Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/22/1985Wednesday, May 22, 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 22, 1985, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Patrick B. Lyons, Chairman; Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Vice Chairman; Richard N. Bird; Margaret C. Bowman; and William C. Wodtke, Jr. Also present were Michael J. Wright, County Administrator; Gary Brandenburg, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; L. S. "Tommy" Thomas, Intergovernmental Relations Director; Jeffrey K. Barton, OMB Director; and Barbara Bonnah, Deputy Clerk. Chairman Lyons opened the meeting and Administrator Wright led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA Administrator Wright requested the deletion from today's Agenda of Item 7B Clock Restaurant Site Plan Appeal, per the applicant's request. Commissioner Bowman requested the addition to today's Agenda of two items: a discussion regarding the -disbandment of the HIMP Committee and recommendations for appointments to the St. Johns River ad hoc committee. Commissioner Scurlock requested the addition to today's Agenda of a proclamation on "Buckle Up Week." Commissioner Bird requested the addition to today's Agenda of a discussion re painting the County's name on the SR -60 water tower. r BOOK MAY 2 2 1995 BOOK Ed -MGE 0� ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously added and deleted the above items from today's Agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or additions to the.Minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 24, 1985. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 4/24/85, as written. CONSENT AGENDA Commissioner Scurlock removed Items F & I for discussion and Commissioner Wodtke removed Item J. A. Report Received and placed.on file in the Office of the Clerk: Traffic Violation Bureau, Special Trust Fund Month of April, 1985 - $65,020.76 B. Report Received and placed on file in the Office of the Clerk: Traffic Violations by Name - April, 1985 C. Release of (4) Assessment Liens, SR -60 Water - Vista Plantation ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously released S.R.-60 water assessment liens to Vista Properties of Vero Beach, Inc.`for-Condominium Buildings 1, 2, 3, and 47 of Vista Plantation. 2 0 t RELEASE OF ASSESSMENT LIENS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK D. Release of Lien, SR -60 Water - Pine Creek Condominium ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously released a S.R.-60 water assessment lien to Louis and Velda Chase, for Condominium Unit 205, Pine Creek Condominium. RELEASE OF ASSESSMENT LIEN IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK E. Final Plat Approval, Kirk Wood Estates Subdivision The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/10/85: TO: The Honorable Members DATE: May 10, 1985 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE SUBJECT: KIRK WOOD ESTATES SUBDIVISION Robert M. Keating, ICP Planning & Development Director THROUGH: Mary Jane V. Goetzfried Chief, Current Development Section FROM: REFERENCES: ^ Stan Boling ado Staff Planner It is requested that the following information be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting on May 22, 1985. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: Kirk Wood Estates is a 10 acre, 16 lot subdivision located on the north side of 8th Street, west of 27th Avenue. ' The subject property is now zoned RS -6, Residential Single Family up to 6 units per acre; its previous zoning was R-1. The property has the land use designation LD -2, Low Density Residential up to 6 units per acre. The proposed building density is 1.6 units per acre. The project was granted preliminary plat approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission at their regular meeting of November 8, 1984. The applicants, Richard C. Granere and Fred J. Kirk, are requesting final plat approval and have submitted the following items: MAY 2 2 1985 L� 1) a contract committing to construct the remaining required improvements, 2) an approved bid proposal for the construction of the remaining required improvements, 3 BOOK �� PAGE. 03 I MAY 2 2 1985 8001( 61 PAGE 04. 3j an irrevocable letter of credit for $3,000 guaranteeing the contract for construction, 4) a warranty maintenance agreement covering improvements dedicated to the public, 5) an approved itemized construction cost list, 6) an irrevocable letter of credit for $15,000 guarantee- ing the warranty maintenance agreement, 7) and a final plat that is in conformance with the approved preliminary plat. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: This application has been reviewed by the appropriate depart- ments. The Public Works Division has inspected- the site and approved all completed improvements. The amounts to be posted for construction of the remaining improvements and for the warranty -maintenance agreement have also been approved by Public Works. The County Attorney's Office has reviewed and approved the contract for construction subject to its being signed by the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners. The County Attorney's Office has also indicated that the submitted warranty maintenance agreement and irrevocable letters of credit are acceptable to the County. Thus all applicable County regulations have been satisfied. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant final plat approval to Kirk Wood Estates Subdivision, accept the submitted warranty maintenance agreement and irrevocable letters of credit, and authorize the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign the contract for construction. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously granted final plat approval to Kirk Wood Estates subdivision, accepted the warranty maintenance agreement and irrevocable letters of credit, and authorized the Chairman to sign the contract for construction, as recommended by staff. (FOR USE WITH A LETTER OF CREDIT) R CONSTRUCTION OF REQUIRED NO. Sn- 94-0G- 031 THIS CONTRACT, made and entered into this =2-J day of by and between Richard Granere and Fred J. Kirk, individuals, hereinafter referred to as "Developer," and INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, by and through its Board of County Commissioners, hereinafter referred to as "County." W I T N E S S E T H WHEREAS, Developer is commencing proceedings to effect a subdivision of land within Indian River County, Florida; and WHEREAS, a final plat of the subdivision within the unincorporated area of Indian River County shall not be recorded until the Developer has installed the required improvements or has guaranteed to the satisfaction of the County that such improve- ments will be installed; and WHEREAS, Developer requests the approval and recordation of a certain plat to be known as 4iQ/_Gd ©o> 4fr0P-7 J- �G�Iaa/l//.S .O. -J ; and WHEREAS, the required improvements are to be installed after recordation of this plat under guarantees posted with the County. NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE MUTUAL COVENANTS AND PROMISES HEREIN CONTAINED, the parties agree as follows: 1. Developer agrees to construct on or before /S , / 7.?A , in a good and workmanlike manner, those improvements described as follows: 1. Flue. Jo 2. Apply gvxs3'st fa �a s,i�r at �..rce v+�ue� a c&/- 4, -Sac 3. avev w*, peva !asci dtVejcpw,w f "if or otherwise required by the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Indian River County in connection with the approval of said plat. A copy of the plat shall be recorded in the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida upon the final approval of the Board of County Commissioners and made a part hereof for all purposes. 2. Developer agrees to construct said improvements strictly in accordance with the land development permit, the most recent set of plans and specifications for this subdivision approved by the County and on file in the Planning and Development Division, and all County development regulations and standards, including conditions and requirements of any applicable County right-of-way permit, all of which are hereby incorporated by reference and made a part hereof. 3. In order to guarantee performance of this contract, Developer shall simultaneously herewith furnish an irrevocable letter of credit, having an expiration date of not less than ninety (90) days beyond the date set forth in Paragraph 1, pro- vided by a banking institution authorized to transact such busi- ness in this state, in a form to be approved by the County, in Developer as customer and w4c N 7F t & 0 sr! , as the underwriting bank, in the am unt of which amount is not less than one hundred and fifteen (115%) percent of the estimated total cost of improvements remaining to be constructed, as determined in accordance with the County's Subdivision and Platting Ordinance. It is understood that the full amount of the letter of credit MAY 2 2 1985 -1- BOOK 61 FACE .05 BOOK 61 PAGE 06 shall remain available to the County and shall not be reduced during.the course of construction without an express written modi- fication thereof executed by all parties. Requested reductions shall not be unreasonably withheld by the County. Developer may at any time substitute guarantees, subject to the approval as to form and amount by the County. 