HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/7/1986Wednesday, May 7, 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,
May 7, 1986, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Don C. Scurlock,
Jr., Chairman; Patrick B. Lyons, Vice Chairman; Richard N. Bird;
Margaret C. Bowman; and William C. Wodtke, Jr. Also present were
Michael J. Wright, County Administrator; L. S. "Tommy" Thomas,
Intergovernmental Relations Director; Charles P. Vitunac,
Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; and Virginia
Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order and announced that
Reverend Gary Moore of First Presbyterian Church Us unable to be
present due to an emergency.
The Chairman led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Administrator Wright wished to add an amended Resolution in
regard to the Schacht donation of right-of-way for the southern
extension of Indian River Boulevard.
Chairman Scurlock inquired why this is an emergency item,
and the Administrator explained that the bid is coming up, and we
want to get all the right-of-way in place as soon as possible and
move while the people are ready to sign.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
approved the additions to today's agenda as
requested by the Administrator.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or
corrections to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 2,
MAY 7 1986
MAY 7 1996 soou 64 Fa, .
1986 or to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 9, 1986.
There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the
Minutes of the Regular Meetings of April 2nd and
April 9th, 1986, as written.
CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Lyons asked that Item F be removed for discus-
sion, and Commissioner Bird requested the removal of Item M.
A. Pistol Permit Renewals
The Board reviewed memo of the Administrator:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: April 23, 1986 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
SUBJECT: Pistol Permit Renewals
FROM: Michael Wright REFERENCES:
County Administrator
The following persons have applied through the Clerk's Office
for renewal of pistol permits:
Robert A. Eck
Donald K. Hawkins
Bernard Paz, Jr.
All requirements of the ordinance have been met and are in order.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the
issuance of a renewal permit to carry a concealed
firearm to: Robert A. Eck
Donald K. Hawkins
Bernard Paz, Jr.
r � i
B. New Pistol Permits
The Board reviewed memo of the Administrator:
TO The Honorable Members of DATE: April 23, 1986 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Michael Wright
County Administrator
SUBJECT: PISTOL PERMITS NEW
REFERENCES:
The following persons have applied through the Clerk's Office
for new pistol permits:
Vincent Alvin Brown
Warren H. Pintard
Edgar T. Ellis., Jr.
Sandy Nicholas Psomas
All requirements of the ordinance have been met and are in order.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the
issuance of a permit to carry a concealed firearm to:
Vincent Alvin Brown
Warren H. Pintard
Edgar T. Ellis, Jr.
Sandy Nicholas Psomas
C. Approval of Deputy Sheriff Appointments
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the
appointment of Deputy Sheriffs Edward J. King and
Jerry L. Burr by Sheriff Dobeck.
D. A roval of Duplicate Tax Sale Certificate
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the
3
Y 7 1986 BOOK 64 F',a,F 289
U
r � y
BOOK 6 4- Gc 2�0
issuance of Duplicate Tax Sale Certificate No. 142
to George Yovan in the amount of $278.50.
E. Out -of -County Travel_
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved out -
of -County Travel for Commissioner Lyons and appropriate
staff to attend the Florida Jail Association Seminar,
Fort Lauderdale, June 23-27.
F. DER Permit NApplication - (Porpoise Bay Boat Club)
The Board reviewed memo of Planner DeBlols:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: April 29, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: D.E.R. PERMIT APPLICATION
MANGROVE ALTERATION
SUBJECT:
Robert M. KeA#ihg,OIICP
Planning & Development Director
THROUGH: Art Challacombe
FROM: Chief, EnvironitLe tFERPffdifg•
Roland M. DeBloi tt�� fj-�t NN Et5 TM #85-411
Staff Planner MJ 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 May 7, 1986.
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION APPLICATION
NO. 31-119020-4
APPLICANTS Porpoise Bay Boat Club; Inc.
300 Harbour Drive #510
Vero -Beach, FL 32963
WATERWAY & LOCATION: The project is located on the shoreline
fringe of the Indian River, adjacent to Harbour Drive in
Section 21, Township 33 South, Range 40 East, Indian River
County, Florida.
The upland property associated with the project is Porpoise Bay
Villas, located on 300 Harbour Drive, Vero Beach, Florida.
4
� � r
WORK & PURPOSE: The applicant proposes to prune and trim
approximately 80 to 90% of existing mangroves on the shoreline
fringe of the subject property for purposes of maintaining a
river view for Porpoise Bay Villas. The shoreline fringe to be
altered is approximately 1500 feet in length, averaging 20 feet
in width. The mangroves are proposed to be trimmed to a height
of 4 feet above high water level.
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 Zon
Policies for
nagement, Interim Goals, Objectives &
Treasure Coast Region
- The Hutchinson Island Planning & Management Plan
The Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances
On April 29, 1986, Staff issued an Indian River County mangrove
alteration permit (MA #86-004) for the proposed project, in
accordance with Section 23}, Tree Protection, of the Indian
River County Code of Laws,and Ordinances. Section 23}-9 of the
Code specifically lists criteria to be met in achieving compli-
ance with County regulations; Staff is satisfied the proposed
alterations will satisfy those criteria, based on the descrip-
tion of the proposed project and on the applicant's past record
of mangrove trimming in the project area. In that respect,
Staff has no objection to the issuance of a Department of
Environmental Regulation Mangrove Alteration permit to the
applicant for the proposed project.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that -the Board of County Commissioners
authorize staff to forward the following comment regarding this
project to the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation:
The issuance of a D.E.R.: Mangrove Alteration permit would not
be in conflict with County requirements, in that the project as
proposed satisfies County Code -regulations.
Commissioner Lyons questioned the necessity for trimming
1500' of mangroves just for a view for the clubhouse.
Planner DeBlois explained that in addition to the view, it
is the applicant's position that the trimming would stimulate
growth on the lower level of the mangroves.
Environmental Planner Challacombe confirmed that these are
white mangroves, and they bush out if they are trimmed. This
also will take out the freeze damaged areas, and he saw it as an
overall improvement of these particular mangroves.
5
MAY 7 1986 800K 64 FAG -r.291-
1
MAY, 7 1986 BOOK � F►,,F ����
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bird, the Board unanimously authorized staff
to forward the recommended comment to the DER.
G__DER/Army Corps/DNR_ Permit_ Application - (Gary Mills)
The Board reviewed memo of the Chief of Environmental
Planning:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: April 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, P
Planning & Development Director
FROM: Art Challacombe REFERENCES: DER Perm.
Chief, Environmental Planning DIS:MISC2
It is requested that the' -data herein presented be -given formal
consideration by -the -Board ,of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of.May 7, 1986. _ .
DEPARTMENT OF•ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION APPLICATION
NO. 31-118905-4
Waterway &.Location: The project is located in the Indian
River in Section 30, Township 31.,. South, Range .39 East, Indian
River County, Flofida. The upland property associated with the
project is located on North -AIA in the uncorporated portion of
Indian River County.
Work &. Purpose: The applicant proposes to construct a private
walkway 200 feet in length, extending over a community of
mangroves to a point approximately 84 feet beyond the outer
mangrove fringe to open water. The walkway is proposed to be 4
feet in width; an 8' x 20' terminal platform is also to be
constructed. The deck will be elevated 3 feet above Mean High
Water (MHW). The applicant proposes to remove eight underlying
mangroves; however, he will replace these mangroves with addi=
tional mangrove plantings along the shoreline where vegetation
is sparse.
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
6
� � r
coastal Zone Management, Interim Goals, Objectives &
Policies for the Treasure Coast Region
The Hutchinson Island Planninq & Management Plan
The Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances
The applicant is required to obtain a mangrove alteration
permit from Indian River County in order to remove the eight
mangroves necessary to install the dock. A permit application
has been completed which designates an area along the shoreline
which will be planted with ten red mangroves. This restoration
program complies with the County requirement that an applicant
replace or relocate an equal number of mangroves to those being
removed.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners
authorize staff to forward the following comment regarding.
these projects to the Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation:
1) The Department of Environmental Regulation and other
appropriate agencies should coordinate with the D.N.R. to
determine if the 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 cumula-
tive impacts of dockage projects upon the Florida Manatee;
3) The applicant must receive a mangrove alteration permit
from Indian River County prior to the commencement of
construction.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously authorized staff
to forward the recommended comments to the DER.
H. DER/Army Cor2s/DNR Permit Applications - (Lambeth, Wakefield &
i✓ouar etj
The Board reviewed memo of the Chief of Environmental
Planning:
7
'M•
BOOK 64 FA ,C 2933+
VA
MAY 7 1996 BOOK 6 4 F�",uF 194,c
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: April 29, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: D.E.R., ARMY CORPS AND
SUBJECT: D.N.R. PERMIT APPLICA-
TIONS
Robert M. Keats , P
Planning & Developm t Director
;mac/
FROM: Art Challacombe REFERENCES: DER Permits
Chief, Environmental Planning DIS:IBMIRD
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular -meeting of May 7,-1986.
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION APPLICATION FILE NO.S
31-119165-4, 31-119166-4, 31-119167-4
APPLICATION DESCRIPTIONS: - -
1) Application No. 31-119165-4.-
-
1-119165-4;- Applicant: Mr. George Lambeth, P.O. -Box 5, Vero -..
Beach, Florida, 32963.
- Waterway & Location: The project is located in the
Indian River in The City of Vero Beach, on -Lot 14,.
Riomar Bay II Subdivision, Section 5, Township 33
South, Range 40 East, Indian River County, Florida.
- Work & Purpose: The applicant proposes to construct
a private single 6' x 66' dock (396 square feet). No
sewage pump -out or fueling facilities are proposed.
No dredging or filling will be performed.
2) Application No. 31-119166-4:
- Applicant: Mr. Frank Wakefield, 645 Live Oak Road,
Vero Beach, Florida 32960.
Waterway & Location: The project is located in the
Indian River, on Lot 10, Block 10, Unit 3, Bethel By
The Sea, Section 32, Township 32 South, Range 40
East, Indian River County, Florida.. The upland
property associated with the project is located at
4832 Bethel Creek Drive, in the City of Vero Beach.
Work & Purpose: The applicant proposes to construct
a 11' x 6' single pier addition parallel to the
shore. No dredging or filling will be performed.
3) Application No. 31-119167-4:
Applicant: Wilfred Coudriet, 302 Spyglass Lane, Vero
Beach, Florida 32963.
- Waterway & Location: The project is located in the
Indian River, on Lot 55, Unit 5, The Moorings,
Section 21, Township 33, South, Range 40 East, Indian
River County, Florida. The upland property
associated_ with the project is located at 155 Anchor
Drive.
8
Work & Purpose: The applicant proposes to construct
a private single L-shaped dock, extending 12 feet
waterward, 4 feet in width. The terminal platform is
to have a length of 26 feet and a width of 6 feet.
No sewage pump -out or fueling facilities are pro-
posed. No dredging or filling will be performed
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS:
The Planning and Development Division reviews and submits
comments on dredge and fill applications to the permitting
agencies based upon the following:
- The Conservation & Coastal Zoning Management Element of
the Indian River Comprehensive Plan
- Coastal Zone Management, Interim Goals, Objectives &
Policies for -the Treasure Coast Region
- The Hutchinson Island Planning & Management Plan
- The Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances
In reviewing the _proposed dockage projects, only one of the
three projects is located in the unincorporated portion'of the _
County. Subsequently, the 'focus of. staff review is on poten-,
tial County and regional impacts rather than site-specific
impacts; in-depth field inspections of the project sites were
not conducted.
Staff has not determined if the proposed dockage project
locations are in the Aquatic Preserve or if they are to be
located on privately owned bottomlands.
No dredging or filling is proposed in the construction of any
of the dockage projects. In that respect, the projects will
result in minimal additional impact to areas where private
single docks have been previously permitted. -
Staff has not determined the extent to which the submerged
bottomlands of the proposed project areas will be impacted; the
effect of Indian River development on ecologically valuable
seagrass beds should be considered.
Although the extent of any impacts are not fully known at this
time, there may be cumulative impacts of these and other
dockage projects proposed to be :constructed along the Indian
River upon the Florida Manatee.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners
authorize staff to forward the following comments regarding
these projects to the Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation:
1) The Department of Environmental Regulation and other
appropriate agencies should coordinate with the D.N.R. to
determine if the proposed projects are located in the
Indian River Aquatic Preserve and therefore subject to
requirements of Chapter 16Q-20, Florida Administrative
Code;
9
MAY 7 1986 BOOK 64 Fa,E 2 5
J
NAY 7 1996
BOOK 64 U G E 2.96
2) The Department of Environmental Regulation and other
appropriate agencies should consider the potential cumula-
tive impacts of dockage projects upon the Florida Manatee;
3) The Department of Environmental Regulation and other
appropriate agencies should evaluate the potential impact -
of marina projects on ecologically significant submerged
bottomlands such as seagrass beds in the Indian River.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously authorized staff
to forward the recommended comments to the DER re the
projects listed in the above memo.
1. Release of Easement - Pine Lake Estates (Nelson Ade)
The Board reviewed memo of Code Enforcement Officer Davis:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: April 24, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
SUBJECT:
4 ri, A, t L � w, -: ��, Z, %
Robert M. Keats g,
Planning &;Development Director
RELEASE OF EASEMENT
REQUEST BY NELSON H. ADE
AND ROXANNE ADE
SUBJECT PROPERTY: LOTS 4,
5, 6, 7, 8, AND 9,
BLOCK G, UNIT #1, PINE
LAKE ESTATES SUBDIVISION
FROM: Betty Davis REFERENCES: RE/Ade
Code Enforcement Officer DIS:REMS
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by. the .Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of May 7, 1986.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
The County has been petitioned' -by Nelson H. and Roxanne Ade,
owners of.•the subject property, for release of the rear lot 10
foot easement of lots 4, 5, and ..6, Block G, Unit 1., Pine Lake
Estates, being the westerly 10 feet thereof. Further, the
applicant is requesting the -release of the rear'. lot 10 foot _
easement of lots 7, 8, and 9, Block G, Unit #1, Pine Lake
Estates, being the easterly 10 feet thereof. These lots are 70
feet in width and 125 feet in depth. It is the Ade's intention
to consolidate the lots into one large building site, meeting
the criteria of the RS -1, single family zoning district, to
construct a residence on the site.
The current zoning classification is RS -1, Single Family
District. The land use designation is LD -1, Low Density
Residential, up to 3 units per acre.
10
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
The request has been reviewed by Southern Bell, Florida Power &
Light Company, Jones Intercable, and the Utility and
Right-of-way Departments. Based upon their review, there were
no objections to release of the easements. Zoning staff
analysis, which included a site visit, indicates that drainage
would be adequately handled on-site.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends to the Board, through adoption of a
resolution, the release of the rear lot 10' easement of Lots
4, 5, and 6, Block G, Unit 1, Pine Lake Estates, being the
westerly 10 feet thereof. Further, the staff recommends the
release of the rear lot 10 foot easement of lots 7, 8, and 9,
Block G, Unit #1, Pine Lake Estates, being the easterly 10 feet
thereof, recorded in Record Book 123, Page 141 of the Public
Records of Indian River County, Florida.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted Resolu-
tion 86-24 releasing the rear lot 10' easements of
Lots 4, 5 and 6, Block G. Unit 1, Pine Lake Estates,
as requested by Nelson and Roxanne Ade.
RESOLUTION NO.
86-24
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida, have been requested to release the rear
lot 10' easement of lots 4, 5, and 6, Block G, Unit 1, Pine
Lake Estates, being the westerly 10 feet thereof, as well as
the rear lot 10 foot easement of Lots 7, 8, and 9, Block G,
Unit #1, Pine Lake Estates, being the easterly 10 feet thereof,
according to the Plat thereof as recorded in Official Record
Book 123, Page 141, of Indian River County, Florida; and
WHEREAS, said lot line easements were dedicated on
the Plat of the Pine Lake Estates Subdivision, Unit. #1 for
public utility purposes; and
WHEREAS, the request for such release of easements
have been submitted in proper form;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the
following lot line easements in Pine Lake Estates Subdivision,
11
MAY 7 1986 BOOK 64 FADE 297
It
AY
7
1986
BOOK
64 F,1 r 298
Unit #1
shall be released, abandoned and vacated
as follows:
The rear lot 10' easement of lots 4, 5, and 6, Block G,
Unit 1, Pine Lake Estates, being the westerly 10 feet
thereof. Further, the rear lot 10 foot easement of Lots
7, 8; and 9, Block G, Unit #1, Pine Lake Estates
Subdivision, being the easterly 10 feet thereof, according
to the Plat thereof as recorded in Official Record Book
123, Page 141, of Indian River County, Florida.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chairman and the
Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners be and they hereby
are authorized and directed to execute a release of said lot
line easements hereinabove referred to in form proper for
recording and placing in the Public Records of Indian River
County,, Florida.
This 7th day of May , 1986.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY: / G
Don–C. Scifrlock, J
Chairman
J. Release of Easement- Pine Lake Estates (Ade & Lathrop)
The Board reviewed memo of Code Enforcement Officer Davis:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: April 24, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
SUBJECT:
Robert M. Keati g, CP
Planning & Development Director
RELEASE OF EASEMENT
REQUEST BY ANTHONY J. ADE
AND STEPHENEY D. LATHROP,
JOINT TENANTS WITH RIGHT
OF SURVIVORSHIP
SUBJECT PROPERTY: LOTS 1,
2, 3, 10, 11, AND 12,
BLOCK G, UNIT #1, PINE
LAKE ESTATES SUBDIVISION
FROM: Betty Davis REFERENCES: RE/Ade
Code Enforcement Officer DIS:REMS
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of May 7, 1986.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
The County has been petitioned by Anthony J. and Stepheney -
Lathrop, owners* -of the subject property, for release of the
rear lot 10 foot easement of lots 1,'.2;. and 3, Block G, Unit 1,
12
Pine Lake Estates, being the westerly 10 feet thereof.
Further, the applicant is requesting the release'. of the rear
lot 10 foot easement of lots 10, 11, and 12, -Block G, Unit #1,..
Pine Lake Estates, being the easterly 10 feet thereof. These
lots are 70 feet in width and 125 feet in depth. It is the
Ade's intention to consolidate the lots into one large building.
site, meeting -the criteria of the RS -1, single family zoning
district, to construct a residence on the site.
