HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/17/1988Tuesday, May 17, 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, May
17, 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.
Bruce Havens, Pastor of United Church of Christ, Sebastian,
gave the invocation, and Commissioner Bowman led the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Chairman Scurlock requested the addition to today's Agenda
of the following items:
1. Brief status report on the Village Green potable water
problem.
2. Budget amendment for carpeting in Utilities Dept.
3. Budget amendment for copier for Library.
Commissioner Bowman requested the addition of the following
items:
1. Transportation Planning Committee report.
2. Request to establish a committee to study plan for
Jungle Trail.
3. Consideration of using Melaleuca trees as mulch instead
of Cypress trees.
Chairman Scurlock requested the deletion of Item 8-A-1 -
Hill's Petition for Right -of -Way Abandonment of a Portion of 4th
Avenue, S.E., as per the request of the applicant.
L___MAY 171988
BOOK c AGE 333
riVIAY
BOOK
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously added
and deleted the above items to today's Agenda.
1 34
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or
additions to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 19,
1988.
Commissioner Eggert noted that on Page 49 in the report on
Victory Park, Phase 11, the amount of the backup loan is $85,000,
instead of $60,000. She, therefore, requested the deletion of
the last sentence: "So, we are off the hook with that."
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 4/19/88 with
the corrections set out above.
The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or
additions to the Minutes of the Special Meeting of April 21,
1988. There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the Minutes of the Special Meeting of 4/21/88, as
written.
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Report
Received and placed on file in the Office of the Clerk to
the Board:
Traffic Violation Bureau - Special Trust Fund
Month of April, 1988 - $49,559.46
Traffic Violation Bureau - Month to date report
by last name - Month of April, 1988
2
MAY 1 198
$ooy 72 i , ct.33G
TO:Charles Balczun DATE:April 28, 1988 FILE:
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert Keati g, A .% SUBJECT:
REQUEST TO DEDICATE FUNDS
Community Deve pme Director IN LIEU OF PUBLIC ACCESS
EASEMENT FOR SANDPOINTE
SUBDIVISION
THROUGH: Stan Boling
Chief, Current Development
FROM: Robert E. Wieger.s 7LA) REFERENCES: sandpointe s/d
Staff PlannerBWIEG G
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal_
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of May 17, 1988.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS:
Sandpointe Subdivision is a proposed 100 lot subdivision of a ±52
acre parcel of land located immediately south of Seagrove Subdivi-
sion and lying on both sides of S.R. A -1-A. At the present time
the owners are undergoing preparation to commence development of
the portion of this property which lies between S.R. A -1-A and the
Atlantic Ocean. Because the property has over 600 feet of ocean
shoreline, a public access easement running from SR A -1-A to the
ocean is required pursuant to Section 10(r) of the subdivision
ordinance. In lieu of actually providing such an easement, the
Board. of County Commissioners may accept a monetary dedication to
the park development fund in an amount equal to the fair market
value of such an easement.
At its regular meeting of October 8, 1987, the Planning and Zoning
Commission granted preliminary plat approval for Sandpointe
Subdivision, subject to the condition that either the actual
easement be provided or a monetary dedication be offered that is
acceptable to the Board of County Commissioners.
The owners, Wildfield Properties, Inc., through their agent,
Carter Associates, Inc., are now requesting Board approval to
accept a $6,700 dedication to the park development fund to satisfy
the water access requirement of Section 10(r) of the subdivision
ordinance.
ANALYSIS:
In lieu of dedicating an improved access easement from SR A -1-A to
the ocean, the owners have agreed to dedicate $6,700 at the time
of the final plat approval. The $6,700 amount is based on an
Armfield-Wagner appraisal of the fair market value of the required
15' wide improved access easement. The Property Appraiser's
office has verified that the appraisal is a reasonable estimate of
the raw land value of the required easement. The Public Works
Department has verified that the cost estimate for an improved
pedestrian walkway is reasonable.
Dedication of the appraisal value is adequate for satisfying the
public access requirement of Section 10(r) of the subdivision
ordinance, if accepted by the Board of County Commissioners.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve
the offer to dedicate $6,700 to the park development fund at the
time of final plat approval for this phase of Sandpointe
Subdivision, in lieu of requiring a public, ocean access easement.
4
2. Release of County Utility Liens
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/11/88:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM:
DATE: May 11, 1988
RE: CONSENT AGENDA - FOR BCC MEETING 5/17/88_
RELEASE OF COUNTY UTILITY LIENS
Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
Lea Keller of_ this office has processed the following
and requests permission for the Chairman to execute the
release form:
Release of one ERU - Lot 126S
COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH - REALCOR
State Road 60 Sewer Project
Back-up information for the above release is on file in the
County Attorney's office.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
the Release of Assessment Lien for (1) ERU - Lot 126S
Countryside South - Realcor, State Road 60 Sewer
Project.
RELEASE OF ASSESSMENT LIEN IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK
TO THE BOARD
3. Request to Dedicate Funds in Lieu of Public Access Easement
for Sandpointe Subdivision
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/28/88:
LMAY 1 7 198
3
BOOK 72 F,1GE.335
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
the offer to dedicate $6,700 to the park development
fund at the time of final plat approval for this phase
of Sandpointe Subdivision, in lieu of requiring a
public ocean access easement, as recommended by staff.
4. Release of Easement - Dalal - Indian River Heights Sub.
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/28/88:
TO:
The Honorable Members of DATE. April 28, 1988
the Board of County Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
t
obert .
Community
THROUGH:
Keat ng
Developme
P UBJECT:
Director
Roland M. DeBlois b
Staff Planner
FROM: Charles W. Heathele REFERENCES:
Code Enforcement Officer
FILE:
RELEASE OF EASEMENT
REQUEST BY PRAKASH S.
DALAL & JOANN M. DALAL,
SUBJECT PROPERTY -
LOT 17 BLOCK M INDIAN
RIVER HEIGHTS
SUBDIVISION, UNIT 8
DALAL MEMO
DISK. CHEATH
It is requested that the data herein be given formal conside-
ration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of May 17, 1988.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
The County has been petitioned by Prakash S. and Joann M.
Dalal, owners of the subject property, for the release of the
southerly four (4) feet of the northerly twelve (12) foot
utility and drainage easement of Lot 17, Block M, Indian River
Heights Subdivision Unit No. 8, Section 13, Township 33 South,
Range 39, East, Indian River County, Florida; according to the
Plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 7, Page 31, of the
Official Records of Indian River County, Florida. It is the
Petitioners' intention to construct a single-family residence
on the property; the release of the portion of the easement is
to prevent the extension of roof eaves into the easement.
The current zoning classification of the property is RS -6,
Single -Family Residential District. The Land Use Designation
is LD -2, Low Density Residential, allowing up to six (6) Units
per acre.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
The request has .been reviewed by Southern Bell Telephone,
Florida Power and Light, Florida Cablevision Corporation, and
the Indian River County Utility and Right -of -Way Departments.
Based upon their reviews, there are no objections to the
release of the southerly four (4) feet of the easement. Staff
analysis indicates that the drainage would still be adequately
handled on-site.
5
MAY 171988
BOOK 72 ;',10E 337
MAY 1 7 1988
BOOK 72 PAGE A:38
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends to the Board,through the adoption of a resolution,
the release of the southerly four (4) feet of the northerly
twelve (12) foot utility and drainage easement of Lot 17, Block
M, Indian River Heights Subdivision Unit No. 8, Section 13,
Township 33 South, Range 39 East, Plat Book 7, Page 31, of the
Public Records of Indian River County, Florida.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 88-33, abandoning certain easements in
Indian River Heights Subdivision, Unit No. 8, Lot
17, Block M.
RESOLUTION NO. 88-33
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, ABANDONING CERTAIN
EASEMENTS IN THE INDIAN RIVER
HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION UNIT NO. 8, LOT
17, BLOCK M
WHEREAS, Indian River County has easements as
described below, and
WHEREAS, the retention of those easements serves
no public purpose,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of
County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida that:
This release of easement is executed by Indian
River County, Florida, a political subdivision of the State
of Florida, whose mailing address is 1840 25th Street, Vero
Beach, Florida 32960, Grantor, to Prakash S. Dalal and,
Joann Miller Dalal, his wife, their successors in interest,
heirs and assigns, whose mailing address is C/O Off Broadway,
Govenor Square Mall, Tallahassee, Florida 32301, Grantee, as
follows:
Indian River County does hereby abandon all right,
title, and interest that it may have in the following
.described easements:
SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND
INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE.
6
sioner
Bird
THIS RESOLUTION was moved for adoption by Commis-.
Wheeler
seconded by Commissioner
and adopted on the
May , 1988, by the following vote:
Commissioner Scurlock
Commissioner Bowman
Commissioner Bird
Commissioner Eggert
Commissioner Wheeler
Aye
17th day of
Aye
Aye
Ae
Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared- the resolution
duly passed and adopted this
1988.
17th , day of
May
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA
Don C. Scu ock,
Chairman
Attest By Z$Z
Freda Wr ' ght ilr71
21.
Clerk .C?
EXHIBIT "A"
A portion of the northerly twelve (12) foot drainage and
utility easement of Lot 17, Block M, Indian River Heights
Subdivision Unit No. 8, being the southerly four (4) feet of
the northerly twelve (12) feet of Lot 17, Block M, Indian
River Heights Subdivision Unit No. 8, as recorded in Plat
Book 7, Page 31, of the Official Records of Indian River
County, Florida.
MAY 171988
7
BOOK / FAGE 3:39
MAY 1 7 1938
BOOK 72 DU 340
5. Award of IRC Bid #437 - Tower Maintenance, Hobart Park
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/6/88:
TO: Charles . Balzcun DATE
ay 6, 1988
County Administrator
FROM>
Gus Ambler, C.P.M.
Purchasing Manager
FILE:
SUBJECT
AWARD OF IRC BID /437
TOWER MAINTENANCE
HOBART PARK
REFERENCES:
1. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Bids were received Wednesday, May 4, 1988, at 2:00 P.M.
for IRC Bid 4437.
7 Invitations to bid were sent out, 2 bids were received
including 1 no bid.
This bid was advertised in the newspaper.
2. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
The low bid meeting specifications was submitted by
Communications International at $3,750.00. It was also
the only bid received. The bid register was composed
from suggestions by the department, local radio and tower
maintenance firms listed in the yellow pages and firms
listed in the Blue Book of Contractors. Staff knows of
no additional vendors that may be able to bid. Our spec-
ifications were general and non-restrictive in nature.
Therefore, we believe that rebidding will not secure
additional competition.
3. RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING:
Staff recommends that we award this bid to Communications
International at $3,750.00.
Budgetary funding has been confirmed for expenditure from
Emergency Management, Account 44001-105-519-034.69.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously awarded
Bid #437 in the amount of $3,750 to Communications
International for tower maintenance at Hobart Park.
8
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960,
BID TABULATIONiki
t) V 4]
y�
BID NO. 7
Dp7:43/FilyING
BID TITLE
fvfxffildAtiewcc- diai741-P
C Q-Tavve&- (`\t
ITEM
NO. DESCRIPTIONPLL
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRIG
7 v N.9��%NFlrrc
3750
'
/lo E;
61
___:2!::-A;3
/et/-Zo
7)2-(Y r21),
ItY01 1)/ -
6. IRC Bid #439 - Printing of Proshop Tickets
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/5/88:
Charles P. Balczun
County Administrator
DATE:
Purchasing Department
May 5, 19FILE:
IRC BID #439 -PRINTS
OF PROSHOP TICKETS
1. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Bids were received Wednesday, May 4, 1988, at 2:00 P.M.
for IRC Bid #439.
16 Invitations to Bid were sent out. 14 Bids were received
including 1 No Bid.
This Bid was advertised in the newspaper.
2. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
The low bid meeting Specifications was submitted by NCR
Corporation at $2093.00.
3. RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING:
Staff recommends that this bid be awarded to NCR Corporation.
Budgetary Funding has been confirmed for expenditure from
Golf Course Funds Acct #418-236-572-035.11
9
MAY ° 1980
BOOK 79 P,AC(=.i41
BOOK v Fd _Mt;
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously awarded
Bid #439 in the amount of $2093 to the low bidder,
NCR Corporation, for printing of proshop tickets for
Sandridge Golf Club.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
BID TABULATION
EM
-
i
p, DESCRIPTION
PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
./
UNIT'/
/rd
PRIG UNIT PRICE
) 2-014
UNIT PRICE
2M0
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT
3670-.2539=;57(
•
-
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
BID NO. -
BID TABULATION
DESCRIPTION
UNIT PRICE
Qj
UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE ®
UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE
� 1 M. • 11 M 1• II11 a.'U M AMU
ELM II
`9
4
PUBLIC HEARING - CLEMONS' PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY ABANDONMENT
OF A PORTION OF 82ND COURT (BERRY AVENUE)
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:
10
UNIT
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann. Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a
in the matter of
(?,::;
667
in the _
Iished In said newspaper In the issues of
Court, was pub -
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in sajd 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 . -fore, e thi
A2.
day of A.D. 19 dal
•
siness Manager)
(Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, Florida)
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
., Notice of hearing to consider a peddon for the
closing. abandonment, and vacation of all of
Berry Auenue (now known as 82nd Court) be- .
.tween Gibson Street (now known as 130th Ave-
nue) and Roseland Street (now known as 133rd
Street). Said right-of-way being more particular/
described as follows:
ALL OF BERRY AVENUE (now known as •
82nd Court) BETWEEN • GIBSON
STREET (now known as 130th Avenue)
AND STREET 133rd ROSELAND Street) ACCORDING TO PLAow know T- ••
ENTITLED "TOWNSITE PLAT OF ROSE -
LAND. FLORIDA" RECORDED IN PLAT', :.�:,
BOOK 1, PAGE 43 OF •THE PUBLIC, .,':
SAID LANDS NOW LYING AND BEING,'':
IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA...
A public hearing at which parties In .Atwes
and citizens shadhave an opportunttY. to be
heard, will be held by the Board of County Com-
missioners of Indian River County. Florida in the
. Commission Chambers of the County Adminis-
tradon Building, located at 1840 25th Street.
Vero Beach. Florida, on Tuesday. May, 17, 1988,
at 9:06 a.m. •
Anyone who may wish to appeal anyn
which may be made at this meeting will need to
ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings,
,
Is made which Includes the testimony and evi-
dence upon which the appeal wig be based +.+_r
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
By -s -Don C. Scurlock Jr.
Chairman ••
Apr1127,1988
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/21188:
TO: Charles Balczun
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
DATE: April 6, 1988 FILE:
Robert . Keati g, ASUBJECT:
Community DevelopmeDirector
THROUGH: Stan Boling 46
Chief, Current Development
FROM: John W. McCoy,
Staff Planne
JASON & OPEL CLEMONS'
PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-
WAY ABANDONMENT OF A
PORTION OF 82ND COURT
(BERRY AVENUE)
REFERENCES: Clemons
JOHN
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of May 17, 1988.
