Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/23/1985Wednesday, January 23, 1985 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, January 23, 1985, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Patrick B. Lyons, Chairman; Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Vice Chairman; William C. Wodtke, Jr., Margaret C. Bowman, and Richard N. Bird. Also present were Michael J. Wright, County Administrator; Gary Brandenburg, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; L.S. "Tommy" Thomas, Intergovernmental Relations Director; Jeffrey K. Barton, OMB Director; and Barbara Bonnah, Deputy Clerk. Chairman Lyons called the meeting to order and Administrator Wright led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA Commissioner Wodtke requested the addition to today's Agenda of authorization for out -of -County travel for he and members of the Beach Preservation and Restoration Committee to attend a Cabinet meeting in Tallahassee on February 19, 1985. Commissioner Scurlock requested the addition to today's agenda of a reply to the Coast Guard re the Barber Bridge openings. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously added the above items to today's Agenda. BOOK .)F_ 690, �1985 JAN 23 BOOK 5'Q FA;E 66' APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairman Lyons asked if there were any additions or corrections to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of December 19, 1985. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of December 19, 1984, as written. CLERK TO THE BOARD Additional Storage Capacity for IBM Computer The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/10/85: TO: The Board of County Comm i ss ionersDATE: January 10, 1985 FILE: Indian River County SUBJECT: Additional Storage Capacity for IBM Computer FROM: on( Edwin M. Fry, Jr. REFERENCES: Finance Director During the Budget workshops in July and August, we agreed to delete the purchase of storage capacity for the IBM computer and come back to you during the year if we felt that we needed the additional storage capacity. At this point we do need the additional storage capacity. IBM recommends that storage capacity usage not exceed 90% on the System 38 computer. Over the past two weeks, we have temporarily exceeded 90%. The following table shows the usage since July, 1984. Month % of Storage Used July 67 August 73 September 79 October 76 November 83 December 87 January 84 It will cost approximately $30,000.00 to purchase the additional storage capacity that we feel we need. Based on current usage of the computer and projected usage, the additional storage capacity should meet our needs for the next one and one-half years. F Finance Director Ed Fry recommended that the County purchase extra storage for the IBM computer at a cost of $30,000. He explained that additional storage was needed as they had received several warnings from the computer during the last month that they were exceeding capacity. To alleviate the situation somewhat, they are planning to pull off the vehicle registration file which takes up approximately 5% of the capacity. Commissioner Scurlock felt we have some serious problems in our present programming and our whole approach to computer services. He would like to see the County buy additional capacity for the machine upstairs, but buy it with a long term approach. He knew Commissioner Wodtke was working with the Data Processing Committee, which will have recommendations, but he wanted to make sure that utility billings are coordinated into whatever system we go to. He asked if putting Utility Services on its own system would have any immediate impact, and Director Fry did not feel that it would. OMB Director Barton explained that when this unit was first purchased, it was with the idea that modules could be added as needed, and we are now at that point. Administrator Wright asked what capacity Utility Services takes up and Director Fry could not say right offhand. Administrator Wright advised that the Data Processing Committee would be bringing a recommendation back shortly to hire a consultant to analyze the entire County's computer needs for the future. Commissioner Wodtke suggested that if we are in a bind and need additional storage capacity now, perhaps we could lease this storage for a limited time. He noted that St. Lucie County has locked in with the NCR and, though he has heard great things about our IBM 38, he still wants to make sure it is the best system for us. Director Fry confirmed that we could lease additional capacity. 3 �• BOOK J JAN 2 3 1985 BOOK 59 PAGE623 Commissioner Scurlock concurred that the IBM 38 system apparently is one of the best, he understood it is a very sophisticated machine which requires experienced programmers from a very competitive job market. He suggested that at budget time we consider how many programmers are needed and at what salaries, because he felt it was pretty apparent that what we are doing right now is insufficient to our needs. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, that the Board authorize negotiations by staff to lease additional storage capacity and bring the terms back to the Board for approval. OMB Director Barton explained that when the Board approves the lease terms, they will have to transfer sufficient funds from contingency to the Office of the Clerk to pay for the lease for the balance of the fiscal year. Freda Wright, Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners, estimated the cost to lease additional capacity at $800 monthly. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion was voted on and carried unanimously. Director Fry advised that they presently have two full-time programmers on staff and are searching for a third. He agreed that it is difficult to find experienced programmers as it is a very competitive field. CONSENT AGENDA Commissioner Bird requested that Item C be removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion. 0 I A. Community Services Block Grant Housing Rehabilitation Program FY -85 The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/16/85: TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: January 16, 1985 FILE: Board of County Commissioners Through: Michael Wright County Administrator SUBJECT: Comity Services Block Grant Housing Rehabilitation Program Federal Fiscal Year 1985 FROM: Edward J. gan REFERENCES: Executive 'rector IRC Housing Authority It is recommended that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the County Commission. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: The State of Florida's Department of Community Affairs has once again allocated $6,295 to Indian River County under their CSBG Program, and the Housing Authority would like to utilize this grant to provide rehabilita- tion housing consulting services which activates rehabilitation funding from governmental sources. This program will run from April 1, 1985 to September 30, 1985. The Farmers Home Administration Section 504 Program provides housing rehabilitation loans and grants to low-income and elderly persons who lack the finances to make their homes decentj safe and sanitary and free of health and safety factors. This 1985 Program is targeted in the.Old Oslo Park of the County and 15 low-income and elderly owners will have their homes brought up to safe and sanitary standards. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: This is our third year of funding under legislation passed by the Congress which consolidates various social programs into the block grant categories. RECOMMENDATION: We respectfully request the County Commission to authorize its Chair- man to execute the resolution and application for submission to the Department of Community Affairs for this CSBG grant. This program will bring about improvements in safety and sanitation for fifteen (15) homeowners with an average cost of $2,800 per unit. The $6,295 Grant plus $1,832 in cash and in-kind contributions by the Housing .Authority will be supplemented with $40,000 in loans and grants from the Farmers Home Administration. This program requires no additional County funds. 5 BOOK 59 P''ur 6?4 JAN 2 3 1985 - J JAN 2 3 1995 BOOK 59 Nk UF 695 ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 85-13 authorizing the Chairman to execute an application for a housing rehabilitation program to assist low income families as administered by the Florida Dept. of Community Affairs. (APPLICATION IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK ) C RESOLUTION NO. 85-13 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD TO EXECUTE AN APPLICATION FOR A HOUSING REHABILITATION PROGRAM TO ASSIST LOW INCOME FAMILIES AS ADMINISTERED BY THE STATE OF FLORIDA'S DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County has reviewed this proposal and has received the recom- mendation from the Executive Director of the Indian River County Housing Authority; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the Chairman and the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners are authorized to execute the attached Application to the State of Florida's Department of Community Affairs for a Community Services Block Grant Program (CSBG). The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Scurlock who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Wodtke and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Patrick B. Lyons Aye Vice Chairman Don C.'Scurlock, Jr. Aye Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. Aye Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 23rd day of January , 1985. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RPMR COUNTY, FLORIDA L1-W/i'/1071 %AWI E ratrick B. Lyon Chairman ATTEST: 66L Freda Wright Q' Clerk �• APPROVED A§ -TQ FORM AND LEG SUF-FICIENCY M. Branden ty Attorney r BOOK 59 P�{GE 62, 6 i JAN 2 3 1� I JAN 2 3 1985 -I .. Budget Amendment, County Planning BOOK 59 6?7 The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/14/85: rO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: January 11, 1985 FILE: SUBJECT:. County -planning FROM: Jeffrey K. Barton, REFERENCES: OMB Director In August, 1984, an order was placed with IBM for a wordprocessor. The invoice was not received until December, 1984 and cash forward was greater than anticipated since the funds were not expended in FY 83-84. The following budget amendment is to reallocate the funds into FY 84-85, Account Title Account No. Increase Decrease Cash Fwd.- Oct. 1 004000-389-40.00 4,795 Office Furn & Equip. 004-2057515-66.41 40795 ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the*Board unanimously approved the above budget amendment, as recommended by OMB Director Barton. �C. Budget Amendment, 1983 Beach Bonds The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/14/85: 7 TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: January 14, 1985 FILE: SUBJECT: _ 1983 Beach Bonds FROM: Jeffrey K. Barton, REFERENCES: OMB Director The following budget amendment is to allocate the funds for the Property Appraisers' commission & fees for the Beach Bonds. This was an oversignt at budget preparation as they collect on the prior year and did not collect last year, Account Title Account No. � "Increase Decrease Bud. Tran.. - Prop. Appraiser Cash Fwd. -Sept 30 Cash Fwd. Sept 30 - budget $150,000. 203-117-586-99.06 32,943 203-117-581-99.92 32,943 Commissioner Bird had a question on this and OMB Director Barton explained that the Property Appraiser's office is one year behind in its budget allocations as they collect on the prior year. This budget amendment is necessary to allocate funds for commission and fees for the beach bonds for last year, which were calculated at a higher rate. Commissioner Wodtke understood then that, in essence, this would be a cash forward of $32,943 from contingencies. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously approved the above budget amendment, as recommended by OMB Director Barton. �D. Budget Amendment - Service of Process Contract HRS/BCC/Sheriff The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/14/85: 7a JAN 2 3 1985 BooK 5 we',698 JAN 23 1985 TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Jeffrey K. Barton, OMB Director BOOK 59 c 4F 6?9 DATE: January 14, 1985 FILE: SUBJECT: Service -of Process Contract HRS/BCC/Sheriff REFERENCES: On October 24, 1984, the Chairman signed a contract for Service of Process which is for serving papers for indigent persons. The following budget amendment is to establish a budget to properly record this process. Account Title Account No. Increase Decrease HRS Service of Process 001-000-389-10.00 1,000 Service of Process 001-600-521-34.94 1,000 ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously approved the above budget amendment, as recommended by OMB Director Barton. E. Budget Amendment - Sheriff's Office The Board reviewed the following budget account amendment dated 1/15/85: 0 � � r 0 0 m t� 1� L•27 BUDGET ACCOUNT AMENDMENT DATE REQUESTED INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Form 82-7 Sheriff's Department No.: 1 FY: 1984-85 January 15, 1985 TO: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners I hereby request approval for the amendment of the Sheriff's Department budget as set forth below: R. T. "Tim" DOBECK, Sheriff Original Budget or Last Amended Budget Including Amendments Budget Accounts FY 1984-85 Amendments Requested Requested 521 .10 Personal Services $ 2,695,479. s $ 2,695,479. .30 Operating Expenses 655,226. -(5,120.) 650,106. .60 Capital Outlay 64.41 AUTO EQUIPMENT 149,500, 142,50()- 64.43 RADIO EQUIPMENT 40,800. 40,800. 64.44 OTHER EQUIPMENT -0- 5,120. 5,120. Contingency 5,000. 5,000. TOTAL BUDGET $ -3,539,005. $ -0- $ 3,539,005. 16 blue lights 20.($5,120.) were incorrectly budgetd in 521.46.41(Auto tires,batt.repairs.) Each blue light is over $200, thus should be in 64.44 Other Equipment. This is to c d e by a Board of County Commissioners This Is to certify that this budget account amendment has been . Approved / Disapproved -3' 8'� Date: �`� Date: Sign re Signature Title: Chairman, Board ounty Commissioners Title: Director, Office of Management & Budget INDIAN RIVER COUNTY INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Bowen Supply Co., Ltd., Plant C 0 0 m t� 1� L•27 JAN P 11985 BOOK 5 9 `'t �E 631 ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously approved the above budget amendment, as recommended by OMB Director Barton. F, G. & H - Reports Received and placed on file in the Office of the Clerk: Financial & Compliance Audit of IRC District School Board Fiscal Years ended June 30, 1982 and June 30, 1983 OTraffic Violation Bureau, Special Trust Fund Month of December 1984 - $27,481.38 J�raffic Violations by Name - December, 1984 PROCLAMATION - JOHN ALLEN Chairman Lyons read the following proclamation aloud and presented it to John Allen who thanked the Board for this honor and stated that it was his pleasure to work for the County for the last 16 years. 10 P R O C L A M A T I O N Y WHEREAS, JOHN ALLEN began his career with Indian River County on the 28th day of April, 1969 and since that time has shown loyalty and dedication as an employee; and WHEREAS, JOHN ALLEN is retiring effective the 31st day of January, 1985 as Custodian of the Indian River County Courthouse and Annex; and WHEREAS, JOHN ALLEN is immensely proud of the Indian River County Courthouse and Annex grounds and has worked diligently to <: keep the grounds maintained in a park -like manner which is enjoyed not only by County employees, 'but by all the citizens of Indian River County; and v ` a WHEREAS, JOHN ALLEN started employment 'as Keeper of 'the Courthouse and advanced to "Ambassador of Good -Will"; and. WHEREAS, JOHN ALLEN's charm, wit and willingness ,'to cooperate have been a joy and delight and he will be 'greatly missed by his co-workers and the .citizens of Indian River County; and WHEREAS, JOHN ALLEN has had a thorough understanding of the. = .work he performed and during his employment was 'a very faithful � and conscientious employee and showed a willingness to cooperate .<t.� :. rz far beyond our expectations; a4 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF ..COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER.COUNTY, FLORIDA that the Board on } ' ... .. , .. , y� t ;mss• behalf of itself expresses gratitude to JOHN ALLEN for his fine , employment record and contribution to Indian River County and- :; .wishes him a very long and happy retirement. Dated this 23rd day of January, 1985. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ' IZDIANRR COUNTY, FLORIDA op /0,4B K B. LYO , CHAIRMAN ATTEST - _ BY: �7.