HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/26/1988Tuesday, January 26, 1988
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida, met in Regular Session at the County Commission
Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Tuesday,
January 26, 1988, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Don C.
Scurlock, Jr., Chairman; Gary C. Wheeler, Vice Chairman; Richard
N. Bird; Margaret C. Bowman; and Carolyn K. Eggert. 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
-Bird led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Administrator Balczun requested the addition to today's
Agenda of Change Order No. 2 for the Oslo Road and U.S. #1
miscellaneous intersection improvements.
Commissioner Wheeler added a discussion regarding expansion
of the Jail Oversight Committee.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously
(4-0, Commissioner Bowman being temporarily delayed)
added the above items to today's Agenda.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chairman Scurlock asked if there were any additions or
corrections to the Minutes of the Regular Meetings of December
15, 1987 or December 22, 1987. There were none.
.jAN26 1988
LOOP 70'AGE _659
Pr -
JAN 2 6 1988
BOOK
70 F'auF 660
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert. SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously (L-0,
Commissioner Bowman being temporarily delayed),
approved the Minutes of the Regular Meetings of
12/15/87 and 12/22/87, as written.
CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Eggert requested that items D, E. F and H be
removed for discussion, and Chairman Scurlock requested that item
G be removed also.
A. Authorization to Advertise for Changes to the Zoning Code
Use of Mobile Homes for Development Project Sales Display
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/18/88:
TO: Charles Balczun DATE: January 18, 1988 FILE:
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. Ke
Community De
el
AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE
AICP SUBJECT: FOR CHANGES TO THE ZONING
ent Director CODE REGARDING USE OF
MOBILE HOMES FOR DEVELOP-
MENT PROJECT SALES DISPLAY
FROM: Stan Boling 4 i1 REFERENCES: RZMHSLSDIS
Chief, Current Development STAN4
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of January 26, 1988.
BACKGROUND:
Recently, the Planning & Zoning Commission considered a site plan
application proposing a sales office for a mobile home park
project. The sales office site, located in a CG (General Commer-
cial District) one mile away from the park, is to include a sales
office and a model mobile home for display. The Planning and
Zoning Commission approved the site plan with the model mobile
home but acknowledged planning staff's concerns regarding the
continuous display and use of mobile homes outside of mobile home
parks and outside of districts where sale of mobile home trailer
units would be appropriate. Consequently, the Planning and Zoning
Commission directed staff to proceed, if so authorized by the
Board of County Commissioners, with proposed amendments to address
the use of mobile homes as display models and the sale of mobile
hom- trailer units.
Planning staff proposes to research the zoning code, and address
the following:
2
1. use of mobile homes for display outside of mobile home parks,
2. use of model mobile homes for sales/information offices
outside of mobile home parks,
3. appropriate zoning district(s) for sales of mobile home
trailer units, and
4. appropriate site and land use criteria regulating sales of
mobile home trailer units.
If expedient, staff would also like to use the opportunity of
amending the code for mobile home regulations to also address some
minor items that have arisen since the last code amendments.
RECOMMENDATION:
Planning staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners
authorize staff to advertise' for ordinance amendments regarding
use and sale of mobile homes outside of mobile home parks.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Bowman being temporarily delayed),
authorized staff to advertise for ordinance amendments
regarding use and sale of mobile homes outside of
mobile home parks.
B. Budget Amendment 017 - Computer for Engineering
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/18/88:
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: January 18, 1988
SUBJECT: COMPUTER FOR ENGINEERING -
BUDGET AMENDMENT p17
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
DESCIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The Board of County Commissioners approved the purchase of a
computer for the Engineering Department in the 1986/87 budget
year. A purchase order was issued and the computer was ordered;
however, it was not delivered until after October 1, 1987
requiring it to be paid from the 1987/88 fiscal year. A budget
amendment is necessary to appropriate funds in the 1987/88 fiscal
year.
3
JAN 26 1988
a BOOK 70 F 661
Pr -
JAN 26 1988
BOOK 70 PACE 662
Account Number Account Name Increase Decrease
Revenue
111-000-389-040.00 Cash Forward -Oct. 1st $7,868.00 0
Expense
111-244-541-034.69 Maint.-Other Equipment $ 465.00 0
111-244-541-066.49 Other Machinery & Equip. $7,403.00 0
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve Budget
Amendment Number 017.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Bowman being temporarily delayed),
approved Budget Amendment 017, as recommended by
OMB Director Baird.
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
FROM: Joseph A. Baird, OMB Director
THROUGH:
SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT
NUMBER: 017
DATE: January 18, 1988
Entry Number
1
Fund/Department/Account Name
Engineering /Cash Ftad . Oct . 1
Engineerirlg/Maint. Other EcruiP.
Engineering/Other Mach. & Eauin
Account Number
111-000-389-040.00
111-244-541-034.69
111-244-541-066.49
Increase
Decrease
$7,868.00
$ 465.00
$7,403.00
0
0
0
C. Budget Amendment 018 - Traffic Safety Grant for Sheriff's
DeRartment
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/18/88:
4
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: January 18, 1988
SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT 018 -
TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANT FOR
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
FROM: Joseph A. Bair
OMB Director
DESCIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The State of Florida, Department of Community Affairs,
awarded the Indian River County Sheriff's Department a Traffic
Safety Grant in the amount of $166,888.00.
The following budget amendment appropriates funds:
Account Number Account Name Increase Decrease
Revenue
001-000-334-292.00 S.T.E.P. Grant $166,888.00 0
Expense
Sheriff -
001-600-586-099.04 Law Enforcement $166,888.00 0
RECOMMENDATION
The Board of County Commissioners approve the $166,888.00 budget
amendment.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Bowman being temporarily delayed),
approved the $166,888 budget amendment, as recommended
by OMB Director Baird.
'20: .Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
FROM: Joseph A. Baird, OMB Director
THROUGH:
SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT
NUMBER: 018
DATE:
January 1 R 19RR
Entry Number
Fiord/Dpartment/Account Name
Account Number
1.
GF/Sheriff/S.T.E.P. Grant
Sheriff -
GF/Sheriff/Law Enforcement
JAN 2 6 1988
001-000-334-292.00
001-600-586-099.04
5
Increase
$166,888.00
$166,888.00
Decrease
BOOK 70 FF 683
,JAN 2 1988
D. Budget Amendment - Gifford Sewer Project
BOOK 70 ,°A E 664
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/18/88:
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: January 18, 1988
SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT 019 -
GIFFORD SEWER PROJECT
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
DESCRIPTION OF CONDITIONS
Indian River County recently issued a Bond Anticipation Note in the
amount of $9,200,000 for the Gifford Sewer Project. The following is a
breakdown of the estimated project costs over a three year construction
period.
GIFFORD SEWER PROJECT
Source of Funds:
Principal amount of notes (bond issue)
Accrued Interest Earnings
Other Funds
TOTAL SOURCES OF FUNDS
Uses:
Issuance Cost
Underwriters Discount
Other Issuance Expenses
Construction Costs
Contract No. 1
Contract No. 2
Contract No. 3
Contract No. 4
Engineering:
- Specialty Maint.&Const. Inc.
- A.O.B. Underground, Inc.
- Douglas N. Higgins, Inc.
- Estimate (not awarded)
Preliminary Study - Masteller and Moler
Design - Masteller and Moler
Inspection Fees - Masteller and Moler
Additional Services - Masteller and Moler
Administrative Expenses (estimate)
Interest during construction
Contingency
TOTAL USES OF FUNDS
6
$ 9,200,000
619,859
545,188
$10,365,047
75,900
56,000 $
131,900
1,817,000
257,626
5,261,430
75,000 $ 7,411,056
10,000
419,569
156,450
150,000
$ 736,019
$ 50,000
1,733,434
302,638
$10,365,047
The proposed budget for 1987/88 fiscal year:
PROPOSED 1987/88 FISCAL YEAR ANNUAL BUDGET
Issuance Costs
Engineering
Construction Costs
Administrative Fee
Interest Expense
Contingency
Cash Forward -September 30
$ 131,900
20.6,450
3,500,000
20,000-
621,000
302,638
4,902,057
$9,684,045
RECOMMENDATION
The Board of County Commissioners authorize the appropriation of funds
as shown.
Commissioner Eggert had a problem with approving an overall
budget amendment for $150,000, which includes additional services
for the engineering consultants, when approval for the extra
$50,000 is requested in Item F of this Consent Agenda. She
didn't feel the Board should be requested to approve one when we
have not even discussed the other. She did not have any problems
with Masteller & Moler, but was concerned with the costs of
additional services when we really don't know what they are for.
Although she understood that $28,000 was taken out of the
original $100,000 to pay for the Bent Pine lawsuit when it came
up as an emergency situation, life has made her very conscious of
additional services.
Utilities Director Terry Pinto explained that the additional
services still have to be approved under the contract, but
normally additional services are figured into the total cost and
you have a lump sum total project contract. However, because of
the way FmHA puts this thing together, they spell these things
out separately and have an individual budget with line items and
a total project cost. Normally, you can move all those things
around inside that budget without exceeding the total cost of the
original contract without any problem, but because it is a FmHA
project, we have to come back and get the approval to do that.
7
61 JAM 26 1988
Boor 70 FF. 6`x5
JAN 2 6 1988
BOOK 70 pA 666 •
Chairman Scurlock understood that the Board authorized an
additional $100,000 and that $100,000 has been exceeded by the
tune of approximately $19,000 to date. He further understood
that the process is that Director Pinto is looking for an
amendment of $150,000 to cover that, and since the reserves are
depleted, wants the additional $50,000 for that specific use,
which then again would be approved from time to time by the
Board.
Director Pinto explained that when we put the project
together, $100,000 was adequate, but the Bent Pine lawsuit put
things completely out of control. The engineer would like very
much to see those costs paid from somewhere else, and not even
paid under this contract. However, the only way FmHA will
participate is if it gets into that contract.
Commissioner Eggert felt we could be talking about any
contract, not this specific contract, and when we get to $150,000
for additional services, it makes her wonder if enough consider-
ation was given to line item budgeting when this was put
together.
Director Pinto explained that when they came in and got
authorization for the lawsuit, that normally would not have been
part of the engineer's contract. It would have been separate,
and the County would be paying that separately. The engineer
doesn't really like the idea that all of that has to go through
his contract.
Commissioner Eggert understood that $28,000 was spent on the
Bent Pine lawsuit to show that we were not impacting their source
of potable water. She further understood that the $100,000 has
been spent, and asked if staff,had come back to the Board for
each one of those dollars.
Chairman Scurlock felt that what the Board is saying is that
in the future, if the Board gives a blanket extension of $100,000
for unknowns, each specific request to draw down on those funds
is to be presented to the Commission.
8
Director Pinto explained that the way we do it outside. of
the FmHA is that we negotiate what the cost of the project is
going to be, and if they say the project is $250,000 for design,
that includes all of the costs of the engineer going out and
hiring whoever he has to hire to help him put his project
together. In doing an FmHA project, they have additional
services that has to be separated out, and they make us line item
that.
Chairman Scurlock stressed that regardless of FmHA.
requirements, when the Board gives a lump sum addition, we want
each one of those, as a change, to come back to the Commission so
that we can keep track of it.
Commissioner Eggert suggested that another way would be not
to give them a lump sum addition and have them come back for each
,one, like Jim Davis comes back on Public Works matters. To her,
it is just another form of cost accounting, and is not
necessarily pertinent to any specific contract. She felt that
the Board, in order to understand what is going on, needs to see
some sort of a change order for their approval.
Chairman Scurlock believed the feeling of the majority of
the Board, and this goes for all the County's variety of
contracts, is that the Board wants to see each of those items
come before the Board.
Director Pinto understood that, and did not have a problem
in doing that.
Commissioner Eggert recalled that she expressed her concerns
about additional services at the last meeting, and felt more
information would give protection on both sides. She emphasized
that it is very hard to be asked to approve $150,000 for
additional services, and then find something later in the same
days' Agenda that says how that came to be. Theoretically, the
Board could approve this item and not Item F in this Agenda.
Commissioner Eggert felt that the Board could approve the $28,000
9
,JAN 26 1988
9
BOOK 70 F,h,LF.667
JAN 26 1988
BOOK
70 [";E 668
easily enough because we know what this is, but stressed that the
Board does not know what the other $22,000 of that $150,000 is
for.
Director Pinto pointed out that while it is very easy to
bring these changes before the Board, it is a pain in the neck to
take each one back to the FmHA. He suggested that we make the
change to be approved by FmHA to transfer those monies with us
committing to $28,000, and anything over that will be brought
back to the Board with an explanation.
Commissioner Eggert didn't have any problem with that.
Commissioner Bird asked what was included in the $30,000 for
additional experts, and Director Pinto advised that most of that
was for hydrological costs and attorney fees.
Commissioner Bird wanted to see a breakdown of those $30,000
fees and who was paid what.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Bowman being temporarily delayed)
approved Budget Amendment 019, including additional
services up to $150,000 with the stipulation that money
cannot be expended without coming back to the Board;
this process will allow it to be approved first by
FmHA, after which staff will police it and bring it
back to the Board.
