HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/28/1988Tuesday, June 28, 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, June
28, 1988, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Don C. Scurlock,
Jr., Chairman; Gary C. Wheeler, Vice Chairman; Richard N. Bird;
and Margaret C. Bowman. Absent was Carolyn K. Eggert, who was on
vacation. Also present were Charles P. Balczun, County
Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, Attorney to the Board of
County Commissioners; Joseph Baird, OMB Director; and. Barbara
Bonnah, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order, and Attorney.
Vitunac led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Chairman Scurlock requested the addition of Change Orders 1
and 2 and Final Payment to Damon Construction for cart paths at
Sandridge Golf Club, plus two resolutions on the refinancing of
the SR -60 water and sewer projects.
Attorney Vitunac requested the addition of Sanderling
Subdivision's request for release of escrowed monies.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Eggert being on vacation) added the
above items to today's Agenda.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or
additions to the Minutes of the Regular Meetings of June 7, 1988
or June 14, 1988. There were none.
BOOK 73 FnE 94
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0)
approved the Minutes of the Regular Meetings of
}
June 7, 1988 and June 14, 1988, as written.
CONSENT AGENDA
Chairman Scurlock requested that Item 1 be removed from the
Consent Agenda for discussion.
1. Change Order to IRC Bid #409 - Chemicals
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 6/3/88:
TO: Charles P. Balczun DATE: June 3, 1988 FILE:
County Administrator
SUBJECT: C`wG>; ORDER To
IRC BID #409-CEEMICAIS
FRO��'� ����/
Gus c.P.M. REFERENCES:
Ambler,
Purchasing Manager
1. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
A tern contract to supply chemicals for the Utilities
Department was awarded in March 1988. Lot 5, Caustic
Soda was awarded to PB&S Chemicals. PB&S Chemicals has
requested that they be allowed to increase their
price for Caustic Soda beginning July 1, 1988, because
the manufacturer they represent has increased their
cost. Purchasing recognizes that the supply market
for this chemical is vary volatile at this time. Our
original bid contained no clauses for price increases.
2. ALTERQTIVFS AMID ANALYSIS:
Their are two alternatives to resolve this problem.
First the County could accept this price change as being
reasonable because of the nature of this camiodity.
Second, we could cancel this portion of the tern contract
and rebid. Discussions with Sharon Brennan, Assistant
County Attorney, indicates that canceling only Lot 5 of
of this Bid is legal.
3. P1E MWDATION AND FUNDING:
Staff recanmends that we cancel Lot 5 of Bid 409 and negotiate
for best prices for the next 60 days and rebid.
Budgetary approval will be confirmed for expenditure
from Utilities -Services on an as needed basis, before
Purchase orders are placed.
2 j c�
BOOK �',1GF. 95
JUN 2 8 1988
Chairman Scurlock asked why we aren't holding this supplier
to their original bid since there is no provision to change the
price, and Attorney Vitunac advised that there is an out for both
parties with a 30 -day notice and they would just get out of the
contract.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0)
approved staff's recommendation as set out in
the above memo.
2. Release of County Liens
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 6/20/88:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
0 X.;C f lris2
FROM: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
DATE: June 20, 1988
RE: CONSENT AGENDA - FOR BCC MEETING 6/28/88
RELEASE OF COUNTY LIENS
Lea Keller of this office has processed the following
and requests permission for the Chairman to execute the
release forms:
Release of Lien - ROSE
Lots 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, and 14 of
REPLAT OF ST. CHRISTOPHER HARBOR
Satisfaction - Payment of Impact Fees
PAUL - Lots 4 and 5, Block F of
OSLO PARK, UNIT NO. 2
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0)
approved the release of county liens as set out
in the above memo.
RELEASES ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
3 BOOK 73 PnUF 96
JUN 28 1988
3. Transfer of Funds to Special Election Expense
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 6/20/88:
i
1 June 20, 1988
TO: HON. DON C. SCURLOCK, JR. CHAIRMAN, BCC
FROM: ANN ROBINSON, SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS 1�z
RE: ITEM FOR BCC CONSENT AGENDA ON JUNE 28, 1988
The Indian River County School Board sent a check for
the remainder of the expenses of the May 24 election.
Their check for $5,518.38 has been deposited to your
revenue account. Please authorize the transfer of that
amount to Special Election Expense, 001-700-519-036.74.
I Thank you.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0)
approved the above request by Supervisor of Elections
Ann Robinson.
4. Inter -Fund Borrowing for Phase II of the Jail and Library
Construction -- Budget Amendment #044
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 6/20/88:
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
DATE: June 20, 1988
SUBJECT: INTER -FUND BORROWING
FOR PHASE III JAIL AND
LIBRARY CONSTRUCTION -
BUDGET AMENDMENT 044
CONSENT AGENDA
Description and Conditions
At. the present time, two projects, Phase III Jail and the new
Library Construction, are in the conceptual design stages.
4 DOOR� �a��y� e.➢' �'
JUN � 8 198
Because the total cost of any construction project is rarely
determined in these preliminary stages, it is usually not possible
to obtain financing for them. Nevertheless, architect's fees,
appraisals, surveying, engineering, land purchases and other like
costs continue to be incurred. We do not anticipate obtaining
permanent financing for either project before September 30, 1988
(our fiscal year end), therefore an interim mechanism by which
revenues can be raised to offset expenses is needed.
Staff feels that the most cost effective way to offset expenses at
this time is to borrow from another fund. Sufficient monies are
available in Fund 472 - Utility Impact Fees - to allocate $300,000
to Phase III - Jail (Fund 333) and $1,500,000 to Library
Construction (Fund 322). Interest on the borrowed funds would be
paid back to the Utility Impact Fee Fund at an amount equal to
what the county can earn on any other outside investment.
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve the use
of inter -fund borrowing to temporarily finance the Phase III -
Jail and Library Construction projects until permanent funding can
be obtained. Staff also recommends that the Board adopt the
accompanying budget amendment, which outlines the allocation of
funds according to this agenda item.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0)
approved Budget Amendment #044, as recommended by
staff.
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT
NUMBER: 044
DATE: June 20, 1988
Entry
Number
Funds/Department/Account Name
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
1.
UTILITY IMPACT FEE -FUND 472
REVENUES
Impact Fee
472-000-343-065.00
1.800,000
0
EXPENSES
Funds Transfer Out
472-235-536-099.21
1,800,000
0
BOOK. 73 v,'u. 90
JUN 2 8 1988 �
M
Entry
Number
Funds/Department/Account Name
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
2.
JAIL PHASE III - FUND 333
REVENIIES
322-109-571-033.13
25,000
0
Funds Transfer In
333-000-381-020.00
300,000
0
EXPENSES
322-112-571-066.11
210.000
0
Engineering Services
333-906-523-033.13
25.000
0
Other Professional Services
333-906-523-033.19
150.00
0
Construction In Progress
333-906-523-066.51
50,000
0
Interest - Debt Service
333-906-523-077.21
7,000
0
Cash Forward - October 1
333-906-523-099.92
68,000
0
3.
LIBRARY CONSTRUCTION - FOND 333
REVENQES
Funds Transfer In
322-000-381-020.00
1 500 000
0
EXPENSES
VERO BEACH LIBRARY
,Engine
rin Services
322-109-571-033.13
10,000
0
Other Professional Services
322-109-571-033. 9
70 000
0
All Land
322-109-571-066.11
50.000
0
Construction In Progress
322-109-571-066.51
15,000
0
Interest - Debt Service
322-109-571-077.l
22-1 9-571-077.1
20 000
0
Cash Forward - October 1 ::j322-109-571-099.92
1 000 000
0
Entry
Number
Funds/Department/Account Name
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
SEBASTIAN LIBRARY
Engineering Services
322-109-571-033.13
25,000
0
Professional Services
322-109-571-033.19
80,000
0
All Land
322-112-571-066.11
210.000
0
Constructio In Progress
322-112-571-066.51
5,000
0
Interest Debt Service
322-112-571-077.21
15,000
0
B®®K Tj F{ Ke 99
5. Golden Sands Park - Budget Amendment 045
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 6/21/88:
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: June 21, 1988
SUBJECT: GOLDEN SANDS PARR -
BUDGET AMENDMENT 045
CONSENT AGENDA
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
Description of Conditions
The attached budget amendment appropriates funds as authorized by
the Board of County Commissioners at the meeting of Tuesday, June
21, 1988.
PROJECT COSTS
Contract (Staff Recommendation) $487,080.80
Skylights 1,400.00
Wood hakes 7.800.00
TOTAL PROJECT COST $496,280.80
FUNDING FOR PROJECT
Grant - DNR $150,000.00
Transfer - Surplus Property 140,000.00
Transfer - District 2 Tourist Tax 65,000.00
Transfer - Tree Ordinance Fine 5,000.00
Transfer - General Fund Parks 47.865.00
ESTIMATED TOTAL EXPENSES FOR 1987/88 $407,865.00
ANTICIPATED 1988/89 BUDGET TRANSFER 88,416.00
FROM PARKS
TOTAL FUNDING $496,281.00
Recommendation
The Board of County Commissioners approve the attached budget
amendment.
ON MOTION by commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0)
approved Budget Amendment #045 for Golden Sands
Park, as recommended by staff.
7
f
s� nn
BOOK J �q 1J
I+
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT
NUMBER: 045
DATE: June 21, 1988
Entry
Number
Funds/Department/Account Name
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
1.
SURPLUS PROPERTY FUND
Parks Construction In Progress
113-210-572-066.51
0
136,000
Parks/Contingency
113-210-572-099.91
0
4,000
Parks/Transfer Out
113-210-581-099.21
140,000
0
2.
TOURIST TAX
District II Transfer Out
119-110-581-099.32
65,000
0
District II Reserve for Cont.
119-110-581-099.91
0
65,000
3.
TREE ORDINANCE FINES
Parks Transfer Out
117-210-581-099.21
5,000
0
Parks Reserve for Contingency
.117-210-581-099.91
0
5,000
4.
GENERAL FUND
Parks All Land
001-210-572-066.11
0
47,865
Parks Transfer Out
001-210-581-099.21
47,865
0
GOLDEN SANDS PARK
5.
