HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/18/1985Wednesday, December 18, 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 18, 1985, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Patrick B.
Lyons, Chairman; Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Vice Chairman; Richard N.
Bird; Margaret C. Bowman; and William C. Wodtke, Jr. Also
present were Michael J. Wright, County Administrator; L. S.
"Tommy" Thomas, Intergovernmental Relations Director; Charles P.
Vitunac, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; and
Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
Reverend Thomas Gensel, Grace United Methodist Church,
Wabasso, gave the invocation, and Commissioner Bowman led the
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Administrator Wright wished to add the following items:
1. The FAA Tower Space Lease, which is now on the standard
County lease form. The equipment has been purchased and
FAA is very anxious to install it. It was felt this could
be added to the Consent Agenda.
2. Installation of temporary sewer facilities at the Fairgrounds.
The Administrator wished this added under his matters.
3. A discussion of financing for the golf course, which could be
added to discussion of the proposed golf course time table.
4. Report on Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council's decision
to appeal the Grand Harbor D.R.I.
Commissioner Scurlock requested the addition to the Consent
Agenda of a Proclamation re drugs, alcohol and driving.
County Attorney Vitunac wished to add under his matters a
Resolution accepting a gift of oceanfront property from the Lier
family and a contract to allow Kennedy Groves to give us an
access for a utility ea�ement in return for a cross easement in
BOOK FADE 0j,
LDEc 18 198 -
DEC 1 s 1995
BOOK cJ PAGE: 02
the future. This is an emergency item because the crews -are
ready to start the utility work.
Commissioner Bird requested the addition of travel
authorization to attend a Cabinet meeting on January 7th in
regard to having the state buy additional oceanfront property.
It was agreed this could be added to the Consent Agenda.
Chairman Lyons requested that confirmation of the
appointment of the Sebastian municipal representative to the
Regional Planning Council also be added under the Consent Agenda.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
added the above described items to today's
agenda.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or -
additions to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 13;
1985. There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
November 13, 1985, as written.
The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or
additions to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 20,
1985. There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
November 20, 1985, as written.
CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Scurlock requested that Item E be removed from
the Consent Agenda for discussion; Commissioner Wodtke requested
the removal of Item F; and Commissioner Bird requested the
removal of Item D.
A. Renewal Pistol Permit
The Board reviewed memo from the Administrator, as follows:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: December 10, 1985 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
SUBJECT: pistol Permit -Renewal
FROM: Michael Wright REFERENCES:
County Administrator
The following individual has applied through the Clerk's Office
for renewal of his pistol permit:
Vernon H. Luhr
All requirements of the ordinance.have been met.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously approved
the application for a Permit to Carry a Concealed
Firearm for Vernon Heino Luhr.
B. Developers Agreement - Vero Grove Development Corp.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously approved
the Agreement with Vero Grove Development Corp.
granting credits for certain utility installations
against County -required impact fees and authorized
the signature of the Chairman.
t1
BOOK 63 FAGi
DEC 18 1935 e®ox FACE
AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
and
VERO GROVE DEVELOPMENT CORP.
Granting Credits for Certain Utility Installations
Against County -Required Impact Fees
THIS AGREEMENT made this 18th day of December--_,--,
1985, by and between INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political
subdivision of the State of Florida, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach,
FL 32960, (County), an.d VERO GROVE DEVELOPMENT CORP.,
Vero Beach, FL 334099
(Developer),
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, Developer has purchased water taps equivalent
to 18 ERUs at a cost of $1,140 per ERU for a total of $20,520 for
Developer's project at Vero Grove; and
WHEREAS, the County has required the Developer to
oversize certain water mains to master plan size, and, therefore,
has agreed to allow credits for this increase against the impact
fees;
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of these premises
and other good and valuable consideration, the County and the
Developer agree as follows:
1. The Developer shall oversize certain utility lines,
as
follows:
Item
Est. Quantity
Unit Cost
TOTAL
a.
Increase to 12"
from 10" D.I.P.
3,625 L.F.
$2.66/L.F.
$9,642.50
b.
Increase to 12"
from 10" G.V.
5 ea.
$100 ea.
$ 500.00
C.
Installation of F.H.
Ass'y. Materials to
be
supplied by County
3 ea.
No Chg.
No Chg.
d.
8" D.I.P. installed
35 L.F.
$12/L.F.
$ 420.00
e.
6" D.I.P. installed
28 L.F.
$10/L.F.
$ 280.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED INCREASE - $101,842.50
2. On the satisfactory completion of the construction
in paragraph #1, the County shall allow a credit against impact
fees of $10,842.50.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the County and the Developer have
caused these presents to be executed in their names the day and
year first above written.
ERO qAOVE 0.5VELOPMENT CORP.
LM
tive Vice President
INDIA,W'R-�VER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Utz
ktrl-ck B.
hairman
C. Corps of Engineers Permit Ap lication (Gordon Ripma)
The Board reviewed memo of Staff Planner DeBlois:
TO: DATE: FILE:
The Honorable Members November 9, 1985
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
SUBJECT: PERMIT APPLICATION
Robert M. Keating, - CP
Planning &„Development Director
FROM: Roland M. DeBlois REFERENCES: TM #85-116
Staff Planner DIS:ROLAND
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting on December 18, 1985.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT APPLICATION
NO. 85IPR-21065
APPLICANT: Mr. Gordon R. Ripma
306 Northeast 2nd Street
Delray Beach, Florida 33444-4523
WATERWAY & LOCATION: The project is located in the Indian
River adjacent to Indian River Drive approximately 190 feet
south of Cleveland Street, Section 6, Township 31 South, Range
39 East, Indian River County, Florida. The project site is
located in the City of Sebastian.
WORK & PURPOSE: The applicant proposes to extend an existing
commercial pier. The existing pier is approximately 237 feet
long with a T -head and provides 27 boat slips. The proposed
5
aooK
DEC 18 198 f.
BOOK 63
extension will be 242 feet long with a 95 -foot T -head and
provide 32 slips for a total of 59. The applicant also
proposes to construct 125 feet of 6 -foot -wide boardwalk along
the existing bulkhead. No fueling or sewage pumpout facilities
are planned.,and no dredging or filling is required for the
proposed construction.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS:
The Planning and Development Division reviews and submits
comments on dredge and fill applications to the permitting
agencies based upon the following:
- The Conservation & Coastal Zoning Management Element of
the Indian River Comprehensive Plan
- Coastal Zone Management, Interim Goals, Objectives &
Policies for the Treasure Coast Region
- The Hutchinson Island Planning & Management Plan
- The Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances
Due to the proposed project's location in the City of Sebastian
and therefore not in the unincorporated portion of the County,
the focus of staff review is on potential County and regional
impacts rather than site-specific impacts. Subsequently, an
in-depth field inspection of the project site was - not
conducted.
In providing an additional 32 boat slips to the already
existing 27 slip pier, the proposed project may help to
alleviate the potential need for dockage in the surrounding
area where impacts could be greater. Utilization of an
existing pier and bulkhead substantially decreases coastal
resource impact when compared to the construction of an
entirely new facility.
Although the extent of any impacts are not fully known at this
time, there may be cumulative impacts of this and other
multiple dockage projects proposed to be constructed along the
Indian River upon the Florida manatee.
Staff has not determined the extent to which the submerged
bottomlands of the proposed project area will be impacted; the
effect of Indian River development on ecologically valuable
seagrass beds should be considered.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners
authorize staff to forward the following comments regarding
this project to the Jacksonville District Army Corps of
Engineers:
1) Indian River County has no objection to the proposed
project;
2) The Army Corps of Engineers and other appropriate agencies
should consider the potential cumulative impacts of marina
projects upon the Florida manatee;
3) The Army Corps of Engineers and other
should evaluate the potential impact
ecologically significant submerged
seagrass beds in the Indian River.
6
appropriate agencies
of marina projects on
bottomlands such as
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously author-
ized staff to forward the comments to the Corps
of Engineers as recommended by staff in the above
memo dated December 9, 1985.
D. West County Regional Wastewater Plant Effluent Disposal
The Board reviewed memo from Environmental Engineering
Specialist, Ron Brooks:
TO:' THE HONORABLE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DATE: DECEMBER 9, 1985
THRU: TERRANCE G. PINTO _R SUBJECT:
11 UTILITY SERVICE �`���;?
FROM: RONALD R. BROOKS ENVIRONMENTAL
ENGINEERING SPECIALIST
BACKGROUND
WEST COUNTY REGIONAL
WASTEWATER PLANT EFFLUENT
DISPOSAL FEASIBILITY
STUDY
When the Department of Environmental Regulation was reviewing our construc-
tion permit application for the County's West Regional Wastewater Treatment
Plant, they had considerable concern regarding the adequacy of the plant
site for disposal of wastewater. Their concerns were so strong that when
they issued a construction permit for the plant, they required that a
hydrogeological re-evaluation of the percolation ponds be performed after
they are placed into operation.
Several existing wastewater systems along State Road 60 are arranging to
eliminate their on-site wastewater treatment plants and connect to the
County's West Regional Plant. When the County plant becomes operational in
February of 1986, the wastewater flows from these existing facilities
combined with the flows from the new development will rapidly reach the
maximum capacity of the plant's current effluent disposal system (330,000
gallons per day). It is necessary therefore, to investigate expansion of
the newly constructed effluent disposal system to accommodate the flows
from the existing and new developments.
2kWhT.VCTC
It is acknowledged that there are disposal constraints within the waste-
water plant property and since expansion of the facility is foreseeable
within the next year, an overall study of wastewater disposal alternatives
for the West County Regional Wastewater System as well as a study of the
disposal capacity of the plant site is necessary.
CONCLUSION
The attached is a proposal by one of our currently contracted wastewater
engineering firms (Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.) to prepare an effluent
7
8
Bou 63 PAGE 07
BOOK 63 PAGE
disposal feasibility study for the West County Wastewater System. The firm
proposes to develop a draft report within a period of twelve weeks at an
estimated cost of $18,950.00.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Honorable Board of County Commissioners authorize
the work by Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. as provided in the attached Scope of
Services.
CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC.
Pa Boot 9=
MM Nonhwed 82nd sweet
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33310
305 Tro-I 1
November 21, 1985
FEDERAL EXPRESS
Mr. Terrance G. Pinto
Director of Utilities Services
Indian River County
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
RE: Indian River County
West Region Effluent Disposal Feasibility Study
Dear Mr. Pinto:
Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. is pleased to submit the attached budget
proposal for the West Region Effluent Disposal Feasibility Study for
the planning period of. year 2000. This proposal presents in detail
the following items:
o Exhibit A - Scope of Services
o Exhibit B - Project Labor Breakdown
o Exhibit C - Project Budget
We -have estimated the duration of this project to be twelve weeks from
receipt of authorization to develop a draft report. For the services
under this proposal, our total fee is estimated at the lump sum amount
of $18,950. We will not exceed this amount unless we have obtained
prior approval from the County. The work shall be done under our
existing agreement with the County.
If you should have any questions, please contact our office.
Very truly yours,
CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC. j
Donald G. Murtksgaard, P.E.
Associate
8
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF SERVICES
TASK 100 Review Background Information
101. Review existing studies related to wastewater
treatment plant effluent disposal as required,
including Indian River County Area -Wide Wastewater
Master Plan.
102. Review Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation (FDER) and St. John's Water Management
District effluent disposal regulations.
103. Review existing permits for the wastewater
treatment plant.
104. Review design and construction of existing effluent
disposal system (percolation pond).
TASK 200 Project Wastewater Flows and Loadings:
201. Determine population projections for sewer service
area based on existing wastewater master plan
referenced in subtask 101.
202. Estimate average and peak wastewater flows.
TASK 300 Evaluate Wastewater Treatment Processes:
301. Determine level of treatment required for effluent
disposal alternatives.
302. Predict effluent quality for disposal alternatives.
303. Incorporate findings into conceptual feasibility
report.
TASK 400 Evaluate Effluent Reuse Alternatives:
TASK -500
401. Evaluate potential areas for effluent reuse such as
the following:
o Golf Courses
o Florida Gas Line Right -of -Way
o Parks
o Orange Groves
o Sod Farms
402. Compare reclaimed water demand to projected
wastewater treatment plant output (monthly water
balance).
403. Develop preliminary layout of reclaimed water
system including the distribution system.
404. Develop preliminary costs of reclaimed water system
including capital and operation (labor, power, and
maintenance).
405. Evaluate institutional aspects of reuse and public
acceptance.
406. Incorporate findings into conceptual feasibility
report.
Evaluate Deep Well Injection Alternative:
501.
Analyze available data for injection horizon
parameters.
9
BORA.
63 FACE
DEC 19 1995
PAGE
502.
Review existing injection well operations.
503.
Determine number and size'of well(s) required. `
504.
Develop preliminary costs of construction of test
804.
and/or production well(s).
505.
Incorporate findings into conceptual feasibility
TASK 900 Progress Reports:
report.
TASK 600 Evaluate Storage Alternative:
601.
Determine storage volume required.
602.
Analyze alternative methods of storage.
603.
Develop preliminary costs of construction and
904.
operation.
604.
Incorporate findings into conceptual feasibility
905.
report.
TASK 700 Evaluate Infiltration Basins:
701.'
Analyze existing percolation test data.
702.
Determine groundwater table conditions.
703.
Determine application rates and design
requirements.
704.
Develop preliminary costs of construction.
705.
Incorporate findings into conceptual feasibility
report.
TASK 800 Prepare Conceptual Design Report:
801.
Discuss wastewater treatment levels.
802.
Compare effluent alternatives.
803.
Summarize financial, institutional, environmental,
permitting and public acceptance considerations.
804.
Recommend plan including construction costs and
operating costs for program.
TASK 900 Progress Reports:
901.
Attend up to 2 meetings with Owner.
902.
Attend up to 2 meetings with FDER and other
agencies.
903.
Conduct technical review committee (TRC) meeting.
904.
Conduct weekly discussions by telephone to review
progress.
905.
Submit three copies each of draft and final report.
10
- M M
EXHIBIT
PROJECT LABOR BREAKDOWN
Task
Vice
President
(ENEV8)
Associate
(ENEV7)
Engineer
(ENEV4)
Junior "
Engineer
(ENEV2)
Scientist
(SCEV5)
Scientist
(SCEV3)
Drafter
(DFGN2)
Secretarial
(SEGN2)
Project
Administrator
(ADCT3) Total
100
--
2
--
4
--
--
6
200
--
2
--
4
--
--
4
-
10
300
1
4
--
8
--
--
--
4
--
17
400
2
8
6
64
--
32
2
4
--
118
500
1
2
2
2
20
--
2
4
--
33
600
1
4
4
24
--
--
2
4
--
39
700
1
4
4
32
2
--
2
4
__
49
800
2
8
8
40
8
4
8
40
--
118
900
4
8
2
8
2
2
2
-
8
36
12
42
26
186
32
38
18
64
8
426
RIO,
G3
fT-I
1
1
�I
DEC 19 1985
emm wx 12
PROJECT:
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION:
PROJECT
REFERENCE:
EXHIBIT
PROJECT BUDGET
Indian River County
West Region Effluent Disposal Feasibility Study
Evaluation of alternative effluent disposal methods for
the year 2000 planning period and preparation of
feasibility study report.
Agreement between Indian River County and Camp Dresser
& McKee Inc. for General Consulting Services.
TOTAL ESTIMATE FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES $18,950
Commissioner Bird commented that when he divides the number
of working hours into the amount of money, it comes out in excess
of $40.00 an hour, and he believed we have another project that
Carter & Associates is doing at a rate of $26 to $36 an hour.
Administrator Wright explained that in the case of Camp
Dresser & McKee, they will have their top line engineering people
doing the permit work while the work being done by Carter &
Associates simply involves a resident inspector who is just
watching the construction take place. It is two levels of
expertise.
Commissioner Bird assumed that the Utilities Director and
staff have scrutinized these fees and feel they are competitive.
This was confirmed by the Administrator.
12
Total at Contract
Category
Hours
Hourly Rates
Vice President (ENEV-8)
12
Associate (ENEV-7)
42
Engineer (ENEV-4)
26
Junior Engineer (ENEV-2)
186
Project Administrator (ADCT-3)
8
Scientist (SCEV-5)
32
Scientist (SCEV-3)
38
Drafter (DFGN-2)
18
Secretarial (SEGN-2)
64
426
$17,950
Other Direct Costs:
Printing, Xerox, Miscellanous
1,000
TOTAL ESTIMATE FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES $18,950
Commissioner Bird commented that when he divides the number
of working hours into the amount of money, it comes out in excess
of $40.00 an hour, and he believed we have another project that
Carter & Associates is doing at a rate of $26 to $36 an hour.
Administrator Wright explained that in the case of Camp
Dresser & McKee, they will have their top line engineering people
doing the permit work while the work being done by Carter &
Associates simply involves a resident inspector who is just
watching the construction take place. It is two levels of
expertise.
Commissioner Bird assumed that the Utilities Director and
staff have scrutinized these fees and feel they are competitive.
This was confirmed by the Administrator.
12
Chairman Lyons expressed concern about money we are going to
spend on believing that we are going to have deep well injection
when St. Johns is saying you have to reuse wastewater and you
can't do that when you inject it.
Commissioner Scurlock believed we are going just to take a
cursory look into this and any effort in that area will be
minimum.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously authorized
the work by Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc., as provided
in the above Scope of Services.
E. Wastewater Service, Rockridge Subdivision
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
BACKGROUND
The Board reviewed staff memo as follows:
THE HONORABLE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
TERRANCE G. PINTO, DIRECTOR
UTILITY SERVICES
DATE: DECEMBER 10, 1985
SUBJECT: WASTEWATER SERVICE
ROCKRIDGE SUBDIVISION
RONALD R. BROOKS, ENVIRONMENTAL
ENGINEERING SPECIALIST
The home owners of the Rockridge Subdivision have submitted a petition to
the County requesting that the County provide wastewater service within the
subdivision. The Vero Beach City Council, as indicated in the attached
letter from Mr. J. V. Little,, City Manager, has authorized the City of
Vero Beach to provide Indian River County a wastewater allocation, in
addition to all previous allocations, for provision of wastewater service
to the Rockridge Subdivision.
ANALYSIS
In order to provide the wastewater service to the Rockridge Subdivision,
the following must be completed:
1. Perform an engineering study to provide preliminary design and to
determine the flow requirements and the costs for provision of waste-
water service to the Rockridge Subdivision.
2. Finalize an agreement with the City of Vero Beach for provision of the
required wastewater allocation.
13
DEC 18 1985-aaK F.
BOOK PAGE.
3. Authorize a public hearing with the Rockridge Subdivision home owners
to discuss the cost of construction and payment of the requested
wastewater improvements.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Honorable Board of County Commissioners authorize
Staff to proceed with action necessary to provide the requested wastewater
service to the Rockridge Subdivision.
Commissioner Scurlock explained that he asked this item be
removed as he would like Utilities Director Pinto and himself to
have an opportunity to meet with the residents of Rockridge.
The rock ridge in this area will require a little different type
of system, and he believed it is important to get the support of
the community before we start expending dollars.
Commissioner Bird concurred that because of the topography
of the area this could be a very expensive project, and he would
not want to spend the money for engineering and then have the
residents reject the project because of its cost.
Administrator Wright pointed out that it is not the intent
to go into actual construction drawings - just a conceptual
design to get a rough cost, which probably would not cost more
than $2-3,000.
Commissioner Scurlock felt it is important to note that the
City of Vero Beach has indicated they will increase our alloca-
tion for wastewater, and he suggested we send them a note of
thanks for making this option at least a possibility.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously author-
ized staff to proceed with action necessary to
provide the requested wastewater service to the
Rockridge Subdivision based on the above discussion
and authorized the Chairman to write the City of
Vero Beach thanking them for their cooperative
effort.
14
F. Additional Engineering Services, SR60 Sewer Project
The Board reviewed memo from Assistant Utility Director
Barton:
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: TV° XRANCiVI INTO, DIRECTOR
UTILITY S�E'RRVVICES
FROM: JEFFR K. BARTON, ASSISTANT
DIRECTOR, UTILITY SERVICES
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
DATE: DECEMBER 11, 1985
SUBJECT: ADDITIONAL ENGINEERING
SERVICES STATE ROAD 60
SEWER PROJECT
Attached is Work Authorization Number 6 from the Joint Venture of
Carter/Williams, Hatfield & Stoner for additional engineering
services on the State Road 60 Sewer Project.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners review
and approve Work Aughorization Number 6 with the understanding
that this is an estimate only and actual fees will vary depending
on any future change orders and possible site problems.
Commissioner Wodtke wished to know if any of this work has
been done as the letter from Carter Associates is dated August
19th, and if so, whether we owe them anything.
Administrator Wright informed the Board that this was an
oversight by staff. The work was done; the work was reasonable;
and the Administrator accepted the responsibility for this coming
to the Board late.
Commissioner Wodtke wished to know how much we owe the
engineers.
Assistant Utilities Director Barton reported that we owe
them about $27,000 so far for the work they have done on
residential inspections.
Commissioner Wodtke stated that he would appreciate it when
the item comes to the Board after the fact, that the memo does
15
c
Bm 63 15
DEC 18 1985 Book 63- FAGS
say that some work has been done, that staff is satisfied with
the work that has been done, that is it within the range, etc.
Administrator Wright again confirmed that it is. He felt we
just grossly underestimated the number of hours that should have
been put in the original contract.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
approved Work Authorization Number 6 from the
Joint Venture of Carter/Williams, Hatfield &
Stoner per staff recommendation with the under-
standing that this is an estimate only. -
`7-IRCWW-2 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
��
DATE:
WORK AUTHORIZATION NO. 006 FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES
PROJECT N0. U84-2 to U85 -S2 (County) 2130-2 & 5 (Carter/WHS)
TITLE: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY REGIONAL WASTEWATER COLLECTION/TRANS-
MISSION/TREATMENT
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Consultant is to provide a resident project
representative (RPR) for observation of construction by
various Contractors for the Site Work, S. R. 60 and Treatment
Plant projects. The services shall include advise and
assistance to the County regarding methods of installation,
and assurance of conformance with the design concepts as
defined by the contract plans and documents.
Resident Project Representative
During the construction phase the consultant shall provide a
Resident Project Representative at the site to observe the
work. The duties of the RPR shall be in accordance with
Exhibit "A" of the Agreement for Professional Services. The
services of the RPR are intended for the total construction
contract time of 390 days (calander days). Any delays causing
the construction contract to extend beyond the contract com-
pletion date will be billed as additional services. This Work
Authorization is being prepared with the stipulation that an
RPR will be required on a full time basis. If the contractor
employed by the Owner performs the work in a manner that
required additional on-site services the Consultant may
recommend additional RPR services and negotiate with the
Owner for these additional services.
16
II. BUDGET ESTIMATM nF VMaTMVV0TMn cVovTnVe
CONTRACT ESTIMATED MAN HOURS BUDGET ESTIMATE
A. Site Work 500 hrs. $16,000.00
B. S.R. 60/Pump Stations 1000 hrs. 26,000.00
C. Treatment Plant 700 hrs. 22,400.00
2200 $64,400.00
These manhours shall be billed at the rate of $26.00 to
$36.50/hr., depending upon level of expertise provided.
An addition electrical inspection by a registered profess-
ional electrical engineer shall be provided for a fee not to
exceed $3,500.00.
III. COMPLETION DATE
This Work Authorization is to be completed in a timely
manner. The projected time for services during construction
is 390 (calander days) total construction days from the
Notice to Proceed issued to the Contractor, for the Plant,
Plant Site, and Force Main and Pumping Stations.
Approved by: Submitted by:
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Date n 1,2--3ms 0, -
Michael'Wright
County Administrator
Dat/ I�ec ter 18, X19
atr'U -8. Lyons a rman
d of County mis Toners
CARTER/WHS, INC.
Date i--\ % "L -Z 3 ,c
-
Dean LuethJJe
Vice President
Carter Associates, Inc.
G. Release of Utility Easements - Patterson/Petersen
The Board reviewed the following letter from Attorney Sam
Block:
17
EC 18 1985
BOOK63Fri ��
DEC 18 1995 Boas 63 • PAGE 1
BLOCK & MANN, P.A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
2127 TENTH AVENUE
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960
SAMUEL A. BLOCK
MARGARET E. MANN
December 5, 1985
Charles P. Vitunac, Esquire
County Attorney.
Administration Building
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Re: Utility Easement - Patterson/Petersen
Dear Charles:
TELEPHONE
(305) 562-1600
As per our telephone conversation, I am enclosing a Release
of Easement for the County on the above referenced parties.
As I explained to you, our client, Bob Grice who owns property
in Indian River County, thought that the County owned the water
line to which he needed access. We prepared the Easements and
Mr. Grice had them signed and recorded, copies of these are
enclosed for your reference. However, he has since learned
that it was a City water line and the easement should go to
the City. Since the Utility Easement granted to the County
was not necessary and the -County had no interest in it, I
would ask you to have executed the enclosed Release of Ease-
ment on both the Pattersons and the Petersens and return them
to my office for filing.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this matter.
Very truly yours,, /�
Q4:�'>✓
Samuel A. Block
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously author-
ized the Chairman to execute Releases of Easement
to Henry and Dorothy Patterson and John and Kate
Petersen per the above letter.
18
»hA
As per our telephone conversation, I am enclosing a Release
of Easement for the County on the above referenced parties.
As I explained to you, our client, Bob Grice who owns property
in Indian River County, thought that the County owned the water
line to which he needed access. We prepared the Easements and
Mr. Grice had them signed and recorded, copies of these are
enclosed for your reference. However, he has since learned
that it was a City water line and the easement should go to
the City. Since the Utility Easement granted to the County
was not necessary and the -County had no interest in it, I
would ask you to have executed the enclosed Release of Ease-
ment on both the Pattersons and the Petersens and return them
to my office for filing.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this matter.
Very truly yours,, /�
Q4:�'>✓
Samuel A. Block
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously author-
ized the Chairman to execute Releases of Easement
to Henry and Dorothy Patterson and John and Kate
Petersen per the above letter.
18
CLOCK & MANN, P.A.
