HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/13/1988Tuesday, September 13, 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,
September 13, 1988, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Don C.
Scurlock, Jr., Chairman; Gary C. Wheeler, Vice Chairman; Richard
N. Bird; Margaret C. Bowman; and Carolyn K. Eggert. Also present
were Acting County Administrator William G. Collins ll; Charles
P. Vitunac, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; Joseph
Baird, OMB Director; and Barbara Bonnah, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order, and Commissioner
Bird led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Commissioner Eggert requested the addition of an amendment
to Resolution 88-53 regarding the dealing of crack cocaine in the
Oslo Road area.
Commissioner Wheeler requested the deletion of Item 8-A-1,
the Presentation of Final Design of Phase III of the Jail.
Commissioner Bird requested the addition of a Parks &
Recreation Committee report.
ON.MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously deleted and
added the above items to today's Agenda.
CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Eggert requested that Items D, H and M be
removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion.
BOOK
SEP 13 1988 d
A. Report
Received and placed on file in the Office of Clerk to the
Board:
HRS State Contract reports for the third quarter
period ending 6/30/88
B. Budget Amendment - Balancing Budget for 1987/88 Fiscal Year
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/6/88:
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: September 6, 1988
SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE THE MANAGEMENT AND
BUDGET DIRECTOR TO DO THE
NECESSARY AMENDMENTS FOR
BALANCING THE BUDGET FOR THE
1987/88 FISCAL.YEAR
CONSENT AGENDA
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
The 1987/88 fiscal year ends September 30, 1988. To be in proper
compliance all budget amendments must be done prior to the close
of the fiscal year.
I would like the Board of County Commissioners to authorize the .
Management and Budget Director to do the necessary budget
amendments for balancing the budget -for the 1987/88 fiscal year.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously authorized
the OMB Director to do the necessary budget amendments
for balancing the budget for the 1987/88 fiscal year.
C. Reappointments to Alcohol, Drug Abuse 8 Mental Health
Planning Council (tabled from 9/6/88 meeting)
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 8/30/88:
2
SEP 13 1988 BOOK 7Z , V F.1 '1315
TO: Board of County CommissionerQATE: August 30, 1988 FILE:
SUBJECT: Reappointments to Alcohol
Drug Abuse, and Mental
Health Planning Council
FROM: Alice E. White REFERENCES:
Administrative Aide I
The following people need to be reappointed to the Alcohol,
Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Planning Council for another
two-year term:
Dr. Eddie Hudson
Stephen L. Derkash
John Y. Ma
This will constitute their third term on this Board, therefore,
in 1990 three new members will have to be appointed.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously
reappointed the following members to the Alcohol,
Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Planning Council for
another two-year term:
Dr. Eddie Hudson
Stephen L. Derkash
John Y. Ma
D. Award of IRC Bid #423 Hazardous Waste Disposal (Continued
from 9/6/88 meeting)
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/6/88:
,SEP 13 198
TO:DATE: June 22, 1988
/�h�r1Pc p1Czun.•.--r--
County Administrator
SUBJECT: Amm OF zRc BID #423
HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL
�I
FROM: REFERENCES:
Ambler, C.P.M.
Purchasing Manager
1. DESCRTPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Bids were received Wednesday, April 13, 1988, at 2:00 p.m.
for IRC Bid #423.
This bid was advertised in the local newspaper.
2. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
The low bid meeting the intent of our specifications was
submitted by Chemical Pollution Control, Inc., of New York.
They have taken minor exceptions to our specifications,
which should be waived. Their exceptions were to disposal
of scam items, listed in our specifications. They did
not quote on these items. All other bidders took similar
exceptions.
3. FUNDING:
purchasing is not currently holding•a requisition to purchase
these services. No purchase order will be issued before a
requisition approved by budget is received.
4. NIDATION:
Staff recmnends that award be made to Chemical Pollution
Control, Inc. and a contract be negotiated and signed.
Commissioner Eggert asked if there had been any changes in
the proposed contract during the last week, and Sonny Dean,
Director of Solid Waste Management, said there were no changes.
Commissioner Bowman advised that she had felt there should
be some changes in the contract and took it to the Attorney's
Office yesterday, but they were otherwise occupied. She believed
that any kinks could be ironed out by today.
Attorney Vitunac advised that if there are any significant
amendments, the contract would be brought back to the Board.
S E P 13 1988
BOOK 4
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously awarded
IRC Bid #423 to Chemical Pollution Control, Inc., and
authorized the County Attorney's office to make any
minor changes in the contract.
J
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
.\ N
� � Ol -
\V
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
4
V,
( d
BID TABULATION
�•
G�
BID NO.
DATE OF OPENING PENING
April 13, 1988
BID TITLE
HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL
ITEM DESCRIPTION'
NO.
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNI
GRAND TOTAL
E. Occupational Licenses Report
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/2/88:
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Gene E. Morris, Tax Collector
DATE: September 2, 1988
SUBJECT: Occupational Licenses
Pursuant to Indian River County Ordinance No. 86-59, please be
informed that $1,712.33 was collected in occupational license
taxes during the month of August 1988, representing the issuance
of 128 licenses.
AA54-'.
Gene E. Morris, Tax Collector
5
SES 1
19BOOK ,�F 10 e8
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously accepted
the Occupational Licenses Report for the month of
August, 1988.
F. Proclamation - Industry Appreciation Week
P R O C L A M A T I O N
WHEREAS, industry in Indian River County is vital to
the community's economic health; and '
6
WHEREAS, Indian River County's existing industries hre
the key to a prosperous futurel and
WHEREAS, the expansion of those industries accounts for
the majority of new jobs createdl and
1t '
WHEREAS, Indian River County's industries help sustain
our quality of lifer and
WHEREAS, public knowledge of the contributions made by
industry is essential to maintenance of good community -industry
relationships;
NOW, THEREFORE,.BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS of Indian River County, Florida that the week of
September 19-23, 1988 be designated as '
INDUSTRY APPRECIATION WEEK
in Indian River County; and the Board urges all residents of
Indian River County to salute our industries and their employees
for their contributions to our community:
Dated this 13th day of September, 1988
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
_2'�_ C_
DonC. Scur ock, E17 Ma-Ir—man
6Ci00K a
P 13 1988
J
G. Final Plat Approval for Vista Villas Unit Two
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 8/26/88:
TO: The Honorable Members of The Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Ro rt M. Keatin ,
Community Developme4e Director
THROUGH: Stan Boling /Aief, Cu
rent Development
FROM: Robert E Wiegers�w
Staff Planner, Current Development
DATE: August 26, 1988
SUBJECT: FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR VISTA VILLAS UNIT TWO
It is requested that the information herein presented be given
formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its
regular meeting of September 13, 1988.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Vista Villas Unit Two is an 18 lot fee simple townhouse subdivi-
sion of a ±3.3 acre parcel of property located immediately south
of Vista Villas Unit one subdivision and adjacent to the Vista
Gardens Condominium Development. The subject property is zoned
RM -10 (Residential Multi -Family up to 10units/acre) and has an
MD -2 (Medium Density up to 10 units/acre) land use designation.
The proposed building density is ±5 units/acre.
At its regular meeting of October 23, 1986, the Planning and
Zoning Commission granted preliminary plat approval for a 24 unit
fee simple townhouse subdivision on a ±4.72 acre parcel. Vista
Villas Unit 1 was granted final plat approval by the Board of
County Commissioners at its regular meeting of November 17, 1980,
and Vista Villas Unit Two is the second phase of the overall
project. The owner, Vista Properties of Vero Beach, Inc., is now
requesting final plat approval for Vista Villas Unit Two and has
submitted:
1. a final plat in conformance with the approved preliminary
plat;
2. an irrevocable letter of credit for 115% of the cost of the -
remaining required subdivision improvements;
3. a certified cost estimate from the project engineer; and
4. a contract committing the developer to completing the
remaining required improvements.
ANALYSIS:
Section 10(g) of the subdivision ordinance allows developers to
"plat over" townhouse projects to allow the fee simple transfer of
property underneath and around the townhouse units. Normal
subdivision lot dimension and lot frontage requirements are waived
7 R 1111
V lf� C4r'�� 4 0
for such projects. The approved townhouse site plan controls the '
construction of the project, while the subdivision Plat delineates
common areas and creates lots that can be sold off to unit owners.
Because the applicant is requesting final plat approval prior to
completion of required improvements, as opposed to "platting" over
a completed project, they are bonding -out for plat approval in
accordance with applicable platting regulations.
The subject subdivision will receive water and wastewater service
from Indian River County. A Stormwater Management Permit has been
issued by the Public Works Director, and the County Attorney's
office has approved the construction contract subject to its being
ihe
signed by the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners.
final plat is in conformance with the approved preliminary plat
and site plan. Thus, all County requirements concerning final
plat approval have been addressed.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant
final plat approval to Vista Villas Unit 1 subdivision, authorize
the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign a
nt to completing
contract with the applicant committing the app P g
the remaining required improvements, and accept the irrevocable
letter of credit guaranteeing the contract.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously granted
final plat approval to Vista Villas Unit 2 with the
conditions set out in staff's recommendation.
CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS IS ON FILE IN
THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
H. Award of IRC Bid #89-5 Straight Sand Cement Endwalls
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 8/15/88:
8 SEP 13 1988 ROOa 74 PAGE 141
r
TO: William G. Collins II DATE: August 15, 1988 FILE:
Acting County Administrator
SUBJECT: AWS OF IRC BID #89-5
STRAIGHT SAND CEMENT
ENDWALLs
FRO✓/2� �/� REFERENCES:
Gus Ambler, C.P.M.
Purchasing Manager
1. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Bids were opened Wednesday, August 10, 1988 at 2:00 p.m.
for IRC Bid #89-5.
6 Invitations to Bid were mailed. One response was received.
This bid was advertised in the newspaper.
The bid register was composed of contractors on past vendor
..lists plus contractors from the 1988 Blue Book Contractors
register. Purchasing is not aware of any additional contractors
that may have interest in bidding.
2. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
The low and only bid meeting specifications for installation of
Straight Sand Cement Endwalls was submitted by the Davis Company
of Vero Beach. Expenditures under this bid are estimated at
$15,000.00 next year.
3. FUNDING:
This Bid is to establish an annual contract. No Purchase Orders
will be issued before a requisition approved by the Budget Office
is received.
4. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff reccnmrnds that we award this bid to The Davis Conpany. We
have no reason to believe that additional bidding will result in
increased competition.
Commissioner Eggert noted that because this was a single bid
situation, she was curious if this was close to the type of
expenditure we had this year for a similar use.
Gus Ambler, Purchasing Manager, stated that it was, and that
he had worked with the Public Works Director on projecting the
expenditures for all of these bids.
Commissioner Bird pointed out that this contractor has been
doing this particular type of work for quite a few years.
9
SEP 13 1988 BOOK 74 F:,F.1
I
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously awarded
IRC Bid #89-5 to The Davis Company, as recommended by
staff.
I I /
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
h
BID TABULATION .�
BID NO. DATE OF OPENING
089
BID TITLE SUPPLY 8 INSTALL STRAIGH
SAND CEMENT ENDWALLS
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
BID TABULATION
( ��
�J
\I,�
BID NO.
089-5
DATE OF OPENING
BID TITLE SUPPLY & INSTALL STRAIG
ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE
NO.
UNIT
ITENO. DESCRIPTION
UNIT PRICE
UNIT P;
1: 9' x 21' Straight Endwall
6 ' ' St
double Wall/ Double footel
Single Wall/Double Footer
I
EA. $
2. ' 21' Strai ht Endwalle241
7- ' '
Single Wall/Double Footer
Double Wall/Double Footer
EA. $
EA. $
3. 8' x 21' Straight Endvall,Awscul
8. 5' x 7' Straia ht Endwall
Double Wall/Double Footer
Single Wall/Double Footer
j
Ea. $
EA. $
r
Single Wall/Double Footer
EA. $
' x 5' Straight Endwall
'
Double Wall/Double Footer
EA. $
IIM S 2/79
I. Award of IRC Bid #89-9 - Aluminum Sign Blanks
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 8/26/88:
F�,�E ���
S E P 13 19 10 BOOK 74
F1
TO: William G. Collins II
Acting County Administrator
FROMAmbler, C.P.M.
