Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/20/1985r Wednesday, November 20, 1985 The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County,_ Florida, met in Regular Session at the County Commiss.ion Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Wednesday, November 20, 1985, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Patrick B. Lyons, Chairman; Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Vice Chairman; Richard N. Bird; Margaret C. Bowman; and William C. Wodtke, Jr. Also present were Michael J. Wright, County Administrator; L. S. "Tommy" Thomas, Intergovernmental Relations Director; Charles P. Vitunac, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; and - Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk. The Chairman called the meeting to order. Pastor Ed Lovelace, First Church of God, gave the invoca- tion, and Attorney Vitunac led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA Out -of -County Travel Commissioner Scurlock informed the Board that the Chairman had requested he add an item regarding out -of -county travel to the Regional Coastal Management Seminar. It was felt this could be acted on immediately. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously author - !zed out -of -county travel for any Commission member and appropriate staff to attend the Regional Coastal Management Seminar to be held at Jensen Beach on December 6th and 7th, 1985. Administrator Wright informed the Board that he would like to call a brief caucus immediately after today's meeting, and he would also like to add to the agenda discussion*of a change in BOOK 62 PAGE 767 �NOV 20 198 NOV 2 0 1985 - BOOK 62 PAGE 768 the meeting time for the next regular meeting. Attorney Vitunac wi-shed to add a .report on the meeting he attended with the county attorneys from the four -county district re the Medical Examiner's contract and the Public Defender. Chairman Lyons advised that he would give a brief report on the status of the minimum security facility for the new jail. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously added items as described above to today's agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or additions to the Minutes of the Special Meeting of October 30, 1985. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the Minutes of the Special Meeting of October 30, 1985, as written. CONSENT AGENDA Administrator Wright requested that Items F and I be removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion. Chairman Lyons requested the removal of Item G and Commis- sioner Bird asked that Item K be removed for discussion. A. Application for Pistol Permit The Board reviewed memo of the County Administrator: 2 FROM: Michael Wright County Administrator SUBJECT: Pistol Permit - New REFERENCES: The following named person has applied thru the Clerk's Office for a new pistol permit: Nathan Brent McCollum All requirements of the ordinance have been met. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the Application to Carry a Concealed Weapon for Nathan Brent McCollum. B.8 C. Reports The following reports were received and placed on file in the Office of the Clerk of Courts: Traffic Violation Bureau, Special Trust Fund, Month of October, 1985 - $42,680.63 Traffic Violations by Name, October, 1985 D._Bud get Amendment_- Dept. of Revenue 8 Dept. of Administration The Board reviewed memo of OMB Director Baird: 3 NOV0 1983 BOOK 62 FA, E 7s o TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: Nov. 5, 1985 FILE: the Board of County Commissioners FROM: Michael Wright County Administrator SUBJECT: Pistol Permit - New REFERENCES: The following named person has applied thru the Clerk's Office for a new pistol permit: Nathan Brent McCollum All requirements of the ordinance have been met. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the Application to Carry a Concealed Weapon for Nathan Brent McCollum. B.8 C. Reports The following reports were received and placed on file in the Office of the Clerk of Courts: Traffic Violation Bureau, Special Trust Fund, Month of October, 1985 - $42,680.63 Traffic Violations by Name, October, 1985 D._Bud get Amendment_- Dept. of Revenue 8 Dept. of Administration The Board reviewed memo of OMB Director Baird: 3 NOV0 1983 BOOK 62 FA, E 7s o BOOK 62 FADE 77® TO: Hon. Board of County Commissioner®ATE: November 13, 1985 FILE: FROM: Josep A. Baird, OMB Director SUBJECT: Budget Amendment REFERENCES: The following budget amendments are necessary because of the difference between original approved budgets by the Commission and the final figures of the Depart- ment of Revenue and the Department of Administration: ACCOUNT TITLE Executive Salaries Social Security Matching Retirement Contribution Reserve for Contingency ACCOUNT NUMBER INCREASE 001-700-519-11.11 $ 668 001400-519-12.11 213 001-700-519-12.12 116 001-.199-581-99.91 TOTAL ;.$ 997 ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the above budget amendment as recom- mended by OMB Director Baird. DECREASE $ 997 $ 997 E. Housing Vouchers - Project FL29-V132-001 The Board reviewed memo from Edward Regan, Executive Director of the Housing Authority, as follows: 4 TO: Board of County Commissioners THRU: Michael Wright County Administrator FRCM:Ed`wa d� . R g nr Executive Di cto IRC Housing Authority DATE: November 12, 1985 FILE: SUBJECT: Documentation for Project FL29-V132-001 - Housing Vouchers REFERENCES: It is recommended that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the County Commission. The Department of Housing and Urban Development, in their letter of September 30, 1985, approved our application for 25 Housing Vouchers and the Total Contract Authority in the amount of $110,722 has been reserved pending the submission of required documents. When the requested documents have been received and approved by HUD they will execute the Annual Contributions Contract and forward to us for execution. The documentation required by HUD is attached and submitted for consideration and approval of the Board of County Commissioners. 1. HUD Form 52673, Estimate of Total Required Annual Con- tributions and HUD Form 52672, Supporting Data for Annual Contributions Estimates. I recommend the County Commission authorize the Chairman of the Board to execute HUD Form 52673 with attachments for transmittal to the Jacksonville Office of HUD. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously authorized the Chairman to execute HUD Form 52673 with attachments for transmittal to the Jacksonville Office of HUD. 5 N 0 V 2 0 1985 Bou 62 FACE 771 r- NOV 2 0 1985 BOOK 62 FArUE 7.72 Estimate ,of Total U.S. Department of Housing 's and Urban Development t>� Required* Annual section 8 1 P Contributions Housing Assistance Payments Program Note: See Instructions In appropriate program handbooks. OMB No. 2502-0348 (exp.10/31 /E:: 1. Public Housing Agency (Name and Ad&*") 2 Project No. Indian River County Board of County Comissioners F i L 2 9 IV 1 1 12 10 0 1 1840 25th St., Suite S-319 3. submission Vero Beach, F1a.32960-3394 ® Original ❑ Revision No.: 4. Annual Contributions Contract No, S. HUD Field OMlte B. HUD Regional Onka T. No. Dwelling Un8 !. No. Units Months A -3409E Jacksonville, F1_ -Atlanta, Gza- JAq g. Housing Program Type (Mark Ota) ❑ (a) New Construction ❑ (b) Substantial Rehabilitation ❑ (t)°Moderate Rehabilitation ❑�77 (d) Eslstlnq Housing Certtetstea VLJ (a) Mousing Vovehers 10. PHA Fiscal Year Ending Date (Mark one and complete yew) El (a) March 31, El (b) Jun. 30, Ex (c) September 30. ❑ tin Daeamber 31_ in. I nt h I 1. Maximum Annual Contributions PMA Estimate (Hous) Vouchers Only) PHA Estimate Total HUD Approved tHousin Vouchers Only)MUD Approved Total Meusl.9 Payments PHA Fee Housing Payments PHA Fee (a) (b) (t) (d) (e) (Q 11. Maximum Annual Contributions Commitment 101,797 8,925 110,722 12. Prorata Maximum Annual Contributions Applicable to a N/A N/A N/A Period in Excess of 12 Months 4,521 4,521 13. Maximum Annual Contributions 101 ,797 8,925 110,722 for Fiscal Year (Line 11 plus Line 12) 405 405 _ 14. Project Account -Estimated or 0 Actual Balance at Beginning of 0 0 0 Requested Fiscal Year 15. Total Annual Contributions Available -Estimated or Actual 101,797 8,925 110,722 (Line 13 plus Line 14) 3,228 3,228 • II. Estimate of Re4uired Annual Contributions PMA Estimate sl Vouchers OM PMA Estimate Total NUD A (Houw Vouchers Oral HUD Approved -real Mouaingla'ayments P ea Housing Payments FM ea (e) (dl (N M 16. Estimated Annual Housing Assistance Payments (Form 48,768 48,768 HUD -52672, Line 15) 17. Estimated Ongoing Administrative 4,521 4,521 Fee Form HUD -52672, Line 18 18. Estimated Hard -to -House Fee - (Form HUD -52672, Line 19) 405 405 18. Estimated Independent Public Accountant Audit Costs 0 0 Estimated Preliminary Adminis- 20. trative and General Expense (Form HUD -52672, 3,228 3,228 Lines 27 and 36) Carryover of Preliminary Admin - 21. istrative and General Expense not Expended in the 0 0 Previous FY Ending:( I I ) 22. Estimated Non -Expendable Equipment Expense (Form 0 0 HUD -52672, Line 32) Carryover of Non -Expendable 23. Equipment Expense not Expended in the Previous FY Ending: ( I I ) 0 0 - 24. Total Annual Contributions Required - Requested Fiscal Year (Lines 16 through 23) 48,768 8 ,154 56,922 25. Deficit at End of Current Fiscal Year - Estimated or 0 0 0 Actual 6 26. Total Annual Contributions Required (Line 24 plus Line 25) 48,768 8,154 56,922 Nota: See Instructions in appropriate program handbooks. OMB No. 2502-0348 (exp. 10/31/86) Estimated Project Account X Pro) m No. 27. Balance at End of Requested F,L 2 i9 V 1 3 2 100 1 L submission Fiscal Year(Line 15 minus 53,029 771 53,800 ❑ Revision No. Line 26) 4. No. of Dwelling Units S. No. of unit Months Provision for Project Account - 25 1 189 Part I Estimate of Annual Housing Assistance Payments R Irad �V Bedroom Sive of Dwelling units N) Number of Monthly Gross Dws" Rowpaymsnd units Standard Family (bl lc) 28. Requested Fiscal Year Increase Uex Months Annual Housing Under Assistance Payments hive M lYl 6. 0 BR (decrease)(Line 27 minus 53,029 771 53,800 75 15 375 8. 2 BR Line 14) 9. 3 BR 7 4.16 119 337 111. Annual Contributions Approved Total Annual Contributions U-& Depisrussam of ftwWf and Ur4tan Dasbpmem Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments Program l� air Nota: See Instructions in appropriate program handbooks. OMB No. 2502-0348 (exp. 10/31/86) 29. Approved - Requested Fiscal X Pro) m No. Year (Line 26 plus increase, if F,L 2 i9 V 1 3 2 100 1 L submission any, on Line 28) ® original ❑ Revision No. Source of Total Contributions 4. No. of Dwelling Units S. No. of unit Months 30. Approved - Requested Fiscal 25 1 189 Part I Estimate of Annual Housing Assistance Payments R Irad �V Bedroom Sive of Dwelling units N) Number of Monthly Gross Dws" Rowpaymsnd units Standard Family (bl lc) Year. • - Uex Months Annual Housing Under Assistance Payments hive M lYl 6. 0 BR (a) Requested Fiscal Year IBR 10 303 98 2nq 75 15 375 8. 2 BR Maximum Annual Contributions 9. 3 BR 7 4.16 119 337 Commitment (Line 13 or Line 10. 4 BR it. 29, whichever is smaller 12. (b) Project Account (Line 29 13. s Line 30(a)) /n 16. Total ► Signature N m itla of PHA ort official (and date) Signature, h el (and date) Pa c B. Ly40(s firman - ARD OF COUNTY 0 ISSIONERS Page 2 of 2 Supporting Data for Annual Contributions Estimates U-& Depisrussam of ftwWf and Ur4tan Dasbpmem Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments Program l� air Nota: See Instructions in appropriate program handbooks. OMB No. 2502-0348 (exp. 10/31/86) t. Puodc Hawing Agency (wail .ad Adanaa) X Pro) m No. Indian River County Board of County Commissioners 1840 25th St., Suite S-319 F,L 2 i9 V 1 3 2 100 1 L submission Vero Beach, Fla. 32960-3394 ® original ❑ Revision No. 4. No. of Dwelling Units S. No. of unit Months 25 1 189 Part I Estimate of Annual Housing Assistance Payments R Irad �V Bedroom Sive of Dwelling units N) Number of Monthly Gross Dws" Rowpaymsnd units Standard Family (bl lc) Amur" Monthly Paysbta M )busing Toward Assistance Groan t Payments (d) IN Uex Months Annual Housing Under Assistance Payments hive M lYl 6. 