AMENDMENT NQ, 1 TQ AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES, BETWEEN
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AND MASTELLER & MOLER ASSOCIATES, INCL WILL
BE PUT ON FILE WHEN FULLY EXECUTED AND RECEIVED;
E. Budget Amendment 020 - Security System for Administration
Building
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/18/88:
10
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: January 18, 1988
SUBJECT: SECURITY SYSTEM FOR
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING -
BUDGET AMENDMENT 020
FROM: Joseph A. Bair
OMB Director
DESCIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The Board of County Commissioners awarded a bid for a security
system to be installed in the County Administration Building to
Sonitrol. The project was funded in the 1986/87 budget year, but due
to delays was not completed. Work is still being performed and the
estimated cost was $6,794.00 which will need to be paid when the
project is complete. The following budget amendment appropriates
funds in the 1987/88 fiscal year.
Revenue
Account Number
001-000-389-040.00
Expense
001-220-519-066.39
Account Name
Increase Decrease
Cash Forward -Oct. 1st $6,794.00 0
Other Improvements
Except Buildings $6,794.00 0
RECOMP'ENDATIONS
Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve Budget
Amendment Number 020.
Commissioner Eggert asked when this would be completed, and
questioned the status of a punch system for the lock on the back
door to the Commission offices.
Administrator Balczun reported that
are installed and the entry key pads are
trying to determine who is going to have
the building.
Commissioner Wheeler asked if the security system monitors
the internal monitors
installed. They are now
what level of access to
conversation and noise levels throughout the building,
Administrator Balczun confirmed that it does.
JAN 26 1988
1 1
and
ool; 70 t , ,r: 6 9
PP -
JAN 26 1988
BOOK 7® F,[670
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Bowman being temporarily delayed),
approved Budget Amendment No. 020, as recommended
by staff.
T0: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners,
FROM: Joseph A. Baird. OMB Director
THROUGH:
SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT
NUMBER:
DATE:
020
January 18, 1988
Entry Number
Fund/Department/Account Name
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
1.
GF/Cash Forward -October 1st
Other Impr.
GF/Blda.&Grounds/Except Bldg.
001-000-389-040.00
001-220-519-066.39
$6,794.00
$6,794.00
F. FmHA Contract Amendment for Engineering Services
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/15/88:
TO: CHARLES BALCZUN
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
THRU: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTIL'RVICESS3
FROM: JEFFREY K. BARTON
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: FmHA CONTRACT AMENDMENT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES
DATE: JANUARY 15, 1988
BACKGROUND
In the original budget allocation for the Gifford Area Sewer
Project, $100,000.00 was allocated for additional engineering
services i.e., surveying, outside engineering consultants, aerial
photography, etc. The $100,000.00 should have been sufficient to
cover these requirements until a protest was filed by Bent Pine
Utilities during the permitting stage of the project. At this
point, several outside engineering consultants needed to be hired to
present expert testimony before the Department of Environmental
Regulations Hearing Board. These costs were not anticipated when
the original budget was formulated.
12
ANALYSIS
The cost of the additional experts were in excess of $30,000.00
leaving nothing available for possible change order requirements.
To prevent the necessity of amending the budget again, it is
recommended that $50,000.00 be transferred from Reserve for
Contingencies to Additional Engineering Services. If any portion is
unused, it will automatically revert back to the contingency
account. This process does not increase the overall projected cost
of the Gifford project.
RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Utility Services staff recommends to the Board of
County Commissioners to amend the budget for the Gifford Area Sewer
Project by:
1.
Increasing the line item, Additional
Services, by $50,000.00 and decreasing
for Contingencies by $50,000.00.
2. Forward the necessary papers to FmHA in
for their approval.
Engineering
the Reserve
Gainesville,
(PLEASE SEE DISCUSSION REGARDING THIS ITEM UNDER ITEM D IN
TODAY'S CONSENT AGENDA)
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Bowman being temporarily delayed),
approved additional services of $150,000, with the
stipulation that money cannot be expended without
coming back to the Board; this process will allow it
to be approved first by FmHA, after which staff wilt
police it and bring it back to the Board.
G. Supplemental Agreement No. 1 - Professional/Architectural
Services Agreement - IRC Health Department Renovations
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/14/88:
13
671
eoar
r
BOOK '�® F E 672
TO: Charles P. Balczun,
County Administrator
FROM:
James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
DATE: January 14, 1988
SUBJECT:
FILE:
Supplemental Agreement No. 1 -
Professional/Architectural
Services Agreement - Indian
River County Health Department
Renovations
REFERENCES:
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Dr. Berman, Health Department Director, has requested that the County staff
assist him in minor renovations to the Health Department Building. Since
the building is a public government facility, a registered architect is
required to certify the design. Staff has negotiated the attached supple-
mental agreement with Schemrer Associates, Orlando, to accomplish the
design of enclosing the Health Department Building porch and relocating the
East door. The negotiated design fee is $1,300.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Staff has prepared the scope of work and negotiated the compensation for
design services. All costs are budgeted in Dr. Berman's Health Department
budget.
lECIDATION AND FUNDING
It is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners approve the
Supplemental Agreement No. 1 for design services and authorize the Chair-
man's signature.
Funding to be from the Health Department budget.
Chairman Scurlock felt we need to convey to this particular
architect that we have some timing problems due to substantial
problems in designing the renovation of the Utilities Department
offices and getting that project out to bid. He wished
Administrator Balczun to convey to the architect that we would
like him to be a little more attentive to this job, and
Administrator Balczun assured the Board he would convey the
message.
14
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Bowman being temporarily delayed),
approved Supplemental Agreement No. 1 for design
services, and authorized the Chairman's signature
as recommended by staff. Funding to be from the
Health Department budget.
SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT WILL BE PLACED ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF
THE CLERK TO THE BOARD WHEN FULLY EXECUTED AND RECEIVED
H. Request from Urban Forester to Plant 26 Live Oak Trees in the
Median Along Indian River Boulevard from 17th Street to Royal
Palm Boulevard
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 111318*:
TO: Charles P. Balczun, DATE: January uary 13, 1988
County Administrator
SUBJECT:
FILE:
Request from Urban Forester to
Plant Twenty -Six (26) Live Oak
Trees in the Median Along
Indian River Boulevard from
17th Street to Royal Palm Blvd.
FROM: REFERENCES:
James W. Davis, P.E., Bill DeBraal, Urban Forester
Public Works Director to Jim Davis dated 12-29-87
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The Urban Forester, acting in behalf of the City of Vero Beach, is request-
ing permission to plant 26 live oak trees along the center median of Indian
River Blvd. frau 17th Street to Royal Palm Blvd. The trees to be planted
are small enough that they should not became a hazard to motorists.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Whereas the Florida DOT "Manual of Uniform Minimum Standards for Design,
Construction, and Maintenance for Streets and Highways" states that fixed
objects should not be within the 30' clear zone for a 55 MPH design speed
roadway, the medians through the County have repeatedly been "beautified"
by tree planting. The Urban Forester has stated that the trees would yield
to a vehicle if hit even after a 5 year maturity.
15
,JAN 2 6 1988
BOOK 7
E673
,JAN 2 8
BOOK 70 PACE 674
The liability exposure of tree planting along roadways within the clear
zone or roadside recovery area is receiving much public interest throughout
Florida. Staff is planning on attending a seminar on this issue in Feb.
1988. "Soft" vegetation is preferred.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
Staff recommends approval of the requests based upon the following:
1) Existing trees in Indian River Blvd. right-of-way have been
established for the past seven years with no problems.
2) The speed limit of the road is 45 MPH.
3) If the trees become non -yielding, they may be removed in the future.
Commissioner Eggert assumed that Vero Beach was paying for
this, and Urban Forester Bill DeBraal advised that the trees were
all donated and will be planted and maintained by the City. He
noted that there is no irrigation in there now, but the City
hopes to continue their irrigation system down the Boulevard in
the future, possibly using effluent from the treatment plant.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0
Commissioner Bowman being temporarily delayed)
approved staff's recommendation as set out in the
above memo.
1. IRC Bid #390 - One (1) New Crew Cab Truck - Road & Bridge
Department
The Board reviewed the following memo:
TO: Board of County Commissioners _ DATE:
THROUGH: P.J. Mattes
Asst. County Administrator
FILE:
SUBJECT: IRC BID #390 - ONE (1) NEW CREW
CAB TRUCK, SINGLE AXLE, (4 x 2)
FORD F700/800, NI OR APPROVED
EQUIVALENT
FROM: Gus Ambler, C.P. (/VI REFERENCES:
Purchasing Manag 15?
1. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Bids were received Wednesday, January 6, 1988 at 2:00 p.m. for IRC Bid
#390 - One (1) New Crew Cab Truck, Single Axle, (4 x 2) Ford F700/800,
NI or approved equivalent, for the Indian River County Road and Bridge
Department.
. 16
20 Bid Proposals were sent out. 2 Bid Proposals were received, 1 of which
was a "NO" Bid.
2. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Only one valid bid was received. This bid for $31,709 was compared to
State Contract #070-700-88-1. State Contract can provide an equal truck
for $30,858.00 ($851.00 less than the valid bid).
3. RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
Staff recommends that we purchase from State Contract, Navistar International.
Budgetary approval has been confirmed for expenditure from Road and Bridge
Department, Account Number 111-214-514-66.42.
Staff requests authorization to order the vehicle.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Bowman being temporarily delayed),
authorized the purchase of One New Crew Cab Truck
from the State Contract, Navistar International, as
recommended by Purchasing Manager Ambler.
�U
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS c'w 0
1840 25th Street ,yi .,
Vero Beach, Florida -32960 R, 490
BID TABULATION
BID NO.
IRC BID #390
DATE OF OPENING
January 6, 1988
BID TITLE ONE NEW CREW -CAB TRUCK, SING
AXLE, CLASS 7, 27,500 lb. GVWR (4x2) F
J
•
F700/8
proved E
•
ITEM DESCRIPTION'
NO.
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
ITEM 1: ONE NEW CREW CAB TRUCK,
sJN(;Tr Axtr, CLASS 7, 27,.500 lb. GVWR
(4 x 2) FORD F700/800, NI or APPRaED
EQUIVALENT.
1
Ea.
NB
31709
)0
,JAN 2 6 1988
17
Box 70 r! 675
jAN 26 1988
BOOK 70 r cE 876
J.& K. Reports
The Board reviewed the following report dated 1/11/88:
FREDA WRIGHT
CLERK. CIRCUIT COURT AND RECORDER
i!;'I R I S.'"ER: jigN fff,
P. 0. BOX 1028
VERO BEACH • FLORIDA
32960
JANUARY 11, 1988
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FM: TRAFFIC VIOLATION BUREAU - SPECIAL TRUST FUND
)MONTH OF DECEMBER 1987
FIBS $26,057.09
COURT COSTS 12,521.00
LOCAL LAW 761.00
BOND ESTREATURE 1,030.81
BOARDING FEES/FINES (ANIMAL CONTROL) 310.00
DEFENSIVE DRIVING SCHOOL 1,758.75
PUBLIC DEFENDER FEES 200.00
REFUND FINES
REFUND COURT COSTS
(60.00)
(16.00)
TOTAL $42,562.65
CHECK NO. 005530
COPY ATTACHED
PMA
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Bowman being temporarily delayed)
accepted the above Traffic Violation Bureau Reports
for the month of December, 1987.
L. Release of County Utility Lien
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/12/88:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
DATE: January 12, 1988
RE: CONSENT AGENDA - BCC MEETING 1/26/88
RELEASE OF COUNTY UTILITY LIEN
This office has processed the following matters and requests
permission for the Chairman to execute the standard release
forms:
SATISFACTION of payment of Impact Fee Lien
received from ALAN R. SCHOMMER and SERVICE
REFRIGERATION, INC. d/b/a SNIDERS OF VERO
BEACH, INC. in the amount of $7,540.09.
The back-up information for the above is on file in the
County Attorney's Office.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Bowman being temporarily delayed)
approved the Satisfaction of Payment of Impact Fee
Lien received from Alan R. Schommer and Service
Refrigeration, Inc. d/b/a Sniders of Vero Beach, Inc.
in the amount of $7,540.09, as recommended by staff.
SATISFACTION OF LIEN IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE
BOARD
JAN 2 6 1988
19
BOOK 70 TAU 677
Pr—
JAN 2 6 1988
A.M.
BOOK 70 ME 678
Commissioner Bowman joined today's meeting at 9:20 o'clock
VISTA GARDENS ASSOCIATION REQUEST FOR COMMISSION TO CONSIDER A
LAND USE CHANGE AND DOWN -ZONING ON A PORTION OF THE McKEE JUNGLE
GARDEN PROPERTY
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/12/88:
January 12, 1981
To: Board of County Commissioners, Indian River County, Florida
Administration Building, 1840 25th Street,
Vero Beach, FL, 32960
From: Vista Gardens Association, Inc., a Florida Non -Profit
Corporation, by Arthur L. Cerda, Dante Brunetti,
Louis E. Simhauser, Sam Giordano, Robert Friedlund,
Margaret Lewkowicz and Claude Perosa.
