HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/22/1984Wednesday, August 22, 1984
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, met in Regular Session at the County
Commission Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida,
on Wednesday, August 22, 1984, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present
were Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Chairman; Patrick B. Lyons, Vice
Chairman; Richard N. Bird; Margaret C. Bowman; and William
C. Wodtke, Jr. Also present were Michael J. Wright, County
Administrator; Gary Brandenburg, Attorney to the Board of
County Commissioners; L.S. "Tommy" Thomas, Intergovernmental
Relations Director; and Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order, and
Commissioner Lyons led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
Chairman Scurlock requested that an item be added to
the agenda under South County Fire District since they have
had a number of absences by one particular member, and they
do have a very qualified candidate.
OMB Director Barton reported that he had two additions
and one deletion. He requested that Item 11B - a discussion
regarding Vero Highlands Street Lighting District - be
tabled to the meeting of September 5th. He continued that
it is necessary to set a date so he can advertise the final
budget hearing, and he, therefore, would like that item
added to today's agenda. Finally, he wished to add under
Commissioner Bowman's items, an item in regard to spending
AUG 2 2 1984 BOOK Fay
AUG 2 2 1994Boa8 rA E3
money from the North County Fire District budget for
advertising information about the referendum. It was noted
this should be added under North County Fire District.
Administrator Wright informed the Board that he wished
to add three items for the Public Works Director, as
follows:
(1) Projects remaining under the 1983/84 Road Resurfacing
Program;
(2) A Change Order on the waterline on South Gifford Road
to extend the line to the Jail complex while we have a
contractor on site; and
(3) A bid on communication cable from the Courthouse to
the Administration Building, which the Clerk had
requested with a completion date of August 15th.
Commissioner Bird wished to give a brief report on his
trip to Tallahassee re the Save Our Coast Program, and it
was felt that was covered under Committee Reports.
Commissioner Lyons wished to add an item in regard to
authorizing the County Attorney to research ways to protect
citizens in the unincorporated area of the county from
unwarranted rate increases.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by. -Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
_ added the items listed above to the Agenda as
requested by the Chairman, the OMB Director,
the Administrator, and Commissioner Lyons.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chairman Scurlock asked if there were any additions or
corrections to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of August
1, 1984. There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
August 1, 1984, as written.
i � �
CONSENT AGENDA
4�. Agreement between SCFD and the International Association
of Fire Fighters
Received and placed on file in the Office of the Clerk:
Agreement between South Indian River County Fire District
and the International Association of Fire Fighters Local
#2201, 1983-85.
_Report
Received and placed on file in the Office of the Clerk:
Traffic Violation Bureau - Special Trust Fund
July, 1984 -- $38,845.69
+✓C. Report
Received and placed on file in the Office of the Clerk:
Traffic Violations by Name -- July, 1984
JD. Award of Bid: Installation of Dune Walkover,
Ambersand Beach
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 8/15/84:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: August 15, 1984 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH: Michael Wright
County Administrator SUBJECT: Award Bids:
Installation of Dune Walkover -
Ambersand Park
FROM: J ame s W. Davis, P . E . REFERENCES:
Public Works Directo
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Bids were advertised beginning July 23 and received August 14, 1984
for Ambersand Park Dune Walkover structure. The County's agreement
with the Florida Department of Natural Resources require that
construction begin on or before December 2, 1984.
The bid tabulation sheet is attached.
3
AUG 2 2 1984 BOOK 58 F {,,E
AUG 2 2 1984 B00'` 58 `':'` 0
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The bids received for the walkover were below the Engineering
Department's estimate. The bidder has performed work for Indian
River County and references are on file in the Public Works Division
office. The bid Bond Questionnaire and financial. statement have
been received. The low bid submitted by J.B. Walker Construction,
Inc. for the Walkover is $7,100.00 which includes $500.00 for a
Public Construction Bond.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
It is recommended that the following low bid be awarded.
ITEM BIDDER AMOUNT
Ambersand Dune Walkover J.B. Walker Construction,Inc. $7,100.00
Since this project will be paid in one payment when the project
has been completed, it is recommended that the Public Construction
Bond be waived as set forth in Article 8 of FORM of Agreement
Section, Addendum No. 1.
By waiving this bond requirement the County can save $500.00 thus
reducing the cost of the Project to $6,600.00:
Funds for this project have been approved as follows:
D.N.R. (75% of Cost) $ 11,625.00
I.R.C. (25% of Cost) 3,875.00
Total $ 15,500.00
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
awarded the bid for construction of a dune
walkover at Ambersand Park to J. B. Walker
Construction, Inc. in the amount of $7,100,
and waived the $500 bond requirement, as
- recommended by the Public Works Director.
4
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
BID TABULATION
Ila fo�
DATE OF OPENING4
BID TITLE Beach - Dune
.
DESCRIPTION
1. Furnish and install complete
11•in
place one (1) Dune -■■■-■�■�■■■
■■
over Structure L.S... ■-. , ®....
, .
■■■ear-��e ,,. , �■■
ConstructionFurnish a Public ■■■
e■■�■■■■■®■�■i■�ii
Bond equal to the amount of
■■■■■■■■■a■■■■■
Ali,�
TOTALBID,
A. Release of Easement - John D. Lisle - Pine Lake Estat
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 8/15/84:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: August 15, 1984 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: RELEASE OF EASEMENT
SUBJECT: QUEST BY JOHN D. LISLE,
SR. AND JOHN D. LISLE JR.
Robert M. Kating, AICP SUBJECT PROPERTY: LOTS 9,
Planning
F. evelopment Director 10, 11, 12, 21, 22, 23,
24 - PINE LAKE ESTATES
ROUGH: Larry W. Burkhart SUBDIVISION
fChief, Code Enforcement Department
FRO Betty Davis REFERENCES: J. Lisle
Code Enforcement Officer DIS:CDENF
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of August 22, 1984.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
I
The County has been petitioned by John D. Lisle, Sr. and John
D. Lisle Jr., owners of the subject property, for release of
AUG 2 2 194 5 BOOK 58 FmCE 41
_I
AUG 2 2 1984 Beax 58 PA -,r,7
the rear Lot 10' easement of Lots 9, 10, 11, 12, Block B, Unit
1, Pine Lake Estates, being the westerly 10 foot thereof. The
side lot 10 foot easement on Lots 9 and 10, Block B, Unit 1,
Pine Lake Estates, being the northerly 10 foot of Lot 10 and
the southerly 10 foot of Lot 9, Block B, along with; the rear
lot 10 foot easements of Lots 21, 22, 23, and 24, Block B, Unit
1, Pine Lake Estates, being the easterly 10 foot thereof, and
the side lot 10 foot easement of Lots 23 and 24, Block B, Unit
1, being the northerly 10 foot of Lot 23, Block B, and the
southerly 10 foot of Lot 24, Block B, Unit 1, Pine Lake
Estates.
These lots are 70 feet in width and 100 feet in depth. It is
Mr. Lisle's intention to consolidate the lots and construct a
single family residence on the site.
The current zoning classification is R-lE'Country Estate
District. The land use designation is MD -1, Medium Density
Residential, up to 8 units per acre.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
The request has been reviewed by Southern Bell, Florida Power &
Light Company, Jones Intercable, and the Utility and,
Right -of -Way Departments. Based upon their review, there were
no objections to release of the easement. The zoning staff
analysis, which included a site visit, showed that drainage
would be adequately handled by an alternate drainage plan which
has been devised by the owner. The owner has further submitted
in the form of a letter, an agreement to comply with an
alternate drainage plan agreed upon by himself and Indian River
County.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends to the Board, through adoption of a resolu-
tion, the release of the rear lot 10' easement of lots 9, 10,
11, 12, Block B, Unit 1, Pine Lake Estates, being the westerly
10 foot thereof. The side lot 10 foot easement on Lots 9 and
10, Block B, Unit 1, Pine Lake Estates, being the northerly 10
foot of Lot 10 and the southerly 10 foot of Lot 9, Block B,
along with; the rear lot 10 foot easements of Lots 21, 22, 23,
and 24, Block B, Unit 1, Pine Lake Estates, being the easterly
10 foot thereof., and the side lot 10 foot easement of Lots 23
and 24, Block_ B, Unit 1, being the northerly 10 foot of Lot 23,
Block B, and the southerly 10 foot of Lot 24, Block B, Unit 1,
Pine Lake Estates.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
adopted Resolution 84-57, granting a Release
of Easement on Lots 9, 10, 11, 12, 21, 22, 23,
and 24 in Pine Lake Estates Subdivision to
John D. Lisle, Sr. and John D. Lisle, Jr.
R
RESOLUTION NO. 84-57
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, have been requested to release the rear Lot
10' easement of Lots 9, 10, 11, 12, Block B, Unit 1, Pine Lake
Estates, being the westerly 10 foot thereof. The side lot 10
foot easement on Lots 9 and 10, Block B, Unit 1, Pine Lake
Estates, being the northerly 10 foot of Lot 10 and the
southerly 10 foot of Lot 9, Block B, along with; the rear lot
10 foot easements of Lots 21, 22, 23, and 24, Block B, Unit 1,
Pine Lake Estates, being the easterly 10 foot thereof, and the
side lot 10 foot easement of Lots 23 and 24, Block B, Unit 1,
being the northerly 10 foot of Lot 23, Block B, and the
southerly 10 foot of Lot 24, Block B, Unit .1, Pine Lake
Estates, according to the Plat of same recorded in Official
Record Book 123, Page 141, of the Public Records of Indian
River County, Florida
WHEREAS, said lot line easements were dedicated on the
Plat of Pine Lake Estates 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 follow-
ing lot line easements in Pine Lake Estates Subdivision, shall
be released, abandoned and vacated as follows:
The rear Lot 10' easement of Lots 9, 10, 11, 12, Block B,
Unit 1, Pine Lake Estates, being the westerly 10 .foot
thereof. The side lot 10 foot easement on Lots 9 and 10,
Block B, Unit 1, Pine Lake Estates, being the northerly 10
foot of Lot 10 and the southerly 10 foot of Lot 9, Block
B, along with; the rear lot 10 foot easements of Lots 21,
22, 23, and 24, Block B, Unit 1, Pine Lake Estates, being
the easterly 10 foot thereof, and the side lot 10 foot
easement of Lots 23 and 24, Block B, Unit 1, being the
northerly 10 foot of Lot 23, Block B, and the southerly 10
foot of Lot 24, Block B, Unit 1, Pine Lake Estates.
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
my.. 98 Fr�,CL 43
AUG 2 2 1984
BoR-K 58 F',�,`44
for recording and placing in the Public Records of Indian River
County, Florida.
This 22nd
ATTEST:
Freda Wr'l;ght, Ql.erk
day of August , 1984.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY: i G'42
Don C. Scur oc , Jr., irman
�'. Budget Amendment, Unemployment Compensation for Quarter
Ending June 30, 1984
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 8/8/84:
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: August 8, 1984 FILE:
SUBJECT: Unemployment Compensation for quarter
ending June 30, 1984
FROM: Jeffrey K. Barton, REFERENCES:
OMB Director.
The following budget amendment is to record the funds necessary to pay the unemployment
compensation for the quarter ending June 30, 1984, per the attached invoice.
Account Title
Unemployemnt Compensation
Reserve for Contingency
Unemployment Compensation
Unemployment Compensation
Reserve for Contingency
J KB/dw
Balance in Reserve
Account No.
001-220-519-12.15
001-199-513-99.91
004-204-515-12.15
004-244-541-12.15
004-199-513-99.91
Gen Fund $224,615 as of 7/31/84
MSTU $198,438 as of 7/31/84
Increase
150
1,094
Decrease
88
1,244
-I
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
adopted the above budget amendment, as
recommended by OMB Director Barton.
PROCLAMATION - FLORIDA FEDERAL TENNIS OPPORTUNITY OPEN WEEK
Chairman Scurlock read aloud the following Proclama-
tion, designating the week of September 2nd through 9th,
1984, as Florida Federal Tennis Opportunity Open Week and
presented it to Robert Eggleston, Vice President of Florida
Federal Savings & Loan Association.
Mr. Eggleston informed the Board that the Tennis Open
to be held at The Moorings actually is a major event which
gives the competitors a chance to qualify for a competition
on the West Coast sponsored by Virginia Slims. This event
is open to the public, and both pros and amateurs come from
throughout the state to attempt to qualify. He noted that
they hope to make it a bigger event every year.
Commissioner Wodtke raised a question as to what is
done with the earnings from this event, and Mr. Eggleston
stated that actually there are no earnings; the people who
register do pay a fee, and this helps defray the cost.
AUG 2 2 1984 Boa 58 F,�,{ 45
A U G 2 2 1984
P R O C L A M A T I O N
Bea 58 46
WHEREAS, the citizens of Indian River County have
exhibited a collective interest in recreation and
leisure time activities and more particularly the sport
of tennis; and
WHEREAS, the citizens of our County participate
in tennis programs through varied recreational
offerings; and
WHEREAS, Florida Federal Savings & Loan
Association is a member of our business community; and
WHEREAS, the 1984 FLORIDA FEDERAL TENNIS
OPPORTUNITY OPEN will be held in Indian River County
from Friday, September 7th to Sunday, September 9th,
1984 at THE MOORINGS GOLF AND TENNIS CLUB;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
that the week of September 2nd through September 9th,
1984 be designated as FLORIDA FEDERAL TENNIS
OPPORTUNITY OPEN WEEK and call upon all citizens
schools, businesses, clubs and the news media of Indian
River County to recognize this event.
ATTEST:
I
Freda Wright, -Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Don C. Sc rlock, Jr.
