Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/5/1987Tuesday, May 5, 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, May 5, 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; Joseph Baird, OMB Director; and Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk. The Chairman called the meeting to order, and Attorney Vitunac led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS Chairman Scurlock announced that staff wished to remove two items from today's agenda, as follows: 6B - Traffic Signal Maintenance Contract with the City of Sebastian 12A- Request to Adopt Resolution urging establishment of a Florida Dept. of Veteran's Affairs The Chairman further advised that Item 6D - Malone Petition for Abandonment - will be removed from the Consent Agenda and heard as Item 80 as it requires a Public Hearing. Chairman Scurlock wished to add a report on the Medical Examiner's request for additional funds as Item 12A, and asked that a report on Library site appraisals and a report on ALS be added under Commissioner Eg9ert's matters. L MAY 51987 ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the above additions and deletions from today's agenda. BOOK 68 fg ;L 2ll rMAY 5 1987 BOOK 68 PAGE 212 APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Chairman asked if there were any additions or corrections to the Minutes 1987. There were none. of the Regular Meeting of April 14, ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Com- missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 14, 1987, as written. CONSENT AGENDA Chairman Scurlock noted that Item B has been removed from today's agenda, and Item D has been moved to be heard as Item 8D under public hearings. A. Acceptance of Sheriff's Confiscated Fund Report Covering 7/1/86 through 12/31/86 The Board reviewed the following letter: �I�eriff P. O. BOX 608 PHONE 588.6700 March 30, 1987 MEMORANDUM R.T."TIM • DOBECK • INDIAN RIVER COUNT}' MEMBER FLORIDA SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION MEMBER OF NATIONAL SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION VERO11EA 11, FLORIDA 32961-(X108 TO : JOE BAIRD, BUDGET DIRECTOR FROM :. RICHARD DEES, BUSINESS MANAGER RE : FLORIDA CONTRABAND FORFEITURE Attached are the quarterly reports for the periods ending September 30, 1986 and December 31, 1986. Also attached are two checks totaling $17,357.61 representing sale proceeds and forfeited cash, less legal fees for the period 10-1-86 thru 12-31-86. I apologize for the lateness of the reports and will attempt to be more current in the future. If you have any questions or any further information is required, please let me know. RICHARD DEES, BUSINESS MANAGER 2 a ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com- missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously accepted the above confiscated fund reports for the record. (SAID REPORTS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD) B. Traffic Signal Maint. Contract/Sebastian Removed from today's agenda. C. Release of Easement - Cherry Lane Manor (Sturgis) The Board reviewed memo of Code Enforcement Officer Heath: TO: The Honorable Members DATE: April 10, 1987 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE UlRobert Mfeaf' g, cc P m Develo elt Director Planning & p J � SUBJECT: THROU'e' Roland M. DeBloi / FROM: arses W. Heath REFERENCES: G S MEMO Code Enforcement Officer MISC1 Planner RELEASE OF EASEMENT REQUEST BY CHARLES H. & GAYLE B. STURGIS SUBJECT PROPERTY: LOTS 4 & 5 CHERRY LANE MANOR SUB- DIVISION It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of May 5, 1987. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: The County has been petitioned by Charles H. and Gayle B. Sturgis, owners of the subject property, for the release of the common three (3) foot side lot utility and drainage easements of Lots 4 & 5, being the southerly three (3) feet of Lot 4, and the northerly three (3) feet of Lot 5, Cherry Lane Manor Sub- division, Section 32, Township 32, Range 39 East, Indian River County, Florida; according to the Plat thereof as recorded in the Official Record Book 4, Page 77. It is the petitioner's intention to construct a residential addition and a swimming pool, and an associated fenced enclosure; the release of easement is requested in an effort to satisfy zoning regula- tions requiring a pool to be setback five (5) feet from any easement. The current zoning classification is RS -3, Single -Family Residential District. The Land Use Designation is LD -1, Low Density Residential, allowing up to three (3) units per acre. 3 L24AY 51937 qq BOOK Fr3ut 21c MAY 5 1987 BOOK 68 H.cE214 ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: The request has been reviewed by Southern Bell Telephone, Vero Beach Power Company, Indian River Cablevision Corporation, and the Indian River County Utility and Right -of -Way Departments. Based upon their reviews, there were no objections to the release of the easements. Staff analysis indicates that drainage would still be adequately handled on-site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends to the Board, through adoption of a resolu- tion, the release of the common three (3) foot side lot utility and drainage easements of Lots 4 and 5, being the southerly three (3) feet of Lot 4, and the northerly three (3) feet of Lot 5, Cherry Lane Manor Subdivision, Section 32, Township 32, Range 39 East, Plat Book 4, Page 77, of the Public records of Indian River County. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com- missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 87-42 releasing the common three foot side lot utility and drainage easements of Lots 4 and 5 Cherry Lane Manor Subdv. as requested by Charles and Gayle Sturgis. RESOLUTION NO. 87-42 A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ABANDONING CERTAIN EASEMENTS IN THE Cherry Lane Manor Subdivision, Lots 4 and 5 WHEREAS, Indian River County has easements as described below, and WHEREAS, the retention of those easements serves no public purpose, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida that: This release of easement is executed by Indian River County, Florida, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, whose mailing address is 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960, Grantor, to Charles H. and Gayle B. Sturgis whose mailing address is 3215 62nd Court, Vero 4 Beach, Florida 32960, Grantee, as follows: Indian River County does hereby abandon all right, title, and interest that it may have in the following described easements: SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE. THIS RESOLUTION was moved for adoption by Bird Commissioner Eggert May seconded by Commissioner and adopted on the - 5t.- day of , 1987, by the following vote: Commissioner Scurlock Commissioner Bowman Commissioner Bird Commissioner Eggert Commissioner Wheeler Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this -5th--- day of Ma-% , 1987. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By EXHIBIT "A" Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Chairman The southerly three (3) feet of Lot 4, and the northerly three (3) feet of Lot 5, Cherry Lane Manor Subdivision as recorded in Plat Book 4 Page 77, of the Official Records of Indian River County, Florida, Section 32, Township 32, Range 39 East. D. Petition for Abandonment/Portion of 19th Ave. (Malone) Removed from Consent Agenda and to be heard as Item 8D under public hearings. 5 MAY 5 1987 BOOK 68 F' E 215 L riVIAY 5 1987 BOOK 68 FaG[ 216 E. Resolution asking FDOT to Proceed with Improvements to SR5 between South Relief Canal and 10th St. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com- missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 87-43, as follows: RESOLUTION NO. 87- 43 WHEREAS, the Florida Department of Transportation has scheduled the widening of State Road 5 (US 1) between the South Relief Canal and 10th Street during fiscal year 1987-1988; and WHEREAS, The Florida Department of Transportation had originally scheduled the widening of State Road 5 during fiscal year 1986-1987; and WHEREAS, the annual average daily traffic volume on State Road 5 in this section has increased from 23,900 in 1985 to 25,100 in 1986 and is operating at a level of service D; and WHEREAS, the lack of left -turn lanes at 4th and 8th Street contributes to safety problems at the intersections. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that The Florida Department of Transportation proceed with planned improvements to State Road 5 between the South Relief Canal and 10th Street at soon as possible to improve safety. The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Bird who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Comnissiopee. -Egg .4 ! .'. .. and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: APR i237 .i Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye ��, u Vice -Chairman Margaret C. Bowman Aye : - .1"Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye ,t>' C.... J o •rr 0 Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye b� Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler Aye ,e,„‹%1Z1.°() , , r The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 5th day of May , 1987. 6 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORID BY C c_ SCURI DON . Chairman F. Bid #346 - Compact TractorlMower (Parks Department) The Board reviewed memo of Purchasing Manager Goodrich: TO:Board of County Commissioners DATE: April 24, 1987 THRU: Joseph A. Bair Director, Budge Office FROM • Caroly Goodrich, Manager Purchasing Department FILE: SUBJECT: IRC Bid #346 -One (1) New Compact Tractor with Mid -Mount Mower for the Parks Department REFERENCES: Recommendation The low bid was submitted by Fletcher Small Enginein the amount of $6200.00 for a Dixie Chopper #6024. However, it is a gas powered commercial mower, not a diesel power tractor with mower as called for in the specifications. The next low bid was submitted by Taylor & Munnell Machine Works, Ft. Pierce, in the amount of $6235.00 for a Case International Model 244. The bid meets specifications. Staff recommends that IRC #346 be awarded to Taylor & Munnell Machine Works in the amount of $6235.00 for a Case International Model 244. Intended Use of Capital Equipment This piece of equipment will be used by the Parks Department for the additional mowing that the County is assuming from the State. Source of Funds $8000.00 for the purchase of a tractor and mower was approved for FY86/87 in the Parks Department budget. Bid Data IRC #346 was advertised on March 30, 31, April 1, 1987. Bids were received Wednesday, April 22, 1987 at 2 P.M. 5 Bids were received. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com- missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously awarded Bid #346 for a Case International Model 244 Tractor with Mid -Mount Mower to Taylor & Munnell Machine Works in the amount of $6235 as being the lowest and best bid meeting specifications. 1981 7 BOOK 68 F E 21 d MAY 5 1987 BOOK 68 F'AGF 218 G. Authorization to Accept DNR Grant Funds (Golden Sands Park) The Board reviewed memo from Public Works Director Davis: TO: The Honorable Members of the Board of County Commissioners THROUGH: Charles P. Balczun, County Administrator DATE: April 28, 1987 FILE: SUBJECT: Authorization for County to Accept DNR FRDAP Grant Funds - Golden Sands Park FROM: James W. Davis, P.E REFERENCES: Richard Halvorsen, DNR to Public Works Director Jim Davis dated 4/21/87 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Attached is a letter from DNR requesting the County to inform the DNR by mail if a $150,000 grant to Construct Golden Sands Park improvements is accepted by the County. If the County accepts the grant, a formal Grant Contract will be prepared and sent within 3 weeks. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends acceptance of the Grant. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com- missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously authorized staff to inform the DNR of our acceptance of the $150,000 Florida Recreation Development Assistance Program grant for the development of Golden Sands Park. (RESOLUTION NO. 87-43A WAS ADOPTED FOR ACCEPTING GRANT FOR GOLDEN SANDS AND IS ON FILE IN OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD) H. Indian River Boulevard, North Extension (Amendment to Agree- ment w/Boyle Engineering) The Board reviewed memo from Public Works Director Davis: 8 TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: April 28, 1987 FILE: Board of County Commissioners THROUGH: Charles P. Balczun, County Administrator FROM: James W. Davis, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Indian River Boulevard - North Extension REFERENCES: Charles M. Green, Boyle Engineering, to James W. Davis datcd Apr. 20, 1987 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS On March 10, 1987, the Board of County Commissioners accepted the Indian River Boulevard North Extension - Environmental Coordination Report and instructed staff to revise the Engineering Services Agreement with Boyle Engineering to include the following: 1) A drainage study of the Country Club Point Subdivision and other offsite tributory areas so that proper drainage structures could be designed. 