Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/21/1982Wednesday, April 21, 1982 The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, met in Regular Session at the County Commission Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Wednesday, April 21, 1982, at 8:30 o'clock A.M. Present were Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Chairman; Alfred Grover Fletcher, Vice Chairman; Dick Bird; Patrick B. Lyons; and William C. Wodtke, Jr. Also present were David L. Greene, Assistant County Administrator; L.S. "Tommy" Thomas, Intergovernmental Coordinator; Gary Brandenburg, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; Jeffrey K. Barton, Finance Director; and Virginia Hargreaves and Janice Caldwell, Deputy Clerks. The Chairman called the meeting .to order. Commissioner Wodtke led the Pledge of Allegiance to the -- Flag, and Reverend Malcolm Wansley, Calvary Baptist Church, gave the invocation. ADDITIONS TO AGENDA The Chairman asked if there were any additions to the Agenda. Assistant Administrator Greene requested adding an item concerning a Letter of Conditions from the FmHA. On Motion by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the addition of the emergency item to the -Agenda, as requested by Mr. Greene. Mr. Greene requested adding an item concerning a 1 workshop with the St. Johns River Water Management District, and another item concerning Florida Power & Light utilities. On Motion by Commissioner Lyons, -seconded by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously approved the addition of the emergency items to the Agenda, as requested by Mr. Greene. moK 49 PAGE 401 APR 21 1982 APR 21198°°K9 evE40 z. Commissioner Bird requested adding an item concerning the Courthouse problems. On Motion by Commissioner Bird, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unanimously approved the addition of the emergency item to the Agenda, as requested by Commissioner Bird. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4 The Chairman asked if there were any additions or corrections to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 17, 1982. On Motion by Commissioner Wodtke, seconded by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 17, 1982, as written. 3 CLERK TO THE BOARD A. Construction Budget — Pebble Bay Project The Board reviewed the following memorandum dated April 14, 1982: On Motion by Commissioner Wodtke, seconded by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously approved the Construction Budget of the Pebble Bay Project, recommended by the Finance Director, as follows: Account Title Account Number Increase Decrease Engineering Services 704-215-535-33.13 13,570 Advertising 704-215-535-34.81 25 Construction in Progress 704-215-535-66.51 82,019 Interest Expense 704-215-535-77.21 5,000 City of I.R. Shores Trans. 704-215-535-88.12 19,458 City of Vero Beach Trans. 704-215-535-83.11 29,438 Contingencies 704-215-535-99.91 5,000 Sewer Assessments 704--000-363-20.00 117,334 Transfers In 704-000-381-20.00 37,176 Cash Forward 472-000-389-40.0037,176 Transfers 0ut 472-199-581-99.21 37,176 M B. Tax Sale Certificate On Motion by Commissioner Wodtke, seconded by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved Tax Sale Certificate No. 270 in the amount of $57.84 for James C. Stanley. CONSENT AGENDA A. Reports on File The following reports were received and placed on file in the Office of the Clerk: Traffic Violation Bureau - Special Trust Fund, Month of March, 1982 - $37,260.96. Traffic Violation Fines by Name - March, 1982. OUT -OF -COUNTY TRAVEL The Attorney reviewed the following memorandum dated April 5, 1982: TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Gary M. Brandenburg County Attorney DATE: April. 5, 1982 FILE: SUBJECT: 1982 Sewage Treatment/ Wastewater Disposal Workshop REFERENCES: The Florida Bar will hold a workshop on Sewage Treatment/Wastewater Disposal on May 21, 1982 in Orlando, Florida. The emphasis of the workshop will be on federal, state, and local regulations regarding sewage treatment and wastewater disposal. Since I believe I am a member of the ,Environmental and Land Use Law Section, there will be no charge for this program except travel in a County vehicle and possibly two night's lodging. The County Attorney requests travel approval to attend this seminar. Respectfully submitted, X r M. Branden urg APR 211992 BOOK .49 PAE403 3 APR'2 11982 i7W/Klr, 49 F�,E' On Motion by Commissioner Wodtke, seconded by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously approved out -of -County travel, if funds were available in the budget, for the County Attorney to attend the Sewage Treatment/Wastewater Disposal Workshop in Orlando May 21, d 1982. TRAFFIC CONTROL - JUNGLE TRAIL The Board next considered the following request dated April 12, 1982: TO: Tle Honorable Manbers of the Board of County Ccannissioners Thru: David Greene, Acting County Administration FROM: Michael L. Orr� Traffic Engineer DATE: April 12, 1982 Fl LE: SUQ',JECT' Traffic Control - Julgle Trail REFERENCES: Letter 3-22-82 Ruth Stanbridge At the request of the Jungle Trail Ad Hoc Committee, it is recommended that determination of traffic control for Jungle Trail by the County Coimission be given formal consideration and authorization. Description and Conditions A form of traffic control is required for Jungle Trail. Due to its uni- que characteristics, (e.g. unpaved, narrow, winding roadway; recreational use by pedestrians and motorists; residential and commercial land uses; and proximity to the Indian River) the method of controlling traffic will need to be flexible to prevailing roadway conditions. Alternatives and Analysis 1. Post the legal speed limit. Several problems have been identified with this alternative: a. Visibility of speed limit signs within a lush landscape is limited, thus providing difficulties with observance by drivers; b. Posting a 25 MPH speed limit does not conform with Florida Statutes Chapter 316.189. Establishment of a legal speed limit based upon F.D.O.T. proccdures would not be realistic to conditions found on Jungle Trail; and c. Assut;ption of long-term maintenance of a set of speed zone signs. 2. Install a guide/info nnat ion si-n such as "Jungle Trail-Scenic Road - Slows-Loving Vehicles" at each end of Jungle Trail. This sign would provide the following benefits: a. A non -posted but flexible speed limit utilizing provisions in Florida Statutes Chapter 315.183 (Unlawful Speed), 316.185 (Special Hazards) and 316.1925 (Careless Driving). These sections basically state that "no person shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard to the actual and poten- tial hazards, then existing".; and b. Aesthetic benefits from the minimal use of signs. Recommendation To provide flexible and appropriate traffic control for Jungle Trail, Alternative #2 is recommended. A sample of the recommended sign, based upon standards of design and communication presented in the manual On Uniform Traffic Control Devices, is available and has been accep-te by the Jungle Trail Committee. On Motion by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously accepted Alternate 2 as recommended by the Assistant Administrator in his memorandum of April 12, 1982. WATER MANAGEMENT WORKSHOP Mr. Greene.suggested having a workshop meeting with the St. Johns River Water Management District and the Department of Environmental Regulation regarding storm water management. After some discussion, it was recommended by the Board that a workshop be held on April 28, 1982 from 10:00 A.M. to 12:00 Noon in the Commission Chambers. FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT - POLE AGREEMENT Engineer Jim Davis reviewed the following memorandum concerning the Joint Pole Use Agreement: ✓ APR 211982 ��ox 49 PALE -405 5 APR 211982 TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: April 20, 1982 FILE: the Board of County Commissioners Thru: David L. Greene, SUBJECT: Florida Power and Light Asst. County Administrator Joint Pole Use Agreement FROM: James W. Davis P. E REFERENCES: Public Works Director DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Florida Power and Light Company has requested that the County enter into a Joint Use Agreement which gives the County the right to attach traffic signals to F.P.L. poles. The attached agreement states that attachments will be main- tained in a safe condition, that the County will indemnify the owner of any liability due to the County's facilities, and ttthe County will bear the cost of rearranging it's facilities if neces!ia.ry. This agreement is necessary to allow the -flashing beacoq installation at 8th Street and 27th Avenue. ALTERXATIVES AND ANALYSIS Presently, the County appears to use two F.P.L. poles to support traffic signals. These poles are located at Oslo Road and 27th Avenue and at 12th Street and 27th Avenue. The 8th Street and 27th Avenue installation will be the third such case. The County Attorney's office has reviewed the attached agreement and has several comments concerning the County's obligations. However, since only 3 poles are considered, the Attorney's office has stated that the County could enter into this agreement, but prior to future installations, the County - should renegotiate an agreement with F.P.L. RECMENDATIONS AND FUNDING It is recommended that the following motion be presented and approved: 1. That the Board of County Commissioners approve the Joint Use Agreement. 2. That the Board authorize the Chairman'to execute said agreement on behalf of the citizens of Indian River County. No funding is applicable. Motion was made by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by Commissioner Bird, that the Board approve the Joint Pole Use Agreement and authorize the signature of the Chairman. Lengthy discussion followed concerning the agreement. Mr. Davis explained that the agreement is for the large, concrete pre -stressed feeder poles, at locations indicated on Exhibit A of the agreement. The Chairman called for the question. It was voted on and carried unanimously. Mr. Davis advised that the work will be performed as soon as Signal Construction Company can do the installation; his staff will be in daily contact with them regarding the matter. A P R 21.1982 690K PAE 07 7 :APR 211992 JOINT POLE USE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of , 1982, by and between Indian River County, herein- after referred to as the PUBLIC BODY, and FLORIDA POWER 6 LIGHT COMPANY, a Florida corporation having its principal office in Miami, Florida, hereinafter referred to as FPL. The Florida Department of Transportation will hereinafter -be referred to as DEPARTMENT. t WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, FPL occupies public ways, streets and private properties with an unspecified number of poles upon which are attached electric transmission and distribution lines, street lighting systems, communi- cations lines and appurtenances; and the PUBLIC BODY also similarly occupies public ways with poles upon which are attached tariff control systems; and, WHEREAS, FPL and the PUBLIC BODY desire to cooperate in jointly using each other's poles under one or more of the above conditions when the conditions determining the necessity or desirability of joint use depend upon the requirements to be met by both parties, including consideXaigps of safety end economy, and each party should be the judge of what the character of its circuits should be to meet its requirements and as to whether or not these requirements can be properly met by the joint use of poles; _ NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter contained, FPL and the PUBLIC BODY agree as follows: 1. When either party wishes to use the poles of the other party, said using party (a party making a joint use attachment) shall make an application to the owner party (the party owning the pole) in the form of EXHIBIT A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, placing those facilities under terms of'this agreement. Before attaching to any poles,.using party shall obtain the approval of the owner party, said approval being subject fo the sole and absolute discretion of owner party. 2. FPL's use of the pole subject to this agreement shall be confined to the transmission and distribution of electricity and street light systems in pursuit of its business of serving the public; and the PUBLIC BODY's use of the poles subject to this agreement shall be confined to that necessary for the operation and support of traffic control systems. 3. Both PUBLIC BODY and FPL shall, at their own expense, make and maintain said attachments in safe condition and in thorough.repair, and in a manner so that they will not conflict with the use of said poles by the owner or by other utility companies using said poles, or interfere with the working use of facilities thereon or which may from time to time be placed thereon. It is understood and agreed that either party hereto may, at any time, and whether with or without cause, terminate joint usage for any pole or poles by mailing written notice in the form of EXHIBIT B of its intent to do so. The using party shall forthwith, at its own expense, within thirty (30) days after its notice to terminate or the owner party's notice, remove, relocate, replace, or renew its facilities placed on any pole or pole line, or transfer them to substituted poles, or perform any other work in con- nection with said facilities that may be required by the owner party; provided, however, that after giving thirty (30) days notice, or without T notice in cases of emergency, the owner party may arrange to relocate, replace or remove the facilities placed on said poles by the using party, transfer them to substituted poles or perform any other work in con- nection with said facilities that may be required in the maintenance, replacement, removal or relocation of said poles, the facilities thereon or which my be placed thereon, or for the service needs of the owner party, and the using party shall, on demand, reimburse the owner party for the expense thereby incurred. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to relieve using party of maintaining adequate work forces readily at hand to promptly remove, repair or service and maintain using party's facilities where such conditions are necessary or are hindering owner party's operations. 4. The owner party reserves to itself, its successors and assigns, the right to maintain its poles and to operate its facilities thereon in the manner that will best enable it to fulfill its own service require- ments, and in accordance with the applicable edition of the National Electrical Safety Code as provided by the Public Service Commission, and such specifications particularly applying to owner party hereinabove referred to. Owner party shall not be liable.to using party for any interruption to service of using party or for interference with the operation of the cables, wires, and appliances of using party arising in any manner out of owner party's poles hereunder. 5. The owner party, because of the importance of its service, reserves the right to inspect each new installation of the using party on its poles and in the vicinity of its lines or'appliances and to make periodic inspections, semi-annually or as often as plant conditions may warrant, of the entire plant of using party. Such inspections, made or not, shall -not operate to relieve using party of any responsi- bility, obligation or liability assumed under this agreement. Using party shall exercise special precautions to avoid damage to facilities of owner party and of others supported on said pole and shall make an immediate report to owner party of the occurrence of any damage. User party agrees to pay owner party all amounts incurred by owner party in repairing its facilities damaged by user party. 