HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/1/1985Wednesday, May 1, 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,
May 1, 1985, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Patrick B. Lyons,
Chairman; Richard N. Bird; Margaret C. Bowman; and William C.
Wodtke, Jr. Absent was Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Vice Chairman, who
was out of state on County business. Also present were Michael
J. Wright, County Administrator; L. S. "Tommy" Thomas,
Intergovernmental Relations Director; Gary Brandenburg, Attorney
to the Board of County Commissioners; Jeffrey K. Barton, OMB
Director; and Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
Reverend Julius Rice, Community Church, gave the invocation,
and Administrator Wright led the Pledge of Allegiance to the
Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
Administrator Wright announced that backup material has been
received for Item 8 - Impact of St. John River Water Management
Plan. He then requested an item be added under the Attorney's
matters in regard to the Florida Aquatic Preserves Rule Revision.
Commissioner Wodtke had appointments to recommend for the
proposed Occupational Licenses Committee and would like to add
these to the agenda; he -also wished to make a short report on the
activities of the Beach Restoration Committee.
Commissioner Bird wished to add discussion re disposition of
County property to Buckingham Florida Retirement Center.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, Commissioner Scurlock being
absent, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved the
addition of the above items to today's agenda.
BOOK F U
Fr'_ 'I
MAY 11985 BOOK 60 FnuE 718
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or
corrections to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 3,
1985. There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously (4-0)
approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
April 3, 1985, as written.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Budget Amendment - St. Francis Manor
The Board reviewed the following letter from Frank Zorc,
President of St. Francis Manor Apartments:
— -
March 25, 1985
OI Vero Beach. Inc.
t 750 20TH ^VENUE
VERO BEACm iLUNRiDA 32961)
13051 562 H!6 IN
Board of County Commission
Mr. Jeffrey K. Barton
Management & Budget Director' -
1840 25th. st.
Vero Beach, Florida, 32960
Dear Mr. Barton:
RE: Manor Meal Program/and
I.R. County Assistance
Nov. 1983 - Nov. 1984
In compliance with your letter of February 12, 1985, please find
enclosed a Certificate of Insurance, reflecting Indian River Counties
name as interested party.
Also enclosed is the Manor 12 month balance sheet for the period Nov.
83 thru Nov. 84. Following your suggestion in April 1983, we have
separated donations for food as a separate line item. Evidence of
bills paid to caterer is also furnished from our accountant.
We have also promoted activities to generate at least 25 people eating
as you suggested again in April 1983, and we have maintained a average
figure of around 33 people.
2
t.
Our Internal Revenue Service 990 form is also attached.
You can see by.the records submitted that the Food program cost of
$ '15,279.56 less the income of $ 11,364.25 left the Manor with a loss
$ 3,915.31 on that specific program. The residents are still receiving
a hot meal for $ 1.25. The Manor pay's the caterer $ 2.00, plus other
sundry expences we have with the program. If a resident shows evidence
they cannot pay for the meal, they can receive it at no cost.
We request the commission again return $ ,9�9. of our '$ 1000. lease rent
for 11/83 thru 11/84._ /
Respectfully,
_�gank L. Zo res.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0)
approved the following budget amendment as re-
quested by Frank Zorc and recommended by the OMB
Director.
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: April 18, 1985 FILE: -
SUBJECT: St. Francis Manor
FROM: Jeffrey K. Barton, REFERENCES:
OMB Director
The following is the budget amendment necessary to allocate the funds correctly to
make the contribution to the meal program at St. Francis Manor per your approval
at the March 27, 1985 Commission meeting.
Account Title Account No. Increase Decrease
Rents & Royalties 001-000-362-10.00 999
St. Francis Manor 001-106-562-88.46 999
3
BOOK 6® PAGE 719
MAY 11985
B. Bid #237 -_Fuel Dispensing_6_Monitoring System
BOOK 60 FAGS 720
The Board reviewed memo of the Purchasing Manager, as
follows:
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: April 24, 1985 FILE:
THRU: Michael Wright SUBJECT: IRC BID #237 -Fuel Dispensing
County Administrator and Monitoring System
FROM:
REFERENCES:
Carolyn odrich, Manager
Purchasing Department
1. Description and Conditions
Bids were received at 11:00 A.M. Tuesday, April 9, 1985 for IRC #237r-
Fuel
237-Fuel Dispensing and Monitoring System for the Fleet Management Department.
16 Bid Proposals were sent out. Of the 7 Bids received, 1 was a "No Bid".
2. Alternatives and Analysis
The low bid was submitted by Pieco in the amount of $13,452,62. The bid
t meets all specifications. Pieco installed the underground fuel storage
tanks and fuel pumps at.Fleet Management in 1983.
3. Recommendation and Funding
It is recommended that IRC #237 be awarded:to the low bidder Pieco, Orlando,
Florida in the amount of $13,452.62.
There is $12,000.00 budgeted in Account #501-242-591-66.39. There is also
$1600.00 left in Account #501-242-591-66.29 after completion of addition.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0)
awarded Bi'd #237 for a Fuel Dispensing and
Monitoring System for the Fleet Management
Department to the low bidder, Pieco Orlando,
Orlando, Fla., in the amount of $13,452.62 as
recommended by staff and as set out in the
following bid tabulation.
4
1
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1940 25th Street
4°
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
`may
Q
h,
w
.1.ji Qi
4
qtr 'i � ♦
�� S.
4/�
BID TABULATION
Q,
m�'
ro c
a m
e 4 ho°'
Q, ti
BID NO. DATE OF OPENING
�ro
o p
Ita y°
4,�4
Q w o lc
o^i 4r
o°�
IRC BID #237 April 9 1985
J,°� Oa°
roQ�
�'��
y°i• y°i�° y°j,o
JZ
BID TITLE
Q'.0
^ v,Jro
�`�
FUEL DISPENSING & MONITORING SYSTEM
c of
o
ITEM
NO. DESCRIPTION
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT. PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT P
1. Fu61 Dispeensin & Monitoring
System Total Cost
NB
1.3452 62
16915 00 18127 00 15453 00 25247 20 13480 00
2.
Days required for installation
of system after receipt of
Purchase Order _ Days
g0
rm 46
60 90 45
'days
days days
a s da s
da s
C. Approval for Sheriff to Make Donation to the Entomology Lab
The Board reviewed letter from Chief Deputy Raymond:
��'
I �r 1
108
'911
#%P1 1 1 LQ, 1704
Honorable Pat Lyons, Chairman
Board of County Commissioners
Indian River County
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Dear Commissioner Lyons:
R.T.NTld' DOBECK • INDIAN RIVER COUYTY ` -
MEMBER FLORIDA SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION _
MEMBER OF NATIONAL SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION
VENO BE ICH. FLORIDA 32060 ! _
DISTRIBUTION LIST •_ 1.
Commissioners '
Administrator
Attorney
Personnel
Public Works
Ccr ;".unity Dev.
Utilities ---�
Finance - —�
Othera ���,-"��'�
Approximately six (6) months ago our Department confiscated a 15'
rubber raft and a 25 Hp. outboard motor which was being utilized
to haul marijuana. Forfeiture proceedings were enacted with our
Department recently being awarded these items.
Enclosed is a copy of a letter from Richard H. Baker, Director,
Florida Medical Entomology Laboratory, requesting that we consider
donating these items to them so that they might be utilized in
their day to day operation in Indian River County. Sheriff Dobeck
is in agreement and would be pleased to donate these items which
are valued at approximately $2,000. We feel that since this is a
State funded non-profit organization, that it meets the criteria
to enable us to donate this property.
I would appreciate it if this item could be placed on the consent
agenda of the next County Commissioners' meeting and if approved
by the Commission, upon receipt of the approval, we will turn the
items over to Dr. Baker immediately.
Sincerely,
Roy�HAymonCd:S�J
Chief Deputy
MAY 11985 Booz 60,x:, 721 J
MAY 11985 BOOK 60 722
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0)
authorized the Sheriff to donate a 15' rubber
raft and 25 hp outboard motor to the Florida
Medical Entomology Laboratory as requested.
D. Final Plat Approval - Winter Grove Subdivision
The Board reviewed staff memo as follows:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: April 19, 1985 FILE:
of the Planning and
Zoning Commission
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE
.lam FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR
SUBJECT: WINTER GROVE SUBDIVISION
Robert M. Ke tin
Planning & Development Director
THROUGH: Mary Jane V. Goetzfried
Chief, Current Development Section
FROM: Stan Boling REFERENCES: winter Grove
n,N Staff Planner DIS:STAN
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their -_
regular meeting on May 1, 1985. -
DESCRIPTIONS AND CONDITIONS:
Winter Grove is a ± 20 acre, 28 lot subdivision located on the
north side of - N. Winter Beach Road, east of U.S. Highway 1.
For review purposes, the property is zoned R-3, Single -Family
Residential (up to 6.2 units/acre). The property is now zoned
RS -3, Residential Single Family (up to 3 units/acre). The land
use designation is LD -1, Low Density Residential (up to 3
units/acre). The proposed building density is 1.4 dwelling
units/acre.
The applicant, Winter Grove Properties, Inc., is requesting
final plat approval and has submitted: a warranty maintenance
agreement guaranteeing the performance of some grassing work,
an escrow letter guaranteeing the warranty maintenance agree-
ment, and a final plat that is in conformance with the approved
preliminary plat.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
The final plat application has been reviewed by the appropriate
County departments. The Public Works Division has inspected
the subdivision and indicated that it is acceptable to the
County. The Public Works director has also approved the amount
of money to be posted to guarantee the warranty maintenance
agreement. The County Attorney's Office has reviewed the
submitted warranty maintenance agreement and escrow letter, and
has indicated that they are acceptable to the County. Thus,all
applicable County zoning and subdivision regulations have been
satisfied.
6
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant
final plat approval to Winter Grove Subdivision, and accept the
submitted warranty maintenance agreement and escrow letter.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0)
granted Final Plat Approval to Winter Grove
Subdivision as recommended by staff and accepted
the Warranty, Maintenance Agreement and Escrow
Letter.
WARRANTY, MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT, AND BILL OF SALE
FOR REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS
WHEREAS, the undersigned Developer has obtained approval
by the Board of County Commissioners for the recordation of the
final subdivision plat for a project known as Wintergrove Properties
Subdivision , pursuant to the Indian River County Subdi-
vision Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, Developer has constructed certain required
improvements as defined by; and in accordance with the require-
ments of said, ordinance, all as described and evidenced in the
various drawings and plans supporting the issuance of the Land
Development Permit, together with the as built plans, test
results, and certificate of completion of the Developer's
engineer; and
WHEREAS, Developer desires to transfer all its right,
title and interest to the County in and to all those improvements
constructed within publicly dedicated lands of said project, free
and clear of encumbrances, together with the assignment of all
existing warranties and Developer's agreement to maintain the
improvements, -as required by the ordinance, and as stated herein _
below.
W I T N E S S E T H:
That for and in consideration of value received, the
receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Developer, on behalf of
itself and all successors and assigns, does hereby:
1. Represent unto Indian River County, a political
subdivision of the State of Florida, that the required improve-
ments in said project have been constructed and installed as
required by the ordinance, in the manner described above; and
• 2. Agree that, should the required improvements fail or
otherwise become defective during a period of one year from the
date of acceptance of said required improvements, due to defective
materials or workmanship, the Developer shall upon each occassion,
be responsible in all respects for such failure or defect. Devel-
oper shall immediately, upon 20 days written notice by the County,
correct such failure or defect at Developer's sole cost and
expense and bring them into compliance with the requirements of
the applicable ordinance(s); and
7
MAY 11985 BOOK 0 FACE 723
_I
MAY 11985
BOOK 60 PACE 0
3. In the event Developer fails to begin repair of the
defective required improvements within the 20 days as specified
above, or to complete such repairs within a reasonable time
thereafter, the County shall have the right to make such needed
repairs and Developer shall be liable to the County for the actual
cost expended by the County for such repairs and any cost incident
to the collection of such sums, including but not limited to,
reasonable attorney's fees and costs of litigation, including any
appeals; and
4. Provides herewith, or has provided heretofore in a
manner satisfactory to the County, a surety instrument to guaranty
Developer's performance of this maintenance agreement, being
either a Performance Bond, cash escrow deposit, or irrevocable
letter of credit. In the event Developer has not undertaken the
repairs contemplated by this Agreement following a request by the
County, the proceeds of any such surety instrument -may be drawn
upon by the County to the final total cost of Developer's
obligations hereunder, not to exceed however, the applicable
limits of a given surety instrument.
5. Grant and convey unto Indian River County all its -
right, title and interest in and to all such improvements, other
than land dedicated by plat or separate easement, which lies
within the areas dedicated to the County, and Developer hereby
warrants to the County that it has free and unencumbered title
thereto, that all persons or entities which have supplied labor or
materials with respect to -such improvements have been paid in
full, that none of them has any claim whatsoever with respect
thereto, and that that Developer shall hereafter forever warrant
and defend the County's title thereto.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF Deve oper ha"ereunto set its hand
and seal this day of
Wintergrove Properties of Indian River,Inc.
DEVELOPER, A Corporation of the
State of Florida , or
(O e — Sp c fy
By: President
am Title
Attest: lam,' 11 L
Name Title
(PLACE CORPORATE SEAL)
if Applicable
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER
The for oing instrument was acknowledged before me this
le day of ? , 19f, by (Name) Joe Lewis
(Title) president and (Name) same
(Title) , of r,J e,✓`r�.►-
a Corporation Partnership (Other)Corrorati6n ; —'-
under the laws of the State of _ Flori , on behalf of the
Developer entity.
4Myom i ion Expires:;
Notary Public. State of FkMe at l -rept :.,• ' .
8 My Commission Expires Jan, 21.14;21
Bonded By American Fre & Casualty Cwmy
Q
1
BARNETT BANK OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
Miracle Mile Office -
601 21st Street
Vero Beach, Fl. 32960
Board of County Commissioners
of Indian River County, Florida
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Re: Escrow Deposit for Subdivision
Maintenance Agreement
Gentlemen:
(DATE)
April 17, 1985
This bank has received on deposit the sum of $ 1,00.00 from
[linter Groves �xoperties o�idain River; nc�i{ , the
developer of a subdivision in Indian River County known as
winter Grove Subdivision. This sum shall be held
in escrow by us, subject to the terms and conditions of this
escrow letter, as assurance that developer shall perform in all
respects the obligations set forth in the attached "Warranty,
Maintenance Agreement, and Bill of Sale for Required Improve-
ments."
The funds shall remain subject to this escrow arrangement until
the end of ninety (90) days beyond the last day of developer's one
year obligation under the attached agreement, unless released
earlier in writing by you. The funds hereunder shall be disbursed
to you upon receipt by the bank of a certified copy of a resolu-
tion of the Board of County Commissioners stating that developer
has defaulted under the maintenance agreement and that said funds
are necessary to restore, complete, or otherwise correct the
required improvements. It is understood that during the term of
this escrow arrangement, any interest earned on the funds in the
account may be redeposited in the account or paid elsewhere, at
the option of the developer. Interest which is redeposited in the
account shall be considered as available :.o cover any deficiency
resulting for which developer may be liable, in the event of
default and recourse by the County under the maintenance agree-
ment.
The funds deposited hereunder exist solely for the protection, use
and benefit of the County and shall not be construed or intended
in anyway, expressly or impliedly, to benefit or -secure payment to
any contractor, subcontractor, laborer, material man, architect,
engineer, attorney or other party providing labor, material,
supplies, or services for maintenance of the required improve-
ments, or to the benefit of any lot purchaser, as long as such
funds remain subject to this es --,row agreement, unless and
until the County shall agree otherwise in writing -.-Neither the
County nor the bank shall be liable to any of the aforementioned
parties for claims against the developer relating to the required
subdivision improvements.
Funds deposited hereunder shall not be released or reduced in any-
way during the course of this agreement, except in strict
accordance herewith., or in such manner*as may be otherwise agreed
to in writing by the Board of County Commissioners.
Sincerely,
Barnett Bank of IndianRiver County
Name of Depositary Institution
U�
Name Title
9 Attest :,�� >1!17
NameTi
�,
0 R.G 14,
MAY 11985 BOOK 6 0 ; 7?
E. Request for Extension of Site Plan.Approval - T. Hare
The Board reviewed memo of Staff Planner Craver:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: April 9, 1985 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
THOMAS HARE'S
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF
Robert M. Keati g, ICP SITE PLAN APPROVAL
Planning & Development Director
IV1�THROUGH: Mary Jane V. Goetzfried
,V► Chief, Current Development Section
FROM: Karen M. Craver��REFERENCES:
Staff Planner
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of May 1, 1985.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
On May 10, 1984, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved a
major site plan application submitted by Thomas Hare, propri-
etor of Tommy's Transmission. Approval was given to construct
a 4,400 square foot addition to the auto repair facility
located at the southeast corner of U.S. Highway #1 and 11th
Street, SE. In addition to on-site improvements, Mr. Hare
will be responsible for paving 11th Street, SE to his east
property line.
Due to difficulties in obtaining financing, Mr. Hare will not
be able to begin construction prior to the expiration of site
plan approval. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 23(h)
(1)(a) Appendix A of the Zoning Code, Mr. Hare is, there-
fore, requesting a 1 year extension of site plan approval. No
County ordinances have been adopted, subsequent to the May 10,
1984 site plan approval, which would require any on-site
improvements in addition to those currently depicted on the
site plan.
