Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
12/4/1985
Wednesday, December 4, 1985 The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, met in Regular Session at the County Commission Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Wednesday, December 4, 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. Reverend Stan Sanford gave the invocation, and Commissioner Wodtke led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA Administrator Wright informed the Board that he would like to trade items by replacing Item 10 - Oral presentation of plans for the Sheriff's Administration Building - with a brief report by Planning Director Keating on the new State Growth Management Plan. The presentation on the Sheriff's building, he would like to have postponed pending receipt of more information. The Administrator further wished to add information received from Cubit Engineering in regard to aerial photographs under - Committee Reports. Chairman Lyons advised that he would like to give a report on the status of plans for the minimum security building. , ON MOTION by Commissioner -Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously added and postponed items as set out above. DEC 4 985 _ 900K DEC 41985 CONSENT AGENDA aooK 62 F.'E 8 Administrator Wright requested that Item B be removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion. A. Extension of Site Plan Approval - Larry Labadie The Board reviewed memo of Staff Planner Karen Craver: TO: -_. DATE: • The Honorable Members November 12, 198fiLE. of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: SUBJECT: Robert M. Kea i g, P Planning & Developm nt Director LARRY LABADIE'S REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL FROM: Karen M, Craver-�%�EFERENCES: L Staff Planner Disks KAREN It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of December 4, 1985. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS On December 13, 1984, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved a major site plan application submitted by Larry Labadie. Approval was given to construct a two -unit, 5,750 square foot contractor's trades building on the east side of Old Dixie Highway, 1/4 mile south of .8th Street. The project will connect to the County water system and utilize a private septic system. As the result of difficulties in obtaining financing, Mr. Labadie will be unable to begin construction prior to the expiration of site plan approval. Therefore, pursuant to Section 23.1G, Appendix A of the Zoning Code, Mr. Labadie is requesting a 1 year extension of his site plan approval. No ordinances have been adopted since the December 13, 1984 approval which would alter the approved site plan. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Larry Labadie's request for a 1 year extension of site plan approval. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously granted a one year extension of site plan approval to Larry Labadie, as recommended by staff. 2 B. Cubit Engineering Request to use Motorized VehicleonBeaches Environmental Planner Challacombe reviewed his memo, as follows: TO: The Honorable Members DATE: November 20, 1985FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: CUBIT ENGINEERING REQUEST SUBJECT: TO USE MOTORIZED VEHICLE ON COUNTY BEACHES Robert M. Ke ing ICP Planning & Develo ment Director FROM: e1-�-- REFERENCES: Art Challacombe Cubit Eng. Chief, Environmental Planning DIS:ARTCHA It is requested that the data herein presented be_given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting on December 4, 1985. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: On July 17, 1985 Indian River County hired Cubit Engineering Limited as a consultant to prepare a beach preservation plan. Included within the scope of work is a beach survey containing a limited number of beach profiles. In order to facilitate this task, the consultant is requesting authorization from the Board of County Commissioners to operate a maximum of two all terrain cycles (ATC) seaward of the coastal construction control line. The consultant has stated that the ATC's would be needed only during seven consecutive weekdays from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Ingress and egress for the ATC's would be provided at the following site locations: 1) Sebastian Inlet; 2) Round Island Park -,and 3) Beachland Blvd. - Ocean Drive. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: Upon receipt of the letter from Cubit Engineering Limited, staff contacted the City of Vero Beach, the Town of Indian River Shores, and the Florida Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Each jurisdiction stated that authorization to utilize the ATC's on the beach would have to be obtained by the consul- tant. A permit from the D.N.R. is also required. In addition, staff contacted the Florida Game & Freshwater Fish Commission and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine possible adverse environmental impacts. Staff was informed that, if the ATC's are properly handled, they should not have -an adverse impact on beach habitats. Resolution No. 81-57,,which restricts operation of all motorized vehicles on public beach in Indian River County, authorizes the County Administrator to approve.the use of motorized vehicles for scientific purposes. 3 BOOK 62 FADE S J 5 DEC 4 1985 _ r DEC 41985 BOOK The County tree protection and dune protection ordinance requires the express authorization of the Board of County Commissioners to operate motorized vehicles seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the County Commission give favorable consideration to the Cubit Engineering Limited request, providing the request is acceptable to the D.N.R. Staff further recom- mends that the Commission authorize the staff to coordinate with the City of Vero -Beach and Town of Indian river Shores on this matter. Commissioner Bowman noted that our ordinance provides that no vehicles may cross the dune line except at authorized points, and she did not believe we have any authorized points. She further noted that this is a local ordinance, and she didn't think the DNR has anything to do with it. In addition, she pointed out they say in the event of a major storm, they might have to revisit the beaches, and this could carry the project into turtle season. Therefore, Commissioner Bowman suggested that some limits should be set. Commissioner Scurlock felt this could be handled at the discretion and under the supervision of our Environmental Planner who will make sure that the dune line is protected. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously authorized the Chief Environmental Planner to supervise and coordinate the use of motorized vehicles on the beaches as requested by Cubit Engineering with the City of Vero Beach and the Town of Indian River Shores. C. Release of Amended Letter of Credit - Sanderling Subdivision The Board reviewed memo of Planner Boling, as ,follows: 4 TO: The Honorable Members DATE. November 20, 198kiLE:, of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: SUBJECT: Robert M. Keati g, P Planning & Develop nt Director RELEASE OF THE AMENDED LETTER OF CREDIT HELD FOR IMPROVEMENTS IN THE SANDERLING SUBDIVISION THROUGH: Mike Miller, Chief FROM: Current Develo FERENCES: c Stan Boling Disk: DISK Staff Planner It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular business meeting of December 4, 1985. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: The developer of the Sanderling Subdivision, Associates Manage- ment Group, Inc. (Thomas H. Collins, President), is requesting the release of the amended letter of credit held to secure -- construction of required improvements in The Sanderling Subdivision. The original letter of credit for $70,000.00 was amended in August and reduced to $1,362.00, which is now being held to guarantee sodding, seeding, and mulching work within the project. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: The Public Works Division has inspected the work and has verified that all required improvements have been constructed or provided in an acceptable manner. The Public Works Director has indicated that the remaining portion of the letter of -` credit may now be released. Thus, all terms of the Contract for Construction of Required Improvements for The -Sanderling have been satisfied. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the attached resolution, authorizing Barnett Bank of Central Florida to release or terminate the letter of credit NO: 1830 for Associates Management Group, Inc. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 85-133 authorizing Barnett Bank of Central Florida to release or terminate the amended letter of credit (No. 1830), Associates Management Group, Inc., (Sanderling Subdivision). E EC 4 ISS - BOOK 2 PAGE877 DEC 41985 RESOLUTION 85-133 BOOK E2 PA E 878 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AUTHORIZING RELEASE OR TERMINATION OF THE LETTER OF CREDIT HELD UNDER THE TERMS OF CONTRACT NO. SD -84-10-10-034 TO CONSTRUCT REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS IN THE SANDERLING SUBDIVISION. WHEREAS, Indian River County (County), and Associates Management Group, Inc. (Developer) have entered into a contract to construct required improvements; and WHEREAS, an amended irrevocable letter of credit (NO: 1830) for - - $1,362.00 to secure said contract has been issued by Barnett Bank of Central Florida (Bank) for the Developer, naming the County as beneficiary; and WHEREAS, under the terms -of the contract, the Public Works Director has caused an inspection of all required improvements, is satisfied with the work, and recommends release of the issued letter of credit; Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Board of County Commis- sioners of Indian River County, Florida that: Barnett Bank of Central Florida is hereby authorized to release or terminate the amended irrevocable letter of credit (NO: 1830) now good for $1,362.00. The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Scurlock who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bird , and upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Patrick B. Lyons Aye Vice -Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 4th day of December , 1985. BY: COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA a/ r CK B. LYONS h firman Attest: FREDA WRIGHT, erk Y' STATE OF FLORIDA Q• A e COUNTY OF INDIAN IVER I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day, before me, an officer duly authorized -in this State and County to take acknow dge- ments, personally appeared PATRICK B. LYONS and FREDA WRIG T, as Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners and'Clerk, respec- tively, to me known to be the persons described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and they acknowledge before me that they executed the same. WITNESS my hand and officialal in the County and State last aforesaid this 4.Zk day of Lg iAtA, , 1985. ZZI-doo- Not&d-ry lic 6 NOTARY PUBLIC STATE of fLORIDW D. Issuance.of Amended Florida_ Cablevision Corp. License The Board reviewed the following memo from Attorney Vitunac: To: Board of County Commissioners FROM: 9 Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney DATE: 11 /25/85 FI LE: SUBJECT: Issuance of Amended Florida Cablevision Corporation License REFERENCES: Bill Crosby, Manager of the local Florida Cablevision, has requested that the license issued by Indian River County to Florida Cablevision Corporation on August 4, 1982, which expires May 25, 2002, be amended to show the correct corporate name of Florida Cablevision, as follows: "Micro -Cable Communications Corp. d/b/a Florida Cablevision" I request authorization from the Board of County Commissioners for the Clerk to add the proper name to the original license. Thank you. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously author- ized the Clerk to add the proper name to the original Florida Cablevision Corporation license, as follows: 7 DEC 41995 _ Boa 62 FADE 879 I4P W C7 c� V .'+`'.\v 11 �r1�l•�yt R �,vi•Yt a+7 (f j r +4�.d,' • .,��'-c• r •t tr�d,•,ui'.V I,�^�!'�v' �••lTu" ,`"'n'�p ,�r � �,� C >'► I iauT`�'' `�,y�t., � , 4 � fU�+��h. yi>}: � .�:•i ��'"i • �"••i'' '0�' ' '�F+'f+M% .���' , P�. ,:.off. ' �f�'. '_•W' } / `u fih'!h`�?, Y , •' yy� ' \M1•Yi• :: t\\\V•. V\V\�a ': ..\ VJt ASN• 1,.\`� `6. �•4M1VVa � :-,9'• � L• . •ta�•.u• ^t•�s dt•L� {/ Y 1�?.��OV • V,�Cy`,,+��[( `� •' ;Clt •• ,.�>o<.�`'�A,y.�( ..2Sx .: i;...V A ✓az Sy r:;: •,�.'i' ! •, .q!. ,.k,• .;,%r• :�:, ., ryb :. �$.@^'. ;r .N y . '�,,�U.,�,`�y,. .YV.yty�.. Ytv` ;1�y x +,., L.,•,. -: .7.9`y. ;tt5n �o:. �,. i� �C r •i+[(�,,,,4�y.•' Vz �,=�'2 4�•.t �1,'Mi, W : �A!'iT � • . _ .!r ! 1 A'C'x.r• "' � • . „ Y �y} � �y . 5 ' `. SVi' i 1+"•, � V ,.�i : i d •. �Ys�i�rl•t,. ��v �� a�fi', �► � t4 a ra �g r�; } � 1y', till hflll•Ill lr ',••,• � .. ' / V I 'li , \`/ /•II• .�//I , 4•r lid• " 4ar ,��x�`��s'"''' �1 3�\�—t�_4�. - 1.111 � ,•1,1, 11 d •�• Itil 1 � �-' 1••��'r� ' 1 �-.,�..� fP7 +' mn �� n \s'V��': .rt_\ 4'E.• m-.�•_ •'e,,.,e_�. riw14�3aui'.+C9• i»"ra Ts'�•Ydr� si 1 till R\r! " tl- `'Micro Cable Communications Corp. d/b/a: \ t fir'.'• �,�'t�,;+4 . � ': �� - .. r .. � , ., .. - �i. `N>F' t r FLORIDA.: CABLEVISION' CORPORATIONw' .1235 16th Street •'. , � Has this date been granted, a' I i cense, b borate' fn Indian River County, �) Lt Florida for a period of. 20 -years Thivlicense +allows operation as a R"a franchised CATV system according sto';condMont-. f.Ordinance 82-7. ' +• The rates as shown on. the attached 3fx i vi -until-changes •�i A"''shall 'apply = r,ria2. ; ..,as authorized by procedures.of Ordfnanco 82-7. are :.approved and authorized This`.license is. approved by,`they Board' of.'County Commissioners of Indian sEs. �• / River. County. on." AuguQfi �, :� AR2 ,and expires 25 May, 2002. 1 4'"y ` �,. i Date Approved as to form INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BY ITS and legal fficie y BOARD OF CWNTY COMMISSIONERS By ` ��~ E fis' G �q randenbur - �. r *- <t� r C ty Attorney _ Don C. �Scur oc , Jr., Cha i �h'aF .�F � ., Kit• ,�rrcTi-'�•rte � y,� ��,.. .�•:6 .-,c-�s+�-�� ,.. P .•A �' sFaaz.'W �-l'4rT-S� -�lS . (t• .. aI :d* •a r J .�,t .� ...r• .a'.d rfii". "a s f....w::fe°,�ee•1'� r�'" T. •S..v�.'.�,�..d"r-•r'w�...<°• • - � �.w:�d�i.�f4.E:Gwrelt'�...�i:.'''f.• .�!d nF�.r �rB..s�7laii z.. , t, � � ��•�r •..e�'r. �..e�.�... '...er .a�., �. .el':,..,•A• .s:'..�..•� •rv..,.a.. : y ., �• Ili IIO�I• • +i •4v ' ' lil •'ti ,1i •i' •• a 11�.•� • ti? • tji` ill•' g "' 1%ilj 1 a i �►•»Y :tic..•. • -y/ y���.: 1X .1/ ��•�` 11.;:! 'r/,y;.Qyr 3- ••i; _.r.as."� r1• :4 7/,::.ye :•0: •' ,.re �:.a, �4:: vv/%•.: ;,.�./.` /i.:: �• :70.t�� : ://i <Ss ` y -:`� '' A7►�'' •;, ;.1.. - •A�. �A A � �P fD� .1 ' i.'.Ai. ,)• %, , 4j.• Ai:. 3'rrrt 1 rhi; .rri,. ;'' {.,t�.;,, � .A,.. .� �' �• nA ,` ..,A• ,r�.. a,' �..rl► 'a t ':bT.• i Y •. u"• ' R 1 '' Al •.."�i�i' iJ�.oW Q Y'iI'INl+"iisti r i4 �. (�itMt ��V�jj��' 4` a <��s v�ffi -�' •.kms• 'fit 4 ar i4RA• • ¢ .f a,� . ��7"�`�... f a4Ryfet ,, ��7� !A4>A. • 1 JI tla. .r� {i•� ��c' . arl n4R :� A .� �I •�fT+" . ,'�A .IT4�lw� n s, arr6�Q _ v%n' Y -n .:.v-`�.i44 5114 >. 4.�.4.. �� ..4414 � x.44 e' 1444 \: '•:$' :cls �K'e r�•�j'Ce'rZ •writ,. A' it �•.jt$' '•�,..s' 'fi�%iQ`lWt�i'Sr'Z` "3Y '4'gb.++��./^•k.�!�,�' �•"^, '�5.� fv yY{'k' •3 v� : ri:�. •r•�A�.tt�i` � ,{rt• .,,�� , i •��,�x•T•Lytp0.�._'' � u �M •�. • :f; ay'';4i �,ay. �{'„ ...�,.' /+w�•�1:4CM' '4�1'�A.. '. •'•V�•Sn• • ' � 1 ;'e•�,'«�•". a4.`�-- „Ap5' .