HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/27/1991BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, AUGUST 27, 1991
9:00 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
1840 25TH STREET
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Richard N. Bird, Chairman
Gary C. Wheeler, Vice Chairman
Margaret C. Bowman
Carolyn K. Eggert
Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
James E. Chandler, County
Charles P. Vitunac, County
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to
*******************"***
9:00 A.M. 1. CALL TO ORDER
2. INVOCATION -
None
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE -
Comm. Carolyn K. Eggert
4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
County Attorney Vitunac requested the DELETION of Item 9.B.1.,
5. PROCLAMATION AND PRESENTATIONS
None
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Regular meeting of July 23, 1991
7. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Duplicate Tax Sale Certificate No. 1426,
in the sum of $69.81, for Sam High
B. Approval of Duplicate Tax Sale Certificate No. 1513,
in the sum of $264.96, for Sam High
C. Proclamation designating September 8 - 14, 1991 as
Celebrate Literacy Week
D. Release of Utility Liens
(memorandum dated August 15, 1991)
E. Appointment of Arline Westfahl to Historic Resources
Advisory Committee
(memorandum dated August 20, 1991)
F. IRC Tax Collector - North County Leased Space
(memorandum dated August 15, 1991)
BOOK
piU G 27 1991
84
Administrator
Attorney
the Board
*********
FgGc
81
AUG 2 7 199
y
BooK 84 ME
7. CONSENT AGENDA (continued):
G. Final plat approval for the Foxes Tail Subdivision,
Phase V of the Timber Ridge Planned Residential
Development (PRD)
(memorandum dated August 9, 1991)
H. I.R.C.. parking facility, 19th Ave. at 27th St., grant
of sidewalk easement to the City of Vero Beach
(memorandum dated August 14, 1991)
8. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS AND
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
None
9:05 a.m. 9. PUBLIC ITEMS
A. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
Presentation of petition re: S.R. 60 Improvements
(letter dated August 13, 1991)
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA MAKING IT UNLAWFUL TO LOITER
IN A PUBLIC PLACE IN A MANNER MANIFEST-
ING THE PURPOSE OF ILLEGALLY USING,
POSSESSING OR SELLING CONTROLLED
SUBSTANCES
2. Michael O'Haire and County Initiated Request to
Rezone Approximately 11 +1- Acres From RS -3 to
RS -1
(memorandum dated August 19, 1991)
10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS
None
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Request from Robert G. Mooney, Jr. to be heard
regarding proposed changes and modifications
to 14th Street extending east from U.S. #1
(memorandum dated August 21, 1991)
B. EMERGENCY SERVICES
None
C. GENERAL SERVICES
None
D. LEISURE SERVICES
None
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS (continued):
E. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
None
F. PERSONNEL
None
G. PUBLIC WORKS
1. South County Regional Park - IRC Bid #91-101
(memorandum dated August 13, 1991)
2. Amendment to DNR FRDAP Grant Agreement for
Treas. Shores Park - Ph. I
(memorandum dated August 19, 1991)
3. .Request by City of Vero Beach to extend 16th St.
ballfield complex leases until Oct. 21, 2010
(memorandum dated August 21, 1991)
4. Request by Ms. Madeline Kaye for County to close
78th Ave. between 129th St. & 128th Crt. in Roseland
(memorandum dated August 21, 1991)
5. Street Lighting Along SR 60 West of 43rd Ave.
Proposed by Department of Transportation
(memorandum dated August 21, 1991)
. UTILITIES
Wastewater service to I.R.C. Middle & High Schools
at C.R. 512
(memorandum dated August 14, 1991)
12. 'COUNTY ATTORNEY
None
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS
A. CHAIRMAN RICHARD N. BIRD
B. VICE CHAIRMAN GARY C. WHEELER
C. COMMISSIONER MARGARET C. BOWMAN
D. COMMISSIONER CAROLYN K. EGGERT
AUG 27 1991
BOOK 84 VA6E Sj
.AtJG27 9
BOOK 84 P,16E�j
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS (continued):
E. COMMISSIONER DON C. SCURLOCK, JR.
14. SPECIAL DISTRICTS
A. NORTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT
None
B. SOUTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT
None
C. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
1. Approval of Minutes - Meeting of 7/17/91
2. Approval of Minutes - Meeting of 7/23/91
3. Landfill Financial Responsibility Study
(memorandum dated aug. 20, 1991)
15. ADJOURNMENT
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.
Tuesday, August 27, 1991
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, August 27, 1991,
at 9:00 o'clock A. M. Present were Richard N. Bird, Chairman; Gary
C. Wheeler, Vice Chairman; Carolyn K. Eggert, Margaret C. Bowman
and Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Also present were James E. Chandler,
County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney; and
Patricia Held, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
Carolyn K. Eggert led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
County Attorney Vitunac requested the deletion of Item 9.B.1.,
to be rescheduled to September 17, 1991.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously deleted
Item 9.B.1. and rescheduled it for September 17,
1991.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or corrections
to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 23, 1991. There were
none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board approved the Minutes
of the Regular Meeting of July 23, 1991 as written.
Boo
AUG 2 7 1991
fnuL Li_
Mie 27 1991
BOOK 84 PAGE 8C
CONSENT AGENDA
A and B. Approval of Duplicate Tax Sale Certificates
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
the issuance of the following listed Duplicate Tax
Sale Certificates:
Certificate No. 1426 to Sam High - $ 69.81
Certificate No. 1513 to Sam High - $264.96
C. Proclamation - Celebrate Literacy Week
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously
designated September 8 through 14, 1991 as Celebrate
Literacy Week.
PROCLAMATION
DESIGNATING SEPTEMBER 8-14, 1991
AS
CELEBRATE LITERACY WEEK
WHEREAS, the ability to read is of fundamental
importance to all people; and
WHEREAS, thie•nation was founded by, and depends upon,
a literate and informed citizenry; and
WHEREAS, literacy is a gateway to the full
participation in the affairs of this nation; and
WHEREAS, adult new readers should be recognized for
their efforts toward personal and civic growth; and
WHEREAS, volunteers in adult literacy programs should
be commended for their willingness to help others improve their
skills: and
WHEREAS, September 8, 1991 is designated as
International Literacy Day; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the week of
September 8-14, 1991 shall be designated as
CELEBRATE LITERACY WEEK
in Indian River County, and all citizens are urged to support and
honor those adults for whom the achievement of literacy, for
themselves and others, has become a primary goal.
