HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/11/1990BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
A G E N D A
SPECIAL MEETING
JANUARY 11, 1990
9:00 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
1840 25th STREET
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Richard N. Bird, Vice Chairman
Margaret C. Bowman Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Gary C. Wheeler Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
9:00 AM 1. CALL TO ORDER
2. Discussion regarding Courthouse/
Judicial Complex Master Plan
ANYONE WHO MAY WISH TO APPEAL ANY DECISION WHICH MAY BE MADE AT THIS
MEETING WILL NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS
MADE WHICH INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL WILL
BE BASED.
JAS 111990
��oK rN F`G "
SPECIAL MEETING
Thursday, January 11, 1990
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida, met in Special Session at the County Commission
Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Thursday,
January 11, 1990, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Carolyn K.
Eggert, Chairman; Richard N. Bird, Vice Chairman; Margaret C.
Bowman; and Gary C. Wheeler. Don C. Scurlock, Jr. was delayed
and entered the meeting at10:05 o'clock A.M. Also present were
James E. Chandler, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac,
Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; and Barbara
Bonnah, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order and announced that
this workshop was called for the purpose of reviewing the final
three concepts for the Indian River County Courthouse/Judicial
Complex Master Plan.
REVIEW OF FINAL THREE CONCEPTS FOR COURTHOUSE/JUDICIAL COMPLEX
MASTER PLAN
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:
BJU� r� tAUL
Fir— -7
,JAN 11 i' 00 BOOK 78 F'1f 18! 6
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach In Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a
in the matter of
In the __ —_ _ Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach PresS•Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement: and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for a purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the paid newspaper. p�
Sworn to and subscribed before me this y /e� JAY c�f 19 �---
(Bystness Madagg6.
(Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, Florida)
(SEAL) MraR" P01 -11k. Stotlt of Florida
W tl:�rrt Eq* JJu ns 29.19E-3
PUBLIC NOTICE
The Indian River County Board of County Com-
missioners will meet at 9:00 a.m., Thursday,
Januathe Commission Chambers
of the Coulnty Admiinistration Building, 1840 25th
Street, Vero Beach, Florida to hear and discuss
the Courthouse Master Plan presentation. The
JanaIto attend.
January B ' 844383
The Board reviewed the following letter dated 1/4/90:
315 east Irobinson street, suite 505
he-rbert 9 halback, me • Orlando, florida 32801
landscape architects, planners and graphic de
sibners (407) 422-1449 •FAX (407) 872-0524
January 4, 1990
Mr. Gary Wheeler
=. Chairman Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
RE: Indian River County - Judicial Complex
H/H #8918
1 Dear Gary:
Enclosed is a copy of an Executive Summary pertaining to the final three
concepts for the above referenced project. Also enclosed are preliminary cost
estimates for each concept, a technical memorandum discussing transportation
considerations, and a summary of research accumulated to date concerning the
historic context of buildings within the nine block study area.
This has been provided to you as a summary of the Alternative Master Plan
Concepts Phase and in preparation for the upcoming County Commission
workshop. Please review this information and contact me should you have any
questions or concerns.
' We will be preparing all materials for the January 11, 1989, workshop in the
next couple of weeks. I will contact Sonny around the first of the year for any
additional information. Until then, we wish you Happy Holidays.
Respectfully,
G"'
E. Carr Mumford
Project Manager
Chairman Eggert introduced the following consultants
participating in the joint venture: Fred Halback of
Herbert/Halback, Inc. of Orlando, Florida, Keith Reeves of
Architects Design Group, Inc. of Winter Park, Florida, and Mark
Hargrove of Transportation Consulting Group of Winter Park.
Fred Halback reviewed the following Executive -Summary:
3
AAN 1990 buo F,1�E iJ
AAN `a H V �
BOOK 7 8 F,1GE 8 781
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Mission:
The Judicial Master Plan for Indian River County is intended to conceptually
document appropriate space needs, locations, and forms for future
development of county judicial facilities.
It is based on a nine block study area bounded by 23rd Street to the north, 17th
Avenue to the west, 20th Street to the south, and 14th Avenue to the east.
Relevant factors affecting the nine block study area such as traffic impact, city
impact, pedestrian circulation, utilities, building massing, and streetscape
improvements were studied to reasonably ensure the conceptual feasibility of
the project.
This study has been prefaced by a document titled Space Needs Analysis -
Courthouse Facility - County of Indian River which laid the ground work for the
Judicial Complex size and complexity. Information and program elements
generated in this document have been used as an aid to concept development.
A committee has been set up within the county to aid and guide project
development. This committee is made up of the Indian River County
Commission Chairman, Director of General Services, County
Administration, Planning Director, and Public Works Director.
Project Development:
Initial project development involved an extensive inventory and analysis of both
the man-made and natural environments. Based upon site inspections, an
Urban Design Framework Map was developed which conceptually studied the
visual and aesthetic influence of the proposed and adjacent areas. The Urban
Design Framework Map, along with a list of problems and opportunities, study
the dynamics of the existing conditions and proposed development. This then
became the basis for concept development.