�t E��C �� t .))It.c �� M FREDA WRIGHT, CLEBX 11 JAN 23 1985 BOOK 59 FA;E R,3 JAN 2 3 1985 BOOK 59 F�•�.JF 61133 VPROCLAMATION - DEWEY WALKER Chairman Lyons read the following proclamation aloud and presented it to Dewey Walker, noting that Dewey will be sorely missed because he probably knows more about this County than anybody else, other than Tommy Thomas. P R O C L A M A T I O N WHEREAS, DEWEY C. WALKER began his career with Indian River County on November 18, 1968 as a Zoning Inspector and, in 1973, was promoted to Zoning Director; and WHEREAS, DEWEY C. WALKER is a Code Enforcement Inspector for Indian River County and will retire from that office on January 31, 1985; and WHEREAS, DEWEY C. WALKER has served in the Zoning %Department now known as the Code Enforcement Department for over sixteen years and has been a diligent and capable employee .dedicated to serving the best interests of the citizens of Indian River County; and WHEREAS, DEWEY C. WALKER has a thorough knowledge and xJ understanding of the functions of the Code Enforcement ;. Department in all its phases, and during his tenure was a very faithful and conscientious employee whose expertise will be sorely missed by all the citizens of Indian River County; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE .BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that `the Board hereby expresses gratitude and deep appreciation to DEWEY C. WALKER for his fine employment record and contribution to Indian River County and wishes him a very long and happy retirement. Dated this 23rd day of January, 1985. ATTEST: FREDA WRIGHT, LERK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA 12 ®PROCLAMATION - RITA THOMAS Chairman Lyons read the following proclamation aloud and presented it to Mrs. Thomas along with the name plate that has designated her seat during her 8 -year tenure on the County Board of Zoning Adjustment. P R O C L A M A T I O N WHEREAS, RITA S. THOMAS was appointed to the Indian River County Board of Zoning Adjustment by the Board of County Commissioners on June 8, 1977; and WHEREAS, RITA S. THOMAS ihas submitted her resignation effective January 1985; and WHEREAS, RITA S. THOMAS was a faithful member of the Board whose major function is to 'listen to hardship cases and to interpret the Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, RITA S. THOMAS, during her tenure onf the -Indian River County Board of Zoning Adjustment, served the citizens of Indian River County with diligence and understanding; and WHEREAS, Indian River County is a better place in which to live due to the services provided by RITA S. THOMAS while she served on the Indian River County Board of Zoning Adjustment; NOW THEREFORE BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY. COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the Board, on behalf of itself and the citizenry of Indian River County, expresses its deep appreciation to RITA S.•THOMAS for a job well done; and BE IT FURTHER PROCLAIMED that the Board wishes RITA S. THOMAS continued success in her future endeavors. ATTEST: s�ltccQ�.CP)�.1'� Freda Wright, Calerk BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY• •Patrick B. Lyos Chairman 13 JAN 23 1985 BooK 59 J A% 23 1985 BOOK 59 F,-iu 635 �ORTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT The Board of County Commissioners recessed at 9:22 o'clock A.M. in order that the District Board of the North County Fire District might convene. Those Minutes are being prepared separately. The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 9:35 o'clock A.M. with the same members present. tl PUBLIC HEARING — COUNTY—INITIATED REQUEST TO REZONE 30.8 ACRES FROM COMMERCIAL DISTRICT TO SINGLE—FAMILY DISTRICT (OSLO) 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: 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 andL/r in the matter of 6�A zzz in the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of 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, fora 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. A Sworn to and subscribed before me (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River (SEAL) 9 19 X_ ness a • oi.i4, Florida) 14 € 1!NOTICi_ - PUBLIC HEARINf3 Notice of hearing initiated by Indian River County to consider the adoption of a County or- dinance rezoning land from C-1, Commercial District to R-1; Singte-Family District. The subject property is located on the south side of Oslo Road (9th Street/C.R.606) one-half mile'west of Old Dixie Highway (C.R.605) and east of ,12th Avenue. The subse� property is described as: Parcel ".The NE% of the NE'/4 of the NN(y. of -Section 25, Township 33S, Raiige 39er ` Patael #Z„.The W'A of the NW'/4 of the ' g ; ` NE'/i bf the NW'/. of Section 25, Town ship 336, Range 39E Parcel #3., The North 660' of Tract 4, LESS AND EXCEPT the East 165' there- of, in Section 25, Township 33S, Range 39E.., . Parcel ?;4. Lots 1 and 2,. Block 2, and Lots 1 through 5; inclusiW, Lot 11, and the north 30' of Lot 12, Block 1, PompeyS r` Subdivision; as Tecorded.in Plat Book 2 ,, Page 69In the Public Records of Indian River County. z ` . ro All above pps4 now icing an,Q beim' In Indian River Co}fnty, Flonda A public hearing at which parties in interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard, will beheld by the Board of County Com- missioners 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, January 23, 1985, at 9:15 a.m. If any person decides to appeal any decision made on the above matter, he/she will need a i@dbrtt of the proceedings, and for- such pur- /s may � to ensure .thi to verba- tim record proceedings is made, which in- cludes testimony and evidence', uponwhich the appeal Is based. Ihdlan Riker County` Board of County Commissioners -. By: -s -Don C, Scurlock, Chairman Jan. 2, 14 1885. I The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/9/85: TO: The Honorable Members DATE: January 9, 1985 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: -� SUBJECT: Robert M. Keats g ,- -y1CP Planning & Development Director i�� FROM' Richard Shearer, AICP Chief, Long -Range PlanniREFERENCES: COUNTY -INITIATED RE- QUEST TO REZONE 30.8 ACRES FROM C-1, COM- MERCIAL DISTRICT, TO R-1, SINGLE-FAMILY DISTRICT ZC-108 CHIEF It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of January 23, 1985. 'DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS Indian River County is requesting to rezone 30.8 acres located on the south side of Oslo Road, east of 12th Avenue, and west of 8th Avenue, from C-1, Commercial District, to R-1, Single -Family District (up to 6.2 units/acre). Several individuals have been unable to obtain building permits to construct.single-family dwellings in this area because of the commercial zoning. This request originally included 64.7 acres of land lying between 8th Avenue and 20th Avenue on the south side of Oslo Road. On December 13, 1984, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5 -to -0 to recommend approval of rezoning that part of the subject property lying east of 12th Avenue. The Commission felt that further staff analysis was necessary for the area between 12th Avenue and 20th Avenue. 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 contains a large number of single-family dwellings, two churches, and undeveloped land. North of the subject property, across Oslo Road, are warehouses, wholesaling, auto repair, auto cleaning and detailing businesses and undeveloped land zoned M-1, Restricted Industrial District, and a grocery store, several single-family residences, and undeveloped land zoned C-1. East of the subject property is undeveloped land zoned C-1. South of the subject property are single-family residences and undeveloped land zoned R-1. West of the subject property are single-family residences and undeveloped land zoned C-1. In addition, the subject property abuts the Sexton Grove Service facility on two sides. This facility is zoned C-1. 15 L_ JAN 2 3 1985 BOOK 59 PAGF 636 JAN 23 1985 Boa 59 P,a 637 Future Land Use Pattern The Comprehensive Plan designates most of the subject property as LD -2, Low -Density Residential 2 (up to 6 units/acre). Approximately 7.8 acres of the subject property (a 300 foot deep area with 1135 feet of frontage on Oslo Road) is designated as part of the Oslo Road MXD, Mixed -Use District (up to 6 units/acre). The land north of the subject property (to a depth 600 feet north of Oslo Road) is also designated MXD. The land use designation of the land east of the subject property was changed from LD -2 to commercial in June of 1984. The land south and west of the subject property is designated as LD -2 - Based on the R-1 zoning of the land south of the subject property, the existing land uses of the subject property, and the fact that the R-1 zoning is consistent with both the LD -2 and MXD land use designations, the R-1 zoning district is a more appropriate zoning district for the subject property than the current C-1 zoning. Transportation System - The subject property has direct access to Oslo Road (classified as an arterial street on the Thoroughfare Plan), and to 9th Court, 12th Avenue, and several undedicated roads and easements classified as local streets. The maximum development of the subject property under the proposed R-1 zoning would generate up to 1,350 average annual daily trips. Environment The subject property is not designated as environmentally sensitive nor is it in a flood -prone area. T74 -i l i+-ica A County water main runs along the north side of Oslo Road. County wastewater facilities are not available for the subject property. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, staff recommends approval. Richard Shearer, Chief of Long -Range Planning, presented staff's recommendation for the rezoning of 30.8 acres located on the south side of Oslo Road, east of 12th Avenue, and west of 8th Avenue, from C-1, Commercial District, to R-1, Single -Family District (up to 6.2 units/acre). Chairman Lyons opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously closed the Public Hearing. 16 I ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance 85-06, rezoning 30.8 acres from C-1, Commercial District, to R-1, Single -Family District, as advertised. ORDn,p= NO. 8 5 - 6 WHEREAS, the Board of County Conmi.ssioners 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, TFEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Comnissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning Ordinance of Indian River County, Florida, and the acccu panying 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 subject property is described as: Parcel #1. The NE114 of the NES of the NGS of Section 25 Tbwnship 33S, Range 39E. Parcel #2. The W-12- of the NWX4 of the NF}4 of the NWS of Section 25, Township 33S, Range 39E. Parcel #3. The North 660' of Tract A, LESS AND EXCEPT the East 165' thereof, in Section 25, Township 33S, Range 39E. Parcel #4. lots 1 and 2, Block 2, and Lots 1 through 5, inclusive, Lot 11, and the north 30' of Lot 12, Block 1, Pompeys Subdivision as recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 69 in the Public Records of Indian River County. All above property now lying and being in Indian River County, Florida. Be changed from C-1, Commercial District, to R-1, Single -Family 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 23 day of January 1985. BOARD OF CO COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN IMER COUNTY I BOOK F'°:GF 638 JAN 2 31985 BOOK 59 F',g11-6,639 PUBLIC HEARING - LISLE APPEAL OF REZONING DENIAL 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: VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being in the matter in the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of (� 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. A Sworn to and subscribed before me this d o . 19 (Bu# Mana r) - GLS / (SEAL) (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, rida) fi NOTICE - PUBUC HEARING Notice of hearing to consider the adoption of a County ordinance rezoning land from R-1EC Country Estate District to C-1, Commerclel Dis. tricL The subject property is presently owned by JOHN D. LISLE, SR. and is located on the south side .of County Road 512 (Fetlemere Road/95th Street) and one-half mile east of 1-95. The Lots 11�2�3�4, andi3operty, s described Block D. Pine i- Lake E�etates,:Uidt 1, unrecorded Plat, a copy of whiah'said-unrecorded Plat is re. i corded for reference in Official Record Book 123, Page 141, of the Public.' Recordsof Indian River County. Florida -_than Ryer per n nty, ow Floc being . in, The Board of County Commissioners orifi con duct a public hearing regarding the appeal by the,applicant Of the decislon, by the Planning and Zoning Commiasion to'recommend disapproval of the rezoning request. The public hearing, at which parties in interest and citizens shall have an `opportunity Board. of County Commissioners of Indiim silver Counttyy� Florida. In the County Commission Chambere Of the County Administration Building. located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida on Wednesday, Jan. 23, 1986, at 9:15 am. If ny decision made n�thenabove matter'; n decides he/�sheawill 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 appy is based. Indian River . . Board of County Commissioners B -s-Don C. Scurlock, Jr.,, Chairman !an. 2,14.1985.' i The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/9/85: TO: The Honorable Members DATE: January 9, 1985 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners LISLE APPEAL OF THE DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: PLANNING & ZONING COM- ' MISSION'S DENIAL OF HIS SUBJECT: REQUEST TO REZONE ONE Robert -M. -Keating,- A ACRE FROM R-lE, COUNTRY Planning & Developme Director ESTATE DISTRICT TO C-11 COMMERCIAL DISTRICT V2 FROM: Richard Shearer, AICP ZC-079 Chief, Long -Range PlannirEFERENCES: CHIEF It is requested consideration by regular meeting that the.data herein the Board of County of January 23, 1985. 18 presented be given formal Commissioners at their DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS Michael O'Haire, an agent for John D. Lisle, Sr., the owner, is requesting to rezone one acre located on the south side of County Road 512, one-half mile east of I-95 from R-lE, Country Estate District (1 unit/acre), to C-1, Commercial District. In 1978, the County rezoned this property from C-1, to R-1, Single -Family District (up to 6.2 units/acre). Over the next four years, the majority of the lots in Pine Lake Estates (including the subject property) were rezoned from A, Agricul- tural District, and R-1 to R-lE. On January 5, 1983, a County - initiated request to rezone the remaining lots from A to R-lE was approved. At this time, all of the lots in Pine Lake Estates are zoned R -1E. The applicant has discussed the possibility of developing this property as an office with an apartment on the second floor. This type of use would be allowed in the C-1 district or the C-lA, Restricted Commercial District. On December 13, 1984, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4 -to -1 to deny this request. The Commission gave as their reasons the facts that they did not feel this property could be included in the I-95 and County Road 512 node, there is no commercial zoning around the subject property, and that they were concerned about establishing a small commercial area in an area that will probably continue to develop residentially. 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 and all of the land around it is undeveloped. The land north of the subject property, across County Road 512, is zoned A. The land east and south of the subject property is zoned R -1E. The land west of the subject property is zoned R-1. Further west is property zoned C-1. Future Land Use Pattern The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property and the land east, south, and west of it as LD -1, Low -Density Residential 1 (up to 3 units/acre). The land north of the subject property is designated as AG, Agricultural (up to .2 units/acre). In addition, the Comprehensive Plan designates a 175 acre commercial/industrial node at the intersection of I-95 and County Road 512. The applicant is proposing to include the subject property in this node. In December of 1983, the Board of County Commissioners rezoned 100 acres of land located 1,000 feet north of County Road 512 and 3/4 mile east of I-95 from A, Agricultural District, to LM -1, Light Manufacturing District. That rezoning stretched the 175 acre commercial/industrial node to the north and east of the intersection making it difficult to include much property on the south side of County Road 512 or the west side of I-95 in the node. Tentative boundaries were prepared for this 175 acre node based on the existing and committed commercial uses, industrial zoning, and necessary infill property (see attachment 3). These tentative boundaries do not include the subject property. W JAN 2 3 1985 BOOK �� H GE 640 JAN 2 3 1985 BOQK 59 F�t:;u 64 Regardless of whether or not the subject property can be included in the node, rezoning a one acre parcel of land, surrounded by single-family zoning, to a general commercial zoning classification constitutes spot zoning. Transportation System The subject property has direct access to County Road 512 (classified as an arterial street on the Thoroughfare Plan), and to 106th Avenue and 105th Court (classified as local streets). The maximum development of the subject property under C-1 zoning could attract up to 950 average annual daily trips (AADT). 