11
MAY 1 1988
ENNI i 72 F sE 343
Pr"
MAY p d 1988
aa� :344
LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION:
Jason and Opel Clemons have submitted.a petition for the abandon-
ment of all of that portion of*Berry Avenue (now known as 82nd
Court) between Gibson Street (now known as 130th Street) and
Roseland Street (now known as 133rd Street).
The subject right-of-way is bordered on two sides by lots in the
Townsite Plat of Roseland Subdivision and would provide a con-
nection between 130th Street and 133rd Street, if developed. The
purpose of this abandonment is to provide for more developable
area for the lots bordering the right-of-way.
Per guidelines established by the Board of County Commissioners,
the petition was reviewed by all County divisions and utility
providers having jurisdiction within the right-of-way. All
agencies have completed their review of the proposed abandonment.
The traffic engineer and utilities department have both objected
to the abandonment of this right-of-way. The traffic engineer
stated that this portion ofright-of-way should not be abandoned
unless Roseland Street (133rd Street) is concurrently abandoned,
which is not the case. The Utilities Department has plans to
locate improvements in the subject right-of-way and the 133rd
Street right-of-way.
Although this portion of Berry Avenue (82nd Court) is presently
unused and is not a part of the roadway system as noted on the
County's Thoroughfare Plan, the right-of-way does provide for a
future access connection and convenient utilities extensions.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the County not abandon its rights to this
portion of Berry Avenue (82nd Court), and that the Chairman of the
Board of County Commissioners not be authorized to execute the
attached resolution (Attachment #3).
Chairman Scurlock opened the Public Hearing and asked if
anyone wishedtobe heard in this matter. There being none, he
closed the Public Hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously denied
the Clemons' petitionfor right-of-way abandonment
of a portion of 82nd Court (Berry Avenue), as
recommended by staff.
12
PENCH'S REQUEST FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY ABANDONMENT OF A PORTION OF 89TH
COURT
The hour of 9:05 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to wit:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL.
Published Daily
Vero Beach. Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a
in the matter of ,4 e.. ' i Ave A t i .x.f.e ri
in the _ Court, was pub-
.
.2 7, /
Iished 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
=red as ^econd class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person. firm
:dr,poratton any discount. rebate. commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
dvertIsement for publication in the said newspaper. �Q
Sworn 10 and subscribedefore�ne thi _r)_ y� day of A.D. 19 11__—
(ft7IA
'i 1 ,-*/
(Clerk of t1 Circu t Court, I dian River County, Florida)
•
usiness Manager)
(SEAL) ,
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice of hearing to consider a petition for the
closing, abandonment, and vacation of all of
•
120th Avenue between 22nd Street and Tract 5
as
In Plat
Book 3. Page 7� the PublIC'
Records of Indian River County. Florida.120th :
Avenue is now known as 89th Cwt. Lying
being in Indian River County. Florida, more
particularty described as follows:. r, �s
The subject property is described as: • •
ALL OF 120TH AVENUE BETWEEN'
22ND STREET ANO TRACT 5 AS s
SHOWN ON A PLAT OF PARADISE. •
PARK UNIT NO. 2 RECORDED IN PLAT
BOOK 3. PAGE 77 OF THE PUBLIC
-RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVF,�t. COUNTY,
FLORIDA. 120TH AVENU ' I8 ' NOW . ,; ji-
KNOWN AS 89TH COURT. LYING AND
BEING IN .INDIAN RIVER. COUNTY.
FLORIDA..:,— . ; ; a.:...;.,' : - 1::, i.
}
A public hearing at which parties In interest
and
an opportunity
eard. will be held by the Board of Countto be
y ty Com-
missioners of Indian River County, Florida In the
Commission Chambers of the•CounN-Adminis-
tration
Admi nis-
Ve o Beach, Building,
oild�an Tted utesday May 17 tom"
at 9.'05 a.m. •,...
Anyone who may wish to appeal any dedsfort
which may be made at this. meeting *II need to
ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings
• is made which Includes the testimony and evi-
dence upon which the appeal will be based.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY •
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
By -s -Don C. Scurlock. Jr..
Chairman .
April 27. 1988
TO: Charles Balczun
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
DATE: March 21, 1988 FILE:
,. CP SUBJECT:
R:•ert M. heat g,
Community Devel•pmen Director
THROUGH: Stan Boling -A.&
Chief, Current Development
FROM: John W. McCoy
Staff Planner
RANDY PENCH'S REQUEST
FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY
ABANDONMENT OF A PORTION
OF 89TH COURT
REFERENCES: pench
JOHN2
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the. Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of May 17, 1988.
13 BOOK 72 PGC 345
MAY 17198
r-
MAY 1 7 1988
BOOK 72 F� `f 346
LOCATION & DESCRIPTION:
Randy Pensch and Melba Mullins have submitted a petition for the
abandonment of 89th Court south' of 22nd Street. Per guidelines
established by the Board of County Commissioners,the petition was
reviewed by all County divisions and utility providers having
jurisdiction within the right-of-way. All reviewing agencies have
recommended approval of the abandonment, with the provision that a
15' .utilities and drainage easement be retained. The easement
will begin at the easterly edge of the existing ROW and will
provide access to existing Southern Bell cables. This portion. of
89th Court is not part of the roadway system as noted on the
County Thoroughfare Plan, and is not needed for the thoroughfare
system.
The stated reason for this abandonment is to gain additional
developable property for the abutting lots. While 89th Court
provides for connection to undeveloped property, the property is
currently zoned commercial. The .Comprehensive Plan discourages
the co -mingling residential and commercial traffic. Thus,
granting the request would ensure that such comingling of traffic
could not take place via 89th Court.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommendsthat the County abandon its rights to this
portion of 89th Court, and that the Chairman of the Board of
County Commissioners be authorized to execute the attached
Resolution (Attachment #3), with the condition:
1. that a 15' utility easement be retained as described in
Exhibit A of the attached Resolution.
Chairman Scurlock opened the Public Hearing and asked if
anyone wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, he
closed the Public Hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 88-34, providing for the closing,
abandonment and vacation of all of that portion of
120th Avenue (now known as 89th Court) between 22nd
Street and Tract 5 in Paradise Park Unit #2.
14
RESOLUTION NO. 88 - 34
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR THE CLOSING,
ABANDONMENT AND VACATION OF ALL OF THAT PORTION -OF
120TH AVENUE BETWEEN 22ND STREET AND TRACT 5 AS SHOWN ON
A PLAT OF PARADISE PARK UNIT #2 RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3,
PAGE 77 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA. 120TH AVENUE NOW KNOWN AS 89TH COURT.
WHEREAS, on February 23, 1988, the County received a duly
executed and documented petition from Randy Pensch, 8925 22nd
Street, Vero Beach, Florida requesting the County to close,
vacate, abandon, and disclaim' any right, title and interest of the
County and the public in and to all that portion of 120th Avenue
between 22nd Street and Tract 5 as shown on a plat of Paradise
Park Unit #2 recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 77 of the Public
Records of Indian River County, Florida. 120th Avenue now known
as 89th Court.
WHEREAS, in accordance with Florida Statutes §336.10, notice
of a public hearing to consider said petition has been duly
published; and
WHEREAS, after consideration of the petition, supporting
documents, staff investigation' and report, and testimony of all
those interested and present, the Board finds that said
right-of-way is not a state or federal highway, nor located within
any municipality, nor is said right-of-way necessary for
continuity of the County's street and thoroughfare network, nor
access to any given private property.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that:
1. All right, title, and interest of the County and the public
in and to that certain right-of-way being known more particularly
described as:
All of 120th Avenue Between 22nd Street and Tract 5 as
shown on a plat of Paradise Park Unit No. 2 recorded in
Plat Book 3, Page 77 of the Public Records of Indian
River County, Florida. 120th Avenue is now known as
89th Court. Lying and being in Indian River County,
Florida.
is hereby forever closed, abandoned, vacated, surrendered,
discontinued, remissed and released, with the exception that a 15'
wide utilities easement be retained as described in Exhibit A, and
this easement is reserved in perpetuity unto the County and the
Public and shall not be deemed to have been closed or abandoned in
any way'by this resolution.
2. Notice of the adoption of this resolution shall be forthwith
published once within thirty (30) days from the date of adoption
hereof; and
3. The Clerk is hereby directed to record this resolution
together with the proofs of publication required by Florida
Statutes 5336.10 in the Official Record Books of Indiann River
County without undue delay.
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Bird
who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Commissioner
Eggert , and upon being put to a vote, the vote as as.follows:
.Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Vice -Chairman Gary C. Wheeler Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioners Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
AY 1? 19
MU 72 OH 347
MAY 17 1988
BOOK 72 FnE 348
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed
and adopted this
17th day of May , 1988.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY:
Dons . Scu lock, J hairman
Board of County Co ssioners
EXHIBIT "A"
Legal description for utility easement to be located next to and
West of Lot 1, Block X, Paradise Park Unit No. 2 as recorded in
Plat Book 3, Page 77, Public Records of Indian River County,
Florida, being more particularly described as follows: From the
Point of Beginning being the Southwest corner of Lot 1, Block X
run North 100.00 feet along the West property line to Lot 1 to the
Northwest corner of Lot 1; thence run West 15.00 feet on a line
extended from the North property line of Lot 1 to a point; thence
run South 100.00 feet on a line parallel to the West property line
of Lot 1 to a point; thence run East 15.00 feet back to the Point
of Beginning.
PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 25(r) MINING
AND EXCAVATION (Continued from 4/27/88 Meeting)
Attorney Vitunac advised that the original published notice
is sufficient as this Public Hearing is being continued from the
April 27, 1988 meeting.
Robert Keating, Director of Planning & Development, reviewed
the 5 proposed changes to the mining ordinance as discussed and
agreed upon at the Special Meeting of April 27, 1988:
TO: Charles Balczun
County Administrator
DATE: May 3, 1988 FILE:
DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE
Robert . Keat ' ng, v CP BJECT: Proposed_ Amendment to
Community Deve opment Director Section 25(r) Mining
and Excavation
FROM: Michael K. Miller P4(64 REFERENCES:
Chief, Environmental Planning
and Code Enforcement
It is requested -that the data presented herein be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of May 17, 1988.
DESCRIPTIONS AND CONDITIONS:
The Board of County Commissioners held a .special meeting on
April 27, 1988 to consider the adoption of the revised Mining
Ordinance. At this public hearing several issues were
discussed and the Board of County Commissioners directed the
staff to make the following revisions to the proposed
ordinance.
1. Apply the 25' minimum average elevation on the sand
ridge to only those projects that fall under Saint
Johns River Water Management District permitting
thresholds (currently 12 acres);
2. Delete reference to road damage within 1/4 mile of
site and road damage bond;
3. Revise the calculation of the restoration bond to
include the area of excavation only, not the entire
project site;
4. Revise the compliance bond to apply to violations
chargeable to the mining permit holder only.
5. Require that all hauling trucks prominently display
the trucking company name on each vehicle.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt
the revised Mining Ordinance in its present form.
AY 171988
17
so 72 E349
MAY. 17 19.88
8oOK: 72 F,'CE 35O
Director Keating advised that Change #1 is referred to on
page 6 of the ordinance; Changes 2-4 are shown on page 8; and
Change #5 is included on page 10. Most of the changes werevery
minor, as far as the wording that was added or deleted, and the
wording complies with the intent of the Commission at the April
27th meeting.
Director Keating read the following memo into the record:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: May 13, 1988 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL REGARD-
ING THE PROPOSED MINING
SUBJECT: ORDINANCE
Robert M. Keating, AICPR�'\
FROM: Director REFERENCES:
Community Development Department
Please find attached to this memo information provided to staff on
this date by Ruth Stanbridge. Mrs. Stanbridge requested that the
subject information be provided to the commission prior to its
final action on the proposed mining ordinance.
The attached information is an excerpt from material which Duncan
Powell (biologist, Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission)
had intended to present to the Board at its April 26, 1988 special
meeting on the mining ordinance. As you may remember, Mr. Powell
was the last speaker at that meeting and only had the opportunity
to summarize his recommendations.
If any questions arise on this matter, Mr. Powell will most likely
be attending the May 17 meeting and can address questions at that
time.
18
Taking the fisheries, wading bird, water fowl and water quality
elements and realizing that fill needs for Indian River County must be met the
following is recommended to be included into the mining ordinance:
Include:
1. 30 percent of the created water body should be
less than six feet deep.
2. 40 percent of the created water body should be
less than eighteen feet deep.
3. Establishment of a vegetated littoral zone in all
waters less than or equal to six feet deep.
4. Side slopes from 0 to -6 feet should not be steeper
than 6H:1V.
5. All water depths to be determined from a normal water level.
Director Keating noted that Mr. Powell's recommendations are
in conflict with the proposed ordinance on a few points, and are
not incorporated into this ordinance. Mr. Powell's major
recommendations are to increase the littoral zone to 30% of the
water body, and have at least 40% of the created water body less
than 18 feet deep.
Chairman Scurlock opened the Public Hearing and asked if
anyone wished to be heard in this matter.
Mike Bulsa of Dennis Smith, Inc., asked if the restoration
and compliance bonds are items that are charged to other
developers in a similar type of project, and Director Keating
stated that they are not.
Mr. Bulsa felt that the restoration and compliance
requirement is discriminatory to mining operators.
Commissioner Wheeler asked what projects would be similar to
sand mining, and Director Keating pointed out that normally we
don't request performance bonds for someone developing a
SAYi`i188
19
BOOK. 72 FY,E J51
NAY 17 `g988
BOOK 72 PAGE 352
condominium or something like that. However, with a subdivision
you have the ability to bond out required improvements and get
your site plan early.
Commissioner Eggert emphasized other developers are in the
business of restoration to begin with, although the environ-
mentalists might not agree, but there is destruction involved in
mining before the actual restoration begins.
Chairman Scurlock preferred to consider some performance
bonds for other developers, rather than remove the requirement
from mining operations, and Commissioner Eggert felt that would
be worth looking into.
Jim Gallagher of Sebastian objected to Section D in the
ordinance having to do with the restriction of hours of a mining
operation. He did not feel that mining operations should be
restricted on Saturdays.
Director Keating explained that the ordinance does not set
any restrictions for hours of operation for mines that are in
agricultural districts. It is in residential areas where the
hours of operation are specified; however, they can be modified
during the approval process by the Board of County Commissioners.
Chairman Scurlock understood then that they would have the
option to request operations on Saturdays and that the Commission
has the flexibility to allow it, but the Commission also has the
ability to stop it if there is a problem.
There being no others who wished to be heard, Chairman
Scurlock closed the Public Hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 88-21, repealing Section 25(r), Mining and
Excavation of the Code of Laws and Ordinances; and
creating a new Section 25 (r), providing for the
changes discussed above.