Revenue
Grants
310-000-334-039.00
150,000
0
Transfer In
310-000-381-020.00
257.865
0
Expense
Construction In Progress
310-143-572-066.51
407,865
0
8 BOOK 73 f, ci ul
JUN 2 1988
F,
6. Policy Academy Trust Fund - Budget Amendment 046
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 6/21/88:
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: June 21, 1988
SUBJECT: POLICE ACADEMY TRUST FUND -
BUDGET AMENDMENT 046
CONSENT AGENDA
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
Description of Conditions
On October 6, 1988 the Board of County Commissioners approved
Ordinance 87-58 which increased the amount the Sheriff received from
fines for the Police Academy Trust Fund. The increase had not been
authorized until after the budget was prepared for the 1987/88
fiscal year. The attached budget amendment increased the estimated
revenues (based on the new ordinance) and accordingly increases the
estimated expenditures.
Recommendation
The Board of County Commissioners approve the attached budget
amendment as presented.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0)
approved Budget Amendment 046, as recommended by
staff.
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT
NUMBER:
DATE:
046
June 21, 1988
Entry
Number.
Funds De artment Account Name
REVENUES
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
1.
Police Academy Trust Fund/
Police Education
EXPENSE
103-000-351-030.00
50-000
0
2.
Police Academy Trust Fund/
Meetings and Seminar
103-600-521-035.43
50-000
0
BOOK 73 wui 102
MANGROVE ALTERATION VIOLATION: NICHOLAS CHRISTOU
The Board reviewed the following letter and memo dated
6/22/88:
Board of County Commissioners
1840 25th street, Vero Beach, F1. 32960
Dear County Commissioners,
JUNE 22,1988
On .June 21 after living in our new house for three days and seeing rats run in
and out of the bushes in the backyard, I rented a hedger from a local store and
trimmed this area. On June 4, a salesperson from our development rang our doorbell
and told me that a D.N.R. agent was by the previous day and informed him that I was
in trouble for cutting mangroves and would be receiving a letter. On .June 6 the
letter arrived stating what had been done. Shocked and terrified at how
devastating this penalty was 1 immediately called Mr. DeBlois to find out what
could be done to repair the damage. Mr. DeBlois said the only alternative to this
penalty was to allow the County Commissioners to review this matter.
Commissioners, I apologize for this innocent mistake. Had I been told at
property closing or been informed of how protected these mangroves are, not one
leaf would have been trimmed from them. Recently, I have been in conversation with
John McDowell -an environmental specialist for Florida -to find out where to buy
mangrove seedlings so they can be replanted. This area is already greening up aqd
shooting new sprouts and along with new plants I feel confident this area will look
as if nothing was ever cut.
Again, I apologize for this mistake.
Sincere] y,
ick Christou
TO: Charles P. 13alczun DATE: ,,vre 16, 1958 FILE:
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE
MANGROVE ALTERATION
Robert k..Keat,i SUBJECT: VIOLATION: NICHOLAS
Corsnunity Developme Director CHRISTOU CV -58-568
THROUGH: Michael K. Miller Am-itt
Chief, Environmental Planning
FROM:Roland M. DeBlois�M� REFERENCES:
Staff Environmental Planner
It is requested that the data presented herein be given formal
consideration by the Board of County. Commissioners at their
regular meeting cf Jure 26, 1988.
10 BOOK 7 x',1103
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS:
On Junes, 1988, county staff observed that an estimated
twenty-six (26) red and white mangroves (averaging 7-10 feet
high) had been cut to a stubbage (approx. 1 to 2 feet in
height) along the shoreline of the following described
property:
Parcel #16-33-40-0014-0000-00025.0
Lot 25, Seagrove West Subdivision,
as recorded in P.B.I. 11, Page 66
The property's address is 245 Riverway Drive; the listed owner
is Mutual Building Corporation, Inc., in care of Mr. Nicholas
Christou, trustee and resident of the property.
The mangroves removed (approx. 20% white mangroves, 80% red
mangroves) were done so without a county mangrove alteration.
permit. Moreover, based on criteria set forth in Section 23J-8
of the County Tree Protection Ordinance, a mangrove alteration
permit would not have been issueable for the removal even if an
application had been submitted prior to the work.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
Section 231-6(a) of the County Tree Protection (No. 83-41)
specifies that it is unlawful and subject to penalties to
destroy or damage any protected tree (ie -mangrove) without
u
first obtaining a tree removal or mangrove alteration permit.
Further, Section 231-16 of the Tree Protection Ordinance
provides the following:
"A violation of any provision of this chapter shall
be punishable upon conviction by a fine not to exceed
five hundred dollars ($500.00), or by imprisonment in
the County jail up to sixty (60) days, or both such
fine and imprisonment. The destruction or alteration
of each tree or plant under this chapter shall be
considered a separate offense. The destruction of an
historic or specimen tree, mangrove, or any dune
vegetation., contrary to this chapter shall receive
maximum penalty provided by law."
Based on the number of separate violations observed (26), the
maximum fine in this case is calculated to be $13,000.00.
Mr. Christou was contacted by letter (dated June 3, 1988)
notifying him of the violation and requesting payment of the
maximum fine. Upon receiving the notice, Mr. Christou
contacted staff and explained that the mangroves were removed
(by himself) due to rat infestation problems along the
shoreline. He also indicated that be had just moved into the
residence from out -of -county, unaware of county mangrove
protection regulations,and was shocked at the amount of maximum
fine for the incident. While expressing regret for violating_
county ordinances, Mr. Christou did note that green tips have
sprouted on the stubbage and expects that the mangroves will
eventually regenerate.
Given the alternatives of paying the requested $13,000.00
maximum fine or appearing before the County Commission, Mr.
Christou preferred that the matter be scheduled before the
Commission for consideration..
1 1
BOOK 73 1 10
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners
request that the respondent pay a voluntary fine of $13,000.00,
and plant twenty-six red mangrove seedlings along the
shoreline of the subject property. In the event that the
respondent does not agree to the fine and plantings, staff
recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant staff
the authorization to pursue available remedies in County Court.
Chairman Scurlock advised that he encouraged Mr. Christou to
come in today and explain what he has done and what he has
attempted to do after being notified of the violation. He
believed that Mr. Christou is sincere and genuine in his regret
and concern over cutting the mangroves, and also believed that
Mr. Christou really did not know the difference between a
mangrove and a Brazilian pepper tree.
Nick Christou expressed his regret at cutting down the
mangroves in back of his home, and assured the Board that if he
had known.what mangroves were, or the laws pertaining to them, he
certainly would not have cut them and would not be in the mess he
is right now. He reported that he purchased mangrove seedlings
from a firm in Melbourne and has planted 52 seedlings, which is
double the number he cut. He followed the planting instructions
carefully and feels that they will take root and come back real
strong.
Commissioner Bird asked if it was likely that the mangroves
would ever come back, and Environmental Planner Roland DeBlois
explained that the more mature ones probably would come back, and
approximately 50% of the ones cut were mature.
Commissioner Bowman asked the size of the seedlings, and Mr.
Christou advised that they were tuber seedlings.
Chairman Scurlock wished to see the Board set a fine of
$13,000, but waive $12,000 of that and allow him to pay a fine of
$1000, and make sure the planting is a success and, in fact, does
reestablish that shoreline. If he refuses to do that, then the
12'�
B00F rp��E 105
JUN 2 8 `991
full $13,000 fine would come into effect at that point. Chairman
Scurlock felt it would be different if Mr. Christou were a land
clearer or a builder who should have had knowledge of the laws
and regulations concerning his trade.
Commissioner Wheeler believed it is understandable how the
error could occur, and suggested that the County find some way to
alert people to where mangroves are growing on their property,
such as putting a stamp on their building plans.
Chairman Scurlock agreed that we have a problem with trying
to educate the general public about our tree protection
ordinance.
Commissioner Bowman believed that if we let Mr. Christou
off, we would be giving an open invitation for anybody to come in
and plead ignorance, and she strongly emphasized that ignorance
is no excuse for breaking the law. Mr. Christou has removed
thousands and thousands of calories from this ecosystem that will
not be replaced in probably 10 years.
Chairman Scurlock understood that, but pointed out that a
lot of people have come in here who have been fined for this type
of thing and demanded to know why we have these crazy ordinances,
while Mr. Christou came in with his head held low and was
genuinely upset about what he had done. Chairman Scurlock did
not think it would accomplish any purpose to give him another 20
lashes, since Mr. Christou already has planted double the number
of plants he cut.
Commissioner Bowman felt we need to send an inspector down
there every 6 months to see if the seedlings are doing well, and
if they are not, see that they are replanted or whatever. She
asked if the $1000 fine would cover all the hassle of going down
there and checking on the mitigation efforts.
Chairman -Scurlock felt that it should cost no more than $50
to send an inspector out once every 6 months.
L_
13 BOOK 73 P'�u.106
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0)
fined Mr. Christou $13,000 for the mangrove alteration
violation and waived all but $1,000 with the condition
that if the -restoration is not done or does not
succeed, the $12,000 fine would come into effect.
MOORINGS' APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL APPLICATION DENIAL -
SIDEWALK REQUIREMENTS
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 6/13/88:
TOI;huries P. Balczun DATE:June 13, 1988 FILE:
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: THE MOORINGS CENTER, INC.
APPEAL OF THE PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMISSION'S
Robe t M. Keating, AIS' SUBJECT: DECISION TO UPHOLD THE
Planning & Developmen Director COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIRECTOR'S DENIAL OF AN
THROUGH: Stan Boling 406- ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL
Chief, Current Development APPLICATION
FROM: Robert E. Wiegers REFERENCES: the moorings
Staff Planner BWIEG2
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of June 28, 1988.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Ms. Dorothy Hudson, on behalf of The Moorings Center, Inc., is
appealing to the Board of County Commissioners a decision by the
Planning and Zoning Commission to apply existing County sidewalk
regulations to the "Moorings Commercial Center" project located at
2100 Windward Way and S.R. A -1-A.
Shopping Center Approval:
At its regular meeting of March 24, 1988, the Planning and Zoning
Commission granted major site plan approval to construct the
proposed 38,884 sq, ft. shopping center located within the
northern half of the Moorings Commercial Node at S.R. A -1-A. At*
the time this plan was approved, a 4' public sidewalk was shown on
the approved plan, along the site's frontage of Windward Way,
Bowline Drive, and Mooring Line Drive, as required by Section
19(L) and 23.3(e)5.b of the zoning code. At the same time the
plan also met the County requirements for providing a 10'
landscaped buffer strip, including trees and hedging along the
site's bowline Drive frontage, where the off-street parking areas
are exposed to abutting rights-of-way. Along the Bowline Drive
frontage, opposite several single family .homes, the approved plan
depicted a ±2' landscaped berm with hedging on-site and a 4'
sidewalk within the Bowline Drive right-of-way.
