The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About4/10/1985Wednesday, April 10, 1985 The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, met in Regular Session at the County Commission Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Wednesday, April 10, 1985, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Patrick B. Lyons, Chairman; Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Vice Chairman; Margaret C. Bowman; Richard N. Bird; and William C. Wodtke, Jr. Also present were Michael J. Wright, County Administrator; Gary Brandenburg, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; L.S. "Tommy" Thomas, Intergovernmental Relations Director; Jeffrey K. Barton, OMB Director; and Barbara A. Bonnah, Deputy Clerk. The Chairman called the meeting to order and Commissioner Wodtke led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA Commissioner Scurlock requested the addition to today's Consent Agenda of a bond for Karl Hedin (elected official) to serve on the Mosquito Control District. Commissioner Bowman requested the addition of a discussion on the upcoming meeting with the St. Johns Water Management District, and Commissioner Bird requested a report on the Firearms Range Committee be included in that discussion as it interrelates. Administrator Wright deleted Item 5B from the Consent Agenda - Final Plat Approval for Old Sugar Mill Estates, Unit III - and requested that two change orders on. contracts BOOK IRR 10 1985 O F,{.GE.4:31 APR 101995 BOOK 60 FACE 432 for the SR -60 water project be added as Item D on the Consent Agenda. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously added and deleted the above items to today's Agenda. CLERK TO THE BOARD Approval of Renewal Applications for Concealed Firearms Permit TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: April 1, 1985 the Board of County Commissioners FILE: SUBJECT: Pistol Permit - Renewais FROM: Michael Wright REFERENCES: County Administrator The following individuals have applied to the Clerk's Office for pistol permit renewals: Frederick C. Allen Donald A. Baldwin Gladys S. Baldwin Clifford V. Ferguson William F. Fey .Raymond Paul Gillman Henry W. Helwig All requirements of the ordinance have been met and are in order. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the Renewal Applications for a Concealed Firearms Permit for the following persons: Frederick C. Allen Donald A. Baldwin v' Gladys S. Baldwin Clifford V. Ferguson William F. Fey Raymond Paul Gillman Henry W. Helwig 2 CONSENT AGENDA Commissioner Scurlock requested Item E be removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion. A. IRC Bid #238, Straight Sand Cement Endwalls The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/28/85: TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: March 28, 1985 FILE: THRU: Michael Wright County Administrator FROM: SUBJECT: IRC Bid #238 - Straight Sand - Cement Endwalls "'I -REFERENCES: Carolyn Cjodrich, Manager Purchasing Department DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Bids were received Tuesday, March 28, 1985 at 11:00 A.M. for IRC #238 - Straight Sand -Cement Endwalls for the Road & Bridge Department. 4 Bids were sent out, 1 Bid was received. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS This bid is to be effective April 1, 1985 through September 30, 1985 to coincide with all other bids. The Road and Bridge crews have been building the headwalls in the past. It has been determined that it is less expensive to contract the work out, than for the County to do the work. The only.bid was submitted by Davis Construction, Vero Beach, F1., who is apparently the only contractor in Indian River County that does this type of work. RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING It is recommended that IRC #238 be awarded to the only bidder, Davis Construction. Funds are budgeted in Account #111-214-541-35.39. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously awarded IRC Bid #238 to the only bidder, Davis Construction, Vero Beach, for straight sand cement endwalls in the amounts listed in the bid tabulation below: 3 PPR 101985 BOOK 60 PA 5/0 33 APR 10 1985 BOOK 60 FADE 434 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 BID TABULATION oc w • o `, Bib NO. IRC Bid 17238 DATE OF OPENING March 26, 1985 0 O BID TITLE Straight Sand -Cement Endwalls 4o ..� ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNI' 1. 9' x 21' Straight Endwall, Double Wall, Double Footer Ea. 595 00 Double Wall/Double Footer Ea. 2590 00 8. 5' x 7' Straight Endwall, 2. 9' x 21' Straight Endwall., Single Wall/Double Footer Ea. 455 00 Single Wall/Double Fnotpr Fa_ 19An nn 3. 8' x 21' Straight Fndwall Double Wall/Double Footer Ea. 2415 00 4. 8' x 21' Straight Endwall. Single Wall. Double Footer.. Fa. 1820 00 5. 7' x 5' Straight Endwall, Double Wall/Double Footer Ea. 524 00 6. 7' x 5' Straight Endwall, Single Wall/Double Fnnter Fa. 49n_ nn BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 BID TABULATION c 0 iii,...7 0 0 v,'° co anaA. a BID NO. IRC Bid 17238 DATE OF OPENING March 26, 1985cg B D •TITLE traight Sand -Cement Endwalls ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE 7.. 5' x 7' Straight Endwall, Double Wall, Double Footer Ea. 595 00 8. 5' x 7' Straight Endwall, Single Wall/Double Footer Ea. 455 00 3a C. Request for Chairman to Sign DOT Federal Aid System Map The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/1/85: TO: The Honorable Members DATE: April 1, 1985 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners THROUGH: Request for Chairman to SUBJECT: Sign DOT Federal Aid System Map Michael Wright, County Administrator • FROM: s, P.E.111J9 Publicames WWorks 1Director REFERENCES: DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS The Florida DOT has transmitted to the County a mylar copy of the DOT Division of Planning and Programming's recent update map of the Urban Area Boundaries. The map also designates certain routes as Interstate, Federal Air Primary, Federal Aid Urban, and Federal Air Secondary. At this time the DOT is requesting that the Chairman sign the mylar copies and transmit them to the Mayor of the City of Vero Beach for execution. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS The DOT has included staff requested revisions as approved by the Transportation Planning Committee in April of 1984. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the Urban Boundary and Road classifications be approved and the Chairman be authorized to sign the mylar-maps. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the Urban Boundary and Road classifications, as recommended by the Public Works Director, and authorized the Chairman's signature. 4 APR 1 O 1985 BOOK 60 P'.CE 4:35 APR 101985 . BOOK 60 F"CE 436 D. Approval of Bond for Karl Hedin to serve on the Mosquito Control Board ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the bond for Karl Hedin, elected official, to serve on the Mosquito Control Board. E. Approval of Change Orders for SR -60 Water Project The Board reviewed the following memos dated 4/9/85: TO. • The Honorable Members of �/�1TE' April 9, 1985 the Board of County Commissioners p THRU: Terrance G. Pint • d Utility Service ,, i ctor BJ ECT: FROM: FILE: CHANGE ORDER #2 FOR CONTRACT #2 ON THE ROUTE 60 WATER PROJECT REFERENCES: Joseph ,. Baird Assistant Utility Director DESCRIPTIONS: Change Order #2 for Contract 2 (Boyce Company) on the Route 60 water line is to finalize the project. The actual as -built quantities were less than was anticipated which means a decrease of $16,594.85 in the overall contract price. ANALYSIS AND ALTERNATIVES: Approve Change Order #2 for Contract 2 (Boyce Company) on Route 60 water project which is a decrease of $16,594.85. Disapprove Change Order #2 for Contract 2 on Route 60 water project which is a decrease of $16,594.85. RECOMMENDATION: We recommend the Honorable Board of County Commissioners approve Change Order #2, Contract 2. 5 TO' The Honorable Members of�TC. April 9, 1985 the Board of County Commis ¢S THRU: Terrance G. Pinto Utility Service FILE: OBJECT: CHANGE ORDER #5 FOR CONTRACT tor #3 ON THE ROUTE 60 WATER PROJECT FROM: Joseph A. Baird REFERENCES: Assistant Utility Director DESCRIPTIONS: Change Order #5 for Contract 3 (Boyce Company) on the Route 60 water line is to finalize the project. The actual as -built quantities were less than was anticipated which means a decrease of $14,574.80 in the overall contract price. ANALYSIS AND ALTERNATIVES: Approve Change Order #5 for Contract 3 (Boyce Company) on Route 60 water project which is a decrease of $14,574.80. Disapprove Change Order #5 for Contract 3 on Route 60 water project which is a decrease of $14,574.80. RECOMMENDATION: We recommend the Honorable Board of County Commissioners approve Change Order #5, Contract 3. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved Change Order #2 for Contract #2 and Change Order #5 for Contract #3 on the SR -60 Water Project. 6 APR 10 1985 BOOK Go 431 APR 101985 Form Fm11A 424-7 (Rev. 6-11-80) BOOK 60 PAGE 4:38 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FORM APPROVED OMB No. 0575-0042 FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION ORDER NO. CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER 2 DATE March 12, 1985 ST AT ilorida CONTRACT FOR Indian River County Water Project U84-1/Contract 9#2 OWNER Indian River County To Boyce Company COUNTY Indian River You are hereby requested to comply with the following changes from the contractlans and specifications: peciticatioas: Description of Changes (Supplemental Plans and Specifications Attached; DECREASE in Contract Price ITEM QUANTITY 2 +69 LF '3 -108 LF 4 -16 LF 5 +9 LF 6 -25 LF -1 Unit - 2 Units +1 Unit - 2 Units - 3 Units -1,532 LF -196 LF +122 LF +5 LF -1 LF -3 LF +1 EA +6 LF -40 LF -24 LF -1 LS -50 LF -45 LF 7 8 10 11 12 17 18 19 1-4 1-17 2-2 2-8 2-17 3=4 3-17 4-1 4-4 4-17 20" 18" 12" DESCRIPTION Water Main Water Main Water Main UNIT PRICE 27.75 25.15 23.20 8" Water Main 18.70 6" Water Main 16.45 20" B.F.V. w/Box 2,550.00 18" B.F.V. w/Box 1,985.00 8" G.V. w/Box 495.00 6" G.V. w/Box 375.00 Hydrants 800.00 Road Restoration 2.00 Paved Drive Restoration 12.00 Non -Paved Drive Restoration 5.00 12" Water Main 23.20 Road Restoration 2.00 20" Water Main 27.75 18" B.V. 1,985.00 Road Restoration 2.00 12" Water Main 23.20 Road Restoration 2.00 Mobilization 1,000.00 12" Water Main 23.20 Road Restoration 2.00 7 $ 2,716.20 371.20 411.25 2,550.00 3,970.00 750.00 2,400.00 3,064.00 2,352.00 2.00 83.25 928.00 48.00 1,000.00 1,160.00 90.00 INCREASE in Contract Price 1,914.75 168.30 495.00 610.00 116.00 1,985.00 12.00 ' Description of Changes (Supplemental Plans and Specifications Attached) DECREASE in Contract Price INCREASE in Contract Price JUSTIFICATION:. •Balancing Change Order �� $ TOTALS —21,895.90 NET CHANGE IN CONTRAC1tA@; —16,594.85 S 5,301.05 The amount of the Contract will be (Decreased) (iftwaNkByThe Sum Of- ousand—Five Hundred—Ninety Four and 85/100* * * * * * * * * * * * * The Contract Total Including this and previous Change Orders Will Be: Dollars ($ 16'594' 85 One Million—Forty Six ). Thousand—Eight Hundred Fifteen and 30/100* * * * * * *1,046,815.30 Dollars (S ). The Contract Period Provided for Completion Will Be (Unchanged): 180 Days This ocum t 'll become a sup . lement to the conaact and all provisions will apply hereto. Requ Recommended Accept Approved By FmHA (Contractor) (Narrrnd Title) (Dat.) March 12, 1985 (Date) —.z3— c4S (Dat.) TMs Information will be used as record o/ any changes to the original construction contract. e U.S.GPt):1g6/b564dpg/1570 Num tsol.s r.tlulredr 4 Time to camol.t.: 30 min. APR 101985 Position 6 No further monies or other benefits may be said out under this Program unless this report Is completed and flied as required by existing law and regulations (7 C.F.R. Part 1924). 8 FrnHA 424-7 (Rey. 6-11-80) BOOK GO FACE 4,39 Pr - APR 10 1985 C C'\: C- :vim' C E C-4: DEF. ,7 Indian River County Water Project U84-1/Contract #3 Indian River Coun Ly To Boyce Company - BOOK CO F!.CE 440 March 12, 1985 - a : E Florida C�i.nTY Indian River j• .... I_.f nct:..;!Ii:.- o: DEiC :_-cE I,CF_:LSE ir i:.ce iL tt:r e.'. i ..Ce tem Quantity Description Unit Price 2 + 17 LF 20" Water Main 30.00 3 – 17 LF 16" Water Main 21.75 4 – 13 LF 12" Water Main ____ 23.20_ _____- 5 – 17 LF. 8" Water Main 18.70 6 – 19 LF 6" Water Main 16.45 10 - 1 Unit 8" G.V. w/box 495.00 11 - 1 Unit 6" G.V. w/box 375.00 12 - 1 Unit Hydrants 800.00 19 - 633 LF Road Restoration 20.00 20 + 16 LF Paved Driveway Restoration 12.00 21 + 71 LF Non Paved Driveway Restoration 5.00 s is 369.75 -- -301-.-60 — 317.90 312.55 495.00 375.00 800.00 12,660.00 510.00 192.00 355.00 ,-c•s .r rt;C.e CH:,•.GE P. COV7F2, Balancing Change Order TOTALS ir. /*rice APR s -15,631.8o 4 +1,057.00 Tht• amolao o' At Co-' .c will l'ke (Drz:reast-d) (MCMCZ1 By Th.c.o!: Fourteen Thousand, Five - Hundred Seventy Four and 80/100 cs 14,74.80 nr Tttalncig this arle p:rvinus Char.it 0::L iI Ee• Seven Hundred, Fourty Eight L.,7'7 'H. Thousand, Two Hundred Ninety Five and 50/100 -r,”„I(s 748,295.50 .r. . .• 7: e C.,: Pc:;f.•:: P:6% i:',,-! So: CL;:-.:-. V il'. Et rbaX30:3,50tRacomcd (..,:r- :la" 180 - li 1 -4 -61.F. -.E. -11;ZI.::.,74:7.;r4 In .11.6--rn:,1•:r1 ,..ni: ..!i i..,.....vi•7:-.-.. .-! t.; -;:ly- 4 • . . , Mb "-•,.. :. • - • .. "" fr.r.•••. Arc1.1:.w 4•71.r...r) ... • v..: •••:.:-.•E r drny APR 1 0 1985 II . • 1 ,.....'.7 t,.., C.:.:....t.t .1.=......• .7.: 4. • •r.r.ric. et-r--,:.'IrIe: BC r:-Zri_ r .1:1:.-; tr .- ..-.0 re ;....:41*.c..nr. 12 C.F... :•-•,1 :s....4). - Marchi2, •1985 ;..."-o•fr) 1- c9 Tr.:r.;,•;. F7rr. 6 10 F:L1-1_1. 24-7 (F:v -fl-))C BOOK 60 PnE 441 Pr - APR 10 1985 BOOK ;' �E442 AGREEMENT BETWEEN IRC AND WATER SERVICES OF AMERICA The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/3/85: TO Honorable Members of the DATE: April 3, 1985 FILE: Board of County Commissioners SUBJECT: AGREEMENT BETWEEN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AND WATER SERVICES OF AMERICA FROM: Joseph A. Baird REFERENCES: Attachment: Copy of Agreemen Assistant Utility Director DESCRIPTIONS OF CONDITIONS: Attached is an agreement between Indian River County Utilities and Water Services of America to add Dupont Model 0040 B-9 Permeators to the County reverse osmosis water plant. Under the contract the first seven permeators will be installed in 1984 at cost of $43,750.00 and there will be anoption to add three sets of membranes (set = 7 membranes) in 1985 at cost of $47,250.00. The membranes purchased will come with the standard Dupont five year warranty. New membranes will increase capacity and efficiency at the reverse osmosis water plant. ALTERNATIVE AND ANALYSIS: 1. Approve the agreement between Indian River County and Water Service•of America. 2. Disapprove the agreement between Indian River County and Water Services of America. RECOMMENDATION: The Utility Staff recommends the Honorable Board of County Commissioners approve the agreement between Indian River County and Water Services of America. Attorney Brandenburg explained that a rack consists of 7 membranes each and under this contract we are purchasing one rack at $43,750 and getting the option of buying 3 additional racks for $47,250 each. 11 APR 10 1985 ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the amended agreement between IRC and Water Services of America, as recommended by staff. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously authorized the Notice to Proceed on Rack #1. Attorney Brandenburg advised that the warranty will begin on the date of installation and acceptance by the County. AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK DISCUSSION - ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT - RE FELLSMERE GRADE AND POSSIBLE SITE FOR FUTURE FIREARMS RANGE Chairman Lyons announced that a workshop meeting is scheduled for May 6th at 3:00 P.M. with our staff, St. Johns River Water Management District, Florida Department of Transportation and the Florida Turnpike Authority to discuss the Fellsmere Grade road. He wished to schedule a preliminary meeting with staff on how we stand in this matter prior to the workshop meeting as he felt we still want to have the option of having that road built when the County grows to its maximum. There is a question of exactly where the area is that the Water District plans to flood. The hunters believe that they plan to flood a stickmarsh that is one of the last good hunting areas left in the County. Chairman Lyons wished to see more studies made by our environmental staff and the Florida Game & Freshwater Fish Commission to see whether or not this proposal might be 12 BOOK `'FK 443 Fr— APR 101985 BOOK 60 FAEE 444 amended to save the hunting area and still meet the requirements of the Water District. In addition, there is the environmental problem of how the road fits into the Water District's general plan. He advised that he did not really need any action this morning, but just wanted everyone to be aware of the upcoming meeting and invite any suggestions as to how we should prepare ourselves for this meeting. Commissioner Bird reported that the Firearms Range Committee has selected two sites that might be suitable for the new County firearms range, and wished to have us meet with the District while they are here in May in order to make our interests known to them. The search for property led the Committee to the old Garcia Ranch, which has been acquired by the St. Johns River Water Management District for a reservoir. The other site is on the old Latt Maxcy Range off of SR -60. Chairman Lyons suggested that Attorney Brandenburg act as liaison in this matter along with the Fellsmere Grade matter. Attorney Brandenburg stated they would make every attempt to get these matters on the agenda for that day's meeting and schedule a meeting the day before. PUBLIC HEARING - COUNTY -INITIATED REQUEST TO ENLARGE THE 1-95 & SR -60 COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NODE FROM 300 TO 550 ACRES The hour of 9:15 o'clock having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to wit: 13 VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being in the matter of 10 in the /af4 0 Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of *i1,G�h�1�/ 494i F % a /,/ - Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun- ty, Florida; for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and'affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed be = e m y' his �e day of A.D. 19 /95-.. , �,f ) (SEAL)�;, n- snag (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River Cour(tij/, Florida) NOTICE OF REGULATION OF LAND USE 44 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE ADOPTION OF A COUNTY ORDINANCE ",.AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN " NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, shall hold a public hearing at whichpar:: ties in interest and citizen shall have an oppor- tunity to be heard,;, in the County Canmission Chambers of the County Administration Buildinrrg�" located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach; Florida on Wednesday, April 10, 1985, at 9;15 a.m. to consider the adoption of an.Ordinance entitled; 14 � ,AN' ORDINANCE OF. THE BOARD OF ' COVINTY. COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN ti D RIVER COUNTY,;FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ENLARGE THE COMMERCIAL%INDUSTRIAL NODE AT'THE INTERSECTION .OF 1-95 AND STATE ROAD SO FROM 300 ACRES TO 550 ACRES, AS DESIGNATED ON THE .9, -:411 FUTURE LAND '.USEMAP ',AND DE - %SCRIBED IN THE TEXT OF THE LAND l ' SIVE P AN;ENT; PROVIDOF I E FOR EHEC IE DATErr' any persoA 2lectdes �'ap dettiefon made on the above matter. he/she wilneed a record' of the; proceedings 'and , for such pur- poses, he/she may need to ensure hat a verba- tim record of the proceedings is made, which In- cludes testimony and evidence upon whlch -Hie appeal le based... x� '' ` ... lit.IIn�dllann.Riiv//erCoouritty�' �,Y Board' 01 Comm 9s109Ws_r ix f r�Patrici[ Lona. yiea; March 2 , APrlt;2,198 d: Richard Shearer, Chief of Long -Range Planning, reviewed the following memo dated 3/29/85: TO: The Honorable Members of the Board of County Commissioners DATE: DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: Rober M. Keatin•, AI Planning & Developmen March 29, 1985 FILE: COUNTY -INITIATED REQUEST TO ENLARGE THE I-95 & S.R. 60 COMMERCIAL/ INDUSTRIAL NODE FROM 300 SUBJECT: TO 550 ACRES Director 12 FROM: Richard Shearer, AICP REFERENCES: 1-95 & SR60 Chief, Long -Range Planning RICH2 It is requested that the data herein presented -be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of April 10, 1985. 14 APR 101985 BOOK 60 FASE 445 APR 10 1985 BOOK 60 <<A F 448 DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS The County is initiating a request to amend the Comprehensive Plan by enlarging the commercial/industrial node at the inter- section of I-95 and State Road 60 from 300 acres to 550 acres. On April 4, 1984, the Board of County Commissioners approved a County -initiated request to enlarge the node from 230 acres to 300 acres. Since the node was enlarged, the Board has determin- ed that the following properties should also be included in the node: 1) 40 acres zoned M-1, Restricted Industrial District, located i mile south of S.R. 60 on the west side of 98th Ave; 2) 55 acres zoned C-1, Commercial District, and LM -1, Light Manufacturing District, located south of S.R. 60 on the west side of 98th ve; 3) 15 acres zoned LM -1 loca4 mile west of 98th Avenue and 4 mile south of S.R. 60; 4) 58 acres zoned LM -1 located 600 feet south of S.R. 60 and west of I-95; 5) 21 acres zoned C-2, Heavy Commercial District, located 4 mile south of S.R. 60 on the west side of 90th Avenue; and 6) 105 acres zoned C -1A, Restricted Commercial District, B-1, Planned Business District, A, Agricultural District, and R-3, Multiple -Dwelling District, located east of 86th Avenue, south of S.R. 60, and west of 79th Avenue. In order to include these properties in the node and the existing commercial and industrial uses and the necessary infill land, the node needs to be enlarged to 550 acres. On February 28, 1985, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4 -to -0 to recommend approval of this request. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS In this section, a description of the I-95 and S.R. 60 com- mercial/ industrial node will be provided along with an analysis of the general proposal to expand the size of the node. I-95/S.R. 60 Node The Comprehensive Plan designates a 300 acre commercial/ industrial node at the intersection of I-95 and S.R. 60. This is a logical place for a commercial/industrial node because it is located at the intersection of the major east,west highway in the County and one of the major north -south highways in the County. Presently, this node is the largest node in the County. Expansion of Node Based on the location of this node at the major intersection in the County, it seems logical that this should be the largest commercial/ industrial node in the County. Presently, this node has more existing commercial and industrial development (140 acres) than any other node in the County. 