In re: Petition and Request to Amend the Land Use Element
121314/5„ of the Comprehensive Plan of Indian River County,
+ sj Florida, the accompanying Land Use Map, and to
^4D JAN 1588 dam Rezone a certain part of a described parcel of
:p ro land from Commercial District (C) to Medium
nRECEIVED N Density - Residential (MD -2).
01aaARD count - ,v
,,c4 COMMISSIONERS '�,y Pursuant to. a resolution of the Directors of the
_rte A sociation, the above named residents, on behalf of the Asso-
iation, its owners and residents, Petition and Request the
Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida,
to Amend the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan of
Indian River County, Florida, the accompanying Land Use Map and
to Rezone that part of the described parcel, said description
being attached hereto, made a part hereof and incorporated herein
by reference, of land being and lying EAST of the WESTERLY Three
Hundred Fifty Feet (350') from Commercial District (C) to
Medium Density - Residential (MD -2).
r
The property involved in this petition and request
is presently owned by Vista Properties, Inc. Leonard L.
Farber, Inc. has submitted a site plan for a proposed commercial
development, which is presently subject to review and approval.
Unit owners of Vista Gardens Association have an easement over,
across and upon the entire parcel for access to their common
element roadway. Indian River County and the State of Florida,
Department of Transportation, also have land adjoining and
across a part of said parcel.
. Cerda
• Respectfully submitted,
Dante Brunetti
637
Lu
ois Simhauser
e4L� >cz
Claude Perosa
20
.40+-07
Sam Gio ano
Rob rt Friedlund
M gait Lewkowicz
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
That Part of Section 13 [S13], Township 33 South [T33S],
Range 39 East [R39E] and That Part of Section 18 [S18],
Township 33 South [T33S], Range 40 East [R40E], Indian River
County, Florida, BEING ANO LYING EAST OF THE WESTERLY THREE
HUNDRED FIFTY FEET [350'] of the parcel described as follows:
JANE 26 1988
" FROM THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 13,
RUN SOUTH 00° 09' 11" WEST ALONG THE EAST LINE
OF SECTION 13 FOR A DISTANCE OF 1328.58 FEET;
THENCE RUN SOUTH 00° 08' 20" WEST ALONG THE
EAST LINE OF SECTION 13 FOR A DISTANCE OF
1327.52 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING FOR THE
FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL:
'THENCE RUN SOUTH 890 53' 24" EAST FOR A DISTANCE
OF 417.55 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 000 11' 56" WEST
FOR A DISTANCE OF 907.40 FEET TO THE NORTH RIGHT-
OF-WAY LINE OF THE INDIAN RIVER FARMS DRAINAGE
DISTRICT SOUTH RELIEF CANAL; THENCE RUN SOUTH
74° 14' 36" WEST ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY
LINE FOR A DISTANCE OF 759.93 FEET TO THE EAST
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF U.S. HIGHWAY #1,SAID EAST
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE BEING A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE
SOUTHWEST HAVING A RADIUS OF 9649.39 FEET;
THENCE RUN NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF THIS
CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 07° 01' 14"
FOR A DISTANCE OF 1182.38 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH
89° 47' 53" EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF 716.45 FEET
TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.'"
21
POOK
pr -
.JAN 2 6 1988
BOOK 70 PAGE 680
Chairman Scurlock noted that this item was placed on today's
Agenda for discussion and was not advertised as a public hearing.
He explained to a standing room only audience the procedures
involved in amending the Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
Applications for land use changes can be accepted only twice a
year in January and July, after which there are three public
hearings, the first one being before the Planning & Zoning Board,
which makes a recommendation to the Board of County
Commissioners. At the first public hearing before the County
Commission, the Board decides whether or not to submit the
request to the State for 90 -day review. If the Board decides
not to send the request to the State, the matter is dead at that
point, and the owner or applicant would have to wait six months
to resubmit another application. After the State returns the
application, another public hearing is heard before the County
Commission, at which time a final decision is made on whether or
not to amend the Comp Plan. This process is mandated by the
State and takes about 7 months.
Attorney Robin Lloyd, 817 Beachland Boulevard, speaking on
behalf of the Vista Gardens Property Owners Association, advised
that the Association has filed with the Commission to downgrade
the Comp Plan and the zoning on the property in question.
Primarily, the residents of the area are concerned with the
nature of the proposed commercial development and the impact it
would have on the surrounding property, especially the traffic
conditions off of U.S. #1. They wish to see the property go back
to a zoning with less traffic and less overall use. He advised
that 3 people from the Association have asked to speak on the
matter this morning: Claude Perosa, Dorothy Eubank, and Arthur
Certa.
Claude Perosa, 16 Vista Gardens Trail, a member of the Board
of Directors, explained that they are requesting the Board to
reconsider the zoning change made in 1983. They feel that the
22
request to develop the entire 19 acres should be reconsidered,
both legally and morally, because they feel that the development
as proposed would have a disastrous effect on all of the
residents in the entire area. He pointed out that the traffic
study submitted by the present developer shows that traffic in
that area already exceeds the amount al
lowed by the required
level of service, and emphasized that the developer's plans show
nothing to improve the condition. Having commercial property on
both sides of their entrance and the developer owning their
entrance, would subject 640 families to entering and exiting
their homes through a shopping center on a narrow and winding
road. The co -mingling of commercial traffic with the residential
traffic would not only be dangerous, but an accident blocking the
entrance would landlock them and emergency vehicles could not
enter. The ideal situation would be to rezone the entire 19+
acres and make it a natural preserve, but if this proves
impossible, its use should be kept to a minimum. The residents
feel strongly that the Commissioners have the right to change the
zoning since the rezoning in 1983 was based on misinformation.
The Planning & Zoning Commission recommended against the rezoning
at that time, and the Board voted in favor of the commercial
rezoning by a slim 3-2 vote, only because they were told by the
present owners that they wished to develop the area similar to
the Village Shops on the beach and that ail of the owners in
Vista Gardens had been informed of their request for a rezoning.
Mr. Perosa stated that he was not notified of the rezoning, and
was not aware of anyone else who was. As a matter fact, many of
the residents are not and were not aware that they do not own the
entrance to Vista Gardens. He admitted that it was stated in fine
print that they don't own the entrance, but pointed out that their
prospectus states that they should read carefully all documents
and all sales material. Mr. Perosa quoted from a major piece of
sales material that was used at the time which described the exotic
,JAN 2 6 198
23
,OOK 70 F" c.6S1.
JAN 2 6 1988
BOOK 70 PAH 682
tropical beauty of the entrance to Vista Gardens: "We have
reserved one third of the 160 acres as an undisturbed Florida
hammock, homeland of flocks of colorful exotic birds." He
stressed that nothing was mentioned in that piece of sales
material about any space being reserved for a shopping center.
Much applause followed this statement.
Dorothy Eubank, 20 Vista Gardens Trail, a member of the
special committee appointed by the Board of Directors to consider
the proposed Boulevard Shoppes development, stated that she was
here today to plead with the Commission to recognize the deep
concern of the residents for the beauty of what is known as McKee
Jungle Gardens. She referred to a recent newspaper article
written by a botanist, which detailed the rare and exotic trees
and plants that still number in the hundreds in this exotic
setting. Mrs. Eubank pointed out that there would be many ripple
effects to the destruction of 400 years of natural growth, not
only to the woodlands, but also to the purity of their water
supply. The drainage plans for this development are inadequate
to the point that the residents fear inundation of their entire
recreational area and flooding of their homes as well. Even
without a shopping center there, they experienced heavy flooding
during the heavy storms this past fall. Behind their residential
development are 60 acres of environmentally sensitive wetlands
that could be endangered by surface water run-off. This run-off
in turn would have a damaging effect upon the support systems of
the Indian River itself. Mrs. Eubank wondered if it is to much
to ask that 10 acres of this 20 -acre parcel be zoned to a more
environmentally acceptable development. She urged the Commission
to favor an amendment to the Comp Plan for this area, which is
like no other in the State of Florida.
Arthur Certa, 22 Vista Gardens Trail, President of the Vista
Gardens Homeowners Association, explained that the petition
before the Board today seeks to mitigate what the residents of
24
Vista Gardens perceive as a crippling threat to safe passage into
and out of their homes. The projected commercial traffic of some
1500 cars per day pouring through the proposed Boulevard Shoppes
development poses a menace of giant proportions to the residents.
Mr. Certa emphasized the present difficulty in exiting from Vista
Gardens out onto U.S. #1, and believed that the shopping center
traffic would discover very quickly the alternate exit to Indian
River Boulevard, across Vista Garden's only access road. Not
only would that gravely impede the residents' passage, but it
would seriously increase the chances of an automobile or truck
accident blocking the entrance and completely isolating them from
emergency services. In conclusion, Mr. Certa urged the
Commission to reduce the magnitude of the proposed shopping mall
and its 1500 daily trips to the more modest proportions described
in the 1983 zoning recommendation.
Attorney Lloyd noted that some of the suggestions for site
plans have included development of up to 300,000 sq. ft. of
commercial space, with the initial development being 150,000 sq.
ft. Assuming that it was developed out to its potential, we
would be talking about something the size of four Wal-Mart
stores, and there is no way this particular property can support
that much traffic, water, sewage, and flood control. Attorney
Lloyd emphasized that is the reason why they are asking the
Commission to initiate a land use change to rezone that entrance
back to multiple family residential.
Chairman Scurlock recalled that back in 1983, he,
Commissioner Bird and Commissioner Wodtke voted for the commercial
rezoning and Commissioners Bowman and Lyons voted in opposition. During
this last year, however, he has spent a substantial amount of time
looking back at that particular decision as a Commissioner. In
researching the Minutes of that 1983 meeting, he remembered very
clearly Mr. Johnson, who represented the developer, standing and
saying that a Village Shop type of shopping center would be
25
JAN 26 1988
ROOK 73 FA.C-E.6S3
Pr—
JAN 2 6 1988
BOOK 70 P", E884
co -mingled with the luscious trees. Now, however, we find that
the existing site plan calls for a strip commercial center, and
there are some significant differences from what the Commission
was led to believe would occur. Chairman Scurlock advised that
he spent a considerable amount of time looking at drainage and
transportation, and in terms of drainage, the only place we
evacuated this past rainy season was right there. With regard to
transportation, Mr. Bird from Kimley-Horne indicated that if we
did not co -mingle the traffic, we would certainly exceed
transportation level E on U.S. #1. Chairman Scurlock understood
that there is an ability to do a certain amount of mitigation,
but in looking back to what the Commission was told in 1983 and
what has been submitted, he did not feel there is any similarity
between the two. He felt it was important, in all fairness, to
clarify that many of the residents were not here at that
September, 1983 meeting, and while he did not feel there was any
problem in the legality of the notice, he did feel many people
were unaware of what was happening at the time that property was
rezoned to commercial. The Chairman believed that it is the
responsibility of the Board of County Commissioners to readdress
an issue if a health, safety or welfare problem has been
identified, and try to do what is best for all the citizens,
including the developer. He understood that in order to set
ourselves in motion, we have to take some sort of action today to
even consider this item in July, and since there is this need, he
would support a Motion to consider this in a positive manner and
put ourselves in a position to address this subject in July. In
the meantime, the developer can pursue the site plan process, if
he has vested and legal rights, and if he can present an
acceptable plan that handles drainage, traffic and other
environmental concerns, then so be it. However, if the
developer does not, at least this gives us the vehicle to take
that 20 acres and make sure we don't put too many potatoes in the
bag.
26
The Board reviewed the following letter dated 1/25, 1988:.
',HERMAN N SMITH. JR
IAI( HAEL. 0 HAIRE
JEROME D QUINN
IIARLES E GARRIS.
MICHAEL J GARAVAGLIA
DO -ORES D. DECAPRIO
. CERTIFIED IN TA%ATICN
Charles Vitunac, Esq.
County Attorney
Indian River County
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
gax q;a Q9F
UflNZtl & GARRHE�3
January 25, 1988
Re: Boulevard Shoppes/Vista Gardens
15674
Dear Charlie:
Assoc., Inc.;
RICHARD B CANDLER
SEAN O'HAIRE
REPLY TO
Island
Our File No.
I note that, notwithstanding my letter to you of January 18th, there is
still on the agenda for the County Commission meeting tomorrow the matter of
a request from Vista Gardens Association for the Commission to considerer
amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. In that regard, I would
suggest that consideration of the Association's application for amendment of
the land use designation for the property involved in the Boulevard Shoppes
site plan application (No. SP -MA -86-10-91) is improper for failure to be
accompanied by (1) the required fee, (2) a statement of authorization,
(3) statement of ownership, (4) certificate of title and (5) boundary survey.
I have applied for many CLUP changes over the past few years and have
never been excused from compliance with the rules. The Association,
although it represents a block of voters, is not exempt from the rules the
rest of us must follow.
Additionally, the Boulevard Shoppes project has been through three
Technical Review Committee meetings and will be reagendaed for the Planning
& Zoning Commission within the next couple of weeks. Absent adoption of a
moratorium by the Commission, which would surely be discriminatory and
illegal, nothing will stop the process in progress. My client has complied
with or satisfied every requirement of every department within the County,
deliberately made more onerous by the people who would now seek an
irregular change in the land use plan that my clients are entitled to, and
have, relied upon.