14 BOOK `31'41107
Requested Modification:
On April 19, 1988, Lloyd & Associates, Inc. submitted an adminis-
trative approval application on behalf of The Moorings Center,
Inc. to remove the required sidewalks along Bowline Drive and
install additional buffering to shield the proposed shopping
center from the single family residences to the west of this site.
Increased buffering was proposed by eliminating the sidewalk and
using right-of-way for berming and landscaping. The net result
would be a berm 2' to 3' higher and more area that could be
landscaped. Such use_ of the public 'road right-of-way would
require Public Work's approval and elimination of the required
sidewalk.
Pursuant to Section 19(L) of the zoning code, which requires
sidewalks to be provided in such projects, staff denied the
application due to the lack of authority to grant such a waiver.
On May 2, 1988, staff received a letter appealing this decision to
the Planning and Zoning Commission from Lloyd & Associates, .Inc.
on behalf of the Moorings Development Company.
At its regular meeting of May 26, 1988, the Planning and Zoning
Commission voted 4 to 2 to deny the Moorings Center, -Inc.'s
request to overturn staff's decision not to grant the site plan
modification. The applicant is now appealing to the Board of
County Commissioners the denial by the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
ANALYSIS & ALTERNATIVES:
Analysis:
When the administrative approval application was submitted, the
developer maintained that one of the reasons why this request to
eliminate sidewalks was made was, that by doing so, more room
would be available for providing additional buffering. In staff's
opinion, there are two issues in this case:
(1) the removal of required sidewalks along Bowline Drive;
and
(2) the desirability and opportunities for additional
buffering between the shopping center and the
single-family residences located on the west side of
Bowline Drive.
These issues are separate. If sidewalks are needed (as required),
then they should be provided. Extraordinary buffering can be
accommodated, through design measures, along with the sidewalks.
Provision of sidewalks does not preclude buffering.
Section 19W and 23.5(e)5.b of the zoning code require sidewalks
to be provided in conjunction with all projects requiring site
plan approval. Placement of sidewalks is controlled by standards
from the Manual of Uniform Standards for Design, Construction and
Maintenance of Streets and Highways (by FDCT), which calls for
sidewalks along right-of-way frontage. These requirements provide
for sidewalks surrounding the project, connecting the site to the
major S.R. A -1-A bikepath and The Moorings residential area. This
resulting system accommodates pedestrian traffic to and through
the commercial project, providing pedestrians safe access to and
from The Moorings residential area, the shopping center, and along
S.R. A -1-A. Buffering requirements from the zoning code have been
satisfied by the approved site plan.
15
►JUN 19 BOOK o7 F a �t 108
At the time this administrative approval was submitted, -staff
discussed several alternatives with the applicants regarding means
of providing extraordinary buffering, including other types of
screening (walls and fences), utilizing a system of retaining
walls to achieve greater berm height and allow sidewalks to be
physically placed, and designing an on-site pedestrian system, all
of which would meet the requirements of Section 19(L) and
23.3(e)5.b. After reviewing the alternatives, the applicant chose
to pursue an appeal of the requirements for the provision of
sidewalks.
Alternatives:
Staff's position is, as it has been in the past, that sidewalks
are necessary improvements in commercial developments. Safety and
convenience for pedestrians are the reasons why the ordinance,
through reference of the FDOT "Manual" standards, states that
sidewalks should be provided along all abutting right-of-way
frontage. This policy is also in accordance with regulations
governing sidewalk placement adjacent to or within new non-
residential subdivisions. In addition, as mentioned previously,
there are numerous ways for the developers to achieve their
desired extraordinary buffering without deleting the required
sidewalks.
Staff has been authorized by the Board of County Commissioners to
research and propose alternatives to the County's requirement for
providing sidewalks in conjunction with industrial development .
Staff is currently researching sidewalk requirement alternatives
in industrial sites. However, such research will not affect
sidewalk regulations applied to shopping centers.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners deny the
appeal, upholding the Planning and Zoning Commission decision.
Stan Boling, Chief of Current Development, reviewed the two
main issues in this case:
1) the removal of required sidewalks along Bowline Drive; and
2) the desirability and opportunities for additional
buffering between the shopping center and the single-
family residences located on the west side of Bowline Dr.
Mr. Boling advised that there is some contention that
putting the sidewalk in the right-of-way somehow would make it
more difficult or impossible to increase the buffering between
the rear of the shopping center and the single-family homes
across the street. Staff's position is that additional buffering
can be provided with the sidewalk in the right-of-way as there is
sufficient area between where the sidwalk would be placed and the
property. The approved site plan shows a 2 -ft. berm with a hedge
on top of
it and trees between the parking
spaces and
the
road
JUN
28 1988
16
BOOK
73
r,,1E 109
right-of-way. The sidwalk is required by the ordinance, and
staff feels it is needed for pedestrian traffic through and
around the project. Staff, therefore, is recommending denial of
the appeal.
Chairman Scurlock asked if there was a contribution of
right-of-way on AIA or whether we paid for it, and Mr. Boling
advised that there is 10 feet there and we have not paid for it.
It is not on the capital improvements program, and it would not
qualify for traffic impact fees. They can either reserve it or
dedicate it; however, they show dedication on their site plan
that was approved.
Attorney Vitunac advised that there is no way for the Board
to grant the appeal of the applicant at this time because there
is no mechanism in our code for such an appeal. This is an
absolute requirement. This matter is on the Agenda today so that
if the Board feels our code is wrong, they can direct staff to
rewrite the code to allow variances from the sidwalk requirement
under certain conditions.
Chairman Scurlock pointed out that in some neighborhoods,
there are gaps between sidewalks of 15-20 ft., especially along
AIA, where older developme.nts abut newer developments which have
had to built sidewalks. He did not believe that was the Board's
intention when they approved the sidewalk requirements.
Robert Keating, Director of Planning & Development, advised
that the Board soon will be reviewing a draft of a plan regarding
policy on the installation of bike paths and sidewalks, and some
of the issues that have been identified in this matter will be
addressed in that plan. The plan will show proposed locations
and priority of the bike paths and sidewalks and will set up an
implementation system, with recommendations as to whether the
funding should come out of County funds or result from
development's action.
BOOK 13 PA E 110
Chairman Scurlock asked if we could use traffic impact fees
for a central bike path network, and Director Keating explained
that the impact fees could be used only if the bike paths are
being built in conjunction with a capacity -producing change to
the roadway. If you are building a new roadway such as Indian
River Boulevard to 53rd Street, you can include bike paths, but
you could not do that with Route #60 because you would not be
increasing the capacity.
Commissioner Bowman asked what the County Attorney would
recommend in this matter, and Attorney Vitunac advised that if
the Board has the consensus that the sidewalk in question is not
needed, they can offer the Moorings the same deal we offered
development on Old Dixie Highway, which is that they can proceed
by putting up a bond and agreeing to put the sidewalk in if the
ordinance is not amended.
Attorney Vitunac asked if the Moorings Development Co. is
contesting the dedication of the right-of-way along AIA for the
bike path, and Attorney Dorothy Hudson reported that the
dedication of the 10 -ft. right-of-way is still under discussion.
She emphasized that the right-of-way is a separate issue
altogether.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously (4-0)
approved the posting of a -bond for the installation
of a sidewalk on Bowline Drive during the time the site
plan requirements are under modification, and directed
staff to proceed with the modifications in an
expeditious manner.
18
�Ca9C�[h .73
L_�JU� �81988 J
PUBLIC HEARING - KUTSCHINSKI REQUEST TO REZONE APPROX. 2.5 ACRES
FROM RM -10 TO PRO
The hour of 9:05 o'clock 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
in the _ Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
I
Sworn to and subscribed before me thn –0_t1 day o A.D. 19
� _))(gi(gfness Manager)
(Clerk of the Circuit Court, Inhran River County, Florida)
(SEAL)
IR
NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING'
Notice of hearing to consider the adoption of
a County ordinance rezoning land from: RM -10,;
Multi -Family Residential District to PRO, Profes-
sional Office District. The property Is presently
owned by Frank Baratta, trustee and Is situated
south of 17th Street and west of 6th Avmlus.
The=
1ject property Is described as: _
-
The North half of the East half of lot k
Block 2 of Dr. Richard E. Bullington's
Subdivision, which plat was filed May 25,
1912 and recorded in Plat Book G Pap
A public records of St Lucie -County.
Florida; said land now situate in Irldiarm-
River County, Florida. Except theright-
=of-way over the North 50 feet of the
described property conveyed -to,
the City of Vero Beach for a street; and,
Except street right-W-wdy as in Official
Record Book .73, Page 226 public
records of Indian River Cdunty, Florida
AND
Parcel 2:
The North 160.50 feet of the West half of
lot 6. Block 2 Dr. Richard E. BuUington's-
Subdivison, which plat was filed May 25,
1912 and recorded In Plat Book 2, Page
S. public records of St. Lucie County,
Florida: said land now situate In Indian
River County, Florida. Except, However.
the West 100 feet of the above described
Property and except the North 5o feet of
the above described properly conveyed
to the City of Vero Beach for road right
of -way.
AND -F
Parcel 3
The East 37.50 feet of the following dip -
scribed '.
southeast comer o} half oflota.
Block 2 according to plat of Dr. Richard . .
E. Sullington's Subdivision, filed in Plat
Book 2, Page 5, SL Lucie County, Flat.
Ida. records and running north 325.00
feet to the point of beginning; from said
point of beginning, run north 165.00 feet
and from thence nm west 149.75 feet
and from thence run south 165.00 feet;
and from thence run 149.75 feet to said ;
Point of Beginning; said land now situate .
in Indian River County, Florida.
AND
Parcel 4:
The South 14.50 fast of the North 175.00
feet of the East 149.75 feet of the West
half of Lot 8, Block 2 of Dr. Richard E.
Builington's Subdivision, filed in Plat
Book 2. Page 5, public records of SL
Lucie County, Florida; said land now
situate In Indian River County, Florida.