4. Up to the limits of any applicable underlying or excess insurance coverage carried by Developer or to be obtained during the course of the construction of the subdivision --improve- ments, Developer agrees to indemnify, hold harmless,-and.defend the County against any and all claims, damages, losses, and expenses, including attorney's fees, for property damage, personal or bodily injury, or loss of life, arising from the negligent acts or omissions of the Developer, its officers, employees, agents,, or contractors, subcontractors, laborers, or suppliers, relating to the construction of the required improvements, including all.those improvements to be constructed on existing publicly dedicated or County -owned property, such as street, sidewalk, bikepath, light- ing, signalization, traffic control, drainage, water, or sewer improvements. 5. The County agrees to approve the plat for recorda- tion in the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida upon a finding as to compliance with all applicable provisions of the County's Subdivision and Platting Ordinance and upon execution hereof. The County shall accept those areas specifically dedi- cated to the County.for the purposes indicated on the plat at such time as the improvements are satisfactorily completed. Satis- factory completion in accordance with the land development permit, •; plans, specifications, and ordinance requirements of Indian River County shall be determined by the County and shall be indicated by specific written approval of the Public Works Director or his designated representative. 6. In'the event the Developer shall fail or neglect to fulfill its obligations under this contract and as required by the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Indian River County, Florida, the Developer, as principal, and the guarantor or surety shall be jointly and severally liable to pay for the cost of construction and installment of the required improvements to the final total cost, including but not limited to engineering, construction, legal and contingent costs, including reasonable attorney's fees incurred by the County,'together with any damages, either direct or consequential, which the County may sustain as a result of the failure of Developer to carry out and execute all provisions of this contract and applicable ordinances of the County. In no event, however, shall the liability of the guarantor or surety under this paragraph exceed the total amount of the original obli- gation stated in the guaranty or surety instrument, less any approved reductions thereto. 7. The parties agree that the County at its option -shall have the right, but not the obligation, to construct and install or, pursuant to receipt of competitive bids, cause to be constructed and installed the required improvements in the event Developer shall fail or refuse to do so in accordance with the terms of this contract. Developer -expressly agrees that the County may demand and draw upon the existing guaranty or surety for the final total cost of the improvements. Developer shall remain wholly liable for any resulting deficiency, should the guaranty or surety be exhausted prior to completion of the required improvements. In no event shall the County be obligated to expend public funds, or any funds other than those provided by the Developer, the guarantor, or surety, to construct the required improvements. 8. Any guaranty or surety provided to the County by Developer with respect to this contract shall exist solely for the use and benefit of the County and shall not be construed or intended in any way, expressly or impliedly, to benefit or secure payment to any subcontractor, laborer, materialman or other party Z 3/1/84 providing labor, material, supplies, or services for of the required improvements, or to benefit any lot unless the County shall agree otherwise in writing. construction purchaser(s), 9. This agreement is the full and complete understand- ing of the parties and shall not be construed or amplified by reference to any other agreement, discussion, or understanding, whether written or oral, except as specifically mentioned herein. This agreement shall not be assigned without the express written approval of the County. Any amendment, deletion, modification, extension, or revision hereof or hereto shall be in writing,, executed by authorized representatives of both parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and seals on the day and year first above written. Signed t e resence of: J. Witness WAsce, A Witness i Attest: WRIGHT, C1er APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: By0TYA4TORNEY Z'CO IL MAY 2 2 1985 DEVELOPER Richard Granere Fred J. Kirk COUNTY, FLORIDA CK B. AYONS,j Chairman -3- BOOK 61 PACE 07 I MAY 2 21985 �mII 141111IW illi Ipmllu umIII IIVIIIII Illll1°�u UIQ .���I �umlr"luluu� q NCNB National Bank of Florida P.O. BOX 25900 TAMPA, FLORIDA 33630 Advising Irrevocable Documenta 30675 BOOK fil PAGE .08 Letter of Credit 7 FRED J. KIRK 2888 N.E. 26TH STREET FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33305 Expiry Date (For Negotiation) INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Day Month Year BOARD OF COUNTY CCMMISSIONERS 1840 25TH STREET 15 JULY 1986 VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960 Currency IAmouffl USD $3,000.00 THREE THOUSAND AND N0/100 UNITED STATES DOLIARS******************* We hereby issue this documentary Letter of Credit in your favor which is available against your draft at SIGff drawn on OURSELVES bearing the clause "Drawn under documentary Letter of Credit Number 30675 " Accompanied by the following documents: STATEMENT SC E AN AUTHORIZED REPrMENTATrMOF 1 INDIAN M COUNTY BOARD • COUNTY COMMISSIONERS S• r RED J. art HAS DEFAULIED UNDER THE TERMS CF THEO O - CONSTRUCTION OF REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS,CF A CIMUN PEAT KNOWNAS KIRKWOODj,It THAT THE.t CF THEDRAFT REPRESENTS I 1U RMPIRED BY 7HE• • FULFIIL THEPERFORMANCE CF SAID CONTRACT FOR THE REQUIRM IMPROVEMENTS. If ALL DRAFT DRAWN UNDER THIS LETTER OF CREDIT MUST BE MARKED "DRAWN UNDER NCNB NATIONAL BANK OF FLORIDA LETTER OF*CREDIT 30675 DATED APRIL 18, 1985." 9 Purporting to cover N/A Shipment From Partial Shipments Transshipments To Special N/A Conditions Negotiating bank is authorized to forward all documents to us in one airmail. All banking charges outside the United .States are for account of the beneficiary. We hereby engage with the bona title holders of all drafts drawn under and In compliance with the terms indications of the Advising Bank of this letter of Credit that such &sits will be duly honored upon presentation to us. The amount of each drawing must be endorsed on the reverse of this letter of credit by the negotiating bank Very Truly Yours, NCNB National Bank of Flora Authorized Signature Place. Date. Name and Signature of the Advising Bank Except so far as otherwise expressly stated this documentary letter of credit is subject to the "Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits" (1974 Revision) the International Chamber Of Commerce Document No 290 CALM sr, tar a• rt!wrw,w ex e"': St:'ed Ir ; rM:int nr,r• -1,130 awt t c,; is sn ^i Io "1!;1G d P �or (focuMe.tlar y CrcCd;` 1;9;3 gwinnn; the Ooc N; 4J;i NCNB 2906 Rev. 5/80 O ER OF CREDIT F F. Proposal for 2 -year Extension on Audit Contract The Board reviewed the following letter dated 5/14/85: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 - Telephone: (305) 567-8000 May 14, 1985 The Honorable Board of County Commissioners Indian River County, Florida Gentlemen: Suncom Telephone: (305) 424-1012 We recommend that the contract with the external auditors, May Zima & Co., be extended for two years. Section 26 of the Agreement for Professional Services, made October 6,1982, allowed the extension of the contract for two years. We have discussed the changes and different requirements of the County in audit services with Ron Moats of May Zima & Co., and Mr. Moats has submitted a letter outlining the services that will be provided and the cost of audit services for the next two years. We believe that the cost of services.is fair and equitable and will provide the County with the necessary audit coverage as required by State Statutes. If the Board of County Commissioners feels that the terms and cost set forth in Mr. Moats' letter are acceptable, we would like to have the contract extended for two years. Respectfully submitted, Jeffrey R. B t n Director r�off OMB Edwin M. Fry, Jr. Finance Director Commissioner Scurlock expressed concern over proper cost allocation and wished to see that included in the scope of services with May Zima because he still sees some costs being billed to the wrong department. Administrator Wright advised that prior to the budget hearings, they plan to come back to the Board with revised indirect costs, G & A charges, predicated primarily on the South County Fire District coming on board. 