HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/11/1985Wednesday, December 11, 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 11, 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; Charles P.
Vitunac, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; L.S.
"Tommy" Thomas, Director of Intergovernmental Relations; Joseph
Baird, OMB Director; and Barbara Bonnah, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to.order, and Commissioner
Bird led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
Administrator Wright requested the addition to today's
Agenda of the lease agreement with Williams Mobile Offices for
the temporary jail facility.
Administrator Wright announced that William Caldwell,
Attorney representing Ralph W. Sexton, has formally withdrawn
Item 9 - Appeal of Condition attached to the Preliminary Plat
Approval of Old Sugar Mill Estates, Unit 5 Subdivision, continued
from September 22, 1985.
Administrator Wright noted that Item 13 - Additional Cost
for Additional Aerial Photograph of Barrier Island - had been
taken care of at last week's meeting and requested it be deleted
from today's Agenda.
DEC 11.1985 Boa� FA�E �Q�'`�
DEC 11195
BOOK
FAGE�3'
Commissioner Bird
requested two items be added to
today's
Agenda: 1) A discussA on on a trip to Tallahassee on the Save Our
Coast program, and 2) the announcement of a $10,000 contribution
to the golf course equipment fund.
Attorney Vitunac requested the addition of Item 5-P on
today's Consent Agenda of a matter re a trade of County park
property in Orchid Isle.
Commissioner Bowman requested the addition of a discussion
re the advertising requirements on Homestead Exemptions.
Chairman Lyons requested the addition of a report on
mediations with the architects on the jail.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously added
and deleted the above items from today's Agenda.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or
corrections to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 11/6/85.
Commissioner Bowman corrected the spelling of Daphne
Strickland's name on Page 64.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 11/6/85, as
corrected.
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or
corrections to the Minutes of the Special Meeting of 11/21/85.
There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
2
the Minutes of the Special Meeting of 11/21/85, as
written.
CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Scurlock requested that Items N, 0, and P be
removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion, and Commissioner
Bird requested Item K be removed also.
A. Approval of Renewal Applications for Permit to Carry a
Concealed Firearm
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/3/85:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: Discember 3, 1385 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Michael Wright
County Administrator
SUBJECT: PISTOL PERMITS - RENEWALS
REFERENCES:
The following applicants have applied for renewal of pistol permits:
Alvin Young
Anthony P. Procaccini
Jonathan Washington
Leroy Brown
Eugene D. Dvorak
All requirements of the ordinance have been met.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously renewed
permits to carry a concealed firearm for:
Alvin Young
Anthony P. Procaccini
Jonathan Washington
Leroy Brown
Eugene D. Dvorak
3
DEC 111985
900A
62 ka:
FmsE �
r DEC 111985
BOOK 62 PAGE 940
B. Execution of Supplemental Agreement with Frizzell Architects
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/11/85:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: November 22, 1985 FILE:
the -Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Michael
County A n
SUBJECT: Frizzell Architects
Supplemental Agreement
REFERENCES:
ator
Commissioner Lyons, Charles vitunac, Sonny Dean and I met
with representatives of Frizzell Architects on November 12, 1985
and agreed to recommend the attached supplemental agreement to
cover architectural services on the minimum security addition
to the Indian River County Detention Facility. _
The original contract called for basic compensation, a percen-
tage of construction cost as defined below:.
Construction
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6.,000,000
7,000,000
0,000,000
Cost Fee
7.5 percent
7.3 percent
7.1 percent
6.9 prcent
6.8 percent
6.7 percent
6.6 percent
6.5 percent
and greater 6.4 percent
The cost of the initial jail was approximately $3.9 million
resulting in a fee of 6.9 percent of the construction cost. If
the second phase of the. jail, which has ballpark estimated cost
of $1.6 million, had been included in the original contract, the
architect's fee would have been 6.7 percent, based on a combined
cost of $5.5 million.
If the second phase were considered to be a totally separate
project, the fee would be 7.3 percent of the construction cost.
Since the second phase was not included in the original sub-
missions to the Department of Corrections and considerable effort
must be extended to obtain additional approvals, the County nego-
tiating committee concluded the minimum security building should
not be considered a pure extention of the original detention faci-
lity. However the minimum security building does not have all
the characteristics -of a free standing project:'
Therefore, the Committee recommends the architect's compensa-
tion. --be determined from the fee schedule by averaging a fee based
on the cost of Phase II construction by itself with a -fee based
on the cost of construction of Phases I and II combined, or 7
percent.
In addition, the architect shall rebate an additional one-
quarter of the $40,000 lump sum fee previously paid the architect
for the Indian River Criminal Justice Complex study.
4
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the supplementary agreement to cover the services of --
Frizzell Architects on the second phase of construction
at the Indian River Jail, and authorized the Chairman's
signature.
SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT BETWEEN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
AND W. R. FRIZZELL ARCHITECTS, INC.
W. R. Frizzell Architects, Inc., shall provide architectural and
engineering services for Phase II of the Indian River County Jail
consisting of a Minimum Security Prisoner Housing Pod and related
facilities. These services shall be performed under the terms of
the Owner/Architect Agreement between Indian River County and
W. R. Frizzell Architects, Inc., dated October 6, 1982.
Phase I consists of the work presently under a construction contract.
Compensation for the Architect's basic services shall be based on the
Fee Schedule in Paragraph 14.2.1 of the Agreement. The amount of the
fee percentage shall be determined from the schedule by averaging a
fee based on the cost of the Phase II construction by itself with a
fee based on the cost of construction of Phases I and II combined.
The Architect shall also rebate an additional one-quarter of the
$40,000.00 lump sum fee previously paid the Architect for the Indian
River County Criminal Justice Complex Study, according to the follow-
ing schedule:
Schematic design phase
$ 1,500.00
Design development Phase
$ 2,000.00
Construction Document Phase
$ 4,000.00
Bidding or Negotiation Phase
$ 500.00
Construction Phase
$ 2,000.00
Total X10,000.00
The October 6, 1982 Agreement and
the Supplementary Agreement executed
by the County on April 18, 1984, remain in full force and effect ex-
cept to the extent specifically modified by: this document.
The parties hereto have set their
hands and seals on the � ,
�ay:sct forth
next to their signatures.
DATE I ! 113 8 5'
W. R. FRIZZE CARCHITE TS,
t
By •'. ,
Approved:
' George H. i , President
DATE December 11' 1985
BOARD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
IND E UN
- Approved as to form
/7
and legal sufficiency
BY
"4;B
P rick B. , hairman
Charm P. Vitunac
County Attorney
5
BOOK 6Pr1�E 0.41
DEC 111985
r DEC 111985
Bou 62 PnE 942
C. Approval of Out -of -County Travel - Scottsdale, Arizona
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
out -of -county travel for Commissioners and appropriate
staff to attend the Strategic Plans technical
conference in Scottsdale, Arizona, January 22-24, 1986.
D. Proclamation - Sherman N. Smith, Jr., Esquire
ON VOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously entered into
the record the following proclamation awarded to
Sherman N. Smith, Jr., Esquire.
6
M ® M
P R O C L A M A T I O N
WHEREAS, Sherman' N. Smith, Jr., Esquire has
been active as an attorney and counselor at law in Florida
since December 'of 1935 and, on December 2nd, 1985, observed
the Fiftieth Anniversary of his admission to the practice of
law in the State of Florida; and
WHEREAS, Sherman N. Smith, Jr., Esquire
served his country with distinction as a Naval officer during
World War II; and
WHEREAS, Sherman. N. Smith, Jr., Esquire
served as Indian River County Prosecuting Attorney and attorney
to the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida, for twelve years; and
WHEREAS, Sherman N. Smith, Jr., Esquire
served as City Attorney for Vero Beach, Sebastian and Fellsmere
for several years; and
WHEREAS, Sherman N. Smith, Jr., Esquire
served the citizens of Indian River County as a member of the
Florida House of Representatives from 1952 to 1956; and
WHEREAS, Sherman N. Smith, Jr., Esquire
served as Associate Judge and Chief Judge of the Second and
Fourth District Courts of Appeal of Florida from 1961 to 1966;
and
WHEREAS, on December 13th, 1985, the Indian
River County Bar Association will host a testimonial luncheon
to honor the countless achievements of Sherman N. Smith, Jr.,
Esquire; and
WHEREAS, Sherman N: Smith, Jr., is well known
w
to the citizens of Indian River County and the State of Florida'
as a gentleman, a statesman and a scholar; and
DEC 111985 Boa 62 F -a E 94
r �
DEC 111985 Booz 62 PAGE 944
WHEREAS, we the citizens 'of Indian River
County are, honored to include Sherman N. Smith, Jr. as a
member of our pcommunity;
NOW
- , HEREFORE;t. on"behalf 0-fitself and all the
citizens of Indian River County,; 'BE IT: PROCLAIMED- that
the Board of County Commissioners hereby expresses its
congratulations and sincere appreciation to Sherman N.
Smith, Jr., Esquire for his fifty years of dedicated and
exemplary service and leadership as an attorney and counselor
of law, state representative, judge and honored member of our
community; and
BE IT FURTHER PROCLAIMED that Sherman N.
Smith, Jr., Esquire is hereby recognized and applauded for
his countless achievements and service to the nation, the
State of Florida and Indian River County; and
BE IT FURTHER PROCLAIMED that in
recognition of the accomplishments of this remarkable person,
the week of December 8th through December 14th shall be
designated as
"SHERMAN N. SMITH, JR. WEER"
-P
in Indian River County.
Attest j
FREDA WRIGHT, C1 rk
BOARD OUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF I I RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
B
PATRICK B. L1r0)M,,j Chairman
8
E. IRC Bid #262 - (1) New 1986 Economy Pickup Truck (4 x 4)
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/3/85:
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: Dec. 3, 1985
Thru: Michael Wright
County Administrator
FILE:
SUBJECT: IRC BID #262 -One (1) New 1986
Economy Pickup Truck (4 x 4 )
FROM: .��-i.lJ REFERENCES:
Carolyn bodiri_ i,_ Manuger
Purchas2rng Department
1. Description and Conditions
Bids were received Tuesday, November 26, 1985 at 11:00 A.M. for IRC #262 -
One (1) New 1986 Economy Pickup Truck (4 x 4) for Code Enforcement and the
Building Department.
13 Bid Proposals were sent out. Of the 5 Bid Proposals returned, 1 was a
"No Bid".
2. Alternatives and Analysis
The low bid on Item #1 -Economy Pickup Truck (4 x 4)'was submitted by Sunrise
Ford, Ft. Pierce, Fl. in the amount of $8624.00. However, Mr. Burger of Sunrise
Ford has requested withdrawal of his bid because he bid a 2WD instead of a
4 WD. (See attached letter). The second low bid was submitted by Southside
Ford, Jacksonville, in the amount of $9555.00.
The low bid on the alternate, Item #2 -Economy Utility Vehicle (4 x 4) was sub-
mitted by Southside Ford, in the amount of $10,400.00.
State Contract prices are as follows:
Item#1-$9286.00 -Don Reid Ford
Item#2-$11,067.00 - AMC Jeep
Code Enforcement and the Building Department both have $10,000.00 budgeted for
a vehicle. Although the bid was for 1 vehicle, the General Conditions on the
Invitation to Bid allow for "acquiring additional quantities at prices quoted".
3. Recommendation and Funding
It is recommended that Sunrise Ford be allowed to withdraw their bid and that
(2) Economy Pickup trucks be purchased from the Florida State Contract in the
amount of $9286.00 each.
Funding as follows:
Code Enforcement -#004-207-515-66.42-$10,000.00 budgeted.
Building Dept. -#441-233-524-66.42-$10,000.00 budgeted.
9
DEC 111985® ��
r DEC 111985
BOOK 62 FADE 9464
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the purchase of (2) Economy Pickup trucks from
the Florida State Contract in the amount of $9,286
each, as recommended by Purchasing Manager Goodrich.
BOARD.OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
BID TABULATION
! BID NO.
I IRC BID 0262
DATE OF OPENING
Nov. 26, 1985
m°
tet"`' zi a r ,o io o
BID TITLE One (1) New 1986
_E _
ITEM
NO. DESCRIPTION
Q.
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
b�^
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PF
iz
! BID NO.
I IRC BID 0262
DATE OF OPENING
Nov. 26, 1985
m°
tet"`' zi a r ,o io o
BID TITLE One (1) New 1986
_E _
ITEM
NO. DESCRIPTION
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PF
11. One (1) New 1986 Economy Pickup
Truck (4 x 4)
1 Each
8624
00
10696
00
NB
10537
35
9555
00
A! rnate---
2. One 1 New 1986 Economy Utilit
Vehicle (4 x 4)
1 Each
12225
00
12713
94
NB
1
11437
75
10400
00
after receipt of Purchase Order
Das 1
60-90
60-75
120
90 +
10
F. IRC Bid #263 (2) New 1/2 Ton Pickup Trucks & (1) New 1 -Ton
Crewcab Pickup Truck
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/3/85:
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: December 3, 1985 FILE:
THRU: Michael Wright SUBJECT: IRC BID #263-(2) New 1/2 Ton
County Administrator Pickup Trucks & (1) New 1 Ton
Crewcab Pickup Truck.
FROM:eli
S6;-Z"EFERENCES:
Carolyn drich, Manager
Purchasing Department
1. Description and Conditions
Bids were received Tuesday, November 26, 1985 at 11:00 A.M. for IRC #263-
(2) New 1/2 Ton Pickup Trucks & (1) New 1 Ton Crewcab Pickup Truck for the
Parks Department.
11 Bid Proposals were sent -out. Of the 5 Bids received, 1 was a "No Bid".
2. Alternatives and Analysis
The low bids are as follows:
Item
1.
- 1/2 Ton P/U-6'
Bed -
$7684.00 - Southside Ford
Item
2.
- 1/2 Ton P/U-8'
Bed -
$7826.00 - Southside Ford
Item
3.
- 1 Ton Crewcab
P/U Truck - $11,539.00 - Southside Ford
The State Contract
prices are as follows:
Item
#1
- 1/2 Ton P/U-6'
Bed -
$7536.62 - Jack Wilson Chevrolet
Item
#2
- 1/2 Ton P/U-8'
Bed -
$7681.56 - Jack Wilson Chevrolet
Item
#3
- 1 Ton Crewcab
P/U Truck - $13,225.00 - Duval Motors (Ford)
3. Recommendation and Funding
It is recommended that Items 1& 2 be purchased from the Florida State
Contract and Item #3 be purchased from the low bidder, Southside Ford,
Jacksonville, F1. Total cost of the 3 vehicles - $26,757.18.
There is $27,000.00 budgeted in Account #001-210-572-66.42 for the
purchase of 3 vehicles.
11
Boos 62 PAGE 947
DEC 111995 n
BOOK 62 >•AGE 748
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the purchase of Items 1 8 2 from the Florida
State Contract and Item #3 from the low bidder,
Southside Ford, Jacksonville, FI, in the amount of
$26,757.18,, -recommended by Purchasing Manager Goodrich.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1840 25th Street
Vorn Rcnrh Ginriiin -zoman Q
BID TABULATION
V^ 1, k
o{� �� �o t'� ��
QP
4 a�� '
a�i
�' y �° a J� `'
UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PF
BID NO.
IRC BID #263
DATE OF OPENINGIf-A
Nov. 26, 1985{a�'yBID
TITLE (2) New 1986 1/2 Ton
Iruck & 1 Ton Crewc
ITEM
NO. DESCRIPTION
I. One (1) New 1986 112 Ton
PickupTruck
I 1 Each282
PO
8513.95
NB
8401
12
7684
00
I
2. One (1) New 1986 1/2 Ton
Pickup Truck 1 Each
8430
CKL
A664
Ng
8547ML
26
00
3. one New 1986 1 Ton Crewcab
Pickup Truck 1 Each --1218o
00
12502
68
NB
12516
30
11539
00
4. Days required for delivery after
receipt of Purchase Order
Days
45-6
60-7
120
90+
f9l
60-91,
12
G. _IRC Bid #264 - (1) New 1986 1 -Ton Cab -Chassis
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/3/85:
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: December 3, 1985 FILE:
THRU: Michael Wright SUBJECT: IRC BID #264 -One (1) New 1986
County Administrator Ton Cab Chassis
M -
FROM: �., �Iz"EFERENCES:
Carolyn G odrich, Manager
Purchasing Department
1. Description and Conditions
Bids were received Tuesday, November 26, 1985 at 11:00 A.M. for IRC #264-
One (1) New 1986 1 Ton Cab -Chassis for the Traffic Engineering Department.