0 BR T. IBR 10 303 98 2nq 75 15 375 8. 2 BR 9. 3 BR 7 4.16 119 337 17,1 Is 10. 4 BR it. 12. 13. 14. 16. Total ► : 48,768 Part II Calculation of Estimated Ongoing Administrative Fee URN Momhe HUD Published 2-8111 Product of N) x Far W(ba can n caumna N►■nit 4c) ubplNe Administrative Fee Paewd >< 44 a til) 16. ' 17. 18. Total Part Ill Calculation of Estimated Hard -to- House Fee (Existing Housing Certificates and Housing Vouchers Only) 19. F/// �NOV 2 0 195 bw Estimated Number of Foe Per Family Total Ha6taftouu Fambin FFee (a) x N) = (9) 9 .45 1 405 7 BOOK PAGE 'i 1f3 N ®V 2 0 1995 _.. 80oK 62 mr 774 Part IV Calculation of Estimated knmm " Preliminary Expense PM Eako n, WiD M"1kww , Administrative Expenses 20. Administrative Salaries 2,282 21. Employee Benefit Contributions 476 22. Legal Expense 23. Travel Expense 24. Sundry 25. Office Rent 26. Accounting and Auditing Fees 27. Total Administrative Expenses 3,018 Non -Expendable 28. Office Equipment Equipment Expenses 29. Office Furnishings 30. Automotive • 31. Other 32. Total Non -Expendable Equipment Expenses General Expenses 33. Maintenance and Operation Vtor�Expend. Equip. onto U. Insurance 35. Sundry 210 36. Total General Expense 210 Total Preliminary 37. Sum of Lines 27, 32, and 36 Expenses 3,228 Previous Editions Are Obsolete HUD -52672 (2-85) HB 7420.7 BACK-UP DOCUMENTATION FOR PRELIMINARY FUNDS REQUEST ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES: Administrative Salaries: (Based on 9 months) Executive Director ($31,000 Annual x 2%) Housing Auth. In Kind Program Manager ($19,400 Annual x 5%) $ 727 Section 8 Technician ($15,000 Annual x 10%) $1,151 Clerk/Typist ($10,800 Annual x 5%) $ 404 Employee Benefit Contribution: (Based on 9 Months) Health Insurance, State Retirement, Social Security, Other $ 476 Sundry: (Office Supplies and cost of one File Cabinet. 260 TOTAL ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES: $3,018 GENERAL EXPENSES: Sundry: (Advertising, Fuel/Lube) $ 210 TOTAL GENERAL EXPENSES! $ 210 TOTAL PRELIMINARY EXPENSES AFTER ACC $3,228 TOTAL ESTIMATED BUDGET BEFORE ACC $ 00 AFTER ACC $3,228 F.& I. - FAA and FP&L Communications Tower Leases The Board reviewed memos from General Services Director Dean, as follows: TD• The Honorable Members of the Board of, -County Commissioners THRU: Michael Wright County Administrator H. T. "Sonny" e n Director FROM: General Services DATE: November 7, 1985 FILE: FAA Communications SUBJECT: Tower Lease REFERENCES: The County -owned Communications tower located at Hobart Park has been a success. All participating entities are.well satisfied with their investment. There is a certain amount of up -keep and power expenses that will have to be addressed on a monthly basis. The average power bill has been over two -hundred dollars ($200.00) per month. Since the tower was designed for a minimum of twenty antennas and we only have twelve on it now, I feel we should lease the available space to individuals that desire it in order to off -set our expenses. We have put together a standard lease form and a lease schedule that will allow us to treat everyone the same. The Federal Aviation Administration has requested space at an annual rate of $2,160.00. It is recommended by staff to enter into this attached agreement as approved by our legal staff. TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: November 12, 1985 FELE: the Board of County Commissioners THRU: Michael Wright County Administrator H. T. "Sonny" an Director FROM: General services SUBJECT: FPL/Communications Tower Lease REFERENCES: Attached is a copy of a,proposed lease with Florida Power and Light and Board of County Commissioners for subject tower space. It is recommended by staff that the County enter into this lease as stipulated. 9 NOV 2 0 1985 MOK PAGE 71 N OV 2 0 1995 eooK 6 PAGE 776 The Administrator asked Director Dean to explain how the price figures for space.on the tower were.arrived at. Director Dean explained that he talked to people in the business of leasing such tower space, and the price is based on the height at which the particular antenna is located on the tower. The schedule arrived at is competitive for our area. Director Dean emphasized the advantage of deriving revenue from the tower to pay for the required maintenance and monthly expenses, and Administrator Wright pointed out that through these leases, we would be turning a liability into an asset. Discussion ensued at length regarding the fact that the FAA lease, which is a 10 year lease, is very one-sided in favor of the FAA, and Commissioner Bird asked about having a clause to reserve our right to bump someone off the tower if we should have need of the space in the future for some governmental purpose. It was noted that eventuality was covered in the lease with FP&L and their lease also had a 30 day termination clause. Director Dean advised that Attorney Vitunac drew up the leases, but the Federal Government won't use our lease. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, to approve the proposed leases with the FAA and FP&L. Commissioner Bowman continued to express her dissatisfaction with the FAA lease, which she pointed out contained nothing as to any liability insurance nor as to a specific location on the tower. She felt the FP&L lease is a much better one. Administrator Wright noted that we can modify the FAA lease and send it back to them, and Chairman Lyons concurred, noting that actually they need us more than we need them. Commissioners Scurlock and Wodtke withdrew their Motion to approve both leases. Commissioner Wodtke felt if we are locked into a ten year lease, there should be some type of escalation clause.and also 10 some kind of hold harmless clause because the FAA would have their installers working on the tower. Administrator Wright suggested that we send the FAA back a standard lease, but recommended approval of the FP&L lease. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved the Tower Space Lease with Florida Power & Light and authorized the signature of the Chairman. TOWER SPACE LEASE STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER Indian River County Board of County Commissioners, whose address is 1840 25th Street. Vero Beach. Florida 32950, hereinafter called "Lessor.": and Florida Power & Light Company, which is located at 9250 West Flagler. Miami. Florida 33174. WITNESSETH: 1. In consideration of rents, covenants, and agreements hereinafter reserved. the Lessor does hereby grant permission to the Lessee to install and operate the following described radio and operation equipment on Lessor's property at: Kiwanis-Hobart Park Indian River County. Florida Latitude: 270 14' 10" N Longitude: 800 27' 26" W A. Antenna to be located 200 feet above ground level on existing tower. B. Flexible coaxial transmission line between antenna and radio equipment. Such coaxial line to be anchored firmly to the tower. C. Radio communications equipment consisting of transmitter, receiver and accessories to be installed in the tower equipment shed located at the base of the tower to encompass an area not to exceed 10 square feet. D. Committed tower utilization space, including protective clearance above and below the antenna[s], not to exceed 4 feet. 2. The term 'of the lease and the Lessee's obligation to pay rent shall commence on the day of November . 1985. Notwithstanding the foregoing. Lessee's obligation to pay rent shall commence as of the date of use and rent from November 1. 1985 shall be prorated as to the date of use. The term of this lease shall be year to year following the commencement of the term provided herein and may be renewed annually thereafter unless within thirty days prior to the expiration of the term thereof.'or any renewal under this provision, either the Leesor or the Lessees shall notify, in writing. the other party to this lease that it does not desire to have the lease renewed. The Lessor reserves the right to terminate this agreement upon sixty days prior written notice by Lessor to Lessee that the property is needed for an overriding public purpose. 11 �� 0 19 5 BOOK 2 FADE 7 d 7 NOV 2 0 19 5 BooK 62 ME 778 The rent for each succeeding year may be subject to review and renegotiation yearly no less than sixty days prior to the renewal date contained herein. In the even the parties hereto fail to agree upon a reasonable rental fee for the following year. this agreement shall terminate automatically pursuant to the terms stated herein. The Lessor shall have the right to terminate this lease at any time if: A. Lessee's operations at * any time or in any way interfere with those of the Lessor and cannot be fixed within a reasonable time. B. Lessor decides to abandon the facility leased. or remove the same from its present location to a new location. C. The facility leased is wholly or partially destroyed from any cause. or condemned for public purpose. 3. Lessee snsll pay Lessor at 1 B40 25th Street. Vero Beach. Florida 32960 an annual rental of $1.580.00 dollars payable at a monthly rate of `6140.00 per month and due on the first day of each and every month during the term of this lease. 4. Lessee shall have the right to use the utility electrical service of the Lessor located at the tower site in order to operate and/or repair Lessee's radio units. 5. During the term of this lease. Lessor agrees that Lessee shall have free access to the tower and the premises on which the tower is located 24 hours per day, for the purpose of installing. maintaining and repairing. and removing its equipment. B. Lessee's equipment. its installation. maintenance. repair. and removal will: A. in no way damage the premises or tower structure; B. in no way interfere with the maintenance of the Lessor's property; C. in no way interfere with the operations of Lessor's radio or frequency modulation transmitting systems now installed on the property and premises of Lessor. If there is any interference. Lessee will take immediately. all steps necessary to remove said interference. the Lessor is authorized to take steps necessary at once and the Lessee shall be responsible for the cost or the steps so taken. D. comply with all applicable rules and regulations of the Federal Communications Commission. Civil Aeronautics Administration. and electrical codes of the city. county or state concerned. and all other laws and regulations. E. Lessee will not drill holes in or in any way degrade the integrity of the tower structure. 7. Lessor reserves the right to grant radio antenna leases to other parties on any frequency and shall be under no responsibility to Lessee for doing so. If Lessee should claim that the operation of such other parties involved interferes with its operation. it shall be the Lessee's obligation to work out the matter with such other parties and Lessor shall not be involved in any interference or operating problems. S. Lessor agrees: A. to maintain the radio tower in good working condition at all times in order that the Lessee may have the use of said tower as contemplated herein: and B. to maintain at all times the painting on the radio tower, and lights thereon. strictly in accordance with the requirements of the Federal Communications Commission.' 9. The Lessee does hereby agree to indemnify and save the County harmless from any and all claims. liability. losses and causes of action which may arise out of this lease agreement or the Lessee's activity on the demised premises. The Lessee shall pay all claims and losses of any nature whatsoever in connection therewith. and shall defend all suits. at the County's request. in the name of the County when applicable. and pay all costs and judgments which issue therefrom to the extent that lessee is held liable by a court of competent jurisdiction. 