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 facts that the staff does not feel the subject property can logically be included in the node, the fact that rezoning the subject property would constitute spot zoning, and the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that this rezoning request be denied. Planner Richard Shearer presented staff's recommendation for denial of this rezoning request explaining they feel that the subject property cannot logically be included in the node and rezoning the subject property would constitute spot zoning. Chairman Lyons opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. Michael O'Haire, attorney representing owner John D. Lisle, Sr., distributed colored maps of the area and pointed out that the proposed boundaries of the commercial/industrial node located at I-95 & CR -512 are really what prompted this appeal. He explained that there is no use in place in this vicinity at this time; there is residential and agricultural zoning, but what has been platted as residential on the south side of CR -510 is not really a plat. It is actually a survey which was entered into 20 M M M the public records before the subdivision ordinance was passed, and it is not a legitimate plat as there are no County maintained roads, ditches or drainage system. Attorney O'Haire advised that he also has been approached by a number of other owners of property along the south side CR -512 in this vicinity to request a rezoning. These people feel that this initial request is more or less a trial balloon, and they also feel very strongly that it is not spot zoning. To the contrary, they feel that having R-lE immediately south of a 30 -foot paved road, north of which is a commercial/industrial node, constitutes spot zoning. He noted that the property between the Hetra property and I-95 on the north side of CR -512 is "infill" property, and nowhere is it cast in concrete that the commercial boundary must be on the north side of CR -512. Attorney O'Haire pointed out that the commercial node at SR -60 and Kings Highway, which stretches from Kings Highway to 43rd Avenue, zigzags back and forth across SR -60, and he felt this request would be consistent with what was done in that node. Attorney O'Haire continued that his client is the first to request a commercial use on a piece of property south of CR -512, and he believed that the zoning will be tested as time goes by and people have actual uses for the property in that area. Given the fact that the subject property is across the road from a commercial/industrial node that consists of infill property and that there is a projected industrial use for property east of I-95, he argued that it would be entirely appropriate for the subject property to be developed as commercial, rather than R-lE, which is is the most restricted residential district in the County, and therefore, it would be appropriate for the Board to give consideration to a modification of the Comp Plan as well as a change in zoning. 21 L- JAN 2 3 1985 BOOK 5.9 PvF 642 MOO 5 FW.) . 643 ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously closed the Public Hearing. Administrator Wright noted that in addition to maintaining CR -512, the County also maintains a large segment of the roads in the subdivision in which the subject property is located. Mr. Shearer stated that the Board has not yet adopted the boundaries of the node, but the node was expanded in 1983 to include Hetra Industries by connecting the existing uses. Commissioner Bird felt then that we are still bound by the total number of acres dedicated to the node by the Comp Plan. Attorney Brandenburg confirmed that the node was expanded in 1983 to allow that configuration so that the Hetra property conceivably could be placed in the node; the Board, however, did not approve the configuration of that node other than agreeing that it was the only way to stretch it over to include the Hetra property. Planning & Development Director Robert Keating advised that they will be bringing the set acreage of all the commercial nodes to the Board for formal approval in about two months. Attorney O'Haire reported that real estate people in the Wabasso/Sebastian area have been picking up these parcels and putting them together with an anticipated commercial use in mind. Mr. Shearer explained that most of the owners in Pine Lakes Estates own about one acre, which is about 4 or 5 lots, and that is part of the reason why the zoning has been established as Country Estate. Director Keating stated that it is staff's feeling that there is not sufficient acreage in the node to extend it to include the subject property. Staff also feels the infill property has to be included because from an overall planning prospective, it is not best to have this one little spot zoned commercial. He advised that staff is also concerned about the 22 impact of commercial on the residential lots to the south, east and west. Commissioner Scurlock understood then that if we were to address that area, we would address the entire area rather than lot by lot. Commissioner Wodtke believed that SR -512 will have to be enlarged into four lanes at some point in the near future and felt that if we approve some commercial spots right in the middle of a platted area, we would be creating a serious, continuing problem. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously denied the rezoning appeal and instructed staff to look at the entire area involved and bring back a recommendation to the Board. Commissioner Wodtke felt that we should also look at right- of-ways and setback requirements on CR -512. /PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL - SUMMERPLACE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP II 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: VERO BEACH PRESSJOURNAL Published Cagy - - Vero Beach. handle River County, Florida .f • COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER STATE OF FLORIDA Retoro [ere undersigned edindrdy personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. -no On oath SW that he is Business Manager of the Vero Senh press-iournal. a dally o nvspapor Oultion" at Veto Senn in Indian Riley County. Flands; that the initialled copy of adnIndismenL beho in the matter ofF."'���•,`-'� M theCourt. teas puP Bshad in stio MWspaper, of the ,!sues 4;� Alftanl funher says that the atm Vero Beach Press•Jounut Is a newspaper puoitslteI at I Veto Bertsem an h. in lndrRpt County. Florida. ansa d that the id newspeOW nes hereto We Oven eoZinjously puarshed m sem Indian River County. FtOnda. each chuff and nes been entered as aeCortd eie9e mad mailer at the post olfite in Vero Billion. m Bad IOON Rwer Cou. ly. Fiona. tar a permit of One year meal preceding the first Oubil"thin Of IM altacned copy of adyenrm teement: aamn eI Winer says that as at ere hneither pat nor promised any wheat• fine or corporation any discount. reWis. commtaston or refund la the purpose of Willing In* adverbseme i Im publication in the Mid neestraws. S.W. to and submitted balm" this ell (Clerk of the GrCutt COL". Imran Rwet County Nidal (SEAU. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ryq REGARDING APPEAL OF , =, SITE PLAN APPROVAL`., On December 20,1964, the Planning and Zon- ing, Commission of Indian River County, Florida, sitting as the local -planning agency, approved the + Summer- PlacetLimited an Pairtnershipu omc onstruct a two.. story, banking and professional office facility at the northwest comer of S.R. A -1=A and C.R. 510. The Indian River County Board of County Commissioners will conduct a public hearing, re- garding the appeal by the Indian River County Planning & Development Division of the decision by the Planning and Zoning Commission to apt prove the site plan. The public hearing, at which parties in Interest and citizens shall have an op- rtunity to be heard, will be heldby said Board of County Commissioners In the County Com- mission -Chambers of the County. Administration Building located at. 1640 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida,. on Wednesday, January .23, 1985, at 9:45 a.m. . � • If any person decides to appeal any decision made on the above matter, he may need to en- sure 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 -Patrick B. Lyons, Chairman January 16, 1985. 23 JAN 23 1985 BOOK 644 JAN 2 3 1985 BOOK 59 ?AGE 645 The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/15/85: U• The Honorable Members DATE: January 15, 1985 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: APPEAL OF SUMMERPLACE SUBJECT: SITETED PLANAAPPROVALP II Robert M. Keat'ng, 6fCP Planning & Development Director FROM: Mary Jane V. Goetzfried REFERENCES: App. pp. Summerplace 1 Chief, Current Development Section DIS:MARYJ It is recommended that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of January 23, 1985. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS On December 20, 1984 the Planning and Zoning Commission ap- proved a site plan application submitted by Summerplace Limited Partnership II, a business entity of which Thomas H. Collins is a principal. The development proposal provides for the con- struction of. -a two-story banking and professional building on the northwest corner of the intersection of C.R. 510 and S.R. A -1-A, which is more particularly described as Lots L & M Summerplace Subdivision, Unit 1. The applicant has proposed a 3,192 square foot bank and 4,338 square feet of professional office space for the .69 acre site. As proposed, the business center will be accessed via a 24' two-way drive located on S.R. A -1-A. Additionally, a 2 lane drive-through bank teller is to be constructed along the west side of the structure, allowing vehicles to exit on to C.R. 512. The stormwater management plan, the landscape plan, and the utilities plan all meet County regulations and have been approved. The southeast and southwest quadrants of the S.R. A -1-A and C.R. 510 intersection are presently undeveloped. However, an approved site plan exists for the construction of a 300 unit hotel on the east side of A -1-A and a site plan application has been submitted for the development of a 258 unit condominium project on the west side of A -1-A. A retail/ - office building is situated on the northeast corner of the intersection, while the remainder of the general area to the north is occupied by single-family residences. It is approval of this site plan application that the Planning & Development Division is appealing. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS During the course of review, the Technical Review Committee identified a problem with regard to access to the site. The problem relates to the available site frontage and the short distance between the 510/AIA intersection and the north and west property lines of the site. Given the restricted site frontage on SR AIA, the location of Shell Drive at the north property line of the site, and planned improvements to the 510/AIA intersection, the Technical Review Committee determined that access from the site to AIA should not be allowed. 24 M The Comprehensive Plan designates S.R. A -1-A and C.R. 510 as arterials, where access should be limited to collector roads and major traffic generators. Keeping with this policy, the Department of Public Works recommended that access to the development should be limited to Shell Lane, a private road abutting the subject property to the north. The applicant, however, did not feel this was a feasible recommendation and chose not to modify the site plan in conformance with the Public Works Division's recommendation. (See attachment #5). When Summerplace Subdivision was originally platted in 1981, only Lot M, lying on the corner of C.R. 510 and S.R. A -1-A was designated within the Restricted Commercial District. Subsequently, Lot L, lying immediately north of Lot M and on the corner of Shell Lane and A -1-A was rezoned to C-lA, thus creating a .69 acre commercial site. As a residentially zoned parcel, Lot L would have been accessed via Shell Lane; however, it is the applicant's position that as a commercial piece of land the subject property should be accessed from. S.R. A -1-A. Taking into consideration the primarily residential nature of the private road, the Planning staff concurs with the applicant, that access to the business center should be provided from S.R. A -1-A. Although the -site plan depicts _a means for positive interior traffic flow, the position of the ingress/egress point is unacceptable, and alternative points of access are restricted. Given the limited amount of frontage on S.R. A -1-A (219' ) and its location between a major traffic intersection and a private residential road, it is critical that consideration be given to the intensity of the.proposed development. The proposed use of a bank will contribute substantially to the volume of traffic directed through the intersection. A bank, the size of the proposed facility, will attract approximately 594 trips per day, while comparable office space will only attract 38 trips per day. Based on this, a determination has been made that given the size and location of the subject property, the proposed use of a banking facility is not appropriate. Since banks are designated as special exception uses within the C-lA Restricted Commercial District, the approving body has the authority to determine if this use is appropriate for this site, considering the intensity of the use, the area, location and its relationship to the neighborhood. It is the position of the Planning and Development Division and the Public Works Division that the Planning and Zoning Commis- sion approved the site plan request despite potential traffic hazards which may be created by the proposed project. The staff's appeal of this decision is based upon the detrimental impact which the proposed development may have upon the pub- lic's health, safety and general welfare. RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends that the Board grant the appeal of the Planning and Development Division and the Public Works Division and reverse the decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission in approving the subject site plan. 25 JAN 2 3 1985 BOOK F4,cF6�� r JAN 2 3 1995 BOOK F10F.647 Mary Jane Goetzfried, Chief of Current Development, presented staff's recommendation that the Board reverse the decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission's approval of the subject site plan. She pointed out the egress and ingress locations to the proposed bank and office building on a map of the intersection of AlA and CR -510 and explained that staff feels the applicant is asking to develop the site too intensely and that an office building would be more appropriate on that corner as it would not generate as much traffic. She reported that the Public Works Dept. also disapproves of the site plan because they feel the entrance and exit off of AIA are too close to the intersection and would cause a traffic hazard; they recommend instead that the entrance to the development be limited to Shell Lane, a private road on the northern edge of the property. In addition, Mrs. Goetzfried advised that a 4 -ft. concrete median strip is proposed on AIA which would make a left-hand turn lane into the site impossible. Commissioner Bird hoped that staff has some fairly positive criteria they use in determining whether or not they are going to appeal either an approval or denial of a site plan. Robert Keating, Planning & Development Director, stated that they don't have any specific written policy in relation to this, but he assured the Commission that staff does not make an appeal of this type very often. In this case, staff was basing their appeal on concepts in the traffic element of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and also the fact that the Technical Review Committee has identified a problem in accessing the site. Administrator Wright assured the Board that this matter was brought to the Board only after considerable thought and discussion. Commissioner Scurlock recalled some extensive debate at a recent Board meeting in regard to what traffic would be generated by that intersection in relation to development of the north barrier island. 