HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/5/1986t
Wednesday, March 5, 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,
March 5, 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; Charles P.
Vitunac, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; OMB
Director Joseph Baird; L. S. "Tommy" Thomas, Intergovernmental
Relations Director; and Barbara Bonnah, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
Reverend John Simon of First United Methodist Church gave
the invocation, and Vice Chairman Lyons led the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Chairman Scurlock requested the addition to today's Agenda
of a proclamation honoring Paul E. Thompson on his retirement
from Indian River County.
Commissioner Bowman requested the addition of a report on
the Tri -County Committee.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, Commissioner Wodtke being
temporarily delayed, the Board unanimously (4-1)
added the above items to today's Agenda.
L_MAR 5 BOOK E. p;.0 776
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
BOOK 63 FACE 7 d 7 -7
The Chairman asked if there were -any additions or
corrections to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 12,
1986. There were none.
ON MOTION.by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
February 12, 1986, as written.
PROCLAMATION - PAUL E. THOMPSON
Chairman read the following proclamation aloud and presented
it to Paul E. Thompson in honor of his service with the County.
2
W
P R O C L A M A T I O N
A PROCLAMATION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, HONORING PAUL E. THOMPSON
WHEREAS, Paul E. Thompson began work with Indian River
County's Road and Bridge Department on July 12, 1971, as an
equipment operator, and has been a diligent and capable employee of
Indian River County since that time; and
WHEREAS, in 1976 Paul E. Thompson was promoted to Foreman
and then Manager of the Indian River County Road and Bridge
Department, a title which he held for the last four years, for a
total of 15 years of dedicated service to Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, Paul E. Thompson was a very loyal and
conscientious employee who exhibited a very thorough understanding
of the work he performed for Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, Paul E. Thompson has retired as Manager of the
Road and Bridge Department of Indian River County, Florida,
effective the 6th day of March, 1986;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, by and through its Board of County Commissioners, that
Indian River County expresses its gratitude to
Paul E. Thompson
for his fine employment record and contribution to Indian River
County, Florida, and wishes him a long and happy retirement.
Dated this 5th day of March, 1986, in Vero Beach, Indian
River County, Florida.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By �, e
Don co Scurloc r.
Chairman
3
IAS
5 1966 Boa 63 Ft1GE 778
CONSENT AGENDA
A.MApproval of Sheriff's Deputy Appointments
Boa 63 PAA 779
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
Sheriff Dobeck's appointments of Deputies Jean P.
Morgan and Richard C. Lane.
B. Reports:
Received and placed on file in the Office of the Clerk to
the Board:
Traffic Violation Bureau, Special Trust Fund,
January, 1986 - $61,622,29
Month to Date Report for Month of January, 1986
Filed by Last Name
C. Proclamation - Lions Eye Bank Month
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
proclaimed the month of March as Lions Eye Bank
Month.
D. DER/Army Corps/DNR Permit Application - Romas Sakalas
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/25/86:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: February 25, 1986 FILE:
of the Board -of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: D.E.R., ARMY CORPS AND
SUBJECT: D.N.R. PERMIT APPLICATION
Robert M. Keati g, A
Planning & DevelopDirector
Cc.A_--`
THROUGH: Art Challacombe
Chief, Environmental Planning
FROM: Roland M. DeBlois REFERENCES: TM 486-275
Staff Planner W) DIS:ROLAND
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of March 5, 1986.
4
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION APPLICATION
NO. 31-115984-4
APPLICANT: Mr. Romas Sakalas
300 Harbor Drive
Vero Beach, Florida 32963
WATERWAY & LOCATION: The project is located in the Indian
River adjacent to Windward Way in Section 28, Township 33
South, Range 40 East, Indian River County, Florida.
The upland property associated with the project is located at
176 Windward Way, Vero Beach, Florida.
WORK & PURPOSE: The applicant has applied for an "After the
Fact" D.E.R. permit for the construction of a private single
L-shaped dock, extending 15 feet waterward, 8 feet in width.
The terminal platform dimensions are 4 feet in width and 24
feet in length. No sewage pump -out or fueling facilities are
associated with the project. No dredging or filling has or is
to occur due to the project.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS:
The Planning and Development Division reviews and submits
comments on dredge and fill applications to the permitting
agencies based upon the following:
- The Conservation & Coastal Zoning Management Element of
the Indian River Comprehensive Plan
- Coastal Zone Management, Interim Goals, Objectives &
Policies for the Treasure Coast Region
- The Hutchinson Island Planning & Management Plan
- The Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances
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 criteria for private single docks, among which
is the criterion that "Any main access dock shall be limited
to a maximum width of four (4) feet" (16Q -20.04(5)(b)(1) ).
Staff has not determined if the dockage -project location is in
the Aquatic Preserve or if it is located on privately owned
bottomlands. If the project is located in the Preserve, the
dock is in conflict with the above cited criterion.
No dredging or filling is associated with the private single
dock project. In that respect, the project results in minimal
additional impact to an area where private single docks have
been previously permitted.
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.
5
BOOK 63 F��
r
RECOMMENDATION:
BOOK 63 F'GE 81
It is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners
authorize staff to forward the following comments regarding
this project 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 project is 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
cumulative, impacts of dockage projects upon the Florida
_ Manatee.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously authorized
staff to submit the recommended comments to
the D.E.R. re the above project.
E. Approval of Master Section 8 Annual Housing Contributions
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/26/86:
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: Feb. 26, 1986 FILE:
THRU• Michael Wright SUBJECT: Request for Approval of Master
County Administrator Section 8 Annual Contributions
Contract No. A-3409 as amended
FROM: Daphne K. Strickland REFERENCES:
Chairman, IRC Housing
Authority
The Department of Housing and Urban Development has submitted an
amended ACC 3409 which adds Part I Number A -3409V for Housing Voucher
Program, Project No. FI.294132-001. The documents are attached for
your review and approval.
This new contract adds 25 Housing Vouchers and provides for an
additional $110,722 in rental assistance annually. Once the contract is
executed, we will have the capability of handling rental assistance for
239 families in any given month with funding totaling $655,834 annually.
6
The documentation required by HUD for their final approval and execu-
tion of the contracts is submitted for consideration and approval of the
Board of County Commissioners.
(1) Five (5) copies of Part I Number A -3409V of the Annual. Contri-
butions Contract, for Project No. -FL29-V132-001. reflecting
the addition of 25 vouchers and $110,722 in additional funding.
The start up funds and additional administrative fees for the 25 vouchers
should cover their administrative costs.
I recommend that the County Commission authorize the Chairman of the
Board to execute these contracts for transmittal to the Jacksonville office
of HUD.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously authorized
the Chairman to execute said contracts for transmittal
to the Dept. of Housing and Urban Development.
SAID CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK
F. Release of Assessment Liens NSR -60 Water, Vista Plantation
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
Release of Assessment Liens for (24) ERUs, SR -60
Water, Plantation Vista, Buildings 20 and 21.
RELEASE OF ASSESSMENT LIENS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK TO THE BOARD
G. Change Orders 1, 2 6 3 - Mid -Florida Elevated Water Storage
Tank Contract with High -Line Contractors_ Inc.
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/21/86:
7
BOOK 63 PAGE782 82
MAR 5 1966 BOOK 63 PnUE 783
TO: THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
THRU: MICHAEL WRIGHT
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
VIA: ER'F��rN�E� G.`"P NT
DIRECTOR, UTILITY SERVICES
FROM: JEFFREY A. BOONE
ENGINEERING OPERATIONS MANAGER
BACKGROUND
DATE: FEBRUARY 21, 1986
SUBJECT: CHANGE ORDER FOR
MIDFLORIDA ELEVATED
WATER STORAGE TANK
PROJECT #UW85-08-WC
CHANGE ORDER NUMBERS
UW85-08-WC-1
UW85-08-WC-2
UW85-08-WC-3
A progress inspection of the subject project was held on January 24, 1986.
Among those in attendance were Roweena Sommers of Masteller and Moler
Associates. Based upon observations of that inspection Masteller and Moler
recommend the following change order items to the contract with Hi -Line
Contractors, Inc.
UW85-08-WC-1 Grinding of weld burrs, ragged welds and all sharp edges
which will otherwise not permit paint to adhere properly.
Increase to contract price plus $2300.00.
UW85-08-WC-2 Furnish and install top brackets for ladder of tank bowl
interior. Increase to contract price plus $200.00.
UW85-08-WC-3 Furnish and install cover plates for all conduit junction
boxes. Increase to contract price plus $25.00.
ANALYSIS
The three change order items totaling $2525.00 will increase the original
price from $39,978.00 to $42,503.00. The recommended change order items
will increase the contract duration by seven (7) days, extending the
contract completion date from May 20, 1986 to May 27, 1986.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the three
change order items of the subject contract to insure effective renovation
to the elevated water storage tank.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
the above change orders, as recommended by staff.
8
® M Pam--M—of 1
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 ORIGINAL CONTRACT PRICE 39,978.00
REVISED CONTRACT PRICE 42.5o3.00
DATE: ted Water Stnrage Tank
JOB NAME Re air and Re ai tin o
OWNER:
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
Repairs
UNIT
PRICE
ORIGINAL
UNITS
LS
PREVIOUS
TOTAL
PRICE
100.00
UNIT
CHANGE
None
PRICE
CHANGE
None
REVISED
TOTAL
PRICE
100.00
1
2
Prepare & Paint Tank
Date:
LS
39,878.00
None
None
39,878.00
Date: Z /.V 1,
Interior & Exterior
Si el Masteller, Lorenz
--&-Hoover, Inc.
Owner:
/ G
Date:
3
Grinding of weld burrs,
LS
N/A
N/A
LS
(+)2,300.00
W2,300-00
ragged welds and all
e' and le.oal suff iency
BY
s
E
AN CE P) T 0
By _ —
sharp edges which wil
DIRFCTOR
r Charles P. Vitunac k4 ,
w
DIY. OF
UTILITY SERVICES
County Attorney
�a^.�.,..;.,a,z,.,:,.. .---�--:-
ya'c
784
otherwise not permit
paint to adhere prop-
erly.
-
4
Furnish and install
LS
N/A
N/A
LS
(+) 200.00
(+) 200.0
top brackets for
ladder of tank bowl
interior.
5
Furnish and install
LS
N/A
N/A
LS
(+) 25.00
(+) 25.00
cover plates for all
conduit junction
boxes.
TOTALS ..............
......
......
.39,978.00.
.......
2,525,00...
42,503-00
The amount of the Contract will be increased by the sum of two thousand,
five hundred twenty-five and xx/100's dollars ($2,525.00).
The Contract total, including this Change Order, will be forty-two thousand,
five hundred three and xx/100's dollars ($42,503.00).
The
Contract period provided
for completion will be increased by (7) seven
days.
This document will become supplement to the Contract and all provisions will
apply hereto.
Contractor:
�"n�'i1
Date:
Hi -L ne Contractors Inc.
Engineer:
Date: Z /.V 1,
Si el Masteller, Lorenz
--&-Hoover, Inc.
