HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/15/1986E�
Wednesday, January 15, 1986
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,
January 15, 1986, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Don C.
Scurlock, Jr., Chairman; Patrick B. Lyons, 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.
Chairman Scurlock called the meeting to order and led the
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Administrator Wright wished to add as an emergency item
approval of the standard tower lease to be entered into with
Indian River Memorial Hospital for the telemetry repeater for the
ALS system as they are under a deadline; it was felt this could
be added under the consent agenda.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
the addition of the above described item to the
Consent Agenda.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. New Pistol Permits
The Board reviewed memo from Administrator Wright, as
follows:
soar, 63 rf,Uc 242
63'. lilac 0243
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: Dec. 31, 1985 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
SUBJECT: PISTOL PERMITS - NEW
FROM: Michael Wright REFERENCES:
County Administrator
The following have applied through the Clerk's Office for pistol
permits:
Ernest W. Harms
Edward A. Owings, Jr.
William J. Wenger
All requirements of the ordinance have been met.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
approved the issuance of a Permit to Carry
a Concealed Firearm to the following:
Ernest W. Harms
Edward A. Owings, Jr.
William J. Wenger
B. Duplicate Tax Sale Cert. (Eual Miller)
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons,.SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
approved Duplicate Tax Sale Certificate
No. 927 for Eual M. Miller in the amount of
$62.26 and authorized the signature of the
Chairman.
C. Final Payment _ West_Reg. Wastewater Treatment Plant Site Work
The Board -reviewed memo of Assistant Utilities Director
Barton, as follows:
2
TO: BOARD OF COUNT4T, COMMISSIONERS
THRU: TERRANCE G. PI
DIRECTOR UTILITY SERVICES
FROM: JEF Y k. BARTON, ASSISTANT
DIRECTOR, UTILITY SERVICES
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
DATE: JANUARY 7, 1986
SUBJECT: FINAL PAYMENT - WEST
REGIONAL WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT SITE WORK
Dickerson Florida, Inc. has the contract for the site work at the
West Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant site. The contract
amount was as follows:
Original Contract $394,212.00
Change Order #1 $ 53,632.71
Change Order #2 $ 1,825.00
Total $449,669.71
To date, we have made three (3) payments on this contract for a
total of $397,388.72. Work has now been completed and the fourth
and final payment in the amount of $48,013.90, has been
requested. The total payments will be less than the total
contract price because of quantity extensions.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board,of County Commissioners authorize
the final payment in the amount of $48,013.90 to Dickerson
Florida, Inc. for the finalization of contract U85 -S2.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
approved final payment in the amount of
$48,013.90 to Dickerson Florida, Inc, for
finalization of contract U85 -S2.
D. Final Plat Approval - Citrus Ridge Subdivision
The Board reviewed memo of Staff Planner Boling, as follows:
3
JAN 15 1986 63 F.n 244
BOGS 63 ir-nN, 245
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: January 6, 1986 FILE:
Of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
SUBJECT: FINAL PLAT APPROVAL
Robert M. 1Zeat!1r1g'7/'F1CP FOR CITRUS RIDGE
Planning & DevelopKent Director SUBDIVISION
THROUGH: .Michael K. Miller, Chief tAo
Current Development
FROM: Stan Boling A9. REFERENCES: Citrus Ridge
Staff Planner, DISK
It is requested that the following information be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting on January 15, 1986.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Citrus Ridge is a 20 lot, ±6.92 acre subdivision located between
2nd Street and 4th Street, west of Old Dixie Highway. The subject
property is zoned RS -6 (Residential Single Family up to 6
units/acre), and has a LD -2 (Low Density Residential up to 6
units/acre) land use designation. The building density is ±2.89
units per acre on 1/4 acre size lots. All road rights-of-way and
easements are to be dedicated to the County. The applicant,
Charles A. Sullivan, Sr., is now requesting final plat approval.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
The Citrus Ridge Subdivision received preliminary plat approval on
June 27, 1985. The submitted final plat is in conformance with
the approved preliminary plat.
The subdivision will be served by County water) and individual
septic tanks/drainfields will be utilized. Most of the
construction of required improvements has been completed. The
applicant has submitted an executed Contract for Construction of
Required Improvements, committing him to finishing all remaining
work within six months.
To secure the contract, an irrevocable Letter of Credit has been
submitted in favor of the County in the amount of $90,000.00. The
Public Works Division has approved the amount represented by the
Letter of Credit. The County Attorney's Office has approved the
form and legal sufficiency of the contract and Letter of Credit,
subject to them being signed and accepted by the Board of County
Commissioners.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant
final plat approval to Citrus Ridge subdivision, accept the
submitted ,Letter of Credit, and authorize the Chairman to sign the
submitted Contract for Construction of Required Improvements.
4
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
granted final plat approval to Citrus Ridge
Subdivision, accepted the submitted Letter of
Credit and authorized the Chairman to sign the
Contract for Construction of Required Improve-
ments.
(SAID DOCUMENTS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF
THE CLERK TO THE BOARD.)
E. Re -extension of Construction Contract - (Shorelands Subdv.)
The Board reviewed memo of Staff Planner Boling, as follows:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: January 3, 1986 FILE:
Of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
SUBJECT: RE -EXTENSION OF CON -
Robert M._Xedtifig,,07AICP STRUCTION CONTRACT
Planning & Development Director FOR SHORELANDS SUB-
DIVISION
THROUGH: -Michael K. Miller, Chief
Current Development
FROM: REFERENCES:
Stan Boling 4 .$, Shorelands
Staff Planner DISK
It is requested that the following information be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting on January 15, 1986.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: —
On December 12, 1984, the Board of County Commissioners granted
final plat approval to Shorelands Subdivision and entered into a
Contract for Construction of Required Improvements with the
owner/developer, Roger O. Wheelwright. The contract, among other
items, required the construction of a wooden dune crossover
structure. The original contract was to expire on April 30, 1985;
however, in April of 1985, the Board and Mr. Wheelwright, extended
the contract six months with an irrevocable letter of credit good
through January 24, 1986.
Mr. Wheelwright, president of Shoreland Development, Inc. is
asking for another extension of the contract. Mr. Wheelwright has
stated that difficulty in acquiring timely D.N.R. approval and
sub -contracting out for the dune crossover are the reasons for his
delays in construction. Mr. Wheelwright has now contracted with a
builder to construct the crossover within the next several weeks. -
5
JAN 15 1986 BOOK 63 FuH246
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
Boa 63 n,14 247
Mr. Wheelwright's request to extend the contract and letter of a
credit expiration has been incorporated into a proposed'
resolution.
The proposed resolution, if adopted, would:
1. extend the contract extension date to April 24, 1986; and
2. extend the letter of credit expiration date to July 24, 1986,
by substituting the current letter of credit with a new
letter of credit in the same amount.
Mr. Wheelwright has signed and sealed the proposed resolution, and
has submitted a new letter of credit.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the
attached resolution to extend the Contract for Construction of
Required Improvements and to substitute the surety guaranteeing
the contract.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
adopted Resolution 86-1 approving the re-
quested extension of Contract for Construction
of Required Improvements for Shorelands Sub-
division.
6
RESOLUTION 86- 1
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPROVING A
REQUESTED EXTENSION OF CONTRACT TIME AND SECURITY FOR REQUIRED
IMPROVEMENTS IN THE SHORELANDS SUBDIVISION.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners (County) entered
into an extension of the Contract for Required Improvements with _.
Shoreland Development, Inc. (Developer), in conjunction with the
approval of the final plat for Shorelands Subdivision; and
WHEREAS, Barnett Bank of Indian River County (Bank) has
issued a Letter of Credit to secure said extended contract; and
WHEREAS, the Developer has requested a re -extension of time
to complete the remaining dune crossover structure, together with
a substitution of a new Letter of Credit to secure the contract
for the work to be completed; and
WHEREAS, the Board finds that good cause exists for the
re -extension of time, and that the new security will adequately
protect the interests of the County.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that:
1. The amended Contract for Required Improvements No.
SD -83-09-018, attached hereto, is* further amended to extend the
completion date stated therein until April 24, 1986; and
2. The Board hereby releases the Bank's Irrevocable Letter
of Credit No. 146, in the amount of $8,625.00, (EIGHT THOUSAND
SIX HUNDRED TWENTY-FIVE AND NO/100), contingent upon the receipt
and acceptance of a new Letter of Credit No. 151 in an amount of
$8,625.00 (EIGHT THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED TWENTY-FIVE AND NO/100),
expiring July 24, 1986.
The above extension and substitution of surety is hereby
approved and agreed to by the Developer.
SHE AND DEVE PMENT, INC.
BY: LL,& -
'Boge O. Wheelwright, President
(CORPORATE SEAL)
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner
Lyons , who moved its adoption. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Bowman , and upon being put to
a vote, the vote was as follows:
a
Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Vice Chairman Patrick B. Lyons 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 15th day of January , 1986.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Dov'-e-scu G~
Chai n
7
t..
Boor. 63 F�f,,c 248
JAS! 15 199 �oo�
F. Extension of Contract with County Administrator
The Board reviewed the following memo:
63: PA �t 249
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: Jan. 6, 1986 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Michael wri
County Admi
for
SUBJECT: County Administrator
Contract Extension
REFERENCES:
Attached for your consideration is a copy of my employment
contract with Indian River County that expires the last day of
this fiscal year. In order to provide for proper planning, I
respectively request the Commission to extend the contract until
September 30, 1988.
Please advise if there are any questions.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
approved amendment to extend employment
contract with Administrator Michael Wright,
as follows:
8
AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT
WHEREAS, the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS and MICHAEL
WRIGHT entered into an employment contract on December 7, 1983,
attached hereto as Exhibit "A", and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners and Michael
Wright now desire to extend the contract for an additional
two-year period until September 30, 1988.
NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
1. Paragraph I of Exhibit. "A" is hereby amended to read:
"This shall be considered a contract for a definite term
for both parties under the laws of the State of Florida.
The initial term of this contract shall commence on October
1, 1983, and shall end on September 30, 1988, and shall
continue for subsequent one-year periods thereafter unless
terminated by either party according to the provisions
of Paragraph 6."
2. The remainder of Exhibit "A" is hereby ratified and
shall remain in full force and effect.
Dated this 15th day of January , 1986.
Att st
Fre a Wright, C
lerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
Chairman
9
BOOK 63 Fa, -L 250
JAN 15 1986 Boaz 63 F,1, - 25
EXHIBIT "A►►
EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT
THIS CONTRACT made this 7 day of necerhPr ,
1983 by and between INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political subdivision
of the State of Florida, referred to herein as "County," and
MICHAEL WR1GHT, an individual, hereinafter referred to as
"Administrator."
IN WITNESS HEREOF, the parties agree as follows:
1. This shall be considered a contract for a definite
term for both parties under the laws of the State of Florida. The
initial term of this contract shall commence on October 1, 1983
and shall end September 30, 1985 and shall continue for subsequent
one years periods.thereafter unless terminated by either party
according to the provisions of paragraph 6.
2. Salary for the first year of this contract term
shall be FORTY-EIGHT THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED DOLLARS and 00/100
($48,700.00). Salary for the second year or additional years of
this contract shall be negotiated between the parties in advance
of the beginning of the second year or any additional year and
shall in any event be increased no less than the percentage
increase given to County Commissioners by the State of Florida.
In addition thereto, the Administrator shall be entitled to the
standard County car allowance of TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS and 00/100
($200.00) per month and twenty cents ($0.20) per mile for all
travel on County business outside of the County. In the event the
amount of car allowance is increased for other administrative
employees during the term of this contract, then Administrator
shall receive a like increase.
3. The County shall provide Administrator with all the
benefits accruing County employees under the Rules and Regulations
for the Personnel Management System of Indian River County for an
administrative position; however, the Administrator shall be
exempt from all employee management provisions of the Rules and
Regulations for the Personnel Management System and shall report
directly to the Board of County Commissioners under the provisions
of the Indian River County Administrative Ordinance.
k[l]
4. The Administrator shall fulfill the responsibilities
of the Office of the County Administrator as provided by, Section
1-34 (Ordinance No. 82-10 Section 4, 6-2-82) of the Code of Laws
and Ordinances of Indian River County.
5. This employment contract may be terminated by the
County only for cause according to the procedures set forth in
Section 1-33 (Ordinance No. 82-10 Section 3, 6-2-82) of the Code
of Laws and Ordinances of Indian River County or in accordance
with paragraph 6 hereof. Failure to diligently and conscien-
tiously discharge the duties of the office of County Administrator
shall constitute just cause for termination under this paragraph.
Should the County terminate Administrator under this
paragraph, he shall be entitled to severance pay calculated based
upon Administrator's salary at the date of termination according
to the following table and years of service:
..Years of Service Severance Pay
2 or less 60 days
3 90 days
4 120 days
5 or more 150 days
Administrator shall also be entitled to pay for all
accrued vacation time and sick leave according to the regulations
set forth in the Indian River County Rules and Regulations for the
Personnel Management System for administrative employees.
6. This employment contract may also be terminated by
the County at the end of the initial term or any subsequent yearly
extension thereof by giving the Administrator sixty (60) days
written notice in advance of the end of the initial term or yearly
extension, whichever is applicable, in which event Administrator
shall be entitled to severance pay in accordance with the schedule
in paragraph 5 hereof. This employment contract may be terminated
by the Administrator at the end of the initial term or any subse-
quent yearly extension thereof by giving the County sixty (60)
days written notice in advance of the end of the initial term or
subsequent extension, in which event Administrator shall not be
entitled to any severance pay -
JAN 15 1986
�OGK. 63 252
JAN 15 19$6 ROOF.253
[. f•r
7. This agreement contains the entire agreement between
the parties and shall not be modified, waived, altered or changed
except by an instrument in writing duly signed by both
parties.
Attest:%Zj
FREDA'•`WRIGHT Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN_RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By:
G. Tower Space Lease (Indian River Memorial Hospital, Inc.)
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
approved Tower Space Lease with Indian River
County Memorial Hospital, Inc., and authorized
the signature of the Chairman.
TOWER SPACE LEASE
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER
Indian River County Board of County Commissioners,
hereinafter called "Lessor," and Indian River County Memorial
Hospital, Inc., hereinafter called "Lessee," agree as follows:
W I T N E S S E T H:
1. In consideration of rents, covenants, and agreements
hereinafter reserved, the Lessor does hereby grant permission to
the Lessee to install and operate the following described radio
and operation equipment of Lessor's property at:
Riwanis-Hobart Park
Indian River County, Florida
Latitude: 27°14110"
Longitude: 80027126"
A. Antenna to be located 375 feet above ground level.
B. Flexible coaxial transmission line between antenna
and radio equipment. Such coaxial line to be anchored firmly to
the tower.
C. Radio communications equipment consisting of
transmitter, receiver and accessories to be installed in the tower
equipment shed located at the base of the tower to encompass an
area not to exceed 9 square feet.
12
D'. Committed tower utilization space, including
protective clearance above and below the antenna(s), not'to exceed
20 feet.
2. The term of the lease and the Lessee's obligation to pay
rent shall commence on the 27th day of January, 1986. The term of
this lease shall be 4 years following the commencement of the term
provided herein and may be renewed annually thereafter unless
within thirty days prior to the expiration of the term thereof, or
any_renewal under this provision, either the Lessor or the Lessees
shall notify, in writing the other party to this lease that it
does not desire to have the lease renewed. The Lessor reserves
the right to terminate this agreement upon sixty days prior
written notice by Lessor to Lessee that the property is needed for
an overriding public purpose.
The rent for each succeeding year may be subject to review
and renegotiation yearly no less than sixty days prior to the
renewal date contained herein. In the event the parties hereto
fail to agree upon a reasonable rental fee for the following year,
this agreement shall terminate automatically pursuant to the terms
stated herein.
The Lessor shall have the right to terminate this lease at
any time if
A. Lessee's operations at any time or in any way
interfere with those of the Lessor and cannot be fixed within a
reasonable time. .
B. Lessor decides to abandon the facility leased, or
remove the same from its present location.to a new location.
C. the facility leased to wholly or partially destroyed
from any cause, or condemned for public purpose.
3. Lessee shall pay Lessor at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach,
Florida, 32960 an annual rental of $2,160.00 payable at a monthly
rate of $180.00 per month and due on the first day of each and
every month during the term of this lease.
4. Lessee shall have the right to use the utility electrical
service of the Lessor located at the tower site in order to
operate and/or repair Lessee's radio units.
5. During the term of this lease, Lessor agrees that Lessee
shall have free access to the tower and the premises on which the
tower is located 24 hours per day, for the purpose of installing,
maintaining and repairing, and removing its equipment.
6. Lessee's equipment, its installation, maintenance,
repair, and removal will:
A. in no way damage the premises or tower structure;
B. in no way interfere with the maintenance of the
Lessor's property;
C. in no way interfere with the operations of Lessor's
radio or frequency modulation transmitting systems now installed
on the property and premises of lessor. If there is any
interference, lessee will take immediately, all steps necessary to
remove said interference, the Lessor is authorized to take steps
necessary at once and the Lessee shall be responsible for the cost
or - .the, steps so taken.
