Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/13/1987Tuesday, January 13, 1987 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, January 13,1987, 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; Charles P. Vitunac, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; L. S. "Tommy" Thomas, Intergovernmental Relations Director; Joseph. Baird, OMB Director; and Barbara Bonnah, Deputy Clerk. The Chairman called the meeting to order, and Administrator Balczun led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS Chairman Scurlock requested the addition to the Consent Agenda of an agreement with the Correctional Institution for use of their prisoners to work on the golf course at Sandridge Golf Club. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously added the above matter as Item Q under today's Consent Agenda. Attorney Vitunac requested the addition to today's Agenda of an update on the Felismere Road paving program and a report on the Legislative Delegation Meeting. JAN 13 1987 Boos r .. JAN 13 1987 BooK 66 rm,.,)t 85U Commissioner Bird requested the addition of a rebid on the golf carts at Sandridge. Chairman Scurlock requested the addition of a recommendation for appointment to the Finance Advisory Committee. Commissioner Bowman requested the addition of a discussion re the moving of an oak tree. ON MOTIN by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously added the above items to today's Agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Chairman asked if there were any additions or corrections to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of December 16, 1986. Commissioner Bird requested the addition of the following sentence on page 28 under "Presentation of Community Education Excellence Award": "Commissioner Bird pointed out that the program's success was largely due to Mrs. Carter's excellent job of administration and thanked her for her efforts." Commissioner Bird also requested a change in the first paragraph on Page 84. After "lease to the League", he wished to delete "as he did not want to vote for that, and Commissioner Eggert stated that was not in her Motion.", and in its place insert the following sentence, "Commissioner Eggert stated that her Motion was simply to convey the property to the School Board and they would decide who they wished to negotiate with further." Commissioner Bowman requested a change in the wording of the Motion on Page 50. Instead of "authorized handling the election transportation costs as discussed next year", the wording should read" "authorized handling the election transportation costs next year, as just now discussed. She also requested a change on page 87: In the first paragraph after the Motion, that the words "living up to" be changed to "complying with". 2 ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting, of 12/16/86, a amended. CONSENT AGENDA Commissioner Eggert requested that Item A be removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion, and Chairman Scurlock requested.G and L be removed also. Commissioner Bird requested that Items H and J be removed. A. Appointment of Additional Members to Economic Development Council: Commissioner Eggert wished to have Pat Bowen's name removed from the list of appointments of full members because she has discovered that Mrs. Bowen is a membe'r of the St. Lucie Go Team, and feel that is a conflict of interest. Commissioner Eggert stated that she would be glad to have Mrs. Bowen as an ex -officio member. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously appointed the following members to the Economic Development Council: Gary Lindsey Roger Ball Ned Gartner B. Right -of -Way Acquisition, North Gifford Road Project The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/18/86: 3 11, W�Ivli= BOOK 66F,m.1851 JAN 13 1987 BOOK 66 P3.GE 85 2 7 TO:THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF DAT_: December 18, 1986 FILE: THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THROUGH: Charles P. Balczun County Administrator James W. Davis, P.E. Public Works Directo SUBJECT: Right of Way Acquisition North Gifford Road Project FRONT. Donald G. Finney, SRA REFERENCES: Right of Way Agent', ^1 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS The project involves the acquisition of 27 right of way parcels on the north side of North Gifford Road for pavement widening, concrete sidewalk and drainage improvements. Status to date: Four (4) parcels have been donated and closed, seven (7) parcels are being negotiated and will probably donate, three (3) parcels absolutely will not donate or sell r/w and the remaining thirteen (13) parcels the property owners will sell to the county at the FAIR MARKET VALUE. RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING Staff requests obtaining a certified appraisal of the 16 parcels to determine the FAIR MARKET VALUE of each parcel and total R/W acquisition costs to bring back before the board if the board desires to proceed with the project and as the first requirement for condemnation, the 3 properties that will not sell r/w to the County. It is estimated that the appraisal fee will be $12,000 to $16,000 depending on"the complexity of the parcels and time, with a fee not to exceed $16,000. Funding would be from the North Gifford Road Project Fund #104-214-541 ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously authorized staff to obtain a certified appraisal of 16 parcels to determine the Fair Market Value of each and total R/W acquisition costs; appraisal and costs to be brought back to the Board for authorization to proceed. Funding to come from the North Gifford Road Project Fund #104-214-541. 4 C. _Dissolution of St. Johns River Water Management Committee ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously dissolved the St. Johns River Water Management Committee (an ad hoc committee on the Basin Project). D. Reappointment to Indian River Emergency Outreach Board ..The Board reviewed the following letter dated 12/21/87: December 31, 1986 ' ENS7 IBUTION LIST Ccmr::ssioners ^Cg6 ACimnistrator Don Scurlock, --Chairman Attorney Indian River County Board of PersQ,al--1 County Commissioners PLblic Works 1840 25th .St. Catrmunity Dev. — Vero ' Beach; FI ::. 32960 Ut Iii^S Dear Commissioner Scurlock: Ot1-ter The United Way of Indian River County -has-been informed that a Phase V grant from the Emergency Food and Shelter National Board Program has been awarded to this county in the amount of $29,676.00. G _ Federal regulations call for the establishment of a local Board to oversee the expenditure of funds. The Indian River Eme-rg-ency-Outreach Board has fulfilled that function for the past four years. It is suggested that the composition of the local Board match that of the National Board. One of those positions is for someone from county government. Commissioner Maggy Bowman has served in that capacity during all previous grant periods. She is familiar with all aspects • of the Board and the fiscal accountability, Would you please consider appointing Commissioner Bowman to serve on the Indian River Emergency Outreach Board during the Phase V grant period of November, 1986 to September 1987? The first meeting is scheduled for January 14, 1987, at 8:30 am, in Room 313 of the 2001 Building. Thank you for your help in this matter. Sincerely, Kay. Y ung\bluth�, Chairperson Indi n River 1;mergency Outreach United Way Information & Referral Service Phone [3051589-8116 2001 Building, Suite 2098 BOOK 66 U"'EF 853 5 JAN 13 1987 rJAN 1 1987 BOCK 66 FA ,,-854 ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously reappointed Commissioner Bowman to the Indian River Emergency Outreach Board. E. Community Services Block Grant Housing Rehabilitation Program Application The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/5/87: TO: The Honorable Members of the ®ATE: January 5, 1987 FILE: Board of County Commissioners ' Through: Charles P. Balzcun County Administrator SUBJECT: Community Services Block Grant Housing Rehabilitation Program Application FROM: Guy L. Decker, Jr. REFERENCES: CES. Executive Director I.R.C. Housing Authority It is recommended that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the County Commission. Description and Condition: The State of Florida's Department of Community Affairs advised Indian River County they will accept applications for projects to be funded through the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) for local activities to assist low-income individuals. Section 675 (C)(1)(a) through (E), Public Law 97-35, as amended, and Administrative Rule 9B-22, Florida Administrative Code, provide the criteria for such projects. These grants will be for a six-month period from April 1, 1987 through September 30, 1987, and the alloca- tion for Indian River County to cover administrative costs is $6,295.00. Applications must be postmarked no later than February 1, 1987. The Indian River County Housing Authority is the non-profit subgrantee for the Indian River County Commissioners. The program covered under this grant will provide rehabilitation consulting services which will activate rehabilitation finding from governmental sources. The Farmers Home Administration Section 504 Program provides housing rehabilitation finds in the form of (1) low-interest loans, (2) loans and grants, and (3) grants to the low-income elderly owner -occupant. There are approximately 815 owner -occupied substand- ard housing units suitable for rehabilitation in Indian River County, Low-income and elderly families lack the money to make their homes safe and sanitary. This program will be targeted in the three most distressed areas of the County: Wabasso, Gifford and Old Oslo Park. We plan on assisting between 15 and 20 low-income and elderly owners in bringing their homes up to safe and sanitary standards. Alternative and Analysis: This is our fourth funding cycle under legislation passed by Congress which con- solidated various social programs into the block grant categories for administration by the State and local government, and funds not applied for from the Community Services Block Grant Program will be redistributed -among counties that make application. 6 � a Recommendation and Funding: We respectfully request the County Commission to authorize its Chairman to execute the Community Services Block Grant Program Application for submission to Florida's De - par' =r t of Comm mity Affairs along with the required accompanying Resolution: -- This program will bring about improvements in safety and sanitation for approxi- mately 15 homeowners. The average cost of improvements will be $4,800.00 per unit. The $6,295 Grant plus $2,697 of cash and in-kind contribution by the Housing Authority would be supplemented with about $72,000.00 in loans and grants from the Farmers Home Adm. This program requires no additional County Funds. ---- ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 87-2, authorizing the Chairman of the Board to execute an application for a housing rehabilitation program to assist low-income families as administered by the Department of Community Affairs. JAN 3 987 7 E00K 8,55 JAN RESOLUTION NO. 87-2 Pg. 8 of 12 BOOK raUtC�� A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COTRZISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD TO EXECUTE AN APPLICATION FOR A HOUSING REHABILITATION PROGRAM TO ASSIST LOW-INCOME FAMILIES AS ADMINISTERED BY THE STATE OF FLORIDA'S DEPARTMENT OF COMPIUNITY AFFAIRS. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County has reviewed this proposal and has received the recom- mendation from the Executive Director of the Indian River County Housing Authority; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the Chairman and the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners are authorized to execute the attached Application to the State of Florida's Department of Community Affairs for a Community Services Block Grant Program (CSBG). The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Eggert who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bowman and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr.' Aye Vice -Chairman Margaret C. Bowman Aye Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 13thday of January, 1987. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By Don C. Scurlock, J Chairman ATTEST: G[! Freda Wright Clerk ----APPJAVED AS TO FORM AND 7EGAL SUFFICIENCY By - --- Charles Vitunac County Attorney 8 --- Page l of _12. COMMUNITY SERVICES BLOCK GRANT APPLICATI - -- FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR.. 1987 APPLICATION SUBMISSIOW FORM SUBMITTED BY: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY (APPLICANT) Application is hereby made.for funding through the Community Services Block Grant under the Community Services Block Grant Act of 1981 (PL 97-35), as amended, and the Community Services Block Grant Program Administration Rule 9B-22, Florida Administrative Code, effective March 1984. THE APPLICANT CERTIFIES THAT THE DATA IN THIS APPLICATION AND IT VARIOUS SECTIONS, INCLUDING BUDGET DATA, ARE TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF HIS OR HER KNOWLEDGE AND THAT THE FILING OF THIS APPLICATION HAS BEEN DULY AUTHORIZED AND UNDERSTANDS THAT IT WILL BECOME PART OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT AND THE APPLICANT. Don C. Scurlock. Jr. Name (typed) n+ C Signature Chairman of Roard of Cnnnty commissioners Title: ATTESTED BY: Freda Wright . Name (typed) w n tyr J-) �. Clark of the RA rd of County Commissioners Title APPLICATIONS MUST BE POSTMARKED BY THE DUE DATE, FEBRUARY 1, 1987 . AND RECEIVED WITHIN FIVE DAYS AFTER THAT DATE TO BE CONSIDERED FOR FUNDING. Form:DCA/css 87-I 9 BOOK b6 P'�GE S5 JAIL 13 1987 BOOK 858 F.�DER/Army Corps/DNR Permit Application - C. B. Chamberlain The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/24/86: TO: The Honorable Members DATEpecember 24, 1986 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD --,CONCURRENCE: SUBJECT: D . E . R. , ARMY CORPS Robert M. Keating, AICP AND D.N.R. PERMIT Planning & Development Director APPLICATIONS THROUGH: Art Challacombe Chief Environmental Planning FROM:CHAMBERLAIN Roland M. Dello • REFERENCES: TM#87-196 Staff Planner DIS: IBMIRD Environment Planning Section It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of January 6, 1987. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION APPLICATION FILE NO. 31-128479-4 - Applicant: C.B. Chamberlain C/O 1835 20th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 - Waterway & Location: The project is located along the western bank of the Indian River, Section 25, Township 30 South, Range 38 East, Indian River County, Florida. The upland property associated -with the project is 13925 Indian River Drive, located in the unincorporated portion of the County. Work & Purpose: The applicant proposes to construct a private residential 3' X 150' single pier with an 82 square foot gazebo at its terminus. The project extends waterward 150' to where water depth equals approximately minus two (-2) feet. No sewage pump -out or fueling facilities are proposed. No dredging or filling will be performed. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS: The Planning and Development Division reviews and submits comments on dredge and fill applications to the permitting agencies based upon the following: The Conservation & Coastal Zoning Management Element of the Indian River Comprehensive Plan - Coastal Zone Management, Interim Goals, Objectives & Policies for the Treasure Coast Region The Hutchinson Island Planning & Management Plan The Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances Chapter 16Q-20, Florida Administrative Code 10 County records indicate that a principal structure does not presently exist on the subject property. Section 25.1(-c)(7), Appendix A, Zoning, of the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Indian River County requires an administrative permit for docks constructed prior to the construction of a principal single- family dwelling unit. Also, if mangroves are to be altered in association with the project, a County mangrove alteration permit is required prior to construction. Section 16Q-20.04(5) of the Florida Administrative Code sets forth specific standards and criteria for private residential single docks constructed within the Indian River Aquatic Preserve, among which is the following criterion: The dock decking design and construction will insure maximum lightpenetration, with full consideration of safety and practicality (Sec.16Q-20.04(5)(b)(2), F.A.C.). In that the project as proposed is to be located within the Aquatic Preserve, the referenced criterion must be satisfied. is staff's position that construction of the gazebo would be in conflict with the light penetration requirement: - The extent to which the submerged bottomlands of the proposed project area will be impacted has not been determined; the effect of Indian River development on ecologically valuable seagrass beds should be considered. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners authorize staff to forward the following comments regarding this project to the Florida Department of Environmental Regu- lation: 1) The Department of Environmental Regulation anc -otfier appropriate agencies should coordinate with the D.N.R., in that the project as. proposed is located in the Indian River Aquatic Preserve and therefore subject to require- ments of Chapter 16Q-20, Florida Administrative Code. 2) Construction of the proposed dockage project will not be permitted by Indian River County until County regulations regarding --dock construction and mangrove alteration (if applicable) have.been satisfied. 3) The Department of Environmental Regulation and other appropriate agencies should evaluate the potential impact of marina projects on ecologically significant submerged bottomlands such as seagrass beds in the Indian River. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously authorized staff to forward to the DER the 3 comments set out in the above memo. 11 M�U BOOK 6 6' 859 FF-1AN 13 197 -7 BOOK f,,�UL 860 G. Execution of Florida Inland Navigation District Project Agreement and Lease Extension Agreement- Joe S. Earman Park The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/12/86: TO: L. S. "Tommy" Thomas, Director Intergovernmental Relations DATE: December 12, 1986 SUBJECT: FIND Project Agreement FROM: Bruce Barkett,, Assistant Coun y Attorney I am attaching the original FIND Project Agreement for the Earman Park grant. I have researched the issue about which 1 had earlier concerns and I find that 1 can now approve the Agreement. 1 am also attaching a Lease Extension Agreement which should satisfy DNR. You may wish to have the Board approve the Lease Extension Agreement and the Project Agreement at the same time. Afterward, both can be sent to FIND for its. approval. Commissioner Scurlock asked about in-kind services, because he was hoping to get credit for those dollars that we are spending on staff time. Intergovernmental Relations Director Tommy Thomas advised that $90,000 is our best estimate at this time, but we are hoping it will come in under that. Commissioner Bird asked for confirmation that the local matching funds would be coming from the Boating Improvement Fund. Director Thomas did not feel the entire matching funds would be coming from the boat fund because only certain parts of it would qualify; probably $20,000 would qualify, and we have $22,000 in the boating fund. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by —_ Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the FIND Project Agreement for Joe S. Earman Island Park and the Lease Extension Agreement; and authorized the. Chairman's signature. 12 w PROJECT AGREEMENT IR -1 AND LEASE EXTENSION AGREEMENT IS ON FILE 1N THE-0FFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD H. Budget Amendment - Intersection Improvements at 4th Street/27th Avenue and 16th Street/43rd Avenue The Board reviewed the following memo dated•1/5/87: TO: Honorable Board of County DATE: January 5, 1987 Commissioners THROUGH: Jim Davis SUBJECT: Budget Amendment Public Works Director for Intersection Improvements 4th Street/27th Ave. 16th Street/43rd Avenue FROM: Joseph A. Baird OMB Director SECONDARY ROADS Revenue 109-000-381-020.00 Expense 109-141-541-033.13 109-141-541-033.19 109-141-541-066.12 109-141-541-066.51 109-199-581-099.91 ROAD IMPACT FEES Expense 101-199-581-099.36 101-214-581-099.91 Fund Transfers -In Engineering Professional Srvcs Right of Way Const in Progress Reserve for Cont Transfer -Out Dist.6 Reserve for Cont INCREASE DECREASE 25,000 20,000 1,000 10,000 117,352 25,000 123,352 25,000 Explanation: In the meeting of Dec. 23, 1986, the Honorable Board of County Commissioners authorized intersections improvements at 4th Street/27th Avenue and 16th Street/43rd Avenue. The Above budget amendment is necessary to appropriate funds. Commissioner Bird noted that both of these road improvements were to be made this year, and asked why we are talking about transferring funds out of contingencies. 13 JAN 13 1987 BOOK F7 �0 BOOK U'I) 86 OMB Director Joe Baird explained that Public Works Director Jim Davis said at budget time that he would put all the money in contingencies and as the Board set their priorities for the various projects they would take the funds out of the secondary road trust fund contingencies. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the above budget amendment, as recommended by OMB Director Baird. I. Budget Amendment - Property Appraiser The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/5/87: TO: Honorable Board of County DATE: January 5, 1987 Commissioners FROM: Joseph A. Baird OMB Director 001-500-586-099.06 001-199-581-099.91 SUBJECT: Budget Amendment Property Appraiser Bud Tran-Prop.App. Reserve for Cont. 14 INCREASE DECREASE 2,378 2,378 Explanation: During the tentative budget hearing, the Honorable Board .of County Commissioners reduced the Property Appraiser's budget by $17,696. The total $17,696 was taken from the general fund. Only .8019 of the Property Appraiser's total budget is from the general fund, and we reduced the budget $2,378 more than it should have been. The above budget amendment.increases the Property Appraiser's budget in .the general fund by the $2,378. Calculation Property Appraisers Budget as Originally Approved by Dept. of Revenue $1,134,655 Less: Amount Reduced by BCC and Dept. of Revenue -17,696 Sub -Total $1,116,959 Percentage of Budget from General Fund x80.19 Amount of Budget that should have been Funded from General -Fund 895,689 Amount Funded at Final Budget Hearing (893,311) Shortfall 2,,378 ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the above budget amendment, as recommended by OMB Director Baird. 