Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/20/1986Wednesday, August 20, 1986 The Board ofCountyCommissioners of Indian River County, Florida, met in Regular Session at the County Commission Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Wednesday, August 20, 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 L. S. "Tommy" Thomas, Acting County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; Joseph Baird, OMB Director; and Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk. The Chairman called the meeting to order. Gather Gerard Lamoth, St. Helen's Catholic Church gave the invocation, and Commissioner Bird led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS Chairman Scurlock wished to add a discussion re meeting days 0+ and also an item re the C.O. for the golf course. Commissioner Lyons requested the addition of a discussion of central dispatch as a time certain item at 11:00 A.M. Commissioner Bird wished to add a report on the proposed Gifford Community Building as a time certain item also around 11:00 A.M. Attorney Vitunac later in the meeting added approval of a Reservation of Road Right -of -Way by Robert Vatland as this would save Mr. Vatland a week's time on his site plan approval. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously added the above described items to today's agenda. MUG 2 0 1966 BOOK f;��d If MEETING DAYS BOOK 5 i -mu 4?9 The Chairman reminded Board members that next week we will switch to meeting weekly on Tuesdays. He also had one other housekeeping matter. It appears a couple of Commissioners will be out of town on October 7th; so, if there are no objections, it has been suggested that we move that meeting to September 30th. There were no objections, and it was agreed to hold a meeting on September 30th and cancel the October 7th meeting. DISCUSS C.O. FOR SANDRIDGE GOLF COURSE Chairman Scurlock asked Acting Administrator Thomas if he needed direction and authorization to go ahead and issue the C.O. for Sandridge Golf Course while waiting for the impact fees. As he understood it, they were refusing to issue building permits until such time as the road impact fees were going to be paid on the maintenance building. Administrator Thomas explained that he really did not have a problem with paying the impact fees, but it appears that in the original setup or method for figuring impact fees, they over- looked golf courses, and when he questioned how they arrived at the fee, they then changed the amount of the fee. This needs to be straightened out, but he felt we can operate under a temporary permit until it is resolved. Acting Administrator Thomas believed he is authorized to sign the temporary permit. The Chairman just wanted to make sure that was clear. Commissioner Bird didn't know there was a holdup, and Chairman Scurlock explained that he had just heard there was a question on issuing the permit until all impact fees were paid; so, he wanted to get some authorization from the Commission to go ahead and at least issue this one and we will formally discuss the impact fee matter at the first meeting in September and decide what it is we are going to do. This was agreed upon. W N 7--� APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Chairman asked if there were any additions or corrections to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 23, 1986. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 23, 1986, as written. The Chairman asked if there were any additions or corrections to the Minutes of the Special Meeting of July 29, 1986. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously approved the Minutes of the Special Meeting of July 29, 1986, as written. CONSENT AGENDA Commissioner Lyons requested that Item F be removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion. A. New Pistol Permit The Board reviewed memo of the Acting County Administrator: TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: July 28, 1986 FILE: the Board of County Commissioners SUBJECT: Pistol Permit - New FROM: L_ S_ "Tommy" Thomas REFERENCES: Acting County Administra or The following individual has applied through the Clerk's Office for a new pistol permit: James N. Morris All requirements of the ordinance have been met and are in order. 3 L_ AUG 2 0 19006 BOOK 65 Fa,uC 430 BOOK 65 F'r -UF 431 ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the application to carry a concealed firearm of James N. Morris. B. Reports The following were received and put on file in the Office of Clerk to the Board: Month to date report for Month of July by Last Name. Traffic Violation Bureau, Special Trust Fund, Month of July, 1986 - $48,341.97. C, Cancellation of Hobart Tower Lease (Communications of Vero) The Board reviewed memo of the General Services Director: TO: The Honorable Members DATE: August 13, 1986 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners THRU: L. S. "Tommy" Thomas SUBJECT: Hobart Tower Lease Acting County Communications of Vero Administrator H. T. "Sonny an FROM: Director REFERENCES: General Service On May 21,.1986, we entered into a two year contract with Communications of Vero fora location on the Hobart Tower at the 300 foot level. Mr. Robert Stork, owner of the business, has requested by letter that the lease be cancelled due to a business problem. Our standard lease does not provide a cancellation clause for the lessee under any circumstances. Staff recommends that the lease be cancelled, and that a provision be included in all our standard leases to allow the lessee to cancel his contract with good cause on thirty (30) days written notice to the owner. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the cancellation of lease with Communications of Vero for space on the Hobart Tower and directed that a can- cellation clause be included in all our standard leases. L9 D. Close Streets in Paradise Park Subdivision (Block Part)) The Board reviewed memo of the Public Works Director: viE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF -��ne gust 8, 1985 TO: Tx>✓ BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONKS�"• FILE: TIMUM: Tommy Thomas, Recruest to Close Streets in Acting County Administrator Paradise Park Subdivision on SUBJECT: Oct- 18, 1986 James W. Davis, P.E. FROM:Public Works Director REFERENCES: DESCRIPTION AMID CONDITIONS The Paradise Park Crime Watch Program Coordinator is requesting permission to close 86th Avenue between 24th Street and 26th Street and Walker Avenue from 86th Court to 85th Court on October 18, 1986 from 1 PM, until dark. The purpose of the closing is to have a block party. (Oktoberfest). RECOMMENDATION Staff has no objection to approval subject to the following 1) Proper detour is provided 2) Proper barricades are provided 3) Eimergency vehicles will have access if necessary. Subject to the above, staff recommends approval ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously granted permission for the closing of 86th Avenue between 24th Street and 26th Street and Walker Avenue from 86th Court to 85th Court on October 18, 1986, from 1:00 P.M. until dark as requested above. E. Agreement w/90th Ave. Partnership The Board reviewed memo of the Utility Operations Engineer- ing Manager: 5 AUG 2 0 1986 BOOK 65 F'AGE 4,32 AUG 2 0 1936 BOOK 65 FACE 433 TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DATE: AUGUST 11,1986 THRU: L.S. THOMAS, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR _ i VIA: TERRANCE G. PINTO, DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES 'I FROM: JEFFREY A. BOONE, OPERATIONS ENGINEERING MANAGER SUBJECT: AGREEMENT WITH 90TH AVENUE PARTNERSHIP BACKGROUND The utility department has asked that 90th Avenue Partnership enter into an agreement with Indian River County in conjunction with the development of Interstate Commercial Park. The County shall reimburse the developer with 500 of all impact fees collected from Interstate Commercial Park and surrounding properties during the first five years of the subject construction by the County, not to exceed the total allowable reimbursement of $18,795.00. RECOMMENDATION Utility staff' recommends and requests that the Board of County Commissioners review the agreement and authorize the chairman to sign the agreement on behalf of the County. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the agreement with 90th Avenue Partnership in regard to the development of Interstate Commercial Park and authorized the signature of the Chairman. 6 AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND 900 AVI:NLJE PARTNI:IZSfIIP Granting reimbursements for oversizing certain offsite utilities required by the County THIS AGREEMENT made this 20th day of August 1 1986, by and between INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960, (County) , and 90th AVENUE PARTNERSHIP, 1201 19th Place, Vero Beach, FL 32960, (Developer); W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, the Developer, in conjunction with the construction of Interstate Commercial Park is extending offsite water and wastewater facilities to serve the subject project; and WHEREAS, the County has required the Developer to oversize the offsite utility improvements to serve the regional area and has agreed to reimburse the Developer for the cost of oversizing these offsite utilities; NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and other good and valuable consideration, the County and Developer agree as follows: 1. The Developer shall construct all necessary offsite utilities, including oversizing necessary to serve the subject project and surrounding area. The County agrees to reimburse the Developer for the oversizing 'of offsite utilities as outlined below: ITEM TOTAL REIMBURSEMENT Manholes Gravity Sewer Drop Manholes Water Main TOTAL: L- AUG 2 0 196 7 $600.00 $1,715.00 $0.00 $16,480.00 $18,795.00 BOOK AUG 20 `93-6 �' � BOOK 65 F,1GE. 49 2. The County shall reimburse the Developer with 50% of all impact fees collected from Interstate Commercial Park and surrounding properties who connect to the portion of water and/or wastewater systems constructed by the Developer in conjunction with the Interstate Commercial Park project during the first five years after acceptance of the subject construction by the County, not to exceed the total allowable reimbursement of $18,795.00. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the County and the Developer have caused these presents to be executed in their names the day and year first above written. 90th AVENUE PARTNERSHIP BY David 0. Holmes, President 0 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BY r G Don C. Scu lock, J Chairman F._Disposal of Contraband by Burning The Board reviewed memo of Ron Brooks, Environmental Engineering Specialist: TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DATE: AUGUST 5, 1986 THRU: L.S THOMAS, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR VIA: TERRANCE G. PINTO, DIRECTOR OF UTILITIES d t1wI/ FROM: RONALD R. BROOKS, ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING SPECIALIST SUBJECT: DISPOSAL OF CONTRABAND BY BURNING BACKGROUND: The United States of America, Federal Drug Enforcement Agency has requested an agreement be made between Indian River County Utilities and the Agency for the disposal of contraband by burning. The Agency will provide all required guards for security and all required laborers for the off - loading of all material. RECOMMENDATION• Utility staff recommends and requests that the Board of County Commissioners review the agreement and authorize the chairman to sign the agreement on behalf of the County. 8 Commissioner Lyons expressed concern about getting into a situation where the Federal Drug Enforcement Agency may demand service when we are not in a position to supply it as we may need it for our own uses. He felt we should have some protection. Utilities Director Pinto noted that the only part of the contract that would apply says the County would not be obligated if the air curtain destructor or loading equipment became inoperative. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, to approve the proposed agree- ment with the Federal Drug Enforcement Agency with the addition of a provision setting up a businesslike arrangement for the use of the equipment. Commissioner Wodtke expressed concern about the time the contraband would be at the Landfill area, and Utilities Director Pinto assured him that the Drug Enforcement Agency will provide guards who will remain with the contraband until it is completely disposed of. M THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. SAID AGREEMENT WILL BE MADE A PART OF THE MINUTES WHEN FULLY EXECUTED AND RECEIVED. G. Re -Bid Surplus Property (Ford Bronco) The Board reviewed memo of Purchasing Manager Goodrich: � v 1,966 9 BOOK 65 PAGE 436 ,AUG 2 0 1986 BOOK 65 rnUE 437 TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: August 8, 1986 FILE: THRU: L. S. "Tommy" Thomas SUBJECT: Surplus Property - 1981 Ford 'Bronco Acting County Administrator (Re -Bid) FROM: �•��--iL. REFERENCES: ER NCES: Carolyn Go drich, Manager Purchasing Department 1. Alternatives and Analysis At the July 23, 1986 meeting, the Board rejected the bids received for the 1981 Ford Bronco and requested staff to re -bid. The high bid at that time was $625.00. The vehicle was advertised for sale again and bids were received August,8, 1986 at 11:00 A.M. 3 Bids were received. The high bid was received from Glenn Stephen in the amount of $1260.00. 2. Recommendation It is recommended that the 1981 Ford Bronco be sold to the highest bidder, Glenn Stephen in.the amount of $1260.00. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the sale of the 1981 Ford Bronco to the high bidder, Glenn Stephen, in the amount of $1,260 per the following Bid Tabulation: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 BID TABULATION Co r •, c ` c mo U �to �, 3o fly o � o BID NO. DATE OF OPENING 1 l° 0 Q? Fo 0 BID TITLE Surplus Property 1981 Ford Bronco > J� ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRI 1. 