Purchasing Manager
DATE: August 26, 1988 FILE:
SUBJECT:AMMM OF IRC BID #89-9
ALUM EM SIGN BLANKS
REFERENCES.
1. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Bids were opened Wednesday, August 24, 1988 at 2:00 p.m.
for IRC Bid #89-9. - •-
12 Invitations to Bid were mailed. 6 Bids were received,
including 2 No Bids.
This bid was advertised in the newspaper.
2. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
The low bid meeting specifications for Aluminum Sign Blanks
was submitted by Universal Signs of Fort Pierce. They have
taken no exceptions to our specifictions.
3. FUNDING:
Purchasing is not holding a purchase requisition at this -time.
Future requisitions will be approved by budget before a Purchase
Order is issued.
4. RECUVENIDATION:
Staff recnds that we award IRC Bid #89-9 to Universal Signs
and authorize staff to proceed.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner.Wheeler, the Board unanimously awarded
IRC Bid #89-9 to Universal Signs and authorized staff
to proceed.
11 BOOK
SEP 13 1988
IM 250 s"w t+
WIM am.= Rwas22W
BID TABULATION014M (Wapaw"
BID
D Mu 189-9 I� \�.. ✓ `� ✓ \� / 1 V
AIDI = SIDe SLUM �` v
DI YIR IO.T w.ea YMR VeR LAR weN YeR w80 YIIR w
U.
6A.
BOARD OFCOU72R'wuUnsma9M
low 2518 Shlw
eOElmost 9T>IcoAoos y
vree.e.
�h
Vero B." FWA. 32M
BID TABULATION
O KM RATE OF
O TITLs
BnxsaE sacs ecsecs
uw PM" Y1R wx8 YIII wac
l9. 26• : 6• .
"a'
MONO are
tM25A8Br
FlaeutrMlaNeO 1M25M 7� I ---
am
aBm
TABULATION V �` aW TABULATION
1 ! r
OEO.le9-p - "To"a"MM so am 039-4
Ones
ecasxsas stcs ecsesa � � NOIRM uosxeas star acsece
01 osa9mes parr u.s vk iatea ur?4�v un n9u u9r rec �' :�n�e. u9n am an mt arr; mu +tn '.n ' �
_ ra
. c !e. 30• s 30" 9
ZA.
J. Award of IRC Bid #89-11 - Hardware -Traffic Signs
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/1/88:
F, F.
SEP 13 198 12 BOOK
74 L-
TO: WillianG. Collins II DATE: September 1, 1988 FILE:
Acting County Administrator
SUBJECT: MRRD OF IRC BID #89-11
HARDWARE -TRAFFIC SIGNS
FROM- REFERENCES:
Ambler, C.P.M.
/Purchasing Manager
1. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Bids were opened Wednesday, August 24, 1988 at 2:00 p.m.
for IRC Bid #89-11. -
10 Invitations to Bid were mailed. 5 Bids were received,
including 1 No Bids.
This bid was advertised in the newspaper.
2. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
The low bid meeting specifications for Hardware -Traffic Signs
was submitted by Universal Signs of Fort Pierce. They have
taken no exceptions to our specifications.
A bid submitted by Dave Smith Company took exception to our
specifications by requiring all purchases to be in 100 amount
lots. This would create unacceptable ordering and inventory
control problems for the department. Therefore, their bid
should be rejected.
3. FUNDING:
This Bid is to establish an annual contract. No Purchase Orders
will be issued before a requisition approved by the Budget Office
is received.
4. ON:
Staff recommends that we award IRC Bid #89-11 for Hardware -Traffic _
Signs to Universal Signs and that staff be authorized to proceed.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously awarded
IRC Bid #89-11 to Universal Signs and authorized staff
to proceed.
13 BOOK f[. �
SEP 13 19 6
.1
J
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS .VN \� OP
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960 /IJ
��. `1�. F`
P v
BID TABULATION �I.(,) Ib` t
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
BID TABULATION Q fi��l Q�
889011 DA6•SOF �NG (1
BID TITLE
HARDWARE TRAFFIC SIGNS /
ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UI
N0.
Post, Delineator. 6 ft o
Galvanized 1.12
a
2. Post Rib-bak, 12ft.
Galvanized. 2.0 lbs/ft.
B. Per 500 $ 1 7
Aluminum, #19uF, Super
Lock or equivalent
Standard Set Screws:
450 Sign -to -sign Bracket J p
Ea. $
900 Sign -to -sign Bracket �.Q/
Ea. S
o S
Ea. $
80° Post -to -sin Bracket � % S
Ea. $
��M- - -_
BID TITLE
Hardware -Traffic Signs
. m=mm■vAlmmff"mil■■■■■■
Aluminum.'12 ft. .156 waV ■■■■■■■■�■■■■■■
' ■■■■■■■■■m■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
M■�
Ti miAM,0ME■■■■
3h" O.D. Round Posts
---Aluminum as Per FDOT
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
6. Aluminum Channel, 1.5- x
■■';��rll■■■■■■
-Aluminum 12 Ft. ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
MMM■®M=F7/MINJ,■■■■■■
Aluminum 16 ft ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
.1
J
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS .VN \� OP
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960 /IJ
��. `1�. F`
P v
BID TABULATION �I.(,) Ib` t
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
BID TABULATION Q fi��l Q�
889011 DA6•SOF �NG (1
BID TITLE
HARDWARE TRAFFIC SIGNS /
ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UI
N0.
Post, Delineator. 6 ft o
Galvanized 1.12
a
2. Post Rib-bak, 12ft.
Galvanized. 2.0 lbs/ft.
B. Per 500 $ 1 7
Aluminum, #19uF, Super
Lock or equivalent
Standard Set Screws:
450 Sign -to -sign Bracket J p
Ea. $
900 Sign -to -sign Bracket �.Q/
Ea. S
o S
Ea. $
80° Post -to -sin Bracket � % S
Ea. $
��M- - -_
BID TITLE
Hardware -Traffic Signs
. m=mm■vAlmmff"mil■■■■■■
Aluminum.'12 ft. .156 waV ■■■■■■■■�■■■■■■
' ■■■■■■■■■m■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
M■�
Ti miAM,0ME■■■■
3h" O.D. Round Posts
---Aluminum as Per FDOT
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
6. Aluminum Channel, 1.5- x
■■';��rll■■■■■■
-Aluminum 12 Ft. ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
MMM■®M=F7/MINJ,■■■■■■
Aluminum 16 ft ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
14
SEP 13 1988 BOOK 74 Fm[F 147
BOARD O
1 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
BID TABULATION
ID TITLE
HARDWARE
s 1 1
O.D. Round ,Post
MEMO
� �IrAlffl.
ormM!!!!!!
Assembl!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
receipt
Purchase Order
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
11 411 JI II I I I1 11'I II
K. Award of IRC Bid #89-13 - Guard Rail
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/1/88:
TO: William G. Collins II DATE: September 1, 1988 FILE:
Acting County Aftinistrator
SUBJECT:
ANAM OF IRC BID
#89 -13 -GUARD RAIL
FROM: , /1REFERENCES:
Gus Ambler, C.P.M.
/Purchasing Manager
1. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Bids were opened Wednesday, August 24, 1988 at 2:00 p.m.
for IRC Bid #89-13.
SEP 13 19®
® 15 BOOK 74 F. 148
J
F
I
14 Invitations to Bid were mailed. 5 Bids were received,
including 3 No Bids.
This bid was advertised in the newspaper.
2. ALTERMTIVES AND ANALYSIS:
The low bid meeting specifications for Guard Rail was submitted
by Mike Hunter, Inc. of Tampa, F1. They have taken no exceptions
to our specifications.
3. FUNDING:
This Bid is to establish an annual contract. No Purchase Orders
will be issued before a requisition approved by the Budget Office
is received.
4. ON:
Staff reccnmends that we award IRC Bid #89-13 to Mike Hunter, Inc.
and authorize staff to proceed.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously
awarded IRC Bid #89-13 to Mike Hunter, Inc., and
authorized staff to proceed.
BOARD O .
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida :0
. TABULATION\
\
MEM
NO. DESC
—I" -
■►����■��®gin
- ■■■■■■■
M■■■MOMM■■■■■■■■
■■■■MMMT MM■■■■■■■
■■■■M, SMO■■■■■■■■
•
■■■■M■s■®■■■■■■■■
■■■■MO■M■■■■■■■■
■■■■M"■M■■■■■■■■
M■■■MMMOMM■■■i■■■■
■■■i o _ nrM■■■■■■■■■r■
16
SEP 13 1988
nor 74 149
L-1.
L. Award of IRC Bid #89-17 - Alkyd_ Thermoplastic Material
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/1/88:
TO: DATE: FILE:
William G. Collins II SEPTEMBER 1, 1988
Acting County Administrator
SUBJECT: MMM OF IRC BID #89-17
ALKYD THERMOPLASTIC MATERIAL
FRO REFERENCES:
Gus Ambler, C'. P.M.'
Purchasing Manager
1. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Bids were opened Wednesday, August 24, 1988 at 2:00 p.m.
for IRC Bid #89-17.
8 Invitations to Bid were mailed. 6 Bids were received,
including 2 No Bids.
This bid was advertised in the newspaper.
2. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
The low bid meeting specifications for Alkyd Thermoplastic
Material for Traffic Striping was submitted by Cataphote Inc.
They have taken no exceptions to our specifications.
3. FUNDING:
This Bid is to establish an annual contract. No Purchase Orders
will be issued before a requisition approved by the Budget Offic
is received.
4. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that we award IRC Bid #89-17 for Alkyd Thermoplastic
Material to C4aphote, Inc. and authorize staff to proceed.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously awarded
IRC Bid #89-17 to Cataphote, Inc., and authorized
staff to proceed.
17
BOOK 7 F'' �E.150
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach. Florida 3296D
BID TABULATION\,v
BID NO. DATE OF OPENING
089-17
810 TITLE
ALKYD TEERMOPLASTIC MATERIAL
�P�
v
`„'
oil � ,o
��
ITM
NO. DESCRIPTION
NO.
UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE YNR
1. White Alkyd (Blocks)
•e
A(t)f P\'
Per LB. $
2. Yellow Alkyd (Blocks)
Per Lb. $
3. White Alkyd (Grandular)
n
O 1
4. Yellow Alkyd Grandular
7
p )
Per Lb. $
TiV
M. Award of IRC Bid #89-21 - Contracted Custodial Services
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/1/88:
TO: William G. Collins II DATE:Sm,MER 1, 1988 FILE: ,
Acting County Administrator
SUBJECT:
AMM OF IRC BID #89-21
CONTRACTED CUSTODIAL SERVICES
4��
FRO REFERENCES:
Ambl , C.P.M.
Purchasing Manager
1. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Bids were opened Wednesday, August 24, 1988 at 2:00 p.m.
for IRC Bid #89-21.
19 Invitations to Bid were mailed. 7 Bids were received,
including 4 No Bids.
A pre-bid conference was held to explain our specifications
and to visit the buildings to be serviced.
This bid was advertised in the newspaper.
2. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
The low bid meeting specifications for Contracted Custodial
Services was submitted by Lamar's Cleaning and Janitorial
Service. They have taken no exceptions to our specifications
SEP 13 1988 18 BOOK 74 rrIE 151
� s �
3. FERMING:
purchasing is not holding a purchase requisition at this time.
Future requisitions will be approved by budget before a Purchas
Order is issued.
4. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that we award IRC Bid #89-21 for Contracted
Custodial Services to Lamar's Cleaning and Janitorial Service,
and staff be authorized to proceed.
Commissioner Eggert was concerned about accepting a bid on
services without knowing how reliable the company is, and also
had a problem on taking a low bid on a service item.
Purchasing Manager Gus Ambler explained that this is not the
same company we had last year and stated that from what was
presented to us he was satisfied with the firm. There is a
cancellation clause in the contract if they do not provide
satisfactory service.
Commissioner Bird asked what buildings would be serviced by
this firm, and Mr. Ambler explained that they would service the
Courthouse, the 2001 Building, the Jail, and basically all
buildings other than the Administration Building.
Chairman Scurlock hoped we would keep a good accurate record
of these services so that we can compare them to what it would
cost us to provide the services ourselves sometime in the future.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously awarded
IRC Bid #89-21 for contracted custodial services to
Lamar's Cleaning and Janitorial Service, and authorized
staff to proceed.