6. The using party hereby agrees to install, construct, and maintain its attachments with its own qualified electrician or by a qualified electrical contractor paid under a contract let -by the---- using party all in accordance with generally -accepted safety practices of the electric utility and/or.communications industry and the regula- tions of the Florida Department of Commerce as they exist or as'they are subsequently revised, amended or superseded; and that utility service connections shall in all cases be performed by FPL when FPL is expected to supply A utility service. It is further understood and agreed by the PUBLIC BODY that the said installation, construction and maintenance of such attachments within six (6) feet of the power utility's primary conductors (which shall herein be defined as all conductors with voltage potentials exceeding 750V) shall be performed only with prior consent of FPL when pole ownership lies with the PUBLIC BODY. When the pole ownership lies with FPL, all installations, construction and maintenance of PUBLIC BODY attachments shall be subject to the approval of FPL within its sole and absolute discretion and shall conform with any other joint use agreement now in effect between FPL and other joint users. P 7. Whenever the PUBLIC BODY uses its personnel to perform work, the following provision shall apply: • If the PUBLIC BODY enters into an agreement for the joint use of poles owned by DEPARTMENT or FPL, or upon which DEPARTMENT or FPL maintains attachments, and DEPARTMENT and FPL are agreeable to said joint use, the parties agree -2- 9QK 9 4&409 APR 211992 that in consideration of $10 and other specific and mutually acknowledged benefits received each from the other, PUBLIC BODY shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless DEPARTMENT and FPL from and against any liabilities whatsoever, whether or not due to or caused by negligence of DEPARTMENT and FPL, including attorney fees, for injury to or death of`person(s) or property damage arising or resulting in connection with any activity performed by PUBLIC BODY personnel associated with said joint pole use under this agreement subject to the limitation set forth in Section 768.28(5), Florida Statues. If the PUBLIC BODY Has liability insurance as of the date of this agreement, or purchases said insurance at any time during the term of this agreement, such insurance shall be amended or endorsed so as to include FPL as an Additional Named Insured to protect the parties hereto against any and all claims, demands, actions, judgements, costs, expenses, and liabilities of every nature, including attorney defense fees which may result, directly or indirectly, under the terms of the above indemnification. The limit applying to this agreement shall equal the highest limit applicable to any other exposure covered under the policy. 8. The PUBLIC BODY agrees to include the following indemnification in all contracts with contractors who perform construction or maintenance work on all joint use poles: "The Contractor hereby agrees to indemnify, defend, save and hold harmless the DEPARTMENT and any owner of equipment attached to or supported by a jointly used pole from all claims, demands, liabilities and suits whether or not due .to or caused by negligence.of the DEPARTMENT or joint pole equipment owners for bodily injuries or death to person(s) or damage to property resulting in connection with the performance of the described work by contractor, its sub- contractors, agents, or employees. This indemnification shall extend up to, but shall not exceed, the sum of - $1,000,000 for bodily injury or death of person(s) for any one occurrence and $300,000 for property damage for any one occurrence." 9. The PUBLIC BODY further agrees to require its contractor to furnish General Comprehensive Liability Insurance or its equivalent providing for a limit of not less than $1,000,000 for bodily injury or death to person(s) per occurrence and $300,000 property damage each occurrence. Said liability policy should be endorsed with a Broad Form Contractual Endorsement covering the above indemnification or the DEPARTMENT and owner are to be Additional Named Insured and the policy will be primary to any coverage maintained by the DEPARTMENT or owner. No materail change or cancellation will be made to the policy without ten (10) days written notice to .the DEPARTMENT. In addition, copies of the policies will be furnished to DEPARTMENT upon request. 10. The using party agrees to bear the cost of rearrangements of additional facilities -that may be necessary as a result of a prior agreement with the owner party and a third party for use of the owner party's poles, or because of the needs of owner party. In the alternative, the using party may discontinue use of said pole. -3- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, PUBLIC BODY and FPL have executed this agreement on the day and year first aforesaid, by their duly authorized officers and representatives. FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY By: (Title) (Title) (SEAL) Attest: PUBLIC BODY _ By: Title: w Attest: Approved: Approved as to form, legality, and execution. Joint Pole Use Agreement Intersection Pole Location 27th Avenue (SR607) / 12th Street N.E. corner 27th Avenue (SR607) / 8th Street (SR612) S.E. corner 27th Avenue (SR607) / 9th Street S.W. (SR606) S.E. corner APR 211982 BWK '- a;, 49;Pw i �K 49 FA, I APR 211982 BID #119 - PICKUP TRUCK FOR PUBLIC WORKS The Board considered the following Bid information for an economy pickup truck for,the Public Works Department: TO: The honorable Members of the Board of County Commissioners D S.z- `• Thio: David.Greene Acting County Administrator DATE: April 12, 1982 FI LE: SUBJECT: Award of Bid - IRC 119 - Economy Pickup Truck for Department of Public Works FROM: James IV. Davis, P.E. ; REFERENCES: Public IVorks Director Description and Conditions Bids were received April 6, 1982, at 11:00 a.m. for the above subject truck. This truck is intended to mobilize Engineering Division staff as approved during the F.Y. 1981/82 Budget hearings. Seven (7) bidders responded to the call for Bids, two bidders of which submitted a "no bid". Of the five (S) remaining bidders, the low bid was submitted by Steve Barnett Iinports Vero Beach, Florida. Alternatives and Analysis - The low bid of $6,189 did not meet specifications, as the vehicle did - not have air conditioning. The bidder did state that air conditioning may be installed (a non factory unit) for an additional $600, bringing the bid to $6,789.00. The truck bid is a Mazda (Japanese) 4 cylinder, which is rated at 27 mpg (E.P.A. Rating) and has a wheel base of 112.8 inches. The second low bidder is Fred Coyne Chevrolet which bid a Chevrolet S-10 and which meets specifications. The Bid Price is $6,912.13, which is $123.13 more than the low bidder. The truck bed is larger (117.9" wheel base) and is rated at 28 mpg (EPA Rating). Recommendation and Funding \ Since the Chevrolet S-10 truck bid by Fred Coyne Chevrolet meets all specifications, has a longer wheel base and is rated as getting more miles per gallon than the Mazda, it is recommended that the bid be awarded to Fred Coyne Chevrolet in the amount of $6,912.13. The approved budget amount of $7,000, Account No. 102-243-519-66.42 (Federal Revenue sharing - Depart- ment of Public Works) is more than adequate for the purchase. Commissioner Fletcher noted that the truck was equipped with air conditioning. He thought there might be a problem with supervisors having trucks with air conditioning and other employees having trucks without it. Motion was made by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by Commissioner Wodtke, that the Board accept Bid #119 of Fred Coyne Chevrolet for a Chevrolet S-10 pickup truck, as being the lowest and best bid meeting specifications, in the amount of $6,912.13, Account No. 102-243-519-66.42. Chairman Scurlock suggested it would be helpful for future bids if the staff included a list:of the authorized bidders for the Board to review. The Chairman called for the question. It was voted on and carried unanimously. FOURTH COURTROOM - DISCUSSION RE ARCHITECT The Board discussed the following memorandum dated April 15, 1982 concerning the Fourth Courtroom architect: TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: April 15, 1982 FILE: the Board of County Commissioners SUBJECT: Fourth Courtroom Architect e FROM: l9 ` - - REFERENCES: "David L. Greene Assistant County Administrator DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS The Board of County Commissioners at the regularly scheduled meeting of June 3, 1981 decided to have a different architect design the Fourth Courtroom to be constructed in the Courthouse Annex. The request for proposals was advertised and four architectual engineering firms responded. The advertisement was published in the local newspaper during the time period of October 22, 1981 running through November 4, 1981. In response to this notice, the County received four letters of interest. These letters and firm qualifications were provided to a committee comprised of the local Circuit Judges and the Indian River County Bar Association. This committee met and considered the selection of the four architectual firms. The committee prioritized the firms for negotiations. The Chairman, County Administrator and County Attorney were authorized by the Board to negotiate with the firms to determine if an acceptable agree- ment could be reached. The order of those firms submitting proposals are ranked as follows: J. C.E. Block, Architect, Inc. 2. John W. Kalmese, Architect 3. Master Design Group, Inc. 4. Peabody and Childes APR 211982 13 fV0 49 WEAU. APR 211982 Mr. Block was the unanimous first choice of the committee, composed of the Judges and representatives from the Bar Association. C.E. Block the number one firm chosen by the committee was contacted and requested to make a proposal to include his fees and approach to the project, The then County Administrator, Nelson prepared an agenda item under memo dated February 23, 1982 for consideration at the Board meeting of March 3, 1982, a recommendation concerning Mr. Block's fee and proposal. This matter was not considered at that meeting due to the heavy work load on that particular agenda and was deferred until the March 10th meeting. At that meeting Staff request- ed that the item:be deferred until a later date in order that we might present a more complete package and recommendations to the Commission. Mr. Block has complied with the request and has presented for con- sideration the standard form of agreement between the owner and architect, 1977 edition. As you will note in the agreement, Section 14.1 provides for initial payment by the County of $500.00 upon execution of the agreement and will be credited to the owners account. The remaining portion of the agreement for basic services is a $40.00 per hour charge up to a maximum of $10,000.00 total cost to cover the basic services indicated in the agreement. Those ser- vices are outlined in 1.1 through 1.5 of the agreement. Article 15 of the agreement covering other conditions or services should be noted that number 1; mechanical, electrical and plumbing engineering shall be considered a reimbursable expense at the actual cost to the architect. This service shall be done only if deemed necessary based upon the architects recommendation and shall not exceed the amount of $2,500.00 total. Additionally under Article 15 the Arch- o itects fee is based on interior improvements only. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that: 1. The Board approve Mr. Block's proposed contract dated April 12, 1982 and authorize his firm to perform the necessary services. 2. The Chairman be authorized to sign the standard AIA contract. Commissioner Lyons asked the Attorney if he felt the agreement in the back-up material appeared to be a satisfactory agreement. Attorney Brandenburg noted that he would recommend two changes in the agreement: a more specific scope of work of the project, with limitations on the dollar amounts; and to indicate an on-site representative. Motion was made by Commissioner Lyons that the Board accept, for conceptual approval, the choice of C. E. Block as architect, with the understanding that the Attorney will work out two changes in the agreement and that it be brought back to the Board. Commissioner Fletcher seconded the Motion for purposes of discussion. Attorney Brandenburg reiterated that the changes he would recommend were that the Board needed a more specific, detailed explanation of what the scope of work would be and_ the dollar limitations. Also, regarding project representation, the County and architect have already agreed that this would be done by Lynn Williams. Because we have agreed to that, the provision will have to be removed from the agreement, the Attorney advised. He commented that the rest was just a general architect contract. Commissioner Bird inquired about the budget for this project. Mr. Greene advised there was $200,000 left in the construction budget, which is available for completion of the project. He commented that they want to meet with the judges and get a clear consensus of the project. Chairman Scurlock stated that the judges have prepared a 10 or 12 page document regarding their requests. Commissioner Bird commented that it should be made clear that we do not want any surprises on this project. Commissioner Fletcher noted that we are preparing to L- pay this architect an amount not to exceed $10,000 for a set of plans and that is all we are buying; this contract says that he will decide all materials and the artistic effect. He then referred to Article 1.5.1 in the agreement and discussed the architect's services. The Attorney explained that the architect has the responsibility of not only furnishing the County with plans, but he has to design a set of plans for the' contractor to follow. The architect will make on-site inspections and his obligation continues until that contractor has completed his job. Attorney Brandenburg noted that the architect is administrator for the contract. Commissioner Fletcher referred to Articles 1.5.4 and 1.5.5 and questioned them. APR 211982 BQQK 49%-fw 415 15 4 16 APR 21 198Z Attorney Brandenburg stated that if the Board wanted to negotiate with the architect, it could be done but would be more expensive as the surety company would then have to be involved. The Attorney felt the idea was to keep the expenses of the project as low as possible. Commissioner Fletcher questioned Articles 1.5.10, 1.5.11, and 1.5.16. He discussed "additional services" and change orders. The Attorney noted that the Board would have to pay if additional work was necessary. Commissioner Fletcher commented that he was very sensitive about the courthouse situation as he had not completely understood the architect and the owner's responsibility. HV then -discussed the following Articles: 1.7, 1.7.5, 1.7.9, 1.7.10, and 1.7.12. Lengthy discussion ensued. Commissioner Lyons reviewed his Motion which was to approve, in concept, the acceptance of Mr. Block as architect; to ask the Attorney to make the necessary revisions; specify the basic services as to what the County and the judges want; and to coma back to the Board for approval. The Attorney wants to be specific as to the scope of work, he added. Commissioner Fletcher then discussed Article 3.2.2. Commissioner Wodtke stated that we have an existing building and the job should be simple to build an adequate courtroom. He felt we were making a tremendous project out of a shell of a building, but affirmed that a set of plans was needed. Commissioner Bird reiterated that we want to make it clear to Mr. Block that there is a budget figure adhered to the agreement. William Koolage, interested citizen, stated that he was happy to hear the various points being raised regarding the agreement with the architect. Chairman Scurlock pointed out that Mr. Block was a local architect. Commissioner Fletcher wanted it noted that his concerns about the agreement had nothing personally to do with Mr. Block. The Chairman called for the question. It was voted on and carried unanimously. CIVIL DEFENSE - EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER The Board reviewed the memorandum concerning the Emergency Operations Center, as follows: TO 'The Honorable Members of DATE: April 15, 1982 FILE: the Board of County Commissioners THRU: David L. Greene SUBJECT: Emergency Operations Center Assistant County Administrator FROM.C, B. Hardin, Jr� Ph-.D.REFERENCES: Asst. to Admin./Personnel Director It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the County Commission. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS At the regular meeting of the Commission on January 6, 1982 the Board unanimously authorized the Administrator to explore the cost and possible funding to include an Emergency Operations Center at the Administration Building. '.Staff is presently working toward completion of necessary project applications and narratives to comply with Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regulations for matching funds for the construct- ion and/or renovation of an Emergency Operations Center. Present facility does not meet State or Federal requirements for a recognized Emergency Operations Center. The Public Safety Advisory Committee recommended relocation of Civil Defense in the Administration Building at their December 29, 1981 meeting. APR 211982 17 N10- '. eE` J r APR 2 1992 600K 4 FAGE418 , ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS FEMA project application for financial assistance must be accom- panied by a letter of intent from the Commissioners stating a commitment to the completion of EOC if local funding is available. FEMA matching funds are available for FY 82 providing all criteria is met within the designated time frame. Letter of intent should be in Tallahassee by April 30, 1982. Upon receipt of this letter ,FEMA will earmark matching funds. A. Instruct Staff to draft a letter of intent for the Chairman's signature stating the County's position to provide a recognized EOC facility if local funding is available. RECOMIZIENDATIONS Staff recommends approval of Alternative A. Commissioner Fletcher inquired about the recognized Emergency Operations Center (EOC) facility. Assistant Administrator Greene commented that the facility must be built according to certain state and federal standards. Commissioner Fletcher wondered if it was possible to have the EOC in the new Administration building that would meet specifications. Lee Nuzie, Civil Defense Director, approached the Board and commented he thought they could be in the Administration Building if the protection factor was met. He added that, in the past five or six months, federal funding for Civil Defense has been made available. Chairman Scurlock noted that Commissioner Wodtke was the designated representative on the Board, and Mr. Nuzie should work with him. Lengthy discussion followed regarding use of the Administration Building, and of the matching funds and conditions. Commissioner Lyons suggested letting this matter be tabled until more detailed data was available on what was being proposed by Civil Defense, and how much the County will have to pay in matching funds. Mr. Nuzie stressed that a Letter of Intent should go to the Bureau of Disaster Preparedness as April 30, 1982 was the deadline. This letter is needed because the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will not move forward until an EOC facility has been designated. Commissioner Wodtke pointed out that he had not been aware of the requests that Mr. Nuzie had made to the Administrator. Commissioner Bird inquired if the Public Safety Committee would get to see the proposed layout of Civil Defense in the Administration Building. Mr. Nuzie responded that Joe Earman had already seen the layout. Chairman Scurlock -stated that Mr. Nuzie needed to work with the Public Safety Committee; then the matter could be formally brought to the Board for action. Commissioner Bird suggested continuing this discussion on April 28, 1982 at 8:30 A.M., and make a decision at that time. In addition, he requested a copy of the proposed layout; a rough construction estimate of what those renovations would*Icost; and a copy of the application for FEMA funds to see what the match requirement would be from the County. Commissioner Bird thought perhaps the old jail building might be a potential site for the EOC. Commissioner Lyons noted that one of the reasons the Public Safety Committee recommended moving Civil Defense was due to the inadequate space available for the number of people that must get together during a disaster. He continued that this might just be an interim move. Commissioner Fletcher inquired if Mr. Nuzie had contacted Florida Power & Light Co. as he understood they APR 211982 19 890 ,49 FSA APR 211982 have made grants available to governments to provide 49 assistance for training if they are in an area that might have a nuclear problem. Mr. Nuzie advised that they had coordinated their efforts with St. Lucie County; and will receive $9,000 for the radiation exercise. He again stressed the deadline date of April 30th for the Letter of Intent. A brief discussion ensued. Mr. Nuzie commented that he would be contacting Commissioner Wodtke regarding this matter; he then introduced his Assistant Administrator, Bob Cushman. On Motion made by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously authorized that a special called m.!eting 4e held on April 28, 1982 at 8:30 o'clock A.M. for the purposes of discussing the Emergency Operations Center for Civil Defense. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY LANDFILL The Board next considered the following memorandum dated April 15, 1982: T4: The Honorable Members of ®ATE: April 15, 1982 FILE: the Board of County Commissioners SUBJECT: Proposed Agreement - Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan,Inc Agreement for Professional Services for the Indian River County Landfil FRC�M: tom` REFERENCES: David L. Greene Assistant County Administrator DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Enclosed please find an updated proposed agreement for professional services whereby Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan would continue to serve as Indian River County's Solid Waste Consulting Engineering Firs. Discussion on this matter dates back to the latter part of 1981 and the agreement was initially proposed by Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan on December 23, 1981. Since that time this matter was placed on the agenda on the March 3, 1982 County Commission Meeting. No action was taken at that time due to the heavy work load of that meeting. The matter was again placed on the agenda at the March 10, 1982 meeting as a deferred item from the prior meeting. At that meeting Staff recommended that the Commission not act on the item and defer it until a future date in order that we would have & _;sea agreement further. The chief advantage of Alternative 2, the bidding for additional proposals would be that we could negotiate with other firms and perhaps obtain a fresh insight into the operation and design of the County's Landfill. RECO11MENDATIONS It is recommended that: 1. The Board approve of the proposed agreement between the County and Post, Buckley, Schuh &.Jernigan`. 2. That the Chairman be authorized to sign the agreement on the County's behalf. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS 1. Accept enclosed proposed agreement. 2. Bid for additional proposals in accordance with the competitive consultant negotiations act. The chief advantage of Alternative 1 is as follows: - 1. Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan are the original design engineers of the County Landfill and are familiar with the - physical layout of the site as well as with the DER permit and any.related problems and/or issues involved with the operation of the County Landfill. Due to the firms famil- iarity with the Indian River County Landfill situation it is likely that the cost will be lower in dealing with them then with other firms due to that familiarity and the fact that they have current information readily available. whereas another firm -would have to do a certain amount of research which could translate into increased cost for the County. Commissioner Fletcher suggested that consideration be given to having the County Engineer's office assume the work at the Landfill. Mr. Greene understood that an independent outside firm must do this work. Engineer Davis affirmed that the work must be done by an independent engineer approved by the bonding company. s Discussion ensued about the cost of the services and it was noted that this was an on-going construction phase: Chairman Scurlock stated he would like to see an in-depth analysis of the rate structure and felt it should be monitored closely. He added that the Board will be faced with additional acquisition of land. APR 211982 21 ox ..49, F -AR 421 �,. APR 211982 49 PA�- 422 Commissioner Fletcher stated that the County should look for a more centrally located site; and possibly the rates could be lowered. Chairman Scurlock commented it seemed an absolute waste to fill up a landfill with clean debris, thereby shortening the life of that landfill. Lengthy discussion followed regarding clean fill, and the possibility of finding a landfill site that the DER would approve. Attorney Brandenburg stated there was a problem with the proposed contract as the Engineering Department reported they omitted a cost provision; that item would have to be amended. Commissioner Bird -asked the -Attorney for his recommendation regarding the matter. The Attorney commented that the Board could have the proposed agreement corrected and brought back to the Board, or they could approve the agreement subject to the change being made in regard to the compensation. Dan Morrical, of Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, came before the Board and explained that there was a typographical error in the final draft of the agreement; the 150% provision was omitted. Commissioner Fletcher inquired if an individual could have a landfill. Mr. Morrical briefly explained that this would be a Class Three Landfill and would require a permit signed and sealed by a registered engineer, but the restrictions would be less stringent. More discussion followed along those lines. On Motion by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the agreement with the changes to be made, and authorized the signature of the Chairman. The Agreement between the County and Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan will be made a part of the Minutes when received. LETTER OF CONDITIONS - FmHA FUNDS FOR PURCHASE OF UTILITIES John Robbins, Engineer, approached the Board and introduced the people from FmHA who have come personally to present the Letter of Conditions to the Board. He introduced Charlie B. Hudnell, Dorothy O'Neill, and Tom Brown, who is the Community Program Specialist. Tom Brown approached the Board and discussed the Letter of Conditions as follows: UNITED STATES -DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION P.O. Box 3767 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 Mr. Don C. Scurlock, Jr. April 21, 1982 Chairman Indian River County Board of County Commissioners 1840 -25th Street Vero Beach, Florida -32960 Re: Purchase of: L2•xora Utility, Treasure Coast Utility, & Related Improvements Dear Mr. Scurlock: This letter establishes conditions which must be understood and agreed to before further consideration may be given your.a.-pplication. Any.changes in project cost, source of funds, scope of services or any other significant changes in the project or Entity must be reported to and'approved by FmHA by written amendment to this letter. Any changes not approved by FmHA shall be cause for discontinuing the application processing. This letter is not to be considered as a loan approval or as a representation as to the availability of funds. The docket may be completed on the basis of a, loan in the amount of $2,017,100 for water improvements and $733,600 for wastewater improvements. If FmHA makes the loan, the interest rate will be that charged by FmHA at the time of the initial loan obligation. Please complete and return the attached Form FmHA 442-46, "Letter of Intent to Meet Conditions," if you desire further consideration be given your applica- tion. If the conditions set forth in this letter are not met within 90 days from the date hereof, FmHA reserves the right to discontinue processing the applica- tion. APR 211982 23 Not 49 vi 2 APR 211982 Repayment Schedule: The loan will be repayable over a period not exceeding 40 years from the date of loan closing. The first and second payments will be due each September 1, following loan closing and will consist of interest only. The third payment and all succeeding.installments, except the last installment, will be due on September 1, and will consist of bond maturities plus accrued interest. Number of Users and Verification Required: Prior to beginning construction or prior to closing of the FmHA loan, which- ever occurs first, the Entity will furnish evidence that 5,151 water users and 1,978 sewer users have agreed to pay monthly charges for services to be received from the facility being financed. A member of the State Director's staff will audit and authenticate the number of users obtained or to be served. Organization: The -loan docket will include evidence that the Entity is legally organized under state statutes such as a copy of the Charter or other acts of enabling legislation. The Entity's attorney is to provide an opinion that the Entity has authority to carry out the planned method of construction, operation and maintenance, and repayment in connection with the proposed facility.--. -- _ Title to Property: The Entity will provide evidence of title satisfactory to FmHA for all assets which will constitute security for the loan. Security Requirements: Security will consist of revenue bonds secured by a pledge of revenue from the facilities being financed. Use of Recognized Bond Counsel: - The Entity's attorney will -obtain the assistance of recognized bond counsel. All documents necessary to close the interim f$nancing loan and the FmHA loan must be prepared by bond counsel. Appendix C of FmHA Instruction 1942-A will be followed by the Entity's attorney and bond counsel. Two bound copies of the complete bond transcript will be furnished to FmHA by bond counsel at loan closing. Interim Financing: The Entity will attempt to borrow funds from commercial sources in the amount of the FmHA loan for the construction period only. Attached are copies of FmHA Guide 1, and Guide la, "Guide Letter for Use in Informing Private Lender of FmHA's Commitment." If credit from commercial sources cannot be obtained, letters from these sources are.to be secured stating credit is not available and submitted to the District Director. FmHA cannot issue a commitment letter to a lender for interim financing until the following are completed: 1. Bonds are validated. 2. Plans, specifications, contract documents and permits are accepted and approved. 3. Construction bids are received and are within the funds available. 