1981 Ford Bronco 11260 ko_ 100TO5 1025 OQ 10 S PROCLAMATION - MONTH OF THE CHILD Chairman Scurlock read aloud the following Proclamation' designating the month of September, 1986, MONTH OF THE CHILD and presented it to Jill Harden. PROCLAMATION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, DECLARING THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER, 1986, AS THE MONTH OF THE CHILD WHEREAS, the children of Indian River County and the State of Florida, as well as the Nation and the World are a vital concern; and WHEREAS, Indian River County is desirous of focusing public attention on the unmet needs of children, as well as their talents and capabilities; and WHEREAS, many Indian River County citizens are concerned about the welfare of our children and show evidence of said concern through participation in organizations which ensure that our children are receiving the best possible care and education; and WHEREAS, the needs of our children need to be met in order for them to become productive members of society and to develop individual abilities; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, assembled in regular session this the 20th day of August, 1986, that the month of September, 1986, is hereby.declared MONTH OF THE CHILD in Indian River County, Florida and this Board urges the citizens of this County to focus their attention on the growing needs of the children of this County, and to actively participate in local programs designed to benefit our children. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY DON C. SCURLOCK CHAIRMAN ,. 11 ur BOOK 65 mu -438 BOOK 65 mc, FF 439 REZONING TO RM -6 E. OF U,S.I & SOUTH OF SEBASTIAN (CLARK) 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 Weekly Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr, who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a 0 s in the matter of %%moi/. A�l L 7 in the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of 44�4 � • -U, Z q R, - Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver- tiserrent; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver- tisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed before me thi day of ' A.D. 76 hill m, Manager) (SEAL) (Clerk of the Circuit Courts 1,6dian River County, Florida) NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING ' Notice of hearing to consider the adoption of County ordinance rezoning land from: RS -6, ngle-FamUy Residential District, to RM -6, Mub pie -Family Residential District. The property is resently, owned by William R. Clark and is to - led east of U.S. Highway 1. south of S.R. Ditch R/W The subject property is described as PARCEL ONE: Commencing at'the northwest comer. of Government Lot 2, Section 8, Township 31 South, Range 39 East, run east a dis tance of 18.43 feet to a point on the boundary one of the four lane U.S. High-' ; t way- No. 1;.. designated- as Ststior►:°,;; 964+18.74; thence run south 25° 57'5V '' east along said boundary line a distance •of 1088.58 feet to a point on said bound- ` ary one being designated as Station; 953+50.18; thence run north 711 53'011,*", east along the south line of a 70 foot; - right-of-way for State Road Department> Lateral Ditch No. S; and the westward - projection thereof; a distance of 971.83 _ feet to the west shore of the Indian River-;- and Point of Beginning. Thence run south 71 ° 53' 01" west along said south' right-of-way of State Road Department Lateral Ditch No. 6 a distance of 922.11 feet to the west right-of-way of old U.S. Highway No. 1 (now, abandoned) thence run south 18° 331-59" east along said: - abandoned west right-of-way a distance-,. of 75 feet; thence run north 78" 07' 13'" east a distance of 958.52 feet to the wast °> shore of the Indian River; thence mean--:: der the said shoreline in a northwesterly direction; 150 feet, more or less to the? -Point ofBegi nning. PARCELTWO Beginning at the 9rortfiwest` comms of that certain parcel of land corweyed ,= . from J.T> Thompson and Frieda Thomp _. son, his-wtfe, to E.G Barnhill, recorded in Official Record Book 379, Page 62, of the Public Records of Indian River;; County, Florida; thence run southwest erly along the southwesterly projection = ,: of the north boundary line of said. parcel a distance of 40 feet, more or less, to a { i Writ on the aasterty rlyht-of-way line of`''` New U.S. Highway No as presently ex= Isis; thence run southerly along said.._ easterly right of way line to a point which :- intersects with the southwesterly projec= ` tion of the south boundary of the said parcel described In Official Record Book;_" 379, Page 62, Public Records of Indian-., Rlver County, Florida; thence run north -?- easterly along the southwesterly projeC==?:, tion of the south boundary of said parcel?' to the southwest comer of said parcel thence run northwesterly along the west. boundary of said parcel a distance of 75 feet, more or hs, to the Point of Begin-;.;;` ning; said property lying and being In .. Government lot 2, Section 8, Township ; 31 South; Range $9 East � A public hearing at which, parties In interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard, will be held by the Board of County Com- missiorters of Indian River County,'Florida, in the lCounty Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, located at 1840 25th Vero Beach, Florlda on Wednesday. Aug• ran ,1988; at 9:10 Board of County Commiastorulrs' Ynay a rezoning to a less intense zoning district he district requested provided it Is within me general use category. Anyone who mayy wish to appeal an decision which may be mala at this meeting wl0 need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which Includes testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based.;-. Indian River County Boar&of County Commissbnws . By:s- Dan C. Scurlock, Jr Chairman Ir 31. Aug. 12,1986 Staff Planner Jeff Goulet made the following presentation: 12 TO: The Honorable Members DATE: July 25, 1986 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: CLARK REQUEST TO REZONE 2.5 ACRES LOCATED EAST �%�p�xyi►'���- SUBJECT: OF U.S. 1 AND SOUTH OF Robert M. Keating, ATCP 5 S.R. DITCH 6 R/W FROM Planning & Development Director RS -6, SINGLE-FAMILY RES- IDENTIAL DISTRICT (up to pl) THROUGH:Richard Shearer, AICP .6 units/acre) TO RM -6, tt--Chief, Long -Range Planning MULTIPLE -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (up FROM: REFERENCESIo 6 units/acre) Jeffrey A. Goulet Staff Planner, Long -Range Planning Clark Memo It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of August 20, 1986. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS William R. Clark, owner of the subject property, is requesting to rezone 2.5 acres located east of U.S. Highway 1 and south of State Road Ditch 6 Right -of -Way 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 applicant is requesting this rezoning so that he may construct an additional single-family home on the property. On July 24, 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 The subject property presently has one single-family residence located on it. South of the subject property are several single-family residences zoned RS -6. West of the subject property across U.S. 1, is a single-family residence zoned CH, Heavy Commercial District. North of the subject property, across the State Road Ditch, are several mobile homes and vacant land zoned RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential District. East of the subject property is the Indian River. Future Land Use Pattern The subject property and the land immediately north and south of it is designated as LD -2, Low Density Residential 2 (up to 6 units/acre) on the Comprehensive Plan. Further north is a forty (40) acre Commercial/ Industrial Node located on U.S. 1 at the south Sebastian City limits. The land to the west of U.S. Highway 1 is part of the U.S. 1 Mixed -Use Corridor. This corridor runs to a point three hundred (300) feet west of the F.E.C. Railroad. The proposed RM -6 zoning -is in conformance with the LD -2 land use designation and is consistent with the RM -6 zoning to the north of the subject property. AUG 2 0 1986 13 BOOK 65 uE 44® ""- AUG 2 0 1986 BOOK 65 a C. 4 4 The applicant wishes to place an additional single-family home on the property. Since subdivision of the property is not feasible due to its narrow configuration, multiple -family zoning is necessary to place more than one dwelling unit on a single parcel of land. Transportation System The subject property has direct access to U.S Highway 1 (classified as an arterial on the Thoroughfare Plan). The maximum development of the subject property under the proposed RM -6 zoning would generate up to 105 Average Annual Daily Trips (AADT). The projected AADT will not decrease the existing Level -of -Service "A" on U.S. Highway 1. Environment The subject property is located in the 100 year flood plain. The portion of the property located along the Indian River is also subject to coastal 'flooding and erosion due to wave action. The subject property is not otherwise designated as environmentally sensitive. Utilities '4 Neither County sewer nor water is available to the subject property at the present time. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, staff recommends approval. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Com- missioner Lyons, the Board unanimously gdopted Ordinance 86-61 rezoning 2.5 acres east of U.S.I and south of S.R. Ditch 6 to RM -6 as requested by William R. Clark. 14 ORDINANCE NO. 86-61. 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 hear$ng 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: PARCEL ONE: Commencing at the northwest corner of Government _Lot 2, Section 8, Township 31 South, Range 39 East, run east a distance of 18.43 feet to a point on the boundary line of the four lane U.S. Highway No. 1, designated as Station 964+18.74; thence run south 25° 57' 59" east along said boundary line a distance of 1068.58 feet to a point on said boundary line being designated as Station 953+50.16; thence run north 71° 53' 01" east along the south line of a 70 foot right-of-way for State Road Department Lateral Ditch No. 6, and the westward projection thereof, a distance of 971.83 feet to the west shore of the Indian River and Point of Beginning. Thence run south 710 53' 01" west along said south right-of-way of State Road Department Lateral Ditch No. 6 a distance of 922.11 feet to the west right-of-way of old U.S. Highway No. 1 (now abandoned) thence run south 180 33' 59" east along said abandoned west right-of-way a distance of 75 feet; thence run north 76° 07' 13" east a distance of 958.52 feet to the west shore of the Indian River; thence meander the said shoreline in a northwesterly direction, 150 feet, more or less, to the Point of Beginning. 15 AU 2 ® 193 Booz r: 449 AUG 2 0 1986 BOOK 65 Facr, 443 PARCEL TWO: Beginning at the northwest corner of that certain parcel of land conveyed from J.T Thompson and Frieda Thompson, his wife, to E.G. Barnhill, recorded in Official Record Book 379, Page 62, of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida; thence run southwesterly along the *southwesterly' projection of the north boundary line of said parcel a distance of 40 feet, more or less, to a point on the easterly right-of-way line of New U.S. Highway No. 1 as presently exists; thence run southerly along said easterly right of way line to a point which intersects with the southwesterly projection'of the south boundary of the said parcel described in Official Record Book 379, Page 62, Public Records of Indian River County, Florida; thence run northeasterly along the southwesterly projection of the south boundary of said parcel to the southwest corner of said parcel; thence run northwesterly along along the west boundary of said parcel a distance of 75 feet, more or less, to the Point of Beginning; said property lying and being in Government lot 2, Section 8, Township 31 South, Range 39 East. 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 20th day of August, 1986. , BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY By cl C Don C. Scurlock, Jr,� airman COUNTY -INITIATED REZONING - 3.5 ACRES FROM RM -8 TO MED 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: 16 VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Weekly Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being u in the matter of in the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver- tisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver- tisement for publication in the said newspaper. Swom to and subscribed (SEAL) NOTICE - PUBUC HEARING Notice. of hearing initiated by Indian Rival County to, consider the adoption of a County or- dinance rezoning land from: RM -8 MultipplIe Family Realdential District, to MED. Medical Dis trlct. The; subject property Is, located north o1 37th Street, east of.the F.E.C: Railroad and U.S. Highways. The subject property is described as: 1 Lots 481 thru 184, inclusive, Block 13, lots 185•thru 200, inclusive, Block 14, and lots 201 thru 2t6,;Inclusive; Block 15,W.E., Geoffrey Subdivision, as re- corded in'plat book 2, St. Lucie County now lying and being inslndian River County, F orlda A' pubNo ttearing `at which parties In Interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard, will be held by the Board of County Com- missioners of Indian River County, Florida, In the County .Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building; located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida on Wednesday, Aug- ust 20.1986, at 9:10 A.M. Anyone who may wish to appeal any, decision which may be made at this meeting will need tc ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings Is made, which includes testimony and evidence upon which the appeal Is based. Indian River County . Board of County Commissioners Sy --s- Don C. -Scurlock, Jr Chairman July 31; Aug. 12,1986 ; Chief Planner Shearer made the staff presentation and recommendation: 17 BOOK F'aE 444 AUG 2 � ���� AUG, 2 j�86 Boa 6 5 u -,;F 445 TO: A. Honorable Members DATE: July 16, 1986 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: !c2¢:U1i, SUBJECT: COUNTY -INITIATED REQUEST Robert M. Kea i g, P TO REZONE 3.5 ACRES FROM Planning & Deve opment Director RM -8, MULTIPLE -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, TO L MED, MEDICAL DISTRICT J FROIV� g hard Shearer, REFERENCES: Chief, Long -Range Planning It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of August 20, 1986. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS The County is initiating a request to rezone blocks 13, 14 and 15 of the W.E. Geoffrey Subdivision (approximately 3.5 acres) located ont the north side of 37th Street and the east side of U.S. 1 from RM -8, Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 8 units/acre), to MED, Medical District. On April 23, 1986, the Board of County Commissioners adopted boundaries for the 205 acre hospital/commercial node located north of Indian River Memorial Hospital. These boundaries include the subject property. On July 10, 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 The subject property contains ten single-family residences, two duplexes, two commercial establishments, and nineteen vacant lots. North of the subject property is a church, several single-family residences, and a duplex zoned RM -8. Further north, are single-family residences, multiple -family residences, and churches zoned RM -8. East of the subject property is a rehabilitation hospital zoned MED. South of the subject property, across 37th Street, is vacant land zoned MED. West of the subject property are U.S. 1 and the F.E.C. Railroad tracks. Future Land Use Pattern The subject property and the land south and east of it are included in the 205 acre hospital/ commercial node. The Comprehensive Plan designates the land north of the subject property as MD -1, Medium Density Residential 1 (up to 8 units/acre). The land west of the subject property is in the City of Vero Beach. The proposed zoning is in conformance with the hospital/commercial node land use designation. 18 s In determining the appropriate zoning district for this property, the staff considered both the MED and CL, Limited Commercial zoning Districts. The CL district allows a broad range of commercial uses including auto parts stores and veterinary clinics which the staff did not feel were appropriate for this area. The staff feels that the MED district, with its combination of residential, institutional and selected limited retail uses, would be more appropriate. One problem with the MED district is that it requires 20 foot side yard setbacks while the CL district only requires 10 foot side yards. The 20 foot side yard setback would be a problem on the 50 foot wide lots in this subdivision except for the following provision of the zoning ordinance. 25 (k) Minimum buildable width. Side yard requirements notwithstanding, all existing lots of record shall be permitted to have side yards reduced in order to allow a minimum buildable width of thirty (30) feet. The thirty (30) foot width shall be located so that the buildable area is centered in relation to the width of the lot, and that side yards of equal width are maintained. Based on the fact that the fifty -foot wide lots in this subdivision are lots of record, they would be guaranteed a thirty-foot minimum buildable width. Based on this provision of the zoning ordinance, the uses allowed in the MED district, and the fact that the properties east and south of the subject property are zoned MED, the MED district appears to be the most appropriate zoning for the subject property. Transportation System The subject property has direct access to 37th Street (classified as a secondary collector street on the Thoroughfare Plan), and to 37th Place and 17th Avenue (classified as local streets). The subject property also has access to U.S. 1 (classified as an arterial street). The maximum development of the subject property under the proposed MED zoning could generate up to 1,334 average annual daily trips (AADT). Environment The subject property is not designated as environmentally sensitive nor is it in a flood -prone area. Utilities A County water main is located on 37th Street. City wastewater facilities are available. County wastewater facilities will be available in 1988. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above analysis, particularly the facts that this property is in the hospital/commercial node and that the property is zoned Medical District, staff recommends approval. 19 L_ AUG 211', 0 BOOK D5 F,i:r6 . 4 AUG 2 Q 12) 2'S Boa 65 P4.A 47 Planner Shearer reviewed the history leading up to including this property in the hospital/commercial node. Commissioner Lyons wished to know if this property was previously zoned commercial and all of the houses there were non -conforming before we did the mass rezoning to get this in line with the Comprehensive Plan. Planner Shearer confirmed that practically all of them were non -conforming for years; however, the multiple family dwellings would be in conformance now. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. There were none.. ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance 86-62 rezoning 3.5 acres of the W.E. Geoffrey Subdivision to MED as recom- mended by staff. 20 ORDINANCE NO. 86-62 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: I Lots 181 thru 184, inclusive, Block 13 lots 185 thru 200, inclusive, Block 14 lots 201 thru 216, inclusive, Block 15 W.E. Geoffrey Subdivision, as recorded in plat book 2, St. Lucie County now lying and being in Indian River County, Florida. Be changed from RM -8, Multiple -Family Residential District, to MED, Medical 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 20th day August, 1986. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY By , C - Don C. Scurlock, J ., hairman 21 L_ AUG 2 0 193)6 BOOK 6 5 FADE 448 AUG 2 0 1986 REQUEST FOR BACK-UP POWER SOURCE BOOT( 6 5 PAGE 449 The Board reviewed memo from Freda Wright, Clerk, as follows: August 13, 1986 TO: The Honorable Board of.County Commissioners FROM: Freda Wright, Clerk -- SUBJECT: Back Up Power Source for System 38 Dear Commissioners: We have preliminary Commission approval to spend $30,000 to secure a back up power source in Fiscal Year 86/87. It is our request that we be allowed to purchase this item in Fiscal Year 85/86. This will save the county substantial money in lost production. N During the past 90 days we have lost the use of the system for over 50 hours. This multiplied by 90 users multiplied by an average hourly wage of $8.00 equals in"excess of the total cost of the system. Sincerely, FREDA WRIGHT, CLERK by Depuf4 Clerk Commissioner Lyons asked that this item be removed from the agenda because it has been taken care of. He clarified that the order could not be filled before October 1st in any event. RESOLUTION OPPOSING REVISIONS TO DISASTER RELIEF ACT OF 1974 County Attorney Vitunac explained that these revisions include the amendment discussed previously which would require local governments to build a system of shelters to protect state and local government officials in the event of nuclear war. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 86-52 opposing the proposed revisions to the Disaster Relief Act of 1974. 22 RESOLUTION NO. 86- 52 A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, URGING MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND SPECIFICALLY OUR UNITED STATES SENATORS, THE HONORABLE LAWTON CHILES AND THE HONORABLE PAULA HAWKINS, AND INDIAN RIVER COUNTY' REPRESENTATIVES IN THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, THE HONORABLE BILL NELSON AND THE HONORABLE TOM LEWIS, TO REJECT THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY'S PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE DISASTER RELIEF ACT OF 1974, SEVERELY RESTRICTING THE AVAILABILITY OF DISASTER RELIEF ASSISTANCE. WHEREAS, the Federal. Emergency Management Agency is responsible for providing federal disaster assistance loans to the public and private sectors when the President declares an area to be a disaster area, pursuant to Public Law 93-288, the Disaster Relief Act of 1974; and, WHEREAS, the Federal- Emergency Management Agency has proposed changes which will drastically reduce the amount of money available for loans to restore stricken areas, while restricting the circumstances under which such relief will be granted and limiting the President's power to declare disasters; and, ' WHEREAS, the proposed amendments to the Disaster Relief Act of 1974 include a plan which will require local governments to build, at their own expense, a system of shelters to protect state and local government officials in the event of nuclear war; and, WHEREAS, the total affect of the Federal Emergency Management Agency proposals will provide no protection from nuclear attack to average citizens while drastically reducing the disaster assistance funds which have been available in the past on numerous occasions to provide relief for areas stricken by cataclysmic occurrences; and, WHEREAS, the current disaster relief programs established by the Disaster Relief Act of 1974 have served AUG 2 0 1986 23 BOOK U3r F'",ur qjU BOOK 5 F° U 451 an indispensable role in allowing communities to rebuild after being stricken by disasters; and, WHEREAS, reduction of available aid will, without M question, adversely affect the abilities of local communities to recover from the effects of such disasters; and, WHEREAS, the proposed changes to the Disaster Relief Act of 1974 will become law on October 1, 1986, unless the United States Congress intervenes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the. Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County urges Congress, and specifically United States Senators, the Honorable Lawton Chiles and the Honorable Paula Hawkins, and Indian River County's Representatives in the United States House of Representatives, the Honorable Bill Nelson and the Honorable Tom Lewis, to reject the Federal Emergency Management Agency's proposed amendments to the Disaster Relief Act of 1974 and to maintain a system, such as the present system, which will provide worthwhile and meaningful federal assistance to those communities stricken by disasters. The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Lyons and seconded by Commissioner Bird , and, being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye Vice Chairman Patrick B. Lyons Ai e 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 20th day of August 1986. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY ITS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS By I .,. G �6b SCL .�trman 24 APPOINTMENTS TO COUNTY FAIR ASSOC. BOARD OF DIRECTORS Chairman Scurlock informed the Board that it has come to his attention that the members of the Indian River County Fair Association Board of Directors were never reappointed in 1985. The First Board of Directors was set out in the Charter as follows: ARTICLE VII OFFICERS TO MANAGE UNTIL THE FIRST ELECTION The following persons shall serve as the first Board of Directors of the corporation and shall serve until the first annual meeting wherein new directors are appointed as provided herein. Name and Address Director 1. Dick Bird 1170 6th Avenue, Villa 15B Vero Beach, Florida 32960 2. Bill Trip 6225 6th St. Vero Beach, Florida 32960 3. Joe Harman, Jr. P 0 1630 Vero Beach, Florida 32960 4. Michael Wodtke P 0 Box 8 Vero Beach, Florida 32960 W 5• Gary Brandenburg 1320 40th Avenue Vero Beach, Florida 32960 The following persons shall serve as the initial officers until the first annual meeting of the Board of Directors. Name and Address 1. Bill Tripp 6225 6th Avenue President Vero Beach, Florida 32960 2. Dick Bird 1170 6th Avenue, Villa 15B Vero Beach, Florida 32960 3. Joe Earman, Jr. P 0 Box 1630 Vero Beach, Florida 32960 4. Joe Earman, Jr. P 0 Box 1630 Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Vice President Secretary • Treasurer 25 AUG a BOOK 65 f'":�E 452 Pr - ,AUG 2 0 1986 Boos 6 5 -( 453 Attorney Vitunac informed the Board that he had his secretary research, and it seems that some of the people who were members of the corporation have moved away and are no longer registered voters. The Directors have to come from the membership, and it was his suggestion that we get a list of qualified people from the Supervisor of Elections and expand the membership so that we have a full complement of people who are interested, and then pick the five Directors from among them. In the meantime, we could let the five original Directors continue to serve until someone else is put in their place. Attorney Vitunac advised that he had been appointed to replace former County Attorney Gary Brandenburg, and while he is a member of the corporation; but he does not necessarily want to be a Director. Commissioner Lyons suggested that we just keep the Board alive and look at it again when we get a new Commission. He requested that Attorney Vitunac serve until that time. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously reappointed the presently named Board of Directors with the exception that Attorney Vitunac be substituted for Attorney Brandenburg and agreed these appointments would be reviewed by March of 1987. OUT -OF -COUNTY TRAVEL - FORUM ON "CRACK" ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved out -of -County travel for Commissioner Bird to attend the community forum on "crack" to be held in the Expo Centre, Orlando, Friday, August 22nd. 26 ORDINANCE AMENDING ZONING CODE RE SITE PLAN APPROVAL The hour of 9:30 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit:. VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Weekly Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a in the Coy ;t./� rt, was.pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of 4a =211 (D a Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver- tisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver- tisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed before. me (SEAQ of A. D. (Business Manager) (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, Florida) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 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 citizens shall have an oppor- tunity to be heard, In. the County Commission Chambers of the County Administration Build - Ing, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Wednesday, August 20, 1988, at 9:30 a.m. to consider the adoption of an Ordinance entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING SEC- TION 23.1. "SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES", AND SEC- TION 23.3 "SITE PLAN REVIEW STAND- ARDS", OF APPENDIX A OF THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, KNOWN AS THE ZONING CODE, PERTAINING TO MINOR SITE PIAN REQUIREMENTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS; PROVIDING FOR DELETING THE RE- QUIREMENTS FOR INSTALLATION OF MARGINALACCESS ROADS, SIDE- WALKS AND BIKEPATHS; ALLOWING" • FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY RESERVATION RATHER THAN DEDICATION; AND EX- PANDING THE THRESHOLD FOR AD- MINISTRATIVE APPROVALS OF MODI- FICATIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AP- PROVED SITE PLANS; AND PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVI- SIONS, CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY,'-, AND EFFECTIVE DATE. A copy of.the proposed ordinance Is avallabte at th=ing Department office on the second floor of the County Administration Building. =,4 Anyone who may. wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the.proceedings Is made, which includes testimony and evidence upon which the appeal Is based Indian River County. Board of County'Commissioners By.