Concept Development:
Ten alternative Judicial Master Plan concepts have been developed and
presented during workshops with the County committee. Concepts were
developed in stages. The first stage included three initial studies locating the
Judicial Complex in different blocks. Conceptual costs were also developed for
each of these concepts.
Parking has become a big issue in developing the concepts. The first three
were developed using a maximum space count of 667, satisfying the city's
current parking requirements. Alternate parking schemes using both ground
level and structured facilities were studied.
Of the original three concepts, the Consultants were asked to do another series
of concepts (three) that would further study one of the original three chosen by
the committee. These concepts were to look at the judicial complex showing
location and cost using minimal parking requirements (as identified in Technical
Memorandum 1), and maximum parking requirements (city requirements) .
After further study and analysis, it became clear that project costs were still well
above the budgeted $.12.5 million. This led to the development of additional
concepts (four) which maximized the existing county owned property and
facilities in attempts to lower project cost.
From these,three concepts were chosen which will become the final concepts
for presentation to the County Commission and the public. The following are
brief descriptions. for each of the final concepts.
3a
Site Inventory and Analysis
Mr. Halback reviewed several graphics of the 9 -block area
showing existing uses, land use designations, natural features
and contours, drainage, soil classifications, tree canopy,
existing utilities, etc. He noted that the soils in the area are
reasonable and should not cause any constraints, nor do they
expect any constraints due to existing utilities.
Mr. Halback noted that several buildings in the area may be
of historical significance - the original Vero Beach Woman's Club
building, the core of the present Courthouse which was built in
1935, the Pocahontas Building, and the original First Baptist
Church at the southeast intersection of 16th Avenue and 21st
Street. The Indian River County Historical Society feels very
strongly that the Woman's Club should be retained and also the
Pocahontas Building. They also have gone on record that the
original 1935 construction of the courthouse should be retained,
but they do not have any objection to the two wings being
removed. Mr. Halback noted that the Woman's Club and the
Pocahontas Building are not affected in the three final concepts.
Commissioner Bird asked why the consultants feel it is
necessary to tear down the wings of the Courthouse that were
added in the late 1950s, especially since all it would be
providing is green space.
Mr. Halback explained that if the wings were renovated for
office space, it would cause a fragmentation of the judicial
functions. In their analysis, they considered what other
agencies or departments could be housed in that space, such as
the Public Defender's Office or the State Attorney':s Office, but
determined it would not be cost feasible.
Chairman Eggert..understood that the wings were beginning to
pull away from the center of the building, which is what brought
this up in the first place.
4
JAN I I I� Nor,
JAN i i
199U
aoo� .7s
FticF 8
Commissioner Wheeler pointed out that
it would cost
us
over
$1 -million to renovate the wings for any practical use. There is
a problem with dampness and the inefficiency of the high ceilings
and poor floor planning, not to mention the lack of proper
insulation for air-conditioning.
Mr. Halback advised that the basement area has water
penetration and the dampness is causing a deterioration of
records.
Mark Hargrove from Transportation Consulting Group of Winter
Park explained that most projects center around parking space
requirements, and in order to determine the number of spaces
required, they analyzed two scenarios. Based on those two
independent calculations, they determined that the parking
required for the new courthouse would be 442 spaces, which is
3.315 spaces per 1,000 square feet.
Mr. Hargrove next addressed the increase in trips generated
by the construction of a new courthouse, separating the net daily
trip generations from the net peak hour trip generations. Their
intersection analysis determined that the three signalized
intersections in the vicinity of the courthouse are operating at
an acceptable level of service, and also determined that the
majority of the 15 unsignalized intersections are operating at
acceptable levels of service. Notable delay was calculated for
'two minor street approaches along 20th Street. The total
approach volumes for these minor streets are minimal and,
therefore, are not significant enough to warrant monitoring for
signalization or the addition of any turning lanes.
Design Process
Keith Reeves of Architects Design Group, Inc. of Winter Park
explained that 11 concepts had been considered before arriving at
the final three concepts, and each concept was looked at with
respect to the parking requirements now and in the future.
5
L::_1
"CONCEPT A"
Concept A develops a master plan which includes a totally new Judicial
Complex. Located in the block between the existing courthouse and the new
library, it will provide a unique link for county facilities.
Leaving the Woman's Club building in its existing location, the new complex
can be built to three stories to house 74,857 square feet of usable space with
28,544 square feet of shell space for future use. This will also allow for the
construction of approximately 30 parking spaces where the State's Attorneys
office currently exists.
Once the new complex is constructed, the existing county buildings can be
removed. This will include the State's Attorneys building, the Annex Building,
and the Courthouse. The facade of the original portion of the Courthouse will
be left to act as a monument and gateway to the new complex.
A greenspace/pedestrian link will then be created which begins at the
Courthouse facade, travels through the new Judicial Complex, and terminates
at the entry to the new library complex.
To satisfy the parking program that has been developed for this project (420 to
464 spaces), additional land must be obtained. Block 44 in the SW corner of
the nine block study area has been identified for surface parking.
Approximately 230 spaces can be constructed on this block. This is the least
expensive block within the study area, and therefore prime for this type of
development.
