HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/21/1987I
Tuesday, July 21, 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, July
21, 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 Barbara Bonnah, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order, and Commissioner
Bowman led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Chairman Scurlock requested the addition to today's Agenda
of a budget amendment for County Court Facility Improvements.
Attorney Vitunac requested the addition of a purchase
agreement with the State for the Howell -Chapman acquisition, and
the addition of a North County Fire District resolution
prohibiting alcoholic beverages in the Sebastian Fire Station.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously added
the above items to today's Agenda.
'JUL 2119V7
U 84
r,,� 2
_1
JUL 21 1997
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Boon 8 F,� F 84
The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or
additions to the Minutes of the Special Meeting of June 30, 1987.
There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously
approved the Minutes of the Special Meeting of
6130187, as written.
CONSENT AGENDA
Chairman Scurlock asked that Item H be removed for
discussion, and Commissioner Eggert requested that Items D, G,
and M be removed also.
A. Report
Received and placed on file in Office of Clerk to the Board:
Traffic Violation Bureau - Special Trust Fund
Month of June, 1987 - $42,085.48
B. Approval of Renewal Applications for Permit to Carry a
Concealgd 'x.eaxm -
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 711187:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Charles P. Balczun
County Administrator
DATE: July 1, 1987 - FILE:
SUBJECT: PISTOL PERMITS - NEW
REFERENCES:
The following persons have applied through the Clerk's Office for new
pistol permits:
Barbara A: Beatty
Chad A. Kelly
Douglas S. Zapf
Elizabeth B. Boisvert
John P. Corso
All requirements of the ordinance have been met and are in order.
2
J
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
renewal applications for a Permit to Carry a Con-
cealed Weapon for the following persons:
Barbara A. Beatty
Chad A. Kelly
Douglas S. Zapf
Elizabeth B. Boisvert
John P. Corso
C. Appointment to Transportation Planning Committee
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 7/13/87:
Tito of FrUsnurp
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE POST OFFICE BOX 38
PHONE 571-0116 FELLSMERE, FLORIDA - 32948
July 13, 1987 13141574
jk
c^o R 9&;,
County Transportation Planning Committee � g,
-_ C
O,U 0
oq
Attn: Liz Forlani c^� 44Sji, ?r'
1840 25th Street ,� is
Vero Beach, Florida 32960r,n,0001
Dear Liz:
POLICE DEPARTMENT
PHONE 571-1360
This is to confirm that at the June 12, 1987 Regular Council Meeting
for the City of Fellsmere, that Councilman Frank Hurst was appointed
to represent the City of Fellsmere at the County Transportation
Planning Committee Meetings.
If you need any additional information, please feel free to contact
my office.
Sincerely, AA
Jeanette E. Dale, City Clerk I
City of Fellsmere
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the appointment of Councilman Frank Hurst to the
Transportation Planning Committee as Fellsmere's
representative to replace Paul Cosner.
3
BOOK r-)
r
�JUL 2 11987 Boos b 8 f,A t 846
D. Change Order #3-6 - Sheriff's Administration Building -
(tabled at 4/14/87 meeting
The Board reviewed the following letter dated 5/22187:
SWRh
May 22, 1987
Mr. A. Donadio
C.E. Block Architect, Inc.
P.O. Box 1206
Vero Beach, Florida 32961
PWR CORPORATION
HIGHLAND cnY. FLORIDA 33846-6248
Re: Sheriff's Administration Building
813/648.1408 .
Dear Tony:
The cost of -adding conduit, access hand holes and three 3' x
3' x 4" concrete pads for the seven monitoring wells indicated
as item No. 7 on Dwg. ME -1, is indicated below: (See Attached)
Labor & Materials------------------------ $1,487.00
Insurance @ .005 ------------------------ $7.44
Subtotal 94.4
Permit @ .003---------------------------- $4.48
Subtotal $1,498.92
G.C. Overhead & Profit @ 0.10------------ $149.89
Subtotal ,648.81
Bond @ 0.015 ------------- =--------------- $24.73
,6 3.
Add Total--- $1,673.00
The above cost is based upon extending the conduit from the (4)
wells near service island to the shop building and terminating
above the concrete. The conduit at -the three wells south of
the shop building will terminate above grade near the three
new concrete pads. All seven monitoring wells will:be-. ..
equipped with hand holes and covers for visual inspection.
Please issue a change order to reflect the $1,673.00• increased
cost for this project.
Sincerely,
PW%R% CORP RATION
Richard L. Stratton
Executive Vice President
E
Commissioner Eggert recalled that this change order was
tabled from last week in order to determine what kind of equip-
ment would be needed. She asked if it was wise for us to go
ahead and do this in light of what we plan on doing there in the
future.
Solid Waste Manager Sonny Dean explained that presently we
have a manual monitoring system, but the DER has indicated that
they are going to an electrical system, which calls for a
sensoring device to be dropped down the well with a wire run over
to a a location protected from the weather. He recommended that
the conduit be installed from the monitoring well over to the
Inside of the building.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
approved Change Order 3-6 in the amount of
$1,673 for the Sheriff's Administration
Building.
/ 4gHANGE Distribution to:
ORDER OWNER 0
ARCHITECT O i
1 CONTRACTOR O
AIA DOCUMENT G70
C FIELD 0
OTHER O
f
PROJECT: Sheriff's Administration Building CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: I.R.C. 3-6 ip
(name, address)
INITIATION DATE: 6/17/87
TO (Contractor):
F ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: 8528
PWR Corporation CONTRACT FOR: One story block office buil
P. 0. BOX 249
Highland City, Florida 33846 CONTRACT DATE: October 13, 1986
You are directed to make the following changes in this Contract: s
Add conduit, access hand holes, and Add: $1, 673.00
concrete pads for (7) seven monitoring
wells indicated as item no.7 on Drawing
ME -1, (See attached)
,JUL 2 1.1987 5 Booty bb F ,r 47
w
BOOK 68 IAH 841
Not valid until signed by both the Owner and Architect.
Signature of the Contractor indicates his agreement herewith, including any adjustment in the Contract Sum or Contract Time.
The original (Contract Sum) was ........................... $ 2,106,155. 00
Net change by previously authorized Change Orders ................................... $ 409,566. 37
The (Contract Sum) ((t4o`XaXkl4,,1<oYsi4 prior to this Change Order was .......... $ 2,515,721. 37
The (Contract Sum) will be (increased) fal�6lie�4d$(i4►ir�fs�ia
by this Change Order......................................................... $ 1,673. 00
The new (Contract Sum) including this Change Order will be ... $ 2,517,394. 37
The Contract Time will be )i)§Xr) X=XA*XQ(unchanged) by ( 0 ) Days.
The Date of Substantial Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is September 21 ,1987
Authorized:
C.E. Block Architect, Inc. PWR Corporation Chairman of I.R.C. Commissior
ARCHITECT CONTRACTOR5bVNER
1995 -39th Avenue P.O. Box 249 C-
Address Vero Beach, Florida 32960 AddresHi.ghland City, Florida Addres`=-- "'
BY BY
DATE�,e 117 I �7 DATE
E. School Board Request for Special Election
BY
DATE �� 7
The Board reviewed the following letter dated 7/14/87:
Telephone (305) 567 - 7165
SUNCOM No. 257 -1011
sctio ClL VISTPICT Cr INUTAN VIVEL. C'otiNTY
1990 25th Street - Vero Beach, Florida 32960
JAMES A. BURNS, Superintendent
July 14, 1987
Board of County Commissioners
Indian River County
1845 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Dear Commissioners:
The Indian River County School Board is requesting approval
for a special election on October 20, 1987 for the purpose
of setting a bond referendum.
The School Board office has talked with the Supervisor
of Elections, who has agreed that this date is satisfactory.
The estimated cost of the special election is $20,000.00,
which is being remitted at this time.
Thank you for your cooperation and feel free to call my
office if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
s
- Fran Ad
Administrative Asst. to the Supt.
6
SCHOOL BOARD
CAROL K. JOHNSON
Chairman
GARY LINDSEY
Vice -Chairman
KATHY DOWD
JOE N. IDLETTE, JR.
GENE WADDELL
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the School Board's request for a special election to
be held on October 20, 1987.
F. Approval of Contract with Coopers 8 Lybrand for Auditing
Services
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 7115(87:
TO: THE BOARD OF COUNTY DATE: July 15, 1987 FILE:
COMMISSIONERS
= SUBJECT: Audit Contract
FROM: Don C. Scurlock, Jr. REFERENCES:
Chairman
The audit negotiating committee met with representatives of Coopers and
Lybrand to negotiate a contract for auditing services. Coopers and
Lybrand has agreed to do the audit of the 1987 fiscal year for
$80,000.00; the audit of the 1988 fiscal year for $85,000.00; and the
audit of the 1989 fiscal year for $90,000.00.
I am requesting the approval of the Board of County Commissioners to
sign a contract with Coopers and Lybrand for auditing services.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the contract with Coopers 8 Lybrand for Auditing
Services to the County.
CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
G. Gifford Area Sewer Project - Deadline for Signing Easement
Document
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 7115187:
7
JULL- 2 11987
BOOK "- F, cjF 8,42
r
L 211987 BOOK P.,; c
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DATE: JULY 151 1987
VIA: CHARLES P. BALCZUN
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILIT ICES.
SUBJECT: GIFFORD AREA SEWER PROJECT
DEADLINE FOR SIGNING EASEMENT DOCUMENT
BACKGROUND
It is now necessary for the Count to have secured all of the executed
easements in order to service specific .streets of the Gifford Area
Sewer Project.
Because of the time restraints for FmHA funding, we have reached a
point in the acquisition process that, if the outstanding easements
aren't executed, it will be necessary for the engineer to eliminate
those areas from the wastewater system. Therefore, we have prepared
the attached self-explanatory letter to submit -to various property
owners of outstanding easements.
RECOMMENDATION
The Staff of the Division of Utility Services requests that the Board
of County Commissioners authorize sending a letter to each property
owner setting forth a deadline for signing the outstanding easement.
Re: GIFFORD SEWER PROJECT
Dear Property Owner:
On July , 1987, Indian River County will make its
final decision on where the Gifford -_sewer lines will be
built. If you want your property to have public sewers, it
Is necessary for you to give the easement*which will allow
your property to be served. Otherwise, after July
_ 1987, your property will not be included in the project.
You should be aware that even if you do give the necessary
easements, if other property owners between your property
and the main sewer line do not give their easements, we will
be unable to serve you and will release your.easement.
If you have decided to sign the easement, please contact
Mrs. Ernestine Williams at 567-8000, Ext. 404, and she will
be happy to make arrangements to meet with you.
If she does not hear from you, she will assume that you do
not want to participate in this project.
Sincerely,
DIVISION OF UTILITY SERVICES
;Terrance G. Pinto -
Director
*
This --easement merely grants permission to the County to install sewer lines
and related equipment such as pumps, valves, etc. You still own the.property
T on which the easement is located. 8
� r
Commissioner Eggert had a problem with the last line in the
the suggested letter to go out to the property owners, as she
felt we should be a little more aggressive on this project than
just saying that if we do not hear from them, we will assume that
they do not want to participate in the project.
Utilities Director Terry Pinto explained that staff has
contacted everyone from whom we need easements, and felt that the
reason why many have not signed is just due to the lack of a
deadline. At present, easements are needed from approximately 30
owners, and letters -will be sent out certified mail.
