The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About9/21/1983September 21, 1983 The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida met in Regular Session at the County Commissioner Chambers 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, a h, Florida, on Wednesday, September 21,: 1983, at 8:30 o'clock A.M. Present were Richard N. Bird, Chairman; Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Vice Chairman; Patrick B. Lyons, Margaret C. Bowman, and William C. Wodtke, Jr. Also present were L. S. "Tommy" Thomas, Community Services Director; Gary Brandenburg, Attorney to the Board .of County Commissioners;. Jeffrey K.. Barton,.Director, Office of Management & Budget; Lt. Kurt L. Kuehn, Bailiff; Barbara Bonnah and Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerks. Reverend Larry Boan, Central Assembly, gave the invocation and Chairman Bird led e the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA Y OMB.Director Barton requested the addition to today's Agenda of authorization for Chairman.to sign the Application nor State Revenue Sharing 1983-84, South Indian River County Fire District. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously added the above emergency. item to today's Agenda. SEP 211983 - SEP 211983 BOOK54 �ar�1 OMB Director Barton requested the addition to today's Agenda of a Resolution authorizing a special banking account to handle Gulf Life ASO Plus health care funds. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously added the above item to today's Agenda. Commissioner Scurlock requested the addition to today's Agenda of a meeting of the South County Fire District to discuss a recommendation from Harry P. Johnstone to Tom Nason of the South County Fire Advisory Commission re fire fighters salaries. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously added the above item to today's Agenda. Commissioner Lyons requested the addition to today's Agenda of a brief report on the criminal justice complex. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously added the above item to today's Agenda. DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA Attorney Brandenburg requested the deletion from today's Agenda of Item 18, a discussion regarding Jungle Trail/River Bend proposed relocation of right-of-way so that his office can work with the applicant re some outstanding issues. F, ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously deleted the above item from today's Agenda. MINUTES Chairman Bird announced that due to the extra workload caused by the Property Appraisal Adjustment petitions, the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 7, 1983 will be presented for approval at the next regular meeting of October 5, 1983. CLERK TO THE BOARD A. Approval of New Applications for a Permit to Carry a Concealed Firearm The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/13/83: TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: September, 13, 1983 FILE: the Board of County Commissioners FROM: Michael Wright County Administrator SUBJECT: PISTOL PERMITS,- NEW REFERENCES: The following individuals have applied for pistol permits tl►rough the Clerk's office: John Martin Hamilton Joseph R. Chiarella Wendy L. Chiarella Eileen Agnes Regan All requirements of Ordinance 82-27 have been met and are in order. It is therefore recommended pistol permits be issued to the above. 3 SEP 211983 : to: PAUMUT Fl - SEP 21 198 3 ow 5.4 rb.GFV08. ON MOTION b_y Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the issuance of a concealed pistol permit for the following persons; John Martin Hamilton Joseph R. Chiarella Wendy L. Chiarella Eileen Agnes Regan B. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING ACCOUNT AT SOUTHEAST BANK FOR HEALTH INSURANCE ASO PLUS FUNDS OMB Director Barton explained the method of payment that allows the County to save money under the Gulf Life ASO Plus Provisions. He requested that he be given authorization to set up a separate account in a local bank to maintain a balance required by Gulf Life provisions. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 83-72, authorizing the Chairman to execute applications for an account at the South- east Bank, N.A. thereby establishing an account entitled the Gulf Life Health Ins. Reserve Trust for Indian River County for the purpose of maintaining the balance required by the County's insurance policy with the Gulf Life Company under the ASO Plus Provisions. A 4 RESOLUTION NO. 83-72 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD TO EXECUTE APPLICATIONS FOR AN ACCOUNT AT THE SOUTHEAST BANK, N.A. THEREBY ESTABLISHING AN ACCOUNT ENTITLED THE GULF LIFE HEALTH INSURANCE RESERVE TRUST FOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAINTAINING A BALANCE REQUIRED TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE COUNTY'S INSURANCE POLICY WITH THE GULF LIFE COMPANY UNDER THE ASO PLUS PROVISIONS. WHEREAS,.,the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County have put out for bid and have negotiated with certain insurance companies to provide County employees, Special District and certain Constitutional Officers' employees with certain medical insurance and life insurance benefits, and WHEREAS, Indian River County has carefully reviewed all proposals that were received and has determined that it is in the best interest of Indian River County and its covered employees to enter into an agreement for medical insurance with Gulf Life Insurance Company, and WHEREAS, one of the alternatives reviewed and chosen by the County is known as the "ASO Plus" program, and WHEREAS, this program allows the County to make monthly payments into an account which is establishedforthe purposes of supplying a fund upon which the insurance company may draw for valid insurance claims and administrative charges, and WHEREAS, this method allows the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County to earn interest on that portion of the account which is available at any -given time, and WHEREAS, to enable Indian River County to proceed with this new approach, it is necessary for the County Commission to establish an account into which the County, Special Districts and Constitutional Officers will pay their monthly share of insurance costs and upon which only the Barnett Bank of Jacksonville N.A. may draw funds to reimburse Gulf Life Insurance Company for claims checks cleared on the company's behalf. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: 1. The Indian River County administration is hereby 5 SEP 21 1983®on b ac U. �, r SEP 1 198 60 54 Phuffo _ 2 3 , authorized and required to establish_. an account entitled the Gulf Life Health Insurance Reserve Trust for Indian River County at Southeast Bank N.A. for the purpose of holding funds under the Gulf Life Insurance Company "ASO Plus" plan. 2. The account shall be for the exclusive purpose of transferring funds to the Barnett Bank of Jacksonville, N.A. to reimburse Gulf Life Insurance Company under the ASO Plus plan for claim checks cleared on the company's behalf, a depository trans- fer check being by its wording payable to the order of Gulf Life Health Insurance Company and drawn on Southeast Bank N.A. Account No. 107-A99077 at Vero Beach, Florida, is hereby authorized and such depository transfer checks shall require no signature. 3. This account may only be closed and the balance forwarded to Indian River County upon the approval of a majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners at a regularly scheduled meeting. 4. The Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners and the Clerk are authorized to execute the attached Resolution Authorizing Payment of Depository Transfer Checks. The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Scurlock . who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lyons and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Richard N. Bird Aye Vice -Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye Commissioner Patrick B. Lyons Aye Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 21st day of September , 1983. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER ,COUNTY, FLORIDA B�y: RI HARD N BIRD Chairman APPROVED AO�M A,9,TO FAttest: cN:4Z,Cti�_` Ur_- s//,L � AND LEGAL SUVII,gf� f(cy FREDA WRIGHT, Clerk By: 'GA M. BRAND NBURG, County Attorney 6 Ll RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PAYMENT OF DEPOSITORY TRANSFER CHECKS RESOLVED, that for the purpose of transferring funds to the. Barnett Bank of Jacksonville, N.A. to reimburse Gulf Life Insurance Company for claim checks cleared on the Company's behalf, a Depository Transfer Check being by its wording payable to the order of Gulf Life Insurance Company and drawn on Southeast Bank, N.A. Transit Number 067006610 Account No. 107-452971 at Vero Beach, FL be hereby authorized and such Depository Transfer Checks shall require no signature. FURTHER RESOLVED, that Board of County Commissio may conclusively 'hers assume, prior to receipt of a certified copy of resolutions revoking or amending these resolutions, that any such no signature Depository Transfer checks have been executed and delivered as a proper corporate act of Gtilf rife and duly authorized pursuant to these resolutions. Signature Chairman, Board of County Commissioners Ti tl e Attest: September 22, 1983 Date Freda Wright, Clerk 7 SEP 2 1 ` 10 $�oK racE.. SEP 211983 6QOx 54 nGf. ei CONSENT AGENDA Commissioner Wodtke requested that Items H, 1, K, and L be removed from the Consent Agenda at this time. Commissioner Lyons requested that Item F also be removed from the Consent Agenda at this time. A. Report Received and placed on file in the Office of the Clerk: Traffic Violation Bureau - Special Trust Fund Month of August, 1983 - $37,994.00 B. Report Received and placed on file in the Office of the Clerk: Traffic Fines by Name - Month of August, 1983 C. Amendment to Cooperative Agreement, Soil Conservation Survey ON POTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by.Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously authorized the Chairman's signature on the Amendment to the Cooperative Agreement between the County, the University of Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations and the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. 8 AMENDMENT to the COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT among the' INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS the _ INDIAN RIVER SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT .the UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS . and the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE Re: Acceleration of the Soil Survey.in Indian River. This amends the Cooperative Agreement for the acceleration of the Soil Survey in Indian River between the above parties entered into the 24th day of September, 1980, as follows: a. Section IV B is amended to allow the effective date of the Agreement to cover the period -October 1, 1983 to September 30, 1984. - All other provisions of the Agreement to remain unchanged. UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA BY f!'�(� pat�� . Katharina Phillips TITLE Grani-G�P1npmejL ('nn�tnr INDIAN RIVER SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT r BY ', �v f ,�C , A� f1 UNITED STATES DEPj SQI1-GONSERV!. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BY TITLE Chairman Approved 9721763 INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES BY - -. d - 4: � /0//.j A. F. Cribbett, Interim Director of TITLE IFAS -Sponsored Programs MENT OF AGRICULTURE ON SERVICE STATE CO ERVATIONIST Service Autty rity: PL 46 - 74th Congress 16 U.S.C. //(5.90 a -f) 9 SEP 21 1983 b.:: BOOK A PIP— SEP 21 1983 D. Execution of Traffic Sianal Ifaintenance Agreement The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/14/63: TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: September 14, 1983 FILE: Board of County Commissioners THROUGH: Michael Wright, County Administrator SUBJECT: Traffic Signal :Maintenance Agreement with the City of Sebastian FROM: Michael L. Orr, REFERENCES: Traffic Engineer DESCRIPTION ANTD CONDITIONS On February 2, 1983 the Board adopted a "Traffic Signal Jurisdiction and Maintenance Policy" which assigned the responsibility of traffic signal maintenance to various governmental entities within Indian River County. This Policy transfered maintenance responsibility for the signal at Main Street/U.S. 1 from Indian River County to the City of Sebastian. To execute maintenance of the signal at Main Street/U.S. 1, the City of Sebastian has requested the Indian River County Public Works Division to provide maintenance for the signal and has signed the subject agreement prepared by the County. ALTER.KATIVES AND ANALYSIS A. Provide traffic signal maintenance services to the City of Sebastian in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth by authorizing the Chairman, Board of County Commissioners, -to sign the attached subject agreement. Maintenance work can be accomplished by the Public Works Division with no reduction in County services. Cost of materials for repair will need to be fronted by the County and will be billed periodically with labor and equipment charges to the City of Sebastian. B. Deny traffic signal maintenance services to the City of Sebastian. REC01'vNENDATIONT AND FUNDING Y Alternative "A" is recommended The Public Works Division can provide the City of Sebastian traffic signal maintenance services at a reasonable -ost without a reduction in County services. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved Alternate A to provide traffic signal maintenance services to the City o= Sebastian, as recommended by staff. 1G 1 AGREEMENT FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR THIS AGREEMENT is made this 31st day of August , 19 33 , by and between the City of Sebastian, Florida a municipal corporation of the State of Florida, hereinafter "municipality," and INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereinafter `County." . WITNESSETH WHEREAS, those traffic control signals and devices described in this agreement lie within the jurisdiction, control, operational and maintenance responsibility of the municipality; and WHEREAS, the municipality desires to retain the services of the County's Public Works Department to perform necessary main- tenance and repairs to the described signals and devices, in accordance with the provisions of this service agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE RECITALS AND THE MUTUAL PROMISES CONTAINED HEREIN, the parties agree as follows: 1. SCOPE OF WORK. The County shall provide all labor, equipment and materials, at the rates specified in Schedule "A" attached hereto, as may be reasonably necessary to maintain in good operating condition, or to repair or reconstruct to restore to good operating condition, all those traffic signals and devices identified in Schedule "B" attached hereto. All work performed shall be done in a skillful and workmanlike manner, in accordance with accepted industry practices and customs. In the absence of an express direction or specification otherwise by a State of Florida Department of Transportation rule or standard, or by the municipality, as long as not inconsistent with DOT requirements, the County shall be free to determine the design, style, make, model, manufacturer or other specification of any material or equipment used or provided hereunder. • 2. TERM OF AGREEMENT. The initial term of this agree- ment shall extend through the end of the County's current fiscal year. This agreement shall be subject to automatic one-year extensions, coinciding with the fiscal year of the County, unless either party provides to the other written notice of an intention to terminate at least thirty (30) days in advance of the renewal date. Either party may terminate this agreement at any time during a term, without cause, upon delivery of written notice to the other at least sixty (60) days in advance of the desired ter- mination date. Modifications, additions or deletions to this agreement shall be by written addendum executed by both parties, except that Schedules C and D may be revised periodically upon transmittal of the new schedule to the.other party. 3. NOTICE TO COUNTY FOR REPAIR. It shall be the responsibility of the municipality to notify the County that repairs or reconstruction is necessary prior to the County being obligated to perform hereunder. Notice including a general description of the problem or"deficiency shall be communicated to. the County in accordance with Schedule "C," which sets forth personnel, telephone numbers, addresses, and priorities based upon day and time of desired service. The municipality hereby desig- nates those individuals or officers listed in Schedule "D" as its exclusive authorized agents for communication to the County of any notice to proceed with repairs or reconstruction. The County shall not be required to perform nor be liable for non- performance in the event notification has not been properly given. - - ll SEP 211983 40Lo A aqSAGE i r S E P 21 1993 4. RESPONSE TIME. The County shall use best efforts to respond to any emergency repair request within a period of eight (8) hours following receipt of notice and to respond to non- emergency or routine repair requests within a period of twenty- four (24) hours following notice. An emergency status shall be considered to exist where damage to a traffic signal or device or the malfunction or failure thereof results or has resulted in the creation of a serious present or impending traffic hazard; for example, total loss of power; loose, hanging equipment; loss of both signal face color indications. A non -emergency or routine repair status shall exist where the damage or malfunction does not create a serious or immediate traffic hazard; for example, cracked or broken lenses, lamp or lamps out, flashing operation. The inability of the County to respond within the stated time period where good cause exists shall not be considered to be a breach of this 4greement. 5. PAYMENT. The County shall periodically invoice the municipality for all services provided during said period, in accordance with charges for labor, equipment and materials pro- vided in Schedule "A." The municipality shall pay all amounts invoiced within thirty (30) days of the date of the invoice and any amount remaining unpaid thereafter shall be deemed delinquent and shall accrue a penalty charge of one (1%) percent per.month until fully paid. In the event the County must retain legal counsel to collect any delinquent account in its behalf, the County shall be entitled also to receive its costs of collection including a reasonable attorney's fee. 6. DISASTERS. The occurrence of any natural or man- made disaster, when declared as such by federal, state or local government, 'such -as a hurricane, tornado, flood, act of war, air- liner crash, etc., may result in the impossibility of performance of this agreement. The parties agree that this agreement shall be considered temporarily suspended during any such state of disaster. 7. LIABILITY. The municipality expressly agrees that the County shall in no way be liable for property damage, personal injury, or loss of life resulting from the acts or omissions of the County or its officers, employees or agents, and the munici- pality shall hold harmless, indemnify, and .defend the County against any such claim or action. The parties agree further that the County is an independent contractor hereunder only to the extent it has reserved discretion to determine or specify materi- als, design or methods of installation, all of which the parties recognize as„planning level determinations. In all other respects, and as to any operational level activity required here- under, the County shall be deemed to be an agent for the munici- pality. This agreement in no way alters the ultimate jurisdictional or maintenance responsibility of the municipality otherwise established by law for the identified traffic signals or devices or the streets -or intersections involved. 8. THIRD PARTIES. The municipality agrees that the County may enter into service or maintenance agreements with third party providers with respect to any or all of the services contem- plated herein, either on a full-time or stand-by basis, upon written notice to the municipality, provided the terms and condi- tions of this agreement shall continue to govern the relation- ship. Ila IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the duly authorized officials of the County and the municipality have executed this agreement the day and year first above written. Approved by Board of County Commissioners 9/21/83 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida By its BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' By RICHARD N. BIRD, Chairman Attest: J,/ULd � FREDA WRIGHT, Clq#k TOWN OR CITY OF SEBASUAN a municipal corporation of the State of Florida By MA/ R Title Attes CITY CLERK SCHEDULE A SERVICE,RATE SCHEDULE TRAFFIC SIGNAL TECHNICIAN: $10.00 per hour TRAFFIC MAINTENANCE WORKER: $ 6.50 per hour PARTS: Cost plus 10% EQUIPMENT: Aerial Service Truck: $10.00 per hour SCHEDULE B TRAFFIC SIGNALS TO BE MAINTAINED SR 5 $ Main Street l lb SEP 211983 scox 54 rAcE 17 - SEP 211983 SCHEDULE C COMMUNICATION SCHEDULE Weekdays 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM. - Priority soot 1. Michael Orr, Traffic Engineer, 567-8000, Ext. 233 2. Rebecca Thorne, P.W. Secretary, 567-8000, Ext. 379 3. Joe Loff, Signal Technician, 567-8000, Ext. 419 4. Joe Norris, Sign & Marking Supervisor, 569-5143 5. Road & Bridge Department, 567-6155 Weekdays 5:00 PM to 8:30 AM, *ekends & Holidays Priority 1. Michael Orr, Traffic Engineer, 567-8362 2. Joe Loff, Signal Technician, 562-3749 3. Joe Norris, Sign & Marking Supervisor, 567-0090 4. James Davis, Public Works Director, 569-0571 5. Albert Van Auken, Road & Bridge Superintendent, 567-5010 SCHEDULE D t Personnel authorized by municipality to notify County for repair or maintenance: I. John.Melton, Chief -•.:,f Police, 589-5233 2. Robert Doherty, Supervisor, Public Works, 589-5338 3. Earl Masteller, City Engineer, 589-5330 4. Pat Flood, Jr., Mayor, 589-5330 E. Release of Easement request by Robert Woods - Lots 2 & 3, Block 9, Kings Highland Subdivision The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/9/83: Tp; The Honorable Members DATE: September 9, 1983 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: RELEASE OF EASEMENT REQUEST BY ROBERT WOODS; SUBJECT: SUBJECT PROPERTY: LOTS 2 & 3, BLOCK 9, KINGS �( HIGHLAND SUBDIVISION Robe t til. Keating �% AICP P a ng ons Dept. Manager 767-Pe DW:MON. FROM: zspector REFERENCES: R. woods v/R it is reques ea that the data herein presented e given �— formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of September 21, 1983. 1:. I DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS r The County has been petitioned by Robert Woods, owner of the subject property, for release of the six (6) foot utility and drainage easement, being the north 3 feet of Lot.3, Block 9 and the south 3 feet of Lot.2, Block 9, Kings Highland Subdivision.. Lot 3 is 70 feet in width and 129.77 feet in depth Lot 2 is 70 feet in width and 129.77 feet in depth. It is Mr. Wood's intention to consolidate the two lots, thereby resolving the problem of encroachment of the easement by the existing residence which was constructed over the center lot line of the two lots. The current zoning classification is R-1, Single -Family Residential. The land use designation is MXD, Mixed Use District, 14 units/acre. ALTERNATIVES `& ANALYSIS The request has been reviewed by Southern Bell, Florida Power & Light Company, Florida Cablevision, Inc., and the Indian River County Utility and Right -of -Way Departments. Based upon their reviews, there are no objections to release of the easement. The zoning staff analysis, which included a site visit, showed that drainage would be adequately handled by the existing front, rear and side swales. It is the zoning department's opinion that to release the common side lot 3 foot easement of Lots 2 & 3, Block 9, Kings Highland Subdivision would create no adverse effects. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends to the Board, through adoption of a resolu- tion, the release of the common side lot 3 foot easement of Lots 2 & 3, Block 9, Kings Highland Subdivision, S E P 211983 ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 83-73 releasing those common side lot 3 -foot easements.on Lots 2 & 3, Block 9, Kings Highland Subdivision, as requested by Robert Woods. 13 5 Pr a rka6 9 J SEP 211983 54 rAc 6?o RESOLUTION NO. 83-73 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, have been requested to release the common side lot *"_j foot easements of lots 2 and 3, Block 9, Kings Highland Subdivision, according to the Plat of same recorded in Plat Book 4, Page 90, of the Public Records•of Indian River County, Florida. WHEREAS, said lot line easements were dedicated on the Plat of Kings Highland Subdivision for public utility purposes, and WHEREAS, the request for such release of easements have been submitted in proper form; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the following lot line easements in Kings Highland Subdivision shall be released, abandoned and vacated as follows: Those common side lot 3 foot easements of Lots 2 & 3, Block 9, Kings Highland Subdivision, according to the plat of same filed in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Indian River County, Florida in Plat Book 4, Page 90. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners and the Clerk of the Circuit Court be and they hereby are authorized and directed to execute a release of said lot line easements hereinabove referred to in form proper for recording and placing in the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida. This 21st day of September , 1983. ATTEST: Freda Wright, Clerk, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: Richard N. Bird, Chairman 1�.(1pfQVE tcr�� 1L''ili� fC niy A►rorr(�y P I RELEASE OF EASEMENT This Release of Easement, executed this 21st day of September , 1983, by the BOARD.OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, a political sub- division of the State of Florida, first party; Robert Woods, whose mailing address is 4685 56th Avenue, Vero Beach, Florida, 32960, second party: WITNESSETH That the said party of the first part for and in considera- tion of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration in hand paid by the said second party, does hereby remise, release, abandon and quit claim unto the said second party.forever, all the right, title, interest, claim and demand which the said first party has in and to the following described easements, lying on land situated in the County of Indian River, State of Florida, to -wit: The common side lot 3 foot easement of Lots 2 & 3, Block 9, Kings Highlands Subdivision as recorded in Plat Book 4, Page 90, public records of Indian River County, Florida. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same with all and singular the appurtenances thereunto belonging or in anywise appertaining and all estate, right, title, interest, equity to the only proper use, benefit and behoof of the said second party forever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said first party has signed and sealed these presents by the parties so authorized by the law and the day and year first above written. Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of: SEP 21 1983 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: �;�Z% Richard N. Bird, Chairman io form .� ajid le, o�ili" tt� ry Biandenbu g ouniy A►torney ATTEST: c Freda Wright, Clea Mox ?AGE I FF- - SEP? 1 193 STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER Am 54 I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day before me an officer duly authorized in the State and County aforesaid to take acknowledge- ments personally appeared, Richard N. Bird, as Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, and Freda Wright, as Clerk of the Circuit Court, to me known to be the persons duly authorized by said County to execute the foregoing instrument and they acknowledged before me that they executed the same for and on behalf of the said political subdivision. WITNESS by hand and seal in the County and State last aforesaid this a?/ day of , 1983. w Notary Pub c, State of Fl ida at Large: My Commission Expires: NOTARY PUBUC STATE OF FLORIDA BONDED THRU GENERAL INSURANCE UND q MY COMMISSIOK EXPIRES JULY 8 1986 � � r F. Release of Easement request by Bryon M. Goin, Lots 22 & 23, Block Y, Unit 2, Oslo Park Subdivision, PB4 The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/9/83: TO: The Honorable Members DATE: September 9, 1983 FILE: of the Board of Countv Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: RELEASE OF EASEMENT REQUEST BY BRYON M. GOIN; SUBJECT: SUBJECT PROPERTY: LOTS 22 & 23, BLOCK Y, UNIT 2 OSLO PARK SUBDIVISION Robert M-. Meati g, (-, 1CP PB4 - PAGE 13 P1 ping & Zo 'ng Dept. Manager RUTH FROM: Zoning Inspector REFERENCES: B. GOINS V/R It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of September 21, 1983. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS The County has been petitioned by Bryon M. Goin, owner of the Subject property, for release of the 10 foot utility and drainage easement, being the north 5 feet of Lot 22, Block Y and the South 5 feet of Lot 23 Block Y, Oslo park Subdivi- sion, unit 2 plat Book 4, page 13, Indian River County Public Records. Lot 22 and Lot 23 are 50 feet wide and 100 feet in depth. It is Mr. Goin's intention to consolidate the two lots into (1) one building site to allow construction of a residence over the center lot line of the these two lots. The current zoning classification is R-1, Single Family Residential. The Land Use. designation is LD -2 (6 units/acre) ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS This request has been reviewed by Southern Bell, Florida Power & Light Co., Florida Cablevision, Inc., and the Indian River County Utility and Right -of -Way Departments. Based upon their reviews, there are no objections to the release of the subject easement. The Zoning staff analysis, which included a site visit, showed that drainage would be adequately handled by the existing front, rear and side swales. 16 S,EP 211983B= nc 4 ?AGE'3 r SEP 21 1983 W _ . 'rA . 1 5.4 It is the Zoning Department's opinion that to release the common side lot 5 foot Easement of Lots 22 & 23, Block Y, Oslo park Subdivision, Unit 2 would create no adverse effects. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends to the Board, through adoption of a resolu- tion, the release of the common side lot 5 foot.easements of Lots 22 & 23, Block Y, Unit 2, Oslo park Subdivision. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 83-74 releasing those common side lot 5 -foot easements of Lots 22 and 23, Block Y, Unit 2, Oslo Park Subdivision, PB4, as requested by Bryon M. Goin. 1� RESOLUTION NO. 83-74 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, have been requested to release the common side lot 5 foot easements of lots 22 and 23, Block Y, Unit 2, Oslo Park Subdivision, according to the Plat of same recorded in Plat Book 4, Page 13, of the Public Records of Indian. River County, Florida. WHEREAS, said lot line easements were dedicated on the Plat of for public utility purposes, and WHEREAS, the request for such release of easements have been submitted in proper form; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the following lot line easements in Oslo Park, Unit 2, shall be released, abandoned and vacated as follows: Those common side lot 5 foot easements of Lots 22 & 23, Block Y, Oslo Park, Unit 2, Subdivision, according to the plat of same filed in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Indian River County, Florida in Plat Book 4, Page 13. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners and the Clerk of the Circuit Court be and they hereby are authorized and directed to execute a release of said lot line easements hereinabove referred to in form proper for recording and placing in the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida. This 21st ATTEST: day of September , 1983. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: gf—; � Richard N. Bird. Chairman G, wy/ F;11("r3ey1, SEP 271 Wright, A tAGF Clerk -I _SEP 211993 RELEASE OF EASEMENT This Release of Easement, executed this September dm, 5.4 PnF M 21st day of , 1983, by the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN. RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, a political sub- division of the State of Florida, first party; Bryon M. Gion, whose mailing address is 159640th Avenue, Vero Beach, Florida, second party: WITNESSETH That the said party of the first part for and in considera- tion of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration in hand paid by the said second party, does hereby remise, release, abandon and quit claim unto the said second party forever, all the right, title, interest, claim and demand which the said first party has in and to the following described easements, lying on land situated in the County of Indian River, State of Florida, to -wit: The common side lot 5 foot easements of Lots 22 & 23, Block Y, Oslo Park, Unit 2, Subdivision as recorded in Plat Book 4, Page 13, public.records of Indian River County, Florida. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same with all and singular the appurtenances thereunto belonging or in anywise appertaining and all estate, right, title, interest, equity to the only proper use, benefit and behoof of the said second party forever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said first party has signed and sealed these presents by the parties so authorized by the law and the day and year first above written. Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of: s i BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: Richard N. Bird, Chairman ATTEST A I� rrvc'' n form r ` 1 _ _ ,� �• is°�, iir��t4Cf!t ufg unty A, Freda Wright, k ® M G. IRC Bid #174, Elevator Service Maintenance Agreement (Annual Bid) The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/12/83: TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: September 9, 11983 FILE: THRU: Michael .right County Administrator' SUBJECT: IRC Bid #174 - Elevator Service Maintenance Agreement ( Annual Bid) GF'�:?.AL -01, IC 'fl IV SIGN FROM:4ellL.) REFERENCES: Carolyt�/Goodrich, Manager Purchasing Department Description and Conditions Bids were received Agusut 30,.1983 at 11:00 A.M. for IRC #174 - Elevator Service Maintenance Agreement. 4 Bid ProDosals were .sent out, 3 bids were received. Alternate 1 es aid Analysis The low bid was received from Electro Mechanical Systems, Inc., Lake Worth, Fl., in the amount of $510.00 per month, Their service agreement has been reviewed and meets all requirements. The second low bid was submitted by Miami Elevator in the amount of $563.16 per month. Miami Elevator has the current contract for FY 82-83 at a cost of $502.82 per month. Recommendation and Funding Staff recommends IRC #174 be awarded to the low bidder, Electro Mechanical Systems, Inc. Funds budgeted in Building & Grounds Account #001-220-519-33.49 and County Jail Account -4001-906-523-33,49. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously awarded Annual Bid #174 for elevator service maintenance to the low bidder, Electro Mechanical Systems, Inc., as recommended by staff. 20 SEP 2 1 1993 fox 4 nu 627 _. I -I SEP 211983 5.4 FAtF ' 6UARC OP t;UUN I Y C;UNIM,66.t.ilvtF,S ' 2145 -14th Avenue Vero Beach, Florida 332960 BID TABULATION BID NO. DATE OF OPENING IRC, BiD #174 Aug. 30, 1983 BID TITLE _ELEVATOR SERVICE MAINTENANCE AGREEMEi ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION 1. Service Maintenance Agreement for Two Passenger Elevators County Admin. Bldg. 2 ,Each v o O 4j r; UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE - 0 2. Indian River County Jail 1 Each 217 28 110 17 eo on 3. County Court House 1 Each 225 40 110 17 90 00 2145 14th Avenue TOTAL MOAITHLY COST 1162 12 563 16 510 00 H. IRC Bid #175, Soil Cement Base and Limerock Base (Annual Bid) The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/12/83: TO: Board of County Cornissicners DATE: September 12, 1983 FILE: THRU: Michael Wright County Administrator' SUBJECT: IRC #175 - Soil Cement Base and Limerock Lase (Annual Did) GE RAL S RVICES VISION . FROM: REFERENCES: Carolyn oodrich, Manager Purchasing Department Descrintion and Conditions Bids were received August 30, 1983 at 11:00 A.M. for IRC Bid ,x`'175 - Soil Cement and Limerock Base. 3 Bid Proposals were sent out, 2 bids were received. 21 Alternatives and Analvsis The low bid on ITem #1 was submitted by Pan American Engineering, Vero Beach. The low bidder on Items 2 and 3 is Dickerson, Inc. Dickerson currently has the bid on all 3 items, however they have been sub -contracting Item,fl to Pan American. Engineering. Recommendation and Funding It is recommended that ITem #1 be awarded to the low bidder, Pan American Engineering and ITems 2 and.3 be awarded to the low bidder, Dickerson, Inc. Funds to come from Road & Bridge Account #004-214-541-35.39. Commissioner Scurlock asked if the prices here were the same as last year and Purchasing Manager, Carolyn Goodrich explained that Item #1 was slightly less than last year and Items #2 and 43 were slightly higher. SEP 211983, ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously awarded Annual Bid #175, Item #1 (Soil Cement Base) to low bidder Pan American Engineering, and Item #2 (Limerock Base) and Item #3 (Mixed in Place Base) to low bidder Dickerson'. Inc., as recommended by staff. o..won nc r -n! in!! V �'1 lwdw6lRSI(hJFHR / � ti - � t / - 2145 -14th Avenue Vera Beach, Florida 32960 BID TABULATION Q ��' a c, BID NO. IRC BID #17 DATE OF OPENING Aug. 30, 1983 BID TITLE SOIL CEMENT BASE & NDESCRIPTION O. NO. UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UI• 1. Construction of Soil Cement Base Price Per Square Yard 2 65 2 50 IT2. Limerock Base I( Price Per Square Yard 5 115 5 90 3. Mixed in Place Base Price Per Square Yard 5 5o r 6 95 22 I5 Ao-ax 54 tAGF 6?9 _ SEP 211983 I. IRC Bid #176 - Road Rock - (Annual Bid) The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/12/83: TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: September 12, 1983- FILE: THRU: Michael Wright County Administrator SUBJECT: IRC #1.76 - Road Rock (Annual Bid) G SI;tVICES VISIpN - FROM: REFERENCES: Carolyn ' oodrich, Manager Purchasing Department' Description and Conditions Bids were received August 30, 1983 at 11:00 A.M. for IRC #176 - Road Rock. 6 Bid Proposals were sent out, 2 bids were received. Alternatives and Analysis The low bid was submitted by Florida Rock Industries, Ft. Myers. Price per ton - $7.50 delivered from their Ft. Pierce quarry. Recommendation and Funding It is recommended that IRC #176 be awarded to the low bidder. -Florida Rock Industries. Funds to come from Road 6 Bridge Account 0004-214-541-35.39. Purchasing Manager Carolyn Goodrich pointed out that last year's price was $9.38 and this year's low bid was $7.50. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously awarded Annual Bid #176 for road rock to the low bidder, Florida Rock Industries, as recommended by staff. 23 bUARD OF GUUN i Y GUMMISSIONEHS 1AAn 9Sfh "l -t Vero Beach, Florida 32960 S 'v " ,Ya ' I tiBID TABULATIONBID '0�IRC NO. DATE OF OPENING #175 Aust 30 1983B1D TITLERoad Rock ITEM DESCRIPTION NO. UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE 1. Approximately 150 Toms of Pit Run, Miami Olite, Coquina Ocala or Narange Type Road Rock _ _ _ Delivered to the County as directed Per Ton 9 50 7 50 fi J. IRC Bid #177 - Ready Mix Concrete (Annual Bid) The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/12/83: TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: September 12, 1983 FILE: THRU: Michael Wright County Administrator - SUBJECT: IRC #177 - Ready Mix Concrete (Annual bid) GI;T . AL �BSRVICE VISION• FROM: REFERENCES: " Carol,.-ri� Goodrich, Manager Purchasing Department Description and Conditions Bids were received August 30, 1983 at 11:00 A.M. for IRC #177 - Ready Mix Concrete. 5 Bid ?roposals were sent out, 4 Bids were received. Alternatives and Analysis The low bidder is Russell Concrete, $37.27 per yd. for 2,500 p.s.i. ready mix (a decrease of $.50 per yd. from last years low bid) and $38.75 per yd. for 3,000 p.s.i. ready mix (a decrease of $.45 per yd. from last years low bid). Russell Concrete currently has the bid for Ready Mix Concrete. Reco=endation and Funding Staff recormlends IP.0 #177 be awarded to the low bidder, Russell Concrete. Funds to come from Road & Bridge Account #004-214-541-35.33. 24 SEP 211983 4 race r- SEP 21 193 154 -PA'CF ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously awarded Annual Bid #177 for ready mix concrete to the low bidder, Russell Concrete, as recommended by staff. rwr�nu yr vv�i. - . ...............,....._.._ 2745-149h- Avenue Vero Beach, Florida 32960 BID TABULATION Q 4 A p tL ~" v 4 BID NO. BID #W DAu E 3 0, 1983 G BID TITLEREADY-MIXCONCRETE INO. TEM DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE(UNIT PRICE 1. Ready -Mix Concrete 2,500 .s.i. Per Yard I 37125 38 50 I 43 25 42 — 00 —T -- 2. Ready -Mix Concrete 3,000 p.s.i. Per Yard 38 75 40 5 44 70 43 50 3. Quantity Purchase without _ Minimum Load Charge per Yard, 5 y. 5 y. 5 yd. 5 y. 4. Less than Minimum Load Charge Per Yard 10 00 50 00 5o 00 50 00 K. IRC Bid #178 - Fire Extinguisher Inspection and Servicing (Annual Bid) The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/12/83: 25 TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: September 12, 1983 FILE: ` T;iRU : Michael fright County Administrator SUBJECT:. IRC #178 - Fixe Extinguisher Inspection and Servicing (Annual Bid) GE` ML ,SERVICE >DIV SIGN FROM: 47n -7 v REFERENCES: Caroly*jGoodrich, Manager Purchasing Department Description and Conditions Bids were received September 12, 1983, at 11:00 A.M. for IRC #178 —Fire Extinguisher Inspection and Servicing. 2 Bid Proposals were sent out, 1 bid was received. Alternatives and Analysis 'x The only bid was received from Vero Beach Fire Equipment Co. Vero Beach Fire Equipment currently has the bid for Fire Extinguisher Inspection and Servicing. Bid prices have remained the same with the exception of Item #1, which has gone from $1.00 to $2.00 each. Recormi.endation and Funding It is recommended that TRC 0178_be awarded to the only bidder, Vero Beach Fire Equipment Co. Funds are budgeted for FY 83-84 in Account #001-220-519-33.49. SEP 2.11983 Purchasing Manager Goodrich explained that only one bid was received on this item, from a local outfit., Apparently, the out of town outfits do not want to come up here from Ft. Pierce or Stuart. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously awarded Annual Bid #178 for fire extinguisher inspection and servicing to Vero Beach Fire Equipment Co., as recommended by staff. 26 s� taco 3 - SrP 211983 DQE!( 5.4 ' nu 634 IJVN,IU Vi liV V1�1 1 V,ry IV�IVIIJ J,VI\L11J 1 Vero Beach, Florida 3296u BID TABULATION • : O w �� BID NO. IRC BID #178 DATE OF OPENING Sept. 12, 1983 BID TITLE FIRE EXTINGUISHER 1NSPFfTTnNR CFDVTCT —(�— ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE- UNIT PRICE 1. Annual Inspection & tagging of 12. 6 Pound t ru 10 Pound Each 5 50 all Fire Extinguishers Each 2 00 13. 11 Pound,thru 15 Po 6 50 14. 16 Pound thru 2Q -Pound Each 7 50 _ Recharge Regular Dry Chemical Ext. 21 Pound Each 3 20 15. 21 Pound Each 3 -3-5--bund F 4 o 16. 3 Pound thru 5 Pound Each 3 00 4. 10 Pound Each 6 0 -.1Z- 6 Pound thru 10 Pound Each 3 00 5. 20 Pound ach 9 0 18. 11 Poun d 1 E h 3 00 19, 16 Poijnd thru 20 Pound Each 3 00 20. Recharge Soda/AGid Exting Each 21. Recharge Pressure Water Recharge Purple K or ABC Chemical Ext 6. 21 Pound Each 3 0 Extinguishers Each ND 7. 5 Pound Each 5 00 so 8.10 Pound Each 7 go 23. Recharge 21 Gallon Foam Extinguishers Each 9. 20 Pound 12 00 Recharge Cot Extinguishers 10. 21 Pound Each 1 50 11. 3 Pound hru 5 Pound Each 3 00 I • bUAHU Ur UUV 1'41 1 UUNIrv11oo,VIVClio 2145 -14th Avenue I _" / a Vero Beach, Florida 32960 BID TABULATION - wP z� o Q BID NO. IRC BID #178 DATE OF OPENING BID TITLE ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE l Recharge Co Ext. 12. 6 Pound t ru 10 Pound Each 5 50 13. 11 Pound,thru 15 Po 6 50 14. 16 Pound thru 2Q -Pound Each 7 50 Hydro Test Cot Ext. 15. 21 Pound Each 3 00 16. 3 Pound thru 5 Pound Each 3 00 -.1Z- 6 Pound thru 10 Pound Each 3 00 18. 11 Poun d 1 E h 3 00 19, 16 Poijnd thru 20 Pound Each 3 00 20. Recharge Soda/AGid Exting Each 21. Recharge Pressure Water ICD Extinguishers Each ND 22. Hydro Test Pressure Water so Extinguishers Each 1 23. Recharge 21 Gallon Foam Extinguishers Each 1 so 27 2545 -14th Avenue Vero Beach, Florida 32960 BID TABULATION �o- 1z e Q u ia' c 0 m BIO NO. IRC BID 178 DATE OF OPENING BID TITLE ITEM - - NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE Hydro Test Cot Ext. 24. hydro Test 21 Gallon Foam Extinguishers Each Ng L. IRC #179 - Guard Rail (Annual Bid) The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/12/83: TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: September 12, 1983 FILE: THRU: Michael Wright County Administrator SUBJECT: IRC Bid #179 - Guard Fail (Annual Bid) GE' L ST'P.VT.2 ICNFROM: ��•- 4----' REFERENCES: Caro lyTr1Goodrich, Manager Purchasing Department Descriction and Conditions Bids were received August 30, 1983 at 11;00 A.M. for IRC #179 - Guard Rail. 5 Bid Proposals were sent out, 1 Bid was received. 28 SEP 21 M3 PAGE 6'':15 r SEP 21 193 Alternatives and Analvsis GiOK. PACE 6. The only bid was submitted by Mike Hunter, Inc., 'Pampa. Many of the bid prices are lower than current prices. We are currently purchasing guard rail from Mike Hunter, Inc. Recormendation-and Funding It is recommended that IRC #179 be awarded to the only bidder, hike Hunter, Inc. Funds to come from Road 9 Bridge Account #004-214-541-35.33. Purchasing Manager Goodrich explained that this item was not a bid item last year and that the County has been buying it on a as needed basis and getting prices at that time. The Board had requested that it be a bid item this year. She reported that five bid proposals were sent out, one bid was received. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously awarded Annual Bid #179 for guard rail to Mike Hunter, Inc., as recommended by staff. M. SRC #180 - Road Striping Paint (Annual Bid) The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/12/83: TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: September 9, 1983 FILE: ' THRU: Michael Wright County Administrator SUBJECT: IRC Bid #180 - P.oad Striping Paint (Annual Bid) FROM: GF,YXRAL ERVIC DIv ION �,� REFERENCES: Carolyn Voodrich, Purchasing Depart Descr_otion and Conditions Bids were received August 30, 1983 at 11:00 A.M. for IRC #180 - Road Striping Paint for the Traffic Engineering Department. 7 Bid Proposals were sent out, 4 bids were received. Alternatives and Analysis This is an annual Bid effective October 1, 1983 thru September 30, 1984. The County is currently paying $6.10 per gal. for white paint and $6.20 per gal. for yellow paint. The low bid submitted by Southeastern Safety Supplies, Winter Park., F1. is slightly lower than the second low bid submitted by Redland Prismo Corp., Parsippany, PJew Jersey. However, their minimum order is 1000 gal. The. Traffic Engineering Department does not have the space to store this quantity of paint. Reco=endation and Funding Staff recommends IRC #180 be awarded to the Second low bidder, Redland Prismo. There is $201,000 budgeted for FY83-84 in Account #004-245-541-35.35. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously awarded Annual Bid #180 for road striping, to the second low bidder Redland.Prismo, as recommended by staff. 30 SEP 211983 MACE SEP 211983 5.4 PAcF 638 ; bUAHU VI' UUUN I Y C.UIVIMIJJIL)NL11J 2145-141h Avenue Vero Beach, Florida 32960 BID TABULATIONCk CL �� 'w o �~ v OQ �_ J~ �� ' 4,•' a mbQo BID NO. IRC BID #180 DATE OF OPENING Aug. 30, 1983 BID TITLE ROADSTRIPING PAINT ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE ---- UNIT PRICE — UNIT PRICE 1. Type 1 - White Per Gallon (5/gal Pails 2. Type 2 - Yellow Per Gallon 5 84 6 49 5 PFJ 7 n_5 5/ al ails) _ 3. Das required for delivery Days 30 10-34 30 -IS IP Min. c e o er.n • rbc 800 > 12^lo — N. IRC #181 — Full Maintenance Service Contract for Carrier Chiller (Annual Bid) The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/9/83: TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: September 9 , 192? FILE: THRU- Michael Wright County Administrator SUBJECT: IRC Bid #'181 -Full Maintenance Service Contract for Carrier Chiller .(Annual Bid) • FROM: G • RAL S RVIC��REFERENCES: r Carolyn oodrich, Manager Purchasing Department Description and Conditions Bids were received August 30, 1983 at 11:00 A.M. for IRC #181 - Full Maintenance Service Contract for Carrier Chiller. 6 Bid Proposals were sent out. Of the 3 bidders responding, l was a 'r:l;o Bid". 31 Alternatives and Analysis This is an annual bid effective October 1, 1983 thru September 30, 10-84. Carrier Building Services has the current contract.at $575.00 per.month. The low bid was submitted by Carrier Building Services in the amount of $587.00 per month. Total yearly cost of 57044.00. Recommendation and Funding Staff recommends that IRC.#181 be awarded to the low bidder, Carrier Building Services. Funds are Budgeted for FY83-84 in Account #001-220-519-34.62. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously awarded Annual Bid #181 for annual maintenance service contract for the Carrier chiller to the low bidder, Carrier Building.Services, as recommended by staff. tiUAHU UP t:UUIV 1 T I.0 IVIMIJJIVIV tF1' I 1840 25th Street~ Vero Beach, Florida 32960 C? 0-a BID TABULATION m vo BID NO. DATE OF OPENING IRC #181 lAugust 30 1983 q~ NO �m ~ BID TITLE Full Service Maintenance Contract for Carrier Chiller vro y ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PR; 1. Full Maintenance service contract for Carrier Chiller Per -n. 587 00_ 1144 00 NB _ Per Year 7044 00 L3728 00 0. IRC #182 - Asphalt Coated Steel Corrugated Pipe and Aluminum Metal Pipe (Annual Bid) The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/12/83: 32 SEP 21 1983 BOOK 4 ma 63 r_ SEP 21 1983 6dd0lf : tAu 640 TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: September 12, 1983 FILE: Thru: Michael Wright County Administrator SUBJECT: IRC 9182 - Asphalt Coated Steel Corregated Pipe and Aluminum Metal Pipe (Annual Bid) G7,,2 RAL c VICrS IV ION FROM: . � � REFERENCES: Carolyn' oodrich, Manager Purcha ng Department ^escrintion and Conditions Bids were received August 30, 1983 at 11:00 A.M. for IRC #182 - Asphalt Coated and Aluminum Metal Pipe. 7 Bid Proposals were sent out, 3 bids were received. Alternatives and Analvsis Gator Culvert's bid is somewhat lower on a few sizes of steel corregated pipe However, the bid submitted by Southern Culvert is substantially lower on the larger sizes of steel corregated pipe and lower overall on the aluminum pipe. Recormerdation and Funding It is recommended that IRC #182 be awarded to the overall low bidder, Southern Culvert. Funds to come from Road & Bridge Account #004-214-541-35.32. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously awarded Annual Bid #182 for asphalt coated steel corrugated pipe and aluminum metal pipe to the overall low bidder, Southern Culvert, as recommended by staff. 33 I dUAHU Ur L UUry ; Ll+wnv.;S�.JiVt.i Vero Beach, Floada 32960 BID TABULATION �• 4, v0 4T Gov ti`r w° �'� •• 04. �,� (37 uv BID NO. IRC BID #182 DATE Of OPENING Aug. 30, 1983 BID TITLE ASPHALT COATED STEEL CO_RREGATEO PIPE -,ALUMINUM METAL PIPE ITEM DESCRIPTION NO01.. UNIT PRIZE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE _1._A5PHASLCOATED STEELR A 88 01 113_q2_ NB PIPE 10" - 16 Gauge Per,Foot NB NB 5 26 12"16 " " " 5 12 5 41 5 57 15" 16 to s 118 6 61 6 41 1 16 it if Is 7 57 7 97 7 48 15" 16 _03- 24" 14 " Per Foot 11 81 12 49 11 46 30" 14 " " " 14 0 15 34 14 74 36" 14 17 37 18 60 17 84 42" 12 " Per Foot 27 16 27 75 28 03 48" 12 " Is it 31 44 31 61 31 79 54" 12 " to " 37 57 35 74 36 28 48" 12_30 73. 96 _37 41 31~ 94 38_ 44 22 12 60" 10 " Per Foot 51 95 48 24 53 47 Is " it It 61 87 57172 51 63 56 NB _ 2145 -14th Avenue Vero Beach, Florida32960• • BID TABULATION ` Civ uv� WN C9 � tib° I-V BID NO. IRC BID #182 DAT€ OF OPENING Aug. 30, 1983 BID TITLE ASPHALT COATED STEEL CORREGATED PIPE - ALUMINUM METAL PIP ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE I 8 Gauge Per Foot 88 01 113_q2_ NB 96" 8 Z. ALUMINUM METAL PIPE 10" 16 Gauge Per Foot NB 4 gg „ 11 „ „ 5 33 5 691- 15" 16 _03- ., „ " it 7 47 8 40 8 - 4 24" 14 Gauge Per Foot 11 62 13 76 13 8 36" 14 " " " 17 09 20'46 20 94 42" 12 Gauge Per Foot 27 oo 32 72_ 33 25 48" 12_30 73. 96 _37 41 31~ 94 38_ 44 22 12 " " 36 60" 10 " Per Foot 51 1 5 NB _ 34 SEP 21 1983 r SEP 211983 BOOK51 EA M2 1 -1 - Vero Beac:°i, Florida 32960 BID TABULATION ty a v ti 4; ti `'� Ci Q �vw mow`` GO oq p 47 ce o BID NO. IRC BID #182 DATE OF OPENING Aug. 30, 1983 BID TITLIkSPHALT COATED STEEL CORREGATED PIPE - ALUM METAL PIPE ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE --- UNIT PRICE _ --- UNIT PRICE 2. 72" 10" Gauge Per Foot 60 85 71 42 IIB " 8L. Gauge Per Foot 86 59 100 20 IIB 96" 8 " " " 100 04 114 65 IIB n P. IRC Bid #183 - Type II Asphalt Concrete Surface Course Material (Annual Bid) The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/12/83: TO: Board of County Coranissioners DATE: September 12, 1983 FILE: THRU: Michael Wright County Administrator'* SUBJECT: IRC 4183 - Type II Asphalt Concrete 'Surface Course Material (Annual Bid) GL RVICES ISION FROM: /'/ter �-REFERENCES: Carolyn oodrich, Manager Purchasitg Department Description and Conditions Bids were received August 30, 1983 at 11:00 A.M. for IRC f183 - Type II Asphalt Concrete.. 7 Bids were sent out, 3 bids were received. Alternatives and Analysis The low bid was submitted by Dickerson, Inc. Dickerson currently has the bid for Type II Asphalt Concrete. The per ton price of Item #,`1 is the same as last year. Item `'2 is sl.CO per ton less than last year. Recommendation and Funding It is recommended that IRC #183 be awarded to the low bidder, Dickerson, Inc. Funds to come from Road & Bridge Account #004-214-541-35.39. 35 Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that using recycled asphalt was supposed to be a savings. Administrator Wright stated that we are going to look at this once again and go out for rebid, as there seems to be some confusion about when it must be delivered. He felt that lower bids would be received by allowing the supplier to decide when it will be delivered, within a reasonable timeframe. Purchasing Manager Goodrich explained that Items #1 and #2 were acceptable on the bid received by Dickerson, Inc. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously awarded Annual Bid #183, Item #1 - Type II Asphalt Concrete Surface Course Material - and Item #2 - hauling and spreading - to the low bidder, Dickerson, Inc., and requested that Item #3 - recycled asphalt - be rebid. uV/1RU Vr VVVIV I I VVIVI,YIIVJIVIYGA�7 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 BID TABULATION {�- (10 4 U oo' C7� o, h r4 �� y y BID NO. IRC #183 DATE OF OPENING August 30, 1983 BID TITLE Type II Asphalt Concrete Surface Course Material ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE 1.Type II Asphalt Concrete Surface 1 Course Material. Delivered FOB Vero Beach in various quantities and at various time as needed Per Ton 26 75 NB 28 50 2. Hauling and spreading by an approved mechanical spreader 6 { furnishing Type II As halt Concrete Surface Course Material. Per Ton ' 37 00 78 00 38 50 3. Recycled Asphalt . No more than 601 recycled materials. _ Per Ton 36 00 NB 11D 36 SEP 21 1983 54 ?W' 43 EP 21 1993 S 1 4 racy & Q. IRC Bid #184 - Bahia Sod and St. Augustine Sod (Annual Bid) The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/12/83: To. Board of County Commissioners DATE: September 12, 1983 FILE: TI U: Michael Wright County Administrator's SUBJECT: IRC Bid 9184 - Bahia Sod 6 St. Augustine Sod (Annual aid) GFV'IRAL SERVICY-er VIS ON FROM: L -E' REFERENCES: Carolyn oodr.ich, Manager Purchas�g Department Descrirtior. and Conditions Bids were received August 30, 1983 at 11:00 A.M. for IRC #184 - Bahia Sod and St. Augustine Sod. 14 Bids were sent out. Of the 6 bids received, 2 were "No Bids". Alterrati:•es and Analysis The low bidder on all items is P.iverside True Value Garden Center, AlA, Vero Beach, F1. Recommendation and Funding It is recommended that IRC #184 be awarded to the low bidder, P3verside True Value Garden Center. Funds to came from Road 6 Bridge Account #'004-214-541-35.339. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously awarded Annual Bid *184 for Bahia sod & St. Augustine sod to the low bidder, Riverside True Value Garden Store, as recommended by staff. 37 0VHt1U V: VVUIV I T vVIV11V11JJ�V1`CT1J 1840 25th Sireei Vero Beach, Florida 32960 m BID T'ABUIATION �, � A1310 j--i": ZUNITPRICE NO. DATE OF OPENINGro°IRC #184 August 30, 1983810 TITLEBahia Sod f St. Augustine Sod ITEM' DESCRIPTION NO. UNIT PRICE UNIT .PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE �UNIT PRICE UNIT PR 1. Bahia Sod Per Pallet 31 50 NB NB 30 00 405500 Iver 31 Ilin. so 0 _ 2T000 — — 38 25 2. St. Augustine Sod Peer Pallet 60 00 NB NB 5o 00 65 00_ 0in. 00 55 Y. o0_ 10, _ ver 2 _A2- 0_ all ts_ Furnish,_Deli_v_er 6 Install Sod on Prepared Surface An !here in Count _Bahia Sod _ Per Paxlee 38100 NB I NB 37 80 40 50 40 50 St. Augustine Sod Per Pallet 67 50 NB NB 62 00 65 00 65 00 over 2 000 p1iII, 0 Palle .s 62 50 R. IRC Bid #186 Mobile Radio Maintenance Contract (Annual Bid) The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/8/83: TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: September 8, 11983 FILE: THRU: Michael Wright County Administrator SUBJECT: IRC Bid #186 - Mobile Radio Maintenance Contract (Annual Bid) FROM: GE T L I s�IVISION f EFERENCES: Carolyn/ oodrich, Manager Description and Conditions Bids were received September 6, 1983 at 11:00 A.M. for IRC Bid #186 . Mobile Radio Maintenance Contract for all mobile radios in County vehicles. 7 Bid Proposals were sent out. Of the 4 bids received, 2 were 'filo Bids". 38 8 E P 21 1983. r _ SEP 211983 ' Alternatives and Analvsis 1 This is an annual bid to be effective October 1, 1983 thru September 30, 1984. The low bid was submitted by Selectronics, Inc., Melbourne, Fl., for a total monthly cost of $636.00. The only other bid was submitted by Esco Communications, Ft. Pierce, total monthly cost of $761.16. Esco Communications -currently has the contract at a monthly cost of $633.36. The standard service agreements submitted by both bidders have been reviewed by staff. Recommendation_ and Funding It is recommended that IRC f186 be awarded to the low bidder, Selectronics, Inc. Funds budgeted for FY83-84 in General Services Account #001-251-519-34.19. Commissioner Lyons questioned why we did not include the ambulance squad radios as part of the total mobile maintenance contract. Administrator Wright felt that was an excellent suggestion and requested Purchasing Manager Goodrich to check to see if the ambulance squad units could be added to the contract at a later date. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously awarded Annual Bid #186 Mobile Radio Maintenance Contract - to the low bidder, Selectronics, Inc., as recommended by staff. 39 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 BID TABULATION y X0, O }tiv y ti p c, 0 ti BID NO.v DATE OF "OPENING IP,C Bid #186 Sept. 6 1983 810 TITLE Mobile Radio Maintenance Contract ItEM -- NO. DESCRIPTION --'-'-- UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE - _ UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE 1, P.CAiMP.A19PfB11 Mobiles Per Mo NB _ 12 40 i 9 25 NB — --120_ 9 25 _2. RCA, MCA39AB11A Per Fio --- 3. Remotes,CC72AC E CC82 Ac Per Mo. _ 645 5 50 4, P,CAt4L1000 Control Stz&tio t R 1.Z 5 _ Per Mo,. S_RCA. CYFM-7_1000 Reuter Pyr Mo 38 20 26 00 G, GE7_Master II Mobile Per Mo 10 20 9 25 7.,-9-9R_�t_S_= Remote Per Mo. 6 45 4 00 8, G.E. Portable Per Pio, 12 20 12 00 9.—neS�4�B.as 18 24 18 50 0. Installation of mobile radios in -vehicles --m-co lete each 74 00 50 00 Total Monthly cost 1 S. application for State Revenue Sharing 1983-84, South Indian River County Fire District The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/13/83: DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE DATE 9/13/83 SUBJECT "APPLICATION FOR STATE REVENUE SHARING 1993-R4, SIRCFD" FROM Dick Bird T. R. Director DEPT Board of Fire Comm ssioner TROT' .Finance Reference is made to the attached form from the Department of Revenue regarding the SIRCFD. This form is merely a fill -in -the -squares document to document our status regarding state revenue sharing. Inasmuch as the fire district is a separate taxing entity created by local referendum, it is clearly not eligible for receiving State revenue funds. However, we are requested to complete the form as indicated. I would appreciate your signing the document and returning it to me so that I may transmit it to the Department of Revenue. Thank you for your cooperation. 