The current zoning classification is RS -1, Single Family
District. The land use designation is LD -1, Low Density
Residential, up to 3 units per acre.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
The request has been reviewed by Southern Bell, Florida Power &
Light Company, Jones Intercable, and the Utility and
Right-of-way Departments. Based upon their review, there were
no objections to release of the easements. Zoning staff
analysis, which included a site visit, indicates that drainage
would be adequately handled on-site.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends to the Board; through adoption of a
resolution, the release of the rear lot 10' easement of Lots
1, 2, and 3, Block G, Unit 1, Pine Lake Estates, being the
westerly 10 feet thereof. Further, the staff recommends the
release of the rear lot 10 foot easement of lots 10, 11, and
12, Block G, Unit #1, Pine Lake Estates, being the easterly 10
feet thereof, recorded in Record Book 123, Page 141 of the
Public Records of Indian River County, Florida.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted Resolu-
tion 86-25 releasing the rear lot 10' easements of
Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block G. Unit 1, Pine Lake Estates,
as requested by Anthony Ade and Stepheney Lathrop.
13
MAY 7 1986 sooty
0
V
BOOK 6 41F1 J% 0 0
RESOLUTION NO. 86-25
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida, have been requested to release the
rear lot 10' easement of lots 1, 2, and 3, Block G, Unit 1,
Pine Lake Estates, being the westerly 10 feet thereof, as well
as the rear lot 10 foot easement of lots 10, 11, and 12, Block
G, Unit 31, Pine Lake Estates, being the easterly 10 feet
thereof, according to -the Plat thereof as recorded in Official
Record Book 123, Page 141, of Indian River County, Florida; and
WHEREAS, said lot line -easements were dedicated on
the Plat of the Pine Lake Estates Subdivision, Unit #1 for
public utility purposes; and
WHEREAS, the request for such release of easements
have been submitted in proper form;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the -
following lot line easements in Pine Lake Estates Subdivision,
Unit #1 shall be released, abandoned and vacated as follows:
The rear lot 10' easement of lots 1, 2, and 3, Block G,
Unit 1, Pine Lake Estates, being the westerly 10 feet
thereof. Further, the rear lot 10 foot easement of Lots
10, 11, and 12, Block G, Unit #1, Pine Lake Estates
Subdivision, being the easterly 10 feet thereof, according
to the Plat thereof as recorded in Official Record Book
123, Page 141, of Indian River County, Florida.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chairman and the
Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners be and they hereby
are authorized and directed to execute a release of said lot
line easements hereinabove referred to in form proper for
recording and placing in the Public Records of Indian River
County, Florida.
This 7th day of May 1986.
14
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY: r a�. G
Don C. Scu lock, Jr
Chairman
1
_I
K. Release of_ Easement ___ Genesea_ Subdivision_(_ John Scanlon)
The Board reviewed memo of Code Enforcement Officer Heath:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: April 14, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: RELEASE OF EASEMENT REQUEST
BY JOHN L. SCANLON AND
SUBJECT: JANET R. SCANLON
_Zai SUBJECT PROPERTY:
Robert M. K e dtJ ng ICP GENESEA SUBDIVIS
Plan & Dev 1, pment Director00,
41
y
:r +fir iy�s
ar es 6. Heath RE/Scan pn s
FROM: Code Enforcement Officer REFERENCES: DIS : REMS F�
It is requested that the data herein'presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of May 7, 1986.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
The County has been petitioned by John L. and Janet R. - Scanlon,
owners of the, subject property,. for the release- of the
southerly ten' -:..(10) foot utility easement of Lot 5, Genesea
Subdivision, being the southerly,-. ten. (10) foot of Lot 5,
Genesea Subdivision, Section 27, Township 33 South, Range 40,
as recorded in Plat Book 11, Page 7, of the. Public Records of
Indian River County, Florida. It -is Mr. and Mrs. Scanlon's
intention to construct a single family residence on the site,
and the easement is no longer needed due to the rerouting of
the electric utility services by the City of Vero Beach.
The current zoning classification is RS -3, Single -Family
Residential District. The land use designation is LD -1, Low
Density Residential, up to three (3) units per acre.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
The request has. been reviewed by Southern Bell, -Vero Beach
Power Company, Florida Cablevision Corporation, and the Indian
River County Right -of -Way Department. Based upon their review,
there were no objections to the release of the southerly ten
foot utility easement. The zoning staff analysis, which
included a site visit, showed that the -Vero Beach Power Company
had used an alternate method of supplying electricity to the
subdivision.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends to the Board, through adoption of a
resolution, the release of the southerly ten (10) foot utility
easement of Lot 5, Genesea Subdivision, as recorded in Plat
Book 11, Page 7, of the Public Records of Indian River County,
Florida.
15
Y 7 1986 BOOK 64F„c
I
MY 7 1986
BOOK 64 Fr+1AC ■J 2
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously -adopted Resolu-
tion 86-26 releasing the southerly 20 foot utility
easement of Lot 5, Genesea Subdivision, as requested
by John and Janet Scanlon.
RESOLUTION NO. 86-26
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida, -have been requested to release the
southerly ten (10) foot utility easement according to the Plat
thereof as recorded in Plat Book 11, Page 7 of the Public
Records of Indian River County, Florida; and
WHEREAS, said lot line easements were dedicated on
the Plat of Genesea Subdivision for public utility purposes;
and
WHEREAS, the request for such release of easements
have been submitted in proper form;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the
following lot line easements in Genesea Subdivision shall be
released, abandoned and vacated as follows:
The southerly ten (10) foot utility of Lot 5, Genesea
Subdivision, ac.-ording to the Plat thereof recorded in
Plat Book 11,'.. -__sae Public Records of Indian
River County, Florida.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chairman and the
Clerk be and they hereby are authorized and directed to execute
a release of said lot line easements hereinabove referred to in
form proper for recording and placing in the Public Records of
Indian River County, Florida.
This 7th day of May , 1986.
16
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA
BY:
Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Chairman
L. Final Assessment Rolls_- 19th Ave. SW, 13th Ave_, & 15th Ave.
The Board reviewed memo of Civil Engineer Michelle Terry:
TO:The Honorable Members of DATE: April 1, 1986 FILE:
The Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH:
Michael W h
County A i s rator
Ralph Bresc a, P.E.
County Engineer
C A
FROM:Michelle A. erry
Civil Engineer
•Final Assessment Roll
S BJ ECT. 11
19th Ave SW -14th St SW to 13th St
13th & 15th Ave from
1st St SW to 2nd St
REFERENCES:
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The paving of 19th Avenue SW, 13th Avenue, and -15th Avenue
is complete. The final -cost '.a d preliminary estimate for
the work was:
Final Cost/FF Preli Cost/FF Final Cost Prelim. Estimate
19th Avenue SW $9.60 $10.1,78 $14,544.35 $16,340.41
13th Avenue ".$7.-389 .$10.31 $24,271.44 $33,850.30
15th Avenue $8.17 $10.188 $°25,413.96 $33,850.30
All construction costs are under the original estimates. The Final
Assessment Rolls have been prepared and are ready to be delivered to
the Clerk to the Board. Assessments are to be paid within 90 days or
in two equal installments, the first to be made twelve months from
the due date and the second to be made twenty-four months from the
due date at an interest rate of 1% over the Prime Rate established
by the Board of County Commissioners. The due date is 90 days after
the final determination of the' special assessment.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Since the final assessment to the benefited owners will be less than
computed on the preliminary assessment rolls, the only alternative
presented is to approve the final assessment rolls:
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
It is recommended that the Final Assessment Rolls for the paving of
19th Avenue SW, 13th Avenue, and 15th Avenue be approved by the Board
of County Commissioners and that they be transmitted to the Office
of the Clerk to the Board for Collection.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the Final
Assessment Rolls for the paving of 19th Ave. SW between
14th St. SW and 13th S . SW; 13th Ave. between 1st St. SW
and 2nd St.; and 15th Ave. from 1st St. SW to 2nd St.; and
17
j,
c
BOOK 64 P,aGE -203
tf
Fr-
-I
BOOK 64 D�,,E 3U4
authorized that they be transmitted to the Office of the
Clerk to the Board for collection at an interest rate of
10 over the prime rate as of the date of approval by the
Board of County Commissioners, or 91%.
SAID ASSESSMENT ROLLS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK
TO THE BOARD.
M. Surplus Property _ Point of Sale Terminals
The
Board
reviewed memo
of Purchasing Manager
Goodrich:
TO: Board of
County
Commissioners
DATE: April 18, 1986
FILE:
THRU: Michael Wright S`J J ECT: Surplus Property -Point of Sale
County Administrator Terminals
FROM: REFERENCES:
Carolynoodrich, Manager
Purchas ng Department-
1.
epartment-
1. Description and Conditions.
Bids were received Tuesday, April 15, 1986 at 11:00 A.M.
for 2 IBM Model 5265 Point of Sale Terminals.
1 Bid was received.
2. Alternatives and Analysis
The only bid was received from Amcom Corporation, Minneapolis,
Mn. for a total of $1100.00.
3. Recommendation
It is recommended that the (2) IBM Model 5265 Point of Sale
Terminals be sold to the only bidder, Amcom Corporation in
the amount of $1100.00.
Commissioner Bird wished to know just what a Point of Sale
Terminal is and the approximate cost of one when it was new.
OMB Director Baird explained that a Point of Sale Terminal
actually is a cash register. The Data Processing Department
18
W
M
thinks we should eliminate them and go straight on line through
the CRTs. These terminals originally cost $4,900; they are about
five years old; and IBM is going to do away with them in another
year.
Commissioner Bird asked if we al -ready own the equipment that
will replace them, and OMB Director Baird confirmed that we do.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the sale of 2 IBM Model 5265 Point of Sale
Terminals to the only bidder Amcom Corporation
in the amount of $1100.
N. Appointment to Board of Zoning Adjustment
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the appointment of Ralph J. Lindsey to the Board
of Zoning Adjustment representing District No. 4.
0. Transfer of Funds for Joint Summer Recreation Program
The Board reviewed memo of Intergovernmental Coordinator
Thomas, as follows:
19
196 BOOK 64 FAGE3O5
MAY 7 7936
BOOK 64 PAU 306
TO: Bd. of County Commiss,ioners�ATE: April 28, 1986 FILE:
THROUGH: Michael Wright
County Administrator
SUBJECT: Transfer of funds for
joint Summer Recreation
Program
FROM: • S. �� y" Thomas RREFERENCES.
Intergovernmental Coordinat
In a previous memorandum to the Board of County Commissioners, we
indicated a capital expenditure of $5,000 for improvements to the
Kiwanis-Hobart swim lake. We have done those improvements
in-house, and would like to request that the $5,000 be
transferred in response to the attached letter from the School
Board relative to the Summer Recreation Program.
If this meets with Board approval, it should be transferred from
Account 102-210-572-66.39 which has a balance of $100,097 to
Account 102-210-572-33.40.
The balance in the Summer Recreaticn �=und, Account No.
001-108-572-88.33 is $24,000.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the transfer of $5,000 to the Summer Recreation
Program as requested by the School Board.
P. Proclamation - Chester_Hughes
The following Proclamation honoring Chester Hughes on his
retirement was presented to Mr. Hughes on April 30, 1986:
20
SAY i%OUV
P R O C L A M A T I O N
A PROCLAMATION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
FLORIDA, HONORING CHESTER HUGHES
WHEREAS, CHESTER HUGHES began work with Indian
River County's Road and Bridge Department on March 1,
1965 as a Carpenter, and has been a diligent and
capable employee of Indian' River County since that.
time; and
WHEREAS, CHESTER HUGHES has given twenty-one years
to Indian River -County and during this time was
promoted to Manager of Special Projects. His specialty
was building and maintaining all County bridges; and
WHEREAS, CHESTER HUGHES was a very loyal and
conscientious employee.- who exhibited a very thorough
understanding.of the work he performed for Indian River.
County; and
WHEREAS, CHESTER HUGHES has retired as Manager of
Special Projects for the Road and Bridge Department of
Indian River County, Florida, effective the 30th day of
April 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
CHESTER HUGHES
for his fine employment record and contribution to
Indian River County, Florida, and wishes him a long and
happy retirement.
Dated this 30th day of April, 1986, in Vero Beach,
Indian -River County, Florida.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY ,.� c'—'
DON C. SCURLOCK, JR.
CHAIRMAN
21
BOOK 64 Faces 07
BOOK 64 rVcF M
Q._R/W Acquisition, S. Indian River Blvd. (Zippy Mart)
The Board reviewed memo of Right -of -Way Acquisition Agent
Don Finney:
TO:THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE DATE: APRIL 25, 1986 FILE:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THROUGH:
MICHAEL WRIGHT, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
JAMES W. DAVIS, P.E. SUBJECT: INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD-
$ PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTO"P SOUTH EXTENSION
ZIPPY MART, INC. PARCEL #100
=�r
FROM: DONALD G. FINNEY, SRA REFERENCES:
RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION AGENT
nVgr' PTPTTrAT
The parent company policy is not to donate right of way. They have agreed
to settle at -the fair market value -of a two year old appraisal by Peter
Armfield, MAI., which is $1,000.00 per front foot on U.S. Highway 1 or
$5.235 per square foot.
The parcel contains 8,360 square feet with 40 feet of frontage on US#1.
Feb..29, 1984 Value
40 feet x $1,000.00 = $40,000.00
8,360 sq. ft. x $5.235 $43,772.00 -
If we were to obtain an updated appraisal and from conversations with
Mr. Armfield and Mr. Edgar Schlitt indicates an increase in value of at
least $1,500.00 per lineal foot.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recamtends and requests authorization to purchase at the property
owners willing price of $40,000.00 for the 40 lineal foot parcel.
W.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously authorized
the purchase of the.Zippy Mart 40 lineal foot R/W
parcel at the owners' willing price of $40,000, as
recommended by staff.
22
m
R. Budget Amendment_- Clerk_(Lease/Purchase Computer Equipment)
The Board reviewed memo of Finance Director Fry:
TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE:` April 30, 1986 FILE:
Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Ed Fry
FinanceDi 6tor
SUBJECT: Budget Amendment to Clerk's Budget�_:I
REFERENCES:.
During the budget workshop held in July, 1985; the Clerk agreed to purchase
some computer equipment by using lease purchase agreements. Please consider
the following budget amendment to the Clerk's Operating "Fund:
Increase
010-000-389-012.00 Other Financing Sources $ 89,823
010-301-513-066.41 Capital Outlay -Equipment $ 89,823
The above amendment is necessary to accomodate the recording of the lease
purchase agreement as required by Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the above Budget Amendment.
S. Budget Amendment -_Clerk (Data Processing Expenditures)
The Board reviewed memo of Finance Director Fry:
23
Boor, 61 FnUF309-
MAY 7 1986
BOOK 64 FnUE 310
TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: April 30, 1986 FILE:
Board of County Commissioners
SUBJECT: Budget Amendment to Clerk's Budget_;
FROM: Ed Fry REFERENCES:.---
Finance Di�rfo r
Over the past few months, the Clerk has received $7,800.00 to reimburse the
Clerk's office for expenditures incurred by the Data Processing department
for providing services to outside users of information taken from the computer.
The Clerk would like to use these monies to offset the expenditures incurred
for providing this information. Adoption of the following budget amendment is
necessary to allow the Clerk to recoup those expenditures:
Increase
010-000-369-o4o.00 Reimbursements $ 7,800
010-301-513-030.00 Expenditures 7,800
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the above Budget Amendment for reimbursement of
Data Processing- Expenditures.
PROCLAMATION - MENTAL HEALTH MONTH
The Chairman read a the following Proclamation
recognizing the month of May, t a, as MENTAL HEALTH MONTH and
directed that it be forwarded to Betty Vogt.
24
r
i
P R O C L A M A T I O N
WHEREAS, the door is opening for 30 million Americans who
suffer from mental illnesses because of improved insurance
benefits and living arrangements within the community; and
WHEREAS, now there is treatment for people who suffer from
anxiety disorders, depression and other mental illnesses, thanks
to biomedical research; and
WHEREAS, now there is hope for people who suffer from severe
mental illnesses such as schizophrenia and depression; and
WHEREAS, being mentally healthy is as important as being
physically fit;
WHEREAS, '-the MENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION in Indian River
County,. Florida is helping patients, their families and the
public learn the facts about mental health and mental illness; -
and
WHEREAS, every year since 1953, May has been designated as
MENTAL HEALTH MONTH in America;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, Indian River County, Florida that the month of
May, 1986 be recognized as _
MENTAL HEALTH MONTH
in Indian River County, Florida; and the Board urges all citizens
of Indian River County, Florida to hear this call for action to
join the volunteers, staff and supporters of the MENTAL HEALTH
ASSOCIATION in "working for America's Mental Health" during May
and throughout the year.
ATTEST:
^ w
��',..-�
Freda Wright, C.Yerk
25
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,. FLORIDA
"r le4�
Don C. Scur ock, Jr., Ca•rman
BOOK
04 FA,,E'Jill
BOOK 6 . FA;E
2
REZONING - TO RM -6 WEST OF OLD DIXIE HWY. (LAWHON)
----------------------
The hour of 9:10 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 of��
in the Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of 7,2 e7�
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, for a 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 `7 day A.D. 19
J (Buonq M
(SEAL) (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County,
NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING
Notice of hearing to consider the adopflon of
a County ordinance rezoning land from: RS -6
Ingle -Family Residential District, to RM -8, Mul-
ple-Family Residential District. The subject
roperty
Is ,= owned by James L Le-
on and is located on the west side of Old
1xie Highway and north of Me Heights sub-
ivision.
The subject propertyIs described as:
That portion of thefollowing described
parcel
E of lSOUTH Highway. 440 FEETTOF THE NORTWest of the West H
TH
680 FEET OF THE
EEAST HALF OF THE
SOUTHEAST QUARTER.. OF- THE.
NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION
25, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE 39
EAST. LESS THE WEST 400 FEET
THEREOF, AND ALSO. THE SOUTH 440
FEET OF THE NORTH 880 FEET OF
THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION
30, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE 40
EAST.
And less and except the following de. .
scribed property.
Being at a point lying 440 feet South of
the Northeast comer of .the Southeast
quarte of. the Northeast quarter of Seo- ,
-- Honown8hio 33, South, Rangy 39
East. -,tine want of temnang run
Norah $016 -bot, of the Southwest -quarter
of the Northwest quarter of Section 30,
Township 33 South.. Range 40 East, a
distance of 518-75 feet;, thence run
South 18" 57' 25" East a distance. of
465.72 feet to a point on the South line:
of the said South 400 feet of the North .
880 feet; thence run North 89° 50' 04"
West, along said South line; a distance
of 670.61 feet to a' point of intersection,
said lying on the West lirta of Sec-
tion Township 33 South. Range 40
East; said line being also the Range line;
thence run ,South 89° 56' 07' West
along the South line of the South 440
feet of the North 880 feet of the East half -
of the Southeast quarter of the North..::,
east quarter of Section 26, 'Township 33
South, Range 39 East, a -distance of
263.86 feet to a point lying on the East
line of the West 400 feet of the South
400 feet of the North 880 feet of the East
half of the Southeast quart- of the
Northeast quart of Section 25, Town-
ship 33 South, Range 39 Eaet;:thence
run North 000 00' 46" East, along said
East line a distance of 439.91 fast to a'
point on the North Me of the said South
440 feet on the North 880 feet: thence
nm North 89° 55' 20" East, along said
North line a distance of264.11 feet to.
the Point of Beginning.