26 Commissioner Wodtke asked why the Minutes of the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting were not included in today's backup material and Director Keating answered that that it simply was an oversight. Staff will provide copies immediately. Attorney Brandenburg confirmed that there are deed restrictions on this property, but he was of the opinion that the application of a private deed restriction does not have any direct bearing on zoning decisions except to the extent that the Board must realize that individuals have bought property relying on the deed restrictions and to the extent that the Board must consider how the proposed development is going to relate to the abutting neighborhood. As far as the private road is concerned, there is no problem with access as every lot in the subdivision has that right. He felt that people in Summerplace probably have a good expectation that Lot L will remain residential and that the Board should consider what caused them to have that expectation. Chairman Lyons asked why that corner should be C-1, and Mrs. Goetzfried explained that initially the whole block fronting along SR -510 was commercial and the two lots in question were rezoned in 1961. Attorney Brandenburg advised that even if the Board approved this site plan today, the property owners in that area have the ability to enforce the deed restriction on Lot L by filing suit. Commissioner Bird understood then that staff is appealing both the approval of the site plan and the bank facility as a special exception in the Commercial Restricted District. Commissioner Scurlock felt our main concern should be the traffic element. Chairman Lyons opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. Michael O'Haire, attorney representing the owner of the property, Thomas H. Collins, distributed colored maps of the area in question. 27 AN 2 31985 BOOK 59 648 /' costs. . •, _iEfaml_CnnA EDGE OF VEGETATION UNIT °2 UNIT s2 °' WALKwav To occaN �. SOLD ` Bareloot (3o' PRIVATE maAD) Place Barefoot Iso a z .ovo) Place 1 \ 8 a so, -00 i Shell (30' rnIVATE nOAO) Wabasso Beach Road 3LD a (� V °°� °' WALK -AM To OCEAN 4 IZRr R. D. CARTER ENGINEERING nR&% INC. ENGINEERS E SURVEYORS VERO REACH. FLORIDA -SINCE E911 - -14 C_ CAD I m N r_ (D rt N H rr I- I• :rA rF & Pi m ro O a n � � H. H (D n a ro H. rt, °. H rt- 0 rf 0 rf O G N N O 00 0 a rt (D n r r m• tr a (D o a ft N• ft rt, (D r x O (D rt rt w O pi 0 Ell a �• G V (D /' costs. . •, _iEfaml_CnnA EDGE OF VEGETATION UNIT °2 UNIT s2 °' WALKwav To occaN �. SOLD ` Bareloot (3o' PRIVATE maAD) Place Barefoot Iso a z .ovo) Place 1 \ 8 a so, -00 i Shell (30' rnIVATE nOAO) Wabasso Beach Road 3LD a (� V °°� °' WALK -AM To OCEAN 4 IZRr R. D. CARTER ENGINEERING nR&% INC. ENGINEERS E SURVEYORS VERO REACH. FLORIDA -SINCE E911 - -14 C_ CAD I used only for parking according to the site plan. Attorney O'Haire informed the Board that the applicant resides in Summerplace, and he acquired this corner property with the thought in mind of providing a buffer and protection to the residential subdivision. It was only after a lot of thought and discussion with the owners in the subdivision that this site plan application was made. Attorney O'Haire entered into the record a petition signed by a majority of the residents in Summerplace supporting the site plan. (SAID PETITION IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK) Attorney O'Haire reminded the Board that he previously has come before the Board to oppose the building of a Jiffy Mart on another corner of this particular intersection and felt that to deny the site plan today would be punishing the applicant for not wanting to access the property through Shell Lane out of consideration to the residents in Summerplace. Attorney O'Haire pointed out that the bank located at the intersection at AIA and 17th Street has not generated any significant amount of traffic. He then entered into the record the following traffic count of local banks which was made within the last three months. BANK LOCATION CONTACT PERSON/TITLE #D.I. WINDOWS AVERAGE/D.I. BARNETT BANK Indian Riv. Shs. Suzanne Sumanes-Teller 1 20 HARBOR FED. S/L Beachside Rosemary Vigliano-Loan Cons. 1 30 SUN BANK Beachside Denise Jiruski-Cust. Serv. 5 10 USA - S/L Beachside Victor Viamontes-Cust. Serv. 1 20 Attorney O'Haire questioned staff's estimate of 594 daily trips and wondered where staff had made its poll. Attorney O'Haire believed that banking customers on the island do not bank in the same manner as people on the mainland, and did not feel 29 BOC�P� P'.UE 650 JAN 231 1985 L, JAN 23 1985 BOOK ; 91,11 F. 65 the proposed bank would generate anywhere near the trips estimated by staff. Director Keating did not agree that staff's figures were that far off and questioned why a bank would want to locate there if they would be having just 20 or 30 trips as the applicant estimates in his traffic count poll. Commissioner Bird pointed out that a branch bank would not generate as many trips as a full bank, but Director Keating noted that they apparently expect enough traffic to warrant two drive-in windows. Attorney O'Haire reiterated that if the owner is allowed to develop only Lot M, a gas station or a Jiffy Mart might be built on that corner. In conclusion, he urged the Board to uphold the Planning & Zoning Commission's approval of the site plan. Thomas Collins, owner of the subject property, stressed that they decided to go with a bank because of the concern about the type of commercial establishment that might be built on that corner. He explained that if a majority of the residents decide that a commercial establishment on Lot L is not wanted, he then could not go any further with this site plan, but he could go ahead and build something on Lot M that would generate more traffic as he must be granted access to the property. Mr. Collins also objected to the 1979 traffic report by staff, and personally believed that a bank on this corner would generate only 200 of the traffic estimated by staff. He noted that although the building is approximately 8000 square feet, the bank itself contains only 3100 sq. ft., and in all likelihood the bank actually will generate less traffic than the office area, which contains 4300 sq. ft. Director Keating, however, apparently does not agree with the concept of the smaller the bank, the less traffic generated. Mr. Collins stressed that they have done everything that they could to provide fair ingress and egress to the property and do not understand staff's appeal of the site plan, even including 30 an offer to donate right-of-way so that the intersection could be enlarged. He wished to know why he wasn't advised about the proposed concrete median strips during the last six months while he was going to all the expense of hiring architects and engineers. Director Davis noted that, according to Chapter 335 of the Florida Statutes, the County Engineer will use the DOT green book for the design of public streets and highways, and the County received a new edition of this manual just a month or two ago. It states that urban arterials and major collectors should be free from access by driveways and local streets and that the demand for access can frequently destroy the capacity of the roadway. The manual further states that median strips should be used to segregate the opposing traffic movements on arterial routes. Director Davis pointed out that concrete median strips have been incorporated into the intersection of 17th Street and U.S. #1 and also along Beachland Boulevard. He explained that the length of the median strip is predicated on the speed limit of the roadway; it is not an arbitrary dimension. In addition, he believed that in the future longer median strips would be needed than the minimum length called for here. Commissioner Scurlock asked what would happen in the event the owner applied to build a Jiffy Mart on this corner, and Director Keating answered that staff would have the same objections, i.e. access and the amount of traffic generated. He pointed out that if this -area was coming in for platting right now, a lot of different things would be required. Administrator Wright emphasized that we are trying to maintain as much traffic capacity for that intersection as possible due to the traffic element of the Hutchinson Island Management Resource Plan. L. A. Pickard, resident of Shell Lane, stated that he was here for two purposes: 1) To advise that the Board of Directors of Summerplace Improvement Association have not given Mr. Collins 31 - JAN 2 3 1985 BOOK 59 PAGE 652 J JAN 2 3 1995 BOOK 59 Flu. 653 any formal agreement on the site plan; they have just approved the concept; and 2) To propose that the 23 residents in Summerplace might have signed the petition in favor of the site plan only because they objected to traffic coming through Shell Lane and they had not realized the plan infringed on Lot L, which is the buffer lot to the subdivision. Mr. Pickard explained that this has all come about in the last 30 days and approximately 25 of the residents object to the infringement on Lot L because they purchased their property in the subdivision because of the deed restrictions and felt these restrictions should be etched in stone. He recalled that in 1961 John Morrison, the original owner, realigned Lot L and M with a straight line with the proper buffer zones and easements in between and designated only Lot M as -commercial, and he has been assured that Mr. Morrison would testify to his intent and also provide the history of the subdivision. Commissioner Scurlock felt that if Lot M is zoned commercial, the County must allow the owner ingress and egress to his property, but Director Keating advised in that case staff would recommend that it be used for office use or some other less intensive use. Osborne McKay, 1920 Shell Lane, explained that if they had their wish, all the lots would be R-1. He was impressed that the Commission moved 30.88 acres on the other corner from commercial back to residential, and did not see why they cannot do that in this case also. He wished that the Commissioners would check out this intersection to see how dangerous it would become with a bank and office space located there. Attorney O'Haire recalled that just recently staff had recommended that the southeast corner of that intersection be rezoned to commercial use, and he felt this is now a 180° turn from staff's feeling in regard to the intersection. He again stressed that beach banks are different than mainland banks, and felt that the size of the facility is not tied to the number of Kia trips generated. He urged the Board to endorse the recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Commission. Administrator Wright again pointed out that the intersection is one of the most critical links in the north barrier island traffic pattern. Mr. Collins emphasized that they have addressed the deed restriction element and have received the approval of the subdivision residents, and again stressed that if they cannot use this location for a bank facility, they will come back in for some other type of establishment that may impact the intersection even more so. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously closed the Public Hearing. Chairman Lyons felt it is unfortunate that the corner is zoned commercial, but since it is, he wondered which is the lesser of two evils -- a more intensive use or access through Shell Lane. Commissioner Wodtke believed that if Lot L cannot be used for commercial because of the deed restrictions, another use might result in having the egress and ingress closer to the intersection. He preferred to have the entrance closer to Shell Lane, but since the owner must get the property owners' approval as to how Lot L is going to be used, he felt comfortable in accepting the recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Commission. Commissioner Scurlock felt that to limit it to just the one lot would be a lot better than what has been suggested and advised that he supports staff's appeal of the P & Z approval of the site plan. Commissioner Bowman advised that she is also in support of staff's position because she believes this would be a traffic 33 JAN 2 3 1985 BOOK 59 FA, -r-654 r 1 JAN 23 1985 BOOK 9 FvFS55 nightmare and that even an office building would generate a great deal of trips. Commissioner Bird believed that the owner is entitled to use the property as anticipated and pointed out that the owner has applied to develop the property in a lesser use. He did not feel that the proposed bank/office building would adversely impact the intersection to any major degree. Commissioner Scurlock believed that when parking requirements are met, there would a very low intensity use on that corner with only one ingress and egress. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, that the Board reverse the decision of the Planning & Zoning Commission in approving the subject site plan, as recommended by staff. Chairman Lyons felt that as long as the corner remains C-1, it is a bad spot no matter what we do to it. He did not feel that the proposed use would be too bad, but to approve it would not be consistent with what we have done on the other side of the street. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion was voted on and carried by a vote of 3-2, Commissioners Bird and Wodtke dissenting. ('PUBLIC HEARING - SEA OAKS HOTEL SITE PLAN APPLICATION (POSTPONED FROM 1/2/85) The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/14/85: 34 TO: The Honorable Members DATE: January 14, 1985 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: SUBJECT: Robert M. Kea in , AICP Planning & Development Director SEA OAKS HOTEL SITE PLAN APPLICATION FILE: #IRC -8I -SP -14 FROM: Mary Jane V. Goetzfried REFERENCES: Sea Oaks —M) -- Chief, Current Development Section DIS:MARYJ It is recommended that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by. the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of January 23, 1985. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: Pursuant to Section 23 (h)(1) Appendix A of the County Code, the Board of County Commissioners is afforded the"authority to evaluate the validity of an approved site plan, when there is a question with regard to commencement or abandonment of con- struction. The Code specifies that construction will have commenced when the developer has built a portion of a structure shown on the approved site plan (e.g. the pouring of footers) , or has made substantial improvements to the site, other than land clearing, filling or grading, evidencing a good faith effort to dili- gently pursue construction to completion. In cases where construction has commenced, and subsequently been abandoned or suspended, the site plan approval shall terminate and become null and void after notice and hearing by the Board of County Commissioners. Construction shall be considered abandoned or suspended if at the hearing it is shown that an active building permit has not been maintained for the construction of a structure in accordance with the approved plan, or it is shown to the satisfaction of the Board of County Commissioners that construction at a level indicating a good faith effort to proceed with the completion of the project has not occurred for a continuous period of six (6) -months, unless the inactivity is attributable to the deliberate and scheduled phasing of a multiphase project which has been approved as such by the County. The site plan application to construct the Sea Oaks Hotel, approved in March of 1981, depicts a 300 unit hotel, 52 clus- tered villas, 5 tennis courts, recreational club facilities and •5 beach cross -overs. County records reflect the following CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS with regard to construction of the Sea Oaks Hotel: January 30, 1981 - Site plan application submitted by Gordon Nutt. March 26, 1981 - Site plan approval granted by the Planning & Zoning Commission. March 15, 1982 - Zoning permit issued for hotel villa "A" (a single 4 -unit structure). 35 SAN 2 3 1985 BOOK 59 FAE 656 BOOK 59 FD.;F.657 March 22, 1983 - Building permit issued to pour the foundation only for hotel villa "A" May 19, 1983 - Plans examination fee paid to the Building Department for the review of construction drawings for hotel villa "A". March 21, 1984 - Foundation inspection performed by the Building Department. April 12, 1984 - Rough Plumbing inspection performed by the Building Department. June 19, 1984 - Mr. Michael.Chason, Jupiter Development Corp. informed by Robert Keating of present status of the Sea Oaks Hotel site plan (See attachment #4). July 1984 - The extension of a -collection line from the Sea Oaks waste -water treatment plant to the subject pro- perty completed. September 1984 - The extension of a water distribution line from the North Beach Water Company plant to the subject property completed. Nov. 30, 1984 - Perimeter beam inspection performed by the Building Department. Dec. 10, 1984 - Applicant notified of pending action by the Board of County Commissioners. ANALYSIS: The rationale behind authorizing the County Commission to terminate site plan approval relates to the public's interest. The process allows the County to ensure that projects which are not constructed within a reasonable time after site plan approval will conform to applicable regulations which have been enacted since that approval was granted. By adopting new land development related ordinances, the County Commission has determined that the adherence to the requirements set forth in said ordinances is in the public's best interest. Since approval of the Sea Oaks Hotel site plan, the following applicable ordinances have been adopted. 