A public hearing at which parties in IMS
and citizens shall have anportuntty to be
heard, will be held by the Board of County Cot&
missloners of Indian River County, Florida, in the
County Commission Chambers of the County
Administration Building, located at 1840 25th
Street, Vero Beach, Florida on Tuesday. June 28,
1988, at 9:05 am.
The Board of County Commissioners may
consider a less intense zoning district than the
district requested provided It Is within the same
general use category.
Anyone who may wish to appeal ark decistorl
which may be made at this meeting will imeed to
ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings
is made. which includes testimony and evidence
upon which the appeal is based.
Nldlan River County
Board of County Commiasiongm .
By: s -Don C. Scurlock, Jr., 0.1.m
June B. 1988
BOOK 0 �' '.E 11
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 6/15/88:
TO: Charles P. Balczun DATE: June 15, 1988 FILE:
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
,y I
SUBJECT: RONALD KUTSCHINSKI
Rb ert M. Xeating, ICP / REQUEST TO REZONE APP -
Planning & Development D'rector ROXIMATELY 2.5 ACRES
FROM RPI -10 TO PRO
THRU: Gary Schindler
Chief, Long -Range Planning
FROM: David C. Nearing REFERENCES:
Staff Planner
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of June 28, 1988.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
Mr. Ronald Kutschinski, acting as agent for Mr. Frank Barrata,
Trustee, has requested to rezone approximately 2.5 acres of land
from RM -10, Multi -Family Residential District (up to 10
units/acre) to PRO, Professional Office District (up to 6
units/acre). The subject property is situated on the southwest
corner of 17th Street and 6th Avenue.
The applicant intends to construct professional offices on the
site.
On May 26; 1988, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
unanimously to recommend approval of this request.
Past Actions
This site has been the subject of several past land use amendment
requests. The history of this site has also been a primary
factor leading to the creation of a new zoning district,
specifically the PRO district, and additional amendments to this
district to increase flexibility in establishing PRO zoned areas.
In February 1987, the Board of County Commissioners denied a
request to amend the Comprehensive Plan concerning the subject
parcel. The request was to change the land use from MD -2,
Mediuirt-Density Residential 42 (allowing up to 10 units/acre) to
Commercial, with a concurrent rezoning from RM -10 to CL, Limited
Commercial. The request was denied based on the anticipated
impact of commercial traffic on the surrounding roadways, and
drainage, as well as its potential to increase strip commercial
encroachment along the 17th Street corridor from U.S. 1 to the
Indian River Boulevard.
In January 1987, the PRO district was adopted, and the Board
directed staff -to initiate a rezoning to PRO which was to include
this -property. In June 1987, the Board reviewed the county
initiated request. Though they felt that the subject parcel
warranted PRO zoning, the Board denied. the request due to the
proposed configuration of the district. The district encompassed
the subject property and a single row of Rockridge Subdivision
lots on both sides of 17th Street. One main comment concerning
the configuration was that the district lacked an acceptable
20 Bou 73 r �� 113
JUN 1988
depth. Along with the motion to deny, the Board directed staff
to look at alternatives to increase the flexibility of
implementing the PRO district, alternatives such as decreasing
the minimum district size of 5 acres.
Prior to the completion of the staff's proposed amendments, the
owner of the subject parcel submitted a second comprehensive plan
amendment and rezoning. This request was also from MD -2 to
Commercial; however, the rezoning request was from RM -10 to OCR,
Office, Commercial, and Residential District. In
the Board denied transmittal of this request to the
Community Affairs for review and comment. Denial
constituted an automatic denial of the amendment
requests. The reason for denial was the same as
previous lard use amendment request.
October 1987,
Department of
of transmittal
and rezoning
that for the
In each public hearing concerning this property, the commission
stated that it was their opinion that this property would be a
good site for professional offices. Staff has always concurred
with this view.
In January 1988, the Board of County Commissioners approved an
amendment to the PRO district. This amendment permits a
reduction in the minimum district size to 2.5 acres if the
property is contiguous to a permitted commercial area. This
amendment also permits a maximum district depth of 300 feet from
an arterial road for property with no frontage on an arterial.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the appli-
cation will be presented. The analysis will include a descrip-
tion of the current and future land uses of the site and sur-
rounding areas, potential impacts on the transportation and
utility systems, and any significant adverse impacts on environ-
mental quality.
Existing Land Use Pattern
The site is currently vacant and zoned RM -10. The property to
the south, east across 6th Avenue, and north across 17th Street
is also zoned RM -10 and developed in single-family residences
east and south, and multi -family north. To the west is an office
building zoned OCR.
Future Land Use Pattern
The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property and all
land north, south, and east as MD -2. The land to the west lies
within the U.S. 1 Commercial Corridor.
Transportation System
The site has access to 17th Street on the north, and 6th Avenue
to the east. The county Thoroughfare,Plan designates 17th Street
as a major arterial, and 6th Avenue as a collector road.
Currently, 17th Street is operating at a level of service (LOS)
"A". Prior to the opening of the southern extension of the
Indian River Boulevard, 6th Avenue was operating at a LOS of "E".
However, -recent traffic studies have upgraded the LOS to "B".
Due to the upgrading of the 6th Avenue LOS, the traffic
anticipated to be generated/attracted by this site should have a
minimal impact on this road and on 17th Street.
Environment
.This property is not designated as environmentally sensitive, nor
is it located within a flood prone area.
:JUN 2 8 1988
21 now, 73 F,�r,AA
M
Utilities
The county provides public water to this area; however, no county
provided wastewater facilities are available at this time. The
City of Vero Beach does provide wastewater facilities to the
apartments immediately north across 17th Street.
Intent of the PRO district
When the PRO district was created in, 1987, it was intended to
provide an incentive -for redeveloping vacant and developed land
along major thoroughfare roads which are no longer considered
suitable for single family development, but which are not
considered suitable for a broad range of commercial uses. A
minimum district size of 5 acres was established to avoid spot
zoning. All land zoned PRO was required to front on an arterial
roadway to avoid encroachment of traffic into residential areas.
The 1988 amendments to this district provided for more
flexibility in locating the PRO district. Primarily, these
amendments accommodated smaller parcels which were considered
good locations for PRO zoning, but which lacked sufficient
acreage standing alone, or when combined with other property
would cause an oddly configured district.
Additionally, the PRO district was intended to be used as a
redevelopment tool, as a method to locate a barrier to potential
strip commercialization of sensitive transportation corridors,
and to act as a buffer between- commercial and residential uses.
As a buffer and barrier to commercial, this district can assist
in stabalizing neighborhoods considered to be in early stages of
decline due to fear of commercial encroachment.
Conclusion
Staff feels that this rezoning will accomplish the intent of the
PRO district. The county has long been opposed to strip
commercial development of 17th Street, and this rezoning would
place a barrier at 6th Avenue to future attempts at commercial
development. Though the Rockridge Subdivision is still
considered a stable neighborhood, it is showing some signs of
decline. Yards are not being kept as well as they once were;
complaints have been heard that more rentals to transient persons
are occurring, and there is concern over commercial encroachment
from the west.
This rezoning would ease residents' fears of commercial
encroachment, which could slow or halt the flight of older
residents. This rezoning would also allow for a base on which
additional rezonings to PRO could occur further east along 17th
Street, as owners begin looking for alternate uses for their
single family property. Redevelopment as a result of a
professional office district is apparent as demonstrated in the
City of Vero Beach along portions of S.R. 60.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the analysis performed, and on past comments by the
Planning. and Zoning 'Commission and the Board of County
Commissioners, staff recommends approval•of this request.
Chairman Scurlock advised that the Board received a letter
dated'6-23-88 from Paul Clinker opposing the rezoning of this
property.
J UN 2 81988 22 BOOK 73 r��U 115
L_
Chairman Scurlock opened the Pubic Hearing and asked if
anyone wished to be heard in this matter.
Attorney Joe Collins, representing applicant Ronald
Kutschinski, felt it is important to understand that 17th Street
is going to handle increased amounts of traffic in the future and
that buffers are necessary along 17th Street. The PRO zone
dictates greater setbacks and more open space. The application
meets all of the requirements of the ordinance.
Ruth Chapman, resident of Rockridge Subdivision, advised
that a great many of the residents would prefer to see this
property remain as RM -10, but realize that is rather improbable.
They are very much concerned with the traffic situation at the
intersection of 17th Street and'6th Avenue, and feel there should
be further traffic counts taken from all 4 directions.
Public Works Director Jim Davis really didn't feel that
further counts would reveal that much difference in the traffic,
but Chairman Scurlock felt it would be easier to make additional
traffic counts than have the concern continue.
Mrs. Chapman advised that the residents of Rockridge want to
be assured that 16th Place will be buffered and that traffic does
not empty into the area between 16th Place and 17th Street, which
would create a hazard.
Chairman Scurlock pointed out that those are all site plan
considerations that will be addressed at another time, and Mrs.
Chapman noted that the residents will be present at that time to
give their input on the site plan.
There being no others who wished to be heard in this matter,
Chairman Scurlock closed the Public Hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously (4-0)
adopted Ordinance 88-25, rezoning approximately 2.5
acres from RM -10 to PRO, as requested by Ronald
Kutschinski.
23
am. 73vn1E 116
6/15/88
LP, -Planning
PNOT3
ORDINANCE NO. 88- 25
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING
ZONING MAP FOR THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND
PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, The Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as
the local planning agency on such matters, has held a public
hearing and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this
rezoning request; and
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to
rezone the herinafter described property; and
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners has determined
that this rezoning is in conformance with the Land Use Element
of the Comprehensive Plan of Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners has held a
public hearing pursuant to this rezoning request, at which
parties in interest and citizens were heard;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning
of the following described parcels situated in Indian River
County, Florida, to -wit:
The subject parcels being described as:
Parcel 1:
The North half of the East half of lot 6, Block 2, Dr. Richard
E. Bullington's Subdivision, which plat.was filed May 25, 1912
and recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 5, public records of .St.
Lucie County, Florida; said land now situate in Indian River
County, Florida. Except the right-of-way over the North 50
feet of the above described property conveyed to the City of
Vero Beach for a street; and, Except street right-of-way as in
Official Record Book 73, page 226 public records of Indian
River County, Florida.