Adopted this 27th day of August, 1991
2
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Richard N. Bard
Chairman
D. Release of Utility Liens
The Board reviewed memo from Lea R. Keller, CLA, dated August
15, 1991:
TO: 'Board of County Commissioners
FROM:
DATE: August 15, 1991
p. 44(t_two
Lea R. Keller, CLA, County Attorney's Office
RE: CONSENT AGENDA - B.C.C. MEETING 8/27/91
RELEASE OF UTILITY LIENS
I have prepared the following lien related documents and request that
the Board authorize the Chairman to sign them:
1. Releases of Special Assessment Liens from
U.S. #1 (10 TO MAIN RELIEF CANAL) PROJECT
in the names of:
MacMILLAN
JOHNSON
BROWN
SMITH
2. Satisfaction for Payment of Impact Fee Lien
Extension in the name of:
HUDSON
3. Release of Special Assessment Lien from
SUMMERPLACE WATER PROJECT in the name of:
MARKS
4. Release of Assessment Lien from NORTH
COUNTY SEWER PROJECT SUPPLEMENT ROLL
in the name of:
MAHALICK
Additional back-up information is on file in the County Attorney's
Office.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
releases of liens and satisfaction for payment of
lien as listed above, as recommended by staff.
COPIES OF SAID DOCUMENTS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF
CLERK TO THE BOARD
3 ®
OOK
AUG 27 1991
84
ra
.tf
AN 27199
BOOK 84
E. Appointment of Arline Westfahl to Historic Resources Advisory
Committee
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously
appointed Arline Westfahl to the Historic Resources
Advisory Committee.
F. IRC Tax Collector - North County Leased Space
The Board reviewed memo from General Services Director Sonny
Dean dated August 15, 1991:
DATE: AUGU$T 15, 1991
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERV
SUBJECT: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR
NORTH COUNTY LEASED SPACE
BACKGROUND:
Gene Morris, Tax Collector has renegotiated the leasing of his office
space in the North County. He was successful in reducing the cost
from $1,984.70 to $1,566.80 per month for the next three (3) years.
This equates to $7.50 per square foot. We are presently paying $7.00
for other county offices in that complex, but will have to
renegotiate that price next year.
ANALYSIS:
Attached is the letter Mr. Morris sent this writer giving some of the
details on the space and requesting Board action.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends Board approval and authorization for the Chairman to
execute the appropriate documents.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
and authorized the Chairman to execute the lease
agreement for the Tax Collector's office space in
the North County, as recommended by staff.
(LEASE AGREEMENT NOW RECEIVED AND ON FILE IN THE
OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD)
G. Final Plat Approval - Foxes Tail Subdivision. Phase V of Timber
Ridge PRD
The Board reviewed memo from Current Development Staff Planner
Christopher Rison dated August 9, 1991:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. etin
Community DevelpmevjDirector
THROUGH: Stan Boling, ICP
Planning Director
NJ
FROM:
Christopher D. Rison U�'
Staff Planner, Current Development
DATE: August 9, 1991
SUBJECT: FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR THE FOXES TAIL SUBDIVISION, PHASE
V OF THE TIMBER RIDGE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
(PRD)
SD -90-07-10
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of August 27, 1991.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
The Foxes Tail Subdivision is a proposed 10 lot residential
subdivision of a ±4.25 acre parcel. The subdivision is located at
the southwest corner of the intersection of the Lateral "J" Canal
and the future extension of 5th Street S.W., and forms the
northwest corner of the Timber Ridge PRD.
On June 14, 1990, the Planning and Zoning Commission granted
Preliminary PRD approval for the Foxes Tail Subdivision. The
developer subsequently applied for, and received, a Land
Development Permit to commence construction of the subdivision.
Construction of the subdivision has since been completed, and a
Certificate of Completion for the subdivision improvements has been
issued by the Public Works Department.
No additional subdivision documentation (eg. Warranty/Maintenance
Agreement, etc.) is required for the project as no subdivision
improvements will be publicly dedicated.
The owner, Timber Ridge, Inc., through its agent, Mosby and
Associates, Inc., has submitted a final plat document in
conformance with the approved preliminary plat and is now
requesting final plat approval.
ANALYSIS:
The applicant has effectively satisfied the conditions of
preliminary plat approval for the Foxes Tail Subdivision and
satisfied all applicable requirements of final plat approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant final
l
plat approval for the Foxes Tail Subdivision.
5
AUG 21 1991
a
BOOK `
ilU6 27 y9
BOOK
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously granted
final plat approval for the Foxes Tail Subdivision,
as recommended by staff.
PlibE,
H. I.R.C. Parking Facility - Grant of Sidewalk Easement to the
City of Vero Beach
The Board reviewed memo from County Engineer Roger Cain dated
August 14, 1991:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
FROM: Roger D. Cain, P.E.
County Engineer
SUBJECT: Indian River County Parking Facility, 19th Avenue at 27th
Street Grant of Sidewalk Easement to the City of Vero
Beach
DATE: August 14, 1991
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Attached with this memorandum is a letter from the City of Vero
Beach and 'a copy of the requested easement for the sidewalk
installation along 27th Street and the new parking facility. The
easement is necessitated because of the need to move the sidewalk
to avoid existing catch basins along 27th Street and the city's
legal requirement for an easement when the sidewalk is not on the
right-of-way. There is sufficient room to provide the easement and
locate the sidewalk in the green area between the street and the
parking lot.
,ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
,Alternative No. 1 To grant the easements and have the Chairman of
the Board execute the easement as submitted.
Alternative No. 2 To not grant the easement.
1 RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
Staff recommends granting the easement. No additional funding
required at this time.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously granted
a sidewalk easement along 27th Street and the Indian
River County Parking Facility to the City of Vero
Beach and authorized the Chairman to execute the
Deed of Easement, as recommended by staff.
SAID DEED OF EASEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF
CLERK TO THE BOARD
6
PRESENTATION OF PETITION RE: S.R. 60 IMPROVEMENTS
The Board reviewed a letter from R. D. Auton dated, August 13,
1991:
•
1616 2nd Road, S.W.
Vero Beach, Florida 32962
August 13, 1991
Mr. Richard Bird
Chairman, Indian River County Commission
Administration Building
1840 26th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
RE: Substantial Improvements, State Road 60, Indian River County
Dear Mr. Bird:
We would like to take a moment to say a grateful thank you
and that we sincerely appreciate the Commission's continuing
efforts to inform the Florida Department of Transporation (FDOT)
that State Road 60 is the Indian River County Commissioners'
greatest concern and first priority:
Over the last few weeks, though, we have become increasingly
aware that FPOT has not fully recognized the seriousness of the
State Road 60 corridor in relationship to the safety and
economical well being of the citizens of Indian River County. It
has, also, become apparent that after listening and talking to
various people from all walks of life that we, the people, must
step forward with a grassroots effort to convince the State that
this project must be accelerated to move this road to THE top
priority position on the FDOT roadway improvement plan.