Chairman
10
/OUTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT
The Board of County Commissioners recessed at 9:20
o'clock A.M. in order that the District Board of Fire
Commissioners of the South Indian River County Fire District
might convene. Those Minutes are being prepared separately.
The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 9:25
o'clock A.M. with the same members present.
Us+1 0aS
COUNTY -INITIATED REZONING (31.08 Acres) TO MED (ROSELAND)
The hour of 9:15 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:
AUG 2 2 1984
11
Boa 58 PACE 47
AUG 2 2 1984
BOQK 58 FA;F 48
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published pally
vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Blore the undersigned aulhorltY PereonallY aPDaeretl J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Bach a
et Vero Beaph in Intlian giver
County, Flor' aeg•Jou'""' a dally newSPaper Publuthed
Y kla; that the attached copy of advenisemenl, being
In the maser of
In the
/ Court, was Puo-
hahetl in sale rtgwapaper In the Issues
VeroABach,lin se Oln anhR ve @County, Fio�rla, antl that the ea tl newawapeper puDash@d at
Kean conhnuouslY PuDiiahgd in saltl Intlfen River County, Flontla, eachh tlaey a Onha9t Dees
entered as secontl class mail matter al the Post ofM1ce in Vero Beach, m ae�tl Intllan River Coun•
ty, Flontla, for a penotl of one year haul precetlmg the first puDacahon of the attachetl copy of
etivertl8amenY. entl affiant f4rther Seta that he hag neither peltl nor promigetl any Perapn, firm
Or COrpOra(IOn any di9C000I, r@bate, POTTI93iOn Or !@Ipso Ipr the PUrppg@ pi S@COl,ng thi9
Imven,g@mgnt for puDlicatmn fn tna sa,tl newspaper.
Swom to ano gubecn id he, re me ,s pay of
(1 D. IS
/V�YJ
Ma
��— f Jt h �j nagen
(SEAL) (Clerk of the Cucuit Court. lndifn River County, Flontla)
k
R-1 `�•` R' 2 3 2. '
LD -1 .dc ��iC 1 ti
NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING
Notice of hearing initiated by Indian River County to consider the adoption of a County ordi-
nance rezoning land from R -3A, Retirement District, and C-1, Commercial District, to MED, Medical
District The subject property is located North of Roseland Road, South of Bay Street (110th SL), i
West of U.S. Highway No. 1 and East of Flaring Grant Line.
The subject property is described as: ,
All that part of the following described parcel of land lying West of the West right-of-way line
of new 4 -laved U.S. Highway No. 1, (S.R. No. 5), to -wit:
A parcel of land comprising parts of Government Lots 2, 3 and 4, Section 25, Township 30
South, Range 38 East, and more particularly described as follows:
COMMENCE at a point on the West boundary of said Government Lot 2, and 617.80' North
of the SW corner thereof; thence run North 35a 10' East to the West shore of the Indian
River which is the point -of -beginning; from said point -of -beginning, run South 35p 10' West
to a point on the West boundary of said Government Lot 2 and 617.80' North of the SW cor-
ner thereof; thence run South on the West boundary of Government Lot 2 a distance of
617.80' to the SW corner of Government Lot 2; thence run West along the South line of Gov-
ernment Lot 1, of said Section to the Fleming Grant Line; thence run Southeasterly along
the Fleming Grant Line a distance of 1905' to a point 83' Northwesterly of the centerline of
the new Roseland Road; thence run North on a line perpendicular to the South line of Gov-
ernment Lot 2, a distance of 821.23' to an iron pipe; thence North 44a 50' East a distance of
758.40' to an iron pipe; thence North 41 a 23' East a distance of 1214' to the West shore of
the Indian River, thence Northwesterly meandering the West shore of the Indian River to the
point -of -beginning. All land lying and being in Indian River County.
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, Florida, in the County
Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero
Beach, Florida, on Wednesday, August 22, 1984, at 9:15 a.m.
If any person decides to appeal any decision 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 -Don C. Scurlock Jr.
Chairman
Aug. 2,14, 1984.
Chief Planner Richard Shearer made the staff presenta-
tion, as follows:
t
12
TO: DATE: FILE:
The Honorable Members August 2, 1984
of the Board of
County Commissioners COUNTY -INITIATED RE-
QUEST TO REZONE 31.08
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
ACRES FROM AE
UBJECT: MENTDISTRICT3& RETIRE -
SUBJECT:
COMMERCIAL DISTIRCT, TO
Robert M. Keat ng ICP MED, MEDICAL DISTRICT
Planning & Development Director
FROM: ?s REFERENCES:
Richard Shearer, AICP Co.Int. MED
Chief, Long -Range Planning CHIEF
It is.requested that the data
consideration by the Board of
regular meeting of August 22,
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIOPS
herein presented be given formal
County Commissioners at their
1984.
Indian River County is initiating a request to rezone 31.08
acres located north of Roseland Road on the west side of U.S.
Highway #1 from R -3A, Retirement District, and C-1, Commercial
District, to MED, Medical District.
This request is part of the County's administrative rezoning
process to establish zcning districts consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
The Planning Department originally included 47.72 acres of
property in this rezon±.r-g request including land east of the
hospital and property == the northwest corner of U.S.1 and
Roseland Road. However, on July 12, 1984, the Planning and
Zoning Commission vote= 5 -to -0 to reduce the amount of property
to be rezoned to 31.08 acres.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYST=
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the
application will be presented. The analysis will include a
description of the cur -rant and future land uses of the site and
surrounding areas, potential impacts on the transportation and
utility systems, and a--_� significant adverse impacts on
environmental quality.
Existing Land Use Pat_=rn
The subject property =sists of the Humana Hospital and
medical offices zoned 3A and vacant land zoned C-1. North of
the subject property --=- a bowling alley, a service station, an
auto parts store, a bar shop, a motel, a real estate office,
the Bay Street Medica= renter, and vacant land zoned C-1. East
of the subject proper is vacant land zoned C-1. Further east
is a single-family su"_ivision zoned R-lA, Single -Family
District (up to 4.3 u^ts/acre). South of the subject property
is the Roseland shopF=gig center, a convenience store, and
vacant land on the ea— side of U.S.1, and a fruit stand, a
contractor's office, �_d vacant land on the west side of U.S.1
zoned C-1. West of subject property is vacant land and
Ercildoune Heights S ;vision, zoned R-1, Single -Family
District (up to 6.2 -_=s/acre) .
13
AUG 2 2 1984 BOOK 58 FW') a9
AUG 2 2 1984 Booz `5FADE
� 50
Future Land Use Pattern
The subject property is part of the 70 acre Roseland Road and
U.S. #1 Hospital/Commercial Node. The land north of the
subject property is included in the 25 acre Tourist Commercial
Node. The Comprehensive Plan designates the land east of the
subject property as MD -1, Medium -Density Residential 1 (up to 8
units/acre). The land south of the subject property is also
part of the Hospital/Commercial node. The land northwest of
the subject property is designated as LD -2, Low -Density
Residential 2 (up to 6 units/acre). The land southwest of the
subject property is designated as LD -1, Low -Density Residential
1 (up to 3 units/acre).
The MED district was designed specifically for use in the
Hospital/Commercial nodes. While not all land within these
nodes will necessarily be zoned MED, the hospitals and the land
immediately surrounding them should be zoned MED.
Transportation System
The subject property has direct access to U.S.#1 (classified as
an arterial street on the County's Thoroughfare Plan). Rezon-
ing the subject property from R -3A and C-1 to MED should not
increase the potential traffic attracted to the subject property.
Environment
The subject property is not designated as environmentally
sensitive nor is it in a flood -prone area.
Utilities
The subject property is not served by County water nor
wastewater facilities.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that the subject
property be rezoned from C-1 and R -3A to MED, Medical District.
Chief Planner Shearer informed the Board that this is
part of our efforts to rezone to conform to the Land Use
Plan. He noted that they originally proposed that 47.72
acres be rezoned from commercial, but there were a number of
individuals who did not want their property rezoned from
commercial and the Planning & Zoning Commission cut the area
back to 31 acres, which is what is before the board now.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be
heard. There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
closed the public hearing.
14
Commissioner Lyons brought up the height limitation
objected to in the following letter from the Executive
Director of Humana Hospital.
,r ga Hospital
Sebastian
July 11, 1984
Mr. Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Chairman County Commissioners
1840 25 Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
RE: MED Medical District
Dear Mr. Scurlock:
Because of the new MED District zoning the hospital will only be able
to expand up above ground two floors. We therefore object to this because
the technology we are placing in the modern day hospital requires extreme
heights, floor to ceiling.
Our consulting architect, Wayne Estropril, advises that we need 40 feet
for a four floor building above ground level including four feet extra
for roof top machinery.
As a result of the ordinance, Humana Hospital Sebastian will be both
ground locked and air locked without the ability to expand. Our current
configuration will not allow us to do so.
We respectfully request a reconsideration of these facts before finally
adopting such zoning requirements. Our architects will be available
to you to describe this more in detail.
It is not equitable to allow one hospital in the county to expand to
nine floors and this one, which has been here ten years, only two floors.
Your attention to this matter will be appreciated.
Sincerely,
WWO-'&k�
Mitchell B. Smith
Executive Director
Commissioner Lyons noted that although he had objected to
the original proposal by staff where there was no height
limitation in the MED District, if the present 35' height
limitation is unworkable as claimed by Mr. Smith, he felt we
should ask staff to review this particular limitation and
find a way to make it more practical.
15
AUG 2 2 1984 goon 58 ��,F 51
AUG 2 2 1984 BOOK 58 F',;f1-01
Considerable discussion ensued as to the difficulties
of separating out certain structures, and Commissioner
Wodtke hoped we might be able to find a way to identify a
specific type use related to public health, welfare, safety,
etc., which because of need and economy might qualify
certain buildings for a variance.
Commissioner Lyons agreed that we do have a responsi-
bility to the public and certainly do not want to make the
construction of the hospital overly expensive.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
adopted Ordinance 84-53 rezoning 31.08 acres
north of Roseland Road west of U.S.1 from
R -3A and C-1 to MED.
16
ORDINANCE NO. 84-53
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:
All that part of the following described parcel of land
lying West of the West right-of-way line of new 4-laned
U.S. Highway No. 1, (S.R. No. 5), to -wit:
A parcel of land comprising parts of Government Lots 2, 3
and 4, Section 25, Township 30 South, Range 38 East, and
more particularly described as follows:
COMMENCE at a point on the West boundary of said Government
Lot 2, and 617.80' North of the SW corner thereof; thence
run North 35° 10' East to the West shore of the Indian
River which is the point -of -beginning; from said point -of -
beginning, run South 350 10' West to a point on the West
boundary of said Government Lot 2 and 617.80' North of the
SW corner thereof; thence run South on the West boundary
of Government Lot 2 a distance of 617.80' to the SW corner
of Government Lot 2; thence run West along the South line
of.Government Lot 1, of said Section to the Fleming Grant
Line; thence run Southeasterly along the Fleming Grant
Line a distance of 19051to a point 83' Northwesterly of
the centerline of the new Roseland Road; thence run North
on a line perpendicular to the South line of Government
Lot 2, a distance of 821.23' to an iron pipe; thence North
440 50' East a distance of 758.40' to an iron pipe; thence
North 41° 23' East a distance of 1214' to the West shore
of the Indian River; thence Northwesterly meandering the
West shore of the Indian River to the point -of -beginning.
All land lying and being in Indian River County.
Be changed from R -3A, Retirement District, and C-1,
Commercial District, to MED, Medical 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 22ndday of August
1984.
17
AUG 2 21994 BOOK 5 8 P,�GE 5
rAUG2 2 1984
BOOK
c:i�_k
,,REZONING - 4.7 ACRES TO MED (WILLIAMSON) X ��
4
�8 c, tfja� r'c
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 Baily
Vero Reath, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the ufine red authority parsonellY appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Presa.Journal, a dell news
at Vero Reach to Indian River County. Florlda; that the attached wPy of advert semen . be,ng
8
In the matter Of till% '
_ I In the / _un, _a pub•
hithed In mid ne"paper In the issues of_((Af1LCli �'�� /G6
/l
Affiant further Says that the said Vara BBecM1 Press-Jourr18119 8 newspaper Published at
Vero Beach. m said Indian Rrver CAcnty, Florida. antl that the Said news
been commupusiy Published In sem Indian Rrver County. Florida, BecM1 tlBY dhM1astpbean
entered.Flon a. secondclassmail met the DOST office in Vero Beach. In said Indian River COun.
ad Florida. fora period of one year nest preceding the first publmahOn of the attached copy Of
8dv@"19emenl: HOO efhant fanner says that he has neither paid nor Promised any person. him
or Corporation any tllecpunl, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of secunng this
adv@rtSertlent for Publication In tha said newspsper.
Sworn 10 and subacri bef mat 8 l y/
-^ /day of ! AIq.D. 79 g�e'
Manage"
(SEAL) Klerk of Ina CrtCuit Cou", Indian River County, Flondal
L.
- F
Notice of hearing to consider the adoption of a County HEARING ordinance rezoning land from R-1, "Sin,
gle-Family District," to MED, "Medical Dtstrict " The subject properly is presentiy owned by DON H
WILLIAMSON and is located on 83rd Avenue (Bay Street) one-quarter mile SW of U.S. Highway #1.