Utilizing the rest of the county's existing lands plus the additional purchase of
lots 10 and 11 in block 30 (NE corner) will provide the rest of the programmed
parking. Reorganization of the existing parking to include additional spaces will
allow for approximately 196 spaces. This will bring the total number of parking
spaces to 456.
It is important to note that parking space requirements have been satisfied using
a minimum space size of 9' x 19' and maximizing compact spaces (30% of total
spaces) at 7.5 x 15'. Landscaping requirements have also been taken into
consideration. This holds true for each concept and is in accordance with
current City of Vero Beach requirements.
The greatest advantage to this concept is the fact that all of the county's judicial
facilities can now be housed under one roof. This will eliminate some of the
current problems and closely follows Option C of the Space Needs Analysis -
Courthouse Facility - County of Indian River adopted by the County
Commission.
This concept proposes the removal of all but the facade of the "historic"
courthouse. This became necessary in order to maximize existing county
property, but will not be very popular with the historic society. This issue could
become the greatest disadvantage to the concept.
Costs have been projected to include building construction to impact fees. The
results reflect numbers that are higher than anticipated by the county.. Increases
in cost can basically be attributed to additional required parking and associated
land cost. This is something that will have to be added to any concept.
.SAN I 1 990BOOK �11i6L
ri
r �
BOOK 8 F,.GL 882
"CONCEPT B"
Concept B is based on utilizing as much of the county's current facilities as
possible. This concept was developed out of the need to reduce project cost as
much as possible. Buildings to remain are the Annex and the historic portion of
the current courthouse (removing the wings) leaving the need for a new facility
of about 44,111 square feet. Renovation would occur on both the Annex and
remaining courthouse. It is felt that the State's Attorney and Public Defender
could be moved to the "Historic" courthouse and that the Annex could be
reorganized to satisfy the needs of the new judicial program.
Location for -the new complex again falls between the existing facilities and the
new library. Reduced space requirements make the complex much smaller in
size, taking up less land. This then allows for the Woman's Club to stay intact
and the creation of approximately 74 surface parking spaces between the two
facilities.
A link between the county facilities (Library, Judicial Complex, Annex,
Courthouse) will be provided by a greenspace/pedestrian walkway system.
This connection, however, will not be as strong as the previous concept due to
space restrictions.
Additional parking requirements are satisfied through utilization of existing
county parking lots (approximately 100 spaces) and by purchasing lots 10 and
11 in block 30 (approximately 48 spaces) and block 44 in the N.W. corner
(approximately 230 spaces). Total parking spaces provided in this concept are
452.
The greatest advantage with this concept is lowered cost due to utilization of
existing county facilities. However, this could also be considered as a
disadvantage. Instead of one unified complex, what you have is three
individual buildings breaking up the unity and cohesiveness that is the basic
intent of a new judicial complex. In fact, what happens is an existing condition
is almost made worse.
CONCEPT C
Concept C takes one step back from the previous concept in terms of utilizing
existing facilities. Taking the historic context of the original portion of the
courthouse to heart, this concept preserves this building for some sort of
adaptive reuse. Also included in this concept is the continued use of the State's
Attorneys building. The new complex will then be a structure with 58,857
square feet of usable space with 28,544 square feet in shell space.
Placed in the center between the courthouse and the new library, the judicial
complex will function well as a centerpiece. Green space and a pedestrian
corridor will be the link that binds all three buildings together.
The Woman's Club will stay where it is, adjacent to the State's Attorneys office,
leaving the south end of the block intact.
Parking is provided by utilizing block 44, (approximately 230 spaces), lots 10-14
of block 30 in conjunction with existing county parking (approximately 202
spaces), and 14 existing spaces at the State's Attorneys building. This allows
for a total of 446 spaces.
This concept provides the best of both worlds. It allows the ability to construct a
comprehensive judicial complex while utilizing some of the existing structures.
7
I
I
i
I
[E
I
-PPI-L- 6(4WACP, 454
23RD StRalf
Hen
w
FE
FIF�10
C--F-
El
'� ' � 'i...__ oil 1L.�.�
Vit
J, PI IA4�
ca
El
i14T StaEET 'uLg, , � � '� r�•� °'11131 SIRIE f' ❑I•
-lefli
IJ
i
20TH STREET
ER
cim
'I
-A
ml
a
78 PAHS� '
BOOK Ll
L
0 E:,
Di
17TH AVENUE
LI=Lj
cp I
all
IL
Fr,
tGTM AVENUE 167h AVENUE
ISTM AVENUE
If
I.T. "EMA
9.