12 M M - 10. Lessee shall at its option self -insure with respect to the indemnity in paragraph 9 above. 11. Lessee or its agents shall not be Liable to any loss or damage to any persons or property of lessor resulting from any cause whatsoever. 12. This lease shall not be assigned without Lessor's written consent. 13. At the termination of this lease. Lessee shall promptly remove all its equipment, construction, and installations, and upon removal shall at its expense restore Lessor's properties to the same good order and condition as they were immediately previous to the beginning of this lease. Any written notice, demand, or citation under this lease may be served on Lessor at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach. Florida 32960 and on Lessee at 3305 Orange Avenue. (Box 460), Ft. Pierce, Florida 33450 . IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto signed this lease in duplicate this, -';-10 day of9prc-�in the presence of the undersigned witnesses. Signed, sealed and delivered in the INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF presence of: COUNTY COMMISSIONERS /W i tr i tress Witness Witness �ICWB. LYONS. Chairr�n_ I Attest By: !ti FREDA WRIGHT. Clerk o Circuit Court. 1 (LESSEE) FLORIDA POWER G LIGHT CO. By: (Name) (Title) Attest By: (Name] (Title) __City of Vero Beach - Request Easement along Jail Site The Board reviewed memo of Public Works Director Davis: 13 NOV 2 0 198 • BOOK 62 FACE 779 F'- NOV 2 0X985 BOOK 62:0 PA F.7-90 TO: The Honorable Menmbers of DATE: November 6, 1985 FILE: the Board of County Camtissioners THROUGH: Michael Wright, Request for Easement Along County Administrator West 40' of New Jail Site - SUBJECT: city of veru Beach FROM: James Davis, P. E. REFERENCES: F.P. Pendleton, City of Public Works Directo Vero Beach, to Board of County Commissioners dated UnCt. 3t, t985 The City of Vero Beach is requesting a utility easement along the west 40' of the new Jail Property south of South Gifford Road. Whereas the west 20' of the property will be vegetated buffer, the east 20' of the west 40' will be primarily used as a utility corridor. RECOI►�VDATIONS Staff recommends granting an easement to the City along the west 40' of the new Jail property subject to the west 20' being left in it's natural vegetative state. Chairman Lyons pointed out that deed of easement says nothing about maintaining the west 20' in its natural vegetative state. Director Davis reported that this was agreed on verbally with Frank Pendleton of the City of Vero Beach, and further noted that the City already has put some poles in this area and they haven't disturbed any of the vegetation on the west. He believed such language could be inserted if the Board so desired, however. Chairman Lyons felt this is very important as such things tend to get forgotten if they are not specifically set out. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously directed that language be inserted in the Deed of Easement re the west 20' being left in its natural vegetative state. (Copy of Said Deed will be made a part of the Record when fully executed and received.) 14 H. Final Assessment Rolls - 7th Court - 8th Ave. SW - 16th St. The Board reviewed memo from Civil Engineer, Jeffrey Boone: TO: THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE DATE: NovEMBER 7, 1985 FILE: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PHROUGH: . Michael Wright County Administrator James W. Davis, P. E. Public Works Directo 7v FROM: Jeffrey A. Boone �� Civil Engineer AND CONDITIONS SUBJECT: Final Assessment Roll 7th Court SW from 3rd St. SW to 4th Place SW 8th Avenue SW from 3rd St. SW to 4th Place SW 16th Street from 51st Ct. to Kings Hwy. REFERENCES: The paving and drainage improvements to 7th Court SW, 8th Avenue SW and 16th Street are camplete. The final costs and preliminary estimates for the pro- jects are as follows: 7th Court SW 8th Avenue SW 16th Street ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $ 18,042.00 $ 22,008.00 $121,997.96 ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION COST $ 17,135.91 $ 16,182.25 $113,716.30 PRELIMINARY PROPER'T'Y OWNERS ASSESSMENT $ 11.74/FF $ 8.77/FF $246.482/AC FINAL PROPERTY 0114ERS ASSES.SIJP $ 8.40/FF $ 8.40/FF $229.684/AC All construction costs are under the original estimates. The Final Assessment Rolls have been prepared and are ready to be delivered to the Clerk to the Board. Assessments are to be paid within 90 days or in two equal installments, the first to be made twelve months fron the due date and the second to be made twenty-four months from the due date at an interest rate of to over the Prime Rate established by the Board of County Commissioners. The due date is 90 days after the final determination of the special assessment. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS Since the final assessment to the benefitted owners will be less than ccmputed on the preliminary assessment rolls, the only alternative presented is to approve the final assessment rolls. PILX74ENDATION AND FUNDING It is recommended that the Final Assessment Rolls for the paving of 7th Court SW, 8th Avenue SW & 16th Street be approved by the Board of County Comnissioners and that they be transmitted to the office of the Clerk to the Board for collection. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the final assessment Rolls for the paving of the following streets at an interest 15 OV 2 0 1985 BOOK 62 FAGS NOV 2 0 ]9�5 BOOK tz FAGc 782 rate of 1% over prime, or 101%, and directed that the Roll be transmitted to the Office of the Clerk to the Board for collection:" Street Final Project Cost 7th Court SW from 3rd St. SW to 4th Place SW $ 17,135.91 8th Ave. SW from 3rd St. SW to 4th Place SW 16,182.25 16th Street from 51st Court to Kings Highway 113,716.30 (Copy of.Said Final Rolls are on file in the Office of the Clerk to the Board.) J. Proclamation -First Annual Florida Reading Celebration. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously proclaimed November 22, 23, and 24, 1985, Indian River County's FIRST ANNUAL FLORIDA READING CELEBRATION. 16 P R O C L A M A T I O N WHEREAS, The Adult Literacy Service of Indian . River County, Inc. has served the County for many years; and WHEREAS, The dates of November 22nd, 23rd and 24th, 1985 have been designated by The Florida Literacy Coalition for the First Annual Florida Reading Celebration; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, That November 22nd, 23rd and 24th, 1985 be officially observed as Indian River County's FIRST ANNUAL FLORIDA READING CELEBRATION and commends the efforts of Adult Literacy Service of Indian River County, Inc. for their efforts. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA Patrick B. Chairman ATTEST: BY ; J• ' c._ Freda Wright,,'Clerk 17 ®00l( 6/ PAF 73 �. NOV 2 0 1985 _ 20 1985 E? FacF 784 J.' Proclamation - The Air Bears Night Commissioner Bird explained that he asked this item be removed from the Consent Agenda because he feels it deserves special recognition: He informed the Board that he had the privilege of attending the function held honoring the Air Bears, which was one of the finest ceremonies he has attended while being a Commissioner. It was put on by the people from the Press Journal at Dodger Pines, and Commissioner Wodtke was Master of Ceremonies. Commissioner Bird emphasized what a great accomplishment this was for the Air Bears and the Board members agreed. Commissioner Wodtke noted that these young men were up against all the professional and Service teams, and they even had to pay their own way. It was really an outstanding feat. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously designated the night of November 16, 1985, as THE AIR BEARS NIGHT. 18 r ® rte► P R O C L A M A T I O N WHEREAS, In March 1984, four skydivers from different parts of the State of Florida got together and made a commitment to prepare themselves to represent the United States in the 1985 World Skydiving Championships; and WHEREAS, This four -man team is called THE AIR BEARS and one of its members, John Robbins, is a Vero Beach Environmental Engineer; and WHEREAS, The other members of the team are Tom Piras of Deland, Joe Nepute of Daytona Beach and Guy Manos of Key Largo; and 0 WHEREAS, The world skydiving competition took' place September 15th -25th, 1985 in Mali Losinj, Yugoslavia; and WHEREAS, THE AIR BEARS won the 1985 World Skyd_ i�vina Championships; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA That in honor of THE AIR BEARS the night of November 16th, 1985 has been designated as THE AIR BEARS NIGHT BE IT FURTHER PROCLAIMED THAT THE BOARD, on behalf of itself and the citizens of Indian River County, expresses congratulations and urges all the citizens to support THE WORLD CHAMPION AIR BEARS both in spirit and financially and to wish them success and happiness in their future endeavors. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAt�R R COUNTY, FLORIDA ATTEST: 1 BY%J Freda Wright, C1 k 19 Chairman 785 Nov 2 0 1985 BOOK 62 PnJE 786 REZONING 3.39 ACRES TO CH - OSLO & 43RD (MARINE/VENDEGNA) The hour of 9:05 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 Weekly 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 weekly newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being LL a N in the matter of in the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver- tisement; 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 adver- tisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscrib (SEAL) (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, NOTICE = PUBLIC HEARINR,n-r- T, Notice of hearing to consider the adoption of County ordinance rezoning land from: C-1, ommercial District and RS -3, Single -Family esidential District, to CH, Heavy Commercial istrict. The subjgct property is presently owned I Ven -Mar of Indian River, Inc., William B. Ma- ne and Steven J. Vendegna and is located on e south side of Oslo Road (9th. Street SW), ap- oximately 1/a mile west of 35th Avenue SW. The subject property is described as: THE NORTH 3 ACRES OF THE EAST 5 ACRES OF TRACT 4, LESS AND_EX= CEPT THE NORTH 600 FEET THEREOF, AND THE WEST 5.69 ACRES OF THE EAST 10.69 ACRES OF TRACT 4, LESS AND EXCEPT THE SOUTH 531.41 FEET THEREOF, SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 33S, RANGE 39E, ACCORDING TO THE LAST GENERAL PLAT OF LANDS OF IN- DIAN RIVER FARMS COMPANY FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE. CLERK OF THE. CIRCUIT COURT OF ST. LUCIE COUN- TY, FLORIDA, IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 25; SAID LANDS NOW LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. A public hearing at which parties in interest id citizens shall have an opportunity to be ard, will be held by the Board of County Com- ssioners of Indian River County, Florida, in the )unty Commission Chambers of the County Iministration Building, located at 1840 25th reet, Vero Beach, Florida on Wednesday, Nov. 1985, at 9:05 a.m. Anyone who may wish toappealany decision rich may be made at this meeting will need to sure that a verbatim record of the proceedings made, which includes testimony and evidence on which the appeal is based. Indian River County Board of County Commissioners By: -s -Patrick B. Lyons, Chairman a. 30. Nov. 12, 1985. Chief Planner Richard Shearer made the staff presentation, as follows: 20 1-0: The Honorable Members DATE: November 5, 1985 FELE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: SUBJECT: - MARINE/VENDEGNA REQUEST Robert T. Kdatifigl',AI2V TO REZONE 3.39 ACRES FROM Planning &„Developme Director C-1, COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, AND RS -3, SINGLE-FAMILY DISTRICT, TO CH, HEAVY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT FROM: P5 REFERENCES: Richard Shearer, AICP MARINE/VENDEGNA MEMO Chief, Long -Range Planning CHIEF It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of November 20, 1985. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS William B. Marine and Steven J. Vendegna, the owners, are re- questing to rezone approximately 3.39 acres located on the south side of Oslo Road and approximately one-quarter mile east of 43rd Avenue from C-1, Commercial District, and RS -3, Single -Family Residential District, to CH, Heavy Commercial District. The applicants intend to develop the subject property for a subdivision for trade contractors and other heavy commercial uses. On October 10, 1985, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4 -to -0 to recommend approval of this request. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the appli- cation will be presented. The analysis will include a descrip- tion of the current and future land uses of the site and sur- rounding areas, potential impacts on the transportation and utility systems, and any significant adverse impacts on environ- mental quality. Existing Land Use Pattern The subject property includes the south 198 feet of the Ven -Mar irrigation property and undeveloped land lying west of Ven -Mar. North of the subject property, across Oslo Road, is a grove caretaking business, an asphalt contractor, and a citrus grove zoned C-2, Heavy Commercial District. East of the subject property is Ven -Mar Irrigation and vacant land zoned C-2. South of the subject property is undeveloped land zoned RS -3. West of the subject property is undeveloped land zoned C-1. The staff anticipates that all of the C-2 zoning in this area will be converted to the new CH District. Future Land Use Pattern The Comprehensive Plan designates subject property and -the land north, of the west portion of the Oslo Road to 3 units/acre). The remaining par the land south of it is designated a tial 1 (up to 3 units/acre). the north 600 feet of the east, and west of it as part MXD, Mixed -Use District (up t of the subject property and s LD -1, Low -Density Residen- 21 NOV, 2 0 199 a: aooK �� �U "7 NOV 2 019$5. BOOK 62 FnF 78O The proposed CH zoning is consistent with the existing C-2 zoning located north and east of the subject property and is in conformance with the MXD land use designation. While the proposed CH zoning is not generally consistent with the LD -1 land use designation, staff feels that special conditions exist which would allow all of the subject property to be rezoned to CH. The Ven -Mar property extends 798 feet south of Oslo Road with the.. north 600 feet being zoned C-2 and the south 198 feet zoned RS -3. Because the south 198 feet is being used for part of Ven -Mar's business, it seems more reasonable to establish the Heavy Commer- cial zoning district boundary along Ven -Mar's south property line rather than •transecting the property. There is a policy in the Comprehensive Plan which provides for this situation which states: Certain parcels of land which do not conform to the policies for nodal development, but can be demonstrated to be suitable for commercial or industrial development and otherwise meet the performance standards described in this element, may receive consideration by the Board of County Commissioners for commercial or industrial zoning classification. Staff feels that this provision of the Plan applies to the subject property. Transportation System The subject property has direct access to Oslo Road (classified as an arterial street on the Thoroughfare Plan). The maximum development of the subject property could attract up to 229 average annual daily trips. Environment The subject property is not designated as environmentally sensi- tive nor is it in a flood -prone area. Utilities County water is.available. County wastewater facilities are not available. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, staff recommends approval. 4 Planner Shearer advised that since the property is split with the majority already zoned commercial and a commercial use, staff feels the rezoning should be approved. Commissioner Bowman asked about residential in the RS -3 area, and Planner Shearer stated that it is undeveloped; there is no residential adjacent. Attorney Chris Marine came before the Board representing Ven -Mar. He felt staff has pretty well covered the situation and noted he would be glad to answer any questions. 22 The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance 85-95 rezoning 3.39 acres south of Oslo Road and east of 43rd Avenue from C-1 and RS -3 to CH as requested by William Marine and Steven Vendegna. 23 i ®V 79 5 BOOK 2 PAGE 789 Nov 2 0 1985 � 600K lJ2 79 0 ORDINANCE NO. 85-95 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FOR THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, The Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the local planning agency on such matters, has held a public hearing and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this rezoning request; and 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 WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners has determined that this rezoning is in conformance with the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan of Indian River County; and WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners has held a public hearing pursuant to this rezoning request, at which parties in interest and citizen were heard; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning of the following described property situated in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: THE NORTH 3 ACRES OF THE EAST 5 ACRES OF TRACT 4, LESS AND EXCEPT THE NORTH 600 FEET THEREOF, AND THE WEST 5.69 ACRES OF THE EAST 10.69 ACRES OF TRACT 4, LESS AND EXCEPT THE SOUTH 531.41 FEET THEREOF, SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 33S, RANGE 39E, ACCORDING TO THE LAST GENERAL PLAT OF LANDS OF INDIAN RIVER FARMS COMPANY FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 25; SAID LANDS NOW LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. Be changed from C-1, Commercial District, and RS -3, Single -Family Residential District to CH, Heavy Commercial District. All with the meaning and intent -and as set forth and described in - said Zoning Regulations. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on this 20th day of November, 1985. 24 BOARD O OUNTY.COMMISSIONERS OF INIXAtV RIVER COUNTY M'AWAFA B :., L�OffS ,�airn ESTABLISH COMMERCIAL NODE BOUNDARIES - THE MOORINGS The hour of 9:05 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 Weekly 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 weekly newspaper published at Vero/o Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a in the matter of /'922all e �%G2 in the 'Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of /�` �/1 - �•' /�'�_ Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver- tisement; 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 adver- tisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed before me this _1_day ofA.D. '• i Mance ..0 !�,► (SEAL) (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, Ftorida) NOTICE OF REGULATION OF LAND USE— NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE ADOPTION OF A COUNTY ORDINANCE NOTJCE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners, shall hold a public hearing at which parties in in- terest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard, in the County Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, located all 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Wednesday, November 20, 1985, at 9:05'a.m. tc consider the adoption of an Ordinance entitled. AN ORDINANCE OF, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ESTABLISH- ING BOUNDARIES FOR THE 10 ACRE COMMERCIAL NODE LOCATED ON HIGHWAY A -1-A BETWEEN MOORING LINE DRIVE AND WINDWARD WAY AS DESCRIBED IN THE ' TEXT OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT AND DEPICTED ON THE LAND USE MAP OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHEN- SIVE PLAN: PROVIDING FOR THE BOUNDARY MAP OF THE NODE AND EFFECTIVE DATE. A map of the proposed node boundary is available at the Planning Department office or the second floor of the County Administration Building. Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need tr ensure that a verbatim record of the proceeding! is made, which includes testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. Indian River County Board of County Commissioners By: -s -Patrick B. Lyons, Chairman Oct. 30, Nov. 12, 1985. Staff Planner Jeffrey Goulet made the staff presentation and recommendation: 25 BOOK 62 PAGE 7191 NOV 2 0 1985 BOOK Ff1UE TO: The Honorable Members DATE:October 25, 1985 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: SUBJECT: Robert M. Keat ng, ICP Planning & Development Director THROUGH: Richard Shearer, AICP Chief, Long-Rdnge Planning ESTABLISHMENT OF BOUNDAR- IES FOR THE 10 ACRE COMM- ERCIAL NODE LOCATED IN THE MOORINGS ON A -1-A BE- TWEEN MOORING LINE DRIVE AND SPYGLASS LANE FROM: REFERENCES: Jeffrey A. Goulet JAr=iMooring Node Memo Staff Planner, Long -Range Planning 'JEFF It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of November 20, 1985. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS The Planning Department is initiating a request to establish boundaries for the ten (10) acre commercial node located on A -1-A between Mooring Line Drive and Spyglass Lane in the Moorings Development project. On September 12, 1984, the Board of County Commissioners adopted an amendment to the text of the Land Use Element of the Compre- hensive Plan which provided for establishing boundaries for each of the nodes as generally depicted on the Land Use Map and generally described in the text of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. On October 24, 1985, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4 -to -0 to recommend approval of the proposed boundary for the Moorings Commercial node. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS The proposed boundaries of the Commercial node located on A -1-A in The Mooring Development project were prepared based on the following criteria: 1. The general description and size constraint of the node as described in the text of the Land Use Element; 2. The existing commercial uses in the general area of the node; 3. The existing zoning pattern; 4. Property boundaries; 5. Traffic considerations; and 6. Environmental considerations; All of the nodes are generally described in the Comprehensive Plan. The Moorings node is described as: "A ten (10) acre commercial node is located within The Moorings Development project to serve the residents in the south beach area." 26 All of the property proposed for inclusion in the node is cur- rently zoned C-lA, Restricted Commercial District. The proposed node boundary encompasses blocks 56 and 57 of Unit Six of The Moorings, following the property boundaries and the C-lA Zoning district boundaries. Existing Land Use Pattern The area surrounding the node area is predominantly residential. There are single-family residences and condominiums ,located to the east, north, and west of the node's general location. Vacant land is located to the south of the node. Within the node's proposed boundary, there is a sales office for The Moorings Development Corporation located on the corner of Windward Way and A -1-A on Lot 56. There is a Savings and Loan Institution currently being constructed on the corner of Windward Way and A -1-A on Lot 57. The Savings and Loan is the first phase of "The Trellises" commercial center being developed by. The Moorings Development Corporation. The proposed site plan includes a small grocery and drug store, specialty retail shops, and offices. This commercial center should adequately serve the residents in the south beach area. Transportation System The Moorings Commercial node has primary access on Highway A -1-A (designated as an arterial on the County's* Thoroughfare Plan.) The node also has secondary access from Spyglass Lane, Windward Way, Bowline Drive, and Mooring Line Drive. Environment The node area is not designated as environmentally sensitive, but it is located in the 100 year flood plain (designated as Zone A-10 on the Flood Insurance Rate Map). Utilities Water and sewer facilities are available in the area at the present time. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above analysis, and the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that the proposed boundaries of the ten (10) acre commercial node located on A -1-A in The Moorings Development project be adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. DESCRIPTION OF THE MOORINGS COMMERCIAL NODE THE MOORINGS COMMERCIAL NODE IS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDS OF STATE ROUTE A -1-A. IT IS COMPRISED OF LOTS 56 AND 57 OF THE MOORINGS DEVELOPMENT AND THAT PART OF THE WINDWARD WAY RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT CONNECTS THE TWO LOTS. ALL LYING IN SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 33S, RANGE 40E, OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,. FLORIDA. CONTAINING 10 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. 27 BOOK 62 FACE 7,93 0\12 Q 1985,E -r BON62 PAGE 711_1�,4 Planner Goulet clarified that this was originally anticipated to be a node, and we now are just putting boundaries around it. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously closed the public hearing. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, to adopt Ordinance 85-96 establishing boundaries for the 10 acre Commercial Node on Highway A -1-A between Mooring Line Drive and Windward Way in The Moorings. Commissioner Wodtke questioned the wording in the descrip- tion which states that the node contains ten acres "more or less" as he wished to be sure we are not designating more than a ten acre node. Attorney Vitunac assured him that the legal description would take care of that. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously 28 ORDINANCE NO. 85 - 96 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION- ERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA ESTABLISH- ING BOUNDARIES FOR THE 10 ACRE COMMERCIAL NODE LOCATED ON HIGHWAY A -1-A BETWEEN MOORING LINE DRIVE AND WINDWARD WAY AS GENERALLY DESCRIBED IN„THE TEXT OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT AND DEPICT- ED ON THE LAND USE MAP OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COUNTY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR THE BOUNDARY MAP OF THE NODE AND EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida have amended the County's Comprehensive Plan to provide for establishing boundaries for every commer- cial, commercial/industrial, industrial, tourist/commercial, and hospital/commercial node; and WHEREAS, The Planning and Zoning Commission has held a public hearing and subsequently made a recommendation to establish boundaries for this node; and, WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners has held a public hearing on these proposed boundaries at which parties in interest and citizens had an opportunity to be heard; and, WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners is empowered to adopt these boundaries to assist in the implementation of the County's Comprehensive Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that: The attached map labeled as "Attachment All shall be the official boundaries of the 10 Acre Commercial Node located on Hi hway A -1-A between Mooring Line Drive and Windward Way. SECTION 2 EFFECTIVE DATE The provisions of this ordinance shall become effective • upon receipt from the Florida Secretary of State of official acknowledgment that this ordinance has been filed with the Department of State. 29 Noy, 0 1985 Boa 62 FADE 7 3 - NOV 2 0 1985 BOOK 62 .PAGE 726 -7 Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on the 20th day of November 1985. BOA OF OUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDI RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA 00, 10/ Y: CHAIRMAN ATTACHMENT A Moorings Commercial Node VNDEReuss -RS-3 PROPO EWODE BOUNDARY 30 .Ir u APPEAL OF ROYAL GARDEN VILLAGE SITE PLAN APPROVAL 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 Weekly Vero Beach, Indian River Coun ,1lorida.a COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER:r=','.'>s tg d STATE OF FLORIDA `- `"s p Before the undersigned authority personally appeared rryJ. 5ehiirpann">Jr. whp: oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press-Joureekly newspaper( lished at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attache{1_;cgpy of advertise being a in the matter of�' A�1 In the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver- tisement; 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 adver- tisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed (SEAL) of � - —A. D. (Clerk of the Circuit NOTICE OF PU13UCHEARING REGARDING APPEAL OF SITE PLAN DENIAL On Oct 24, 1985, the Planning and Zonti Commission of Indian River County, Florida i ting as the Local Planning Agency, denied It minor site plan application submitted by Jo Lyon to modify the approved site plan for Rol Garden VIIIageShopping Center. The Indian River County Board of County Co missioners will conduct a public hearing, rega ing the appeal by John Lyon of the decision the Planning &Zoning Commission to deny I site plan: The public hearing, at which parties Interest and citizens shall have ars opportunity be heard, will be held by said Board of Coui Commissioners in the County Commissi Chambers of the County Administration Buitdi located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Floris on Wednesday, November 20th, 1985 at R a.m. Anyone who may wish to appeal any derb which may be made at this meeting will need ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedir is made, which includes the testimony and E dente upon which the appeal Is based. Indian River County Board of County Commissioners By: -s -Patrick B. Lyons, Chairman. Nov. 1, 14,1985. Michael Miller, Chief, Current Planning Section, made the following staff presentation: 31 NOV 20 1918.1 BOOK 2 Far- 797 J NOV 2 O 1985 BOOK 62 PAGE7,98 TO: The Honorable Members DATE: November 12, 19 8 f i LE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: APPEAL OF ROYAL GARDEN SUBJECT: VILLAGE SITE PLAN -� APPROVAL i ro b'e'; ftnNf. 9 ea f ij h g, P Planning & Development Director FROM: Michael K. Miller REFERENCES: H Chief, Current Planning Section Disk: MIKE It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of November 20, 1985. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS John Lyon, owner, is appealing the Planning and Zoning Commission's denial of a minor site plan modification request for the approved Royal Garden Village Shopping Center site plan. Located on the east side of U.S. #1, south of the south relief canal, the shopping center site is 2.98 acres in size and is zoned C-1, commercial district. The applicant proposes to eliminate four parking spaces and construct a small (318 square foot) retail ice cream store. As a minor modification, this site plan was considered for final action by the Technical Review Committee (TRC) at its meeting of October 8, 1985. At that time, the TRC determined that the project, while eliminating four parking spaces and creating a demand for four additional spaces, could be accommodated within the proposed center without an increase in impervious surface area because of the sixteen extra spaces provided within the center. The TRC made several recommendations for changes in the center's circulation pattern to accommodate the proposed structure as well as several other changes. The applicant accepted these changes and revised his site plan accordingly. The TRC, however, determined that the design of the proposed building would constitute a sign exceeding the maximum amount of signage permitted. Consequently, the TRC denied the minor site plan request. According to the new site plan ordinance, minor site plans are final at TRC, unless appealed to the Planning & Zoning Commission. Since the TRC denied this request for minor site plan approval, the applicant appealed the TRC action to the Planning & Zoning Commission at its October 24, 1985 meeting. The Planning and Zoning Commission denied the appeal on a two to two vote, and the owner is now appealing the Planning Commission action to the Board of County Commissioners. ANALYSIS It is the staff's position that the action of the Technical Review Committee and the Planning & Zoning Commission was correct. According to the County's zoning code, business signs Of up to 150 square feet are allowed in the C-1 district. Since the proposed structure is intended to function as a sign, its size is regulated by the zoning ordinance, specifically Section 25(o)(2)(b)(v) By exceeding 150 square feet in size, the proposed structure would violate the sign ordinance provisions of the zoning code and could not be approved by the Planning & Zoning Commission. Kia In his arguments before the Planning & Zoning Commission, the applicant has contested the staff's determination that the proposed structure is a sign. The staff, however, determined that a building which is designed in such a manner as to advertise the product sold within constitutes a sign. In this case, the building is designed as an ice cream cone and would, if constructed, serve to advertise the product. For this reason, they staff determined that approval of the site plan, as submitted, would violate the provisions of the zoning code. The staff has recommended that the applicant redesign his proposed building so that it would not constitute a sign. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the appeal be denied and the TRC and Planning Commission action be upheld. Commissioner Scurlock inquired whether there is any need, as far as structural design of the building is concerned, to have it shaped like an ice cream cone, and Chief Planner Miller stated there was none that he was aware of. Commissioner Wodtke wanted to know if you build a church and it looks like a church, or a power plant, and it looks like a power plant, whether those are considered signs. Planner Director Keating agreed that churches generally are of similar construction, but that doesn't necessarily indicate what is inside. Not all ice cream buildings are shaped like ice cream cones; the proposed ice cream store actually visually portrays the product that is being sold. If a car dealer, for instance, has large plate glass windows so you can see the cars, that doesn't constitute a sign, but if the building were to be shaped like a Corvette, it would be considered a sign. Director Keating advised that the ordinances we have now are specific in saying that a sign can be structural or free stand- ing; it can have certain characteristics, but if it pertains to advertising or describing the principal use, then it is a sign, and there are certain maximum square footages that are allowed. This particular building exceed those square footages. Commissioner Scurlock felt, for example, if you decided to take the entire exterior of the building and paint an advertise- ment on it, that would be a sign, and Director Keating confirmed that it would. 