RECOM14ENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Thomas Hare's request for a 1
year extension of the site plan approval for an addition to
Tommy's Transmission.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0)
approved a one year extension of site plan
approval for an addition to Tommy's Transmission
as requested by Thomas Hare.
10
_I
F. Approval of Deputy Appointed by Sheriff Dobeck
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0)
authorized the Chairman's signature on the appoint-
ment of the following Deputy by Sheriff Dobeck:
James D. Enlow
G. Reports filed in Clerk's Office
Received and placed on file in the Office of the Clerk were
the following: Fellsmere Water Control District
Fiscal Year Audit, 1983-84; and
Copies of Approved Minutes of Board
of Supervisor's Meeting, Calendar
Year 1984.
PROCLAMATION OFFICIAL BIRTHDAY OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
Chairman Lyons read aloud the following Proclamation
proclaiming June 1, 1985 as the official birthday of Indian River
County and presented it to Attorney James Vocelle, who was
instrumental in the creation of Indian River County.
Attorney Vocelle accepted the Proclamation on behalf of the
Historical Society and reminisced of the creation of the county
and the establishment of Vero Beach as the county seat rather
than Winter Beach.
11
MAY 11985 60 Ft°t.0 tz 7
MAY 11985
P R O C L A M A T I O N
BOOK 6O PAUGE 728
WHEREAS, on June 29, 1925, after diligent work by the
people of this area, and by a Special Act of the Legislature, a
portion of St. Lucie County was officially proclaimed INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY; and
WHEREAS, it should be noted that the City of Vero
officially became known as the City of Vero Beach, and the county
seat of INDIAN RIVER COUNTY; and
WHEREAS, from the year 1903, a wooden railroad station
known as the Vero Beach Railroad Station, contributed to the
growth and prosperity of the 'area; and
WHEREAS, the Vero Beach Railroad Station, now owned by
the INDIAN RIVER COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY, continues to play a
significant role in this growing community:
.h?
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF ,INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, Florida, that in this
sixtieth year of existence of INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, the MONTH OF
JUNE be designated as a MONTH OF CEREMONIES AND CELEBRATION; and
BE IT FURTHER PROCLAIMED that the 1st DAY OF JUNE, 1985
be observed as the official BIRTHDAY of INDIAN RIVER COUNTY.
BOARD OUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIT*T�IV COUNTY, FLORIDA
DiErAdk B. Lyons ,
ATTEST:
Freda Wright, Clerk
Adopted May 1, 1985
12
{
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF ST. JOHN'S RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Art Challacombe, Chief of Environmental Planning, made the
staff presentation, as follows:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: April 29, 1985 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
` SUBJECT:
Robert M. Ke ti g, CP
Planning & Development Director
UPPER ST. JOHNS RIVER
BASIN SURFACE WATER
MANAGEMENT PLAN -
JANUARY 1983
FROM: Art Challacombe REFERENCES: St. Johns
Chief, Environmental Planning DIS:MISC1
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting on May 1, 1985.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
In 1980, the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD)
began to prepare a basic design concept for surface water
management of the upper St. Johns River. Indian River County
contains the head waters for the river. In January 1983, the
SJRWMD prepared a technical report proposing the implementation
of a management specific plan. Any further technical
evaluations and refinements for the engineering design and
optimum operation scheme will be made in conjunction with the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in their preparation of a General
Design Memorandum. This Memorandum is expected to be completed
by June of 1985.
The plan for Indian River County includes the development of
two (2) marsh conservation areas, two (2) stormwater management
areas, conveyance capacity improvements for a number of
existing canals and levee construction.
1) Ft. Drum Marsh Conservation Area (FDMCA)
FDMCA will be created south of SR 60 to provide for
stormwater detention and water conservation on existing
marsh, diked marsh and agricultural areas which will cover
18,040 acres..
A total of approximately 19.2 miles of new levees with a
.crest elevation of 34.0 ft NGVD will be --constructed to
create this storage area and also to provide flood pro-
tection to the adjoining agricultural areas.
2. Blue Cypress Marsh Conservation Area (BCMCA)
BCMCA is a primary water storage area in the Upper St.
Johns River Basin. It will receive discharge from FDMCA
and runoff from the tributaries west of Blue Cypress Lake.
This marsh conservation area is bounded to -the north by
the Fellsmere Grade and south by SR 60.
13
BOOK 0 FKU 729
L_ MAY 11985 _ _ j
MAY 11985
3.
4.
. BOOK 60 F,kiF 73-
Blue Cypress Stormwater Management Area (BCSMA)
This 9680 acre stormwater management area will be located
between SR 60 and Fellsmere Water Control District cover-
ing land areas east and west of SR 512 for the management
of stormwaters from St. Johns Water Control District
(SJWCD) reservoir and other agricultural developments.
St. Johns Stormwater Management Area (SJSMA)
SJSMA is a 6200 acre stormwater management area between
Fellsmere Grade and Zig Zag Canal within the boundary of
the Fellsmere Water Control District (FWCD). This storage
area will receive stormwater discharged from BCSMA, BCMCA,
and the agricultural area to the east. The construction.
of SJSMA will produce a -significant recovery of the
stormwater from the area within FWCD that is currently
being discharged to tidewater via the C-54 Canal.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS:
The purpose of the management plan is to improve water quality
by providing retention and filtration of water through the
marsh conservation areas and to improve usable water quantities
as sources for agricultural irrigation and increased recharge
for the Upper St. Johns River.
In reviewing the technical report, several issues arise when
viewed from the local perspective. There are several possible
disadvantages to the plan for Indian River County. These are:
1) Loss of habitat;.
2) loss of recreation areas (Stick Marsh);
3) possible closing of the Fellsmere Grade.
The proposed plan maintains that a primary objective is to
divert stormwater from flowing through the C-54 Canal into the
Indian River. In so doing, however, approximately 2140 acres
of the stick marsh area would be converted into a permanent
stormwater reservoir,_ thus destroying its natural habitat and
recreation potential function. The plan states that in 1982,
an alternative site was proposed in Brevard County; however,
this alternative was not selected. There is no mention as to
why this alternative site was not selected.
The plan does not adequately address the future use of the
Fellsmere Grade. The most specific information related to the
Grade is that it would be converted to a levee system with a
weir structure and culverts to control flood flow discharge
into the St. Johns stormwater management area.
The proposed plan does not offer
management systems, nor is it clear as
considered other than the September
believes that the SJRWMD should submit
plans for County input.
RECOMMENDATION:
a range of alternative
to what alternatives were
1982 alternative. Staff
a number of alternative
Staff recommends that the County Commission prepare a letter to
the SJRWMD expressing all its concerns regarding the 1983 plan.
In addition, staff recommends that the County Commission hold a
workshop with the SJRWMD and the public in order to further
access the proposed project's impacts upon Indian River County.
14
r
WKSIpt-RED IN JANUARY 1983
1 5-965.44 �.=.� �C-54 CANAL
- -; ...........
. - .......: r�`"�:�
r'"5TSx . —N
1-
,.>_ SMA----_'- - - - -a
FELLS M ER ��-
FLOWAGE:.::Blue '::..: ..T__ .. r ; :_r---;
EAS E to ENTpras--
-- - -- -- `
ri [ ' TSL "' � •- ' ---J._�_J_ •._:.--4--- -- -- `•�C-
_.—s-96- D ` ELEY.�TED �POAD
\ }:r i•►:: :� :: :yam:: :�.. �� . — _..
_ ......... . .. - .. �.... I ( _ - _..J x • h
CYPRESS MCA
Y BLUE
`tCYPRESS
SMA
... .��• •a_..r _
if
J.
-A ; •' _ r °_--fit ..IV
_ -
Iry
1 4► ` - !1 �� FT. DRUM MCA
Aq
IL
LEGEND' °
= WATER CONTRCL STRUCTU,Ri
Q =CULVERT G'2 WEIR STRI�•;Tl
LEVEE
Ty = CANAL
•.........
MCA Mf,RSH =1 SERVATIQN AREJ
SMA = STOnM1•'ATER t;AhiASEMENT
- Fig.III-1 Ft. Drum and Biue Cypress Basin ��• it. "s
15
BOOK 60 Pr1Gf 731
A
I
%Y 11985 - BOOK 60 Dn)E 73-2
Questions followed regarding elevations in the impounded
area, the level of Blue Cypress Lake itself, the effect of this
plan on Fellsmere Grade, etc.
Planner Challacombe informed the Board that the plan St.
John's is utilizing is essentially a January 1983 document that
was submitted to the county at that time with just some minor
modifications; the design the Army Corps of Engineers will put
out sometime in June of 1985 will be the actual plan, and Mr.
Challacombe believed we need to keep a good handle on what the
Corps is doing because that is an integral part of the situation.
In regard to the consequences from placing these two
reservoirs in our county, Planner Challacombe stressed that the
concern of the people in Fellsmere is the loss of habitat and
recreation value of about 2,000 acres of what is called the
"stick marsh," as it would be permanently under water with this
plan. He informed the Board that he called the Fish 8 Wildlife
Service to see if they had done any research, and in 1982, they
put out a memo to the Corps stating a number of concerns and
possible alternatives, i.e., using "sheet flow" instead of the
levee and dike system. Another concern is the possible closing
of the Fellsmere Grade. Although it seems the ownership is in
St. John's, the Grade basically is a public road, and he believed
the County Commissioners might want to address this issue. In
addition, Mrs. Wilson of Fellsmere says that St. John's has
promised certain amenities in the area, but the plan does not
show this nor state how they would be paid for. Staff,
therefore, recommends that the Commission write the District
expressing its concerns, raising any questions that need to be
answered, and requesting tha.t they give us the alternatives that
were looked at before coming up with the plan. Mr. Challacombe
further recommended that the Commission hold one or more
workshops so that the people affected can have further, input.
In the following discussion, Chairman Lyons emphasized that
we do not want to give up Fellsmere Grade as a east -west
16
thoroughfare as it might be a much better alternative than having
to four -lane Route 60 in the future.
Commissioner Bird stressed his concern re the impact this
plan might have on recreational activities, plus any possible
adverse effect on Blue Cypress Lake itself.
Planner Challacombe agreed that one of the major points
lacking in the plan is that there is no mention of recreation.
Chairman Lyons believed the key now is to raise all these
questions that have been brought up. and then as we get closer to
a finalization of the plan, we can decide how tough we want to
get about this. He felt the plan is quite far from a final stage
and will have to undergo much more review and environmental
revision.
Attorney Brandenburg expressed the belief that this plan is
further along then we anticipated as it seems the District
already has purchased the lands and entered into agreements with
the owners about flooding. He suggested we wait until after
having a workshop with St. John's to write them about our
concerns.
Commissioner Bird inquired about an agenda for the workshop,
and Attorney Brandenburg reported that we have asked St. John's
to have their staff people here on May 6th to give a full blown
presentation of their plans. It appears they have been working
with the people in the west of the county over the years instead
of working with the County Commission. Also, at the Chairman's
request, one of their members will give a 30 minute presentation
on groundwater. The County Attorney further noted that the St.
John's Governing Board is meeting the following two days here in
Vero Beach, and we are agendaed to address them on any issues we
feel we need to after the workshop.
Commissioner Wodkte asked if the public will have an
opportunity to participate in the workshop, and Attorney
Brandenburg confirmed that they would.
17
MAY 11985 BOOK 6® 73
MAY 11985
BOOK�® FAr,F 7064
Ruth Stanbridge, member of the Planning & Zoning Commission,
wished to know if St. John's will be discussing their general
design at the workshop or just their conceptual plan. She felt
if we do not have the design of the Army Corps, we will be at a
disadvantage.
Chairman Lyons believed we will be talking to them for quite
a period of time, probably months and months, and we just want to
be able to raise our concerns and questions at this point.
Attorney Byron Cooksey informed the Board that he has
represented a lot of the owners out in the flowage easements; he
has a great deal of information about this; and he would be glad
to meet with the Environmental Planner and supply him with this
information. He felt it is important that the County review and
understand these flowage easements.
Commissioner Bird asked Attorney Cooksey what he felt the
District is trying to accomplish in this county, and Attorney
Cooksey stated that he has reviewed the plans over the years, but
until he sees the current plans and concepts, he could not say.
From his experience, he believed the County will not only have to
offer their input now, but keep up with it because the plan
changes constantly and it is critical to the county in many
respects. He again offered the County access to his material.
Susie Wilson, Fellsmere representative to the Countywide
Recreation Study Committee, believed everyone has realized this
is going to be a long standing issue. She suggested that a
committee be formed to review and digest all the material, which
is voluminous and much more than one person could cope with.
Chairman Lyons agreed -this was a good suggestion and noted
that we have asked staff to prepare a list of the concerns
brought up today to be gone over at the workshop.
PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING SOUTH OF ROSELAND ROAD (HANSON)
The hour of 9:15 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notices with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:
18
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida -
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a
in the Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of
Afflant 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 A.D. 19�
` (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County,
(SEAL)
NOTtt:! -- PUBLIC HEARING
TO AMEND THE QOW?1 IENSIVE LAN
as:
41"Lift 11, 12, 1.3; 14,,:15'and 188 Plat
Town°of Nlauragan, recorded In F
Book 1t. ppa g1es 178 and 178, Breen
'-Countq .-F7orlda.: now altuate-4n Ind
River GtOunttyy��Florida, hd� scorner
erly of'Roseiend Road, .ESS the totlt
ing four parcels
" Cjifte Southwesteriy,iso t"eer01 Eta
'*� W' 12' and the 2B feel
Southwesterly 150 feet of Lot 13.1
the Town ofwauregan,: recorded
- Plat Book 1; pages 178 and 179, Brev
,:1feCountliyy. Florida, ,now >dthrate In Irtd
�llver County. Florida
I'M.,
at a concrete monument
FFl ., Glrant Ane' inarking-,
Southeaglyr cpmer oftot 14.of the I
of the Town of Wauregan,`fecotdat
+Plat Book 1; pages 178 Ar►d 179. Pu
�:fecords of; Brevard Courtly: Florida. i
3x;10'..38' East :540.30 feet to a conbre
.•.monument:- them North 450 .44: 0
Fast 323,58.feet.to a concrete mon
.:mem being a point on the westerly 691of-way Ilne for U.S Highway No. 1;,m
abetno a poInt of curvature of a rton-te
gg�entt circular , curve,: ca►cave to. t
""Ftortheast FlayinNnngg a redtu8^or 11;458:
%ek thence ruorthwasteriyatong•t
,SWesterly right-of-way. line fob U.S. Hig
`way No. T, etong' the aro of said cirmil
curve for a are distance of 682.43.h
'.�ttuough a central angle of 02°48' 44"
.::.a concrete monument; thence South 4
t=
11rie 24013^ rthenCe SOtlth '� as
15' East +
36 +2t
2 2 �� thPq
Inning. ro • kva r�r x :
ing a paroej of land lying In,
fhe a .
NortheastarlY Pomdon of Lots�12. 113j'a�
`114rdeplat
m Itheja '1 wn ,o}pagan 78 and
179. Brevard Coin Florida: said lands'
now situate in t Floes '
of said
moreparticularly The boundaryescribed as toll ,.,:
more
`Beginning at a concrete monument .a► {;;
_.the Fiend =Grant Lhre rnwWng the' V.
utheaste y comer of Lot 14 1 ' the 7I`'.'
own of: Wauregan: `thence run North; ..
431° 24' 17' Wast; along the Gram Itnea
728.84 feat tb', a concrete monument;
thence IeavMg the Grant Ilne, iron Soutlr
45' S4. 01•• fit, 240.79 feet to a con -
430
Crete monurnent; thence nM
31,>
31. W, Easton a Una -parallel
Grelnt line, 728.98 feet to .a concrete , -
monumem on the, South" line of the ;
aforesald,Lot 14;;thence run North. Y
49' 1T•, East along the Southerly line of
Lot 14.230.35 fast to the Point of�BegiM .1
A; public hearing at whan opich Pardee b► ltbto be
and heardCitizens
will be held bythe Board off County Com-
missioners of Indian River County. Florida. in the
County Commission Chambers of the County
Administration Building, located at 1940 25th
Street Vero Beach. Florida on Wednesday` May
1, 1985, at 9:15 a.m. � • ' I V ;n.r eoision�
If any Pereon decides to appea
made on the above matter, he/ahe wili:need•a
record of the Proceedings, and for such Pur
poste, he/she may need to ensure that a verba-
Im record of the proceedings is made, which in-
cludes tewmony and evidence upon which the
appeal is based. s_ a
Indian River County
Board of County Commtasloners �1
•<B-s.PatrlckB. Lyons amt 1�;r�Js'" �
Chairman
April 11.23.1985x;
19
MAY 11985 BOOK 60 FACE'
K
MAY 11985 . BOOP( 60 NAGE 36
20
NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING
Notice of hearing to consider the adoption of
a County Ordinance. rezoning land frog► R-1;
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Ingle -Family District, and C-1, Commercial Ds-
trict, to RM -8, Multiple -Family Residential Dis-
trict. The subject property Is presently owned by
HELEN HANSON PROPERTIES, INC., and is lo -
_
Published Daily
cated south of Roseland Road (82nd Avenue),
west of U.S. #1,„ and east ofWauregan Avenue
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
(135th Btreet) y ;;,• r J
The subject
d:16, aa"�' ,w .
