HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/4/1986Tuesday, November 4, 1986
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida, met in Regular Session at the County Commission
Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Tuesday,
November 4, 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 Charles P. Balczun, County Administrator; L. S.
"Tommy" Thomas, Intergovernmental Relations Director; Charles P.
Vitunac, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; and
Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
Dr. G. Julius Rice, Pastor, Community Church, gave the
invocation, and Administrator Balczun led the Pledge of Allegi-
ance to the Flag.
AUDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Chairman Scurlock advised that Commissioner Wodtke has
requested the addition of nominations to the County Library
Advisory Board, and Finance Director Fry has requested the
addition of approval of the Vouchers for Payment of Annual
Contributions to the Housing Assistance Program.
Commissioner Bowman asked that consideration of including
Tropical Avenue in the road maintenance schedule be added under
Road 8 Bridge matters.
Commissioner Lyons requested that a federal grant applica-
tion for Florida Community Health Center be added under his
matters.
Attorney Vitunac later requested the addition of a report
on negotiations with the Attorney who represented Jim Chandler.
OV 41986 BOOK 66 Fa C- 2rS3
BOOK 66 PA. r 284
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously added the _
above items to today's agenda as requested.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chairman Scurlock asked if there were any additions or
corrections to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 14,
1986. There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 14,
1986, as written.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Apppointment of Deputy
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
Sheriff Dobeck's appointment of Deputy Sheriff John
J. Giaccio.
B. Renewal Pistol Permit
The Board reviewed memo of Administrator Balczun:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: October 14, 1986 E'LE:
the Board of County Commissioners
SUBJECT: Pistol Permit - Renewal
FROM: Charles P. Balczun REFERENCES:
County Administrator
The following individual has applied through the Clerk's Office
for renewal of his pistol permit:
Francis V. Casano, Jr.
Requirements of the ordinance have been met and are in order.
2
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
renewal application for license to carry a concealed
firearm for Francis V. Casano., Jr.
C. Reports
The following were received and placed on file in the Office
of Clerk to the Board:
Minutes of 1986 Annual Meeting of Board of Super-
visors of Sebastian River Water Control District
Minutes of Annual Meeting of the Landowners of the
Sebastian River Water Control District
D. DER/Army Corps/DNR Permit Applications - (Bedford & Schloss)
The Board reviewed memo of the Chief of Environmental
Planning:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: October 28, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: D.E.R., ARMY CORPS AND
SUBJECT: D.N.R. PERMIT APPLICATIONS
Robert M. Keatin" A
I
Planning & Developme Director
FROM: REFERENCES:
Art Challacombe DER/Bedford
Chief, Environmental Planning DIS:MISC1
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting on November 4, 1986.
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
APPLICATION FILE NO.S
31-126315-4 and 31-126316-4
APPLICATION DESCRIPTIONS:
1) Application No. 31-126315-4:
Applicant: Daniel Bedford, 746 34th Terrace, Vero
Beach, Florida 32960.
^V 3 BOOK 66 P,1 -F 285
L_
N 0 V 4 1986
BOOK
Waterway & Location: The project is located in the
Indian River, adjacent to Lot 2, Cache Cay Subdivi-
sion, Section..29, Township 32 South, Range 40 East,
Indian River County, Florida. The upland property
associated with the project is located on Cache Cay
Drive, in the City of Vero Beach.
Work & Purpose: The applicant proposes to construct
a private single dock, T-shaped with a 12' x 4' main
access pier -and 20' x 6' terminal platform. No
sewage pump -out or fueling facilities are proposed.
No dredging or filling will be performed.
2) Application No 31-126316-4:
Applicant: Mr. Jerry Schloss, 22 Market Drive,
Syosset, NY 11791.
Waterway & Location: The project is located in the
Indian River, adjacent to Lot 17, Bethel Isle Subdi-
vision, Section 29, Township 32 South, Range 40 East,
Indian River County Florida. The upland property
associated with the project is located on'4407 Sunset
Drive, in the City of Vero Beach.
- Work & Purpose: The applicant proposes to construct
a private single dock, with a pier and 30' x 6'
terminal platform. No sewage pump -out or fueling
facilities are proposed. No dredging or filling will
be performed.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS:
The Planning and Development Division reviews and submits
comments on dredge and .fill applications to the permitting
agencies based upon the following:
- The Conservation & Coastal Zoning Management Element of
the Indian River Comprehensive Plan
- Coastal Zone Management, Interim Goals, Objectives &
Policies for the Treasure Coast Region
- The Hutchinson Island Planning & Management Plan
- The Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances
- Chapter 16Q-20 of the Florida Administrative Code
The proposed dockage projects are located in the City of Vero
Beach. -Consequently, the focus of staff review is on potential
County and regional impacts rather than site-specific impacts;
in-depth field inspections of the project sites were not
conducted.
Chapter 16Q-20 of the Florida Administrative Code sets parame-
ters for private residential single docks located in the Indian
River Aquatic 'Preserve. Section 16Q -20.04(5)(b), Florida
Administrative Code, sets forth specific design standards and
criteria for private single docks. The docks are not located
in the Indian River Aquatic Preserve and therefore are not
subject to Chapter 16Q-20 requirements.
No dredging or filling is proposed in the construction of the
two dockage projects. In that respect, the projects will
result in minimal additional impact to areas where private
single docks have been previouslypermitted. -
4
Staff has not determined the extent to which the submerged
bottomlands of the proposed project areas will be impacted; the
effect of Indian River* development on ecologically valuable
seagrass beds should be considered.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners
authorize staff to forward the following comments regarding
these projects to the Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation:
1) The Department of Environmental Regulation and appropriate
agencies should consider the potential cumulative impacts
of dockage projects upon the Florida Manatee; and
2) The Department of Environmental Regulation and other
appropriate agencies should evaluate the potential impact
of marina projects on ecologically significant submerged
bottomlands such as seagrass beds in the Indian River.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously authorized
staff to submit the above comments to the DER re
the projects proposed by Daniel Bedford and Jerry
Schloss.
E. Line to Line Transfer - Sheriff
The Board reviewed memo of OMB Director Baird:.
TO: — Hofarabie Board of County DATE: October 28, 1986
Commissioner
SUBJECT: Line to Line
Transfer for
Sheriff
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
Account Number
Account Name
Increase Decrease
001-600-586-099.04 Sheriff Operations 23,000
001-600-581-099.91 Reserve for Contigency 23,000
EXPLANATION:
. The Sheriff had included $23,000 for Contingency in his
operating budget._ We feel this should be segregated.
5 BOOK 6 � A E 2:71
r
NOV 4 19$6
BOOK. 66 rA,E288
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved _
the line to line transfer for the Sheriff as set
out above.
F. Budget Amendment to Account for Grants
the Board reviewed memo of OMB Director Baird:
TO: Honorable 13oard of County DATE: October 28, 1986
Commissioners
SUBJECT: Budget Amendment
to Account for
Grants
FROM: Josep A. Baird
OMB Director
The Planning Department will receive -a $25,000 Ec$nomic
Development Grant and $22,192 in grant funds from Department
of Community Affairs.
Terms
Account Number
Revenues
004-000-334-003.00
Expenses
004-204-515-011.12
004-204-515-012.11
004-204-515-012.12
004-204-515-012.14
004-205-515-011.12
004-205-515-012.11
004-205-515-012.12
004-205-515-012.13
004-205-515-012.14
004-205-515-034.02
004-205-515-034.21
004-205-515-035.11
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GRANT
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO RECORD
RECEIPT OF GRANT FUNDS AND
EXPENSE ITEMS
Account Name
Environmental Grants
TOTAL REVENUES
Increase
25,000
25,000
Regular Salaries
Social Security
Retirement Contribution
Worker's Compensation
Regular Salaries
Social Security
Retirement Contribution
Insurance -Life & Health
Worker's Compensation
All Travel
Postage
All Office Supplies
TOTAL EXPENSES
1,950
140
256.
9
12,400
890
1,624
1,010
696
700
3,000
2,325
25,000
CORRECT ALLOCATION OF EXPENSES
FOR COUNTY MATCHING PORTION
004-205-515-011.12 Regular Salaries
004-205-515-034.72 Outside Printing 3,500
6
$25,000
Decrease
3,500
777 J
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GRANT
Terms
GRANT 25,000
COUNTY MATCHING FUNDS 9,000
Budget Amendment to Account for Grant
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
GRANT 22,192
Account Number Account Name Increase Decrease
Revenues
061
004-000-334-003.00 Environmental Grants 22,192
TOTAL EXPENSES 22,192
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that'the Board of County Commissioners
revise the Planning Department's budget to reflect grant funds.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
® revision of the Planning Department's budget to
reflect grant funds per the above budget amendment
recommended by OMB Director Baird.
G. Bond, Impact Fees & Wastewater Agreement - (Florida Convales-
cent Centers)
The Board reviewed memo of the Assistant Utility Director:
7 BOOK
NOV 4 1986
TOTAL REVENUES
22,192
.Expenses
004-204-515-011.12.
Regular Salaries
800
004-204-515-012.11
Social Security
58
004-204-515-012.12
Retirement Contribution
105
004-204-515-012.14
Worker's Compensation
4
004-205-515-011.12
Regular Salaries
8,000
004-205-515-012.11
Social Security
572
004-205-515-012.12
Retirement Contribution
1,048
004-205-515-012.14
Worker's Compensation
356
004-205-515-033.13
Engineering Services
10,000
004-205-515-034.02
All Travel
700
004-205-515-034.72
Outside Printing
100
004-205-515-035.11
All Office Supplies
449
TOTAL EXPENSES 22,192
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that'the Board of County Commissioners
revise the Planning Department's budget to reflect grant funds.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
® revision of the Planning Department's budget to
reflect grant funds per the above budget amendment
recommended by OMB Director Baird.
G. Bond, Impact Fees & Wastewater Agreement - (Florida Convales-
cent Centers)
The Board reviewed memo of the Assistant Utility Director:
7 BOOK
NOV 4 1986
NOVFF
4 1966
BOOK P,�,E
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DATE: OCTOBER 28, 1986
THRU: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY F� VICES
�r
FROM: JEFFREY K. BARYON
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: BOND TO COVER IMPACT FEE (SEWER) FOR THE COST OF THE
PACKAGE PLANT IN THE HOSPITAL NODE
r
BACKGROUND
The hospital node is currently served by Indian River County for water
and by the City of Vero Beach for sewer, on a temporary basis, until
the County completes the New Gifford Sewer Treatment Plant. The
County has asked any developer to cover the projected cost of impact
fees or a package plant with a cash bond or an irrevocable letter of
credit. The projected cost,was $53,750.00 and attached are copies of
the cash bond for $180.00 and an irrevocable letter of credit for
$53,570.00 which equals the total needed of $53,750.00.