I am writing all of this because I feel that the County Attorney's office
is obliged to address legal matters, even if it does not agree with them, on
matters scheduled before the Commission.
Awaiting your advice, I remain
MOH/pkm
cc Leonard L. Farber, Inc.
` i d1'&"ties, Inc.
111 •'.I �'IC,t LP()',EACH, I.O1.4I1,44.
1 )5}'.67-434.1
27
f :71:L.1NI) 'D.104011
'1111 3 A11UI t U•I VERO Lit ,1A'H. f 1.13'I3.A i,
'31-C'inu
P W9 2 Fn 1PFIR BOOK 70 [Au- 6S5
Pr—
,JAii 2 '° 1988
BOOK 70 FM E 686
Attorney Michael O'Haire, representing the developer,
Leonard L. Farber, Inc. of Fort Lauderdale, pointed out that he
has 5 or 6 applications pending for changes to the Comprehensive
Land Use Plan for individuals and corporations who own land in
the county, and in each case, he has a court reporter present.
He felt that there are deficiencies in this request compared to
what he has been required to do in his applications for land use
changes. He emphasized that his clients have had to pay $500,
$900, or whatever it might be, to provide a survey, a certificate
of title, and any number of things that this Board in its wisdom
has required for land use plan changes. Those requirements are
made with good reason, but he has seen none of those things in
this particular petition. He pointed out that although two
lawyers and a traffic engineering consultant are representing the
applicants this morning, the legal description includes property
that is presently in use as multiple -family and excludes property
which is zoned and is being site planned for commercial use that
is immediately adjacent to his client's property. The
requirements for consideration of a change to the Comp Plan are
there for a good reason and are not there to be selectively
enforced because one applicant has more political clout than
another. He believed that is precisely the situation here, and
that it is improper for the Commission to consider an application
for changing the Comp Plan that does not meet the requirements
when his private clients do not enjoy that advantage or that
opportunity and have to spend the money and take the time to
satisfy alt requirements involved in a land use change
application.
Chairman Scurlock felt that was incorrect, because in this
case, the County is being requested to initiate the rezoning. He
emphasized that in many cases this county has taken the
initiative and no fee has been charged.
28
Attorney O'Haire asked what would happen if he requested
county -initiated land use amendments for his clients that would
obviate the requirements of the applications.
Chairman Scurlock felt the question involved is broad
community effect. This particular project probably is affecting
1500 families and the entire community, and he felt the effect is
of such a broad nature that it goes far beyond one specific
parcel. Chairman Scurlock stressed that we have not denied
anyone their rights, because the purpose of this meeting is to
decide whether or not to have a public hearing to consider the
issue.
Attorney O'Haire stated that whatever action is taken today
will not affect any pending application for site plan approval.
If the County pursues this once site plan approval has been
granted, it will create a non -conforming use for his client's
property. He opposed the Board's consideration for the reason
being that it is against every concept of good planning.
Attorney Vitunac explained that the people here are asking
the County to undertake this rezoning, and if the County does it,
it will be done for the public good, not for the developer. He
advised that Attorney O'Haire can ask the. County to undertake his
client's rezoning too, and if it is a publicly important matter,
the County may do that.
Commissioner Eggert asked what happens if they do, indeed,
have an approved site plan, and Attorney Vitunac explained that
Attorney O'Haire's client will proceed as if nothing has happened
until something does happen. If the rezoning occurs before his
rights are vested, his client cannot proceed with the
development. The County cannot declare a moratorium or put any
hurdles in his way that we don't with other people. The County
puts many hurdles in the way of all developers, but they are all
there for the public good. We will not abrogate any of those
requirements for him just because he has a court reporter
present.
,JAN 26 19x0
29
BOOK 70 F1f 6S7
,JAN 26 19-6
BOOK 70 raGE 688
Chairman Scurlock assumed that when the final decision is
made at the public hearing, one of the considerations would be
whether we would be creating a non -conforming use.
Attorney Vitunac explained that it would be a non -conforming
use if the shopping center exists at the time the rezoning is
heard, and the Board may wish not to adopt the zoning. It really
is a good faith race on the County's side to protect the public
interest without violating the property rights of this developer.
Director Keating advised that we approve 50-60 major site
plans a year, but there have been site plans where nothing has
happened after they were approved.
Attorney Vitunac stated that if the developer vests his
right to develop the property in the way that is adverse to the
public good, and if we are not going to rezone in time to save
and protect the public good, we can use eminent domain and
purchase his rights at fair market value. That would be
expensive, but that is what is required by the Constitution.
Therefore, if the County and the people are sincerely interested
in protecting that property, there is a way to do it. It is not
beyond our power to save those trees. The question is do we save
them by rezoning or by purchasing them.
Attorney Bruce Barkett, speaking on behalf of the Vista
Civic Association, advised that their members reside both in
Vista Gardens and Vista Royale, which have a total number of 2100
units. He wished to first address the staff recommendation of
1983, which was not to amend the Comp Plan. Staff pointed out at
that time that the land use element of the Comp Plan discourages
strip commercial development along arterial streets because it
provides an inefficient use of land and causes the following
problems: traffic safety, inadequate parking facilities,
proliferation of signs and overhead wires, and, aesthetically, an
unappealing design. If this 20 acres is developed as one
commercial project, there would be strip commercial beginning at
Perkins Restaurant and extending all the way north to Indian
30
River Boulevard. If the entire 20 acres were developed at
maximum intensity, it would add 8,811 daily trips to the traffic
capacity on U.S. #1 in that area, which is almost at capacity at
the present time. Attorney Barkett emphasized that the
traffic impact of this proposed commercial development will
affect the entire county because U.S. #1 is the major north/south
corridor in the county, but mostly it will affect the 1500
households in Vista Gardens and Vista Royale. While the
Association supports the petition, they would like to see it go
further and call for the entire 20 acres to revert back to
medium -density residential zoning.
Attorney Barkett introduced traffic engineer John Curtin
representing Vista Civic Association, who wished to address the
traffic impact in greater detail. Mr. Curtain noted that the
Minutes of the September, 1983 meeting indicate that traffic
capacity on U.S..#1 at that time was at level of service C.
Since that time, the Royal Village Park has been built and
traffic has been raised to 25,000 daily trips in that area, which
brings it well beyond service level C on a year -around basis. In
addition, in 1985 the County adopted specific criteria for site
plan approvals which state that no proposed development will be
approved below level of service C at average times or level D at
peak times. Also included in that criteria is that
consideration is to be given to intersections and roadways in a
radius of traffic impact reaching one mile up to 1,000 daily
trips at peak, and up to 3 miles for projects of this magnitude.
Mr. Curtin noted that the Wilbur Smith Traffic Impact Study
submitted by the applicant points out that 7 intersections within
a mile of this location already are at levels of E and F. Both
the Wilbur Smith study and the Kimbley-Horne study rely
substantially on proposed changes by the DOT. Mr. Curtin
emphasized that there is virtually widespread consensus that
U.S.#1 is inadequate, and this is attested to by the county
31
JAN 26 1988
98001[ 70 FADE 689
JAN 2 6 1988
BOO 70 f CE 9O
engineer's counts,the developer's consultant's reports, the DOT,
and the State Police. There is prospect of improvement of
U.S.#1 sometime in the future, but those improvements are
marginal as far as this property is concerned. He pointed out
that to go south on U.S. #1, you first have to go north and make
a quick change of 3 lanes before turning around and heading back
south. He stressed the difficulty and peril of trying to get out
on U.S. #1 at present. This will be impeded further by
construction traffic on U.S. #1 over the next couple of years
when the DOT does one side of the road at a time and there will
be detours and barricades all over the place. Mr. Curtain felt
the solution here would be to not only reduce this facility to
one half, but declare a moratorium on any construction of any
nature from 1st Street to 4th Street, at least until all of the
DOT work is completed.
Commissioner Bird stated that when he voted for the
commercial zoning in 1983, he felt that if the shopping center
was done in a low scale, tasteful, architecturally pleasing
manner, and if it preserved as much of the natural beauty of the
site as possible, it might be a benefit for the residents there.
However, the shopping center, as it is proposed, definitely does
exceed, in his mind, what he envisioned it to be back in 1983.
He emphasized that while he is very concerned about everyone in
Indian River County, he is especially concerned about those who
live within his district, and he is hearing loud and clear this
morning that they see this shopping center as a negative to their
life style.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, that the Board accept the
recommendation of the Vista Gardens Association and
schedule a public hearing for the purpose of a County -
initiated land use change to the Comprehensive Land Use
32
Plan with the proper legal description delineating the
portion of the property to be designated commercial and
the portion of the property to be redesignated multiple
fami 1.y 1
Under discussion, Commissioner Bird felt that it would be
difficult to utilize the property immediately adjacent to U.S. #1
for residential living, but perhaps a down -scaled commercial
development would not impact that area as severely as the one
proposed.
Commissioner Eggert stated she would support the Motion, and
recalled that she served on the P & Z Commission back in 1983
when it recommended that this Comp Plan change be denied. She
expressed her surprise at the intensity of the proposed
development and the traffic it would generate. She was
particularly opposed to the intermingling of commercial and
residential traffic through the exit onto Indian River Boulevard.
Commissioners Wheeler and Bowman recalled that they were on
the committee years ago that was in support of the County buying
the land to preserve the McKee Jungle Gardens site.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
was voted on and carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE RESTRUCTURING THE ORGANIZATION OF
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION WITH THE DIRECTOR OF THE BUDGET OFFICE
REPORTING DIRECTLY TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
The hour of 9:05 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to wit:
33
JAN 26 1988
70 i1Ar;i 691
JAN 2 6 1999
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Deach, Indian River County. Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
in the matter of /4t)
in the , Court, was pub -
fished in said newspaper in the issues of
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press•Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach. in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund fo the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed befor e t j s ay o %ZlLQ 19 �O
(SEAL)
/ (13=u less Manager)
(Clerk of the Circuit Court, IndiaViver County, Florida)
BOOK 70 f�l,E 692
NOTICE " ' The Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida, hereby provides notice of
a Public Hearing scheduled tor. 9:05 A.M. at.
January 28: 1988, to dIscuss a proposed ordi-
nance relating to Indian River County entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY.
FLORIDA, RESTRUCTURING THE ORGANIZA-
TION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BY
CREATING A COUNTY BUDGET OFFICE AND
REQUIRING THAT THE DIRECTOR OF THAT
OFFICE REPORT DIRECTLY TO THE BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision
which may be made at this meeting will need to
ensure that a verbatim record of the proceed-
ings Is made. which includes testimony and evi-
dence upon which the appeal is based.
January 5. 1988 ,
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/31/87:
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Board of County Commissioners
Charles P. Vitunac, County orney
December 31, 1987
CREATION OF COUNTY BUDGET OFFICE
PUBLIC HEARING JANUARY 26, 1988
Pursuant to the recent direction of the Board of County
Commissioners, I have prepared the following ordinance with
the assistance of the County Administrator and the Director
of the Office of Management and Budget. This ordinance
would create a new office of County Budget Office. The
County Budget Officer is to be hired by and report directly
to the Board of County Commissioners.
The language of this ordinance has been approved by all
offices concerned and is recommended for adoption by the
Board of County Commissioners.
34
Commissioner Bird asked if Administrator Balczun and OMB
Director Baird agreed on this, and Administrator Balczun stated
that he had no problems with it nor did Director Baird.
Chairman Scurlock opened the Public Hearing and asked if
anyone wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, he
declared the Public Hearing closed.
JAN 2 6 19
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 88-6, restructuring the organization of
county administration by creating a county budget
office and requiring that the director of that office
report directly to the Board of County Commissioners.
35
BOOK
70
`AGE
93
!JAN 2 6 1988
12/30/87.1(Ord)LEGAL(Vk)
BOOK 70 'pAGE694
ORDINANCE NO. 88 - 6
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
RESTRUCTURING THE ORGANIZATION OF COUNTY
ADMINISTRATION BY CREATING A COUNTY BUDGET OFFICE
AND REQUIRING THAT THE DIRECTOR OF THAT OFFICE
REPORT DIRECTLY TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS; PROVIDING FOR INCORPORATION IN CODE
AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County that:
SECTION 1. CREATION OF COUNTY BUDGET OFFICE
Pursuant to the authority granted by §129.025(1),
Florida Statutes, and any other conflicting ordinance to the
contrary notwithstianding, the Board of County Commissioners
designates a County Budget Officer to carry out the duties
set forth in Chapter 129, Florida Statutes.
The County Budget Officer shall be hired by the Board
of County Commissioners and shall report directly to the
Board of County Commissioners.
SECTION 2. DUTIES OF COUNTY BUDGET OFFICER
In addition to the duties required by Chapter 129,
Florida Statutes, the County Budget Officer shall be in
charge of planning, organizing, directing, and controlling
the accounting, financial, and budgeting work of the County.