7.127 TENTH AVENUE
VERO BEACH,
FLORIDA
32960
TELEPHONE
(305) 562-1600
RELEASE OF EASEMENT
THIS RELEASE OF EASEMENT, made and executed this 18th day
of December, 1985, between INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political
subdivision of the State of Florida, with offices located at 1840
- 25th •'Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960, party of the first
part, and HENRY D. PATTERSON and DOROTHY A. PATTERSON, having a
mailing address of 4346 - 13th Place, Vero Beach, Florida 32960,
party of the second part;
WITNESSETH: For and in consideration of the sum of TEN
DOLLARS ($10.00) and other good and valuable considerations in
hand paid by the parties of the second part to the party of the
first part, receipt being hereby acknowledged, the party of the
first part does hereby release, abandon, discharge and quit -claim
unto the said party(s) of the second part and other owners of any
interest therein, if any, and to all of their heirs and assigns
forever, the.easement in favor of the party(s) of the first part
on property situated in Indian River County, Florida, which said
easement is as follows:
The West 5 feet of Lot 2, Block 1 of IDELEWILD REPLAT as
recorded in Plat Book 7, at page 72 in the Public Records of
Indian River County, Florida.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the first Partys) has signed and sealed
these presents the day and year first above written.
Signed, sealed and delivered
in the presence of:
INDI VER COUNTY
t
4
BY
Freda W -r th�er atric B. Lyon , iairman
- (SEAL)
STATE OF FLORIDA0
'9In_
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER PWa
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day, before me,a officer
duly authorized in the State and County aforesaid t take ac-
knowledgements, personally appeared PATRICK B. LYONS $ !.%RIGHT ,
well known to me to be the person sdescribed in and who executed
the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to and before me that
they executed said instrument for the purposes therein ex-
pressed.
WITNESS my hand and official seal, this�ZA of
December , 1985.
(��1.wJ�.�Ea1Af�+,�..1.: � ,• ,..•�, :..: i�:.i :•lai..:..: A1'.rr..
.t and�:.1 s1.1111-eti,y
wou
ty matters:
II. Div. of Util.
DEC 18 1985
19
•
Notary�c�
Stat
e o lorida
at Large. My Commission Expires:
NOTARY PUBLIC STATE CF FLORIDA
6ONDED TIARU GENERAL INSURANCE UND .
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JULY 8 1986
Boa 3 FAcE I`-
rDEC 18-1985
LOCK & MANN, P.A.
127 TENTH AVENUE
VERO BEACH,
FLORIDA
32960
TELEPHONE
(305) 562-1600
BOOK GJ PAGE
RELEASE OF EASEMENT
THIS RELEASE OF EASEMENT, made and executed this 18th day
of December, 1985, between INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political
subdivision of the State of Florida, with offices'located at 1840
- 25th -Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960, party of the first
part, and JOHN M. PETERSEN and KATE PETERSEN, having a mailing
address of 4356 - 13th Place, Vero Beach, Florida 32960, party of
the second part;
WITNESSETH: For and in consideration of the sum of TEN
DOLLARS ($10..00) and other good and valuable considerations in
hand paid by the parties of the second part to the party of the
first part, receipt being hereby acknowledged, the party of the
first part does hereby release, abandon, discharge and quit -claim
unto the said party(s) of the second part and other owners of any
interest therein, if any, and to all of their -heirs and assigns
forever, the easement in favor of the party(s) of the first part
on property situated in Indian River County, Florida, which. said
easement is as follows:
The East 5 feet of Lot 3, Block 1 of IDELEWILD REPLAT as
recorded in Plat Book 7, at page 72 in the Public Records of
Indian River County, Florida.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the first Party(s) has signed and sealed
these presents the day and year first above written.
Signed, sealed and delivered
in the presence of:
IND
I, ll
Freda. WriAll igt, Cl
• �•
COUNTY
(SEAL)
STATE OF FLORIDAa
QUO"" A
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER �
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day, before me, officer
duly authorized in the State and County aforesaid4ZDA
take ac-
knowledgements, personally appeared PATRICK B. LYONS B MIGHT
well known to me to be the persons described in and who executed
the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to and before me that
they executed said instrument for the purposes herein ex-
pressed.
WITNESS my hand and official seal, this / day of
December 1985.
a+ii9nYs'SIS:r'..•`.':C:•.'uf�'.it:Y:^�i;•i:i:hc:wru'a."-°'.MT': 4 �h
Apumveci as to ftaln
:. and i, val sufficient'
Cha lus i". V;tunac
Cuuniy Aitorn3y ! '
Approv tility matters:
e r C into, Director
Div. Of Utility Services 20
a
Notary Pub c. S't,&te of Fffo_rida
at Large. y Commission Expires:
NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF FLORIDA
BONDED TIIRU GcNERAL INSURANCE UND .
iuY ro..mmi%SION EXPIRES JULY 8 1986
H. Grant Application - North County Fire Departments
The Board reviewed memo from Intergovernmental Coordinator
Thomas:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: December 11, 1985 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
THRU: Michael Wright
County Administrator SUBJECT:
�9
FROM: L . S .1 "Tome{ "� Thomas
y REFERENCES:
Intergovernmental Coordinator
This memorandum is for back-up for an item on the Board of
County Commission agenda.
This is a federal grant referred to generally as Title IV,
designed to assist counties of under 100,000 population in the
purchase of certain fire equipment.
The North County Fire Departments are requesting the following
amounts:
Roseland Fire Department $1,100
Sebastian Fire Department 941
Fellsmere Fire Department 750
Vero Lake Estates Fire Dept. 1,324
Wabasso Fire Department 1,550
Total Grant Application $5,665
Each of the above fire departments must match from their
own sources, the amount they have requested. They have agreed
to do so. They are purchasing Scott airpacks, sirens, radios,
pagers and bunker gear.
Staff recommends approval of this grant —application and
requests authorization for the Chairman to sign the necessary
documents to obtain these funds.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously approved
grant application as described above and authorized
the Chairman to sign the necessary documents to
obtain the funds.
21
DEC 18 1985
e
BooK 63 PACE 211.
DEC 18 1985 $ooK 63 FACE 22
I. Release Remaining Escrowed Funds - Atlantis Subdivision
The Board reviewed memo of Staff Planner Boling:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: December 10, 1985 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
SUBJECT: RELEASE OF REMAINING
Obert M. Keats g, A ESCROWED FUNDS HELD FOR
Planning & Development Director IMPROVEMENTS IN ATLANTIS
SUBDIVISION
THROUGH: Mike Miller, Chief M N
Current Development Director
FROM: Stan Boling -4, 61 REFERENCES:.
Staff Planner
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal con-
sideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting
of December 18, 1985.
DESCRIPTIONS AND CONDITIONS:
The developer of Atlantis Subdivision, Salama Development Corporation,
through its agent, Lloyd & Associates, Inc., is requesting the release of
the remaining funds ($874.00) held in escrow under the terms of a three
party agreement executed by the County.
ALTERNATIVE AND ANALYSIS
The Public Works Division has inspected the improvements, is satisfied
with the work performed and has verified that all required improvements
are now complete. Public Works has recommended that the remaining funds
be released.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the
attached resolution authorizing the release of the funds remaining in the
Atlantis Subdivision escrow account, held by United Savings of America,
to the developer or any third party or parties upon which the developer
and bank agree.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 85-138 approving release of the remaining
escrowed funds held for improvements in Atlantis
Subdivision in the amount of $874 to Salama Develop-
ment Corporation.
22
RESOLUTION 85-138
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA AUTHORIZING RELEASE OF ALL FUNDS REMAINING IN THE
ESCROW ACCOUNT HELD UNDER THE TERMS OF AN ESCROW AGREEMENT
BETWEEN SALAMA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, UNITED SAVINGS OF
AMERICA, AND INDIAN RIVER COUNTY TO GUARANTEE CONSTRUCTION OR
REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS IN ATLANTIS SUBDIVISION.
WHEREAS, Indian River County (County), Salama Development
Corporation (Developer), and United Savings of America (Bank)
have entered into a cash deposit and escrow agreement; and
WHEREAS, under the terms of said agreement, the Public Works
Director has caused an inspection of all required improvements,
is satisfied with the work performed, and recommends disbursement
of all remaining funds held in escrow by the Bank;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that:
The Bank is hereby authorized to disburse funds from
the escrow account in the amount of $874.00 to the
Developer or any third party or parties upon which the
Bank and Developer agree.
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Scurlock
who moved its adoption. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Wodtke , and upon being
put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Patrick B. Lyons Aye
Vice -Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this 18th day of December , 1985.
BOARR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF ODIA3 RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
''', • C U �� , • �, ATRICK B .
Attest
`FREDA ,, WRIGHT, ele , ,r . �.
J. Letter of Intent - Special Assessment Impact Fees (Lakewood
OTTTagej
ON NOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously approved
the following letter of intent re special assessment
for impact fees for Lakewood Village mobile home
park and authorized the signature of the Chairman.
23 BCPGK PA r,E
DEC 1� 195
Telephone: (305) 567-8000
�fl63 mE r
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960
December 18, 1985
(dictated 12/10/85)
J. Cary Monroe, Vice Pi
Coast Fed Mortgage Corp.
Two Northside 75, Suite 304
Atlanta, GA 30318
Re: Clayton, Williams &
Sherwood, Inc.
Dear Mr. Monroe:
Suncom Telephone: 424-1011
Mr. Bill Pollock, General Manager of Clayton, Williams & Sherwood,
Inc. of Newport Beach, California, has requested that Indian River
County, Florida, indicate its policies concerning water and sewer
connection requirements and charges in relation to the proposed
purchase by him of a mobile home park in Indian River County
operating under the name of Lakewood Village.
It will be required that the mobile home park connect to the
County water system no later than ten years from the date of this
letter, provided that the County water system has adequate
capacity. However, if the private water system within the mobile
home park fails to supply water that meets regulatory agency
requirements, earlier connection may be required. The present
water impact fee is '$1, 140 per ERU (equivalent residential unit) .
The mobile home park owner will pay the fee that is current at the
time of connection.
Concerning sewer connections, the charge per ERU is $1,250 plus
the cost of physically connecting the property to the County sewer
mains and the cost of removing the existing wastewater treatment
plant. Connection to the County sewer system is required now.
Indian River County has established a program of helping
developers finance these fees by special assessment, and, in some
cases, has cooperated in issuing special assessment revenue bonds
for periods not exceeding 20 years at market interest rates. You
may rely on this letter for 90 days from the date of its
execution as an indication from Indian River County that it will
negotiate with Clayton, Williams & Sherwood, Inc. regarding the
special assessment and possible revenue bonds to assist it in
raising the sewer impact charges; connection charges, and the cost
of razing the old wastewater treatment plant.
Sincerely,
Pelt B. b
-Chairman
PBL/ Vk
24
K. Tower Space Lease with FAA
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously approved
the Tower Space Lease with the FAA and author-
ized the signature of the Chairman.
(SAID LEASE WILL BE PUT ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK
TO THE BOARD WHEN FULLY EXECUTED AND RECEIVED.)
L. Proclamation - Drunk and Drugged Awareness Week
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
approved the following Proclamation proclaiming
the week of December 15-21, 1985, as DRUNK AND
DRUGGED AWARENESS WEEK.
25
DEC 18 1985
BOOK63 -FAGS 25)
r DEC 181985
P R O C L A M A T I O N
BOOK 63 FAcf
WHEREAS, driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol or
controlled substances contributes significantly to fatalities and,
injuries each year on Indian River County's.highways; and
WHEREAS, the State of Florida is providing assistance to
local governments in the development of community-based
comprehensive traffic safety programs with DUI emphasis; and
WHEREAS, citizens advocacy groups, such as Mothers Against
Drunk Driving (MADD), Students Against Driving Drunk (SADD),
Remove Intoxicated Drivers (RID), and Boost Alcohol Consciousness
Concerning the Health of University Students (BACCHUS) are
increasing their efforts to reduce the incidence of driving under
the influence in Florida; and
WHEREAS, it is. necessary that each citizen become more
keenly aware of and knowledgeable concerning the problem of
driving under the influence and the penalties that are imposed
under Florida's DUI law;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the week of
December 15-21, 1985, shall be designated as
DRUNK AND DRUGGED AWARENESS WEER
in Indian River County and all citizens are urged to become more
cognizant of the intoxicated driver problem and to support
efforts within the County to reduce the incidence of driving
under the influence.
ATTEST:
A
,J
AtAr , mite
Freda Wright,
Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RI17PR COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY:
26
atTi"Ck B. Lyoff I
Chairman
M. Out -of -County Travel
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
approved out -of -County travel for Commissioner
Bird and appropriate staff to attend a Cabinet
meeting in Tallahassee on January 7, 1986, in
regard to acquiring additional oceanfront property.
N. Municipal
Cou--nc i I I SE
ointment to Treasure Coast Recional Planni
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
confirmed the appointment of Sebastian Vice Mayor
L. Gene Harris as the City of Sebastian Municipal
representative to the Treasure Coast Regional
Planning Council, per the following letter:
City of Sebastian
Jim Gallagher POST OFFICE BOX 127 ❑ SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32958-0127
Mayor TELEPHONE (305) 589-5330
December 5,1985
Alice E. White
Administrative Aide
Board of County Commissioners
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, F1. 32960
RE: City of Sebastian Municipal Representative on the Treasure
Coast Regional Planning Council.
Dear Ms. White:
Deborah C. Krages
City Clerk
Be advised that City of Sebastian Vice Mayor L. Gene Harris is the
City of Sebastian Municipal representative on the Treasure Coast
Regional Planning Council for the next two years. Vice Mayor
Harris' home address is 534 Layport Drive, Sebastian, F1. 32958,
home telephone 589-5199 and his City Hall address is P.O. Box 127,
Sebastian, Fl. 32958.
Sincerely,
Jim allagher
Mayor
27
B60K 63 FAG.E. 27
D E C 18- 1995 BOOK 63 PAGE 28
REZONING TO RM -10 - E. of 6th AVE./SNof 10th ST. (MORETTI)
The hour of 9:05 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Weekly
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER:
STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a
in the matter of 1
in the Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered
as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida
for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver-
tisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or
corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver-
tisement for publication in the said newspaper. ����,�//,,,��
4 I
Sworn to and subscribed bemire rrus this day of A.D.
(Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County,
(SEAL)
NOTICEPUBLIC HEARING
Notice of hearing to consider the ado fon of
a County ordinance rezoning land from: RS -1,
Singie-Family Residential District, to RM -101 Mul-
tiple -Family Residential District. The subject
property is presently owned by Joseph G. Moret -
of. 6th. Avenue
ti, Jr., and is located 14 mile emaertt nsion of 10th
and south of the proposed
StreetThe subject property Is described W
THE NORTH 'h OF THE NORTH 'h OF
GOVERNMENT LOTS 7 AND 81 SEC
TION 7, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH RANGE
40 EAST. ALL LAND NOW LYING AND
BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY.
FLORIDA.
A public hearing, at which parties 1W interest
and citizens shall have an opportunity to be
heard, will be held by the Board ofd County
Com-
in the
missioners of Indian River County,
County Commission Chambers of the County
Administration Building, located at 1840 25th
Street, Vero Beach. Florida on Wednesday,
December 18, 1985, at 9:05 a.m.
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision
which may be made at this meeting will need to
ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings
is made, which includetestimony
nce
upon which the appeal
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners ^;
B :-s-Patrick B. Lyons,
man
Nov. 26, Dec. 10, 1985.
Chief Planner Shearer made the staff presentation, as
follows:
28
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: December 6, 1985 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
SUBJECT: MORETTI REQUEST TO REZONE
Robert M. Keating, CP 15.5 ACRES FROM RS -1,
Planning & Development Director SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT, TO RM -10, MULT-
IPLE -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT
FROM: RS REFERENCES:
Richard Shearer, AICP Moretti Request Memo
Chi of f T.nnq-Range Pl arininq 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 18, 1985.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
Steve Henderson, an agent for Joseph G. Moretti, trustee, is
requesting to rezone approximately 15.5 acres from RS -1, Sin-
gle -Family Residential District (up to 1 unit/acre), to RM -10,
Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 10 units/acre).
The applicant intends to develop this property for multi-
ple -family residences.
On November 14, 1985, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
4 -to -0 to recommend approval of this request.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the appli-
cation will be presented. The analysis will include a descrip-
tion of the current and future land uses of the site and sur-
rounding areas, potential impacts on the transportation and
utility systems, and any significant adverse impacts on environ-
mental quality.
Existing Land Use Pattern
The subject property and the land north of it is undeveloped and
zoned RS -1. East of the subject property is the Indian River.
South of the subject property is undeveloped land which was
recently rezoned from RS -1 to RM -10. West of the subject proper-
ty is Waverly Place, a condominium development zoned RM -10.
Future Land Use Pattern
The Comprehensive Plan designates 8 acres of the subject property
as MD -2, Medium Density Residential 2 (up to 10 units/acre) , and
designates 7.5 acres of the subject property as Environmentally
Sensitive (up to 1 unit/acre). Based on the land use desig-
nations of the subject property, the Comprehensive Plan would
allow up to 87 dwelling units on the subject property. The
proposed rezoning is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan
and is consistent with the RM -10 zoning west and south of the
subject property. ,
29
DEC 18 1985 BOOK 63 FACE 409
0
Transportation System
BOOK ME J
The subject property is in the Indian River Boulevard Corridor,
but does not currently have direct access to a County road. The
maximum development of the subject property could generate up to
609 average annual daily trips.
Environment
The Comprehensive Plan designates 7.5 acres of the subject
property as environmentally sensitive. The applicant intends to
leave this property undeveloped and transfer the density of one
unit/acre (7 units) to the upland area of the subject property.
All of the subject property is in an A-10 flood hazard zone which
includes areas within the 100 year flood plain. Flood elevations
range from elevation 6 at the west end of the upland property to
elevation 8'at the east end of the environmentally sensitive
land.
Utilities
Water facilities are generally available in this area. The
developer will have to extend a water main to the -property to be
served. County wastewater facilities are not currently avail-
able.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendation, staff recommends approval.
Chief Planner Shearer noted that this is a long strip which
runs east and west and is adjacent to the river. The property is
split with the majority being MD -2 and approximately 7.5 acres
being designated environmentally sensitive. The environmentally
sensitive land would be allowed to develop at a maximum of one
unit per acre, and it is proposed all that density be transferred
to the upland property. Staff feels this would be a natural
expansion of the RM -10 zoning which is west and south of the
subject property.
Commissioner Scurlock inquired about the statement that
water facilities are "generally available." He felt either the
water is available or it isn't.
Administrator Wright clarified that there is plenty of plant
capacity, but the developer will have to extend the lines.
Commissioner Bowman wished to know why the 7.5 acres of
environmentally sensitive land is included in the rezoning and
not just the remaining acreage as she felt it is a mistake to
rezone environmentally sensitive lands.
30
M M M
Chief Planner Shearer explained that it is standard
procedure for staff to look at the whole property when
considering the rezoning. Possibly we may need to look at
another way to do this in the future, but this is how it has been
done in the past. An environmental survey of the property has
been done, and this will be indicated on the Zoning Atlas.
Director Keating advised that you have to have a PRD to do
the environmentally sensitive transfer and when that is done,
certain actions are taken where that land is depicted in the
Public Records as already having had its density transfer.
Commissioner Bowman continued to emphasize her concern that
environmentally sensitive lands remain in that category in
perpetuity, and Commissioner Scurlock believed that what
Commissioner Bowman is concerned about is how Boards in the
future track the fact that there already has been a density
transfer. He believed we are going to have to look at the whole
issue of density transfers in more detail and find a better
mechanism to provide a "safety net."
Commissioner Bird asked Attorney Vitunac's opinion of the
idea of considering density transfers whennd if the wetlands
property is deeded to the public. This wou d get it out of
private ownership and ensure it won't be developed in the future.
Attorney Vitunac noted that the whole transfer concept is
brand new and the law is still evolving. He felt the Board could
be in the forefront and develop an ordinance as he believed the
state is now in favor of looking at novel methods of saving
wetlands at no cost to the public while still giving the real
estate owner the right to develop his densities, but pointed out
that as long as it is protected on the record, they have lost
their right to develop it.
Director Keating advised that, in going through the whole
PRD concept, this possibility was considered but there was a
question of whether the county actually wanted this or whether it
would be preferable to have the owners keep paying taxes on it,
31
D E C 18 1985 BOOK 63 PAGE
BOOK -3
although at a much lower rate, and still have the land for a
number of other purposes, 1.e, a passive recreation area with
elevated walkways, etc. They did consider a mechanism where any
future development of that land would be precluded by having an
agreement with the developer entered in the record.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
Attorney Steve Henderson came before the Board representing
Mr. Moretti and stated that they are in concurrence with the
staff report and recommendation of approval.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously closed
the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 85-100 rezoning 15.5 acres from RS -1 to
RM -10 as requested by Joseph Moretti.
32
ORDINANCE NO. 85-100
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP
FOR THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND PROVIDING
FOR EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, The Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the
local planning agency on such matters, has held a public hearing
and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this rezoning
request; and
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to
rezone the hereinafter described property; and
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners has determined
that this rezoning is in conformance with the Land Use Element of
the Comprehensive Plan of Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners has held a public
hearing pursuant to this rezoning request, at which parties in
interest and citizen were heard;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning of
the following described property situated in Indian River County,
Florida, to -wit:
THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF GOVERNMENT LOTS 7 AND 8,
SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH RANGE 40 EAST. ALL LAND NOW
LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
Be changed from RS -1, Single -Family Residential District to
RM -10, Multiple -Family Residential District.
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and de-
scribed in said Zoning Regulations.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on this 18th day
of December , 1985.
BOARD F VOUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF 'IAN RIVER COUNTY
.-ulumow�nai.rman
33
BOOK 63 PACE ._I�3
BOOK 0c) fAGE .gy p
REZONING TO CH - E. of FEC R/W & S. of 10th ST.
(BARNETT)
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:
— -- -- — - - — ---- — - — -- -- - — . — -
� NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING—
Notice of hearing to consider the adoption of
a County ordinance rezoning land from. M-1, Re-
stricted Industrial District, to CH, Heavy Com-
mercial District. The subject property is presently
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
owned by Robert Barnett and Steven. L. Barnett
and is located west of U.S. Highway #1 and
south of 10th Street. _ c:
The subject propel Is described as: ° I..,
PORTION O LOT 5, VERO LAND
Published WeeklyTHAT
COMPANY'S SUBDIVISION, ACCORD-;
ING TO THE PLAT FILED IN THE OF i '.
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COURT OFHST LUCIE COUNTY IFLOR- `..p
IDA, IN PLAT BOOK 3, PAGE 19, DE= "
SCRIBED AS FOLLOWS, TO WIT:
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER:
BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST COR -
NER OF SAID LOT 5, THENCE RUN
STATE OF FLORIDA
EAST ALONG THE SOUTH BOUNDARY
LINE OF SAID LOT 5 FOR DISTANCE
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
OF 58.7 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published
WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF U.S.
HIGHWAY. NO. 1, THENCE RUN IN A
at Vero Beach in Indian River Count Florida;that the attached co
County, copy of advertisement, being
', NORTHERLY DIRECTION ALONG THE
WEST RIGHT-OF-WAYTENO OF U.S. HIGH-
BOUNDARY `
WAY N0.1 TO THE NORTH BOUNDARY
LINE OF SAID LOT 5, THENCE RUN '
a
WEST 6 INCHES, MORE OR LESS, TO
THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID'
LOT 5, THENCE RUN SOUTH FOR A
�1
in the matter of w���
DISTANCE OF 327'h FEET, MORE OR
LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
.(SAID LAND BEING FURTHER DE-
SCRIBED AS ALL OF SAID LOT 5 LYING
WEST OF THE RIGHT OF U.S. HIGH-
WAY, NO. 1) SAID LAND- LYING AND •
BEING IN INDIAN RIVER, COUNTY,
FLORIDA. ,..
in the Court, was pub-
AND,
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST COR.-
NEOF.R OFTHE THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER..-
%%� / ryc�
./L�J�`Nriy�(o�
ARTER OF
ON S12UTOWNSHITHWEST Pu33 SOUTH,
lished in said newspaper in the issues of l9Sa
SEC
RANGE 39 FAST, THENCE RUN SOUTH .
; THENCE IN A NORTHWEST-
ERLY
ERLY DIRECTION ALONG THE EAST-:.
2
ERLY LINE OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF'
THE FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY ' '
COMPANY TO THE NORTH LINE OF
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SEC -
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered
TION , THENCE EAST UPON THE ..
NORTH, UNE OF SAID QUARTER -
as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, FloridaQU
ARTER SECTION 237.54 FEET TO '
for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver-
THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SAID LAND
tisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or
- LYIG AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER
N
corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver-
COUNTY, FLORIDA.iM -
tisement for publication in the said newspaper.
A public hearing at which
parries in interest
/1 ��JJ,,��
Sworn to and subscribe efor me t �/ day /A.D.��_
and citizens shall have an pportunity to be
heard, will be held by the Board of County Com -
Indian River County, Florida, in the
of
missioners of
•County Commission Chambers of the County
Administration Building, Dated at 1840 25th'
s
Street, Vero Beach, Florida on Wednesday,
tt .
(Bus ss Mans er)
December 18,1985, at 9:05 a.m.
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision
which may be made at this meeting will need to
j
ensure that a.verbatim record of the proceedings
is, made, which includes testimony and evidence
(Clerk of the Circuit Court, In tan River ounty F orida)
upon which the appeal is based.
(SEAL)
Indian River County !!
' Board of County Commissioners
By: -s -Patrick B. Lyon#, Chairman
Nov. 26; Dec. 10, 1985: • . {
Staff Planner Robert Melsom made the staff presentation, as
follows:
34
� s �r
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: November 15, 1985 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
SUBJECT:
Robert M. Kea ng,ICP
Planning & Develop ent Director
S THROUGH: Richard Shearer, AICP
Chief, Long -Range Planning
BARNETT REQUEST TO REZONE
2.17 ACRES FROM M-1, RES-
TRICTED INDUSTRIAL DIS-
TRICT TO CH, HEAVY COMM-
ERCIAL DISTRICT
FROM: REFERENCES:
?G M Robert G. Melsom Garavaglia Memo
Staff Planner, Lona -Ranee Planning ROB2
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of December 18, 1985.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
Michael J. Garavaglia; an agent for Robert and Steven L. Barnett,
the owners, is requesting to rezone 2.17 acres located west of
U.S. Highway #1, east of the Florida East Coast Railroad
Right -of -Way, and south of 10th Street from M-1, Restricted
Industrial District, to CH, Heavy Commercial District.
The owner intends to develop this property for the sale of new
and previously owned automobiles.
On November 14, 1985, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
4 -to -0 to recommend approval of this request.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the appli-
cation will be presented. The analysis will include a descrip-
tion of the current and future land uses of the site and sur-
rounding areas, potential impacts on the transportation and
utility systems, and any significant adverse impacts on environ-
mental quality.