RECOMMENDATION
Utility Staff recommends that the Commission approve the combination,
cash and letter of credit for the total of $53,750.00, and authorize
the Chairman to sign the Wastewater Service Agreement.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the
combination cash bond and letter of credit for a
total of $53,750, approved the Wastewater Service
Agreement with Florida Convalescent Centers, Inc.,
and authorized the signature of the Chairman.
8
WASTEWATER SERVICE AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT made this 4th day of November ,
1986, by and between INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political subdivision of
the State of Florida, hereinafter referred to as "County," and
FLORIDA CONVALESCENT CENTERS, INC., a Florida corporation,
hereinafter referred to as "Customer."
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, the City of Vero Beach and County entered into a
temporary wastewater capacity transfer agreement on the 6th day of
July, 1984, transferring 100,000 gallons per day of wastewater
capacity from the South County Mainland wastewater service territory
to the County's Hospital Node; and
WHEREAS, Customer is constructing a convalescent center on
property within the Hospital Node in the water and sewer service
area of the County and is in need of sewer service; and
WHEREAS, the County is not in a position, at this time, to
supply sewer service to Customer, and desires to prevent the
proliferation of private package wastewater treatment plants; and
WHEREAS. Customer and County desire that the City service
Customer with a limited amount of sewer service on a temporary
basis; and
WHEREAS, it is now. the intention of the County to formally
authorize the use of a portion of the temporary wastewater capacity,
under the following terms and conditions:
1. It is understood between the parties that this is a 10,600
G/P/D temporary allocation of wastewater capacity, provided by
the City of Vero Beach.
2. Customer shall pay all fees required by the City of Vero
Beach.
3. The design and construction of the wastewater improvements
that will provide service to Customer's property shall meet
County requirements.
9 Boa b6
1V 4 1986 -
r ►®V 4 L086 -7
BOOK r,a 291
4. Customer shall, concurrently with this Agreement, pay
wastewater impact fees in the amount of $53,750 for 43
equivalent residential units of service or provide a one year
letter of credit for the same amount. If County wastewater
service is not available within the year, the letter of credit
shall be either renewed or full payment of the impact fees
made.
5. Customer agrees and understands that the County intends to
ultimately construct a wastewater.facility to service the area.
County is unsure of the timing, the extent or the location of
said plant at this time. In the event wastewater capacity
becomes available from County resources, then Customer agrees
to disconnect its temporary service and connect into the County
system within 60 days of receiving such notice from County in
accordance with all applicable County ordinances and policies;
and agrees to pay any applicable impact fee, connection fees,
and other costs established by County.
6. Customer shall, concurrently with this Agreement, pay
water impact fees and appurtenant charges for County water
service.
WHEREFORE, the parties have authorized their representatives to
execute this Contract, on the date set forth next to their
signatures.
FLORIDA CONVALESCENT CENTERS, INC.
Dated:%- J / 'Y -
James 0. McCarver, President
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER -COUNTY, FLORIDA
Dated: 11-4-86 By:
Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Chairman
10
H. Partial Release Wastewater Assessment Lien SR60 Sewer
(Countryside/Realcor)
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
Partial Release of Assessment Lien (SR60 Sewer)
for Realcor-Vero Beach Associates and authorized
the signature of the Chairman.
State Road 60 Sower Project
Map #41 (285 ERUs Reserved)
PARTIAL RELEASE OF EQUIVALENT RESIDENTIAL UNIT
WASTEWATER RESERVATION AND ASSESSMENT LIEN
FOR GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION from REALCOR-VERO
BEACH ASSOCIATES, the receipt of which is hereby
acknowledged, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 'hereby releases the
property hereinafter described from that certain Certificate
of Wastewater Reservation recorded in O. R. Book 721, Page
985, public records of Indian River County, Florida, and
from that certain Special- Assessment Roll included in
Resolution No. 84-.107 recorded in 0. R. Book 700, Page 298,
public records of Indian River County, Florida, which is
more particularly described as:
EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF
EXECUTED by' the Chairman of the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, and attested
and countersigned by the Clerk of such Board this 4th_ day
of November 1986.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Attest: , INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By G —
W' t r bon C Scifr I ock F
reds righ ,
Chairman
V 4 1986
BOOK 66 fry. -UF 2,93
NOV 4 1986
BOOK 66 Fe")F 294
That part of the North 602.17 feet of Tract 16, Section 10, Township 33 South, Range
38 East, according to the last general plat of lands of the Indian River Farms
Company filed in Plat book 2, page 25, public records of St. Lucie County, Florida,
which lies East of Interstate Route 95 (State Road No. 9); less and excepting the
East 40 feet thereof for road and drainage purposes; the boundary of said parcel
being more particularly described as follows, to wit: From the Northeast corner of
the aforesaid Tract 16, run North 89°10'20" West, 40 feet to a point on the West
right of way line of 90th Avenue for the Point of Beginning; thence following said
West right of way line of 90th Avenue; run South 00'25'23" West, 602.17 feet; thence
leaving said right of way, run North 89'10'20" West, 770.24 feet, more or less, -to a
point on the East right of way of Interstate Route 95 ( State Road No. 9); thence
following said East right of way line run Northwesterly on a curve to the right,
having a radius of 5579.58 feet subtended by a central,angle of 06'12'12", run
Northerly an are distance of 604.08 feet, more or less, to a point
with the North line of the aforesaid Tract 16 thence run South 89'10'20" East. along
the said North line of Tract 16, a distance of 810.31 feet, more or less, to the
Point of Beginning.
'rax I.D. #10-33-38-00001-0160-00001.1
EXHIBIT "A"
I. Release of Assessment Lien SR60 Sewer (Lowenstein)
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
Release of Assessment Lien (SR60 Sewer) for
Gwyndolin Lowenstein.and authorized the signature
of the Chairman.
12
0
RELEASE OF ASSESSMENT LIEN
AND CERTTF I UTE_6F_R€9ERCIA`I TON
For and in consideration of the sum of $1,425.58
received from GWYNDOLIN LOWENSTEIN, in hand this day,
receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA (the County), hereby releases the property
hereinafter described from a certain special assessment lien
recorded by the County in its official records (Book 0700,
Page 298) for a special assessment in the amount of $1,250,
plus accrued interest at the rate of ten percent, levied in
accordance with the provisions of Ordinance No. 83-46 of the
County, as amended, and Resolution No. 84-107 of the Board
of County Commissioners of the County and noted on the
Public Records of Indian River County as a Certificate of
Reservation recorded in 0. R. Book 721, Pages 887-890. The
County hereby declares the special assessment lien fully
satisfied. The property,located in Indian River County, is
more fully described as follows:
The West 10 acres of Tract 10 and the East 10
acres of Tract 11, Section -6, Township 33 South,
Range 39 East, according to the last general plat
of lands of the Indian Diver Farms Company -filed
in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit -Court of
St. Lucie County, Florida, in Plat Book 2, Page
25; said land now lying and being in Indian River
County, Florida.
Executed by the Chairman and attested by the Clerk of
the Board of County Commissioners on this 44th day of
November, 1986.
INDIAN'RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Attest: BOARD OF CQUNTY COMMISSIONERS
By
rem _ I�lr 9 i t e 50 Sc r oc c r'
— Q. Chairman
Approved as to form®
and legal sufficiency:
Charles P. Vitunac
County Attorney
DISCUSS APPLICATION FOR PISTOL PERMIT (WALTER DONOVAN)
The Board reviewed memo from Administrator Balczun:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: October 24, 1986 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
SUBJECT: Pistol Permit -.New
FROM: Charles P. Balczun REFERENCES:
County Administrator
The following named person has applied through the Clerk's Office
for a new concealed weapon permit: Walter Donovan
Due to discrepancies concerning his arrest record, I have advised --
him, gef the attached correspondence, his request for a concealed
weapon permit may be denied by the Board of County Commissioners.
He has been advised to be present for the meeting of November
4th if he has additional information.
13 BOOK , I "F Fvj95
BOOK 66 PA E 296
Mr. Donovan appeared before the Board and stated that
apparently he didn't read the application right; he assumed from
reading the first page that the intent simply was to make sure
those applying were good moral persons, and he did not include
the two arrests which occurred in 1971 and 1979 because he didn't
think he had to. He has been in Florida five years and has never
had any problems here, which is what he assumed the Board would
be interested in. He submitted the following letter of recom-
mendation from his neighbors:
cr�01uOu V),ap U 0 V- U 4� ?� ► lye
I -
J, J
\4 S Q S�S1t us �� m**( Ke- a
&w hQ_ a" I'l(s 4me
t1ase j
PzUtA A act -
Ur �: lief p . nelsC�n>
z� f �N r.� CUs ��� l �o�r� a
a � I " 04d 5. ke-1 it"t al -EC) fyie. -it:-o
I
S�Iveef
C^
4L
Commissioner Lyons wished to know what Mr. Donovan had to
say about the two occurrences as they seemed fairly serious.
Mr. Donovan explained that in 1971 when he lived in. Staten.
Island, he had horses in his back yard, which was against the
14
code without a special permit; a lot people had them and no one
usually complained, but
his
neighbor did
complain. He had
sold
one horse and the other
was
to be taken
away the next week
when a
Deputy came to serve him a summons as he was leaving the house on
his way to the bank. He explained the situation to the deputy
and told him if he had to give him a ticket, please leave it in
the mailbox as he had to get to the bank. However, the Deputy
was still there when he got back and came at him waiving the
summons. His dog, which was chained at the side of the house,
ran to the end of his chain and the deputy picked up a lawn chair
and was going to hit the dog; so, he grabbed the deputy and
escorted him off the property. When he explained all this in
court, the judge dismissed the charges. The other instance
involved somebody selling him a pick-up truck for which they said
they had the papers. He got stopped with the truck, and when he
went to find the person who sold it to him, he was not to be
found.
Commissioner Bird stated that based on that information, he
would vote for approval of issuance of the pistol permit.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the
application for a license to carry a concealed fire-
arm for Walter Donovan and instructed that he fill
out a new application including all the pertinent
information so it will reflect his actual status.