15 paw+� BOOK. Oro FB� BOGS uri P,,.GE 86 J. Budget Amendment - Widening of Kings Highway at SR -60 The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/5/87: TO: Honorable Board of County DATE: January 71 1987 Commissioners THROUGH: Jim Davis SUBJECT: Budget Amendment Public Works Director Widening of Kings Highway at Rt 60 FROM: Josep . Baird OMB Director._�- SECONDARY ROADS Revenue 109-000-366-090.00 109-000-381-020.00 _ Expenze 109-142-541-034.81 109-142-541-066.51 109-142-541-099.91 ROAD IMPACT FEES Expense 101-199-581-099.38 101-214-581-099.91 INCREASE DECREASE Contributions 74,933 Fund Transfers -In 25,000 Advertising - 100 Const in Progress 392,458 Reserve for Cont 292,625 Transfer -Out Dist.8 25,000 Reserve for Cont 25,000 Explanation: The widening of Kings Highway at Rt. 60 has been approved by the Honorable Board of County Commissioners. The above budget amendment is to appropriate the funds. Commissioner Bird said that Director Baird's explanation on Item H covered this item also. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the above budget amendment, as recommended by OMB Director Baird. 16 K. Final Payment to J. B. Walker Construction for Golf Maintenance Building The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/7/87: TO: Honorable Board of County DATE: January 7, 1987 Commissioners THROUGH: Tommy Thomas Intergover mental Coordinator SUBJECT: THROUGH: Sonny Dea General Sery ces Director FROM: Josep A. Baird OMB Director Final Payment to J.B. Walker Con- struction, Inc. for Construction of Golf Mainte- nance Building J.B. Walker Construction, Incthas completed the Golf Course Maintenance Building. All payments except for the final payment in the amount of $10,522.48 have been made. The architect, Charles Block, Tommy Thomas and Sonny Dean have inspected the facility and it meets their approval. CONTRACT SUMMARY ORIGINAL CONTRACT 97,731.00 Change Orders 1. Add 71 ft. of gutter 346.50 2. Delete catch basin & grate and p.v.'c. pipe (Basin - 1,300, Pipe - 200) (1,500.00) ` 3. Add 545 sf of 6" concrete reinforced @ 2.25 sf 1,226.25 4. Add 6" p.v.c. storm sewer for roof drain 812.63 5. Add the installed 2 gas meters on fuel storage tanks @$35 each 70.00 6. Delete standard toilet (21.00) 7. Delete light fixture (35.00) 8. Delete channel in floor (135.00) 9. Delete air compressor fitting (15.00) 749.38 TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT 98,480.38 PAYMENT ANALYSIS CONTRACT AMOUNT Less: Previous Payments FINAL PAYMENT RECOMMENDATION 98,480.38 (87,957.90) 10,522.48 Staff recommends the Honorable Board of County com- missioners approve the contract amount and authorize final payment. 17 JAN 13 1987 BOOK ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the total contract amount of $98,480.38 for the construction of the Golf Maintenance Building, and authorized final payment of $10,522.48 to J. B. Walker Construction, Inc. L. Tierra Linda Estates - Glendale Road and 24th Avenue The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/31/86: TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DATE: DECEMBER 31, 1986•- THRU: CHARLES P. BALCZUN ADMINISTRATOR VIA: TERRANCE G. PINTO DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES FROM: ALBERT J. VALDIVIA t /% SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT P PJECTS ENGINEER SUBJECT: TIERRA LINDA ESTATES GLENDALE ROAD AND 24TH AVENUE BACKGROUND: The Division of Utility Services has required a certain offsite water facility to be oversized to meet County master plan requirements. In particular, an 8 -inch offsite water main was increased to a 12 -inch water line as required by in the water master plan. ANALYSIS• Attached for your review and approval are five copies of the subject Developers Agreement, outlining the allowable reimbursement for oversizing of utilities amounting to $11,296.00. As outlined in the Agreement, the Developer shall be reimbursed with 50% of all impact fees collected from the subject project and any surrounding properties who connect within five years of acceptance of the improvements by the Division of Utility Services, not to exceed the $11,296.00 allowable reimbursement. RECOMMENDATION• The Division of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve and execute the accompanying Developers Agreement with Edward M. Netto for the Tierra Linda Estates project. Chairman Scurlock expressed his concern about our ability to ------t-ra-c-k the rebates in these developer agreements over a 5 -year period. Commissioner Bowman asked if this was done by computer, and OMB Director.Baird advised that all developer agreements are 18 9 going through his office and they are tracking them on manual ledgers until such time as they can go on the computer. Of course, the computer department has its priorities. Chairman Scurlock believed this was going to be an accountant's nightmare. Utilities Director Terry Pinto felt there wasn't any question that this should be put on computer; otherwise, they will have to contract outside for the service. Chairman Scurlock wished to establish it as a top priority item right now, and whatever it takes, let's get it done. The Board indicated their agreement to this. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the Developers Agreement with.Edward M. Netto for the Tierra Linda Estates project, and authorized the Chairman's signature. DEVELOPERS AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD M. Release of Assessment Liens for Paving & Drainage Improvements - Glendale Lakes Subdivision and Indian River Heights The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/6/87: 19 JAN 13 1987 BOOK f,F 867 BOOK TO: The Board of County Commissioners DATE: January 6, 1987 SUBJECT: Releases of Assessment Lien I. Joseph P. and Helen Jane Strazzulla Lots 7 & 8, Block 2, Glendale Lakes Subdivision (48th*Avenue) 2. James H. and Janet R. Copeland Lot 14, Block D, Indian River Heights (23rd Avenue between 1st Street 8 4th Street) FROM: Bruce Barkett4' Assistant County Attorney There are pending assessment liens for paving and drainage improvements on the above -referenced properties which the Tax Collector's rolls indicate have been paid; however no releases have been provided. Therefore, please approve the attached Releases of Assessment Lien so that the encumbrance on each property can be removed. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved Release of Assessment Liens for paving and drainage improvements for the following properties: Glendale Lakes Subdivision, Lots 7 & 8, Block 2 -- Joseph P. and Helen Jane Strazzulla Indian River Heights Subdivision, Lot 14, Block D James H. and Janet R. Copeland RELEASE OF ASSESSMENT LIENS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD N. Release of Assessment Lien for SR -60 Water Project - Idlewyld Corporation/Coffey ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the Release of Assessment Line for 1 ERU on SR -60 Water Project__to__Idlewvld Corporation/Coffey. 20 RELEASE OF ASSESSMENT LIEN IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD 0. Partial Release of Assessment Liens on SR -60 Water and Sewer ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the following Release of Assessment Liens on the SR -60 Water and Sewer Project: Countryside South, Lot 47S, 1 ERU Sewer, Stephenson Pine Creek Condominium IV, Apt. 102, 1 ERU Sewer, and 1 ERU Water - Larkins Pine Creek Condominium II, Apt. 203, 1 ERU Sewer and 1 ERU Water - Rattray RELEASE OF ASSESSMENT LIENS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD P. Report Received and placed on file in County Commission Office, Report of Occupational License Taxes collected during the month of December, 1986-- $4,203.85 Q.__Agreement with Correctional Institution for use of Prisoners to Work on Golf Course ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the Inter Agency/Public Works Agreement with the Correctional Institution for prisoners to work on the golf course at Sandridge Golf Club, and authorized the Chairman's signature. AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD JAN 1 1987 21 BOOK � ° FIF9,E8693 JAN I � 1997 BOOK 6 6 FF 8! 0 PUBLIC HEARING - ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE PROHIBITING POSSESSION OR CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN h40TOR VEHICLES The hour of 9:05 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to wit: VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Weekly Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr, who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a In the matter of In the / Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of �f/ re%r���k ' r Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is- a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver- tisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver- tisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed before me this (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian Riv County, Florida) PUBLIC NOTICE �„ t The Board of County Commissioners of Indian' River County, Florida; will conduct a Public Hearing on Tuesday, .January 13,::,1987.' at 9:05 a.m. in the Commission Chambers aC 1846 25th Street, Vero Beach: FL 32860,, to consider •the. adoption of an ordinance entittedi' AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER,,..• COUNTY, FLORIDA, CREATING SECf!; TION 2-41 OF THE INDIAN' RIVER'v�:c. COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDI.',, : NANCES; MAKING IT UNLAWFUL: FOR ANY PERSON OCCUPYINC.'A MOTOR2 VEICL�,OCATED SON :A. PUBLIC,:: OR •'CONSUME ,ALCOHOLIC SEVEf6* AGES'IN OR FROM ANY OPEN OR UN SEALED CONTAINER; PROVIDING FOR , PENALTIES, INCORPORATION JN CODE, SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE If+any Pers decides to appeal any decision < made -on the above matter, he/she will need a' record of*"- - proceedings, and for such pur- poses, he/she may -need to ensure that a verba-;' 111m rscortiof,1he proceedings, is made, which record includes the testimony In •evidence."on. which the appeal is be based. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY' t BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS-' DON C. SCURLOCK. JR., -CHAIRMAN ;r Dec. 20, 1986 . Assistant County Attorney Jim Wilson pointed out two changes he felt should be made in the proposed ordinance in the title of the ordinance and under Section I, delete the words, "or unsealed". He explained that "unsealed" or "sealed" has a different meaning in the liquor business. Under the proposed ordinance people would be able to transport alcoholic beverages which have been unsealed, where the state tax seal has been broken, as long as that container is closed and is not being consumed by the occupants in the vehicle. 22 ■ M Chairman Scurlock -asked whether this would apply to people transporting empty containers to the landfill, and Attorney Wilson did not believe the ordinance would apply to contains ____ where there are just traces remaining in containers. Commissioner Bowman asked if this covered parking lots, and Attorney Wilson stated that this covers public parking lots. Attorney Vitunac further explained that to the extent that any parking lot is public, then this would apply; however, we cannot say definitely that this ordinance will cover private parking lots in malls, etc. Attorney Wilson stated that primarily this law will provide a law enforcement officer with probable cause to stop and investigate when he sees someone driving with a can of beer held to his lips or someone sitting on the side of the road drinking. Chairman opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. Linda Woodard, President of Indian River County Chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD), stated that she and several others are here this morning to show their support for this ordinance. She pointed out that Indian River County will be the 12th county in the state to adopt an ordinance of this kind. When the Legislature meets this April, one of their top priorities will be getting this legislation passed statewide. Chairman Scurlock thanked Mrs. Woodard for the tremendous effort she and other members of MADD have put into getting this ordinance before the Board. Dr. Robert Vinson asked if this ordinance would apply to a recreational motor vehicle, and it was confirmed that it would. William Koolage, 815 26th Avenue, emphasized his support for the proposed ordinance. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously closed the Public Hearing. 23 BOOK 66 PAGES A JAN 13 1987 BOOK 6 f'AG PN MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance 87-3, as modified, prohibiting the possession or consumption of alcoholic bev- erages while occupying a motor vehicle on public property. 24 U 1/13/8.7(J4)LEGAL(Wnm) ORDINANCE NO. 87- 3 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CREATING SECTION 2-4 OF THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES; MAKING 1T UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON OCCUPYING A MOTOR VEHICLE LOCATED ON A PUBLIC STREET, ROAD, HIGHWAY, ALLEY OR PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY TO POSSESS OR CONSUME ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES ,IN OR FROM ANY OPEN CONTAINER; PROVIDING FOR PENALTIES, INCORPORATION IN CODE, SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, consumption of alcohol is a contributing factor to an extraordinary number of motor vehicle accidents resulting in injury and death on a national, state and local level; and WHEREAS, it is in the public interest to take whatever steps are necessary to reduce this senseless loss of life and property; and WHEREAS, a prohibition upon the consumpti-an -of alcoholic beverages by drivers and passengers of motor vehicles may serve to achieve those aims; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County has determined that such prohibitions are necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County that: Section 2-4 of the Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances is hereby created to read as follows: SECTION I. POSSESSION OR CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN MOTOR VEHICLES ON PUBLIC PROPERTY PROHIBITED. It shall be unlawful for any person occupying a motor vehicle that is driven, stopped, standing or parked on 1 JAN 13 1981 BOOK P 'E 8 9 3 A JAN 13 1-987 BOOK U �,;�. �' ORDINANCE NO. 87 - any public street, road, highway, alley or other public right-of-way within the unincorporated areas of Indian River County to possess or consume any alcoholic beverages in or from any cup, glass, open can, open bottle, or other open container. SECTION ll. PPKIAI TIGC Any violation of the provisions of this ordinance shall be subject to punishment by a fine not to exceed $-500.00, or by imprisonment in County jail, not to exceed sixty (60) days, or by both such fine and imprisonment. SECTION III. INCORPORATION IN CODE. This ordinance shall be incorporated into the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Indian River County and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section", "article", or other appropriate word and the sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such purposes. SECTION IV. SEVERABILITY. If any section, or if any sentence, paragraph, phrase, or word of this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, inoperative, or void, such holdinq shall not affect the remaining portions of this ordinance; and it shall be construed to have been the legislative intent to pass the ordinance without such unconstitutional, invalid or inoperative part. SECTION VI. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall become effective upon receipt from the Secretary of State of the State of Florida of 2 ORDINANCE NO 87-3 official acknowledgment that this ordinance has been filed with the Department of State. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, on this 13th day of January, 1987. This ordinance was advertlsed in the Vero Beach Press -Journal on the 20th day of December 1986, for a public hearing to be held on the 13th day of January, 1987, at which time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner Eggert seconded by Commissioner Wheeler _ and adopted by the following vote: Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye Vice Chairman Margaret C. Bowman Awe Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler Aye BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER. COUNTY, FLORIDA By: G Cha i rma n Attest By:Ff�GU reds` W i ht 9 Clerk Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of Florida, this 22nd day of Januaary_ , 1987, Acknowledgment from the Department of State received on this 213t day ofar�, _ 1987, at 10:30 a.m./p.m. and deed in the nuice o� the Clerk of the BoaTzT'-of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida. KI bov CC I hSUC 87 JAN 13 1987 BOCK. E 9 PUBLIC HEARING - ASSESSMENT ROLLS FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPROVEMENTS__ ANGLERS_ COVE,_ ST_ CHRISTOPHER'S HARBOR, AND SEMINOLE_SHORES The hour of 9:10 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to wit: VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Weekly Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a -- �I11'%%//''psi/f In the -CCourt, was pub- lished in said newspaper In the issues of 1—%Xh Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver- tisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver- tisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed before me this lay o kA A. (B neseOa;fg"5677 (SEAL) (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, Florida) . NOTICE';1. The Board of County; Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, hereby provides notice of a Public Hearing scheduled for 9:10. a.m. on ' January 13, 1987, to discuss a proposed tesOlu- tion relating to Indian River County entitled:: A RESOLUTION OF THE'BOARO OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS -OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, -INITIATING CERTAIN WATER AND' WASTEWATER IMPROVEMENT; PROGRAMS FOR' .A'' PORTION: OF. THE SOUTH BEACH' AREA; -STATING THE NATURE OF THE' PRO- POSED -IMPROVEMENTS. ROPOSED-IMPROVEMENTS, THE TOTAL .ESTI MATF,O COST, THE METHOD OF PAYMENT OF. '- ASSESSMENTS, THE- NUMBER OF STALLMENTS.. AND THE LEGAL D' Kb" Wvt btYvtrl SHORES AND' ST.. MENT, ',AND ST,% CHRISTOPER HARBOR WATER ASSESSMENT:" " Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision " which may be made at -this -hearing will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the prpceed- Ings is made which includes the testimony- and evidence upon whichthe appeal will be based. [)so. 20,1986 - a The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/5/87: 28 TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DATE% JANUARY 5, 1987 THRU: CHARLES P. BALCZUN COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR VIA: TERRANCE G. PINTO .DIRECTOR OF UTILITY S S FROM: JEFFREY K. BARTON ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES SUBJECT: SOUTH BEACH - ASSESSMENT ROLLS BACKGROUND Indian River County Division of Utility Services has been working with the City of Vero Beach, franchisers, and property owners within several subdivisions on the South Barrier Island of Indian River County to facilitate the construction of water and sewer improvements to benefit their properties. This area is within 'the City of Vero Beach's service territory of the unincorporated Indian River County. The County will be agreeing to act as the agent in providing the up -front funds to complete the construction projects and the County will be placing an assessment lien against the benefitted owners' properties. The projects should be outlined'as follows: A. Anglers Cove Wastewater Improvements B. St. Christopher's Harbor and Seminole Shores Wastewater Improvements. C. St. Christopher's Harbor Water Improvements ` D. Seminole Shores Water Improvement Utility staff and project engineers had a workshop with the benefitted owners on December 17, 1986 to discuss the project's scope and cost. RECOMMENDATION Utility staff recommends to the Board of County Commissioners that they approve the four (4) projects and instruct staff to proceed to the next public hearing to levy the assessment lienss a defined in County Ordinance No. 81-27, with the exception p n that Project A (Anglers Cove) be changed to reflect that Tract B is two building sites and the totalro'ect would p � have 20 bene - originally shown on the preliminary roll. fitted sites not 19 as Jeff Barton, Assistant Director Utility Services, advised that staff met with these people on the evening of December 27 to discuss the entire project and inform them of the timeframe. The purpose of this first Public Hearing on the proposed projects is to get the public's input, and if the Board decides to proceed another Public Hearing is then scheduled. A tentative date of February 10th has been proposed in order to do all the necessary 29LJAN ti •�s 13 11987 BOOK U0 I11 I AN 1 2) 1987 BOOK 6.6 f'rd,J-F. 878 notification and advertising and to come up with the physical figures of the cost of the assessment. Chairman Scurlock opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. Ed Rose, 2095 Island Drive, spoke on the St. Christopher's Harbor project and Seminole Shores project, He confirmed that there has been quite a problem there for over 5 years. He felt the December workshop was not a true workshop because they were told that the problem was solved, and that they would have to pay. He would like to see another workshop scheduled, a true workshop where the methods of how this assessment is to be set up are explained and worked out. Chairman Scurlock explained that if the Board makes the decision today to proceed on these projects, there will be one more Public Hearing, and suggested that Mr. Rose present his testimony at that time if he was not prepared to do so today. Mr. Rose preferred to have a workshop where he could go over the assessment figures in order to prevent this from being settled in a court of law. Utilities Director Terry Pinto said that if Mr. Rose wished, they would be more than happy to discuss how these projects are to be paid for, but his recommendation would be to complete the projects, particularly the wastewater projects, because of the health aspect. Mr. Rose stated he would agree to going ahead and getting the project done before the determination is made on who is going to pay what. He stressed that over 10 years ago, he was going to put in his own package plant but was told by the County not to do SO. However, since that time he has spent twice the money on the problem than he would have if he had installed the package plant in the first place. Chairman Scurlock suggested that staff meet with Mr. Rose and that the Board authorize another public hearing, at which 30 time Mr. Rose, if he has not obtained any satisfaction from staff, can present his information directly to the Commission. Michael Galanis of Environmental Health explained that...they_T____ got involved in this issue about 5 years ago when they discovered that sewage from these five homes was going directly into the Indian River. They began enforcement proceedings that culminated about a year ago in a lift station which pumps, chlorinates and discharges the sewage away from the Indian River. However, that is not a strictly legal way to handle it. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously closed the Public Hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved staff recommendation, and adopted Resolution 87-3, initiating certain water and wastewater improvement programs for a portion of the South Beach area, and authorizing staff to proceed to the next public hearing to levy the assessment liens as defined; with the understanding that Mr. Rose would have the opportunity to review this at the next Public Hearing. ASSESSMENT ROLL IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE 31 Boor. LJAN 13 1987 4 JAN 13 1997 12/86(Reso)LEGAL(Vk)JB BOOK ` 1114 RESOLUTION NO. 87- 3 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, INITIATING CERTAIN WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS FOR A PORTION OF THE SOUTH BEACH AREA; STATING THE NATURE OF THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS, THE TOTAL ESTIMATED COST, THE METHOD OF PAYMENT OF ASSESSMENTS, THE NUMBER OF ANNUAL INSTALLMENTS, AND THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA SPECIALLY BENEFITED. THE AREA INVOLVED IS ANGLER'S COVE SEWER ASSESSMENT, SEMINOLE SHORES AND ST. CHRISTOPHER'S HARBOR SEWER ASSESSMENT, SEMINOLE SHORES WATER ASSESSMENT, AND ST. CHRISTOPHER'S HARBOR WATER ASSESSMENT. WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 81-27 authorizes the County Commission to initiate certain water and sewer improvement programs to be funded by special assessment against the property to be benefited by the programs; and WHEREAS, Angler's Cove, Seminole Shores, and St. Christopher's Harbor on the south beach area in the unincorporated area of Indian River County are in need of certain water and sewer improvements; and WHEREAS, the County has held a public hearing at 9:10 A.M. on January 13, 1987, after notice by publication in a newspaper at least 15 days before the hearing to review the proposed projects, their costs, and input from benefited owners; and WHEREAS, the County intends to proceed to the second public hearing for the purpose of approving a preliminary assessment roll of the benefited owners; and WHEREAS, those benefited owners have 90 days from the completion of the project to pay their assessment in full without interest or three years in which to make equal annual payments of principal, plus interest at 120; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: 1. The above statements are ratified. 2. The construction " of Angler's Cove sewer improvements, Seminole Shores and St. Christopher's Harbor sewer improvements, Seminole Shores water improvement, and St. Christopher's Harbor water improvement are all determined 1 SOLUTION NO. 87- 3 to be in the public interest and shall be constructed pursuant to the special assessment method provided by Indian River County Code §81-27. 3. The County shall prepare the necessary cost and engineering data, prepare an assessment roll, and schedule a public hearing for the projects and property as shown on Exhibit "A," being a report prepared by Lloyd & Associates, Inc., consulting engineers, dated September, 1986, and attached to this resolution. The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Eggert who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bowman _, and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Aye Vine -Chairman Aye Commissioner Aye Commissioner Aye Commissioner Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 13th day of January, 1987. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By / C Attest Chairman "Freda Wrightfe Approved as to form Approved for U 'I' pp pp i ity matters: and legal sufficiency: a/2), i�A harIes' P. Vitunac e ce t i F ector County Attorney Div. of Utility Services Attachment: EXHIBIT "A" BOOK OU fAUE.�. JAN 13 1987 -e . I rr,-- JAN 13 `987 BOOK 66 F'}, ��� 7 t 1987at 9: 0 a.m. ary 13'1987, PUBLIC HEARING - CONCEPTUAL PRD PLAN APPROVAL FOR COVENTRY PARK (RALMAR)___Rescheduled from January 6, 1987 The hour of 9:10 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to wit: VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Weekly Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being -..� _ Z/ a 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, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver- tisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver- tisement for publication in the said newspaper. /) Sworn to and subscribed before me this (SEAL) a (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian IkWer County, Florida) 8 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice of hearing to consider Planned Resi- dential Development (P.R.D.) considering con- ceptual special excf3ptlon plan approval for a 78 unit single family project. The subject property, i located on the north side of -16th Street and the " east side of King's Highway, is presently owned , by Ralmar Associates, Inc. The subjecCproperty . is described as. ALL THAT PART OF THE'SOUTHWEST 14 OF THE SOUTHWEST-% OF SECTION _ 4, TOWNSHIP` 33 SOUTH,. RANGE 39 , a _( EAST, LYING SOUTH' OF THE MAIN CANAL, AS SHOWN BY UNNUMBEf#ED TRACTMARKED •'`COPELAND" I ON PLAT INDIAN. RIVER,, FARMS- RE- CORDED ON PAGE 25 OF PLAT. BOOK l 2, PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE I 'COUNTY, FLORIDA: LESS AND EXCEPT' THE PARCEL* DESCRIBED ASFOL LOWS: FROM THE SOUTHWEST COW NER OF SECTION 4 TOWNSHIP 33 RIVER,•COUNTY, FLORIDA; RUN EAST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SECTION 4 A DISTANCE OF 80 FEET TO A POINT i ON THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OFT,, LATERAL ' LATERAL , -B" •': RIGHT-OF-WAY „ THENCE: CONTINUE FEAST ALONG THE > SAME LINE A DISTANCE OF 288 FEETF ; TO THE POINT OF BEGINN)NG OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED;.THENCEn RUN NORTH 280 FEET; THENCE .RUN 3�5 " EAST 319 FEET; THENLE RUN SOIr ; 280 FEET THENCE RUN WEST:1 y:{ FEET.; TO THE „POIN7°OF BEGINNING AND,"5 q, LESS'AND EXC =PT THE WEST b0 f THEREOF BEING THE RIGHT OF -WAY C^O I ATCOAI ..Q. -HAI. t AM FEET THEREOF BEING THE RIGHT'OF-'; WAY ,FOR ROSEWOOD ROAD (I(" STREET) '.ti r° z SAID LAND NOW LYING AND BEING iN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA; AND" CONTAINING 26.235 ACRES MORE OR! A public he at which parties In inter and citizens shi111 {rave an opportunity to. heard, will be held by the Board otCounty Cc County Ccmmi Administration : ion Ghamliars', the Cou tiding, located at 1840 25th ?. Street Vero Be h, Florida, on Tuesday, .ianu- t 1987at 9: 0 a.m. ary 13'1987, (NOTE: THIS' H RING WAS PREVIOUSLY AQ?? VERTISED T BE HELD -JANUARY 6;1986) Anyon@ who Sion which may wish to appeal, arrtyry decl r. be this meetfrig Iia need to ensure made at . wi114r. t a verbatim record of the pro-`,: -# . ceedings is. ma which Includes the les . onyr;, and ewpence n which the appeal will based.. -.-t.!1%: ; ` ly, Inian Ri r`County Fr t Board of By D ounty CommissioneM, C, Scurlock, Jr. a° Chair. a Dec -22,1986 g �t Staff Planner Stan Boling presented the following staff recommendation for approval: 34 M TO: The ,Honorable Members of DATE: December 30, 1986 FILE: the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: CONCEPTUAL PRD PLAN Robert M. Keati g, SUBJECT: APPROVAL FOR COVENTRY PARK Planning & Dev opm• t Director -- THROUGH: Michael K. Miller FpQ; I/ Chief, CurrentDevelopment CPS FROM: Stan Boling 49 REFERENCES: coventry park Staff Planner STAN4 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of January 13, 1987. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS: Ralmar Associates, Inc., through their agent C.E. Block Archi- tects, Inc., is requesting conceptual PRD plan special exception approval to construct "Coventry Park", a proposed 78 unit single family, detached unit subdivision. The general plan concept is to "cluster" lots (approximately 6,300 sq. ft. in area) to allow for smaller private yards, preservation of existing tree clusters, and greater recreational and open space in the center and around the perimeter of the site. Such a proposal requires PRD plan approval since certain RS -3 and subdivision standards would need to be waived to allow the proposed lot and roadway layout. Consideration of the conceptual PRD plan is the first step in the PRD process. It is the only step involving advertising, notice, and public hearings. The general PRD approval process is as follows: P&Z/BCC: 1. Conceptual special exception approval P&Z: 2. Preliminary PRD (site plan, preliminary plat) Staff: 3. Land Development Permit issuance BCC: 4. Final PRD plan (plat) approval The applicant is requesting approval of a conceptual plan, the first step in the process. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: ANALYSIS 1. Size of Property: 26.235 acres 2. Zoning Classification: RS -3, Single Family Residential up to 3 units/acre. 3. Land Use Designation: LD -2, Low Density Residential up to 6 units/acre. •4. Proposed Building Density: 2.97 units/acre 5. Surrounding Land Use: North: Main Relief Canal South: Single Family Residential/16th Street West: Lateral "B" Canal/King's Highway East: Vacant/Single Family Residence JAN is* 1987 35 BOOK 66 Facr883 F' -JAN 13 '&987 BOOK 66 FAF 8S 4 6. Landscaping & Buffering: Buffering is concentrated along the project's southern and eastern boundaries where the site abuts properties zoned for single family use. Along the site's eastern boundary, a 50' building setback is esta- blished (see attachment #4) within which a private yard, 6' patio wall, nature trail, Swale, and 6' perimeter masonry or wooden fence are to be located. Along the site's southern border, building setbacks of 35' to 85' are established (see attachment #5) within which a private yard, 6' patio wall,' natural trail, swale, roadway (in some portions) and 61 - perimeter masonry fence are located. Existing tree clusters at the project entrance and in the northeast quadrant of the site are to be preserved. Subsequent preliminary PRD plans are required to meet landscape ordinance requirements. Unit Floor Area: (total area) 1,900 to 2,300 sq. ft. 8. Traffic Circulation: Internal roads are to be privately owned and maintained. The County Traffic Engineer has approved the conceptual road layout with one exception. In accordance with the Thoroughfare Plan and section 23.3(d)(1)a of the site plan ordinance, a total of 50' of right-of-way is required along the site's 16th Street frontage. The plan shows a 30' dedication and a 20' right-of-way reservation area within which a perimeter masonry fence is to be located. However, the site plan and PRD ordinances require the full 50' dedication prior to development approval. Although the conceptual plan shows a masonry wall located in the 50' required right-of-way area, no approval of such a structure within the right-of-way area is approved without Public Works authorization and a corresponding right-of-way permit. 9. Drainage Plan: Public Works has approved the conceptual drainage plans. A stormwater management permit would be required as part of a land development permit. 10. Utilities: The project is to be served by County water and sewer facilities. Utilities has approved the conceptual utility layout with the exception of a final location for a lift station on site. Final utility plans are required prior to issuance of a land development permit. 11. Open Space: required: 40% of lot area provided: 18.0 acres or 69% 12. Recreational Space: required: 0.9 acres provided: 12.0 acres Recreational areas consist of jogging/nature trail corridors, gazebos, and open passive recreation areas. 13. Waivers from Normal Standards; Established Standards: In accordance with PRD requirements the following RS -3 and subdivision regulations will be waived upon approval of the PRD. a) b) d) e) minimum rear yard setbacks will be reduced from 25' to 201; minimum sideyard setbacks will be reduced from 15' to 10' for common lot lines, 0' for side lot lines not shared by an adjoining lot; minimum 50' right-of-way for curb and gutter roadway will be reduced to 40'. minimum lot size will be reduced from 12,000 sq. ft. to 6,325 sq. ft. minimum lot width will be reduced from 80' to 551. 36 � r The: following standards are established: a) minimum building separation: 20' b) all buildings to be one story c) minimum total floor area: 1,900 sq. ft. (inees---- garage area). d) minimum perimeter setback: 251, 30' eastern boundary Alternatives: Two basic alternatives apply to consideration of the request: the property can be developed either under the PRD process or under the standard subdivision regulations. In relation to impact on infrastructure, a PRD and a subdivision are comparable although the PRD design would probably afford a more efficient utilities design (less line servicing more units). In relation to compatibility with the surrounding area, consideration must focus on the potential of the subject property in relation to other portions of the Rosewood area. Three physical assets contribute to -the "estate" characteristics of the Rosewood area located east of the subject property: 1) Large, old and numerous trees; 2) Large lots; 3) Large homes The subject property, however, and much of the undeveloped land in the area are in groves and have few "protected" tree groupings. Development within the vacant areas will not be able to aesthetically match the existing thickly treed areas. Visually, large lot sizes relate to maintained open spaces and less to ownership characteristics of green space. Standard subdivision regulations can assure minimum lot sizes but cannot afford adequate tree protection. Home types, styles, and sizes are not regulated by standard subdivision regulations beyond minimum floor area and building code criteria. The proposed PRD provides tree protection, increased open space, and homes larger than the minimum size required in the RS -3 zoning district. Attachment number six shows a comparison of a standard RS -3 subdivision and the proposed PRD. In return for smaller lot sizes and decreased setbacks, the proposed PRD provides: 1) protection of tree groupings; 2) satisfaction of the landscaping ordinance; 3) underground utilities; 4) increased perimeter buffering; and 5) unified architectural development. Based on the foregoing analysis, it is staff's opinion that the proposed PRD offers more environmental protection, design control, and amenities than a standard subdivision, and therefore is the best alternative for developing the subject site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant conceptual PRD plan special exception approval to Coventry Park subject to the following condition: 1. that a total of 50' of right-of-way be dedicated along the site's entire 16th Street frontage, via the final PRD plat. 37 Bov 6 6 o,,, F 8S JAN 13 1987 JAN 13 1987 BOOK 66 F- E S 6 Chairman Scurlock understood that in connection with this plan, Ralmar has submitted plans for a standard tract subdivision to the Planning Department. Mr. Boling advised that the standard subdivision site plan approval is going before the Planning & Zoning Commission on January 22, 1987. Chairman Scurlock asked at what point the application for the standard subdivision would become vested, and Attorney Vitunac stated that the developer would be vested whenever he has some County approval of his project such that he can be assured that he can rely on that and proceed. The approval could be from the Planning & Zoning Commission, but even a denial from the P & Z would allow him to seek remedy in the courts. Commissioner Wheeler asked the status of the RS -2 zoning district, and Planning & Development Director Robert Keating explained that it was approved last week at the Planning & Zoning Commission and is being advertised for a public hearing before this Board. If the ordinance creating the RS -2 district is approved, a separate public hearing would have to be held in order to rezone the subject area to RS -2. Chairman Scurlock understood that the Board's options today are to approve the PRD as submitted, approve it with conditions, or deny it. Chairman Scurlock opened the Public Hearing and asked if. anyone wished to be heard in this matter. Bennett Rabin, attorney representing Ralmar Associates, Inc., reviewed at great length and in great detail the chronological list of events leading up to this PRD hearing. He recalled that back in September when this Board denied Ralmar's request for RS -6 zoning and changed the zoning to RS -3, it was suggested that a good way to utilize the RS -3 was to go through the Planned Residential Development (PRD), and Ralmar met with engineers, county staff and worked on the PRD concept that is being presented tonight. He advised that Ralmar also met with 38 the homeowners to address their concerns about preserving the quality of the neighborhood, and believed most of the property owners left better informed about the concept of the project, which is to build residences for people who want to live in a single-family home without a large yard to maintain. The exterior maintenance would be the responsibility of the association, which would be run by the members. Unfortunately, the P & Z Commission voted against the PRD for what he feels were political reasons due to the outpouring of the residents in the area. However, that Board did request that they come up with some density PRD that would set the limits at no more than 2 units per acre. Attorney Rabin stressed that the responsibility of the Board is to serve the best interests of the county. Attorney Rabin displayed the site plan of the PRD, but Chairman Scurlock pointed out that Attorney Rabin had not addressed the transportation element.` He wanted it on record that when the County constructed 16th Street, Public Works Director Jim Davis did not even want to design the road because of the right-of-way restraints, and one of the main reasons the Board rezoned the property to RS -3 instead of RS -6 in September, 1986, was due to the narrowness of the road. County Attorney Vitunac noted that Ralmar has filed a lawsuit since that time, and Attorney Rabin confirmed that a lawsuit was filed, but noted that Attorney Vitunac was aware that nothing had been done on that. He emphasized that they were not trying to hide anything, and admitted that the developer has moved ahead with a standard RS -3 subdivision which would be called Queen's Terrace. He stated that this is not a threat by Ralmar; it is a business decision by the developer. Chairman Scurlock asked why they would want septic tanks in that subdivision when County water and sewer are available. He felt that Attorney Rabin was painting the worse possible scenario for the tract subdivision. 39 JA 1 � 1�7 BOOK 66 F�A�r.S JAN 1 7 Boos�cr -7 Attorney Rabin again emphasized the difference in the requirements of a standard subdivision and a PRD. He admitted that with a standard subdivision, they would get a slightly larger lot, but felt they would be losing a lot in return. He stressed that the developer actually would make more money with a standard tract subdivision than with the PRD project. Planner Boling pointed out that staff is recommending County water and wastewater on both the standard subdivision and the PRD and emphasized that the Utilities Department has the authority under our ordinances to require hookup to wastewater. Attorney Rabin again pointed out staff's recommendation for approval of the PRD, and urged the Board to make a non-political decision based upon the best information available. He stressed that Ralmar has designed the development to the benefit of the neighborhood, not the detriment of the neighborhood. Bill Tipton, President of Tipton Associates, Inc., traffic and transportation engineers in Orlando, stated that the traffic analysis they did for Ralmar shows that 78 units in the PRD would generate at peak hours 49 cars inbound and 29 cars outbound and they added these figures to those for the new Kingswood Estates Subdivision and the existing counts for 16th Street. He explained that their figures do not include any approximate figures for vacant land because at this point of time they don't have the densities. Chairman Scurlock suggested that they could have projected the figures on the densities that are there now, and emphasized that the County bases their projections on figures at buildout because that will be the total impact on the roads. Mr. Tipton explained that the final analysis would come when additional projects come on screen. They analyzed the inter- sections at Kings Highway and 43rd Avenue and feel that both intersections are operating at a very satisfactory level of service at present. 