33 NOV-2 0 1985 - nu 69 FA;E 7,99 - - Ir-NOV 2 n 1985 BOOK C19., FAGE Soo Attorney Louis B. "Buck" Vocelle, Jr., came before the Board representing the Twistee Treat Corporation, which has appealed both the decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Technical Review Committee (TRC). He informed the Board that when the developers of Royal Garden Village went to Planning for site plan modification, the only thing the TRC found wrong originally was a problem with the traffic flow pattern, and they made some suggestions. When this went back to TRC, they then said that they had a new ordinance that may or may not be adopted, and this would constitute a sign under that ordinance. Attorney Vocelle noted that Mr. Keating has just told the Board that the existing ordinance is very specific and prohibits this type of structure, but Mr. Keating in his memo to Planning & Zoning, said that: "The TRC determined that the design of the proposed building would constitute a sign under the definition of sign included in the new draft County Ordinance." In other words, it should be prohibited under the new ordinance which hadn't yet been adopted. Attorney Vocelle further quoted Director Keating as saying in his memo of October 18th that: "Although not specific, the present sign ordinance also prohibits designing a structure larger than 150 sq, ft, functioning as a sign." He emphasized that, as Mr. Keating correctly stated, the existing sign ordinance is not specific, and that really is the basis of their appeal. He further pointed out that the TRC determined that the building itself met all Code requirements and, in fact, exceeds many of the design standards. Attorney Vocelle advised that if the County is concerned about the possibility of the company going bankrupt or moving out in the future and leaving the building, Twistee Treat Corporation will agree to remove the structure at their own expense at any time they should ever vacate. He further contended that while many may not like this type of structure, it does meet all Code requirements, and unless there is an ordinance that specifically prevents it, the Board actually has no discretion to deny it. 34 Attorney Vocelle believed Commissioner Wodtke's point about churches and various other such type buildings is well taken. He noted that Kentucky Fried Chicken has red and white stripes and other recognizable characteristics and you know what is sold there; so where do you draw the line? Attorney Vocelle stressed that under the existing sign ordinance there is no definition of the word "sign," therefore, when a developer comes in and reads the ordinance, he feels it is all right to proceed with his building, and then finds that someone doesn't like the looks of what he proposes so they are going to prohibit it. Attorney Vocelle stated that zoning ordinances are in derogation of common law, and the courts have said they must be construed in favor of the property owner, especially when they are vague, because they serve to put the public on notice as to what is or is not pro- hibited; he felt this ordinance is about as vague as you can get. Attorney Vitunac asked Attorney Vocelle what the purpose of the shape of the proposed building is, and Attorney Vocelle noted that obviously ice cream is going to be sold in the building. He did not think there is any question about that, but their conten- tion is where do you draw the line under the existing ordinance as to what is or is not a sign. Attorney Vitunac then asked if the building's shape is in- tended to act as an advertisement for ice cream in the building. Attorney Vocelle agreed that just like flags in front of a car dealership, it certainly is intended to bring the public in and it does put the public on notice as to one of the items that may be sold in there. Administrator Wright asked if they could not put up a square building and flags out front for this facility, and Attorney Vocelle explained that everyone of his client's stores is designed in this manner, and they do not want to deviate from it. Chairman Lyons requested that Attorney Vocelle answer the County Attorney's question as to whether the shape of the NOV 20 195 C 1", -, . __ _1 35 BOOK 62 DU 801 NOV 2 0 1985 BOOK ti.)2 FAGE 802 building is intended to act as an advertisement for ice cream in that structure as he did not feel it had been answered. Attorney Vocelle felt that is part of it,* and Chairman Lyons noted that he would construe that as a "yes" for the record. Attorney Vocelle stated that while that may be for the record, he does not feel it addresses the point that they are here on today. He read the following quote from a court decision: "All persons similarly situated should be able to obtain plat approval upon meeting uniform standards; otherwise, the official approval of a plat application would depend upon the whim or caprice of the public body involved." He believed that is exactly what we have here with Mr. Keating's determination that this may or may not constitute a sign when in his prior memo, he said the ordinance was not specific. Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that Director Keating does not have a vote; he only makes recommendations that the Board considers. The Board makes the decision and votes the issue. Attorney Vocelle argued that when it comes to aesthetic zon- ing, you must key it into the public health, safety and welfare. Chairman Lyons did not feel we are talking about aesthetic zoning; the issue is whether this is a sign or not a sign. Attorney Vitunac asked Director Keating, in spite of his present memo, whether he believed that, under the existing code, this building is a sign or not. Director Keating confirmed that he does and the reason he structured the memo like that is that our current ordinance does not have a general definition of sign; instead it defines particular types of signs. On commercial property, there are only two types of on-site signs you can have - a business sign or. an outdoor sign. He believed the definitions of each particular type of sign are specific and do include structures such as this, plus the maximum square footage requirement. Attorney Vitunac explained for the record, since there is a court reporter present, that all the Board has to do today is 36 M ® M make sure there is competent substantial evidence on the record to make a finding of fact. The fact is that the applicant himself has admitted that his building acts as a sign and that is what he intended it to do. ,.All the rest is a matter of law, and if it goes to court, it will be a legal issue, and both Planning staff and the legal staff agree that our law does support the finding that this building is a sign. Commissioner Bird asked the Attorney whether he felt we are on good legal ground today to make a determination under the original sign ordinance as to whether this constitutes a sign. Attorney Vitunac advised that he did, and in answer to Attorney Vocelle's contention that this is capricious, he pointed out that Kentucky Fried Chicken would be in violation if they built their building in the shape of a drumstick. Commissioner Wodtke noted that in many shopping center areas, you see small photo centers, mini banks, post office facilities,, etc.; there is no question but that you know what they are. He wished to know if they will continue to be allowed. Director Keating confirmed they would. Commissioner Scurlock believed that Commissioner Wodtke is referring to general type businesses while the proposed building is for a special corporation and is actually a sign of their particular business. He felt there is no question that it is a sign. Attorney Vocelle argued that the portion of the building that is a sign are the blue letters on the front that say Twistee Treat. He continued that he has not been able to f,ind'any definition of a sign where an actual building has been held to constitute the sign itself and contended that the building itself, no matter what form it takes, is not the sign under the existing sign ordinances. Attorney Vocelle noted that the City Attorney expressed his opinion re a sim.ilar type building that since the City's existing sign ordinance did not specifically say that a building could be a sign, they couldn't prohibit it. He, 37 NOV *2 0 1985900K 62 PAGE 803 NOV 2 0 1985 Q Boa 62 DGUE therefore, took the position that unless the County's existing sign ordinance specifically says that a building in the shape of a product is a sign, then it is not prohibited. The County ordinance does not say that, and it is not specific enough to put' the public on notice. Commissioner Bird noted that Attorney Vocelle makes one contention and our County Attorney makes another. Commissioner Scurlock did not feel we have indicated that the building per se is a sign, and that is why he drew the analogy earlier that if you took the outside wall of that particular building and painted it with some large mural that advertised cigars or some product, or the wall is developed and designed in such a way that it advertises, that is what is a sign. Commissioner Wodtke asked what it would be considered if you built it like an ice cream cone but put a flat roof on it so that the entire building did not look like an ice cream cone. Director Keating replied that he would consider it a sign based on the criteria that Attorney Vitunac outlined before, i.e., would the building as it was designed constitute advertis- ing of the product. Director Keating then informed the Board that Chief Planner Miller has pointed out that in our current sign definition we specify that a sign can be a structural type of entity; also, in the overall definition of the Zoning Ordinance, a structure is defined as being among other things a sign. Director Keating, therefore, believed that Attorney Vocelle's argument that a sign has to be just the lettering part of anything is a fallacy and is not supported by the definition we have in the Zoning Code. Attorney Vocelle felt that while a structure can be a sign, it would not be an actual building that someone can walk into, but Director Keating pointed out that structures are defined as buildings also. Chairman Lyons asked if anyone present wished to be heard. 38 James Sullivan, Springlake Court, Vista Royale, spoke in opposition to the proposed sign. He informed the Board that his unit is located on the second floor; his Florida Room overlooks Royal Garden Village; and he felt this particular type of sign certainly would be considered an eyesore. Developer John Lyon believed what people are really objecting to is the ice cream cone and no one cares whether it is a sign or a building. He emphasized that when this building is erected, it will have to have an electrical inspector, plumbing inspector, etc., and it is a building. Don Driscoll, 20 Vista Gardens Trail, believed that he re- flected the feeling of many County residents, who don't oppose apple pie, motherhood, or ice cream, but they do oppose tasteless structures that violate the County Ordinance. Mr. Driscoll felt that approval of this ice cream cone type structure would open the door to many more similar structures throughout the County and next we would have something shaped like a hot dog or a pizza. He urged the Commissioners not to approve this touch of Coney Island. ON MOTION MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously closed the public hearing. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, to deny the appeal of the Royal Garden Village Site Plan Approval because the structure as proposed would be a violation of our ordinance and because the attorney for the appli- cant indicated there was an intent to use the build - Ing in some part as advertising. Commissioner Wodtke asked if Attorney Vitunac was saying that the proposed structure is in violation of our present 39 OV 20 1985 BOOK 62 F -AU -E � � NOV 2 0 1985 BOOK 62 f,�UC 806 _ ordinance which.has not yet been changed, and Attorney Vitunac confirmed that he was. Commissioner Bowman felt if this were tobe approved, it could lead to establishment of an architectural review board. Commissioner Bird hoped that our ordinance could be worded to deal with this situation. Commissioner Scurlock commented that we seem to have a tendency to mention things that may happen in the future, and he did not feel we should get involved in dealing with something that hasn't been approved yet. Director Keating pointed out that when some change is imminent, staff wants to make the applicants who come in aware of what may be occurring. He felt it is prudent to do so. Administrator Wright emphasized that only the laws that are in effect are used, but staff does tell people what may be coming. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. INDIAN RIVER FARMS WATER CONTROL DISTRICT - REQUEST FROM COUNTY MARL PIT Public Works Director Davis reviewed the following memo: 40 � r � TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: November 7, 1985 FILE: the Board of County Commissioners THROUGH: Michael Wright, County Administrator FROM: James W. Davis, P.E06 Public Works Director DESCRIPTIONS AND CONDITIONS SUBJECT: Request from Indian River Farms Water Control District to Pump From County Marl Pits for Irrigation and Citrus Freeze Protection REFERENCES: Michael O'Haire to Michael Wright dated The County has received a letter from the Indian River Farms Water Control District requesting the County to allow the pumping of the County marl pits for irrigation and citrus freeze protection. On Sept. 12, 1985, the County Public Works Director attended a meeting of the IRFWCD Board of Directors to discuss this issue. Basically, the discussion at that meeting resulted in the following proposal: 1) The Drainage District would supply a dragline and operator prior to the winter season to excavate shell/marl at the County's marl pit (4th Street at Lateral "A" Canal). This would supplement the County's dragline so that a sufficient stockpile of material is mined prior to the winter season. During the winter months (December -March), the County would cease de -watering the pit so that the water level could rise. If a freeze is predicted, the Drainage District would be authorized to pump out of the pit to surcharge the canal system, thus allowing citrus growers a good reservoir for freeze protection pumping. 2) If the County ceases mining or use of the pits and land, the Drainage District would purchase or lease the property from the County for further use. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS The Public Works Division is of the opinion that the proposal could be R mutually beneficial to the County and Drainage District. The benefits to the County include: 1) The County's dragline could be taken out of operation in the winter months for preventive maintenance and repairs. It could also be used for other projects at that time. --A fuel savings could probably be realized. 2) The mined material would have a chance to dry when stockpiled. Also, the County would not have to operate the dewatering pump. 3) The County would not be placed in a future liability position by owning a borrow pit if the land were sold to the Drainage Dis- trict when mining is complete. Present disadvantages may include: 1) County liability if the Drainage Districts operator or equipment were injured while mining the County -pit in the Fall. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Drainage District and County proceed to draft an agreement as requested by Michael O'Haire. This agreement would be brought before the Board of County Commissioners for approval. 41 BOOK FAJE SQ7 V 2 0 1985 NOV 2 0 7985 BOOK 62 FA E 8+0 Director Davis noted that we need that shell to maintain the 400 miles of unpaved roads we do have, and he felt it would be advantageous not to have these mining pits on"the County inventory after they are mined out. He recommended going along with the agreement suggested by Attorney O'Haire. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, to proceed as set out in the staff recommendation. Commissioner Bowman had some objection to turning these marl pits over to the Water Control people when they are mined out as she wondered if we may not need this water supply at some time for our own use. Administrator Wright believed we could word the agreement to deal with that. Commissioner Wodtke did not feel the District would have any problem with language stating that should there be a demonstrated need for potable water for the people of Indian River County that we have certain rights. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. BIANNUAL INSPECTION OF COUNTY BRIDGES AND WEIGHT POSTING The Board referred to memo of Public Works Director Davis, as follows: 42 TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: November 13 1985410F-G-�`9�S the Board of County Commissioners �Lo CO�r THROUGH: Michael Wright, C"/ County Administrator " �.: ^� r7 4 �.• SUBJECT: Bi -Annual Inspection of'Coun Bridges and Weight Posting Recommendations w FROM:'�114� REFERENCE81 George L. 'Marton, PE, James W. Davis, P.E., FDOT District IV Public Works Director Structures Engineer to James W. eawis da --4 as y 3, 1985 2) George E. MacDonald, PE, Wilbur Smith and Assoc. Inc. to Jim Davis dated Oct. 18, 1985 The Florida DOT's Bridge Inspection Consultant, Wilbur Smith and Assoc., Inc., has completed the inspections of 40 of the County's 85 bridges. The structural load carrying capacity of each bridge was determined using two types of rating analysis as follows: INVENTORY RATING - a load level which can safely utilize a bridge for an indefinite period of time. For this rating, there exists a conservative level of safety above and beyond the Ultimate Strength of the bridge. In Florida, cities and counties should use the Inventory Rating to post bridges for weight restrictions. If the County maintains a level of inspection which exceeds the minimum required (once every 2 years) and closely monitors the bridge, the County may, in its judgement, utilize for posting purposes load levels higher than those used for inventory rating. This is allowed in order to obtain the very maximum safe utilization of the highway facility. On the "Load Rating Summary" form attached, the "Inventory Rating" for each type vehicle has been calculated by Wilbur Smith and Assoc. Inc. OPERATING RATING - The absolute maximum permissible load level to which the structure may be subjected. Special permits for heavier than normal vehicles can be issued only if such loads are distributed so as not to exceed the ultimate structural capacity determined by the Operating Rating. Usually, Operating Ratings are 5/3 those of inventory levels. On the "Load Rating Summary" form attached the "Operating Rating" for each type vehicle has been calculated by Wilbur Smith and Assoc., Inc. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS The County has 3 options in posting those bridges that require weight restrictions: Option 1 - Post bridge at the "Inventory Rating". For .Florida Counties, this posting is recommended and is a conservative approach. This posting will not require more frequent monitoring and inspection than the 2 -year interval now required. The County's potential liability is minimal. Option 2 - Post. bridge at the "Operating Rating" if the maximum legal loads under State Law exceed the Operating Rating of the Structure. This is a very liberal approach. This posting will require more frequent inspection of the structure. The. County's potential liability is greater than posting the Inventory Rating. Option 3 - Post Bridge at sane level between the Inventory and . Operating Rating. This is a practical approach based on good engineering judgement, increased monitoring, and local conditions. Staff has reviewed each of the 40 bridge reports with Andy vaillen- court, AOT Structures Engineer, and has prepared tke--following data chart: 43 NOV 2 0 1985 BOOK 62 FAFjE 8v9SQ ReccamTended Justification Posting SOUTH COUNTY BRIDGES Bridge Location Inventory Rating Operating Rating speed control Posting Posting 884044 12th Street East of Kings Highway 25 tons No Posting 884043 4th Street East of Kings Highway 25 tons No Posting 884050 4th Street at 35th Avenue 25 tons No Posting 884051 20th Avenue over South Relief Canal 25 tons No Posting 884048 5th Street SW West of 43rd Avenue 25 tons No Posting 884047 21st Street SW (Tripsons Trail) 25 tons No Posting 884015 R.D. Carter Road 25 tons No Posting 880045 CR 611 (43rd Avenue) over South Relief mixed use. Gross 33 Tons Monitor transverse Canal 25 tons No Posting c 880046 Ranch Road at C-2 Canal 25 tons No Posting 884014 Rebel Road West of I-95 Gross 33 Tons Already Posted at 6 Tons 884011 R.D. Carter Road West of I-95 5 Tons 8 Tons 884010 Rebel Road West of I-95 5 Tons 8 Tons 880017 Ranch Road at 4th Street 25 tons No Posting 884016 90th Avenue West of I-95 25 tons No Posting' ReccamTended Justification Posting Gross 33 Tons Bridge at inter- section providing speed control Monitor pile each 6 months - Repair deck Gross 33 Tons ,.Repair deck - Bridge at Intersection pro- viding Speed Control Gross 33 Tons Short Span Bridge - Low ADT - Bridge in Good Condition Gross 25 Tons Transverse cracking on slabs - High use, high speed road Gross 33 Tons Replace bracing Gross 33 Tons Speed control at intersection No Posting 50 ADT - Used only by grove traffic - Bridge shows no distress Gross 33 Tons Repair approach undermining - high/ mixed use. Gross 33 Tons Monitor transverse cracking - shows it has been stressed Timber bridge - replace bad timbers 6 Tons Already posted @ 6 Tons 6 Tons Already posted @ 6 Tons Gross 33 Tons High speed - Some Transverse cracks Gross 33 Tons Piling showing rot- ting - monitor 1 1 I Bridge # Location Inventory Rating Operating Rating Recommended 884040 22nd Street @ Kings Hwy. Posting Posting Posting 884008 98th Avenue West of I-95 25 tons No Posting Gross 33 Tons 884012 4th Street West of I-95 25 tons No Posting Gross 33 Tons 880039 8th Street @ 58th Avenue 25 tons No Posting Gross 33 Tons C 1 884041 13th Street SW 25 tons No Posting 884040 22nd Street @ Kings Hwy. 7 Ton 8 Ton 880022 Oslo Road @ Kings Hwy. 25 tons No Posting 880024 Oslo Road over Lateral "G" 25 tons No Posting 880023 Oslo Road over 43rd Ave. 25 tons No Posting 880021 Oslo Road over Lateral "C" 25 tons No Posting 884009 9th Street S.W. over D-5 25 tons No Posting 884013 9th Street SW over D-4 25 tons No Posting 884018 9th Street SW over D-3 25 tons No Posting 880019 -Ranch Road 25 tons No Posting "AMW911INe+ 880042 CR 512 27 tons No Posting 880056 CR 512 - Park Lateral 27 tons No Posting 880041 CR 512 - Ditch 46 27 tons No Posting 880055 CR 512 over Lat. "U" 27 tons No Posting 880018 Ranch Road N. of Walker 25 tons No Posting 884026 Walker Ave at Main Relief Canal 3 tons 6.6 tons 880064 Wabasso Road 25 tons No Posting 880063 Wabasso Road. 25 tons No Posting 884049 43rd Avenue @ Main Relief Canal 25 tons No Posting 880048 58th Avenue @ Main Relief Canal 25 tons No Posting 880047 Wabasso Road at curve 25 tons No Posting 880044 Wabasso Road 25 tons No Posting 880020 Ranch Road 25 tons No Posting Justification Bridge - Law use Low use Observe piling year- ly - Law speed due to intersection Gross 33 Tons Already Postedr6 Tons Gross 33 Tons Steel piles - monitor Gross 33 Tons Steel Bridge Gross 33 Tons Intersection - steel Bridge Gross 33 Tons Steel substructures Gross 33 Tons Timber piles - Gross 33 Tons Gross 33 Tons Gross 33 Tons No Posting No Posting No Posting No Posting Gross 33 Tons Already posted - 6 ton. Gross 33 Tons High Speed - Citrus Gross 33 Tons Monitor helper bent Gross 33 Tons Slope protection required Gross 33 Tons High traffic Gross 33 Tons Gross 33 Tons High speed Gross 33 Tons Paved Ln BOOK ' ' 1.b+2 FAGS C)� NOV 2 0 1985 �i8;��,uiyl�\It � {� • \ S ►It � AIS /\( Of the 40 bridges inspected, staff recommends 29 be posted at 33 Tons Gross Vehicle Weight. The implications of this posting effect mostly tractor/trailer type trucks. The