9 BOOK 1 Fr,GE O9 MAY 2 2 1985 MAY 2 2 1985 BOOK 61 p, n �E �® OMB Director Jeff Barton believed that the services Commission Scurlock is referring to would be additional services. Administrator Wright recommended that they come back to the Board within 30 days after making some adjustment or refinement to the General & Administrative charge. Finance Director Ed Fry explained that what they are requesting is a 2 -year extension of the original audit contract, but if we decide to go out for some type of additional services on an indirect cost allocation system, then he felt it probably would be better to get estimates from all the auditing firms. Commissioner Scurlock stated he was not objecting to May Zima, he just wanted the additional services included in the contract because he believed we need a true picture of our costs so that we know if and when one department is subsidizing another. Director Fry pointed out that when we first developed the indirect cost system, it was based on just operating expenses and total outlay of each department, and then we decided to base it on personnel services. He agreed that the process is a little outmoded, but at the same time, felt we need something that is not going to bury us in paperwork. Chairman Lyons suggested that the County Administrator determine whether a change is needed or not and, if it is, bring a recommendation back to the Board. Commissioner Wodtke felt we should get some proposals and prices from other firms, after having been with May Zima for three years now. Director Fry advised that if we go back out, we would have to go through the entire procedure, but Commissioner Wodtke advised that has been changed and we can go directly to the companies and talk prices with them. Attorney Brandenburg confirmed that the law has been changed and counties can now negotiate directly with accounting firms. 10 Commissioner Wodtke believed May Zima was qualified, but just wanted to make sure we are paying the proper costs. Director Fry stated this would be the fourth time the County has gone with May Zima and this price also includes the South County Fire District. Administrator Wright suggested that if the Board decides to get other proposals, that we start from scratch rather than selectively open it, but Commissioner Scurlock recalled that when we went to another firm some years ago, we were sorry we did and ended up having May Zima back the next year. Director Fry advised that May Zima's cost of $53,500 was up 100 over last year's price, but we are going to a single audit approach which entails more compliance testing on federal and state grants than has been done before. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, that the Board approve going out for proposals on an annual audit contract. Under discussion,.Commissioner Scurlock stated he planned to vote against the Motion, because the whole purpose of the request is to extend the plan and he didn't feel that this year's cost of $53,500 had increased that much. Commissioner Bowman asked if the present contract is negotiable, and Director Barton pointed out that the present 3 -year contract had been negotiated already and their original proposal was more than this price. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion was voted on and failed by a vote of 3-2, Commissioners Lyons, Bowman, and Scurlock dissenting. 11 � MAY 2 2 1985 BOOK f`°�11 U �� MAY 2 21985 BOOK 61 PACE 12 ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously extended the Agreement for Professional Services with May Zima E Company for two years. CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK G. Budget Amendment - Vero Highlands Lighting. The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/14/85: TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: May 14, 1985 FILE: FROM: Jeffrey K. Barton, OMB Director SUBJECT: Vero Highlands: Street Lighting REFERENCES: The following budget amendment is to establish the budget for the Vero Highlands Street Lighting District for FY 84-85. Account Title Account No. Increase Decrease Loan Proceeds 184-000-384-10.00 5,000 Electric Services 184-280-541-34.31 3,300 Legal Ads 184-280-541-34.91 200 Reserve for Contingencies 184-280-541-99.91 500 Cash Fund 184-280-541-99.92 1,000 ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the above budget amendment, as recommended by OMB Director Barton. H. Budget Amendment_- Northerly Extension of Indian River Boulevard The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/14/85: 12 TO: DATE: FILE: THE HONORABLE MU4BERS OF May 14, 1985 THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THROUGH: Michael Wright SUBJECT• County Administrator Budget Amendment - Northerly Extension of Indian River Boulevard FROM: REFERENCES: James W. Davis, P.E. Public Works Division As approved during the May 8, 1985 meeting of the Board of County Cmraissioners, staff is requesting the following budget be established for the engineering survey work for the Indian River Boulevard north extension Account # 309-214-541-33.19 $22,000 Approximately $7,000 of the above amount will be used as compensation for the survey of S. Gifford Road from the FEC Railroad to Indian River Boulevard. - ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the above budget amendment, as recommended by OMB Director Barton. I. Agreement between Sailboard Center and Indian River County The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/15/85: TO: The Board of County DATE: May 15, 1985 FILE: Commissioners FROM: SUBJECT: THE SAILBOARD CENTER lson y Attorney REFERENCES: On May 9, 1985, the Parks and Recreation Committee recommended that the Board of County Commissioners enter into an agreement with The Sailboard Center of Wabasso, to permit The Sailboard Center to use the Wabasso Causeway Park to give sailing lessons to their customers. The committee recommended that we put certain restrictions upon The Sailboard Center's use of the park, and I have included all those restrictions within the attached agreement. If you have any questions or comments on this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. 13 MAY 2 2 1985 BOOK 61 PAGE 13 MAY 2 2 1985 BOOK 61 FA - 1 Commissioner Scurlock felt that what we would be doing here is basically establishing a concession stand on County property and he was not sure what precedent this would be setting. Commissioner Bird pointed out that the Parks & Recreation Committee recommended approval of the agreement since they felt that sailboarding is a form of recreation and this would not be just a hot dog stand type of establishment. He advised that there is an escape clause in the lease which allows us to get out of the agreement if we are dissatisfied with their operation. The Sailboard Center has also released the County from any liability with respect to insurance, etc. Intergovernmental Relations Director Tommy Thomas noted that we have other agreements with firms which rent umbrellas, rafts, etc. and though he was originally opposed to this, Sailboard Center made a good presentation and convinced him this would be. different. Apparently sailboarding is becoming very popular and he agreed that we should give it a try. Attorney Brandenburg explained that the contract is for one 1 year and is cancellable by the County on a 60 -day notice. Commissioner Bowman believed that the $10 fee was insufficient, and Commi.ssioner Scurlock felt a $100 fee would be more appropriate. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the following agreement between Indian River County and The Sailboard Center with the fee changed from $10 to $100, and authorized the Chairman's signature. 14 A(:PRPMF.NT May THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 22nd day of , 1985, by and between Indian River County, a politi- cal subdivision of the State of Florida, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY" and The Sailboard Center, a business located at 9125 U.S. Highway No. 1, Wabasso, Florida 32957, hereinafter referred to as "SAILBOARD CENTER." W I T N E S S E T H: That in consideration of the following mutual covenants and agreements, the parties hereto state as follows: 1. COUNTY agrees: a. to permit SAILBOARD CENTER, its agents and employees to occupy and use the County park premises located at the Wabasso Causeway, Indian River County, Florida, for the purpose of renting sailboards and instructing renters, owners and prospective purchasers of sailboards the proper and safe methods of operating such equipment. 2. SAILBOARD CENTER agrees: a. to pay the County $100.00 per year for the non- exclusive right to occupy the park premises at Wabasso Causeway for the purposes stated herein; b. to abide by all provisions of the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Indian River County, Florida, particularly those relating to parks and recreation as contained in Chapter 17 1/4; c. to indemnify and hold the County harmless and defend County from any and all claims, actions, proceedings at law, damages or liability of any kind whatsoever, relating to SAILBOARD CENTER's use of the park premises; d. to require all persons utilizing services of SAILBOARD CENTER on park premises to sign a waiver of liability incorporating the terms of Paragraph 2.c. of this agreement; e. to conduct all business transactions involving the transfer of money, including sales and payment for rentals and instruction, at the business address of SAILBOARD CENTER stated herein; f. to maintain public liability insurance, naming the County as additional insured, with policy limits of no less than $300,000.00 per occurrence/$1,000,000.00 aggregate; and g. to remove all equipment and property of SAILBOARD CENTER from park premises at the end of each business day. 3. This agreement shall remain in effect for a period of one year from the date set forth herein and shall be renewable on an annual basis subject to the approval of the Board of County Commissioners. However, either party may terminate this agreement upon sixty (60) days written notice. In the event of any default or violation of the provisions of this agreement, COUNTY shall notify SAILBOARD CENTER, in writing, and may terminate this agreement immediately. L_ MAY 2 21985 -1- Boa 15 MAY .2 2 1995 BOOK. 61 FACE .. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Indian River County and The Sailboard Center have caused this agreement to be signed in their respective names. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAIRIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA �v Attest: , FREDA WRIGHT Clerk of Circuit Court N. PATRICK B. L O Chairman THE SAILBOARD CENTER By:I �2 President i: Attest: Secretary APPROVED AS TO FOE LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: T. TY ATTORNEY J. Proclamation - Peace River Electric Cooperative_ Inc_ Commissioner Wodtke inquired how this firm helped develop Indian River County, and Attorney Brandenburg explained that they supplied electricity to Blue Cypress Lake when the Fish Camp was established. ON MOTION BY Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously issued the following proclamation recognizing the 50th anniversary of the Rural Electric Administration. PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, the year 1985 commemorates the 50th anniversary of the creation of the national program of rural electrification, begun with the Rural Electrification Administration (REA) in 1935= and WHEREAS, the spectacular success of rural electric systems in the State of Florida is part of the compelling and dramatic story of rural electrification nationwide; and WHEREAS, the-- leadership role played by the Peace River Electric Cooperative, Inc, in nurturing the early growth and development of Indian River County's rural electric systems is an accomplishment to reflect upon with pride; and WHEREAS, Peace River Electric Cooperative, Inc. continues to provide electric service to over 30,000 Central Florida residents; and WHEREAS, this 50th anniversary observance provides an unparalleled opportunity to place in perspective and recall for the State's citizens the rich history and contributions of this association and its members to the economic and social advancement of Indian River County's rural areas; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA recognizes this 50th anniversary of the creation of the Rural Electric Administration and the successes of rural electrification as it has been brought to Indian River County, Florida. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA B Patrick B.L s Chairman ATTEST: Freda Wright, erk 17 BOOK f'E7 Fr_ -MAY 22 1985 BOO PROCLAMATION - "ALL-AMERICAN BUCKLE -UP WEEK" 61 PAGE 18 Commissioner Lyons read the following proclamation aloud: P R O C L A M A T I O N WHEREAS, motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for persons under forty years of age and the third leading cause of death for people of all ages; and WHEREAS, "All-American Buckle -Up" is an event designed to challenge motorists to develop the safety belt habit during the week of May 23-30, 1985, in the hope that life-long life saving habits will be formed; and WHEREAS, if every Florida driver and passenger would wear his safety belt during every trip in a car during that period, an estimated 37 lives could be saved, 1,800 injuries could be prevented and $8.2 million accident costs could be saved; and WHEREAS, this second annual safety belt public awareness campaign is being actively promoted in Florida and her sister states and is deemed critically important in our continuing efforts to educate the motoring public on the benefits of ;i occupant restraint systems; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED that the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA hereby designates May 23-30, 1985 as: "ALL-AMERICAN BUCKLE -UP WEEK" in Florida, and urges all citizens to become more aware of the life saving potential afforded by the use of safety belts on every trip taken in a motor vehicle on our highways. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RI ER COUNTY, FLORIDA A B. LY S CHAIRMAN ATTEST: BY FREDA WAIGHT, CLE PV cXiaa tJ�,� 18 PROPOSED TRI -COUNTY INTERLOCAL SOLID WASTE RESOURCE STUDY Administrator Wright summarized the following letter dated 5/8/85 from the Administrator of Martin County: Chairman Vice -Chairman FRANK A. WACHA TOM HIGGINS THOMAS G. KENNY, 111 MAGGY HURCHALLA JOHN W. HOLT, JR. District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SO Kindred Street . Stuart, Florida 33497 ROBERT H. OLDLAND • County Administrator COUNTY C7 MA;72,7j" May 8, 1985 CA -85-231L Mr. Michael Wright County Administrator Indian River County 1840 25th St. Vero Beach, FL 32960 Dear Mike; PHONE (305) 283-6760 A` Z M.F rLZRIDA -� -gyp i MAY 1985 RF'G 01111111'0T_- Q This is a follow-up to our recent telephone conversation regarding the attached letter from Martin County's Solid Waste Master Planning Consultant - Hayden/ Wegman. As I indicated to you, Martin County is just opening a new Sanitary Landfill, closing the old one, and looking toward a near -future resolution of the in- creasing problems associated with solid wastes. During our discussions with Hayden/Wegman in the Phase I and Phase II Master Plan presentations, it became immediately apparent that 3-5 years from today, Martin County must have com- pleted plans and programs for meeting its increasing solid waste disposal needs. One of the apparent viable options involves Solid Waste Resource Recovery. Unfortunately, the costs to small or individual counties without substantial. populations may well preclude consideration of this possibliity. The Consul- tants' suggestion in the attached letter may be beneficial to a Tri -County effort involving Martin, St. Lucie and Indian River Counties and may be worth our individual and collective consideration. A very preliminary review indicates that such a study, as proposedto complete solid waste master planning for Martin County, may well be accomplished under our Consultant contract with the possible addition of a tri -party interlocal agreement for this final or additional phase. This procedure would, of course, require reviews and legal findings from each County regarding the application of the State Competitive Negotiation Act for professional services. Should this not be the case, it may be desirable for the three counties to consider a joint "Request for Proposals" under an inter -local agreement and in accord- ance with statutory provisions. I would very much appreciate your informal staff review of the above possible program and, subject to your response, I will report to the Martin County Board of County Commissioners with program recommendations. Subject to 19 Lh,,!MAY 2 2 1985 BOOK � PACE �� rp' MAY 2 2 1995 BOOK 611 rmu 90 Board action, I will advise you of our results for possible consideration and/or presentation to the respective County Commissions in St. Lucie and Indian River counties. It was good talking with you and I'll look forward to your response. incerely, Rob Oldland County Administrator RHO/k1 Administrator Wright requested that we begin negotiating with St. Lucie and Martin counties to develop an interlocal agreement for joint participation in a Waste Resource Recovery Facility Study, such as the one proposed by Hayden/Wegman, Consulting Engineers. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, that the Board authorize the County Administrator and necessary staff to begin negotiations with Martin and St. Lucie counties to participate in a joint study and bring back a recommendation to the Board for approval. Commissioner Scurlock believed that we should coordinate this activity with the landfill master plan, otherwise we may end up doing two studies and paying twice for something that may not even fit together. Administrator Wright advised that when we did a similar study on water, sewer and road master plans, we used the same demographic base and were able to reduce the cost. Commissioner Bowman questioned the difference in costs borne by each county, and Administrator Wright explained that Martin County has just spent $80,000 for a total county -wide plan and much of the data that we would supply has already been gathered by their consultant. 20 THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING - SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURE SECTION OF THE NEW ZONING CODE The hour of 9:15 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to wit: VER® REACH 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 �5 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 ay of A.D. 19 (Busine anager) (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, Flori4ay (SEAL) 21 MAY 2 2 7985 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING_ '3TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF COUNTY ORDINANCE. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Indlan. River County Board of County Commissioners, shall hold a public hearing at which parties in in- terest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard on Wednesday, May 22, 1985„16 the County Commission Chambers located In,.the County Administration Building,' '1840"25th ,street, -Vero. Beach„ Florida, at 9:15 a,m. ,or as ,soon thereafter. as may be heard," to make a repomltlQndation.concernin� d r ordinance enti- tled,: . , . 5f' 1 r `7 � t lv,"! ,`.