Said parcel lying In Indian River County,
Florida and containing 2.97 acres more. .
or less.
A public hearing at whichparties to Interest
d Means shall have an op pity to be
rd, will be held by the Board County Com-
iasionere of Indian River County, Florida in the
unty Commission Chambers of the Counttyy
Administration Building, located at 1840 2btta
Street, Vero Bosch, Florida on Wednesday, May
7,1988, at 9.10 a.m.
Anyone who may wish to appeal a%decision
which may be made at this meeting wit neat to
ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings
Is made, which Includes testimony and evktencR
upon which the appeal Is based
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
By: is Do C. Scurlk,.,
ocJr
Ch
Apr. 17, 29, ION
Planner Melsom made the staff presentation as follows:
26
0
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: April 3, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
SUBJECT: LAWHON REQUEST TO REZONE
Robert M. Keating; AICP 3.0 ACRES FROM RS -6,
Planning & Development Director SINGLE-FA14ILY RESIDENT-
IAL DISTRICT TO RM -6,
1yTHROUGH: Richard Shearer MULTIPLE -FAMILY RESIDENT -
Chief, Long -Range Planning IAL DISTRICT
FROM: REFERENCES:
�i/ ,, Robert G. Melsom LAWHON REQUEST
t�(� Long -Range Planning ROBERT
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of May 7, 1986.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
James L. Lawhon, the owner, is- requesting to rezone 3.0 acres
located west of Old Dixie Highway, South of 10th -Street
Southwest, and --.North of lith Lane, Southwest from RS -6,
Single -Family Residential District_(up to 6-units/acre), to RM -6,
Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre).
The owner intends to develop this property for multiple -family
residences.
On -March 17, 1986, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
4 -to -0 to recommend approval of this request.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the appli-
cation will be presented. The analysis will, include a descrip-
tion of the current and future land uses of the site and sur-
rounding areas, potential impacts on the transportation and
utility systems, and any significant adverse impacts on environ-
mental quality.
Existing Land Use Pattern
Currently, the subject property is undeveloped. East of the
subject property, across Old Dixie Highway, is undeveloped land
zoned CH, Heavy Commercial District. South of the subject
property are undeveloped lots in the Dixie Heights Subdivision
zoned RS -6, Single -Family Residential District. North and West
of the subject property are undeveloped lots zoned RS -6.
Future Land Use Pattern
The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property and the
land North, East and South of it as part of the U.S. 1 MXD, Mixed
Use Corridor (up to 6 units/acre). The Comprehensive Plan
states, "Where future residential development occurs within this
mixed use area, densities shall be limited to six (6) units per
acre".
The Comprehensive
property as LD -2
acre) .
Plan designates the land West of the subject
Low -Density Residential -2 (up to 6 units per
27
WAY 71996 BOOK b FAcE313
MAY 7 1986 Bou 64 PAGE 14
The proposed RM -6, Multiple -Family Zoning is in conformance with
both the LD -2, and MXD land use designations, and seems
appropriate based on the fact that there is heavy commercial
zoning east of the subject property and the proposed RM -6 zoning
would provide a good buffer between this commercial zoning and
the single-family zoning to the west.
Transportation System
The subject property has direct access to Old Dixie Highway
(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 132 average annual daily trips
(AADT). The existing traffic count for this section of Dixie
Highway is 3,800 vehicles per day. The proposed RM -6, zoning
will not decrease the existing level of service "A", for this
section of Old Dixie Highway.
Environment
The subject property is not designated as environmentally
sensitive nor is it in a flood prone area.
Utilities
County water'is available but wastewater service is not available :"-
to the subject property at the present time.
RECOMMENDATION -
Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendation, staff recommends approval.
The Chairman asked if anyone wished to be heard.
James Lawhon, owner of the subject property believed this
rezoning would make a nice step up to the subdivision that is
behind it and protect it from the highway and the commercial.
The Chairman inquired if any petitions had been received in
opposition to the rezoning, and it was confirmed that none were.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously closed the
public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Lyons, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 86-30 rezoning 3 acres west of Old Dixie
Highway and south of 10th St. SW from RS -6 to RM -6
as requested by James Lawhon.
28
I
ORDINANCE NO. 86-.30
AN ORDINANCE 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:
That portion of the following described parcel lying West of
the West Right-of-way of Old Dixie Highway.
THE SOUTH 440 FEET OF THE NORTH 880 FEET OF THE EAST HALF OF
THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION
25, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, LESS THE WEST 400 FEET
THEREOF, AND ALSO, THE�SOUTH 440 FEET OF THE NORTH 880 FEET
OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION
30., TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE 40 EAST.
And less and except the following described property:
Begin at a point lying 440 feet South of the Northeast
corner of the Southeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of
Section 25, Township 33, South, Range 39 East; From the
Point of Beginning run South 89° 50' 20" East and along the
North line of the South 440 feet of the North 880 feet of
the Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section
30, Township 33 South, Range 40 East, 'a distance of 518.75
feet; thence run South 18° 57' 25" East a distance of 465.72
feet to a point on the South line of the said South 440 feet
of the North 880 feet; thence run North 896 50' 04" West,
along said South line, a distance of 670.61 feet to a point
of intersection, said point lying on the West line of
Section 30, Township 33 South, Range 40 East, said line
being also the Range line; thence run South 890 56' 07" West
along the South line of the South 440 feet of the North 880
feet of the East half of the Southeast quarter of the
Northeast quarter of Section 25, Township 33 South, Range 39
29
BOOK 64 P,1G 315
I
A
MAY 7 1966
BOOK 6 3, F,tiU 9
East, a distance of 263.56 feet to a point lying on the East
line of the West 400 feet of the South 440 feet of the North
880 feet of the East half of the Southeast quarter of the
Northeast quarter of Section 25, Township 33 South, Range 39
East; thence run North 000 00' 06" East, along said East
line a distance of 439.91 feet to a point on the North line
of the said South 440 feet on the North 880 feet; Thence run
North 890 55' 20" East, along said North line a distance of
264.11 feet -to the Point of Beginning.
Said parcel lying in Indian River County, Florida and
containing 2.97 acres more or less.
Be changed from RS -6, Single -Family Residential District, to
RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential 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 7th day of May ,
1986.
BOARD OF COUNTY -COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER. -COUNTY
By i
Don C. Scu f loc '...j Chairman
SPECIAL EXCEPTION APPROVAL - GRAC,E BAPTIST FELLOWSHIP
The hour of 9:10 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:
30
s
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
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, for a 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. In � Id
Sworn to and subscribed before me this
-�C4,44�
(Clerk of the
(SEAL)
,
id
(1-1 (Business Mined A-
,ircL41,Court, Indian River County, Florida)
6
NOTICE Notice of Public OF
to consider granting
of�s hd exception approval W a church in the
Rs3, Singe family zoning disMcL The subylot
aro is located own the wesownt aids of 43rd Avenue,*
north of 12th Street,
The subleot property is described as:
The Souuffhh 3 5 feet of the following de. '
'-scribed parcel of land: Commencing at ,t
the NE corner of Tract 8, Section g,
Township 33 South.. Range 39 East, ao•
cording to the last general plat of lands
of the IT
River Farms Coflied
In the office of the Clerk ofm hue l rcuN
Court of St. Lucie County, Florida; on
March 23; 1915, and recorded In Plat ,.
Book 2, page 25, Public Records of said -.
oou.7 thence run South on the East .
line of said Tract a a distance of 345 feet
to the point of. beginning; thence run
said
West and
Parallel distance of 538 feet line of
a
Pipe; thence run in a Southerly direction
a distance of 547.5 feet to a pipe; thence
run Fast a distance _of 545 feet to the .
East line of said Tract 8; thence ruri
North on the East line of said Tract 8 a ;
distance of 535 feet to the point of
beginning; said land lying and being.
eing In '
:Indian River County,
Florida
and+�citlLzens shalehav9 an � In interest.
opportunity to be
heard; will be held by the Board of County Corn-
missioners of Indian RiverFlorida;-in the
Commission Chambers of the M my Adminis-
tration Building, located at -1840 25th Street,
Vero Beach, Florida on Wednesday, May 7;1986,
at 9:10 a.m.
Anyone who may wish to appeal arty decision -
whlch may be ma de.at this mewing will need for
ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings
Is made. which includes the testimony and evi.
deuce uppoon which the appppeea�l� will be based
INDIAN RIVER COt1NTY .
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONEi'ij_ .
BY: -s -Don C Scurlock, Jr
Chairman s ;
Apr. 78,"30; 1986
Michael Miller, Chief of Current Development, made the staff
presentation recommending the Board grant special exception
approval as requested:
31
MAY 7 1986 mor 641 FA,r 317
MAY 7
6 Boos 64 F�,r,31
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: April 22, 1986 FILE:
the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE GRACE BAPTIST FELLOWSHIP'S
REQUEST FOR SPECIAL
SUBJECT: EXCEPTION APPROVAL OF A
Robert M. Keati g, (5?CP7 CHURCH
Through: Michael K. Miller M KM
Chief, Current Development
Karen M. Craver
FROM: Staff Planner *REFERENCES:
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting on May 7, 1986.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS .
Grace Baptist Fellowship has submitted a minor site plan appli-
cation to convert an existin ',-3ence into a church. Due to the
fact that the residence is in Single-family zoning
district, the church is considered`: :_Lpecial exception use
must go through• the special exception approval process.
subject residence is located on the west side of 43rd Avenue,
approximately 530 feet north of 12th Street.
Pursuant to Section 25.3 of the Zoning Code, Regulation of -Special
Exception Uses, the Planning and Zoning Commission is to consider
the appropriateness of the requested use based 'on the submitted
site plan and the suitability of the site for that use. The
Commission then concurrently makes a recommendation to the Board
of County Commissioners regarding the special exception use and
acts on the submitted site plan. The County may attach any
conditions and safeguards necessary to assure compatibility of the
use with the surrounding area.
At their meeting of April 24, 1986, the Planning and Zoning
Commission considered Grace Baptist Fellowship's request. The
Planning and Zoning Commission voted to recommend to the Board of
County Commissioners that special exception approval of the church
be given, and granted site plan approval conditioned upon Board
approval of the special exception use. An analysis of the
approved site plan is as follows:
ANALYSIS
1. Size of Property: 3.6 acres
2. Zoning Classification: RS -3, Single-family Residential
District
3. Land Use Designation: LD -1, Low Density Residential District
4. Building Area: 2,673 square feet
5. Off-street Parking Spaces required: 13
provided: 13
6. Access/Right-of-way Improvements: The residence is accessed
by an asphalt drive, and Grace Baptist Fellowship will place
additional asphalt to increase the one-way circular portion
to a 12 foot width and the two-way portion to a 24 foot
width.
32
A
M.
77
In order to bring 43rd Avenue into conformance with its
status as a primary collector, Grace Baptist Fellowship will
dedicate the eastern 10 feet of the site to the County. The
Technical Review Committee informed the church that it would
be responsible for constructing a 4 foot wide concrete
sidewalk along the 43rd Avenue frontage, a requirement in the
RS -3 zoning district. Site plan approval was granted with
the condition that provisions be made for the sidewalk prior
to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy; whether
through construction by the church, or the escrow of
$2,457.00.
7. Drainage Plan: Although the amount of new impervious surface
is under the threshold of a Stormwater Management permit, the
site plan depicts a drainage system which has been approved
by the Public Works Division.
8. Landscape Plan: A planting scheme, which incorporates a
large number of existing trees, has been developed in
conformance with Ordinance #84-47.
9. Utilities: .The residence receives service from the. City of
Vero Beach .water system. The Director of the Environmental
Health Department has approved. the expansion of the on-site
septic system.
10. Surrounding Land Uses: -.North: Single-family Residence
South: Undeveloped
East: Undeveloped
West: Single-family Residence
Section 25.1 of the Zoning Code, Regulations for Specific Land
Uses, details specific criteria to be considered when reviewing a
church for approval as a special exception use. All criteria,
including 30 foot setbacks and access from a major thoroughfare,
have been meta Although the special exception process allows the
Board of County Commissioners to impose any additional conditions
to ensure compatibility of the proposed use with surrounding
property, the staff does not recommend the imposition of any
special conditions in this case.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board grant special exception approval
of the church.
Commissioner Bowman questioned how the church can function
with only 13 parking spaces, and staff explained that the parking
criteria for churches is based on the number of seats and it is a
4 to 1 ratio.
In further discussion, Director Keating advised that there
are additional areas that could be converted to parking and
churches are allowed to have grass parking since they are an
infrequent use.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
John Dean, Architect for the church, explained that one of
the reasons they feel this is an appropriate spot for the church
33
1 6 BOOK 64 PAGE 319
V
A
S
BOOK P`!;r
is because of the acreage which allows sufficient room to add
parking or even a building in the future. He further noted that
they are working on a site plan concurrent with this request; the
Pastor has visited all the homesites in the vicinity; and the
people are supportive of their intentions.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously closed the
public hearing.
ON MOTION by commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bird, the Board unanimously granted the special
exception requested by Grace Baptist Fellowship to
convert an existing residence into a church.
PROPOSED SIGN ORDINANCE
The hour of 9:10 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:
34
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
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
in the matter
in the — e 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, for a 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 Ceay of "D19
(Susielss M
(SEAL) (Clerk of the �ui 9 n pv '
NOTICE OF iPUBUC NEARING
TO CONSIDER THE
ADOPTION OF A COUNTY ORDINANCE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board Of
County Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida, shall hold a public hearing at which par-
ties in Interest and clUzens shall have an�
oppor-
tunity to be heard, In, the County
Chambers of the` County Administration Build-
ing, located at 1840 25th Street,' Vero Beach.
Florida, on Wednesday, May 7.1988, fat 9^.110
Anyone who maY wish to appeal �'ar►y decision
which may to ma a at this meeting will need to
ensure that a verbatim record of the pr0c69dinge
is made, which includes tem ny end evidence
upon which the appeal
IndianRiver County
Board of County Commlesioners 4 _
BY. -s- Don C. Scurlock, Chairman
Apr. 7, IT 29. 1M
Director Keating emphasized that extensive workshops were
held and he believed the proposed ordinance now has the support
of most people in the community involved with signs. He asked
Environmental Planner Challacombe and Planner Roland DeBlois to
make brief presentations per the following staff memo:
35
Y 7 1986
BOOK 64 PACE °J9I
MAY 7 1966
BOOK 64 PA; 3?2 I
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: April 21, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
lid SUBJECT: PROPOSED SIGN ORDINANCE
Robert M. Keati , A
Planning & Devel
Dm
Director
FROM: Art Chal ar combe Sign Ordinance
Chief, Environmental PlJRFFrJjRENCES: DIS: BOB
It is requested that the data presented herein be given formal
consideration by the- Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting on May 7, 1986.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
s
On September 24, 1985,planning staff received the draft of the
proposed sign ordinance from the County's consultant. This
revision of the sign code is one part of the County's-- overall
effort to, update ..,the entire zoning code. Although the sign
ordinance is -incorporated within the. General Provisions Section
(Section 25) of the zoning code, no changes were made to the sign
ordinance when the general provisions section was revised in 1985.
Because of the complexity and the controversial nature of sign -
regulation, the staff decided to address the sign issue separate-
ly.
On March 27, 1986, after two public hearings on'thisordinance,
the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that the Board of
County Commissioners adopt the proposed sign ordinance.
Subsequent to the meeting, staff revised the proposed ordinance to
reflect the word changes proposed by the Commission. A minor
modification of the ordinance that was not presented at the public
hearing is within the definition of "abandoned sign" where staff
recommends a, one hundred eighty day period before a sign is
considered abandoned. The previous definition called for a one
hundred twenty day period.
The purpose of the proposed sign ordinance is to promote and
protect the public health, safety and aesthetics of the County by
regulating the posting, display, erection, use and maintenance of
signs, billboards, and other advertising structures. With respect
to signs advertising busines-s uses, it is specifically intended to
avoid excessive proliferation and clutter among sign displays
competing for public attention.
The existing sign ordinance is inadequate for the following
reasons:
1) The ordinance regulates signs on the basis of individual
business uses rather than a per site basis, resulting in an
unnecessary proliferation of signs;
2) the sign definitions within the present ordinance are incon-
sistent with definitions used within the industry. This
makes the ordinance difficult to follow, interpret, and
administer.
3) size requirements for signs in the present ordinance are
inconsistent with the actual need.
The proposed ordinance addresses these concerns by more specif-
ically identifying the regulatory procedures and standards associ-
ated with different types of signs. In some cases the proposed
sign ordinance may reduce the number, type, and size of signs
allowed on a parcel, while in other instances the new regulations
will allow even more signage than permitted by the present code.
36
M M M
As recommended, the proposed sign ordinance identifies two princi-
pal types of permanent signs: freestanding and facade. Generally,
the proposed regulations relate allowable area of a facade sign to
a building's wall area, modifying this amount based upon whether
the sign faces a roadway, adjacent non-residential parcel, or a
residential area. Freestanding sign area is based upon the land
use, size of the parcel, linear feet of frontage on a roadway, and
the number of lanes and speed limit of the roadway on which the
parcel is located.
Besides the general standards for allowable copy area of permanent
signs, the proposed ordinance regulates height and setbacks of
permanent signs. The ordinance exempts various types of signs
such as small real' estate sales signs, garage sale signs,
religious symbols, and -American -flags. However, the code does set
standards for these types of signs. The ordinance also provides
for temporary signs such as special event signs and political
signs. Finally, the proposed ordinance prohibits various types of
signs; these include snipe signs, flags and banners (except
American flags and certain other types of flags), flashing signs,
and trailer signs.
ALTERNATIVES.AND-ANALYSIS
In developing the proposed sign ordinance, the staff reviewed
criteria and regulations employed in other communities in relation
to the County's objectives. Based upon that research, various
alternatives were identified and considered during the process of
developing the size regulations. Among these alternatives were
means of limiting number, type, location_, and size of signs. As
proposed, the recommended sign ordinance represents a combination
of those alternatives, basically limiting the amount of signage to
that required for the message to be visible given specific roadway
conditions adjacent to the site.
As with any regulation, the sign ordinance will impose re-
strictions and limitations on certain actions. Because of that,
some of the aspects. of the proposed sign code are controversial.
Among the more controversial issues in the recommended code are
the regulations concerning off -premise directional signs, the
prohibition on advertising flags and banners, and the limitations
on the size of signs. In relation to each of these issues, the
staff feels that the limitations are not only reasonable, but
necessary in order to enhance the aesthetic value of the
community.