40 Attorney Michael O'Haire, representing several homeowners on Rosewood Road, felt that his clients have rights that are well and truly vested. He felt this particular street never shouAd --- have been designated as LD -2 on the Comp Plan and that this mistake should be rectified. He stated that he has been told that if the residents do not roll over and play dead in terms of what Ralmar wants, there will be a conventional subdivision meeting minimal standards, and what is proposed is prefabricated homes. Attorney O'Haire continued that when they are asked to gauge the developer's creditability, such things as threats don't do the developer a lot of good. He believed the density of 2 upa is the maximum of what is appropriate for that area, and the developer is asking for the maximum density that they can get in a PRD, 3 upa. He quoted the following statement under Section 25.3 of the Zoning Ordinance as the standard that the Board of County Commissioners is required to consider in acting on the PRD application, and noted that it also is the standard that dictated the action of the P & Z Commission when they voted against the PRD. "Section 25.3, Sub -section 2:- Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses "The proposed use and its location shall be compatible with surrounding land uses and the general character in the area based on consideration of such potential impacts as traffic generation, effect on property values, nuisance impacts, and other factors potentially impacting the character and stability of the surrounding areas." Attorney O'Haire concluded by noting that the RS -2 zoning district will be available in the next month or so and urging the Board to fix a mistake that was made years ago by either denying the PRD or approving it conditioned on a density of 2 upa. Chairman Scurlock asked if we have the flexibility to pass the PRD contingent upon a density, and Attorney Vitunac explained that since the Board has the discretion to deny it, they can approve it conditioned on less density, which gives the developer 41 800.E6Fvuc 889 JAN 133 1987 JAR IS 1987 -7 BOOK 66 a choice of either agreeing to that or going to a straight subdivision. Commissioner Bowman understood that the Board has the right to lay down certain other conditions if they don't like what they see, and Attorney Vitunac confirmed that was so, within reason. Tom Holman, 4515 Rosewood, agreed that the Rosewood area never should have been designated LD -2 back when the Comp Plan was developed, and believed until that is rectified, it is going to be a continuing problem, not only here but in other parts of the county. He also agreed that the maximum density that should be considered is 2 upa. He stressed that Ralmar has been in controversial zonings before and that the proposed project would double the traffic on Rosewood. Mr. Holman emphasized how hard it is now to get out onto 43rd Avenue. George Beutell, 5480 Rosewood, a resident of 10 years, spoke on his behalf and also that of his mother who has been a resident on Rosewood for 30 years. He had no doubt that Ralmar is a qualified developer but did.not like their ultimatum of accepting one of the two developments presented this morning. He felt they should make the adjustments that would satisfy the neighbors and the concerns of the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Beutell noted that the jogging path and some of the other amenities will only benefit the people living within the project. Mr. Beutell concluded by urging the Board to go with 2 units per acre. Robin Lloyd, attorney representing Dr. Ames, owner of the property adjacent to the proposed project, stressed that all they are asking for is uniformity. He recalled that the Ralmar property was upzoned from Agricultural to RS -3, and he understood that zoning tries to make an area compatible, uniform and a better community based on what is already established. Attorney felt that is what everyone is trying to do in this area, except Ralmar. Augusta Vinson, resident of Rosewood Road, felt the residents were in the middle of a poker game because they have 42 heard for 6 months about the quality of Ralmar. The developer has pointed out Cache Cay and various other projects they have done throughout the county and how fine they are, equal only to the character of the people who own, direct, and run Ralmar. Mrs. Vinson said that after what they have heard about the quality of their projects she did not know how they were going to do that, and did not think they are going to get their pound of flesh out of the residents on Rosewood. She appreciated the Board listening to her. Jim Sharp, 1666 51st Court, a dead end street off of Rosewood, recalled that when the LD -2 land designation was established, they were told that it was not binding. Mr. Sharp wanted it on the record that Ralmar's attorney does not speak for him and stated that, after attending most of these meetings, he did not go away with the feeling that what Ralmar was proposing was for the best. There are 14 lots -on his streets and 12 homes are built on lots slightly less than 1 acre. He recalled that he had to get special permission to build his home because his lot was less than 1 acre. Mr. Sharp felt that Ralmar's request to put a higher number of homes in some areas and less in others is not fair. Dr. Robert Vinson explained that his home will be in the middle of the proposed project when it is finished, and did not feel this PRD would enchance the quality of the neighborhood. He stressed that the developer is proposing many amenities that will benefit only the residents of Coventry Park. Dr. Vinson suggested that the jogging path be built around the canal outside of the project wall and perhaps a park -like area as well. He pointed out that if this development is approved, those residents will outnumber the residents that are there now and will make a difference when voting on issues. Dr. Vinson believed that the reason Ralmar is having so much trouble now is because all the neighbors are friendly and have great communication among themselves on matters concerning the quality of the neighborhood. 43 1300 JAN 13 1-87 JAS I BOOK �g Commissioner Bird felt that whatever is developed there would be unequal to Dr. Vinson's home, but noted that according to the plan for the tract subdivision, there would be 7 individual lots just behind Dr. Vinson's home. Dr. Vinson said that he has not seen the subdivision plan. Jon Jelmby, resident of Kingswood Estates Subdivision, representing his family of custom builders, asked if he could inquire about the price range of the homes in the proposed PRD. Paul Domico, Executive Vice President of Ralmar, stated that the price range will be $135,000-$170,000, which does not include impact fees. Mr. Jelmby advised that he and his family moved here from Sweden 3 years ago and looked all over Vero Beach before finding the Rosewood Road area where they built the Kingswood homes, which are in the range of $200,000-$300,000. He believed that even though the proposed project is very nice, it still does not belong on Rosewood Road. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Bird felt that from the conversation today it would appear that the popular thing to do would be to approve the PRD with a limit of 2 upa, and Director Keating confirmed that would reduce the project down to 53 units. Mr. Domico explained that based on 2 upa, they would decide to do Queen's Terrace and move Coventry Park to some other place. Commissioner Wheeler asked what it would take and is it possible to include this property under the RS -2 zoning district, and Commissioner Eggert explained that we can list it as a condition of the PRD, but the actual zoning district is not available as yet. 44 Chairman Scurlock felt that we could go ahead and approve the PRD conditioned at 2 upa and in a separate motion instruct staff to go ahead and start the advertising to include this area __ in the downzoning and not accept any additional subdivisions within the area until that rezoning takes place. Chairman Scurlock asked Attorney O'Haire if he had considered the impact of 2.5 upa, and Attorney O'Haire felt that it still would not be compatible with what is in place. Commissioner Bird recalled that when he suggested that we create a RS -2 zoning district, he did not expect it would be applied to this particular project because at t1.d dame they requested the RS -6 and it was downzoned to RS -3. He had a problem with downzoning it again, and emphasized that he is trying to look out for the interests of the people who live there and honestly believes the PRD, even at 3 upa, is better for the neighborhood than just a standard platted subdivision. Commissioner Eggert said she looks at it differently, because there was no actual downzoning; while the request was for RS -6, it was upzoned from Agricultural to RS -3. Chairman Scurlock believed that the reasons why that area was designated LD -2 at the time the Comp Plan was written was because of the canal and because there wasn't any activity in that area. Furthermore, there wasn't any intent by the residents to do anything negative to the community. He emphasized that the Commission is not supposed to consider economics; the question is compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. The Chairman stated he would support a Motion to allow this PRD at 2 upa and immediately instruct staff to proceed with downzoning the Rosewood area to 2 upa. Commissioner Bowman wanted to put in more conditions than that. She preferred the PRD because of the cloister concept and the open space, but she wanted to eliminate the jogging trail and the walls completely. 45 JAN BOOK 8 JAN 1 n 1987 BOOK 66, F'A,E 8f- Attorney Vitunac warned that if the PRD is denied, the applicant may come in under the straight subdivision at 3 upa regardless of the directives to staff to go ahead and downzone it. They may become vested under the current law before the change is made, and we may not be able to declare a moratorium. Commissioner Bird still was not convinced that a standard tract subdivision would be in the best interests of the neighbor- hood, and asked how many units Ralmar would lose if the PRD was developed at 2.5 upa. Director Keating confirmed that they would lose 13 units. Chairman Scurlock felt he was hearing that the residents prefer a standard subdivision, and Commissioner Wheeler also felt the neighborhood preferred a standard subdivision and not a separate community within a community. He just wished there was some way to approve this with RS -2 zoning. Chairman Scurlock repeated that we have only 3 options today: approve it as submitted, approve it with conditions, or deny it. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, that the Board deny conceptual approval of the PRD for Coventry Park. Under discussion, Commissioner Wheeler reiterated that he believes the people living there prefer a standard subdivision. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion was voted on and failed by a vote of 1-4, Commissioners Bowman, Bird, Eggert and Scurlock dissenting. 46 MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, that the Board approve the PRD with a condition of not more than 2 units per acre and increase the lot sizes, reduce the number of lots, eliminate the wall, and keep the green space as originally planned. Under discussion, Commissioner Bird was still convinced that the PRD would be better for the neighborhood. He again asked if the developer could live with 2.5 upa. William Brown, Chairman of Ralmar Associates, emphasized that they are not set in stone with a 6 -ft wall but they are set in stone on densities of 3 upa. He wondered what they would do with the extra land if they reduced the project to 2.5 upa. The Commissioners felt they could increase the lot sizes, but Mr. Brown stressed that the whole concept is large homes on small lots in order to cut down on lawn maintenance, etc. The association would take care of the maintenance and all the exterior; in effect, the residents would have the luxury of apartment living in a single family home. Mr. Brown maintained that they have tried to do everything they possibly can to make this an attractive community, and if the PRD fails, they will have to protect themselves and go with Queen's Terrace which will be a very nice tract subdivision. Commissioner Bowman could not follow Mr. Brown's argument because if the people would not be responsible for lawn maintenance, then what difference would larger lots make. Mr. Brown maintained that people prefer smaller lots with a medium-sized home, and noted that these homes have 1900-2300 square feet with private courtyards. Some discussion ensued re lot sizes, and Director Keating understood then that as long as the PRD is less dense, the lot sizes are not a concern, but Chairman Scurlock felt that was a concern as well, and Commissioner Eggert agreed. 47 BOOK 6 62 1,�c' 85 JAN 13 1987 JAN 13 1997 BOOK Chairman Scurlock believed that Ralmar would have to rework the plan so that they get no more than 2 upa. Director Keating asked if the Board wants the opportunity to review the revised PRD conceptual plan at 2 upa, and Attorney Vitunac advised that if the Board's approval is such that the developer can satisfy the conditions, it already has been approved. However, if the Board wants to see it again, then it really would not be approved. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion was voted on and carried by a vote of 4-1, Commissioner Bird dissenting. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously instructed the Planning Department to proceed with a Public Hearing for the RS -2 zoning district. Director Keating asked about our ability to impose a moratorium on anything more than RS -2 in the area, and asked if it would preclude them from coming in with a standard subdivision under the RS -3. Attorney Vitunac repeated that we may not be able to impose a moratorium unless there have been some changes in the moratorium law in the last month. Chairman Scurlock pointed out that according to our Comp Plan, if the trips per day were to exceed the capacity of that road, then we would have a moratorium on the road under any circumstance. Director Keating asked if we could go ahead and advertise for RS -2 for this entire area even though the RS -2 has not been before the Board. Attorney Vitunac did not feel we should do that, because the reason for advertising is to give people the opportunity to come 48 in and find out what is proposed, and in this particular case, thedescription of the approved zoning would not be available. Richard Shearer, Chief of Long -Range Planning, advised that_____ the RS -2 zoning district is scheduled to go before this Board on February 3rd and before the P b Z Commission on February 26th. PUBLIC HEARING - ESTABLISH BOUNDARIES FOR CR-510/CR-512 INTERSECTION_ COMMERCIAL NODE The hour of 9:10 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to wit: VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Weekly Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr, who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a a in the �CCoourt, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of �� � Ifa G Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the ;aid newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver- tisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver- tisement for publication in the said newspaper. n Sworn to and subscribed before me this (SEAL) D.�d (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, Florida) NOTICE OF REG ULATION OF LANMUSE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ATO CONSIDER THE • ` .'ADOPTION OF A COUNTY ORDINANCE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of Cfiunty Commissioners of .Indian River County,' Florida, shall hold a public hearing at which par ties In interest and citizens shall have an oppor— tunity to be heard, In the County Commission'. chambers of, the County. Administration Build- ing, located of 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Tuesday, January,13 1987, at 910 a.m. to consider the adoption of an Ordlna6ce - entitied: AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ESTABLISHING BOUNDARIES FORTHE50 ACRE COM- MERCIAL NODE AT, THE INTERSEC- QTION' OF C.R.. at0'_AND C.R. 512 AS GENERALLY DESCRIBED IN THE TEXT OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT AND DE- PICTED ON THE LAND USE MAP OF THE LAND USE. ELEMENT'OF THE COUNTY'S COMOREHENSIVE PLAN, PROVIDING FOR THE'' BOUNDARY MAP, DESCRIPTION OF THE NODE AND EFFECTIVE DATE. "A map of the proposed 7hode boundary is available at the Planning Department office on the second floor of the County Administration Building. Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings. Is made, which includes' testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is used Indian River County. Board of County Commissioners By: -s-Don C. Scurioek, Jr., Chairman Dec. 22, 1986 The Board reviewed the tollowing memo dated 12/11/86: 49 Frqut C7 9 9 L_JAN 13 198% � JAN 13 19�� BOOK OPS ,r �( 7 FA�ur. , % TO: The Honorable Members the DATE: December 11, 1966 FILE: the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: �. SUBJECT: COUNTY -INITIATED REr'UEST Robert M. Keati g, AI -9P TO ESTABLISH BOUNDARIES Planning & Deve opmerft Director FOR THE C.R. 510/512 INTERSECTION COMMERCIAL D� THROUGH: Richard Shearer, AICP NODE t� Chief, Long -Range Planning FROM: �e m REFERENCES: c R 51 David C. Nearing 0/512 Inter - Staff Planner, Long -Range Planning section Comm. Node/DAVE It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of January 13, 1987. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS The Planning Department is initiating a request to establish boundaries for the 50 acre commercial node located at the County Road 510/County Road 512 intersection. On September 12, 1984, the Board of County Commissioners adopted an amendment to the text of the land use element of the Compre- hensive Plan, which provided for establishing node boundaries for each of the nodes as generally depicted on the land use map, and described in the text of the land use element of the Comprehen- sive Plan. On November 21, 1985, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4-0 to recommend approval of boundaries for this node. On December 18, 1985, the Board of County Commissioners tabled action on this request pending formal notification of all sur- rounding property owners. In Janauary of 1986, a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application was submitted to enlarge this node to 85 acres. On July 29, 1986, the Board of County Commissioners denied this request to amend the Comprehensive Plan. However, after reexamining the situation it was found that some additional property could be included in the node due to the quantity of additional right-of-way which would eventually be acquired from within the boundaries currently proposed. On December 11, 1986, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 7 -to -0 to recommend- that the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed boundaries as presented herein. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS In this section, an analysis of the factors used to determine the proposed node boundary is presented. The analysis includes a description of the current and future land uses of the node, as well as physical and environmental considerations. The proposed boundary for the County Road 510/County Road 512 node was prepared based on the following criteria: 1. The general description and size constraint of the node, as described in the text of the land use element; 2. The existing land use in the general area of the node; 3. The existing zoning pattern; 4. Physical -considerations; 5. Environmental constraints; and 6. Access to the transportation network. 50 Existinq Land Use Pattern The following uses are located within the proposed node bound- aries: Step Saver Food Mart and Gas, a small cluster of-mobi-ie homes, vacant and agricultural lands. North of the proposed node boundary is a cemetary; east of the proposed node boundary is vacant and agricultural land and the, City Sebastian, with scat- tered housing and vacant lots. West of the proposed node boundary is agricultural and vacant land and the Sebastian River Middle/ Junior High School. _ South of the proposed node boundary is agricultural, vacant, and residential land. Future Land Use Pattern All of the nodes are generally described in the Comprehensive Plan. The County Road 510/County Road 512 node is described as: "This intersection contains.a commercial node of fifty (50) acres." The proposed node boundary contains commercially zoned land in the Romar Subdivision along the north side of County Road 512, and land located between the abandoned Trans Florida Central Railroad right-of-way and County Road 512. It also contains commercially zoned land located south of County Road 512 along both sides of County Road 510. Also included are approximately 2.5 acres of abandoned Trans Florida Central Railroad right-of-way, zoned A-1.Agricultural District. It is the staff's position that any commercial development within the node will not adversely affect any existing or future res- idential development of the surrounding properties, or adversely impact the existing cemetary, due to the adopted dimmensional and bufferyard requirements for commercial uses. The proposed boundaries follow the existing CL, Limited Com- mercial zoning district boundary except for the abandoned rail- road right-of-way. Physical Considerations The slope of land within the proposed node boundaries is rela- tively level in character; elevations range from 15' to 20' mean sea level. The soil characteristics are severe wetness and poor drainage. Generally, sites within the proposed node boundary will require fill and drainage improvements before development. Environment The proposed node area is not designated as environmentally sensitive. However, a portion of the land in the western and southern section lies in an A flood zone indicating areas within the 100 year flood plain, as depicted on the flood insurance rate maps (FIRM) for the area (see attached FIRM map). Access to the Transportation Network All of the parcels of land located within the proposed node boundaries excluding the abandoned railroad right-of-way have access to either County Road 510 or County Road 512, the southern parcels having access to both roads (both roads are designated as Arterial Streets on the County's Thoroughfare Plan). RECOMMENDATION Based on the above analysis, and the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed boundary of the County Road 510 and County Road 512 Commercial node as presented herein, and that the Board authorize the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to affix his signature to the ordinance attached hereto (attachment 5). 51 BOOK 66FAGE JAIL 1� A87 BOOK 66 F'tA 900 Commissioner Bowman was concerned about this area designated as a commercial node because it is is an extremely wet area and, in tact, it may come under the new proposed regulations for isolated wetlands. Director Keating advised that they would take care of any conditions as to that during site plan approval. Chairman Scurlock opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. Fred Mensing, resident of Roseland, agreed with Commissioner Bowman in regard to the wetlands area and felt the node also would create more traffic on this road which serves as a feeder road to the 1-95. He asked that the County freeze the commercial development to what is there now, which is one convenience store, until such time as a plan for getting traffic off the feeder is developed. Commissioner Bird recalled that at one time we had literally miles of commercially zoned property on both sides of CR -510 and CR -512, but when the Comp Plan was developed, all of that was consolidated down to this 50 -acre commercial node. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously closed the Public Hearing. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, that the Board adopt Ordinance 87-4, approving the County -initiated request to establish boundaries for the CR.510/512 Intersection Commercial Node. Under discussion, Commissioner Bowman stated that she preferred to workshop this again, and Richard Shearer, Chief of Long -Range Planning, advised that while these boundaries can be 52 SAN 16= 1/12/86 jeff3 LR -Planning DCN/vh ORDINANCE NO. 87- 4 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA ESTABLISHING BOUNDARIES FOR THE 50 ACRE COMMERCIAL NODE AT THE INTERSECTION OF COUNTY ROAD 510 AND COUNTY ROAD 512 AS GENERALLY DESCRIBED IN THE TEXT OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT AND DEPICTED ON THE LAND USE MAP OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COUNTY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR THE BOUNDARY MAP, DESCRIPTION OF THE NODE AND EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida has amended the County's Comprehensive Plan to provide for establishing boundaries for every commer- cial, commercial/industrial, industrial, tourist/commercial, and hospital/commercial node; and WHEREAS, The Planning and Zoning Commission has held a public hearing and subsequently made a recommendation to establish boundaries for this node; and, __WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners has held a public hearing on these proposed boundaries at which parties in interest and citizens had an opportunity to be heard; and, WHEREAS,. The Board of County Commissioners is empowered to adopt these boundaries to assist in the implementation of the County's Comprehensive Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that: SECTION 1 The attached map labeled as "Attachment A" and the description labeled as "Attachment B" shall be the official boundaries of the 50 acre Commercial Node at the intersection of County Road 510 and County Road 512. SECTION 2 EFFECTIVE DATE. The provisions of this ordinance shall become effective upon receipt from the Florida Secretary of State of official. 