19
SEP 13 198"18
Boy 74 `'� LE 1" �)eL
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS r \
1840 25th Street (l , x f j v� G " 1 \ \ N I
Vero Beach, Florida 32960 1 lJ yi d V
V� 1
BID TABULATION D$Rj ` (��
BID NO.' DAT O OP �j
BID Tnir
DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE UNR PRICE U�U PRI E UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE L
PUBLIC HEARING - O'NEILL REQUEST TO REZONE 3.4 ACRES FROM
RS -6 to PRO
The hour of 9:05 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to wit:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
in the matter of 9 I Y– 6
in the _ oCourt. was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of 3 s
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. o
Sworn to and subscribed before me ta dfA.D. 19 d
�1 •
n mess M rage , `
(SEAL)(Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River Count r�•Florida)
i
NOTICE—PUBLIC HEARING
Notice of hearing to consider the adorn of
a County ordinance rem" land from: RS -6.
Single -Family Residential Dlsfict to PRO, Pro-
fessional Office DistricL The subject Prop" Is
located on the north side of S.R. 60 approxi -
matey 660' east of SM Avenue (IOngs High-
way).
The subject Property ls described ax
TRe South yi of Lot 8 and all of Lot 1,
Ramona Park Subdivision according to
no replan recorded in Plat Rook Z. Page
78, Public Records of tridimr River Coun-
. Florlda. And all of LOU 9, 10. 11 ard
2. Block 3 and Lob 111 and 1Z. Block 4
rd Mortimer Parkway Subdivision also
known ere O= Pines Subdivision a.
cording to the plat recorded in Plat Book
1, Page 39. Public Reeorda of Indian
River Counq The south 74 Leet of Lab
11 and 12. Block 4 and all of lob 13, 14
and 16. Black 5 of EI Vero Villa Subdt*
sbn according to the Plst thereof filed in
Rat Book 4, Page 97, Public. Records of
SL Luce Courcy. Florida. Said land now
ging and beitq err lridierl River County,
A pub0c hear@rg at which parties In interest
and eitlrans shall have an opportunity to be
heard wall be held by the Board of County Cort -
missioners of Indian River County. Florida. in the
County Commission Chambers of the County
Administration Buiidhhg. located at 1640 25th
Street Vero Beach. Florida on Tuesday, Septmo-
(ler 13. 1986. at 9.'QS a.m.
The Board of County Commiesionere may
=1 a leas:W1W zoning district than the dia-
trkt requested provided k ls within the as=
9 pn one�w may wish to appeal any ded�on
which may be made at tib meeting will need to
ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings
is made. which includes the testimony and evi-
dence upon which the appeal will be•
Indian River Courcy
Board of County Cor mbsmners
By -9 -Don C. Scurlock Jr. Chairmen i
August 23, 1988 _ !
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 8/30/88:
SEP I � 1988 20 BOOK
74 15
TO: William 'G. Collins II DATE: August 30, 1988 FILE:.
Acting County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
SUBJECT: o'NEILL REQUEST TO REZONE
Robert M. Keating, AICP 3.4 ACRES FROM RS -6 TO PRO
Community Development Director
FROM: REFERENCES:
David C. NearingONEILL REZONING
Staff Planner W e JEFF2
It is requested that the information presented herein be given
formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of September 13, 1988.
DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION:
Eugene O'Neill, Esq., acting as agent on behalf of six property
owners, has submitted a request to rezone 3.4 acres of land from
RS -6, Single Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre) to
PRO, Professional Office District (up to 6 units/acre). The
acreage is comprised of 7 parcels of land ranging in size from
10,360 sq. ft. to 46,534 sq. ft. The parcels are platted lots in
several subdivisions, and are situated on or within 300 feet of
the north side of S.R.; -60, and adjacent to the Ryanwood Shopping
Center.
The applicants intend to utilize their property for residential
and professional office uses.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
In this sectlon, an analysis of the reasonableness of the applica-
tion will be presented. The analysis will include a description
of the current and future land uses of the site and surrounding
areas, potential impacts on the transportation and utility sys-
tems, and any significant adverse impacts on environmental quali-
ty.
Current Land Use Pattern
Currently, the seven lots are zoned RS -6, as are the surrounding
lots situated immediately north and east. Five of the seven
parcels currently contain single family residences. The
surrounding single family lots are mostly developed. To the west
of the subject property is the Ryanwood Shopping Center, zoned CG,
General Commercial, and to . the south is S.R. 60 with vacant land
south of that zoned CL, Limited Commercial.
Future Land Use Pattern
The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject parcels and all land
north and east as LD -2, Low Density Residential 2 (allowing up to
6 units/acre). All commercially zoned land lying west, and south
across S.R. 60 is within the current boundaries of the S.R.
60/Kings Highway Commercial Node. '
Transportation
Five of the seven parcels involved in this request have frontage
on S.R. 60, one has frontage on 55th Avenue, the last on 54th
Avenue: The County Thoroughfare Plan designates S.R. 60 as a
major arterial, and 55th and 54th Avenues as local roads.
SEP 13 1988 2' Boo. 7
L_
M
Currently, all roads and their intersections are operating at a
level of service (LOS) "A". The rezoning of this property should
have minimal impact on the
sections. Since S.R. 60
corridor, little traffic is
office sites from the north
This expectation is further
local roads running north
together. The most direct
would be by S.R. 60.
Utilities
current LOS for all roads and inter -
is a major east/west transportation
expected to be attracted to possible
through the residential subdivisions.
reinforced by the fact that few of the
and south connect two major roads
and convenient access to this area
Public water and sewer facilities are currently in place along.
S.R. 60 west of Kings Highway. However, the subject property is
situated within an area designated as a City of Vero Beach service
area and cannot be provided with County water and wastewater
service even though the County serves the Ryanwood Shopping Center
immediately to the west. City water and wastewater would have to
be extended to the site southward from 26th Street. According to
the County Utilities Department, the City has no immediate plans
to extend services south from 26th Street to.S.R. 60.
Environmental
The Comprehensive Plan does not designate this area as Environ-
mentally Sensitive, nor is it situated in a flood prone area.
ANALYSIS:
o General Intent and Impacts of the PRO District
The intent of the PRO district is to offer an opportunity for
redevelopment to areas which are considered marginally suitable
for single-family use., but not suitable for a broad range of
commercial uses. Further, the PRO district is intended to be used
as a tool for redeveloping areas in decline, and to act as a
buffer between residentially zoned and commercially zoned areas.
Several effects can occur with a PRO district designation. First,
the PRO district can reduce the spread of commercial development
along major arterial roadways on which the PRO district must have
frontage. This reduces the chance of strip commercialization of
sensitive major transportation corridors. Second, the PRO -
district can stabilize areas which are in early stages of decline.
The PRO district was created for, and intended to be compatible
with, residential zoning districts, and for this reason it
requires increased setbacks and enhanced buffering. The
redevelopment of deteriorating housing into offices can slow or
halt further deterioration and its impact on stable areas of a
neighborhood.
o Anticipated Effects of this Rezoning
Currently, the adjacent neighborhoods to the north of the subject
property are in a well maintained condition. The appraised value
of housing in this area is high, and the housing is in good
condition. However, two of the residential units in the subject
area are showing signs of age, one being in a state of disrepair,
the other still in good appearance.
Though age is not necessarily a sign of neighborhood deteri-
oration, it could be an indicator; when combined with location.
Even though the adjacent neighborhoods are well maintained and the
housing stock is in good condition, those older units adjacent to
S.R. 60, a six lane divided major arterial road, could begin to
decline. This decline could occur because the age, proximity to
S.R. 60, and closeness to a commercial area reduce the
desirability of those units. As a result, maintenance and upkeep
may be deferred on those units, and this may impact the adjacent
neighborhoods.
22
P 18 199 Boos 74 �,, t x,55
M M M
Once deterioration begins in an area, there may be an attempt by
property owners to obtain commercial zoning to increase the
attractiveness of their property for resale. If commercial zoning
begins to move eastward along the north side of S.R. 60, a strip
commercial pattern will occur. Strip commercial development has
long been discouraged by the County through its comprehensive plan
policies.
The subject rezoning request has the potential to prevent a trend
of deterioration within this neighborhood by promoting
redevelopment of existing homes along S.R. 60 into smaller
professional offices. These offices would serve as a buffer to
the adverse effects of the higher traffic volumes on S.R. 60. The
adjacent homes would be buffered from the offices by the required
buffer yards and screening required in the PRO ordinance.
Further, this rezoning would place a barrier to -possible strip
commercialization which could occur east of the node on the north
side of S.R. 60. Since professional offices are not a high
traffic generator/attractor, the impact on the transportation
system would be significantly less than that of possible
commercial development. Lower trip rates than those produced by
commercial development would also pose less of a threat of traffic
encroachment into the neighborhood to the north.
Conclusion
It is staff's opinion that this site is a proper location for PRO
zoning. The anticipated benefits of redevelopment and prohibition
of strip commercial development would be beneficial to the adja-
cent residents, and also supportive of the goals of the County in
relation to development of the S.R. 60 corridor. This request is
considered consistent with the purpose and intent of "the PRO
district.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the analysis performed and the recommendation of" the
Planning and Zoning Commission, staff recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners approve this request.
Chairman Scurlock questioned the use of the term
"redevelopment" when there have been some substantial homes built
there in the last few years. With the exception of two homes on
the corner of 56th Avenue, one of which he understands is a
rental unit owned by the applicant, he felt the rest of the
neighborhood is one of the finest in the entire community, and
did not understand the need for redevelopment because he has a
hard time associating this with a blighted area.
Commissioner Eggert said she got the idea from reading the
backup material as opposed to driving through it that staff was
talking about something that is deteriorating a lot more than
what her eyes could see.
23
13 1988 Boor 74
- M M
Planner Nearing stated that staff does not feel that this
area is in deterioration; however, they are looking at the future
and what potentially could happen there since it is adjacent to a
commercial node and is along a major highway with a high traffic
volume. Staff feels that the PRO would provide a good buffer
from commercial and would help in responding to future commercial
zoning requests.
Chairman Scurlock did not see that as a problem since the
Commission responds to commercial zoning requests all the time.
Robert Keating, Director of Planning 6 Development, stressed
that staff never meant to insinuate that all of these homes were
deteriorated, just a couple of rental homes along SR -60.
Commissioner Eggert had trouble with adding a more intense
use that close to Ryanwood Shopping Center and not calling it
.strip zoning. She felt it is a particularly hard spot to put a
PRO District into because there isn't any possibility of putting
in a service road.
Chairman Scurlock pointed out that there is quite a bit of
unused commercially -zoned property right across SR -60. While he
felt the PRO District is a good idea when you get into an area
which is significantly deteriorated to the point where values
have dropped and people are having difficulty residing in the
area, he did not feel that is the case in this area. He
understood, however, that staff's recommendation is for approval
of the PRO and that the Planning & Zoning Commission voted
unanimously to recommend approval of the rezoning.
Chairman Scurlock opened the Public Hearing, and asked if
anyone wished to be heard in this matter.
Eugene O'Neill, attorney representing several property
owners, including himself, who have partial interest in certain
properties, intended to show today that the passing of the PRO
zoning would be a great improvement for the property on 56th
Avenue; that the property on 55th Avenue (Dearie Pines) would not
24
EP ,13 1988 Door. 74 F, 457
M M
change significantly; and that the change to 54th Avenue would be
extremely modest. He felt the trend along SR -60 from 20th Avenue
to 58th Avenue certainly has been to commercial or professional
office, but pointed out that the County's PRO is more restrictive
than the City's POI in that it does not allow for institutional
or medical offices. With the exception of this neighborhood and
about two more streets further to the east, which is a
residential area, everything along SR -60 has gone commercial or
POI. Attorney O'Neill pointed out that there have been numerous
articles in the newspapers about the growth west of town, and in
1986 the County Traffic Engineer talked about the 10o increase in
traffic out there in just over one year's time. The trend
certainly has been for Increased use out there.