{ ANrORDINANCE 'OF'THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER. COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING F, APPENDIX A OF THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, KNOWN AS THE ^•s, 20NING CODE, PERTAINING TO SITE; PLAN APPROVAL FOR LAND DEVELOP -'a MENT PROJECTS, W : tUNINCORPQ-f RATED INDIAN ' RIVER COUNTY; i0 CREATING SECTION 23.1 SITE,PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL" PROCE- DURES, SECTION 23.2 REQUIRED.SITE'.• PLAN SUBMITALS; AND.SECTION ,13.8 SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS; RE "PEALING CURRENT SECTION 23 SITE siPLAN: APPROVAL;,.%ND: PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION; -SEVERABILITY; -•: REPEAL OF CONFLICTING,, PROVI- - i s y R,S(ONS; AND EFFECTIVE DATE"-, i !, It any person decides to appeal any decision made on the above matter, fie/she will need a record of.the proceedings, and fovsuch pur- poses, he/she may need to ensure that a verba- tim record of the proceedings is made, which in- cludes testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. - Indian River County s Board of County Commissioners 9 :-s-PaUick B. Lyor►s, ,;; ,� 1 _;�. Chairman. Maj 3;,14,-1985 MAY 2 2 1985 BOOK 61 Pl"u 22 Planning & Development Director Robert Keating reviewed the following memo dated 5/13/85: TO: The Honorable Members DATE: May 13, 1985 FILE: of the Board of - County Commissioners ADOPTION OF SITE PLAN SUBJECT: REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES SECTION OF THE NEW ZONING CODE FROM:Robert M. Keating, Af P REFERENCES: Planning & Development Director It is requested that the formal consideration by the their regular meeting of Ma y DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS data herein presented be given v Board of County Commissioners at 15, 1985. The draft Site Plan Review and Approval Procedures Section is another part of the new zoning code. Prepared by Solin & Associates, Inc., then extensively revised by the planning staff, and finally modified significantly through a series of public workshop meetings, this draft is one of the major sections of the new code. Affecting all development in the County with the exception of single-family residences, the Site Plan Review and Approval Procedures Section of the new zoning code estab- lishes the criteria which must be met by all requests for development approval in the County. As such, this draft code section sets submission requirements, both graphic and written; establishes review criteria; and delineates review and approval procedures. This draft section addresses both major and minor site plans, setting the specific criteria for each. The proposed Site Plan Review and Approval Procedures Section is substantially different than the existing site plan section in the current zoning code. While incorporat- ing most of the criteria in the existing site plan section, the draft Site Plan Review and Approval Procedures Section is much more extensive and more comprehensive than the present section. The proposed draft not only delineates all specific submission requirements; it also details all applicable review standards. Besides codifying review standards which have been utilized and generally accepted over time, this draft section also formally adopts policies which have been disputed issues in the past. Included among these are the issues of right-of-way dediction, road paving, access control, and buffering requirements, among others. As proposed, this draft section will resolve those issues by establishing the criteria which all proposed developments must meet. -- - At their meeting of April 25, 1985, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the draft Site Plan Review and Approval section of the new zoning code. 22 M r r ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS In preparing this draft section of the new zoning code, the consultant researched various issues, analyzed regulations of other local governments, and considered various alterna- tives. The staff also considered viable alternatives for the various standards incorporated within the ordinance. In addition, ten workshop meetings were held with the general public to review the proposed draft, consider alternatives, and make necessary modifications to the draft ordinance. At these meetings, the draft Site Plan Review and Approval Procedures Section was thoroughly reviewed and analyzed, and a number of beneficial changes were made to the proposed draft. The proposed Site Plan Review and Approval Procedures are an integral aspect of the new zoning code. By setting specific criteria and standards for site plan review and approval, this draft section of the new code is advantageous to the County, developers, and the general public. While setting minimum standards to protect the public, this section also specifically defines all requirements applicable to site plan approval requests. It is anticipated that this draft section of the code will enhance the County's land develop- ment regulatory process. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed Site Plan Review and Approval Section of the new zoning code. Director Keating explained that the ordinance sets the criteria requirements for submission and review of site plans and, basically, affects almost all the development in the County with the exception of single-family dwellings or subdivisions. Ten public workshops were held on these procedures and many compromises have been made. One of the two major changes made will facilitate the process by allowing approval of minor site plans by the Technical Review Committee whereby an applicant will no longer have to wait two weeks to go to the Planning & Zoning Commission. If there is any question or any problem, the applicant still can appeal to the Planning & Zoning Commission. The second major change, which encompassed two of the 10 workshop meetings, provides for a change in the procedures for reviewing a site plan with respect to drainage. There is no lessening of the requirements; there is just a difference in the timeframe. The applicant will not have to submit all the required data prior to the Technical Review Committee meeting in order to obtain 23 BOOK 61 P"F. MAY 2 2 1985 MAY 2 2 1985 t30QK 1 PAGE ?4 conceptual drainage approval. He can submit whatever is deemed necessary and, after all the other aspects of the site plan are approved at the Technical Review Committee level, the applicant then can go back and do the more detailed work on the stormwater management part of the site plan, thereby saving a substantial amount of time, effort and cost. Director Keating felt that this is something that the development community has been wanting for a long time. Generally, this ordinance is significantly more detailed and comprehensive than the one we have now, and the advantage is that everything is set in black and white so that everyone will know what is expected of them and what the criteria is for site plan review. Director Keating recommended approval of the proposed ordinance and noted that the Planning & Zoning Commission also recommended approval of the ordinance after receiving very few objections at their meeting of April 25th. Director Keating made a part of the record the following letter received from the Construction Industry Management Council. COO' TR, INDUSTRY M�, ,, wt Cn� May 16, 1985 *4rs000 �10 T/0 `pSti 2F9s T COUNCIL I P.O. BOX 3724 • BEACH STATION JR DA 32963 C.,A i•'. \•.V The Honorable Patrick B. Lyons, Chairman and Board of County Commissioners 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Dear Chairman Lyons and Commissioners: On May 22 the Commission will hold a public hearing on the matter of Site Plan Review and Approval Procedures. As indicated in the enclosed copy of our letter to the Planning and Zoning Board, this coalition participated in the many workshop sessions involving revisions to the zoning code, including site plan review, and felt the process to be very worthwhile. We would, however, like to draw your attention to the three specific areas of concern which were presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission at its public hearing but did not receive comment or discussion. We -feel that the issues -of extending site plan approval; prepayment for anticipated future road improvements and extension of the county's transportation system suggest a closer review by your Board. 24 ..0 Representatives of the Construction Industry Management Council will be present at the public hearing and I would also be available to offer any additional input you may desire. Sincerely, L� a thew L. Gore _ C airman u -- CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL April 25, 1985 Mrs.. Carolyn Eggert, Chairman Indian River County Planning and Zoning Board Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Re: Site Plan Review and Approval Procedures Dear Mrs. Eggert: ICIMCI P.O. BOX 3724 a BEACH STATION VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32963 We appreciate having had the opportunity to workshop this ordinance with county staff, and as a result have few objections to its adoption, as presented. However, there are several areas that we believe should be reconsidered. 1. EXTENSIONS OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL This section has been revised to the point that it, in effect, is not an extension, but a resubmittal. Most projects can proceed without requiring an extension, but on some larger projects the preconstruction phase can create the need for additional time. We believe a ONE TIME extension of the site plan, as approved, is reasonable. 