Owner:
/ G
Date:
* Indian River County
APPROVE
TILITY MATT Et�S
r' Approved as to form ;
e' and le.oal suff iency
BY
s
E
AN CE P) T 0
By _ —
DIRFCTOR
r Charles P. Vitunac k4 ,
w
DIY. OF
UTILITY SERVICES
County Attorney
�a^.�.,..;.,a,z,.,:,.. .---�--:-
ya'c
784
BOOK 63 PAGE
MAR 5 1966 nox 63 Fact 785
PUBLIC HEAR I NG - WEDGEWOOD PARK DEVELOPMENT REQUEST TO REZONE
68,4 ACRES FROM AGRICULTURAL AND SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO
RM -6, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
The hour of 9:05 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to wit:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a
in the matter of4,�CL
in the Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of..
Affiant further says that.the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, fora period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; 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
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this -Z5 Aay 9o.,�. A.D. 19 1L
(SEAL) (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian Rider CoWy, Florida)
NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING .
Notice of hearing to consider the adoption of
a County ordinance rezoning land from: A, Agri-
cultural District and RS -6. ing
Resi-
dential District, to RM -6, Multiple -Family Resi-
dential District. The subject property repre-
sented by WedgewoodkDevelopment
Agent and is located on the south side of State
Road 60, the north side of 16th Street, and 1A
mile west of Lateral "A" (66th Avenue/C.R. 505).
The subject property is described as:
THE WEST 20 ACRES OF TRACT .10;
THE EAST 10 ACRES OF TRACT 11;
THE EAST 20 ACRES OF TRACT 14;
THE WEST 20 ACRES OF TRACT 15,
ALL BEING IN THE INDIAN RIVER
FARMS COMPANY SUBDIVISION WNSH PSITU
ATED IN SECTION 6, O
33
SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST AS RE-
CORDED IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 25 OF
THE OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK OSA .-
LUCIE COUNTY. FLORIDA,
LANDS NOW LYING AND BEING IN IN-
DIAN RIVER COU.TAINING 68.42 ACR S MOREIOR ESS.
The Board of County Commissioners will con-
duct apublic hearing regarding the appeal by
the applicant of the decision by the Planning an
Zoning Commission to recommend disapproval
of the rezoning request. The public hearing, at
which parties in Interest and citizens shall have
an opportunity to be heard, will be held byian Hthe
ivet
Board of County Commissioners of Commission
County, Florida, in the County
Chambers of the County Administration Building,
located at on Wednesday March 5e1986 at 9::0Vero 5 a.m.
Florida
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision
which may be made at this meeting will need to
ensure thatwhich es testimony anrecord of the d evidence
is made,
upon which the appeal is based..
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
B :-s-Don C. Scurlock, I. Jr.
Chairman
Feb. 13,25. ISM
Chairman Scurlock announced his decision not to abstain from
voting on this issue. County Attorney Charles Vitunac advised
him that unless he has a personal financial interest in the
subject property, it would be his decision on whether or not to
vote. The only interest he has in this issue -is his residence at
1656 71st Ct. in the subdivision adjacent to the subject
property, and he has decided to vote on the matter because he has
never been one to walk away from an issue.
10
Richard Shearer, Chief of Long -Range Planning reviewed the
following staff recommenoation dated 2/24/86:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: February 24, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of
County Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
(:�� 2".4 SUBJECT: WEDGEWOOD PARK DEVELOPMENT,
Robert M. Kea in , A INC., REQUEST TO REZONE
Planning & Devel Amen Director 68.4 ACRES FROM A-1 AND
RS -6, TO RM -6, MULTIPLE -
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
FROMPtichard Shearer, AICP REFERENCES: Wedgewood Memo
Chief, Long -Range Planning CHIEF
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of March 5, 1986.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
Wedgewood Park Development, Inc., an agent for the owners, is
requesting to rezone 68.4 acres located on the south side of
State Road 60, the north side of 16th Street, and one-quarter
mile west of Lateral "A" (66th Street) from A-1, Agricultural
District (up to .2 units/acre) , and RS -6, Single -Family Residen-
tial District (up to 6 units/acre), to RM -6, Multiple -Family
Residential District (up to 6 units/acre),.
The applicant is proposing to develop this property for multi-
ple -family residences. The applicant previously has received
rezoning approval for 77 acres of land located approximately one
mile east of the subject property on the north side of State Road
60.
On January 9, 1986, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
3 -to -0 with one abstention to deny this request. The Commission
gave as their reasons for denial the facts that they felt a
rezoning to a multiple -family zoning category allowing up to six
units per acre was not appropriate for this area because it abuts
a single-family subdivision to the west and abuts property to the
south which is designated as RR -1, Rural Residential 1 (up to 1
unit per 2.5 acres) on the County's land use plan The appli-
cants have appealed this decision.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the appli-
cation will be presented. The analysis will include a descrip-
tion of the current and future land uses of the site and sur-
rounding areas, potential impacts on the transportation and
utility systems, and any significant adverse impacts on environ-
mental quality.
Existing Land Use Pattern
The subject property contains citrus groves and undeveloped land.
_North of the subject property, across State Road 60, is Village
Green East, a mobile home park development zoned RMH-8, Mobile
Home Residential District (up to 8 units/acre), and Vista Planta-
tion, a multiple -family condominium.and neighborhood node commer-
11
BOOK 63 F,�GE.��
BOOK 63 rkgGE 7.87
cial development zoned RM -4, Multiple -Family Residential District
(up to 4 units/acre), and CN, Neighborhood Commercial District.
East of the subject property are citrus groves, a church, and
undeveloped land zoned A-1, Agricultural District. South of the
subject property are citrus groves and undeveloped land zoned
A-1. West of the subject property are single-family residences
and vacant land zoned RS -6.
Future Land Use Pattern
The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject. property and the-.
land northeast, east, and west of it, as LD -2, Low -Density
Residential 2 (up to 6 units/acre). The land northwest of the
subject property is designated as MD -1, Medium -Density Residen-
tial 1 (up to 8 units/acre). The land south of the subject
property is designated as RR -1, Rural Residential 1 (up to 1
unit/ 2.5 acres).
The proposed rezoning is in conformance with the LD -2 land use
designation. Staff also feels that the proposed rezoning is
appropriate, considering the amount and nature of development
activity which has occurred in the State Road 60 corridor.
During the past three years, this activity has been predominantly
commercial and multiple -family development.
Transportation System
The subject property has direct access to State Road 60 (clas-
sified as an arterial street on the County's Thoroughfare Plan)
and to 16th Street (classified as a secondary collector street on
the Thoroughfare Plan). The maximum development of the subject
property under RM -6 zoning could generate up to 2,870 average
annual daily trips (AADT). This additional traffic would not
lower the current level -of -service "A" on State Road 60.
Environment
The subject property is not designated as environmentally sensi-
tive nor is it in a flood -prone area.
Utilities
A County watermain
Road 60 in front of
$750,000 in utility
capacity.
RECOMMENDATION
and a County wastewater line run along State
the subject property. The applicant has paid
impact fees to reserve water and wastewater
The Planning and -Zoning Commission voted 3 -to -0, with one absten-
tion, to deny this rezoning request for. the reasons given in the
description and conditions section of the memorandum. While the
Planning Department respects the Planning and Zoning Commission's
opinion, the staff feels that this rezoning is consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan and appropriate for this area and staff
recommends approval.
12
Chairman Scurlock understood that one of the discussions on
this issue dealt with the question of access through the
Lowenstein property which was rezoned recently to RS -6.
Mr. Shearer explained that staff has a general policy not to
allow access to multiple -family development through single family
subdivisions. In this particular case, the subject property has
considerable frontage on SR -60 and staff feels it would be
desirable to have access directly to SR -60. In addition, most of
the traffic leaving this project probably will be going east to
Vero Beach and there would be very little traffic going west
which would involve a left-hand turn.
Chairman Scurlock asked why the 10 -acre tract behind the
Lowenstein tract was not recommended to be rezoned consistent to
provide some sort of transition zone from single family to
multiple family, and Mr. Shearer explained that staff had
discussed that with the applicant and this is the way they wanted
to go.
Chairman Scurlock asked Attorney Vitunac if there is a
possibility today to rezone that tract to RS -6 consistent with
the Lowenstein property, and Attorney Vitunac advised that it
would have to be readvertised since that would involve a
substantial change.
Mr. Shearer asked if that 10 -acre parcel could be lessed out
of the overall rezoning consideration today, and Attorney Vitunac
felt that we have consistently said that if you advertise a
larger parcel, you have a right to subtract something from it on
the theory that somebody who would have objected to the entire
rezoning would have no objections to decreasing it.
Chairman Scurlock understood that, in effect, the 10 -acres
would remain Agricultural and the Board could instruct staff to
look at the possibility of rezoning it to single family.
Commissioner Wodtke asked if any consideration had been
given to having this development go through the the Planned
Residential Development (PRD) process, and Planning.& Development*
13
R .5 196 BOOK 63 P;cr ���
MAR 5 1966 BOOK 6 3 N�'UE i89
Director Robert Keating explained that the developer has the
option of either proceeding under the regular site plan process
or going through a PRD. He noted that while PRDs are allowed in
Agricultural, the density would be limited to 1 unit per 5 acres.**
Commissioner Wodtke asked if both a rezoning and a special
exception could be considered at a PRD hearing, and Mr. Shearer
confirmed that they could be.
Commissioner Lyons stated he would feel more comfortable if
he knew exactly what was going to happen.
Chairman Scurlock opened the Public Hearing and asked those
who wished to speak in this matter to.come up to the podium and
give their name and address for the record.
William Stewart, attorney representing Wedgewood Park
Development, Inc., displayed a plat map and an aerial view of the
subject property and surrounding area. He argued that the P 6 Z
Commission recommendation for denial of the rezoning request was
inconsistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan
and the Overall Economic Development Plan. Attorney Stewart
stated that there has been considerable rezoning in the SR -60
corridor and explained that the reason Wedgewood did not build on
the north side of SR -60 after they received RM -6 zoning was due
to a title problem on a small portion of that tract. The
applicant intends to develop this project into rental apartments
and a congregate living facility. Water and sewer are available
through the County. He stressed the need for additional family
rental units in this county, and their belief that the SR -60
corridor is the most logical place to locate such a project,
because the Comp Plan designates the area as LD -2, Low -Density
Residential 2 (up to 6 units/acre). The adult congregate living
area also is badly needed in this area and will be handled on a
rental basis. This facility will have to be licensed through the
HRS and must also meet the requirements of a special exception
under the RM -6 zoning. The facility is not permitted in any
zoning less than RM -6.
14
F_ J
Attorney Stewart noted that they presented this project to a
number of civic groups and organizations and received favorable
reaction. He was sure that representatives from some of these
groups were here to speak this morning. He recalled that he
tried to explain the rental situation to the residents of the
surrounding neighborhoods and assure them that they would make
every effort to insure them good neighbors.
Attorney Stewart introduced Sonny Vergara of Management &
Planning Resources of Ocala, Florida, who has_been employed by
the applicant to deal with water and drainage matters. Mr.
Vergara reported that after extracting information from the U.S.
Geographical Society, the St. Johns River Water Management
District, and the U.S. Soil Conservation Service, they have
determined that the concept being proposed today should not pose
any problems as it goes through the permitting process and is
certainly feasible as conceived.