AND
Parcel 2.:
The North 160.50 feet of the West half of lot 6, Block 2, Dr.
Richard E. Bullington's Subdivision, which plat was filed May
25,'1912 and recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 5, public records of
St. Lucie County, Florida; said land now situate in Indian
River County, Florida. Except, However, the West 100 feet of
the above-described property and except the North 50 feet of
the above described property conveyed to the City of Vero Beach
for road right-of-way.
JUN 28 1 1988 24 BOOK 73 F,nu-L 117
B
ORDINANCE NO. 88-25
AND
Parcel 3:
The East 37.50 feet of the following described property:
Commencing at the southeast corner of the west half of lot 6,
Block 2, according to plat of Dr. Richard E. Bullington's
Subdivision, filed in Plat Book 2, Page 5, St. Lucie County,
Florida, records and running north 325.00 feet to the point of
beginning; from said point of beginning, run north 165.00 feet
and from thence run west 149.75 feet 'and from thence run south
165.00 feet; and from thence run 149.75 feet to said Point of
Beginning; said land now situate in Indian River County,
Florida.
AND
Parcel 4:
The South 14.50 feet of the North 175.00 feet of the East
149.75 feet of the West half of Lot 6, Block 2 of Dr. Richard
E. Bullington's Subdivision, filed in Plat Book 2, Page 5,
public records of St. Lucie County, Florida; said land now
situate in -Indian River County, Florida.
Be changed from RM -10, Multiple -Family Residential District to
PRO, Professional Office District. All with the meaning and
intent and as set forth and described in said Zoning Regulations.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on this28th
day of June , 1988.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
By C.
Don C. Scurlock, Jr. hairman
ATTEST BY:
F EDA WRIG T, Cl
K•
Acknowledgment by the Department of the State of Florida this 5th
day of July , 1988.
Effective Date: Acknowledgment from the Department of State
received on this 8th day of July , 1988,at
10:00'A.M./P.M. and filed in the office of1theClerk of the
Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida.
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
LEGAL SUFFICIENCY.
J
William G. Collins II, Assistant County Attorney
,- LZ,1,
_
Gary M.SSchindler
Chief, Long -Range Planning
25
BOOK
73 P,�u 11
0
ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 23.3(d) OF ZONING CODE CLARIFYING
FRONTAGE/MARGINAL ACCESS ROAD REQUIREMENTS AND LANE WIDTH
REQUIREMENTS
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:
r 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
NOTICE icaS HEREB ' m ute+mt
Florida.
==oft a weft hearbi9.1 Wdeh Pr
fea b inlereal and emsmis shin have an oPPI
Whlty to be heard. In the evurdy Camh�
Chambme o1 the Counts 4 1mlNabadah anti
Me_ located at tea 24gi :.. Vero Ita�h_�
in the _4 Court, was pub-
lished M said newsoaoer in the issues of %. lefff
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 heretolore
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 not promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this d of G�'.(iA.O. 19f
si e er)
(SEAL) (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River Gbuhty, Florida)
A cavi! of tta rMgM- drdmenR — M i
avadW* &1 00 Planning Department Otlke On i
the Second soar of the Count' AdndN>tratlan !.,
B.HAnyone Who M" Whhtoto aPP" WW dxkon
which may be made at this meeeng will no" to„
W="
that a verbaam em of fire Woteedin"
is made. wnio lnaudes tsatimmiy and avahnm
on
upwWA the appeal is Owed. I ;
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BY: sdMn ISSIDNM
cheirmaa
June S. low '
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 6/21/88:
TOCharles P. Balczun DATArie 21, 1988 FILE:
County Administrator
TO AMEND SECTION
SUBJECT: 23OF APPENDIXA
43 (d) CIOF
.THE CODE OF LAWS AND
ORDINANCES
I�
FRO ebert M. Keating, AICP REFERENCES: "D'irector Sec. 23.3 Req.
Community Development Department DIS:FEE
I.t is .-requested that the information. herein presented be given
formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its
regular meeting of June 28, 1988.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS:
During discussion of the Boulevard Shoppes site plan request at
the March 10, 1988 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting, one major
26 BOOK 73 P, Cu 119
'JUN 2 8 1988
traffic issue and potential ordinance conflict arose, leading the
Commission to request that the staff review the traffic require-
ments of the site plan ordinance. The principal concern was
whether all intersections should be considered in the application
of minimum level of service (LOS) standards. Several other
traffic/LOS issues have also been identified by the staff.
The intersection issue arose when it was determined that the
proposed site plan was within a half mile of an intersection that
already operates at LOS E, but will not be adversely impacted by
the project. Although the subject intersection is the junction of
a secondary collector and an arterial, the question arose as to
whether all intersections, including local road/ thoroughfare plan
road intersections, should be considered in the application of LOS
requirements. A related question that arose was how unsignalized
intersections should be addressed in a traffic impact analysis and
a LOS determination.
At its April 26, 1988 meeting, the Board of County Commissioners
voted unanimously to authorize the staff to research, draft, and
advertise for public hearings to consider changes to the
transportation system requirements of the site plan section of the
Zoning Code. Based upon this authorization, staff analyzed the
referenced section of the zoning -code, identified code sections
needing refinement, and developed revised language where
appropriate. On May 26, 1988, the Planning and Zoning Commission
voted unanimously (5-0) to recommend that the Board of County
Commissioners adopt the proposed ordinance amendments.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS:
In its analysis of the transportation requirements section of the
site plan ordinance (Section 23 of the zoning code), the staff
identified several requirements which need modification. Besides
the issues of intersection consideration and intersection analy-
sis, these issues included LOS applicability to projects not
requiring submittal of a traffic impact analysis; one way traffic
lane minimum width; and marginal access requirements. Each of
these issues was analyzed, and ordinance revisions were drafted.
Intersection. - The two major intersection issues are: (1)
which intersections should be considered in the application
of LOS standards and (2) how LOS should be measured on
unsignalized intersections. Since the intent of the subject
.ordinance was to consider only major_ intersections in the
application of LOS criteria, staff revised the ordinance to
define major intersections and specified that only major
intersections would be analyzed with respect to LOS criteria.
Regarding unsignalized intersections, staff determined that
the critical movement analysis. method used to evaluate
signalized intersections is not appropriate to assess
unsignalized intersections. Staff determined that the
appropriate method to analyze unsignalized intersections is
the application of signalization warrant criteria specified
in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).
These changes are reflected in the proposed ordinance amend-
ment.
Small projects - Although the existing ordinance states that
no project will be approved if unacceptable levels of service
exist or if the project would-re.sult in unacceptable service
levels, the ordinance does not specify the geographic area
considered in the application of LOS criteria for small
projects. Larger projects are required to prepare a traffic
impact analysis which defines the area in which LOS criteria
will be applied. For smaller projects, staff determined that
27 BOOK 73FD GE .L20
JUN 2 19
"- LOS standards should apply only to the roadway directly
serving the project. The ordinance amendment includes
definitions for insignificant project, significant projects,
and directly accessed roadway, was well as a provision
limiting the application of LOS standards for small projects
to those major roadways directly serving the project.
Minimum lane width - Currently, there is a conflict between
the parking regulations and site plan regulations regarding
minimum one-way driveway widths. While the parking ordinance
establishes an 11' minimum width, the site plan ordinance
specifies a 12' minimum width.
Through application of the present ordinance, staff has found
that eleven foot driving lanes can adequately accommodate one
way drives. Therefore, the amendment proposes a reduction of
the minimum width of one way drives from twelve to eleven
feet, bringing the site plan and parking regulations into
consistency.
Marginal Access - Staff has revised the marginal access
requirements to clarify the section.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt
the recommended ordinance amendment.
Robert Keating, Director of Planning & Development, reviewed
the following proposed amendments:
INTERSECTIONS
... Defines major intersections
... Differentiates LOS (Level of Service ) Analysis by
intersection type
-- Signalized intersection: CMA
-- Unsignalized intersection: warrant criteria
LOS STANDARDS
...Clarifies that peak season standard relates to peak
hour/peak season
... Identifies limits of LOS analysis for small (insignificant)
projects
... Limits insignificant project LOS analysis to directly
accessed links
... Clarifies traffic impact analysis submittal timeframes
MARGINAL ACCESS ROADS
... Clarifies marginal .access road requirements
... Provides discretion to Public Works Director to waive access
road requirements under certain conditions
LANE.WIDTH
... Reduces one-way lane width from 12 feet to 11 feet
JUN�9 � 2 8 8001. 73 ur,L 1?
Commissioner Wheeler was concerned about the cost of a
traffic impact study on small business, and wondered if
applicants could build on a traffic analysis of a neighboring
business.
Director Keating explained that our ordinance is specific in
that staff will maintain a record of traffic impact analysis
studies that have been done and make them available for
applicants to use.
Director Davis explained that the Traffic Engineering Dept.
posts all the traffic count network data in their offices, and
anyone can come in and pull that data for any of the 110 stations
we have throughout the county. Consultants do not have to put
out their own traffic counters, unless they want to. Most of
these counts need to be taken during peak season conditions, and
many developers do not want to wait 6 months for a peak season to
come around. We have data in our files that is available to
them.
Ruth Chapman, resident of Rockridge, formally requested
further traffic counts at the intersection of 17th Street and 6th
Avenue from the east, west, north, and south.
There being no others who wished to be heard in this matter,
the Chairman closed the Public Hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0)
adopted Ordinance 88-26, amending Section 23.3(d) of
Appendix A of the Code of Laws and Ordinances.
Director Keating advised that the Planning Dept. and the
Public Works Dept. will be bringing a recommendation on revised
traffic impact -fees to the Board on July 12th.
JUN 28 1988 29 Boa 73 F.,,E122
ORDINANCE NO. 88 - 26
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING
SECTION 23.3(d) OF APPENDIX A OF THE CODE OF LAWS AND
ORDINANCES OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, KNOWN AS THE
ZONING CODE; PROVIDING FOR CLARIFICATION OF LEVEL OF
SERVICE REQUIREMENTS; PROVIDING FOR CORRECTION OF A
SCRIVENER'S ERROR; PROVIDING FOR CLARIFICATION OF
FRONTAGE/MARGINAL ACCESS ROAD REQUIREMENTS; PROVIDING
FOR CLARIFICATION OF LANE WIDTH REQUIREMENTS; AND
PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS,
CODIFICATIONS, SEVERABILITY, AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
NOW THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County Florida, that:
Section 1
Sections 23.3 (d) (1) and 23.3 (d) (2) of Appendix A, the Zoning
Code, Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances is hereby
amended as follows:
23.3 D. Relationship to Transportation System.
1. Compliance with County Thoroughfare Plan.
The Indian River County Thoroughfare Plan shall serve as
the official standard for dedicating rights-of-way,
designing road improvements, designating traffic control
devices and determining access requirements, including
frontage roads.
a. Right -of -Way Dedication and Reservation.
