Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/20/1985Ll Wednesday, February 20, 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, ori Wednesday, February 20, 1985, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Patrick B. Lyons, Chairman; Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Vice Chairman; Richard N. Bird; Margaret C. Bowman; and William C. Wodtke, Jr. Also present were Michael J. Wright, County Administrator; Gary Brandenburg, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; and Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk. The Chairman called the meeting to order. Reverend Robert Dickinson, Asbury Methodist Church, gave the invocation, and Attorney Brandenburg led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA Attorney Brandenburg requested that Item 7B. Agreement with WTVX - be deleted as it needs to be reworked. He requested the addition of the following under his matters: 1) a discussion regarding an appeal of the County's application for a Community Development Block Grant. 2) an item authorizing the advertisement of a required ad for a public hearing to be held by the Housing Finance Authority requesting the State for an allocation for mortgage subsidy bonds; 3) a Resolution calling the bond on RAX Restaurant for failing to live up to an agreement re paving; and 4) a Resolution laying out the rates for Florida Cablevision. Commissioner Bird wished to add under his items approval of bids for construction of new tennis courts at Gifford Park and approval of lighting at Kiwanis-Hobart ballfield. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously added and deleted items to the agenda as described above. FEB 20 1985 Bou °.rec17 FEB 2 0 1,98S APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairman Lyons asked if there were any additions or correc- tions to the Minutes of the Special Meeting of January 30, 1985. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the Minutes of the Special Meeting of January 30, 1985, as written. The Chairman asked if there were any additions or correc- tions to the Minutes of the Special Meeting between the County Commission and the North County Fire District Advisory Board held on January 30, 1985. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the Minutes of Special Meeting held between the County Commission and -the North County Advisory Board on Jan. 30, 1985, as written. CLERK TO THE BOARD t ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Bird, the Board unanimously gave retroactive Approval of Petition for Admission to A.G.Holley State Hospital for Johnnie C. Smith and James Ray Coward and authorized the signature of the Chairman. CONSENT AGENDA Attorney Brandenburg requested that Item G be removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion. �A. Reports Received and placed on file in the Office of the Clerk: Minutes of the Annual Meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Sebastian River Drainage District held on 6/5/84 and the Minutes of the Annual Meeting of Landowners of Sebastian River Drainage District of same date. 2 B. Agreement between County and WTVX Deleted from today's agenda. ,j C. Change Order #4, Contract #3 Kinq's Hiqhwav ,ce Co. - Ext. Water Main on The Board reviewed the following staff memo: TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: February 8, 1985 FILE: 71 Board of County Commissioners THRU: Terrance Pintokliy Director of U SUBJECT: Change Order #4 Services Contract #3 for Boyce Company in the amount of $57,871.45 FROM: Jo h A. Baird REFERENCES: A) SML&H Letter 2/5/85 p and Change Orders As istant Utilities Director The attached change order in the amount of $57,871.45 from Boyce Company is for the construction of a 20" water main approximately 1400 lineal feet west on Kings Highway, north of Route 60. By installing the 1400 lineal feet of water line now before the new road improvements are done will save the Utility. Department a considerable amount of money. ALTERNATIVES 1) Approve Change Order #4, Contract 3 from Boyce Company to construct the 20" water main, 1400 lineal feet west on Kings Highway. 2) Disapprove Change Order #4, Contract 3 from Boyce Company to construct the 20" water main, 1400 lineal feet west on Kings Highway. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Board 'of County Commissioners approve Change Order #4, Contract #3 for Boyce Company in the amount of $57,871.45. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved Change Order #4, Contract #3, Boyce Co., in the amount of $57,871.45. FEB 3 BOOP( 59 P'+UE 909 For in _ti -1 0) CONTRACT FOR . Indian River County Wa :E CONTRACT CHIA GE C ►DER 4— BOOK 5 f'°.UE.�� -OEa t+0. 4 --(Contract GATE Januar 23, 198 STATE Florida COUNTY ian River OWNER Indian River County To _Boyce -Company (Contritctor) You are hereby requested to comply with the following changes from the contract plans and specifications: or--� Description of Changes DECREASE INCREASE M—nlamPntmt Plnnc and Snrcifirations Attached) in Contract Price in Contract Price Description: Construct 20" 0 water main and $ $ appurtenances along the west side of Kings Highway north of Route 60 ITFX QUANTITY DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE 1 LS Mobilization $6,ODO S 6,000 1400 LF 20" 0 Water Main 30.00/LF 42,000.00 4 3 LF 1211 0 Water Main 23.20/LF 69.60 5 3 LF 8" 0 Water Main 18.70/LF 56.10 6 35 LF 6" 0 Water Main 16.45/LF 575.75 7 2 20" 0 BV 2550.00 ea 5,100.00 9 1 12" 0 GV 875.00 ea 875.00 - 10 1 8-- 0 GV 495.00 ea 495.00 11 2 6-r 0 GV 375.00 ea 750.00 12 2 Fire Hydrants 800.00 ea 1,600.00 22 1400 LF Seeding b Mulching 0.25 LF 350.00 TOTALS $ ------------------ --- - +-57,871.45. ---- NET CHANGE IN CONTRACT PRICE I S ____________ 57,871.45 JUSTIFICATION -0 I the future, the County, in coordination with the Florida Department of Transporta— tion, plans to make improvements in the vicinity of }rings Highway north of Route 60. In order to not disturb those improvements once completed, it is advisable to preceed the road improvements with the installation of water main. It is also prudent to com— plete the water main construction under the present construction contract that In— dian ndian River County has entered into with Boyce Company of St. Petersburg, Florida. 7- The r' of: 1':_ r' \ th r,il ,_' .t. ._ _r;,�rrF�i_..Fti.�nxs.�__^.�iir��'�e - - --_—__ _ ........_.. _Z•t, .,fS. 57 The Co:jtr•ct Total Including this and pi.vio::s Change Orders Will Be: __,q"}'tin eight hundred seventy and �0/100's_ _:! „,'lees (s 35?1870. 30 The Contract Period Provided for Completion Will Be (Increased) ( z:e.'_"y::_;-:;�;`'V'' taj; 30 days to lgrp_, S t 't a? , This do--ument 1 b Mme a supple the contract and all provisions ill ;.,-plyh:reto. i �(O.nor) 1 ' (0.r'• Archil cI/Er.alnsor) Arc; e t �d ate.j / / (CuntroeroN Approve sy FmHA VV (/ e.me and Title) 4 —C;Z© — (D Ito) JD, Request for Site Plan Extension - Schlitt Plaza West The Board reviewed the following staff memo: TO: The Honorable Members DATE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: February 7, 1985 SUBJECT: ea� � 'kig,� CP Robert M. Keats Planning & Developm nt Director FILE: SCHLITT PLAZA WEST/ REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL EXTENSION FROM: Mary Jane V. Goetzfried REFERENCES: Schlitt Pla. I1 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 February 20, 1985. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS In February of 1984, the Planning and Zoning Commission ap- proved a site plan application submitted by John J. Schlitt, Jr. to construct a 8,018 square foot office/retail complex at 4700 20th Street. A site plan was originally approved in August of 1981 to construct a 10,400 square foot, office/retail facility on the same site. Subsequently, an extension of the site plan approval was granted, and a building permit was issued and minor construction was started in August 1983. A modified plan, which was developed in accordance with the current code,,. was submitted and approved in February of 1984. Normally, modification of an approved site plan does not extend the time limit by an additional year. However, when a plan is significantly modified and all applicable aspects of the code have been addressed, a new site plan approval date becomes effective. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 23(h)(1)(a) Appendix A of the County Code, the applicant is requesting an extension of site plan approval, which would allow construction to commence within the next 6 months. RECOMMENDATION The Planning staff recommends approval of Edgar Schlitt's request for a six month extension of the site plan approval to construct an office/retail facility at 4700 20th Street. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved a six month extension of site plan approval for Schlitt Plaza West as requested by Edgar Schlitt. 5 BOOK 59 F",'. 911 FEB 2 0 1985 I BOOK 69. Request for Extension of Paul Austin Site Plan 9 I,F912 The Board reviewed memo of Staff Planner Craver, as follows: TO: The Honorable Members DATE: February 11, 1985 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: ED SCHLITT, REALTORS - REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF SUBJECT: PAUL AUSTIN SITE PLAN Robert M. Kedtlih45rAICP APPROVAL Planning & Development Director "`"J THROUGH: Mary Jane V. Goetzfried "A) Chief, Current Development Section FROM: Karen M. Craver �� REFERENCES: E. Schlitt Staff Planner _ DIS:KAREN It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of February 20, 1985. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: In the spring of 1984, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved a major site plan application submitted by Paul Austin. Approval was given to construct a 52 -unit apartment complex on the north side of State Road 60, approximately 1200 feet west of 58th Avenue. The project will be connecting to the planned County water and wastewater systems. A lift station for the wastewater system will be located on the subject property. Due to delays in obtaining utilities and time constraints, Mr. Austin determined that he would not be able to commence con-.. struction prior to the expiration of site plan approval. Therefore, the site plan approval was transferred to Edgar Schlitt, who plans to develop the apartment complex and,in the future, adjacent land parcels. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 23(h)(1)(a) Appendix A of the Zoning Code, Mr. Schlitt is requesting a 1 year extension of site plan approval. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Edgar Schlitt's request for a 1 year extension of Paul Austin's site plan approval. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved a one year extension of the Paul Austin site plan as requested by Ed Schlitt, Realtors. 6 /F. Extension of Contract for Required Improvements - Seagrove West Subdivision The Board reviewed memo of Staff Planner Boling: TO: The Honorable Members DATE: February 11, 1985 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF CONTRACT FOR REQUIRED SUBJECT: IMPROVEMENTS FOR SEAGROVE Robert M. Keati g, APcp WEST SUBDIVISION Planning & Development Director THROUGH: Mary Jane V. Goetzfried rY► Chief, Current Development Section FROM: E. Stan Boling ,�� REFERENCES: Seagrove Staff Planner �`� DIS:STAN It is requested that the following information be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting on February 20, 1985. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: This is a request by the owner, Harbor Federal Savings & Loan Association, to extend for 9 months the contract to construct the required improvements for the Seagrove West subdivision. Seagrove West is a 67 lot subdivision located on the South Beach, west of S.R. A -1-A. The site is zoned R-lA, Single Family Residential, (4.3 dwelling units/acre) and has a LD -1, Low -Density Residential, (3 dwelling units/acre) land use designation. The project's actual building density is 1.3 dwelling units/acre. The Board of County Commissioners granted final plat approval for the subdivision on February 22, 1984 and signed a contract with the developer/ owner, Corporate Investment Company, which committed C.I.C. to completing construction of all required improvements by March 1, 1985. This contract was secured by a cash deposit and escrow agreement between C.I.C, the County, and Harbor Federal Savings & Loan Association in the amount of $503,191.24. Harbor Federal also held the mortgage on the subject property. The plat was officially recorded on February 29, 1984 in Plat Book 11 , Pages 66 and 66A, Indian River County public records. C.I.0 defaulted on the mortgage held on the subject property, and in September 1984, title to the property was transferred to Harbor Federal. Harbor Federal has set out to develop the property according to the contract for the construction of required improvements. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: The present owner has effectively had only 4 months to complete construction of a ± 51 acre subdivision. It is staff's opinion that the present owner has not had sufficient time to complete the required construction of the project. 7 BOOK Fe'n 1 FEB 2 O 1985BOOK 59 Ut 11914 Also, the owner is proposing to upgrade and construct improve- ments over and above what is required in the existing contract. These improvements include: 1) upgrading from a 6" limerock base to an 8" limerock base, 2) upgrading the asphalt surface course from a thickness of 14" to 1;2-", 3) installing Miami curbing along the roadway. Revised construction drawings showing these additional improve- ments have been submitted, and have been approved by the Public Works Director. A new certified cost estimate has been submit- ted which reflects the additional cost of the proposed new improvements, balanced by expenditures for some of the con- struction that has already occurred on the site. Staff has determined that the amount of $503,191.24 represents at least 115% of the costs of construction -needed to finish the project under an amended contract. The County Attorney's Office has drafted a proposed resolution and assumption agreement (see attachment #3) that acknowledges the assignment of Seagrove West subdivision to Harbor Federal, grants a 9 month extension of the existing contract to construct the required improvements, and accepts the newly posted security guaranteeing the contract. Attached to the resolution is an assumption agreement whereby Harbor Federal agrees to perform the promises and obligations of the old contract as well as the additional modifications to upgrade the original construction plans. Harbor Federal is posting a letter of credit for $503,191.24 as surety for the contract extension, and is in agreement with the proposed resolution and assumption agreement. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed resolution assigning and extending the existing contract for the construction of improvements in Seagrove West subdivision to Harbor Federal Savings & Loan Association. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 85-22 assigning and extending the existing contract for the construction of improve- ments in Seagrove West Subdivision to Harbor Federal Savings & Loan Association. RESOLUTION NO. 85- 22 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPROVING AN ASSIGNMENT AND EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT FOR REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS, AND TRANSFER OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS AND PERMITS,, FOR SEAGROVE WEST SUBDIVISION. WHEREAS, in February, 1984, the County entered into a Contract for Required Improvements with Corporate Investment Com- pany for Seagrove West Subdivision, which required completion of certain improvements on or before February 29, 1985, being one year after final plat approval; and WHEREAS, during the past year, Corporate Investment Company conveyed the subject property to Harbor Federal Savings and Loan Association, Ft. Pierce, Florida, in lieu of a mortgage foreclosure, assigning therewith all development approvals and permits issued by the County; and WHEREAS, Harbor Federal has requested the County to recognize it as the successor developer and obligor on the Con- tract for Required Improvements, and has requested an extension of time for completion of the required improvements; and WHEREAS, Harbor Federal has executed the assumption pro- visions contained below indicating its agreement to assume and perform all.those promises, covenants, commitments and conditions prescribed in the Contract for Required Improvements and the associated land development permits; and WHEREAS, in order to guarantee its performance of the assigned contract, Harbor Federal is placing new security in the form of a Letter of Credit; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Development Division and the Public Works Department have reviewed the status of this project and find there exists good cause for an extension of time and recommends approval. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: 1. The County acknowledges and approves the assignment of the attached Contract for Required Improvements from Corporate Investment Company to Harbor Federal Savings and Loan; BOOK 5 9 FA�E. 91 5 BOOK 9 F'tOi 916 2. An extension of time to perform the contract is hereby approved, to expire henceforth on November 19, 1985 ; 3. The attached Letter of Credit is accepted as new security to guarantee performance of the assigned contract, as extended, and the Board hereby releases any claim to the funds originally deposited under the cash deposit and escrow agreement among Corporate Investment Company, Harbor Federal, and Indian River County. The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Scurlock who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bowman and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Patrick B. Lyons Aye Vice -Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 20th Attest:A , FREDA WRIGHT Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY By d4sf.Co ty Attorney day of February , 1985. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIA_41 RAVER COUNTY, FLORIDA Chairman i B. LYONS CJP ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACT FOR REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that Harbor Federal Savings and Loan Association, in consideration of the actions stated above, and other valuable considerations, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, hereby agrees to be 10 M bound by and to perform all those promises and obligations of the party referred to as "Developer" in the attached Contract for Required Improvements (#SD 80-16-229), in strict accordance with the original contract, and any approved extensions, modifications, amendments or additions thereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused its hand and seal to be placed hereto this /,3 74 day of , 1985. HARBOR FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION /BY: (Title) Attest: / ,/ BY : lv •CORPORATE SEAL) Contract and Summary of work done to date of January, 1985, on file in the Office of the Clerk. ,,IG. Final Plat Approval - The Sanderling Subdivision The Board reviewed the following memo from Staff Planner Stan Boling: 11 BOoK 9 P�,..UF917 J I BOOK F' -E TO: The Honorable Members DATE: February 8, 1985 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR THE SANDERLING SUBDIVISION SUBJECT: Robert M. Kea ng, ICP Planning & Development Director fin\ THROUGH: Mary Jane V..Goetzfried 1") Chief, Current Development Section FROM: E. Stan Boling REFERENCES: sanderling Staff Planner �.�DIS:STAN It is requested that the following information be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of February 20, 1985. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: The Sanderling subdivision is a ±9.13 acre, 13 lot subdivision, located on the barrier island approximately one mile north of the C.R. 510 and S.R. A -1-A intersection, east of A -1-A. The subject property is zoned R -2D, Multiple Family Residential, (6 dwelling units per acre), and has the land use designation LD -2, Low -Density Residential (up to 6 dwelling units per acre) . The proposed gros's building density of the project is approximately 1.4 dwelling units per acre. The applicant, Associates Management Group, Inc. (Tom Collins,. president) is requesting final plat approval and has submitted: a contract committing A.M.G., Inc. to completing construction of all required improvements, a,certified cost estimate of the improvements from the project's engineer, an irrevocable letter - of credit for 1150 of the estimated cost of constructing the improvements, and the final plat. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: This application has been reviewed by the appropriate County departments. The Public Works Division has approved the certified cost estimate and construction plans for the required paving and drainage improvements. The Utilities Services Division has approved the certified cost estimate and con- struction plans for the project's water distribution system. The County Attorney's Office has approved the contract to construct the improvements subject to its being signed by the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners. The plat is in conformance with the conditionally approved preliminary plat. The Sanderling received conditional preliminary plat approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission on December 20, 1984. At that time, the Planning and Zoning Commission granted preliminary plat approval subject to the condition that the Board of County Commissioners accept the applicant's $27,000 in lieu of dedication of one beach access easement, at the time of final plat approval. Under section 10(r) of the subdivision ordinance, this subdivi- sion is required to dedicate a 15' wide public beach access easement from S.R. A -1-A to the ocean or to dedicate the fair market value of such an easement. The Property Appraiser's Office has estimated the value of such an easement at $27,000. 12 � s � The applicant has agreed to dedicate $27,000 to the County's "Park Development Fund" as a condition of final plat approval, to meet this requirement. Once the $27,000 dedication is submitted, the application will have met all applicable County requirements. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant final plat approval to The Sanderling subdivision and authorize the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign the contract for the Construction of Required Improvements and accept the irrevocable letter of credit, subject to the appli- cant's dedicating $27,000 in lieu of dedicating a public beach access easement. Attorney Brandenburg commented that as the Board is aware, individuals abutting the ocean or river have a choice of dedi- cating a 15' wide public access easement from SR A -1-A to the ocean or river or dedicating the fair market value of such an easement. The applicant in this case has agreed to pay the $27,000 appraised value of such an easement, but is doing so under protest as set out in the following letters from both the developer and his attorney: MCGEE, COLLINS &.1sSOCIMES, INC. REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS . Mr. Stan Boling INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PLANNING & ZONING 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 RE: SANDERLING REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAN Dear Stan: December 11, 1984 This letter will clarify our understanding that in lieu of granting a 15' easement to the county the Sanderling Development will donate, under protest, $27,000 to the county for use in developing its parks. Please understand that I am reserving the right to ask the county commissioners to delete this requirement from the site plan approval process due to the recent extreme conditions that have been imposed on barrier island land owners and also the fact that the county has purchased extensive amounts of oceanfront land since this requirement was inacted. I trust this letter will complete your files so that you might submit our application on the 13th of December to the Planning and Zoning Board. Sincerely, i ze.,.. Thomas H. Collins 13 BOOK 9 pp" 11 E 919 �-_ 2 0 1985 mgr FI�E'`C � BOOK J � J..aey Q9rrerHaJa7:� , _:HFHMAN N. &MITII,JR. MICHAEL OHAIRE JEROME O. QUINN CHARLES E.GARRIS ALAN S. POLACKWICH, SR. February 19, 1985 Gary Brandenburg, Esq. County Attorney Indian River County 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 Re: Sanderling Subdivision Dear Gary: MIC14AEL J. GA14AVAGLIA DOLORES D. DECAPRIO WILLIAM E. CORLEY, SII REPLY TO' Island My client, Associates Management Group, Inc., through its principal, Thomas H. Collins, is in the final stages of platting the Sanderling Subdivision. A condition imposed by the Planning Staff to final plat approval is a dedication of 15' of ocean frontage to the County or payment of the sum of $27,000.00 to the County. I attach photocopy of my client's letter to Stan Boling on this subject dated December 11, 1984. Frankly, I am of the opinion that either demand on my client as a condition to plat approval is improper and probably illegal. My client does not wish to waive any of its rights in the circumstances, but at the same time, in the real world, cannot delay indefinitely subdivision and sale of its property with the meter running on a very substantial purchase price. Like most developers, the economics of the situation presently dictates that it move ahead, but the County is taking unfair advantage of a typical situation to extort land or money without having the benefit of a comprehensive study or any rational basis for its demand. Although my client is.making the payment to the County, it is only for the purpose of being able to use its land, is under protest, and without waiver of any claims or rights it might otherwise have. If you have any problems with this matter, please don't hesitate to call me. NII With best regards, I our fE`�thf lly, MOH/pkm MICH 01' cc Michael Wright, Adm rator ®arFgoE �L���rar� aD�xrzm� 14TH AVENUE,VERO BEACH.-LORIDA 32960 .III CARDINAL DRIV E.VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32963 !3 051 567-4351 (305) 231 6900 Attorney Brandenburg believed, in view of the above, that the County cannot use the $27,000 until the matter is litigated. He, therefore, recommended the County not accept the $27,000 and instead require the individual to dedicate the easement. That way we have the easement on the ground for people to use. 14 Commissioner Wodtke asked if the County Attorney did not feel we could defend this requirement in Court. Attorney Brandenburg did feel we could, but pointed out that we don't know when the lawsuit might be filed; it could be some time within the next five years, if ever. Commissioner Bird stated that he would not think the threat of a lawsuit would encumber the $27,000, but the County Attorney noted that the County would either have to keep these funds in escrow or have funds on hand to pay them back. Commissioner Wodtke asked if it would be the obligation of the developer to put in a dune crossover, and Director Keating stated that it would, as well as to provide a paved walkway. Thomas Collins, the principal involved in the subject subdivision, came before the Board. He explained that some of those developing in this area have expressed the feeling that this requirement could be tested in court. He personally has no intention of litigating the matter, but just wants to protect himself in the event this ever should be litigated so he would have a right to recover his $27,000. He emphasized that he is not in a position to hold up his development at this stage; so, he is in the Board's hands. He had no problem with the County using the $27,000 and stated that he was not requesting that it be put in escrow. Attorney Brandenburg explained that his point is that the County has a lot of laws and ordinances, i.e., setbacks, paving, sidewalks, fencing, etc.-, and if we allow everyone to say they will do what is required, but only under protest because they feel those requirements are illegal, it is possible we won't know what the project will look like for five years until the matter is litigated. Commissioner Bird did not believe he heard Mr. Collins saying that he is paying this under protest, but just that if it is ever litigated, he wants to have the right to sue for re- covery, which he felt everybody has a right to do. 15 EE 2 6 1995 BOOK 9 ��"E? FEB 20 1985, BOOK 99? 1 Attorney Brandenburg explained that if developers pay their impact fee and get approved and move on ahead without stating that they are paying it under protest, it is gone forever; they have given up their rights. The applicant has two choices; he can withdraw his protest, state that he considers the requirement legal, get the subdivision approved and move ahead with his development, or he can delay final plat approval until this matter is litigated. Attorney Brandenburg noted that if it should be determined this requirement is illegal, it may well be that we would require something else. Commissioner Scurlock noted that -what we want is access to the beach, and he felt we have given the developer flexibility by saying that if this isn't the best access point, he can contrib- ute the money for another access somewhere else. Mr. Collins reiterated that he is just saying if this ordinance should be proven illegal, he does not feel it would be fair that he would not have a chance to recover. He, however, is not in a negotiating stage, and so he will have to give up.his rights. Chairman Lyons informed Mr. Collins that the Commission will be here until noon today , and he would like to see this statement in writing. Attorney Brandenburg clarified that the Commission would like a letter from Mr. Collins stating that he withdraws his protest. He pointed out that when the other developers come in for plat approval, they will be given this same choice. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, that Final Plat Approval be granted to The Sanderling Subdivision subject to the County Attorney receiving an appropriate letter from Mr. Collins withdrawing his protest. Commissioner Wodtke stated that he was willing to take the 16 a County Attorney's opinion that we are legally correct, but if this question is hanging over us, he believed we should get an answer. Attorney Brandenburg stated that when you talk about land use law, there is much that never has been tested, and he cannot guarantee that almost anything will not be tested or overturned some day. Mr. Collins informed the Board that what is bothering the area landowners is that the County has purchased literally a mile of beachfront, and the problem is when you put a beach access in which the general public can use, it stops right at A -1-A and there is no parking area. This access supposedly is just for people in the neighborhood, but it doesn't work out that way. Mr. Collins felt accesses such as the County has north of Indian River Shores with parking facilities make much more sense. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. JPROCLAMATION - Re Handicapped and Mentally Retarded Chairman Lyons read aloud the following Proclamation recog- nizing February 28th through March 2nd, 1985, as The Knights of Columbus Annual Tootsie Roll Drive for Handicapped and Mentally Retarded Citizens. Said Proclamation will be mailed to Frank Jurian, Chairman, Knights of Columbus. 17 FEB 2 0 1985 BOOK • Boa 5 9 f'ltGr 924 7 PROCLAMATION PROCLAMATION OF.THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.. �w OF.INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, DESIGNATING p` FEBRUARY 28 THROUGH MARCH 2, 1985 -AS THE KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS ` ANNUAL TOOTSIE ROLL DRIVE FOR THE HANDICAPPED AND �= L MENTALLY RETARDED CITIZENS p WHEREAS, "the "..Knights'. of Columbus,' Vero iBeacli Councilw. 5629, -will be.. -conducting its annual Tootsie` Roll Drive' '`to help ' the handicapped.and mentally_ retarded citizens, on.'February 28,' March 1, and March 2, 1985; and r t hp,, ` r �� WHEREAS - } proceeds from the .donations ,will be, used by.- ­,,i therKnights of Columbus or ;local programs and'activities"such as the inentall retarded 1� y workshop and special olympics program- and L ��' 'l� ,y; ' Yt . a;.�.ttt`Yi' it Y .^. `� r -y r _ �� �•; r ti x F . 4'_. - q 1 � t ar•- �. x 1, - t ' ' *p 7 `� ¢o'tr• }";�F i „ ♦ ` 3 s ,k.' �,,� y'2,�{ Aw :.a.P .tom r °i i4 `t' 'k: 44u r; .k . A.. �t6✓i•A�`jL l�'' '�r�ti � �S -•" r1 n i -:p '..sR 'k , 'C "v. c Pj r6 R i ` '�. � � .�' !w :. � I r3• k' � ��°,�°sY4 r� �i'�-'fir � h�}�' `t Y v' �' :,y`., ... ..,mss Z a. .. ,.. . ^ � .._.: ; r c L :,qi. rE." e'+t ,, kto: }` r.!:• � __ �,;WiiEREAS, .on a"'nationwide 'basis, =the Rnights"� of,C01 ° �rr� Counci s will conductin similar events -`'during the �� ,be g.same �timeM •��-... � �'' �' .s an •. and.k, 'i+ t -,: .. e♦ :.i:; • % 1, t Pk Y y. ;. a •i < r.`P"�'.. '.3.• t r °'S.v t '�''„ a tI` .• -sT ♦ 45 .s'a uer r sL 91 ;ti'. r � v °' �47A=.�"'e._r,a,xarLS;�,-r�53?��':�`,_,. 'i�i*'��r�,t�._fn ti.t;..:�4A�' F;.'•,t.W�"......-�`e+�.�pA��.'��..°�'...�.-'�%..:.:�°�-„...mt�.��.�.'`ee�'.e�-^.c:,�»..,.�...:�:`Ar.+-ttk..t�, �`•�,^A':,'al.�rda'�:.�r+��r .-. rr��rr s{ ;,-n� -:a WHEREAS j with $ r .. � ,' d1.. vyt a.s .c r v� ` .* ..1 a a a ♦, R, ,.rz♦„ ,3 , the ,help H of ; many frienda and local' ;organizations :'who`; have .volunteered ` to assist : `thee r r Kna ghts;F of Columbus in :this �� years •-endeavor,is anticipated othat;A the � : "proceeds "generated. will be�.y' far: in excess of east year -a total :P`.`''"+t.�,�'yY•1'r♦nandrb'fe•ir`4s :' r'` �ft�� Y ^c `spy'q ^;'�'` F3` I• t o-_ -.u. <^.. r , �t1 r .. �` ♦g,� l y r T' ;A�f fit. i`7;"•�Pe;' `_ wV'.�.�-,ya.'t�? bAm K .(, ' 1i' -a ileo-, -.. -y 1"rFT'�'�,; * w rte• ry' .r/,Yb,,g 0`.:�, .v.'rv, "``"i y' fi ` o li r`ii `-;7''-4>.yTvZ 4 ,.ee �e�,�a.'+yy..� • tb4 - Z'S �^3e �- ,- p. -f.1W';'”. .'qct Ar y �•��` �f,.si 1 J.r,yY F'C'.a �' t,, , Z;srr" sx' K I . S 9 } �y� t S s + ,� ". L m rjvye �cr y�aa• .w r �-igkv 1!r. 'RT¢34 t ! iii ♦ik 'r i�{rirM"�i;.'y(y .�`�"'✓.' r3c+ �:y. t .7r • :°.tsN, . r `kv 2 �,1� F �•. �i'` ea,'. A +•T� t 'k. r7•f r :,p< '' li" • a'..,f•? 'WHEREAS, : pit -pis alto ether;Xfittin and ro r� ! 3 ,Wlo officiallyErecognize ;.this :worthy 3cause, ~and to help 'create F �public"� awareness '°and 'appreciation,, .,for :: all.:ethose >Y v . a roved and acanistered" on .February,'. 28 through :;.March 2 "19854, and k '� NX ✓ .;p q , most o alI for 'all"those 'who .will: contribute what ' he{'can -from yt m d w� # their hearts and` pockets to` assist the mentally handicapped; ��}t..; ��✓. �{ as,-,�.t'• fi.,t4S': � �, �� fi'�f �,A. ' r ``�f?" ±<.- aa} ` .+ q rc ,� - �, , - ,�,.. ..§� ry• -,f �. it 3... vti .s - ylti�' '� `a.D��t �•' -a., �:iC_' � � J x�+ � �/•"r '` • K •.4'e' q �• S• �.:yhj s i... � 'L. ✓i �.' 'yr. ,�� `;` �;� : 14✓e'. rjn�.. y, '�. §iP i 'frt �' gdt! a i.g t �`» 'r3,,,{l •�°a e6 •°S•. 'R�•e Y y''t .r,,;7•..r_ c •e.r. ''�t:;,i.°�'� _ "'� sp . �- '� .'�''���+ :wiV:4�i�g <,�'• �wgy"� „'r�'��7?,�%� ,.,�!'� '�'.;.�.. ��`� r',ws�'�,�}.F•��'Y ';y+ x.. SNOW,; THEREFORE BE `COU 'IT PROCLAIMED BY=THE. BOARD: OF;NTr { 1 COMMISSIONERS OF._,:: INDIAN RIVER • COUNTY:.r ELORIDA�� .assembled Y in 6g r�regu]ar session this `20th da hof Februa Y ryr 1985, that February 28 �. :through March`2, 1985 be officially;.observed as y"`" Vedy + '�., ate' - ".t ! 116 v7 r'�. -`+e_ • r xr.o `t `t:jy r n`+ y. .� q rr^'r ♦c �.��..r 6�N 4xr c r mac: :. ,� /et w `."�� � -. ., ''•.. fi.:-- Y ...- fivy(1 •: i 1 1c,. ee�,*�'', �' v < ... rta� t'' a ; Yr°r THE KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS `ANNUAL VOOTSIE ROLL: -_DRIVE N � FOR HANDICAPPED °} AND MENTALLY RETARDED r �& r > rt CITIZENS;� +r=.aFZ' b Pi ` , .r ,,.t.. a Y'" 4 " "•a- ° '!Fa�Yr�:. �#.�r • 1yy- r t V i s�. o- ti erV yr a ✓n fhRr c T4 ­ 7, t .+ 1, ':•w+ 7 d t �' (�+` "'" ..Ar ;r r :..�a2'`. i',,F s ,�.� .-•'P'w%}, .ti.:. � • r: ,.15 r k"..+}" { �`•�'' ♦ �r� �a� ''.abii"�a 3;.. $tl �'..� C 4" � ,"••�,,.;: Inchan''`River County;! and that special recognition be given tov f -- l r he dates of; February 28 through March 3"-.'1985 in support of this 5.�x Y worthwhile endeavor. ,. x t9�rf h e � �. .a •FR' • "-. .. .*.' .'. r.. • . i.. �. r.';t!',,.�P?[,d�♦'�4"`+r.rr 3, t BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS -''✓dt +A foa' F r 7k 4 a r` s` - . s ., e ,T♦�p�� OF .INDIAN RIVER ,COUNTY FLORIDA t S 2 ffik PXTRICK B. LYONS Chairman �•t^.., Attest: _ ,F FREDAIRIGHT, C1' k J.w PUBLIC HEARING — REZONING 84 ACRES TO R -2D (FLORIDA LAND CO.) 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 a z &P -m s— in the matter of u in the lished in said newspaper in the issues Court, was pub - Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press-Jf6urnal 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 adveris4nent for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed before me this day f .19 Atl _ i !R icinccc n� r • . , • `-�`ti1 fes'.`....- �.(.` t,.• t� t (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River Co , Florida) (�EAL) , NOTICE— PUBLIC NEARING Notice of hearing to consider the adoption of a County ordinance rezoning land from R-2, Mul- tiple -Family District and R-213, Multiple -Family District to R-213, Multiple -Family District The subset property Is presently owned by Florida Land,Company and 19 located one-quarter mile south of Wabasso Road (C.R.510) west of the At lemic Ocean, east of. the Indian River. ; . p The subject pro is•described as' ,. Government Lot 7, Section 26, Township 31S, Range 39E, 'Ihdian River County, FkWda, less rightsof-way of record and ,. Government Lots 5 and 6, less the South ,4111A4 feet of said Government lots 6 -. (,! and.6,;all lying_and being In Section 28 Township 3313, Range 39E. Iodism River County. Florida LESS AND EXCEPT the West 2 acres said Government,. Lot; 5 befog are particula described -as r Commencing at the SWcomer of Gov srpmsnt Lot 3, run. West .along the Norah Noe of Government.Lot $, a distance of , tilt 505.96 fest to the 061 of Beoinnlno_ distance of 612 0 feel to the Nw 9;—MJ of said Government Lot 5; thence run P` South along the West line of said Lot 5 a` distance of 21 feet more at less t6 the mean high water line of the' Indian RMw,-- thence meander the said mean i high=. water line In a Sduth4asterly direction to,` a point due South of1h9Point of Begin -ning, thence run North 125 fesW,. more or Imi to the Point 'of- Beginning,* on the. North •tine of Said Government Lot 6., :jl 44 Less and excepting -the right-of-way for State. Road A -1-A - and - 4ublect . to the ' maintenance rIgM-oPway fors Jungle +�Tmll as the, same is shown In Plat Book, 9 e 40, Public Records of (ndien River Qouft FlOrwat { ;+,8 {A iyA tq4 rtFi ,a ,sJ fl b`ic ire W slingat�whto parties, fn Inten and citizens -shall kava .w,. ,.1 be held of India !UM 20,1985, at It any.Persort d .80 to appeal'al made on the abova matter; he/she record -of the. proc lmggs;'and for Posen he/she may need to ensure tb .tlm record of. the Proceedings is'madi cludes testimony. and :evidence upon appeal is based: ?Indian River 'Count yv,4, uc ti t? Board of County Commissioner a By: =s- Patrick B Lypms Chairman,i ; r iii Jan. $1. Feb, 12.1985 Chief Planner Shearer made the staff presentation, as n follows: 19 • BOOK F,q„F 9 I TO: The Honorable Members DATE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: . BOOK 5 9 Frjr= 9G February 1, 1985'I` FILE: SUBJECT: Robert M. Xdat4ng,CP Planning & Development Director FROM: Richard Shearer, AICP REFERENCES: Chief, Long -Range Planning FLORIDA LAND COMPANY REQUEST TO REZONE 84 ACRES FROM R-2 AND R -2B TO R -2D, MULTIPLE - FAMILY DISTRICT Florida Land RICH2 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of February 20, 1985. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS Florida Land Company is requesting to rezone approximately 36.3 acres from R -2B, Multiple -Family District (up to 8.1 units/acre), and approximately 47.7 acres from R-2, Multiple-Family'District (up to 15 units/acre), to R -2D, Multiple -Family District (up to 6 units/acre). The subject property is located between the Atlantic Ocean and the Indian River and is one-quarter mile south of County Road 510. The applicant intends to develop the subject property for multiple -family residences at a density in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. On January 10, 1985, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5 -to -0 to recommend approval of this request. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the application will be presented. The analysis will include a description of the current and future land uses of the site and surrounding areas, potential impacts on the transportation and utility systems, and any significant adverse impacts on environmental quality. Existing Land Use Pattern The subject property is undeveloped. The land north of the subject property is undeveloped and zoned R-2, R -2D, and C-1, Commercial District. East and South of the subject property is the Sea Oaks condominium development which is under construction and zoned R-2. Further.east is the Atlantic Ocean. West of the subject property is the Indian River. Future Land Use Pattern The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property and all of the land around it as LD -2, Low -Density Residential 2 (up to 6 units/acre). In addition, there is a 25 acre tourist/ commercial node at the intersection of State Road A -1-A and County Road 510. It is anticipated that this node will extend south from the intersection along the east side of A -1-A to the north property line of the subject property. The proposed R -2D zoning is in conformance with the LD -2 land use designation. The existing R-2 and R -2B zoning districts are not. 20 � - r Transportation System The subject property has direct access to State Road A -1-A (classified as an arterial street on the Thoroughfare Plan) and to Jungle Trail (classified as a Scenic Road). The maximum development of the subject property under R -2D zoning would allow up to 1,764 Average Annual Daily Trips (AADT). These trips have already been considered by the Hutchinson Island study under trips generated by existing and approved development. Environment The subject property is not designated as environmentally sensitive on the Land Use Map. However, the west half of the subject property is in an A-9 flood zone (elevation 6), which includes land within the 100 year flood plain. In addition, the land between the river and Jungle Trail contains mangroves. Utilities County wastewater facilities are not available for the subject property. However, water will be provided by the North Beach Utilities Company. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above analysis, particularly the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation and the fact that this request is for a down -zoning consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, staff recommends approval. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. Gerald Chancellor of Florida Land Company believed that Mr. Shearer has stated the facts, and he confirmed that Florida Land is proceeding as stated. Commissioner Bird noted that this property contains a little triangle of land along the --river that is quite environmentally sensitive and may or may not be usable. If it is determined that it is usable, he believed the County would be interested in acquiring that property for some kind of riverside park. Mr. Chancellor agreed this could be discussed. He believed the part in question consists of about four acres with consider- able mangrove. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Bird, the Board unanimously closed the public hearing. 21 FEB 2 0 1985 BOOK F`�,, 9 7 J I FEB 20 1995 - BOOK 59 , 928 MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, to adopt Ordinance 85-12 rezoning 84 acres 1/4 mile south of CR 510 to R -2D as requested by Florida Land Company. Chairman Lyons believed this rezoning really is consistent with the Master Plan, and except for the moratorium, it is all the control we have. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. 22 ORDINANCE NO. 85-12 %W=S, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to rezone the herein- after described property and pursuant thereto held a public hearing in relation thereto, at which parties in interest and citizens were heard; NOW, ZTIEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning Ordinance of Indian River County, Florida, and the accompanying Zoning Map, be amended as follows: 1. That the Zoning Map be changed in order that the following described property situated in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: Government Lot 7, Section 26, Township 315, Range 39E, Indian River County, Florida, less rights-of-way of record and Government Lots 5 and 6, less the South 411.84 feet of said Government Lots 5 and 6, all lying and being in Section 26, Township 31S, Range 39E, Indian River County, Florida; LESS AND EXCEPT the West 2 acres of said Government Lot 5, being more particularly described as: Commencing at the SW corner of Government Lot 3, run West along the North line of Government Lot 5, a distance of 505.96 feet to the Point of Beginning; thence continue West along said line a distance of 812.0 feet to the NW corner of said Government Lot 5; thence run South along the West line of said Lot 5 a distance'of 21 feet, more or less, to the mean high water line of the Indian River; thence meander the said mean high water line in a Southeasterly direction to a point due South of the Point of Beginning; thence run North 125 feet, more or less, to the Point of Beginning, on the North line of Said Government Lot 5. Less and excepting the right-of-way for State Road A -1 -A and subject to the maintenance right-of-way for Jungle Trail as the same is shown in Plat Book 9, Page 40, Public Records of Indian River County, Florida. Be changed from R-2, Multiple -Family District and R -2B, Multiple - Family District, to R -2D, Multiple -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 20 day of February 1985. BOARD OF OF INDIA Acknowledgment by the Department of State of day of February , 1985. 23 COMMISSIONERS COUNTY State of Florida this 25th BOOK 9 FEB 2 0 1995 59 030 "PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING TO C-2 (U.S.1 & OLD GIFFORD RD.) - SERVICE LEASING & RENTAL CORP. 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: 1 VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a n in the matter in the lished in said newspaper in the issues Court, was pub - Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press-Aurnal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun- ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed before me this 42 42 day oo4A. tg i (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River Count), (SEAL) f'j I t f NOTICE.- RUBLIC HEAttlNiil. Notice of hearing, to consider:tha adaption of a County ordinance rezoning land from`0�11A, Restricted Commercial Disbrat. to C-2; Heavy Commercial Dhttrlct The subject' Property is eently pro - owned 'by Service Leasing .and Rental Corporation and is located south of Worth Gif- ford Road (45th street) erg east df 41.5, Highway #1 (State Road 5),f. T' su eat property last of The South 350 40 teat of fha' Nortf►► 737.78 feet of the NEIA of the WOW ot°i'. Section 28. Township 32S, Range 39E, r lying East. of the East right-of-way of U $ P Highway #1; less the North. 32.82 feet of the Easf 420 feet `thereof: said parcel * , I Ir►g and being In;indian River County. Florida, and containing 4.43 acres; rn6i m or las according to Surveq of Carter Asi 4:,! : aoclates, Inc.. by dated August 27;1978, n, : Dana Howa ,A,LS., Drawing #l12b7�B n4 d, public hearing et which, partil" M iriferesf slnd'.citizens ehati -have ,sh opportunity to be Street, Vero Beach., Florida on w"11.0sgey,:reo-. ruary 20. ISM, at 915 a m: :. r , r :-'-; . j It any person decides to appear any decision made on the above matter, he/she will need a record of the proceedings. , and for -such Pur- poses, he/she may need to ensure that a verba- tim record of theaedmade,, which In- cludes testimonyPdupon which the appeal is tagged.. „ Indian River County Board of County Commissioners q -, By: -s-Patrick B. Lyon► � Chairman • , Jan. 31, Feb. 12,_1985 Chief Planner Shearer reviewed the staff's recommendation of approval, as follows: 24 TO: The Honorable Members of the Board of County Commissioners DATE: February 1, 1985 FILE: DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: l ` SUBJECT: Robert M. Kea 'ng, ICP Planning & Developlent Director 1-1 FROM: Richard Shearer, AICP FERENCES: Chief, Long -Range Planni SERVICE LEASING & RENT- AL CORP. REQUEST TO RE- ZONE 4.34 ACRES FROM C-lA, RESTRICTED COM- MERCIAL DISTRICT, TO C-2, HEAVY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT ZC-110 RICH2 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of February 20, 1985. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS Service Leasing and Rental Corporation is requesting to rezone 4.34 acres located on the east side of U.S.1 and 400 feet south of 45th Street (North Gifford Road) from C -1A, Restricted Commercial District, to C-2, Heavy Commercial District. The applicant intends to develop this property for a warehouse with accessory retail sales. On January 10, 1985, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5 -to -0 to recommend approval of this request. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the application will be presented. 'The analysis will include a description of the current and future land uses of the site and surrounding areas, potential impacts on the transportation and utility systems, and any significant adverse impacts on environmental quality. Existing Land Use Pattern The subject property contains a retail sales building and undeveloped land. North of the subject property is a fruit and vegetable stand and garden zoned C-lA. East of the subject property is undeveloped land zoned C-lA and R-1, Single -Family District. South of the subject property is undeveloped property zoned M-1, Restricted Industrial District. West of the subject property, across U.S.1, are fruit and vegetable packing houses zoned C-1, Commercial District. Future Land Use Pattern The Comprehensive Plan generally designates the subject property and the land north, south, and east of it as MD -1, Medium -Density Residential 1 (up to 8 units/acre). The land west of the subject property is designated as part of the U.S.1 MXD, Mixed -Use Corridor (up to 6 units/acre). In addition, there is a fifty acre commercial/industrial node designated on the east side of U.S.1 between South Gifford Road (41st Street) and North Gifford Road (45th Street). Based on the existing commercial use of the subject property, the commercial uses to the north and west, and the industrial zoning to the south, the subject property should be included in 25 BOOP( �� ��� �•�� FEB 2 0 1985 BOOK 59 F,- A 939 the fifty acre commercial/industrial node. Based on the existing heavy commercial uses west of the subject property and the M-1 zoning to the south, the C-2 zoning seems to be the most appropriate zoning for the subject property. Transportation System The subject property has direct access to U.S.1 (classified as an arterial street on the Thoroughfare Plan). Under the present C-lA zoning, the subject property could be developed for retail uses attracting up to 4,126 Average Annual Daily Trips (AADT). Under the proposed C-2 zoning, development of the subject property would attract approximately 293 AADT. Environment The subject property is not designated as environmentally sensitive nor is it in a flood -prone area. Utilities County water is available for the subject property, but County wastewater facilities are not available. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, staff recommends approval. Planner Shearer noted that there is a 50 acre Commercial/Industrial node in this area, and he believed definition of that node should be altered somewhat because there are uses to the north that could be included. There is restricted industrial to the south and restricted commercial to the north, and the C-2 rezoning does seem appropriate. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously closed the public hearing. Commissioner Bird had a question about staff's figures for daily trips under C-2 as opposed to the existing zoning (293 rather than 4,126) as that seems to be a tremendous difference. Planner Shearer noted that under C -1A most uses allowed are retail and generally neighborhood uses, but you are actually looking at the maximum potential of the entire property; one 26 convenience store by itself can attract 1,000 trips daily, and in addition some of these stores now are open a great number of hours a day. Administrator Wright confirmed that staff tries to provide the high side estimate. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance 85-13 rezoning 4.34 acres East of U.S.1 and South of North Gifford Rd. to C-2 as requested by Service Leasing & Rental Corp. 27 FEB0 1985 BOOK 59. 933 FEB 2 0 1985 BOOK 50 Ff,,�"c 93 ORDINANCE NO. 85-13 0 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to rezone the hereinafter described property and pursuant thereto held a public hearing in relation thereto, at which parties in interest and citizens were heard; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning Ordinance of Indian River County, Florida, and the accompanying Zoning Map, be amended as follows: 1. That the Zoning Map be changed in order that the following described property situated in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: The subject property is described as: The South 350.40 feet of the North 737.78 feet of the NEh of the NWk of Section 26, Township 32S, Range 39E, lying East of the East right-of-way of U.S. Highway #1, less the North 32.62 feet of the East 420 feet thereof. Said parcel lying and being in Indian River County, Florida, and containing 4.43 acres more or less according to Survey of Carter Associates, Inc., dated August 27, 1976, by Dana Howard, R.L.S., Drawing #9257-B. Be changed from C -1A, Restricted Commercial District, to C-2, Heavy Commercial District. All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in said Zoning Regulations. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on this20th day of February 1985. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF IND IVER COUNTY BY PATRICK B. S Chairman Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of Florida this 25%ay of February , 1985. Effective Date: Acknowledgment from the Department of State received on this 1st day of March , 1985, at 10 A.M./P.M. and filed in the office of the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida. W V'PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING TO M - 1 & C-2 (OLD DIXIE N of 4TH PL.) COMMERCIAL REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CO. 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: VER® BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being ,a in the matter of in the lished in said newspaper in the issues Court, was pub - Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press-Jb'urnal 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 advertiseme\nt; and a fignt further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discounts rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertilsement for publication rin the said newspaper. Swgrn to and subscribed befpre,me this 42' adv o .19 /1/11. ' '• ', r � (Bus�rl"Mana ) (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, F da) (SEAb)ilt 29 .Nonce — Pulsuc HrJ►RINa ° �_ Notice of hearing to consider the adoption a County ordinance rezoning land from C-1, Restricted Commercial District to M-1, Restrich Industrial • District The subject properly is' pr sorrily owned by Commercial Really and Dim opmant Company and Is located east of 0 Dixie Hlghway and north of 4th Place. The subject properly Is described as: Beginning at the NW comer of the SW A of the NE'/. of Section 13, Township 33S, 'Range 39E, Indian River County, Florida, ` nm east a distance of .40:00' more or less; thence run BE and parallel to the right-of-way more -or l� to i� a point Dbde of beginniway ng.,,.. From said point run south 131.00' mo a , or less; thence run east 53.00' more or" a less; then run NW. and' parallel to tge. Hght-of-ay of ad Dixie Highway a dI&` fence of*141.00' more orlessto the,point � of beginning....ti All of this parcelbeing in thesW'A of tlte� of Section 13, ,TownWp'` 1138 - Range ME, In Indian Fthrer .County; Flor, Ida, and containing a0�. acres mora i less.i y AND to Insider the adoptiWt of a Courtly dinance rezoning land 1mm M-1, Restricted 1 dustnlsi District to F2; Heavy' Commercial; 0 tract Thesublect property is presently owned Commercial Really and Development • Canpa and is located east of Old Dixie Highway. a north of 4th Place. The subject property ladescribed'as: r ?_ ? Beginning at the NW. comer of theil".."i of it* NE'A of Section 13, Township 33$ Range 39E, Indian River County. Florida. :run east a distance of 40.00'•more or less to the point. of • beginning.. From said:; Point run BE and parallel to the rtght�F we of Old Obde Highway 614.00' moW or leas: thence run north 220,00' mere or 7 toss; thence nm west 69:00' more orles then run north 34S.W.more or fess, thence run wast 160 00 : to the polrW 0. AD of this parcel beliSg IA the 3YW%s Ot ft •. NWA. of Section 13,:.7ownship- 335,' Rartge 39E, in Indian Riva' County: FWrw , to • by � rrn nuo�ucr pranrerr,r ,u-uvazcrwou aa-yry q� Beginning at the NW comer al the'SVV�/i �s of the NEA of Section 13, Townshlp WIS a „+ Range 39E, Indian River floriAat.'^ run south aloes the'A nee die tan of 266.00'• thence.curt.wed !t dts t�` �h tance of 63.23' to the intersection of #,A d t east right -0f -way of- Old Db" Righwatr thence run south along said d 451.40'; thence run east a dls<andt Qt P 163.00' more or lethence run north rS.e ss; 131.00' more or less; then run NW end parallel to the right-of-way of Old Diki4 Highway a distance of 614.00' rtidre less; thence run meat 40.00 Fly. or fess L,. to the point of beginning_ �a , All of this parcel beinrg� In the S4V'A of tini91" '; iS. NEI/4 of Section 13, Township Range 39 East In Indian River counlY. _"_ Florida, and containing 253 acres more 4S? orless. All above described property now lying and being in Indian River County, Flo& ; z_? Ida, :;•, A public hearing at which parties In interest' and citizens shall have an opportunity .to .be;;. heard, will be held by the Board of County Conn missioners of Indian River County Florida, in the,•: County Commission Chambers of the Co�untMyy Administration Building, located at' 1840!.25ifti.' Street, Vero Beach, Florida on Wednesday; Feb., , ruary 20,1965, at 9:15 a.m. If any persondecides to appeal any decision - made on the above matter,, he/she will need a. record of the proceedings, and for such pun• poses, he/she may need to ensure that a verb{t- tim record of the proceedings is made, wMch, In -i , eludes testimony and evidence upon which the,;; appeal is based. 1, . Indian Riv County , Board of Courny Commissioners L� Bs-. Patrlck B Lyons a Cr airman Jan. 31, Feb. 12, 1865. BOQK 59 ", F 9.35 FEB2 0 1995BooK �,,J, Chief Planner Shearer reviewed staff's recommendation, as follows: TO: FROM: The Honorable Members DATE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: February 1, 1985 FILE: SUBJECT: Robert M. Kea in AICP Planning & Development Director es Richard Shearer, AICP Chief, Long -Range PlanniRTEFERENCES: COMMERCIAL REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CO. REQUEST TO REZONE .08 ACRES FROM C -1A TO M-1, .93 ACRES FROM M-1 TO C-2, AND 2.53 ACRES FROM C-lA TO C-2 Commercial Realty RICH2 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of February 20, 1985. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS Commercial Realty & Development -Company is requesting to rezone .08 acres from C -1A, Restricted Commercial District, to M-1, Restricted Industrial District; .93 acres from M-1 to C-2, Heavy Commercial District; and 2.53 acres from C -1A to C-2. The subject property is located on the east side of Old Dixie Highway and north of 4th Place (Harris Road). The applicants intend to develop the subject property and ad- ditional property to the east as a heavy commercial/industrial subdivision. The lots nearest Old Dixie Highway would be zoned C-2 and the interior lots and lots along the F.E.C. railroad tracks would be zoned M-1. In July of 1984, the County rezoned 30.3 acres of land south of 4th Place and east of Old Dixie Highway from M-1, C -1A, and C-1, Commercial District, to C-2. On November 21, 1984, the County rezoned .4 acres located west of the subject property from C -1A to C-2. On January 10, 1985, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5 -to -0 to recommend approval of this requst. 