D. comply with all applicable rules and regulations of
the Federal Communications Commission, Civil Aeronautics
Administration, and electrical codes of the city, county or state
concerned, and all other laws and regulations.
13
L- JAN 1 5 1986 BOCK 63 pn,J� 254
BOOK 63 255
E. Lessee will not drill holes in or in any way degrade
the integrity of the tower structure.
7. Lessor reserves the right to grant radio antenna leases
o other parties -on any frequency and shall be under no
.X esponsibility to Lessee for doing so. If Lessee should claim
hat the operation of such other parties involved interfere with
INITIA'. PEPE is operation, it shall be the Lessee's obligation to work out the
atter with such other parties.and Lessor shall not be involved in
nv +»t-Prferonc" o operatt na D ob ms_ If Lessee is un b'
- -to work out" the mater with sucrh 0 er parties, Lessee slael be
entit� ed to terminate this leasee
Lessor agrees:
A. to maintain the radio tower in good` working
condition at all times in order that the Lessee may have the use
of said tower as contemplated herein.
B. to maintain at all times the painting on the radio
tower,- and lights thereon, strictly in accordance with the
requirements of the Federal Communications Commission.
9. The Lessee does hereby .agree to indemnify and save the
County harmless. from any and all cl4tims, liability, losses and
?;..IIT :; �,g�c causes of action which may arise out of* this lease agreement or
"_-the lessee'.s activity on the demised premises. The Lessee shall
pay all claims and losses of any nature whatsoever in connection
a - therewith, and shall defend all suits, at the County's request, in
the name of the County when applicable, and pay all costs and
judgments which issue therefrom.
"- 10. Lessee shall obtain and keep in force during the term of
i this lease, 'insurance with a company or- companies approved by
`Lessor containing public- liability and property coverage
*Lessee's interest in the leased premises under
acceptable to Lessor, which latter coverage shall include the
property of Lessor. Such insurance which shall name Lessor as an
insured as well as Lessee, shall be in the amount not less than
$100,000.00 for personal injuries to any one person in any one
accident, and $300.0000.00 to a number of persons for personal
injuries in any one accident, and property damage in an amount not
less than $100,000.00 resulting from one or more accidents, or a
combination of one or more accidents;
11. This lease shall not be assigned without Lessor's
written consent.
12. At the termination of this lease, Lessee shall promptly
remove all its equipment, construction, and installations, and
upon removal shall at its expense restore Lessor's properties to
1NATIA.K;RE the same good order and condition as they were immediatelv
previous to the beginning of this leaset fair wear and tear excepted.
l� Any written notice, demand, or citation under this lease may
be served on Lessor at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida,
32960, and on Lessee at 1000 36th Street, Vero Beach, Florida,
32960.
14
- M M
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto signed
this lease in duplicate this •;/ day of - , . -i,- 1
1986 in the presence of the undersigned witnesses, f
Signed, sealed -and delivered
in :the presence of:
it e s
witness
Wi Hess
4
��tness -
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
By:
DON C. SCUR LOCK, JR.
Chairman
90c*
Attest By: lc.l .
FREDA WRIGHT, erk o•f
Circuit ur
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY MEMORIAL -
HOSPITAL, INC.
BY%,.✓��z
(Na'ne) (Title)
Vice President Patient Care -Services
Attest ByEces
(Na e) (TitAsst. Vice Pres nt Administrative
ESTABLISH BOUNDARIES - COMMERCIAL NODE STORM GROVE ROAD & U.S.1
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:
starve Orov. RA, a U.S.---
v,,,p12345
_ r VERO BEACH PRESS-JOURNA ti t� �9
•' ' — —
Published Weekly
!9
+ $
t>o �o Cly i�� 1,g
011AVero
6S
Beach, Indian River County, iddn °io��r✓^�
-'i� xA"�.. •. � ' -. .... . , � //� 0e�y rs
'�, X1".9 .•`iY+n,; X r, * .
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER:
STATEa0F FLORIDA
' Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. $chum�Z on oath
i•}.- kt2iil.. .(,:F?'.AM-a Rd -a ••
'-- sathat he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press-Joumal, a weekly newspaper published
ys
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
' �X.:`. cam• u "':t ' ...n"� :: .. aT• .: � '
"•...err
':tt'i J,'tL d�•.M V s.. 1
rh:
G+o,-,n Grove R oa d
i ��� :; tt•
$ 1 1 •3^�'^t LD=2 " '
In the matter of
�C-1
A MD-!
In the Court, was pub
AF
J.:+ w is ,,°• ! �i �N,. { ��� r 7tr+u�-.
S`7
Iished in said newspaper in the issues of Oec.23 1985 r ran ) 1956
:-: of REGULATION �,•'--.
.*• ,NOTICE OP LAND UsE-
i.�y .� •'µ .To, • NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEAROtG -
..:i�•`::
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press-Joumal is a newspaper published at
y. TO OF :�.•-
TME ADOPTION OF A COUtaIY ORDINANCE
NOTICE IS HERESY OMEN that 0. Irian River County 9sard of County
- Vero Beach, In said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
holo a bw hearing at which parties in interest ar atizans ap have n opportunity to be tare
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered
as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida
for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the•attached copy of adver-
tisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or
corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver-
tisement for publication in the said newspaper. ,.
Sworn to and subscribed before met is i day of SQM QQr, A.D.A.D.1Jk-
sin ss Manager)
tel!E/
(SFAL) (Clark of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, ride)
15
In the f:ounry aCMnmfsabn Chambers of tla Cqunty Attmmblratimr EWldifq• bested at 13a0 ZOtl11
Street. Vero nc Fbrida on WeGrasoay. Januatt, tS, tgSB�at O.US e.M to mr"idw tin sdoptlal
of an Ordinance an8ped:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISStONEg3OF INDIAN RIVER COON -
TY, FLORIDA. ESTABLISHING BOUNDAAIES FOR THE 10 ACRE CONIMERCULL NODE LO -
0 AT THE INTERSECTION OF STORM GROVE ROAD AND U.S. HIGHWAY st AS
GENERALLY DESCRIBED IN THE n OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT AND DEPICTED ON
THE LAND USE MAP OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN;
PROVIDING FOR THE BOUNDARY MAP. GF-SCRWr4N OF THE NODE AND EFFECTIVE
DATE.
A map of the -proposed node boundary Is available InOaLadeatthis
Daprabtlerd oRbs on M
rrd floor of the County Administration BuW ft
arae Anyone
a verbamay
wish recordto s W "�i� wKich may m aW wa needle
thaupon which the appeal Is sexed. O<agetlirtpa is uldudes testimony and evomm
Irian River County - ,� •._„F
Board of County Commissioners -
By: -s -Patrick B. Llyan, CnaYman
Deo. 23,15, Jan. 7. i8!!8 - - I. ._o. ... � .- .ab• -
aoa 63 256
JAN..15 Box 63 r",ac 257
Staff Planner Goulet made the staff presentation, as
follows:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: December 30, 1985 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
SUBJECT: ESTABLISHMENT OF BOUND -
Robert M. Keatinig, ATO ARIES FOR THE 10 ACRE
Planning & Development Director COMMERCIAL NODE LOCATED
AT THE INTERSECTION OF
�r THROUGH: Richard Shearer, AICP STORM GROVE ROAD AND U.S.
7 Chief, Long -Range Planning HIGHWAY #1
FROM: REFERENCES:
Jeffrey A. Goulet J� Storm Grove Rd. Node Memo
Rtaff P1annPr, Tong -Rang- 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 January 15, 1986.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
The Planning Department is initiating a request to establish
boundaries for the ten (10 ) acre commercial node located at the
intersection of Storm Grove Road and U.S. Highway #1.
On September 12, 1984, the Board of County Commissioners adopted
an amendment to the text of the Land Use Element of the Compre-
hensive Plan which provided for establishing boundaries for each
of the nodes as generally depicted on the Land Use Map and
generally described in the text of the Land Use Element of the
Comprehensive Plan.
On October 23, 1985, the Board of County Commissioners amended
the Comprehensive Plan to reduce the size of this node from 80
acres to 10 acres.
On December 12, 1985, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
3 -to -0 to recommend approval of these boundaries.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
The proposed boundaries of the commercial node located at the
intersection of Storm Grove Road and U.S. #1 were prepared based
on the following criteria:
1. The general description and size constraint of the node
as described in the text of the Land Use Element;
2. The existing commercial uses in the general area of the
node;
3. The existing zoning pattern;
4. Property boundaries;
5. Traffic considerations; and
6. Environmental considerations.
16
All of the nodes are generally described in the Comprehensive
Plan. The Storm Grove Road node is described as:
"A ten (10) acre commercial node is located -on the east side
of U.S. #1 at the proposed intersection of Storm Grove
Road. Residential uses may be permitted within this node."
All of the property proposed for inclusion in the node is cur-
rently zoned C-lA, Restricted Commercial District. The proposed
node boundaries also follow property boundaries in all cases.
Existing Land Use Pattern
The area located to the north of the proposed node boundary
contains single-family residences and is zoned RM -3, Multiple -
Family Residential District.. The property to the east is vacant
with citrus groves located further east. A construction
equipment company is located west of the proposed node boundary,
across U.S. 1, in the Mixed -Use District. Whisper Lakes golf
club is located to the south of the proposed node area, across
the north relief canal.
Existing uses within the proposed boundaries of the node include
Style -Rite Cabinets, Cable Guide, and Miller's Market Place.
These businesses utilize approximately four of the ten acres
allocated for this node.
Transportation System
The Storm Grove Road/U.S. #1 commercial node has primary access
on U.S. Highway #1 (designated as an arterial on the County's
Thoroughfare Plan). The node also has secondary access on Storm
Grove Road. Storm Grove Road is currently a dirt road but it is
designated as a secondary collector street on the Thoroughfare
Plan.
Environment
The node area is not designated as environmentally sensitive nor
is it in a flood -prone area.
TT4-, 1 ; s-, --
County water and sewer facilities are not available in the area
at the present time.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that the proposed
boundaries of the ten (10) acre commercial node located at the
intersection of Storm Grove Road and U.S. Highway #1 be adopted
by the Board of County Commissioners.
Planner Goulet noted that this node was reduced from 80
acres to 10 acres last year and that acreage was transferred to
the Grand Harbor node.; all of the property in the node is
currently C -1A and this is proposed to be converted to CL. The
proposed boundaries follow the property lines.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
Dan Richey believed that the nodal concept was based on
flexibility, and he wished to know if there is any specific
17
JAN
��� Boar 63
JAN 15 1986 BOOK 63 r,� 259
development plan for the area that caused the proposed
boundaries.
Chief Planner Shearer agreed that originally the nodes were
to be flexible, but since 1984, the county has treated them as
having fixed boundaries. He pointed out, however, that they
always can be enlarged. At this particular node, there hasn't
been any development since 1982 and no specific request has been
made regarding setting the boundaries.
Mr. Richey asked if in setting boundaries for nodes, we are
not, in effect, doing strip zoning, but Planner Shearer explained
that the concept of the node was to reduce the potential for
strip development. -
Mr. Richey advised that his family owns a 20 acre piece of
property on both sides of U.S.1, and, therefore, they are left
with a triangular piece that actually is unusable.
Planner Shearer noted that when staff looked at this node,
it showed that little triangular piece as a separate owner.
Commissioner Bird did not feel there is anything magic about
limiting this node to 10 acres forever and there will be an
opportunity to enlarge it, especially in a case such as this
where part of the property already is in the node.
Leonard Hatala informed the Board that he owns the piece of
property to the south of the node zoned C -1A, and he wished to
know if that still will be classified as C -1A.
Chief Planner Shearer advised that property has an existing
commercial use which would be grandfathered in, and in the
conversion it would go to CL which 'is -very similar.
13
No one further wished to be heard.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously closed
the public hearing..
18
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
adopted Ordinance 86-5 establishing the
boundaries for the 10 acre Commercial Node
__at the intersection of Storm Grove Road and
U.S.Highway 1.
ORDINANCE NO. 86 - 5
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION-
ERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA ESTABLISH-
ING BOUNDARIES FOR THE 10 ACRE COMMERCIAL NODE.
LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF STORM GROVE ROAD
AND U.S. HIGHWAY # 1 AS GENERALLY DESCRIBED IN
THE TEXT OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT AND DEPICTED
ON THE LAND USE MAP OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF
THE COUNTY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR
THV BOUNDARY MAP, DESCRIPTION OF THE NODE AND
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida have amended the County's Comprehensive
Plan to provide for establishing boundaries for every commer-
cial, commercial/ industrial, industrial, tourist/ commercial,
and hospital/commercial node; and
WHEREAS, The Planning and Zoning Commission has held a
public hearing and subsequently made a recommendation to
establish boundaries for this node; and,
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners has held a
public hearing on these proposed boundaries at which parties
in interest and citizens had an opportunity to be heard; and,
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners is empowered
to adopt these boundaries to assist in the implementation of
the County's Comprehensive Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that:
• ['�L1/�T T/'1RT �
The attached map labeled as "Attachment All and the
description labeled as "Attachment B" shall be the official
boundaries of the 10 acre Commercial Node located at the
intersection of Storm Grove Road and U.S. Highway #1.
19
Boa 63 prl 260
JAN 15 1986
Boal 63 .. A',r 261
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 15th day of January
1986.
r
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY:--- C
Don C. Scurl0ck;'Jr.CHAjXMAN
j ORDINANCE NO. 86-5
ATTACHMENT A
Storm Grove Rd. & U.S. HWY 1
Commercial Node
1/
111 C-1 A
M-1
111 N
RM -3 LD -1 I
RM -4111 RS -3
s�e� s•r
STORM GROVE (7RO R/W
LD -2
^'
NORTH- -
------/ _
1 C—A
MD- y
M-1
A�
..............— Node Boundary
20
® � r
ORDINANCE NO. 86-5
ATTACHMENT B
Description of the Storm Grove Road
and U.S. Highway #1 Commercial Node_
BEGINNINGAT A POINT WHERE THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF
U.S. HIGHWAY #1 INTERSECTS THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF
THE NORTH RELIEF CANAL; THENCE RUN NORTH APPROXIMATELY
1,775 FEET ALONG THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF U.S. HIGHWAY
#1; THENCE RUN EAST APPROXIMATELY 490 FEET TO THE EAST
SECTION LINE OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 32S, RANGE 39E; THENCE
RUN SOUTH APPROXIMATELY 1,700 FEET TO THE NORTH RELIEF
CANAL; THENCE RUN WEST APPROXIMATELY 40 FEET ALONG THE NORTH
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE NORTH RELIEF CANAL TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING. ALL LYING IN SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 32S, RANGE
39E, OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. CONTAINING 10 ACRES,
MORE OR LESS.
CO-INIT - ESTABLISH BOUNDARIES FOR LINDSEY ROAD INDUSTRIAL NODE
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:
r w
�`�2345iS�
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOUR
fti `O, r�9
Published Weekly
n,r Gy •�
Vero Beach, Indian River Court y�Floiida.�?;c`V
'-49th ST. (Lindsay Fid.) "If
} Industrial N
tt
RM -4 r {S
a
-��. x— -- -,' a -t A D•1
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER:
STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally a [[�
appeared J. J. Sc on oath -
says that he is the
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, beingRM-'�`•r. '
a No+icy
'
`. ,eo \ �•
A
In the matter of J-.ATela t4
CL
jum-8 RIA
------------
'.>:.r`::td, X11 w 1. \� •i�,
in the Court, was pub --i �• ,• a '•'. M -t •.tti-,
i
Iished in said newspaper in the issues of �2c 23 j )9 TS t San y i 486 MXO ` ea
RM -10 ;
° - PrAnnaod Nnd.r RMred...
Affiant further saysthat the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at E'
NOTICE of EEO PUBLIC HE LAND tliE-
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore - NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING �
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered TO CONSIDER THE
as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Ancien River County, Florida _ ADOPTION OF A COUNTY ORD .
for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver• NOTICE IS HEREBY RIVEN that is i Intern River County BoaN Dt e a ob opportunity
to rbe shall
tisement; and affiant further saysthat he has neither aid nor promised an hold a public hearing et when ambers in Interest end a dmiru shall have an opportunity t 6 amara.
P P c ring t . firm or S the Coro B Commission an Wednesday.
pre County 5, 1 i86, at
a m. to, btated the 1BW 2Sdr
corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver- Sheet. Vero Beach. Florida on Weonesaay. January 78, t988, at a:45 a m. to wtroWr tlr tlWoon
tisement for publication in the said newspaper, of an Ordinance engined:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONENS OF INDIAN RIVER COUN.
TY, FLORIDA. ESTABLISHING BOUNDARIES FOR THE 100 ACRE INDUSTRIAL NODE LO-
EA
Sworn ro and subscribed before me this TH
% day of ^00 r4- A.D. 15 S 6 OF THE NORTH RELIEF CANAL OSLINDSEY ROAD. ASYGENERALLY DESCRIBED INul TO LATERAL H. AND S E
N THE GIFFORD AR
TEXT OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT AND DEPICTED ON Tiff LAND USE MAP OF THE
_ LANG USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR THE BOUNDARY
a T` "ry`w MAP OF THE NODE AND EFFECTIVE DATE. g
(Bu ss anagen) !