Attorney O'Neill realized there is opposition to the
rezoning and that there will be more people against him than for
him today, but he encouraged the Commission to think in terms of
the logic of the PRO ordinance and what is a good situation or an
alternative to sleeping on the highway and yet preserving and
protecting the nice neighborhoods that exist out there. As a
concession to the folks in Dearie Pines, he stated that he is
willing to withdraw from the application the second house in on
55th Avenue in Dearie Pines, in which he owns a half interest.
Attorney O'Neill emphasized that that house is one of the most
expensive houses on the street according to the Tax Appraiser.
He did not want to deteriorate that neighborhood because he used
to live in that house, still owns it, and intends to keep the
neighborhood's standard very high. Some of the other applicants
own other lots further in on those streets and they would be
crazy to try to deteriorate the neighborhood. The owners of the
property on 54th Avenue have never developed it because they have
found that people do not want to live along a 6 -lane highway.
What is the answer?
25
SEP 13 1988 74F;,��.
� r �■s
Continuing, Attorney O'Neill explained how the boundaries
were drawn for the properties included in the PRO application.
He noted that in 1987 the Commission modified the PRO ordinance
to say that if the property is adjacent to a commercial node,
only 21 acres are needed to qualify for PRO, thus their entrance
into the application before the Board today. He felt that Mr.
Jones, the owner of the 40 -year old house on the corner of 56th
Avenue adjacent to Ryanwood Shopping Center has done a pretty
good job of keeping up his property because he lives there. The
immediate two houses to the east are owned by Mark Ashdown,
trustee, and Attorney O'Neill stated that he has a minority
interest in both of those properties. Only one adjacent property
owner has objected to the proposed rezoning. They need the
properties on 55th Avenue in Dearie Pines because the ordinance
requires 21 acres and because of the 300 -ft. depth restriction.
The applicants are willing to withdraw the second house in on
55th Avenue where he used to live. He emphasized that he built
that house 10 years ago before Ryanwood was built and it still is
a nice house and he has nice tenants living there at the present
time. His immediate concern was 56th Avenue, but felt they had
to include 55th Avenue in the application.
At the request of Commissioner Bird, Attorney O'Neill
pointed out the property the applicants intend to delete from the
rezoning request.
Attorney O'Neill advised that there is a declaration of
restrictions on Dearie Pines, which he helped to draft, that
prevents any uses besides residential. Several years ago there
was an attempt to modify the declaration of restrictions, which
was signed by at least 500 of the property owners, to allow for
PRO on the 2 end parcels on SR -60 with the feeling being that it
is not a good place for residential. He noted that only a simple
majority is needed to change a deed restriction.
26
SEP 13 1988 Boor 74 159
Chairman Scurlock asked to see a copy of the deed
restriction, and Attorney O'Neill noted that there is some
controversy about whether the deed restriction was modified
properly.
County Attorney Charles Vitunac emphasized that deed
restrictions are actually private zoning and cannot be considered
as public zoning because we really do not know whether they will
be changed or enforced.
Attorney O'Neill pointed out that the proposed zoning
dovetails with the wording and the purpose of the PRO District
and is a compromise to commercial encroachment. He urged the
adoption of the rezoning.
Chairman Scurlock wondered why Attorney O'Neill changed his
mind about the neighborhood's future, since he was the one to
draft the deed restriction to protect the property rights over a
30 -year period.
Attorney O'Neill explained that the 30 -year provision was
made to dovetail with the statutes and provide some flexibility
to allow people to change their minds during the 30 -year period.
Since the traffic on SR -60 has increased so drastically and the
entire corner has changed so dramatically with Ryanwood being
constructed there, people have come to realize that residential
along SR -60 is just not a good place to sleep.
Commissioner Wheeler commented that he frequently travels
SR -60 in the late night and early morning hours and there is not
a lot of traffic there; so, he did not feel people would have any
trouble sleeping at night.
Attorney O'Neill explained that one owner of property along
SR -60 is having difficulty selling or renting her 3 -bedroom home
because it seems that families do not want their children living
next to SR -60.
Chairman Scurlock felt we could debate forever the question
of what type of residential is acceptable to the community and
what is not. He believed that is a matter for each individual to
9
27
SEP 13 1988 BOOK .74
decide. He pointed out that St. Charles Avenue, the most
prestigious street in New Orleans, is a 6 -lane road with a
trolley running down the middle, but it is a residential area
where the cheapest lot is worth $1 -million. So, it is a matter
of perspective and we cannot answer the question of where people
choose to live. The Chairman believed we have to deal with
existing residents, existing impacts, what people have invested
in their property, and their right to the quiet enjoyment of that
property.
In closing Attorney O'Neill expressed his opinion that a law
office or an office that closes at 5:00 P.M. and is not open on
weekends is much less offensive when properly buffered than
tenant housing.
Frances Doutrich, 2055 56th Avenue, believed that Attorney
O'Neill was misrepresenting the situation, because she has been
living there for many years and did not feel they had any
problems with the "blighted" house on the corner until Mr.
O'Neill purchased it and rented it out to people who let it go
down. She suggested that if Mr. O'Neill cannot find suitable
tenants, he bulldoze the "blighted" house since in her opinion a
vacant lot would be much better. The traffic does not bother her
nor she believed the rest of the people Living out there. Mrs.
Doutrich pointed out that the Jones's had a chance to sell their
house, but didn't take it, and understood that Mr. O'Neill
purchased another house from Mr. Schwartz with the expectation of
getting that rezoned and building offices out there. Mrs.
Doutrich just wanted to be allowed to live out there and enjoy
it.
Chairman Scurlock asked Mrs. Doutrich if when she and her
husband purchased their house 30 years ago, they expected SR -60
to grow the way it has, and she admitted that they did but not to
the extent it has. She regretted that Ryanwood was built on that
corner, because she feels it has deteriorated 56th Avenue, and
she felt it would deteriorate even more if Mr. O'Neill is allowed
to build office buildings there.
Boor 14 Fm JI 161
Jim Whiteman, 2116 54th Avenue, explained that he lives next
door to the Free Will Baptist Church and is frequently asked who
owns the vacant lots on that street. For years he had believed
that the owners were waiting to get the value up and then would
build some real nice houses on those lots which have a lot of
pine trees and bushes, but then he discovered the reason they are
holding that property is to build offices there eventually which
he believed would slowly deteriorate the neighborhood. Mr.
Whiteman wished to see the neighborhood stay residential.
David Nolte, explained that he rents out a house on'55th
Avenue which was his residence until two years ago. He did not
believe -there was any way to remove the 30 -year provision in the
deed restrictions on Dearie Pines Subdivision prior to the 30
years. In addition to that, the document that was filed in favor
of removing the restriction had someone else listed as the owner
of his property at 2095 55th Avenue. Mr. Nolte pointed out that
the PRO District calls for contiguous property and if the -deed
restriction for 55th Avenue cannot be lifted, there isn't enough
contiguous property to qualify for PRO. Mr. Nolte wished staff
would have shown the video type today that was shown to the P 8 Z
Commission, which concentrated on the "blight house" and did not
show the entire neighborhood, which for the most part is in very
good shape. Mr. Nolte read some of the comments from an MAI
appraisal by Armfield-Wagner that he had done on his former
residence at 2095 55th Avenue:
"The house is located one mile east of the Vero Beach City
limits just north of SR -60, which is the major access road
and is heavily traveled leading to most support facilities
in Vero Beach. The neighborhood consists of nice homes
similar in size and type as the subject house and a new
shopping center is 2 or 3 blocks to the west. Maintenance
levels are average to good. Residential is restricted on
55th Avenue."
Mr. Nolte stressed that the MAls do not consider this a
deteriorating neighborhood; they do consider it to be an average
neighborhood of homes valued from $80,000 to $125,000. He
29
P is BOOK, Fra F 162
concluded by pointing out that there is a lot of unused
commercial property across SR -60 and emphasizing that even though
the City of Vero Beach has their POI District along SR -60, they
have not allowed it on the north side in McAnsh Park.
Richard Hurwitz, 2156 56th Avenue, explained that his home,
which is the third house in from SR -60, would be adjacent to the
PRO property if the zoning is approved. He couldn't understand
why Mr. O'Neill has difficulty in finding people to rent his home
who are willing to take care of the property, because other
owners have found satisfactory tenants. He brought up the fact
that Ryanwood was supposed to put up a better buffered fence
behind them, but has not, and complained that the noise level is
too high with just the wooden fence.
Attorney Vitunac advised that the deed restrictions on
Dearie Pines may result in the applicants requesting a smaller
PRO area than the Board may want to foster.
Chairman Scurlock asked staff what their recommendation
would be during the site plan process for egress and ingress, and
Director Keating advised that access would be from the secondary
streets, not SR -60.
There being no others who wished to be heard, the Chairman
closed the Public Hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously denied
the request by Eugene O'Neill to rezone 3.4 acres
from RS -6 to PRO.
PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED REVISIONS TO FAIR SHARE ROADWAY
IMPROVEMENTS ORDINANCE
Attorney Vitunac advised that no Proof of Publication is
needed for this meeting as it was tabled from the advertised
8/23/88 meeting for a time certain at today's meeting.
30
�dQK 74
SE
P,13 1988
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/2/88:
TO: William G. Collins, II DATEseptember 2, 1988 FILE:
Acting County Administrator
SUBJECT: REQUEST TO APPROVE PRO-
POSED REVISION TO THE
FAIR SHARE ROADWAY
IMPROVEMENTS ORDINANCE
James W. Davis, P.E..
Public Works Directof
FROM: Robert M. Keating, AIC "'KEFERENCES:
Director
Community Development Department
It is requested that the information herein presented be given
formal consideration by the Boa;d of County Commissioners at
their regular meeting of September 13, 1988.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
On July 12, 1988, the Board of County Commissioners initially
considered revisions to the County's traffic impact fee
ordinance. At that time, the Board tabled the proposed ordinance
and directed the staff to hold a public workshop on. the
recommended fee increases. Subsequently, the staff held a
workshop, and the proposed ordinance was rescheduled for action
at the August 23, 1988 Board meeting. Because of concern by the
City of Vero Beach, the Board on August 23rd again tabled action
on the, proposed ordinance revisions and directed staff to
coordinate with the City of Vero Beach regarding their concerns.
Since the August 23 meeting, the staff has coordinated with the
City of Vero Beach and reviewed the trip generation study
prepared by the staff. Based upon that analysis, the staff
revised several trip rates, incorporated the new rates in the
impact fee model, and produced an updated set of traffic impact
fees. Those new fees have been incorporated into the proposed
impact fee ordinance amendment. The proposed amendment is
attached to this agenda item.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS:
After consultation with the City of Vero Beach, the staff
reanalyzed the trip generation study previously conducted by the
staff. This reanalysis involved deleting the high and low
studies from the sample, removing a study having mixed uses, and
using a different averaging method. In the process of preparing
this reanalysis, the staff determined that the limited number of
surveyed developments on the island did not warrant establishing
a separate trip rate for island developments. Consequently, the
staff developed countywide trip rate averages for both
single-family and multi -family residential uses.
31
SEP 13 1988 1 _164
A
The revised trip generation rates for single-family and
multi -family are 8.93 and 5.14, respectively. These rates were
used for each benefit district in calculating revised traffic
impact fees. The revised trip generation analysis report
documents the results of the study, and a copy is attached to
this agenda item.
A more detailed analysis of the proposed traffic impact fee
revisions, comparison information, and evaluation of alternatives
was included in the agenda items prepared -and distributed for the
two earlier scheduled hearings on this matter. The information
presented in the previously distributed agenda items remains
valid with only residential impact fees having been chaMged. For
that reason, the information has not been included in this item.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached proposed
ordinance amending the County's traffic impact fee schedule and
make these revised fees effective on October 14, 1988.
Robert Keating, Director of Planning & Development,
explained that this is the third time they have brought this to
the Board, it having been tabled twice. One of the requirements
of the impact fee ordinance which was originally adopted in
January, 1986, and went into effect March 1, 1986, is that on
even numbered years before the annual budget is adopted, staff
has to bring any proposed changes in the fee schedule to the
Board of County Commissioners for their consideration. Referring
to the following graph, he explained that the original formula
has not changed at all as far as the general characteristics of
it.