Throughout the sign ordinance development process, there has been
extensive public input received on the ordinance and numerous
changes and revisions made. A total of seven workshop meetings
were held with representatives of sign companies, the development
community, and the general public. Based upon those meetings and
other input, substantial changes were made in the original draft
of the ordinance. Among those changes were the elimination of an
amortization provision for non -conforming signs, a modification of
the amount of signage allowed, a revision in the criteria used to
regulate facade sign size, an exemption for American flags, the
allowance for directional off -premise signage under certain
conditions, and a number of other changes and modifications.
The proposed sign ordinance provides a mechanism to ensure that
Indian River County maintains its character and avoids the clut-
tered appearance produced by a proliferation of signs. Along with
the tree protection ordinance, the landscape ordinance, the
density limitations, and the height restrictions, the proposed
sign ordinance can protect the aesthetics of the County and
enhance its character and image.
37
MAY 7 196 goo 6 ?`
L�__
MAY 7 1986
BOOK 64 u-U-C3!��
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt
the proposed sign ordinance.
Planner DeBlois reviewed the purpose and intent of the
ordinance, noting that the present ordinance is somewhat vague
and the proposed one has been made more specific.
Planner Challacombe stated that he would briefly go over the
regulations and explain how the Commission and the community will
live with this ordinance. He referred to temporary signs that
require permits, i.e., political signs and special event signs,
and advised these will not require individual permits, but
blanket permits with time limits on installation and removal.
Commissioner Wodtke noted that political signs, for
instance, generally are made out of 4 x 8 plywood, and asked if
there is any reason all such signs can't be 16' sq. ft. which
would be half a sheet of plywood.
Planner Challacombe did not believe staff would have any
major concern with that.
Discussion continued re various type temporary signs for
real estate, construction, etc., the proportion of sizes in
difference areas, and Administrator Wright asked how developments
that are under construction for more than a year would be
handled.
Planner Challacombe explained that information would be
placed on the permit application and put on a tickler file for
review. He noted that the ordinance will grandfather in all
existing signs that were legally placed as long as they are
properly -maintained.
Chairman Scurlock raised a question about signs that are
maintained, but are ugly, and Planner Challacombe reported that
numerous discussion were held in the workshops re aesthetics and
what is "ugly," and the input received indicated that it was felt
staff was trying to regulate too much that way.
38
Director Keating did not think this ordinance itself will
prohibit someone putting up an ugly sign; it will just keep the
sign from being too big and in the wrong place. Generally the
proposed ordinance puts restrictions on the size, number and
location of signs.
Planner Challacombe then discussed the three basic types of
signs - facade, canopy and free standing - and the tables
developed for calculating the signage area. A facade, for
instance, is calculated based on the area of the wall and the
percentage allowed for the sign.
Commissioner Wodtke inquired about a marquis sign, and
Planner Challacombe stated it would be allowed as long as it is
not part of the roofline.
Commissioner Bird wished to know how our ordinance compares
with that of the City of Vero Beach, and Planner Challacombe
stated that it is very similar; in fact, facade calculations are
exactly the same.
Director Keating believed we are on strong ground re sizes
of signs; the representatives of sign companies who attended the
workshops felt what is proposed is fair and consistent.
Planner Challacombe felt possibly the most controversial
discussion was in relation to off -premises signage, i.e.,
billboards. No one liked the existing ordinance. Staff worked
out a compromise solution for off premises directional signage so
that it now is based on the same variables as any free standing
sign - amount of traffic, size of roadway, etc.
Commissioner Bird asked how this compares with the present
ordinance, and Planner Challacombe stated it would allow these
signs in the General Commercial, Heavy Commercial, Light
Industrial and General Industrial Districts as opposed to just
one industrial district, but it reduces sizes and requires more
spacing between the signs.
Commissioner Bird inquired what we do to encourage someone
to go with an attractive routed type sign versus just a hand
39
MAY 7 1986 Boa 64 pm,JE325
L_ I
FF -
BOOK 64- FAGF.316
painted sign, and Planner Challacombe noted that staff originally
included some aesthetic values but received quite a bit of
opposition.
Commissioner Wodtke again brought up the sizing for
temporary political signs which he felt should be 4 x 4, or 16
sq. ft. rather than 12 sq. ft.
Director Keating noted that 16 sq, ft, is allowed in
districts other than residential districts; the intent was to
keep these signs a little smaller in the residential neighbor-
hoods.
Commissioner Wodtke pointed out that these signs are only
there for a short period of time. He then inquired about the
restriction of the subject matter on real estate signs, and felt
possibly these signs should state `nrhat the land is zoned for as
well as the Cor;,prenensive Pian designation.
Director Keating pointed those aren't the only signs on
which copy is regulated. On premises signs can advertise only
what is being provided at that particular location, and off
premises signs are restricted in that they have to be directional
in nature. Director Keating did agree we should allow zoning
information on the real estate signs.
Commissioner Wodtke then had questions about garage sale
signs, trailer or private car for sale signs, and continued to
discuss street signs, signs allowed on 1-95, etc.
Director Keating reiterated that everything is grandfathered
as long as it is maintained, and Commissioner Wodtke asked if the
copy on the sign can be changed as long as it is maintained.
Director Keating confirmed it could, and Commissioner Wodtke
wished to know if we will need additional Code Enforcement
personnel to enforce this.
Director Keating believed we will need to add one person,
but not just for the sign ordinance as he did not believe this
will create a substantial amount of extra work. There will be
stickers affixed to approved signs, and he felt this will be
40
r�
i
M
I
easier to regulate. The only measuring that would need to be
done is measuring of signs to be sure they conform to the prints
we approved as we are not amortizing and getting rid of all signs
that didn't conform as the City did. This, however, does not
necessarily guaranty that everything existing will remain as the
ordinance states that every sign that was put in with a legal
permit will be grandfathered.
Commissioner Lyons felt unless all signs that exist are
tagged, we still have a problem, and Attorney Vitunac noted that
the burden of proof on a legal non -conforming use is on the sign
owner; if he can't prove it was legally existing when the
ordinance went into effect, it comes down.
Discussion arose on temporary signs such as circus posters
which are plastered randomly about, and it was noted this is
handled by a blanket permit and bonded to provide for removal.
Commissioner Wodtke pointed out that political signs have to
be removed within five days after an election, and he did not see
why special event signs should have a different limitation.
In discussion, it was agreed the removal requirement for
special event signs should be changed to five days after the
event to be consistent.
Commissioner Bird again expressed concern about trying to
work towards better aesthetics as he felt the ordinance falls a
bit short in this area.
Planner Challacombe noted that the original ordinance did
have a provision that said the sign would have to meet acceptable
sign techniques, but that was taken out at the insistence of the
public who attended the workshops as they feared the staff might
be over zealous in this regard.
Director Keating stated a further concern was that the
application of strict graphic material would eliminate script
letters, which are not as visible. He advised that most of the
major sign people do quality work, and we are mainly trying to
get at people who just slap up a sign and paint something on it.
41
BOOK 64 PD: F 34?7
MAY 71996
r
S
MAY
d
1986
BOOK
64
P',GF ,398
Chairman Scurlock believed what
the Board is saying
is
that
we want to be progressive; he did believe the county is inter-
ested in aesthetics and if this can be dealt with reasonably in
the future, we would like to.
Commissioner Bowman wished to see us work towards smaller
signs on major highways. She expressed her preference for signs
which simply indicate lodgings, gasoline, etc., are available at
the next turn-off. She agreed travelers need such information,
but they don't need the advertising.
Director Keating advised that the 300' recommended on 1-95
is a substantial reduction from what is allowed presently.
Commissioner Bird next expressed concern with the grand-
fathering policy. He could agree with it for an existing
business, but was not sure we should be stuck with continuing to
grandfather the sign as that business changes hands and becomes
something different.
Chairman Scurlock also favored a definite time limit on the
grandfathering.
Director Keating noted that staff had ambivalent feelings
about an amortization provision. While it is true grandfathering
gives people who put up larger signs an unfair advantage over
people who now have to have smaller signs, staff felt it also is
unfair to penalize someone who went by all the rules and spent a
lot of money to put up their sign by saying its life is now over.
Commissioner Lyons referred to Item 6 on Page 2 which
includes electronic message centers and pointed out that some of
these type signs are electromagnetic rather than electronic. He
was not sure the present wording was broad enough.
Director Keating advised the sign people thought this was
adequate, but staff can look into it.
Commissioner Lyons was concerned about the definition of
banner excluding something such as a cloth banner which is
suspended across a road when you have a parade, and was informed
42
I
r � �
that would be taken care of under special events. The definition
refers to something permanent.
Commissioner Lyons then referred to definition 20 on Page 3
which refers to "civic" signs and believed this should refer to
"civic organization" signs. This was agreed upon.
Commissioner Lyons next referred to Page 7 in regard to
regulating exempted signs and wished to know if a condo complex
with two entrances would be able to have a sign at each entrance.
Director Keating advised there is a special provision under
the permanent signage and it is in the table at the back.
Commissioner Lyons asked if it was felt 30 days prior is
sufficient time to display holiday signs, and Planner Challacombe
believed that Thanksgiving actually is when the Christmas season
starts in full swing.
Commissioner Lyons then questioned Page 11, 6, b. Mainte-
nance, which states a sign must be "free of holes" as he felt
that is pretty limiting. He noted some large signs have holes
in them to allow the wind through.
Director Keating realized this vague, but staff feels there
needs to be a little discretion; basically they are saying this
would be interpreted to be large holes.
Commissioner Lyons felt there must be a better definition,
and Attorney Vitunac stated he was comfortable with the phrase
"free of holes." He felt a judge would use the rule of reason.
Commissioner Bowman asked about a sign full of bullet holes,
for instance.
The Chairman stated the Attorney will clarify this language.
Intergovernmental Relations Director Thomas noted that he'
did not see anything in the ordinance re cemeteries.
Planner Challacombe stated that he would like to clarify
this on Page 16, b. Identification Signs for Non -Residential
Districts, by adding under ii. - to commercial, industrial "and
institutional" complexes - and refer that to the acreage table.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
43
Y 7 1986 BooK 64 Fa,F ?9
t
F,
MAY '71996
BOOK 64 F";F 3P3®
Peter Robinson, developer of Laurel Homes, commented that
Laurelwood was mentioned as having an excellent sign, but
interestingly, it violates the ordinance. He expressed concern
about the provision that prohibits more than one sign at an
entrance as he wanted people coming from either direction to be
able to locate his subdivision, and he did not feel it is
objectionable just to have the name of a subdivision on both
sides of a wall. Mr. Robinson then noted that the ordinance
allows flags for all but for-profit organizations. However,
firms such as McDonald's and Piper have their own company flags,
and he felt this serves to build up the spirit of an
organization. Also, in regard to political signs being 4 x 4
because it is easy to cut plywood to that size, Mr. Robinson
noted that signs for residential subdivisions have to be 24 sq.
ft, so you have to cut 2' off the plywood. He did not believe
aesthetics would be affected by making this 32 sq. ft. instead of
24 sq. ft.
Director Keating did not feel staff would have any problem
revising 8 a. iii, on Page 15 to permit one sign on each side of
a subdivision entrance, but in regard to for-profit type flags,
he explained that the whole concept was that 'if you are regu-
lating size of signage, the people who have to be regulated were
looking at keeping others from getting around this with large
flags and that is why commercial for-profit type flags were
restricted.
Discussion followed in regard to 32 sq, ft. as opposed to 24
sq. ft. sign for residential subdivisions, and Planner
Challacombe noted that essentially those signs are for model
homes in existing neighborhoods. He felt even 24 sq. ft. is
large and preferred to reduce this to 16 sq. ft.
The next subject discussed was temporary constructions signs
such as at the Jail site. Administrator Wright believed there
are some federal regulations requiring signs if grant funds are
involved, and he believed these would supersede.
44
Attorney Vitunac agreed and felt we could state "unless
otherwise required by federal law."
Linda Rye informed the Board that she and her husband
operate an auto repair business on 3rd Place off Old Dixie; they ,
are at the end of a cul de sac and cannot put a sign up on Old
Dixie to let people know where they are.
Director Keating clarified that they can put up a direc-
tional off premises sign under certain circumstances, but they
can't be on the right-of-way or where there is another on
premises sign.
Planner Challacombe explained that the problem is they are
located in Dixie Commercial Subdivision where there are existing
signs, and they have to be 1,000' away from any existing sign so
there is no feasible location.
Discussion ensued re various alternatives, and Chairman
Scurlock asked if the subdivision couldn't have a directory sign.
Director Keating agreed that definitely could be done with a
new industrial complex.
The Board continued to discuss what could be done in Mrs.
Rye's particular case, and it was believed her option is to get
with the other owners and encourage a directory type sign which
would list all the businesses in the complex.
Commissioner Bird brought up the possibility of a variance
where someone could have a directory sign on his property in
addition to the sign already there.
Mrs. Rye advised that the person who owns Allison Auto
Brokerage is willing to take his sign down and put up one
directory sign with all the businesses on it.
Commissioner Wodtke noted that he can't do that because he
can only advertise what is on his property.
Chairman Scurlock felt the Board is indicating we want to
find a way this can be worked out, and Director Keating believed
that it can be taken care of.
45
MAY 7 1996
Bou 64FAGE%�P1
J
MAY 7 1986 BOOK 64 F Gr.3, 32
Nancy Offutt, liaison for the Chamber of Commerce and the
Board of Realtors, felt the ordinance as proposed is quite
acceptable, but in regard to the statement made that
grandfathering should not prevail against change of use, she
explained that was argued against in workshop because it was felt
consideration must be given to the large economic investment such
a sign might represent, sometimes as much as $20-30,000. The
compromise was to suggest an abandoned sign could be done away
with. Mrs. Offutt urged that the Board not change grandfathering
re change of use. In regard to aesthetics, she noted it is very
difficult to try to define ugly. She believed the community is
interested in aesthetics and also felt it is generally accepted
that attractive signs are in the interest of good marketing and
promotion. She recommended the Board adopt the ordinance as
proposed.
It was determined no one else wished to be heard.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously closed the
public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously adopted Ordi-
nance 86-31 as amended with the thought that it still
does not properly address the issue of aesthetics.
46
W
M i ■
ORDINANCE NO. 86-31
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FWRIDA, REPEALING
SECTION 25-0 OF TUE CODE OF ORDINANCES AND CREATING
SECTIONS 25-0.1 THROUGH 25-0.11 INCLUSIVE, ENTITLED "SIGN
REGULATIONS"; STATING PURPOSE AND INTENT; SETTING FORTH
DEFINITIONS; ESTABLISHING SIGN REGULATING PROCEDURES;
PROVIDING FOR FXEMPTIONS TO PERMITTING PROCEDURES;
IDr.1V'1`IFYING PROHIBITED SIGNS; ST111UI ATING GENE?AL SIGN
REGULATIONS• PROVIDING REGULATIONS FOR TEMPORARY SIGNS
REQUIRING PERMITS; INCORPORATING REGULATIONS FOR PERMANENT
IDENTIFICATION SIGNS REQUIRING SIGNS; IDENTIFYING
NON -CONFORMING SIGNS; PROVIDING FOR REMOVAL OF PROHIBITED OR
UNLAWFUL SIGNS; IDENTIFYING ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES;
ESTABLISHING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE..
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by The Board -of County Camussioners of Indian
River County, Florida:
SECTION I
That Section 25-0 of the Code of Ordinances of Indian River County is hereby
repealed.
SECTION II
That the Code of Ordinances of Indian River County is hereby amended by adding a
Section to be numbered 25-0.1, which section reads as follows:
Section 25-0. SIGN REGULATIONS
It is the intent of this Ordinance to prate and protect the public
health, safety, general welfare, and aesthetics of Indian River County, Florida,
by regulating and limiting the existing and proposed posting, display, erection,
use and maintenance of signs, billboards, and other advertising structures
within the County. 10.
with respect to signs advertising business uses, it is specifically intend-
ed, among other things, to avoid excessive proliferation and clutter among sign
displays competing for public attention. Therefore, the display of signs should
be appropriate to the land, building or use to which they are appurtenant and be
adequate, but not excessive, for the intended purpose of identification.
Furthermore, it is determined that the signs of least value to people within the
County are those which carry commercial messages other than advertisement of any
product, service, event, person, real estate, institution, or business located
on the premises where the sign is located, however, it is realized that a
restricted number of off -premise directional signs are needed to convey
information to the public.
It is further intended to protect property values, create a more attractive
economic and business climate, enhance and protect the physical appearance of
the County, preserve the scenic and natural beauty of the County and provide a
more enjoyable and pleasing community. Also, it is intended hereby to improve
vehicular and pedestrian safety, curb the deterioration of natural beauty, and
reduce visual pollution."
ORDINANCE NO. 86-31 IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK IN
ITS ENTIRETY.
47
8 o c x 6 4 Ft, '�jr,3p3
F_
DISCUSSION RE COUNTY -WIDE LIBRARY SYSTEM
BOOK 64 PvF 33
Commissioner Lyons reviewed the following memo:
TO: Board o ounty Commissioners
FROM: Commi 'oner Patrick B. Lyons
DATE: April 28, 1986
SUBJECT: County -wide Library System
Library patrons and the library employees are acutely aware
of the shortage of library space and parking, along with the
limited collection. Because of space limitations, we are not in
a position to effectively expand the libraries in both Vero Beach
and Sebastian. Consequently, in order to meet these needs, we
must move in order to expand both libraries. This should be done
with a minimum of delay. At the same time, we have an
opportunity to provide facilities which can be used for the next
20 to 30 years, or more.
According to what I have heard from the Finance Committee,
it may be possible to finance the library expansion without
increasing the mi_1_1-7e we now pay on tY �F! r -.; h Bonds. If that is
so, we might be ably - -1 capital requirements,
$8.2 million, as outlined _,asultant, without an increase
in taxes for that purpose. The money would provide for two
things: catching up with our library shortcomings in the next
five years, and financing a construction program giving -us
library space for many years to come. Long-term bonds would have
another advantage; they would allow the people who come after us
to participate in this expansion program.
As you are aware, the actions of Congress in connection with
the tax-free bonds make it most desirable to float a bond issue
between now and September 2, 1986. It is possible that the cost
of borrowing money will not be any lower for a long time --if
ever. It will not be possible to prepare a bond issue before the
deadline if we wait for. the results of the proposed library
referendum in September. Consequently, I am requesting the
Commission to approve proceeding with the processing of the bond
issue so that we will be in a position to act when a referendum
is passed approving the bond issue.
The Boards of. both the Vero Beach and Sebastian libraries
have indicated as desire to become..a part of the new County
library system whether or not the bond referendum passes on the
2nd of September. At the beginning of the new budget year, the
library employees would become County employees.and any library
property would become County property. Since these steps will
require -coordination and time, I would like to see us get started
right away, and would appreciate your approval of this step.