A map of the firoposed node boundary is available at tae Planldr 9 Oepartmerd , M do MM sec
abbe flea of the County Administration Buildinfl. I
�(- .. u l� f --.�.,:.i ✓� Anyone who may wish to appeal Any decision which may be made at this me" cad need to
(Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River Cou Florida) sure that a verbatun record of the proceedings is made. which 10cludes tashemny ane
upon which the appeal n based.
(SEAQ ty
Board caRiviw er�tyComffftarorwa r,
21 Dec. 23B19M Jan. 7. 7. IID4119M Chairman
ase _
JAN 15 1986 Boolt 63 262
J A N � 6 LOOK 63 pn- 263
Staff Planner Melsom made the following staff presentation:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: December 13, 1985 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
o tSUBJECT: COUNTY INITIATED REQUEST
Rol5eft M. Ke tin , APO TO ESTABLISH BOUNDARIES
Planning & DevelopmdyAt Director FOR THE LINDSEY ROAD
INDUSTRIAL NODE
THROUGH: Richard Shearer, AICP
i -J Chief, Long -Range Planning
FROM: REFERENCES:
Robert G. Melsom �E'jpl Lindsey Road Memo
Sta f Planner Lon -Range 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 January 15, 1986.
DESCRIPTION.& CONDITIONS
The Planning Department is initiating a request to establish
boundaries for the 100 acre Industrial Node located north of
Lindsey Road.
On September 12, 1984, the Board of County Commissioners adopted
an amendment to the text of the land use element of the Compre-
hensive Plan which provided for establishing node boundaries for
each of the nodes as generally depicted on the land use map and
described in the text of the land use element of the Comprehen-
sive Plan.
On December 12, 1985, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
3 -to -0 to recommend approval of this request.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the factors used to determine the
proposed node boundary is presented. The analysis includes a
description of the current and future land uses as well as a
description of the existing physical and environmental conditions
of the proposed node area.
The proposed boundary for the Lindsey Road industrial node was
prepared based on the following criteria:
1. The general description and size constraint of the node
as described in the text of the land use element;
2. The existing industrial uses in the general area of the
node;
3. The existing zoning pattern;
4. Property boundaries;
5. Physical considerations;
6. Environmental constraints; and
7. Access to the transportation network.
22
� � r
Existing Land Use Pattern
All of the existing industrial uses in the general area of the
node are included within the proposed node boundary. These
existing uses include East Coast Trenching and Trodglen Paving
Company. Approximately 19.86 acres of the area proposed to be in
the node is devoted to mining activity and is zoned A,
Agricultural District which allows mining as a permitted use. It
is the staff's position that it would not be economically
feasible to restore the land for agricultural use upon
completion of the mining operation. The existing industrial uses
adjacent to the mining operation render the property unsuitable
for residential development.
The area characterized by existing industrial use is surrounded
by undeveloped land and commercial development to the east,
single-family residences and undeveloped land to the south,
residential development and undeveloped land to the west, and
undeveloped land to the north.
Future Land Use Pattern
All of the nodes are generally described —in—the--Comprehensive
Plan. The Lindsey Road node is described as:
"Another one hundred (100) acre node in the Gifford area
is located west of U.S. #1 to Lateral H, south of the North
Relief Canal to Lindsey Road."
The proposed node boundary includes industrial property on the
west side of Old Dixie Highway between Lindsey Road to the south,
the North Relief Canal to the north, and the Lateral H Canal to
the west. The general area of the node will concentrate future
industrial development around existing industrial development.
It is the staff's position that the impact any new industrial
development will have on adjacent residential uses will be
lessened due to the adoption of new dimensional and bufferyard
requirements for industrial uses.
For the most part, the proposed node boundaries follow existing
property boundary lines except that two properties in the
northeast quadrant of the node will be split between the proposed
node boundaries and the adjacent U.S. 1, Mixed -Use Corridor. The
Comprehensive Plan MXD designation allows for growth to occur in
the MXD area in conformance with the predominant land use
pattern. Therefore, the property designated as MXD situated
between the western right-of-way of the Florida East Coast
Railroad and the eastern boundary of the Lindsey Road node can be
developed for industrial uses.
Physical Considerations
The slope of the land in the node is from slight to moderate in
character; elevations range from 10' to 15' mean sea -level. The
soils in the node possess the following characteristics: poor
compaction characteristics, poor shrink -swell potential, and
poorly drained. Overall, the aforementioned physical features
indicate poor development potential.
Environment
The node area is not designated as environmentally sensitive, nor
is it located in a flood -prone area. However, a large amount of
land included in the proposed node boundary is located on the
sand ridge, an important aquifer recharge area. The staff is
developing a proposed ordinance entitled "Costal Sandridge Design
District." These regulations will minimize the impact industrial
development will have on the shallow groundwater aquifer.
23
Bou 63 Fn,]E 2 4
rJAN 15 1996
BOOK 63 F;E 265
Access to the Transportation Network
All of the land in the proposed node has or will have secondary
access to 49th Street (designated as a secondary collector on the
Thoroughfare Plan).
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning
Commission recommendation, staff recommends approval.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
Joe Idlette came before the Board representing heirs of the
late Rosa and William M. Cooper. who have an interest in property
that fronts on 49th Street, and they wish to know if that
property is going to remain RM -6.
Chief Planner Shearer stated that at the present time it is
anticipated that it will stay RM -6, and staff has no intention at
any time in the near future of initiating a rezoning for that
particular area.
Charles Price informed the Board that he owns a strip 300'
deep back from the railroad track fronting the entire node (his
back fence line is actually the boundary of the node), and staff
has proposed that his industrial plants would be removed from the
node and changed to General Industrial because they want to keep
the node 100 acres. He just wanted to have the Commission's
agreement that General Industrial is the heaviest industrial
usage that can be indicated as he wanted to be sure his plants
are in the heaviest industrial zoning district the County allows.
This was confirmed.
Bud Jenkins advised that he has a mining operation in that
area that is supposed to be rezoned, and he wanted to know how
this affects their established business.
Chief Planner Shearer stated that the existing mining
operation there is zoned agricultural and will be in the future;
so, this will not affect its operation. However, he believed
staff felt that property will be desirable for industrial
development at -some later date.
24
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
closed the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
adopted Ordinance 86-6 establishing the
boundaries of the 100 acre Lindsey Road
Industrial Node.
ORDINANCE NO. 86 -6
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION-
ERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA ESTABLISH-
ING BOUNDARIES FOR THE 100 ACRE INDUSTRIAL NODE
LOCATED IN THE GIFFORD AREA WEST OF U.S.
HIGHWAY #1 TO LATERAL H, AND SOUTH OF THE NORTH
RELIEF CANAL TO LINDSEY ROAD, 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.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners. of Indian
River County, Florida have amended the County's Comprehensive
Plan to provide for establishing boundaries for every commer-
cial, commercial/industrial, industrial, tourist/commercial, _
and hospital/commercial node; and
WHEREAS, The Planning and Zoning Commission has held a
public hearing and subsequently made a recommendation to
establish boundaries for this node; and,
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners has held a
public hearing on these proposed boundaries at which parties
in interest and citizens had an opportunity to be heard; and,
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners is empowered
to adopt these boundaries to assist in the implementation of
25
Roa 63 F,,— . 90N6
r
JAN 15 196
goo t0j 2 i
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 100 Acre Industrial Node located in the
Gifford area west of U.S. Highway #1 to Lateral H, and south
of the North Relief Canal to Lindsey Road.
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 15th day of January
1986.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY: �+r G
'DON C. SCURLOC JR., CHA N
26
ORDINANCE NO. 86- 6
ATTACHMENT A
49th ST. (Lindsey Rd.) -
Industrial Node
1-t A.-§ T V�X I
•,
RM -4 0
i ' 1
L®-2
NORTH
0. RMH-8
CG
RM -10
NODE BOUNDARY
27
JAN 15 1986 BOOK 63 F"�,E 268
JAN 15 1986
Boa 63 ='n'jL 2 9
ORDINANCE NO. 86- 6
ATTACHMENT B
DESCRIPTION OF THE LINDSEY ROAD INDUSTRIAL NODE
BEGINNING AT A POINT BEING THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE NORTH RELIEF CANAL AND THE EAST
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE LATERAL "H" CANAL; THENCE RUN DUE
EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF 1550 FEET ALONG THE SAID SOUTH
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE TO A POINT 300 FEET DUE WEST OF THE
FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILROAD WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE; THENCE
RUN IN A SOUTHEASTERLY DIRECTION FOR A DISTANCE OF 2,820,
FEET, ALONG A LINE 300 FEET WEST OF AND PARALLEL TO THE
FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE; THENCE FOLLOW
EXISTING PROPERTY LINES BY PROCEEDING DUE WEST FOR A
DISTANCE OF 240 FEET, THENCE PROCEED DUE NORTH FOR A
DISTANCE OF 50 FEET, THENCE PROCEED DUE WEST FOR A DISTANCE
OF 230 FEET, THENCE PROCEED DUE SOUTH FOR A DISTANCE OF 50
FEET, THENCE PROCEED DUE WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 650 FEET,
THENCE PROCEED DUE NORTH FOR A DISTANCE OF 90 FEET, THENCE
PROCEED DUE WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 170 FEET TO THE EASTERN
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE LATERAL "H" CANAL; THENCE PROCEED
IN A NORTH BY NORTHWEST DIRECTION FOR A DISTANCE OF 2,930
•FEET.ALONG THE EASTERN RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE LATERAL "H"
CANAL TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 100 ACRES MORE
OR LESS.
28
� s
CO-INIT - ESTABLISH BOUNDARIES FOR 1-95/CR 512 COM/IND NODE
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 -JO
I
Published Weekly
Vero Beach, Indian River Cou
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER:
STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. 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
aNOS— f
in the matter of
i
t ,
a
In the Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of 1%c 3 + 1985 I San i I Q 86
Affiant further says 0611 the said Vero Beach Press-Joumal is a newspaper published at
VeroBeach, 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 si one year next preceeding the first publication of the attaches copy of adver-
tisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or
corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver-
tisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed before
/1 rma th day of 3m+ 00
— A.D.
A iriew B
INa6 a
(SEAQ (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River Coun , Florida)
;•t v 1 ai`i CR.
r CommatCidjj/ Industrial Node
r _
1
y :.319 A
s� .4x
CRY
A .
I :uiiil=ItlWW LD -1
r i +NOTICE OF REGULATION OF LAND US -E7 -
_ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
TO CONSIDER THE - r,
OF A
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN
ADOPTION
the Ind an River CountyNTY DBoarrdd of County Commissioners, shi
to be hear
Inld a theoulic nty Commission which
Chambe s iofitherCounty Administration
and Buildil have an ng, located at 1840 25
Street, Vero Beach, Florida on Wednesday, January 15, 1988, at 9:05 a.m. to consider the adoptlt
of an Ordinance entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUN-
TY, FLORIDA, ESTABLISHING BOUNDARIES FOR THE 240 ACRE COMMERCIALANDUS-
TRIAL NODE LOCATED AT THE 1-95/C.R. 512 INTERCHANGE, 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
f THE BOUNDARY MAP OF THE NODE AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
t'
A map of the proposed node boundary is available at the Planning Department office on the set
and floor of the County Administration Building. -
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need to of
sure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which includes testimony and evidene
upon which the appeal Is based.
Indian River County
Board of County Commissiones >i
By s Patrick B. Lyons, Chairman
Dec. 23, 1985, Jan. 7,1988 ;eV.
Staff Planner Melsom made the following staff presentation:
29
,JAN 15 1986e�OK p,f ,r 27®
o
i
\—Proposed
Node Boundary
A .
I :uiiil=ItlWW LD -1
r i +NOTICE OF REGULATION OF LAND US -E7 -
_ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
TO CONSIDER THE - r,
OF A
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN
ADOPTION
the Ind an River CountyNTY DBoarrdd of County Commissioners, shi
to be hear
Inld a theoulic nty Commission which
Chambe s iofitherCounty Administration
and Buildil have an ng, located at 1840 25
Street, Vero Beach, Florida on Wednesday, January 15, 1988, at 9:05 a.m. to consider the adoptlt
of an Ordinance entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUN-
TY, FLORIDA, ESTABLISHING BOUNDARIES FOR THE 240 ACRE COMMERCIALANDUS-
TRIAL NODE LOCATED AT THE 1-95/C.R. 512 INTERCHANGE, 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
f THE BOUNDARY MAP OF THE NODE AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
t'
A map of the proposed node boundary is available at the Planning Department office on the set
and floor of the County Administration Building. -
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need to of
sure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which includes testimony and evidene
upon which the appeal Is based.
Indian River County
Board of County Commissiones >i
By s Patrick B. Lyons, Chairman
Dec. 23, 1985, Jan. 7,1988 ;eV.
Staff Planner Melsom made the following staff presentation:
29
,JAN 15 1986e�OK p,f ,r 27®
6
E00K 3 tr?;c 27
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: December 13, 1985. FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
z SUBJECT: COUNTY INITIATED REQUEST
Robert M. Keati g, ArCP TO ESTABLISH BOUNDARIES
Planing & Development Director FOR THE I-95/C.R. 512
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
pL THROUGH: Richard Shearer, AICP NODE
% Chief, Long -Range Planning
FROM: REFERENCES:
P601 Robert G. Melsom I-95/C.R. 512 Memo
Staff Planner Long -Range 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 January 15, 1986.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
The Planning Department is initiating a request to establish
boundaries for the 240 acre commercial/ industrial node at the
I-95/C.R. 51.2 Interchange.
On September 12, 1984, the Board of County Commissioners adopted
an amendment to the text of land use element of the Comprehensive
Plan which provided for establishing node boundaries for each of
the nodes as generally depicted on the land use map and described
in the text of the land use element of the Comprehensive Plan.
On December 12, 1985, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
3 -to -0 to recommend approval of this request.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the factors used to determine the
proposed node boundary is presented. The analysis includes a
description of the current and future land uses of the node, as
well as physical and environmental considerations.
The proposed boundary for the I-95/C.R. 512 commercial/industrial
node was prepared based on the following criteria:
1. The general description and size constraint of the node
as described in the text of the land use element;
2. The existing commercial uses in the general area of the
node;
3. The existing zoning pattern;
4. Property boundaries;
5. Physical considerations;
6. Environmental constraints; and
7. Access to the transportation network.
30
Existing Land Use Pattern
All of the existing commercial and industrial uses in the general
area of the node are included within the proposed node boundary.
These existing commercial uses include Wayfara Travel Center
(Gulf Service Station and Dairy Queen) and the Sebastian Lakes
Sales Center. In addition, the node boundary includes the He -Era
Corporation property.
The node is surrounded by undeveloped land to the north, south,
east,_ and w(kst.
Future Land Use
All of the nodes are generally described in the Comprehensive
Plan. The I-95/C.R. 512 node is described as:
"This is a commercial/industrial node containing 240 acres."
The proposed node boundary includes commercial property on the
north and south side of County Road 512, and Hetra Corporation's
property to the east of Interstate 95. The general area of the
node will concentrate future commercial and industrial uses
around the I-95, County Road 512 interchange.
It is the staff's position that the impact any new commercial
development will have on future residential uses adjacent to the
node will be lessened due to the adoption of new dimensional and
bufferyard requirements for commercial uses.
In most instances, the proposed node boundary follows existing
property boundaries. The proposed node boundary does transect
two existing property lines. These parcels are rather large, and
transecting them with the proposed node boundary will allow the
property owners to develop a portion of their property for
commercial use.
Physical Considerations
The slope of the land in the node is from 2 to 4 % with
elevations range from 21' to 25' mean sea -level.
The soils in the node possess the following characteristics: poor
compaction, poor shrink swell potential and are poorly drained.
The aforementioned physical features indicate poor development
potential.
Environment
The node area is not designated as environmentally sensitive, nor
is it located on the sandridge or ten -mile ridge aquifer recharge
area. However, approximately 60 % of the land 'in the node is
located in the 100 year flood -plain as depicted on the Flood
Insurance Rate Map for the area.
Access to the Transportation Network
All of the parcels of land located in the I-95/C.R. 512
commercial/industrial node have either primary or secondary
access to County Road 512 (designated as an Arterial on the
Thoroughfare Plan). The existing interchange at County Road 512
and I-95 provides access to the major north -south transportation
system for the State of Florida, for all of the parcels in the
node.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendation, staff recommends the proposed
boundary of the I-95/C.R. 512 Commercial/Industrial node to the
Board of County Commissioners for approval.
31
JAN 15 1986 BOOK 63 pnljr- 272
r
JAN 15 1986 Boa pn, 273
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
Attorney Michael Hanley came before the Board representing
Carson Platt, owner of a very large amount of land in the area.
Mr. Platt has no objections to the node but would like to see it
expanded to include another 100 acres of his property. Attorney
Hanley passed out charts showing what part of his property Mr.
Platt would like included in the node and felt this would be a
logical expansion:
NORTHWEST SCALE a riEEs
QUARTER SEE P4GE ie pF TWP.31S-RNG.38E.