The FDOT's•recent assessment of State Road 60 in Indian River
County did not include substantial improvements to our only
east/west corridor in the near future. It is our understanding
that the FDOT is planning some improvements this year and
substantial improvements are to be made on their twenty year
plan. Unfortunately, this improvement program on the twenty year
plan is needed now. •
On July 17, we distributed petitions• to over sixty-five
businesses, agencies and organizations including the Indian River
County Main Fire Station and the Administration Building. The
response has been overwhelming with our home phone ringing off the
hook, people calling with encouragement, personal experiences, but
more importantly, people voicing a strong, united support to
participate in this effort.
To date, this drive has produced over 10,152 signatures in
hand, with pages and pages of petitions still being circulated.
These signatures represent people: people of all ages, working
and retired, citizens of this county and state, visitors to our
area, businessmen and women, local citrus and agricultural people.
At this time, we would like to request a few minutes of the
Indian River County Commission's time to address this issue and
ask your assistance in conveying these signatures to the FDOT. We
look forward to working with the County in its efforts to persuade
the Department of Transporation that State Road 60 must be
substantially improved.
Please 9ontact me at 562-3043 for the time schedule on the
Commission agenda or for any information you may need in pursuing
this matter.
7
AUG 1991
Sincerely,
R.D. Auton
BUCK
84 FALL
��•
AUN27!g9
BOOK 84 PAGE 9
Mr. R. D. Auton, 1616 Southwest 2nd Road, Vero Beach, came
before the Board to thank the members of the Commission for their
help and support in letting the Florida Department of
Transportation know the seriousness of State Road 60 and its number
one priority on the Commissioners' list. He presented a large box
containing 14,137 signatures. He recapped the background of the
petition project and spoke of the conditions of the road and the
fact that people have indicated they do not travel over SR 60 but
would rather go out of their way to use other roads to travel to
Tampa. He listed the many supporters of this petition project and
requested the Commissioners forward the petitions to DOT and stress
our feelings of the priority of this issue.
Chairman Bird commended Mr. Auton and assured everyone that
this issue has a very high priority and grows in priority all the
time through our Transportation Planning Committee. He commented
that the Commission recognizes the hazards and problems of SR 60
and assured Mr. Auton that the carton of petitions would be
forwarded, probably with some additions.
Commissioner Scurlock recognized Representative Charles
Sembler in the audience and felt sure he was listening to Mr. Auton
and all the petitioners, and reiterated the fact that while people
do not travel that road, and the road counter does not count them,
they are here.
Commissioner Wheeler led a discussion on the planned
improvements for SR 60.
Public Works Director James Davis reported the list of
construction projects as well as the 10 -year and 20 -year plans for
SR 60 as planned by Florida Department of Transportation.
Commissioner Scurlock wondered why no one has thought of
cooperating with the Turnpike Authority to make this a three-part
undertaking with the Turnpike, the County and the State joining in
a master plan.
Mr. Auton thanked the Commission, and Chairman Bird thanked
Mr. Auton for his efforts.
The. b o x. DC 1>e -t -77-70N, 1v -- r N,5e pe Peon 08,127-,
PUBLIC HEARING
MICHAEL O'HAIRE AND COUNTY INITIATED REQUEST TO REZONE
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:
8
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 '�a�wLci
i in the matter of 0/40.d
in the Court, was pub:izei 7. if,/
-
lished In said newspaper in the issues of
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication In the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this day oftl/ � A D. 19 71
(kg\
(Gk rIrart
(SEAL)
l.tA,Il
(B
newsajt4:
ler iv J Gount/Ftor-da},
-.CO 4 ...r.e p.4.:.x....-r.,I.,-. .:.,n....^ 1'ra3
NOTICE — PUBUC HEARING
Notice of hearing from an appeal of a Piann ng
• end Zoning Commission decision to deny a request
to rezone land. Thewas initiated by Indian
4r , River County, alongt�Michael O'Haire and John
Luther, as applicants to rezone land iron: RS -3,
Single -Family Residential District (up to 3 units/acre)
to RS -1, Single -Family Residential District (up to i
unhfacre). The subject property is presently owned
by Michael and Shirley O'Halre, John and Nancy Lu-
ther, and Jack and Marjoie Krovocheck. The sub -
on the Island. The subject property. ject property is located on the 500 blockfcarta s
approximately 11 acres and Des in Sections 18 and
17, Township 33 South, Rerge 40 East, lying and
being In Indian River County, Florida.
A public hearing at which parties in Interest and
�eaodQoppo be ortunity citizens bthe Ba of County Commissioners
Indian River County, Florida, In the County Conrds-
sion Chambers of the County Administration BuIId-
ing, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Flor-
ida on Tuesday, August 27, 1991, at -9:05 a.m. to
consider the adoption of a county ardlnarrra or this
•
recTire Board of County Commissioners may adopt
a less intense zoning district than the district re-
quested provided It Is within the same general use
catArry�one who may wish to appeal any dedslon
which may be made at this meeting will need to en-
sure that a verbatim record of the proceedings- Is
made, which includes testimony end evidence upon
• which the appeal Is based. •
Indian River County ' • t "'
Board of County Commies -toners • 1
By: -s-'Richard N. Bird, Chairman
Aug. 7, 1991 • 818698
Community Development Director Keating made the following
presentation:
9
AUG 27
BOOK 84 [AU 90
807
AUG 2V i9
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
DEPB&TMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE
Obert` M. Keat ng;
Community Developmeht ector
THROUGH: Sasan Rohani
Chief, Long-Range,lanning
FROM: Cheryl A. Tworek
Senior Planner, Ling -Range Planning
DATE: August 19, 1991
RE:
,a
BOOK _ 4
Michael O'Haire and County Initiated Request to Rezone
Approximately 11± Acres From RS -3 to RS -1
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of August 27, 1991.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
This is an owner initiated and county initiated request to rezone
three parcels containing approximately 11± acres from RS -3, Single -
Family Residential District (up to 3 units/acre) to RS -1, Single -
Family Residential District (up to 1 unit/acre). The property is
located in the 500 block of the south barrier island on the west
side of State Road A -1-A. Michael and Shirley O'Haire, owners of
the northernmost parcel of the subject property, are acting on
behalf of themselves and John and Nancy Luther, owners of the
southernmost parcel of the subject property. The middle parcel of
the subject property, owned by Jack and Marjorie Krovocheck, is the
subject of the county initiated portion of this rezoning request.