These problems, and the problems of continued planning for
the expanded library system, point out the need for the
Coordinating Librarian recommended by the consultant. In the
light of the number of tasks that should be accomplished between.
now and September 2, 1986, I am asking the Commission to approve
advertising for the Coordinating Librarian at this time. On the
offchance that the job can be filled before the beginning of the
next fiscal year, the funding would come from reserves for
contingencies.
I will make the three requests outlined above at the next
meeting of the Commission.
48
_I
MAY 7.1996 BOOK 64 F} GF 33
per capita against the state average of $7.58; so, we are talking
about coming up with about twice what we usually spend.
Chairman Scurlock felt that would be about an operating
budget of about $650,000 and Commissioner Lyons believed that
would be the outside figure for the next year.
Chairman Scurlock stated that he supports the fact that the
library personnel should be county employees. In regard to the
$650,000 operating expense, he believed that will relate to
whether the community votes for the referendum for the bonds. He
was willing to support the Motion based on having the referendum.
Commissioner Lyons pointed out that we do not have suffici-
ent room in the existing libraries for the personnel as outlined
in the consultant's report so the budget will be somewhat less
than the total figure. He stated that we would be committing to
spending over a period of tivne you would be expected to
spend in a county of this size and class.
Commissioner Bowman asked if the 8 million bond issue would
include the operating costs, and Commissioner Lyons clarified
that is only for capital expenditure.
Chairman Scurlock noted that just committing that the
existing personnel would'be direct employees of the county would
result in a certain normal expansion in that the fringe benefits
applicable to a county employee then would be applicable to these
people. He did not believe we are committing today to expanding
the staff in any way.
Commissioner Lyons noted that even with the existing staff,
we should be open more hours than we are open now; so there will
be some increase in expenditures simply due to longer hours.
Actually there is no room for any additional people until the
facilities are expanded.
Commissioner Wodtke believed the Motion, over and above just
making the Library personnel county employees, is saying we -are
going to be fully supporting the library. He wished to know if
this is indicating that all fund raising, etc., is not necessary.
50
In order for the interested groups to mount their campaign
for approval of the Library Taxing District, it will be necessary
for me to get the wording of the issues to go on the ballot as
soon as possible. I will need specifics on the bond issue and
the District as soon as possible since only about 120 days remain
between now and the Primary Election.
I will present, for your approval, a proposed proposition
for the Taxing District at the next meeting; however, I need the
proposed bond issue proposition as soon as possible thereafter.
Commissioner Lyons first wished to have specific authoriza-
tion from the Commission for the library employees and library
property to become county employees and county property.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, that the Commission authorize
that the existing library personnel become County
employees and the library property become County
property at the beginning of the next fiscal year.
Commissioner Wodtke wished to know if the property includes
the land, the books, etc., and Commissioner Lyons stated that it
includes everything the Library Association is in a position to
convey.
Commissioner Wodtke asked about the building and the land in
Vero Beach, and Attorney Vitunac felt the City may own a
reverter, The title would remain in the City subject to that
reverter, but as long as the library was used for library
purposes, he felt that would be all right.
City Finance Director Tom Nason confirmed the City owned a
reverter.
Commissioner Bird inquired about the financial implication
of the Motion, i.e., what are we committing to an annual
operating cost versus what we spent this year.
Commissioner Lyons stated we are talking about an increased
cost, not necessarily because we are taking over the library, but
because we want to follow the recommendation of the consultant in
regard to bringing the system up to standards. We spend $3.67
49
MAY '7 1996 BOOK Face. r 5
V
Commissioner Lyons pointed out that we now pay approximately
60-700 of the expense of the Vero Beach library and more for
Sebastian. Sebastian has a very active and supportive Friends of
the Library organization and Vero Beach is getting back to this.
Experience has shown throughout the state that these organiza-
tions raise substantial amounts of money for the libraries, and.
Commissioner Lyons expected that we will have stronger support
rather than less because we will have a system of which everyone
can be proud.
Chairman Scurlock noted that we presently are contributing
almost $200,000 to the library system without very much control,
and as far as he was concerned, the Motion is indicating that the
$200,000 we are expending should be expanding, but within that
$200,000 we already are paying for some employees. They actually
are county employees, and it is not fair that they do not have
the same benefits and protections. The budget will be determined
later and we will get the message from the referendum whether
there is community support or not.
Administrator Wright pointed out that if these people are
going to become county employees, we need to do this fairly
quickly so we can massage this through the budget.
The Chairman agreed some commitment is needed at this time
as to how we are heading.
Commissioner Bird assumed both Library Boards are in favor
of what is proposed, and Commissioner Lyons assured him they are.
Commissioner Wodtke wished to be sure the County has the
ability to utilize the land for a library as long as we want to.
Chairman Scurlock believed there are agreements between the
various entities stating that as long as we maintain a continuous
operation as a library, we will enjoy that right. He noted that
the long range goal is to abandon and relocate at least one of
these facilities.
Attorney ,Vitunac advised that he would like to have the City
of Vero Beach and the Library Association issue a clean title or
51
MAY
BOOK. b FADE 337
� 7 19
r MAY 7 1986 -
BOOK 64
some right to the County directly so we can get out of being a
U
sub -assignee. He did believe the City would be willing to
discuss that as their only right is a right of reverter and they
recently indicated to the state that they wanted to keep the
library functioning for many years to come as a library.
COMMISSIONER LYONS CALLED FOR THE QUESTION on the
Motion for existing library personnel to become County
employees and the library property to become County
property at the beginning of the next fiscal year.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
Commissioner Lyons informed the Board that the consultant's
report calls for a coordinating librarian who will have supervi-
sion of all libraries. He felt it would be very much to our
advantage to add the coordinating librarian as soon as possible.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, to authorize advertising imme-
diately for a Coordinating Librarian who will have
supervision of all libraries, both existing and
anticipated.
Commissioner Wodtke stated that he would not want to hire
someone for this position until we find out the results of the
September referendum.
Chairman Scurlock did not think that position has anything
to do with the referendum because whether it passes or not., we
will have expanding funding requirements to operate an adequate
library system.
Commissioner Lyons emphasized we need this person now. He
pointed out that the county area south of Vero has grown to where
it has as many residents as the City of Vero Beach.
52
Administrator Wright agreed we must have someone in charge,
and we need a head librarian.
In discussion it was noted that the Advisory Committee will
come up with the qualifications needed for such a position. In
regard to salary, Commissioner Lyons felt it should be in the
department head range.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED for the Question. It was
voted on and carried unanimously.
Commissioner Lyons reported that we are going to need up to
8.2 million dollars to build three new libraries and to bring our
book collections up to standards within five years. Right now is
an excellent time to borrow money, but it is very confusing
exactly how to handle this and get the mechanism in line for a
bond issue so we can get the money while the rates are so
favorable.
Discussion followed at considerable length as to the
technical process involved with a general obligation bond issue,
the timing in relation to the referendum, and the pros and cons
of setting up a Special Taxing District before the referendum as
opposed to simply having the Advisory Committee set out budget
limitations and recommend a millage.
The Chairman felt it all boils down to how comfortable those
involved with selling the bond issue to the public feel about it. V
Mrs. Rondeau, member of the Library Advisory Committee,
believed if the Board indicated their support of the proposed 8.2
million dollar bond issue, that would give the Committee the
confidence to move ahead and present this to the public.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, to approve in concept
setting up a bond issue of up to 8.2 million for
the expansion of the library system as outlined in
53
MAY 7 1966 Boor. 64 rnUE339
__ I
BOOK 64 F'nF. 40
the consultant's report with the idea that this
can be used by the Advisory Committee in preparing
for the bond issue that will be on the September
2nd ballot.
Commissioner Wodtke realized the report recommends 8.2
million, but asked if the Advisory Committee is comfortable with
that figure or possibly could sell a lesser figure easier.
Commissioner Lyons noted that is why he used the term "up
to" 8.2 million to allow some flexibility.
Attorney Vitunac inquired if this will be a G.O. bond for
the county and whether the intent is to create a special district
after the referendum.
Commissioner Lyons confirmed it would be a G.O. bond, and -
the special district is an option that is available.
Discussion continued re the fact that a special district
could set a cap, and Commissioner Lyons noted that when you set
up a bond issue it has a certain millage, and he believed that in
itself is a cap.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
PROCLAMATION- OLDER AMERICANS MONTH
Chairman Scurlock read the following Proclamation aloud and
presented it to Arlene Fletcher, Council on Aging, Betty La Gue,
AARP, Robert Franks and John Kirchner.
54
P R O C L A M A T I O N
WHEREAS, May has been traditionally designated OLDER
AMERICANS MONTH by the federal and state governments; and
WHEREAS, the national theme for OLDER AMERICANS MONTH 1986
"Plan Plan on Living the Rest of Your Life;" and
WHEREAS, Gulfstream Area Agency on -Aging, Inc.; Indian River
County Council on Aging, Inc.; and Treasure Coast Senior Services
coordinate to provide services which improve the quality of
longer life for Indian River County senior citizens; and
WHEREAS, approximately 29% of -the total population in Indian
River County is comprised of persons 60 -years of age or older;
and
WHEREAS, those senior citizens contribute greatly to the
moral, economic, and social well-being of Indian River County;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, assembled in
regular session this 7th day of May, 1986 that the month of MAY,
1986 be designated as
"OLDER AMERICANS MONTH"
in Indian River County.
55
11
i Al10.
� 00"
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BOOK 64 rnUF x341
r I
FF_
M AY 7 1966 BOOK F,� F 44?
ORDINANCE INCREASING LOCAL OPTION GAS TAX
The hour of 10:30 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
i
Published Weekly
Vero Beach,ilndian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER:
s STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned autFority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of he Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, L-eing
c _A,
a j iariw
in the rrlatter of _?ZeV,2 S.&
i— �--
in thei __.._ Courr, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of
Affiant further says that ti
Vero Beach, in said Indian
been continuously published in
as second class mail matter at tl
for period of one year next
tisement; and affiant further ;
corporation any discount, rebat
tisement for publication in the
Sworn to and subscrib
said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
iver County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
t4d Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entereed
post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Floricla
'eceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver-
fs that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm c>r
commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver•-
d newspaper.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO
CONSIDER ADOPTION OF COUNTY
ORDINANCE
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida, will conduct a Public
Hearing on Wed., May 7, 1986 at 10:30 a.m. in
the Commission Chambers at the County Admin-
istration Building, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach,
Florida, to consider the adoption of an Ordi-
nance entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING
ORDINANCE NO. 85-57 BY INCREAS-
ING THE LOCAL OPTION GAS TAX
FROM TWO CENTS TO SIX CENTS
UPON EVERY GALLON OF MOTOR
FUEL AND SPECIAL FUEL SOLD IN IN--
DIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA; EX-
TENDING THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF
THE TAX, PROVIDING FOR SEVER-
1� 114CORPORATION IN CODE
AND EFFECTIVE DATE
If any person decides,lc appeal a decision made
on the above matter, a recc
will be required for such pure,
may need to ensure that a vert,
proceedings is made, which rec
testimony and evidence on which the appeal
based.
Indian River County
Boardpf County Commissioners
By: Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Chairman
Apr. 18, 1986
Public Works Director reviewed the following memo, noting
that this is intended to provide funding for road improvements
based on the user fee philosophy:
56
W -
r
I
� � r
TO: THE HONORABLE MELmERS OF THE DATE: April 29, 1986 FILE:
BOARD OF COUNTY CaklMISSIONERS
THROUGH:
MICHAEL WRIGHT,
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR SUBJECT:
Local Option Gas Tax - Revenue
Projections, Capital Road
Improvement Programs, and
Support information
FROM: James W. Davis, P. y REFERENCES:
Public Works Director
The following attachments have been prepared by the Public Vbrks
Division Staff to assist in the Local Option Gas Tax discussion process:
1) Table I - Revenue Projections based on current Fuel Constm*tion
in Indian River County - This table projects the revenue to the
County and all municipalities.
2) Program of Capital Road Improvements - April 1986 to June 1988. f,
3) Map of Florida showing various East :Coast Counties Local Option
Gas Tax Adoption - Of the 15 counties surveyed.,.6 have a 6� I=,
1 has 5,� LOGT, 5 have 40 LOGT, 3 have 2� LOGT or less. Three of
the above are considering•rai.sing to 6� LOGT.
4) Memo dated 3/17/86 from Staff to Board of County Commissioners
describing revenue shortfall.
5) Copy Of *Minutes from March, 1986 Transportation Planning Commit-
tee.
6) Sample letter sent to all cities dated April 1, 1986, which
proposes distribution formula.to remain as currently exists - No
negative response has been received.
7) Copies of- 4/27/86 Vero Beach Press Journal chart -on Gasoline
Consumption and Editorial.
8) Copy of 20 Year Long Range Capital Road Improvement Program.
In order to fund the approximate 61 Million Dollar shortfall in the 20
year C.I.P., staff recommends increasing the L.O.G.T. to 6�.
Director Davis advised that increasing the tax to 64 would
provide an additional 24 million to the 20 Year Long Range
Capital Road Improvement Program.
Chairman Scurlock wished to point out that it requires the
vote of at least four Commissioners to pass this ordinance. He
believed that in order to get matching funds from the DOT, you
are now required to levy at least 44.
Director Davis confirmed this and noted that as the DOT
priority list is developed for each district, those counties
57
MAY 7 1986 BOOK 0 FADE -343
MAY 7 1986
BOOK 64 Pk -U-144
levying the 64 gas tax would have first priority, and this could
have a large effect on some of our projects such as extension of
the Boulevard system.
Chairman Scurlock believed Director Davis is saying that
unless we pass the 64 tax, we will have a significant shortfall
for the traffic improvements needed to maintain service level,
and, therefore, if we don't pass the increase, we better look for
another source of revenue to make up that shortfall.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
Walter Smith, owner of Union 76 Truck Stop at 1-95 and SR
60, stated that he was not totally opposing the local option tax,
but he would encourage the Commission to consider increasing 24
this year and then take another look next year. That would
entitle the County to DOT sharing and would cost him less
business. Mr. Smith emphasized that he has a high volume diesel
trade which is particularly affected as truck drivers have a
range of 1,000 miles and there are two pockets on I-95 with zero
tax, Flagler County and Nassau County.
Andy Mathes of UniCal Corporation advised that UniCal is not
taking a .position, but he just wished to confirm Mr. Smith's
comments. He noted that the motoring public is divided into two
classes - people on local business or on vacation who really
don't know what gas prices are 200 miles away, and the trucking
business which is kept advised daily on gas prices all over the
state because this means big money to them. Therefore, he
believed their business will go to Nassau County.
Peter Robinson came before the Board representing Treasure
Coast Builders Association, and announced that the Association
unanimously endorses the proposed 6� tax for Martin, Indian River
and St. Lucie Counties. He recognized Mr. Smith's concern for
his truck stop business, but noted that he personally always
fills up where the gas is cheaper and it does not always happen
that the price is necessarily more where the tax is higher. Mr.
Robinson pointed out that the builders' concern is that impact
58
fees are being imposed on houses for their effect on the road
system, and he would question if that is legitimate if the person
driving on those roads isn't paying his share.
Tom Nason, Finance Director of the City of Vero Beach, felt
one of the key things Director Davis brought up is the shortfall.
He noted that over 750 of the last two bond issues of the City
have been for road and drainage improvements; they have spent
every dollar in their five year plan; and it was predicated on
the assumption the 64 gas tax would pass. It seems the majority
of the municipal population agrees to such a condition and the
City of Vero Beach urges the Commission to pass the 64 local
option tax.
Eric Pollard, 6153 98th Place, believed the fact that none
of the county citizens are here today to oppose this tax speaks
for itself.
Jim Reed spoke for the Associated General Contractors
Association. He stressed that if the 64 local option tax is not
passed, the shortfall will only be that much more later, and
there are already impacts fees on the construction industry.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
closed the public hearing.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, to adopt Ordinance 86-32
increasing the Local Option Gas Tax from 2t to 6�.
Commissioner Wodtke believed there are many Bills in the
offing re more cents here and there, and he was concerned about
the cumulative effect on the citizens and taxpayers. He stated
that he would be much more comfortable going to 4�.
Chairman Scurlock pointed out that we have criticized the
state for not giving us funds and now they are giving us the
59
MAY 7 1986 BOOK 64 Fa,F 345
� I
BOOK 64 F�r,E��46
MAY � 1996
ability to raise money. We must be able to fund what we know to
be a need, and he could not think of a better way than something
associated with the roads.
Commissioner Wodtke believed the 20 year program has a lot
of "wishes" included in it and he favored going in 2� increments.
Commissioner Lyons understood that if we did want to back
away from this tax, we could do it rather quickly; so if all the
things happen that Commissioner Wodtke envisions, we still have
an escape.
Commissioner Bowman emphasized that she did not feel we can
pass this increase fast enough. She pointed out the mess that
South Florida is in.
Commissioner Bird noted that he has always said one of the
things that will determine our quality of life is the ability to
move traffic. He did feel it is unfortunate we have a situation
where one particular business will be hurt, but with the
additional pressure from the Legislature and the DOT for the
counties to go to the maximum, he believed any problem we may
create for Mr. Smith will soon be corrected.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried 4 to 1 with
Commissioner Wodtke voting in opposition.
60
_I
ORDINANCE NO. 86- 32
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING
ORDINANCE NO. 85-57 BY INCREASING THE LOCAL OPTION GAS
TAX FROM TWO CENTS TO SIX CENTS UPON EVERY GALLON OF
MOTOR FUEL AND SPECIAL FUEL SOLD IN INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA; EXTENDING THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE
TAX, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, INCORPORATION IN CODE
AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
BE IT ORDAINED BY INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA THROUGH
ITS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS:
SECTION 1
Section 3 of Indian River County Ordinance No. 85-57 is
hereby amended as follows:
There is hereby imposed a -two - six cent local option gas
tax upon every gallon of motor fuel and special fuel sold in
Indian River County and taxed under the provisions of Florida
Statutes Chapter 206.
SECTION -2
Section 4 of Indian River County'Ordinance No. 85-57 is
hereby amended as -follows:
The tax imposition hereby made shall be effective from
September 1, 1986, to August 31, +99e- 1991, both
inclusive.
SECTION 3
INCORPORATON IN CODE
This ordinance shall be incorporated into the Code of
Ordinances of Indian River County and the word "ordinance" may be
changed to "section," "article," or other appropriate word and
sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to
accomplish such purposes.
SECTION 4
SEVERABILITY
If any Section, or if any sentence, paragraph, phrase,
or word of this ordinance is for any reason held to be
unconstitutional, inoperative, or void, such holding shall not
affect the remaining portions of this ordinance; and it shall be
construed to have been the legislative intent to pass the
ordinance without such unconstitutional, invalid or inoperative
part.