13 Bid Proposals were sent out. Of the 6 Bids received, 1 was a "No Bid".
2. Alternatives and Analysis
The low bids are as follows:
Item #1 - 1 Ton Cab -Chassis - $10,450.00- General GMC Trucks
Item #2 - (Alternate) 1 Ton Pickup -$11,300.00 - General GMC Trucks
The State Contract prices are as follows:
Item #1 - 1 Ton Cab -Chassis- $11,689.00 - Duval Motors (Ford)
Item #2 - (Alternate) 1 Ton Pickup - $12,295.00 - Duval Motors (Ford)
The Traffic Engineering Department has elected to go with the alternate -
1 Ton Pickup, for the reasons stated in the attached memo.
3. Recommendation and Fundin
It is recomended that IRC #264 be awarded to the low bidder for the alternate
General GMC Truck Sales, in the amount of $11,300.00.
There is $18,500.00 in Account $111-245-541-66.42.
DEC 111985
13
BOOK E 9
DEC 111995
BOOK 62 PAGE 9130
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously awarded
IRC Bid #264 in the amount of $11,300 to the low
bidder, General GMC Truck Sales for (alternate) 1 -Ton
Pickup, as recommended by Purchasing Manager Goodrich.
BOARD, OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
BID TABULATION%
^y ft
yo C
~ .0 '� O '� O
,� �`' .,
,o F �•� .c J tt �a C r
a� °j� IQ co
fiJ' QJ
� �c"`'
SID NO.
IRC BID #264
DATE OF OPENING
Nov. 26, 1985
- T
SID , IT (1) New 1986 1 Ton Cab-Cha.,/�3'
ITEM DESCRIPTION
Ivo.
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNI'
1. One (1) New 1986 1 Ton
i
'
Cab -Chassis_ 1 Each
11327
00
10450
001
11747
591
NB
1 11933
74
1100C
00
2. Alternate
One (1) New 1986 One Ton
Pickup Truck 1 Each
12613
00
11300
00
13092
47
NB
13295
86
12242
00
3_ ❑ay c rPgui rPdfor delivery
_
after receipt of Purchase Order
Das
_
_
_
90+
14
H. IRC Bid #265 - (1) 1986 Flatbed Dump Truck
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/3/85:
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: December 3, 1985 FILE:
THRU: Michael
Wright
SUBJECT: IRC BID
#265 -One (1) 1986
County
Administrator
Flatbed
Dump Truck
w
FROM:
REFERENCES.
Carolynodrich, Manager
Purchasi g Department
1. Description and Conditions
Bids were received Tuesday, November 26, 1985 at 11:00 A.M. for IRC #265 -
for the Road & Bridge Department.
17 Bid Proposals were sent out. Of the 10 bids returned, 4 were "No Bids".
2. Alternatives and Analysis -
The low bid was submitted by Ross Chevrolet, St. Petersburg in the amount
of $22,753.00,less trade-in of $2,225.00 for a net price of $20,528.00.
The truck that is available on the State Contract is an International.
However, it is only available with a 11' body and cost would be $27,173.00.
3. Recommendation and Funding
It is recommended that IRC #265 be awarded to the low bidder, Ross Chevrolet,
in the amount of $20,528.00.
There is $25,000.00 budgeted in Account #111-214-541-66.43.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously awarded
IRC Bid #265 in the amount of $20,528 to the low
bidder, Ross Chevrolet, St. Petersburg, for
(1) 1986 Flatbed Dump Truck, as recommended by
Purchasing Manager Goodrich.
15
a E C 111985
DEC 111995
BOOK - PACE 952)
sTrade-In -1800 00 -2700
J25- 1974 Ford Flatbed I 2;762100 123088111121
Days required for delivery
after receipt of Purchase order
BOARD.OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BID TABULATION
BID NO. DATE OF OPENING
m
1840 25th Street
{ti
BID TITLEOne Cr) 1986 Flatbed Dump
Ts
,p
�~
ITEM
NO. DESCRIPTION
UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT P
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
�°
1z
22753-00 24541--20
2. Less Trade -In
=2225 001'=219 00
Veh.#25- 1974 Ford Flatbed
22
Dump
3. Das required for delivery
BID TABULATION
after receipt of Purchase order
BID NO.
IRC
DATE OF OPENING
BID #265
Nov. 26, 1985
BID TITLEOne (1) 1986 Flatbed Dump
saw
a
,�
mew
mem
ITEM
NO. DESCRIPTION
UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE Ul
1. One (1) 1986 Flatbed Dump
Truck 1 Each
NR INR I I ..
I I
sTrade-In -1800 00 -2700
J25- 1974 Ford Flatbed I 2;762100 123088111121
Days required for delivery
after receipt of Purchase order
BOARD.OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
BID TABULATION
BID NO. DATE OF OPENING
m
IRC BID #265 Nov. 26, 1985
y a
BID TITLEOne Cr) 1986 Flatbed Dump
Ts
ITEM
NO. DESCRIPTION
UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT P
1. One (1) 1986 Flatbed Dump
Truck 1 Each
22753-00 24541--20
2. Less Trade -In
=2225 001'=219 00
Veh.#25- 1974 Ford Flatbed
22
Dump
3. Das required for delivery
after receipt of Purchase order
Das
90-120 45 60
16
I. IRC Bid #266 - (2) 1986 12-14 Yard Dump Trucks
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/3/85:
TO -Board of County Commissioners
THRU: Michael Wright
County Administrator
A
DATE: December 3, 1985 FILE:
SUBJECT: IRC BID #266 -Two (2) 1986,
12-14 yd Dump Trucks
i
FROM: �i-�-�- REFERENCES:
Carolyn Goodrich, Manager
Purcha4hg Department
1. Description and Conditions
Bids were received Tuesday, November 26, 1985 at 11:00 A.M. for IRC #266 -
Two (2) 1986, 12-14 yd. Dump Trucks for the Road & Bridge Department.
17 Bid Proposals were sent out. Of the 8 Bids received, 2 were "No Bids".
2. Alternatives and Analysis
The low bid was submitted by General GMC Truck Sales, West Palm Beach, in
the amount of $43,988.00 each, less $9000.00 each trade-in, total net bid
$34,988.00 each vehicle or $69,976.00 for both. With the Heil HPT body as
requested in the bid specs, the total for 2 trucks would be $71,776.00. --
12-14 yd. dump trucks are not available on the State Contract.
3. Recommendation and Funding
It is recommended that IRC #266 be awarded to the low bidder General GMC
in the amount'of $71,776.00. for 2 GMC 12-14 yd. dump trucks w/Heil HPT
bodies.
There is $91,000.00 budgeted in Account #111-214-541-66.43.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously awarded
IRC Bid #266 in the amount of $71,776 to the low
bidder, General GMC Trucks Sales, W. Palm Beach,
for (2) GMC 12-14 yd. dump trucks w/Heil HPT bodies,
as recommended by Purchasing Manager Goodrich.
17
BooK V2 PHUE 95e
r DEC 11 195
BOOK 62
J. IRC Bid #267 - (1) New 1986 1 -Ton Flatbed Truck
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/3/85:
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: December 3, 1985 FILE:
THRU: Joe Baird �-
Management & udget
Director
THRU: Michael Wright SUBJECT: IRC BID #267 -One (1) New
County Administrator 1986 1 Ton Flatbed Truck
FROM: REFERENCES:
Carolyn odrich, Manager
Purchas g Department
1. Description and Conditions
Bids were received Tuesday, November 26, 1985 at 11:00 A.M. for IRC #267 -
One (1) New 1986 1 Ton Flatbed Truck for the Building & Grounds Department.
13 Bid Proposals were sent out. Of the 6 Bids received, 1 was a "No Bid".
18
m
�
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1840 25th Street
t,
qk
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
�o�
Iwo
,e'
i 4
y .�
ice• V Qim
m
BID TABULATION
BID NO. DATE OF OPENING
q`°
c 4 y�°' m
wyy
�c°,o
y
c;
IRC BID #266 Nov. 26, 1985
a y
�Rw c q ���°
c
m�E
�.�;
ca
BID TITLETwo (2) 1986 Trucks,
Q 3v,
q y�q"J
X214 Reim
ITEM DESCRIPTION
UNIT PRICE UNIT
PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE UNIT
NO.
1. Two (2) 1986 Trucks, 12-14 Yard
(2)
Dump, with Heil Model HPT Dump
Each Total
Each
Eac
Each
Eac
Body or equal 2 Each
NB NB
43449 00 94744 60
43734 00
44862 62
43461
43988 00
2. Less Trade -In Veh 35 & 14
_
LesTrade-In
-3000 00 =18600 00
-6000 00
-40 00 00
-6400100
-900 00
-3500 00
-70DO 00
-4000 00
-6400100
-900 00
_
81725 24
74122 00
6997E.00
3. Days required for,delivery after
73898 00
Total (2)
Total(2)
Total(2)
Total(2)
receipt of Purchase Order
Days
90-1 0 16
120
90-12
90-11 1
90-120
-�"
W/He it iPT
Bod
7177
J. IRC Bid #267 - (1) New 1986 1 -Ton Flatbed Truck
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/3/85:
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: December 3, 1985 FILE:
THRU: Joe Baird �-
Management & udget
Director
THRU: Michael Wright SUBJECT: IRC BID #267 -One (1) New
County Administrator 1986 1 Ton Flatbed Truck
FROM: REFERENCES:
Carolyn odrich, Manager
Purchas g Department
1. Description and Conditions
Bids were received Tuesday, November 26, 1985 at 11:00 A.M. for IRC #267 -
One (1) New 1986 1 Ton Flatbed Truck for the Building & Grounds Department.
13 Bid Proposals were sent out. Of the 6 Bids received, 1 was a "No Bid".
18
2. Alternatives and Analysis
The low bid was submitted by Southside Ford, Jacksonville in the amount of
$10,860.00.
The State Contract price is $11,148.00.
3. Recommendation and Funding
It is recommended that IRC #267 be awarded to the low bidder, Southside Ford
in the amount of $10,860.00.
There is $10,000.00 in Account #102-220-519-66.42, and $860.00 can be transferred
from Account #102-220-519-66.49.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously awarded
IRC Bid #267 in the amount of $10,860 to the low
bidder, Southside Ford, Jacksonville, for (1) New
1986 1 -Ton Flatbed Truck, as recommended by
Purchasing Manager Goodrich.
BOARD, OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1840 25th Street �0 4
Vero Beach, Florida 329x±0+U°
v • Zr
� � V �
BID TABULATION �ak'U
BID NO.
[DATE OF OPENING
y.� �`°'•�� � Q. t� .°`' o� ¢, mo
IRC BID # 267
Nov. 26, 1985
a o� c1'° �4 �`' �o
`'
OneTt( )lNew 1986 1 Ton Flatbed Trk
ITEM DESCRIPTION
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT- PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
U
NO.
I. One 1 New 1986 1 Ton Flatbed
Truck 1 Each
11646
006
1169
00
12300
27 1
NB
10860
00
12025
80
9 Day4-xaquired for delivery
i
after receipt of Purchase
Order Days
60-90
60
60-75
90+
120
i
19
Bou 6-2 PAGE 955
Fr-avc 11195 .
1
K. IRC Bid #269 - (1) Lift Truck - Reconditioned
BOOK 62 . PAGE 956
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/3/85:
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: December 3, 1985 FILE:
THRU: Michael Wright SUBJECT: IRC BID #269 -One (1) Lift Truck -
County Administrator Reconditioned
FROM: &444W Z"Ote-� REFERENCES:
Carolyn odrich, Manager
Purchasing Department
1. Description and Conditions
Bids were received Tuesday, November 26, 1985 at 11:00 A.M. for IRC #269 -
One (1} Lift Truck -Reconditioned for the Purchasing Department.
6 Bid Proposals were sent'out, 2 Bids were received.
2� Alternatives and Analysis
The low bid was submitted by Johnny Stamm Truck & Equipment, Ft. Pierce
for a TCM Model FG20N7. Bid Price $9,200.00, less trade-in of $2,000.00,
net bid price, $7,200.00
3. Recommendation and Funding
It is recommended that IRC #269 be awarded to the low bidder, Johnny Stamm
Truck & Equipment in the amount of -$7,200.00.
There is $10,275.00 in Account #102-216-519-66.49.
Commissioner Bird noticed that we are getting a trade-in of
$2000 and wondered if some other department could utilize the tow
motor being traded in. Purchasing Manager Carolyn Goodrich
explained the only department .that might need one is Utilities
and they need one that can be run on dirt; this one can only run
on pavement.
20
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously awarded
IRC Bid #269 in the amount of $7,200 to the low
bidder, Johnny Stamm Truck & Equipment for (1) Lift
Truck, reconditioned, as recommended by Purchasing
Manager Goodrich.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
BID TABULATION
k_ 4z*
c,
ft
�'" ��� mW
�` Z3�y
A
BID NO.
IRC BID 1269
DATE OF OPENING
Nov. 26, 1985
BID TITLEOne (1) Lift Truck(Fork Lift
Reconditioned
ITEM
NO. DESCRIPTION
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
1. One (1) Lift Truck Fork Lift
Reconditioned 1 Each
9200
00
18900
00
2. Less Trade=In
-2000
00
1000
00
7200
00
7900
00
3. Days required for delivery
after receipt of Purchase
order. Das
10
45
21
DEC 111985 �I��K 2 PAGE 9 7
DEC 11 1985 Boa 62 FAGS 958
L. Release of Assessment Liens - SR -60 Water 6 Sewer - Pine
Creek Condominium I & II
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
the following Release of Assessment Liens for SR -60
Water and Sewer:
1 Water ERU - Pine Creek Condo. I
Wayne H. S Frances T. Cooke
1 Sewer ERU - Pine Creek Condo. I
Wayne H. & Frances T. Cooke
1 Water ERU - Pine Creek Condo. I
Francis C. 6 Kathryn A. O'Brien
1 Sewer ERU - Pine Creek Condo. I
Francis C. & Kathryn A. O'Brien
SAID RELEASE OF ASSESSMENT LIENS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK TO THE BOARD
M. Release of Assessment Liens - SR -60 Water 6 Sewer - Barnett
Bank in Ryanwood Shopping Center
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
the Release of Assessment Liens for (1) ERU Water and
(1) ERU Sewer on SR -60 Water 6 Sewer projects to
Barnett Bank at Ryanwood Shopping Center.
SAID RELEASE OF ASSESSMENT LIENS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK TO THE BOARD
N. License Agreement Between FEC Railway and IRC for Use of
Existing Railroad Crossing 700 Feet North of Storm Grove Road
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/2/85:
22
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: December 2, 1985 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH:
Michael Wright,
County Administrator SUBJECT:
License Agreement Between FDC
Railway and Indian River
County for Use of Existing
Railroad Crossing 700 Feet
North. of Storm Grove Road
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E., , REFERENCES: R.W. Fondren, FDO, to
Public Works Director James Davis dated Nov. 19,1985
The developer of the proposed Hawk Nest Golf Course (Robert Briggs, agent)
west of Old Dixie Highway along Stone Grove Road (57th Street) has entered
into an agreement with the County to transfer an existing private railroad
crossing located 600' north of Storm Grove Road to the County. At the
time that a crossing at Storm Grove Road is needed, the crossing will be
relocated to Storm Grave Road. In the interim, the crossing will be used
for the golf club access.
ALTERNATIVES AMID ANALYSIS
The agreement is a standard FEC license agreement for a public crossing.
The County is obligated to:
1) Pay an annual fee of $980.
2) Pay to upgrade and maintain the crossing as necessary.
3) Light the roadway at the crossing as per Florida Law.
It is recommended that the Chairman be authorized to execute the License
Agreement on behalf of the County. Funding for maintenance shall be from
the budgeted Traffic Engineering accounts.
Commissioner Scurlock wanted to make sure that relocation
costs involved in this road crossing would be the responsibility
of the developer under the site plan conditions.
Chairman Lyons asked what the owner of this property thinks
of this move, and Commissioner Bird asked what other costs would
be involved.