FI
rl
Indian River County
9.
fii
Dj:j
2011 STREET
loor Ps-�W-i
Ail,qPfW-"
cougl4cut-z
PLCAVIONYAS
.AK
C)
U-3
Gf�
LO
01-
C-3
CD
cc,
,JAW ,, 8
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY JUDICIAL MASTERPLAN
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
#8918 .12/21/89
JUDICIAL BUILDING
Site Utility Development (estimate) $100,000.00
Testing, Soils, Materials, Installations (estimate) 30,000.00
Furnishings and Equipment: 74,857 sq. ft. at $9.20/sq. ft. 688,684.00
Telephone/Communications Systems (allowance) 200,000.00
Landscape Improvements at $1.25/sq. ft. 129,251.00
Construction Costs: 74,857 sq. ft. at $96.00/sq. ft. 7,186,272.00
Construction Costs of "Shell": 28,544 sq. ft. at $60.18/sq.ft. 1.717.778.00
Subtotal 10,051,985.00
5% Contingency 502.599.00
Total $109554,584.00
DESIGN FEES AT 10% OF BUILDING COSTS $19055,458.00
DEMOLITION OF EX. ANNEX AND COURTHOUSE WINGS $148,000.00
LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS FOR COURTHOUSE $50,000.00
LAND ACQUISITION (assessed value plus 25%)
Block 30, Lots 10 & 11 $88,562.00
Block 36 (All but lots 6,7,8 &9)) 1,130,712.00
Block 44 831.137.00
Subtotal 2,050,411.00
35% Contingency 717.643.00
Total $21768,054.00
SURFACE PARKING at $1,750.00/SPACE
456 spaces (350 sq. ft./space) $798,000.00
Landscaping: 15% of area at $2.50/sq. ft. 59.850.00
Subtotal 857,850.00
5% Contingency 42.892.00
Total $900,742.00
GREEN SPACE
33,750 sq. ft. at $1.25 sq. ft. $42,187.00
IMPACT FEES
Traffic: 103,401 sq. ft. at $5,799.00/1,000 sq. ft. $599,622.00
Credit for Building Space Removed from Service -266,081.00
Water: 1 1/2" Meter at $5,082.00 plus $304.00 Conn. Fee 5,386.00
Sewer: 60 Fixtures at $212.00/6 Fixtures 2,120.00
Total $341,047.00
BUILDING PERMIT FEE
$836.50/First $500,000.00 $836.50
$1.00/Each Additional $1,000.00 10.055.00
Total $109891.50
PLAN EXAMINER'S FEE AT 1/2 BUILDING PERMIT FEE $5,446.00
OFF-SITE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS (ALLOWANCE) $100,000.00
CONCEPT B: TOTAL $13.961.757.00
JUDICIAL BUILDING
Site Utility Development (estimate)
$100,000.00
Testing/Soils, Materials, Installation (estimate)
30,000.00
Furnishings and Equipment: 44,111 sq. ft. at $9.20/sq. ft.
405,821.00
Telephone/Communications Systems (allowance)
200,000.00
Landscape Improvements at 1.25/sq. ft.
90,819.00
Construction Costs: 44,111 sq. ft. at $96.00/sq. ft.
4,234,656.00
Construction Costs of "Shell" 28,544 sq. ft. at $60.18/sq. ft.
1.717.778.00
Subtotal
6,779,074.00
5% Contingency
338.954.00
Total
$7,118,028.00
DESIGN FEES AT 10% OF BUILDING COST
$711,803.00
RENOVATION OF EXISTING ANNEX AND COURTHOUSE
Existing Courthouse: 16,000 sq. ft. at $68.00/sq. ft.
$1,088,000.00
Existing Annex: 14,746 sq. ft. at 42.00/sq. ft.
619,332.00
Site Improvements: Landscape, Walkways, Graphics, etc.
62,000.00
Furnishings and Equipment: 8,000 sq. ft. at $7.00/sq. ft.
56.000.00
Subtotal
1,825,332.00
5% Contingency
91.267.00
Total
$1,916,599.00
DEMOLITION OF EX. COURTHOUSE WINGS $36,000.00
LAND ACQUISITION (assessed value plus 25%)
Block 30 (LOTS 10 & 11) $88,562.00
Block 36 (all but lots 6,7,8. & 9) $1,130,712.00
Block 44 831.137.00
Subtotal 2,050,411.00
35% Contingency 717.644.00
Total $2,768,055.00
SURFACE PARKING AT $1,750.00 PER SPACE
452 spaces (350 sq. ft/space) $791,000.00
Landscaping: 15% of Area at $2.50/sq. ft. 59.325.00
Subtotal 850,325.00
5% Contingency 42.516.00
Total $892,841.00
GREEN SPACE AT $1.25/SQ. FT. $44,625.00
IMPACT FEES
Traffic: 72,655 sq. ft. at $5,799/1000 sq. ft. 421,326.00
Credit for Bldg. Space Removed From Service -69,588.00
Water: 1 1/2" Meter at $5,082.00 plus $304.00 Conn Fee 5,386.00
Sewer: 60 Fixtures at $212.00/6 Fixtures 2,120.00
Total $359,244.00
BUILDING PERMIT FEE
$836.50/1 st 500,000.00, $1.00 ea. Additional $1,000.00
New Building
Renovations
Total
PLAN EXAMINER'S FEE AT 1/2 BUILDING PERMIT FEE
OFF-SITE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS (allowance)
IN
$7,455.00
2.253.00
$9,708.00
$4,854.00
$100,000.00
CONCEPT C TOTAL: $14,674,511.00
JUDICIAL BUILDING
Site Utility Development (estimate)
Testing/Soils, Materials, Installations (estimate)
Furnishings and Equipment at $9.20 sq. ft. (58,857 sq. ft.)
Telephone/Communications Systems (allowance)
Landscape Improvements at $1.25/sq. ft.