REZONING EAST OF U.S.1 & SOUTH OF N. GIFFORD RD. TO CH (SCHOMMER)
The hour of 9:05 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with proof of publication
attached, to -wit: - —
15 s
OV AX 198 BOOK F'1� 997
r-
'NOV
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
in the matter of
in the Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of AW & Y'&
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed befoS@ me the ( day of 6& A.D. 19
(SEAL)
Manager)
(Clerk of the Circuit bourthAian River County, Florida)
BOOK 66 r,{ F. 298
NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING
Notice of hearing to consider the adoption of
a Counter ordinance rezoning land from: CL,
Limited Commercial District to CH, Heavy Com-
mercial District. The property is presently owned
by Alan R. Schommer and is located east of U.S.
Highway 1; south of 45th Street, and north of
43rd Street.
The subject property is described as
That part- of the hereinafter described.
prorty IyIng East of U.S. Highway No.
1: Inning at the Southeast comer of .
the NE'/.
- of the NW -//4 of Section 26,
Township 32 South, Range 39 East.' r -
thence run North 420 feet; thence rune
West 7o feet, thence run Sough 426 `;
feet: thence run East 700 feet to the,,,.
point of beginning. Said lands lying and
being in Indian River County, Florida �'s°.
A pubic hearing at. which parties in* Interest
heard citizens shall
ted have
y the Board of County Corn-
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 Tuesday, Novem--,
bar 4,1988, at 9:05 a.m.
tana e. reozard onin�to as less IntenseisslOnsrsoni district
than the district requested provided 11% within ;y
the same general use category.
Anyone who may wish to appeal ar ''decision
which may be made at this meeting will need to
ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings
is made, which includes the testimony and a*,,,
deuce upon which the appeal Is based. � � , ,
i._ • Indian River County,
Board of County Commissiorrere ;as
By: -s -Don C. Scurlock Chairmalk y
OCL 18,19$8.
Chief Planner Richard Shearer made the staff presentation:
TO: The Honorable Members pA-�-E: October 20, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
SUBJECT: SCHOMMER REQUEST TO REZONE
Robert M. Kea' ng, CP 4.63 ACRES FROM CL,
Planning & De elopzttent Director LIMITED COMMERCIAL DIST
RICT, TO CH, HEAVY
COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
FROM: Richard Shearer, REFERENCES:
Chief, Long -Range Planning
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissionefs at their
regular meeting of November 4, 1986.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
Alan Schommer, the owner,
is requesting
16
to rezone 4.63 acres
located on the east side of U.S. 1 and approximately one-quarter
mile south of 45th Street (North Gifford Road) from CL, Limited
Commercial District, to CH, Heavy Commercial -District.
The applicant intends to further develop this property for
contractors trade buildings and warehouses.
On September 25, 1986, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
7 -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.
Existinq Land Use -Pattern
The subject property contains a retail sales building. North of
the subject property are warehouses and contractor trade
buildings zoned CH. East of the subject property are citrus
groves zoned RM -6. South of the subject property are
single-family residences zoned* RM -6. West of the subject
property, across U.S. 1, are retail stores 'zoned CG, and
single-family and multi -family residences zoned CG and RM -6.
Northwest of the subject property are citrus packinghouses zoned.
CH.
Future Land Use Pattern
The Comprehensive Plan generally designates the subject property
and the land north, south and east of it as MD -1, Medium -Density
Residential 1 (up to 8 units/acre). The land west of the subject
property (across U.S. 1) is part of the U.S. 1 MXD, Mixed -Use
Corridor (up to 6 units/acre). Moreover, the Comprehensive Plan
designates a 90 acre commercial node on the east side of U.S. 1
at the intersection of U.S. 1 and North Gifford Road. There are
90 acres of land in this area zoned commercial, including the
subject property, and the staff feels that these 90 acres make up
the node.
.In reviewing this request, staff notes that all of the land north
and northwest of the subject property is currently zoned CH. The
proposed rezoning would be a natural extention of this CH zoning
to the south and allow the applicant to develop this property in
a manner similar to the land to the north.
Transportation System
The subject property has direct access to U.S. 1 (classified as
an arterial street on the County's Thoroughfare Plan). The
maximum development of the subject property under CH zoning could
generate up to 631 average annual daily trips (AADT). Under the
current CL zoning, the subject property could generate up to
4,268 AADT as a neighborhood retail shopping center.
Environment
The subject property is not designated as environmentally
sensitive nor is it in a flood -prone area.
Utilities
A county watermain runs along the west side of U.S. 1 across from
the subject_ property. County wastewater facilities are not
available.
r�
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendation, staff recommends approval.
7 ROOK Pr{UE29
�
Nov 4 1986
BOOK 66 mc -L300
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
Zhere were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously closed the
public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 86-71 rezoning 4.63 acres located on the
east side of U.S.1 1/4 mile south of North Gifford
Road to CH as requested by Alan Schommer.
ORDINANCE NO. 86- 71
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:
18
That part of the hereinafter described property lying East
of U.S. Highway No. 1: Beginning at the Southeast corner of
the NE -1 of the NW -1 of Section 26, Township 32 South, Range
39 East, thence run North 420 feet; thence run West 700
feet; thence run South 420 feet; thence run East 700 feet to
the point of beginning. Said lands lying and being in
Indian River County, -Florida;
Be changed from CL, Limited Commercial District, to CH, Heavy
Commercial 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 4th day
of November 1986.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
By i
Don C. Scurl ck, Jr. airman
AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE - COASTAL HOTEL HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS
The hour of 9:05 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with proof of publication
attached, to -wit:
19
BOOK 66 rnur 01
JOV 4 1986 BOOK fis F.A -
�i
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a
in the matter of�'-
in the . Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of e� -2Nd /Z1
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of th
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promisepy of
d any persone attached co.firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscrib bei a me t 's _ day of i-4LA D. 19 AZ
�
( ess Manager)
(SEAL) (Clerk of the Circuit (;ourt, IrUAn River -County, Florida)
NOTICE INOTICEYUN thaS HEREBY t the Board of
Feners of Indian River hearing chonde hI hold apblic at whipar.
ties in interest and citizensshall have an oppor-
tunity to be heard, in the County Commission
Chambers of the County Administration Build-
ing, located at 1840 25th St., Vero Beach, Flor. '
Ida, on Tuesday. November 4, 1986, at 9:05 a.m.
to consider the adoption of an Ordinance anti.
tied:
COUNTY,I FLORIDAN ORDNANCE A AMENDING NDIAN SEC-
TION 25. GENERAL PROVISIONS, OF
APPENDIX A OF THE CODE OF LAws
AND ORDINANCES, BY CREATING A
NEW PARAGRAPH OASTAL
HOTEL HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS-. ROVID.
ING FOR ADDITIONAL HEIGHT EXCEP-
TIONS FOR HOTELS, MOTELS AND RE-
SORT DEVELOPMENTS LOCATED
EAST OF STATE ROAD A -1-A; AND
PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CON-
FLICTING PROVISIONS, CODIFICA-
TION,
DATE. SEVERABILITY, AND EFFECTIVE
A copy of the proposed Ordinance Is available I
at the Planning Department office on the second
floor of the County Administration Building.
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision
which may be made at this meeting will need to
Ismadewhich nsure that 8 v&rcluldes in theles testOf the imony andewg-
dance upon which the appeal will be based
Indian River County
Board of County Commissionwa
BY: -s -Don C. Scunocic, Jr., Chairman
Oct. 20, 1986 '
Environmental Planner Challacombe made the following
_presentation:
20
TO: The Honorable Members ®ATE: October 24, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
SUBJECT:
Robert M Ke tin AICP
Planning & Development Director
PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROVID-
ING FOR ADDITIONAL HEIGHT
EXCEPTIONS FOR HOTELS,
MOTELS AND RESORT DEVELOP-
MENTS LOCATED EAST OF
STATE ROAD A -1-A
,.
FROM: Art Challacombe REFERENCES: Height Except.
Chief, Environmental Planning DIS:ARTCHA
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of November 4, 1986.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS:
On May 21, 1986, the Board of County Commissioners directed
planning staff to review and amend, the County ordinance relat-
ing to maximum height exceptions for hotels, motels and resort
developments located east of State Road A -I -A.• The purpose of
this amendment is to allow tourist commercial building struc-
tures -to exceed the current thirty-five foot height limitation
if the structure is set back an additional distance from the
Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL). Currently, this
amendment would only be applicable to the Gordon Nutt property
located just south of Wabasso Beach Park. The property is
currently zoned CG, General Commercial District.
On October 23, 1986, the Planning and Zoning Commission, by a 3
to 2 vote, recommended that the Board of County Commissioners
not adopt the proposed ordinance. The reasons given by the
Commission for the recommendation of denial were that the
ordinance would apply to only one parcel in the County; that
the current 35 foot height limitation is adequate; that
--appreving- thi-s exception would lead to additional exceptions;
that an additional 1-0 foot coastal setback would not provide
significant environmental or flood protection benefits; and
that no incentive should be necessary for a developer to locate
his building in a more secure location more landward of the
coast.
ALTERNATIVES &ANALYSIS:
The proposed ordinance will only apply to tourist commercial
building structures located east of S.R. AIA. As proposed, the
ordinance will allow those structures to exceed the height
limitation under the following conditions:
1) One foot of additional setback from the CCCL shall be
provided for each foot in height exceeding thirty-five
feet.
2) Once the additional setback is established, all structures
exceeding six feet in height shall be prohibited within ^
the designated additional setback area.
3) In no case shall any building structure be allowed to
exceed forty-five feet in height.
The primary public benefit resulting from adoption of this
ordinance is that tourist commercial building structures will
be given an incentive to locate further back from the Atlantic
Ocean, and those structures then will be afforded greater
protection against flooding .and storm surge. The ordinance
change should also enhance dune protection.
21 BOOK f"6Fq,E ¢�0e�
BOOK 65 uc, 304
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners.
adopt the proposed ordinance.
Chairman Scurlock inquired if this in any way increases the
density allowed.
Planner Challacombe stated that it does not, and referred to
the following graphic which demonstrates what would be allowed:
Planner Challacombe noted that we now establish the 35'
height limitation by the natural grade. We changed the ordinance
in the first place because it used to be to the finished grade
and people actually dug in so they could go up higher and have
more floors. He discussed the advantage of having the structures
moved further back from the ocean and pointed out that once this
line is established, it will. require that all the buildings move
back, not just the one exceeding 351.