2) Proceed with wetland mitigation to include acquisition of the mosquito impoundments east of the roadway to the Indian River. The attached Amendment No. 1 to the Professional Services Agreement accom- plishes these goals. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS The amendment results in an increase in compensation as follows: Drainage Study Mitigation Plan Interested Party Coordination Direct Costs (Printing, Computer, Travel) $ 5,392 6,832 4,215 1,470 $17,909 RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING Staff recommends approval of the subject Amendment No. 1 and authorization for the Chairman to execute the agreement. Funding to be from Gas Tax Revenue and Impact Fees. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com- missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved Amendment No. 1 to Professional Engineering Services Agreement with Boyle Engineering Corp. re Indian River Boulevard North Extension and authorized the signature of the Chairman. (SAID AMENDMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD.) 9 MAY 51987 BOOK di LadI r'UL AY 51987 BOOK 68 F GE 220 PROPOSED PARKING LOT AGREEMENT WITH FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH The Board reviewed memo from the Public Works Director: TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: April 28, 1987 FILE: Board of County Commissioners THROUGH: Charles P. Balczun, County Administrator FROM: James W. Davis, P. Public Works Director SUBJECT: Use of First Baptist Church Parking Lot 15th Avenue at 23rd Street REFERENCES: DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS The First Baptist Church, represented by Attorney Robert Jackson, is offering the County the use of unimproved lots located at the Southwest corner of 23rd Street and 15th Avenue for weekday County parking to supple- ment Courthouse parking. The 6 lots available are each 50' x 125' result- ing in a total area of 300' x 125'. The offer requires the County to pave and improve the area. The church would use the lot for Wednesday evening and Sunday parking. The County would have the weekday use as public parking. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS Staff has prepared a preliminary layout and can easily locate 34 parking spaces on the property. The preliminary construction estimate would be approximately $50,000, which includes demolition of two (2) structures, paving, drainage, landscaping, striping, etc. The location of the parking could be adequate pending future use of the existing Court facilities. If this area continues to serve the County Court System and if the church does not plan to expand in this area, the proposal is attractive. RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING Staff recommends approval of the agreement. Funding to be from FY87/88 Buildings and Grounds Capital Budget. Both Administrator Balczun and Director Davis recommended entering into an agreement for the paving and use of the church parking lot. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com- missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved the agreement with First Baptist Church for the 10 use of their parking lot at 15th Avenue and 23rd Street as recommended by staff. AGREEMENT WILL BE MADE PART OF THE RECORD WHEN FULLY EXECUTED AND RECEIVED. COUNTY -INITIATED REQUEST TO REZONE 145 ACRES (WINTER BEACH) 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 in the matter of P. 3 "'Lo +O .3 — in the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of Pt pr1 -l`1 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 t 1• ` i —.ay of A D `�g1 (Clerk of the Circuit Cou4( Indian River County, Florida) (SEAL) 11 TAY• ecaw NOTICE — PUBLIC HEAR. IMO • Notice of hearing initiated by Indian., River County to consider the adoption of a County or- dinance rezoning land from: RS -6, Single -Family Residential District to. RS -3, Single -Family Resi- dential District, The subject property is .north of 65th Street, south of 69th Street and east of Lateral "G" Canal. The subject property is described as: The northwest '/4 of the northwest '/. of Section 10, Township 32 south, Range 39 east, less the south 300 feet of the east 300; and less the northeast 'V4 of the northwest 1/2 of the northwest 'A; The south est Y. of the northwest 'A of Section 1 Township 32 south, Range 39 east, I the east 300 feet thereof; Tract 5 and those parts of Tracts 6 and 28 located north of the Lateral "G" Canal in Section 9, Township 32 south, Range 39 east; ... The east Y2 of the northeast '/4 of Section 9, Township 32 south, Range 39 east; All lands lying and being in Indian River • County. Florida, and containing approxi- mately 145 acres. , - • • 'The Board of County Commissioners will con- duct a public hearing regarding the appeal by the applicant of the decision by the Planning and Zoning Commission to deny the rezoning re- quest. The public hearing, at which parties in in- terest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard, will be held by. the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, in the County Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida on Tuesday, May 5, 1987, at 9:05 a.m. 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. based Indian River County • Board of County Commissioners By -s -Don C. Scurlock. Jr. • Chairman ; April 14, 1987' BOOK raut 2 NAY 5 1987 BOOT( 68 f,E 222 Chairman Scurlock informed those present that in the past he has always left the Chambers while this matter was under discus- sion, but Commissioner Bowman has indicated there is a new Attorney General opinion as to whether he can do this. Commissioner Bowman quoted the opinion of the Attorney General, as follows: "A County Commissioner may abstain to avoid creating an appearance of impropriety only where the impropriety would create an actual conflict of interest under Chapter 112." She assumed Chapter 112 is applicable here. Attorney Vitunac advised that it is and stated that unless the Chairman's vote would involve a personal financial gain to him, he must vote on the issue. Chairman Scurlock wished the record to reflect that it is his personal feeling that he should be able to abstain from voting on this item, regardless of what the Attorney General says, because he at one time did have an interest in ten acres in this specific area. He now has divested himself of that interest and, in fact, has written it off on his income tax, but he still will feel uncomfortable about participating in the action on this matter. Planning Director Keating made the staff presentation: 12 TO: The Honorable Members of the Board of County Commissioners DATE: April 24, 1987 FELE: DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: Robert M. Keat ng, CP Director, Co nit Development Division SUBJECT: COUNTY -INITIATED REQUEST TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 145 ACRES FROM RS -6 TO RS -3 7 ,Richard M. Shearer, Chief FROM. Long -Range Planning REFERENCES: CTY REQ RICH2 It is requested that the data presented herein be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of May 5, 1987. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS The County is initiating a request to rezone approximately 145 acres located South of North Winter Beach Road (69th Street), North of South Winter Beach Road (65th Street) and East of the Lateral "G" Canal from RS -6, Single -Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre), to RS -3, Single -Family Residential District (up to 3 units/acre). On October 21, 1986, the Board of County Commissioners rezoned approximately 250 acres located north and west of the subject property from RS -6 to RS -3 and rezoned 35.4 acres located east of the subject property from RS -6 to RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre). At that time the Board decided not to rezone the subject property from RS -6 to RS -3. On February 17, 1987, the Board of County Commissioners amended the Comprehensive Plan by redesignating approximately 250 acres located north and west of the subject property (which was rezoned from RS -6 to RS -3 in October of 1986) from LD -2, Low -Density Residential 2 (up to 6 units/acre), to LD -1, Low -Density Residential 1 (up to 3 units/acre). At that time the Board expressed an interest in reconsidering the land use designation of the subject property and directed the staff to initiate rezoning of the subject property from RS -6 to RS -3. On March 26, 1987, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6 -to -1 to deny this request. The Planning staff has appealed this decision in order for the Board to consider this rezoning request. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the application will be presented. The analysis will include a description of the current and future land uses of the site and surrounding areas, potential impacts on the transportation and utility systems, and any significant adverse impacts on environmental quality. EXISTING LAND USE PATTERN The subject property consists of undeveloped land, a church, and several single-family dwellings. North of the subject property, across North Winter Beach Road, are single-family dwellings and undeveloped land zoned RS -3. East of the subject property is undeveloped land zoned RM -6, a plant nursery zoned RS -3, and undeveloped land zoned IL. 13 IL MAY 5 '1987 BOOK 6 �`' �r.��[ MAY 5 1987 BOOK 68 PAGE 224 Further east is the F.E.C. railroad. South of the subject property, across South Winter Beach Road, is undeveloped land zoned A-1, a church and undeveloped land zoned RS -6, undeveloped land zoned RM -6 and IL, and two industrial buildings zoned IL. West of the subject property, across the Lateral "G" Canal, are single-family residences and undeveloped land zoned RS -3. FUTURE LAND USE PATTERN The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property and the land south and immediately east of it as LD -2, Low -Density Residential 2 (up to 6 units/acre). Further to the east is the 100 acre South Winter Beach Road Industrial Node and the U.S #1 MXD, Mixed -Use Corridor (up to 6 units/acre). The land north and west of the subject property is designated as LD -1, Low - Density Residential 1 (up to 3 units/acre). The Winter Beach Precise Land Use Map, as amended by the Board of County Commissioners on July 23, 1986, designates the subject property as LD -1 with an appropriate zoning of RS -3. The subject property is located 300 feet west of an industrial node and is adjacent to multiple -family zoning to the east. Based on the existing zoning pattern of this area, the existing RS -6 zoning of the subject property appears to provide an appropriate buffer between the RM -6 zoning to the east and the RS -3 zoning to the west. Without public water or sewer the subject property cannot be developed at 6 units per acre. With utilities, the subject property could be subdivided and developed at a density of approximately 4 units per acre which appears appropriate for this area. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM The subject property has direct access to North Winter Beach Road (classified as a primary collector street on the Through - fare Plan) and to South Winter Beach Road (classified as a secondary collector street). Both roads function at level -of - service "A" and the proposed rezoning would reduce the maximum number of trips generated by the subject property at build -out. ENVIRONMENT Approximately 80 percent of the subject property consists of excessively drained soils and is considered to be located in the coastal sand ridge primary aquifer recharge area. The subject property is not located within a flood -prone area. UTILITIES County water and wastewater facilities are not currently available for the subject property. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, and based on the staff's previous study of this area, staff feels that its original proposal for this area was correct and recommends that this rezoning request be denied. Director Keating noted that this is an issue we have dealt with a number of times before. When the July 1986 series of Comp Plan requests were considered and finally acted on in February, the Board directed staff to reconsider this area for downzoning from RS -6 to RS -3 whereas originally it had been accepted for a Comp Plan amendment to change an entire 066 acre area in Winter Beach from LD -2 to LD -1. Basically we are dealing with a property 145 acres in size bounded on the west by Late raI G Canal. It is on the sand ridge and characterized by scrub habitat, on which we recently had a presentation by Ray Fernald of the Fish & Game Commission, who advised that the only way to preserve this habitat is to acquire it in large parcels. Direc- tor Keating continued that over the last few years, staff consis- tently has taken the position that this is an area appropriate for RS -6 type development. It is between two collector roadways, it is close to currently developed areas and is in a place where utilities are expected within the next several years. The Planning & Zoning Commission voted against down -zoning, and staff again recommends that the County -initiated request to downzone to RS -3 be denied. Commissioner Bowman questioned how staff can recommend this in tight of Mr. Fernald's report and the fact that it cannot be developed at RS -6 without water and sewer, which she did not believe will be available. Director Keating noted that to preserve scrub you need large tracts of land, and 3 units per acre would destroy it just as readily as 6 units per acre, and Chairman Scurlock believed sewer and water most probably will be available there within 5-7 years and further pointed out that a developer could obtain a franchise and it could happen much sooner than that. Commissioner Bowman stressed that she would hate to see our last 150 acres of sand scrub go. Director Keating noted that staff is not recommending the entire area of scrub be eliminated, but is just sayinglbetween 15 LiiiiAY 5 1987 BOOK °8 FAGL 2 5 I MAY 5 1987 BOOK 68 PGE 226 the two densities we are talking about, there is no appreciable difference in saving the scrub habitat. Chairman Scurlock asked if all of the 145 acres has sand pine, and Director Keating advised that there is a preliminary plat in for review for about 100 acres of this, and most of it is in what we designate as sand ridge. Chairman Scurlock felt we would have to rezone to one unit per 5 or 10 acres or so to accomplish Commissioner Bowman's end result, and the only other option for preservation is to find enough funds to acquire the 145 acres. Director Keating agreed and actually did not feet you could allow any units because that type of habitat has to burn every so often. Commissioner Eggert believed the issue at hand is bigger than the scrub habitat. There is a single family type of neighborhood involved with homes built on lots of one or more acres similar to what we were looking at along Rosewood Road. Chairman Scurlock referred to the following map of the area proposed to be rezoned to RS -3: RM -3 ; ]� RS -1 • - • fes` COV. L 3 SUBJECT PROPERTY. RS_3 -. 1 tJ 1 t�te��/1R t i C , RS -3 .1 • I' 110.1.11 16 The Chairman suggested the possibility of modifying or redefining the lines on the northern boundary where there are some single family homes on either side of 69th Street by drawing a line back across to Lateral G Canal even with the bottom line of the little RS -3 area south of 69th Street and keeping that portion RS -3, which he felt would leave an adequate buffer for the single family, and then the remainder could be Left at RS -6. Commissioner Bowman asked how much acreage wouldjbe involved if a line were drawn across as suggested by the Chairman, and Director Keating estimated about 40 acres would be left RS -3. County Attorney Vitunac confirmed that the Board could rezone lesser portions of the property, if desired. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. Attorney Ben Rabin from the law firm of Samuel Block appeared on behalf of the Winter Beach Progressive League which is in favor of rezoning to RS -3 and changing the Comprehensive Plan designation to LD -1 in July. He wished to reiterate Commis- sioner Bowman and Eggert's statements that without water and sewer, it is virtually impossible to develop at RS -6 anyway, and also agreed that development at RS -3 will be less attractive to the developer, which he felt is consistent with saving the aquifer and the sand ridge. Attorney Rabin pointed out that last year in July the County Commission said this entire area (the whole 466 acres) should be RS -3, and he requested that the Commission be consistent in their rulings. Chairman Scurlock pointed out that neither Commissioner Eggert nor Commissioner Wheeler were on the Commission at that time, and he was not participating in the discussion, which eliminates most of the present Board. Attorney Rabin clarified that when he speaks of the Board, he is speaking of the Board of County Commissioners whatever its makeup, and he is asking this particular Board to be consistent with its rulings. He pointed out that a relatively short time ago this Commission, when talking about property in the 16th 17 MAY 5 1987 BOOK 68 F,kGE 227 AY 5 1987 BOOK 68 PAGE 28 Street area, said the character of the neighborhood was what was determinative in their minds. The only homes in the neighbor- hood being discussed are on Targe acreages, and they want to utilize the character of the neighborhood as an argument; also, they do not want to destroy the aquifer. They request that the Board approve the rezoning to RS -3 and not delete any portions from the area advertised. Chairman Scurlock noted that Attorney Rabin's opinion that water and sewer is unavailable is not correct; any individual who had a large enough piece of property could put in a sewer and water system. Robert Mooney, county resident since 1969, informed the Board that he represents 102 acres in the area being considered for downzoning. He stressed that when he and his family purchased this property, they did so because of the zoning, and the zoning criteria that is there today was there when the zoning regulations were adopted in 1957. He, too, therefore, would ask for consistency from the Board. Mr. Mooney noted that in October the Board voted unanimously to leave their property the way it was, and after hearing that decision, they proceeded with development plans and applied for a franchise for the area. Then, in February, the Board requested reconsideration of the area; however, the Planning & Zoning Commission in March voted 6 to 1 to leave this property at 6 upa, and staff has stated on several occasions that good zoning steps down in intensity. As to the character of the neighborhood, Mr. Mooney pointed out that their property on South Winter Beach Road is adjoined by an industrial zoned area on the east; they have a county garbage transfer station across the street; and to the west of the canal, there are smaller subdivisions and 60' frontage lots; so, their area is not an area of large tracts. He emphasized that when they purchased their property, they were aware of the zoning, and they are not asking anyone to change it for them. 18 Mr. Mooney then referred to the following map of the area, noting that the letters of the alphabet refer to those listed who are opposed to the rezoning, and most of these owners have either appeared before the Board or written letters expressing their opposition to the proposed rezoning: © A-1 71st St. RM -3 Imo I =I iI-I- I�" E. ! I iI. u IV.�1. • :� . ,.... � ! • 4 • hili I I' . I , !RMr i `' lo I 1 • 4 11t • , p. jr" II`60tI Ct �.-11. iI. f A-1 \t` Winter Beach CPA -081 COUNTY -INITIATED REQUEST TO REDESIGNATE 250 ACRES FROM LD -2 (up to 6 units/acre TO LD -1 (up to 3 units/acre ! Kiwanis-Hobart .Park Trinity Holiness Church Q Winter Beach Cemetery CS Opposed to re -zoning A. Robert Farnell B. Anders I`yquist C. 'William Brickley D. Paul Garini E. Ennis Proctor F. Robert :1i oney G. Leonard.3atala H. Douglas Sousa I. Pat Harrison V. Albert Grogan K. ".chart 77.s..,".ors. L. Paul Carini M. Tom Schutt N. Tommy Barnes 0. Mary Barnes P. Ennis Proctor Q. Luverne Murrill Mr. Mooney stressed that people to the south and north of both Winter Beach Roads have opposed the proposed rezoning, and their neighbors, Tom Schlitt, Tom Barnes, and Mr. Hataia, have supported their position that RS -6 is appropriate. He emphasized that their plan, which is now before the Planning Commission, is way less than 4 upa, and he requested the Commission be consis- tent and allow them to keep their RS -6 zoning. Chairman Scurlock brought up preservation of the sand pine which he believed could only be accomplished through the acquisi- tion of a large area, possibly 100 acres or more, and asked Mr. Mooney for his general estimate as to the price of property in that general area. 19 CitAY 6 1987 BOOK 00F,'; 2 (1 r MAY 5 1987 BOOK 68 FADE 230 Mr. Mooney believed it would be at least $15,000 an acre, and Chairman Scurlock noted that would be about 1.5 million. He felt if we really want to preserve that land, we need to try to find a source to enable us to purchase it. Commissioner Bowman commented that when Mr. Mooney bought his property, that was in the dark ages as far as zoning in Indian River County was concerned. She did not think anyone then realized the importance of the sand ridge and the shallow aquifer, but times change, and we have gotten a lot smarter. • Ted Herzog came before the Board as attorney for LaRue Equities, the fee simple title holder to the 102 acres, which is a Florida corporation with three stockholders, Bob Mooney, his sister, and his mother, LaRue Williams. He wished to emphasize that not only has the general development criteria for this property remained the same since approximately 1957, but as recently as October of 1986, there was unanimous approval of the density at RS -6. In addition, they just revisited the Planning & Zoning Commission on this and had a 6 to 1 vote in favor of keeping the density of 6. Based on this, Mr. Mooney and his family - La Rue Equities - went ahead with their development plans. Mr. Herzog contended that this represents detrimental reliance that goes to the vesting issue since all their planning and going to preliminary plat was based on numerous revisitations of this issue during the last 18 months by various Boards of the County. Attorney Herzog continued to emphasize that they are not coming before the Board with a new issue; RS -6 has been stated consistently; and they ask the Commission to maintain that position. William Koolage, 815 26th Avenue, understood this property has been in RS -6 for a number of years. He cited the Rockridge and Rosewood areas, and noted that when you start changing the zoning of people who have had zoning for a long time, you affect their fives. In the general area under discussion today, people who now have the RS -3 say we are going to protect ourselves, but 20 J, the other zoning has been there for a long time. In addition, there is the fact that the Planning staff has been consistent in their recommendation for leaving the zoning as it is. Mr. Koolage did agree that when the Master Land Use Plan was developed, there were estimates, but felt the Board must have some respect for people who have owned property over a long period of time and be very careful about making changes as it can damage these property owners and possibly there ought to be some way to recompense them. He stressed that he did feel this property owner, who has had this property for a long time under this designation, has a legitimate basis for asking that the Board look awfully hard at changing his zoning to something else. W. R. Brook, 6185 65th St., South Winter Beach Road, advised that adjacent to his property, which he purchased in 1969, is a 10 acre strip owned by J. P. Wilson, a highly respected concrete contractor, who has owned that property for years and could have put in 20 houses. Mr. Wilson's reasoning, however, being the same as the rest of the people in that area, which is that they need some room to breathe, only put in 4 houses on his 10 acres. Mr. Brook felt the Board now has an opportunity to do the most good for the largest number of people. He realized you cannot preserve a virgin piece of land completely unless you leave it totally vacant; so, the best they can hope for is a minimal impact. Chairman Scurlock asked if Mr. Brook is east or west of the canal, and he stated that he is west of 58th Avenue (King's Highway.) The Chairman noted he is a few miles away and there are single family subdivisions between him and the subject property, but Mr. Brook stated that he considered himself part of that community and he loved that community. Commissioner Wheeler pointed out that Mr. Kooiage lives ten miles away, and Commissioner Bowman expressed amazement at Mr. Koolage's inconsistency since he has been talking about holding 21 MAY 51937 BOOR 58 F, u 3j. r MAY 5 1987 BOOK 68 F� �E 232 the line on taxes for years, and development pays for only 65% of the costs it creates; so, the more people you have, the more you are going to pay. Mr. Kootage emphasized that he is not inconsistent about taxes. He is very much against some, but he has to be selective as it depends on what the tax money is to be spent for. He further noted that you can't put a picket line around the county and keep people from moving in. We are going to have a mixture of population moving into this county, and it now appears the trend is that there are younger people moving in with children - not just senior citizens; so, we must look at providing homes for different income levels. He understood this property also provides a break between industrial/commercial, etc. If they wanted to take commercial way out there, he would not agree with that, but he does feel there should be gradual steps of transi- tion. He further noted that the Board has a Planning staff which has been consistent in recommending the RS -6 as has the Planning & Zoning Commission. Commissioner Wheeler commented that he looks at the whole county as a community. He believed the zoning is important, but felt that the character and makeup of a particular area is important also. Furthermore, if we were just going to rely on what zoning has been done in the past, we wouldn't need a County Commission; we could just let staff do all the planning by the book instead of considering what goes along with the character of a neighborhood. Commissioner Wheeler believed, for instance, the RS -6 that was designated in the Master Plan for Rosewood was entirety wrong. He felt the character of a neighborhood may have more to do with zoning than the zoning that exists; staff isn't infallible. Chairman Scurlock believed we have been consistent in that we have looked at existing use and transition, and it does complicate each issue. 