The subject property is described asl
Lot One (1), WAUREGAN, according -to the Plat by B.B. Carter filed in the office of the Clerk
of the Circuit Court of Brevard County, Florida, refiled In the office of the Clark of the Circuit
Court of St. Lucie County, Florida, in Plat Book 1, pages 178 and 179, said land fronting on
Bay Street and being bound on the NW by Sebnastian Bay and now lying and being in In-
dian River County, Florida.
ER WITH
Riparian rights and submerged lands appurtenant thereto.
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, Florida, in the County
Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, located at 1840 28th Street, Vera
Beach, Florida, on Wednesday, August 22, 1984, at 9:30 a.m.
If any person decides to appeal any decision 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 -Don C. Scurlock Jr.
Chairman
Aug. 2, 14, 1984.
Chief Planner Shearer made the staff presentation, as
follows:
m
_I
TO: The Honorable Members
DATE: August 8, 1984
FILE:
of the Board of
County Commissioners
DON WILLIAMSON REQUEST
TO REZONE
4.7 ACRES
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
FROM R-1,
SINGLE-FAMILY
�q
SUBJECT:
DISTRICT, TO MED, MEDI-
Z�*
CAL DISTRICT
Robert M. Keatin , A
P
Planning & Development
Director
FROM: Rih and Shearer, AICP REFERENCES: Williamson Request
Chief, Long -Range Planning CHIEF
It is requested that the data
consideration by the Board of
regular meeting of August 22,
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
herein presented be given formal
County Commissioners at their
1984.
Don Williamson, the owner, is requesting to rezone 4.7 acres
located southwest of Humana Hospital and northwest of Bay
Street from R-1, Single -Family District (up to 6.2 units/acre)
to MED, Medical District.
The applicant intends to develop this property for a medical
office or a similar use.
On July 12, 1984, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
5 -to -0 to recommend approval of this request.
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
environmental quality.
Existing Land Use Pattern
The subject property is generally undeveloped except for the
part closest to the Sebastian River which has buildings on it.
Northeast of the subject property is Humana Hospital zoned
R -3A, Retirement District. Southeast of the subject property
is undeveloped land zoned R-1. Southwest of the subject
property is undeveloped land and single-family residences zoned
R-1. Northwest of the subject property is the Sebastian River.
North of the subject property is Ercildoune Heights
Subdivision.
�'�re Land Use Pattern
The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property and
the land southeast and southwest of it as LD -1, Low -Density
Residential 1 (up to 3 units/acre). The land north of the
subject property is designated as LD -2, Low -Density Residential
2 (up to 6 units/acre). In addition, the Comprehensive Plan
designates a 70 acre hospital/commercial node at the
intersection of U.S. 1 and Roseland Road extending north to
include the Humana hospital property. The applicant is
proposing to include his property in the hospital/commercial
node.
19
AUG2 198%
BOOP( 8 f'a,�E 55
AUG 2 2 1994 BOOK 58 Fm -JE 56 -7
In analyzing this request, the staff did a survey to determine
how much land in the 70 acre node is being utilized for
hospital or commercial uses, how much land should be allocated
in the core of the node (including the four corners of the
Roseland Road and U.S.1 intersection), and how much infill land
would be*required to connect the existing uses with the core of
the node. Presently, the node includes the following:
Humana Hospital - 25.08 acres
Existing Commercial Uses - 13.32 acres
Core area south of Roseland Road - 10.00 acres
Necessary infill land - 8.32 acres
Total
56.72 acres
Based on this analysis, the node has 13.28 acres (70 acres less
56.72 acres) of land remaining which could be allocated to the
subject property. Since the subject property includes 4.7
acres, all of it can be included in the node.
Transportation System
The subject property has direct access to Bay Street
(classified as a local street on the Thoroughfare Plan). The
maximum development of the entire 4.7 acre for medical offices
could attract up to 2,925 average annual daily trips.
Environment
The subject property is not designated as environmentally
sensitive. However, the northwest end of the subject property
abuts the Sebastian River.
Utilities
County water and wastewater facilities are not available for
the subject property.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above analysis, particularly the Planning and
Zoning Commission's recommendation, staff recommends approval.
Planner Shearer reported that Planning & Zoning
originally recommended that only the southeast 600' be
rezoned because they were concerned about the node filling
up rapidly, but then it was brought to their attention that
the wastewater treatment for the hospital is at the north
end of the property and would be adjacent to what they were
planning for residential. The Planning & Zoning Commission,
therefore, is recommending that all the property be rezoned,
and staff concurs.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be
heard.
20
John Keyes, 14029 82nd Court, Roseland, informed the
Board that he owns the first 500' of Lot 2, which is the
adjacent strip on the west side of the subject property, and
he is also speaking for two other gentlemen who own
adjoining property - Mr. McAllister, who already has a
residence on his property, and the gentlemen who bought Mrs.
Speck's property, the rest of Lot 2 bordering on the river,
and intends to build a substantial residence there. Mr.
Keyes informed the Board that -he intends to build on one
acre of his property and sell the other acre to someone who
would agree to build a substantial residence also. He
emphasized that they all object to having their front yards
facing commercial structures.
Attorney Richard Bogosian came before the Board
representing the applicant, Donald Williamson. He
appreciated Mr. Keyes objection, but did not think it is
proper for him to talk for people who are not present.
Attorney Bogosian stated that his client feels the proposed
rezoning is a proper zoning because this property is
included in the MED node recommended by the Planning
Department. In addition, they feel it would be extremely
difficult to develop into residential because of the sewer
plant located in the northwest corner. Apparently Mr. Keyes
hasn't built yet, and Attorney Bogosian noted that possibly -
his property could be included in the MED. He believed the
subject property should be rezoned considering the unique
circumstances.
Discussion ensued regarding the location and size of
Mr. Keyes property and access to same, and Mr. Keyes
explained that his property is the first 500' starting from
Bay Street going back to the river. He stressed that homes
are already built in this area; it is established as
residential property; and the man who just bought the
property on the river intends to build a home there. As to
21
UG 2 2 1984 aoo 58 �nl)F. 57
AUG 2 2 1994
BOm 5 8 f'A�E 5 8
access from Bay Street, there is an easement on 12' of his
property and 12' on Mr. Williamson's property for a 24'
private road.
Planning Director Keating pointed out that if Lot 2 was
split after 1973, he did not see how the 500' closest to the
river could obtain a building permit as it would not have
frontage on a public road.
After further discussion, Attorney Bogosian submitted
that it would be a more satisfactory situation for Mr. Keyes
and his neighbors to be facing medical offices than for his
client's property to be facing a sewer plant.
Mr. Keyes raised the point that he did not receive a
notice of today's hearing. Staff confirmed that he was not
sent a notice, and it was determined that Mr. Keyes bought
the property from Mr. O'Neill about last April.
Staff stated that their records show that Mr. O'Neill
was properly notified and apparently the transfer was not on
the Property Appraiser's list at the time the notices were
sent out.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
closed the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
adopted Ordinance 84-54 rezoning 4.7 acres
southwest of Humana Hospital and northwest
of Bay Street to MED as requested by Donald
Williamson.
22
ORDINANCE NO. 84-54
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:
Lot One (1), WAUREGAN, according to the Plat by B. B.
Carter filed in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit
Court of Brevard -County, Florida, refiled in the office
of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of St. Lucie County,
Florida, in Plat Book 1, pages 178 and 179, said land
fronting on Bay Street and being bounded on the NW by
Sebastian Bay and now lying and being in Indian River
County, Florida.
TOGETHER WITH
Riparian rights and submerged lands appurtenant thereto.
Be changed from R-1, Single -Family District, to MED,
Medical 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 22naday of August
1984.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY '
BY:
DON C. SCURL
Chairman
23
AUG 2 2 1984 Boa' 5 8 r , 59
AUG 2 2 194
BOOK 58 FA -UE
.REQUEST TO INCLUDE ACREAGES IN I-95/SR 60 NODE — INDIAN
ff
RIMER INDUSTRIAL ASSOCIATES
The hour of 9:.45 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 Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a
in the Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of
^0
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 subscribed befolie me
(SEAL)
day of b. 19 eey
(Clerk of the Circuit Court, I
Manager)
County, Florida)
.s.
IN
NOTICE — PUBLIC NEARING
CONCERNING INTERPRETATION OF.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Notice of hearing to consider the following in-
dustrial node designation request for the subjec
Pro perly which is presently avmed by INDIAN
RIVER INDUSTRIAL .ASSOCIATES, a FloridF
general partnership, which Is requested to be in-
cluded In the 1-95 and State Road 6t
commercial/Industrial node as designated or
the future land use map in the Land Use Eleman
of the Comprehensive Plan of Indian River Cour.
ty, Florida
The subject property is described as:
The South % of Tract 11, and all of Tract
14, in Section 3, Township 33S, Range
38E, according to the last general plat of
lands of Indian River Farms Company'
filed in Plat Book 2, Page 25, Public
Records of St. Lucie County, Florida;.
said land now lying and being in lndian
River County Florida;
LESS AND EXCEPT
Any portion of said property contained, in'
.
deeds recorded in Official Record Book
243 at Page 410, and Official Record
Book 269 at Page 43, Public Records of
Indian River County, Florida;
AND TOGETHER WITH
An easement for ingress and egress ,as.
described in Official Record Book 429, at
Page 351, Public Records of Indian River
-County, Florida.
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 Commission-
ers of Indian River County, Florida, in the County
Commission Chambers of the County Adminis-
tration Building, located at 1840 26th Street,
Vero geacfi,-Florida, on Wednesday, August 22,
1984, at 9:45 a.m.
If any person decides to appeal any decision
made on the above matter, he/she will need a
record of the proceedings, and for such pur-
poses, he/she may need to ensure that a verba-
tim record of the proceedings is made,.which in-
cludes testimony and evidence upon which.the
appeal is based. ,
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
B :-s-Don C. Scurlock Jr.
Chairman
Aug. 2;44,1984.
Chief Planner Shearer made the staff presentation, as
follows:
L
24
W
I
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: August 9, 1984 FILE:
of the Board of
County Commissioners INDIAN RIVER INDUSTRIAL
ASSOCIATES REQUEST TO
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: INCLUDE 58 ACRES IN THE
4Z4300 ACRE I-95 & SR60
;�_-�� SUBJECT: COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
Robert M. Keati g, ACEP NODE
Planning & Development Director
FROM: Richard Shearer, AICP slechta Request
EFERENCES:
Chief, Long -Range Planni CHIEF
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of August 22, 1984.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
Edward Slechta, an agent for Indian River Industrial
Associates, the owner, is requesting to include 58 acres in the
300 acre I-95 and State Road 60 commercial/industrial node.
The applicants intend to develop this property as an
industrial/commercial subdivision.
On July 12, 1984, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
3 -to -2 to deny the applicant's request to be included in the
node. The Commission gave as their reason the fact that they
did not feel there was sufficient unallocated acreage in the
node to be able to include all of the applicant's property at
this time.
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
environmental quality.
Existing Land Use Pattern
The subject property is currently undeveloped and zoned LM -1,
Light Manufacturing District. The land north of the subject
property is undeveloped and zoned C-1, Commercial District.
The land east and south of the subject property is undeveloped
and zoned A, Agricultural District. The land west of the
subject property contains the Hibiscus Airport and is zoned
Agricultural.
Future Land Use Pattern
The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property and
all of the land around it as MD -1, Medium -Density Residential 1
(up to 8 units/acre). The Comprehensive Plan also designates a
300 acre commercial/industrial node at the intersection of I-95
and State Road 60. The applicant is proposing to include his
property in the commercial/industrial node.
A map of the I-95 and S.R. 60 commercial/industrial node has
been prepared to show the proposed outer limit boundaries of
25
AUG 2 2 1984 BOOK 58 P,, ,E 61
AUG 2 2 1984 BOOK 58 Fr}i�r 62
the node (including 600 acres) and the flexible boundaries of
the node (including 300 acres). This map is included as
attachment #3 and is the same map that was presented at the
node workshops where the I-95 and S.R.60 node was used as an
example of how the outer limit boundaries and flexible
boundaries would work. The outer limit boundaries include the
subject property. However, the subject property is not within
the 300 acre flexible boundary.
Since the I-95 and S.R. 60 node was enlarged from 230 acres to
300 acres, the County has rezoned 40.89 acres west of 98th
Avenue to M-1, Restricted Industrial District, and has included
an additional 50.58 acres of land zoned LM -1, Light
Manufacturing District, and C-1, Commercial District in the
node. At this time, there are 120 acres of land west of 98th -
Avenue in the node and 100 acres of existing commercial and
industrial uses (most located east of 90th Avenue) in the node.
The necessary infill property to connect these properties
includes an additional 80 acres. Based on the location of the
existing commercial and industrial uses, the undeveloped land
that has been included in the node, and the necessary infill
land, there are not 58 acres of land remaining in this node
that can be allocated to the subject property.
-Transportation System
The subject property does not have direct access to a public
road and is one-eighth mile south of S.R.60. Developing the
subject property as an industrial park would attract
approximately 3,595 average annual daily trips. The applicant
would have to provide access to the site prior to development.
Environment
The subject property is located on the 10 mile ridge and is not
designated as environmentally sensitive nor is it in a
flood -prone area.
TY+ -i 1 i 4-i ca
County water and wastewater facilities are not available for
the subject property.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above analysis, including the existing and
committed commercial and industrial land use configuration, the
fact that there is insufficient allocation remaining to include
the subject property in the node, and the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that the subject
property not be included in the I-95 and State Road 60
'commercial/industrial node at this time.
Considerable discussion ensued regarding the size of
the node, the actual location of the node, and the present
activities and intensity of use in the area, which includes
M. A. Ford Manufacturing, Rampmaster, and the Hibiscus
Airport.