15 18, Plat of
.109.111 a ,,r'
`Lots 11..12,. 13, 1 , 15 end
Town of Wauregan,,recorded in Plaid„'
pages, 178 ;a ' .
Bookkty
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
o- ' ituate In Indard
County;' Florida now .situate 'fn Indian 1
River County; Florida lying Southeast-,”
'
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
arty of•Roseand Road, LESS the follow -
ging tourparcels: .
"
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper ublished
Y 9 YP
ii
•,1'. The Southwesterly 150 teat of Lots 11.
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
and 12 -and, Northwesterly 28 feet of ;
the Southwesterly 150 feet of Lot
`�•
aued In'.'
the Town of regan, recordrd 16
a !
Plat Book 1 . ages 178 and 179, Brevard "
Couniy� situate in India�r;t.
.Fl6N0a: now
River County, Florida
in the matter Of
.'I winning at a concrete monument oa.
the' Fl. Grant line marking the: kp'°
of Lot 14 of the Platt '
Southeiastarly comer
, ,of the Town of Wauregan, recorded 4h , ^:
1, - pages 178 and 178,public ;, .
u ,;4,PIat,Book
gr! records of Brevard County, Florida, now '
aftuste in Indian. River County, Florida•'i,'-;
res ;feet kb cont e9monument; thence,,,,
in the Court, was pub
r , 9otfth4 45 .49 2§^ Wesr,103.89 feet to
r'Wndfete`monument; thence South 414;'�y',
lished in said newspaper in the issues �i a3 d�
91 35" East, 1540.30 feet. to a concrete" ,;-
�t ,;monument them. ,North 46* 44 SV.;
"a
of
Peat. 32358 feet: fb concrete monq.,:1, ,
mint betng;a poi nfon .the Weateriy
Highway 1S
prof way life for q.8: ,Dlo and , ;a
` ;being a point of.a wnture ata_ n6n-tan- �r
'curate, the
gent circui�ar Concave to r
Northeast; ;having' A rradlus of •1145920`
`'feet No westerly al,:"
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
l ttalnoWV411
:,NVest line for; U S. Htglrl,� 0i, �.y
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
right=i-way
�; way � 1,;a10 of said cicular2 ,
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
.ourye I*, a. 4c distance'of 682.43 teats
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-through
acentretangleof 02" 48 44 tok '
' `a d; thence South s
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
concrete;mo 135.11
fi 1�F' 19. `13s.1� feet t
l the Papt
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither aid nor promised an
Y P P Y Person, firm
�; f
ee�nrning.�satdparCetotland
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this'3og
U+a r+�nt jn� I s
1T
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.�South.iine
-
ab of A oft v n Berta
dHendry�s''Addiflon-to
R�elertd as r¢M
`°p Book 39 th
Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of A.D. 19as
Y
piic�r ds: India R Coumjie,`I "'
Florida; thence South 43° 00' 38' East'.
—
r .;•5.02,feet'atong saW Flaming Grant line S'
'thence South'45°.54' 01- West, 240.79`-ra,
(Business an g
feet to the Point of Beginning; thence
North 43° 31' 08" West, 349.49 feet to a
point on the South right-of-way line for
-.
Roseland Road; thence North 41' 37'
(Clerk of the Circuit Court, In I n C
24t1�along saidns�outf► lir hSoulft ; 4a;
/.,;
(SEAL)15
•.
t?oe,
EEast, i W2,13, feet to the Poln; of
`•',
(I t l '
& Bineingg, a pike) of land eying in the _. .
Northeasterly portion of Lots 12,13 And
14, Plat of the Town of Wauregan, re-
Corded'16 Plat'Book- 1; pages 178 and,
179, Brevard County. Florida; said lands ;'; `
now situate In Indian River County Flor-'y ' <
Ida ; The boundaryof said parcel being!;:
more: Particulariy .,descri as fellows; :,:
Beginning -at. a concrete. monumernt otrt�;.
the ;i,Flemi ,',13rant,5.4dgqa marking -11te
Domer oT Lot 14 of the
South easbry
Town qf' Wauregan; thence run North '.
43° 24" I -r- . West, along the Grant fine,
.728.64 feet to, .a concrete monument;
thence leaving the Grant line. run -,"M '
Wesk'240.79 fest to e,wri-
cretd monument;': thence:rm $outti. 43" R
31` 08" East on:a 9re parallel with
Grant line, 728.96 feet to a concrete "
monument on the Squtherly line of the:,`,
aforesaidLot 14; thence run North 45"
` .49' 1'T" East along the Southerly One -of G�
Lot 14, 239, 35 feet to the Point of
ning ,
A public hearing at which parties In : interest
and cMzene shall have an opportunity to be
heard, will be held by the Board of County Com-
missioners of Indian River County,; Florida, In the
County.:.Commisslon Chambers.of •the- Counnttyy
Administration ;Building; located at 1840 ,25th
SUw,Vero Beach„t orida on iNedn day, May
1,19K,at 915 b^, i e
t any. person. decides td appeal any deatsiorl
made on, the_ atmve matter, he/she will need a
record of, the- proceedings and for such pur-
poses, he/she mayneed to ensure that a verba -
Um record of the proceedings Is made, which in-
-cfudes testimony and evidence upon which the
appeal Is based ”
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners 1' a'! ;;;r; .
.-s-Patrick B. Liyons
h23,1985
April 11,
20
Chief Planner Richard Shearer made the staff presentation as
follows:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: April 18, 1985 FILE:
of the Board of
County Commissioners
HELEN HANSON PROPERTIES,
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: INC., REQUEST TO REDES-
IGNATE 21.9 ACRES FROM
SUBJECT: LD -1 TO LD -2 AND TO RE -
o eft M. Kea ng, ICP ZONE FROM C-1 AND R-1
Planning & Develdp1ment Director (RS -3) TO RM -6
FROM: Richard Shearer, AICP REFERENCES: ZC-122 P&Z Memo
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 May 1, 1985.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
Helen Hanson, President of Helen Hanson Properties, Inc., is
requesting to amend the Comprehensive Plan by redesignating
21:9 acres located southeast of Roseland Road, northeast of
135th Street (Wauregan Avenue), and southwest of U.S.1, from
LD -1, Low -Density Residential 1 (up to 3 units/acre), to LD -2,
Low -Density Residential 2 (up to 6 units/acre), and to rezone
the property from C-1, Commercial District, and RS -3, Single -
Family Residential District (up to 3 units/acre), to RM -6,
Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre).
The applicant is proposing to develop the subject property for
residential uses. This property was zoned R-1, Single -Family
District (up to 6 units/acre) when the rezoning application was
submitted but was assigned to the RS -3 zoning district on April
11, 1985.
On March 14, 1985, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
4 -to -0 to recommend approval of this request to amend the
Comprehensive Plan and voted 4 -to -0 to recommend approval of
this rezoning request.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of th
application will be presented. The
description of the current and future
surrounding areas, potential impacts c
utility systems, and any significant
vironmental quality. .
Existing Land Use Pattern
e reasonableness of the
analysis will include a
land uses of the site and
)n the transportation and
adverse impacts on en -
The subject property is undeveloped and zoned C-1 and RS -3.
North of the subject property is undeveloped land zoned RS -3.
Further north, is Humana Hospital zoned MED, Medical District
(up to 8 units/acre), and a contractor's business zoned C-1.
East of the subject property is undeveloped land zoned C-1
which is being developed as the River Walk shopping center.
21
MAY 11985
BOOK 60 FIKE 73
FP__ AY 1 1985 �
M BOOK 60 F,�GE 738
South of the subject property is a mobile home park zoned RMH-8
Mobile Home Residential District (up to 8 units/acre). West of
the subject property are single-family dwellings and vacant
land zoned RS -3.
Future Land Use Pattern
The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property and
the land west of it as LD -1, Low -Density Residential 1 (up to 3
units/acre). The land north and east of the subject property
is included in the 70 acre hospital/commercial node located at
the intersection of Roseland Road and U.S.#1. The land south
of the subject property is designated as MD -1, Medium -Density
Residential 1 (up to 8 units/acre). Because the property south
of the subject property is designated MD -1 and the land to the
north and east is part of a hospital/commercial node, the
proposed LD -2 .land use designation seems to be a reasonable
buffer*to the property designated as LD -1 to the west.
The subject property is situated among single-family residences
to the west, a mobile home park to the south, a proposed _=
shopping center to the east, and commercial and institutional
uses to the north.
Providing multiple -family zoning among these various commer-
cial, institutional, and residential land uses would result in
a good overall land use pattern.
Transportation System
The subject property has direct access to U.S.1 (classified as
an arterial street on the Thoroughfare Plan), Roseland Road
(classified as a primary collector street), and 135th Street
(classified as a local street). The maximum development of the
subject property would generate 924 average annual daily trips
(AADT). If the subject property were rezoned RS -3 in conform-
ance with the LD -1 designation, the maximum development of the
property would generate 660 AADT.
Environment
The subject property is not designated as environmentally
sensitive nor is it in a flood -prone area.
Utilities
The subject property is not served by County water nor wastewa-
ter facilities.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above analysis, particularly the existing land use
pattern, the land use plan designations, and the Planning and
Zoning Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that the
subject property be redesignated as LD -2 and rezoned to RM -6.
Chief Planner Shearer noted that staff has determined that
this property is situated among a variety of types of uses
including a shopping center, hospital commercial, mobile home
parks, etc., and they believe multi -family would provide a good
buffer.
22
En
j
Attorney Byron T. Cooksey came before the Board to speak for
the applicant, Helen Hanson Properties. He emphasized that the
property is not under contract for sale, and it is not for sale;
it is for use by Helen Hanson Properties. He realized the
Roseland Property Owners Association has asked for 4 units per
acre, but noted that this property was approved by the Planning &
Zoning Commission for up to 6 units per acre. Mr. Cooksey
further wished to point out that Wauregan Subdivision just to the
west of this property has lots 50 x 150 and a density of 5.8
units per acre. In the Townsite of Roseland, the density is at
about 5.5 units per acre. This request would be in conformity
with those densities. Attorney Cooksey believed this property is
in a transitional area and that it would be a buffer zone.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
Fred Mensing, President of the Roseland Property Owners
Association referred to the following letter:
ROSELAN.D PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
P. o. Box 201 S
ROSELAND, FLA. 32957
April 28, 1985
The Honorable County Commissioners
Indian River County
1840 - 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida
RE: Proposed Zoning Change - ZC-122
Dear County Commissioners:
The above captioned proposed zoning change of 21.9
acres in Roseland was reviewed and discussed by the
Board of Directors and the general membership of
the Roseland Property Owners Association at its
meeting on April 9, 1985.
The majority of the members of the Association voted
to recommend that future development in the -Roseland
area be limited to a maximum of.four units per acre
the consensus of the membership was that four units
per acre was a reasonable density for this area
located between the shopping center, currently under
construction, and the Wai uregan single family sub-
division to the west.
Sincerely,
Martha M. Csuri 23 BOOK 60 PnF 7.39
Y 119 Secretary 1
MAY 11985 .
BOOK 60 PnE 740
Mr. Mensing confirmed that Mrs. Hanson did explain to the
Association that she always has and would continue to do things
for the betterment of Roseland, but in spite of that, the
majority wished this letter to be written to the Commission.
Chairman Lyons asked if the members of the Property Owners
Association were aware that the density is higher in the existing
area.
Mr. Mensing did not feel that point was clearly before them
until today but noted that although there are many small lots in
the Wauregan area, most people are building their homes on two
lots.
Chief,Planner Shearer clarified that most of the lots in
this area are 10,000 sq. ft. or less and, therefore, are
non -conforming under their present RS -3 zoning, which has a
minimum lot size of 12,000 sq. ft. The density in most areas is
going to exceed three per acre, and recent action along the river
was at RM -6.
Chairman Lyons wished to clarify whether someone could build
there if they owned a platted lot, and Mr. Shearer stated they
could if it were a lot of record. However, the Environmental
Health Department may not be able to issue permits for wells and
septic tanks.
Commissioner Bowman asked if he was saying these lots are
too small to have a septic tank and a well on them, and Mr.
Shearer explained that he was not, but that they might be
restricted as to the number of bedrooms they could have in a
house. He believed just about all the lots would be buildable.
The Chairman asked if anyone further wished to be heard, and
Norb Resop, Treasurer of the Property Owners Association, noted
that the Board voted for 6 units per acre on the river where it
is essential to keep the pollution down; so, he did not see why
they would worry about property which is further from the river.
24
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0)
closed the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0)
adopted Ordinance 85-39 redesignating the prop-
erty as advertised from LD -1 to LD -2 as re-
quested by Helen Hanson Properties, Inc.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0)
adopted Ordinance 85-40 rezoning the property
as advertised to Ill -6 as requested by Helen
Hanson.Properties, Inc.
Chairman Lyons noted that one thing that made up his mind to
support the rezoning is that the property to the west is so
similar, and Cou nissioner Bowman commented that this is a lovely
wooded area and she hoped that we will keep a careful watch to
see that the Tree Protection Ordinance is strictly observed.
25 BOOK 60 F,1GE 741
t
r
MAYA -1985 i
BOOK 60 PAIGE742
ORDnga= NO. 85-39
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to
amend the Canprehensive Plan by redesignating the hereinafter
described property and pursuant thereto held a public hearing
in relation thereto, at which parties in interest and citizens
were heard; NOW, THMMRE,
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, that the Land Use Element of the
Comprehensive Plan of Indian River County, Florida, and the
accompanying Land Use Map, be amended as follows:
1. That the Land Use Map be changed in order that the
following described property situated in
Indian River County, Florida, to -wit:
11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16, Plat of Town of Wauregan, record-
ed in Plat Book 1, pages 178 and 179, Brevard County, Florida,
now situate in Indian River County, Florida, lying Southeasterly
of Roseland Road, LESS the following four parcels:
1. The Southwesterly 150 feet of Lots 11 and 12 and the
Northwesterly 28 feet of the Southwesterly 150 feet of Lot
13, Plat of the Town of Wauregan, recorded in Plat Book 1,
pages 178 and 179, Brevard County, Florida, now situate in
Indian River County, Florida.
2. Beginning at a concrete monument on the Fleming Grant line
marking the Southeasterly corner of Lot 14 of the Plat of
the Town of Wauregan, recorded in Plat Book 1, pages 178 and
179, public records of Brevard County, Florida, now situate
in Indian River County, Florida; thence south 450 49' 17"
West„ 239.35 feet to a concrete mornmient; thence South
45 °49' 25" West, 103.89 feet to a concrete monument;
thence South 440 10' 35" East, 540.30 feet to a concrete
monument; thence North 45° 44' 55" East, 323.56 feet to a
concrete monument being a point on the Westerly right-of-way
line for U.S. Highway No. 1; and being a point of curvature
of a non -tangent circular curve, concave to the Northeast,
having a radiuLs.of 11,459.20 feet; thence run Northwesterly
along the Westerly right-of-way line for U.S. Highway No. 1
along the arc of said circular curve for a arc distance of
562.43 feet through a central angle of 020 48' 44" to a
concrete monument; thence South 45° 29' 14" West, 135.11
feet to the Point of Beginning of said parcel of land.
3. Commencing at the point of intersection of the Fleming Grant
line and the South line of Tract A of Van Bergen and
Hendry's Addition to Roseland, as recorded in Plat Book 3,
page 39 of the public records of Indian River County,
Florida; thence South 43° 00' 38" East, 5.02 feet along
said Fleming Grant line; thence South 450 54' 01" West,
240.79 feet to the Point of Beginning; thence North 430 31'
06" West, 349.49 feet to a point on the South right-of-way
line for Roseland Road; thence North 410-371 20" East,
26
along said South right of -way -line, 240.13 feet; thence
South 43° 45' 15" East, 362.13 feet to the Point Of
Beginning.
4. Being a parcel of land lying in the Northeasterly portion of
Lots 12, 13 and 14, Plat of the Town of Wauregan, recorded
in Plat Book 1, pages 178 and 179, Brevard County, Florida;
said lands now situate in Indian River County, Florida. The
boundary of said parcel being more particularly described as
4011MIS: -Beginning at a concrete monument on the Fleming
Grant Line marking the Southeasterly corner of Lot 14 of the
Town of Wauregan; thence run North 430 24' 17" West, along
the Grant line, 728.64 feet to a concrete monument; thence
leaving the Grant line, run South 450 54' 01" West, 240.79
feet to a concrete monument; thence ran South 430 31' 06"
East on a line parallel with said Grant ]ane, 728.96 feet to
a concrete monument on the Southerly line of the aforesaid
Lot 14; thence run North 450 49' 17" East along the
Southerly line of Lot 14, 239.35 feet to the Point of
Beginning.
Be changed from LD -1, low -Density Residential 1 (up to 3 -
units/acre) to LD -2, Low -Density Residential 2 (up to 6
units/acre) . -
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 is tday of May
1985.
BOrOFMCQ MSSIONERS
OFCOLR�'1 Y.LY
S
Chairman
Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of Florida
this 9th day of May , 1985.
