The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12/2/1986Tuesday, December 2, 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, 1986, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Chairman, Margaret C. Bowman, Vice Chairman; Richard N. Bird; Carolyn K. Eggert; and Gary C. Wheeler. 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; Joseph Baird, OMB Director; and Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk. The Chairman called the meeting to order. Reverend John Few, Christ United Methodist by the Sea, gave the invocation, and Chairman Scurlock led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS The Chairman asked that an item be added to the Consent Agenda re out -of -county travel for Commissioners to --attend a SACC meeting on December 10th -in Deland. He also requested that an item be added under his matters in regard to a proposal to transfer Indian River County from the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council into the same Council as Orlando; we only have 60 days to comment on this. Administrator Balczun asked that Item 6G in regard to Rural Sanitation be removed from the Consent Agenda and placed under his matters. Attorney Vitunac requested that Item 8A, a public hearing regarding availability of polling places, be removed from today's agenda and postponed to a a time certain at next week's meeting (10:00 A.M.) so that the Supervisor of Elections can be present. C BOOK fin! p4„'� F17- ,DEC 2 M6 y BOOK 66 PAGE 596 ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously added, deleted and transferred agenda items as requested above. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Chairman asked if there were any additions or correc- tions to the Minutes of the Special Meeting of November 12, 1986. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the-M-inutes of the Special Meeting of November 12, 1986, as written. CONSENT AGENDA Chairman Scurlock requested that Items D and K be removed from the Consent Agenda for.discussion. It was noted that Item G had been removed earlier by the Administrator to a time certain. A. Release of Assessment Lien - (Pine Tree Industrial Park) ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved Release of Assessment Lien E Certificate of Reserva- tion for 1 ERU SR60 Sewer for Lot 2, Pine Tree Industrial Park (Link Enterprises). 2 Release Of One ERU(MaR #34-A) State Road 60 Sewers - (Agree) LEC/C,,PV(JB) RELEASE OF ASSESSMENT LIEN AN6 CERTTFTCAT9—OFRi' R ATTON For and in consideration of the sum of $1,425.58 received from KARL LINK d/b/a LINK ENTERPRISES, 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. The County hereby declares the special assessment lien fully satisfied. The property, located in Indian River County, is more fully described as follows: Lot 2 of PINE TREE INDUSTRIAL PARK, according to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 11, Page 69 of the public records of Indian River- County, Florida. Executed by the Chairman and attested by the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners on this 2nd day of December ,.1986. Attest: �i2'-t�Gt� T�J�LL f:r daZUr' ht�I.We_r INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSI ERS BY4r- 5 _o bon C. ssc r I ock, J Chairman (� B. Release Retainage- Guettler & Sons (Golf Course Construction) The Board reviewed memo of OMB Director Baird: TO: Honorable Board of County DATE: November -24, 1986 Commissioners SUBJECT: Release of Guett- ler & Sons, Inc. Retainage FROM: Joseph A. Baird OMB Director Guettler & Sons, Inc. has completed the Golf Course con- struction. All payments have been paid to Guettler & Sons,Inc. except for the final which is the retainage of $166,332.90. Below is a breakdown of the contract amount. Contract Amount Performance Bond GUETTLER & SONS,INC. TOTAL CHANGE ORDER #1 (Upgrade to Toro System) 3 1,066,599.90 26,665.00 1,093,264.90 5,210.08 M. 6 P,�GF 5' DEC 2 1996 BOOK CHANGE ORDER #2 Fertigation Tank Slab 850.00 Steel Dogleg for Pump Stagy 2,750.00 Installation of Pipe 8" (2640 x 4.25) 11,220.00 Installation of Trans. pump 1,100.00 _ _--- Installation of Pipe 18" - (11.00 x 840) 9,240.00 Installation of Pipe 18" (11.00 x 350) 3,850.00 Increase Performance Bond 725.25 29,735.25 CHANGE ORDER #3 Bulkhead _-70 @280 (19,600.00) Performance Bond (19,600 x 2 1/20) (490.00) (20,090.00) CHANGE ORDER #4 Tap 36 @25.00 900.00 Install Pipe (1600 x 1.15) 1,840.00 Performance Bond 68.50 2,808.50 CHANGE ORDER #5 Install PVC Pipe 611 (460 x 2.22) 1,021.20 Transfer Line 408.16 Install pipe (120 x 3.22) 386.40 Install,Pipe (120 x 2.69) 322.80 Poly Tubing (54.00 x 15) 810.00 Performance Bond 73.71 3,022.27 CHANGE ORDER #6 Engineering 3,240.00 TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT RECOMMENDATION: 3,240.00 23,926.10 1,117,191.00 The Honorable Board of County Commissioners approve the Guettler & Sons,Inc. contract amount including all change orders and authorize retainage be released by Tommy Thomas after his final inspection and acceptance. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved Guettler & Sons, Inc., total contract amount, includ- ing all change orders, in the amount of $1,117,191., and authorized release of the retainage of $166,332.90 upon final inspection and acceptance by Intergovern- mental Relations Director Thomas. 4 C. Budget, Amendment - IRC Health Department The Board reviewed memo of the OMB Director: TO: Honorable Board of County DATE: November 24, 1986 Commissioners FROM: Joseph A. Baird OMB Director ACCOUNT NUMBER Revenue 001-000-364-042.00 Expense 001-106-526-088.19 EXPLANATION: SUBJECT: Budget Amendment I.R.C. Health De- partment ACCOUNT NAME INCREASE DECREASE Insurance Proceeds 6,542 State Health Dept. 6,542 The Indian River County Health Department had a 1986 Ford LTD involved in an accident. Insurance proceeds of $6,541.75 were received and will be issued to the Health Department. The above budget amendment is necessary to facilitate the transaction. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved the above budget amendment as recommended by -the OMB Director. D, Bud_et Amendment — Payment to Cubit_ Engineering-& Abrams Ae TaT =-ani- K. Request from Abrams .Aerial for Additional Compensation. The Board reviewed the following memos: 5 BOOK pn'E DEC 2 ISM w�V DEC 2 1985 BOOK 66 P liF. 51,30 TO: Honorable Board of County DATE: November 24, 1986 Commissioners SUBJECT: Budget Amendment To Facilitate Pay- ment to Cubit En- gineering & Abrams Aerial FROM: Joseph Baird OMB Director ACCOUNT NUMBER Revenue 102-000-389-040.00 Expense 102-110-515-033.19 EXPLANATION-:- Cash XPLANATION: ACCOUNT NAME Cash Forward-Oct.l INCREASE DECREASE 60,379 0th Professional Sry 60,379 The Honorable Board of County Commissioners entered into a contract with Cubit Engineering and Abrams Aerial in 1985/86 fiscal year to perform engineering and surveying on the Barrier Island. The services were not completed by the end of the fiscal year as predicted. On October 1, 1986, there was $29,800 remaining to be paid on the Cubit Engineering contract and $30,579 of the Abrams Aerial Survey Corporation contract. The above budget amendment facilitates the $60,379 obligation. TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: Ncva;ber 24, 1986 FILE: Board of County Ccnmissioners THROUGH: Charles Balczun County Administrator SUBJECT: Request from Abrams Aerial Survey Corp. for Additional Compensation - Barrier Island Topographic Surveys - FROM: =�a� - James W. Davis, P.E., REFERENCES: James F. Linn, Abrams Public Works Director Aerial Survey, to DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Abrams Aerial Survey Corporation is requesting $5,246 for additional - compensation due to alleged control prcbians associated with the Barrier Island topographic mapping. The sappirv_ is a component of the Beach Management Study that Cubit Engineering is performing. The aerial mapping contract was negotiated on Feb, 26, 1986. Cubit Engineering recommended that Abrams Aerial Surveys perform the work. At that time, the scope of work =-olved ._caping only the Atlantic Ocean coastline. The contractural cost to person,the in control surveys V. 6 was $8,500. The County Administrator and the Beach Preservation a�d Restoration Committee inqpired as to whether the County survey crews could perform the survey work and the --,.by save the County $8,500. It was determined that this work could be perfoxpied by County crews. Later, the Board and staff decided to exr..and the scope of work to include the entire barrier island north of CR 510, as well as Round Island Park. This basically doubled the scope of work and necessary survey work to approximately $17,000 of in -field survey. The mapping contract with Abrams was approximately $50,285. Usually, aerial control points are First -orated in the field and targeted prior to flying the photography. However, Abrams decided to fly the aerial Photography first, then select control points to be located in the field from photo identifiable points. Mien the photos were given to our survey crews, sane points, such as real estate signs, trees, etc., were relocated or removed after the photography was flown. The survey crews could not fid these points. There were also sane points which the survey crews rade minor computational errors. The County's Contract with Abrams does not contain language which covers this situation, does not contain a tire of completion, nor liquidated damages. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS Staff and Abrams have discussed this request for additional c mT)ensation. Basically, both parties are sansuhat guilty for lack of early ccnmmni- cation. The Public Works Departre^t did not participate in negotiating the contract nor did we get to review it prior to execution. RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING It is reccnriended that the Board authorize additional cagmnsation in the amount of $2,623 (50% of that requested) to cover the alleged control problems. Funding to be transferred from Federal Revenue Sharing Contingency (102-199-581-099.91) to 102-11-0-515-033.19. ` Commissioner Wheeler was curious about transferring of funds from last year's budget to this year to pay Cubit Engineering and Abrams Aerial as he had felt all this was to be completed in September. He wondered why the project has been running so far behind. Public Works Director Davis noted that he did know that much about the funding of the project, but as far as the scheduling was concerned, there were some items that delayed the photo- grammetry to be done by Abrams Aerial, which, in turn, delayed Cubit Engineering. Commissioner Wheeler did not have a problem about transferring the funds, but wished to make sure the funds aren't dispensed until both of these items have been addressed. 7 IEC 2 1986 L� CC. BOOK y:- DEC 2 1986 BOOK Chairman Scurlock agreed. He believed we have a situation with three entities - Cubit Engineering, Abrams Aerial, and our crew - each accusing the other of the delay, and before we make any payment, we want to be sure, we have a time certain set up for the completion of this study which is necessary for us to be in a position to fund a coastal management program. Commissioner Wheeler was agreeable to the budget amendment transferring the funds, but stated that he would like to delay any decision on Abrams Aerial's request for additional compensation to a future agenda as he would like to review this with the Beach Preservation Committee. It appears Abrams Aerial used some non -permanent points of reference, and he felt we must learn more about this. Public Works Director Davis informed the Board that January 1st is the scheduled completion of the Cubit survey work, and he has not heard anything different. Staff disagreed with Abrams Aerial's request for compensation and informed them they would not support it on the staff.level, after which Abrams agreed to complete the photogrammetry and then negotiate. The aerial survey is now complete. ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the budget amendment set out in the OMB Director's memo of November 24, 1986, and agreed to table consideration of Abrams Aerial Survey Corp. for additional compensation until the next meeting of the Board. E. Budget_ Amendment- Gifford Baseball Field Lights The Board reviewed memo of the OMB Director: 8 0 TO: Honorable Board of County DATE: November 24, 1986 Commissioners THROUGH: Tommy Thomas SUBJECT: Budget Amendment Intergovernmental Coordinator FROM: Josep . Baird OMB Director e ACCOUNT NUMBER ACCOUNT NAME INCREASE DECREASE Revenue _ 102-000-389-040.00 Cash Forward-Oct.l 49,000 Expense 102-210-572-066.39 Oth Impry-Excpt Bldg 49,000 EXPLANATION: - The Parks Department had funds budgeted in the 1985/86 fiscal year to install lights at the Gifford baseball field. The County received sealed bids on the lights but they were rejected. The County was unable to re -bid before the end of the fiscal year, therefore, the above budget amendment is necessary to appropriate funds in the 1986/87 fiscal year. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved the above budget amendment as recommended by the OMB Director. F. Budget Amendment for Unemployment Compensation The Board reviewed memo of the OMB Director; TO: Honorable Board of County DATE: November 24, 1986 Commissioners SUBJECT: Budget Amendment For Unemployment Compensation FROM: Joseph A. Baird OMB Director ACCOUNT NUMBER ACCOUNT NAME INCREASE DECREASE LANDFILL 411-217-534-012.15 Unemployment Comp. 176 411-217-534-099.92 Cash Forward -Sept 30 176 9 BOOR 66 F,,, -UF 533DED � �� r DEC 2 19 6 175.08 CLAIMANT'S NAME 3'i EXPIRATION DATE NO. WEEKS OF BENEFITS BOOK ;. 66 Fnll 4 UTILITIES 13 868.01:'._!-- 68.01:._!13 OF CLAIM 471-219-536-012.15 Unemployment Comp. 678 3 471-219-536-099.92 Cash Forward -Sept 30 08/691$7 678 GENERAL FUND LAURIE CARPENTER BUILDING & GROUNDS 03/29/137 4- 178.96 - - --- 001-220-519-012.15 Unemployment Comp. 1,196 PARKS 001-210-572-012.15 Unemployment Comp. 36 CLERK OF CIRCUIT COURT 001-300-513-012.15 Unemployment Comp. 660 001-199-581-099.91 Reserve for Contingency 1,892 DETENTION 001-600-521-012.15 Unemployment Comp. 381 001-600-581-099.91 Reserve for Contingency 381 EXPLANATION: The above budget amendment is necessary to pay unemployment compensation to the State of Florida. (See at- tached invoices). d--- STATE OF,FLORIDA _ ' LES FORMUCT29 J �h` (REV. 9/83) DEPARTMENT OF LABOR &EMPLOYMENT SECURITY �L DIVISION OF UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BUREAU OF TAX TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301 a _ ]REIMBURSEMENT INVOICE ` t ' b THIS IS A STATEMENT OF CHARGES TO YOUR ACCOUNT BECAUSE OF UNEMPLOYMENT 9 COMPENSATION PAYMENTS TO YOUR FORMER EMPLOYEES. ACCOUNT NO. QUARTER ENDING INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CLERK 9976197. O SEP -309 1986 '. CIRCUIT. COURT : DATE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE NOV 019.1986 { PO BOX 1028 E.�4 VERO BEACH FL .32960 THE TOTAL AMOUNT DUE MUST BE PAID WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE ABOVE DATE. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ON CLAIMANTS SHOWN BELONw .PLEASE CALCA904)488-0490' LOCATION CODE AS SHOWN ON DETERMINATION NOTICE TO BASE PERIOD EMPLOYER OF VALID CLAIM FILED, LES FORM UCB-12R MAKE CHECK PAYABLE TO: FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION FUND RETURN ONE COPY WITH YOUR REMITTANCE 7 I CLAIMANT'S NAME SOC. SEC. N0. CRAIG J VANETTEN 084-54-9537 - DONALD R BRYANT . 241-52-9942 Qja - TOMMIE L LEWIS JR 265-61-5000 ARTHUR L SANDERS 266-81-2678 P -BONNIE F NCGOWAN 267-62-2862 -JUAN P LORETO JR 576-46-7538 MAKE CHECK PAYABLE TO: FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION FUND �nV ETURN ONE COPY WITH YOUR REMITTANCE 10 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE S EXPIRATIO DATE OF CLAIM 02/15/87 04/19/87 05/10/87 06/09/87 03/01/87 659.61 to NO. WEEKS rl )F BENEFITS CHARGES TO YOUR PD. IN QTR. ACCOUNT _ TOTAL AMOUNT DUE 12 175.08 CLAIMANT'S NAME SOC. SEC. NO. EXPIRATION DATE NO. WEEKS OF BENEFITS CHARGES TO YOUR 327.88 13 868.01:'._!-- 68.01:._!13 OF CLAIM PD. IN QTR. ACCOUNT 3 CARL A NEWTON 264-11-9323 08/691$7 5 480.65 LAURIE CARPENTER 266-15-3728 03/29/137 4- 178.96 - MAKE CHECK PAYABLE TO: FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION FUND RETURN ONE COPY WITH YOUR REMITTANCE 7 I CLAIMANT'S NAME SOC. SEC. N0. CRAIG J VANETTEN 084-54-9537 - DONALD R BRYANT . 241-52-9942 Qja - TOMMIE L LEWIS JR 265-61-5000 ARTHUR L SANDERS 266-81-2678 P -BONNIE F NCGOWAN 267-62-2862 -JUAN P LORETO JR 576-46-7538 MAKE CHECK PAYABLE TO: FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION FUND �nV ETURN ONE COPY WITH YOUR REMITTANCE 10 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE S EXPIRATIO DATE OF CLAIM 02/15/87 04/19/87 05/10/87 06/09/87 03/01/87 659.61 to NO. WEEKS rl )F BENEFITS CHARGES TO YOUR PD. IN QTR. ACCOUNT _ TOTAL AMOUNT DUE 12 175.08 8 '677.28 14 327.88 13 868.01:'._!-- 68.01:._!13 13 35.06 3 380.72 2:464.03 ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved the above budget amendment for Unemployment Compensa- tion as recommended by the OMB Director. G. Rural Sanitation Service - Franchise Violation This item was removed from the Consent -Agenda and will be considered later in the meeting under the Administrator's matters. H. Delinquent Receivables The Board reviewed memo of the Assistant Utility Director: TO: BOARD OF COUNVOOWTISSIONERS DATE: November 24, 1986 THRU: TERRANCE G��"f7; DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES FROM: JEFFREY K., ARTON, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES SUBJECT: DELINQUENT RECEIVABLES BACKGROUND AND CONDITIONS From time to -time, individuals or companies have caused damage to utility property. It has been our policy to bill time and materials for repair and/or replacement of all damaged property. Usually, the individuals or their insurance companies pay the Division of Utility Services within 30 days but I have three individuals who have been billed several times without any response. They are: FREDERICK E. RENSINK 1700 OCEAN DRIVE P. O. BOX 3236 VERO BEACH, FL 32964-3236 $352.45 HORTICULTURAL MANAGEMENT, INC. 1035 OSLO ROAD BOX 2337 VERO BEACH, FL 32962-2337 $112.49 OSCAR ROSS PLUMBING 4720 58TH AVENUE VERO BEACH, FL 32960 $240.20 RECOMMENDATION Utility Staff recommends to the Board.. of County Commissioners that they authorize the County Attorney's office to file suit on behalf of the Division of Utility Services in an effort to collect the amounts due. 1�i M I C.. C 11 BOOK r DEC 2 1936 BOOK 6 6 F9. J, F 5 ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously authorized the County Attorney's office to file suit on those listed above on behalf of the Division of Utility Services on those listed above. I. Air Curtain Incinerator & Supporting Equipment - Landfill The Board reviewed memo of Utility Director Pinto: TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DATE: NOVEMBER 20, 1986 THRU: LES BALCZUN, ADMINISTRATOR FROM: PINTO, DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES SUBJECT: AIR CURTAIN INCINERATOR AND SUPPORTING EQUIPMENT - LANDFILL BACKGROUND In the normal landfill operations, all segregated land clearing debris and yard trash has been burned in an air curtain incinerator located at the landfill site. The unit is regulated by the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) under Florida Administrative Code Chapter 17-2. DER representatives recently inspected the unit and, as indicated in the attached letter, have cited it for excessive emissions and structural inadequacies. The incinerator has been in operation for over five years and has reached the point of deterioration _where it will not operate in compliance with State regulations and is far beyond reasonable repair due to structural failure. In addition, the incinerator is presently loaded by use of a crane. Material to be burned has to be moved from the dumping area to a small staging site where the crane can pick the material up and place it into: the incinerator. This method of operation is not only cumbersome but inefficient in that it requires multiple handling of the material and the use of two separate machines and operators. Further, the crane utilized at the burner is the dragline that is normally utilized in the borrow pit for excavation of cover material. It is presently being operated at the burner because the crane normally used is broken down and beyond repair. In short, the incineration of land clearing debris and burnable materials at the landfill is practically at a standstill and the material is rapidly accumulating on the site. This comes at a time when the closing of the first phase of the landfill is rapidly approaching and we need all available space until a DER permit has been obtained and construction has been completed on Phase II. Use of an air curtain incinerator in the normal operations of the landfill has been invaluable in saving space and extending the life of the landfill. In addition, the incinerator units are acceptable under State air regulations for the reduction of land clearing debris, yard trash, and clean wood. -The landfill life extension capability of the incinerator has been extremely valuable in the final closing stages of the current landfill phase and has probably given the phase an additional one and half years of operational life. In fact, if the burnable materials presently stockpiled for burning had been placed on the working face of the landfill, the first phase would probably be filled to capacity and require closing. RECOMMENDATION Staff has investigated the costs for replacement of the air curtain incinerator and supporting equipment and has determined the following a imate costs: - 1 1. Air Curtain Incinerator $180,000.00 2. Large Front Loader with grapple 90,000.00 3. Small Front Loader for cleaning the air curtain incinerator 26,000.00 Staff recommends and requests that the Board authorize staff to advertise forbids for a new air curtain incinerator and the required su=port equipment. The incinerator and equipment will be replaced ut1lizing the Landfill Renewal and Replacement Account. _ ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously authorized staff to advertise for bids for a new air curtain incin- erator and support equipment as requested by staff. J._ Authorization to Advertise Proposed 911 Ordinance The Board reviewed memo of Planning Director Keating: TO: The Honorable Members DATE November 24, 1986 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners ' REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION SUBJECT: TO ADVERTISE PROPOSED 911 ORDINANCE �, Robert M. Keating, AICPk&ik- 911 Ordinance FROM: • Director REFERENCES: IBMIRD Planning & Development Division It is requested that the information herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of December 2, 1986. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS: The integrity of Indian River County's 911 system is dependent upon a consistent system of house numbering implemented county- wide. This system must adhere to a grid which establishes numbered roadways relating to a central zero point. House numbers are then assigned based upon this grid pattern. Indian River County already has an established grid system with streets running in an east/west direction and avenues oriented north/south. Street numbers increase both north and south of lst Street, while avenues increase east and west of the Intra Coastal Waterway. This system is used by the County staff in assigning numbers for new structures. Although this system is used by all local governments in the County to assign house numbers, there is no ordinance establish- ing this system and requiring its use. In addition, there is no local requirement for building occupants to accept this system and use correct numbers. There is also no mandate for incorrect numbers and street designations to be changed. 13 BOOK 6 6 ur,E 53 DEC 2 1966 DEC 2 1986 BOOK 6 r,� 5 This situation has recently been recognized as a problem by both the City of Vero Beach and Indian River County. In each jurisdiction, there are several areas where the house numbering does not conform to the established system. Because of resis- tance by local residents, it is difficult for the staff to change incorrect existing house numbers. Without an ordinance _ requiring adherence to the established system, correcting. problems becomes almost impossible. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS: In staff meetings between the County and the City of Vero Beach, a consensus has been reached regarding this matter. After assessing conditions, both staffs feel that a formal ordinance officially establishing the grid system and requiring conformity to it is necessary. Consequently, the staff of each jurisdiction developed a draft ordinance to accomplish the stated purpose. Several alternatives exist regarding the 911 situation. First, the Commission has the choice of taking no action and retaining the existing system with its flaws, including some inaccurate house numbering or incorrectly designated roadways. Alter- nately, ---the Commission could direct staff to initiate the process of adopting a grid/house numbering/911 ordinance. Another alternative is to implement an ordinance either county- wide or limited to the unincorporated area. Since the staff of the City of Vero Beach already has a. draft ordinance as does the County staff, either alternative would be supported by the city staff. Because of the countywide nature of the 911 system, the staff feels that the ordinance should be countywide in scope. It is the staff's position that an ordinance formalizing the grid system and requiring conformance with it is necessary. This is a position shared not only by the City of Vero Beach but also by the emergency agencies which use the 911 system on a daily basis. To get the most effective ordinance, it would. be necessary to combine the existing draft ordinances of both the City and the County into one ordinance to have countywide jurisdiction. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the staff to initiate the process of adopting a house numbering/911 ordinance to be effective countywide. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously authorized staff to initiate the process of adopting a countywide house numbering/911 ordinance. L. Out -of -County Travel ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously authorized out -of -County travel for Commissioners and appropriate 14 ;;J staff to attend an SACC meeting in Deland on Decem- ber 10, 1986. RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION - 4TH STREET & 27TH AVENUE The Board reviewed memo of Right -of -Way Agent Finney: TO: The Honorable Members of ti -e DATE: November 18, 1986 FILE: Board of County Commissioners THROUGH: Charles Balczun, County Administrator SUBJECT: James W. Davis, P.E, Public Works Director 141, Right -of --Way Acquisition - Intersection 4th Street & 27th Avenue FROM: Donald G. Finney, sRA—�-REFERENCES: Right -of -Way Acquisition Agent DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS To widen 4th Street at the 27th Avenue intersection to three lanes, the County must acquire a small corner parcel of a parent tract owned by Mr. & Mrs. Charles Orr. Many years ago the Orr's donated property for 4th Street paving and, at their expense, relocated their garage door to access off 27th Avenue. The State later obtained right-of-way along 27th Avenue and denied access to 27th Avenue. The County is now requesting their access to their hcme be relocated from 4th Street to 27th Court and that additional right-of-way on the southeast corner and along 4th Street be donated. This request requires that a garage door be located to the rear of the Orr's garage with access to 27th Court. The Orr's are not willing to give one foot of additional right-of-way required along 4th Street which would bring the right-of-way line within four feet of the side of the garage and cover their well. The proposed sidewalk could be decreased from 5' to 4' in width as is. the case at the property immediately west of the Orr's property. This would eliminate the need for the additional right-of-way along 4th Street. The Orr's are willing to donate the corner right-of-way if the County will relocate the garage door, block up and paint the front of the garage, install two windows, remove the asphalt driveway in front, plant grass and pave a concrete driveway in rear. The steps and door are in the way for the rear access and would have to be relocated on the rear of the resi- dence. Cost of the construction is approximately $7,000. Donated right-of-way value is approximately $ 2,000 and additional servance damages value. ,RE)C0MvT=DATTnNq AND FUNDIM Staff requests authorization for the County to hire a contractor to do the above remodeling as full compensation for the donation of the corner right-of-way. Funding to be from account 4109, Gas Tax Revenue. 15 BOOK Fri. 1)r.1 DEC 2 1985 I ? DEC 2 18 B0u 66 FnIH 54® Chairman Scurlock felt it would be better to settle on a dollar,amount and then let the property owner contract for the services. If we contract and the home owner is unhappy with the work performed, then we are in the middle of the situation. Public Works Director Davis advised that they have gotten figures of $5,590, but that figure does not include the asphalt driveway work. Chairman Scurlock continued to emphasize that his thought would be to assist the property owner in bidding out the work and then have them contract for the work. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously authorized staff to advertise for bids for the above described remodeling; the property owner to contract with the successful bidder; and the funding for the work to be from Account #109, Gas Tax Revenue. 6TH AVE. R/W ACQUISITION - INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD SOUTH The Board reviewed memo of Right-of-way Agent Finney: TO:The Honorable Members of the DATE:November 19, 1986 FILE: Board of County Commissioners THROUGH: Charles Balczun, County Administrator James W. Davis, P.E.(��p Public Works Director SUBJECT: 6th Avenue Right -of - Way Acquisition Indian River Boulevard South Project FROM:Donald G. Finney, �SRRA, REFERENCES: Right -of -Way Acquisition Agent DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Parcel #105 Mr. & Mrs. Albert Minutolo The property owners have agreed to sell the 5'x 89' right of way at the appraised value of $1,113 and the county to relocate the 12 hedge plants to the new right of way line. 16 Parcel # 107 Mr. & Mrs. Francis Dean The property owners have agreed to sell the 51 x 89' right of way at the appraised value of $2,613. Land $1,113 12 Royal Palms 301+ height 1,500 Full Compensation $2,613 Parcel # 100 Mr. & Mrs. Arthur Karst The property ownershave agreed to sell the additional right of way to the County at the appraised value of $3.50 per square foot. The triangular corner Iparcel is 251 x 25' - 2 = 312.5 Square feet x $3.50 = $1,093.75 Full Compensation Staff has decreased the size of the original right of way requested. - RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING Staff requests authorization to purchase the above three right of way parcels at their appraised values. Funding to be from Indian River Boulevard Project Account #304-214-541-066.12 ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Eggert, the Board unanimously authorized staff to purchase the three right-of-way parcels listed above at their appraised values. PROPOSED ORDINANCE RE POLLING PLACE AVAILABILITY I Chairman Scurlock announced to those present that the hearing on the proposed ordinance re polling place availability has been removed from today's agenda and will be carri-ed over until next week's meeting at 10:00 A.M. COUNTY -INITIATED REQUEST TO REZONE 122 ACRES RS -3 (ROSEWOOD ROAD) The hour of 9:15 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: 17 BOOK F'Gr. D E D 2 �� r DEC 2 1986 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 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. f Sworn to and subscribed before me this ! r0 y of 19 � Q (Bu ' &Mana (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, FI ida) (SEAL) nox 66 F'v$UE 542 NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING Notice of hearing initiated by Indian River County to consider the adoption of a County or- dinance rezoning land from: RS -6, Single -Family Residential District, and A-1, Agricultural District to RS -3, Single -Family Residential District The property is located north of 16th Street and east of 58th Avenue. The subject property is described as: Parcel 1: From the southwest comer of section 4. Township 33 South, Range 39 East, In- dian River County, Florida, run east along the south line of Section -4 a dis- tance of 80 feet to a point on the east right-of-way line of Lateral "B" right-of- way; thence continue east along the same line a distance of 288 feet to the point of beginning of the parcel herein described: Thence run north 280 feet; thence run east 319 feet; thence run south 280 feet; thence run west 319 feet to the point of beginning. Parcel 2: All of tract 11 lying south of the Mein Re- lief Canal, all of tracts 14 and 15, and the . east 20 acres and the south 635 feet of the west 665 feet of tract 16, In Section 4, Township 33 South, Range 39 East,; as shown on the plat of Indian River Farms Company Subdivision filed in the office of the clerk of circuit court of SL Lucie County, Florida in plat book 2, In Indian County, Florida.8nd now being d an River A public hearing at which parties in Interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard, will be held by the Board of County Com- 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, Decem- ber 2,1986, at 9:15 A.M. The Board of County Commissioners may grant a rezoning to a less intense zoning district than the district requested provided It is within the same general use category. Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need to i ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which includes testimony and evidence upon which the appeal Is based. Indian River County. Board of County Commissioners By -s-Don C. Scurlock, Jr Chairman , Nov 10. 1986 Chief Planner Richard Shearer made the staff presentation: TO: The Honorable Members DATE: October 24, 1986 FILE: of the Board of County _ Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: SUBJECT: COUNTY -INITIATED REQUEST Robert M. Keaffng, A-1 TO REZONE 122 ACRES FROM Planning & De elop t Director RS -6 AND A-1 TO RS -3, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDEN- IAL DISTRICT FROM.' Richard M. Shearer, REFERENCES: Chief, Long -Range Planning It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at t:neir regular meeting of December 2, 1986. 18 DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS The County is initiating a request to rezone approximately 122 acres located north of 16th Street (Rosewood Road), south of the main relief canal, east of 58th Avenue, and west of 43rd Avenue from RS -6, Single -Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre), and A-1, Agricultural District (up to 1 unit/5 acres), to RS -3, Single -Family Residential District (up to 3 units/acre). On September 2, 1986, the Board of County Commissioners upeld the Planning and Zoning Commission's denial of a request to rezone approximately 28 acres of land located adjacent to the subject property from A-1, to RS -6. The Board did, however, rezone that property to RS -3 because they felt the RS -3 zoning was more appropriate for the area based on the RS -3 zoning on the south side of 16th Street and the low-density nature of the area. On October 23, 1986, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5 -to -0 to recommend approval of this request. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the appli- cation will be presented. The analysis will include a descrip- tion of the current and future land uses of the site and sur- rounding areas, potential impacts on the transportation and utility systems, and any significant adverse impacts on environ- mental quality. Existing Land Use Pattern The subject property contains single-family residences, citrus groves and undeveloped land zoned RS -6, and a single-family residence zoned A-1. North of the subject property is a single-family subdivision on the south side of the Mair. Relief Canal zoned RS -6. Further north, across the Main Relief Canal, is a power substation, a restaurant, and a single-family house zoned CG, General Commercial District, and a ccmmercial subdivision under development and* three single-family residences zoned CL, Limited Commercial District. East of the sub;ect property is a single-family subdivision and vacant land zoned RS -6. South of the subject property, across 16th Street, is Kingswood Estates, a single-family subdivision under development, and single-family residences on large parcels of land zoned RS -3. West of the subject property is an old citrus grove being developed for single-family residences which is zoned RS -3. Future Land Use Pattern The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property and the land east, west and immediately north of it as LD -2, Low -Density- Residential 2 (up to 6 units/acre). The land further to the north, across the Main Relief Canal, is part of the 160 acre Kings Highway and State Road 60 commercial node. The land south of the subject property, across 16th Street, is designated as LD -1, Low -Density Residential 1 (up to 3 units/acre). The proposed rezoning is consistent with the RS -3 zoning located west and south of the subject property and is consistent with the low-density development pattern in this area. 19 1 BOOK 66 PAH 543 DEC 2 1986 BOOK 66 Fr :y4 Transportation System The subject property has access to 16th Street (classified as a secondary collector street on the County's Thoroughfare Plan), and to 43rd Street (classified as a primary collector street). This proposed down -zoning would reduce the potential traffic generated by the subject property from approximately 3,843 average annual daily trips (AADT) under RS -6 zoning to approximately 1,921 AADT under RS -3 zoning. Environment The subject property is not designated as environmentally sensitive nor is it in a flood -prone area. Utilities County water is generally available for this area. County wastewater service is not currently available. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning, Commission's recommendation, staff recommends approval. Rosewood Rd. 1'( 20 M M r Question arose as to the size of the lots, and Chief Planner Shearer reported that there are 49 parcels of land in the subject property, 28 of which are less than an acre in size and 21 being - greater than an acre. Of those lots smaller than an acre, the largest is 8/10 of an acre; the median size is .57 acre, and the smallest is .21 acre. Fourteen of the lots which are smaller than one acre are in Silver Oaks Estates Subdivision and the other fourteen are metes and bounds. Most of the lots are developed, and access is gained through the subdivision, not off Rosewood Road. Commissioner Bird believed the overall picture is that the 122 acres presently is RS -6 and we are proposing downzoning to RS -3. He asked in staff's experience with recent developments zoned RS -3, how many units per acre they have actually been getting. Planner Shearer stated that most have been coming in with 1/2 acre lots because they don't have water. If they did have water, they could come in with a 12,000 sq. ft. lot. The Chairman felt most have been getting 2.6 and 2.8 unless they go to a PRD, which would push it closer to 3 upa, and Planning Director Keating confirmed that there is a PRD applica- tion now which is looking at just about 3 upa. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. Attorney Michael O'Haire came before the Board on behalf of Dr. Charles Rattray and other owners of land along Rosewood Boulevard, which he felt is truly an estate area and has been developed that way for decades. The only subdivided area, aside from Tropicolony which really is not representative of Rosewood Road, is Silver Oaks, which is a subdivision of large lots. Attorney O'Haire agreed that RS -3 is a step in the right direc- tion and believed the property owners were unaware it ever was RS -6. What they would like at the very worst, however, is RS -1 with a minimum lot size of 16,500 sq. ft., which would not make a great number of lots non -conforming. Attorney O'Haire urged D2 19� 21 BOOK 6 PnE 545 C C. y� DEC 2 1986 BOOK 66 u,EL546 that the Board by all means downzone to RS -3 as advertised, but then, in order to stem the tide of new site plans, immediately direct staff to take another look at this area giving considera- tion to RS -1 as the people who live there are entitled to protection. In discussion, it was noted that RS -1 is one unit per acre and requires a minimum of 40,000 sq. ft. lot size. There is no category between RS -1 AND RS -3. Attorney O'Haire stated that he had meant to ask for R-1AA. Planner Shearer advised that R-1AA was repealed in April of 1985 when we did the residential zoning conversion, but Municipal Code inadvertently missed this and did not take it out of the Code supplement. Chairman Scurlock believed that Attorney O'Haire is asking that we explore a new ordinance to create a new district. Director Keating presented the alternative of rezoning to RS -1 and having non -conforming lots of record which still could be developed as they would not be illegal. Chairman Scurlock felt to avoid confusion, an ordinance should reflect what you actually can do; i.e., if it is 2.5, say so, and if you can't achieve 6, say 4.6, etc., but Commissioner Bird believed the problem is that with a PUD you can achieve 6. Olske Forbes, newest resident of Rosewood Road, asked if staff isn't supposed to put up some type of signage to alert adjacent owners of a rezoning, and Planner Shearer explained that the ordinance requires that we place signs, but does not require that we maintain them. Mrs. Forbes did not believe signs were ever placed, and Planner Shearer stated that he would check on this. Mrs. Forbes also did not think the general public understands the ramifica- tions of RS -3 having special exception uses, which means you could have PRDs, etc. Commissioner.Eggert pointed out that RS -6 has PRDs also, and Director Keating noted that a PRD requires two public hearings - 22 one before the Planning 6 Zoning Commission and one before this Board. Chairman Scurlock asked if Mrs. Forbes wished the Board to pursue downzoning to RS -3, and then pursue further reducing the zoning, and she confirmed that she did because there are two huge parcels left on the street that could be developed into PRDs, and there already is one potential PRD. Dr. Robert Vinson stressed that he has said from the beginning that we should have one acre lots.on Rosewood Road. He did not want to see PRDs take over and have them put up security walls and destroy the natural beauty of this area. He did not see any difference in RS -6 and RS -3 because with either they will have increased traffic and increased gated communities, which is not the nature of Rosewood, and he felt RS -6 actually is better yecause it at least requires street lights and bike paths. Margery Young, 1485 50th Court,'noted that the residents are very proud of their street, but it seems their efforts to keep it beautiful are being exploited by developers. Mrs. Young believed there are many homes and condos for sale all over the city and urged that the Board keep their area on Rosewood Road the way it is and has been over the years. George Beuttell, 5480 Rosewood Road, noted that he has lived at that address for ten years and grew up on Rosewood Road. He spoke on behalf of his mother who owns the largest piece of property being affected by the new zoning and informed the Board that while they are for the downzoning, they do not feel it is appropriate to downzone theirs to RS -1 if the properties on the other side of the road remain RS -3. Mr. Beuttell stated that they have no intentions of developing but they would like to reserve the right to be able to develop as those property owners _ y surrounding them have been able to. Conversely, if the Board were to rezone the Ralmar property and the south side of Rosewood to R-1, they would be glad to go along with anything of that Di9�6 23 BOOK 6 PA,E 54n7 I 'i DEC 2 1966 Bou C6 G.a E 548 nature. They just do not want to be treated unfairly, and he would oppose just them being rezoned to R-1. Chairman Scurlock believed that Ralmar is already vested and have all their site plan work, and Director Keating confirmed that they have submitted their PRD. Chairman Scurlock requested that staff explain the PRD procedure and the Commission's latitude in terms of certain conditions that may be placed on a PRD. Director Keating confirmed that a PRD does allow more flexibility in development and certain modifications may be allowed, particularly with regard to minimum lot sizes and setback areas, but emphasized that a PRD is not an entitlement or right. The developer must come in and bargain with staff as to how it can be developed, and this bargaining continues through the hearing process. THe Chairman commented that we do not have an ordinance that calls for architectural review, and Director Keating agreed but noted that the Board can impose certain conditions under a PRD and the developer must display exhibits showing how the project will look. Chairman Scurlock believed with a PRD the public would have a better idea of what is to be developed, and also any future owner of the property would have to adhere to whatever is set out under the PRD. Commissioner Bird felt if we do not have a zoning category requiring something in the area of a minimum 1/2 acre lot, that we may want to look into creating one. He believed some really fine developments have been done on the basis of 1/2 acre lots. Attorney O'Haire brought up the possibility that the pending PRD may not be granted during the public hearing process, and he continued to urge that staff be directed to begin immediately the process for implementing a larger minimum lot size. Mr. Beuttell. inquired if you can downzone arbitrarily when somebody is already zoned, and Chairman Scurlock believed 24 Attorney O°Haire is suggesting that Ralmar will- just go away, and that is not the case; they already have filed suit against an earlier decision downzoning them from RS -6. He also had the impression there is a feeling in the audience that if we went to R-1AA, Ralmar would be included, but that is not the way it works. Mr. Beuttell wished to go on record as -being very disenchanted with Ralmar and the way they have handled this affair, especially their putting up a chain link fence. Mr. Beuttell did not feel rezoning to RS -1 and leaving Ralmar intact would be fair. It was determined no one else wished to be heard. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com- missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance 86-77 rezoning the property as advertised to RS -3. 25 DEC 2 19865 '06, PnE 549 DEC BOOK 6 6 `'A'U�. 550 ORDINANCE NO. 86-77 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: Parcel 1: From the southwest corner of section 4, Township 33 South, Range 39 East, Indian River County, Florida, run east along the south line of Section 4 a distance of 80 feet to a point on the east right-of-way line of Lateral "B" right-of-way; thence continue east along the same line a distance of 288 feet to the point of beginning of the parcel herein described: Thence run north 280 feet; thence run east 319 feet; thence run south 280 feet; thence run west 319 feet to the point of beginning. Parcel 2: All of tract 11 lying south of the Main Relief Canal, all of tracts 14 and 1.5, and the east 20 acres and the south 635 feet of the west 665 feet of tract 16, in Section 4, Township 33 South, Range 39 East, as shown on the plat of Indian River Farms Company Subdivision filed in the office of the clerk of circuit court of St. Lucie County, Florida in plat book 2, page 25; said land now lying and being in Indian River County, Florida. Be changed from A-1, Agricultural District, and RS -6, Single -Family Residential District, to RS -3, Single -Family Residential District. All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in said Zoning Regulations. 26 Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on this 2nd day of December 1986. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY By, / C Don C. Scurlock, J.,eVairman Chairman Scurlock asked if the Commission is indicating they want further downzoning and creation of a new zoning category in the range of 1/2 acre. Discussion ensued re various minimum lot sizes, and Commis- sioner Bird stated that he is looking for a category that would ensure the largest building lots short of one unit per acre. Director Keating stated that staff will draft an ordinance that will be in the 1/2 acre range. Commissioner Bird noted that we will have to approve that ordinance and then advertise for rezoning to that category, and Commissioner Eggert suggested we ask'staff to revisit the Rosewood area as she believed some want to stay at RS -3 and some prefer downzoning to 1/2 acre lots. Commissioner Bird felt we might want to visit the south side of Rosewood Road also. Chairman Scurlock believed that staff has been given direction and suggested they pursue this in a rapid manner. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com- missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously directed staff to create an ordinance as discussed. REZONING .51 ACRE TO RM -6 E. OF U.S.I & N. OF 84TH PL. (WICKER) The hour of 9:15 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: 27 DEC 2 1986 Et BOOK 66 rvu.551 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 . 