Commissioner Lyons asked if that means the drainage is going
to be better, and Mr. Vergara stated that in terms of water
quantity, the St. Johns River Water Management District
stipulates that there should be no increase in discharges from a
project beyond what is occurring now. Therefore, just that basic
requirement alone should prevent any offsite impact.
Attorney Stewart felt the most sensitive issues of the site
plan is the buffers and transitions. He reported that they met
with the residents of Sunnydale Subdivision on Monday evening to
ask them what they feel is the best way to handle the transition,
because there is no question that some accommodation has to be
made so that the adjacent neighborhood will not be negatively
impacted by this project. The following three strategies were
discussed:
-1) Take a portion of the 10 -acre parcel and have it rezoned to
RS -6 so that a single-family subdivision could be built there at
some point in time. One of the concerns about this was where
that -future subdivision would outlet.
15
In addition, there is only
BOOK 63 f k uE 790
r --MAR 5 198
600K 63 Ftj.GE791
a 25 -ft, setback requirement from the rear lot line and houses
would be very close to the project.
2) Take an equivalent piece of property, 250 -ft. which is the
width of a standard subdivision, and leave it vacant. That
proposal had its drawbacks in that vacant property draws trash
and rodents.
3) Go ahead and rezone the entire property to RM -6 with the
developer agreeing not to locate any buildings closer to the
common property line than 250 feet and maintaining the area
between the buildings and the property line, either in the form
of lawns, ponds, landscaping, etc.
Of the three alternatives discussed, the consensus of the
12-15 people at the meeting was that #3 was the best alternative.
Chairman Scurlock asked how they would accomplish that since
we cannot contract for zoning.
Attorney Stewart stated that Dave Quigley, President of
Wedgewood Park, Inc., has every intention of building this
project in the above manner if he receives the rezoning. Then,
if they were so bold as to submit a different site plan he would
not have much of a career in this county as an attorney, nor
would Mr. Quigley have much of a career as a developer.
Chairman Scurlock asked about the possibility of leaving the
10 acres as agricultural and submitting their site plan with that
portion deleted.
Attorney Stewart emphasized that the problem with leaving
some portion as agricultural is that they would lose the
densities on that portion. Another alternative, although it
seems like a cumbersome procedure, would be to leave a portion of
the 10 -acre tract zoned agricultural and come back later for site
plan approval and rezoning simultaneously, so that one would not
happen without the other. They have no objection to that
procedure as they have every intention of doing what they have
said.
16
Commissioner Wodtke asked if there is any possibility that a
deed restriction could be written on that 250 feet to give a
reasonable assurance to the adjacent residents, but Attorney
Stewart felt that a deed restriction certainly could be imposed
when they came back for simultaneous rezoning and site plan
approval on the portion of the 10 -acre tract left agricultural.
The deed restriction would prohibit any structures being built
within 250 feet of the common property line, which, in essence,
is what is being promised. He felt that would have to go through
a 2 -step scenario, however.
Chairman Scurlock asked if the removal of the 250 -ft. deed
restriction would be subject to the approval of the adjacent
residents, and Attorney Stewart confirmed that it could be
written that way. He stressed that there are a number of people
in the subdivision who are in favor of the project, and presented
a petition signed by 19 people representing 13 households in
Sunnydale Acres Subdivision.
(SAID PETITION IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD)
In conclusion, Attorney Stewart urged the Board to rezone
the subject property since the request is in conformance with the
Comp Plan and the County's Overall Economic Development Plan
which encourages affordable housing.
Commissioner Lyons wanted it on record that there would be
no on-site sewer plant or water plant.
Wallace Smith, 1646 71st Avenue, strongly opposed the
rezoning. He noted that after this same developer was successful
in having a tract on the north side of SR -60 rezoned to multiple -
family residential, he walked away from it. Mr. Smith wondered
if the same thing could happen here, and whether it also might
set a precedent for RM -6 from 43rd Avenue to 1-95 on the south
side of SR -60.
Michael Tippin, 1815 71st Avenue, expressed concern about
the development's impact on their quiet neighborhood. Although a
lot of it is zoned at 6 units per acre, most of it has been
17
MAR 5 19� soon �°:,c 7192
BOOK 63. F.�UE 793
developed at 2-3 units per acre. They realize that development
will happen around them, but they would like to see something
less in densities to assure an appropriate buffer. He urged the
Commission to respect the recommendation of the Planning & Zoning -
Commission and deny this rezoning request.
'Ray Scent, a resident of 71st Court for the last 13 years,
emphasized that the zoning is the issue, not the quality of
people moving in. The county does need rental units, multiple -
family as well as single family residences. Statistically, RS -6
brings in 20 people per acre and RM -6 brings in 16 people.
Single-family residential generates more traffic and uses more
utilities. Multiple -family residential generates less daily
trips than single family. Mr. Scent felt the proposed
development is a nice project and would be a good addition to the
area.
Mary Layman, 1985 71st Avenue, explained that her family
moved here 5 years ago to escape southern Florida and were happy
to be living on one of the nicest streets in the county. She
preferred to have some gradual zoning between their property and
the proposed development at 6 units per acre.
Mary Bing, 1700 71st Avenue, noted that at one time her
grandfather owned most of Winter Park and pointed out the manner
in which that area has developed. If that is considered
progress, she is deeply concerned. She stated that while they
are capable of trusting what the developer has promised to do in
this area, they would cling tenaciously to their right to impact
this development's site plan.
Larry Layman, 1985 71st Avenue, felt that while they realize
the surrounding area would develop eventually, they would like to
see a more gradual change. He felt that we need to look at this
development very closely, and urged the Board to deny the
rezoning appeal.
Robert Cavanna, 41 Cache Cay Drive, stated that he has no
interest, financial or otherwise, in this property, but he is in
18
favor of the project for reasons already cited by several people
here today. He felt the project makes a lot of economical
sense.
Dotty Ball, 1905 71st Avenue, asked exactly when the
developer requested the appeal, and Planner Shearer believed they
requested the appeal on January 16th. She stressed the
increasing traffic accessing SR -60 along that 2 -mile stretch of
road and listed the following number of units in the developments
between Kings Highway and 1-95:
Village Green, Phases, 1, II, & III - 750 units
Countryside North - 650
Countryside South - proposed 800
Lakewood Village - 365
Heritage Village - 433
Ranchland - 107 units
Heron Cay - proposed 580
Vista Plantation - 564
Indian River Estates - 260
Westgate Park Subdivision - 80 homes
Greenbrier Subdivision - 75 homes
Mrs. Ball reported that the sales managers of the mobile
home parks have said that one-half of the units are 2 -car
families. In addition, there is the traffic generated by the
Holiday Inn, Days Inn, Courtesy Truck Stop, Golden Corral
Restaurant, and the Central Assembly of God, and cars coming off
1-95 and across SR -60 from Yeehaw Junction. She wondered just
how much traffic a land use could bear, and noted that there is
only one red light from 1-95 east to the one at Kings Highway.
She understood that a red light cannot be installed at an
intersection having a dirt road. Mrs. Ball stressed the danger
to children waiting for school buses and the liability the School
Board would bear for any fatalities. She believed outside
developers are having a race to fill in the groves out west as
fast as possible. They bought their homes and made an investment
. and questioned why the west side had to be the testing spot for
mobile homes and rental units. She concluded by saying she hoped
that
the Board would appreciate
their
concern
about
the pride in
their
neighborhood and that she
would
rely on
their
good
judgement in this rezoning appeal.
19
MAR 5 1986 BOOK 63 FA,E 794
FF
MAR 5 1986 Boos 6 3 N'UE 795
Chairman Scurlock clarified that the transportation element
in the Comp Plan sets certain traffic levels for certain roads
and pointed out that if these levels are exceeded, no more
development can happen until further road improvements are made.
Mr. Shearer advised that even with the addition of the
traffic generated by the proposed development, the traffic level
on SR -60 would remain at Level A.
Commissioner Wodtke appreciated all the research Mrs. Ball
has done on this matter, but pointed out that Level A is the
least traveled level.
Marie Renkel, a 5 -year resident at 1836 71st Avenue, noted
the many vacancies in several Vero Beach shopping centers and the
lack of demand for shopping centers and office units. Owners at
the malls are saying that business is not booming. Referring to
the recent layoff of 600 Piper employees, she felt we can only
come to the conclusion that there are no significant job openings
in Vero Beach. People are leaving town because Vero Beach cannot
absorb the 600 layoffs from Piper. It seemed to her that to
rezone this area to multiple family residential now is putting
the cart before the horse. Mrs. Renkel noted that the largest
apartment complex in Vero Beach runs at 4% vacancy and that the
newspaper ads show many rental vacancies, even during peak
season. She did not see the demand for 500 additional rental
units. Mrs. Renkel raised the question of adequate drainage
during a heavy rain and pointed out that the ditches fill with
water and their toilets do not flush. They were told that the
project would accommodate 950 of their runoff, but she believed
the surrounding area could not handle the other 50. Mrs. Renkel
also was concerned that other developers might come in and buy up
other property in the area that is presently zoned agricultural,
get it rezoned, and then sell it for a higher price. She urged
the Board to keep the development consistent with what is there
now and rezone it to something more gradual.
20
Chairman Scurlock reported that a recent study showed a 2.3%
vacancy rate for rental units in Vero Beach.
Nancy Offutt read aloud a letter from the Chamber of
Commerce supportive of the need in this county for rental units
and congregate care facilities. Speaking for the Board of
Realtors, she expressed their appreciation of the pride of home
ownership and the concerns of the single family residents in this
particular case, but they also feel there must be alternative
choices other than owning a home and that we should not gear down
in our planning for affordable housing.
Jerry Johnson, 71st Avenue, opposed the rezoning as he has
witnessed the county's gradual loss of citrus land in recent
years. He urged the Board to leave as much acreage in groves
along SR -60 as possible. He stressed that we have just begun to
see the traffic impact of recent development along SR -60 and
wished to see a bike path along SR -60. He pointed out that the
developer did not follow through with their plans on the north
side of SR -60 and did not feel that the existing zoning should be
changed unless it is demonstrated that there is a need.
Tommy Barnes, 806 43rd Avenue, stated that his family owns a
part of the property in question and are in support of the
rezoning. He noted that a 10 -acre citrus grove along SR -60 is
no longer financially feasible due to the difficulty in
maintenance, spraying, etc.
Max Sconyers, 5215 16th Street, owner of the 10 acres in
controversy that are next to the existing subdivision, spoke in
favor of the rezoning because he has been paying taxes on his
property and not getting much return for the last few years.
While he understood the residents concerns about renters, he felt
it is inevitable that Vero Beach would grow to the west.
William Borland, 3438 15th Street, owner of 10 -acres along
Lundberg Road, preferred to have this particular development 250
feet away rather than taking a chance on another development that
21
MAR Boor 63 rAtu 796
MAR 5 1986- BOOK 63 rn-E- t 97
might only give a 25 -ft. setback. In addition, he agreed there
is no money in small groves.
Reverend Buddy Tipton, representing 200 people who attend
Central Assembly of God on any given Sunday, noted that 25 people''
came here this morning in support of the rezoning. He felt the
reason why the developer's request was turned down at the P & Z
Commission was simply because the majority of the people
attending the meeting spoke against it. Reverend Tipton felt the
development would be a good addition to this community.