Existing Land Use Pattern
Approximately, .23 acres of the subject property has been devel-
oped as a used car lot, and 1.94 acres contain an oil and gas
company. East of the subject property across U.S. Highway #1,
the predominant land use is commercial. A field survey conducted
by the staff identified the following commercial uses: Budget
Rent a Car, Cash Insurance, Janie Dean Chevrolet, AMC, and
Vatland Ford Automobile dealerships zoned C-1, Commercial Dis-
trict. The predominant land use south of the subject property is
commercial; the following commercial uses were identified:
Leighton Groves, a Greyhound Bus terminal, and a Phillips 66
Service Station zoned M-1, Restricted Industrial District. The
predominant land use west of the subject property is industrial
with the following uses identified: Knight and Mathis Machine
Shop and R & J Crane Service, zoned M-1. North of the subject
property, the predominant land use is commercial; the following
uses have been identified: A.C. Transmission Repair, Steil
Service Station, Delta Plaza, Wholesale Plumbing and Supply
Company, and Babcock Building Supply Warehouse zoned M-1.
35
DEC 18 1985 Book fare 30
DEC ib BooK G,
Gf b ,
Fr ry
Future Land Use Pattern
The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property as
Mixed -Use District, a land use designation which allows commer-
cial zoning. The Comprehensive Plan states:
"The County shall encourage, where appropriate,
redevelopment in accordance with the dominant land use and
the health, safety and welfare of area residents. Permitted
uses include residential development, commercial and
industrial uses."
I.
The field survey conducted by the staff determined that the
predominant land use pattern is Commercial. Therefore, the
proposed Heavy Commercial (CH) zoning is in conformance with the
MXD land use designation. Moreover, staff feels that much of the
land north and south of the subject property will be assigned to
the CH' zoning district when the County converts the existing
nonresidential zoning districts to the new nonresidential dis-
tricts.
Transportation System
The subject property has primary access to U.S. Highway #1
(classified as an arterial on the Thoroughfare Plan). The
maximum development of the subject property under CH zoning could
attract up to 1,057 average annual daily trips (AADT). The
existing traffic count for this section of 'U.S. Highway #1 is
25,200 vehicles per day, which is a level -of -service "C". The
proposed development will not decrease the existing lev-
el -of -service "C".
Environment
The subject property is not designated environmentally sensitive
nor is it in a flood -prone area.
Utilities
Neither County sewer nor water is available to the subject
property at the present time.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendation, staff recommends approval.
Commissioner Bowman inquired what the land is on the east
side of the "V" on the map, and was informed that it is occupied
by Fast Lane Toys, an automobile ownership.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
Michael Garavaglia, agent for Robert and Steven Barnett,
owners, stated that they concurred with the staff recommendation.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
closed the public hearing.
K%1
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
adopted Ordinance 85-101 rezoning 2.17 acres
east of the Florida East Coast Railroad R/W
and south of 10th Street from M-1 to CH as
requested by Robert and Steven Barnett.
ORDINANCE NO. 85-101
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP
FOR THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND PROVIDING
FOR EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, The Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the
local planning agency on such matters, has held a public hearing
and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this rezoning
request; and
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners of Indian Fiver
County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to
rezone the hereinafter described property; and
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners has determined
that this rezoning is in conformance with the Land Use Element
of the Comprehensive Plan of Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners has held a
public hearing pursuant to this rezoning request, at which
parties in interest and citizen were heard;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County
Conanissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning
of the following described property situated in Indian River
County, Florida, to -wit:
�r
1
THAT PORTION OF LOT 5, VERO LAND COMPANY'S SUBDIVISION,
ACCORDING TO THE PLAT FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, IN PLAT
BOOK 3, PAGE 190, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS, TO WIT:
BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 5, THENCE RUN
EAST ALONG THE SOUTH BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID LOT 5 FOR A
DISTANCE OF 58.7 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE WEST
37
&l Q 63 PAGE 3
M Ll1' •
BDOX w y
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1, THENCE RUN IN A
NORTHERLY DIRECTION ALONG THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY OF U.S.
HIGHWAY NO. 1 TO THE NORTH BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID LOT 5',
THENCE RUN WEST 6 INCHES, MORE OR LESS, TO THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF SAID LOT 5, THENCE RUN SOUTH FOR A DISTANCE OF
327 1/2 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
(SAID LAND BEING FURTHER DESCRIBED AS ALL OF SAID LOT 5
LYING WEST OF THE RIGHT OF U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1) SAID LAND
LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
AND,
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER
OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH,
RANGE 39 EAST, THENCE RUN SOUTH 710.95; THENCE IN A
NORTHWESTERLY DIRECTION ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE
RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY COMPANY TO
THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST
QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 12; THENCE EAST UPON THE NORTH LINE
OF SAID QUARTER -QUARTER SECTION 237.54 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING. SAID LAND LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA.
Be changed from M-1, Restricted Industrial District to CH,
Heavy Commercial District.
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and de-
scribed in said Zoning Regulations.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on this 18th day
of December , 1985.
BOARD
OF IN
COMMISSIONERS
COUNTY
ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 84-18 "IMPACT FEE, EXPANSION POLICY"
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:
38
s � �
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Weekly
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER:
STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published
puBLICNOTICE
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
The Board of County Commission,, of Indian
River County, Florida,. will conduct a Public
/
Hearing,on Wednesday, December 18, 1985 ati
9:15 a.m. in the Commission Chambers at 18401
a
25th Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960, to consider
^GLS
the adoption
ordinance entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN. RIVER
/
/ �� �
ORIDA, AMENDING ORDI-
COUNTY, FLORIDA.
in the matter of /� 9l
,
MANCE NO. 84-18, SECTION 8-H '.'IMr '
PACT FEE, EXPANSION POLICY;' AS •'.
AMENDED, SO THAT UNDER CERTAIN .;
CONDITIONS NOT ONLY WATER AND
'SEWER IMPACT FEES BUT ALL OTHER
CHARGES, AND FEES RELATED
THERETO,, EXCEPT FOR D
FIVE
In the Court, was pub-
MAY BE PAID OVER A PERIOD OF
.YEARS. PLUS INTEREST; PROVIDING
AN EFFECTIVE DATE -
in said newspaper in the issues of `112 —L=J
An de6id to
appealg will
Anyone ay b may wish this
which may be made at this meetin will need to
ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings
is made which Includes the testimony and evi-
dence upon which the appeal will be based:
Y`
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY '
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
�,•'LYONS C ., :HAIRMAN
Nov. -29,1985 ' PATRIQK BLYONS,
,,,;,�` 's�"4�'� `•.
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 for day A.D. /9��'5--
to and subscribed a thi of
,ss Marr>e}� er)
(Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, Florida)
(SEAL)
!� D
a!
e
Utilities Director Pinto informed the Board that this would
give the Util.ity Department authority to approve five year
extension plans without having to make these people come to the
Board. They would have the ability to come to the Board if for
some reason they were denied the right to make extended payments.
Commissioner Scurlock expressed concern about keeping the
flexibility to curtail this option if we run into any cash flow
problem, and Director Pinto confirmed that we have that ability.
Commissioner Bird inquired about locking in on 12% as he
thought we had a floating interest rate.
Commissioner Scurlock explained that we are starting to have
a bit of a problem tracking this because of the way the rate
fluctuates and these requests come in on a day to day basis.
39
DEC 18 1985 Boat 63 pest f)
DEC
18
BOOK
F,,z
Commissioner
Bird hoped that we would review the
interest
rate periodically, and Commissioner Wodtke concurred that we
should at least have an annual review.
The Administrator and the Board agreed, and Chairman Lyons
suggested that we write this into the ordinance.
Commissioner Bowman suggested we just say this would be done
periodically rather than tie into an annual review.
Attorney Vitunac felt it might be better just to direct
staff to do this and not change the ordinance and the Board had
no objection.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously closed
the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 85-102 amending Ordinance 84-18 "Impact
Fee Expansion Policy."
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously directed
staff to make evaluation of the interest rate
to be charged on the impact fee installment payments
at least on an annual basis and make recommendations
to the Board re any adjustment.
40
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 85- 102
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 84-18,
SECTION 8-H "IMPACT FEE, EXPANSION POLICY,"
AS AMENDED, SO THAT UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS
NOT ONLY WATER AND SEWER IMPACT FEES BUT
ALL OTHER CHARGES AND FEES RELATED THERETO,
EXCEPT FOR DEPOSITS, MAY BE PAID OVER A
PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS, PLUS INTEREST; PRO-
VIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Indian River County presently has a
provision for paying water or sewer impact fees over a period of
five years at an interest rate as determined by the Board; and
WHEREAS, there are various fees and charges in
addition to impact fees which must be paid at the time of
connection and which amount to a substantial amount, such that it
would be fair to spread their payment over five years as is done
with water and sewer impact fees;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. that:
SECTION 1. TIME PAYMENT OF FEES AND CHARGES
OTHER THAN IMPACT FEES
The second paragraph of Section 8-H of Ordinance 84-18,
as amended. which presently reads as follows:
"Upon- a showing of proper hardship to the
Commission, the Commission may allow in its sole
discretion payment of the water and/or sewer
Impact fees in whole or in part over a period of
five (5) years at such interest rate to be
determined by the Board."
shall be amended to read as follows:
The Division of Utility Services may allow
payment of the water and sewer impact fees and
any and all other charges or fees, except
deposit fees, in whole or in part over a period
of five (5) years at an interest rate of 12%.
Before allowing such a time payment plan, the
Utility Services Director shall determine that
the cash flow and other financial positions of
the Utility will not be harmed thereby.
SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE
This Ordinance shall be effective as provided by Law.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, on this 18thday of
December
. 1985.
Approved as to form
and legal sufficiency:
Charles P. Vitunac,
County Attorney
Approved for Utility
matters:
I Ic? t /fr •.�J/
Terrence Pinto, Director
Div. of Utility Services
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF IND4-.AN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
y
Chairman
41
DEC 18 1985 mox C3 facE 4
800 G3. PAGE 42
DONATION OF OCEANFRONT PROPERTY (LIERS)
Chairman Lyons announced that he had been informed that
someone here has just given the County a very fine piece of
oceanfront property, and he would very much like to accept it.
Commissioner Bird reported that a few months ago he was
advised by Jeannette Lier that she and her husband owned a piece
of property adjacent to some the County recently acquired through
a bond issue for the acquisition of beachfront property, and she
wished to know if we would be interested in having their property
to add to our park. He continued that he informed her that we
would be both ecstatic and overwhelmed.
Attorney Vitunac informed the Board that the proposed
donation is in warranty deed form and does have some restric-
tions; it must be used as public beach without charge and can't
be given away to anyone else except for road right-of-way for
A -1-A. He stated that this property is worth at least $200,000
and does adjoin one of the existing county parks. A Resolution
expressing the County's extreme thanks has been prepared as an
emergency item.
Commissioner Wodtke believed the value on the marketplace is
considerably more than $200,000 and felt this is an extremely
generous offer by the Liers.
The Chairman noted that the Liers have been active in the
county as well as in their own community of Orchid, and he asked
that they stand up and be recognized so the Board could express
their thanks personally.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
adopted Resolution 85-139 accepting the Liers
generous donation of oceanfront property with
heartfelt thanks.
42
RESOLUTION NO. 85- 139
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, ACCEPTING A GIFT OF OCEAN-
FRONT LAND MADE BY GEORGE AND JEANNETTE
LIER AND EXPRESSING THE COUNTY'S THANKS
AND APPRECIATION FOR THE DONATION.
WHEREAS, Indian River County has embarked on a program of
acquiring public beaches and beach accesses to ensure that the
succeeding generations of. residents of this County will have
sufficient and convenient accesses to the Atlantic -shore beaches;
and
WHEREAS, the Lier family has owned and operated several
large citrus groves on Orchid Island and for generations has owned a
parcel of land running from State Road A -1-A to the Atlantic, which
land is approximately 100 feet wide and is contiguous to a parcel of
land already owned by Indian River County as a park; and
WHEREAS, the Lier family wishes to donate this parcel of
land to the County for use
as
a public
beach recreational area;
and
WHEREAS, the Board
of
County
Commissioners of Indian
River
County wishes to accept this parcel and has ordered that this
resolution be prepared to memorialize the donation and express its
appreciation;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, THROUGH ITS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS that:
1. The Board accepts the donation of the oceanfront property
with the following legal description:
All of the North 100 feet, measured on a North/South
line, lying east of the East right of way of State
Road A -1-A of Government Lot 11, Section 10, Township
31 South, Range 39 East, said land lying and being in
Indian River County, Florida.
2. The County accepts the property subject to the covenants,
conditions, and limitations contained in the warranty deed, as shown
on Attachment "A," which state generally that the property shall be
used solely for public beach recreational purposes without charge to
the public, and that the property shall not be sold or conveyed to
any other party except for potential road widening of State Road
A -1-A.
43
DEC 181985 BOOK 6-3 fa;f
BOOK 63 PA -If
3. The Board wishes to express its heartfelt thanks to the
% Lier family for its generous donation and wishes to acknowledge the
fact that the property, y, which is appraised at $200,000, will make a
i
% substantial contribution to the goals of the County in providing
public beach recreational areas for the long-term future of Indian
River County.
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 y
Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared Resolution No. 85-139 duly
passed and adopted this 18th day of December 1985.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDON RIVER COUNTY_, FLORIDA
Attest:
By/ _
P ek B. Lyo is, ,
airman
Approved as to form and legal
SUFFICIENCY:
Charles P. itunac
County Attorney
44
of
pproved for ag�nda:
i
Michael Wright
County Administriator
M
This warranty Peed Made the � day of December
George Lier and Jeannette M. Lier, his wife,
hereinafter called the grantor, to
A. D. 1985 by
Indian River County, a political subdivision of the State
of Florida
whose posto f f ice address is
hereinafter called the grantee:
Vero Beach, FL 32960
(Wherever used herein the terms .. tor" and "grantee" include all the parties to this instrument and
the heirs, legal representatives and luri of individuals, and the successors and assigns of corporations)
Witnesseth: That the grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of $ 10.0 0 and other
valuable considerations, receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, hereby grants, bargains, sells, aliens, re-
mises, releases, conveys and confirms unto the grantee, all that certain land situate in Indian River
County, Florida, viz:
All of the North 100 feet (measured on a north -south line)
lying East of the East right of way -of State Road AlA, of
Government Lot 11, Section 10, Township 31 South, Range 39
East. Said land lying and being in Indian River County,
Florida.
The Grantors are making a gift of the above described property
to Indi:.an River Courity upon the following express covenants,
conditions- and limitationswhich shall run with the land and be
binding on the Grantee and the successors and assigns of the
Grantee, which covenants, conditions and limitations are as
follows:
1. The property shall be usely solely for public beach
recreational purposes without charge to the public.
2. The property shall not be conveyed to any third party
including, without limitation, the State of'Florida or
agencies of the State of Florida, or the Federal Government
or agencies of the Federal Government, and shall not be placed
under the control of the State of Florida, its agencies, or
the Federal Government or its agencies.
3. Excepted from the above restrictions shall be the
widening of State Road AlA and in the event additional
right of way is required for State Road AIA, then such part
of the property as is reasonable and necessary may be used
for State Road AlA right of way purposes.
In the event that any of the foregoing covenants, conditions
and limitations are breached, -theft -the Grantor, or their
heirs, successors, administrators or assigns may file an
action for specific performance, declaratory judgment, or
other relief permitted under the laws of the State of
Florida, and/or the Grantors, their heirs, successors,
administrators or assigns, may file an action for reverter
of the title to the property to the Grantors, their heirs,
successors, administrators or assigns.
EXHIBIT "A"
DEC 18 1985 45
BOOK 63 PAGE
r
DEC 18 195
together, with all the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging or in any-
Wse appertaining.
To Have and to Mold, the same in fee simple forever.
Rad the grantor hereby convenants with said grantee that the
grantor is lawfully seized of said land
in fee simple; that the grantor has good right and lawful authority to sell and convey said land; that the.
grantor hereby fully warrants the title to said land and will defend the same against the lawful claims of
all persons whomsoever; and that said land is free of all encumbrances, except taxes accruing subsequent
to December 31. 19 8 5 .
In WltneSS Whereof, the said grantor has signed and sealed these presents the day and year
first above written.
and deli Pc ed inpur presence:
r
......... ...................................................... •
eorge er
{ M...
STATE OF Florida
COUNTY OF Indian River
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day, before me, an
officer duly authorized in the State aforesaid and in the County aforesaid to take acknowledgments, personally appeared
George Lier and Jeannette M. Lier, his wife,
to me known to be the persons described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and they acknowledged
before me that they executed the same.
WITNESS my hand and official seal in the County and State last aforesaid this %_7 day of
December, A. D. ig 85.
..........................................:......��of
.......................
Notary Public, lorida
at Large. My commission expires:
NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF FLORIDA
MI CUrrM15SION EXPIRES JAN 13 1986
HC MI) ,i!<16U uEtARAL lU5 , UI,IDJ~ WIUIFU
46
PUBLIC HEARING - CREATING BREEZY VILLAGE MOBILE HOME PARK
RECREATION DISTRICT
The hour of 9:30 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Weekly
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER:
STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a
In the Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of y�GM14/ .5D_ 4g!f_-5-
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered
as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida
for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver-
tisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or
corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver-
tisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed befgLe meAthis aoe%rday o A.D.
PUBLIC NOTICE c'
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Flo4da, will conduct a Public
Hearing on Wednesday, December 18, 1985 at
9:30 a.m. In the Commission Chambers at 1840
2sth Street, .Vero Beach, FL 32960, to, consider
the adoption of an ordinance entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, 'CREATING THE
BREFZY.VILLAGE MOBILE HOME PARK
RECREATION DISTRICT, - PURSUANT
.TO CHAPTER -418, PART .11, FLORIDA
STATUTES; PROVIDING' A- CHARTER -
THEREFOR; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATES
Anyone who may,wish to appeal any decision
which may be made at this meeting will need tc
ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings
is made which, includes the testimony and evi•
dence upon which the appeal will be based.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
'BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
PATRICK B. LYONS, CHAIRMAN
Nov. 30. 19M ._I._:.t••. -.. •
f;;'''ess M�aggYp
tC7�
(SEAL)
(Clerk of'the Circuit Court, Indian River County, Florida)
S3
Attorney Vitunac informed the Board that he was approached
by residents of Breezy Village Mobile Home Park in regard to
adopting a mobile home park recreation district pursuant to Fla.
Statute 418. What that does is allow the residents to purchase
the recreations facilities and common area of the mobile home
park from the developer for the use of all people living within
the boundaries of the park. This would replace most of the
monthly maintenance charges the people now pay to the developer,
and the residents have signed a petition with a vast majority of
47
DEC 18 1985 Boon 63 PACE 47
DEC 1 �
+� X33
the electors supporting the creation of such a district, which
means an election does not have to be held to pass this
ordinance. If the ordinance is passed by the County Commission,
an election would be held in March to elect the officers of the
Board of Trustees, and after that they would operate independent
of the county.
Commissioner Wodtke inquired about the effect of the
withdrawal by Attorney Henderson of a request to include
additional acreage in the recreational taxing district as per the
following letter:
Mr. Michael Wright
Indian River County Administrator
Administration Building
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Re: Breezy Village - Recreational Taxing District
Dear Mike:
I would like to withdraw my prior request, made on behalf
of James Wilson and Treasure Coast - Breezy Village to include
the adjoining twenty acres in the recreational taxing district.
We still would want Phase II, as shown on the plat, to be
included within that district and if necessary will furnish
such legal descriptions as the county deems necessary.
I would add that this approach is consistent with recent
agreements and understandings that have been reached between
my client and the sponsoring property owners.
Kindest regards,
Very truly yours,
MOSS, HENDERSON & LLOYD, P.A.
Dictated by Mr. Henderson but mailed
is his absence to avoid delay.
I3_y
48
Steve L. Henderson
MOSS, HENDERSON & LLOYD, P.A.
►��
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS
�,
J
617 BEACHLAND BOULEVARD
P. 0. BOX 3406
VERO BEACH. FLORIDA 32964-3408
13031 231.1900
tiR
ROBIN A. BLANTON
RNS
STEVE L. HENDERSON
C. KENNON HENDRIX
THOMAS A. KOVAL
ELIZABETH A. JACKSON
ROBIN A. LLOYD
CLINTON W. LANIER
GEORGE H. MOSS
December 12, 1985
LOUIS S. VOCELLE. JR.
EVERETT J. VAN GAASBECK
OF COUNSEL
WILLIAM G. HALL. JR.
Mr. Michael Wright
Indian River County Administrator
Administration Building
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Re: Breezy Village - Recreational Taxing District
Dear Mike:
I would like to withdraw my prior request, made on behalf
of James Wilson and Treasure Coast - Breezy Village to include
the adjoining twenty acres in the recreational taxing district.
We still would want Phase II, as shown on the plat, to be
included within that district and if necessary will furnish
such legal descriptions as the county deems necessary.
I would add that this approach is consistent with recent
agreements and understandings that have been reached between
my client and the sponsoring property owners.
Kindest regards,
Very truly yours,
MOSS, HENDERSON & LLOYD, P.A.
Dictated by Mr. Henderson but mailed
is his absence to avoid delay.
I3_y
48
Steve L. Henderson
Attorney Vitunac explained that Attorney Henderson wanted to
include some other land near the district which has not yet been
platted into lots, but he didn't think the law is set up to
handle tracts of land like that. When and if the land is set out
in additional mobile home lots, the ordinance can be amended to
include it.
Commissioner Bird wished to clarify that once the District
Board is established, it will adopt an annual budget, decide on a
levy, etc., which will go directly to the Tax Collector's office.
Attorney Vitunac confirmed that it would and also that it
would not count against the county's millage rate and explained
that the assessment will be equal on each lot on a parcel basis.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
Bruce Bonnell, President of Breezy Village Mobile Home
Association, strongly urged the Commission to support the
creation of this District, which he felt will solve a lot of
problems.
Eric Pollard confirmed that the great majority of the home
owners of Breezy Village do approve of the creation of the taxing
district, and they are asking the Board to approve the ordinance
so that they can get'in under the deadline of December 31st.
Chairman Lyons wished to know how many people from Breezy
Village were present today, and 30 to 40 people stood up and
indicated their support.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
closed the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodkte, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 85-103 creating Breezy Village Mobile
Home Park Recreation District.
49
DEC 18 1985 8009 63 rare
DEC 181985
BOOK 63 PAGE
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 85- 103
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, CREATING THE BREEZY VILLAGE
MOBILE HOME PARK RECREATION DISTRICT.
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 418, PART 11, FLORIDA
STATUTES; PROVIDING A CHARTER THEREFOR;
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Chapter 418, Florida Statutes, authorizes x
county to create mobile home park recreation districts by ordinance
with boundaries to be that of the mobile home park in question, for
the purposes enumerated in Chapter 418, and, in particular, for the
purpose of levying and assessing a special assessment against each
mobile home parcel within the district to raise funds to acquire
and improve streets and lights, recreation facilities, and .other
common areas of all types, including real property and personal
property; and
WHEREAS, certain residents of Breezy Village Mobile
Home Park have petitioned the County to create such a mobile home
park recreation district; and
WHEREAS, the County finds that such a district would
be in the public interest;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
that:
SECTION 1. CREATION AND CHARTER OF DISTRICT
This ordinance shall create and serve as the Charter for
the Breezy Village Mobile Home Park Recreation District. The
boundaries of the district shall be as shown on Exhibit "A"
attached to this ordinance.
SECTION 2. NO REFERENDUM REQUIRED
The Board of County Commissioners finds that a majority
of the electors of the proposed district has signed a petition
requesting that the County create the mobile home park recreation
district, and, therefore. pursuant to 5418.30, Florida Statutes, no
referendum shall be required to create the district. The petition
shall be kept on file at the Clerk's Office.
SECTION 3. GOVERNING BODY OF DISTRICT
The governing body of the district shall consist of a
nine -member board of trustees elected pursuant to 5418.302, Florida
Statutes. The date of the election required in subparagraph 2 of
9418.302 shall be the first Tuesday in March of each year; provided
that if at any time there are no more candidates for the office of
trustee than the required number, then no election need be held.
SUCTION 4. POWERS OF THE MOBILE HOME PARK
RECREATION DISTRICT; RECREATION DISTRICT TAX
The recreation district shall have all the powers and
duties as authorized by Chapter 418, Part 11, Florida Statutes.
50
0
SECTION 5. BONDS OF THE RECREATION ms,rRIC•1'
The district shall have such powers concerning bonds as
given in 5418.306, Florida Statutes.
SECTION 6. ABOLISHMENT OF THE MOBILE HOME PARK
RECREATION DISTRICT
The district may be abolished by following provisions of
4418.31151, Florida Statutes.
SECTION 7. EFFECTIVE DATE
This ordinance shall be effective on passage and as
provided by law.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, on this 18th day of
December 1985.
BOARD OF-CPUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN V COUNTY, FLORIDA
Approved as to form 1
and legal sufficiency:
CrFarles P. Vitunac,Patrick B� l o s,
County Attorney Chairma
Approved for Utility
matters:
Terr Piqtd1t,, Director
Div. of Utili ervices
t
—9911h STREET VICKERS ROAD - ! �----
iti •r, .wr N•• r.
98tH WAY rr rl \ \
is 06,
Li
1 73T i S8 p7 j SB q 4 52
j t seth ROAD rr.rm•• o
' ,ill-1 . _
6 I• i
631. 64 65 41 BBs 67
• V
�I ' 11 b �•s`%1 ' �
1 A �,
W I 7 L - 3 +. 9Dth LANE r+••rr-t 11 46 , r. t f
-47
73 T2 71 a 70 89 i 66 48 •,
' ��
8 I r,,w �''
�' L ., a J + •� r N•• • r•I f LLrr.. .) k
ury w• 'r.
.
Oil r - i I, Q I Sam PI q31 ` < •\ O
• j 9 I ;i0' r rm Nm rr Nm rm Nm' ?