32
BOOK r,tiu 16-
S E P 13 1988
� ® s
IMPACT FEE FORMULA
Total Cost minus Total Credit equals Net Cost times Discount
Rate equals Impact Fee
Total Cost equals trip rate times average trip length times
new trips divided by 2 plus lane capacity times cost per lane
mile
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total Credit equals motor fuel credit plus license credit
Director Keating advised that Planning and Public Works have
worked very closely on this, and some of the variables have
changed. The character that has changed the most is the cost per
lane mile. Trip rate has changed somewhat because of the fact
that the County has done some additional studies plus the fact
that staff has expanded the number of uses substantially.
Previously, we had a generalized fee schedule, and when new uses
have come in, we have had to come up with a particular trip rate
for them. Those rates are in place and need to be incorporated
into the ordinance.
Cornmissioner Eggert asked how they determined those rates,
and Director Keating explained that all of the trip rates were
determined either by a trip generation study by staff or by using
ITE trip generation rates which are standard rates. Most of the
time staff used ITE rates, but where we had better information
from local studies, we put those in. Staff did not touch trip
length or percentage of new trips unless it was for the new uses
that were being added, and then we used rates for those which -
were consistent with the ordinance in other places. When you
block all those variables into the model, that is the number that
comes out.
P 13 1988
33
BOOK 71 E':: r 166
J
Commissioner Bowman asked how they determine trip length,
and Public Works Director Jim Davis explained that trip length
was taken from an origination/destination study by
Barton-Aschmann where they sampled large employers such as the
hospital, Piper Aircraft, etc, and people actually filled out
survey forms indicating where they left from that morning and
their destination.
Chairman Scurlock agreed that the County's current fees are
on the low side, but felt the proposed new figures are not
necessarily exaggerated. The alternatives are very limited, but
he felt we could adjust to some extent the percentage associated
with what the impact fees will collect in terms of the total
revenue. He believed this Commission believes that growth should
fund itself as much as possible, and while we can look at other
-resources, somebody has to pay the piper. He recommended that
the Board direct staff to take a look at the total revenue
picture for supporting our capital improvement program, such as
the 9th cent gas tax, an additional $10 on each license plate,
etc. He stressed that this county chose to have reasonable
growth and somebody is going to have to pay for it. The Chairman
believed at some point the growth management element of the new
Comp Plan will say that you cannot build unless you have the
infrastructure.
Commissioner Eggert stated that her main concern about
higher impact fees is in regard to low income housing for which
there is a tremendous need in this county, because the State and
Farmers Home Administration is not tending to recognize increased
impact fees in the sense of giving more money on projects.
Chairman Scurlock felt that is why we should take another
look at all other sources of revenue.
Director Davis advised that $454,000 would be generated by a
9th cent gas tax, but emphasized that the county does not receive
all of that. At present, the County receives 6.6 cents out of
every dollar of gas sold here. He believed the question has to
SEV13 1988 34 Boa 74 rruF. 167
M
be answered on whether the County should continue to spend the
gas tax money on capacity expansion or do what the cities are
doing and use it for maintenance of the system.
Commissioner Bowman understood that at present the cost for
road construction is funded by 60 percent of gas taxes and 40
percent in impact fees, and Director Davis advised that we are
looking to impact fees for 60-70o where before we were looking to
other income for 60%. The surplus funds that we had from the gas
tax are running out.
Commissioner Bird felt that the.public is looking to us to
adopt a reasonable construction schedule for these roads on a
long term capital improvements program and build those roads as
cost effectively as we can; and then whatever that cost is,
spread it as equitably as possible among those that are here now
-and those that are yet to come. He hoped, however, that we would
be realistic in our impact fees, because he did not want -to see
us price ourselves out of the market.
Chairman Scurlock wanted to avoid ending up like some other
counties such as Palm Beach County where there are too many
people, not enough roads, and no way to pay for more, but
Commissioner Eggert believed that we could not get to that point
with the moratorium provision that is built into the new growth
management laws that say that building stops unless you have the
infrastructure.
Director Keating explained that one of the most
controversial aspects of the new Comp Plan requirements is
concurrency in adopting service levels. The County cannot
approve new projects if they do not meet a service level, or if
facilities are not available to keep that service level
maintained.
Commissioner Bird asked Director Davis if the proposed
impact fees are fair and equitable, represent actual use of the
roadway system per category, and are not politically biased in
35 BOOK 74 i) i 168
EV 13 1986
any way, and Director Davis answered yes. Staff did comparisons
of trip generation rates both nationwide and in neighboring
counties. The ITE rate for single-family detached dwellings is
approximately 10.06 trips per dwelling unit, and the rate being
proposed today is 8.93, which is about 1.1 trips less than the
national average. Director Davis noted that the Planning Dept.
found in their comparison study that St. Lucie County is using a
9.2 trip rate and Martin County is using 9.87. Director Davis
felt that our residential rates have been conservative and that
we have tried to adopt a rate that is reasonable.
Commissioner Bird asked if we have slanted the proposed
impact fee rates on the low side for the residential and are
tending to ask commercial/industrial to pick up the slack, and
Director Davis answered no. He felt we are asking them to pay
their fair share, and emphasized that we did not use the highest
ITE range and did not try to inflate the trip generation rates
for any of the commercial, office or industrial uses in the fee
table.
Chairman Scurlock felt that if we adopt this ordinance
today, we need to have an implementation schedule that is very
clearly defined as he was concerned about people rushing in and
wanting to prepay their impact fees before the increases go into
effect.
Commissioner Eggert noted that the recommendation is for an
effective date of October 14, 1988.
Director Keating explained that the impact fees are paid at
the time they apply for a building permit. He believed the
biggest problem will be with approved projects that are to be
phased in over a number of years and which have priced their
product based on the impact fees in effect now.
Commissioner Bowman did not know how we are going to charge
more for those people who already are in the process of site plan
approval and have not been issued building permits as yet, and
Commissioner Bird asked if we could delay the effective date.
36
SEP 131988 Boa 74 PnI 169
� J
M M M
Director Keating recommended a one-time delay rather than a
phase-in of 2 or 3 different rates. When a builder submits their
application for a building permit, they are grandfathered in on
the rates in effect at that time, but they are required to pick
up the permit within a certain period of time after being
notified that it is ready. The fees are paid at the time the
permit is picked up.
Chairman Scurlock opened the Public Hearing, and asked if
anyone wished to be heard in this matter.
Nancy Offutt, legislative coordinator for the Vero Beach
Indian River County Chamber of Commerce, read into the record the
following letter dated 9/12/88:
dart
robeach-
dian river
county
�- chamber of
commerce
September 12, 1988
1216 21 STREET P.O. BOX 2947 VERO BEACH, FL 32961 305.'567.3491
The Honorable Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Chairman, Board of County Commissioners
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida ,2960 '
Dear Chairman Scurlock and Commissioners:
The board of directors of the Vero Beach -Indian River County
Chamber of Commerce recognizes the need to provide infrastructural
improvements for our county's growth, and in a timely manner to
meet the dictates.of'statewide land use planning and growth legis-
lation.
We also realize that'impact fees must, to a certain extent, be
considered among the means of funding this infrastructure. We
are concerned, however, that in the adoption and creation of new
impact fees and escalating impact fees, the total amount of out-
of-pocket start up costs may add up to an eco�c moratorium
against the commercial development we are trying to encourage.
Please keep in mind that our Comprehensive Land Use Plan also
has an Economic Development Element and to meet the objectives of
attracting clean, light industry which will provide stable employ-
ment and tax base diversity, we must remain competitive with
other counties. The Chamber's legislative task force is in the
process of comparing models for Treasure Coast counties, using
different land use categories, to determine what the total amount
of impact fees, in addition to those being considered today, add
to the cost of developing residential dwellings, office, retail
and warehouse space. We urge you to keep the same comparables.
We would also hope that the county takes a conservative approach
when considering expanding its application of impact fees,to
limiting them to essential services such as transportation and
utilities.
Sincerely,.
Andy Bei dorf 'J
President
37
P 10 1 Boor, 74 r,,� F 170
Clifford Reuter, local contractor, agreed that we need
impact fees, but felt we have to look at other areas of resources
to supplement the cost of constructing roads, such as an increase
in documentary stamp fees and an additional cent on the gas tax.
He would like to see us have a well -thought out plan to cover all
of these areas, and hoped that is the direction the Board will
take.
Charles Hardwick, local realtor and builder, believed the
change in impact fees would add $1000 to the cost of building
homes in existing developments such as Dixie Heights, Pine Tree
Park, Stevens Park, Paradise Park, and Vero Lakes Estates. He
was concerned that it could kill a lot of new construction and
might even reduce revenue in the long run. He felt that what
most of the realtors are saying is to give them a chance to
perform under their current contracts by delaying the effective
date at least 90 days. Mr. Hardwick believed the increase in
these impact fees might just be enough to keep a young couple
from qualifying for a mortgage in buying their first home.
Chairman Scurlock pointed out that they could finance the
impact fees by including them in the mortgage.
Peter Robinson, local builder, believed this tax should be
called "the skin -a -Yankee tax". He felt we have to pass the
extra cent on the gas tax and take a look at what happens to the
rising values of right-of-way when projects such as Grand Harbor
go in. Since the County already knows where we want the roads to
go, he believed the best thing would be to take these impact fees
and start swapping them for road right-of-way by simply giving a
credit to that land owner for a certain number of impact fees
when that land is developed. He also was concerned about the
effect the impact fees may have on low income housing starts.
Commissioner Bird understood that as other revenue sources
come up, such as going to a 9th cent gas tax, the impact fee
schedule would come back to the Board for readjustment.
38
BOOK 7 4 u L 171
George Blythe, Chairman of the Indian River Homebuilders
Association, emphasized that with the proposed increase in impact
fees, buyers of a typical 1200 sq. ft. home on the mainland are
seeing this particular line item increasing to 50 of the
construction cost. The Association is concerned about the
first-time home buyer, and while they realize that services must
be kept at reasonable levels, they wish to urge the Board to keep
the funding source effective, not punitive.
Frank Mackie, developer of Garden Grove, supported totally
the idea of impact fees because he believed they are needed in
this county. However, he felt there are some inequities in the
formula being used. He distributed copies of examples of what he
felt are some of the inequities:
THERE ARE SOME INEQUITIES IN PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL IMPACT FEES
EXAMPLES:
#1 5 Bedroom
4 Bath
$150,000
Single Family Home
District 7
Fee: $543
#2 3 Bedroom
3 Bath
$500,000
Multi Family Beachfront
District 2
Fee: $1018
#3 2 Bedroom
2 Bath
$70,000
Multi Family
District 8
Fee: $527
2 Bedroom
2 Bath
$60,000
Multi Family
District 5
$927
2 Bedroom
2 Bath
$70,000
Single Family
District 6
$1120
2 Bedroom
2 Bath
$70,000
Single Family
District 6
$1120
EITHER THE CRITERIA USED ORIGINALLY OR THOSE USED IN THE PROPOSED
FEE SCHEDULE WERE INACCURATE RESULTING IN SOME ERATIC CHANGES IN
FEES
39
ISEP, IS 1988 BCCK 14 [.'� F
EXAMPLES
District Land Use
Type
3 Multi -family
9 Single Family
Existing Proposed Change
$77B $682 -12%
$159 $1027 +546%
POSSIBLE PROBLEMS WITH FORMULA:
1. Districts too small
2. Time Periods between re-evaluation too short
3. More study needed to distinguish between sizes and types of
residential housing
REQUEST:
That the staff be asked to re-evaluate the district
boundaries and the formula in order to refine them and correct
their defidiencie5.
Director Davis explained that the impact fees vary in the 9
transportation districts due to the cost of building a lane mile
in some districts, and Director Keating pointed out that the -
ordinance provides an appeal process for a readjustment to the
impact fees.
Attorney Vitunac advised that Mr. Mackie's inequity chart
puts a lot of emphasis on the value of the property, whereas the
impact fee formula doesn't include the value of the property.
Mr. Mackie continued that he didn't feel that the formula
relates to the budget for capital improvements in certain
districts, but Director Davis said that we have to average out
the costs of building the lane mile in all of the districts.
Mr. Mackie pointed out how difficult it is for a developer
to absorb these increased impact fees, and Director Keating
explained that the fee schedule can be brought to the Board for
adjustment every two years.
Mr. Mackie felt the reason we are seeing a high increase now
is because the formula for lane costs was too low originally.