2. PAVED ROAD REQUIREMENTS A. This provision would require applicants to fund their fair share contribution for adjacent roadway improvements, even if the proposed development does not gain access to said roadway. The County presently has authority to require adjacent property owners to fund these improvements when they are to be constructed. This prepayment seems unreasonable. B. The provision requiring the applicant to pave from the nearest paved roadway can present problems similar to.those that the County revealed last year when a similar requirement• was considered for subdivisions. The responsibility for right-of-way acquisition, and verification, is properly a function of govern- ment, not of the individual property owners, as this requirement would make it. MAY 2 2 1985 L� 25 BOOK PACE ?5 r— f I MAY 2 2 1995 BOOK 61 P�:GE I With the exception of these items, we believe the proposed ordinance can have a positive effect in ensuring a high quality of life in Indian River County, without imposing an unreasonable hardship on individual property owners. _ Thank you for the opportunity to present our opinions. Sincerely, CONSTRUCTI NDUSTRY a ew/L.�G 'Cha rman MANAGEMENT COUNCIL Commissioner Scurlock commented that he has received much productive input and reaction to the criteria being set in black and white in this ordinance. He also liked the idea that if a project went through the approval process and did linger that we would have the ability to update that to whatever current zoning or changes that have been made since their initial approval. He asked Director Keating to explain the impact of EXTENSIONS OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL as set out in the letter from the Construction Industry Management Council. Director Keating explained that when we previously addressed the Sea Oaks hotel site plan termination request, the Board directed staff to see that all requests for extensions of site plans comply with the ordinances which have been adopted since that time. He believed the Construction Industry's position is that it is not really an extension if we go through another review of the criteria. To an extent, he agreed with the Construction Industry Management Council that it would not be unreasonable to allow one extension of the site plan to see that they comply with the stormwater and paving ordinances, etc. Director Keating explained that if nothing has been done after the one-year period and no extension request has been received, the staff would bring the site plan to the Board to request termination. However, the ordinance currently states that everyone is allowed one I -year extension if it is approved 26 M M M by the County Commission and the way that has always been interpreted is that they are not subject to another review at that particular point in time. Director Keating felt the Construction Industry has a good point as long as it is kept to just the one extension and no more than two years after the initial approval date; the proposed ordinance requires them to resubmit. Commissioner Bird felt this would mainly pertain to large projects where there is still a lot of permitting to be obtained at state and federal levels and a lot of financing to be worked out after site plan approval is granted. Delays in these areas could result in construction not getting underway within a year, and in that case, the Board would consider granting an extra year's extension. Commissioner Scurlock understood then that our current policy has been to grant one extension even though it has not been set out in black and white, and he would have no problem with continuing that policy. However, he felt that we should make it very clear that only one extension will be granted because there are some site plans out there that have been just hanging for quite some time, and if we make the determination that a site plan is terminated, then, of course, they must resubmit under all the new ordinances that have been adopted since the time the site plan was originally approved. Commissioner Wodtke noted that on Page 5 of the proposed ordinance it states that we will not release the site plan until they have every permit that is required. He asked when the one-year timing starts, and Director Keating advised that the timing starts when the site plan is approved, but that does not preclude them from having started the permit process prior to getting site plan approval, which is the same provision as we have now. Attorney Brandenburg recommended that the last sentence be deleted in Paragraph 23.1.G (2) on Page 4 of the proposed 27 MAY 2 2 1985 BOOK 6`1 P T 2.007 MAY .2 2 1995 BOOK a S PAilF 98 ordinance ... "upon receiving an extension, all approved site plans shall comply with all applicable County regulations as they exist on the date the extension is granted." The Commissioners agreed to include this and any other changes that might be made this morning in one Motion at the end of this hearing. Administrator Wright explained that the Technical Review Committee is chaired by the Planning 8 Development Director, and that it is specified that we schedule a site plan for review within 12 days of its submittal date. Commissioner Bowman noted that there isn't any definition of "minor site plan" in the ordinance, but Director Keating advised that definition is covered under "Applicability" on Page 3, and that definitions were set out in the overall Zoning Code. He noted that "shall" is mandatory and "may" and "should" are optionable. The Board then discussed at great length the "Paved Road Requirements" in Item #3 on Page 18 of the ordinance. Director Keating felt that this was one of most controversial provisions in the entire proposed ordinance and staff made some changes based on the input received during the workshops. The main concern is whether or not the owner of a piece of property should be responsible for contributing to the paving of a road that he does not use for access. Staff has been following the policy in these cases of requiring the developer to escrow an amount equal to their contribution under the petition paving program. Attorney Brandenburg was concerned that this might conflict with the impact fee formula developed as a result of the study underway. He explained that this provision applies only to subdivisions fronting on unpaved roads contained on the Thoroughfare Plan, which are arterials and collectors; however, the impact fee consultants have been instructed to price the paving, drainage and pedestrian access into the impact fee for 28 ® r M M M all arterials and collectors and come up with a fair share contribution for everyone for the paving of these roads. He recommended the deletion of the formula provided under the Paved Road Requirements on Page 28 of the proposed ordinance. The Commissioners agreed to delete "Paved Road Requirements" on Page 18 of the proposed ordinance and address it in the impact fee ordinance. Commissioner Bowman questioned the environmentally sensitive areas as she did not see any mention made of the sand ridge being critical to the County's water supply. She felt that the sand ridge deserves recognition and should be spelled out as environ- mentally sensitive land. Director Keating explained that environmentally sensitive land was addressed as it is defined in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, but Commissioner Bowman felt that the Comp Plan should be amended also to include the sand ridge as an environmentally sensitive area. Chairman Lyons believed that could not be settled today because it is so difficult to define and suggested that we do a separate study with a recommendation to be brought back to the Board. The Commissioners agreed that if Commissioner Bowman came up with a proposal, then the Commission would take it from there. Director Keating recommended a change on Page 14 - Section 23.3.D.1 - Compliance with the County Thoroughfare Plan. Where it states that the Indian River County Thoroughfare Plan shall serve as the official guide for dedicating rights-of-way, designing road improvements, etc., change "guide" to "standard". Attorney Brandenburg recommended two changes: Page 6 - 23.1_J - Payment of Requisite_ County_ Fees Add the language to that paragraph "unless such fees are payable at other times by applicable law." 29 MAY'2 2 1985 Boar. b1 rnE �9 FF", -MAY 2 2 1995 BOOK 61 N� IG Page 6 - 23.1.M - Appeals of Decisions Regarding Site Plans Delete ...having an aggrieved interest therein" and replace it with "adversely affected by the decision". Administrator Wright recommended that Item 23.1.C.1.