Administrator Wright explained that right now there is no
cost to the County, but once it is moved, we will assume
maintenance. It will serve as an interest to the developer and
it will serve the County as an improvement to our Thoroughfare
Plan.
Commissioner Scurlock felt that it is a good trade off. ,
23
DEC 11199.5 BOOK 62 eAu 91
DEC 111995 BooK- 62
ON X40TION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 85-135, authorizing execution of a license
agreement with Florida East Coast Railway concerning
the at -grade crossing #272-145D located at FEC
M.P..#223±9431, 700 feet north of Storm Grove Road,
predicated on the confirmation that the developer will
bear the cost of relocating the crossing.
LICENSE AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
24
RESOLUTION NO. 85-135
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A
LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA EAST
COAST RAILWAY CONCERNING THE AT -GRADE
CROSSING #272-145D LOCATED AT FEC
M.P.# 223+9431, 700 FEET NORTH OF STORM
GROVE ROAD.
WHEREAS, there presently exists an at -grade road crossing
at FEC Mile Post #223+9431, 700 feet north of Storm Grove Road,
known as FEC Crossing #272-145D; and
WHEREAS, the Florida East Coast Railway, for valuable
consideration, has agreed to give and license to the County the
right and
privilege
to
use,
for public
at -grade road
crossing
purposes,
that part
of
the
right-of-way
and property
described
above; and
WHEREAS, the County must execute a license agreement with
the Florida East Coast Railway in order to accept the
above-described license; and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that the terms of the
agreement are reasonable and that the execution of this license
agreement is in the best interest of the citizens of Indian River
County, Florida;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, THROUGH ITS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, that:
1. The foregoing recitals are ratified and that the Chairman
and Clerk are authorized to execute and deliver two original copies
of the proposed license agreement attached hereto as Exhibit "A,"
and the Public Works Director is further authorized and directed to
carry out and abide by the requirements contained therein.
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
-1-
DEC 11195
SMI FAC PAGE
DEC
BOOK 62 PAGE 932
The Chairman thereupon declared Resolution No. 85-/35 duly
passed and adopted this 11th day of December, 1985.
Attest:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INR-kAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
L
Pa 1OK`-3. Ly
C airman
vrignt, ierx
- c 110
Approved as to form and legal
sufficient
Bruce Barkett
Asst. County Attorney
Approved for Public
Works matters:
r
games W. Davis, P.E.
'-Public Works Director
0. Florida Land Company - Call of Bond, Stabilization of
Jungle Trail
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/5/85:
TO: Board of County Commissioners ATE: December 5, 1985 FELE:
SUBJECT: FLORIDA LAND COMPANY
LETTER OF CREDIT #082
FROM: REFERENCES:
Bruce Barkett
Assistant Coun y Attorney
On June 6th, 1984, the Board of County Commissioners entered into
an agreement -whereby Indian River County agreed to locate a
portion of Jungle Trail. Florida Land Company agreed to design
and implement a shoreline stabilization project to prevent erosion
along the banks of the Indian River adjacent to the roadway.
Florida Land Company was required to submit an Irrevocable Letter
of Credit in the amount of $20,000.00 to guarantee its compliance`'
with the agreement. The Letter of Credit expires December 15th,
1985. Florida Land Company has not complied with the agreement,
and although there is some indication that Florida Land Company is
in the process of selling the property involved, the Board of
County Commissioners is advised to adopt the attached Resolution
and to draw upon the Irrevocable Letter of Credit immediately.
M M M
Attorney Vitunac recommended that we call the bond before
the deadline of December 15th. He reported that Assistant County
Attorney Jim Wilson notified the bank in Texas of our intentions
to call the bond and they contacted Florida Land, who finally
responded to us and said they would get another bond in here. We
called them several weeks ago, but they have not returned our
calls.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously authorized
the County Attorney to call in the $20,000 bond placed
by Florida Land Company for the stabilization of Jungle
Trail.
P. Orchid Isle Park Property
Assistant County Attorney Jim Wilson explained that we have
an opportunity to trade a small neighborhood park in Orchid Isle
for a larger piece of property near Kiwanis-Ibbart Park. All of
the property owners must sign a quit -claim deed in order to give
the County undisputed claim to the neighborhood park and allow us
to get title insurance. Without title insurance, this property
is basically worthless. All but 'two of the property owners have
signed, but it is hoped that they are on the verge of coming
around. Attorney Wilson reported that he is in the process of
drafting a letter asking them a final time to contact us so that
we can try and work this out. If they refuse to sign the
quit -claim deed, the only other alternative would be to file an
action for quiet title to determine our rights to the property.
He requested permission to file the action in 30 days.
Commissioner Bird explained that originally there were three
small pieces there, but this particular one is a buildable sized
lot. The Commission decided that two pieces were expendable, as
far as public parks were concerned, and we donated the two
smallest pieces to the Orchid Island Property Owners Association
25a
d E C 111985 UP411' PAGE
r
DEC 111985 soon6 2 `fi83 r`
and decided that we would try and obtain the highest and best
value out of the third piece. The Dale family owns 10 acres of
property at the corner of Hobart Road and Kings Highway where the
County Fairgrounds and a transfer station are located. The
corner 10 acres is missing out of that 160 -acre tract, and he
felt that it would be extremely beneficial to the County to
acquire this corner piece of property. The Dales are willing to
discuss a trade for the piece in Orchid Isle Subdivision. We
have not had final appraisals on the two pieces, but it is
believed that the two pieces are very similar in value. In order
to trade, we need to have clear title and a quit -claim deed
signed by all the residents in Orchid Isle saying that they have
no objection to this. Attorney Wilson feels that the last two
people will sign now.
Commissioner Bird explained that once we get clear title, we
will come back to the Board for final approval.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously authorized
the County Attorney to file the necessary action.
PUBLIC HEARING - MARVIN PENALBA'S APPEAL OF PLANNING E ZONING
DECISION
The hour of 9:05 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to wit:
26
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Weekly
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida - gid,
S ATE ONTYF
TAF DAN RIVERt
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schuma . 1tf.�ryvJfp 'dE
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly new __ p ed
at Vero Beach in
in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a ../�liLLlli�
♦ Z.l A .
In the matter of
In the Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the Issues of
ft
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
(Clerk of the Circuit ICITAk Court, Indian River
Xb.
Florida)
NOTICE OF PU13UC NEARING
OF
PLANNING & ZONING NG CODINGM MISSION DECISION
On October 24, 1985, the Planning and Zoning
Commission of Indian River County Florida sit-
ting as the locallanning agen required Mar-
vin Penalba to submit a revised Is Plan appiica-
tion, in conformance with County Ordinances, to
the Technical Review Committee. Mr. Penalba
had submitted an application to construct a re-
tail sales/professional office building on the east
side of U.& Highway #1, south of 81st Place.
C
Commissioners will ��t�t a Board. of County
garding the appeal by Marvin 'Penalba tto9ih8'
decision by. the Planning and Zoning Com the
sion. The public hearing, at which partite Irl ls`
terest, and citizens shall have an oppon a Intly to
be heard, will be heltd'by said Board of County
Commissioners In County
mmissio
Chambers of the County Administration Buildings
located at 1840 25th street, Vero Beach, Florida.
on Wednesday, December 11. 1985; at 9.05 a.m.
Anyone who may wish.to errryry derision
ensure appeal '
whicfr may !>e made at this rruretinwill need to
that a verbatim ►ecord of the, proceedings
Is made, which Includes testimony' and evidence
upon which the appeal will be based
Indian River County r$:
Board of County Commissioners
Nov. 21
8Y. s Patrick B. Lyons, Chairman
Dec..4.1985.: 4".f_s... __...e
Staff Planner Karen Craver reviewed the following -memo dated
11/26/85:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: November 26, 1985 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
t SUBJECT:
Rober M. ' t1rg, P
Planning & DeveloprWnt Director
MARVIN PENALBA'S APPEAL
OF PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION DECISION
FROM: Karen M. CraverN�'\,.REFERENCES. Staff PlannerDis: 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 11, 1985.
27
DEC 111985
R
'7
DEC 111985 BOOK AE
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
At their October 24, 1985 meeting, the Planning and Zoning
Commission considered a major site plan application submitted
by Marvin Penalba. The development plan proposed the
construction of a two-story retail sales/ professional office
building on the east side of U.S. Highway #1, between 81st
Street on the south and 81st Place on the north. The .88 acre
site is within the C -1A, Restricted Commercial District and the
U.S. Highway #1/C.R. 510 Commercial/Industrial Node.
Several aspects of the site plan presented for approval,
specifically access and right-of-way improvements, were in
direct conflict with the Site Plan Ordinance. Due to that
fact, the Planning staff recommended that the Planning and
Zoning Commission instruct Mr. Penalba to submit a revised plan
to the Technical Review Committee that contained revisions and
agreements to bring the plan into conformance. The Commission
concurred with staff's recommendation, and it is that decision
to concur that Mr. Penalba is appealing to the County
Commission.
ANALYSIS
The subject property has frontage on U.S. #1, 81st Street, and
81st Place, the latter two being unpaved local roads. The site
plan depicts the paving of 81st Place from U.S. #1 to the east
property line and two points of access off of 81st Place.
Based upon its depiction on the site plan, the paving will be
completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
One of the revisions that the Planning and Zoning Commission
instructed the applicant to make was to close the existing U.S.
#1 curb cut and access the site from one or both of the local
roads. It is a requirement of the Site Plan Ordinance that
sites located at intersections shall access onto the roadway
having the lower functional classification. The Planning and
Zoning Commission was aware that it was a retail sales/profes-
sional office facility that was being proposed; however, the
members believed lack of a direct access onto U.S. #1 would not
be a hindrance to customer attraction due to the adjacent 81st
Street and 81st Place curb cuts.
A second requirement of the Site Plan Ordinance that Mr.
Penalba was instructed to incorporate into a revised site plan
was right-of-way dedication. 81st Street, as a local road, has
a minimum required right-of-way width of 60 feet. As only 40
feet exists, the applicant was informed he would be required to
dedicate the southern 10 feet of the site to the County. The
ordinance clearly states that land lying within a proposed
development which is necessary to widen or extend a roadway
shall be dedicated prior to release of the approved site plan.
In addition, the applicant was informed he would be required to
escrow 371% of the cost of paving his 81st Street frontage (82
feet), a recommendation of the Technical Review Committee that
has been consistently upheld by the Planning and Zoning
Commission. In requiring the dedication and the escrowing of
funds, the Planning and Zoning Commission considered the fact
that there are undeveloped parcels to the east which will
eventually be accessed via 81st Street.
28
a � �
A third requirement of the Site Plan Ordinance, which was not
depicted on the site plan submitted for approval, is the
construction of sidewalks along arterials and primary collec-
tors; U.S. #1 is an arterial. The applicant was instructed by
the Technical Review Committee to construct a 4 foot sidewalk
parallel to U.S. #1, 1 foot inside the right-of-way line;
however, at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, Mr.
Penalba agreed to escrow funds equal to the cost of construc-
ting the sidewalk; an agreement which was acceptable to both
the Planning Department and the Commission.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners in-
struct the applicant to submit a revised site plan application
to the Technical Review Committee, which reflects the following
revisions and agreements.
1) The closing of the existing U.S. #1 curb cut;
2) Escrow of funds equal to the cost of constructing a 4 foot
wide sidewalk parallel to U.S. #1, 1 foot inside the
right-of-way line;
3) The dedication of the southern 10 feet of the property as
81st Street right-of-way; and
4) An agreement to escrow 37}% of the cost of paving the 81st
Street frontage (82 feet), prior to the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy.
29
--DEC 111995
BaOK 8
r DEC 111985
BOOK 62 Fb;
Commissioner Wodtke asked if there is marginal access on the
east side of U.S. #1, and Ms. Craver stated he was not required
to do that because he has frontage on the two local roads.
Commissioner Scurlock felt the biggest loss would be the use
of the property and the ability to meet the other requirements
for parking, etc.
Chairman Lyons and Commissioner Scurlock asked if this was
any different than other requests we have heard for access onto
U.S. #1, and Director Keating explained that on U.S. #1 South,
there have been a couple of situations where existing
improvements were required to be dedicated. In those cases staff
recommended that the part of the land that currently was not
covered by any improvements be dedicated and the other parts
reserved, which means that while those existing improvements
would remain there under the individual's ownership, no improve-
ments could be made which would increase the cost or the
assessment for when the County has to come in and purchase it at
some time in the future. He did not believe the County wants to
own part of a building, and that is the difference between those
cases and here.
Chairman Lyons opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter.
David Albrecht, Attorney representing applicant Marvin
Penalba, explained that his client is here today with architect,
Tom Culler. Attorney Albrecht explained that Mr. Penalba bought
the subject property years ago specifically because of the U.S.
#1 curb cut. It is presently a retail store for M & M Auto
Parts, and Mr. Penalba intends to put in additional retail space
and office space. If the curb cut is removed, he would be losing
some of the identity and value of the property in addition to
parking space. Their engineer has computed the loss of two
spaces which figures out to $100,000 of value over a 20 -year
life. He felt that the ordinance should give some consideration
to existing cuts. Attorney Albrecht circulated photographs
31
DEC 1 19855 BOOK PAGE
� DEC 111985
BOOK 62- F'A.-Uc 970
showing the area and specifically the existing curb cut and asked
that they be made part of the record. Attorney Albrecht argued
that because it is a retail center, people expect to enter in the
front, off U.S. #1, but he did admit that there would be
increased traffic with the retail office space.
Attorney Albrecht stated that his client objects to the
dedication of the 10 ft, of right-of-way on 81st Street because
it cuts into their parking, which cuts into their green space,
which cuts into the building requirements. He noted that the
ordinance states: "necessary to widen or extend." He circulated
a photograph of 81st Street which dead ends and turns to the
right, and noted that there are houses at the end of 81st Place
which prohibit the extension of those roads. He felt that it is
unreasonable to take the property from Mr. Penalba at this time
just because staff anticipates 81st Street and 81st Place to
become major thoroughfares in 50 years or so.
Commissioner Scurlock asked what the potential is for
getting 10 feet on both sides of 81st Street all the way down.
Director Keating did not know if we could and felt that would
have to be considered when the road is engineered. He noted that
81st Street is the street that has access to the median cut and
would be the most local access. Director Keating explained that
the ordinance gives the Public Works Director the descretion of
determining whether the right-of-way is needed right now or some
time in the future.
Commissioner Bird felt that while our Thoroughfare Map is
pretty incomplete up there, 81st Street does look very prominent
for development in the future.
Administrator Wright believed that if the large tracts on to
the right develop, that traffic probably would use 81st Street.
Chairman Lyons felt that access off of U.S. #1 would create
a traffic hazard because traffic coming from the south would have
to make a U-turn around the median and go back. He felt the
32
r ® �
place to go is 81st Street because there is an existing cut in
the median.
Commissioner Scurlock felt there was no question about
eliminating the curb cut, but asked if there was any way to give
Mr. Penalba credit for losing the parking space.
Director Keating explained that there would have to be a
variance granted by the Board of Adjustments, but they would have
to prove that their case is unique.
Architect Tom Culler showed a diagram of the parking plan
and confirmed that Mr. Penalba would lose two parking spaces.
Chairman Lyons felt that either we follow the ordinance or
we change the ordinance; and the ordinance says they must give 10
feet.
Commissioner Bird agreed, but pointed out that sometimes the
Board tends to redesign the site plan when confronted with
similar problems and requests. If he were the owner, he would
prefer to have his customers enter off of 81st Street for
safety's sake.
Director Keating confirmed that it was still staff's
recommendation to require the 10 ft. dedication and not to allow
the existing curb cut.
Attorney Vitunac emphasized that under the ordinance, we
cannot do any differently.
Attorney Albrecht again emphasized that this is an existing
curb cut and the ordinance does refer to creating traffic
hazards.
Chairman Lyons felt that we should get the 10 feet now and
not have to buy it or a building at some time in the future.
Marvin Penalba emphasized that he purchased the property in
the first place because of the existing curb cut off of U.S. #1
and he felt that opening up his property from end to end would
create a hazard for customers coming in and out of the buildings
because of hot rodders, etc. Mr. Penalba felt that
constitutionally his property is his investment and did not feel
33
BOOK Gn2 FAuE
EC 19,85
r DEC 11 1985
BOOK 62 PAIJE 9 72,
it was right for government to take property; all he is asking is
to let him have his property and.his U.S. #1 curb cut. He
offered to do what Director Keating suggested relating to a
50 -ft. road, where he would pay for it, or a 40 -ft. road, and get-
away from the long through way where people could be hurt coming
out of the facility.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if he was hearing Mr. Penalba
say that he was willing to donate the 10 feet, but wanted to keep
the curb cut -on U.S. #1, and Mr. Penalba indicated he was saying
that.