2 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 RiverCoun- ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertiser�nent; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed before me this (SEAL) (Clerk , Florida) Y 7 1 Boa 66 P,;F 551 NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING Notice of hearing to consider the adoption of a County ordinance rezoning land from: RS -6, Single -Family Residential District to RM -6, Muhl - j pie -Family Residential District The subject prop. erty is presently owned by Mark J. Wicker, Jr. and is located east of U.S. Highway 1 on the north side of 84th Piace. The subject property is described as: Lots 9 and 10, Block 1, Graves Addition to Wabesso, according to the plat there- of, as recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 41, Public Records of Indian River County, Florida. A public hearing at which parties In Interest land citizens shall have an opportunity to be heardheard, will be held by the Board of County Com- missioners. of Indian River County, Florida, in the , Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida on Tuesday, Decem- per 2,1988, at 9:15 a.m. 6 The Board of County Commissioners may ant a rezoning to a less Intense zoning district an the district requested provided it Is within rant same general use category. Anyone who may wish to appeal am decision Which may be me a at this meeting w 11 need to unsure that a verbatim record of the proceedings Is made, which'Includes testimony and evidence Wpon which the appeal is based. Indian River County Board of County Commissioners By: -s -Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Chairman JNov. 10. 1888 Chief Planner Shearer made the staff presentation: T®: The 3oncrable Members DATE: October 24, 1986 FILE: of the card of County Commissicners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: - - `-_, - SUBJECT: WICKER REQUEST TO REZONE Roberz Rea i g, - P .51 ACRES FROM RS -6, Planning& De-,jlopm. t Director SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. DISTRICT, TO RM -6, MUL- TIPLE -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT FROM: M. Shearer REFERENCES: Chief-, Long -Range Planning It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideramion by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular =eeting of December 2, 1986. 28 � � s DESCRIPT=CN & CONDITIONS Mark J. Wicker, Jr., the owner, is requesting to rezone approximately .51 acres consisting of two lots located approximately 200 feet east of U.S. 1 on the north side of 84th Place =rom RS -6, Single -Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre), to 1;0-6, Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 6 units/s=ere) The applicant is proposing to develop this site for a triplex. On Octc!C-er 23, 1986, the Planning -and Zoning Commission voted 5 -to -0 to recommend approval of this request. s ALTrBVAi-ETES & ANALYSIS In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the appli- cation will be presented. The analysis will include a descrip- tion of she current and future land uses of the site and sur- rounding_ areas, potential impacts on the transportation and utility s; -stems, -and any significant adverse impacts on environ- mental c-=ality. Exist -_-c Land Use Pattern The sub_ect property is vacant except for a small storage buiid_nc. North of the subject property are single-family dwel�ir_cs and vacant lots zoned RS -6 and RM -6. South and west of the subject property are single-family dwellings and vacant lots zoned -6. Further west, are a veterinarian's office, a bait and tackle store, and other commercial uses zoned CL, Limited Co=ercial District. East of the subject property is a citrus grove ;mac =ed RM -6. Future -and Use Pattern The Co�_�=ehensive Plan generally designates the subject property end all of the land around it as LD -2, Low -Density Residential 2 yup to 6 units/acre). In addition, the Comprehensive Plan designates a 120 acre Commercial/Industrial node at the intersezzion of U.S. 1 and Wabasso Road. The exact boundaries of this :cd -e have not been established. However, it is anticipated that to commercially -zoned properties located -less than 100 feet west of the subject property will be included in the node. The subject _roperty is.included in a narrow strip of land zoned RS -6 which is situated among commercially -zoned property to the west and scut_ and land zoned for multiple -family use to the north and east. rased on this zoning configuration, it seems reasonable to rezone t is single-family property including the subject property to :u_t=ple-family to eliminate this spot of RS -6 zoning. While the predominant land use around the subject property is single-family in nature, there has been little interest in development of the vacant lots in this area. Multiple -Family zoning would allow single-family dwellings and would encourage redevelopment in this area. Transportation System The subject property has direct access to 84th Place (classified as a local street on the Thoroughfare Plan). The maximum - development of this property based on RM -6 zoning could generate up to 21 average annual daily trips. Environment The subject property is not designated sensitive nor is it in a flood -prone area. k4. 29 as environmentally KOK 553 DEC 2 10,33-1 So r, a- ; l ; s- ; - BOOK 66' 1v� -F, 5 5 Neither County water nor wastewater facilities are available for this area. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above analysis, including the Planning -and Zoning Commission's recommendation, staff recommends approval. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com- missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com- missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance 86-78 rezoning the subject property to RM -6 as requested by Mark Wicker. ORDINANCE NO. 86- 78 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, I Florida, to -wit; Lots 9 and 10, Block 1, Graves Addition to Wabasso, according to the plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 41, Public Records of, Indian River County, Florida. 30 a� Be changed from RS -6, Single -Family Residential District, to RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential District, All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in said Zoning Regulations. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on this 2nd day of December , 1986. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY By / or G Don C. Scurloc ,,Jr., hairman ATTEST BY: FRED WRIGHT,CtJleejr�1'o �� . REZONE 17.8 ACRES N. OF 8TH ST_ _& W. of 43RD AVE. TO RS -3 (LAUREL BUILDERS) The hour of 9:15 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a - -- in the matter of fJ & ZAd In the / Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of tine" `ei ` ee&/ Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun- ty, Florida, fora period of one,year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed before me thisff y of, ` .D. 19 (Bi Man r)/ ' (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, orida) (SEAL) 31 NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING Notice of hearing to consider the adoption of a County ordinance rezoning land from: A-1, Agricultural District to RS -3, Single-Famfly Resi- dential District. The subject property Is located north of 5th Street and east of 58th Avenue. The subject property Is described as: The east 585.60 feet of Tract 14, Section 9, Township 33 south, Range 39 east, accordingIvto er he las general plat o the Indian R pany In St.PlatLu�cia 2, Page now Indian River County, Florida, LESS the east 185 feet of the south 195 feet thereof, LESS the west 370.60 feet of the south 306 feet thereof and LESS road fight -of -ways. A public hearing at which parties In Interest and citizens shall have an Opportunity to be heard, will be held by the Board of County Com- 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. Decem- ber 2,1986, at 9:15 a.m. The Board of County Commissioners may grana rezoning to a lose Intense zoning district n the district requested provided It is within the same general use category. Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which includes testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. _ _I Indian River County ; Board of County Commissioners By: -a -Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Chairman Nov. 10,1986 BOOK 6 FAGS DEC 2 1906 y, BOOK 66 fa'ur.5,56 Chief Planner Shearer made the staff presentation: TO: The Honorable Members DATE: October 24, 1986 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: "' -- SUBJECT: Robert M. Keat ng, P Plapn►,n,�ing & Dev lopm nt Director FROM: Richard r M. Shearer, Chief, Long -Range Planning LAUREL BUILDERS, INC., REQUEST TO REZONE 17.8 ACRES FROM A-1, AGRICULT- URAL DISTRICT, TO RS -3, S_":%GLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT It is requested that the data herein ~resented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners- at their regular meeting of December 2, 1986. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS Laurel Builders, Inc., an agent for the owners, is requesting to rezone approximately 17.8 acres located on the north side of 8th Street, one-half mile west of 43rd Avenue, and approximately one-half mile east of Kings Highway from A-1, Agricultural District (up to 1 unit/5 acres), to RS -3, Single -Family Residential District (up to 3 units/acre). The applicant intends to develop this property for a single-family subdivision. On October 23, 1986, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5 -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 wi7l include a descrip- tion of the current and future land uses of the site and sur- rounding areas, potential impacts on the transportation and utility systems, and any significant adverse impacts on environ- mental quality. Existing -Land Use Pattern The subject property is a non-productive citrus grove. North of the subject property is a citrus grove zoned A-1. Northeast of • the subject property is Kanawha Acres, a single-family subdivision zoned RS -3. East of the subject property is a citrus grove zoned RS -3 on which an elementary school is proposed; also east of the subject property is Glendale Lakes, a single-family subdivision zoned RS -3. South of the subject property are three single-family dwellings zoned A-1. Further south, across 8th Street, is undeveloped land and two single-family dwellings zoned A-1. West of the subject property is a citrus grove and undeveloped land zoned A-1. Future Land Use Pattern The Comprehensive Plan designates the sui-Deet property and all of the land around it as LD -1, Low -Dense_- Residential 1 (up to 3 units/acre). The proposed RS -3 zoning is in conformance with the LD -1 land use designation and is cons -'stent with the RS -3 zoning to the east of the subject property. 32 Transportation Svstem The subject property has direct access to oth Street (classified as a secondary collector street on the Thoroughfare Plan). The maximum development of the subject property under RS -3 zoning could generate up to 371 average annual dai�v trips (AADT). Environment The subject property is not designated as environmentally, sensitive nor isitin a flood -prone area. Utilities A County watermain runs along 8th Street. County wastewater service is not currently available. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, staff recommends approval. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com- missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously closed the public hearing. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Wheeler, to adopt Ordinance 86-79 rezoning the subject property to RS -3 as requested by Laurel Builders. Commissioner Wheeler believed this property is near the school and he felt the whole area out there should be looked at. Planner Shearer agreed, but noted that staff has been hesitant to recommend rezoning for agricultural zoned lands because many have agricultural exemptions and do not have immediate plans for development. Commissioner Wheeler asked if it is ag land that is produc- tive or whether it is just sitting there waiting for the price to go up so they can sell it and rezone it. Planner Shearer felt that is hard to determine, and Commis- sioner Eggert explained that the Comprehensive Plan says there should be protection of agricultural zoning, and, therefore, unless it is requested, staff has tended not to move on it as the rezoning would affect the agricultural exemption. 