Construction Costs at $96.00/sq. ft. (58,857 sq.ft.)
Construction Costs of "Shell" at $60.18/sq.ft. (28,544 sq.ft.)
Subtotal
5% Contingency -
Total
DESIGN FEES AT 10% OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS
RENOVATION OF EXISTING ANNEX
14,746 sq. ft. at $42.00/sq. ft.
Site Improvements: Landscape, Walkways, Graphics, etc.
Subtotal
5% Contingency
Total
DEMOLITION OF COURTHOUSE WINGS
LAND ACQUISITION
Block 30; Lots 10-14
Block 36 (All But Lots 6,7,8 &9)
Block 44
Subtotal
35% Contingency
Total
SURFACE PARKING AT $1,750.00/SPACE
446 Spaces (350 sq. ft./space)
Landscaping: 15% of Area at $2.50/sq. ft.
Subtotal
5% Contingency
Total
GREEN SPACE: 34,800 SQ.FT. AT $1.25/SQ.FT
IMPACT FEES
800 78 P,{IA SSU
$100,000.00
30,000.00
541,484.00
200,000.00
110,819.00
5,650,272.00
8,350,353.00
417.518.00
$8,7679871.00
$876,787.00
$619,332.00
31.000.00
650,332.00
.32.517.00
$682,849.00
$36,000.00
$195,250.00
1,130,712.00
831.137.00
2,157,099.00
754.985.00
$2,912,084.00
$780,500.00
58.537.OQ
839,037.00
41,951.00
$880,988.00
$43,500.00
Traffic: 87,401 sq. ft. at $5,799.00/1,000 sq. ft. $506,839.00
Credit for Building Space Removed from Service -155,100.00
Water: 1 1/2" Meter at $5,082.00 plus $304.00 Connection Fee 5,386.00
Sewer: 60 Fixtures at $212.00/6 Fixtures 2,120.00
Total $359,245.00
BUILDING PERMIT FEE
New Building $9,105.00
Renovations 1.020 00
Total $10,125.00
PLAN EXAMINERS FEE AT 1/2 BUILDING PERMIT FEE $5,062.00
OFF-SITE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS $100,000.00
13
JAN 11 �090
na 78 PnE 8.90
Chairman Eggert asked if the Historical Society had received
Judge Kanarek's letter saying that the present Courthouse is not
the original courthouse in this county.
Millie -Bunnell, president of the IRC Historical Society,
explained when Indian River County was established in 1925, the
Courthouse was in the old Palmetto Hotel/Charlton Apts. building,
but the courtrooms were in the second floor of the old Simmons
Building on the corner of 14th Avenue and 21st Street. In 1935
we built the present courthouse, and since we were rather a poor
county at the time, the federal government came in and helped us
through the WPA program.
Chairman Eggert commented that she was struggling with the
significance of the historical importance of the present
courthouse especially since it is not in very good shape.
Commissioner Bird felt his main concern in choosing one of
these concepts is the cost of property acquisition and the costs
that go with that, i.e. demolition, relocation of utilities, etc.
He was concerned that we may find ourselves spending more money
than what we anticipated, and emphasized that he wouldn't start
building a home without knowing what his lot would cost.
Administrator Chandler explained that the consultants wanted
to be sure. that all potential costs were identified, but at the
same time, we told them to be extremely conservative. We think
that they have loaded in just about every cost they could
identify and that these figures are realistic. He emphasized
that the driving force that affects just about everything is the
parking requirements, which translate into property acquisition,
demolition, etc. It is very important not to under estimate
those figures.
After considerable discussion on parking requirements and
the impact on the commercial uses surrounding this area, Mr.
Halback pointed out that they were not here today to design the
building, just to present the three final concepts and get the
15
F
Evaluations and Recommendations
Mr. Halback presented the following evaluation matrix, and
advised that the next step in this process is to develop the
final master plan based on the Board's direction of which concept
the Board would like them to continue to pursue or what
combination of the 3 concepts they would like them to pursue.
C 0'N C E P T'. E V A L U A T I O N M A T R I X
PLAN "A" PLAN "B"
Traffic, Parking, and Circulation 4 3
Impact on Historical Structures 2 5
Operation and Function 5 2
Cost 3 5
Impact on Urban Character 4 4
Phasing and Expansion 5 3
23 22
Evaluation Scale
12345'6
least greatest
PLAN "C"
5
5
4
4
4
4
26
14
JAS .N:�
Board's direction as to which concept or combination of concepts
they are to proceed with.
A.M.
Commissioner Scurlock entered the meeting at 10:05 o'clock
Chairman Eggert liked Concept "A", but felt there is a lot
to be said for Concept "C", which calls for a medium-sized
building but still retains the historical courthouse.
Commissioner Wheeler preferred Concept "A" for several
reasons, but preferred to see the cornerstone of the original
courthouse made into some kind of a monument rather than
attempting to save the facade. He felt that Concept "A" provides
the most functional use for our present needs and provides for
future expansion as well. He noted that capital expenditures
today are one of the cheapest expenses government has over the
long haul, and felt we need to plan for the future. We have an
opportunity here to do that in good fashion with a larger
building.