20
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 88 -21
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, REPEAL-
ING SECTION 25(r), MINING AND EXCAVATION, APPENDIX A,
ZONING, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDI-
NANCES; CREATING A NEW SECTION 25(r), EXCAVATION AND
MINING; PROVIDING FOR PURPOSE; PROVIDING FOR DEFINI-
TIONS; SPECIFYING PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES; PROVIDING
FOR PERMIT EXEMPTIONS; PROVIDING WATER MANAGEMENT
REGULATIONS FOR EXCAVATED LAKES; PROVIDING MINING
PERMIT REGULATIONS; ESTABLISHING CRITERIA FOR HAULING
FILL ON PUBLIC AND PRIVATE ROADS; PROVIDING FOR FEES;
PROVIDING FOR DURATION AND COMPLETION OF PERMITS;
PROVIDING FOR INSPECTION AND REVOCATION OF PERMITS;
PROVIDING FOR APPEAL; PROVIDING FOR PENALTIES AND
ENFORCEMENT; AMENDING SECTION 25.1(t) OF THE ZONING
CODE; AND PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY,
AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Section 125.01(1)(g), Florida Statutes (1985)
provides that the governing body of a county may enforce compre-
hensive plans for the development of the county; and
WHEREAS, Section 163.3201, Florida Statutes, requires
that a governing body adopt appropriate regulations on the deve-
lopment of lands and waters to implement its comprehensive plan;
and
WHEREAS, Indian River County has adopted a Comprehensive
Plan which includes provisions for preservation of native plant
communities, maintenance and improvement of water quality in the
County's lakes, rivers, and wetlands, and protection of ground-
water from negative development impacts; and
WHEREAS, Section 125.01(1)(j), Florida Statues (1985)
provides that the governing body may establish and administer
programs of conservation and drainage, and
WHEREAS, this Board has determined that is in the best
interest of the citizens of Indian River County, Florida, to amend
its existing mining regulations;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that:
PART 1
Section 25(r), Mining and Excavation, Appendix A, Zoning, of the
Code of Laws and Ordinances, is hereby repealed and a new Section
25(r), Excavation and Fill, is created as follows:
(r) Excavation and mining.
(1) Purpose. The Indian River County Board of County Commis-
sioners hereby finds that in order to prevent public nuisances,
safety hazards and damage to private and public property in the
excavation of land, and in order to protect the environment,
including the quality and quantity of ground and surface waters,
it is necessary to regulate excavation activities, including
mining, in Indian River County.
(2) Definitions
(a) Agriculture use. Activities listed as "permitted
agricultural uses" in accordance with Section
4(A)(b)(1), Appendix A, Zoning, of the County Code.
(b) Atlantic Coastal Sand Ridge: A prehistoric geologic
formation located parallel and proximate to U.S. Highway
#1 in Indian River County. For the purpose of the
MAY 17 1988
-1-
BOOK 72 F CFF 353
MAY 1'119E8
ORDINANCE NO. 88 -
BOOK 72hAt,i 354
ordinance, .the. Sand Ridge shall be characterized by
having a combination of the following attributes:
(1) The substrate is predominantly excessively drained
deep sandy soils or associated moderately well
drained soils, being one or more of the following:
Paola, St. Lucie, Astatula, Archbold, Pomello,
Orsino, and/or Jonathan soil series (as verified by
the Soil Conservation Service);
(2) The land supports predominantly sand pine (Pinus
clausa) and associated scrub vegetation; and/or
(3) The natural topographic elevation isequal to or
greater than 25 feet mean sea level (MSL).
(c) Banktop. The point where the upward slope of the land
from the water surface, or the bottom of a dry excava-
tion intersects with the existing ground elevation or
crest of -berm, whichever is of higher elevation.
(d) Control elevation. That height above sea level establi-
shed for a surface water management system and its
control structures by the St. John's Water Management
District through the analysis of engineering criteria
for such systems and flood routing calculations, or as
determined by the Indian River County Engineer where St.
John's Water Management District permits are not
required.
(e) Excavation. The removal of any rock, gravel, soil,
shellrock or mineral from the ground where such removal
is incidental to any Indian River County Development
Order or permit, including approved site plans, subdivi-
sion plats, final development plans and/or building
permits. Where excavation is associated with con-
struction of a single family residence, and such exca-
vation is not authorized through any Indian River County
Development Order or subdivision plat, all excavated
materials in excess of 1,000 cubic yards shall remain on
site.
(f) Extended Littoral Zone Shelf. The most landward extent
of the Littoral Zone, located between control elevation
and one vertical foot above control elevation. This
segment of littoral zone receives intermittent inunda-
tion and is the area where trees are to be planted in
association with implementation of water management
standards as contained herein.
(g) Mine Abandonment. The cessation of mining activities
including but not limited to excavation, dewatering,
stockpiling, and removal of material offsite for a
period of more than one year as reflected in the annual
mining report.
(h) Mining. The excavation of more than 5,000 cubic yards
of rock, gravel, soil, shellrock or minerals from any
project site in any calendar year, where the excavated
material is hauled from that project site to another
location across any public road or any private road,
except for those private roads solely within the appli-
cant's property.
(i) Low water elevation. The normal water table for January
to March as determined by the County Engineer.
(j) Project site. That portion of the real property which
is being excavated or mined, together with all property
ORDINANCE NO. 88 -
within 100 feet of the perimeter of the excavation, or
mining activity.
(k) Waterbody. Any natural or artificial pond, lake,
reservoir or similar area which ordinarily contains
water and which has a discernible shoreline.
(1) Wetlands. Wetlands shall be defined as set forth in
Section 23.3(f), Natural Resources Protection, Appendix
A, Zoning, of the County Code of Laws and Ordinances, as
currently adopted or hereafter amended.
(3) Prohibited activity. It shall be illegal and subject to
penalties provided herein for any person, association,
corporation or other entity to excavate, or mine (as defined
herein) any real property in Indian River County, without
first obtaining a mining permit for such activity, except as
exempted in Section 25(r)(4) of this ordinance. It shall
also be unlawful for any excavation, or mining activity
governed by a county permit issued in accordance with this
ordinance to occur contrary to the conditions of such permit,
subject to the penalties provided herein.
(4) Exemptions. The following activities shall be exempted from
the permitting requirements of this ordinance:
(a) Agricultural use projects, including agricultural
drainage canals, and irrigation work incidental to
agricultural operation and stockwatering ponds, provided
that:
(1) The property is agriculturally zoned, orif the
property is not so zoned, the agricultural use
project is allowed in accordance with Section
25(j), Nonconformities, of the County Zoning Code;
(2) No excavated material is removed from the subject
property;
(3) No excavation shall take place within fifty (50)
feet of the property line; however, a ditch or
canal may be excavated within fifty (50) feet of or
along the property line, if written approval is
obtained from affected property owners.
(4) Wetlands are protected from the excavation ac-
tivity, in accordance with the provisions of this
ordinance.
(b) Earth moving in conjunction with the installation of a
utility, wherein the excavation is to be backfilled.
(c) Construction of state, federal, or local public roads
and public works within the limits of public property.
(d) Graves.
(e) Approved sanitary landfills.
(f) Any activity regulated by the Florida Electrical Power
Plant Siting Act and the Transmission Line Siting Act
(Part II, Chapter 403, F.S.) to the extent that the
provisions of this ordinance are pre-empted by said
Acts. Maintenance •activities undertaken by a public
utility as defined in Section 366.02, F.S. (1983) with
regard to existing electrical power plants, their
reservoirs and other related facilities.
MAY 1 F11988
-3-
BOOK 72 F GE 355
NiAY 1988
(g)
ORDINANCE NO. 88 -
BOOK 72 f 356
Any excavation incidental to any authorized Indian River
County development order or permit, including approved
site plans, subdivision plats, final development plans
and/or building permits, whereby no more than 5,000
cubic yards of excavated materials are removed from the
premises. This paragraph shall not be construed to
exempt excavation activities resulting in the creation
of a waterbody, except as specifically exempted in
Section 25 (r) (4) (i) , relating to ponds on single-family
residential lots.
(h) Maintenance dredging of lakes or canals.
(i) A pond on a single-family residential lot, provided
that:
(1) the pond is no greater than acre in size or 35%
of the lot, whichever is more restrictive;
(2) no excavation takes place within fifty (50) feet of
the lot property line;
(3) the excavation does not disturb any existing
wetland;
(4) pond depth does not exceed 12 feet;
(5) side slopes are not greater than one foot (1)
vertical to four feet (4) horizontal;
(6) there will be no hauling of excavated material from
the property; and
(7) a pond permit is obtained from the County Planning
Division.
(5) Water management standards
Any excavation or mining activity in the unincorporated
county which results in the creation or expansion of a
waterbody (as defined in Section 25(r)(2)) shall be subject
to the following standards, except as specifically exempted
in Section 25(r)(4) of this ordinance:
(a) A littoral zone shall be established as part of any
created waterbody. A design and management plan must be
submitted which shall:
(1) include a topographic map of the proposed littoral
zone showing the control elevation contour and the
minus two and one-half (-21) foot control water
elevation contour, and include a cross-sectional
view of the littoral zone planting design, showing
the required slopes from the top of the bank to a
depth of two and one-half (22) feet below the
control water elevation;
(2) specify how vegetation is to be established,
including the extent, method, type and timing of
any planting provided;
(3) provide a description of any water management
procedures to be followed in order to ensure the
continued viability and health of the littoral
zone;
(4) include a plan view which documents the location
and extent of the littoral zone.
ORDINANCE NO. 88 -
(b) The established littoral zone shall consist of native
vegetation, and shall be maintained permanently as part
of the waterbody. All landscaping, littoral zone
revegetation plans and lake management plans, shall
comply with St. John's River Water Management District
rules.
(c) Within extended littoral zone shelves (at the landward
base of the littoral zone side slopes), the applicant is
required to provide a minimum of one tree for every five
hundred (500) sq. ft. of littoral zone coverage. The
proposed trees must be a minimum size consistent with
Florida Division of Forestry seedlings (10" tall at
planting depth) and consist of native, freshwater
wetland varieties (e.g. red bay, red maple, bald
cypress, etc.).
(d) The slopes of the waterbody areas from top of bank to
the littoral zone area shall not exceed one (1) foot
vertical to three (3) feet horizontal. - Littoral zone's
and extended littoral zone shelves shall be located
within an area bounded by a landward limit of one (1)
foot above the control water elevation and a waterward
limit of two and one-half (2i) feet below the control
water elevation. The amount or area of littoral zone
shall be computed at aerate of fifteen (15) square feet
of littoral zone (below control elevation) per linear
foot of shoreline. The littoral zone slope shall not be
steeper than an average slope of one (1) foot vertical
to six (6) feet horizontal, and the littoral zone need
not be established in a continuous band around the
waterbody. Although no minimum slope below the littoral
zone is required, the slope below the littoral zone
shall be constructed so that natural soil movement will
not reduce the littoral zone area.
(e) There will be no significant- adverse off-site impact on
groundwater quality or groundwater levels. In the event
of dewatering associated with excavations (including
mining), the applicant shall present evidence that no
salt -water intrusion and/or reduction in quality or
quantity of well water available to properties within
1/4 mile of the permitted activity will occur.
(f) The water management system, i.e., swales and inter-
connected wetlands and lakes, must be specifically
designed to inhibit siltation and the eutrophication
processes. To ensure this, the applicant must submit an
environmental management and lake monitoring plan,
specifying the method for monitoring the system and
corrective action should eutrophication and/or siltation
occur.
(h) A 20 foot wide access maintenance easement shall be
provided for every 1,000 feet of shoreline. This
easement shall extend from below control elevation of
the lake to a public or private road right-of-way.
(6) Mining permit regulations.
(a) Applicability. A county mining permit shall be required
for any mining activity (as defined herein) in the
unincorporated county, except as exempted in Section
25(r)(4) of this ordinance. Any request for a mining
permit shall be considered an application for site plan
approval, and the procedures set forth in Section 23.1
of this code shall be followed. The provisions of this
section shall be considered as conditions to the admin-
istrative permit use or special exception use as allowed
fAY1f7'1988
-5- BOOK 72 rKF 357
MAY 17 1988
ORDINANCE NO. 88 -
BON( 7 in'F 358
and specified in Section 25.1(t), -Earthmoving Uses,
Appendix A, Zoning, of the County Code.
(b) Application procedures. •Mining permit applications
shall be made in the Community Development Department,
in accordance with site plan submittal requirements set
forth in Section 23.2, Appendix A, Zoning, of the County
Code. The site plan application must also demonstrate
that, in addition to conformance with all County codes,
the conditions of the mining permit are met as specified
herein. Specific submittal requirements shall include:
(1) A mining plan, including:
(a) Plan view and cross-sections of mining area;
(b) Amount of fill to be removed;
(c) Timetable of mining activity;
(d) Method of mining;
(e) Hours of operation; and
(f) Safety/security plan.
(2) A restoration plan, including:
(a) A description of the eventual future use of
the site; and
(b) Final gradesof the site.
(c) Conditions of the mining permit.
(1) The maximum project -site development phase for
mining activities shall not exceed 20 acres per
phase.
(2) No mining shall occur within one hundred and fifty
(150) feet of a projected right-of-way line of any
existing or proposed public road, nor within 150
feet of the outer perimeter of the project site.
Where a mining operation consists only of the
removal of a mound and does not consist of lowering
the elevation of ground below the neighboring
property, an exception to the 150 feet setback may
be permitted at the time of site plan approval.
(3) Any mining activity that results in the creation or
expansion of a waterbody shall be subject to the
provisions of Section 25(r)(5), water management
standards, of this ordinance. Projects creating
waterbodies must also provide a safety/security
plan for the mining operation phase, including, but
not limited to, fences, access, control, and other
security methods.
(4) If the project site is of a size that falls below
Saint Johns River Water Management District
permitting thresholds and is located (in whole or
part) on the Atlantic Coastal Sand Ridge, no
excavation governed by a mining permit shall result
in an average elevation of less than twenty-fj_ve
(25) feet mean sea level (MSL) for that portion of
the project site located on the Sand Ridge. Mining
project sites that are large enough to fall within
Saint Johns Water Management District (SJRWMD)
permitting requirements shall conform to SJRWMD
permitting requirements concerning depth of mining
and all other applicable SJRWMD permitting
requirements.
ORDINANCE NO. 88 -
(5) If the project site is adjacent to a residential
zoned area, the perimeter of the site abutting such
an area shall include a 50 foot wide bufferyard and
Type "A" screening along said site boundary.
(6) No crusher, mixing plant, bin, tank, or structure
directly involved in the production process shall
be located less than six hundred (600) feet from
any adjacent residentially zoned property, and two
hundred fifty (250) feet from all other adjacent
non -residentially zoned property.
(7) Hard rock mining activities shall ensure that
measures are taken to control dust.
(8) The Indian River County Planning and Zoning Commis-
sion shall, upon approval of the mining site plan,
order issuance of an operating permit to the owner
of the land under his signature, and such permit
shall be issued within ten (10) days after the
determination of compliance by the commission.