Commissioner Eggert wished to have Mrs. Williams try and
contact those owners one more time, and Director Pinto advised
that as soon as we receive the certified mail receipts, Mrs.
Williams would try and contact these people one more time and ask
them their intentions.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously authorized
staff to send a certified letter to each property owner
setting forth a deadline for signing the outstanding
easement.
H. Intersection Study - 8th Street at 20th Avenue
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 7/10187:
9
JUL 21.1987 BOOK F,,
lL 21198
BOOK VA. "JE
TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: July 10, 1987 FILE:
Board of County Canissioners
THROUGH:
Charles P. Balczun,
County Administrator
James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works D' r
SUBJECT: Intersection Study -
8th Street at 20th Avenue
FROM•ko REFERENCES:
Michael L. Orr,
Traffic Engineer
DESCRIPTION OF CONDITIONS
A study of the subject intersection was conducted by staff in response to a
proposal to develop a child care facility south of the intersection.
The attached report was presented to the Transportation Planning-Ccmittee
on July 8, 1987, which subsequently recommended approval.
Improvements listed below are to increase safety and capacity
during the next twenty years.
Left -Turn Lanes - four approaches $130,300
Traffic Signal 30,000
Project Total $160,000
ALTS ATIVES AND ANALYSIS
(1) Approve the Intersection Study and add the aforementioned project to
the Transportation Improvement Program.
(2) Select other intersection improvements. -
(3) Do not approve the Intersection Study and do not add an improvement
project to the Transportation Improvement Program.
Alternative # 1 is _recannended to increase safety and capacity at 8th
Street and 20th Avenue. This project should be added to the group of four
intersections along 43rd Avenue previously approved for design and con-
struction. Paulding is available through Traffic Impact Fees and/or gaso-
line tax revenue.
Chairman Scurlock asked if we have to drop anything off our
priority list as a result of adding this intersection, and Public
Works Director Jim Davis advised that we would not. It might
affect our cash flow, however.
Commissioner Bowman asked if there was any other intersec-
tion that was more dangerous that should have a higher priority,
and Director Davis explained that this intersection was part of
the entire corridor plan.
10
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
the Intersection Study with the addition of the 8th
Street & 20th Avenue intersection - Alternate #1.
I. Intersection Improvements at 8th Street & 27th Avenue -
Unimproved Parcel (Largent)
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 7/9/87:
TO:THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF DATE: July 9, 1987 FILE:
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THROUGH:
Charles P. Balczun
County Administrator.
SUBJECT:
James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Directo
Largent-Unimproved Parcel
8th Street Intersection
Improvements at 27th Avenue
FROM:REFERENCES:
Donald G. Finney, SRA
Right of Way Acquisition
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
1) Armfield Appraisal $ 566.00
(Land R/W 41x156.45' and aerial easement 3'x156.451)
Property Owner minimum acceptance $1,000:00
Reasonable attorney's fees 800.00
$1,800.00
County Attorney will prepare Warranty Deed, Partial Release of Mortgage
and Closing Statement.
vs:
2) Condemnation to acquire:
Appraised Value
Attorney's fee to date
Depositions
Court Costs
Attorney &witness &
appraiser court fee
Appraisals
Condemnation costs
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
$ 566.00
800.00
250.00
150.00
1,200.00
800.00
$3,766.00
Staff recommends purchasing at $1,000 in lieu of condemnation and
paying reasonable attorney fee before run up of additional -attorney
fees.
The funding to be from the Gas Tax & Impact Fee Revenue.
11 BOUT. �� F,,.;� 83
AUL � � �iy���:�
JUL 21 1987
BOOK
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
pa 1F. 854
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously authorized -
the purchase of the Largent property at $1,000 in lieu
of condemnation, and the payment of reasonable
attorney fees, as recommended by staff.
J. Budget Amendment - Supervisor of Elections
______,The Board reviewed the following memo dated 7/10/87:
R1V ER•��G��
`Q�
ANN ROBINSON
SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS
tkr 6779j,
o
1840 25TH STREET, SUITE N-109
�Vl
98j
G
A�►'•
•2
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960-3394
567-8000
/Q�
.•
h�sRR
TELEPHONES: (305) 567-8187 or
� �ogg0�i�s��
July 10, 1987 ..
TO: HON. DON C. SCURLOCK, JR., CHAIRMAN, BCC_
FROM: ANN ROBINSON, SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS i/►�,1(_j
RE: AGENDA ITEM FOR BCC MEETING OF JULY 21, 1987(Consent Agenda)
Please see the attached copy of my certification from the Florida
Secretary of State regarding my certification. -
I request your approval of a budget amendment to pay the special
qualifications salary effective May 26, 1987, as follows:
001-700-519-011.11 $705
012.11 51,
012.12 121
012.13 7
012.1.4 4
$888
As discussed with Joe Baird, Budget Director, the $888 will need
to be transferred from General Contingencies. .
Thank you.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the above budget amendment, as requested by the
Supervisor of Elections.
12
K. Final Plat Approval - Oakridge Subdivision, Unit 2
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 7/13/87:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: July 13, 1987 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. Ke t g, P SUBJECT: FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR
Community Development Division OAKRIDGE UNIT 2 SUBDIVISION
Director
f
FROM: Stan Boling A0 REFERENCES: oakridge _
Chief, Current Development STAN2 `
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by. the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of July 21, 1987.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Oakridge Unit 2 is a 23 lot subdivision of. a ±9.27 acre tract
located immediately west of Oakridge subdivision, located on -the
west side of Old Dixie Highway south of Oslo Road. The
subdivision plat dedicates all roads, and drainage and utilities
easements and facilities to the County.
The applicant, John Rexford, on behalf of Oakridge Investments,
Inc., is now requesting final plat approval and has submitted:
1. a final plat that is in conformance with the approved
preliminary plat,
2. an executed warranty/maintenance agreement,
3. an executed three -party escrow agreement to secure the
maintenance agreement. _
ANALYSIS:
The Public Works department has verified that all required
subdivision improvements have been properly constructed and are
acceptable; and the Utilities department has verified that the
water system has been properly constructed and is acceptable. The
County Attorney's office has inspected and approved the submitted
documents for legal sufficiency. All County requirements
regarding final plat approval have been satisfied.
RECOMMENDATION: -
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant
final plat approval for the Oakridge Unit 2 subdivision, accept
the submitted warranty maintenance agreement, and authorize the
Chairman to execute the submitted three -party escrow agreement.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously granted
final plat approval for Oakridge Subdivision, Unit 2;
accepted the submitted warranty maintenance agreement;
13
�JUL 11987
BOOK C
JUL 21 1987 �� �.F,,,t
and authorized the Chairman to execute the submitted
3 -party escrow agreement as recommended by staff.
WARRANTY & MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK TO THE BOARD
L. Utilities Department - Maintenance Agreement with
Instrumentation Services Inc.
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 7/14/87:
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COM MIPTPNERS DATE: JULY 14, 1987
THRU: TERRANCE G. PIN
DIRECTOR OF UTIL SERVICES
FROM: JEFFREY A. BOONE
ENGINEERING OPERATIONS MANAGE
DIVISION OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: UTILITY INSTRUMENTATION MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
- BACKGROUND
With the rapid expansion of the County's water and wastewater
utility systems, comes the addition of numerous electrical and
mechanical components which are critical in the various treatment,
storage and pumping facilities. The complex nature of these
components make it necessary to retain the services of qualified
technical and maintenance personnel.
Attached for your review, is a proposal by Instrumentation Services,
Inc. (ISI) to provide routine inspection and calibration, on going
preventative maintenance and emergency service for the County's
instrumentation components.
ANALYSIS
This original proposal by ISI, is set up on a annual basis at a rate
of $690.00 monthly to provide the subject maintenance, on the
components identified in the original survey. As additional
components are brought on line they will be added to ISI's
maintenance coverage under similar fee schedules.
This maintenance activity was budgeted in the 1986/87 Budget and
will be funded through Account Number 471-219-536-033.49.
RECOMMENDATION
The Division of Utility Services, recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners, approve the subject maintenance agreement with
Instrumentation Services, Inc. covering the components outlined in
the original proposal which are currently in operation in the
system, for a yearly fee of $8,280.00, by authorizing the Director
of Utility Services to execute the attached maintenance agreement.
Furthermore, we recommend that ISI be authorized to provide similar
maintenance service on additional components as they are added to
the water and wastewater systems.
14
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the maintenance agreement with Instrumentation
Services, Inc, for a yearly fee of $8,280; authorized
Utilities Director Pinto to execute the attached
maintenance agreement; and authorized the provision of
similar maintenance service on additional components as
they are added to the water and wastewater systems; as
recommended by staff.
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT IN ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO
THE BOARD
M. Surplus Property - Solid Waste Management
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 7110187:
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DATE: July 10, 1,987 FILE:
THRU: Joseph *iA. Baird SUBJECT: Surplus Property
Director, Budget Offic
H. T. "Sonny" Dean
Manager of Solid Waste Ma agement
FROM: -� EFERENCES:
Carolyn o drich, Manager
PurchasirW Department
The Board of County Commissioners at the June 23, 1987, declared as
surplus property, several 40yd. containers and other miscellaneous
equipment in the Solid Waste Department.
The items were advertised for sale on June 26, 29, 30, 1987 and bids
were received at 2 PM, July 8, 1987.
One bid was received from Suburban Carting, Inc. on the 40yd. containers
only.
The bid was $312.00 ea. on Items 6-13, and $212.00 ea. for Item 14.
Staff recommends that the Board accept the only bid, Suburban Carting,
Inc., total bid $6100.00.. -
15 BOOK 8 F�GE 857
1
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
BID TABULATION
C;
i
BID
BIO
NO. DATE OF OPENING
July 8 1987
TITLE
SURPLUS PROPERTY
io
0
ITEM
NO. DESCRIPTION
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
Ul
1.
(1) NORTHWEST DRAGLINE
.AI-NFR 1711
9. (U REFUSE 40YD CONT
Fach 312 00
1 Each
NO
1 Farh 31
-M
2.
(1)-FAIRIANKS 50T SCALE PRINTER
1 Each
12. (1) REFUSE 40YD CONTAINER 3074
1 Each
NO
REFUSE 40 YD CONTAINER 3751
1 Each 312 00
Farh 212 00
3.
1 AIR CURTAIN 1)ESTRUCTOR
Each
TRASH RAKE FOR LOADER
1 Each
NO
5.
(1) HENDRIX 3/4.YD DRAGLINE
NO
39143 a. 1 Each
312
00
USE 40YD CONTAINER 2671
1 Each
312
00
BOOK
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
cA
A,
BID TABULATION 4L
BID NO. ' DATE OF OPENING
io
July 8 "87
BID TITLE y�
SURPLUS PROPERTY
ITEM
NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE
UNIT PR
8. 1 REFUSE 40YD CONTAINER•
12 00
.AI-NFR 1711
9. (U REFUSE 40YD CONT
Fach 312 00
0 D CONTAINER 2672
1 Farh 31
-M
11. 1 REFUSE 40YD CONTAINER 3462 312 00
1 Each
12. (1) REFUSE 40YD CONTAINER 3074
1 00
REFUSE 40 YD CONTAINER 3751
1 Each 312 00
Farh 212 00
Commissioner Eggert asked why only one.bid was received, and
Sonny Dean, Manager of Solid Waste Management, explained that
those containers have been lying around outthere for several
years. They were properly advertised, and one party offered $300
for them, which is in line with what he expected.