4 acknowledgment that this ordinance has been filed with the Department of State. RUGS. F'P'E M JAN 1987 JAN 13 1937 BOOK -u-L amended later on, the problem with waiting is that owners cannot plan anything for their properties. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion was voted on and carried by a vote of 4-1, Commissioner Bowman dissenting. 53 JAN 17 ORDINANCE NO. 87- 4 Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River -County, Florida on the 13th day of January 1987. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY AT Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of Florida this 22nd day of January , 1987. Effective Date: Acknowledgment from the Department of State received on this 28th day of January , 1987 at 10:30 .A.M./P.M. and filed in the office of the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida. APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY. BRUCE BARKETT, ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY APPROVED AS TO PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT MATTERS. RICHARD M. SHEARER CHIEF, LONG-RANGE PLANNING 510/62nd notice jeff3 JAN 1 1�ao� b 9 U 3 C.R. 512 & C.R. 510 Commercial Node Proposed Node Boundary DESCRIPTION OF BOUNDARIES FOR C.R. 510/512 COMMERICAL NODE BEGINNING AT A POINT ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF C.R. 512, 1000' WEST OF THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF C.R. 510 RUN SOUTH APPROXIMATELY 17501; THENCE RUN EAST 1000' TO THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE COUNTY ROAD 510; THENCE RUN 1150' NORTH ALONG THE SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE TO A POINT 600' SOUTH OF THE C.R. 512/510 INTERSECTION RIGHT-OF-WAY; THENCE RUN EAST ACROSS C.R. 510 APPROXIMATELY 400'; THENCE RUN NORTH TO AND ACROSS C.R. 512 FOR APPROXIMATELY 1220' TO THE NORTH EDGE OF THE ABANDONED TRANS FLORIDA CENTRAL RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY; THENCE RUN IN A SOUTHWESTERLY DIRECTION ALONG SAID ABANDONED RIGHT-OF-WAY APPROXIMATELY 1100'; THENCE RUN SOUTH 400' TO THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF C.R. 512; THENCE RUN WEST ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY 300' TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. - CONTAINING 50.00 ACRES MORE OR LESS. EXIBI T B PUBLIC HEARING - ESTABLISHMENT OF BOUNDARIES FOR 5 -ACRE COMMERCIAL NODE AT INTERSECTION OF CR -510 AND 62ND AVENUE The hour of 9:10 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to wit: 57 BOOK 66 SAE 905 JAN 13 1987 Fr ­ JAN 13 1987 VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Weekly Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a i vwriiu� in the matter of in the /Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of /e��o<r??' o� l��(� Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver- tisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver- tisement for publication in the said newspaper. Swom to and subscribed before me this Oq May of A.D. - — - _ w V (B ne Manager} E A '�LI (SEAL) (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian Ri r County, Florida) BOOK F',v� 906 NOTICE OF REGULATION OF LANG USE— - NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ; TO CONSIDER THE ADOPTION OF A COUNTY ORDINANCE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board 'Of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, shall hold a public hearing at which par- ties in interest and. citizens shall have an oppor- tunity to be heard, in the Couhty Commission. Chambers of the County Admin'isVetion Build- , located at 1840.25th Street; '.Vero Beach,- Florida, on Tuesday, January 13, 1987, at 9:10... a.m. to consider the adoption, of an ordinance entMed7 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER ' COUNTY; : FLORIDA, ESTABLISHING BOUNDARIES FQA THE 5 ACRE COM-' ��� MERCIAL NODE .AT THE INTERSEC- i(/�/Z TION OF C.R. 510 AND RIS AVENUE' MAP. OF THE -LAND USE ELEMEN I Ut <: ; THE COUNTY'S COMPREHENSIVE , -, PLAN; PROVIDING FOR THE BOUND- ARY ' MAP, DESCRIPTION 01 TME o- NODE AND EFFECTIVE DATE � -,,. A- map of the proposed node 'boundary is available at the Planning Department. otflce on the second floor of the County Administration Building `�" '' fen decis Anyone who may wish to appea ion y 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 r Indian River County x Board of County Commissioners By: -s-Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Chairman bec. 22, 1986 The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/11/86: TO: The Honorable Plembers DATE: December 11, 1986 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: SUBJECT: Robert M. KeatiAg,p-SAL P Planning & Develom Director THROUGH: Richard Shearer Chief, Long -Range Planning ESTABLISHMENT OF BOUND- ARIES FOR THE 5 ACRE COM- MERCIAL NODE LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF C.R. 510 AND 62ND AVENUE FROM: David C. Nearing 9&614 REFERENCES: Staff Planner, 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 January 13, 1987. 58 DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS The Planning Department is initiating a request to establish boundaries for the five (5) acre commercial node located at the .intersection of C.R. 510 and 62nd Avenue. On September 12, 1984, the Board of County Commissioners adopted an amendment to the text of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan which provided for establishing .boundaries for each of the nodes as generally described in the text of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. On July 29, 1986, the Board of County Commissioners adopted an amendment to the text of the Land Use Plan which established a 5 acre Copmercial Node at the intersection of C.R. 510 and 62nd Avenud , On December 11, 1986, The Planning and Zoning Commission voted 7 -to -0 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed boundaries as presented herein. ALTERNATIVES.& ANALYSIS The proposed boundaries of the C.R. 510/62nd Avenue Commercial Node were prepared based on the following criteria: 1) The general description and size constraint of the node as described in the text of the Land Use Element; 2) The existing commercial uses within the general area of the node; 3) The existing zoning patterns; 4) Property boundaries; 5) Traffic considerations; 6) Environmental considerations. All of the nodes are generally described in the Comprehensive Plan. The C.R. 510/62nd Avenue Commercial Node is described as: "A five (5) acre commercial node is located on the south side of C.R. 510 between 62nd and 64th Avenues." All of the property proposed for inclusion in the node is zoned CL, Limited Commercial District. The proposed node boundaries follow property lines and the existing commercial zoning district boundaries in all cases. Existinq Land Use Pattern The lard within the proposed node boundary contains a gasoline sales and convenience store, a mobile home,. two single-family homes, Lee's Pool Hall, the Roberson hotel, the Friendly Kitchen, the Blue Heron Bar, a Masonic Temple, and vacant land. The property south of the proposed rode contains single-family residences and vacant land. The property to the north, across C.R. 510, consists of vacant land and single-family residences. To -the east are single-family residences and citrus groves. To, the northeast is the Lows Park Subdivision, to the northwest is the Whitefield Subdivision. To the west is a church on the southwest corner of C.R. 510 and 64th Avenue and the Old Douglas school. 5 9 on JA1 1997 BOOK Ft,r JAW 1 K233d 600 . Future Land Use Pattern The Comprehensive Plan designates the land north of C.R. 510 as LD -2, Low -Density Residential 2 (up to 6 units/acre). The land south, west and east of the subject property is designated as LD -1, Low -Density Residential 1 (up to 3 units/acre). Further... west, across 66th avenue, the land is designated as RR -1, Rural Residential 1 (up to .4 units/acre). Transportation System County Road 510 is designated as an arterial street on the County's Thoroughfare Plan; 64th, 63rd, and 62nd Avenues are classified as local streets. Environment The node area is not designated as environmentally sensitive nor is it in a flood prone area. Utilities County water and wastewater available in this area. - RECOMMENDATION facilities are not currently Based on the above analysis, and the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning CommissionJstaff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the boundaries for the 5 acre Commercial Node on the south side of County Road 510 between 62nd and 64th Avenues as presented herein, and that the Board authorize the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to affix his signature to the ordinance attached hereto (attachment 4) . Chairman Scurlock opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Bowman asked how the intersection of Kings Highway and CR -510 (Wabasso Road) is zoned, and if 58th Avenue (Kings Highway) is going to extend north of that intersection. Richard Shearer, Chief of Long -Range Planning, advised that the northeast corner is zoned CL;.the southeast corner is zoned the southwest corner is zoned RS -3; and the northwest corner is zoned RM -6. Although Kings Highway is not on the 20 -year program, it is projected to extend north of Wabasso Road. 60 Commissioner Bowman asked if the reason these 5 acres were not classified as a neighborhood node was due to the existing commercial uses, and Mr. Shearer confirmed that was the reason plus the fact that a neighborhood node is only3 acres. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance 87-5, establishing boundaries for the 5 acre commercial node at the intersection of CR -510 and 62nd Avenue. 61 JAN 13 1937 BOOK 66 Pe GE O J' r JAN 1 e BOOK F'{ 12/12/86 jeff3 LR -Planning DCN/vh ORDINANCE NO. 87- 5 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA ESTABLISHING BOUNDARIES FOR THE 5. ACRE COMMERCIAL NODE AT THE INTERSECTION OF COUNTY ROAD 510 AND 62ND AVENUE AS GENERALLY DESCRIBED IN THE TEXT OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT AND DEPICTED ON THE LAND USE MAP OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COUNTY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR THE BOUNDARY MAP, DESCRIPTION OF THE NODE AND EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida has amended .the County's Comprehensive Plan to provide for establishing boundaries for every commer- cial, commercial/industrial, industrial, tourist/commercial, and hospital/commercial node; and WHEREAS, The Planning and Zoning Commission has held a public hearing and subsequently made a recommendation to establish boundaries for this node; and, __WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners has held a public hearing on these proposed boundaries at which parties in interest and citizens had an opportunity to be heard; and, WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners is empowered to adopt these boundaries to assist in the implementation of the County's Comprehensive Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that: SECTION 1 The attached map labeled as "Attachment A" and the description labeled as "Attachment B" shall be the official boundaries of the 5 acre Commercial Node at the intersection of County Road 510 and 62nd Avenue. SECTION 2 EFFECTIVE DATE. The provisions of this ordinance shall become effective upon receipt from the Florida Secretary of State of official acknowledgment that this ordinance has been filed with the Department of State. ORDINANCE NO. 87- 5 Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on the 13th day of January 1987. .BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: / DON C. SCURLOCK, Jr., IRMAN ATTEST BY: zeu& FREDA WRIGHT, i Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of Florida this 22nd day of January , 1987. Effective Date: Acknowledgment from the Department of State received on this 28th day of January 1987 at 10:30 A.M. P.M. and filed in the office of the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida. APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY. BRUCE BARKETT, ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY APPROVED AS TO PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT MATTERS. RICHARD M. SHEARER CHIEF, LONG-RANGE PLANNING U.S. 1/Roseland Rd jeff3 BOOK 6-6 F�','UE91. r JAN; 12 1987 1 BOOK 66 FA -j C.R. 510/62nd Avenue Commercial Node A I W I FIE L E UBDI I SION j8 C D E F 19J RM -6 -I 3 I o IR 13E CANAL RS -3 � N v n -- E -X I -BI T A • ' Ji 81 at St. -- Proposed Node Boundary = _ RM -3 DESCRIPTION OF BOUNDARIES FOR C.R. 510/62ND AVENUE COMMERCIAL NODE FROM A POINT OF BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF C.R. 510 AND THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF 62ND AVENUE AS THEY EXISTED NOVEMBER 11, 1986; RUN SOUTH FOR A DISTANCE OF 375 FEET; THENCE RUN WEST A DISTANCE OF 194 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH A DISTANCE OF 150 FEET; THENCE RUN WEST A DISTANCE OF 190 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH A DISTANCE OF 50 FEET; THENCE RUN WEST ALONG THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF 84TH AVENUE A DISTANCE OF 860 FEET. TO THE EAST .RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF 64TH AVENUE; THENCE RUN NORTH A DISTANCE OF 175,.FEET TO THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF C.R. 510 AS IT EXISTED NOVEMBER 11, 1986; THENCE RUN EAST A DISTANCE OF 1244 FEET ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. 5 ACRES MORE OR LESS. I EXIBIT B PUBLIC HEARING - ESTABLISHMENT OF BOUNDARIES FOR 15 -ACRE COMMERCIAL NODE - INTERSECTION OF 43RD AVENUE AND 1ST STREET SW The hour of 9:10 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to wit: 65 JAN 13 1987 BOOK 66 rnF 91� JAN 13 6987 VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Weekly Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being in the matter of in the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of ,� �' •�� Aflz Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver- tisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver- tisement for publication in the said newspaper. „ Sworn to and subscribed before me this (SEAL) (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian Ri6f County, Florida) BOOSji, 914 NOTICE OF REGULATION OF LAND USE— NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE ADOPTION OF A COUNTY ORDINANCE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of County Commissioners of.Indian. River County, } Florida, shall hold a public hearing at which par- ties in L interest -and citizens shall have an oppor- tunity to be heard, In the County Commission Chambers of the County Administration Build- ing, "located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida,. on Tuesday, January 13, 1.987, at 9:10 . a.m. to consider the adoption of an Ordinance entitled;•+: AN ORDINANCE OF' INDIAN•. RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, " ESTABLISHING BOUNDARIES FOR THE 15 ACRE COW-; MERCIAL NODE AT THE " INTERSEC- a• '. ; ,_ ;TION OF 43RD -AVENUE AND 15T. STREET AS GENERALLY DESCRIBED!';. IN THE TEXT OF THE LAND USE ELE-"';" MENT AND DEPICTED ON THE LAND USE MAP OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT'OF THE COUNTY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR THE BOUND -ARY MAP, DESCRIPTION OF .,THE' NODE AND EFFECTIVE DATE A, map of the proposed " node boundary " is available at the Planning Department office an the second floor of the County Administration Buildings. Anyone who may wish to appeal a4 decision which may be made at this meeting will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings Is made, which includes testimony. and evidence upon which the appeal is based Indian River County ° Board of County Commissioners.' ' By: -s-Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Chairman,,; Dec. 22,1986 The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/11/86: TO: The Honorable Members DATE: December 11, 1986 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: '- SUBJECT: Robert M. Kedt5l g, CP Planning & Dev lop nt Director 'p S THROUGH: Richard Shearer j'' Chief, Long -Range Planning ESTABLISHMENT OF BOUND- ARIES FOR THE FIFTEEN ACRE COMMERCIAL NODE LOCATED AT THE INTERSECT ION OF 43RD AVENUE AND 1ST STREET S.W. FROM: David C. Nearing AO REFERENCES: Staff Planner, 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 January 13, 1986. 66 a � � DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS The Planning Department is initiating a request to establish boundaries for the fifteen (15) acre commercial node located at the intersection of 43rd Avenue and 1st Street S.W. On September 12, 1984, the Board of County Commissioners adopted an amendment to 'the text of the Land Use Element of the boundaries for each of the nodes as generally described in the .text of the.Land.Use Element of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. On July 29, 1986, the Board of County Commissioners adopted an amendment to the text of the Land Use Plan which designated a node at the intersection of 43rd Avenue and 1st Street*S.W. On December ll, 1986, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 7 -to -0 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed boundaries as presented herein. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS The proposed boundaries of the 43rd Avenue/1st Street S.W. Commercial Node were prepared based on the following criteria: 1. The general description and size constraint of the node as described in the text of the Land Use Element; 2. The existing commercial uses in the general area of the node; 3. The existing zoning pattern; 4. Property boundaries; 5. Traffic considerations; and 6. Environmental considerations. All of t. nodes are generally described in the Comprehensive Plan. Tha 43rd Avenue/1st Street S.W. Commercial Node is described as: "A fifteen (15) acre commercial node is located at the intersection of 43rd Avenue and 1st Street S.W." All of the property proposed for inclusion in the node is zoned CG. The proposed node boundaries follow the property lines or the existing commercial zoning district boundaries in all cases. Existing Land Use Pattern The existing land uses are as follows: At the southwest corner of the 43rd Avenue and 1st Street S.W. intersection is the 43rd Avenue Plaza. Immediately north across 1st Street, S.W., on the east side of 43rd Avenue is approximately 3.5 acres of vacant property, the Meadows Country Square containing professional offices, and accessory apartments, another vacant parcel, Don's Import Auto Service, approximately - 1.8 acres of vacant property and the Moose Lodge. Along the west side of 43rd Avenue from the intersection of 43rd Avenue and 2nd Street and running south are the Trading Post, Steve's Building Company, an assortment of commercial trades and services,. and vacant property. From the intersection of 43rd Avenue and 1st Street going south are vacant property, an assortment of retail business, and 4 mobile homes (existing non -conforming uses). 67 JAN 13.19 7BOOK 6FAA 915 L r SAN 13 1987 1' -7 BOOK Csi F,1br.9.! 6 To the west of the above described commercial properties is Stevens Park, a single-family subdivision zoned RS -6, Single -Family Residential District. To the north are single- family homes and vacant properties zoned RS -3, Single -Family Residential District. To the east is vacant property and a predominately undeveloped single-family subdivision zoned RS -6. To the south is mostly vacant properties and some single-family housing zoned RS -6. Future Land Use Pattern The Comprehensive Plan designates the land west of 43rd Avenue as LD -1, Low -Density Residential 1 (up to 3 units/acre). The land east of 43rd Avenue is designated as LD -2, Low -Density Residential 2 (up to 6 units/acre). Currently the 43rd Avenue/lst Street S.W. intersection area contains approximately fifteen (15) acres of property zoned CG, General Commercial District. The approximate acreage by use is as follows: 7.8 acres commercial 6.7 acres vacant zoned CG .5 acres mobile home zoned CG Transportation System The County's Thoroughfare Plan designates 43rd Avenue as a primary collector, and 1st Street Southwest as a secondary collector. 1st and 2nd Streets are classified as local streets. Environment The node area is not designated as environmentally sensitive nor is it in a flood prone area. Utilities At present the area is serviced by a water main along 43rd Avenue. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above analysis, and the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the the proposed boundaries of the 15 acre commercial node at the intersection of 43rd Avenue and 1st Street S.W. as presented herein, and authorize the Chairman of Board of County Commissioners to affix his signature to the ordinance attached hereto (attachment 4). The Chairman opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously closed the Public Hearing. 68 ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the.Board unanimously adopted Ordinance 87-6, establishing boundaries for the 15 -acre commercial node at the intersection of 43rd Avenue and "Ist Street SW. 69 JAN 13,1987Bou nelb Ub PAGF 917 r . JAR 13 1981 B001f 12/12/86 jeff3 LR -Planning DCN/vh ORDINANCE NO. 87- 6 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA ESTABLISHING BOUNDARIES FOR THE 15 ACRE COMMERCIAL NODE AT THE INTERSECTION OF 43RD AVENUE AND 1ST STREET S.W. AS GENERALLY DESCRIBED IN THE TEXT OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT AND DEPICTED ON THE LAND USE MAP OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COUNTY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR THE BOUNDARY MAP, DESCRIPTION OF THE NODE AND EFFECTIVE DATE. . WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida has amended the County's Comprehensive Plan to provide for establishing boundaries for every commer- cial, commercial/industrial, industrial, tourist/commercial, d and hospital/commercial node; and WHEREAS, The Planning and Zoning Commission has held a public hearing and subsequently made a recommendation to establish boundaries for this node; and, _ WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners has held a public hearing on these proposed boundaries at which parties in interest and citizens had an opportunity to be heard; and, WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners is empowered to adopt these boundaries to assist in the implementation of the County's Comprehensive Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that: The attached map labeled as "Attachment A" and the description labeled as "Attachment B" shall be the official boundaries of the 15 acre Commercial Node at the intersection of 43rd Avenue and 1st Street S.W.. SECTION 2 EFFECTIVE DATE. The provisions of this ordinance shall become effective upon_ receipt from the Florida Secretary of State of official acknowledgment that this ordinance has been filed with the Department of State. ORDINANCE NO. 87- 6 Approved and.adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on the 13th day of January, 1987. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: i 1,4 DON C. SCURLO K, ru.",� 'IRN'+AN ATTEST BY: +./z,� G.[i�•�/1'" FREDA WRGHGHT , C ICK X. Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of Florida this 22nd day of January , 1987. Effective Date: Acknowledgment from the Department of State received on this 28th day of January , 1987 at 10:30 A.M./P.M. and filed in the office of the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida.. APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY. BRUCE BARKETT, ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY APPROVED AS TO PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT (MATTERS. RICHARD M. SHEARER CHIEF, LONG-RANGE PLANNING 1ST St/43rd Ave Jeff3 JAN 13 1987 BOOK E4cE (�� � T R.2, RS --3 TR.13 RS -6 TRA JJ E� IBIT A PROPOSED NODE E BOUNDARY, �i,M M i�Ww ®©9r -gee eddy TR.14 s 4 6 3 7 �2 I TRU DESCRIPTION OF BOUNDARIES FOR 43RD AVENUE/1ST STREET COMMERCIAL NODE FROM A POINT OF BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST } OF SECTION 16 TOWNSHIP 33S RANGE 39E RUN WEST ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF IST STREET S.W. A DISTANCE OF 215 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH FOR A DISTANCE OF 1300 FEET ALONG THE EAST RIGHT-OF—WAY LINE OF 43RD COURT; THENCE RUN EAST A DISTANCE OF 215 FEE ALONG THE SOUTH RIGHT—OF—WAY LINE OF SECOND STREET TO THE CENTERLINE OF 43RD AVENUE .-THENCE RUN NORTH A DISTANCE OF 475 FEET ALONG SAID CENTERLINE; THENCE RUN EAST A DISTANCE OF 340 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH A DISTANCE OF 810 FEET; THENCE RUN WEST A DISTANCE OF 110 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH A DISTANCE OF 915 FEET TO THE NORTH RIGHT—OF—WAY LINE OF 1ST STREET S.W.; THENCE RUN EAST A DISTANCE OF 40 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH A DISTANCE OF 280 FEET; THENCE RUN WEST A DISTANCE OF 255 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH A DISTANCE OF 230 FEET; THEN RUN WEST A DISTANCE OF 40 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXIBIT B PUBLIC HEARING - ED SCHLITT REQUEST TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO INCREASE THE ALLOWABLE SIZE OF DEPARTMENT STORES IN CL DISTRICT The hour of 9:10 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to wit: 73 JAN 13 1987 r �x, r JAN 13 1987 VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Weekly Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being in the / �jCoourt, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of �y�G%'^� 4a? a A Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver- tisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver- tisement for publication in the said newspaper, y/ Sworn to and subscribed before me this da of A.D. /yllla /1 #usirilo Ma er (SEAL) (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indiarnldver County, Florida) BOOK ,( NOTICE—PUBLIC NOTICE . NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, shall hold a public hearing at which par- ties in interest and citizens shall have an oppor- tunity to be heard, in the County Commission Chambers of the County Administration Build - !ng, located at 1840 25th St; Vero Beach, Flor- Ida, on. Tuesday, January 13, 1987, at 9:10 a.m.; to consider the adoption of 0n Ordinance entl tied: AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING SEC-:; TION 25.1 REGULATIONS FOR SPEa CIFIC LAND'.USES OF APPENDIX A OF;; ;;;6 THE CODE OF LAWS, AND ORDI-r,:T' NANCES OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,. KNOWN 'AS THE ZONING_, CODEC, INCREASING THE GROSS FLOOR AREA ALLOWED FOR DEPART ? MENT STORES, FURNITURE AND AP PLIANCE SALES, SHOWROOM CATA- LOG STORES AND VARIETY STORES" FROM 5,000 TO 35,000 SQUARE FEET IN THE CL, LIMITED COMMERCIAL DIS- n ::.; TRICT; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS CODI FICATION, SEVERABILITY, AND EFFEC- TIVE DATE.:.. , A copy of.theproposed Ordinance is available at the Plahning Department office on the second .i floor of the County Administration Building. ; Anyone who me wish to appeal any decision which may. be mage at. this meeting will need to? > ensure that a verbatim record of the proceeding is made which includes the testimony and ev- derice upon which the appeal Will be based Indian River County Board of County Commissioners' By: -s-Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Chairman ^ •;` +Dec. 22, 1986 The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/31/86: TO: The Honorable Members DATE: December 31, 1986 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: by 01"tS SUBJECT: ED SCHLITT REQUEST TO Robert M. K ating AICP' AMEND THE ZONING ORDIN- Planning & Development Director ANCE TO INCREASE THE ALL- OWABLE SIZE OF DEPARTMENT— STORES IN THE CL 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 their regular meeting of January 13, 1987. 74 M M DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS John Schlitt, Jr., an agent for Ed Schlitt, is requesting to amend Section 25.1 (j), Regulations for Specific Land Uses, of the County's Zoning Ordinance to increase the allowable total gross floor area for department stores, furniture and appliance stores, showroom catalog stores, and variety stores, as general merchandise sales facilities, from 5,000 square feet to 40,000 square feet. Currently, the above cited general merchandise sales facilities are permitted in the CG, General Commercial District, with no size limitations and are allowed as an administrative permit use in the CL district. Administrative permit uses must be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved if they meet the criteria contained in Section 25.1 of the zoning ordinance. One criterion applicable- to those above referenced general merchandise sales categories in CL districts is that the facilities not exceed 5,000 square feet. On December 11, 1986, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6 -to -0, with one abstention, to recommend approval of this request. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS In reviewing this request, staff first determined the reason for allowing general merchandise sales facilities in the CG district but regulating the size of such facilities in the CL district. The purpose of the regulations appears to be to discourage general merchandise sales establishments from locating in the CL district. This is logical since the CL district is designed to provide a more limited range of commercial uses than the CG district. The purpose and intent sections of the CL and CG districts were then reviewed. The purpose and intent section of the CL district includes the following sentence: "The land use activities allowed within the CL district are intended to accommodate the convenience retail and service needs of area residents, while minimizing the impact of such activities on any nearby residential areas." The CG district contains different language in its purpose and intent section which indicates that: "The CG, General Commercial district is intended to provide areas for the development of general retail sales and selected service activities along major thoroughfares in the County consistent with the Comprehensive Plan." The definitions section of the zoning ordinance defines general retail sales and services as: "Commercial establishments that, in addition to serving day-to-day commercial needs of a community, also supply the more durable and permanent needs of a whole community, including convenience stores, supermarkets, department stores, discount stores, variety stores, hardware and garden supply stores, apparel and footwear stores, florists, gift shops, jewelry stores, book and stationary stores, specialty shops, sporting goods stores, furniture and home furnishing stores, office equipment and supplies, automotive supply stores, appliance stores and similar retail sales." 75 JAN 13 1z87 BOOK 6 6 F,;1,JE?` 3 r JAN 3.3 1987 BOOK 66 ' :'vt 9'?'4 Based on the purpose and intent sections of the CL and CG districts and the definition of general retail sales and services in the definitions section of the zoning ordinance, the staff has concluded that the CL district is primarily intended to allow convenience sales of nondurable goods while the CG district is intended to allow the sale of nondurable as well as durable goods.... This is consistent with the intent to structure CG areas as major shopping destinations and principaltrafficattractors. However, in the current zoning code most of the uses listed under the definition of general retail sales and services are permitted uses in both the CL and CG districts. Moreover, those uses not listed as permitted uses in the CL district are allowed as administrative permit uses. ' - The applicants have observed that in the CL district the County puts a size limitation on department stores and variety stores but does not put a size limitation on grocery stores, drug stores or any other use. The applicants also indicate that it is difficult to determine the differences among large drug stores, department stores, and variety stores. Staff attempted to determine the differences among these types of stores and found none of those uses are defined by the County's zoning ordinances. Where the zoning code does not define specific uses, the common definitions of those uses must be utilized for determining their similarities and differences. Webster's Dictionary provides the following definitions: department store: a store selling a wide variety of goods and arranged in several departments; drugstore: a retail store where medicines and miscellaneous articles (as food, cosmetics, and film) are sold; variety store: a retail store that carries a large variety of merchandise especially of low unit value. However, staff discovered that many businesses in the County listed under the department store or pharmacy heading could also be classified as apparel stores, grocery stores, or some other use. For example, the following businesses are listed as department stores: 1) Alma Lee's; 2) Dollar General Stores; 3) J Byron's; 4) Mr. Smoke's; 5) J C Penney Co. Inc.; 6) Wodtke's; and 7) Woolworth's. Moreover, the following businesses are listed as pharmacies: 1) Albertson's; 2) Eckerd Drugs; 3) Ed's Apothecary; 4) Gray Drug Stores; 5) Perkins; and 6) Walgreen's ---The-- researched the approximate size of the above cited businesses located within the County and determined that all of these businesses are between 5,000 and 40,000 square feet and that the following businesses would not be permitted to be larger than 5,000 square feet if located within the CL district because staff would consider them a department store or variety store: 76 1) Dollar General Stores; 21 J Byron's; 3) J C. Penney Co. Inc.; and 4)..Woolworth.'s. Staff also researched the approximate size of food stores and discount stores permitted in the County in the last two years and checked on the approximate size of major department stores which are not currently located in the County but may locate here in the next five -to -ten years. All of those store types were found to be at -least 30,000 square feet in size as illustrated by the following information 1) Supermarkets (Albertson's, Publix, etc.) are in the 30 -to -40,000 square foot range; 2) Discount Stores (K -Mart, Wal-Mart, etc.) are in the 60 -to -85,000 square foot range; 3) Department Stores such as Belk -Lindsey, Jordan Marsh, Burdines, and Ivey is are in the 60 -to -80,000 square foot range; and 4) Large Department Store such as Macy's, Bloomingdales, etc. are in the 200,000+ square foot range. The staff feels that all of the uses discussed (i.e. variety stores, department stores, drug stores, supermarkets and discount stores) can be divided into two general size categories, those less than 40,000 square feet (including variety stores, small department stores, drug stores, and supermarkets) and those greater than 40,000 square feet (including large department stores and discount stores). Staff feels that it is difficult to define the differences among variety stores, department stores, and drug stores based on the type and variety of merchandise sold. In addition, the staff feels that the 40,000 square foot threshold for variety stores and department stores is more reasonable than the existing 5,000 square foot threshold based on the staff's survey of existing retail stores in the County. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that the County amend Section 25.1 (j) of the zoning ordinance to allow variety stores and department stores in the CL district to be up to 40,000 square feet in size. Chairman Scurlock opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. Architect John Schlitt, spoke in behalf of his brother, Ed Schlitt, who has a client interested in building a 35,000 sq. ft. department store on property zoned CL. He believed a 5,000 sq. ft. maximum restriction was unreasonable when comparing a department store to a drug store, and felt the proposed store would be a benefit to the area they wish to serve. John Brenner, Planning & Zoning Commissioner, agreed this was a mistake and felt this is a good opportunity to correct it. 77 �� �� � BOOK r•{�r ��� 35 BOOKS ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously closed the Public Hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance 87-7, amending the Zoning Code, increasing the gross floor area allowed for department stores, furniture and appliance sales showroom catalog stores and variety stores from 5,000 to 40,000 square feet in the CL, Limited Commercial District. 78 11/18/86 pnot2 ��_-- - - LR -Planning RS/vh ORDINANCE NO. 87- 7 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING SECTION 25.1 REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC LAND USES -- APPENDIX A OF THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, KNOWN AS THE ZONING CODE; INCREASING. THE GROSS FLOOR AREA ALLOWED FOR DEPARTMENT STORES, FURNITURE AND APPLIANCE SALES, SHOWROOM CATALOG STORES AND VARIETY STORES FROM 5,000 TO 40,000 SQUARE FEET IN THE CL, LIMITED COMMERCIAL DISTRICT; AND PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS, CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY, AND EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that: SECTION 1 Section 25.1 (j) (2) c.l. is hereby amended as follows: Section 25.1 (j) General Merchandise sales. (2) Department Store, furniture -and appliance sales, showroom catalog stores and variety store (Administrative Permit). a. Districts requiring administrative permit: department stores, furniture -and appliance sales, showroom catalog stores and variety stores may be allowed in the CL District upon receiving approval as an administrative permit as provided in Section 25.2 and after meeting the requirements defined below. b. Additional information requirements: 1. A site plan meeting all requirements of section 23. c. Criteria for department stores, furniture and appliance sales, showroom catalog stores and variety stores. 1. The total gross floor area of such establishments shall not exceed f j -(O_ t)195,AAAA 1 A%000Y forty thousand (40,000) square feet. SECTION 2 REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. All Special Acts of the legislature applying only to the unincorporated portion of Indian River County and which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. CODING: Words in WAOXl WO type are deletions from existing law. Words underlined are additions. 1987 ��� 1t� E U_`_7 �AN`i ORDINANCE NO. 87- 7 nT/�TTn1�9 ') BOOK 6 f,,, E CODIFICATION The provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated into the County Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section", "article", or other appropriate word, and the sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such intentions. nz.nmrnwT � SEVERABILITY If any section, part of a sentance, paragraph, phrase or word of this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, inoperative or void, such holdings shall not affect the remaining portions hereof and it shall be construed to have been the legislative intent to pass this ordinance without such unconstitutional, invalid or inoperative part. cc�nmrnwT e EFFECTIVE DATE The provisions of this ordinance shall become effective upon receipt from the Florida Secretary of State of official acknowledgment that this ordinance has been filed with the Department of State. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on this 13th day of January, 1987. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY By: 4C Don C. Scurlock, Jr.0 Chairman ATTEST BY: -5Aeo , rotes. FREDA WRIGHT.,✓CTs;8RK PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE CREATING PROFESSIONAL OFFICE ZONING DISTRICT The hour of 9:10 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to wit: VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Weekly Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being --�G' r in the matter of 14/�� / rn me Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of ��✓L�+w6 ��, ��d b Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver- tisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver- tisement for publication in the said newspaper. n Sworn to and subscribed before me this (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian bder County, Florida) rf NOTICE—PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, shall hold a public, hearing at which par- tles in interest.and citizens shall have an oppor- tunity to be, heard, In the County Commission Chambers of the County Administration Build - 'Ing, ' located at 1840 26th St; Vero:Beach, Flor- Ida; on Tuesday, January 13, 1987; at 9:10 a.m. to consider the adoption of an Ordinance enti- Ned a ;SAN ORDINANCE OF' `INDIAN RIVER ' COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING 'AP PENDIX A OF THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES; KNOWN AS, THE ZON- i 1NG CODE, ENACTING AN AMEND- MENT :TO THE: NON-RESIDENTIAL ' ?ZONING DISTRICTS AND SEVERAL RE- LATED ZONING REGULATIONS BY: 1) A.CREATING SECTION 17 'PRO PRO FESSIONAL OFFICE DISTRICT ' 2) •.AMENDING, SECTION 251 REGULA TIONS FOR SPECIFIC LAND USES;". AND PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISION AS WELL AS ' CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.. -A copy of the proposed Ordinance is available at the Planning Department -office on -the second loor of the County Administration Building: 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 proceeding a made which Includes the testimony and, evi- dence upon which the appeal will be based Yndian River County :. :Board of County Commissioners By: -s-Don C. Scurlock Jr., Chairman Seo. 22,1986 The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/31/86: TO: The Honorable Members DATE: December 31, 1986 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: , SUBJECT: CREATION OF PROFESSIONAL Robert M. Keating7AASCP OFFICE ZONING DISTRICT Planning & Development Director FROM-. rd Shearer, AICP REFERENCE&n. Off . /Resid. -Zoned Chief, Long -Range Planning Areas/RICH2 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of January 13, 1987. 81 JAN 13 1981 Boos JAN 1�, �2 DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS BOCK 66 PviF 930 The Planning Department has prepared a proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance which would create a professional office zoning district which could be located in selected residential areas. On January 9, 1985, the Board of County Commissioners and Plan- ning and Zoning Commission held a joint workshop to discuss the possibility of allowing offices as a special exception use in a few multiple -family zoning districts. The general consensus of individuals at the workshop was that the County should permit offices as a special exception use -in multiple -family districts abutting arterial streets. Moreover, some individuals felt that offices should also be allowed as a special exception use in single-family zoning districts that abutted arterial streets and there was discussion about allowing offices along collector streets and permitting accessory retail sales in conjunction with some of these offices. On July 24, 1985, the Board of County Commissioners decided not to amend the RM -6, RM -8 and RM -10 multiple -family zoning dis- tricts to allow offices as a special exception use on properties abutting an arterial street. The Board stated that the proposed amendment was too broad and would allow offices along State Road A -1-A which they did not feel was appropriate. The Board in- structed the staff to look at this situation again and prepare another proposal that would be more restrictive. In addition, the Board wanted to know specific areas where this type of development would be permitted. On January 23, 1986, the Planning and Zoning Commission con- sidered two alternatives and voted 4 -to -0 to recommend that the County allow professional offices in some residentially zoned areas along arterial streets and that this be implemented through the creation of a professional office zoning district. On February 26, 1986, the Board of County Commissioners tabled action on this item until the Planning Department could provide maps of the areas which might be considered for professional office development. On May 14, 1986, the Board of County Commissioners considered this issue again and authorized the staff to schedule public hearings on the proposed new professional office zoning district. On June 26, 1986, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 3 -to -0 to recommend approval of a professional office zoning district. At the public hearing, the planning staff recommended that Health Services, which would include doctor's offices, be removed from the proposed new zoning district because this type of use generates a large amount of traffic which would be inconsistent with the intent of the district. However, the Planning and Zoning Commission felt that Health Services should be included in this district. On July 23, 1986, the Board of County Commissioners tabled action on the proposed professional office zoning district. The Board indicated that they felt such a district should be utilized for redevelopment areas. and expressed concerns about the potential for spot zoning and encouraging strip commercial. development - through adoption of this zoning district. On December 11, 1986, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4 7 -to -0 to recommend approval of the PRO district with health services added as a special exception use. 82 ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS The staff has prepared a zoning ordinance amendment to create a professional office zoning district which would allow general offices to be established on properties abutting art-e-rdal -- streets. The proposed professional office zoning district would be con- sidered consistent with the LD -2, Low -Density Residential 2 (up to 6 units/acre), MD -1, Medium -Density Residential 1 (up to 8 units/acre), and MD -2, Medium -Density Residential 2 (up to 10 units/acre), land use designations. This zoning district would give the County discretion as to where his offices could be established. Subsequent to the Board of County Commissioner's meeting of July 23rd, the staff has revised the proposed professional office zoning district to indicate that it is designated to encourage redevelopment and minimum and maximum district sizes were added to reduce the possibilities of spot zoning and encouraging strip commercial zoning. RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning Commission feels that health services should be included in the PRO district as a special exception use. The staff respects the Planning and Zoning Commission's opinion but feels that health services generate an amount of traffic inconsistent with the other uses allowed in the PRO district and recommend that they not be included. Chairman Scurlock noted that staff's recommendation differs from the Planning & Zoning Commission in that staff wishes to exclude "medically related offices", due to the increased traffic that such offices generate. Commissioner Bowman preferred to workshop this further. Chairman Scurlock opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. John Brenner, member of the Planning & Zoning Commission, expressed his support of the proposed ordinance establishing a Professional Office District, especially with regard to 6th Avenue, because of the heavy traffic conditions. He felt there has been a change for the better with the professional offices along SR -60 in the city limits. Bill Koolage, 815 26th Avenue, disagreed that an improvement was made along SR -60 in the city. He suggested that the Board require a buffered limited access road along the commercial developments on SR -60, and urged the Board to be very careful of 83 Um BOOK o3 I ®6 BOOK 66 f,4,U '. 