33 BOOK DEC 1986 Y -Y DEC 2 1936 BOOK [Jjuc Commissioner Wheeler asked if under the Comprehensive Plan you can't ask for such a rezoning unless you are the owner of the property, and Commissioner Eggert stated it is not that you ` can't, but it just has been policy not to do so. She continued that she basically was not for the county rezoning things except under special circumstances where we have an obvious need or some hardship. Peter Robinson, president of Laurel Builders, felt if that area is studied, it will be found that there are some areas that are obviously not agricultural, and he believed the owners want them rezoned, but it is hard to get them to move ahead with it. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 86-79 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 i°s 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: 34 The east 685.60 feet of Tract 14, Section 9, Township 33 south, Range 39 east, according to the last general plat of the Indian River. Farms Company, filed in Plat Book 2, Page 25, Public Records of St. Lucie County, _ Florida, 'now Indian River County, Florida; LESS the east 165 feet of the south 195 feet thereof, LESS the west 370.60 feet of the south 306 feet thereof and LESS road right-of-ways. Be changed from A-1, Agricultural District to RS -3, Single - Family Residential District. All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and - described in said Zoning Regulations. - Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on this 2nd day of December , 1986. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY By C✓ 4, z,& Don C. Scur ock, jrt/,' hairman. 7�7ZONE .46 ACRES ROSELAND GARDENS SUBDV. TO RM -6 (PREUSS) 7h-, hour of 9:15 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk r'_:_�d the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: 35 BOOK F',F 5� DEC 2 1,986 r y' D E C 2 1986 BOOK 66 F,�,'r 5 d t 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 / A4 i in the matter in the Coourt, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of—`!�`v�rg G Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun- ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed before me this 1&4 �iay of gib. 19 �(C WWF-.,. �'� (SEAL) I 1 (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING Notice of hearing to consider theadoption of a County ordinance rezoning land from: RS -8; Single -Family Residential District, to RM -5, Mul- tiple -Family Residential District The property is presently owned by Daniel I. Pruess and Joan M. Pruess, trustees. The subjectproperty is located +on the seat side of Roseland Road and the west side of Mulberry Street The subject property Is described as: Lot 5, Block 9 of Roseland Gardens Sub- division according to the plat thereof as recorded In Plat Book 8, page 5 of the public records of Indian River County, A public hearing at which parties in Interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard, will be held by the Board of County Com-, missloners of Indian River County, Florida, In the County Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, located at 1840 26th Street, Vero Beach, Florida on Tuesday, Decem- ber 2,1986, at 9:15 a.m. The Board of County Commissioners may grant a rezoning to a less Intense zoning district then the district requested provided it is within the same general use category. Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings Is made, which Includes testimony and evidence upon which the appeal Is based. Indian River County a; Board of County Commissioners By: -s -Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Chairman Nov.10,1986 Chief Planner Shearer made the staff presentation: TO: The Honorable Members DATE: October 24, 1986 FELE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: aL�t SUBJECT: PREUSS REQUEST TO REZONE Robert M. Keat/-ng,, ,ICP .46 ACRES FROM RS -6 TO Planning & DeVelopment Director RM -6 S FROM Richard M. Shearer, REFERENCES: Chief, Long -Range Planning It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of December 2, 1986. 36 DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS L -J Dan and Joan Preuss, trustees, are requesting to rezone approximately .46 acres consisting of one lot of Roseland Gardens Subdivision -from RS -6, Single -Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre), to RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre). The applicants intend to develop this lot for a duplex. On October 23, 1986, the Planning and Zoning Commission. voted 5 -to -O to recommend approval of this request. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the appli- cation will be presented.' The analysis will include a descrip- tion of_ the current and future land uses of the site and sur- rounding areas, potential impacts on the transportation and utility systems, and any significant adverse impacts on environ- mental quality. Existing Land Use Pattern The subject property consists of a vacant lot. North and east of the subject property are duplexes, single-family dwellings, and vacant lots zoned RM -6. South and west of the subject property are single-family dwellings and vacant lots zoned RS -6. Future Land Use Pattern The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property and all of the land around it as LD -2, Low -Density Residential 2 (up to 6 units/acre). Roseland Gardens Subdivision is evolving from a predominantly single-family subdivision to a subdivision containing half single-family dwellings and half duplexes. During the last three years, at least six site plans have been submitted to` construct additional duplexes in. this subdivision. Based on this trend, staff feels that additional lots should be made available for duplexes in this subdivision. Transportation Svstem The subject property has direct access to Mulberry Street (classified as a local street on the Thoroughfare Plan). The .,. maximum development of the subject property under RM -6 zoning could generate up to 14 average annual daily trips. Environment The subject property is not designated as environmentally sensitive nor is it in a flood -prone area. Utilities Neither County water nor wastewater facilities are available for this subdivision. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, staff recommends approval. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. There were none. 37 BOOK Pt1E DEC 1986 DEC 2 19@6 yI BOOK 66 PA;F 56 °' ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Com- missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Com- missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance 86-80 rezoning the subject property to RM -6 as requested by Dan Preuss. ORDINANCE NO. 86- 80 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 w Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning of the following described property situated in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: Lot 5, Block 9 of Roseland Gardens Subdivision according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 8, page 5 of the public records of Indian River County, Florida. Be changed from RS -6, Single -Family -Residential District, to RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential District. All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and 38 described in said Zoning Regulations. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on thisZnd day of December , 1986. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY jP By 1dY, 4 Don C. Scurlock, Jr , hairman CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP & EXPANSION OF FRANCHISE TERRITORY - RIVERWALK UTILITIES The hour of 9:30 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida r 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-Joumal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being r� a .A D 11' /1,. in the matter in the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun- ty, Florida, fora period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed before me th (SEAL) 4:1 19 (Business Manager) of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, Florida) 39 s NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, will hold a public hearing in the Commission Room, In- dian River County Administration Building, 1E40 25th Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960 on Tuesday, the 2nd day of December, 1986, at 9:30 a.m., to consider the request of Sebastian Associates, for a change in ownership of the Riverwalk Utili- ties, Incorporpted, Water and Sewer Franchise. Legal Description .'--Riverwalk Utilities, Inc. Franchise Area, Commencing at a concrete monument on the Fleming Grant Line marking the Southeasterly comer of Lot 14 of the _Plat of the Town of Wauregan, as re- corded in Plat Book 1, Pages 178 and 179 of the Public Records of Brevard County, Florida-, thence, N 25°04159" E; 163.80 to the' Point of Beginning, said point Ding the point of curvature for a non -tangent cir- cular curve concave to the Northeast having a radius of 11•,459.20 feet. Said _.point bears S 63130'19" W from center of said curve, said point also being on the Westerly right-of-way line of U.S. Highway No. 1; thence, Southeasterly along said circu- lar curve and along said Right -of -Way line for an arc distance of 622.46 feet through a central angle of 03106'44" to a point; thence, S 45144155" W, 323.56 feet to a point: thence, N 44°10135" W, 540.30 feet to a point; thence, N 45°49125"' E,' 103.89 feet to a point; thence, N 43°31'06" W, 1058.38 feet to a point; Said point being on the Southerly Right -of -Way line for Roseland Road; thence, along said Right -of -Way line N 41 °37'20" E, 244.92 feet to a point; thence, continue along said Right -of - Way N 41°52'41"' E, 632.64 feet to a point on the Westerly Right -of -Way line. of U.S.. Highway. -No., 1. Said point being 4tie point of curvature of a non -tangent . ` circular curve concave to the Northeast 'r'''• having a radius of 11,459.20 feet. -Said" :`}point bears S 69°10'46" W, from center -) ?M said curve; �ience, along said Right -of -Way and 'said circular curve for an arc distance of 1JR6.96 feet through a central angle of 05°38'05" to the Point of Beginning. Said parcel contains 18.9 acres and lies wholly in Indian River County. All interested parties will be heard. Dated this 20th day of November, 1986. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA i Don. C. Scurlock, Jr., Chairman Nov. 20, 21, 22, 1986 BOOK � Pt1�r.56 r7 - DEC 2 1986 VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OE 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-Joumal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a In the matter of—L, 4 in the +�% Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the Issues of ( Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach• in said Indian River Coun- ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed before me this y f 19 9 — h (Business Manager) (Ole& of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, Florida) (SEAL9t� 1 1 yy I BOOK 616 PAH 564 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice Is herepy given that the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, will hold a public hearing in the Commission Room, Indian River County Administration Building, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960 on Tuesday, the 2nd day of December, 1988, at 9:30 am.. to consider the request of Riverwalk Utilities, Inc. for the expansion of the franchise territory. Legal Description Riverwalk Utilities, Inc, Franchise Area Commencing at a concrete monument on the Fleming Grant Une marking the Southeasterly comer of lot 14 of the Plat of the Town of Wauregan, as recorded In Plat Book 1, Pages 178 and 179 of the Public Records of Brevard County, Florida; thence, N 2510459" E, 163.80 to the Point of Beginning, said point being the point of curva- ture for a non -tangent circular curve concave to the Northeast having a radius of 11,459.20 feet. Said point bears S S3°30'19" W from center of said save, said point also being on the Westerly right-of-w aayy line of U.S. Highway No. 1; thence, Southeasterly along said circular pave and along said Right -of -Way Una for an aic distance of 622.46 feet through a central angle of 03°06'44" to a point; thence, S 45°44'55" W. 323.56 feet to a point; therue, N 44"10'35" W. 540.30 feet to a pohht thence. N 45°49'25" E, 103.89 feet to a point; thence, N 43°31'08" W, 1058.38 feet to a point Said point being on the Southerly Right-ol- Way line for Roseland Road; thence, along said Right -of -Way line N 41 °37'20" E, 244.92 feet to a point; thence, continue along said Right -of -Way N 41'52'41" E. 532.64 feet to a point on the We* .erly Right -of -Way line of U.S. Highway No. 1. Said point being the point of curvature of a non -tangent circular curve concave to the Northeast having a radius of 11,459.20 feet Said point hears S 69°10'46" W. from Center of said curve; thence, along said Right -of -Way and said circular curve Jor an arc distance of 1126.96 feet through a central angle of 05'38'05" to the Point of Beginning. Said parcel contains 1 &9 acres and lies wWy In Indian River County. A8 Interested parties will be heard. Dated this 20th day of November, 1986. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA Don. C. Scurlock, Jr., Chairman Nov. 20..21.22, 1986 Staff presentation was made by Franchise Manager Lisa Abernethy: 40 � r � TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISS NE S DATE: NOVEMBER 21, 1986 THRU: TERRANCE G. PINT /7ely DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES FROM: LISA M. ABERNETHY FRANCHISE MANAGE !!'' SUBJECT: EXPANSION OF FRANCHISE TERRITORY AND CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP FOR RIVERWALK UTILITIES, INCORPORATED On February 6, 1985, Riverwalk Utilities, Incorporated, was granted a water and wastewater system franchise, Resolution 85-17. Since that time, Riverwalk Associates has operated' Riverwalk Utilities in an efficient and economical manner. At this time, Riverwalk Associates has requested that the Board of County Commissioners consider the following items: A. Watkins Associated Developers, Inc., has developed the 12.5 acre franchise to its fullest potential. Riverwalk Associates, Inc., has requested an expansion of approximately 5.32 acres, south of the existing territory. This expansion will be divided into five tracts. Tract A, (see attached map) will be dedicated to the wastewater effluent disposal and the remaining four tracts will be utilized for restaurants and other commercial use. Consequently, the expansion of territory demands expansion of the water and wastewater facilities. B. Riverwalk Associates, Inc., is currently negotiating to sell the Riverwalk Utility franchise to the applicant, Sebastian Associates. The applicant is negotiating the purchase of the Riverwalk Shopping Center and 100% of the Riverwalk Utilities, Inc., stock. The applicant certifies that it is acting in good faith and has means and intent to build, install, and operate the existing Riverwalk Utilities system and the expanded system necessitated by the expansion of the franchise territory. The name of the utility will remain the same. RECOMMENDATION Utility Staff's Recommendation For Item A• Utility staff has reviewed Riverwalk Utilities, Inc., franchise and requests that the expansion of franchise territory be contingent upon the posting of a bond by Riverwalk Associates, Inc., to cover all estimated construction costs necessitated by the expansion of the franchise territory. It is expressly understood by the applicant that all construction associated with the plant expansion be completed within twelve months after the bond is posted. When construction is completed and prior to the bond being released, the County Utility Department will issue a permit for operation to Riverwalk Utilities, Inc. Staff also asks that no Building Permits be issued until all escrow impact fees for Phase II are paid. All other escrow impact fees have been satisfied. Utility Staff's Recommendation For Item B• Utility staff has reviewed the request of Sebastian Associates for the change of ownership in the Riverwalk Utilities franchise. Copies of the applicant's, Mr. James H. Nobil, personal financial statements are attached hereto. Utility staff has reviewed the financial statements C. 6 41 Bm 66 Frac-565 M. AMEMPTIGA I, BOOK. 66 p,r rr and has one condition for the approval of this transfer, i.e., Riverwalk Associates, Inc., and the County Utility Staff requests that the transfer of ownership be contingent upon the closing of the sale of the Riverwalk Shopping Center. Utility staff stress the fact that County water and wastewater service will be available to the Riverwalk franchise in the near future. ----Section XVI, Escrow Charges, Item 4., Page 11, of Franchise Resolution 85-17, attached hereto, states, "Should the County at any time provide a water distribution system and/or wastewater collection system and furnish water and/or wastewater services to individual customers within the franchise territory, the sums of money remaining in said account, (escrow impact fee and renewal and replacement account), shall become the absolute property of the County and the Utility shall be absolved from the obligation of payment of further connection charges to the County and this franchise shall terminate." At such time, the Utility will receive a 30 day written notice to disband, at their expense, the water and/or wastewater facilities and connect to the County system. Utility staff realizes the length and conditions of each request and asks the Board of County Commissioners to approve the expansion of the franchise territory and the change in ownership with these conditions as outlined above. Chairman Scurlock inquired why the change of ownership is being addressed contingent on the sale, and Utilities Director Pinto explained that the people won't buy the franchise unless they know it can be transferred. The Chairman emphasized the fact that when the county provides service to the area, the franchise will go out of business. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard either regarding the change of ownership or expansion of the franchise area. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 86-105 approving change of ownership of Riverwalk Utilities, Inc. and Resolution 86-106 granting expansion of the franchise territory,.both 42 based on contingencies outlined in the above memo dated November 21, 1984. SAID RESOLUTIONS WILL BE MADE A PART OF THEcR�CORD WHEN FULLY COMPLETED AND RECEIVED. REPORT ON SANDRIDGE GOLF CLUB �. Intergovernmental Relations Director Thomas advised that he has certain items where he needs direction from the Board. He noted that the Board did authorize staff to proceed on the cart paths and on the bridges. The cart paths went out to bid, and we will be opening the bids in about a week. He informed the Board that he authorized staff to put back the metal bridge we have on hand, which they are renovating, and that will be on a sublateral canal in front of the clubhouse. Authorization is needed for staff to proceed to negotiate on the balance of the construction, which Director Thomas assumed would include the cart storage building and paving . Chairman Scurlock asked if the County Attorney has :gotten an opinion about those bids, and Attorney Vitunac said that he had not; he has contacted Architect Charles Block but has not yet actually looked at the documents. Chairman Scurlock believed Director Thomas is asking for something we can't do until we get that opinion, and Mr. Thomas agreed. He further informed the Board that he has talked to Carter & Associates; the engineering will be ready this week on the bridges, and he would like authorization to work with Public Works Director Jim Davis, who is a certified bridge engineer, to proceed and/or go to bid on the bridges. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Eggert, the Board unanimously authorized staff to proceed as discussed by Director Thomas contingent on Architect Charles Block signing off on the bidding. DEC 2 1986 43 Boor 66 Pr�E 567 y, DEC 2 1986 568 Chairman Scurlock noted that we need to get staff to look at funding alternatives for the clubhouse, and he has requested that the tourist tax be considered as a potential source of revenue, - but that was not well received by the Tourist Tax Committee. Commissioner Wheeler felt the problem was that this probably was not legal. Director Thomas wished clarification. His understanding was that last week the Board said staff should proceed with the bridges, the cart paths, the cart building, and paving the parking lot, but he needed to know the status on the clubhouse. Commissioner Bird believed the Chairman is saying that staff is going to come back with financing alternatives for the additional $140,000 and hoped this could be done by the next meeting. Director Thomas stated that he had no recommendations, and he felt this should go to the Finance Committee. Commissioner Eggert stated that she had felt there was a Motion that this information should be returned to us at the next meeting, and Director Thomas said he had no alternatives to present at this time. Discussion ensued re possible alternatives, including borrowing from a local bank, and Chairman Scurlock advised that projections based on the proposed rate structure and on 60,000 rounds a year show there will not be not enough revenue to support the.golf course on its own merit let alone the clubhouse. Based on that rate structure and deducting the required operating expenses, he believed,we will have a $9,000 deficit at the fifth year; so, there is no ability to fund another $4,000 or $5,000 a month debt service. The Chairman seriously doubted we can count on 400 additional rounds of golf a month over the projected 60,000 rounds, and he, therefore, believed the only alternative is to raise the fees. Commissioner Wheeler asked how the proposed fees compare to 44 other courses in the community, and Commissioner Bird explained that the fees the Chairman is referring to were suggested by the National Golf Foundation two years ago. He also felt the figures he is quoting were based on figures OMB Director Baird did based on a straight-line fee projection over five years. The Commis- sion will establish the fees based on recommendations by staff, and Commissioner Bird did believe they initially will be somewhat higher than those projected two years ago. Commissioner Wheeler asked how many rounds are played on other golf courses in the county,- and Chairman Scurlock advised that Sebastian anticipated 51,000 rounds this year. Based on 60,000 rounds at the proposed rate, we still would lose money, but if the fees were raised $3.00 we could gain $180,000. Director Thomas commented that when he says he has no alternatives, if he is instructed by the Board to borrow money, he can do that very quickly, but he has had no such instruction. Chairman Scurlock stressed that he has always felt the course should be self-supporting. It will not be in the first 30 months, and with the proposed rate structure, he did not. believe it will be in the first five years. He did anticipate some subsidization which can be paid back at some time. Director Thomas understood one alternative was to -put up a temporary clubhouse, and he advised that he has been working on that. There is an additional premanufactured facility that is available, but he definitely needs some instruction. Commissioner Eggert had the impression we were going to hear about what the cost of moving a temporary facility might be and also what possible money sources there might be. Administrator Balczun suggested that we schedule staff re- commendations re rate structure as well as a temporary or _ - permanent clubhouse facility for two weeks from today. Commissioner Bird agreed and noted that, in addition, he would like to recommendations about how we get the money and how we pay it back. 45 BOOK 66 o , 56 DEC 2 1986 Y ? DEC 4 1986 BOOK Fr,� ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously instructed staff to bring back information as discussed at the meeting of December 16th. DISCUSS VIOLATION OF RURAL SANITATION FRANCHISE Franchise Manager Lisa Abernethy reviewed the following memo: TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMIS 9I NERS DATE: November 24, 1986 -cam THRU: TERRANCE G. PINTO, CTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES FROM: LISA M. ABERNETHY, FRANCHISE MANAGER c� DIVISION OF UTILITY SERVICES (J� SUBJECT: RURAL SANITATION SERVICE BACKGROUND AND CONDITIONS On May 21, 1986, the Board of County Commissioners passed Resolution No. 86-31 which prohibits sanitation haulers from picking up trash before 6:00 A.M. or after 9:30 P.M. Since that time, Rural Sanitation Services has not abided by this franchise requirement. Early hour collection has continued and complaints are being filed. Utility