(9) Provisions for continuing operation. Nothing
herein shall be construed as a requirement that an
operator of an existing sand mine shall cease
operations until a mining site plan has been
approved, provided a mining site plan has been
previously approved and maintained.
(10) The Planning and Zoning Commission (administrative
permit) and the Board of County Commissioners
(special exception) shall approve a reasonable
timetable for the completion of all mining activ-
ities, including restoration.
(d) Operating conditions of mining.
(1) Applicants operating in the A-1, Agricultural
District, where the project does not abut a sin-
gle-family residential district, shall not be
limited to specific hours of operation unless a
determination is made by the Planning and Zoning
Commission concerning the need of limiting hours of
operation due to the anticipated impact of the
mining operation on surrounding properties.
Applicants operating in residential zoning dis-
tricts shall be permitted to operate between the
hours of 7:00 a.m. to 5:00. p.m. on weekdays;
operation on Saturday and Sunday and/or operation
other than 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. may be permitted
by the Board of County Commissioners if the impact
of the mining operation on surrounding properties
will not constitute a nuisance to the neighborhood.
(2) The land surface shall be restored to a condition
which is in complete compliance with the site plan
for reclamation and rehabilitation of the area.
Mining shall not be carried on within one hundred
and fifty (150) feet of the projected right-of-way
line of any existing or proposed public road nor
within one hundred and fifty (150) feet of the
outer perimeter of the land area. Where a mining
operation consists only of the removal of a mound
and does not consist of lowering the elevation of
ground below the neighboring property,an exception
to the one hundred fifty (150) foot outer perimeter
setback may be permitted at the time of the site
plan approval. All slopes and banks shall be
NAY ,1 ‘te
-7-
BOOK 1�
MAY 1 7 988
ORDINANCE NO. 88 -
BOOK 72 E'S CE 360.
sloped at a ratio of not steeper than 3 feet
horizontal to 1 foot vertical, graded, grassed and
stabilized.
(3) Permanent project boundary corners with inter-
mediate stakes at a minimum interval of three
hundred (300) feet, and all limits of excavation
shall be staked, marked and maintained with visible
flags in the field, in accordance with approved
plans for permit.
(4) Annual progress report. The operator holding a
valid mining permit shall file, on or before
October 1 of each year, a written report with the
Community Development Department identifying the
lands mined and reclaimed for the preceding calen-
dar year and identifying lands expected to be mined
and lands planned for reclamation during the
current year. The report shall also verify compli-
ance with all conditions of other permitting
authorities and shall note the expiration dates for
all permits. Failure to file the required annual
progress report shall be grounds for suspension of
the operating permit; however, an extension of time
for filing may be granted by the Planning and
Zoning Commission upon request and for reasonable
cause.
(e) Requirement of Bonds.
(1) Intent. Compliance and restoration bonds shall be
posted to ensure that the site is developed,
operated, and restored in conformance with the
approved mining site plan. The compliance bond can
be assessed as a penalty only to violations of site
plan approval that are chargeable to the mining
permit holder, and those under his supervision,
direction, or control. The restoration bond is to
provide fundsto restore the site.
(2) Amount. The compliance bond shall be posted in the
amount of one -thousand dollars ($1,000.00) per acre
of project site with a minimum of five thousand
dollars ($5,000.00). The restoration bond shall be
posted in the amount of one -thousand dollars
($1,000.00) per acre of excavation with a minimum
of five thousand dollars ($5,000.00).
(3) Phasing. When one phase of 20 acres or less is
completed and in conformance with the submitted
site plan for reclamation and rehabilitation, and
in conformance with this ordinance, the compliance
and restoration bonds may be transferred to the
next phase under the approved site plan. More than
one phase at a time may be mined concurrently,
however, each phase shall be fully bonded, as
required by this ordinance.
(4) Renewal. Within 30 days preceding bond expiration,
a bond renewal or new bond, in a form and amount
approved by the Community Development Director and
County Attorney, must be on file in the Community
Development Department. This process shall be
continued through the completion of each mining
operation.
(5) Forfeiture. Upor, a finding of non-compliance with
this ordinance or the approved mining site plan or
reclamation site plan; or failure to renew bonds
ORDINANCE NO. 88 -
within 30 days of expiration, the Community Devel-
opment Director shall notify the permit holder in
writing of the non-compliance and the pending
forfeiture of the compliance and/or restoration
bond. This notice shall also include notice of the
appeal process.
(a) The compliance bond shall be forfeited for
violating the conditions of site plan approval
including, but not limited to unapproved
off-site discharge of water, failure to
confine hauling to approved hauling routes,
operating in violation of the safety/security
plan, excavating within required setbacks,
mining of additional phases prior to restora-
tion of the previous phase, and activity not
consistent with permits issued by other
jurisdictional agencies. Upon appeal by the
applicant, the Board of County Commissioners
may, upon findings of fact, determine that the
violation did not occur or was insignificant
and may return all or part of the compliance
bond.
(b) The restoration bond shall be forfeited for
violating the conditions of restoration plan
approval including, but not limited to mine
abandonment prior to restoration, restoration
not completed within the approved time frame,
restoration not consistent with Water Manage-
ment Standards as contained in Section
25(r)(5) of this code, and restoration activi-
ty not consistent with permits issued by other
jurisdictional agencies.
The County shall use the funds to restore the
site in conformance with the approved site
plan. Any funds remaining after the com-
pletion of the work shall be returned to the
bond holder.
(6) Appeals.
(a) Any person receiving written notice of suspen-
sion of a permit and bond forfeiture may
within fifteen (15) days following the date of
such notice enter an appeal in writing to the
Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida. Such appeal shall state the
location of the property, the date of the
notice of violations, and the grounds or basis
of the appeal. The Board of County
Commissioners, after holding a hearing on this
appeal, may continue the suspension, modify
the suspension, revoke the operating permit,
call for forfeiture of any bonds, or reverse
the decision of the Community Development
Director.
(b) No appeal filed later than fifteen (15) days
after the date of such notice shall be acted
upon by the Board of County Commissioners,
unless the County Administrator shall consent
(7) thereto.
(,) Use of public and private roads. Any mining permit issued
pursuant to this ordinance shall be subject to the following
.provisions:
M AY.1`/ 8
-9- RUCK 72 F'r{GE 36l
MAY 17193e
(g)
ORDINANCE NO. 88 -
BOOK 72 F.1;E 362
(a) The applicant shall ensure that neither public nor
private property will be damaged by the hauling of mined
materials and that hazardous traffic conditions will not
be created. All such applications shall identify an
authorized fill hauling route. If private roads or
easements are intended to be used, written permission
shall be submitted from the person or persons owning
said road or easement as part of the application mate-
rials. No load limits shall be exceeded along the haul
route.
(b) Where deemed necessary by the County Engineer, mats,
culverts, ramps, or paved drives shall be placed at
entrances and/or exits of haul sites in such positions
that pavement edges, shoulders, curbs, and sidewalks
will be protected from damage.
(c) If any of the hauling route is over county maintained,
unpaved roads, the permittee must maintain that section
of the hauling route during the hauling operation, and
security for this purpose may be required, as determined
by the County Engineer.
(d) Where vehicles hauling excavated materials use public
roads, such vehicles shall be covered in a manner to
prevent fill spillage, to the satisfaction of the County
Engineer.
(e) All hauling vehicles shall have the trucking company
name (or truck owners name if vehicle is privately
owned) prominently displayed on the sides of the
vehicle.
Duration and completion of permits.
(a) All permits shall expire one (1) year from the date of
issuance, except when otherwise authorized by a site
plan or subdivision approval. A permit may be renewed
by paying a renewal fee and filing an annual progress
report demonstrating that the permit criteria have been
met. The report must meet the specification of para-
graph (b) of this sub -section.
(b) For all permitted projects, a record drawing by a
surveyor or engineer registered in the State of Florida
shall be provided to the Community Development Depart-
ment at the completion of the permitted project. The
record drawings shall contain sufficient information to
indicate that all of the requirements of this ordinance
have been met, and shall include cross-sections of the
excavation and a plan drawing which locates the extent
of the excavation with dimensions to all property lines.
(c) The permittee shall maintain a copy of the mining permit
on the permitted site during the entire permit period.
Said permit shall be fully visible at a location des-
ignated in the application.
(d) No permit shall be issued under this ordinance if a
violation of this ordinance is existing on the subject
property, nor shall any permits be issued to any person
who is currently in violation of this ordinance. This
section is not intended to prohibit the issuance of a
permit to correct any existing violation.
Mining permit fees.
(a) The applicant for a mining permit shall be required to
file a fee with the application in an amount to be
ORDINANCE NO. 88 -
established by resolution of the Board of County Commis-
sioners.
(b) Permit renewal fees shall be one-half (I) the amount of
the original fee.
Violations and penalties. Violations of this article shall
be punished as provided through forfeiture of the compliance
bond in addition to general law. Any violation of this
chapter is also subject to prosecution before the Indian
River County Code Enforcement Board in accordance with
applicable law and subject to penalties allowable under the
code enforcement ordinance.
PART 2
Section 25.1(t), Earth moving uses, Appendix A, Zoning, of the
County Code of Laws and Ordinances, is hereby amended as follows:
(t) Extractive uses (Administrative Permit and Special Excep-
tion) .
(a) Districts Requiring Administrative Permit. Mining
activities may be permitted within the A-1, Agricultural
District upon receiving approval for an administrative
permit as provided in Section 25.2 and after meeting the
requirements defined below. -
(b) Districts Requiring Special Exception. Mining activ-
ities may be permitted within the RFD, RS -1, RS -2, RS -3,
RS -6, RT -6, RM -3, RM -4, RM -6, RM -8, RM -10, RM -14, RMH-6,
RMH-8, ROSE -4, CRVP, PRO, OCR, MED, CN, CL, CG, CH, IL,
and IG districts upon receiving approval for a special
exception as provided in Section 25.3 and after meeting
the requirements defined below.
(c) Criteria for mining operations:
(1) A site plan meeting all requirements of Sections
23.1 and 23.2 of the County Zoning Code.
(2) A reclamation plan including littoral zone plan and
water quality management plan, as applicable.
(3) All mining activities must comply with Section
25(r), Excavation and Fill, Appendix A, Zoning, of
the County Code.
(4) All mining operations in the PRO, OCR, MED, CN, CL,
CG, CH, IL, and IG zoning districts shall be
incidental to any Indian River County Development
order or permit, including approved site plans,
subdivision plats, final development plans and/or
building permit.
(5) All mining sites shall have direct access to a
collector or arterial roadway; access from a
roadway of lessor fuctional classification may be
approved by the Public works Director upon a
finding that no significant adverse impact will
affect residential units on the subject road.
(6) The site must not be located within 1,000 feet of
any platted subdivision that is not serviced by
public water.
PART 3
CODIFICATION
The provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated into the
County Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section",
'688
-11- BOOK 72 rAGE363
r SAY 171938
ORDINANCE NO. 88 -21
ROOK 72 F',r,E 364
"article", or other appropriate word, and the sections of this
ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such
intentions.
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 legis-
lative intent to pass this ordinance without such unconstitution-
al, invalid or inoperative part.
PART 4
PART 5
EFFECTIVE DATE
The provisions of this ordinance shall become effective upon
receipt from the Florida Secretary of State of official acknowl-
edgement 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 17th day of
May , 1988.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
ATTEST BY
ze
Freda Wright,
i
Acknowledgement by the Department of State of the State of Florida
this 23rd day of May , 1988.
Effective Date: Acknowledgement from the DepartmenV0 State
received on this 26th day of May , 1988, at [`1-. ./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
BY
William Collins
Assistant County Attorney
APPROVED AS TO PLANNING MATTERS
BY‘evit,i,F
Robert M. Keatin AICPA//
Community Development irector
` 4 ( 1-_ `r
4//4- 4/4=
UPDATE ON POTABLE WATER PROBLEM AT VILLAGE GREEN
Chairman Scurlock announced that a meeting is scheduled for
this afternoon with the owners of Village Green. It is staff's
recommendation that we need to encourage them to hook up to the
County system, but there is due process involved, and we need to
have patience during the process. Hopefully, the problem will be
resolved, at least temporarily, after today's meeting.
TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP FROM HOLIDAY VILLAGE WATER AND WASTEWATER
SYSTEM FRANCHISE TO ELLENBURG CAPITAL 32- VERO BEACH
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/18/88:
TO:
THRU: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTIL Y T RVICES
FROM:
CHARLES P. BALCZUN
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
LISA M. ABERNETHY
FRANCHISE MANAGER
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
DATE: APRIL 18, 1988
SUBJECT: TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP FROM HOLIDAY VILLAGE
WATER AND WASTEWATER SYSTEM FRANCHISE TO
ELLENBURG CAPITAL 32-VERO BEACH
BACKGROUND
On the 26th day of June, 1985, the Board of County Commissioners
granted a water and wastewater franchise to Holiday Village then
owned by Adam McGavin. Since that time, Holiday Village has
operated satisfactorily and has made corrections when instructed by
the Utilities Department. In August, 1987, Mr. McGavin sold Holiday
Village Mobile Home Park to Ellenburg Capital Corporation of Aptos,
California. Since this time, the Utilities Department has been
coordinating with Ellenburg Capital in an effort to finalize the
transfer of ownership of the franchise utility.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff has reviewed the attached items and finds that all
requirements are in order. Therefore, staff requests and recommends
that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the transfer of
ownership by signing the enclosed resolution.
Chairman Scurlock opened the Public Hearing and asked if
anyone wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, he
closed the Public Hearing.
► SAY .17 1988
22 BOOK 72 FACE 365
NAY 1? 988
Boy r cE • 6
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 88-35, providing for the transfer of
ownership of Holiday Village Water and Wastewater
System Franchise to Ell -Cap 32 - Vero Beach.
RESOLUTION 88-35 IS ON FILE IN ITS ENTIRETY IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK TO THE BOARD
KIRRIE APPEAL OF DENIAL OF MAJOR SITE PLAN APPLICATION
Stan Boling, Chief of Current Development, reviewed the
following staff recommendation for denial of the Kirrie appeal:
TO:Charles P. Balczun DATE: May 9, 1988 FILE:
County Commissioner
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robe t M. Ket g, A SUBJECT:
Community Devel'•pmen Director
THROUGH: Stan Boling )0,6
Chief, Current Development
FROM: G ) REFERENCES:
Robert E. Wiegers/6Kirrie
BWIEG
APPEAL BY C.N. KIRRIE OF
A DENIAL OF A MAJOR SITE
PLAN APPLICATION FOR A
WAREHOUSE AND SHOP
ADDITION
Staff Planner
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of May 17, 1988.
APPLICATION STATUS:
The above referenced major site plan application was denied by the
Planning and Zoning Commission at its regular meeting of March 24,
1988, by a vote of 4 - 1 (See attached minutes) Subsequently, the
applicant has filed a written appeal of this denial to the Board
of County Commissioners. The Board of County Commissioners has
the option to uphold the denial by the Planning and Zoning Commis-
sion, grant the appeal and grant major site plan approval, or
grant the appeal and grant major site plan approval with
conditions attached.