Commissioner Bird asked how many years would it be before we
would need to use some of the shell space, and Mr. Halback
advised that the space needs study showed that 74,000 square feet
is needed to meet the 1989 needs, and that the shell space would
meet your needs up to the year 2000, which is only 10 years away.
Commissioner Scurlock supported Concept "A", but with some
concerns about parking. He felt the efforts to reduce the amount
of required parking is directly opposed to what he believes we
will need. He felt we should cooperate with the City of Vero
Beach to provide adequate parking, because he believed the new
building will be at capacity long before expected. While the
existing Courthouse obviously has some history to it.and has a
fond place in many people's hearts, the fact is that the building
is grossly inadequate and would be very expensive to renovate,
especially the basement area. We have had nothing but problems
with that facility, and it probably was not a good decision in
16
JAN 111919 0 _ BOOK
I
,SAN I i
J
o,
the
long run to add the two wings back
in the late 1950s.
Commissioner Scurlock felt we need to keep in mind that we are
talking about a $14-16 million complex, and the very last thing
we should do is under plan for it. He wanted to make sure that
we make the people happy who are going to be using this facility,
because he could think of nothing worse than to spend $14-16
million for a building and have the Judges, the County Clerk,
the Sheriff, and all the others unhappy with the facility because
maybe we didn't take the right approach in terms of getting their
involvement. He had some very strong feelings, however, of how
we should receive this input and how that should interface with
the architect. He anticipated substantial problems if we let the
future occupants directly interface with the architect, because
ultimately it is the Board who will approve the final design.
Commissioner Scurlock felt it is very important that a policy be
established right from the beginning so that the architect knows
very clearly that he will be getting his direction from the Board
through the County Administrator.
Chairman Eggert agreed it would be a problem if each person
dealt directly with the architect, but she did feel there is
value in each of the groups giving their input.
Commissioner Wheeler wished to comment about the concern
that arose when the Board abolished the Courthouse Facility
Committee last week. He emphasized that the abolishment of that
committee was in no way a ploy to keep people from giving their
input on the design of the judicial facility. He felt it is of
maximum importance that the people who will be using this
facility give their input because they are the ones who
understand what they need. He would like to see us expand the
panel that will be short -listing and selecting the architectural
firms to include Circuit Court Judge Geiger, or his designee;
either of the County Judges Wild or Balsiger; and County Clerk
Jeff Barton. After the selection of the architect, rather than
17
M
r � �
having a committee getting into the design work, he anticipated
that the architect and county staff would interview each of the
Judges, the Clerk, the Sheriff, the Public Defender, the State
Attorney, the bailiffs, etc., receive their input, and put all of
that together so that they can -design the building to function
properly and the flow is there. At that point, perhaps we could -
have a group meeting to critique the design, but the Board of
County Commissioners does have the final word.
Commissioner Scurlock was concerned about getting away from
our normal selection process, but Commissioner Eggert felt in
this particular case, the Judges and the Clerk would be just
additions to that selection committee.
Administrator Chandler felt it may be advisable to have some
judges on that committee as part of the initial selection
committee. However, once an architect has been selected,
presented to the Commission and approved, and we get into actual
design, a lot of input will be required from many different
sources.
Mr. Reeves wished to thank the Judges for their cooperation
and help when they were doing the space analysis study.
Commissioner Scurlock was concerned about the interfacing of
these groups directly with the architect because obviously we
cannot design a building to please everyone. His main concern,
however., is that we provide enough parking space for now and for
future growth.
Mr. Halback emphasized that it is less expensive to provide
surface parking in the downtown area than it is to build a 2 or 3
story parking garage. He reiterated that the parki.ng they are
recommending is 3.315 spaces per 1,000 square feet, or 1 space
per 300 square feet...
John Fraser, president of the Downtown Merchants'
Association, advised that he has been very involved with the
zoning codes of the downtown area during the last 10-15 years,
18
F1' f
BoaI,
I r+UC
F_
i
0 tlJL
BOOK . 7th
and believed a couple of statements that had been made this
morning were misleading. He noted that the CRA zoning line
splits the proposed building location on all the 3 concepts
presented. The east end of the building would be in the CRA
zone, which has a 50 -ft. height limitation and zero parking
requirements. If the County has been told it has parking
requirements, it is because of the portion that is on the west
end of the site. He noted that a referendum will be held on
March 13, 1990 to reduce the height limitation to 35 feet.
Mr. Reeves explained that the graphics merely show a
building envelope which the building would fit within. That
envelope has an extremely adequate amount of open space,
setbacks, and all of the things that Mr. Fraser feels should be
considered. However, those things all will be considered in the
next step, and then very specifically in the actual design.
They feel they have been very conservative and that the building
can fit very comfortable within that building envelope itself and
still meet the City's requirements. The reality, however, is
that adequate parking must be provided, regardless of the
requirements.
Circuit Judge L. B. Vocelle pointed out that they just
received copies of the three final concepts late yesterday and
only had last evening to review them. In fact, they only
received notice of this meeting the day before yesterday. They
feel very strongly that they should be given reasonable notice on
anything the Board of County Commissioners is going to do
relative to their workplace. Judge Smith and Judge Kanarek would
have been here today had they been given reasonable notice. He,
himself, had to reschedule a jury until this afternoon in order
to be here. They want to have input into the design of the new
facility, but are not asking to be in on the ultimate decision.