Initially, Mr. O'Haire approached staff with the intent of
submitting a rezoning request for the entire 11 acres. Staff,
however, informed Mr. O'Haire that, pursuant to Section 902.12 of
the county's land development regulations, an individual may
petition for a rezoning only for property which he owns or for
which he has the owner's authorization. To change the zoning on
property where the owner is not a party to the request, the Board
of County Commissioners would need to initiate the process. Mr.
O'Haire went before the Board to request a county -initiated
rezoning of the middle parcel, owned by Mr. Krovocheck.
At its meeting of May 21, 1991, the Board of County Commissioners
directed staff to consider the middle parcel as a county -initiated
rezoning. The Board's intent was to provide a means by which the
subject property could be objectively evaluated and its zoning
designation appropriately determined. As a result, this item will
be considered as one rezoning action.
At its regular meeting of June 27, 1991, the Planning and Zoning
Commission voted 4-2 to deny the request to down -zone the subject
property. The request was then appealed to the Board of County
Commissioners.
10
Existing Land Use Pattern
The subject property is zoned RS -3, Single -Family Residential
District. The subject property currently consists of three
parcels, each containing a single-family residence. All adjacent
properties are zoned RS -3; north of the subject property is River
Ridge Estates Subdivision, and south of subject property is a sub-
station belonging to the City of Vero Beach. The subject property
lies between State Road A -1-A and the Indian River.
Future Land Use Pattern
The subject property and all adjacent (upland) property lie within
the L-1 land use designation. The L-1 designation permits
residential densities up to 3 units/acre.
The County Comprehensive Plan designates all (privately owned)
environmentally sensitive estuarine wetlands and deepwater habitat
in the unincorporated county as C-2, Conservation land use, (up to
1 unit/40 acres maximum density), with a "density transfer" credit
of 1 unit/acre. While the C-2 designation is not depicted in
detail on the county's future land use map, Policy 1.31 of the
Future Land Use Element provides that the exact boundaries of the
C-2 Conservation District shall be determined by environmental
survey (on a site -by -site development basis).
In this case, preliminary review by county environmental planning
staff indicates that the C-2 designation applies to: +1.25 acres of
privately owned submerged bottomlands on the Krovocheck and Luther
properties; +0.10 acres of disturbed estuarine wetland on the east
end of the "Krovocheck lagoon" (described later in this agenda
item); and mangrove fringe bordering estuarine waters occurring on
and adjacent to the overall property. These C-2 areas are in
addition to the ±11 acres of upland on the referenced property,
which are subject of this request.
Environment
The O'Haire property consists of + 2.74 acres. A single-family
dwelling unit is' situated on the riverfront portion of the
property, with a meandering driveway extending from S.R. A -1-A to
the home. Approximately 60 to 70% of the parcel has been cleared
for yard area and landscaped open space. A mangrove fringe exists
on the west boundary of the property, bordering the Indian River
Lagoon.
The Krovocheck property is approximately 6 acres in size (total),
including approximately one acre of privately owned submerged
bottomlands within a "lagoon". It is unknown whether the lagoon is
natural or manmade. A 1943 aerial of the property depicts the area
as a wetland, with some open water. Between 1943 and 1951, the
area was dredged to create a more formalized canal/basin.
A single-family dwelling unit exists on the property and is
situated adjacent to the Indian River Lagoon. Approximately 1/2
acre of cleared/landscaped yard area occurs in the vicinity of the
home. The remainder of the +5 acre upland of the parcel, except
for an unpaved driveway access, consists largely of dense "nuisance
exotic" Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius) and Australian
pine (Casuarina spp.) vegetation. The north shoreline fringe
vegetation of the private lagoon is mostly Brazilian pepper and
Australian pine, although mangroves exist in a few isolated clumps.
A portion of the private lagoon shoreline is "bulkheaded" with a
wooden retaining wall in the area adjacent to the Krovocheck home.
The south shoreline of the lagoon consists of a solid vegetative
border which is a mixture of mangroves and Brazilian pepper. Mr.
Krovocheck's,property boundary extends approximately 10 feet south
of the private lagoon's southern shoreline. However, a small basin -
extension of the lagoon, located on the Luther property, connects
11
pm 27 1991
BOOK 84
r
pa 27 1991 BOOK 84 PAGE
•
to the south edge of the Krovocheck-owned portion of the lagoon.
Staff have not conducted a submerged bottomlands survey of the
overall lagoon, but indications are that the bottomland consists
largely of silt. The lagoon has been maintenance -dredged several
times in the past.
A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) review of the private
lagoon indicates that land crabs, fiddler crabs, and juvenile
mullet and killifish utilize the littoral zone of the area.
Approximately 5 to 10 feet offshore, the shallow water littoral
zone transitions to a silt bottom, devoid of life in the dredge
areas and sparse as one moves inshore. According to the USFWS, the
open water of the lagoon is used for passage by snook and red drum,
but is not important to them. The area is potentially used by the
West Indian manatee for short periods, and by the black crowned
night heron, feeding on fiddler crabs.
The Luther property consists of +3.35 acres. Similar to the other
two properties, there is a single-family dwelling unit existing on
the property, and this residence is situated proximate to the
Indian River Lagoon, having a driveway access from S.R. A -1-A.
Roughly 50 to 60% of the parcel has been cleared and/or landscaped.
The remainder of the property's upland consists largely of exotic
vegetation; as previously mentioned, a small basin with
mangrove/Brazilian pepper fringe exists on the north portion of the
property. The Luther property also has a mangrove fringe bordering
the Indian River Lagoon, with a portion of the shoreline having a
rubble revetment.
Utilities and Services
The site is within the county's urban service area with water and
wastewater service provided by the City of Vero Beach.
Transportation System
The subject property is accessed by State Road A -1-A. State Road
A -1-A is classified as an urban principal arterial on the Indian
River County Future Roadway and Thoroughfare Plan Map, with
approximately one hundred (100) feet of right-of-way.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the
application will be presented. The analysis will include a
description of:
* concurrency of public facilities
* compatibility with the surrounding areas
* potential impact on environmental quality
* consistency with the comprehensive plan
This section will also consider site development alternatives.
Concurrency of Public Facilities
The site is located within the county Urban Service Area (USA), an
area deemed suited for urban scale development. The Comprehensive
Plan establishes standards for: Transportation, Potable Water,
Wastewater, Solid.Waste, Drainage, and Recreation. The adequate
provision of these services is necessary to ensure the continued
quality of life enjoyed by the community. The Comprehensive Plan
also requires that new development be reviewed to ensure that the
minimum adopted level of service standards for these services and
facilities are maintained.