Effective Date: Acknowledgment from the Department of State
received on this l 5thday of May , 1985, at 11A.M. /P.M. and
filed in the office of the Clerk of the Board of County Commis-
sioners of Indian River County, Florida.
• • • •,• Y11 l• • • A u
No, L•
27
MAY 1 1985 BOOK 60 PAUE 743
MAY 1 1995
BOOK 60 PnF 744
ORDINANCE NO. 8 5 - 4 0
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to
rezone the hereinafter described property and pursuant thereto
held a public hearing in relation thereto, at which parties in
interest and citizens were heard; NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT ORDAnM 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:
Lots 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16, Plat of Town of Wauregan, record-
ed in Plat Book 1, pages 178 and 179, Brevard County, Florida,
now situate in Indian River County, Florida, lying Southeasterly
of Roseland Road, LESS the following four parcels:
1. The Southwesterly 150 feet of Lots 11 and 12 and the
Northwesterly 28 feet of the Southwesterly 150 feet of Lot
13, Plat of the Town of Wauregan, recorded in Plat Book 1,
pages 178 and 179, Brevard County, Florida, now situate in
Indian River County, Florida.
2. Beginning at a concrete monument on the Fleming Grant line
marking the Southeasterly corner of Lot 14 of the Plat of
the Town of Wauregan, recorded in Plat Book 1, pages 178 and
179, public records of Brevard County, Florida, now situate
in Indian River County, Florida; thence south 451 49' 17"
West„ 239.35 feet to a concrete monument; thence South
45 °49' 25" West, 103.89 feet to a concrete monument;
thence South 44° 10' 35" East, 540.30 feet to a concrete
monument; thence North 45° 44' 55" East, 323.56 feet to a
concrete monument being a point on the Westerly right-of-way
line for U.S. Highway No. 1; and being a point of curvature
of a non -tangent circular curve, concave to the Northeast,
having a radius of 11,459.20 feet; thence run Northwesterly
along the Westerly right -of --way line for U.S. Highway No. 1
along the arc of said circular curve for a arc distance of
562.43 feet through a central angle of 02° 48' 44" to a
concrete monument; thence South 45° 29' 14" West, 135.11
feet to the Point of Beginning of said parcel of land.
3. Commencing at the point of intersection of the Fleming Grant
line and the South line of Tract A of Van Bergen and
Hendry's Addition to Roseland, as recorded in Plat Book 3,
page 39 of the public records of Indian River County,
Florida; thence South 43° 00' 38" East, 5.02 feet along
said Fleming Grant line; thence South 450 54' 01" West,
240.79 feet to the Point of Beginning; thence North 43° 31'
06" West, 349.49 feet to a point on the South right-of-way
line for Roseland Road; thence North 411 37' 20" East,
along said South right-of-way line, 240.13 feet; thence
South 43° 45' 15" East, 362.13 feet to the Point of
Beginning.
28
4. Being a parcel of land lying in the Northeasterly portion of
Lots 12, 13 and 14, Plat of the Town of Wauregan, recorded
in Plat Book 1, pages 178 and 179, Brevard County, Florida;
said lands now situate in Indian River County, Florida. The
boundary of said parcel being more particularly described as
follows: Beginning at a concrete monument on the Fleming
Grant Line marking the Southeasterly corner of Lot 14 of the
Town of Wauregan; thence run North 43° 24' 17" West, along
the Grant line, 728.64 feet to a concrete monument; thence
leaving the Grant line, run South 45° 54' 01" West, 240.79
feet to a concrete monument; thence run South 430 31' 06"
East on a line parallel with said Grant line, 728.96 feet to
a concrete monument on the Southerly line of the aforesaid
Lot 14; thence run North 450 49' 17" East along the
Southerly line of Lot 14, 239.35 feet to the Point of
Beginning.
Be changed from RS -3, Single -Family Residential District and
C-1, Commercial District, to RM -6, Multiple -Family
Residential 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 1 day of may
1985.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMUSSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of Florida
this 9th day of May , 1985.
Effective Date: Acknowledgrrent from the Departnmt of State
received on this 15t1jay of May , 1985, atll A.M./P.M. and
filed in the office of the Clerk of the Board of County Commis-
sioners of Indian River County, Florida.
29 BOOK 0 FnE 9 4
MAY 1 1985
IMAY 1 1985
BOOK 60 e,gGE 746
COUNTY -INITIATED REQUEST TO REDESIGNATE 222 ACRES TO MD -1
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
in the Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues o 14 2A
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation, any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. A
Sworn to and subscribed before me this .3MfA9MFIorltl
(Clerk of the Circuou,nanverouny,
(SEAL)
_qtr`.+;
NOTICE- PUBLIC HEARINti' 'r' .
TO AMEND THE COMPENSIVE LAND. IS
=_Notibe 'of hearing initiated by Indian Rtirst,r
County to consider the adoption of a County ORW
dinance amendin�, the Land Use Element of the
Comprehensive P anbJnatinR land from
kg
Rural
RLow-Density
� tla
Residential t MD,Medium-DenResiden
tial
1- The subject property is located north of.
S.R. 60 and east of 74th Avenue (Range Line
neral p`iet of lamis of Indian HWW ., s °
arms Company filed in Piet Book 2,
Page 25, Public Records of SY Lucie
County Florida ! • .:
DA'''s Ane Section & Town -:;'o a'�.
of Indian Krm ° „
and being :In rnauq KFWW w.., r,
A public hearing' at which parties in inteida -
rid
nity to bet,
sard�wiilna-ghall have an be held Board
of uCount+ Com'
dssioners-of Indiah River County, Florida, in the.,
county Commission Chambers. of the
dministr8tklh, Buildit,?located .at.t840
deet Vero Beach Flgrida on Wednesday, may,
mti at 8:1f a.m ;1, d tslon;
I any person decides to appeal any
9e on the above matter, he/she will need a,
+xd of the proceedings, and for such Pur
s, he/she may need tto is �tle that as which
e
�cord:of the proceed 9s h whicth W
e testimony and evidence P�
lle
Is based
Indian Rive► Courtly
Board of County Commissioners t ;
-s-Patrick B. Lyons { . a>
n r �• �
Chief Planner Shearer made the staff presentation, as
follows:
30
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: April 18, 1985 FILE:
of Board of
County Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
4_i�r �-� SUBJECT:
Robert M. ReatNng,. 7CP
Planning & Develop'Xent Director
?-12FROM:
Richard Shearer,
Chief, Long -Range
MAY 1
AICP REFERENCES:
Planning
COUNTY -INITIATED
REQUEST TO REDESIGNATE
222.6 ACRES FROM LD -2
AND RR -1 TO MD -1
CPA -020 Memo
RICH2
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of May 1, 1985.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
The Planning Department is initiating a request to amend the
Comprehensive Plan by redesignating 222.6 acres located north
of State Road 60, east of 74th Avenue (Rangeline Road), and
one-half mile west of 66th Avenue (Lateral A), from LD -2, Low -
Density Residential 2 (up to 6 units/acre), and RR -1, Rural
Residential 1 (up to .4 units/acre), to MD -1, Medium -Density
Residential 1 (up to 8 units/acre).
This request was initiated because of the existing land use
pattern and zoning of the subject property.
On March 14, 1985, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
3 -to -1 to recommend approval of this request.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the
application will be presented. The analysis will include a
description of the current and future land uses of the site and
surrounding areas, potential impacts on the transportation and
utility systems, and any significant adverse impacts on
environmental quality.
Existing Land Use Pattern
The subject property contains Village Green mobile home park,
zoned RMH-8, Mobile Home Residential District (up to 8
units/acre), the Agricultural Center, citrus groves, the
Village Green maintenance facilities, and undeveloped land
zoned A, -Agricultural District. North of the subject property
are citrus groves zoned A, Agricultural District. East of the
subject property is Vista Plantation a multiple -family
development zoned RM -4, Multiple -Family Residential District
(up to 4 units/acre). South of the subject property, across
State Road 60, is a single-family subdivision zoned RS -6,
Single -Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre), citrus
groves and undeveloped land zoned RS -6, and A, Agricultural
District (up to .2 units/acre). West of the subject property
is a Total Care Facility under construction, zoned RM -8,
Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 8 units/acre).
Future Land Use Pattern
The Comprehensive Plan designates that part of the subject
property between State Road 60 and 26th Street (Walker Avenue)
31
1985 BOOK {eE 747
BOOK 60 PAGE 748
as LD -2, Low -Density Residential 2 (up' to 6 units/acre), and
that part of the subject property north of 26th Street as RR -1,
Rural Residential 1 (up to .4 units/acre). The land north of
the subject property is designated as RR -1. The land east of
the subject property is designated as RR -1 and LD -2. The land
south of the subject property is designated as LD -2. The land
west of the subject property is designated as MD -1.
Redesignating the subject property as MD -1 would be a natural
easterly extension of the MD -1 land use designation located
west of 74th Avenue. Most of the subject property is zoned
RMH-8 and developed as a mobile home park. Because the land
use plan only allows mobile home developments in areas desig-
nated as MD -1 or MXD, Mixed -Use District, the MD -1 land use
designation is a more appropriate land use designation for the
subject property than the LD -2 and RR -1 designations.
Transportation System
The subject property has direct access to State Road 60
(classified as an arterial street on the Thoroughfare Plan),
and to 74th Avenue and 26th Street (classified as secondary
collector streets on the Thoroughfare Plan). The maximum
development of the subject property under the proposed MD -1
land use designation could generate an additional 1600 average
annual daily trips (AADT).
Environment
The subject property is not designated as environmentally
sensitive nor is it in a flood -prone area.
Ut11 7 f PS
The County is installing a water main along State Road 60. The
County is planning to install a force main sewer along State
Road 60 in the near future.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendation, staff recommends approval.
AG
A
MD-
R-3A-
7A
D-R-3AA
R-3
20th sT
9
RR-
SUBWECT PROPERTY
N
R-
,- - - - -
L®-2
SR 60TR ji
r
.TR 10
Commissioner Bird asked if this action was staff -initiated
in order to bring this property into conformance with the Land
Use Pian, and Planner Shearer stated that it was.
Commissioner Bowman asked where the existing grove is, and
Planner Shearer explained that the.existing grove lies in the
gray area immediately east of the solid black line. Village
Green owns 50 acres up there - 40 to the west and 10 to the east
with the 30 acre grove in between.
Commissioner Bowman then inquired as to the location of the
sewer plant, and Mr. Shearer stated that the percolation ponds
are just east of the grove.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
Attorney Sam Block came before the Board representing Mr.
Frank Kahn, a resident of Village Green, who actually is
concerned with the next scheduled public hearing, but he believed
this hearing directly affects the next. Attorney Block expressed
his disturbance at the order in which these hearings were
scheduled, which is the same as at the Planning & Zoning
Commission, as he believed when the next hearing comes up, the
Planning Department will make use of the action taken at this
hearing to prove their point re accessory use. He noted that at
the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting, one Board member was
upset that they were not informed that the next hearing related
to the first.
Attorney Block believed the public has always applauded the
Commission's position on controlling density, and it amazed him
that the Commission now is considering increasing density on 222
acres. Further, in regard to the existing uses, Attorney Block
did not agree they are conforming as there are active groves
there and Agricultural zoning.
Planning Director Keating clarified that there is no recom-
mendation to change zoning on the active groves, just to change
the Land Use designation so it fits the actual usage, but
Chairman Lyons did not see why the grove has to be included.
33
MAY 1 1985 BOOK 60 FADE 749
T_�j MAY 1 1985
Boa 60 PnE 750
Attorney Block pointed out that the perc ponds are not
mobile home zoned and not part of Village Green's site plan.
There is an illegal use here and it has been before the Code
Enforcement Board. It was his belief that the Planning
Department has gotten itself into a bind on this piece of
property and is asking the Board to solve it with a broad brush.
He further felt that the proposed redesignation to MD -1 would
give developers a signal that the Board.will look favorably on
increases in density. He urg.ed the Board to consider this before
going to the next hearing and continued to stress that resentment
was expressed at the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting that
one action was done ahead of the other and also that the mobile
home owners resent what is taking place on this property.
Chairman Lyons asked if the Commission would like to recess
this hearing, go to the next, and then return to this hearing in
order to give this all fair consideration.
Commissioner Wodtke and Director Keating pointed out that no
action could be taken on the rezoning without action being taken
on the redesignation first, but Attorney Brandenburg noted that
the Board could continue this public hearing and hold up action
until after holding the next hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0)
agreed to close the public hearing on the
county -initiated request to redesignate 222.6
acres to MD -1 and postpone any decision until
after the public hearing on the next matter.
REZONING - 10 ACRES TO RMH-8 (FLORIDA ATLANTIC ASSOCIATES)
The hour of 9:30 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:
34
I
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida�,
1CE A �e�euf
! �011Cf of hearing td d"41 Imm Wow's
a',Cbunty oidinarrce
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDADWAM.The
oulfinal Disfrict, tor,'RIotH-8. }i
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
Vero
a �Aaeoo�lateai
Ar
says that he is Business Manager of the Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
dated nw�th of'(walker
Of 74th and west of 86th Av
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
.Avenue
erelA/C R 6W.,
. The subjectproperty Is described
The East to acres of Tract 14,
a
31,. Township 3213. Range 39E,
Riven FerCo Compar l as ;W to
"Plat Book 2, Page,25, Public Rex
Lucie Courtly, now y'
in the matter of
erOov,
d being in Indian River Oam�r Fig!
b
zA06ft how"at whlch'part.lei
jrj��. heard wi t beheld by thme shall e � a of C
missionere of Indian River County; Fl
in the Court, was pub-
CWnty
'`Ad �on �o�r�n Chambers �
n9. 10i1i
Sireet. Vero_ Beach Florida op, Wedt
. ar9:3o a� rt r � 9
If ��
lished in said newspaper in the issues of iN
�,
a persai'decid�°to a e
made an the above matter., i►e/she
record of the proceedings, and fo
poses, he/she may need to,oR—re,f
am record of the proceedings la mai
cludes testimony and a on I+P?
is based: 434
li�dianRiverCount�t a
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
ray Board of County COmmiesion
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been
,;
Bgyq� s-PatrickB Lyon y
r'
continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
Chairman
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
Aprl ll; 23,1986.., ° ='
ty, Florida, fora period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
' 1
'Sworn to and subscribed before me this 3 y of A.D. 19
i ess Ma ger)
(Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County(TOforida)
Chief Planner Shearer reviewed staff memo and recommenda-
tion, as follows:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: April 18, 1985 FILE:
of the Board of
County Commissioners FLORIDA ATLANTIC -
ASSOCIATES REQUEST TO
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: REZONE 10 ACRES FROM A,
AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT,
SUBJECT:TO RMH-8, MOBILE HOME
Robert M. Kekiting, AICP RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
Planning & Development Director
FROM: Richard Shearer, AICP REFERENCES: ZC-125 Memo
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 May 1, 1985.
35
MAY 1 1985 BOOK
J
BOOK 60 FACE 752
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
Florida Atlantic Associates is requesting to rezone 10 acres
located on the north side of 26th Street (Walker Avenue) and
approximately one-half mile east of 74th Avenue (Range Line
Road) from A, Agricultural District (up to .2 units/acre), to
RMH-8, Mobile Home Residential District (up to 8 units/acre).
This request is to rezone the land containing the Village Green
storage and maintenance facilities to the same zoning district
as the mobile home park.
On March 14, 1985, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
3 -to -1 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 en-
vironmental quality.
Existing Land Use Pattern
The subject property contains a recreational vehicle storage
yard and lawn equipment storage and maintenance facilities.
North, east, and west.of the subject property are citrus groves
and undeveloped land zoned A, Agricultural District. South of
the subject property are mobile homes zoned RMH-8.
Future Land Use Pattern
The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property and
the land north, east, and west of it as RR -1, Rural Residential
1 (up to .4 units/acre). The land south of the subject proper-
ty is designated as LD -2, Low -Density Residential 2 (up to 6
units/acre). However, the County has initiated a request to
redesignate the subject property and the land south and west of
it as MD -1, Medium -Density Residential 1 (up to 8 units/acre).
If this property is redesignated, this rezoning request would
be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and will be the
same zoning as the mobile home park.
Transportation System
The subject property has direct access to 26th Street (clas-
sified as a secondary collector street on the Thoroughfare
Plan). No additional traffic is expected as a result of this
rezoning.
Environment
The subject property is not designated as environmentally
sensitive nor is it in a flood -prone area.
Utilities
County water and wastewater facilities are not currently
available for this property.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendation, staff recommends approval.
36
`I
I F ,11 � f �� iTR 10 I
Planner Shearer explained this request is to rezone a ten
acre parcel from Agricultural to RMH-8, and Village Green
initiated this rezoning request to bring their accessory use to
the mobile home park in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance so
that it will be clearly established as an accessory use to the
mobile home park. The mobile home park was recently assigned to
the RMH-8 category. It was necessary to initiate an amendment to
the Land Use Plan in order to approve this request. Staff does
recommend approval of the rezoning request contingent on the Land
Use designation change, and the Planning & Zoning Commission
voted 3 to 1 to recommend approval.
Administrator Wright believe these two items needed to be
considered together and that is why they were included this way
on the agenda.