22 Commissioner Eggert agreed it is difficult and pointed out that when the Comprehensive Plan was developed, we could not scrutinize every area as closely as possibly it deserved. She further noted that she has invested in a great deal of property throughout the United States, and there is always a risk involved in purchasing property, the same as when you purchase stock. She stated she also is very supportive of affordable housing, but more in the 8 or 10 upa range than when we are debating between 3 and 6 upa. Rebecca Hampton, president of the Winter Beach Progressive League, handed out a map showing the trend for development occurring on large acreages in this area, and advised that in the last 11 years, they have had 10 homes spring up on multi -acre parcels. She urged that the Commission recognize the character of the neighborhood and the environmentally sensitive area with native scrub, oaks, pines, etc. She stressed that they are not asking the developers not to build, but just asking that they do not build more than 3 upa, and they feel that is a compromise. Commissioner Bird asked Mr. Mooney what his proposed density would be, and Mr. Mooney believed it would be about 3.29. Commissioner Bird asked what the highest density subdivision is that has been done at RS -6, and Director Keating advised that without going PRD, the highest would be about 4. Commissioner Bird referred to the map presented earlier which showed the many property owners desiring to stay RS -6, and Mrs. Hampton stressed they have a map which shows RS -6 is very inconsistent with what has been coming into their area. Commissioner Bird cited the transition from industrial at the railroad and the waste collection center. He noted that the Commission did approve RS -3 on the north of 69th Street, and he felt the south side ought to be RS -3 for some depth also and then have a transition to the RS -6. He agreed the environmental issue is important, but had a problem with it unless the Commission has some plans to acquire that land. 23 MAY 5 1987 B00r 68 fAE 2:}?.; MAY 5 1987 BOOK 68 PA 234 Mrs. Hampton continued to emphasize the character of the neighborhood and the fact that they are not asking that the land be left vacant. Commissioner Wheeler asked how many units there could be under RS -3, and Director Keating noted that it depends on the plan, but it is usually in the high 2's, possibly 2.6. Chairman Scurlock noted that it appears there actually is an average of only about a unit an acre difference in the two zoning classifications, and Director Keating agreed but noted RS -6 give you more flexibility because of Tots sizes, etc. John Hansen, North Winter Beach Road, stated that his house sits on two acres. He reviewed the history of the situation, noting that the community grouped together against multiple family zoning, and that was ruled out. Then ex -Commissioner Lyons advised them that they were living dangerously at RS -6. The homes in this area are being built on at least an acre, if not more; the area is on top of the sand ridge; and development would impact the acquifer, the trees, the wildlife, etc. Mr. Hansen stated that actually he would love to see this made into a county park, but he realized the cost is the deterrent; so, the next best thing is to downzone to try to preserve what is there. Douglas Tucker, 4426 69th St., advised that he lives directly across the street at the corner of Cemetery Road and North Winter Beach Road on an acre of property. His wife's grandmother lives next door, and the family tract represents 10 acres. Their property is RS -3 and they all would like to see RS -3 zoning for the subject property. Leonard Hatala, 34th Street, informed the Board that he has owned 32 acres in Winter Beach since 1972, and he is opposed to any downzoning. He did not feet it would be feasible to put water and sewer in this area if this were downzoned. Fred Mensing, Roseland, stated that he would not comment on the density, but he was concerned about the sand ridge. Water is a crucial consideration, and the sand pines are endangered and 24 are disappearing. He felt it would be advisable for the Board to put this whole area on hold for a year or more while they do a more thorough study of possibly acquiring the property. Thomas Barnes, 806 43rd Avenue, informed the Board that he owns a 65 acre citrus grove across the street on the south side of South Winter Beach Road and his sister owns approximately 100 acres of industrial property east of him. He stressed that they try to be good neighbors, but he does have some opinions on this and felt we have some debatable issues on the environment and the ways to protect it. Mr. Barnes believed the character of the area to the west is established beyond question, but the character of the 145 acres in question is not really established and that is what the Board is doing now. He felt this all had been settled before when the area to the west of Lateral G and up on North Winter Beach Road was downzoned because he believed that pretty much addressed the people who were there. Mr. Barnes did not feel the Board is changing anything a great deal by leaving this at RS -6 and stated that it bothers him when property owners and staff agree on a piece of property on which people have been paying taxes for a number of years, and then you get people coming from farther away raising a lot of nebulous issues and trying to change other people's property. Anders Nyquist advised that he owns 15 acres on North Winter Beach Road. It is one of the few areas still zoned RS -6, and Mr. Nyquist believed the area does have a need for this type zoning. He also felt the issue had been resolved when they rezoned the land west of the canal, and he asked that the Board follow staff's and the Planning & Zoning Commission's decision and keep the property zoned as it is. Tom DeBerry informed the Board that the subject property adjoins the property on which he is building. He has talked to people in the Zoning Department about the size of the lots and the difference in density designations. It appears the present zoning RS -6 would allow a range of lot sizes from 7,000 to 10,000 MAY 5 1987 25 BOOK b 8 CrWL 235 it AY 51987 BOOK 68 f'A:iE 2:36 sq. ft. while RS -3 would be a minimum of 12,000 sq. ft. or 100 x 120 lots. If you consider these figures divided into an acre and then realize that when you take 100 acres and exclude the land needed for drainage, roads, easements, etc., you end up with 70 acres or less to put the RS -6 development on, it is ludicrous to say you would be building at something over 3 upa. Mr. DeBerry believed this is a very sensitive piece of property. It is an aquifer recharge area that has something to do with the environ- ment on both sides of the ridge, and he felt that it should be zoned RS -3. James Taylor, 6365 69th St., advised that he was speaking on behalf of a number of residents who live relatively close to the area, and he is representing a community. The question of community is very important in this issue, and the question of community extends all the way to Lateral A canal and beyond. Mr. Taylor felt one of, the things left out when speaking of the history of this area was the fact that the initial request that went through was for the entire section going from Kings Highway all the way up to be rezoned. He emphasized that the original plan discussed had very little to do with the final decision. No sooner was the public hearing closed than that plan was all of a sudden changed. He realized there is a canal there, but that is an arbitrary point. Mr. Taylor continued to discuss the overall development of the community, noting that they are surrounded by golf courses and some nice subdivisions. He stressed that they do not have a problem with bringing neighbors in - what they are talking about is not the house size but how much room sits between each house. Mr. Taylor described in great detail possible development at RS -6, and emphasized he felt it would result in an ecological "A -Bomb" and damage to the aquifer from the digging of retention ponds. He felt when you subtract the property needed for facilities, etc., you are talking very high densities. 26 Lomax Gwathmey of 23 Sea Horse Lane, county resident for 26 years, speaking as an independent citizen, found it refreshing that for once we have a chance to reduce density. Mr. Gwathmey did not believe it is the responsibility of government to hold an umbrella over the head of speculative land developers; he be- lieved the voice of the people in the area should be heard and their desires paramount. Obviously the environmental impact is great, and he believed there must be•a difference between development at 3 upa and at 6 upa. Mr. Gwathmey strongly recommended the rezoning be granted. It was determined that no one else wished to be heard, and the Chairman declared the public hearing closed. Commissioner Eggert noted that she has been invollved in this matter on various levels since the Winter Beach small area plan was begun and did not believe she can be accused of being anything but consistent. She very much felt we have a unique neighborhood here and has long felt it should be 3 upa. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, to adopt Ordinance 87-37 rezoning the subject property to RS -3. Commissioner Bird appreciated the concerns of the residents, but he also was concerned about the property rights of the owners. This particular piece of property, which is sandwiched in between the railroad tracks and industrial property is on the eastern fringe, and he felt the others who are expressing concern are pretty well protected. Commissioner Bird believed the map indicated that an overwhelming number of the owners of the subject property feet it should remain RS -6 and he also had a hard time disregarding the opinion of staff and of the Planning & Zoning Commission. In regard to concern for property values, Commissioner Bird advised that from personal experience, he could safely say that property values really appreciated when the 1/2 27 MAY 5 1987 BUUK '& G !WAY 5 1987 BOOK 68 PS,E 238 acre subdivisions came in, and thus, he did not feel leaving this in RS -6 would have an adverse effect on property values. In fact, with the golf courses in the area and the future availabil- ity of sewer and water, he believed that the area is assured of continuing to increase in value and continuing to be one of the most desirable places to live in the county. Based on that and the overwhelming majority of the owners in the area who want the zoning to remain as it is, he advised that he planned to vote against the Motion. Commissioner Bowman felt we are not talking property values; we are talking quality of life. Chairman Scurlock noted that he has not voted on this issue prior to today, and he does not particularly like the diagram on the map. He believed the north side of 69th Street is already RS -3, and he felt the south side of the road should be consistent with the north side of the road and have RS -3 for the same depth. When you look at the map and consider the existing property owners, the industrial node, the county garbage transfer station, and the natural buffer between RS -6 with the canal phasing into the RS -3, he believed that provides adequate protection. He did, however, have an interest in acquiring that entire site to save the sand pine, since he did not feet changing from RS -6 to RS -3 will preserve it, but he did not know where the money would come from because it will be an expensive proposition, probably 1.5 million. Based on all this, Chairman Scurlock stated that he planned to vote against the Motion. He was sure some people will think he still has some interest, but he again assured them he does not, that investment has been written off. Commissioner Wheeler noted that he has tacked to the developers and the people. This is a community cut out of the center of the county just as much as Gifford and Roseland are communities, and he felt strongly that the people living there who have participated in making it a community have more of a right than potential investors or developers. He agreed it is a 28 difficult decision; you are looking at 6/10 of a unit per acre difference, but he felt everything done up there in the last two years has been large homes on large tracts of land. These people have gotten together and worked hard to keep the neighborhood the way they want it, and he, therefore, will vote to reduce the zoning to RS -3. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried 3 to 2 with Commissioner Bird and Chairman Scurlock voting in opposition. ORDINANCE NO. 87-37 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FOR THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, The Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the local planning agency on such matters, has held a public hearing and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this rezoning request; and WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to rezone the hereinafter described property; and WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners has determined that this rezoning is in conformance with the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan of Indian River County; and WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners has held a public hearing pursuant to this rezoning request, at which parties in interest and citizens were heard; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning of the following described property situated in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: 29 MAY 5 1987 BOOK 68 r3 r e1-041 19 7 BOOK 68 f$GE 240 WAY 5 The northwest * of the northwest * of Section 10, Township 32 south, Range 39 east, less the south 300 feet of the east 300, and less the northeast i of the northwest * of the northwest *; The southwest i of the northwest i of Section 10, Twonship 32 south, Range 39 east; Tract 5 and those parts of Tracts 6 and 28 located north of the Lateral "G" Canal in Section9, Township 32 south, Range 39 east; The east of the northeast $ of Section 9, Township 32 south, Range 39 east; All lands lying and being in Indian River County, Florida, and containing approximately 145 acres. • Be changed from RS -6, Single -Family Residential District, to RS -3, Single -Family Residential District. All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in said Zoning Regulations. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on this 5th day of May , 1987. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY By C.Scu� Jr hairman Don, PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO IL (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONE) Commissioner Eggert reviewed the following memo: - 30 TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: May 1, 1987 SUBJECT: FILE: Amendment to IL, Light Industrial Zone . FROM: Carolyn K. Egge C REFERENCES: Commissioner Recently we amended the IL, Light Industrial Zone, to include stone, clay, glass and concrete products. I am working with a group that would like to start an injection molding business here in town. In contrast to the actual making of plastic which belongs in the General Industrial Zone, injection molding turns a plastic pellet into a plastic product. This type of production can be easily accommodated in light industry. The same is true of the making of certain rubber products (hose) rather than the making of rubber tires. The only other area not dealt with in IL is certain paper products. I would like the Board of County Commissioners to direct the Planning Department to amend the IL District Ordinance. Commissioner Eggert noted that all she is asking is that we simply request the Planning Department to start this through as an amendment. What they are looking at is not the businesses that would disturb the environment, but those that are very carefully monitored. There would be no waste products from this, and she felt perhaps there also may be some paper products we haven't looked at that we might want to consider. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Wheeler, to direct the Planning Depart- ment to start the amendment proposed in the above memo through the process. Commissioner Bowman had many concerns. If there is heat involved, there wit( be odor, and she also wanted to know what 31 LIVIAI 5 1987 BOOK 68 A E 241 BOOK 68 PAGE 42 the by-products are. She emphasized that this needs a lot of looking at and she wanted to see them work with the Environmental Health people, chemical engineers, etc., and not let this slide through. Director Keating wished to point out that when staff redid the Zoning Ordinance a few years ago, staff did not really know what was involved in the processes employed in a lot of these activities so they tried to base most of these categories on SIC (Standard Industrial Classification) categories. From the limited research they have done, they feel that the plastic and rubber would be more amenable to the IL District. Director Keating noted that we do have substantial safeguards available during the site plan review process, particularly from the standpoint of environmental degradation, and there also are substantial buffer yard requirements. Commissioner Bowman noted that Planning does not have any chemists on staff, and Director Keating agreed, but noted that they do coordinate substantially with St. John's and alt the appropriate state agencies. Chairman Scurlock believed this is just meant to direct staff to take action to prepare themselves to present all pertinent information back to the Board so we can make an intelligent decision. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. APPRAISALS ON LIBRARY PROPERTY The Board reviewed memo of the OMB Director: 32 TO: Honorable Members Board of County Commissioners FROM: Joseph . Baird OMB Director DATE: May 5, 1987 SUBJECT: APPRAISALS ON LIBRARY PROPERTY Staff is requesting permission to have appraisals done on the proposed library sites. Funding will be from interfund borrowing until such time as library bond proceeds. are available. Commissioner Eggert stated that she also wished to request that Attorney Vitunac or designee be allowed to negotiate to see what prices we can get the various parcels down to. She reviewed possible sites for the southern part of the county, mentioning first the Catron property, south of SR60 between 23rd and 25th Avenues; the Memorial Island site which they are waiting to hear about; the site behind the 2001 Building; and the property on the northeast corner of 16th Street and 43rd Avenue. She advised that in Sebastian they are waiting to hear from the City regarding their first choice; second would be Chesser Gap; third and fourth choices are on U.S.I in the WalMart area; and the last piece is in Roseland. Chairman Scurlock asked about the 17th Street site at the intersection of Indian River Boulevard with the possibility of acquiring additional land. Commissioner Eggert advised that this was addressed, and there were several problems with that site, not just size but drainage, the fill required, the cost of putting in utilities, etc. However, they can run it back through and reconsider it. Commissioner Wheeler asked if they have ever considered looking at the old jail site, and Commissioner Eggert confirmed that they had and it was said they could use about four acres. Then, however, they were told the county wished to retain this, and it was thought to be a negative site by both the site 33 L MAY 5 1987 1300 68 ; 24 MAY ,5 1991 BOOK 68 Fvt 244 committee and the Advisory Board because of its location amongst the schools and the road access situation. She noted that they also looked at the site where the library is currently located based on the idea of razing the whole block, but that still would only give us three acres. Commissioner Bird inquired about the money for appraisals and whether Commissioner Eggert wanted appraisals done on all these pieces of property. Commissioner Eggert advised they do not necessarily want appraisals done on alt of them. She would like appraisals done on two in Vero Beach - the Catron property and that by the 2001 Building - and in Sebastian, if necessary, the two on U.S.1 by WalMart, but she trusted they would be working out with one of the first two choices there. She explained that their first choice in Sebastian is a piece right next to the park, which the City is trying to purchase by a grant through the League of Cities. They wish to either sell or lease half of that to us. Commissioner Eggert emphasized that she would like to have the appraisals done only when they are down to the end of the negotiating. OMB Director Baird suggested that appraisals be authorized on three parcels in each area, and Commissioner Eggert stated that she would like an option to have any parcel appraised, but not more than a total of six. Discussion ensued regarding the need for appraisals as opposed to just Learning the assessed values from the tax rolls. OMB Director Baird believed you need appraisals, especially when you are in the public eye, and Commissioner Eggert confirmed that the intent is to negotiate until the bitter end, and when they are down to three in each area, they would like to have appraisals done. Commissioner Bowman asked if Commissioner Eggert couldn't come back to the Board after doing some negotiating, and Attorney Vitunac noted that they would like to get permission to receive 34 signed offers, then go out and get a quick appraisal, and coordi- nate with the OMB Director re the bond closing and when the money willbe available since people will not keep their offers open indefinitely. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously authorized the County Attorney's office to negotiate with all property owners with the intent of obtaining signed offers at a good price, and after receiving such signed offers, then authorize appraisals to be done on up to six parcels, if necessary. DISCUSSION RE ALS (ADVANCED LIFE SUPPORT) Commissioner Eggert reported that there was a presentation on ALS made to the Hospital Taxing District last week, and she hoped they will vote on it tonight. They investigated every possible combination of adding paramedics, 1 or 2 up to 12, and the same with EMTs - using firemen, etc. They had many meetings and'the only choice that would satisfy the ambulance squad that everyone was relatively enthusiastic about was to add 12 para- medics so there would be two riding in each car. This would give the ambulance squad a chance to bring their EMT staff up and do their basic life work which is 60% of the work, the feeling being that EMTs were hired instead of paramedics, the ambulance squad people would be totally discouraged and the squad would fold. Commissioner Bird asked if the Hospital Board will put on 12 more paramedics, and Commissioner Eggert advised that alt involved supported that with the possible exception of the fire department. Chairman Scurlock believed our fire district is out again taking positions on policy before the Fire District Board has reached any decision on it. 35 LMAY 5 1987 BOOK 245 h l MAY 5 1987 BOOK 68 Fa, 246 Commissioner Eggert advised that it was suggested that she ask if the Commission wished to take a stand of supporting the choice of the ambulance squad, the hospital, the parameds, etc., re the addition of 12 paramedics. Commissioner Bird stated that based on what he has heard, he would, but he did not know if there is another side to the story. Commissioner Eggert confirmed that they have investigated everything. They must get either EMTs or paramedics, and they have got to have them there together. The ambulance squad has had to send out some of its ambulances without EMTs to meet the paramedics. Chairman Scurlock believed a better solution would have been to hire EMTs because you would pay Tess; however, then we face a problem with our ambulance squads. Commissioner Wheeler was not happy about the situation. He believed the figure for adding the paramedics is $293,000; right now on every call we send out an ambulance, two paramedics in a station wagon, and a fire truck, and he did not feel we can afford this. He noted the paramedics would be able to work with the ALS if they were part of the fire department. Commissioner Eggert pointed out that the problem with that is that we still have two different fire districts. She agreed the multiple response problem must be solved, and it is one of the criticisms that HRS had. Chairman Scurlock noted that even though right now we may be sending out multiple vehicles, we are not meeting the certifi- cation requirements because they are not qualified people. Discussion continued at length re the problems involved, and the need for transport as well as medical services, and Chairman Scurlock noted that if you put all this in the fire department, you will be eliminating the volunteer transport, and then you are talking $2,000,000 a year to get in the transport business instead of $293,000. 36 Commissioner Wheeler did not agree. If you had the fire department and the paramedics in one division and the ambulance squad in another working together, then you are down to two different agencies, and he believed you could make a working agreement and the Fire Board would have some control over the fire department and attitudes and the willingness to cooperate and work together rather than three different agencies fighting all the time. He stated that his opinion is and has been right along that the ALS should have been with the fire department to begin with. Commissioner Eggert agreed and felt if the fire departments had been alt in one district, that is where it would have ended up. As to the present situation, the ambulance squad's reasoning re the fire department EMTs is that those paid EMTs are going to do what their volunteer EMTs do. Chairman Scurlock noted that the ambulance people do not want to be simply transport people, and if you go to paid EMTs, than all the ambulance squads are going to be involved in is driving and picking up and it is doubtful if they could keep their membership up. If we lose the volunteers and the squad faits, then you are talking paid services. The Chairman noted this is a very difficult situation to work with, and he felt Commissioner Eggert has done a good job working with all these entities. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, to support the suggestion that 12 paramedics be hired as the best solution under the circumstances at this time. Commissioner Bird asked if we are hiring paramedics rather than EMTs just to pacify the ambulance squad, and Commissioner Eggert and Chairman Scurlock confirmed that we are, explaining that if we don't get the additional paramedics, we will not be 37 LIV:AY 5 '1987 BOOK 68 ra,GE. 24 7 (SAY 51987 BOOK 68 F$ E 248 certified by the state, and if we hire EMTs, the ambulance squad is afraid they will lose their volunteers. The Chairman continued that the only reason he can support hiring the para- medics is that he feels the ALS program will sift out and it will be a standard program and you will need the paramedics at that point anyway. Commissioner Eggert noted that it is a very frustrating situation. Commissioner Bird asked how the fire departments fits in this, and Commissioner Eggert stated they just wish there was another way to do it and so does she. However, under the emergency situation that exists, this solution is agreed on by all the other entities. Commissioner Bowman wished to know who declared this an emergency, and Commissioner Eggert advised that the HRS made a surprise inspection and then said if this is not resolved, our ALS certification will be lifted, and gave us until 10 o'clock tomorrow to work this out. Commissioner Bird asked what HRS has to say about ALS in the North County, and was advised the ALS program is all county which is the reason it is under the Hospital District. Commissioner Wheeler felt possibly we should create a paramedic district, and Commissioner Eggert advised that it was estimated that would take a year and a half to accomplish. Commissioner Wheeler noted that possibly if HRS rejects the variance, this thing wilt get moving and we can take another hard look and get control of it. Commissioner Eggert stated that if that variance is pulled, then we wilt have no ALS for a year as the law currently reads. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried 4 to 1 with Commissioner Wheeler voting in opposition. 38 Commissioner Eggert left the meeting at 11:10 o'clock A.M. to return to the hospital. COUNTY -INITIATED REQUEST TO ESTABLISH BOUNDARIES FOR 650 ACRE I-951CR 512 COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NODE 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 sari 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 Orr\inCA(\C , In the matter of Pt p4'10 (Avserky 6,e amu/ In the Court, was pub - lisped in said newspaper M the issues of Apr-% 1 t'4 t 01 01 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. Swam to and subscribed before me is .4 � raday of Ail r:t 1 A D tggl usiness Manager) (SEAL) SAY 5 1987 (Clerk of the Circuit Courtj'ndian River County, Florida) • ==zsl= E9 n+—sem.—' ._�?✓�_�� = gaol • ,Proposed -Node Boundary (650 acres) NOTICE OF REGULATION OF LAND'USE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING • TO CONSIDER • THE ADOPTION OF A COUNTY ORDINANCE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Indian River County Board 01 County Commissioners, shall hold a public hearing at which parties in interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard on Tuesday, May 5, 1987, in the County Commission Chambers located in the County Administra- tion Building, 4840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, at 9:05 a.m. to consider the adoption of an ordinance entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER. COUNTY, FLORIDA, ESTABUSHING BOUNDARIES FOR THE 650 ACRE COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NODE LOCATED AT THE INTERSEC- - TION OF INTERSTATE 95 AND C.R. 512 AS GENERALLY DESCRIBED IN THE TEXT OF • THE LAND USE ELEMENT AND DEPICTED ON THE LANG USE MAP OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COUNTY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; t7PROVIDING FOR THE BOUND- . ' ARY MAP. DESCRIPTION OF THE NODE AND EFFECTIVE ATE. • . • A map of the proposed node boundary is available at the Planning Department office on the sec- ond floor of the County Administration Building. The Board of County Commissioners may alter the proposed boundaries of the node by up to 600 feet In any direction. 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 the testimony and evi- dence upon which the appeal will be based.. Indian River County Board of County Commissioners ' By:-s•Don C. Scurlock Jr., Chairman , April 14, 1987 39 BOOK FARE 24 ;SAY 5 S87 BOOK 68 D!,E 250 Planning Director Keating made the staff presentation: TO: The Honorable Members of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: Robert M. Keating, AICP Director Community Development Division DATE Aril 24, 1987 SUBJECT: FILE: COUNTY -INITIATED REQUEST TO ESTABLISH BOUNDARIES FOR THE 650 ACRE I-95/ C.R. 512 COMMERCIAL/ INDUSTRIAL NODE FRONc and M. Shearer, AICP REFERENCES: Chief, Long -Range Planning 650-I-95 DIS:RICH4 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of May 5, 1987. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS: The Planning staff is initiating a request to establish bounda- ries for the 650 acre commercial/industrial node at the I-95 and County Road 512 interchange. On September 12, 1984, the Board of County Commissioners adopted an amendment to the text of the land use element of the Comprehensive 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 Comprehensive Plan. On January 15, 1986, the Board of County Commissioners adopted boundaries for the 240 acre commercial/industrial node at this interchange. However, the Board indicated that they felt that 240 acres was insufficient to meet the future need for commercial and industrial development in this area and directed the staff to initiate a Comprehensive Plan amendment request to enlarge the node to up to 1,000 acres. On July 29, 1986, the Board of County Commissioners enlarged the node to 650 acres. On March 26, 1987, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 7 -to -0 to recommend approval of the node boundaries reflected in attachment #3. The Planning and Zoning Commission amended the originally proposed node boundary by deleting 15 acres located in the northern part of the node and adding 15 acres of land on the south side of County Road 512. The Commission also recommended that the County initiate proceedings in July to add the 15 acres 40 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 I-95/C.R. 512 commercial/industrial 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 commercial uses in the general area of the node; 3. The existing zoning pattern; 4. Property boundaries; 5. Physical considerations; 6. Environmental constraints; and 7. Access to the transportation network. Existing Land Use All of the existing commercial and industrial uses in the general area of the node are included within the proposed node boundary. These existing commercial uses include Wayfara Travel Center (Gulf Service Station and Dairy Queen), the Sebastian Lakes Sales Center, and the Hetra Computers and Communications, Inc. faci- lity. The node is surrounded by undeveloped land to the north, south, east, and west. However, there is a 5,000 lot subdivision (Vero Lake Estates) located south of the node which contains a few single-family dwellings scattered over approximately five square miles. Future Land Use All of the nodes are generally described in the Comprehensive Plan. The I-95/C.R. 512 node is described as: "This is a commercial/industrial node containing 650 acres." The proposed node boundary includes commercial property on the north and south side of County Road 512, and Hetra Corporation's property to the east of Interstate 95. The general area of the node will concentrate future commercial and industrial uses around the I-95, County Road 512 interchange. It is the staff's position thatthe impact any new commercial development will have on future residential uses adjacent to the node will be lessened due to the adoption of new dimensional and bufferyard requirements for commercial uses. 41 MAY 51987 BOOK 68 251 rMAY 5197 BOCK 68 FD E 232 deleted from the node thru a comprehensive plan amendment to enlarge the node by 15 acres. The staff is concerned about further commercial development on the south side of County Road 512 but concurs with the Planning and Zoning Commissions two recommendations. In most instances, the proposed node boundary follows existing property boundaries. The proposed node boundary does transect two existing property lines. These parcels are rather large, and transecting them with the proposed node boundary will allow the property owners to develop a portion of their property 'for commercial uses. Physical Considerations The slope of the land in the node is from 2 to 4 % with ele- vations ranging from 21' to 25' mean sea -level. The soils in the node possess the following characteristics: poor compaction, poor shrink swell potential and are poorly drained. The aforementioned physical features indicate poor development potentials. Environment The node area is not designated as environmentally sensitive, nor is it located on the sandridge or ten -mile ridge aquifer recharge area. However, approximately 50% of the land in the node is located in the 100 year flood -plain as depicted on the Flood Insurance Rate Map for the area. Access to the Transportation network All of the parcels of land located in the I-95/C.R. 512 commer- cial/industrial node have either primary or secondary access to County Road 512 (designated as an Arterial on the Thoroughfare Plan). The existing interchange at County Road 512 and 1-95 provides access to the major north -south transportation system for the State of Florida, for all of the parcels in the node. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, staff recommends approval of the proposed boundary of the I-95/C.R. 512 Commercial /Industrial node as depicted in attachment #3. 42 1-95 / C.R.512 'Commercial/Industrial Node Proposed D -Node Boundary (650 acres) MAY 5 1981 43 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 1-95 / C.R.512 'Commercial/Industrial Node Proposed BOOK -Node Boundary (650 acres) r MAY 5 ,987 BOOK 68 F'/AGE 254 Director Keating noted that the node is configured with a lot of acreage in certain quadrants so that industrial activities which need a large campus can be accommodated. Director Keating confirmed that while staff had some concerns about the platted but almost undeveloped subdivision (Vero Lake Estates), they now concur with the recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Commis- sion to add 15 acres on the south of SR512 by deleting 15 acres from the northern part of the node and then initiating a Compre- hensive Plan amendment to add that 15 acres back to the node. Commissioner Wheeler asked if there is a buffer for Vero Lake Estates which is single family residential, and Director Keating stated that is something that should be considered in the near future and staff will come back relative to that. He noted that the advantage of the area to be added to the node is that the ownership pattern is that people own several lots together and they can be developed as unified tracts. He continued that staff would be looking at a commercial zone south of CR 512 and east of 1-95; whereas the industrial would be mainly to the northeast. He also noted that the non-residential zoning districts require a pretty substantial buffer and screening when they abut residential. Commissioner Wheeler wished to know the advantage of moving 15 acres from north to south and then applying to put it back. Director Keating advised this was his suggestion. He did not feel the impetus for development to the north was that sub- stantial at this time, and the only advantage of the move is time, i.e., if someone wants to do something in the next 6 to 8 months. Discussion continued re timing, and while Commissioner Wheeler believed the northern area has great potential for development, he agreed we should make the node large enough.to anticipate future needs and discourage residential' encroachment as we did at the Oslo node. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. 44 Chris Marine came before the Board as attorney for Carson Platt, who owns property both in the northeast and northwest quadrant of the interchange. He informed the Board that the 15 acres recommended to be excluded on the north and moved to the south is Mr. Platt's property. He believed there was an impassioned plea from those to the south, and Mr. Platt sympa- thized just as long as his 15 acres ultimately is included in the node. Attorney Marine stressed that this interchange is extremely attractive for this particular type of development; it is on a major north/south transportation system leading into highly developed Brevard County; and he felt this is a node where the Commission can afford to be quite liberal, certain 650 acres is not too liberal. He stressed that Mr. Platt would basically request that the Board ultimately allow his northern 15 acres to be included in the node. Attorney George Glenn came before the Board representing Ed Ansin, Ro-Ed Corporation, who owns a substantial number of the subject lots in Vero Lakes Estates. He stated that since Mr. Platt has no objection to waiting for the Comprehensive Plan amendment, they do ask those lots be included in the node at this time. It was determined that no one else wished to be heard, and Chairman Scurlock declared the public hearing closed. ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted Ordi- nance 87-38 approving the boundaries of the 1-95/ CR512 Node as recommended by the Planning & Zoning Commission and staff and directed staff to initiate action to bring the 15 acres deleted back into the node. 45 MAY 5 1907 BOOK 68 Ft\L,F 2j m fki 987 BOOK fAc ORDINANCE NO. 87 - 38 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA ESTABLISHING BOUNDARIES FOR THE 650 ACRE COMMERCIAL/ INDUSTRIAL NODE LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF INTERSTATE 95 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, REPEAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 86-8 AND EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida have 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" shall be the official boundaries of the 650 acre Commercial/Industrial Node located at the intersection of I-95 and County Road 512. - 46 ORDINANCE NO..87- 38 SECTION 2 Ordinance No. 86-8 which established boundaries for the 240 acre commercial/industrial node located at the intersection of I-95 and County Road 512 is hereby repealed in its entirety. SECTION 3 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 the _3th day of May 1987. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY : 2ZA0,., G DON C. SCURLOCK, Jr). , , iAIRMAN ATTEST BY: '6„)? FREDA WRIG T,CLE K Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of Florida this 8th day of May , 1987. Effective Date: Acknowledgment from the Department of State received on this 13th day of May , 1987 at 11:00 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 47 MAY 5 1987 BOOK 68 NAY 5 1987 GOOK 68 FA E 8 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 1-95 / C.R.512 Commercial/Industrial Node itr75.12 .10 00 xza. rzra, ab t4.54.,,a4,=44, G sk- a.r. s-�t<x av aa+alxgt; sO rc. Y : ucxxgwsar+.szax fflffirg rCxt$ppZ'y`Tfr6' ,--....r, ,,49 saa'aaaax��uzISS, •YSS.115 C. d16IF gz4 r:;17 Zt>o.Z Mgz, r.5.1 'Fxmn XtlrawOp 6tp Oi _ . o e v � NB [161 U.L 011d� C:� P. OD F^ Olp GA Cal:I G41 C11.) 61� Sp p1D�p W ff re �.1 Vp gip,' CEP OW Elf CP 01 t,v s r+.1 men oo vo 061 000flf: e�� oonn n•.. sLEf- "'� j mo LG_'TT'r p^ pv '-610 ▪ rT00 mo?m dist ran Proposed -Node Boundary (6 50 acres) ATTACHMENT A 48 ABANDONMENT PORTION OF 19TH AVE. R/W (MALONE) 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 ,no-VIc,e, in the matter of C.\05 1'fr3 RO[ kA0r1 O'P 194.h Ih Avee,nuz in the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of P7r't, \L\ \a 1$1 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 1 `�h f day of •-+ p r v 1 A D 19531 (SEAL) 612,,tt4, sin 'ssManager) (Clerk of the Circuit Cou • , Indian River County, Florida) • >''ik"`":.NOTICE OF PUBUC HEARING ,7'.L " ,', NOt1ce of hearing to consider a petition for the closing, abandonment, and vacation of a portion ' of 19th,y►venue lying south of 37th Place, and north o^. 37th Street within the W.E. Geoffrey Subdivision as recorded In Plat Book 2. Page 32 of the Public Records of St. Lucie County, said lands now lying and being within Indian River County. Florida, retaining an easement for drain- age and utilities. Said right-of-way being more ' particularly described as follows: • The subject property is described as: ALL THAT PORTION OF ROAD RIGHT- OF-WAY KNOWN AS 19TH AVENUE IN SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 32S, RANGE 39E LYING SOUTH OF THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY OF 37TH PLACE; ' LYING EAST OF THE EAST PROPERTY LINE OF LOTS 184 AND 181. BLOCK 13 OF GEOFFREY SUBDIVISION AS .REt W.E.ORDED IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 32 ' OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS .OF ST. LUCIE (NOW, INDIAN RIVER) COUNTY, • • FLORIDA;' HYING NORTH OF THE ' NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY OF 37TH •STR ET; AND LYING WEST OF THE • WEST PROPERTY LINE OF LOTS' 200 AND 185, BLOCK 14 OF W.E. GEOF- FREY SUBDIVISION AS RECORDED IN ' PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 32 OF THE PUB- LIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE (NOW IN- ' DIAN RIVER) COUNTY, FLORIDA. • A public hearing at which parties in interest and citizens shall have an op- , portunity to be heard, will be held by the Board of County Commissioners of In- - than River County, Florida. in the County Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, located at 1840 ' 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Tuesday, May 5, 1987 at 9:05 a.m. Anyone whom may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need to ensure that a verba- tim record of the proceedings is made which includes the testimony and evi- dence' upon which the appeal will be based. . Indian River County '. • , Board of County Commissioners By -s -Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Chairman - April 14, 1987 Chief Planner Boling made the staff presentation: 49 MAY 5 1987 BOOK �.t..2 ir MAY 5 1987 BOOK 68 Pr1GE 260 TO:The Honorable Members of DATE: April 23, 1987 FILE: the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCU1IRENCE: Robert M. Ke.? inICP SUBJECT: JAMES D. MALONE'S PETITION Director, Co uni y Development FOR ABANDONMENT OF A Division PORTION OF 19TH AVENUE RIGHT-OF-WAY THROUGH: Stan Boling 416 Chief, Current Development FROM: REFERENCES: David C. NearingaUp�) -malone Staff Planner L4' DAVE It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of May 5, 1987. LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION: Mr. James D. Malone has submitted a petition for the abandonment of a portion of 19th Avenue situated on the northeast corner of U.S. Highway 1 and 37th Street (Barber Avenue). The applicant owns the remainder of two lots west of this right-of-way within the W.E. Geoffrey Subdivision; a large portion of these lots was previously acquired by the FDOT for U.S. 1 right-of-way. Aban- donment of this portion of right-of-way would add additional lot area to the remainder of the applicant's two lots, rendering them more developable under current county code. The County is cur- rently in ownership of the two lots to the east that abut the subject right-of-way. Thus, upon abandonment of the subject right-of-way, the applicant's property and the County's property would be enlarged. Per guidelines established by the Board of County Commissioners, the petition was reviewed by all County divisions and utility providers having jurisdiction within the right-of-way. All reviewing agencies have recommended approval of the abandonment. However, the County Utilities Division has requested that the east 20 feet of the subject right-of-way be retained as a utility easement. The petitioner is in agreement with this request. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: This 40 feet wide unimproved portion of right-of-way is not part of the roadway system as noted on the County Thoroughfare Plan and is not needed as part of the thoroughfare system. Because of the way in which this right-of-way intersects with both U.S. 1 and Barber Avenue (see attachment #2), its utilization would create a dangerous three -road intersection. Thus, abandonment of the subject right-of-way would facilitate a safer road layout. For these reasons, this portion of right-of-way will never be needed, and is of no value to the County. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the County abandon its rights to the 40 foot wide portion of right-of-way, with the exception of the requested. utility easement as noted in the attached resolution, and that the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners be authorized to execute the attached resolution (Attachment #3). - 50 IP 0N 4 lJ N w TH $7` EMMEN EENIME Il67:. • �NTOi 37T11 PL. m n 0I0 M 01m Il Il 3T'L, ST. BARBER AVE SUBJECT R -O -W The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. Attorney William Collins came before the Board representing the petitioner. He advised that a year ago in January, the Board changed the zoning codes. At that time this property had C -1A zoning, and the required setbacks were 10', which gave Mr. Malone 1830 sq. ft. of buildable area. This vicinity, however, eventually ended up in the Medical/Commercial Node, which they feel is appropriate, but the net effect of that change was that their setbacks were increased to 25', which reduced the buildable area. Attorney Collins was in favor of staff's recommendation for abandonment, but stated the Board has a basic problem with their request to maintain an easement. He noted that 20' would be abandoned to Mr. Malone and 20' abandoned to the owners on the east, which is the county; so, the County still owns fee simple to the R/W and you can't give yourself an easement in something you already own. Attorney Vitunac agreed and noted that the county may have to reestablish that easement in the future, but he did not see how that affects the petitioner's property. 51 l MAY 5 1987 BOOS? U Fb,; ?t1414 y Ir" IA AY 51 7 BOOK 68 F3r3F. Attorney Collins stated that it doesn't; he just believed the county has a procedural problem. He continued that Mr. Malone had a usable piece of property, but with the new zoning and new setbacks, he only has about 198 sq. ft. of buildable area, which they consider an unreasonable use. Abandonment of the R/W will give them about 1400 sq. ft. buildable, and they still will probably need some variances. Commissioner Bowman had a problem, She asked if anyone has considered the need for a frontage road here at some time. Public Works Director Davis stated that would be considered at site plan time. It appeared to him that small triangular area to the east of U.,S.I does have frontage on 37th Place, which is currently open. He further noted that it is a residential area up there. Attorney Collins felt it most likely that someone will pick up the 3 county lots and combine it with this to have a viable piece of property. He emphasized that if the R/W is not abandoned, Mr. Malone would have to apply to have the zoning struck down so he could have a reasonable use of his property. Director Keating noted that staff always looks at frontage or marginal access roads when there is a substantial commercial acreage involved. Right now staff is looking at Geoffrey Subdivision being developed out as residential. It was determined that no one further wished to be heard, and the Chairman declared the public hearing closed. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com- missioner Wheeler, Commissioner Bowman voting in opposition, the Board by a 4 to 1 vote approved Resolution 87-44, abandoning the county's rights to said 40 foot wide portion of R/W with the exception of the requested utility easement. 52 RESOLUTION NO. 87 - 44 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD. OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA PROVIDING FOR THE CLOSING, ABANDONMENT; AND VACATION OF A PORTION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY KNOWN AS 19TH AVENUE LYING BETWEEN BLOCK 14 AND BLOCK 13 OF W.E. GEOFFREY SUBDIVISION, RESERVING UNTO THE COUNTY AN EASEMENT FOR DRAINAGE AND UTILITY PURPOSES. WHEREAS, on February 11, 1986, the County received a duly executed and documents petition from James D. Malone, P. O. Box 1541, 3716 U.S. 1, Vero Beach, Florida, requesting the County to close, vacate, abandon, and disclaim any right, title, and interest of the County and the public in and to all that portion of 19th Avenue lying between Block 14 and Block 13 of the W.E. Geoffrey subdivision, as recorded in plat book 2, page 32, of the Public Records of St. Lucie County, now lying in Indian River County, Florida; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Florida Statutes §336.10, notice of a public hearing to consider said petition has been duly published; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: 1. All right, title and interest of the County and the public in and to at certain right-of-way being known more particularly described as: All that portion of road rig t -of -way known as 19th Avenue in Section 26, Townsh'p 32S, Range 39E lying south of the south right -of -fay of 37th Place; lying east of the east property lige of lots 184 and 181, Block 13 of W.E. Geoffrey Subdivision as recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 32 of the Public Records of St. Lucie (now, Indian River) County, Florida; lying north of the north right-of-way of 37th Street; and lying west of the west property line of lots 200 and 185, Block 14 of W.E. Geoffrey Subdivision as recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 32 of the Public Records of St. Lucie (now Indian River) County, Florida. is hereby forever closed, abandoned, vacated, surrendered, discontinued, remised and released with the exception that drainage and utility easements on and over the east 20 feet of the parcel described above is hereby reserved in perpetuity unto the County and the public and shall not,be deemed to have been closed or abandoned in any way by this resolution. 