Commissioner Bird felt there must be a market out there
someplace for a used dragline, and asked if staff had the right
bid list in order to get to such firms in the Orlando area, for
example. Manager Dean advised that two parties have indicated an
interest, one of which is the Water Management District. Since
they already have a dragline of this type, he felt we could
probably sell ours to them for use as spare parts.
16
i
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously accepted
the only bid, Suburban Carting, Inc., in the amount
of $6100 for the 40 yd. containers.
PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH STATE FOR HOWELL-CHAPMAN ACQUISITION
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 7/20/87:
TO: The Board of C unty Commissioners
THROUGH: Charles itunac County Attorney
DATE: July -.20, 1987
SUBJECT: Save Our Coast Howell -Chapman Acquisition
FROM: Bruce Barket - Assistant County Attorney
On or about August 11: a trial is scheduled for a jury to
determine what price must be paid to acquire the
Howell -Chapman parcel in eminent domain proceedings. The
Board of Trustees of .the Internal Improvement Trust Fund,
through the Save Our Coast program, is contributing
$2,490,683.00 toward purchase of the parcel. In return, the
Trustees require title to the property, which will then be
leased back to the County for.maintenance and operation as a
public recreational area.
A copy of the purchase agreement between the County and the
Board of Trustees is attached for your review and approval.
The agreement provides for conveyance of title to the
subject property to the Trustees for $2,490,683.00,
regardless of the condemnation price the County is required
to pay. However, in.return for the County's contribution,
the agreement also provides that the property shall be
leased back to the County for public recreational use
pursuant to a lease agreement which shall not be for less
than 30 years. We will have a closing in escrow, and final
closing will be conditioned upon a successful completion of
the County's eminent domain case. That way, if we -acquire
the property by settlement or by trial, we can complete the
transaction with the State. If, for any unforeseen reason,
the eminent domain action fails, or the jury returns a price
higher than the County is wi l 1 ing to pay, then the State's
money will be returned.
It is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners
authorize the Chairman to execute the attached Purchase
Agreement with the State.
Assistant County Attorney Bruce Barkett explained that this
matter was added to today's Agenda as an emergency item because
the agreement must be mailed to Tallahassee this morning. The
purchase agreement simply says that we will convey the property -
17 BOOK 68F'�GE C7�
JL 21 1W
IL
UL 2 11997
997
BOOK
to
the State
for the amount of their contribution, and
in return,
they will lease it back to us for 30 years for public recrea-
t 1 ona I use.
Chairman Scurlock asked where the money is going to come
from to pay our portion, and OMB Director Joe Baird advised that
it will come from either contingencies or from franchise revenues
..that have not been appropriated as yet.
Chairman Scurlock asked how that will affect the fund
balance being carried into the next year, and Director Baird
stated that it will reduce it because we will be expending funds
which would normally go into fund balances.
Commissioner Bird originally thought that when we began
negotiations for this parcel, we eventually would have the deed;
unfortunately, it seems that is not possible.
Chairman Scurlock had a problem with spending $200,000-
$300,000 for property we would not own, but Commissioner Bird
pointed out that the benefit derived is. 1500 feet of undeveloped
coastline.
Chairman Scurlock recommended that when we start to develop
the beach park, we construct the improvements such as the
bathhouse on the stretch of land we own and construct the parking
lots, etc. on the 1500 feet of beachfront leased from the State.
Attorney Vitunac did not feel the State is trying to short
term us on this lease, because their rules do not allow longer
leases except in unusual situations. They have leased back
parcels in other counties, and he felt there is virtually no
chance in the world of them taking it back unless the County
didn't offer it as a public beach facility. Attorney Vitunac did
not recommend changing the master plan for the park so that all
improvements.would be built on property we own, and leaving the
middle part empty.
The Commissioners expressed their concern over what
Tallahassee might or might not do in the future.
18
M
Commissioner Bowman asked if we could specify a renewable
lease, and Attorney Vitunac felt we could suggest that, but did
not think the State could agree to that.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
the purchase agreement between the County and the State
of Florida in the amount of $2,490,683, with the under-
standing that the State will lease the property back to
the County for not less than 30 years; and authorized
the Chairman's signature.
PURCHASE AGREEMENT WILL BE PLACED ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK TO THE BOARD WHEN FULLY EXECUTED AND RECEIVED
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
out -of -county travel for Commissioner Bird and Attorney
Barkett to go to Tallahassee on August 11, 1987.
PISTOL PERMIT - NEW APPLICANT
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 7/1/87:
TO: The Board of County CommissionerOATE: July 1, 1987 FELE:
SUBJECT: PISTOL PERMIT - NEW APPLICANT
FROM: Charles P. n REFERENCES:
County Administrator
The following named person has applied through the Clerk's Office for a new-
concealed
ew-concealed weapon permit:
William E. Eyre
Due to discrepancies concerning his arrest record, I have advised Mr. Eyre,
per the attached correspondence, his request for a concealed weapon permit may
be denied by the Board of County Commissioners. He has been advised to be pre-
sent for the meeting of July 21, 1987 if he has additional information he may
wish to present.
19 BOOK � r;gGc
iJ 11987
'JUL21199?
BOOK 6 8 r E S6
07
l,2 ce r zve, C, to, %3a /e zw
Z.Jea o »J/I arm" !'f. 0/i'd-0.�Y,
sorry rJ e-
rfof o�� haGior-faf Q.�ok�'
� � e �fcr God sia�er- e�
bu f 4 a�
• a .S yf e y e rr
I w
17 Ce
c�af9�� o
Q e ,� o cv
3 9 �a r f • ewe,
7"0 r' y j�! ✓ e r'
r.v e10 rf�es r�
�a /
c"o a I/ , . _-
40 61 a r o h
f,ert ;n 01?�o aadl
t�oht be
e7%;7
co
fsio»�r-S jyJe
fou n fy .
�s'o S c,�V uiol ap /'r�c'a fps Yery .�a�l,
� o I� esy c au Ick rea d ;�*f's /e
Noting that Mr. Eyre was on vacation in Ohio, Commissioner
Wheeler wished to table this matter until his return.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously tabled
consideration of this matter until Mr. Eyre returns
from vacation.
20
FUNDING FOR HOUSING AUTHORITY
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 7/15/87
TO: THE BOARD OF COUNTY DATE: July 15, 1987 FILE:
COMMISSIONERS
SUBJECT: Funding for Housing Authority
FROM: Ed ry REFERENCES:
Finance Director
For the 1986-1987 fiscal year, the Board of County Commissioners agreed
to transfer $51,025.00 to the Housing Authority to help fund their
operating expenditures. The Housing Authority also anticipated receiving
two grants, one for $6,295.00 and one for $12,000.00. Total anticipated
revenues for the fiscal year are $69,320.00 and total appropriations for
the fiscal year are $69,320.00.
As of July 15, 1987, the Housing Authority has been notified that they
would receive the $6,295.00 grant. The Board has also transferred
$50,672.00 of the $51,025 agreed to in the budget workshops. I am not
aware if the Housing Authority is going to receive the $12,000.00 grant.
If the Housing Authority does not receive the $12,000.00 grant, they will
exhaust all of their financial resources either by the end of July or
the middle of August, 1987. I would like to know what the Board wants
the Clerk to do once the Housing Authority has used all of their financial
resources.
Commissioner Eggert advised that she will be meeting with
the Housing Authority this week and wished to see this matter
tabled for one week as she wished to get this amount worked out..
to the penny.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
tabled the above matter until next week.
21
BOOK 66" ['i'AW
r
AL 2'11987 Boa 6 Face 864
LANDCLEARING/TREE REMOVAL VIOLATION: L. RAY CUNNINGHAM/GATOR
LUMBER CO.
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 6/26/87:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: June 26, 1987 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
SUBJECT:
Robert M. Kea ng, 6ZCP
Planning & Development Director
THROUGH: Michael K. Miller MY- :_
Chief, Environmental Planning
LANDCLEARING/TREE REMOVAL
VIOLATION: L. RAY
CUNNINGHAM/GATOR LUMBER
COMPANY CV -87-09-427
FROM: Roland M. DeBlois"►17 REFERENCES: CUNNINGHAM/GATOR
Staff Environmental Planner DISK. CHEATH
It is requested that the data presented herein be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting on July9j , 1987.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS:
On June 12, 1987, County staff observed that parcels number
20-31-39-00000-7000-00003.2 and 00003.3 had been cleared,
including the removal of twenty nine (29) protected red maple
and bay trees prior to the issuance of tree removal and landclear-
ing permits. The area cleared is approximately 1.5± acres in
size, and is located behind the Gator Lumber Company business
at 9555 U.S. #1. The property is zoned CH, Heavy Commercial
District.
In addition, staff observed that some ditching had occurred on
the property prior to the issuance of a County stormwater
management permit.
The property is owned by the Gator Lumber Company, represented
by Mr. L. Ray Cunningham of the 9555 U.S. #1 business location.
On March 23, 1987, staff received a landclearing permit applica-
tion from Mr. Cunningham to clear property owned by Gator
Lumber, behind the existing US#1 business. The application was
submitted on the basis that the work was to be done for snake,
rodent and fire hazard control.
The application submittal was incomplete in that a tree survey
of the site was not included. The applicant was subsequently
contacted and told that a landclearing permit would not be
issued until a tree survey was submitted. The tree survey was
never submitted, and a landclearing permit or tree removal
permit was never issued.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS:
Section 231-6(a) & (b), Tree Protection, of the Code of Laws
and Ordinances of Indian River County, Florida Prohibits the
performance of, any tree removal, landclearing or grubbing
unless tree removal and landclearing permits have first been
issued by the County. The ordinance further specifies that a
22
violation shall be punishable upon conviction by a fine not to
exceed five hundred dollars ($500) per tree and landclearing
activity or by imprisonment in the County jail for up to sixty
(60) days, or both.
Based on the illegal landclearing:and number of protected trees
removed, that maximum fine in - .this case is $15,000.00. ' Staff
met with Mr. Cunningham on June 15, 1987; it was agreed that
the matter would be scheduled before the County Commission for
consideration.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners consider
obtaining a voluntary payment of up to $15,000.00 dollars, in
addition to the requirement of after -the -fact permits. In the
event that any said agreement is not forth -coming, staff
recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant staff
the authorization to pursue available remedies in County Court.
Staff Environmental Planner Roland M. DeBlois advised that
the owners admit their error, are very -apologetic, and wish to
cooperate to the fullest extent.
Ray Cunningham of Gator Lumber stated that both he and
co-owner, Pat Loftis, admit their guilt in this matter. He
pointed out that it was his responsibility, however, to handle
things like this, but unfortunately, with the heavy work load, he
failed to order the tree survey. While he was out of state in
mid-May, his partner arranged for the land clearing at a reduced
rate, not realizing that a land clearing permit had not been
obtained as yet. While the excavator was there, he got stuck,
and a few trees were knocked down in order to get him out. Mr.
Cunningham reported that they have a quote of $1337.63 from Oslo
Nursery for replacement of 29 trees at $45 each, planted.
Commissioner Bowman felt the trees must be pretty small for
that amount, but Mr. Cunningham said that they are to be 8 feet
in height.
When Mr. Cunningham admitted that no bay trees were listed
on the replacement quote, Commissioner Bowman emphasized that
they had destroyed something they could not replace.