40 BOOK i! 4 17��
While he appreciated all the dialogue they have had with the
county during the workshops, he felt the formula could be better
defined, and urged the Board to delay the start-up by 90 days.
Ann Reuter, general builder of low cost housing in the
county, believed that homes in the $40,000-$50,000 range would be
a thing of the past by next year if the impact fees are increased
because builders are getting squeezed on the gross margin. She
suggested that the impact fees be collected at the time the
Certificate of Occupancy is issued rather than having to pay them
up front when the building permit is.pulled. Mrs. Reuter
believed that low income people do not travel as much as other
people who make more money and should not have to pay as much for
road construction as higher income people.
Commissioner Eggert asked what the difference would be to
the County if the impact fees were collected at the time the C.O.
was issued rather than when the building permit was pulled, and
Director Keating explained that was an administrative option
which was considered 2-1/2 years ago when the impact fees were
first under consideration. However, you need the improvements
before someone gets there, not after he is already there.
Basically, it is much more difficult administratively to collect
the fees at C.O. time, particularly for commercial or other types
of uses, such as remodeling or expansion.
Chairman Scurlock pointed out that the County also has a
cash flow situation with road construction.
Bob Reider, speaking on behalf of the Civic Association
which endorses the concept and the proposed impact fees, felt
that the information given during the August workshops was very
well presented. While confident about the way staff arrived at
their basic figures, he felt perhaps some minor adjustments are
needed. He strongly urged the Board to adopt this ordinance
today.
P.1 3 X988
41
Boo 74 Fvl�,.174
r
Ron Kutschinski, general contractor, realized that impact
fees are here to stay, but as a builder, he urged the Board to
delay the implementation of the fee schedule.
Steve Hall, representing the General Contractors of America,
emphasized his surprise at the funds available in all 9 districts
as of 10-1-88.
Director Davis explained that those figures include gas tax
revenues that have been accumulating over the years; however,
those monies will be rapidly depleted with the capital
improvement program, and as we move into 1989-90, we will be in
dire need of revenue. The County gets back 6.6 cents for each
gallon of gasoline sold in the county, and another penny of gas
tax would bring the county about $300,000 more, which is not
enough to lower the burden of impact fees.
Chairman Scurlock pointed out that a.penny sales tax,
generates about $4.5 million, can be in effect for up to 15
years, and could fund plans for a new courthouse, jail expansion,
health building and new road construction.
Mr. Hall continued at great length about the districts
showing in the black, but Commissioner Wheeler felt that this
just boils down to a matter of philosophy of how we are going to
pay the bill. He believed that the building industry wants
subsidies from government to build houses, but he opposes that
philosophy.
Chairman Scurlock reiterated that the bottom line is that
these improvements have to be made and that we should request the
Finance Advisory Committee to look at all alternatives, such as a
1 -cent sales tax, a 9th -cent gas tax, documentary stamps, etc.
Commissioner Bird wished to see the FAC take that on, and
Commissioners Eggert and Wheeler wanted to see an alternative
funding proposal on the March ballot, and felt we should start
putting a package together now rather than waiting until November
to start.
42
SEP 13 `d Boo. 74 P,E175
Mr. Hall urged the Commission to take the time to consider
all alternatives and options.
Lomax Gwathmey, 23 Sea Horse Lane, commended the Commission
for bringing this matter to a head and coming to grips with the
problem. He commended Jim Davis and Bob Keating and their staffs
for the work they have done on this matter. He realized that the
builders are concerned about the price they will have to charge
for their houses, but the truth is that population growth is
causing the need for road construction and expansion. He felt
that this ordinance should be passed.and that any refinements be
made as we move along.
John Brenner, member of the Indian River Chapter of the
American Institute of Architects wished to make it very clear
that he is not opposed to collecting impact funds, but was
concerned about the effect of this major tax on development. He
felt it eventually would affect the quality of exterior and
interior aesthetics, which in turn would affect the overall
appearance of the community. He listed the costs per foot of
construction for various uses and pointed out the inequities•
between trips generated by banks, fast food restaurants, and
convenience stores. Mr. Brenner urged the Board to delay passing
this ordinance so that all other alternatives can be studied
thoroughly. He believed the additional $10 license tag fees
would add up quite rapidly.
Bill Koolage, 815 26th Avenue, noted that he has seen a lot
of changes in the 17 years that he has lived in this county, and
pointed out that this is the first time we are really having
people pay for the increased cost that they are causing by moving
to Indian River County. He stated that he does not cry a tear at
all for the developers who will cover their impact fees, and did
not believe the impact fees would discourage anyone from moving
to Indian River County as long as we keep it a place where people
want to move to. Mr. Koolage believed we are moving in the right
direction with the adoption of these impact fees.
43
EP I u ��6 BOOK �� f�CE ���
L-
There being no others who wished to be heard, Chairman
Scurlock closed the Public Hearing.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, that the Board adopt Ordinance
88-41 effective January 1, 1989, with the understanding
that there probably will be some minor changes over the
years.
Under discussion, Commissioner Bird stated that he would
vote for the Motion with the understanding and the pledge to
those who have expressed their concern today that we are going to
aggressively pursue all other revenue sources as soon as
possible.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
was voted on and carried unanimously.
44
Book 74 FV,1 l7
r {�
ATTACID, ENT
LO
6/27/88
.r„ty
CO ` '” Cher 4
�f `n
�f CL
err; ' LR -Planning
, �,oi�� CB/vj
ORDINANCE NO. 88 -moil
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING
CHAPTER 18, ROADS AND BRIDGES, ARTICLE III, FAIR SHARE
ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS ORDINANCE, SECTION 18-47, FEE SCHEDULE,
TO REVISE THE ORDINANCE FEE SCHEDULE, AND PROVIDING FOR
REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS, CODIFICATION,
SEVERABILITY, AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, that:
Section 18-47. (b) (1) is hereby amended as follows:
Section 18-47. (b) (1) Establishment of Fee Schedule.
(1) Any person who shall initiate any new land development
activity generating traffic, except those preparing an
individual assessment pursuant to sections 18-47 (c) or
18-48 (b) shall pay a "fair share roadway improvements
fee" for the land development activity as established
by the fee schedule set out herein for the district in
which the new land development activity is to be
initiated. The district boundaries are shown on
Exhibit B which is attached hereto and incorporated
herein by reference.
The fee schedule set out herein is hereby amended as
follows:
CODING: Words in type are deletions from existing
law. Words underlined are additions.
SEP 13 190nn Boa 74 FAGS 178
HE 9'IID��'F HR MN IRD IEVREaMm ICTZ l'I'Y
�
y'm
TAle aE LTd
District
District
Dhslrict
DhsbAct
District
District
District
District
Leisb:ict
�J
nevelt Activity
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
`i
Pesidm{ ial:
single tur y
$IIMI00
$110x100
$//700100
$//Mol(o
$//ZOA1OO
$//100100
$//0$100
$//9 1O
$//1$0100
(Pr uni0
1,450.00
1,355.00
1,113.00
1,000.00
1,513.00
1,211.00
587.00
860.00
1,110.00
o
0
c°
Malti4tnuly
//0$0100
//007100
//770100
// IOO
11=00
// $$loo
//IMOD
//aUOO
//102100
(pew-unit)
835.00
780.00
640.00
576.00
871.00
697.00
338.00
495.00
639.00
M±d-le Hmes
//7$0100
//7 100
//$00100
// 100
//970100
/1X$$!00
//X0X100
//$07100
//X00100
(Per unit)
781.00
X18/00
730.00
X1$$$/00
599.00
//707!00
539.00
//$$X100
815.00
//$78100
652.00
//7$$A100
316.00
//1$$100
463.00
598.00
//x$!00
//160100
N
Wbel
(per' badman)
1,276.00
1,192.00
979.00
880.00
1,331.00
1,065.00
516.00
756.00
976.00
mob-A
1,494.00
1,396.00
1,146.00
1,031.00
1,559.00
1,248.00
605.00
886.00
1,143.00
(Per badman)
U rsing fire
kpEr
422.00
395.00
324.00
291.00
441.00
353.00
171.00
250.00
323.00
=MW/XWMWM
liml00
X`08X100
//708/00
//$A0100
//88$!00
//X 0100
//1$0/00
1/A$8100
//X$9100
/'
QDDE: i ds in 4N,4j I type are dale uys fian existing Im. Wxds
underlined are additi ns.
W
tN I •I • •, r iii iI � •- .� - •- - • � ■ • :> • •I • � •� e• - _•• • ..
HE 4CaR7T1fF' Filet MW IASD LEVIIOIIVI' ACrA I'Y
•nr •- .I • I N .
Dlstr�
District
Dl "b'1ct
�•a 111 ..
DLstrirL�
•-' 111 •�
Dist dct
District
Distil 't
••r 111 •ti
II
III
IV
V
VI
... 111
V.a
111 ..-�
$400100
• a 1 111 •�
$1107100
• or 111 •.-t
tN I •I • •, r iii iI � •- .� - •- - • � ■ • :> • •I • � •� e• - _•• • ..
HE 4CaR7T1fF' Filet MW IASD LEVIIOIIVI' ACrA I'Y
Dlstr�
District
Dl "b'1ct
Dist 1Ct
DLstrirL�
District
Dist dct
District
Distil 't
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
V.a
A
$400100
$x1170100
$1107100
$1 XX0100
$11100100
$//ZX0100
$//017100
Wooloo
$// 30100
2,756.00
2,576.00
2,115.00
1,901.00
2,876.00
2,301.00
1,115.00
1,634.00
2,109.00
6,310.00
5,896.00
4,841.00
4,352.00
6,583.00
5,268.00
2,553.00
3,740.00
4,828.00
9,670.00
9,036.00
7,418.00
6,669.00
10,088.00
8,074.00
3,912.00
5,732.00
7,399.00
/X1000100
/HoSl00
1102100
//$%O1o0
///070100
///7 IMO
Mvlo0
Hobo
//XA100
1,968.00
1,839.00
1,509.00
1,357.00
2,053.00
1,643.00
796.00
1,166.00
1,506.00
1,316.00
1,229.00
1,009.00
907.00
1,373.00
1,099.00
532.00
780.00
1,007.00
tN I •I • •, r iii iI � •- .� - •- - • � ■ • :> • •I • � •� e• - _•• • ..
FSE SCHOM FCR MR IPDD LEVE[CE4n' PL'I'n7>*!Y
Type Cf I r d Di stri cit- Di S'tX'1ct Dist ct District District DisUict Di st-ri ct
Det Activity I II III IV V VI via .VIII I$ m �
InAstri al :
Wandiam $ 334.00 $ 312.00 $//7.X IOO $//WIOO $//XOOlOO $///71100 $///03100 $//120100 .$///4%100
(!fix 1,000 29
256.00 230.00 348.00 278.00 135.00 198.00 255.00 `
tel. Iniztrial 369.00 345.00 //X 0100 //160100 //X77100 ///70100 ///40100 //XA2100 ///$0100
1,000 c;sf)
283.00 255.00 385.00 308.00 149.00 219.00 282.00
Clrzait a Plat 1,066.00 996.00 818.00 735.00 1,112.00 890.00 431.00 632.00 816.00
kxr axe)
Sid Nluvng' 137.00 128.00 105.00 94.00 143.00 114.00 55.00 81.00 105.00
lbtaLl:
Up to 10,000 3,061.00 2,860.00 2,348.00 2,111.00 3,193.00 2,556.00 1,238.00 1,814.00 2,342.00
1,000
MW WON 21100100 21017100 11011100 //006100 110X0100 /000100 //X01100 //N1100 //XNA100
Aft Aw
110MIAvar
10,001 to 1,743.00 1,628.00 1,337.00 1,202.00 1,818.00 1,455.00 705.00 1,033.00 1,333.00
50,000 qsf
(PE' 1,000 g3f1
EE SJE= RR MR IMU MVEUIMM pII2V1'IY
TAM of Land District pct District mstriCt District District
Activity I II III IV V w
$//018100
//858100
$//x90100
819.00
//581100
914.00
//u8100
$//005100
1,199.00
//980100
1,339.00
X10X81Ro
im
$//108100
1,546.00
//N$100
1,728.00
//850100
2,143.00
1,038.00
1,521.00
1,964.00
2,043.00
990.00
1,451.00
1,873.00
Ettai l : (Q-nt'd.)