Chairman Scurlock questioned where the ordinance talks about
resort complexes whether this would apply to somebody renting
their seaside villa for a few days, and Planner Challacombe
explained that it applies only to tourist commercial and there is
nothing else on the island under this zoning.
Attorney Vitunac asked if there is a reasonable distinction
for allowing this for commercial and not for residential, and
Planner Challacombe felt that actually from a professional
standpoint, there is no difference, but the ordinance would apply
only to Mr. Nutt's property.
22
Commissioner Lyons suggested that we tie it to that particu-
lar zoning category, and Commissioner Bird asked Attorney Vitunac
if there was any legal reason not to make it applicable to this
one particular zoning.
Attorney Vitunac felt it is important to do that, but also
felt there should be some reason in the record why only that zone
has this procedure available.
Director Keating advised that basically this is the only
General'Commercial zone east of A -1-A on the barrier island, and
the reasons for the extra height are the characteristics a
commercial establishment needs to be successful.
Chairman Scurlock brought up the example of the hospital
which had its height limitation changed years ago through a
variance, which he felt probably was illegal. He could see some
need for'some very well defined situations where some of this may
make some sense, but agreed we need to justify it.
Commissioner Wodtke pointed out that Mr. Nutt has an
approved site plan which would allow him to build right up to the
coastal construction control line (CCCL). We know the CCCL is
going to be moved further back in March, and the state permit
will have a lot to do with the location of the building on the
land. What we apparently are talking about here is that if you
move back 10' from the CCCL, you get 10' more height. Ten feet
is not very much, and he thought the main reason why we were
doing this is that they wanted to move the building back so far
that the bottom floor would not be able to have a view of the
ocean. Commissioner Wodtke stated that to him it is more the
consideration of the overall picture as to the character of the
dune structure, the erosion rate, the vegetation, etc., and what
we are trying to save on a case by case basis. He wished to know
if they are moving the building back 10017 - —
Director Keating advised that they are moving it back 101,
and Commissioner Wodtke asked what the actual difference in the
elevation would be.
23
BOOK d fr�uF 9�®5
NOV 4 198
BOOK 66 o J . 306
Attorney Stewart, representing Gordon Nutt, stated the
difference would amount to about 51. He explained that in the
or-iginal site plan there was a monolithic building, the whole
flat side of which was on the CCCL. The revised site plan, which
has been approved, has more of a "W" shaped building, and only
the points of the "W" on the east side of the building are now
30' back. The mass of the building has been moved to the west
considerably further than 301.
Chairman"Scurlock asked staff if the new site plan is a
better plan for the county, and Director Keating did feel it is a
better plan and will present a better image. He further noted
that the plan Mr. Nutt has now is not substantially different
from what he could have done back in 1981 because the bottom of
the height measurement then was from .the final finished grade in
the front of the building, which meant you could berm up the
front of the building and measure from the top of the berm to the
top of the building rather than from the average natural grade of
the site.
Commissioner Wodtke asked if the average natural grade is
measured from the top of the dune line to A -1-A or just where the
building structure is going to be, and Director Keating stated
that it is not clearly defined in the ordinance, but it has been
his decision that we can measure from where the building is going
-to be.
Commissioner Wodtke had a concern about the following letter
from Fire Chief Allen but realized this ladder truck was
requested in their budget:
24
s � �
South 111dian River (Pounty Fire District
1500 Old Dixie Highway
ero Beach, 0orida 32Ca60
1 elephone (305) 562 -
November 3, 1985 ti op '986
N
zz
>
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32950
RE: Proposal to increase building heights over 35 feet
Please be advised that the upcoming proposal to increase
building heights in Indian River County is of great concern to
the fire service.
In case you are not aware of the status and capability of
our fire apparatus, buildings exceeding 35 feet in height cannot
be adequately protected according to accepted fire department
operations.
Presently, the department's highest ladder is a 35 foot
extension ladder and we have no capabilities of elevatedmaster
stream applications, roof operations and ventilation operations.
First line fire apparatus carry ladders limited to 24 feet.
It is the recommendation of this department to consider the
aspect of fire protection at Tuesday's meeting concerning subject
matter and maintain present building heights until such time that
_ this department laas the capabilities and equipment to effectively
protect higher structures.
Yours for better fire protection,
hn C. Allen
Fire Chief
Commissioner Bird agreed fire protection -is a concern, but
he believed hotel buildings have certain stringent fire code
protection requirements.
Commissioner Bowman felt the old 181 ordinance was out-
rageous and that just to say this is better than that is
practically meaningless. Another 10' back when the ocean comes
roaring in will not help much, and she further noted that they
will not be behind the new CCCL.
NOV 4 1 2 5 600K
NOV 41 M6
BOOK 3®8
Commissioner Lyons commented on the requirement that "in no
case shall any building structure be allowed to exceed 45' in
height" and wanted to know how height is defined now.
Director Keating stated that it is the vertical distance to
the highest point of the roof, according to the type of roof, and
it is measured from the average natural grade or the minimum
flood elevation, whichever is higher. There are some exceptions
for A/C equipment, elevators, etc. He noted that staff worked on
this very hard with the public and believed they did come to a
consensus.
Commissioner Bowman asked what assurance we have that some-
body isn't going to come in some years from now and say they want
to be rezoned for hotels.
The Board members noted there is no such assurance, -and
Commissioner Bird felt by then there will be another CCCL that
will make all this null and void.
Attorney Stewart felt the ordinance as it now exists creates
some real disincentives which he did not feel were ever intended.
He pointed out that if they move their building back to a lower
elevation, they would have to fill in and put the building up
higher to meet the minimum elevations required to avoid the 100
year storm surge, but that would penalize them from a height
point of view because the way height is currently measured the
fill counts as part of the building height. Also, with this, he
felt there is a built-in incentive to build as close to the CCCL
as possible to maximize your views. Attorney Stewart then
compared hospitals and hotels, their functions, and how they are
built in order to be able to provide service to the people. Once
the CCCL is moved considerably to the west, Attorney Stewart did
not feel this will be as much of a problem to the county. It is,
however, critical to his client for the implementation of his
project. They have a site plan that has been approved with the
45' height level subject to the Commission's approval of this
26
ordinance, and he respectfully requested that the Board approve
the.proposed ordinance.
Commissioner Wodtke noted that no additional density is
allowed.and wanted to know if less units can be put on the
property.
Attorney Stewart advised that the project now has about 40
units less than their originally approved site plan.
Joe Dorskey, Town Manager of Indian River Shores, read aloud
the following Resolution adopted by the Town Council:
RESOLUTION 415
WHEREAS, the Town Council of Indian River Shores is concerned
for any changes to zoning and building restrictions in the area
along 41A to Route 510 and°the mainland, and
WHEREAS, this is the emergency evacuation route for the Town.
and,
WHEREAS, the overall environmental effect of increasing
building heights along the barrier island shoreline is negative
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT THE TOWN COUNCIL OF INDIAN
RIVER SHORES URGES THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMMISSION TO SUPPORT
ITS PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD IN ITS DECISION TO DISAPPROVE OF
COASTAL HOTEL HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS FOR HOTELS, MOTELS, ETC. EAST OF
STATE ROAD AlA.
* * * * * * * * * *
This Resolution was adopted at a meeting of the Town Council
on October 30, 1986.
TOWN COUNCIL OF INDIAN RIVER SHORES
Virginia L Gilbert, Town Clerk
4 27 BOOK 66 F'.g�E•1
i 0
F, [Ivov zl -twe
BOOK 6
Mr. Dorskey informed the Board that the Town has a similar
ordinance applying only to residential where some increase is
allowed for -further setback; however, it is only 4" for each 1'
with a maximum 2' increase.
Chairman Scurlock inquired about the Town's maximum height
limitation, and Mr. Dorskey explained that it is 501, but their
height is measured from mean high water which results in around
35' because the dune is about 151.
Chairman'Scurlock felt there are buildings in the town
higher than 35141 and Mr. Dorskey stated there is one that was
built before the controls were put on.
Chairman Scurlock did not see how the height would affect
the evacuation route if there is no increase in density.
Mr. Dorskey did not know that it.would, but noted the Town
was concerned for this area for a number of reasons including the
environment and also evacuation.
Commissioner Wodtke asked if the Town Council had a full
presentation on this by our staff or Mr. Nutt, and Mr. Dorskey
stated the most input they had was from Councilman MacAdam who
was more familiar with this than the rest and he proposed the
Resolution.
Commissioner Lyons wished to know what the negative environ-
mental impact would be, and Mr. Dorskey believed the height
-causes wind erosion, and also they felt from an aesthetic point
of view, it is worse than the environmental impact.
Chairman Scurlock inquired if the Town's ordinance allows
the developer to excavate to mean sea level and then go up 50',
and Mr. Dorskey stated it does not; the net height has to be 50'
from mean high water.
Burt Hambleton of Mooringline. Drive, Vice President of the
Moorings Property Owners Association, came before the Board to
speak for the Association, which represents 2,200 people. He
felt Attorney Stewart had indicated that the Planning & Zoning
28
Commission approved this ordinance, and they actually voted 3 to
2 against it.
Chairman Scurlock believed that Mr. Stewart's comment was
that the: site plan had been approved contingent on approval of
the ordinance.
Mr. Hambleton pointed out that the applicant has had a
approved site plan since 1981, and he felt the only thing done
during that time was trying to find a way to circumvent the
ordinance. Had Mr. McNutt gone ahead under the old ordinance, he
could have accomplished exactly what he is after now. Mr.
Hambleton expressed concern that the proposed ordinance will open
the gate for other people to request this zoning, particularly
when the new setback Line is put into effect, and stated that the
Property Owners Association strongly opposed any change in the
existing height limitation of 351.
Lomax Gwathmey came before the Board speaking for the Board
of Directors of the Civic Association. He believed the present
ordinance is a good one which has established the character of
the county and that a change at this time would set a dangerous
precedent. —He noted that the City of Vero Beach is having
trouble - they have a 50' height limit that got up to 71' in one
case and they are seriously considering going to 351. Mr.
Gwathmey felt the trade-off of 1' in setback for 1' in height is
almost a sham and that a setback of 3' for 1' in height might be
more reasonable.