Mr. DeBlois pointed out that the Board could fine them $500
each for the 10 bay trees that cannot be replaced, and Chairman
Scurlock arrived at a total fine of approximately $7000, which
included $5000 for the bay trees, $240 for after -the -fact permits
23 BOOS FAi C7
JUL 211.�� J
� I
JUL 21 1997 BOOK 66 F,�UL SI
for land clearing and tree removal, and $1337 for the mitigation
replanting.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, by a vote of 4-1, Commissioner
Bird dissenting, the Board assessed a maximum fine of
$7000 of which $1337 is for the mitigation plan for
planting 29 red maple trees 8" in height, and $240 for
after -the -fact permits for land clearing and tree
removal.
REPORT FROM TASK FORCE ON CHILDREN'S SERVICES
Jill Hardin and Madelyn LaPlante gave a presentation on the
need for children's services in Indian River County.
SUMMARY
The Indian River Council of the Governor's Constituency for Children
convened an ad-hoc committee of twelve professionals to evaluate the status
of childrens services in Indian River County.
The assessment was in response to questions set forth by the County
Commissioners who were seeking to determine availability of programs and
services.
The Children's Services Council Task Force surveyed three areas, with
the following results:
1) There are large numbers of children and families "at risk" in
Indian River County; services are needed to reduce the consequences
inherent in those risk factors.
2) Many children are suspended/expelled from County schools. Without
a supervised alternative education program, a significant percent-
age of these children will find themselves interacting with the
Sheriff's Department and the Court4.
3) The lack of affordable counseling services for children with emo-
tional problems and substance dependency affect every aspect of
our community from crime to health care needs.
24
The Task Force concludes that Indian River County is lacking it
variety of services whose presence would strengthen families. There
financial and humane consequences if those needs remain unmet.
The Task Force recommends the establishment of an independent tax -
district in Indian River County to fund services for children and familia
Further, it recommends as a model, the juvenile welfare boards of Pinel'
and Palm Beach counties.
Mrs. Hardin advised that the Task Force is recommending that
the Board of County Commissioners establish a taxing district to
fund these needs.
Chairman Scurlock stated he always has been opposed to
establishing independent taxing districts, but would consider a
dependent taxing district such as the South County Fire
Department, which allows the Board to consider the entire tax
bill. While he felt the Task Force's goals were very worthwhile,
he emphasized that the Board must balance the needs with the
County's ability to pay. However, the County is presently
subsidizing several agencies which mainly serve children. There
are two day-care programs in the Gifford community serving 80
children at the last count. Last year we established and funded
a pre -natal care program through the Health Department, and we
also fund the Youth Guidance Program, which addresses school
drop -outs. In addition, we are funding a mental health program
this year. The Chairman pointed out that all of these agencies
come to the Board during budget time asking for additional funds.
Commissioner Eggert felt that this county is putting forth a
tremendous effort to help people in various ways, and noted that._
we are participating to the tune of $84,000 for a primary care
program through the hospital; the Housing Authority is opening up
a rental project which will take care of quite a number of
families; there is money in the State budget for us to have a
drug rehabilitation center in the near future; and we are moving
closer to a county -wide recreation program which will benefit
many children.
25 KOK 8- 867
JUL,FF--
1.1�,` BOOK 6 F;, ;t SOU
Mrs. Hardin felt that the Commission needs to be applauded
for their efforts, but pointed out that there are gaps in some
areas, especially children's services. She pointed out that the
lack of these services results in a wide -scoped community problem
that impacts law enforcement, etc.
Commissioner Bird felt the Task Force has a great resource
of knowledge and a pipeline to the needs of the young people of
our community which we should continue to use to help us move
forward to fill the gaps in services. Whether or not these gaps
can be filled best by creating an independent tax district or by
continuing to fund them through ad valorem taxes is yet to be
determined. Commissioner Bird wished to see the Task Force
continue to keep the Board informed on this matter.
Mrs. Hardin reported that the Task Force was dissolved after
this report was completed; however, the constituency will be
forming a Steering Committee that will represent a cross section
of this committee.
The constituency is asking to return with the Steering
Committee in October to ask the Board to reconsider a referendum
for a separate taxing district for children's services.
Commissioner Eggert wanted to see more specifics than what
was included in the booklet, and Mrs. Hardin said that they would
like to see a Commissioner serve on the Steering Committee.
Commissioner Bird expressed a desire to see them develop a
wish list so the Board can get a better picture as to how much
money we are talking about and whether the County can afford it.
Commissioner Eggert preferred to see this again in a year's
time, because she felt that October was too soon to develop the
specifics, and also because we need more time to see how the
existing services are doing.
Chairman Scurlock reiterated that he would like to see this
developed similar to the South County Fire District, which is a
dependent district, and as such, their budget is considered
annually, just like any other county department.
26
Mrs. Hardin stated that the constituency realizes that the
Board needs a dollar figure to consider, and that is one of the
reasons they have recommended a Steering Committee.
Commissioner Wheeler wanted to see some numbers relating to
population, court load, drop -outs, etc. .
Mrs. LaPlante pointed out that it was a monumental task just
to get the figures they got because there is no centralized,
coordinated way of tracking children's services in this county.
That is one of the big gaps in service.
Chairman Scurlock felt that perhaps our goal for the next
budget year should be to fund that particular area, and Mrs.
LaPlante agreed that it probably should be the #1 priority of the
Steering Committee.
Commissioner Eggert emphasized that is why she would like to
see it back in a year's time,,,rather than October.
Chairman Scurlock thanked the ladies for coming and assured
them the County would continue to work with them in this matter.
DISCUSSION RE GIFFORD AREA WASTEWATER SYSTEMS IMPROVEMENT BID
The Board reviewed the following letter dated 7/7187:
®
Administrator
Attorney
Personnel —!
'L "—rve
F.E.MYERS DIV., a Pentair company
Publi^
Community
y ev.
4315 west 34th Street, Orlando, FL 32811
305/646=8239
Utilities
yya.r
Finance
Other v d,asi
?�1 5cl u d ulet fir- �1 it 197
Board of Count Commissioners
a. Y
J !� .y�,39a
�L 1987 �+ July 7, 19 8 7
yT `Indian River County
Suite N-158,
.— a
RCZBOAD
�D
_ 1840 25th St.,
'�1Yr_o
r,
•
_Beach, F1. 32960
Co
C°MMUNTY
ssoN �a
.6
CPP -
��.;:...l�9�SZbZ£ZZ2�
Ladies and Gentlemen,
This is in protest to
the way the Gifford Area Waste-
water Systems Improvments
bid has been handled.
Myers pumps have been
manufactured in Ashland, Ohio
for over 100 years, with a
commitment to Florida .with parts
and distribution since 1959.
AULBook
27
JUL 2 11987 BOOK 68
We have been restricted from bidding this, and possibly
other Indian River County jobs in the future, unfairly.
After following all the rules, guidelines, and
specifications of the Gifford Area job and having been
reviewed by the project engineers, we were told that Indian
River County wanted to standardize on two manufacturers of
pumps even though the bid stated "or equal" on bidding
equipment. The pumps standardized on by the county aren't
even compatible parts or accesory wise. We asked for further
review and were given five technical items that have nothing
to do with "substance" or "performance" as stated in your
bid originally, and "OR EQUAL" by most definitions does not
mean IDENTICAL.
Again, we are an American manufacturer, and to restrict
us from bidding in Indian River County against only foreign
manufacturers of this equipment we feel is unjust, and we
ask the county commission to reconsider Myers and other
American manufacturers for this and future bidding in
Indian River County.
As a matter of record, we have taken our product to the
bidding list and most would prefer to use our equipment.
Myers Pump Co. has 10 stocking representatives
throughout Florida with parts, stock, and service available.
In closing, there is no legitimate reason that Plyers
pumps should be restricted from bidding in Indian River
County when we can bid in all other counties in Florida and
have installations all over the state.
I Respectfully,
i
-
r
Skip Dorton
Territory Manager/Consultant
Utilities Director Terry Pinto explained that the County has
rules and specifications for what equipment has to be used, and
gave a brief review of how the County came to standardize the
Flygt Pump and then added the ABS Pump to the specification
requirements. He emphasized how important it is to standardize
the system and advised that staff is well satisfied with the good
service these pumps have given. Director Pinto reported that he
talked to the FHA about this, and they agree that we should not
have a menagerie of pumps in the Gifford system. At one point
the FHA did suggest that we use the Meyers pump, but Masteiler >;
Moler Associates are here today to explain why we did not.
Director Pinto pointed out that even if. the Meyers pump did meet
28
the specifications, he would still recommend that it not be used
since the need for standardization is so important to our system.
Earl Masteller, President of Masteller & Moler Associates,
Inc., consultant engineers on the Gifford project, explained in
highly technical terms the reasons why the Meyers pump was not
selected for the Gifford system.
Skip Dorton, Territory Manager/Consultant for Meyers did not
disagree with everything that Mr. Masteller said, but stated that
the basic reason they wanted to come before the Board is to have
an opportunity to work with the County on another project in the
future. They wish to request that they not be restricted from
bidding on future County projects so that they can prove what
their pump can do.
In response to questioning by Attorney Vitunac, Mr. Dorton
stated he was not an engineer or an attorney.
Chairman Scurlock explained that basically the Board has
given staff the direction that we want to hear proposals on a
semi-annual or annual basis from outside firms that provide
services or equipment so that the County is open to new firms.
Director Pinto emphasized that he spends a considerable
amount of time looking at new products and visiting other instal-
lations in order to keep up with the latest technology in the
field. He pointed out that the pump business is a very
competitive one, and confirmed that the County does specify two
pumps.
Mr. Dorton stated that there are other areas in the country
that have standardized with the Meyers pump, and he wished to be
allowed to show what the Meyers pump could do in another, smaller
project.
Chairman Scurlock thanked Mr. Dorton for coming today and
suggested that he meet with Director Pinto to see if there is a
way to try out one of their pumps.
29
JUL 21.1987
BOOK
JUL 2:11937
BUCK
DISCUSSION RE FUTURE USE OF McKEE JUNGLE GARDENS LAND
The Board reviewed the following letter 719187:
-
JUL .�181 i,, July
90151' UTlON UST
RECEIVED ;
Co:7missioners
Hon. Don Scurlock, Jr., Chairman !, W= courrnr co
Administrator d
Indian River County Commission
1840 25th Street
fid, COUNSMONFM 1,
Attorney
��z9Z5ZtiZ�Z'L
Personnel
Vero Beach
Public Works
Florida 32960
Community Dev.-;a-T--
Re: McKee
Jungle Gardens land
Utilities
Dear Chairman Scurlock
_
Finance
Other s -
The Board of Directors of
the Vista Civic Association nc.,
has reviewed the staff planner's
letter dated June 18,
1987 and
received on July 7, 1987 in response to our concern over the
future use of the McKee Jungle
Gardens land.
Major changes are being planned in our residential area with
little or no input from our 2000 -plus unit owners. Land use
changes are permitted by the County at a time when a large
percentage of our owners (and your taxpayers!) are away on
vacation.
County officials seem to give little weight to the fact that
our residential areas contribute more to County revenues and ask
less in return than any other group of taxpayers. We deserve
official support when we seek only the preservation of the peace
and quiet and safety of our neighborhoods.
We do not need any more acres of black -top, destruction of
trees, empty stores, pollution of water ways and highway
accidents.