Peter Robinson of Laurel Homes, Inc., felt certain that Mr.
Quigley could be trusted to do what he has promised. He pointed
out that the only reason Wedgewood Park had changed locations was
due to the title problem on the other piece. He felt assured
that Mr. Quigley will build these units on the subject property
if he gets the RM -6 zoning.
Joe Tillman, 7276 16th Street, owner of property east of the
subject property and also the middle part of the property
Wedgewood is considering buying, expressed his support of the
project. As a citrus consultant, he explained that growing fruit
in a small grove is almost impossible any more. He has no
intention of keeping his property in groves and intends to sell
it to either Wedgewood or someone else.
Lyle Ostrum, part owner of 80 rental units on 41st Avenue
and 16th Street, wondered if these units were to be phased in,
because he frankly could not understand why Vero needs an
additional 500 rental units at this time. Sometimes in the off
season their apartments run as high as 12% vacancy, and he felt
that another 500 units would be detrimental and opposed the
rezoning.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously closed
the Public Hearing.
22
Commissioner Lyons asked if the applicant is proposing to
delete the southwest 10 acres from the rezoning request, and
Attorney Stewart stated that they are requesting to rezone the
entire acreage to RM -6 and suggesting that the buffer zone be
accommodated through the site plan process.
Director Keating pointed out that the site plan process and
the rezoning requests go through different avenues. The site
plan process is final at the P & Z stage, while the rezoning must
eventually come before this Board. Coupling the site plan with
the rezoning does not give any more feeling of security than
going ahead normally.
Chairman Scurlock felt the most logical approach would be to
omit the agricultural land and track that along and have the site
plan and rezoning approved at the same time. That procedure,
along with the deed restriction that the developer has most
graciously offered, would put the residents in the area more at
ease even though the process might take a little longer.
Commissioner Lyons understood that Attorney Stewart had made
that offer, and Attorney Stewart stated that if the 10 acres is
omitted, that is certain an avenue they would pursue.
Lengthy discussion ensued regarding the possibility of
omitting the southwest 10 -acre parcel and bringing it back
through the cumbersome procedure of getting the rezoning and site
plan approval simultaneously.
Attorney Vitunac believed the advisability of the rezoning
for its own protection should depend on our Zoning Code and not a
promise from the developer to give us an easement. Even if he
gives us an easement, there is some doubt whether it would be
enforceable if he were to take it back because it is a gratuitous
offer to buy a zoning that he would not have received under the
County's zoning protection. He pointed out that the County has a
PRD process where the zoning and site plan are considered at the
same time.
23 BOOK 63 798
MAR 5 1986
MAR 5 1986 soon 63 i.99
Chairman Scurlock was concerned about providing some sort of
transitional zone, but Commissioner Lyons felt that the chances
of having good buffering are a lot better when you have to go
into a RM -6 situation than the other way around, because there is -
really no site plan approval needed for RS -6.
Carolyn Eggert, Chairman of the Planning & Zoning
Commission, wanted clarification about running the rezoning
concurrent with the site plan, as she felt the zoning should be
in order before the site plan goes to technical review.
Commissioner Lyons explained that the developer made an
offer to set up a deed restriction for a 250 -ft. buffer on the
southwest 10 -acre parcel and that takes time. If all those
things were in place, the question of when the rezoning came in
would not be so important.
Mrs. Eggert felt it could work, but she was mostly concerned
about the logistics.
Attorney Stewart stated that the developer offered the
250 -ft. buffer to be reflected as part of the site plan process.
It will be there.
Administrator Wright noted that the Board does have the
right on an appeal to review a site plan, and Commissioner Wodtke
added that the County also has the right to initiate a rezoning.
Director Keating explained that if a project is not
developed according to the site plan, it will go to the Code
Enforcement Board.
Attorney Vitunac cautioned that a 250 -ft. buffer is not a
requirement of our Zoning Code and cannot be the reason to deny a
site plan appeal.
Chairman Scurlock felt that orderly transition is a planning
goal, but Attorney Vitunac pointed out that is where Commissioner
Wodtke's idea of a quick rezoning back to agricultural would come
in. Then the only issue is what kind of rights has the developer
vested or what damages has he lost. He recommended that we put
it on the record right now that any money spent on the project
24
other than the 250 -ft. buffer is at the developer's risk, which
would put him on notice that he should not rely on our rezoning.
Attorney Stewart stated they would accept that.
Commissioner Bird intended to vote for the rezoning because
when we started looking for areas in the county with sufficient
infrastructure to accommodate multiple -family development, we
found that the SR -60 corridor had that infrastructure along with
the availability of county water and sewer service. However,
since some single-family residential areas could be negatively
impacted, he felt the Board should do everything we can to
mitigate that impact. If we can trust the representations that
have been made by the developer and his attorney here this
morning. then those protections should be built into the site
plan. He felt the entire 68.4 acres could be handled all in one
step here today because trying to hold the 10 acres back would be
pretty cumbersome on staff, the P & Z Commission and this Board.
He felt we all want the finished product to be in accord to what
has gone on the record here this morning, and if it does not turn
out that way, this Commission will rezone it back to something
different.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, that the Board adopt Ordinance
86-22, rezoning 68.4 acres from A-1 and
RS -6 to Multiple -Family Residential, RM -6.
Under discussion, Commissioner Wodtke believed the proposed
development would have little, or no detrimental effect on the
homes and life styles of the adjacent single-family subdivision.
He felt the fact that 260 of Piper employees live outside Indian
River County demonstrates the need for more affordable housing.
Commissioner Bowman intended to vote for the rezoning but
would have preferred the development to have gone through the PRD
process because she is concerned about how this will -be built.
25
MAR 5.1996
Boor 6 ; ` c.800
MAR 5 1986 Boa 63 801
She believed that the traffic problems can be solved with the
installation of red lights and that the drainage problems will be
taken care of through the County sewer system. Commissioner
Bowman hoped that a very gorgeous tract of woods along the south
side of the subject property would not be lost.
Commissioner Lyons intended to vote for the rezoning because
he felt there is a better chance for the neighborhood to get a
buffer with multiple family as compared to single family zoning
requirements
Chairman Scurlock felt that all the Commissioners should
have the experience and opportunity to have a rezoning in their
neighborhoods. While he realized that private ownership of
property is sacred to us in this country, he intended to vote for
the rezoning because of the need for affordable rental housing in
the county.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
was voted on and carried unanimously.
26
ORDINANCE NO. 86-22
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP
FOR THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND PROVIDING
FOR EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, The Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the
local planning agency on such matters, has held a public hearing
and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this rezoning
request; and
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to
rezone the hereinafter described property; and
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners has determined
that this rezoning is in conformance with the Land Use Element of
the Comprehensive Plan of Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners has held a public
hearing pursuant to this rezoning request, at which parties in
interest and citizens were heard;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning of
the following described property situated in Indian River County,
Florida, to -wit:
THE WEST 20 ACRES OF TRACT 10; THE EAST 10 ACRES OF TRACT
11; THE EAST 20 ACRES OF TRACT 14; THE WEST 20 ACRES OF TRACT 15,
ALL BEING IN THE INDIAN RIVER FARMS COMPANY SUBDIVISION SITUATED
IN SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST AS RECORDED IN
PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 25 OF THE OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK OF ST. LUCIE
COUNTY, FLORIDA, SAID LANDS NOW LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA. COUNTAINING 68.42'ACRES MORE OR LESS.
Be changed from RS -6, Single Family District to RM -6,
Multiple Family District. ,
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and
described in said Zoning Regulations.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on this 5th day
of March, 1986.
27
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BY;\J"- G
Don C. Sc lock, Jr.Chairman
BOOK 63 F4la802
n
Bou 63 P,:ta 803
ACCEPTANCE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY DONATION FOR SOUTHERLY EXTENSION OF
INDIAN RIVER_ BOULEVARD - NATHAN AND_MELVIN W. TANEN
Commissioner Lyons asked if we are making any commitments
that we cannot carry out in connection with the drainage
problems, and Public Works Director Jim Davis believed that the
property in question has excellent drainage because of its
frontage on the 14th Street canal and also because Indian River
Boulevard is being designed to give a positive outfall for the
frontage of the property in an overflow situation. Those items
have been taken under consideration and are reflected in the
proposed resolution.
Commissioner Lyons just wanted it made clear that we have to
follow the requirements of the Water Management District and the
DER and that nothing we promise here today is going to be
impossible to carry out because of some demand they put on us.
Attorney Vitunac explained that the Tanens still must have a
positive drainage for their property somewhere other than our
road right-of-way. The road right-of-way accepts only the
overlow of'a 10 -year, 24-hour storm event; therefore, their
normal drainage will not be into our road right-of-way.
Commissioner Bowman felt that while there is no problem with
the drainage, that there is a problem with the canal draining
into the river. Director Davis explained that the water quality
issue is addressed in the DER's Code 1725 and would apply to this
property. _
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 86-10, accepting the donation and dedication
of land for the southerly extension of Indian River
Boulevard, easterly extension of 12th Street and
improvements along 6th Avenue from Nathan Tanen and
Melvin W. Tanen.
1-3
S
M
Jeff Tanen, on behalf of the Tanen,family, presented the
deeds to the Commission, and Commissioner Lyons thanked the Tanen
family for their donation as he felt this was a major step
forward in getting this road built.
Director Davis reported that the right-of-way acquisition
for Indian River Boulevard for the 8th and 12 Street connections
has been taking a little longer than anticipated because they
have had to work out all the details for each parcel. At this
point they have secured the right-of-way from the existing south
terminus of the Boulevard down through the Tanen project, which
is a substantial length, all the way down to 10th Street, but
there are about 7 parcels that we have not closed upon. They
will be bringing those to the Board soon and hope that much of
that right-of-way will be donated also. Staff wants to try to
secure all the right-of-way before we go to bid because many
times we have to negotiate a driveway connection, drainage
connection, etc. The design is substantially completed and we
have secured the Coast Guard permit for the bridge. There has
been some delay in obtaining the DOT permit for the 4th Street
connection, but we are anxious to go to bid as soon as -we can so
that we can begin construction in the off season.
Commissioner Lyons asked if we could build the street in
phases, but Director Davis believed that would result in a higher
cost to the County.
Administrator Wright advised that they are concentrating on
the southerly extension of the Boulevard, and as soon as that is
done, it will free up manpower for the northerly extension.
2 9'
MAR 5 1986 ego- 63, Frt,IJE8U
RESOLUTION NUMBER 86 10
BOOK 63 F" 805
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County
has determined that the construction of a southerly extension to Indian
River Boulevard including improvements to connecting roadways such as
Twelfth Street and Sixth Avenue is necessary to relieve traffic
congestion along the U.S. 1 corridor; and
WHEREAS, the Indian River County Public Works Division, in
conjunction with private consultants, has prepared plans for the
construction and the paving and drainage improvements necessary to
complete the southerly extension of Indian River Boulevard and easterly
extension of Twelfth Street; and
WHEREAS, Nathan Tanen, individually and as Trustee and Melvin W.