- -s- Dpn C Scurlock Chairman July 31,11.!88 .., Michael Miller, Chief of Current Development, made the staff presentation: 27 AUG - 0 198 BOOK 65 FacF454 . 10 r AUG 2 0 1986 Boa 65 uut 4,55 TO: The Honorable Members DATE: July 30, 1986 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE REVISION TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO AMEND SITE �PLAN ADMINISTRATIVE Ro ert M. Keating; AICA'' SUBJECT: APPROVAL PROCEDURES Planning & Developmen irector AND MINOR SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS FROM: Michael K. Miller tVMinor S/P Req. Chief, Current Developm REFERENCESMIKEII It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of August 20, 1986. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS The Planning Department has prepared a proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance which would revise site plan procedures in a manner that would eliminate sidewalk construction, marginal access road construction, and right-of-way dedication as requirements for proposed developments that are considered as minor site plans. In addition, the proposed ordinance permits the Planning Director to approve small scale additions to existing developments, within certain guidelines, if the total new impervious surface does not exceed 11500 square feet. Currently, the proposal of any new 'impervious surface precludes the Planning Director from approving what could be a very minor improvement to an existing development; consequently, the proposed improvement is processed as a minor site plan. On April 25, 1986, a workshop on minor site plan requirements was conducted as requested by the Board of County Commission- ers. A concensus was readily developed concerning the issues of improvements that should be required for minor site plans and the revised administrative approval procedure. The staff has recognized that the cost of conforming to County public improvement requirements was unreasonable in some cases where modest additions to existing structures were proposed. As an example, the proposed ordinance reduces improvement requirements in three areas. Sidewalk/ bikeway construction and construction of marginal access road paving is not required in the proposed ordinance. Also, right-of-way dedication is not required. The requirements for marginal access easements is retained, so that provisions for the orderly extension of marginal access roadways are facilitated when the development of adjacent properties warrant such construction. Right-of-way require- ments are proposed to be implemented through a reservation rather than dedication. Right-of-way reservation is similar to dedication in that the amount of land reserved for future right-of-way needs is determined by the standards noted in the County Thoroughfare Plan. In addition, proposed structures or improvements must be setback from the right-of-way reservation in the same way as for dedications. The difference between right-of-way dedication and reservation concerns the fact that right-of-way dedications, 'as a requirement of site plan ap- proval, are provided by the applicant at no cost to the County, 28 M M M while right-of-way reservations include land that is reserved for future purchase by the County as the need for such right-of-way for road or utility purposes is demonstrated. On July 10, 1986, the Planning & Zoning Commission voted 3-0 and unanimously recommended approval of the proposed ordinance. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS Expanding the scope of the administrative approval threshold from no increase in impervious surface to a maximum 1,500 square feet of impervious surface will save a considerable amount of time' for applicants since administrative approvals often take no more than one or two days, whereas minor site plan approval may take at least two weeks and sometimes longer. Administrative approvals are authorized only when all ordinance requirements are met, so the change permitting up to 1,500 square feet of impervious surface improvements to be addressed through the administrative permit process will not diminish the County's ability to enforce applicable regulations. The exemption of several improvement requirements for minor site plans, as outlined above, eliminates a cost disincentive for small scale projects. Retaining marginal access easement requirements and implementing a right-of-way reservation requirement enables a small expansion of existing facilities without the expense of constructing public improvements such as sidewalks and access roadways. The proposed ordinance is a good. solution to what has been viewed as excessive County imposed development costs associated with small scale developments, since the costs of paving access roadways and/or sidewalks is eliminated and provisions are made for the orderly construction of marginal access roads and right-of-way dedication when the need for such improvements is demonstrated by the County. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above analysis, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed site plan ordinance amendments as contained in.the attached ordinance. Commissioner Bird asked how this would relate to a present situation where a car dealership wants to -remodel his sales center under a minor site plan, but they are imposing a restriction that he must sign a letter agreeing not to put any permanent structures within 80' of the highway. Director Keating explained that reason we are not requiring dedication on this right now is that they have a structure there. The policy where there is an existing structure that needs to be dedicated to meet the standard of the Thoroughfare Plan is that in order to protect the county from, in essence, owning part of the structure by requiring the right-of-way, we require the applicant to'enter into a reservation wherein he agrees not to 29 AUG 2 0 1986 BOOK 65 uL-IF 456 J put any more structures in that right-of-way. BOOK 65 FA -E457 If he didn't have a structure there now, without this ordinance he would be required to dedicate, but with this ordinance, he would be required to reserve the right-of-way. Commissioner Bird was concerned whether the County was being fair to the property owner by encumbering his property when we may or may not use it in the future. Chairman Scurlock felt the key is that we are going to need this right-of-way at some time point in time. Attorney Vitunac advised that while the developer can't put required site plan improvements in that specific area, he can make use of this property to some extent and can even put buildings in it if he agrees he will take them down later without cost to the«county. Director Keating advised that staff has worked to structure the reservation agreement so the boundary of the reservation area would constitute the property line boundary for purposes of determining setbacks. Chairman Scurlock felt this would allow a business decision to be made based on our existing Thoroughfare Plan as you could project over 5-7-10 years, etc., and decide whether it would be beneficial to proceed. Commissioner Lyons wished to know how a minor site plan differs from an amendment to an existing site plan. It was explained that there are two categories of site plans, major and minor, and minor would involve property of less than 5,000 sq, ft. x Director Keating noted that major and minor site plans can be either submittals or amendments, but administrative approvals can only be to an existing site plan. The way the ordinance reads now, staff can't authorize any changes which change the impervious surface, and he felt the proposed change would speed things up. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. 30 .Nancy Offutt, speaking as a participant in the workshop process, believed what is proposed is a justifiable relaxation of the current ordinance and still assures the County that it will get the road access when needed. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance 86-63 amending Site Plan review and approval procedures and standards. ORDINANCE NO. 86-63 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING SECTION 23.1. "SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES", AND SECTION 23.3. "SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS", OF APPENDIX A OF THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, KNOWN AS THE ZONING CODE, PERTAINING TO MINOR SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS; PROVIDING FOR DELETING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR INSTALLATION OF MARGINAL ACCESS ROADS, SIDEWALKS AND BIKEPATHS; ALLOWING FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY RESERVATION RATHtR THAN DEDICATION; AND EXPANDING THE THRESHOLD FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS OF MODIFICATIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO APPROVED SITE PLANS; AND PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS, CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY, AND EFFECTIVE DATE. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that: SECTION 1 Paragraph 23.1. (f) (1) c. is hereby amended as follows: (f) Procedure for review and approval of minor site plans. (1) Applicability. c. Other minor improvements. Projects which involve additions to Attt¢)W site plans for existing developments including: ¢0444041 OAAOtX¢A, 0¢¢1A, f¢4¢¢¢, OAX44, buildings, parking areas and driveways which exceed the threshold for administrative approval and which do not exceed the thresholds of paragraphs "a" and "b", above. CODING: Words in type are deletiofis from existing law. Words underlined are additions. 31 L_ AUG 2 0 1986 BOOK 65 P,%E 458 BOOK 65 FA -UF 459 SECTION 2 - Subsection 23.1. (i) is hereby amended as follows: (1) Administrative approvals and amendments to 4WO)W site plans for existing developments. (1) M440t Administrative approval by planning and development director Appto)bAl. The planning and development director is authorized to administratively approve minor modifications to �ttX��X +I�I�td�bdl site plans for existing developments. The planning and development director is not authorized to administratively approve any modification which would:,iy RoAs¢ foo 44 0 of lwXdt f 4444 Ot WtOtttOO; 440t4440 tX4 AU160t of 00411Jtg tX0 AOUAOX f4ft stAt tAtdi; increase the amount of impervious surface by more than 1500 square feet; or grant any approval that would constitute a variance from the requirements of this zoning ordinance. TAO 4160tO)�4$ tXAot ��XtX ,tX�t to tXo to¢XA1044 t0*100 (2 ) Amendments to A16�tO-AOdl site plans for existing �Odevelopments. Any amendments to 4��tO-AOd site plans for existing developments which are not deemed by the planning director to be minor modifications shall be reviewed and approved in the same manner as the original plan. SECTION 3 Paragraph 23.3 (b) is hereby amended as follows: (b) Applicability. TX4 OtA404tdo oAtAt6XXAAoA Xolto4A OX444 AoNt to 444 $Ito 044A t04141todl X10 44444t to too ttOO44,AtOO Of 044 ¢000. XA 40¢14U04 to 00 f01400144 AtAAdi 44, Site plans shall 4440 be reviewed pursuant to all applicable zoning district regulations and regulations for specific land uses, as applicable. (1) Major site plans. The standards established herein shall apply to all major site plan applications required pursuant to the procedures of this code. (2) Minor site plans. Minor site plans shall be exempt from installation of Marqinal Access Roads and Sidewalks and Bikepaths. SECTION 4 Paragraph 23.3 (d) (1) a. is hereby amended as follows: 23.3 (d) Relationship to transportation system. (1) Compliance with county thoroughfare plan. a. Right-of-way dedication or reservation. The land lying within the proposed development which is necessary to widen or extend roadways to the standards designated in the Indian River County thoroughfare plan, or to provide adequate land area for utilities, sidewalks and/or bikepaths shall be dedicated to the County by the 416014044t owner prior to the release of 00 a major site -plan or shall be reserved for future right-of-way acquisition prior to the release of a minor site plan. 32 SECTION 5 REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. All Special Acts of the legislature applying only to the unincorporated portion of Indian River County and which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. CVOMTnM 9 CODIFICATION The provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated into the County Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section", "article", or other appropriate word, and the sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such intentions. OVtnMTnM 7 SEVERABILITY If any section, part of a sentence, paragraph,,phrase or word of this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, inoperative or void, such holdings shall not affect the remaining portions hereof and it shall be construed to have been the legislative intent to pass this ordinance without such unconstitutional, invalid or inoperative part. SECTION 8 EFFECTIVE DATE The provisions of this ordinance shall become effective upon receipt from the Florida Secretary of State of official acknowledgment that this ordinance has been filed with the Department of State. 33 BOOK 65 P",E 46® I AUG 2 0 1986 sooK 65 PacE 461 ORDINANCE NO. 86-63 Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on this. 20th day of August 1986. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: 2 G"40"e'w DON --C-. SCURLOCK, J ., CHAIRMAN RESERVATION OF ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY (VATLAND OLDS) ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com- missioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously approved the Reservation of Road Right -of -Way Agreement with Robert Vatland and authorized the signature of the Chairman. RESERVATION OF ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 20th day of A_uqust 1 1986, by and between Indian River County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, and ROBERT J. VATLAND, an individual, his heirs, successors, and assigns; WHEREAS, ROBERT J. VATLAND is the owner of certain properties within Indian River County located on land more particularly described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein; and WHEREAS, ROBERT J. VATLAND wishes to further develop said properties in accordance with a site plan requiring Indian River County approval; and WHEREAS, as part of the site plan approval, Indian River County desires certain assurances regarding the reservation of a portion of the aforementioned property, more particularly described in Exhibit "B", attached hereto and incorporated herein, for future right-of-way purposes; and WHEREAS, the parties recognize that the County will acquire said property as described in Exhibit "B" when such acquisition becomes necessary for roadway expansion or improvements incidental to roadway expansion; and 34 LA WHEREAS, ROBERT J. VATLAND, desiring that this Reservation of Right -Of -Way resolve certain questions pertaining to said properties, is willing to cooperate in obtaining site plan approval by committing to the covenants, conditions, and terms further described herein; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of issuance of site plan approval by Indian River County, as an express condition of such approval, and in an effort to accomplish the above -stated objectives, ROBERT J. VATLAND expressly represents and agrees on behalf of itself, its successor`s, its legal representatives and assigns, as follows: 1. ROBERT J. VATLAND will not construct or cause to be constructed, built or placed upon the reserved parcel of land described herein, any improvement which would increase the value of said parcel or of the remaining property described in Exhibit "A" herein or any site -related improvement which is required by law to serve the principle use on the property. All future structures shall be set back from the reserved parcel in conformance with setbacks established in the zoning code as if the reserved parcel were part of the right-of-way. Z. ROBERT J. VATLAND acknowledges and agrees with Indian River County that the purpose of this Agreement is to prevent improvements or encroachments into the property reserved for future right-of-way, and ROBERT J. VATLAND further agrees to forego and waive any and all damages or compensation for the value of any intentional or incidental improvements which are made to the reserved property, except normal appreciation. 3. Indian River County recognizes that ROBERT J. VATLAND may continue to make such use of the reserved property as wi I I not cause an increase i n the va I ue of the reserved property or of the remaining site, until such time as the County acquires the reserved property for right-of-way improvements. 4. Both parties agree that ROBERT J. VATLAND does not waive any right he may have to compensation for the reserved property and any improvements currently thereon, the value thereof to be determined according to law at the date of acquisition by the County. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, th Developer has ca ed this Agreement to be executed this day of 1986 by the below authorized representatives. 11MINumb-I 1• .1, 66._,AUG 2 0 1086 RO—B�R'�—J . VATLAND BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA 35 By �6on C-7urlock, Cha i rma rI pp AUG 2 0 ISSUS BOOK 65 Fk-)F 463 EXHIBIT "A" Lots 6 through 20, inclusive, less the West 5 feet of Lots 12 through 20, inclusive, Block 2, of CASA RIO SUBDIVISION, according to the plat thereof recorded in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Indian River County, Florida, in Plat Book 1, page 81. EXHIBIT "B" The West 20 feet of the following described property: Lots 6 through 20, inclusive, less the West 5 feet of Lots 12 through 20, inclusive, Block 2, of CASA RIO SUBDIVISION, according to the plat thereof recorded in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Indian River County, Florida, in Plat Book 1, page 81. DISCUSSION - CENTRAL DISPATCH THROUGH SHERIFF Commissioner Lyons informed the Board that in meetings with the various"emergency agencies, it has been decided to go to centralized dispatch. He felt it was time that the Commission should have a report on the status of the situation and be informed of the general plans, and also be asked to assist in finding a way to expedite some of the equipment needed in order to get the Fire Department dispatching going as quickly as possible. Sheriff Dobeck stressed that he was not before the Board to ask for any money; he was just requesting that the County ask the Finance Advisory Committee to do a study re the costs involved for what is proposed. The Sheriff advised that Commissioner Lyons requested he do a study of what would be the state of the art for the County to move toward consolidation of communica- tions. What he has is a result of meeting with Fire Chief Allen of the South County Fire Department and Helen Baker, Andrew Carlisle and Michael O'Grady from Indian River Memorial Hospital. These paid services are in agreement with the need for central dispatch, but in order for it to be state of the art and work 1000, it needs to be consolidated in one area. Since the Sheriff's administration building will have 2500 sq, ft, in its communications center, Commissioner Lyons has suggested that the 36 Sheriff operate the entire dispatch from the new facility. Sheriff Dobeck advised that what they hope to do in the interim is move into his current building by about January and begin a training period of about a year so that when they do move into the central dispatch center on the new site, they will be prepared. He also hoped that in the next three months they can move in the direction of purchasing equipment that will be adequate and sufficient to move into the new center. The Sheriff then listed the agencies that will be involved as set out in the following graphic, noting that the only police departments that will not be participating at this point are the Vero Beach Police Department and Sebastian Police Department which have their own centers. However, he has spoken with Chief Gabbard, and the long range plan is to allow the Sheriff's Department to maintain a console to have communication with the Vero Beach Police Department should it be necessary for them to simulcast in case of an emergency or disaster. The Sheriff explained in detail how the system will work, referring to the above graphic. He noted they will request a supervisory overlook console be purchased so that a supervisor in an emergency would be present to handle that overflow. They also 37 BOOK 5 F,1uE 4b (AUG 2 0 1986 � AUG 2 0 1066 BOOK 65 PA1iE 465 are looking for some funds for putting this on a computer system, and the Sheriff reported that the Data Processing Manager, Don Hylton, has been working closely with them on developing a program that will work on their System 38 right now. The Sheriff advised that down the road, he will trade in the System 36 they have at the jail and purchase a 38 so they will have all the support services on computer. Sheriff Dobeck recommended that the Sheriff run this center and be responsible for the funds and the personnel, but advised that he was planning to set up a Board of Directors from the South County Fire District, the Hospital, Indian River Shores Police Department, and Fellsmere Police Department, because they are paid agencies. He noted that the County Commission is in charge of and responsible for funding of the volunteer ambulance services and other volunteer support services, and he emphasized that it is in no way being said that we do not need these services any more, but he was just asking the Commission to direct the volunteer services to fall in line and understand that we are trying to enhance the total system for the entire county. He believed central dispatch will serve.to make the county safer and make for quicker response times. Chairman Scurlock believed this is an excellent idea. He noted that he looked at the Manatee County operation, which is a fine one. He emphasized that we need to get a total budget figure together up front and start figuring out the finances involved. X Commissioner Lyons concurred that we need to get the preliminary design done as rapidly as possible to get a figure for the outside dollars required. Sheriff Dobeck stated that the only allocation of funds other than capital improvements will be for the five people needed to fill the dispatch positions. 38 Commissioner Bird asked if Commissioner Lyons has any reason to believe that many of the other agencies will have an objection to the proposal for central dispatch. Commissioner Lyons believed there might be some objections, but he felt we must look at the overall emergency situation in the county; we have the responsibility and we must look to the• long term solution of our problem. He believed that sooner or Tater we will end up with paid services whether we like it or not, and we should position ourselves so that at least the dispatching problem has been solved. He planned to get with the volunteer ambulance squads and see if there are some valid objections, but doubted we would change our plan. Chairman Scurlock noted that the system in Manatee County is flexible enough so that if some do not participate, it still will work, and he believed eventually they will come around when they see how good the system is. Commissioner Bird expressed his belief that the system proposed is logical. He asked what would happen in the case of a traffic accident between 1-95 and Fellsmere - how it is handled presently and how it would be handled under the proposed central 61 system. The Sheriff explained under the current dispatch scenario how the call would come at a console in the Sheriff's Department and then be patched through to the various agencies. Under the new system it would come in under a rolling telephone number and if one console was busy, another would pick it up. It then would be put on a computer and when the operator hit one button, it would automatically come up on both screens and be dispatched simultaneously to the necessary emergency units. Commissioner Bird asked if this will help eliminate the possibility of human error where someone gets excited and fails to call everyone, and the Sheriff felt you never can totally eliminate that, but he believed it does cut down on that 39 BOOK 65 FnUE.466 possibility. BOOK 65 Fa,u 467 He explained that when several calls are coming in, the computer will actually buzz and say this is a priority call. Commissioner Wodtke inquired about the City of Vero Beach and City of Sebastian dispatching, and Commissioner Lyons advised" that anything to the City of Vero Beach will not go into this dispatching center; it will go to their own console. The City of Sebastian Police Department now dispatches on a 24 hour basis, and the proposal is to put the same kind of console there that is in the City of Vero Beach. Anything in the Sebastian City limits would go to their own dispatching center which would be run by that city, and they would call all the emergency services involved with that particular call. Anything outside their city limits would go through the Sheriff's central dispatch. Commissioner Wodtke believed it was being indicated that the system has enough flexibility if we want to change over at some time, and Chairman Scurlock confirmed that it is a very flexible system and can accommodate more participation. Chairman Scurlock asked what action is needed today, and Commissioner Lyons stated that they would like to have permis- sion, as soon as the numbers can be gotten together, to take them to the Finance Advisory Committee to be sure we get the money in the budget to do this. Some of this, they would like to do even prior to the bond issue. They will come back with two kinds of proposals - things they want to do and buy right away which can be moved into the final stages of the system, and also bring to the Board as quickly as possible the overall cost. OMB Director Baird emphasized that he would like an overall breakdown as far as the capital cost and also the annual operating costs of running the system. Sheriff Dobeck stated that he would like a Motion from the Commission indicating that they have accepted this concept and will move forward. 40 L� MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, to accept the central dispatch concept as presented by the Sheriff and to authorize moving forward to come up with overall costs and recommendations for financing. Commissioner Wodtke advised that his second was based on the understanding that we are meeting with the North County people re this dispatch concept and will be flexible in working it out. Commissioner Lyons agreed there is some flexibility but emphasized that it will not change the general design of the system. dog." Chairman Scurlock felt that we "cannot let the tail wag the THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. Helen Baker of the Indian River Memorial Hospital emphasized how important it is in pre -hospital care to have a consolidated dispatch system rather than the fragmented one we have now.. Don Hylton, Director of Data Processing, confirmed, as the Sheriff reported, that his department is in the process of trying to write a computer package for the Sheriff and, in fact, he has a man assigned to this full time. For the record, he wished it noted that the Clerk's office needs to be considered in the funding because they are stretched to the limit. In the ensuing discussion, the Chairman and Commissioner Lyons stated that this is all being considered under the financial aspect. It was noted that the capital items, which would be computer hardware as well as some long range software, could be funded out of the issue contemplated to come up with the shortfall as well as out of the resources of the 911 system. 