Commissioner Bowman suggested closing the north entrance in
order to solve the traffic hazard, and Director Keating confirmed
that Commissioner Bowman's suggestion was feasible.
Chairman Lyons pointed out that once again we are back to
the ordinance, and Commissioner Scurlock stated that they have to
give the 10 feet, but they don't have to give up the curb cut.
Mr. Penalba argued that you don't give up an existing curb
cut, but Director Keating stressed that the ordinance states that
sites fronting at an intersection are to have access on the road
with the lower classification designation.
Chairman Lyons noted that the Board has continuously
insisted that access to property that lies between two streets is
to be through the lesser thoroughfare, and wanted to know what
was the difference in this case.
Commissioner Scurlock felt that this is different because of
the existing curb cut.
Chairman Lyons asked that this matter be brought to a
decision.
After conferring, Mr. Penalba, Mr. Culler and Attorney
Albrecht suggested that they be allowed to use the 10 feet in
calculations for green space, parking and building requirements,
and when the County needs it at some future date, they can have
it. He repeated that they still feel that they are entitled to
both requests, the curb cut and the 10 feet.
34
Commissioner Scurlock understood that what they want to do
is not dedicate the right-of-way, but grant the County an
easement with no permanent structures, and use that 10 feet for
calculations for parking and building requirements until such
time as the County needs the roadway.
Attorney Vitunac stated that with respect to the curb cut,
the Board controls the roads and is responsible for public
safety, and the Board has the right to close down a curb cut on
U.S. #1 if they feel it would cause a traffic hazard.
Director Keating pointed out that the ordinance requires
parking to be buffered by a 10 -ft. landscaped strip, and while
the ordinance is specific about the right-of-way being dedicated,
it allows discretion as to when it is dedicated. Within that
timeframe, no required improvements can be placed, which includes
the required landscaped strip.
Mr. Penalba asked if they could be given the ability to
dedicate in one or two years, and Administrator Wright did not
feel that was a good idea because either they need parking space
or they don't.
Commissioner Lyons was concerned that there is a feeling
that we are taking something away from the applicant, as far as
this building is concerned. He pointed out that the applicant
does not have a building there yet, but here we are trying to
find out what kind of a building he can put there. The
calculations should be based on something that he can have, not
on something that he might have.
Mr. Penalba asked if they were putting a service station in,
would they stop the cut, and Administrator Wright felt that they
would very likely.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
closed the Public Hearing.
35
BOOK
E2 FAGUE 91 Q
a
D E C 111995 62 -Pnu 00 -674
Commissioner Scurlock did not feel we have the flexibility
under the ordinance to allow either the curb cut or eliminate the
10 -ft. of dedication.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously denied
the Penalba appeal of the Planning 8 Zoning
Commission's decision of October 24, 1985, requesting
the applicant to submit a revised site plan application
to the Technical Review Committee, reflecting four
revisions and agreements, as recommended by staff.
REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF CHARGES FOR USE OF TRANSMITTER TOWER FOR
ADVANCED LIFE SUPPORT PROGRAM
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/22/85:
INDIAN RIVER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC.
Dan K. Richardson Michael J. O'Grady, Jr.. -
Chairman. Board of Directors President
November 22, 1985
Mr. Michael Wright
County Administrator
1840 25th. Street
Vero Beach, F1 32960
Dear Mike:
As I am sure you are aware, the Indian River Memorial
Hospital and Indian River County Hospital District are in
the final stages of the development of an Advanced Life
Support (ALS) system for residents of Indian River County.
An ALS system is highly dependent on communications between
the paramedics in the field and the physicians in the
Hospital's Emergency Department and we have asked the County
for space on its transmitter tower at a height somewhere
between 350 and 400 feet.
It is my understanding from you and Mr. Dean that
it has not been the habit for the Board of County
Commissioners to waive the charges for use of the tower in
the past; however, due to the unique nature of the ALS
program and its total county commitment, I am requesting
that the Commission consider waiving the normal charges for
use of the tower for the ALS program.
36
I would be happy to visit with you and/or the
Commission at your direction to discuss the subject if you
feel it worthwhile and, of course, I am prepared to answer
any questions you may have regarding the request.
Sincerely, f
MJO:br MICHAEL J. 0 GRADY, J .
President
Administrator Wright emphasized that the Board has not
waived the charge for any of the agencies who have requested
space on the antenna.
Chairman Lyons explained that this is an enterprise
situation, because we have to maintain the tower. There have
been no exceptions so far, including the Volunteer Ambulance
Squad.
Michael O'Grady, Jr., Hospital Administrator for Indian
River Memorial Hospital, withdrew the request for a waiver,
explaining that at the time he made the request he was not aware
of how the system was set up.
Commissioner Wodtke invited Mr. O'Grady to come back
sometime in January to explain the ALS program, and Chairman
Lyons hoped they did not feel too bad about having their request
turned down..
PUBLIC HEARING - PETITION PAVING - 11TH LANE SOUTHWEST 1245' WEST
OF OLD DIXIE
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:
37
DEC 111985 Beef 2 pne � 10
rr'DEG 11.1985
Nov 1985
DEPARTMENT
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Weekly
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
*-OF INDIAN RIVER -
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
the matter of
in the Court, was w .
fished 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 heretofere
been continuously publi had 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 promiscd 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 before me this day ofL� +� A.D. - , qa � =
e Manager)
I i cjf .1,;
\ (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian Iver C-' l§i n `
.WHEREAS, Iridian River County shall pay the
remaining twenty-five percent (25%) Of the total
cost of the project; and
WHEREAS, any special assessment not paid
within said ninety (90) day period shall bear in-
terest beyond the due date at a rate established
by the Board of County Commissioners at the
Ume of preparation of the final assessment roll,
and shall be payable in two (2) equal Install-
ments, the first to be made twelve (12) months
from the due date and the second to be made
twenty-four (24) months from the due date; and
WHEREAS, after examination of the nature
and anticipated usage of the proposed Improve=
ments, the Board of County Commissioners has
determined that the following described proper-
ties shall receive a direct and special benefit
from these improvements, to wit: . •'
11th Lane Southwest 1245' +- West of
Old Dixie Highway
Lots 1 .through 10, Block P, Lots' 1
through 6, Block R, and 28.57 feet of Lot
7, Block O, Lots 8, 9, and 10, Block O, as
shown on the Plat of Dixie Heights Sub-
division Unit 4 on record in Plat Book 4,
Page 91 of the Public Records of Indian
River County, Florida
Together with
That portion of the - following described
property, lying west of the West right of
way line of Old Dixie Highway
The South 440 feet of the North 880 feet
Of the East 'h of the Southeast '/4 of the
Northeast i/4 of Section 25, Township 33 ,
South, Range 39 East AND ALSO the
South 440 feet of the North 1180 feet of
the Southwest 'ti of the Northwest 'A of
Section 30, Township 33 South, Range
40 East LESS the right of way for the
Florida East Coast Railroad and less.the
right of way for Old Dixie Highway, and
LESS the West 400 feet of said South
440 feet of the North 880 feet of. the
Southwest '/4 of the Northwest '/4 of Sec-
tion 25, as recorded in OR Book 650
Page 2390 of the. public records of In-
dian River County, Florida.
Said tract being in Indian River County,
Florida.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF IN-
DIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows:
1. The foregoing recitals are affirmed and rati-
fied in their entirety.
M
62 FACE
PUBLIC NOTICE
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida,
will hold a public hearing at 9:15 a.m. on
Wednesday. December 11, 1985, in the Commis-
sion Chambers located at 1840 - 25th Street,
Vero Beach, Florida, to consider adoption of the
following proposed resolution:
RESOLUTION NO. 85
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING
FOR CERTAIN PAVING AND DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENT TO 11TH LANE SOUTH-
WEST 1245' +- WEST OF OLD DIXIE
HIGHWAY PROVIDING THE TOTAL
ESTIMATED COST, METHOD OF PAY-
MENT OF ASSESSMENTS, NUMBER OF
ANNUAL INSTALLMENTS, AND LEGAL_
DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA SPE-
CIALLY BENEFITED.
WHEREAS, the County Public Works Depart-
ment has received a public improvement peti-
tion, signed by more than % of the owners of
property in the area to be specially benefited, re-
questing paving and drainage improvements to
11th Lane Southwest, 1245'+- West of Old Dixie
Highway; and
WHEREAS, the petition has been verified and
meets the requirements of Ordinance 81-27, and
design work including cost estimates has been
completed by the Public Works Division; and
WHEREAS, the total estimated cost of the pro -
Posed Improvements is $32,689.02; and
WHEREAS, the special assessment provided
hereunder shall, for any given record owner of
property within the area specially benefited, be
in an amount equal to that proportion of seventy-
five percent (75%) of the total cost of the project
which the number of lineal feet of road frontage
owned by 'the given owner bears to the total
number of lineal feet of road frontage -within the
area specially benefited, and shall become due
and payable at the Office of the Tax Collector or
Indian River County ninety (90) days atter the
final determination of the special assessment
pursuant to Ordinance 81-27: and , . -
2. A project providing for paving and drainage
improvements to 11th Lane Southwest 1245
+-West of Old Dixie Highway, heretofore desig-
nated as Public Works Project No. 8425, is
hereby approved subject to the terms outlined
above and all applicable requirements of Ordi-
nance 81-27.
The foregoing resolution was offered bti.Com.
missioner Who moved its adop-
tion. The motion was seconded by Commission-
er and, upon being put to a vote,
the vote was as follows:
Chairman Patrick B. Lyons ' • !, ,
Vice -Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr.- "a
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman
Commissioner Richard N. Bird
Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr.
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolu-
tion duty passed and adopted thisday
Of 1985.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By Patrick B. Lyons
Chairman .
Attest
Freda Wright, Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM
AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
BY
County Attorney's Office
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that at the
same public hearing, the Board of County Corn-
missioners shall also hear all interested persons
regarding the proposed roll for the improve-
ments described in the above resolution. The
Preliminary Assessment Roll and Petition is cur-
rently on file with the Public Works Division and
Is open for inspection between the hours of 8:30
a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.
If a person decides to appeal any decision made
by the Commission with respect to any matter
considered at this hearing, hd will need a record
of the proceeding, and that. for such purpose,
he may need to ensure that vs►bafim record of
the proceedings Is made, which record includes
the testimony and evidence upon which the ap.
Peal is to be based.
Indian River County, '.
Michael Wright,
County Administrator' �.e, �-,
� ® r
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9111185:
TO: THE HONORABLE M`C0�iIISSIONERS OF Tim
BOARD OF COUNTY O
THROUGH:
COUNTYC�gTRATOR
jAMES W. DAVIS, P.E.
PUBLIC Tn10RK•S DIRECTOR
FRO%aM,TZ A. TERRY,
CHIEF, ROAD DESIGN SECTION
DATE: September 11, 1985
FILE:
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER
RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE
PAVING OF 9TH COURT BMWEN 2W.
SUBJECT: � AND So. RUIEF
13TH AVENUE BErMW 1ST ST"T
TO 2ND STREET; 15TH AVENOE
BET1 1ST STREET SOUTHWEST TO
2ND STREET; 11TH LANE SOUTHWEST
1245' WEST OF OLD DIXIE
REFERENCES:
DE�gIpnON AM �ITIONS
Petitions ve been received property
owners of the following streets:
t and South Relief Canal (Preliminary Cost
1) g Court between 2nd Scree
$, ,595.90, 69% consent) 1,447.40 front footage;
2)
13th Avenue between 1st Street S.W. and 2nd footage; Street (Preliminary Cost
$33,850.30, 78% consent) 2463.39 ro
nt 15th Avenue between 1st Street S.W.t and 22 g ,Street (Preliminary Cost
3) (Preliminary nary Cost
$33,850.30, 71% consent)St2'of Old Dixie Highway (pre-_
4) 11th Lane S.W. 1245'
$32,689.02, 67% consent) 2308.76 front footage.
for the paving and drainage
Preliminary assessment rolls have been
prepared is approximately
improvements. The total costs of these Projects fram other roads is
There is apprM mately $97,718.60 (as ads w Paved) in the
$119,985.52. Account these roads will be
replenished to the Petition 'awing count No. 703-214-541-35.39.
n84/85 budget for Petition =awing,
advertisement of the='ublic Hearing and notifications to the propertyAlso,
owners has been Performed.
FILE COP -Yl. gBATION AND FUNDING it is
Provided at the Public Hearing,
After consideration of the -Ublic input
recc�ended that motions be made to: is
-viding for the paving and drainage improvemen
1) Adopt resolutions, P--sub� the terms outlined in the
for each petition pat='?g PrOJeo 11 be 1% over the Prime
Resolutions. The apg-cable interest rate a roved.- ..
Rate at the time the -- assessment roll is ag an changes made as a
Approve preliminary assessment rolls including Y
2) APP
result of the Public �_e petition Paving Account to fund this work.
3j Allocate $119,985.52 t be notified to schedule construction,
A 4) The Road and Bridge or when funding is available.
probably in late 198= or wh
39
BOOK
0'2 f4,GE 97
DEC 119 5 BOOK 62 RGE 9'72j
Chairman Lyons noted that there is no backup on this and did
not understand how this came before the Board without going
through the regular channels.
Administrator Wright explained that this public hearing had
been properly advertised and paid for by the developer. He
admitted there was a breakdown in getting the backup material to
the Board, but the only real change from the September 25th
meeting of the Board of County Commissioners is in the map
showing the property owners who are in favor of the paving. It
is the same issue, but the developer is asking the Board to
reconsider.
James Lawhon, developer of Oslo Ridge, recalled that the
petition for paving 11th Lane S.W. was turned down at the Public
Hearing of September 25, 1985 because not enough people signed
the petition. The people that were against it have built their
homes facing the other street on a through lot and they do not
feel they should pay the cost for paving the street in the back
of their lots. He stated he is willing to pay the paving costs
of the people in those 4 houses in order to get enough people to
sign the petition and felt that would be fair enough.
Chairman Lyons opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter.
Audrey McCleary noted that Mr. Lawhon did not offer to pay
for her portion of the paving which is approximately $800. She
explained that she owns lots 7 and 8 on the block between
Fairview Road North and 4th Ave. S.W. Every house on 12th Street
S.W. between 11th lane and 12th Street faces 12th Street S.W.
Mrs. McCleary found it rather strange that the proposed paving
stops in the middle of one of their lots.
Chairman Lyons explained that the petition is for paving the
road that fronts the developer's property.
Mrs. McCleary did not understand why they have to bear the
burden of paving when it does not benefit their property in any
way; all the garages face 12th Street and they don't use 11th
40
Lane. She did not feel they should share the cost of paving 11th
Lane just because the developer wants to develop that land.
Corrine Bean, 12th Street S.W., stated that since the
developer has agreed to pay for the paving of 11th Lane, S.W., it
does away with her argument and just wanted it on the record that
the developer will pay for it.
Ann Marie Hammill asked how this would affect the property
tax assessment, and Administrator Wright explained that the
Property Appraiser bases his assessments on what the houses are
selling for in the surrounding neighborhood. He does not auto-
matically come in and raise the taxes when a street is paved.
Commissioner Bird believed this paving will only affect
their assessment if all of a sudden houses in that area start
selling for a lot more than what they are currently selling for.
Mrs. McCleary asked if the developer was paying for the
paving, and Commissioner Scurlock explained that he is paying for
his portion of the assessment and picking up the paving costs for
the four homes that are not facing in that direction.
Mr. Lawhon confirmed that he is paying for 4 lots: Condon,
Bean and the next two houses.
Mrs. McCleary still believed he should pay for her two lots,
but Chairman Lyons pointed out that when they build on those
lots, they have the ability to build facing either street.
Mrs. McCleary did not feel they could because of the way the
septic system and wells were laid out, but Commissioner Scurlock
advised her that they could put their well in the front and
septic in the back, or vice versa.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously closed
the Public Hearing.