APPLICATION BACKGROUND:
Mosby and Associates, Inc. submitted a major site plan on behalf
of C.N. Kirrie. The applicant sought site plan approval to
23
construct a 5600 sq. ft. warehouse and shop addition (to an
existing 1500 sq. ft. building) with associated improvements at
12855 79th Avenue in Roseland. The proposal was considered to be
an expansion of an existing home occupation use within the ROSE -4
zoning district. Although the special ROSE -4 home occupation
regulations were recently repealed, the subject application was
accepted for review prior to the ordinance change. Therefore,
this application was reviewed under the "old" ROSE -4 home occupa-
tion criteria.
This plan was originally heard by the Planning and Zoning Commis-
sion at its regular meeting of February 11, 1988. At this meet-
ing, with the applicant in attendance, action was taken to table
the item until a later date in order to allow the applicant and
staff to work out several outstanding technical issues. The
following is a sequence of events since that meeting.
CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS:
- February 17, 1988. The applicant personally picked up a copy
of staff's action letter which advised him of the Commis-
sion's action (see attached letter dated 2/15/88). This
letter set out the timeframes which staff established based
upon Commission action, so 'that the application could be
considered in a timely manner.
- February 19, 1988. Staff received a letter from the appli-
cant's attorney advising staff that the applicant objected to
the timeframes set forth, and requested additional time for
revisions (see attached letter dated 2/17/88).
- February 23, 1988. Staff contacted applicant's attorney and
advised him that the timeframe issue would be brought before
the Planning and Zoning Commission in order to verify its
true intent of tabling the item.
- February 25, 1988. The Planning and Zoning Commission took
action to have this matter heard at its regular meeting of
March 24, 1988 (see attached minutes from 2/25/88).
February 26, 1988. Staff sent action letter to applicant
notifying him of the action taken by the Planning and Zoning
commission at the February 25, 1988 meeting (see attached
letter dated 2/26/88).
- March 3, 1988. Staff received a letter from the applicant's
attorney concerning several informational aspects of the plan
(see attached letter dated 3/3/88). No revised plans submit-
ted as of this date.
- March 8, 1988. Staff received a letter from the applicant's
attorney advising staff that the deadlines imposed upon the
applicant were unreasonable (see attached letter dated
3/7/88) .
March 10, 1988. Staff responded that this should not have
been a problem (see attached letter dated 3/10/88).
- March 16, 1988. The only additional information submitted by
the applicant or the applicant's attorney was the letter
dated 3/3/88 that served to clarify the applicant's in-
tentions. Actual plan revisions have never been submitted,
and at its regular meeting of March 16, 1988,.the County's
Technical Review Committee re -discussed the original plan and
the attorney's letter dated March 3, 1988.
24
AY 17 1988
Boor 72 r.P.,[ 367
Mg 17 1983
BOOK 72 F'.1GF 368
- March 24, 1988. The Planning and Zoning Commission took
action to deny this application by a vote of 4 to 1 (see
attached minutes from the 3/24/88 meeting).
- March 25, 1988. The applicant was notified of the action
taken by the Planning and Zoning Commission at its meeting of
March 24, 1988 and was advised that affected parties have 10
days from the date of the action to appeal the decision to
the Board of County Commissioners.
- April 8, 1988. Staff received a letter of appeal from the
applicant's attorney (see attached letter dated 4/6/88).
Following is an analysis of the information reviewed by the
Planning and Zoning Commission.
ANALYSIS:
1. Size of Lot: 1.79 acres (includes existing mobile home and
warehouse building).
2. Area of Development: 1.28 acres
3. Zoning Classification: ROSE -4 (Roseland Residential Dis-
trict)
Pursuant to the applicable "old" Section 15(b)(4) of the
County zoning ordinance, "the following home occupation uses
shall be permitted", within the ROSE -4 district, "after
receiving site plan approval and meeting the conditions
specified below":
a. Metal working and casting;
b. Contractor's office and storage of contractor's mate-
rials, tools and equipment;
c. Lawn mower and small engine sales, service and repair;
o
han
d. Service businesses (provided
same not in shall
excess nofmfourt (4)
one sign advertising th
square feet in size.
e. Criteria for home occupation uses. A11 homecoccupations.
shall be established based on the following
1. The activity is conducted only by members of the
family living within the residence;
2. Products are not offered for sale to the general
public and from the premises except as herein
otherwise provided;
3. Any evidence of the occupation is screened from the
street by Type "A" screening;
4. Traffic is not generated in excess of that custo-
mary for residential uses;
5. The property has been qualified for (and continues
to be qualified) for homestead exemption for ad
valorem tax purposes; and
6. All home occupation activities must meet yard
setback requirements.
In order to receive site plan approval, all of the preceding
requirements must be satisfied. The applicant has submitted
information concerning these requirements; however, it is
25
staff's opinion that these have not been adequately ad-
dressed. Although the applicant agreed verbally during the
Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of March 24, 1988
to comply with some of the noted deficiencies, no revised
plans have been submitted to reflect these changes.
With regards to requirements a,b,c, and d, the applicant has
noted on the plans the activities which will take place
within the proposed warehouse and shop facilities. More
specifically, the uses proposed in the application include
"storage, manufacturing, electrical, plumbing, harv, general
contracting services, repairs and sales". In staff's opinion
the manufacturing, repairs and sales activities are not
expressly permitted under 15(b)4 of the zoning code as
permitted home occupational uses within the ROSE -4 district.
Staff requested that the applicant demonstrate conformance
with the requirements of (e)1 (shown above), by providing a
statement identifying, by name, all family members living
within the residence, and all employees who are currently
employed with the business. The applicant has failed to
provide this information; therefore, the application has not
met this requirement. In addition, staff believes that an
additional 5,600 sq. ft. of warehouse and shop area would
increase production/storage capacity and enable the applicant
to expand the number of employees who work there; therefore,
an expansion of this magnitude is not in compliance with the
requirements of (e)1.
Requirement (e)2 prohibits the sale of products to the
general public and from the premises except as otherwise
,provided. Staff requested that the applicant submit a
notarized statement that products are not offered for retail
sale to the general public and to this date staff has not
received any such statement. The applicant's response
indicates that retail sales do occur from time to time.
Pursuant to State HRS regulations, concerning minimum allowable
lot sizes, when an individual lot is to be served by well and
septic tanks, any newly created lot must have at least ±} acre of
-ea. With this in mind the applicant could expect and would only
oe allowed to develop the 1.79 acres into possibly 4 individual
parcels.
Requirement (e)4 sets forth the criterion that traffic shall not
be generated in excess of that customary for residential uses.
The County's Traffic Engineer has estimated .that normal residen-
tial uses on this site would generate ±29 ADT.
Size of Lot - 1.79 acres
Allowable density.1 unit/1 acre
Possible density - 4 units
7.24 te per unit x 4 units = ±29 ADT
ADT = Average Daily Trips
te = trip ends
A light industrial warehouse use, with ±7,100 sq. ft., would
generate ± 50 ADT
Existing building = 1,515 sq. ft.
Proposed building = 5,600 sq. ft.
Total building = 7,115 sq. ft.
7.0 te per 1,000 sq. ft. - ± 50 ADT
MAY �.'r 4b6
26
BOOK 72 F'AGE 369
11AY17X98
80DIC 72 irAcr.370'.
Even if internal capture rates, for the existing mobile home,
were applied, the proposal would still far exceed the re-
quirements of (e) 4.
It could be expected that, if this facility were built as
planned, additional light/heavy truck traffic would be
generated beyond what is presently occurring and beyond what
would be normally associated with a home occupation in a
residential setting.
4. Land Use Designation: MD -1 (Medium Density)
5. Building Area: Existing - 2,642 sq. ft. or 5% of the site
New - 5,600 sq. ft. or 10% of the site
Total - 8,242 sq. ft. or 15% of the site
6. Proposed Impervious Area:
Phase.I - 8,504 sq. ft. or 15% of the site
At Build -out - 16,828 sq. ft. or 30% of the site
7. Traffic Circulation: The site will access 128th Court via a
two-way drive.
Currently, 128th Court is an unpaved public right-of-way.
Pursuant to Section 23.3(d)(3)(e)(3)a of the County's site
plan ordinance, applicants with projects determined to be
small traffic attractors/generators "shall submit funds in
the amount of the project's share of petition paving costs
prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for all
or any portion of the project". To satisfy this requirement,
the applicant would have to submit his fair share portion
prior to the issuance of a C.O.
In the attorney's response letter dated 3/3/88, the appli-
cants requested that this "paving/escrow requirement" be
waived per Section 23.3 of the zoning code. It is staff's
determination that the criteria which must be met in order to
grant an exemption have not been met.
8. Required Improvements: Pursuant to ROSE -4 zoning district
requirements, the applicant must make provisions to either
construct sidewalks along the site's 79th Avenue and 128th
Court frontage or escrow money for the same.
As of March 16, 1988, staff has not received any response
indicating the applicant's intentions concerning this re-
quirement. Staff had notified the applicant after the
February 11, 1988 meeting that either he escrow monies or
construct the required sidewalks.
9. Off -Street Parking
Existing & Phase I Required: 8 spaces
Phase II & III Required: 7 spaces
Total Required: 15 spaces
Total Provided: 12 spaces
Section 24 of the site plan ordinance specifies the number of
paved parking spaces required for various uses. A proposed
use such as this one is required to provide 1 paved parking
space per 500 sq. ft. of building area. The applicant has
stated that approval for all phases of this project is being
sought at this time; therefore, with 7,100 sq. ft. of build-
ing area the plan must provide a minimum of 15 parking
spaces.
27
All of the existing building and Phase I required parking
spaces must be paved; the plan currently only shows 5 spaces
as being paved. Overall the plan is short 3 parking spaces
and it is staff's opinion that these parking spaces should be
provided specifically for the warehouse use in accordance
with Section 24 of the zoning code.
10. Stormwater Management: The Stormwater Management plan has
been approved by the Public Works Department, and a Type "A"
stormwater permit can be issued.
11. Landscape Plan: The landscape plan is in conformance with
Ordinance #84-47. The plan depicts Type "A" screening in
accordance with the requirements of the ROSE -4 district
regulations.
12. Utilities: The site currently utilizes on-site water and
septic systems.
In the letter dated 3/3/88 by the applicant's attorney, there
is a statement that a new septic system is no longer
proposed, and that restroom facilities will continue to be
provided through the use of the existing mobile home. In
this case then a note would have to be placed on the plan
indicating that facilities .in the mobile home are open to
public use.
13. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North: Vacant/ROSE-4, Roseland Residential District
South: Vacant/ROSE-4, Roseland Residential District
East: Residences/ROSE-4, Roseland Residential District
West: Vacant/ROSE-4, Roseland Residential District
SUMMARY OF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ACTION:
Staff presented the following six (6) reasons, along with staff's
mmendation for denial of this application, to the Planning and
_fig Commission at its regular meeting of March 24, 1988. At
meeting the Commission voted 4-1 to deny this application for
the reasons outlined below and for reasons stated by individual
Commission members in the official minutes of that meeting. The
six (6) reasons presented by staff were:
1. The applicant is proposing uses that are not permitted within
the ROSE -4 zoning district [section 15(b)(4)a-d];
2. The applicant has failed to provide a statement that iden-
tifies, by name, all family members living within the resi-
dence, and all employees who are currently employed with the
use. As proposed, the expansion would provide capacity to
accommodate additional employees. Thus, the applicant's
proposal does not meet the no non -family (resident) employee
requirement [Section 15(b)(4)e.1];
3. The applicant has failed to "size" the proposed use in such a
manner that satisfies the trip generation criterion [Section
15(b)(4)e.4], both in terms of total trips and type of
traffic.
4. The applicant has failed to provide for adequate parking
[Section 24];
Y r( i988
28
BOOK 7.2 FACE .) 71
MAY 17 1988
BOOK 72 F tGE 372
5. The applicant has failed to provide sidewalks or agree to
escrow for same as per Section 15(k)2 of the zoning code; and
6. The applicant has not agreed to meet the requirements of
Section 23.3(d) (3) (e) (3) of the zoning code concerning paved
road requirements.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends that the Board
of County Commissioners deny this appeal and uphold the decision
of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Chairman Scurlock asked if the Board is considering today
only the facts as presented to the Planning & Zoning Commission,
and Mr. Boling said that was so, with one addition. Yesterday
the applicant came in with revised site plans and a letter that
is basically in response to our Agenda item.
Attorney Vitunac advised that our Code rules are not clear
on this; however, by custom and history, we limit it to the same
facts as presented to the Planning & Zoning Commission. If,
however, there is going to be an entirely new hearing today with
new facts that the Planning & Zoning Commission has not seen,
then the P & Z was not given an opportunity to do what it is
supposed to do. The pulse of this case, as it narrows, is that
this is really a new trial on this issue, and if there is
something dramatic that was not considered by the P & Z, who
should have had a chance to give an opinion, then the Board could
not consider it here. Otherwise, the applicant and his attorney
can reintroduce the same evidence, make their arguments again,
and get another shot at having their site plan approved.
Planner Boling advised that the applicant submitted a
revised site plan yesterday that addresses all 6 areas of
concern, and Chairman Scurlock felt then that if it is a new site
plan, it should go back to the P & Z for a new hearing.
Commissioner Eggert understood that the suggestion is being
made for possible consideration of something different than what
the P & Z Commission saw, and Director Keating stated that it was
not different.
29
Attorney Michael O'Haire, representing the applicant, wished
to clear up this procedural item for the record. He stated that
there is nothing new or different in the site plan before the
Board this morning than what was presented to the P & Z
Commission. However, staff takes the position that no matter
what kind of record the applicant built, everything has to be
shown on the drawing. As Mr. Kirrie's attorney, he wrote letters
stating that the applicant will do this, that, or the other
thing, but staff does not consider the record sufficient.
Attorney O'Haire emphasized that particular requirement is not
set out in the code of ordinances. Therefore, to satisfy and
respond to the Agenda item prepared by staff, they put all this
garbage on the plan. There is nothing that has not been told to
the P & Z or addressed in a letter from himself to staff.
Attorney Vitunac asked Mr. Boling if that was the case, and
Mr. Boling stated that, in his opinion, there is no problem in
considering this an appeal of the same site plan that went before
the P & Z Commission on March 24, 1988.
Continuing with staff's recommendation, Mr. Boling advised
that a video tape of the site area is available if at any time
during the discussion, the Board wished to view it. Mr. Kirrie's
residence on site is an 1152 S.F.(square foot) mobile home.
Behind it is a 2642 S.F. manufacturing/warehouse building. The
proposed site plan would have a 5600 S.F. addition done in phases
to bring the manufacturing/warehouse building to a total of
approximately 8200 S.F. in relation to the 1152 S.F. mobile home
residence.
Mr. Boling emphasized that the application does not meet the
ordinance, and the ordinance we are talking about is the "old
ordinance" 87-22, even after consideration of the site plan
revisions addressed in Attorney O'Haire's letter of yesterday.