1) The Comprehensive Plan 2) Stormwater Management & Flood Protection 3) Off-street Parking Pavement Types 4) Off-street Parking & Loading Regulations 5) Tree Protection The Hutchinson Island Resource Planning and Management Plan did not consider the Sea Oaks Hotel as an approved project when the traffic impact element of the management plan was developed; however, the recently updated North Beach Unit Allocation report, prepared by the Planning Department, did include the 3,696 average daily trips anticipated to be generated by the project. Factoring in the projected trips to be generated by this development reduces the excess capacity in traffic zone 1 from 6,834 trips to 3,138 trips. 3 5a CONCLUSION: While it appears that a recent effort has been expended to complete the construction of hotel villa "A", the applicant's good faith effort to complete the entire project.is doubtful. Considering the effects of the aforementioned ordinances on large scale residential/commercial development proposals, and the fact that the Hutchinson Island Planning Committee did not include the Sea Oaks Hotel when determining that development on the barrier island should be restricted, it would be in the public's best interest to terminate approval of the Sea Oaks Hotel site plan application. Termination of the existing approval would still permit the applicant to submit a new site plan application in conformance with the County's current Code of Laws and Ordinances. Addi- tionally, construction that has begun on hotel villa "A" could be incorporated into the revised, overall development plan. Since the project is a commercial development in the Commercial zoning district, the approved project density will not be affected due to the subsequent adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. However, the recently adopted resolution which limits barrier island development to 3 residential dwelling units per buildable acre would affect the project, since the resolution and the pending moratorium pertain to all types of development that provide lodging on a temporary or permanent basis. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the approved site plan to construct Sea Oaks Hotel at 9300 State Road A -1-A be terminated. Planner Mary Jane Goetzfried presented staff's recommendation for termination of the approved site plan to construct Sea Oaks Hotel at 9300 State Road AlA. She showed slides of hotel villa "A", which is under construction, and noted that it is the only villa out of the 56 proposed villas being built at the present time. Mrs. Goetzfried explained that if this site plan were submitted today, the developer would have to meet the new requirements of the parking and tree ordinances, and staff would like the opportunity to look at these plans again in light of what has been happening in the years since this site plan was originally approved. Commissioner Scurlock asked if the applicant was willing to comply with our current updated ordinances. William J. Stewart, attorney representing the owner, advised that Mr. Nutt has not reviewed any of the new ordinances which 36 1� JAN 2 3 1985 BOOK F, GE 658 r JAN 2 3 1985 BOOK t 9 Fl, UF 65, 9 would impact the site plan, but he certainly is not adverse to discussing these issues with staff. Chairman. Lyons opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. Attorney Brandenburg pointed out that this public hearing is to determine if the site plan has progressed sufficiently to continue approval or whether to abandon the site plan. Attorney Stewart realized that the Board has the authority to void the site plan, but felt that they must show that sufficient progress has not been made. He pointed out that the burden is on staff to prove that -- not his client. He felt that the only testimony from staff has been the reference to the one building under construction and that most of the verbiage in staff's memo does not really address the issue, except for the Chronology of Events which is rather sketchy, and in some places, not accurate, because many of the activities have been omitted. He further commented that he has called the Planning Department on several occasions as to what has been taking place on this project, but the Planning Dept. has not seen fit to call him to indicate whether sufficient progress was being made to continue site plan approval. He felt that his client has made a good faith effort to proceed in this project. Attorney Stewart entered into the record the following Chronology of Events relating to the subject property: 37 _ M M CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS JANUARY 30, 1981 Site plan application submitted by Gordon S. Nutt. MARCH 26, 1981 Site plan approval granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission. MARCH 15, 1982 Zoning.permit issued for hotel villa "A" �� (a single 4 -unit structure). A*x.#4 Z.St lel b' — Fovnr ip0 -ft 0 Vj �ct-r art JUNE 3, 1982 Board of County Commissioners seriously consider five (5) million bond issue for purpose of purchasing and improving beach- front property. They identify my hotel site as one of two (2) parcels they wish to acquire. JUNE 17, 1982 Board of County Commissioners agreed to have bond referendum in November. Again identify hotel site as target acquisition. NOVEMBER 2, 1982 Bond Referendum approved .for Beach Acquisition and Development. DECEMBER 30, 1982 Letter from Commissioner Bird formally advising of County's interest in acquiring hotel site. JANUARY 12, 1983 "Wabasso Beach Park" site plan (Hotel site) prepared by Indian River County Public Works (M. A. Terry). JANUARY 20, 1983 Board of County Commissioners pledge 35% participation matching funds with State. Again identify hotel site as target acquisition. Gordon S. Nutt formally advises Commissioner Bird and County Attorney, Gary Brandenburg, of his cooperation in pursuing sale of hotel site for park pending satisfactory appraisals. 2 MARCH 22, 198X Building permit issued to pour the foundation only for hotel villa "A". APRIL 22, 1983 State in' process of appraising hotel site (2 appraisals). MAY 5, 1983 Indian River County Officials to Tallahassee for Staff Review of "Nutt Property" (hotel site). MAY 19, 1983 Plans examination fee paid to the Building Department for the review of construction drawings for hotel villa "A". JUNE 16, 1983 Gordon Nutt speaks with State Representative McFarlan who offered $3,000,000 plus additional $200,000 by County for $3,200,000. This price approximately 50% of saleable price. Offer declined. 38 Boar. 119 FA cE 660 JAS! 2 3 1985 BOOK '9 r- 661 JUNE 21, 1983 Letter from Commissioner Bird thanking Gordon Nutt for his cooperation in making hotel site available for park purchase and expressing regret that appraisals were too low for me to accept. Indicated a possible interest of County in my informal offer to acquire adjoining Wabasso Park for same appraised unit values assigned to hotel site. SEPTEMBER 1, 1983 Building Permit issued for Building "A" (in process since May 19, 1983, because of plan changes required by County Building Department). JANUARY -23, 1984 Gordon Nutt enters nine (9) month Option Agreement to sell hotel site and other adjoining properties west along A -1-A. JANUARY 30, 1984 Letter from County Planning & Development Director, Robert M. Keating, advising Option Holder that hotel site plan has been secured. MARCH 21, 1984 Foundation inspection performed by the Building Department. APRIL 2, 1984 Stem Wall inspection performed by the Building Department. APRIL 12, 1984 Rough Plumbing inspection performed by the Building Department. APRIL 18, 1984 Slab inspection performed by the Building Department: JUNE 19, 1984 Mr. Michael Chason, Jupiter Development Corporation informed by Robert Keating of - present status of the Sea Oaks Hotel site plan. JULY 1984 The extension of a collection line from the Sea Oaks waste -water treatment plant to the subject property completed. SEPTEMBER 1984 The extension of a water distribution lime from the North Beach Water Company plant to the subject property completed. SEPTEMBER 17, 1984 Option Contract deadline for closing on sale for consideration paid extended until January 3, 1985. OCTOBER 22, 1984 Formal contract entered into with Jim Rucks and Associates, Inc. for completion of Building "A". NOVEMBER 30, 1984 Perimeter beam inspection performed by the Building Department. DECEMBER 10, 1984 Applicant notified of pending action by the Board of County Commissioners. JANUARY 3, 1985 Option Contract deadline for closing expires. Renewal requested but not granted. 39 Attorney Stewart stressed that utilities have always been an issue on this project and have caused some delay in pushing forward full steam. An additional reason for the delay was that this piece of property was being considered for acquisition by the County for the beach program. He believed that his client is clearly within the confines and requirements of the ordinance for continuing this site plan. Gordon Nutt, owner of the subject property, briefly reviewed the Chronology of Events, explaining that during the past year Bill McKeon and Mike Chason, principals of Jupiter Development Corporation, had an option to buy this property which expired January 3,1985, and because of the various problems relating to this property, such as the moratorium and this public hearing, they chose not to take a further extension on the option. Mr. Nutt continued that during the 1-1/2 years the property was being considered for acquisition by the County, his property was considered to be the prime candidate. He recalled that in meetings with Commissioner Bird, Attorney Brandenburg, and Administrator Wright, he had mentioned that if his site plan was ever in question due to the delay in making this property available for possible acquisition, he hoped his cooperation and effort would not come back to hurt him. Commissioner Scurlock wanted the record to reflect that it was a Commission decision to authorize Commissioner Bird and the Beach Acquisition Committee to consider several pieces of property along the beach in Indian River County for acquisition under the "Save Our Coast" program. Mr. Nutt entered into the record a binder which contains the Chronology of Events, Site Plan, Hotel Building "A" Preliminary Development Costs, Hotel Building "A" Construction, and Building "A" Utilities. SAID BINDER IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK 40 JAN 23 1985 B005, 9 F,�,F 662 I JAN 2 3 1985 BOOK '5 F°GE 663 Mr. Nutt stated that it is his intent to complete the present project and to continue with the construction of the 52 villas in two phases. He advised that upon completion of the first phase of the 52 villas, he would begin construction of the first phase of the hotel and continue on with the second phase of the condominium project. At the.present time Rucks & Associates are under contract for construction of the four units of Villa "A" which were pictured in the slides shown by staff. Mr. Nutt explained that preliminary development costs for the hotel and condominium project are approximately $87,00, which includes architectural, engineering and planning costs. He noted that he himself is considered one of the best builders in this County and his homes start at $330,000. He stressed that he is very conscious of quality and has secured the best talents that money can buy. Mr. Nutt advised that all the utilities are now in place and reviewed the following utility costs: SEA OAKS HOTEL UTILITY COSTS OF PLANT FACILITIES AND CONNECTING MAINS (CONNECTION FEES, AND GUARANTEED REVENUES EXCLUDED) Water P.lant.Capacity and Off -Site Connecting Mains (.56)($298,185) $ 166,983 Sewer Plant Capacity and Off -Site Connecting Mains (.56)($209,000) 117,000 Irrigation Capacity and Off -Site Connecting Mains - East a -1-a (Hotel Site) 39,670 Extension Lines to Hotel Site Water 2165' x $9.20/ft. (incl, escal.) 19,918 Sewer 2165' x $9.20/ft. (incl. escal.) 19,918 Irrigation 2165' x $9.20/ft. (incl. escal.) 19,918 $ 383.407 Plant capacities charged to Hotel Site at 56% pro -rata number of equivalent residential units served to Gordon. S. Nutt owned properties. 41 Commissioner Scurlock felt that the utilities being in place has made the parcel more marketable, and pointed out that on the SR -60 water and sewer projects, some of the developers had voluntarily paid the assessment even before receiving site plan approval. Attorney Brandenburg suggested that if Mr. Nutt was agreeable to postponing this matter, there might be just a few changes necessary to comply with the ordinances which were passed after the approval of the site plan. He believed that if Mr. Nutt agreed to do that, he would be satisfying the requirements behind today's hearing. Mr. Nutt felt that the question here is "good faith effort", and believed he has made a conscientious and good faith effort and spent a lot of money in doing so. He believed that it should be sufficient for him to express a spirit of cooperation to work with the County and did not feel that he could give a carte blanche agreement that his site plan would be changed in order to comply with the requirements of all the new ordinances. Attorney Brandenburg explained that Mr. Nutt would be just postponing this meeting until such time as he could review the ordinances to see if they would affect this site plan, but Mr. Nutt emphasized that he is ready to proceed with construction. Director Keating did not feel that they would be severely impacted by any of the new ordinances other than the stormwater management ordinance. He pointed out that there has been a change in the County's philosophy on development since this site plan originally was approved, and the specific reason for reviewing this site plan is due to opinions expressed in public hearings on other projects in this area that Sea Oaks might never develop and that the Commission should review the project. Commissioner Bird understood that Director Keating was not saying that this Commission is going to review all previously approved site plans that are in the process of construction to see if they are in compliance with the new ordinances that have 42 BOOK Pr�GF 664 JAN 2 3 1985 F - JAN 2 3 1985 BOOK 59 PA,E 665 been adopted. He felt, however, that the main issue today was to determine whether sufficient progress has been made in this case, and questioned the gap between June, 1984, when it appeared that sufficient progress was being made, and December, 1984, when the decision was made to request an abandonment of the site plan. Director Keating stated that it was due to what did not happen. He explained that he had based his letter of June, 1984 on the fact that a roof pump inspection was made in April and had indicated that it appeared that construction was continuing. He pointed out, however, that there was no further building related activity until November when the applicant realized that the site plan was coming up for review. Mr. Nutt stated that he would be willing to cooperate in any reasonable way to work with the County in regard to the new ordinances, but he did not want to commit to it. He felt he had been here too many times and has been delayed long enough. Commissioner Scurlock noted that if Mr. Nutt had made better progress, he would not be here today. Mr. Nutt stated he would commit to the completion of the project and showed a map indicating the utility and road work that has been done. Commissioner Wodtke felt that utilities and the beach acquisition possibility had caused Mr. Nutt considerable delay, but Commissioner Scurlock again pointed out that the utilities coming in only improved the value of the property. Attorney Brandenburg repeated his recommendation that the Board to postpone this matter, even if Mr. Nutt did not agree, in order to look at the effect the ordinances would have on the site plan as well as to relieve Mr. Nutt of any worries in regard to the densities allowed in the moratorium on development on the barrier island. Chairman Lyons felt that was a very good idea. Attorney Stewart was concerned about postponing this hearing because the discussions might not work out. He emphasized that 43 they are here today prepared to show that a good faith effort has been made. Attorney Brandenburg felt that Attorney Stewart is concerned that staff might find new evidence; he emphasized that staff has said that they do not have anything else to say, and there is no desire to hurt the applicant. Commissioner Scurlock felt that Mr. Nutt would have the opportunity to show intent by going out there and building the project. Chairman Lyons expressed his reluctance to cancel the site plan even though he felt good diligence has not been shown. He hoped there could be some way to get this settled without this impass, and felt that perhaps a postponement would give assurance to Mr. Nutt that the new ordinances do not significantly impact his site plan. Attorney Brandenburg stressed that the Board eventually has to determine whether a good faith effort has been made and that progress has not come to a halt for a period of six months. Attorney Stewart continued to argue that the burden is on the County to show that sufficient activity has not occurred, and did not feel that sufficient proof had been shown by staff. He felt that if this public hearing is to be postponed, the reasons for the postponment should be identified, a timetable established as to when it would come back before the Board, and that it should be determined what will transpire at that meeting. Chairman Lyons believed that the County does have sufficient evidence demonstrating that the applicant has not proceeded as required. Commissioner Scurlock was concerned abut the impact this will have on the Hutchinson Island Resource Management Plan. Attorney Stewart stated that his client is willing to give a partial schedule of completion today and the balance in a letter afterwards. 