The County Budget Officer shall confer with and advise his
subordinate employees concerning work problems and in the
development and installation of work procedures and policies
and shall analyze County fiscal policies and recommend
changes or modifications in same. The County Budget Officer
shall direct and supervise accounting and budgeting
activities and procedures. The County Budget Officer shall
train or assist in the training of County personnel in
fiscal duties and coordinate work flow. The County Budget
Officer shall advise County officials and other department
heads on accounting and budgetary policies, interpret
accounting and fiscal policies, prepare budgets and
financial statements, and/or assist in the preparation of
reports and statements, and perform work in the operation
1
ORDINANCE NO. 88- 6
of the overall fiscal process; and maintain the budget
throughout the fiscal year. The County Budget Officer also
shall perform related work as required including all bond
issues and grant applications.
SECTION 3. KNOWLEDGE, ABILITIES, AND SKILLS
The County Budget Officer shall have knowledge of
finance, budgetary, and fiscal management as they apply to
government accounting, knowledge of the principles, methods,
and practices of accounting, and knowledge of the laws and
regulations governing fiscal operations of the County.
The County Budget Officer shall possess the ability to
advise and implement modern accounting, budgetary, and
fiscal procedures, the ability to plan, organize, and direct
employees in the operation of financial procedures, the
ability to prepare and present budgets, statements, and
reports, and the ability to establish and maintain effective
relationships with employees and the public.
SECTION 4. MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS
The County Budget Officer shall have been graduated
from an accredited four-year college or university with a
major in accounting or business administration or related
field and shall have considerable experience in public or
government accounting. A comparable amount of training and
experience may be substituted for the minimum
qualifications.
SECTION 5. REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGE
The Administrative Aide to the Board of County
Commissioners shall schedule for the Board's agenda a review
of this administrative change during January, 1989. The
Board of County Commissioners may then review the
functioning of this new administrative directive and may
make any changes it so desires.
2
AN 26 198
BOOK 70 wi 695
9�� 2 � ���� � ORDINANCE NO. 88- �_��+
�7 BOOK 7 F'1 F 696
SECTION. 6. INCORPORATION IN CODE
This ordinance shall be incorporated into the Code of
Ordinances of Indian River County and the word "ordinance"
may be changed to "section," "article," or other appropriate
word and the sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or
relettered to accomplish such purposes.
SECTION 7. EFFECTIVE DATE
The provisions of this ordinance shall become effective
upon receipt from the Secretary of the State of Florida of
official acknowledgment that this ordinance has been filed
with the Department of State.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, on this
26th day of January, 1988.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press
Journal on the 5th day of January, 1988, for a public
hearing to be held on the 26th day of January, 1988, at
which time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner
Bowman, seconded by Commissioner Bird, and adopted by the
following vote:
Attest:
Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Vice Chairman Gary C. Wheeler Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By c.
Ofte-06,-
--6on�.- curIock,
7.�,J Chairman
ds Wright, T ,b
Approved as to form and
legal sufficiency:
har I esP. �/i tunac
County Attorney
3
PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE AMENDING ZONING CODE RE THE
PROFESSIONAL OFFICE DISTRICT (COUNTY INITIATED REQUEST)
The hour of 9:05 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof
attached, to wit:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Reach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann. Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
Or
in the matter of
of Publication
in the Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of
t, ifft
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate. commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this _1J day of 1! lei
(SEAL)
6u
D.19 gig°
Manager)
(Clerk of the Circuif-CourC'Indiao River County, Florida)
The Board reviewed the following memo
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING -
ADOPTION OF A COUNTY ORDINANCE ' .
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of
County Commissioners of Indian River County,.
Florida, shall hold a public hearing at which par-
ties in interest and citizens shall have an oppor-
tunity
Chambers ofto be theCounty Administration nmBuild-.
ing, located at 1840 25th St., Vero Beach, Flor-
ida, on Tuesday, January 28, 1888, at 9:05 am
to consider the adoption of an Ordinance enti-
tied:
AN • ORDINANCE OF • INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING SEC-
TION 17. PRO: PROFESSIONAL OFFICE. _ --
DISTRICT OF APPENDIX 'A OF THE :: 1
CODE NS AS THE ZONING •ORDINACODE "``
)
PROVIDING FOR SPECIFIC CRITERIA
FOR THE REDUCTION IN MINIMUM
DISTRICT SIZE AND MAXIMUM DIS.
TRICT DEPTH; AND PROVIDING FOR '
REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVI-
SIONS, CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY,,
AND EFFECTIVE DATE. ; `t •
A copy of the proposed ordinance Is available
at the Planning Department office on the second
floor of the County Administration Building.
which
Anyone
y be madwho e ensure that a verbatim _s wish to meeting wit' nd� of
s made, which includes the f testimony fthe proceedings
can legal,.
dance upon which the appeal Is based.
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
By: -s -Don C. Scurlock,
Chairman
Jan. 8,1988 • .... i
dated 1/12/88:
TO: Charles P. Balczun
County Administrator
- DATE: January 12, 1988 FILE:
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
e-
xt�ert M. K a ng,cCP SUBJECT:
Planning & Develop ent Director
THRU: Gary Schindler "Vpi
Chief, Long -Range Planning
FROM: David C. Nearing Ct'e/�''
Staff Planner, Long-RangS IEi ;CES:
COUNTY INITIATED REQUEST
TO AMEND THE PRO: PRO-
FESSIONAL OFFICE DIST-
RICT
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of January 26, 1988.
39
JAI 2 6 1988
Nu 70 F,' F 697
JAN 2 6 e988
MU ' 70 Oa 698
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
On October 8, 1987, the Planning and Zoning Commission considered
the most recent set of proposed amendments to the PRO district.
These amendments had been requested by the Board of County
Commissioners in order to enhance the usefulness of the PRO
district. With general direction provided by the Board, the
staff drafted specific amendments which were presented to the
Planning and Zoning Commission on October 8th. At that meeting,
the Commission expressed the need for additional flexibility in
the PRO requirements and discussed several alternatives to the
PRO requirements. By unanimous vote, the Commission tabled
action on this item and directed staff to hold a public workshop
on PRO district alternatives. One alternative was establishing a
maximum depth from an arterial for PRO district zoning; a second
alternative was eliminating the need for any arterial frontage.
As directed by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the staff held
a public workshop meeting on PRO district alternatives. This
meeting was held on November 12, 1987. At that workshop, most of
the discussion focused on the arterial road frontage requirements
of the PRO district, with several participants suggesting that
the frontage requirement be changed to allow collector road
frontage. Since the depth issue was not discussed in detail at
the workshop, the staff analyzed various depth alternatives
seperately, and that analysis is included in this report.
On December 10, 1988, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to
unanimously recommend approval of this amendment.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
In addressing the Board's mandate to reexamine the PRO district
and make it more useful, the staff considered several
alternatives and then developed the recommendations presented to
the Planning and Zoning Commission on October 8th. As with the
original ordinance, the objectives were to create a district
which would be usable, would not promote spot zoning, would
buffer residential from commercial land uses, and would provide
an incentive for redeveloping deteriorating areas.
District Size Issue
One alternative considered was the reduction in minimum district
size. Since the minimum district size was intended to preclude
spot zoning, any reduction in the five acre standard would
contribute to a spot zoning problem. However, staff determined
that, if additional conditions were included, a reduction of the
minimum size would be possible without creating adverse effects.
The staff determined that, if such a reduction were conditioned
upon the location of the property contiguous to existing
commercially or industrially zoned property, a minimum size of
2.5 acres would not result in such problems. To promote
additional flexibility while still meeting the stated objectives,
the staff assessed the possibility of a further 10% reduction
from the minimum 2.5 acre requirement. The proposed additional
10 % reduction in minimum size is predicated upon the following
criteria.
1) The 2.25 acre parcel is located within a substantially
developed area.
2) The additional traffic attracted/generated will not
cause a substantial decrease in the level of service of
the arterial road or intersection at which the district
is located.
40
Since the minimum district size reduction proposal was not a
major point of contention at the October 8th meeting, the staff
has not readdressed that issue in detail. Instead, staff has
focused on the other issues raised regarding the proposed
ordinance amendments.
Depth Issue
Since questions have been raised regarding the potential problems
of developing lots fronting on arterials and having little depth,
the staff examined the possibility of establishing a maximum
depth for the PRO district. Because it is often older, existing
platted subdivisions where these problems can occur, the staff
analyzed the application of such alternatives to those types of
3.1P'eas. Basically, the option of extending the depth of the PRO
diCstrict has a major impact by including lots not fronting on an
arterial. The two primary concerns with this are: 1) increased
traffic into and through a residential area, and 2) the promotion
of multiple small projects being developed.
Increased traffic into a residential area would result from the
higher trip attraction rate produced by professional offices,
17.7 trips/1000 sq. ft. versus 7.35 trips per residential unit.
Such trips would be diverted from the nearby arterial network and
routed through the residential neighborhood, increasing traffic
within those areas. The current requirement of arterial frontage
for all PRO zoned lots attempts to minimize neighborhood
disruption by ensuring that access contact will be limited to
areas close to the arterial.
In analyzing the depth from an arterial issue, the staff
determined that properties without arterial frontage could be
included within the PRO district without major problems if
certain conditions were applied. It is the staff's position that
applying a 300 foot depth from an arterial for PRO district
establishment would not result in problems being created if PRO
district lots without arterial frontage are limited to residental
uses. That would minimize.traffic disruption within developed
areas and provide a district depth comparable to the distance
represented by three lots. As with the present ordinance, this
alternative would allow the combination of interior lots with
those having arterial frontage to create larger parcels for
office construction. Also, as found in the County Code, if a
platted lot of record is divided by a zoning district boundary,
the lot may be used for uses permitted in the district in which
the majority of the lot lies. This clause will avoid situations
in which a bisected lot would not contain sufficient area to
permit development within either district. However, it should be
made clear that this clause only pertains to platted lots, and
not to metes and bounds lots.
Several other alternatives relating to the depth issue exist.
One, of course, would be to set a maximum district depth of 300
feet without any further conditions. This option, however, would
increase traffic on local roads. Other alternatives involve
increasing or decreasing the 300 foot distance. Staff feels that
300 feet is the preferable distance, because it most closely
relates to the distance of three lots. Therefore, the staff's
opinion is that the 300 foot maximum depth coupled with a
residential use limitation for interior lots is the best
alternative.
Non -Arterial Frontage Issue
The final issue involves the question of whether PRO district
Qning should be allowed adjacent to commercial areas even if the
41
ijo1 2 198 , POOK 70 FACE 699
JAN 2)6b
moos 70 F'AGE 700
property involved does not have arterial frontage. Arguments
have been raised that some collector roadways may be carrying
more traffic than arterials. It has been stated that parcels
fronting these collectors should be eligible for PRO zoning as
are comparable lots fronting on arterials.
Staff feels that allowing PRO district zoning on non -arterial
roads should not be allowed for several reasons. First,
permitting PRO zoning along collectors would substantially
increase the amount of land available for PRO. As originally
approved, the PRO district was only intended for limited use,
particularly in areas suitable for redevelopment. Increasing the
amount of PRO zoning has the potential for increasing the amount,
type, and location of nonresidential uses and increasing
potential land use conflicts.
Although the specific performance standards for office uses, as
listed in the comprehensive plan, require access to arterial
and/or collector streets, these standards also state that the
location "shall be in neighborhood/office nodes or as specified
in the Zoning Ordinance". These standards indicate that,
although office uses are acceptable along collector streets under
certain conditions, they are more compatable along arterial roads
or within nodes.
Second, allowing PRO zoning adjacent to existing nonresidential
areas for buffering purposes would increase the number of
potential PRO areas even more than extending PRO district
location standards to include collector roads. Staff estimates
that, with this option, more than 800 acres could be zoned PRO.
Buffering can be accomplished in several other ways, if that is
the primary objective. These include required bufferyards which
are already required in commercial districts; another alternative
is to rezone existing property already in a node but located on
the periphey to OCR in order to create a buffer.
The staff's position is that the PRO district is not a district
intended for general use. In many cases the impact of PRO zoning
would be more adverse than beneficial. Instead of buffering and
encouraging redevelopment, the office use would encroach and
possibly encourage destabalization of neighborhoods. Therefore,
its use should be restricted as originally intended.
Conclusion
In summary, the staff feels that the minimum district size should
be reduced subject to the conditions referenced above. The staff
also feels that a maximum district depth from an arterial of 300
feet would be appropriate if interior lots were limited to
residential uses. Finally, the staff opposes the proposition of
allowing PRO district zoning along non -arterial roads.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve
the attached ordinance which amends the PRO District as follows:
1. The minimum district size be reduced from 5 to 2.5
acres as proposed in the attached ordinance; and
2. A maximum permissable district depth from an arterial
of 300 feet be permitted, precluding development of
lots lacking arterial frontage for other than
residential uses permiteed in the PRO district, unless
arterial frontage is obtained through unifying
ownership of the interior lot with a lot having
arterial frontage.
42
Commissioner Wheeler noted that under special circumstances
it could be reduced to 2.25 acres, and Long Range Planner David
Nearing explained that staff looked at this as being a
possibility of adding additional flexibility with some additional
criteria being met.