staff has written numerous letters and has contacted Rural Sanitation about this violation. Utility staff has even contacted the Indian River County's Sheriff's Department and instructed them to issue warning tickets if the trucks are present in residential areas before 6:00 A.M. Utility staff has reprimanded Rural Sanitation Services time and time again and has warned the company that they were jeopardizing their franchise by not complying with the franchise regulations. RECOMMENDATION Utility Staff requests the Board of County Commissioners to set a date for a public hearing to determine the course of action to be taken against Rural Sanitation Services. Mrs. Abernethy informed the Board that the Sheriff feels it is unfair to regulate only residential and not commercial pickup, and she agreed we need to have the commercial pickup adjusted to 6:00 A.M. also because many residential areas, such as those near Ryanwood Shopping Center, back up to commercial areas. She further advised that within the last two weeks, Utilities has had 46 L�J a number of complaints re 4:55 and 5:15 A.M. pickups, and, in fact, the truck came through her neighborhood at 5:25 A.M. Chairman Scurlock advised that he also has received four or five calls a week on this matter, and he felt we must take some type action - either change the ordinance or enforce it. Attorney Robert Jackson came before the Board representing Rural Sanitation. He did feel the corrnnerci,.al/residential should be reviewed because the ordinance will never work in places such as Ryanwood where single family is backed up to commercial. He informed the Board that. Rural Sanitation is being requested by some residents to pick up earlier in the residential areas because they want the trash out of there before they get up in the morning. Attorney Jackson believed it is premature to set a hearing under the franchise. There are two provisions in the franchise; due notice is required; and if there is a problem, they are supposed to rectify it. They, therefore, would like to have the Board set some kind of a deadline for a solution of the problem. Attorney Jackson felt one solution would be to have trucks that only pick up for commercial and those that only pick up residential, and the residential trucks cannot leave before 6:00 A.M. He stressed that he did not see any sense in having a hearing because they are willing to correct the problem. The Chairman pointed out there is a possibility we could change the ordinance to include no pickup for commercial before 6:00 A.M. Commissioner Bird asked if it is necessary for the company to pick up commercial before 6:00 A.M., and Robert Pryor, owner of Rural Sanitation, stated that they would run into a big . traffic problem along U.S.I. if they started it after 6:00 A.M. Chairman Scurlock did not believe there have been any complaints about the other sanitation company, and Mr. Pryor stated that some of the complaints cited are about Harris 47 BOOK D F'., i:1 DEC 2 1936 BOOK 6`6 FD E 5 7 2 Sanitation because his company does not even go into those particular areas. Attorney Jackson continued to discuss the problem with " commercial picking up early and then moving right into the residential areas, but Mrs. Abernethy noted that the point of coming before the Board is not the commercial issue. The point is that the Utilities Department has had solid residential areas complain, and the Utility Department even had the County Attorney send Rural Sanitation a letter telling them they were jeopardizing their franchise. Attorney Jackson stated that he had never seen that letter, and Attorney Vitunac felt if the company didn't forward the letter to Attorney Jackson, that is their problem. Commissioner Eggert inquired if Attorney Vitunac's letter was sent,by certified mail, and Mrs. Abernethy stated that she sent a certified letter, but did not know if the Attorney's letter was certified. Utilities Director Pinto informed the Board that his department has talked to Rural Sanitation several times, and he did not care if we have a public hearing or not, but something must be done. The commercial pickup is an issue also. Director Pinto felt 6:00 A.M. should be the earliest time for pickup anywhere in the county, and if it takes more trucks or more personnel, that is what they will have to do. The Board indicated they would have a public hearing to change the hours as indicated by Utilities staff, and in between that time, indicated that if Rural Sanitation does not cease to pick up in violation of the hours set by the ordinance, they will give serious consideration to invalidating their franchise. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously authorized staff to draw up an ordinance as discussed. 48 DISCUSS POSSIBLE TRANSFER FROM TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNC I L Chairman Scurlock informed the Board that Commissioner Bowman brought to his attention a memo from the Regional Planning Council advising that we have 60 days to react to a proposal to make their boundaries co -terminus with the Water Management Districts, which would move us from Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council into the regional planning council with Marion and Orange Counties. The Chairman did not see that we have any similarities with those non -coastal counties and believed we should remain where we are. Commissioner Bowman noted that actually we used to be a member of the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council with Brevard County, which was a very unsatisfactory arrangement and we were happy when we changed into the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council. This new proposal is a brainchild of the State Boundaries Committee - they want to follow the boundaries of the Water Management Districts and want to do this for everything - the DER, the DOT, etc. Commissioner Bird believed that a majority of the time we are included with Martin and St. Lucie counties, i.e-:-, with the DOT, the judicial system, HRS, the Tri -County Council, etc., and there is no question in his mind that is where we need to be. He felt that just sharing the Indian River is enough reason in itself to stay with the counties that share that resource. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman to authorize staff to draw up an appropriate response indicating our feelings on the proposal to transfer us out of the Treasure Coast - Regional Planning Council. 49 BOOK � Frq.uc 5 73 D E C 2 1986- -7 i UE Boor 66 Fv,&A Commissioner Bowman pointed out that although response is requested within 60 days, the next meeting of the Boundaries. Committee is next Monday. Attorney Vitunac felt the Board would be wise to send a representative to Tallahassee as this is an important issue. Commissioner Bowman agreed as Tallahassee is where the decision will be made. Commissioner Bird suggested that we have staff prepare our response and deliver that response in person at the December 15th meeting in Tallahassee, and Commissioner Wheeler suggested that we incorporate in the response everything in which we are involved with the counties to the south. COMMISSIONERS EGGERT AND BOWMAN agreed to reword their Motion directing staff to prepare our response as discussed and authorize appropriate staff to deliver it to the December 15th meeting in Tallahassee. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. DISCUSSION RE OPEN CONTAINER LAW Commissioner Wheeler informed the Board of the following Motion passed by the Public Safety Committee at their August 1st meeting: "ON`MOTION *by Judge Smith, SECONDED by Mr. Scheeren, the. Committee unanimously agreed to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that they adopt an Ordinance establishing a "Brown Bag Law", to be applicable County -wide, to prevent people from consuming alcoholic beverages on semi-public parking lots, public streets or public right-of-ways, and transporting unsealed alcoholic beverages in automobiles; further, that it be similar to the Ordinance recently adopted by the City of Vero Beach. 50 Commissioner Wheeler noted that there is no county ordinance preventing transporting of unsealed alcoholic beverages in automobiles and no state or county law prohibiting consumption in semi-public parking lots. The City of Vero Beach and City of Sebastian have adopted similar ordinances of this type, and Com- missioner Wheeler felt if the County adopted one, it would give the law enforcement agencies some teeth to prevent this from occurring in places such as Mr. Miller's, for instance. He stated that he would like to pursue this and have staff draw up an ordinance for the Board to consider. Commissioner Bowman asked if he meant just public parking lots as she believed store lots are privately owned. Attorney Vitunac clarified that it would be privately owned parking lots the public has access to. Chairman Scurlock asked if the ordinance would apply to recreational vehicles, and Commissioner Wheeler believed it would apply to any vehicle. The Chairman felt this is just another way to discourage people from drinking while they are driving, and he asked if there are any statistics to show that there have been fewer accidents where such a law has been passed. Commissioner Wheeler did not have any such statistics, but felt anything that discourages people from drinking while driving is beneficial. Chairman Scurlock asked if this actually can be enforced, and Commissioner Wheeler felt it can from the standpoint that it gives the officer probable cause to stop the vehicle. Commissioner Bird asked how far we would propose to go re the type of vehicle - any wheeled vehicle, motorcycle, bicycle, etc., and Commissioner Bowman noted that she would like to see boats included. Attorney Vitunac stated that he would bring back a draft of an ordinance for the Board to review before advertising a public hearing. 51 BOOK 6 i'mu,. 5 7 DECa �� DECFF,_ 2 19G6 DOCUMENTS TO BE MADE A PART OF THE MINUTES Bou 66 P-AuL 5i6 7 Limited Release discharging Koppers Company, Inc., Reinhold Construction, Inc., Triple "M" Roofing and Travelers Insurance Co. from further liability for the Courthouse Roof is hereby -made a part of the Minutes. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida; DON C. SCURLOCK, JR., PATRICK B. LYONS, RICHARD N. BIRD, WILLIAM C. WODTKE, JR., and MARGARET C. BOWMAN and as constituting the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, Plaintiffs, VS. KOPPERS COMPANY, INC., REINHOLD CONSTRUCTION, INC., TRIPLE "M" ROOFING CO., INC. and THE TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants. FA LIMITED RELEASE IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, STATE OF FLORIDA. CASE NO. 86 162 CA 03 KNOW YEA that Plaintiff, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, DON C. SCURLOCK, JR., PATRICK B. LYONS, RICHARD N. BIRD, WILLIAM C. WODTKE, JR., and MARGARET C. BOWMAN and as constituting the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, in consideration for the sum of $27,544.13, forever release, acquit and discharge the Defendants, KOPPERS COMPANY, INC., REINHOLD CONSTRUCTION, INC., TRIPLE "M" ROOFING CO., INC. and the TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, from any and all liability, claims, demands, actions and causes of action which Plaintiffs may have by virtue of those matters alleged in their complaint of and concerning the Indian 52 River County Courthouse located in Vero Beach, Florida. It is understood that this a complete, unqualified release with respect to all matters which are alleged and described in the complaint and, additionally, any further matters, if any, arising out of the same transaction which should have been included in the complaint but which were not. This release does not apply to matters completely unlrelated to the courthouse such as, though not limited to the Administration Building and School Board roofs. IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have set my hand and seal this 26th day of November, 1986.) SCJ ATTESTING OFCLERK OF URT/ COMMISSION ;q 0/- Approved by 'County Commission September 16, 1986 CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF COUNTY ISSIONERS, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY avfl,��yyt�y?6�.M, APvroved as to form and legal sufficiency ByU1�� IPMe r3:ir{trtt— t fl..l. Comily Allurrhi[ - - - - - -- There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 11:20 o'clock A.M. ATTEST: Clerk Chairman 53 600K 6F,4.GE 5 9 E C � X96