(c) "read "Public Works Director or his appointed designee" and (d) "Chairperson of the Planning and Zoning Commission, or his appointed designee." Chairman Lyons did not feel comfortable with the wording in (h) of that item and suggested that it be changed to "Other representatives of County departments and agencies, as approved by the County Administrator." Director Keating explained the Provision of Required Access Points on Page 30 of the ordinance and how this provision would affect the development over on the barrier island. He noted that it is the very same provision that we have in the subdivision ordinance. The developer has the option to either provide a 15 -ft access easement or pay the fair market value of that easement for capital improvements to the County park system. He pointed out that several developers of subdivisions have agreed to pay fees in lieu of dedication. Attorney Brandenburg explained that the way it reads now is that the County may require it, but the developer does not have the option unless the County approves the option. Chairman Lyons opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. Margaret Mann, Attorney representing Ken Elsmore and Elgin Marble, Inc., advised that her clients have a current site plan pending before the Planning & Zoning Commission in June. She expressed their concern as to how their site plan relates to this proposed ordinance. In addition, she wanted assurance from the staff and the Commission that this ordinance will not be retroactive and will not affect any site plans that already have been submitted to staff and are up for review. 30 Attorney Brandenburg indicated that was his understanding. Attorney Mann felt there is some language in the proposed ordinance which codifies to some extent some policies that are stated in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. One of the policies concerns parcels of land that abut two different roadways, one being a major thoroughfare and one being a secondary road. She explained that her clients' site plan fronts U.S. #1 and Old Dixie and they have been told that the Comp Plan policy states that, if possible, the secondary use should be utilized in lieu of U.S. #1. However, the proposed ordinance states that it shall be mandatory to use the secondary road. It further states that adjoining parcels not having double frontage are going to have to join parking lots and exit from that parcel which has access to the secondary road. She felt that could create a lot of chaos and would be a hardship for both the developer who does not have the frontage and the developer who does have the frontage. Attorney Mann referred to Page 20 of the proposed ordinance: i. Sites located at intersections shall access onto the roadway having the lower functional classification. That paragraph goes on to state that the applicant may be permitted to access onto the higher classification if the Public Works Director determines that such access would result in an improved traffic circulation pattern. She noted that clause allows a little more flexibility instead of making it mandatory, and that the clause should also be included on Page 21 of the ordinance where it refers to site plans that front two different roadways; one being a major thoroughfare and one being a lower use roadway. She did not feel it was fair to allow it for parcels that are on intersections and not allow it on parcels that might be in the middle of or far away from intersections. She did not understand the meaning behind that and suggested on behalf of her client and on behalf of future developers that it be permissible to put in some alternative traffic pattern. 31 BOOK 61 PcE � MAY `' � 1985 J MAY 2 2 1985 o BOOK 61 FAGE e Director Keating felt the specific criteria on Page 20 is really different than that on Page 21. Page 20 refers to sites at an intersection and access has to be through a lower function classification. He felt that the specification on Page 21 overrules that in the sense that if an arterial or a primary collector is involved and there is an access easement or a marginal access easement, then access has to be provided on through those. He felt that Indian River County has tried to establish this system of marginal access roads through the most efficient and economical manner possible under the thoroughfare element of the Comp Plan by the connection of parking lots, the access drives in the parking lots, the number of access points to marginal access roads, and thereby eliminating the number of curb cuts on arterials such as U.S. #1. In the north County area where Old Dixie is designated as a marginal access road, it is to serve that function in relation to properties that have frontage on both U.S. #1 and Old Dixie. Therefore, that road serves the same purpose as the marginal access easement that is created by establishing a right to go through the drives for properties that don't have frontage on both Old Dixie and U. S. #1. In either case, there is not necessarily going to be direct access on U.S. #1 for a particular piece of property. This comes from the Comp Plan which specifies that access onto arterials shall be limited to collectors and major generators. Commissioner Scurlock felt that what Attorney Mann is looking for is the flexibility to provide an option if it can be demonstrated that it can be workable. Attorney Mann believed that the current policy under the Comp Plan does allow that flexibility and understood that staff has taken a certain position that where there.is access to a secondary road, they are always going to propose that. She felt that was fine to adopt that policy, but urged that some leeway be given in order to come up with some alternative traffic circulation plans that might be better. 32 � � r Chairman Lyons felt that we did not want to make it too loose either, because we don't want any more curb cuts on U.S. #1 than we can possibly avoid. Attorney Mann requested that the language used on Page 20, or something similar to that language, be inserted on Page 21 where it states " Developments adjacent to arterials and primary collectors "must" utilize frontage roads..." She suggested that the wording not be "must" or "shall", but perhaps left up to the Public Works Director or the Traffic Engineer to allow some flexibility. Director Keating felt staff is just applying the specific policy in the Comp Plan since the Elsmore site plan does have access to a designated marginal access road, which is Old Dixie. On Page 21, under (d) - Frontage Road Systems and Access Easements - the Commissioners agreed to change the language on to "should" instead of "must". Director Keating felt that might make things difficult and Commissioner Scurlock suggested that staff take the position of "must" and if they appeal it, then the Commission will see if it should have been "should". Director Keating felt that would make it easier. Matthew Gore, Chairman of the Construction Industry Council, thanked the Board for having set up the workshop program and for the consideration given to the comments expressed in their letter. Referring to the controversial issue regarding the paved road requirements, he requested that another workshop session be scheduled to discuss the right-of-way issue and consider establishing some kind of credit for the road impact fees and roadway acquisition. MAY 2 2 1985 L- ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously closed the Public Hearing. 33 n BOOK ' 33 FtE MAY 2 2 1985 BOOK 61 F�,GE 34 MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, that the Board adopt Ordinance 85-47, approving the proposed Site Plan Review and Approval, with the modifications discussed on Pages 1, 6, 14, 18 and 21; with the understanding that the Ordinance is not retroactive. Under discussion, Attorney Brandenburg advised that we would not apply the new rules until the ordinance becomes effective upon return from the Secretary of State; all applications in before that time will proceed under the old rules. Director Keating understood then that the entire section relating to paved roads requirements on Page 18 is to be deleted. Commissioner Scurlock confirmed that it was, and that any site plan submitted under the ordinance does not require the paving of a road leading from the project to a paved County road. Attorney Brandenburg stated that all the language in that paragraph is inadequate and the Board can still make recommendations for paving on a site plan, until the issue is addressed and refined in the future. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion was voted on and carried unanimously. 34 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 8S-47 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING APPENDIX A OF THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, KNOWN AS THE ZONING CODE, BY REPEALING SECTION 23, "SITE PLAN APPROVAL", AND CREATING 1) SECTION 23.1, "SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES"; 2) 23.22 "REQUIRED SITE PLAN SUBMITTALS"; AND 3) SECTION 23.3, "SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS", AND PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES AS WELL AS CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: SECTION 1 Section 23, entitled "Site Plan Approval", is hereby repealed and Section 23.1, entitled "Site Plan Review and Approval Procedures", Section 23.2, entitled "Required Site Plan Submittals", and Section 23.3 entitled "Site Plan Review Standards" are hereby substituted in place thereof and shall read as follows: 23.1 SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES 23.1 A. Purpose and Intent. The purpose of this section is to establish uniform procedures for reviewing applications for site plan approval, as required in this ordinance. It is further the intent of this section to establish procedures for reviewing minor site plans, as provided herein. 