Chairman Scurlock felt all the node is on the east of
I-95, but Planner Shearer reported that there are some 120
M.
acres on the west side of 98th Avenue. He did not believe
that staff is saying this is not a good place for industrial
activity, but just that based on the size of the node, there
is no acreage available.
Commissioner Lyons noted that about a week ago the
Commission came to the conclusion that we ought to rethink
these nodes and set hard lines, and he, therefore, wondered
whether action on this node at this time is not a bit out of
phase as it could be that we will decide this node will be
larger and could encompass this property.
Planning Director Keating agreed and stated that staff
would be amenable to putting this off until they can develop
the new nodal concept.
Attorney Brandenburg pointed out that to go into an
actual expansion, it is necessary to go through the
Comprehensive Plan process. There is some language in the
Plan, however, that would allow the Commission some
flexibility in regard to the issue today.
Commissioner Bird did not feel it is unreasonable to
anticipate that this property could be used for commercial
or industrial, and since it seems we don't have the acreage
available to give them, he believed we would have to start
the process to expand the node.
Chairman Scurlock pointed out that another option is to
use the part of the Comprehensive Plan referred to by the
Attorney.
Commissioner Lyons asked if denial of this request
would be the same as a zoning denial where the applicant
would be prohibited from reapplying for a year.
Attorney Brandenburg stated that the current request
which is to include property within a node, is different
than a rezoning, and if the Board should deny them today,
they would be able to come back under the new policy that is
being developed.
27
AUG 2 2 1984 BOOK 58<,e:T
� AUG 2 2 1984
BOOR 58 64
Discussion followed as to how long it would take to
amend the Comprehensive Plan to expand a node and also
regarding the fact that this action can be initiated either
at the request of the property owner or the County
Commission.
Commissioner Bowman felt in this case, it should be the
Board's responsibility.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be
heard.
Attorney Steve Henderson, representing the owner of the
property, Indian River Industrial Associates, which is a
partnership of five individuals, four of whom are in indus-
trial manufacturing and research businesses. He stated that
this is a 58 acre site and they do have a development plan
based on parcels of basically 3 to 5 acres each.
Attorney Henderson felt that the Commission is inter-
ested in attracting industrial uses to the county. He
emphasized his belief that the proposed project is desirable
and the demand is there; the question seems to be how to fit
it in the node and permit it. He pointed out that they have
the proper zoning and have had it for ten years; the
confusion arises from the property being in the "maybe" area
of a node; and he felt that the Master Plan, in essence,
repeals the zoning. In regard to a statement about lack of
access, Attorney Henderson informed the Board that they have
a 60' right-of-way coming in on the north side, which runs
north of the runway to 98th Avenue.
Attorney Henderson wished to point out that what we
have here is a conflict as to interpretation of the Plan.
There are 300 acres available in the node and only 220 are
committed according to the staff report. This leaves 80
acres, and his clients are only asking for 58. Staff is
saying that these 80 acres are being reserved, or have to
be, for connectors or in -fill area between the extremities
NA
of previous parcels that have received node inclusion. He
believed a parcel was given node inclusion on the east side
to allow Caprino's new restaurant, and on the west side the
node goes out to the other side of 98th Ave. There is over
a mile between these two areas, and this leads him to
visualize strip zoning.
Attorney Henderson also felt confusion arises from
mixing the commercial and the industrial - where does one
stop and the other begin? He -noted that when Realcor came
before the Board in 1982, staff wrote a comprehensive
analysis which showed small area plans for this intersec-
tion, and many statements were made indicating that the
southwest quadrant was intended for industrial purposes. -
Attorney Henderson believed the Commission could reasonably
interpret the Plan to make these 80 acres available for the
proposed project, and if expansion is required for in -fill,
which is a concept not even mentioned in the Master Plan,
they then could increase the acreage for purposes of
in -fill. If the Commission does not feel that is
reasonable, then he would suggest that they exercise their
right under the discretionary provisions of the Master Plan
which allows them to permit a nodal use even though
technically the property is not within a node. If none of
these options are considered reasonable, he believed this -
matter should be tabled until the nodal limits are estab-
lished and lines drawn, and he hoped when that is done, the
node would not be restricted to its current acreage.
Commissioner Bird asked if the first proposal to go
ahead and include the subject property and then have the
County initiate the change to increase the acreage to
provide for the in -fill was feasible, and the Attorney and
Planning Director confirmed this can be done.
Commissioner Wodtke asked where you would take the 58
acres from, and Planning Director Keating felt that was a
29
AUG 2 2 1984 BOrJ
_I
AUG 2 2
1984
BOOK
5� FA r
6
big question.
He noted that even though the term
"in -fill"
is not mentioned in the Plan, it is the conclusion of the
staff that the "in -fill" is a geographic location; you
can't have holes in the node or, in essence, you have
created spot zoning. He felt staff would recommend that
this project be put on hold and be recognized as having the
first shot at any new acreage that becomes available when
nonflexible lines are drawn.
Chairman Scurlock preferred the County Attorney's
approach, and Attorney Brandenburg read aloud the provision
from Page 34 of the Comprehensive Plan regarding certain
parcels of land which do not conform to the policy for nodal
development but can be demonstrated to be suitable for
industrial or commercial development. He noted that this
property already has the proper zoning so all it would take
would be an indication from the Board that the property
conforms to this policy, and then these people can proceed
with their development plans.
Debate continued as to whether to apply the discre-
tionary policy or expand the node first, and Commissioner
Lyons asked Attorney Henderson if his clients are really
ready to go. Attorney Henderson confirmed that they have
hired Carter Associates and started their development plans.
They have not, however, spent all the thousands of dollars
necessary to plat and do not want to do this until they can
be sure they will be permitted.
Commissioner Lyons restated his belief that we did
underestimate this node in the Comprehensive Plan and that
we should readdress it.
Commissioner Bird stated that he would feel more
comfortable if we did go ahead and expand the node and then
include the property, but he would be willing to go along
with the interim alternative proposed by the County Attorney
so these people could proceed with their plans. He felt the
30
M W M
process of addressing the expansion of this node should be
started immediately, however.
Attorney Henderson stated that either solution is all
right with his clients; just so they have the assurance that
they can safely move ahead with their plans.
Nancy Offutt, speaking as liaison for the Board of
Realtors, just wished to say that the dilemma faced by
Attorney Henderson's clients typifies what the Board is
facing with the uncertainty of the node.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED
by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously
closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Lyons stated that he would like a Motion
that would allow the applicants to use their property as
currently zoned and call it consistent with the Plan.
Attorney Brandenburg noted that the Commission can
designate that 58 acres as being part of the already
existing node, but the Planning Director does not feel that
is logical.' Another option is to deny their request to be
included in the node and utilize the provision he read from
the Comprehensive Plan with the overriding view that at the
time the nodal system is restructured, this property would
be included in the new boundaries.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, to deny the request of
Indian River Industrial Associates to be included
in the Commercial/Industrial Node at SR 60 and I-95
and ask that this property be considered under the
statement found on Page 34 of the Comprehensive Plan.
31
AUG 2 2 1984
BOOK 58 FADE 67
AUG 2 2 1994 BOOK 5
Commissioner Wodtke questioned whether this would give
them the right to proceed immediately, and Attorney
Brandenburg assured him that it would.
Commissioner Bird stated that he would like language to
be included in the Motion specifying that this property will
be brought into the node as soon as possible.
Planner Shearer noted that last week when the Board
instructed staff to draw new boundaries, they also told them
to look at all the nodes to see if there was sufficient
acreage for 20 years. They will be looking at this one and
anticipate that in January they will come back with some
alternatives. He felt it is obvious that 300 acres may not
be large enough.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
COUNTY—INITIATED REZONING — 9. 56 ACRES SOUTH OF SR 60 AND
EAST OF KINGS HWY. TO C -1-i w ren �- ✓�
The hour of 10:00 o'clock A.M. having passed, the
Deputy clerk read the following Notice with Proof of
Publication attached, to -wit:
32
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vera Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority Personally appeared J. J. Schumann, j, who on oath
Saye That he's
Business Manager of the Verb Beach Prass.Joumal, a dally newspaper Published
mitl
at Vero Beach in Indian Firm County, Fla; that the attached COPY of adventsernertt, being
in the matte of
In the Court, was pub•
lisped in said newspaper In the Issues 01
Afflant further says that the said Vera Beach PressJouma1 is a nBwspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, FlOntle, entl Ihei me said newspaper has heretofore
been cbntlnuously Published M said Indian Rivet County. Florida, each tlaily and has been
entered as second class mal matterat the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun•
. , Flontla, fora penad of one year next precetllng the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement: anti alfiant further says that he has neither Paid not promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount. rebels. commisslon or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscn d -//—
day of . 19
ISEAU )Clerk of the Circuit Coon, In River County, Poorldal
NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING
Notice of hearing Initiated by Indian River County to consider the adoption of a County ordi-
nance rezoning land from R-1, Single -Family District, to C-1, Commercial District. Subject property
Is located South of S.R. 60 and 315 feet East of 58th Avenue (Kings Highway/County Road 505A).
The subject property is described as:
THE EAST 307.4 FEET OF WEST 609.4 FEET OF TRACT 12, ALSO EAST 298 FEET OF
WEST 600 FEET OF SWIA OF SWI/ NORTH OF MAIN CANAL; DEED BOOK 24, PAGE 476
AND DEED BOOK 26, PAGE 37. PARCEL BEING IN SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 33S, RANGE
39E, ACCORDING TO THE LAST GENERAL PLAT OF INDIAN RIVER FARMS COMPANY
SUBDIVISION, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 25 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF
ST, LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. SAID PROPERTY NOW LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
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, Florida, In the County l
Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero
Beach, Florida, on August 22,1984, at 10:00 a.m. o
If any person decides to appeal any decision 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 -Don C. Scurlock Jr.
Chairman
Aug. 2,14, 1984.
Chief Planner Shearer made the staff presentation, as
follows:
33
AUG 2 2 19"A
BOOK 58 pmu. 69
C-1 A
Via
,W
V
ouuscT
f
POPERTV
NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING
Notice of hearing Initiated by Indian River County to consider the adoption of a County ordi-
nance rezoning land from R-1, Single -Family District, to C-1, Commercial District. Subject property
Is located South of S.R. 60 and 315 feet East of 58th Avenue (Kings Highway/County Road 505A).
The subject property is described as:
THE EAST 307.4 FEET OF WEST 609.4 FEET OF TRACT 12, ALSO EAST 298 FEET OF
WEST 600 FEET OF SWIA OF SWI/ NORTH OF MAIN CANAL; DEED BOOK 24, PAGE 476
AND DEED BOOK 26, PAGE 37. PARCEL BEING IN SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 33S, RANGE
39E, ACCORDING TO THE LAST GENERAL PLAT OF INDIAN RIVER FARMS COMPANY
SUBDIVISION, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 25 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF
ST, LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. SAID PROPERTY NOW LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
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, Florida, In the County l
Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero
Beach, Florida, on August 22,1984, at 10:00 a.m. o
If any person decides to appeal any decision 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 -Don C. Scurlock Jr.
Chairman
Aug. 2,14, 1984.
Chief Planner Shearer made the staff presentation, as
follows:
33
AUG 2 2 19"A
BOOK 58 pmu. 69
AUG 2 2 1994
_I
BOOK 58 F',�f. 70
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: August 1, 1984 FILE:
of the Board of
County Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: COUNTY -INITIATED REQUEST
TO REZONE 9.56 ACRES FROM
SUBJECT: R-1, SINGLE-FAMILY DIS-
TRICT, TO C-1, COMMERCIAL
Robert M. Keating, &1CP DISTRICT
Planning &,Development Director
KS
FROM: Richard Shearer, AICP REFERENCES: Co.Int. 9.56 Acres
Chief, Long -Range Planning RICH
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of August 22, 1984.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
Indian River County is requesting to rezone 9.56 acres located
on the south side of State Road 60 and approximately 300 feet
east of Kings Highway from R-1, Single -Family District (up to
6.2 units/acre), to C-1, Commercial District.
On July 26, 1984, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
5 -to -0 to recommend approval of this request.
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
environmental quality.
Existina Land Use Pattern
The subject_ property contains a single-family house and a large
number of automobiles. The land north of the subject property,
across State Road 60, is vacant, zoned C-1 and will be the site
of a recently approved 100,000 square foot shopping center.
The land east of the subject property is undeveloped and zoned
C-lA, Restricted Commercial District. South of the subject
property is the main relief canal. West of the subject.
property is a single-family house on a 7.82 acre parcel zoned
C-1 and a power substation..
Future Land Use Pattern
The Comprehensive Plan designates a 140 acre commercial node at
the intersection of Kings Highway and State Road 60 which
extends eastward to 43rd Avenue. The subject property and the
land immediately north, east, and west of it are part of this
node.
Based on the C-1 zoning of the properties north and west of the
subject property, the C-1 zoning is the most appropriate
commercial zoning district.
34
Transportation System
The subject property has direct access to State Road 60
(classified as an arterial street on the County's Thoroughfare
Plan). The maximum development of the subject property for
retail shopping could attract up to 3,300 Average Annual Daily
Trips.
Environment
The subject property is not designated as environmentally
sensitive nor is it in a flood -prone area.
Utilities
The subject property is not currently served by County water
nor wastewater facilities. However, the County intends to
provide water to the Kings Highway and State Road 60
intersection within the next year.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above analysis, including the -Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that the subject
property be rezoned to C-1, Commercial District.