He next reviewed the Summary of P & Z Commission Action shown on
pages 5 and 6 of staff's memo of recommendation and addressed the
6 items of concern: 1) The applicant's response to our concerns
MAY 17198
30
BOOK 72 r'., r 373
MAY 17 1988
BOOK 72 I G[374
about the specific uses was to delete any reference to uses
whatsoever on the site plan. Therefore, the provided site plan
does not specify any uses for the site at this time.
2) This item deals with trip generation. The criteria that
applies in the ordinance says that traffic shall not be generated
in excess of that customary for residential uses. Basically, you.
look at the site and how it can be developed residentially, and
you consider the number of trips and the type of trips and
compare those to what would be the number of trips and type of
traffic for the proposed use. Staff disagrees with the trip
generation calculations by the applicant, and that is that the
entire site can be developed with 4 single family lots, either
with mobile homes or single family houses, yielding approximately
29 average daily trips. With the manufacturing/warehouse
building, there would be 50 trips per day plus trips for the
existing mobile home at build -out of 57 trips per day.
Therefore, the volume of trips would exceed what would normally
be there if it were residentially developed, as well as the type
of trips, which would be mainly the trucks that service that use.
Commissioner Eggert noted that the 1/2 acre lot restriction
is because of the Health Department, and Mr. Boling explained
that there is also the assumption that at no time in the
foreseeable future would there be water and sewer service
available at that site.
3) The applicant failed to size the proposed use in the manner
that satisfies the employee situation. One of the criteria in
the ordinances is that "activities conducted be by members of the
family living within the residence."
The Kirries have told us
that there are 4 people living in the residence, who presently
are employed in the existing 2600 S.F. facility. The applicant
31
did not give us any information as to whether there were any
employees outside of the family that work there at present.
However, if you use the ITE Trip Generation Manual, which gives
1.84 employees per 1000 square feet of manufacturing facilities,
that is right in line with what they have now -- 4 employees for
2600 S.F. If you expanded that to a total of 8200 S.F., you
would have approximately 15 employees. Obviously, in order to
have that many employees, they would have to use employees
outside the residence and not family members, which would violate
the criteria in the ordinance. If you were to use the
warehousing standards in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, you
still would need approximately 11 employees for an 8200 S.F.
facility. Using those figures, they would be in violation of
that criteria by having to use employees that do not live in the
residence.
4), 5), and 6) Mr. Boling pointed out that the last 3 items of
concern regarding adequate parking, sidewalks, and paving have
been addressed in writing and agreed to.
Basically, you are looking at a facility which is of such a
scale that the trip generation and requirements cannot be met.
The family residence employee requirement cannot be met, and the
uses are still not specified on the site plan. For those
reasons, staff is recommending denial of the appeal.
Commissioner Wheeler understood that the original ROSE -4
ordinance (87-22) stated that only family members could work
there and that non -family employees would have to be let go.
Mr. Boling felt it was staff's interpretation at the time
the original ordinance was adopted that if there were non -family
employees, those positions would be grandfathered in, but
Chairman Scurlock understood that if you expanded the use, you
could not expand and hire additional non -family employees, and
MAY 1? 1988
32
BOOK 72 PAH 3 5
L_
1
NAY 17 1988
BOOK
CAGE. 3�76
1 f�U
that once any non -family employees were terminated, laid off, or
retired, they could not be replaced.
Mr. Boling felt it was the Board's intention to grandfather
in the positions, not the persons, and the Board indicated their
agreement.
Attorney O'Haire stressed that Mr. Kirrie has been operating
a manufacturing business adjacent to his home in that area for
almost 20 years. He manufacturers fishing weights and sinkers
out of lead, and was instrumental in drafting the ROSE -4
ordinance because he didn't want any question to exist about the
legality of what he has been doing for 20 years at his home. He
works where he lives and his family works where he lives. He
wanted to be able to expand his business for his children and for
his own future. Mr. Kirrie participated in the ROSE -4 ordinance
(87-22) to accommodate the uses he had in place. When that
ordinance expanded the home occupation uses, it was specifically
addressed to Mr. Kirrie's operation, metal casting. He applied
for site plan approval and when he appeared before this Board and
asked that ROSE -4 expand its occupation permit uses, he pleaded
with the Board to make him legal. That is all he wanted to do.
He applied for site plan approval under the ordinance that had
been adopted to make him legal. He did everything he was
required to do; however, since the time he made his application,
the original ROSE -4 ordinance (87-22) has been rescinded.
Attorney O'Haire noted that several of Mr. Kirrie's immediate
neighbors are in attendance today and have no objection to his
expansion. There is nothing shown on the site plan that was not
presented to the P & Z Commission. Staff said that metal casting
is not a permitted use, so we put on the site plan the uses
permitted by Ordinance 87-22.
Addressing the remaining items from the P & Z hearing,
Attorney O'Haire stated that Mr. Kirrie does not propose to do
anything that was not put into the old ROSE -4 ordinance, which is
33
unique in that it requires employees to be family members.
Therefore, when you say that the project is not sized to comply
with the ordinance, you just are twisting the whole ordinance
around. He cannot employ anybody who is not a family member.
The Manual may say that a warehouse of the size he proposes
requires 11 employees, but that is not what the ordinance
permits. You cannot deny this site plan on the basis of that
fact that Mr. Kirrie is expanding his operation and must have
more employees. That is not so. It doesn't necessarily follow,
and he is not permitted to do it by the ordinance.
Attorney O'Haire next addressed the matter of traffic
generation. Traditionally, traffic generation has been figured
in terms of permitted density under the Zoning Code. The ROSE -4
District permits 4 units per acre, not 2 units per acre, as the
Health Department requires for septic reasons. He pointed out
that it is conceivable that Mr. Kirrie could put a package plant
in up there. Attorney O'Haire concluded his arguments by urging
the Board to do for Mr. Kirrie what they do for everybody else.
advised that James Terpening, a state licensed traffic
engineer from the firm of Culpepper & Terpening, will explain how
a traffic engineer figures traffic generation as the ordinance
requires, by comparing residential to the proposed use.
Mr. Terpening advised that having reviewed staff's
calculations and methodologies using ITE, but when comparing
trips generations that would be generated •by residential use to
that of the ROSE -4 district, there are 2 things that they feel
are important for the Board to consider:
1) The definition and the terminology of the residential traffic
generations rates, and that being based on the allowable density
of the project area. He felt that trip rates of 7.24 trips in
per residentialunit is a realistic number. Using that figure,
and not knowing when a residential development would occur,
providing that other infrastructures are provided, would yield
MAY 17 1S66
34
noK
7-2 11
Pr -
MAY 17 198
BOOK 72 FACE 378
approximately 66 trips based on the 7.26 acres of the project
size.
2) The other issue is the capture rate that exists in the ROSE -4
District in that it is a unique district with regard to family
member employees and you reduce the number of trips out of the
site for the commercial uses. ITE states that 3.89 trips in per
employee are generated. If you take those trips times the 4
employees that currently are employed in this business, it would
yield 16 trips. They concur with staff's calculations that 50
trips would be generated by the proposed additions and the
existing structures, but if you net out the 16 trips that would
be captured internally, that would yield approximately 34 trips
associated with this project. Therefore, you would have
approximately 16 trips that would be generated by the residential
use that are in the 34 trips for commercial activities.
Commissioner Eggert pointed out that although we are not
allowing them to have outside employees, we are saying that they
are going to make these trips to get there. She realized,
though, that there are other factors.
Chairman Scurlock assumed that with the expanded
manufacturing use, there would be an increase of trips involving
the raw materials being brought to the site and the products
being taken off site for sale, and Mr. Terpening explained that
is why the trip rates went up to 50, but 16 trips are captured on
site.
Chairman Scurlock asked if there is any requirement that the
family members have to live on site, and Mr. Terpening believed
there is.
Director Keating felt that would mean that they would have
to live there forever, and staff's interpretation has been that
the children could move off site at some point in the future
without them being in violation of the ordinance.
35
Planner Boling explained that although the capture rate is
deducted, you have to remember that there is an existing
residential unit on site, and youstill have to factor in the 7
trips per day for the residential unit. Staff disagrees with the
residential development potential of the entire site. The 1.97
acre site is the area of development that this application
corresponds to and where 4 single Tots could be developed. He
pointed out that the original site plan had reference to sales,
and the criteria of the ordinance prohibits sales activities to
the general public on site. Staff wanted that point 'covered as
well.
Chairman Scurlock asked what the applicant would have to do
to properly size the proposed uses with regard to trip
generation, and Mr. Boling explained that Mr. Kirrie would have
to get the size of the operation down to where the total trips of
the site for the proposed use would be Tess than the total trips
for the site if it were developed into single family lots.
Commissioner Eggert asked what would happen if Mr. Kirrie
wouldn't be allowed to do Phase 3, and Mr. Boling stated that he
would have to do whatever he could do to reach the 29 trips that
oe can have.
Chairman Scurlock felt that he was hearing that there could
be an expansion, but it would have to be with a lesser number of
trips, specifically 29.
Commissioner E99ert asked if 2900 S.F. of building covers
that, and Mr. Boling explained that there are 7 trips for the
existing residential unit, so you have 22 average daily trips to
work with for the total amount of manufacturing facility they
could have there.
Chairman Scurlock understood than that Mr. Kirrie could
expand. by 200 feet, but he is requesting to expand to 5000 feet.
Attorney O'Haire emphasized that there is no disagreement
about the proposed expansion, and the trips it would generate,
36
MAY 111988
BOOK t 2 'g F 379
MAY 1'11988
mcr 7
except for the fact that staff has not taken into account the
fact that the 4 employees have to be family members and do not
drive to and from work. They go out the door, cross the yard and
go to work.
Chairman Scurlock pointed out that they don't have to, they
could move off site eventually and drive to and from work.
Attorney O'Haire stated that the ordinance requires them to
live on the site, but Chairman Scurlock interjected that was not
what he understood Director Keating to have said. He felt it is
a policy thing and that staff is assuming that the children will
grow up and move off. However, the ordinance says that they must
live on site.
Attorney O'Haire would assume then that you have to take out
16 trips and staff has not done that.
Director Keating stressed that this points out one of the
difficult aspects of enforcing this type of ordinance, which we
have had problems with from the beginning.
Chairman Scurlock pointed out that whenever we try to be
flexible, we run into problems, and Director Keating reiterated
that staff's interpretation has been that when a use is approved
or is grandfathered in, if that use has an "x" number of family
member employees which meet the criteria of living on site,
subsequent moving of those family members off site would not put
them in violation of the ordinance. That just seems rational.
Attorney Vitunac asked Director Keating where in the
ordinance he found that they are allowed to have any non -family
employees, whether they are grandfathered or not, and
Commissioners Bowman and Eggert pointed out that was discussed at
the time we passed Ordinance 87-22.
Attorney Vitunac stated that the ordinance says that to be a
valid home occupational use, you must have only family members as
employees.
Commissioner Eggert recalled that the Board sat here in that
meeting and said, "Grandfather them in and make them legal."
37
Director Keating advised that Planning looked at the
criteria as being applicable to any expansion of the existing
activity, which means that any new uses and any additional square
footage would have to comply with this.
Chairman Scurlock understood that Planning would allow an
expansion, but not one of this magnitude, and Director Keating
said that was correct from a total quantity trip standpoint, but
it comes back to the interpretation of the ordinance. When it
says that traffic is not generated in excess of that customary
for residential uses, you have to determine whether semi -truck
traffic is customary for residential uses. So you are looking at
both quantity and quality.
Commissioner Eggert found herself terribly torn between what
actually is written on paper and the ethics of it.
Attorney O'Haire argued that Mr. Kirrie has not tried to
fool anybody, he has been right up front and told everybody what
he does and what he proposes to do. He is not trying to get
something for nothing. Attorney O'Haire felt the point has to be
made that it is not staff's position to be adversarials or
advocates in this case. You just cannot take away from the fact
that employees are family members and live where they work. If
staff had taken that into account, they would have come up with
34 trips by reason of expansion. You have got to get back to the
numbers, and the numbers say that the ROSE -4 District permits 4
units per acre. You don't pick a Health Department number to use
in calculating trips; you take the number the Zoning Ordinance
permits, and you get 7 trips per day, not 1 unit per half acre.
Commissioner Eggert pointed out that this is not something
new, they have been doing that, but Attorney O'Haire felt that
depends on the project. Different methods are used for different
purposes. There is not that much consistency.
Chairman Scurlock felt the solution is to cut down the size
of the expansion, and Attorney O'Haire advised that Mr. Kirrie
AY 1'"« 3
38
BOOK 72 Au -381
MAY 17 1988
BOOK. , G 3Sp
wants to be legal and would abandon Phase III and content himself
with Phases 1 and 11, if he were just allowed to go on.
Commissioner Eggert asked how much he would have without
Phase 111, and Attorney O'Haire advised that Phase 1 is 3200 sq.
ft., which was the old Phase I and 11.
Chairman Scurlock felt that is what it should be, and
Commissioner Eggert agreed with that.
Attorney O'Haire concluded by stating that they have
addressed the 3 points that have remained unresolved.
Chairman Scurlock asked if anyone wished to present any
further information.
Mrs. Lena Marshall, resident of Roseland, stated that they
all agree that Mr. Kirrie's site plan and appeal is preposterous,
especially since Ordinance 87-22 has been repealed and he has
been grandfathered in. She felt we need to really look at the
situation up there now as a residential area and start trying to
do some code enforcement. As far as traffic is concerned, she
felt Attorney O'Haire has painted a rosy picture, but emphasized
that promises don't mean a thing once the paper work is done,
unless it is enforced. With all the trucks and heavy equipment,
she believed that at least 60 vehicles pass her house every day,
and they fear that the expansion would increase those numbers.
Mrs. Marshall felt the real issue before the Board today is the
appeal, not a modified expansion. The Roseland Property Owners
Association sees a promising future for the ROSE -4 District and
would like to go forward on other projects, such as setting up a
crime watch and getting a park in the middle of ROSE -4 District,
confident in the knowledge that they will not have the
manufacturing project of the magnitude being proposed right in
the middle of an upcoming residential neighborhood.
Commissioner Eggert asked for clarification on which
ordinance Mr. Kirrie presented his application for expansion, and
Attorney Vitunac advised that Mr. Kirrie applied under Ordinance
87-22, which was repealed before he had received any
39
developmental permit or approval from the County. In his
opinion, Mr. Kirrie was not grandfathered in and should have had
to come in under the new ordinance, but staff has been very
lenient with him all along and are giving him the benefits of
that old ordinance for the site plan application which he had
made while it was still valid. Attorney O'Haire disagrees about
whether or not Mr. Kirrie is legally grandfathered, but that
point is not necessary to make, because staff has let him apply
under the old ordinance.