� xar3 %, ® GOES 181 , _ LITHO IN U.S.A. I I . E. Contracts for Public Defender's Attorneys The Board reviewed the following letter from Public Defender Elton H. Schwarz: MARTIN COUNTY OFFICE: (MAIN OFFICE) ' SUITE 215, COURTHOUSE ANNEX P. O. BOX 2314 STUART. FLORIDA 33495-2314 ( 305) 283-6760 EXT. 380 ELTON H. SCHWARZ PUBLIC DEFENDER NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA November 15, 19B5 Gary Brandenburg, Esquire Indian River County Attorney 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 RE: Special Assistant Public Defenders Dear Gary: DIRECT LINES TO MAIN OFFICE: ( 305) 287.2966 (STUART) ( 305) 464-8564 ( FORT PIERCE) (305)562.1515(VERO BEACH) REPLY TO: Sb art I sincerely appreciate the cooperation expressed by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County by agreeing to retain Katharine R. Hammond, Jason Hedman, and David G. Wotton as special assistant public defenders effec- tive January 1 , 1986. The proposed contractual agreements executed by these individuals and myself in quadruplicate are enclosed herewith. Upon being approved by the Board of County Commissioners, I will appre- ciate your returning three executed copies of each to my office here in Stuart. Very truly yours, E opt . Schwarz ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the contracts with special assistant public de- fenders Katherine R. Hammond, Jason Hedman, and David G. Wotton, and authorized the signature of the Chairman. SAID CONTRACTS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD. 9 BOOK 62 FACE 88.1 DEC 4 1985 BOOK fAGc E. Resolution in Support of Adequate Funding for Public Defender ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 85-134 requesting the State to providing adequate funding for the Public Defender's office. RESOLUTION NO. 85-134 A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO THE GOVERNOR AND THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA IN SUPPORT OF ADEQUATE FUNDING FOR THE PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE IN THE 19TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT. WHEREAS, the 19th Judicial Circuit is comprised of Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin and Okeechobee Counties; and WHEREAS, the Public Defender for the District has requested each of the named counties for county contributions to his budget for fiscal year 1985-86 so that he will be able to perform his State -mandated duties in the defense of defendants charged with criminal charges; and WHEREAS, Florida law provides that the funding of the Public Defender's Office is the responsibility of the State and not the counties; and WHEREAS, if the counties fail to authorize a budgetary increase for the Public Defender's Office, in reliance on State law, his office will decline representation of a substantial number of persons charged with criminal offenses who will then be given court-appointed lawyers by the trial judge, at the expense of the county; and WHEREAS, this latter procedure would result in even more expense to the county than by financing the Public Defender's Office by direct county contribution; and WHEREAS, Indian River County feels that the State is not meeting its responsibility and is handicapping the County with substantial unbudgeted expenses; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, THROUGH ITS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS that: 1. The Governor and the Florida Legislature are respectfully requested to properly fund the budget of the Public Defender of the 19th Judicial Circuit for the 1985-86 fiscal year, so that the counties comprising that circuit will not have to contribute substantial unbudgeted county moneys for the support of a State responsibility. 10 2. The Governor and Legislature of the State of Florida are respectfully requested to reimburse Indian River County for the amount of money which will be spent by it during fiscal year 1985-86, approximately $43,000, for the operation of the Public Defender's Office. The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Scurlock who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bird and, being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Patrick B. Lyons Aye Vice Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. Aye Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye The Chairman thereupon declared Resolution No. 85334 duly passed and adopted this 4th day of December 1985. BOARD O OUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF IND RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By .; a rick B. y'o , i; , Chairman 1981 CATERPILLAR ROAD GRADER Public Works Director Davis reviewed the following memo and recommendations: TO: THE HONORABLE mmms OF= DATE: November 20, 1985 FILE: BOARD OF COUNTY CO1MaSSIONERS THROUGH: Michael Wright, - County Administrator SUBJECT: 1981 Caterpillar Road Grader w FROM:James W. Davis, P.E., REFERENCES: Public Works Director DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS In March, 1981, the County purchased a 1981 Caterpillar Road Grader from Kelly Tractor Ccnpany under the "Total Cost Bid" program. Under this bid, Kelly Tractor agreed to repurchase the grader at the end of 5 years or 5,000 hours of operation, whichever came first. At this time, the grader has been with the County for 4 years 8 months and has 4,800 hours on the clock. The guaranteed repurchase price was $72,189. Kelly Tractor also agreed to a guaranteed total cost of. repairs of $7,250 for the 5 -year period . At this time, the County has spent $4,406.11 for repairs, not including maintenance' "tires, oil, etc. (which amounts to $12,811.15 for the 5 -year period). 11 DEC 41985- BOOK 62 FACE 883 DEC 4 1985 BOOK 62 FACE 884 ALTERNATIVES AMID ANALYSIS In comparing the maintenance and repair costs of the County graders, staff presents the following data: Equipment Maintenance Costs 10-01-80 10-01-81 10-01-82 10-01-83 10-01-84 Total to to to to to 9-30-81 9-30-82 9-30-83 9-30-84 9-30-85 #50 Champion 1974 $3,942.49 $4,902.92 $14,039.74 $14,915.78 $5,867.30 $43,668.23 #83 Champion 1978 $2,874.70 $7,176.42 $14,950.52 $ 8,930.18 $14,200.18 $48,132.00 #303 Champion 1982 N/A $ 714.01 $ 3,256.87 $ 6,457.50 $ 7,560.50 $17,988.88 #226 _ Galion 1983 N/A N/A $ 11037.71 $ 3,797.00 $ 6,300.21 $11,134.92 #171 Caterpillar 1981 $ 446.71 $2,309.95 $ 4,445.35 $ 41044.96 $ 5,970.29 $17,217.26 *Figures do not reflect a 5 -year service period From. the above figures, the Caterpillar Road Grader has experienced less maintenance/repair costs than the other graders. In analyzing the alternatives, staff has considered Alternative # 1 Retain the 1981 Caterpillar Grader in the Road and -Bridge Fleet and not request the repurchase in the amount of $72,189. Staff is of the opinion that this is not a desirable option as maintenance/repair costs would probably escalate as the equipment ages. Alternative # 2 Request Kelly Tractor to honor the repurchase agreement in the amount of $72,189 and bid for a replacement under the "Total Cost Bid" program. The purchase of one new road grader was approved in the FY 85-86 Road and Bridge Department Budget at a not -to -exceed cost of $123,500. Total available funds, if the 1981 Cat is repurchased, include: $ 72,189 Repurchase funds $123,500 Budgeted funds 195,689 Total ICS«#,W41:X T1 M Road and Bridge Department and Vehicle Maintenance Department recommend that the 1981 Caterpillar Grader be repurchased frcan Kelly Tractor and that the Purchasing Department advertise for 2 new Road Graders (one to replace the 1981 Cat and the other as approved in the FY85-86 Budget Hearings to replace the 1974 Champion). The "Total Cost Bid" procedure should be specified with restrictions that the bid not exceed the manufacturer's retail list price. St. Lucie County and many other Florida counties are taking advantage of this "Total Cost Bid", program. Caterpillar and John Deere Equipment suppliers should bid this program, and hopefully the County will receive more than one bid. The Road and Bridge Department also recamends that the County bid the approved Gradall/Excavator using the "Total Cost Bid" program. 12 � r � MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock. SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman to accept the staff recom- mendation to have the 1981 Caterpillar Grader re- purchased by Kelly Tractor and advertise for 2 new Road Graders under "total cost" procedure, as well as a Gradall/Excavator. Commissioner Bird expressed concern that "total cost" bidding might exclude quite a few bidders, and Director Davis advised that John Deere is competitive on this type bidding but did not know whether either Gallion or Champion bid total cost. Commissioner Scurlock suggested that we have this bid both ways with the preference for total cost and then evaluate. After further discussion, Commissioners Scurlock and Bowman agreed to include in their Motion a provision for bidding both "total cost" and standard and then have the bids evaluated. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION AS AMENDED. It was voted on and carried unanimously. INTERIM LEASE SPACE - .PUBLIC HEALTH UNIT General Services Director Dean reviewed the following memo: 13 D E C 4 1985 BOOK 62 PAGE 885 TO: The Honorable Members of ,the Board of County Commissioners THRU: Michael Wright County Administrator BOOK 62 FAGS 886 DATE: November 22, 1.985 FILE: Interim Lease space for SUBJECT: I.R.C. Public Health Unit tnkAX Lnn Williams Superintendent Buildings & Grounds REFERENCES: Staff has investigated options available for providing interim office-., space for the County Health Department. Additional immediate space is required to alleviate overcrowding in the present Health Department until completion of the proposed new building. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS ALTERNATIVE #1 Lease space is available directly south of the present Health Department in the Cappelan Paint Building. Mr. Cappelan has expressed an interest in offering approximately 1,320 square feet of space in this building for use by the County Health Department. The space is presently used for storage and alterations would be required to allow for the Health Department use. Staff has projected the cost of these alterations to be $7,500 using outside contractors. Using county crews we project the cost at approximately $5,000. Mr. Cappelan has agreed to reduce the lease amount to $375.10 per month in order to allow for the County's alteration costs of $5,000. These costs will be reduced from the lease for a period of 18 months, the term of the proposed original lease. After expiration of the lease, the County would have an option of renewal at a rate of $6.50 per square foot annually or $715.00 per month. Total Cost for the eighteen month period would be $12,870.00. Funding required for the remainder of Fiscal Year 85-86 would be $8,375.90 ($5,000 alteration costs and 9 months lease at $375.00 per month or $3375.90) ALTERNATIVE #2 Staff also investigated the possibility of placing a modular office building on the present site. This would require site -plan approval from the City of Vero Beach, which includes upgrading parking and landscaping to present City standards. Costs associated with this option are as follows: $ 920.00 per month Modular Building 24 X 60 = 1440 Square Feet 3,350.00 set up and return costs 1,000.00 Utilities hook-up 10,000.00 Parking and Landscaping Total projected costs for the above modular building over a similar eighteen month period would be $30,910.00. 14 Funds required for the remainder of Fiscal Year 85 - 86 would be $23,630.00. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Alternative I, with funding as outlined and transferred to the proper accounts in the Building and Grounds budget. Staff will submit lease agreement for Board approval and signatures. Director Dean stressed that renovating the Cappelen Building would be much cheaper than having a modular building. Commissioner Scurlock wished to know what activity the health unit is planning for this location as he felt it should be geared toward a lower intensity use due to the nearby angle intersection and the considerable traffic going to the health center. Director Dean assured the Board the space is to be used for office area, files, and a meeting room; there will be no patient use. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, to approve Alternative #1 as recommended by staff and to authorize transfer of funding per the following budget amendment: FROM: Joseh A*Baird OMB Director Account Title Rent - Buildings Maint - Buildings Reserve for Contingency Account Plumber 001-220-519-34.42 001-220-519-34.61 001-199-58.1-99.91 • 'I Increase $3,376.00 5,000.00 Decrease $8,376.00 Explanation: Funds for additional space needed by Health Department for nine months rent and capital improvements. (Cappelen Building-) 15 DEC 4.1985 _Bow 62 FA'a 83 J BOOK f'aUt Commissioner Bird asked about the status of the new medical building or whether it is planned to expand the present facility. Administrator Wright reported that there is no room to expand; staff has advertised for an architect and is trying to acquire some additional property. Discussion following re funding, and Administrator Wright stated that it will have to come out of Contingency. In further discussion, the need for keeping track of the balance in Contingency was emphasized. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. COUNTY -INITIATED REQUEST - ESTABLISH FLEXIBLE EASTERN BOUNDARY FOR US1 COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR 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: 16 . VERO BEACH PRESS-JOURNALl�r .Published Weekly Vero Beach, Indian River County, Flond COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schu' arih, Jr. who on,du Y says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly "'evisp�per„p�tbl'iSe at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of a being a in the matter of In the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of ��%%Y� 14 spe— 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 tws �#y oA.D. (SEAL) (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River Co ty, Florida) NOTICE OF REGULI NOTICE OF PU TO CONS ADOPTION OF A Ci NOTICE IS HEREBY River County Board of shall hold a public hear, terest and citizens she] be heard, in the Count of the County Adm 4, DN OF LAND USE— ' IC HEARINGiR THE - ORDINANCE IVEN that the Indian runty Commissioners, at whit in in• iv opportunity to mmission Chambers in Building, located at Roach_ -Florida. on AN ORDINANCE OF 1 nt ovnrw yr .,,ZOUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE .COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY ESTAB- LISHING A FLEXIBLE EASTERN BOUNDARY FOR THE U.S. *1 COM- ETHE TEXT OF THE LANG IAL CORRIDOR AS DESCRIBED - IN LE- MENT AND DEPICTED ON THE FUTURE LAND THEELEMENTEOFATHEFCOMPREEHN NSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE. Anypne who may wish to appeal an decision which may be made at this meeting will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings 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 Nov. 12, 25, 1985. Richard Shearer, Chief of Long -Range Planning, made the staff presentation, as follows: 17 • eootc �� F�au� �� -' 41985 - BOOK FAa sq' TO: The Honorable Members DATE: October 25, 1985° FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: SUBJECT: Robert M. Keat' g, UCP Planning & Development Director COUNTY -INITIATED REQUEST TO ESTABLISH A FLEXIBLE EASTERN BOUNDARY FOR THE U.S. 1 COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR FROM: 0 REFERENCES: Richard Shearer, AICP CO./INIT. U.S.1 MEMO Chief, Long -Range Planning RICH2 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of December 4, 1985. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS The County is initiating a request to amend the Comprehensive Plan by establishing a flexible eastern boundary for the U.S. 1 Commercial Corridor. On May 1, 1985, the Board of County Commissioners denied a request to redesignate 1.95 acres located east of the Commercial Corridor, north of 8th Street, and west of 6th Avenue, from MD -2, Medium -Density Residential 2, to Commercial. At that meeting, the Board expressed an interest in providing some flexibility in the 600 foot deep commercial corridor extending east and running parallel to U.S. 1. The Board was particularly concerned about the fact that the commercial corridor's east boundary bisects several parcels of land, and that many of. these parcels contain residences. In addition, the County has considered it appropri- ate in a couple of instances in the past to extend the commercial zoning beyond the 600 foot depth of the commercial corridor due to unique circumstances associated with particular parcels of land. On October 24, 1985, the Planning - and Zoning Commission voted 4 -to -0 to recommend approval of this request. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS The Comprehensive Plan describes the commercial corridor as follows: U.S. #1 SOUTH TO 4TH STREET The U.S. #1 corridor from the Vero Beach City limits to 4th (Citrus) Street for a depth of six hundred (600) feet is a major commercial service area for the County. This area will continue to be utilized by- commercial service activities and allowed to infill where vacant lands exist within the area boundaries described. In addition, the Comprehensive Plan has been amended to extend the commercial corridor south to the South Relief Canal. Based on the County Commission's wishes, the commercial rezonings granted east of the commercial corridor, and the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, a more appropriate description of the U.S. 1 commercial corridor would be as follows: 18 U.S. 1 COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR A commercial corridor exists along the east side of U.S. 1 from the Vero Beach City Limits south to the South Relief Canal. The eastern boundary of this commercial corridor shall be approximately 600 feet east of the east right-of-way line of U.S. 1. However, properties within this 600 foot wide corridor which abut residentially -zoned property to the east of the commercial corridor may receive consideration by the Board of County Commissioners for residential zoning. Moreover, the Board of County Commissioners may also consider extending the commercial zoning beyond the 600 foot depth of the corridor if the subject property abuts commercial zoning, is not more than 800 feet east of the east right-of-way line of U.S. 1, and can meet one of the following criteria: 1. The property is located on an arterial street; 2. The property is part of a larger parcel of land that has at least 100 feet of frontage on U.S. 1 and extends more than 600 feet east of the east, right-of-way line of U.S. 1; or 3. The property is split by the 600 foot boundary of the commercial corridor with the major part of the property zoned commercial. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that the Comprehen- sive Plan be amended as outlined above to establish a flexible eastern boundary for the U.S. 1 commercial corridor. Planner Shearer advised that basically what we are looking at is a policy change in the Comprehensive Plan and there is no map. Currently on South U.S.1, we have a commercial corridor 600' deep, and this is the only area in the county specifically designated commercial when the Plan was adopted; all other was through nodes and in MXD. This corridor paralleled the old zoning district, which made it easy for people to determine zoning, but as you go south where U.S.1 starts to bend east, the. Line started bisecting properties. This situation came up last spring in connection with the LaFever and Sullivan property at U.S.1 and 8th Street, and at that time the Board indicated there might be some need to provide some flexibility in this corridor. Commissioner Scurlock asked how this would affect the LaFever/Sullivan property where we paid for right-of-way on 8th St., and Planner Shearer advised that if this were approved, the ®5 " 19 DEC . 4 1985 - BOOK 62 F'nUE 8 Board could give them some additional commercial zoning as it could go to 8001; this would not, however, take them all the way to 6th Avenue. Commissioner Scurlock expressed concern about the ability to" buffer existing residential use and believed this would make some of the uses there non -conforming. Planner Shearer explained that the main intent originally was to allow more flexibility in rezoning commercial to residen- tial on that eastern boundary, but staff also put in a provision for the possibility of increasing the commercial to the east based on some past Board actions, i.e., the Vista Properties Comprehensive Plan amendment, the Betty Reeves Comprehensive Plan amendment, and the Schlitt rezoning. Commissioner Scurlock agreed that in that commercial corridor area actually the use is quite intense with paint and body shops, etc., which businesses you really don't see from either U.S. 1 or 6th Avenue. Actually it is a hub of activity. Planning Director Keating clarified that what we really are doing is fine tuning the Comprehensive Plan and allowing minor amendments to be made without going through the Comprehensive Plan amendment procedures. He emphasized that in the Zoning Atlas we try very hard not to bisect property lines. Commissioner Scurlock wished to be very sure we have enough specific criteria to look at these situations and decide how to act. Planner Shearer felt what is proposed is quite specific. The first criteria that must be met is that they cannot be more than 800' east of the east right-of-way line, and one of the additional criteria states that they must be located on an arterial street, which limits it to 17th Street or Indian River Boulevard. Commissioner Scurlock asked if the Commission will have the opportunity to look at the surrounding uses as well, and that was -confirmed. M 20 M M Chairman Lyons questioned the meaning of the second para- graph on Page 2 of the memo, and Director Keating explained that right now you are prohibited from rezoning property within the commercial corridor to residential. This would allow you to be flexible in the delineation of the commercial corridor and also allow you to rezone property in that corridor which abuts existing residential property as residential. Planner Shearer gave an example of property that lies 500' east of U.S.1 which has no access to U.S.1, but has access to a local street that is already developed residentially.- It is not feasible to develop this property as commercial without access to U.S.1, and this would allow the owner to apply for rezoning to residential in order to develop that property. He advised that we do have a number of such situations. Commissioner Wodtke asked why we don't just say that corridor is a major commercial service area and give the flexibility as he felt we might want to make a lot of it residential and he believed we do need to have flexibility. It was pointed out that the problem is that everything is on the bias, and many pieces of property are triangles. Chairman Lyons realized what we are trying to do, but did not feel comfortable with it. Director Keating believed the advantage with the commercial corridor is that it still serves as a good planning function, but It allows some flexibility along with pretty stiff criteria. Commissioner Scurlock felt the strict criteria is what provides the comfort Chairman Lyons is looking for; he agreed that while he wants some flexibility, he does not want it to mandate something regardless of adjacent uses. Commissioner Bird did not believe a rigid 600' line is practical in that area for either commercial or residential. In further discussion, Commissioner Wodtke noted that even if someone meets the criteria listed, it will just be considered; it is not an entitlement. This was confirmed by staff. 21 BOOK DEC 4 1985 BOOK -E2 fact cF�,4 The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by` Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance 85-97, amending the Compre- hensive Plan re establishing a flexible eastern boundary for the U.S.1 commercial corridor. (Ordinance 85-97 will be made a part of the Minutes when completed and received.) COUNTY -INITIATED REQUEST TO ENLARGE THE 130 ACRE HOSPITAL/ COMMERCIAL NODE The hour of 9:15 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: 22 VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL ' NOV 1385 Published WeeklyCD µ� Vero Beach, Indian River County, FloOP ;om nurrity r OppartincRt COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDAI,i Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, r. w o 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 a in the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of o� 1a;L 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. Swom to and subscribed bef me Ais day of A.D. usiness Manager) t ' (Clerk of the Circuit Court, indian'River unty, Florida) (SEAL) NOTICE OF REGULATION OF LAND USE— NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE ADOPTION OF A COUNTY ORDINANCE NOTICE" IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners, shall hold a public hearing at which parties in In- terest and citizens shag have an opportunity to be heard, In the County Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, located fit 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on' Wednesday, December 4, 1985, at 9:15 a.m. to consider the adoption of an Ordinance entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING' THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY ENLARG- ING- NLARGING THE HOSPITAL/COMMERCIAL NODE LOCATED NORTH OF INDIAN .: RIVER HOSPITAL ALONG 37TH STREET FROM 130 ACRES TO 205 ACRES, AS GENERALLY DEPICTED ON THE FU- TURE LAND USE MAP AND DESCRIBED IN THE TEXT OF THE LAND USE ELE- MENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE. Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings 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 Nov. 12,25, 1985. Chief Planner Shearer reviewed staff recommendation, as follows: 23 BQQ!( 62 PAGE BOOK 62 FAG- O TO: The Honorable Members DATE: October 25, 1985 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: SUBJECT: COUNTY -INITIATED REQUEST Robert M. Kea -'ng, CP TO ENLARGE THE 130 ACRE Planning & Develop'ent Director HOSPITAL/COMMERCIAL NODE F-ROMRicchard Shearer, AICP --REFERENCES: CO. /INITIATED MEMO Chief, Long -Range Planning i RICH2 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal -_ consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of December 4, 1985. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS The County is initiating a request to amend the Comprehensive Plan by enlarging the 130 acre hospital/ commercial node located north of Indian River Memorial Hospital to 205 acres. On April 10, 1985, the Board of County Commissioners adopted boundaries for this node. At that time, the Board indicated that they felt the node should be enlarged to include all of the hospital's property which consists of 75 acres. On October 24, 1985, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4 -to -0 to recommend approval of this request. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS In this section, a description of the hospital/commercial node will be provided along with an analysis of the general proposal to expand the size of the node. The Comprehensive Plan describes the hospital/commercial node as: A one hundred thirty (130) acre hospital commercial node is located north of the present Indian River Hospital along 37th Street (Barber Avenue). Commercial uses related to the needs of the hospital shall be the primary use permitted as well as residential uses. Based on the Comprehensive Plan's definition of the node as being located north of the hospital, staff has interpreted this to mean that the hospital was not originally considered part of the node. However, now that the hospital and surrounding area is zoned MED, Medical District, it does seem more logical to include the hospital in the hospital/commercial node. Currently, the 130 acre node boundary includes the following: Development Acres Indian River Medical Center 9.5 Indian River Village Care Center 5.3 Vero Care Center 3.25 Medical Arts Center & Other Doctor's offices 4.92 Rehabilitation Hospital (under construction) 9.5 Indian River Associates Medical Office Bldg. (site plan approved) 2.5 Psychiatric Hospital (site plan approved) 8.0 Total Developed or committed acreage 42.97 24 Because of the size constraint of the node (130 acres), the size of the hospital's property (75 acres), and the amount of --existing and committed hospital/commercial development around the hospital (approximately 40.97 acres), in order to include the hospital the node must be enlarged. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, staff recommends approval. Planner Shearer clarified that if this is adopted, it would redraw the boundaries of that node to include the Hospital. Commissioner Wodtke noted that no map was included, and Planner Shearer stated that one was not provided because the Board would not be setting a firm boundary today; the intent simply is to include the Hospital property in the node. Commissioner Wodtke asked if the node we have now is 130 acres, and Planner Shearer stated that it is a little less than that. There is some property immediately east of the Hospital, approximately 9 or 10 acres, that is not in the node which staff would like to see added since it will be surrounded by the node on two sides. Chairman Lyons wished to know if that property was east of Indian River Boulevard extension as he did not want anyone build - Ing in the marsh, and Planner Shearer stated it would be west. Commissioner Bowman asked if this would include the area between the Hospital and the Indian River Medical Center, which is not now in the node. Planner Shearer explained that the Indian River Medical Center owns additional property to the south that is not presently in the node boundary and that property is contiguous to and directly east of the hospital. Discussion continued at length about the actual area to be included, the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Map, and Com- missioner Scurlock emphasized that he would like expansion of the node to be done concurrent with a recommendation for what it is going to look like. He, therefore, suggested a Motion to table and defer action to a future date. 25 DEC 4 1985 - 62 FA -UE SO 7 DEC. 41995- BOOK N,c� The Planning staff felt that this would conflict with the State's rules for amending the Comprehensive Plan, but Attorney Vitunac-gave the Board his opinion, that if this was advertised properly and that Board wanted to continue it over to another day, they could do so. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, to'defer action on enlarging the Hospital/Commercial node until a future date to be established by the Planning staff. Further questions arose, and Planner Shearer continued to stress that all staff wants the Board to do today is take action on whether they want to enlarge the node to include the hospital, but Chairman Lyons noted that staff was talking about including more than just the hospital. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously Commissioner Wodtke wished to clarify if we can only discuss changes in the Comprehensive Plan twice a year, and Planner Shearer explained that if we should have an emergency or a D.R.I., that would be different; but the state has said specifically that local governments may amend their Comprehensive Plans only twice during a year and they have rendered an opinion that this means at two meetings during the year. REZONING 6 REDESIGNATION REQUEST - TO COMMERCIAL (SR 60 6 KINGS HIGHWAY - DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, INC.) The hour of 9:30 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notices with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: 26 VERO BEACH PRESS-,JOURNAL''.N ti Published Weekly NOV 1985 Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florid, Cemrr,:+tlit`9 COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: - STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. rS oaf 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 in the matter of in the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of y , 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 subscribeiqefogme tiA day of� .D. AK (SEAL) (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River 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 a/% Js�% /j�IW'm - - - 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 bIlre thisn day of (SEAL) L. -DEG (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County`, (Florida) NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING Notice of hearing to consider the adoption of a County ordinance rezordng land from A. Agri- cultural District, to CG. General Commercial Dis- trict. The subject property Is presently owned by The Beach Bank of Vero Beach as Trustee and Is located west of Kings Highway (58th Avenue/C.R. 505A) and approximately 600 feet north of S.R. 60 (20th Street). The subject property is described as: THE NORTH 509.41 FEET OF TRACT 8, SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST ACCORDING TO THE LAST GENERAL PLAT OF LANDS OF IN- DIAN RIVER FARMS COMPANY AS RE- CORDED IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 25 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. SAID LAND NOW LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. The Board of County Commissioners will con- duct a public hearing regarding the appeal by the applicant of the decision by the Planning and Zoning Commission to recommend disapproval of the rezoning request The public hearing, at which parties in interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard, will be held by tile Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, In the County Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach. Florida on Wednesday, December 4, 1985, at 9:30 am. Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made'at this meeting will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings 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 Nov.12, 25,1985. —_ NOTICEAF REGULATION OF LAND USE= NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE ADOPTION •. ;, ;; r . OF A COUNTY ORDINANCE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the'lndien River County Board of County Commissioners, shall hold. a public hearing at which parties in in- terest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard, In the County Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, located at . 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on -Wednesday, December 4, 1985, at 9:30 a.m. to consider the adoption of an Ordinance entitled. h AN ORDINANCE OF- THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE BOUNDARIES OF THE COMMER- CIAL NODE AT 58th AVENUE AND STATE ROAD 60 AS ADOPTED IN OROI- - NANCE 85-32 AND AS GENERALLY DE- SCRIBED IN THE TEXT OF THE t!AAND - USE ELEMENT AND DEPICTED ON THE LAND USE MAP OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR BOUNDARY MAP OF THE NODE AND EFFECTIVE DATE. A map of the proposed node boundary is " available at the Planning Department office on the second floor of the County Administration Building Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings 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 Nov. 12, 25.1985.. BOOK- 62 PAGE S ,90 DEC 4 1985 VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Weekly Vero Beach, Indian River County, F F; e tic�Zg'� N 4V 1855 ` C SIV E0 .p.. Ct;r'%Munity On ;�� t,?EttttP.6it o, Q COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: "T., 5 - STATE OF FLORIDA" r, .r -f fy \�,'� .. .1. ,. Pte. Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, 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 a A/.sL1�•s/f 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 subscribed befo^me ))is Aday of A.D. (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, Flofid< (SEAL) - BOOK 62 FAGE NOTICE OF REGULATION OF LAND USE— NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING . TO CONSIDER THE ADOPTION- OFA DOPTION OFA COUNTY ORDINANCE - AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NOTICE- 1S HEREBY; GIVEN that the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners, shall hold a public hearing at which parties In Ir►; forest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard, In the County Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, located at 1940 25th,. Street, Vero Beach, Florida,, on Wednestlay, December 4, 1985, at 9.30 a.m. to C onsider ado on of an Ordinance entitled;.. , AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN,,b,.,. RIVER 'COUNTY FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND UW ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ENLARGE'. ; THE COMMERCIAL NODE AT THE MM'V TERSECTION,. OF- SM • AVENUE Abt :. . STATE ROAD 80 FROM'180 ACRES SCRIBED IN THE TEXT OF THE LAND'"`' USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHEW SIVE PLAN; PROVIDINt3 FOR EFFEC TIVE DATE. 't Anyone who may wish to appeal ar�y decision which may be made at this meeting will need to. ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings 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 Nov. 12, 25,1985. y 6 Staff analysis and recommendation is as follows: 28 TO: The Honorable Members DATE: November 21, 1985 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: SUBJECT: Robert M. Keati , Planning & Developm nt Director DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, INC. REQUEST TO REDESIGNATE 15.23 ACRES FROM LD -2 TO COMMERCIAL AND TO REZONE FROM A, AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT, TO CG, GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. ichard Shearer AICP ZC-152 P&Z Memo FROM hief, Long -Range Planning REFERENCES: RICH2 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consid- eration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of December 4, 1985. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS Development Partners, Inc., an agent for the Beach Bank, trustee, is requesting to amend the Comprehensive Plan by redesignating 15.23 acres from LD -2, Low -Density Residential 2 (up to 6 units/acre), to Commercial, and to rezone from A, Agricultural District, to CG, General Commercial District. In order to approve this rezoning request, the County would also have to amend the boundaries of the Kings Highway and State Road 60 commercial node. The applicants intend to develop the subject property, and 18 contiguous acres to the south, for a shopping center. Because the County's Comprehensive Plan is structured to concentrate commercial development in nodes, and because of the subject property's location adjacent to the existing Kings Highway and State Road 60 node, this application is considered a request to enlarge the existing node from 160 to, 175 acres and to revise the boundaries of the node to include the subject property. On March 6, 1985, t#e Board of County Commissioners enlarged the Kings Highway and State Road 60 node from 140 to 160 acres. On April 10, 1985, the Board of County Commissioners adopted an ordinance establishing boundaries for the 160 acre KJ.ngs Highway and State Road 60 node. On August 22, 1985 the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4 -to -0, with one abstention, to recommend that the request to amend the Compre- hensive Plan be denied. The Commission also voted 4 -to -0, with one abstention, to recommend that the node boundaries not be adjusted to include the subject property. In addition, the Commission voted 4 -to -0, with one abstention, to deny the rezoning request. The applicant has appealed that decision. The Commission gave as their reasons for recommending denial the facts that there is a considerable amount of vacant commercially -zoned land in this area which does not justify an enlargement of the node, that the node boundary should not be adjusted to accommodate the subject "property, and that based on these recommendations and the fact that the subject property abuts a single-family subdivision, that the rezoning request should be denied. On October 16, 1985, the Board of County Commissioners tabled these 'requests. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the application. will be presented. The analysis will include a description of the current and future land uses of the site and surrounding areas, potential impacts on the transportation and utility systems, and any significant adverse impacts on environmental quality. 29 DEC 41995 - BOOK 62 Exu,c931 DEC 41985 BOOK 0, CIN Existing Land Use Pattern The subject property is undeveloped. North of the subject property is a single-family subdivision zoned A, Agricultural District. East of the subject property, across Kings Highway, is Ryanwood Shopping Center, under construction, which is zoned C-1, Commercial District. South of the subject property is undeveloped land zoned C-1. Further south, across State Road 60, is undeveloped land zoned C-1. West of the subject property is undeveloped land zoned RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential District '(up to 6 units/acre). The land in this area zoned C-1 will be assigned to the CG zoning classification in the near future. Future Land Use Pattern The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property and the land north and west of it as LD -2, Low -Density Residential 2 (up to 6 units/acre). The land east and south of the subject property is included in the Kings Highway and State Road 60 commercial node. In order to develop the subject property for a shopping center, the Comprehensive Plan would have to be amended to enlarge the Kings Highway and State Road 60 node; the node boundaries would have to be amended, and the property would have to be rezoned. In analyzing this request, the staff first looked at the proposal to enlarge the node. Currently, this node contains 160 acres with the acreage broken down as follows: 1) Winn-Dixie and adjacent commercial uses west of 43rd Avenue 6.38 acres 2) Indian River Farms Drainage District . Office .59 acres 3) Ed Schlitt Agency .19 acres 4) First Bankers West Side Facility 1.79 acres 5) Ryanwood Shopping Center (under construction) 18.68 acres 6) Oak Terrace Restaurant 2.1 acres 7) Vacant infill property east of Kings Highway zoned commercial 54.58 acres 8) Infill property east of Kings Highway zoned RS -6 16.23 acres 9) Vacant property zoned commercial west of Kings Highway 57.94 acres 10) County water tower & City power substation 1.53 acres Based on this acreage breakdown, there are 11.05 acres of land in the node already developed in commercial uses, 18.68 acres currently being developed for commercial uses, and 128.74 acres which could be devel- -oped for commercial uses. The existing commercial development repre- sents only 7 percent of the node acreage; the commercial development under construction represents 11.7 percent of the node acreage, and the land available for future commercial development represents 80.5 percent of the node acreage. Moreover, there are still several large parcels of land in the existing node that are available for develop- ment. A -vacant 17 acre parcel and a vacant 20 acre parcel are located southwest of the Kings Highway and State Road 60 intersection. Based on the facts that less than 20 percent of the node is currently being used or developed for commercial uses and that more than 80 percent of 30 the node is available for commercial development, staff does not feel that there is'justification for enlarging the node at this time. In reviewing this request, the staff also looked at the existing node boundary to determine whether or not some shifting of the boundary was justified in order to accommodate the subject property in the existing 160 acre node. . Because this node boundary was established just last April, the boundaries had been under discussion for more than a year prior to be being adopted, and the fact that the node boundary is fairly specifically described in the Comprehensive Plan, there seems to be little justification for altering the boundary. Any alteration in the boundary without an enlargement of the node would require other property to be removed from the node in order to accommodate the subject property. Based on this analysis, staff does not feel that the 160 acre Kings Highway and State Road 60 node should be enlarged at this time. Since the staff does not feel that the node should be enlarged and because the node boundaries were recently._ adopted, staff does not see any need to adjust the boundaries to include the subject property. If the subject property is not included in the node, then - the requested CG zoning would not be conformance with the Comprehen- sive Plan because the land use designation for the subject property is LD -2, Low -Density Residential 2. Moreover, the proposed CG zoning for the subject property would allow uses that would be incompatible with the single-family development to the north. Transportation System The subject property has direct access to Kings Highway (classified as an arterial street on the County's Thoroughfare Plan). If developed with the property to the south, direct access would also be available to State Road 60 (also classified as an arterial street). Development of the subject property for a community shopping center could attract up to 6,747 average annual daily trips (AADT). If developed with the property to the south, the maximum development of the two properties could attract up to 13,770 AADT. State Road 60 currently carries approximately 15,000 AADT at level -of -service "A". Kings Highway currently carries approximately 5,300 AADT at level -of -service "A". This proposed development would reduce the level -of -service on these two facilities to level -of -service "C". Environment The subject property is not designated as environmentally sensitive nor is it in a flood -prone area. Utilities County water is available for the subject property, and County waste- water facilities will be available in the near future. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above analysis, particularly the fact that less than twenty (20%) percent of the node's acreage is used or being developed for commercial uses and the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommen- dation, staff recommends that the node not be enlarged. Based on the recommendation not to enlarge the node, the fact that including the subject property in the node would require deleting another property from the node, and the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommenda- tion, staff recommends that the node boundary not be altered to include the subject property. Based on the recommendation that the subject property not be included in the node, the fact that the subject property abuts a single-family subdivision to the north, and the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that the request to rezone the subject property to CG be denied. 31 DEC 41985 3 DEC 41995 saox 62 Commissioner Scurlock believed that all that is required now is to make the record show that this matter has been formally withdrawn per the letter received from the office of Attorney Chester Clem and also to make part of the record the additional petition received today from adjacent residents expressing their opposition to the proposed rezoning. Letter of withdrawal received from Attorney Clem's office is as follows, and said petition with 34 signatures is on file in the Office of the Clerk to the Board: CHESTER CLEM, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2525 20TH STREET r S a VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960 CHESTER CLE AMM �. © TELEPHONE GEORGE GLENN i%n / 1� s ^�� 569-9494 DouGLAS W. G !n.. _ ^� �� AREA CODE 305 December 2, 1985 Board of County Commissioners 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Re: Kings Highway and State Road 60 Commercial Node Gentlemen: This firm represents Development Partners, Inc., the proposed purchaser of the property at the approximate location of the intersection of State Road 60 and Kings Highway, said land being in the northwest corner of that intersection. Our client has authorized us to withdraw the application for the amendment of land use designation and application for rezoning. We appreciate the Planning Department's time, effort and advice on this matter. If any further documentation is necessary, please do not hes- itate to contact us. Very truly yours, ler-g7 7renn 32 ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board officially accepted the above letter formally withdrawing the request of Development Partners, Inc. APPROVAL FOR COUNTY TO APPLY FOR TAX DEEDS The Board reviewed memo from Asst. County Attorney Bruce Barkett: TO • DATE: board of County Commissioners November 19, 1985 Thru: Charles Vitunac County Attorney FILE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF COUNTY TO APPLY FOR TAX DEEDS FROM:Bruce Barkett, REFERENCES: Asst. County Attorney I have attached a copy of a letter from Gene Morris, County Tax Collector, explaining that there are nine tax certificates held by Indian River County which are now eligible for tax deed applications. A tax certificate is a lien against the land for unpaid taxes, and the County may apply for tax deeds on the properties for which there are tax certificates which are over two years old._ This request is for the Board of County Commissioners to authorize the application for tax deeds for the nine properties eligible, and for the following funding to process the applications: 1. $405.00 to Gene Morris for twenty year tax search fees at $45.00 per parcel. 