Tanen, individually and as Trustee, are the owners of approximately 65
acres of property (said land being legally described in Exhibit "A"
attached hereto) through which a portion of the proposed southerly
extension of Indian River Boulevard and easterly extension of Twelfth
Street shall pass; and
WHEREAS, the property owned by Nathan Tanen, individually and as
Trustee and Melvin W. Tanen, individually and as Trustee, pursuant to the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan of Indian River County has a land use
designation of MD -2, medium density residential (up to ten units/acre)
except for approximately 2.1 acres which are environmentally sensitive
(up to one unit per acre'); and
WHEREAS, Nathan Tanen, individually and as Trustee and Melvin W.
Tanen, individually and as Trustee, have indicated their intention to
apply for zoning consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan as to
some 45 acres of the aforesaid property; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County
recognizes that the County would have to purchase from Nathan Tanen,
individually and as Trustee and Melvin W. Tanen, individually and as
Trustee, the property needed for the riqht-of-way or institute
proceedings to acouire the property needed by the County for the Indian
River Boulevard, easterly extension of Twelfth Street and improvements
along Sixth Avenue which would also reouire payment by the County of the
fair market value of the property; and
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Board of County Commissioners
of Indian River County, Florida that:
1. Indian River County hereby accepts the donation and dedication
of land for -the southerly extension of Indian River Boulevard, easterly
extension of Twelfth Street and improvements along Sixth Avenue, from
Nathan Tanen, individually and as Trustee and Melvin 'W. Tanen,
individually and as Trustee, said land being more fully described in
Exhibit "B" attached hereto.
2. Indian River County confirms and stipulates that the land
described herein as Exhibit "B" which is to be contributed to the county
is subject to Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances;
Appendix A, Zoning Section 23.3(d)(1)(c) and the provisions of said law -
as of the date hereof shall apply to the property described in
Exhibit "B" and Exhibit "A". -
3. Indian River County agrees not to assess any of the initial
costs of paving, drainage and pedestrian and related improvements to
Indian River Boulevard, Twelfth Street and Sixth Avenue against Nathan
Tanen, individually and as Trustee and Melvin W. Tanen, individually and
as Trustee, or to their successors or assions.
4. That the deed from Nathan Tanen and Melvin W. Tanen shall
provide that if the construction of paving and drainage improvements to
the southerly extension of Indian River Boulevard and easterly extension
of Twelfth Street are not begun within five years from the date
hereinafter set forth, then ownership of the property described herein
shall revert to Nathan Tanen, individually and as Trustee and Melvin W.
I
Tanen, individually and as Trustee, or their successors or assigns.
5. Indian River County will oversize the proposed Indian River
Boulevard sewer line to the Vero Beach Waste Water Treatment Plant to
accomodate the property described in Exhibit "A" as zoned and in
accordance
with
Zoning Section
23.3(d)(1)(c). The county will also
reauest the City
of Vero Beach to
increase the waste water allocation to
serve the
properties described in Exhibit "A". . Although sewer impact
fees would
still
be required, line
extension fees would not be necessary.
6.
Indian
River County agrees that in the construction of the
road, a positive
drainage outfall
will be provided for drainage overflow
-
- 2 - BOOK 63 F':,r C7��6
MAR 5 a ..
-
pp .
BOOK 63 �F,ti,H 807
Purposes to serve the property described in Exhibit "A" as well as all
other property along the proposed Indian River Boulevard. The roadway
has been designed to meet the State of Florida DER Water Quality Criteria
established by Florida Administrative Code, Chapter 17-3. The resulting
drainage swale system will be available to channel the overflow generated
from abutting property exceeding the 10 vear, 24 hour storm event. The
design for road drainage should not restrict or impede the existing
drainage but will allow for the overflow from adjacent properties and
should improve the drainage.
7. Primary or. secondary access to the property described in
Exhibit "A" from the Indian River Boulevard extension will be provided.
Primary access to the property described in Exhibit "A" will also be "
permitted along Sixth Avenue and Twelfth Street.
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Wodtke who
moves its adoption. The Motion was seconded by Commissioner Lyons
and upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
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 St h day of M ar c h , 1986.
ATTEST:
Freda Wright, Clero the Boar
1241T
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By: /
APPROVED as to form and legal sufficiency.
6- � 2,, & ( ) c
County A orney
EXHIBIT "A"
The South 15 acres of Government Lot 3 and the North 30 acres
of Government Lot 6, lying 'in Section 7, Township 33 South,
Range 40 East, Indian River County, Florida.
and
The South one-half of the Southeast one-quarter of the
Northeast one-quarter of Section 12, Township 33 South,
Range 40 East, Indian River County, Florida.
I
EXHIBIT "A"
L.. -MAR 5 1986 _. BooK 63 rnuE808
MAR 5 1966
BOOK 63 FADE suo
6TH AVENUE
PARCEL NO. 115 (Not Shown on R/W Maps)
PARENT DEED - NATHAN TANNEN AND MELVIN W. TANNEN, As Trustees -
ORB 03859 PAGE 0737 _
The following described parcel of land lying in Section 12, Township 33 South,
Range 39 East, Indian River County, Florida more particularly described as follows,
to wit:
That portion of Parcel A and Parcel B as recorded in ORB, 0385, Page 0737,_
Public Records of Indian River County, Florida, more particularly described
as follows::
Parcel A: N i of SW I of SE I of NE 1, less the West 35 feet thereof,
of Section 12, Township 33 South, Range 39*East. _.
Parcel B: S i of the S I of the SE I of the NE 1, less the West 35 feet,
of Section 12, Township 33 South, Range 39 East.
'That lies within the following described road Right -of -Way:
All that part of the above described parcels lying West of the line which
lies 50 feet East of and parallel with the West line of the Southeast
One -Quarter of the Northeast One -Quarter of Section 129 Township 33
South, Range 39 East, Indian River County, Florida.
Containing 8,678 Sq. Ft., more or less.
Page 1 of 10 EXHIBIT Wk
984, Revised Nov., 1984
I4395.-01-05
INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD
PARCEL NO. 119.0 _
PARENT DEED - MELVIN W. TANEN AND NATHAN TANEN, AS TRUSTEES '
O.R.B. 396 PG 225
The following described parcel of land lying in Section 7, Township 33 South, Range
40 East, Indian River County, Florida more particularly described as follows, to
wit:
That portion of the following described parcel as recorded in ORB, 0396,
Page 0225, Public Records of Indian River County, Florida:
The South 15 Acres bf the North 30 Acres of Government Lot 6 of
Section 79 Township 33 South, Range 40 East, Indian River County,
Florida.
That lies within the following described road Right -of -Way:
A strip of land 150.00 feet in width lying in Sections 12 and 13, Township 33
South, Range 39 East and Sections 7 and 18, Township 33 South, Range 40
East, all in Indian River County, Florida, lying 75.00 feet on each side of the
following described centerline:
Commencing at the intersection of the South line of Government Lot 2 in
said Section 7 with the Southerly terminus of the centerline of an existing
Right of Way 200.00 feet wide, as described in Official Record Book 110,
Page 204 Public Records of Indian River County; thence N 8901313811 W along
said South line, a distance of 10.01 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING;
Thence S 0105110511 E a distance of 512.76 feet to the beginning of a
curve concave to the Northwest having a radius of 954.93 feet; thence
Southwesterly along the arc of said curve through a central angle of
33020/22/1 a distance of 555.66 feet; thence S 31029/171/ W a distance of
940.00 feet to the beginning of a curve concave to the Southeast having
a radius of 954.93 feet; thence Nuthwesterly along the arc of said
curve through a central angle of 31 0010011 a distance of 516.67 feet to
its point of tangency with a line parallel with and 75.00 feet Easterly
of, as measured at right angles, the Westerly line of said Section 7;
thence S 00029117t1 W along said parallel line, a distance of 979.31 feet
to the beginning of a curve concave to the Northwest having a radius of
2291.83 feet; -thence Southerly along the are of said curve through a
central angle of 0805211811, a distance of 354.87 feet; thence S 09021,3511
W a distance of 319.85 ofeet to the Northerly line of said Section 13;
thence continuing S 09 21135T1 W adistance of 310.88 feet to the
beginning of a curve concave to the Southeast having a radius of
2291.83 feet; thence Southerly along the arc of said curve through a
central angle of 0804111511 a distance of 347.50 feet to its point of
tangency with a line- parallel with and 75.00 feet Westerly of, as
measured at right angles, the East line of said Section 13; thence
S 00040120t1 W along said parallel line a distance of 1371.23 feet to the
beginning of a curve concave to the Northwest having a radius of 572.96
feet; thence Southwesterly along the arc of said curve throush a central
MAR 5 196 angle of 8601414411, a distance of 862.46 feet; thence S 86 55104/, W a
Sept 1984, Revised Nov. 1984 BOOK .63 F,,,,L 810
Job No. 4395.01-05 Page 2 of 10 - Exhibit "B"
-.,..s .3 `4 -'� a ,*,e "Se t- +,`{ 't.0 Z ffi '+.•i Z/ t at -1 " t` d
y� s
i
.z n ref-• .1 `r '' is s... s y ¢ y 5 < r is r `` 7- �7?WW-c z
>":.-7 6 Z ..'t 3"" —sn_� ✓'a:'+F Yt -o a 4:# �Y ;4 f�v+.� t.{ o :} 'b _ q.= -
d;.- '1� .»S-, ¢ '" �_ '� t�.r a� sf 4 y,.#� � '��, �t�•+'CP•r C, X ) .�'t }r,�, j r
_� r �, 1 �� � �e `•�z: t �r a� a- _7a 2. 4 -� y a=i �h �,+r�g y' � * sS,(,�+- � .�3 �.5 ✓
1
yj.
:n e � a...� '�'t ✓ _s.1 c`a's r a4�
° ,`-
ems` ,tt. i �,,.._ ,� t��... ,+ - ��v� ''�•'� � �" �' �-:.4 i� :_�� t -
-L q-i rr.
F
ALVIUMIMI
INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD
PARCEL NO. 120.0 _
PARENT DEED - MELVIN W. TANEN AND NATHAN TANEN, AS TRUSTEES
O.R.B 385 PG. 737
The following described parcel of land lying in Section 7, Township 33 South, Range
40 East, Indian River County, Florida more particularly described as follows, to
wit:
That portion of the following described parcel as recorded in ORB, 03850+
Page 0737, Public Records of Indian River County, Florida:
Parcel E: The North 15 Acres of Government Lot 6, Section 7,
Township 33 South, Range 40 East, Indian River County, Florida.