Pat Dolcey of Roseland was a little confused about all this,
because she recalled that when the Board decided to rescind the
old ordinance during a public hearing last fall in Sebastian, she
had been under the impression that some of the businesses that
had held licenses previously would be grandfathered in and
allowed to continue. However, she also remembered that staff had
said that if any buildings suffered damages of 50% or more from
fire or storms, they would not be allowed to rebuild. She did
understand how the Board can consider the expansion of this
business.
Commissioner Eggert explained that Mr. Kirrie's application
falls under the old ordinance that was in effect temporarily, but
Mrs. Dolcey emphasized that she was under the impression that
ROSE -4 was supposed to be a residential community, not an
industrial community.
Chairman Scurlock explained that ROSE -4 is a predominantly
residential area, but there was a significant outpouring from a
number of the residents that had concern about Mr. Kirrie and
businesses that had been in operation there for over 20 years.
In all fairness that did occur, and there was always an effort to
allow those people who were engaged in a home occupational use to
continue. From what he has heard from the Commission this
morning, he believed the Board is interested in allowing Mr.
Kirrie to exist and is considering a smaller expansion than the
one requested.
MAY 1'? 1999
40
;r,r 383
MY 17198
BOOK
F'�c X84
Mrs. Dolcey felt that would set a precedent, but
Commissioner Eggert pointed out that Mr. Kirrie is the only one
that could be considered for an expansion, because no one else
had filed under the old ordinance.
Mrs. Dolcey emphasized that ROSE -4 is a part of Roseland,
and pointed out that everyone has been working very hard to keep
it as residential.
Commissioner Bird emphasized that the Board does see the
ROSE -4 area as predominantly residential and want to see it
continue residential, but there are couple of situations that we
have to deal with that have been there for many, many years, and
Mr. Kirrie's case is one of them. We are trying to deal with his
case and allow him to continue his business and support his
family out of that operation. Commissioner Bird was confident
that the area is definitely going to be residential in character
as it continues to develop.
There being no others who wished to be heard, the Chairman
closed the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Bird had visited the site and felt one of the
areas of concern is the unsightly situation due to a lot of
outside storage. He believed that if a reasonable expansion is
allowed, the Code Enforcement people will see that Mr. Kirrie
gets a lot of that inside and under cover. He noted that Mr.
Kirrie had told him that is basically the reason for the
expansion.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, that the Board approve Mr.
Kirrie's site plan, but limit the expansion to a
maximum of 3200 square feet (designated as Phase 1 and
II on the site plan seen by P & Z), and once the
expansion is completed, encourage Mr. Kirrie to do
everything he can to enhance the appearance of the site
for the benefit of his residential neighbors.
41
Under discussion, Commissioner Eggert asked if the Motion
could include that no outside storage be allowed, but Mr. Kirrie
had a problem with that because large equipment, such as trucks,
would take up all of the warehouse if it was moved inside.
Commissioner Bird believed we must have some sort of a
zoning ordinance that applies to outside storage and what is
permissible and what is not, and Director Keating confirmed that
we do.
Commissioner Bird stated that he would insist that it be
enforced.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion was
voted on and carried unanimously.
Director Keating asked for clarification on family members
living within the residence, and asked if it is a requirement
that family members retain their residence on site.
2ommissioner Wheeler did not feel it would make a difference
now, and Commissioners Eggert and Scurlock stated that the
ordinance says that they have to live on site.
Commissioner Wheeler pointed out that after Mr. Kirrie
completes his expansion, Ordinance 87-22 is gone forever, and he
will be grandfathered into the current ordinance, but Director
Keating interjected that he will be grandfathered into the new
ordinance with the conditions of the old ordinance (87-22).
Attorney Vitunac confirmed that Mr. Kirrie will have to live
under the conditions of the old ordinance forever.
With several people speaking at once, Commissioner Eggert
stated that she felt it was with whatever he had at the time we
passed the old ordinance (87-22), because she knew she sat here
and asked for those things to be grandfathered the way they were.
Chairman Scurlock stated that family members have to live on
site.
42
SAY
BOO
i-nE3
Director Keating understood then that family members have
to live on site, and the members of the Board indicated their
concurrence.
TEMPORARY EMPLOYEE - PURCHASING DIVISION
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/9/88:
TO
CHARLES P. BALCZUN
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
SUBJECT : TEMPORARY EMPLOYEE/PURCHASING DIVISION
DATE : MAY 9, 1988
We have been notified by the Purchasing Division that purchasing
specialist Duane Swan will be on vacation for the period June 13,
1988 to June 24, 1988, inclusive. The Purchasing Manager has
requested that a temporary employee be secured for the period of
Mr. Swan's absence. Due to the nature of the function, Mr.
Ambler has requested that the period of temporary employment
commence one week prior to Mr. Swan's departure for vacation.
It is requested that the Board of County Commissioners b
petitioned to allow the hiring of a temporary employee for the
Purchasing Division. The maximum period authorized for the
temporary would be for three weeks. The period of temporary
assignment would not last beyond June 24, 1988.
Funds to pay the temporary person are available in the MEMONSOOft
personal services budget category through salary
savings.
m A. Ellankenship, J.AEP
Director of Personnel
Chairman Scurlock had a problem with hiring a temporary
employee for 3 weeks to fill in for an employee who is going to
be out for only 2 weeks. He felt the temporary employee
situation is getting out of hand.
Purchasing Manager Gus Ambler explained that he would like
to secure a stock clerk who can pull inventory, stock the
warehouse, and make deliveries. As far as the actual paperwork
is concerned, he would be doing that himself and probably would
43
MAY 1 7 1988
BOOK.79
rASE
MAY 17 1983
BOOK 72 PACE 387
be putting in a lot of extra hours, but he did not have any
problems with that.
Chairman asked why we could not get someone from Building &
Grounds to deliver supplies for those 2 weeks, and Mr. Ambler
emphasized that when he loses one-third of his labor force, he
has a real problem in trying to keep up with the workload. He
assumed that it was the same for any other department head if
they lost a proportional size of their work force.
Administrator Balczun suggested that the Board authorize
staff's recommendation in the event we cannot find somebody else
on staff.
Commissioner Eggert suggested that we just tread water for 2
weeks, and Commissioner Wheeler felt it would not hurt anything
if we did.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, that the Board authorize
staff to fill the position within the existing staff,
and if that cannot be done, authorize the
Administrator, at his discretion, to go to outside
temporary help for 2 weeks.
Brief discussion ensued.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
failed by a vote of 2-3, Commissioners Scurlock, Eggert
and Wheeler dissenting.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board by a vote of 3-2,
Commissioners Bird and Bowman dissenting, directed
staff to either find someone in the building to help
out in Purchasing or tread water for 2 weeks.
44
STATE LIBRARY GRANTS for FY 88/89
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/10/88:
TO: Mr. Charles Balzun
County Administrator
DATE: May 10, 1988 FILE:
SUBJECT: State Grants for FY 88/89
Contracts
FROM: Mary D. Kise REFERENCES:
IRC Library Dir ctor
DESCRIPTION OF CONDITIONS
State grant money will be received for FY 88/89 for these projects:
Youth --20,000.00; Elderly --14,500.00; Literacy --6,000.
Two copies of the contracts for each of these grants are enclosed.
They require Chairman Scurlock's signature on each.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that these contracts be placed on the agenda and
signed by Chairman Scurlock. When signed, please return to me.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously
approved the contracts for each of the grants as set
out in the above memo, and authorized the Chairman's
signature, as recommended by staff.
CONTRACTS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
RIVER'S EDGE SUBDIVISION WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM LIFT
STATION
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/10/88:
45
MAY 17 11U8
ROOK 72 f E 3.88
BOOK 72 uGE 389
SAY 1 7 938
TO: CHARLES P. BALCZUN DATE: MAY 10, 1988
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
THRU: TERRANCE G. PINTO .,
DIRECTOR OF UTIL 'Y 2'VICES
FROM: JOHN FREDERICK LANG
ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIAISIST
DEPARTMENT OF UTILIT SERVICES
SUBJECT: RIVER'S EDGE SUBDIVISION
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM LIFT STATION
BACKGROUND
River's Edge Subdivision was de -annexed from the City of Sebastian
in order that the Indian River County Utilities Department could
take over the utilities system there. The existing system has not
been maintained and spare parts are not only expensive but difficult
to obtain. The pumping system is an above ground duplex which is
both noisy and unattractive. The control panel does not meet Indian
River County Utilities' Specifications and is heavily weathered.
Piping for the lift system has been extensively patched due to
deteriorating PVC pipes.
ANALYSIS
The lift station has been a maintenance problem since acceptance of
the system. The subdivision being at the far end of the County
magnifies system failure problems. The entire lift station does not
meet our own specifications and all appurtenances are non-standard
to our system. The control panel does not have a double entry door
and is continually a safety consideration from an electrical
standpoint. The entire system is worn out and, with authorization
from the Board, the Department will replace everything, not
including the concrete manhole.
The cost to upgrade the lift station with new pumps, guide rails,
access covers, float system, lifting bails, cables, and control
panel is estimated at $14,566.00. The labor and materials would be
furnished by our ABS pump supplier, D. Q. Whitehair and Associates.
RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners authorize the expenditure of funds not to
exceed $16,000 to upgrade the River's Edge Subdivision lift station
before a major system failure forces us to do so.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously
authorized the expenditure of funds not to exceed
$16,000 to upgrade the River's Edge Subdivision Lift
station, as recommended by staff.
RIVER'S EDGE SUBDIVISION -WATER SYSTEM
The Board reviewed thefollowingmemo dated 5/3/88:
46
TO: CHARLES P. BALCZUN DATE: MAY 3, 1988
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
THRU: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY I
VICES
FROM: JOHN F. LAN
ENVIRONMENTA fPECCIALIST
DEPARTMENT OFITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: RIVER'S EDGE SUBDIVISION - WATER SYSTEM
BACKGROUND
River's Edge Subdivision was de -annexed from the City' of Sebastian
in order that Indian River County Utilities could take over the
Subdivision's utility. The existing system will not meet Department
of Environmental Regulation or Environmental Protection Agency
drinking water standards. The Department of Utility Services
contracted laboratory consultants and engineering consultants,
Envirometrics and Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc. respectively, working in
tandem, -who have determined that •a new well and treatment methodology
is necessary. The new well is to be an artesian well and the treatment
plant is to be a reverse osmosis facility. In order to fast-trac- - '-
project, the Department has developed construction specification
the well and has awarded the construction contract for the well.
The Department proposes to demolish the old Vista Gardens water
Treatment Plant and to erect same at River's Edge. In lieu of
monetary compensation, the contractor, Allen Environmental, will
receive the .5 MGD John's Island Wastewater Treatment Plant intact,
18 concrete wastewater treatment plant structures from the Gifford
plant site with associated used blowers and equipment currently
being stored at the Ixora work area, and the unused remnants of the
Vista Gardens Water Treatment Plant's electrical controls.
ANALYSIS
The Department of Utility Services, upon authorization, will trade
many unwanted surplus items for work that is necessary at River's
Edge. The River's Edge Utilities improvements are.unbudgeted items
and the trade will consist of erection of a 100,000 gallon ground
storage tank and a 10,000 gallon hydropnuematic tank, including
placement of both items into service at no cost to the Department.
The Department will not incur any costs to demolish the Vista
Gardens Water Treatment Plant, clear the Gifford site for the new
sludge and septage facility, or to help clean up the Ixora storage
facilities which are limited, from surplus equipment that is not
standard to our facilities.
RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board
authorize the in-kind trade of services. These are to include
demolition of the Vista Gardens Water Treatment Plant and the
erection of same at River's Edge, in exchange for surplus items to
include the John's Island .5 MGD Wastewater Treatment Plant and
concrete wastewater treatment plant cells, two blowers,
miscellaneous piping associated with the cells, and electrical
panels associated with the Vista Gardens Water Treatment Plant.
47
MAY 17 I 88 BOOK � � �.1 E • :��
Boa 72 li-ArA%
,MAY 17 1938
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously authorized
the in-kind trade of services as set out in the above
staff recommendation. I=/G E C
69 LZ_C�V �5 Z-�_Il V/ jl�0..n�rra
C- r'v i P _) -Z /c7)
TAMARA GARDENS - DEVELOPERS AGREEMENT
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/3/88:
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
BACKGROUND
CHARLES P. BALCZUN
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTIL VICES
WILLIAM F. MCCAIP).- \j
PROJECT ENGINEER C_ `
DEPARTMENT OF U'i SERVICES
DATE MAY 3, 1988
TAMARA GARDENS - DEVELOPERS AGREEMENT
The lift station servicing the Tamara Gardens sewer system has been
slated to be a subregional lift station to also service adjacent
subdivisions. The developer has. agreed to oversize the off-site
force main and lift station on this property in return for a
reimbursement of costs incurred. A lift station and off-site force
main are necessary for Tamara Gardens to be developed as per the
planned residential development plan.
ANALYSIS
The Utilities Department can bring about an orderly extension to the
County's sewer service system via the acceptance of new
developments' utility improvements.
Sizing to meet subregional needs is especially cost effective for
the Department because engineering, permitting, and inspection costs
are shared by the Developer.
RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Utility Services recommends execution of the .
attached Developer's Agreement for sewer construction.
48
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the Developer's Agreement for sewer construction at
Tamara Gardens, and authorized the Chairman's
signature, as recommended by staff.
49
MAY 111988 UGE.
MAY 1'-? 1988
AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
and
TAMARA GARDENS INC.
BOOK 72
(BTAMAGRE.WFM)
Granting reimbursements for oversizing certain
off-site utilities required by the County.
THIS AGREEMENT made this':2(_ 'ltday of � - , 1988, by
and between INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a politic 1 subdivision of the
State of Florida, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960, (County),
and Tamara Gardens Inc., 5200 N. Federal Highway, Suite #2, Fort
Lauderdale, FL, 33308, (Developer),
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Developer, in conjunction with the construction of
Tamara Gardens Inc., is oversizing off-site sewer facilities to
serve the subject project;
WHEREAS, the County has required the Developer to oversize the
offsite utility improvements to serve the regional area and has
agreed to reimburse the Developer for the cost of oversizing these
off-site utilities;
NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and
other good and valuable consideration, the County and the Developer
agree as follows:
1. The Developer shall construct all necessary off-site
utilities, including oversizing necessary to serve the subject
project and surrounding area. The County agrees to reimburse
the Developer for the oversizing of the sewer force main and
associated lift station as outlined below:
ITEM
TOTAL REIMBURSEMENT
Sewer Facilities $10,000.00
TOTAL: $10,000.00
2. The County shall reimburse the Developer with 50% of all
impact fees collected from Tamara Gardens, Inc. and surrounding
properties who connect to the portion of the sewer system
constructed by the Developer in conjunction with the Tamara
Gardens, Inc. project during the first five years after
acceptance of the subject construction by the County, not to
exceed the total allowable reimbursement of $10,000.00.
IN WITNESS
these presents
above written.
ATTEST:
WHEREOF, the County and the Developer have caused
to be executed in their name the day and year first
Clerk to. the oa
A,ppred Gate
LAdmin.