41
C 11 BooK 62 Pari
DEC 111985
BOOK 62 PAGE �6
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 85-137 approving the preliminary assessment
rolls at the estimated cost of $32,689.02, providing
for certain paving and drainage improvement to 11th
Lane Southwest 12451± west of Old Dixie Highway; with
the understanding that the developer has agreed to pay
the assessment on 4 lots as outlined by staff.
RESOLUTION 85-137 WILL BE MADE A PART OF THE RECORD WHEN FULLY
EXECUTED AND RECEIVED
SAID PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK TO THE BOARD
ARCHITECTURAL PRESENTATION - SHERIFF'S ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
Charles E. Block, AIA, presented the following preliminary
design plan for the 6 -acre Sheriff's Administration Building to
be built just south of South Gifford Road on the County's 20 -acre
jail site off 43rd Avenue.
42
Commissioner Scurlock was concerned about keeping enough
flexibility within this area to expand the Sheriff's Office and
the jail facility. He questioned the square footage for the
storage area and wondered if it could be built at some other
location.
Mr. Block explained that there was a lot of discussion on
the location of the storage building, but with it built at this
site, it gives better control.
Chairman Lyons asked whether we have enough property if we
need to double the space of the jail, and Administrator Wright
believed we would have to acquire more property.
43
Bou 62 FaGE 93-11
rDEC 11.1985
Boa 62 FAGS 932
Chairman Lyons was concerned with the covered space for
confiscated property and Sheriff Dobeck explained that his
department is involved in more and more seizure cases, especially
boats which must be properly maintained during the period it
takes for the cases to come to trial.
Commissioner did not feel we should have any more responsi-
bility than normal wear and tear and that we should not be
required to provide covered space because even the owner may not
have done so. -
Sheriff Dobeck commented that Commissioner Scurlock wasn't
looking at suing the Sheriff either, and pointed out that the
type of boats that are confiscated are usually stored out of the
water so they won't collect barnacles which would slow them down.
Chairman Lyons felt that if it pays to cover them, then we
will, and Sheriff Dobeck noted that most counties provide covered
space.
Commissioner Wodtke asked if the Administration Building has
the flexibility to expand to two stories, and Mr. Block explained
that expansion would be from the center out and the berms provide
that space. He felt that was a better solution than going to two
stories.
Commissioner Bird asked if it was possible to scale down the
square feet for the storage building with the idea that we can
add on at a later date, and Sheriff Dobeck replied that he has no
problem doing that, but the problem is finding the money down the
road.
Commissioner Scurlock believed that interest rates and
construction costs will increase in the future.
Commissioner Bird did not want to get scolded by the public
for providing covered space for some drug smuggler's boat, but
noted that the storage building also provides indoor space to
protect evidence on confiscated cars, etc. He was also concerned
about expansion flexibility of the Sheriff's complex during the
first five years.
44
Mr. Block believed they had adequate ability to expand
because not everything would change in 5 years. The biggest
changes will occur in the uniform area.
Commissioner Wodtke asked if the Jail Committee concurred
with the concept that half of this site is going to be used for
other than jail facilities, and Chairman Lyons explained that he
had not specifically asked that question of the committee
members, but they are aware of the plans to locate the Sheriff's
Administration complex at the jail site. At one time they
considered building the courtrooms out there, but they have
pretty much abandoned that idea.
Administrator Wright believed that we never envisioned the
jail taking up the entire 20 acres.
Mr. Block returned to the diagram of the building, showing
how various departments could be expanded from the inside out,
using a 5 -year program for each of the divisions.
Commissioner Scurlock felt we have to make a decision about
putting 911 out there, but Mr. Block felt that would depend on
what elements are in there.
Chairman Lyons pointed out that those people are isolated
and needed restroom facilities, etc., because they cannot leave
their stations during their time on duty. The Jail Committee has
not brought a recommendation to the Board for what is to be
included in the 911 area.
Mr. Block discussed the following estimated costs:
45
DEC 111985
Boa 62 FATE 9Qr
DEC 111985 985 BoaK 62 FuE 984
COST ESTIMATE
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING $1,502,490. ($45.53/S.F.1
SITE WORK $ 297,990. ($9./S.F.)
CONFISCATED PROPERTY STRUCTURE
(20,000 S.F.)
$
300,000.
MAINTENANCE/SHOP
BUILDING
$
65,625.
SPECIALTIES - ESTIMATED COST (ADDITIONAL)
1.
911 EQUIPMENT & RE -LOCATION OF
NOT
DETERMINED
2.
FLAGPOLE
$
2,000.
3.
GAS PUMPS & TANK
$
32,000.
4.
TELEPHONE SYSTEM
NOT
DETERMINED
5.
SHOP/MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT:
A. LIFTS (2)
$
8,400.
B. CARD LOCK SYSTEM
NOT
DETERMINED
C. (1) ALIGNMENT EQUIP.
$ -
7,500.
D. MISC. EQUIPMENT
NOT
DETERMINED
6.
LOCKERS/BENCHES/SAUNA
$
3,500.
7.
LOOP ROAD & CULVERT
$
30,000.
8.
IMPACT FEES FOR SEWER & WATER
NOT
DETERMINED
9.
SEATING FOR LARGE MEETING ROOM
NOT
DETERMINED
10.
LANDSCAPING
NOT
DETERMINED
11.
GENERATOR
$
36,500.
Commissioner Scurlock felt that the only question that needs
to be resolved is more demonstration of the need for the covered
storage area and whether or not we want to go with the entire
total of square feet all at once or phase into it. Everything
else seems to be done well and it is a nice looking and
functional structure.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, that the Board authorize the
County Attorney to proceed through the site plan
process and adopt this particular design as presented
subject to State reconfirmation of the need for covered
storage.
46
Commissioner Scurlock suggested getting some comparison
figures from other communities using covered space plus an
analysis of what we are presently storing and the potential
liability. He felt that the more information we have to prove to
the public that covered storage space is a wise expenditure, the
better off we would be.
Chairman Lyons was convinced that storage should be adjacent
to the shop because of the maintenance involved.
Commissioner Wodtke pointed out that the federal government
is losing their shirt by storing boats confiscated in the
southern part of the state.
Chairman Lyons advised that the site plan will be circulated
amongst the Jail Committee.
Discussion took place on what limitations are placed on the
use of monies in the confiscated fund, and Sheriff Dobeck
reported that the State just recently set some guidelines
prohibiting these monies to be used for furnishings, etc.
Commissioner Scurlock felt that we need to find out if these
monies can be spent on covering a storage area for confiscated
goods.
Commissioner Bowman wanted to see some comparison figures on
expanding the building now vs. expansion in five years, because
we have under estimated on the size of the new jail and the
County's administrative space.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
was voted on and carried unanimously..
Commissioner Wodtke brought up the possibility of putting
the Emergency Operations Center in the Sheriff's Administration
Building, and Mr. Block stated he would designate a certain
amount of square feet so that there will be an ability to locate
the Center there if the Board so chooses.
47
DEC 111985 BOOK 62 FAGS
DEC
111985
Bow 62
pAcE 986
COMPLETE ARCHITECTURAL PRESENTATION BROCHURE
IS ON FILE IN
THE
OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
RESOLUTION ADOPTING NEW REZONING AND LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT
APPLICATION FEE SCHEDULE
Staff Planner Jeffrey Goulet reviewed the following staff
recommendation dated 11/25/85:
TO. The Honorable Members DATE: November 25, 1985 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
SUBJECT:
R6_bdrt M. Keat'ng, CP
Planning & Develop ent Director
THROUGH:Richard Shearer, AICP
7 Chief, Long -Range Planning
PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE
REZONING AND LAND USE
PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION
FEE SCHEDULE
FROM:REFERENCES:
Jeffrey A. Goulet CPA App./Fee Memo
Staff Planner, Long -Range Planning JEFF2
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of December 11, 1985.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
During the Planning Department's budget hearing for the 1985-1986
fiscal year, the Board of County Commissioners questioned the
adequacy of rezoning and Comprehensive Plan amendment application
fees. At that time, the Board directed the staff to assess the
current fee structure in relation to the costs involved in pro-
cessing the applications. In order to completely evaluate the
current fee schedule, the staff prepared a questionnaire
regarding staff time and material costs required for reviewing
and processing rezoning and Comprehensive Plan Amendment
applications. This questionnaire was sent to neighboring
jurisdictions in order to determine how much other cities and
counties charged and the factors they used to develop their fee
schedules. In addition, the staff also conducted an in-house
analysis of staff time and material costs associated with
analyzing and processing a rezoning or Land Use Plan amendment
application.
On November 21, 1985, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
4 -to -0 to recommend approval of the proposed changes to the fee
schedule.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
The current fee schedule covers most of the advertising costs and
the costs of postage for notifying surrounding property owners by
certified mail. However, the fee for Land Use Plan amendment
applications for properties less than 5 acres does not cover all
48
of these costs. Neither the rezoning nor the" Land Use Plan"
amendment fees cover the staff time that is spent analyzing and
processing the requests for properties less than 40 acres in
size. This is important, since most of the rezoning and Land Use
Plan amendment applications are for properties less than 40 acres
in size. Staff has determined that Land Use Plan amendment
applications and all applications over 40 acres require as much
as 50% additional staff time to review due to the greater number
of impacts that must be considered with changes in the land use
designation or zoning of large parcels of land. Tables 1 and 2
provide a breakdown of the average costs associated with process-
ing rezoning and Land Use Plan Amendment applications.
TABLE 1. COST ANALYSIS FOR REZONING APPLICATIONS
Average Total Cost
ITEM Cost/Unit No. of Units per Item (s)
Public Hearing Notices
$80.00
2
$160.00
Certified Mail
1.55
35
54.25
Rezoning Signs
15.00
1
15.00
Copy Cost
.10
150
15.00
SUBTOTAL
$244.25
Clerical Staff
$6.00
12
$72.00
Technical Staff
7.00
12
84.00
Professional Staff
11.00
12
132.00
Adm. Staff
18.00
3
54.00
SUBTOTAL
$342.00
TOTAL
$586.25
Note: These costs do not reflect employee benefits, overhead
costs, nor the costs involved in maintaining data used to
review the requests.
TABLE 2. COST ANALYSIS FOR LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATIONS
Average Total Cost
ITEM Cost/Unit No. of Units per Items)
Public Hearing Notices $50.00 2 $100.00
Certified Mail 1.55 35 54.25
Copy Cost .10 200 20.00
SUBTOTAL $174.25
Clerical Staff
$6.00
15
$90.00
Technical Staff
7.00
15
105.00
Professional Staff
11.00
20
220.00
Adm. Staff
18.00
6
108.00
SUBTOTAL
$523.00
TOTAL
$697.25
Note: These costs do not reflect employee benefits, overhead
costs, nor the costs involved in maintaining data used to
review the requests.
Analysis of the questionnaires and fee schedules of neighboring
jurisdictions revealed -that most cities and counties charged the
same or more for Land Use Plan amendment applications than they
did for rezoning applications. Many jurisdictions also placed an
additional per acre charge onto their base application fee. Table
3 shows how Indian River County's fees compare to the fees
charged by other cities and counties.
49
D E C 111985 BOOK 62 PAGE %7
DEC 111995 BOOK PgE 9
.88
TABLE 3. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF REZONING AND LAND USE AMENDMENT
APPLICATION FEES
Land Use Plan . Combined
Jurisdiction Rezoning Fees Amendment Fees Application Fees
INDIAN RIVER CO.
Less than 5 acres
5 -to -40 acres
41 -to -100 acres
More than 100 acres
$300
$500
$650
$750 + $50
for each
additional
25 acres
$200
$400
$500
$750 + $50
for each
additional
25 acres
$400
$700
$1000
$1200 + $50
for each
additional
25 acres
MARTIN COUNTY
$200 per
$200 per
No reduced fee
parcel +
parcel +
for combined
$1 per acre
$1 per acre
requests
ST. LUCIE COUNTY
$300
$400.
$500
ORANGE COUNTY
$300
none
No reduced fee
for combined
requests
CITY OF VERO
$400
$375.
No reduced fee —
BEACH
for combined
requests
BREVARD COUNTY
$225 to $300
$500
No reduced fee
for combined
requests
CITY OF
$100 for 1
none
Land Use Plan
FORT PIERCE*
acre or less
fee included
$30 for each
in the Rezoning
additional acre
Fee
up to $1000
CITY OF STUART*
$150
none
Land Use Plan
fee included in
the Rezoning
Fee
CITY OF WEST* $200 + $1 $200 No reduced fee
PALM BEACH per acre for combined
requests.
* These jurisdictions are in the process of raising their fees
for rezonings and land use plan amendments.
Staff's analysis reveals that the average rezoning application
costs the County approximately $600.00 and the average Land Use
Plan amendment application costs approximately $700.00 to adver-
tise, notify, analyze, and process. Many local governments
require the applicant to post signs and notify surrounding
property owners by certified mail, thus defraying much of the
material costs and staff time required to process an application.
This is the main reason for lower application fees in many
jurisdictions.
The average rezoning application in Indian River County is for
less than five (5) acres. The County's present rezoning fee for
applications less than five (5) acres is lower than the fees
currently charged by other cities and counties in southern
Florida, considering many jurisdictions require the applicant to
post signs and contact surrounding property owners. Applications
for larger parcels of land require more work and are more
M M
expensive to advertise and notify, thus costing the County more.
Indian River County's Land Use Amendment fee for parcels under
five (5) acres is also lower than fees charged by other local
governments.
Although the County has had a fee schedule for Land Use Plan
Amendment requests, no fee for proposed changes in other Elements
of the Comprehensive Plan has ever been established. Since an
application for an amendment to the Thoroughfare Plan was submit-
ted in January, staff has determined that the costs associated
with reviewing that application were similar to the costs of
reviewing a land use plan amendment for a 5 -to -40, acre parcel of
land.
Another area in which the County has not established a fee is for
proposed changes to the text of the zoning ordinance. As in the
case of the Thoroughfare Plan, several inquiries have been made
about amending the text of the zoning ordinance. Since these
requests also require a large amount of staff time to review and
the public hearing also needs to be advertised, this item should
also be included on the fee schedule.
Based on the analysis of the current fee schedule for rezoning
and land use plan amendment applications and the comparative
analysis of other jurisdictions' fee schedules, the following
schedule was prepared:
Size of Parcel
Less than 5 acres
5 -to -40 acres
41 -to -100 acres
More than 100 acres
Rezoning Fee
$400
$500
$650
$750 + $50
for each
additional
25 acres
Land Use Plan
Amendment
CPA Fee
$400
$500
$650
$750 + $50
for each .
additional
25 acres
Application for amendment of element
other than Land Use Plan $500
Proposed amendment to text of Zoning Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION
Combined
Land Use Plan
and Rezoning Fee
$600
$800
$1100
$1250 + $50
for each
additional
25 acres
$500
Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that the proposed
changes in the rezoning and Land Use Amendment fee schedule, and
the addition of a fee for amendments to elements other than the
Land Use Plan and amendments to the text of the zoning ordinance,
be adopted and take effect on January 1, 1986.
51
DEC111985 BOOK PACE
DEC
111995
Boa 62
PA.U.,E930
Commissioner Scurlock understood that these
increased
fees
would not cover all the costs involved and felt this should be a
self-sustaining entity.. While he did not want staff to take the
time to go back to the drawing board, he felt that the fees
should be adjusted to 85-90% recovery, at least for now, and then
changed at some time in the future. He also understood that a
substantial number of the rezoning requests are in the 5 -acre
category.
Richard Shearer, Chief of Long -Range Planning, explained
that just about all the requests are for parcels under 40 acres.
Commissioner Bird asked if this would make any difference in
staff load when it is changed to commercial or residential, and
Mr. Shearer believed that it took more time to rezone to
commercial.
Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that we are picking up a
lot of costs right now on County -initiated changes, but Planning
8 Development Director Robert Keating explained that after the
non-residential conversion tables are approved in January, the
number of rezonings should decline substantially because most
non-residential will be brought into conformance with the Compre-
hensive Land Use Plan.
Chairman Lyons opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter. There were none.
Commissioner Bird felt that the Board should go ahead and
adopt staff's recommendation at the present time, and
Commissioner Scurlock suggested increasing the fees right now
even though it wouldn't be particularly popular.
Commissioner Bird felt that subsidizing this to some degree
is really a County function, and Chairman Lyons agreed, but felt
the question is to what extent.