Chairman Scurlock opened the Public Hearing and asked if
anyone wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, he
declared the Public Hearing closed.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, that the Board adopt Ordinance
88-7, amending Section 17, the Professional Office
District, in the Zoning Code, providing for specific
criteria for the reduction in minimum district size,
clarifying use of non -conforming structures.
Under discussion, Commissioner Wheeler asked about part #2
of staff's recommendation because he understood that you could go
back into a certain amount of depth with even a 50 -ft. road, for
instance, which would give you access onto an arterial.
Mr. Nearing stated that was correct, but you still would
have a limit of 300 ft. and you would still need to have unity of
title.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion was
voted on and carried u
JAN 26 1998
i6-
nanimously.
43
p��C�I`. 70 E 701
L`f ��%r
JAN
BOOK 70 FACE 702
1/12/88
TK2
LR -Planning
DN/vj
ORDINANCE NO. 88- 7
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING
SECTION 17. PRO: PROFESSIONAL OFFICE DISTRICT OF
APPENDIX A OF THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND
ORDINANCES, KNOWN AS THE ZONING CODE, PROVIDING FOR
SPECIFIC CRITERIA FOR THE REDUCTION IN MINIMUM DISTRICT
SIZE, CLARIFYING USE OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES; AND
PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS,
CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY, AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida that:
SECTION 1
Section 17 (a) shall be amended as follows:
Section 17. PRO: Professional Office District.
(a) Purpose and Intent.
The PRO, Professional Office District, is designed to
encourage the development of vacant land and the
redevelopment of blighted residential areas along major
throughfares in selected areas of the County. The
selected areas will be deemed as no longer appropriate
for strictly single-family use but which are not
considered appropriate for a broad range of commercial
uses, as permitted in a commercial zoning district. The
PRO district may serve as a buffer between commercial
and residential uses or be established in areas in
transition from single-family to more intensive land
uses. The PRO district shall be limited in size so as
not to create or significantly extend strip commercial
development. The PRO district may be considered
consistent with the LD -2, MD -1, MD -2, MXD, and
commercial land use designations of the County's
Comprehensive Plan when established based on the
criteria in this ordinance.
In order to further encourage redevelopment, any legally
nonconforming structure may continue to be utilized, and
its use ma be chan•ed from one nonconformin• or
conforming use category to another use category
permitted in the PRO district, not withstanding any
provision of Sec. 25(j) (4) (a) of this ordinance to the
contrary. All other requirements of Section 25 (J) of
the General Provisions Section, "Nonconformities", must
be complied with. This shall be permitted provided the
chane of use of the le all nonconformin• structure
receives site plan approval, or any other necessary
approvals.
CODING: Words in t14¢bf7hillitl1 type are deletions from existing law.
Words underlined are additions.
ORDINANCE NO. 88- 7
SECTION 2
Section 17 (b) (1) shall be amended as follows:
Section 17.PRO: Professional Office District.
(b) Standards for PRO: Professional Office District
The establishment of all professional office districts
shall be subject to the following standards:
1. Location
On land designated as residential on the
County's Comprehensive. Plan the Professional
Office District shall only be established UUt
if located OtO0OtUU¢¢ 04tX ft0AtA40 on an
arterial street (as identified on the
Thoroughfare Plan in the Traffic Circulation
Element of the Comprehensive Plan).
SECTION 3
Table 17: SIZE AND DIMENSION CRITERIA of Section 17. PRO:
Professional Office District, is hereby amended as follows:
TABLE 17: SIZE & DIMENSION CRITERIA
PRO ZONING DISTRICT
ZONING DISTRICT PRO
REGULATION UNIT OF MEASURE
MINIMUM LOT SIZE1
10,000 Square Feet
MINIMUM LOT WIDTH' 100 Feet
MINIMUM YARD1
-Front 25/752
-Side 20 Feet
-Rear 25
MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE' 35 % of Lot
MINIMUM OPEN SPACE1 30 % of Lot
MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT 35 Feet
MINIMUM DISTRICT SIZE
53
Acres
MAXIMUM DISTRICT SIZE
25 Acres
MAXIMUM DISTRICT DEPTH
3004
feet
JAN 26 1988
BOOK 70 ME 703
JAN 26 1988
ORDINANCE NO. 88- 7
NOTES:
BOOK 70 PAGE 704
1. All lots created after the adoption of this ordinance
shall meet the minimum lot size and lot width criteria.
Residential uses shall be subject to the density, size
and dimension regulations of the RM -6 zoning district.
2. The front yard setback shall be a minimum of twenty-five
(25) feet except for developments abutting State Road 60
which shall provide a minimum front setback of
seventy-five (75) feet as per paragraph 25 (1) (3) .
3. The minimum district size may be reduced from 5 to 2.5
acres in size when the district location is adjacent to
a Commercial' Node (excluding Neighborhood Commercial
Nodes) , Commercial/Industrial Nodes, Tourist Commercial
Nodes, Commercial Corridors, or adjacent to property
with an MXD land use designation which is zoned
Commercial or Industrial and where the Commercial or
Industrial zoning district is a minimum of five (5)
contiguous acres in size. The Board of County
Commissioners may permit an additional reduction in
district size of up to ten (10) percent if the following
criteria are met:
a) The district will be located within a substantially
developed area.
b) The additional traffic attracted/generated will not
cause a substantial decrease in the level of service
of the arterial road, or intersection with the
arterial road, on which the district is located.
4. The maximum district depth is the furthest distance from
the adjacent arterial roadway that the PRO district may
extend. For unplatted property the maximum depth may
not exceed 300 feet. The maximum depth may exceed 300
feet for platted lots of record bisected by the district
boundaries where the majority of the lot lies within the
PRO zoned district. Lots lying within the PRO district,
but lacking frontage on an arterial roadway, may only be
developed for those residential uses permitted in the
PRO district, unless joined through a unity of title
with a contiguous lot having arterial frontage.
CODING: Words in 4tt1ci¢lOft1tit type are deletions from existing law.
Words underlined are additions.
ORDINANCE NO. 88- 7
SECTION 4
REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS
All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the Board
of County Commissioners of Indian River•County, Florida which
conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed
to the extent of such conflict. All Special Acts of the
legislature applying only to the unincorporated portion of the
Indian River County and which conflict with the provisions of this
ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict.
SECTION 5
CODIFICATION
The provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated into
the County Code and 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 6
SEVERABILITY
If any section, part of a sentence, paragraph, phrase or word
of this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional,
inoperative or void, such holdings shall not affect the remaining
portions hereof and it shall be construed to have been the
legislative intent to pass this ordinance without such
unconstitutional, invalid or inoperative part.
SECTION 7
EFFECTIVE DATE
The provisions of this ordinance shall become effective upon
receipt from the Florida Secretary of State of official
acknowledgement 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 26th day of January 1988.
..JAN 2 G i988
BOOK 70 FACE 705
JAN 26 19r3
BOOK 70 f'/CE 706
ORDINANCE NO. 88- 7
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY:
Don C. Scurlock,' Chairman
Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of Florida
this 1st day ofFebruary, 1988.
Effective Date: Acknowledgment from the Department of State
received on this 4th day ofFebruary, 1988 at
10:00 A.M./p.M. and filed .in the office of the Clerk of
the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida.
APPROVED AS TO FORM
AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY.
tt. ) ,e. Gam` \:
William G. Collins II, Assistant County Attorney
APPROVED AS TO PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT MATTERS.
Gary (M. Schin er
Chief, Long -Range Planning
CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 - MISCELLANEOUS INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS -
PHASE II - OSLO ROAD AT U.S. #1
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/25/88:
TO: Charles P. Balczun, DATE: January uary 25, 1988
County Administrator
FILE:
SUBJECT: Change Order No. 2,
Miscellaneous Intersection
Phase II - Oslo Road at US 1
FROM: REFERENCES:
James W. Davis, P.ELelr Charles Gouge, Lloyd &
Public Works Director 1.J / Associates, to James
Davia datcd 1 25 88
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Construction of the road widening and drainage improvements at the US
1/Oslo Road intersection is complete. During construction, additional
asphalt was required to improve road drainage. Also, minor concrete
driveway restoration and other miscellaneous items were required resulting
in Change Order No. 2 increasing the contract amount by $4,778.31.
48
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The changes reflected in Change Order No. 2 were recommended by the
consulting engineer, Lloyd and Associates, in the field. Staff concurs
that the work was necessary.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
Staff recommends approval of Change Order No. 2. Funding to be frac Zone 6
Traffic Impact fees (Balance as of 1/13/88 was $194,352.16.)
Public Works Director Jim Davis noted that the work was
necessary because without the additional asphalt, the road would
not have drained properly.
Commissioner Eggert asked about the status of the traffic
signal, and Director Davis advised that the contract execution
should be completed this week and Signal Construction should be
building the signal within the next 30 days. Hopefully, it will
be installed by March ist.
JAN 2 6 1988
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
Change Order #2 increasing the contract amount with
Dennis L. Smith, Inc., by $4,778.31 for miscellaneous
intersection improvements at Oslo Road and U.S. #1, as
recommended by staff.
49
BOOK 70 FACE 707
,JAN 26 19
8
No.
CHANGE ORDER
2
Dated January 22, 1988
BOOK 7Q DriE 708
Owner's Project No.
8532
Engineer's Project No. 86-584
Project Misc. Intersections - Roadway and Utility Improvements
Owner Indian River County
Contractor Dennis L. Smith, Inc. Contract Date September 9, 1987
Contract For
Road Improvements at Oslo Road and U.S. #1, 8th Street and
27th Avenue, and 4t Street and Old Dixie Highway
Nature of the Change:
OSLO ROAD AND U.S. #1
1. Sawcut existing sidewalk
Haul off rubble L.S.
2. Item 331 Asphaltic Con -
Crete Type S-1 increase from:392 to
523.27 Ton (@ $42.50/Ton)
3. Item 575-1-4 Sodding (Bahia)increase
from 1500 to 1517 S.Y (@$1.00/S.Y.)
4. Item 337.2 Asphalt Friction Course
(FC -2)(5/8") Decrease from 150 to
128.31 Tons (@ $51.00/Ton)
Increase Decrease
$ 300.00
5,567.50
17.00
$1,106.19
Sub -total: $5,884.50 $1,106.19
NET INCREASE: $4,778.31
Page 1 of 2 Pages
50
The changes result in the following adjustment of Contract Price and Time:
Contract Price Prior to this Change Order $ 251,365.25
Net (Increase) (MMOMMWON3 resulting from this Change Order $ 4,778.31
Current Price Including This Change Order $ 256,143.56
Contract Time Prior to this Change Order -59- Calendar Days.
Net (Increase) (Decrease) resulting from this
Change Order -0- Calendar Days
Current Contract time including this Change
Order -59- Calendar Days
5
The above changes are approved:
Date:
January 25, 1988
The above changes are accepted:
APPROVED: 1-26-88
Don C. Scurlock,Jr.
ghairman, Board of Co
dian River County
Nth P. Bal
Commissioners
County Administrator
William G. Collins .II
Assistant County Attorney
JAN 26 1988
DENNI- . SMITH, INC.
Contfor
c s
By:
Date:
2 - -05
ACCEPTED BY:
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
`.James W. Davis, Director of Public
Works
Date:
TAOWNA
eph :aizd,
get & Management Director
Page 2 of Pages
51
ROCK 70 PnE 7O9
Pr -
SAN
BOC ` Q FA[E 710
RENOVATION OF UTILITY DEPARTMENT OFFICES
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/15/88:
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE:January 25, 1988 FILE:
THRU: Charles P. Balczun
County Administrator
nn Williams, Supt.
uildings and Grounds
SUBJECT:
REFERENCES:
PROPOSALS -
UTILITIES ALTERATIONS
Sealed proposals were opened at 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, January 21, 1988 for
the Utilities Alteration Project. Proposals were received from the
following contractors in order of amount of bid:
1) Jim Wright Construction, Inc. $60,850
2) Meiser Construction, Inc. $67,879
'3) G.K. Fisher Co., Inc. $68,575
After review of the proposals, I scheduled and held a pre -construction
meeting with the apparent low bidder Jim Wright Construction, Inc. Mr.
Wright had included certain alternates within his proposal that reduced the
cost but did not meet the specifications as bid by Fisher and Meiser. I
requested that these alternates be removed from his proposal and be
submitted as specified.
His follow-up proposal was delivered Friday, 1-22-88. The amount is
$64,620 and meets the specifications and conditions as requested.
Staff recommends acceptance of Jim Wright, Inc. proposal of $64,620.00.
Additionally, the County Attorney should provide a contract suitable for
this situation.
Utilities Director Terry Pinto explained that this is not
really the renovation of existing Utilities' space, it is the
renovation of the space vacated by the Drivers License Bureau and
the Credit Union. We are relocating our collection service
department over to there so that utility customers can have
outside access. The Building & Grounds Dept. put this job out to
bid, but we did work with the architect to come up with some
recommendations. In the beginning, when we told the architect to
put approximately 23 people into this space plus room for the
public when they come in to pay their utility bills, he told us
52
that could not be done as the area was too small. We told him
that he did not have any alternative and to go ahead and put
those 23 people in there. The average office space is 115 sq.
ft. per person, and if the rest of the building was designed that
way, we could probably put half the county in this building. We
took as much of the area as we could to clear it out, and we
expect to use the modular type offices which will allow us to get
maximum use of the square footage.