Legal '. -L (�
Budget r
TAMARA GARDENS INC.
Title:/
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY:
Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Chairman
Approved: 5-17-88
REQUEST FROM ALCOHOPE FOR ROCK FILL TO IMPROVE DRIVEWAY
The Board reviewed the followingmemo dated 5/9/88:
TO: Charles Balczun,
County Administrator
• FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Request from A1coHope for Rock Fill
to Improve Driveway
REF. LETTER: Steven Archbold to James Davis
dated Mar. 21, 1988
DATE: May 9, 1988,
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
A1coHope is requesting one or two truck loads of limerock to
improve their driveway. The approximate cost of the rock is $80
to $160. The driveway connects to 37th Street, three blocks west
of Kings Highway.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The alternatives are as follows:
Alternative No. 1 - Deny the request due to the substantia;
needs that the county road system has existing.
Alternative No. 2 - Approve the request and absorb the cost in
the Road and Bridge Division budget.
Alternative No. 3 - Contribute labor and equipment to improve the
driveways, but charge direct cost for all materials used.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Alternative No. 3 is recommended if the Board wishes to grant
this request. The Road and Bridge Division has been recently
understaffed and has many projects programmed for the next five
months.
Administrator Balczun realized that they only need a couple
of loads of fill, but, professionally, he felt he has to
recommend that the Board deny the request because he did not feel
the County should be in the business of providing materials or
services to outside groups. However, he would fully understand
when the Board unanimously approved this request.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
approved the request for 2 loads of rock fill.
51
■k ®Y 1 "t' W� 11 p /��1( Fes!{y [
� r®�I ! 1 � UoUi�. ® �i (r� jF
MAY 1d191'
EMERGENCY TRAFFIC SIGNAL SERVICE
72 e
I -95
a
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/27/88:
---------------------------------------------------------
TO: Charles P. Balczun
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
21ph
b 'c Works.Airecto
FROM: N. Brescia, P.E.
County Engineer
SUBJECT: Emergency traffic signal service
DATE: April 27, 1988
DESCRIPTIONS AND CONDITIONS
At the present time all traffic signal maintenance and
emergency services are being handled by two traffic signal
technicians in the Traffic Engineering Division. These men work
a normal 40 hour week but are on call for emergency response.
In the event of the unavailability of these employees or as
a result of an overwhelming set of circumstances whereby multiple
emergencies can not be responded to properly, the County could be
placed in a liability situation and the public could be
inconvenienced.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
In order to remedy this condition and provide a fail safe
situation for emergencies of this nature, it is recommended that
the county enter into an agreement with Signal Construction Co.,
Inc. of Jupiter, FL to provide this service. It should be noted
that there will be no cost to the County for the agreement
itself. Any costs which will incur will be only as a result of a
decision by the Public Works Director or his designated
representative to call for service. These costs will be in
accordance with the attached schedule.
Signal Construction Co., Inc. provides this "on call"
service to other counties and has been used exclusively for
traffic signal installations throughout Indian River County.
They are properly insured for this type of service.
Since no other firm within this region provides this service
it is recommended that the Board consider this proposal.
Funding will come from Traffic Engineering Account
#111-245-541-034.67.
Public Works Director Jim Davis advised that a County
employee has been doing an excellent job on this type of work,
but there will come a time when he is out sick or on vacation,
and we.don't have the depth in our staff to compensate for him.
In addition, we do not have the equipment to put in a concrete
pole in the event one is knocked down.
52
Commissioner Eggert asked if the prices are -in line, and
Director Davis stated that the prices are competitive.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously authorized
an agreement with Signal Construction Company, Inca of
Jupiter, Florida, to provide emergency traffic signal
service, as set out in the above staff recommendation.
AGREEMENT WILL BE PLACED ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO
THE BOARD WHEN PROPERLY EXECUTED AND RECEIVED
FINAL PAYMENT - PARKS USER FEE STUDY - MAYES, SUDDERTH, AND
ETHEREDGE, INC.
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/17/88:
TO: Charles Balczun,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.;•
Public Works Director '
SUBJECT: Final Payment - Parks User Fee Study -
Mayes, Sudderth, and Etheredge, Inc.
REF. LETTER: Steve Krone, MSE, to James Davis dated Mar. 1, 1988
DATE: March 17, 1988
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The Indian River County Parks. User Fee and Revenue Study is
complete and has been approved by the County Parks and Recreation
Committee. The total contract amount was $9,760. The consultant
has been paid partial payments in the amount of $8,784. The 10%
retainage of $976 is now due.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The alternatives are as follows:
Alternative No. 1: Accept the User Fee Study as complete and
release the retainage.
Alternative No. 2: Deny release of the 10% retainage.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
Staff recommends acceptance of the User Fee Study and release the
10% retainage in the amount of $976. Funding to be from Fund
113-210-572-033.14.
53
iY 396
.A
MAY 171933
-I
BOOK 7 f'1 .. m39 ! '
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously
accepted the User Fee Study performed by Mayes,
Sudderth, and Etheredge, Inc., and released the
10% retainage in the amount of $976, as recommended
by staff in the above memo.
PURCHASE OF CARPETING FOR UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
TO: CHARLES P. BALCZUN
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
THRU: JOSEPH A. BAIR
DIRECTOR OF OM
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINT
DIRECTOR OF UTILW�CES
SUBJECT: CARPETING FOR RENOVATING
UTILITIES DEPARTMENT AREA
BACKGROUND
When the renovation work went out for bid, Creative Floors of Vero
Beach bid an installed price on Arena II carpet in the amount of
$6,800.00. This bid exceeds the original estimate of $4,776.00.
Since the bid came in, several other considerations must be
addressed:
1) Comparison of carpet quality and durability due to the
high volume of traffic experienced by our Department.
2) Volume of floor preparation required to firmly secure the
new carpet.
A discussion with Lynn Williams and Jim Wright produced the
following recommendations:
1) Upgrade the original quality of carpet.
2) Establish a new cost for the floor preparation due to the
discovery of various floor textures previously hidden
under old carpet.
Analysis
Evans Carpet has negotiated with Jim Wright for the floor
preparation of utility area with a net change of $2,024.00. Funding
will come from account 471-000-162-003.00. This will increase the
original contract price of $64,620.00 to $66,644.00. This will be
considered change order number 1.
Recommendation
At this time the Utility Department asks that the Board of County
Commissioners approve this change to the original contract, so our
renovation work can continue without delay.
54
Administrator Balczun had a sample of a replacement
carpeting, which seems to have better quality than the grade of
carpeting approved earlier. He recommended that the Board
approve the purchase of the higher grade of carpeting.
Commissioner Bowman asked if is a commercial grade, and
Administrator Balczun believed it was.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, that the Board authorize the
purchase of the next higher grade of carpeting.
Under discussion, Commissioner Eggert pointed out that this
approval is not a blank check, and wanted staff to double check
to see if this, indeed, is a commercial grade carpeting.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
was voted on and carried unanimously.
55
BOOK i� uu-E 398
BOOK 72 F'',CE •.���
THE ASSOC LA`a ULA
i�
PROJECT: ). dministrat_i-on
[Name, Address] :dodificati ons
TO: [Owner] :card of Co[zn�t.y Com�ni;.>rAotic,rs
1" 40 25th tree7:
Fero Beach, Fl. `74'96U
CHANGE ORDER NUMBER:
DATE: 5-1.7,--88
PROJECT NO.:
talo/o)1
CONTRACT FOR: Customer # 25479 B
In accordance with the terms of this Contract, the following changes are approved:
Floor coverin;;, Carpe-;: [Jpgrade quality and increase quantity
as verbally confirrned this date from Lynn Williams, Indian
River Couriby to Rill `I'}-iotnpsorn, �tim t^Iright Construction, Inc.
0
PnOJE�Y COST ADJUMMEffM
OriginGl Project Costs $ ,4 , F'? 0
Previous Change Order 01 thru
This Change Order #--QL:1 " ' 66,644
Now Project Costs
COE`J'P1AC'TOn FEE ADJU�R100 IS
Original Fee
Previous Fes Change #1 thru
This Fee Change i?
New Fee
New Project Costs cnd Naw Fc �
COMPLEMON DATEf1.1CKJ T
Original Compl3tion Data
Previous Time Change #1 thru
This Time Change G—'�'s
NG%v Con, pletion Date
The said Contract as hereby amandzd shall roirain in full ford and ofl=t.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the said partiss have caused this aLgo®rrnent to bs oxecuts.c a:, of the day and yecr signod bz4jvj.
CONSTRUCTICN MANAGER
Jim Wright Construction, tnc.
Address 1865 Wilbur live
BY -
DATE' �/ 7 U
Ar -r pt h-; -,in IVa_
OWNEn Board of County Commissioners
of Indian River County, Florid.
AddreJs 1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
n
BY
DA -f E
f0C0pvn9h1 by Assoc41red Gewral Contractors of Anwrim
L
_I
• PURCHASE OF COPIER FOR LIBRARY - BUDGET AMENDMENT 039
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5116/88:
TO: Members of the
Board of County Commissioners
DATE: May 16, 1988
SUBJECT: PURCHASE OF COPIER
FOR LIBRARY - BUDGET AMENDMENT 039
THROUGH: Charles B. Balczun
County Administrator
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The copier at the Vero Beach Library is broken and has create-,
operational problems there. It is estimated that it will or,
$2,499.00 if the old copier is traded in.
ALTERNATIVE AND ANALYSIS
Mary Riser, Vero Beach Library Director, has $500.00 remaining in her
capital account which she could utilize towards the purchase of a new
copier. In addition, she would like to transfer $1,999.00 from "Other
Salaries and Wages" to be able to accommodate the purchase of a new
copier.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners:
1. Declare the old copier surplus
2. Authorize the budget amendment transferring money
from "Capital" and "Other Salaries and Wages."
3. Approve the purchase of a copier for the Vero Beach
Library.
5i
NJ AY 17 1988 BOOK 72 FA,E 40®
W1 AY
17
1983
BOOK
T9.0 Fns;E
401
Administrator
Balczun advised that we have a real
problem
at
the main library as the copier is out to the extent that it is
recommended that we don't bother with the repairs, which can be
terribly expensive on that machine. The safest course of action.
would be to trade the old machine in for $2499 and replace it
with a new unit.
Chairman Scurlock did not have a problem with that, but
wished that Mary Kiser would get her act together. She wrote a
memo earlier complaining about salaries and the lack of help from
the Budget Office, but now it seems she has plenty of money in
salaries to fund the copier.
Commissioner Eggert explained that was a misunderstanding.
Ms. Kiser was not criticizing the Budget Office, she was
criticizing a woman in the Personnel Office.
Commissioner Bowman did not know what kind of a copier they
need, but felt that $2499 was a very high price.
Commissioner Eggert understood that Ms. Kiser doesn't like
the kind of copiers we buy here and feels this copier works
better for the library, and Administrator Balczun confirmed that
is so.
Commissioner Bird believed there were a lot of copiers out
there for less than $2500, and Commissioner Bowman emphasized
that that when you consider how much it costs, you should
consider the actual use and how much each copy costs. The
brochures do not really tell you that.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, that the Board accept staff's
recommendation and allocate up to $2499 for the
purchase of a new copier for the main library, but
encourage Ms. Kiser to get together with the County's
Purchasing Manager and see what copier would best
suit her needs at a competitive price.
58
Under discussion, Chairman Scurlock asked what kind of
copier Ms. Kiser wants to purchase, and Commissioner Eggert knew
that it wasn't the Savin.
Administrator 133aIczun advised that it is the same brand as
the one they have now; but he couldn't remember the name.
Commissioner Eggert believed it should be as heavy duty a
machine as possible.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
was voted on and carried unanimously.
Commissioner Eggert felt that we should point out to Ms.
Kiser that she has been pushing real hard for employees, and
maybe she should search her budget for that money some plat:
other than this. Perhaps we could get a part-time person for
that.
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
FROM: Joseph A. Baird, OMB Director
Entry
Other Salaries
and Wages
Office Furniture
SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT
NUMBER: 039
DATE: May 16. 1988___
i01-109-571-
101-109-571-
MAY 1
r r 59 BOOK. 12 x',402
NAY 1V
BOOK
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE REPORT
'72 -E403
Commissioner Bowman reviewed the following Summary of
Actions of the meeting of May 11, 1988:
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE
SUMMARY OF ACTIONS
May 11, 1988 MEETING
The Transportation Planning Committee recommended the following
actions during its 5/11/88 meeting:
1. CR -510 at Kings Highway Intersection
Install a flashing beacon to -warn motorists of the
northbound stop sign.
2. Speed Limit along SR -60 from 50th Avenue to I-95
Request Florida Highway Patrol and Sheriff's Department to
enforce the speed limit along SR -60 and request D.O.T. to
perform a speed limit study to reduce speed limit from 55
MPH to 45 MPH.
Commissioner Bowman pointed out that last year a truck had
gone through the intersection of CR -510 and Kings Highway and
knocked down a building. With regard to the speed limit along
SR -60 from 50th Avenue to I-95, she felt the main problem is that
there aren't any signs posted.that require slow traffic to stay
in the right lane.
PROPOSED COMMITTEE TO WORK ON MASTER PLAN FOR JUNGLE TRAIL
Commissi.oner Bowman wished to form a committee to come up
with a master plan for the use of Jungle Trail, and would like
the Board's permission to confer with the Historical Society, the
Native .Plant Society, and the Planning Department and see what we
can come up with before we.get into another bind on this road.
Chairman Scurlock was under the impression that we did that
during the meeting on the Windsor Polo Club, but Commissioner
60
Bowman explained that we don't really have a firm plan for it,
and there.is a need to study it more now that the issue has
cooled down a bit.
Commissioner Bird understood that Commissioner Bowman would
bring the composition of the committee back to the Board and that
it would be a well balanced committee.
Commissioner Eggert suggested that they have representation
from the citrus owners in that area.
The Board indicated their agreement with Commissioner
Bowman's request.
REQUEST TO SET COUNTY POLICY TO USE _MELALEUCA_MULCH WHENEVER
POSSIBLE
Commissioner Bowman wished to have the Board direct staff to
use Melaleuca mulch whenever possible, instead of using
Cypress mulch. She wished to see the Board set a policy of
buying Melaleuca mulch, which is made from Melaleuca trees.
Commissioner Bird did not want to make it a hard and fast
policy, but felt that the Board should suggest to the Purchasing
Dept. and Road & Bridge to try and purchase Melaleuca mulch
whenever possible and whenever it is cost effective.
The Board -indicated their agreement.
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
The Chairman announced that immediately upon adjournment,
the Board of County Commissioners would reconvene acting as the
District Board of Commissioners of the Solid Waste Disposal
District. Those minutes are being prepared separately.
61
Ro� 404404
'NAY I? IS88
Boa 72 PiU 405
There being no further business, on Motion duly made,
seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 10:55 o'clock A.M.
ATTEST:
Clerk
62
Chairman