2,027.00
2,970.00
3,834.00
3,086.00
1,496.00
2,191.00
501000 m
$11X98100
$X1000100
$11100
$1104100
$11009100
981000 4w
!`/X1000
MI/my
50,001 to
2,023.00
1,891.00
1,552.00
1,395.00
2,111.00
100,000 ref
kxr 1,0 9�
1001000 45
21550100
x1100
11055100
11X7'100
X1110100
MOM AM
100,001 to
2,258:00
2,110.00
1,733.00
1,558.00
2,356.00
200,000 gsf
-kxr 11000 95fl
X1000
21000100
21087100
111X0100
1121X100
4100
Aw iu000
M1/f1Y
200,001 & wer
2,566.00
2,398.00
1,969.00
1,770.00
2,677.00
_O�' 1,000 qsf)
Gds Statirsls
2,447.00
2,287.00
1,877.00
1,688.00
2,553.00
-k-er £tal ISP)
Lbad Cb- Sales
koEr acre)
5,010.00
4,682.00
3,844.00
3,456.00
5,227.00
restiRmat
1,000
3,697.00
3,454.00
2,836.00
2,550.00
3,856.00
QDIM W--tcis in
ftW4W type are deleLux c five eKLsLuig
]m. Wxds urrl=zlined are additum.
$//018100
//858100
$//x90100
819.00
//581100
914.00
//u8100
$//005100
1,199.00
//980100
1,339.00
X10X81Ro
im
$//108100
1,546.00
//N$100
1,728.00
//850100
2,143.00
1,038.00
1,521.00
1,964.00
2,043.00
990.00
1,451.00
1,873.00
4,183.00
2,027.00
2,970.00
3,834.00
3,086.00
1,496.00
2,191.00
2,829.00
CQ
00
WIN
0
go
FSE SaEaIE EM NEW ISD MVELam m icav17.Y
TAM of Lard District District District Distx� District
a-WlMralt Activity ITT III Distrit ' strict District
V Va vm
Fast Food $5,226.00 $4,883.00 $4,009.00 $3►604.00
wait $5,452.00 $4,363.00 $1114.00 $3,098.00
_per'
11000
SYT
CamuliEme 7,286.00 6,809.001000 5,590.00 5,026.00 _7,602.00 6,084.00 2,948.00 4,319.00
Start
Pemmaticmi:
District
IX
$3,999.00
5,575.00
Coal
�tia�l
�� )
294.00
275.00
226.00
203.00
307.00
246.00
119.00
174.00
225.00
Golf Cb-ZM
(pEX sr -am)
626.00
585.00
481.00
653.00
523.00
253.00
371.00
479.00
Faoquet
�
1,509.00
1,410.00
1,]58.00
1,041.00
1574.00
1,260.00
610.00
894.00
1,155.00
�
( �l
199.00
186.00
153.00
137.00
208.00
166.00.
81.00
118.00
153.00
QDIlz;: Rrds in f ftM type are ciW.etias law.
fran eating ids tulderl;rxxl are affl.iticm.
M
I. 1
ape of Land
Cig.EnTtt3ttal:
DeUela mt Acthdfy
2,413.00
RCst O.ffim
District
(pet:' 11000 gsfl
District
Library
(per 1►000 9Sfl
District
Office Fi�
(Per.' 1,000 sgft)
District
Jail
District
(Per ba)
Mismlla
am
IV
Day Q-ild Care
VI
Caiber
(per 11000 g5fl
V=
HCESpital
$2,880.00
(Per 1.000 gsfl
$2,209.00
Churii
(PEr 11000 gSf)
I. 1
2,313.00
2,161.00
HE ME= fit IOW UM EVIICEMRm PLTNI'IY
1,595.00
2,413.00
1,931.00
District
Disb:ict
District
District
District
District
District
Disb ict.
District
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
V=
IX
$2,880.00
$2,691.00
$2,209.00
$1,986.00
$3,004.00
$2,405.00
$1,165.00
$1,707.00
$2,204.00
3,630.00
3,392.00
2,785.00
2,504.00
3,787.00
3,031.00
1,469.00
2,152.00
2,778.00
5,558.00
5,194.00
4,264.00
31834.00
5,799.00
4,641.00
2,249.00
3,295.00
4,253.00
98.00
91.00
75.00
67.00
102.00
81.00
39.00
58.00
75.00
2,313.00
2,161.00
1,774.00
1,595.00
2,413.00
1,931.00
936.00
1,371.00
1,770.00
702.00
656.00
539.00
484.00
733.00
586.00
284.00
416.00
537.00
599.00
560.00
460.00
413.00
625.00
500.00
242.00
355.00
459.00
rept 1 •� • • ��i i i •- .i - •� - • ■ • �• • • •ti •a o• .� - ..•• •.
Mn
9
N
m
M
ORDINANCE NO. 88 -
SECTION 2
REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS
All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the
Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance
are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. All
Special Acts of the legislature applying only to the
unincorporated portion of Indian River County and which
conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby
repealed to the extent of such conflict.
CODIFICATION
The provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated into
the County Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to
"section", "article", or other appropriate word, and the sections
of this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish
such intentions.
SECTION 4
SEVERABILITY
If any section, part of a sentence, paragraph, phrase or
word of this ordinance is for any reason held to be
unconstitutional, inoperative or void, such holdings shall not
affect the remaining portions hereof and it shall be construed to
have been the legislative intent to pass this ordinance without
such unconstitutional, invalid or inoperative part.
CODING: Words in WAOXy tAtvi type are deletions from existing
law. Words underlined are additions.
EP 13 1988 8 Boor 74 Piu 185
ORDINANCE NO. 88-.41
SECTION 5
EFFECTIVE DATE
The provisions of this ordinance shall become effective upon
receipt of official acknowledgement from the Florida Secretary of
State that this ordinance has been filed with the Department of
State, but shall take effect no earlier than 5:00 p.m. on
December 31, 1988.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida on this 13th day of September
1988.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
-T�jBY: G.
Don C. Scur oc;c, 4Cairman
ATTEST BY: ..y
W'
Fredari ht C e
Acknowledgment by the Department of St a of the State of Florida
this 26th day of September 1988.
Acknowledgment from the Department of State received on this29th
day of September, 1988 at 9:30 A.M. /P.M. and filed in the office
of the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida.
Effective Date: 5:00 p.m. on December 31, 1988.
APPROVED AS TO FORM
AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY.
William G. Collins, II
Assistant County Attorney
APPROVED AS TO PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT MATTERS.
,41
Robert M. Keat rig,
Community Devel Amen Director
Land Dev. Ord.
Cher4
I/
Approved Date
Admin.
Legal
Budget
Dept.
CODING: Words in $ ft1A0jfitXt1A type are deletions from existing
law. Words underlined are additions.
E P IS 1988 BOOK 74 UGcF 186
IMPACT FEE DISTRICT
ccW
1
8
1
I"
1
7
(: a
'a• ���� v .� as i s m s as as r .� a aa� r aar s r ao as a. a. d e e m s r r r r e e re r i a� as a ar aas rr r m m r�
r
1
4
CIO
0
� '.or�rasor�r or aq a�a■os rrss�� r r sos® ��so�r® ®r�
T
i
> <i 5
o ■ n'
S R iO
!T
< 6
a
LO 00
� as
I
PUBLIC HEARING - REQUEST BY KENNEDY GROVES, INC. TO REZONE 38+
ACRES FROM RS -6 TO A-1
The hour of 9:05 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to wit:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the udersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. whonoath
Bays that he Is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Proas,loumai, a daily rrewsi>epe published
al Vero BOach In Indian Hirer County. Florida: that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a
in the matter Of
Court, was pub -
in the
r lid
fished in said newspaper In the Issues of
Afflat further says that the said Vero Beach Press•Joumol Is a newspaper Published at
nd
id
aper
as
fore
Beach
cont nuovsly published to said Indian Rivet hat the
County, Florida,Fleach dailyhe and beenbeen
ty,1Florida. io o pach in said Indian River COun-
onod of ne year next preceding he firspost offte in t pubro es ion of he attached COPY of
advertisement for and affiant further says that he has neither paid not promised any person. firm
ad corporation any dffient I ,rebate. commission or refund for the purpose Of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newsPaper. A
'f a day of D . 19
Swom to and subscribed belore me this 1%y w
•
'w► ossa M ag
': (Clerk of the CireuR Court, Idtsn River County; Flortda► 1
tSEAL)
r-
T_.- NOTICE - pt1ELIC RLAtafra
N•sa of Ircmm9 to conelter the edepftn of
• Lamb ordlnU�
_-VM Imo Irorrc It"
$1,09 FUMY ReSieeneel District to A-1. A911CW'
OMneEp ha�f�drevMUd b�louled
n ft side of C.R. 1110 Ux1 sen of AMIR
U�p�U a�erly b deeaiEas 6
- The Weal half d Ore NOAroeU Cranio d
Oro swtfnveet puarler, •rxl west has a
Swam
. Un 8outheeet 4ratter of me saNroeat
'RmEIUd. Intl
Carob. Flge
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 8/30/88:
TO: William G. Collins II DATE August 30, 1988 FILE:
Acting County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
' r SUBJECT: REQUEST BY KENNEDY GROVE51
Ro er M. Keatifiqr INC. TO REZONE 38+ ACRES
Community Developmen Director FROM RS -6 TO A-1
FROM: zeg REFERENCES: KENNEDY REZONING
David C. Nearing -
Staff Planner JEFF2
It is requested that the information presented herein be given
formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of September 13, 1988.
DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION:
Kennedy Groves, Inc., as represented by Byron T. Cooksey, Esq.,
has submitted a request in conjunction with the Planning Depart-
ment, to rezone 38+ acres of land from RS -6, Single Family Res-
idential District (up to 6 units/acre) to A-1, Agricultural
District (up to 1 unit/5 acres). The subject property is situated
on the north side of C.R. 510 approximately 1/2 mile west of
A -1-A.
45
SEP 13 1988 Bou 74 PnE188
This request has been initiated to resolve a tree removal vio-
lation imposed against Kennedy Groves. This violation was brought
before the Board of County Commissioners on February 16, 1988.
The violation involved the removal of many trees and ground
vegetation from the east side of the subject property, which is
adjacent to the Oceanaire Heights Subdivision. The applicants
removed the vegetation and planted an additional row of citrus
trees. Normally such an expansion of a grove would be permitted,
provided that the grove were zoned A-1. However, since this grove
has been zoned residentially since at least 1969, the owners
violated two sections of the code.
The first of the two violations involved removal of trees, without
a permit, from a residentially zoned property greater than one
acre in size. The second violation involved expansion of a
non -conforming use. Since groves are not a permitted use in RS -6,
even if in place since the 1950's, they cannot be expanded or
enlarged. In adding a new row of trees, the Kennedy's expanded a
non -conforming use.
During discussion of these violations, it was found that the
Kennedy's were unaware that the grove was zoned residential.
Since the land was zoned agricultural when the grove was estab-
lished, they had assumed that the zoning had remained unchanged.
Apparently, the property had been rezoned in 1969 by the County.
As a solution to the violation, it was agreed to by the Board and
the Kennedy's, that the land be rezoned to A-1 through a joint
applicant/County initiated request. The Kennedy's have provided
the staff with various ownership documents, and the staff has
secured all the remaining necessary information.
On July 28, 1988, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
unanimously to recommend approval of this request.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the applica-
tion will be presented. The analysis will include a description
of the current and future land uses of the site and surrounding
areas, potential impacts on the transportation and utility sys-
tems, and any significant adverse impacts on environmental quali-
Current Land Use Pattern
The subject property is currently used for groves and zoned RS -6.
To the north of the subject property are groves also zoned RS -6.
To the west are groves within the Town of Orchid. To the south is
C.R. 510, then vacant land zoned RM -6, Multi -Family Residential
District (up to 6 units/acre). To the east is a subdivision, with
most of the lots adjacent to the grove being developed. This
subdivision is zoned RT -6, Two -Family Residential District (up to
6 units/acre).
Future Land Use Pattern
The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property and all
land north, east, and south as LD -2, Low Density Residential 2
(allowing up to 6 units/acre).
Utilities
This area is not currently serviced by public water and sewer
facilities.