37
a
BOOK 60 753
MAY 1 195
BOOK 60 FnE 754
Commissioner Bowman asked if the present use for perc ponds
is a legal use in the Agricultural district, and Planning
Director Keating confirmed that it is.
Director Keating assured the Board that in bringing these
items to the Planning 8 Zoning Commission the way they did, staff
did not try to circumvent anything or present a different concept
of what they are trying to do. Director Keating then reviewed
the history of the situation which goes. back quite a few years to
when staff first got complaints regarding the operation of the
maintenance building at Village Green on the north side of Walker
Avenue. This case eventually was taken to the Code Enforcement
Board, and the major issue was whether or not the maintenance
operation was just for Village Green or whether the contractor
was actually running a business out of that place and serving a
number of clients. The Code Enforcement Board determined it was
an accessory use to Village Green, but also noted it was zoned
Agricultural. The perc ponds are okay standing alone as a use in
the Agricultural zone, but an accessory use to a mobile home park
cannot be on Agriculturally zoned land. The Code Enforcement
Board, therefore, approved an order that said Village Green has
to get this property rezoned and present an acceptable site plan
to make the maintenance facility legal. The second part of the
Order stated that if the rezoning was not granted, Village Green
would have to cease operation of its maintenance facility there
and move it. The reason staff agreed to initiate the Comprehen-
sive Plan amendment request is that they feel that the Land Use
designation for this entire tract is not consistent with the
existing extensive mobile home use in the area and existing
zoning.
Commissioner Bird inquired about storage of the residents
equipment, recreational vehicles, etc., on the ten acres, and
Director Keating believed that is an accessory use and the zoning
would have to be compatible with the mobile home park.
38
Commissioner Bird noted that, in other words, if this is not
rezoned, the perc ponds could remain, but the other uses would
have to be removed.
Attorney Wayne McDonough came before the Board representing
Florida Atlantic Associates, and wished to take issue with some
of the comments made by Mr. Block, who apparently feels that
staff is in concert with Village Green to twist the Comprehensive
Plan. Attorney McDonough agreed that Village Green did go before
the Code Enforcement Board as to the use of the southern 2-3
acres of this 10 acre tract, which presently is being used for
storage of recreation vehicles, boats, etc., and also as an
accessory use for lawn maintenance equipment. Attorney McDonough
felt it is indisputable that this is not R&R Enterprises
headquarters per se, and that the equipment is stored only for
the purpose of servicing Village Green residents.
Attorney McDonough informed the Board that the Code
Enforcement hearing came about at the insistence of Mr. Kahn, who y
complained of frequent loud noises from blades being sharpened,
workers running radios, etc., and the Code Enforcement Board did
require certain actions be taken to abate any nuisance activi-
ties; in addition, an administrative site plan was required.
Attorney McDonough stated that all this has been complied with
and noted that when Mr. Kahn went back before Code Enforcement
and claimed there had not been compliance, the Code Enforcement
Board found his allegations baseless. In addition, he noted that
there was a great deal of input at the Planning & Zoning
Commission hearing and they voted 3-1 in favor of the rezoning.
Attorney McDonough emphasized that this rezoning must be approved
so these activities can continue; otherwise, the recreation
vehicles, boats, and lawn maintenance equipment, will have to be
removed, and the residents will have to pay the price.
Attorney McDonough submitted 5 pictures to show the steps
Village Green has taken to build an aesthetic buffer on the south
border of the sewage and maintenance facility, including a berm,
39
BOOK 60 FnE 75
MAY 1 1985 BOOK 60 Fr)E 756
trees, and things of that nature. He stated that the mobile
homes are situated some 150-2001 south of the south border of the
ten acres, with Walker Avenue, a canal and various tree lines on
either side in between them.
Commissioner Bowman discussed the dimensions of the 10 acre
strip which is long and thin, and expressed concern that a future
owner might be able to use that strip for mobile homes if this
were rezoned as she foresaw a time when those perc ponds will no
longer be used.
Director Keating agreed that mobile homes could be put there
with that zoning, but noted they would be subject to site plan
review as well as to the new and more stringent mobile home
requirements.
Attorney McDonough stated that his client has advised that
he currently has no intentions of doing this.
In further discussion, it was again noted that Village Green
does not own the 30 acre grove, but they do own the property to
the east, west and south of it. Chairman Lyons felt there'are
two things involved - to make things right with the piece of
property to the west and also with the piece of property to the
east, but the grove in the middle has no bearing on this, and he
did not see why we should add more mobile home zoning.
Planner Shearer emphasized that this is not being zoned as
mobile home, it would remain Agricultural; we are just changing
the Land Use designation. He noted that there are a lot of
productive groves designated MD -1 in the county.
Chairman Lyons inquired why that 10 acre strip can't be
handled by getting a variance, but Planning Director Keating
stated that would be a use variance, which is prohibited.
Attorney McDonough believed staff has indicated there will
be no adverse impact from rezoning. He pointed out that this use
has been on-going for years, and they have taken steps to abate
any type of alleged nuisance. At one time they were servicing
garbage; that activity is no longer going on there, however, and
40
he did not believe complaints of a nuisance nature carry the same
type of import they would have when Mr. Kahn moved in. He
strongly urged that the Commission adopt staffs' recommendation.
Attorney Block came before the Board representing Frank
Kahn, who lives in Village Green Phase III and is probably the
closest resident to the property in question. In regard to the
compliance of Village Green and whether they have sufficient
buffering not to cause a nuisance, he emphasized that we are
talking about a lawn maintenance business and sharpening blades
at 6:00 A.M. Attorney Block pointed out that when Mr. Kahn and
others moved in there, the lawn maintenance and many things that
cause the problem were not there. The storing of recreation
vehicles has been done illegally all these years, and the people
will just have to put them somewhere else. Attorney Block wanted
the Board to hear from Mr. Kahn himself the inadequacies of the
compliance.
Chairman Lyons noted, that in other words, Attorney Block
did not feel the rezoning should be granted.
Frank Kahn, of 7000 20th St., Lot 784, informed the Board
that the rear of his home, which is located south of the north
side of Walker Avenue, is 125' south of the ten acres known as
the compound. He then went on to present a resume of four years
of activity on the subject property, including contradictions of
false statements made at prior hearings. Mr. Kahn informed the
Board at length of his problems and of broken promises, stating
that before closing on their home, they visited it and objected
to the noisy activity on Walker Avenue back of their lot. On
their hesitation to close, they were assured that the supply shed
and activity would be moved to Phase IV upon completion of Phase
III and that the compound would be for storage of RV's and boats
only. Instead a maintenance compound was created and everything
was moved to this location. They were promised again in 1981 and
1982 that it would be moved to Phase IV. Mr. Kahn continued that
Mr. Miller did move the supply shed and nursery and subcontract
41
MAY 1 1985 BOOK 60 F�� E 751
MAY 1 1985 BOOK 60 758
the garbage pickup, but left the mowers, gasoline tanks, garden
maintenance equipment, etc.
Mr. Kahn submitted as Exhibit 1 a letter from 1982 stating
that all noises will cease; a letter dated 1984 advising that the
mowers will not be moved; a letter that the lawn mowing business
was illegal; citation from the Code Enforcement Board to cease
the operation or apply for a zoning change, altogether 8 units of
correspondence and 2 citations. He then introduced as Exhibit 2
five sets of photos, plus memos, letters, plat, and hearing
excerpts to prove that R&R Enterprises falsely stated under oath
that they serve only Village Green with the equipment stored on
this property, and finally submitted as Exhibit 3 sets of
pictures showing the distances from his home to the compound and
the buffering lugustrum hedge, which does not keep out the noise,
conditions of the compound itself, and debris being taken to the
perc pond area. All of these Exhibits are on file in the Office
of the Clerk.
Mr. Kahn made a closing statement, summarizing the false
statements made; the disregarding of tenants' rights; the
violations of law; the continuing nuisance of loud and often
obscene language; and he emphasized that changing the Zoning Code
would simply condone the problem. Mr. Kahn stated that he has
$80,000 invested in his home and pleaded with the Board to deny
the request for a zoning change.
Commissioner Bird asked if the activities that presently
exist on that site still constitute a nuisance as he believed
they have been scaled down.
Mr. Kahn stated that they do have noise there in the
mornings when they come to work, as well as at noon and in the
evenings when they leave, and they also repair equipment in the
compound when the people are working elsewhere.
Commissioner Wodtke inquired if these are the people who
maintain the lawn at Village Green and the -ponds, lakes and
recreation areas, and Mr. Kahn confirmed that they are.
42
0
Attorney McDonough stated that while he appreciated Mr.
Kahn's comments, he felt a large portion of them were not
relevant. He stressed that the Code Enforcement Board voted
unanimously that Mr. Kahn's complaints were meritless and pointed
out the maintenance is for the benefit of the residents.
Mildred Simmons, Lot 783, agreed with Mr. Kahn and confirmed
his complaints.
Commissioner Wodtke inquired about the feelings of other
residents who are concerned about having a place to keep their
recreation vehicles, and Mrs. Simmons agreed some concern was
expressed.
Carolyn Eggert, Chairman of the Planning 8 Zoning
Commission, informed the Board that concern was evidenced about
the parking of the recreation vehicles, which would cease if this
property were not rezoned. In regard to redesignation to MD -1,
Mrs. Eggert wished to make it plain that the P&Z Commission has
done this throughout the county at different levels, and they
always have kept in mind that this is not signifying any kind of
a rezoning. Traditionally the P&Z Board has been very careful
not to rezone active groves any place where it seems that it
would make a dramatic different in the agricultural lands. The
Land Use Plan stresses the importance of our agricultural land,
and Mrs. Eggert stressed that the P&Z Commission is very much
aware of that and also that a redesignation is not a rezoning,
and they are very careful to keep this separated in their minds.
She did understand the confusion of the public regarding this
differentiation.
Wayne Gearhardt, resident of Village Green Phase I, spoke in
behalf of those who own RVs and boats, noting that they were
promised when they purchased that there would be provisions for
storing of these vehicles. He believed that it is not the
storage of the vehicles that is the problem, but rather the noise
from R&R Enterprises.
43
BOOK 60 rnl)E 759
MAY 1 1985
r
MAY 1 1985
BOOK 60 PlgcF.760
Chairman Lyons asked if Mr. Gearhardt had a written contract
that provides for such storage, and Mr. Gearhardt believed it is
in the promotional literature, not in the lease.
Bob Miller, of Florida Atlantic Associates, assured the
Board that his company has no intention of using the ten acres
for anything other than it is currently being used for. He
confirmed that the Code Enforcement did stipulate certain
conditions re R&R Enterprises, and although his company is not
part of R&R, they will keep on top of the restrictions which were
imposed.'
Chairman Lyons asked if the subject property were no longer
available for storage, where these vehicles would go, and Mr.
Miller noted that all Village Green is developed, and they have
no other place. He agreed they have always provided this
facility, but they cannot keep these vehicles on the park
property itself.
Chairman Lyons inquired if Mr. Miller felt they have a
responsibility to find a place for these vehicles, and Mr. Miller
stated that it is not in the lease, but not being an attorney, he
did not really know. He did emphasize that they do not have
another site to provide this convenience if this site is
eliminated.
Commissioner Wodtke noted that the buildings used by R&R are
the metal quonset type, and asked if there is a possibility those
three buildings could be moved to the north end of the subject
property north of the perc ponds.
Mr. Miller felt there is some area available, but believed
there was a provision for a proposed third perc pond.
Planning Director Keating stated that was one of the items
they were going to consider or as an alternative making the
buildings of a type a little more sound proof.
Mr. Miller assured the Commission that he would consider
anything that is practical.
44
r
`I
l
Commissioner Bird asked if we have a zoning category that
would permit the storage but would not permit an activity such as
landscaping, as he does not feel it is essential that the lawn
maintenance crews be located right on the property, but Director
Keating stated we do not have such.a category.
Commissioner Bowman stated there was no question in her mind
that R&R is a commercial enterprise and asked if a commercial
enterprise is permitted in the RMH-8 zone.
Director Keating noted that was the question taken to the
Code Enforcement Board. The whole issue was whether it was a
sub -contractor using those facilities just for Village Green or
to service other contracts. Based on the evidence presented, it
was found it wasn't a commercial enterprise:
Bud Schaefer, 7000 20th St., believed there is a bit of a
feud going on here. He noted that he is a boat owner, and he
does want to store his boat there.
Wally Collins, #704, had no quarrel with Mr. Kahn's
attitude, but he had an interest because he has a motor home in
the compound, and he felt it would be detrimental to all of those
who have equipment there if this property is not rezoned.
Steve McVey, 7300 20th St., stated the he also owns a
recreation vehicle and he is concerned about storage. He would
like a commitment from Village Green to set that space aside and
assure that it will be used for storage purposes.
Commissioner Wodtke believed Mr. Miller made a statement for
the record that they have no intention of using that ten acres
for any other use than it is being used for right now, and Mr.
Miller noted that this would be set out in site plan approval.
Mr. McVey requested that he be informed when the site plan
is submitted and reviewed, and Director Keating asked that Mr.
McVey supply his department with his name and address.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously closed
45
MAY 1 1985 BOOK 60 F,,,F 761
I
MAY 1 1985
BOOK 60 F,�GE 762
the public hearing and agreed to return to re-
consideration of the previous hearing on redesig-
nation of 222 acres to IVID-1.
COUNTY -INITIATED REQUEST TO REDESIGNATE 222 ACRES TO MD -1
(Cont'd)
Chairman Lyons noted that this public hearing involved the
question of changing the Land Use category for a piece of
property that includes an active grove, and Commissioner Bowman
stated that she would like to remove the grove from any
redesignation.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, to adopt Ordinance 85-41
redesignating from LD -2 and RR -1 to MD -1 the property
as advertised minus the 30 acre grove; the 10 acres
for which rezoning is being requested to be included in
the redesignation as well as the 40 acres in the corner
that is already in mobile homes.
Commissioner Wodtke stated that while he preferred the
recommendation of staff and did not have any problem with
redesignating the entire area as he not feel this is a signal or
an indication for additional mobile home zoning, he would support
the Motion.
Chairman Lyons noted that for a long time he felt that he
did not want to do anything with that ten acres, but in view of
the fact that it leaves a real open question as to what people
are going to do with their recreation vehicles, he would support
the Motion as stated.
Commissioner Bird wished to assure Mr. Kahn that the
Commission is sympathetic to his problems, and he felt that
through the site plan approval process we have a further control.
46
t�
W
_I
He believed staff in working on the site plan will take pains to
see that any nuisance is mitigated to all extents possible.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously (4-0)
ORDINANCE NO. 85-41
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to
amend the Comprehensive Plan by redesignating the hereinafter
described property and pursuant thereto held a public hearing
in relation thereto, at which patties in interest and citizens
were heard; NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, that the Land Use Element of the
Comprehensive Plan of Indian River County, Florida, and the
accompanying Land Use Map, be amended as follows:
1. That the Land Use Map be changed in order that the
following described property situated in
Indian River County, Florida, to -wit:
Tract 13 and the east 10 acres of Tract 14, Section 31,
Township 32S, Range 39E, according to the last general
plat of lands of Indian River Farms Company filed in Plat
Book 2, Page 25, Public Records of St. Lucie County,
Florida.
0
Tracts 3, 4, 5, and 6, Section 6, Township 33S, Range 39E,
according to the last general plat of lands of Indian
River Farms Company filed in Plat Book 2, Page 25, Public
Records of St. Lucie County, Florida.
Be changed from LD -2, Low -Density Residential 2 and RR -1,
Rural Residential 1, to MD -1, Medium -Density Residential
1.
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and
described in said Land Use Element.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners
of Indian River County, Florida on this 1st day of May
1985.
BOARD OF OUN Y COMMISSIONERS
OF IND AN RI ER COUNTY
n� � ���� y/ PATRICK B r LY O ,
�,1 47 � Chairman g00K_ 60 ` 763
Pqut.
-1
MAY 1 1995
BOOK
60 P,4rE.764
REZONING -
10 ACRES TO RMH-8 (FLORIDA ATLANTIC ASSOC.)
(Cont'd.)
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, to adopt Ordinance 85-42
rezoning the East 10 acres of Tract 14, Sec. 31,
T32S, R39E, to RMH-8.
Chairman Lyons inquired if there is any other category to
which this could be rezoned, and Attorney Brandenburg stated that
this is the only one it can be which will allow the storage.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously (4-0)
48
t
ORDINANCE NO. 85-42
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to
rezone the hereinafter described property and pursuant thereto
held a public hearing in relation thereto, at which parties in
interest and citizens were heard; NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning Ordinance of
Indian River County, Florida, and the accompanying Zoning Map,
be amended as follows:
1. That the Zoning Map be changed in order that the
following described property situated in
Indian River County, Florida, to -wit:
The East 10 acres of Tract 14, Section 31, Township 32S,
Range 39E, Indian River Farms Company as recorded in
Plat Book 2, Page 25, Public Records of St. Lucie
County, Florida; now lying and being in Indian River
County, Florida.