Commissioner Bird inquired how this relates to the car
storage situation which is causing problems in this area,
and Planning Director Keating stated that is why the county
is initiating this rezoning. They did bring Mr. Nixon into
the Code Enforcement Board, and determined the only way for
him to come into compliance was to establish some kind of
parking facility there and have it be a commercial usage and
put up some•kind of pole barn and adequate buffering. He
will have to submit a site plan once he gets the rezoning.
Question arose as to why the County initiated this
rezoning request when Mr. Nixon had created the problem, and
Mr. Keating noted that it was because we were in the process
of administrative rezonings and we would be doing this
within a few months in any event.
Chairman Scurlock asked if Mr. Nixon had to pay
anything either for this process or for going before the
Code Enforcement Board, and Mr. Keating stated that he did
not. He will be subject to paying a fee for the site plan
approval. If staff had not been in the process of the
administrative rezonings, they would not have recommended
the Board initiate the rezoning.
35
AUG 2 2 1984 BOOK 58 f�a,r 71
r
AUG 2 2 1984 Boa 58 Fr4;F 7?,
Chairman Scurlock felt that Mr. Nixon actually got a
free ride for us to solve the problem of his being a
nuisance to the county, and he wished there was some
procedure for staff to assess the impact and charge it back
to the violator.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be
heard, and there were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
closed the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
adopted Ordinance 84-55 rezoning 9.56 acres
south of SR 60 and east of Kings Highway
from R-1 to C-1.
W
84-55
ORDINANCE NO.
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 EAST 307.4 FEET OF WEST 609.4 FEET OF TRACT 12, ALSO
EAST 298 FEET OF WEST 600 FEET OF SWh OF SWh NORTH OF MAIN
CANAL; DEED BOOK 24, PAGE 478 AND DEED BOOK 26, PAGE 37.
PARCEL BEING IN SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 33S, RANGE 39E,
ACCORDING TO THE LAST GENERAL PLAT OF INDIAN RIVER FARMS
COMPANY SUBDIVISION, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 25
OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA.
SAID PROPERTY NOW LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA.
Be changed from R-1, Single -Family District, to C-1,
Commercial 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 22 day of August
1984.
BOARD OF COUNTY'COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER,'COUNTY
BY:h.
DON C. SCURLOCK, JR.
Chairman
37
AUG 2 2 19 Bo 58 73
F -
AUG 2 2 1984BOOK FW.)� 74
Commissioner Wodtke left the meeting temporarily.
ALCO-HOPE REQUESTS PORTION OF MENTAL HEALTH FUNDS
V
Peter Vallone, Executive Director of Alco -Hope, Inc.,
came before the Board and explained that he wished to
identify the need for a residential treatment facility as
there is a void in the treatment process. He noted that the
Commission is proposing $137,000 be budgeted for Mental
Health, and he is proposing that they red flag some of those
monies and force Mental Health to address this issue and
spend the amount of monies the Board will recommend
specifically for residential processing of the recovering
alcoholic and/or drug abuse. He emphasized that he is not
asking for any additional monies, but just requesting that
the Board red flag some of these monies.
Attorney Brandenburg explained that the mental health
picture has been restructured this year and we now have a
subdistrict that has its own board. The Dept. of Health &
Rehabilitative Services, which receives the monies, goes to
that board for direction as to which agencies it should
spend the monies on. He believed Mr. Vallone should submit
his request to that board rather than the County Commission.
Commissioner Bird agreed, noting that we are just
setting up this new board, and he felt we would be usurping
their purpose if we told them where to put the monies.
Mr. Vallone pointed out that there is no board yet, and
he asked if the Commission could, at least, take the
approach of saying that they agree with his proposal for
addressing the need for residential treatment services.
Chairman Scurlock felt we can identify the need, but
not necessarily specify how it should be handled.
Commissioner Lyons believed that over several years we
have been trying to get the District Board through Mr.
Ashcraft to find a way to help support Alco -Hope. He
38
believed that Alco -Hope performs a very much needed
function, and he would have no objection to asking the new
Board to give this consideration.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons,
SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, to go on
record as asking that the facilities of
Alco -Hope be considered in the planning
for alcoholic rehabilitation in this county.
It was noted that Commissioner Wodtke who has been very
much involved with the Mental Health District was out of the
room temporarily.
Chairman Scurlock commented that in the past Mr.
Ashcraft always viewed this as a competition for funds.
Mr. Vallone stated that they are not in competition
with anyone other than helping the alcoholic. The five year
plan completely ignores this need; they just detox the
alcoholic and put them back in the street and he merely
wants the Board to recognize the need.
Chairman Scurlock pointed out that actually they are in
competition for funds, as the District has certain priori-
ties they have identified and Alco -Hope has others.
Mr. Vallone continued to emphasize that he wants to
force them to address the issue, and Commissioner Lyons
noted that always in the past they had some technical reason
they couldn't use the Alco -Hope facility.
Mr. Vallone believed all those reasons have been
addressed; they now have people with degrees and have
renovated the facility; it is a new Alco -Hope.
Further discussion continued and since the Motion was
only to open the door for Alco -Hope to go before the new
board and make this appeal, it was decided not to wait for
Commissioner Wodtke's return.
39
BOOK 58. FA -UF 75
AUG 2 2 194
BOOK 58 F�1;f 76
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted.on and carried 4 to 0,
Commissioner Wodtke being out of the room.
Commissioner Wodtke returned to the meeting at 11:04
o'clock A.M., and was informed of the Board action re
Alco -Hope. He confirmed that there is a detox center
available, but no long term residential treatment and he did
agree there is a need. He further confirmed that there has
been a significant change in the Alco -Hope directorship and
operation.
DISCUSSION RE DEFERRED PAYMENT POLICY FOR UTILITY HOOK-UP
REQUESTED BY PAUL STONECIPHER
Chairman Scurlock explained that Mr. Stonecipher has
some rental units that are being required to hookup and he
would prefer some sort of deferred payment schedule in order
to do that. The Chairman reported that he had informed Mr.
Stonecipher that the only such arrangement we had in the
past was in the Gifford community for the low income area,
but with this being rental properties, he felt it might be
different. It appears, however, that Mr. Stonecipher is not
present today.
Administrative Aide to the Board, Liz Forlani, con-
firmed that Mr. Stonecipher was notified that this item was
on the agenda today.
It was agreed to withdraw this item from the agenda.
DISCUSSION RE CONFISCATED PROPERTY ON SOUTH BEACH
OMB Director Barton reviewed his memo, as follows:
40
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: August 16, 1984 FILE:
06
4�
FROM: Jeffrey K. Barton,
OMB Director
SUBJECT: 7+ acres Oceanfront Estate -South Beach
REFERENCES:
As you are aware, the property described above, has been scheduled for auction by the U.S.
General Services Administration, Atlanta Office, on November .1, 1984. The three person
team from General Services have determined that the property is -best -suited as a single
family residence, therefore, the specifics on the property have not been passed on to the
Department of Interior's National Parks Service Division. The Department of Interior can
reverse the decision of the three person team at General Services if we can convince them
of its value and use as a park and ocean access for the residents of Indian River County.
I have talked with the aides at both U.S. Senator Chiles' office and U.S. Senator Hawkins'
office along with Congresman Nelson's & Lewis' offices and they will help us in our efforts
to obtain the property.
From the enclosed tax maps and aerial of the property, it is possible to develop the property
with a two lane street and parking on both sides through the middle of the property, leaving
approximately 38 feet on each side for buffer area. This buffer area could be planted with
shrubs under the existing trees to aid with sound control and lower on going maintenance
costs. The property is currectly fenced which should be maintained for after hours security
to adjacent neighbors. Possible uses -for the main house would be as follows:
1. Art Gallery & Museum
2. Public Meeting Rooms
3. Cultural Center
4. Historical Center on Indian River County
5. Community Center
Recommendations:
1. Instruct Staff to find grants to be used to pay off liens against property,
so as to have little or no cost to the tax payers of Indian River County
2, Instruct Staff to contact the U. S. Department of Interior with an application
for the property.
3. Solicit the aid of all Federal Officials interested in the Indian River Area
in our effort to obtain the property for the residents of Indian River County.
Mr. Barton reported that this property does include two
parcels of land located in Wynn Cove Subdivision, and when
the house was built originally, they used the road through
that subdivision rather than build a driveway all the way up
from the SR AlA frontage. He recommended, if the project
were to proceed, that the property be fenced and access
eliminated from Wynn Cove Drive. Mr. Barton presented a
41
AUG 2 2 1984
BOOK Us r .A. 77
AUG 22 1984 BOOK 58 FA -JE 78
conceptual plan of what could be done with the property and
stated that there is adequate land for buffering and park-
ing. He emphasized that he visualizes this for use as a
cultural center and not a picnic table operation or anything
of that type. He further pointed out that there is very
little oceanfront available in the South Beach and we have a
void in this area. This property is scheduled to be
auctioned, and federal guidelines say it must be sold at
appraised value, which is about 1.3 million. Mr. Barton
noted that this is a beautiful area, but it is not an area
of million dollar houses. He further noted that there are
liens on the property of about $600,000, and any sale by the
government would be subject to the liens.
Chairman Scurlock stated that he had received numerous
phone calls from concerned citizens opposing a public use of
this property, which is in a beautiful residential area. He
brought up the possibility of subdividing the property, but
Mr. Barton explained that it is only 135' wide and if you
subtract the 50' required for a road, there would not be
sufficient property to develop on.
Chairman Scurlock believed we have done a lot in
acquiring additional beach frontage, and his thought process
would be to acquire this property, sell it, and use those
monies to develop the lands we have already purchased.
OMB Director Barton noted that any deed from the
Department of Interior would restrict the land for public
use which would limit our ability to sell the property. He.
understood the residents' misgivings, but pointed out that
if this property is not sold at auction, it will just
continue to deteriorate and present a problem for the
neighborhood.
Commissioner Bird stated that he would favor the
purchase only if we could acquire this property and sell it;
42
he did not feel we can provide sufficient buffering in an
area already established with fine single family homes.
OMB Director Barton emphasized that he felt he had a
responsibility to bring this possibility to the Board for
consideration and he just wished their direction whether to
pursue it or not.
Commissioner Wodtke thanked Mr. Barton for bringing
this to the Board's attention, but stated that the only way
he would consider getting involved would be if the property
does not sell at auction. In that event, he felt we should
work with the GSA to be sure it is properly disposed of so
that it does not become a public eyesore.
It was agreed the Board did not wish to pursue the
matter further at this time.
DATE FOR FINAL BUDGET HEARING
OMB Director Barton reported that the first public
hearing on the Budget is set for the evening of Septem-
ber 12th. After that meeting, ads must be placed setting
out the dollar amounts of all budgets and the date of the
final hearing, which must be within fifteen days of the
first hearing. He needs to place this ad and suggested that
the final hearing be set for September 26th.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
authorized the OMB Director to advertise
the final budget hearing for Wednesday,
September 26, 1984, at 7:00 P.M.
JSET UP WORKSHOP MEETING WITH HOUSING AUTHORITY G,,�6
Administrator Wright requested an item be added in
regard to a workshop meeting with the Housing Authority.
43
BOOK 58 FADE 79
AUG 2 2 1984 BOOK 58 P}�E 80
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
added the above item to the agenda.
Administrator Wright reported that he had a request
from the Housing Authority for a workshop meeting with the
Board to discuss goals and objectives. He believed that
they mainly want to have a general discussion as to their
relationship with the Board.
Commissioner Bird felt that one thing they want to
clarify is whether the rehabilitation is going with the
Housing Authority or is staying with Section 8 Housing
Assistance.
Discussion ensued as to setting a time and date that
would be convenient for all to attend.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
authorized the Administrator to set up a
workshop meeting with the Housing Authority
on September 5, 1984, at 4:00 P.M.
DISCUSSION - RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A PORTION OF 33RD AVE. &
�r1
15TH ST. AS A PUBLIC ROAD
City Attorney Charles Vitunac came before the Board to
request that the County approve a Resolution accepting the
above streets within Terilil Terrace Subdivision. He
explained that the City has for many years thought that
these streets, which are within the City limits, were city
streets and they have done all the maintenance, etc. There
is a cul de sac at the north end of 33rd Avenue which they
want to remove and extend the street to the north. It
seems, however, that the plat, which was recorded in 1978,
has language that says these are private roads until
44
acceptance by the county. City Attorney Vitunac felt this
was a mistake and noted that the City has gone on record
requesting these be made public streets and asking the
county to accept them so they can become public streets. He
emphasized that the County would not have any maintenance
responsibility, liability, etc. Attorney Vitunac noted that
there are residents who are opposed to the street becoming
public. He, however, is not admitting that this is a
private street yet. In any event, if it is, signing the
proposed Resolution would make it public. If the County
does not sign it, he stated that he still will maintain it
is a public street.
Chairman Scurlock asked what the need to have a cul de
sac there is other than that the Bergamino property wants to
be developed.
Attorney Vitunac explained that if this street is not
opened up, there will be two cul de sacs adjoining each
other. It is not in the City's thoroughfare plan to have
two dead ends so close together and it would create a
problem for City garbage trucks, emergency vehicles, etc.
Question arose as to whether the County signs off on
City subdivisions plats, and Attorney Brandenburg stated
that this was required by a Special Act which we repealed
sometime ago. The language on the plat in question was used
on all plats up until about two years ago.
Chairman Scurlock noted that in the event the County
doesn't accept the streets, he would assume the developer,
Mr. Maguire would still own the rights-of-way . He asked if
the City has contacted him to see if they could convey that
back to the property owners to have a vehicle for main-
taining it to see that it doesn't degredate.