That lies within the following described road Right -of -Way:
A strip of land 150.00 feet in width lying in Sections 12 and 13, Township 33
South, Range 39 East and Sections 7 and 182 Township 33 South, Range 40
East, all in Indian River County, Florida, lying 75.00 feet on each side of the
following described centerline:
Commencing at the intersection of the South line of Government Lot 2 in
said Section 7 with the Southerly terminus of the centerline of an existing
Right of Way 200.00 feet wide, as described in Official Record Book 110,
Page 204 Public Records of Indian River County; thence N 890 1313811W along
said South line, a distance of 10.01 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING;
Thence S 01051'05" E a distance of 512.76 feet to the beginning of a
curve concave to the Northwest having a radius of 954.93 feet; thence
Southwesterly along the arc of said curve through a central angle of
3302D12211 a distance of 555.66 feet; thence S 31029'17" W a distance of
940.00 feet to the beginning of a curve concave to the Southeast having
a radius of 954.93 feet; thence Southwesterly along _ the arc of said
curve through a central angle of 31000'00" a distance of 516.67 feet to
its point of tangency with a line parallel with and 75.00 feet Easterly
of, as mea o red at right angles, the Westerly line of said Section 7;
thence S 00 29117" W along said parallel line, a distance of 979.31 feet
to the beginning of a curve concave to the Northwest having a radius of
2291.83 feet; thencoe Southerly along the arc of said curve through a
central angle of 08 5211811, a distance of 354.87 feet; thence S 09021,351,
W a distance of 319.85 fleet to the Northerly line of said Section 13;
thence continuing S 09 21135" W a distance of 310.88 feet to the
beginning of a curve concave to the Southeast having a radius of
2291.83 feet; thence Southerly along the are of said curve through a
central angle of 08041/151/ a distance of 347.50 feet to its point of
tangency with a line parallel with and 75.00 feet Westerly of, as
measured at right angles, the East line of said Section 13; thence
S 0004012011 W alon; said parallel line a distance of 1371.23 feet to the
beginning of a curve concave to the Northwest having a radius of 572.96
feet; thence Southwesterly along the arc of said curve through a central
angle of 8601414411, a distance of 862.46 feet; thence S 86 5510411 W a
distance of 141.61 feet to the Easterly Right of Way of U. S. Highway
-; '0
Sept 1984, Revised Nov. 1984
Job No. 4395.01-05
Page 4 of 10 - Exhibit "B" 500K
63 �a,t 81
S Wt
E
Sz
i _r A A ,) y i s 4 is s f'. tc j _ �{ 5. c v} '* % e'= "4•+ j K '` `" �./ ti:
j o - `�... } .S y ��"• '#IC t '4., z C� x k : ,v R �� • 1 �" ; S x
3> r ��.., .� k s• r 3
i.
) we � �,, �. f ,� .` S 255 e } r�� � d_ t, _._. �T}�a � w: a� A•
x
-
4
1'a5' • _.% t �s q +�� a �'; #v� r- `��� � i r ,3�.:a y �. �.."'r+ '. �s 1i` •� i�t'hP'� � t -�- � xo ;m
y'�'y z s i <4.Y, t '�'�'"5i � . � � t � � ae..a.-. a. 'z ��"' :� T`�.. � �v �j"�i.'...r ,... �•. i M1 ref '..
e. ;e, A :Y ylc3 a,.�a-� � a4` 'i'/ A p • 'h dk f �ypy 4°'�S C. .
.'7
ifs xYt is Fs t,s z mx,^+y,xk
�t .+f`i, y .s�4` � z� y 'r �y „,Sbc �� s � r p :.< ��� i•�R $ ) i � '„SC'Ey� � � k "� ' � s s'@>.., y+s`r�„ ., r z- 5 fj,�' ) SY t •.
EM Ill,
s _, j ) ' � x A``'K`' � A,C t d. �• s c� Y"P y �''S �7s ..� � ',+ acs # .� .,.ss"•.. � .� Z` s � f y i G _. '. 5 r '
' e � ,� ` "+ (-ti's s.. ,.• r, ,q r .r x� < Zr ro'� +.4 .. #' Y '� �,.,. t. �. s.
MV
INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD
PARCEL NO. 121.0
PARENT DEED - MELVIN W. TANEN AND NATHAN TAKEN, AS TRUSTEES
O.R.B. 385 PG. 737
The following described parcel of land lying in Section 7, Township 33 South, Range
40 East, Indian River County, Florida more particularly described as follows, to
wit:
That portion of the following described parcel as recorded in ORB, 0385,
Page 0737, Public Records of Indian River County, Florida:
Parcel D: The South 15 Acres of Government Lot 3, Section 7,
Township 33 South, Range 40 East, Indian River County, Florida. -
That lies within the following described road Right -of -Way:
A strip of land 150.00 feet in width lying in Sections 12 and 13, Township 33
South, Range 39 East and Sections 7 and 189 Township 33 South, Range 40
East, all in Indian River County, Florida, lying 75.00 feet on each side of the
following described centerline:
Commencing at the intersection of the South line of Government Lot 2 in
said Section 7 with the Southerly terminus of the centerline of an existing
Right of Way 200.00 feet wide, as described in Official Record Book 110,
Page 204 Public Records of Indian River County; thence N 89013138" W along
said South line, a distance of 10.01 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING;
Thence S 01°5110511 E a distance of 512.76 feet to the beginning of a
curve concave to the Northwest having a radius of 954.93 feet; thence
Southwesterly along the arc of said curve through a central angle of
33°2012211 a distance of 555.66 feet; thence S 31029117" W a distance of
940.00 feet to the beginning of a curve concave to the Southeast having
a radius of 954.93 feet; thence Nuthwesterl'y along the arc of said
curve through a central angle of 31 00100t1 a distance of 516.67 feet to
its point of tangency with a line parallel with and 75.00 feet Easterly
of, as measgred at right angles, the Westerly line of said Section 7;
thence S 00 29117" W along said parallel line, a distance of 979.31 feet
to the beginning of a curve concave to the Northwest having a radius of
2291.83 feet; thence Southerly along the arc of said curve through a
central angle of 08°52'19", a distance of 354.87 feet; thence S 0902113511
W a distance of 319.85 feet to the Northerly line of said Section 13;
thence continuing S 09°21'35" W a distance of 310.88 feet to the
beginning of a curve concave to the Southeast having a radius of
2291.83 feet; thence Southerly along the are of said curve through a
central angle of 08°41'15" a distance of 347.50 feet to its point of
tangency with a line parallel with and 75.00 feet Westerly of, as
meagured at right angles, the East line of said Section 13; thence
S 00 40120" W along said parallel line a distance of 1371.23 feet to the
beginning of a curve concave to the Northwest having a radius of 572.96
feet; thence Southwesterly along the arc of said curve throuSh a central
angle of °1414411, a distance of 862.46 feet; thence S 86 55104" W a
distance of 141.61 feet to the Easterly Right of Way of U. S. Highway
Aii * X�g
Sept 1984, Revised Nov. 1984 Exhibit "B" (page 6 of 10) BOOK. 63 FAGE
Job No. 4395--01-05
41
-IC
'i tr. Or
in rL
LR "t:
7 nq"
r�
12th STREET
PARCEL NO. 125
PARENT DEED - NATHAN TANNEN AND MELVIN W. TANNEN, AS TRUSTEE '
ORB 03859 PAGE. 0737
The following described parcel of land lying in Section 7, Township 33 South, Range
40 East, Indian River County, Florida more particularly described as follows, to
wit:
That portion of the following described parcel D as recorded in ORB, 0385,
Page 0737, Public Records of Indian River County, Florida:
Parcel D: The South 15 acres of Government Lot 3, of said Section 7
That lies within the following described road Right -of -Way:
BEGIN at the West I section corner of said Section 7, being also the
East I section corner of Section 129 Township 33 South, Range 39 East,
Indian River County, Florida; Thence N 00014137t1 E along the range line
a distance of 81.50 feet; thence S 89044119'1 E a distance of 152.90 feet
to the beginning of a curve concave to the Southwest, having a radius of
456.50 feet; thence Easterly along the arc.of paid curve a distance of
248.80 feet, through a central angle of 31 1313611, having a chord
bearing of S 7400713111 E; thence N 6402613711 W, nontangent to said
curve, a distance of 89.38 feet to the Westerly Right -of -Way of
proposed Indian River Boulevard; thence S 3102911711 W along said
proposed Right -of -Way a distance of 216.50 feet; thence N 13030/431/ W
a distance of 35.36 feet; thence N 5803014311 W a distance of 23.62 feet
to the beginning of a curve concave to the Southwest, having a. radius of
340.00 feet; thence Northwesterly along the arc of said curve a
distance of 185.30 feet through a central angle of 31013136}1; thence
N 8904411911 W a distance of 153.01 feet to said range line; thence
N 00 2911711 E along said range line a distance of 35.00 feet to the
POINT OF BEGINNING.
Containing 28,601 Sq. Ft., more or less.
Exhibit '!B" (.page 8 of 10)
MAR 51��
Oct., 1984, Revised Nov., 1984 BOOK P1;E ��
Job No. 439501 -OS
12th STREET
PARCEL NO. 126
PARENT DEED - NATHAN TANNEN AND MELVIN W. TANNEN, AS TRUSTEE
ORB 0385, PAGE 0737
The following described parcel of land lying in Section 7, Township 33 South, Range
40 East, Indian River County, Florida more particularly described as follows, to
wit:
That portion of the following described parcel D as recorded in ORB, 0385,
Page 0737, Public Records of Indian River County, Florida:
Parcel E: The North 15 acres of Government Lot 6 of said Section 7.
That lies within the following described road Right -of -Way:
BEGIN at the West I section corner of said Section 79 being also the
East I section corner of Section 12, Township 33 South, Range 39 East,
Indian River County, Florida; Thence N oo°14'37" E along the range line
a distance of 81.50 feet; thence S 89°4411911 E a distance of 152.90 feet
to the beginning of a curve concave to the Southwest, having a radius of
456.50 feet; thence Easterly along the are. of paid curve a distance of
248.80 feet, through a central angle of 31 1313611, having a chord
bearing of S 74°0713111 E; thence N 64°26'37" W, nontangent to said
curve, a distance of 89.38 feet to the Westedrly Right -of -Way of
proposed Indian River Boulevard; thence S 31 29117" W abong said
proposed Right -of -Way a distance of 216.50 feet; thence N 13 30,43" W
a distance of 35.36 feet; thence N 58°30'43" W a distance of 23.62 feet
to the beginning of a curve concave to the Southwest, having a radius of
340.00 feet; thence .Northwesterly along the arc of said curve a
distance of 185.30 feet through a central angle of 31013136"; thence
N 89.44119" W a distance of 153.01 feet to said range line; thence
N 00°291171t E along said range line a distance of 35.00 feet to the
POINT OF BEGINNING.
Containing 22,299 Sq. Ft., more or less.
Exhibit "B", (page 9 of 10)
NW84
4395XI-05
0
12th STREET
PARCEL NO. 127
PARENT DEED - NATHAN TANNEN AND MELVIN W. TANNEN, AS TRUSTEE
ORB 03859 PAGE 0737
The following described parcel of land lying in Section 12, Township 33 South, -
Range 39 East, Indian River County, Florida more particularly described as follows,
to wit: _
That portion of the following described parcel B as recorded in ORB, 0385,T
Page 0737, Public Records of Indian River County, Florida:
Parcel B: The South I of the South i of the Southeast I of the
Northeast, less the West 35 feet, of said Section 12.