We note that the 19 acres of the old Jungle Gardens (as of
1983) have been reduced to 15 by the developer decision in favor
of more residential space. No good reason exists why this healthy
trend cannot be continued, without serious injury to any one.
Access to Route 1 should be limited. Aquisition of some park
land should be considered. The South Relief Canal should be
protected. All possible trees should be preserved.
Please consider this letter as our formal request that the
Board of County Commissioners direct the Planning staff to
initiate a comprehensive plan amendment for the purpose of
rezoning this site back to RM10 as established by the 1982
Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
We would appreciate a timely response from the Commission on
this matter.
Since y, -
t?-2��f - ,�<✓l., am Alia,
President
Q
P.O. Box 650082 (Tropic Branch) • Vero Beach, Florida 32965-0082
30
Harold Putnam, attorney for the Vista Civic Association as
well as a resident, appreciated the opportunity to present this
matter to the Board, and emphasized how very concerned the
residents of Vista Gardens are about preserving the natural
setting of their entrance through what used to be known as McKee
Jungle Gardens. He stated that the residents strongly oppose the
commercial development of this 15 -acre site which calls for a
300,000 sq. ft. retail center with 785 parking spaces. He noted
that there seems to be some question as to whether the following
tentative site plan that was proposed to residents a few months
is the same as the one submitted to the Planning Department just
yesterday.
SITE PLAN
SHOPPING CENTER
_ 4
9
�O
0
DESIGN CRITERIA
• AREA
b'Q .
WUL 21 Vii
31
0
BOOK F, UL
Fr-
JUL 211987 8 o o K r,� -C 8 74
Robert Keating, Director of Planning & Development, did not
know if there were any differences in the plans since it just was
submitted yesterday. He pointed out, however, that the developer
has been working closely with staff, and apparently the site plan
is in pretty good shape, as far as complying with the County's
site plan ordinances.
Attorney Putnam felt that since the residents had not seen
the site plan that was submitted yesterday, the Board could
postpone this until late September when more property owners
would be returning from their northern residences.
Attorney Vitunac pointed out that a property owner has the
right to develop his property pursuant to the codes in existence,
and apparently the property owner has submitted a site plan
consistent with the present codes and zoning. If the land use
designation on the zoning code is not proper, the Board of County
Commissioners always have the right to instruct staff to go back
through the process and reconsider a rezoning. To do that our
codes require that this matter be brought before advertised
public hearings at the Planning & Zoning Commission and the Board
of County Commissioners, and that notices sent out by certified
mail to the surrounding property owners. This procedure takes
several months, and if a Comp Plan change is required, the State
allows this to happen only twice a year. It is a long, drawn out
process, but if the Board wishes to undertake a rezoning, it can
do so with one caveat. The fact that the Board is considering a
rezoning, however, does not stop the present property owners
vested rights to use his property. Attorney Vitunac emphasized
that there is no moratorium in place, and there is no way in good
conscience the County can sidetrack this site plan. It is more
than likely the site plan will come to fruition long before a
public hearing could be held to consider the zoning change.
Attorney Putnam pointed out that the Board could use the
power of eminent domain in taking a portion of the park property
or wetlands.
He stressed that the 644 owners in Vista Gardens
32
M
would not have bought in this development had they known the
tragedies that would befall them, and they are asking that the
Commission instruct staff to initiate a Comp Plan amendment for
the purpose of rezoning this site back to RM -10.
With respect to the wetlands, Attorney Putnam understood
that several years ago this developer offered to give the County
the wetlands along the river, but was turned down. He hoped the
County would review that proposition and make it a part of the
settlement of all the uses of land in this area, as he believed
it would be very beneficial to everyone concerned. -
Attorney Putnam realized that the Commission was concerned
about the extent of their powers in settling this dispute in a
reasonable way, and pointed out that many years ago, the State
Legislature gave the county commissions the power to determine
the best land uses within a county, and while the Board has
designated some of these powers to the P & Z Commission, they are
the superior authority and can take back some of those powers and
make the final decision. Referring to the case of "Graham vs.
Estuary Properties", the Supreme Court held that the owner of
land has no absolute and unlimited right to change the essential,
natural character of his land so as to use it for a purpose for
which it is unsuited in its natural state, or injures the rights
of others. Attorney Putnam felt there is no question that a
heavily concentrated commercial development at this site will be
injurious to the area, and the residents of Vista Gardens are
convinced that if this shopping center is approved, there will be
more crime, more traffic accidents, more water pollution, etc. ._
These are matters of deep concern to thousands of people who
thought they were moving into a quiet, residential area.
In conclusion, Attorney Putnam urged the Board to consider
the following solutions to this problem:
1. Rezone the entire 15 acres back to multiple family.
2. Rework site plans after review by the P & Z Commission
so that the Board has more input in questionable
locations.
3. Bring in an outside professional land use consultant. -
33
1987 ':J i.
A
UL 2119$
BOOK 6 8 ["� E 8 Y6 7
Sam Alia, President of the Vista Civic Association, stated
that the Association is deeply concerned with the protection and
safety of the residents and property owners in Vista Royale and
Vista Gardens. He stressed the tremendous impact the increased
traffic will have on the entrance into their residential area.
He advised that the residents strongly opposed the site plan
__,proposed by project developer Leonard L. Barber, Inc. of Fort
Lauderdale, when it was shown to them a few months ago.
Commissioner Eggert asked who owns the entrance, and Mr.
Alia said that it is not known at the present time, but the
property owners do have the use of the entrance.
Chairman Scurlock asked Director Keating if Public Works
Director Jim Davis had indicated how many daily trips would be
generated from this shopping center and at what point a morator-
ium would come into effect.
Director Keating advised that the ordinance specifically
addresses the traffic level of C on an average annual basis and
specifies that a project cannot be approved that would degrade
that level of service. Basically, staff's position would be to
recommend approval if the applicant is indicating improvements in
his development proposal that would serve to increase the
capacity consistent with the number of trips that will be gener-
ated on the system and if those improvements are going to be put
in concurrent with the building of the project.
Chairman Scurlock asked if staff considers the whole site
plan when it is first submitted or just the first phase, and
Director Keating stated they would be considering just the first
phase, if that is how it is submitted. He pointed out that one
of the requirements of the Site Plan Ordinance is that the
developer has to prepare a very detailed traffic analysis for a
development which is going to generate or attract over 1000 trips
per day.
Commissioner Bird asked what the normal scheduling time
would be for this site plan, and Director Keating advised that
34
normally they would request a review at the next Technical Review
meeting, after which a discrepancy letter is sent out within 24
hours. The applicant also will be advised as to the deadlines he
will have to meet to schedule a P & Z meeting. This procedure
usually takes 2-3 weeks, depending on whether the site plan needs
much work. Director Keating emphasized that it takes about 6
months to amend the Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
Chairman Scurlock pointed out that there is no way that the
Commission can get involved in the site plan process before it is
brought to the P & Z Commission.
Ray Cox, Vice President of the Vista Civic Association,
understood that when this site was rezoned from multiple family
to commercial back in September, 1983, the planning staff spent a
great deal of time on the traffic counts on that stretch of
highway and recommended denial of the rezoning. The Planning 6
Zoning Commission also recommended denial, but the Board of
County Commissioners voted to approve the rezoning. He felt that
perhaps it was rather premature at that time to approve the
commercial zoning because a short time later they approved
commercial for an 80 -acre commercial node just south of there.
He believed that the 9,000 daily trips that will be generated by
this proposed shopping center will put U.S. #1 over capacity.
Mr. Cox asked that the Commission consider the impact of several
other recent projects on the 644 families in Vista Gardens:
1. Perkins Restaurant. He felt the Board might agree now
that this is one of their rare errors in judgement.
2. Wall -Mart Department Store has created a hazard
because there is no left turn onto U.S. #1. You have
to go north before turning south, and many, many people
ignore the signs and turn left anyway.
3. Extension of Indian River Boulevard coming out onto U.S.
#1 at 4th Street, just a little north of their entrance.
Mr. Cox concluded by stating that the Association feels
there is enough justification for the Commission to initiate a
J U L 1981
L_
r
3517
BOOK; F,qi.t g
J U L 211937
Comprehensive Land Use Plan amendment, and rezone the parcel back
to multiple family as it was in 1982.
Chairman Scurlock asked if the only access to the 644 units
would be through the entrance of the shopping center, and Mr. Cox
believed it would be.
Attorney Michael O'Haire, representing project developer
Leonard L. Barber, Inc. of Ft. Lauderdale, assured the Board that
the applicant has followed all requirements of the site plan
application process to a tee. He pointed out that this site
plan has been in the works for sometime, and the developer has
been working closely with the Planning staff to make sure that
all requirements are satisfied. He felt that no matter how
sympathetic the Commission is to the people in Vista Gardens,
there is no good argument to reconsider the zoning.
Chairman Scurlock confirmed that legally the Board must go
through the site plan application process, but felt that through
that process, we have the ability to pursue a number of things;
the biggest concern, will be the increased traffic.
Commissioner Eggert, former chairman of the Planning 6
Zoning Commission, agreed that the zoning question would be
futile to pursue because of the timetable involved. She believed
that long before a land use change could be obtained, the
developer would have undergone site plan consideration, and,
apparently, they have all their tees crossed with respect to the
requirements.
Ron Ewing, President of Vista Properties, Inc., stated
that all they ever wanted is for the County to set the rules, and
they have followed them.
Attorney O'Haire stated that the developer would be very
happy to receive any input from the residents on any aspect of
the site plan they wish to talk about.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
_ Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously determined
36
there was no point in proceeding with any rezoning
due to the long process involved in changing a
land use in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
Bill Koolage, 815 26th Avenue, appreciated the fact that the
County has to follow through on the site plan process, but
expressed his growing concern about out-of-town developers
building more and more shopping centers that remain half empty
months and even years after their grand openings. He suggested
that a county -wide moratorium on shopping centers be imposed and
that the Board consider establishing an architectural review
committee. He urged the Board to protect the people in this
county from developers covering up good green land with concrete.
His statement received great applause from the standing -room -
only audience.
Judy Ligor, resident of Unit 5 in Vista Gardens, circulated
a fold -out, color sales brochure which Vista Properties presented
to her back in February, 1985, when they were purchasing their
unit. The brochure makes several references to the beautiful
garden settings in Vista Gardens, i.e. "a winding road which
seems to lead to an exotic land", "a remote jungle paradise", "a
background of captivating beauty", "a garden landscape whose
beauty is unmatched anywhere in the world", "enjoy nature's
miracles in their own backyard", "the exquisite gardens and
ponds", etc. Mrs. Ligor felt there is no way Vista Properties
can preserve the things they promised in this brochure if they go
ahead with the commercial development at the size proposed.
Chairman Scurlock asked Director Keating if the developer
has to keep the things that are shown on his site plan, and
Director Keating advised that they do until such time as they
come in with an amended site plan. With respect to the entrance,
there are a couple of places that show it is not part of their
site plan and staff will check that out at the Technical Review
meeting.
JUL 21. 987 37 BOOK
C i
JUL 2 11
ff
Boor,
L rI Jr
Chairman Scurlock understood that
they just cannot go
out
3
and modify without coming back to the County. He realized that
the rosy words some developers use in their sales brochures are
written by public relations people trying to market a product,
but felt they sometimes create a lot of misunderstanding.
Unfortunately, in this situation, the developer has a valid site
..plan submission, and the County can only work within the site
plan process to try and protect the residents of Vista Gardens.