4. FmHA Closing Instructions can be complied with. Provided interim financing is used, construction will not begin until construction and bond bids are obtained, and the.necessary processingand legal work has been completed to the point to where the FmHA loan,could be �­osed. The District Director will approve Form FmHA 424-18., "Partial Payment ins ure funds u _,... ruction: p leu. 3 If interim financing is used, although a binding commitment has been made by the Government, only those funds advanced to pay for construction and other authorized and legally eligible expenses incurred by the Entity will be deemed by the Government to be interim commercial indebtedness and retired by FmHA with permanent instruments. Farmers Home Administration must be sure the construction loan is properly administered and when the FmHA loan is closed, there is no doubt FmHA is fully secured. The FmHA must insist on the following at loan closing: 1. An affidavit by the general contractor that he has been paid -in full, in accordance with the terms of the contract, and that he has paid all sub -contractors, materialmen, and laborers with respect to the construction of the project. (It may be that he will have to get his final payment at the bond. closing, from bond proceeds, and perhaps make some disbursements at that time to subcontractors and suppliers.) 2. A certificate by the consulting engineer.that the system has been constructed in accordance with applicable laws and according to the plans and specifications approved by the Government. 3. A statement from the attorney that he has been paid to date in accordance with his agreement. An unqualified opinion from bond counsel will be required. It will be the responsibility of the Entity and its commercial lender to be certain that bond counsel employed will issue an unqualified opinion. Bond counsel will be required to furnish evidence the interim financing has been paid in full. When interim financing funds have been expended, the FmHA loan will be closed and permanent instruments will be issued to evidence the FmHA indebtedness. Business Operations:. ti_ The -bond ordinance will require the Entity establish, as soon as the system becomes revenue producing, a depositary in the State of Florida which is a member of the FDIC and which is eligible under the laws of Florida to receive municipal funds and maintain for the term of the loan a special fund known as "Indian River County Water and Sewer System Revenue Fund (Treasure Coast Utility & Ixora Utility Areas)." These funds are to be kept separate from all other funds of the Entity and will be expended and used only as stipulated .in the bond ordinance approved by FmHA.' A reserve account will be accumulated at the rate of one-tenth of the annual payment until the account reaches the amount of one annual payment. The Entity will adopt an ordinance in accordance with Guide 8 or 9 of Florida .Instruction 1942-A outlining operation procedures for the facility. The Entity will furnish an outline of the management procedures for the facility to include the name of the person(s) who will operate the facility, along with a brief agreement between the person(s) and the Entity showing services to be performed and wages to be paid. APR 211982 25 425 APR, 211982 4 Accounts, Records, and Audit Reports Required: 49: FAUE 426► , The Entity will be required to keep accounts and records on the operation of the facility separate and apart from other records in accordance with the bond ordinance. We suggest the Entity and auditing firm develop a set of records for this particular purpose, unless adequate records are already in use. The person responsible for maintaining such records of,,accounts will be selected prior to loan closing. It is imperative the Entity establish and maintain adequate business manage- ment practices through a system of records, reports, and audits, which will assist the governing body in making effective decisions, thus helping insure a successful operation. Farmers Home Administration will be furnished management reports as outlined in Appendix A of FmHA Instruction 1942-A. A copy of this appendix is attached along with copies of our forms to be used for periodic and annual reports. Prior to loan closing the Entity will enter into a contract with a qualified auditor to conduct the annual audit.--3Requirements pertaining to audit reports are contained in a booklet, "FmHA Instructions t�o:Independent Certified Public Accountants and Licensed Public Accountants". Two copies of this booklet are attached. Please refer to page 10 of the booklet for an -example of an auditor/ borrower written agreement. FmHA will approve the Entity accounting financial reporting system prior to loan closing or commenging construction, whichever occurs first. All forms needed for required FmHA reports will be furnished by this office. Construction Contract Documents and Bidding: Appendix B of FmHA Instruction 1942-A and "Contract Documents for Construction - of Federally Assisted Water and Sewer Projects" will be followed by the Entity and engineer and architect 'for all construction. Three copies of each of these documents are attached and one copy is to be delivered to your engineer and/or architect, and attorney. A pre -construction conference will be held after bid opening at a convenient time scheduled by FmHA. Attending will be the designated representatives of the Entity, the consulting engineer, contractors' representatives and FmHA personnel. Insurance and Bonding: Property insurance, fire and extended coverage, and flood insurance., if applicable, will be required on all aboveground structures including equipment and machinery, in an amount equal to the replacement value as recommended by the project engineer and approved by FmHA. No insurance will be required on water reservoirs, standpipes and elevated tanks. Requirements as outlined in Appendix B of FmHA Instruction 1942-A and Item 21 of "Contract Documents for Federally Assisted Water and Sewer Projects" will be followed by the Entity's engineer or architect for all construction. 5 Workmen's compensation will be maintained as required by State law. Public liability and property damage insurance will be maintained as recom- mended by the Entity's attorney and approved by FmHA. If the Entity will own trucks, tractors, or other vehicles that frequently will be driven over public highways, liability and property damage insurance will be required. Fidelity bond coverage in the amount of $500,000 is required on the position of the treasurer and/or others who handle collections and disbursements in an amount at least equal to the total amount of funds which will be on hand at any one time exclusive of loan funds. The bond will be obtained prior to loan closing. Form FmHA 440-24, "Position Fidelity Bond", will be used and copies are attached. The United States of America will be named as co -obligee in the bond. Closing Instructions:, The loan will not be closed until the Regional Attorney has been furnished all the documents required and has issued closing instructions. The Entity's attorney will carry out the Regional Attorney's closing instructions and will certify the loan has been closed in accordance with.;the Regional Attorney's _closing instructions. Other Requirements which Must be Met and Forms to be Completed: A rate schedule will be adopted by the Entity providing for the following residential user rates: Water Rate First 2,000 gallons $7.10 per month - minimum All over 2,000 gallons $1.50 per 1,000 gallons Commercial rates will be established as follows: .Water Rate First 2,000 gallons $7.10 per month - minimum All over 2,000 gallons $1.50 per 1,000 gallons Sewer Rates: Residential - $7.10 for 2,000 gallons of water used, plus 87% of $1.50 per 1,000 gallons water used. Commercial - Equals water bill. All residents located in the service area regardless of race, color, creed, or level of income must be afforded an opportunity to become users of the facility. r The Entity must agree to comply with the requirements of Form FmHA 400-1, "Equal Opportunity Agreement," and Form FmHA 400-4, "Assurance Agreement." These agreements must be approved by the governing body and executed before loan approval. APR 211982 27 4-9 TAA E.42T APR 211982 T 49428 The Entity must provide for review and approval by the FmHA, before construc- tion begins, a positive program to encourage connections by all users as soon as the service is available. This program shall include: 1. An aggressive information program to be carried out during the construction period. 1 2. Positive steps to assure that commercial installation services will be available to users. i 3. Aggressive action to see that all signed users can finance their connections. Prior to the completion of construction or loan closing, whichever occurs first, the Entity will execute Form FmHA 442-47, "Loan Resolution (Public Bodies)." FmHA will reimburse the Entity for the purchase of the Ixora Utility System and the Treasure Coast System in the amounts as determined by a qualified independent third party appraiser, found to be acceptable to the Government. If the Entity decides to accept FmHA services subject to the above conditions, FmHA will proceed to take the necessary steps to process the loan. Sincerely, i CHARLIE B. HUDNEL District Director Mr. Brown explained the various items in the letter and pointed out that there were only six or seven items that differ from any that they have dealt with in the past. Commissioner Fletcher inquired about the rate of interest. Mr. Brown advised that it was 5% and explained that these monies were obligated in 1973. He then referred to the repayment schedule and the number of users paragraphs. Commissioner Bird inquired about the 5,100 customers. Mr. Barton explained that this was the entire South County system. Attorney Brandenburg commented that they would like to use some of this money for the purchase of the Ixora Utility and the Treasure Coast Utility, as the letter talks in terms of beginning construction and the County is, in fact, going to purchase two systems that currently exist. Mr. Brown responded he knew the position that the County was in. By the time the system would be completed, he continued,.FmHA wanted to be assured that there would be a certain number of users. Commissioner Fletcher noted that this loan is to be paid in four years and the first two years is the interest only. He inquired what the total cost of the loan will be in four years. Mr. Brown calculated that at the en& of four years the principal and interest amount would be $20,178,784. This is taking into consideration the 5% loan totaling $8,575,700. The interest would be $12 million, basically. Mr. Brown then continued on page by page and reviewed the items with the Board. He noted a' change on page 5 regarding the fidelity bond coverage. Lengthy discussion followed about the rate structure. Commissioner Bird suggested adding the word "minimum" at line 20 to make the phrase read: "A minimum rate schedule....." Mr. Brown discussed page 6, third paragraph, regarding reimbursement. Attorney Brandenburg pointed out that there was no formal appraisal made on the systems, and the closing has not taken place as of this time. He then suggested that he would like to have more time to peruse the matter and study the budget transfer to enable the. County to close on the Treasure Coast Utility System as early as possible. On Motion by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously authorized that this item be tabled until the afternoon session to give the Attorney more time to examine the Letter of Conditions and the various papers that need to be executed. APR 211982 29 BOOK 49 FAA29 APR 211982- iou V-:PnEPO ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT Chairman Scurlock advised the Board that the St. Johns River Water Management District was starting a data base of information regarding the North Barrier Island. They are developing a great deal of useful information concerning salt intrusion in the shallow aquifer. He added that the Board needs.to develop a better relationship with the District. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE - REPLACEMENT Commissioner Fletcher discussed having approval of the Board for John Curtin to replace Willis Clark, as indicated in the following letter from Mayor Nolan: Council Members EDWARD J. NOLAN, Mayor FRITZ GIERHART, Vice -Mayor WILLIS W. CLARK ALFRED E. MocADAM, 111 A. JOHN TODD, JR. TOWN OF INDIAN RIVER SHORES 6001 NORTH A -1-A INDIAN RIVER SHORES, FLORIDA 32960 Telephone: 305 - 231-1771 Mr. A. Grover Fletcher Chairman Transportation Planning Committee Board of County Commissioners 1840 - 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 13 Dear Grover: I wrote Commissioner Scurlock on March 15, 1982, regarding our interest in having our Town Engineer, John Curtin, serve as our representative on the County Trans- portation Planning Committee. Please be further advised that no other elected official will serve and therefore we wish Willis Clark to be replaced by John Curtin and that Mr. Curtin be appointed as --- a voting member of this committee. Yours very truly 6 dward J. Nola , Mayor TOWN OF INDIAN`'IZ ER SHORES CHESTER E. CLEM Town Attorney VIRGINIA L. GILBERT Town Clerk JOHN F. CURTIN Town Engineer 1, Commissioner Wodtke stated that the .Transportation Planning Committee was an important committee and felt there could be an elected official from each municipality that would have the time to attend these meetings. Chairman Scurlock agreed that the elected officials should be at the meetings and actively involved. a APR 211982 $ooK 31 ! � ?ASE:, � 1 APR 211982 nox 49. FAI�E432, A s Commissioner Lyons wondered if the Board would have any objection if he got together with Mayor Nolan to explain the matter. Discussion followed, and it was determined by the Board that Commissioner Lyons should meet and explain the intent P of the Committee to Mayor Nolan. REPORT ON.EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Commissioner Fletcher referred to the report in the newspaper concerning the Emergency Medical Services Advisory Committee. The question the Committee recently asked was whether to go from the Basic Life Support System to the Advanced Life Support System. The unanimous decision was for the Advanced Life Support System; they are now trying to implement a Countywide system. Chairman Scurlock stated the Committee could explore a variety of possibilities, based on input from the Committee itself, and then determine what the structure of that organization will be, and what umbrella it would be under. Commissioner Lyons thought it should come back to the Board with a recommendation from the Emergency Medical Services Advisory Committee. William Koolage, interested citizen, hoped the County would be able to have the Advanced Life Support System as soon as.possible. FIRE PROTECTION - NORTH COUNTY Commissioner Fletcher next discussed fire protection in the North County. Chairman Scurlock stated that the South County Fire District was having a tremendous response from the people in the North County. He explained that the South County made the determination to have a higher millage, but the North County wanted to have volunteers in their Fire District. Commissioner Lyons affirmed that the North -County chose to be separate. Commissioner Wodtke commented that he would not be opposed to working up an alternative situation. He felt the Committee might come up with an all -County program, or one with the fire department, or the hospital, or the volunteers operating the system. He suggested that the various phases have a,chance to make a presentation to the Committee before coming up with a recommendation on this matter. SEBASTIAN RIVER LIBRARY ASSOCIATION Karen Stephens, president of the Sebastian River Library Association, approached the Board, introduced her associates, and advised the Board that there were 117 members in the Sebastian River Library Association. Chairman Scurlock asked if they had a ballpark figure in mind, in terms of support from the County. Mrs. Stephens responded 'it would be about $105,000; they have been fund-raising, and presently have $4,203. She added that they were going to be making similar presentations and trying to raise as much money as they could. Mrs.