12
As per Section 910.07 of the County's Land Development Regulations,
conditional concurrency review examines the available capacity of
each facility with respect to a proposed project. Since
comprehensive plan amendments and rezoning requests are not
specific projects, county regulations call for the concurrency
review to be based upon the most intense use of the subject
property based upon the requested zoning district or land use
designation. For residential rezoning requests, the most intensive
use (according to the county's LDR's) is the maximum number of
units that could be built on the site, given the size of the
property and the maximum density under the proposed zoning.
This rezoning request, however, is exempt from concurrency review
becausc the requested zoning would decrease the total number of
potential units that the site could accommodate from 34 units to 12
units. (The 34 units is the maximum development of the subject
property assuming that a PD - planned development project could be
approved on the 11 acres of upland zoned for 3 units per acre and
transferring 1 unit from the C-2 area.) Of the twelve units which
could be accommodated on the property with the requested RS -1
zoning, three already exist. So the overall density would
decrease substantially under the proposed zoning, and the potential
impact on the county's services and facilities would be less than
what it could be under the present zoning.
While concurrency review is not required with this rezoning because
of the proposed density reduction, it is important to determine
whether public services and facilities are adequate to accommodate
the existing RS -3 zoning of the subject property. In making this
assessment, it is necessary to consider the most intense use of the
subject property - even if the most intense use is unlikely to
occur. For the ±11 acre site, given the RS -3 and C-2 designations,
the ability to transfer density from the C-2 to RS -3 areas, the
ability to develop the entire site as a planned development, and
the existence of three residences on the property, the most
intensive use of the site would result in the addition of 31
dwelling units. Based upon staff analysis as detailed below, the
maximum possible development of the subject property under the
existing zoning can be accommodated by existing public services and
facilities.
Transportation
A review of the traffic impacts that would result from the most
intense development of the property under its existing zoning
indicates that the existing level of service "D" would not be
lowered. The maximum build -out with the existing zoning would be
31 new units, generating approximately 310 'average annual daily
trips or 31 peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips, based on
the institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation
rates.
The traffic capacity for this segment of State Road A -1-A is 1320
trips (peak hour/peak season/peak direction) at a level of Service
"D". The existing traffic volume on this segment of State Road A-
1 -A is 711 trips (peak hour/peak season/peak direction). Based on
staff analysis, it was determined that State Road A -1-A can
accommodate the additional trips without decreasing its existing
level of service.
Water
The site is within the urban service area, and the area is
currently serviced with water from the City of Vero Beach., The
existing zoning designation would allow a maximum of 31 additional
residential units on the subject property. This number of units
would have a water consumption rate of 31 Equivalent Residential
Units (ERUs), or 10,881 gallons per day, based upon the level of
service standard for the City of Vero Beach (351 gallons per ERU
per day). The City of Vero Beach has a remaining water capacity of
13
AUG 27 1991
B.OPK FAC,E. 07
✓
iU C 27 199
BOOK 84 PK,E
approximately 1.98 million gallons per day. Therefore, the
established water level of service will be maintained with maximum
development of the subject property at its current zoned density.
- Wastewater
Wastewater service is currently available to the subject property
from the City of Vero Beach. Based upon the site development
parameters referenced above, wastewater generation for the site
after development consistent with the existing RS -3 zoning would be
approximately 31 Equivalent Residential Units (ERUs), or 6,107
gallons per day. This is based on the City of Vero Beach's adopted
level of service standard of 197 gallons per ERU per day.
Currently, the City of Vero Beach has a wastewater generation
capacity of 1.67 million gallons per day. This indicates that
wastewater capacity is adequate to accommodate the most intense use
of the subject property under the existing RS -3 zoning.
Solid Waste
Solid waste service includes pickup by private operators and
disposal at the county landfill. Solid waste generation by 31
units of development on the subject property would be approximately
91.83 cubic yards of solid waste per year. This is based on the
county's adopted level of service standard of 2.37 cubic yards per
capita per year. A review of the solid waste capacity for the
active segment of the county landfill indicates the availability of
more than 900,000 cubic yards. •The active segment of the landfill
has a 4 year capacity, and the landfill has expansion capacity
beyond 2010.
- Drainage
All development is reviewed for compliance with county stormwater
regulations which require on-site retention, preservation of flood
plain storage and minimum finished floor elevations. In addition,
development proposals will have to meet the discharge requirements
of the county Stormwater Management Ordinance. Since the subject
property is located within the B-1 Drainage Basin and no discharge
rate has been set for this basin, any development on the property
will be prohibited from discharging any runoff in excess of the
pre -development rate.
Based upon staff's analysis, the drainage level of service
standards will be met by limiting off-site discharge to its pre -
development rate.
Recreation
A review of county recreation facilities and the projected demand
that would result from the most intense development that could
occur on the property under the RS -3 zoning designations indicates
that adopted levels of service would be maintained, The table
below illustrates the additional park demand associated with the
existing RS -3 zoning of the property and the existing surplus
acreage by park type. This indicates that no additional park space
would be needed, and the level of service would be maintained.
L.O.S. Project
(acres per 1000 Demand Surplus
Park Type population) (acres) Acreage
Urban 5 .15 196.01
Community (South) 1.25 .03 9.00
Beach 1.5 .04 69.21
River 1.5 .04 30.21
As shown above, the entire 11 acre parcel could be developed to the
maximum extent allowed by the existing RS -3 zoning of the subject
property, and public services and facilities would be adequate to
accommodate the impacts.
14
Compatibility with the Surrounding Areas
In reviewing this request, staff looked at compatibility from two
perspectives. One is compatibility of this request with the entire
south barrier island area, while the other involves looking at the
compatibility of this request only within the area of
consideration.
- Compatibility with the Barrier Island
Compatibility is not a major concern for this property when looking
at the general development pattern of the south barrier island.
The south barrier island, particularly in the unincorporated area,
is predominately developed with single family residences in
densities generally less than two units per acre. Since the
subject property exceeds 11 acres in size and contains an existing
single-family home on each of three parcels, this property is less
dense but compatible with the existing densities on the south
barrier island. While the lots on the subject property are larger
than most other lots in the general area, their density is
compatible with the remainder of the south island area.
- Compatibility within the Area of Consideration
Compatibility is an even more important issue within the area of
consideration. When the eleven acre subject property is considered
in isolation, a different conclusion can be drawn.
Of the three parcels comprising the subject property, the smallest
is 2.74 acres in size, while the largest is approximately 5 acres.
Even with this almost 100 percent size variation, the three parcels
are similar and compatible. All have houses along the Indian River
Lagoon shoreline, all have an extensive setback/vegetative buffer
from State Road A -1-A, and all are much larger than other nearby
lots.