Be changed from A, Agricultural District, to RMH-8, Mobile
Home Residential 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 1st day of May
1985.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN_, V R COUNTY
Chairman
L
LaFEVER REQUEST TO REDESIGNATE 1.95 ACRES TO COMMERCIAL AND
APPEAL DENIAL OF REZONING TO C-1 (Cont'd from 4/3/85)
Chief Planner Richard Shearer briefly summarized the
following staff recommendation and addendum, stating that staff
sticks by their original recommendation of denial:
49
MAY 1 1985
L_
BOOK 60 765
I
MAY 1 1985
BOOK C0 Pf�r,F 766
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: April 17, 1985 FILE:
of the Board of
County Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
SUBJECT:
Robert M. Kea inch, -j ICP
Planning & Devel ent Director
FROM: fichard Shearer, AICP REFERENCES:
Chief, Long -Range Planning
C. L. LAFEVERS, JR.
REQUEST TO REDESIGNATE
1.95 ACRES FROM MD -2,
TO COMMERCIAL, AND
APPEAL OF PLANNING &
ZONING COMMISSION'S
DENIAL OF REQUEST TO
REZONE FROM RM -10, TO
C-1
CPA -023
CHIEF
It is requested that the data herein presented be given,.formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of May 1, 1985.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
s:
Mr. C. L. LaFevers, Jr., the owner, is requesting to amend the
Comprehensive Plan by redesignating 1.95 acres located at the
northwest corner of 8th 'Street and 6th Avenue from MD -2,
Medium -Density Residential 2 (up to 10 units/acre), to Com-
mercial, and is appealing the Planning and Zoning Commission's
denial of request to rezone from RM -10, Multiple -Family Res-
idential District (up to 10 units/acre), to C-1, Commercial
District.
The applicant owns an additional 3.96 acres of land immediately
west of the subject property which is designated commercial and
zoned C-1.
On February 14, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 3 -to -1
to recommend that this request to amend the Comprehensive Plan
be denied. The Commission also voted 3 -to -1 to deny this
rezoning request. The Planning and Zoning Commission gave as
their reasons the facts that they felt 6th Avenue was primarily
a residential street, that commercial development should not
extend beyond the 600 foot commercial corridor east of U.S.1 in
this area, and that this property could reasonably be developed
for residential use.
On April 3, 1985, the Board of County Commissioners held a
public hearing on this request but tabled action until the May
1, 1985 meeting. During the interim, the staff was instructed
to review the potential traffic impacts of commercial develop-
ment of this site.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of th
application will be presented. The
description of the current and future
surrounding areas, potential impacts c
utility systems, and any significant
vironmental quality.
Existing Land Use Pattern
e reasonableness of the
analysis will include a
land uses of the site and
)n the transportation and
adverse impacts on en -
The subject property is undeveloped. North of the subject
property, across .8th Place, is a subdivision containing sin-
gle-family dwellings and duplexes which is zoned RM -10. East
50
of the subject property, across 6th Avenue, is a child care
facility, old citrus groves, and two single-family dwellings
zoned RM -10. South of the subject property, across 8th Street,
is a single-family residence and undeveloped land zoned RM -10
and C-1. West of the subject property is undeveloped land
zoned C-1.
Future Land Use Pattern
The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property, and the
land north, east, and southeast of it, as MD -2, Medium -Density
Residential 2 (up to 10 units/acre). The land west and south-
west of the subject property is designated as part of the U.S.1
Commercial Corridor which extends 600 feet east of U.S.1
between the City of Vero Beach on the north and 4th Street on
the south. The Commercial Corridor was established to reflect
the C-1 zoning district boundary and the existing commercial
development when the Land Use Plan was adopted.
There are three general alternatives for the future development
of the subject property. One alternative is to amend the land
use plan and rezone the property -to allow commercial develop-
ment of the entire 5.91 acre parcel. The second alternative is
to leave the subject property (1.95 acres) as MD -2 and zoned
multiple -family to be developed in residential uses and allow
the remaining part of the parcel (3.96 acres) to develop
commercially. A third alternative is to amend the land use
plan and rezone the property such that the zoning district
boundaries are squared off instead of crossing the property
diagonally.
Alternative 1
Under the first alternative, the subject property would be
redesignated as commercial on the land use plan and rezoned
commercial. Redesignating the subject property as commercial
would deviate from the 600 foot depth of the commercial corri-
dor. This deviation would encourage other property owners east
of the commercial corridor to apply for a commercial land use
designation and would encourage strip commercial develop-
ment along 6th Avenue which is currently a residential street.
This alternative will also allow for development of a use which
is incompatible with the existing single-family use to the
north, and it will create additional traffic on 6th Avenue, a
secondary collector roadway which already carries a heavy
volume of traffic.
Alternative 2
The second alternative is to leave the property designated
residential and zoned for multi -family development. Based on
the size of the property (1.95 acres), the current land use
designation and zoning would allow 19 multiple -family units.
The development of 19 multiple -family units on the subject
property would be a reasonable use of the property based on the
existing single-family and duplex development north and east of
the subject property and the potential commercial development
of the land to the west.
51
MAY 1 1985
BOOK 0 P ,E 787
FF'_ 1
MAY 1 1985
BOOK t�°� FvIYE 768
Alternative 3
The third alternative is to amend the land use plan and rezone
the property to square off the zoning district boundary.
Currently, the commercial corridor land use designation and C-1
zoning district boundaries are 600 feet east of U.S. 1 which
means that they bisect many properties on the east side of U.S.
1. If the land use plan were amended to allow some flexibility
in the 600 foot depth of the corridor, the C-1 zoning district
boundary could be altered to be perpendicular to 8th Street and
parallel to 6th AVenue. This would allow more than the 600
foot depth of commercial zoning on the north side of the
property and allow more frontage on 8th Street for residential
development. This should make the property easier to develop
for commercial uses to the west and residential uses to the
east.
Transportation System
The subject property has direct access to 6th Avenue and 8th _
Street (both classified as secondary collector streets on the
Thoroughfare Plan). The maximum development of the subject
property under the proposed C-1 zoning could attract up to
1,862 average annual daily trips (AADT). When combined with
the commercial property to the west, the entire site could
attract 5,626 AADT. Under the current zoning, development of
the subject property would generate -133 AADT, and development
of the parcel to the west would attract 3,764 AADT.
Environment
The subject property is not designated as environmentally
sensitive nor is it in a flood -prone area.
Utilities
County water is available for the subject property. A force
main sewer may be extended to serve property directly east of
the subject property in the near future. However, there is
inadequate capacity in the County's wastewater allocation to
serve the subject property at this time.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above analysis, including the existing land use
pattern, the fact that the subject property could accommodate
19 dwelling units under the current zoning, and the Planning
and Zoning Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that
the subject property not be redesignated as Commercial and that
it not be rezoned to C-1, Commercial District.
52
--1
1
Addendum to Lafevers
Agenda Item
M
At their meeting of April 3, 1985, the Board of County
Commissioners requested that the staff analyze the Lafevers
site and estimate the number, type, and cost of the off-street
improvements which will be required of the applicant at the
time of development approval. In response to that request, the
staff analyzed the site and the proposed project and developed
cost estimates for the necessary off-site traffic improvements
which the developer will be required to make.
The Lafevers property at 8th Street and U.S. #1, currently
zoned commercial, consists of 3.96 acres, while the remainder
of the property for which a rezoning and a comp plan amendment
have been requested consists of 1.95 acres. If the requested
rezoning and the comp plan amendment are approved, the total
land area available for development would be 5.91 acres. With.
a C-1 zoning designation, this property could be used for any
of a variety of commercial uses allowed in the C-1, Commercial
District.
Although the applicant has indicated that he intends to
construct a 75,558 square foot retail facility on the site and
has even submitted a conceptual site plan for the project,
there can be no assurance that, once the zoning and land use
designation is changed, the project as proposed would be built.
Regardless of that fact, it is possible for the staff to
generally determine what type of off-site traffic improvements
would be required for the property to develop. It is also
possible for the staff to estimate the general costs
represented by the off-site traffic system improvements which
will be required.
A number of improvements would be required of the applicant
prior to obtaining development approval for a project upon the
subject property. Because the site is bounded on four sides by
roadways and because of the large number of trips expected to
be attracted to the property (between 3,765 and 5,626 average
daily trips), there are a substantial number of off-site
traffic improvements needed to avoid any adverse impacts upon
the existing levels of service of the roadways in the area.
Generally, these improvements would be identified during the
site plan review for the project, and their installation would
be conditions of site plan approval.
Table 1 delineates the off-site traffic improvements which will
be required of the developer of the subject property, while
table 2 delineates the recent traffic improvements made by the
County which benefit the subject property. For each of these
improvements, the applicable costs have been estimated;
however, these estimates are general and could substantially
change based upon the final approved engineering design of the
improvements.
One important consideration in this matter is the timing of the
improvements made by the County and benefitting the site. If
this project had been submitted prior to the installation of
the 8th Street improvements made by the County, the applicant
would have been required to dedicate by donation the 50 feet of
right-of-way for his 833 feet of frontage along the 8th Street
alignment. This would have been mandated since 8th Street is
designated as a secondary collector on the Thoroughfare Plan.
As shown in table 2, this right-of-way donation would have
represented an $85,000 contribution.
53
Bou 769
MAY 1 1985 \
BOOK 60 PKE 0 7®
Besides the right-of-way donation, the applicant would also have
been required to pay fifty (50) percent of the cost of building
8th Street ($120,000 as shown in table 2), had he requested
development approval prior to the construction of the roadway.
This, however, would have eliminated some of the costs depicted
in table 1, such as restriping 8th Street, since these
improvements would have been done as part of the initial road
construction. Other items reflected in table 1 would have been
reduced in cost for the same reason. In addition, then as now,
the staff would probably recommend against the proposed U.S. #1
project entrance, reducing the estimated costs of improvements
shown in table 1 by $87,000.
Two major conditions would be different if the project had been
submitted for development approval prior to the County having
constructed 8th Street between U.S. #1 and 6th Avenue. The
first is that the applicant would have been required to donate
the 8th Street right-of-way; as a result he would not have
received $85,000, and the County would not have been required
to pay $85,000. The second is that the applicant would have
been required to participate in constructing 8th Street, a cost
to the applicant of $60,000. This cost, however, would have
substantially reduced the costs of the other off-site traffic
improvements needed for the site and required to be installed
by the developer.
TABLE 1
Required Off -Site Traffic System Improvements
Lafevers Property
Improvement
Standard
Approximate
Cost
North & South Bound left -turn lane *
150 feet of storage
$75,000
(U.S. #1 at 8th St.)
300 feet of taper
North Bound right -turn, decel lane **
100 feet of storage
$12,000
(U.S. #1 at project entrance)
150 feet of taper
West Bound right -turn lane
150 feet of storage
$15,000
(8th St. at U.S. #1)
150 feet of taper
West Bound right turn lane
Gradual taper
$10,000
(8th St. at project entrance)
Restripe 8th Strut
County Standards
$10,000
Pavement of 8th Place
County Standards
$8,000
Traffic light
County Standards
$2,000 *'
(8th St. at 6th Ave.)
Right-of-way Dedication
25 ft.
Donation
(8th Place frontage)
54
k*
k**
Right-of-way Dedication
(6th Ave. frontage)
Sidewalk/BikepathI 8 ft.
(U.S. #1 and 8th St. frontage)
Total
$12,500
$144,500
* Improvement programmed by FDOT. This improvement will be
constructed and funded by FDOT in the future. However, this
project will require these improvements to be installed prior
to the FDOT's schedule. Therefore, this project must install
these improvements. _.
** This access point may be deleted during site plan review. If
it is allowed, it must be relocated to the north.
*** Represents 1/3 of the cost of paving 8th Place (petition
paving formula). Amount must be escrowed with the County for
use when a paving petition is approved.
**** Represents fair share contribution for light at 8th St. and
6th Ave. Money shall be escrowed with the County for use
when light is installed at this location.
TABLE 2
County Provided Improvements Directly Benefitting
Subject Property
Improvement
Right-of-way
Acquisition
Road Construction
Total
Description
50 ft. of right-of-way
(833 ft. along the 8th
Street corridor from 6th
Avenue to U.S. #1)
Construction of 8th St. frau
6th Avenue to U.S. #1
(3 lane roadway)
55
Approximate
Cost
$85,000
(Paid to owners of
the subject property)
$120,000
$205,000
MAY 1 1985 BOOK uO Pmcf. 7 91
'MAY 1
BOOK
Attorney Charles Sullivan, part owner of the subject
60 PAGF 772
property, spoke for himself and Mr. LaFever. He stressed that if
this property is not rezoned to C-1, it simply will lie fallow as
it will not be used for multi -family. He did not believe any
site plan approval would allow 19 units, as stated by staff, and
felt they actually would be lucky to get nine or ten. Mr.
Sullivan emphasized the large amount of commercial all around
this area and reiterated his belief tha.t the Commission legally
would have to rezone as commercial the small triangle on the
southwest corner owned by Mr. Karst. He also felt that common
sense would dictate that this property be developed as a single
unit. Mr. Sullivan realized that at the last meeting staff was
instructed to do a study to determine how much more traffic would
result if this were rezoned commercial, and this caused some
expense, and he further realized that because the County paid for
the right-of-way, it was felt there should be some reimbursement.
He stated that he and Mr. LaFever, therefore, are willing to make
the following concessions:
1) they will give the County a deceleration lane on 6th Avenue;
2) they are willing to give a drainage ditch along the north
edge of their property to help solve the drainage problems of the
residents in that area;
3) they would be willing to make a $25,000 contribution to the
road fund; and
4) they would agree to erect some sort of buffer to the north -
either a concrete wall, a wood fence, or shrubs.
Mr. Sullivan agreed the road put through did help the land,
but •it helped the county also, and this is the maximum they can
do that they feel is reasonable. He further cautioned that if
this property is not rezoned, it will stay just like it is with
no drainage, no deceleration lane, no buffer and no $25,000 until
it either has a site plan or is condemned. Mr. Sullivan stressed
that this is the only piece of land like this on U.S.I, and it is
too valuable to be cut up in little pieces.
56
_I
Commissioner Bowman inquired whether Mr. Sullivan had
considered the recommendation made in regard to squaring this
property off, and Mr. Sullivan stated they had thought of it
themselves, but if the thought would be that this would cut off
some of the commercial, that would.be ridiculous.
Commissioner Bowman believed it would make the small acreage
desirable and very developable, but Attorney Sullivan stated that
anyone who knows anything about building knows that it is totally
undesirable and cannot be sold for this purpose, and they have no
Intention of doing anything like that.
Commissioner Bowman felt townhouses could be put there and
make it attractive and compatible with the neighborhood, but Mr.
Sullivan stated this is a deteriorating neighborhood.
Commissioner Bowman did not agree.
Chairman Lyons asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
Francis Dean of 606 8th Place, just north of the subject
property, presented further complaints re drainage problems and
stated that he opposes the rezoning.
Commissioner Bird commented that he has discussed the
drainage problem with the Public Works Director, and he feels
that once we make 8th Street connect to Indian River Blvd., it
will be a much better situation for the drainage.
Attorney Sam Block noted that he had listened with interest
to Mr. Sullivan's comments in regard to rezoning the corner owned
by his father-in-law Mr. Karst, and he wished to know what had
been said about this previously.
Attorney Brandenburg clarified that Mr. Sullivan had stated
the county would have to rezone that property to commercial, and
as County Attorney, he did not agree with that statement.
It was determined that no one further wished to be heard.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0)
closed the public hearing.
57
MAY 1 1985 BOOK 60 ulu 776J
J
MAY 1 1995
BOOK6Q °��GE 774
Commissioner Bird noted that his position at the last
meeting was that we should approve the rezoning, and he has not
heard anything today to change his mind one way or the other. He
believed that generally a property owner should be allowed to use
his property the best way he can unless the use is adverse to the
public interest. He does not get the strong feeling that it
would have any significant detrimental effect on the wellbeing of
the residents of the area if this were.rezoned commercial. To
the contrary, he believed if it were done under one site plan, we
could provide more adequately for buffering, security, fences,
etc. He, therefore, would like to try the same Motion he made at
the last hearing on this matter.
Attorney Brandenburg noted that the first step would be to
change the Land Use Plan designation.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, to adopt an ordinance
redesignating the subject 1.95 acres from MD -2
to Commercial.
Commissioner Wodtke believed when you consider this piece of
property In relation to its shape and its location, that it is
very important to get the deceleration lane and address the
drainage. He felt it is very logical that it will be developed
as commercial, which he agreed is the highest and best use of the
land. He did not feel it would be a detriment to the area and
concurred with Commissioner Bird that we could control it better
with a site plan of the entire parcel.
Commissioner Bird further stated that he did not anticipate.
such a rezoning would have a domino effect or he would have been
opposed to it.
Commissioner Bowman believed there is a plan to build multi-
family on 6th Avenue right across from this property.
58
771
i
1
Commissioner Wodtke noted that you have the road in between,
and stated he would feel differently if we did not have to go
through that area with 8th Street which goes all the way west to
1-95. He did feel it could be developed as a small piece, but
that it would be a hodge-podge.
Commissioner Bowman stressed that we need some moderately
priced housing in this area, and she felt this would be a good
place for it.
Chairman Lyons stated that he planned to vote against the
Motion on the basis that the third alternative suggested by
staff, i.e., squaring off the commercial and increasing the size
of the residential area, was a better solution.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION on the
Motion to approve redesignation. It was voted
on and failed on a 2 to 2 vote, with Commis-
sioner Bowman and Chairman Lyons voting in
opposition.