The land lying within the proposed development
which is necessary to widen or extend roadways to
the standards designated in the Indian River County
Thoroughfare Plan, or to provide adequate land area
for utilities, sidewalks and/or bikepaths shall be
dedicated to, or reserved to the County, as spec-
ified in this section, by the* applicant prior to
the release of the site plan.
1. General Requirements.
a. Any applicant for site plan approval for
a project abutting a roadway which has an
existing road right-of-way deficiency
shall dedicate, prior to release of the
approved site plan for the project,
sufficient land to correct the road
right-of-way deficiency for that segment
of the roadway abutting the project.
Wherever a road right-of-way deficiency
exists, the deficiency shall be made up
by dedication of equal amounts of land
from each side of the existing right-of-
way, except where:
1. a drainage district canal right-of-
way or a railroad right-of-way abuts
one side of the existing road
right-of-way; or
ORDINANCE 88-26 IS ON FILE IN ITS ENTIRETY IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK TO THE BOARD
'JUN 2 �' 1988 30 BOOK 73 DGF 1?3
SOIL SURVEY DIGITIZING AGREEMENT WITH THE SOIL CONSERVATION
SERVICE
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 6/16/88:
TO:Charles P. Balczun DATE:june 16, 1988 FILE:
County Administrator
SUBJECT: SOIL SURVEY DIGITIZING
AGREEMENT WITH THE SOIL
CONSERVATION SERVICE
FRokrbert M. Keating, AICP REFERENCES: Soil Surv.
erector IBMIRD
Community Development Department
It is requested that the information herein presented be given
formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its
regular meeting of Jure 28, 1988.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS:
Recently,- the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), United States
Department of Agriculture approached the Planning Department
regarding the digitizing of the County's soil survey maps. The
SCS proposed a joint agreement between the County and the SCS,
whereby the County would pay $10,000 with which the SCS would
retain a consultant to digitize the soil survey maps using USGS
quad sheets as a base. The SCS would provide the technical
direction to the consultant. A copy of the proposed agreement is
attached to this agenda item.
Digitizing the soil survey maps will allow these maps to be used
on a personal computer with autocad or similar'software. Acquisi-
tion of -such software has been programmed in the proposed Communi-
ty Development Department budget for FY88-89. Besides the soil
survey, other digitized maps available for use when the software
is in place include coastal land use (available from the Marine
Resources Council); scrub maps and other maps available from the
Regional Planning Council; and various other digitized maps.
Within the County, three departments will have particular use for
the digitized soil survey. Community Development currently uses
the soil survey information for site feasibility analysis (such as
school site analyses prepared for the school board), environmental
planning/environmentally sensitive land identification, project
review, land use planning, and other services. Both Public Works
and Environmental Health also use the soil survey. Digitizing the
maps would facilitate the use of this information for all depart-
ments.
Because of the technical nature of the soil survey, the expertise
of the SCS is necessary to have the maps digitized accurately.
While the SCS hopes eventually to have soil surveys for all
counties digitized; they have approached Indian River and Palm
Beach to be among the first. Failure to participate with the SCS
at this time could result in an indefinite postponement of
digitizing the County's soil survey.
31 BOOK 73 pnc 104
JUN 2 8 1980
Although the proposed agreement states that the $10,000 cost to
the County would be payable in FY 1990, it is possible that the
work could be completed and the funds payable in FY 1988-1989. To
-work
this work, monies would be budgeted in FY 88-89 budgets as
follows: Community Development - $2,500; Public Works - $2,500;
and Environmental Health .- $5,000. Other funding alternatives
such as St. Johns River Water Management District participation
are possible and are being pursued.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS:
The proposed soil survey digitizing is a necessary activity for
the County to undertake. As computerized land information systems
and geographic information systems (GIS) become more prevalent,
the County will find it necessary to acquire such capabilities.
Often such systems can be cost saving when implemented.
As part of such LIS and GIS systems, the soil survey will need to
be digitized. To ensure quality, the SCS must be involved in this
activity. The proposed agreement provides an opportunity to get
the digitizing done under the technical direction of the SCS at a
reasonable cost and in an acceptable timeframe. By not endorsing
the agreement, however, the County's soil survey digitizing may be
postponed indefinitely.
It is staff's opinion that the proposed agreement will provide the
County with a product that is needed and will be used by several
departments. Since execution of the agreement will initiate the
project and lead to a more timely completion, the staff feels that
the agreement should be executed at this time.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners
approve the attached agreement and authorize the chairman to sign
the agreement.
Administrator Balczun.advised that the agreement proposes
that the digitization be funded out of the 1990 budget, but it
certainly could be funded out of the 1988-89 budget year if the
Board so desires.
OMB Director Joe Baird explained that the money has been put
into next year's budget, and he did not feel there is any problem
with entering into the agreement today.
Robert Keating, Director of Planning & Development,
explained that the survey is very accurate down to 3 acres and is
used quite a bit for environmentally sensitive soils. In
addition it is a great help in working on the new Comprehensive
Land Use Map. He advised that the Legal staff would like to
change a couple of things on the agreement, which would provide
more flexibility for staff to use the maps, and also change a
citation on the map that they feel is incorrect.
32B00K `7 ��f`[125
JUS 1900go
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0)
approved the agreement with the Soil Conservation
Service, and authorized the Chairman's signature, as
recommended by staff.
AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
SURVEY OF THE 13.46 ACRE PARCEL ADJOINING BENT PINE
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 6/17/88:
DATE: JUNE 17, 1988
TO: CHARLES BALCZUN
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
THRU: TERRANCE G. PINTOJ
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY;S VICES
FROM: WILLIAM F. MCCAIM r"
PROJECTS ENGINEER`-'`!
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: SURVEY OF THE 13.46 ACRE LAND PARCEL
ADJOINING BENT PINE
BACKGROUND:
On January 26, 1988 the Indian River County Board of Commissioners
approved the purchase of the 13.46 acre parcel adjoining the Bent
Pine Utility site. To this end we wish to have a boundary survey done
prior to the execution of this purchase.
ANALYSIS•
On May 19, 1988 requests for bids were sent out to our short listed
firms for surveying. The bids were as follows:
1. Masteller, Moler and Reed, Inc.
Price: $700.00
2. Carter Associates, Inc.
Price: $2,000.00
3. Beindorf and Associates
Price: $2,800.00
4. Marshall, McCully and Associates
Price: $2,800.00
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Utilities staff recommends award of the aforementioned work to
the low bidder Masteller, Moler and Reed in the amount of $700.00.
This can be done by signing the attached contract.k as modified by Addendum.
33
Boor 73 ,F 1216
Chairman Scurlock pointed out that the competitive
negotiation process resulted in substantial savings to the
County.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0)
approved the modified contract for the surveying work
with the low bidder, Masteller, Moler and Reed, in the
amount of $700 as recommended by staff.
CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
AWARD OF CONTRACT - POTABLE WATER MAIN WEST SIDE OF U.S. #1,
SOUTH OF OSLO ROAD
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 6/16/88: -
TO: CHARLES P. BALCZUN DATE: JUNE 16, 1988
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
THRU: TERRANCE G. PINTO%�
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY`9ERVICES
FROM: WILLIAM F. McCAIN
PROJECT ENGINEER -�
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: AWARD OF CONTRACT - POTABLE WATER MAIN
WEST SIDE OF US HIGHWAY #1, SOUTH OF OSLO ROAD
UW -87 -03 -DS
BACKGROUND.
A total of five bids were opened on April 27th, for the subject
contract. The bidders are:
1. Coastline Utilities, Inc. $78,522.25
2. Owl & Associates, Inc. $83,362.50
3. A..O. B. Underground, Inc. $86,830.00
4. Ted Myers Contracting, Inc. $88,290.89
5. W. Jackson & Sons, Inc. $92,015.31
ANALYSIS
The bids have been evaluated with regard to the following:
a) compliance with bid document instructions
b) schedule of prices: in the submitted bids
C) summary of prices
34 BOOK 7 3 F,1GF 12�17
JUN 2 8 1988
L-
All bids have been determined to be in compliance with
specifications and are acceptable. The low bidder is Coastline
Utilities Inc., of Port St. Lucie, Florida. A bid price of
seventy-eight thousand five hundred and twenty-two dollars and
twenty-five cents, ($78,522.25).
0 1 RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Utility Services, in concurrence with the
Consulting Engineer, Masteller and Molar Inc., recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve and authorize the Chairman to
award this contract to Coastline Utilities, Inc.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0)
awarded the contract for the construction of the
potable water main on the west side of U.S. #1, south
of Oslo Road, to the low bidder, Coastline Utilities,
Inc., in the amount of $78,522.25, as recommended by
staff.
CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE'BOARD
GROVE ISLE REQUEST FOR WAIVER FROM FLOOD PLAIN DISPLACEMENT
REQUIREMENTS
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 6/16/88:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TO: Charles P. Balczun
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Direct
or.;u`J
FROM: Dave B. Cox Cg!*.. ,
Drainage Engineer
SUBJECT: Request for Waiver - Grove Isle at Vero Beach
Flood Plain Displacement Requirement Ordinance 87=-',`
REF: Letter from Dean Luethje, P.E,'Carter & Associates
dated June 13, 1988
DATE: June 16, 1988
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Carter & Associates on behalf of the developer of Grove Isle
at Vero Beach is requesting a waiver of the "Cut and Fill"
balance requirement of the Stormwater Management and Flood
Protection Ordinance. The Engineer for the project states 65,968
cubic yards of fill would be placed below elevation 4.0 ft.
within the 100 year flood plain of the Indian River.
35
JUN 2 101BOOK 73 PA E 1 8
1988
Approval of a revised site plan for build -out. of the
multi -family portion of the project was obtained May 12, 1988.