Chairman Scurlock noted that of the 3 bidders, the low
bidder was disqualified.
Lynn Williams, Manager of Building & Grounds, felt the
question of disqualifying them was up to the Board. Jim Wright
Construction, Inc. took it on themselves to include an alternate
within their original proposal rather than listing it as an
alternate and a deduct. They went from solid core doors, as
specified, to hollow core doors which reduced the bid
substantially.
Chairman Scurlock asked if the hollow core doors would meet
the fire standards, and Mr. Williams stated that 90% of the doors
in this building are solid core with metal jams, and that is what
was specified. When he went back to the low bidder to get him to
verify that, that is how the cost went up to $64,620. Mr.
Williams felt it was up to the Board to waive the irregularity,
throw the bid out, or rebid the job completely.
Attorney Vitunac understood that the difference between the
original $60,850 bid and the $64,620 bid was arrived at by Mr.
Williams simply multiplying the $200 price per door times the
number of doors.
Chairman Scurlock understood from Attorney Vitunac that the
$64,620 bid from Jim Wright Construction is a legitimate bid, and
Attorney Vitunac confirmed that it is.
JAN 26 1988
53
BOOL` 70 F' E 711
JAN 2 g
BOOK 7
PAGE 712
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
staff's recommendation and accepted the low bid of
$64,620 from Jim Wright Construction, Inc. for the
renovation of office space for the Utility Department.
AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
Commissioner Bird felt that modular units will help signifi-
cantly to consolidate space in this building since we have
committed to using this building as the administrative offices of
the county for a longer time than was intended.
Director Pinto explained that compared to other ways,
modular units are Tess costly.
Commissioner Eggert asked about the temporary walls, and
Director Pinto explained that those walls are actually a part of
the modular units, but there are some remaining temporary walls
in that space.
UTILITY RELOCATION, FURNITURE AND WORK STATION ACQUISITION
Utilities Director Terry Pinto explained that this is for
approval of the actual modular units and furnishings, and wanted
permission to have our own Purchasing Department go ahead and
order the steelcase furniture at a maximum cost of $30,000, which
includes $16,000 of furnishings already purchased before the
architect became involved.
Commissioner Eggert was concerned about getting into
furnishings as she had yet to see a list of everything that is
going into these offices. She was very hesitant to move ahead on
this without knowing any of the details, and questioned the
modular walls again.
Director Pinto suggested that this matter be tabled until
next week's meeting when detailed information could be submitted.
54
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously tabled
this item until the meeting of February 2, 1988.
DISCUSSION RE REQUEST FROM NACo RE LEGISLATION TO CORRECT CENSUS
UNDERCOUNT
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/11/88:
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
NACO Alert
4-1
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIESEN
44O First St. N.W., Washington, D.G 20001 202/393422C%
Staff Contact: Heron > tittle
Chief Elected Officials in Select States R• 144/g8
NACo Board of Directors
State Association Executives
Intergovernmental Relations Steering
Washington County Representatives
John Thomas, Executive Director
January 11, 1988
Legislation to Correct Census Undercount
$Y' c j a
Committee
DISTRIBUTION LIST
Commissioners
Administrator — i7—
Attorney
Personnel
Public Works
-------------------------------��--��-------Lcssuat++ttEy-8etir.
Utilities
Finance
Please urge your Representative and Senators to cosponsor A.R.'
3511 and S.1942 which would require the Census Bureau to correct
the undercount and overcount in the 1990 decennial census.
IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUESTED
BACKGROUND
Legislation has been introduced in the House and Senate to
require the Census Bureau to correct the 1990 census for the
undercount of minorities, rural populations and other groups
that historically are hard to enumerate and to adjust the
overcount. Even though the Census Bureau acknowledges the
problem and statistical experts agree that technology to improve
the accuracy of the census exists, the Commerce Department
recently announced that it would not correct the 1990 census.
H.R. 3511 and S.1942 would require a correction, but give the
Census Bureau discretion in selecting the statistical method.
Rep. Mervyn Dymally (D -Calif.), is the sponsor of H.R. 3511 which
has 57 cosponsors. Rep. Dymally is circulating a "Dear
Colleague" this week in order to gain more House cosponsors. The
House Subcommittee on Census and Population is expected to mark-
up H.R. 3511 in February. It then will be marked -up by the House
Committee on Post Office and Civil Service. •
Senator Daniel Moynihan (D-N.Y.) is joined by Senators
Lautenberg, Bradley, Cranston, Dixon, Simon, Riegle and D'Amato
as cosponsors of S.1942.
ACTION
Urge your Representative and Senators to cosponsor H.R. 3511 and
S.1942. Urge members of the House Committee on Post Office and
Civil Service to support H.R. 3511 ween the bill is marked up by
the Subcommittee on Census and Population and by the full
55
JAN 2E 1988
goon 70 FAST 713
SAN
BOOK 70 FAE 714
NACo Intergovernmental Relations Resolution from the
American County Platform
7Z. Resolution on Accuracy in the Census
WHEREAS, an accurate compilation of the United
States population is the primary mandate of the U.S. Cen-
sus Bureau; and
WHEREAS, big cities and rural areas. stand to lose mil-
lions of dollars in Federal formula grant money when
population counts are inaccurate; and
WHEREAS, any 1990 Decennial Census undercount or
overcount would result in inequitable Congressional repre-
sentation through redistricting in many areas throughout the
country; and
WHEREAS. the Census Bureau plans to make under-
count and overcount adjustments after the census numbers
are sent to the President and not before;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the National
Association of Counties urges Congress to require the
Census Bureau to make such adjusunents as are necessary
to ensure an accurate compilation of census figures; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED. that this adjustment
occur prior to certification by the President.
Administrator Balczun recommended that we support this
because he felt it is important that we have an accurate count.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, that the Board express their
support of H.R. 3511 and S. 1942, requiring the
Census Bureau to correct the 1990 census for the
undercount of minorities, rural populations and other
groups that historically are hard to enumerate and to
adjust the count.
Under discussion, Commissioner Wheeler felt he would like to
know more about the issue, and while he agreed there may be some
suspect reasons why others want this count, he did not see any
advantage to our county supporting it.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
carried on a 4-1 vote, Commissioner Wheeler dissenting.
56
SCHOOL BOARD PARKING LOT LEASE RENEWAL
The Board reviewed the following letters dated 1/26/88 and
10/23/88:
January 26, 1988
The Honorable James A. Burns, Ph.D.
School District Superintendent
1990 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Dear Dr. Burns:
Re: LICENSE AMENDMENT - 16th STREET
RECREATION COMPLEX PARKING LOT
The license given by the attached letter, dated October 23,
1986, shall be continued in full force and effect from
year-to-year unless otherwise cancelled, pursuant to the
terms of the agreement.
Sincerely,
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Chairman
Administrator Balczun recommended that we renew the license
amendment with the School Board and provide for automatic renewal
from year to year.
Commissioner Eggert asked if we would ever need the property
for something else, and Administrator Balczun advised that there
is a 30 -day cancellation provision in the lease.
57
,JAN 2 6 1988
ROOK 70 EnE 15
flooK 7Q F,�c 716
ON MOtion by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously renewed the
license amendment with the School Board for the use of
the 16th Street Recreation Complex Parking Lot, and
authorized the automatic renewal provision.
Telephone 13051 567-8000
BOACr-dF COUNTY COMMISSION
1840 25th Street. Vero Bear/7. Florida 32000
C•ctober 23, 1986
Dr. James A. Burns
Superintendent
School District of Indian River County
1990 25th Street
Vero Beach. FL 32960
Dear Dr. Burns:
&meom Telephone 424-1011
This letter constitutes authorization by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County to the School District
of Indian River County to use the 16th Street Recreation
Complex Parking Lot (located north of 16th Street east of
20th Avenue) for student parking between 7:30 a.m. and 3:30
p.m., subject to the following conditions:
1. This authorization is valid for one year from this date
and may be renewed at the option of the County at one-year
intervals.
2. The School District of Indian River County agrees to
indemnify and hold the County harmless from any damage,
injury, or action whatsoever arising directly or indirectly
from use of the property by the School District or its
students.
3. The School District will maintain and make any and all
repairs necessary to the property.
4. If it becomes necessary to employ enforcement personnel
to control pedestrian crossing as a result of the School
District's use of the subject parking lot, the School
District will make all necessary arrangements for and
underwrite all costs associated with such enforcement.
5. The School District will implement and bear the costs of
any ch ••lges in ingress and egress to the parking lot which
may h/• .necessitated.
6. This authorization may be terminated by the County by
written notification to the School District with ninety
days' notice.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA
By: / c ���„y
Don .—Scudo" ck, Jr.
Chairman
58
ASSIGNMENT OF LICENSE TO OCCUPY AND IMPROVE COUNTY PROPERTY: OLD
"FLORIDA CABLEVISION" SITE SOUTH OF 16th STREET
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/15/88:
TO: Char! P. Balczun, County Administrator
THROUGH: Cha s P. Vitunac, County Attorney
FROM: .�,� William Collins, Assistant County Attorney
DATE: January 15,1988
RE:
Assignment of License to Occupy and Improve County
Property -- Old "Florida Cablevision" Site South
of 16th Street.
The County granted Clark DePue a non-exclusive license
to occupy and use County real property on October 2, 1985.
The County can terminate the license by giving ninety (90)
days written notice.
Mr. DePue wishes to assign his license to occupy and
= use the property to a client of Sam Block, Esq. Assignment
is not permitted "without prior written approval of the
Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, which
consent shall not be unreasonably withheld" (Paragraph 10 of
the License agreement). Mr. DePue has made all necessary
improvements called for by the agreement, i.e., curb cuts,
parking, stormwater management, landscaping, etc. The
right-of-way of 16th Street which the improvements occupy is
not anticipated to be needed for ten years or thereabouts.
The property has 95 feet of frontage on 16th Street and runs
62 feet south of the currently utilized right-of-way.
I present for the Board's consideration the current
License Agreement with Mr. DePue, and the Assignment form
drafted by Sam Block which appears satisfactory. Mr. Block
has told me that the anticipated tenants of the new
licensee, Gregory D. Bone as Trustee, will be two radio
stations.
Mr. Block has requested this assignment be considered
by the Board at their January 26, 1988 meeting, so as to
accommodate a February 15th, 1988 closing on the old
"Cablevision" property.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously
approved the Assignment of License to Occupy and
Improve County Property for the site known as the Old
"Florida Cablevision" site south of 16th Street.
ASSIGNMENT OF LICENSE IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK
59
JAN 261988
E100K 70 DE 717
JAN 2 6 198&
BOOK 70"PtGE(18-
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/19/88:
TO:
Charles P. Balczun, County Administrator
and
Joseph A. Baird, Budget Directory/
FROM: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
DATE: January 19, 1988
RE: SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
I am attaching two completed originals of an agreement
between the County and the Property Appraiser for ad valorem
collection of special assessments for Rockridge and the
North County Sewer System.
In addition the Property Appraiser has suggested that his
office add a new position to handle all the special district
assessments which will be on the tax roll in the coming
year. Our agreement with the Solid Waste Disposal District
and the aforementioned two new agreements obligate the
County to pay for administrative costs.
If you two concur, you need to put a Budget Amendment on a
Board of County Commissioners' meeting for action by the
Board in modifying the Property Appraiser's budget.
Thank you for your assistance.
Administrator Balczun reported that the Property Appraiser
is agreeable to the possibility of carrying certain assessments
on the tax bills. However, he is proposing that we add a
position to his staff, which would be funded by the County in
proportion to the amount that he is carrying for us.
60
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board
approved the agreements between
, SECONDED by
unanimously
the County and
the Property Appraiser for ad valorem collection of
special assessments for Rockridge and the North County
Sewer System, and authorized the Chairman's signature.
Commissioner Eggert pointed out that the Board needs to get
the budget amendment on this.
AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
PURCHASE AGREEMENTS - NORTH AND SOUTH COUNTY LIBRARIES
North County Library Site
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/16/88:
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Board of County Commissioners
Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
January 20, 1988
NORTH COUNTY LIBRARY SITE
B.C.C. MEETING JANUARY 26, 1988
1
Attached is a contract and survey for purchase by the County
from Sebastian Lakes Associates of a 3.015 -acre site.
The purchase price is
reduced by a donation o
actual purchase price
approximately $78,800.
required to purchase i
seller at their standard
based on $1.50 per squa
f 904 per square foot, so
is 604 per square
In addition the County
is utility requirements
rates.
The closing will be within 60 days from the
execution of the contract. This contract is recomn
approval.
re foot,
that the
foot or
will be
from the
date of
ended for
Attorney Vitunac explained that one of the changes in the
purchase agreement is that the County will no longer pay
attorney fees for the seller; the seller will pay his own
61
JAN 26 1988
BOOK 70 FAGE 719
r-
jAN 26 1988
BOOK 70 r.ACE 720
attorney fees. The County will get a general warranty deed, not
a special warranty deed, so the word special is taken outthree (3)
different places in the agreement.