13 establishing some of these zoning districts because he believed it could destroy the character of Indian River County. John Schlitt, architect, believed that changes force changes, and that the changes that forced degradation in the case of SR -60 were due to the 4 -lane divided roadway. Frank Zorc, 2100 Vero Beach Avenue, did not believe that a Professional Ottice District would be in the best interests of the county right now. He disagreed that residential is not compatible alongside a 4 -lane road because people purchase brand new housing on 4 -lane roadways. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Bowman understood that we would be creating only the zoning district today, not the actual areas where it could be applied. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, that the Board adopted Ordinance 87-8, amending the Zoning Code by creating a Professional Office Zoning District (PRO), with the exclusion of "medical facilities". Under discussion, Commissioner Wheeler understood that the reason for excluding medical facilities is due to the traffic generated by those type of offices, and Mr. Brenner explained that the position of the P 8 Z Commission was to keep it in as a special exception. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. the Motion was voted on and carried unanimously. 84 11/20/86 pnot2 LR -Planning -- -- RSjvh ORDINANCE NO. 87-8 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING APPENDIX A OF THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, KNOWN AS THE ZONING CODE, ENACTING AN AMENDMENT- TO THE NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS AND SEVERAL RELATED ZONING REGULATIONS BY: 1) CREATING SECTION 17, "PRO: PROFESSIONAL OFFICE DISTRICT; 2) AMENDING SECTION 25.1, "REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC LAND USES"; AND PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS AS WELL AS CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY, AND EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: SECTION 1 A new Section 17, entitled "Professional Office District", is hereby adopted and shall read as follows: SECTION 17 PRO: PROFESSIONAL OFFICE DISTRICT A. Purpose and Intent The PRO, Professional Office District, is designed to encourage the development of vacant land and the redevelopment of blighted residential areas along major thoroughfares in selected areas of the County. The selected areas will be deemed as no longer appropriate for strictly single-family use but which are not considered appropriate for a broad range of commercial uses, as permitted in a commercial zoning district. The PRO district may serve as a buffer between commercial and residential uses or be estab- lished in areas in transition from single-family to more intensive land uses. The PRO district shall be limited in size so as not to create or significantly extend strip commercial development. The PRO district may be considered consistent with the LD -2, MD -1, MD -2, MXD, and commercial land use designations of the County's Comprehensive Plan when established based on the criteria in this ordinance. B. Standards for PRO: Professional Office District The establishment of all professional office districts shall be subject to the following standards: 1. Location On land designated as residential on the county's Comprehensive Plan the Professional Office District shall only be established for properties with frontage on an arterial street (as identified on the Thoroughfare Plan in the Traffic Circulation Element of the Comprehensive Plan). C. Permitted Uses Outdoor storage shall be prohibited within the PRO district. Site plan review shall be required for all uses except single-family dwellings, pursuant to the provisions of Section 23.1. In the PRO: Professional Office District, no building or structure shall be erected, altered or used, except for one or more of the following. ,JAN 1 '� 1987 85 eooK, 66 F�,,�Vcfjl PF,_ JAN V-3) 1987 BGGK ORDINANCE NO. 87-8 1. Residential Uses (subject to the density, size and dimension regulations of the RM -6 zoning district.) -Single-Family Dwellings -Duplexes -Multi-Family Dwellings 2. Institutional Uses -Places of Worship -Civic and Social Membership Organizations 3. Community Service Uses -Emergency Services -Post Offices 4. Recreational Uses -Parks and Playgrounds Open to the Public 5. Commercial Uses a) General Office and Financial Services -Professional Offices -Insurance and Real -Estate Services b) Business Services -Advertising Agency -Photography Studio D. Uses Requiring Administrative Permits The following uses shall be permitted within the PRO, Professional Office District, subject to the specific use criteria established in Section 25.1, "Regulations for Specific Land Uses" and review procedures established in Section 25.2, "Review of Uses Requiring Administrative Permits". 1. Institutional Uses (Sec. 25.1 (F)) -Child and Adult Care Facilities 2. Community Service Uses (Sec. 25.1 (G)) -Governmental Administration Buildings E. Accessory Uses and Structures As provided in Section 25 (G), "Accessory Uses and Structures". F. Dimensional Regulations As provided in Table 17, herein, and Section 3.1, "Application of District Regulations". G. Permitted Signage As provided in Section 25 (0), "Signs". H. Walls and Fences As provided in Section 25 (I), "Walls and Fences". 86 I. Minimum Separation from ResicLential_District Where a nonresidential use within a PRO district abuts a single-family or multiple -family zoning district, a landscaped bufferyard meeting the following specifications shall be required along the side and/or rear property lines. Single -Family Multiple -Family Zoning District Zoning District Minimum Separation 20 ft. 15 ft. Screening Requirement Type A Type B The bufferyard shall be measured at right angles to the lot line. All screening requirements shall meet the standards established in Section 23.1. No off-street parking or loading areas shall be permitted within the bufferyard. J. Required Improvements All future subdivisions and site plans for developments within the PRO zoning district shall provide the following improvements, designed and constructed to the requirements and specifications in the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Indian River County and the State of Florida: 1. Bikeways (as specified in the County Bikeway Plan, as currently exists or may hereafter be adopted). 2. Sidewalks. 3. Street Lights. TABLE 17: SIZE & DIMENSION CRITERIA PRO ZONING DISTRICT ZONING DISTRICT PRO REGULATION UNIT OF MEASURE MINIMUM LOT SIZE 10,000 Square Feet MINIMUM LOT WIDTH 100 Feet MINIMUM YARD -Front 25/75 2 -Side 20 -Rear 25 Feet MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE 35 % of Lot MINIMUM OPEN SPACEI 30 % of Lot MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT 35 Feet MINIMUM DISTRICT SIZE 5 Acres MAXIMUM DISTRICT SIZE 25 - Acres JAN 1 � �� JAN 87 Bo r'.3`Jt o�5 BOOK J N � T9 7 e,1 NOTES: 1. All lots created after the adoption of this ordinance shall meet the minimum lot size & lot width criteria. Residential uses shall be subject to the density, size and dimension regulations of the RM -6 zoning district. 2. The front yard setback shall be a minimum of twenty-five (25) feet except for developments abutting State Road 60 which shall provide a minimum front setback of seventy-five (75) feet as per paragraph 25 (1) (3) . SECTION 2 Paragraph 25.1 (f) (1) a. of Section 25.1 (f), "Regulations for Specific Land Uses, Institutional Uses", is hereby amended as follows: 25.1 (f) INSTITUTIONAL USES (1) Child Care or Adult Care Facilities. (Administrative Permit, Special Exception) a. Districts Requiring Administrative Permit: Child care or adult care facilities shall be allowed in the A-1, RFD, RM -8, RM -10, RM -14, RMH-6, RMH-8, ROSE -4, PRO, OCR and CN districts upon approval for an administrative permit as provided in Section 25.2 and after meeting the requirements defined below. nra�mr�wT 7 Paragraph 25.1 (g) (4) a. of Section 25.1 (g), "Regulations for Specific Land Uses, Community Service Uses", is hereby amended as follows: 25.1 (g) COMMUNITY SERVICE USES (4) Governmental Administration -Building. (Administrative Permit and Special Exception) a. Districts -Requiring Administrative Permits: Governmental administration buildings may be allowed in the PRO and MED district upon receiving approval for an administrative permit. SECTION 4 Subsection 25.1 (i) (1), "General Offices (Special Exception)," is hereby repealed in its entirety. SECTION 5 REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS --- _...All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the Board of County Commissioners or Indian River County, Florida which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such con i%t: All Special Acts of the legislature applying only to the unincorporated portion of Indian 88 River County and which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are herebyrepealedto the extent of such conflict. INCORPORATION IN CODE The provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated into the County Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section", "article", or other appropriate word, and the sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such intentions. SECTION 7 ' SEVERABILITY If any Section, part of a sentence, paragraph, phrase or word of this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, inoperative or void, such holdings shall not affect the remaining portions hereof and it shall be construed to have been the legislative intent to pass this ordinance without such unconstitutional, invalid or inoperative part. SECTION 8 EFFECTIVE DATE The provisions of this ordinance shall become effective upon receipt from the Florida Secretary of State of official acknowledgment that this ordinance has been filed with the Department of State. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on this 13th day of January, 1987. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: .-,c G DON C. SCURLOCK, JR., C A RMAN r ATTEST BY: cy FREDA WRIGHT, E17 7" . . 89 JAN 13 1907 BOOK E 3 JAN 13 f 7 Buoy b' 1,�,uE 9 PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE REPEALING ORD. 86-60 WHICH ORIGINALLY ESTABLISHED THE PUBLIC LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD The hour of 9:10 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to wit: VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Weekly Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being ,—.w ✓_ .. J in the matter of in the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of - 4966 Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is' a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver- tisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver- tisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed before me this Aav o A.D. (SEAL) (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, Florida) PUBLIC NOTICE The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida. will conduct a Public Hearing on Tuesday. January 13. 1987. at 9:10 a.m. •in the Commission Chambers at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, FL 32980, to. consider, the adoption of an ordinance entitled: ' "'1.: AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER.' COUNTY REPEALING ORDINANCE BB• 50„ WHICH ESTABLISHED THE INDIAN; " RIVER COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY AD , V19ORY BOARD; AND PROVIDING FOR} EFFECTIVE DATE se if any person decides to appeal any decision made on the above matter, hp/she will. need a record of.the proceedings, and for such:pur poses, he/she may need to ensure that a verba tim record of the proceedings Is. made. which record includes the testimony.; in evidence. ort which the appeal is be based. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ,BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, DON C SCURLOCtC JR., CHAIRMAN Dec The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1-7-87: 90 TO: The Board of -County Commissioners DATE: January 7, 1987 SUBJECT: Ordinance Repealing Ordinance 86-60 Which Originally Established the Public Library Advisory Board C. FROM: Bruce Barkett4 Assistant County Attorney Since the Public Library Advisory Board has now been established by Resolution 86-104, it is necessary to repeal Ordinance 86-60 which originally.created that Board. For your review and consideration I have prepared the attached ordinance which will repeal Ordinance 86-60. Chairman Scurlock opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously closed the Public Hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance 87-9 repealing Ordinance 86-60 which originally established the Public Library Advisory Board. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously amended Resolution 86-104, changing the termination date of office from November 1st to January 1st. 91 Boo. JAN 13 1940-7 ��® ®� 12/16/86(B4)LEGAL(Bnm) BOCK ORDINANCE NO. 87- 9 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY REPEALING ORDINANCE 86-60, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD; AND PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County finds it to be in the public interest to establish public advisory boards by Resolution rather than by Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has established the Public Library Advisory Board by Resolution 86-104 with the intent of repealing Indian River County Ordinance 86-60; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County that Indian River County Ordinance 86-60, establishing the Indian River County Public Library Advisory Board, is hereby repealed. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective upon receipt from the Secretary of State of the State of Florida of official acknowledgment that this Ordinance has been filed with the Department of State. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, on this 13th day of January 11 1987, This Ordinance was advertised in the Vero. Beach Press -Journal on the 20th day of December 1986, for a public hearing to be held on the 13th day of January 1987, at which time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner Bird w, seconded by Commissioner Bowman and adopted by the following vote: 1 ORDINANCE NO. 87-9 Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye Vice Chairman Margaret C. Bowman Aye Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler Aye BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By Don C curlock, r Chairman Attest.By Freda Wgi ghtC' Clerk L? DISCUSSION RE WINTER BEACH CEMETERY The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/7/87: TO: The Board of County Commissioners DATE: January 7, 1987 SUBJECT: Winter Beach Cemetery FROM: Bruce Barkett' Assistant Cou ty Attorney The Winter Beach Cemetery Association has asked to be put on the agenda to discuss a prior dedication of property to the association by the Board of County Commissioners. The Kiwanis-Hobart Park area was dedicated to the County by the State of Florida Department of Natural Resources which in turn had acquired the property with a grant of federal funds. The dedication to the County restricted use of -the property for County park and public recreational purposes, and contained a reverter clause at the option of the Trustees in the event the area was used for other than park and recreational purposes. (Trustees dedication attached as Exhibit "A".) In August, 1980, the Board of County Commissioners. executed a dedication of a portion of the Hobart tract for cemetery purposes and cemetery -related services. (See Exhibit "B" attached.) This dedication of approximately 19.7 acres was made by the County prior to authorization from the Department of Natural Resources and prior to authorization from the United States Department of Interior. 93 Ll.__,JAN 1� *wJdt BOOK ru" �y. A� -11 ` 1007 BOOK 6 6 ;k,, .9 42t There is a process by which the County could transfer the reverter clause currently encumbering the 19.7 -acre parcel to another parcel of property which is equally valuable and equally suitable for recreation purposes. The process involves an application to the Land and Water Conservation Fund Grant Program administered by the National Park Service, United States Department of Interior through the State of Florida Department of Natural Resources. This process was initiated sometime prior to 1983 in an attempt to remove the reverter from the 19.7 -acre parcel to give effect to the County's dedication to the Winter Beach Cemetery. A map attached as Exhibit "C" depicts the 19.7 -acre parcel as well as the 38 -acre parcel which the County was willing to encumber to satisfy the State and Federal requirements for converting the encumbrance. That application process was never completed by DNR in 1983. In mid -1986, at.•Commissioner Wodtke's urging, this office began investigating the matter and in fact completed and filed a new application to begin the conversion process again. Unfortunately, the 38 -acre parcel which the County proposed to substitute for the 19.7 -acre parcel is already dedicated to recreation and is in fact part of the County's new golf course. The Department of Natural Resources has indicated that since the 38 -acre parcel is already part of the park and permanently dedicated to outdoor recreation, it is' unsuitable as. replacement property for the 19.7 acres. The replacement property must be an addition to the recreational property within the County since there would be a withdrawal of the 19.7 acres from recreational use. (Correspondence from Department of Natural Resources --attached as Exhibit "D",) This item is put before the Board for guidance. Options include rescinding the 1980 dedication to the Winter Beach Cemetery Association, since at the time the dedication was made, the Board may not have been made aware of the fact that the property is encumbered by a reverter clause such that any attempted use by the cemetery could trigger reverter of title to the State of Florida, and since the proposed substitute property is unsuitable for transfer of the reverter clause. A second option includes seeking an additional parcel of property held in fee simple title by the County, of equal value to the 19.7 acres, and equally suitable for recreational use, said property to be used as a substitute property for. the 19.7 -acre parcel, if acceptable to the State of Florida and the United States Department of Interior. The 19.7 -acre parcel was appraised at $125,000.00 and at $138,000.00 in two appraisals done in 1985. Assistant County Attorney Bruce Barkett reviewed the options on this matter. Commissioner Bird wished to see us reconfirm the decision of the prior Commission to deed this property to the Winter Beach Cemetery Association and direct staff to check our present inventory of lands to find another piece of property that would be suitable for transferring the necessary restricted covenants. He understood that anyone can be buried there and that it is a public cemetery. 94 M M Chairman Scurlock recalled that back in 1980 when the Board approved this, the thought was this was an adjacent piece of property that really had not cost Indian River County anything_,_V—_ and it would allow the cemetery to expand on that 18 or 19 acres, and would serve the public interest. Now, he felt that there is a potential of the County having to go out and spend $200,000 in order to secure this 19 acres for this purpose. Chairman Scurlock emphasized that he was not interested in going out and spending $250,000 to obtain another piece of property. He asked if there was a maintenance agreement that people enter into to be buried up there. Assistant County Attorney Bruce Barkett advised that there is no file on this matter. Glen A. Strunk, 3895 Indian River Drive, explained that way back when an indigent died at the train station, he was buried in the cemetery at no cost, and no one has paid since then. He believed that the people of Winter Beach who have friends and relatives buried there have donated money for this care, and stressed that through the years this cemetery has saved a sub- stantial amount of money for the county by burying indigents at no cost, and now the cemetery is running out of space to bury local people. Attorney Vitunac felt that if.the County wants to help the cemetery, then perhaps we could purchase some land nearby that is not covered by a federal reverter and is not part of our park system. Chairman Scurlock asked if the property off of Oslo Road that we are considering acquiring would comply with the federal government requirements, and Attorney Barkett felt an analysis would have to be done to determine whether it has equal monetary and recreational value. In addition, it would have to be similarly situated in the county so that an equal number of people have access to it and has topography that is compatible with recreational uses. 95 JAN13 1987 L'�UP i9 Ars y JAN 1 �23 1987 -7 Boos ,:9 4 Commissioner Eggert suggested that we table this item until a land study is done. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, that the Board table this matter for a month until we get further information and determine our alternatives. Commissioner Bird noted that the Winter Beach people have been very patient in sitting here all morning, and felt that in order to move this a step further along, he would prefer a stronger Motion that would reaffirm our position on making this land available to them and then turn this matter over to staff to f work out the logistics of trying to find a piece of property to which we can transfer the reverter. Commissioner Eggert did not wish to change her Motion. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion was voted on and carried by a vote of 4-1, Commissioner Bird dissenting. Chairman Scurlock explained for the benefit of those people in attendance that the County is thinking about acquiring 20-40 acres off of Oslo Road for utilities, etc., and the Motion is that we are going to explore the possibility of seeing if the government will allow us to acquire that as a trade for, the subject property. If that is acceptable, then we will move ahead and it will come back within a month's time for the Board to make a determination. Commissioner Bowman stated that in any event, there is no --- fin-te-ration of wiping out the cemetery. Leon Blanton, 2626 27th Street, Chairman of the Winter Beach Cemetery Association, explained that they have worked with the County for a long period of time on this matter and have been 96 7— L_ assured from time to time that in 90 days everything would be resolved. He wished to see this matter finally resolved. DISCUSSION REGARDING ESTATE OF JULIAN W. LOWENSTEIN The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/7/87: TO: 'Honorable Boardof County DATE: January 7, 1987 FILE: Commissioners THROUGH: Charles P. Balczun SUBJECT: Estate of Julian W. Lowenstein County Administrator FROM: TommiThomas REFERENCES: Intergovernmental Coordinator Attached is a map of an ocean front lot adjacent to the Lier property which has been given to the County which in turn is adjacent to a part we purchased with the proceeds of the $5,000,000 Bond Issue. This property is part of the estate of Julian W. Lowenstein. I would like an indication from the Honorable Board of County Corry - -- missioners as to whether they would like to proceed to attempt to acquire this property. Commissioner Bowman wondered if this price could be renegotiated for a tax write off, but Commissioner Bird felt that while the figure is in the ballpark, it comes down to whether we want to acquire more oceanfront property and if we have the money to purchase the property. Intergovernmental Relations Directory Tommy Thomas just wanted guidance on this particular piece of property because it would be an extension of existing County -owned beachfront. He felt there could be some renegotiation on this price. Chairman Scurlock felt that since we don't have the money on hand, perhaps this could be purchased through the tourist tax dollars as he understood there is a bond potential on those funds. Attorney Vitunac pointed out that we also may have franchise fee money coming in from the City of Vero Beach by the end of the 97 `987 Boor, , FF -JAN 1 ,2 IA7 BOOK 66 ra y. 946 year that could be used for this, and perhaps we could make a contract contingent on that money being available which would give us 6 months or so to fish or cut bait. Commissioner Wheeler wanted to purchase -the property if we can find the money, and Commissioner Bird suggested that Director Thomas be instructed to respond back to them that we do have an interest and request time to look at some funding possibilities. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously authorized Director Thomas to continue to negotiate the price of this property and check further into funding possibilities. DISCUSSION RE RAILROAD HORN ORDINANCE The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/7/87: TO: The Board of County Commissioners DATE: January 7, 1987 SUBJECT:_ Road Horn Ordinance FROM:' s an Wilson A istant County Attorney The Cities of Vero Beach and Sebastian have adopted ordinances to exclude themselves from the operation of. the above -referenced County ordinance. Therefore, I am prepared to authorize the Traffic Division to post the appropriate warning signs at the railroad crossings thereby making this ordinance effective. Shortly after hearing that the Cities had adopted their ordinances on this subject, I met with the attorney for the FEC, Paul Ri sner, and with the City Attorneys for the City of Vero Beach and Sebastian. At that meeting, Mr. Risner advised us that the FEC had decided to challenge the statute authorizing our ordinance on constitutional grounds. To set up the case, the FEC will instruct their engineers to deliberately violate our ordinance and force criminal charges to be filed against the engineers. The FEC will then claim that 'the criminal charges are invalid based upon an unconstitutional statute and will attempt to litigate this matter in the appellate courts. Their apparent intention is to do away with all simiIiar ordinances that ha�+e been passed in this state. I will keep you advised on all developments in this matter. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. 98 It was generally agreed that if the FEC wished to pursue this matter in court, that would be okay with the County because the County does not wish to repeal its ordinance. The Boar_ instructed staff to to go ahead and post the necessary warning signs. REQUEST TO CHANGE COUNTY ORDINANCE RELATING TO LAND CLEARING, LITTERING AND PUBLIC DUMPS The Board reviewed the following letter dated 12/29/86: ' BOARD OF COUNTY COMMI 1840 25th Street. Vero Beach, Floy Telephone* (305) 567.51000 December 29, 1986 Mr. Fred Mensing P. 0. Box 476 Sebastian, FL 32958-0476 RE: Request For Changes To County Ordinance No. 77-39 Relating To Land Clearing, Littering and Public Dumps Dear Mr. Mensing: way° oo Telephone: 424-iu i 1 STRIBUTION LIST Commissioners Administrator Attorney Personnel Public Works Community Dev. Utilities Finance Other Thank you for your letter dated December 23, 1986, regarding proposed changes to the landclearing, littering and public dumps ordinance. Presently, no disposal of garbage, trash rubbish or solid waste, including landclearing debris, is permitted except through franchise collectors or at facilities provided by the County (Sec. 13-10). In the case of disposal of landclearing debris following any clearing operation of a site, County staff has taken the position that the debris is to be hauled to the County landfill or burned on-site after receiving a permit from the Division of Forestry. Addi- tionally, staff has allowed for a sixty day grace period so that the vegetative material can dry and burn more readily where burning is the selected disposal method. Planning Staff is opposed to allowing the removal of landclearing debris through on site burying or composting due to the prolonged breakdown period of non -herbaceous material which serve as breeding places for vermin or create unstable building sites. In your letter you suggest certain charges to the ordinance that you feel will eliminate staff's concerns, however, I do not believe that the suggested changes are enforceable given the present County staff and feel that on ,site burying will have long term- negative.. effects on future building sites in developing areas. 99 ,pUp J a AN 13 1987 BOOK r'U 4. � JAN 1 � 1987 BOOR 6 N" .�E 948 I am presuming that your request is based upon the changes and greater restrictions to the Division of Forestry's open burning rule. I agree with you that the new rule will create diffi- culties in disposing of landclearing debris in the North County and that the air curtain incinerator concept is a disposal approach which could be useful in that area. If you wish to pursue these matters further, I suggest that you present your thoughts to the Board of County Commissioners at their next available meeting so that County staff may be authorized to do additional study and prepare -a formal recom- mendation to your request. If you have any questions or if I'may be of further assistance, please contact me at 567-8000. Sincerely, Art Challacombe Chief Environmental Planning Fred Mensing suggested tabling this item until next week when Art Challacombe of Environmental Planning can be in attendance. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously tabled this item until next week's meeting. UPDATE ON FELLSMERE ROAD PAVING PROGRAM Attorney Vitunac recalled that the former County Administrator Michael Wright, with the Board's concurrence he believed, volunteered County staff to help Fellsmere pave their roads. It is down to the serious stage, and Fellsmere is planning to adopt a bond resolution this Thursday night. Attorney Vitunac advised.that he would be providing legal help, OMB Director Joe Baird would be providing financial help, and Public Works Director Jim Davis will be providing engineering help. We are going to get them to hire consultants, but if the Board approves, the County will be doing the special assessment program and all the legal work for them. Attorney Vitunac just wanted to make sure this is an authorized function of his office so he is not without liability insurance. 100 Chairman Scurlock stated that Michael Wright did not authorize anything. What happened is that he, himself, indicated to the Mayor of Fellsmere that the Commissioners' feeling wa-s to work with them on a special assessment because they are so small and they could contract for legal service and other financial or engineering expertise from the County. The thought process was that as part of the special assessment that was drawn up, some of those costs could be recouped. He stressed that it is not free service, it is just less expensive service. In other words, when they do the special assessment they could include several thousand dollars to cover the costs of the attorney's time and Director Baird's time. ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously authorized the use of County staff to assist Felismere in the special assessment for their road paving program. LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION MEETING Intergovernmental Relations Director Tommy Thomas advised that the Legislative Delegation will be meeting in Vero Beach on January 28, 1987, and will be discussing the abolishment of the Town of Orchid. The Planning Department has prepared visual aids and maps for the presentation, and he invited all the Commissioners to attend. Director Thomas further advised that the State has budgeted $400,000 in library funding for Indian River County - half for Sebastian and half for Vero Beach. However, the funds are to be . appropriated at a later date and the Delegation can really assist us on this. Everyone involved with the libraries is urged to attend because all the support we can get will be appreciated. 101 JAN 1 6 1907 �er'x - ` 9 J X987 GOLF CART BIDS - SANDRIDGE GOLF CLUB EOOK �a �1 The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/13/87: TO: Honorable Board of County DATE: January 13, 1987 Commissioners THROUGH: Tommy Thomas I Intergovernmental Coordinator FROM: Jos h A. Baird OMB Director 1. Description & Conditions SUBJECT: Bids for Golf Cars Bids were received Thursday, January 8, 1987 at 11:00 A.M. for IRC Bid #332 - Sixty (60) New 4 Wheel Gasoline Golf Cars. Four (4) bids were received. 2. Alternatives and Analysis Bids submitted were based on outright purchase or a 48 month lease. The low bid for 48 month lease is Islander Golf Cars, Wabasso, F1. and for the outright purchase is E -Z -Go Golf Cars, Ft. Lauderdale, F1. After evaluating the bids, staff feels that we should address the alternative of a 48 month lease without a maintenance agreement. In addition, we would like a copy of the lease agreements and maintenance agreements to be forwarded with the bids to be reviewed by the County's staff. 3. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners reject the bids and authorize staff to readvertise. Commissioner Bird felt that in rebidding this, we should decide whether we want a 2 -cycle or 4 -cycle engine because the big difference is in the fuel. The two-cycle engine must be fueled with a mixture of oil and gas. Director Thomas felt the 4 -cycle engine is far superior for type of operation. 102 ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously rejected the bids received and authorized staff to rebid the carts with a 4 -cycle engine. TOURIST TAX DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Commissioner Wheeler reported that*the Committee favored the creation of two separate taxing districts, which was suggested by the City of Vero Beach; one district in the County and one in the City. The City reconfirmed this position in a special call meeting yesterday. While he felt there are some drawbacks, they could be overcome. He understood that the tourist tax ordinance is advertised for a Public Hearing on January 27th. Chairman Scurlock supported the recommendation, but agreed there are some drawbacks with the two districts. He expected the City's portion to dwindle and the County's portion to increase because of the City's inability to expand, but stated he is willing to go along with it. It was generally agreed that the County would go along with the creation of two separate taxing districts, and understood that the formal decision will be made in a Public Hearing on January 27, 1987. REPORT ON EMERGENCY SERVICES COORDINATING COMMITTEE Commissioner Eggert requested that the Indian River County Hospital District be added to the list of participating organizations, along with Indian River Memorial Hospital, Inc., as there are now two separate boards at the hospital. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously added the Indian River County Hospital District to the list of participating organizations. 103 JAN 13 1987 BOOK REPORT ON GIFFORD HOUSING IMPROVEMENT COMMITTEE Commissioner Eggert reported that the Gifford Housing Improvement Committee is applying again for the housing preservation grant program, and hope to get some of the $230,000 available. REPORT ON PUBLIC LIBRARY SITE SUB -COMMITTEE Commissioner Eggert reported that this group will be looking at possible library sites, and requested authorization for them to travel by bus to view the sites in Sebastian and Vero Beach. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved bus travel for the committee to view sites in Sebastian and Vero Beach. APPOINTMENT TO THE FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE Chairman Scurlock recommended that Bill Jordan be appointed to the Finance Advisory Committee. Mr. Jordan serves on the Airline Pilot Investment Committee and has offered to serve on the Finance Advisory Committee. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously appointed Bill Jordan to the Finance Advisory Committee. Commissioner Eggert left the meeting at 1:00 o'clock P.M. in order to attend another meeting. DISCUSSION REGARDING PLANTING A LARGE OAK TREE IN POCAHONTAS PARK Commissioner Bowman wished to have the County transplant a large oak tree in Pocahontas Park on Arbor Day to replace a large banyan tree that had to be cut down recently. She reported that. 104 Vernon Krause is clearing an area down on U.S. #1 for his new showroom and has indicated we could have a large oak tree if we wished. She asked if the tree spade that staff was authorized to—^_ purchase from Tom Guettler was available for this transplant. Intergovernmental Relations Director Tommy Thomas explained that the tree spade that Guettler offered to us for $22,000 is still not in our hands. Tom Guettler is working on a job in Jacksonville, but he still is saying that he will sell the spade to us. Commissioner Wheeler wished to see some trees transplanted in the median along the SR -60 corridor. The Board indicated their agreement to Commissioner Bowman coordinating the transplant of an oak tree with the City of Vero Beach if a tree spade is available. COUNTY REAFFIRMATION TO CORPS OF ENGINEERS OF ABILITY AND WILLINGNESS TO SHARE IN THE COST OF AUTHORIZED BEACH RENOURISHMENT WORK The Board reviewed the following letter dated 12/15/86: DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY JACKSONVILLE DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS P. O. BOX 4970 JACKSONVILLE. FLORIDA 32232-0019 D b REPLY TO ecem Cr 15, 1986 ATTENTION OF Planning Division Coastal Branch Mr. Gary Wheeler, Chairman Beach Preservation and Restoration Committee 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960-3365 Dear Mr. Wheeler: This is in reference to your discussions with Mr. David Schmidt Of my staff on December 3, 1986, concerning the Design Memorandum (CP&E) Report for the Indian River County beach erosion control project. Due to the construction price level increases indicated in the report, it would be appropriate at this time for the county to reaffirm by letter its ability and willingness to cost share in the authorized beach nourishment work. This would allow us to avoid any potential delay in approval of the design memorandum. Sincerely, 4- J- atc"' A. J. Salem Chief, Planning Division 105 BOOK JAIL I) Boy Commissioner Wheeler wished to recommend that we reaffirm to the Corps of Engineers our willingness to continue our support of the program. He explained that the way the cost share program is set up now, the Corps uses the simple figures of 65% federal and 350 local, with 750 of that 35% to come out of the State if everything proceeds. He understood from talking with the County Attorney that a reaffirmation would simply say that if the funds are available, we would like them, and would like to stay on the list, etc. It seems that the intent of the Commission in the past has been that if there is a great deal of local money to be spent on this project, it should go to referendum, and this 'letter in no way eliminates that possibility. Attorney Vitunac confirmed that this is simply a request for reaffirmation of our willingness to participate in the beach renourishment project by the Corps of Engineers; it is not a contract for money. Chairman Scurlock had a problem with the word "ability", because until we get the coastal management study results from Cubit Engineering, we don't know just how much money is involved. Discussion took place on how the letter should be worded. Chairman Scurlock had a problem with leading the Corps down the primrose path and then having to tell them goodbye if the voters did vote this issue down. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, that the Board authorize the County Attorney to prepare a letter for the Chairman's signature reaffirming the County's commitment to participate in the project. -- -"Frank Zorc, 2100 Vero Beach Avenue, remarked that he was basically pretty happy about what he has heard here this morning in regard to beach renourishment, but noted that this Commission twice in the past has voted in favor of holding a referendum of 106 the voters in this community before a beach restoration job is done, and the last time the vote was only 4-1, with Commissioner Wodtke voting against the referendum. He questioned using the word "ability", because right now we do not have the money in hand to pay our share. He had no problem with the letter as long as it is made clear to the Corps that there is a referendum involved which will be the ultimate deciding factor. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion was voted on and carried unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Eggert having left the meeting early). BOARD OF COUNTY COMMIS: _ ;X9RS 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Telephone: (305) 567-8000 R January 15, 1987 Mr. A. J. Salem, Chief Planning Division Dept. of the Army Corps of Engineers Jacksonville District Post Office Box 4970 Jacksonville, FL 32232-0019 Dear Mr. Salem: Suncom Telephone: 424-1011 Re: 'INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BEACH EROSION CONTROL PROJECT As requested by you in a letter dated December 15, 1986, please consider this letter to be a 'reaffirmation of Indian River County's ability and willingness to cost share in the authorized beach renourishment work; which affirmation was last given to you by letter dated December 21, 1984. Sincerely, Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Chairman JAS 197 , 07 �ooK F;'u� JAN a _ g BOOL DOCUMENTS TO BE MADE PART OF THE RECORD A___Approval_of Petition for Admission to Holley State Hospital for John_ Spann,_ Jr_ APPROVAL OF PETITION FOR ADMISSTON TO A. C. HOLLEY STATE HOSPITAL TATE OF FLORIDA Patient or County must arrange and pay transpor- (AINTY OF Indian Paver Cation to and from hospital n the matter of the application of Spann, Jobn Jr. Last First Middle or admission to the A. G. Holley State Hospital. 0 LI►e Superintcncic-nt of auld 110HI)LCal: Upon filing of the petition of the above named person and the presentation of the •eport of Doctor Espino; 0, M.D.s TB Control District IX , Florida, Last First Middle City or"l'own !xamintng physician, that the said applicant is afflicted with tuberculosis: The Beard of C-ounty Commissioners does hereby grant approval to the application of laid applicant for admission to the above stated Florida Tuberculosis hospital, and said ivard docs hereby agree Lo pay to the hospital monthly $1.25 per diem for the care and Iainteuance of sald appllcanL and the Ilospltal will credit this County with FirsL $1.25 u]lected for each day from any source under the Fee Collection Program, ChapLer 4112.33, 'lorlda StaLutes. The Board of County Commissioners agrees to accept responsibility for any, non-resident ,atient, when lie Is ready for discharge, if the, said Board had approved the non-residunt iaticnt's admitstun Lo the SLaLu Tuberculosis Hospital. The following action has been initiated by the County: (1) 1111S Dorm 280 completed and forwarded to the Hospital (2) 11RS Dorm 280 provided to client with appropriate instructions for completion and submission to Lhe hospital. (3) Other - Please explain: (SEAL) Approved by the Board of County Commissioners 4 ATT ST of Indian River County, Florida,DA'I ED A'1' iDe Date January 9, 1987 19 1 o cur oc J Chilli ,an Petition approved by: 7 _._ M.D. 108 �I There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 1:10 o'clock Ps-. _ ATTEST: r / G Clerk Chairman 109 JAN 13 1987 BOOK 957