following type vehicles have state legal loads greater than 33 tons: SU 4 trucks - vehicles such as large single unit moving vans with 3 rear axles (35 tons) C4 & C5 trucks - combination tractor/trailer trucks (36.6 tons and 40 tons respectively.) The posting would require these trucks to be loaded so as to not exceed a Gross Vehicle weight of 33 tons. This means that the trucks would not be filled to maximum capacity. Five bridges would not be posted. Six bridges would be posted at 6 tons. - The cost to post these bridges amounts to approximately $70 per bridge or $2,450. Numerous minor repairs are necessary to almost all bridges. The County Road and Bridge Department budget may be able to fund the work. Chairman Lyons reported that we have just had a request presented to us by the Citrus League to delay posting these bridges. The memo from Mr. Davis covers forty of our bridges, and he wondered when inspections on the remainder are going to be completed. Director Davis believed that all have been inspected, but we have not yet received all the data. He anticipated that the data on those will be similar to what we have just received and require that about the same number be posted. Commissioner Bird asked if Director Davis had any problem delaying the posting as requested by the Citrus League. Director Davis noted that the DOT and the Federal Highway Administration are setting specific compliance dates for the posting. The inspection requirement is 12/31/85. A letter from the District 4 Facilities Engineer indicated that they expect the bridges to be posted within 30 days of the notification, and they. did notify us about three weeks ago. We have indicated to the state that we will consider their inspections and take whatever action is necessary so the whole state of Florida doesn't get into a problem getting federal highway money. Director Davis stated that he interpreted the deadline as January 31, 1986. 46 Commissioner Bird believed the Citrus League could get together with Director Davis and have their input within the next couple of weeks. Commissioner Wodtke reported that he attended a meeting with the Citrus League and Director Davis yesterday, and they do have a transportation committee that is willing to sit down immediately and make a determination. The League only became aware of this a few days ago, and they do have some concerns. He noted that Director Davis is working on a county -wide chart that will list every bridge and its rating, and we can see how this will affect the Citrus League, the packers, etc. Commissioner Scurlock suggested a Motion to defer action for two weeks until Director Davis can get input from the Citrus League. Director Davis noted that the letter from the DOT states that "We expect that within 30 days from the date of notifica- tion, the load posting requirements will be met or your office will have submitted to us a satisfactory plan for correcting the deficiencies that were found during the inspections of the structure." He was not sure, however, whether we have received formal notification or preliminary notification. Director Davis noted that in some cases we will not be able to correct the deficiencies because the bridges simply were not designed to handle the type loads imposed on them by these combination type vehicles. He informed the Board that we do have some discretion about what weight limit to post. In some cases the operating rating would require no posting, but in order to take that position, it is necessary to inspect the bridges more frequently, monitor them much better, and have some kind of replacement program to show we are taking action. Commissioner Wodtke believed some of these bridges may be on the impact fee program, but Chairman Lyons felt that only applies if the traffic is brought about by the impact of new construction. 47 N 0 V 800K 62 PAGE 1 NOV 2 0 1995 BOOK 62 PAGE Commissioner Wodtke noted that when the state took care of these bridges, they used the operating or.higher load rating, and now they are telling the County we must use the Lower rating. Director Davis believed that the state feels they have a more organized bridge inspection program and also feels they maintain their structures better than most counties, many of which don't even look at their bridges. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke to authorize Public Works Director Davis to meet with the Citrus League and the TPC and come back to the Board prior to the deadline set by the DOT. Chairman Lyons stated that, if in the opinion of Director Davis there are any bridges that are unsafe, then he felt the Citrus League can either use smaller trucks, find some other alternative, or wait. If a bridge is actually unsafe, it should be posted or closed. Commissioner Wodtke believed that most of the 6 ton bridges are posted already. Director Davis advised that there are a couple which aren't posted which have some problem - for instance, the South Relief Canal bridge at 20th Avenue has been rated as a 25 ton bridge. Administrator Wright did not believe that bridge would affect any citrus operations. Chairman Lyons asked how load weight limits can be enforced. Director Davis explained that the state of Florida has the authority to do this, and he believed some local governments do it also with a portable scale - their Sheriff's Department actually staffs people to monitor these trucks, and if they are overweight, they fine them. revenue producing. In some counties this has been quite 48 Discussion continued regarding liability, etc., and Adminis- trator Wright asked whether there are bridges other than 20th Avenue that need to be posted now. Director Davis replied that based upon the operating rating there were not, but if you are at the inventory rating, which is the rating at which vehicles can comfortably use the structure repeatedly with no restrictions, then about 30 should be posted. He emphasized that as you approach the operating loading, then the life of the structure will decrease and you are superimposing a heavier load than the structure is designed for. Commissioner Scurlock noted that we levied a 24 gas tax, and we could have gone higher. That could be a potential source of revenue to repair or replace these bridges. He believed the citrus industry will be paying a substantial part of that gas tax and felt there should be a coordinated effort between us as we all want to be sure the fruit can still move in a safe way. Commissioner Wodtke felt that is the intention of the citrus growers, and he was sure the League will work with us in an expeditious manner. Possibly, they can route their trucks to deal with this where they can cross certain bridges when they are empty and others when they are loaded, and he believed we can work on setting some priorities and doing some repairs. Commis- sioner Wodtke indicated that he would be happy'to work with Director Davis on this. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. CHANGE OF MEETING TIME FOR THE REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 27TH Administrator Wright informed the Board that we have a light agenda next week, and one of the items is a presentation by the golf course architect. We need to have a Golf Course Advisory Committee meeting prior to the meeting, and he would like to change the meeting time to start at 10:30 A.M. 49 NOV 2 U 198-5.11 EDOK� PECK 5 ®I Board members had no objection. BOOK ON MOTION by Commissioner,Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously agreed to change the meeting time of the Regular Meeting of November 27, 1985, to 10:30 o'clock A.M. REPORT ON MEETING RE MEDICAL EXAMINER 62 Fa�F Attorney Vitunac informed the Board that he and OMB Director Baird met with the Attorneys from the four county area last Friday to discuss both the Medical Examiner and the Public Defender. Not one of the four counties wanted to sign the Medical Examiner's contract, which they all agreed was a bad contract. It was pointed out that the staff at the state level is substantially rewriting the Medical Examiner law to provide the counties more rights re budgeting and bargaining, and it was the considered opinion of everyone that we should just sit tight and let the doctor stay where he wants to until the new laws pass. No one wants to let the morgue at the college sit empty. Commissioner Scurlock believed one of the reasons Dr. Walker decided he would go to the junior college was because the hospital decided they needed the space and asked him to move his operation. Commissioner Scurlock wanted to be sure that the Medical Examiner does have a place to function out of. Attorney Vitunac did not know the particulars, but did know that nobody even wants him at the junior college, and so by next year we may be able to set up a building somewhere owned by the counties, which would be made available to whoever the Medical Examiner is. In regard to the Public Defender's budget, Attorney Vitunac reported that while we did finance his budget as requested, the other three counties all said they would not do it. Various alternatives were discussed, one being a recommendation that we 50 request state auditors to audit his office to see why he ran out of money halfway through the year and why he didn't notify us in time for our budget year. Further, all four counties suggested a resolution to the state to be presented at all the legislative delegation meetings, requesting the state to fund the proper functions. Attorney Vitunac believed the law says we are not allowed to fund more than one public defender, and it, therefore, seems as if we are funding in contravention of state law. If we don't fund this office this way, however, we will be paying for court appointed attorneys. Attorney Vitunac continued that as a third solution, Martin and St. Lucie Counties are going to try to contract with a - private criminal firm for a set amount of money to handle all the cases the Public Defender won't handle and are hopeful of getting a fee lower than that requested by the Public Defender for the six months. The last recommendation was to eventually file suit against the state in mandamus requesting them to fund what they are supposed to fund. Chairman Lyons stated that he would be happy to sue the state in this regard. Attorney Vitunac continued that he would like permission to write a letter requesting an audit of the Public Defender's a office, and he also would like to be authorized to prepare a Resolution to present to State Representative Dale Patchett and actively fight this. In further discussion, it was felt the Board should pursue the options recommended by Attorney Vitunac, but also emphasized that we still will fund the Public Defender's office as decided at the previous meeting. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner. Bird, the Board unanimously authorized the County Attorney to pursue the options discussed. N 0 V 2 0 1995 - 51 BOOK 62 FAGS` 817 N OV 2 0 1995 BOOK 62 FADE 81 REPORT ON STATUS OF MINIMUM SECURITY FACILITY Chairman Lyons reported that he met with the architect, and sometime in the next ten dayse they will have'a draft of a minimum security plan to take before the Jail Committee. He advised that what they are looking at is to be sure this facility is suited particularly for work programs and will be set up so we can work as many of these prisoners as possible on the outside. Commissioner Scurlock inquired whether the person discussed at a previous meeting to be jointly hired by the County and the architect has been hired, and Administrator Wright confirmed that someone has been hired. Commissioner Scurlock asked if the Chairman was acting as liaison with the architect, and that was confirmed also. There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and unanimously carried, meeting adjourned at 10:30 o'clock A.M. ATTEST: Clerk 52