Commissioner Scurlock suggested increasing the land use
amendments by $100 on each item and also raise the combined by
$100.
52
r � �
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously closed
the Public Hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board, by a vote of 3-2,
Commissioners Wodtke and Bird dissenting,
adopted Resolution 85-136, approving the amended fee
table recommended by staff, effective January 1, 1985,
with the amendment suggested by Commissioner Scurlock.
53
DEC 11199 Boozy Fac E 9.
d E C 111985
RESOLUTION NO. 85- 136
BOOK
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR
CHANGES TO THE CURRENT FEE SCHEDULE FOR LAND USE
PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING APPLICATIONS AND
ESTABLISHMENT OF APPLICATION FEES FOR AMENDMENTS
TO THE TEXT OF THE ZONING CODE AND ELEMENTS OTHER
THAN THE LAND USE PLAN.
62 ME 9
WHEREAS, the Indian River County Zoning Code requires the
establishment of fees by resolution of the Board of County
Commissioners; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 163 of the Florida Statutes requires that
local governments provide for applications to amend Comprehensive
Plans at least once per calendar year; and
WHEREAS, the fee schedule established herein is to cover
some of the notice, advertising, and administrative costs in-
curred in the required review and hearing processes associated
with the applications and requests for which fees are hereby
being established; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the
local planning agency, has considered the proposed fee schedule
and has recommended approval;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that:
The following fee schedule is established:
Size of Parcel
Less than 5 acres
5 -to -40 acres
41 -to -100 acres
More than 100 acres
Land Use Plan Combined
Amendment Land Use Plan
Rezoning Fee CPA Fee and Rezoning Fee
$400 $500 $700
$500 $600 $900
$650 $750 $1200
$750 + $50 $850 + $50 $1350 + $50
for each for each for each
additional additional additional
25 acres 25 acres 25 acres
Application for amendment of element
other than Land Use Plan $500
Proposed amendment to text of Zoning Ordinance $500
The foregoing resolution/was offered by Commissioner
Scurlock who moved its adoption. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Bowman , and upon
being put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
54
RESOLUTION NO. 85- 136
Chairman Patrick B. Lyons —Aye
Vice -Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Na
Commissioner Maggy Bowman Aye
Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. Nay
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed
and adopted this 11th day of December , 1985.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF IND,14q RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
TRICK B. L
Attest:
'F REDA WRIGHT, Verk
STATE -OF" -FLORIDA
COUNTY OF'INDIAN RIVER
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
Bruce Barkett, Assistant County Attorney
PUBLIC HEARING - ESTABLISHMENT OF BOUNDARIES FOR 50 -ACRE
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NODE AT HOBART ROAD AND U.S. #1
The hour of 9:45 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to wit:
DEC 111985 55
BOOK PAGE acs
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Wee`
Vero Beach, Indian Ri .r:ounty, Fj9rida
c"
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: `t (
CU
STATE OF FLORIDA
-c:. • fto�u i
c� ; S
Before the undersigned authority r •; u,�
g y person liy_•,appeareSchum Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beac P. ss-Jiturnai, a week)yy.� spaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; tha #!je attached copy pf`v vertisement, being
in the matter of
i
in the Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of 7 .&z, Z
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 newspap r. %� p�> j
Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of�—p-At,' A.D.
(C ierk of the Circuit Court. Indian River
(SEAL)
BOOK 2. FADE 9).N
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
giver County Board of County Commissioners,
shall hold a public hearing at which partief in, In.
'areal and citizens shall have an opportunity to
3e heard, in the County Commission Chambers
)f the County Administration Building, located at
1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on
Nednesday, December 11; 1985, at 9:45 a.m. to
:onsider the adoption of an Ordinance entitled.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD, OF,—:
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN;.
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ESTABLISH-.;':
ING BOUNDARIES FOR THE 50 ACRE'
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NODE LO-'
= CATED ATTTHE INTERSECTION OF HO -
BART ROAD AND U.S. HIGHWAY #1 AS' '4
DESCRIBED IN THE TEXT OF THE:;
LAND USE ELEMENT.AND'DEPICTED,;..
ON THE LAND USE MAP OF THE LAND
USE ELEMENT OF* THE COMPREHEN-.'i-
SIVE PLANT PROVIDING FOR THE
BOUNDARY MAP, OF THE. NODE AND
EFFECTIVE DATE.,
1 map of the proposed node boundary is avail-
ible at the Planning Department office on the
second floor of the County Administration Build -
ng
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision
vhich may be made at this meeting will need to
insurethat a verbatim record of the proceedings
s made, which includes testimony and evidence
ipon which the appeal is based.'
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
B :-s-Patrick B.Lyons, Chairman
:ov. 19, Dec. 3,1985'.,_
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/22/85:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: November 22, 1985 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
_SUBJECT: ESTABLISHMENT OF BOUNDAR-
Ro ert M. Keati g, P IES FOR THE 50 ACRE COMM -
Planning & Developm nt Director ERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NODE
LOCATED AT HOBART ROAD
7 THROUGH: Richard Shearer, AICP AND U.S. HIGHWAY #1
Chief, Long -Range Planning
FROM: /� /' REFERENCES:
Jeffrey A. Goulet �'�"�'4 . Hobart Rd. /U.S. #1 Memo
Staff Planner, Long -Range Planning JEFF
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of December 11, 1985.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
The Planning Department is initiating a request to establish
boundaries for the fifty (50) acre commercial/ industrial node
located at Hobart Road and U.S. Highway #1.
On September 12, 1984, the Board of County Commissioners adopted
an amendment to the text of the Land Use Element of the Comore -
W
hensive Plan which provided for establishing boundaries for each
of the nodes as generally described in the text of the Land Use
Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
On November 14, 1985, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
4 -to -0 to recommend approval of the proposed node boundaries to
the Board of County Commissioners. The Planning and Zoning
Commission also suggested that the Comprehensive Plan be amended
to change this commercial/ industrial node to a commercial node
based on the existing zoning and land use patterns in the area.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
The proposed boundaries of the Hobart Road and U,S. #1 Commer-
cial/ Industrial node were prepared based on the following
criteria:
1. The general description and size constraint of the node
as described in the text of the Land Use Element;
2. The existing commercial uses in the general area of the
node;
3. The existing zoning pattern;
4. Property boundaries;
5. Traffic considerations; and
6. Environmental considerations.
A All of the nodes are generally described in the Comprehensive
Plan. The Hobart Road and U.S. #1 node is described as:
"A fifty (50) acre commercial/industrial node is
located at the intersection of U.S. #1 and Hobart Road."
All of the property proposed for inclusion in the node is located
on the east side of U.S. Highway #1. All of the property is
currently zoned C-lA, Restricted Commercial District, except for
the Polish -American Club parcel, which is zoned C-1, Commercial
District. The proposed -node boundary follows property lines and
the existing commercial zoning district boundaries.
The acreage represented in the proposed node boundary -does not
include any property within the MXD area. The MXD area is
located on the west side of U.S. #1 to a point three hundred
(300) feet west of the F.E.C. Railroad or Old Dixie Highway,
whichever is most westerly. The Comprehensive Plan states that
within the designated MXD areas, the County shall encourage,
where appropriate, redevelopment in accordance with the dominant
land uses of the area, and that commercial and industrial land
uses are anticipated to "utilize" the majority of the MXD area.
The MXD areas provide for the expansion of the dominant land uses
within each section of the MXD':. Together, the MXD areas and
the nodes provide for the anticipated commercial and industrial
growth in the County for the next twenty (20) years.
Existing Land Use Pattern
There are a variety of commercial uses located in the proposed
node area on the east side of U.S. #1. The largest use is the
Polish -American Club, currently under construction. There are
also several offices, including a real estate office and a citrus
sales office. A craft shop is located at the northern edge of
the proposed boundaries. In addition to the various commercial
uses, several residences are located north of Hobart Road. The
MXD area on the west side of U.S. #1 is largely vacant, but there
are several large commercial establishments. These include Mama
Mia's Restaurant, Busy Bee Nursery, and Procter Plaza, a trade
contractor's office building.
E� 19185 57
• BQOK 6 2 FAG{
D E C 111985 BOOK PAGE
- -- --- - - - - ----------
Environment
The node area is not designated as environmentally sensitive nor
is it in a flood -prone area.
Utilities
No water or sewer facilities are available in the node area at
the present time.
Transportation Svstem
All properties proposed for inclusion in the node have primary
access on U.S Highway #1 (designated as an arterial on the
Thoroughfare Plan). Secondary access from 79th Street, Hobart
Road, and 38th Avenue is also available for several of the
properties.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above analysis, and the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that the proposed
boundaries of the fifty (50) acre commercial/ industrial node
located at U.S. #1 and Hobart Road be approved.
Commissioner Bird considered this a strange looking node,
but did not know what we could do to change it now. Most of the
nodes have a center core around a major intersection and expand
out from there, but this one is a strip.
Planner Jeff Goulet advised that the next node to the north
is located at Wabasso Road.
Chairman Lyons opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter. There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously closed
the Public Hearing.
Chairman Lyons left the room temporarily.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, Chairman Lyons being out of
the room temporarily, the Board unanimously (4-0),
adopted Ordinance 85-98, establishing boundaries for
the 50 -acre commercial/industrial node located at
the intersection of Hobart Road and U.S. #1.
58
a >.
ORDINANCE NO. 85 — 98
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION—
ERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA ESTABLISH—
ING BOUNDARIES FOR THE 50 ACRE COMMERCIAL/
INDUSTRIAL NODE LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF
HOBART ROAD AND U.S. HIGHWAY #1 AS GENERALLY
DESCRIBED IN THE TEXT OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT
AND DEPICTED' ON THE LAND USE MAP OF THE LAND
USE ELEMENT OF THE COUNTY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN;
PROVIDING FOR THE BOUNDARY MAP, THE DESCRIPTION
OF THE NODE AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida have amended the County's Comprehensive
Plan to provide for establishing boundaries for every commer-
cial, commercial/industrial, industrial, tourist/commercial,
and hospital/commercial node; and
WHEREAS, The Planning and Zoning Commission has held a
public hearing and subsequently made a recommendation to
establish boundaries for this node; and,
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners has held a
public hearing on these proposed boundaries at which parties
in interest and citizens had an opportunity to be heard; and,
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners is empowered
to adopt these boundaries to assist in the implementation of
the County's Comprehensive Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that:
SECTION 1
The attached map labeled as "Attachment A" and the
description labeled as "Attachment B" shall be the official
boundaries of the 50 acre Commercial/ Industrial Node located
at the intersection of Hobart Road and U.S. Highway #1.
SECTION 2
EFFECTIVE DATE
The provisions of this ordinance shall become effective
`-= upon receipt from the Florida Secretary of State of official
acknowledgment that this ordinance has been filed with the
Department of State.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners
of Indian River County, Florida on the 11th day of December
1985.
DEC 11 191805 BOOK �2 PnE R J
DEC 11195
ORDINANCE NO. 85- 98 BOOK ` E2 .fAuE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
I
Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of
Florida this 19th day of December , 1985.
Effective Date: Acknowledgment from the Department of State
received on this 23rd day of December , 1985 at
10:00-A.M./P.M. and filed in the office of the Clerk
of the Board -of County Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida.
APPROVED AS TO FORM
AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY.
Hobart Rd./U.S. 1 Node Ord.
JEFF
X,\
_ ORDI14ANC 85-
• ATTACHM A
U.S. Hwy # 1 & Hobart Rd.
Commercial / Industrial Node
li,
S.
0�
,•E. ,
OR'nr ,
A o'7
RMH-6 i
C -1A
P
RMH-6 %€
1
�• C -1A
\ 1
M-1
�-T•, C-2
HDHART RD . M9B - r % P l' , 6
' 1
WAiI
LD -2
RS -6
MA4E
I
I
►ANT Of_ _
969AN IN+NONANT
N
_
RR -2 �I
RM -6
EN /
LD -2
SEN:,N
CT R y n r. rf r• •
• •. f r , s
f. rs r• r�
ANA �
f. !f f• !! u' f
M A
I f
- . t:
M-1
LD-� y
RS -3
0
I M 1
VXL�
7� \
Node B o u n d 421 y
DEC 111985 BOOK PAGE 969,
b
01
7
RM -3
rORDINANCE NO. 85 -
'DEC 111985 ,ATTACHMENT B BOOK 62 FACE 1000
DESCRIPTION OF THE HOBART ROAD AND U.S. #1
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NODE
BEGINNING AT A POINT WHERE THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF
9
73RD STREET INTERSECTS THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF U.S.
HIGHWAY #1; THENCE RUN NORTH (CROSSING HOBART ROAD AND 79TH
STREET) APPROXIMATELY 4720 FEET ALONG THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY
LINE OF U.S. HIGHWAY #1; THENCE RUN EAST APPROXIMATELY 300
FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH (PARALLEL TO U.S. HIGHWAY #1) APPROX-
IMATELY 375 FEET TO THE CENTER LINE OF 79TH STREET; THENCE
RUN EAST APPROXIMATELY 350 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH (PARALLEL
TO U.S. HIGHWAY #1) APPROXIMATELY 1000 FEET TO THE WEST
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF 39TH AVENUE; THENCE RUN SOUTH (CROSSING
HOBART ROAD) APPROXIMATELY 1100 FEET ALONG THE WEST
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF 39TH AVENUE; THENCE RUN EAST APPROXI-
MATELY 450 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH (PARALLEL TO U.S. HIGHWAY
#1) APPROXIMATELY 1090 FEET; THENCE RUN WEST APPROXIMATELY
450 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH (PARALLEL TO U.S. HIGHWAY #1)
APPROXIMATELY 375 FEET; THENCE RUN EAST APPROXIMATELY 110
- - -- FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH APPROXIMATELY 650.,FEET -TO THE NORTH
'.RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF 73RD STREET; THENCE RUN WEST APPROXI-
MATELY 6 FEET ALONG THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF 73RD
' -96 STREET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. LYING' IN SECTION -.3,...
TOWNSHIP 32S, RANGE 39E, AND SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 31S, RANGE
39E. CONTAINING 50 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
Hobart/U.S. #1 Node Description
JEFF
Chairman Lyons reentered the meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RS -1, RMH-6 AND RMH-8
ZONING DISTRICTS
The hour of 9:45 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to wit:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Weekly 1,
31
Vero Beach, Indian River County, F ii 6
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: ✓i:;
STATE OF FLORIDA _
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J.1Schumariri; iig)wh0 on dial
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, Week fp rrdwspaper pub['
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached , -of advert isement,1b@
In the matter of
In the
Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of 7&v-,- /!Z D'eC• -z�y��
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 I
terest and citizens shall have an opportunity t
be heard, in the County Commission Chambe
of the County Administration Building, located
1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on
Wednesday, December 11, 1985, at 9:45 a.m• to
consider the adoption of -an Ordinance entitled.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF
:COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING
SECTION 5 (A) AND 13(A), OF ORDI- '
NANCE 85.4, KNOWN -AS APPENDIX A
ZONING — OF THE CODE OF LAWS
AND ORDINANCES OF INDIAN RIVER .
COUNTY; PROVIDING FOR. REDUCING
THE MINIMUM YARD REQUIREMENTS
IN THE RS -1; SINGLE-FAMILY RESI-•
DENTIAL DISTRICT, AND THE RMH-8;
AND RMH-8 MOBILE HOME .RESIDEN- '
TIAL DISTRICTS; REDUCING THE MINI-
MUM LOT WIDTH IN THE RS -1 DIS-:
TRICT, .AND INCREASING THE MINI
MUM LOT SIZE IN THE RS -1 DISTRICT;
CODIFICATION; SEVERABILITY; RE-
PEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS;
AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
Anyone who may wish to appeal any, decisioi
which may be made at this meeting will need h
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at ensure that a verbatim record of the proceeding
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore is made, c which apIncpeal
i testimony and ewdenc
been continuous) published in said Indian River County, Florida week) and has been entered upon which the appeal is based....