44 `JAN 23 1985 BOOK 59 PACE 686 Am 23 1985 BOOK t59 Ft�r,E 667, Commissioner Scurlock understood then that the applicant is saying that the first phase will be completed in 18 months. Commissioner Bird asked about the hotel as he was concerned about available hotel space in the County. Mr. Nutt stated that he would commit to the.first phase of the hotel being completed in five years, but added that the first phase has not been identified as yet. He stated that the present construction of villa "A" would be completed in six months and prior to the six months they would start the entire first phase of the villas, which is shown on the bottom section of the site plan. He stated that villa "A" is to be a sales center when completed and a c.o. is obtained. Director Keating asked Mr. Nutt if he realized that the hotel villas are located in the commercial area and cannot be sold as residential, and Mr. Nutt confirmed that he was aware of that and that they would have to abide by the zoning regulations. Attorney Brandenburg again recommended that the Board postpone this hearing for two weeks. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously postponed the Public Hearing for two weeks, with the understanding that staff will not present further evidence as to whether sufficient activities have taken place, and that this will give the applicant the opportunity to review the site plan in respect to the impact of recent ordinances and consider making modifications; and that the applicant will be allowed to submit additional evidence at the continued hearing. Director Keating stated that staff would be willing to work with the developer on this matter. 45 Nancy Offutt, representing the Vero Beach/Indian River County Board of Realtors, was assured that public input would continue to be allowed at any future hearing. DECLARATION OF A PORTION OF 33RD AVENUE AND 15TH STREET AS A PUBLIC ROAD - TERILIL TERRACE SUBDIVISION The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/16/85: TO: Board of County DATE.' January 16, 1985 FILE: Commissioners SUBJECTTerrilil Terrace Sub. (33 Ave.- & 15 St.) FROM: REFERENCES: Recently the Board of County Commissioners declined to accept a portion of 33 Avenue- and 15 Street in Terrilil Terrace Subdivision as a public road. On January 15, 1985, the City Attorney's Office was presented with a Petition, signed by 30 out of 36 of the property owners in this subdivision, requesting that the Board of County Commissioners revisit this item and declare the road public. I would appreciate your consideration of this matter. Thank you very much. Respectfully submitted, mac. Charles Vitunac, City Attorney City of Vero Beach City Attorney Charles Vitunac recalled that previously the Board had voted not to accept Terilil Terrace Road as a public road but did accept the easements, and City Administrator John Little had subsequently sent out a letter to all the residents saying that the road was private and that the City would no longer fix potholes or solve drainage problems. Attorney Vitunac said he has received a petition signed by 17 out of the 23 46 JAN 2 3 1985 BOOK PAGE � C7 JAN 2 3 1995 BOOK 59 FIAU 6 property owners in favor of the County accepting it as a public city road so that the City will maintain it and fix the drainage. (SAID PETITION IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERF) In addition, another owner has agreed to go along with the majority, which makes it 18 out of 23. He reported that the contractor is repairing the road just to the north of this, so if this matter is settled today, the City might be able to get Terilil Terrace Road repaired at the same time. Attorney Brandenburg recalled that the last time this came before the Board the City wanted it, but there were a lot of residents present that did not want it and urged the Board not to take action. However, the City has gone out and obtained the signatures of the majority of residents that are in favor of the road going through so that the City will maintain the road. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, that the Board adopt Resolution 85-14, accepting as a public road a portion of 33rd Avenue and 15th Street, located in Terilil Terrace Subdivision in the City of Vero Beach. Under discussion, Chairman Lyons asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. Benjamin C. Natale, 1530 33rd Avenue, explained that he had been unaware of the petition until just recently and was concerned as to how his home would be affected by the road being cut through as he has sprinkler heads right on the cul-de-sac. He wanted to know who would bear the expense of moving them. Attorney Vitunac felt that it might also affect Mr. Natale's driveway, mailbox, etc. and explained that the City has not determined yet whether the City will pay for any expenses involved or whether an assessment will be made. He advised that the City would abandon the cul-de-sac edges back to the individual property owners and Mr. Natale would actually acquire property. 47 � � r Chairman Lyons suggested that the Resolution include that we agree to the abandonment as long as there are no expenses to the affected property owners, but Attorney Brandenburg felt that the County should not attempt a conditional acceptance. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion was voted on and carried unanimously. 48 BOOK + FAt JAN 23 1985 1 AN 2 3 1985 BOOK 59 UGUE 671 • RESOLIITION NO. 85- 14 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ACCEPTING AS A PUBLIC ROAD A PORTION OF 33RD AVENUE AND 15TH STREET, LOCATED IN TERILIL TERRACE SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY OF VERO BEACH. WHEREAS, by plat filed for record on June 26, 1978, and recorded on Page 94 of Plat Book 9, in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Indian River County, the subdivider platted certain streets and easements in a subdivision within the city limits of the City of Vero Beach with "full knowledge that the same are not dedicated to the public until there is a formal acceptance of these street and/or easements, or any part thereof, by the County (e.s.)," and WHEREAS, there is some question as to whether the County has ever formally accepted these streets or easements, and WHEREAS, the City of Vero Beach desires that 33rd Avenue and 15th Street in the subdivision be public streets under the control of the municipality; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: 1. The streets and easements shown on the plat of Terilil Terrace Subdivision, including the northerly 60 -foot right of way dedicated for future road purposes, are accepted by the County as public streets and easements dedicated to the public. 2. By this acceptance, it is the intention of the Board of County Commissioners that the streets and easements, as shown on the plat, will be considered municipal streets and easements, and that the County shall have no obligation for maintenance and no other liability whatsoever concerning these streets. The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner who Wodtke moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bowman and, being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Patrick B. Lyons Aye Vice Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. Aye Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye -1- The Chairman thereupon declared duly passed and adopted this 23rd day of 1985. Resolution No.85-14 January BOARD OF UNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIA VER COUNTY, FLORIDA Byle rraan a. C airman Attest: 9a , )'tt Z--/4j Freda WrighV, Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY yons, The Board thereupon recessed for lunch at 1:10 o'clock P.M. and reconvened at 2:15 o'clock P.M. with the same members present, except for Chairman Lyons, who did not return due to his convalescing from recent heart surgery, and Commissioner Wodtke who was delayed. Vice Chairman Scurlock took over the gavel in the Chairman's absence. �fSELECTION OF CONSULTING ENGINEER - REVERSE OSMOSIS WATER TREATMENT PLANT The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/15/85: 49 JAN 2 3 1985 BOOK 5 PD E 6 ! 2 JAN 2 3 1985 BOOK 59 PAGE 673 3 TO: THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THEDATE: January 15, 1985 FILE: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THRU: Michael Wright County Administrator SUBJECT: SELECTION OF ENGINEER FOR CONSULTING SERVICES AT R. 0. PLANT FROM: Terrance G. Pinto REFERENCES: 1) DSS Proposal Utility Services Director 2) Post, Buckley Proposal DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: The Selection Committee interviewed the above two engineering firms January 15, 1985. The firms submitted proposals to provide engineer- ing consulting Services at the reverse osmosis water treatment plant (Exhibits 1 & 2). The Committee was in agreement that both firms were qualified to perform the duties specified. However, the majority agreed to recommend DSS Engineering as the consulting engineering firm for this position. RECOMMENDATION: It is the recommendation of the Selection Committee that the County be authorized to negotiate a contract with DSS Engineering. In the event negotiations cannot be finalized, authorization is requested to move to the next engineering firm, Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc., for negotiations. It is also the recommendation of the Utility Department that DSS Engineering be the firm first selected for negotiations. Utility Services Director Terry Pinto reported that after lengthy review, the Selection Committee is recommending that DSS Engineering be the firm first selected for negotiations. He believed that while Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. had actually had made a better proposal, they decided to go with DSS because of their expertise in reverse osmosis plants. He noted that even Post, Buckley has used DSS as consultants. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board by a vote of 3-0, Chairman Lyons being absent and Commissioner Wodtke being delayed, authorized staff to commence negotiations with DSS and bring a proposal for contract back to the Board. 50 APPROVAL OF SIPPEL, MASTELLER, LORENZ AND HOOVER, INC. FOR frENGINEERING SERVICES TO REFURBISH AND PAINT ELEVATED WATER TANK The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/15/85: TO: The Honorable Board of DATE: January 15, 1985 FILE: County Commissioners THRU: Terrance G. Pint SUBJECT: ENGINEERING NECESSARY TO Utility Service Di ector REFURBISH AND PAINT 150,000 GALLONG ELEVATED WATER TANK FROM: Joseph . Baird REFERENCES: A) SML&H Letter 12/12/84 Assistant Utility Director B) MID -FLORIDA TANK REPORT The 150,000 gallon elevated tank located behind Velde Ford is in need of painting and refurbishing. Attached is a proposal in the amount of $2,985.00 from Sippel, Masteller, Lorenz and Hoover, Inc., to provide necessary design, engineering plans, specifications and bid documents to complete the refurbishing. There was $35,000 earmarked from renewal and replacement in the 1984/85 fiscal year budget. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the Engineering proposal from Sippel, Masteller, Lorenz and Hoover, Inc,., in the amount of $2,985.00 to refurbish the elevated storage tank. 2. Disapprove the Engineering proposal from Sippel, Masteller, Lorenz and Hoover, Inc., in the amount of $2,985.00 to refurbish the elevated storage tank. RECOMMENDATION: The Board of County Commissioners approve Sippel, Masteller, Lorenz and Hoover, Inc., Engineering proposal in the amount of $2,985.00 to refurbish the elevated storage tank. Vice Chairman Scurlock asked why we were not considering other firms and Utility Service Director Terry Pinto explained that it is due to the small size of the contract and also to the fact that Sippel, Masteller has been authorized on a previous contract to revise all of the conglomeration of piping at the base of the water tank. 51 BOOK 59 PAGE -6 - AVE 74 F' -- JAN 23 1985 BOOK 59 P�;E 675 ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board by a vote of 3-0, Chairman Lyons being absent and Commissioner Wodtke being delayed, authorized negotiations with Sippel, Masteller, Lorenz and Hoover, Inc. for an amount not to exceed $2,985, as recommended by staff. (CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK) �ESPONSE TO COAST GUARD NOTICE RE BARBER BRIDGE OPENINGS The Board reviewed the following notice dated 1/8/85: I PROPOSED REGULATIONS: In consideration of the foregoing, the Coast Guard proposes to I amend Part 117 of Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations, by revising Section 117.261(i)(1) to read as follows: ' Part 117 DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS. 117.261 ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY FROM ST. MARYS RIVER TO MIAMI (i)(1) The draw of the SR -60 bridge, Mile 951.9, at Vero Beach, shall open on signal except as provided for in paragraphs (i)(1)(i) and (i)(1)(ii) of this section. (i) From 7:45 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.; 12:00 noon to 1:15 p.m.; and 4:00 p.m. to 5:15 p.m.; Monday through Friday, except national holidays, the draw need only open at 8:30 a.m., . 12:30 p.m. and 4:30 p.m. if any vessels are waiting to pass. (ii) From 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., 1 December through 30 April, Monday through Friday, except national holidays, and except as provided for in paragraph (1) the draw need only be opened on the hour, quarter-hour, half-hour and three-quarter hour if any vessels are waiting to pass. (iii) Public vessels of the United States, state or local government vessels used for public service, tugs with tows, regularly scheduled cruise vessels and vessels in distress shall be passed at any time. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Walt Paskowsky, Bridge Administration Specialist, telephone (305)-350-4108. 52 � � r I Commissioner Wodtke entered the meeting at this time (2:30 o'clock P.M.) Administrator Wright advised that we have received a request from the Coast Guard for the Board's comments on the times of openings and closings of the Merrill Barber Bridge. He explained that the second page of the notice contains the restrictions for opening the bridge at peak hours. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board by a vote of 4-0, Chairman Lyons being absent, authorized the Chairman to write a letter to the Coast Guard accepting the amended schedule for openings of the Barber Bridge as set out in the above notice. AGREEMENT FOR PAYMENT OF IMPACT FEES HOME PARK HOLIDAY VILLAGE MOBILE Attorney Brandenburg explained that there is an ordinance coming up very shortly which proposes the extension of payments of water impact fees from three years to five, and recommended that this agreement be approved with the understanding that if the proposed ordinance is adopted that the owner of the subject mobile home park, Adam McGavin, also will be allowed the opportunity to pay the impact fees over a five year period instead of three. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, that the Board approve the Agreement for the Payment of Impact Fees for Holiday Village Mobile Home Park with the understanding that if the County adopts the proposed ordinance extending the payment of impact fees over five years, that the owner of Holiday Village Mobile Home Park will have that same opportunity. 