-1-
NOTE: Words in straek-threugh-type are deletions from
existing law; words underlined are additions.
MAY1 7 1986 BOOK 6 PAF3'47
MAY 7 19
BOOK 64 Fn 348
EFFECTIVE DATE
This ordinance shall become effective upon receipt from
the Secretary of State of the State of Florida of official
acknowledgments that this ordinance has been filed with the
Department of State.
Approved `and adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, on this 7th day
of May , 1986.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By C
DON C. SCURL CR, JR., gh firman
The Board of County Commissioners recessed at 12:35 o'clock
P.M. for lunch and reconvened at 1:30 o'clock P.M. with the same
members present.
DISCUSSION RE GENERAL CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE (_Mr. Back)
Mr. Back came before the Board and explained that what he is
requesting is reciprocity for a General Contractor's license. He
explained he is an architect and general contractor in Tampa and
has developed several qual.ity subdivisions there; he took his
contractor's test in 1959; he holds a state license; and he is
bonded. He further noted that the house for which Building
Director Rymer gave him a permit was built in 19 weeks with no
disapprovals on any of the inspections. He stated that the homes
he has built are in the $300-400,000 range, and he would
appreciate any consideration the Board could give him.
Commissioner Bird inquired what the problem was, and the
Chairman explained that our ordinance relies on the Block Test
and back when Mr. Back originally received his license, that test
didn't even exist. Mr. Back is either looking for a change in
the ordinance to accept some other testing or a waiver.
62
I
Building Director Rymer informed the Board that the state
license Mr. Back is referring to actually is a state registration
number; the state will register any license that is mailed to
them, but to get a state certification, you must take a state
exam. She advised the City used to give their local exam, but we
got away from that and went to the Block test and have not been
accepting anyone unless they take either the state exam or the
Block exam.
Mr. Back felt 27 years of contracting should count for
something, and Attorney Vitunac inquired if there is any reason
Mr. Back can't take the Block test.
Mr. Back believed you have to be practically a graduate of
an engineering school to pass it, and he has not been to school
in many years. He continued to emphasize his qualifications and
experience.
Chairman Scurlock did not believe we want to put the
Building Department in the position of evaluating whether people
are competent or not, and Director Rymer emphasized that she did
not want to have any bias argued on the issuing of a license.
Discussion continued at length in regard to the fact that to
get a contractors license in this county you must pass either the
Block test or the state exam, and we do not want to put the
Building Department in the position of judging competence on a
case by case basis.
Mr. Back thanked the Board for giving him the opportunity to V
be heard.
DISCUSSION RE SANDRIDGE GOLF COURSE - IRRIGATION SYSTEM BID
Chairman Scurlock noted that at the Regular Board meeting of
April 16th, we made our decision to go with the Toro irrigation
system for Sandridge Golf Course, but questions have been raised
re operating costs by the supplier of the Rain Bird system and
replied to by the architect, per the following letters:
63
BOOK 64 FmGE 349
J
BOOK 64 f'v;J-150
Irrigation Sales Since 1958 A Np
®PUMP
•—. eOARD CGilndJy '
SSIOPdERS ' ani -
April 22, 1986 u�� ��' DISTPISUTICN _LIST
J-� Comm!ssmners
Indian River County Commission
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Attention: Mr.. Michael Wright,
Subject: Sand Ridge Golf Course
Dear Mr. Wright:
Adtri:�istrator
X fnrney
Perconnn:
pi r�ic t;,ori:s
^cmm �nity Cev.
County Administrator��
Finance --
(•: hrr
I learned that there was a meeting of the County Commission last Wednesday,
April 16, in which the golf course architect made his recommendation as to
which irrigation system to use on the golf course. Further, the architect
had the Toro representative attend the meeting and the same invitation
was not extended to our firm.
Hence, on Monday, April 21, I took the opportunity to listen to the tape
recording of tht tect's recommendation. During the presentation,.
there were misleading sL. ._, ,s �^ ,- _ , _� information presented
to the County Commission._y� E:; mess only three (3)
areas of erroneous information. These three (3) areas are as follows:
Pune Station
The pump station that we proposed was represented as being approxi-
mately $300.00 per year more expensive to operate than that of our
competition. Our analysis of the cost to operate these pumping
stations is based on estimated use and the use of the normal Florida
Power '& Light rate for 1 year (based on a 30 day Month). We used
only the variable cost components of the rate that applied to the
energy consumed during the one year period.
System Cost Per Year
Toro $20,022.12
Rain Bird $12,858.60
The energy savings per year for the present 18 hole golf course
would be $7,163.52.
Watering Rate and Time
Based on the water rate requirement of 2 inches on the greens and
12 inches on the tees and fairways, the following is our analysis
of the time required for each system to meet the watering rate.
The time is expressed in hours per day for each type of week.
System 7 Dray Week 6 Day Week
Toro 9 hours 10.5 hours
Rain Bird 9.6 hours 11.2 hours
In my letter of April 8, to you I stated that the architect wanted
a 9 hour day in a 6 day week time requirement. I.stated in the letter
that both systems would require changes to meet that time requirement.
In the architect's recommendation he stated that the 9 hours were not
a requirement. Hence, the above analysis shows that we can meet the
latest specification without changing our price.
64
Head Spacing
A Toro spokesman acting on behalf of the architect stated in the meet-
ing that we placed the Rain Bird heads in critical single row areas
an 90 foot centers. This is not correct - the spacing in those criti-
cal areas ranges between 65 and 70 foot centers.
A review of the procurement to date would show that the specifications were
changed several times to allow our competition to justify a higher price.
Further information was presented to the Commission that did not accurately
set forth the analysis of the two designs.
I am looking forward to your prompt response to this letter before our
firm takes further action.
Very y yours,
George eenfield
Golf Manager
I704 S. Missouri Ave.
Mr. Michael Wright
County Administrator
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
1840 25th Street .
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Dear Mike:
LINKS DESIGN INC.
Lakeland, Florida 33801
F COURSE ARCHITECT
(813) 688-8383
April 30, 1986
I would like to respond to several comments Mr. Greenfield made in his
April 22, 1986 letter.
I would like you to understand that we did not invite either the Toro
representative or the Rainbird representative to the April 16 County
Commission Meeting. Mr. Glover, the Toro representative attended the
meeting at his company's direction, and was acting on his own behalf.
Before discussing the differences of each system Mr. Greenfield
addressed, I would like to make it clear that Links Design, Inc. does
not care which company's irrigation system is installed at Sandridge
Golf Course. Our primary concern is that Sandridge Golf Course gets the
irrigation system that best satisfies the site's needs.
The site is extremely sandy. This means -water will perculate through
the soil rapidly, therefore it is important to chose the irrigation
system that can supply the most water within the shortest time period
(to save on electricity costs). To put 2 inches of water on the greens
and 1 1/2 inches of water on the tees and fairways, Toro -requires 10
hours per night for 6 nights per week. However, Rainbird requires 10
1/2 hours per night for 7 nights per week. The Rainbird system puts out
432,000 gallons in one day on 18 holes, while the Toro system puts out
585,000 gallons per day for 18 holes. This means that the Toro system
.puts out the most water in the shortest time period.
We calculated how much it would cost to operate both pump stations using
the General Service Demand Rate Schedule (GSD -1) and the General Service
Demand Time of Use Rate (GSDT-1) each year. These calculations were
based on the rates Mr. Jody Elovitz of F.P. & L provided:
GSD -1
Toro
Rainbird
24,969.00
23,528.40
GSDT-1 (time of use)
Toro
Rainbird
65
12,482.10
12,870.54
BOOK 64 FA�F 351
F,
BOOK 64 Ff+uC 35
Mr. Greenfield's letter states his pump station operation costs are
based on estimated use and use of the normal Florida"Power and Light
rate for one year. Since he estimated use, and used normal FP&L rates,.__
his cost figures showing the Rainbird-system.being cheaper to use may -
not be accurate.. One; 25 horsepower and two, 60 horsepower motors
operating 7 days per week, 10 1/2 hours per day, operates.a total of 318
hours per. month (30 days); 242 hours of off-peak rate with 75 hours of
on -peak rate. The Toro'system, using one, 25 horsepower and two, 75
horsepower motors operating 6 days per week, 10 hours per day, operates
a total of 259 hours per month; 207 hours of off-peak with 52 hours of
on -peak. Since the Toro system runs for less hours per day, and in turn
less hours per month, it is able to fit more of its running time into
the off-peak operating rate.` This makes the Toro system cheaper to
operate.
The last item I would like to address is head spacing. I would like to
clarify the spacing in the critical single row areas for each system.
The Rainbird heads are spaced between 65 and 80 feet on center and they
put out 41.5 GPM. The Toro heads are spaced between 70 and 80 feet on
center and put out 60 GPM.
In conclusion, we believe the strength of the Toro system over the
Rainbird system is that it puts out more gallons per minute. (All grass
knows is how much water it is getting!)
Respectfully submitted,
LINKS DESIGN, INC.
rpma C... OW� -
BRUCE C. SHELDON
ASSOCIATE
Chairman Scurlock asked the architect to make his presenta-
tion in support of the Toro system and stated he would then give
the representative from Rain Bird the opportunity to reply.
Bruce Sheldon of Links Design presented the following
comparison of operating costs, emphasizing that they are based on
Time -of -Use rates and on both systems operating at full capacity.
66
5/6/86
INDIAN RIVER CO.
COST ANALYSIS FOR
IRRIGATION SYSTEM OPERATION
RAINBIRD
Key assumption: 6 day week
*25, 60, 60 horsepower motors
*1300 GPM
*108.2 KW
Required running time: 11.2 hrs.
Winter Months
$1678.68/month (Kilowatt usage,
on & off peak)
$ 613.75/month (Demand charge)
$2292.43 (Total monthly charge)
X 5 months
$11,462.14
Summer Months
$1479.37/month (Kilowatt usage,
(off peak all the time)
X 7 months
$10,355.60 (for 7 summer months)
Rainbird total yearly cost:
$21,817.74
TORO
Key assumption: 6 day week
*25, 75, 75 horsepower motors
*1560 GPM
*111.9 KW
Required running time: 10.5 hrs.
Winter Months
$1574.70/month (Kilowatt usage,
on & off peak)
$ 636.88/month (Demand charge)
$2211.58 (Total monthly charge)
X 5 months
$11;057.92
Summer Months
$1309.61/month (Kilowatt usage,
(off peak all the time)
X 7 months
$9,167-26--(for-7 summer months)
Toro total yearly cost:
$20,225.18
Mr. Sheldon then introduced Rick Dring of AutoFlow, Inc.,
who assisted him in preparing this data.
Mr. Dring informed the Board that he represents a pumping
system manufacturer out of Dallas, Texas, and he is a mechanical
engineer with a Master's Degree in electrical and hydraulics. He
stated that he did this analysis for Mr. Sheldon in an unbiased
fashion. He had to make a lot of assumptions because they did
not have all the supporting data, but he made those same
assumptions for both systems.
Mr. Greenfield of Boynton Pump, supplier of -the Rain Bird
system, presented the following figures:
67
BOOK 64 FAGE 353
Indian River County Commission
1840 25th Street May 6, 1986
Vero'Beach, FL 32960
Attention: Mr. Michael Wright, County Ackafnistator
Suib j ect : Sand Ridge Golf Course
Dear Mr. Wright:
I want to thank you for allowing us to present the following information. We meet.
the architects specification of.the following Water Rate:
WATER RATE PER WEEK
Amount Location
2 inches greens
1k inches fairways & tees
The times that are set forth below to accomplish the Water Rate have been accepted
by the architect as part of the specification.
System
Toro
Rain Bird
TINE
7 Day Week
9 hours
9.6 hours
6 Day Week
10.5 hours
11.2 hours
The pumping station electrical cost to operate the two systems has been analyzed
and it is based on the cost for a 365 day year.
Enclosed you will find a separate package of detail back-up supporting this cost
analysis.
We have designed a system to meet the architects specifications and also be cost
efficient. Further, we have been the low bidder throughout each phase of this
procurement.
We await your favorable answer.
Very Truly Yours,
X/�
George =3ield
Golf Manager
BOYNTON BEACH BRANCH
321 NORTH RAILROAD AVENUE
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA 33435 6 8
(305) 732-0810
_ M
PLMING STATION
System
7 Day Week
6 Day Week
General service
Toto
$25,289.61
$25,289.61
04h k
•$150221.05
$15,221.05
Time of service
Toro
$24,325.06
$25,574.91
Rain Bird
$14,991.85
$15,717.95
Enclosed you will find a separate package of detail back-up supporting this cost
analysis.
We have designed a system to meet the architects specifications and also be cost
efficient. Further, we have been the low bidder throughout each phase of this
procurement.
We await your favorable answer.
Very Truly Yours,
X/�
George =3ield
Golf Manager
BOYNTON BEACH BRANCH
321 NORTH RAILROAD AVENUE
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA 33435 6 8
(305) 732-0810
_ M
Chairman Scurlock noted that he is seeing a $10,000
operating differentialin the figures presented for the 6 day
operation, and what he wanted to know is where is the difference
and who has the $10,000.
In discussion, it was agreed it would be best if the experts
and electrical people went off by themselves to work this out and
then bring their findings to the Board later in the meeting.
SANDRIDGE GOLF COURSE SCHEDULE, BUILDING DESIGN, ETC_
General Services Director Dean reviewed the following memo
and recommendations:
TO: The Honorable Members
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DATE: April 29, 1986 FILE:
THRU: Michael Wright SUBJECT: Sandridge Golf Course
County Administrator
FROM: H. T. "Sone D an REFERENCES:
Director
General Services
The purpose of this memo is to advise the Board of a tentative
schedule of events and requested action in conjunction with the
construction of the subject facility
MAY 7: 1. Request Board authorize staff to advertise for
Superintendent of Course -to coordinate construction of*.
'-greens, fairways, tees, and irrigation system. Also he
will supervise the "grow -in" period of the Course,
provide expertise, in purchase of maintenance equipment,
and supervise the maintenance of the course after it is.
opened to the public. Ultimately, he will work for the
golf course manager or pro. Staff feels this person
should be hired in June of this year.
2. Request Board approval to authorize Architect to proceed
with design of all buildings. Staff has visited some
public owned golf courses and talked with management
people to get a handle on what type buildings will be
required.
Clubhouse: Approximately 3,000 square feet that will
seat up to 100 people in the dining area appears to be
adequate. A small grill type kitchen to cook and prepare
69
MAY 7 1986 fool; 6 F,� J `3
6�
BOOK 4 PA;E . 36
sandwiches for lunch only, along with a small bar and a
"Club Type" liquor license should be sufficient. There
should be limited locker room type facilities with no
golf club storage. The Architect will make final
recommendations for Commission action.
Cart Storage: An open building with security fencing for
approximately 60 carts should be adequate.
Maintenance Building: The course needs a combination of
a small maintenance facility and a sheltered area to
allow for storage of equipment. A separate chemical
storage building with ample ventilation will be required
by law.
Rain Shelters: Two small buildings are desired with
restroom facilities.
All buildings will be designed and constructed to allow
for future expansion.
MAY 21: A request will be sent to the Board for a decision on
engineering and construction of entrance road to golf
course.
JUNE: A recommendation will be made to the Board on type
management of golf course.
AUG/SEPT: Hire grounds crew during this period depending_on
construction progress.
CONSTRUCTION BUDGET
CLUBHOUSE - $250,000: Approximately 3,000 Square Feet at
$50.00 = $150,000. $10.0,000
allowance for equipment, furnishings,
and professional fees.
MAINTENANCE BLDG - $100,000:
GOLF CART
STORAGE BLDG.
GOLF COURSE
MAINTENANCE
EQUIPMENT
- $ 75,000:
- $200,000:
Approximately 1,000 Square Feet plus
-chemical storage building of 500
Square Feet, equipment storage, and
wash -down area.
Storage for approximately 60 carts.
Superintendent will make
recommendations.
Operating Budget will be submitted during process. in July.
70
L
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Lyons, the Board unanimously authorized staff
to begin advertising for a Superintendent of Course.
Commissioner Bird noted that the second recommendation was
to authorize the Architect to begin design of the buildings
within certain perameters and within budget.
Chairman Scurlock stated his only problem is designing "all"
buildings as he personally was not ready to go ahead with the
clubhouse yet.
Director Dean reviewed the type clubhouse they are recom-
I/
mending, and advised that they visited three different club and
this was the consensus they came up with.
Commissioner Bird confirmed that what is envisioned is a
very modest clubhouse which "is'designed to be expandable so we
can add to it as our needs grow. He did feel a clubhouse
atmosphere is a really important part of a public golf course and
that it is essential that we present as total an amenity package
as we can, especially with the rates we are going to be charging.
He felt strongly that if they are allowed to proceed with a
modest clubhouse within the $250,000 allocated, it will be a
definite asset.
Chairman Scurlock agreed but commented that we don't want it
to be so modest it doesn't meet our needs, and in fact, becomes
something that is just in the way.
Commissioner Bird felt once we start working with Architect
Block and we know the budget, then if we find we can't do it
right within that budget, we may take a different tack.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Lyons, the Board unanimously authorized the
Architect to proceed with the preliminary design of
the golf course buildings as specified in the agree-
ment with him.
71
MAY 77 1966 BOOK 64 F►,cF
J
_I
NAY 7 1986 BOOK 64 FAI)E35.8
REQUEST FOR LOT SPLIT - PALM GARDENS SUBDIVISION
Staff Planner Boling made the following presentation, noting
that all the lots are approximately 1 acre in size.
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: April 24, 1986 FILE:
the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION CONCURRENCE:
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR LOT SPLIT IN
Bob Keating, AIC PALM GARDENS SUBDIVISION
Planning & Development Director
Through: Michael K. Miller /lKA4
Chief, Current Development
FROM: Stan Boling REFERENCES:
Staff Planner A•
6.
Palm Gardens
STAN3
It is requested that the data here_r;oe given fo�::_�
consideration by the Board : ; C_yl Commissioners at their
regular meeting of May 7, 1986.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS:
The subdivision ordinance (83-24) states in section 6(a) ,that it
is unlawful for any person to:
"Divide any- lot in. a platted subdivision that was
approved- by the Board of County Commissioners, in a
manner which results in construction sites smaller than
or inconsistent with the surrounding lots in the sub-
division -unless approved by the county commission...".
Thus, persons wishing to split a standard sized lot in a platted
subdivision that would result in lots smaller than the surrounding
lots must receive -approval from the Board of County Commissioners.
Such requests are to be heard by the Board after written notice
has been sent to the owner of each lot in the affected
subdivision.