Attorney Brandenburg pointed out that there can be no
further action on rezoning without the redesignation, but he felt
the Board should have a Motion consistent with this and put their
reasons on record about the rezoning.
Motion was made by Commissioner Bowman to deny the
request for rezoning the 1.95 acres from RM -10 to
Commercial.
Motion died for lack of a Second.
Chairman Lyons asked if someone would offer an affirmative
Motion, but Commissioner Bird did not see how a Motion could be
made to rezone in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan.
Attorney Brandenburg felt it would be helpful if the Board
put their reasons in regard to the rezoning on the record.
59
MAY 1 1985 Boa 60 ,-,�F.7-475
MAY
1
1985
5oor
60 mF
1776
The Chairman believed all
the members have done
this
already, and the Commissioners agreed.
OAKS PARADISE MOBILE HOME PARK - SITE PLAN TERMINATION
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 Z4 -- - - — - — —
in the matter of
in the ,/ Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of `l 103
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 '7 ay ofe A.D. 19
� (Clerk of the Circuit Court, R er Co�ni.0
(SEAL)
_I
=T' NOTICE CF=C* HEARING
TO DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF
W APPROVED.81TE PLAN APPUCATION e, a
he, Iddleri River County Board of County':
nmissdonere will conduct a public hearing, ro.
We the valkiity of elle plan approval for oakop"
,died ;Mobile. Home Park. owner Howard,.:
*� The public fiear'ing; at which parties in In.,
at and ci8zens shall have an oppoftnity ta.�
Ward: will be held by said Board of County
nnbWoners.-In the, County Comrciasion;
mbere of the County Administration Buildsnng,
ited at 1840 25th .Street, Vero,Beach;lorida
vednesday May 1, loss at 11:15 a m: ` K s,
any person decides to appeal any decislogi9
le on. Pm above mattpr, he may need to en-. f
I tidat a verbatim record oUthe proceedirfg is,
le, which includes tesilmony and evidence ,.
n which the appeal Is based �a
Indian Rhrer County
j Bcard of County Commiselonerb
I7824,1g8fCkLyoga,Cfutlrmatµt, a .F
Staff Planner Karen Craver surmnarized the following staff
presentation and recommendation:
60
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: April 19, 1985 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
SUBJECT:
Robert Keat ng, ICP
Planning & Develop ent Director
THROUGH: Mary Jane V. Goetzfried
Chief, Current Development Section
OAKS PARADISE MOBILE HOME
PARK SITE PLAN APPLICATION
FILE # SP -80-93-625
FROM: Karen M. Craver EFERENCES: Oaks Para.
Staff Planner DIS:KAREN
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners -at their
regular meeting of May 1, 1985.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Pursuant to Section 23 (h)(1) Appendix A of the County Code,
the Board of County Commissioners is afforded the authority to
evaluate the validity of 'an approved site plan, in the event
there is a question with regard to commencement or abandonment
of construction.
The Code specifies that construction will have commenced when
the developer has built a portion of a structure shown on the
approved site plan (e.g. the pouring of footers) , or has made
substantial improvements to the site, other than land clearing,
filling or grading, evidencing a good faith effort to pursue
construction to completion.
In cases where construction has commenced, and subsequently
been abandoned or suspended, the site plan approval may be
terminated and made null and void after notice and a public
hearing by the Board of County Commissioners. Construction
shall be considered abandoned or suspended if an active build-
ing permit has not been maintained for construction in accor-
dance with the approved plan, or it is shown to the satisfac-
tion of the County Commission that construction, at a level
indicating a good faith effort to proceed with the. completion
of the project, has not occurred for a continuous period of six
(6) months, unless the inactivity is attributable to the
deliberate and scheduled phasing of a multiphase project which -
has been approved as such by the County.
The site plan application to construct Oaks Paradise Mobile
Home Park, approved in November of 1980, depicts a 60 lot
mobile home park to be located on the north side of Oslo Road,
approximately 1,320 feet west of 27th Avenue.
County records reflect the following chronology of events
relating to the site plan approval of Oaks Paradise Mobile Home
Park and the property on which it was approved for. development:
April, 1925 Grenview Gardens Subdivision was platted
on the east 10 acres of Tract 15, Section
22, Township 33, Range 39. Although the
plat was recorded, no signatures of
dedication appeared on the plat.
61
BOOK 60 7
r
BOOK 60 FnF 778
1926
Grenview Gardens replat recorded with
dedication signatures.
Aug., 1926
Grenview Gardens II was platted on the 10
acres located immediately west of the 10
acres on which Grenview Gardens was
platted.
May, 1957
Grenview Gardens II plat vacated.
1972
Grenview Gardens replat rezoned from the
R-1, Single -Family and C-11 Commercial
Districts to the R-1MP, Mobile Home Park
District.
July, 1979
A public hearing was held to vacate the
plat of Grenview Gardens replat. The
vacation was approved by the County
Commission; however, a resolution of
vacation was never written or recorded.
The plat therefore remains on the tax
maps.
Sept., 1980
Howard Clark submitted a site plan to
develop a 60 lot mobile home park, to be
known as Oaks Paradise, on the 10 acres on
which Grenview Gardens replat was platted.
Nov., 1980
The Planning & Zoning Commission granted
approval of the Oaks Paradise site plan.
Oct., 1983
Franchise application submitted to
Utilities Division.
April, 1984
Mr. Clark was informed by the Utilities
Division of inadequacies in the applica-
tion.
The entrance drive off of Oslo Road and a small portion of the
internal drive was paved approximately 1-1/2 years ago,
securing the site plan; however, Mr. Clark has never applied
for a building permit to pour an individual drive or a slab for
a mobile home. No construction has taken place on the site
since the initial paving. The mobile home park was to be
served by a private well and an on-site wastewater treatment
plant; however, Mr. Clark decided to delay development until
the County extended water lines down Oslo Road. The lines now
run across the front of the subject property; however, the
plans submitted for the internal water and sewer systems are
inadequate and will have to be revised. In addition, the
capacity of the wastewater treatment plant will have to be
doubled in order to meet current regulations.
ANALYSIS:
The rationale behind authorizing the County Commission to
terminate site plan approval relates to the public's interest.
The process allows the County to ensure that projects which are
not constructed within a reasonable time after site plan
approval will conform to applicable regulations which have been
enacted since that approval was granted. By adopting new land
development related ordinances, the County Commission has
determined that the adherence to the requirements set forth in
said ordinances is in the public's best interest. Since
62
L_
L_ -1
approval of the Oaks Paradise Mobile Home Park site plan, the
following applicable ordinances have been adopted:
1. The Comprehensive Plan
2. Stormwater Management and Flood Protection
3. Off-street Parking Pavement Types
4. Off-street Parking & Loading Regulations
5. Tree Protection
6. Landscaping
7. Residential Zoning Districts
The Comprehensive Plan designates the southern 600 feet of the
subject property as MXD, in which mobile home parks are al-
lowed, and the northern 730 feet as LD -1, in which mobile home
parks are not. Therefore, were an application to be submitted
for a mobile home park to be developed on this parcel today,
only the .southern 600 feet would be developable. As a result
of the recent conversion of zoning districts, the subject
property is zoned RMH-6. The ordinance adopting the new zoning
districts requires that all developments within the RMH-6 and
RMH-8 districts be subdivided and platted pursuant to the
provisions of the Indian River County Subdivision and Platting
Regulations.
In addition to the land use designation and zoning district
restrictions placed upon the current development of a mobile
home park on Mr. Clark's property, a site plan submitted for
approval today would require significant design modifications
to the plan that was approved in 1980.
CONCLUSION:
In reviewing the record of construction of Oaks Paradise, staff
determined. that Mr. Clark has not demonstrated a good faith
effort to complete the project in that no permits have been
issued for on-site improvements since site plan approval was
granted in 1980. Considering the effects of the aforementioned
ordinances upon the current development of mobile home parks,
and the significant modifications to the water and wastewater
systems that would be required for Mr. Clark to obtain a
construction permit, it would be in the public's best interest
to terminate approval of the Oaks Paradise Mobile Home Park
site plan application. Termination of the existing approval
would still permit the applicant to submit a new site plan
application in conformance with the County's current Code of
Laws and Ordinances.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that Howard Clark's approved site plan to
develop Oaks Paradise Mobile Home Park be terminated.
Planner Craver reported that some of the activity that has
taken place recently is digging up a ditch along the east
property line, but the ordinance states that land clearing and
such type activities are not adequate to comply with the
requirements. Miss Craver continued to review the chronology of
what has taken place on the property in detail.
63
BOOK 60 pnF 779
I
195
BOOK 60 PAGE 780
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
Attorney Chester Clem came before the Board representing the
Clarks, Sr. and Jr. He informed the Board that they own a large
well established mobile home park, and this project was for the
purpose of having Howard Clark Jr., have a place to live and
develop. Attorney Clem then passed out a list of what actually
has been done on the property since site plan approval.
OAKS PARADISE
November 20, 1980 site plan approval -from Planning & Zoning Department
1981 - Started Construction
1. January - Surveyed property
2. 1/27 constructed driveway and road alteration,' 2-18in culvert
drain pipes across Olso Rd. and main entrance laid out.
3. Contracted with FPL to bring power poles and service•.lines onto
proper.
4. Well permits obtained and well constructed April 1981.
5. August 1981 electrical construction meter and pole set on lot 29
Phase I.
6. Land clearing and grubbing of palmetto bushes and brush on property.
1982
1. February - Sewage plant plans approved by DER.
2. Perk and soil tests were made regarding treatment plant.
3. Bio chemical tests were done of water well.
4. Site preparation for roads,•right of ways and drainage ditches
5. 1982 - 1983 survey lay out and construction of roads -
1983
1. Fill, cut and grading for finished elevation Phase I.
2. Wov. 1983 had meeting with Terry Pinto and purchased water permits.
3. Extention to culvert pipes and rough cut of drainage ditch Phase I.
1934
1. Lay out of 1st 30 lots - Phase I.
2. March 1984 utilities department Joyce Hamilton asked for complaince
with the franchise requirements and Insurance. Gave application
fee of $1000.00 and complied with recommendation.
3. Put deposit on sewage:treatment plant.
4. Survey layout and site preparation of utility area.
5. Put rip rap around main entrance culvert.
6. April 18, 1984, Ron Brooks called and asked to make an appointment
about the water and -sewer franchise.
.7. April 24, 1984, called Ron Brooks and asked if it would be possible
if we could wait until the water came by and for him to .call when
waterwas turned on and for us to get together about the water.
Ron Brooks said it would be 6 - 8 months before water would be av-
ailable for use.
1985
1. 1985 - Take finish elevation, cut and sodding was done on the drain-
age ditch for Phase I. Over $800.00 spent. (Grass Installed by Clark
2. February 21, 1985 - Vero Utilities called and.said the waterline
was installed on front of Vero property and available for use.
3. February 27, 1985 - Howard Clark, Jr. went to the County Administra-
tive Building to speak to utility official about running water onto
the property on lot 29 - Phase I. Instructed to get an engineers
print and it would be OK to run water onto property for lot 29 -
Phase I.
4. 1984-1905 - We have contacted suppliers and contractors regarding
sewer collection system and water distribution system. -
5. Rezoning notice advertised - attended meeting of County Commision
on April 11, 1985 - Zoning retained at P14H6. No comment from
County on revocation.
6. Notice of revocation hearing dated April 19, 1985 mailed to owner
April 23, 1905. 64
M
Attorney Clem stressed that all along something was being
done towards completion of the project - a franchise was
obtained, a deposit put on a sewer plant, well permits obtained,
a well constructed, etc. All these things took time, and while
all this was on-going and after they had already put down a well,
they were advised by the Utility Department that the county would
have water in the area shortly; so, they paid nine tap -on fees.
In addition, they had to cope with straightening up an inadvert-
ent mix-up in regard to their zoning, and just when they were
getting ready to move forward again, they were hit with this
notice of revocation of their site plan.
Attorney Clem displayed photos of the.work that has been
done, practically all by the Clarks themselves, and urged the
Board to take into consideration that they are not dealing with a
massive corporation with unlimited funds, but a father and son
type operation. He noted that the Clarks have spent $100,000 on
this project, and it will have a substantial impact on them if
the site plan approval is revoked.
Commissioner Bird wished to know the amount of road improve-
ments that have been put in and whether anyone is residing on the
site.
It was stated that no one Is residing on this property, and
Planner Craver felt that possibly 200' of road has been put in
and some culverts.
Attorney Brandenburg asked if the reason the Clarks only
bought nine taps is because that is as far as the road goes.
Attorney Clem noted that this is going to be developed in a
phased manner, and they did not want to tie up too much money.
Planning Director Keating informed the Board that one of the
main reasons staff brought this matter to the Board is because
the property just to the west came in for site plan approval.
They want to develop commercial to the south and residential to
the north in the LD -1, and staff doesn't know whether to require
roads to go through to the east to connect to the development
65
MAY 1 1985 BOOK;GF 781
I
MAY 1 1985
BOOK 60 PACE !82
that is there because they don't know if the Clark site plan ever
will be built. Nothing physical has been done to the property in
six months, which is the required period. In addition, it was
discovered that there is an underlying plat that was never
vacated, and this needs to be cleared up. It is staff's position
that there hasn't been a good faith effort to proceed with
development of the park.
Commissioner Wodtke inquired as to, when staff notified the
property owner of site plan revocation, and Director Keating
stated that they notified him in the normal flow of events -
about three weeks before the public hearing.
Commissioner Wodtke then inquired about the statement that a
deposit was made on a sewer plant.
Attorney Clem reported that they had an approved plant; a
deposit was made; and plans were drawn. At that time, there was
a meeting between his clients and the utility people, and it was
stated the water would be there shortly and, therefore, why put
^ h
in a package plant. Now, his clients have water and are willing
and ready to go forward with a sewer plant, but the plant never
was delivered to the site.
Commissioner Wodtke asked if there is an existing contract
for the plant and whether they would lose money on it, and Mr.
Clark stated that they have already lost money on it.
Attorney Clem confirmed that the Clarks lost a $500 deposit
on that plant waiting for the water to come in.
Attorney Brandenburg noted that actually they don't have a
sewer plant under contract now, and Attorney Clem agreed, but
noted they can get another one under contract very quickly.
Attorney Brandenburg asked if the county insisted the Clarks
tie in to the county water system or if they had the option of
going ahead and building their own water plant on the property,
Attorney Clem stated that they probably had that option,
but if the County ran by, they would have to disengage and tie
66
j
on, and it didn't make sense to activate a well when they were
told they would have county water so soon.
Administrator Wright asked if internal distribution lines
were put in, because all they would lose would be the well, not
the fines.
Chairman Lyons did not believe we should try to evaluate
this so much in dollars, but just determine whether there was a
good faith effort. He wished to know if they received a permit
from the DER for a sewage plant.
Attorney Clem assured him that a permit was granted.
Director Keating wished to point out that this is consistent
with some of the other plans that have been terminated, and
possibly the site plan approval was granted prematurely. Another
thing to consider is that we now have much more control in the
site plan process over the mobile home parks, and we have had big
problems where these services were put in on an incremental
basis.
Discussion continued at length as to what constitutes a
reasonable amount of construction, and Commissioner Bird felt
there is no question that if this was before us today, we would
not grant mobile home zoning in this area or have this plan.
Attorney Clem noted that the site plan is valid now, and he
felt the burden is on the County.
Attorney Brandenburg read from the ordinance the applicable
section relating to a good faith effort and when construction
shall be considered abandoned.
Chairman Lyons asked if they have put in any water lines,
and Attorney Clem stated they have not, but they are ready to -
all this came upon them like a bolt out of the blue - the
inadvertent mix-up with their zoning and then the revocation.
Administrator Wright felt the way the park is laid out, they
have a very minor cost in physically connecting, and he felt the
water line did not stop the development of the park as it could
easily have been developed without water.
67
MAY 1 1985 Boor 60 uGF.7 3
MAY 1 195
BOOK C.y�? 0 F'Mu. 78`A
�
Chairman Lyons continued to emphasize that whether this
situation meets the criteria set out in the ordinance is the
question.
Commissioner Bird noted that the staff memo indicated the
road was paved about 11 years ago, and he asked if any further
physical improvements have been made since then.
Attorney Clem stated that as recently as this year, they
worked on the drainage. He emphasized.that when you consider the
size of the project, the Clarks actually have done a substantial
percentage of what is required as compared to a high rise
apartment or something of that type.
It was pointed out that all this took place over a period of
five years.
Attorney Brandenburg asked for a clarification of when the
road was built. He noted that the memo submitted by Attorney
Clem states the driveway was constructed 1/27/81.
Mr. Clark stated that was the beginning of it; they had to
put culvert pipes across Oslo and had to have a road detour on
Oslo Road for some weeks.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0)
closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Bowman expressed concern over what Mr. Clark
can do with his property if the Board denies this, and Director
Keating stated that he would have to get it rezoned and do
something different. He has MXD on the southern part and LD -1 on
the northern part. He could.go to RS -3 and on the southern part,
he could have one of a variety of zoning districts.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, based on the evidence presented,
to make a determination there has been significant work
68
done and instruct staff to review this in six months
to see that work is continuing at a significant pace.