Mr. Maguire confirmed that he did develop this and
still does own it.
45
AUG 2 2 1984 BOOK 58 FACE 81
AUG 2 2 1984
BOOK
Steve Lyons, Attorney and resident of 33rd Avenue,
informed the Board that he is representing Ben and Hazel
Natale, Paul & Barbara Domico, and Jeff & Regina Goddard,
all of whom live on 33rd Ave. He suggested that if the
County wants to get rid of the public road - private road
issue, they could accept the road as currently constructed
as a public road and simply not accept.the portion that was
platted as an extension of the cul de sac. He emphasized
that most of the residents prefer it as a dead end street,
and they are prepared to maintain the street if the City
wants them to.
Attorney Louis "Buck" Vocelle, Jr., informed the Board
that he is representing Mr. Bergamino, whose preference is
that the street go through. Attorney Vocelle believed that
it makes more sense from both the City and County's
standpoint to open the road through since it is only two
blocks long and there is no danger of traffic racing up and
down as it doesn't go anywhere. He also felt it makes more
sense from the standpoint of facilitating services to the
property owners. Attorney Vocelle further noted that there
is an easement shown on the plat for an extension of the
road, which he felt indicated an intention by the developer
to open that road in the future.
Chairman Scurlock noted that you wouldn't necessarily
have to have two cul de sacs, you could have a stub.
Attorney Lyons reported that they did mention that
possibility at the City Council meeting on July 3rd, and the
one person speaking against it was City Manager John Little.
Mr. Little also was the only one speaking in favor of the
through street. Attorney Lyons noted that Mr. Little lives
on 34th Street and presumably he doesn't want the traffic
going down his street. Attorney Lyons did not see why the
residents wouldn't be benefited by back to back cul de sacs.
46
He noted that there currently is a non -conforming house in
the proposed Conline subdivision which is used as multi-
family and does not fit in with the character of the other
houses on 33rd Avenue.
Lengthy discussion ensued wherein Commission members
indicated they did not want to get into the question of
whether the street should be cut through as this is
something the residents should decide with the City.
Attorney Vitunac stressed that all the City is asking
is that the Board accept the plat as publicly dedicated. He
felt the issue is who will have charge of the roads in the
City; it is strictly a City matter; and he felt the County
should not get involved.
Commissioner Wodtke felt Attorney Vitunac must remember
that actually City residents are the County Commission's
constituents as well, and Commissioner Lyons noted that he
did not want to do anything that would in any way jeopardize
the people's position. He believed that the County was
involved, whether rightly or not, since whatever the
Commission decides today unquestionably will determine
whether that street goes through or not. If the City is
concerned about having private streets, he noted that the
Commission can accept the part that is already constructed.
Attorney Vocelle was not sure the County has the option
of accepting the road without accepting the entire plat.. He
pointed out that the residents have been afforded the
opportunity for a hearing, and felt if the County denies
this, they basically are usurping the City Council's
function.
Attorney Lyqns noted that the language on the plat
states "any part thereof" which he would interpret as
allowing the,County to accept any part, and Attorney
Brandenburg agreed with that interpretation.
47
AUG 2 2 19SAI
BOOK. �� F'AGE S�
AUG 2 2 1984
BOOK 5. 8 F,r E 8,
Commissioner Wodtke asked if this means that the City
will not allow the developer to build his project if the
road does not go through, and Attorney Vocelle stated that
Mr. Bergamino can build, but he would have to have a cul de
sac.
Chairman Scurlock noted that he doesn't have to have a
cul de sac. He could just dead end the road.
Attorney Vocelle pointed out that the site plan already
has been approved and accepted; such a change would force
Mr. Bergamino to go back through the process; and he felt
the Board again would be usurping the City's function.
Paul Domico, resident of 1515 33rd Ave., Lot #9,
Terilil Terrace Subdivision, noted that this subdivision was
approved in 1978, approximately 6 years ago, and he took
issue with Mr. Vitunac's statement about the City
maintaining this street because in six years they haven't
seen any asphalt being laid on it although 34th Avenue,
where City Manager Little lives, has been paved four times.
He further noted that Mr. Little has said publicly that the
road is going to go through regardless. Mr. Domico then
went on to speak of the drainage problems they have had over
the years and continued to stress that the City has done
nothing in the past six years to maintain the road or
correct the curbs, swales or back lot ditches to alleviate
the drainage problems. He stated that the residents feel
their health and welfare is involved and also that their
property will be affected based on the fact that it would no
longer be a private street. Mr. Domico noted that garbage
trucks have been collecting garbage on this street for six
years without any problems, and they have had occasion for
ambulances to call there also. If the residents have to pay
a little more to live on a cul de sac, that is fine with
them, and he, therefore, requested that the County do
nothing and the residents will take on the City.
M
Question arose as to what precipitated this whole
matter, and Mr. Domico stated that what happened was that
Conline Subdivision was presented for site plan approval and
they missed it.
Attorney Vocelle believed that the road was viewed at
all times by the residents as a public road until the issue
of the Conline Subdivision came up, and he did not feel the
drainage situation was nearly as bad as Mr. Domico
represented.
Chairman Scurlock felt the only issue before the Board
today is whether we want to accept the street or not.
Mr. Domico emphasized that his issue was that the City
has not.been maintaining the street all these years, and
Attorney Vocelle continued to stress that this matter has
been through a public hearing before the City; the City has
heard the citizens and has decided the road should go
through; and he did not feel the County Commission should
act as a court of appeals.
Attorney Brandenburg informed the Board that he just
came upon a Florida statute which indicates that when lands
are conveyed to a county or municipality for a specific
purpose and they do not use it or make the improvements
necessary to use it for that purpose for a period of 60
consecutive months, then the owners of the adjoining
properties can demand that it be conveyed back to them. It
appears that it has been more than 60 months and that little
through section has not been built, and, therefore, Attorney
Brandenburg felt this issue should be addressed.
Commissioner Lyons commented that the whole thing seems
to be out of order; the City apparently made a decision
based on the assumption that was their road and all the
public hearings apparently have taken place based on a
misconception.
49
AUG 2 2 1984 BOOK 58 pnf 85
AUG 2 9, 1984 BOOK 58 FMCS 8-6
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman that the County do nothing
on this matter and not accept the road.
Commissioner Wodtke stated that he would support the
Motion. He does feel that property has a right to be
developed; he also feels that the people are entitled to
their privacy; and he would hope the City and the
neighborhood can work out their problem.
Commissioner Lyons did not feel the County should be
the one to settle the argument.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
The Board of County Commissioners thereupon recessed at
12:05 P.M. for lunch and reconvened at 1:15 P.M. with the
same members present.
VDISCUSSION RE FOURTH COURTROOM BIDS 4�`s)
w' -
Architect John Calmes submitted the following memo:
CALMES a KELLAGHER • ARCHITECTS a A.I.A.
P R O F E.S S I O N A L ASSOCIATION
1125 12th STREET -SUITE B - VERO BEACH, FLORIDA • 32960
13 051 587-1402
MEMO
Date: August 22, 1984
Re: Bids for Indian River County Fourth Courtroom
To: Jim Davis, Director of Public Works
Bids were received and opened publicly on August 15, 1984 at
2:00. The Contract Documents required three (3) items to be
included with the Bid:
1) The Bid Proposal
2) A Bid Bond in the amount of 5% of the Bid.Price
3) The Contractors Qualification Statement which
required a Financial Statement.
Contract #1: The Construction of the Courtroom, four (4) bids
were received. They were:
J. B. Stalker Construction $189,688.00
Bryant & Associates $164,940.00
DiPrima Construction $153,379.00 -
Pioneer Construction $137,790.00
r � s
The low bid submitted by Pioneer Construction is an unqualified
bid by the omission of the Contractors Qualification Statement
from the Bid package. The Contractors Qualification Statement
was submitted to this Office on Friday, August 17th but did not
contain a Financial Statement of the Company.
The lowest qualified bid was from DiPrima Construction at
$153,379.00. The Bid package was complete.
The bids of both contractors, Pioneer Construction and DiPrima
were analysed and reviewed by this Office as well as the following
references:
1) Architects the Contractors have worked for.
2) Past Clients
3) Trade references
Pioneer Construction was incorporated in the State of Michigan
in 1962 and in the State of Florida'in 1983. In their earlier
jobs there were some problems with their lack of knowledge of
local Sub -Contractors and lack of familiarity with the procedures
of this area of Florida. The recommendations on their more
recent jobs were basically good comments with regard to their
administration, interpretation of documents but they were still
having some problems with the progress on the jobs because of
being relatively new to the area. There trade references
checked out well.
DiPrima Construction was incorporated in the State of Florida
in 1964. Their references were checked and everyone spoke
highly of their professionalism. Their trade references were
checked. Rinker Materials in Melbourne, Florida mentioned that
they have discounted their bills every month and was one of
the most respectable Contractors that they have done business
with. Senne Lumber Company of. Grant, Florida has been doing
business with them for some 12 years and they have always dis-
counted their bills.
Recommendations: In view of the requirements of the Bid Doc-
uments, Pioneer Constructions bid is an unqualified bid. It is
disqualified primarily because of the fact that they did not
submit a Contractors Qualification Statement with their Bid
package. When a Contractors Qualification Statement was pro-
vided, it did not contain a Financial Statement.
My recommendation is to accept the lowest qualified bid, that
being from DiPrima Construction in the amount of $153,379.00
It is noted, however, that the County has the right to waive
irregularities in the Bids. It is not our recommendation that
this be done since the instructions in the Bid Documents were
clear and if their interpretation of those documents was not
clear, I somewhat question their interpretation of the Construction
Documents. However, should the County waive the irregularities
and accept them as low bid, the decission would be accepted.
Contract #2, which was the contract for the Interior Design
Package, there were two (2) bids submitted. After reviewing
all the Bid Documents and references, it is recommended that
the County accept the low -bid of Rebecca Starr Designs in the
amount of $66,519.33.
Contract #3, there was one (1),bid submitted by Audiohouse,
Inc. in the amount of $18,499.31. Their Bid package was in
order and all references checked out well and because of the
uniqueness of this type of contract, we would recommend the
acceptance of this contract as Bid.
AUG 2 2 1984
ctfully submit ed,
John W. Calmes, A.I.A.
Architect
51
BOOK 58 FrOu 87
AIJG 2.2 1984
Boot 58 F,,,E 88
Administrator Wright stated that he had no problem with
the bids as reviewed by Mr. Calmes, but he did feel we need
to discuss space. He, therefore, wished the Board to
consider the information set out in the following memo:
TO:. The Honorable Members of DATE: August 20, 1984 FILE:
the Opp County Commissioners
FROM: Michael Wrigh
County Admini
SUBJECT: FUTURE SPACE REQUIREMENTS
FOR COUNTY OPERATIONS
REFERENCES:
Before final award can be made for the renovation of the
Fourth Courtroom, the County Commission needs to address future
space needs at the Courthouse. Using growth figures from the
1983 Frizzell Architects Court Component Study, staff,deve.loped
the following -analysis of future space needs by department:
Office Present 1985 1990
Clerk 12,500' 132250' 139850'
State Attorney 22880'. 3,500' 5,100'
Public Defender 1,200" 1,400' 22400'
Sheriff's Office 22830'. 2,830' 3,630'
19,4101. 202980' 242980'
The four offices listed above are at full capacity with
their present space'allocations. *The only available space in
the Courthouse Complex is a 400'square-foot storeroom adjacent
to Judge Stikelethe.r's office and the 2,800 square foot area in
the annex designated for the Fourth Courtroom.
If the Courtroom is renovated, in 1985 there will be a space
deficit of .1,570 '.square feet. ' In" 1990,. the deficit will grow to
5, 5*70 ..squa:re feet. *These figures are' obtained by subtracting
present space allocations from the anticipated space needs.
From a pure space perspective, ignoring momentarily.any need
for additional parking at the Courthouse, the obvious answer is
someone has to move Due to• -the high cost and lack'of available
land in the downtown area, 'an expansion of the -Courthouse on
adjacent property probably will not be -feasible.:
Space at the Courthouse is currently.allocated as follows:
Office Square Footage
Clerk of Court 122480
Courtroom A 1,326
Courtroom B 12326
Courtroom C 1,560
52
M M
Circuit Judge's Office
2.560
County Judge's Office
29200
State's Attorney
2.1880
Public Defender
1,200
Sheriff's Office
22832
Law Library
1 680
Fourth Courtroom
2,800
The alternatives areas follows:
A) Relocate Sheriff's Office: The Sheriff is currently located
in four different sites. T e Detectives use some 5,000.'square
feet of rental space on 19th Street; OCB occupies 1,000 square
feet of area in the Administration Building; the Uniform Patrol
and ID Section uses an area at the County Jail and the admini-
strative offices are located in the Annex. It is anticipated
that the Detective Division and Uniform Patrol Division will
occupy all available space in the new jail complex. If the
Sheriff's administrative area is moved to rental property,
only 2,830 square feet of area will be freed up _in the Annex
leaving'a 1990 deficit of 2,740 square feet.
B) Relocate State Attorney and Public Defender: Relocating
these two departments will free up ,0 0 square feet in the
Annex. This move allows sufficient area for growth in the
Courthouse at least through 1990. However, it should be noted
these two offices will need at,least 7,500 square feet of area
by the end of the decade. Proximity to the Courthouse for these
two offices is extremely important and there may not be suffi-
cient available office space in the downtown area.
C) Relocate the Clerk: It is impractical to relocate her
entire office. A portion of the office may be moved if County
Court is relocated.