Mr. Kery Jones and Tom Reno, owners, are now requesting that the
Board grant them approval to split Lot 4 of Block 3, Palm Gardens
subdivision, into two equal sized lots. Such a split would create
a 95' x 195' lot for an existing mobile home on the property and a
vacant 95' x 195' lot for the placement of a new mobile home.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
In accordance with the subdivision ordinance, written notice of
the May 7th consideration of this request has been sent to each
owner in Palm Gardens subdivision. The ordinance does not specify
criteria to be used in the consideration of such lot split
requests. However, the intent of the lot split notice requirement
and consistency with the zoning code and Comprehensive Plan
warrant the following criteria:
Prior to approval of a lot split, the Board should determine that:
1) no negative neighborhood impacts are anticipated;
2) the resulting lots conform to the applicable zoning
requirements;
72
The property is zoned RMH-8 and has frontage along 41st Street
(South Gifford Road) and 47th Avenue. The resulting lots would
conform to the applicable zoning requirements. The Environmental
Health Director has verified that a lot split would result in lots
for which well and septic tank permits could be issued. The
placement of the new mobile home could be allowed after the
granting of minor site plan approval.
The existing subdivision streets, though not paved, are graded.
Grass swales exist within the road rights-of-way, and drainage
ditches run along the rear lot lines. The impact of the requested
lot split on 47th Avenue would be minimal, as there are only six
dwellings along the road's entire length. If all available lots
were to be split similarly, a total of 22 dwellings could utilize
the road. At this time, the impact of this particular lot split
would be negligible, providing that access is limited to 47th
Avenue.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve
the requested lot split in 'Palm Gardens subdivision; subject to
the condition that a 5.' limited access easement dedicated to the
County be provided along•the-South Gifford _Road frontage of -Lot 4,
Block 3 by the owners.
The Chairman asked if staff wanted authorization to
advertise a public hearing, and Planner Boling advised that the
ordinance just calls for notice to those in the subdivision and
that has been done. He noted that one lot in the subdivision has
been split, but that split occurred before this provision was put
in the ordinance.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, to send this matter to
the Planning & Zoning Commissioner for consider-
ation.
In discussion it was noted that this does not routinely go
to the Planning & Zoning Commission, and Assistant County
Attorney Barkett advised that the ordinance specifically states
that it will come to the Board. He pointed out that it is not
really a zoning matter but just a lot split for that one
subdivision; however, Attorney Vitunac believed the Board can
refer this back to the Planning & Commission if they desire.
73
MAY 7 19t86 BOOK
MAY
7
1986
BOOK
64 Fa;E 360
The Chairman felt the main concern
is due process
so we are
sure these people have all their questions answered. He asked if
staff has had any negative response, and Planner Boling reported
that one person located directly behind the subject property was
concerned about whether they would be renting the mobile home
that would be placed there.
Commissioner Wodtke asked if there is any entitlement for
this or is it just an option if someone meets all the require-
ments, and Attorney Vitunac stated that this is not an
entitlement; it is up to the discretion of the Board whether to
decide to reduce the size of the lots in the whole subdivision
but once one is granted, he felt the Board probably would have to
grant any others requested in the same subdivision.
Commissioner Lyons believed if you buy in a particular
subdivision, you expect the lots to stay the size they were when
you bought there.
Commissioner Wodtke noted the lots are quite large for a
mobile home and felt perhaps we need to look at the entire area.
The Chairman pointed out that the Motion is just to refer
this back. -to the Planning & Zoning Commission; we are not taking
any action on the split today.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
ESCROW DEPOSITS TOWARDS IMPACT FEES _ UTILITY FRANCHISE HOLDERS
Utilities Director Pinto reviewed the following memo:
74
W
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
BOARD OF COUNTYCO SS,TONERS DATE: APRIL 15, 1986
TERRANCE G. PINT /!
DIRECTOR, UTILI AV S
JEFFREY K. BARTON, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR UTILITY SERVICES
ESCROW DEPOSITS TOWARDS IMPACT FEES FOR UTILITY FRANCHISE HOLDERS
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
A section of our utility franchise requires the holder or developer within
that franchise to deposit with the County into the General Escrow Account
the amount of impact fees required for future connection to the County
systems. As the franchises are currently written the deposit to the escrow
is due when a certificate of occupancy is issued on a building or unit. The
utility staff has been in the process of auditing the requirements of our: --
franchises and have found where several franchises are delinquent with the
depositing of these monies. A certified letter has been sent to each of the
franchise holders -requesting deposit to -the escrow account. The total
delinquencies of the franbhise holders is $609,900.44. (Copies of letters.
attached) Provided to the County Commissioners under separate cover are
complete copies of the franchise agreements' -that corresponds to the above
mentioned delinquencies.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the following actions be considered by the County Commission-
ers:
1) Change requirements that deposits to the general escrow account be
changed to time of building permit issue instead of current
certificate of occupancy.
2) Require all delinquent franchise holders to:
A) Pay at once all due escrow amounts under County
Ordinance 80-21; 80-22; and 84-18 or all amounts
due under those Ordinances will be escalated to
the current County Ordinance 85-3
B) File a plan of action showing the date and amount
due under Ordinance 85-3 to be paid within 60 days
for commission approval along with an unrevocable
letter of credit for the amount due under Ordinance
85-3 with the understanding if the plan of action
is not followed the County will call the letter of
credit.
3) Require the franchise holders to continue to pay into the escrow
account on all new units built while the plan under item number
2 is being worked out.
75
SAY 7 1986 BOOK Pm 361
MAY 7 1966 moK 64
Director Pinto clarified that the franchise agreements we
entered into with developers required that whatever the current
impact fee is would be deposited in an escrow fund with the
county as the units receive Certificates of Occupancy. The
escrow fund would belong to the utility until the county saw fit
to take the system over at which time they would become county
funds. The interest gained on the fund goes back to the utility.
Director Pinto explained that most of the problem is with
condotype developments and shopping centers where the CO's have
been given to the building as a whole and the developers are then
required to place in escrow funds based on every apartment, store
or facility in that building or center. We have had three
changes within our rate structure so if they don't bring the
escrow funds up to date now, it means tl-,-,, are kind of riusng on
as the utility rates change ano s-Lilli looking at the old
connection fee. This gives the private utility company an
advantage they shouldn't have so they either should deposit at
once the required escrow amounts or else pay the current impact
fee. Director Pinto emphasized that these escrow plans are meant
for our protection. He stressed that before we implemented them,
we spent something like $900,000 to bring Ixora and Treasure
Coast Utilities into our system and we can only recover this
through the monthly rate structure, which is a very dangerous
thing. He advised that he has spoken to each one of those we are
having problems with; they all recognize the amount of money owed
and that it is their responsibility; most are willing to
cooperate and make up their delinquency; but they just want to
find a way to do it that doesn't place an extra burden on them.
Director Pinto then unrolled a list several feet long of all
the sewerage treatment plants in the county and stated that he
felt we must start trying to eliminate them all and tie them into
one system which will become part of the county system. He
advised that this represents a complete about-face in his
thinking since he first came to the county as he now has come to
76
believe that the regulations we have that would force a utility
company to operate properly are too much for a private developer
who is not in the utility business to handle. However, what is
important right now, is that the impact fees owed based on the
old county ordinance be paid immediately. Staff has been working
on this for more than two months and these companies have been
put on notice.
Chairman Scurlock asked if accepting a Letter of Credit in
lieu of actually escrowing the monies is an option Director Pinto
would recommend, and he stated he would recommend that only _on a
limited basis to get to a point where cash is available because
if you miss the expiration date of that Letter of Credit, you are
out of luck. Director Pinto also felt giving the interest back
to the private utility company is a mistake because the impact
fees increase in the meantime.
Director Pinto informed the Board that there are some
franchises just below Sebastian where he would like to have
permission to start talking to the owners about taking their
systems over. He clarified that is not talking about buying
them, but taking them over, operating the system, putting them
under the country rate structure, taking the impact fees out of
escrow and having them paid directly to the county; and then as
we develop our system, tie them directly in to us. This would
help the developer even though he may argue about his investment.
Director Pinto stressed that the developer's investment is part
of the construction cost of building a development. It is the
developer who makes the decision about going into a package
utility so he can develop his property at the maximum density.
Administrator Wright felt we should go one step further and
rather than just one area, look at all the county.
Chairman Scurlock agreed, and believed we want to be able to
use the County Attorney and OMB Director to start this process
and bring recommendations back to the Commission.
77
MAY 7 1986 BOOK 64 F4E363
ROOK 64 FMAY 7 1986 A,E
X64
Commissioner Wodtke asked if Director Pinto was contem-
plating that the County Utility Department will be able to run
all the little plants on the long list he displayed, and Director
Pinto confirmed that he actually did not feel the County has any
choice but to go ahead with this. He noted that he was not
saying there are no service people in the county capable of
maintaining a wastewater plant as there are some good operators
out there who contract privately, but when you have a develop-
ment, the utility is secondary, and if there happens to be a
money crunch when a repair is needed, the utility is overlooked.
He felt where we made our mistake was to think we could franchise
these small operations, and expect that they would operate -as a
full fledged utility company. General Development Utilities is a
different story; they actually are in the utility business.
Director Pinto continued to emphasize that when you are talking
about someone who is not in the utility business, that utility
should be considered part of the cost of the development and
should be written off into the project.
Further discussion ensued about how taking over these
systems and having the County operate them would work, and
Director Pinto advised that this is being done in Orlando now,
and as long as the developers pay their impact fees, this works
very well.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously directed
that the Utilities Department further pursue the
matter of seeing which utilities should be put
together into a county system and come back with
a recommendation.
Discussion ensued re the fact that this Motion deals with
long range planning but not with recouping the delinquent monies,
and Board members wanted to know just how we go about -this.
78
Director Pinto explained that we will just hold the CO's
and, where appropriate, building permits until the funds are
deposited. In some cases such as the shopping center, we will
have to make an estimate and then after they actually occupy, we
will have to go back and audit to determine the actual uses.
Commissioner Wodtke asked why the deposit should be changed
to the time of the building permit rather than the CO, and
Utilities Director Pinto noted that builders are always reason-
able before they get their building permit, but once they get
their building up, they have a lot of money tied up. Also, all
our other impact fees are collected at the time of building
permits; this is the only fee that isn't.
Henry Muller, developer, noted that he is delinquent but not
in any astronomical amount. He advised that they pay automatic-
ally on each sale of a condo, which actually is not the way the
franchise reads. He has paid for about half the building, which
is half sold, and he would like to be able to continue this way
for that building. Mr. Muller believed this should be looked at
in another way because the anxiety to get the money is not tied
to the need to spend the money, which may not be used for some
time, if ever. He did not disagree with anything Mr. Pinto has
said other than collecting these funds at the time of the
building permit. Mr. Muller emphasized that he wants to go by
the rules, but he doesn't want to be the only one going by the
rules. He also stressed that he doesn't want to be in the
utility business and would just as soon have the County take his
plant over tomorrow, operate it, and charge him the fees.
Attorney Vitunac noted that Director Pinto mentioned it was
a mistake to let the interest go back to the developers. He felt
if the developers who are in arrears want some relief, now is a
good bargaining time to rewrite their franchise and put the
interest where it belongs.
Director Pinto emphasized that right now the most important
thing is to allow staff to proceed with whatever is necessary to
79
MAY 7 1986BOOK 6���;F6
_I
BOOK 61 F'GEL 366
get these escrow funds back to where they are supposed to be. He
believed Mr. Muller's problem as to whether -this was paid at CO
or when the units were sold was simply a misunderstanding about
occupancy; the CO is just a certificate saying they can be
occupied.
Commissioner Wodtke agreed with need to get the delinquent
monies as soon as possible, but wondered if we have the right to
escalate the amount due to comply with the current ordinance if
they do not pay.
Attorney Vitunac advised he has only read one of the
franchises, and that could be an issue, but we are taking the
position we can do this.
Chairman Scurlock believed most of those involved have
indicated their willingness to work with us,
Mr. Muller requested that when staff looks at these
franchises they look at all the options the county has with
regard to purchasing the treatment unit. He felt some of the
paragraphs are conflicting and that the verbiage should be
clarified.
Peter Robinson noted that he has such an old franchise that
he doesn't have to pay*up any money, but he did agree the County
needs to look at a couple of things. In regard to collecting at
building permit time versus CO, he suggested taking a letter of
credit at the time of obtaining the building permit and cash at
the time of obtaining a CO. In regard to the county operating
package plants, he noted that they do this in Orange County and
it works well, but they don't collect the impact fees until they
actually -hook you up.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
approved the three recommendations set out in
staff memo dated April 15, 1986, with the
80
understanding there might be a possibility of
a letter of credit at building permit time and
an actual cash situation at CO time.
DISCUSSION - WINTER BEACH CEMETERY PROPERTY
The Board reviewed memo from Assistant County Attorney Bruce
Barkett, as follows:
TO: Indian River County Board DATE: FILE:
of County Commissioners April 29, 1986
Bruce Barkett*
FROM: Assistant County
SUBJECT:
WINTER BEACH CEMETERY
AttornREFERENCES:
This matter was unknown to either Charlie Vitunac or myself until
Thursday, April 17, 1986, when Commissioner Wodtke asked me to
look into it on the following Monday if I got the chance while I
was in Tallahassee with the Tort Reform Delegation. Commissioner
Wodtke indicated that I could get the background information from
Mr. Tommy Thomas.
Mr. Thomas indicated that the files on this matter had been lost
or misplaced, and indeed I have been able to come up with very
little background information. It appears that the Kiwanis-
Hobart Park area was dedicated to the County by the State of
Florida Department of Natural Resources, which in turn acquired
the property with a grant of federal funds. The dedication to the
County restricted use of the property for County park and public
recreational purposes, and contained a reverter clause at the
option of the Trustees in the event the area was used for other
than park and recreational purposes. -(See attached)
Nevertheless, in August 1980, the Board of County Commissioners
executed a dedication of a portion of the Hobart tract for ceme-
tery purposes and cemetery -related services. (See attachment 2)
This dedication of approximately 17 acres was apparently
unauthorized by the Department of Natural Resources and by the
United States Department of Interior.
As a result of the unauthorized dedication, there was apparently a
scurry of activity attempting to get retroactive State and Federal
authorization. Such authorization apparently acquires a substi-
tute of County -owned property for the portion of the federally -
funded, state -dedicated park property. I do not find in the
scanty records any evidence that such authorization has ever been
secured. Consequently, the dedication adopted by the Board in
1980 cannot be given effect.
This matter is put before the Board for discussion and guidance.
81
MAY 7 1986 BOOK 3 FA f 67
MAY'
7
1986
BOOK
6 4 rAGli13''�
Commissioner Wodtke believed there is a
lot more
to this
TO:
situation than is covered in the memo, and he asked that this be
postponed a few weeks until more complete information can be put
together.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, discussion of
the Winter Beach Cemetery Property was unanimously
tabled for several weeks.
HOWELL/CHAPMAN ACQUISITION/CONDEMNATION PROPOSAL
Attorney Barkett reviewed the following memo and attachment:
Indian River County Board
of County Commissioners
DATE:
April 29, 1986
SUBJECT:
FILE:
HOWELL/CHAPMAN '
ACQUISITION/CONDEMNATION
PROPOSAL
FROM: Bruce Barkett ' REFERENCES:
Assistant County Attorney
This item came before the Board for discussion on April 9, 1986,
at which time the Board authorized me to notify the Department of
Natural Resources that the County would proceed to acquire the
subject parcel by any means available, including condemnation. At
the same time the Board requested that staff update its analysis
on park and recreational needs within the County. This analysis
would be useful in making a determination as to whether to proceed
to condemnation.
I notified the Department of Natural Resources of the Board's
decision to acquire the property so that the department could put
an item on the agenda of the Trustees of the Internal Improvement
Trust Fund to reserve "Save Our Coast" bond money for the Howell
Chapman acquisition. I have not been notified by the Department
of Natural Resources as to a date when the Trustees will hear the
item.
Art Challacombe has prepared the necessary recreational needs
analysis which is attached.
82
L7___A
TO: Bruce Barkett
County Attorney
APR 3 0 iy86
DATE: April 25, 1986 FILE:
BEACH ACCESS & DEVELOPMENT
SUBJECT: PLAN UPDATE
FROM:Art Challacombe REFERENCES:
Chief, Environmental Planning
As you have requested, I have reviewed the County's Beach
Access and Development Plan prepared in 1982 and include the
following needs analysis update for 1986. Please be advised
that the plan data is based upon various assumptions and those
assumptions are used here for consistency.
Current Demand Update
1986 Populationl =
1983 Tourists =
Approximately 77,972
Approximately 529,598
Population x Per -Capita Participation Rate= Occasions
Residents 77,972 x 3.60 = 280,699
Tourists 529,598 x 4.20 =
Total =
2,224,312
2,505,011
The State of Florida has also determined that 55 percent
of the total annual participation in outdoor recreation occurr-
ed on 111 peak days, comprised of 52 weekends and seven weekday
holidays, of the year.3 A general indication of design demand
for Indian River County may be derived using the above
figures.
Total User Occasions Design Demand
2,505,011 x 55 percent : 111 = 12,412
Actual design.demand would be one-half of 12,412 or 6,206
due to, the assumption that the same beach area will be used
twice during any given day. Use guidelines for beach access
have been established as shown in Table 2.1. within the plan.
83
SAY 7 1986 Boa 64 FACE 369
BOOK 6f'AE O.J7®
MAY � 1986
TABLE 2.1
RESOURCE AND FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
Population
Park Design Served/Resource
ActivitV Resource/Facility Guideline Facility Unit
Saltwater Saltwater Beach 2.5 linear ft. 1 linear mile/
Swimning of beach/User/ 25,000
Saltwater Saltwater Beach 200 sq. ft. of 1 sq. mile/
Beach beach/User/Day 50,000
Activities
(Sunbathing,
beachcombing)
The guidelines in the table above indicate minimum re-
source standards for development of beach parks.' Based on user
occasions, a general estimation of beach area demanded can be
determined as indicated below:
200 sq. ft./user/day x 6,206 = 1,241,200 sq. ft.
or 28.49 a-.:. z of beach area
2.5 linear ft./user/day x 6,206 = 15,515 linear feet
or 2.93 miles of shore line
Current -Supply Update
1982 Public Beach Frontage 4,966 linear ft.
County S.O.C. Acquisition for = 3,754 linear ft.