The Engineer is also requesting that the waiver cover the
remaining 4.4 acre single family area which will go through a
separate Planning & Zoning review as a platted subdivision
sometime in the future.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Since the Indian River in this location is an estuarine
environment, and the project engineer has stated that all other
design requirements of Ordinance 87-12 will be met and that the
resulting rise of the water level in the river will be minute,
staff has no objection.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that a waiver to the flood displacement
requirement be granted to Grove Isle at Vero Beach.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously (4-0)
granted a waiver from the flood displacement
requirements to Grove Isle at Vero Beach, as
recommended by staff.
DESIGNATION OF ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICERS AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE
CITATIONS
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 6/20/88:
TO: Charles Balczun DATE: June 20, 19 88 FILE:
County Administrator
SUBJECT: Agenda Item - Designation
of Animal Control Officers
authorized to issue citations
1\0 -ti
FROM: Doug Wright , Director REFERENCES:
Emergency Management Services
It is respectfully requested that the information herein presented
be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commission-
ers at its next regular meeting.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
On June 14, 1988, the Indian River County Board of County Com-
missioners approved certain amendments to the Animal Control
Ordinance providing the authority for designated Animal Control
Officers to issue citations. The recommendation of the County
Administrator is required for staff to exercise this authority
upon approval of the Board of County Commissioners.
1 12
UN 2 8 198 s 6 8001( 9 c� �E �9
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The amended Animal Control Ordinance will not be effective until
the Secretary of State receives and records it. In order to
implement the Ordinance in a timely manner after approval by
state officials, it is respectfully requested that the following
staff be -designated by the Board of County Commissioners as Animal
Control officers with the authority to issue citations.
Deborah A. House � ^ �J
Richard M. Hollenbeck �--'r
Chris Vernon
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the above referenced staff be designated and
empowered with the authority to issue citations as provided by
Indian River County Ordinance #83-22, as amended, for violations
encountered in the performance of their official duties.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0)
approved staff's recommendation authorizing the
following Animal Control Officers to issue citations:
Deborah A. House
Richard M. Hollenbeck
Chris Vernon
JUS 2 8 1988
37 BOOK 73 oa 139
APPROVAL OF BUDGET AMENDMENT #049 - RADIO EQUIPMENT FOR FELLSMERE
VOLUNTEER AMBULANCE SERVICE
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 6/20/88:
TO: Charles Balczun DATE: June 20, 1988 FILE:
County Administrator
SUBJECT: Agenda Item - Request for
Fellsmere Volunteer Ambulance
Service to Purchase Radio
Equipment
(dW
FROM: Doug Wright, Director REFERENCES:
Emergency Management Services
It is respectfully requested that the information herein presented
be given formal consideration on an emergency basis by the Board
of County Commissioners at the next regular meeting.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The Fellsmere Volunteer Ambulance Service has purchased a new
_emergency transport vehicle from funds generated through donations
and fund drives including door to door solicitations. The vehicle
has been put into service and is currently being utilized in
the North Indian River County area. The Fellsmere Volunteer
Ambulance Service is requesting assistance from the Board of
County Commissioners to pay for radio equipment installed in
the ambulance.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The Board of County Commissioners has prior provided radio equip-
ment for the Indian River County Volunteer Ambulance Squad and
the former Sebastian Volunteer Ambulance Squad. Funding of the
following equipment for the new transport vehicle is requested.
UHF Phoenix Radio
$ 618
ANI Unit
95
Amplified Rear Speaker
54
Rear mount microphone & clip
58
Coax
9
Quarter wave antenna
28
Two spare coax installed
NIC
Labor, installation
95
$1,052
GSA contract prices are being utilized for this equipment.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve
the funding of the EMS radio equipment including antenna and
installation for a total price of $1,052. Funding is requested
from Revenue Sharing monies for this equipment which is used
on a daily basis to prevent the loss of life and serve.the populace
of our county when the need arises for assistance from the EMS
providers.
38
3
13
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0)
approved staff's recommendation to purchase the
radio equipment as set out in the above memo.
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
THROUGH: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director �V
Entry
Comm.
39
SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT
NUMBER: 049
DATE: June 20. 1988
® BOOK 7 PA;( �,,�
JUN � 19
DAMON CONSTRUCTION FINAL PAYMENT AND CHANGE ORDERS 1 AND 2 - CART
PATHS AT SANDRIDGE GOLF CLUB
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 6/27/88:
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: June 27, 1988
SUBJECT: DAMON CONSTRUCTION CHANGE
ORDER NUMBER 1 AND 2 AND
FINAL PAYMENT - EMERGENCY ITEM
FROM: Joseph A. Ba;
OMB Director.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Damon Construction' installed the cart paths at. the Sandridge Golf
Course and they have submitted the following change orders:
Change order # 1 - Is additional costs incurred from having to
access the golf course across private property to build cart
paths. Damon submitted the change order in the amount- of
$2,297.76. Staff has been negotiating with Damon Construction
and they have agreed to reduce the change order to $1,838.21.
Change order # 2 - Cart paths in the original contract were to
be eight (8) feet wide. Golf Course staff felt it would be
beneficial to have the cart paths reduced to seven (7) feet
wide and extend the length of the cart paths. Damon
Construction could not do this for the same cost per square
foot. By extending the length there is more labor involved
because they have to do more forming work. Damon Construction
submitted a change order increasing the contract by an
additional $4,826.94. Staff again negotiated the amount down
to $2,413.47.
In summary the following is owed as final payment to Damon
Construction if the change orders are approved:
Retainage
Change Order #
Change Order #
T O T A L
jRECOMMENDATION
- $4,098.01
1 - 11838.21
2 - 2.413.47
$8,349.69
Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve change
order number one in the amount of $1,838.21 and change order number
two in the amount of $2,413.47 and -authorize the final payment of
$8,349.69.
40 BOOK 73
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0)
approved Change Orders 1 & 2 and authorized final
payment of $8,349.69 to Damon Construction, as
recommended by staff.
Damon Construction Corp.
of Vero Beach
General Contractor Uc. *CGC031617
P.O. BOX 650746 VCRO BUCM nARIDA 32965-0748 (303) 3628911.567.9913
May 2, 1988
Board of County Commissioners
Indian River County
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Re: Sandridge Golf Course - Concrete cart paths
Change Order #1
Access and egress from private property•to work
area at Sandridge Golf Course
.-Road material
$ 170.00
-Equipment to distribute road material
70.00
-Clean-up access roads upon completion
200.00
✓t4 fence posts
86.26
Staples
3.52
vBarbed wire
54.50
✓3+} hours Bobcat and operat3r
87.50
.-5 Laborers, 3j hours
175.00
l.Front end loader, $552.00 k $408.00
960.00
10% -on material, $314.28x10%
21% Overhead and profit
Total
$ 1,806.78 "
31.43
1,838.21 AmovNT
459.55 Do E
$ 2,297.76
JUN 2 8 1988 41 nox 73 P,���E134
Damon Construction Corp.
of Vero Beach
General Contractors
Uc 0CGC031617
r.0. BOX 630748 M0 BrACA, rLORRL1329650798 (303) 562.8911.567.99]3
May 29 1988
Board of County Commissioners
Indian River County
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, n 32960
Re: Sandridge Golf Course - Concrete cart paths
Change Order #2
Reducing concrete cart paths from 8' to 7' wide.
10r147 lineal feet x 1' x $1.50 s.f. $ 15,220.50
Prepare, place, finish 10r147 x 40¢ (4,058.80)
127 c.y. concrete with reinforded
mesh @ $49.88 c.y. (6,334.76)
Total $ 4,826.94
a,y 3.x'7
REFINANCING OF BOND ISSUES ON ROUTE 60 WATER AND SEWER
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 6/28/88:
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: June 28, 1988
SUBJECT: REFINANCING ROUTE 60
WATER AND SEWER
FROM: Joseph A. Bair
OMB Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Indian River County has been in the process of refinancing the Route
60 Water and Route 60 Sewer Bond Issues to obtain a better interest
rate. The Route 60 Bond Issues which were privately placed originally
with Florida National Bank had an it 3/4 % interest rate.
JUN 11442 BOOK .7 F''GEl35
Staff sent out "Requests for Proposals" on refinancing Route 60 Bond
Issues. On March 8 1988, the Board of County Commissioners authorized
staff to proceed on obtaining refinancing from the lowest bidder,
First Union Bank, with a interest rate of 8.47%. Due to the
complexity of the Bond Issue we were unable to finalize financing
until now.
At the present time, the -following principal balances are due on the
Bond Issues:
Route 60 Water $ 430,000.00
Route 60 Sewer $2,797,675.00
$3,227,675.00
Closing costs will be as follows:
First Union Legal Council - $ 7,500.00
Rhoads & Sinon Bond Council - $20,000.00
The following accrued interest up. to June 28, 1988 will have to be
paid to Florida National Bank upon closing:
Route 60 Water A 8061.76
Route 60 Sewer 161624.01
OMB Director Joe Baird introduced Jim Thornsen of First -
Union Bank, who he found to be very competitive in the bidding
process. The next lowest interest rate was 8-3/4% from Barnett
Bank.
Bond Counsel Chuck Sieck advised that the Board needs to
adopt two resolutions today, which amend the original resolutions
with respect to interest rates, and make several other technical
changes felt to be necessary. Attached to each resolution is a
copy of Memorandum of Purchase, which is First Union's commitment
to purchase the bonds. The resolution approves the Memorandum of
Purchase, authorizes the Chairman's signature, and authorizes the
bond issue to be issued. The first resolution deals with the
State Road 60 water project, which is $430,000 outstanding
principal amount, and the second resolution deals with the SR -60
sewer project, which is $2,797,675 outstanding at this time.
Chairman Scurlock commended the finance people and Director
Baird for a job well done.
Jan
43 BOOK 7 F,,vc 136
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0)
adopted Resolutio.n 88-40, providing for the refinancing
of the SR -60 water project.