That lies within the following described road Right -of -Way:
BEGIN at airon pipe marking the East i corner of said Section 12
thence N 89 4411911 W along the East-West $ section line of said section
a distance of 1318.99 feet to a railroad spike marking the Southwest
corner of the Southeast I of the Northeast $ of -said Section 12; thence
N 0003611311 E along the West line of said Southeast i of the Northeast
I a distance of 81.50 feet; thence S 89044/1911 E parellel with said East-
West I section line a distance of 1318.47 feet; to the East line of said
Section 12; thence S 00014137t1 W a distance of 81.50 feet to the POINT
OF BEGINNING.
Containing 103,401 Sq. Ft., more or less.
1
Exhibit " B (page ],Q of 10)_
MAR 51986
'.rr�• Oct. f f Q
meq=.•,,..., r , 1984 Revised Nov. 1984 c
Job No. 4395:01-05 BOOK FA'uE O�
f
4�n Q
MAR 5 1986 BOOR 63 F.»E 819
AUTOMOBILE & EQUIPMENT FLOATER INSURANCE
The Board reviewed the following -memo dated 2/26/86:
TO: Honorable Board of County
Commissioners
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
DATE: February 26, 1986 FILE:
SUBJECT: Automobile & Equipment
Floater Insurance
REFERENCES:
Indian River County had a large, unanticipated, increase in the automobile in-
surance from $62,900 to $198,432 annually. This increase of 215% or $135,523 has
required staff to look at alternative insurance policies. The County has received
a proposal from the League of Cities in the amount of $127,224. The proposal sub-
mitted includes the equipment floater and is $71,208 less, annually, than what we
pay presently, however, the cost differential for the current 1985/86 fiscal year
would only be $20,133.80.
Current Automobile Insurance (Through 03-31-86) $109,140.00
Penalty for Cancellation (198,432. - 109,140.)x .10 8,929.20
Current Equipment Floater (Through 03-31-86) 8,777.00
Penalty for Cancellation (12,536. - 8,777.)x .10 376.00
League of Cities Policy (04-01-86 to 09-30-86) 63,612.00
TOTAL $190,834.20
Current Automobile Insurance Policy $198,432.00
Current Equipment Floater Policy 12,536.00
Less: Cost if we change Insurance Policies _190,834.20
SAVINGS $ 20,133.80
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Honorable Board of County Commissioners accept the
automobile insurance proposal submitted by the League of Cities in the amount
of $127,224 and authorize staff to cancel our existing policies.
31
OMB Director Joe Baird explained that by obtaining our
liability insurance from the League of Cities we would receive a
substantial decrease in the County's insurance premiums. At
present our coverage costs $198,432, but we can get the same
insurance for $127,224. However, the savings will amount to only
$20,133.80 for this fiscal year as we are already 6 months into
the year.
Commissioner Bird asked if our present insurance carrier had
given any justification for the premiums jumpi.ng from $62,900 to
$198,000, and Director Baird advised that they had predicted only
a 10-15% increase for this year and had not given us any warning
when it changed so drastically. There is justification in that
all governments are experiencing this increase.
Commissioner Bird suggested asking Bill Gunter in the State
Insurance Commissioner's Office to look into this unconscionable
increase in rates and the lack of proper notice.
Administrator Wright advised that liability insurance rates
went up drastically all over the country, and the increases are
not over with yet.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, to approve staff's recommendation
to place the County's liability insurance with the
League of Cities and cancel our other policies.
Chairman Scurlock asked what the net increase is for these
particular policies over what was budgeted, and Director Baird
advised that the increase of $71,280 would have to come out of
the general contingencies fund. The total cost of the insurance
premiums were estimated at $280,000 and they came in at $550,000.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
was voted on and carried unanimously.
32
Boa 63 FAGE 890
Bou 63 F,1GE8?1.
Chairman Scurlock asked whether the Commissioners have been
indemnified as individuals in their roles as Commissioners of the
North and South County Fire Districts, and Attorney Vitunac
explained that the Commissioners cannot be liable personally if
they are acting within the scope of their jobs, unless they are
acting with a malicious or criminal intent or guilty of gross
negligence.
Commissioner Lyons wished to have all the coverage available
because of the time when a personal lawsuit was filed against him
in federal court for allegedly violating someone's civil rights.
The advice he received at that time was that he was in serious
trouble, and he did not want to be put in that position again.
SELECTION OF MAINTENANCE SERVICE FOR COUNTY GROVE
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/24/86:
FLORIDA COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES
I FAr
COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE
AGRICVLTURAI.. EXPERIMENT STATIONS
SCHOOL OF FOREST RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION COLLEGE OR AGRICULTURE
I
T0: Board of C my Commissioners
From: my Thomas and Steve Futch
SUBJECT: County Grapefruit Grove `
REPLY To: 2001-9 Ave. ,Suite 303
February 24, 1986
Riverfront Citrus Management,lnc., has notified the County that they
will continue to provide care for the County grove only if they are per-
mitted to market the 1986-87 fruit crop. This position is different
from current procedure of placing the crop to be purchased by the highest
bidder.
Riverfront is a vertically integrated company that provides the
marketing of fruit for all groves that it manages. Riverfront will sell
the fruit on a•point of sale basis and then deduct harvesting and packing
charges. This method would result in the County receiving the current
market price at the time of harvest.- Prices do vary during the season,
so it would not be possible to fix a per box price on the tree. However,
Riverfront would estimate the expected price early in the season.
33
7
Disadvantages of this proposal is that it eliminates the bid procedure
and the freeze risk clause that the County used in the 1985-86 season.
OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THE COUNTY:
Option I Continue with Riverfront providing the caretaking services,
and they will market the 1986-87 crop.
Option 11 Select a new citrus management service to provide the neces-
sary caretaking services and continue with the present bid
procedure.
It is felt that if the County wishes to continue with a standard
bid procedure and freeze risk clause, then the County should select
Option II.
Intergovernmental Relations Director Tommy Thomas explained
that the reason that Riverfront Citrus has taken this position is
due to a misunderstanding about marketing the fruit. At the time
the bid was awarded to them, he had notified their grove
caretaker, who is no longer with them, but apparently he did not
notify Mr. Knight, who was under the impression that he would be
selling the fruit as he does with all his other accounts. They
did do a tremendous job for us during the year on the maintenance
of the grove and the Board will have a report soon reflecting
this in the amount of surplus dollars. We had a very good year.
In addition, Riverfront is aware of this situation, but have
agreed to do whatever we feel is necessary until such time that
we make other arrangements. In fact, they fertilized and sprayed
for us last week. The recommendation is that if the Board wishes
to continue with the standard bid procedure and freeze risk
option, then we should go with Option II. If the Board does not
wish to have the bid or freeze risk clause,,staff wishes to make
it clear that they are completely satisfied with Riverfront's
maintenance program.
Director Thomas felt that as a public entity, the County
should go to bid and recalled that this Board took that position
last year. His recommendation would be to select a new citrus
management service to provide the necessary caretaker services
and continue with the present bid procedure.
34
Book 63 Fa.c-L R?2
Boor
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
Option II and authorized Director Thomas to continue
with Riverfront on any needed maintenance until the
time a new firm is selected.
GOLF COURSE CONSTRUCTION BIDS
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/26/86:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: February 26, 1986 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
SUBJECT: Golf Course
Construction Bids
FROM: Michael Wright REFERENCES:
County Administrator
"SGL 6 _fid'
In an effort to bring construction costs of the Sandridge
Golf Course within acceptable limits, the two low bidders have
been asked to submit prices for removing certain items from the
contract. These items are detailed in the attached letter to
Guettler Construction Company. An identical letter was sent to
Prince Construction Company of Palmetto, Florida.
The bids will be received in my office Tuesday, March 4th
at 5:00 p.m. I will -present the prices and any additional informa-
tion at the Board meeting of March 5th.
Commissioner -Bird explained that in an attempt to bring the
construction of the golf course back within budget, they met with
the two low bidders and the architect and found that some changes
could be made and some items deleted. Each of the bidders were
sent a letter outlining these items, and we received those bids
this morning. However, there really has not been any chance to
analyze them to see which of the two firms has the lowest
figures, but it does appear that we have been successful in
getting the overall budget of the golf course down to less than
the original estimate of $1.3 million. They are not prepared to
35
make a recommendation for the award of the bid, however, It is
felt that if we can get on site sometime in April, and if our
permits are obtained from the St. Johns River Water Management
District around the first of May, we could get this golf course
planted in early fall of this year, which would bring us back
pretty close to our original construction schedule of having this
course open in the winter of 1987.
Administrator Wright stated that in order to do that, we
must have good weather, good contractors and everything must fall
into place. He pointed out that one thing they picked up on at
the Washington conference is that the next 90 days is going to be
the best time for issuing long-term bonds.
Chairman Scurlock alerted the Administrator to the timeframe
for awarding the low bid.
WABASSO BOAT RAMP
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/26/86:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: February 26, 1986 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Michael Wright
County Administrator
SUBJECT: Wabasso Boat Ramp
REFERENCES:9
A �►
-t q yr
Gi r
The installation of the Wabasso Causeway boat ramp has been
completed by Zaremba Corporation and has been accepted by staff
members Tommy Thomas and Jim Davis.
It is recommended the $20,000 cash bond be' released to the
Zaremba Corporation.
Ml
R Boa 63 894
BOOK 63 ry g
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
approved the release of the $20,000 cash bond
posted by Zaremba Corporation for the completion
of the installation of the Wabasso Causeway boat
ramp, as recommended by staff.
ACQUISITION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY ON SOUTH GIFFORD ROAD
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/20/86:
TO: Board of County DATE: 2/20/86 FILE:
Commissioners
SUBJECT: Board Action 3/5/86
Acquisition of R/W
South Gifford Road
(,alla
FROM: Charles P. Vitunac, REFERENCES:
County Attorney
For sometime now the City of Vero Beach has been proceeding to
acquire right of way for the construction of an electrical
transmission line to connect the substation at the Vero Beach
Municipal Airport with Indian River Shores and also to lay a
water transmission main along the same route. There have been
meetings between the City and County staffs to determine the
precise location of the City's right of way so that the
County's ultimate right of way for South Gifford Road will be
protected.
The City and Co-unty staffs agreed on a typical 70 -foot wide
right-of-way requirement with the City taking the South 30
feet of this right of way for electrical and water purposes
and the County taking the North 40 feet for road right-of-way
purposes, There would be a joint agreement for the City to
have the right for its electrical lines to swing in high winds
over a portion of the County's road right of way, and the
County would have the right to use a portion of the City's
easement for drainage purposes.
Mr. Don Finney, the County R/ W Agent, has expressed optimism
at getting significant portions of the South Gifford Road
right of way donated to the County; however, there may be
smaller parcels which will have to be condemned. The City
will also have to file a condemnation action for its
electrical and water right-of-way requirements. The staff
recommends that a joint action be filed with the City and
County paying a share of the cost based on the proportion of
right of way each has to condemn.
37
Mr. Davis has researched his engineering files and has found
that the last time the Board of County Commissioners gave
direction o.n this matter was August 17, 1983, at which time
the County authorized the staff to accept right-of-way
donations but did not authorize the filing of any condemnation
action. By this memo, the staff is requesting permission to
authorize the City to file condemnation action on those
parcels of South Gifford Road right of way required by the
County which may not have been donated by the time the
condemnation action is filed, and to pay a proportionate share
of the condemnation costs based on the proportion of lands
acquired by this method.