- Stephens commented that they would like very much to have a professional librarian. Chairman Scurlock referred to the budget for the upcoming year, and noted that the Board must identify what level of support could be given to the two libraries. Commissioner Lyons stated that, hopefully, the Attorney could come up with a resolution to form the Library Board at the next meeting. Then, he continued, they could get a candidate from the Sebastian River Library Association, and get into action by coming up with a recommendation for the funding for both sets of libraries. Commissioner Lyons felt the Board was close to setting up the vehicle that would help the Sebastian River Library Association. Chairman Scurlock affirmed that this is a County effort to provide library services, and the Board wants to move forward with an Indian River County Library system. APR 211982 33 : aaK 49 wE, 3 APR 211992 sooK 49 PA,UE 434 A brief discussion ensued regarding costs of various library supplies and equipment. Commissioner Lyons 'wondered if any part of the collection of books in the Vero Beach Library could also be used in Sebastian. He felt this was something the Library f Board could research. Commissioner Fletcher inquired if the City of Sebastian had been approached. Mrs. Stephens stated they were informed that the City of Sebastian did not want to go into the library business. They do, however, have correspondence regarding their lease agreement with the City of Sebastian. Commissioner Bird inquired when the building for their libra-ry will be ready in -Sebastian. Mrs. Stephens responded that they were at the mercy of the City of Sebastian but were hopeful that it would be available in September or October. After some deliberation with her associates, Mrs. Stephens advised that the person they had selected to represent the Sebastian River Library Board was Ramona Widman. Discussion followed about funding, and it was determined the fair way to handle it is use the general fund. Commissioner Wodtke expressed enthusiasm about what they were planning to do in the North County area, and hoped that the Board could effectively cooperate with the Sebastian River Library Board with funding. Commissioner Lyons interjected that the State will undoubtedly require a contract arrangement concerning the library. Ms. Widman informed the Board that they were busy checking into foundation grants that were available; she noted that the State has a one-time establishment grant. Commissioner Lyons expressed his support and thought that with everyone working together, they should be able to come up with something. Mrs. Stephens affirmed that they do have enthusiastic members in their association and they will try to get everything addressed before budget time. COURTHOUSE PROBLEMS - DISCUSSION. Commissioner Bird suggested that Dr. C. B. Hardin, at the conclusion of each week, furnish a memo to the Board members in order to keep them more abreast of what was being done to satisfy the Courthouse problems. Dr. Hardin commented that this could be done without any problem. He advised that non -allergenic carpet samples had been taken to the judge for his approvals he has selected a sample that he will.try in his office. Commissioner Wodtke suggested leaving it in the judge's office at least for a week. Dr. Hardin reported that the judge felt he would be able to tell -within 24 hours whether or not the carpet would bother him. Commissioner Bird hoped that the staff was developing a complete file of all the steps that have been taken, including documenting every phone call, etc., regarding this problem. Dr. Hardin advised that they did not deal directly with the problems in writing and felt it would be better if all of the messages were in writing. •l The Attorney recommended that any communication pertinent to this problem should be in writing to avoid any misunderstanding. He added that it would include such things as requests on a day-to-day basis. This way, the Attorney commented, they would have a definite idea, without any question, of what the judges are actually telling the Board. �oK 49 PAGE 435 APR 211982 35 APR 211982 BOOK -K..4 .F�� 436 Discussion followed, and it was determined that any requests concerning the Courthouse problems be in writing and come directly to the Administrator. The Board briefly discussed the glue used in the dais and the jury box. I Lynn Williams, Building Superintendent, advised that in a recent conversation"with Judge Stikelether, the judge felt the wood should also be removed. Commissioner Lyons inquired if staff had replied to Judge Smith's letter. Dr. Hardin responded that it had not been done. Commissioner Bird reported that at the last meeting, staff was to reply promptly, step by step, to Judge Smith's lettdt'. He was under theme impression that a reply was to be drafted immediately on each item. Commissioner Lyons suggested the Attorney first look at the letter to Judge Smith before it is mailed. Dr. Hardin advised the judges are asking that three windows be installed in the Courtroom; he would need to have authorization from the Board to do this work. Mr. Williams explained they requested this be done for ventilation. He pointed out that originally there were windows in the Courtroom. Dr. Hardin stated the judge informed them that if the carpet works in the Welfare Building, then Judge Smith will expect that all the carpeting be removed in the Courthouse. He then talked about the noise problem in Courtroom A and B; the volume on the microphones have to be adjusted. Discussion ensued, and it was determined that the basic problem is "human" as the attorneys will just not stay in the podium and speak into the microphone. Dr. Hardin reported that they were trying to come up with a hand microphone. Commissioner Lyons inquired if the man from WGYL was doing the work on the sound system. work. Dr. Hardin responded that a man on staff was doing the Commissioner Lyons pointed out that the County had a contract with WGYL and suggested we stay with them since they designed the system; they should continue on and finish the job. Commissioner Fletcher noted that the east wall in the courtroom was getting damp, the rug was wet, and the paint was blistering off the wall. He then described the water problem in the ramp area leading from the Annex to the elevator lobby. Mr. Greene commented that this matter was brought to the attention of Mr. Reinhold - he needs to correct this situation. A brief discussion followed regarding the vibration noise in the air conditioning system.. Mr. Williams felt it was motor noise; they could line the air return duct with insulation, and check the mounting. Other than that, the unit could be moved in the hall. Dr. Hardin added that there were problems with-Tinding space for court to be held, and they are trying to make arrangements at the Elks Hall. Motion was made by Commissioner Wodtke, seconded by Commissioner Lyons, that the Chairman or staff be authorized to contact the Chief Judge to arrange for a temporary judge to be appointed to help release some of the judges' workloads in the existing courtrooms. 1, Discussion followed, and it was determined that the Chairman and Attorney would discuss with the Chief Judge the possibility of requesting to have another judge temporarily appointed and come to the County to relieve the burden of cases, using the existing courtrooms. The Chairman called for the question. It was voted on and carried unanimously. BOOK 49, PaE43.7 APR 211982 37 APR 21198 pox 49p FAU438 The Board of County Commissioner recessed at 12:15 o'clock P.M. for lunch and reconvened at 1:30 o'clock P.M. with the same members present. Deputy Clerk Hargreaves took over from Deputy Clerk Caldwell for the remainder of the meeting. CONTINUED ITEM - FmHA LETTER OF INTENT & TRANSFER OF FUNDS Attorney Brandenburg noted that FmHA presented a Letter of Conditions this morning regarding the 2.017 million bond issue. He stated that he has read this over and it appears to be acceptable from a legal standpoint. On Motion by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by Commissioner Bird, the Board by a 4 to 1 vote, Commissioner Fletcher voting in opposition, authorized the Chairman to sign the Letter of Intent to Meet Conditions re purchase of Ixora Utility and Treasure Coast Utilities as outlined iiP the letter submitted by FmHA this morning. UNITED STATES DE'PARWIEN`T OF AG=UL T URZ Form l KA 442-46 FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION (Rev. 1-9-69) LETTER OF INTENT TO MEET CONDITIONS Date Anril 21, 1982 TO: Farmers 'dome Administration ' United States Department of Agriculture P. 0. Pox 3767 h7ast Pain Beach, Florida 33402 (County Office Add wss) We have reviewed and understand the conditions set forth in your letter dated anr,1 11 v i OZ2 cony attached and marked,Exhibit A. Is our intent to meet all of them not later than July 20, 1983 and intend to use the obligated monies to accomplish the purpose set forth in the Letter of Conditions as soon as possible. 73 form For INDIAN RIVER COUN= (Name of Association) BY DON C. SCURL:CK, JR. C::ai.rr:. n. Board of County Ccmnissiorers (� itiQl Discussion ensued as to interim financing, and Finance Director Barton explained that the acceptance of the Letter of Intent to Meet Conditions from FmHA releases $480,125 in the Municpal Service Fund that has been pledged for interfund loans. These dollars have earned interest as have the other funds in the MSTU, and those investments have been earning from 14.80% to 17.05%. One option would be to lend these funds on an interfund basis for the purchase of Treasure Coast and Ixora Park Utilities. These funds will be repaid in accordance with the same Letter of Intent to Meet Conditions as stated above. Another option would be to borrow the money on a short term basis from a commercial bank at a rate between 9% and 12%, thereby retaining the 14.80% and 17.05% interest on MSTU funds referred to above. Mr. Barton, therefore, recommended that the Board pursue the option of borrowing the'.money on a short term basis from a commercial bank rather than making the interfund loan. On Motion by Commissioner. Lyons, seconded by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board by a 4 to 1 vote, Commissioner Fletcher voting in opposition, accepted the recommendation of the Finance Director as to interim financing for the purchase of Ixora and Treasure Coast Utilities. APPEAL BY JOSEPH FEDELE OF DENIAL OF REZONING REQUEST BY THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION The hour of 1:30 o'clock P.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: 39 APR 211982 Boa 49: PAE439 J APR 211982 VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a Notice in the matter of Rezoning R -2D in the lished in said newspaper in the issues of April 1, 149 1982 Court, was pub- Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun- ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and, affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscri be re mepis 4 day of April A.D. 19 82 _ V 01 - n ' /% (f 1piness Manager) (SEAL) (Clerkbf tfie—Circuit Court,i(ntian River County, Florida) The Board reviewed the following staff memo: 40 . 49 Fr Q NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, is reviewing the feasibility of making the following changes and additions to the Zoning Ordinance of Indian River County, Florida, which changes and additions are substantially as follows: ` That the Zoning Map be changed in order that the following described property situated on the west side of Old Dixie Highway north of Vero Highlands Subdivision in Indian River, County, Florida, to -wit: North half of the southeast quarter, of the northwest quarter, and also a wedge-shaped parcel of property on the west side of the Old Dixie Highway, being 5 chains and 32 links north and south, and being in the southwest quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 31, Township 33 South, Range 40 East, Indian River County, Florida. Be rezoned from R-1 Single Family District to R -2D, Multiple Family District. The Board of County Commissioners will conduct a public hearing, regarding the appeal by the applicant of the decision by the Plan- ning and Zoning Commission to recommend disapproval of the rezoning request. The public hearing, at which parties in interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to, be heard, will be held by said Board of County Com- missioners in the County. Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, located at 1840 2Sth Street, .Vero Beach, Florida, on Wednesday, April 21, 1982, at 1:30 P.M. If any person decides to appeal any decision made on the above matter, he will need a record of the proceedings, and for such pur- poses, he may need to insure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which in- cludes testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. Indian River County Board of County Commissioners By: -s-Don C. Scurlock Jr., Chairman Secretary Board of County Commissioners 1040 25th Street . � - Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Apr. 1, 14,1982. 1 , - _I TO: The Honorable Board of DATE. March 30, 1982 FILE:IRC-8I-ZC-29 County Commissioners #455 SUBJECT: APPEAL, BY JOSEPH FEDELE, • OF DENIAL OF REZONING REQUEST BY THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSSION ON 1-28-82. FROM:Dav d �creene REFERENCES: Letter from Jerome Quinn to Art Challacombe, dated Assistant County Administrator January 29, 1982. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS: On January 28, 1982 the applicant's request to rezone 21 acres from R-1, Single Family Residential (6.2 units/acre) to R -2D, Multi -Family Residential was denied by a 4 -to -1 vote -of the Planning and Zoning Commission. The applicant appealed the decision and requested a public hearing date before the County Commission.. ANALYSIS: The site is located on the west side of Old Dixie Highway and -- is bounded on the south by 20th Lane, S.W., near the St. Lucie County Line. Vero Beach Highlands Subdivision (Unit One) lies adjacent to the west and south of the subject property, and the land to the north is mostly undeveloped. Directly east of the site a strip M-1, Restricted Industrial district is situated between Old Dixie Highway and U.S. #1. The Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the portion of the subject property which lies within 300 feet of Old Dixie Highway as MXD (Mixed Use District) and the -remainder as LD -2 (up to 6 units/acre). Multi -family development of the site at 6 units/acre would allow a maximum of 126 units to be developed. The staff is presently reviewing an application for dividing the property into 47 lots of 1/3 acre each. Approval of the rezoning and subdivision would allow dupleKes to be developed on each lot and site plan approval would be required. The low density multi -family zoning would serve as a transi- tion buffer between the more intensive industrial and commercial mixed uses to the east and single family residences to the west. The Comprehensive Plan states, "when projects abut density district boundaries, zoning will be applied which promotes a smooth transition between the districts. These transition areas should contain land uses that do not generate drastic changes in intensity. These areas should be,assigned zoning categories that serve as intermediate steps between areas of differing land use intensities." STAFF POSITION: 1. Maximum densities outlined in the Comprehensive Plan are not being exceeded. 