40 SEP 21 1983 r SEP 211983 c, to t sr,r i RANDY MILLER EIEC{lTIVC QRECTOR arc ?Act$ ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously authorized the Chairman to complete and sign the application for state revenue sharing .1983-34, SIRCFD. STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE TALLAHASSEE, 32301 AMENDMENT TO APPLICATION FOR REVENUE SHARING 1983-84 FOR SOUTH INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT - A Dependant (Unit of Local Government) District of Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County To be eligible to participate in Revenue Sharing beyond the minimum entitle- ment for any fiscal year, a unit of local government is required to have: Certified that persons in its employ as firefighters, as defined in Section 633.30 (1), Florida Statutes, meet the qualification for em- ployment as established by the Division of State Fire Marshal pur- suant to the provisions of Sections 633.34 and 633.35, Florida Statutes, and that the provisions of Section 633.382 are met. (A) Firefighters, as defined in Section 633.30 (1), Florida Statutes, employed by this Unit meet the qualifications for employment as established by the Division of State Fire Marshal pursuant to Sections 633.34 and 633.35, Florida Statutes. Yes X No (B) Certified firefighters receiving supplemental compensation comply with the criteria established pursuant to Section 633.382, Florida Statutes. Yes X No a If you have no fire department, etc., please check the block to the left side. SIGNED k_ - SIGNED: (Appropriate F're Official) (Mayor or Chairman of Governing Bed,:! Thomas R. Nason, Financial Administrator Dick Bird, District board Cnairman Date: 8/22/83 Date: 8/22/83 Approved 9/21/83 RESOLUTION IN MEMORY OF JOE S. EARMAN, SR. Chairman Bird read aloud Resolution 83-75 in memory of Joe S. Earman, Sr. and presented it to Joe Earman, Jr., grandson, who accepted on behalf of the Earman family. Chairman Bird pointed out that Joe Earman, Jr. was a member of the fire fighters. Commissioner Wodtke stated that Mr. Earman had been a unique person and telt the Resolution could not beton to list Mr. Earman's achievements. He expressed the Board's appreciation for all Mr. Earman had done for Indian River County and the State of Florida. 40a RESOLUTION NO. 83-75. WHEREAS, JOE S. EARMAN was born on July 15, 1901 in Jacksonville, Florida, into the third generation of a Florida family whose name has been synonymous with civic duty and service to the public all along the eastern coast of the State of Florida; and WHEREAS, JOE EARMAN first established himself in Indian River County in the late 1920's as a farmer and citrus man, following a distinguished youth and college career at Cornell University, which included service to his country as a member of the 1920 Olympic Team; and WHEREAS, during the Great Depression MR. EARMAN led the County's financial community and investors through the.despair of bank liquidations, thereafter leading an economic recovery by the establishment of a new bank in Vero Beach known as the Indian River Citrus Bank, now known as First Bankers of Indian River County; and WHEREAS, during World War II, MR. EARMAN served as director of war bond sales in the State of Florida, raising more than $5,000,000 in support of his country's war effort; and WHEREAS, JOE EARMAN served as the first chairman of what was to become the South Florida Water Conservation District and helped establish the Wildlife and Water Fowl District under the U.S. Department of Interior in Palm Beach County, now one of the largest of its kind in the country; and WHEREAS, MR. EARMAN highlighted his civic career with twenty years of service as a Commissioner for the Florida Inland Navigation District, spearheading the establishment of the Pelican Island Wildlife Refuge area in Indian River County and establishing its first highrise bridge, at Wabasso; and WHEREAS, JOE S. EARMAN demonstrated an unending love and commitment to the State of Florida, its natural beauty, its wildlife, and its people; and WHEREAS, MR. EARMAN died on August 30, 1983 at 'Indian River Memorial Hospital, at the age of 82, leaving a legacy of outstanding service and accomplishments which shall live on for the benefit of all those who choose to visit or reside in the communities he touched. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that it be spread upon the minutes and records of this Commission and.Indian River County that JOB S. EARMAN be forever remembered for his outstanding contributions and service to his country, the State of Florida and the County of Indian River; and that heartfelt appreciation, solace and gratitude be extended on behalf of the citizens of Indian River County to the family and loved cines of the Tate MR. EARMAN. In honor and in tribute to JOE S. EARMAN this 21st day of. September, 1983. AT EST:r FREDA WRIGHT,` C&Irk SEP 211983 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OFI�IIIVERaOU, FLORIDA RICiiaRD N. BIRD, .Charman DON C. SCURLOCK, JfA.,,lVice-Chaff ,-nan MAS PT. BOWMAN WILLIAM C. WODTKE, JJ: 41 SAGE SEP 21 1983 BUDGET OFFICE A. Budget Amendment - North County Fire District Over Budget (Approved during NCFD Meeting held later in the morning) B. Budget Amendment - Budget Balancing for FY 82-83 The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/14/83: TO: Richard N. Bird, Chairman, DATE: september 14, 1983 FILE: Board of County Connnissioners SUBJECT: Budget Balancing for FY 82-83 ",*C.13. aD - ;L� FRO Jeffrey K. Barton, ' irector REFERENCES: l r`r Office of management F Budget Please entertain a motion as follows: Authorization for the Budget Director to do the necessary budget amendments for balancing the budget for the old fiscal year This is necessary as there are no other meetings in the fiscal year Copies of the amendments made will be provided for formal action. OMB Director Barton explained that during the year he has the authority to transfer line by line items, but now he has to come before the Board for authorization to take appropriate action to balance the budget for FY 82-83, without changing the totals. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously authorized ObiB Director Barton to make the necessary amendments to balance the budqet for FY 82-83, and requested that the Board be provided with copies of the amendments for formal action. 412 NORTH COUNTY AND SOUTH COUNTY FIRE DIS'T'RICTS The Board of County Commissioners recessed at 9:02 O'clock A.M. in order that the District Board of ,Fire Commissioners of the North Indian. River County Fire District might convene. Those Minutes are being prepared separately. The Board reconvened at 9:05 o'clock A.M. and immediately recessed in order that the District Board of the South Indian River County Fire District might convene. Those Minutes are being prepared separately. The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 9:10 o'clock A.M. with the same members present. APPROVAL OF PAYMENT FOR CONCRETE BIKE PATH - ROSEWOOD SCHOOL KIWANIS CLUB BIKE-A-THON The Board reviewed the following letter dated 9/12/83: 43 SE 2 P 211983 BOK�4 ra. - SEP 211983 '' F NcE Kiwanis Club of Vero -Treasure Coast r, 0.BOx c,'81 .Vero Reach, Florida 32960 September 12, 1983 Mr. Jim Davis Indian River County En&-ineer Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Re: Rosewood School Bike Path Dear Jim: On Earch 26, 1983,. the Kiwanis Club of Vero -Treasure oast conducted a Rike-A-Thon to raise money for a bike path at Rosewood School. Prior to the Bike-A-Thon, the.Cit of Vero Beach presented a rough estimate of the cost of this bike path of $3,500. This amount was raised during the ?ince-A- Thon. At this time, the City of Vero has two bids presented for the bike path - one in asphalt for 8)3,3.00, and the other in concrete for approximately w5,200. Both bids exceed the original extimate. and the amount approved for expenditure by the Board of Directors of the Kiwanis Cli,: o,' Vero-:reasure Coast. At a Board conducted September 7, 1983, the .x3,500, origzinally allocated was approved for payment, and an additional $500. that had been recently donated to the _'iwanis Club by Pilot Club for bike paths, was approved to be added to the $3,500., for a total expenditure of $4,000. It is my understanding that the County has requested that the bith Dath be constructed of concrete for purrose of continuity• J in the area. The Kiwanis Clyb heresy requests the County to contribute the difference between the amount of t^e ^c^crf,te bid of -$5,200, and the amount approved for caymen-� Club of , 4, 000. Please advise me of your intentions in this mater. Respectfully submitted, R :aul R. ;eters Second Vice rresident PRP:bp7s 44 Commissioner Scurlock noticed that the newspaper account of the monies that were collected in the recent Bike -A -Thor indicated that the event was held for the sole purpose of.building bike paths. He felt that if we approved this item for an additional $1,200, we should receive some additional information confirming the monies collected and the expenditure of those funds. He believed that the same question was raised at the last meeting of the Kiwanis Club and it was really never answered. Administrator Wright reported that Public Works Director Jim Davis has recommended that it be done in concrete rather than asphalt. He stated that the fund would come out of the Road & Bridges account, and though there are sufficient funds in the account to contribute $1,200, it is just a matter of priorities. The Commissioners agreed that they did not want to discourage any community projects, but did feel that the County should know where the money is going to be spent. A Motion made by Commissioner Bowman to table this item pending further information died for lack of a second. Commissioner Wodtke felt that civic clubs do a lot for the community as they raise a lot of funds and he does not want to turn off their efforts. He suggested that we should reschedule this until somebody is here from the Kiwanis Club to discuss this. Commissioner Scurlock agreed as he has had a couple of telephone calls from people asking about the funds raised in the Bike-A-Thon. Commissioner Lyons felt that the real issue here was that the Kiwanis Club is requesting $1,200 in order to pave the bike paths with concrete as recommended by the Public Works Dept., and that we should not concern ourselves with their internal club affairs. He felt we should either approve the $1,200 or, deny their request. 45 S E p 211983 v14 FF__ - SEP 211983 4 `rn X54 MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, that the Board approve the request of $1,200 to be contributed towards the construction of a concrete bike path. In discussion, Commissioner Wodtke asked if, indeed, it would be better to construct in concrete and Jim Davis explained that putting a short section of asphalt between two pieces of concrete would involve some maintenance problems. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion carried unanimously. DISCUSSION RE ABANDONMENT OF RIGHT-OF-WAY, AMBERSAND SUBDIVISION (Deferred from 9/7/83 Meeting) The Board reviewed the following memo dated August 23, 1983 and letter dated August 16, 1983: TO: Board of County CommissioneE)gTE: August 23, 1983 FILE: THRU: Michael' Wright County Administrator SUBJECT: Abandonment of Road in Ambersand S/D FROM: L. S. "Tommy" Aomas REFERENCES: Community Services Director In response to the attached letter from Gordon Johnston requesting the abandonment of First Street in Ambersand, you will find a plat attached which shows the location of First and Second Streets in the above mentioned subdivision. At the present time, we do not have a need for these roads, however, the policy of the Board of County Commissioners in the past has been not to relinquish any ocean frontage access property, including road right sway's. It has been some time since this question has been presented to the Board, so I felt that Mr. Johnston was entitled to have his letter presented to the Board of County Commissioners. While on this subject, I would like to point out that the Recrea- tion Committee has made a prelimary contact with the Depa*tment of Natural Resources with the respect to acquiring four lots South of the McLarty Museum. Second Street in Ambersand S/D is adjacent to these lots, and would add to the size of the ocean front property. 46 �'R£PLY VENO 13EAC11' k'LORID.i L329fSo ATTOB.� AT 1LAiV 3885 20TH STREET VffiRo BRACH. )C'' LORIDA 01a9rs0 August 16, 1983. Board of County Commissioners 1840 - 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 In Re: Abandonment of Street Right -.of -Way Gentlemen: 0IST,c?1E3UT10N LIST CWnim"s;;;iars Administrator Attorney Personnel Public Works 41f�� Utilities Dev. Utilities TELEPFiONTs-36y�gggg.. Finance AREA CODE 305 Other ACTION DEPARTMENT Commissioners Administrator Attorney Personnel Public Works Community Dev,, '�W... Utilities Finance Other I represent Sue A. Wood, who owns Lot 52, Ambersand Beach Subdivision No. 1, according to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 7, Page 8-A, of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida; located immediately north and adjacent to said lot on said plat is First Street. My client respectively requests that the County consider the abandonment of said right-of-way, as it appears that said street is not needed by the County for any useful purpose. If the County abandons this right-of-way, then said property would be added to the tax roll and would provide revenue to the County. I might point out that the street is in the general vicinity of Ambersand Beach, which is a public beach for Indian River County and is in close proximity to the Sebastian Inlet Park. Also, all of the property owners in the Ambersand Beach development have their own beach access so it would not be needed for these local property owners. The property in question is too small, being approximately 40 ft. in width, to be developed by the County for any park purposes. This request pertains to both portions of First Street lying on the east and west side of Al A. In the event the County does not see fit to abandon that portion on the east side of A 1A, it is strongly requested that they consider the abandon- ment of the portion on the west side. Thank you for your cooperation. If there is any further items needed to place this matter on the agenda, please advise. Very truly yours, ORDON B. JOHNSTON 47 198 SEP 21 a 4M SEP 211993 6f ?ACE Gordon B. Johnston, Attorney representing the applicant, explained that they had requested the abandonment mostly because they do not feel there is a specific use that the County can put this particular road to. He pointed out that all of the lots in this subdivision have beach access. Also, there is no possible way to provide parking for the public to use this particular beach access. He felt that any foresight that the planners had as far as giving any beach access at that point would be nebulous because of the park that is located at the inlet and also the Ambersand Beach Park. Mr. Johnston felt that the acquisition of four lots mentioned in the memo by Community Services Director Thomas was highly speculative at this time. However, if the abandonment request is approved, the adjacent owners would each acquire one half of that property. These lots are very small, 50 to 60 feet in that particular area, and 20 additional feet would allow his clients to do something with their lot. If the Board denies the abandonment request on the oceanside, then they would at least request the abandonment of the right-of-way on the west side of AIA. Commissioner Scurlock did not want to give anything away as he felt that the County has future potential uses for property up there and would rather be sate than sorry. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, that the Board deny the request for abandonment of First Street in Ambersand Subdivision, as recommended by staff. Director Thomas explained that he was not aware that they were interested in the west side and did not research 48 it, but pointed out that over the years County policy has been that they do not release any oceanfront. Commissioner Lyons had the same feeling about the riverside as the oceanfront, and Commissioner Bowman felt that forty feet makes a very nice pocket for certain access roads to the beach and stated her absolute objection to giving away any access or any frontage. Chairman Bird noted that the timing is bad because the County just paid a lot of money to acquire beach frontage in that area, and we would receive a lot of criticism if we gave away frontage. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion carried unanimously. STATUS OF VILLAGE GREEN, PHASE IV ESCROW ACCOUNT The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/14/83: TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: September 14, 1983 FILE: Board of County Commission THRU: Terrance G. Pinto Utilities Director FROM: Jose A. Baird Administrative Manager SUBJECT: STATUS OF VILLAGE GREEN PHASE IV ESCROW ACCOUNT REFERENCE: Indian River. County has not received a response from the letter sent registered mail to Village Green on August 12, 1983, requesting the payments of $149,043.00 to bring their escrow account up to date as required in Section XV of Resolution. 80-88. Since Village Green Phase IV is not complying with Resolution 80-88, we recommend that the Board of County Commission authorize the county attorney to take appropriate legal action to ensure compliance with their franchise. 49 SEP 211983 BOOK �5- 4 rAGE 7 r - SEP 21 1983 kkg "c 4 rAcE 658 ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously authorized the County Attorney to take appropriate legal action to ensure compliance by Village Green, with the utility franchise provisions for the Phase IV escrow account. PUBLIC HEARING - REQUEST BY HAROLD J. COOPER AND THELMA FOLK TO REZONE 10.26 ACRES FROM A to R-lE The hour of 9:30 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice With Proof of Publication attached, to wit: 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 ,,Ittn__dian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a"1.� in the matter of in the _ Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of J r `I 7� 3 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 pubiisned in said Indian River County. Fiorida, each dailv and has beer 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. tl Sworn to and subscribed before me this _. (t _ day of 5 r A.D. 1$ �. e sae., (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County. Fiorida: (SEAL) 50 NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING Notice of hearing to consider the adoption of a County Ordinance rezoning land from: A. "Agricultural District" to RAE, "Country Estate District." The subject Property presently owned by Harold " Cooper and Thelma Folk is located on the east side of 106th Avenue, north of i89th Street. The subject property is described as: THE SOUTH 330 FEET OF THE NORTH 1650 FEET OF THE WEST '/2 OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: "THE WEST y2 OF THE NORTHWEST '/r OF SECTION 28. TOWNSHIP 31 SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST, LESS PINE LAKE ESTATES SUBDIVISION, UNIT NO. 1; AN UNRECORDED SUBDIVISION . AS SHOWN IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 123, PAGE 141, PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLOR- IDA." CONTAINING 5.01 ACRES, MORE OR LESS SUBJECT TO AN. EASEMENT FOR DRAINAGE ACROSS THE EAST 15 FEET OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL, AND ALSO ALL THAT PART OF THE WEST 'h OF - THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST'/. OF SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 31 SOUTH. RANGE 38 EAST, LESS PINE LAKE ESTATES SUBDIVISION, UNIT . NO. 1, AN UNRECORDED SUBDIVI- SION AS SHOWN IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 123, PAGE 141, PUB- LIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. LESS AND EX- CEPTING THE NORTH 1650 FEET THEREOF. CONTAINING 5.26 ACRES MORE OR LESS SUBJECT TO AN EASEMENT FOR DRAINAGE ACROSS THE EAST 15 FEET OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL. A public hearing at which parties in interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard, will be held by the Board of County ,heard, of Indian River County, Flor- ida, in the County Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, located at 18.40 25th Street, Vero Beach. Flortda, on ' e Wednesday. September 21. 1983. at 9:30 AM. y person decides to appeal any decision made ort the above matter, he/she may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the pro- ceedings is made, which includes testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. Indian River County Board of County Commissioners By: -s -Richard N. Bird Chairman Sept. 16.1983 The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/6/83: TO: DATE: FILE: The Honorable Members September 6, 1983 of the Board of ZC-83-07-027 Countv Commissioners HAROLD J.COOPER & THEL14A DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURREN6LJBJ ECT: FOLK REQUEST TO REZONE APPROX. 10.26 ACRES FROM A, AGRICULTURAL TO R-lE, Robert M. Keating,C�(I P COUNTRY ESTATE DISTRICT Planning & Zoning Manager FROM: FS REFERENCES: Richard Shearer, AICP Cooper/Folk Principal Planner WORKB It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of September 21, 1983. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS The applicants, Harold J. Cooper and Thelma Folk, are requesting to rezone approximately 10.26 acres located on the east side of 106th Avenue and approximately 1/2 mile south of S.R. 512 from A, Agricultural District, to R-lE, Country Estate District. The applicants propose to develop this property into housing sites for other family members. On August 11, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4-0 to recommend approval of this request. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS In this section, an analysis of the existing land use pattern will be presented as well as a discussion of the future land use as established in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Existing Land Use Pattern The subject property is currently vacant except for a small structure under construction. The subject property and all of the property around it is zoned A, Agricultural District. The property north and south of this site is also vacant. West of the subject property there is one single-family house and vacant land. To the east of the subject property there are two five -acre tracts of land. The northern tract is undeveloped.. The southern tract has been improved and contains a pond and some pole barns with an apartment in .one barn. The land south and west of the subject property is platted in 1/4 acre lots but is undeveloped except for one house west of the subject property. 51 SEP 211983 SEP 211983 ego Future Land Use Pattern The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property as LD -1, Low -Density Residential (maximum of 3 dwelling units/acre). All of the property surrounding this site is also designated as LD -1. The R-lE, Country Estate District, allows 1 unit/acre which is an appropriate zoning district for the LD -1 land use designation. The subject property is bordered by land which will probably be rezoned to allow residential uses in the future Roads/Traffic The subject property has direct access to 106th Avenue, which is classified as a local street on the Thoroughfare Plan. Utilizing the maximum density allowed under the proposed zoning, the development of the property would generate 120 average daily trips (ADT) with 12 trips in the peak hour. However, if the property was rezoned to R-lAA (also allowed under the LD -1 land use designation) the development would generate 312 ADT with 31 trips in the peak hour. No capacity problems would result from either development density. Environment The subject property is not designated as environmentally sensitive. There do not appear to be any environmental problems associated with the development of the property. Utilities The subject property is not currently served by County water nor wastewater facilities. The County has no plans to extend utilities to this property in the next decade. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above analysis, including the existing and future land use patterns for this area, and the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, staff recommends approval. Chairman Bird asked the Board if they had any questions of applicant, Mr. Harold Cooper re this rezoning request. There were none. Chairman Bird opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously closed the Public Hearing. 52 ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by.Commissioner. Wodtke, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance 83-28 approving rezoning of 10.26 acres from A, Agricultural, to R -1E, Country Estate District., as recommended by staff. 53 EP 21.19$3 aX . ,5A J r- SEP 21 1983 PACE ORDINANCE NO. 83-28 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to rezone the hereinafter described property and pursuant thereto held a public hearing in relation thereto, at which parties in interest and citizens were heard; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning Ordinance of Indian River County, Florida, and the accompanying Zoning Map, be amended as follows: 1. That the Zoning Map be changed in order that the following described property situated in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: THE SOUTH 330 FEET OF THE NORTH 1650 FEET OF THE WEST 2 OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: "THE WEST 2 OF - THE NORTHWEST 2 OF SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 31 SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST, LESS PINE LAKE ESTATES SUBDIVISION, UNIT NO. 1, AN UNRECORDED SUBDIVISION AS SHOWN IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 123, PAGE 141, PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA." CONTAINING 5.01 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.SUBJECT TO AN EASEMENT FOR DRAINAGE ACROSS THE EAST 15 FEET OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL. AND ALSO ALL THAT PART OF THE WEST 2 OF THE WEST 2 OF THE NORTHWEST 4 OF SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 31 SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST, LESS PINE LAKE ESTATES SUBDIVISION, UNIT NO. 1, AN UNRECORDED SUBDIVISION AS SHOWN IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 123, PAGE 141, PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. LESS AND EXCEPTING THE NORTH 1650 FEET THEREOF. CONTAINING 5.26 ACRES MORE OR LESS. SUBJECT TO AN EASEMENT FOR DRAINAGE ACROSS THE EAST 15 FEET OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL. Be changed from A, Agricultural District to R-lE, Country Estate District. All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in said Zoning Regulations. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on this day of 21st day of September, 1983. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN /RIVER COUNTY BY: RICHARD N. BIRD Chairman 1 1 1 A Z W O. E-4 rZ4 En a U 4 00 rS r -i A4 0 H H U) H Z C7 H Ri W H W w x 01 rQ rd In rd P4 tri rl U O r -f U ,, 44 O 4,4 O O 1,4a .Li N U •r► O Z f� O r-4 O 44 HERO 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 l in the matter of in the lished in said newspaper in the issues of 6& T, D r I LF t 19 $ 3 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 subscribe bEt erne s ��f day of stir _ A.Q. 19 3__ -- (Business Manager) t. . (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, Florida) (SEAL) Con 40c NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING Q TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN Notice of hearing to consider the adoption of a County Ordinance redesignating land from: MD -2, "Medium Density Residential" to C, "Commercial District." The sub- 214 ject property presently owned by Vista ea Properties of Vero Beach, Inc. is lo- ' cated on the east side of U.S. Highway st1, south of 4th Street. The subject property is described as: THAT PART OF SECTION 13. TOWN- SHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST AND THAT PART OF SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE 40 EAST, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLOR- IDA; DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: FROM THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 13, RUN SOUTH 00` 09' 11" WEST ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SECTION 13 FOR A DISTANCE OF 1328.58 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 001 08'20" WEST ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SECTION 13 FOR A DIS- TANCE OF 1327.52 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING FOR THE FOL- ttl LOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL: U-) the County Administration Building, located at THENCE RUN SOUTH 89° 53' 24' 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach. Florida, on EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF 41755 Wednesday, September 91. 1983, at 9.45 A,M. FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 00° 1 Y any deci If any person decides to appeal = 5E" WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF Sion made on the above matter, he. she will 907.40 FEET TO THE NORTH RIGHT- -WAY need a record of the proceedings. and for OF LINE OF THE INDIAN RIVER such purposes. he/she may need to ensure FARMS DRAINAGE DISTRICT SOUTH that a verbatim record of the proceedings is . A RELIEF CANAL; THENCE RUN made, which includes testimony and evidence SOUTH 74° 36" WEST ALONG upon which is based SAID NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE Rivere. County Co FOR A DISTANCE OF 759.93 FEET TO Board of County Commis nners Board of Co THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF -Richard N Bird U.S.. HIGHWAY *11, SAID EAST Chaff RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE BEING A , 14, Pa' Sept. 2, 4,!99 CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTH- WEST HAVING A RADIUS OF 9649.39 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTHWEST- ERLY ALONG THE ARC OF . THIS CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 07° 01' 14' FOR A DIS- TANCE OF 1182.38 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 89' 47' 53" EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF 716.45 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING A public hearing at which parties in interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard, will be herd by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County. Flor- ida, in the County Commiss,on Chamt'-r,; of co ------ e $EP 21 1983 a54 PACE .664 The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/6/83: TO: DATE: � E The Honorable Members September 6, 1983 of the Board of County Commissioners DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCEUBJECT: � J Robert M. Keatifig, 41CP Planning & Zoning Manager VISTA PROPERTIES REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMPREHEN- SIVE PLAN BY REDESIGNAT- ING 19.68 ACRES FROM MD -2, MEDIUM -DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, TO COMMER- CIAL FROM:REFERENCES: Pilchard Shearer, AICP Vista 19.68 Acres Principal Planner _ WORKB It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of September 21, 1983. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS The applicant, Robert Gaskill, an officer of Vista Properties, is requesting to amend the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. His request is to redesignate approximately 19.68 acres located on the east side of U.S. Highway #1 and the north side of the South Relief Canal from MD -2, Medium -Density Residential, to Commercial. The applicant proposes to develop the property into retail and office uses. The property is currently zoned C-1, Commercial District. On August 11, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 3 -to -1 to deny the applicant's request for the following reasons: 1) This is a large amount of acreage to be redesignated for commercial use; 2) The commercially designated areas on the land use map have not been given enough time to succeed; 3) The Commission spent long hours going over this area when the Comprehensive Plan was prepared. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the application will be presented. The analysis will include a description of the current and future land uses of the site and surrounding areas, potential impacts on the transportation and utility systems, and any significant adverse impacts on schools or environmental quality. Existing Land Use Pattern The subject property is currently vacant. The south relief canal borders the subject property to the south with an old radio station site on the south side of the canal. The subject property has frontage on U.S. Highway #1 to the west. The area west of U.S. #1 is vacant. North of the subject property there is a mobile home park and convenience store along U.S. #1. East of the mobile home park is vacant land. The area east of the subject property is part of a golf course. Future Land Use Pattern The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property as MD -2, Medium -Density Residential (maximum of 10 units/acre). The property east and south.of this site is also designated as MD -2. The area north of the subject property is part of the designated U.S. Highway #1 Commercial Corridor. The property to the west is in an MXD, Mixed Use Development, area. The Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan discourages strip commercial, development along arterial streets such as U.S. #1, but encourages compact commercial development in identified commercial nodes. This proposal is to extend the U.S. Highway #1 Commercial Corridor, in effect expanding strip commercial development along an arterial street. Strip commercial development is discouraged in the Comprehensive Plan because it is an "...inefficient use of land.and causes the following problems: 1) traffic and safety; 2) inadequate parking facilities; 3) proliferation of signs, overhead wires, and aesthetically unappealing design." The subject property was considered for the commercial land use designation when the Comprehensive Plan was being formulated. At that time it was not considered appropriate and conditions have not changed significantly since then. Transportation This property has direct access to U.S. Highway #1 (classified as an arterial street on the Thoroughfare Plan). Utilizing the maximum density allowed under a plan amendment and current zoning, the development of the property would generate 8,811 average daily trips (ADT) with 1,322 trips in the peak hour. These trips added to U.S. #1 would raise its traffic volume from 20,000 ADT (off-season) to almost 29,000 ADT. Based on level -of -service "C", the capacity of U.S.#1 is 24,000 ADT. This increased traffic would reduce the quality of service on this portion of U.S.#1 to level -of -service "D". In addition, this increased traffic may require a traffic signal at U.S.#l. Under the existing land use designation, MD -2, this site would generate 1,397 ADT if developed to maximum density. Environment The subject property is not designated as environmentally sensitive. There do not appear to be any significant environmental constraints involved in developing this property. Utilities County water and wastewater facilities are available. The developer needs to furnish the projected water and sewer daily flow demand for this development before the County Utilities Department can make comments on capacity. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above analysis including the commercial land use policies of the Comprehensive Plan, the increased traffic which ti would increase volumes above the capacity of U.S. Highway #1, and the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners deny the applicant's request. 57 SEP 211983 aOO►� roc SEP 211983 K4 WE 666 Gordon B. Johnston, Attorney representing Vista Properties, presented Vista Properties request for redesignation and indicated the properties in question on the map displayed on the wall. His arguments were; 1) Vista plans to establish an attractive neighborhood type commercial area much like the Village Shops in Indian River Shores. 2) As far as the traffic pattern is concerned, Vista would have to comply with any requirements of the Department of Transportation for deceleration lanes or turning lanes. 3) The South Relief Canal is a natural cut-off point for strip commercial zoning on U.S. #1. 4) All of the units in this development were sold with the purchasers being advised that this was a commercial area and the condominium documents filed with the State of Florida show this as commercial. Commissioner Scurlock expected, if this request was approved, numerous requests would be received all along that stretch of U.S. #1, possibly right on down to the county line. Administrator Wright informed the Board that the mobile home park in that stretch has been sold and there would be a request received shortly to rezone that property. Commissioner Wodtke considered this property as unique in all the county as it contains what used to be McKee's Jungle Gardens. He felt that Vista has done an excellent job of preserving the beauty of the gardens area and was confident that Vista would continue to maintain the integrity of the property. Robert Gaskill, officer of Vista Properties, assured Commissioner Scurlock that they had design capacity in the existing wastewater plan and that the water would come frog, the South County water system. 58 Robert Keating, Planning & Zoning Manager, presented the reasons for staff's recommendation to deny: 1) To discourage strip commercial along U.S. #1. 2) increased traffic. 3) The Planning & Zoning Commission has recommended denial. Chairman Bird opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. Mrs. Carolyn Eggert, Chairman of the Planning & Zoning Commission, agreed that Vista Properties would do a marvelous job in designing a shopping area that would preserve the gardens area. However, she felt that the commercial area would be most effective on the corner where the bank is located and that it would be more in keeping with the neighborhood node concept. She was not opposed to commercial along that strip at all -- it was just a matter of where it would be most effective. Robert Keating explained that Vista has filed a third request for a neighborhood commercial node, but that request was not on the agenda today. The staff has been in the process of developing procedures for neighborhood commercial nodes. While there are general guidelines as to what a neighborhood commercial node entails in the Comprehensive Plan itself, there aren't specific procedures of how one goes about having one designated. They have had two workshops on this and are progressing, but it has been a very difficult concept to resolve. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously closed the Public Hearing. 59 SEP 2119,83 $oux 544 TACE 667 J r5EP 211983 . I , _1 544, qac f Considerable discussion followed in regard to modifying Vista's request and cutting the commercial off at the South Relief Canal. Robert Gaskill felt that Vista has already established a mile long buffer strip and that it was just logical to assume that residential would not be the best use of the property. Commissioner Scurlock felt that if we went ahead and modified this request, it would be easier for the Board to draw a line at the Relief Canal and to be very cautious in considering anything south of that line in the future. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, that the Board approve the 350 foot strip of Vista's request. Commissioner Lyons felt that he was going to vote against this as it was premature and there were traffic problems. He was not ready to break with what we have had until some specific solution was found re traffic problems, and Commissioner Bowman agreed. Chairman Bird pointed out that Scotty's and others had interest in this area as commercial property. He felt that it was not premature, and whether we like it or not, there was a demand for commercial property on U.S. #1. Commissioner Wodtke agreed that we were always going to have this problem along U.S. #1, but considered this to be a different situation than opening up a fresh new piece of property to commercial. He believed Vista would construct a beautiful development. Chairman Bird stated that it wasn't as if we were taking a prime piece of residential and converting it to 60 commercial. This property has been used for commercial purposes ever since he moved to Vero Beach 35 years ago. Commissioner Scurlock felt that the motion would be better to include the entire property, rather than limiting it to 350 feet.. Mr. Johnston informed the Board that was the original request and if the Commission felt that it would be better to do it that way, Vista certainly would not have any objection. He assured the Board that they would not develop that area of the gardens, trees, etc. into total commercial. Commissioner.Scurlock asked Mr. Keating if we had sufficient control in the site plan for that and Mr. Keating assured him that we did. Commissioners Wodtke and Bowman withdrew their I -lotion and Second. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, that the Board adopt Ordinance 83-29 to approve Vista Properties request to amend the Comprehensive Plan to redesignate 19.68 acres from MD -2, Medium -Density Residential to Commercial. Commissioner Scurlock stressed that something must be done to to come up with some vehicle to solve these Comprehensive Land use and commercial strip problems. Commissioner Lyons agreed that we do not have the right method of.addressing this cluster situation. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion carried by a 3-2 vote, with Commissioners Lyons and Bowman voting in opposition. 61 �+ bt�►K 5.4tAG� e SEP 21 1983 SEP 21 1983 M o c E 7 ORDINANCE NO. 83-29 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to redesignate the hereinafter described property and pursuant thereto held a public hearing in relation thereto, at which parties in interest and citizens were heard; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan of Indian River County, Florida, and the accompanying Land Use Map, be amended as follows: 1. That the Land Use Map be changed in order that the following described property situated in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: THAT PART OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST AND THAT PART QF SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE 40 EAST, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: FROM THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 13, RUN SOUTH 00" 09' 11" WEST ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SECTION 13 FOR A DISTANCE OF 1328.58 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 00° 08' 20" WEST ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SECTION 13 FOR A DISTANCE OF 1327.52 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING FOR THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL: THENCE RUN SOUTH 890 53' 24" EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF 417.55 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 00° 11' 56" WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 907.40 FEET TO THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE INDIAN RIVER FARMS DRAINAGE DISTRICT SOUTH RELIEF CANAL; THENCE RUN SOUTH 74° 14' 36" WEST ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE FOR A DISTANCE OF 759.93 FEET TO THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF U.S. HIGHWAY #1, SAID EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE BEING A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHWEST HAVING A RADIUS OF 9649.39 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF THIS CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 070 01' 14" FOR A DISTANCE OF 1182.38 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 890 47' 53" EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF 716.45 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. Be changed from MD -2, Medium Density Residential to C, Commercial District. All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in said Land Use Element. Approved and adopted by the.Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on this 21stday ofSeptember , 1983. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BY :G cf- lC-' RICHARD N. BIRD Chairman r ■ Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of Florida this 29th day. of September, 1983. Effective Date: Acknowledgment from the Department of State received on this 3rd day of October , 1983, at 11 A.M./P.M. and filed in the Office of the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida. APPROVEfT AN LEGAL S I G 1 BY 111 / Xd/KY M. BI 7 URG,- County Attorney /r SEP 211983 63 8 �Qc f. I r 1 S F P ? 11983 PUBLIC HEARING - REQUEST BY VISTA PROPERTIES TO AMEND COMPREHE14SIVE PLAN BY REDESIGNATING 10.25 ACRES FROM MD -2 TO COWIERC IAL The hour of 9:45 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read -the Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to wit: VER® 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 in the /matter of /] CLyy�irvtc.� l.."w`,.�7,-T-e.-�vi...v-� �I^-c� ��3•.%� � l' �1,` in the lished in said newspaper in the issues 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 subscribe bef a me 3 day of A.D. 19 i (Business jyManager) (Clerk of the Circuit"C(5Urt,''tn4d)ae-#ti)ier'Qou•0fty, Florida) (SEAL) �•' 64 NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN Notice of hearing to consider the following proposal to redesignate land from: MD 6!2 "Medium Density Residential" to C, tpresentlyt r sub- ject properDistrict." onenby Vista Properties of Vero Beach, Inc. is lo- cated on the east side of U.S. Highway 1, south of the entrance to Vista Ro- Yale. The subject property is described as: A PARCEL OF LAND IN SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE 40 EAST, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLOR- IDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 19, RUN EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID 57.44 SECTION 1FEET TO THEE ST RIGHT-OF- WAY LINE OF U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1; THENCE RUN SOUTH 12° 00' 10 EAST ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE FOR A DISTANCE OF 1212.79 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING FOR THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL: THENCE CONTINUE SOUTH 12° 00' 10" EAST ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF- WAY FOR A DISTANCE O 155.00 SOUTH 89' 22' 26" EASTEET:NFOR CE UA DISTANCE O 927.00 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 02° 0T 26" WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 530.83 FEET TO A POINT OF IN- TERSECTION WITH THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF VISTA RO= YALE BOULEVARD; THENCE RUN NORTH 891 49' 27" WEST ALONG SAID SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE FOR A DISTANCE OF 623.04 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 35° 29' 50" WEST ALONG SAID SOUTH RIGHT- OF-WAY LINE FOR A DISTANCE OF 209.51 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 01 ° 30' 10" EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF 194.89 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 88° 29' 50" WEST FOR A DIS- TANCE OF 200.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. A public hearing at which parties in interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard, will be held by the Board of County. Commissioners of Indian River County' Flor- ida, in the County Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Wednesday. September 21. 1983, at 9:45 A.M. if any person decides to appeal any deci- iSion made on the above matter. he/she will need a record of the proceedings, and for such purposes, he/she may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which includes testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. Indian River County Board of County Commissioners By: -s -Richard N. Bird Chairman Sept. 2.14. 1983. r The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/6/83: TO. DATE: FILE: The Honorable Members September 6, 1983 of the Board of County Commissioners SUBJECT: DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE: I I ) I 'p4 = r%t I < /% (d.T l - Robert M. Keats g, ZNl CI P Planning & Zoning Manager VISTA PROPERTIES REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMP PLAN BY REDESIGNATING 10.25 ACRES FROM MD -2, MEDIUM - DENSITY RESIDENTIAL,'TO COMMERCIAL FROM: I�s REFERENCES: Richard Shearer, AICP Vista Amend Request Principal Planner WORKS It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of September 211 1983. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS The applicant, Robert Gaskll, an officer of Vista Properties, is requesting to amend the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. His request is to redesignate approximately 1G.25 acres located on the east side of U.S. Highway 1 and approximately 3/4 of a mile north of Oslo Road from MD -2, Medium -Density Residential, to Commercial. The applicant proposes to develop the property into retail and office uses. The property is currently zoned C-1, Commercial District. On August 11, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 2-2 to deny the applicant's request because they felt that a general commercial area of this size should not be located in this area. The Commission also stated. that they felt that a Neighborhood Node would be more appropriate for this area. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS In this section, an.analysis of the reasonableness of the application will be presented. The analysis will include a description of the current and future land uses of the site and surrounding areas, potential impacts on the transportation and utility systems, and any significant adverse impacts on schools or environmental quality. Existing Land.Use Pattern. The subject property currently contains the Vista Properties rental office. The area south of this site contains a golf green and further south are condominiums. The subject property has frontage on U.S. Highway l to the west. West.of U.S.1 is vacant land. Florida Federal Savings has an office north of the subject property with vacant land and condominiums further north. East of the site is the golf course clubhouse. 65 SEP 21 1933 r SEP 211983 Future Land Use Pattern The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property as MD -2, Medium -Density Residential (maximum of 10 units/acre). All of the property surrounding this site is also designated as MD -2 except for the property west of U.S. Highway 1 which is in an MXD, Mixed Use Development, area. The Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan discourages strip commercial development along arterial streets such as U.S. 1, but encourages compact commercial development in identified commercial nodes. The nodes were planned to provide sufficient land area for the County's commercial needs for the twenty year life of the Plan. The subject property is not in or near a commercial node. If commercial uses are needed in this part of the county they can be accommodated in the commercial node at Oslo Road and U.S. 1 (3/4 mile south of this site) or the U.S. 1 commercial corridor (approximately 3/4 mile north of this site). Approval of this request would encourage further strip commercial development along U.S. #1. Strip commercial development is discouraged in the Comprehensive Plan becauseit is an "...inefficient use of land and causes the following problems: 1) traffic and safety; 2) inadequate parking facilities; 3) proliferation of signs, overhead wires, and aesthetically unappealing design." The subject property was considered for the commercial land use designation when the Comprehensive Plan was being formulated. At that time it was not considered appropriate and conditions have not changed significantly since then. Transportation This property has direct access to U.S. Highway 1 (classified as an arterial street on the Thoroughfare Plan). Utilizing the maximum density allowed under a plan amendment and current zoning, the development of the property would generate 4,565 average daily trips (ADT) with 685 trips in the peak hour. These trips added to U.S. 1 would raise its traffic volume from about 20,000 ADT to more than 24,000 ADT. This additional traffic would put U.S. 1 at or above its capacity (24,000 ADT) and require left turn and deceleration lanes. Under the existing land use designation, MD -2, this site would generate 728 ADT if developed to maximum density. Environment The subject property is not designated as environmentally sensitive. There do not appear to be any significant environmental constraints involved in developing this property. UtiIit-i PC County water and wastewater facilities are available. The developer needs to furnish the projected water and sewer daily flow demand for this development before the County Utilities Department can make comments about capacity.. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above analysis including the commercial development policies of the Comprehensive Plan, and the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners deny the applicant's request. 66 Attorney Gordon Johnston felt that this request should be looked at differently than the former request and proceeded to give the past history of this property. Back in 1970 there was a contract to purchase by Vista and the owner proposed to have this property rezoned. Back then the Planning Department held a number of meetings and a overall site plan was presented and approved by the County Commission. It was the recommendation to consolidate the commercial zoning into one little node as it now exists, rather than have it strung along U.S. #1. The entire multi-million dollar project was developed with this in mind. The sales brochures through the years have shown this to be designated as a shopping area. The sales documents which were filed with the Secretary of State and with the Clerk of the Circuit Court show the area in question as commercial. Now, after 990 of this project has been developed, Vista is faced with a 12 -year old master plan that is going to be changed. There is no question that with the 1500-1600 units in this particular area, there is need for some service areas, mainly for.the residents of Vista Royale. There would be a decrease in traffic flow on U.S. #1 due to the use of the shops by Vista Royale residents.. There would not be the on-site traffic problem as presented by staff, and explained that ingress and egress would be through the Vista Royale entrance. As far as the property being used for M -D2, Medium Density Residential, it is just not the highest and best use. He felt that because of the various representations that were made to Vista back in the early 1970's in re to utilities and rezoning, they certainly have some vested right to the use of the property, and should be grandfathered in because the development is 99% completed. Chairman Bird pointed out that there was some mention made of designating this area as a neighborhood node. It 67 SEP 211983 SEP 211983 i" 15-4 was noted that the subject property was vacant at the present time. Mr. Johnston pointed out that there has been a lot of talk about the node which has been designated at Oslo Road and how that node is to be developed. At Vista, there are no pie in the sky promises as they have a proven track record. Mr. Johnston assured Commissioner Lyons that this was shown on the original site plan as shops, etc., and presented the original conceptual drawing to the Board. Commissioner Lyons suggested that the shops area stop just short of Fronting on U.S. #1 and have ingress and egress through the existing main entrance to Vista. Royale. He felt that development owners come and go, and that presently we have a good relationship with Vista, but we don't know what the next owner would do if it was rezoned or replanned. It could turn out to to different than what was anticipated. Messrs. Johnston and Gaskill had no objections to having the shops area fall short of U.S. #1, perhaps by just one foot. It was noted that this would be a site plan consideration. Robert Keating was not sure that there would be a decrease in traffic. Staff had figured it would be half office traffic and half retail and did not see how all of these trips could be internal. Commissioner Lyons felt that was a good point. Chairman Bird opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard. Mrs. Carolyn Eggert, Chairman of the Planning & Zoning Commission, pointed out that the Oslo Road node is just not sitting there on those four corners but can stretch up to some commercial laying on Oslo Road. She telt that it might be better to consider this piece of property as a neighborhood node as she finds it very difficult to change 6F the Comprehensive Plan by redesignating a piece -here and a piece there. She was also concerned that it was felt that almost anything could be done at site plan and advised that the property was a single plot and was given setbacks; everything within those setbacks can be used in that development. She thought that was something to be kept in mind. She was also concerned with: how many acres we were going to end up,w,th and what was going to happen to that bank. As of right now, theoretically, the bank is non -conforming as it is not included in this area at all. Commissioner Lyons stated that they are going to discuss this matter at the Planning & Zoning meeting and felt we should have a workshop to set some policy as this question is being raised continuously. Basically, he felt that everyone knows what needs to be done, but the question is how-. Todays's request is a prime example of this problem. Personally, he would like to see this matter held up until we set some policy and then consider it again. Richard Shearer, Planner, said that staff has a problem with this as there are two separate proposals: the subject property involved here, which is 10.25 acres, and the northern parcel, which is about 8 acres. The northern 8 -acre parcel was included as a neighborhood node request. The total acres would be a little over 18 acres. Staff feelings are that it would be appropriate to have a neigh- borhood node to be located here (on map), but we are not concerned with that today. Then there is the out parcel where the Barnett Bank owns property, but has not yet built a bank. Commissioner Scurlock felt he could go with the node concept, but could not see creating another one. Robert Gaskill believed that this was the only on-going project of this type in Indian River County. It was planned back in 1972 and it has been built out the way Vista 69 SEP 211983 K 4 Esc S E P 211983 600K 4 PAGE -678 promised the County. If they would have known back then, they would have gladly reduced the commercial down to this "node" and provided for recreational facilities and all the other amenities for the development. They could have added a few hundred more units, and this problem would not exist today. However, they went ahead exactly as the County wanted, and now they are stuck with an isolated piece which cannot be included with the existing condominium association. Whatever goes into that area has to be filed separately. If they put in an additional development, then he knew they would receive strong resistance from the residents. He felt that this situation is unique and would not pop up again on U.S. #1 -- it was a one time deal. David Rever, former County Planning Manager, recalled that he had asked back then how commercial and neighborhood nodes would affect Vista Royale because it had always been planned for commercial and was told that the situation was ideally suited for multiple layered densities of commercial, etc. Mr. Johnston felt that a lot of the Board's concerns could be solved with the site plan process and that the Board should keep in mind the excellent track record of Vista Properties. Vista Properties has cooperated in developing an attractive, functional use of property and has no intention of putting in a mall the size.of the Vero Mall. He stated that if a neighborhood node consisted of only 8 acres, they would have 2.5 acres left over that was not feasible on which to build additional units. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously closed the Public Hearing. 70 Attorney Brandenburg advised the Board that they ought not to consider designating other Vista properties differently under the Comprehensive Plan until properly advertised in order to give the abutting property owners the opportunity to come in and speak on the issue. Commissioner Lyons wanted to look at the whole concept of the neighborhood node and also review the County's policy on strip commercial.on U.S. #1. Robert Keating suggested that staff be allowed some time to research some alternatives prior to the Board taking action. Carolyn Eggert felt that a month or 6 weeks would be sufficient time to come up with some solution to the problem and suggested that the I-95 node, the Oslo Road node, and some others be considered as a single problem to be solved post haste. Chairman Bird requested Administrator Wright to schedule a workshop on this matter with the Planning & Zoning Manager and the County Commission. Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that Vista's master plan showed these properties as being.commercial; there was never any site plan submitted with building locations, etc., and felt that there was a considerable difference between a preliminary site plan and a master plan. Commissioner Scurlock also expressed concern over the water and sewer tap ability and.asked Attorney Brandenburg what would happen if this development is allowed to take place and at some future time finds the capacity insufficient. Attorney Brandenburg advised that if this piece of property creates a greater demand than those plants can handle,..then he felt that the County has the ability to go back to the developer and require him to expand those plants at his cost, without any cost to the County system or the 71 BSEP 21 1983.. BOOK .e PAGE �� F' SEP 211983 PAGE e��Q County rate payers. When the County took over that system from the developer, there were representations that the plant would be sufficient to handle all of the Vista development, and, in excess of that, provide the County with additional capacity. Messrs. Johnston and Gaskill felt that was probably correct. Robert Keating asked the difference between the master plan and the site plan and thought that the applicant implied that there was vesting involved in this property. He did not know how that was interpreted by members of the Commission. Chairman Bird did not know about vesting, but did know that this property was always shown on the master plan as a future potential commercial site. Attorney Brandenburg explained that the existence of a master plan category or of a zoning category does not provide any vesting under the law. It has to be in combination with other significant acts performed on the part of the developer and acts of commission on the part of the government. Chairman Bird felt that the question today was, regardless of past issue, what is the highest and best use of this particular property. Commissioner Wodtke, with the assurances that the water capacity is there in accordance with the contract with the developer, moved to approve the redesignation of the Comprehensive Plan for this property. The Motion died for lack of a second. Attorney Brandenburg advised that if there is no further Motion, the matter dies and the plan remains unamended. He explained that there is no time limit to changing the land use plan, and the Board could continue to request changes once a year. ;2 ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously tabled this matter until workshops have been held in connection with commercial and neighborhood nodes. 11 Mr. Johnston was advised that the Commission would have to bring this back and would give Vista Properties proper notification of when it would be scheduled., PUBLIC BEARING - ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE RE OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS The hour of 10:30 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to wit: 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 in the matter of CLl�Ir1�v� (.t. AL in the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of_5C47 ., f LF, 19 `CZ 3 Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in saip Indian Hiver County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously pt.bihshed 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 penoo 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 r11SCOUnt. rebate. commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscP11f e me s _ _�_�day of i_ A. D. 19 C' 3 (Business Manager) ISEt1Ll Klerk of the Circuit Court, Indiah River County, Florida) 73 5EP 211983 NOTICE OF INTENT TO f CONSIDER COUNTY ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFF-STREET / PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS The Board of County Commissioners of In- dian River County, Florida, will conduct a public hearing at which parties in interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard, on September 21, 1983, at 10:30 A.M. imthe County Commission Chambers at the County Administration Building, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, to consider the adoption of an ordinance entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF , COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF IN- DIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDING, SEC- TION 24 OF APPENDIX A TO THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLOR- IDA, KNOWN AS THE COUNTY'S ZONING CODE; GOVERNING OFF- STREET PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS; SETTING STAND- ARDS FOR SIZE AND NUMBER OF REQUIRED SPACES; PROVIDING FOR COMPACT CAR PARKING SPACES; ESTABLISHING PARKING STANDARDS FOR CERTAIN USES NOT PREVIOUSLY ADDRESSED; RE- VISING CURRENT PARKING STAND- ARDS FOR CERTAIN USES; PROVID- ING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES; CODIFICATION; SEV- ERABILITY; AND EFFECTIVE DATE. If any person decides to appeal any deci- sion made on the above matters, .he/she will need a record of the proceedings, and for such purposes, he/she may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony in evidence on which the appeal is based. Indian River County Board of County Commissioners By: -s -Richard N. Bird Chairman Sept. 2, 14, 1983. BooK ,'AGE O r SEP 21 11983 ram 54 rACE � 2 The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/9/83: TO: The Honorable Members DATE: September 9, 1983 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDING SECTION.24, SUBJECT: OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS, OF APPENDIX A, ZONING, OF THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES Bob Keating., AICP. � FROM: Department & Zoning Department Manager REFERENCES: Ord. Sec. 24 RUTH It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of September 21, 1983. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS Parking standards and regulations in Indian River County are currently governed by Section 24, Off-street Parking and Loading Regulations, of Appendix A, Zoning, of the Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances. Adopted as part of the zoning code in 1971, this section has been amended several times since its adoption. These revisions, however, have been minor, usually involving only the addition or amendment of the parking standard for a specific use. Although incremental, revisions have occur -red to this section, no overall update or review of the parking regulations has been undertaken since its adoption. Recently, several events have occurred which have underscored the need to update the current parking standards. An.inc:rease in variance requests for compact car parking spaces has created a need for the issue of compact car spaces to be addressed in the County's parking regulations. Site plan requests for uses not specifically addressed in the regu//i lations have produced a need for the development of addition standards. Outdated or inadequate standards require amendment of the current regulations. Finally, inappropriate or inef- fective provisions mandate revision of the regulations. For these reasons, the staff has undertaken a general analysis of parking regulations and parking standards. Altho gh time constraints precluded the staff from undertaking a (detailed analysis, the staff has revised the existing parking regu- lations based upon readily available information and data. At their regular meeting of August 11, 1983, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the ordinance substantially amending Section 24 of the Zoning Code to the Board of County Commissioners. 74 ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS The staff, as part of its analysis of parking standards and regulations, considered existing parking criteria in other jurisdictions as well as information included within recent studies on parking demand, needs, criteria, and standards. Based upon this information, the staff has proposed a number of revisions to the County's current parking regulations. As proposed, the revisions to Section 24 of the County's zoning code will incorporate standards for compact car parking spaces; include standards for uses not previously addressed in 1. the regulations;. revise existing standards for certain uses where the current standards are not sufficient; and amend certain parts of the current regulations needing revision. In developing these revisions, the staff considered alternative standards in relation to the needs of the County. The staff then incorporated in the amended parking regulations those standards which most closely corresponded to the parking needs of Indian River County. RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the ordinance amending Section 24, Off-street Parking and Loading requirements, of Appendix A, Zoning, of the Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances. Robert Keating, Planning & Zoning Dept. Manager, presented staff's recommendation and stated that they had neglected to insert a provision for parallel parking spaces. Considerable discussion followed re the space needed for parallel parking as compared to angle parking. Chairman Bird felt he had to rely on staff's expertise, in this matter but questioned the requirement of 120 parking spaces at the bowling alley as opposed to the 45 spaces required at the golf course. Administrator Wright explained that the 45 spaces were just for the people who are supposed to be on the course and that the.other buildings had their own requirements. 75 P 11983 WK � ruM SE 2 _ ,1 1983 .. SEP 2 Commissioner Bowman expressed her annoyance at not being able to find a parking space when she visits friends in some of the local condominiums. Mr. Keating stated that this was one of the standards that was changed, and it was reduced on the basis of the workshop. They did not have time to do an extensive analysis because they assumed that this will be changed again when the new zoning ordinance is developed. Chairman Bird opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard. Jerry Cook, co-owner of the Mecca Convalescent Home, addressed the Board and objected to the parking requirements under Paragraph 7 for convalescent homes as.compared to hospitals in paragraph 14. He explained that the parking needs of a nursing home are not as great as in hospitals, as doctors only visit once a month on a normal basis unless they are called. To allocate a parking space for each 10 medical beds for a doctor is incorrect and it would be more feasible to allow 1 parking space for each 15 patients. Usually doctors come in on Saturdays to spend an average of 20 minutes per patient and receive $40.00 a visit from Medicare. There are seven doctors who come to Mecca, usually on Saturdays, and not all at one time, of course. He also objected to the requirement of 1 space per 4 patients for visitors, as most of the patients have outlived their friends and families and receive very few visitors. Mr. Cook believed the correct ratio would be one visitor parking space for every 10 bed patients. In addition, he objected to the parking requirements for employees and felt that 2.5 spaces would be sufficient for the overlap during shift change. The current ordinance requires 60 parking spaces for a 120 -bed home. The amendment would change this to 73 parking spaces. He recommended 45 parkings spaces as a reasonable requirement and felt that the impact on present 76 charges would be within an acceptable level. Mr. Cook expressed his concern over keeping his costs down so that it would not be necessary to change their admission policy. Currently, patients are admitted on a first come, first serve basis, no matter what their financial status. Mr. Cook summarized his recommendation of parking spaces needed for a convalescent home: 1 space for every 15 doctors l visitor parking space for every 10 patients 2.5 spaces for employees THE CHAIRMAN RECESSED THE PUBLIC HEARING IN ORDER TO TAKE THREE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ITEMS. PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL - FOREST PARK, UNIT II SUBDIVISION The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/7/83: TO: The Honorable Members DATE: September 7, 1983FILE: y of the Board of County Commissioners DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE: SUBJECT: Robert M. Keatding,AICP Planning & Zoning Manager PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL OF FOREST PARK UNIT III SUBDIVISION FROM: Clare Z. Poupard C�rQ REFERENCES: Forest Park III Planner I WORK02 It is requested that the following information be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting on September 21, 1983. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS: Forest Park - Unit III Subdivision is a northward extension, and the final phase, of the Forest Park single-family residential development. There are 26 lots in the ± 21 acre proposed subdivision. The land is zoned R-lA (4.3 dwelling units/acre, Single -Family Residential) and R-2 (6.2 dwelling units/acre, Multi -Family Residential). The R-lA zoning classification covers all of the dry land in the proposed subdivision. The portion of the subdivision which is zoned R-2 includes that 77 SEP 21 193 L I r SEP 211983 5-4 PA0 685 portion of the Golf Course lake which encroaches.on lots 4-15. This lake is part of a designated Water Management Tract and is to be managed by Vista Properties. The land use designation of the proposed subdivision is MD -2, Medium -Density Residential (10 dwelling units/acre). The proposed building density of the subdivision is 1.24 dwelling units/acre. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS: The applicant is in conformance with all applicable County ordinances, including the County's Subdivision Ordinance 75-3. The subdivision will be served by County utilities. This has been approved by the Utilities Division. A type "B" Stormwater Management Permit has been approved by the Public Works Division. The applicant has also conformed with all staff recommendations concerning the subdivision. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant preliminary plat approval to Forest Park - Unit III Subdivision. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously approved preliminary plat for Forest Park, Unit III Subdivision as recommended by staff. PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL OF TALL TREES SUBDIVISION The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/6/83: TO: The Honorable Members DATE: September 6, 1983FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE: SUBJECT: Robert M ai t ng,-' ICRP g .: Planning & Zoning Manager PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL OF TALL TREES SUBDIVISION FROM: Clare Poupard REFERENCES: Tall Trees Planner I ✓ WORK02 It is requested that the following information be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting on September 21, 1983. 78 DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS Tall Trees Subdivision is a 25 lot subdivision located on the south side of 14th Street, west of 37th Avenue. The site is 6.7 acres in size. The land is zoned R-1, Single -Family Residential (6.2 dwelling units/acre allowable building density) and has a LD -2, Low -Density Residential (6 dwelling units/acre allowable building density) land use designation. The proposed building density is 3.7 dwelling units/acre. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS The applicant has complied with all requirements in the County's Subdivision Ordinance 75-3, as well as all other applicable Countv ordinances. A type "A" Stormwater Management Permit has been issued. Utilities will be provided by the City of Vero Beach. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant preliminary plat approval to Tall Trees Subdivision. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously approved preliminary plat for Tall Trees Subdivision, as recommended by staff. PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL OF GOLF PAL14 VIEW ESTATES SUBDIVISION WITH A VARIANCE The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/7/83: TO: The Honorable Members DATE: September 7, 1983FI(_E: of the Board of County Commissioners REQUEST FOR PRELIM - DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE: SUBJECT: Robert M. Keating AICP Planning & Zoning Manager FROM: Clare Z. Poupard 1,� REFERENCE: Planner I INARY PLAT APPROVAL OF GOLF PALM VIEW ESTATES SUBDIVISION WITH A VARIANCE Golf Palm View WORKB It is requested that the following information be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting on September 21, 1983. 79 PW a P 1 1983 BOOK SAG€t8. SE 2 _ r1 1983 SEP 2 ar�K rAc� 688 DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS: Golf Palm View Estates is a 10 lot subdivision, located on the north side of 30th Street, west of 11th Avenue. The subject property is zoned R-lA, Single -Family Residential, (4.3 dwelling units/acre) and has a LD -1, Low -Density Residential, (3 dwelling units/acre) land use designation. The proposed building density is 2.78 dwelling units/acre. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS: The applicant has complied with all County requirements concerning subdivisions, with one exception. Section 22-54 (A)(8) of the County's Subdivision Ordinance 75-3 states that, "Whenever a tract to be subdivided borders on an existing half t or partial street, the other part of the street shall be. dedicated within such tract." Thirtieth Street is an existing half street. The existing right-of-way is 351 V size, so under the conditions of this provision, the applicant shall be responsible for providing an additional 15' of right-of-way. The applicants have requested a variance from this provision in the ordinance (see Attachment 4). The reason for this variance request, as stated in the letter from the applicant, is that, in order to provide additional right-of-way, the applicant would have to utilize Indian River Farms Drainage District land. The district's main relief canal right-of-way abuts the northern border of the existing 30th Street pavement. This land would have to be acquired from the Water Control District. 'The District has been contacted, and has informed staff that they would not be willing to have any of their right-of-way used for the purpose -of providing street right-of-way for residential development. In fact, according to the District, as Indian River County grows, that right-of-way will have to be used for expansion of the Main Canal. The County Engineer has reviewed this variance request and has also recommended that it be approved. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant, to the applicants, a variance from Section 22-54 (A)(8) of the County's Subdivision Ordinance, requiring extension of the existing right-of-way to a width of 501. Staff further recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant preliminary plat approval to Golf Palm View Estates Subdivision. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, that the Board approve preliminary site plan for Golf Palm View Estates Subdivision with a variance, as recommended by staff. In discussion, Commissioner Lyons was assured by Attorney Brandenburg that the County has the right to grant the variance. s0 THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED - ORDINANCE AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE RE OFF STREET PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS THE CHAIRMAN RECONVENED THE PUBLIC HEARING. Howard Burroughs, Building & Property Director of the Vero Beach Country Club, expressed the Club's concern over the parking requirements under Section 24 of the proposed parking ordinance amendment. He felt that VBCC did not fit into the definition under Item #12 - Golf courses. Vero Beach Country Club provides 100% of its parking on grass; they believe in keeping the countryside green and object to concrete or asphalt parking spaces. Mr. Burroughs did not want to cut down trees to provide parking and recommended that the proposed amendment ordinance be revised to exclude Vero Beach Country Club from the requirement of providing an asphalt parking lot. Attorney Brandenburg advised that the proposed ordinance amendment would not affect established courses unless they expanded or in the event the club burned down and they rebuilt. Commissioner Lyons felt that not even a new facility should have to provide anything more than grass parking and he had trouble with a lot of asphalt being required Commissioner Wodtke who is a member of the Vero Beach Country Club, concurred that asphalt or concrete parking is not desired. He also felt that the Club should come under Item #23, Private Club or Country Club, but pointed out that actually VBCC is not really a country club to the extent that there are swimming pools, tennis courts, etc., -- it is a private golf course. 81 SEP 211983 rK qac€ I SEP 211983 Robert Keating stated that the County did not have any standards for golf courses prior to this and now they have two or three courses under review. This is also true of some of the other categories here, i.e., swimming pools, racquetball courts, tennis courts, etc. He explained that two different categories were worked out in the special workshop meeting and they specified that a private club or country club that is located inside a residential development needs less parking spaces than a clubhouse or some private facility that is free standing. Commissioner Wodtke restated his opinion that VBCC does not fall under any definitions in Item #12 and that it should be included under Item #23. He also felt there are other matters in this amendment that need to be discussed and suggested that more workshops be held. Mrs. Carolyn Eggert, Planning & Zoning Commission, informed the Board that they have held workshops and public hearings on this matter and each one had been properly advertised. She did not feel that any more workshops were necessary and believed that the problem could be worked out between.the Board and staff. Commissioner Lyons felt that the problem is not to provide adequate parking, the problem is how much to pave. Carolyn Eggert felt that the problems in re to providing 50% paved parking could be worked out under a variance. Commissioner Scurlock felt that there should be designated areas for grass parking. Robert Keating explained that daily use of a grassed area results in degradation of the area and that is why they have usually limited grass parking to weekly use or occasional overflow situations. David Rever reported that one of the suggestions that came up during workshops was to pave only the aisleways and 82 M M r Leave the actual parking places in grass, as degradation usually takes place in the aisles. Tom Culler, Construction Industry Management Council, stated he was in attendance in the workshops and felt that the proposed ordinance is a good one, although some items .in it should be readdressed in a few months when we go through with the new zoning ordinance. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously closed the Public Hearing. MOTION WAS 14ADE by Commissioner Lyons,. SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, that the Board adopt Ordinance 83-30 amending Section 24 of the County Zoning Code governing off-street parking and loading regulations, with the understanding that the matters of grass parking and aisle widths re right angle and parallel parking will be brought back to the Board under the new zoning ordinance; and that the ordinance is to specify a parallel parking space as 23` x 8' and to include the convalescent home parking standards suggested by Mr. Cook. Commissioner Bowman objected to grass parking under trees because the ground gets so compacted that it eventually kills the trees. Administrator Wright felt that was a site plan matter and Chairman Bird felt it should be considered under the new tree ordinance. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion carried unanimously. 83 SEP 211983 � 600K ACE SEP 211983 ; ,PAGL��, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 83 - 30 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDING SECTION 24 OF APPENDIX A TO THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, KNOWN AS THE COUNTY'S ZONING CODE; GOVERNING OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS; SETTING STANDARDS FOR SIZE AND NUMBER OF REQUIRED SPACES; PROVIDING FOR COMPACT CAR PARKING SPACES; ESTABLISHING PARKING STANDARDS FOR CERTAIN USES NOT PREVIOUSLY AD- DRESSED; REVISING CURRENT PARKING STANDARDS FOR CERTAIN USES; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES; CODIFICATION; SEVERABILITY; AND EFFECTIVE DATE. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that; SECTION 1 Section 24. The following paragraphs of the Off-street parking and loading regulations are amended to read as follows: Section 24. Off-street parking and loading regulations: For the purpose of this ordinance, such "off-street parking space" shall consist of a minimum net area of two hundred (200) square feet with minimum dimensions of ten (10) feet in width and twenty (20) feet in depth with driving surface for the parking of an automobile, exclusive of access drives or aisles thereto. Minimum dimensions for parallel parking spaces shall be 23 feet in length and 8 feet in width. Up to twenty (20) percent of the number of off-street parking spaces required for each project may receive site plan approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission and be constructed to compact car standards. Such standards require,that each space have a minimum width of seven and one-half (712) feet and a minimum length of fifteen (15) feet and that each space be conspicuously identified as a compact car space. There shall be provided on the building site at the t�me,of the erection of any building or structure, change in use, or --at the time any building or structure is enlarged or increased in capacity by adding dwelling units, guest rooms., floor area or seats, the minimum off-street parking space required for the new structure or use with adequate provisions for ingress and egress by an automobile of standard size, in accordance with this section. (a) Parking. (1) Amusement game parlors, pool halls, and other similar recreational buildings. One (1) space per one hundred fifty (150) square feet of gross building area. (2) Automotive, boat, and trailer sales. One (1) space per five hundred (500) square feet of gross building area plus one space per twenty-five hundred (2500) square feet of outside display area. The display area shall be fully sodded. (3) Banks and savings and loans. One (1) space per two hundred (200) square feet of gross building area. (4) Bowling alleys. Five (5) spaces per each bowling lane. SEP 21 1983 (5) Churches, temples, places of worship, public buildings, auditoriums, stadiums and other places of public assembly. One (1) space for each four (4) seats. (6) Contractor's office or trade building. One (1) space per five hundred (500) square feet of gross building area. (7) Convalescent homes, homes for the aged, retirement homes, nursing homes and other similar health care facilities. One (1) space shall be reserved for doctors for each fifteen (15) patient beds, plus one (1) space per ten (10) patient beds as approved under the Certificate of Need, plus one (1) space per two and one-half (2.5) employees, exclusive of doctor parking spaces. (8) Flea markets and farmer's markets. There shall be one __and one-half (1.5) identified parking spaces for each booth or stand. In addition, each stand or booth shall have one (1) backup parking space provided for a truck or car for the purpose of loading and unloading. All parking spaces and driveway aisles shall be constructed with a stabalized base and be.fully sodded. (9) Funeral homes, mortuaries and crematoriums. One (1) space per sixty-five (65) square feet of gross floor area within the chapel, plus one space per employee, plus one space (1) per company-owned vehicles. (10) Furniture, carpet and major appliance stores. (a) One (1) space per five hundred (500) square feet of floor area devoted to storage for the first four thousand (4,000) square feet and one (1) space per seven hundred fifty (750) square feet on the remaining storage area, plus one (1) space per two hundred (200) square feet of the remaining floor area, or (b) one (1) space per four hundred (400) square feet of gross building area for stores containing display area only. (11) General commercial establishments. One (1) space per two hundred (200) square feet of gross building area. (1.2) Golf courses. (a) Private course serving primarily on-site users: Executive course requires two (2) spaces per hole and a championship course requires two and on -half (2'h) spaces per hole. (b) Public or private course: Executive course requires three (3) spaces per hole and a championship course requires four (4) spaces per hole. (13) Hotels and motels. One and three tenths (1.3) spaces per rentable room plus one (1) space for each three (3) seats offered to the public for restaurant or"lounge purposes. (14) Hospitals, sanitariums and other similar health care facilities. One (1) space shall be reserved for doctors for each ten (10) patient beds, plus one (1) space per four (4) patient beds, plus one (1) space per one and one-half (1.5) employees, exclusive of doctor parking spaces. (15) Libraries and museums. One (1) space per four hundred (400) square feet of gross building area. (16) Medical and dental offices and out-patient clincs. One (1) space per one hundred and seventy-five (175) square feet of gross floor area. -2- �aoK SEP 21 198 1 3 s 4 Pace 694 (17) Manufacturing, wholesaling and storage businesses which do not sell over the counter products to the general public from the premises. One (1) space per five hundred (500) square feet of gross floor area. (18) Marinas. One (1) space per three hundred (300) square feet of principal building area plus one (1) space per three (3) boat storage spaces. (19) Mobile home or recreational vehicle sales. One (1) space per five hundred (500) square feet of gross building area plus one (1) space per twenty-five hundred (2500) square feet of outside display area. The display area shall be fully sodded. (20) Multiple -family dwellings. (a) Two (2) spaces per each dwelling unit; for each dwelling unit over forty units, one-half (Z) space of the required parking may be installed as grassed parking. (b) For "adult __community projects", one and one-half (lz) spaces per dwelling unit; for each dwelling unit over forty (40) units, one-half (h) space of the required parking may be installed as grassed parking. (21) Nurseries or Greenhouses. One (1) space per five hundred (500) square feet of gross floor area for buildings. Pole barns, mist houses, shade houses, and accessory structures shall not be included for purposes of determining parking requirements. (22) Nursery schools, kindergartens, and child care facilities. One and one-half (1h) spaces per staff person required for the licensed capacity of the facility pursuant to local or state agency staff ratio requirements. (23) Private club or country club. (a) One (1) space per two hundred (200) square feet of gross floor area plus the required parking area for each associated structure or use creating user parking demand. (b) Private clubs located within residential projects serving primarily on-site users are required to provide one (1) space per two hundred square feet of gross floor area plus the required parking area for each associated structure or use creating user parking demand of which up to fifty percent (50a) may be grassed parking spaces. (24) Professional offices. One (1) space per three hundred (300) square feet of gross building area. (25) Public or private commercially operated recreational complexes and associated structures. Five (5) spaces per gross acre for each acre of open space generating user parking demand, plus one (1) space per one hundred (100) square feet of gross floor area for associated support buildings, plus the required number of spaces for each specific recreational use. (26) Racquetball Courts. Three (3) spaces per court. (27) Restaurants or bars. One and one-half (12) spaces per one hundred (100) square feet.of gross floor area (28) Rooming and boarding houses, or dormitories. One (1) space per two (2) sleeping spaces. (29) Schools. -3- r (a) Colleges, universities, and technical/vocational schools. One (1) space per three (3) seats of classroom seating capacity. (b) High schools. Six (6) spaces for each classroom plus one (1) space per each teaching, administrative or staff position. (c) Junior high and elementary schools. One (1) space per each classroom plus one (1) space per each teaching, administrative or staff position. (d) Business schools. One (1) space for each three (3) seats of classroom capacity. (30) Single-family dwellings. Two (2) spaces for each dwelling.unit which will be exempted from all other requirements in sub -sections (b) through (f) and uncovered parking spaces will be exempted from the front setback requirements. (31) Shuffleboard courts. Four (4) spaces per five .. (5) courts. (32) Swimming pools. Twenty (20) spaces per average size swimming pool (approximately 75 feet by 45 feet in size) (33) Tennis courts. Three (3) spaces per court. (34) Theaters. (a) Single theaters. One (1) space per three (3) 14 seats. (b) Multi-plex theaters. One (1) space per four (4) seats. In shopping centers having over 50,000 square feet of retail sales use and providing one (1) space per two hundred (200) square feet of gross floor area for those retail uses, multi-plex theaters shall provide parking according to the following.standards: Gross Retail Area Parking Standard 25,000 - 49,999 1 space per -5 seats 50,,000 - 79,999 sq. ft. 1 space per 6 seats 80,000 - 99,999 sq. ft. 1 space per 7 seats 100,000 sq. ft. & over 1 space per 8 seats (35) Veterinary hospitals or boarding kennels. One (1) space per three hundred (300) square feet of gross building area excluding animal runs. Grassed parking spaces may be installed up to fifty (50) percent of the required number of spaces upon approval of the Planning and Zoning. Commission for that portion of the required parking that is intermittant. (3.6) Other uses. Off-street parking requirements for any use not specifically mentioned in this section shall be the same as for the most similar use listed. (b) General parking standards. (1) A site may.utilize parking spaces of an abutting property provided that the abutting property has excess parking spaces per this Section's requirements, the site being developed provides on-site a minimum of twenty-five percent (25%) of its required parking spaces, a common access easement agreement is executed by all applicable parties and provided at the time of site plan application, and that such agreement provides for perpetual access and use of the abutting property's parking spaces and access drives/aisles. -4- SEP 211983 BOK �Ac� I r SEP 211983 k racy 696` (2) Parking requirements for two or more principal uses of the same or different types may be satisfied by the allocation of the required number of spaces for each principal use in a common parking facility. (3) Parking lots or loading areas shall have no driveway- aisle(s) which deadends without a backing apron with a minimum depth of five (5) feet. (4) All parking spaces shall be equipped with tire stops permanently affixed to the surface except when six (6) inch curbing or the equivalent is installed. (5) Handicap parking spaces shall be reserved and posted in all tourist and commercial land use classifications. Handicap parking spaces shall be located in proximity to the main and secondary entrances, and ramps to sidewalks shall be provided and conveniently located in relationship to the ._handicap parking spaces. The required number of handicap parking spaces shall be as required by the Standard Building Code. (6) Where handicapped parking is required, each space so designated shall have a minimum width of not less than twelve (12) feet and be accompanied by a ramp access to the building in accordance with the requirements of the County -City Building Department. (7) The delineation of all required parking spaces, dumpster spaces, loading areas, and other striping requirements shall be identified using the striping and visual contrast criteria of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (Federal Highway Administration FHWA). (c) Entries, exits, drives and vehicle maneuvering areas. (1) All uses which are required to provide three or more off-street parking spaces shall have entry and exit - ways and drives at least twenty-two (22) feet in width to accommodate two-way traffic unless a one-way traffic system is utilized, in which case entry and exitways and drives shall be at least eleven (11) feet in width. In the event a one-way traffic system is utilized, appropriate traffic direction markers shall be installed at all appropriate intersections. Drives and maneuvering areas shall provide proper turning radii to permit convenient maneuvering of cars and service vehicles into and out of each parking and loading space. No occupied.parking or loading space shall interfere with access to any other parking or loading space, or with any pedestrian walkway. (2) Except for single-family residential dwellings and duplexes, all parking access shall be designed so as to prevent the need to back directly onto a public road or right-of-way. (3) Access points to public or private streets shall be kept to a minimum, with widths not in excess of twenty-four (24) feet, unless said requirements are jointly adjusted by the County TrafficEngineerand the County Community Development Director; and the distance to any street intersection (right-of-way to access points nearest paved edge) shall be no less than thirty (30) feet, unless said requirements are jointly adjusted by the County Traffic Engineer and the County Community Development Director. -5- 0 M r (d) Off-street loading regulations. These requirements shall apply to all commercial and industrial uses requiring the receipt or distribution by service vehicles of materials or merchandise: (1) A minimum number of loading spaces or berths shall be provided and maintained as follows: Buildings) Size in Sq. Ft. Over 5,000 but not over 24,999 25,000 59,999 60,000 119,999 120,000 199,999 200,000 290,000 No. of Spaces/Berths 1 2 3 4 5 (2) Loading spaces or berths shall have minimum dimensions of fourteen (14) by thirty (30) feet, plus each space or berth shall have an additional two hundred and ._fifty (250) square feet of.loading or manuevering area immediately contiguous to the space or berth. Service alleys or driveways shall have a minimum width of twenty (20) feet. (3) Any facility required to have loading facilities may be permitted to have a drive of a size commensurate with the requirements of delivery. SECTION 2 REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. All Special Acts of the legislature applying only to the unincorporated portion of Indian River County and which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. SECTION 3 INCORPORATION IN CODE The provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated into the County Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section", "article", or other appropriate word, and the sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such intentions. SECTION 4 SEVERABILITY If any section, part of a sentence, paragraph, phrase or word of this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitu- tional, inoperative or void, such holdings shall not affect the -6- SEP 211983 x W a WE 697 A SER 21 1983 took FAcE EW remaining portions hereof and it shall be construed to have been the legislative intent to pass this ordinance without such unconstitutional, invalid or inoperative part. CL•f`T7/`\T CZ EFFECTIVE DATE The provisions of this ordinance shall become effective upon receipt from the Florida Secretary of State of official acknowledgment that this ordinance has been filed with the Department of State. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on this 21sjay of September , 1983. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN R//RI�IVEER' COUNTY BY: �e % . RICIiARD N. BIRD Chairman Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of Florida this 14t -h day of nc+-,h, , 1983. F.f`ective Date: Acknowledgment from the Department of State received on this 21St day of pr -t -cher , 1983, at 11!nn A.M./P.M. and filed in the Office of the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida. APPROVE TQ FOF LEGAL OF C N By Ay 0 r AT T RNEY Off -St. Prkg. Ord. WORKB 8/2;/83 The Board.of County Commissioners thereupon recessed at 12:45 o'clock P.M. and reconvened at 1:35 o'clock P.M. with all members present except Commissioner Lyons who was, temporarily delayed. APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL SITE PLAN APPEAL - O'CONNELL The Board reviewed staff recommendation, as follows: TO: The Honorable 'Members DATE: September 9, 1983 FILE: of the Board of. County Commissioners. DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE JERRY O'CONNELL'S APPEAL SUBJECT: OF CONDITIONAL SITE PLAN Ro ert M. Keatin ,. P APPROVAL Planning & Zoning Manager Karen.Craver l FROM: Planning Tech i ian REFERENCES: It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of September 21, 1983. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS On April 7, 1983, Jerry O'Connell was issued a zoning permit to place a 6 foot high shadowbox fence along the rear property line of his lot located at the southwest corner of 2nd Street and 16th Avenue. At the time of placement of the permitted fence, a section of identical fence, for which a permit was not issued, was located along the front property line facing 2nd Street. As the result of a complaint by a neighbor, Mr. O'Connell submitted a minor site plan request, and the matter was placed on the August ll, 1983, agenda.of the Planning and Zo?;ing Commission in order to receive after -the -fact approval of the portion of fence for which a permit had not been issued. Because the zoning code states that on corner lots all yards which abut the street are considered front yards, the O'Connell site plan application requested a deviation of three feet, from the 3 foot height limitation for front yard fences as specified in Section 25 (i)(1) of the zoning code to the six (6) foot height proposed. The Planning and Zoning Commission approved the fence provided that it be relocated and set back twenty (20) feet from the property line, putting the fence in the buildable area and making the fence applicable to the five foot height limitation for side yard fences. It is the condition of this approval that Mr. O'Connell is appealing to the Board of County Commissioners. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS The O'Connell residence is located on a corner lot within the R-1, Single -Family Residential, zoning district and thereby has 91 SEP 211983 600K 54 FACE 699 r1 1983 .;� SEP 2 FacE 701 a required front yard setback of 20 feet on both 2nd Street and 16th Avenue. It was the determination of the Planning staff that the fence should be located in the buildable area of the lot rather than within the 20 foot front yard setback. By doing so, the approval would be granted for a 6 foot fence in the side yard, instead of a 6 foot fence in the front yard. The permitted height of a side yard fence is 5 feet, while the permitted height of a front yard fence is only 3 feet. RECO14MENDATION The Planning Department staff recommends that the conditional approval granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission be upheld and the appeal by Mr. O'Connell be denied. Mrs. Pat O'Connell informed the Board that she and her husband only received notice of the Planning & Zoning meeting an hour prior to the meeting, and she did not feel all this would have occurred if they had been given proper notice. Mrs. O'Connell commented that she had talked to her neighbor, who also happens to work for the Planning Department, and learned that it would be necessary to get a variance to put up a fence which would afford them privacy in their pool. She explained that they did get a permit for the first part of the fence along the rear, and then when the fenceman came, they had saved more money and told him to put up the rest of the fence. Mrs. O'Connell pointed out that eleven others on the same street and with corner lots have the same size fence, and they have been unable to locate a neighbor who objects to their fence as evidenced by the following signed statement: TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN I am a neighbor of Jerry & Patricia O'Connell and I have no objection to the height or the location of the fence constructed on their property. r � � Mrs. O'Connell continued that when they filed for a variance, they were not made aware that there was any problem with the location of the fence. She then presented pictures to verify that their fence is not an eyesore; that it does conform to the surroundings; and that it does not restrict visibility and cause traffic problems. Mrs. O'Connell also submitted pictures of seven other fences in the neighborhood which were constructed after the new zoning law went into effect and noted that within the last two months a fence about 200' long has been constructed along 2nd Street She stressed that their appeal is based on the fact that the Zoning Department has given other people in the same neighborhood variances for their fences. Jerry O'Connell explained that he had his wife make the presentation because he found it difficult to remain calm about this situation. He emphasized that it would be a great inconvenience to dig up his yard and move the sprinkler system in order to move the fence, and he felt a mountain is being made out of a molehill. Planning Manager Keating emphasized the fact that the original permit was just for a rear yard fence, and also noted that, according to code, all parts of a corner lot which abut the street are considered front yards where a fence may be only 3' in height. He continued that when the complaint was filed, he had the Zoning Inspectors look at the situation, and then they initiated Code Enforcement Board action. Mr. Keating continued that he has currently instructed the Zoning Inspectors to look at the other fences in this area to determine whether or not they are in violation also. He noted that on October 12th, the Board will be hearing a request to amend the Fence Ordinance to allow 42" front yard fences, but it does not change the requirement for corner lots. 93 SEP 21 1983 eon5A�Ac�s J _ S E P 211983 e4- roc, 70 Question arose as to why this.is before the County Commission rather than the Code Enforcement Board, and Mr. Keating noted that walls and fences are treated differently than other parts of the Ordinance. Discussion followed on the fact that this is an unusual situation because of the corner lot. Commissioner Scurlock noted that we have a situation here where obviously there are many more corners and lots of a similar nature, and he personally would want to look into the situation and see what does make sense and then change the law accordingly since he believed there will be many of these type situations coming before the Commission. Mr. O'Connell noted that a 3' fence would not afford anyone any privacy unless he happened to be a pygmy. Commissioner Lyons entered the meeting at 2:00 P.M. In further discussion, it was felt the crux of the matter relates to what is to be considered the front yard on a corner lot. Various alternatives were suggested; i.e., having the owner declare what part is to be considered his front yard. Mr. Keating noted that in areas of this kind where you have adjacent houses that access on different streets, you could create a problem by having different setbacks and possibly end up with some houses too close to the road. Commissioner Scurlock felt that this is a unique situation, and he would like to find the proper vehicle to allow the O'Connell's to keep their fence as it is and then address the overall problem, but he did not want to create a situation where we lock ourselves in on all similar situations. Attorney Brandenburg stated that the Commission would be addressing the O'Connell's case in particular and would not be locking themselves in on any future appeals. 94 MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, to approve the O'Con.nell's appeal of conditional site plan approval contingent on it being estab- lished that visibility at this intersection is not restricted by the 6' fence. Commissioner Lyons felt that the Planning & Zoning Commission has given this matter full consideration and he did not believe that anything has been added which changes their decision. It was explained that the.O'Connells did not receive adequate notice of the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting and were not able to attend. Planning Manager Keating requested that the Commission give him some direction as to whether the other existing fences along 2nd Street, should be pursued as zoning violations, and the Board felt this should not be pursued actively unless a complaint was filed. In further discussion, it generally agreed that we must pursue the situation uniformly, but that the Ordinance needs to be rewritten. Commissioner Lyons agreed with the Board's thoughts, but believed we. have an existing ordinance and that we have to live with it until we change it. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried 4 to 1 with Commissioner Lyons voting in opposition. HEALTH DEPARTMENT CLINICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL FEES Health Director Dr. Lookabaugh came before the Board to discuss a new fee schedule, as follows: 95 SEP 211983 6XV 5:4 PA093 SEP 211983 `l . _ .B 64 PAGE W9' STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES MEMO: To: Board of County Commissioners, Indian River County Florida Subject: Fee Schedule for Environmental Health, Indian River County Health Department. From: C.K. Lookabaugh, M.D.,M.P.H. Director -Tl.� M.J. Galanis Environmental Health Director The legislature passed several bills effecting Environmental Health programs and fees charged for those programs. In the areas of swimming pools (fee paid directly to the state),Migrant Labor Camps, Mobile Home Parks and Septic Tanks we have been ordered to establish the fees. Those items with a range are to be charged for at the lower amount until the state establishes a state-wide fee. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH CURRENT FEE FOOD HYGIENE COURSE WATER SAMPLE MIGRANT LABOR CAMPS (10/1/83 1-50 OCCUPANTS 51-100 OCCUPANTS 101 + TRAILER PARKS (10/1/83 6-10 SPACES 11-50 SPACES 51-200 SPACES 200 + SPACES ,SEPTIC TANKS (7/1/83) PERMIT SITE EVALUATION RESEARCH (septic tanks) ACCELERATED SOIL SURVEY ACCUPUNCTURE CLINIC CLINIC SERVICES PREGNANCY TEST INJECTIONS - ON ORDER OF PHYSICIAN (MEDICINE NOT PROVIDED BY HEALTH DEPT MATERNAL HEALTH CLINIC INITIAL VISIT FOLLOW UP PRENATAL VISITS POST -PARTUM VISIT REGISTRAR FEES CERTIFIED COPY BIRTH CERTIFICATES CERTIFIED COPY DEATH CERTIFICATES SEARCH FEE (NO CERTIFICATE) PRE -MARITAL CERTIFICATE COPY OF =AL RECORDS $ 5.00 5.00 50.00 - 75.00 t Sa. 00 389.88 1 11 1 11 2.00 2.00 0.00 fie NEW. FEE $ 5.00 5.00 50.00 - 75.00 100.00 - 150.00 150.00-225.00 25.00 - 50.00 50.00 -100.00 75.00 - 150.00 200.0.0 30.00 - 50.00 20.00 - 40.00 3.00 7.00 J:Sc�.co 5.00 2.00 20.00 5.00 per month 20.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 per year 25.00 maximum 5.00 2.0= f Dr. Lookabaugh reported that there is one mistake in the fee schedule, the acupuncture clinic fee should be $150.00. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, to adopt Resolution 83-76 approving the fees set out in the attached Exhibit "A". Dr. Lookabaugh noted that although the Environmental Fees are set by State Statute, the Clinical fees are not set - at this time. Around the state they are charging higher clinical fees than we are, however, and Dr. Lookabaugh felt we should charge user fees wherever possible. Commissioner Wodtke asked if the $2.00 fee for Medical Records is for one page or the entire record, and Dr. Lookabaugh stated that would be a copy of the entire file or whatever is requested; it is a copying fee. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR.THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. 97 c E P 211983 DOAK 4r�c�5 'SEP ,21 1993 S4 PACE'S RESOLUTION NO. 83- 76 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA ESTABLISHING A FEE SCHEDULE FOR SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY HEALTH UNIT. WHEREAS, Florida Statutes §154.06 authorizes the local health unit to collect reasonable fees for services rendered, provided a schedule of such fees is first established by the Board of County Commissioners and filed with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services; and WHEREAS, state legislation recently enacted mandates collection by local health units of certain fees which are either in addition to or different than fees currently established by the County Commission; and WHEREAS, the County Health Unit has requested that the County Commission approve a revised fee schedule reflecting the state mandated fees as well as those reasonable fees necessary to provide the other local health unit services identified on the attached list. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the Health Department is authorized and directed to impose the charges and fees for services as set forth in the attached Exhibit "A," commencing October 1, 1983. The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Scurlock who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bowman and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Richard N. Bird Aye Vice -Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye Commissioner Patrick B. Lyons Aye Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 21st day of September ,1983. APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGA SUFFSCIE�CY: By: CHRISTOPHER J. PAULL Assistant County Attorney BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDI N/ RIVVEER� COUNTY, FLORIDA By RICHARD N. BIRD, Chairman Attest:,,--,., J,' FREDA WRIGHT, Clerk _I EXHIBIT "A" SERVICEFEE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Food Hygiene Course $ 5.00 Water Sample 5.00 Migrant Labor Camps (10/1/83) 5.00 Injections - on order of 1-50 occupants 50.00 - 75.00* 2.00 51-100 occupants 100.00 - 150.00* 20.00 101 + 150.00 - 225.00* 20.00 Trailer Parks (10/1/83) 6-10 spaces 25.00 - 50.00* 11-50 spaces 50.00 - 100.00* 51-200 spaces 75.00 - 150.00* 200 + spaces 200.00 Septic Tanks (7/1/83) Permit 30.00 - 50.00* Site evaluation 20.00 - 40.00* Reserach (septic tanks) 3.00 Accelerated soil survey 7.00 Accupuncture Clinic 150.00 CLINIC SERVICES Pregnancy test 5.00 Injections - on order of physician (medicine not provided by Health Dept.) 2.00 Maternal Health Clinic Initial visit 20.00 Follow-up prenatal visits 5.00 per month Post -partum visit 20.00 REGISTRAR FEES Certified copy birth certificates 5.00 Certified copy death certificates 5.00 Search Fee (no certificate) 5.00 with a $25.00 per .year maximum Pre -marital certificate 5.00 Copy of medical records 2.00 *Where a range of fees is indicated, the lowest fee in the range shall be charged until such time as the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services promulgates a state-wide fee schedule superseding these fees. 99 SEP 211983. OOK .4 ?AcE J 707 I r - SEP 211983 A. DeGENERO RE DEPARTMENT OF SELF HELP R0 4 PAGE 79 Alison DeGenero came before the Board urging they donate space for the establishment of a "Department of Self Help Information" as set out in the following letter: Board of County Commissioners Indian River County 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Dear Commissioners: P.O. Box 714 Vero Beach, Florida 32960 September 9, 1983 Several years ago the Neighbors Helping Neighbors program asked for and received liaison assistance from the County Commissioners. The success of the Neighbors Helping Neighbors concept is known not only locally, but throughout the nation due to alert reporting on the part of the media. Experience has taught us that the most rewarding assistance we can give to our less fortunate neighbor is to show him how to help himself by education rather than a hand-out. Please accept this letter as my formal request to appear at your September 21, 1983 meeting for your endorsement of the concept of a project to be called "Department of Self Help Information". In this concept the County Commissioners would assume the responsibility of providing a service to the community. The Department of Self Help Information would be centrally located in the County Administration Building, where the citizens of this community, who have problems could call for assistance in seeking Self Help Information and guidance, if necessary. There will be little or no funding required and the benefits derived from this project will be outlined to you, not from rhetoric but from documented achievements. Sincerely, A. DeGenero Founder,.Neighbors Helping Neighbors Program Pastor Larry Westman, pastor of a church located on U.S.I, spoke in behalf of Mr. DeGenero's proposed project, noting that there are always those traveling through who are looking for handouts, but some really just want assistance to tell them how to help themselves. Pastor Westman stated that he has called Mr. DeGenero who has assisted these people in many ways. 100 SEP 211983 Mrs. Myers, resident of the North County, informed the Board that she has worked with Neighbors Helping Neighbors for the last two years. She has done similar work in other parts of the country, but nowhere has she seen a program work as well as this one. Chairman Bird confirmed that the entire Board is familiar with Mr. DeGenero's work and are behind his concept; the problem lies with supplying space in the Administration Building. The Chairman brought up the problem that the County switchboard is only manned during the daytime hours on weekdays and.not at all on weekends or holidays, and a phone number which is manned on more of a 24 hour basis might be preferable. Mr. DeGenero felt we could have a number for an emer- gency and noted that the crisis line is doing a wonderful job. He stated that he would like to have the authoritative nature of the call coming through the County Administrative Building. Commissioner Scurlock stressed that space is a severe problem, and we have been able to make space available only on a very limited basis for our State Congressman and State Representative. He asked if Mr. DeGenero is talking about a small office where his group would provide personnel to man it or if he wanted something larger and the use of a County employee. Mr. DeGenero stated that he would have.a total volunteer group, but they do need some space for a desk and a chair. He emphasized that the project will go on its own merits, and believed everyone will benefit, the Police Department, etc., when you show somehow how to help themselves and establish responsibility. Mr. DeGenero. commented that he had discussed this idea with City Manager Little, who was enthusiastic about the concept. 101 Boa rAu 709 $ E P 911983 sic ` PAGE 710 Commissioner Scurlock noted that the City/County Building Department is moving into the County Administration Building next month, and right now the whole bottom floor of the City Hall is devoted to that department. Possibly the City might have some space for Mr. DeGenero, and this could be taken up with City Manager Little. Mr. DeGenero stated that he perceived the Commission has the desire to move forward on this project and he will put this in their hands. ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unani- mously endorsed the idea presented by Alison DeGenero and authorized the Administrator to meet with Mr. DeGenero and work out any details and then come back to the Board with a recommendation as to how this possibly could be worked out. REQUEST FOR DONATION OF COUNTY OWNED PROPERTY TO BETHEL A.M.E. CHURCH The Board reviewed staff memo as follows: TO: Boarct ol County om- 1983 _ missioners DATE: FILE: THUR: Tommy Thomas, Community Services Director SUBJECT: Lots 57, 58 and 59 Block FROM: Liz Forlani 2, Hall Carter & James Adm. Aide Subdivision, Fellsmere Farms Subdivision Lot 57 is in the ownership of the Fellsmere Water Control District and I informed Reverend Jackson that the County has no authority over the disposition of it. Lots 58 and 59 are owned by the County and are on the 1983 assessment roll at $1,300 each. Reverend Jackson is requesting that Lots 58 and 59 be donated to the Bethel A.M.E. Church. It has been a past policy of the Commission not to make donr.Lions to non-public organizations. The procedure in the past has been when a request for county property has been received, it be advertised for public bidding. Lot 60 is presently owned by the church. M M M Commissioner Scurlock.had questions re the procedure for disposal of County property, and Attorney Brandenburg stated that if the property is valued at less than $1,500, the Commission may negotiate directly with abutting property owners; otherwise, it should go out to bid. It is allowed however, to negotiate with a not-for=profit corporation that wants the property for a community purpose. Community Services Director Thomas informed the Board that official action was taken in 1977 by the County Commission authorizing disposal of miscellaneous surplus property including the subject lots. Reverend Jackson informed the Board that their church was built around 1925; it is a wooden frame building; and they need a new building very badly; The lots in question, #58 and #59, they have used through the years as parking area. When it rains, these lots are submerged, and they would have to be built up above the street level. Rev- erend Jackson everend-Jackson continued that they have a vision to rebuild a church on the property and include recreation rooms and classrooms. They only have one lot and could not build on it with the present day Code. The church is incorporated. ' Mr. Thomas reported that these are about 40' lots, and they are not buildable individually. Commissioner Bowman stated that she has inspected this site; these lots, indeed, are very low, and there will have to be a lot of fill as well as swales for drainage. Commissioner Scurlock asked if the church could at least pay something for the lots, and Reverend Jackson stated they would certainly try, but it would have to be a very meager sum. Commissioner Scurlock noted that there are a number of churches and civic organizations in our county, and if we complied with every request for property, he believed we would run out quickly. He noted that we worked out a deal SEP 21 198 . x.03 .... _ SEP 211983 Bo�K PAGE 71 in Wabasso re the Douglas School, but that is open to the entire public, not just a particular church group. Chairman Bird asked if it would serve the Reverend's purpose if the County were to lease the church this property at a dollar a year for 99 years with a reverter clause as he felt a lease would put the Commission in a better light than an outright gift. Reverend Jackson did not know how the mortgage companies would feel about a lease, but Mr. Thomas, a former banker, stated there would not be any problem on a lease of that length. Discussion continued with the Board generally favoring a lease, and Commissioner Wodtke stated that he had no problem with a lease, but he also felt we could follow our regular .procedure of finding if we have any use for the land, and if we don't, then advertise. He could not imagine who else would want this property, and he did not believe we would have to accept the high bid in any event. Other Board members had some question about higher bidders coming in. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously authorized the County Attorney to work with Reverend Jackson on a 99 year lease at $1.00 a year with a reverter clause on Lots 58 and 59, Block 2, Hall Carter & James Subdvision, Fellsmere Farms. PUBLIC HEARING — GENERAL DEVEL. UTILITIES INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS 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: - = 104 VER© BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN HIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA NOTICE OFPUBUCHEARINO Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath MAY TO WHOM herebCONCERN: Notice is hereby given that the Board of says that he is Business Manaqer of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published County Commissioners of Indian River Coun- at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida: that the attached copy of advertisement, being ty, Florida, will hold a public hearing to con- sider the approval of an issue of industrial development revenue bonds in the aggregate. �l.L principal amount of not exceeding $4,020,000, a to be issued by Indian River County, Florida, for General Development Utilities; Inc., a Flor- ida corporation, at its regular meeting to be in the matter of t.,. rJLX_ t'l1 1_1_ held September 21, 1983, .beginning at 1:30 p.m. in the Commission Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida. All interested per- sons are invited to attend and be heard. The proceeds of such bond issue will be used to finance the acquisition, construction and equipping of industrial facilities for the in the Court, was pub- furnishing of (i) water services, consisting of interconnecting water mains and other capital q lished in said newspaper in the issues of 5&1 l 3 ( 1 f 3 costs of Interconnecting the water distribution system owned and operated by General Development Utilities, Inc., in Vero Beach Highlands with the existing water system owned by Indian River County at its mains on Oslo Road and (ii) sewerage services, consist- onsisting ingof a .85 MGD package plant and related Affiant furtner says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at facilities, such water, facilities to be owned and operated by Indian River County and Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper Lias heretofore such sewerage facilities to be owned and op - been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been erated by General Development Utilities, Inc. entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun• and located adjacent to the Corporation's ex- t Florida, for period of one year next precedin the first publication of the attached co of Y• p Y g P PY fisting facilities south of 23rd Street in Section 31, Township 31 S, Range 40 East In the com- advertisement: and affiant furtner says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm munity known as Vero Beach Highlands in In - or corporation any discount, rebate. commission or refund for the purpose of securing this dian River County, Florida. advertisement for oublication in the said newspaper. All persons are advised that, if they decide to appeal any decision made at this meeting- GL _ Sworn to and subscnbe befo me t v day of C -I A.D. 19 3 hearing, they will need a record* of the pro - ceedings, and, for such purpose, they may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence, upon which the (Business Manager) appeal is to be based. Michael Wright County Administrator Sept. 3, 1983. (Clark of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, Florida) (SEAL) The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. There were none. It was noted that it had been requested that this. public hearing be postponed to a later date so that work could be done on amending the General Development franchise. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adjourned the public hearing and agreed to re - advertise it -for 10:30 A.M. on October 5th. AttorneyBrandenburg informed the Board that he also wanted to advertise for an additional public hearing on that .105 SEP 211983 DO 5A PnE. 713 J SEP 21 198rasp 71 same day to amend the General Development franchise so we can incorporate the amended franchise in the water agreement with General Development Utilities. DISCUSSION - INDIAN LAKES CONDOMINIUM/HOBART LANDING PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOC. The Board reviewed staff memo as follows: TO: The Honorable Members DATE: September 12, 1983 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: INDIAN LAKES CONDOMINIUM./ HOBART LANDING PROPERTY SUBJECT: OWNERS' ASSOCIATION Robert M. Keat ng,,~ ICP Planning & Zoning Dept. Manager FROM:Art Challacoe EnvironmentalbPlanner REFERENCES: DINDIAN LAKES It is requested that the data presented herein be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting on September 21, 1983. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS On July 6, 1983, Mr. Michael O'Haire, representing the Hobart Landing Property Owners Association, submitted a letter stating that the Indian Lakes Condominium site plan "should be deemed terminated and the developer notified accordingly." Staff reviewed the matter and in a memorandum dated July 25, 1983, developed a brief chronology of events, including a point -by -point determination that the site plan approval was still valid due to a commencement of construction. Mr. O'Haire, in a letter dated August 29, 1983, stated it was his belief that site plan approval and building permit ap- proval should lapse when the zoning permit lapses. It is that issue which is addressed in this analysis. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS Section 23(h) of the Indian River County Zoning Ordinance states that site plan approval shall terminate twelve (12) months after its issuance if construction has not started. The Ordinance also states that the Board of County Commissioners may grant extensions of time at its discretion. In this case, the Board granted a six month extension of the Indian Lakes Condominium site plan on July 7, 1982 to commence on July 23, 1982. This extension would be valid until January 23, 1983. In the meantime, the developer installed the first building foundation and received conformation from the Community Development Division that commencement of construction had begun. On September 12, 1983, the Community Development Division received oral conformation from the Building Department that the building permit for. Indian Lakes Condominum was still valid. 106 It is staff's belief that, once construction has begun, the associated site plan'.will remain valid as long as a correctly issuedbuilding permit is valid. Section 29(b)(12) states that a(zoning) certificate issued shall become invalid unless the work authorized by it shall have commenced within six (6) months after its issuance. In obtaining approval of a major development in Indian River County, a site plan must be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission before obtaining a zoning permit. Likewise, the zoning permit must be obtained before a building permit will be issued. Once the building permit is obtained, County staff has interpreted this action as "commencement" of the development. The developer still must follow the site plan as he builds and must still satisfy all building permit regulations in order to keep from having to start the process over again. As Mr. O'Haire states in his August 29, 1983 letter, and the staff concurs, that "the only purpose of zoning permits is to assure the County, that the zoning is proper for the intended use when a building permit is issued or construction commences." RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Commission concur with its interpre- tation of Section 23(h). and 29(b) in that the Indian Lake Condominium project currently has a valid building permit. Attorney Michael O'Haire came before the Board representing Hobart Landing Property Owners Association. He reviewed the lengthy history of this project which is in its third year, claiming that since the site plan was granted, the owner has done nothing except to scarify the property. The project has limped along, and every time the owner is told he is,in trouble, he goes out and moves something around on the property. Mr. O'Haire stated that it is a travesty, and he believed the whole project was put together to avoid.the Comprehensive Plan and for speculation. Mr. O'Haire then reported that he has delivered to Attorney Brandenburg today a deed which shows that Parcel I was deeded to a corporation named Maple Leaf Properties by Mr. Wilson the same month the site plan approval was given, and the Code very explicitly states that in the event any property which has received site plan approval shall be sold, transferred, leased or changed in any way, the site plan becomes void. 107 SEP 2119$3 �. . 54 ?At 715 FF'_ SEP 211983 BOOK ?Aa N Mr. O'Haire next brought up the fact that the zoning permit expired and was renewed several times. He then made the point that the owner of the property wrote former Community Development Director Bruce King advising him that construction had taken place and the zoning permit was current, when actually it had lapsed, and it was on the basis of these representations that Mr. King wrote a letter approving the continuance of the project. It was Mr. O'Haire's contention that once the zoning permit lapsed after the Comprehensive Plan was adopted, no new one could be approved. He requested that the Board make a determina- tion that once the zoning permit had lapsed after adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, the property was no longer being used properly, and that they accordingly schedule a public hearing to rezone the property as soon as possible. Attorney Brandenburg addressed the various points raised by Attorney O'Haire and pointed out that the Commission specifically placed in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan a statement providing that projects which had previously received site plan approval would be considered to be in conformity with the Plan. He, therefore, did not feel the subject development has a problem in that regard. He further noted that once a site plan is approved, it is good for a term of 12 months, and if a zoning permit runs out during that 12 month period, the developer can simply request another zoning permit. Attorney Brandenburg felt the critical point is that our Code indicates site plan approval is good for 12 months, until extended, or until construction commences. Since the Code does not define start of construction, we, therefore, go to an ordinary understanding of what constitutes start of construction. The Attorney then quoted from a letter sent to the Community Development Department which indicated that engineering, architectural landscaping, ponds, land clearing, footings, 108 artesian wells, and miscellaneous activities, had occurred on the subject property to the cost of $196,500. This was submitted to former.Director Bruce Ding, and he wrote a letter to Mr. Wilson stating that in his opinion Mr. Wilson had met the requirement of start of construction under the site plan. once construction is started, our zoning code doesn't say anything about when the site plan approval expires. There is another provision in the Code, however, which states that the.zoning permit expires if the work is suspended or abandoned for one year, and the critical issue is whether work has been pursued in a meaningful way to reach completion or whether the project has been abandoned. Commissioner Scurlock felt the Board has been very consistent in saying we will only grant one site plan extension so people can go forward in good faith. We are trying to amend the Ordinance to cover any loopholes, and in his personal opinion,,he did not feel anything but bad faith has been shown on the property in question. Attorney Brandenburg then addressed the issue of the transfer of the site plan. He agreed that per the wording of the ordinance, it does become void if transferred, but pointed out that we did have an instance recently which authorized a transfer of site plan approval upon approval of the Board, and he was authorized to change the ordinance to that effect. If what Mr. O'Haire says is true, the site plan has been transferred without Board approval, and it could be.voidable. Any transfer would represent a change in ownership. The Chairman asked if staff had anything to add before he asked for comments from the public. Environmental Planner Challacombe reported that they did check to see if the Building Department considered the building permit active, and as of last week, they did consider it active. He continued that Building Director �-- 109 SEP 21 1983 cc' 54 FACE717 - $E P 21 1993 soK 5;4 Fac€ 7-ts . Rymer is in full agreement that we need a provision in our ordinance similar to the Vero Beach Code which has wording that clearly specifies when a project has commenced construction and when it is necessary to go back through the whole process. Commissioner Lyons asked if Building Director Rymer had any record of the last time they were called for an inspection, and Mrs. Rymer stated inspections were made as follows: elevator footing inspection...... 1/6/83 foundation walls..... ....... 1/7/83 footings ......................... 1/18/83 observation tower ................ 4/8/83 temporary electrical ............. 4/14/83 party wall ....................... 7/20/83 Mr. Blume, who lives immediately adjacent to the subject property, asked if it is not required that a building permit for a development be displayed on site the same as a home owner permit, and Mrs. Rymer replied that they do display the construction card, not necessarily the permit. Mr. Blume stated that no card of any kind has been displayed. Attorney Eugene O'Neill appeared on behalf of Arthur Wilson, developer of Indian Lakes Condominiums, in Attorney Cooksey's absence, and stated his belief that this is a travesty the other way around; Mr. Wilson has been bad mouthed and harrassed beyond the ordinary point of decency by the neighbors, and, in fact, accused of many slanderous things. Attorney O'Neill emphasized that while the project is going slowly, it is being done legally and in full compliance with the law. It appears the only question is whether construction may have been abandoned. In answer to that question, the bookkeeper from Edwards Berger & Harris, CPAs, is present and can testify to the thousands of dollars. spent on this project. Also present is one of the engineers hired by Mr. Wilson, who will testify that Mr. Wilson purchased a wastewater plant from the Le Mer development in Indian River Shores that will be transported to the site this week. Attorney O'Neill further noted that Building Director Rymer testified as to the inspections made. Commissioner Scurlock asked if the plant that is being purchased has been approved by our utility department as required. Steven Mueller, engineer from Sippel & Masteller Assoc., Sebastian, reported that he did approach the County Utility Department informally regarding purchase of the plant. Mr. Pinto is aware of this; it is a new plant and a proven process. They do not, however, have formal approval from the Utility Department. Attorney O'Neill informed the Board that he is not familiar with the deed of transfer which apparently was made to Maple Leaf Properties, but he believed this is a fully owned company. Considerable discussion ensued regarding the transfer, and Attorney Brandenburg believed that.any transfer, even one to an owner, represents a transfer of ownership; however, the position the Board adopted last week was that such a transfer would not automatically void the site plan, but that it would be voided unless the transfer was approved by the County. Attorney O'Neill stated that Mr. Wilson changed title only from his individual name to his own corporate name for liability reasons; there was no attempt to circumvent the law. Since July 28, 1982, staff has been fit to continue telling Mr. Wilson he had the right to continue, on which basis he has expended more money, and Attorney O'Neill, therefore, respectfully requested that the Board consider 1.11 SEP 211983 bo x 54 PAcE 719 it S E P 211983 BOOK `� 720 the transfer so that it would not in any way vitiate the site plan. Developer Arthur Wilson came before the Board, and on prompting by Attorney O'Neill explained to the Board in detail the work done on his project, the problems encountered which caused the delays, his offer to drop density in an effort to work with his neighbors the amount of money expended, the sewer plant purchased, etc. The Board had difficulty understanding why Mr. Wilson would go ahead and buy a wastewater plant without first filing for a franchise. Mr. Wilson stated that he told the Utility Department about the plant he was buying; they were very impressed with it, and he was encouraged to buy it. He knew a permit would be necessary, but did not think it would be necessary before he bought the plant. Commissioner Lyons stated that he had difficulty in understanding how Mr. Wilson has tried to do this on such an informal basis when he knows all these things have to be done and approved by the County. Mr. Wilson pointed out that there is an area designated for this package plant on the site plan and his engineer visited Mr. Pinto on several occasions. The project can't go through without a package plant, and he could not believe that the County would issue a building permit and let people spend all this money and then say you can't do it. He noted that he hired professional engineers and followed their advice, and he believed they had done things quite correctly. After further discussion, the Chairman instructed that the following letter from former Utilities Director George Liner, as well as letters from Carter Associates, all re water and sewer service, be made a part of the record: sli • TO: ' DATE: FILE: Ester Rymer` December. l6, 1981 SUBJECT: Indian Lake Condominiums (Arthur K. Wilson) FROM: George Liner, REFERENCES: Utilities Director In view of the attached acknowledgement letters from Dean Leuthje, authorized by Mr. Wilson, I have no objections to the issuing of the construction permit. These enclosures ensure that no C.O. will be granted for the constructed property until the franchised availability of both water and sewer services are available. This developer is therefore proceding at his own risk since this memo does not give assurance that water or sewer service will be available at the convenience of the developer. N(1. (Its\ti`i11,'t'IN<; HN(;1NEEH,'—; AND .I.,AN1) SlJl.�.�'1':l:'(_)li MAnvtu r. cnnil r:, R t�4tl4 HfAU•AM)• n 1 .;. December 9, 1981 Mr. George Liner Director of Utilities Indian River County Lawyers Title Bldg. 14th St. Vero Beach Fla. 32960 1708 - 71•.t STRCET VC110 REACH, rt. 779r.n . 305 - 567 •1191 Re: Indian Lake Condo's Arthur K. Wilson Dear Mr. Liner: By means of this letter please be advised that we have been retained by Mr. Arthur K. Wilson, owner of the referenced Indian Lakes Condominiums project, to design on site. sewerage collection system and treatment sys-t-e„m. Mr. Wilson is aware that no certificate of occupancy shall be issued* until the sewer plant has been installed and totally approved by the State Dept. of Envirnvironmental Regulations. In addition he is aware that the sewerage franchise area, shall be completed and approved by the County, prior to the construction of the sewerage treatment plant. We appreciate your time and concern in this matter. Very truly yours, CARTER ASSOCIATES, I C. SEP 21.1983 res€'� 1.13 Dean F. Luethje, P. SEP 211983 CAR7.1.71 ASS 0�,It1'I'1:;�, INc�. CONSULTING E'N(TIN.EERS AND LIANI1) Stil.e�'I';l"t)liti MARVIN E. CARTER; R.L.S. DANA HOWARD, R.L.S. DEAN F. LUETHJE, P.E. December 16, 1981 George Liner Director of Utilities Indian River County Vero Beach, Fla. 32960 5.4 FAGS 7,? 704 - 210 _TRrc VERO PEACW rL 305 - 54.2-11o• Re: Indian Lake Condominiums Arthur K. Wilson Dear Mr. Liner: By means of this letter please be advised that Mr. Wilson has an agree- ment with Hobart Brothers Co., which states that they will serve his project with potable water. In addition Mr. Wilson is aware t�iat he will not receive a c'erf3ficate Qf occupancy for this project until such water is actually supplied to the project. We sincerely hope this answers your questions, and appreciate your time in this matter. Very truly yours, CARTER ASSOCIA ES, INC. Dean F. Luethje, P.E. Discussion followed as to the amount of money spent on the project, and Bookkeeper Cathy Law reported the amount expended on Indian Lakes Condominiums from January lst until September 19th of this year was $102,000 and from October of 1982 until December, 1982, $50,000; no taxes or interest are included in the figures, but there are legal fees and engineers fees. Attorney Brandenburg noted that a letter of January 20th from Mr. Wilson indicated that $196,500 had been expended, which is a considerably different figure. 114 Mr. Wilson stated that figures Ms. Law reported were expended since the project was in the corporation. He believed the total amount expended from the beginning is about $275,000 and that does not include land costs or interest or taxes. The Chairman asked if anyone further wished to be heard. William Dunford, resident of Hobart Landing, felt it is important to provide more information about what actually has transpired between the Hobart Landing community and Mr. Wilson. Mr. Dunford pointed out that when you live in a 25-30 unit single family waterfront community, it is not a very normal occurrence to have your elected representatives approve 192 units on 16 acres immediately adjoining your property, which units include three story condominiums'. Mr. Dunford informed the Board that Mr. Wilson originally came to him with a beautiful set of drawings and a proposition that if the Hobart Landing residents would support his request to rezone an additional ten acres immediately abutting to the east that he would downgrade his three story condos to only two stories; he would remove the currently planned main entrance which leads right to the Hobart Landing homes; only put a certain number of units on the 10 acres; and redo the whole development. This sounded very good, and there was some support in the Hobart Landing community until it was explained at the Planning & Zoning commission meeting, that Mr. Wilson could not change the site plan originally approved without getting a whole new site plan approval, and, therefore, all his verbal representations were just so much talk. Mr. Dunford felt that Mr. Wilson by his activities or lack of same, has demonstrated his representations cannot be depended upon. Chairman Bird inquired if Mr. Dunford had some consensus about what type of project the Hobart Landing 115 S F 211983 860K 54 PAcE"13 - SEP 21 1993 a ,K 54,PAGE 724 community would like in this location some day, and Mr. .Dunford stated that the whole relationship with Mr. Wilson has been antagonistic and nothing positive has been done. The Community feels strongly that it makes no sense to drop 192 multi -family units in 16 acres on top of a 25 unit single family development and that it should be developed at no more than 6 units per acre. Commissioner Scurlock felt that rezoning the subject property to R -2D, which is 6 units per acre, would solve this matter because that then would be the maximum allowable. density. He'asked Mr. Wilson if he would be amenable to having the Board set a public hearing to downzone this property to 6 units per acre. Mr. Wilson stated that he wants to cooperate with the community and he would accept 6 units per acre gladly. A gentlemen from the audience had further questions re an R -2D category, and Commissioner Scurlock explained that the rezoning would require a new site plan and that is where you address such things as ingress and egress. In other words, under the site plan approval, the Community Development Department could say the ingress/egress has to be from U.S.I, and it is not going to be from the backside of the project. All considerations such as where the package plant is going to be located, buffers, landscaping, etc., would be addressed through the site plan. Juanita Blume of Hobart Landing felt that downzoning to 6 units per acre multiple family could still leave them with a three story building overlooking their community. Chairman Bird did not believe a 6 -unit per acre development would necessarily involve three story units, and Mr. Wilson stated that he would undertake to work with two story buildings. He emphasized that he will accept.6 units per acre and will accept two stories, but he does not want the people coming back and then asking for a density of 3. 116 S fie pointed out that the density has dropped from the original 15 to 11 and now to 6. Attorney Brandenburg noted that the ordinance does allow a height of 35'in R -2D, but as part of Site Plan Approval, it would be possible to include building height restrictions due to special circumstances in the neighborhood. Attorney O'Haire requested as a procedural matter, since there has been a transfer, that the existing site plan be declared void.. Commissioner Scurlock believed that can be taken care of at the same time as the rezoning. Attorney O'Neill confirmed that his client is willing to cooperate fully and he will be glad to go to 6 units per acre, but he did not want to waive rights under the site plan, which he believed is still valid. Chairman Bird stated that his legal position is duly noted. ON MOTION by Commissioner. Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously closed the public hearing. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, to initiate a downzoning of the subject Indian Lakes Condo- minium, property to. R -2D (6 units per acre) with the required advertising and notification and to schedule the issue of whether the existing site plat is valid or not for the same meeting, Attorney Brandenburg asked if it would be acceptable to the developer that there be no construction permits issued in the interim. SEP 211983 117 aooK 54 PACE 725 SEP 21 1983 a`K Attorney O'Neill stated that it would be acceptable to them if it is not construed to prejudice them from continuing to move forward on the project. THE CHAIRMA14 CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. COUNTY HEALTH DIRECTOR Chairman Bird informed the Board that he had received a telephone call from Dr. Brumback from District 9, who after checking with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (DHRS) recommends that the County Commission consider the appointment of a Dr. Tucker, a local physician, as County Health Director. The Chairman stated that he would like this item added to the agenda as Dr. Tucker has been offered a position in another county. ON MOTION BY Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unani- mously added the above emergency item to today's agenda. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, to accept the recommendation of the DHRS for appointment of Dr. Tucker as Countv Health Director. Commissioner Wodtke asked if this would be a permanent full time position or if there is a probationary period. He pointed out that the Commission never did get to interview anyone, and he was not particularly pleased with the applicants. He stated that he would accept the majority opinion of the Board, however. 11� Chairman Bird believed that everyone is hired under a six month probationary period and that if anyone is dissat- isfied, the position can be terminated. Commissioner Scurlock understood that Dr. Tucker is willing to work toward a degree in public health, which had. been one of the Board's concerns. Commissioner Lyons stated the fact that Dr. Tucker is willing to continue his education is one of the things that convinced him to approve the appointment. Secondly, Dr. Lookabaugh feels that being a,dermatologist as a primary discipline is an.important plus because of all the venereal disease problems, and in addition, Dr. Tucker is settled here and wishes to stay. Commissioner Wodtke left the room temporarily at 4:25 o'clock P.M. Chairman Bird further noted that Dr. Brumback was not optimistic about finding good applicants through advertising. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on.and carried 4 - 0 with Commissioner Wodtke being temporarily absent from the meeting. Chairman Bird turned the meeting over to Vice Chairman Scurlock and left the room at 4:27 P.M. to phone Dr. Brumback. AMENDMENT.TO MASTER BOND RESOLUTION Attorney Brandenburg explained these are the amendments to our Master Bond Resolution which will help up in modifying our current rate structure. The first is a requirement of funding our reserve account - it used to be 200 of the maximum bond service (1/12 of 20a of the maximum 119 „ SEP 21 1983 e o 54 Pace 727 - . F, SEP 211983 BCt!