D) Relocate County Court: If County Court is moved from the
Courthouse, t ere will -5—e sufficient space to accommodate growth
needs at the Courthouse. The existing County Courtroom can be
converted into a Circuit Courtroom and this will accommodate
Circuit Court needs at least for the next eight years, according
to the Frizzell Study,
CourtThere are at least three alternatives to relocating County
. _
Alternative A - Space may be rented in the $9 to $12 per
foot range. This may cost as much as $904OOO.or more
per year.
Alternative B - Purchase Central Assembly of God building
and renovate the structure. A preliminary purchase of
$250,000 has been discussed for the 8,5OO.square foot
structure. Included in this price is just under two
acres of land. See attached diagram of the building
floor plan. '
Architect John Calmes estimated the renovation cost at
$550,000 plus recording equipment, land development
expense and furnishings. The bid for the recording equip-
ment and furnishings for the Fourth Courtroom renova-
tion came to $85,000.
The renovated building will adequately house two court-
rooms slightly larger than Courtroom C, offices for two
County Judges and sufficient area for the Clerk's Traffic
and Small Claims sections.
53
AUG 2 2 784 BOOKU �9
AUG 2 2 1984 BOOK 90
The total expense, including the conservative renovation
cost and excluding furnishings and recording equipment,
comes to approximately $800,000 or $94 per square foot.
Alternative C - Using 1983 construction costs supplied
by.Frizzell Architects and allowing for a l0 per cent
increase in costs for inflation, it is estimated that
two, 1500 square foot courtrooms similar to the existing
County Courtroom, along with 9,100.square.feet of admini-
strative and office space, could be constructed for bet-
ween $850,000 and $900,000 at the new jail site, or on
other available County land. This equates to approxi-
mately $74 per square foot and does not include site
development, furnishings and recording equipment. The
total size of the building may be reduced after further
study.
It should be noted that all costs are staff estimates. It
may be necessary to have an architect prepare more current esti-
mates before the Commission makes any decision.
Not included in this analysis is the need to provide addi-
tional space for the Health Department. Dr. Tucker's department
currently occupies a 6,000 square foot building and according to
HRS analysis, he needs 11,000 square feet of space immediately.
The local Health Department is one of several departments
throughout the state competing for $5 million in earmarked money
specifically for building construction.
The alternatives in this memorandum are by no means all
inclusive. The County has been informally approached by at
least two property owners in the Courthouse -Administration Build-
ing area offering to sell their buildings and/or property. 'How-
ever, the offers are preliminary and need further refinement
prior to action being taken by the Commission.
Commissioner Bird wondered if we start moving court
facilities away from the Courthouse, whether we are going to
open a Pandora's box and cause a shifting of many other
court related facilities.
Administrator Wright felt that we are going to have to
move one day in any event. There are only 60 days before
award of the bids, and he suggested that the Board take 30
days prior to awarding the bid and decide what direction we
are going to take.
Commissioner Lyons noted that the Jail Committee
recognized that we are running out of space and felt that
the Jail Complex eventually would be the place for the
courtrooms. Short of that, to relieve the situation, it was
pretty well agreed that County Court could be split away
with a minimum of disruption; the Clerk's operation seems to
gear itself to that.
54
M
� � a
Commissioner Bird continued to question what effect
such a move would have on other agencies, and Administrator
Wright felt it would be necessary to move Traffic Violations
and Small Claims, and the Public Defender and States
Attorney would need some small facility there also.
Commissioner Lyons noted that before court was held in
the jail for first appearances, they went to the Courthouse,
and the Public Defender went there. There is a room planned
at the new jail for first appearances, and the Public
Defender would have to be there also.
Commissioner Bird did not feel it is our thought to
locate all our court facilities at the complex because then
we would end up with an empty building. It was generally
felt that this is what will happen eventually.
Chairman Scurlock noted that there is no clear cut
answer, and the only answer that made sense to him isnot to
do anything to add to the impact on the downtown area. He
felt the present Courthouse facility is fully acceptable for
the Circuit Court and believed it would probably suffice for
them for the next ten years. If we don't build the fourth
courtroom, there will be more space for the Public Defender
and States Attorney. Moving County Court would reduce
traffic considerably, and the activities in County Court
have been held previously in satellite facilities around the
county. He felt the next step is to analyze the church or
possibly another new facility and that it all depends on the
dollars and cents factor.
Commissioner Bird believed the judiciary had indicated
that even if we did relocate County Court they would need
another courtroom.
Administrator Wright felt that they did say that, but
believed this conflicts with the Frizzell study. He then
talked about the need for a Grand Jury room which is like a
large conference room, and felt that no decision should be
55
AUG 2 2 19884 Boor 58 PAGE 91
AUG 2 2 1984 BOOK 58 , � 9z
made without involving the Courthouse people, the judiciary,
etc.
Commissioner Lyons noted that one alternative that has
not been mentioned would be adding a floor to the County
Administration building.
Administrator.Wright believed that space will be needed
for growth in that building itself and also felt the other
alternatives might be cheaper.
Motion was made by Commissioner Lyons to withhold a
decision on letting of the bids and set the meeting of
September 12th to reach a final decision regarding the
fourth courtroom.
Commissioner Bird believed we need a workshop with all
those involved, and Commissioner. Lyons asked if the Board
wished this to go through the Jail Committee.
Chairman Scurlock felt we have procrastinated too long.
He stated that he has already made up his mind that he does
not want to spend the money at the Courthouse for another
courtroom and believed we need to study the alternatives.
Commissioner Wodtke pointed out that originally all the
County offices were at the Courthouse until we got the
opportunity to acquire the present Administration Building
from the Hospital. When we acquired the Hospital building,
we also were able to acquire all the land that went with it;
so, we presently own land to the north of the Administration
Building and possibly we should acquire additional property.
Even in our agreement with the School Board, we included an
alternative where we could notify them that we can provide
space for them elsewhere, and the time may come when the
Courthouse might be a good location for them. Commissioner
Wodtke stressed that we must look ahead and study the
overall picture as we need to make a definitive decision on
where we are going, not only with the judiciary system, but
the Health Department, etc. He felt the fourth floor is a
56
very viable alternative; he also agreed we need to have a
complex in the downtown area, but believed we can separate
County Court and Circuit Court. Commissioner Wodtke
realized this is frustrating for the judges, but rent is a
very expensive alternative.
Chairman Scurlock brought up the point that when County
Court was moved to the 2001 Building temporarily, it
functioned satisfactorily. He, therefore, could not believe
the half a million dollar figure Architect Calmes estimated
to renovate the church building for court purposes.
Mr. Calmes explained in detail the court requirements
which cause this expense, citing the acoustical require-
ments, the recording equipment. He noted that nave of the
church and guild hall both could function as courtrooms of a
rather nice size, but there are no jury rooms; the restrooms
are inadequate for a public building; there is no hall area;
and the office area there now would not function as Judge's
chambers. There is space for parking, however, and he did
feel a third courtroom could be tacked on with proper
planning.
Commissioner Wodtke noted that here again, as with the
old hospital, we have a building designed for a very special
purpose, which we are considering converting to a different
use, and he believed it would be preferable to take the
money and construct a proper facility from scratch. If we
did renovate for the fourth courtroom as originally
proposed, he noted we then will have to rent more space for
the Public Defender and States Attorney.
Commissioner Bird wished to know if we have an
indication from the Circuit Judges that the County Courtroom
area will satisfy them, and Commissioner Lyons stated that
was his understanding after discussing it with Judge
Vocelle.
57
AUG 2 2 1994Boa F&IH
I
AUG 2 2 1984 BooK � Fa, F.94
The Board continued to emphasize the importance of
studying all the options, and Architect Calmes requested
that the Commission accept the bids today and recognize the
low bidders, not necessarily agreeing to go to contract.
This would enable them to return the bid bonds to those who
will not qualify.
Discussion continued at length re setting a time frame,
the various options, the need for space, etc. Commissioner.
Wodtke noted that St. Lucie County is now proposing an annex
court facility in Port St. Lucie, and he felt we may come to
where we may need an annex in another part of the county.
He continued to emphasize that he would prefer building a
new courthouse facility somewhere in the area of the County
Administration property rather than going out to the jail
site. He noted that we own the land next to the church, and
he still believed the church would be worth considering as
he felt it could be renovated at a lot less cost to be used
for something other than courtrooms.
Chairman Scurlock pointed out that if we are thinking
in terms of building a new facility, it would take a year
and a half or more, and we might have to rent additional
space for that period of time.
Commissioner Wodtke agreed that if we are not able to
survive with what we have for that period we would have to
look at some other alternative, and he emphasized that he
would rather rent for six months or a year if we have to so
that we can end up with something that will really suit us.
Chairman Scurlock liked his thinking, and Commissioner
Lyons withdrew his Motion.
Administrator Wright felt before any decision is
reached, there should be a workshop meeting with the full
Board, the Courthouse people, the Judges, etc.
mf
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED
by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously
accepted the bids on the Fourth Courtroom with
recognition of the low bidders as recommended
by the architect and agreed a final decision will
be made at the Regular Meeting of September 12th;
the. Chairman and Administrator to work together
setting up a workshop session with all those
involved before that date.
ISCUSSION RE PROTECTING
RATE INCREASES
Y CITIZENS FROM UNWARRANTED
le°
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons,
SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, to authorize
the County Attorney to research methods of
adequately protecting County residents from
unjustified utility rate increases and to
spend up to $5,000 in pursuing this research.
Commissioner Wodtke commented that there is an
assumption in the Motion that the rates are unjustified, and
Commissioner Lyons stated that his Motion is a broad
statement and actually means any rates.
Chairman Scurlock noted that at the City Council
meeting last night, an item in regard to a significant rate
increase for residents of the unincorporated area of the
county was brought up. This item was pulled from their
agenda, but it is coming back for a workshop with the City
Council. This is not a joint workshop. He noted that this
time it involves water and sewer rates, and it is conceiv-
able that in the future it could be expanded to include
electricity.
59
BOCK 58 mH 95
AUG 2 21984
BOOK 5 8 f:{:Gc 96
Administrator Wright requested that the Motion include
authorization for the appropriate budget amendment, and Com-
missioners Lyons and Bird agreed to the addition to their
Motion.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION with the
above addition. It was voted on and carried
unanimously.
Account'Title -Account'No,
Legal Services 001-10.1,-511-33.11
Reserve for Contingency 001,-199.513-9.9.91
,/BID - COMMUNICATION CABLE
5,000
'--� `Dft'fea's�e
5,000
Public Works Director Davis reviewed the following
material: C� 3
TO: Michael Wright, DATE: August 21, 1984 FILE:
County Administrator
SUBJECT: Communication Cable -
Administration Bldg to County
Courthouse
v
FROM: REFERENCES:
VG. Griffith, Jr. P.E.
County Engineer
It is respectfully requested that this be presented to the
Board on an emergency basis.
Attached is the backup information on subject project for
presentation to the Board.
It is realized that the Board does not want to act on any
matter that is presented after the agenda packet has been
distributed. In this case however, I believe that this matter
can be considered critical, if not an emergency. The following
is offered for information.
1. The Clerk of the Circuit Court requested this project with
a completion date of August 15.
2. Due to our heavy work load, the bids were not received until
Monday, August 20th.
.R
3. Request for authorization to award bids was to go to the
Board on August 29th but must be delayed to Sept. 6th due
to there not being a meeting on the 29th.
4. Low bidder on the contract has advised as that he has a large
project scheduled for Sept. 10, 1984 which would be the time
he would be able to begin this project if approved by the
Board of County Commission on Sept. 6, thus placing the
Contractor in a very difficult position to fulfill both
contracts.
5. The Contractor assured me that he could complete the project
in one week which would put the cable in place by the first
week in September if approved at the Board of County Commis-
sioners' Aug. 22nd meeting.
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: August 21, 1984 FILE: 8/29/84
the Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH: Michael Wright,
County Administrator SUBJECT: Indian River County Computer
Communication Cable - Administrati
Building to the County Courthouse
AA
FROM: "VG" Griffith, Jr. P.E. REFERENCES:
County Engineer
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Bids were advertised August 6 and 13, 1984 and opened on August
20th, 1984 for the COMMUNICATION CABLE.
This project is being performed at the request of Freda Wright,
Clerk of the Circuit Court. Installation was requested by Mid -
August. One bid was received on the installation.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The bid received for this project was below the Engineering
Departments' preliminary estimate. A Bid Bond, Questionnaire
and Financial Statement has been received. The bidder has
performed work in Indian River County and references are on file
in the Public Works Division office. The low bid for this project
is $3,867.85 as submitted by David N. Myers DNM Cable Construction,
Inc.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that the contract be awarded to the low bidder,
David N. Myers, DNM Cable Contractors, Inc. in the amount of
$3,867.75.
61
AUG 2 2 1994 BOOK 58 F,,, 9 1
I
-1
AUG 2 2 194 �
BOOK 58 `,��� 8.�8
Mr. Davis did not feel we would want to have the
contractor take out a public construction bond as we will
not pay him until the work is complete and tested. He
reported that we did advertise, but only one bid was
received.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED
by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously
awarded the contract for the computer communi-
cation cable to the,low bidder, David N. Myers
DNM Cable Construction, Inc., in the amount of
$3,867.85, without requiring a construction bond.
4 i wpp-
CHANGE ORDER - WATER MAIN EXTENSION SOUTH GIFFORD ROAD,,,,J,,
0
Public Works Director Davis informed the Board that the
contractor who is bringing the water main to the Humane
Society and the Road & Bridge complex is moving very quickly
and for an increase of $30,778.75 will bring the water line
900' into the Jail site. Staff feels the contractor's
prices are very good.