Attorney Vitunac believed the City of Vero Beach is going to
have to acquire virtually all of their needed right-of-way by
condemnation and has hired an attorney from Tallahassee who is a
world expert in condemnation. If the County participates in this
project, we would be asked to pay for 4/7s of any land that has
to be condemned.
Chairman Scurlock asked if we need more than half the
right-of-way, and Director Davis explained that we need at least
a 100 ft, corridor through there, but the fact that the utility
easement will be to the south of the right-of-way will benefit
the County's road construction as there will be some common
drainage and common use. If we were just independently taking
right-of-way, we would be taking more than 40 feet.
Don Finney, County Right -of -Way Agent, reported that the
total estimated cost to the County for condemnation would be
$82,000. However, Reed and Victor Knight have indicated that
they may donate the right-of-way on their parcel, but have some
concerns about keeping the gates closed on that road until such
time as the road is paved. Staff is working on the transfer of
densities as a form of compensation for the donation. We are
still in negotiations with Mr.& Mrs. Hugh Russell who have some
concern about the routing of the power line, but staff feels that
can be worked out.
Commissioner Wodtke felt the key issue here is that the
property owners are more willing to donate for roadway than for a
utility easement, and he did not feel that we should be involved
38
MAR BOOK 6 uu-[ 8 2'6
-7 BOOK 63 F°,GE R27
in paying for utility easements in a situation where the City
eventually would be recouping their share of the condemnation
costs through the sale of electricity.
Robert Lloyd of Lloyd Associates, engineers for the City,
stated that the City does not necessarily want to own the right-
of-way, but they want paramount interest in the right-of-way to
prevent somebody coming along and telling them to move the power
lines at sometime in the future. They could get by without
having any participation from the County, but he believed it is a
beneficial swap of interests.
Chairman Scurlock understood that the County is going to get
the full benefit of the 40 ft. donations and will pay 4/7ths of
the sections where they cannot get the donation. He felt there
might be a possibility of the County acquiring their 50 ft, and
letting the City get the other 20 feet by themselves.
Attorney Vitunac stated there would have to be some
agreement for both to use the 10 ft. swing corridor.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, that the Board authorize staff to
continue to acquire right-of-way up to 50 ft. on South
Gifford Road for another 30 days before bringing it
back to the Board for authorization of condemnation
proceedings.
Administrator Wright stated that the City is going to
condemnation with or without us, and they have the right to
condemn property in the unincorporated area of the county in
order to install a power line.
The Commissioners questioned whether they could condemn
property in the county where the County has plans to build a
road.
39
M o M
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
was voted on and carried unanimously.
REAPPOINTMENTS TO CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
appointed Cal Streetman and Edna Craven to
3 -year terms on the Code Enforcement Board.
RESIGNATION OF BILL LEWIS FROM THE FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND
HOUSING FINANCE AUTHORITY
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously
accepted the resignation of Bill Lewis from the
Finance Advisory Committee and the Housing Finance
Authority and approved the recommendation to fill
the vacancy on both boards.
TRI -COUNTY COMMITTEE REPORT
Commissioner Bowman reported that the newly formed Committee
met last week and the minutes of that meeting will be coming in
shortly. The Committee will meet monthly on the last Thursday of
the month in St. Lucie County, and there will be quarterly
meetings of the general membership of the Tri -County Council of
Local Governments. They discussed issues they would like to
consider and began setting up subcommittees on transportation,
erosion, impact of legislation, resources, etc. Commissioner
Bowman reported that she was appointed chairman of the resource
sub- committee. She suggested that the Committee consider an
informational exchange on insurance plans and felt that OMB
Director Joe Baird might serve in that capacity. In addition,
the Committee decided to set up a legislative committee and she
felt that this committee should be represented by one of our
county attorneys. Attorney Vitunac stated he would be happy to
serve on that committee.
4®
MAR 5 1986 aoo>< 63'F �` 8
MAR 5.1986 BOOK 63 pn)E 8�9
Commissioner Lyons asked if the three counties could
participate in the drug abuse program, and Chairman Scurlock
asked if marina siting could be included also, but Commissioner
Bowman felt that if they spread themselves too thin, they would
not get anything accomplished.
SAVE OUR COASTS REPORT - HOWELL/CHAPMAN TRACT
The Board reviewed the memo dated 2/18/86:
State of Florida
DEPARTMENT OF
DR. ELTON J. GISSENDANNER
Executive Director
Marjory Stoneman Douglas Building
3900 Commonwealth Boulevard. Tall
`W
L
rEB
Florida 32.103
Rz;0ja iI
OOAPp eomym
romy'SSf Q, lERS . .
Honorable Dick Bird
Commissioner, Indian River County
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
RE: Indian River North Beach Complex
BLA 84-003 - Howell/Chapman Tract
Dear Commissioner Bird:
RESOURCES
February 18, 1986
BOB GRAHAM
Governor
GEORGE FIRESTONE
Secretary of State
JIM SMITH
Attorney General
GERALD A. LEWIS
Comptroller
BILL GUNTER
Treasurer
DOYLE CONNER
Commissioner of Agriculture
RALPH D. TURLINGTON
Commissioner of Education
Dr. Gissendanner has asked me to write you in regards to the acquisition of the
parcel within the Indian River North Beach Complex Project owned by Mr. Jack Hunt.
The Department of Natural Resources is willing to commit funds available from the
Save Our Coast bond issue, up to the appraised value of this parcel, to Indian
River County for purchase of this tract.
If it appears that the property cannot thus be purchased by the State, we would
ask the County to commit to acquire the property through whatever means are
necessary, including condemnation. If the County can give that commitment, I
would ask that the Board of Trustees reserve the appraised value of the property
for ultimate use in the acquisition.
If you have any questions, please call me at (904)488-2351.
Sincerely,
13
Butch Horn
Senior Acquisition Review Agent
Bureau of Land Acquisition
41
Commissioner Bird reviewed the history on the Howell/Chapman
tract, which is a 1500 ft. piece of oceanfront property located
between property already purchased by the State and the County.
This north beach complex is ranked 8th with the Governor and
Cabinet in the Save Our Coasts program and they are actively
pursuing the acquisition of these properties. After extensive
negotiations with the State, however, owner Jack Hunt has stated
he has no intention of selling the tract to the State, the County
or anyone else.
Commissioner Bird recommended that we put this into the
County Attorney's office to determine whether we have the ability
to file a condemnation suit on this property and our chances for
winning such a suit. This property has an estimated value of
$3 -million and since we don't have the money to buy it, we need
the money from the State. He wished to have Attorney Vitunac
look into what sort of a vehicle is needed to assure us that the
money will be available from the State if we are successful in
being able to buy the property.
11
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously requested
the County Attorney to report back to the Board on
our ability to file a condemnation suit to acquire
the Howell/Chapman tract.
DOCUMENTS TO BE MADE PART OF THE RECORD
A. Proclamation -James E. Roberts - Dated February 28, 1986
42
�ooK6 3 F; 1,A ��3a
MAR 5 1966
P R O C L A M A T I O N
WHEREAS, JAMES E. ROBERTS is a native of Vero Beach, born
February 26, 1924 when Vero Beach was part of St. Lucie County;
and.
WHEREAS, JAMES E. ROBERTS' father settled on Johns Island
and his family was among the pioneers of Indian River County;
and
WHEREAS, JAMES E. ROBERTS served four years in the UNITED
STATES ARMY; and
WHEREAS, during his tenure in the service which was spent in
France, he received the Purple Heart, Bronze Star,
European/African/Middle Eastern Campaign Ribbon, the Combat
Infantry Badge, and in 1947 was granted a total disability
discharge; and
WHEREAS, JAMES E. ROBERTS on April 1, 1958 was appointed as
Indian River County Veterans Service Officer and on September 1,
1965 resigned to accept a position with the Florida Division of
Veterans Affairs; and
WHEREAS, JAMES E. ROBERTS in 1984 received an incentive
award for an outstanding performance evaluation;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that the Board on
behalf of itself expresses gratitude to JAMES E. ROBERTS for his
fine service record; his service to veterans in South Florida for
the past 28 years, and wishes. him a very long and happy
retirement.
Dated this 28th day of February, 1986.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
ATTEST:
BY zc,4—�IzfP
FREDA WRIGHT, CLA�!,
B)
B. Agreement Between Indian River County and the Communication
Workers of America_- Approved at Meeting_of February _19,_1986
iI AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT made this _ day of 3rLG"Lu_,t16
,
;1986, by and between INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. a political
it
isubdivision of the State of Florida, 1840 25th Street, Vero Reach,
i
!Florida 32960, hereinafter "COUNTY" and COMMUNICATION
WORKERS OF AMERICA, the Certified Bargaining Agent for certain
!employees working for the COUNTY, Post Office Box 19488, Orlando,
i.,Florida 32814, hereinafter "CWA,"
W I T N E S S E T H T H A T
WHEREAS, the COUNTY and the CWA have heretofore
::entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement contract settling
j
;all issues but three between the two parties; and
WHEREAS, the parties submitted to a Special piaster
the issues of wages, retroactivity, and whether certain employees
who were at their maximum pay scale would receive cost -of -living
increases; and
WHEREAS. the Special Roaster held a public hearing
between the two parties at which time testimony and evidence were
presented; and
WHEREAS, the Special Master's Report was presented
,'to the Board of County Commissioners at a public hearing on
February 19, 1986, at which time the COUNTY 'and CWA presented
;their recommendations concerning the Special Master's Report, with
the COUNTY submitting its own proposals and with the CWA
recommending adoption of the Special Roaster's Report; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted
i'as its resolution of all the issues the recommendations submitted
;'by the County Administrator;
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the
t�
(these premises and other good and valuable -consideration and
:pursuant to §447.403, Florida Statutes, the COUNTY and the CWA
agree as follows:
�� ���� 44 BOOK 6 F,s,E 832
Boor 63 �'u1:7'�
1. For all employees covered by
the Bargaining
.;Agreement,
there shall be a 2% across -the --board
increase for all
employees
including probationary employees but
excluding those
employees
at the top of their respective pay scales. In addition
I
1 there shall be a 1.8% merit increase for
is
non -probationary
employees
who most recently have received
a "satisfactory"
Personnel
Evaluation, a 2.8% merit increase for
non -probationary
!employees
who most recently have received a "very
good" Personnel
Evaluation,
1�
and a 3.8% merit increase for those
non -probationary
:employees
who most recently have received
an "outstanding"
,
;Personnel
Evaluation. Merit pay will not be applicable to those
employees
who have reached their maximum pay levels.
2. The wage increases- of this Contract shall go into
effect Thursday, February 20, 1986.
j IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the COUNTY and the CWA
have both executed this Agreement to be effective February 20,
`.1986.
Attest:
Freda Wright Clelfk
i
k;)E)ro.,ed to form
am! I; r al sjff,cicncy
By
Ch,irias !'. Vi:u; :C
CountY
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By ,/ G
Don Sc lock, Jr.4
Chairman
COMMUNICATION WORKERS
OF AMERICA
B Y
John W. Scates
There being no further business, on Motion duly seconded and
carried, the Board adjourned at 12:30 o'clock P.M.
ATTEST:
Clerk
Chairman