Nancy Offutt, legislative liaison for the Board of Commerce
and Board of Realtors, wished to clarify that the City of Vero
Beach is not seriously considering lowering its building height.
The Civic Association is advocating that position.
Bill Koolage, long time resident, felt the attraction of the
county is that we hold down the height limits and also the
densities. He believed many senior citizens feel as he does and
encouraged the Board not to approve this change in the ordinance.
NOV 29 BOOK 66 f q11
NOV 41986 BOOK ��' F,�'U-C 312
Chairman Scurlock asked if Mr. Koolage, a former member of
the Hospital Board, felt the hospital could function at 35' and
whether he would advocate that hospitals be allowed to build up -
higher.
Mr. Koolage believed it would require a hospital architect
to answer that but noted that hospitals, in general, have gone
up. He did not feel the hospital is a good comparison.
Chairman Scurlock pointed out that since the hospital was
granted the height exception in the late 70's, no other building
has been granted that exception; so he did not feel it opened the
flood gates. He inquired if Mr. Koolage realized the net effect
of this change would be 5' and not 10, and Mr. Koolage stated
that he did not want to see a break in.what is established.
Frank Kahn, resident and senior citizen, st@ted that—he
believes in controlled growth. The hospital needs more growth,
and he did not want to stymie progress. He believed there are
experienced people on the Commission who are good at controlling
growth, on a case by case basis if necessary, and urged the Board
to look to the future and move the buildings back as far as they
legally can.
Commissioner Wodtke commented that he has been on the Com-
mission many years and does not want to go above 351, but he is
concerned about erosion and.vegetation and would like to get the
building back 30' if we can. He stressed that we are locked in
on an approved site plan where Mr. Nutt can build right up to the
coastal construction line with more units, and felt we are faced
with a dilemma.
Chairman Scurlock asked Attorney Stewart if the ordinance
were to be modified to 1' of height for 11' of setback, what
impact that would have on their site plan, and Mr. Stewart stated
that if the height was capped at 7' as opposed to 101, they could
live with that.
Commissioner Lyons personally believed from an environmental
standpoint we are going to save vegetation on the dune if we can
-.
30
get that first floor up so they do not cut down what is on top of
the dune.
Commissioner Bowman felt strongly that we don't set things
just so we accommodate the scofflaws, but Commissioner Lyons felt
they are a fact of life that must be faced.
Discussion continued re 11' setback for 1' of height, which
would require a setback of 15' to go up 101, and Attorney Stewart
agreed that would work for them as long as there was still a
maximum cap of 10' height increase.
It was determined that no one further wished to be heard.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Lyons, the Board unanimously closed the
public hearing.
Commissioner Bird reviewed the history of creating this
vehicle after reaching a compromise with Mr. Nutt. He did not
share everyone's concern about a leapfrog situation since this is
the only piece of property zoned for hotels on the barrier
island, and he believed over the years we have become more
restrictive in our rezoning rather than less.
MOTION WAS�MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Lyons, to adopt Ordinance 86-72 with
the amendment that for every 11' of setback 1' in
height would be allowed up to a maximum of 45' and
this can only occur within the CG zone.
Commissioner Wodtke felt this would result in something very
similar to the height allowed in Indian River Shores.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried 4 to 1 with
Commissioner Bowman voting in opposition.
4 1986
31
BOOK
66 PACE 313
BOOK 66 r,r,H-314
ORDINANCE NO. 86-72
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
AMENDING SECTION 25. GENERAL PROVISIONS, OF
APPENDIX A OF THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, BY
CREATING A NEW PARAGRAPH 25 (A) (3) COASTAL HOTEL
HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS; PROVIDING FOR ADDITIONAL HEIGHT
EXCEPTIONS FOR HOTELS, MOTELS AND COMMERCIAL
RESORT DEVELOPMENTS- LOCATED EAST OF STATE ROAD
A -1-A IN THE CG, GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT; AND
PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS,
CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY, AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, that:
Section 25. General Provisions, is hereby amended by
creating paragraph 25 (a) (3) Coastal Hotel Height Exceptions, as
follows:
E` 25(a)(3) Coastal Hotel, Motel and Resort Development Height
Exceptions. The height limitations stipulated in the CG General
Commercial District may be modified for hotels, motels and resort
developments located east of State Road A -1-A provided that no
building structure exceeds the height limits for airport approach
areas and provided that the following criteria are met:
a) One and one-half (1.5) feet of additional setback from
the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) shall be
provided for each foot in height exceeding thirty-five
feet.
b) Once the additional setback is established, all
structures exceeding six feet in height shall be
prohibited within the designated additional setback
area.
c) In no case shall any building structure be allowed to
exceed forty-five feet in height.
SECTION 2
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.
i
CODING: Words in 4tjtid0yj-tXtjA type are deletions from existing
law. Words underlined are additions.
32
SECTION 3
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.
SECTION 4
If in 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.
EFFECTIVE DATE
The provisions of this ordinance shall become effective upon
receipt from the Florida Secretary of State of official
acknowledgment that this ordinance has been filed with the
Department of State.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida on this 4th day of November, 1986.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BY
Don C. S rlock, Jr.,,Chairman
V
DISCUSS BARRIER ISLAND VEGETATION ORDINANCE ALTERNAT WES
Art Challacombe, Chief of Environmental Planning, reviewed
the following memo:
:S�0V 4 I 3 3 BOOK f'.GE •�� c�
,
BOOK 66 u,U,E 316
N OV 4 1986
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: October 23, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: BARRIER ISLAND VEGETATION
SUBJECT: ORDINANCE ALTERNATIVES
Robert M. Keting ICP
Planning & D velopment Director
FROM: Art Challacombe REFERENCES: Barrier Isl. Veg
Chief, Environmental Planning DIS:ARTCHA
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of November 4, 1986.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS:
On August 6, 1986, the Board of County Commissioners directed
staff to draft a special ordinance to protect native vegetation
in the area between State Road A -1-A and the ocean. The
Commission's stated objective in having this ordinance prepared
is to promote water conservation on the barrier island through
the use and preservation of drought tolerant native -vegetation.
Other objectives that would be accomplished as the result of
implementing native vegetation protection are wildlife habitat
preservation, soil stabilization and erosion control. Staff has
researched this issue, prepared alternative ordinance
scenerios, and is seeking direction from the Board as to which
alternative it prefers. Upon Board selection of the preferred
scenerio, staff will proceed to complete a draft ordinance and
conduct a public workshop prior to holding the necessary public
hearings.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS:
Staff has prepared four ordinance scenerios that it feels will
address various priorities and should be considered by the
Board. Each of these alternatives has certain advantages and
disadvantages as will be outlined in this section.
Alternative #1: Existing Ordinances
This scenerio essentially represents a "take no action" alter-
native. Currently, the County ordinances protect two important
barrier island habitats, the estuarine wetlands located along
the Indian River and the primary dune system seaward of the
Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL). Elsewhere on the
barrier island, the existing ordinances protect selected native
trees within certain zoning districts. Presently, no native
understory vegetation, other than dune vegetation, is protected
by County regulations.
The present lack of protection. of native vegetation occurs
within two important habitat areas on the barrier island, the
Coastal Strand Zone and Coastal Hammock Zone. Typical native
vegetative species currently not protected under existing
ordinance are described in the following table:
UNPROTECTED COASTAL VEGETATION ZONE PLANTS
Coastal Strand Coastal Hammock
Saw Palmetto Cabbage Palms
Wild Coffee Oak Trees (under 8" DBH)
White Stopper Wild Lime
Coco Plum Spanish Stopper
Marlberry Gopher Apple
Sea Grape Wild Mastic
_ 34 Myrsine
The principal` disadvantages of the County taking no action
regarding native vegetation protection are increased water
consumption and the loss of wildlife habitat.
Advantages of the "take no action" alternative are:
1) No additional County administrative costs are necessary
for review of all barrier island building plans and
enforcement of the ordinance;
2) Property owners (especially single-family property owners)
will continue to be allowed to build on their property
consistent with current regulations.
r
Alternative #2: Protection of All Barrier Island Native
Vegetation
This alternative is the most restrictive scenerio relative to
the protection of native vegetation. An ordinance which
implements this alternative would require all property owners,
including those with single family residential lots, to
preserve all native vegetation not within the net buildable
area of a given site. The advantages of this alternative are
directly in opposition to Alternative #1. Implementation of
this alternative has three major disadvantages when viewed from
a different perspective as shown on the the following table:
ALTERNATIVE #2
ADVANTAGES DISADVANTArRs
1) Preservation of a large %
of native_ vegetation on
Island
2) Preservation of native
vegetation
3) Water Use Conservation
4) Soil stabilization/ero-
siolt control
5) Habitat protection
1) Additional County admini-
stration costs and time
for review
2) Limits property owners
use of land (lawns would
essentially be prohibited
on the barrier island)
3) Vegetation may harbor
undesirable fauna
ie. rats, snakes, etc.
Alternative #3: Implementation of Comprehensive Plan Policy
Preservation of 25% Native Plant Communities
The Conservation and Coastal Zone Element of the Comprehensive
Plan .contains a policy whereby "the County shall require that
all new development preserve a minimum of 25%, where possible,
of the native plant communities occurring on site as green
space". Creation of a native vegetation protection ordinance
will implement this policy; however, the "25%" alternative must
beviewed as a compromise scenerio with inherent disadvantages.
Most. significant of these is that in attempting to partially
satisfy the opposing concerns of resource protection and
property rights, an ordinance which specifies a percentage
35 BOOK 6 F}ac. X17
- ®V 4 1986
N 0 V 41986-
sooK 66 � a x.1318
- requirement for preservation may not be aceomplishincl anything
at all. As an example, the 25% preservation requirement,
applied to a 10,000 square foot single-family lot, will not
provide meaningful wildlife habitat for larger mammals.
Likewise, it is questionable if water consumption will be
materially reduced on small single-family lots where a small
percentage of native landscaping is surrounded by non-native
species needing greater quantities.
Alternative #4: Percentage Requirement Combined With A Native
Landscaping Requirement Based Upon Land Use & Size
This alternative would provide various preservation criteria
based upon parcel size and land use. The concepts envisioned
in this alternative are: -61
1) Exempt single family residential lots from the
preservation requirements; however, require that new
landscape material installed (except lawn areas) be native
or drought tolerant vegetation.