W
ti
157 8
Z
v7 lM
CL:
3
TWP. 31 S.- RN G. 38E.
SOUTHWEST QUARTER
' I a.".
wYSrRO ED CORP. , TEaaTE
COX5
r. SrSTATEC. aC R30 RO4ID. ! Y E S B9D, sr\ 20 R aC
1
Discussion ensued as to policy regarding existing uses and
in -fill of nodes, and Attorney Hanley stated that he just wanted
to have this put on the record at this time.
Attorney Michael O'Haire next came before the Board
representing the owners of four blocks on the south side of CR
512. He commented that these owners applied at the time the
Hetra people came, and this Board indicated to staff at that time
that they should go back'and take another look at the node in
light of his clients' request. After a long period of silence,
the node boundaries stopped at the R/W line of 1-95, and now they
are shown jumping 1-95 and going west, but not going south of CR
512. Attorney-O'Haire continued that his clients are going to be
faced with a change from the commercial zoning, which they had
32
W
CD
M
0
Z
vs
M
a
3
U.
O
enjoyed, to low density zoning across from the Hetra site,'and no
one is going to build residential across from industrial/
commercial. His clients endorse the expansion, but see no reason
to jump 1-95 and they would like their property included in the
node jn the future. He pointed out that no one has ever opposed
this request.
Commissioner Bird stated that he still has the same
difficulty today with expanding the node to include the multitude
of lots on the south side of CR 512, and he did not know how we
can include Mr. O'Haire's clients without including everyone.
Attorney O'Haire suggested that the Board could include all
the property on the south of CR 512 to a depth of 3001, not just
his clients.
Chairman Scurlock asked if there are any single family
residences there, and Attorney O'Haire said there were not and
noted that it is not even a platted subdivision.
Commissioner Bird spoke of the difficulty involved in trying
to gather all these many lots up into one entity to get commer-
cial, and even then, this would back up to other residential to
the south.
Attorney O'Haire did not feel that presents an insurmount-
able problem; his clients accomplished this in their four blocks.
He further noted that there are now more stringent buffering
requirements than every before.
Discussion arose about the road R/W on CR 512, and Commis-
sioner Wodtke commented that he felt it would be easier to work
with commercial to obtain the R/W than with residential.
Administrator Wright felt we have about 100' R/W almost all
the way to the City of Sebastian.
The Board continued to discuss the fact that this is a
difficult area to deal with because of all the individual
ownerships involved.
Commissioner Lyons did not feel it makes sense to have the
node boundary on one side of the street. He expressed his belief
33
JAN 15 1986
JAN
15 1986
Boox
;a� 275
that the boundaries
should be made big enough so no one
has
a
corner on the market and also so that someone would be able to do
something big as he felt this is the ideal location for a really
big node which would provide space for such things as factories,
etc. He, therefore, felt the node should be on both side of CR
512 and that additional acreage should be included on the north.
Chairman Scurlock suggested the possibility of adding 200
acres and squaring the node off, but Commissioner Bird continued
to express concern about what would happen to the small
individually owned lots if we gave them industrial zoning and
made them non -conforming for residences.
Planner Shearer noted that there is a house under construc-
tion immediately west of the property owned by Attorney O'Haire's
clients.
Chairman Scurlock envisioned a little tiny subdivision out
in that location with absolutely no services provided.
Planning & Development Director Keating noted that there are
two subdivisions in this vicinity - Vero Lakes Estates and Pine
Lake Estates. He felt that providing commercial or industrial
uses on both sides of the road would be oriented more towards
strip development and felt staff made a good decision in keeping
the node away from the platted area. He pointed out that they
tried to allocate some nodal area to each quadrant of the
intersection, and he did feel the proposed configuration is
appropriate.
Discussion continued at length regarding past and proposed
nodal boundaries, and Chairman Scurlock suggested including more
acreage by going farther north to the property zoned CG and then
coming back across 1-95 to square off the node. _
Staff felt that was logical rather than including the
platted area.
Attorney O'Haire noted that in this area, similar to Vero
Lake Estates, many of the lots sold in the original promotion
34
M
have been acquired through the sale of tax certificates-ov6r the
years and picked up in blocks.
Chief Planner Shearer advised that Mr. O'Haire's clients are
in the Pine Lake Estates area, in which area almost everyone owns
an acre or more, and that is why they had that area rezoned to
RS -1. Vero Lake Estates, however, is a completely different
situation, where there are hundreds of people who own only one or
two lots. Planner Shearer believed the most you could hope for
in the future on the south side of CR 512 would be up to about
300' commercial, and staff does not feel that is appropriate at
this time nor that there is a demand for commercial.
Dan Cruce, 326 Live Oak Drive, noted that if the node were
squared off on the south side where it is C-1, it would be 170'
depth, and if it were to be squared off to where Pine Lake
Estates ends, which is almost even with Hetra, that would be very
easy because those are individual owners with 260' frontage x
170' depth (one acre lots), and he is one of those four
individual owners that own property on the south side there.
Mr. Cruce felt for the Board to take this one piece of property
across the street from industrial and have it residential would
not make sense. He stressed that he is caught in a situation
where he can't use his property and can't sell it, and this is
inequitable.
Attorney George Glenn from the law office of Chester Clem
came before the Board representing Ro-Ed Corporation and Ed
Ansin. He noted that Mr. Ansin owns a large amount of property
in this area; he is particularly concerned with the southwest
quadrant; and if thought is given to squaring off the node, Mr.
Ansin would request that the Board give consideration to making
the southwest quadrant a mirror image of the northwest quadrant,
which he felt would get away from strip zoning. Attorney Glenn
then noted that when the node was expanded previously, staff said
most of the acreage there was committed to either commercial or
35
JAN 15 1986
L�
BOCK 63 r';;c 276
J
JAN 15 1986 Boor 63 Prl277
industrial use or had an existing use, and he wished to know if
it is true that there is very little left for expansion.
Planner Shearer stated that the only properties really
committed are two very small commercial properties on the east
side of 1-95 at CR 512, plus the 100 acre Hetra property. All
else that possibly could be considered committed would be the
property in between to connect those properties. The RV Park had
site plan approval, but he believed that has expired, and there
is 49 acres available on the northwest quadrant which was
recently rezoned.
Attorney Glenn -stressed the reason staff gave for expanding
the node 49 acres in the northwest quadrant was, and he quoted:
"Conditions have changed in this area since the Comprehensive
Plan was adopted. Hetra has received site plan approval for
their development, and most of the land in the node is in
existing or committed commercial/industrial uses." Mr. Ansin
would like to see similar expansion in the southwest quadrant.
Frank DeJoia stated that he is a real estate broker in the
Sebastian River area and associated with Dan Cruce who is in
favor of squaring off the node to the south of 1-95 opposite the
industrial area. He does not have any interest financially, but
he is familiar with the area and did believe it would be logical
to include the area opposite the industrial.
Fred Calvert, 995 Periwinkle Dr., also agreed with what Mr.
Cruce has said. He pointed out that 1-95 is about to be
completed all the way through; it is the heaviest traveled road
in Florida; and CR 512 is a main feeder road. Mr. Calvert
believed that in time Sebastian will be larger than Vero Beach
and felt to own property, as he does, within 2,000' of this
highway and have it residential is almost useless. It should be
commercial.
No one further wished to be heard.
36
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Bird inquired what the depth is from CR 512
south to the first road that goes east and west, and Planner
Shearer stated it is about 6001.
Commissioner Wodtke noted that we have taken the position of
trying to get industrial development in the county, and he cannot
think of any area of the county that would have more potential
for industrial type development. Although he did not believe we
can do anything today other than consider the proposed 240 acres,
he would like staff to take another look at this node as he felt
we must look forward 20 years and be fair in providing a
potential all around the intersection for commercial, etc. He
expressed the opinion that squaring off the area south of the
road with the Hetra area as has been suggested would provide
sufficient area for a considerable period of time and also would
be fair and equitable to all property owners.
Commissioner Bird asked if the Board would want to suggest
some number to work with, such as 400 acres, or just leave it
open ended?
Chairman Scurlock talked about the possibility of squaring
off the node by going from the top of the Hetra LM -1 straight
west across 1-95 and then coming down to the south to finish out
the square. It was believed this would involve possibly 1,000
acres. Discussion continued as to various configurations, and
Commissioner Bird expressed preference for squaring off at the
top of the CG and coming across rather than at the top of Hetra's
LM -1.
Carolyn Eggert, Chairman of the Planning & Zoning
Commission, stated her preference to work just with the concept
rather than a set acreage.
37
BQGI< 63 Pm'c 278
JAN 15 196
I
JAN 15 1986 �al;lc 63 Pn.cc279
Commissioner Lyons stressed that we should have enough to
encourage something big, and Chairman Scurlock agreed that if
this should be wanted for an industrial park, they would want
something considerably larger than 100 acres. He noted that such"
parks which have been developed in the Orlando area have been
done very attractively.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Wodtke for purpose of discussion, to send this back to
staff with no particular acreage in mind but with the thought of
trying to square the node off in a more rectangular configura-
tion.
Commissioner Wodtke asked if there is any urgency to set the
node boundaries today.
Chief Planner Shearer explained that what staff would like
to do is set the boundaries today, and then they will immediately
set out on a Comprehensive Plan amendment following the Board's
direction and go through the advertising, etc.
Commissioner Bird and Wodtke agreed to withdraw their
Motion.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
adopted Ordinance 86-7 establishing boundaries
for the 240 acre Commercial/Industrial Node at
the intersection of 1-95 and CR 512.
ON MOTION BY Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
directed staff to proceed with a Comprehensive _
Plan amendment to enlarge the 1-95/CR 512 Node
possibly up to 1,000 acres.
38
® r
ORDINANCE NO. 86 - 7 -
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION-
ERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA ESTABLISH-
ING BOUNDARIES FOR THE 240 ACRE
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NODE LOCATED AT THE
I-95/C.R. 512 INTERCHANGE AS GENERALLY
DESCRIBED IN THE TEXT OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT
w 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.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida have amended the County's Comprehensive
Plan to provide for establishing boundaries for every commer-
cial, commercial/industrial, industrial, tourist/commercial,
and hospital/commercial node; and
WHEREAS, The Planning and Zoning Commission has held a
public hearing and subsequently made a recommendation to
establish boundaries for this node; and,
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners has held a
public hearing on these proposed boundaries at which parties
in interest and citizens had an opportunity to be heard; and,
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners is empowered
to adopt these boundaries to assist in the implementation of
the County's Comprehensive Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that:
The attached map labeled as "Attachment A" and the
description labeled as "Attachment B" shall be the official
boundaries of the 240 acre Commercial/ Industrial Node located
at the I-95/C.R. 512 Interchange.
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.
39
JAN 1 i� 6 BOOK. 63 Fg 280
JAN 15 196
BOOK 63 tL'A;F. 281
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners
of Indian River County, Florida on the 15th day of January
1986.
r
O
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY: �..,.. G
DON C. SCURLOCK JR., CH N
ORDINANCE NO. 86-7
ATTACHMENT A -
40
O
c
v
D
11
T
co
cn
o
,
vo
3
A -
(D
A_
cn
O
�
N
1-95
_
CL
r -
W
pl
Z
O
a
O
c
v
D
11
ORDINANCE NO. 86-7
ATTACHMENT B
DESCRIPTION OF I-95/C.R. 512 COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NODE _
STARTING AT~A POINT WHERE THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF I-95
INTERSECTS THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE ABANDONED
TRANS -FLORIDA CENTRAL RAILROAD; THENCE RUN IN A
SOUTHWESTERLY DIRECTION ALONG THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF
I-95 FOR A DIS`IANCE OF 570 FEET; THENCE RUN EAST FOR A
DISTANCE OF 3,930 FEET ALONG A LINE 300 FEET NORTH OF AND -
PARALLEL TO THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF COUNTY ROAD 512;
THENCE RUN NORTH FOR A DISTANCE OF 3,250 FEET TO A POINT ON
THE FLEMING GRANT LINE; THENCE RUN IN A NORTHWESTERLY _
DIRECTION ALONG THE FLEMING GRANT LINE FOR A DISTANCE OF
10,290 FEET; THENCE RUN EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,900 FEET;
THENCE RUN SOUTH FOR A DISTANCE OF 41530 FEET TO THE
NORTHERN RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF COUNTY ROAD 512; THENCE RUN
WEST ALONG THE AFORE MENTIONED RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE FOR A
DISTANCE OF 3,020 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH FOR A DISTANCE•OF
40 FEET; THENCE RUN WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 700 FEET; THENCE
RUN SOUTH CROSSING COUNTY ROAD 512 AND CONTINUING ALONG THE
WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF 108TH AVENUE FOR A DISTANCE OF
1950 FEET; THENCE RUN WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 900 FEET;
THENCE RUN NORTH FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,200 FEET ALONG THE
EASTERN RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF I-95; THENCE RUN WEST FOR A
DISTANCE OF 1,940 FEET, CROSSING I-95; THENCE RUN NORTH FOR
A DISTANCE OF 2,500 FEET CROSSING COUNTY ROAD 512, AND
TRAVELING ALONG THE EASTERN RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE HOUSTON
TEXAS GAS & OIL CORPORATION EASEMENT TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE ABANDONED TRANS -FLORIDA RAILROAD;
THENCE RUN EAST ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR A DISTANCE OF
1,670 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 240 ACRES,
MORE OR LESS.
41
6
JAN 151986 Boos r A kd,
JAN 15 1986 now 63 P4 -H283
COMMUNITY COLLEGE/D.O.C. REZONING QUESTION
Planning Director Keating informed the Board that staff put
this item on the agenda without any backup so that the college
could have an opportunity to present their problem.
Dr. Herman Heise came before the Board to speak on behalf of
the college and the Dept, of Corrections. He explained that they
are grandfathered in on a zoning situation which does permit the
college on 31 acres on Lundberg Road, and the Board of Trustees
are in the process of giving 5 acres to the D.O.C. for the
purpose of having dormitories. Plans are t,o have about 2,000
corrections officers go through this facility each year for
training. The initial request for a 72 unit dormitory will be
enlarged as the facility continues to grow, and the long range
plan is eventually to make Mueller Center the specified
Corrections Academy for the State of Florida and locate the
college center somewhere else. Hopefully they will be able to
sell part of the property because the D.O.C. will not need all 31
acres and the college will be looking for another site. Dr.
Heise noted that they have had difficulty on this site from the
beginning with the water, the road, the lights, etc. and it is
the hope and plan of the college and the D.O.C. to be able to
make use of the water and sewer facilities the county will have
available.
Chairman Scurlock believed our Utilities Director has been
working on this already and is trying to acquire an easement from
the Poteats who have the neighboring -property; it is possible we
may have to go to condemnation.
Administrator Wright suggested we work with the Community
College on this as possibly they may want to condemn rather than
the county.
Chairman Scurlock inquired what we need to do to facilitate
the rezoning as he believed the Commission feels strongly that
the college is -a definite asset to the community.
42
Director Keating advised that we have two options- w6 can
either direct the applicant to apply for rezoning or go county
initiated.
The consensus was that the rezoning should be county
initiated.
Commissioner Bird asked asked if this would be just for the
the part deeded to the D.O.C.
Director Keating felt it would be preferable to do the whole
parcel, and Dr. Heise agreed it should include the entire 31
acres.
Director Keating noted that the other question relates to
site plan approval. Educational facilities are special exception
uses and will require approval from the Planning & Zoning
Commission and the County Commission. He felt this could be done
concurrently with the rezoning.
Chairman Scurlock talked about the possibility of an
amendment to the Zoning Code which would allow a little different
procedure for a public institution. He noted that he has been
addressing this with the School Board attorney.
Attorney Vitunac believed the new state law requires the
D.O.E. and D.O.C. to cooperate with county site plan require-
ments, etc., and he felt with that understanding we can get the
review done without delaying.
Chairman Scurlock then addressed the road R/W problem, which
he felt is a unique situation involving the Drainage District,
and he hoped we can pursue some sort of vehicle to get a
variance. He noted that we are having the same problem with the
Drainage District in other areas also because they are saying no
one can put anything in their R/W and they seem to be adamant
about it.
Commissioner Bird believed the road situation can be worked
out, and the Administrator agreed.
Commissioner Wodtke volunteered to work and coordinate with
the Public Works Director and the College on the road situation,
43
,JAN 15 1986 BOOK 63 PAGE 284
JAN 15 1986
BOCK 63 PrHr M
and Chairman Scurlock asked that he do so and that he also talk
with the Drainage District, not only about the road but about
utilities.
Commissioner Bird commented re utilities that Dr. Heise
informed him that not only are they willing and ready to hook up
the new dormitory facility to the county sewers, but they will
consider eliminating their package system that is presently
serving the classroom area and connecting that also.
Commissioner Bird then brought up the lack of lighting on
Lundberg Road as he felt this had been approved some time ago.
Dr. Heise commented that the college had a lot of pressure
on it about the lighting, but they did not want to interfere in
any way with any of the counties they serve. He did feel,
however, that this is an area of responsibility for the County
Commissions and pointed out that they were willing to give a
water line to the county just to get lights on the road.