2. Notice of the adoption of this resolution shall be forthwith published once within thirty (30) days from the date of adoption hereof; and 3. The Clerk is hereby directed to record this resolution together with the proofs of publication required by Florida Statutes §336.10 in the Official Record Books of Indian River County without undue delay. 4. By the recordation of this resolution in the Official Records of Indian River County, the public is hereby notified that no conveyance of that parcel of land formed by the combination of the east one-half (1/2) of the right-of-way of 19th Avenue, herein abandoned, together with abutting lots 200 and 185, Block 14, W.E. Geoffrey Subdivision, shall be made by Indian River County, the fee simple owner of such combined parcel by virtue of Florida Statute 336.10, without the reservation to Indian River County of utility easements. The location of such reserved utility easements shall be determined by the Indian River County Utility Director after consultation with the City of Vero Beach Power Company and Southern Bell Telephone Company, prior to any such conveyance by Indian River County. 53 MAY 51937 BOOK 68 E UE 263 MAY 5 1997 BOOK 68 F3E. The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Bird who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Wheeler , and upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Vice -Chairman Margaret C. Bowman Commissioner Richard N. Bird Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler Aye Nay Aye Aye Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this Sth day of May , 1987. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDI RIVER CO NTY, F IDA BY: Don . Scurlock, Jr. 44TH AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS The Board reviewed memo of the Public Works Director: TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: April 24, 1987 FILE: Board of County Commissioners THROUGH: Charles P. Balczun, County Mministrator FROM: ames W. Davis, P.E Public Works Director SUBJECT: 44th Avenue Improvements REFERENCES: DESCRIPTIONS AND CONDITIONS Residents of the 1600 and 1700 blocks of 44th Avenue have submitted a petition to pave 44th Avenue and create a cul-de-sac at the south end of the Pinewood Subdivision. This action is requested to deter non -local traffic. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS 1. Construct the requested improvements as part of the petition paving program. Between 20 and 65 feet of additional right-of-way would be required to be dedicated to construct the roadway and cul-de-sacs to County road standards. The preliminary cost for paving would be $30 per lineal foot. Construction can be scheduled 12 to 18 months upon your approval. 2. Approve the requested improvements and require the residents to absorb all costs of the design and construction. 3. Deny the requested improvements to 44th Avenue. RECOM]DATION AND FUNDING Alternative # 1 is recommended to isolate non -local traffic from this residential street which connects 16th Street and State Road 60 and also serves commercial land uses. Funding to be from #703-214-541-035.39. 54 ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved Alternative #1 as recommended by staff. MEDICAL EXAMINER'S REQUEST FOR FUNDS The OMB Director reviewed the following: TO: Honorable Members Board of County Commissioners FROM: Joseph 9A. Baird OMB Director DATE: May 5, 1987 SUBJECT: MEDICAL EXAMINER Attached is a letter from Dr. Leonard Walker requesting additional monies be appropriated for the Medical Examiner in 1987/87 Fiscal Year. At the 1986/87 budget hearings Dr. Walker requested $121,004, but Indian River County appropriated $80,000. He is requesting that the County appropriate the full $121,004, as he had originally requested. The request would require a $41,004 budget transfer from Board of County Commission General Fund Contingencies. April 30, 1987 STATE OF FLORIDA OFFICE OF THE MEDICAL EXAMINER DISTRICT NINETEEN, FLORIDA 4001 VIRGINIA AVENUE, SUITE 8 FORT PIERCE, FL 33482 (305) 4847378 Mr. Joseph A. Baird Budget Director Indian River County Board of Commissioners 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 Dear Mr. Baird: The District Nineteen Office of the Medical Examiner is at this time formally requesting that Indian River,County forward to this office the additional lump sum of $18,000.00 to bring your county in good standing with our office and with the other counties in this district. In addition, the Medical Examiner's Office asks that our budget request of $121,004.00 for fiscal year 1986/$7 be reviewed by the Indian River County Commission and approved funds for that year be adjusted accordingly to avoid any 55 MAY 5 1987 6 BOOK ; = O PLAY 5 1987 BOOK 68 ME 266 future indebtedness to our office by your county as contracted for in the July 1986 budget hearing. Our office would also like to notify you that at the present time we do not intend to submit a budget request for fiscal year 1987/88. Instead, the Medical Examiner's Office will operate on a fee for service basis during that fiscal year due to a transition in administrations. If I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me, anytime. Sincerely, Jon M. Pellett Executive Director Chairman Scurlock noted this is a two part request - the first would require a $41,000 budget transfer from Board contingencies, and then we need authorization for the Medical Examiner's Selection Committee to underwrite legitimate interview costs for medical examiner candidates. The total estimated cost is $3,000, and Indian River County would pay a proportional share of the $3,000. He asked that the Board deal with the second request first. ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously authorized the payment of our proportionate share of the $3,000 anticipated expenses of the Medical Examiners Selection Committee; funds to come from General Fund Contingency. The Board then discussed the request to review and adjust the Medicat Examiner's budget for FY 1986/87 up to his original request of $121,004. Chairman Scurlock noted we chose to fund him to the levet of $80,000, or $1.00 per capita, which is basically in tine with state standards. Apparently, however, Dr. Walker has been spending at a higher rate than that. He asked if there is any specific request as to what the funds were for. 56 OMB Director Baird noted the letter did not go into particulars. Commissioner Bowman believed Dr. Walker should account for the funds he has already had, and Chairman Scurlock stated he would like to see him appear before the Board. He commented that he had found it interesting to learn that the doctor's yearly salary was $90,000. Commissioner Bird stressed that he would greatly prefer to have Dr. Walker mail in his information rather than get into a fruitless argument with him. Chairman Scurlock noted that when he testified at the Medical Examiners hearing, there was a question about that unfortunate incident where certain examinations were not performed, and if we have a Motion of some sort, he would like it made extremely clear that if there is a specific test that needs to be done, we need to know about it and we want to be sure that whatever legitimate tests are needed are done. We may have a problem with whether Dr. Walker's salary should be $90,000 a year and whether he has an administrative assistant, but we expect basic X-rays and blood tests to be done, and Dr. Walker used this as a vehicle to say that we underfunded him with the result that when a test needed to be done, he didn't have the money for it. Commissioner Bowman believed he said the other counties paid for it, and that was confirmed by the Chairman. Commissioner Bowman emphasized that she would like to see an accounting, and discussion continued re a Motion asking for additional documenta- tion and emphasizing that we expect all appropriate required testing to be done. In the ensuing discussion, OMB Director Baird noted that we just give Dr. Walker a monthly draw the first of every month. Commissioner Wheeler believed Dr. Walker has stated he is somewhat overbudget and we haven't paid him. He felt the doctor should be able to show us where he spent the money; he must know 57 AY`S7 BOOK 1 MAY 5 937 BOOK 68 PAGE 268 what his fixed expenses are and everything else should be charged out to each county. This all should be spelled out. Commissioner Bird believed Dr. Walker has a total budget for the four -county area, and it probably is difficult for him to break out the expenses as to the exact amount of money he is spending in each county. The other three counties apparently thought his budget was reasonable, but we disagreed; so, if we refuse to pay the $18,000 the doctor is claiming is needed to make up the shortfall, he did not want the other counties to get the impression they are subsidizing us. Chairman Scurlock advised that at the hearing, Dr. Walker testified that he can break out most charges, not the general overhead to which he assigns a percentage, but the tests, X-rays, transportation, etc., and that is where he is saying we are not paying our fair share. The Chairman felt where we don't agreement with his budget is in regard to his salary and administrative assistant. Commissioner Bowman continued to stress that we don't know what the $18,000 is for, and if the doctor is any kind of an administrator, he knows what his overhead is for the year and how much he spent on Indian River County business. OMB Baird clarified that what the doctor is saying when he asks for the $18,000 is that if he had gotten the $121,000 budget, the payments we have made to him up until this point in time would have been $18,000 short. Chairman Scurlock continued to stress that where the problem in Dr. Walker's budget arises is with the salary he gave himself and his administrative assistant. We did not agree with this, and he just went ahead and implemented his budget as if all four counties had agreed and then said we weren't paying our fair share. He felt we should identify to the other counties that they should reduce his salary account commensurate with his ability and his demonstrated action in the past year, and then he would have his shortfall. 58 OMB Director Baird asked if the Board wished to deny the request pending receipt of further backup and information. Commissioner Bird asked if this isn't all accountable and whether Dr. Walker doesn't have to submit books at the end of the year for final audit. OMB Director Baird advised that we are on contract with him and just give him a draw. Possibly the state would audit him. It was his opinion, since the doctor is requesting public money, that he has to present his case to the Board in a form adequate to satisfy them. Chairman Scurlock cited the following: "District Medical Examiners and Associate Medical Examiners shall be entitled to compensation at such reasonable salary and fees as are established by the Board of County Commissioners in the respective districts." He noted that this, however, doesn't give parameters for what you do if you don't agree. He believed we need some legal research about what our position is and what steps we take. Attorney Vitunac noted we approved the budget at the begin- ning of the year, and this is a request for a budget amendment. He believed Dr. Walker stated in Tampa that he has the data in the form the Board wanted and we just want to ask for more information to consider it later. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com- missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously agreed to request that Dr. Walker convey additional infor- mation to the Board so we will be able to reach an intelligent decision on his request and also emphasize that we expect all appropriate required testing to be done. 59 MAY 5 1907 BOOK 68 MAY 51957 BOOK 68 F'pCc 2'! AGREEMENT WITH CITY OF VERO BEACH RE UTILITY SERVICE AREA The Board reviewed memo of County Attorney Vitunac: TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: DATE: April 29, 1987 RE: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney AGENDA - BCC MEETING 5/5/87 COUNTY ATTORNEY'S MATTERS AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AND THE CITY OF VERO BEACH RE: UTILITY SERVICE AREA The County and the City of Vero Beach are presently redefining their ultimate territorial boundaries for water and sewer service. Until all the final boundaries are determined, certain adjustments need to be made immediately. The attached agreement is one of these adjustments which will transfer the defined territory to the City's service area. I respectfully request permission from the Board of County Commissioners to have the Chairman execute this agreement on behalf of the County. ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved agreement with the City of Vero Beach adjusting utility service area boundaries, as recommended by the County Attorney. (SAID AGREEMENT WILL BE MADE A PART OF THE MINUTES WHEN FULLY EXECUTED & RECEIVED) There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 12:05 o'clock P.M. ATTEST: (64)P Clerk 60