01 a 0
` a 0 i
8 19 I i a 74 ' 75 76 ti �77 76 78 i- 60 .. w 3 •t o \ }
• I .0 n
44
v.rt b i 1fa 'LML" \ A \
t i II a BB jl I 67 66 -j I 84 63 62 i s y 43
�.• NO N 1 • i
8 98th STREET ---•••'•-•- 7 $� 42
T \
t 12 Ir + * 89 10 1100 j •101 IC - Jim 341
•-' = u0ao I i
03
1 �,_i •�. I •• p m w.r I • r• j * 111 I$S A 6 \%.• • ��
40
13 390 i• 199 • I. 8 ln.•2 J` L. ��
., 91 4 ' 1-�=rU2 : '�.w 320. = ,;o `� `•♦
b } 3_:1 .i l • . '' I 107 8 .•• x.31
' i-'10 I a r j r 8 W -T •a r m -+•. �iA •ice `9 `Grp I
I. 3 9250
197 3 8 104 B r it 0 33
T, « 8 93 186 3' w 4 •°» 1. I s
i IB I. 3 I 3 m • Is I •, iq• 26 �w37v I I' s ♦ \
4.•«
Vq
1 A 17 794 I3 196 i N c�!+ 27 +,.r I „ • "'
1 1 re ••r •u Ir+ 9T ��` 9 s��` •0 w r" -"o'•. �� 36 I
_,,. +„ .a•w..'.3 .•�:�4tit6 .�,•. TRACT'C•
3+ s $ 25 ..� TRACT'S' `•4r. O t
�f•�cNj} 3 AA t `+t9� 4 3 it
i
20 2 24 '
I _ - 1 . 1 t 22 3 23 S a .�TRACT'A' ��° 1 _ '•
Nm Nm N►' ''� ••r. •p'r'M � I.•p'
BREEZY VILLAGE
MOBILE NOME SUBDIVISION FOR ADULTS
Bouts 3 - Box 525 - Sebastian, Florida 32958
Phone (305) 589-8788 • (305) 589.2232
�@®!( SAGE
DEC IS 1985 �o®K 63- mf 52
INDIAN RIVER CITRUS LEAGUE APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION
The hour of 9:35 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Weekly
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER:
STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
. .I L .,
a
in the matter of l.s��2��W�tJ e (tet i
in the Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered
as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida
for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver-
tisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or
corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver-
tisement for publication in the said newspaper. ^
CJ.I , �
Sworn to and subscrib
i
(SEAL)
(Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County,
NOTICE —PUBLIC HEARING -
Notice of hearing to consider granting of spe-
cial exception approval of an office building in
an agricultural zone. The subject property is pre-
sently owned by Indian River Citrus League, Inc.,
and Is located on the south side of S.R. 60 ap-
proximately % mile east of C.R.,609 (82nd Ave-
nue) .:
'The subject properly is described as:
DESCRIPTION "THE EAST 5 ACRES OF
THE WEST 20 ACRES OF TRACT 11,
SECTION. 1, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH,
RANGE 38 EAST, ACCORDING TO THE
LAST GENERAL PLAT OF LANDS OF IN-
' DIAN RIVER FARMS COMPANY, FILED
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF ST. LUCIE COON- `
TY, FLORIDA, IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE
25; SAID LAND NOW LYING AND BEING
IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA."
AND "A PART OF TRACT 11. SECTION
1, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH;. RANGE 38
EAST ACCORDING TO THE LAST GEN-
ERAL PLAT OF LANDS OF THE INDIAN.
RIVER FARMS COMPANY SUBDIVISION
AS RECORDED IN PLATZOOK 2, PAGE '
25, PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, . BEING
MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS: ALL THAT PART OF SAID i
TRACT 11, LESS AND EXCEPTING THE a,
EAST 20 ACRES THEREOF, AND LESS t`•
AND EXCEPTING THE WEST 15 ACRES,
THEREOF AND LESS AND EXCEPTING
THE SUBJECT TO CANAL AND ROAD'
RIGHTS OF WAY, EASEMENTS. AND
RESERVATIONS OF RECORD. SAID
PARCEL NOW LYING AND BEING IN IN-
DIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA."
A public hearing, at which parties in interest
and citizens shall have an opportunity to be
heard, will be held by the Board of CountyCom-
missioners of Indian River County, Florida, in the
County Commission Chambers of the County
Administration Building, located at 1840 25th
Street, Vero Beach, Florida on Wednesday,
December 18, 1985. at 9:35 a.m.
Anyone who may wish to appeal ate+• decision
Which may be made at this meeting wiU need to
ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings
Is made, which includes testimony and evidence
upon which the appeal is based. y:
Indian River County >s
Board of County Commissioners
By. -s -Patrick B. Lyons, Chairman
Nov. 27, Dec. 10,1985..,,
Staff Planner David Nearing made the staff presentation
recommending approval, as follows:
52
TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: December 6, 1985 FILE:
Board of County Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
SUBJECT: ImLAN RIVER CITRUS LEAGt3E
Robert M. Keatin , APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL
planning and Development Director EXCEPTION
THROUGH: ..
Michael K. Miller WA
FROM:`�ef, Current Development R FERENCES:
David Nearing
Staff Planner
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal considera-
tion by the Board of County cmutissioners at their regular meeting of
December 18, 1985.
DESCRIPTIONS AND CONDITIONS:
Section 25(A).3 of the Zoning Code, "Regulation of Special Exception Uses",
authorizes the Board of County Commissioners to decide all applications for
special exception uses subsequent to a recommendation by the Planning and
Zoning Commission. Special exception uses are those types of uses that
would not generally be appropriate throughout a particular zoning district.
However, when special exception uses are carefully controlled as to number,
area, location, and/or relationship to the vicinity, such uses would not
adversely impact the public health, safety, comfort, good order, appear-
ance, convenience, morals and general welfare and, as such, would be
compatible with permitted uses within the particular zoning district.
The Planning and Development Division recently reviewed an application for
special exception approval, accompanied by a site plan, from the Indian
River Citrus League, Inc. Special exception approval is being sought to
construct an agricultural office building, a special exception use within
the A, Agricultural, zoning district. The applicant is proposing to
construct the facility on the south side of State Road 60, approximately
1/3 mile east of 82nd'Avenue (County Road 609). Since the proposed office
building will be occupied by the Citrus League and serve agricultural
clients, the facility constitutes an Agricultural business and is eligible
for special exception approval. As required, the site plan complies with
the specific criteria for agricultural businesses as delineated in [Sec. 25
(A).1] "Regulations for Specific Land Uses.
At their regular scheduled meeting of December 12, 1985, the Planning and
Zoning Commission approved the site plan for the Indian River Citrus
League, Inc. Agricultural office building project. An analysis of the site
plan follows:
ANALYSIS:
The following is an analysis of the plan submitted for special exception
approval:
1. Lot size: 5 acres
• 2. Area of development: 1.93 Acres
3. Zoning Classification: A, Agricultural District
4. Land Use Designation: MD -1 Medium Density up to 8 units per acre.
5. 'Building Area: 2,976 square feet
3.5% of the area of development
6. Off street parking spaces required: 10
provided: 10
53
C E C 18 195
Boa 63 FA.GE 5 ,)
DEC 18 PAcE 5
7. Traffic Circulation: The site plan has been reviewed and approved by
the County Traffic Engineer. The site is accessed by a 22'foot wide
two-way drive from State Road 60. The access road extends 200 feet to
a point where it divides into a one-way loop drive that provides
access to parking spaces and the office building.
8. Drainage Plan: The site plan has been reviewed and approved by the . .
County Engineer.
9. Landscape Plan: The site plan is in conformance with Chapter 13},
Landscaping" of Ordinance 84-48.
10. Utilities: The proposed on site well and septic system have been
reviewed and approved by the Director of the Environmental Health
Department.
11. Surrounding Land Uses: The surrounding properties are single family
lots in the Greenbriar Subdivision to the east, and vacant land to the
south and to the west.
The site plan is in conformance with the Zoning Code, and the proposed use
is compatible with the surrounding land uses.
RECONMENDATIONS:
Based on the above analysis, staff recommends that the Board of County
Commissioners grant special exception approval to the Indian River Citrus
League, Inc. for an agricultural office building in the A, Agricultural,
zoning district.
Commissioner Bowman asked if the Agricultural office at some
future time wants to abandon this property, whether we have any
way of getting this back into agricultural zoning, and Planning
Director Keating stated that they would be precluded from using
it for anything other than an agricultural type business. The
special exception approval says that this facility can be built
only because it is an agriculturally related use.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously closed the
public hearing.
ON MOTION By Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously granted
special exception approval to the Indian River
Citrus League, Inc., for an agricultural office
building in the Agricultural zoning district.
54
RIGHT-OF-WAY ABANDONMENT (Portion of 7th Ave.) N & B REALTY
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
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER:
STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a
in the matter of
In the �yCourt, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of o2%. _&ftL
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. �l p
Sworn to and subscribed re this day of����%y A.D. 7 �S
(Bu I ,Vana
(Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, Florida)
(SEAL)
1.F
NOTICE — PUBLIC'NF.ARINO '
NOTICE OF HEARING TO CONSIDER A PETt-
TION FOR THE CLOSING, ABANDONMENT,
AND VACATION OF THAT PORTION OF 7th
AVENUE LYING BETWEEN 15th PLACE ON THE
NORTH AND '15th STREET ON
SAID RIGHT -0F -WAY BEING Mfl P _„
LARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
The west 70 fed. of the east 5'aeres"0i'
Me south'h of 8e north % of the NW% of
the NEIA of Section 12. Township 33
South, Range 39 East. said land low
and being In Indian Riva County;' Flof i,
Ida.
Together with:
That portion of Ah Avenuelylrtg tetwsMl t
Lot 10, Block A. and Lot 1, BTock B. at
Sunshine Ouaft Home SubdhrMlon,
Unit 2, as recorded In Plat Book S. Page
83, Public Records of Indian River Coon-
ty, Florida.
A public hearing, at which parties In Intevse!
and citizens ehaU have ortunity to be
heard, will be held by the Board of County Can-
e mlasioners of Indian Rlvar County, Florida, In the
County Commission Chambers of the Coeurty
•. Administration Building, Iccated at .1840 25th
Street, Vero Beach, Florida on -Wednesday.
December IS, 1985. at 9:45 am.
Anyone who may wish to appeal any dscWm
which may be made at this meeting will now to
ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings
Is made, which Includes testimony and evidence
upon which the appeal will be based.
Indian Riva County
Board of County Commissioners
By.-s-Pafrlcl S. Lyons. Chairman
Nov. 27. Dec. 11. 1985.
Staff Planner Karen Craver made the following presentation:
55
DEC 18 1985 Boat 63 f1cE 5571
DEC 18 1985 aoolc M FAct 56
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: December 9, 1985 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
SUBJECT: RIGHT-OF-WAY ABANDONMENT
Rer PETITION SUBMITTED BY
Planning & Deveop t
Director N & B REALTY, INC.
THROUGH: Mike Miller, Chief MKS
Current Development Director
FROM: Karen Craver 4����REFERENCES:
Staff Planner
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal con-
sideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting
of December 18, 1985.
DESCRIPTIONS AND CONDITIONS:
Carmen Nicotra, President of N & B Realty has submitted a right-of-way
abandonment petition to the Planning and Development Division. Mr.
Nicotra is requesting that the County abandon whatever rights it may have
to the portion of 7th Avenue lying between 15th Street and 15th Place.
In accordance with the administrative guidelines approved by the Board of
County Commissioners for the processing of right-of-way abandonment
applications, the request was reviewed by all County divisions and
utility providers having jurisdiction within the right-of-way. The
petition was reviewed and approved by all parties contacted.
ZkU?1T.VQTC
The 70 foot wide 7th Avenue right-of-way is depicted on Mr. Nicotra's
survey of his property and on County tax maps; however, it does not
appear that the County ever acquired the right-of-way by deed, nor does
the County maintain the right-of-way. Therefore, Mr. Nicotra is
requesting that the County abandon whatever rights it may have to the 70
foot wide right-of-way in order that he may obtain clear title to his
property. Although County staff has not determined that the County has
claim to the right-of-way, any interest it may have would be a cloud on
Mr. Nicotra's title.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the County abandon any rights it may have in that
portion of 7th Avenue lying between 15th Street and 15th Place.
Miss Craver emphasized that the County's abandonment
actually is mainly a formality since there is no record in
abstracts or investigation which reveal that this right-of-way
was ever dedicated to the county.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
Attorney Michael O'Haire, representing the applicant,
confirmed that this action is requested just to clear a cloud on
the title.
56
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
closed the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
approved Resolution 85-140 abandoning any
right the County may have to that portion
of 7th Avenue between 15th Street and 15th
Place as requested by N 8 B Realty.
RESOLUTION 35-140
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR THE CLOSING, ABANDONMENT, AND
VACATION OF THAT PORTION OF 7th AVENUE LYING BETWEEN 15th STREET
AND 15th PLACE.
WHEREAS, on January 26, 1984, the County received a duly
executed and documented petition from N&B Realty Corporation,
Inc., P. O. pox 2736, Vero Beach, Florida, requesting the County
to close, vacate, abandon, and disclaim any right, title, and
interest of the County and the public in and to 7th Avenue lying
between 15th Street and 15th Place.
WHEREAS, in accordance with Florida Statutes §336.10, notice
of a public hearing to consider said petition has been duly
published; and
WHEREAS, after consideration of the petition, supporting
documents, staff investigation and report, and testimony of all
those interested and present, the Board finds that said right-
of-way is not a state or federal highway, nor located within any
municipality, nor is said right-of-way necessary for continuity
of the County's street and thoroughfare network, nor access to
any given private property.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that:
1. All right, title and interest of the County and the
public in and to that certain right-of-way being more
particularly described as:
The west 70 feet of the east 5 acres of the south 1/2
of the north 1/2 of the NW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section
12, Township 33 South, Range 39 East, said land lying
and being in Indian River County, Florida.
Together with:
That portion of 7th Avenue lying between Lot 10, Block
A, and Lot 1, Block B, of Sunshine Quality Homes
Subdivision, Unit 2, as recorded in Plat Book 5, Page
63, Public Records of Indian River County, Florida.
is hereby forever closed, abandoned, vacated, surrendered,
discontinued, remised, and released.
2. Notice of the adoption of this resolution shall be
forthwith published once within thirty (30) days from the date of
adoption hereof; and
3. The Clerk is hereby directed to record this resolution
together with the proofs of publication required by Florida
Statutes §336.10 in the Official Record Books of Indian River
County without undue delay.
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner
Bird who moved its adoption. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Bowman , and upon being
put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
r .
57
Book 63 FnE '37
DEC 18 1985 BOOK 63 SAGE 53
Chairman Patrick B. Lyons Aye
Vice -Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Maggy Bowman Aye
Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed
and adopted this 18th day of December , 1985.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY.
TRICK �LiOWS, ai man
BOUNDARIES TOURIST/COMMERCIAL NODE - ROSELAND
The hour of 10:00 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
.a
Published Weekly
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: I LD -j. 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-Joumal, a weekly newspaper published
at Vero Beach
in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being '
r i
a
in the matter of 'O5 a'e'V LD-
In the Court, was pub.
lished in said newspaper in the Issues of aG /_L.5
�.1'61�' le-
Affiant
e
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.
10 is Sworn to and subscribed re this gj 47 day of_&mL
. alnc
Roseland / U.S. HWY tit'
Tourist Commercial Node
fl
Proposed .Node Boundary
RAM
• `i
NOTICE OF REGULATION OF LAND USE— ,
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
(Busin ss anager) ! TO CONSIDER THE ADOPTION
/J� // OFA COUNTY ORDINANCE
t,,/ ftQ /' NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners, shall
hold a public hearing at which parties in Interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard,
(amu (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, Flo446 in the County Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, located at 1840 25th
Wednesday, Vero Beach, Florida, on Wednay, December 18. 1985 at 10:00 a.mto consider the adop-
tion of an Ordinance entitled: , .
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COON -
TY, FLORIDA, ESTABLISHING BOUNDARIES FOR THE 25 ACRE TOURIST COMMERCIAL
NODE LOCATED ON THE NORTH COUNTY BOUNDARY AT U.S. #1 AS GENERALLY DE-
SCRIBED IN THE TEXT OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT AND DEPICTED ON THE LAND USE
MAP OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR
BOUNDARY MAP OF THE NODE AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
A map of the proposed node boundary Is available at the Planning Department office on the sec-
ond floor of the County Administration Building.
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made it this meeting will need to en-
sure that a verbatim record of the proceedings Is made, which Includes testimony and evidence
upon which the appeal is based.
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
4 By: -s -Patrick B. Lyons, Chairman
Nov. 28, Dec. 10,1gas. i
Staff Planner Jeffrey Goulet reviewed the following memo and
recommendation:
58
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: November 26, 1985 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
SUBJECT:
Obert M. Keatljig, 6XP
Planning & Development Director
LL THROUGH: Richard Shearer, AICP
V7 Chief, Long -Range Planning
ESTABLISHMENT OF BOUNDAR-
IES FOR THE 25 ACRE TOUR-
IST COMMERCIAL NODE
LOCATED ON U.S.#1 IN THE
ROSELAND AREA AT THE
NORTH COUNTY BOUNDARY
FROM: //— REFERENCES:
Jeffrey A. Goulet Jl'1Q U.S.1/Roseland Node 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 18, 1985.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
The Planning Department is initiating a request to establish
boundaries for the twenty-five (25) acre tourist commercial node
located on U.S. Highway #1 in the Roseland area at the north
county boundary.
On September 12, 1984, the Board of County Commissioners adopted
an amendment to the text to the Land Use Element of the Compre-
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 21, 1985, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
4 -to -0 to recommend approval of these boundaries.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
The proposed boundaries of the Roseland tourist commercial node
were prepared based on the following criteria:
1. The general description and size constraint of the nodes
as described in the text of the Land Use Element;
2. The existing commercial uses in the general area of the
nodes;
3. The existing zoning pattern;
4. Property boundaries;
5. Traffic considerations; and
6. Environmental considerations.
All of the nodes are generally described in the Comprehensive
Plan. The Roseland Tourist Commercial node is described as:
"On the north county boundary at U.S. #1 is a twen-
ty-five (25) acre tourist commercial node."
All of the property proposed for inclusion in the node is
currently zoned C-1, Commercial District. The proposed node
boundaries follow property lines and the existing commercial
zoning district boundaries in all cases.
59
DEC 1 900 3 PAGE 5
Existina Land Use Pattern
BOOB - C. PAGE 6
All of the uses currently located in the area of the Roseland
Tourist Commercial Node are zoned C-1, Commercial District.
There is currently a bowling alley, a gas station and auto body
shop, an auto parts store, a motel and lounge, a beauty shop, a
real estate office, and a retail/office complex located in the
node area. There are approximately ten (10) acres of vacant land"
available for future development based on the proposed boundaries
of this node.
Environment
The node area is not designated as environmentally sensitive nor
is it in a flood -prone area. The node is located on the sand
ridge, which is a primary aquifer recharge area, and the soils
are excessively well drained.
Utilities
County water and sewer facilities are not available in the node
area at the present time.
Transportation System
The primary means of access to most of the property located in
the node area is U.S. Highway #1 (classified as an arterial on
the Thoroughfare Plan). Some of the properties also have access
to Bay Street (classified as a local street) and N. Indian River
Drive (classified as a local street).
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that the proposed
boundaries of the twenty-five (25) acre Tourist Commercial Node
located on U.S. #1 in the Roseland area be adopted by the Board
of County Commissioners.
Commissioner Wodtke inquired about the process of notifica-
tion followed when these nodal boundaries are finalized.
Planner Goulet advised that notice is published in the
newspaper as required by the Comprehensive Plan, and Administra-
tor Wright confirmed that staff does not normally notify the
owners within the node, but felt that they should start doing
this.
Director Keating inquired if the Board was indicating that
everyone within a certain distance should be notified also, and
Administrator Wright confirmed that this would be done even
though it will be expensive.
Commissioner Wodtke felt it would be only fair that people
have an opportunity for some input when they are either going to
be included or excluded from a node, and Commissioner Scurlock
60
believed the Commission has gone on record that we would rather
have too much notice than not enough.
Chairman Lyons inquired if the Board wished to delay the
hearing on the subject node, but the Board members had no problem
with holding the hearing on this node today.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
closed the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
adopted Ordinance 85-104 establishing boundaries
for the 25 acre Tourist/Commercial Node at
Roseland.
61
DEC 18 1985 BOOK 6 3 F,11;f 6
BOOK
ORDINANCE NO. 85 - 104
AN ORDINANCE•OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION-
ERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA ESTABLISH-
ING BOUNDARIES FOR THE 25 ACRE TOURIST COMMER-
CIAL NODE LOCATED ON U.S. #1 AT THE NORTH
COUNTY BOUNDARY 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, DESCRIPTION OF THE NODE AND
EFFECTIVE DATE.
63 PAGE 62
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 g 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 25 acre Tourist Commercial Node located on
U.S. #1 at the north County boundary.
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 18th day of 1)ecember
BOARDOF OUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF IN AN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
B _
P RI -- II.- LYON j A •KHAN
62
ATTACHMENT
A
Roseland / U.S. HWY + 1
Tourist Commercial Node
N
Nd, simessoves Propose
Node Boundary
63
DEC 18 1985 63 8"3
RM -6
DEC18 1985 BOOK. 63. PAGE
ORDINANCE NO. 85-10
AT TA C H MEN T B
DESCRIPTION OF THE ROSELAND TOURIST COMMERCIAL NODE
BEGINNING AT A POINT WHERE THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF
110TH STREET (BAY STREET) INTERSECTS THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY
LINE OF U.S. HIGHWAY #1; THENCE RUN SOUTHWEST (CROSSING U.S.
HIGHWAY #1) APPROXIMATELY 250 FEET TO THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY
LINE OF 142ND WAY; THENCE RUN WEST APPROXIMATELY 240 FEET
ALONG THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF 142ND WAY TO THE WEST
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF 78TH AVENUE; THENCE RUN NORTH APPROXI-
MATELY 1460 FEET TO THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF ERLING
LANE; THENCE RUN NORTH AN ADDITIONAL 300 FEET ALONG THE WEST
LINE OF LOT 3, BLOCK A, ERCILDOUNE HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION, TO
THE SEBASTIAN RIVER; THENCE RUN EAST APPROXIMATELY 230 FEET
ALONG THE SEBASTIAN RIVER TO THE NORTH SECTION LINE OF
SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 30S, RANGE 38E; THENCE RUN EAST APPROX-
IMATELY 280 FEET (CROSSING U.S. HIGHWAY #1) ALONG THE NORTH
SECTION LINE OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 30S, RANGE 38E; THENCE
RUN SOUTHEAST APPROXIMATELY 650 FEET ALONG THE WEST BANK OF
THE INDIAN RIVER; THENCE RUN SOUTHWEST APPROXIMATELY 400
FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTHEAST APPROXIMATELY 400 FEET TO THE
NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF 110TH STREET (BAY STREET); THENCE
RUN SOUTHWEST APPROXIMATELY 520 FEET ALONG THE NORTH
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF 110TH STREET (BAY STREET); THENCE RUN
SOUTHEAST APPROXIMATELY 1060 FEET; THENCE RUN WEST
APPROXIMATELY 400 FEET TO THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF U.S.
HIGHWAY #1; THENCE RUN NORTH APPROXIMATELY 900 FEET ALONG
THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF U.S. HIGHWAY #1 TO THE POINT
OF BEGINNING. LYING IN SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 30S, RANGE 38E.
CONTAINING 24.94 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
64
CO, -INITIATED REQUEST TO ESTABLISH BOUNDARIES _ CR 510/512 NODE
The hour of 10:00 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Weekly
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER:
STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a iii
in the matter of A0''�/
in the �I/ o Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered
as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida
for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver-
tisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or
corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver-
tisement for publication in the said newspaper. A
Sworn to and subscrib
(SEAL)
(Clerk of the Circuit
NOTICE OF REGULATION OF LAND USE-
- NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
,TO CONSIDER THE ADOPTION
OF A COUNTY ORDINANCE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Indian
River County Board of County Commissioners,
shall hold a public hearing at which parties in in-
terest and citizens shelf have an opportunity to
be heard on Wednesday, December 18, 1985, in
the County Commission Chambers located in the
County Administration Building, 1840 25th
Street, Vero Beach, Florida, at 10:00 a.m. or as
soon thereafter as may be heard to consider the
adoption of an ordinance entitled.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF - s
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDkESTABUSH- .:
ING BOUNDARIES FOR THE 50 ACRE .+^
COMMERCIAL NODE LOCATED AT THE
INTERSECTION OF C.R.10 AND C.R.
512 AS GENERALLY DESCRIBED IN
THE TEXT OF THE LAND USE ELE-
MENT AND DEPICTED ON THE LAND
USE MAP OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT'
OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN;
PROVIDING FOR THE BOUNDARY MAP
OF THE NODE AND EFFEC IVE DATE..,
A map of the proposed n e boundary. Is
available at the Planning Department office on
the second floorof the COU Administration
Building.
Anyone who may wmh to ap any decision
which
may be made at this m ting will need to
ensure that a verbatim record the proceedings
Is made, which Includes testim ny and evidence
upon which the appeal Is,
Indian River County
Board of County Comm loners
By: -s -Patrick B. Lyons, Chairmen
Nov: 26, Dec. 10, 1985.
Planner David'Nearing started to make the staff presenta-
tion, but Commissioner Scurlock felt that rather than go through
the whole thing at this time, that the Board might want to
consider tabling this item and readvertising.
Commissioner Wodtke stated that he would feel better about
it as he felt the characteristics in the area have changed
sufficiently to warrant more consideration, and he did not
believe surrounding property owners had an opportunity to make a
presentation.
65
'DC 18 1985
BOOK 63 P,gGF.
Fr__
DEC 18 1985
.SIA
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
agreed to table the hearing on establishing
boundaries for the CR 510/512 Commercial
Node and readvertise sending notice to all
property owners within 3001.
63 FACE
CONCEPTUAL PRD SPECIAL EXCEPTION APPROVAL FOR GENESEA WEST
The hour of 10:15 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy.
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:
.y
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Weekly
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER:
STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a
in the Court, was pub-
.
lished in said newspaper in the issues of
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered
as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida
for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver-
tisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or
corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver-
tisement for publication in the said newspaper. yy��
Sworn to and subscribed ore a tril 19 InG'day OA A.D.
(Susi ass Manager)
n �.
(SEAL)(Clerk of the ►
66
' NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING
Notice of hearing to consider the granting of
Planned Residential Development (P.R.D.) con-
ceptional special exception approval for a 42
unit detached, zero lot -line single-family project
The subject property, located on the west side of
State Road AIA approximately 'h mile south of
the Moorings, is presently owned by Salama
Development Corporation.