41 BOOK 65 Pr1tE 468 AUG 2 0 198" Of I Fr -- .AUG c� �',°9� 60! `�A �1��'k� BOOK f:Ut 65 ,�� 469 However, that is different from operating expense, for which we also need the numbers as the two go hand in hand. Director Hylton stressed there is an operating expense because the dispatch cannot operate unless the system is up 24 hours, and we presently run on an 8 hour basis. It was agreed these figures will be looked at, and OMB Director Baird again emphasized the importance in capital projects of knowing the annual operating costs. Sheriff Dobeck concurred that the Clerk and her staff have worked very closely with the Sheriff's Department and her figures will be included in the costs. Commissioner Lyons brought up CAD (Computer Assisted Dispatch) and advised that a CAD consortium has been put together to come up with equipment and programs based on the experience of law enforcement and emergency organizations. He felt it is possible there may be an advantage to our joining this consortium; the membership is $40,000, but you do get a discount on equipment and can receive programs for no cost after that. Therefore, he believed it would be worthwhile to invite these people to come to a Board meeting and make a presentation. The Chairman agreed. REQUEST TO RE-ESTABLISH A NON -CONFORMING USE (SAFFOLD) The Chief of Current Development reviewed the following memo: 42 _ W TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: august 7, 1986 FILE: the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: 44vee A, /CQ'a� br RS JOHNNIE SAFFOLD' S REQUEST Robert M. Keating, AICP SUBJECT: TO REESTABLISH A NON - Planning & Development Director CONFORMING USE Mlg M by 95,_ FROM: Michael K. Miller REFERENCES: Safford Chief, Current Development MIKEII It is recommended that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of August 20, 1986. PROPOSED USE AND LOCATION The subject property is located approximately 150 feet south of 44th Street, on the west side of 31st Avenue. The property is zoned RM -10, Multiple -Family Residential District, and the Land Use Plan Designation is MXD, Mixed -Use District. The Property Appraiser's records indicate that the property is owned by Lucinda Eddy. The parcel has 61 feet of frontage on 31st Avenue and is 139 feet deep for a total of 8,479 sq. ft. The existing structure was constructed in 1955 and contains about 1,000 square feet of usable area. The structure is located approximately 4 feet from the south property line and approximately 12 feet from the north property line. The surrounding neighborhood is predominantly developed for single-family residences but also includes several churches, some multiple -family developments, and several commercial extablishments. ANALYSIS Mr. Saffold contends that the property has been used for a grocery store for the past 40 years, however, the present structure has been vacant for the last 5 years. I Since the grocery store existed at this location for many years, the use of the RM -10 property as a grocery store was considered a legal nonconforming use as long as the property was continually used as a grocery store. The zoning ordinance [Sec. 25(J)(7)] requires that all legally nonconforming uses or structures that cease operation for 90 days or more shall be considered terminated and shall not thereafter be reestablished. In order to permit the grocery store to resume operation the use now must conform to the zoning district in which it is located. If the subject property was rezoned to a commercial zoning district, the use would become conforming but other nonconforming aspects of the site, notably front and sideyard setbacks, required parking, landscaping, paving and screening could not be brought into conformance with current requirements. The following table indicates the areas in which the lot, structure, or improvements are presently nonconforming.: CURRENT NONCONFORMING ASPECTS OF SITE Specific Lot, Structure, or Improvement Conforming Frontyard Setback Sideyard Setback Rearyard Setback X Nonconforming AUG43 A ® 19$6 BOOK 65 p .r 470 AUG 2 0 eJ BOOK 5 u F 7 - A rezoning to a commercial zoning district would only eliminate the nonconforming use of the property and all of the other non - conformities would remain. The significance of 'the numerous nonconforming aspects of the property is that a site plan could never be approved unless all site related nonconformities were eliminated. Therefore, rezoning along is, not a viable option for the use of the property. Residential use, in conformance with RM -10 zoning standards is a more viable option. Due to minimum land area requirements of 10,000 square feet for two dwelling units, only one dwelling unit could be established on the property (total land area is 8,479 sq. ft.). Residential use of the structure would bring the use into conformance with RM -10 zoning and site improvements such as the provision of only two off street parking spaces (as opposed to five spaces for retail use) would permit an easier conversion to residential use than commercial use. Staff is unable to identift, any viable option other than conver- sion of the existing st_:_ ��;.._ to residential use. Any amendment to the zoning ordinance to permit the reestablishment of a non- conforming use to the extent necessary to provide for reestab- lishment of this particular grocery store would (in effect) nullify any mechanism to guarantee that eventually, over usually long periods of time, uses and structures will convert to uses conforming to the zoning ordinance. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the request to consider reestablishment of a nonconforming use be denied based on the above analysis and Mr. Saffold be encouraged to assess how the property could be used in a residential manner Chairman Scurlock believed this structure was built before we even had zoning in -the County and operated for many years as a grocery store. Then it became in such disrepair, it needed a new roof, and because of financial problems, it has been vacant for five years. Commissioner Bird noted we have a lot of MXD in this area and wondered if any part of the area is predominantly commercial. 44 CURRENT NONCONFORMING ASPECTS OF SITE (continued) Improvement Ccnforming Nonconforming - Height X Coverage X Specific Lot, Structure, or Use X Lot Width X Parking Spaces X Paving X Drainage X Landscaping X Screening X A rezoning to a commercial zoning district would only eliminate the nonconforming use of the property and all of the other non - conformities would remain. The significance of 'the numerous nonconforming aspects of the property is that a site plan could never be approved unless all site related nonconformities were eliminated. Therefore, rezoning along is, not a viable option for the use of the property. Residential use, in conformance with RM -10 zoning standards is a more viable option. Due to minimum land area requirements of 10,000 square feet for two dwelling units, only one dwelling unit could be established on the property (total land area is 8,479 sq. ft.). Residential use of the structure would bring the use into conformance with RM -10 zoning and site improvements such as the provision of only two off street parking spaces (as opposed to five spaces for retail use) would permit an easier conversion to residential use than commercial use. Staff is unable to identift, any viable option other than conver- sion of the existing st_:_ ��;.._ to residential use. Any amendment to the zoning ordinance to permit the reestablishment of a non- conforming use to the extent necessary to provide for reestab- lishment of this particular grocery store would (in effect) nullify any mechanism to guarantee that eventually, over usually long periods of time, uses and structures will convert to uses conforming to the zoning ordinance. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the request to consider reestablishment of a nonconforming use be denied based on the above analysis and Mr. Saffold be encouraged to assess how the property could be used in a residential manner Chairman Scurlock believed this structure was built before we even had zoning in -the County and operated for many years as a grocery store. Then it became in such disrepair, it needed a new roof, and because of financial problems, it has been vacant for five years. Commissioner Bird noted we have a lot of MXD in this area and wondered if any part of the area is predominantly commercial. 44 Director Keating advised that about a year ago his department started on a small area plan for Gifford but had to put that on hold because of loss of some staff. Because it is an MXD district, the Comprehensive Plan allows any type of zoning in there, and the small area plan will determine where it is most appropriate. The problem here is that the adjacent Lots are residential and A he way the existing structure is set on the lot, it would be very difficult to meet all site plan requirements. In the ensuing discussion of various alternatives, Mr. Saffold expressed his belief that redesigning the building for residential use would be very expensive, but Commissioner Bird felt redesigning it for commercial use would also be expensive. It was pointed out to Mr. Saffold that if you have a use and continue to use it, you are grandfathered in, but if the zoning changes and you discontinue your use for a long period of time, you can't re-establish that use without meeting the new require- ments. Commissioner Bowman felt Mr. Saffold should also understand that this could not be made into a multiple family residence; it has to be a single family house. 0 MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, to deny Mr. Saffold's request for reestablishment of a nonconforming use. Commissioner Bowman also wanted Mr. Saffold to understand that when we began developing the Plan, the Gifford community said they did not want to be an exception; they wanted to be brought up to standard with the rest of the county. Mr. Saffold expressed his belief that the people could not afford to do that. Commissioner Lyons noted we have another similar request on today's agenda, and it seems a question has been raised as to whether everyone should have to meet the same standards. He 45 AUG 2 0 1986 BOOK 65 Fk�IJE 4 12 G 2 ® 1986 BOOK 65 Pa,1 4 l3 believed the people in the Gifford community do want to improve, but he is hearing people say they want two sets of rules - one for everybody else and one for themselves. Chairman Scurlock felt with the efforts of the Gifford Progressive Civic League, the sewer and water expansion, etc., there are going to be tremendous improvements in the Gifford area, and if we grant exceptions, we hurt the community in the long run. In further discussion, it was generally felt the building is in such a state of disrepair that it is really beyond being remodeled and actually should be condemned. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. ST. MATTHEWS MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH - SETBACK REQUIREMENTS Chief Planner Miller reviewed the following memo: TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: August 7, 1986 FILE: the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION �jHEAD �CONCURRENCE: Icy RS REQUEST OF ST. MATTHEWS Robert M. Keating, ICP SUBJECT: MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH Planning & Development Director TO BE HEARD CONCERNING SETBACK REQUIREMENTS tAkt-A lay P's FROM: Michael K. Miller REFERENCES: St. Matthews Chief, Current Development MIKEII , It is recommended that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of August 20, 1986. PROPOSED USE AND LOCATION The St. Matthews Baptist Church is requesting that the Board of County Commissioners authorize approval of improvements to the existing church located at 8550 64th Avenue in Wabasso. The subject property is 19,950 square feet in size and is zoned RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential District. The existing church building is 3,696 square feet in size and the church is proposing to construct an addition of 2,300 square feet. 46 ANALYSIS A representative of the church, Mr. Leonard A. Wilson, states that discussion with county staff concerning site plan approval began in April of 1985 and has continued up to the present time (see attached letter). Mr. Wilson contends that a staff member had told him in September of 1985 that the proposed addition would need to be set back from side property lines a distance of no less than 20 feet. Since there was no formal site plan submittal at that time, and hence no formal written comments, the staff cannot ,be sure of the events which occurred. It appears, however, that zoning code revisions enacted in 1985 changed the setback requirements for a church on this property from 20 to 30 feet. Consequently, when Mr. Wilson again visited with a Planning Department staff member in June of this year he was informed that the special exception criteria for places of worship required a minimum 30 foot setback for the proposed addition. Mr. Wilson feels that the church should not be required to meet the 30 foot sideyard setback requirement due to what he asserts was discussed a year earlier (April, 1985). It should be noted, however, that discussions with staff do not vest informal comments. During this time particularly, the County was in the process of changing many of its regulations. ALTERNATIVES Several alternatives are available for the church to consider: 1. Apply for a variance to the sideyard setback requirement; 2. Apply to amend the zoning ordinance to eliminate churches as a special exception use in multifamily zoning districts; 3. Apply to amend the zoning ordinance to eliminate or revise the 30' minimum setback from all property lines; and 4. Acquire additional property. The staff finds the last alternative concerning the acquisition of additional property to be the most reasonable altetnative and, in fact, records from the property appraisers office indicates that the church purchased a 75 foot deep by 105 foot wide parcel immediately east of the existing church site recently. Such a purchase enables