2. $657.90 to Freda Wright for clerk's fees and advertising costs at $73.10 per parcel. 3. $60.00 to Tim Dobeck, Sheriff, for --posting fees at $12.00 for each of five parcels which have improvements. The attached nine tax certificates have been approved for form and legal sufficiency. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously author- ized the Chairman to sign Applications for. Tax Deeds on the following listed properties: 33 C E C 41985 - Boa 62 .PAcE , BOOK 62 PAGE UX6 Tax Crtf. No. Date of Sale Legal Description 56 6/1/82 Section 29-31-39 Beg 209 ft N of SW cor run E 418 ft, N 121 ft, W 418 ft, S 121 ft to beg being part of S2 of SW -I,, of NE -I. of SW -1, D Bk 12, PP 135 less parcels as R Bk 89PPS 311 & 312 & R Bk 94 PP 445 & R Bk 166 PP 543 & OR Bk 376, PP 283 and less W 25 ft for Rd R/W as in OR Bk 413 PP 739. 168 6/1/82 Hillcrest Sub No. 2 PBI 2-92 Part of Tr A desc as - foll: From SW Cor of NE -14 of NWQ run N along E R/W of 30 ft Rd a dist of 202 ft to P.O.B., From --P.O.B. cont N a dist of 15 ft to a pt, th run 74 deg 41 min E a dist of 128 ft to a pt on W R/W of FEC RR, th run S 15 deg 18 min E along said R/W a dist of 117.75 ft, th run W 50.7 ft, th run N 50 ft, th run W 100 ft to P.O.B. 16 5/27/83 Section 22-32-39 S 70 ft of E 145 ft of N 370 ft of W 20 A of E 30 A of SE -14 of SW -14 less E 32 ft thereof as in R Bk 357 PP 176 A/K/A Lot 24 Pine View Part Ext. 21 5/29/80 Pinson Sub PBI 2-94 Lot 48 48 5/27/83 R D Carters Sub PBS 4-28 N 82 ft of Lot 15 Blk 2. 49 5/27/83 Orange Park Estates Sub Unit No. 1 PBI 5-42 Tract D Blk A. 55 5/27/83 Paradise Park Unit No. 3 PBI 4-34 Lot 1, less Rd R/W as in R Bk 287 PP 252 Blk E. 67 5/27/83 Section 25-33-39 Ind Riv Farms Co Sub PBS 2-25 Beg at NW cor of W 10 A of E 20 A of Tr 4; Th S 400 ft to POB; Th E 140 ft; th S 100 ft; Th W 140 ft; Th N 100 ft to POB. 68 5/27/83 Section 25-33-39 Ind Riv Farms Co Sub PBS 2-25 Beg at SW cor of W 10 A of E 20 A of Tr 4; Th N 420 ft to POB; Th E 200 ft; Th N 70 ft; Th W 200 ft Th S 70 ft to POB. REQUEST FOR REZONING & REDESIGNATION OF 1193.5 ACRES WEST OF 1-95 (SCHLITT) The hour of 10:00 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: 34 VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL A "'- t" s ' �` Published Weekly Vero Beach, Indian River County, Flo' ka ; COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann , :TMvvho, 4# ,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 a / ZI'L In the matter of in the ,-/ ` /rRd;Court, Was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of ' Z&'e �� �lfd — 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) VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL N 0 Published Weekly v1986 Vero Beach, Indian River County, Floridap h� COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA' Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann Jr. �woath 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 in the matter In the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of / ft~�PJV Z.2 ZV�5-_�, 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.q�' �,, Sworn to and subscribed befa me is day ofZ��&A.D.T osiness Man ger) (Clerk o t e Circui �intia " i}`r lorida) (SEAU DEC 4 1985 77 NOTICE PUBLIC HEARING Notice of hearing to consider the adoption Of a County ordinance rezoning land from: A. Agri- cultural District, to RS -1, Single -Family Residen- tial District. The subject property Is presently owned by Edgar L. Schutt as Trustee and Is lo- cated approximate)yy 2 miles west of 1-95, north. . side of State Road 60. The subject property is described as: SECTION 31; THE WEST HALF OF THE 'SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 32; ALL IN TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST; AND ALSO, THAT PART OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 5 AND THAT PART OF THE NORTH HALF OF SECTION 6 LYING NORTH OF THE NORTH RIGHT- OF-WAY LINE OF STATE ROAD NO. 60; ALL IN TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. CONTAINING 1193.598 ACRES; MORE OR LESS. A public hearing, at which parties'in interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard, will be held by the Board of County Com- missioners of Indian River County, Florida in the County Commission Chambers of the 6iunty Administration Building, located at- 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida on Wednesday, December 4, 1985, at 10:00 a.m. Anyone who may wish to appeal airy decision which may be made at this meeting will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings 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 Nov. 12,25, 1985. " NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING t'4.. �O CONSIDER ADOPTION OF A Yt COUNTY ORDINANCE .AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Notice of hearing to consider the Edoption of a County Ordinance amending the Land Use Ele- ment of the Comprehensive Plan by redesi nat- Ing land from: AG, Agricultural, to RR -2, Rural Residential 2. The subject property is presently owned by Edgar L, Schlitt as rustee and is to. catedapproximately 2 miles west of 1-95, north side of State Road 60. The sub ect prope is described as.• $ECTIO4 31; THE WEST HALF OF THE ti ;SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION "j 31; ALL IN TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, ;q RANGE 38 EAST: AND ALSO, THAT PART OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 5 AND THAT PART OF THE NORTH HALF OF SECTION 6 LYING NORTH OF THE NORTH RIGHT- fii OF -WAY LINE OF STATE ROAD NO. 60; ALL IN TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE .38 EAST, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,:- FLORIDA. CONTAINING .1193.598 ACRES MORE, OR LESS. A public hearing at which parties in Interest' and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard, will be held by the Board of County Com- missioners of Indian River County, Florida, In the County Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida on Wednesday, , December 4,1985,. at 10:00 a.m. Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision 'which may be made at this meeting will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings i 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 Nov. 12, 25.1985. BOOK 62 FAGS N BOOK �� PaE Chief Planner Shearer reviewed the following memo: TO The Honorable Members DATE: November 21, 1985 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: k SUBJECT: SCHLITT REQUEST TO RE -r Obert M. Kea i g, P- DESIGNATE 1193.5 ACRES Planning & Deve opm nt Director FROM AG TO RR -2 & TO REZONE FROM A TO RS -1 FRCMR chrd Shearer, AICP REFEREfVCES: SCHLITT REZONE MEMO Chief, Long -Range Planning RICH2 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners ' at their regular meeting of December 4, 1985. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS William Caldwell, an agent for Edgar L. Schlitt, trustee, is requesting to amend the Comprehensive Plan by redesignating 1193.5 acres located two miles west of I-95 on the north side of State Road 60 from AG, Agricultural (up to .2 units/acre), to RR -2, Rural Residential 2 (up to l unit/acre), and to rezone from A, Agricultural District (up to .2 units/acre), to RS -1, Sin- gle -Family Residential District (up to 1 unit/acre). The applicant intends to develop the subject property for res- idential uses. Since the Comprehensive Plan was adopted, the St. Johns River Water Management District has finalized plans to acquire approxi- mately 100,000 acres of land located west of the subject proper- ty. On October 24, 1985, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4 -to -0 to recommend approval of both of these requests. The Commission stated that they felt conditions had changed in this area since the Comprehensive Plan was adopted which would justify changing the land use designation and zoning of the subject property. 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 and all of the land around it is zoned A and is undeveloped or devoted to citrus groves or pasture land. 36 Future Land Use Pattern The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property and all of the land around it as AG, Agricultural (up to .2 units/acre). The 550 acre I-95 and State Road 60 commercial node includes some property located approximately one and one-fourth mile east of the east boundary of the subject property. The land approximately one and one-half mile east of the east boundary of the subject property is generally designated as MD -1, Medi- um -Density Residential 1 (up to 8 units/acre). The Comprehensive Plan describes the AG district as follows: AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT (AG) One of the most serious problems facing the County is scattered housing subdivisions that deplete the best agricultural lands and require extension of expensive community facilities and service to meet resident needs. This district furthers viability of the County's agricultural economy. Prime agricultural lands must be preserved whenever possible. In analyzing these requests, the staff determined that conditions have not changed significantly in this area since the Comprehen- sive Plan was adopted in 1982. Moreover, the subject property does not abut any property that is not designated as AG. The purpose of the AG district is clearly outlined in the Comprehen- sive Plan. Redesignating property from AG to another land use designation appears to be contrary to the general policies of the Comprehensive Plan unless conditions have changed in an area. Moreover, redesignating the subject property would encourage other property owners in the area to apply for • changes in their Agricultural land use designations which would result in leap -frog development and urban sprawl along State Road 60. Further, the staff feels that the existing agricultural lands form a greenbelt west of the urbanizing part of the County. Redesignating the subject property would interrupt this greenbelt. Transportation System The subject property has direct access to State Road 60 (clas- sified as an arterial street on the Thoroughfare Plan). The maximum development of the subject property under a Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning to RS -1 could generate up to 11,930 .average annual daily trips (AADT). When combined with. the existing 2,000 AADT on State Road 60, this proposed development would lower the level -of -service from A to D, which is contrary to provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Environment The subject property is not designated as environmentally sensi- tive. However, the subject property is in an.A flood zone indicating areas within the 100 year flood plain. (It was incorrectly reported to the Planning and Zoning Commission that this property was not in a flood -prone area.) Utilities County water and wastewater facilities are not currently avail- able for the subject property. 37 DEC 41985 _ BOOK 62 PAGE 9091 DEC 41985 soo>c . 62 RECOMMENDATION While the Planning Department respects the opinion of the Plan- ning and Zoning Commission, the staff -still feels that conditions have not changed sufficiently to justify a change in the Agricul- tural land use designation. Based on the above analysis, staff recommends that the subject property not be redesignated to RR -2. Based on this recommenda- tion, staff recommends that the subject property not be rezoned to RS -1. y Planner Shearer emphasized that the subject property is two miles west of 1-95 and more than a mile west of the existing node and staff feels Agricultural is a very important designation on the Land Use Plan, the purpose of it being to preserve land in the County for agricultural use and prevent urban sprawl and leap frog development. He further wished to point out that while the subject property is not designated environmentally sensitive on the Plan, it is in an "A" flood zone; this factor was not -pointed out to the Planning & Zoning Commission, and they did not consider it when they made their recommendation. Planner Shearer further pointed out that this property is two miles west of where the utilities lines terminate; although, he did not feel utili- ties are really a major factor at one unit per acre. However, the proposed development would substantially impact SR 60 and put it above capacity. The Planning & Zoning Commission did vote unanimously in favor of the proposed rezoning and redesignation because they thought changes in the area justify it, but staff recommends denial. Commissioner Scurlock believed some things need to be pointed out re utilities. He noted that at one unit per acre, septic tanks and wells are a possibility, but if you are talking about running lines out there, you are talking about half a million dollars for extension of that service. Another important point is that this area is not in the service area'for the South County water plant, which already has been expanded far beyond the original intent, and the South County wastewater plant does not even have the capability at present of handling the existing -service area if it were al -1 developed. He, therefore, has talked 38 with the developer about the idea of committing his golf course for reuse as one possibility of making utilities available, but there are questions about what can or can't get permitted by the DER. Also, there are significant drainage problems. Commissioner Scurlock did feel, however, that the develop- ment proposed is a quality project with low density, cluster development, equestrian trails, etc., and something that would be positive for our community. He believed what the developer is looking for is some indication from the Board that would provide him with enough confidence to move forward with the very expen- sive process of going through the Regional Planning Council and through St. John's River Water Management District. Commis- sioner Scurlock continued that while he would like to'find some vehicle to encourage the developer, he has not been able to find any legal way without getting into contract zoning, and he also did not feel PRD will accomplish what they really want. Because of the considerable problems to be faced with the drainage, utilities, etc., he would not want to accept the responsibility of rezoning this land and having that much residential leap frog to the west of 1-95 without all the questions being answered, and he, therefore, felt this request is premature. Commissioner Wodtke wished to know the status of our Planned Residential Development, and Director Keating confirmed that we have the PRD Ordinance in effect. A PRD is an allowable use in the RS -1 zoning district, and in this case, based on their conceptual, they would be coming in with a PRD requesting smaller 5 lot sizes than normally allowed so they could accommodate the golf courses, etc. They still would be'constrained by the overall density of one unit per acre, however. Commissioner Wodtke asked if you can apply for a PRD in an Agricultural zoning, and Director Keating clarified that PRD's are allowed in Agricultural zoning, but the density would be one unit per five acres. 