The compatibility issue in this case is whether a relatively small
enclave of eleven acres in three parcels warrants a separate zoning
designation different from surrounding lands. When these large
lots were created, the property's zoning was 3 units/acre (R1 -A at
that time), the same designation it is now. It was then a
conscious decision by the property owners to develop at less than
the maximum density.
Generally, a decision by one or several property owners to develop
at a density less than the maximum allowed by county zoning does
not, in and of itself, justify a zoning reduction. While such a
downzoning does benefit property owners not interested in further
development of their property, it would result in a disjointed and
ineffective land use pattern if applied county -wide. In this case,
with only three parcels and eleven acres involved, the proposed
rezoning would be a special benefit to two of the property owners
rather than an appropriate density determination based upon
objective factors.
Impact of Rezoning
Probably the most important consideration in this proposed rezoning
is the impact or consequence of changing the zoning of the subject
property from RS -3 to RS -1. The table below contrasts the size and
dimension criteria for each of those districts.
15
AUG 27 1991
BOOK
Dimensional
Criteria
Minimum Lot Size:
Minimum Lot Width:
Required Yard Setbacks:
Front:
Rear:
Sides:
Minimum Open Space:
Overall Density:
BOOK 84 F'A;E
RS -3 RS -1
12,000 sq. ft. 40,000 sq. ft.
80 ft. 125 ft.
25 ft.
25 ft.
15 ft.
40%
3 units/acre
30 ft.
30 ft.
20 ft.
50%
1 unit/acre
Recognizing that a parcel can seldom by developed to its maximum
zoned density without using the planned development process, the
staff analyzed the subject property to determine its development
potential under each of the two zoning districts. Since only the
Krovocheck parcel is contested in this action, only the Krovocheck
parcel was so analyzed. This analysis provides a basis of
comparison between the two zoning districts.
In analyzing the Krovocheck parcel, the staff considered its size,
configuration, and its physical characteristics. The staff also
assumed that no filling of the lagoon would be permitted, since
such filling conflicts with county regulations. While the total
size of the Krovocheck property is 6 acres, the one acre lagoon
reduces the property's effective size to five acres.
Besides size, design criteria incorporated in the county's plat
requirements were considered in assessing developability. These
criteria include access and right-of-way, stormwater management,
minimum lot width, and other standards. These criteria make the
difference between the potential number of lots allowed by a zoning
category and the actual number of lots that can be built on-site.
Since the Krovocheck parcel contains an existing single-family
residence and a lagoon, the lots created must be designed so that
both can be accommodated. With State Road A -1-A as the only access
to the parcel, the internal right-of-way must be platted within the
parcel to provide access to all created lots. Creating right-of-
way reduces the actual number of lots which can be developed.
Besides right-of-way, stormwater must be addressed sufficiently to
meet the county's requirements for systems outfalling into
Outstanding Florida Waters.
Based upon the analysis performed, staff determined that the
maximum number of lots that could actually be developed on the
Krovocheck parcel with the existing RS -3 zoning is 6 lots as shown
on Attachment #3. That number would decrease to 4 lots with the
proposed RS -1 zoning as shown on Attachment #4. Therefore, the net
result of the rezoning would be a two lot reduction in development
potential for the subject property.
Potential Impact on Environmental Quality
In comparing the present RS -3 zoning to the proposed RS -1, the
potential of environmental impact to the overall property's
resources does not substantially change. In that the upland
portion of the combined properties consists mostly of developed
area or undeveloped nuisance -exotic vegetation, the focus of
environmental concern is potential impact to the Indian River
Lagoon, shoreline fringe native vegetation, and the privately owned
16
submerged bottomlands (and associated habitat). Each of these
resources is subject to local, state, and federal regulatory
protection.
Indian River County's land development regulations include wetland
and deep -water habitat protection requirements, among other
environmental regulations. These regulations would apply to any
proposed development of the property, whether or not the zoning
remains as is or is revised to a lower density allowance. FOr
example, an owner could propose to fill wetlands and/or deepwater
habitat on the subject property regardless of an RS -3 or RS -1
zoning. Under both zoning scenarios, however, ,the fill proposal
would be subject toclose scrutiny'by local, state, and federal
agencies to ensure that environmental impacts would be avoided or
minimized, including mitigation as applicable and appropriate.
Section 928.05(1)(c) of the County Wetlands and Deepwater Habitat
Protection Ordinance reads as follows:
"No activity shall be allowed that results in the
alteration, degradation, or destruction of wetlands or
deepwater habitats except when....such an activity is
proposed for wetlands or deepwater habitats in which the
functions and values currently provided are significantly
less than those typically associated with such habitats
and cannot be reasonably restored, and preservation of
the habitat is not in the public interest."
To date, no formal application has been submitted to the Planning
Division for alteration of the property's wetlands or deepwater
habitat. However, preliminary review by county environmental
planning staff indicates that any fill proposal, whether the
property is zoned RS -3 or RS -1, would likely be denied, since
wetland/deepwater values are not "significantly less than those
typically associated with such habitats", and can be "reasonably
restored."
The county's upland habitat protection regulations (Chapter 929,
LDRs) do not apply here, in that virtually no native upland
vegetation occurs on the overall property, except for an occasional
oak, protected under the county's tree protection ordinance. As
such, a "down zoning" of the property would have no substantive
effect on furthering the protection of the property's sensitive
resources, which are already subject to multiple -agency regulatory
protection.
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan
Rezoning requests are reviewed for consistency with all policies of
the Comprehensive Plan. Policies, of course, are the actions which
the county will take in order to direct the community's
development. Specifically, policies are the courses of action or
ways in which programs and activities are conducted to achieve an
identified goal or objective. While all comprehensive plan
policies are important, some have more applicability than others in
reviewing rezoning requests.
In this case the.subject property is located in the area of the
county designated as L-1, Low -Density Residential (up to 3
units/acre). The existing RS -3 (residential district up to 3
units/acre) zoning of the property is consistent with the Future
Land Use Map. All adjacent properties are zoned RS -3. So as
zoned, the subject property is consistent with the existing land
use plan designation and is compatible with the zoning of adjacent
properties.
Usually, the purpose of a county initiated administrative rezoning
is to make the zoning of a property consistent with its land use
designation. Since no inconsistency exists here, there would need
17
AUG 27' 1991
BOOK 84 FAA. 01
ALT 2
BOOK 84 [AGE
to be another reason to warrant such action. One circumstance
which could justify a county initiated rezoning would be
characteristics of the property which warrant a reduced density.