Commissioner Wodtke stated that he does feel it is
questionable whether enough work has been done, and he would
encourage them to move ahead on it. This should either be
developed or not, but he would like to give them another six
months.
Commissioner Bowman noted that if this is developed, it will
not be consistent with the current ordinances and wished to know
if we have any remedy.
Attorney Brandenburg stated that the only remedy is to
determine the site plan is not active and require a new one be
filed.
Chairman Lyons agreed this situation is really marginal and
stated that if it weren't for the kind of operation it is, he
would vote against the Motion.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously (4-0)
DISCUSSION PROPOSED REVISION OF AQUATIC PRESERVES RULE
Art Challacombe, Chief of Environmental Planning reviewed
his memo, as follows:
69
BOOK 60 PAGE 7,8
F_
MAY 1 1985 Bou 60 PAGE 786
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: April 29, 1985 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: 16Q-20: FLORIDA AQUATIC
SUBJECT: PRESERVES RULE REVISION
Robert M. Keats g, CP
Planning &,Develop ent Director
FROM:Art Challacombe REFERENCES: FL Aquatic
Chief, Environmental Planning DIS:MISC1
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting on May 1, 1985.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
The Department of Natural Resources is presently revising its
rule for Florida's Aquatic Preserves. The proposed rule adds
substantial management criteria for leases and incorporates
several regulations regarding pier construction with the
Aquatic Preserves. Indian river County presently contains a
,s
portion of the Vero Beach - Fort Pierce Aquatic Preserve.
Generally, the Indian River County portion of the Preserve
encompasses all State owned submerged lands south of the 17th
Street Bridge to the south County line.
A portion of the Malabar - Sebastian Aquatic Preserve is also
located within Indian River County; however, its location is
limited to state owned submerged lands adjacent to the
Sebastian Inlet State Recreation Area.
E
F ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
The proposed rule contains several restrictions relating to
dock size, width and length. Under the rule, for example,
single docks would be limited to four feet in width and multi-
ple dock facilities would be limited to six feet widths. Other
restrictions contained in the rule relate to dredging and
filling within the preserve.
On April 25, 1985 the D.N.R. held a public workshop regarding
the proposed rule. Of particular importance to the D.N.R. was
local reaction to the following issues.
1) Should private, residential single docks which meet
required sizes, etc., be deemed to meet the public
interest requirement?
2) Should the issuance of new marina leases be contingent
upon local governments adopting a marina siting element in
their comprehensive plan by July 1, 1986? ---
These and other concerns, however, were raised by staff.
Private Residential Single Docks
Indian River County presently regulates and issues building
permits for private residential docks as accessory uses. If a
dock requires a state or federal permit, County staff is
70
1
s
authorized to prepare comments to the appropriate agencies.
With the County's long-standing policy of permitting private
residential single docks as a means of riparian access, it may
be assumed that the continued issuance of this type permit
would serve the public interest in maintaining statutory
riparian rights.
Marina Siting Element Addition To The Comprehensive Plan
If the proposed rule is adopted, local governments whose
jurisdiction includes aquatic preserves will have to prepare a
marina siting element for their comprehensive plans by July 1,
1986 if further leases for revenue generating and multiple
docks are to be granted by the Trustees of the Internal
Improvement Fund.
Staff supports this approach, however, much support data and
resource inventory from the Department of Natural Resources
will be required to create a viable marina siting element.
Round Island Park
Section 16Q-20.04 (10 h.) of the rule provides,
"The use of state-owned lands for the purpose of providing
private or public road access or water supply to islands where
such access and water supply did not previously exist shall be
prohibited."
While Staff generally supports the concept of restricting the
use of state-owned submerged lands for the purpose of private
development of islands that are presently undeveloped, this
provision of the rule would specifically preclude Indian River
County from developing. Round Island as part of the park com-
plex. This is inconsistent with the County's Comprehensive
Plan and inconsistent with past D.N.R. action of turning the
island over to the County give the County the right to develop
the land as a park.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the County Commission submit comments. to
the Governor and Cabinet. These comments should incorporate
the following positions:
1) The County objects to section 16Q-20.04 (10.h) which
precludes the development of Round Island Park. This
section should be reworded to exclude public park lands
and public projects;
2) The County finds that private residential single docks
meet the public interest requirements;
3) The County, by preparing a marina siting element in its
Comprehensive Plan by July 1, 1986 expects full data
support and staff assistance from the Department of
Natural Resources.
71
MAY 1 1985 aooK 60 F,U — a
MAY 1 1985 BOOK PAUE78
Chief Planner Challacombe emphasized that staff has no
problem with the county continuing its historical policy of
permitting single family private docks. Staff supports
continuing this policy in the public interest and the general
concept of providing this element in our Comprehensive Plan, but
does not feel we have the resource data available and would
expect the assistance of the DNR in preparing such an element.
Commissioner Bowman commented that this does not suit her
definition of public interest as it is used in most ordinances.
Chairman Lyons reported that he had received a call from
Nancy Offutt, liaison for the Board of Realtors, and he believed
what staff is saying is consistent with what the Board of
Realtors suggests.
Planner Challacombe then addressed the part of the proposed
rule which would preclude the county from developing Round Island
Park. i.e., we would not be able to build an access to Round
Island because we would have to cross submerged lands owned by
the state. He noted that he asked at the meeting if we wouldn't
qualify to build this access because of the requirement to
provide access to recreation amenities for the public, and the
DNR said absolutely not; we would not be able to build an access
to Round Island.
Director Keating noted that this only prohibits accessing
undeveloped islands.
Commissioner Bowman believed that Round Island could be used
strictly as a boating island, and we could have a dock on the
mainland.
Planner Challacombe pointed out that this involves 61 acres
of land that could be developed and utilized as a park, and
Intergovernmental Relations Director Thomas felt it is
interesting that every year up to this year we have gotten a
letter from DNR asking why we have not developed that island.
Originally the intent was to put a roadway there, but we have
been thinking the last three years about just putting in a
72
1
pedestrian crossing. Mr. Thomas really could not feel the intent
was to prevent this, but he believed it indicates how unbending
these agencies are if you question them on a given point. He
felt there is an escape clause, but would need a legal opinion.
Commissioner Bird confirmed that we have a Master Plan which
indicates a pedestrian bridge.
Administrator Wright suggested, if the County really wants
to develop Round Island, that the Board send the County Attorney
to Tallahassee to argue for it next week. In fact, that was the
purpose of bringing this matter to the Board today. He felt the
County Attorney and Mr. Challacombe would be most eloquent in
front of the Cabinet.
Attorney Brandenburg suggested the Administrator go to
Tallahassee also.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
accepted staff's recommendations and authorized .
out -of -county travel for the County Attorney,
Administrator, and appropriate staff, to go to
Tallahassee to address state officials in regard
to developing Round Island.
REPORT ON JAIL STATUS
Chairman Lyons noted that when the Jail Inspector was here
recently in regard to overcrowding at the jail, he offered about
nine alternatives. The Chairman reported as to progress made in
regard to following the options suggested:
1) Fast
Track Committee -
He has talked to
Judge Vocelle
in
regard
to reinstating this
committee, and
the judges are
willing
to do this.
2) County Probation Officer - Director Dean has talked to County
Judge Woodrow Hatcher, who has had about ten years experience
with a probation officer, and Judge Hatcher is going to come here
73
BOOK 0 PAGE 789
MAY 1 1995
I
MAY 1985
BOOK 60 PAGE 790
and talk to the Fast Track Committee as to how to make use of a
Probation Officer. Chairman Lyons believed a probation officer
will be recommended.
3) Extension
of
the
Work
Release_ Program
- Captain Baird
recommended
this
to
Judge
Vocelle, and he
was receptive and
intends to make this a part of the County Probation Officer's
responsibility to administer - if the judges want to do this.
4) Dormitory type facility - Chairman Lyons stated that the
judges are very anxious that we do something about this, and he
has taken the stand that if we are going to have any increase in
our facilities, it must fit in with our total facility at the new
jail. He has asked our consultant and facility planner to meet
with the Jail Committee to talk about this so that whatever we do
will be part of our long range plan.
5) Percentage Bail - This will be discussed at the Fast Track
Committee meetings.
6) Release on Own Recognizance - (R.O.R.) This program has been
implemented and is in effect currently.
7) Speeding up Court paper process and line of communication - A
computer system has been purchased and the necessary software,
and County Data Processing is in the process of implementing the
project. The Clerk has advised that the additional memory for
the IBM was delivered April 30th, and the program for both
misdemeanors and felonies is ready to be connected to the jail,
but the jail needs a release from IBM. The Clerk says her end of
the system is ready to be used. The Clerk further reports that
their communications problems with the jail have been resolved;
the jail now has daily messengers who pick up the paperwork and
distribute it to the appropriate departments.
8) Speeding up Presentence Investigations - This was discussed
with the judges, and the Probation/Parole Departments have agreed
to three weeks investigation instead of four to six.
9) Electronic Collar - Information on this device, which Is used
74
M M r
t
for surveillance of people in their own homes, has been requested
from the manufacturer.
Chairman Lyons felt some progress has been made, but
believed it will be the end of June before they will be ready to
make a solid recommendation re a dormitorytype facility.
DISPOSAL OF COUNTY PROPERTY - BUCKINGHAMMOCK PARK
Commissioner Bird referred to the following memo received
from Assistant County Attorney Wilson:
TOT.
he Board of County DATE- 30, 1985 FILE:
Commissioners
SUBJECT: BUCKINGHAMMOCK PARK
FROMpitant Wilson REFERENCES:
County Attorney
As you know, the Parks and Recreation Committee has been reviewing
the status of neighborhood parks for some time with the intent of dis-
posing of unneeded or unused park parcels. The committee has previously
indicated its intention to dispose of the above -referenced park. Al
McAdam and myself have contacted William Lord, Director of the Florida
Baptist Retirement Center which is located immediately adjacent to the
park, regarding whether his organization would be willing to operate and
maintain the park. Mr. Lord indicated that he has been..performing main-
tenance in the park for some time and is willing to officially assume
that responsibility providing he receives permission from his Board of
Directors.
The Board of County Commissioners must determine whether to transfer
our interest by deed to the Florida Baptist Retirement Center, or to
lease the property on a long-term basis to the retirement center.
The retirement center's board of directors will meet next week and
Mr. Lord requested that the Board of County Commissioners submit an
offer for the director's approval stating the purposes and terms of the
disposition of the park parcel. I will prepare whatever documents are
necessary and present them to the retirement center as soon as the Board
determines which course to take. If necessary, Mr. McAdams and myself
will appear before the retirement center's board of directors to explain
the County's position and answer any questions the directors may have.
75
MY 1 1985 BOOK 60 FACE `J c91
MAY 1 1985
SMC KONGUAM n� OCK
SMB. — —
BOOK 60 PAGE 792
I
•,
_ ---/o ST _
!
DRAINAGE
a
n7•
_
ST
116'- j '_ : 119'
r N N
no'
70'
Q
o
D.o
•�
i 10
' g o
a a
R �o
17 17
2(:�-0
3
c II II
8. 0
H
0
4
/
8'YB
2] 8
32D
C)
1� 16
-
3�-•. •
a
1'12
7•� ,
a GG
a 7 o
A
4�
• iS IS
4 4G c
�1
•��� M
�6 b,
o
160.30'
1i '
14
U
`lam S
66
13
°O13
6
6
`iJ IS
4C.
O
2
155.48
J4
16^e.4s'
=� J 3
I
gvII
SCI I
i3�.��-
o I% 7
2 2
m
- 156.44'
o('D ' 2
0
S w
--�
10
0 10
Gw
9 c
- y
o 1802.
15&42' 1. -
(1511~
117 •
117'
lie'
I
119'
70'
165.40' 2,
BOOK 60 PAGE 792
oz o1 — Ste'
/AL _ R/W
LIMITS
Commissioner Bird noted that this involves a small triangle
of property near the Baptist Retirement Center. The people at
the retirement center have been maintaining it, and the County
has not had any involvement with it for several years. He
believed this property could be conveyed either in a long term
lease or by an outright deed.
Attorney Wilson concurred. He explained that disposing of
it by long term lease may be feasible, or the County could just
give up its interest. He noted that actually the County does not
own this property, but holds it as a trustee, and the people in
the subdivision may have some claim to it. He felt if we gave
our interest in this property back to the Retirement Center, they
would have a very good chance of obtaining total ownership.
Attorney Brandenburg felt this could be handled by a Quit
Claim Deed.
Commissioner Bowman stated that she has a natural aversion
76
•,
_ ---/o ST _
I
D.o
•�
3
I
I
I
oz o1 — Ste'
/AL _ R/W
LIMITS
Commissioner Bird noted that this involves a small triangle
of property near the Baptist Retirement Center. The people at
the retirement center have been maintaining it, and the County
has not had any involvement with it for several years. He
believed this property could be conveyed either in a long term
lease or by an outright deed.
Attorney Wilson concurred. He explained that disposing of
it by long term lease may be feasible, or the County could just
give up its interest. He noted that actually the County does not
own this property, but holds it as a trustee, and the people in
the subdivision may have some claim to it. He felt if we gave
our interest in this property back to the Retirement Center, they
would have a very good chance of obtaining total ownership.
Attorney Brandenburg felt this could be handled by a Quit
Claim Deed.
Commissioner Bowman stated that she has a natural aversion
76
r
77
to giving away any county property and noted that this is close
to a drainage area.
Commissioner Bird pointed out that normally we have been
selling the property, but in this case it is so close to the
retirement center, it was felt it was valuable only to them.
Commissioner Wodtke noted that Mrs. Buckingham is still
living and is in the center, and he believed the family would
feel very comfortable about the center having this property. He
did not feel they could utilize the property for anything other
than a landscaped area.
Attorney Wilson did see any real use for the property and
noted there are drainage swales by both sides next to the road
and this cuts down the usable area.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, to instruct staff to contact
the Board of Directors of Florida Baptist Retirement
Center and indicate our interest in conveying the
subject parcel to them by quit claim deed and ask
for their response.
Commissioner Bowman noted that as long as it is in county
hands, the oaks will be protected, and she did not see why we are
so anxious to give it away, especially since it is not costing us
anything for maintenance. She felt it could be a nice passive
pocket park.
Commissioner Bird pointed out that it is no benefit to the
public in general and, in fact, could be a liability if it
remains in the county's name. He believed the retirement center
would like it as a park for the people in the area.
Attorney Wilson reported that Mr. Lord, Director of the
Retirement Center, stated that they would be glad to have it open
to the public but that they would like to have some ownership
i
77
BOOK 60 PnE 793
MAY 1
1985
• I BOOK
60
DDH 794.
interest
in it so they could make some improvements in
it,
possibly shuffleboard courts.
Attorney Brandenburg stated that it could be quit claimed
with a reverter clause that it remain open to the public and that
none of the large oak trees could be cut down without county
approval.
Commissioner Wodtke agreed that we can protect the trees,
but did not feel if the center put in shuffleboard courts, for
instance, we should say anybody could be able to come in and use
the courts, if that was the Attorney's intent, and Attorney
Brandenburg stated that he meant it should open to anyone in the
neighborhood who wished to use it.
Chairman Lyons commented that he could see giving it just as
a piece of property, but not to become a recreation center with
structures, etc., and Commissioner Bowman did not see having
shuffleboard in a passive park as she felt this would lead to
more paving and eventually removal of the trees.
In further discussion, Commissioners Bird and Wodtke agreed
to include in their Motion that no structures can be put on the
property without county approval.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED_FOR THE QUESTION on the Motion
with the added language. It was voted on and carried
unanimously (4-0).
OCCUPATIONAL LICENSES STUDY COMMITTEE
Commissioner Wodtke informed the Board that he has asked for
recommendations for appointments; Treasure Coast Builders have
recommended Russell Trimm; the Board of Realtors have recomnended
Anthony Alfino; and the Chamber of Commerce has recommended
Andrew Wainwright. He recommended these people be appointed to
the Committee along with Tax Collector Gene Morris and himself
and requested the assistance of the County Attorney and staff.
78
L—J
4
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0)
appointed the following to the Occupational
Licenses Study Committee:
Commissioner William Wodtke
Tax Collector Gene Morris
Russell Trimm
Anthony Alfino
Andrew Wainwright
REPORT - BEACH PRESERVATION 6 RESTORATION COMMITTEE
Commissioner Wodtke stated that the Beach Committee had a
discussion about the coastal management process, and the
procedure recommended by the committee is that we just go about
the generally accepted policy for selection of a consultant,
laying out the ten points that all the municipalities have
suggested, and let the consultants make a presentation to
determine scope. The Committee reviewed guidelines used in the
Town of Palm Beach, but their procedure was very technical with a
lot of costs that Commissioner Wodtke did not feel comfortable
that we would require. He noted that the committ a needs some
guidance from the Commission re the selection proc ss and the
method to be utilized, i.e., whether the presentat ons by the
consultants will be made to the County Commission/!or to the
committee with th-e committee making recommendations.
Chairman Lyons stated that he would have no objection to the
committee doing the screening of consultants and making a recom-
mendation, and the Board -agreed.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made,
seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 1:00 o'clock P.M.
ATTEST:
Clerk
7 9
Y- to
BOOK FAGE 795