Chairman Scurlock asked if this will be reimbursible
from the mechanism we find to finance the jail, and the
Administrator believed it will. He noted they will keep a
separate set of books on this.
Commissioner Wodtke asked if that line will be
available to serve other people, and Administrator Wright
stated that it will be open to anyone along the line. He
further noted that it also loops the system.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
approved Change Order Number 1, on the 43rd
Avenue Water Main Extension at South Gifford
Road. (Owl & Associates, Inc.)
62
CHANGE
ORDER
A/A 1)U( U,%1L N 1 C701
I11.11ibulloo jo
OWN LR
ARCIIITFCT
CON I RAC.: TOR
FIFLU
011 ILR
PROJECT. 43rd Ave. Water Main Extension
r,am,l(1;irr»1 at South Gifford Road
TO IContractut)
Owl & Associates, Inc.
115 Springline Drive
Vero Beach, F1. 32963
CLIA .C;L e ?Rt)I K NUMt1LR
IN111ATMN DATE.
1
ENGINEER . I'K( )IEC I NO:
CONTRAC 1 FOR. Water Main Extension
CONTRACT DATE August 3, 1984
You are directed to make the toliowing changes to this Contract:
Bid Item 2.01 Increase quantity for 8" PVC Water Main by 2825 L.F. (from
1480 L.F. to 4305 L.F. ) to extend Water Main to 38th Ave.
and Jail site.
Increase Contract amount 2825 L.F. @ 9.75 per L.F. = $27,543.75
Bid ITem 2.05 Furnish and install 1 Fire hyrdant Assembly including valve, valve
box, and assoc. 'piping
Incrdase quantity from 2 to 3. Increase Contract $ 1,275.00
Bid Item 2.06 Furnish and install 8" gate value and box
Increase quantity from 5 to 6. Increase Contract $ 480.00
Bid Item 2.07 Furnish and install cast iron fitting (8" tee & 8" x 6" reducer)
Increase quantity from 1600 LB•to 2136 LB
Increase Contract by 375.00
Bid Item 2.09 Furnish and install temporary Blow -off Valve Assembly
Increase quantity from 1 to 2
Increase Contract by 110.00
Additional Item 1 Perform wet tap into existing 6" water main including tapping '
saddle, valve, valve box, thrust blocks, reducer, and all
-necessary fittings to perfoXn a_sompletP tap 995 D(1
Not •,;ild until signed by moth the Owner and Architect. TOTAL CONTRACT INCREASE $30,778.75
Signature r:( the Contractor indicates his agreement herewith, including any adjustment n tcc• C•t,ntrai t Burn or Ct.nira(t Time.
The original (Contract Sum) (OAAAWAN,iz("/t7 hAl was ................. ......... $ 43,182.00
Net change by previously authorized Change Orders ................................... $ –0–
The 'ContraLt Sum) A'.W a/tfcMItAii!r iiOJT/ ithitf prior to this Change Order •say ..... .... $ 43,182.00
The !Contract Sum) S)(�fyfefc /r7Gy/a)fyfrft/ry{/�%y�,ij will be uncred-,ed) (r(�ir�, ,�r/l/fnl ,()�
by this Change Order......................................................... $ 30,7 78.75
The new (Contract Sum) (�;�u��►atl�I�A fit ut� including this Change Order will he .. S 73,960.75
The Contract Time will be (increased) by Thirty Calendar days ( 30 ) Oays.
The Date of Substantial Completion as of the date of this Change Order therel(xe 1,
Indian River County Public Works
t It 0 25th Street
Addie»
Vero Beach, Florida
BY
DA 11
Owl & Assoc., Inc
colTfg"Storingline Dr.
Addres,
Vero Zeach, Florida
James W. Davis, P.E.
DAN
Authorized:
Indian River County, F1.
t'•"•1940 25th Street
A,ddre.s
Vero Beach, Florida
S, Don
Scurlock, Jr. _
Chairman, Board of Co. Comm.
- l)AIE
------ ------ -
AIA UUCLMtiT (; ui ( tti'..t,E n I
INE AMtKICAN INN IIIUIt Uf AKl til Itl 85• 1.1, %t '+.ink Ak •, AA,tt11\, t, i'. t, ♦nw.
63
G761 — 1978
BOOK ,8 F'GE 99
AUG
2 2 194
BOOK.8 f;"G-1100
I'
-A983/84 ROAD RESURFACING PROGRAM(
Public Works Director James Davis reported that we have
approximately 40 days left in this fiscal year to spend the
1983/84 Road Resurfacing funds, and the following memo and
list sets out what he feels would be our priorities to
complete this year.
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: August 21, 1984 FILE: 8/29/84
the Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH: Michael Wright,
County Administrator SUBJECT: 1983/84 Road Resurfacing Program
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E. REFERENCES:
Public Works Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
As approved during the FY 83/84 Budget Hearings held in July,
1983, $200,000 was approved in Account No. 004-214-541-35.39
for Other Road Materials. The unencumbered balance of this
account on August 20, 1984 was $114,000. Outstanding bills for
asphalt, limerock, concrete, sod, etc. amount to approximately
$24,000, thereby leaving approximately $90,000 for resurfacing
of County paved roads. Furthermore, there is approximately
$29,000 available in the FY 83/84 budget that can be line
transferred for resurfacing.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The attached road resurfacing program list is presented for
approval. A map is on display in the County Commissioners office
for your review.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
Recommend that the subject program be approved and that
Dickerson, Inc. be authorized to resurface the roads on the
attached list. Funding in the amount of $109,941 be from
Account No. 004-214-541-35.39 and other Road and Bridge
Deaprtment budgeted funds.
64
1
1
i
INDIAN RIVER COUN'T'Y ROAD & BRIDGE DEPARTMENT PROPOSED RESURFACING LIST - 1984
NO. LOCATION
1. Vero Highlands - Sunrise Drive to 6th Avenue
2. Vero Shores - 6th Avenue SE north.of 23rd Street
3. Vero Shores - 19th Court
4. Ixora Park - 20th Avenue intersection
5. 512 in Roseland - overlay on culvert traffic loop
6. 512 south of Fell --mere Farms
7. Starboard Drive in the Moorings
B. Regatta Drive in the Moorings
9. 12th Street frau 43rd to 58th Avenue
10. Humana Hospital Road
11. Palm Lane on east side of US 1 in Roseland
12. 20th Avenue - 12th Street to 16th Street
13. 20th Avenue 16th Street to 19th Place
14. 14th Avenue - 4th Street to 6th Street
15. 4th Street - 20th Avenue to 27th Avenue
16., 4th Avenue S.W. - Highland Drive to S.W. 24th Street
TONAGE COST
A.
v
w
a)
.2
130
$4,824
i
-P
Q
w
a�
o
•�
.1
65
$2,412
Q
A
O
•,i
w
:j
250 ft.
31
1,150
w
ro
:
w
500
P
4J
En
rd
94
�4
o
>i
100 ft.
600
0
o
-P
.a
a
as
-
rd
.3
250
9,250
�4
a)
U
ra
a)
.0
9
0
.3
195
7,215
0
H
b
r
o
.2
130
4,810
•1
N
aa)
CQ
�4
�4
1.0
650
24,050
v
P
X
.25
t
165
6,105
>
A
P
•0
cn
zs
-P
a)
.1
65
2,405
0
En
N
.H
P
-H
H
rl
rl
Q
.4
350
12,950
E -4
u
0
b
x
.3
195
7,215
0
4
-P
(d
�
�4
3
.25
200
7,400
.5
320
11,840
.3
195
7,215
$109,941
A.
v
w
AUG 2 2 1984
BOOK 58 FA�,.�t.1�
V RESIGNATION FROM RECREATION COMMITTEE
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
accepted the resignation of John Marino from
the Countywide Recreation Study Committee with
regret and authorized the Chairman to send him
a letter of appreciation for his efforts.
/REVIEW RESUMES FOR MENTAL HEALTH DISTRICT PLANNING COUNCIL
Commissioner Bird noted that resumes are still pouring
in, and he suggested we should study further before making
the appointments.
Commissioner Wodtke noted that the D.A. is hoping we
would have the recommendation prior to the end of the month.
He confirmed that he, too, still is receiving resumes from
interested people. He believed we have some very qualified
applicants although he does not actually know them, and also
felt we need a ruling as to whether these people will have
to file a financial disclosure.
After further discussion, it was agreed to wait until
the meeting of September 5th to make a selection.
DISCUSSION RE CONSTRUCTTON MANAr-F.MF.NT C)N .TATT.
Chairman Scurlock reported that he has attended
workshops regarding the advantages and disadvantages of
Construction Management (CM), and he is more than ever
convinced that there is no need to go to CM at this stage.
Administrator Wright agreed there are arguments both
for and against CM, and it will.not make that significant a
difference from a staff viewpoint. He felt, however, the
biggest advantage is that you know with whom you are dealing
from the beginning whereas if you bid it, you have to take
the low bid. He did feel there are some minor savings with
CM.
� � a
Chairman Scurlock pointed out that it was said with CM
there would be an upset price, but apparently that does not
include change orders. One of the prime advantages touted
was involving them in the design stage, and we have already
finished that phase. He further emphasized that we hired
the architect in the first place because of his great
expertise in jail construction.
Commissioner Lyons agreed the schematic design is the
primary function of the architect and certainly some of the
security design construction, but he did not feel that
involves the general construction of the building. He
believed the stage we now have arrived at is where somebody
with construction knowledge can assist by looking over your
shoulder. He brought up the possibility of having some well
known contractor act as Construction Manager. He noted that
the CM can build the jail and that way we don't get into the
position of being at the mercy of someone "low balling" this
thing.
The Chairman felt our agreement with the architect
requires that he have an on-site person to assume those
responsibilities.
Administrator Wright noted that the Treasure Coast
Builders Association favored CM as they felt they would have
a better chance getting some of the work. He did not
believe that there would be many local firms building this.
Commissioner Wodtke talked about the importance of
being able to document what goes on on a day to day basis,
and asked what amount it will cost if we do have someone.
It was felt it would be in the range of 20 to 7% depending
on the scope of services.
Administrator Wright explained that the CM is in
essence your general contractor; he bids the work with the
general subcontractors and brings the bids to the
Commission. He works as an employee for the Board.
67
198
BOOK 8 Ft 4l
AUG 2 2 1984 .,-r
BOOK �� Fr.��r.104
Commissioner Lyons noted that, in other words, you
actually have chosen your contractor, and Administrator
Wright believed that is the biggest advantage.
Attorney Brandenburg noted that the individual you hire
as a CM has opportunities to be a sort of enemy in disguise
as it can be in his best interest to team up with the
architect against your interest and designate items as an
additional scope of work whereby they both get paid more.
From the legal perspective you have an additional person on
the scene, which he believed complicates the legal
situation, and he felt there is a further conflict when the
CM decides it is in his best interests not only to be the
manager but also build the job himself.
Administrator Wright did not feel the CM should be
eligible to bid.
Commissioner Wodtke suggested hiring someone such as
local contractor Norman Hensick or Ed Netto to be our
representative. He noted we had someone on the job every
day while the Courthouse and Administration Building
renovations were going on, and we were able to document the
whole operation. He felt strongly that we need someone who
knows construction, and we need them on the construction
site daily.
Administrator Wright felt what he is referring to is a
"Clerk of the Works," and agreed that we want somebody there
while the jail is being built someone who knows jail
operations as well as someone who knows construction.
Attorney Brandenburg pointed out that there is an
option in the architect's agreement where we can require him
to have a full time on-site representative representing us
and we can pick him. The advantage to this arrangement is
that if something goes wrong, the architect can't say it is
our man's fault.
M
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
agreed that the scope of services of the
architect is to include a man on the job to
be jointly selected by the architect and the
County.
REPORT ON "SAVE OUR COAST" PROGRAM
Commissioner Bird reported that he and Attorney
Brandenburg went to Tallahassee and met with the Governor
and Cabinet. The North Beach complex is made up of four
different parcels. Two were ready to be presented for a
final decision - the Morris Tract and West Erdo - and the
State did vote unanimously to go ahead and purchase those
two properties under the "Save Our Coast" Program. Com-
missioner Bird believed these purchases, which total about
1.5 million, will be consummated by the end of October.
Commissioner Bird continued that the state is
negotiating on the remaining Howell/Chapman and Perlini
parcels, and it seems they are fairly close in one area and
quite far apart in another. Hopefully, the negotiations
will be successful and a contract entered into.
Chairman Scurlock noted that apparently the lobbyists
we hired have been an essential part of the process.
Commissioner Bird felt strongly that if we had not hired
the liaison people, we could not have met our guidelines.' He
complimented Attorney Brandenburg for his work in
coordinating all this and felt we never could have been
successful without his efforts.
INORTH COUNTY FIRE
It was announced that immediately upon adjournment of
the meeting of the Board of County Commissioners, they would
reconvene as the District Board of Fire Commissioners of the
North Indian River County Fire District.
BOOK 58 PAGE 105
Fo,-
AUG 2 2 1984
BOOK 58. Fnn 166
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. 11782 - 11962 inclusive. Such
bills and accounts being on file in the Office of the Clerk
of the Circuit Court, the warrants so issued from the
respective bonds being listed in the Supplemental Minute
Book as provided by the rules of the Legislative Auditor,
reference to such record and list so recorded being made a
part of these Minutes.
There being no further business, on Motion made,
seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 2:40 o'clock
P.M.
Attest:
Clerk
70
G
Chairman
_I