After considerable discussion and review, the Board
indicated their agreement to the following changes in the
proposed Contract for Sale and Purchase:
Section 14.01 - The Seller will pay his own attorney fees.
Section 14.04 - Delete the word "special"
Section 14.05 - Delete the word "special"
Section 17.01 - Insert $1,000 per ERC in the blank space.
Section 18 (indented paragraph) changed to read:
"By accepting this deed, for the next 5 years, the
grantee agrees that (i) it shall not construct
improvements on the real property or modify
improvements already constructed thereon (if said
modification would cost in excess of $25,000) without
the prior written consent of the grantor, its
successor or assignee of this specific power, which
consent shall not be unreasonably withheld provided
the proposed improvement or modification of
architecture and landscaping is compatible with the
adjoining residential developments' architecture and
landscaping and that (ii) the use of the real property
shall be restricted, perpetually, to a public
library."
Section 18 - Delete entire third paragraph
Brooks Brierly, representing the seller, Sebastian Lakes
Associates, indicated his agreement with the above changes.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
the proposed Contract for Sale and Purchase of the
north county library site from Sebastian Lakes
Associates, with the changes as set out above, and
authorized the Chairman's signature.
62
Commissioner Eggert reported that there is going to be about
$82,000 in traffic impact fees up there. CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN
THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
South County Library Site
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/20188:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM:
DATE: January 20, 1988
RE: SOUTH COUNTY LIBRARY SITE - MOON PROPERTY
BOARD MEETING - JANUARY 26, 1988
Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
Attached is a contract for purchase by the County from Nancy
Moon of her portion of the South County Libary site. The
purchase price would be $375,000 and would be contingent
upon the County obtaining site plan approval within one
year.
Mrs. Moon has changed the offer she -originally made to the
Board of County Commissioners. The two lessees on the
_property, i.e., the Laundromat and the supermarket, would
"become the problem of the County and not Mrs. Moon. Mrs.
Moon had originally offered to be responsible for all costs
of removing the tenants from the property including eminent
domain, if that became necessary. The attached contract
places that burden upon the County now.
As consideration for this change, by separate 'letter which
is also attached, Mrs. Moon has offered to dgnate.ti$50,000
toward the library. This offer was received by my office at
approximately 11:30 A.M. today, before the noon deadline for
the agenda, and thus has not been reviewed by other staff
members at the time that this memo is being written.
Therefore, there is no staff recommendation.
63
JAIv 2 6 1988
a
BOOK. 70 FD,GE .121
Pr"
JAN 2 6 1988
LUOK 70 PAGE 7
Attorney Vitunac reported that as of yesterday Mrs. Moon has
changed her offer from $375,000 to $325,000 with a quick closing
and it would be our problem to deal with the tenants. The
difference would give the County $50,000 to deal with the tenants
as we wish.
Attorney Sam Block, representing Mrs. Moon, explained that
all previous offers are rescinded. The original offer was
$375,000 with a donation of $50,000 towards the library project.
Further, the contract was in a different context in that it
expressed how and when the tenants would be dealt with and that
the County would not be free of the leases until 1991. After
talking with the County Attorney's office, they sent a contract
over yesterday for $325,000 with a 30 -day closing with the County
being responsible for taking care of the tenants. Mrs. Moon has
not signed the contract, however, as she is out of town.
Attorney Block felt that if Mrs. Moon were here today, she would
say that she should have retained an attorney on the first offer.
Mrs. Moon thought she could negotiate the termination of leases
with the tenants or go to eminent domain if it came to that.
Now she feels it is far out of her reach. The appraised price
was $375,000, and she is willing to sell it for $325,000 with the
County being responsible for the tenants. Attorney Block pointed
out that the County has the capability and staff, to deal with the
tenants, and if the tenants are not willing to negotiate, then to
proceed with eminent domain. He noted that there is one wooden
building on the property, the Allison residence, which the
Historical Society would be interested in moving. The
supermarket's lease expires in November, 1991, and there are no
options to renew.
Chairman Scurlock pointed out that originally we were told
that there were 2 years left on the supermarket lease, and now we
are told that there are 4 years. He understood that the
Laundromat has a 5 -year lease, which was signed in February,
1987, with a 5 -year option to renew.
64
Attorney Vitunac reported that Reynold Smith of the
Laundromat has said that they would settle for $75,000 now, and
probably for $75,000 in a year or two from now. He noted that
Mr. Niece of the supermarket is in the audience this morning and
perhaps could tell us what he is thinking, but Mr. Niece
indicated that he had no comment.
Planner Stan Boling went to the City to see what could be
built on that block if the supermarket and Laundromat were to
remain. Since the decision was made to go with the Grace
Lutheran site, it has been decided to go with a 35,000 sq. ft.,
2 -story structure, and given as how the County would not have any
setbacks to the property line for parking areas, the amount of
area available for parking is the same.
Attorney Vitunac stated that at the end of the leases, the
supermarket and laundromat would be torn down and the supermarket
site would be incorporated into the library site.
Commissioner Wheeler understood that the offer today is
$325,000, and then we are looking at $75,000 to buy out the
Laundromat, which puts us up to $400,000 plus whatever legal or
other costs are required to buy out the leases for the
supermarket and the Laundromat. If we have to go to eminent
domain, we would have the cost of purchasing the land. We would
have all of that cost, and unless we wait until 1991 to build, we
would have to build around the existing building. He, for one,
was not interested in building around a supermarket
want to go any further with this site.
Commissioner Eggert felt we have two options:
and did not
(1) Find a
way to accommodate the leases, or (2) Reopen on a very short term
basis, the search
that the decision
structure, we can
for another site. She pointed out that now
has been made to go with a 35,000 sq. ft.
utilize a smaller site, perhaps 3 or 3.5 acres.
Three sites were rejected previously because they were felt to be
too small, but now they could be reconsidered along with some
others.
65
,JAN 2 6 1988
BGlOY 70 PAA 723
„AN 2 6 1988
BOOK 70 rAGE
Commissioner Bowman asked if the Catron property is still
available, and Commissioner Eggert advised that there is the
problem of having to purchase a house there or go to eminent
domain, plus the zoning problem. She felt we need to find out if
the Catron offer can be cut to only 3 or 3.5 acres.
Commissioner Bird felt he had to rely very heavily on
Commissioner Eggert's expertise and that of the Public Library
Advisory Board, but he still felt that the Grace Lutheran site
was inadequate even without the problem of the supermarket and
coin laundry leases.
Chairman Scurlock noted that from the very beginning, Mrs.
Moon indicated very clearly, and had assured him on 2 occasions,
that her intent was to be responsible for the leases. Now we are
getting into dollars and cents for negotiating the leases or the
costs of eminent domain. He, personally felt this site would be
the best for the library, but he would have to concur that if we
cannot settle this, and remove the supermarket and Laundromat, we
are just going to have to move to another site.
Commissioner Eggert wished to take this back to the PLAB
meeting later this week and bring it back to the Board next
Tuesday.
Commissioner Bird hated to see the County wear the black hat
and be the ones to go in and terminate leases on two businesses
that don't want to be terminated.
Attorney Chester Clem advised that the Catron site is still
available, and if the County does not need 5 acres, they will cut
off part of the back of the site, and sell 3 or 3.5 acres and,
reduce the price proportionately, but Commissioner Eggert pointed
out that there still is a terrific zoning problem there, plus the
costs of buying or condemning a house.
Commissioner Wheeler noted that 3 of the City Councilmen
have asked him at various social functions why we don't go to the
Catron property, and Chairman Scurlock wondered why that can't be
66
discussed here instead of at social functions, because we are
talking about a major downtown issue. He stressed that he has
not seen one councilman in these Chambers during these
discussions on the Vero Beach library site.
Attorney Block defended Mrs. Moon not knowing the
substantial costs involved in eminent domain procedures. He
stated that she, too, wants it over with, and if the Board votes
to go with another site, she would understand that, too.
Commissioner Wheeler noted that he has not had any contact
with Mrs. Moon, and emphasized that the Motion he voted on when
the Grace Lutheran site was selected, was contingent upon Mrs.
Moon handling the two leases and giving free and clear title to
the property.
Commissioner Eggert stated that if there is no possibility
of Mrs. Moon reducing her figures from $325,000, she would have
to agree with moving on to another site, because she is unwilling
to be restricted architecturally by having to build around two
stores.
Commissioner Bird felt that while the revitalization of the
downtown area was very important, we somehow would be sacrificing
the main library site if we forced it to go on the Grace Lutheran
site.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board by a vote of 4-1,
Chairman Scurlock dissenting, determined that the
Grace Lutheran property and Moon property would no
longer be considered for the site of the Vero Beach
library.
Chairman Scurlock explained that he voted against the Motion
because he still would like to consider it, since we might not
get a better offer.
67
JAN 26 1988
BOOK '7
Fa 725
,JAN 26 1988
BOOK 70 PAGE 726
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, that the Board reopen the site
selection process for a period of 60 days or less
to consider other possible sites and come back with
a list of 3 sites for consideration by the Board.
Under discussion, Commissioner Bird urged the Public Library
Advisory Board to think in Tong -range terms and not to paint us
into a corner with a piece of property that is too small to
expand on if it becomes necessary in the future.
William Koolage, 815 26th Avenue, favored buying a lesser
portion of the Catron site for the library.
Chairman Scurlock pointed out that the library discussions
have spearheaded a growing interest by the City and civic groups
in the revitalization of the downtown area.
Mr. Brierley advised that Sebastian Partnership has some
interest in a parcel fronting SR -60 near Kings Highway and would
be interested in offering that piece at an attractive price.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
was voted on and carried unanimously.
JAIL OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
The Board reveiwed the following memo dated 1/16/88:
68
TO: Board of County Commissioners
THRU: Gary C. Wheeler, Vice Chairman
IF
FROM: -`',' . Vt tunac,
DATE: January 25, 1988
RE: JAIL OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
B.C.C. MEETING - JANUARY 26, 1988
my Attorney
On July 28, 1987, Judge Hendry accepted the consent
agreement entered into between the state Department of
Corrections and Indian River County relating to jail
overcrowding. Page 2 of the Order required that a Jail
Oversight Committee be created by the County and recommended
that the committee be composed of the Chief Judge of the
19th Judicial Circuit or his designee, a representative of
the Indian River County State Attorney's Office, and a
representative of the Indian River County Public Defender's
Office.
An ad hoc meeting of the county judges and criminal justice
personnel has indicated a need to increase the membership of
the committee and to formally accept the composition of the
committee by the Board of County Commissioners.
This committeee does have legal authority to order the
release of certain prisoners from our County Jail, although
it is anticipated that the imminent opening of Phase II of
the jail will obviate much of the need for the Jail
Oversight Committee.
Commissioner Bird asked where we got the name for the Jail
Oversight Committee, and Commissioner Wheeler felt it was due to
the oversight of the State to provide adequate beds, and we got
stuck with it. He advised that we need to appoint two additional
members to this committee and also establish this committee
officially, because apparently that wasn't done by way of an
official Motion and a vote. Commissioner Wheeler advised that we
need to appoint someone from the County Commission, and he would
like to recommend Judge Kilbride who would give representation of
the County judges. Judge Balsiger has said that he doesn't want
to serve on a committee and vote to let people out of jail.
Commissioner Wheeler felt the same way.
JAN 26 1988
69
BOOK 70 PAGE 727
r
',JAN 26 1S
BOOK 70 PAGE 728
Chairman Scurlock did not like it better than anyone else,
but until we build a new jail, we don't have any other
alternatives. He suggested that Commissioner Wheeler sit on the
committee and vote his convictions.
Commissioner Wheeler stated that he would fight the issue on
a higher level, since we are being forced into this position by
the State with its mandates, and Chairman Scurlock stated that he
would be willing to serve on the committee to represent the Board
of County Commissioners.
Attorney Vitunac advised that the County also has the choice
of sending these prisoners to Okeechobee County at a cost of $43
a day per prisoner, but Administrator Balczun advised that only 5
of our prisoners were able to meet the requirements laid down by
that county.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously
established the Jail Oversight Committee and changed
the name to Inmate Review Committee, to be comprised of
the following members:
- Chief Judge of the Circuit Court, or his
representative
- Public Defender, or his representative
- State Attorney, or his representative
- County Judge
- Member of the Board of County Commissioners
and appointed Chairman Scurlock as the representative
of the Board of County Commissioners and Judge Kilbride
to represent the County Judges.
70
DOCUMENTS TO BE MADE PART OF THE RECORD
A. Contract & Specifications for Signalization Improvements at:
Oslo Road and U.S. #1; Old Dixie Highway and 4th Street; and 8th
Street and 27th Avenue
Contract and Specifications, having been fully executed and
received as approved at Regular Meeting of April 7, 1987, are on
file in the Office of the Clerk to the Board.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made,
seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 12:25 o'clock P.M.
ATTEST;
Clerk
tiftiN261988
71
Chairman
BOOK 70 rAGE 729