Y P tY. Y . -. Indian River County
as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida Board of County commissioners
for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver- gy s -Patrick B. Lyons Chairman
tiserrent; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or Nov.19,bec.3,1985. _, . ,._....._•
corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver-
tisement for publication in the said newspaper. ,,�� ,,,,
Sworn to and subscribed before me this --clay ofd��""'��A.D. T-•5
e Manager)
(SEAL) (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River Cou ty, F r' a)
DEC 111985
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/22/85:
62 a jjnn
BooK 62 FAUEffli
DEC 11 198 5 BOOK E2 PAcM2
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: November 22 1985 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
SUBJECT: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO
Ro ert M. Reati g,CP RS -1, RMH-6 AND RMH-8
Planning & Development Director ZONING DISTRICTS
FROM: FS REFERENCES:
Richard Shearer, AICP Co. Initiated Request Memo
Chief. Tong -Rand planning CHIEF _
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of December 11, 1985.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
The Planning Department is initiating a request to amend the
RS -1, Single -Family Residential District, the RMH-6, Mobile Home
Residential District, and the RMH-8, Mobile Home Residential
District, regulations of the zoning ordinance. The proposed
amendments include reducing the minimum yard requirements in all
three districts, and reducing the lot width and increasing the
minimum lot size in the RS -1 district.
The RS -1, RMH-6, and RMH-8 zoning districts were adopted on
January 16, 1985, and many properties were rezoned to one of
these three districts on April 11, 1985, based on their land use
designations and previous zoning. The RMH-6 and RMH-8 zoning
districts have stricter minimum yard requirements than the
previous mobile home zoning districts which has caused hardships
for individuals wanting to add accessory structures to mobile
homes in existing mobile home parks. The RS -1 zoning has been
applied to many properties which were previously zoned R-1,
Single -Family District (up to 6.2 units/acre), but had a land use
designation of RR -2, Rural Residential 2 (up to 1 unit/acre).
The new RS -1 minimum yard requirements are considerably more
strict than those of the R-1 district and have created hardships
for individuals wanting to build houses in the RS -1 district.
The Board of Adjustment has granted two variance requests since
August due to these hardships.
On November 14, 1985, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
4 -to -0 to recommend approval of this request.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
Currently, the following requirements exist for these three
zoning districts:
Minimum
Minimum
Required Yards
Lot
Lot
Area
Width
Front Rear
Side
RS -1 35,000 sq.ft.
150'
50' 30'
30'
RMH-6 7,000 sq.ft.
70'
20' 20'
10'
RMH-8 51000 sq.ft.
50,
20' 20'
10'
Currently, many properties in the Roseland area along the
Sebastian River are zoned RS -1 and are very narrow in width.
While many of these properties are several acres in size, they
have insufficient width to be split to create more than one lot.
Because most of the developable RS -1 property in the County is in
63
Roseland, staff feels that the minimum lot width should accommo-
date these narrow properties along the Sebastian River. The
Roseland Property Owners Association has recommended that the
minimum lot width in the RS -1 district be reduced to 125 feet.
If the minimum lot width is reduced, the staff feels that the
minimum lot size should be increased to 40,000 square feet in
order to maintain the one unit per acre density limitation in the
RS -1 district.
The yard setback requirements in the RS -1 district have caused
hardships to individuals attempting to build houses on lots that
were platted under different zoning regulations. Many of the
lots in the Roseland area which are zoned RS -1 were platted when
the land was zoned R-1. The R-1 district required 20 foot front
and rear yards and 10 foot sideyards which are significantly
less than the RS -1 regulations. Variances have been granted for
two lots to vary the frontyard setback to 30 feet and to vary the
sideyard setback to 20 feet. Staff feels that a 30 foot
frontyard and 20 foot sideyard setback together with the existing
30 foot rearyard setback would be reasonable. These setbacks
would reduce the number of lots which cannot meet the current
setback requirements but are stricter than the RS -3 setbacks.
The new mobile home zoning districts were designed to regulate
new mobile home subdivision developments. The setbacks in these
districts were, therefore, based on regulating subdivisions and
not mobile home parks. However, these new districts replaced
four old mobile home zoning districts which included mobile home
park districts. The old R-1MP, Mobile Home Park District, had a
flexible side yard requirement that required 20 feet of space
between living spaces and 10 feet between accessory structures.
The new RMH-6 and RMH-8 districts require 20 feet between living
structures and 20 feet between accessory structures. The effect
of these new regulations are that many accessory structures are
now non -conforming and many individuals in mobile home parks
cannot add an accessory structure because of the new setback
requirements. Staff feels that these new setback requirements
have created a hardship for many individuals and that some
flexibility is needed in regulating the setbacks for accessory
structures.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendation, staff recommends the following new
setback requirements:
Minimum
Lot
Area
Minimum
Lot
Width
RS -1
40,000
sq.ft.
125'
RMH-6
7,000
sq.ft.
70'
RMH-8
5,000
sq.ft.
50'
Required Yards
Front
Rear
Side
30'
30'
20'
20'
20'
101*
20'
20'
101*
*Except that sideyards for mobile homes in mobile home parks in
existence prior to April 11, 1985, shall be established as
follows:
Every mobile home residence shall be located on a space so
that no living space is closer to any adjacent living space
than twenty (20) feet and no accessory structure shall be
located closer than ten (10) feet to any other structure on
an adjoining space.
64
DEC 111985 BOOK' 62 fAJ00
DEC
111985
Box
62 PAJO0
Commissioner Bird noted that
in the RS-1 we have
reduced the
minimum Iot width, but we have increased the minimum square
footage, and Richard Shearer, Chief of Long -Range Planning,
explained that staff's intention is to maintain the 1 unit per
acre density.
Commissioner Bowman had a problem with reducing the 50 -ft.
frontage to 30 feet because we might want to widen certain roads,
particularly Roseland Road, and this will bring those residents
very close to the road.
Planning 6 Development Director Robert Keating stated that
we should be getting sufficient right-of-way for Roseland Road,
which needs 120 feet.
Commissioner Scurlock believed we are taking a look at
getting setbacks in all areas, such as we did out S.R. #60, and
Director Keating confirmed that we are trying to implement that
with the impact fee ordinance.
Commissioner Scurlock did not know what impact zero setback
would have on RS -1 and felt we need to come up with some minimum
threshold for square feet so that we don't encourage anything
under a 70-75 ft. lot. He felt that when we were considering
density transfer, we didn't consider the size of the lots and
zero setback.
Mr. Shearer advised that the time to do that is later and
then we would need to look at all the residential districts.
Commissioner Bowman wished to limit the RS -1 to the Roseland
area only, but Administrator Wright believed it has to be by
zoning districts, not geographical areas.
Mr. Shearer explained that this is going to be the main area
where we see the RS -1 zoning, with the exception of the environ-
mentally sensitive lands along the Indian River.
Chairman Lyons opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter.
Frank DeJoia, resident of Roseland, spoke in favor of these
proposed changes for RS -1. He felt all of the residents in
65
� r �
Roseland want to preserve the integrity of the 1 upa density
along Roseland Road and the river, but the existing setbacks and
minimum widths do pose a serious problem for many people who want
to divide their property due to the long, narrow configuration of
the properties. He pointed out that he is currently working with
Reverend Hendry trying to divide his 5 -acre property up into two
parts, and when you take these 30 -ft. setbacks on the sides and
50 -ft. on the front and back, you are really confiscating quite a
bit of the property. He felt that if anything, these more
relaxed requirements will help to preserve the integrity of the
RS -1 category.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously closed the
Public Hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 85-99, providing for reducing the minimum
yard requirements in the RS -1 Single -Family Residential
District, and the RMH-6 and RMH-8 Mobile Home
Residential Districts, reducing the minimum lot width
in the RS -1 District, and increasing the minimum lot
size in the'RS-1 District.
66
DEC 1119815 BOOK 6 WLW5
O E C -11-1935-
1.1995 BOOK 62 PAc6
ORDINANCE NO. 85-99
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING SECTION 5 (A) AND 13 (A), OF
ORDINANCE 85-4, KNOWN AS APPENDIX A--ZONING--OF THE CODE OF
LAWS AND ORDINANCES OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY; PROVIDING FOR
REDUCING THE MINIMUM YARD REQUIREMENTS IN THE RS -1,
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, AND THE RMH-6 AND RMH-8
MOBILE HOME RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS; REDUCING THE MINIMUM LOT
WIDTH IN THE RS -1 DISTRICT, AND INCREASING THE MINIMUM LOT
SIZE IN THE RS -1 DISTRICT; CODIFICATION; SEVERABILITY;
REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
SECTION 1
Table 5(A) entitled "Size and Dimension Criteria, RS -1
Zoning District" of Ordinance 85-4 is hereby amended to read as
follows:
ZONING DISTRICT RS -1
REGULATION UNIT OF MEASURE
1 1 -
MIN. LOT SIZE 357989 40,000 square feet
MIN. LOT WIDTH -159 125 feet
MIN. YARD
-Front 59 30
-Side 392 202 feet
-Rear 302
SECTION 2
TABLE 13(A) entitled "Size and Dimension Criteria, RMH-6 and
RMH-8 Zoning Districts" of Ordinance 85-4 is hereby amended to
read as follows:
ZONING DISTRICT RMH-6 RMH-8
REGULATION UNIT OF MEASURE
MIN. YARD
-Front 20 20
1 1
-Side 10 10 feet
-Rear 20 20
1
Except that side yards for mobile home parks in existence
prior to April 11, 1985, shall be established as follows:
Every mobile home residence shall be located on a space so
that no living space is closer than twenty(20) feet to any
adjacent living space and no accessory structure shall be
located closer than ten(10) feet to any other structure on
an adjoining space
CODING: Words in struek-through type are deletions from existing
law; words underlined are additions.
ORDINANCE NO. 85- 99
eVnMTnM Z
REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS
All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the
Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida
which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby
repealed to the extent of such conflict. All Special Acts of
the legislature applying only to the unincorporated portion of
Indian River County and which conflict with the provisions of
this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such
conflict,
SECTION 4
INCORPORATION IN CODE
The provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated into
the County Code and the'word "ordinance" may be changed to
"section", "article", or other appropriate word, and the sections
of this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish
such intentions.
SECTION 5
SEVERABILITY
If any section, part of a sentence, paragraph, phrase or
word of this ordinance is for any reason held to be
unconstitutional, inoperative or void, such holdings shall not
affect the remaining portions hereof and it shall be construed to
have been the legislative intent to pass this ordinance without
such unconstitutional, invalid or inoperative part.
SECTION 6
EFFECTIVE DATE
The provisions of this ordinance shall become effective upon
receipt from the Florida Secretary of State of official
acknowledgment -that -this ordinance has been filed with the
Department of .State.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, --Florida on this 11th day of Decembe�r985.
D E C 111995 BooK 62 PAGd007
DEC 111985
BOOK 62 PAGPa�
ORDINANCE NO. 85-99
BOARD OUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF 16DIANIRIVER COUNTY
Y: /
t is B. Lyons firman
Acknowledgment of the Department f Sta of the State Florida
this 19th day of Dece , 1985.
Effective Date: Acknowledgment from the Department of State
received on this23rd day of December , 1985, at 10.00
A.M./P.M. and filed in the Office of the Clerk of the Board of
County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida.
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
LEGAL SUFFICIENCY.
Bruce Barkett, Assistant County Attorney
The Commissioners unanimously agreed to continue
today's meeting beyond the 12:30 o'clock P.M. time schedule.
APPROVAL OF CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE OF VOTING EQUIPMENT AND VOTE
TABULATION SYSTEM
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/9/85:
68 a
W
ANN ROBINSON
SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS
1840 25TH STREET, SUITE N-109
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960-3394
TELEPHONES: (305) 567-8187 or 567-8000
December 9, 1985
RE: BCC agenda item 10, December 11, 1985, NEW Voting Equipment
I request your approval of the following:
1. Contract with TRIAD in amount of $23,395
2. Contract with ELECTION SUPPLIES LIMITED in amount of $74,520
3. Purchase of other voting equipment in amount of $8,890
(The equipment is itemized on attached sheet.)
Thank you,
Ann Robinson
Supervisor of Elections
For BCC meeting of December 11, 1985, Item 10: New Voting Equipment
IBM Equipment on State Bid List:
1.
5151/001
61P1!ER. 40400
2 @ 193.75
$ 387.50
2.
IHS
2 @ 171.00
C �v
3.
4211 DOS
ROf-=
2 @ 44
ANN ROBINSON
SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS
1840 25TH STREET, SUITE N-109
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960-3394
TELEPHONES: (305) 567-8187 or 567-8000
December 9, 1985
RE: BCC agenda item 10, December 11, 1985, NEW Voting Equipment
I request your approval of the following:
1. Contract with TRIAD in amount of $23,395
2. Contract with ELECTION SUPPLIES LIMITED in amount of $74,520
3. Purchase of other voting equipment in amount of $8,890
(The equipment is itemized on attached sheet.)
Thank you,
Ann Robinson
Supervisor of Elections
For BCC meeting of December 11, 1985, Item 10: New Voting Equipment
IBM Equipment on State Bid List:
1.
5151/001
Monochrome Display, plus transportation,
2 @ 193.75
$ 387.50
2.
5151/4900 Monochrome Display and Printer Adapter,
2 @ 171.00
342.00
3.
4211 DOS
3.1 (PC DOS Operating Systerm),
2 @ 44
88.00
4.
5250 Emulation Unit
591.00
5.
5160/078
IBM PC %T with 2568, 2 360 RB DSRT DR
1819.00
6.
5170/
IBM PC AT with 512K, 1.2MB DSRT DR, 30MB
disk
4268.65
7.
4201/001
Proprinter, plus transportation
388.60
8.
Adapter
cable for printer, 2 @ $36
72.00
Other Equipment:
Okidata Printer and a Multi -function Card
69
r
$7956.75
933.25
$8890.00
DEC 111985 Boa 62 PA -0-4019
Ann Robinson, Supervisor of Elections, noted that these
costs stay exactly within the money the Board budgeted for new
voting equipment. According to Florida Statutes,. voting equipment
must be purchased by a governing body.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman,.that the Board approve
the contract with TRIAD in the amount of $23,395
and the contract with Election Supplies Limited in
the amount of $74,520 and the purchase of other voting
equipment in the amount of $8,890.
Supervisor Robinson explained that the Utilities Department
has agreed to let her use their AT computer as a backup in an
emergency. With respect to maintenance, there is a one-year
guarantee on the software, and a 5 -year warranty on the voting
booths themselves. She believed that IBM gives a 90 -day warranty
on the hardware that is on the State Contract, and maintenance
for the other IBM hardware will have to be paid out of the
department's office equipment maintenance fund.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
was voted on and carried unanimously.
CONTRACTS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK
Supervisor Robinson advised that January 11th is the last
possible date to notify her of a special election.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously authorized
the disposal of 20 surplus voting machines;
accepted the $1,000 credit on the ESL contract; and
authorized the sale of the other 28 machines.
70
PERMITTING AND CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS MANUAL FOR WATER AND
WASTEWATER SYSTEMS
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/26/85:
TO: THE HONORABLE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: 1 TO,�DIRECTOR
UTILITY SERVICES
DATE: NOVEMBER 26, 1985
SUBJECT:
FROM: RONALD R. BROOKS, ENVIRONMENTAL
AX
ENGINEERING SPECIALIST, UTILITY
SERVICES
BACKGROUND AND CONDITIONS
PERMITTING AND CONSTRUC-
TION SPECIFICATIONS WATER
AND WASTEWATER SYSTEMS
The County's current water and wastewater franchising process provides for
the review and permitting of the design, construction, and operation of
water and wastewater systems in Indian River County. However, we currently
have no printed permitting guidelines or procedures; and although we do
have material and construction specifications, they are long overdue for
updating.
We also do not have current printed guidelines for the review and per-
mitting of the design and construction of expansions of the County operated
utilities. Further, there is an increasing desire by residents within
established subdivisions to obtain County water service and we have only a
limited program for the expansion of our County systems into such sub-
divisions.
ANALYSTS
The County is in dire need of a well organized program for the expansion of
our own utilities and the review and approval of the construction and
operation of the water and wastewater systems of the County franchised
utilities. A program should be established and outlined within a printed
manual that provides a detailed break down of the following:
1. Procedures for expansion County operated water and wastewater systems.
2. Procedures for the review and approval of the design, construction and
operation of expansions of County water and wastewater systems.
3. Procedures for the review and approval of the design, construction,
operation and expansions of the water and wastewater systems of fran-
chised utilities.