39 DEC 4 1985 gno,� 62 1I. D E C .4 1985 Chairman Lyons referred to the following staff memo re soil characteristics: December 3, 1985 SUBJECT: SOIL CHARACTERISTICS FOR SCHLITT/CAIN REZONING REQUEST FROM: P.S REFERENCES: Richard Shearer, AICP Soil Characteristics Chit -f, T.nng-Rangc-_ Planning Memo/CHIEF' As per your request, we have studied the .soil maps for the property proposed for rezoning by Mr. Ed Schlitt which is located approximately two miles west of I-95. This area con- tains the following three soil types: 1) Riviera Fine Sand: a poorly -drained, nearly level soil typical of flood plain areas; 2) Pineda Fine Sand/Depressional: a very poorly -drained soil located in depressional areas and typical of flood plain areas; 3) Floridana Mucky Fine: a very poorly -drained soil. The Chairman believed this memo raises a question of how great this soil is for agricultural use in the future. Since this property never was developed for agriculture, it seems there must have been a reason. Commissioner Bird felt this land will support some agricul- ture, not necessarily groves. Chairman Lyons asked if anyone present wished to be heard. William Caldwell, Attorney, came before the Board represent- ing Ed Schlitt, Trustee, and the Cains, the principles in this project, and requested Engineer James Beindorf, whose firm prepared the topographic and boundary survey, to point out the boundaries of the subject property. Attorney Caldwell described the boundaries, noting that the south part of the property is SR60 and across the road on the south is all citrus. Going up the east side of the property, the first 1,000' or so is in citrus, and the rest of the east boundary and all of the north boundary is part of the Corrigan ranch; the west boundary is the Kromhout family agricultural development with citrus at the bottom and improved pasture lands at the very north. Attorney Caldwell then quoted wording from Mr. Shearer's memo which 40 referred to depleting of the "best agricultural lands" and also stated that "prime agricultural lands" must be preserved whenever possible; he pointed out that they believe this land is neither "best" nor "prime." These were tomato bed fields which have been abandoned. Attorney Caldwell next quoted the following which defines RR-2 as "a rural residential district which is to provide a transition between agricultural and environmentally sensitive areas and urban development areas...... to provide limited residential uses but at the same time protect agricultural and environmentally sensitive lands which are under development pressure...... and not to exceed one unit per acre." Attorney Caldwell noted that the Board has letters from the Corrigan ranch owner, both as an adjoining property owner and a County resident, stating that he feels a residential development of this nature in this area would be fine. Another adjoining owner, Mr. Kromhout, Sr., wrote expressing his concern as an abutting property owner that the property does not have plans for adequate drainage at this stage, and wanted assurance that if it is converted into some use other than agriculture that the purchasers of the property in that area would be advised they were purchasing near an agricultural development, specifically citrus and livestock. Attorney Caldwell did feel the proposed zoning is compatible with both these-properties. Attorney Caldwell addressed the three circumstances under which Land Use Plans will be considered, i.e., a mistake in the initial concept; a change in the philosophy of the Board since the Plan was adopted; and significant changes in the area. Attorney Caldwell did feel there has been a significant change in conditions. There has been an expansion of utilities and development on SR 60; there is a new fire station at 82nd Avenue within five miles of the subject property; and the commercial node at 1-95 and SR 60, which originally was 230 acres, is now 55.0 acres with 247 acres being west of 1-95. In addition, the 41 C 4 i98 BOOK 62 F�1UL DEC 4195 aooK 6-2 PacE St. Johns River Water Management District in the last year or so has acquired a very considerable amount of acreage west of 1-95, and another change that will affect this area within the next two years is the completion of 1-95 to the south. Attorney Caldwell felt the Board already has recognized the importance of this fact by expanding the commercial node at this intersection to almost a ~ square mile. Attorney Caldwell next addressed the questions raised re water and sewer service. He noted that while the Cains would like to have potable water and sewage treatment, actually they don't want to end up developing in one acre sites the way the rezoning request is laid out since the maximum number of acres they would end up with developing that way would be 700 because, according to the engineers, around 300 acres would be needed for water retention and irrigation. Attorney Caldwell continued that when the Cains bought this property in 1981, people were develop- ing groves in Indian River County, but today they are not as you can't develop a grove without nursery stock; also, to develop a grove takes five years and is very expensive. He then di.scussed intensity of residential units, emphasizing that the proposed change in the Land Use Plan really is in keeping with what is in the plan itself because you have MD -1 out to SR 60 and 1-95 at 8 units.an acre, while immediately west of that, you go to one unit per 5 acres or a 40 to 1 decrease in intensity of residential units. He agreed that much of the surrounding property is developed in citrus, but'did not feel any of those owners would take their groves out of service for residential development at one unit per acre, and he did not feel the Cain property should have to be put on hold maybe forever waiting for the in -fill development to occur because the planning is not done to connect what he felt is a logical good use of the property west of 1-95 to the existing MD -1. Commissioner Scurlock again emphasized the significant problems involving sewer and water service and drainage, and 42 _ ® M stated that while he did believe all these factors can be taken care of, he believed we must have the answers to how this can be done before we change the zoning and designation of this property. One possibility he felt might be worth considering was to go ahead and consider the Land Use redesignation at this time but not the rezoning with the thought that the County still would have control of its destiny. He asked Attorney Vitunac if the Board has the option to do that. Attorney Vitunac stated there is nothing illegal about it, but pointed out that it does limit the County's option because once the County says this should be a designation other than Agricultural, then the owner has a right to one of the zonings in that range. Commissioner Scurlock felt it has been documented that because of soil conditions and drainage problems, the land is not suitable for agricultural purposes. If we approve just the Land Use Plan change, he felt there is a possibility we could end up with a fine quality development if all the problems can be worked out, but if they can't, we still would have the ability to say that while this may not be suitable for agriculture, it also is not suitable for anything more than a very low density, i.e., possibly only one,unit in ten acres such as in flood areas. Attorney Vitunac did not see how it would help the applicant to have the Comprehensive Plan change without the rezoning unless It would be a comfort factor. Attorney Caldwell stated it very definitely would be a comfort factor for them considering the cost of going through the whole process. He stressed that they have talked.with the Kromhouts about a fee easement to deal with their drainage problems, and the Kromhouts have indicated their willingness to work with the adjoining property owners to solve these problems. Attorney Vitunac advised the applicant they should not be too comforted with just a Land Use Plan change because of the County's controls. 43 DEC 41985 BOOK 62 PDE 15i BOOK VP GuE Discussion continued at length regarding taking action on only the Land Use Plan designation. Attorney Caldwell agreed that obviously they would prefer the rezoning, but he did understand the other side of the argument in regard to protection'' for the county. In any event, he believed they would end up with more rights than they have today. Attorney Vitunac stressed that one of the findings the County would make today if the Comprehensive Plan were changed would be that this property is no longer good agricultural land, and that finding on the record with a court reporter present would make it very difficult to insist on an agricultural zoning for it once the Comprehensive Plan has been changed. Commissioner Scurlock agreed, but pointed out that it still would allow us to say that the use of the property should be even more restrictive than one unit per acre, and he felt that's the hook he has found that says we don't want something out there we can't deliver services to. Attorney Caldwell stated that his client has been advised that there is that potential, and while it certainly is not what they want, it would be almost impossible from an economic standpoint for them to try to go forward with the planning if they did not have some basis to feel this project could be worked out. Chairman Lyons pointed out that there is no guarantee that they will be able to get through the D.R.I. process successfully; so, he did not feel that anything the Board could do would provide them much comfort. Attorney Caldwell felt strongly that a change in the Land Use designation would be comfort to them in any event. He asked how the County staff would work with a Development Order. Chairman Lyons explained that when the D.R.I. comes in, it says the property must have the proper Land Use Plan designation and zoning, and it also says that unless all the requirements are met within a certain time, --the Board can change the zoning back. 44 M M M The Chairman believed rf we proceed in the way suggested, we have abandoned part of our right to change it back, and while this development can have very positive impacts, he felt it also can have negative impacts. Commissioner Scurlock commented that the soil analysis definitely seems to indicate that this property never has been something that could be actively pursued as an agricultural interest, and if we make the decision that it is not usable in an economic way as agriculture, he felt it is then incumbent on the Commission to grant some use to this property. Commissioner Bird did not totally agree that this property is'unusable as far as citrus is concerned. He pointed out that there are producing groves on the west, east and south of it, which properties have basically the same characteristics as the subject property. He therefore, had reason to believe this land could be made into a producing grove by ditching and diking, and according to Doug Bournique of the Citrus League there will be a great demand for citrus land in this County as soon as the canker problem is cleared up and nursery stock becomes available. Commissioner Bird emphasized that he was not saying that groves have to go on that property, but that he did not think it is fair to say that it is unusable for agricultural purposes. He continued that the major problem he has with the proposed cha-nge is that it represents such a drastic deviation from the Comprehensive Plan which we spent seven years developing. While he had no question that this would be a beautiful project of the type we would want to encourage, it definitely would leapfrog, and he did feel there should be a more logical consistent way to develop than jumping two miles over agricultural lands out into a rural area of the County and then trying to in -fill. He stressed that one of the main goals of the Comprehensive Plan was to prevent urban sprawl and in -fill the areas where services are available, and he was concerned what message it would send to all the other developers in the county if we made such a jump. 45 D E c 41985 BOOK FA UE 917 DEC 41985 9. Attorney Caldwell felt if the Board only changed the Land Use designation and did not do the rezoning, it would be telling them that this is a 1200 acre tract, which will have to go through the D.R.I. process, etc. He did not believe their project is comparable to most others and he also did not believe a density of one unit per acre would encourage many developers. Lex Kromhout informed the Board that his family owns 11 miles on the west side of the subject property, and they are actively involved in an agricultural operation. He reminded the Board that he previously has voiced concerns about the St. John's project. Fortunately his family has a fee simple easement through -the proposed reservoir property, but the o-ther properties in this area have a legal problem in regard to attaching to the reservoir site. The subject property does not have legal access to the reservoir nor do they have any legal drainage rights to - get to it. Mr. Kromhout noted that it was asked why the former owner never developed this property, and the answer is simply because they shared the same problems - they did not have legal access for drainage outfall, and until they could get that problem answered, they were stuck. Mr. Kromhout continued that this property was purchased about five years ago by investors from investors with the hope of developing it. They have not done anything with it, and they now hope that the Board will be kind enough to allow the zoning to change so they can convert this low cost agricultural land to highly profitable residential property. Mr. Kromhout noted that at the Planning 6 Zoning Commission meeting, the applicant presented a plan showing a development with lakes, golf courses, etc. This property, however, is zoned agricultural; it is surrounded by agriculture; and to change the zoning would significantly impact the surrounding properties. Mr. Kromhout emphasized that the proposed project has a potential of 1200 residents which offers a potential for that many tres- passers and people complaining about their farming operation. 