The subject property Is described as:
That part of the South 110 feet of the
North 880 feet of Government Lot 4, Sec-
tion 27, Township 33 South, Range 40
East, lying West of State Road AIA, situ-
ated in Indian River County, Florida; and
The South 110 feet of the North 880 feet
of Government Lot 4, Section 28, Town-
ship 33 South, Range 40.East, Indian
River County, Florida;
The South 220 feet of the North 1100 feet -
of Government Lot 4, Sectioh 28, and
that part of the South 220, feet of the
North 1100 feet. of Government Lot 4,,;,,»
Section 27, which lies west of the right;
of -way for State Road Al A as laid out
and established over and across said
property; all. in Township 33 South' J_
Range 40 East, , Indian RI" , County, .
Florida. '
Government Lot 4, Except the North
1100 feet thereof; Section 27, and Gov-
ernment Lot 4, Except the North 1100
feet thereof, Section 28, all in Township
33 South, Range 40 east; Excepting
therefrom the right-of-way for State Road
Al A as laid out and established over and
across said property; Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida.
A public hearing, at which parties In interest
and citizens shall have an opportunity .to be
heard, will be held by the Board of County Com-
missioners of Indian River County, Florida on
Wednesday, December 18, 1985, at 10:15 a.m.
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision
which may be made at this meeting will need to
ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings
Is made, which Includes testimony and evidence
upon which the appeal is based:
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
By: -s -Patrick B. Lyons, Chairman
Nov. 26, Dec. 10, 1985.
Staff Planner Stan Boling made the following presentatio
and recommendation:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: December 5, 1985 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: CONCEPTUAL PRD SPECIAL
SUBJECT: EXCEPTION APPROVAL FOR
GENESEA WEST PLANNED
Rober M, Keatlg, RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Planning & Deve opme t Director
THROUGH:" Michael K. Miller
,,IAChief, Current Development Section
FROM: Stan Boling 461 REFERENCES: D
Staff Planner Disk: STAN2
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of December 18, 1985.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Salama Development Inc., Pradip Manek, President, through its
agent, Lloyd & Associates, is requesting conceptual PRD plan
special exception approval to allow a layout that deviates from
the RS -3 district lot dimension and setback requirements. The
project site, located on the west side of S.R. A -1-A about 1/2
mile south of the Moorings, consists of a total of 24 acres:
14 acres of uplands and 10 acres of environmentally sensitive
impounded wetlands. The applicant is requesting deviations
from the normal RS -3 requirements in an effort to take full
advantage of a potential transfer of development rights (TDR)
from the project's wetland portions to its upland portions.
At the present time, the right to develop the 10 acres of
wetlands cannot be transferred to the uplands due to the
barrier island moratorium. Under the existing RS -3 zoning, the
uplands area can already be developed at up to 3 units/acre.
The moratorium limits development to upland areas at no more
than 3 units/acre. Therefore, the proposed 10 unit density
transfer from the 10 acres of wetlands to the 14 acres of
uplands would result in an upland density of ±3.7 units/acre.
Until such time that the moratorium is lifted, the density
transfer cannot be approved.
The proposed conceptual plan shows 42 lots, the maximum number
of lots currently allowed on the 14 acres of uplands. The
proposed plan also shows a Tract "C" wherein the developer
proposes to transfer the right to develop up to 10 units, at
such time that the moratorium is lifted. Any future transfer
of development rights over and above the currently allowable 42
units, would have to be approved via a major modification to an
approved conceptual plan. Therefore, the PRD process would
have to be re-initiated by the applicant for any future
transfer of development rights.
The applicant is requesting that the Board of County
Commissioners grant conceptual PRD plan approval to the
project.
67
DEC 180 19185 Boa 6 3 Pvu, E '07
DEC 18 1985 BOOK
At its regular meeting of November 21, 1985, the Planning and
Zoning Commission voted unanimously to recommend to the Board
of County Commissioners that the proposed conceptual PRD plan
be granted conceptual PRD special exception approval, subject
to the seven conditions described in the recommendation
appearing at the end of this report. The applicant's agent; --
Darrell McQueen, stated at the November 21st meeting that the
owner was in agreement with all of the conditions. Mr. McQueen
further stated that the end result of the conditions would be
to allow a maximum of 47 units on the entire project, thus
actually allowing a potential density transfer of five units
from the wetlands to the uplands portion of the project.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
The following is an analysis of the conceptual PRD.plan.
1) Size of property: ± 24 acres total
± 14 acres uplands
± 10 acres wetlands
2) Zoning Classification: RS -3, Residential Single Fam-
ily up to 3 units/acre
3) Land Use Designation: LD -1, Low Density Residential
up to 3 units/acre(uplands
acreage); and RR -2, Rural
Residential up to 1 unit/acre
(wetlands acreage)
4) Proposed Building Density:
[Possible future densities:
5) Surrounding Land Uses:
North: Vacant
South: Vacant
total project: 1.75
uplands: 3.0 units/acre
total project: 2.17
units/acre or 1.96
units/acre with the
recommended conditions
upland: 3.7
units/acre or 3.36
units/acre with
the recommended
conditions
East: Genesea and Surf Colony single
family subdivisions at a density
of 1.67 units/acre
West: Indian River
6) Landscaping and Buffering: the RS -3 minimum open
space requirements would be satisfied. No landscape
ordinance (84-47) requirements are mandated to apply
to single family homes; however, landscaped berms are
proposed along the project's S.R. A -1-A frontage, and
the project's northern boundary and southern boundary
of the uplands portion.
7) Unit floor area: minimum of 1,500 sq. ft.
68
8) Traffic Circulation: lots are to be served by four
private cul-de-sac roads. The east -west entrance
road off of S.R. A -1-A is to be aligned with Tamrich
Road. The project proposes to escrow funds to
construct an eight foot bikepath along S.R. A -1-A,
and to escrow funds for three-laning improvements
along S.R. A -1-A, prior to final PRD plan approval.
9) Drainage Plan: the conceptual drainage plan includes
the use of exfiltration trenches within the proposed
right-of-way, sodded swales, and a stormwater manage-
ment tract adjacent to S.R. A -1-A. The County
Engineer has approved the conceptual drainage plan
lay -out.
10) Utilities: the City of Vero Beach has verified that
water and wastewater services are available for the
project.
11) Recreational Areas: the PRD recreational area
requirements would be exceeded by the project, which
proposes to utilize an existing impoundment dike as
a jogging trail. Also, a Tract "B" area located in
the uplands portion of the project is to be used for
passive recreation. The applicant would also apply
for a permit to build approximately 20 boat slips as
a common docking facility in the river. The appli-
cant is aware that the County, St. Johns River Water
Management District, D.N.R., and the Army Corps of
Engineers must approve and permit any docking struc-
ture. The applicant is also aware that any concept-
ual PRD plan approval cannot be construed to mean
approval of the proposed docking facilities.
12) Environmentally Sensitive Areas: by future deed
restrictions and plat dedication language, no
residences or permanent structures are to be con-
structed in the environmentally sensitive area,
except for a 6' wide elevated wooden walkway that is
to connect the passive recreation tract to the
proposed docking facilities. A sealed environmental
survey that delineates the environmentally sensitive
areas has been submitted and approved by the
Environmental Planner. At the time of the final PRD
plan approval, permanent restrictions would have to
be filed prohibiting development on the environ-
mentally sensitive lands.
In accordance with the PRD ordinance, the following RS -3 zoning
district requirements would be waived upon approval of the
project.
RS -3 PROPOSED
minimum lot size: 12,000 sq. ft. 6,300 sq. ft. to 15,400
[avg. size ± 9,300 sq. ft.]
minimum lot width: 80 feet 55 feet
minimum lot width for riverfront lots: 45 feet*
front yard setback minimum: 25 feet 25 feet
rear yard setback minimum: 25 feet 20 feet
• side yard setbacks minimum: 15 feet 0 to 20 feet
minimum separation between residences: 30 feet 20 feet
minimum separation betweel riverfront residences: 10 feet*
69
®EC 18 1995
Boas 63 Pnr_ � �,
DEC 19 1995 BOOK 63 P.iCE 70
[*Note: recommended condition #4 would negate these items; all
lots would have a minimum width of 55 feet and all residences
would have a minimum separation of 20 feet]
CONCLUSION:
It is staff's opinion that several conditions should be.,
attached to the proposed plan in accordance with PRD ordinance
criteria for reviewing modified lot and building configu-
rations.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant
conceptual PRD special exception approval to the project
subject to .the following conditions:
1) Water and wastewater service must be provided to the site
(that is, in place or committed prior to final PRD plan
approval);
2) Funds (amounts to be determined at a later date by Public
Works) shall be escrowed prior to final PRD plan approval
for an eight foot wide bikepath and three-laning along the
project's S.R. A -1-A frontage;
3) The County's water access requirement shall be satisfied
prior to final PRD plan approval; (via dedication of an
easement or dedication of the fair market value of such an
easement) ;
4) The riverfront lots shall have a minimum width of 55 feet
and riverfront residences shall have a minimum separation
of 20 feet [thus the total number of lots will be less
than proposed];
5) The zero lot -line wall of residences shall have no
openings in the bottom six feet of the wall;
6) A minimum of three trees meeting the standards of the
Landscaping Ordinance (84-47) shall be planted on each lot
prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for
any residence; and
7) The docking facilities shown on the conceptual plan are
not hereby approved. Review and consideration of docking
facilities shall occur during the preliminary PRD plan
approval process.
Planner Boling commented that the plan applicant actually
submitted differentiated between lots back away from the river
and the lots along the river, with the lots along the river being
45' wide. Planner Boling then presented slides showing what this
plan would look like if it met all seven conditions proposed by
staff and the Planning 8 Zoning Commission, in which all the lots
would be a minimum of 55' wide, and informed the Board that a
total of 48 lots could be attained with those conditions.
70
M M M
Commissioner Scurlock addressed the zero lot line concept,
commenting that he did not believe anyone would disagree with our
goal of trying to preserve environmentally sensitive lands, but
in looking at this plan, he believed this is a unique situation
where possibly we don't have the safety net he was talking about
earlier regarding another item involving environmentally
sensitive lands. He felt there should be some basic requirements
in terms of the minimum lot size that you would not go beyond in
any event. He noted that RS -3 has a minimum of 12,000 sq. ft.
and RS -6 a minimum of 7,200 and this is even smaller than RS -6,
with some lots being as small as 6,300 sq. ft., and now they are
talking about 55' lot widths. In trying to make a comparison,
Commissioner Scurlock noted that Oslo Park has lots 50 x 120,
which is 6,000 sq. ft., and when he thinks of that on the Barrier
Island next to extremely expensive land, it bring questions to
his mind.
Chairman Lyons noted that in the ordinance we have the right
to question whether or not something fits in a certain area.
Commissioner Scurlock felt we should be fair to the
developer as well and wished to know if we have a mechanism to
communicate to the developers what our concerns are so they don't
spend a large amount of money developing something that will not
be acceptable.
Director Keating noted that one of the reasons for the PRD
was to give the developer some discretion in designing a project
that might not meet the strict size and dimension criteria, but
would meet the county's objectives; therefore, we don't have
specific minimum requirements. He emphasized that staff does
encourage the developer to have a preconference with staff before
they get too deeply involved. In the Sixty Oaks project the PRD
provided the opportunity to save trees, and in each case there
are certain benefits to be derived and there are safeguards.
First of all, there is water and sewer available in this case,
and the developer has identified the building envelope by
71
DEC 18 1985 BOOM 63 PALE
DEC 18 1985 sooK PAGE
71
specifically delineating where the building will go on a lot in
relation to other lots. Also there is a buffer required to
visually separate the project from the adjacent right-of-way and
lands. Director Keating felt it is apparent that a lot of people"
think there is an increase in density in the project; however,
this is definitely under Comprehensive Plan maximum density.
Another issue is incompatability, and Director Keating felt the
buffers that are required, landscaping, berms, etc., will lessen
those concerns.
Commissioner Scurlock inquired what effect it would have on
the project if the Board said the minimum size of lots would be
751, and Director Keating was not sure, except that there
definitely would be less lots.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that the City had 50' lots which
created many problems and they tried to get away from them. He
did not see what specific benefit we are achieving in this
project by the density transfer other than just accomplishing
that transfer, and Director Keating stated that besides accom-
plishing the density transfer and protecting the environmentally
sensitive area, we are allowing the developer discretion to be
creative and meet the County's criteria.
Commissioner Scurlock did not see why we should give the
developer a credit when he has a piece of land he can't get a
permit to put anything on anyway.
Director Keating noted that one of the objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan was not to deprive someone of the use of their
land. We do not actually prohibit development there; it would be
very difficult, but not necessarily impossible.
Commissioner Bird felt the point is that the project as
proposed, although creative to some degree, does not fall
completely within our allowable standards, and we, therefore, are
being asked to make an exception to those standards so that it
can be built as proposed.
72
- M M
Commissioner Wodtke was in agreement with the policy re
transfer of density as we want to encourage that environmentally
sensitive lands not be developed, and he did feel a PRD is one of
the best tools we have, but it seems, in this instance, we are
combining these issues. He asked Attorney Vitunac what latitude
the Commission has in reaching a decision in this area that will
put us in a legal position where we are not defying what the
ordinance says there is a certain entitlement to.
Attorney Vitunac stated that, first of all, there is no
entitlement to the applicant. He must make a showing, and if he
makes a showing the Board agrees with, the Board can grant this
at their discretion. There are many pages of items the Board
must consider in reaching a decision, among them being the
character of the neighborhood and the effect on the health,
welfare and safety of the neighborhood. The Board could decide
that this application does not provide what was intended when
they designed the PRD ordinance in the first place.
Chairman Lyons asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
Engineer Darrell McQueen of Lloyd & Associates, Inc., came
before the Board representing Salama Development Corporation. He
emphasized that the 'restrictions staff has put on the plan have
reduced the density down to 47 or 48 units, and that is allowing
the transfer of 5 or 6 units from the 10 acres of wetlands, not
the 10 originally conceived when the consumptive use plan was
being presented at the public hearings which his client attended.
Mr. McQueen expressed his belief that they could permit these
wetlands through the environmental agencies as they have been
successful in permitting a reuse of quite a bit of the environ-
mentally sensitive lands in Grand Harbor, and the DER and the
Corps presently are leaning toward recovery of some 20 to 250 of
these lands for use. In regard to water and sewer, Mr. McQueen
pointed out that Salama is one of the developers who was instru-
mental in helping bring water and sewer service to this area.
73
BOOK F4E 1
DEC 18 198
Bou 63* PAGE 7
Commissioner Scurlock inquired how many lots they could get
on the proposed plan with a minimum lot size of 751.
Mr. McQueen felt probably in the neighborhood of 42 lots, or
six less. They would lose all of their density transfer, and
conditions do require that they have 55' lots. He stressed that
water and sewer have been provided for on this site.
Commissioner Bowman inquired about the elevation that would
be required on the property that backs up to the diked area.
Mr. McQueen advised that the elevation by the river is about
4' and the flood elevation is about 61; he, therefore, would
anticipate 2' fill near the river. He explained that the diked
area is a mosquito impoundment which has been cut off from the
river and does not flush into it.
Commissioner Bowman asked if they would open the dike so
this area could be flooded again, and Mr. McQueen stated that he
has checked this with the developers and neither they nor those
to the south would object.
Commissioner Bowman felt they would have to do this for
protection against mosquitoes, and Mr. McQueen noted that they
would work this out with Mosquito Control re the walkway they
have permitted through there.
Commissioner Bowman then pointed out that they are in an
aquatic preserve and would have a problem with docks.
Mr. McQueen felt this is a unique situation because they
believe this owner actually owns those submerged lands, and if
there is a fee simple ownership, the aquatic preserve does not
apply.
Attorney Michael O'Haire came before the Board representing
the property owners across the street to whom this same developer
sold land under entirely different circumstances. Attorney
O'Haire believed this is one of the most grievous efforts to
avoid the zoning law that he has ever seen, and emphasized that
without reducing the lot size and width that the zoning would
otherwise require, these undersized lots could not be "shoe
74
horned" into that property even without the density transfer. He
also did not think the Commission should be led to believe that
the permitting of this property is such "duck soup." Mr. O'Haire
continued that the environmentally sensitive land isn't there to
be developed and it can't be developed under the county ordi-
nance. He then passed out a graph colored in shocking pink to
demonstrate the number of lots which do not meet the ordinance
and are undersized either in terms of square footage or lot
width, as follows:
t
4
yy�
75
IN
�~ I
h
BOOK UJJ PAU 1
i
® E C 18 1985 BOOK 63 P41E
Attorney O'Haire emphasized that the adjacent residents who
bought in this area believing there would be similar development
nearby are unalterably opposed to this, and they do not care
about a buffer or anything of the sort.
Commissioner Bowman felt she could put it even more bluntly
than Mr. O'Haire. She believed this is simply a method of
circumventing our moratorium on the Barrier Island.
Burt Hambleton of Mooringline Drive advised that he is a
member of the Board of Directors of the Moorings Property Owners
Association, and this represents about 1800 residents who live
about 2500' north of the subject property. Mr. Hambleton stated
that they have no quarrel with the PRD concept, which they feel
is a valid one, but they question its use when environmentally
sensitive lands are involved and question any changes in zoning
that increase density on the south barrier island by allowing a
reduction in square footage requirements from 12,000 square feel
to 6,000 and also reducing the lot width. They feel this will
adversely affect surrounding property and lower values. Mr.
Hambleton stressed that the developer purchased this property
with full knowledge of RS -3 zoning and the restrictions on
development on environmentally sensitive lands. He continued
that the Corps of Engineers has been given unchallenged
jurisdiction over all wetlands, and, therefore, he sees no reason
to consider trading density in return for the developer's promise
not to develop wetlands in the future. Mr. Hambleton requested
that the Board not approve any change in zoning requirements.
Chairman Lyons asked how many were present from The
Moorings, and thirty or more stood up.
Mrs. Landon, owner of two pieces of property in The
Moorings, expressed the opinion that as long as there is the
chance to have a responsible developer develop this land, we
should let him. Mrs. Landon stated that zero lot line
development does not scare her and with the Commission and staff
watching to see they comply with what has been set up, she felt
76
it would be all right. She noted that at the rate of development
on the beach, this conceivably could be all developed in
condominiums in the future.
Jean Ryther, resident of Genesea East, quoted from the deed
restrictions on her property which require 30' front setbacks,
20' rear setbacks, houses of 2,000 sq, ft., two garages, etc.
She stressed that she had to comply with all these things, and
now the same developer wants to change all these rules just
across the street simply because of greed.
Bo Janssen, Sea Turtle Lane, wished to take exception to the
comment made by the lady from The Moorings that in the future we
may go to condos. He believed what is proposed is one step
towards that and he would like to nip it in the bud. As to Mr.
McQueen stating there is water and sewer, there is none. It may
go there in the future, but no date has been set. Mr. Janssen
believed Attorney O'Haire covered the situation very well.
John Mead, President of the Board of Directors of the Sea
Grove Property Owners Association, spoke in opposition to the
proposed special exception approval. He emphasized that people
in Sea Grove bought their land with the protection of the RS -3
zoning and what is being proposed is a mockery of that. Mr. Mead
felt approval of this could only lead to additional requests
which would hurt property values in the area.
William Robinson, owner of nine lots in Bonita Beach
Subdivision, wished to go on record in opposition to the granting
of any special exceptions.
John Ryther, property owner in Genesea West, informed the
Board that he is an environmental biologist and has studied the
river, which is the backbone of this whole area, and seen it
deteriorate since he has been here. He felt putting high density
up against the environmentally sensitive lands and next to the
river is of great concern because the more houses you allow, the
more you introduce the wastes of man into the river, i.e.,
fertilizers, pesticides, etc.
77
BOOK 63 PAGE 77
DEC 18 1985
BOOK 63 FADE 7
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, -SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Scurlock quoted Sec. 25 A.3, which says "Within
a reasonable period of time following the close of the public
hearing, the Board of County Commissioners shall approve with
conditions or deny the application, furnishing the applicant with
a written statement of the reasons for any denial." Based on
that Com. Scurlock stated that he would propose a Motion to deny,
as follows:
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, to deny the request of Salama
Development for PRD special exception approval due
to the uniqueness of the area, which has quality
homes and lots much larger than those being proposed,
as this would be inconsistent and put an unfair burden
on the adjacent property owners, and to use this vehicle
to reduce the width of these lots, etc., is unreasonable.
Commissioner Bird felt it is time to send this developer and
all future developers a clear message that at the time we adopted
the Comprehensive Plan after lengthy study, we created the south
barrier island as single family residential and created zoning
districts with minimum requirements to conform to that, and any
jump like this to try to circumvent that intent is going to be
denied.
Commissioner Wodtke felt that although the proposal is for a
transfer of densities that is allowable under reasonable terms,
the increased density that would result on the upland portion
could have a negative effect on the environmentally sensitive
land and on our river. Commissioner Wodtke stressed that he does
believe in density transfer and in the PRD, but felt in an area
78
like this, it has been brought out for the first time that there
are some problems. He suggested the possibility there could be
some density transfer that does not have to be tied to that
particular upland property but could be transferred to another
piece of property and stated he would like to keep that land on
the tax roll and let them have some kind of passive use.
Commissioner Wodtke did not believe it was the intent on the
density transfers that this would have the effect of reducing the
size of a buildable lot from 12,000 sq, ft. to 6,000 sq. ft.
Chairman Lyons stated that he planned to support the Motion
on the basis that the whole subdivision is inconsistent with the
character of the neighborhood, and he also agreed we should find
a way to make density transfers marketable.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
REQUEST TO MAINTAIN STREET IN FELLSMERE (POWERS)
The Board reviewed the following letters:
'Mr. and Mrs. G.E.'-Powers, Sr.
P.O. Box 174
Fellsmere, FL 329
November 22 1985
Mike Wright, County Administrator
1840 25th St. Q, e���''
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Dear Mr. Wright,
This is a request for an emergency road grading in Fellsmere. We have
tried in the past to maintain this road ourselves, but since Bobby
Chesser put an illegal fence on the east side we can --no longer get
fill.
My father in law has a heart problem and my mother in.law does not
drive. If there should be an emergency I am afraid that an ambulance
could not get to their home in time,.due to the condition of the road.
The correct address for this road is 85th Street - Fellsmere.. If we
could have this road graded once and the fence removed, we could take
care of it ourselves in the future. At the present time it is in such
bad shape that there is nothing we can do.
I invite you to come and look at the road, so that you will see that I
am not exaggerating. You may also call the Mayor of Fellsmere, any of
the Fellsmere City employees, and/or the Fellsmere police. They will
all attest to the fact that this is probably the worst road in the county
at this time.
79
DEC 18 1985 Boa 63 Pa,E 7
DEC 1-8 198b BOOKe PAGED
We would greatly appreciate any help you can give us in this matter. My
father in law is at present having heart problems and the possibility of
needing an emergency vehicle down the above mentioned road is very real.
Sincerely:
" Mr. and Mrs. George E. Powers, Sr. '�^��3��3
571-0110 (work phone)
e.�Bi cam,. es �a
Telephone: (305) 567-8000
1 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960
December 3, 1985
Mr. & Mrs. George E. Powers, Sr.
P.O. Box 174
Fellsmere, F1. 32948
Subject: Request for County to Improve and Maintain
85th Street South of CR 512 - Fellsmere
Ref. Letter: Mr. & Mrs. G.E. Powers, Sr. to Michael Wright
dated Nov. 22, 1985
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Powers:
The County Administrator, Michael Wright, has forwarded a
copy of your November 22, 1985 letter to the Public Works
Division for reply. In response to your request, our staff
has researched the road maintenance in Fellsmere as well as
inspected the site. In the late 1970's the County, City of
Fellsmere, and Fellsmere Farms entered into a maintenance
agreement on certain roads in the Fellsmere area. At that
time, the three parties to the agreement decided which roads
were to be maintained. 85th Street was not then recommended
for County maintenance, nor were any unpaved roads west of
Fellsmere south of CR 512.
The County Commission may accept additional roads for
maintenance, however, the acceptance criteria that the
County uses is based on a numerical evaluations of the
road's function and condition. The Public Works Division
has inspected the road, and based on its use, condition, and
the numerical evaluations, we could not recommend that the
County accept it for maintenance. If you wish this item be
presented to the Board of County Commissioners, please
contact me.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
f�J
9,7:amesW. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director 80
Administrator Wright commented that basically this request
is very similar to the other requests we have had. The County
does not maintain the roads; we evaluate them; this one did not
meet our criteria; and the Powers wished to appeal to the
Commission.
It was noted that no one was present representing the
Powers.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
denied the Powers' request based on staff's
recommendation.
CO. -INITIATED REQUEST - ENLARGE 130 ACRE HOSPITAL/COMMERCIAL NODE
Chief Planner Richard Shearer made the staff presentation,
noting that this request was continued from the previous meeting
as the Board wanted to review a map of the specific property
involved, and it was not necessary to readvertise.
TO: The (Members DATE: December 6, 1985 FILE:
of d of County
Co
DIVIb_ AD CONCURRENCE:
SUBJECT: COUNTY -INITIATED REQUEST
Robert X . Ke t n , A TO ENLARGE THE 130 ACRE
e
Planning & DevelopmDirector HOSPITAL/COMMERCIAL NODE
FROMRich rd Shearer, AICP REFERENCES: CO./INITIATED MEMO
Chief, Long -Range Planning RICH2
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of December 18, 1985.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
The County is initiating a request to amend the Comprehensive
Plan by enlarging the 130 acre hospital/ commercial node located
north of Indian River Memorial Hospital to 205 acres.
On September 19, 1984, the Board of County Commissioners rezoned
150 acres in the hospital/commercial node area (including the
81
DEC 18 195
Boon 63 Phf. 8.
DEC 18 1985 80% 63 FACE 82,
hospital's property) to MED, Medical District. Subsequently, two
other requests for MED zoning (totalling 19 acres) have been
approved bringing the total acreage in the node area zoned MED to
169 acres.
On April 10, 1985, the Board of County Commissioners adopted
boundaries for this node encompassing 120 acres of the total 130
acres allocated. At that time, the Board indicated that they
felt the node should be enlarged to include all of the hospital's
property which consists of 75 acres.
On October 24, 1985, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
4 -to -0 to recommend approval of this request.
On December 4, 1985, the Board of County Commissioners tabled
action on this request until they could review a map of the
proposed boundaries of the enlarged node.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
In this section, a description of the hospital/commercial node
will be provided along with an analysis of the -general proposal
to expand the size of the node.
The Comprehensive Plan describes the hospital/commercial node as:
A one hundred thirty (130) acre hospital commercial node is
located north of the present Indian River Hospital along
37th Street (Barber Avenue). Commercial uses related to the
needs of the hospital shall be the primary use permitted as
well as residential uses.
Based on the Comprehensive Plan's definition of the node as being
located north of the hospital, staff has interpreted this to mean
that the hospital was not originally considered part of the node.
