three helper
bents at a cost of $69,000. Time is of the essence. We would like
to get the work completed prior to school opening in August. CR510
will be closed beginning July 29th until August 2.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff requests allocation of funds not to exceed $69,000. Funding
to come from Secondary Road Trust fund.
ATTACHMENT
Proposal from Sheltra & Sons.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Vice
Chairman Tippin, the Board unanimously allocated funds not -
to -exceed $69,000 from the Secondary Road Trust fund, as
requested in the memorandum.
Chairman Stanbridge reminded the Commissioners ofthe bargaining strategy meeting
in Conference Room "B" immediately following adjournment. (11.F.1.)
July 23, 2002
There being no further business, upon motion duly made and seconded, the Chairman
adjourned the meeting at 11:20 a.m.
ATTEST:
Jeffrey ' . Barton, Clerk
Ruth M. Stanbridge, Chairman
July 23, 2002