They agree with Commissioner Wheeler's suggestion for adding the
Judges and the County Clerk to the architectural selection
s
19
State of Florida
Nineteenth p&1ciaC Circuit
.January 10, 1990
Mrs. Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman
Board of County Commissioners
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Re: New Courthouse
Dear Mrs. Eggert:
GOOK F'kt
PAUL B. KANAREK
CIRCUIT JUDGE
Indian River County Courthouse
Suite 239
2145 14th Avenue
Vero Beach, FL 32960
I am sorry that I will be unable to attend the workshop on
January 11th however I am scheduled to be in trial in Martin
County on that date. Had I learned of the meeting prior to
January 9th I would have been able to rearrange my schedule.
I have seen the executive summary that was provided to Judge
Vocelle and would strongly recommend that the Commission adopt
the "A" proposal.' This would allow all of the court related
functions to be -located in one building.
(4M 567-800
In my quick review of the executive summary it appeared that the
approximate cost to refurbish the "old" courthouse was
approximately 1 million dollars. I am advised that this
building was not even the original courthouse that was
constructed in this county.
If there are additional meetings about this matter I would
request that I'receive at least one weeks notice so that I could
rearrange my schedule and attend.
Sdnc re y
PAUL B. KANAREK
PBK/scp
CC: County
Circuit
County
Indian
Commission Members
Judges
Judges
River County
Bar Association
21
M M M
committee, but would like to suggest that a member of the Bar
Association also be appointed to that group.
Administrator Chandler took the responsibility for the lack
of adequate notice, as he had assumed that Judge Geiger had
related that information to the other Judges after meeting with
him on December 29th to schedule this workshop meeting.
Judge Vocelle emphasized that the Judges feel the renovation
of the present Courthouse had been a disaster, and wanted to see
an architect selected for this project who has specific expertise
in the design of court facilities. When the architect is
selected, the Judges want to be able to communicate with one
person rather than 9 or 10 representatives of that firm. Judge
Kanarek, Judge Smith, and himself would like to recommend Concept
"A" because everything is in one complex and the design provides
for future expansion and calls for the demolition of the old
Courthouse except for the facade.
As a member of the Historical Society and being from a
pioneer family, Judge Vocelle didn't want to have a confrontation
with the Historical Society, but he felt it would be a terrible
mistake to retain the present structure for a lot of reasons,
mainly because it isn't functional. It had trouble the day it
was built, because it was built on a muck pond. They feel that
the historical value can be retained in ways other than retaining
that structure.
Judge Vocelle read the following letter into the record:
20
JAN 111990, BOOK 9'i AuL
Administrator Chandler assured Judge Vocelle that written
notice will be given in the future, and Commissioner Wheeler
commented that he felt there has been some confusion that this is
the actual design. This is just the conceptual plan of how this
complex will fit into the downtown area.
Chairman Eggert apologized to Judge Vocelle for the lack of
communication in this particular matter, and assured him it would
not happen again.
Robert Nall, president of the Indian River County Bar
Association, felt that Concept "A" probably would be the choice
of the Bar Association because everything would be in one
building and the less they would have to use the present
building, the better off they would be. They would like to have
a representative on some kind of an liaison committee, but agree
that their input should be channelled through one individual,
such as the County Administrator, rather than -talking to the
archi.tect directly.
Millie Bunnell noted that she had not seen these plans until
this morning, but had heard about plans to save only the facade
of the original building. The Society would like to save the
entire original structure, because later on people might say that
it was too bad they didn't save that old 1935 building. She
would like to think that our government protects our heritage and
is not its enemy.
State Attorney Bruce Colton felt Plan "A" seems to be the
best. He didn't want to hurt anyone's feelings here, but there
is such a thing as a sick building. The problems of dampness and
improper air circulation in the present Courthouse. -are definite
health hazards. He understood that one of the concepts calls for
putting the State Attorney's Office in the old building, but he
would fight that move every step of the way. Attorney Colton
also wished to have some input into the design of the building,
since he has seen mistakes made in other counties when they built
new facilities. Some of those mistakes with the new Martin
JAN 11 '990 22 Boos
L_
F_
BOOK 7 8 P,1
County Courthouse are that no provision was made for expansion;
the security system was not set up properly; movement of
pr.isoners was not set up properly; there are problems with noise;
witness stands in the courthouse were placed properly, etc.
Clerk of Court Jeff Barton liked Concept "A" because all the
square footage is in one location. It would consolidate his
offices which are now scattered between the Courthouse and the
Administration Building, and that in turn would free up space in
the Administration Building. He would like to be involved in the
architectural selection process and also would like to have his
people give their input as to how space relates to their
functions.
Commissioner Bird had a problem with Concept "A" as well as
some of the other concepts that call for the removal or
demolition of existing, usable office space in that area. He
pointed out that in order to force this complex into that area,
we are talking about purchasing 3.7 acres at an estimated cost of
$750,000 per acre, which is a premium price to pay for land just
to accommodate the location of the courthouse/judicial facility.