( 4 : PAG. t ?8 bond service had to be put in there by the 15th of each month). This now has been reduced to 100. The renewal and replacement fund used to require a monthly payment of 1/12 of 10% of the gross revenues of the system, including impact fees, and this has been reduced to 5% of gross revenues excluding impact fees. As far as the rates and charges provision is concerned, this is a covenant by the County that they will always charge rates sufficient to meet the requirements of the bond resolution. This used to read 100% and 200 of current bond service requirements and it has now been changed down to 100% of current bond service requirements. The next change is in regard to the additional bonds test- that is the test the County has to comply with to issue any other additional bonds for capital improvements to the system. That used to require 125% of your average bond service requirement be raised by your rates and charges. That has been reduced to 1.2 times that amount. The estimated average annual net reserve of the facility also has been reduced to 1.2 times the average bond r service requirements for all outstanding bonds instead of / 1.25. The Attorney recommended that the Board accept these changes as the U. S. Government already has. He noted that originally these issues were structured very strictly so that we would be in a better position for getting bond ratings on an open market issue for the sub -aqueous crossing, but it is now felt those requirements should be loosened up so that we can offer customers better rates. P.M. Commissioner Wodtke returned to the meeting at 4:35 ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, Chairman Bird being temporarily absent, the Board by a 4 to 0 120 vote adopted Resolution 83-77 amending Master Bond Resolution 82-61 as recommended by the Attorney. RESOLUTION NO. 83-77. A RESOLUTION AMENDING A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ENTITLED:(Res.82-61) "RESOLUTION COMBINING ALL WATER AND/OR SEWER SYSTEMS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, INTO ONE INTEGRATED SYSTEM; PLEDGING THE GROSS REVENUES OF SUCH COMBINED SYSTEM TO SECURE PAYMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL OF AND INTEREST ON ALL WATER AND/OR SEWER REVENUE OBLIGATIONS OF THE COUNTY; REVISING CERTAIN COVENANTS IN THE RESOLUTIONS AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF ALL OUTSTANDING WATER AND/ OR SEWER REVENUE OBLIGATIONS OF THE COUNTY; AND PROVIDING FOR THE RIGHTS OF THE HOLDERS OF SUCH OBLIGATIONS." DULY ADOPTED ON JULY 7, 1982, BY INCREASING THE TIME FOR ACCUMULATION OF THE RESERVE ACCOUNT, BY REDUCING THE RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT FUND REQUIREMENT AND BY REDUCING THE DEBT. SERVICE COVERAGE CONTAINED IN THE RATE COVENANT AND THE PARITY TEST; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DAT&. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA: SECTION 1. AUTHORITY FOR THIS RESOLUTION. This resolu- tion is adopted pursuant to Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, and other applicable provisions of law. SECTION 2. FINDINGS. It is hereby ascertained, deter- mined and declared that: A. The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida (hereinafter called. "Board" and "County," respectively), on Jury 7, 1982, duly adopted a resolution entitled: SEP 211983 -1- 121 obx 54 PAU729 SEP 211983 ACK "RESOLUTION COMBINING ALL WATER AND/OR SEWER SYSTEMS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, INTO ONE INTEGRATED SYSTEM; PLEDGING THE GROSS REVENUES OF SUCH COMBINED SYSTEM TO SECURE PAYMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL OF AND INTEREST ON ALL WATER AND/OR SEWER REVENUE OBLIGATIONS OF THE COUNTY; REVISING CERTAIN COVENANTS IN THE RESOLUTIONS AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF ALL OUTSTANDING WATER AND/ OR SEWER REVENUE OBLIGATIONS OF THE COUNTY; AND PROVIDING FOR THE RIGHTS OF THE HOLDERS OF SUCH OBLIGATIONS." (hereinafter called "Resolution"). 4. Pact 730 B. It is necessary and desirable to amend the Resolution by increasing the time for accumulation of the Reserve Account, by reducing the Renewal and Replacement Fund requirement and by reducing the debt service coverage contained in the rate covenant and the parity test. C. The United States of America, acting through the Farmers Home Administration, U. S. Department of Agriculture (hereinafter called "Government"), is the holder of all the outstanding bonds of the County payable from the Gross Revenues, as defined in the Resolution, and has consented to the changes made by this resolution. D. There are presently outstanding $2,750,000 Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 1982, Anticipation Notes, dated December 1, 1982, of the County (hereinafter called "Notes") which are secured, in part, by the Gross Revenues. All material changes to the rights of the holders of the Notes, made by this resolution, shall not become effective until the Notes are no longer outstanding. It is expected that the Government will become the holder of the Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 1982, of the County, when issued. SECTION 3. AMENDMENTS TO RESOLUTION. The Resolution is amended in the following manner. A. Section 3.04(C)(4) of the Resolution is hereby amended to read as follows: 11(4) After fulfillment of the requirements of subsec- tions (C)(1), (2) and (3), the Issuer shall transfer on or before -2- 122 the 15th day of each month from the Revenue Fund and deposit to the credit of a Reserve Account in the Sinking Fund the sum of 1/12 of 10.% of the Maximum Bond Service Requirement until such time as the funds and investments therein shall equal the Maximum Bond Service. Requirement, and monthly thereafter such amount as may be necessary to maintain in the Reserve Account the Maximum Bond Service Requirement, but not exceeding 1/12 of the Maximum Bond Service Requirement monthly. Money in the Reserve. Account shall be used only for paying the principal of and interest on and Amortization Installments for the Bonds in the event that the other money in the Sinking Fund shall ever be insufficient to meet such payments." B. Section 3.04(E) of the Resolution is hereby amended to read as follows "(E) Renewal and Replacement Fund. The Issuer cove- nants and .agrees to establish with—a depository in the State of Florida, which is a member of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and which is eligible under the laws of the State of Florida to receive county funds, a special fund to be known as the 'Indian River County Water and Sewer System Renewal and Replacement Fund,` into which shall be deposited from the Revenue Fund, after having made the deposits as provided in subsections (C) and (D) above,. an amount equal to 1/12 of 5% of the Gross Revenues of the System (excluding Impact Fees) for the preceding Fiscal Year. Such fund shall be used only for the purpose of paying the cost of extensions, enlargements, improvements or additions to or the replacement of capital assets of the System, and for emergency repairs thereto. Impact Fees on deposit in the Renewal and Replacement Fund shall only be used to pay the cost of extensions, enlargements, improvements or additions to the System made necessary by the inclusion of new customers of the System." C. After the Notes are no longer outstanding, Section 3.04(1) of the Resolution shall be amended to read as follows: "(I) Rates and Charges. The Issuer covenants and agrees that it will fix, establish, revise from time to time whenever necessary and maintain always, such schedule of rates, fees, rentals and charges for the services and facilities of the System which will produce revenues which shall be sufficient to provide 100% of the current Bond Service Requirement and all other payments required by this. Instrument; and that such rates, fees, rentals or other charges will not be reduced so as to be insufficient to provide funds for such purposes. The Issuer covenants and agrees that at the same time and in likemanner -3- 123 S E P 211983 5 PACT x'31 -- SEP 21 1983 B OX Nu 7; 2 that the Issuer prepares its Annual Budget of Operating Expenses, the Issuer shall annually prepare an estimate of Gross Revenues for the ensuing Fiscal Year, and to the extent that Gross Revenues are insufficient to pay 100% of such Bond Service Requirement during such ensuing year, build up and maintain the required reserves for the Bonds, pay Operating Expenses and pay the current required deposit into the Renewal and Replacement Fund, the Issuer shall revise the fees and rates charged for the use of the services and facilities of the System sufficiently to provide the funds required." D. After the Notes are no longer outstanding, Sections 3.04(J)(3)(c) and (d) of the Resolution shall be amended to read as follows: "(c) The annual Net Revenues for the Fiscal Year next preceding the issuance of additional parity Bonds are certified by an independent certified public accountant not regularly employed by the Issuer, to have been equal to at least 1.20 times the average Bond Service Requirement. (d) The estimated average annual Net Revenues of the facility or facilities to be constructed and acquired with the proceeds of such additional Bonds (and any other funds pledged and set aside for such purpose), when added to the estimated future average annual Net Revenues of the then existing System, shall be at least 1.20 times the average Bond Service Requirement for all outstanding Bonds and the additional Bonds proposed to be issued. Estimates of future revenues and Operating Expenses shall be furnished by recognized independent consulting engineers and approved by the Board and by the Chairman thereof, and shall be forecast over a period of not exceeding 10 years from the date of the additional Bonds proposed to be issued. Provided, however, the conditions in this paragraph and in the next pre- ceding paragraph (c) may be waived or modified by the written consent of the holders of 75% of the Bonds then outstanding." SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY OF INVALID PROVISIONS. If any one or more of the provisions herein contained shall be held contrary to any express provision of law or contrary to the Policy of express law, though not expressly prohibited, or against public policy, or shall for any reason whatsoever be held invalid, then such provisions shall be null and void and shall be deemed separable from the remaining provisions and shall in no way affect the validity of any of the other provisions hereof. SECTION 5. REPEALING CLAUSE. All resolutions or parts thereof of the Board in conflict with the provisions herein con- -4- 124 ® M tained are, to the extent of such conflict, hereby superseded and repealed. SECTION 6 EFFECTIVE DATE. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Lyons who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Wodtke and, upon being ,put to a vote,. the vote was as follows: Chairman Richard N. Bird - Temporarily Absent Vice -Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. - Aye Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. - Aye Commissioner Patrick B. Lyons - Aye Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman - Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 21stday of September , 1983. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA jam, BY Ile, k, / RICHARD N. BIRD Chairman Attest: FREDA WRIGHT, Cl!!k U APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUF-F-ICIENCY zGARY M. BRANDEN$URG County Attorneyf LIBRARY AGREEMENT 1983-84 Attorney Brandenburg stated that this is the annual agreement between the County and the Indian River County Library Association and the Sebastian River Library Association. It is the same agreement with different funding levels. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, Chairman Bird being temporarily absent, the Board by a 4 to 0 vote approved the Indian River County Library Agreement and adopted Resolution 83-78. 1Z5 SEP 211983.54 pAeE SEP 21 1953 54 rw7, RESOLUTION NO. 83- 78 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY LIBRARY AGREEMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1983-84. WHEREAS, the delivery of public library services to the citizens of Indian River County is an appropriate and worthwhile goal deserving of support by state and local government; and WHEREAS, two independent non-profit library associations have agreed to provide public library services within the County for this fiscal year in accordance with state law governing public libraries and the provisions of the attached document, in consid- eration for financial support by the County in the amounts stated in the agreement; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners finds that approval and execution of said agreement is necessary, proper, and shall serve to enhance the delivery of public library services within Indian River County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS that the foregoing recitals are affirmed, the aqree- ment attached hereto is approved, and the Chairman and Clerk are authorized and directed to execute same. The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Lyons who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bowman and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Richard N. Bird Temporarily Absent Vice -Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye Commissioner Margaret. C. Bowman Aye Commissioner Patrick B. Lyons Aye Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. Ave The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 21st FREDA WRIGHT,lerk/ APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGA SUFFICIENCY- day of September , 1983. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, F IDA By / ,L RICHARD N. BIRD, Chairman CHRISTO15HER J. PAULL, Assistant County Attorney INDIAN RIVER COUNTY LIBRARY AGREEMENT FISCAL YEAR 1983 - 84 THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this 21st day of September 1983, by and between the Indian River County Library Association, Inc., and the Sebastian River Library Association, Inc. (herein- after participating libraries), and Indian River County, a poli- tical subdivision of the State of Florida (hereinafter County). WHEREAS, library services in Indian River. County are to be provided by two independent non-profit library associations, with the assistance of the County through direct appropriations and as a channel for receiving state and federal grant dollars; and WHEREAS, as requested by the State Division of Library Services pursuant to the Division's interpretation of Chapter 257 of Florida Statutes and regulations promulgated thereunder, and as deemed appropriate by the County, a contractual relationship should exist between the County and participating private libraries as a prerequisite for federal, state and local assistance; and WHEREAS, the Indian River County Library Association, Inc., has, in the past, provided library services to the citizens of Indian River County and the County desires that the Indian River County Library Association, Inc., continue to provide, along with the Sebastian River Library Association, Inc., library services for the benefit of the citizens of Indian River County in accordance with the requirements of Florida Statutes Ch. 257 and the Florida Administrative Code, as both may be amended from time to time; and in furtherance of this end the parties desire to enter into the following agreement. WITNESSETH: NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals and the mutual promises and covenants set forth below, the parties agree as follows: 1. PURPOSE: This agreement is entered into for the purpose of providing funds to continue the delivery of public SEP 1 1993 —�— a00K 54 PA035 - - E p 211963 11VX 54 MOM library services in Indian River County in accordance with minimum standards of operation and service to users, and accountability to public funding entities. 2. ALL FACILITIES PUBLIC: Each library facility owned, operated, or controlled by a participating library shall hereafter be designated as a public library within the Indian River County Library Unit, and shall remain open and available to all residents of Indian River County on a non-discriminatory basis. 3. MINIMUM OPERATIONAL STANDARDS: Each participating library agrees to provide services in accordance with the follow- ing prescribed minimum standards and guidelines: A. At least one of the participating libraries shall remain open to the public not less than forty (40) hours for any given week, it being understood and agreed that the partici- pating libraries shall coordinate among themselves to insure that this provision is satisfied. B. "Library services," as that term may from time to time be defined by State law or the State Division of Library Services, shall be provided free of charge to all residents of Indian River County. Nothing in this provision shall prohibit adoption by a participating library of: (i) rules requiring patrons to first obtain a library card, where no charge is made to the patron for the initial issuance thereof; (ii) rules establishing fines, penalties, or charges for overdue, damaged, destroyed, or lost materials; or (iii) a rental book system wherein rental materials shall consist solely of extra or additional copies of titles or material, the first copy of which is regularly available free of charge.. C. Each participating library shall obtain, at its own expense, an annual audit to be prepared by an independent certified public accountant and furnished within ninety (90) days following the close of each library's fiscal year to the County Library Advisory Board for review and comment to the Board of County Commissioners. D. Each participating library shall work with the M M other to establish a.method for the free interchange of library materials. E. The governing body of each participating library shall conduct its regular meetings no less than quarterly, and shall publish reasonable advance notice of such meetings in a newspaper of County wide circulation. All such meetings shall be open to.the public. Current copies of the Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws, and published rules of operation for each library shall be kept on file with the County. Each participating library shall make available to the County and its Library Advisory Board copies of the final approved minutes for said meetings, together with periodic financial reports generated during the ordinary course of operation. 4. TERM OF AGREEMENT; RENEWAL; ANNUAL BUDGET SUBMITTAL: This agreement shall be in effect upon execution by all parties until the end of the county's fiscal year 1983-84. Prior to renewal of this agreement for the ensuing fiscal year, each participating library shall submit to the Library Advisory Board on or before April 15, 1984 its proposed operating.budget for said fiscal year, for review and comment to the Board of County Commissioners, who shall then establish funding levels for said renewal term. 5. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION OF COUNTY LIBRARY UNIT: The participating libraries jointly: A. Shall be responsible for supervising and directing the duties and functions of the administrative head of the library unit (head librarian) including the promulgation of the job description for that position. B. Shall designate at the beginning of the fiscal year an individual meeting the qualifications set forth by applicable state law to serve as the administrative head of the library unit (head librarian). Each party to this agreement signifies its acceptanceofany designation so made and agrees to establish internal operating procedures to accommodate the establishment of this position. €P 21 1983 C. Shall operate independently from and shall not —3 e�o� 54 r�s��7 r : SEP 211983 erx roc be under the control or auspices of the County Library Adivsory Board. 6. OWNERSHIP OF LIBRARY ASSETS UPON DISSOLUTION OF A PARTICIPATING LIBRARY: In the event of dissolution of a participating library during the term of this agreement, where such library is not simultaneously reestablished to provide library services, each participating library agrees to distribute, convey, transfer, or assign to the County all of the assets, personal property, equipment, books, subscriptions, and any other materials, resources, or items used in the operation of its library, which are attributable to the funds allocated or expended during the term of this agreement, to be used exclusively by the County or its designate for the continuation of library services within Indian River County. 7. PUBLIC FUNDING PROVISION: For fiscal year 1983-84, the County agrees to allocate the following dollar amounts for each of the participating libraries to be expended only for library operations in accordance with this agreement: A. Indian River County Library Association, Inc. --the sum of ONE HUNDRED TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($110,000.00), together with two-thirds of state or federal grant monies received by the County for allocation to the participating libraries. B. Sebastian River Library Association, Inc. --the sum of SIXTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($60,000.00), together with one-third (1/3) of state or federal grant monies received by the County for allocation to the participating libraries. C. Unless agreed otherwise by the County and the party concerned, funds allocated hereunder shall be made available to.a participating library in twelve equal monthly installments. 8. AMENDMENT OR REVISION OF AGREEMENT: This agreement may be modified or amended in part, or in whole, includina amendment to allow for additional participating library groups to join the library unit, only upon the execution by all parties of a written amendment hereto. 9. COVENANTS: The covenants contained herein exist only during the term of this agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this agreement on the dates contained below. Date:, / lao 9 Date: Date: '7- APPROVED-AS APPROVED-AS TO FORM AND S ICI Y: By CHR S HEIS . PAUL Assistant County Attorney INDIAN RIVER COUNTY LIBRARY ASSOCI By t e - /l n r Attest:l Title SEBASTIAN RIVER LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, INC. By Title 7 Attest:.,.c Title BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDI R/IV COUNTY Ey RICHARD N. BIRD Chairman Attest: FREDA WRIGHT Clerk, Circuit Coux t SEP 211993 • .., exx 54PACT r SEP 2,1 193 _I fixPACs 749 Attorney Brandenburg informed the Board that it appears the application for State Aid to Libraries has to be submitted by October 1st and Assistant Attorney Paull would like the Board to give the Chairman authority to sign this application. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, Chairman Bird being temporarily absent, the Board by a 4 to 0 vote added the above emergency item to the agenda. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, Chairman Bird being temporarily absent, the Board by a 4 to 0 vote authorized the Chairman to sign the Application for State Aid to Libraries. 132 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE DIVISION OF LIBRARY SERVICES APPLICATION FOR STATE AID TO LIBRARIES The Board of County Commissioners of INDIAN RIVER County hereby applies to the Division of Library Services of the Florida Department of State for an operating grant for public library service as authorized under Chapter 257, Florida Statutes, for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 1983, and ending September 30, 1984. We certify that the following, amounts were expended for the operation of public library service during the fiscal year ending September 30, 1982. Total. Expenditures, October 1, 1981 - September 30, 1982..............$ 164,561.00 Less, State Aid RECEIVED........ ........................($14,179.00 ) Less, LSCA Program Grants RECEIVED ................. ......($ —0— Less, 0—Less, Any Funds Not Expended CENTRALLY..... ..... ....($ —0— ) Total Local Expenditures Qualified for Matching..... $ 150,383.00 ,de certify that the following amounts, exclusive of federal and state grants, will be available and expended centrally for public library use during fiscal year 1933-1984. County Appropriations (County funds from local sources only) ............... . .................$ -*City' nrupriations (City funds from local sources only)........... ................................$ 170,000.00 1m Other (specify)....... .............................$ —0 *Affidavit from each city providing funds optional. TOTAL Tris library service is provided through contracts with the following citii,,. .ind counties: _ Library services_provided with_contracts between the _County and two private non-profit libraries_ as _identified __in _the following attachments. T;rc y fol d of a one mill tax in this county is _N/A (library not funded_by. special taxing district.) 84-A1 F 7 SEP 211983 a�K PAr,F r P. SEP 211983 8 . 4 rAcE 7 2 The Applicant agrees to expend any grant(s) awarded pursuant to this Application in full compliance with the terms and conditions of Chapter 257, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 1B-2, Florida Administrative Code, relating to county free public libraries and the State Library, which Chapters are incorporated by reference as part of this Application and attached hereto. jut' -Z L l Clerk of the Cir uit Court. 9/22/83 (Date Approved 9/21/83 APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL FICIENCY: By: � CHRISTOPHER J. PAULL Assistant County Attorney Chairman, Indian River County Board of County Commissioners Chairman Bird returned to the meeting at 4:40 o'clock P.M. COUNTY HEALTH DIRECTOR (Cont'd.) The Chairman reported that he has talked with Dr. Brumback in regard to the appointment of Dr. Tucker as County Health Director and he believed that Dr. Tucker will take over as of November 1st and that our facility will be covered until that time by Dr. Tucker and others. ROUND ISLAND PARR BOAT RAMP AND DAYBEACONS Chairman Bird reminded the Board that this project was tentatively approved some time ago and referred back to the Parks & Recreation Committee who worked on the location and design with the Engineering Department. Alternatives and estimated costs from the June 8th memo are as follows: ALTEMATIVES AND ANALYSIS The following alternative is presented: Construct 15' x 36' concrete ramp with 5' wide wood deck each side of ramp $10,000 Land clearing Australian pines from proposed 95' x 95' unpaved trailer parking area. $ 1,200 Permit application fee 100 Sub --total $11,300 6 Channel markers -- 10" x 10" prestressed concrete. pilings with reflective daybeacon signs, $ 4,470 Estimated total. cost (Rounded) $15,800 The Chairman continued that they are looking for approval from the Board to construct this project using the Boating Improvement Trust Funds that are available and that approval would be subject to site plan approval. He continued that this was initiated in 1981 by petitions of people in that area., and this is probably the only deep SEP 211983 743 -SEP 211983 enc 54. rac€ 74 water access to the waterway on the west shore. He believed boaters will take advantage of that. Commissioner Lyons questioned whether we have enough channel markers. He noted that when you get a little further west from the channel unless you are right on the beam, you run aground. Community Services Director Thomas agreed that it is a little tricky around the islands. He thought we should start with this amount and then, after a year's trial, if it is believed it is not adequate, they will come back and ask for more funds. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, to approve construction of the Round Island boat ramp and channel markers and authorize the staff to apply for permits and to apply for funding from the Florida Boating Improvement Program. Commissioner Wodtke questioned constructing the dock itself out of wood; he noted that concrete doesn't burn and wondered about the price differential. Mr. Thomas stated that the pilings are concrete and to have the dock concrete also would definitely cost more. He felt it could be considered as an alternative and noted that we have loo for contingencies. The Administrative suggested that concrete be bid as an alternate, and Commissioners Lyons and Scurlock agreed to include that as part of their Motion. THE CHAIRb4AN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION on the Motion including the addition. It was voted on and carried unanimously. 136 M M M REPORT --PARKS & RECREATION COMMITTEE Chairman.Bird reported that through the help of Community Services Director Thomas and staff, the Parks & Recreation Committee has identified all of the small parcels throughout the County.that have been acquired over the years, most of which appear to be nothing but a nuisance The Committee made an on site visit to several of these parcels, and the initial report indicates that some are definitely buildable lots which we might wish to consider selling. It was not felt that any of them had potential as future parks. In Glendale Lakes, for instance, all of the lakes have been deeded to the County for recreation purposes, but they are completely surrounded by private residences and are really only a liability and a nuisance. The Chairman felt we must figure out some way to get rid.of them. Commissioner Scurlock noted that at the State Association, the subject of creating independent districts for recreation needs was brought up and with the possibility of Proposition I on the horizon, he felt we might want to look at what vehicles there are for us to continue on with what the community desires in the event Proposition I should pass and we get negatively affected. Chairman Bird felt that was a good point. REPORT ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMPLEX Commissioner Lyons reported that he met very briefly in Orlando with the architect in connection with the study he has just completed on the court needs for the Criminal ,justice Complex, and it is planned to have a meeting at 10 O'clock Friday morning with the architects, the Public Safety Committee, and all of the people who would use the court facilities, to check with them as to whether or not they agree with the projections the architect is making. Commissioner Lyons believed it is very likely this new court SEP 119 137 8:00F 4�VF745 SEP 211983 1OK ?Act 746 facility is not going to solve our immediate need as far as the fourth courtroom is concerned and that there will be a recommendation made on that before too long. Attorney Brandenburg informed the Board that he has been in communication with Mr. Barnes re his acreage; Mr. Barnes is not in the mood to change his offer on his property and may possibly market his wares elsewhere. Commissioner Lyons felt it might be well for the Count, to consider buying an empty lot on 43rd Avenue, and the Administrator stated that staff -is pursuing that avenue. DOCUMENTS TO BE MADE A PART OF THE RECORD Five Contracts for Provision of Services and Improvements under the Small Business Administration Parks and Recreational Area Development Program for irrigation and landscaping for Gifford Park, 17th Street Causeway, and Kiwanis-Hobart Park, with TBM associates, Inc., and Land- scaping by Riverside, having been fully executed and received, have been put on file in the Office of the Clerk. 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. 87814-88056 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 t•:inute 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 4:55 o'clock P.M. Attest: 138 Chairman