46 Mr. Kromhout stressed that the subject property is highly productive agricultural land, but it is interlocked with a layer of clay which prevents water from being absorbed any deeper than the clay and it has to be drained artificially by pumping. That is why the marsh is there, and the marsh actually was created by the Sebastian River Drainage District. Mr. Kromhout continued that if the proposed lakes are created on the subject property, in dry periods this would create what are, in effect, large artificial wells which could pull water from neighboring land owners' soil and cause severe drought problems; also the water leaving the golf course during high rains would cause a pollution problem because of the pesticides and fertilizers. Mr. Kromhout emphasized that citrus in Indian River County is an economically viable operation, and it is profitable as is proven by the groves on either side and the fact that additional groves are being planted. St. Lucie is rapidly becoming the number one citrus producer in the state, and the citrus growers are moving east and south. Mr. Kromhout urged the Commissioners to stick with the Comprehensive Plan and protect the farmers from the problems that would be caused by converting the subject property to residential. Commissioner Scurlock believed that Mr. Kromhout is saying that even to develop this land in agriculture, they still would have to resolve the drainage problem. Mr. Kromhout confirmed this. He reported that the five land owners did meet and the Kromhout family did offer a solution to those who do not have a legal outfall and were willing to allow them a means to attach to their outfall which is adequate. They felt this was a very viable offer which would not only solve those landowner's problems, but also cut down the problem of the St. Johns Water Management District by having only one outfall to deal with coming into the reservoir. St. Johns response was that if the Kromhouts would like to donate 320 acres of land, they would let them continue to farm that property. Mr. Kromhout 47 DEC 4.1985 eoolc 62 PAGE9L �i DEC 4 1995 602 u� , 9 stressed that they used the word "donate" and that is a ridiculous offer that his family can't live with. Mr. Kromhout stated that his family's position now is that the District is going to have to deal with them because on any government project'' they must eliminate any cloud on their title. Commissioner Bird requested that Mr. Kromhout keep the Commission abreast of what is happening in this regard as the Commission is very concerned about protecting all its agricultural interests. Mr. Kromhout felt it would help if the Commission would go on record urging the St. Johns District to allow agricultural development in this area and emphasizing that the zoning is agricultural now. He noted that the District already owns 70,000 acres in the county and wondered just how much wetlands they need. Commissioner Bird felt this should be put on the agenda of another meeting when we can address it fully. Commissioner Scurlock believed there is no question that as people are frozen out, agricultural use will increase in the areas that will support it, if we make it possible. He commented that as he understood it, the surrounding owners do not now have a solution to the drainage problem. Mr. Kromhout reiterated that the Kromhout family had made the offer he described, and beyond the unacceptable response from the St. John's District, they have had no further response. He did not feel it is fair to expect his family to solve the problems of other land owners who are encroaching their drainage onto the Kromhout property and the Cains are doing that with a pump; they are doing it illegally; and it is going to have to stop very soon. Desire' Kromhout came before the Board to add to his son's words. He stressed that the Board has the duty to govern and that means to foresee; that is what is being done by zoning, and -this land was properly zoned Agricultural. In regard to why this 48 land was never farmed except for some tomatoes, Mr. Kromhout informed the Board that he originally came here from the Netherlands, and there are two places in the world where the land is exactly the same and that is in part of the south of the Netherlands and the Allapattah Flats. These flats run from Melbourne to about Jupiter in a stretch of land two to five miles wide about 14 miles away from the ocean; this is roughly between 1-95 and CR 512 and includes his property and the subject property. These flats contain some of the very best agricultural lands. Mr. Kromhout advised that his family can maintain a brood cow and calf on one acre and have been harvesting citrus 500 boxes to the acre. This is top land, but it, of course, requires proper management and you must have dikes and pumps so you have your flood irrigation and drainage in control. Mr. Kromhout noted that the land east of his is the same land; it is good land, but it must have dikes and drainage. Mr. Kromhout emphasized that he never had any trouble with the freezes because he was able to flood his grove completely. The subject property, however, has absolutely no drainage way out. He did not believe the Cains are very familiar with the kind of land they have where the layer of clay does not let a drop of water through, and you,. therefore, must pump the water out to get rid of it unless you have a place to store it. Mr. Kromhout noted that some people consider 10% of the land a sufficient storage area, but he considers 50% the absolute minimum. He continued to emphasize that this is very good citrus land, but the drainage is the problem. He felt, as a farmer, that if the Cains do not want to put farming there, it is an attack on his "green belt" status, and he also was concerned about having people next door who will trespass on his property, shoot the deer, fish, etc. He noted that they already are having trouble because of the St. Johns Water District being closed to hunting. Mr. Kromhout then spoke at length of his trip to China and the problems caused there by overpopulation and the.ir difficulty 49 DEC 4 198 r Bi70K 62 FSE W! 8naK U FAGE 9 with trying to feed their people. He hoped the United States doesn't ever get that many people, but emphasized that we are losing land every day to development, roads, etc. Mr. Kromhout again stressed that it is the responsibility of government to foresee and provide for these things, and residential should go where nothing will grow. Bob Edsall, Edsall Grove Service, informed the Board that he takes care of the Durrett's groves, which are in this area, and Mr. Durrett requested that he express his opposition to the proposed changes. Mr. Durrett has been a farmer for many years, and even though Mr. Edsall expressed the opinion that the proposed project would not bother him very much and his land value would probably go up considerably, he still objected strongly to this area going into residential- he is a farmer and he wants to stay in agriculture. Mr. Edsall believed that the Kromhouts have said everything else that needs to be said. He noted that if he owned property in this area, he would be sorely tempted to accept the idea of residences in the area, but he doesn't own property out there, and speaking as a private citizen, he would hate to see happen here what has happened down in St. Lucie County down between Fort Pierce and Port St. Lucie, which is a disaster with the traffic. Mr. Edsall felt the Board should not make a major change in the Comprehensive Plan, which is what this would be. Attorney Caldwell did not know what happened to what he had thought was an understanding with the Kromhouts about a joint venture with the drainage facility, and he explained that part of the delay in getting back to them is the hearing today because the money that can be put into solving this will depend on what the property can be used for. Re the 320 acres Lex Kromhout referred to, Attorney Caldwell stated that was never intended to come out that way. Although he can understand the farm interests, he wished to redirect the Board's thoughts back to the SR 60 corridor and what is -happening with the 1-95 intersection 50 and urged that the Commission consider favorably the request to change Land Use Plan designation. Attorney Caldwell stated they would like to ask for a continuance on the rezoning. The senior Kromhout explained, that as he said before, they offered a drainage solution for the Cains and the others to the officials of the St. Johns Water Management District. This, however, did not turn out the way they had hoped, and the District more or less insulted them by asking for 320 acres free. It was St. Johns who asked for the acreage, and Mr. Kromhout emphasized that they have never heard from the Cains since that time although he believed without drainage they can do nothing. Commissioner Scurlock'noted that Mr. Kromhout appears to be saying that this is good agricultural land and should be used for that purpose. He wished to know if the Kromhouts still would have worked out a drainage solution if it would result in a residential use. Mr. Kromhout stated that possibly he would do this, but the Cains have never approached him since or shown any response to their proposal, and he doesn't like that. Jack Cain wished to clarify for Mr. Kromhout and the Commission what their thinking was on the proposal re the drainage situation. First of all, they realized they had a problem, and Lex Kromhout came to them and very generously offered to help them solve their problem. After that they met with Lex Kromhout and his dad at his father's house to talk about this, and this meeting generated a few letters. Lex Kromhout then met with the St. Johns River Water Management District, which the Cains were unable to attend, and after that meeting, Mr. Cain continued that they visited Lex at his office in Fort Pierce and went over some costs and other things involved in the drainage and they were all rather taken aback that the Drainage District would ask the Kromhouts to donate 320 acres in order to get drainage rights for their own property when they already own a fee situation into the drainage district. Mr. Cain stated it 51 BOOK U►2 Fl1,E 9� DEC 4 �9�5 BOOK . E2 FAU" 9 L was his impression they were still working together, and he emphasized that they had no intention -of breaking off their talks with the Kromhouts as they look at this as a key part of their drainage situation. Commissioner Wodtke asked the Kromhouts if there is any discrepancy between them and the Drainage District as to whether they have rights to drain within the District, and Lex Kromhout noted that by saying nothing, the District leaves questions. Their rules, however, say that if you were in existence before 173, which the Kromhouts were, you would be grandfathered in, and they have advised the District of this. At the present time, the situation is in limbo. Chairman Lyons asked if they do drain through there now, and Mr. Kromhout confirmed that they do. Commissioner Wodtke felt there is another issue involved other than just the draining of the Cain and Corrigan properties. He kind of read that when the District asked for that 320 acres, it was to give them the right to drain their property, which actually is a separate issue. Lex Kromhout confirmed that is, in effect, what the District said. Mr. Kromhout continued that it seems there is a misunder- standing about the whole drainage situation as they still stand ready to help their neighbors. Re their problem with St. Johns, he believed that may come down to a court fight. Chairman Lyons felt if that happens, the county may be involved in the fight also as there are many thousands of acres of County land that would be affected. Lex Kromhout agreed and noted that while there is about 4600 acres directly involved, there is a potential for all the prop- erty west of 1-95 between CR 512 and SR 60 to become involved. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously closed the public hearing. -- 52 W M r M Commissioner Scurlock noted that as he had commented earlier it seems this is premature and that there are too many questions to move on the item. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, to deny the request for a change in the Land Use Plan redesignating the subject acreage to RR -2. Commissioner Wodtke believed that the statement made by the Kromhouts that this is prime agricultural land and can be so used is a serious consideration. Although the soil analysis tells us it doesn't drain, it appears that doesn't necessarily say it isn't good soil. It was noted that apparently the whole problem with this land is that it doesn't drain, and Commissioner Scurlock felt that you can make most any land suitable for agriculture; the question is how much are you going to spend to do it. Commissioner Wodtke noted that many years ago most of the land in this area was under water until it was diked; there obviously is a drainage problem. Some utilization of the land should be allowed, however, and although the present proposal would involve a major change in our Comprehensive Plan, he felt all would agree that the Corrigan's and Ansin's considerable acreage should not be considered a potential for residential. - Commissioner Wodtke felt the type of development that is being I proposed is the type we want to encourage in the county, but he would like to see a proposal that could address all the factors that have been raised. He did not feel, however, that it is right to ask any developer to spend that kind of money without getting some kind of an indication of support. Commissioner Scurlock concurred that the kind of development they are suggesting could be a very positive thing for the county; he felt there is always going to be a point where 53 DEC 4 1985 BOOK 62 PAGE 9 800K ��� Ft4�f agriculture butts up against people; and the low intensity of the use could be an asset. Of course, there should be provision for the best possible kind of a buffer. It seems, however, this might be premature because of the questions that need to be answered, and he felt the proposal is not concrete enough at this point. Commissioner Bowman believed that 1-95 is the best buffer we have. Chairman Lyons advised that he planned to vote for the denial because he has been convinced this is good agricultural land and he does oppose unnecessary encroachment on such lands. Commissioner Bird noted that he had stated the same concerns earlier. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION on the Motion to deny. It was voted on and carried unanimously. Attorney Caldwell stated that it appears one of the.Board's main concerns was drainage, but he was not clear as to whether the agricultural use is something that was desired on SR 60 or not. Chairman Lyons explained that his vote was based on the fact that this was established as agricultural land, and accordingly, he will oppose residential development on SR 60 further west than we have it now. Commissioner Bird stated that he basically feels it is premature to create a residential area that far west in the midst of prime agricultural land, and Commissioner Bowman confirmed that she felt the same. Attorney Caldwell had a question in regard to proceeding with a D.R.I. and wished to know if the rezoning were denied, would they then have a two year wait? Staff advised that it would be one year from when they first applied, or next July. 54 J Attorney Caldwell stated that he still would prefer to withdraw their request for the rezoning. Attorney Vitunac pointed out that the issue on the rezoning is not properly before the Board because the Comprehensive Plan amendment was denied. Planning Director Keating commented that if the developer goes through the D.R.I. process, conceivably they could bring it back at any time, but he did feel the one year still would stand in relation to the rezoning. He pointed out that a D.R.I. involves a substantial length of time. Discussion continued as to whether the rezoning request should be withdrawn or whether action could be taken, and Director Keating believed the Board could take action by denying the request; they just couldn't take action to approve it. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously denied the rezoning from A to RS -1, requested by Edgar Schlitt, Trustee. DISCUSSION ON NEW LEGISLATION - F. I. N. D. Joe Earman, Commissioner of F.I.N.D., came before the Board to review the legislation described in the following letter from the Florida Inland Navigation District: 55 DEC 4 1 Boa 62 F,1GE R27 DEC 4 1985 LA�iTI BOOK E2 FLORIDA INLAND NAVIGATION DISTRICT 21 November 1985 COMMISSIONERS Mr. Patrick B. Lyons, Chairman Board of County Commissioners ASTOR SUMMERLIN Indian River County CHAIRMAN ST. LUCIE COUNTY 1 840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 DOUGLAS C. CRANE VICE CHAIRMAN ST. JOHNS COUNTY Dear Mr. Lyons: MYRON H. BURNSTEIN TREASURER This letter confirms my telephone conversation with Ms. Alice BROWARD COUNTY White on 21 November 1985. CHARLES L. TRAD SECRETAFL4GLERCOUNTY The 1985 Florida Legislature enacted.Chapter 85-200, Laws of Florida, which expanded the authority of the Florida Inland WowALCOUNTY R Navigation District (FIND) to a considerable degree. This new Legislation provides the authority for FIND to support TONYWOUNTALSH volusw COUNTY programs $ in the following five areas: W. VINCENT BARBER BREVARD COUNTY g� Local Sponsor, Section 107 Corps of Engineers,Small Navigation Projects. JOE H. EARMAN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY M.BRENLL b.. Beach renourishment, where dredging of the beach re - MARTIN COUNTY COUNTY nourishment material is a benefit to public navigation in the District. ROBERT L. RYBOVICH PALM BEACH COUNTY STANLEY E. GOODMAN c. Assistance to local governments within the District DAoecouNTY in Planning and carrying out public navigation, public recreation and boating safety projects. STAFF d. Grants for research, study or test programs relating to waterway construction, use, operation or maintenance, or relating to wildlife, wildlife habitat, fisheries, water quality, STERLING K. EISIMINGER GENERAL MANAGER vegetation, erosion, accretion or similar environmental issues and values. NANCY BEERS ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT e. Grants for projects within the District designed to • restore or enhance the environment, including, but not limited to, projects seeking to protect, restore, or enhance wildlife, wildlife habitat, wetlands, fisheries, water quality, acquatic habitat, or other environmental values. The FIND Board of Commissioners desires to inform each of the eleven Boards of County Commissioners in the District of this new legislation and the Board's willingness to receive requests from units of local government for assistance. In this regard, Commissioner Joe H. Earman from Vero Beach and the undersigned respectfully request permission to discuss this subject with the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners at its meeting on 4 December 1985. Enclosed for your ready reference are copies of Chapter 85-200, Laws of Florida, and a brief summary of the requirements for submission of requests for funds to this District. Sincerely, SterlRalgXanaRer K. Eisiminger Gen 56 i Mr. Earman informed the Board that both Col. Eisiminger, Executive Director of the District, and Representative Patchett were present also. He then talked about the Patchett Bill 85-200 which was passed in the last session of the Legislature, noting that the District had five million dollars sitting in their account and nowhere to spend it because basically they were only allowed to spend these funds to dredge the inland waterway. There was talk of abolishing the District and putting these monies in the General Fund, but Representative Patchett worked very hard to find a way to allow 'the District more uses of these funds and came up with Bill 85-200. Mr. Earman stated that he was very proud to be here today to help the County implement this, and he considered it a great personal achievement to help get this Bill put through. Mr. Earman then gave the following example of what the County now can get for free, i.e., a new Marine Patrol Officer, completely equipped with boat, truck, etc.; this would be a continuing on-going position which would give the County three such officers or almost 24 hour coverage. Mr. Earman reported that they are working on an agreement with the Department of Corrections to supply prisoners, as well as a boat, a van, etc., so they can keep the Spoil Islands clean, and this agreement says that this service will be available to municipalities and counties, and F.I.N.D, will pick up the whole expense. If the Merrill Barber Bridge does not have a marine radio, the District will provide them with one. This can be purchased under Boating Safety and Navigation, and Mr. Earman noted that they have a thousand dollars budgeted for boating safety education materials. The County, however, will have to request this from the District for boating education. Mr. Earman next informed the Board that in the 1986-87 fiscal year, they will have matching funds available for cities and counties, all of whom can apply separately. These funds basically will be limited to be used for public nay.igation, 57 C 41985 800K DEC 41985 c� BOOKFrr. , L public recreation, boating safety, and ecology and wildlife preservation. He stressed that F.I.N..D. is charged with developing the nation's largest recreation area, the 400 miles of the inland waterway, which is used by one million people per weekend and bordered by 600 of the Florida population. We, therefore, must get busy before it is totally destroyed by all these people. Mr. Earman emphasized that Indian River County has, in his opinion, two projects that need to be looked at right away - erosion on Jungle Trail caused by traffic on the waterway and development of the Joe Earman Park to completion. Representative Dale Patchett expressed the hope that the counties along the waterway will take advantage of this attempt to get this money back in use because if they do not, the legislators will try to do away with this Bill. Colonel Eisiminger, General Manager of F.I.N.D., did not feel there is much he could add, but he had one administrative comment, i.e., that any requests be in by the first of March; decisions would be made by the first of June in time for budget session. Commissioner Bird inquired of Intergovernmental Relations Director Thomas where we stand on the development of Joe Earman Park. Director Thomas could not answer specifically beyond the fact that some progress has been made, and we do have some funds - about $6,000. With the emphasis that the District is putting on recreation as a whole; however, plus pressure from other areas, he felt it is going to be necessary to take an overall look because he did not believe our current in-house staff can _ carry the load and meet the deadlines as they are currently working on other priorities. Commissioner Bird noted that back in 1982, the Board approved completion of Phase I, which consisted of clearing native trails, and installing picnic tables, grills, benches, 58 swings, portable toilets, and one permanent wood dock on each side of the island. Commissioner Wodtke noted that we needed money for maintenance, security, etc., in order to be able to complete this project. He believed that now, with the information Mr. Earman has given us, we can move forward, and he felt we owe it to him to be the lead county in getting our request in. Commissioner Wodtke then raised the question of whose responsibility it is to remove derelicts from the Indian River. Apparently the Corps of Engineers can only remove them if they interfere with navigation; so, if these derelicts are not in the channel, it seems nobody has any jurisdiction over them. Commissioner Wodtke discussed the possibility of asking for funds to remove these as part of a project. Representative Patchett advised that he is having a meeting with Mr. Gissendanner of the DNR Monday re aquatic preserves, and they are looking at the same problem. Possibly this can be solved through that program. Commissioner Bird asked if the Commission is still in agreement with proceeding with Phase I of Joe Earman Park, and Director Thomas again raised the problem of the staff work- load and priorities. Discussion continued, and Commissioner Scurlock felt we need a budget amendment to fund this. Administrator Wright did not believe any of the permitting has been done, and it will be necessary to decide what Engineering can sluff off and give to someone else. He asked a that the Board let him get back to them on this. Mr. Earman requested that when the Board does go back to this, that they go for funds for the whole thing at once, not just Phase I. He believed the estimate for the whole project was about $40,000. Commissioner Bowman wanted to thank these gentlemen for their fine work on this Bill which was a very difficult job. She noted that these matching funds can be used for fisheries, and 59 DEC 41985 _ MoK 62 1"'E DEC 41985 felt we have to realize that our present fisheries in the river are not great and one of our deficiencies is information on our sea grass beds. We have an active committee working on this, but it appears that they have undertaken a tremendously big job. Commissioner Bowman suggested that possibly we could fund a research team to study these grass beds. Mr. Earman believed this could be done, but stated that it would have to be on a matching fund basis. The Chairman extended the Commission's thanks to Mr. Earman and Representative Patchett and assured them that we will be asking for these funds. DISCUSSION RE GROWTH MANAGEMENT LEGISLATION Planning Director Keating informed the Board that the Department of Community Affairs is going to have public workshop meetings this week and next week re some proposed rule making. He then gave the Board some background about the Bill that was passed, which is voluminous and deals with three major areas - comprehensive planning, coastal management, and D.R.I.s, Chapter, 380. Basically in this Bill the DCA was charged with developing rules for the Comprehensive Planning aspect by February 15th, 1986; so, they are on a rather tight timeframe and have sent out a draft of the proposed rules. The public workshop meetings will address these rules which will specify exactly what is to be in the Comprehensive Plan and what the County will have to do. Director Keating advised that the first draft was very heavy on inventory requirements which would have required a good deal of time and manpower in order to be able to comply, but he believed another draft, which we have not yet received, has reduced significantly the inventory and data requirements and is going more towards identifying minimum requirements in each of the Comprehensive Plan elements. What staff would like today is some direction on how the Board would like them to proceed and whether they wish staff to --take an active role in the workshop 60 meetings. There are three workshop meetings this week in Hollywood, Tampa and Tallahassee, and in January there will be several public hearings. Chairman Lyons felt the way this was set up originally was too cumbersome and too expensive for the County to operate, and he would like us to be represented at workshop meetings to see that this is kept a practical type document which doesn't overburden the county. The Board generally agreed that staff should keep up with this and attend workshops as necessary. CUBIT ENGINEERING RE AERIAL SURVEY Administrator Wright informed the Board that this involves approximately 2300 acres north of the Wabasso Causeway. The price is $8.50 per acre for the photos plus $325 for the flight, which would come to $19,875, and there is money in Federal Revenue Sharing to pay for this. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, to approve the aeria-I survey to be done by Cubit Engineering in the amount of $19,875, as described by the Administrator; the funds to come from Federal Revenue Sharing. Commissioner Wodtke asked about the actual area involved, and Administrator Wright clarified that it is north o -f the Wabasso Causeway through the narrows; it will involve a good bit of Orchid, and basically all the land in that area west of A -1-A. Discussion ensued regarding the scale of the aerial maps, and it was stated that the scale is to be 1"/100' with 1' contours. Commissioner Wodtke asked if we have any policy re selling these maps as he would like to recoup some of this cost. 61 DEC 41985 - BOOK 62 FAU,E o ROOK. V� Fr��E CJJ►� The Administrator noted that the Property Appraiser sells them, and Chairman Lyons felt we can sell them also and can recoup some of the cost. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. ANNUAL APPOINTMENTS OF TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL MEMBERS ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously agreed to reappoint the present incumbents: Margaret C. Bowman, representative William C. Wodtke, alternate Patrick B. Lyons, representative Richard N. Bird, alternate REPRESENTATION ON AD HOC TRANSPORTATION IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE The Board reviewed letter from the Department of Community Affairs, as follows: 62 STATE =FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY A F�AIRS� 2571 EXECUTIVE CENTER CIRCLE, EAST TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301 BOB GRAHAM Govemor Honorable Patrick B. Lyons, Chairman Indian River County Board of County Commissioners 1840 - 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 TOM LEWIS, )R. Secretary November 15 1985 -- DIST�I^U O!,I.LIST coni r�3*1.�r: ;" Adnnin,is ra 3r Peri cl — L'Cc-,-nniuni'djl Ca Dear Mayor Lyons: U i ii i Lies — Finance On November 5, 1985, I presented a report Atfiplelveehtatn of the Hutchinson Island Management Plan to the Governor and Cabinet. Enclosed is a copy for your review. The report is the second of two progress reports that the Governor and Cabinet directed be prepared following preliminary steps in December 1984 and January 1985 to designate Hutchinson Island an Area of Critical State Concern. Since February's decision not to designate, Indian River County has demonstrated commendable leadership in adopting measures that effectively implement the provisions of the Management Plan. I eagerly await the final report of the barrier island transportation study. We are now, however, entering the final and most critical phase of Plan implementation. I am referring to the transportation network and its capacity to evacuate island residents in an emergency. This is a regional issue that I am sure you will agree requires a joint solution. After the transportation studies are complete, a coordinated, multi -jurisdictional plan must be developed that specifies which transportation improvements are needed, how they will be funded, and how residential densities will be allocated. To facilitate interlocal cooperation, the Governor and Cabinet approved a plan that calls for an ad hoc Transportation Implementation Committee. The Committee will be composed of one elected official and one planning official from each of the seven local governments, plus representatives from the Metropolitan Planning Organization, the Florida Department of Transportation, and the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council. The Committee's charge is to serve as a forum for coordinating the region's transportation planning efforts. The end result is not expected to be just another planning document, but rather funding sources, capital improvements programs, and zoning maps that implement the transportation policies of the Hutchinson Island -- Management Plan. Your community's participation in this effort is essential. I have made a commitment to the Governor and Cabinet that within the coming year - by October 1986 - final transportation plans will be in place. A summary report to the Cabinet will then be made, the ad hoc Transportation Committee disbanded, and this Department's active role in the Hutchinson Island planning initiative at An end. The next step in this last phase, then, is for each local government during the month of November to select an elected official and a planner to serve on the Transportation Committee. The first meeting will be scheduled for sometime in December, and there will be approximately one meeting every two to three months thereafter. The first meeting is tentatively scheduled to be held in Fort Pierce. Mike McDaniel will be contacting you in the next couple'of weeks to finalize details and get the names of your representatives. If you have any questions before then, please feel free to call him at (904)488-9210. Sincerely, ovTom Lewis, Jr., AIA, *Architect DEC4 1985 Secretary BOOK 62 P.1GE DEC 4 1995 �aolt fact` Commissioner Scurlock felt Planning Director Keating should be our representative and then whoever is Chairman of the Transportation Planning Committee after we have our annual reorganization. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously appointed Planning Director Keating and who- ever may be Chairman of the Transportation Planning Committee as the Board's representa- tives to the Ad Hoc Transportation Implementa- tion Committee. REPORT ON STATUS OF MINIMUM SECURITY BUILDING Chairman Lyons informed the Board that the Jail Committee met and looked at the first rough draft of the design for the 120 bed minimum detention facility, and the architects now are making some changes. This is primarily designed to take advantage of being able to work.prisoners, and has a unique design to allow for movement of the prisoners in and out of the facility. Chairman Lyons believed the facility is about 190000 sq. ft. and will cost about 1.6 million. He noted that they are hoping to find a way to negotiate a bid with the contractor we have so we can get this finished concurrently with the other facility. He hoped to come back to the Board within a week or two with the final plans. There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the meeting adjourned at 12:30 o'clock P.M. ATTEST: Clerk 64