In preparing the county's comprehensive plan, the Board considered
land use intensity and density on the barrier island as well as in
the county as a whole. At that time, the Board determined that the
3 unit/acre density of the L-1 designation was appropriate for the
barrier island, given hurricane evacuation concerns, availability
of public services and facilities and proximity of the sensitive
river and ocean shorelines. The subject property is not
substantially different from other parcels on the barrier island,
with the same factors and concerns applicable to its use.
While many policies in the comprehensive plan could be cited to
justify a zoning reduction of the subject property, these are
policies that were considered in assigning the L-1 designation to
south barrier island areas. The adopted plan policies, including
hurricane evacuation, natural resource protection, public facility
availability and others, could justify a lower density for the
barrier island, but this would affect all areas of the island.
Other sites comparable to the subject property have already been
developed. Shorelands West and Little Harbor are two subdivisions
on the barrier island which had physical characters similar to the
subject property prior to their development. Both are located
proximate to the subject property, and both have inlets or lagoons
connected to the Indian River. These areas were developed under
the RS -3 zoning district without measurable adverse environmental
effects. This indicates that the subject property is not unique
with regard to the physical characteristics of barrier island
properties. The subject property is rare only in that it has not,
as of yet, been developed. Staff feels this rezoning is
unnecessary and that current local, state, and federal requirements
provide adequate protection.
Conclusion
Given the characteristics of the subject property, it is staff's
position that the proposed rezoning is not warranted. It is not
warranted based upon environmental factors, since the property has
little natural area, is characterized by the existence of nuisance
exotic vegetation, and includes an altered wetland area. It is not
warranted based upon compatibility, since the densities and
developability do not vary significantly from the existing to the
proposed zoning designation. -It is not warranted based upon
comprehensive plan consistency since the existing zoning of the
property is consistent with the Future Land Use Map. Finally, the
proposed rezoning is not warranted because its effect would be to
treat the subject property differently than similarly situated
properties.
Recommendation
Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners deny this rezoning request.
18
MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT
AT RS -3
TOTAL NUMBER OF LOTS: 8
DENSITY: 1.2 UNITS/ACRE(UPLANDS)
SMALLEST LOT: 13.200 SQ. FT.
LARGEST LOT: 20.000 SQ. FT.
2
1
NOT TO SCALE
ED 3
EXISTING
" RESIDENCE
Attachoent 3
MAXIMUM DEVE _OPMENT
AT RS -
TOTAL NUMBER OF LOTS: 4
DENSITY: .80 UNITS/ACRE
SMALLEST LOT: 40,000 SQ. FT.
LARGEST LOT: 42,380 SO. FT.
1
NOT TO SCALE
AUG 27 1991
L_
Atm./trent 4
19
BOOKc
FAL .. thj)
AUG 27 '99
BOOK 8 4 FAuE jJ
Commissioner Eggert understood Mr. Krovocheck planned to split
the property and asked where the split would occur.
Director Keating explained the split was to be a linear split
that separates the northern part of the property from the larger
part that will include the house. Staff had looked at the proposed
split and did determine that it meets the County lot -split
requirements and can be done with a one-time split provision
without going into the platting process.
Commissioner Scurlock was concerned about the lagoon and
understood it was designated C-2, which Director Keating confirmed.
Commissioner Scurlock commented that a conservation area is
impacted by what happens to the adjacent properties. He understood
that such an area could not be filled.
Director Keating said he had determined it could not be
filled; however, there would be certain possibilities and that is
if the benefits accruing would be greater than detracting.
Commissioner Scurlock discussed the two scenarios, RS -1 and
RS -3, and four lots or six lots or a potential eight lots. Taking
into consideration the conservation area, if there were six or
eight lots, it appeared there would be filling.
Director Keating stated there is definitely the incentive for
someone to pursue filling under the RS -3 scenario. What staff
feels is the filling would not be allowed by the language of the
land development regulation if the function and value would be
significantly less.
Commissioner Wheeler asked, if the lagoon were filled in, can
he get an additional lot.
Director Keating responded that staff has looked at that and
concluded that, no, they could not get an additional lot. He felt
the big difference is that there is incentive for the applicant to
pursue filling with RS -3, less incentive with RS -1, or no incentive
with RS -1. However, staff felt there is equal probability they
will not get it under both scenarios.
Commissioner Scurlock noted a reference to 13 utility taps
which had been reserved years ago and asked whether the 13 utility
taps could be consumed on this property under either scenario.
Director Keating stated the only way they could consume 13
utility taps would be with a planned development project which, of
course, requires a public hearing; so, while it is a possibility,
it not likely at all.
Commissioner Wheeler inquired whether there would be a higher
net advantage with the lower density, speaking generally.
20
Director Keating stated that with less density there is less
but those can be
impervious surface,
less runoff, generally;
modified through our stormwater system.
Commissioner Wheeler asked if there would be more positiveor
more negative effect,
or would it be negligible, comparing four
lots to six lots or eight lots.
Director Keating said it is difficult to tell.
He said a net
if
this were pristine, it would be easy to tell that it would be
bad effect.ut in, there
Commissioner Scurlock felt if fill material is p
would be more runoff into the river.
Commissioner Bowman stated that biological surveys show a lot
of arsenic, which certainly came from runoff.
Commissioner Eggert pointed to the drawing
depicting RS -3
zoning and asked if the disturbed wetland affects lot 4.
Blois explained that the
Environmental Planning Chief Roland De
is very disturbed; it is marginal wetland. it is the type
wetland possibly,
of wetland that would qualify for minimum mitigation and, p
the fee in lieu. That is why lot 4 was shown. However, it would
entail some mitigation.
Chairman Bird asked for clarification: from an environmental
l
impact, with our subdivision regulations and other ordinances
in
place, ace would there be a significant detrimental effect
scenarioon the
Krovocheck lagoon to create the six lots in the
versus the four lots under, the RS -1.
Director Keating said it is difficult to make a determination
like that and say
it is definitely more of a bad effect than good
effect. Considering, however, the amount of alteration which has
occurred on this property, assuming that their compliance with the
stormwater management ordinance minimizes the amount of be enhanced
that
quality goes into the lagoon and requires that its q Y
before it goes in there, and given the fact that some of the
nuisance exotics are, right now,
not providing any benefit, and
ma be a detrimental effect, and given the fact that we've taken
Y
these circumstances into consideration and alloweevelthat pmen iwould
comparable properties in the past, he did not think
have a significant adverse effect; not enough to warrant the
rezoning.are going to
Commissioner Bowman pointed out that because they
have fill, it requires revegetation of mangroves. The drawings
show docks but no mangroves.