Administrator Wright asked if there is a light at the
intersection of Lundberg Road and 58th Ave, and Director Davis
confirmed that it was authorized and staff wrote a work order to
the utility company (FP&L); however, they have not put the light
up and staff is trying to find out why.
Administrator Wright asked if lights were to be installed
all the way down Lundberg Road. In the ensuing discussion, it
was pointed out that only a light at the intersection had been
authorized, and Dr. Heise felt that was where the confusion arose
as they had thought they had requested lights for the entire
road. He thanked the Board for their cooperative attitude,
assured them they could count on the college for their
cooperation, and further noted that he will advise whoeveG will
: be looking for land in the county for a permanent center for the
college in the future to work with the Commission before
purchasing the land rather than after.
Commissioner Lyons inquired about the effect of the
requested rezoning of the 31 acres on the surrounding property.
44
M M M
- M M
Chairman Scurlock noted that there is a very interesting
situation there as he believed there is a chemical company
adjacent to this property. He felt we are going to see more
stress and pressure on that entity as the residential areas
encroach on it and possibly it will be pushed out of that area.
Commissioner Wodtke brought up the possibility of abandoning
Lundberg Road and looking for an alternate access to the
college.
Chairman Scurlock agreed that Lundberg and 58th Ave, is a
very dangerous intersection.
Attorney O'Haire speaking as a representative of the
Drainage District indicated that he would look forward to working
with Commissioner Wodtke, but noted he is getting an impression
that the District is being accused of arbitrarily taking a
position on location of utilities in their R/W. He wished to
remind the Board that the District also is an elected entity with
a constituency and a responsibility, and the draglines and
equipment they employ are not too compatible with sewer lines.
They are not intentionally being obstructive.
Chairman Scurlock believed that taking the position of
allowing nothing in any R/W is arbitrary; he noted that we bury
the utilities very deep, and he felt we should be allowed to put
them in the R/W at our own risk.
Attorney O'Haire believed there is a misconception or
misunderstanding about this situation, and he suggested the
County talk it over with the District.
Director Davis referred back to the problem with lighting on
Lundberg Road and noted that there is a countywide problem with
FPBL putting in lights.
Commissioner Wodtke believed that the light at the corner of
Lundberg Road and Kings Highway has been authorized for at least
two years, and he felt staff should contact FP&L about this
again.
45
JAN 151986 aooK 63 FA;c 2S
JAN
15
1986
Boa
63 Pnr.287
Director Davis
stated they had written them again
about
three weeks ago, but will be glad to write once more.
Commissioner Wodtke asked if the Board felt there should be
a Motion for staff to proceed with the rezoning, but it was felt
staff has been directed to follow through re this matter.
Director Keating inquired whether the Board wished the fees
for the site plan and special exception approval waived for the
college. Discussion followed on what we do with the School
Board, etc., and Chairman Scurlock believed that they now really
understand the need for long range planning; they have been
extremely cooperative; and he felt we should waive the fees.
This was agreed upon.
REQUEST BY JOSEPH BERLIN TO WITHHOLD CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY
FOR OLD DIXIE SHOPPING CENTER
The Board reviewed staff memo, as follows:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: January 6, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
REQUEST BY JOSEPH BERLIN
SUBJECT: TO WITHHOLD CERTIFICATES
OF OCCUPANCY FOR OLD
DIXIE SHOPPING CENTER
FROM: &b�KREFERENCES:
Robert M. Keating, P Old Dix.
Planning & Development Director DIS:BOB
It is requested that the following information be given formal
consideration by the Board of County -Commissioners—at --their-
regular
Commissionersat--their-
regular meeting of January 15, 1986.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
On December 28, 1985, Mr. Joseph Berlin submitted a letter to
_ the Board of County Commissioners, requesting that the County
not issue any new or renew any old certificates of occupancy
for the Old Dixie Shopping Center until the owners obtain a
state Department of Environmental Regulation stormwater manage-
ment permit for the project. As an individual with equitable
interest in.the project, Mr. Berlin has indicated that struc-
tural.. and other construction related problems exist with the
project and make it unsuitable for occupancy. He also contends
that the County erred in not having required the owners to
obtain a DER stormwater discharge permit prior to initiation of
construction of the project.
46
The attached letter to Mr. Berlin briefly details the project's
history through the site plan review process. That correspon-
dence also identifies the staff's position on -the County's
responsibility to ensure that required permits were obtained.
The project's current status is complete. All improvements
depicted on the site plan were made to the site; the engineer
of -record certified that the site had been constructed in
conformance with the approved plan; the code enforcement
officer inspected the site for conformity, and the building
department issued CO's for the project. On April 29, 1985, the
building department issued CO's for the entire project with the
exception of units 620 and 622. Subsequently, CO's were issued
for those two units.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
Since CO's have been issued for the entire project, Mr. Berlin's
request to withhold further CO's is not applicable. However,
several alternatives do exist for dealing with the problems on
the site. Although the magnitude and extent of the problems
with the shopping center cannot be determined without a
detailed engineering analysis, the building director has
indicated that there appear to be structural problems with at
least one of the buildings. In addition, the public works
director has determined that the stormwater system is inade-
quate.
The major alternatives are as follows:
(1) The County can choose to take no action. In this
case, the problems would be resolved, probably by
.litigation, among the private interests involved.
With this option, however, the County risks public
safety if the structural problems are severe and
risks stormwater impacts on adjacent properties if
the drainage problems are severe.
(2) The County can attempt to ascertain the magnitude of
the problems and condemn the structures if warranted.
Although this option would enhance public safety, it
would be costly, since the County would need to
engage an engineer to do a detailed analysis of the
project.
(3) The County could initiate code enforcement action
against the project's owners. Since detailed engi-
neering data as required for condemnation proceedings
is not necessary for code enforcement actions, this
alternative would be less costly. The major disad-
vantages are the timeframe involved in the code
enforcement process and the inability of the process
to force resolution of the problem. (With the code
enforcement process, once a violation is determined
to exist, an order specifying compliance is issued
and a fine imposed for -noncompliance. However, while
the fine provides an incentive for compliance,
resolution of the problem is not assured.)
RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners
choose alternative #1.
47
Boa 63 P,' crE 20�
L_ JAN 15 196
JAS 15 1986. RaaK. 63 Fp��� 2:
�9
The Chairman noted that there is a question of whether or
not the County will be sued on this matter, and our Attorney,
therefore, has suggested that we swear in Mr. Berlin and anyone
else presenting testimony. He also asked that the Board and
staff not react too quickly today to things we do not have the
answer to at this time.
Joseph Berlin came before the Board and was sworn in by
Attorney Vitunac.
Mr. Berlin informed the Board that on November 10, 1983,
Mary K. Berlin had a site plan approved through Total Development
for a shopping center on South Old Dixie. She discarded these
plans later, and the property was sold. On July 11, 1984, site
plans and building plans were approved for Gary Parris to erect
the shopping center on land on Old Dixie and at that time he did
not own any land on Dixie Highway. Permits were issued in
violation of the law that says proof of ownership has to be
supplied to the county. Mr. Berlin reported that he had with him
copies of two deeds delivered on or about October 8th and 13th to
two different individuals - one being Gary Parris and the other
Dr. Thomas Springer. Now, we have two separate sites and we have
a building permit issued two months previous to Gary Parris on
the entire site, Mr. Berlin's question was how was a building
permit issued on two sites owned by two different people, and in
addition, no site plan was ever submitted and approved.
Attorney Vitunac recommended that the County get Mr.
Berlin's questions in writing and give him a formal correct
answer in writing within a set time frame. Since Mr. Berlin has
already stated in writing that he is going to sue the county,
Attorney Vitunac felt to protect our interests we must be -very
careful and exact.
Mr. Berlin next stated that it has been indicated that the
site plan received by Mary K. Berlin was transferred to the new
buyers. However, county law states that "Site plan approval
shall run with the land and shall transfer to a successor in
48
interest to the original application upon written disclosuFe of
such transfer to the Planning and Development Division." Then,
Paragraph 2 says "Failure to make the required disclosure and
assumption shall suspend all site plan and zoning approvals until
such .dime as proper disclosure and assumption is made." Mr.
Berlin emphasized that Mrs. Berlin never gave anyone authority to
use her site plan; therefore, his second question is relative to
the site plan transfer with no authorization from Mrs. Berlin.
Mr. Berlin pointed out that both county law and state law
state that no construction can start until a permit is received
from the DER. Here we have two sites and there should have been
two permits issued from the DER pertaining to drainage and
environmental protection. Mr. Parris got neither a permit nor an
exemption, and Mr. Berlin advised that he has a letter from the
DER dated December 10, 1985, stating that since the project was
built without a permit for the new stormwater discharge facility,
the project has been referred to the DER enforcement section.
Mr. Berlin continued that he failed to mention that Gary
Parris retained his own building firm and his own architect and
did not use Total Development, which Mrs. Berlin used. The
engineer for Gary Parris submitted and obtained the building
permit for Gary, but he did not obtain the required permit from
the State of Florida; he never even applied for it. Mr. Berlin
pointed out that now we have one permit covering two pieces of
property owned by two different people with no permit from the
DER and no site plan approval However, they went ahead and
built. This has been brushed off by letters from the county
staff stating that they "assumed" the engineer got the proper
permits from the State of Florida. Mr. Berlin did not believe
the county can assume anything; the law says the permit must be
filed with the county.
Mr. Berlin then went on to explain what has happened because
of this. The entire parking lot of the shopping center is
breaking up. The engineering was not properly done and the
49
BOOK 63 rru,-, 290
JAN 15 1986
JAN 15 1986
BOLI( 63 rd.vr.
center sits 6 or 7" below the water table. When it rains heavy,
the water actually comes up through the parking lot breaking it
up. Severe settlement has been taking place inside the building
and one floor has dropped over 11". If we have two or three days**
rain, the retention area overflows the rear parking lot. They
have a septic tank just a few feet away from the retention area
that has an elevation of 22" above street level, and the two
buildings pump their sewage up into the septic tank. When it
rains, the water underground comes underneath Old Dixie and stops,
at the railroad tracks, and this area between the tracks and Old
Dixie is swampy. Thus, the situation arises where it is
possible, if the septic tank had full use, that it could be
filtering into the retention area. The retention area stays
full; there is growth in there; the drainage grills are 12-15"
below the water at all times, and it is becoming an unhealthy
situation.
Mr. Berlin informed the Board that application has been made
by a church to use this building temporarily while they build,
and that frightens him because they have 3-4' of water in a large
retention area and the sides slope and are muddy. If there are
young children there, they could run out there and slip in and
not get out, and he does not want to be responsible. The
insurance company is going to cancel the policy because they are
now aware of the fact that no legitimate permits were ever issued
on this project, and he did not feel he should be exposed to
lawsuits because of a problem in the various departments of the
county; therefore, he is asking for some sort of protection.
Mr. Berlin then presented another problem which he felt is
very serious. He noted that first of all, when that property was
split in half and two deeds prepared before construction started
that was illegal and made that property invalid because the law
specifically says that a subdivision has to be recorded before
You split the property. However, staff never saw fit to ask Gary
r
Parris to bring in deeds, and Mr. Berlin continued that if they
50
had brought in the deeds which he has here, they would hav6
instantly seen that there are two owners on this piece of
property and no subdivision map was ever recorded. After a while
the two owners found out there was going to be a problem; so,
they submitted this for approval last year - Old Dixie Plaza
Subdivision. The buildings were already built, and they decided
since they weren't leasing very well, they had better make
arrangements to sell them somehow. There are two ways that these
structures can be sold; one way is condo style and the other way
is party wall style. In party wall sales you describe each store
and give it a number as if it were a lot and then everybody
shares in the property around it as you would in a condominium,
but you have to decide which way you want to go, and the question
Mr. Berlin wished to ask was which way was this site plan
presented to the Commissioners for their approval - condominium
or party wall?
Attorney Vitunac stated that we will respond to that
question in writing.
Mr.
Berlin
then proceeded
to quote
from
a copy of the Board
Minutes
of May
15, 1985, copy
of which
is as
follows:
51
JAN 1 X9 6 Boor 63 r, 292
,"'JAN 15 ��
. � BOCK 63, r':G�. 293
MAY 15 1985
BOOKt1
G. Final Plat Approval - Old Dixie Plaza Subdivision
The Board reviewed memo of Staff Planner Boling, as follows:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: May 10, 1985 FILE:
of the Board of
County Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENC
kBJECT:. FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR
f OLD DIXIE PLAZA SUBDIVI-
Robert M. KeaUingyPIAICP SION
Planning & Development Director
THROUGH: Mary Jane V. Goetzfried
FROM:
Chief,, Current DevelopmeREP't,&rA RCES:
T,A b, E. Stan Boling
Stan Boling
It is requested that the following information be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting on May 15, 1985.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Old Dixie Plaza Subdivision is a 3 acre, 16 lot subdivision of
an existing two -building commercial plaza. The site plan for
the plaza was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission
on November 10, 1983 (Joseph Berlin Retail Stores SP -82-06-
089). The plaza, located at 620 Old Dixie Highway, was re-
cently completed and has received a final Certificate of
Occupancy. The subject property is zoned C-1 (Commercial
District) and has a MXD (Mixed Use District) land use desig-
nation. The subdivision lot lay -out is designed to plat over
the existing building units.
The submitted final plat is in conformance with the prelimi-
nary plat as approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission at
their May 9, 1985 regular meeting.
e
The owner, Gary Parris, is now.requesting final plat approval.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
The request to file this plat is being made so that the
project can be sold as a land condominium -type development.
As such, each proposed lot is to be sold off with its corres-
ponding building area. (The proposed lot lines run. along
existing building walls.) All other areas within the plat
boundaries are to be owned and maintained by a property
owners' association. The plat has been reviewed and approved
by all of the appropriate County departments as acceptable for
final plat approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant
final plat approval to Old Dixie Plaza Subdivision.
--S2
Commissioner Wodtke inquired if this was site planned as an
individual owner and now will change so it will be s.old,separ-
ately, and Planning Director Keating confirmed that this is
comparable to a situation at Waverly Place where the site plan
came in and then they decided to go to land condominiums.
Commissioner Wodtke wished to know if this had been platted
originally as a land condominium whether the construction re-
quirements and those for water and sewer would have been
different, and Planner Boling stated they would not; it would
have been approved as submitted originally.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously granted
Final Plat Approval to Old Dixie Plaza Subdivision.
MAY 15 1985
Mr. Berlin felt there is no doubt the county accepted this
as being a land condo, and there can be criminal charges brought
if someone sells property as condominium without the proper papers
being filed in Tallahassee. No papers have ever been filed for
condo sale on this property, but property has been sold; he
bought two lots himself.
Mr. Berlin then went on to inform the Board that Attorney
George Glenn prepared the papers for the sale as directed by the
then County Attorneys, and those papers were prepared for the
lots to be sold as party wall lots. Why, therefore, was this
brought before the Commission and misrepresented as bei.ng a condo
sale? He felt the reason is that somebody anticipated Mr.
Wodtke's question as to whether the way this had been planned
originally, would it have been approved for a condominium lot
subdivision, and the answer was yes. If they had come in
and asked for a subdivision the way it was actually sold as a
party wall subdivision, and the question had been asked if it
would comply with party wall regulations, they would have had to
say no and the Board would have turned it down. Mr. Berlin
53
JAN 1 1QB Bao 63 P,� 2.94
JS. � IV
JAN 15 1996 Boas 63 rnur- 295
explained that every store would had to have had a fire wall to
be sold as a party wall condo, and Fire Code states that it must
be a 3 hour fire wall, which is an 8" block wall filled with
concrete with reinforcing roads attached to footings underneath
and also extending 3' above the roof. He bought his two stores
as party wall condos; so, he has an illegal purchase; his deed is
no good; and he can't resell it. It was sold to him as one
thing, the Board approved it as something else. and that is why
he is here.
Mr. Berlin then stated that regarding the actual construc-
tion of the building, the engineer never provided for any
drainage. The engineer said he assumed there was a ditch running
along the railroad tracks these retention areas would drain into,
but a letter from staff indicates that the railroad does not
permit private people to drain on their property and advised that
they should pay attention to this on their application. No
application was ever made by the engineer for these two sites.
There should have been two applications; there are two owners.
There should have been two sets of plans, and there wasn't even
one. It was assumed that they took over his wife's papers issued
to her some months before, but nobody ever got authorization to
use those. Mr. Berlin noted that the contractor of record is
present and will present testimony.
David Autry came before the Board and was sworn in by
Attorney Vitunac.
Mr. Autry confirmed that he is the contractor of record. He
emphasized that he is not an engineer or an architect; he builds
buildings on site to specifications, and he did not wish to
discuss other situations of the property, the water table, the
legalities, etc., which he had nothing to do with.
Attorney Vitunac asked if the Building Department had any
questions for Mr. Autry.
Building Director Ester Rymer asked Mr. Autry if he applied
for one building permit for two buildings and in whose name.
54
� o r
Mr. Autry replied that site plan approval was given to Mr.
Parris on both projects, and Mr. Autry's firm applied for the
permit. They went through regular procedures and were reviewed
by the Building Department, and they acquired the permits through
the regular avenues.