the church to plan for expansion and a proposed addition to the existing church would be feasible. The lot width requires that any proposed addition could not be wider than 45 feet, allowing for the 30 foot setback along each side yard lot line. Staff feels that a variance is not appropriate since no unique situation is associated with the land or existing building. Zoning ordinance amendments could be considered by the Board; however, staff feels that the "extra" setback afforded by the existing regulations is reasonable since institutional type uses such as churches may periodically have a nuisance effect upon abutting residential properties. RECO14MENDATION The staff recommends that the Board suggest that the church file a site plan in the usual manner and that the recently acquired property be included in the development proposal. Pastor Leonard Wilson came before the Board and referred to the following letter: 4 7 BOOK 65 inn 414 AUG 2 0 1906 f-� Pl AUG 0 1963 BOOK 65 PnE 475 St. (.Matthews (-MmEonafty Cpap tilt chuhch 8550 64th ukehue T.O. Box 947 gVabasso. Moxida 32970 Leonard A. Wilson William C. Minnis Pastor Chairman of Deacon Board TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Leonard A. Wilson, (St. Matthew Baptist Church) RE: Statement of Information Regarding Site Plan Date: August 5, 1986 To the best of my ability, the following statements will help to better understand why we are asking for our Site Plan to be grandfathered in under previous required ordiances. ° During the last week of April 1985 H.C.: Turner serving as our cor_tr�ctor et: that time, submitted our site plan in the presence of Mrs. Craven to planning and development for appli- cation and approval. He recieved copies of general information regarding requirements to be met, an application form and a request for a letter stating the approved name of the contractor in charge of our building project. On May 8 and 14 these items were returned to Mrs. Craven including copies of the building plans by me after approximately two weeks I met with Mrs. Craven and learned that the site plan didn't show enough about the area such as location of well, plants and shrubbery, set back from road, and the fact that the area being improved would include more than 5,000 sq. ft. The­.appli- cation fee would be $350.00 which was ho -be held;until corrections were made. And the need for storm water field to be considered as to area. During the middle of July or there about, I returned the plans showing those corrections. Approximately two months or more passed before we recieved the plan back. However, during that time I spoke with Mrs. Craven by phone several times (maybe 3 times) and was told that she had not gotten a chance to discuss our plans with the Departments Director. It was near the end of September when I -met with Mrs. Craven at her office. The corrections needed were explained to be; a 20 feet set back from each lot line north and south; Drainage wells for water run off in designated parking lot area; More written information on the plans to explain the project. Due to some problems, the person drawing our initial draft had, along with the fact that it was necessary to revise the 48 z 0 Y- 0 0 Tochange the length so that the building runs east would add more expense due to a longer roof, not to mention how close it would come to the east boundary; and requirements for drainage is already questioned. Therefore, we humbly submits that in as much as we made many changes to meet required ordiances as stated by Mrs. Craven and as shown in our site plan, that the board its consideration of these facts would grant the approval of our plans. As pastor and on behalf of the members of St. Matthew, we thank you in the name of Christ Jesus. ------------ IN t.� ""' " A•�� :He`a*: fY:L� 1:1. .r1:3 t Mit✓J'�'f it:-i�'•^::..�.•iy �t. t i .. - p 04 41 . ..�-.•'--•r.�-.�3�,t�.:ews_-ti`�C.�a:j���'it+' r��jt�;41: � 5.... _ n c' .SITE PLAN. . Zo Bu11-i01�G lts -t Y•.• �•Y. L1 • Zoe 1, Pastor Miller felt that Planner Miller's memo implied that he had tied, but the statements he made were true; they would not ask for consideration if it was not their belief that they were trying to do what was requested to meet the then current site plan requirements. While there were some delays, Pastor Wilson felt it was a continuous process and continued that although they did not have the fee paid on the application, they have a copy of the application dated May of 1985, which application was held up because of the amount of changes they had to make. He also pointed out that Planner Miller's memo does not allude to the statement made by the Commission at the July 16th meeting that 49 AUG 2 0 1986 BOOK 65 P,{,F 4 6 AUG- 2 0 1986 BOOK 6 5 u1; F 477 staff should look into whether or not they could meet the 20' setback and further noted that Mr. Miller recommends they apply for a variance and then says there is no chance they could get one. Chairman Scurlock clarified that basically they are asking to be considered under the old standards since they felt they had made a valid attempt to meet the requirements at that time. He asked Director Keating if someone has made a sincere effort but their plan is deficient and staff realizes they are dealing with someone who is not a professional, would the Planning staff generally take the fee and then say go on back, or does staff just not accept the money or the application because of the deficiency. Director Keating advised that staff strongly encourages people not to submit if the application is deficient, but they will accept the application if they are pressed. Basically they are trying to be efficient timewise. Commissioner Bird asked if we have to ability to determine they are in fact grandfathered in, and also whether their plan at least meet the requirements of the old ordinance? Attorney Vitunac stated that the fact that the applicant may have gotten some information from one of our employees that misled them or may have been incorrect does not automatically give them a right to be grandfathered in. Commissioner Bowman wondered if you can't rely on an employee's advice, what do you rely on. Director Keating was not sure it was erroneous advice. There was a 20' setback at that time, and subsequently churches were made special exception requirements and more requirements were put on them, specifically a 30' setback. Discussion continued as to whether the site plan the church has now meets the previous requirements, and it was felt the triggering date is April of 1985. 50 MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, to accept April, 1985, as the date of the application, and have staff determine if the site plan meets the requirements of the ordinance at that time. Director Keating confirmed that staff will proceed as directed and determine if the plan can meet the standards in effect at the time of the preapplication, but he was concerned about the precedent being set. Commissioner Lyons believed part of the precedent here is an allegation about information that was given. Acting Administrator Thomas wished to know just when the Planning & Zoning Department will look at this - in a few weeks or in a day or two, and Director Keating stated that staff can look at this this afternoon if the Board desires. It was indicated that this should be expedited. Chairman Scurlock remarked, in fairness to the Planning staff, that we can't sit here every time on a planning issue and just "wing" it. He also felt if we don't live up to the current rD laws, we can never improve the community, but he did believe the people of St. Matthews Missionary Baptist Church came in fairly with good intent trying to meet the rules at the time. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. DATA PROCESSING SERVICES FOR COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT The Board reviewed letter from Don Hylton, Director of Information Systems, written to Commissioner Lyons as head of the Data Processing Committee: - 51 AUG 2 0 1916 BOOK 65 PAGE418 BOOK 65 F-,�UE 4-19 AUG 1986 ��� FREDA WRIGHT - RECEIVED ;Z t=RDCOCP)Tf CLX K. CIRCUIT COURT AND RECORDER (305) 567.8000 P. O. BOX 1023 VERO BEACH • FLORIDA 32961-1026 Data Processing August 11 , 1986 The Hon. Patrick B. Lyons Chairman - Data Processing Committee 1840 - 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 In re: Data Processing Services for Indian River Public Health De Dear Mr. Lyons: It is now and always has been my recommendation that the citizens 'of Indian River County would best be served by allowing the Indian River Public Health Department to utilize the curren,;, data processing -eq-uipment and staff. If they go with an independent stand-alone system, they will have to spend in excess of $250,000.00 for initial start-up and an ongoing cost of staffing that will cost over $150,000.00 per year. I previously gave you and the Board my request for equipment and personnel that was to cover bringing the Health Department, Library, and- Sheriff onto the Clerk's system. In order to provide these services my budget request for Fiscal Year 86/87 increased by $70,830.00: this request was not approved by the Board and with- out the additional personnel and equipment I could not accept the re- sponsibility of providing the additional services required. This recommendation had the full support of Dr. Tucker and Michael Powell. We had proceeded to the point of getting everyone's needs defined. r I feel strongly that it would be cost effective for the County to provide data processing services to the Public Health Department. Sincerely, on YIt Director of Information stems Commissioner Lyons explained the only reason he put this on the agenda is that there has been some confusion about how we were going to go and whether this should be part of the county system, and he would like to bring this to a head now because it makes a difference as to the space in the new Public Health Building. He wanted to be sure that in the plans for completing 52 _ . i that building we know we are going to have monies budgeted for equipment and for the job to be done. He advised that this matter was brought before the Data Processing Committee yesterday and passed on a 3 to 1 vote, the one dissenter being Property Appraiser Nolte who didn't want to accept the rather broad figures in the recommendation. The other committee members felt these figures were close enough for our purposes. Chairman Scurlock asked if the request is for $70,000 more for operating expense for 1986-87 and then in addition, they are looking for capital. This was confirmed by Commissioner Lyons. He stated that they want to get into the cost of the building and be sure the money is set up to take care of buying whatever equipment is necessary and to get the programming done. Chairman Scurlock asked where we are going to come up with $70,000 in this budget year, and Commissioner Lyons felt it could come out of the building itself. The Chairman questioned how you get operating expenditure out of a capital bond, and Commissioner Lyons pointed out that we are also talking about programming. Director Hylton noted that in his budget proposal to the Board, the three positions he asked for were cut out. He had asked for three people to start to design the system and write it for the County Health Department, for the Sheriff, and for the other departments. Starting a situation for the Health Department from ground zero, which is what we would be doing, would require additional people and you can't hire them two days before they are supposed to operate the system. The $70,000 taken out of the Data Processing budget covered roughly those three employees. He believed the County would be better served to have a system that is within their control, and it also had been Dr. Tucker's feeling that this was the way to go because he did not want to go it alone, which would require a full time staff. Director Hylton believed that Data Processing will have the 53 AUG 2 0 1986 13ooK 65 FacE X30 AUG 2 0 1986 aooK �� FacE 481 hardware to support the system come October as the Board generously provided for this in the budget, but noted they did take a tremendous beating when it came to personnel. He informed the Board that the present staff in Data Processing has donated over 3,000 hours in the last 18 months, and they cannot continue to do that. Chairman Scurlock asked h"ow this is handled for the Health Department now, and Director Hylton advised that presently they have no data-processing other than a few manual records. The Chairman inquired how much it would cost to go buy a program for them, and Director Hylton advised that he is currently researching programs that will run on the System 38 so they don't have to write the program, but he did not know the availability yet. He noted that the Health Department has a tremendous number of needs to be supplied in the program. Chairman Scurlock stated that he did not have any problem with the capital, which can be included in the additional funding. Where he has a problem is that we are in a situation where we will be ready to go to bid in about another month; then it will be October or November before we can award the bid; and then you have the construction period. Commissioner Lyons felt that what we need to decide now is are we going to proceed this way or aren't we. If we are, then we want to be sure the capital is included in the building. The programming can wait most of the year. That is an operating expense. Chairman Scurlock commented that he would be in favor of. I saying yes we want to do it, #1, but #2, that we don't fund the $70,000 for programming next year but that we get the capital amount and include that in the issue that is going to fund the building. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, to indicate that the Board 54 is in favor of allowing the County Public Health Department to utilize the current data processing equipment and staff and direct that the capital amount required be determined and included in the issue that is going to fund the building, but that the $70,000 operating expense not be included. Chairman Scurlock added that he felt possibly some of the longlife software legally could be included in the funding, but not if it is something that is consumable. Discussion continued as to whether programming can be considered a capital expense, and Attorney Vitunac expressed his opinion that it can be considered capital. Commissioner Wodtke stated that in voting for the Motion he wanted to know what the capital cost will be and wished to be sure we discuss that when we go into -the cost of the building. It was pointed out that this must all be spelled out for the bond issue. Discussion ensued, and Michael Galanis of Environmental Health was asked what it is costing the Health Department to handle this now. Mr. Galanis stated about half a dozen staff, and he believed they definitely could eliminate some staff if this were handled by the County data processing staff. He further pointed out that they need to know how to wire the building, etc. Commissioner Wodtke felt if they handled their own data processing, they would have to wire the building anyway, but Mr. Galanis pointed out that they would also have to have a•special room for the equipment and more staff if they went on their own. Commissioner Bird commented that he has never seen a way to eliminate staff, and Mr. Galanis felt what he was saying is that they would not add any staff. 55 BOOK 65 PjGr� AUG 2 0 1986 BDOK 65 fAGE 483 Commissioner Bird agreed the building should be set up to allow for proceeding as proposed, but he would hope it could be phased in so we don't go from nothing to $150,00 immediately. Director Hylton pointed out that the cost of $150,000 related to the cost of a stand-alone system, not if the county staff handles the data processing. Discussion continued as to the dollar amount needed for hardware and the software that can be considered a capital item, also re services for the Sheriff, etc., and charging back for those services. Director Hylton stated that they do charge back.for that, but it goes back to the General Fund and they don't get credit for it. Commissioner Lyons felt we may need to change our accounting system, and the Chairman agreed; he stressed that he has been trying for some time to get all the costs for services from the various County departments properly tracked back and charged out. He again indicated that what we need is capital costs for hardware and some programming, but not operating expenses. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. DISCUSSION OF GIFFORD COMMUNITY CENTER Commissioner Bird reviewed the history of the proposed Gifford Community Center project; how the property was donated; how we got involved in efforts to obtain funding for the project; the donation of the architect's services; and the cooperation of the School Board relating to the obtaining of $250,000 in PECO funds. He reported that through fund raising activities, the community has raised about $20,000 so far, which he felt is a very commendable effort. Commissioner Bird then referred to the following memo and attached list making proposals re division of responsibilities, etc. 56 TO: Board of County CommissioneRATE: August 18, 1986 SUBJECT: Gifford Community Center FROM: Richard N. Bird REFERENCES: Commissioner Thursday night, August 14, 1986, I attended a meeting held at the School Board office between Sam Hunter, representing the School Board; Ralph Lundy, Victor Hart, Walter Jackson and Reverend Donald Brown, representing the Gifford Progressive League, and myself. The purpose of the meeting was to try and coordinate the various activities required to move forward the project to build a Gifford Community Center. Enclosed is a list of proposals and suggestions that were submitted at the meeting by the Civic League representatives. Up to this point, I have made no commitments on behalf of the Board as to what our actual participation will be in this project, but the Civic League would like some indication from the Commission as to our feelings about the project, and our willingness to participate. I will ask this item to be added to the agenda for discussion during this Wednesday's Commission meeting since I will not be here for the August ,'k6 meeting. Representatives 'of the League will also attend the meeting to answer any additional questions that may arise. At the meeting I will make a report and bring everyone up to date on where the project has evolved from, and where we stand at the present time. DIVISION OF RESPONSIBILITIES, OBLIGATIONS, ETC. IN DEVELOPMENT OF THE GIFFORD COMMUNITY CENTER The following list of proposals and suggestions is for consid- eration during a meeting involving the Indian River County School Board and Indian River County Commission Representatives and the Gifford Progressive Civic League Representatives. An effort has been made to establish a preliminary listing of - what may be expected of the agencies involved with this project. This list is not designed to be all-inclusive or definitive. The purpose of the meeting is to expand the list and make sure that none of the Critical areas are omitted. 57 AUG 2 0 T926 BOOK UZ) F-v,r, 484 AUG 2 0 1`986 BOOK 65 NAt(u 5 I. School Board: A. Assist with securing funding for Construction of the project. B. Assist with development of Construction Plans. C. Serve as a conduit for funding from the State. D• Assist with adherance to 6A-2 Construction Code. E. Provide technical assistance during plan development and construction. F. Assist with identification of general uses for the facility. G. Assist with identification of services, programs, and activi- ties to be housed in the facility. H. Assist with operations and maintenance costs. I. Provide assistance in other areas upon identification. IA H. Board of County Commissioners A. Assist with securing funding for construction of the project. B. Assist with development of Construction Plans. C. Assist with cost of operations and maintenance. D. Formalize recommended policy and establish ordinances (if necessary) that will result in effective use of the facility. E. Formally appoint a Board *of Directors from the list reco- mended by GPCL. F. Assist with maintaining appropriate staffing of the facility. G. Develop through appropriate sources adequate revenue for a perpetual existence of the facility. H. Assist with identification of services, programs, ando activities to be housed in the facility. :I. Provide assistance in other areas upon identification. III. Gifford Progressive Civic League A. Assist with securing funding for the project. B. Assume major responsibility in determining size and nature of -structure and construction plans. 58 C. Assume responsibility for -nominating original Board of Directors; select subsequent nominations to serve on Board. D. Assume responsibility for developing operational policies. E. Assist with cost of operations. and maintenance. F. Assume responsibility for security of facility. G. Assume responsibility for monitoring the upkbep of facility.. H. Promote the necessary public relations activities to satisfy operational needs. I. Identify and approve services, programs, and activities to be housed in the facility. J. Assist with soliciting users for the facility. K. Assume responsibility for developing a timeline. L. Provide assistance in other areas upon identification. Commissioner Bird felt he has done about all he can do as an individual and that it is now up to the Board to determine what our further participation would be. He noted that he had told the Progressive Civic League that we did not want to get into the business of running community centers throughout the county, but that we have leased such buildings and he felt possibly some contribution can come from the county in the form of recreation programs and possibly we could pay for use of the building. Chairman Scurlock had some concerns. He believed the controlling factor is meeting the requirements of the grant. He has done some research on the PECO funds, and the primary purpose has to be for education and there are many state required standards for the building. He, therefore, felt sure the control will be with the School Board and not the County Commission. The Chairman also felt we are on dangerous turf in stating we will assist with operations and maintenance. We have the same request from the Wabasso people, and we want to be very cautious about how we approach this. Henoted that in Breezy Village, for instance, we established a special taxing district for them to take over their recreation facilities. 59 AUG 2 0 1986 BOOK 65 E. 486 Fr - AUG 2 0 1986 BOOK 65 f,1 -F IS 7 Commissioner Bird advised that in their discussions, it was agreed that in order for the School Board to get the funds, we might have to deed them the property, but he believed the School Board doesn't want to own the building and possibly they would want to deed the property back to the county. Chairman Scurlock felt the School Board will have to retain the building under the terms of the grant. In using that source of revenue, there are some very specific commitments, and he did not want the people led to believe that this is just a community center and the School Board will only use it once in a while. Commissioner Bowman suggested we have our County Attorney talk with the School Board Attorney and find out just how this will work. Chairm4n Scurlock felt possibly we could consider expansion of the street lighting district to include this as one alternative, and Commissioner Lyons concurred that would be consistent with what we have done with other centers. The Chairman agreed we could lease space in that building to put on recreation activities, but he had a great concern in regard to assisting with the cost of operation, maintenance and also maintaining appropriate staff. Commissioner Wodtke believed the important thing is that the community has $250,000 and we have the land, and he believe there are areas where we can assist. He did believe the community will be supportive and felt the first step would be Item E in regard to appointing a Board of Directors. Commissioner Lyons wondered whether the Board of Directors should be appointed by the School Board rather than the county. Chairman Scurlock felt that the first step is to actually learn the conditions of the grant, i.e., specifics about the percentage of use of the building, etc. and let our Attorney analyze it as to what we have to do. Commissioner Lyons agreed there is not much more we can do until we really know what our role will be in this project. 60 Ralph Lundy of the Gifford Progressive Civic League hoped that he is not hearing the Commission saying that we are going to be kicking this around for the next three or four years. He emphasized that what we are talking about is a $250,000 grant they are getting; the School Board has agreed to go along with what they are asking; the citizens already have raised $20,000; and he hoped the,.County Commissioners will not be the ones to impede this project. He continued that they are just asking the Board for assistance, not to be responsible for any major item, and stated that the Board is assisting the City of Vero Beach and the North County area with a recreation program, but is not contributing anything to any group or organization in the Gifford area for recreation. Chairman Scurlock pointed out that we are funding the Gifford summer program, and Mr. Lundy explained that he was referring to an organization. He felt that in asking for assistance it would be a program wherein they could use the county's present recreational supervisor of the Gifford Park, Larry Staley, and reiterated that they are only asking that the county assist with the cost of the maintenance; they are not asking for hand-outs. Commissioner Lyons did not believe the Commission has any idea of abandoning them on this facility, but he pointed out that he has just been given two pages of well -thought out suggestions which he has not had the opportunity to go over and which suggestions raise a lot of questions. He did feel the Board is very sympathetic to the idea of the community center, but needs to know what just our role can be. Mr. Lundy advised that the School Board has already assigned an architect to the building and they are working towards getting the funding. Commissioner Scurlock asked if the School Board has the grant, and Mr. Lundy stated that it is there waiting for them. AUG 2 0 1986 61 BOOK 65 P' ,E� AUG, 2 0 1986 BOOK 65 Ft,E S9 Commissioner Lyons brought up the question of whether the School Board might put a library up there and did not feel they should design the building until we understand what our rights are and what we should get involved in. Mr. Lundy believed the School Board is responsible for building the center and the plans are already designed. Commissioner Bird clarified that the grant money is set aside, but all this must be submitted before they actually get the money. Discussion continued at length about what actually is involved re deeding the land, the design of the building, etc. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com- missioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously directed the County Attorney to research the questions that have been raised today and come back to the Board with a recommendation as to what our role could be at the next meeting; appointed Commissioner Bird to act as liaison with the School Board on this matter; and indicated that we are supportive of the project. Mr. Lundy informed the Board that the Civic League has set the date of Saturday, October 25th, aside for ground breaking ceremonies; they want to keep the community enthusiasm going, and would like to know if they can use County equipment to clear the property. Commissioner Bird agreed with having the ground breaking ceremony, but pointed out that until we get the actual plans, we will not know how the building will set on the site; we will need a site plan before we put equipment in there and start to uproot things. Discussion continued, and Mr. Lundy hoped they could clear 62 just a little bit to demonstrate to .the community that they are moving ahead. Chairman Scurlock pointed out that a land clearing permit will be needed, etc., and Commissioner Bird stated that he will coordinate the ground breaking ceremonies on behalf of the county. There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 11:50 o'clock A.M. ATTEST: Clerk Chairman i A] 63 AUG 2 0 1986 Ba©K 65 E,�,E 4,90 . .0