However, now that the hospital and surrounding area.is zoned MED,
Medical District, it does seem more logical to include the
hospital in the hospital/commercial node.
Currently, the 120 acre node boundary includes the fc
Land Use
Indian River Medical Center
Indian River Village Care Center
Vero Care Center
Medical Arts Center & Other Doctor's offices
Rehabilitation Hospital (under construction)
Indian River Associates Medical Office
15ldg. (under construction)
Psychiatric Hospital (site plan approved)
Total Developed or committed acreage
Infill land acreage
Total
r
Aci
9.5
5.3
3.25
4.92
9.5
2.5
8.0
42.97
77.03
120
The proposed 205 acre node would include the following:
Total Developed or committed acreage 42.97
Infill land acreage 77.03
Hospital property 75
Property located east of hospital and
south of Indian River Medical Center 10
Total 205
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendation, staff recommends approval.
82
I
I
-- - -
I
I
J
RS -3 -'
�I.
9
RM -3
4n,
;
.. '
■ M v.q j1'/ �
• � IeT�vn v�vngvrol
•
• • • L• � qi rq• M
r .l� EIi NVt ' - • SEE
• SECTION fr�iyl 0 tt CL
Tt • ro IM
--- I16��a - oa. _—__- --_ _ _ _ • --'7'111' 8�—' _- 0. • M "
B-1
MED
y.•` rG
RM -6 r'\
A
la
J �. ,\ A ,�unuu, uuunuuunuu•u uuuu•n uff _ `'
j 1 ,
T
tIc
1 i
/� 1 _ RS -3 tI
1` 1
�/ \• --. weM/tYt%••WfgLlMlf• , ..- — U Itl cM
4
r., t 1 q t •) • le N■ q M -A—
� er
83
E 1 8 1985 �� f
DEC 18 1985 Be% 63 fnt 8
Chief Planner Shearer emphasized that staff is not asking
the Board to take final action on the node boundaries today, but
just to look at the possibility of amending the Comprehensive
Plan to enlarge the node to 205 acres.
The. Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
There were none.
Commissioner Bowman felt that the ten acres south of the
Indian River Medical Center is a very wet area, and Chief Planner
Shearer explained that area is presently zoned residential and is
southwest of the B-1; it is immediately east of the hospital and
immediately south of the node.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously closed
the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously agreed
to amend the Comprehensive Plan by enlarging the
130 acre Hospital/Commercial Node located north
of Indian River Memorial Hospital to 205 acres, the
boundaries to be set at a later time; said amend-
ment will be included in Ordinance 85-97 adopted
at the December 4th meeting.
84
ORDINANCE NO. 85-97
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE
COUNTY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR: 1) THE
ENLARGEMENT OF THE HOSPITAL/COMMERCIAL NODE LOCATED NORTH OF
INDIAN RIVER HOSPITAL ALONG 37TIi STREET FROM 130 ACRES TO
205 ACRES; 2) THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A FLEXIBLE EASTERN
BOUNDARY FOR THE U.S. #1 COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR; AND PROVIDING
FOR EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Chapter 163 of the Florida Statutes, requires that
local governments prepare and adopt Comprehensive Plans, and
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners has adopted a
Comprehensive Plan pursuant to Florida Statutes, and
WHEREAS, Florida Statutes provide for the amendment of
Comprehensive Plans twice per calendar year, and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the
local planning agency, has held public hearings and made rec-
ommendations concerning these amendments, and
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners has held public
hearings at which parties in interest and citizens were allowed
to be heard, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has determined
that these amendments are consistent with the general spirit and
intent of the County's Comprehensive Plan,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Land Use
Element of the Comprehensive Plan of Indian River County,
Florida, and the accompanying Land Use Map, be amended as fol-
lows:
85
BOOK FAGS
BOOK Uj FA,,E 8
SECTION 1
That page 36 of the text of the Land Use Element of the
Comprehensive Plan be amended to read as follows:
A two -hundred and five (205)
acre hospital commercial node is located north of the
present Indian River Hospital along 37th Street (Barber
Avenue) .
CPOMTnM 7
That page 37 of the text of the Land Use Element of the
Comprehensive Plan be amended to read as follows:
UzS7-#1-S9UTH-Te-4TH-STREHT U.S #1 COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR
The -H: ST -4.1- -Cri- --1-Iiftrt-a-t9-4th
iEitrue -€t-yet--irg-a fRajer
eexteelal-se�ee-area-o-ire--E-o�rrrtr:---�Y3i-a--area w411-eee+A-Rse
�e-�-e-Irl-i-2ec�-bp-f:on�cre�y.-a-l--se•�iee ae�l��ties-mrd--a-Flo--te
1st}11--�al�e�e--aearr- s---a-i-st w11�1e--ire--area-��i-es
deserlbed.
A commercial corridor exists along the east side of U.S. #1
from the Vero Beach City Limits south to the South Relief -.Canal.
The eastern boundary of this commercial corridor shall be approx-
imately 600 feet east of the east right-of-way line of U.S. #1.
However, properties within this 600 foot wide corridor which abut
residentially -zoned property to the east of the commercial
corridor may receive consideration by the Board of Countv Commis-
sioners for residential zoning.
Moreover, the Board of County Commissioners may also consider
extending the commercial zoning beyond the 600 foot depth of the
corridor if the subject property abuts commercial zoning, is not
more than 800 feet east of the east right-of-way line of U.S #1,
and can meet one of the following criteria:
1. The property is located on an arterial street as
designated on the County's Thoroughfare Plan;
2. The property is part of a larger parcel of land that has
at least 100 feet of frontage on U.S. #1 and extends more
than 600 feet east of the east right-of-way line of U.S. #1;
or
3. The property is split b
commercial corridor with t
zoned commercial.
the 600 foot boundary of the
ma-ior part of the Aroperty
CODING: Words in strue#-through type are deletions from existing
law; words underlined are additions.
86
EFFECTIVE DATE
The provisions of this ordinance shall become effective upon
receipt from the Florida Secretary of State of official
acknowledgement 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
SECTION 1 approved 12-18-85
SECTION 2 approved 12-4-85
18th day of December 1985.
BOARD F CO TY COMMISSIONERS
OF 7IDIAN RI ER COUNTY
B f
PA' ICK B. LYONS, ha'rman
CITY OF FELLSMERE - REPLACEMENT OF DRAINAGE CULVERTS
The Board reviewed the following letter from Fellsmere Mayor
Marion Turner:
J '
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
PHONE 671-011a
November 26, 1985
Tity of NPIUnurp
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
POST OFFICE BOX 38
FELL3MERE, FLORIDA .32948
Mr. Michael Wright, County Administrator
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
POLICE DEPARTMENT
PHONE 571-1380
SUBJECT: Request from City of Fellsmere for County Participation to
replace Drainage culverts along Ditch 16 & 17, City of
Fellsmere.
Dear Mr. Wright:
On, November 26, 1985, the County Public Works Director
Jim Davis, and I met in Fellsmere to discuss the County consider-
ation for participating in the funding of culvert replacement
along Ditch 16 & 17 in Fellsmere. Basically, the recent rains
have created major drainage problems in Fellsmere due to runoff
being directed through the City from both City drainage areas
.and unincorporated areas east of Fellsmere. Whereas, the City
of Fellsmere has already spent $10,000.00 to replace small cul-
verts with larger culverts, the City is requesting that the
County fund its fair share contribution to replace 12- 66"
culverts along Ditch 16'& 17.-- The cost of the culverts is esti-
mated at $19,800.00. Approximately 5000 acres of unincorporated
area east of Fellsmere is draining into Fellsmere. The City of
Fellsmere will agree to the following:
87
DEC 18 1985 Boas 6 3 mulE
DEC 18 1985 Book 63 .fAa 8
' 1) Initiate an assessment paving and drainage program to
pave all City streets in Fellsmere. Legal work to implement
this is complete. Engineering work is being solicited. The
County may want to consider an assessment program to pava
those roads in the County east and north of Fellsmere.
2) The City will install the 12 culverts including 'construc-
tion of headwalls.
3) The City will fund approxiamtely $15,000.00 to correct
drainage problems in north Fellsmere.
In conclusion, the City of Felslmere is requesting the county to
fund its fair share of the emergency drainage improvements, so that
the roads in Fellsmere can be reopened to accomodate emergency vehi-
cles and the general public south of Ditch 16 & 17.
The Fellsmere Farms Drainage District has supplied equip-
ment and manpower to correct these problems.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Marion A. Turner, Mayor
City of Fellsmere
Commissioner Scurlock reported that Mayor Turner took him on
a tour to show him improvements that have been made and to
identify a number of areas Fellsmere and the County can work on
jointly. Commissioner Scurlock felt we can help the City out by
supplying some services and possibly through our asphalt
contract. He was very supportive of the City's request that we
provide money for culverts, which he felt was reasonable since we
are impacting them, and he believed this would be money well
spent.
Chairman Lyons requested that the Board discuss funding.
Administrator Wright believed it may have to come out of the
Road 8 Bridge account, probably contingencies, because we have a
limited amount of money in our culvert and bridge repairs, and we
do have a bridge problem that we have to face on a countywide
basis.
Discussion ensued regarding culverts being on an annual
contract, and Administrator Wright was not sure we have them that
large but believed we could negotiate a good price.
Mayor Turner emphasized that Fellsmere is simply asking the
County to participate as.they have in the past by purchasing the
88
culverts; the City is very aware that the major responsibility
belongs to them and they are under way.
Re Fellsmere's paving project, Commissioner Scurlock noted
there is an unincorporated area adjacent to the east, which is
already subdivided and has dirt roads, where he felt the County
may want to consider cooperating in a joint effort to pave some
of those roads at the same time to lower the cost. Mayor Turner
advised that they would have no problem with that.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
authorized staff to negotiate a price on
the culverts requested by the City of Fellsmere
and to appropriate $19,800 from Road & Bridge
contingencies per the following budget amendment:
Account
Title
Account Number
Increase Decrease
Pipe &
Culvert
111-214-541-35,32
$19,800
Reserve for Contingency 111-199-581-99.91 $19,800
ADDITION TO AGENDA - RE MINIMUM SECURITY FACILITY
Chairman Lyons noted that he had overlooked adding an
important item to the agenda - tentative approval of the plans
for the Minimum Security facility so they may be sent on to the
Department of Detentions for their approval. He requested that
this be added at 1:30 o'clock P.M. as a time certain item.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously added
the above item to today's agenda as requested by
the Chairman.
DISCUSS PROTECTION OF TREES ON SINGLE FAMILY LOTS
The Board reviewed memo of Chief Environmental Planner Art
Challacombe, as follows:
89
s
1300f1 FAGS
DEC 18 1995 Boas 63 FAGS 90,
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: December 9, 1985 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: PROTECTION OF TREES ON
SUBJECT: SINGLE—FAMILY LOTS
Robert M. Xbia1ing,e%ACP
Planning & Development Director
FROM;Nrthur Challacombe REFERENCES: Tree Prot.
Chief, Environmental Planning DIS:ARTCHA
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting on December 18, 1985.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Several weeks ago, the Board of County Commissioners raised the
issue of extending the tree protection ordinance to include
single family lots one acre or less in size. Currently, these
size lots are exempt from the ordinance requirements. The only
tree species protected on these lots are mangroves.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS:
Staff, in conducting its review of this issue, analyzed the
degree of potential impact on single family units and reviewed
the effectiveness of the County tree protection program as it
now exists.
The original intent of the tree protection ordinance was to
control the number of mature trees being removed on large
tracts of land. Prior to the adoption of the ordinance,
developers would often completely clear these tracts prior to
site plan approval and, in some instances, clear without any
intent of obtaining site plan approval.
When the tree protection ordinance was initially being deve-
loped, the staff conducted numerous workshops with community
organizations in attendance -r One of the topics of discussion
at the workshops and subsequent public hearings was the issue
of extending the tree protection requirements to single family
lots. The outcome of these discussions was that the County
staff, in its present capacity, could not adequately issue
permits and enforce the ordinance with regard to the numerous
single family lots within the County. The discussions also
indicated that the vast majority of single family homeowners
would protect as many trees as possible due to pride of owner-
ship and increased property values.
Potential Impacts & Benefits of Extending Protection
Staff currently spends approximately fifteen hours per week on
tree protection compliance and enforcement. This time is used
to review site plans and subdivisions, make field inspections,
issue permits, and sometimes prepare violation agenda items.
If tree protection were extended to single-family lots, staff
time devoted to processing applications would be increased by
an additional twenty-six hours per week in order to accommodate
the number of additional tree protection permit applications
(approximately thirteen single-family building permits per
week). This increase does not include additional hours likely
to be spent on increased code enforcement.
Staff also examined the long term staffing commitment that
would be necessary to implement a tree protection program which
includes single-family lots. It is estimated that approxi-
mately 25,000 single-family lots presently exist in the
unincorporated portion of the county. This number will in-
crease dramatically as new development extends into western
fringe areas and Orchid island.
Increased costs to single-family construction will also occur
as a result of implementing an extended program. It is estimat-
ed that a required tree survey for a single-family lot would
average between $140 and $200 when performe& by a professional
surveyor. Additionally, home owners would be required to
install dry wells and other protective measures to ensure that
protected trees are not disturbed by fill material.
The benefits of an extension of the tree protection ordinance
to include single family units do not appear to justify the
substantial increased staff time required for adequate imple-
mentation. On a 10,000 square foot lot, only 40% or 4,000
square feet would be eligible for tree protection under the
current ordinance. This number is further reduced by the
required septic tank and drain field area (600 - 900 square
feet). Since the major objective of the tree protection
ordinance is to protect larger, more mAture trees which cannot
be replaced by a comparable size tree and because protecting
trees of that size would often leave insufficient area on- a
single-family lot on which to build, it appears that the
extension of tree protection to single-family lots would have
limited benefit.
The Existing Tree Protection Program
The Board of County Commissioners has indicated on several
occasions in the past that the tree protection ordinance is not
accomplishing its intended objectives. This opinion arose from
observation of extensive tree removal from non-residential
sites. Although consistent with the tree protection ordinance,
extensive tree removal is allowed on non-residential sites
because of several combined factors in the County zoning code
and the tree protection ordinance, factors which limit total
protection. The most significant factor is the large amount of
buildable area allowed in non-residential zoning districts.
The degree of tree protection in the existing ordinance is
directly related to the maximum buildable area allowed within
various zoning districts. The greater buildable areas allowed
within the commercial and industrial districts combined with
extensive stormwater management requirements reduces the
ability of staff to protect desirable trees on a. site. Alter-
native methods of extending tree protection to the existing
ordinance are:
1) Increasing landscape planting requirements;
2) Allowing staff to require design changes on site plans
where protected trees would be removed (staff currently
recommends such changes, but cannot enforce compliance);
3) Reducing the allowable buildable area in non-residential
zoning districts.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners not
extend the tree protection program to include single famil
lots of o
Commission
Planning &
improving
J
ie acre or less. Staff further recommends that the
consider conducting a joint workshop with the
Zoning Commission to discuss alternative methods for
the County tree protection program.
91
DEC �. 79sooK ��,U�
DEC 18 1965 Boa 63 FAGS B2
Commissioner Scurlock did not see why we should put -this on
the books if we can't monitor it, and Planner Challacombe stated
that there are some alternative, but they are quite complex which
is why staff is recommending a workshop. "
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously agreed
not to extend the tree protection program to
include single family lots of one acre or less and
authorized staff to set up a joint workshop with
the Planning & Zoning Commission to discuss alterna-
tive methods for improving the County tree protection
ordinance.
Commissioner Bowman felt the workshop should include
discussion not only about trees but also "understory."
Chairman Lyons believed we were previously talking about
transfers of density and he would like to have a workshop to
review these and find a way to make them marketable.
Nancy Offutt, speaking in behalf of the development
community, which she emphasized is also interested in protecting
the environment, advised that they really would like to be part
of that workshop as she felt that the concept of density transfer
and of zero lot line development is really not anti -environment
and that PRD is a vehicle whereby the density transfer credit
mechanism can be utilized to protect the environment, encourage
upland development, and also provide a concentration of
development so the site can be better utilized for the enjoyment
of nature.
Chairman Lyons stated that the Board would expect to see
Mrs. Offutt at the workshop.
BARRIER ISLAND MORATORIUM
The Board reviewed memo of Planning Director Keating, as
follows:
92
TO: The Honorable Members DATE:December 11, 1985 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
SUBJECT: BARRIER ISLAND MORATORIUM
FRON�obert M. Keating, AICP�'�EFERENCES:
Director
Planning & Development Division
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of December 18, 1985.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
On March 13, 19.85, the Board of County Commissioners adopted a
moratorium which limited development on the barrier island to one
unit per buildable acre. This action was taken in response to
the requirements of the Hutchinson Island Resource Management
Plan. As per the Hutchinson Island Plan, local governments
within the study area were required to limit barrier island
development until a traffic study could be completed which would
depict needed improvements to maintain a level of service C/D at
buildout.
Since at the time the moratorium was considered by the Commission
the County had already contracted with a consultant to prepare a
traffic study, the Commission put a December 31, 1985 expiration
date on the barrier island moratorium. Because of delays, the
traffic report was not prepared in a timely manner which would
have allowed adoption of the traffic study prior to the end of
the year. Therefore, without further action, the moratorium will
expire on December 31. Currently, the traffic impact study is
scheduled for Board consideration in January. Given that
timeframe, it is anticipated that Hutchinson Island Plan traffic
requirements could be met by the County in February of 1986.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS -
There are two principal alternatives to be considered in relation
to this matter: The first would be as extension of the moratori-
um. With this alternative, the Commission would, by resolution,
extend the existing barrier island moratorium for three months,
until the end of March. This would allow sufficient time for the
County to comply with Hutchinson Island Plan traffic requirements
and ensure that the County complies with plan mandates until
then.
The second alternative would be for the County to let the mora-
torium expire,- allowing development on the island to occur
consistent with comprehensive plan densities. With this alterna-
tive, however, the County would not be in compliance with the
Hutchinson Island Plan. The risk with this alternative is that
the state could take action against the County for non-compliance
with the Hutchinson Island Plan. Such action could lead to
designation of the County as an area of critical state concern.
93
DEC � aooK PAGE "gid
BG,GK PAGE �:
It is staff's position that extension of the moratorium for a
three month period would be sufficient. Based upon inquiries
from developers, it is not anticipated that many projects exceed-
ing the three unit per acre density limitation of the moratorium
would be submitted in the three month January through March
period. Since the impact of extending the moratorium would not
be as significant as the possible consequences of allowing the_
moratorium to expire, it is the staff's position that extension
of the moratorium is the better alternative.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board, through adoption of a resolu-
tion, extend the existing barrier island moratorium until March
31, 1986.
Corimissioner Scurlock did not believe we have any
alternative other than to extend the existing moratorium.
Attorney Vitunac emphasized that this is a temporary
stop -gap action.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
adopted Resolution 85-141, extending the barrier
island moratorium until March 31, 1986.
RESOLUTION NO. 85-141
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, EXTENDING A MORATORIUM ON
THE REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN
EXCESS OF THREE UNITS PER ACRE ON ALL PROPERTY LOCATED
IN THE UNINCORPORATED PORTION OF THE BARRIER ISLAND AND
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS IMPOSED BY INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 85-22
WHEREAS, in Indian River County Ordinance No. 85-22,
the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County declared
certain recitations of fact and of law concerning Orchid Island in
the unincorporated area of Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, in Indian River County Ordinance No.85-22,
the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida
imposed a moratorium on the review and approval of residential
development in excess of three units per acre on all property
94
located in the unincorporated portion of the barrier island in
Indian River County, Florida; and
WHEREAS, the moratorium imposed by Indian River
County Ordinance No. 85-22 expires December 31, 1985, and
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the health,
safety and welfare of the citizens of Indian River County to
extend the moratorium imposed by Indian River County Ordinance
No. 85-22 in full force and effect until March 31, 1986;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
1. Indian River County Ordinance No. 85-22 is hereby
ratified and incorporated herein; and
2. This moratorium shall remain in full force and
effect from December 31, 1985 until March 31, 1986.
The foreqoing 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:
Chairman Patrick B. Lyons Aye
Vice -Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Maraaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared Resolution No.85-141
duly passed and adopted this 18th day of December, 1985.
BOACOUNTY COMMISSIONERS
" OF NDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Attest':"
�,FR A W'RIGH'.
Clerk'•.¢,
DEC 18 1985
L___11
._1r
I
95
B. 1YON,5 CXairman
BOOK P'vj F j, -)
DEC 18 198S
Boa 63
RPC ANALYSIS OF GRAND HARBOR DEVELOPMENT ORDER
Staff Planner Boling made the staff presentation as follows:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: December 17, 1985 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
SUBJECT: REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL
Ro ert M. Keatin , A STAFF REPORT AND ANALYSIS
Planning & Development Director FOR GRAND HARBOR DEVELOPMENT
THROUGH: Mike Miller, Chief ORDER
Current Development Director
FROM: Stan Boling A.s. REFERENCES:
Staff Planner
It is requested that the Board of County Commissioners consider the
following information at their meeting of December 18, 1985.
DESCRIPTIONS AND CONDITIONS:
The Grand Harbor Development of Regional Impact process has followed the
normal pattern of review and approval as follows:
1. Regional Planning Council reviewed the Application for Development
Approval and then transmitted recommendations for the Development
Order (D.O.) to the County;
2. County drafted and adopted the D.O.;
3. Regional Planning Council now reviews the adopted D.O. to ensure
that the regional impacts addressed in their previous recom-
mendations are adequately addressed in the adopted D.O.
The Regional Planning Council's staff has reviewed and analyzed the
adopted D.O. At their December 20, 1985 regular meeting the Council will
officially consider the staff's analysis and recommendations, and based
upon that information the Council will determine whether the County's
D.O. should be modified and whether the deficiencies are such that the
D.O. should be appealed if the County chooses not to change the
development order.
Council's staff, in their review and analysis report, has identified five
"problem" areas within the adopted D.O. Some of the problem areas are
minor; however, some of the areas are considered by the staff to be a
major concern and are issues that the Council staff feels should be
appealed to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission.
Council's staff has recommended that "to assure regional issues are
adequately addressed, Council should vote to take an appeal of the D.O.
approved by Indian River County. Council's attorney should be instructed
to dismiss that appeal when an acceptable D.O. is received."
In its review of the County's adopted development order, the Regional
Planning Council staff identified five issues that, in the Council
staff's opinion, were not adequately addressed in the County D.O. These
issues all relate to specific items included within the Council's
recommendation on the Grand Harbor project which were not incorporated in
the County's D.O. It is the County planning staff's opinion that each of
the issues either should not be included in the D.O., is already included
_in the D.O., or needs minor modification as referenced in the D.O.
96
During review of the Grand Harbor project, the County planning staff
conferred with Council's staff on all modifications and deletions of
Council's recommendations, prior to County consideration of the Dev-
elopment Order. It was County staff's understanding that none of the
recommendation changes were of the magnitude that appeal of the
Development Order (D.O.) would be considered.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
*Major Concerns
The following three issues are deemed by the Council to be major
concerns.
I. Screening of prospective marina users
The Commission expressed reservations about including conditions
that would be difficult to enforce or were of dubious effectiveness.
The County did not include Council's condition 16(a) (required
screening of persons applying to buy or rent marina boat slips to
restrict use by persons with boating violations) because the
condition seemed difficult to monitor and enforce, and because the
condition, if effective at all, would preclude use of the Grand
Harbor to some individuals who could utilize other facilities near
the site. Also, renters, owners, and lessors would only be screened
at the time of application of sale or lease. The prospective buyer
or lessor would not necessarily be the user or the boat operator
with boating violations, and the condition appeared to be easy to
circumvent. Staff felt that better alternative solutions exist,
such as having the State restrict boat registration of individuals
involved in violations that could be detrimental to the West Indian
Manatee.
County staff also felt that the reduction in the number of boat
slips addressed the impacts the Grand Harbor Development would have
on the West Indian Manatee. At such time that the approval of
additional slips is considered (this would constitute a substantial
deviations: refer to condition 17), further requirements could be
added.
The deletion of Council's boater screening condition is Council
staff's primary concern. County staff does not feel that this
condition should be added to the D.O.
II. Discharge of untreated surface water run-off
County staff feels that all of the concerns raised by the Council's
staff are adequately addressed in several conditions within the D.O.
The treatment of stormwater run-off management -is .addressed in
conditions 25 (stormwater management system final drainage plans)
and 26 (surface water management system). These plans must be
approved prior to clearing or construction. The stormwater
management system final drainage plans "...shall be submitted to the
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, St. Johns River
Water Management District, Indian River County, and the Treasure
Coast Regional Planning Council." Thus, the Council is included in
the stormwater management review. The Council is also included in
the approval for the surface water management system plan. The
Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission is not specifically
mentioned as a consulting agency for either the stormwater
management plan review or the surface water management plan review,
although the County would consult with the Commission. However, the
Commission is specifically mentioned as a reviewing/approving agency
for the estuarine waterway and basin system plan, which will address
water quality issues (reference condition 8.d).
County staff feels that these concerns are already addressed in the
D.O. and that no changes or additions are needed.
97
d E C 18 1985
BOOK fnf %
DEC 18 1985 Box 63 FA,
III. Sources of Irrigation Water
Council's recommendation was unclear and contradictory in that the
recommendation was to allow supplemental irrigation water from -
surface water management system lakes (which connect to the shallow
aquifer), yet prohibited irrigation with water derived from the
shallow aquifer. County staff deleted the part of the condition
strictly prohibiting use of water derived from the shallow aquifer,
recognizing that use of the lakes for supplemental irrigation should
be allowed.
County staff agrees with the Council staff that wording should be
added to the D.O. to prohibit use of shallow aquifer wells for
irrigation.
°Minor Concerns
IV. Sweeping of parking areas
In considering Council's recommendation to require a weekly sweeping
program, County staff was concerned about the enforcement and
monitoring aspects of such a requirement. The adopted D.O. gives
the County the right to require the developer to initiate a sweeping
program in the event it is determined that the parking area drainage
system requires it to function properly. The County will ensure
that the design of parking facilities will not preclude the
feasibility of initiating a sweeping program in the future, if
needed. County staff feels that the sweeping program issue has been
adequately addressed and that no changes to the D.O. are needed.
V. Public access to estuarine recreational opportunities
The County did not include
was concerned that public
system would be harmful to
degrade the system as a
positive contributions of ;
be paramount.