Director Rymer asked if they submitted their application for
two buildings on one site and one owner, and Mr. Autry confirmed
that they did.
Director Rymer noted that Mr. Autry made the comment that he
built the buildings but did not want to get into the engineering
or the water table, etc. She believed, as a general contractor,
he did review all the engineering drawings, the engineering
reports on soil, etc., before he began his building.
Mr. Autry stated that he worked directly with Engineer
Harlan Peterson to see if the elevations were adequate, and the
water table was taken into consideration. He again emphasized
that he is not an architect or engineer; he can look at the plans
and can question whether the elevation is normal in relation to
the road, but he cannot make them change it.
Building Director Rymer asked if Mr. Autry did not work with
Engineer Peterson from the beginning, and Mr. Autry confirmed
that he did.
Director Rymer then asked if Mr. Autry had questioned the -
soil reports or engineering, and Mr. Autry stated that the site
did have to be demucked and that was done; the fill was replaced
and made stable; and tests were done. He could not answer for
the engineer.
Director Rymer asked if it was Mr. Autry's understanding
when starting the project, that he was building it as one
building with tenant separations - really two buildings but under
one roof structure with tenant separation only.
Mr. Autry did not know the way they had it worded, but he
did know it was two separate buildings with separate tenants.
55
Bou 6 jrg-C 296
BOOK 63 ur 297
Director Rymer believed that Mr. Autry knows the Code and he
contracted to build it as a building under one roof with
non-bearing partitions separating the tenants. She asked if it
is true that those are non-bearing walls.
Mr. Autry emphasized that he just built the building to
design, and the architect specified the wording.
Chairman Scurlock felt, in other words, Mr. Autry is saying
he just followed the plans and was not concerned with the form of
ownership, and Mr. Autry said that was exactly it; he was just
hired to construct the building to plans. He had nothing to do
with the ownership, the design or the engineering.
Chairman Scurlock believed Mr. Berlin is saying that this
structure is sub -standard; that it has defects and should not be
inhabited. As contractor of record, he wished to know if Mr.
Autry would not be responsible for construction of the building
and whether it would not be his responsibility to bring any
defects to someone's attention.
Mr. Autry advised that they have done regular inspections,
which is the regular procedure. They have noticed structural
defects because, they think, and also have advice from other
people (engineers and professional people), that the water table
is extremely high. There wasn't any water drain off on the
property site, and the water table is setting right underneath
the footer of the building. The damage occurring now is possibly
from the parking lot which is settling. He stated that they
noted this and reported it to the engineer and, of course, to the
owners. Mr. Autry stressed that the building was built properly,
all inspections done and passed, proper materials used, etc., and
they could not foresee the problems with the water.
Chairman Scurlock asked if Mr. Autry is saying the building
was built to Code and was structurally sound, but the structural
integrity is being threatened by the water table and the drainage
situation, and -Mr. Autry agreed.
56
Planning Director Keating had no questions at this point,
but Public Works Director Davis asked Mr. Autry if the parking
lot was constructed with 6" stabilized subgrade with the required
bearing value, and Mr. Autry confirmed that it was and that the
subgr.ade was approved before they poured the concrete.
Michael Galanis of the Environmental Health Department
interjected that in the case of development such as this, where
we are dealing with pumps, etc., the elevation of the building is
not established based on the sewerage disposal. The elevation of
the building would be a function of the contractor or the
Building Department. His department did not set an elevation on
that building, but on the drainfields. If you go around the back
of the building, you will see what Gary Parris called "Mount
Parris." That is his sewage disposal. They are at this point
dangerously, or, at least, very close to the water retention
areas. However, as designed, if the drainage situation worked,
which he does not think it does, they would not be in the
proximity they are to the retention area.
Chairman Scurlock asked what authority the Environmental
Health Agency has to intervene if the sewage system is not
functioning.
Mr. Galanis stated that if the sewage system was not
functioning - and it is functioning - they would then be able to
order a correction to -see that it does function.
Attorney Vitunac swore in Neil Nelson.
Mr. Nelson came before the Board representing Dr. Springer
and stated that Dr. Springer actually had no control over any of
this other than investing his money into a building. It seems
there are two separate problems involved, and it appears there
will be a long period of litigation to determine the facts. Mr.
Nelson noted that he had a certified engineer down on the
property, Harlan Peterson, and Mr. Peterson feels there are no
structural defects, that the parking lot is not broken up. Mr.
Nelson advised that the biggest problem is that Dr. Springer has .
57
JAS 1 � F����298
Fr_
JAN 15 1986
Boa .63, Fn -L299
an opportunity to lease to the Emanuel Baptist Church for a
period of one year while they are building their permanent
church, and he would like to do this. Dr. Springer feels that
the building is safe and that there is no problem with it. Mr.
Nelson advised that they received a change of use for this from
the Technical Review Committee yesterday, depending on the
Commission's decision today. Mr. Nelson urged that the Board not
deny Dr. Springer the opportunity to rent to the church and
emphasized that Dr. Springer is covered with insurance which has
not been canceled.
Mr. Berlin interjected that he did not say the insurance had
been canceled, but just asked that he receive some protection
from the county in the event it became canceled because he did
feel the county committed quite a few errors both during and
prior to construction of this project. He believed the engineer
was at fault, but the error should have been caught. He further
pointed out that Harlan Peterson, the engineer who gave the
expert advice to Mr. Nelson re the building, is the same man who
drew the plans; an independent engineering firm was not called
in. Mr. Berlin felt the Commissioners should personally view the
problems before they make any decision.
Commissioner Lyons asked if Mr. Berlin is saying that he
considers the building unsafe far occupancy.
Mr. Berlin advised that the one building has heavy settling
cracks. He has not been in the other building except for the one
store he owns, and the floor is covered with vinyl tile so he
can't see what is going on. However, -seeing the condition of the
parking lot and looking into the roll-over grills and seeing
water 7-8" below the surface and knowing it is also underneath
those building, seeing settlement cracks in the other building,
and the floor having dropped 12" already would make him nervous.
Mr. Berlin stated that he will not rent his building and put a
tenant in it as he believes it is a dangerous situation. Mr.
Berlin then reviewed the various illegalities he claimed were
58
� s �
involved in the whole transaction, which he felt were reason
enough to stop the use of the shopping center until this is all
straightened out. _
Chairman Scurlock asked if Mr. Berlin was suggesting the
applications for these permits were made with the intention to
defraud the county.
Mr. Berlin stated that he was not; he was just saying the
engineering was done poorly and as a result the whole building is
jeopardized.
Commissioner Lyons felt the only person who could testify
whether the building actually is unsafe for the public to occupy
would be a qualified engineer, and he asked if Mr. Berlin was
willing to get an engineering opinion to that effect. He felt if
this were done, the county would be forced to take the position
the building should be closed.
Mr. Berlin advised that his stand is that he came here to
speak and put the Board on notice of these things, and if the
Board wants to let the building be occupied, it is at their risk.
He did not feel he has to prove anything.
Chairman Scurlock determined there was no further input. He
thereupon directed Planning Director Keating to put in writing
the answers to the questions raised by Mr. Berlin.
Director Keating confirmed that he will do so, but felt Mr.
Berlin wants a decision today about the CO's.
Chairman Scurlock felt they already have been issued.
Director Keating noted that a change of use, of which Mr.
Nelson spoke, was given by the TPC yesterday based on the
condition that no adverse action was taken by the Board today.
Chairman Scurlock did not see how the Board can take action
without seeing the staff's response to Mr. Berlin's questions.
Administrator Wright stated that in the absence of action,
staff would recommend the CO be allowed.
Commissioner Wodtke asked if we have the ability to do an
inspection of the building they want to occupy. He would like to _
59
JAN 15 1986
JAN 15 enbK 63 is-n)E 301
have the opinion of the Building Department as we do not want the
church go in there if there is any safety problem.
Attorney Vitunac advised that there is no legal problem with
asking the Building Director to do another inspection to see if
the building should be condemned. Director Rymer, however, says
there is nothing obvious from looking at it and that it would
require having a structural engineer do an expensive report. We
have suggested the owners give us such a report.
Commissioner Bird asked if COs are issued individually for
each unit within the building or if one CO has already been
issued for the entire building?
The Building Director advised they have issued COs on the
entire facility, and Administrator Wright explained the only
reason the church had to come in for a CO was that a church
represents a change of use for this particular zoning.
Chairman Scurlock stated that where he has a problem is our
process. Our Building Department does not have a whole staff of
engineers and architects, and because of that we rely on the seal
of certified professionals, which generally works pretty well.
However, just as a lay person looking at this, he can see plainly
there is a ridiculous drainage situation and there may be a
problem with the septic system, and this gives him some real
concern.
Commissioner Lyons concurred that Director Rymer does not
inspect for structural capability of a building but just as to
whether it meets the Building Code and the approved plans, and
Commissioner Wodtke agreed there is only so far we can go; we
can't protect everyone against everything that might possibly go
wrong. _
Chairman Scurlock assumed Mr. Galanis of Environmental
Health will see if the septic system works, and if it does, that
takes care of his concern.
Mr. Galan -is confirmed that it is a functioning system, and
he felt strongly that it will work because of the elevation.
60
r � �
Building Director Rymer wished to emphasize that the Build-
ing Department not only relies on the architects and engineers to
design buildings properly, but state law requires this because
Building Departments do not generally have architects and
engineers on their staff. The building had to be designed by a
professional and it was. Testimony has been given that the
contractor built according to those plans and the Building
Department inspected according to those plans, and that's all we
can do.
Discussion ensued regarding how long a time will be required
for Director Keating to answer the questions raised by Mr.
Berlin, and it was agreed this would be brought back at the
meeting of February 5th.
Neil Nelson inquired whether the Board is denying the use of
this building by the church, and he was informed that they are
not.
DER/ARMY CORPS/DNR PERMIT APPLICATIONS (SEMBLER & SEMBLER, INC.)
The Board reviewed memo of Chief Environmental Planner Art
Challacombe, as follows:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: January 7, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: D.E.R./ARMY CORPS
/ & D.N.R. PERMIT
�'1, SUBJECT: APPLICATIONS
Robert M. Keat'ng, ICP
Planning &.Development Director
e_%-9—
FROM: Art Challacombe REFERENCES: Sembler
Chief, Environmental Planning DIS:ARTCHA
D.E.R. DREDGE & FILL PERMIT APPLICATION
FILE NUMBER 31-113589-4
APPLICANT: Sembler & Sembler Inc.
WATERWAY & LOCATION:
The proposed project is located on the Indian River, approxi-
mately 100 feet south of 9th Street and North Indian River
Drive, in the City of Sebastian.
WORK & PURPOSE:
The applicant proposes to construct a restaurant and deck with
overall dimensions of 100 feet by 70 feet, elevated walkway (8'
x 851), and elevated driveway (12' x 851) on privately owned
submerged land. The applicant also proposes to plant 2,500
square feet of wetland vegetation along the shoreline and place
live oysters (5,600 square feet) on the submerged river bottom.
JAN 15 1986 61, Bou 63 rr,UUC 302
JAN 15 1986 BOOK 63
EXISTING CONDITIONS:
This project was brought before the Planning & Zoning
Commission on March 28, 1985 and the Board of County Commis-.
sioners on April 10, 1985. In both instances, the Boards found
that the project was in conflict with the policies set forth in
the following documents:
The Conservation & Coastal Zone Management Element of
the Indian River Comprehensive Plan;
Coastal Zone Management, Interim Goals, Objectives &
Policies for the Treasure Coast Region; and
The Hutchinson Island Resource Planning & Management
Plan.
As such, it has been the County's concern that the project
would have a negative impact upon the Indian River's benthic
ecosystem by eliminating light penetration, thus precluding
seagrass and photosynthetic algae survival. This was also the
opinion of the Florida Game & Freshwater Fish Commission based
upon a field inspection and analysis. (attachment enclosed).
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
The revised application includes structures over water with
coverage of 8,700 square feet. This is a fifty.percent reduc-
tion in size from the previous application. In addition, the
applicant proposes to plant 2,500 square feet of Spartina
alterniflora along the shoreline and re-establish a portion of
the submerged bottom with live oysters. All construction will
take place on privately owned upland and submerged land.
Although the revised application has added a number of positive
aspects to the overall plan, it is staff's opinion that the
preemption of 8700 square feet of submerged bottom for habitat
purposes will outweigh the proposed mitigation. In addition,
staff feels that the permitting of this project may create a
precedent that would encourage other non -coastal dependent uses
to be developed in the Indian River.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners autho-
rize staff to transmit a letter to the D.E.R. recommending
against the issuance of a permit for this project. ---'----_-'-
Fred Mensing came before the Board representing Sembler &
Sembler. He noted that the county has 14 days to respond, but
timely notification was not received by Mr. Sembler, who would
like the opportunity to be here personally; he could not be here
today.
Chief Planner Challacombe advised that there is a problem
with responding; the 14 days expired yesterday.
Director Keating confirmed that we are only given 14 days to
respond from the date we receive the notification, and going
62
through normal procedures and preparing an agenda item putt staff
on a real tight deadline. Notification was sent to the Semblers.
Planner Challacombe confirmed that notice was sent on
January 8th to the applicant, as well as his engineer and
environmental consultant. Staff also notified him by telephone,
and the Semblers were aware of this date.
Mr. Mensing asked if letter couldn't be sent to the DER
stating that at the request of the applicant, the county's
response will be eight days late. He noted if this concept is
approved, the land will be bought, and there are a number of
people who stand to lose by an inadequate presentation.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, that the Board continue
with the hearing.
Commissioner Wodtke felt it is unfortunate that the Semblers
cannot be here. He knew they are long time North County
residents and are concerned about the river and habitat.
Commissioner Bird asked if some correspondence couldn't be
sent to the DER saying we have agendaed this item for next week,
and Planner Challacombe agreed this could be done, but he did not
know what the impact would be.
Chairman Scurlock believed that staff has researched this
and made a decision based on their expertise.
Planner Challacombe pointed out that the Commission did look
at this project about a year ago, and although there has been a
reduction in size, the overall ramifications are exactly the
same.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION on the Motion
to proceed with the hearing. It was voted on and
carried unanimously.
63
JAN 15 1986 13ooK 63 F�nu,C- 0-
JAS 1
�Ia
goo
63 ; 1.3 J5
Commissioner Lyons
inquired if there is something
different
in this situation since the previous consideration.
Fred Mensing reported that he only spoke with Mr. Sembler
about this early today, and he has not had time to prepare; he
just wanted this matter to be delayed because Mr. Sembler only
got the notice today and the address on it should have been his
post office box, not 1616 North Indian River Drive, which is his
exwife's address.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, Commissioners Bird and Wodtke
voting in opposition, the Board by a 3-2 vote
accepted the staff recommendation with the addi-
tion that we request the permitting people to give us
the opportunity for further comment if the applicant
presents additional facts that we do not have today.
Commissioner Wodtke stated that he is not faulting staff in
any way as he realizes mail can be misdirected, but he felt there
should have been some voice contact.
Chairman Scurlock felt staff stated that they talked to the
Sembler's consultant and engineer, and Planner Challacombe
confirmed that he talked to Engineer Dean Luethje.
Commissioner Bird stated that the only reason he voted in
opposition to the Motion was he did not feel staff had talked to
them, and he would, therefore, change his vote, and vote in favor
of the Motion.
DER/ARMY CORPS/DNR PERMIT_ APPLICATION (MERSER-MMacLEAN-APPLEWEST-
REBAR )
Planner DeBlois made the staff presentation, as follows:
64
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: January 7, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: D.E.R., ARMY CORPS AND
D.N.R. PERMIT APPLICA-
,,�, SUBJECT: TIONS
Robert M. Keating,,, AICP
Planning & Development Director
THROUGH: .Art Challacombe
Chief, Environmental Planning
FROM: Roland M. DeB1ois REFERENCES: DER Permits
Staff Planner KMD DIS:IBMIRD
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of January 15, 1986.
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION APPLICATION FILE NO.S
31-113598-4, 31-113600-4, 31-113601-4, & 31-113609-4
APPLICATION DESCRIPTIONS:
1) Application No. 31-113598-4
- Applicant: Mr. Herbert B. Merser, 157 Island Creek
Drive, Indian River Shores, Florida, 32963.
- Waterway & Location: The project is located in the
Indian River in John's Island Sound, adjacent to Lot
185, John's Island Plat No. 2, Section 12, Township
32 South, Range 39 East, Indian River County,
Florida. The upland property associated with the
project is located at 157 Island Creek Drive, in the
Town of Indian River Shores.
- Work & Purpose: The applicant proposes to construct
a private single 6' x 20' marginal dock (120 square
feet). No sewage pump -out or finding facilities are
proposed. No dredging or filling will be performed.
2) Application No. 31-113600-4:
Applicant: Mr. John R. MacLean, 36 Ostead Avenue,
West Port, Connecticut 06880.
- Waterway & Location: The project is located in the
Indian River, adjacent. to Lot 39, Unit 5, The
Moorings, Section 5, Township 33 South, Range 40
East, Indian River County, Florida. The upland
property associated with the project is located at
139 Anchor Drive, in Indian River County.
Work & Purpose: The applicant proposes to construct
a private single L-shaped dock, extending 13 feet
waterward, 4 feet in width. The terminal platform is
to have a length of 32 feet and a width of 5 feet.