RESOLUTION 88-40
A RESOLUTION AMENDING AND SUPPLEMENTING RESOLUTION NO. 84-48
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ENTITLED:
•RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF NOT EXCEEDING
$2,050,000 IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES NO. ONE, OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO FINANCE THE COST OF THE ACQUISITION AND
CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN WATER DISTRIBUTION IMPROVEMENTS TO
THE COMBINED WATER AND SEWER SYSTEM OF THE COUNTY; PROVIDING
FOR THE RIGHTS OF THE HOLDERS THEREOF AND PLEDGING FOR THE
PAYMENT THEREOF THE PROCEEDS FROM SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS LEVIED,
AGAINST PROPERTY SPECIALLY BENEFITED BY SUCH IMPROVEMENTS;
AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE-,
BY CHANGING CERTAIN INTEREST RATE, PAYMENT, REDEMPTION AND
FLAW -OF -FUNDS PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO THE SERIES NO. ONE
BONDS AND MODIFYING SUCH BONDS ACCORDINGLY; AND BY
ESTABLISHING CERTAIN PROVISIONS REGARDING: (1) COMPLIANCE
WITH APPLICABLE FEDERAL INCOME TAR LAWS, (2) ASSIGNMENT OF
THE SERIES NO. ONE BONDS, BY THE CURRENT HOLDER THEREOF TO
THE PURCHASER THEREOF, (3) APPLICATION OF THE FUNDS PAID BY
SUCH PURCHASER, (4) EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF, AND
PERFORMANCE BY THE COUNTY OF ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER, ALL
CLOSING DOCUMENTS REQUIRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE SUBJECT
TRANSACTION, AS APPROVED IN.
BOND COUNSEL, AND (5)
SATISFACTION BY THE COUNTY OF ANY OTHER REQUIREMENTS, AS
APPROVED BY BOND COUNSEL, IMPOSED BY THE PURCHASER OF THE
SERIES N0. ONE BONDS IN CONNECTION WITH CONSUMMATING THE
SUBJECT TRANSACTION; AND PROVIDING THE EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA THAT:
ARTICLE 1 AUTHORITY FOR RESOLUTION. This Resolution (hereinafter,
the 01988 Amending Resolution") is adopted by Indian River County, Florida (the
'County) pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 125, Florida Statutes (1987), as
amended, Ordinance No. 83-46 of the County, including the applicable provisions
of Chapter 170, Florida Statutes, incorporated therein, as amended by Ordinance
No. 84-51 of the County (collectively, the 'Authorizing Ordinance-). and other
applicable provisions of law.
ARTICLE 2 DEFINITIONS. All terms and phrases used herein shall have
the meanings ascribed to them in the Series No. One Resolution, as hereinafter
defined, except as otherwise specifically provided herein.
ARTICLE 3 FINDINGS. It is hereby ascertained, determined and
declared that:
3.10. The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida (hereinafter, the 'Board'), on July 11, 1984, duly adopted Resolution
No. 84-48 entitled:
-RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF NOT EXCEEDING
$2,050,000 IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES NO. ONE, OF INDIAN RIVER
COMM, FLORIDA, TO FINANCE THE COST OF THE ACQUISITION AND
CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN WATER .DISTRIBUTION IMPROVEMENTS TO
THE COMBINED WATER AND SEWER SYSTEM OF THE COUNTY; PROVIDING
FOR THE RIGHTS OF THE HOLDERS THEREOF AND PLEDGING FOR THE
PAYMENT THEREOF THE PROCEEDS FROM SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS LEVIED,
AGAINST PROPERTY SPECIALLY BENEFITED BY SUCH IMPROVEMENTS;
AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE-,
(hereinafter, the "Series No. One Resolution-).
3.20. Florida National Bank, Jacksonville, Florida (hereinafter, the
'Holder' or 'Florida National'), is the Registered Owner of all of the
outstanding Bonds, in the aggregate outstanding principal amount, as of the date
hereof, of $430,000.
RESOLUTION 88-40 IS ON FILE IN ITS ENTIRETY IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK TO THE BOARD
44 BoaFaUL137
Ufa 8 v1
ON MOTION by Commissioners Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0)
adopted Resolution 88-41, providing for thefrefinancing
of the SR -60 wastewater project.
RESOLUTION 88-41
A RESOLUTION AMENDING AND SUPPLEMENTING RESOLUTION NO. 85-36
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ENTITLED:
"RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF NOT EXCEEDING
$5,165,000 IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES NO. 2, OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO FINANCE THE COST OF THE ACQUISITION AND
CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN SEWAGE COLLECTION AND TREATMENT
IMPROVEMENTS TO THE COMBINED WATER AND SEWER SYSTEM OF THE
COUNTY; PROVIDING FOR THE RIGHTS OF THE HOLDERS THEREOF AND
PLEDGING FOR THE PAYMENT THEREOF THE PROCEEDS FROM SPECIAL
ASSESSMENTS FOR IMPACT FEES LEVIED, AGAINST PROPERTY
SPECIALLY BENEFITED BY SUCH IMPROVEMENTS; AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE",
BY CHANGING CERTAIN INTEREST RATE, PAYMENT, REDEMPTION,
FLOW -OF -FUNDS AND SECURITY PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO THE
SERIES NO. 2 BONDS AND MODIFYING SUCH BONDS ACCORDINGLY; AND
BY ESTABLISHING CERTAIN PROVISIONS REGARDING: (1) COMPLIANCE
WITH APPLICABLE FEDERAL INCOME TAX LAWS, (2) ASSIGNMENT OF
THE SERIES NO. 2 BONDS BY THE CURRENT HOLDER THEREOF TO THE
PURCHASER THEREOF, (3) APPLICATION OF THE FUNDS PAID BY SUCH
PURCHASER, (4) EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF, AND PERFORMANCE BY
THE COUNTY OF ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER, ALL CLOSING DOCUMENTS
REQUIRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE SUBJECT TRANSACTION, AS
APPROVED BY BOND COUNSEL, AND (5) SATISFACTION BY THE COUNTY
OF ANY OTHER REQUIREMENTS, AS APPROVED BY BOND COUNSEL,
IMPOSED BY THE PURCHASER OF THE SERIES NO. 2 BONDS IN
CONNECTION WITH CONSUMMATING THE SUBJECT TRANSACTION; AND
PROVIDING THE EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA THAT:
ARTICLE 1 AUTHORITY FOR RESOLUTION. This Resolution (hereinafter,
the "1988 Amending Resolution") is adopted by Indian River County, Florida (the
"County") pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 125, Florida Statutes (1987), as
amended, Ordinance No. 83-46 of the County, including the provisions of Chapter
170, Florida Statutes, incorporated therein, as amended by Ordinance No. 84-51 of
the County (collectively, the "Authorizing Ordinance"), and other applicable
provisions of law.
ARTICLE 2 DEFINITIONS. All terms and phrases used herein shall have
the meanings ascribed to them in the Series No. 2 Resolution, as hereinafter
defined, except as otherwise specifically provided herein.
ARTICLE 3 FINDINGS. It is hereby ascertained, determined and
declared that:
3.10. The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida (hereinafter, the "Board"), on March 20, 1985, duly adopted Resolution
No. 85-36 entitled:
"RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF NOT EXCEEDING
$5,165,000 IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES NO. 2, OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO FINANCE THE COST OF THE ACQUISITION AND
CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN SEWAGE COLLECTION AND TREATMENT
IMPROVEMENTS TO THE COMBINED WATER AND SEWER SYSTEM OF THE
COUNTY; PROVIDING FOR THE RIGHTS OF THE HOLDERS THEREOF AND
PLEDGING FOR THE PAYMENT THEREOF THE PROCEEDS FROM SPECIAL
ASSESSMENTS FOR IMPACT FEES LEVIED, AGAINST PROPERTY
SPECIALLY BENEFITED BY SUCH IMPROVEMENTS; AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE",
which Resolution was duly amended by the Board on June 5, 1985 by Resolution No.
85-62 (the " 1985 Amending Resolution") entitled:
"A RESOLUTION AMENDING A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ENTITLED:
RESOLUTION 88-41 IS ON FILE IN ITS ENTIRETY IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK TO THE BOARD
45 BOOK 73 f'Au 13
JUS 8 1988
11
SANDERLING SUBDIVISION REQUEST FOR RETURN OF FUNDS IN LIEU OF
DEDICATION OF ACCESS
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 6/27/88:
TO: The Board of County Commissioners
FROM: ",C, William G. Collins If - Assistant County Attorney
DATE: June 27, 1988
SUBJECT: Demand by Associates Management Group, Inc.
On June 22, 1988 this office received a demand letter from
Associates Management Group, Inc., the developer of
Sanderling Subdivision for return of the $27,000.00 payment
in lieu of dedication of a 15 -foot access easement.
An access easement to water bodies is required under the
subdivision and platting ordinance, design standards Section
10(r), of every subdivision which fronts along the Atlantic
Ocean, the Intercoastal Waterway, the Indian River, or any
other natural water body for distance of 600 linear feet.
Associates in February of 1985 elected to make an "in lieu
Of" payment rather than make a dedication of an access
easement to the Atlantic Ocean at Sanderling Subdivision as
required by the design standards of the subdivision and
platting ordinance.
Richard Candler, attorney for Associates Management, states
as the basis of the developer's claim for refund the
following (see attached letter):
1. A taking under Nollan, a 1987 Supreme Court case.
2. An equal protection violation for discriminating against
waterfront developers.
3. An illegal impact fee.
Associates Management Group, Inc. is threatening suit if
they are not paid $27,000.00 plus interest from the date of
payment (presumably sometime in early 1985).
It is my feeling that the County's design standard is
defensible as to the first two points, and that calling a
design standard as an impact fee is a mischaracterization.
I recommend against refund. This should be litigated if
necessary. ,
46
Boor 73 FnuL 10 9
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0)
authorized litigation in this matter, if necessary,
as recommended by staff.
SPECIAL DISTRICT MEETINGS
Chairman Scurlock announced that immediately following
adjournment, the Board of County Commissioners will reconvene as
the District Board of Commissioners for the following special
districts:
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
NORTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT
SOUTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT
The minutes for the meetings listed above are being prepared
separately.
DOCUMENTS TO BE MADE PART OF THE RECORD
Contract on IRC Sanitary Landfill Expansion - Segment If
`-Co`ntract with Sheltra and Son instruction company, TFFR. for
the construction of the IRC Sanitary Landfill Expansion - Segment
II, having been fully executed and received, is being placed on
file in the Office of the Clerk, as approved at the meeting of
June 7, 1988.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made,
seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 10.:10 o'clock A.M.
r
JUN 2 8 198 47 �oor< N r.a,E 140