Council's condition 10(h) because staff
access into a newly created estaurine
the establishment of the system and would
habitat for juveniles. Protecting the
i new estaurine system was considered to
The County also has a water access requirement that will
that the Grand Harbor project provide public access easements
River, or provide funds to the park development fund,
combination of both public easements and funds.
County staff feels that all recreational issues are ade
cover
CONCLUSION
no
es to the D.O. are neer
require
to the
or a
to
The review of the adopted D.O. by Council's staff proposes changes or
additions that could improve the D.O. County staff feels that the
concerns raised in Council's recommendations have been adequately
addressed in the adopted D.O. and were formulated in coordination with
Council's staff. Changes and modifications to Council's recommendations
were based on the previously described reasonings. Therefore, County
staff feels that, although some changes can be made to improve the D.O.,
the Board of County Commissioners should direct the staff to attend the
Regional Planning Council meeting to express the County's concerns.
98
M M W
Administrator Wright noted that staff learned Monday that it
was going to be recommended that these items be appealed at a
Regional Planning Council meeting on Friday. Planner Boling
informed the Board that staff conferred with the Regional
Planning Council staff before making any changes, and it was
staff's understanding that these items were not substantial
changes and would not be appealed. Planner Boling continued that
the major concern is the requirement that all prospective buyers
or leasors of boat slips be checked for a background of boating
violations.
Administrator Wright could not believe that someone could be
denied the right to buy a boat slip because of a ticket for
speeding in a manatee zone or something of the sort.
Commissioner Scurlock felt we should direct the individuals
who are our representatives on the Planning Council on the
position to take. He personally felt that such screening is
ridiculous and did not know how it could be done or monitored.
Chairman Lyons and Commissioner Bird concurred.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
agreed to instruct our Regional Planning Council
representatives not to support the requirement by
the Regional Planning Council for screening of
prospective marina users.
Commissioner Scurlock felt that the other two items are
basically clarifications, and asked if any more discussion was
needed.
Staff Planner Boling stressed that staff did not want to
encourage public access to the estuarine recreational opportuni-
ties of the system they are creating as it takes a while for the
new habitat to be established. He felt we have sufficient
provisions in our ordinance to assure public access to the river.
99
DEC 18 1985
BOOK FMGE
'uE "
Chairman Lyons agreed. He pointed out that this is•all
private property; the public gets the benefit in the nourishment
of the river; and he did not see why the public should have to
have access.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously agreed
to instruct our Regional Planning Council repre-
sentatives not to support the requirement by the
Regional Planning Council requiring public access
to estuarine recreational opportunities.
Director Keating asked if the Board wanted staff or the
Attorney to go to the Regional Planning Council meeting, and
Chairman Lyons stated it was not necessary as he would attend the
meeting.
LEASE SPACE FOR COUNTY OFFICES
The Board reviewed the following memo from General Services
Director Dean:
100
T0. -The Honorable Members of the Board of County DATE:December 10, 1985 FELE:
Commissioners
THRU: Michael Wright SUBJECT: Lease space for
County Administrator County Offices
a
FROM:_ H. T onny° Dean REFERENCES:
Dire :to
General Services
On November 13, 1985 the Board of County Commissioners approved for
staff to look for approximately 8,000 square feet of office space at
a maximum rate of $7.00 per square foot.
Staff has investigated several options available. As of this writing
two proposals have been received. It has been determined that a
minimum of 6,100 square feet will be required to handle the needs of
the offices which were placed on the priority list.
ALTERNATIVE #1
6,177 Square Feet of Lease space is available in the 2001 Building.
A one year lease, with a one year option to extend, has been proposed
at a rate of $6.00 per square foot or $37,062.00 annually. The
proposed office suites are available immediately and will require
minimum alterations of approximately $1,500 to $2,000 which can be
handled by our Building and Grounds personnel.
Additional suites could be obtained at a later date should the need
arise.
ALTERNATIVE #2
4;800 Square Feet of Lease space is available in new office and'
warehouse space being constructed by Frank L. Zorc. This space has
not been completed as of thig'writing, but is proposed to be
available for occupancy sometime between January 15th and February
1st. Additional space to be constructed of up to 5,000 square feet
is scheduled to be available some time in March. The price per
square foot is proposed at $6.45 or $30,960.00 for the 4800 square
feet.
The plans as presented would require major modifications for our
needs.
RECOMMENDATION
Alternative #1 meets our total space requirements immediately at the
lowest cost per square foot. Therefore, staff recommends that the
lease be approved for alternative #1 and that funds for the remainder
of Fiscal Year 1985-86 be transferred into the proper accounts in the
Building and Grounds budget.
101
DEC 18 198 8001( Ft1GE
M-12
s"91
Director Dean stated that Alternative #1 is the best bet on
a temporary basis and informed that Board that since this memo
was written we need to add 5001, which would be 6,677' and
increase the cost to $40,062. This is an annual amount. He
explained that this space would be needed for everyone now on the
third floor, except Engineering and Probation - it would include
Welfare, the Housing Authority, Veterans Service, Agricultural
Extension, and Soil Conservation
Frank Zorc came before the Board and noted that staff's memo
stated that his building, which is near completion, would require
major modifications, and he would like some details on what this
means as he did not feel that was the case.
Director Dean noted that Lynn Williams, Superintendent of
Buildings 6 Grounds, looked into this and he was not sure what he
meant.
Mr. Zorc continued that his building is ready for drywall,
and it can be modified as desired very easily at this stage. He.
also wished to point out the following advantages of his
building;
a. Less congestion at the location;
b. No parking fines in the lease;
c. No restrictions on your parking;
d. No restrictions on the key being available; there would
be access 24 hours a day and no conflict with any other
tenants.
Mr. Zorc stated that all other lease conditions would be the
same and he would lower his cost to $5.90 a square foot. He
continued that he could provide 4800 sq, ft, by the end of
January and within 60 days after that could bring this up to
8,000 sq. ft.
Commissioner Bowman asked if it was planned to run computer
cable over to the 2001 Building and was informed that was not
planned for either building.
Ma rsha I I Sutton spoke representing the 2001 Building and
stated that he did not come here prepared to get into a bidding
war; he did not anticipate one and did not think this is the
102
� - r
place to do it. Mr.Sutton believed their product meets the needs
the county is looking for; he believed they provide the parking
that is required; and he emphasized that it is in a central area.
Mr. Sutton stated that he was not authorized at this point to get
into bidding, but he would be willing to go back to the bargain-
ing table and go into the proper process.
Commissioner Scurlock expressed his concern about parking at
that location, but believed they have added some.
Mr. Sutton advised that they have a working arrangement with
the land owners across the street and have made provision for
additional parking. He did not believe parking will be a
problem.
Administrator Wright commented that actually the proximity
of this building is not a real factor due to the type of offices
we would be putting there.
Commissioner Wodtke raised a question about the timing of
the availability of the space being a problem, and Director Dean
noted that Mr. Zorc has offered 4800 sq.ft. by the end of
January, but we 'need a minimum of 6,6771. This would delay the
third floor move.
Discussion followed on the dollars involved, and the fact
that we did open a bid and now someone wants a second shot at it.
Mr. Zorc pointed out that the County did not go to the
formal sealed bid process, and therefore, could negotiate right
down to the end. He reiterated that he would have 4,800 sq. ft.
complete January 30th and additional up to 8,000 sq, ft, within
60 days after that.
Administrator Wright felt the timing will hurt us some
because we need to get those people out of the third floor so we
can do some renovating. He did not think for a dime a foot it is
worth it.
Discussion ensued re the figure required for remodeling the
2001 Building, which Director Dean estimated at $2,000 maximum,
and also re parking problems.
103
DEC 18 1985
BOOK }0E 10
DEC 19 198
Mr. Zorc stated that he could offer the entire building
except for a small space for him to work out of, which would
provide about 5,500 sq, ft. by the end of January.
Commissioner Wodtke noted that we are going to be meeting
again this afternoon, and he suggested that we table this
discussion and let the Administrator meet with those involved and
have staff come back with a recommendation.
The Board thereupon recessed at 12:15 o'clock for lunch and
reconvened at 1:30 o'clock P.M. with the same members present.
LEASE SPACE FOR COUNTY OFFICES (Continued)
Administrator Wright reported that staff had met with Mr.
$-utton who represents the 2001 Building and Mr. Zorc, and they
submitted new bids. Mr. Zorc offered space at $5.74 per square
foot, and Mr. Sutton at $5.70, and he, therefore, recommended
leasing space at the 2001 Building.
Mr. Zorc pointed out that these figures are only 4� apart,
and the 2001 Building requires about $2,000 for remodeling. He
asked staff if that figure included all costs, and was informed
that figure did not include the County labor. Mr. Zorc argued
that the remodeling cost, therefore, accurately would be closer
to $4,000 and would amount to a difference of about 704 more per
sq. foot.
Administrator Wright emphasized that the other consideration
is time as we need to get these people moved so we can get
Engineering together and get Finance straightened out. He noted
that this is a close bid; he felt it was done equitably; and he
would recommend the 2001 Building.
Commissioner Bowman did believe parking is a serious
problem.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, to accept staff's
104
recommendation to lease space at the 2001
Building and to authorize the signature of
the Chairman to the lease.
Commissioner Bowman did not like the various restrictive
clauses in the 2001 lease, and was not sure our people will have
access to that building on weekends and holidays.
Commissioner Scurlock stated that he personally preferred
the space offered in the vicinity of the County Administration
BUilding mainly because of the parking situation.
Commissioner Wodtke advised that he seconded the Motion
because from what he understands we need to move now and we need
to move with the certainty that the space is available; this is a
temporary situation, less than two years.
Mr. Zorc continued to argue that up to 5,500' would be
available within 30 days, but Commissioner Wodtke pointed out
that we would have to move twice in that case, would have to
install telephones, etc., and all that would be available at the
2001 Building.
Commissioner Scurlock continued to stress the importance of
the parking situation and access to the building.
Commissioner Bowman felt the Zorc building has better
restroom facilities, but Administrator Wright asked how the
public could use them and pointed out that there would have to be
access for the handicapped.
Chairman Lyons stated that he planned to vote for the 2001
Building even though he did not like the parking because it is
there and ready, and we have to move.
Commissioner Wodtke concurred that is the key issue.
Attorney Vitunac recommended that we make the same changes
to the 2001 Building lease that we made for the Sheriff's lease
up in Sebastian because the lease is the same form lease that the
Schlitt Agency puts out and it is totally unacceptable.
105
DEC 18 1965 B0®K63
��`
DEC 18 198
Commissioner Bird and Commissioner Wodtke agreed to -make the
Attorney's recommendation part of their Motion and require that
the lease be one that is acceptable to the County Attorney.
Mr. Zorc requested that the record clearly show that if the
Board accepts the 2001 Building space, it will cost more per
square foot, but the Chairman did not feel that Mr. Zorc has
evaluated what the delay in moving would cost the county.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION as amended
re the lease form. It was voted on and carried
3 to 2 with Commissioners Scurlock and Bowman
voting in opposition.
It was noted that the money is to come from General Fund
S,
Contingency.
(SAID LEASE WILL BE MADE A PART OF THE RECORD WHEN
FULLY EXECUTED AND RECEIVED.)
CHANGE TO INDIAN RIVER WELFARE DEPARTMENT GUIDELINES
Joyce Johnston,,Director of Welfare, reviewed the following
memo, noting that this change does not cost anything:
106
TO: Michael Wright, DATE: December 4, .1985 ti F� •'`Ej%IED
County Administrator �.a�oisoh:ce
�..� A
dm
Through: To y Thomas
SUBJECT: Change to Indian River
Welfare Department Guidelines
FROM: Joyce M Johnston REFERENCES: See Attached
IRC Welfare Depar m t
Dr. Tucker, Director Indian River County Public Health Unit,
has requested that the Indian River County Welfare Departments
guidelines of eligibility, for the School Health.Physical
Exams, be changed to 150% of the most recently published GSA
poverty guidelines.
This change will unify all eligibility standards processed by
the Welfare Department for the Health Department. By using a
standard guideline for screening, the case load will not
change for the Welfare Department but could well reduce the
processing time.
With the present eligibility being 150% for some programs and
100% of GSA poverty guidelines in other programs there are
families in the county who qualify for some of the services,
provided by the Health Department but not others. Dr. Tucker
now has an increase in staff which will accomodate the increase
in clients that this change will cause his department.
I would recommend this change be macre to the Welfare Guidelines.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
approved the change in Welfare guidelines
as recommended by Director Johnston.
CITRUS LEAGUE RE BRIDGE WEIGHT_ RESTRICTIONS
Public Works Director Davis reviewed the following memo:
107
DEC 18 j � BOOK 63 PAIGE197
DEC 18 1985 BOOK 63 Eula
TO: The Honorable Meabers of the DATE: Decor 9, 1985 FILE:
Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH:
Michael Wright,
County Administrator Indian River Citrus League
SUBJECT: position on Bridge Weight _
Restrictions
FROM:James W. Davis REFERENCES:
P.E.,
Public Works Director
111) :NSM �)► :►I� •��a �u ".�
On Wednesday, Dec. 4, 1985 the Public Works Director attended a special
called meeting of the Indian River Citrus League Transportation Committee
to discuss the proposed weight restrictions on County Bridges. A copy of
the meeting agenda is attached.
Basically, the Cdnmittee's position is that certain County roads are more
critical citrus hauling routes than others, and that the citrus industry in
the County can issue a communique that directs drivers to use those major
roads. The hauling routes are as follows:
East/West Routes
1) Wabasso Road (85th St.) from CR 512 to A -1 -A 4 County bridges
2) Lindsey Road (49th St.) from 74th Ave to US 1 No County bridges
3) SR 60 No County bridges
4) Oslo Road 7 County bridges
North/South Routes
5) 82nd Avenue - Oslo Road to Wabasso Road 3 County bridges
6) 66th Avenue (Lateral "A") - SR 60 to Wabasso Rd 1 County bridge
7) 58th Avenue (Kings Hwy) -SR 60 to Olso Rd. 1 County bridge
8) 43rd Avenue - Oslo Rd to S. County line No County bridges
9), US 1 - No County bridges
Of the 16 bridges included on the above routes, they all should be included
in a replacement program. Thirteen of the sixteen bridges are on routes
which are scheduled for widening -in the 20 year Capital Improvement Program
funded with Impact Fee revenue. Widening the existing bridges is not
feasible since the existing structures are not designed to accommodate the
State legal loading for H2O or combination trucks.
The Transportation Committee of the Citrus League will publish a map
showing the above routes as "Citrus Hauling Routes" and will initiate an
informational/educational program. The County may establish a policy that
for these routes, the bridges will be posted at the operating rating or
maximum, possible rating authorized by the State. Inspection frequency of
these bridges should be increased to every 6 months instead of the 2 -year
cycle mandated by the nM. Frequent maintenance shall be scheduled.
The retraining bridges shall be posted as recommended by staff in it's Nov.
12, 1985 memorandum.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
The following is recommended
1) Designate the above 9 roads as "Citrus Hauling Routes" in Indian.River
County. Posting if necessary shall be "Operating Rating".
108
2) Initiate a Bridge Replacement Program (10 to 20 year CIP) to replace
the 16 bridges on these roads (estimated 1985 cost - $8 million.)
Finding to be determined.
3) Post all other bridges on County roads as recommended by staff. The
staff has not yet received the remaining 42 bridge reports from the
DOT.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if we now are in agreement with
the Citrus League on this, and Public Works Director Davis
confirmed that we are except for one letter from the Golden River
Packing Company written to Mr. Bournique of the Citrus League,
which states that they basically are in agreement with the
recommendations with the exception that they feel the north and
south corridor for 58th Avenue should be extended northward from
SR60 to CR 510. Director Davis noted that there is one bridge,
on that route that being the one over the North Relief Canal,
which was to be rated at 33 tons. They are requesting that be
added to the citrus hauling route.
Chairman Lyons inquired what tonnage that bridge would be,
and Director Davis stated that it would be unposted and open to
any traffic or trucks under the state legal load limit.
Administrator Wright asked how he felt about that bridge,
and Director Davis stated that the bridge itself had some repairs
in the last 11 years. but it is not in any worse shape than the
other 70 or so being recommended for a 33 ton rating; it is one,
if included on the route, that we would monitor more frequently
than the mandate. Director Davis did not have a problem
including this bridge which is Bridge #0043 on Kings Highway just
north of 53rd St.
Commissioner Wodtke's concern was that if we are going to
decide on a designated route for the citrus haulers and send a
notice to them saying they can use Kings Highway, how can we
move some of the major traffic off to 66th or will this just put
it all back on Kings Highway.
Director Davis stated that he would prefer that 66th Avenue
(Lateral "A") be the major north south route for citrus since
58th Avenue (Kings Highway) is more residential.
109
Q E C 1 r 1995
BOOK P'� f
DEC 13 1985 BOOK
Commissioner Wodtke then brought up Bridge #4016 on 90th
Avenue, which is a 33 ton bridge. He noted that Mr. Richardson
has indicated that is a critical bridge as far as his hauling of
fruit is concerned, and he wondered if there had been any
discussion of this by the Citrus League. It was indicated there
had been none.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if we want to eliminate Kings
Highway and approve the recommendation as is or if we want to
allow flexibility for Golden River and modify the staff
recommendation.
Chairman Lyons expressed concern about the Board deciding
something without actually knowing what a bridge will take.
Administrator Wright requested that Mr. Davis explain the
difference between the different ratings.
Director Davis handed out a new map which reflects all the
bridges in the county, and Commissioner Scurlock noted a bridge
on 66th Avenue appeared to be posted for 6 tons. Director Davis
explained that the green coloring on that bridge indicates that
it is scheduled for immediate repair work. He then explained
that the inventory rating is that at which structures can be
utilized frequently without any restrictions for an indefinite
period of time. On many of our bridges the most common inventory
rating is 25 tons; that is the most conservative rating. The
operating rating, or maximum rating, determines the ultimate
strength of the bridge and is not a rating at which vehicles
should be using that bridge at that weight limit for an
indeterminate length of time. It would require more frequent
inspection, better maintenance, etc.
Commissioner Scurlock wanted the Director's recommendation
as he is the professional and we are relying on him to inform us
what is consistent with the Citrus League wishes and with our
liability.
Director Davis advised that his recommendation before he met
with the Citrus League was to post most of these bridges at 33
110
tons. That would restrict the C-5 trucks which they use because
they would have to load them so that they do not exceed 33 tons,
and this would be a hardship on them..
Chairman Lyons felt that if our bridges won't stand their
loads, they will have to arrange for smaller loads until we can
do something about the bridges
Administrator Wright believed what the Public Works Director
is saying is that the maximum tonnage the bridges can carry is 40
tons, and Director Davis confirmed that most of the bridges are
similar, and the operating rating, the maximum rating, is
basically no posting.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if Mr. Davis had a recommenda-
tion that is reasonable for the citrus people, meets our
liabilities, and is one that he feels comfortable with.
Director Davis confirmed that he was comfortable with the
recommendation in his memo.
Commissioner Bird questioned the rationale for using Lateral
"A" which has eleven bridges as the main north south route when
Kings Highway only has one bridge for the same distance.
Commissioner Wodtke explained that all the bridges on
Lateral "A" (66th Ave.) but one are actually on the side streets
and are used to go east and west. The citrus haulers can go over
any of these bridges when their trucks are empty, but when they
are full, they will have to take a different route.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock,
SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, to adopt
staff recommendation set out in memo dated
December 9, 1985.
Doug Bournique of the Indian River Citrus League asked if
this would include Kings Highway as Golden River wanted 58th
Avenue included from SR 60 to CR 510. He was advised that it
would include Kings Highway south from SR 60 only, and Director
63 f
111
DEC 18 1985 Boa nE _'
D E C 18 1985 BOOK Pace
Davis believed we should encourage the citrus industry to use
66th Avenue instead.
Discussion ensued regarding the truck traffic that would
come up Kings Highway, and Commissioner Bird suggested including
58th Ave, from SR60 just to Lindsey Road (49th St.)
Commissioners Scurlock and Bird agreed to include that in
their Motion.
Commissioner Wodtke again brought up the problem for Mr.
Richardson's packing house as he is not on any of the routes
indicated and suggested including 90th Avenue on the citrus
route.
In discussion, Director Davis noted there is only one bridge
shown on that route and had no objection. Commissioner Wodtke
therefore, requested that the Motion be amended to include going
from Oslo Rd, to SR 60 on 90th Avenue.
Commissioners Scurlock and Bird agreed to reword their
Motion as follows:
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock,
SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, to adopt
staff recommendation set out in memo dated
December 9, 1985, and to add the following:
58th Ave. from SR 60 to Lindsey Rd. (49th St.)
90th Ave, from Oslo Rd. to SR 60.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
EXT. INDIAN RIVER BLVD. - R/W ACQUISITION (VISTA PROPERTIES)
Public Works Director Davis made the following presentation:
112
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: December 9, 1985 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH:
Michael Wright, Southerly Extension of
County Administrator Indian River Boulevard -
SUBJECT: Right -of -Way Acquisition,
Vista Properties
FROM: REFERENCES) James W. Davis to Bob
James W. Davis, P.E. Gaskill, Vista Properties
Public Works Directo dated June 12, 1985
2) RnhPri- anski i i , Vint,;;
Properties, to Jim Davis
dated Sept. 9, 1985
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
As previously requested by the Board of County Commissioners when the
right of way for the Indian River Boulevard Southerly Extension was
approved, staff has met with Vista Properties, the officers of the
Vista Gardens Property Owners Association, and Mr. Ed Schlitt, owner
of land between the Boulevard Right of way and Vista Gardens, to
resolve future property access, drainage, and buffering. The attached
drawing illustrates the proposed access plan to serve the Southern
properties along the Boulevard.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
As summarized in Bob Gaskill's Sept. 9, 1985 letter, Vista Properties
is agreeable to the following:
1) Donate to the County the triangular parcel at the Northwest
corner of their property for Boulevard right-of-way.
2) Agree to a connection between the Vista Gardens access road
and Indian River Boulevard approximately 600' east of US 1.
Mr. Ed Schlitt has already executed a deed to the County for
this connection. The County would include this construction
in its construction contracts.
3) Granting to the County a drainage easement for overflow
purposes through the Vista Gardens Property discharging into
the golf course lake system.
Vista Properties is requesting that the County agree to assure the
local approval for a full movement entry onto US 1 -(future construc-
tion by Vista Properties) located approximately half way between the
South Relief Canal Bridge and Indian River Boulevard at US 1. This
new connection onto US 1 will permit the closing of the existing Vista
Gardens/Vista Properties driveway which will be too close to the new
proposed US1/Indian River Boulevard intersection. The result in
staff's opinion is a safer connection onto US 1. Final construction
of the new entry will be subject to Florida DOT approval. The DOT
Traffic Operation section has verbally approved this driveway relo-
cation.
Staff is currently meeting with the officers of the Vista Gardens
•Property Owners Association to resolve the issue of a wall or buffer
along the Vista Gardens frontage. The County's consultants have
recommended an 8' high wall along Vista Gardens. This will mitigate
effects of the Boulevard on the first floor units at Vista Gardens. A
14' high wall would be needed to intercept the effects on second story
units (see attached sketch).
113
DEC 1
DEC 18 1985
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
BOOK 63 F,1E�'-
Staff recommends that the Board approve the Vista Gardens/Vista
Properties access plan. Funding of the approximately 300' access
connection to Indian River Boulevard (approx $20,000) to be from
Second Gas Tax Revenue.
r r�0
N aF � xD •.LA
N N ➢D�m �`
n d=pi c�`I
SNHGbb5 7171-ldt
1
a
J ria
� a p
d roWl
v
450 OI'
�I $OT16. 4S"I --
NFy-
i
16i
I
I
I ti
� N
s@
114
- -
1-0
I
I
Q
mai
r
8
A
� I
1
U
11
m1p
II
2G+
-- - i
-
D
'. <O
OM
i
Dv
-
N L m
DA
In
9
my
I
I!
A
I
114
- -
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock,
SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, to approve
the Vista Gardens/Vista Properties access
plan; funding of the 300' access connection
to Indian River Boulevard to be from Second
Gas Tax revenue.
Commissioner Bird stated he would approve this in concept,
but he believed the Property Owners Association had a great deal
of concern about sharing that entrance with commercial interests.
Also they have a beautiful entranceway, and he wished to know if
that will be recreated with the same garden type approach or will
they have to share their entrance with a shopping center as he
felt they were pretty sensitive about this.
Director Davis advised that this was discussed and basically
they would like the option of keeping that existing entrance as a
right turn -in only for those northbound on U.S.I. They would
restrict any egress from that connection.
Bob Gaskill informed the Board that he has been working with
both Director Davis and the Home Owners Association and basically
what they are looking for is just a replacement of the existing
entryway on U.S.I. He explained that an easement for that was
granted to the Association in the original declaration. The
original easement was -for the front property and the Association;
it is an easement and not a deeded right-of-way so it was going
to be shared regardless with commercial or whatever is up front
and they are aware of that. Mr. Gaskill believed they are in
full agreement with what is being proposed except that the latest
memo refers to the existing entranceway being closed off, and
they do not want that. He did, however, feel the main way in and
out will be on Indian River Blvd.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
115
DEC 18 1985
BOOK 63. FA+ E 1 -15
DEC 18 1985
Bl101{
Mr. Gaskill wished to review just what the County is going
to do to be sure all this is tied together - the wall, etc.
Chairman Lyons believed this is all outlined in the memo,
and Director Davis confirmed it is, but that we still are working''
with them on the fence. They may want us to construct a berm and
put a fence on top of a berm, but he felt that would be quite
expensive - about $100 a foot and 1,0001. He further noted that
we cannot detract from the drainage design for the Boulevard.
Commissioner Scurlock believed our commitment was that we
will do the best job we can, but economics will have to be a
consideration.
Chairman Lyons believed the noise is from the engine level
and doesn't come up high, and Com. Wodtke also noted that a 14'
wall would cut off the air flow.
In further discussion, it was agreed that everything is
settled but the fence and buffering.
DISCUSSION GOLF COURSE CONSTRUCTION TIMETABLE AND FINANCING
Administrator Wright reviewed the following memo:
INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: The Honorable Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Michael Wright, County Administrator
SUBJECT: Golf Course Construction Timetable
Working with Commissioner Bird, the staff has prepared
a tentative timetable for the construction of the Sandridge
Golf Course.
Detailed.below are the key dates in 1986:
Jan. 15 Award construction bids.
Jan. 22 Select architect for design of
the cart storage building, mainte-
nance building, rain shelters,
club house parking lot and site
work and, depending on subsequent
Commission action, the club house.
Feb. 5 Recommendation to the Commission
on club house size, construction
operation and management.