Public Beach Frontage
1986 TOTAL.= 8;720 linear ft..or 1.65
miles
1982 Public Beach Access = 11.0 acres
County/S.O.C. Acquisition for = 8.6 acres
Public Beach Area
1986 TOTAL = 19.6 Acres
Needs Analysis Update
Based upon the following methodology, Need = Demand - Supply,
the 1986 actual need for Indian River County is shown as
Demand Supply
Need = 28.49 beach area acres 19.6 beach area acres
2.93 miles of beach 1.65 miles of beach
frontage frontage
or a present deficit of 8.89 acres of beach area and 1.28 miles
of public beach frontage
84
r
Attorney Barkett informed the Board this is tentatively
scheduled for June 20th in Tallahassee; however, it seems there
is a possibility they may run out of the Save Our Coast money
before then and reestablish priorities so he has requested we be
kept notified if we need to attend any meetings.
Discussion ensued as to whether we can justify our need for
this property, and Environmental Planner Challacombe reported
that according to the figures he received from the Chamber of
Commerce, our tourist activity doubled from 1981 to 1983, which
strongly enforced our needs, and this is plus the 14,000 increase
in our residential population, which alone would put us ahead of
the game. Based on the needs analysis, he supported the
acquisition.
Commissioner Bird commented that he had asked Planner
Challacombe to reverify the tourist figures with the Chamber of
Commerce as he did find them overwhelming.
Commissioner Wodtke questioned the formula for estimating
resident usage of the beaches as opposed to tourist usage.
Planner Challacombe advised that it is the standard formula;
tourists during the time they are here utilize the beaches much
more frequently than the year-round residents; he also felt the
tourist usage numbers are influenced by the proximity of
Sebastian Inlet State Park. He informed the Board that these are
the numbers the Chamber of Commerce obtained from the State
Division of Marketing Research; however, they are in the process
of changing their methodology of determining tourist population.
Commissioner Lyons asked if Attorney Barkett would have any
problem using these figures for legal support of our needs, and
Attorney Barkett stated he would not.
Discussion followed re a Motion to accept the needs analysis
figures, realizing we may have to document them in court so we
want to be sure they are as ironclad as possible.
Attorney Vitunac noted that the longer this takes, the more
people move here, and the more proper our condemnation becomes.
85
MAY 7 1986 BOOK 64 FADE -37
MAY 7 1966
BOOK 64 FA;c,3 d 2
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bird, the Board unanimously accepted the needs
analysis update figures for the purpose of the
Howell/Chapman property acquisition.
Further discussion ensued about continuing to work to
reinforce and substantiate these figures.
Attorney Vitunac noted that he would like permission to send
Attorney Barkett to Tallahassee when the DNR reevaluates our
priority list.
Chairman Scurlock believed that was covered in the
Attorney's budget, but Attorney Vitunac felt possibly it should
be out of the Parks budget.
Commissioner Bird stated that he would like to go also and
felt this can be worked out when we get information about the
meeting.
MOORINGS SUBDIVISION, UNIT 2, PARCEL B
Attorney Barkett reviewed the following memo:
TO: DATE: FILE:
Indian River County Board April 29, 1.986
of County_Commissioners
SUBJECT:
MOORINGS SUBDIVISION
UNIT 2, PARCEL B
FROM: Bruce BarketREFERENCES:
t�
Assistant County Attorney
The property referenced above was deeded by warranty deed by the
Moorings Development Company to Indian River County in 1970 for
use as a right of way to connect Mooring Line Drive with a bridge
to the mainland. The warranty deed does not contain a reverter
clause. However, the deed does contain restrictions which purport
to limit the use of the property for a public utilities right of
way until such time as a bridge is constructed. Two title in—
surance companies have determined that the deed is not insurable
in its present form.
86
The Moorings has offered the County $60,000.00 to re -purchase the
parcel in question. It was represented to the Moorings, although,
it was not made a condition of their offer, that their purchase
money would be used for parks and recreation in Indian River
County. The only condition to the sale of the property is
contained in Exhibit "A" of the proposed contract, and requires
that the County stipulate that the property may be used for
construction of a duplex, provided it meets all site plan
criteria. This condition should be clarified, however, since the
only "approval" the County could guarantee in advance is zoning,
and current zoning does allow for a duplex.
The final attachment to this document is a 1985 letter expressing
interest in purchasing the property by a third party. It is not
known whether the third party is aware of the deed restrictions
and title insurance questions involved with the purchase of this
property. Further, the Moorings' attorney has represented that
the Moorings would sue to prevent sale of the parcel to a third
party.
The parcel is currently valued on the tax roll at $179,400.00.
Intergovernmental Relations Director Thomas pointed out that
if the Board agrees to this, these funds will go to the Parks
Department. He believed the situation goes back to when this
property was set aside in contemplation of a site for the 17th
Street Bridge.
Chairman Scurlock inquired about the size of the lot, noting
that he has not seem a lot in The Moorings go for $60,000 in
quite some time.
Dorothy Hudson, Attorney for The Moorings, advised that
because of restrictions the lot is not worth that much, and that
price was set over her objections.
Chairman Scurlock pointed out that if The Moorings gets it
back, they get a marketable lot, and Attorney Hudson agreed.
Commissioner Bird asked if we can advertise the lot for
sale, and Miss Hudson stated that it is unmarketable at this
point. She reviewed the history of the lot, as set out in the
following letter, and stated that she personally felt it should
be conveyed back without consideration.
87
BOOK 64 pn(A-73
NAY 7 1986
April 24, 1986.
TheMoofings
Bruce Barkett, Esq.
Assistant County Attorney
Indian -River County
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Dear Bruce: -
BOOK 64 f -4.
' 3
J IIC-
We appreciate you and Tommy Thomas meeting with Don Proctor
and myself on March 25, 1986 to discuss The Moorings
reacquisition of Parcel B, Unit 2, The Moorings. In that meeting
we were advised that the County has abandoned.all plans for a
bridge landing site as was originally contemplated for that
property. As I explained in that meeting, the County required
that Parcel B be conveyed to them without a reverter clause, as
originally proposed, should the valid public purpose become
frustrated. This .-a.—Iroximate site was the location of abandoned
"Floralton Boulevara .r the plat of the property previously
owned by Colonel Josepr, at Plat Book 3, page
30, in the Public Records c_ L.—V '.,-aunty. It is our
position that the property should be returned to -us for no
consideration in light of the aforesaid equities.
However, we were persuaded for several reasons to make an
offer to the County to purchase the property.- Foremost among
these reasons is Tommy Thomas's explaining to us that monies
derived from the sale of this property would be used for
acquisition or betterment of parks in Indian River County. We
are therefore proposing to purchase the property for $60,000
($30,000 per unit - two units to be built on the said lot) -in
accordance with the enclosed contract. The terms include the
county allowing us to build a duplex on the property.
We feel this is a fair and reasonable price. You advised us
that while the County is not paying taxes on the property, it is
carried on the Assessor's books for considerably more than that
amount. We explained to you that during the period in which we
were being billed for taxes, as late as 1981, the assessed value
was $15,960. Given the restrictions on the property, were we in
your position (save not having to pay taxes on the property), we
would surely have protested the current assessment.--
ssessment. Given the
factors set forth in FS 193.011 for determining the just value of
the property, we are quite assured that we would prevail in
having the property revalued. Also given that the restrictions
were imposed by The Moorings Development Company., as grantor, in
conveying the property to the County, we are the only logical
purchaser of the property. To consider allowing any outside
interest to purchase this property would -only add insult to
injury. -You may -be assured we would not release the
restrictions! That unpleasant thought aside, we hope that you
will forward our good faith offer to the County Commission for
their consideration. I would also be pleased to discuss this
matter further with any Commissioner who wishes additional
information.
Yours very truly,
THE M00 NGS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
Dorot Hu son
88 Vice Pre /Staff Counsel
Attorney Barkett advised that we have not been able to get
title insurance on the lot, and it can be used only as a utility
right-of-way unless we purchase it from The Moorings.
Chairman Scurlock did not feel they would want a bridge
going through there; he believed that lot would sell for more
than $170,000 and felt they should sell it and split the money.
Commissioner Wodtke felt it is apparent we are not going to
need it for a bridge, and he favored taking their offer. The
Administrator concurred.
Chairman Scurlock then suggested that the County pay The
Moorings $60,000 for the lot, and Attorney Hudson stated that she
could take that offer back, but noted one of the provisions of
their purchase is that they be allowed to build a duplex on the
property.
Commissioner Bird asked if in accepting their offer we would
be giving them permission to put in a duplex, and Attorney
Barkett stated that he could not recommend that because it would
deviate from the Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner Wodtke felt it should be simple to check out if
the requirements for building a duplex can be met before we reach
a final decision, but Attorney Vitunac noted The Moorings wants
us to guarantee they can build a duplex, and he did not believe
we can do that legally.
Discussion continued at length while the Board continued to
review various alternatives, including making a counter-offer.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, Chairman Scurlock voting in
opposition, the Board by a 4 to 1 vote agreed
to make The Moorings a counter-offer accepting
their offer of $60,000 for the lot but with
no guaranty as to the use of the land.
89
MAY 7 1986 pool; 'd FAr,F375
MAY 7 1966 Boa 64 PnF. X76
Attorney Hudson brought up the question of being able to
rebuild The Moorings at the same density in case of a
catastrophic event. She stated they had been advised this could
be done, but now it appears Director Keating is stating something' -
different, and she, therefore, asked that the Board discuss staff
philosophy in this regard as this is of great concern to all the
residents.
Commissioner Lyons requested that Attorney Hudson express
these concerns in writing for the Board to consider at another
time.
DISCUSSION SANDRIDGE GOLF COURSE - IRRIGATION SYSTEM BID
r„-+ 1A t
Rick Dring of AutoFlow, Inc., reported that after further.
analysis of both sets of data for the two systems, one of which
was designed for 18 holes and one for 27, they have come to the
conclusion that they would like to get further information from
both the suppliers and plug it into their computers to come out
with more accurate data for exact costing. They hope to get the
necessary information from both Rain Bird and Toro by Friday,
work on it over t*he weekend, and have the answer by Monday.
It was agreed to put this matter back on the agenda for next
week's meeting.
SCHACHT RIGHT-OF-WAY DONATION - AMENDED RESOLUTION
Attorney Vitunac reviewed the following staff memo:
90
TO: THE HONORABLE BOARD OF DATE: May 1, 1986 FILE:
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THROUGH: MICHAEL WRIGHT,
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
JAMES W. DAVIS, P.E, SUBJECT: I.R. Boulevard
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTO Schacht Right of Way donation
Amended -Resolution
FROM: Donald G. Finney, SRI REFERENCES:
Right of Way Agent
After meeting -with the Schachts, they requested the following
changes to Resolution Number 86-13 as Amended:
The verbage was changed to clarify the property frontage on
8th Street and to clarify the wording of access for Lot #15, page
3, item V.
It is my understanding that the deed for the donated right of
way is now signed and being held in trust until they receive a signed
copy of this amended resolution.
RECOMMENDATION
Request Board of County Commission approval of Amended Resolution
86-13 and authorize the Chairman to execute the Resolution.
Attorney Vitunac clarified that the only amendments are
changing 12th Street to 8th Street and adding Paragraph 7 which
guarantees certain access to lots 15 and 16 owned by the Schachts
and he has changed the title of the Resolution accordingly.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
adopted Resolution 86-27 amending Resolution
86-13 as described above.
91
L-MAY71986
BOOK 64 PAGE 9.77
A
BOOK 64 F'1vE 378
RESOLUTION NO. 86-27
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 86-13 BY CHANGING
"12TH" STREET TO "8TH" STREET AND BY ADDING
A REVISED PARAGRAPH 7 DEALING WITH ACCESS TO
CERTAIN PROPERTY.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners passed
Resolution No. 83-13 on Piaroh 26, 1946; and
WHEREAS, the street mentioned in the resolution should
have been 118th" Street but was inadvertently called 1112th" Street;
and
WHEREAS, amended paragraph 7 needs to be added; and
WHEREAS, the Board approved these changes on May 7, 1986;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY that:
1. Where the words 1112th" Street are mentioned in
Resolution No. 86-13, there should be substituted the words 118th"
Street ; and
2. A new paragraph 7 is substituted as follows:
Primary access to Lot 16 shall be provided by a full
movement driveway connector to 8th Street. A right turn -in/
right turn -out access may be constructed connecting to
Indian River Boulevard for the •joint use of Lots 15 and 16
or to serve Lot 15 only. Primary access to the property
described in Exhibit "A" will also be permitted along 6th
Avenue.
The vote was as follows:
Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Vice Chairman Patrick B. Lyons Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed
and adopted this 7th day of May, 1986.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
DON C. SC RLOCK,
Chairman
92
� � r
Commissioner Wodtke left the meeting at 3:50 o'clock P.M. to
go out of town.
RECOMMENDATIONS RE DATA PROCESSING COMPUTER SYSTEM
Commissioner Lyons went over the following report and
recommendations:
TO: DATE: April 30, 1986 FILE:
Board of County Commissioners
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Draft Report And
Pa-ri B. Lyons Recommendations Regarding
Yce hairman Computer System
1. I am working with Mr. -Hylton to get the computer activity
separated between what the Clerk is required by law to furnish us
and what the Clerk is providing as an added service. It is my
intention to -set-up accounts for each organization to pay for the
"added service." As -a first approximation the activities of the
computer organization are split about as follows:
Clerk of Court 70%
Supervisor of Elections 10%
Sheriff 2%
Tax Collector 2%
Property Appraiser 3%
Utilities 10%
Board of County Commissioners 3%
Totals 100%
The Clerk's percentage includes the portion required by law for
the other organizations. The percentages shown for the other
organizations represent the amounts that should be services
charged back and removed from the Clerk's budget.
2. The members of the Computer Committee are being asked to let
Mr. Hylton know what services they require as quickly as
possible, •so that estimates of the costs and schedules can be
negotiated prior to budget time. This would determine the
computer manpower required.
93
MAY 1986 BOOK 6 Fu- 179
MAY 7 1986 BOOK 64 F n--. ` 80
3. I recommend that the computer organization continue at this
time to be supervised by the Clerk and that the "added services"
be charged back as outlined in number one.
4. I further recommend that we and the Computer Committee name
Mr. Hylton as head of the Data Processing activity and make him
responsible for the design and operation of our system. There is
a lot of interest and activity on the part of the users and
unless we assign the responsibility for this activity at once, we
are going to see fragmentation, redundancy, and waste. Mr.
Hylton is familiar with our operation. He has a fine record of
performance. I say this based -on personal observation and upon a
recent inspection of the ClerkIs operation. (I would suggest
each of you take such an inspection tour- I hope the Clerk will
pardon me for making this invitation) He is familiar with the
fact that some CSLt a ��ul� _ .. f' y r� e^mAuters ar
some by the main computer and by combinations thereof. Since Mr.
Hylton is in effect subject to continuous review, I can see no
harm in starting this way. In fact, there is a great advantage
because we suffer -no further delays.
5. I recommend that we continue with the thought that the.
System 38 will be satisfactory for our purposes for quite a few
years with the necessary updates. Also, it is my personal
feeling that any vendor who can convince us that we need to
change computers in this day and age, know he's going to have to
set up to provide a transition with little or no cost to us.
6. I recommend that we expand the capacity of the System 38 as
requested by the Clerk.
7. I al -so recommend that we continue our program of asking
vendors to appear before us to tell of their wares and to make us
aware of our problems and limitations.
8. I am also going to ask the Committee to reconfirm its
position of no hardware or program purchase without Committee
approval.
94
I would appreciate Commission approval of my positions today so
that I may present them at the Committee meeting of 5/20/86. I
would also like specific authority from the Commission for the
organizations it controls, to stop any such purchases without
Committee approval. One suggestion is require specific approval
by our Board of any such item exceeding $200.00 in cost.
Commissioner Lyons discussed Item 1, explaining that his
approach would be to refine the percentages and the dollars and
come up with a charge -back for the use of the Clerk's facility.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, Commissioner Wodtke having
left the meeting, the Board unanimously (4-0)
approved in principle an approach to the charge
for data processing services as described above
and authorized Commissioner Lyons to proceed
with getting down to the final numbers for the
budget hearings.
Commissioner Lyons then went on to Item 4, noting that we
have a computer situation without a head. Since Mr. Hylton is
already here and has demonstrated his capability, and also since
the Clerk has 700 of the activity, Commissioner Lyons recommended
that Mr. Hylton be named head of the Data Processing activity and
made responsible for the design and operation of the system.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, Commissioner Wodtke having
95
MAY 7 1986 Boa 64 F,, E 3s
MAY 1986 BOU 64 Fa;E 382
left the meeting, the Board unanimously (4-0)
agreed to recommend that the Computer Committee
name Don Hylton head of the Data Processing
activity and make him responsible for design and
operation of the system.
In regard to Item 2, Commissioner Lyons reported that he
already has asked the Administrator and Sheriff Dobeck and at the
next committee meeting will ask that the various members of the
Computer Committee get together with Mr. Hylton and come up with
what they have as their "wish" list so it can be analyzed and
priced for the budget sessions.
In regard to Item 3, Commissioner Lyons believed we should
continue to have the Clerk supervise the computer organization
and charge back for services as outlined in paragraph 1 as long
as it seems viable.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, Commissioner Wodtke having
left the meeting, the Board unanimously (4-0)
agreed to recommend Item 3 of the above memo to
the Computer Committee.
Commissioner Lyons advised he will recommend to the
Committee that we expand the capacity of the 38 system as
requested by the Clerk. He did not need any action on that.
Chairman Scurlock asked why not have just one Motion to approve
everything, and Commissioner Lyons stated that he just wanted to
review this aloud and be sure that it is all understood clearly.
He.emphasized that he did want to have the Committee reconfirm
its position of no hardware or program purchase without Committee
approval, and he did want a separate Motion by the Board to stop
the unauthorized purchase by any organizations it controls of any
computer hardware, including word processing, etc., or programs
96
in an amount exceeding $200 without specific authority from the
Committee.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, Commissioner Wodtke having
Left the meeting, the Board unanimously (4-0)
agreed that no organization under its control
should purchase any computer hardware, programs,
etc., in an amount exceeding $200 without having
specific approval of the Committee.
LIBRARY_ CONTRACTS_- SERVICE TO ELDERLY - TO YOUTH - LITERACY
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, Commissioner Wodtke having
left the meeting, the Board unanimously (4-0)
approved the following grant agreements with
the State Division of Library Services - Literacy,
Service to the Elderly, and Service to Youth.
( Said Agreements are on file in the Office of the Clerk to the
Board.)
SOUTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT AND NORTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT
The Chairman announced that immediately after adjournment,
the Board would reconvene acting as the District Board of Fire
Commissioners of the North County Fire District, and upon
adjournment of that meeting, they would convene as the District
Board of Fire Commissioners of the South County Fire District.
Those Minutes are being prepared separately.
97
A 7 1986 Roos 64 ( r tlC 3S3
MAY 1 1986
I
BOOK 64 pm -)184
There being no further business, on Motion duly made,
seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 4:00 o'clock P.M.
ATTEST:
Clerk Chairman
98