15 Because industrial activities need good access to transporta- tion facilities, good land use planning principles indicate that industrial locations near interstate highway interchanges are desirable. Many industrial activities desire locations near interstate highways because the raw material they need and the finished productsthey produce are shipped by trucks using these highways. In addition, the existing transportation facilities have considerable capacity to handle the traffic needs of industrial land uses in this area. Moreover, as the State Road 60 area continues to develop, most of the development will be residential in nature which will require retail and other commercial services. These services should be concentrated at the I-95 and S.R. 60 node. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that the com- mercial/ industrial node at I-95 and State Road 60. be enlarged to 550 acres. Chairman Lyons asked why the boundary stops so abruptly on the north side of SR -60 west of I-95, and Planning Director Robert Keating explained that there is an existing platted subdivision back in there which was rezoned residential last fall. He advised that we are only looking at this today in terms of the number of acres in the node not in regard to actual setting of nodal boundaries. Staff will be back in the near future with some recommendations re specific boundaries. Chairman Lyons opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. Tom McCormick, owner of Florida Juice, 9520 20th Street, questioned the current zoning at the northwest quadrant of I-95 and SR -60. He was concerned that the map shown in the newspaper did not indicate that one of his pieces of property is zoned C-2 and the other C-1. Director Keating felt Mr. McCormick's properties would be included in the node once specific boundaries are set; today, however, we are just increasing the acreage of the node to 550 acres. Attorney Brandenburg stated that the action the Board is taking today will actually enhance Mr. McCormick's 16 BOOK GO F°.CE 441 APR 10 1985 APR 1 0 1985 BOOK CO PAGE 448 ability of being included in the node as it has been our general policy that any commercial zoning existing anywhere near the node will be included within those specific boundaries. Commissioner Scurlock understood that the process consists of two steps: 1) Determine that we want to expand the node; and, 2) Proceed to draw the definite boundaries as to what is going to be included in that expansion. Commissioner Wodtke asked if the properties shown inside the boundaries depicted on the map in today's backup material added up to 550 acres and Mr. Shearer confirmed that they did. Ed Nelson of Village Green West asked what effect this would have on Village Green West, and Mr. Shearer assured him this would have no effect on that community. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, 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 85-31 amending the text of the land use element of the Comprehensive Plan providing for enlarging the 300 acre commercial/industrial node at the intersection of 1-95 and State Road 60 to 550 acres. 17 ORDINANCE #85 - 31 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROVIDING FOR ENLARGING THE 300 ACRE COM- MERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NODE AT THE INTERSECTION OF I-95 AND STATE ROAD 60 TO 550 ACRES AND PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE. SECTION 1 Page 35 of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended to read as follows: I-95/S.R. 60 INTERCHANGE This is a commercial/industrial node containing three hundred -4369} five hundred -fifty (550) acres. SECTION 2 EFFECTIVE DATE The provisions of this ordinance shall become effective upon receipt from the Florida Secretary of State of official acknowledgement that this ordinance has been filed with the Department of State. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on thPth 1985. day of April BOARD •F OUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF RIVER COUNTY K B. LYON airman Acknowledgment by the Department of State o �e State of Florida this 15thday of April , 1985. Effective Date: Acknowledgment from the Department of State received on thisl9thday ofApril, 1985, at 11 A.M./P.M. and filed in the office of the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida. APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUF-IENCY. GA RANDENBURG, County Attorney CODING: Words in streek-threttgh-type are deletions from exist- ing law; words underlined are additions. 18 APR 10 1985 BOOK 60 Fl,u449 APR 10 1985 BOOK CO F",GE 450 PUBLIC HEARING - COUNTY INITIATED REQUEST TO ESTABLISH BOUNDARIES FOR KINGS HIGHWAY & SR -60 COMMERCIAL NODE 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 J��G21i: in the matter of ei awnezei in the , / �% G Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of I��'�!,4'% /y0 5 621 Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun- ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate. commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed • . fore e this (SEAL) day of b A D 19 g.6. - rob At..ia .,� s 1 (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, Flo r'•a 19 NOTICE OF REGULATION OF LAND USE — !' NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE .:>: a ADOPTION OF A COUNTY ORDINANCE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Indian River County Board Of County Commissioners shall hold a public hearing at which parties In in- terest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard, in the County Commission Chambers . of the County Administration Building, located at. 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida on Wednesday, April 10, 1985, at 9:15 a.m. to con- sider the adoption of an Ordinance entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ESTABUSH- ING BOUNDARIES FOR THE 160 ACRE t. COMMERCIAL NODE AT THE INTER- SECTION OF STATE ROAD 60 AND 58TH AVENUE AS DESCRIBED IN THE V. TEXT ,OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT AND DEPICTED ON THE LAND USE`, MAP OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF;'' THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVID- v JNG.. FOR BOUNDARY MAP OF, THE c 1, NODE' AND. EFFECTIVE DATE.' A map of the proposed node boundary is available at the Planning Department office on the second floor of the County Administration Building. If any person decides to appeal any decision made on the above matter, he/she will need a record of the proceedings, and for such pur- poses, he/she may need to ensure that a verba- tim record of the proceedings is made, which in- cludes testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based..., . I; Indian River Courhty',• ij Board of County Commissioners By: -s- Lyons, Chairman' March 21. , The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/29/85: TO: The Honorable Members DATE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: 25 SUBJECT: Robert M. Keatg, CP Planning & Development Director March 29, 1985 FROM: R chard Shearer, AICP REFERENCES: Chief, Long -Range Planning FILE: COUNTY -INITIATED RE- QUEST TO ESTABLISH BOUNDARIES FOR THE KINGS HIGHWAY & S.R.60 COMMERCIAL NODE Kings Hwy/SR 60 RICH2 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of April 10, 1985. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS The Planning Department is initiating a request to establish boundaries for the Kings Highway and State Road 60 commercial node. On September 12, 1984, the Board of County Commissioners adopted an amendment to the text of the land use element of the Comprehensive Plan which provided for establishing boundaries for each of the nodes as generally depicted on the Land Use Map and generally described in the text of the land use element of the Comprehensive Plan. On February 28, 1985, the Planning and Zoning commission voted 3 -to -0, with one abstention, to recommend approval of this request. On March 6, 1985, the Kings Highway and State Road 60 commercial node was enlarged from 140 to 160 acres. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS The proposed boundaries of the Kings Highway and State Road 60 node were prepared based on the following criteria: 1) The general description and size constraint of the node as described in the text of the land use element; 2) The existing commercial uses in the general area of the node; 3) The existing zoning pattern; and 4) Property boundaries. All of the nodes are generally described in the Comprehensive Plan. The Kings Highway and State Road 60 node is described as: "A one hundred sixty (160) acre commercial node is located at the S.R. 60 and Kings Highway intersection and extends eastward to 43rd Avenue between S.R. 60 and the main relief canal." 20 APR 0 1985BOOK �O Fqc 451 • APR 10 1985 BOOK 60 PGE x+ 52 All of the existing commercial uses and all of the commercial zoning in the general area of the node are included in the node boundary. The node boundary follows property boundary lines except for a 36 acre parcel of land at the northwest corner of Kings Highway and State Road 60 which is split by the boundary. The south 20 acres of the property is Boned commercial and included in the node but the agriculturally zoned north 16 acres of the property, which is adjacent to a single-family subdivision, is not included in the proposed node boundary. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, staff recommends approval of the proposed boundaries of the Kings Highway and State Road 60 commercial node. Planner Richard Shearer explained that these boundaries reflect 160 acres which follow property boundary lines in all but one case. He stated that all of the property zoned commercial in this area will be included in the node and all of the property in the node will be zoned commercial except for two properties. Commissioner Scurlock believed that this squares it off and makes it neat. Chairman Lyons opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard. George Heath, .Attorney representing A. J. and Helen Brackins, owners of property at 5420 20th Street, referred to the letter he wrote the Chairman and the Board requesting that the Brackins property be rezoned from residential to commercial. He believed the Brackins' property was a unique situation and could almost be considered reverse spot zoning. He cited the old Marcella property in the City of Vero Beach that was finally rezoned commercial after being in litigation for many years and didn't understand why his clients' property should not be included in this commercial zoning. Commissioner Bird advised Attorney Heath that these nodal boundaries are not set in stone as the Board has the opportunity to amend the Comp Plan twice a year. Since the 21 property adjacent to the Brackin's is currently being used as residential, he felt it would be somewhat premature to designate that property as commercial at the present time. Attorney Heath felt it was unfair to make an owner remain residential when everything else is zoned commercial. Chairman Lyons pointed out that particular piece of property lies between two existing subdivisions. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously closed the Public Hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance 85-32, establishing boundaries for the 160 -acre commercial node at the intersection of SR -60 and Kings Highway as described in the text of the. Land Use Element and depicted on the Land Use map of the Land Use Element of the County's Comprehensive Land Use Plan. 22 APR 1 0 1985 BOOK 60 PAGE 453 Pr - APR 10 1985 BOOK 60 FAGE454 ORDINANCE #85 - 32 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ESTABLISHING BOUNDARIES FOR THE 160 ACRE COMMERCIAL NODE AT THE INTERSECTION OF STATE ROAD 60 AND KINGS HIGHWAY AS DESCRIBED IN THE TEXT OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT AND DEPICTED ON THE LAND USE MAP OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COUNTY'S —COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR BOUNDARY MAP OF THE NODE AND EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners has amended the County's Comprehensive Plan to provide for establishing boundaries for every commercial, commercial/industrial, industrial, tourist/commercial, and hospital/commercial node; and, WHEREAS, The Planning and Zoning Commission has held a public hearing and subsequently made a recommendation to establish boundaries for this node; and, WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners has held a public hearing on these proposed boundaries at which parties in interest and citizens had an opportunity to be heard; and, WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners is empowered to adopt these boundaries to assist in the implementation of the County's Comprehensive Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that: SECTION 1 The attached map labeled as "Attachment A" shall be the official boundaries of the 160 acre State Road 60 and Kings Highway commercial node. SECTION 2 EFFECTIVE DATE The provisions of this ordinance shall become effective upon receipt from the Florida Secretary of State of official acknowledgement that this ordinance has been filed with the Department of State. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on the 10th day of April 1985. 23 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF IND .' 1. RIVER COUNTY. BY• CK B. LYO ' , " C airman Acknowledgment by the Department of State of th= State of Florida this 15th day of April, 1985. Effective Date: Acknowledgment from the Department of State received on this 19t1rlay of April, 1985, at 11 A.M. /P.M. and filed in the office of the Clerk of the Board 'County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida. APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUF2T IENCY. APR 10 1985 ARAN NB TRG, C•unty Attorney 24 BOOK 60 F'.0 455 32 j33 i990- i4 4-wYA1Nr0--- gidel c� :D 1/4 SEC. Trig% 1 o I 0 5 20TH STREET • 1 l994 3 3 ESTATES_ w W n1T--$TREir 4 5 i z a z c o i cc 2 z i 1 R-1 4 b 5 2 RIVERA = ESTATES POINCIANA _ AYENNt 6 ITR7 1 SEI 2B 3 S. R6. R. i MMN 1.1. 111 IR 31 I% TR. 14 '_ft4 GED 1/4 SEC. I 1 1 1 1 1 1' I 1 1 1 TR.I5 TR.8 LARGED 1/4 SEC. A C-1 o0 in 0 SEE ENLARGE 1/4 SEC. 1 REPEAT MIME1L1 ACRES Q t co IA 4 TR.4 A U AVENN[ - 1-1 I - - - EirH TR.3 TR.2 ,uviaALLtilaLIDED 1I SI R.5 22140 9 z f IYA" R-1 TR.I2 3 W S C -1A TR.I I R-1 _STREET u x • 3 z a 3 C-1 A TR7 C-1 W1 z 1 -- 1.11nT-, ND • ITRB 1 8 *NO TR.14 2E ENLARGED 1/4 SEC. Ro"Sweee 13 TR.I5 x I 2 0 ou fiu 10 W 1 9 9 1 I.4 331134 3 4 watfNkan, 4 3 2 W IMTN 16 SEE ENLARGED 1/4 SE ITRI6 1E-11 mi PROPOSED NODE BOUNDARY 11 91 1,1 w a NMI PUBLIC HEARING - COUNTY -INITIATED REQUEST TO ESTABLISH BOUNDARIES FOR THE 130 -ACRE HOSPITAL/COMMERCIAL NODE 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 in the matter of fid in the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of '-724/1"ei cQZ /fed a .,,fers- Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Frorida, 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 be (SEAL): APR 10 1985 e m: this mris%% day of -11 (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, FI A D 19,� irye sManager .4'a) 26 NOTICE* OF REGllai1OMt OF LAND use 'NOTICE OF PUBUC HEARINGCO4 « �:PADOPTION OF A COUNTY ER ORDINANCE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN'rthat the Indian ,Rlver,CorirltV.Board'•of tv'ommisaioners shall hold acpUu public Marina at w � cth parties in In- „ forest be r�d,, intheCounty MComr use ve an opportunity of the County Administration Building at 1840 25th Street ; V : Beach. Florida'located �onn Wedsday, APrti 10 1 5; at 9:15 a.m:;to con - r alder the adoption earl Ordinandif entitled: •�AN ORDINANCE? OF THE -BOARD OF ()0U NTY. COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN i7 RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ESTABLISH• r, 4'. „PIG BOUNDARIES FOR:hHE,130 ACRE ,1HOSPITAL/COMMERCIAL. NODE. AS d DESCRIBED 'IN : THE TEXT OF -''THE';, 'LAND USE ELEMENT , AND DEPT ON THE LAND USE MAP OF THE ` ,;FUSE ELEMENT OF THE:COMPREHEN-. SIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR BOUND-. ARY MAP OF THE;NODE AND:E 11YEDATE 1ss�ydr r. available at the Plan n the second poor of th Coup r Admin on�11 Bulkilnll + 53 rp +� e��E°, x�� ; y 't' � .V4f;. If any person deddes *appear ocotillos made on the above [hatter, he/she will ,need a record of • the'proceedings. land -for perch pur- poses, he/she may need to ensure' that a verba km record of the proceedings m made. which dudes testimony and evidence.upon which:' appeal is. based.:`' `lndlan River County h { , t' -f.{ ? Board of County Commtssloners :By; -s- Patrick B. Lyons, C; - March 21, AprII2.1985. t' BOOK 60 fV:,E. 4.57 APR 1 0 1935 BOOK 60 °;1 E 458 Planner Richard Shearer reviewed the following memo dated 3/29/85: TO: The Honorable Members of the Board of County Commissioners DATE: DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: March %' •%g- SUBJECT: Robert Nt. Keatin§, AP Planning & Development Director mom: Richard Shearer, AICP REFERENCES: Chief, Long -Range Planning 29, 1985 FILE: COUNTY -INITIATED RE- QUEST TO ESTABLISH BOUNDARIES FOR THE 130 ACRE HOSPITAL/ COMMERCIAL NODE Hosp/Com Node RICH2 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of April 10, 1985. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS The Planning Department is initiating a request to establish boundaries for the hospital/commercial node located along Barber Avenue (37th Street). On September 12, 1984, the Board of County Commissioners adopted an amendment to the text of the land use element of the Comprehensive Plan which provided for establishing boundaries for each of the nodes as generally depicted on the Land Use Map and generally described in the text of the land use element of the Comprehensive Plan. On February 28, 1985, -the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4 -to -0 to recommend approval of this request. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS The proposed boundaries of the hospital/commercial node were prepared based on the following criteria: 1) The general description and size constraint of the node as described in the text of the land use element; 2) The existing commercial uses in the general area of the node; 3) The existing zoning pattern; and 4) Property boundaries. All of the nodes are generally described in the Comprehensive Plan. The 130 acre hospital/commercial node is described as: "A one hundred thirty (130) acre hospital commercial node is located north of the present Indian River Hospital along 37th Street (Barber Avenue). Commercial uses related to the needs of the hospital shall be the primary use permitted as well as residential uses." 27 Because this node is described as being north of the hospital, the 75 acre hospital campus was not included in the node. The node boundary does include all of the medically -related commercial and institutional uses around the hospital and includes all of the property proposed zoned Medical District except for the hospital property. P Posednodeboundarysplitsonly three properties. One of these splits is because part of a property is in the City of Vero Beach. The other two parcels that were split are very large parcels (over 40 acres) and the boundary follows the Medical District zoning boundary. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, staff recommends approval of the 130 acre hospital/commercial node boundaries. Commissioner Wodtke was concerned about a portion of the Geoffrey Subdivision being included in the node. Mr. Shearer explained that several property owners in that subdivision expressed an interest in medically -related commercial uses. In addition, there is an existing commercial use at the corner of U.S. #1 and 37th Street. Staff felt that since this was the entrance to the hospital, it might be more appropriate to be in a medically related use rather than residential. Director Keating pointed out that this node specifies that residential uses are permitted in the node; therefore, a residential use would not be incompatible with the land use designation. Mr. Shearer explained that Blocks 14 & 15 of the Geoffrey Subdivision contain just a few dwellings while the northern section of the subdivision is more densely developed. Chairman Lyons asked why the hospital property is not included in the 130 acres and Mr. Shearer explained that staff feels the intent of the Land Use map was to have 130 acres of medically -related uses, but agreed that the node 28 APR 10 1985 BOOK 60 FnE 459 APR 10 1995 BOOK CO PAGE 460 should be increased to include the hospital property since it is called a hospital node. Chairman Lyons felt that we could wait until July to do that. Commissioner Bird was still concerned about the pressure that would be placed on northern portion of the Geoffrey Subdivision to go commercial also, and Commissioners Bowman and Scurlock .agreed. Commissioner Bird asked how we would go about deleting Blocks 14 & 15 since the boundaries were advertised. Attorney Brandenburg advised that the residential area could be deleted by Motion and explained -that we do not have to use up the entire acreage that is allocated in the node in specific boundary allocations. Commissioner Scurlock asked if there is any need to take that amount of acreage and add it to another area to square it off. Mr. Shearer suggested that we table this issue and wait until July when everything could be done at once -- delete the residential area and add it somewhere else in the node. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously tabled this matter until sometime in July when it will be readvertised. Commissioner Wodtke asked if we could approve the boundaries today with the deletion of the residential and then reconsider it in July, and Attorney Brandenburg advised that the Board could do that today if they wished. COMMISSIONERS SCURLOCK and BOWMAN withdrew their previous Motion. 29 ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously agreed to reconsider establishing the boundaries of the node today. Chairman Lyons opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously closed the Public Hearing. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, that the Board adopt Ordinance 85-33, establishing boundaries for the 130 -acre hospital/commercial node as described in the text of the Land Use Element and depicted on the Land Use Element of the County's Comprehensive Plan, with the deletion of the residential section plus Blocks 14 & 15 of the Geoffrey Subdivision; with the understanding that staff will address the inclusion of the hospital acreage and bring it back to the Board at a later date. Under discussion, Mr. Shearer advised that the ordinance amending the Comprehensive Land Use Plan talks about establishing these boundaries to reflect I00% of the acreage allocated to the node, and he felt there might be a problem if the Board approves boundaries for less than the I00% allocation. Commissioner Wodtke felt we might decide that we don't want 130 acres, but Attorney Brandenburg did not see any difficulty in not designating the entire 130 acres now. 30 BOOK 60 FADE 461 `PR 101985 APR 1 01985 BOOK 60 F',GE 462 ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously agreed to reconsider establishing the boundaries of the node today. Chairman Lyons opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously closed the Public Hearing. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, that the Board adopt Ordinance 85-33, establishing boundaries for the 130 -acre hospital/commercial node as described in the text of the Land Use Element and depicted on the Land Use Element of the County's Comprehensive Plan, with the deletion of the residential section plus Blocks 14 & 15 of the Geoffrey Subdivision; with the understanding that staff will address the inclusion of the hospital acreage and bring it back to the Board at a later date. Under discussion, Mr. Shearer advised that the ordinance amending the Comprehensive Land Use Plan talks about establishing these boundaries to reflect 100% of the acreage allocated to the node, and he felt there might be a problem if the Board approves boundaries for. Iess than the I00o allocation. Commissioner Wodtke felt we might decide that we don't want 130 acres, but Attorney Brandenburg did not see any difficulty in not designating the entire 130 acres now. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion was voted on and carried unanimously. 31 ORDINANCE #85-33 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ESTABLISHING BOUNDARIES FOR THE 130 ACRE HOSPITAL/COMMERCIAL NODE AS DESCRIBED IN THE TEXT OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT AND DEPICTED ON THE LAND USE MAP OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COUNTY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR BOUNDARY MAP OF THE NODE AND EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners has amended the County's Comprehensive Plan to provide for establishing boundaries for every commercial, commercial/industrial, industrial, tourist/commercial, and hospital/commercial node; and, WHEREAS, The Planning and Zoning Commission has held a public hearing and subsequently made a recommendation to establish boundaries for this node; and, WHEREAS, The Board of -County Commissioners has held a public hearing on these proposed boundaries at which parties in interest and citizens had an opportunity to be heard; and, WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners is empowered to adopt these boundaries to assist in the implementation of the County's Comprehensive Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that: SECTION 1 The attached map labeled as "Attachment A" shall be the official boundaries of the 130 acre hospital/commercial node. SECTION 2 EFFECTIVE DATE The provisions of this ordinance shall become effective upon receipt from the Florida Secretary of State of official acknowledgement that this ordinance has been filed with the Department of State. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on the 1985. 32 APR 101985 10th day of April B00K CO f.' E 463 APR 10 1985 BOOK GO 464 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN R R COUNTY BY: TRI B. L'•N:. +'mit" man Acknowledgment by the Department of State of 3 tate of Florida thisl5th day of April , 1985. Effective Date: Acknowledgment from the Department of State received on thisl9tbday ofApril, 1985, at 11 A.M./P.M. and filed in the office of the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida. APPROVED AS TQ ORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIE CY. GARY NDENBURG, County At•orney "ATTACHMENT A" HOSPITAL/COMMERCIAL NODE BOUNDARY L 33 s t � z PUBLIC HEARING - COUNTY -INITIATED REQUEST TO REZONE 102 ACRES FROM C-1, R-3, R -2B, R-2, R-1PM, R-1 AND R -1A to RM -4, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT The hour of 9:30 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication, to wit: 34 APR 101985 BOOK 60 FV,E 465. APR 10 1985 NOTICE - PUBUC HEARING Notice of hearing initiated by Indian River' County consider the adoption of a County ordi nance rezoning land from C-1, Commercial DWI trict R-1, Single -Family District R -1A, Single Family District; R-2, Multiple Family Districts R -2B, Multiple -Family District, R-3, Multiple -I Dwelling District and R-1PM, Permanent Mobile Home Subdivision District, to RM -4. Multiple - Family District. The subject property is located south of Roseland Road, east of US. Highway( #1, West of the Indian River and north of' the Sebastian City Limits. . The subject property is described as: The North 400' of the South 551.04' of Lot 5, located in the J.A. Hudson Sub- division as recorded in Deed Book EE, Page 600. of the Public Records of Bre- vard County, Florida Containing 7.78 acres more or less. All of said lands now Tying and being' within Indian River.County, Florida. AND f A parcel of land Tying in Sections 25 and 38, Township 30S, Range 39E, and Sec- tion 31, Township 305, Range 39E, In- dian River County, Florida; more particu- lacy described as follows: • . ,. Begin at the Northeasterly comer of Lot 1, Charles Subdivision, as recorded In Plat Book 9, Page 97, of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida; thence Southwesterly along the North line of said subdivision to the NW comer .01 said subdivision. said comer being also the NW comer of Lot 5 of said sub- division; thence South, along the West line of said subdivision and the West line of said Lot 5, to the SW comer of said Lot 5; thence Northwesterly along an arc parallel to the east right-of-way line of U.S. Highway #1 (State Road #5), toa point on the South boundary of Van Ber-' . gens and Hendry's Subdivision as re- . , corded In Plat Book 3, Page 39, of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida; said point being 840' more or less East of, as measured 'along the South line of said subdivision, the East >, arty right-of-way line of U.S. Highway #1 (StateRoad #5); thence Northeasterly, • 31 along said South line, to its Intersection t with the Easterly right-of-way tine of Old ". Dixie Highway, thence run Northerly along said Easterly right-of-way line 140' more or less to the NW corner of the fol lowing described parcel. Beginning at a 4 x 4 monument located an the West shore of the Indian River, said monument being known as 'a point lying 10 feet ... Northerly "from Gibson's Wharf and fur- ther described as being 10' Northerly from and at right angles to the produced • centerline of the present paved highway leading from U.S. Highway #1 (State Road #5) to the Town of Roseland; run South 42°52'. East along the West shore of the Indian River a distance of 331.2'; thence run South 50°28' West, a dis- tance of 283.7' to the pont of beginning; thence run South 32°10' East, a distance of 95.5'; thence run South 30"26' West, a distance of 130.8', thence run North 22°7' West, a distance of 100'; thence run 105' on a Northeasterly Hne to the Point of Beginning. Said parcel of land lying in Government Lots 5 and 7 of Sec - don 25, Township 305, Range 38E, as described in the Official Record Book 2, . . Page 241, of the Public Records of In- dian River County, Florida; thence North-- easterly, along the North property line of said parcel, 460' more or less to the Westerly shoreline of the Indian River; thence Southerly, along said shoreline, • to Its intersection with the North line of the Replat of Dettore Acres as recorded in Plat Book 10, Page 25, of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida; thence Westerly along said North line to Its intersection with the Westerly right -of • - way line of Old Dixie Highway; thence Northerly along said right-of-way line to the intersection of said line with the East- erly projection of the South' Hne of the Charles Subdivision as recorded in Plat Book 9, Page 97, of the Public Records of Indian River. Florida; thence Westerly: along said erly projection and said South line, 211', thence North- westerly on an interior angle of 107°45' a 'distance of 243.71' to. a point 35' due South of the North line of Lot 1, thence East on a line 35' due South of the North line 168.67' to the Westerly right-of-way line of Old Dixie Highway; thence North- erly along said right-of-way line to the Point of Beginning, LESS the following descBeginning pointparcel:rof Intersection of the South line of Section 25, Township ay East line of State Road and run 485.3' northwesterly along said East right-of-way dine for Pont of Beginning. Thence run Northeasterly and at right angle with said East right-of-way line 65' to the Indian River, thence run along the river 150' Northwesterly and parallel with said_East right-of-way line, thence South- westerly ith and at right angle to said East rwa line 65'. to said East right-of- way said right-of-way to Point of Begirin-- ning, including all riparian rights pertain - Ing to said tract of land, being located in Section 25. Township 308, Range 38E, containing 0.22 acrB9 more or less. BOOK CO FArjE 466 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 .1..1. 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 .� 112/19771.4d //� In the matter of T L Z2t ' /Lai in the//6tel/, �/ lashed in said newspaper in the issues of ,,74 /9e5 Q, 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 aftiant 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. /nl - / e Sworn to and subscribed Blore �e this �_ day of (.�1-... A D 19 D S (SEAL), s Mena (Clerk of the Circuit Court. Indian River County, da) AND i.• Ocean View Subdivision No. 1, Lot 10, Block 1, as recorded in Plat Book 4,Pa gpere 89.a of Public RReecords of lndlan River County, Florid ' Being a parcel of land lying in part of Lots 7 and 8, James A. Hudson Subdivision according to plat thereof, filed in Plat Book j', Page 183, -Pub- lic Records of St Lucie County. Florida; said land now lying and being In Indian River County, Florida; the boundary of said parcel being more particularly described as follows: From a point marking the intersection of I the center Une of Central Avenue and the North line of Lot 8 of J.A. Hudson Sub- division run East 30.87' to a concrete monument op the East right -of Hne • of said Central Avenue; thence run North . 89°52'40". East along the South line of :+ Indian. Rhrer Acres Subdivision as flied n Plat Book 8, Page 9, Public Records of Indian River. County, Florida, a distance .ot 309.52' for the -Point of Beginning; thence, retracing the last bearing, go South 89°52'40" West a distance of 10' to a concrete monument thence run South 1°36'55" s West a distance of 210.86' more or less toa point on the South line of Lot 8 of James A. Hudson Subdivision; thence run North 89°13'30" • East along the South boundary Hne of Lot 8 a distance of 50' to a pont, thence run Northwesterly to the Point of Begin- ning. " n . - Containing I.50 acres more or less. Sub- . jest to easement, restrictions, reserva- tions and limitations of record. , AND Being a parcel of land lying In part of Lots 7 and 8, James A. Hudson Subdivision, according to plat thereof filed in Plat Book 1, Page 183, Public Records of St. Lucie County, Florida, said lands now lying and being In Indian River County, Flor- ida; the boundary of said parcel being more particularly described as follows: • From a point marking the intersection of the centrline of Central Avenue and the North line of Lot 8 of J.A. Hudson Sub- ' division run East 30.81' to the Point of Beginning; thencefollowing the South line of Indian River Acres Subdivision as filed in Plat Book 8, Page 9, Public Records of Indian River County, Florida, run East a distance of 299.52'; thence run Southerly on a tine forming mangle of 88°48' as measured from West to South with the last described line a dis- tance of 220' more or less to a point on the South line of Lot 8, J.A. Hudson Sub- division, thence run Westerly along said South line a distance of 150' more or less to a point on the East right-of-way line of Central Avenue; thence run North- ' westerly along said East line of Central .. Avenue a distance of 258' more or less to the Point of Beginning. Containing 1.13 acres more or less. 35 AND Lots 4'thru 6, inclusive, Replat of Dettore Acres Subdivision as recorded in Plat Be onk 10. agge e 5. Pubda RArds of In- • All of said lands now tying and being within Indian River County, Florida A public hearing at which parties in interest heard�willcebe held by the have BBoarrd off CCountytComm-- missioners of Indian River County, Florida, In the County Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida on Wednesday, April 10,1985. at 9:30 a.m. If any person decides to appeal any decision made on the above matter, he/she will need a record of the proceedings, and for such pur- poses, he/she may need to ensure that a verba- tim record of the proceedings is made, which in- cludes testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. Indian River County Board of County Commissioners Cy: hairman ck B. Lyons March 21, April 2. 1985. Planner Richard Shearer reviewed the following memo dated 3/29/85: TO: The Honorable Members DATE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: March 29, 1985 FILE: SUBJECT: Ro.ert M. easing, iCP Planning & Development Director COUNTY -INITIATED REQUEST TO REZONE 102 ACRES FROM C -1,R -3,R -2B R-2, R-1PM, R-1, & R -1A TO RM -4, MULTIPLE - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT FROM: Richard Shearer, AICP REFERENCES: Ros - eland/ZC 091 Chief, Long -Range Planning CHIEF It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of April 10, 1985. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS Indian River County is requesting to rezone 102 acres, located south of Roseland Road, west of the Indian River, north of Sebastian, and east of U.S.1, from C-1, Commercial District, R-3, Multiple Dwelling District (up to 15 units/acre), R-2, Multiple -Family District (up to 15 units/acre), R -2B, Multiple -Family District (up to 8.1 units/acre), R-1PM, Permanent Mobile Home Subdivision (up to 8.7 units/acre), R-1, Single -Family District (up to 6.2 units/acre), and R -1A, Single -Family District (up to 4.3 units/acre), to RM -4, Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 4 units/acre). All but 2.5 acres of the subject property are zoned C-1, R-3, R -2B, or R-2'. This request is -part of the administrative rezoning process to establish zoning districts consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. On October 11, 1984, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on a request to rezone this area to R -2B, but tabled action pending further analysis of this area and information about how the City of Sebastian treats similar areas in the City. On December 13, 1984, the Planning and Zoning Commission denied a County -initiated request to rezone 98 acres, including all but 4 acres of the subject property, from six zoning districts to R -2B. The Commission gave as their reason for denial that they felt the 8 units/acre allowed by the R -2B zoning was a density too high for this area because it is in a flood -prone area, is adjacent to the Indian River, and is not served by County water and wastewater facilities. On February 6, 1985, the Board of County Commissioners approved the McManus request to rezone a quarter acre parcel in this area from C-1 to R-1. However, the Board commented on the large number of zoning districts in this area and the district boundaries. 36 APR 101985 BOOK 60 F GE 467 APR 101985 BOOK CO ME 468 This request originally included 108 acres. On February 28, 1985, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 3 -to -1 to recommend approval of this request except for 6 acres, zoned R -2B, which they excluded from the rezoning. 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 commercial fishery, (currently a nonconforming use zoned R-3), mobile homes, (all currently nonconforming uses zoned C-1, R-3, and R-2), multiple -family dwellings, duplexes, single-family residences and undeveloped land. North of the subject property is a single-family subdivision and other single-family residences in an R -1A zoning district. East of the subject property is the Indian River. South of the subject property is the Sebastian Cemetery, an FPL maintenance facility, commercial fisheries, marinas, a resort, mobile homes, a motel, multiplefamily and single-family residences in the City of Sebastian. West of the subject property is undeveloped land zoned C-1, a single-family subdivision zoned R -1A, and a mobile home subdivision zoned R-1PM. Future Land Use Pattern - The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property and the land immediately north and west of it as MD -1, Medium -Density Residential 1 (up to 8 units/acre). Further west, -across U.S.1, is land designated LD -1, Low -Density Residential 1 (up to 3 units/acre). In addition, the Plan designates a 70 acre hospital/commercial node at the intersection of U.S.1 and Roseland Road. The land south of the subject property in the City of Sebastian is designated COR, Commercial/Office/Residential; CL, Limited Commercial; or CG, Commercial General. The land adjacent to the Sebastian cemetery is designated as COR; the land along the river, adjacent to the subject property, is designated as CL, and the land further south, along the river, is designated as CG. However, the predominant land use in this part of the City is commercial, while the predominant land use in the County is residential. At the public hearing on October 11, several individuals stated that they felt that the proposed R -2B zoning would allow densities too high for this area. As alternatives to the R -2B zoning, the County considered rezoning the subject property to RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre), RM -4, Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 4 units/acre), or to a Single -Family District. Because of the existing multiple -family dwellings and the duplexes on the subject property and the mixture of uses in this area, single-family zoning does not appear to be realistic for the subject property. Multiple -family zoning is the most appropriate zoning for the subject property. The main consideration is what maximum density should be allowed by the zoning ordinance. The C-1, R-3, and R-2 zoning districts, covering most of the subject property, are not in conformance with the MD -1 land use designation. The proposed RM -4 zoning represents a down -zoning consistent with the land use plan. This rezoning, as proposed, 37 will not create any new nonconformities; it will in several cases, however, change the zoning district with which several uses are nonconforming. In all cases, existing nonconformities will be grandfathered in and allowed to remain as long as the use remains in continuous (does not cease for a period of ninety days or more) operation. Transportation System The subject property has direct access to Old Dixie Highway and North Indian River Drive (both classified as local streets on the Thoroughfare Plan). The maximum development of the subject property under the RM -4 zoning district would generate 3,024 average annual daily trips (AADT). The capacity on each street is 10,000 AADT. Estimated volumes are under 2,000 AADT each. Environment The subject property is not designated as environmentally sensitive. However, about one-half of the subject property is in a flood prone area. According to FIRM map 120119-0013C, the flood elevations on the subject property are: 1) Zone V12 (el 11) approximately 50' westward from the Indian River; 2) Zone A9 (el 9) approximately 250' westward from the west edge of Zone V12; 3) Zone A9 (el 8) approximately 100' westward from the west edge of Zone A9 (el 9). The flood elevations indicate the height at which flooding could occur. New buildings must be constructed to a height equal to the flood elevation plus one foot above the existing ground level. The total area subject to inundation by the 100 year flood constitutes approximately 400 feet, or about one-half of the subject property. Prior to any construction, a type B Stormwater Management and Flood Protection Permit will have to be obtained. Utilities The subject property is not served by County water and wastewater facilities. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Department originally recommended that the subject property be rezoned to R -2B, allowing up to 8 units/acre. This recommendation was based on the fact that this would be a down -zoning of almost all of the subject property which would reduce allowed densities by 46 percent and the fact that the County has approved two rezonings to R -2B in this area in the past few years. However, since area residents are concerned about high densities, the fact that the area is not served by County water nor wastewater facilities, the fact that the subject property is in a flood -prone area, and the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, staff feels that a rezoning to RM -4, allowing up to 4 units/acre, would be more appropriate. Property owners would still be able to petition for rezoning to allow a higher density and the County could review this area for rezoning in the future if conditions change. 38 APR 10 1985 L BOOK 60 F''GE 469 APR I Q 1985 BOOK E0 P�:GE 470 Mr. Shearer showed slides of the existing structures and homes in the area proposed for rezoning. Commissioner Bird asked the status of the existing commercial property in the area to be rezoned, and Planning & Development Director Robert Keating confirmed that the proposed rezoning would not create any new non -conforming uses. There are some existing non -conforming uses, however, that will continue to be non -conforming if this is passed. The Judah Fish House is not included in the 102 acres, but the Indian River Seafood Company (generally referred to as the Crab House) will be a non -conforming use based on its R-3 zoning as it is a commercial fishery. In addition many mobile homes in this area are presently in non-conformance based on the commercial zoning. Originally, they were in conformance with the C-1, but that zoning was changed in 1972 when the new Zoning Ordinance was adopted. Commissioner Wodtke asked how many acres of the 102 will not be in conformance if rezoned to RM -4. Mr. Shearer felt that was hard to calculate because most of the mobile homes are on separate lots, but he believed that perhaps there would be 5 acres or Tess. He noted that the El Capitan Mobile Park was recently rezoned to RMH-8 and is in conformance with the Land Use Plan. Mr. Shearer reviewed the recent Strnad request to have property downzoned from C -I and R-2 to R2 -B, which resulted in it being zoned at 8 units per acre; however, the Strnad property is not included in today's rezoning request. Commissioner Scurlock believed the area was chopped up pretty badly by the many uses and zonings. Chairman Lyons opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. Robert Lloyd of Lloyd & Associates, representing E. J. Potter, pointed out his client's property on a map and emphasized that both the Strnad property and the El Capitan 39 Mobile Park were recently rezoned to 8 units per acre. He felt that rezoning his client's property to 4 units per acre would be inconsistent and requested that Mr. Potter's property be rezoned to 8 units per acre which would be,more in keeping with the property; if that could not be done today, he requested that this area be deleted at the present time. He added that Mr. Potter's property consists of 5.2 acres and that no water or sewer is available. Commissioner Bowman felt a package plant would not be feasible for those few customers, but Mr. Lloyd felt that perhaps they could merge with another development. Commissioner Bowman believed the percolation rate in that area is terrible and would require a great deal of fill. Director Keating advised that staff felt it was not good to have Mr. Potter's property sandwiched by properties at higher densities and would have no problem in having his property go to 6 units per acre; however, Mr. Potter would be required to apply for rezoning at 6 units per acre because it is presently zoned C-1. He noted that it would not automatically convert at tomorrow night's Public Hearing when the conversion table is approved. B. T. Cooksey, Attorney representing Jones McCoy owner of 30 acres running along the river to U.S. #1, urged the Board to reconsider the decision of the P&Z Commission and rezone this area at 8 units per acre or compromise at 6. Attorney Cooksey believed this would be more realistic and in keeping with what can be economically built in the area. He advised that the present zoning is C-1 on the front, R-2 in the middle and R-3 east of that. The part under consideration today is the eastern part of this property which is zoned R-2. Attorney George Heath, representing Mr. & Mrs. Hugo Noack, owners of the Indian River Sea Food Company, referred 40 APR 101985 BOOK GO PAGE 471 APR 10 1995 BOOK CO PnE 472 to his letter to the Board requesting that special consider- ation be given to his clients request that their property be deleted from this rezoning, with the understanding that they could come back at a later date to request a change in the land use designation. Attorney Heath realized that they are grandfathered in, but felt that they could do something with 6 units per acre. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously closed the Public Hearing. Director Keating noted that no one was here from Roseland today and felt that gave a wrong impression because Roseland residents had packed the chambers at the three Planning & Zoning Commission meetings clamoring for lower densities, and they had made good points about salt -water intrusion and the lack of public water and wastewater. He noted that they have submitted a petition against higher densities. Commissioner Wodtke felt that some commercial estab- lishments should be considered commercial after 30 years of use in commercial and should not be included in residential. Commissioner Scurlock felt that a compromise at 6 units per acre might be reasonable but cautioned that while no Roseland residents were in attendance today, they were of the belief that 4 units per acre would be approved today. Commissioner Wodtke asked if we have the right to consider 6 units per acre when the advertisement was for 4 units per acre. Attorney Brandenburg stated that we have advertised for a downzoning and what we would be doing is just not going down as far. He felt the Board had that authority. 41 MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock,; SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, that the Board adopt Ordinance 85-34, rezoning 102 acres from C-1, R-3, R -2B, R-2, R-1PM, R-1 and R -1A to RM -6, Multiple Family Residential instead of RM -4 as advertised. Under discussion, Commissioner Bowman stated she was not in favor of 6 units per acre because she felt we should not put that many people in such a environmentally sensitive area. Chairman Lyons was torn on this decision as he had trouble with that piece of property being without sewer and water. Commissioners Wodtke and Scurlock believed that it would be much more economical for them to get affordable sewer and water at 6 units per acre. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion passed by a vote of 4-1, Commissioner Bowman dissenting. 42 APR 101985 BOOK CO F ..GE 473 APR 10 1985 ORDINANCE NO. 85-34 BOOK 60 FGE 474 . 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 North 400' of the South 551.04' of Lot 5, located in the J. A. Hudson Subdivision as recorded in Deed Book EE, Page 600, of the Public Records of Brevard County, Florida. Containing 7.76 acres more or less. All of said lands now lying and being within Indian River County, Florida. AND A parcel of land lying in Sections 25 and 36, Township 30S, Range 38E, and Section 31, Township 30S, Range 39E, Indian River County, Florida; more particularly described as follows: Begin at the Northeasterly corner of Lot 1, Charles Subdivision, as recorded in Plat Book 9, Page 97, of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida; thence Southwesterly along the North line of said subdivision to the NW corner of said subdivision, said corner being also the NW corner of Lot 5 of said subdivision; thence South, along the West line of said subdivision and the West line of said Lot 5, to the SW corner of said Lot 5; thence Northwesterly along an arc parallel to the east right-of-way line of U.S. Highway #1 (State Road #5), to a point on the South boundary of Van Bergans and Hendry's Subdivision as recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 39, of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida; said point being 640' more or less East of, as measured along the South line of said subdivision, the Easterly right-of-way line of U.S. Highway #1 (State Road #5); thence Northeasterly, along said South line, to its intersection with the Easterly right-of-way line of Old Dixie Highway; thence run Northerly along said Easterly right-of-way line 140' more or less to the NW corner of the following described parcel. Beginning at a 4 x 4 monu- ment located on the West -shore of the Indian River, said monument being known as a point lying 10 feet Northerly from Gibson's Wharf and further described as being 10' Northerly fram and at right angles to the produced centerline of the present paved highway leading frau U.S. Highway #1 (State Road #5) to the Town of Roseland; run South 42°52' East along the West shore of the Indian River a distance of 331.2'; thence run South 50°26' West, a distance of 283.7'to the point of beginning; thence run South 32°10' East, a distance of 95.5'; thence run South 30°26' West, a distance of 130.8', thence run North 22°7' West, a distance of 100'; thence run 105' on a Northeasterly line 43 to the Point of Beginning. Said parcel of land lying in Government Lots 5 and 7 of Section 25, Township 30S, Range 38E, as described in the Official Record Book 2, Page 241, of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida; thence Northeasterly, along the North property line of said parcel, 460' more or less to the Westerly shoreline of the Indian River; thence Southerly, along said shoreline, to its intersection with the North line of the Replat of Dettore Acres as recorded in Plat Book 10, Page 25, of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida; thence Westerly along said North line to its intersection with the Westerly right-of-way line of Old Dixie Highway; thence Northerly along said right -of- ay line to the intersection of said line with the Easterly projection of the South line of the Charles Subdivision as recorded in Plat Book 9, Page 97, of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida; thence Westerly, along said Easterly projection and said South line, 211', thence Northwesterly on an interior angle of 107°45' a distance of 243.71' to a point 35' due South of the North line of Lot 1, thence East on a line 35' due South of the North line 168.67' to the Westerly right-of-way line of Old Dixie Highway; thence Northerly along said right-of-vay line to the Point of Beginning, LESS the following described parcel: Beginning at the point of intersection of the South line of Section 25, Township 30S, Range 38E and the East right -of -may line of State Road No.4 and run 485.3' northwesterly along said East right-of-way line for Point of Beginning. Thence run Northeasterly and at right angle with said East right-of-way line 65' to the Indian River, thence run along the river 150' Northwesterly and parallel with said East right-of-way line, thence Southwesterly and at right angle to said East right -of way line 65', to said East right-of-way line, thence 150' Southeasterly along said right-of-way to Point of Begin- ning, including all riparian rights pertaining to said tract of land, being located in Section 25, Township 30S, Range 38E, containing 0.22 acres, more or less. AND Ocean View Subdivision No. 1, Lot 10, Block 1, as recorded in Plat Book 4, Page 89, of Public Records of Indian River County, Florida. AND Being a parcel of land lying in part of Lots 7 and 8, James A. Hudson Sub- division, according to plat thereof, filed in Plat Book 1, Page 183, Public Records of St. Lucie. County, Florida; said land now lying and being in Indian River County, Florida; the boundary of said parcel being more particularly described as follows: Fran a point marking the intersection of the centerline of Central Avenue and the North line of Lot 8 of J. A. Hudson Subdivision, run East 30.67' to a concrete monument on the East right-of-way line of said Central Avenue; thence run North 89°52'40" East along the South line of Indian River Acres Subdivision as filed in Plat Book 8, Page 9, Public Records of Indian River County, Florida, a distance of 309.52' for the Point of Beginning; thence, retracing the last bear- ing, go South 89°52'40" West a distance of 10' to a concrete monument; thence run South 1°36'55" West a distance of 210.86' more or less to a point on the South line of Lot 8 of James A. Hudson Subdivison; thence run North 89°13'30" East along the South boundary line of Lot 8 a distance of 50' to a point, thence run Northwesterly to the Point of Beginning. Containing 1.50 acres more or less. Subject to easement, restric- tions, reservations and limitations of record. AND Being a parcel of land lying in part of Lots 7 and 8, James A. Hudson Subdivision, according to plat thereof filed in Plat Book 1, Page 183, 44 APR 101985 BOOK 60 FD.GF 475 APR 10 1985 BOOK 60 F GE 476 Public Records of St. Lucie County, Florida, said lands naw lying and being in Indian River County, Florida; the boundary of said parcel being more particularly described as follows: Fran a point marking the intersection of the centerline of Central Avenue and the North line of Lot 8 of J. A. Hudson Subdivision run East 30.67' to the Point of Beginning; thence following the South line of Indian River Acres Subdivision as filed in Plat Book 8, Page 9, Public Records of Indian River County, Florida, run East a distance of 299.52'; thence run Southerly on a line forming an angle of 88°48' as measured frau West to South with the last described line a distance of 220' more or less to a point on the South line of Lot 8, J. A. Hudson Subdivision, thence run Westerly along said South line a distance of 150' more or less to a point on the East right-of-way line of Central Avenue; thence run Northwesterly along said East line of Central Avenue a distance of 256' more or less to the Point of Beginning. Containing 1.13 acres more or less. AND Lots 4 thru 6, inclusive, Replat of Dettore Acres Subdivision as recorded in Plat Book 10, Page 25, Public Records of Indian River County, Florida. All of said lands now lying and being within Indian River County, Florida. Be changed from C-1, Commercial District; R-1, Single -Family District; R -1A, Single -Family District; R-2, Multiple -Family District; R -2B, Multiple -Family District, R-3, Multiple -Dwelling District and R-1PM, Permanent Mobile Home Subdivision District, to RM -6, 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 10th day of Ap r i1 1985. BOARD OF COUNTY COPMIISSIONERS OF INDIAN . r' ai: COUNTY i Ti =: e B. LYON -'rman le BY: Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of Florida this 15th day of AApril , 1985. Effective Date: Acknowledgment from the Department of State received on this 19th day of April , 1985, at 11' A.M. /P.M. and filed in the office of the Clerk of the Board of County Commissio ers of Indian River County, Florida. 45 PROPOSAL TO REALIGN JUNGLE TRAIL The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/1/85: TX): Mrs. Ruth Stanbridge, DATE: April 1, 1985 Mr. Harry Hauth, Mrs. Jeannette Lier, Mrs. Anne Michael, and Mr. John Morrison, Members of the Scenic Roads & Trails Committee SUBJECT: FROM: REFERENCES: Gary M. Brandenburg, County Attorney FILE: Attached to this memorandum please find an agreement that has been proposed between certain owners of property along Jungle Trail and the County. This agreement follows the same format as the agreement we used for the relocation of Jungle Trail along the boundaries of the Riverbend property. Please review the agreement and give me your comments as soon as possible as I have scheduled this matter for consideration by the County Commission during their April 10, 1985, regular meeting. Attorney Brandenburg advised that since the members of the Scenic Roads & Trails Committee did not have enough time to review the proposed agreement, the Chairman of that committee has requested that approval of this agreement be postponed. Commissioner Bird asked to see a map, and Attorney Brandenburg explained that the County has been approached by the developers of Indian River Trails to relocate the right-of-way shown on the County's old maintenance map for Jungle Trail. The actual roadbed itself would not change, but the right-of-way that exists on each side of the roadway as shown on the maintenance map does not correspond with the actual path of the road in some instances. Unless this is corrected, the County will not get clear title to the roadbed which can never be questioned in the future. This agreement would also set the exact boundaries of the road 46 APR 1019 16. BOOK 0 PAGE 477 Pr - APR 1 0 1985 BOOK 60 Fay;€ 478 with respect to the developer's property for purposes of setbacks. Chairman Scurlock asked if there was a timing problem, and Attorney Brandenburg advised there was none with the County but perhaps there was with Indian River Trails. He explained that this agreement parallels the one with Florida Land Company on the Riverbend project. Commissioner Bird asked if this was any different, and Attorney Brandenburg felt that this case than the Florida Land contract. Attorney William Caldwell, representing Indian River Trails, felt that this matter could be delayed for a week, but two weeks would hurt them in their preparation for going before the Indian River Shores Council. He asked if everything on this matter would go through the Scenic Roads & Trails Committee, and Chairman Lyons noted that the Committee advises the Board on these matters as Jungle Trail is an important part of this County and the Board wants to do whatever we can to keep the road's scenic character intact. Attorney Caldwell stated that his client feels the is a much more clear cut same. Commissioner Scurlock recommended that this be matter be rescheduled for next week after the meeting of the Scenic Roads and Trails Committee. ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously tabled this matter until next Wednesday's meeting. RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION, SOUTH GIFFORD ROAD, EAST OF US #1 - INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD ALIGNMENT Public Works Director Jim Davis reviewed the following memo dated 3/29/85: 47 TO: FROM: DATE: The Honorable Members March 29, 1985 of the Board of County Commissioners THROUGH SUBJECT: FILE: Right -of -Way Acquisition South Gifford Road East Michael Wright, of U.S. 1 Along City of County Administrator Vero Beach Power Line Route - Indian River REFERENCESBoulevard Alignment James W. Davis, P.E. Letter from Charles P. Public Works Director Vitunac, City Attorney to Michael. Wright dated Mar. 21, 1985 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITION During the August 17, 1983 meeting of the Board of County Commissioners,the Board approved the Transportation Planning Committee's recommendations to accept donation of right-of-way along the South side of South Gifford Road (41st St.) from the City's substation eastward to the future right-of-way of Indian River Boulevard. This right-of-way was to abut a right-of-way to be donated to the City for an Electrical Transmission line, however, since that time, the property owners have decided not to donate the right-of-way to the City of Vero Beach. The City of Vero Beach has decided to condemn the needed transmission line right-of-way, and if the County does not elect to participate in needed right-of-way condemnation or acquisition, the transmission line may be placed in an area needed for South Gifford Road right-of-way. At this time, the City is requesting that the County join in the condemnation. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS Future need for South Gifford Road right-of-way is apparent. If• the property owners along the corridor do not agree to donate the needed road right-of-way, the County should proceed to acquire it. Acquisition by donation is preferred. Also, the County and City should agree on pole and anchor locations so that conflicts with road needs do not occur. RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING If property owners along South Gifford Road do not elect to donate needed road right-of-way along South Gifford Road, then staff recommends that the County participate in a purchase agreement or condemnation along with the City of Vero Beach. Funding, if necessary, to be from the County's 5th and 6th Cent Gas Tax (Secondary Trust Fund). Invoices from Lloyd and Associates, in the amount of $2,935.00 for survey work and drafting have been received. 48 APR 101985 BOOK 60 FACE 479 APR 10 1985 BOOK 60 PGE 480 Commissioner Bird asked why we can't anticipate now where the power lines will be installed, and Director Davis explained that a nuisance strip might result because the County's needs might encroach upon the City's power line easement. It was felt some of the County's drainage needs could be accomplished in the City's easement area. Commissioner Bird stated that since we know that the County needs 100 ft. of right-of-way and the City needs 30 ft., he could not see why we could not establish where that 130 feet would go, take the City's 30 feet off either the north or south edge, and then get our 100 feet later on. Administrator Wright felt that if we did not acquire this right-of-way, people could have their property bisected by a powerline 40 feet in. Attorney Brandenburg explained that by doing it as Commissioner Bird suggested, the City would have to pay a lot more because they would be leaving a strip of property that would be useless to the owners and would have to pay more in severance damages. Commissioner Bird could understand the property owners' reluctance to donate property because he realized that when that road is built, it will connect U.S. #1 and Indian River Boulevard and those owners will be sitting on real estate worth multi -millions of dollars. He expressed his reluctance, however, for the County to buy any right-of-way unless it was absolutely needed. Administrator Wright believed that if we don't buy it, then the City is going to move right up to the property line and acquire their right-of-way, which will make our road offset at the intersection. Commissioner Scurlock suggested that the City of Vero Beach just go ahead and get the alignment so that it is not offset and then worry about our additional requirements when we get to that point. 49 Attorney Brandenburg pointed out that if we were to get the property owners to donate the road right-of-way now, then, of course, the City would have no choice but to condemn their right-of-way line alongside our road right-of- way. Administrator Wright stressed that is exactly what we are recommending -- that we get the donation first and if that fails, go to condemnation. Commissioner Wodtke believed that the Board may take the position that if the property owners do not want to donate the right-of-way, then we don't want to buy it. Director Davis stated that if that transpires, then the City will go ahead and condemn their power line right-of-way on the north property lines and the County would not have any option but to offset the road to the north. Commissioner Wodtke believed that we have the ability to tell the courts that is a proposed road right-of-way. Attorney Brandenburg advised that the County could enter into a lawsuit, but pointed out that we may have some leverage with the City on this matter with regard to a Special Act which they need passed. Commissioner Scurlock clarified that at present the City cannot acquire right-of-way in unincorporated areas and the Board may want to object to legislation that is being proposed which would allow them to do that. Attorney Brandenburg suggested that the appropriate procedure would be to inform the Legislature that we have some difficulty with the acquisition of this road right-of-way, and whatever special act is being considered, the County wants to make sure that the City's condemnation power is consistent with the County's Thoroughfare Plan, which calls for a 100 -foot road right-of-way in this instance. 50 APR 101985 BOOK 80 OGF 481 APR 10 1985 BOOK 60 1, E -S2 Commissioner Bird felt that since we need 100 feet to line up with S. Gifford Road where it joins U.S. #1, that we should draw out our 100 feet to Indian River Boulevard and then tell the City that they can have either 30 feet to the north or 30 feet to the south for their power line but not to put their line on our 100 feet because we are going to build a road there when we feel it is needed. Chairman Lyons concurred that the road is of first importance, and then the City can figure out how they can tie into our road at a later date. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, that the Board authorize the County Attorney to make the appropriate and immediate contact with the Legislature to inform them that whatever special act they are considering, the County wants to make sure that the City's powers in condemning property for an electrical transmission line in this area are consistent with the County's Thoroughfare Plan which calls for a 100 -ft. right-of-way in this instance. Under discussion, Administrator Wright suggested that the County go ahead and seek road right-of-way donations, and Commissioner Wodtke felt it would certainly make things a lot easier if that could be accomplished. Director Davis stated that if we get 100 feet, we would be okay, but the City might have to acquire as much as 40 feet depending on our road alignment. Commissioner Scurlock felt we should worry about the road and acquire what we need and let the City worry about what they need. 51 THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion passed unanimously. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously authorized the County Administrator to begin proceedings to assure the road alignment and begin negotiations for right-of-way with the understanding that the County will not build the road unless the right-of-way is donated. Director Davis recommended that Lloyd & Associates be compensated $2935 for engineering services performed back when donation seemed imminent and the County authorized them to proceed with survey work to establish what was going to be required. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously authorized the payment of $2935 to Lloyd and Associates for engineering services done on this project. PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT TO BOUNDARIES TO VERO BEACH HIGHLANDS STREET -LIGHTING MSTU The hour of 11:00 o'clock having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication, to wit: 52 APR 10 1985 BOOK 60 PAGE 483 r � SPR 10 195 BOOK 60 PAGE 484 VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being in the matter of—m40 9 fes' in the may' Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of / 270-4e�%� 3 1�/'- Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun- ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed before me this _ . _ - day, (SEAL), (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, Florida) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF COUNTY ORDI- NANCE ' of Indian .. me hard of County CrnmIS&oner6 RiVOT blIc HearinCounty, Wednesday. � 1985 at a 11:00 A.M. In the Commission Chambers at the County Administration i3uilding. 184025th option P ero Beach. Florida t0 conte Ordinance entitled AN ORDINANCE OF- THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN, RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 41, ARTICLE XVII, OF THE.','CODE OF Laws. AND ORDINANCESALSO KNOWN AS ORDINANCE 84.21; PERTAINING TO THE VERO HIGH - DS AREA; MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT:. PROVIDING FOR REI- NACTMENT AND `REVLON OF SEC- . TION 21-18110 REVISE THE DESCRIP TION OF REAL, PROPERTY INCLUDED IN THE TAXING UNIT; AMENDING THE,, NAME OF :THE UNIT; PROVIDING FOR -CODIFICATION. REPEAL OF (NG PROVISIONS SEVERABILITY; AND," EFFECTIVE DATE.'a as r ti Hany, pion decides to•appeal a decision made on the above matter, a record of the pro- ceedings will be required for such Pum and or she may need to ensure that 8:verbatim redord of the proceedings Is nye, which record Includes the testimony and evidence an which the appea N based Indiap Rhrer Count! Board of County Commissioners -a-Patrick B. Lys . March 23i 1885 Assistant Attorney Chris Paull reviewed the following memo dated 3/2/85: TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: April 2, 1985 FILE: SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO BOUNDARIES TO VERO BEACH HIGHLANDS STREET— LIGHTING MSTU Christoph J. Paull FROM'Assistant County Attorney REFERENCES: In October 1984, the Board established a street lighting MSTU for the Vero Beach Highlands area. The district boundaries were designated as including those areas platted in the subdivision and inadvertently omitted a number of large, unplatted vacant tracts which would conceivably receive a benefit from the installation of street lights. 53 Upon request of the Public Works Director and the Director of OMB, this office has prepared the attached amendment to the original ordi- nance which would include all such vacant tracts within the boundaries of the district. RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is requested that the Board adopt the attached ordinance amending the boundaries of the Vero Beach Highlands MSTU to include all vacant out parcels within the general subdivision area. OMB Director Jeff Barton pointed out on a map of the area the Targe unplatted vacant tracts which were inadvertently omitted in the original street lighting MSTU. He advised that this calls for adding 131 units to the district. Chairman Lyons opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously closed the Public Hearing. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, that the Board adopt Ordinance 85-35 amending the boundaries of the Vero Beach Highlands MSTU to include all vacant out parcels within the general subdivision area. Under discussion, it was noted that this includes all of the Vero Highlands area when it is built out. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion passed unanimously. APR 10 1985 54 BOOK 60 P ,E 485 APR 101985 BOOK 60 F1,E 486 ORDINANCE NO. 85- 35 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 21, ARTICLE XVII, OF THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, ALSO KNOWN AS ORDINANCE 84-71, PERTAINING TO THE VERO HIGHLANDS AREA MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT; PROVIDING FOR REINACTMENT AND REVISION OF SECTION 21-161 TO REVISE THE DESCRIPTION OF REAL PROPERTY INCLUDED IN THE TAXING UNIT; AMENDING THE NAME OF THE UNIT; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION; REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; SEVERABILITY; AND EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, on October 10, 1984, the Board of County Commissioners enacted Ordinance 84-71, thereby establishing a municipal service taxing unit to provide street lighting for the Vero Beach Highlands Subdivision area; and WHEREAS, the Board desires to amend the boundaries of said MSTU to reflect the inclusion of several large unplatted properties which shall receive a benefit from the street lighting, but which were originally omitted from the property subject to levy. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: SECTION ONE Section 21-161 of the Code of Laws and Ordinances, originally enacted as Ordinance 84-71, Section 1, is hereby amended and reenacted in its entirety to read as follows: Section 21-161. Creation of Municipal Service Taxing Unit. There is hereby established in Indian River County the Vero Beach Highlands area municipal service taxing unit under the authority of, and with all those powers conferred by, the Consti- tution of the State of Florida and Florida Statutes 5125.01(q)(r). The real property included within the boundaries of this municipal service taxing unit and subject to all provisions hereof is described as follows: The East 1/2 -of Section 35, Township 33 South, Range 39 East, plus all of Section 36, Township 33 South, Range 39 East, plus the West 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 31, Township 33 South, Range 40 East, plus all that portion of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 31 lying West of the Lateral J Canal, together with Unit 1 of the Vero Beach Highlands Subdivision as recorded in Plat Book 5, Page 29 of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida; all lying and being within Indian River County, Florida. -1- -All-that-eertain-preperty-lying-within-the-€ellewing sttbdieisien-plats-en-€ile-in-the-Pttblie-Reeerds-eE-Indian-Rver eetuaty;-Plerida-at-the-Plat-Beek-and-Page-Numbers-indieated belew: 17--Vere-Beaeh-Highlands-Subdvisien-Halt-Ndmber-1;-Plat Beek -57 -Page -89 87--Vere-Beaeh-Highlands-Subdivisien-Unit-Namber-8;-Plat Beek -S; -Pages -44 -and -487 -and -Plat -Beek -67 -Page -40 37--Vere-Beaeh-Highlands-Subd+visien-Unit-Number-3;-Plat Beek -87 -Pages -44T -4I -and -41A 4. Vere-Beaeh-Highlands-Sabdvisien7-Unit-Number-4, Plat -Beek -87 -Page -38 57--Vere-Beaeh-Highlands-Sttbdvisien-Unit-Number-57-Plat Beek -B; -Pages -56 -through -56E; -all -said -land -lying -and -being -within Indian-River-eettnty;-Plerida- SECTION TWO REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS 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 THREE 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. SECTION FOUR EFFECTIVE DATE The provisions of this ordinance shall become effective upon receipt from the Florida Secretary of State of official APR 101985 56 BOOK CO P':;E 487 Pr - APR 10 1985 BOOK DO F ..GF 488 acknowledgment that this ordinance has been filed with the Department of State. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, on this 10th day of April , 1985. BOARD 0 .CEJUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIA" RI ' R COUNTY, FLORIDA TRICK B. LYO •S Chairman ATTEST: l.Oi , o� FREDA WRIGHT Clerk Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of Florida this 15th day of April , 1985. Regarding Effective Date: Acknowledgment from the Department of State received on this 19th day of April , 1985, at 11:00 A.M./P.M. and filed in the Office of the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida. APPROVED LEGAL 813 By ,.!"County Attorney AS TO FORM AND I. NC 437 -3- NOTE: Words in streek-threugk-type are deletions from existing law; words underlined are additions. 57 PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE AMENDING REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTIFICATES OF COMPETENCY FOR CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS 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: 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 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TOp Int CONSIDER ADOPTION OF N7 • T 7 , x� "rrx4NANCE {`ndia?;. The Board of. County Comrrlta River ;Cour Florida. "witi ?conduct a Public ' Hearing on ednesday, AprII 10 ;1' at 11:15; A.M.. In the Commisalbn Chamheratt C e Administration, BuJlding 1840 eet. - - ' Beach'; Florida to;cnrrsider t e adoption of a r) Ordinance entitled:, ,a ' • 'e,,,,,,.-• , COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDI • RIVER COUNTY,' FLORIDA, AMENDING INDIAN . RIVER COUNTY . CODE OF ',LAWS AND ORDINANCES-CHAPTERRENO r • CREATING :ARTICLE- Xl;,.• CU FOR ;,CERTIFICATE OF COMPETENCY FOR ,, CONTRACTORS; AND'. -TORS; .'CREATING' STANDARDS FORA ELECTRICIANS CREATING ' -,,,STAND- • ;; ARDS FOR PLUMBERS•, REQUIRING IN- ' SURANCE; ,PROVIDING' FOR RIGID 'OF CERTIFIED CONTRACTORS ' SUBCONTRACTORS; PROVIDING FOR ',' SUSPENSION OR,. REVOCATION OF, CERTIFICATES HEARING:: AND Apa,,w+' PEALS; `.INCORPORATION IN CODE; "SEVERABILITY PENALTIES ANDtEF FECTIVEDATE v v r.r it 6 Ir If Any QatdecideS td,'appeal a iter oni, , made on , e above matter a record of the- prof, ceedings wilt be required for such Pure ;he or she may need to ehirecord' record of the proaeedi g � p n whish :. Includes the testimpr►y and evidelICI the appeal is based. titi • z z. • *� Indian River CduCouunty ori y y,. Board Commissioaenk7 -s-Patrick B.Lyons, Chairman s,j b ard-123.1985 a �•I p, 4'164. - '9f`e'1161-27e4i in the i �y Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of /"Mle /®� 4.23W5. Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun- ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed before me this - _ , day of / A D 19 '(SFAI.1 . LAPR 101985 (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, Florida) ' AN' ORDINAN Assistant County Attorney Jim Wilson and Building Director Ester Rymer presented staff's recommendation for adoption of the proposed ordinance amending the requirements for Certificates of Competency for contractors and sub- contractors. They advised that the fee structure can be established by Resolution. Director Rymer explained that the need for this came about in order to get away from air conditioning outfits coming in and paying only $9,00 for a license without having 58 BOOK 60 489 APR 101985 BOOK 60 Phc : 490 any experience or insurance, doing unsatisfactory work and and leaving town. Staff is trying to get some order into issuing contractors' licenses for all phases of construction. The State has taken care of the primary contractors, such as general, residential, building, plumbing, electrical, etc., but there are many other areas of construction that need to be monitored. Staff is asking that this ordinance be adopted so that we can handle them. Commissioner Scurlock explained that this would solve the problem of people telling their customers that they are licensed by the County and giving the impression that they have conformed to County standards when, indeed, they have not; all they have done is pay $9. Commissioner Wodtke asked if a general handyman needed to get a license, and Director Rymer advised that wouldn't benecessary unless they were under contract. In that event, they can get a Residential Contractor permit from the State. Usually they work for a homeowner at an hourly rate and the homeowner is responsible for pulling his own permit. Chairman Lyons asked if some of these items were under our purview or if they really should be civil actions. Attorney Brandenburg explained that if funds are diverted or if there is fraud, individuals can certainly follow civil proceedings; however, individuals can file a complaint with the County to have a license revoked. If it falls into a category that is licensed by the State, they can do the same with the State. Attorney Wilson believed that in these cases we would not be trying to obtain damages for the homeowner, we just would be trying to protect the general public by taking a person's license away before he could do any damage to someone else. all of 59 APR 10 1985 Chairman Lyons opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously closed the Public Hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance 85-36, requiring a Certificate of Competency for contractors and subcontractors; creating standards for electricians and plumbers; and requiring insurance. Director Rymer advised that the tests given by Block & Associates are recognized throughout the State of Florida and are given anytime in Gainsville or every 30 days in this coastal area. She believed there is a $50 charge. 60 BOOK 60 491 F' ,GE APR 1 0 '1985 BOOK CO PAGE 492 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 85-36 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES CHAPTER 4, CREATING ARTICLE XI; REQUIRING CERTIFICATE OF COMPETENCY FOR CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS; CREATING STANDARDS FOR ELECTRICIANS; CREATING STANDARDS FOR PLUMBERS; REQUIRING INSURANCE; PROVIDING FOR RIGHTS OF CERTIFIED CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS; PROVIDING FOR SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF CERTIFICATES; HEARING AND APPEALS; INCORPORATION IN CODE; SEVERABILITY; PENALTIES; AND EFFECTIVE DATE. NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances Chapter 4, Article XI is hereby created to read as follows: SECTION 1 CERTIFICATE OF COMPETENCY REQUIRED FOR CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS A. No person shall engage in the business of construction, electrical, or plumbing contracting or subcontracting without a valid certificate of competency issued by the Indian River County Building Department. B. A Certificate of Competency may be issued only to the holder of an appropriate valid Florida State Certificate or to a person who has passed the appropriate Block and Associates of Gainesville, Florida, examination which was proctored by Block and Associates on behalf of any city or county situated in the State of Florida, upon payment of the appropriate fee. Any person holding a valid and current County Occupational License prior to the effective date of this ordinance shall be entitled to a Certificate of Competency in their licensed occupational field. C. The categories of contractors regulated are those contractors regulated by and defined in Chapter 489 of the Florida Statutes and the following categories as tested by Block and Associates as follows: 1. Aluminum 2. Aluminum Specialty 3. Burglar Systems 4. Chattahoochee Stone 5. Concrete Placing and Finishing 6. Decorative Metals/Aluminum Railings 7. Demolition and Landclearing 8. Dock/Seawalls 9. Dredging -1- 10. Drywall 11. Elevator Installation 12. Fence Installation 13. Glass and Glazing 14. Heavy Equipment (Crane and dragline) 15. Insulation acoustical ceiling 16. Marine Construction 17. Masonry 18. Painting 19. Patio Coatings 20. Paving 21. Pile Driving 22. Plastering/Stucco 23. Roof Painting/Pressure Cleaning 24. Screen Enclosure 25. Septic Tank 26. Solar Equipment, Sales and Installation 27. Sprinkler Installation (also well and sprinkler) 28. Structural Steel 29. Tile/Marble 30. Underground Utilities 31. Urethane Roofing 32. Well Drilling D. When a contractor, subcontractor, electrician or plumber meets the requirements for issuance of a Certificate of Competency, that certificate will remain in force unless revoked pursuant to Section 5 of this article or applicable Florida Statutes. E. The same exemptions from regulations as set forth in Chapter 489 of the Florida Statutes are also exemptions under the requirements for a Certificate of Competency. F. It shall be unlawful for any person to advertise or hold himself out to the public as a person engaged in the business of construction, electrical, or plumbing contracting or subcontracting as regulated by this Chapter unless that person has a valid Certificate of Competency issued by the Building Department and unless the advertisement or sign on the vehicle advertising the business shall clearly display the correct State certification number or Certificate of Competency number issued by the Building Department. G. A contractor shall hire a subcontractor regulated under paragraph C of this section only if that subcontractor has a valid Certificate of Competency issued by the Building Department. H. Nothing in this Chapter shall prevent any homeowner of an owner -occupied single-family residence from performing any work regulated by this article within the boundaries of his APR 101985 -2- BOOK 60 PAGE 493 APR 10 1985 BOOK CO DCA 494 residential property, providing such work is done by himself. Such privilege does not convey the right to violate any of the provisions of this chapter, nor is it to be construed as exempting any property owner from obtaining a permit and paying the required fees therefor. SECTION 2 MASTER JOURNEYMAN - APPRENTICE ELECTRICIAN A. All electrical construction, except homeowners work permitted under this article, shall be done by a master electrician, a journeyman electrician under the general supervision of a master electrician, or an apprentice electrician under the direct personal supervision of a master electrician or journeyman electrician. B. Master electrician rating shall be established by being a state certified electrical contractor or by passing the Block and Associates of Gainesville, Florida examination for master electrician and registering with the County Building Department. Master electricians holding a Certificate of Competency from the Building Department on the effective date of this ordinance may continue to hold and renew that Certificate of Competency without passing the Block examination or being state certified. C. Journeyman electrician rating shall be established by passing the Block and Associates of Gainesville, Florida examination for Journeyman electrician and registering with the Building Department. D. Apprentice electricians shall register with the Building Department. E. Master, Journeyman, and apprentice electricians shall carry their registration card on their person during working hours. Upon request of the electrical inspector the registration card shall be produced. Failure to carry the card or show it upon request constitutes grounds for revocation or suspension of the person's Building Department registration. SECTION 3 MASTER - JOURNEYMAN - APPRENTICE PLUMBERS A. All plumbing construction, except homeowners work permitted under this article, shall be done by a master plumber, a journeyman plumber under the general supervision of a master plumber, or an apprentice plumber under the direct personal supervision of a master plumber or journeyman plumber. B. Master plumber rating shall be established by being a state certified plumbing contractor or by passing the Block and Associates of Gainesville, Florida examination for master plumber and registering with the County Building Department. Master plumber holding a valid license from the Building Department on the effective date of this ordinance may continue to hold and renew that license without passing the Block examination or being state certified. C. Journeyman plumber rating shall be established by passing the Block and Associates of Gainesville, Florida examination for Journeyman plumber and registering with the Building Department. D. Apprentice plumbers shall register with the Building Department. E. Master, Journeyman, and apprentice plumbers shall carry their registration card on their person during working hours. Upon request of the plumbing inspector the registration card shall be produced. Failure to carry the card or to show it upon request constitutes grounds for revocation or suspension of the person's Building Department registration. SECTION 4 INSURANCE REQUIRED A. Every contractor that is regulated by Florida Statutes Chapter 489 and doing business in Indian River County shall be required to maintain at all times with a casualty insurance company authorized to do business in the State of Florida, workmen's compensation insurance and public liability insurance with minimum limits as provided by Florida Statutes and the Florida Administrative Code. B. All other contractors that are regulated by this -4- BOOK 60 Pv,E 4! 5 APR 101985 APR I0 1985 BOOK -1 ME chapter shall be required to maintain at all times with a casualty insurance company authorized to do business in the State of Florida, public liability insurance with minimum coverage of $100,000.00 for bodily injury liability; $25,000,00 for property damage liability; and workmen's compensation insurance as required by Florida Statutes and the Florida Administrative Code. C. All contractors shall file with the Building Official, at the time application is made for registration, and with the Tax Collector, at the time that their applicable business license is renewed, a certificate signed by a qualified agent of the casualty insurance company stating that policies have been issued to the registrant for employee's liability insurance or workmen's compensation insurance, public liability insurance and public property damage. D. In the event of the cancellation of a policy, the Building Department shall immediately notify the registrant and the registrant shall be required to immediately furnish a new certificate in full compliance with the terms of this section. Failure to do so shall constitute a violation of this section and such registration shall automatically be revoked. Such registration may be reinstated by the Building Department when the registrant has furnished a certificate of insurance in compliance with this section. SECTION 5 SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF REGISTRATION The Building Code Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall have the power, in addition to all their powers otherwise provided for, to revoke or suspend the registration of any contractor approved and licensed hereunder, who shall be guilty of any one or more of the following acts or omissions; A. Fraud or deceit in obtaining registration; B. Negligence, incompetence, or misconduct in the practice of contracting within the meaning of this Chapter; C. Abandonment of any contract without legal excuse; D. Diversion of property or funds received under the express agreement for prosecution or completion of a specific contract under this Chapter, or for a special purpose in the prosecution or completion of any contract or application or use of any other contract, obligation or purpose with intent to defraud or deceive creditors or the owner; E. Fraudulent departure from or disregard of plans or specifications in any material respect without the consent of the owner or his duly authorized representative; or the doing of any wilfull, fraudulent act by the licensee in consequence of which another is substantially injured or damaged; F. Wilfull and deliberate disregard in violation of the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Indian River County, including but not limited to the building, electrical, plumbing and zoning ordinances of the County; or G. Wilfully and deliberately engaging in a type or class of contracting for which the contractor is not licensed or registered. SECTION 6 SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF REGISTRATION - HEARING; APPEAL Any person may bring charges against a registered contractor. Such charges shall be made in writing and sworn to by the complainant and shall be submitted to the Building Official. The Building Official shall mail a copy of such charges to the accused within fifteen days from the receipt thereof and shall serve notice upon the accused and upon all interested persons of the date fixed for hearing on such charges before the Building Code Board of Adjustments and Appeals. The accused shall have the right to appear personally or with counsel and to produce witnesses and evidence in defense. If after hearing the evidence the appropriate board determines that the accused is guilty of the charges brought against the accused, the appropriate board may suspend or cancel the contractor's registration. SECTION 7 The following sections of the Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances are hereby repealed in their entirety: Chapter 4, Section 46, originally codified as Ordinance No. 77-10, Section 14(6) and Chapter 4, Section 92, Subsection 109.2, originally codified as Ordinance No. 74-14, Section 9. -6- APR 1 0 1985 BOOK 0 ME 497 - APR 101985 BOOK 60 PAI3F498 SECTION 8 INCORPORATION IN CODE This ordinance shall be incorporated into the Code of 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 purposes. SECTION 9 SEVERABILITY If any Section, or if any -sentence, paragraph, phrase, or word of this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, inoperative, or void, such holding 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. SECTION 10 PENALTIES In addition to the penalties herein provided, a person who - shall violate or fail to comply with any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be subject to punishment by fine not to exceed $500.00 or by imprisonment in the County Jail not to exceed 60 days, or by both such fine and imprisonment. SECTION 11 EFFECTIVE DATE This ordinance shall become effective upon receipt from the Secretary of State of the State of Florida of official acknowledgment that this ordinance has been filed with the Department of State. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, on this 10th day of April 1985. • BOARD INDI NTY COMMISSIONERS OF R COUNTY, FLORIDA ICK B. LYON Chairman Attest: 1 t..4'/X1C` l Y ptc..ci1J FREDA WRIGHT 0 Clerk -7- REQUEST FOR COUNTY TO ASSUME STREET LIGHTING AT 43RD AVENUE AND 13TH PLACE The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/3/85: TO: The Honorable Members DATE: April 3, 1985 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners THROUGH Michael Wright, County Administrator FROM: Public Works1DDirector V REFERENCES: SUBJECT: Request for County to Assume Street Lighting at 43rd Avenue and 13th Place DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS The City of Vero Beach has discontinued certain street light agreements with subdivisions previously paying for lights. The street light at the entrance of Idlewild Subdivision (13th Place) west of 43rd Avenue is one such light that was discontinued. The Idlewild Property Owners Association is petitioning the County to assume this street light responsibility(petition attached) ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS The County Traffic Engineering staff has recently completed a complete study of all street lights on County collector roads, including those -in Street Light Districts, to determine if the lights warrant County funding. A report on this study will be presented to the Transportation Planning Committee in May, 1985. The Subject light was also evaluated. Based upon the Board's approved street light criteria, this location received a score of 39.9 points, which is below the 56.3 points to warrant County consideration for funding. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that this light, if it is to be continued, be funded by a source other than County funds. A prepayment arrangement has been proposed for similar such cases, and the Property Owners Assoc. would arrange with the Office of Management and Budget to prepay one years cost. 68 APR 10 1985 BOOK 60 FE 499 APR 10 1985 BOOK 60 PAGE 500 MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, that the Board authorize the street lighting at 43rd Avenue and 13th Place to continue with the understanding that it be funded by a source other than County funds; and that the Property Owners Association arrange with the Office of Management and Budget to prepay one year's cost, as recommended by staff. Under discussion, Director Davis explained that the City removed the light because it was just outside its limits, and Administrator Wright advised that the City does not have a tariff to put a light up in a subdivision, but they will install a backyard security light. He advised that the homeowners' association has been paying for this Tight and have agreed to continue paying for it; it is their idea. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion passed unanimously. FISCHER REQUEST TO REZONE 50 ACRES FROM AGRICULTURAL AND RESTRICTED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT TO R -1M, MOBILE HOME PARK DISTRICT Planner Richard Shearer reviewed the following memo dated 4/1/85: 69 TO: The Honorable Members of the Board of County Commissioners DATE: DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: Robert M. Keatin Planning & Development Director April 1, 1985 FILE: FISCHER REQUEST TO RE - SUBJECT: ZONE 50 ACRES FROM A AND M-1 TO MOBILE HOME PARK FROM: chard Shearer, AICP REFERENCES: Fischer Rezoning Chief, Long -Range Planning Section DIS:RICH2 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting on April 10, 1985. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS Dr. Henry Fischer, the owner, is requesting acres located south of 95th Street and west Railroad from A, Agricultural District units/acre), and M-1, Restricted Industrial Sebastian's R -1M, Mobile Home Park District. This property was annexed by the City of Sebastian during 1984. The Board of County Commissioners must approve any change in zoning for two years after any property is annexed into a municipality. This request was referred to the Planning and Zoning Commission for recommendation. On March 28, 1985, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4 -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 has been part of a sand mining operation for several -years. North of the subject property is Breezy .Village, a. mobile home subdivision zoned R-1PM, Permanent Mobile Home Subdivision District (up to 8.7 units/acre). East and south of the subject property is land that has been mined for sand which has received approval for a mobile home planned unit development in the City of Sebastian. West of the subject property is a single-family subdivision and vacant land. to rezone 50 of the F.E.C. (up to .2 District, to Future Land Use Pattern The Comprehensive Plan designates the east 300 feet of the ,subject property as MXD, Mixed Use District (up to 6 units/ acre), and the rest of the property as LD -2, Low -Density Residential 2 (up to 6 units/acre). The MXD designation allows mobile home developments but the LD -2 designation does not. However, the county redesignated more than 100 APR 10 1985 7 0 AM( 60 PAGE 501 APR 101985 BOOK 60 PAGE 5 2 acres of land north of the subject property from LD -2 to MD -1, Medium -Density Residential 1 (up to 8 units/acre), during 1984. The MD -1 land use designation does allow mobile home developments. The subject property would have been included in the request to redesignate the property to the north as MD -1 if it had remained in the unincorporated part of -the County. Transportation System The subject property does not have direct access to a dedicated public road at this time. The maximum development of the subject property under the proposed zoning could generate up to 2,000 Average Annual Daily Trips. Environment The subject property is not designated as environmentally sensitive nor is it in a flood -prone area. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above analysis, particularly the existing land use pattern, and the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners not exercise its right to object to this rezoning. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, that the Board waive the right to object to the requested rezoning, as recommended by staff. Under discussion, Commissioner Bowman stressed that this property sits right on the shallow aquifer and puts the entire aquifer in jeopardy. She recalled a similar situation to the north of this where the landowner is now advertising a mobile home park with a Targe lake. Commissioner Bowman noted that they already have an exposed aquifer there and felt there is no way a lake can be maintained on the sand ridge unless you go down to the aquifer. Everyone that.has a shallow well in that area is dependent upon the aquifer for drinking water and she felt this is a very dangerous thing that staff is recommending. Planning Director Keating pointed out that the existing mining operations were approved long ago and the County now would not allow someone to mine at the depth at which 71 Fischer & Hyatt were allowed. Staff has been looking very unfavorably upon any lakes in sandwiched areas because drawing water from the deep aquifer has a negative effect on the shallow water. Director Keating advised that staff's position is that since this property is sandwiched in an area between existing mobile homes, M-1 is probably the only appropriate use for this property which has been substantially altered because of the mining operation. Commissioner Bowman felt that we have been asleep at the switch in regard to the Hyatt and Fischer properties and should modify our antiquated land mining ordinance. Chairman Lyons felt there was not much we could do about it right now. Attorney Brandenburg explained that our ordinance does not address the issue of mine reclamation if an annexation occurs and noted that the reclamation plans filed in the past have been very vague and would be difficult to enforce under our current ordinance. He believed that since the mining property has been annexed, reclamation should be the concern of the City of Sebastian. Commissioner Bowman recalled that a tough mining ordinance had been drawn up and turned down by the Board of County Commissioners, and at that time the City of Sebastian asked for copy of our antiquated ordinance which they adopted. Commissioner Wodtke agreed we should have a tougher mining ordinance which would address reclamation on mining operations that are annexed into a city. Attorney Brandenburg emphasized that in the meantime the two-year limit on increases in densities is the only control the County has. Commissioner Scurlock advised that there is significant State legislation being proposed this year which affects annexation. 72 APR 10 1985 BOOK 60 PAGE 503 APR 1 0 1985 . BOOK 60 Ft1;E 5O4 Director Keating assured the Board that the mining operations that were approved since the Fischer and Hyatt operations have at least 8 to 10 overburden where the aquifer comes up and felt they have sufficient area. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion passed by a vote of 4-1, Commissioner Bowman dissenting. REQUEST FOR PERMISSION TO SEEK INJUNCTION AGAINST SEBASTIAN ASSOCIATES The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/28/85: TO: The Honorable Members of the Board of County Commissioners FROM: Robert Keating, AICP REFERENCES: Injunction Planning & Development Director IBMIRD DATE: March 28, 1985 SUBJECT: FILE: REQUEST FOR PERMISSION TO SEEK INJUNCTION AGAINST SEBASTIAN ASSOCIATES It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of April 3, 1985. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS In July of 1984, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved a site plan application submitted by Sebastian Associates, owners of Sebastian Lakes, a multi -family residential development lying within the City of Sebastian. Approval was given to change the use of Stuckeys, a tourist/commercial ail facility, located at I-95•and CR 512, to a real estate sales office for the aforementioned condominium complex. In February of 1985, the Code Enforcement Department made a site inspection to determine conformance with the approved plan, a prerequisite to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The inspection revealed several discrepancies from the approved plan, the primary one of which was the failure to pave 108th Avenue from C.R. 512 to the south property line of the site; an improvement which had been depicted on the approved site plan. However, on March 5, 1985, staff observed that the facility was being occupied regardless of the lack of a certificate of occupancy. 73 On March 6th, an order to cease and desist occupancy was issued to Robert Hamilton of Sebastian Associates, and notification was made that failure to comply would result in action by the County to enforce its ordinances and impose such penalties as are allowed by law. Subsequently, an application for approval of the minor site modifications was submitted; however, 108th Avenue was not paved and occupancy of the building continued. Therefore, on March 22, 1985, Edward Aho, a representative of Sebastian Associates, was presented with a notice to appear at the March 25th meeting of the Code Enforcement Board. Due to the contention of the developer's attorney that insufficient notice was given, the matter was not heard, and the hearing was postponed until the April 22nd meeting. It is because of the time length between sequential meetings of the Code Enforcement Board, and the developer's refusal to comply with the cease and desist order, that the matter is being brought before the County Commission. It is hereby requested that the County Attorney's Office be directed to seek an injunction, through the Circuit Court, against Sebastian Associates' occupancy of the real estate sales office. RECOMMENDATION As the Planning and Development Division's efforts to stop Sebastian Associates' illegal occupancy have been met with refusal to comply, it is recommended that permission be given to seek an injunction against the developer. Planning Director Robert Keating asked direction as to how staff should approach these cases in the future and how vigorously the Board wants this enforced. Commissioner Bird asked what staff recommended to the Code Enforcement Board, and Director Keating explained that he tried to get it on that agenda for the last meeting, but the attorney stated that they did not give sufficient notice; staff is now asking for an injuction for Sebastian Associates to vacate the premises. Commissioner Scurlock suggested that an alternative might be to post a bond for the minor improvements. Commissioner Wodtke understood that the discrepancies would be handled administratively through a minor site plan modification, but Administrator Wright did not feel the paving could be handled that way. Michael O'Haire, attorney representing Sebastian Associates, understood Mr. Keating's concern about 74 APR 101985 BOOK 60 FAGS 595 APR 10 1985 BOOK 60 FAGE.506 establishing a precedent with this case, but pointed out that the Code Enforcement Board has the authority to impose a fine or penalty. He felt the primary discrepancy was that 108th Avenue was not paved and explained that the developer of KOA plans to access 108th Avenue and has agreed to pay for the paving; however, this apparently was not understood by everyone involved. Attorney O'Haire stated that his client mistakenly thought the lawyers were handling this and it was not their intent to evade County permitting requirements. Commissioner Scurlock suggested that we consider a cash bond alternative. Attorney O'Haire believed the County has the ability to bond these improvements, but Commissioner Scurlock did not want the County to get into the business of bonding major improvements and then having to do them. Attorney O'Haire submitted that the work would be done within 10 days and believed the paving was in process right now. Darrell McQueen of Lloyd and Associates felt there are issues that have to be addressed such as landscaping and parking spaces on the site. He was concerned that there is no latitude for correcting minor things on a site plan with respect to obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy. He pointed out that the hedge was hit by the freeze and 50% of that was replaced almost immediately. Mr. McQueen felt the Board was going to have to find some way to modify the exact requirements for landscaping shown on a site plan. Commissioner Scurlock believed we could allow certain minor items to be bonded of, but there has to be a limit. Mr. McQueen suggested those minor items be defined for use by staff. Director Keating advised that Mr. McQueen's input would 75 APR 101985 be welcomed at the workshops currently underway on the site plan ordinance. Chairman Lyons did not believe in this specific case, there is any way of assuring that the road is paved other than the C.O. Commissioner Bird felt the question today is whether we are satisfied with their progress or whether we wish to go ahead and instruct the County Attorney to start the injunction process. Attorney Brandenburg believed the applicant already has agreed that the building was occupied without a C.O. in violation of County ordinance, and this is punishable by a maximum $500 fine. The applicant can agree to pay that fine and bond off the remainder of the work in return for the County's agreement not to immediately pursue an injunction. The idea is that the Board wants to make sure that the road is going to be built and that the owners do not sell off the building tomorrow and take off. Mr. McQueen stated that his client understands that the Code Enforcement Board could have levied a $250 a day fine, but is still upset over being served a subpoena on Friday to appear before the Code Enforcement Board on Monday. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, that the Board instruct the County Attorney to file an action for an injunction against Sebastian Associates by Friday of this week if prior to that time the developer does not voluntarily pay a $500 fine acknowledging his occupancy without a Certificate of Occupancy, and further instruct the County Attorney to file the action a week from next Friday in the event the improvements are not completed totally by that time. 76 BOOK 60 KE 507 APR 101985 - BOOK 60 FA,E 5OS Under discussion, Attorney O'Haire stated that he does not have the authority to agree to the voluntarily fine and stressed that this had not been a deliberate attempt to evade the County's ordinances. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion passed unanimously. Administrator Wright requested further instruction on how to enforce these matters in the future and the Board agreed that staff should proceed extremely vigorously and if minor items are identified by the Planning Dept. not to be in compliance, the applicant will post a bond equal to the amount to accomplish those tasks. Attorney Brandenburg recommended that language be incorporated into the new site plan ordinance so that there will not be any question as to what is minor. Administrator Wright understood then that the Board is saying not to issue any C.O.s unless the site plans are completed and that the site plan ordinance is being prepared and will come to the Board in 60 days. Attorney O'Haire hoped that the Board is not saying to staff that there is absolutely no room for administrative discretion and reasonableness, and the Board assured him that was not the case. Commissioner Scurlock believed that the Board is saying that the law is the law and must be followed until it is changed. COUNTY OBJECTION TO RESTAURANT DECK BEING BUILT OVER INDIAN RIVER IN SEBASTIAN Art Challacombe, Chief of Environmental Planning, reviewed the following memo dated 3/29/85: 77 11111111 TO: The Honorable Members of the Board of County Commissioners DATE: March 29, 1985 FILE: D.E.R./ARMY CORPS SUBJECT: & D.N.R. PERMIT DIVISION HEAD CONCUPRENCE: APPLICATIONS Ro • ert M. ea i g, ��% CP Planning & Develop ent Director FROM: Art Challacombe REFERENCES: DER Memo Chief, Environmental Planning ARTCHA It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of April 10, 1985. D.E.R. DREDGE & FILL PERMIT APPLICATION FILE NUMBER 31-093812-4 APPLICANT: Sembler & Sembler Inc. WATERWAY & LOCATION: The proposed project is located on the Indian River, approxi- mately 100 feet south of 9th Street and North Indian River Drive, in the City of Sebastian. WORK & PURPOSE: The applicant proposes to construct a wooden deck elevated driveway and walkway over shallow submerged bottoms of the Indian River. The .35 acre deck and accessways would be the site of a proposed restaurant. STAFF RESPONSE: The Planning and Development Division reviews and submits comments on dredge and fill applications to the permitting agencies based upon the following: - The Conservation & Coastal Zone Management Element of the Indian River Comprehensive Plan; - Coastal Zone Management, Intermim Goals, Objectives & Policies for the Treasure Coast Region; and - The Hutchinson Island Resource Planning & Management Plan. The proposed project is located entirely within the corporate limits of the City of Sebastian. Although the project is not expected to impact those portions of the Indian River within the unincorporated area of the County, the project would eliminate light penetration, thereby precluding seagrass and photosynthetic algae survival. This is the opinion of the Florida Game & Freshwater Fish Commission based upon a field inspection and analysis. (attachment enclosed). 78 APR 10'985 BOOK CO E3'3E 509 APR 101985 BOOK co Pi x:510 The project is in conflict with the policies set forth in the above documents and, as such, County staff is concerned about the cumulative impacts of this and similar type projects to benthic ecosystems. Future -proposals of this nature which adversely affect the Indian River within the unincorporated portion of the County, will receive negative comments from the planning staff. On March 20, 1985, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously to accept staff's recommendation as stated below. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the staff to transmit a negative comment to the appropriate permitting agencies regarding this project. ON MOTION by by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously authorized staff to transmit a negative comment to the appropriate permitting agencies regarding this project. Mr. Challacombe suggested the following wording: "The project is in conflict with the policies set forth in the above documents, our Comprehensive Land Use Plan, the Hutchinson Island Resource Management Plan and the coastal management plan of the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council and that future proposals of this nature which adversely affect the Indian River within the unincorporated portion of the County will receive further negative comments from the Planning staff." PUBLIC HEARING RE AMENDMENT TO FLORIDA STATUTE FOR ADDITIONAL REVENUE FOR COUNTY PROGRAMS The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/28/85: 79 TO: BOARD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DATE: March 28, 1985 FILE: FROM: \LCD Jeffrey K. Barton Budget Officer SUBJECT: ADDITIONAL 50 DOCUMENTARY STAMP ON REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS REFERENCES: The attached record from the Clerks Office shows Documentary Stamp purchases at the 45t/$1,000 from October 1982 to February 1985. If the proposed tax had been in place, Indian River County would have received the following increased revenues from the 5t/$1,000 additional tax: FY 82-83 $230,000 FY 83-84 260,000 FY 84-85 225,000 PROJECTED This same proposal has been supported before the Florida State Legislator for the last three years by the Florida Association of Home Builders as an alternative to impact fees. Commissioner Scurlock reported that there have been consistent problems all across the state in struggling with growth and the Governor has suggested that we look to impact fees. As a result, the County is considering an increase in documentary stamps. Rather than go ahead an authorize some sort of resolution to the State Legislature, he felt a better approach would be to refer this matter to the Financial Advisory Committee to come up with a recommendation on additional sources of revenue which would include a consideration of documentary stamps, the gas tax, impact fees and a combination of all new sources. He felt there should be a broad approach to come up with ways that can meet not only the existing demand on our infrastructure but also the backlog which exists in our community. APR 101985 80 BOOK CO Py.f.,'E511 IPPR 16 1985 BOOK CO P"GE512 Chairman Lyons opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. Nancy Offutt, Legislative Liaison for the Vero Beach - Indian River County Board of Realtors, concurred with Commissioner Scurlock's approach to this matter. 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 Wodtke, that the Board not take any action on this matter and refer it to the Finance Advisory Committee which will bring back a recommendation to the County Commission on alternate sources of revenue. Under discussion, Commissioner Wodtke expressed concern over increasing certain taxes and expecting to get some back because it never seems to happen the way we expect it to. He agreed, however, that we should consider the County's taxing structure as a whole. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion passed unanimously. MOTION TO EXTEND TODAY'S MEETING ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously extended today's meeting until 1:15 o'clock P.M. 81 REQUEST FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF RIGHT-OF-WAY ALIGNMENT FOR SOUTHERLY EXTENSION OF INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD AND CONNECTING ROADWAYS The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/2/85: TO: The Honorable Members DATE; April 2, 1985 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners THROUGH Michael Wright, County Administrator FROM: James W. Davis, P. Public Works Directo SUBJECT: Request for Establishment of Right -of -Way Alignment Southerly Extension of Indian River Boulevard and Connecting Roadways REFERENCES: DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Kimley-Horn and Associates, Consulting Engineer, has completed the right-of-way maps for the Southerly Extension of Indian River Boulevard from 16th Street to 4th Street (approximately 1.7 miles), including the 12th Street and 8th Street connections. The 150' foot wide right-of-way alignment begins at the current south terminus of the Boulevard and projects southerly west of Fairlane Harbor Mobile Home Park to a proposed bridge spanning 'the 14th Street canal, then curves westerly to an alignment west of and adjacent to the Range line (between Range 39 East and Range 40 East) until reaching a point of curvature having a centerline radius of 572.96 feet, thence curving westerly to an intersection with U.S. Highway 1 at 4th Street. _ Plans of the proposed alignment including connecting roadways are located at the Board of County Commissioners `office area at the first floor of the County Administration Building. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS The above described alignment accomplishes the following objectives 1) Avoids the construction in environmentally sensitive areas 2) Utilizes an existing corridor free from structures and avoids property owner relocation. 3) Provides a geometrically smooth alignment which would result in an operating speed of 45 mph. 4) Avoids the division of individual parcels which would render land unusable. - 5) allows connections to already established east/west collector roadways (12th St, 8th St, and 4th St.) which are included on the County's Thoroughfare Plan. 82 APR 10 E85 BOOK 60 PAGE 513 APP 10 1985 RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING Staff recommends ATTACHMENTS Right of way maps are on file in the Office of the Board of County Commissioners. BOOK CO F'CE5l4 1) Approval of the alignment and right-of-way maps for the Southerly Extension of Indian River Boulevard 8th St. and 12th St. since adherence to the critical alignment objectives has been accomplished. 2) Right -of -Way Acquisition to implement the project be initiated. Commissioner Scurlock noted there was great concern about how close this road would come to existing buildings along that particular stretch by Vista Gardens. Director Davis explained that the closest the edge of the pavement would come to any building would be approximately 50-60 feet. He reported that he had attended a general meeting of the property owners' association in their clubhouse to explain the project and answer any of their questions. The residents would like to have a fence along their west property line along with some landscaping between their project and the Boulevard. Director Davis advised that it was staff's feeling that landscaping could be installed east of the fence, pretty much on Vista's own common properties, and that way they could select what they would like and include that in their overall internal landscaping. The residents also objected to a proposed hot right, which is a deceleration right turn lane, to connect U.S. #1 to the Boulevard. Staff has eliminated that concept and instead placed a yield control there. Commissioner Scurlock asked about the ingress and egress to Indian River Boulevard, and Director Davis advised that staff feels that the best situation is for a connection to be provided to their access road through the old McKee Jungle property onto the Boulevard where they could utilize 83 the signal at 4th Street and U.S. #1. This has been proposed to them, but no direct response has been received as to whether or not they want that. In any event, staff is making every effort to make the extension of Indian River Boulevard as palatable as possible. Director Davis felt their entrance could remain totally undisturbed as the County is not taking any right-of-way or doing anything that would directly affect their physical properties. He confirmed that the proposed alignment does not affect any of the donated right-of-way. Commissioner Wodtke believed that the speed limit of 45 mph will accomplish our goal of moving traffic around the City. Chairman Lyons asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. Bill LeFevre, a resident of Vista Royale Gardens, thanked Director Davis for his courtesy, time and efforts in explaining this project to the concerned residents of Vista Gardens, but referring to aerial photographs of the area, he pointed out that the Boulevard will become a truck by-pass around the City of Vero Beach; it will cause a horrendous noise problem; and it will be extremely unfair and severely disadvantage the 140 families living in Buildings 38 to 47 on the western edge of the development, to say nothing of the depressing effect it will have on the value of their property. With respect to the access through the old McKee Jungle property, Mr. LeFevre advised that Robert Gaskill, Vice President of Construction for Vero Properties, has stated that they will not grant the County the right-of-way or easement for an entrance to Vista Gardens. Mr. LeFevre believed that if this entrance is not created, there will be a dangerous and horrible traffic condition at or immediately south of 4th Street. Mr. LeFevre urged the Board to direct 84 APR 101985 L BOOK CO PAGE 5I5 APR 10 1985 BOOK CO F'.cE.516 staff to consider the alternative of having Indian River Boulevard intersect U.S. #1 at 8th Street. Director Davis stated that the only collector available now for the Boulevard is 4th Street and advised that staff recommended 4th Street as the south terminus after looking at the County's overall traffic plan. He pointed out that 4th street is a primary collector while 8th Street is designated as a secondary collector. Chairman Lyons felt that the matter of noise may require some more study and consideration given to constructing a sound -deadening wall. He noted that they have found that in automobile traffic, it is the first four feet which is important as far as sound is concerned. Mr. LeFevre agreed that the use of sound -deadening walls has been very successful in Minneapolis and felt that perhaps a 6 ft. or 8 ft. wall would do an even better job than 4 feet and wouldn't cost that much more. Commissioner Scurlock stated that the County always tries to mitigate the impact of road improvements on adjacent neighborhoods and assumed that the Board do whatever is economically feasible to mitigate any adverse effect the extension of the Boulevard will have on the development. Commissioner Wodtke believed it would have been great if Vista Royale had put in one of its fairways along that alignment; however, the County must meet its transportation needs and he believed the extension of Indian River Boulevard is necessary. He also expressed the belief that the County would do everything possible to mitigate any effect the Boulevard might have, and felt that whether a wall should be 4, 6 or 8 feet is something that needs to be determined. Bill Priestly, owner of Jungle Club, spoke in behalf of the thousands of people who don't live in Vista Royale and 85 the quality of life they would have if this road is not built. He did not see how any consideration could be given to not building the road, but hoped that every effort will be made to mitigate the effect on the residents of Vista Gardens. Leo Marsh of Fairlane Harbor Mobile Park felt the road alignment impacts the residents of Fairlane Harbor even more severely than Vista Gardens, and Director Davis stated that the County has an existing 200 feet of right-of-way along their frontage; it has been determined that some of the homes encroach that right-of-way by as much as 25 feet; and the pavement would be approximately 50-55 feet away if they stay where they are. Administrator Wright reported that the owner of Fairlane Harbor is in the process of surveying the right-of-way and we don't know yet if it agrees with the County's survey. However, he has some right-of-way that we need on 12th Street so there is a possibility of a trade. Bill Nelson, 230 14th Street, asked if it was possible to restrict truck traffic, but Attorney Brandenburg felt that the County would not want to prevent through trucks on our major north and south access road that is being designed to carry the heavy traffic. Director Davis commented that for three years he and his family lived in Pinetree Village, which is approximately 70 feet away from Indian River Boulevard, and he was never awakened by traffic. Commissioner Wodtke pointed out an additional problem of vehicle headlights shining into homes and wondered if some shrubbery would handle that problem. Commissioner Bird recommended that we request the design engineers to come back with cost figures on some options that might be incorporated into the design of the road to mitigate the effect on Vista Gardens as he felt 86 APR 101985 BOOK 60, MA 517 APR 1 0 1985 BOOK O PAGE 518 there wasn't any question that this road would have some adverse impact on the residents of Vista Gardens. In addition, he asked if we could get some experts to determine whether the wall should be 4, 6 or 8 feet high, what it would cost, and whether it is necessary to run it the entire length of the project or just in certain critical areas. Director Davis preferred that the Board authorize him to work with the engineers instead of putting the burden soley on the engineering firm as he felt he could accomplish what the Board wants at a minimum cost. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurrock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the alignment and right-of-way maps for the southerly extension of Indian River Boulevard to 4th Street and authorized the Public Works Director to work with the engineers to mitigate any potential noise or other adverse effects from the extension of Indian River Boulevard. RSH CONSTRUCTORS INC. CONTRACT FOR COUNTY JAIL AND CHANGE ORDER #1 RE SALES TAX EXEMPTION The Board reviewed the following letters dated 3/27/85 and 4/1/85: 87 March 27, 1985 Mr. Gary M. Brandenburg County Attorney Indian River County 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Dear Gary: . ht 11005co REICEIVED Cotl<'U1 artaner', C1) DA?ca 4111-71SV 1,0° IN El onstructorsi Re: The Indian River County Jail We are pleased to enclose the executed Contract and Performance Bond as discussed yesterday. The original and two copies of the Change Order setting forth our agreement regarding the sales tax savings have been forwarded to George Bail who will forward them to you. We will await return of the executed Contract by the County and the Change Order plus the two letters discussed, one certifying the suitability of the site to receive the structural loadings; the other, the method of financing the project. We look forward to a fine association with you, the members of the County Commission and all others concerned. With kindest regards. Sin erely yours, APR 101985 . Cook John E. Cook President 4220 Southpoint Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32216 Phone: 904/739.2200 A SUBSIDIARY OF REYNOLDS SMITH AND HILLS ARCHITECTS • ENGINEERS • PLANNERS. INCORPORATED 88 BOOK CO PAGE 519 APR i 01185 • BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Telephone: (305) 567-8000 RSH Constructors, Inc. 4220 Southpoint Blvd. Jacksonville, FL 32216 April 1, 1985 Re: Indian River County Jail South Gifford Road, Indian River County Method of Financing Gentlemen: BOOK 60 PAGE 520 Suncom Telephone: 424-1011 Please be advised that Indian River County, pursuant to a properly held referendum, has imposed an additional, one -year -only, one -cent sales tax for the purpose of funding the Indian River County Jail. Any shortfalls between the amount the sales tax will yield and the cost of the project, as defined in the contract between RSH and Indian River County, will be financed by devoting other legally available County funds to the project. The County has sufficient funds to complete the project as set forth in the contract, dated March 27, 1985, between Indian River County and RSH Constructors, Inc. Sincerely, di,a4) 4 Michael Wright, County Administra 89 ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved the contract with RSH Constructors, Inc., and authorized the Chairman's signature. CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK Attorney Brandenburg advised that no time extensions have been received to date, and Administrator Wright reported that construction will begin in 60 days after all shop drawings are approved. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, that the Board approve Change Order #1 re the sales tax exemption for construction of the IRC County Jail. Commissioner Wodtke assumed that this was a negotiated item, but asked why we should ask give the contractor the benefit of savings on the sales tax, and Attorney Brandenburg explained that saves significant paperwork and attention and adoption of a procedure by the contractor. Initially there was an understanding that both parties would share in the cost savings and their original proposal stated they would receive $37,000 in savings and the County would be guaranteed some $20,000. That was negotiated the other way around, however, so that the County would be guaranteed a minimum of $40,000 savings and any savings above that would go to the contractor to the extent of $30,000; if there was more than that, we would share 50-50. The idea was to negotiate it on the basis that it would give them the incentive to try to obtain the most possible tax savings. The County is protected because we get ours right off the top. Attorney Brandenburg just wanted the Board to be aware 90 APR 101965 L BOOK 60 RR;,E 571 APR 1 Q 1985 BOOK CO FnE 522 that the contractor is going to be submitting practically everything through this process and the County has to be ready with respect to invoicing and billing in order not to cause any delays which we would end up paying for in the long run. That is a risk you take when entering into this type of arrangement. One of the benefits will be that we will know what everything is going to cost and where it is coming from. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion passed unanimously. 91 CHANGE ORDER AJA DOCUMENT G701 Distribution to: OWNER (;I ARCHITECT 0 CONTRACTOR 0 FIELD 0 OTHER 0 PROJECT: The Indian River County Jail (name, address) S. Gifford Road Indian River County, Florida TO (Contractor): RSH Constructors, Inc. 4220 Southpoint Boulevard Jacksonville, FL 32216 . CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: 01 INITIATION DATE: ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: CONTRACT FOR: March 27, 1985 The Indian River County Jail J CONTRACT DATE: March 27, 1985 You are directed to make the following changes in this Contract: To effect Sales Tax Savings, the Owner and Contractor agree as follows: 1. Contractor guarantees to Owner the amount of $40,000 in Tax Savings which will be credited to Owner at completion of the Work. 2. Owner agrees that all Tax Savings above the initial $40,000 per paragraph 1 up to a maximum of $30,000 will be credited to Contractor at completion of the Work. 3. Owner and Contractor agree that all other Tax Savings above the initial $40,000 and subsequent $30,000, so earned will be credited 50% to Owner and 50% to Contractor at completion of the Work. Owner agrees and confirms to Contractor the following stipulations: 1. That Owner qualifies for State Sales Tax exemption for all purchases associ with the Project. 2. That a qualified person representing Owner will be designated to facilitate the procedures for obtaining Sales. Tax Savings contemplated. Not valid until signed by both the (honer and Architect. Signature of the Contractor indicates his agreement herewith. including any adjustment in the Contract Sum or Contract Time The original (Contract Sum) (i(;1fiD(7(tTQ141X1034*IN)QDPXRXDCwas Net change by previously authorized Change Orders The (Contract Sum) OXDOR gcXIXlxtx)p ry XXXXIj(prior to this Change Order was The (Contract Sum) (C:XXXXXM t (M(XCQ tn)U(XM will be b(0(91'g*x )Xb IX1KCCxseedx (unchanged) by this Change Order $ 0 The new (Contract Sum) XXX>X3(p(cx!(pN1001X65 1C104Xincluding this Change Order will be $ 3,768,981 The Contract Time will be (taXIX-X 4Qk))(PtI D(t1NXsX~XIX (unchanged) by ( 0 ) Days. The Date of Substantial Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is per Article 3 of the Agreement dated March 27, 1985. Authorized: Boar County Commissioner! wK(.;f i-r'izzell Architects, Inc. RtSHt ons'tructors Inc. • fndi:n River Co nt Address Address - • 4 0 outhpo'nt Boul $ 3,768,981 1 $ 0" $ 3,768,981 BY i DATE ••• silent airman DATE April 10, 1985 March 27, 1985 AIA DOCUMENT G701 • CHANGE ORDER • AI'RII 1978 EDITION • AIA'"' • t„ 1978 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVE., N.W., WASIIIN(:EON, t).('. 'mg, 92 APR 10 1985 G701 — '1978 BOOK GO PAr,E 23 I VAPR i 01985 BOOK - 0 FADE 524 IRC WATER & SEWER REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 1982 - $2,750,700 ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 85-39 awarding a $2,750,700 Water and Sewer Revenue Bond, Series 1982, of Indian River County, Florida, to Farmers Home Administration at negotiated sale and providing an effective date. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 85-40, a amending a resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, entitled: "A Resolution providing for the acquisition and construction of additions, extensions and improvements to the combined water and sewer system of Indian River County, Florida; authorizing the issuance by the County of not exceeding $2,750,700 Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 1982, to finance the cost thereof; pledging the gross revenues of such system to secure payment of the principal of and interest on the bonds; and providing for the rights of the holders of the bonds. Duly adopted on July 7, 1982, by deleting authorization for the issuance of coupon bonds in order to comply with current federal tax laws; and providing an effective date. 93 RESOLUTION NO. 85-39 A RESOLUTION AWARDING A $2,750,700 WATER AND SEWER REVENUE BOND, SERIES 1982, OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION AT NEGOTIATED SALE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA (the "Issuer"), as follows: SECTION 1. AUTHORITY FOR RESOLUTION. This resolution is adopted pursuant to Chapter 159, Florida Statutes (1983), and other applicable provisions of law. SECTION 2. FINDINGS. It is hereby ascertained, deter- mined and declared that: A. On July 7, 1982, the Board of County Commissioners of the Issuer duly adopted a resolution (the "Resolution") authorizing the issuance of not exceeding $2,750,700 aggregate principal amount of Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 1982, of the Issuer (the "Bonds"), for the purpose expressed therein. B. Due to the characteristics of the Bonds and pre- vailing municipal bond market conditions, it is necessary, desirable and in the best public interest that the Bonds be sold at negotiated sale to the U. S. Department of Agriculture, Farmers Home Administration (the "Government"), at the price of par, bearing interest at the rate of 5% per annum, since such terms are substantially more favorable than the Issuer could reasonably expect to receive if the Bonds were sold at public sale. SECTION 3. AWARD OF BONDS. The Bonds are hereby awarded and sold to the Government at the price of par, bearing interest at the rate of 5% per annum, and shall be issued in the form of a single, fully -registered bond, payable in installments, as provided in the Resolution. SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. -1- APR 101 85 94 BOOK 60 FACE 525 APR 10 1985 BOOK 60 P GE 526 ScurlocWhe foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner 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 Margaret C. Bowman Aye _ Commissioner Richard N. Bird t Aye Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. Aye The Chairman thel.eupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this day of April, 1985. Attest: ....1794.1.,49_41.