23.1 B. Applicability. All site plans prepared in compliance with the requirements of this ordinance shall be reviewed pursuant to the following procedures. Site Plans shall be required as established in the zoning district regulations for each of the following: 1. All permitted uses except single family homes and agricultural operations. L. All developments proposing a change in the use of an exi.;ting structure. For purposes of this ordinance, a change in use shall involve a change from one use category to another use category. 3. All uses requiring an administrative permit. 4. All uses requiring special exception approval. The procedures established herein shall not apply to Conceptual Development Plans for Planned Residential Developments. Such plans shall be prepared and reviewed pursuant to'Section 25.4(H) of this ordinance. 23.1 C. Establishment of Technical. Review Committee. The Technical Review Committee is hereby established for the purposes of performing technical evaluations of site plan applications. The Technical Review Committee shall be empowered to undertake any studies and/or reviews necessary to complete an appropriate analysis of site plans. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall establish bylaws and rules.of procedure to govern the review of site plan applications by the Technical Review Committee. THE ENTIRETY OF TH I S ORDINANCE TS� 41\1. FILE IN Tu. OFFICE OF THE CLEP.K 35 L 4NAY 2 2 1981 BOOK 1 35 MAY 2 2 1995 BOOK F'AGE TO: SOUTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT L The Board of County Commissioners recessed at 11:10 o'clock A.M. in order that the District Board of the South County Fire District might convene. Those Minutes are being prepared separately. The Board reconvened at 11:15 o'clock A.M. with the same members present. WATER MAIN EXTENSION TO WEST COUNTY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT NEAR 82ND AVENUE - AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/15/85: THE HONORABLE BOARD 6F" TE: COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THRU: TERRANCE G. PI o SUBJECT: WATER MAIN EXTENSION 82ND AVENUE - AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES MAY 15, 1985 FILE. FROM: ro. REFERENCES: RONALD R. BROOKS DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS It will be necessary to provide a water supply to the County's proposed West County Wastewater Treatment Plant near 82nd Avenue and 8th Street. The Countryside development will be extending a 10 inch water main along 82nd Avenue from State Road 60 to their development and the Utilities Department proposes to continue the main to the wastewater plant site to provide the necessary water service. ANALYSIS The services of a professional engineer are required to design the proposed water line extension, obtain required DER permits, and monitor the construction of the line. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board approve and execute the attached agreement with Sippel, Masteller, Lorenz & Hoover, Inc. for the required professional engineering services. 36 Utilities Director Terry Pinto noted that the estimated cost of this project is $155,000 and will be funded from the impact fees of the wastewater treatment plant, not from the water plant. This is a continuing service agreement and just a work authorization to go ahead with the project. Commissioner Scurlock reported that yesterday the Selection Committee heard presentations from four consulting engineering firms for continuing service on the County wastewater system and advised that a recommendation will be brought to the Commission shortly, The Selection Committee was split between two companies: Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc., who have extensive permitting and effluent capabilities, and Sippel, Masteller, Lorenz & Hoover, Inc., who have expertise in the extension of mains, lift stations, and smaller plants. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, that the Board approved the recommendation of staff as outlined in the above memo. Under discussion, Commissioner Wodtke asked if Sippel, Masteller's price for this agreement was comparable to other firms, and Director Pinto felt their price was well within line and well below the curve that most of the engineering firms work with. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion was voted on and carried unanimously. 37 �QC114 f'.?vE 37 FrAAAY 2 2 1985 Date: May 22, 1985 Work Authorization No. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 1 . for Consulting Services BOOK 61 FACE 38 Project No. 1 (County) 14340 (Sippel, Masteller, Lorenz & Hoover, Inc.) I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Title: Consulting Engineering services relative to the 82nd Avenue (Ranch Road) 10" diameter water main extension south from Flamingo Drive entrance to the Countryside Development to 8th Street and west along 8th Street to the wastewater treatment plant site entrance consisting of approximately 6,100 feet with valves, hydrants, and appurtenances. Budget estimate for construction cost is $155,000.00. II. SCOPE OF SERVICES AND LUMP SUM FEE FOR SERVICES Reference is made to the "Agreement for Professional Services" dated April 24, 1985 and specific Article numbers and paragroph numbers which are listed hereinafter to describe the scope of services included on this project: A. Project Design Services per Article 4, paragraph 4a. and 4b. B. General Services During Construction per Article 5, para- graph 5a. and 5b. C. Supplementary and Special Services per Article 6, paragraph 6c., 6d., 6e., 6f., and 6g. In addition, our services shall include field surveys necessary for design and preparation of construction plans and assistance to the County in ob- taining various permits and approvals for construction (per- mit fees to be paid by the County). D. Payment for Services per Article 8, paragraph 8b., the lump sum fee for A, B, and C above is $14,880.00. Payment shall be per paragraph 8d. APPROVED BY: INDIAN VER COUTt BOARD F OUNTY COMMISSIONERS P XaM ck B. „y ,, Chairman Date: May 22, 1985 APPROVED TO SUFFICI CY: ar ran e Co my A torne M AND LEGAL SUBMITTED BY: SIPPEL, MASTELLER, LORENZ & HOOVER, INC. Eaf'T H. Masteller; P.E. Executive Vice -President DOUGLAS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LEASE EXPIRATION Attorney Brandenburg advised that Florida Community Health Centers, Inc. lease agreement is about to expire and recommended that we write requesting them to sign a quit -claim deed releasing all their rights to the property and that the property be listed on the County inventory. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously authorized the County Attorney to request Florida Community Health Centers, Inc. to sign a quit -claim deed releasing all their rights to the old Douglas Elementary School building and property. Comnissioner Bird anticipated that this action will generate more requests to use that site and noted that we already have requests from the West Wabasso Progressive Civic League and the Headstart program for the use of the school building and the Wabasso Station will be using a portion of the land. SACC LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Commissioner Scurlock reported that he and Administrator Wright went to Tallahassee to check on how proposed legislation to establish Indian River as an aquatic reserve would affect the future development of Round Island Park with respect to bridges and crossings for water and sewer. The bill has passed in the Senate and is expected out of the House Appropriations Committee next week. Attorney Brandenburg noted that the proposed area to be included runs south from Malabar and the City of Vero Beach will be exempted. The suggestion is for stopping it at the Wabasso Bridge until further studies are done as to what exactly should or should not be included. 39 MAY 2 2 1995 BOOK L r BooK 01 PANE 40 Commissioner Bowman wished to see the Winter Beach area included. Commissioner Scurlock felt there wasn't much more we could do at this point but wait to see what position the Legislature takes. Administrator Wright reported that a bill is about to be passed which will increase the salaries of all constitutional officers. DISCUSSION RE THE PAINTING OF SR -60 WATER TOWER Commissioner Bird reported that residents have phoned in their objections to the painting of the County name on the water tower and have suggested that we might even be in violation of our own sign ordinance. Commissioner Scurlock inquired if the lettering was included in the contract, and Administrator Wright advised they would have it deleted. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously instructed the Utilities Service Dept. not to have the County's name painted on the SR -60 water tower; with the understanding that the tower will be painted all one color, such as sky blue. HUTCHINSON ISLAND MANAGEMENT PLANNING AD HOC COMMITTEE Commissioner Bowman advised that apparently no action has never been taken to officially disband the HIMP Ad Hoc Committee. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously disbanded the Hutchinson Island Management Planning Ad Hoc Committee. 40 ST. JOHNS RIVER AD HOC COMMITTEE I� ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously appointed the following persons to the St. Johns River Ad Hoc Committee: B. T. Cooksey Ruth Stanbridge Susan Wilson Mike Ziegler Victor Knight, Jr. Lex Kromhout There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the meeting adjourned at 11:30 o'clock A.M. ATTEST: JUL-�— LIU- Clerk L7 MAY 2 2 1985 41 BOOK 1 F"�� �ru,