2. Multi -family zoning could serve as a transition between the intensive industrial and commercial zoning and single family residential zoning. 3. Staff recommends approval. L_ APR 211982 BOOK 4 9 ..`PE1 APR 211982 BOOK 49 F��� 442 Attorney Jerome Quinn came before the Board representing the applicant, Joseph Fedele, who wishes the R -2D zoning so that he can divide his 21 acres into 47 lots which will allow duplex construction. Attorney Quinn emphasized that the rezoning being requested is not only well within the limits of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan,,but it serves one of the objectives of the Land Use Element by providing a transition area between differing land use intensities. He noted another objective of the Plan is to prevent spot development and felt the fact that this is so closely aligned with Vero Beach Highlands would make it much more economical to the county in providing services to this particular area for which the Land Use Plan has projected substantial growth. In regard to the concerns expressed about drainage, traffic;- changing the character of the - "neighborhood, etc., Attorney Quinn pointed out that site plan approval is a very substantial safeguard, and the proposed duplex type development would have much stricter controls than a single family development. He further informed the Board that at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of March 25th, the exact same zoning request made by General Development for a 43 acre parcel - within 500' of this parcel was granted at that level. Mr. Quinn emphasized that his client's plan is consistent with the Land Use Element, and he felt it would be an asset to the neighborhood. Commissioner Lyons noted that petitions had been received opposed to the proposed rezoning, as follows: 42 TO: The Board of Indian River Florida county commissioners County FROM: Concerned Residents -Property Owners & Voters District 4 Indian River County, Florida SUBJECT: The Joseph Fedele Rezoning Request From: R-1 Single Family District To: R -2D Multiple Family District Within: Section 31 Township 33 South, Range 40 East, Indian River County, Florida The attached lists of signatures of District 4 residents, property owners and voters are signatures of people who do "NOT" desire that a rezoning of this property be changed from R-1 Single Family District to R-2 Multiple Family District. Great concern is shared by these citizens as to the impact of a change by an over -crowded population growth within this area which could greatly effect the loss of avail- ably fresh water supply in -the future, the type of sewer planned and over-all environmental impact on the land and the increased of congested traffic conditions on'Old Dixie Highway and the entrance to the Vero Beach Highlands. Most of these citizens regrettably can riot be present at the time of the scheduled hearing due to their working conditions. Please except this means as registering their do'"NOT"desire for a rezoning of this property. THANK YOU. Signature i f 1 P R •o • L Si€mature -„j_ A-av APR 2.11982 TO: The Board of county commissioners Indian River County Florida FROM: Concerned Residents -Property Owners & Voters District 4 Indian River County, Florida SUBJECT: The Joseph.Fedele Rezoning Request From: R-1 Single Family District To: R -2D Multiple Family District Within: Section 31 Township 33 South, Range 40 East; Indian River County, Florida The attached lists of signatures of District 4 residents, property owners and voters are signatures of people who do "NOT" desire that a rezoning of this property be changed from R-1 Single Family District to R-2 Multiple Family District. Great concern is shared by these citizens as to the impact of a change by an over -crowded population growth within this area which could greatly effect the loss of avail- ably fresh water supply in the future, the type of sewer planned and over-all environmental impact on the land and the increased of congested traffic conditions on Old Dixie Highway and the entrance to the Vero Beach Highlands. Most of these citizens regrettably can not be present at the time of the scheduled -bearing ---due to their working conditions.- Please onditions:Please except this means as registering their do "NOT"desire for a rezoning of this property. THANK YOU. Signature Attorney Quinn submitted the following six letters favoring the proposed rezoning: Funeral Directors GLENN A.STRUNK SAMUEL E. COBURN R. MARSHALL VOYLES, JR. FUNERAL HOMES 916 -17th STREET • VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960 * (305) 562-2325 734 N. CENTRAL AVENUE • SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32958 • (305) 589-1000 April 20, 1982 To: Andian River County Board of Commissioners From: Glenn A. Strunk I have received notice of a request for rezoning of 21 acres adjacent to my property in the Vero Highlands. I am unable to attend the hearing but would like to advise the Commission that I have no objection to this zoning change. ulenn A. Strunk GAS/jm APR 211982 MEMBER OF THE THE G1�Dy GOLDEN ORDER iiiYRULE 45 APR 211982 April 19, 19R2 Tndian River County Tommi, scion Taro !;-ach, r1a. VA live in they bor i,►H.nu arrna of thtl rpzontna in ouastion. Tae. rav- tal kad tai t.h th- x�-onlm that nra dev^lopi.na• the nron-rtmnA TT-nt ovAr thair clans and foal this soul,? bo- o*' a b -n -Pit to our araa. 144 ar- sorry wo- cannot att-nr' vnur "--ttno. 1.7,- would .1Awould lik- to rxpr^ss our fppllners in this short letter. "'bani- � you P111 trp,.p �A%arh, �1a. 1 Anril 10, 1QR? Tndian River bounty (1,orrission Vero Reach, r -la. T -Te lava in the bor. ri—Inq area of tb,: rnzontnp, in nuastion. T.r„ havn Prj ?..e "n hat arc develorina the nrron-rtv, an -I t•r-nt over their -plans snn feel this TToulA ha a ben -fit to our araa. t,t.. P"- sorry wa cannot attpnr3 vou.r m+-atini7. T.'. would like to exnrpss our faplinas in this sort latte-r. 49 FA 446 � �"l Gam, � `Q • � �.:� ;/� i ✓ o f �/ i✓ .�'f �% �y,,...+� j d •✓ v ir/ T .W f iii .% �'�• 1�' /a�•% �I�a'r !!G/!%r S ri%.scl P✓.%�T „�il.G✓i �fY/+ �� �i %✓l ✓.J I d I 19 i �ij /•v ✓t f ' w I'/ l ri S {' T .,Dri' 19.0 1982 Boyd oa county Com:. 1840 25th St. Vero Boach, Fla. 32960 Dear Sir, I am a rosidont of Vero Boach Hi Blanes anQI havo boon inf orm d of your public he: arin ; for the rezoning of a 21 acre parcel next to Vero �: ach Highlands. I have personally reviewed tho pro2oscd drw.,iin s and feel that this would be a very desirable; subdivisiono I feel that if anything it would definitely be an asset to our comma :ity. 1 Ca© sorry I cannot atve:nd the heari3"i,,-,, bub I would lilt: you to :snow that I do .favor tho .rozoning. Since; ely., APR 21198247 �,r,K 49 PnE447 r a�K.. 49 448 APR 211987 1 15, 1982 "P' -Y Cog'Zission C, River county Dear Sir, In reference -o the Rac-,cost dor Rezoning on a ct of land z.-alacwat to 0 ;Zh3ar-d-3- + -Z -a d I.- our ..ava s- i: - - w c i r cu' 1 al T me C -Xaa, ,ut... 1 believe thatj wzL aisiln.-Tor- d at that t2=0-- wou:­d� A. %0.6 ju I caxmot be 'Or YOU=' t wOu!Q lk a to Say I am in ---".;,vo-- Of to'he zon, .6.iz - = -8 V At this point, Planner Dennis Ragsdale reviewed the staff recommendation, noting that there is also the matter of a water franchise which has not been granted so far. He confirmed that the development of the subject property would be subject to subdivision criteria and SPA criteria, which would include access, drainage, landscaping, etc., and that the staff agrees this zoning would serve as a transition area.and would recommend approval. Considerable discussion followed in regard to the land requirements for a duplex, the number of units allowed under the current zoning and that would be allowed under the proposed rezoning, and the fact that 8 bedrooms per acre are allowed with a public supply of water so that a duplex could be built on 1/3 acre. Chairman Scurlock noted that all we are addressing today is -- rezoning, not site plan. He then asked if anyone present wished to be heard. Ruth Hallstrom, 1723 SE Old Dixie, owner of citrus property to the north of Mr. Fedele where she has lived since 1910, stated that her main concern was the impact on water demand. She asked that the Commission limit density and keep South Indian River County green. Mrs. Stoddard, area resident, inquired whether it was true that the County would have more to say about the buildings if duplexes were erected rather than single family homes. It was explained that multiple family dwellings must go through site plan approval and comply with additional 5 requirements over those required for building single family residences. Commissioner Bird brought up the point that the proposed rezoning is not for an overall development. If it is granted, each lot then can be sold individually for the purpose of building duplexes, and although there are certain requirements 49 APR 211982 poln, 49 WE 4A.4 APR 21.1982 9 PAVF that must be met, it would be up to the individual owner as to the type of duplex he built, the style, the quality, etc. Mrs. Harriet Woods, 2104 Sunrise Drive, opposed the rezoning expressing great concern about the impact of duplex housing on the character of the area as well as on traffic and water. Loretta Hamilton wanted to know about ditches, noting that her backyard the subject property, y � p p y, and she would hate to have a ditch put there. Chairman Scurlock noted that at this point we are not considering what physically is going to be built there, just the density, and Commissioner Lyons commented that no matter what goes there, ditches will be needed for drainage. Mrs. Jackson, 1934 2nd Ave. SW, informed the Board that she has a deep well and just in the last year the water level has gone down considerably. She wished to know how it was planned to provide water to the 94 families who would be allowed by duplex zoning. Attorney Quinn reported that right now there are two possibilities being looked at. There is a water franchise application pending with the county, which was the intended way - to provide water. Since that time, his client also has entered into discussion re the possibility of hooking up with the County system on Oslo Road. William Koolage, 815 26th Avenue, noted that this is an appeal of a Planning & Zoning Commission denial, and he wished to know why the rezoning was turned down by that Commission in the first place. In discussion, the Board felt the Planning & Zoning Minutes reflect that the decision was influenced by the number of the people appearing at the meeting who were opposed to the rezoning requested. The Chairman asked if there isn't a requirement that a specific reason for denial be stated in the Motion, and Planning Manager Art Challacombe stated there is no definite requirement, 50 but it was his opinion that it would be advantageous to require it for this Board's benefit. Mr. Challacombe believed the Planning & Zoning Commission understood the analytical rationale_ of staff, but because of the strong objections presented by the many area residents who came to the hearing, the rezoning was denied based on the presentation that the predominant use in the area was single family. In further discussion, it was agreed that the Planning & Zoning Commission obviously made a judgment, but apparently it did not get written down and the developer deserves a reason for denial other than just the number of people in the audience. Thelma Lightfoot of Sunset Drive noted that the drainage ditch spoken of previously will be right in the back of her yard where she has some fruit trees and across from that is a canal. She asked what she will do with A-. canal on both sides, and emphasized that they had 202 people sign a petition opposing the proposed development. Commissioner Wodtke commented that if this property were 0 single family, there still could be a need for a ditch. He wished to know if Mrs. Lightfoot was opposed to duplexes vs. single family or to the ditch. Mrs. Lightfoot stated that she was opposed to multi family and the ditch. Jane Nedell pointed out to the Board that the petition signed by residents of the area was in opposition to duplexes. On Motion by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by Commissioner FLetcher, the Board unanimously closed the public hearing. Commissioner Fletcher stated that to him the question is do 5 we increase the density in that area or.do we not: He felt it is his duty to look.at the fairness to both sides and determine what is in the best interests of those living here now, and it is fairly clear that the neighbors oppose this and are greatly concerned with water problems and traffic problems that would be caused by increased density. 51 APR 211982 BOOK 451 APR 211982 -�. 49 PAur 452 Motion was made by Commissioner Fletcher to deny the appeal of Joseph Fedele, and seconded by Commissioner Wodtke for purposes of discussion. Commissioner Wodtke noted that this area is located on the ridge and is a water recharge area. He felt water is an f important problem and although it is a difficult decision in regard to use of private property, he would feel more comfortable if this area remained single family. Chairman Scurlock noted that although we did talk in the Land Use Element about transition area and this property is in the area we said would be suitable for higher density, he felt there could be problems with higher density at this particular intersection. Commissioner Bird also was concerned -that the South County was one of the few areas designated under the Plan to go to higher densities for affordable"housing, but noted that the developer, in this instance, is not bound to a particular plan. If we go to a higher density, he preferred a development that will provide continuity of design for the multiple family. Commissioner Lyons noted that actually all the Land Use Plan says is that it will accommodate densities up to a certain point, which does not mean you necessarily have to zone to that density. The Chairman called for the question to deny the Fedele appeal. It was voted on and carried unanimously. APPEAL BY C. S. RICHARDSON OF DENIAL OF REZONING REQUEST BY THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION The hour of 1:30 o'clock P.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: 52 VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a NOTICE in the matter of Rezoning 82nd Ave. and 26th Street in the April 1, 1�, 1982 Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of pub - Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun- ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribfd befpre me jAis n �-� day of April A.D. 19 82 (SEAL) + V (Bgsiness Manager) County, Florida) NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board Of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, is reviewing the feasibility of making the following changes and additions to the Zoning Ordinance of Indian River County, Florida, which changes and additions are substantially as follows: 1. That the Zoning Map be changed in order that the following described property situated on the southwest corner of the intersection of 82nd Avenue and 26th Street in Indian River i County, Florida, to -wit: Tract 1, Section 2, Townsh;p 33S, Range 38E, according to the last general plat of Indian River Farms Company as recorded in Plat j Book 2, Page 25, of the Public Records of St. Lucie County, Florida, now Indian River County, Florida, less road rights-of-way. j Be rezoned from A -Agricultural to R-20, Multiple Family District. The Board of County Commissioners will conduct a public hearing, regarding the appeal by the applicant of the decision by the Plan- ning and Zoning Commission to recommend disapproval of the rezoning request. The public hearing, at which parties In interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard, will be held by said Board of County Com- missioners in the County Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Wednesday, April 21, 1982, at 1:30 P.M. - If any person decides to appeal any decision made on the above matter, he will need a record of the proceedings, and for such pur- poses, he may need to insure that a verbatim record of the proceedings Is made, which in- cludes testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. Indian Rilier County Board of County Commissioners By: -s -Don C. Scurlock Jr., Chairman Secretary Board of County Commissioners 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Apr. 1, 14,1982. .. . - I;..