53 JAN 2 3 1985 BOOK 59 PAJE 678 JAN 2 3 1985 BOOK 59 F�rE 677 AGREEMENT FOR THE PAYMENT OF IMPACT FEES WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County has undertaken a program of developing a County water and sewer system to meet the demands of a growing community, and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County has enacted Indian River County Ordinance No. 84-18 requiring the payment of- an impact fee for each equivalent residential unit connecting to the County system to help defray a portion of the capital costs of the system associated with the increased demand, and WHEREAS, the Utility Ordinance also provides that the Commission may establish alternate methods of payment for units presently in existence, which have received Certificates of Occupancy from the County and now desire to connect to the County system. NOW, THEREFORE, this Agreement is made this 23rd day of January , 1985, by and between Indian River County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, referred to herein as "County" and ADAM McGAVIN, referred to herein as "User." 1. The User desires to have the County's water system available to his site generally described as: HOLIDAY VILLAGE MOBILE HOME PARK, a more specific description of which is attached hereto Exhibit "A." The County believes that it is in the best interest of User and the other customers of County's system to service the User's site, and that it would constitute an undue hardship to require User to prepay the entire impact fee upon execution of this Agreement. 2. The County has determined that User's site will require 128 equivalent residential units (ERU's), and that the total impact fee for the water service shall be $132,519.68, pursuant to Indian River County Ordinance No. 84-18. User acknowledges reviewing the amount of the impact fee with County -1- staff members and agrees that it is the correct amount. User also acknowledges that this amount does not include any of the other charges set forth in the Indian River County Utility Ordinance (No. 84-18), as now in existence or as amended in the future. User understands that when the Department of Environmental Regulation certifies the County system as capable of providing service to User's site (if it is not already so certified), then User must begin paying Indian River County, a base facility's charge, as set forth in Ordinance No. 84-18, for each ERU reserved. It is User's responsibility to arrange for, pay for, and coordinate the interconnection of User's on site distribution or collection system to the point of connection with County's system. The County does not guarantee the timing of the availability of service to the site but agrees to use its best efforts to have the water available to meet User's time schedule. 3. County agrees that User may pay the impact fee set forth in Paragraph 2 over a three-year period in 36 -equal monthly installments, unless the County adopts an ordinance extending the time for payment, in which case User may pay over the extended period, bearing interest at one percent above prime adjusted yearly on the anniversary date of this Contract, provided User executes a Promissory Note or Mortgage (or other instrument) securing the payments. Such documents must be in a form Satisfactory to the County Attorney. WHEREFORE, the parties hereto have set their hands and seals on the date set forth next to their signatures. Dated 1/23/85 BOAR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIi IVER COUNTY Attest: _ Freda Wright, Clerk P r k ., Lyo irman Dated Adam McGavin STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day before me, an officer duly authorized to take acknowledgments, personally appeared Patrick B. Lyons and Freda Wright, to me known to be the Chairman and Clerk respectively of the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners, who executed the foregoing instrument on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners and they all acknowledged before me that they executed the same. JAN 2 3 1985 -2- Bou 59 F'GE 678 JAN 2 3 1995 BOOK 59 PA;F 679 WITNESS my, hand and official seal in the County and State last aforesaid this 23rd day of January 1985. My Commission Expires: Notary u ic, Sta a Florida,1,a�t .Large NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF FLORIDA BONDED THRU G U D MX COMMISSION EXPIRES JULY 8 1486 ; STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day before me, an officer duly authorized to take acknowledgments, personally appeared ADAM McGAVIN to me known to be the individual, who executed the foregoing instrument and he acknowledged before me that he executed the same. WITNESS my hand and official seal in the County and State last aforesaid this �2q day of 1985. My Commission Expires: Notary Public, State of Florida at Large My Co Pu bP�c!•u2aYn �f F'irwIt', tit ?<no r' BONiDED THRU RE •., •,tea May Q. -I= CNr,5 NOTARY jDR0*ERAC2 E Administrator Wright recommended that the interest rate be adjusted annually on the anniversary date and that the interest rate be one percent over the current prime rate which will be determined by the OMB Director. Attorney Brandenburg advised that a mortgage must be executed on the mobile home park property in order to secure the impact fees, because if payments are not made, it is very difficult to turn off the water in a mobile home park. Director Pinto explained that payments are to be made in 36 monthly installments and that the owners probably would pass it on to their tenants in monthly installments. Administrator Wright believed that we would be hearing from those tenants. Commissioner Wodtke asked if the tenants were going to be notified and billed for the hookups or whether it would be on their utility bill, and Director Pinto believed that they are going to have to be billed in monthly installments and that is something that would be handled by the Data Processing Dept. He noted that if Data Processing could not handle it, Utility Services would put it on a mini -computer and do it themselves. He felt that the programming is really very simple and did not understand why Data Processing is having difficulty. Director Pinto anticipated that in the very near future individual home owners will want to tie in with the new water and sewer lines, and that the County's security would be that they could always disconnect the service if payments are not made. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION, as modified by the County Administrator, that the interest rate will be adjusted annually on the anniversary date and that the interest rate will be -one percent over the current prime rate which will be determined by the OMB Director. The Motion carried by a vote of 4-0, Chairman Lyons being absent. 55 Bou 59 F'A.GE 680 JAN 23 1985 1 - BOOK 5) 9 PA. GE /'DISCUSSION RE EXECUTION OF CONTRACTS FOR TREATMENT PLANT SITE Attorney Brandenburg explained that they have narrowed down to two the number of sites for the location of the new wastewater treatment plant to be built west of town for the SR -60 project. The County has options which expire on February 6, 1985 on property owned by Earl Monroe, Inc. and a parcel owned by Larry G. and Patricia E. Catron; Dr. James G. and Betty A. Punches; and Dr. Hugh K. and Ann Marie McCrystal. Since both of the prices on these options are above the appraisals, they are recommending continued negotiations with these parties. One party is interested in leasing the property back from the County to continue as groves until such time as the County needs it. Administrator Wright pointed out the locations of the two parcels on a map of the area. Attorney Brandenburg explained that the Monroe property is about $100,000 over the highest appraisal and the Catron property is about $50,000 over the highest appraisal. Commissioner Bird did not see any problem in extending these options today, but Utility Service Director Terry Pinto explained that they were expecting to make a recommendation as to one of these options next Wednesday. Attorney Brandenburg suggested that the Board go out and visit these sites and see the surrounding areas, as this will be a significant expenditure. Commissioner Bird was concerned about taking productive, viable agricultural land and turning it into a sewer plant site, although he understood that the search for appropriate property out there has been very exhaustive and approximately 20 parcels were considered. Director Pinto believed that one of the problems in that particular area is drainage and when you find good ground it is going to be in citrus as the raw land seems to be unacceptable for percolation ponds. 56 � � r ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board by a vote of 4-0, Chairman Lyons being absent, scheduled a Special Call Meeting to discuss water and sewer for Wednesday, January 30, 1985, at 2:30 o'clock P.M. $4,385.80 Net Difference - $1,633.17 Gross Total Savings - $2,312.37 57 $2,752.63 BOOK 5 9 PA. GF 682 ALLOWANCE ITEMS, COURTROOM FOURTH -� The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/21/85: TO: The Honorable Members of th(DATE: January 21, 1985 FILE: Board of County Commissioners THRU: M' c 1 Wright SUBJECT: Fourth Courtroom Cou Administrator Change (1) Order Number OneSonny o FROM: General S rvices REFERENCES: Director In looking over subject material it is felt certain facts should be brought to your attention, i.e.: the allowance items as proposed by Calmes & Kellagher Architects. Our purchasing department has investigated the purchase of the listed items with the following results: ACTUAL I.R.C. PURCHASING ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION PRICE DEPARTMENT PRICE 2 Seal of Florida $901.00 $145.00 3 American Flag $143.00 $ 76.00 4 Florida Flag $148.40 $ 88.20 5 Easel $235.34 $162.78 6 Lecturn $336.02 $243.10 7 Folding Table $116.60 $ 45.95 8 Screen $174.90 $180.00 9 Sign $144.72 $ 91.80 10 Directory $248.04 $110.00 11 Plaque $898.88 $629.00 12 Chairs $1038.80 $980.00 $4,385.80 Net Difference - $1,633.17 Gross Total Savings - $2,312.37 57 $2,752.63 BOOK 5 9 PA. GF 682 BOOK 59 P, A8.. The Florida Seal proposed is the same as used in Courthouses throughout the State and in the State Capitol. It is made of brass instead of wood. Staff feels the proposed plaque is a luxury item and should be eliminated entirely. This would increase the net savings to $2,941.37 without any consideration for installation which could reduce this savings some. Note should be taken that the subject courtroom construction did not include new carpet for the corridors around it. To replace this much needed carpet will cost approximately $1,600 to $1,700. Staff therefore requests the Board to take this data into consideration and approve purchase of the proposed equipment and carpet. General Services Director Sonny Dean reported that we received the first change order for the fourth courtroom that is presently under construction, and he felt that some money could be saved by purchasing some of these materials ourselves. He explained that staff took the specifications as submitted in the change order and went out and found materials or equipment that is the same or equivalent at quite a_reduction in cost. Director Dean reviewed each of the above items and the savings involved. Architect John A. Calmes also reviewed each of the above items and recommended that Item #2, a Seal of Florida, be purchased as originally proposed, as he did not feel that a smaller, less impressive seal would be fitting in the courtroom atmosphere. In addition, he felt that Items 3, 41 5, 6 and 7 should be purchased as proposed in Change Order 1. Considerable debate took place about whether or not the County should purchase these items themselves. Director Dean pointed out that the carpeting outside of the fourth courtroom needs to be replaced and that could be done with the money that would be saved if the County purchased these allowance items directly. Administrator Wright urged the Board to authorize the installation of new carpeting over at the courtroom in any event. Commissioner Wodtke felt very strongly that the larger, more impressive seal should be purchased. _ M Commissioner Bird believed there should be a seal in the County Commission Chambers and noted that in the large County Courtroom there is a Great Seal of Florida which is somewhat larger than what is proposed. Motion was made by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird that the Board delete Items, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 from Change Order 1 and authorize staff to purchase and coordinate those items, and authorize Items 2, 5, 6 and 7 to be purchased through the original internal design contract. Under discussion, Mr. Calmes explained the difference between the proposed flags, the seal, the lecturn, the easel and the folding table. Director Dean repeated that the County could purchase these items directly from local sources at lower prices because the County does a great deal of business with them. Vice Chairman Scurlock did not feel that people would notice any type of seal in the courtroom because they would be too busy concentrating on legal matters. COMMISSIONERS WODTKE AND BIRD AMENDED THEIR MOTION to read: that the Board authorize all items listed on Change Order 1, with the exception of Item 2, to be purchased and coordinated by staff; Item 2 to be purchased through the original interior design contract. The Motion was voted on and carried 3-1, Chairman Lyons being absent and Vice Chairman Scurlock voting in opposition. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0, Chairman Lyons being absent), authorized staff to replace the carpeting outside the 4th courtroom at a cost not to exceed $1700 with the funding to come out of the same proceeds that are paying for the fourth courtroom. 59 JAN 23 1985 aooK v L9 \ J JAN 23 1985 Boa '59 PDGF 685 CHANGE Distribution to: ORDER OWNER ❑ ARCHITECT ❑ AIA DOCUMENT G701 CONTRACTOR ❑ FIELD ❑ OTHER ❑ PROJECT: Fourth Courtroom CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: 1 (one) (name, address) Indian River County INITIATION DATE: January 11, 1985 TO (Contractor): Revised: Jan. 24, 1985 ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: 82-0328 Rebecca Starr Designs, Inc. CONTRACT FOR: Furniture, Furnishings 29 Royal Palm Boulevard & Equipment Suite 5 L Vero Beach, Florida 32960 I CONTRACT DATE: September 24, 1984 You are directed to make the following changes in this Contract: Per Attachments Allow. No. Description Allowance Price Actual Price Add Deduct 2 Seal of Florida 2,000.00 901.00 1,099.00 3 American Flag 300.Ob -0- 300.00 ' 4 Florida Flag 300.00 -0- 300.00 5 Easel 150.0,0 -0- 150.00 6 Lecturn 400.00 -0- 400.00 7 Folding Table 90.00 -0- 90.00 8 Screen 100.00 -0- 100.00 ' 9 Sign 125.00 -0- 125.00 10 Directory 200.00 -0- 200.00 11 Plaque 400.00 -0- 400.00 12 Chairs 1,000.00 -0- 1,000.00 TOTALS 5,065.00 901.00 -0- 4,164.00 NET DEDUCT 4,164.00 Not valid until signed by beth the Owner and Architect. Signature of the Contractor indicates his agreement herewith, including any adjustment in the Contract Sum or Contract Time. The original (Contract Sum) (CD(MXV0X* >Xi? -(=;MX) was ........................... $ 66,519.33 , Net change by previously authorized Change Orders ................................... $ 0.00 - The (Contract Sum)prior to this Change Order was .......... $ 66,519.33 The (Contract Sum) (Qit>M= KCk%%1*X(KC4 C0A will be (i)dMX*A) (decreased) (KdfdEJ XW) 4,164.00 - bythis Change Order......................................................... $ - The new (Contract Sum) including his Change Order will be ... $ 62,355.33 The Contract Time will be p{Mi XiQMftW (unchanged) by ( 0 ) Days. The Date of Substantial Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is March 10, 1985 Calmes & Kellagher, Arch. P.A. �1QC9ITE72th Street, Suite B lAdldLreess Ver ac, Florida ,-2960 Authorized: Ifd,*: / a3 — 9,5- Rebecca SRebecca Starr Designs Indian River County :ONTRA29 ial alm Blvd. Sui e 5 Wd 25th Street Vddere A dress i^ Bea Fl ori da / 60 e h, Florida 32960 BY(%vt BY D4;rj o� � DATE DE AIA DOCUMENT G701 CHANGE ORDER APRIL 1978 EDITION AIA@ © 1978 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVE., N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 N. %pproved LW41 L41f tj c'j4 By 14 G randent rminta/ Affnrni— le BEACH PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION COMMITTEE REPORT Commissioner Wodtke requested authorization for members of his Committee to attend a Cabinet meeting in Tallahassee on February 19, 1985. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board authorized out -of -County travel for Commissioner Wodtke, appropriate staff, and members of the Beach Preservation and Restoration Committee to attend a Cabinet meeting in Tallahassee on February 19, 1985. /DISCUSSION RE TREE PROTECTION ORDINANCE Vice Chairman Scurlock reported that Chairman Lyons felt it is important that the County take a stand on how vigorously staff is to enforce the tree ordinance, as recently there have been several violations where developers have gone ahead and removed protected trees. Administrator Wright suggested that Director Keating summarize two of the cases and advise where we stand on the others. Director Keating explained that there was a substantial amount of clearing done on an industrial site down on Old Dixie and a number of protected trees were removed. The violator, who did not have a land clearing permit, indicated he was not aware of the tree protection ordinance, but staff feels that is not an adequate defense. Director Keating reported that the developer in question has agreed to replace the large oak trees removed with the largest trees possible. Planner Art Challacombe stated that trees of 6 -inch diameter at breast height can be moved during December, January and February, as long as the firms have a big enough spade and capable personnel. 61 JAN 2 3 1985 BOOK v.;:>�UF 6: IAN 23 1985 BOOK D9 UU 6S'7 Director Keating advised that the developer will be going before the Code Enforcement Board next Monday for confirmation. He felt that in looking at it in retrospect, staff should have taken a harder line and imposed a fine. He believed that the feedback received by staff on the first violation was instrumental in the action taken on the second. Director Keating explained that the second violation occurred when a developer came in to get a limited land clearing permit and had to submit a tree survey. It was specified right on the bottom of the permit that no protected trees were to be removed. The developer, however, proceeded to remove four 24" protected oak trees, and he has agreed to pay the maximum fine of $500 a tree and replace the oaks with trees having 6" diameters. Director Keating advised that the Legal Dept. is presently preparing a formal agreement. Planner Challacombe reported that a third violation is on 4th Street and another near the Wabasso Road and U.S. #1 inter- section, where a protected tree was taken down along with a house which was located on commercial property. Director Keating advised that after a party is brought before the Code Enforcement Board and does not comply, he can then be brought before the Board of County Commissioners for a decision of whether or not to take him to court. Attorney Brandenburg explained that the Code Enforcement Board has the ability to fine a violator, but does not have the power to punish a party for something that already has been done, such as clearing land without a permit or ripping out trees. Commissioner Bird felt there should be different levels of punishment if there were extenuating circumstances such as an individual removing a tree from a single-family residential lot which is just a bit larger than one acre. Attorney Brandenburg explained that there aren't that many people in the County who do land clearing, and once these companies learn that they are going to get hit with a maximum fine, they are going to make certain that they have a permit and 62 s follow the ordinance. He recommended that the County's position be that violators must pay the maximum fine and plant appropriate replacements, and if they do not, take them to court. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, that the Board authorize staff to pursue vigorously enforcement of the tree ordinance by imposing the maximum fine of $500 on all violations at staff level. Attorney Brandenburg suggested that the Board might want to set up some sort of a fund with the monies received through this activity for planting trees in medians and for special Arbor Day projects. Administrator Wright stated that if any fines were received, they would come back with a recommendation on how it is to be spent. THE VICE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion was voted on and carried unanimously (4-0, Chairman Lyons being absent). Administrator Wright advised that this enforcement policy will start with the last two violations as the first two cases have been settled. PDISCUSSION RE CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY V �E Vice Chairman Scurlock informed the Board that Chairman Lyons felt that we should require a performance or compliance bond on unfinished projects before C.O.s are issued. Administrator Wright felt that the trouble with C.O.s is that people move in when they receive temporary power, such as the new Central Assembly of God Church on S.R.-60 and the Jaycees 63 JAN 2 3 1984 600K vFA F Uss J JAN 2 3195 BOOK '59 PAP,F 689 on Walker Boulevard. He felt that the only alternative to requiring a performance bond is to go out and yank the meter. Director Keating was reluctant to recommend the acceptance of performance bonds for projects that were incomplete because when they approve a C.O. for a site plan, they actually are saying that the improvements that are needed for that site to operate adequately are complete. He stressed that they have had very few problems in giving C.O.s where they should not have been issued, but they have had a lot of problems with people occupying without a C.O. Director Keating continued that after workshops on site plan procedures in the new zoning ordinance, staff is recommending that all new site plans submit a $5,000 bond, which would be repayable only after a C.O. has been obtained for that site plan; if the site were occupied prior to receiving a C.O., the bond would be forfeited. He believed that the developers who attended these workshops were concerned about penalizing people in advance and felt that the County should find another method of dealing with their enforcement problems. Commissioner Bowman believed that most of the developers at the workshops were small developers who felt they were getting it socked directly to them, and she felt they would be better satisfied with a sliding scale setup. Administrator Wright reported that this matter will be addressed in the upcoming site plan workshop and brought to the Board in approximately two months. AUDIT OF SITE PLANS Vice Chairman Scurlock related that Chairman Lyons feels that since we audit other things, there should be some provision for finding out if, in fact, people have complied with the requirements of the site plan; he, therefore, suggested funds be budgeted annually to audit five site plans chosen at random. 64 Commissioner Bird believed we have the ability to do that now with our own staff. Administrator Wright felt that Chairman Lyons was talking about auditing staff and stated that he was satisfied with what staff was doing. Commissioner Bird did not feel there was a need to hire an outside firm to audit staff. DOCUMENTS TO BE MADE PART OF THE RECORD A. Resolution 84-34 having been fully executed and received along with the required Performance Bond is hereby made a part of the Minutes as approved at the meeting of 5/23/84: (ATTACHMENTS TO PERFORMANCE BOND ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK) 65 JAN 23 1985 BOOK 696 rJAN, 23 1% c C BOOK 59 PA(,),F. 691 RESOLUTION 84- 34 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR THE CLOSING, ABANDONMENT AND VACATION OF A 35 -FOOT WIDE COUNTY ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF STATE ROAD A -1-A, 1/2 MILE NORTH OF COUNTY ROAD 510, TOGETHER WITH ANY RIGHT TITLE AND INTEREST OF THE COUNTY AND THE PUBLIC IN AND TO THE ACTUAL EXISTING SOIL ROAD LOCATED PARTIALLY WITHIN AND WITHOUT THE COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAY WHEREAS, on March 21, 1984, the County received a duly executed and documented petition from North Beach Associates, Ltd., a Florida Limited Partnership, of 582 Beachland Boulevard, Vero Beach, Florida, requesting the County to close, vacate, abandon and disclaim any right, title, and interest of the County and the public in and to a 35 -foot wide right-of-way located on the west side of State Road A -1-A, 1/2 mile north of County Road 510. Together with any right, title, and interest of the County and the public in and to the existing soil road located partially within and without the County right-of-way. WHEREAS, in accordance with Florida Statutes Section 336.10, notice of a public hearing to consider said petition has been duly published; and WHEREAS, after consideration of the petition, supporting documents staff investigation and report, and testimony of all those interested and present, the Board finds that said right-of- way is not a state or federal highway, nor located within any municipality, nor is said right-of-way necessary for continuity of the County's street and thoroughfare network, nor access to any given private property; with the sole exception that said right-of- way is deemed necessary for utility purposes as reserved below. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: 1. All right, title and interest of the County and the public in and to that certain right-of-way being more particularly described as: The South 35 feet of Government Lot 1, Section 23, Town- ship 31 South, Range 39 East, which lies West of the centerline of A -1-A, as filed in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Indian River County, Florida, in Plat Book 4, page 62, and terminating at the East right- of-way line of Jungle Trail, together with all right, title, and interest of the County and the public in and to the existing soil road located partially within and without the said right-of-way, is hereby forever closed, abandoned, vacated, surrendered, discontinued, remised, and released, reserving, however, the following described private utility easements for the use of Florida Power and Light Company and Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company, said easement being particularly described as follows: The North 10 feet of the South 38 feet of that part of Government Lot 1, Section 23, Township 31 South, Range 39 East, lying West of the centerline of State Road A -1-A, Indian River County, Florida. 2. Notice of the adoption of this resolution shall be forthwith published once within thirty (30) days from the date of adoption hereof; and 3. The Clerk is hereby directed to record this resolution together with the proofs of publication required by Florida Statutes Section 336.10 in the Official Record Books of Indian River County without undue delay. r_ N Lyons The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Wodtke and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Ave Vice -Chairman Patrick B. Lyons Aye Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. Aye Commissioner Margaret Bowman Absent The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 23rd day of May , 1984. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA DON C. SCURLO K, JR. "wm004 41 Chairman ATTEST: ki - -.1: FREDA•WRIGHT Clerk•,of'*Circuit Court STATE. OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day, before me, and officer duly authorized in this State and County to take acknowledgments, personally appeared DON C. SCURLOCK, JR. and FREDA WRIGHT, as Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners and Clerk, respect- ively, to me known to be the persons described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and they acknowledged before me that they executed the same. WITNESS my hand and official seal in the County and State last aforesaid this day of'' A.D. 1984 My Commission Expires: NOTARY PUBIC STATE OF FLORID/? BONDED THRU GENERAL INSURANCE N j MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JULY. $ 1986 APPROVED TO FORM AND LEGAL IENCY: BRANDENBURG Co ity Attorney Z8 :q NJ 81 330 4861 '�. lid �►� .J;� .": JAN 2 3 1985 2 1995 r JA , PERFORMANCE BOND KNOW ALL .'MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: BOOK 59 U C F 6.9,'3 That NORTH BEACH ASSOCIATES, LTD. , Developer (hereinafter called the "Principal") and FIREMAN"S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY a surety company authorized to transact such business in the State of Florida, (hereinafter called the "Surety"), are held and firmly bound unto Indian River County, a political subdivision in the State of Florida, hereinafter "County", in the full and just sum of $ 50,000.00 lawful money of the United States of America, to be paid to the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, to which payment well and truly to be made we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. WHEREAS, the above bounded Principal, as a condition precedent to the abandonment of a road right-of-way adjacent to property owned by Principal, entered into a written agreement with the County, pursuant to Resolution #84-34, to construct certain road improvements, all pursuant to the said Contract, which is incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof for all purposes. WHEREAS, it was one of the conditions of the contract that this bond be executed. NOW THEREFORE, THE CONDITIONS OF THIS OBLIGATION are that if the above bounded Principal shall in all respects comply with the terms and conditions of the contract, within the time therein specified, and shall in every respect fulfill its obligations thereunder and under the permits, plans and regulations therein referred to and made a part thereof, and shall indemnify and save harmless the County against or from all claims, costs, expenses, damages, injury or loss, including engineering, legal and contingent costs, which Indian River County may sustain on account of the failure of the Principal to carry out and execute all the provisions of the contract, within the time therein specified, then this obligation to be void; otherwise to be and remain in full force and virtue. THE SURETY UNCONDITIONALLY COVENANTS AND AGREES that if the Principal fails to perform all or any part of the obligations stated in said contract, within the time specified, the Surety, upon thirty (30) days written notice from the County or its authorized representative, as to the default, will forthwith perform and complete the aforesaid obligations and pay the cost thereof, including but not limited to, engineering, legal and contingent costs. Should the Surety fail or refuse to perform and complete said improvements, the County, in view of the public interest, health, safety and welfare and the inducement in approving and filing said plat, shall have the right to resort to any and all legal remedies against the Principal and the Surety, or either, including specific performance, to which the Principal and Surety unconditionally agree. THE PRINCIPAL AND SURETY FURTHER jointly and severally agree that the County, at its option, shall have the right to construct or, pursuant to receipt of competitive bids, cause to be constructed the aforementioned improvements in the event the Principal, or the Surety if requested, shall fail or refuse to do so in accordance with the terms of the contract. In the event the County should exercise and give effect to such right, the Principal and Surety shall be jointly and severally liable hereunder to reimburse the County for the total cost thereof, including but not limited to, engineering, legal and contingent costs, including reasonable attorney's fees, together with any damages either direct or consequential, which may be sustained by the county on account of the failure of the Principal to carry out -1- � � r and execute all the provisions of the contract. It is expressly understood that the protections provided by this bond shall run exclusively to the County and its succes- sors or assigns and same are not expressly or impliedly intended to protect or save harmless any contractor, subcontractor, supplier, materialman, laborer, purchaser, or other party unless expressly agreed and acknowledged by Indian River County in -. writing. IN WITNESS WEiEREOF, the Principal and the -Surety have executed these presents this 29th day of October - 19 84 5100 North Federal Highway %Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33308 NORTH BEACH ASSOCIATES, LTD'. PRINCIPAL ZAREMBA TH BEAC CO., s General Partne By: President F an C. We (Title) Attest: sst. Secretary Preston I. Perrone (Title) (affix corporate seal) FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE CO. Surety c By. , Attorney -in -Fact (Must attach Powe;„p.ff Attorney and ,af'i�c corporate s;�}",.,,., Boo 59 r694 JAN 2 31985 BOOK 5P°t"jE 695 The several bills and accounts against the County having been audited were examined and found to be correct were approved and warran issued iri settlement of same as follows: Treasury Fund Nos. 15248- 15405 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 duly made, seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 3:55 o'clock P.M. ATTEST: Clerk 70 4�6 -"- � I,- Chairma