No sewage pump -out or fueling facilities are
proposed. No dredging or filling will be performed.
3) Application No. 31-113601-4:
- Applicant: Applewest N.V., c/o Everett Jacobson,
P.O. Box 850, Vero Beach, Florida 32960.
65
JAN 15 1986
i
JAN 15 �9�� Boor 63 : 307
Waterway & Location: The project is located in the
Indian River in Bethel Creek, adjacent to Lot 10,
Block 2, Unit 1, Bethel Isles, Section 29, Township
32 South, Range 40 East, Indian River County,
Florida. The upland property associated with the
,project is located at 4832 Bethel Creek Drive, in the
City of Vero Beach.
Work & Purpose: The applicant proposes to construct
3 separate 4' x 19' straight piers, perpendicular to
the shore and parallel to each other, separated by a
distance of 22 feet and 21 feet, respectively.. The
combined number of boat slips proposed is five. No
sewage pump -out or fueling facilities are proposed.
No dredging or filling will be performed.
4) Application No 31-113609-4:
Applicant: Mr. Donald M. Rebar, 20510 Bunker Hill,
Fairview Park, Ohio 44126.
Waterway & Location: The project is located in the
Indian River in John's Island Sound, adjacent to Lot
21, Replat of John's Island Plat Nos. 25 and 26,
Section 12, Township 32 South, Range 29 East, Indian
River County, Florida. The upland property associ-
ated with the project is located at Lot 21, Coconut
Palm Road, in the Town of Indian River Shores.
Work i&_Purpose: The applicant proposes to construct
a private single L-shaped dock, extending 60 feet
waterward, 4 feet in width. The terminal platform is
to have a length of 22 feet and a width of 7 feet, 4
inches. No sewage pump -out or fueling facilities are
proposed. No dredging or filling will be performed.
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 Planninq & Management Plan
The Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances
In reviewing the proposed dockage projects, only one of the
four projects is located in the unincorporated portion of the
County. Subsequently, the focus of staff review is on poten-
tial County and regional impacts rather than site-specific
impacts; in-depth field inspections of the project sites were
not conducted.
Chapter 16Q-20 of the Florida Administrative Code sets parame-
ters for private residential single docks located in the Indian
River Aquatic Preserve. Section 16Q -20.04(5)(b), Florida
Administrative Code, sets forth specific design standards and
66
criteria for private single docks, among which are the follow-
ing:
w Any main access dock shall be limited to a maximum width
of four (4) feet; and
The dock will extend out from the shoreline no further
than to a maximum depth of minus (-4) feet (mean low
water).
Staff has not determined if the proposed dockage project
locations are in the Aquatic Preserve or if they are to be
located on privately owned bottomlands. If the projects are
located in the Preserve, proposed dock applications Nos.
31-113598-4 and 31-113600-4 exceed the above cited design
standards and criteria, respectively.
No dredging or filling is proposed -in--the--construction of any—
of the four dockage projects. In that respect, the projects
will result in minimal additional impact to areas where private
single docks have been previously permitted.
Staff has not determined the extent to which the submerged
bottomlands of the proposed project areas will be impacted; the
effect of Indian River development on ecologically valuable
seagrass beds should be considered.
Although the extent of any impacts are not fully known at this
time, there may be cumulative impacts of these and other
dockage projects proposed to be constructed along the Indian
River upon the Florida Manatee.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners
authorize staff to forward the following comments regarding
these projects to the Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation:
1) The Department of Environmental Regulation and other
appropriate agencies should coordinate with the D.N.R. to
determine if the proposed projects are located in the
Indian River Aquatic Preserve and therefore subject to
requirements of Chapter 16Q-20, Florida Administrative
Code;
2) The Department of Environmental Regulation and other
appropriate agencies should consider the potential cumula-
tive impacts of dockage projects upon the Florida Manatee;
3) The Department of Environmental Regulation and other
appropriate agencies should evaluate the potential impact
of marina projects on ecologically significant submerged
bottomlands such as seagrass beds in the Indian River.
67
JAN 15 1986 aoo 3 r,, -)c 308
80a63 109
Commissioner Lyons asked if any of the applicants were here,
and none were.
Director Keating felt actually these should have been put on
the Consent Agenda.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously
accepted the staff recommendation as set out
in the above memo.
PRESENTATION BY JAIL ARCHITECT RE NEW ADDITION
General Services Director Dean noted that at the last
meeting in 1985, the Board instructed Mr. Bail of Frizzell
Architects to -come back to the Board with a recommendation as to
how to proceed with the construction of Phase 2 of the jail site,
the minimum security facility. Director Dean confirmed that we
do have approval through the design and development stage of
Phase 2 from the State Department of Corrections. He then
presented Mr. Bail to make his presentation.
Mr. Bail informed the Board that they have been working very
fast on the construction documents and hope to complete them by
March 15th. He pointed out that in normal procedure, it would
take 30 days after that time to receive bids, and the construc-
tion period would be about nine months. Mr. Bail noted that
Commissioner Lyons asked them to bring the Board their recommen-
dations as to how this process could be speeded up with the goal
of having the minimum security facility finished as close as
possible to the time of completion of the original jail. He has
discussed this with RS6H Constructors and the following is the
suggestion he would like to make.
By the 8th or 9th of next month, Frizzell can have the
architectural drawings nearly complete, the structural framing
plans complete, the preliminary mechanical and electrical
drawings and the performance specifications on the entire
68
security system. With this information, RS&H feels they c5n
safely provide a guaranteed maximum cost figure which would be
subject to reduction when they get the final quotes based on the
final plans. It would be possible to negotiate a contract with
them at that time based on a negotiated fee and overhead cost,
and they then could proceed with starting certain parts of the
work, for instance, foundations. It would take them about two
weeks to prepare their cost estimate. Mr. Bail continued that
they could also get the security contractor started on shop
drawings, which is a big holdup because these have to be prepared
before the foundations can go too far. With this process it
would be possible to speed up the time schedule by a couple of
months and bring completion very close to the completion of the
original jail.
As a further precaution, Mr. Bail recommended the Board
authorize a private cost estimating consulting firm to make a
separate estimate at the same time RS&H prepares theirs so we can
check on the costs. He advised that there are a number of firms
in this business, and he talked to one just to get an idea of
what the cost would be. This is a firm out of Illinois which is
presently estimating a jail his company is designing in conjunc-
tion with a Tampa firm, and they said they could prepare such an
estimate based on these preliminary documents in two weeks' time
at a cost of $3,700. �lf the Board likes this idea, it could be
handled as a lump sum change order to the present contract with
the stipulation that the cost would be adjusted downward as plans
are finalized.
Chairman Scurlock asked what the inducement would be for a
supplier to tell a consulting firm who checks on a price what
their lowest and best bid would be if they know this is going to
a specific contractor.
Mr. Bail doubted the estimator would be talking to the same
suppliers; -the one he is talking about is a national firm.
69
JAN 15 1986 ray 63
JAN
15
1986
BOOK
c X11
Chairman Scurlock noted that construction
in the
county is
slow, and he was not sure it is worth going through this process
to save possibly 60 days.
Discussion ensued re the advantages of having one
contractor, but Chairman Scurlock noted we are dealing with two
different buildings, actually two different jobs. He stated that
actually he would very much like a local contractor to bid and be
successful, especially with the slow economy in the area. He did
not feel the same level of expertise is required as on the
maximum security facility.
Administrator Wright agreed, but felt we need to move as
quickly as possible; and he would like to have staff and one or
two Commissioners attempt to negotiate a fee. If we cannot reach
a reasonable fee using the advice of the architect and an
independent cost estimating firm, then we would go to bid.
The Chairman asked Attorney Vitunac is there is any problem
with this legally.
Attorney Vitunac stated that the Consultant's Competitive
Negotiations Act is an issue, but he felt, because of the time
constraints of opening two jails at once, plus the fact that the
D.O.C. has us in court to get this facility open, and also with
the engineering viewpoint that one contractor would be better
than two, that there was no problem with the action suggested,
especially with an independent group setting a maximum on the
second building.
Mr. Bail advised that normally the D.O.C. requires complete
documents before anything can be let,'but he believed they are so
anxious to see this completed that they will let us move ahead.
Commissioner Bird noted that we still would have the option
to go to bid at the eleventh hour.
Chairman Scurlock asked about starting off the process both
ways, and Administrator Wright pointed out that if we can't nego-
tiate successfully, we will not meet the deadlines and it will be
a problem anyway.
70
Discussion ensued at length as to how much a few more'weeks
will matter in the long run.
Commissioner Wodtke commented that he can see some benefits
if the contractor is already there on the site, but under the
circumstances, with our local builders, we need to be very sure
that we do get a good and fair price. He felt just to be sure
there is no collusion anywhere, there should be two estimators,
and he would like to have our architect supply a list of at least
five firms that do this type of estimating.
Administrator Wright agreed that having two estimators would
make him feel better. As to the difference the delay in time
might make, he noted that one problem is that the laundry is
planned to be in the new building, and the delay would cause them
to have to haul laundry back and forth for 120 people. He
explained that it is planned to move the laundry out of the main
building and expand the medical area. The Administrator
reiterated he would feel better with two estimates, and that he
would welcome a Board member as part of the negotiating team. He
noted that Commissioner Lyons has been a part of this project
since the beginning.
Commissioner Lyons confirmed that he would be glad to
continue to work with it, if the Chairman desired.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED
by Commissioner Lyons, to authorize staff to secure
two estimates from consulting firms based on the
presentation made by Mr. Bail and to retain the
option to go to full bid if negotiations are not
successful with RS&H Constructors.
Commissioner Wodtke stated that he wished to have a Fist
from Mr. Bail so we can do an independent selection of an
estimator.
71
JAN 15 1966 63
Chairman Scurlock advised that he planned to vote against
the Motion as he did not feel we will get the best price by using
this process. He felt Commissioner Lyons will do an outstanding
job negotiating and knew the consulting firms get an average
price and that we would get a decent price, but he still felt
competitive bidding is the best process. He also did not think
60 days is all that important.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried 4 to 1 with
Chairman Scurlock voting in opposition.
R/W ACQUISITION - LATERAL "A" (HARRIET WILSON PROPERTY)
The Board reviewed staff memo, as follows:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: December 31, 1985FILE:
The Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH::
Michael Wright,
County Administrator SUBJECT:
RIGHT OF MY ACQUISITION
James W. Davis, P.E. 0,LATERAL "A" - 66TH AVENUE
Public Works Director-` NORTH OF CR 510
HARRIET WIIaSON PROPERTY
FROM: Donald G. Finney REFERENCES: REFERENCES: h. wilson r/w-agenda
Right of Way Acquisition Agent
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The Board of County Commissioners previously approved condemnation but also
authorized staff to offer $16,127. for the __35' _right__of way (2.193±_Ac) - -
through Mrs. Wilson's attorney Ted Herzog as final negotiations. This is
the last remaining parcel to acquire before June 1986 , when all the
parcels will revert back to the property owners if not acquired. The
required right of way has been shortened 7' in width on the south half,
with the north half of the project remaining at the 351• right of w4y width.
This will enable the county to relocate the fence rather than replacing the
entire length of the R/W with new fence. In addition, this will save the
trees inside the pasture which was the property owners biggest concern.
The result will be a savings of roughly $4,000 to the county. The Board's
Previous authorization was $12,062. for 2.193± acres and $4,065 for the new
fencing = $16,127.00. The decreased land area is 1.82± acres and Mrs.
Wilson is now ready to settle for $16,000. The indicated market value
range for the subject property is $7,500 to $8,000 per acre at this date,
or 443;600 to $14,600 for the 1.82 acre parcel.
72
RECOMM MATION AND FUNDING
The property owners willingness to settle for $16,000 is over the indicated
market value for the subject parcel; however, if the county condemns the
parcel and provided we can meet the time limit by June 1986 to acquire
title, additional costs would still be incurred by the county. The cost of
an appraisal, Mrs. Wilson's attorneys fees and court costs of $3,500± added
to the market value would exceed the amount the property owner is willing
to settle for.
It is staffs request that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the
purchase of 1.82± acres of the Wilson property at $16,000 and authorize the
county to relocate the existing fencing on the new right of way.
Project account with funding from Second Gas Tax or Local Option Gas Tax.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously author-
ized the purchase of 1.82+ acres of the Wilson
property at $16,000 and also authorized staff to
relocate the existing fencing on the new right-
of-way; funding to be from Second Gas Tax or
Local Option Gas Tax.
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES
Administrator Wright presented the following Summary:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: Jan. 8, 1986 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
SUBJECT: Engineering Department
Project Priorities
FROM: Michael Wright REFERENCES:
County Administrator
To assist the County Commission in understanding the workload
and project priorities in the Engineering Department, I requested
Public Works Director Jim Davis to prepare a realistic schedule
of the projects to be undertaken by the department. The schedule
is a summary of the major projects and does not include many of
the day to day activities of the department.
Meeting the proposed deadlines is contingent upon the depart-
ment maintaining its authorized staffing level and not being re-
quired to undertake other major projects on an emergency basis.
If you feel there are projects that should be given greater
or less emphasis, or if you have any questions, please advise.
73
1 BOOK 63 r, -F.314
JAN 15 1986
1 IDM' I � DI' : ;�Yvl�►M M�IDI� ) �{
Ending Jan. 1986
BDOK 63 `'A,F. 15
1. Sand Ridge Golf Course Survey and Fairway Layout
2. Fairground preparation (by Jan 15)
3. 43rd Ave. at 45th St paving and striping
4. Right of way Ordinance workshops
5. Lindsey Road Paving and Striping - Kings Highway - US I
(including box culvert)
6. Lateral "A" Right of way negotiations
7. Old Dixie Highway & 8th St intersection improvements design, &
-Specs.
8. Earman Park planning & design
9. Indian River Boulevard So. Extension Right of Way Negotiations
10. Development of Pavement Management Program
11. Plan & profile design 13th Ave, 15th Ave
12. Aerial control for beach management plan
13. Stormwater Management Ordinance Amendment
Feb. 1986
1. Oslo Road left turn design
2. Old Dixie Highway & 8th Street Specifications & Contract
documents, advertize for bids.
3. Earman Park permitting process
4. Earman Park Specifications & Contract documents advertisement for
bids
5. Right -of -Way Ordinance submission to Board along with County
Engineering Standards
6. Indian River Boulevard South portion Bid Documents preparation
7. Lateral "A" survey & construction
8. Wabasso Causeway Park planning & conceptual design
9. 12th Street Right of Way negotiations
10. 20th Ave Extension (so. Oslo Rd) planning & design
March 1986
1. Right -of -Way negotiations & design for petition paving at
a) 61st Drive
b) 34th Ave
C) 10th Court
2. Old Dixie Highway & 8th Street Construction inspection process
3. Wabassso Causeway Park Survey & construction by County forces
4. Golden Sands Park conceptual design permitting applications
5. Jungle Trail construction (stabilization) - permitting
6. New Jail - Parking & Drainage
April 1986
1. Petition Paving process & design.141st St, 80th Ave, 81 Ave
2. Kiwanis-Hobart Park conceptual plans.
May 1986
1. Petition paving process & design for 45th Ave., 61st Ave. & 37th
Ave.
2. 20th Ave. Extension
3. Kiwanis Hobart Park site planning process.
June 1986
d
1. Old Dixie & 4th Street intersection improvement
2. 43rd Ave & 16th St improvements
74
t
- M M
Administrator Wright advised that the above_is by no means
all the projects, and he did believe we have more than we can do
on a timely basis. He wished the Board to be aware of all that
is going on.
Commissioner Lyons commented that he did not see anything
with reference to the bridges we are going to have to replace,
and the Administrator noted that is in the future a bit.
Chairman Scurlock expressed concern that he sees effort put
into some things that are not what he considers absolutely
essential to the County, i.e., roads and bridges. He did not
feel we should be delaying day to day needs for things that are -
nice to have but not essential such as the many Parks and
Recreation items listed.
Commissioner Bird pointed out that, in that case, at budget
time Parks & Recreation will have to plan to go outside for
engineering help as this is a basic need if we are to build
parks, etc. He noted that the reason some of this engineering
work on the golf course, etc., is being done in-house is simply
to save money. They will have to have more money allocated to
Recreation if this has to be done elsewhere.
The Chairman noted that we could have less recreation, but
Commissioner Bird did not believe that is the indication we have
received from the community.
Chairman Scurlock stated that his problem with the golf
course and the fairgrounds is that there is no contribution back
to the General Fund. We make a commitment at budget time for a
certain amount for recreation to be paid for out of the General
Fund, and he is not even sure he agrees with this. He is for
user fees as much as possible and until we get that, he does not
see pumping large amounts of dollars out of the General Fund
which are kind of hidden. When we do something in-house, such as
the golf course, it does save money, but it diverts people from
other activities and the cost of their services doesn't get paid
back unless possibly it can be paid back out of the bond
75
JAN 15 1986' eooK 63 �t,c�
JAN
15 �9 �'
BOOK
63
MU -3i7
proceeds.