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 the land east of it is undeveloped and zoned C -1A and M-1. Further east is the Gulf Stream Lumber Company site which is zoned M-1 and being redeveloped for a tool and die company. South of the subject property is unde- veloped land and a tile sales and storage business zoned C-lA and M-1. West of the subject property, across Old Dixie Highway, are single-family residences and vacant land zoned R-1, Single -Family District. North of the subject property is a wrecker service and body shop zoned C-lA. 30 r � � Future Land Use Pattern The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property and all of the land around it as part of the U.S.1 MXD, Mixed -Use Corridor (up to 6 units/acre). The MXD land use designation allows residential, commercial, or industrial land uses which will be regulated by the zoning ordinance based on the predominant land use in the area. The east side of Old Dixie Highway in this area is developed in heavy commercial and light industrial uses. The existing C-lA zoning along Old Dixie seems unrealistic based on the existing land use pattern. Rezoning the subject property to C-2 and M-1 would allow the property to be developed in similar land uses as other property along the east side of Old Dixie but maintain commercial zoning between the industrial zoning to the east and the single-family zoning to the west. Transportation System The subject property has direct access to Old Dixie Highway (classified as a Secondary Collector street on the Thoroughfare Plan). The maximum development of the subject property under C-2 zoning would attract approximately 235 average annual daily trips (AADT). Under the existing zoning, the subject property could be developed in uses that could attract up to 2,425 AADT. Old Dixie Highway currently carries 10,000 AADT between 4th and 8th Streets and 11,700 AADT between 8th and 12th Streets. These volumes put Old Dixie at level -of -service "C". An additional 2,425 trips would lower the level -of -service to "D". Old Dixie Highway can handle an additional 235 AADT at level -of -service "C". Environment The subject property'is not designated as environmentally sensitive nor is it in a flood -prone area. Ty -i1 ii-icaa The subject property is not served by County Wastewater facilities. A County water main_is located on the west side of Old Dixie Highway. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, staff recommends approval. Planner Shearer commented that this is actually three rezoning requests in one. The applicants have been working with staff on this since last summer and have been very willing to negotiate and work out a zoning configuration acceptable to the County as well as themselves. They have property running from Old Dixie to the railroad, and their intent is to subdivide the property and have the lots fronting on Old Dixie used as Commercial. The lots closer to the railroad would be for industrial purposes. The County has a trend of rezoning in this area to C-2. 31 FEB 2 0 1985 BOOK 59 f'',�< <,�7 FEB 2 0 1995 BnOK ,° [ 938 Tom Trulock, representing Commercial Realty & Development Co., informed the Board that their main purpose was to rezone the C-lA to C-2, but to go along with their plans for that site, they had to make some minor additions as well, and if there are any questions, he would be happy to answer them. There were no questions. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance 85-14 rezoning property South of Old Dixie and North of 4th Pl. to M - 1 and C-2 as requested by Commercial Realty & Develop- ment Co. 32 M M ORDINANCE NO. 8 5 -14 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to rezone the herein- after described property and pursuant thereto held a public hearing in relation thereto, at which parties in interest and citizens were heard; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAIM by the Board of County Cannissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning Ordinance of Indian River County, Florida, and the accompanying Zoning Map, be amended as follows: 1. That the Zoning Map be changed in order that the following described property situated in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: The subject property is described as: Beginning at the NW corner of the SWa of the NE -4 of Section 13, Township 33S, Range 39E, Indian River County, Florida, run east a distance of 40.00' more or less; thence run SE and parallel to the right-of-way of Old Dixie Highway 614.00' more or less to the point of beginning. Fran said point run south 131.00' more or less; thence run east 53.00' more or less; thence run NW and parallel to the right -of -ray of Old Dixie Highway a distance of 141.001, more or less to the point of beginning. All of this parcel being in the SA, of the NES of Section 13, Township 33S, Range 39E, in Indian River County, Florida, and containing 0.08 acres more or less. Be changed from C-lA, Restricted Commercial District, to M-1, Restricted Industrial District. 2. 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: Beginning at the NW corner of the SW'4 of the NES of Section 13, Township 33S, Range 39E, Indian River County, Florida, run east a distance of 40.00'.more or less to the point of beginning. From said point, run SE and parallel to the right-of-way of Old Dixie Highway 614.00' more or less; thence run north 220.00' more or less; thence run west 69.00' more or less; thence run north 345.00' more or less; thence run west 160.00' to the point of beginning. All of this parcel being in the SWC of the NE4 of Section 13, Township 33S, Range 39E, in Indian River County, Florida, and containing 0.93 acres more or less. Be changed frau M-1, Restricted Industrial District, to C-2, Heavy Commercial District. 33 BOOT! Ff{Gc939 BOOK 5 0 PP, -IJ r- 940 3. 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: = Beginning at the NW corner of the M04 of the NE4 of Section 13, - Township 33S, Range 39E, Indian River County, Florida, run south along the 34- section line a distance of 286.001; thence run west a distance of 63.23' to the intersection of the east right-of-way of Old Dixie Highway; thence run south along said right-of-way 451.401; thence run east a distance of 163.00' more or less; thence run north 131.00' more or less; thence run NW and parallel to the right-of-way of Old Dixie Highway a distance `-of 614.00' more or -less; thence run -west 40.00' more or less to the point of beginning. All of this parcel being in the SWC of the NES of Section 13, Township 33 South, Range 39 East, .in Indian River County, Florida, and containing 2.53 acres more or less. All above described property now lying and being in Indian River County, Florida.- Be changed from C -1A, Restricted Commercial District to C-2, Heavy . Comnercial . District: All with the meaning -and intent and -as set forth and -described in said Zoning Regulations, - Approved -and egulations.Approved-and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida. -on this 20 day of February - 1985. = _BY: V11- fPATRICK B. LYON Chairman OUNTY-INITIATED REZONING (OLD DIXIE & 4TH) TO C-2 The hour of 9:30 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: 34 VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a in the matter of dAe� in the lished in said newspaper in the issues Court, was pub- Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach PresY-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 perigqd of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisemAnt; and &f4rit further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation ariy discount\ rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication{J in the said newspaper. Swgrn to and subs8rlh ed betoceh,me this % da f u19 , , r ir (Brl� �s Man r) /r/ dIh (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, rida) (SEALI�))h NOTICE— PUBLIC HEARING Notice of hearing initiated by Indian River', County to consider the adoption of a County or dinance rszor1ng land from C-1 A. ' Restricted Commercial Dlatrict and M-1, Restricted Indus - MW District to C-2, Heavy Commercial District The subject property is located east of Old Dbdo ; Highway and north of Citrus Road (4th Street), .; The subject property is described as from the NW comer of the SW'A of the . NE'A of Section. 13, Township- 33S, Range 39E, Indian River County, Florida, run south along the 'A section line a die- tanCe of 444.34 feet to the Intersection with the East. right-of-way.of the Old v' Dixie Highway; thence run south along , said'right-cf-way a distance. of 280.58 feet to the point of beginning. From said point, run east a' distance of 382.0 feet; r thence run south 284.0 feet to the Inter- section with the north side of the,Harris Road rigght-of-way; thence' run west along said right-of-way j a distance ou. < 258.04 feet to the intersection with the east right-of-way' of the Old Dixie 'High- way, thence run North 21 °47' west along' " !. said right-of-way a distance of 282.0 feet to the point of beginning All of this parcel be no it the SW% of the q NE'/. of Section 13 Tovmsjhip 333 Range M in Indian River County,-,FIOr , Ida '.A publichearing ai which parties In irhteresf :'' and citizens shall have an opportunity to be. heard, will be hold by the Board of County Com- missioners om missioners of Indian River County, Florida, In the -' County Commission Chambers of theCohmty Administration Building, located at 1840 25W,' Street, Vero Beach, ,Florida on Wedggsda)r, Feb A& ruary20.1985, at 9:30 a m If any person decides to appeal' any deCH6ori"' made on the above matter, he/sha will' Head 6 - record of the proceedings. and for poses, he/she may need to ensure that a. Urn record of the proceedings is made, wMdh fn= dudestestimony and evidence; upon whist► the appeal is based)' F Ward of Cour Ir. -s- Patrick Fthb 12 - Am Chief Planner Shearer made the following staff presentation: 35 FEB 2 0 1985 BOOK DAj ,F 941 FED, 2 0 1985 TO: The Honorable Members of the Board of County Commissioners BOOK 59 942 DATE: February 1, 1985 FILE: DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: � �� SUBJECT: Robert M Zeati1g r P Planning & Development Director FROM: Richard Shearer, AICP REFERENCES: Chief, Long -Range Planning COUNTY -INITIATED RE- QUEST TO REZONE 1.87 ACRES FROM C-lA & M-1 TO C-2, HEAVY COMMER- CIAL DISTRICT Old Dixie & 4th CHIEF It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of February 20, 1985. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS The County is initiating a request to rezone approximately 1.1 acres from C-lA, Restricted Commercial District, and approximately .77 acres from M-1, Restricted Industrial District, to C-2, Heavy Commercial District. The subject property is located on the east side of Old Dixie Highway and the north side of 4th Place. On July 18, 1984, the County rezoned 29.9 acres of land south of the subject property from C -1A, M-1, and C-1, Commercial District, to C-2. On January 10, 1985, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5 -to -0 to recommend approval of this request. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the application will be presented. The analysis will include a description of the current and future land uses of the site and surrounding areas, potential impacts on the transportation and utility systems, and any significant adverse impacts on environmental quality. Existing Land Use Pattern The subject property consists of a tile supply company and undeveloped land. North of the subject property is undeveloped land which is presently being considered for rezoning from C-lA and M-1 to C-2. East of the subject property is the old Gulf Stream Lumber Company site zoned M-1 which is presently being renovated for a tool and die company. South of.the'subject property is undeveloped land. Further south is a furniture refinishing business, wholesaling, storage, and contractors buildings zoned C-2. West of the subject property, across Old Dixie Highway are single-family residences and undeveloped land zoned R-1, Single -Family District. Future Land Use Pattern The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property and all of the land around it as part of the U.S.1 MXD, Mixed -Use District (up to 6 units/acre). The MXD land use designation allows residential, commercial, or industrial land uses which will be regulated by the zoning ordinance based on the predominant land uses in the area. The east side of Old Dixie is developed predominantly in heavy commercial and light industrial uses. The west side of Old Dixie is developed predominantly in single-family residences. 36 The existing C-lA zoning along Old Dixie Highway seems unrealistic based on the existing land use pattern. Rezoning the subject property to C-2 would allow the property to be developed in similar land uses as other property along the east side of Old Dixie but maintain commercial zoning between the industrial zoning to the east and the single-family zoning to the west. Transportation System The subject property has direct access to Old Dixie Highway (classified as a Secondary Collector street on the Thoroughfare Plan). The maximum development of the subject property under C-2 zoning would attract approximately 215 average annual daily trips (AADT). Under the existing zoning, the subject property could be developed in uses that could attract up to 1,158 AADT. Old Dixie Highway currently carries 10,000 AADT between 4th and 8th Streets and 11,700 AADT between 8th and 12th Streets. These volumes put Old Dixie at level -of -service "C". Environment The subject property is not designated as environmentally sensitive nor is it in a flood -prone area. T7+-4 1 i i - i oc The subject property is not served by County Wastewater facilities. A County water main is located on the west side of Old Dixie Highway. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, staff recommends approval. Planner Shearer explained how they are trying to make these parcels, which are now in two zoning districts, into one zoning district, and the owners are in agreement. East Coast Tire owns one parcel and the other has been used to store palm trees. East Coast Tire is conforming. The front part of the building is mainly a retail showroom and the back is used for storage, which is ideally suited for C-2. The Chairman asked if -anyone present wished to be heard. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance 85-15 rezoning property east of Old Dixie and north of 4th P1. to C-2 as advertised. 37 FEB 2 0 1985 BOOK 59 rA�:. ��� FEB 20 198 . BOOK 59 FA F944 ORDINANCE NO. 85-15 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to rezone the hereinafter described property and pursuant thereto held a public hearing in relation thereto, at which parties in interest and citizens were heard; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning Ordinance of Indian River County, Florida, and the accompanying Zoning Map, be amended as follows: 1. That the Zoning Map be changed in order that the following described property situated in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: The subject property is described as: From the NW corner of the SWC of the NEh of Section 13, Township 335, Range 3.9E, Indian River County, Florida, run south along the 4 section line a distance of 444.34 feet to the intersection with the East right-of-way of the Old Dixie Highway; thence run south along said right- of-way a distance of 280.58 feet to the point of begin- ning. From said point, run east a distance of 362.0 feet; thence run.south 264.0 feet to the intersection with the north side of the Harris Road right-of-way; thence run west along said right-of-way a distance of 256.04 feet to the intersection with the east right-of- way of the Old Dixie Highway; thence run North 21°47' west along said right-of-way a distance of 282.0 feet to the point of beginning. All of this parcel being in the SWk of the NE4 of Section 13, Township 33S, Range 39E, in Indian River County, Florida. Be changed from C-lA, Restricted Commercial District and M-1, Restricted Industrial District, to C-2, Heavy Com- mercial 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 20thday of February 1985. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIANRTZER COUNTY BY: W Chairman � � r 'CONVEYANCE OF UTILITY EASEMENT TO SOUTHERN BELL FOR JAIL SITE Attorney Brandenburg believed the following memo from Assistant County Attorney Paull is self-explanatory: TO - The Board of County Commissioners DATE: February 13, 1985 FILE: SUBJECT: CONVEYANCE OF UTILITY EASEMENT TO SOUTHERN BELL FOR JAIL SITE FROM: REFERENCES: Christop er J. Paull Assistant County Attorney The Public Works Department was contacted by Southern Bell with respect to the need for conveyance by the County to Southern Bell of a 15 foot utility easement along the western perimeter of the new jail site. The attached easement is acceptable to Southern Bell and is provided for the Commission's review. This 15 foot easement will lie just to the east of a 25 foot landscape buffer which is to remain undisturbed during the course of jail construction. It is requested that you approve this grant of easement and authorize the Chairman and Clerk to sign on behalf of the Board, after which the original easement will be delivered to Southern Bell. 0 MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, to grant Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. a Utility Easement along the western perimeter of the new Jail site. Chairman Lyons had a question about punctuation; he believed the way it is written, it looks as if we will maintain the right-of-way, but Attorney Brandenburg assured him that we are granting the right to Southern Bell to clear the land and keep it clean of undergrowth. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. 39 FE B 2 0 1985 BooK 59 F�AGF X45 UTILITY EASEMENT BOOK � �� ®® JJ�� �taS FF.JC C.�`�6 In consideration of the sum of ONE DOLLAR ($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the adequacy and receipt of which is hereby acknowledged from Indian River County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, the undersigned, owner of the premises described below, does hereby grant to the Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Company, its agents, successors, assigns and allied and associated companies, a Utility Easement to construct, operate, maintain, or remove such lines or systems of communications or related services as the grantee may require, consisting of: (1) poles, guys, anchors, aerial cables and wires; (2) buried cables and wires, cable terminals, markers, splicing boxes and pedestals; (3) conduits, manholes, markers, underground cables and wires; (4) and other amplifiers, boxes, appurtenances or devices upon, over and under the following described property: The East 15.00 feet of the West 40.00 feet of the West 10.07 acres of the East 20.07 acres of Tract 12, and the East 10 acres of the West 20 acres of Tract 12, Section 27, Township 32 South, Range 39 East, according to the last general plat of lands of the Indian River Farms Company, filed in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of St. Lucie County, Florida, in Plat Book 2, Page 25; said land now lying and being in Indian River County, Florida, excepting therefrom rights of way for drainage canals and public roads. The following rights are also granted: ingress and egress to said premises at all times; to clear the land and keep it cleared of all trees, undergrowth or other obstructions within the easement area; to trim and cut and keep trimmed and cut all dead, weak, leaning or dangerous trees or limbs outside of the easement area which might interfere with or fall upon the installations of grantee. To have and to hold the above granted easement unto Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Company, its successors and assigns forever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have caused this instrument to be executed by its duly authorized officers on 20th day of February , 1985. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida B Chairman Attest: By p-e�a' /S �- Apnrov^d as t orm 7 Clerk of Circuit Sburt and !`' `, r nr Gary E nderburg Cou ty Attor 4 0 ��� ?°POSSIBLE APPEAL RE COUNTY'S APPLICATION FOR A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT Attorney Brandenburg reported that once again this year we submitted a very thorough application under the Community Development Block Grant Program and received back a one line note from the State saying they would not even read or evaluate our application because we had omitted one line throughout 150 pages - we did not put on that one line that no one spoke either for or against this at the public hearing. We had no attachment about a public hearing because there were no comments, and because of that they wouldn't even look at our work. Attorney Brandenburg noted that we can go to Tallahassee and appeal this, but he believed it will be a useless effort. Even if we should win the appeal, which is unlikely, we would only get scored, and because of the scoring system, it is even more unlikely that we would be ranked. However, our people have worked very hard and spent a lot of time preparing this application, and the Attorney stated that he would be happy to appeal this if the Board so desires. He noted that it will involve an administrative hearing with the Department of Commun- ity Affairs. Chairman Lyons stated that he hates to give up on this. We have business in Tallahassee anyway, and he felt we should at least try. Commissioner Bowman stated she would like to see us spend our energy getting the rating system changed, and Attorney Brandenburg noted that we did send such a request to the State, but nothing ever came of it. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board authorized the Attorney to institute an appeal to the DCA in regard to evaluating and scoring our Community Development Block Grant Application. 41 6 • BOOK 59 L,1GF 947 r - FEB 20 198 BOOK E 948 AUTHORIZE ADVERTISEMENT OF A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE HOUSING AUTHORITY Attorney Brandenburg reminded the Board that at a previous meeting, on his recommendation, they revitalized the Housing Finance Authority by appointing members in order to be able to apply for mortgage subsidy bonds. In order to apply, the Housing Finance Authority must hold a public hearing by March 5th. The County Attorney reported that the ad already has been placed, but regulations require that the local government approve the ad; he, therefore, requested that the Commission approve the advertise- ment that reads: A Notice of Public Hearing - Mortgage Revenue Bond Policy Statement - Housing Finance Authority of Indian River County, Fla., for March 5th hearing. He emphasized that is a meeting for the Finance Authority, not the County Commission. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously approved the above advertisement. DISCUSS CALLING PERFORMANCE BOND - RAX RESTAURANT Attorney Brandenburg explained that RAX Restaurant had to do some roadwork next to their restaurant, which turned out to be more extensive than anticipated. As a result we required them to post a performance bond before obtaining their C.O. This bond runs out as of tomorrow. We have contacted RAX, and it is their intent to replace it. In case it doesn't arrive by tomorrow, however, we want to be in a position to call down the bond and get the money; he, therefore, asked the Board to approve a Reso- lution authorizing calling of the bond, which Resolution will be void if an extension of the Letter of Credit is received in time. ON MOTION By Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved Res. 85-23 as requested by the County Attorney. 42 � � s RESOLUTION NO. 85-23 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, DECLARING DEFAULT OF CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZING DRAFT UNDER LETTER OF CREDIT NO. 1760. WHEREAS, Rax South, Inc., on behalf of the U.S. 1 Sewer Group, entered into a Right -of -Way Permit Agreement with the County, permit number 37-564, dated October 23, 1984, relating to the construction of a certain sewer line project more fully described in the permit and its application; and WHEREAS, to guarantee restoration of any street right- of-ways affected by the construction, Rax South, Inc. submitted an Irrevocable Letter of Credit issued by Barnett Bank of Central Florida, N.A., No. 1760, dated October 24, 1984; and WHEREAS, the expiration date of said Letter of Credit is February 21, 1985 and all restoration work has not been completed as required by the permit; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to declare default under the terms of said agreement and request a draft of funds to complete the project prior to expiration of the Letter of Credit. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: 1. The Board finds that Rax South, Inc. has defaulted under the terms of that certain agreement between Rax South, Inc. and Indian River County relating to the 14th Street Right -of -Way Permit dated 23 October, 1984; 2. The full $25,000.00 is now due to the County as a result of such default for the purposes of completing the street restorations; 3. The Chairman and Clerk are authorized to execute, endorse, and present for payment an appropriate Draft in compliance with the terms of the credit instrument; and 4. In the event a proper extension of said Letter of Credit is received by the County prior to presentment and payment of said Draft, this resolution shall no longer be of force and effect and shall become void. In 43 FEB0 1985 BOOK ( P'�;P 94 . BOOK 5 f'Aur 950 FEB 20 1985 The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner - Scurlock who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bird and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Patrick B. Lyons Ave Vice -Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 2044 day of rc���4�y , 1985. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIW RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA J Attest: REDA WRIGHT Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY COUNTY ATTORNEY MTRrCR B. Chairman NOTE - The above Resolution became void per paragraph #4 because an extension was supplied Wednesday, February 20, 1985, before noon. RESOLUTION APPROVING FLORIDA CABLEVISION RATE SCHEDULE ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved Resolution 85-21, adopting a rate schedule for Florida Cablevision to become effective the 1st day of March, 1985. 44 RESOLUTION 85-21 WHEREAS, FLORIDA CABLEVISION has petitioned the Board of County Comissioners of Indian River County, Florida for a rate increase; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners held a duly. noticed public hearing on February 18, 1985; and WHEREAS, FLORIDA CABLEVISION submitted evidence showing an ecomonic need for said increase; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER OCUNTY, FLORIDA, that the following rate schedule for FLORIDA CABLEVISION is hereby adopted to become effective the 1st day of March, 1985: MONTHLY CHARGES Residential Service Primary Outlet $9.00 Each Additional Outlet $2.00 Commercial, Hotel, & Motel Service Primary Outlet $9.00 Each Additional Outlet $2.00 Converters Basic $2.00 Deluxe Remote Control $4.00 OTHER CHARGES Aerial Connection $25.00 Underground Connection $35.00 Additional Outlet Connection $15.00 Re -connection $12.50 THIS RESOLUTION ADOPTED THE 20th day of February, 1985. ATTEST: By Freda Wright, C1 k Approv and lea Srandenb Attornw_., 45 BOARD OF INDIAN By atri TY COMMISSIONERS COUNTY,_FLORIDA . Lyon FEB 2 0 1985 BOOK 59 F, cF 951 FEB 0 195 I BOOK r/DETERMINE VALIDITY OF SEA OAKS HOTEL SITE PLAN (Contd. from 1/23 Attorney Brandenburg suggested that staff first be allowed to present their analysis of their talks with the developer since the last meeting; then let the developer respond; and then open the public meeting. Chief Planner Mary Jane Goetzfried reviewed staff recommendation as follows: TO: The Honorable Members DATE: February 11, 1985 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: _ SUBJECT: Robert M. Keat'ng, ICP Planning & Development Director SEA OAKS HOTEL SITE PLAN APPLICATION FILE: #IRC -8I -SP -14 FROM: Mary Jane V. Goetzfried REFERENCES: SEA OAKS `YI 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 February 20, 1985. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS At their regular business meeting of January 23, 1985, the Board of County Commissioners directed the Planning staff to evaluate the approved site plan for the Sea Oaks Hotel in terms of the County's current development code. This evaluation was presented to the project's owner, Mr. Gordon Nutt, and his attorney, William Stewart,on January 29, 1985. Staff identified the following discrepancies when comparing the site plan, approved in 1981, with present local regulations. 1) The Comprehensive Plan designates S.R. A -1-A as an arte rial route requiring a minimum of 120' of right-of-way. However, only 100' of right-of-way exists in the vicinity of the project site. The applicant would be required to dedicate the west 10' of the subject property for future right-of-way needs and therefore setback an additional 10' from the existing western property line. 2) The section of the Code outlining minimum off-street parking space requirements and general parking standards has been significantly amended since approval of the Sea Oaks Hotel site plan. M. Since a minimum of paving information is shown on the site plan, it is difficult to determine which aspects of the general parking standards are adequately addressed. However, it is obvious that driveway and parking aisle widths are not adequate under today's code. Staff re- quested the submittal of a detailed parking plan. 3) A complete site plan application would include a tree survey which provides the location, size and common name of all protected trees, in addition to a tree removal permit application and a landclearing permit application. 4) Although the drainage system has been designed for a 25 year/24 hour storm, a type "A" Stormwater Management permit is' required. Construction drawings showing design finish grade of entire drainage system would be required, prior to the issuance of any additional building permits. 5) If the project was recently submitted, left turn lanes and deceleration lanes along S.R. A -1-A would be required. Additionally, a traffic impact statement and a $3,240 contribution toward signalization and widening of the S.R. A-1-A/C.R. 510 intersection would be required. Complete 3 lane widening of S.R. A -1-A from project's south property line to C.R. 510 intersection is recommended. 6) While the Coastal Construction line has not been offi- cially relocated, staff recommended consideration be given to the effect of beach erosion, on the subject property, that may have occurred over the past 4 years. 7) Mr. Nutt has also been requested to provide information with regard to how the 4 unit structure will function as a hotel once a certificate -of -occupancy is issued. 8) Finally, staff recommended that a construction schedule, outlining proposed dates of phase completion, be submit- ted. While these issues were discussed at length during the meeting of January 29, no specific item was resolved. Staff antici- pates a second meeting will be scheduled for the week of February 11-15, the outcome of which will be presented to the ` Board at their regular business meeting of February 20, 1985. ANATNA T S When the Board of County Commissioners was originally presented with the question of the validity of the Sea Oaks Hotel site plan, the Board indicated that if all applicable aspects of the Code were addressed, consideration may be given to validation 47 rEB 20 1985 Pa.c1-953 F'1""J 800 �'9 ,a�,,. 9 5 4 of a new plan. Assuming Mr. Nutt agrees to submit a revises plan that reflects conformance with the current code, two issues remain to be addressed that may factor in the Board's decision to validate a revised plan The specific questions are: 1) how a single 4 unit building will operate as a hotel once a certificate of occupancy is issued; 2) how will the developer demonstrate a good faith effort to complete the project? Once Mr. Nutt responds to these questions and the other issues raised at our meeting of January 29, 1985, the Planning staff will be prepared to make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners regarding the -status of the Sea Oaks Hotel site plan. In regard to Item 1 - the Comprehensive Plan, which was not in effect when this site plan was approved, requires 120' right- of-way for SR A1A. There is 100' R/W existing, and this would require that Mr. Nutt dedicate an additional 101. Mr. Nutt has brought up the possibility of dedicating 20' off of his property on the west side of AlA, and the Director of Public Works feels this is a feasible alternative. Item 2 re parking - Mr. Nutt has agreed to provide a detailed plan of the proposed parking area. Item 3 - Mrs. Goetzfried noted that this particular site does not have a great many protected trees, and the tree survey requirement could be satisfied by submitting an aerial and outlining clusters of trees. Mr. Nutt has no problem with this. Item 4 - The Public Works Director feels the original drainage plan was adequate, but would like the additional report. Mr. Nutt has indicated this is acceptable. Item 5 - Mrs. Goetzfried reported that Mr. Nutt has agreed to deceleration and left turn lanes and also to a contribution of $3,240 toward signalization and widening of the AlA/510 intersec- tion. Staff, however, identified additional items that were not specific ordinance requirements, but which they felt were W important, i.e., the Public Works Director recommended that the applicant provide a 3 lane widening of AlA. Mr. Nutt has said he would construct a left turn and three lane from his south property line to the intersection, but the Public Works Director does not feel that would be appropriate because north of the intersection you then would have a transition back to two lanes. Staff has not yet received a positive response on this particular item. Item 6 - Mrs. Goetzfried continued that staff has not received any positive response from the applicant in regard to consideration of the possible effects of beach erosion on his property nor have they received a positive response to Items 7 and 8, but she believed the applicant is now ready to respond to the Board as to these items. Planning Director Keating wished to make the Board aware that staff has worked hard with the applicant and their discus- sions have been very productive, especially when you consider the fact that the applicant has agreed to comply with all the ordinance requirements. He believed that overall a lot of progress has been made. Attorney William Stewart came before the Board representing Mr. Nutt. He noted that this is a continuation of the hearing of January 23rd, and he believed the primary purpose of this hearing is to review the progress made with the Planning staff about the ability of the developer to meet current ordinance requirements. He expressed his appreciation of the efforts of the Planning staff since the last hearing in trying to come to some accommo- dation on these issues, and he did believe they have taken a reasonable view throughout. Attorney Stewart believed the charge of the Board at the last meeting was for staff to identify the areas of the Zoning Ordinance that have changed since the site plan was approved, and he felt this was covered in staff's memo reviewed by Mrs. Goetzfried. He stated that the developer has agreed to file an amended site plan, and he believed has met and 49 FEB 2 0 1985 Boor 9 F,,F 955 FEB 2 0 1985 BooK 59 i3,: 956 honored the request of the Board in making that agreement. The additional items recommended by staff, he did not believe came under the scope of the charge of the Commission. Re a project construction schedule, Attorney Stewart noted that apparently this is required, and they are amenable to that. The other question was simply how a 4 unit building is going to operate as a hotel. obviously, it cannot operate as a hotel; it has to be an integral part of the whole project and will be used as a sales center in the interim. With regard to the principal issue of the hearing, as to whether a good faith effort has been made to complete the project, Attorney Stewart did not believe there is any point in reviewing all the information presented at the January 23rd meeting, which was incorporated into the record at that time. He emphasized that they do feel they have a valid site plan, and they do not feel evidence has been presented at the public hearings which would form a basis for revocation of their site plan. Attorney Stewart believed Mr. Nutt's agreement to conform with all the current ordinance requirements has eliminated one of the primary problems. Commissioner Wodtke asked if any consideration was given to relocating the buildings a little further west in relation to the coastal erosion problem. Attorney Stewart stated that they have looked at the site from the erosion point of view but have not asked their engineer to do a survey out there. Their impression is that whatever erosion has taken place is not of such significance that it would affect the proposed location of the buildings. If information is obtained which signifies there is a problem, this will be dealt with. There is flexibility in the plan, but it is not unlimited. Commissioner Wodtke felt there is no question that when the DNR does do a resurvey in 1986, there will be a change in our coastal construction.setback line in certain areas. He wondered 50 - M M about how close the buildings are projected to be to the present setback line. Gordon Nutt, owner of the subject property, replied that the site plan as approved will reflect that the structures are not on the coastal setback line; they are towards AlA; but if it is possible to meet all the parking requirements and go even farther towards AlA, he would be glad to. Commissioner Wodtke commented that although he does not like granting variances, he believed it is more important to have the buildings in a proper location and that we should work with them on adjusting parking requirements, if necessary, as this is a key issue. Commissioner Scurlock noted that he was somewhat in an adversary position in regard to this site plan at the last hearing, but he believed the applicant has done a very good job working with staff, and he appreciates it. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. Lomax Gwathmey, speaking for the Vero Beach Civic Association, stressed that the main issue here is good faith, and he did not feel what has been done so far demonstrates good faith; he further did not believe that to say what is required now to keep this site plan valid is the right way to proceed. Mr. Gwathmey stated that this would be unfair to River Bend and the Racquet Club, who were denied. The traffic impact at AlA is under study now, and with all this up in the air, Mr. Gwathmey strongly recommended the -Sea Oaks site plan be terminated and that any future plan be in accordance with current ordinances and requirements. Roger Cooper, resident of Orchid Isle Subdivision, spoke as a concerned citizen in the area served by Causeway 510. He believed we are all proud of our Comprehensive Plan, but according to the Hutchinson Island Resource Management Study Committee, it has certain deficiencies, specifically re transportation, and he believed the Board is well aware we 51 FEB 2 0 1985 Boos 596 qac I FEB 2 U 1985 BOOK 59 c 915' —1 presently are under a density limit of three units per acre. Mr. Nutt's site plan got under the wire before our Comprehensive Plan was adopted, and its density figure grossly exceeds the 3 units per acre in the present moratorium. Mr. Cooper stated that, even so, he still would support the site plan if he felt a good faith effort had been made, but he felt it is inconceivable to claim good faith when they have poured one foundation in four years. He felt that regardless of what the developer is doing now, he has not shown a good faith effort and any attempt to breathe life into this "dead horse" is unfair to others and makes a mockery of our ordinance. Nancy Offutt came before the Board representing the Chamber of Commerce and the Board of Realtors and noted that the Board has received letters from these bodies indicating that there is a lack of hotel space in the County and a fear that if the site plan were rescinded, it would be impossible for one to be constructed. Mrs. Offutt noted that these comments were unsolicited by the developer. Said letters are as follows: 52 03 REALTOR® February 15, 1985 M VERO BEACH - INDIAN RIVER C "" INTY BOARD OF REALTORS@, INC. 2182 Ponce De Leon Circle Post Office Drawer G Vero Beach, Florida 32961-3007 Phone (305) 567-3510 The Honorable Chairman and Board of County Commissioners 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Dear Chairman Lyons and Commissioners: In the very -near future you will once again review a site plan for a. hotel to be constructed at SR 510 and Highway AIA. At issue is whether or not "good faith' construction progress has been continued by the developer. Without addressing the merits of what constitutes "good faith" criteria, the Vero Beach - Indian River County Board of REALTORS would like to reiterate its position relayed to you in our letter of October 3, 1984: that the lack of resort hotel space in Indian River County is detrimental to the economic health of the county. We feel that this lack of space affects all sections of our economy. We respectfully request that the most serious consideration be given to.providing ample zoning for such uses..." The project you are considering is properly located in the Tourist Camuercial Node. We fear that should any existing site plan for a-- hotel on the Barrier Island be rescinded while the Hutchinson Island building moratorium is in place at three units per acre, that density would render such a project economically unfeasible. We urge you, therefore, to consider the benefits a resort hotel would have to the economy of the county in your deliberations. Sincer y Charles E. Davis, Jr. President 53 AFF B 2 0 1985 DISTRIBUTION LIST Corrirnissioners V_ Ad;ninistrator L-11 Attorney der s_;nnel Pub;i:. Works f� C o i iriu,.'Jty 0ev. UtiFt:es Fins n0U- REALTOR° — is a registered mark which identifies a professional in real estate who subscribes to a strict code of Ethics as a member of the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS BooK VD--9Fe, k. I F E B 20 1985 Boos CHAMBER OF COMMERCE February 19, 1985 The`;Honorable Chairman and Board of County Commissioners 1840.25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Dear Chairman Lyons and Commissioners: VERO BEACH - INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 1216 21ST STREET - P. O. BOX 2947 VERO BEACH. FLORIDA 32961 ( 305) 567.3491 It appears timely that the Vero Beach -Indian Rover County Chamber of Commerce should restate its position in support of tourist - related industries such as hotels and motels. These enterprises increase the economic viability of our county by providing addi- tional jobs, trade activities for our business men and women, and increased revenues from tourist dollars which, in turn, support community funding needs. We urge you, especially.. -in light of the density restrictions now imposed by the Hutchinson Island building moratorium, to retain the opportunity for such a facility to be constructed on the barrier island. Sincerely, J. B. Norton, Jr. Executive Vice President Attorney Stewart noted that he did not dwell a great deal on the "good faith" aspect because this was gone into very thoroughly at the last hearing. He stated that if either of the gentlemen making comment has not viewed their documentation, he believed it would be very difficult for them to reach a conclusion regarding a good faith effort. Attorney Stewart emphasized that the developer has invested hundreds of thousand of dollars not only in the foundation, but also the utilities. He believed this project is very distinguishable from the other projects. Chairman Lyons agreed that this is just part of the total evidence that has been heard. 54 0 n r�'+ y n y p r C LA n1 � hC•o The`;Honorable Chairman and Board of County Commissioners 1840.25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Dear Chairman Lyons and Commissioners: VERO BEACH - INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 1216 21ST STREET - P. O. BOX 2947 VERO BEACH. FLORIDA 32961 ( 305) 567.3491 It appears timely that the Vero Beach -Indian Rover County Chamber of Commerce should restate its position in support of tourist - related industries such as hotels and motels. These enterprises increase the economic viability of our county by providing addi- tional jobs, trade activities for our business men and women, and increased revenues from tourist dollars which, in turn, support community funding needs. We urge you, especially.. -in light of the density restrictions now imposed by the Hutchinson Island building moratorium, to retain the opportunity for such a facility to be constructed on the barrier island. Sincerely, J. B. Norton, Jr. Executive Vice President Attorney Stewart noted that he did not dwell a great deal on the "good faith" aspect because this was gone into very thoroughly at the last hearing. He stated that if either of the gentlemen making comment has not viewed their documentation, he believed it would be very difficult for them to reach a conclusion regarding a good faith effort. Attorney Stewart emphasized that the developer has invested hundreds of thousand of dollars not only in the foundation, but also the utilities. He believed this project is very distinguishable from the other projects. Chairman Lyons agreed that this is just part of the total evidence that has been heard. 54 Commissioner Bird requested that Attorney Stewart elaborate further on the use of the 4 unit building and how it relates to the overall project. Attorney Stewart noted that actually ownership and use of the property are somewhat distinct issues, and the way it is owned really has nothing to do with the way it is used. He then discussed financing techniques, noting that most of the large hotel chains have developed hotels through the financing technique of marketing villas in the condominium form of ownership. Mr. Nutt's thought, with regard to this particular project, was to take the initial 4 unit villa and use it as a model and administrative center for the purpose of marketing as a financing technique in a condo form of ownership with the clear understanding that it must be operated as a hotel. He believed such projects actually are indistinguishable from hotels built with the usual hotel ownership. Attorney Stewart assured the Board that they understand that the zoning doesn't permit regular condo ownership, and it is not intended any of the villas will be used that way. He reiterated that the four unit building will not be used as a hotel until the project is completed as a whole. Commissioner Bird asked the County Attorney if this is a legal procedure, and Attorney Brandenburg stated that he would need more specifics to make a determination. Director Keating noted that even though Attorney Stewart states ownership and use are two different characteristics, if it is a condo type ownership, staff needs to see documents to determine who is responsible for maintaining open areas, etc. Commissioner Scurlock commented that he is familiar with the concept Attorney Stewart described, and Commissioner Bird agreed financing has been handled this way, but if that is the intent, he believed the owners should coordinate with staff and make sure they don't waste time on a project that won't fly in this county. Attorney Stewart confirmed that they understand they have to assure the County Attorney that the documents are suitable. 55 FEB 2 0 1985 BOOK 59- F,.,F 961 r� FEBo 1985 BOOP{ 59 FIKU 96 Commissioner Bird stated he also appreciates the effort shown by the developer to answer our concerns, but if we vote not to terminate the site plan, he would hope we will set ourselves up on a time schedule as to how this will develop because he does not want to be faced with this same situation a year from now. Attorney Stewart promised that they will supply a sufficiently detailed time table. Attorney Brandenburg wished to point out that even if the Board takes no action today on the d&termination to rescind the site plan, that same ordinance provision is still in effect and a year from now the Board still can call the developer back in and pull the site plan. It was determined that no one further wished to be heard. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously closed the public hearing. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, that, based on the repre- sentations made today, the Board take no action on the validity of the site plan; the developer to submit a revised site plan, showing the changes mentioned today, within two months, and Planning staff to monitor the progress of the project and report back in six months. Commissioner Scurlock commented that although he must agree, as far as "good faith" is concerned, the progress made on this project in four years stretches the imagination, he believed we have significant differences between this project and Riverbend and the Racquet Club. For example, Riverbend had to have a change in zoning. He did believe that through this Motion and the process followed, we have got the attention of the developer and that it is a good compromise. The Motion gives the ability 56 of monitoring the progress, and if things are not done according to ordinance, we have the ability to step back in and initiate the process again. Commissioner Wodtke wished to know who makes the determination of how the coastal setback will be considered. Director Keating stated that he did go over this in detail with the applicant, and it was brought out that staff had a need for further information. Three alternatives were identified: 1) we could do nothing about it; 2) we could require setting back some arbitrary distance; or 3) it could be left flexible with the applicant presenting information showing that there is a need to setback further or no need. Commissioner Scurlock believed we may want to change the coastal construction setback at sometime and change it for everyone; he did not feel we can be arbitrary and do it just for this developer. Attorney Stewart stated that obviously, if in Mr. Nutt's estimation and that of his engineer, there is a problem with the coastal setback, it will have to be dealt with. He continued that virtually everything in staff's report has been agreed to, but he wished to verify what was understood with regard to the three laning. Commissioner Scurlock -stated that his Motion was based on the agreements the developer has reached with staff and that did not include the three laning. Chairman Lyons noted that the developer has agreed to submit a timetable, and he wished to know if we judge its reasonableness as a part of our acceptance of the project. Attorney Brandenburg pointed out that any timetable sub- mitted must meet the good faith requirement of the ordinance in order to keep the site plan valid. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. 57 BOOK J I FEB 2 0 1995 BOOK 50 fr,cF 964 v DATA PROCESSING COMMITTEE REPORT Administrator Wright reviewed the following memo, noting that right now this committee is somewhat fragmented, and it was the unanimous recommendation of the Constitutional Officers to hire a consultant. TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: February 13, 1985 FILE: the Board of County Commissioners SUBJECT: DATA PROCESSING Committee Report FROM: Michael Wright REFERENCES: County Administrator The Data Processing Committee unanimously recommended the County Commission hire an outside consultant to objec- tively analyze the data processing and micrographic needs of the County. At present, there are at least three separate "main frame" computers, several "mini -computers" and three micro- filming units being utilized by various Constitutional Offi- cers. Attached is a generalized scope of services to be used in selecting a consultant. Please contact me if you have any questions. PROPOSED SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR DATA PROCESSING CONSULTANT A) Evaluate the effectiveness of the data processing and micrographics functions serving the County's present information processing needs. B) Determine to the extent to which present equipment and personal resources are utilized efficiently. C) Identify the viable courses of action available to the County for improving computer and micrographics operations in the near future. D) Establish the basis for developing a long-range plan for data processing and micrographics. OR ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the recommendation of the Data Process- ing Committee in regard to hiring a consultant. �rBIDS ON TENNIS COURTS FOR GIFFORD PARK & LIGHTING AT KIWANIS-HOBART BALLFIED Commissioner Bird informed the Board that in last year's Parks & Recreation budget approval was given to spending capital funds on two top priority projects - two tennis courts at Gifford Park and a lighting system for Kiwanis Hobart baseball field. Engineering drew up specs, and bids were requested on the tennis courts. The original estimate was $22,000, but the bids came in in excess of the estimate, and the project was rebid. The best price of $27,995 was submitted by Varsity Courts of Longwood, and the other bid was $32,000. After analyzing the bids, the Parks & Recreation Committee recommends this be awarded to the low bidder, Varsity Courts; the funds to be taken out of the capital improvement account. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously awarded the bid for construction of two tennis courts at Gifford Park to the low bidder, Varsity Courts of Longwood, in the amount of $27,995 as recommended by the Parks & Recreation Committee. CONTRACT DOCUMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE ON FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE Commissioner Bird reported that the dimensions of the ballfield at Kiwanis-Hobart Park are being changed so we can play any type of baseball, either Senior or Little League. It will be a 300' field and can be used for softball or baseball. The engineering estimate for a lighting system was approximately $37,000. The low bid of $40,141.32 was submitted by Structural 59 FEB 20 1985 BOOK U9 ��, 96 FEB01995 BOOK 59 966 Contractors of Muscatine, Iowa, and the other bid was from C.R. Dunns of West Palm Beach in the amount of $51,900. Apparently Structural Contractors is very well known for this particular type of lighting. After checking, it was felt the low bid is adequate; this is a "turn -key" job - they will put in all poles, fixtures, etc., ready to go. It is possible we may be able to work through the City of Vero Beach utilities and purchase the poles, and if so, this would be deducted. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously awarded the bid for the lighting system for Kiwanis-Hobart ballfield to the low bidder, Structural Contractors, in the amount of $40,141.32, as recommended by the Parks & Recre- ation Committee. Intergovernmental Relations Director Thomas wished to add that $10,000 of this would be donated by the Kiwanis Club; the remainder to be from the Parks & Recreation budget. C:DISCUSSION RE RECREATION IN OSLO AREA Commissioner Bird reported that there has been a request from residents in the Oslo area for a park site and some recreational activities. The Parks & Recreation Committee has recognized for a long time that there is a big void in this area as we don't have facilities or programs there. They are in the process of investigating the area, but this may take several years. In the meantime,it is felt a good interim step would be to consider taking on a couple of part-time recreational supervisors and work out an agreement with the School Board to utilize school sites at J.A.Thompson and Citrus Schools to put the part-time recreation supervisors there after hours and on weekends until the summer recreation program starts up, which would be a good joint utilization of taxpayer's money. 60 Commissioner Bird stated he, therefore, would like the Board to approve a transfer not to exceed $2,000 from Capital Outlay of the Parks & Recreation budget over to the labor portion of the Recreation budget and authorize the hiring of two part-time supervisors to be placed under the supervision of Larry Staley. He also would like Attorney Brandenburg to work with the School Board on whatever agreement is necessary to protect both the County and the School Board on the utilization of these sites for those hours. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously authorized the transfer of funds not to exceed $2,000, for hiring of part time help, and the work- ing out of an agreement with the School Board as described above. RDINANCE AMENDING TREE PROTECTION ORDINANCE RE DUNE AND SHORELINE VEGETATION PROTECTION, ETC. The hour of 11:00 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: 61 FEB 2 0 1985 BOOK `'°��CF. 967 L_ 'A I 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 aj_. in the matter in the lished in said newspaper in the issues 26�11- Court, was pub - Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun- ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of _ advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. v Sworn to and subscribed before me this19_aI� ag (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River Coun , Florida) (SEAL) BOOK 9 FK. .96.8 NOTICE OF ORDINANCE AAAENOlMEN4 Notice is hereby given that the Indian Rive :ounty Board of County COMMISSIOnen}, acting:- is the ggoverning twdy, will hold a public hearing m Wednesday, February 20.1983, commenGr►9` it 11:00 a.m. or as soon thereafter as maybe �, Heard, to consider recommend)ng the adoption .. of a County ordinance ontftted AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA;,AMENDINQ s SECTION 23'h-10 OFTHE TREE M TECTION ORDINANCE, CHAPTER OF THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDI NANCES OF INDIAN RIVER COUNT RELATING TO, DUNE AND SHOREtiN VEGETATION PROTECTION; CREATINt3 SECTION 23 10 . <f): ° TO •:A440MI COASTAL EROS ION .CONTROL PEtOJ- t, ECTS UNDER CERTAIN' CIRCUM arsurFc AND1 TO REQUIRE, DUNE`. FOR The nearing Will ba heli) 'the our mission Chambers of the County Administration Building, located at 18Mi::26t11 Street. Vsro . Beach. Florida rties In Intermit anti ci ons shall hare; All pa an opportunity to be, heard at this pubito hearideal n ~' Any person deciding to appeal made on the above r will need to ensure that a verbatim record ot'.the proC�dInge,Is made, which record includes, the reatimonY and evidence on which theappeal based; Y Indian RiverCounty, :. a Board of County Comleslonclrn Chairman rick B Lyo s, �'JaM 31, Feb. 12,1985 Chief Environmental Planner, Art Challacombe, made the staff presentation, as follows, noting that this is necessary to comply with the policies of the Hutchinson Island Resource Management Plan: 62 � � r TO: The Honorable Members DATE: January 28, 1985 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners AMENDMENT TO THE DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: TREE PROTECTION ORDINANCE -ADDITIONAL SUBJECT: DUNE PROTECTION Robert M. Keats g, A Planning & Developmen Director FROM:Art Challacombe REFERENCES: Dune Protection Chief, Environmental Planning IBMIRD It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of February 20, 1985. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS On November 15, 1984, the Florida Department of Community Affairs cited Indian River County with several deficiencies in complying with the Hutchinson Island Resource Planning & Management Plan. One of the deficiencies involves a beach/ dune stabilization policy which states: "Require that dune system restoration where needed be included in beach renourishment projects." Indian River County currently establishes dune protection as part of its tree protection ordinance, however, dune restoration is not specifically mentioned with respect to beach renourishment projects. On January 24, 1985, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4 -to -0 to recommend that the proposed ordinance amendment be adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS In reviewing the existing ordinance and preparing the proposed amendment, staff has sought to clarify the status of coastal erosion control projects. Currently, such projects are not specifically allowed by County ordinance, although these activities are currently permitted by the Department of Natural Resources. In addition to permitting coastal erosion control activities, the proposed ordinance amendment requires dune revegetation and reestablishment of the dune profile as components of beach renourishment projects. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed ordinance. 63 BOOK 0 Fa -UG '1969 EER 2 0 1985 BOOK M Chairman Lyons had a question as to wording in Section 1 - "is necessary to protect contiguous real property improvements." Assistant County Attorney Chris Paull believed that is meant to intend property that is immediately attached to the dune. He noted that the original just said "upland" and that could be upland a block away. Chairman Lyons did not feel that "contiguous" is exactly the right word, but as long as it is intended that it is a piece of property that has the dune line, that is what matters, and if a better word can be found to indicate this, that would be fine. Commissioner Bowman raised a question regarding wording, also in Section 1, - "dune revegetation, using native and salt tolerant plant material....." She felt this was a very general term and pointed out that many of these materials do not tolerate a dune, i.e. sea oats are both native and salt tolerant but actually do not belong on the dunes. She, therefore, suggested saying instead "suitable or appropriate" plant material. Planner Challacombe did not agree that sea oats do not belong on dunes, and Commissioner Bowman stated they only should be on the backside of dunes. Attorney Paull suggested that the wording be changed to read "using native and salt tolerant plant material, which is appropriate and suitable." Commissioner Wodtke brought up the concern of the Regional Planning Council on beach restoration that it "require the dune system restoration, where needed, be included in beach renourishment projects." The way the Ordinance is written, he couldn't imagine if we have a major project we would not do a vegetation, but wondered if we want to put in "where needed", or is that implied? Planner Challacombe stated that it is implied. What we are looking at in this case is small projects where a certain land owner might want to do a small area and just protect himself from erosion. 64 M The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance 85-16 amending the Tree Pro- tection Ordinance re dune and shoreline vegetation protection, etc. 65 BOOK PAGE 9 7 1 BOOK 59 ORDINANCE NO. 85- 16 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE TREE PROTECTION ORDINANCE, CHAPTER 23 1/2 OF THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY; RELATING TO DUNE AND SHORELINE VEGETATION PROTECTION; CREATING SECTION 23 1/2-10(f) TO ALLOW COASTAL EROSION CONTROL PROJECTS UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES AND TO REQUIRE DUNE RESTORATION AS A COMPONENT OF BEACH RENOURISHMENT; PROVIDING FOR. REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS, CODIFICATION; SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: SECTION 1 Section 23 1/2-10(f) of the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Indian River County, Florida, being an amendment to the Indian River County Tree Protection Ordinance, orginally adopted as Ordinance Number 83-41, is hereby created to read as follows: (f). Nothing in this section shall be construed to pro- hibit the undertaking of coastal erosion control projects seaward of the coastal construction control line, when approved by the Bureau of Beaches and Shores of the Department of Natural Resources of the State of Florida, and when the applicant can demonstrate to the County that the project is in the public interest or is necessary to protect contiguous real property improvements; provided that any such coastal erosion control project which includes beach sand renourishment shall also include a program of dune system restoration as a component of the project. Such restoration program shall include both dune revegetation, using native and salt tolerant plant material which is appropriate and suitable for dune revegetation, and reestab- lishment of the dune profile. SECTION 2 REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. All Special Acts of the legislature applying only to the unincorporated portion of Indian River County and which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. SECTION 3 CODIFICATION The provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated into the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Indian River County and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section," "article," or other appropriate word, and the sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such purpose. SECTION 4 SEVERABILITY If any section, subsection, sentence, part thereof, paragraph, phrase, or word of this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, inoperative or void, such holdings shall not affect the remaining portions of this ordinance, and it shall be construed to have been the legislative intent to pass the ordinance without such unconstitutional, invalid or inoperative part. QV0MTnAT C EFFECTIVE DATE The provisions of this ordinance shall become effective upon receipt from the Florida Secretary of State of official acknowledgment that this ordinance has been filed with the Depart- ment of State. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commission- ers of Indian River County, Florida, on this 20 day of February 1985. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN VE COUNTY, FLORIDA PATRICK t: Chairman 67 FEB 2 0 1985 BOOK 9 F u t I BOOK 59 F', nr 974 ORDINANCE AMENDING THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE RE DISCHARGE INTO OUTSTANDING FLORIDA WATERS The hour of 11:15 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: VER® BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being in the matter of -1-014a V� in the A 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. alp Sworn to and subscribed before me this _I Iday a l" _ 19 (SEAL) V �-j 1 j ( iness IYd (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River CouK Florida) NOTICE OF ORDINANCE AP&NDINENi h' Notice is hereby given thatthe Indian River'r County Board of County Commissioners, acting as the governing body, will hold a public hearing on Wednesday. February 20i 1988; commencing,. at 11:15 a.m. or as soon thereafter as may be heard, to consider recommending the adoption of a Countiyy ordinance entitled , AN ORDINANCE 'OF -THE BOARD 01= COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING "THE STORMWATER- MANAGEMENT AND FLOOD-' PROTECTION ,. ORDI- NANCE, CREATING SECTION,'; 21 yiL } -7(a)18) (b);_ ESTABLISHING Adpl,y TIONAL CRITERIA'FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS WHICH OI$ CHARGE INTO O01NG, FLOR- t , IDA WATERS; PROViDiNG FOR REPEAIP�IT OF CONFUCTiNG PROVISIONS; COOT- FICATION SEVERAMUTY ANA EFFEC- ,TiVE DATE The hearing w10 be held . tha County' Coen-' mission Chambers of the County Administration Building, .located at 1840,_o 26th $treat, vera. Bear yh Florida. All parties In Interest' and. citizdTie' aha11 have .an opportunN to be heard.at this public hearing. .Any person, deciding to :appeal any decisiore made on the above matter will needto ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings Is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence on which the appeal is based. nty Indian River Cou ra :` �: Board of County Commisslanere^ a ,r W. -s- Patrick, B Lyons, p: � c Chairman Jan.31, Feb, 13 1886, Environmental Planner Challacombe reviewed the staff's recommendation, as follows: 68 TO: The Honorable Members DATE: January 28, 1985 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners AMENDMENT TO THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: ORDINANCE �SUBJECT: Robert M. Keating0AICP Planning & Development Director Art Challacombe Stormwater Memo FROM: Chief, Environmental P1a FgRENCES: IBMIRD It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of February 20, 1985. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS On November 15, 1984, the Florida Department of Community Affairs cited Indian River County with several implementation deficiencies in complying with the Hutchinson Island Resource Planning & Management Plan. One of the deficiencies involves a water quality policy which states: "Adopt more stringent stormwater criteria for Outstanding Florida Waters." Indian River County currently possesses large areas within the Indian River which are considered outstanding Florida Waters by.. the State (see attachment). On January 24, 1985, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4 -to -0 to recommend that ,the proposed ordinance amendment be adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS The stormwater criteria stated in the proposed ordinance are more restrictive than the current standards for obtaining a type A stormwater management permit. The additional criteria, however, would apply only to Outstanding Florida Waters within the County. Essentially, the standards will provide additional filtration of stormwater constituents prior to entering the Indian River receiving waters. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed ordinance. Planner Challacombe noted that this also is in order to be in compliance with the Hutchinson Island Resource Management Plan. The policy with which we are complying states that both DER and the local governments will adopt more stringent criteria for Florida outstanding waters. In our county these are principally southbound from the City limits and north from 69 FEB 20 19'5 BooK 59 F.,,,,� 9 15 I FEB 2 0 1985 59 P°'Gr Pelican Island. We do control this under our site plans, and the Hutchinson Island Resource ,Management Committee felt that the local government, being the principal respondent to site plans, could best monitor this. Commissioner Bird asked if this would affect developers and involve a requirement that is not already in place; Director Keating explained that it just is more stringent than what is in place right now. Public Works Director Davis reported that the DER is developing specific standards and criteria, and after they come out with their performance criteria, -we may want to change our ordinance. Right now they simply state that you cannot degrade the water quality in the receiving waters. Attorney Paul agreed that is the rule, but it is quite vague and doesn't set out criteria to meet it. It only applies to projects where a DER permit is not otherwise required. Our local ordinance would pick up the smaller projects. Commissioner Wodtke asked if this applies to the county and our road system, and Public Works Director Davis stated that it does. Commissioner Bowman had a question in regard to the wording at the top of page 2 of the ordinance. She felt it would read better and be more consistent with "by showing" if it said "by providing" rather than "and provide." Attorney Paull stated that as he read it, an applicant is required "to demonstrate" and "to provide." He must demonstrate he can comply and he must provide the DER documentation. Commissioner Bowman felt this should be in two sentences. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously closed the public hearing. 70 ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance 85-17, amending the Storm - water Management Ordinance re discharge into outstanding Florida waters. ORDINANCE NO. 85- 17 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND FLOOD PROTECTION ORDINANCE, CREATING SECTION 21 1/2 - 7(a)(18)(b); ESTABLISHING ADDITIONAL CRITERIA FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS WHICH DISCHARGE INTO OUTSTANDING FLORIDA WATERS; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS: CODIFICATION; SEVERABILITY; AND EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: SECTION 1 Section 21 1/2 - 7(a)(18) of the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Indian River County, Florida, being a part of the County's Stormwater Mangagement and Flood Protection Ordinance, is hereby amended to read as follows: (18)(a) The stormwater management system shall handle all stormwater that flows into, through, and from the project without creating adverse impacts on other lands served by the Stormwater Management system or by the receiving waters relative to flooding, erosion hazards, or water quality and quantity. (b) No permit required by this Ordinance shall be issued for any development project which is designed to discharge directly into, or through an outfall discharging into, Outstanding Florida Waters designated by state law, unless the system is designed in accordance with the following criteria, in addition to all those otherwise stated by this section: 1. Runoff from roads, parking lots, roofs, and other impervious surfaces shall be directed to grass swales prior to entering a detention system. 71 BOOK BOOK 978 2. Control structures shall filter overflow or discharge through a granular sand or other filter media approved by the Public Works Director prior to discharge from the system. An applicant may be relieved of either or both of the foregoing two additional criteria if it can affirmatively demonstrate that the system is designed in a manner complying with the requirements of Florida Administrative Code 17-4.242, as amended from time to time, other than by showing an exemption thereto, and provide DER documentation and proof of such compliance. SECTION 2 REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. All Special Acts of the legislature applying only to the unincorporated portion of Indian River County and which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. SECTION 3 CODIFICATION The provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated into the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Indian River County and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section," "article," or other appropriate word, and the sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such purpose. SECTION 4 SEVERABILITY If any section, subsection, sentence, part thereof, paragraph, phrase, or word of this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, inoperative or void, such holdings shall not affect the remaining portions of this ordinance, and it shall be construed to have been the legislative intent to pass the ordinance without such unconstitutional, invalid or inoperative part. 72 ® M M 010t+MrnXI C EFFECTIVE DATE The provisions of this ordinance shall become effective upon receipt from the Florida Secretary of State of official acknowledgment that this ordinance has been filed with the Depart- ment of State, and shall be applicable to all Stormwater Management permit applications received by the County after such effective date. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, on this 20th day of February , 1985. BOARD OF NTY COMMISSIONERS OF IN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA PATRICK ONS, Chairman Note: Additions to existing law are underlined; deletions are in struek-through-bppe . AGREEMENT WITH CITY OF VERO BEACH RE HUTCHINSON UTILITIES, INC. Administrator Wright noted that we have had some discussion on this agreement in the past, but we have just been handed some additional information, and he, therefore, would like to defer this item. Commissioner Scurlock stated that he had thought we had a tentative agreement, and Administrator Wright explained that the City of Vero Beach at their meeting last night did not agree with the agreement we had negotiated originally. City Manager Little informed the Board that he is back again to see if he can make something happen that we have been trying to accomplish for twelve years. What happened at the meeting last night is that the City submitted a variation of the agreement that the County staff did not quite find acceptable, and looking at it in depth this morning, Mr. Little could see some reason why the County has some difficulties with it. He continued that he got the Council to accept the County's version 73 FEB 2 0 1985 BOOK 59 F"", -C.979 r FEB 2 0 1985 I i f'.r C. BOOK b �, 980 subject to some changes City staff was authorized to work out with the Commission this morning, and as long as there are no substantive changes, the Mayor was authorized to sign the agreement this morning. Mr. Little stated if an agreement can't be reached at this time, he felt we should just all shake hands and walk away. Administrator Wright did not agree; he believed there is a problem with the agreement and that it needs more work. City Manager Little stressed that if it can't be resolved this morning, it can't be resolved. He stated that what the City started with was the County's version; and what it amounts to is that the agreement is exactly as the County proposed through Section 1. Attorney Brandenburg confirmed that we have no disagreement with anything down through Section 1. Mr. Little noted that Section 2 is the real problem. He believed the County's concern was that any time the City got the urge, they could come over and demand wastewater capacity from the County. He agreed that is a legitimate concern, and, so, what is proposed in lieu of that is covered in the following suggested wording: CITY SUGGESTED CHANGES TO COUNTY VERSION OF AGREEMENT 2. The COUNTY shall return to the CITY, at some time in the future, capacity now reserved for the COUNTY in the CITY wastewater treatment plant, in an amount sufficient to replace the capacity which will be used to serve the customers of H.U.I. and/or customers of such other previously existing south beach franchises as may in the future be agreed upon for service by the CITY and the franchise holder pursuant to paragrpah 1 of this Agreement, such capacity to be available from a reduction in the capacity reserved for the COUNTY in the CITY'S wastewater treatment plant or from the COUNTY'S granting the CITY capacity in any wastewater treatment plant constructed by the COUNTY or from any plants constructed by others in which the COUNTY may have capacity rights, 74 subsequent to the date of this Agreement. The CO TY shall provide such � capacity to the CITY after being given not less than months notice of the CITY'S request for such capacity. •� The CITY shall not give such notice until the CITY'S wastewater treatment plant has reached a capacity level both operating and committed equal to eighty five (85) per cent of the design capacity rating of the plant. 