Grace Kleinman, resident of Vista Gardens, pointed out that
along with the construction of the southerly extension of Indian
River Boulevard, the County is constructing another roadway which
will lead into the Vista Gardens easement and alleviate the
problem of the residents turning south from that location.
However, they have been told that trucks will be entering the
proposed complex through that road from Indian River Boulevard.
If a super market or department store is built in the proposed
commercial complex, there will be a daily influx of trucks making
deliveries. Mrs. Kleinman urged the Commissioners to visit Vista
Gardens and slowly drive through the entrance way to get some
idea of how this shopping center will impact their residential
development.
Director Keating advised that staff will be looking at the
truck traffic during the site plan review.
_ Sandy Kale, a life-long resident of Indian River County,_
recalled the beauty of McKee Jungle Gardens, and urged the Board
to retain this property in its natural state, if at all possible.
Dorothy Eubanks, resident of Vista Gardens, emphasized how
unique their development is, and wished to talk about the site
plan process. She stated that they have tried to be reasonable
and realistic when talking to the developers about the proposed
shopping center, but unfortunately, the developer has been very
non -committal about• the road he is planning to put across from
Indian River Boulevard which would cross the entrance road. She
believed that such a road would cause a. tremendous traffic hazard
38
since it would be used by all types of vehicles and pedestrians -
cars, trucks, golf carts, bicycles, joggers, etc. Mrs. Eubanks
pointed out that since Vista Gardens pays 75% of the maintenance
of that easement, they have a definite vested interest. Mrs.
Eubanks understood there is a 10 -day appeal period after site
plan approval is given.
Chairman Scurlock advised that if they still objected to the
site plan at the time of approval, they have 10 days in which to
appeal it to the Board of County Commissioners, and a public
hearing would be scheduled. He emphasized that only at that time
coui.d the Commissioners become involved in any site plan modi-
fications, such as limiting the egress or ingress to the site.
He felt that the people of Vista Gardens will find that the Board
will do everything possible to mitigate the impact of the
proposed development.
Claude Perosa, member of the board of directors of the
property owners association, thanked the Planning Department for
informing them that a site plan had been submitted. He felt that
if the site plan that was submitted yesterday is the same as the
one presented by the developer during a meeting with the
residents some months ago, they will have no other recourse than
to appeal it if it is approved, because there are 4 entrances on
U.S. #1 and 2 on Indian River Boulevard. He felt that the site
plan is more severe than what was promised by the developer.
Director Keating advised that the earliest they could get
the site plan to the P & Z would be August 27th; however, he
believed it probably would be the first week of September.
Harold Putnam asked everyone to stand who was in opposition
to the proposed commercial development. Ninety-nine percent of
those in attendance stood up.
Joan Frisk commented that when she went to visit her
daughter in Texas who lives in a similar situation, she could not
get out onto the highway from the entrance.
39
'JUL BOOK 8 E'a',t SSI
L
JUL 2 11987 BOOK 6S,
REQUEST FOR BOARD TO RECONSIDER THEIR DECISION REGARDING A CHILD
CARE CENTER ON 20TH AVENUE
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 7/13/87:
Personnel
k t -M
Piffili Wn
r q
40A
RD CIDURry
Community Dev.*]?:::
47A M 0
IP
L
Attorney Vitunac advised that 60 days have passed since the
Board, by a vote of 4-1, granted a special exception for a child
car center, and now there is a request to rehear this matter.
.However, there Is no provision in the Code authorizing a
40
M
1P
P I If a,
110A 2
, Man
L
Attorney Vitunac advised that 60 days have passed since the
Board, by a vote of 4-1, granted a special exception for a child
car center, and now there is a request to rehear this matter.
.However, there Is no provision in the Code authorizing a
40
M
M
rehearing of a special exception. The Code says that the action
of the Board of County Commissioners is final and that the only
appeal from a final decision of the Board of County Commissioners
is to Circuit Court. Such an appeal must be made within 30 days
after the action, and apparently that has not been done. That
brings us to the question of what the Board's powers are when the
Ordinance is silent on any further review of this matter.
Attorney Vitunac continued that the only way the Board could
rehear this issue is if any member of the audience could show
that the special exception was granted as a result of fraud,
illegality or false information. If the County Commission tried
at this moment to hear this matter and did revoke the special
exception, the Board would lose under a taking issue and would
suffer substantial monetary damages if the applicant filed suit
in court. Without proof of fraud, illegality, or false
information, the Board has no legal right to take away a special
exception since that exception is a property right, and once the
appeal time has expired, the property owner has an expectation
that he can proceed in spending money on the development of his
project.
Andy St. Pierre, owner of the property adjacent to the
proposed site, stressed the traffic impact, and felt they got the
shaft, because there were only two people who wanted this and 500
who did not.
Robert Hall, 2520 6th Street, wished to bring to the County
Attorney's attention a recent Supreme Court decision that needs
to be considered which holds the Board liable for any damage they
have done. He felt that this special exception use was granted
just through a trick in semantics, and that all of the people
around there will suffer damage. He urged the Board to consider
this recent court decision.
Commissioner Eggert understood that in order to schedule a
public hearing to reconsider the special exception, we would have
41 BOOK
►JUL 2 1
6N't
7 JUL 21198I'BooK (��1
J �.oS
to first hear evidence that there has been fraud. She believed
that the Board does not have any choice but to deny the request
for reconsideration of the special exception use.
Elizabeth Hall, 2520 6th Street, recalled that right before
the meeting in which the Board granted the special exception,
Commissioner Bowman came into this room and said, "Let's get on
_.with it", and tried to make a Motion. Chairman Scurlock had to
remind her that it was a public hearing. Mrs. Hall felt that the
Commissioners had their minds made up ahead of that meeting, and
that the opponents to the child care center did not get a fair
hearing.
Commissioner Eggert stated that she had not made her
decision prior to the hearing, and did not feel the other
Commissioners had either.
Commissioner Wheeler took exception to the type of innuendo
included in some of the letters to the editor that have been
published in the Press Journal that there is something illegal or
inappropriate going on. He stated that he made his decision
based on the facts presented at that meeting, not on the
political pressure of 500 signatures on a petition. He empha-
sized that the Commission is responsible for the rights of all
the people in the county, not just those in certain
neighborhoods.
Commissioner Bird stated that it would not matter to him if
there were 5000 people opposed to the child care center if he
felt he was right in voting for it. He stated that he does not
vote on popular opinion, but facts and personal property rights.
He was convinced at the previous meeting when the special
exception was granted that this child care center in that
neighborhood would not have an adverse affect on property ;values
nor the life style of the surrounding residents. He felt there
was no reason to deny it as it is on a large piece of property
that is well buffered from surrounding property. Commissioner
Bird believed that we need to find places to locate these child
42
r
r
care centers in residential areas where they can be close to
working mothers who need a safe, pleasant place to leave their
children.
Wilda Peddas stated that she did not use any innuendo in her
letter to the Press Journal, only facts, and resented being told
that she used innuendo. If Commissioner Wheeler felt it was
innuendo, she would be glad to discuss the letter with him, point
for point, line for line, any time.
Judy Turner of Turner Builders, stated that she was
Interested to see if the Board would stand by their decision
regarding the special exception use, because the Board denied
them a special exception use for a child care center in that
general area almost a year ago.
Sandy Kale, owner and director of the Maitland Farm
Pre -School, wished that she had written a letter to the Press
Journal congratulating the Commissioners for their wisdom and
courage in granting the special exception for a child care
center.
Commissioner Wheeler was very much in favor of finding a
vehicle to address these problems other than as special
exceptions, but pointed out that until we do, we have to deal
with these problems as they arise.
ROSE -4 DISTRICT HOME OCCUPATION STUDY
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 718187:
43
L_ � J U L /.1987
BOOK,"
tA.IL Jt
21 X987
BOOK 6 8 o$uC 8 S
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: July 8, 1987 FILE:
the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
SUBJECT: ROSE -4 DISTRICT HOME
Robert M. Keating, AICP OCCUPATION STUDY
Director, Communi y DetLflopment
Division
FROM: David C. Nearing ErCM REFERENCES:
Staff Planner
It is requested that the information presented herein be given
formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of July 21, 1987.
DESCRIPTION
On February 24, 1987, the Board of County Commissioners voted
unanimously to approve Ordinance #87-22 which amended the Rose -4
Zoning District. This amendment permitted a broader range of
home occupations in the ROSE -4 District than allowed in all other
residential districts. The additional occupations permitted under
this amendment are as follows: =-
a. Metal working and casting;
b. Contractor's office and storage of
contractor's materials,, tools and equipment;
c. Lawn mower and small engine sales, service and
repair;
d. Service businesses (provided there shall be no
more than one sign advertising the same not in
excess of four square feet in size).
In order to ensure compatibility with the residential nature of
the area, the amendment also contained criteria with which a use
must comply before a home occupation permit may be issued. All
.home occupation uses in the ROSE -4 District must obtain site plan
approval and meet the following criteria:
(1) The activity is conducted only by members
of the family living within the residence;
(2) Products are not offered for sale to the
general public and from the premises except
as herein otherwise provided;
(3) Any evidence of the occupation is screened
from the street by type A screening;
(4) Traffic is not generated in excess of that
customary for residential uses;
(5) The property has been qualified for (and
continues to be qualified) for homestead
exemption for ad valorem tax purposes; and
(6) All home occupation activities must meet
yard setback requirements.
Although the Board's approval of the subject ordinance amendment
established procedures and set criteria for new home occupation
uses in the ROSE -4 district, the Board did not resolve the issue
of existing businesses. While the Board indicated its intent to
grandfather in those commercial uses established prior to passage
of the ordinance amendment, there was uncertainty as to what
businesses existed prior to the ordinance amendment date and what
legal mechanism could be employed to effect the grandfathering.
In_order to address these issues, the Board directed the Planning
staff to undertake a study of the ROSE -4 area, identifying all
commercial uses, and to develop a procedure to allow
grandfathering of existing commercial uses.
44
L
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The principal purpose of the staff's analysis of existing
businesses in the ROSE -4 area was to identify the number, type,
and location of commercial uses in the study area. As part of
this study, the staff also attempted to determine if those uses
had valid County occupational licenses and whether the uses were
established legally in conformance with then. existing zoning
requirements or prior to zoning regulations having been enacted.
In its study, the staff had initially,hoped that the owners of the
existing businesses would identify themselves and that a Roseland
resident who had made statements at the ordinance amendment public
hearing as to number and location of businesses would provide
information. However, due to lack of participation, it became
necessary to utilize other resources in order to identify and
locate these businesses. .
Study Methodology
Staff first identified the names and addresses of all property
owners within the district boundaries, the type of dwelling unit
(single-family, mobile home) on the site, and the date when the
unit was first established on the site. A print-out of all
occupational licenses issued in the County was then obtained in
order to attempt to locate businesses. These print-outs were then
examined to determine what licensed businesses exist in this area.
Staff also performed a visual survey of the district to attempt to
locate the site of apparent businesses, those which may not have
County occupational licenses. For each identified commercial use
in the study area, staff determined the date when the residential
use on the site commenced and the zoning district which was in
place on the site when it was developed. This enabled staff to
determine whether a home occupation, the nature of which could be
determined, was lawfully established as a permitted home
occupation at that time.
Study Results
During the ROSE -4 ordinance amendment public hearing, it was
stated that 43 home occupations existed in the Rose -4 District.