He had the same basic problem when the decision was made to
locate the main library in the downtown area, because we are
paying a premium price for land, and he believed it will end up
costing us more than that in the end. His main reason for going
along with this site is to do something to preserve and
rejuvenate the downtown area and he would like to see some
blending of the old and the new like they have done in
Tallahassee. If he had to go with one of the concepts, he would
probably go with Concept "C" because it at least calls for the
preservation of a couple of the old buildings that he feels still
have value historically and otherwise.
Commissioner Bowman liked Concept "A" because of the
expansion possibilities. She felt that we have under -built many
times in this county and have lived to regret it. She would like
to see us save the core of the present Courthouse because she
23
felt if is destroyed, it would ruin the possibility of someday
putting a museum in the building. She emphasized that it would
cost $148,000 just to tear it down and haul it off to the
Landfill.
Chairman Eggert stated she would go along with support of
Concept "A" because she does see the value of everything being
under one roof.
Commissioner Bird asked if the projected cost of $16 -million,
for Concept "A" caused anybody else concern, since we have been
talking about $12 -million for a long time, but now all of a
sudden it is $16 -million.
The other Commissioners assured him of their concern, and
Chairman Eggert stressed that the cost just gets higher the
longer this carries on.
Administrator Chandler advised that the $15.9 -million costs
for Concept "A" can be accommodated with our existing sales tax,
as well as the costs for Phase III of the Jail and the Health
Dept. Building.
Commissioner Bird asked if this involves any kind of interim
borrowing, and Administrator Chandler stated that it would not.
Commissioner Bowman understood that Concept "A" would retain
just the facade of the original building, and Mr. Halback
explained that the plan calls for the demolition of the total
courthouse and the annex, bort keeps the front building wall of
the original configuration.
Commissioner Bowman asked if the facade would be similar to
a stage set with a wall and nothing behind it, and Mr. Halback
felt that was a pretty good description. He noted that it would
serve as a monument and gateway into the entire complex.
Commissioner Wheeler pointed out that all the parking is in
the rear, and felt that few people would be entering the complex
through the facade.
24
r
,JAN 11
1`90
BOOK .7s
F,1u 90
THE
FOLLOWING MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WHEELER FAILED
FOR LACK
OF A SECOND..."that the Board select Concept "A", with the
exception that instead of saving the facade, the cornerstone of
the original 1935 building would be placed into some type of
sculpture/monument and displayed in a prominent location."
Commissioner Scurlock asked if any consideration had been
given to using the original structure for a commission chamber
because that is the only conceivable thing he could see as a
functional use since the Commission is outgrowing the one in the
Administration Building.
Commissioner Eggert felt that would make it very difficult
because it would split the Commissioners from staff and everyone
we work with.
Mr. Reeves explained that they had considered that, but that
would result in a fragmentation of functions. They also looked*
at it for use by the private sector where attorneys would move
in, but they didn't feel the dollars were there to renovate it to
any practical use.
Commissioner Bowman couldn't see it as office space for
anyone, but felt if it is destroyed now, it would ruin the
possibility of someday putti a museum in the building. That
doesn't mean we would have to do it it diately, maybe in 15
years or so.
County Clerk Barton suggested that we not tear it down until
the end of the project and give the people in the community the
opportunity and time to try and save it for historical purposes.
Administrator Chandler pointed out that if the building is
left standing, it would affect the parking requirements.
Mr. Barton asked what would be required with respect to
parking and land if we went ahead with Concept "A" but left the
old Courthouse standing, and Mr. Halback advised that 93 parking
spaces would be needed and approximately another acre of land.
25
Chairman Eggert felt that if we are talking about an
exhibition hall, this might work, but if we are talking about a
true museum, this building would not make it because the dampness
alone prevents that.
Commissioner Bird asked if anyone knew whether the exterior
walls of the original building were still intact, and Mr. Reeves
assured him they were.
Mrs. Bunnell urged the Board to save the original structure ,
for as long as possible, and while Chairman Eggert didn't have a
problem with that, she did point out that we would have to look
for more parking land.
Mrs. Bunnell felt it would be a shame to have parking spaces
dictate whether we are going to keep the building or not.
Administrator Chandler advised that we already need to have
some serious discussions with the City regarding the differential
in the required parking spaces. He felt we have to realize when
we make these kind of decisions that it is going to translate
into dollars since the driving force here is parking space.
Commissioner Wheeler suggested that we hold another meeting
like this before making a decision in order to give people a
couple of weeks to look at this in depth, but Commissioner
Scurlock felt he was ready to make a Motion.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously selected
Concept "A", with the exception that the existing
courthouse will have its wings torn down, but otherwise
left exactly as it is, which gives the County the
option to get on with the architectural selection, but
allows us to continue to analyze whether or not we want
to tear down the entire structure, part of it, or
retain it for some other use.
1_1J 1 r�� r I 11990 $
26
FNGE
@ A N
L
BOOK 78 PAGE 90i2
There being no further business, on Motion duly made,
seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 11:45 o'clock A.M.
ATTEST:
v Clerk
y
hairman