He asked if there is an intention to pay for
the
layout of the golf course out of the bond proceeds or just have
it done in-house and have the general taxpayer absorb it. He
felt we weren't going to use tax dollars to subsidize the golf
course.
Commissioner Bird believed this could be paid back. As far
as the fairgrounds are concerned, he believed the Firefighters
still have in escrow about $25,000 from last year that they are
going to put in capital improvements at the fairgrounds, and they
will add at least that much this year. There are three events
scheduled in the next few months, and he did believe the
fairgrounds will become self-supporting, but it will need some
seed money to get started. Commissioner Bird stated that he does
not believe we have spent large amounts of money anywhere in
recreation.
Chairman Scurlock believed we have been spending thousands
on the fairgrounds - the preparation of the site and the sewer
disposal system that is going in. He continued to emphasize that
essential services are more important and noted that there are
many recreation projects listed on the engineering work summary.
Commissioner Wodtke pointed out that these items are not all
equal in size and time required and asked Public Works Director
Davis if he has any estimate of the engineering time that is
spent on Parks & Recreation, i.e., would it amount to 500?
Director Davis stated that it comes in spurts, but
historically on the engineering staff they have two design
people. Michelle Terry, who is usually on roads, has done some
park work, and Don Finney, before he became the Right -of -Way
Agent, was basically full time on parks and grants. Director
Davis did believe 50% would be a good estimate. He knew there is
thought of doing major park development in the future, and felt
the Board must recognize that they have only two people who can
design a project.
76
Chairman Scurlock asked if we have a proper cost alloEation
back for all these services because when we are talking about
budgeting for recreation, if we are not aware that we are
spending thousands of dollars for in-kind services, we are not
really getting a true picture.
Administrator Wright noted that actually this spills over
into other areas than just parks. Staff is doing engineering
work for construction projects, as well as doing a significant
amount of planning and development review for site plans and
subdivisions.
Chairman Scurlock agreed and stated that is why he voted for
an increase in Planning & Development's fees.
Director Davis confirmed that it now has gotten to the point
where his department needs a full time person just to review site
plans and subdivision plats.
Chairman Scurlock stressed that is why he is interested in
tracking all this back. He believed we said new growth should
pretty much fund itself, and while he realized we can't put in a
ticket booth for everything, we should at least know what we are
doing and how much commitment we have to the various activities.
Administrator Wright noted that this summary was presented
to the Board today just to give them some idea of the workload.
A much more detailed program will be prepared by July.
Intergovernmental- Director Thomas commented that he
understands what the Chairman is saying, and he foresaw that this
was coming. Because of that he went to Director Davis and said
that he felt it was time Parks & Recreation went outside for
their engineering, but Mr. Davis said staff wanted to do it.
Director Davis believed he told Director Thomas that staff
does want to do the design; they do not want to get tunneled into
just one type of engineering work. He felt it is beneficial to
have a broad engineering department with experience in many
areas. However, they do have a full load to carry.
77
1 1986BOOK 63 r,)-3.�S
JA
�.
JAN
BOLI( 63 F: UE .319
Director Thomas informed the Board that it has happened that
he has even lost grant money due to problems with getting the
engineering done in time, and it seems the county is just growing
faster in every area than we can keep up with.
Chairman Scurlock continued to emphasize that the cost for
the engineering services should be included in the Parks &
Recreation budget and to express his concern about engineers
being diverted to non-essential tasks and sidetracked to do
things that were not planned in the budget. He felt if something
is not in the budget, it needs to be a Commission decision.
Administrator Wright stated that they do try to keep a
handl.e on this, but -we have a very diverse operation.
Commissioner Bird stated that he is not against having the
amount for engineering included in the Parks & Recreation budget,
and he is certainly not ashamed about what we are spending on
recreation.
Commissioner Bowman believed it is a matter of priority, and
she felt with Parks 8 Recreation the first priority is the
Kiwanis-Hobart conceptual plan.
Commissioner Bird advised that we have such a plan, which
was prepared totally free by students from the University of
Florida.
Commissioner Lyons did not feel the object today is to blame
anyone, but that all we are trying to do is be sure we know where
our money is being spent and whether this is the way we want to
spend it.
Director Thomas believed he has $40,000 he can justify in
that budget to go ahead and get some engineering, but he did not
think the total allocation at budget time is as much the question
as who is doing what with what they have.
Chairman Scurlock agreed that is a part and also the
projects that are getting done that are not approved by the
Board.
r
78
- M
M M M
Administrator Wright believed he must have some flexibility,
and the Chairman concurred, but again emphasized these costs must
be charged back. He felt we are going lickety-split and getting
things done with no priorities being set and the Commission not
knowing. He asked if the Commission really knows about the
design of the fairgrounds disposal system. It was pointed out
that this did come to the Board.
Commissioner Bird wished to know if the Chairman is saying
he is being too aggressive in getting recreational facilities for
the county as he felt that is being questioned.
Chairman Scurlock stated that all he is questioning is that
things are getting done and nobody knows about it and budgets are
expanded because of in-house work.
Commissioner Lyons asked how the Chairman would suggest we
cure this, and Chairman Scurlock stated by proper cost alloca-
tion; if it isn't in the budget, it doesn't get done unless the
Board approves it.
Administrator Wright emphasized that staff tries to bring
almost everything they conceivably think should come to the Board
for action, and he did feel he does a good job of keeping the
Board informed.
Commissioner Wodtke expressed his confidence in Commissioner
Bird and the excellent job he is doing with recreation. He felt
strongly that it is a benefit to have someone in-house to do our
engineering work, and if we are going to continue moving ahead in
the recreation field, he would rather take some of that money and
get another engineer on staff so we can have someone in-house to
work closely with Director Thomas on a day to day basis on these
recreation projects.
Chairman Scurlock agreed.
Administrator Wright stated that actually the purpose of
presenting this list today was to lay some budget groundwork.
Commissioner Bird continued to discuss recreation projects,
noting that he has spent hours this last year trying to find a
79
63 VO
J 1 �9�6 �oaK ���:�:
A
JAN 15 1996
BOOK
63
�n;H .3 1
free piece of property to
build a firing range, and we
now
have a
chance to get the use of a piece of property possibly donated by
the St. John's District. We also have had the National Rifle
Association design a range free, but we will need some engineer-
ing to take that design and give us an estimate of the cost for
the fill, diking, etc. to put the range out on the Garcia
property. When we have that estimate, we will be able to decide
how much the Sheriff will spend, and if the county is willing to
spend any additional money towards the project, but first we must
have that information. He noted that Public Works Director Davis
has said that is not a big item and that it can be worked in, but
after today's discussion, he was not even sure if he should ask
that it be added to the list or whether he should wait until next
year at budget time.
Administrator Wright felt that is the kind of thing he
should be responsible for, if it is a small item. If it involves
something big, then he would come to the Board.
Chairman Scurlock stressed that the problem he has is that
we started with a list of a certain number of projects at the
beginning of the year and had staff to cope with it, but when
that list gets changed and added to during the year and staff
diverted to something else, some of the original items won't get
done.
Commissioner Bird did not feel the list can be prepared to
the nth degree; there must be some flexibility, and he believed
that is where the Administrator has to use his discretion to see
if these things can be worked in on the overall list.
Director Thomas commented that Public Works Director Davis
is saying that he is using 500 of the engineering staff time
available, and he wished to point out that even with that 50%, he
can't get the work done that he needs. He suggested that
possibly the Public.Works Department should only allocate him 25%
and then he would hire an engineer with the other 25% and get his
projects done.
80
M M M
M
Commissioner Bird believed they probably could utilizb one
person full time year round to work with the Parks Department,
and the Chairman stated he would not have any problem with that.
That way Commissioner Bird wouldn't have to fight re priorities;
he would have his man and the things set out for him would get
done. Right now, it is not really working because we are growing
so fast.
A man from the audience inquired when the Board would move
on to the other agenda items, and after some further discussion,
Chairman Scurlock asked if everyone understood where the problem
is. It was generally agreed that they did.
Chairman Scurlock asked if the priorities will stay as
stated.
Director Davis emphasized that he is happy with the
priorities they have right now. He noted that their survey
department is their weakest link; sometimes they are guilty of
overcommitting themselves, but they are committed to these
deadlines as much as possible. If the Board feels something
should be done earlier, he requested that they let him know at
this time.
The Chairman asked if there was any further action on this
item, and Administrator Wright did not feel it required Board
action; he just requested that the Commission come to him about
any of this and coordinate with him.
PETITION RE DRAINAGE OUTFALL - OLD DIXIE SOUTH OF 12th ST.
Public Works Director Davis made the following presentation:
81
JAN 15 1986 BOOK 63 F-h�c-c.3?�
JAN 15 soon 63 F-nGF3?,
TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: January 6, 1986 FILE:
Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH:
Michael Wright,
County Administrator
FROM: Jams W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
S U B J ECPTbper„ty Owners Petition Drainage
Outfall to Serve Land East of Old
Dixie Highway South of 12th Street
to South Relief Canal
The Public Works Director has been communicating with 36 property owners
owning land east of Old Dixie in response ._to.._a _Petition ._to__construct__a
drainage outfall to serve approximately 100.54 acres of land. At this
time, the property owners of approximately 62% of the land in the watershed
area have signed the petition.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Many parcels in the 100.54 acres are being considered now for development.
Several already developed parcels are experiencing drainage problems
resulting in occasional flooding. Two meetings have been held with the
property owners to discuss the scope of work for the project. The follow-
ing complications are involved.
1) Drainage easements through 10 or 12 parcels must be obtained. The
alignment of the easements may change due to the desires of individual
Property owners to provide efficient utilization of the individual
properties.
2) One existing railroad spur exists which must be transversed. Other
property owners are proposing to install future spurs.
3) Many property owners which own land through which the outfall will be
located desire to perform excavation of the outfall with their own
resources so as to reduce the cost. After these Commitments have been
made, the property ownership changes or is under contract and the new
owner or buyer is not aware of previous commitments. As a result, the
project scope of work is changing.
4) The FEC in June, 1985, considered installing the drainage culvert
beneath the Gulfstream Lumber Co. spur. At this time, the FEC can not
- do this installation, but is willing to pay their fair share for this
part of the work.
5) The Indian River Farms Water Control District's jurisdictional bound-
aries do not include this area. The existing drainage patterns,
however, direct runoff to the South Relief Canal. Preliminary conver-
sations with the Drainage District's attorney, Michael O"Haire indi-
cate that since the outfall discharges downstream from any District
structures, the impact will not be significant.
6) Since an open grass ditch is proposed and since upstream properties
will be required to retain as a minimum the first 1" of rainfall on
site, the DER should find no adverse impact to water quality in the
receiving waters.
_ In summary, trying to meet the individual' and collective needs of 36
Property owners in this area has resulted in changing scope of work,
therefore, staff proposes to break the project up into stages as follows:
Stage 1 - Obtain all necessary easements. These easements should be
dedicated to the County or some maintenance authority.
a Stage 2 — Once easements are secured, develop a project cost
estimate, scope of work, and assessment roll.
Stage 3 - Schedule a public hearing to consider special assessment
funding for the project. It is proposed that the property
owners be assessed 100% of the cost of the Project, with the
County funding the percentage of the watershed area contain-
ed in 8th Street and Old Dixie Highway right-of-way.
— _ 82
RECONMMATION AND FUNDING
It is recommended that staff be authorized to implement Stage 1 and secure
the necessary easements for the project. Funding for title search work,
etc. in the amount of approximately $1000 to be by Fund 004-244- - Public
Works Division annual budget. Once all easements are obtained, a cost
estimate, preliminary assessment roll, and public hearing will be schedul-
ed.
Director Davis explained that this all came to a head when a
property owner wrote to Knight 8 Mathis and asked them to take
their pump off and stop discharging water through his land. That
alarmed everyone because if they take that pump out, they will
have flooding in that area. Director Davis emphasized that the
problem is that we are working with so many property owners and
the property keeps changing hands. What staff would like is the
go ahead to tie the easements down by getting formal easements
dedicated to the county and to have the county recognize this as
a county problem because it affects Old Dixie and 8th Street and
some of our R/W. Once they can get the easements tied down, they
can come up with an assessment project and cost it out to assess
those in the 100 acre area. There is considerable development
pressure in this area - FEC wants to develop, Knight 8 Mathis
wants to expand, as well as new developments want to come in, and
this all is happening quickly.
Commissioner Wodtke asked what area basically would be
assessed for the drainage, and Director Davis described it as the
area east of Old Dixie south of 12th Street all the way area down
to a triple barrel pipe under the railroad at South 4th St.
This now discharges into the Indian River Farms south relief
canal, although it is not a part of their district. It is
possible they may want to bring this into their District. We
have this drainage problem all the way to the south county line.
Commissioner Wodtke asked about including some land to the
west of Old Dixie as he felt some water drains off across the
highway, but Director Davis felt we would have a hard time doing
that. He believed the water mainly drains underground; you
generally do not see mass sheet flow across the road. He asked
83
JAN 15 1986 sou 63 F-tI'Jc3?4
JAN I
V5
if the Board would consider if they want to take over a system
here, have easements dedicated to the county, and maintain this.
He emphasized that it does benefit private property beyond a
doubt. It will be a major outfall, and he feels it should be
constructed by a 100% assessment program based on acreage and the
watershed and that the county shouldn't be persuaded to fund
more. We would be picking up the maintenance each year.
Attorney Vitunac asked about the possibility of an MSTU for
the area, and Director Davis felt that would be an excellent
idea.
Administrator Wright believed that once this outfall is
built, we will end up going south and building another. He also
felt once it is built, it should be our responsibility and he did
not think the maintenance will be that high.
Discussion continued re the necessity to address drainage
problems and re the possibility of a MSTU, and Chairman Scurlock
felt the question is what actually is the benefited area.
Administrator Wright expressed concern about having one
little MSTU when we are providing this maintenance in other
areas.
Commissioner Bird suggested we advertise it and see what
kind of reaction we get, and Attorney Vitunac noted that an MSTU
does not necessarily to have to charge 100% to the owners.
A few more alternatives were suggested, and Administrator
Wright suggested that staff study this situation and come back
with a recommendation.
The Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to
comment. No one did.
MUDBOGGING AT FAIRGROUNDS
Commissioner Bird reviewed the following memo and proposal
from Mike Loudermilk.
Y
84
TO: County Commissioners DATE: January 8, 1986 FILE;
SUBJECT: Mudbogging request
at Fairgrounds
FROM: Interg vernmentalThomas
Coorc�inafoRENCES:
Attached please find a copy of the proposal submitted by Mike
Loudermilk to conduct mudbogging events on Fairground property.
The request was approved by the Parks and Recreation Committee,
as well as the Fairgrounds Advisory Committee, subject to
approval by the Board of County Commissioners and County
Attorney.
RECOMMENDATION
Approval for Indian River County to enter into a one year lease
agreement with Mike Loudermilk to construct a mudbogging pit on
the Fairground property, and conduct mudbogging events at least
once a month for $750 per event. Mr. Loudermilk will provide
insurance coverage for each event.
Novente.r 21,1985
County Parks of Indian River :
I wish to make this proposal for the Mud Boggs at Indian River County
Fair, Grounds.
I agree to lease said property at back section for $750.00 a month, on
a monthly basis for twelve months . At which time ue can review profits
and talk about further lease on said property.
I intend to make all improvements to property for Mud Boggs Events. Whicth
is pit 30 feet wide x 300 feet long. Safety post on both sides of the
pit spaced 10 feet apart. Crowd control fence both sides of pita Also
have shallow well put down permanent.
I shall take every precaution for safety and have Physical Liability Insurmice
on days of events.
If I should break lease all improvements shall go to County Parks.
71 it ink You.
Mike Ioudermilk, Sr.
/0-
85
JAN 15 1986 Boa 63 6
Commissioner Bird stated that he would like to have the
Board inform Attorney Vitunac of the basic ingredients they want
to have in the lease with Mr. Loudermilk, and the Attorney would
then prepare it and bring it back to the Board. Commissioner
Bird reviewed the following items he felt should be in the lease:
1) Fee $750 per event
2) A one year lease with non-exclusive use of the pit (can be
used by non-profit organizations).
3) Mr. Loudermilk to dig pit at his expense;
erect safety posts and fences;
provide adequate insurance coverage;
provide crowd and traffic control;
reimburse for any damages;
restore site to original condition on termination.
4) No alcoholic beverages allowed
5) County to provide portable toilet facilities
6) Any improvements will revert to county.
Commissioner Bird noted that this will be a trial situation,
and if it doesn't work out to be in the best interests of the
County, it can be terminated on a month's notice.
Discussion ensued as to why just non-profit groups could use
the pit, sub -letting, first right of refusal, etc., and Attorney
Vitunac pointed out that with a non-exclusive sitation, the
county would be responsible for what happens when Mr. Loudermilk
is not there, and he would only be there twelve days a year.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously authorized
Commissioner Bird to work with County Attorney
Vitunac to prepare a lease as discussed and bring
it back to the Board for approval.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made,
seconded and carried, the meeting adjourned at 1:20 o'clock P.M.
ATTEST:
'Clerk Chairman
86