However, a search of the occupational licenses revealed that only
4 licenses have been issued to addresses within the district
.boundaries. A total of six businesses were visually identified,
two of which do not have occupational licenses. The types of
businesses identified through the visual survey included a
welding/ smelting shop, storage of vegetable crates and business
trucks, storage of heavy equipment, automotive repair and sales,
and blade sharpening and chainsaw repair. Those businesses
identified by visual survey, excluding the saw sharpening and
repair, were identified by the appearance of the property. The
saw shop was identified by its sign. Further verification of
these businesses- was provided by Roseland residents through the
filing of complaints with the Planning Department.
Several existing businesses have been the subject of code
enforcement complaints. These complaints have ranged from storage
of possibly hazardous material to excessive noise. Not only do
some of these businesses fail to meet the home occupation criteria
of the ROSE -4 district, but because they were never approved they
do not meet setback, screening, parking, sanitary, and other
requirements.
Grandfathering Issues
As per the Board's directive, the staff has investigated
mechanisms wereby existing businesses could be legally recognized
as grandfathered businesses. However, a major problem arises in
the identification of businesses currently operating within the
boundaries of the Rose -4 area. If as indicated at the public
hearing, 43 businesses exist in the ROSE -4 area, the staff has
45 BOOK 8 F,�}E SS`7
J U L 211987
been unable to identify them and therefore,
them. Another issue is whether the County
business which has been operating without an
which is required by County law.
could not grandfather
should grandfather a
occupational license
Several other issues arise regarding grandfathering of existing
businesses. The major issue is whether such businesses will be
considered non -conformities if they do not comply with the ROSE -4
home occupation criteria. If such establishments are classified
as non -conformities, they could not be enlarged or expanded
without conforming to applicable ..regulations. Nor could they
rebuild after being severely damaged; destroyed, or abandoned for
more than 90 days unless they were brought into conformity with
existing ordinances. Another issue is whether grandfathered
businesses can continue to have junk and debris on the site,
illegally store material on the property, maintain any illegal
structures, and retain non -permitted signs.
Alternatives
Several alternatives exist for legalizing the existing home
occupations in the Rose -4 area. The first alternative would be to
permit all existing home occupations in existence prior to
February 24, 1987 to be grandfathered in,. regardless of whether or
not these uses meet the ROSE -4 home occupation criteria These
uses would then be permitted to continue operation as they existed
prior to this date without compliance with the required criteria.
Alternative two would be to grandfather only those home
occupations which had a valid occupational license prior to
February 24, 1987. Any person operating a home occupation without
an occupational license would be required to conform with the
criteria of the Rose -4 and General Provisions home occupation
criteria prior to the granting of a home occupation permit. The
third alternative would be to require all home occupations,
whether newly created or existing prior to February 24, 1987, to
comply with the requirements of the Rose -4 home occupation
criteria. A grace period of ninety days could be established for
compliance, after which the use would be referred to the Code
Enforcement Board.
Analysis
Alternative one would permit all home occupations operating within
.the Rose -4 area to legitimize their operation with no required
improvements. However, the major drawback would be to verify
existence. Such verification would be difficult without any
formal documentation, and could possibly permit some occupations
not previously operating to establish themselves legally without
complying with the ordinances. Another issue is whether
grandfathered businesses could expand without complying with the
ROSE -4 criteria.
Alternative two --would only grandfather those uses having valid
occupational licenses on February 24, 1987, thereby providing a
method to verify which uses were operating prior to the effective
date of the amendment. However, it would not ensure that the
established uses were in conformance with the ROSE -4 home
occupation ordinance in respect to visual compatibility,
employment of only family members, or homestead exemptions. This
would permit existing uses to legally continue operation in
nonconformance with the ordinances.
Alternative three would provide a ninety day period in which all
existing home occupations would be able to obtain an occupational
license. This alternative would ensure that any existing home
occupations would fully comply with all codes and ordinances and
avoid any complications which might arise in the future.
Compliance would meet the intent of the home occupation concept of
permitting specific uses to exist in a residential area while
retaining the residential nature of the area.
46
_ M M
i
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt
alternative three as a method of legalizing all existing home
occupations within the Rose -4 District in order to ensure that all
existing home occupations will not adversely affect the
residential nature of the community.
Commissioner Eggert pointed out that the intent of the
Motion at the meeting of February 24, 1987 was to direct staff to
find a way to legally grandfather in the existing businesses.
Chairman Scurlock asked if there actually were 43 businesses
in operation, and Staff Planner David Nearing said that they
found only 6, and since that time, two of them have said that -
they would not be continuing their operation.
Mr. DeJoia, President of Roseland Property Owners
Association, stated that the residents in the area are concerned
that when the downzoning occurred, there was an expansion of
allowable home occupation uses. He admitted that they did not
attend the last public hearing, but after they heard what
happened, they called a general meeting with Commissioner Bowman
and Director Keating, and the recommendation to come out of that
meeting was that something be done to eliminate these home
occupations such as metal equipment and manufacturing. He felt
some consideration should be given to the businesses that are
already there, and if they are grandfathered in, perhaps some
consideration should be given to setting up a low intensity
commercial zoning district. The Association does not want to see
any more businesses grandfathered into the ROSE -4 district. They
feel that to expand the home occupations is really junk zoning,
and they don't like it.
Attorney Vitunac advised that he was unable to carry out the
intent of the Motion during that meeting because staff was able
to identify only 6 businesses, not the alleged 43, as the other
people are not coming forward, and he cannot write an ordinance
legalizing all those unknown businesses.
Commissioner Wheeler felt the facts have changed since the
last meeting or as the Board perceived them to be at that time.
47
JUL 2 1 BOOK
198
4UL 21 1987 BOOK (,�"E 890
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, that the Board authorize staff to
advertise a public hearing to reconsider the entire
ordinance on home occupational uses in the ROSE -4
District.
Commissioner Bowman did not feel another public hearing was
necessary if we took Alternative #3, which would provide a 90 -day
period to allow all existing businesses to obtain an occupational
license.
Chairman Scurlock felt we need to reconsider the whole issue
and notify everyone of the scheduled meeting.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
was voted on and carried unanimously.
Lena Marshall suggested that items c & d be deleted from
the grandfather clause in Ordinance 87-22. The residents are not
opposed to existing businesses, just to any additional businesses
being grandfathered. While they would prefer not to have any of
the existing businesses, they realize a few may have to be
grandfathered in. She urged the Board not to encourage more
illegal businesses to come forth and be grandfathered in. She
felt that they might have to deal with the metal casing business
- and the lawn mower service, but objected to the contractor's
office owned by Fred Mensing and the service businesses. In
addition, she believed that some misrepresentation was made on
February 24th by Attorney O'Haire on behalf of Fred Mensing
regarding the existing home occupations, and pointed out that
Attorney O'Haire even admitted that he drafted a part of the
ordinance that appears to be geared in favor of Fred Mensing's
contractor's office.
The Commissioners felt that all these arguments should be
made -at the public hearing, and directed staff to schedule an
48
evening meeting sometime in August in the Sebastian City Council
Chambers.
Administrator Baiczun asked if it is the Board's intent that
staff will make no further effort in identifying the home occupa-
tional uses, and the Commissioners confirmed that was their
intent.
Fred Mensing noted that he had written a letter to the Board
a couple of months ago explaining that owners of illegal or legal
businesses were not coming forward because they cannot be home-
steaded.
Chairman Scurlock reiterated that all arguments would be
heard at the time of the public hearing.
C. N. Keary stated that although he has an occupational
license and is probably better protected than anyone else under
this ordinance, he felt the vehicle for having these people come
forward has not been properly presented. He noted that the
property owners association had a big turnout at their first
meeting after the ordinance was passed, but the next time they
met, the turnout shrunk to 10-12 people. The bottom line is that
the Roseland Property Owners Association does not represent
everyone in the ROSE -4 district.
Commissioner Eggert felt it was the Board's intention to
protect the legal businesses up there, and consequently, we
should have found every legal business through occupational
permits.
Tillie Messick expressed her opposition to the ordinance as
she has been confronted with the problem of having the
contractor's office right next to her.
WAIVER FOR FLOODPLAIN DISPLACEMENT REQUIREMENT - AUDUBON SOCIETY
LEARNING CENTER SITE PLAN
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 7/8/87:
JUL 21. -881 49 BON
FF-
JUL 2 1 . i98 BOOKf, �E �S �:
TO: THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF D,04 T • July 8, 1987 FILE:
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIO R
THROUGH:
County Administrator
Charles P. Balczun SUBJECT:
James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works D'irecto
Request for Waiver -Floodplain
Displacement Requirement
Ordinance 87-12
Audubon Society Environmental
Learning Center Site Plan
(SP -MA -86-08-66)
Letter from Randy Mosby,
FROM: .
Dave B. Coxc� REFERENCES: P.E. , Mosby & Associates
Drainage Engineer to Dave Cox dated July 2,
1987
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Mosby & Associates on behalf of the Pelican Island Audubon Society
is requesting a waiver of the "cut and fill" balance requirement as
contained in the Stormwater Management and Flood Protection Ordinance
(87-12). The Engineer states that only 13,000 cubic feet of material
will be placed in the 10 -year Flood Plain.
The Facility will be located on Live Oak Drive with Marsh Island to
the North and Orchid Island Subdivision to the•8outh.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Since the Indian River in this area is an estuarine environment,
and the project meets all other requirements of Ordinance 87-12 and will
cause a minute water level rise in the river, staff has no objection.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that a waiver to the flood plain displacement
requirement be granted to The Audubon Society Environmental Learning
Center Site Plan.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously granted
a waiver to the floodplain displacement requirement for
the site plan for the Audubon Society Environmental
Learning Center, as recommended by staff.
ENGAGEMENT OF ARCHITECT FOR UTILITY DEPARTMENT RELOCATION
Public Works Director Jim Davis explained that whenever load
bearing walls and fire walls are affected in a public building,
Florida Statutes require that a state registered architect be
hired to design the renovations.
50
r
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the engagement of an architect to design the
renovations involved in the relocation of the Utility
Department and the moving of the County Administrator
Into the space vacated by the Utility Dept.
DEDICATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY ON CORNER OF A -I -A AND CR -510
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 7/9/87:
TO: The Board of Coun y Commissioners
THROUGH: Charles P. c - County Attorney
DATE: July 9, 1987
SUBJECT: Dedication of -Right -Of -Way on Corner of S.R. A -1-A
and C.R. 510 (SUMMERPLACE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP)
FROM: Bruce Barkett Assistant County Attorney
Application for Site Plan Approval No. SP -MA -84-02-14,
having been submitted by applicant Tom Collins, is pending
approval subject to dedication of 7 feet of right-of-way
along S.R. A -1-A and dedication of 10 feet of right-of-way
along C.R. 510. The site plan is for development -of a
bank/office building on the subject corner. The applicant
has already received one extension of time, and the site
plan will expire in the near future unless construction
begins.
Recent case law (Lee County vs. New Testament Baptist Church
of Fort Myers, Florida) has addressed a county ordinance
scheme similar to Indian River County's, which requires
dedication by a site plan applicant of that portion of its
property needed to bring the abutting road's right-of-way
into conformance with the minimum width requirements imposed
by the county. In that case the court declared Lee County's
ordinance unconstitutional. The court stated there must be
a reasonable connection or relationship between the amount
of property required to be dedicated by the developer and
the anticipated needs of the community because of the new
development. Lee County's ordinance did not comply with
that test because it did not require any reasonable
connection between the requirement that the land be given to
the county and the amount of increased traffic, 1f any,
generated by the proposed development.