-.-... The Board reviewed the staff memo, and Planning Manager Challacombe noted that the recommendation contains a figure of 43.88 acres, which should be corrected to 36.88 as shown in the survey submitted to Planning. APR 211982 53 BOOK:. 49 � PAA53, - 890K 49 PA1,454 1 _APR 211982 TO: The Honorable Board of DATE: March 30, 1982 FILE: IRC -82 - County Commissioners SUBJECT: APPEAL, BY C. S. RICHARDSOI` OF DENIAL OF REZONING REQUE BY THE PLANNING &-ZONING COMMISSION ON 2-25-82 D -4-9,-LLetter from Robert Jacl FROM: David L. Greene REFERENCES: to Don Scurlock, Jr. Assistant County Administrator dated March 5, 1982. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: On February 25, 1982 the applicant's request to rezone 38.88 acres from A -Agriculture to R -2D, Multi -Family Residential (6 units/acre) was unanimously denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The applicant appealed the decision and requested a public hearing date before the County Commission. ANALYSIS: The site is located on the east side of 82nd Avenue approxi- mately 1/4 mile north of State Road 6.0. The Land Use desig- nation is MD -1 (up to 8 units/acre).' The site is presently occupied by an old citrus grove in poor condition. Surround- ing land uses include: North - Designated A -Agricultural in the Comprehensive Plan and'the land use is groves. South - Ranchland Mobile Home Park, zoned R-1MP. Approx- imately 106 units at 5.35 units/acre. East - Wildwood Subdivision, zoned R-lE. Fourteen lots, - minimum size, one acre with approximately 12 homes currently existing, and; West Side Villas Subdivision, zoned R-lAA. Thirty-one lots, min- imum size, 1/2 acre, with approximately 12 homes currently existing. -- West - Paradise Park Subdivision, zoned R-1. Lots are -� 50' x 100' with scattered single family develop- ment. Maximum built out density is approximately 5.2 units/acre, however, many existing multiple lot ownerships reduces this density. ..STAFF POSITION: 1. While the request falls within the maximum density allowed by the Comprehensive Plan, important considerations are: a) The plan is to guide development for the next 20 years. b) Eight units/acre is a maximum density. This means between 0 and 8 units/acre is considered appropriate. c) The.surrounding property on three sides is single fami1v residential. The trend of the most recent single family developments to the east is toward lower densities of one and two units/acre. 2. The Agricultural property is an enclave surrounded on three sides.by single family residential development of various densities. Agricultural zoning is not the most - appropriate for the site because of incompatibility with the surrounding land uses. Multi -family development at 6 units/acre is also not the most appropriate zoning for the site because of the incompatibility with the surrounding land uses. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request to rezone the 49-88- 36.38 acres from Agricultural to R -2D, Multi -Family Residential (6 units/acre). Attorney Robert Jackson came before the Board representing C. S. Richardson, noting that there is no disagreement that Mr. Richardson's 36 acres of old grove should not remain in Agricultural zoning. He pointed out that the subject property is in an MD -1 zone under the Land Use Plan, but they asked for R -2D to give the County maximum jurisdiction over deciding what should go on there. What they are planning is cluster buildings similar to those in Stuart or Palm Beach. Mr. Jackson then described the surrounding property, noting that there is a subdivision of old 50' lots located -to the west, to the south of those, it is zoned B-1, and there is also an old mobile home park, while on the east is' a very nice subdivision of high quality homes. He felt it was incongrous that while staff agreed that agricultural is not appropriate and felt that R -2D is somewhat compatible with the approximately 5 units per acre development to the west and south, and also since site plan requirements include landscaping which would provide a buffer to the east, they still recommended denial. Attorney Jackson was of the opinion that the folks to 1, the east, who spoke eloquently against the rezoning, are objecting because they are worried about what the development will look like. He stressed that the Richardsons are not planning to increase density at all and are planning around 4 units per acre. Attorney Jackson felt this is a good project that complies with the density plan, and he believed a lot of APR 211982 55 BcoK. 4 PAtE455 APR 211982 80°K9 Fr56 mistakes have been made in developing when you don't put people in a configuration where you can have tennis courts, lakes, etc., and do it all under one guidance. Commissioner Wodtke asked Mr. Jackson if there is a change in their feelings and 4 units an Acre will be acceptable rather than a higher/density. Attorney Jackson stated that la density of 4 is acceptable, and Mr. Richardson would not mind being tied to that. It was noted that R -2A is a 41,unit per acre multiple family zoning. Commissioner Bird inquired if,Mr. Richardson would amend his rezoning request to R -2A, and Mr.!, Richardson stated that he would. Attorney Brandenbgxg stat-bd there would be no problem with this. Planning Manager Challacombe wished to clarify any point of confusion Mr. Jackson might have found in the staff memo. He then went into a detailed discussion of the proposed density compared to the surrounding properties, pointing out that Mr. Jackson is assuming that the bordering B-1 zoning will be - retained under the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, but that is yet to be determined by this Board. Mr1. Challacombe felt use (single family vs. multiple family) is the ll major question rather than density and stated that it is staff's contention that R -2D multi family is not compatible with the property to the west, south or east, all of which has single family usage. Commissioner Bird asked if the amendment of the application to R -2A would have any effect on stuff's recommendation. Mr. Challacombe did not feel he was in a position to make a recommendation on the densities at,this time right off the cuff, but noted, however, that it still !would be multi family in a predominantly single family area; the bordering mobile homes actually are single family dwelling s, and the subdivision to the west although made up of 50' lots, is presently being developed with homes on double lots. In further discussion, it was noted that there are also homes on single lots in this area, and question arose as to a density of 5 for the mobile home park. Commissioner Wodtke asked what Mr. Challacombe would envision would be acceptable to the west of.the mobile home park. Mr. Challacombe felt that is a premature question. Commissioner Lyons did not feel the Planning Department should escape sharing the Board's discomfort in trying to reach a determination as to whether this zoning should change to R -2A and stated that the Board wants and needs staff's opinion. Mr. Challacombe noted that the preliminary review indicates , this property is not currently within the area of the commercial/industrial node designated at I-95 and Route 60. Discussion continued, and the possibility that this piece of property should be zoned two ways with the east 1/2 or 1/3 in single family and the rest of it in multiple was brought up. Commissioner Wodtke stated that he found a lot of difference between this requested rezoning for multiple and the previous request by Mr. Fedele where the lots would be sold individually. He felt controlled development with green areas, tennis courts, etc., is greatly preferable to a neighborhood consisting of 50' lots on rows of streets. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. Mrs. C. S. Richardson spoke in support of the proposed rezoning,. stressing all the planning and thinking that have gone into the proposed project. She explained that what they would like to do is put in reasonably priced units at around $75,000, the same type that they have "book -ended" the beach with at John's Island and The Moorings, with a lovely recreation area, etc., which she believed would provide a smoother transition from the trailers on the south; they want to make this a beautiful area where younger families with children can live. A P R 211982 57 .600K 49 PAE457 APR 211992 Box 9. PA&E.458 Gene Waddell informed the Board that he lives in the R-lE section across from the proposed development. He agreed with the proposal in the Land Use Plan to provide for smooth transition between zones, but felt to put multiple family development where it is bordered on three sides by single family and one side by Agricultural would amount to spot zoning. Mr. Waddell expressed confidence in the Richardson's and felt whatever they do, it will be a nice development, but it was his opinion that single family would b very.salable in this area and much better than having condominiums. Carol Dean came before the Board and read a letter from ) Grace Derascavage, area resident,objecting to the proposed rezoning on the basis that it would change the character of the lifestyle�df the peopl-b in the area, destroy their privacy, decrease the valuation of their property, and have an adverse impact on water and traffic. John Lopes of West Side Drive spoke in opposition to the change in zoning, stating that the 'vast majority of the people in this area feel it would be both detrimental and unfair to those who purchased in expectation of a certain type life style which - will not continue if multi family units are erected in proximity to single family development. Robert Reider of Reef Road had a question of Gene Waddell who had referred to 40 homes, and Mir. Waddell explained that what he was referring to was the 40 acres in each section. Jim Young of 8136 25th St. and developer of the R -1E property in this area, explained in detail how he came to develop this property as R -1E at the insistence of late Planning Director Val Brennan as being the only condition on which the property would be exempted from being rezoned to Agricultural. Mr. Young stated he was happy to go along with this because he did not want high density and believed this would assure there would be none in this area in the future. He felt the County already has compromised this by allowing a subdivision with two houses per acre and hope they now would not go to a density of 4. He emphasized that if the County wants to get involved in telling people how to build, they should be consistent. Mr. Young also expressed concern about the drain on water that would be created by a higher density. Glenn Riffle, Sheila Hawkins, Bill Culp, and J. Chalmes Holmes, residents of 25th Street, all expressed strong opposition to the proposed rezoning which would allow multiple housing, basing their opposition on its adverse impact on the character of the neighborhood, water and traffic. Lillian Littler, resident of 8025 West Side Drive, which is zoned R-1AA, spoke in opposition for herself and her neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. James Odum. She saw the need for multiple family areas, but felt this is a poor place for them and creates practically a spot zoning attempt..,, No one further wished to be heard. On Motion by commissioner Lyons, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unanimously closed the public hearing. Motion was made by Commissioner Lyons that the amended appeal for rezoning to R -2A be denied on the basis that it would be inconsistent with the property to the east and west, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher on the basis that there has been overwhelming evidence from existing property owners that it would definitely affect their existing life style. Commissioner Wodtke discussed density, pointing out that R-lAA which is 2.6 density, would allow up to 100 units of single family, and he did not feel it world be fair to restrict a developer to utilizing one acre lots when he is in an area where there are mobile homes and some R-lA which is a density of 4.3. He stressed the advantages controlled multi -family would offer. Commissioner Lyons agreed we might have more open space and better development if we went to R -2A, but noted that the people in the area seem to feel strongly about multi family. 59 APR 211982 BOX 9AW9 APR 211982 BOOK 49 Pmi 46,E Commissioner Bird stated that he did not necessarily agree with the argument that multi family will have a degrading affect on the residences in the area and was of the opinion that a high density type of single family poorly done could have a considerably worse effect than multi family well done. He cited John's Island and The Moorings as examples of single and multi family being compatible with each other and believed that our statistics will prove that low density multi family will generate less traffic, water use, etc. than single family. He further pointed out that with single family you would have the potential of over 75 shallow wells and septic tanks. Commissioner Bird felt we created MD -1 in that area with the thought to provide a little higher density for affordable housing, and he did not" believe 4 is high. Chairman Scurlock envisioned a domino effect with the agricultural property if we encourage multi family in this area. He believed there is a need for multi family, and certainly this area was considered under the CLUP as an appropriate area for multi family, but he felt a multi family project which would utilize the deep aquifer could cause problems with their - discharge leaching into the shallow aquifer. He stated that he would support that the requested rezoning not be approved and hopefully some future request for rezoning would be more appropriate. Commissioner Fletcher complimented all those present on the reasonableness with which they have presented their views and suggested that they get together with Mr. Richardson in an attempt to find a zoning other than agricultural that everyone can live with. Discussion continued about water problems, the advantages of having a controlled development, etc., and the fact was brought up that if the zoning request is denied, there is a one year waiting period before another request. Commissioner Wodtke suggested the applicant might want to withdraw and reconsider. Attorney Jackson wished to know if they withdrew the present request whether they could come back before the one year period, and Attorney Brandenburg felt they could. He noted that after a denial, however, there is no ability under Code to waive the 12 month waiting period. Attorney Jackson informed the Board that his client will withdraw the application and reapply. Commissioner Lyons withdrew his Motion and Commissioner Fletcher withdrew his second. Mrs. Littler wished to make a statement for the record. She reported that, although R-1AA has a density of 2.6 units per acre, West Side Villas, which is zoned R-lAA, consists of 31 half acre lots with one single family dwelling on each 1/2 acre lot. On Motion by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously accepted the applicant C. S. - Richardson's request to withdraw his present application. WILMOTH APPEAL OF SITE PLAN DENIAL The hour of 1:30 o'clock P. M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: I APR 211982 61 BOOK 49 PAtE4 1�s,1 APR 211982 VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily Vero Beach. Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being ri 4 _ r in the matter in the Court, was pub- , lished in said newspaper in the issues Affiant further says that;the_said Vero Beach Pre�s-Journal isAnewspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun- ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of - advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspc3per. Sworn to and subscrib h bete4mei day A.D. 19 (SEAL) Manager) River County, Florida) Boox `49 Pour -462 NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River. County, Florida, will conduct a public hearing regarding the appeal of Frank and Susan Wilmoth contesting the denial by the Indian River County Planning and Zoning Com- mission of their site plan for a retail sales facility at its regular meeting on February, 25, 1982. The public hearing will be held by said Board of County Commissioners, in the County Ad- ministration Building, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Wednesday, April •21, 1982 at 1:30 P.M. All interested par- ties will be given the opportunity to be heard. . Ifany person decides to appeal any decision made on the above matter, he will need's record of the proceedings, and for such pur- pose's, he may need to insure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which in -eludes testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. Indian River County Board of County Commissioners By: Don C. Scurlock Jr. Chairman. _April 6, 8,1982. «_ The Board reviewed the staff recommendation as follows: 62 TO: The Honorable Board of DATE: March 30, 1982 FILE: IRC -8I -SP -1c County Commissioners #675 SUBJECT: FRANK AND SUSAN WILMOTH' S APPEAL OF SITE PLAN DENIAL 49 1Y-;3_ FROM: David L. Greene REFERENCES: Assistant County Administrator DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: On February 25, 1982 in the regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Wilmoth's site plan for a retail sales facility was unanimously denied. The decision was appealed and a public..hearing was scheduled for April 21, 1982.. The applicants' request is for a 3,846 sq. ft. retail sales facility located on the west side of 27th Avenue, approximately 130 feet south of 7th Street, S -.W. The application was sub- -' mitted prior to the adoption of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan and thus, is a transition petition. Trans- ition petitions may be approved if adjudged compatible with either the 1975 or 1982 Comprehensive Plans. The 1975 Plan designates the site as Low Density 0-4 units/acre and the 1982 Plan designates the property as LD -1 (up to 3 units/acre). - ANAT.VRTG The request for a commercial facility is not compatible with the 1975 or 1982 Plans. Requirements of all -other applicable - County ordinances have been met. STAFF POSITION: 1. Nodal rather than strip commercial development patterns shall be established according to the Comprehensive Plan. 2. While .several general commercial establishments are located north of the subject property, single family homes also front 27th Avenue north and south of the site. Further strip commercial zoning will act as a disincentive to low density residential development. 3. The application is not compatible with the 1975 or 1982 Plans which designate the property as Low"Density residential. STAFF POSTTTON• FA 4. Staff recommends denial. Attorney Jerome Quinn came before the Board representing Frank and Susan Wilmoth and explained in detail the events that have taken place since Mr. Wilmoth purchased this C-1 property in September of 1980, i.e., hiring a surveyor in 1981 to begin site A P R 211982 63 aux 4 VA-.GE APR 2119$2 goon 49 F 0 —64 work with the idea of developing a retail store and in September of 1981, retaining the services of Timber Steel Buildings, Inc., for the purpose of completing his plans and coordinating with the county to go through the necessary procedures, obtain permits and comply with the regulations necessary to allow site plan approval and ultimate construction. On November 3, 1981, after Mr. Howard Friedman of Timber Steel Buildings contacted the Planning Department and was assured the building could be constructed and would be in conformance with county requirements, Mr. Wilmoth signed a contract with Timber Steel Buildings, Inc., in the amount of $32,500. Thereafter, Mr. Friedman had on-going discussions with Planner Dennis Ragsdale, mainly by phone, re meeting the necessary requirements, and the site plan package was put togetkier and filed -vi th thb Planning Department on December 28th, 1981, based on the belief that all preliminary requirements had been met. It was not until January 12th, when Mr. Wilmoth went to the Planning Department to discuss a minor matter that he was advised by the Planning Department that they would have to recommend denial due to the Land Use Element having been adopted by the County Commission about 7 days earlier. Attorney Quinn emphasized that initial discussions with the County never hinted at any change in the use of the land, and substantial time and money were invested in reliance on what was thought to be a routine site plan approval. The application process was on-going before the adoption of the Land Use Element, and he, therefore, believed his clients qualify for equitable relief under the section of the Comprehensive Plan Ordinance relating to "vested rights," which involves a doctrine of fairness or equity where a person has acted in good faith and has incurred substantial expense in reliance thereon. He further reported that he has letters from Raymond Casin and Edward Prine, land owners adjoining the Wilmoth property to the south, stating that they have no objection to retail stores being built on the subject property. 64 _ - Commissioner Bird noted that the Board never has seen the site plan in question, and wished it confirmed that if the Board should take the position that the applicant does have a vested right, the site plan then would be further processed and either approved or disapproved based on site plan criteria. Attorney Brandenburg agreed that what this would accomplish would be to put the site plan back in the normal process. Planner Ragsdale stated that he did believe the applicant and Mr. Quinn have acted in good faith and they have been very cooperative. none. The Chairman asked if anyone wished to be heard. There were On Motion by Commissioner Bird, seconded by Commissioner Lyons,.the Board unanimously closed the public hearing. Commissioner Bird felt it was' -.a mistake when this property -- was zoned C-1 originally; however, it was done. He continued that although it was shown as residential in the 1975 Plan, rezoning was never initiated to take it out of commercial, and he did believe the applicant has a vested right. On Motion by Commissioner Bird, seconded by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously agreed that the Wilmoths do have a vested right and that their application should continue in the normal site plan review process. EXTENSION OF PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL - KINGSLAKE SUBDIVISION The Board reviewed the staff recommendation, as follows: APR 211982 65 POGO 49 4651 A P R 211982 49 PA6, 466 TO: The Honorable Board DATE: March 26, 1982 FILE: of County Commissioners SUBJECT: EXTENSION OF PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL OF KINGSLAKE SUBDIVISION - UNIT 2 FROM: Davidto L. Greene REFERENCES: Assistant County Administrator DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: Kingslake Subdivision, Unit 2, received Preliminary Plat Approval on August 19, 1981. The Subdivision Ordinance states that "approval of the Board shall have full force and effect for a period of eighteen (18) --months from the date of approval. An extension may be granted by the Board". The approval of Kingslake Subdivision, Unit 2, will dxpire on February 19, 1983. Due to the present economic situation which has caused a slow -down in the purchase of lots in Kingslake Subdivision, Unit 1, the developer is requesting a one year extension of the approval. The approval, if granted, would expire on February 19, 1984. ATJAT.YST9 The proposed subdivision will be developed at a density of 1.5 lots/acre excluding roads. This density complies with - the Land Use Classification of LD -1 (up to 3 units/acre). RECOMMENDATION: That a one year extension of Preliminary Plat Approval be granted to Kingslake Subdivision, Unit 2. S. P. Musick, agent for Kingslake Subdivision, Unit II, and Peter Connelly of Norris & Company, Realtor, marketing director for the subject property came before the Board. Assistant County Administrator David Greene wished to go on record, since the memo of recommendation went out under his signature, that he is in the process of purchasing property in Kingslake Subdivision. Motion was made by Commissioner Wodtke, seconded by Commissioner Bird; to accept the staff recommendation and grant a one year extension to Kingslake Subdivision, Unit 2. M6 .. Mr. Connelly explained that this is a somewhat unusual situation - as of August 19th they had preliminary plat approval for Kingslake Subdivision, Phase II, but they are currently in the process of marketing Kingslake Subdivision, Phase I, and only 18 of the 46 1/2 acre lots have been sold; they had to pay off blanket mortgages and there is not much cash flow for the developers at this time. They, therefore, would like to get this extension to protect them and give them time to sell the lots to bring about a better development. The Chairman called for the question. It was voted on and carried unanimously. The Chairman announced that a meeting of the Rockridge Street Lighting District would convene immediately upon adjournment of the Commission meeting. COURT ORDER DECLARING SEBASTIAN ANNEXATION INVALID The following Court Order declaring Sebastian Ordinance 81-27 invalid is -made a part of the Minutes for information purposes: L_ t APR 211982 67 AnnK 49 pw467 Box 49 FhJ- A P R 211982 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 19TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. CASE NO.; 82-75 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 2�712223ZQ (A Political subdivision of the State of Florida) ppR 19a2Ir Petitioner, VS. CR t Attoiae7 t e. an 9 C� C. Office �1 THE CITY OF SEBASTI17: (A Municipal Corporation �s0�68 L 9 of the State of Florida) Respondent. O R D E R Petitioner, Indian River County, brought a certiorari action in Circuit_Court seeking review of the adoption of Ordinance 81-27 City of Sebastian stating that it violated § 171.044 Florida Statutes. Defendant contends that there is no violation of Florida Statutes because their city council determined that a "substantial part" of the boundary was contiguous to the city limits and as a question of fact should be upheld. Also, the determination of whether the area annexed is "reasonab`ly compact" is a'question to be determined by the city council. Section 171.044 Florida Statutes (1979) (1) The owners of real property in an unincorporated area of a county which is contiguous'to a municipality and reasonably compact may.petition the governing body of said municipality that said property be annexed to the municipality. The statute specifically defines the following term. Section 171.031: (11) "Contiguous" means that a substantial part of a boundary of a territory sought to be annexed by a municipality is coterminous with a part of the boundary of the municipality ..(Coterminous means having a common boundary - '-Black's) Exhibit "A" attached and made part of this Order appears to show this Court exactly what the legislature seeks to prevent. To comply with the Statute the parcel annexed must have a substantial part of the boundary touching the boundary line of the r The Court finds as a matter of law that 600 feet out of 11,000 feet or 05% is not substantial within the meaning of the statute. The Court need not address the other issues raised in the complaint for the annexed property violates § 171.044 Florida Statutes. - Ordinance 81-27 City of Sebastian is invalid. Ordered at Vero Beach, Florida this � O day of April, 1982. /s/ G. KENDALL SI -CARP. G. KENDALL SHARP, CIRCUIT JUDGE Copies furnished to: Gary M. Brandenburg, Esquire County Attorney 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Daniel Kilbride, Esquire Attorney ,for the City of Sebastian. 2065 15th Avenue Vero Beach, Florida 32960 -2- APR 211982 Boa 49 PSE APR 211982 1 l 1�J ROSELAN , PtlOk 49. Fr:,,r 470 tr- < ••.,�,•6.�'s= rrrt'";.S.0r /rt}.f .:k g R'Y t j:..r,-ti 1 '�fa •T"3J�' +t IIS �7`et •''♦'� �'"e sA > f Z ! � ! T'• H`! qtr •:�F` t {�:t•ry w ? .YYY� '� •� a +'♦ �i� ?!flQ: . f 1• ti9 tvr• ''� x i}''' 4 � �nIF •; K1 � �$Iss''t � �� .'�� Lq'j�r�ti'� �d�i;� ltd'"•akl�t�r%u•[t.�fit� ��"�I. `�b,.� �q • f I '177 4 b d tp.i° !f i.t o rg� sY L a .aii� 9 1' • \ •'� 'ra. t �:-- a 2 : ' 7 t'Q r 1 } to I f t8 ibl�s3a@ • �•TtaAlsrafCB ;'�a� -lo•:af til 8•v A C? • h'':. y a ij. CLrja•At gp err C4114 Aw carriviriv �� BMrvnTa41 : ;,:4' C�w�cnTu 11 U:alA `\ / Chrhe• t Chureh C ''' "'• CrtrtA A. Cuu Ave t a vnt ' a1•trrr/1t %%, �~ 0.1 P_r Ctt OtDtGC v / tarr.rr $.':. ate.M.r.rvreu[itr•rY•Wtorrutl tne+n' I Ctaarrnat s t- mra..r•.•Ir \/ am ewe 1 CIHe.ane \�1H r,r� .rl.rar►r.at \iy MtIEA. J dl.'0 CI e' - I d—Y •ri ,u Z �»cna•Iuf. ,�+'^ ISLAND ettrer Y� COGoeu!_ --.� . %� M7ltITWY 7etHR! �,� •.M7M�,L Coto Ru• AL MW 4 O Corr Avg Cole Te, C Ctums S+ �� : ' l a ..tet. ur \\ O • t � iolumSu h yt tt 7� • •t ': f...¢3.1• '"'" •.''3.y, • . aleuas am. 1a .1 C6NRt$v ! ., cure •rn\ \ O �,� a r •,'r � r�aa.^o •uM urr \\ Coolidge; .Y'E 3y j " w "'•` wa..'tl, • \ tv.ru tmaul `,.�{ O a.ID .-i ! " F• ' nr C? Iaut �. ��: ^d r•reu WE ':v� 101 MTV P ,! EdAt*O� 'i. • I �. I ..-. l yi` i• (ter. \ MANO In \ • 3r \ •� 3 r _. _ _ ...r \\\ /� NOR N `L% i/ •� • v t t• y \\SLAND ORItInOt / 1 ISLANDMIDDL (� � t �; :��•' °..� � Me.t. 11r is ., •�'S4a^ � O �\ Nf ISDN\\J .. `�\•' \s\` r tray "• i.W \ .� 1SLAN7 ;� ':=� \4, e�-J o. :(�.,y��L� �j • ua, f� \ `J' � w.,:., ` �'' j trry .;.P ISLAND- ORCHIC ♦ } p \`\\\\iii ��'/ a Ja� c .. &�: fit. 9. I a� V CITY MKI .ty'1-'�. ..' �' � , 1► . � �'�ril�'..�C.�"���� r ••'tt• I.. ►RLACl/ERS .`arte • r• 1; •'�"S"�a F •a •..,' aw' n tfIAND \Vi \ � \ til p •'. ' - .�... • =.6N`. .�r�.•..;`. p ��...-. a i 1 The several bills and accounts against the County having been audited were examined and found to be correct were approved and warrants issued in settlement of same as follows: Treasury _ Fund Nos. 79805 - 79956 inclusive. Such bills and accounts being on file in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, the warrants so issued from the respective bonds being listed in the Supplemental Minute Book as provided by the rules of the Legislative Auditor, reference to such record and list so recorded being made a part of these Minutes. There being no further business, on Motion made, seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 4:38 o'clock P.M. Attest: lXJ . Clerk APR 211982 71 Chairman i" RnnK 49 pw411