116
� � r
M
June I Groundskeeper employed.
Aug. 1 Golf course is planted and County
begins maintenance during grow
in period. A portion of the mainte-
nance staff should also be employed
by this date.
Nov. 1 Depending on the management decision
by the Commission, the golf course
manager/pro is employed.
Jan. 1, 1987 First day of play.
It will be very difficult to make a decision on the size
and operation of the clubhouse until the County receives the
course construction bids. Although $250,000 is allocated for
the building, this amount may need to be reduced if bids for
other aspects of the project exceed the budgeted amount.
There are at least four options the County can consider
for the operation of the golf course and/or clubhouse. They
are:
A) Lease out on a long term basis the total operation
of the golf course and clubhouse. At least two manage-
ment companies have tentatively indicated they might
be willing to enter into an arrangement with the
County.
B) Build the -club house and lease it out to a third party.
The County would maintain and operate the golf course.
C) Build the clubhouse and operate the facility as a
County department.
D)' Enter into a ground lease with a third party to build
and operate the clubhouse.
In order to meet the February 5th deadline, it is recom-
mended the County pursue its available options by' advertising
for an architect t -o design the structural items not included
in the golf course architect's contract. If the County subse-
quently chooses to build a clubhouse, this architect would
also be responsible for its design.
It is also recommended the County advertise for responsible
parties who might be interested in operating the golf course
and/or clubhouse on a lease basis.
If you require additional information, please advise.
Chairman Lyons believed we are going to have to look at what
we are going to do with the clubhouse.
Commissioner Scurlock advised that the main problem that has
arisen is whether we will reserve that land for irrigation or
well source; he believed this is up in the air.
Administrator Wright advised that the financial commitment
is basically the same, but the source may not be the same; we are
receiving bids for the financing of the golf course, and he felt
strongly we need to award the bids prior to December 31st. He
117
DED 18 1985 BOOK FPS
D E C 18 1985
max 63 f -Aa
J.
explained that if we close after that, we may be subject to the
new provision that says you can't use but 100 of tax free money
for private enterprise, which would preclude us from going to any
type of lease situation. The Administrator noted that we don't
have another Commission meeting before January, and he, there-
fore, would like to recommend that the Board authorize a
negotiating committee made up of Commissioner Scurlock, Inter-
governmental Relations Director Thomas, and OMB Director Joe
Baird, to work with the financial underwriter and commit the
County to the bond issue within certain acceptable limits. The
alternative would be to bring a recommendation to a Special
Meeting. _
Commissioner Bird expressed his willingness to entrust this
to those named, and the Chairman concurred.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
authorized the Chairman of the Finance Committee
and staff and the M.G.Lewis representative to
negotiate a bond issue within the known guidelines
of the financial needs of the county and authorized
the Chairman to sign any necessary documents subject
to approval by the County Attorney.
TENTATIVE APPROVAL - MINIMUM SECURITY FACILITY
The Board reviewed memo from General Service Director Dean:
118
W W W
TO. The Honorable Members of DATE: December 13, 1985 FILE:
the Board of County
Commissioners
THRU: Michael WriSUBJECT: Phase II
County Adminis or Department of Detention
H. T. "Sonncan
FROM: Director REFERENCES:
General Services
In November the Board authorized staff to work with W. R. Frizzell.
Architect and come up with a design for the subject facility. Afte_
several telephone calls and meetings, we would like to recommend a.
building as per attached sketch.
Should the Board approve the recommendation, we will hand carry the
plans to the Department of Corrections in Tallahassee for their
approval. By handling the procedure this way we feel that valuable
time can be saved in order to expedite the completion date.
V�^ FIRST FLOOR 15,468 Sq. Ft.
?S MECHANICAL 229
SECOND FLOOR 4,029
J' 19,726 SQ. FT. TOTA
I
OPFIOH LAV URL. OTORAOe
BIoLlC9
'� /TnOLC9 ` �yyy
� 1 HALL
11 tT.e.c y
LAUNDRY ItI � HULTIPURP09E
FFL p - - ' i I �ocFlce I sw cuNv rouN
AYD7weY
v.LTSR NON -CONTACT' INMATES
CLOTNINOI t9DUH - _ - - — - r
/ - pH.CM e6NGN NON • CONTACT' V1917OR9
eeN� 8MLY /TO3LST
eFF.W L
ONO 6R r �.O LWIDI '-':• Q
\\ TDac r
_ LOnDY
I i
'<,eNN,ce
• 7 aLri..T mews
2_ •c
17DRMITORY QORMITL�RY (M17')
I
I
o
DEC 18 1985
I �ORMRCRY Cb•t9'1 ('J � ' C, CJ
11
13•s'•wN eauN v4L I
•---, I I I
f�ufI
George Bail of Frizzell Architects reported that since this
was done last month they have had a series of meetings with the
Jail Committee, and he requested Mr. Stroud to "walk through" the
proposed building:
Mr. Stroud briefly reviewed the proposed plans, noting that
this was a pod that they had figured in the overall planning.
The estimated cost is about 1.6 million. Pod A, which is already
under construction, will have 156 beds, and this facility will
add 120 more.- The proposed two story open dormitory section is
designed with an upper level around the perimeter, and there are
to be five dormitories with 24 inmates each, 12 on the lower
level and 12 on the upper level. The administrative section has
two offices for staff, two for counseling, and a medical office,
plus a non -contact visiting area and a multipurpose area.
Commissioner Scurlock inquired if the architects felt the
Department of Corrections will approve this plan, and they
confirmed that they did.
Board members had questions about expansion possibilities
after this is built and staffing level. Mr. Stroud advised that
expansion is allowed for one additional pod, and Administrator
Wright reported that the staffing will require about 12 more than
we have on board now.
Mr. Stroud then explained the actual operation of the work
release features where the inmates line up and get their
clothing, go out to work, return, turn their clothing back in,
are searched, etc.
Chairman Lyons had trouble with the term "work release" as
this actually is a supervised work detail. He asked Mr. Bail if
he was satisfied with this design, and Mr. Bail confirmed that he
was.
Commissioner Scurlock emphasized that he wanted to have
provisions in the administration of this facility to be sure that
the higher risk prisoners don't get in the low risk facility. He
120
inquired where the prisoners eat and was informed that they will
eat in their cells, which is a different set up than in the
maximum security facility
Commissioner Bird inquired about air conditioning and was
advised that only the living space will be air conditioned. The
shower and laundry areas will be heated and ventilated, and the
storage area ventilated.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
granted tentative design approval of the
proposed minimum security facility and author-
ized submission of said design to the DOC for
approval.
Discussion ensued regarding financing of this facility,
which was estimated to cost approximately $80.00 a sq. ft.
Chairman Lyons emphasized that he would like to get this facility
completed at the same time as the first phase, but wondered how
we go about getting a decent bid from the existing contractor who
is already mobilized'on the site.
Commissioner Scurlock believed that construction costs in
this county will be much more competitive than they were before
as things are pretty slow now.
Mr. Bail advised that he would like to have an independent
cost estimator make a detailed estimate when their plans are
completed so we can have a comparison, and the County could go
either on a negotiated lump sum contract or a negotiated cost
plus fixed fee with a fixed maximum. If the latter course is
followed, then the estimates which each sub prepares would be
available for the County to examine and compare with the
estimates we have prepared. It would probably be decided in any
area where it could be done practically to take a competitive
121
DEC 18 1985 BOOK fAGE '�"
DEC 18
BOOK
bid. There would be an advantage, of course, to having the same
subs throughout the project.
Administrator Wright believed we should agree jointly with
the architect on the cost estimator because it will get down to
the architect and us negotiating with the contractor, and he felt
the Board would feel more comfortable if we both agree on an
estimator.
Commissioner Wodtke felt having an independent cost estimate
done separately from the architectural firm would make everyone
feel more comfortable.
Commissioner Scurlock did not see where we are saving the
time because you can't actually get the final price until the
architect has completed all of his plans and drawings.
Mr. Bail brought up the possibility of going on a phased
basis, i.e., the foundation could be designed before the rest of
the building design is completed. If you are working on a cost
plus basis, you can negotiate a fee with the contractor, and he
could proceed to get quotes and estimates and perhaps let the
foundation contract before the plans are entirely completed.
Discussion ensued about the need to expedite construction
and try to get these buildings completed at the same time so we
don't have to split up staffing with a temporary situation at the
old jail, and Administrator Wright spoke of the coordination
problems that would be involved with having two separate
contractors on the same site; he felt it would be preferable to
stay with the present contractor if he is reasonable.
Discussion continued re the problems that would be involved
re coordination, staffing, movement of laundry from one building
to another, feeding inmates, etc., and it was also noted that we
do not want to prolong the finish date of the first phase.
Mr. Bail assured the Board that they will move as quickly as
possible and stated he would like to come back in a few weeks
with some recommendations.
122
M
� � r
SEWER FACILITY FOR THE FAIRGROUNDS
Administrator Wright reported that sometime ago we had a
problem with the carnival people dumping sewage on the ground at
the fairgrounds site, and the Board asked staff to come up with a
solution. Our engineer has designed a small system that can
accommodate this particular need - basically a collection system
and two holding tanks, which will cost about $6-8,000. This
system will not provide for long term occupancy. Parks and
Recreation has agreed to lend money to the Fairgrounds to
construct this.
Commissioner Scurlock expressed concern that we don't end up
with what amounts to a mobile home park at that site. He
expected that facility will be continuously expanding and in
operation almost year round with the various events, and he did
not want to have an individual who possibly could attach himself
to these various activities, selling sun glasses, etc., who would
stay there year round.
Commissioner Bird noted that as the Fairgrounds is used
more, these will be occupied more, and he agreed we will have to
be sure that it is on a transient basis. The immediate need,
however, is to find a safe way for the Daeggler people to make
use of the site. In February we will have the Regional Surf
Casting meet and then monthly events for mud bogging and
go-carts. Commissioner Bird believed initially there will be
thirty or so hookups.
Utilities Director Pinto pointed out that the proposed
facility is not a temporary one; it is one phase of a permanent
facility.
Commissioner Bird reported that the Parks & Recreation
Committee agreed that we could take $6-8000 out of the P 8 R
capital improvements funds and loan it to the Fairgrounds
Authority, the idea being that we will ask Daeggler Amusements
and the Firefighters for some money to offset this. The hope is
to have this repaid to a large extent this coming year.
123
DEC 1 IS85 BOOK 63 FI1GE J23
DEC 1 1985
Commissioner Scurlock inquired about a fee structure for use
of this facility, and Director Thomas believed there will be a
daily fee for hookup.
Commissioner Bowman inquired whether there would be a -dump
station at this location and was informed there would not. She
expressed concern about people who do not wish to pay dumping
indiscriminately.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board authorized staff
to proceed with construction and funding of
sewage facilities at the Fairgrounds as described.
CONVEYANCE OF A PORTION OF OSLO CEMETERY PROPERTY
Attorney Vitunac reviewed the following memo, noting that
once this transaction takes place the cemetery will be sold to
someone who wants to buy it.
10-
Board of County commissionerrsA : December 4, 1985 FELE.
SUBJECT:
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
CONVEYANCE OF A PORTION
OF OSLO CEMETERY PROPERTY
FROM: REFERENCES:
Charles Vitunac ;
County Attorney
The driveway to the home of Mr. Charles E. Roberts crosses Oslo
Cemetery to reach Old Dixie Highway. Mr. Roberts has submitted a
check in the amount of the appraised value of the parcel of
property upon which his driveway sits ($2,550.00), in order to
purchase said parcel.
Attached for the Board's approval and execution is a Deed of
Conveyance of the described parcel to Mr. Charles E. Roberts.
124
Mr. Roberts came before the Board and explained that he
issued the check for $2,550 because he thought he had to in order
to talk to the Commission. Actually he would like the Board to
reconsider a bit on the appraisal he was given by the County's
Right -of -Way agent. He explained that he wishes to continue
using this as a driveway, but he really doesn't need 3,000 sq.
ft. which is set out in the proposed Quit Claim Deed.
Commissioner Scurlock agreed this might be on the high side
as he believed you can buy a lot in Oslo Park for $3,300.
Commissioner Wodtke reported that our right-of-way Agent,
Don Finney, who did the appraisal, indicated to him that since
homesites in the area were selling for $5,000, $2,500 seemed a
just value for the square footage which was squared off. Appar-
ently, however, all Mr. Roberts wants is just enough feet to
protect his driveway, and Commissioner Wodtke doubted we would
get a bid for $2,500 if we advertised this parcel.
125
D E D 18 1985
BOOK � ;E /4
BOOK 63 PAGE 196
Attorney Vitunac recommended setting a price of $1,500 as
the legal requirements involved with selling property are much
less if it is valued at $1,500 or lower.
Commissioner Wodtke felt, in view of the fact that this
property is located next to a cemetery and also that it will not
create an additional buildable lot, that $1,500 is a fair price,
but he wanted our Right -of -Way Agent to be comfortable with it.
Chairman Lyons asked Mr. Finney if he had any problem with a
value of $1,500, and Mr. Finney indicated that he could live with
that.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
authorized the Chairman to sign a Deed of
Conveyance of the subject property to Charles
Roberts upon receipt of the sum of $1,500.
126
QUIT -CLAIM DEED
THIS QUIT -CLAIM DEED, executed this 18th day of
nA-emhPr , A.D., 198 , by INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political
subdivision of the State of Florida, whose post office
address is 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960,
party of the first part, and CHARLES E. ROBERTS and LORRAINE
J. ROBERTS, his wife, whose mailing address is 345 Old Dixie
Highway, Vero Beach, Florida 32962, party of the second part,
WITNESSETH that the said party of the first part,
for and in consideration of the sum of TEN DOLLARS ($10.00)
and other good and valuable consideration to it in hand paid
by the party of the second part, receipt of which is hereby
acknowledged, has granted, bargained and sold to the party of
the second part, his heirs and assigns forever, the following
described land lying and being in Indian River County,
Florida, to wit:
Begin at the intersection of the Westerly right-of-way
line of the Old Dixie Highway and the North property
line of the following described property:
From the northwest corner of the southeast quarter of
the northeast quarter of Section 24 in Township 33 South
of Range 39 East, run south 210 feet to the point of
beginning; thence run east 389 feet, more or less, to
the centerline of Old Dixie Highway; thence run south
along the centerline of Old Dixie.Highway 113 feet to a
point; thence run west 429 feet to the west.line of said
southeast quarter of said northeast quarter; and thence
run north 108 feet to the point of beginning.'
Thence N89°33113"W, along said North property line, (for
the purpose of this description said North property line
is assumed to bear N89°33113"W) a distance of 133.11
feet more or less to the Southeast corner of the
following described property.
Commence at the Northwest corner of the Southeast
quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 24 in
Township 33 South, of Range 39 East; thence East 210
feet; thence South 210 feet; thence West 210 feet;
thence North 210 feet, to the point of beginning
containing one acre more or less.
Thence N69°07147"E, a distance of 124.00 feet more or
less to the aforementioned Westerly right-of-way line of
the Old Dixie Highway; thence S20052'13"E, along said
right-of-way line, a distance of 48.39 feet more or less
to the Point of Beginning.
Containing 3,000 square feet or 0.0689 acres more or
less.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the said party of the first part has
caused these presents to be executed in its name by its Board
of County Commissioners acting by the Chairman of said Board,
the day and year aforesaid.
INDIAN IVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY IARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
K B. LYONS, C
127
Boa 6J PnGE1,27
DEC 18 1985 8001( 63 FACE 128„
FmHA ANNUAL REPORT - HOUSING FINANCE COMMITTEE (SINGLE FAMILY
MORTGAGE REVENUE BONDS)
The Board reviewed letter from William R. Hough 8 Co., as
follows:
William Rdough &l;o.
100 SECOND AVENUE SOUTH
SUITE 800
P.O. BOX 57008
ST. PETERSBURG, FLORIDA 33701-7008
(813) 823-8100
FEDERAL EXPRESS -
December 13, 1985
Mr. Donald Scurlock -
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
RE: HOUSING FINANCE AUTHORITY OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
SINGLE FAMILY MORTGAGE REVENUE BONDS
POLICY REPORT
Dear Don:
I have enclosed a revised draft of a form of Policy Report to be adopted by
the Authority, signed by the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners, and
filed with the Internal Revenue Service by December 31, 1985. The revised draft
reflects comments by our counsel to ensure that requirements of the Tax Reform
Act of 1984 are met.
The signed Policy Report should be forwarded to:
Internal Revenue Service Center
Philadelphia, PA 19255
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
WILLIAM R. HOUGH & CO.
Van C. Sayler
Vice President
Commissioner Scurlock noted that the Committee was
authorized to move on this, but market conditions prevented it.
They have improved since, and we will have a million dollar
commitment here for lower costs loans. In order to allow the
Authority to issue single family mortgage revenue bonds in 1986,
it is necessary to approve the annual report now.
128
DEC
7_ J
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
the Housing Finance Authority Policy Report and
authorized the signature of the Chairman.
HOUSING FINANCE AUTHORITY OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
DMIM RIVER COUNTY - TAX IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 59-6000674
POLICY REPORT UNDER SECTION 103A DATED AS OF DECEMBER 1, 1985
HOUSING FINANCE AUTHORITY OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
ANNUAL POLICY REPORT ON MORTGAGE REVENUE BONDS
The Indian River County Housing Finance Authority, Florida (the "Issuer")
was created pursuant to the Florida Housing Finance Authority Law, Chapter 159,
Part IV, Florida Statutes, as amended, (the "Act") and an approving ordinance of
the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners in order to alleviate the
shortage of housing available at prices which many Indian River County persons
and families can afford and to respond to the shortage of capital for investment
in such housing. Under the Act the Issuer is authorized to provide financing
for the rehabilitation, construction and/or purchase of new and existing housing
throughout Indian River County, or other larger area of operation for moderate,
middle and lesser income persons and families.
This Policy Report has been prepared in accordance with the Tax Reform Act
of 1984 (including Section 103A (J)(5) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 as
amended) for the purpose of setting forth policies to be followed in issuing
mortgage revenue bonds and mortgage credit certificates. The Policy Report is
also to provide an assessment of the Issuer's performance in complying with the
preceeding year's policy and Congressional intent that local governments are ex-
pected to use their authority to issue mortgage revenue bonds and mortgage cred-
it certificates, to the greatest extent feasible, to assist lower income persons
and families before assisting higher income persons and families. The Issuer is
providing information on how the Issuer, as a participant in the Prior Year Pro-
gram (as defined below) -has attempted to target funds and to address the needs
of lower income persons and families as set forth in the Issuer's 1984 Policy
Report, as well as provide policies to be followed in 1986.
I. PRIOR PROGRAM
Under the Issuer's mortgage purchase program for the year 1985 (the "Prior
Year Program") $31,340,000 in single family mortgage revenue bonds were issued
on November 12, 1985 by the Leon and Polk Counties Housing Finance Authorities
in a multicounty program to provide $1,000,000 in funds to purchase mortgage
loans on residential facilities in Indian River County from certain lending in-
stitutions (the "Participants"). Under the 1985 Program each Participant is ob-
ligated to use its best efforts to enter into firm commitments to originate
loans with certain eligible borrowers. An eligible borrower is a first-time
homebuyer (subject to certain limited exceptions) whose adjusted family income
did not exceed $34,725, which is 150% of the median family income in Indian Riv-
er County, Florida, for the immediately preceding taxable year. Each mortgage
loan must be for the permanent financing of the purchase of a residence located
within Indian River County, Florida, which is to be occupied as the principal
residence of the eligible borrower.
The Issuer structured the bond program so that funds were available for
conventional loans; condominiums could be purchased; and there was a limit on
builder reservations for new construction loans. The Issuer considered altern-
ative financing structures and chose the one resulting in the lowest initial
costs to -the borrower.
The Prior Year Program specifies the type of residence which may be finan-
ced under its terms. All residences must be a single family detached or attach-
ed structure intended for residential housing for one family. Such residence
may not have an acquisition cost in excess of $81,290 for new homes and $76,670
for existing homes (110% of the average purchase price of residences in Indian
--
River County) . 129
18 1985 BOOK 3 mur
._ a J
DEC 18 1985
BOOK 63 mn 130
The Issuer believes that the Prior Year Program will provide safe, sanitary
and decent housing for residents of Indian River County at affordable prices,
and that home ownership and local development activity will: (a) provide for and
promote the public health, safety, morals and welfare; (b) relieve conditions of
unemployment and encourage the increase of industry, commerical activity and
economic development so as to reduce the evils attendant upon unemployment; (c)
provide for efficient and well-planned urban growth and development including
the elimination and prevention of urban blight and the proper coordination of
industrial facilities with public services, mass transportation and residential
development; and (d) preserve and increase ad valorem tax bases of local govern=
mental units. Thus, for these reasons we believe that the proceeds of the bonds
will be used to promote the general public welfare and lessen the burdens of
government.
II. ASSESSMENT OF PRIOR YEAR PROGRAM
As bonds for the Prior Year Program were issued on November 12, 1985 data
reflecting the average purchase prices and family income is not yet available.
The Issuer did not issue single family mortgage revenue bonds in 1984.
III. PROPOSED 1986 PROGRAM
For calendar year 1986, the Issuer anticipates receiving an allocation from
the State of Florida Housing Finance Agency of sufficient size to enable the Is-
suer to participate in a viable multicounty single family mortgage revenue bond
program. The Issuer intends to utilize its allocation for a single family mort-
gage revenue bond program similar in structure to the Prior Year Program.
With regard to its 1986 Program, the Issuer's policy will be to maximize
the use of bond proceeds to benefit those eligible borrowers whose incomes are
significantly below the average income of the homebuyer who purchases a resi-
dence without any subsidy. The Issuer will consider one or more of the follow-
ing actions in furtherance of this policy:
1. Continue to limit the maximum purchase price on residences and the max-
imum annual income of eligible borrowers.
2. Make investigations to determine the average income of persons in In-
dian River County purchasing residences without any subsidy.
3. Set aside a portion of bond proceeds for applicants whose income is be-
low the average income of persons in Indian River County purchasing residences --
without any subsidy.
4. Encourage builders receiving reservations under the 1986 program to
build residences that will be affordable to applicants in Indian River County
whose income is below the average income of purchasing residences without any
subsidy.
5. Monitor the average annual income of persons purchasing residences un-
der the Prior Year Program and the 1986 Program to determine effectiveness of
actions undertaken to further Issuer's policy.
IV. CONCLUSION
The 1986 Program is intended to provide housing for Indian River County
residents at affordable prices. The Issuer believes that home ownership and lo-
cal development will: (a) provide for and promote the public health, safety,
morals and welfare of the residents of Indian River County; (b) preserve and in-
crease ad valorem tax bases of local government units; and (c) reduce expen-
ditures for crime prevention and control, public health, welfare and safety,
fire and accident protection, and other public services and facilities. For
these reasons the Issuer believes that the proceeds of the qualified mortgage
bonds to be issued pursuant to the 1986 Program will be used to promote the gen-
eral public welfare and lessen the burdens of government.
The Housing Finance Authority of
Indian River County, Florida
130jh_aW�Boia
Commissioners
EXCHANGE OF EASEMENTS - KENNEDY GROVES
Utilities Director Pinto informed the Board that we are
getting a 20' easement for a wastewater line and Kennedy wants an
easement to be able to cross that easement. This is on Route 60
between Pine Creek Condominiums and Kennedy Grove. It intersects
the Kennedy Grove property on Route 60, and actually they just
want permission to be able to drive across it.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
an agreement for an easement to enable the Kennedys
to cross the County utility easement as recommended
by staff and authorized the signature of the Chairman.
(SAID DOCUMENT WILL BE MADE A PART OF THE RECORD WHEN
COMPLETED AND RECEIVED.)
PROPOSED CHANGE IN MOBILE HOME ADVISORY BOARD ORDINANCE
The Board reviewed the following memo from the Chairman of
the Mobile Home Advisory Board.
TO. Board of County ®ATE: December 4, 1985 FILE:
Commissioners
SUBJECT: Request change in
Ordinance #81-35
FROM: Edward S. Davis, Jr. REFERENCES:
Chairman
Mobile );come Advisory Board
Due to the lack of requests we have received relating to mobile
home living, the Mobile Home Advisory Board respectfully requests
the County Commission to change Ordinance 81-35 permitting the
Mobile Home Advisory Board to meet on call, and to leave the
requirements for meeting attendance up to the discretion of the
Mobile Home Advisory Board.
• The Ordinance now states that the Mobile Home Advisory Board
shall meet at least quarterly, and that a member must attend at
least 75% of the meetings in a twelve (12) month period. Many of
the members are away for the summer months between June and
October, which makes it impossible for them to meet quarterly and
not miss more than 75% of the meetings. It has been suggested
that the Board meet every other month during the winter months,
subject to emergency meetings to be held at the discretion of the
Mobile Home Advisory Board.
131
DEC 18 195
BOOK 63 FAGS :,31
7-1
BOOK 63 PnE 132
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
directed staff to advertise a public hearing
in order to amend the Ordinance 81-35 as re-
quested.
ADDED ITEM - REPLACEMENT FOR SOUTH COUNTY FIRE CHIEF
ON MOTION BY Commissioner.Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously added to
today's agenda an emergency item dealing with a
replacement for the South County Fire Chief-.
Administrator Wright advised that he has an administrative
rule with people who work for him that he advertises internally
for two weeks in the County Recruitment Bulletin. He stated that
he would pursue this and then await the Board's direction on what
to do re advertising externally to replace the Fire Chief.
Commissioner Wodtke noted that there may be some persons in
places such as Roseland, for instance, who might be interested,
and Administrator Wright confirmed that they would be notified.
Commissioner Scurlock suggested that the Administrator
advertise internally and externally, if necessary, and come back
with a recommendation which the Board will either accept or tell
him to get more resumes.
It was noted that the Fire Chief is directly responsible to
the Commission, and the Administrator stated that is why he
bringing a recommendation to the Board rather than just hiring
someone.
Discussion continued regarding bringing someone in or
elevating someone from the ranks, and it was indicated that the
Board hoped someone could be found internally just so long as
they have equal qualifications.
132
CHRISTMAS EVE HOLIDAY
Administrator Wright wished to inform the Board that all the
Constitutional Officers are closing their offices Christmas Eve,
and all the offices in the building will be closed except those
working for the County Commission. He just brought this up on
behalf of the employees.
The Board indicated that they did not wish to change their
holiday policy at this time.
There being no further business, upon Motion duly made,
seconded and carried, the meeting adjourned at 3:05 o'clock P.M.
ATTEST:
Clerk
133
Chairman
BOOK
63 m U L 13 3