___ BOARD ttest:%t.1.t- BOARD •F COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA TRICK B. Lam, Chairman FREDA WRIGHT, APPROVED LEGAL SUF By FO:. AND G BRANDE B 'G Attorney -2- 95 RESOLUTION N0. 85-40 A RESOLUTION AMENDING A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ENTITLED: "RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ACQUISITION AND CONSTRUCTION OF AQDITIONS, EXTENSIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS TO THE COMBINED WATER AND SEWER SYSTEM OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA; AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE BY THE COUNTY OF NOT EXCEEDING $2,750,700 WATER AND SEWER REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 1982, TO FINANCE THE COST THEREOF; PLEDGING THE GROSS REVENUES OF SUCH SYSTEM TO SECURE PAYMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL OF AND INTEREST ON THE BONDS; AND PROVIDING FOR THE RIGHTS OF THE HOLDERS OF THE BONDS." DULY ADOPTED ON JULY 7, 1982, BY DELETING AUTHORIZATION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF COUPON BONDS IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH CURRENT FEDERAL TAX LAWS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA: SECTION 1. AUTHORITY FOR THIS RESOLUTION. This resolu- tion is adopted pursuant to Chapter 159, Florida Statutes (1983), and other applicable provisions of law. SECTION Z. FINDINGS. It is hereby ascertained, deter- mined and declared that: A. The Board of County. Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida (hereinafter called "Board"), on July 7, 1982, duly adopted a resolution entitled: "RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ACQUISITION AND CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONS, EXTENSIONS -1- APR 10 1985 96 BOOK 60 PAGE 52 7 A R R 10 1985 BOOK 60 FACE 528 AND IMPROVEMENTS TO THE COMBINED WATER AND SEWER SYSTEM OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA; AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE BY THE COUNTY OF NOT EXCEEDING $2,750,700 WATER AND SEWER REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 1982, TO FINANCE THE COST THEREOF; PLEDGING THE GROSS REVENUES OF SUCH SYSTEM TO SECURE PAYMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL OF AND INTEREST ON THE BONDS; AND PROVIDING FOR THE RIGHTS OF THE HOLDERS OF THE BONDS." (hereinafter called "Resolution"). B. It is necessary and desirable to amend the Resolution by deleting authorization for the issuance of coupon bonds in order to comply with current federal tax laws. SECTION 3. AMENDMENTS TO RESOLUTION. The Resolution is amended in the following manner. A. Section 2.06 of the Resolution is hereby amended to read as follows: "2.06 Negotiability, Registration and Exchange. The Bonds shall be and shall have all the qualities and incidents of negotiable instruments under laws of the State of Florida, and each successive holder, in accepting any of the Bonds or the coupons appertaining thereto, shall be conclusively deemed to have agreed that the Bonds shall be and have all of the qualities and incidents of negotiable instruments. The coupon Bonds may be registered, at the option of the holder, as to both principal and interest upon the books kept for the registration and transfer of Bonds by the Clerk, as Bond -2- 97 Registrar, and endorsed upon the Bonds by the Bond Registrar in the space provided thereon. After such registration, no transfer of the Bonds shall be valid unless made at the office of the Bond Registrar by the registered owner or by his duly authorized agent or representative and similarly noted on the Bonds, but at the expense of the holder, the Bonds may be discharged from registra- tion by being in like manner transferred to bearer, and thereupon transferability by delivery shall be restored. At the option and expense of the holder, the Bonds may thereafter again from time to time be registered or transferred Bond Registrar shall not be required tion or transfer interest payment posed redemption for redemption. registered shall to bearer as before. The to make any such registra- of Bonds during 15 days next preceding an date on the Bonds, or in the case of any pro- of Bonds, after such Bonds have been selected The person in whose name any Bond shall be be deemed and regarded as the absolute owner thereof for all purposes, principal of any Bond and only to or upon the order and payment of or on account of the the interest on any Bond shall be made of the registered owner thereof or his legal representative. All such payments shall be valid and effectual to satisfy and discharge the liability upon such Bond including the interest thereon to the extent of the sum or sums so paid. APR 101985 The single fully -registered Bond may be exchanged.by the -3- 98 BOOK 60 Pnf 529. APR 101995 BOOK 60 PYCE 5:3O owner and holder thereof at any time, not more than 90 days after surrender of such Bond to the Bond Registrar, for an equal aggre- gate principal amount of fully -registered Bonds maturing in the years and amounts corresponding to the years and amounts of the unpaid installments of principal of the single fully -registered Bond, and in the form prescribed for coupon Bonds in Section 2.08 of this Instrument, with such alterations as are necessary to convert such coupon Bond to a fully -registered Bond with provi- sions for assignment." B. Authorization for the issuance of coupon Bonds in accordance with the provisions of the Resolution, is hereby can- celled and rescinded. SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY OF INVALID PROVISIONS. If any one or more of the provisions herein contained shall be held contrary to any express provision of law or contrary to the policy of express law, though not expressly prohibited, or against public policy, or shall for any reason whatsoever be held invalid, then such provisions shall be null and void and shall be deemed separable from the remaining provisions and shall in no way affect the validity of any of the other provisions hereof. SECTION 5. REPEALING CLAUSE. All resolutions or parts thereof of the Board in conflict with the provisions herein con- tained are, to the extent of such conflict, hereby superseded and repealed. -4- 99 SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Scurlock The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bowman Eand, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Patrick B. Lyons Aye - Vice Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 10th day of April, 1985. Attest: FREDA WRIGHT, erk BOARD OF Ce NTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN '? COUNTY, FLORIDA By TR CK B. L'OChairman RESOLUTION REGARDING GAIN TIME FOR COUNTY PRISONERS Administrator Wright recommended a change in the second and third whereas clause, that "General Services Director" be changed to "County Administrator." ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 85-41a with the change as recommended by Administrator Wright, amending Resolution 83-48, providing for a statutory good conduct gain time, work gain time, constructive gain time, extra gain time, and special gain time. Attorney Brandenburg explained that this will apply only to new prisoners and will not be applied retroactively. 100 APR 101985 BOOK 60 PAGE 5:31 APR 101985 BOOK 60 F,,,E 532 RESOLUTION NO. 85- 41(a) A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 83-48; PROVIDING FOR A STATUTORY GOOD CONDUCT GAIN TIME, WORK GAIN TIME, CONSTRUCTIVE GAIN TIME, EXTRA GAIN TIME, AND SPECIAL GAIN TIME. WHEREAS, Florida Statutes §951.21(1) provides that the Board of County Commissioners shall grant County prisoners who commit no infraction of jail rules and who are not charged with misconduct gain time deductions from their sentences; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners is also authorized, upon recommendation of the County Administrator to adopt a policy to allow County prisoners, in addition to time credits, an extra good time allowance; and WHEREAS, the County Administrator of Indian River County has reviewed the County's previous policy and recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt a new policy allowing prisoners to utilize the maximum benefits allowable. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: 1. Resolution No. 83-48 is hereby amended as follows: I. A. The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, pursuant to Florida Statutes §951.21(1) hereby commutes the time to be served by County prisoners for good conduct; the following deductions shall be made from the term of sentence when no charge of misconduct has been sustained against the County prisoner: 1. Five days per month for the first and second years of the sentence; 2. Ten days per month off the third and fourth years of the sentence; and 3. Fifteen days per month off the fifth and all succeeding years of the sentence. B. 1. Where no charge of misconduct is sustained against the County prisoner, the deduction provided by this section shall be deemed earned and the prisoner shall be entitled to a credit for a month as soon as the prisoner has served such time as, when added to the deductions allowable, will equal a month. 2. If a County prisoner is sentenced to less than one month, the prisoner shall be entitled to gain time on a pro -rata basis in accordance with this section, and the time shall be deemed earned and the prisoner will be entitled to the credit as soon as the prisoner has served such time as, when added to the deduction available, will equal the term of his sentence. C. County prisoners shall receive gain time provid- ed by this section for time served in the County Detention Center prior to the date sentence is imposed, providing that the prisoner is otherwise entitled to gain time under the provisions of this resolution. Such gain time shall be credited retroactively at the time of sentencing. D. Any calculation of basic gain time for a partial month shall be pro -rated on the basis of a thirty day month. II. A. In addition to the time credits otherwise earned, the Board of County Commissioners hereby commutes the time to be served by County prisoners who participate in an authorized work program established by the Department of Detention when no charge of misconduct has been sustained against the prisoner according to the following schedule: each inmate who participates in an authorized work program will be graded separately based upon the following attributes; quality, quantity, diligence, and skill required. Each attriubute shall be rated either unsatisfactory, satisfactory, above satisfactory or outstanding. Based on the rating of the four attributes, an overall performance rating shall be assigned to the inmate's job perform- ance. Gain time for work shall be based upon overall performance in the following proportions: 1. Unsatisfactory -- 0 days; 2. Satisfactory -- 3/4 day gain time for each day of work; 3. Above satisfactory -- 1 day gain time for each day of work; and 4. Outstanding -- 1 1/2 days of gain time for each day of work. -2- APR 10 1985 BOOK CO F.}4 GE 5:33 APR .10 1985 BOOK 60 P*534 B. Where no charge of misconduct is sustained against the County prisoner, the deductions provided by this section shall be deemed earned and the prisoner shall be entitled to credit for a month as soon as the prisoner has served such time as, when added to all the deductions allowable, will equal a month, or, if sentenced to less than a month, when the prisoner has served such time as, when added to all deductions allowable, will equal the term of his sentence. III. A. Constructive gain time. For inmates who, because of age, illness, infirmity, or confinement for reasons other than discipline, do not participate in an authorized work, program, but who demonstrate a constructive utilization of time, may be granted additional gain time allowances up to a maximum of six days constructive gain time per month. An inmate may not be credited with both constructive gain time and work gain time for the same month. B. Amount and critera of gain time. Recommenda- tions for the award of such gain time shall be made by the Deten- tion Administrator based upon a consideration of the inmate's conduct, adjustment, effort and conscientiousness, the kinds and appropriateness of activities, sincerity and similar attributes. Such recommendations shall be forwarded to the County Administrator or his designee for his review and approval or disapproval. IV. A. Extra gain time. Inmates who faithfully per- form assignments in a conscientious manner over and above what is normally expected, who have not been found guilty of a disci- plinary violation for six consecutive months, and whose conduct, personal adjustment and individual effort towards rehabilitation show a desire to be better than the average inmate, may be granted a maximum of six days extra gain time per month or proportionate lesser amounts for parts of a month. An inmate who earns work gain time may also be eligible for extra gain time. B. Criteria. Recommendations for the award of such extra gain time shall be made by the Detention Administrator based upon consideration of the inmate's conduct, adjustment, effort and -3- eonscientiousness, the kinds and appropriateness of activities, sincerity and similar attributes. Such recommendations shall be forwarded to the County Administrator or his designee for his approval or disapproval. V. A. Special gain time eligibility. An inmate who does some outstanding deed, or who performs an outstanding service meriting additional deductions from the term of his sentence, may be granted special gain time. B. Criteria and award. The Detention Administrator may recommend a special gain time award for an individual who has: (a) performed an outstanding deed such as saving a life, protecting an officer, or aiding and capturing an escapee; (b) provided information that assisted the County Administrator or his designee in preventing the introduction of contraband or other violations of law or rules of the correctional facility; (c) at one time or over a period of time performed outstanding service to the jail meriting special award. The recommendation from the Dentention Administrator's written explanation of the deed or service performed and the amount of gain time to be credited shall be submitted to the County Administrator or his designee who may recommend approval or disapproval of the award in whole or part. Any decision awarding special gain time shall be made upon the recommendation of the County Administrator or his designee by the Board of County Commissioners. VI. Withholding or forfeiture of gain time. 1. Earned gain time a) Without hearing -- an inmate who is convicted of a crime which occurred while in the custody of the Department of Detention shall have all gain time earned prior to the act constituting the crime forfeited by the Department of Detention without prior notice of hearing. b) After hearing -- an inmate who: (1) violates any penal law of this State, or any rule of the Department of Detention, APR 10 1985 BOOK CO P CE 535 r7 APR -1 0 1985 BOOK (2) threatens or knowingly endangers the life or physical well-being of another, (3) refuses in any way to carry out or obey lawful instructions, or (4) neglects to perform the work, duties and tasks assigned in a faithful, diligent, industrious, orderly and peaceful manner, may have all or part of the gain time earned forfeited after prior notice and a hearing. The Department of Detention will establish guidelines for the conduct of hearings provided by this section. All such hearings shall be before an impartial tribunal, shall provide for prior notice to the inmate, shall provide the inmate with due process and shall be recorded. The recommendation of the hearing body shall be forwarded for action to the Board of County Commissioners. 2. Unearned gain time. Unearned gain time, that is, the right to earn gain time in the future, may be forfeited, under the same procedure as set forth in VI. 1. (b) above. The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded Scurlock by Commissioner Bowman vote was as follows: and, upon being put to a vote, the Chairman Patrick B. Lyons Vice -Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Commissioner Richard N. Bird Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 10th day of April , 1985. BOARD OF OF IND UNTY COMMISSIONERS IVER COUNTY, FLORIDA Attest:Silk-4— t 1 t41.1_4, FREDA WRIGHT Clerk ARCKB. LY Chairman GENERAL DISCUSSION OF APPOINTMENTS TO COUNTY BOARDS (CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD) Commissioner Enforcement Board consecutive terms be set for which have respect to Scurlock advised that members are not allowed to serve more of the Code than two and suggested that some sort of time limit receiving input at the Code Enforcement meetings been lasting considerable lengths of time. With reappointments, he felt that it should not be assumed that people are going to be reappointed automatically, as it puts the Board in a difficult position. In addition, he felt the Board should continue to monitor all appointments, and if they find that someone is not consistent with the Board's philosophies, appoint someone else. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously reappointed Robert W. Knight, Joseph Garone and James W. Young to their second consecutive, 3 -year terms on the Code Enforcement Board. DISCUSSION REGARDING "BOTTLE BILL LEGISLATION" The Board reviewed the following letter dated 3/29/85: KEEP BREVARD BEAUTIFUL, INC. 1900 S. Harbor City Blvd., Suite 218 Melbourne, Florida 32901 725-4554 21?819,?,, 7 March 29, 1985, epAEt ouay E'D vri I ,calovssrNI rtiCommi ssioner Patrick` 3m 1,1• A. Chairman, Indian River.County Commission 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 S Dear Commissioner Lyons: �isrRteurlo Corrlmissio N LIST Administrator s � Attorney Personnel Pt►blic Works mmUnity peV —� 4ltilities --� Fluence —� ��itEr Keep Brevard Beautiful, Inc., the local affiliate of Keep America Beautiful is a non-partisan, non-profit; public service, organization dedicated to 106 APR 101985 BOOK CO P,1;E 537 APR 10 1985 BOOK LO PP,F..533: litter reduction and community improvement through volunteering and cooper-- tive action at the local level to improve the ways solid waste is handled. KBB's major program is the behavior based Keep America Beautiful system which depends upon marshalling widespread community support and on private initiatives for sustained reductions in litter while at the same time fostering civic pride. Our organization has been working on a variety of community projects. Among them is the development of ordinances and laws that favorably contribute to litter reductions and more beautiful Brevard County. .In spite of good efforts by KBB and other environmentally concerned groups, litter and trash still scars the highways and beaches of our County. A major portion of this litter is discarded soda and beer cans and bottles that line Florida's roadsides, beaches, parks and fields and overflows its landfills. They are the most visible, most dangerous and non -degradable portion of litter and cost cities, counties and the state millions of dollars to clean up each year. In Florida, the Department of Transportation alone spends more than $2.5 million annually on litter pick-up. The department estimates that at least 20 percent of roadside litter can be attributed to beer and soft drink containers. Effectively addressing the problem of discarded beverage containers alone could save Florida taxpayers a minimum of $500,000 per year in litter pick-up costs. Substantially more savings could be realized by county and city governments by controlling bottle and can litter. Over the past few years, nine states have enacted bottle laws beginning with Oregon in 1972. Today, there is documented proof in those states where the law is operating it is popular and there has been a substantial reduction of litter and trash. The State of Florida is now particularly in need of this type of legislation. The time has come for tourist dependent Florida to preserve its natural attractiveness to visitors and residents by approving a law aimed at clearing our state of soft drink and beer cans and bottle trash. State Senator Jeanne Maichon has introduced Senate Bill 92 for consideration during the 1985 Florida Legislature, which if passed, would significantly eradicate this unsightly and dangerous blight from our environment. I have enclosed a proposed county resolution for your consideration supporting this i egislation. I encourage Indian River County Commission to carefully consider and adopt a Bottle Bill resolution. Florida consumers lose when they pay higher costs associated with throw -away containers and we all lose when enormous amounts of energy are squandered on non -recyclable containers. A deposit law will make the bargain more widely available to cost conscious purchasers, while benefiting everyone by savings in energy, landfill resources clean-up costs and ridding,our state of a sizable amount of litter and trash. Sincerely, James M. Kraft Chairman, Government Relations Committee Keep Brevard Beautiful (South), Inc. Commissioner Bird did not feel there was near enough information to support -legislation of this type because of the many pros and cons that need to be further examined. He recommended that the Board not take any action today. Commissioner Scurlock felt we should address it sooner or later and Commissioner Bowman indicated her support of such legislation. 107 • Commissioner Bird believed that bottle and can deposits would greatly impact the housewives. Commissioner Scurlock suggested that we set up a debate. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously authorized staff to schedule a Public Hearing on this matter. APPOINTMENTS TO HAZARDOUS WASTE REGIONAL LIAISON COMMITTEE The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/10/85: Telephone: (305) 567-8000 MEMORANDUM BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Suncom Telephone: 424-1011 TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Patrick B. Lyons DATE: April 10, 1985 SUBJECT: Hazardous Waste Regional Liaison Committee I have two candidates for the positions open on the Hazardous Waste Regional Liaison Committee: 1. Mr. Mike Ziegler - He is an agricultural graduate and operates a grove service business. 2. Mr. Richard H. Braunlich - He was awarded a B.S. and M.S. in Chemical Engineering from M.I.T. He has worked for duPont and FMC Corporation. Mr. Braunlich had a key role in setting up TOSCA pro- cedures for FMC TOSCA (Toxic Substance Control Act). 108 BOOR 60 fid. c: p APR 101985 APR 101985 BOOK CO PAGE 540 Commissioner Bowman advised the Board that Benny Poole had asked to be considered for this committee. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock', the Board unanimously appointed Mike Ziegler and Richard H. Braunlich to the Hazardous Waste Regional Liaison Committee. There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 1:15 o'clock P.M. ATTEST: Clerk 109