46
SEP 13 1988 Boor 74 FacE
Transportation Impacts
The site has access to C.R. 510, classified as a major arterial on
the County Thoroughfare Plan. Currently, this road is operating
at a Level of Service "A", This rezoning will have no additional
impact on the transportation system.
Environment
The Comprehensive Plan does not designate the subject site as
Environmentally Sensitive. However, this area is within an area
subject to flooding.
Conclusion
In reviewing this request, staff examined the potential impacts of
this request on the surrounding property. Normally, if the staff
were approached concerning a rezoning of 38 acres of vacant land
to A-1, and the land was adjacent to a -populated residential area,
certain concerns and reservations would be expressed. However, in
this instance, the request concerns land which has been in use as
grove since the 1950's. Very little area is remaining which would
permit further expansion. Basically, the grove is at or very near
capacity. Though expansion of a non -conforming grove is not
permitted, this grove can continue to operate, replace dead tree
stock, and remain an active on-going trade indefinitely. The use
will cease only if it is destroyed by more than 50%, or ceases
operation for more than 90 days. This rezoning will change only
the conformity status of the grove, and have no influence on the
already existing conditions.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the analysis performed and the recommendation of the
Planning and Zoning Commission, staff recommends approval of this
request.
Chairman Scurlock opened the Public Hearing, and asked if
anyone wished to be heard in this matter.
Janice Broda, 9335 Frangipani Drive, emphasized that "good
faith" was a phrase used repeatedly by both Chairman Scurlock and
Commissioner Bird to describe the intent and actions of Kennedy
Groves in the land clearing violation hearing on February 16,
1988. She expressed her disappointment that the Board chose not
to fine Kennedy Groves even nominally for having clearly violated
the tree protection ordinance.
Chairman Scurlock pointed out that the issue today is the
rezoning, and Director Keating advised that the Board made it a
condition of the land clearing violation that the applicant
submit and go through the rezoning, and this is an accumulation
of the entire matter.
Mrs. Broda had no quarrel with the rezoning, but wished to
take this opportunity to say something for the record that she
did not get a chance to say during the violation hearing before
this Board on February 16, 1988. She understood that the
Commissioners based their decision not to fine Kennedy Groves
upon the fact that Kennedy Groves acted in good faith; however,
she contained that perhaps they did not act in good faith when
they at the request of the adjacent property owners, who feared
for the safety of their homes, cut down a row of Australian Pines
and left the debris along the property line. This debris
attracted rats and other vermin, and after removal requests from
the adjacent property owners were ignored, the Public Health
Dept. intervened. Removal of this debris grew into a full-blown
land clearing operation in which a buffer of native oak hammock
was completely destroyed. She wondered if Mr. Kennedy acted in
good faith in the course of this land clearing, and felt that
someone acting in good faith would return the calls of his
neighbors who were concerned about the land clearing and also
would have admitted immediately to the County's environmental
planner that trees other than Australian Pines had been removed.
Mrs. Broda stated that Mr. Kennedy told the environmental planner
that she had lied and that no oaks had been removed, but
photographic evidence and the testimony of other home owners has
proven otherwise. She felt someone who is acting in good faith
would have complied with the requests from the County staff to
refrain from planting the additional row of citrus trees until
the land clearing matter was settled, but Mr. Kennedy went ahead
and planted the additional row of citrus trees nonetheless. Mrs.
Broda felt the most compelling evidence that Kennedy Groves did
not act in good faith was when B. T. Cooksey, counselor for
Kennedy Groves, stated at the February 16th meeting that the
reason Kennedy Groves did not want agricultural zoning is because
every time they spray or fertilize they get complaints from the
48
SEP 131988 BOQK 74 191
people in the subdivision to the east, and this has been going on
for a long period of time. Mrs. Broda asked if Kennedy Groves
acted in good faith when they undertook expansion which they
clearly knew would increase the incompatibilities in land use,
and pointed out that the row of citrus trees could have been
planted without removing the oak buffer although vehicle access
to the east side of the new row of trees at the southern end of
the street would have been restricted.
In this light, Mrs. Broda wished to make two requests of the
Board: 1) To compel Kennedy Groves to revegetate the buffer to
mitigate the incompatibilities between agricultural and
residential land uses, and, 2) To amend the public record to
reflect the truth that Kennedy Groves did not act in entirely
good faith in this matter.
B. T. Cooksey, attorney representing Kennedy Groves, noted
that he was available to answer any questions the Board may have.
There were none.
There being no others who wished to be heard, the Board
closed the Public Hearing.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, that the Board adopt Ordinance
88-42, rezoning 38+ acres from RS -6 to A-1.
Under discussion, Commissioner Bowman stated that she has
put herself in the position of the residents of Oceanaire Heights
who bought their houses with the understanding that they were
zoned residential and had a non -conforming use next door. They
had a decent buffer between them and the citrus operation, and
had every right not to expect any further encroachment. By their
own admission, the grove owners have conceded that a sizable
buffer is necessary so that spraying and fertilizing does not
create any nuisance to their neighbors. Commissioner Bowman
49
SEP 13 1988
pointed out that this Board only recently voted for the
requirement of a decent buffer between agricultural and
residential, and now are legitimizing a non -conforming use in a
residential area by changing the zoning to agricultural.
Commissioner Bowman stated that she would not vote for the
rezoning because she believed that the County Commission would be
stomping on the little people who will have their property
depreciated and who will have to pay for a buffer themselves if
they wish to continue living next to this citrus operation.
Acting County Administrator William Collins pointed out that
the Planning & Zoning Commission did recommend approval of the
rezoning with the stipulation that a windrow be planted along the
border, but he had advised them that they could not place any
conditions upon a rezoning and that it would be entirely up to
.the good faith of the property owners whether or not a windrow
was put in. He -advised that while this might be an opportunity,
the Board has no power of condition.
Commissioner Bowman asked Mr. Kennedy, who was in the
audience, if he would be willing to comply with a request for a
buffer. There was no answer from Mr. Kennedy or his attorney.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
passed by a vote of 4-1, Commissioner Bowman
dissenting.
50
boy 71, pni.19
SEP 13 19-
READDRESSING COUNTY REQUIREMENTS AFFECTING EXTENSION OF DOCKS AND
PILINGS
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 8/26/88:
TO: Robert M. Keating DATE: August 26, 1988 FILE:
Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Readdressing County
Requirements Affecting
Extension of Docks and
Pilings
FROM: Gary C. wheeler REFERENCES:
Vice Chairman -
I concur with Alternative #2 in your August 22, 1988 memorandum
and feel that the County Commission should take action to correct
our ordinance.
I have placed this on the County Commission agenda for September 13.
Commissioner Wheeler felt that the County's requirements are
more restrictive than the City's and that some of it is
unnecessary.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
staff's recommendation of Alternative #2 and directed
staff to initiate code changes (County initiated).
OSLO ROAD EMERGENCY RESOLUTION
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/12/88:
51O�d< 7 FADE: 194
1988
r � �
13-88
TO: DATE: FILE:
Board of County September 12, 1988
Commissioners
SUBJECT: Oslo Road Emergency
Resolution
Carolyn K. Eggertoto
FROM: County Commissioner REFERENCES:
I expressed to Bill Collins. and Charles Vitunac my
concern about the wording in Resolution No. 8&-53, "in the
area of 8th Court to.11th Court along Oslo Road." One of the
worst areas is from the north/south canal to 8th Court. Tim
Dobeck has sent a letter to this effect.
I would like to amend Resolution No. 88-53 to read "in
the area from the north/south canal through Oslo Road
continuing west'on both sides (north and south) of Oslo Road
on up through 11th Court."
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 88-57, amending Resolution 88-53 to read "in
the area west of the North/South Canal to 11th Court
along Oslo Road".
Commissioner Wheeler asked how it would work if we were
asked to extend this area or establish other areas in the county,
and Attorney Vitunac explained that if it is just a general
county -wide problem, it probably is not an emergency and would go
through its normal course. In cases such as this where it is
believed to be an emergency, it can be brought to the Board for a
separate Motion.
M
Bo
SEP 1
� 5 ob � 4 „cE 19,
RESOLUTION NO. 88-57
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY DECLARING
THAT THE DEALING OF CRACK COCAINE IN THE OSLO
ROAD VICINITY BETWEEN WEST OF THE NORTH/SOUTH
CANAL AND 11TH COURT CONSTITUTES AN EMERGENCY
HAZARD TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY
WHEREAS, Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Section
4-16 thru 4-24 provides the authority to declare unsafe buildings a nuisance;
and
WHEREAS, those unsafe buildings constitute a hazard 'to the safety or
health of the public by reason of inadequate maintenance, dilapidation,
obsolescence or abandonment; and
WHEREAS such buildings are declared illegal and said nuisance must
be abated by improvements or demolition; and
WHEREAS such abandoned and dilapidated buildings are being utilized
In the illegal dealing of crack cocaine according to reports from the Indian
River County Sheriff's Department;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the dealing of
crack cocaine in the area between west of the north/south canal and lith
Court along Oslo Road constitutes .a health and safety emergency to the public
and in view of this health and safety emergency the Building Official is
directed to proceed on an emergency basis in nuisance abatement pursuant to
Ordinance Sections 4-16 thru 4-24.
This Resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner
Eggert , and the motion was seconded by Commissioner
Bird
follows:
and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as
Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Vice -Chairman Gary C. Wheeler Ay_e_
Commissioner Richard N. Bird
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman ye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this
13th day of September, 1988.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By c—
Attes Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Chairman
Fred right, Clerk
\A\OSLO.RES4 tv.Me
n.(2'.
53
maim Rwa Ca
Approved Date
Admin.
--l'r
Legal
T— !.�
Budget
Dept.
RlSk Mgr.
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE_ REPORT
Commissioner Bird presented the following Summary of Actions
of the meeting of September 8, 1988:
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE
SUMMARY OF ACTIONS
SEPTEMBER 8, 1988
During the 9/8/88 Parks and Recreation Committee meeting, the
following actions were recommended to the Board.-
1)
oard:
1) North Beach Park Complex
The Committee recommended that the County Commission
initiate negotiations to purchase the three lots at the
southern end of the complex to close up the gap between the
two portions.
The Committee also approved the plan as presented with minor
amendments.
2) Bikeway/Sidewalk Plan
The Committee reviewed the Executive Summary of the Bikeway/
Sidewalk Plan.
3) Request to Lease a Portion of Fairground Area for Archer,
Assuming that the Risk Manager, Legal Department, and Jim
Davis are satisfied with the proposal for an archery range,
the Committee recommended that the County Commission enter
into a license arrangement with the Indian River Archery
Club for one year at $200/year.
4) Mini -car Lease at Fairground
The Committee discussed several problems that have developed
regarding Doug Upton'.s lease to operate a remote-controlled
auto racetrack at the fairground. The Committee recommended
that Doug Upton be notified that the County considers him to
be in default and intends to terminate his lease as of
November 24. There were two other people"iinterested in
operating the racetrack, however, because of the length of
time that the track will sit unused, one of the applicants
withdrew his proposal. The Legal Department has recommended
that the County enter into license agreements as opposed to
lease agreements in the future because they can be cancelled
upon notice without having to wait a specified period of
time.
54
SEP 13 1988 BOOK 74 rAu 197
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously instructed
the Legal Department to take action to consider the
lease with Doug Upton for a mini -car race track at the
County Fairgrounds to be null and void and cancelled as
of November 24, 1988.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously authorized
staff to explore the need to purchase the 3 lots at the
southern end of the North Beach Park Complex which
separate the County's 2 parcels on the ocean.
DOCUMENTS TO BE MADE PART OF THE RECORD
A. Assignment of Lease from Nancy Moon to Indian River County
for Hendrix Super Market, Inc., approved by BCC at Meeting of
5/31/88, having been fully executed and received, has been placed
on file in the Office of the Clerk to the Board.
B. Assignment of Lease from Nancy Moon to Indian River County
for Ross Laundry and Cleaners_ Inc. approved by BCC at Meeting of
5/31/88, having been fully executed and received, has been placed
on file in the Office of the Clerk to the Board.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made,
seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 12:20 o'clock P.M.
ATTEST:
,,,�,.C.►�.r.k..... , a ,9
55
W 'Two
/..!/
Chairman
Bou �rAUC98