3. Should South Beach be annexed into the CITY before the CITY requests capacity from the COUNTY, or should South Beach be annexed into the CITY within two (2) years after a request for capacity has been made, the COUNTY'S responsibility under this Agreement shall cease and the South Beach area shall become the permanent wastewater service territory of the CITY. If annexation takes place more than two (2) years after a request for capacity has been made, the rights of the. parties under this Agreement shall not be affected by such annexation. City Manager Little emphasized that the County will be given 48 months notice of any request for capacity. Attorney Brandenburg noted that this is where our disagree- ment lies. The capacity we currently have from the City is just about all committed (we have taken reservations on it) and our other plants also are committed. We cannot guarantee that on 24 months or 48 months notice, we positively would be able to return that capacity. The way we.had it set up before is that we would give the City the capacity if we have it and it is uncommitted, and he believed we can commit that we will use our best efforts to do it. The new wording would be committing us to build another wastewater plant before we know it is economically feasible, whether it will be permitted, before we have customers to support it, know interest rates, etc., Commissioner Scurlock noted that all we have right now is the first draft of our wastewater master plan. Attorney Brandenburg commented that this comes back to another issue - when the City was proposing to annex the South Beach area, there was no concern or attempt to get the County to 75 FEB 2 0 1985 Boos 59 F,c� 981 FEB 20 1985 BOOK P-'cf�� credit the City with any of the wastewater capacity used when that was annexed. Now there is, however, and what the County is saying is we will be glad to give the City this if we have it. City Manager Little stated that the City is not looking for ultimate annexation, and he did not believe it has anything to do with what we are doing this morning in any event. Further, he would think that with four year's notice, the County organization could do about anything. He knew the.City could; the City does a lot of things where they don't know precisely what the future holds, but they feel they have a service obligation to fulfill. Attorney Brandenburg stated that -he would seriously question whether the City ever has committed to building a plant,or would put themselves in a position of being forced to do.so,without knowing all the details, and he could not recommend the Commission do so. City Manager Little stated that if the City knew in advance that they had an obligation of so many hundred thousand gallons, they could float a bond issue and get a plant built and so could the county. Administrator Wright stated that is the point, and Mr. Little is getting back to the other issue. We have committed capacity that is paid for, but under this agreement, the City can ask for it back; so, if we have to replace that capacity, the only way we are going to pay for it is charge everybody in the system, which is contrary to our current position on impact fees. Mr. Little asked if Mr. Wright is saying that the County is building a plant exactly sized to the committed load without any growth potential. Administrator Wright stated that we do have growth potential, but right now to get this capacity moved to a south plant, you are looking at constructing millions of dollars of pipelines. Our plants are located north and west. We are going to build a south plant, but it may not be in a time frame the City would require. He did not see us building that plant within 76 the next two to three years, and we need sufficient customer base to make it feasible. Mr. Little stated that he could understand the problem involved in getting piping to a west county plant, and he asked if it would make the agreement more palatable if it said from the south county plant or one built in the south county area and use the same time limit. Utilities Director Pinto did not think we would have a problem if we could write in this agreement that when the County builds a south county or north county plant, we will put this capacity into that plant when requested to and the City could tie in to either one. Administrator Wright preferred to tie it to the south county. Discussion arose and continued at length in regard to the amount of capacity needed for Hutchinson Utilities and other South Beach customers. Commissioner Bird felt some amount should be specified, but Attorney Brandenburg pointed out that there is a goodly amount of undeveloped land in the South Beach area. Under this agreement, if the City doesn't annex this area, we want them to serve those undeveloped lands, and we don't know what capacity that may require. Commissioner Scurlock -felt the only possible way to work out a number would be to take the Comprehensive Plan, project those densities at buildout, and come up with so many gallons per day per unit. It was generally agreed a specific gallonage amount should not be included. Commissioner Scurlock suggested including wording "at such time that a north or south county plant is built," but Administrator Wright felt we should just make it "south." City Manager Little, Chairman Lyons and Commissioner Scurlock did not see why because you can shift loads, and 0 77 FEB 20 19®5 BOOK 5 9 P'GF 983 FEB 20 1985' BOOK 59 Fa.Gc 9S Mr. Little felt, in fact, there are loads that ought to be shifted and possibly some pumping costs could be relieved. Commissioner Scurlock agreed that at some time we will have to square up some service areas for the benefit of the customers. Administrator Wright noted that then what we are saying is that if we build a north county plant, we will have to add 250,000 gallons of capacity with no offsetting revenues, if the City asks for it. Commissioner Scurlock felt you always have that gap - just like our plant out on SR 60. We are going to have a one million gpd plant committed, and there is noway in ten years we will have one million gallons into that plant. Mr. Little commented that if you ever had a plant operating within 250,000 gallons of capacity, he would be amazed. Discussion continued re language, and Commissioner Scurlock stated that he could go along with language for either a north or south county plant, when it is built. Attorney Brandenburg agreed. The Administrator emphasized that he wanted to leave in the 48 month time frame, and City Manager Little stated that is not a problem. Discussion again arose as to the wording regarding "operating and committed capacity" of the City's plant, and Mr. Little noted that they have said 85% of the design capacity rating of the plant - that should be around 4.5 million and possibly somewhat higher than that. Commissioner Wodtke asked about eliminating "committed," and Mr. Little pointed out if they just said operating, that gives the City the same problem that 6th Avenue gives the County. If the City has committed gallonage, then it, in effect, is utilized plant capacity. Director Pinto agreed that if the City commits to someone and someone is paying a reservation fee, then that capacity in the plant is used. 78 Lengthy discussion ensued as to the language regarding the capacity of the City plant. Administrator Wright felt the City is very close to their 85% of capacity now, and Director Pinto stressed that the City has told us they were fully committed now - 100% - and that there was no capacity left for the county. City Manager Little agreed that was correct. Commissioner Scurlock felt, in that event, this is a moot point and the sentence should be left out. Director Pinto stated that he has no problem with saying we will provide that capacity when we build the north or south county plant. Mayor Gregg stated that he would have no problem with the County saying when or if they build the plant, but City Manager Little felt it should still contain the additional language in the present agreement, i.e., "when or if the County builds the plant, or from any plants constructed by others in which the County may have capacity rights" In further discussion, it was agreed we are through Section 2, and the 85% figure is still in. Administrator Wright agreed if the City is at 85%, they can call for the capacity, and he felt we all recognize that the City could call for it today. Attorney Brandenburg.commented that the City may not annex all the South Beach area and suggested the wording state "South Beach or any portion thereof," and this was agreed upon. Director Pinto believed another point that must be understood is that the 250,000 gallons will not service the entire south beach area, and if the City creates new service areas and has new customers and we have to replace those capacity units, these new people must pay the County's impact fee. Attorney Brandenburg agreed, and noted that when Mr. Gregg provides the service down there, he will want to charge the City's impact fee. Mr. Little stated the City doesn't have one, but Attorney Brandenburg noted they might at some time. 79 195 FEB 2 0 BOOK 59 f'A;E 98 5 FEB 2 0 1985 BOOK Director Pinto stated that the City can't do that. We are giving them the capacity; they are not giving the capacity to The Moorings, the County is doing it through the City plant. Mayor Gregg did not think we have a problem on this, he noted, however, that the City provided 600,000 gallons on 6th Avenue and the County sold it, but he did not want to get into that nor did anyone else. MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, to approve the agreement as amended: 1) 48 months notice everywhere through the agreement; 2) If and when either a south or north county plant is built or the County has capacity at someone else's plant (anything east of 58th Avenue); 3) No gallonage amount to be included; 4) Also in paragraph 3 - South Beach or any portion thereof. _- Commissioner Wodtke wished to be sure if additional service is provided in South Beach by the City that they don't collect plant capacity costs and later on we are going to have to replace that at no expense. Mayor Gregg did not feel that is a problem, but he could not assure the Commission what a City Council five years from now might do. City Manager Little felt there are certain assurances; the City has said they are not ever going to build a new plant nor expand that one, and unless they do that, there is no legal basis for calculating a plant impact charge because you don't have any cost to calculate it on. Discussion continued at length regarding impact fees, and Director Pinto felt it should be understood if service is rendered to anyone outside the existing franchises and we have to supply replacement capacity, they are going to have to pay impact fees to us. Mayor Gregg asked how the City can go to The Moorings with 80 new construction and say they don't have to pay impact fees, but the development across the street does. Director Pinto stated that's the problem, - the City could run a line now without a franchise to service someone outside of the existing service area of Hutchinson Utilities, and then we would be supplying replacement capacity to the City for those people. He emphasized that he is just saying that any new customers coming on outside of the existing franchise areas should have to pay impact fees to the county. They can hold them in escrow until the date that we replace that capacity. Mr. Pinto again stressed that we must make it clearly understood that is what the policy will be; it cannot be a free ride. City Manager Little believed Director Pinto is making a good point, and everyone agreed you can't pay for plant capacity twice. City Attorney Vitunac suggested that if the City ever does collect an impact fee from outside the present area, they would pass that through to the County. Director Pinto did not agree and stated that very simply any areas that are served outside of existing service areas on the South Beach will be required to pay impact fees to the County when the County replaces the capacity. Commissioner Scurlock -agreed and felt this is covered by our impact fee ordinance. He believed it is on the record that we are not giving away any free capacity in any plant. City Manager Little. felt the subject Agreement is not quite conclusive enough to deal with the legitimate point Director Pinto is making, but he believed the City Attorney and County Attorney could get the agreement to cover this very easily. Chairman Lyons asked if Mayor Gregg agreed with that philosophy, and Mayor Gregg explained that his understanding is that we are talking right now of Hutchinson Utilities and the two other present franchises, Smugglers Cove and the other south of The Moorings, which are very small. The 250,000 gallons will 81 Q FEB 20 1985 J FEB 2 0 1985 BOOK t 'a apply to those and will not be subject to impact fees. Anything else that is undertaken by the City, if an impact fee is charged and if it comes out of county capacity, it will revert to the county. He stated that he has no problem with that. Director Pinto noted that the City's impact fee is only $187.00, and they will have to pay the current County impact fee, Commissioner Wodtke stated that to him the key is that if we are going to replace that capacity, there shall be an impact fee charged and it shall be the County's, except for the first 250,000 gallons. All agreed and Mayor Gregg stated it will be put in escrow by the City, but Attorney Brandenburg stated that it would be put in escrow by the County because we are charging it. It will pass through the City to the County. That was agreed, and Commis- sioner Scurlock stated he would include that in his Motion. Administrator Wright clarified that if the City requests the capacity, we are given not less than 48 months to replace it if we have built a north or south plant or have capacity in someone else's plant; so, actually we don't have to plan on that capacity until the City calls for it and we have four years to build it. City Attorney Vitunac stated that he will redraft the agreement as discussed and get it back to Attorney Brandenburg this afternoon. City Manager Little wished to be sure both the City Attor- ney and County Attorney understand all that has been said, and Commissioners Scurlock and Bird restated the Motion as follows: To adopt the Agreement as amended today; those specific amendments being as follows: 1) Paragraph 2 - "48 months" notice instead of 24. 2) Eliminate the paragraph in regard to the City Plant reaching 850 of design capacity. 3) The County to commit to replace capacity when and if we have a north or south county plant or capacity in someone else's north or south county plant. 4) Paragraph 3 - two years becomes 48 months also. 5) No gallonage amount 6) Paragraph 3 - South Beach or any portion thereof 7) Impact fees to be handled as discussed. M � � r r � � Attorney Brandenburg commented there is one other thing. If the County doesn't replace this capacity because the City does not ask for it and we have our impact fees in escrow, how long do we hold them and when do we return them to the customers? It was felt that is up to the County. Attorney Brandenburg stated that there ought to be an outside number of years on the County's obligation to accept the City's request for this capacity; it can't go on forever. He felt it should be something like ten years. City Manager Little agreed that insofar as capacity transfers are concerned, if that right hasn't been exercised within ten years from the date of the agreement, it terminates. Attorney Brandenburg felt that would be fine, and then we could return the escrow money to the people. This was agreed on. Commissioner Scurlock and Commissioner Bird added the following to their Motion: The City's right to request the return of said capacity to terminate in ten years; the appropriate language to be furnished by the Attorney in regard to the impact fees. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED -FOR THE QUESTION as amended. It was voted on and carried unanimously. MK FEB 2 0 1985 BooK 59 9S .FEB 2 0 1985 BOOK 59 P,3ku, 990 City Atty. 2/26/85 (30) AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, dated this —� day ofG/b. , 19859 by and between INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960-3394, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY", and CITY OF VERO BEACH, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Florida, P. O. Box 1389, Vero Beach, Florida 32961-1389, hereinafter referred to as "CITY", WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the CITY operates a wastewater treatment plant which provides service to the City of Vero Beach and certain surrounding unincorporated areas, which latter areas are serviced under agreements with the COUNTY, and WHEREAS, Hutchinson Utilities, Inc. (H.U.I.) is a franchisee of the COUNTY and operates its own wastewater treatment plant on the South Beach, "South Beach" being defined as that unincorporated area south of the City limits on the barrier island to the St. Lucie County line, and WHEREAS, the customers being served by H.U.I. have expressed a desire to buy the franchise, and in turn, be provided wastewater service by the CITY, and WHEREAS, the CITY is agreeable to providing this service subject to certain conditions, NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants contained in this Agreement, the COUNTY and the CITY agree as follows: 1. In the event H.U.I. customers are successful in effecting a purchase of the H.U.I. system, then the CITY may provide wastewater service to the area covered by the Hutchinson Utilities, Inc. franchise and to any other area on the South Beach not covered by an exclusive COUNTY franchise, or if such an exclusive franchise exists, the CITY may provide this service with the franchise holder's consent. Any area served by the CITY under this Agreement shall become the permanent service territory of the CITY for wastewater service. 2. The COUNTY shall return to the CITY, at some time in the future, capacity now reserved for the COUNTY in the CITY wastewater treatment plant, in an amount sufficient to replace the capacity which will be used to serve the customers of H.U.I. and/or customers of such other previously existing south beach franchises as may in the future be agreed upon for service by the CITY and the franchise holder pursuant to paragraph 1 of this Agreement, such capacity to be available from a reduction in the capacity reserved for the COUNTY in the CITY'S wastewater treatment plant; provided that such capacity reimbursement shall not 84 �r r ble to the CITY unless the MTY shall have constructed jareter treatment plant in the south or north county only or unless the COUNTY shall have capacity rights in any plants constructed by others in the south or north county only, subsequent to the date of this Agreement; provided also that any such capacity reimbursement must be reasonable and feasible, both technically and economically. The COUNTY shall provide such capacity to the CITY. after being given not less than 48 months notice of the CITY'S request for such capacity. 3. Should South Beach or any portion thereof be annexed into the CITY before the CITY requests capacity from the COUNTY, or should South Beach or any portion thereof be annexed into the CITY within 48 months after a request for capacity has been made, the COUNTY'S responsibility under this Agreement shall cease for the portion annexed. If annexation takes place more than 48 months after a request for capacity has been made, the rights of the parties under this Agreement shall not be affected by such annexation. 4. Customers within the franchise territory now authorized by the COUNTY for H.U.I., Angler's Cove, and Seminole Shores may be provided wastewater service by the CITY without the payment of a COUNTY wastewater impact charge. All future wastewater customers lying outside the above mentioned franchised areas will be required to pay the COUNTY wastewater impact charge if the CITY asks the COUNTY for replacement wastewater plant capacity to cover such additional customers. 5. Any right of the CITY to request capacity reimbursement under this Agreement shall expire after 10 years from the date of this Agreement. 6. The power and responsibility to determine rates, standards and quality of service, and any othr aspects of wastewater service shall be the CITY'S. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMI IONERS OF INDIAN RIVER CO TY, FLORIDA Freda 4dr„i�h�1�Q. teJ�JyCsut� Clerk thpo /j Z X, . piaryiFjanaenDUrg Coun Attorney ATTEST: CityjClerk Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: C.) City Attorney ratricK Lyons,- yonChairman Chairman 1LNl(�(JcY . Michael Wright County Administra OF VERO BEAC FLORIDA Approved as to technical Requirements: City D.'Ia'hager -2- BOOK 59 F�u.9'11 J FED 2 0 1985 . BOOK 5 9 F':;IF 992 The several bills and accounts against the County having been audited were examined and found to be correct were approved and warrants issued in settlement of same as follows: Treasury Fund Nos. 15834 - 16220 inclusive. Such bills and accounts being on file in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, the warrants so issued from the respective bonds being listed in the Supplemental Minute Book as provided by the rules of the Legislative Auditor, reference to such record and list so recorded being made a part of these Minutes. There being no further business, on Motion made, seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 12:05 o'clock P.M. Attest: Clerk 86 An W