4. _ Updated minimum specifications on the materials, and the design and
construction of water and wastewater systems. These specifications
should include graphic displays of materials and construction proce-
dures as well as minimum or specific criteria on the materials to be
used in the construction of water and wastewater systems.
1 BOOK FAu V_LI
DEC 111985
DEC 111995
CONCLUSION
BOOK 62 FA;LM2
The attached is a proposal by one of our currently contracted- wastewater
engineering firms (Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.) to prepare a written proce-
dures manual outlining permitting and construction specifications for water
and wastewater systems, and procedures or programs for expanding the County"
operated water and wastewater systems. The firm proposes- to develop a
procedures manual for review and subsequent adoption by the Board of County
Commissioners. The manual is to be prepared in a draft form within thirty
(30) days. The estimated fee for preparation of the manual is $9,850.00.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the work
by Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. as described in the attached Scope of Work.
Utilities Director Terry Pinto urged the Board to authorize
the composition of this manual.
Commissioner Scurlock felt that we are beginning to see how
complicated some of these fee structuring processes are.
Chairman Lyons asked if we have a written policy on getting
a utility line to the house, and Director Pinto explained that
this will be included in this manual. Part of the cost for the
manual will come out of the Utilities Department budget and part
will be paid out of the funds raised through the franchise.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
authorized the work by Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. as
described in the proposed Scope of Work, as recommended
by Utilities Director Pinto.
SCOPE OF WORK AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL HELP IN FINANCE DEPARTMENT
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/4/85:
72
December 4, 1985
F RED A W R I G H T _. sna�:� c�t�;a►Y 1 JI
CLERK, CIRCUIT COURT AND RE'CO'RDER
+i r
`f � �r .l��•s o .a
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
TO: Patrick Lyons
Chairman, Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Freda Wright
Clerk of Circuit Court
RE: Request for Additional Help
P. O. BOX 1028
HERO BEACH - FLORIDA -
32960
We respectfully request that our need for additional help in the
Finance Department be included on the agenda for December 11, 1985.
We did not include this position in our budget request because we
had no work space available and were hoping that we would be able to get through
the year, but the work load for this department has increased at a much faster
rate than expected.
We have experienced a 42% increase in the number of employees being
carried in the payroll system and a 19% increase in the quantity of payables
being processed. The work continues to increase and has reached a point where
the SEVEN employees can no longer keep up.
We have not had an increase in this department since the 1983-84 budget
year.
I have completed a survey of other counties of like size and found that
Indian River County is currently staffed at a level well below other counties
(see attached comparison).
We are now having to handle utility impact funds for two major projects
with others proposed, and the new transportation impact funds accounting will
also impact heavily on this department when implemented.
A It is this unexpected increase in the work load that forces us to
request a new position for the department at an approximate cost of $14,000.
annually.
Commissioner Scurlock was concerned about space for this
additional position, and Administrator Wright noted that space
depends on what action the Board takes at the next meeting
concerning rental space. Freda Wright, Clerk to the Board,
explained that right now she has temporary space for the
additional employee and the funding will come from the general
73
BOOK
L-DEC11119W;-
DEC 111985 BOOK 62 Pay
funds contingencies. The Clerk wished to have the employee start
in January, which would cover 9 months of fiscal year 1985-86.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
the request for an additional employee for the Finance
Dept. for 9 months of the fiscal year 1985-1986 with
the funding to come from the general contingency fund,
the balance of which is $273,515.
LEASE AGREEMENT FOR MOBILE UNIT AT NEW JAIL SITE
Administrator Wright suggested that we add to -the lease
agreement with Williams Mobile Offices an option to renew for one
more year at the same price. The rental is $26,400 annually and
that works out to $7.85 per square foot. The mobile unit is
coming with the interior designed the way we want it, but we will
have to install the bunks, etc.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if we have an option to purchase
at the end of the lease, and Administrator Wright confirmed that
we have the option, but he did not feel we would want to.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, that the Board approve
the lease agreement with Williams Mobile Offices
in the amount of $2,200 per month beginning in
February, 1986, with the funding to come from
the general contingency fund; and authorized the
Chairman's signature.
Under discussion, Commissioner Wodtke asked if this would
solve our overcrowding problems, and Administrator Wright
reported that we have DOC approval and this does provide for 36
inmates. The judges understand, and it is just a matter of
keeping the cap at 105-110.
74
Commissioner Wodtke asked if we are still being sued, and
Attorney Vitunac reported that he sent the agreement to the DOC,
and their attorney is rewriting it. However, he has not heard
from them as yet.
Administrator Wright confirmed that we have adequate staff
for the mobile unit and the Board has already approved the
funding.
Commissioner Bird asked about site plan approval and Admini-
strator Wright reported that they obtained it through the City of
Vero Beach.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
was voted on and carried unanimously.
75
BOOK 62 PAGE&5
rDEC 111985
. -A
(40 1red i
�flO62 K'A11
Builders of Construction/Industrial Trailers and Modular Buildings
P.O. Box 986
Baltimore, Maryland 21203
301-391-0100
800-638-6963
IESS�_',
rBOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
1840 25TH STREET
LVERO BEACH, FL 32960--
'Y1=cEphoNE 305-567-8000
CUSTOMER NUMBER:
EQUIOMENT SPECIFICATIONS-,
4LEASE AGREEMENTy
.
.`DELIVERY ADDRESS:
1725 17TH AVENUE
J VERO BEACH, FL
TELE HONE -,
z
<r:, .MOQ L..., ,.:SERIAL NUM9ER:.; DELIVERY DATE VALUE ' ,,.,, MINIMUM RENTAL TERM. - RATE PER MONTH ,-
140 X 24 FL -01322-325 1 01/*/86 $ 63,250.00 I • 12 MONTHS 1 2,200.00
This agreement is made as of12/04/85 by and between WILLIAMS MOBILE OFFICES, INC., a Maryland corporation
having an office for the transaction of business at 8656 Pulaski Highway, Baltimore, Maryland 21237 (hereinafter referred to as Lessor)
and the Lessee named above.
Lessor hereby agrees to lease to Lessee and Lessee hereby agrees to lease and rent from Lessor the Equipment described above, on
the terms and conditions set forth above, below and on the reverse side of this agreement.
BILLING INFORMATION:
FIRST MONTH'S RENT $ 2200.00
INBOUND FREIGHT 1800.00
SET UP 3200.00
INI .IAL. PAYMENT AMOUNT $ 7200.00
RETURN FREIGHT OF $ 900.00 AND $ 1100.00'KNOCKDOWN CHARGES TO BE
BILLED. WHEN THIS TRAILER IS RETURNED TO WILLIAMS.'.
AFTER INITIAL PAYMENT HAS-BEEN MADEV A MONTHLY RENTAL.OF $ 2200.00
PAYABLE ON DAY * OF EACH MONTH BEGINNING 02/*/86.
'*' TO BE DETERMINED AT TIME OF DELIVERY.
LESSEE: ^OARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
B
TITLE
76
i.
Ja—es F. Wilson
i; A t. County Attorney
ACCEPTED: WUNCn'm ,Inc.
BY:-
LESSOR
Y:LESSOR
Builders of Construction/Industrial Trailers and Modular Buildings
P.O. Box 986
Baltimore, Maryland 21203
301-391-0100
800-638-6963
LESSEE:
r
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
1840 25TH STREET
LERO BEACH, FL 32960
TELEPHONE: 305-567-8000
PURCHASE OPTION
DELIVERY ADDRESS:
F
1725 17TH AVENUE
L RO BEACH, FL J
TELEPHONE:
jlh
CUSTOMER NUMBER:
EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS:
MODEL SERIAL NUMBER , DELIVERY DATE VALUE MINIMUM LEASETERM RATE PER MONTH
140 X 24 FL -01322-325 1 01/*/86 $ 639250.00 1 12 MONTHS 1 29200.00
PROVIDED THERE IS THEN NO DEFAULT, AND HAS NEVER BEEN A DEFAULT; BY
LESSEE UNDER THE LEASE AGREEMENT APPLICABLE TO THE DESCRIBED EQUIPMENT, LESSEE
MAY EXERCISE AN OPTION TO PURCHASE THIS EQUIPMENT AT ANY TIME PRIOR TO THE
TERMINATION OF THE LEASE BY PAYMENT TO THE LESSOR OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN:
A) THE VALUE OF THE EQUIPMENT AS INDICATED ABOVE: AND (B) 60 % OF THE RENTALS
PAID BY LESSEE. UPON RECEIPT OF SUCH FULL PAYMENT PLUS ALL APPLICABLE TAXES,
LESSOR SHALL EXECUTE AND DELIVER TO LESSEE APPROPRIATE CERTIFICATE (S) OF ORIGIN.
77
DEC 111985 BOOK 62 f -'Ad .
DEC 11985 BOOK E2 FAC4O18
TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL - ESTABLISHMENT OF
INFORMAL INTERJURISDICTIONAL MEDIATION PROCESS
The Board reviewed the following memo elated 11/22/85:
To:
F rom:
MEMORANDUM
Local Governments_-in�the Treasure
Sam Shannon l
Executive Director`!" x `^
I
Date: november 22, 1985 '
Coast
DIS, Tr:,P'UT!1.,::,T —
Pub,;C
Con;:i:::...,,
Utiliti;;s --
Finance
Other ^ �-�-
Region
Subject: Informal Interjurisdictional Mediation Process
During the 1984 session, the Legislature passed the State and Regional Plan-
ning Act which, in part, addressed the Governor's Environmental Land Manage-
ment Study (ELMS) Committee's recommendations regarding mediation of local
government conflicts relating to comprehensive plans. Specifically,
Section 186.509, Florida Statutes, states:
Mediation of Conflicts Between Local Governments - The
Regional Planning Council shall establish an informal media-
tion process to resolve conflicts between local governments
relating to comprehensive plans. The resolution of any
issue through the mediation process shall not alter any
person's right to a judicial determination of any issue if
that person is entitled to such a determination under statu-
tory or common law.
Attached for your review and comment are proposed guidelines for conducting
the required interjurisdictional mediation process. These guidelines are
based upon procedures employed by the Pennsylvania Local Government Commis-
sion, the Virginia Commission on Local Government, and the Tampa Bay
Regional Planning Council.
Mediation is a voluntary method of dispute resolution encouraged by the
American Arbitration Association since 1926 and formally established in
several states. It is applicable to both the public and private sector.
The primary goal of mediation is a mutually acceptable solution to a
dispute, ,..-rived at by consent of the parties, through the guidance of a
neutral person serving as the mediator. The process differs from arbitra-
tion in that the neutral person in arbitration is authorized to decide
issues and render a final and binding decision. The mediator, by contrast,
does not decide issues for the parties, nor render a final judgement; the
mediator serves as a catalyst and facilitator to move the parties toward a
settlement between themselves.
78
The principal advantage of mediation is the ability to explore avenues of
settlement in a supportive setting without the cumbersome court entangle-
ments. Mediation stresses negotiation and the earliest possible conclusion
to the dispute. Further, the mediator is free to consider the relation-
ships between the parties as well as the public interest in the dispute,
separate from concentrating upon the legal issues. Through mediation,
solutions to disputes can oftentimes be achieved at considerably less than
the cost to litigate.
Please review the attached proposed Informal Interjurisdictional Mediation
Process and provide any comments you may have to Council by December 28,
1985. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Chairman Lyons noted that no action was needed by the Board
on this matter; he just wanted to bring it to the Board's
attention.
PROGRESS REPORT ON MINIMUM -SECURITY JAIL FACILITY
Chairman Lyons reported that the plans for a minimum
security facility are being work on very actively and it looks as
if they will be completed very shortly.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if we had to go to competitive
bidding for construction again, and Chairman Lyons hoped to
negotiate a competitive and reasonable price from the present
contractor but only after the architect determines what the cost
per square foot should run.
Attorney Vitunac confirmed that we do have the ability to
negotiate with the present contractor and not go to competitive
bidding.
Administrator Wright explained that the architect will check
against other comparable jobs to see if we have received a
competitive price.
Commissioner Scurlock believed this was an opportune time to
get good, competitive construction prices.
Administrator Wright recommended that the Board authorize a
negotiating team of one Commissioner, staff, and the architect,
to talk with RS&H and come back to the Board with a price.
The Commissioners indicated they would do that after they
saw the plans.
79
��oK 62 PA.401
r -DEC 111985
PROGRESS REPORT ON MAXIMUM SECURITY JAIL FACILITY
BOOK 64 FA6101-0
90
Chairman Lyons reported that he met with the architect at
the jail site and it looks like they are on schedule. There are
some hardware problems. He suggested reviewing the Board's
instructions with Administrator Wright re change orders, as he
would like to keep a running score of what is going on. He would
then come back with a recommendation on how we might want to
handle these changes.
DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROHIBITING PERSONS WITH FIVE OR
MORE OUTSTANDING PARKING VIOLATIONS FROM OBTAINING AN AUTOMOBILE
LICENSE OR VALIDATION STICKER
The Board reviewed the following letter dated 11/25185:
City of Vero Beach
P. 0. BOX 1389 - 1033 - 201h PLACE
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA - 32960
Telephone 367-5131
OFFICE OF THE
MAYOR
November 25, 1985 -
Mr. Pat Lyons, Chairman
Indian River County Commission
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32.960
Dear Pat:
At the regular City Council meeting on November 19, 1985,
the City Council unanimously passed Resolution 85-68. The
subject resolution requests the Board of County Commissioners
for Indian River County, to at the earliest possible date, pass
an ordinance implementing the procedures and sanctions contained
in Chapter 85-325 of the Florida Statutes. This statute provides
that persons with five or more outstanding parking violations
cannot be issued an automobile license or validation sticker.
Your timely consideration of this matter will be appreciated.
Sincerely yours,
��00
Terry off
Mayor
80
Administrator Wright explained that this is just for unpaid
parking violation tickets and would be connected to the
registration of the automobile, not the individual.
Commissioner Wodtke asked if there was some recourse to take
these people to court, and Attorney Vitunac explained that there
are thousands in violation, and there is not enough time to take
every case to court. The City of Vero Beach cannot pass the
ordinance, the County must do it.
Administrator Wright explained that while he did not know
the full mechanics, it was tied into registrations in
Tallahassee.
Attorney Vitunac explained that we are being asked to do
this so that the City will have an enforceable tool.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously instructed
the County Administrator to speak to the Tax Collector
and Clerk of the Circuit Court about this matter and
bring it back to the Board.
REPORT ON SAVE OUR COASTS
Commissioner Bird reported that he and Assistant County
Attorney Bruce Barkett are planning to go to Tallahassee Friday
to try and get the State to purchase the Hyland -Chapman property
which is contiguous to County -owned beach property. It may be
that the appraised value is somewhat short of the property
owner's bottom line, and Commissioner Bird wished to explore with
the State the idea of the County making up the difference and
then bring it back to the Board for approval.
Commissioner Wodtke felt they should talk about anything
that would help, and Commissioner Scurlock agreed that the County
is going to need additional park space.
81
i3"K 62 f Jpl
GOLF COURSE FUND DONATION
Commissioner Bird announced that through the Bowes
Foundation in Chicago, Illinois, Bent Pine residents Dave and
Sally Holmes have donated $10,000 to help with the purchase of
equipment for Sandridge Golf Club, the County golf course planned
for Kiwanis-Hobart Park. While the Holmes belong to private
clubs, they realize the need for a public course in the county.
Emphasizing that the contributions are tax deductible, he hoped
this would be the first of many contributions to the fund which
hopefully will reach the goal of $200,000.
Commissioner Bird suggested that a letter of thanks be sent
to the Bowes Foundation.
HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION NOTICE
Commissioner Bowman was concerned that the time is coming up
fast for residents to file for Homestead Exemption and she has
not read any notices in the newspaper informing the people that
the deadline to prove residency is January 1st, 1986, and the
deadline to file for Homestead Exemption is March Ist, 1986. She
wished for people to receive a brochure on these requirements
when they come into the Planning Department for a Certificate of
Occupancy or when they record a deed or file a Declaration of
Domicile.
Chairman Lyons suggested that we ask the Property Appraiser
to put out the brochure, and Commissioner Wodtke suggested the
media help in this effort by getting the deadlines and residency
requirements to the people.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made,
seconded and carried, the meeting adjourned at 1:15 o'clock P.M.
ATTEST:
lzz!; Q"�
Clerk Cha I