2) Base the percentage of native vegetation preservation on
the size and use of a parcel of land which is not
designated for single family use. -
3) Require that new development proposals requiring site plan
approval provide the specified percentage of native
vegetation for landscape purposes on sites that do not
contain sufficient vegetation to meet the percentage
requirement after development. Also require that new
landscape material installed be native or drought tolerant
vegetation.
The principal advantage -of this scenerio is that a balance
between natural resource preservation and use of properties can
be obtained by including native landscaping in already
disturbed areas. In contrast, disadvantages include:
1) A disproportionate burden for native preservation/land-
scaping on large developments;
2) Areas on the barrier island comprised of small, single-
family lots will not have the same degree of preservation
of water conservation as large, multiple -family land
tracts.
RECOMMENDATION:
While staff foresees inherent deficiencies with each alterna-
tive presented, it recommends Alternative #4 - Percen-
tage/Landscape Requirement Based Upon Land Use & Size because
this scenerio will offer the greatest.degree of flexibility in
achieving the stated objectives of water conservation and
habitat preservation while minimizing infringement of property
rights.
Staff further recommends that the Board of County Commissioners
direct staff to conduct public workshops for input based upon
Alternative #4, prepare an ordinance and advertise the proposed
ordinance for the necessary public hearings
36
M
ChairmanScurlock believed basically staff is asking if we
want to refer #4 to the Planning & Zoning Commission for
workshops, and asked if anyone has any objections to #4.
Commissioner Bowman felt it is inadequate because it does
not cover any single family lots and that is our trouble now with
the tree ordinance.
Chairman Scurlock asked if Mrs. Bowman had any problem with
referring it to staff to workshop, and she saw no problem with a
workshop, but emphasized that she wanted to be present at the
workshop session.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, to direct staff to take
Alternative #4 to workshop.
Commissioner Bowman did not want -to limit it to #4. She
noted that when we discussed this, we were discussing the north
A -1-A strip and contrasting what is going on in Brevard County;
we were not talking about the south end at all. She emphasized
that she wanted a specific ordinance re the north A -1-A strip,
not a general ordinance.
Commissioner Bird stated that was not his understanding.
Chairman Scurlock was not sure we can single out a specific
area, and County Attorney Vitunac advised that it is the same
logic that went into making Jungle Trail a historic road; you
need specific criteria to justify it.
Chairman Scurlock believed we are trying to create a vehicle
to do more than we are doing now, and he felt this, at least,
would be a step.
Commissioner Wodtke inquired whether the county would be
allowed to use theirl-and for parks and recreation adequately
under these -restrictions, and Intergovernmental Relations
Director Thomas pointed out that the Board sent to a letter of
intent to the DNR stating that we would enter into a management
37
V 4 1986 BOCK 66 PAGE319
OV 4 1986
BOOK'Q
agreement if the state would buy some property for parks, and he
felt we must be real sure that this is kept in mind.
Planner- Challacombe believed we could look at providing
enough open space to be usable, but stressed that staff would
like a clarification on the bounds of this ordinance as staff
feels strongly that an ordinance based on water and vegetation
preservation should apply to the whole island not just one area.
Commissioner Bowman felt the prime reason for the ordinance
is that we have native flora and fauna that will be extinct if it
is not protected. She gave the example of Summerplace where they
have left practically all their native vegetation except for
driveways and paths, and stated that is the way she would like to
see 1t.
Director Keating advised these a.re some of the things we are
required to address in the new Comprehensive Plan mandate, and
staff will be bringing to the Board a proposed work program for
mapping these resources. He stressed that it is very difficult
to protect a lot of these particular habitat areas when the land
parcels are relatively small and can be subdivided in single
family. In large projects it is much easier.
Commissioner Lyons asked when the last time was that the
staff looked at the landscaping required in site plans that have
been in existence for possible five years or so, and Director
-Keating advised that for about a year they have been logging in
site plan inspections and now are doing a re -review of the
landscaping on those. Generally they have done this on a case
to case basis when there is a complaint.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION to workshop Alterna-
tive #4. It was voted on and carried unanimously.
APPROVE WAIVER OF ANNUAL APPLICATION FOR HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION
Property Appraiser Nolte came before the Board in regard to
the following:
38
_ M
October 29, 1986
Hon. Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Chairman County Commission
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Dear Doug:
Pursuant to 196.131(3) Florida Statutes (as amended by the 1986 Legislature
86-300) I hereby request that the annual application for Homestead'exemption
be wavied.
I think it would be proper for my office to send a letter to all current
Homesteader's explaining the change in the law and to have a continuing
program to notify new purchasers of their rights and responsibilities under
the law.
Since this action requires approval by a majority vote of the Commission,
please place it on the agenda at your earliest convenience. I estimate that
it would take about 10 minutes of the Commissions time.
w
Thank you.
Respectfully,
David C. Nolte, C.F.A.
Property Appraiser
., 196.131• • Homestead. exemptions= claims.-. �.
,•;(3) Any county may, at the request of the property
—appraiser and by majority vote of its governing body, waive
the requirement that annual application be made for exemption
for property within the county after an initial application is
made. and exemption granted except that reapplication shall be
required when any property granted an exemption is -sold or.
otherwise disposed.of,• or the ownership changes in any manner,
or the applicant for homestead exemption ceases to use the
property as his or her homestead In its deliberations on -
whether to waive the annual application requirement the --
governing body shall consider the possibility of fraudulent
homestead exemption claims which may occur due to the waiver
of the annual application requirement • It is the duty of the
owner of any -property grant6d an exemption who is not rewired
to file an annual application to notify the property appraiser
promptly whenever the use of the property changes so as to -
change the exempt status of the property. Any property owner
00 fails to so notify the property appraiser shall be subject
co the�ovisions of a 196 161 This subsection shall apply
enly to exemptions requested pursuant to s 196.032.
39 BOOK 66 ual?l
ilov
BOOK FA,E.3�z
The Property Appraiser explained that once you file for
homestead exemption and are approved, you never have to do it
again unless you change your deed somehow. He noted that last
year they had 20,000 renewed, and this will eliminate that.
Commissioner Bird was highly in favor of waiving the annual
application, but Commissioner Lyons expressed concern about those
moving down here and not realizing what they are required to
file.
Appraiser Nolte assured him that his department will send a
letter to everyone whenever there is a property transfer
informing them of their rights.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
a waiver of the annual application for Homestead
exemption.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY JAIL PROJECT
The Board reviewed memo of General Services Director Dean:
TO:The Honorable Members of DATE: October 28, 1986 FILE:
the Board of County
Commissioners
THRU: Charles P. Balczun SUBJECT: Indian River County
County Administrator Jail Project .
H. T. "Sonny' an
Director
FROM: General Service REFERENCES:
W. R. Frizzell, our Architect on the subject project, informed us
some time back that there was going to be some work required to i.
provide an inter -connect between Phase I and Phase II for the control
equipment. Mr. Ben DiPalma, the Architect's Project Administrator,
has negotiated directly with the electrical contractor to perform
this work without going through the general contractor on the
project. His recommendation is attached for a total cost of
$55,347.00.
The second part of Mr. DiPalma's recommendation has to do with
providing electrical service for Phase II. If this service was to be
connected through the panel of Phase I, the cost would run
40
approximately $79,000.. However, this writer was able to negotiate
with the City of.Vero Beach to provide a completely separate service
with meter and is reflected in the electrical contractor's quote of
$12,484.00. Also, by using this plan we can reduce the size of the
proposed emergency generator which would be a savings of $5,400 to
the County.
This work is absolutely necessary to build the two jail phases. Time
is of the essence to insure the electrical modification is completed
before the opening date of Phase I due to the fact that the power to
the jail would have to be completely turned off for a period of time
to make the modifications.
The total cost of both projects would be $62,431.00. Funding would
come from Phase II contingencies..
Chairman Scurlock felt the basic question is how come the
architect didn't figure this out in the first place.
Director Dean reported that the architect did advise us some
time ago that two pieces of work needed to be completed with
Phase I before we could interconnect or even open Phase Il.
Number one .was the electrical to provide service to Phase II as
it was intended that Phase II would be serviced from the panel of
Phase I; however, someone forgot to run the conduit and make the
necessary preparations, and now to come back and run the conduit
around two buildings and under the foundation of one would cost
over $70,000.
The Chairman asked if we have the ability to go back to the
architect and make them bite the bullet on this.
Director Dean advised that the architect is telling him that
we were in too big a hurry in Phase II and didn't give them time
to complete the plans, but he pointed out'that we had a master
plan of the three phases and all the arrangements for
interconnection should have been made from the beginning.
Attorney Vitunac stated that he has not researched our
contract as yet, but he will and believed the architect should
either bear or at least share the cost.
Director Dean stressed that the problem is that we need to
move ahead on this before we move into Phase I.
Chairman Scurlock emphasized that if we have to pay for this
in order to move on, he wanted to be sure we reserve our rights.
41 BOOK �� `',+: E 93
®V 41996
0V BOOK 66 u U E 3A?4 _ --
He noted it would have cost something to have this improvement in
the first place and felt what we would be entitled to is the
difference between that cost and what we will have to pay now.
Attorney Vitunac stated that we would have to keep track of
our extra costs to solve the emergency problem, keep in touch
with the architect and ask if he has any better, way to do this,
and advise him that we will look to him for any additional costs
we are incurring because of their failure to engineer it properly
and provide for this.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, to authorize the additional work
in the neighborhood of $62,000 to interconnect Phase I
and Phase II and provide the n.ecessary electrical
service, with the understanding that we are proceed-
ing with this work while we negotiate with the archi-
tect for the recovery of any or all of those costs.
Commissioner Wodtke felt the key is to contact the architect
immediately and be sure this is the best way to do it so they
don't argue that we could have done it differently and cheaper.
Commissioner Bird commented that the architect apparently
went directly to the electrical contractor to negotiate the price
without going through the general contractor, and he wondered if
we need any kind of signoff by the general contractor.
General Services Director Dean pointed out that when
Schopke's representative was here, he stated that he did not want
anything to do with the interconnect at all. He believed that
left the door open, and that statement is in the record.
Attorney Vitunac confirmed that as long as that statement is
in the record, it would satisfy us.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It
was voted on and carried unanimously.
42
Commissioner Bird wished to know the approved total budget
of Phase I and of Phase 11, and Director Dean advised that the
budget for Phase 1, including everything, is $5,120,321.95 and
for Phase II the anticipated budget was $2,972,645.