Staff is in the process of proposing alternatives to the
current Indian River County ordinances. In the interim, Tom
Collins feels he should not be required to dedicate 7 feet
and 10 feet of right-of-way respectively because of the
pronouncements of the court in the Lee County case. The
applicant proposes the following solution:
51 BOOK 6
L_ )JUL 211987
C
JUL 2 11937
BOOK
1. The applicant has had an appraisal of the property
prepared. The 29,729.4 square -foot tract was appraised by
Armfield-Wagner at $190,000.00, which comes to $6.39 per
square foot. The required dedication includes 3,394 square
feet, or $21,687.66 worth of square footage. The applicant
is willing to dedicate an amount of right-of-way which is
equal in value to his traffic impact fee.
2. In addition, the applicant is willing to reserve the
remaining right-of-way needed by the County for acquisition
by the County at some future date. The purchase price would
be based upon the appraised per foot value of the property
to be purchased. The purchase price would be fixed as of
the date of the reservation or site plan release, with a
built-in escalation clause tied to the consumer price index.
The County Attorney's Office recommends that this interim
solution be adopted by the Board of County Commissioners for
this particular property as an acceptable solution to the
problem. The permanent solution will be in the amended
county ordinances.
Assistant County Attorney Bruce Barkett advised that their
traffic impact fee is approximately $7200 and the value of the
dedicated area is approximately $21,000, making the purchase
price of the remainder to be approximately $13,800.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by,
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the recommendation by Attorney Barkett as set out
in the above memo.
CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
COURT FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS - COUNTY COURT
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 7/20/87:
TO: Honorable Members of
the Board of County
Commissioners
FROM: Jose h A. Baird
OMB Director
DATE: July 20, 1987
SUBJECT: COURT FACILITY
IMPROVEMENTS - COUNTY
COURT
Judge Kilbride has requested the Board of County
Commissioners appropriate funds to purchase twelve (12) new juror
chairs, two (2) new podiums and six (6) attorney chairs for the
courtroom. The budget amendment below appropriates funds in the
amount of $3,300 from the Court Facility Funds.
52
Court Facility Contingency
Balance 07-16-87/General Ledger
Less Contingency
Contingency Balance
13,839
(3,300)
10,539
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the above budget amendment be approved
to purchase the above items.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously
approved the above budget amendment, as recom-
mended by OMB Director Baird.
NORTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT
The Chairman announced that immediately upon adjournment,
the Board would reconvene acting as the District Board of Fire
Commissioners of the North County Fire District. Those Minutes
are being prepared separately.
DOCUMENTS TO BE MADE PART OF THE RECORD
A. Ordinance 87-47 - Special Vehicle Sales Events (adopted at
Regular Meeting of July 7, 1987.
53
L, 'JUL 211987
►AUL 2 i 1987
ORDINANCE NO. 87 - 47
BOOK G a , 8
r.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING SECTION 25(c)(3)
OF APPENDIX A OF THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, GENERAL PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING
CODE; PROVIDING FOR REDUCTION IN AMOUNT OF TIME REQUIRED
BETWEEN PERMIT APPLICATION AND COMMENCEMENT OF USE;
PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION OF SPECIAL VEHICLE SALES EVENTS
IN TEMPORARY USE PERMIT CATEGORIES; ESTABLISHING
STANDARDS FOR SPECIAL VEHICLE SALES EVENTS; AND PRO-
VIDING FOR CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY, AND EFFECTIVE
DATE.
Section 1
Section 25(c)(3) of Appendix A, Zoning, Indian River County
Code of Laws and,Ordinances is hereby amended as follows:
"a. Agricultural districts.
(i) Christmas tree sales.
(ii) Model homes.
(iii) Temporary construction offices.
(iv) Temporary meeting, recreation or
facilities.
(v) Temporary real estate offices.
(vi) Temporary sale of fruit and vegetables.
(vii) Similar temporary uses.
(viii) Transient Merchants -
b. Residential districts.
(i) Christmas tree sales.
(ii) Temporary construction offices.
(iii) Temporary real estate offices.
(iv) Similar temporary uses.
C. Commercial districts.
(i) Christmas tree sales.
(ii) Temporary construction offices.
(iii) Temporary meeting, recreation or
facilities.
(iv) Temporary real estate offices.
(v) Similar temporary uses.
(vi) Transient Merchants.
(vii) Special vehicle sales events
amusement
amusement
d. Industrial districts.
(i) Temporary construction offices.
(ii) Temporary meeting, recreation or amusement
facilities.
(iii) Temporary real estate offices.
(iv) Similar temporary uses.
(v) Special vehicle sales events."
Section 2
Section 25(c)(5) of Appendix A, Zoning, Indian River County
Code of Laws and Ordinances is hereby amended as follows:
"5. Application for Temporary Permit; Fees
Any person desiring to establish a temporary use, as author-
ized herein, shall submit an application for a temporary
permit to the Planning and Development Division.
CODING: Words in-$ttA0X1fXt0$4M type are deletions from existing
_ law; words underlined are additions.
54
M
The application shall be on a form provided by the County and.
shall include all information required for a complete application.
All such applications shall also be accompanied by a fee, as
established by the Board of County Commissioners. The complete- _
application and fee must be submitted at leastyb¢yi�i//(2,4A/kYs
ten (10) working days prior to the proposed commencement date for
the use.
a. Termination
At the end of the time period for which the temporary
use was permitted, including any renewal or extension
periods, the use shall be discontinued, and all tem-
porary structures involved removed. Failure to comply
with this requirement shall be a violation of this
Ordinance.
b. Renewals, Extensions
Requests for the renewal or extension of a temporary use
may be made to the Director of Planning and Development.
Such renewal or extension may be granted, subject to the
standards and procedures of this Section."
Section 3
Establish section 25(c)(3) of Appendix A, Zoning, Indian
River County Code of Laws and Ordinances as follows:
"e. Special vehicle sales events
(1) Definition
A special vehicle sales event shall be defined as a
temporary activity having a duration of four or fewer
consecutive days for the sale of vehicles held at a site
not approved as a permanent vehicle sales facility and
conducted by one or more vehicle dealers having a valid
Indian River County occupational license.
(2) Special vehicle sales events shall meet the following
site and location criteria:
(a) Said events shall be conducted on property having
commercial or industrial zoning, or on property
approved for special public events, such as the
fairgrounds site.
(b) Said events shall be conducted on property having
existing, permanent, and permitted driveways and
access points. No new driveways (road cuts) are
permitted in conjunction with sales events.
(c) Said events shall be conducted on property having
adequate area for vehicle display and employee and
customer parking. Vehicle display areas may be
unpaved; employee and customer parking areas must
be paved. Vehicles offered for sale must be
displayed only in areas identified_ as display areas
on the scaled drawing submitted as part of the
temporary use permit application. Employee and
customer parking must be provided at a rate -of one
(1) space per 500 square feet of vehicle display
area.
CODING: Words in type are deletions from existing
law; words underlined are additions.
JUL 1 &� l 55
� �
BOOK PAGE _�
_ (d) Said events may be conducted on sites approved for
other uses (e.g banks, shopping centers) provided
that the following conditions are met:
(1) No parking spaces designated as required on
the approved site plan for the host site may
be used as display area or customer/ employee
parking for the special vehicle sales event;
or
(2) Parking spaces designated as required on the
approved site plan for the host site may be
used as display area or customer/employee
parking for the special vehicle sales event
(b)
The applicant provides a written, certi-
fied statement from the owner or agent
for the host use that sufficient square
footage of approved floor area is unoc-
cupied to provide parking or display area
for the special vehicle sales event; or
The applicant provides a written, certi-
fied statement from the owner or agent
for the host use stating that the host
use will be closed for the entire dura-
tion of the special vehicle sales event,
including vehicle display times; however,
where host uses such as banks participate
in the sales event, that activity will
not constitute operation by the host use,
provided that the host use is not open to
the general public for business unrelated
to the special sales event.
(3) Special vehicle sales events shall meet the follow-
ing use conditions:
(a) No extension of a temporary use permit -for a
special vehicle sales event may be granted.
(b) Any and all signs to be used in conjunction
with the event must conform to county sign
regulations. A county sign permit(s), if
required, must be obtained prior to issuance
of a temporary use permit for a sales event.
(c) Sanitary facilities shall be provided in
accordance with applicable environmental
health regulations. Prior to issuance of a
temporary use permit for a sales event, the
applicant must obtain approval from the
environmental health department for proposed
sanitary facilities.
(d) Prior to issuance of a temporary use permit
for a sales event, the applicant must obtain
approval from the building department for use
of any temporary facilities (such as a tent).
Use of any facilities required to be inspected
by the building department or fire depart-
ments, shall be inspected by the appropriate
department prior to operation of the facility.
CO_DINd: Words intype are deletions from existing
law; words underlined are additions.
56
Concessions are only permitted as an accessory
use to the sales event. If concessions are
proposed, the applicant must obtain approval
from the environmental health department for- _
the proposed concession facilities, prior to _
the issuance of a temporary use permit for a
sales event.
(4) Special vehicle sales -event applications must meet
all submittal requirements for a temporary use
permit application. In addition, special vehicle
sales event applications must include the fol-
lowing:
A scaled drawing showing:
1.
the dimensions of the property parcel
upon which the event is to be held;
2.
the dimensions of the sales event area;
3.
location and dimension of all display
areas, parking areas, and driving aisles
to be utilized;
4.
all adjacent roadways and driveways of
the property parcel site;
5.
all signs to be used in conjunction with
the sales event and the size and type of
sign (s) used.
6.
existing zoning of the- subject property
and applicable setbacks.
(b) Information identifying:
1) beginning and ending dates of the event;
2) hours of operation of the event;
3) approximate number of vehicles displayed
at any one time on the event site;
4) any temporary facilities, including
sanitary, display (such as tents), and
concessions facilities;
5) how parking and traffic flow will be
properly directed onto and within the
event site;
6) if existing parking spaces of a permanent
use (such as shopping plaza) are to be
utilized by patrons and -employees of a
sales event, calculations shall be
submitted demonstrating that the sales
event will not utilize any parking spaces
necessary, in accordance with the parking
standards specified in the zoning code,
to service existing uses.
Section 4
CODIFICATION
The provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated into
the County Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to
"section", "article", or other appropriate word, and the sections
of this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish
such intentions.
Section 5
SEVERABILITY
If any section, part of a sentence, paragraph, phrase or word
of this ordinance if for any reason held to be unconstitutional,
CODING: Words in $tt1A0X1fAt0t4K type are deletions from existing
law; words underlined are additions.
57
BOOK 68
JUL 2 1,207
BOOR 6 SF. t .0 0 0
inoperative or void, such holdings shall not affect the remaining
portions hereof and it shall be construed to have been the legis-
lative intent to pass this ordinance without' such unconstitu-
tional, invalid or inoperative part. _
Section 6
EFFECTIVE DATE
The provisions of this ordinance shall become effective upon a
receipt from the Florida Secretary of State of official acknow-
ledgment that this ordinance has been filed with the Department of
State.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida on this 7th day of July
1987.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY:
Don C. Scurlock, J . Chairman
There being no further business, on Motion duly made,
seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 12:50 o'clock P.M.
ATTEST:
Cler Chairman
58