Commissioner Bird inquired how close the anticipated is to
the actual, and Director Dean noted that during budget sessions,
he and OMB Director Baird presented some costs that had not been
figured in the beginning, and they did not have the actual
figures. This includes what they anticipated those to be.
Discussion ensued regarding the total number of beds, which
is 156 beds in Phase 1.. and 120 in Phase ll, at a cost in the
realm of $21,000 a bed.
Commissioner Lyons confirmed that those are very good
figures, and Administrator Balczun felt in terms of the national
standard, this is incredibly reasonable.
Commissioner Lyons asked when we actua4ly get to put people
in the jail, and Director Dean informed the Board that on the
24th of October the contract expired and we had to give an
extension up to the 8th of November. If they are not finished by
the 8th the architect will recommend that the penalty time
_begin, and that is only four days away. It is anticipated that
on the 14th of November we will call the Department of Correction
and ask for an inspection. If things go on schedule from that
point on, we should be moving people into the facility within 30
days or near Christmas. Because of the electrical problems and a
few other items, however, he doubted we wouldbeable to meet
that schedule.
WAIVER - FLOODPLAIN DISPLACEMENT REQUIREMENT (SHORELANDS WEST)
The Board reviewed memo of the Public Works Director:
MY 4 1 6 43 Boa P°, F.3�5
NOV 1996
8001( 6 6 u;:..3 �6
TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: October 29, 1986 FILE: -
Board of County C rai.ssioners
FROM:
THROUGH:
Charles Balczuri,
County Administrator
James W. Davis, P.E.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
SUBJECT: Request for Waiver -
Floodplain Displacement
Requirement - Ordinance 82-28
Shorelands West Subdivision
REFERENCES:
Letter from Dean F.
Assoc. to Jim Davis dated
Oct. 24, 1986
W
Carter and Assoc., on behalf of the developer of Shoreland Subdivision (on
the West side of A -1 -A North of the Moorings) -is requesting a waiver of the
"cut and fill" balance requirement rement as contained in the Stonavater Manage- -
ment and Flood Protection Ordinance (82-28). The Engineer states that only
8,820 c.y. of material will be placed in t$e 10-year_Flood Plain.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Since the Indian River in this area is a estuarine environment, and the
project meets all other requirements of Ordinance 82-28, and will cause a
water level rise of .0018" in the river, staff has no objection.
440,6*41
Staff recommends that a waiver to the flood plain displacement requirement
be granted to Shoreland Subdivision.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Lyons, the Board unanimously granted a
waiver to the floodplain displacement requirement
to Shoreland Subdivision.
I.R.BOULEVARD SOUTHERLY EXTENSION - CHANGE ORDER NO. 1
The Board reviewed memo of Public Works Director Davis:
44
TO:' The Honorable Members of the DATE: October 29, 1986 FILE:
Board of County Com-i.ssioners
THROUGH:
Charles Balczun,
County Administrator SUBJECT:
_ Indian River Boulevard
Southerly Extension -
Change Order No. 1 -
Dickerson Florida, Inc.
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E., REFERENCES:
Public Works Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
In bidding the subject project, Dickerson made an error in bid item
#455-0-11: Unloaded Test Piles. The Contractor intended to bid the item as
120 IF at $49 per lineal foot = $5,880, instead of a Lump Sum bid of $49.
TO correct this error, the Contractor is requesting the County to increase
the contract price by $5,831.
rdXXI ENDATION AND FUNDING "
Staff recognizes that this error was inadvertent and an oversight. It is
recommended that Change Order # 1 be approved increasing the contract by
$5,831. Funding to be from Cis Tax Revenue and Impact Fees.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
Change Order #1 increasing the contract with
Dickerson Florida, Inc., by $5,831.
45
Nov 1986
BOOK. 66 a ;E.1?7
NOV 4 1966
BOOK
1
No. .......
CHANGE ORDER
Dated Qetober L. ;906
01A'NER's Project No. ...... . ... ...... ENGINEER's Project No. . 4395.03 ...............
Project 12th. Street Traffic and Pedestrian, !provmments e
th Indian River Boulevard southerly extension
CONTRACTOR.... Dickerson.Florida._Inc........................................................
Const
Contract For. .. .... ..... ................. Contract Date .. ? l', 2s . .. , ............ .
To: ................................... Dickerson Florida,IncPostOfficeBox :719,... Stuart,, Florida •33495 .... w ..... .
CONTRACTOR
You are directed to make the changes noted below in the subject Contract:
The completion date, contract price and .�r-0144ER
..
all other terms, covenants and conditions ---•.....:....
of the above referenced contract, except as dul modified b this and Don C. rlock, r.
Y y previous Indian River County, Florida
Change Orders, if any, remain in full Eyy ,•
_force and effe�..................................
222
Dated 1 ' 4 ' 8 6 . , 19. .
••• '' ''''''z._Nature of the Change 1. Adjust th . lum1bid I en Number 455-9-11 (unloaded test piles)
Enclosures:
Letters dated July 24 and July 31, 1986
These changes result in the following adjustment of Contract Price and Contract Time:
Original Contract Price S 3973,809.36
Change Order -- thru
Subtotal S
This Change Order No. 1 .'.'
Adjusted Contract Price .....M31800 ....... "
S 3.Z9A4Q..-X ...........
BID #317 - TRACK DOZER FOR ROAD 6 BRIDGE
Director Davis reviewed staff recommendation, as follows:
-46
TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: October 29, 1986 FILE:
Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH:
Charles Balczun,
County Administrator SUBJECT:
Indian River County Bid 0317
Sonny Dean, Road & Bridge Dept.
General Servic hector Track Dozer
Carolyn Goodrich, C .d'Vb\k
Purchasing Director „
FROM: Jams W. Davis, P.E., REFERENCES:
Public Works Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS dw ,
During the FY86/87 Budget hearings, the Board appropriated $195,600 for the
purchase of a D7 Track Dozer to replace an existing 1968 Model Cat 977 -
Dozer. During the bid process, the staff advertized for direct purchase of
a dozer and total cost bidding. Both bids were received Oct. 23, 1986.
The attached bid tabulation summarizes the bids.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Between Jan. 1981, and March 1986 repair costs on the 1968 track dozer
totaled .$118,271.88 or $23,654.38 per year. The majority of the Road and
Bridge Dept. Heavy Equipment maintenance costs in recent years has been
attributed to track machines, gradall, and draglines. It is staff's
opinion that for the high maintenance equipment items, Total Cost Bidding .
is appropriate and will result in a saving over a 5 -year period as
follows:
Typical yearly repair cost for track equipment
(from County records of past 5 years) $23,654.38
Less normal yearly maintenance
(oil changes, lubrication, etc.) 3,000.00
Major Repairs $20,654.38/year
- OR
Under the Total Cost Bid received
- $19,918 over a 5 -year period or $3,9836 guaranteed cost of major repairs is
Y P � per year. It is possible that a
repair cost savings of $83,353 over the 5 -year period could be realized.
In analyzing the Total Cost Bid, staff discovered mathematical errors. The
correct figures as initialed by Kelly Tractor Co. are attached. In
comparing the low bid under direct purchase and the Total Cost Bid, the
following is presented.
Law Bid
Liebherr PR 741C (Austrian)
H.F. Mason (Vendor)
Purchase Cost $ 153,995
Less Trade 18,000
$ 135,995
Total Cost Bid
Caterpillar D -7G
Kelly Tractor
Total Cost Expenditure $170,129
including repurchase bond
Less Trade-in 23,900
Guaranteed Value at
end of 5 -years
$146,229
$ 49,092
47 BOOK F'9GF
NOV 41986 _
NOV 4 1986 BOOK 6
Staff has tried to research the performance of the Liebherr dozer. There
does not appear to be any located in Florida. They are manufactured by an
Austrian Campany in Virginia. Owners exist in Georgia, Virginia, Kentucky,
and Maine. Staff is continuing to research the operating experience.
Parts availability is unknown by staff at this time.
—In speaking- with Clay, Supervisor for Carlisle -Equipment Co., in Wilder,
Kentucky, (Excavation Contractor) they have had a Liebherr since July 17,
1985, and, have used it 1430 hours. Total service outlay has been $1465.
They have basically had good experience with the Liebherr.
REC014v=ATION AMID FUNDING
Due to the fact that maintenance of track equipment has beem costly to
Indian River County in the past, staff recommends that the Total Cost Bid
submitted by Kelly Tractor be awarded and that the County waive the errors
submitted in the bidding process. Total cost to be expended is $146,229.
Funding to be from Road and Bridge Department Capital Equipment, Fund lli
as approved during the FY86/87 Budget session.
YOUR CATERPILLAR DEALER IN SOUTH FLORIDA
5480 OKEECHOBEE BOULEVARD • WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33409
PHONE (305) 883.1231
Board of County Commissioners October 24, 1986
Indian River County
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida
Attn: Mr. Albert Van-Aken
Ref. Bid #317 -Total Cost Bid With Optional Attachments Included
ITEMS
#1 $169,373 " New D -7G Caterpillar
#2 $23,900 Less Trade -In
#3 $145,473 Difference
#4 $756:00 Bond
#5 $146,229 Total Purchase Price ( 3 & 4 )
#6 $49,092 Guaranteed Value at 6000 Hours or 5 years
#7 6 9G 30� ,°i Item 3 Less Item 6 - Difference
#8 ,. $19,918 Cost of Repairs 6000 or 5 years
#9 �$. Total Cost Bid Item 4, plus 7, plus Item 8.
The above information is part of our bid #317. Thank you for consideration'
in this matter.
You s Truly,
K. David ian
48 Vice President
Kelly Tractor Company
Commissioner Bird did not understand why we had only two
bidders, and Director Davis advised that we had three bidders on
the direct purchase. --Staff did their best to solicit all the
bids they could and even mailed notices to the suppliers.
Commissioner Bird hoped we are not getting the reputation
that we are leaning towards the total cost bid.
Director Davis did not believe we are getting that reputa-
tion. He noted that we did buy the Fiat -Allis grader, and of all
our equipment so far we have two on total cost bid; this would be
the third.
Discussion continued re maintenance, and Director Davis
advised that he would like to zero in on those pieces of heavy
equipment that present a maintenance problem for us as he felt if
we can get them knocked otf the maintenance list that we can save
a lot. He believed OMB Director Baird has some figures to
support staff's recommendation on this.
Director Baird informed the Board that Road & Bridge paid
$592,000 in heavy equipment maintenance Fast year, and they
believe we could have rented every piece of equipment they have
_ — got out—the--e and come out $200-300,000 cheaper. He felt we are
going to be looking at leases very seriously this year.
Chairman Scurlock asked about the impact that would have on
our fleet management program, and OMB Baird felt we have to look
at efficiency and what is best for the taxpayer dollarwise, and
staff will be analyzing this.
Commissioner Wodtke commented that the initials correcting
the figures on the Kelly Tractor Co. bid were not those of K.
David Julian who signed the letter.
Director David explained that Dale McBride, a representative
of Mr. Julian, initialed the corrections at the direction of Mr.
Julian, who could not get here from Miami quickly enough.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously awarded Bid
49 BOOP( 66 P,�EE.331
OV 41996 -
BOOK 66
#317 for a Track Type Diesel Powered Dozer to Kelly
Tractor Co., on a Total Cost Bid in the amount of
$1.46,229, and waived the errors submitted in the
bidding process.
VOUCHERS FOR PAYMENT OF ANNUAL CONTRIBUIIONS TO THE HOUSING
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
The Board reviewed memo from the Finance Department:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: November 3, 1986 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
SUBJECT: Report on Voucher for Payment of
Annual Contributions - Housing
Assistance Payments Program
FROM: Finance Department REFERENCES:
The attached HUD Forms 52681 and HUD Form 52595, covering the
1985/86 Fiscal Year, were prepared by the Section 8 Rental
Assistance staff with the concurrence of the Finance Department.
We respectfully request that the Honorable members of the Board of
County Commissioners authorize the Chairman's signature for submis-
sion to the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, to authorize the Chairman to
sign the Voucher for Payment of Annual Contributions
DHUD Section 8 Housing Assistance Program, Projects
FL29 E132 001 003 and FL29 V132 001.
Attorney Vitunac noted that Administrator Balczun has
inquired why the County is signing this for the public housing
50
L—_ J
agency, and Director Thomas explained that our Housing Authority
wears two hats, and rental assistance is one of the programs they
administer for the county.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It
was voted on and carried unanimously.
COPY OF SAID VOUCHERS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK
TO THE BOARD.
APPOINTMENTS TO LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD
Commissioner Wodtke reported that he had received resumes
from some qualified people who are interested in being placed on
the Library Board, Donna Green and John W. Holmes, Jr.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously appointed
Donna Green and.John W. Holmes, Jr., to the Library
—Advisory `Board.
REPORT ON NEGOTIATION RE CHANDLER REPRESENTATION
Assistant County Attorney Wilson, who had just returned from
court, recalled that Jim Chandler's attorney, Robert Udell, asked
the county for a fee of almost $15,000 for representing him.
Since negotiations with him were unsuccessful, this went to
court. The court hearing was going to be canceled because one of
the witnesses couldn't be there; however, after some discussion
with Mr. Udell, Attorney Wilson advised that he now has agreed to
accept a fee of $7,500. All the experts he spoke with in this
matter felt the Judge might very well award more, possibly
$9-10,000, and Attorney Wilson, therefore, recommended acceptance
of the $7,500 fee.
51 ROOK �� P,tiGr -33
O 3
SV �� -
BOOK 66 u", 33
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously accepted _
Attorney Wilson's recommendation as above.
FLORIDA COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS - GRANT APPLICATION
Commissioner Lyons reviewed letter received from Florida
Community Health Centers:
_ FLORIDA COMMUNITY
E `��: HEALTH CENTERSINC.
CF, l ,
n• 3500 FORTY-FIFTH STREET, SUITE 12
WEST PALM BEACH. FLORIDA 33407-1810
�0�11 � E:(305) 684-0600
NOV I S86
Clewiston Community ������®
Health Center
302 Second Street WARD COUNTY
Clewiston Florida 33440
8131 983-7813 ,� COMMISSIONERS
1..�
ndiantown Community
Health Center
950 First Street
Indiantown. Florida 33456
(305) 597.3597
Edna Pearce Lockett
Medical Center
305 N W Fifth Street
Okeechobee. Florida 33472
(813)763-7481
=t. Pierce Community
Health Center
609 N Seventh Street
Ft Pierce Florida 33450
(305) 461-1402
October 27, 1986-
52
986
Board of Ccamiissioners
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 33492
Dear Sir:
O
OFFICERS
Pauline Lockett
President
Ernesto Urbina
Vice President
Lynn Fletcher, R.N.. B.A.
Secretary
Lois Page
Treasurer
Ed Brown — —
Executive Director
In the face of economic crisis and reduced public funding,
Florida Ccmmmity Health Centers, Inc. still endeavors to meet the
basic health needs of the migrant and seasonal farmworkers,
indigent, and elderly that constitute most of the population in the
medically underserved rural ccimnunities we serve. As we prepare our
annual Public Health Service- (PHS) Grant Application, we seek to
demonstrate the support of Florida leaders who share our commitment.
This is why I am writing at this time to ask for your
expression of support, which can be done by writing a letter
indicating your recognition of the health needs of the people in our
service areas, together with your support of our 1987 Grant
Application. PHS has requested us to include such letters of
support with our Grant Application.
Our primary health care centers, located in Clewiston,
Indiantown, Okeechobee, and Ft. Pierce served approximately 44,000
low income/indigent residents and migrants in Glades, Hendry, Indian
River, Martin, Okeechobee, Western Palm Beach, and St. Lucie Counties
during 1985-86. Despite growing pressures of inflation and
increasing numbers of needy persons, our PHS Federal grant request
is sure to be reduced again in 1987, as it was this year. Patients
will be required to shoulder a greater portion of the cost burden
through out-of-pocket fees.
I have enclosed for your information a synopsis describing our
organization.
52
Your letter of support should be addressed to:
Regional Health Administrator
DHHS/PHS/Region IV
101 Marietta Tower, N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30323
However, since we need to include it with our Grant Application,
please send it directly to me at the address listed on the top of
page 1 by November 14, 1986.
Thanks for your cooperation and continued support of our
efforts.
Sincerely,
Edwin W. man
Executive Director
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously authorized
the Chairman to send a letter to the Regional Health
Administrator indicating our need for the services
offered by Florida Community Health Centers.
RESIGNATION FROM PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE (J. EARMAN)
The Board reviewed memo of Administrative.Aide Alice White:
TO: County Commissioners DATE: October 30, 1986 FILE:
SUBJECT:
Resignation of
Joe H. Earman from
Public Safety Committee
FROM: Alice E. White REFERENCES:
Administrative Aide I
Attached please find a copy of Mr. Earman's resignation from the
Public Safety Committee.
Mr. Earman was a joint appointee of the Sheriff and Board of
County Commissioners.` There will be four members left on the
Committee after Mr. Earman resigns.
The Sheriff has been notified of Mr. Earman's resignation, and it
is requested that a new joint appointment be made to fill the
vacancy.
-_ -
53 Boa F, E,3,43 5
OV 4 196
Fr—
NOV 4 191,816
BOOK. 66,
Fa,;c
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously accepted
the resignation of Joe H. Earman from the Public
Safety Committee with regret and directed that he
be sent a letter of appreciation for his service.
REPORT ON SANDRIDGE GOLF CLUB
Commissioner Bird reported that on Sunday afternoon the
architect, contractor, and a group of staff, walked the golf
course. The grassing is completed now, and it is just a question
of growing it in and maintaining it. The bid opening on the cart
barn and clubhouse will be this Thursday. He continued that
Director Thomas and OMB Director Baird are working on totaling up
the final construction figures, and then we will be able to
determine if we have any funds for including bridges and cart
paths. Golf Manager Komarinetz is finalizing his operating
budgets for the coming year, and these probably will be presented
early in December.
Commissioner Bird informed the Board that he and Golf
Manager Komarinetz met with Administrator Balczun and Director
Thomas, and he believed they have a total understanding and
agreement in re the operating procedures and the chain of command
for the golf course. He felt we have a capable staff on hand
-now, and he is going to be able to back out of the project to
some extent and believed staff will be able to operate it in a
successful manner.
Commissioner Bird expressed the hope that as soon as we can
get a cart out that more of the Commissioners will go out to the
course and take a tour.
Chairman Scurlock noted that he has looked over the course,
and it is impressive.
Commissioner Wodtke commented that contractor Guettler has
said that in all the work he has done on golf courses in Florida,
54
he never has had the opportunity to work with such a gorgeous
piece of land.
Everyone congratulated Commissioner Bird on his work in
bringing about this golf course.
TROPICAL AVENUE MAINTENANCE MAP
Commissioner Bowman noted that Tropical Avenue is designated
on the County Road Map, and it is a 70' R/W extending between
84th St. and 83rd Place. The County used to grade this and
maintain the swales, but it is now ankle deep in water and there
are practically no swales. Director Davis has suggested that if
we could get it back on the maintenance schedule, we could take
care of those people.
Chairman Scurlock asked if we need some assessment to bring
it up to standards and then put it on the maintenance schedule,
and Director Davis believed one solution would be to use the R/W
for drainage only and not have a road there. He felt that we
will encounter some resistance no matter what we do, but all the
properties have access.to other roads in the area that the county
— d oe-s ma-in t a-'rn .
Commissioner Bowman believed there is a need for a road.
Commissioner Lyons felt Public Works Director Davis should
investigate whether people really have a requirement for the road
or do they face on 83rd, etc.
Chairman Scurlock authorized Director Davis to proceed and
investigate the situation.
STATEMENT BY COMMISSIONER LYONS
Commissioner Lyons noted that this is the last regular
County Commission meeting that he will attend as a Commissioner
and he wanted to thank the Commissioners for their patience and
cooperation during all this time. He stated that he will miss
these meetings, but he will leave with some satisfaction knowing
there have been a
lot of changes and a
lot of improvements.
He
OV
4 1986
55
nuf
FAU.E 337
NOV 4196
BOOR 66
felt we have a fine staff which will get even better and hoped we
can get the public to understand that they really have a fine
bunch of people working for them. Finally, Commissioner Lyons
expressed the hope that the City of Vero Beach would donate that
piece of property across from the power plant for a library site
as it might be one of the main chances to get a piece of property
within the City.
All present stood up and applauded Commissioner Lyons.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made,
seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 11:25 o'clock A.M.
ATTEST:
Clerk Chairman
56