Director Keating agreed there is no question there will be
docks if there are lots.
91
21
BOOK:'4 F'�1�E for
AUG 2'
BOOK 04 FAGE iU -
Chairman Bird noted the property frontage on the lagoon would
not be increased under either scenario. The additional lots
created under the RS -3 zoning are isolated from the lagoon to the
north and to the east.
Discussion continued and Director Keating confirmed that they
would not be able to develop eight lots without fill. He further
commented, that the jurisdictional agencies involved in making the
decision have indicated they recommend against fill. Our County
policies would not allow a wetland alterations permit.
Mr. DeBlois added that fill could occur only if the federal,
state and local agencies looking at this request determine that the
outcome of this would not be a net loss in the value of that
resource, it would be closely scrutinized by all those agencies to
make sure there is a net gain and not a net loss.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if there is a benefit to that
lagoon, in staff's opinion.
Mr. DeBlois responded that staff feels there is a benefit and
that is why staff is recommending denial of the fill.
Director Keating concluded that the existing zoning is
consistent with our comprehensive plan. There have been other
pieces of comparable property developed. Staff feels the existing
zoning is adequate. Based on all the reasons presented, staff
recommended that this rezoning request be denied.
The Chairman recessed the meeting briefly at 10:30 A. M. and
the Board reconvened at 10:45 A. M. with all members present.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter.
Michael O'Haire, 575 South A1A, came before the Board
representing himself and his wife and Mr. and Mrs. John Luther. He
restated his argument as presented on May 7, 1991 with additional
comments. He brought enlarged aerial photographs, one showing the
subject property as it was in 1973 and another as it currently
appears. Mr. O'Haire pointed out the peninsula which encompasses
his property, Mr. Luther's property, Mr. Krovocheck's property and
a tract of land in River Ridge Subdivision which Mr. O'Haire owns.
He pointed out other landmarks and emphasized that the subject
peninsula is the only ample tract remaining south of the City of
Vero Beach that is suitable for residential use and is unchanged
because of the wishes of the owners. Mr. O'Haire recounted
conversations with Mr. Krovocheck at the time Mr. Krovocheck was in
the process of purchasing his property. At that time Mr. O'Haire
22
had voiced his feelings to Mr. Krovocheck about wishing to keep the
area as it was and inferred that Mr. Krovocheck felt the same. Mr.
O'Haire concluded by stating the reason he and his wife and the
Luthers were asking for the rezoning is because he wants to see
happen what he was told would happen.
Commissioner Scurlock asked whether Mr. O'Haire had argued
before the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding the variance
request when Mr. Krovocheck's house was built. Mr. O'Haire
answered that he had not and should have; but the variance was not
a new fact and was not considered by him nor planning staff for
purposes of this rezoning.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if there has been a request to the
various agencies to fill the lagoon.
Director Keating responded that he had reviewed a
jurisdictional use permit.
Discussion ensued regarding application for a fill permit and
the number of lots to be platted, and Director Keating summarized
that there have been some pre -application discussions, but no
formal preliminary plat plan has been submitted.
Commissioner Wheeler believed, and Attorney Vitunac confirmed,
that rezoning matters are not decided based on conversations
between neighbors but rather on the land use.
Attorney Vitunac added that the Board's only concern should be
what is the better zoning category for that piece of property,
given the zoning criteria as described by Mr. Keating.
Commissioner Scurlock emphasized that his reason for
considering this matter in the first place is because of the lagoon
and conservation, and he is not concerned with disagreements
between neighbors.
Commissioner Wheeler felt the discussions were clouding the
issue of rezoning and felt Director Keating had made the point that
an RS -3 zoning was adequate.
Chairman Bird agreed that Director Keating and Environmental
Planning Chief DeBlois had indicated there was development up and
down the river involving lagoons and there had been no problems.
He felt our subdivision regulations are more stringent now, so
there is even more protection for the lagoon and estuary.
Commissioner Scurlock asked the county attorney, if there were
statements made in front of the variance board and a variance was
granted on those assurances, does that have a legal implication.
County Attorney Vitunac advised that it is not relevant at
all. The variance granted was for height limitation. The issue
before the Board is a zoning question having to do with the land,
not the ethics of the owner or the owner's neighbor.
•
AUG 27 'i99i
23
BOOK :' 4 FAE10 I(J
W t3 21 199
•
BOOK oil f'r°:uE .18
Eugene Calderone, 1455 Pelican Lane, understood land is zoned
so that so many houses can be built per acre; in an 'RS -3 zone that
means six houses could be built per acre. Now it seems this person
wants to fill in a lagoon to increase the acreage and he felt this
person is subverting the whole idea of the zoning system by making
additional land where there was no land.
Commissioner Wheeler pointed out that this lagoon is private
property. Another point is that the Board is addressing the zoning
question. The question of filling in a lagoon would be addressed
if and when it comes up.
Steve Henderson, attorney representing Mr. and Mrs.
Krovocheck, stated he is in total agreement with one exception and
that is with respect to the dredge and fill issue. He believed the
Board understood that there is a process for deciding whether a
dredge and fill permit will be issued, and he stated that process
is under way. There are several state agencies involved, there is
close scrutiny and a lot of hoops to jump through. Mr. Henderson
felt it could be confusing to some people that a lagoon is
privately owned, even though it has contact with the Indian River.
He further stated that the County will review an application under
Chapter 928 of our Wetlands Protection Ordinance, at which time Mr.
Krovocheck will receive a fair hearing on the issue of dredge and
fill. If the rezoning is granted at this time based on the idea of
trying to eliminate the incentive or interfere with the dredge and
fill application, that deprives Mr. Krovocheck of a fair hearing on
that issue. Mr. Henderson stated he had brought to the meeting an
environmental engineer, who has a degree in ocean engineering, who
is handling the permitting. If the motivation to rezone the
property is dredge and fill, then Mr. Krovocheck never gets the
fair hearing he is entitled to under the due process concept. He
stated that the Krovochecks are upset by the actions taken by their
neighbors and the County.
There was further discussion about the diagrams of the
property and how the lots would be set up with and without fill and
Mr. Henderson said that Mr. Krovocheck is prepared to accept a
denial of the dredge and fill permit after a fair hearing, in which
case he would change his plan. Mr. Henderson reminded the Board
that the comprehensive land use plan was adopted after a long,
exhausting process, and a property owner has an expectation of
continuation of zoning unless there are compelling reasons for
change. He hoped that if, in the future, the County considers
requests by neighbors to rezone property, the Board should have
preliminary hearings and direct staff to do an in-depth analysis
24
because the process is costly, time-consuming and causes a hardship
on property owners such as the Krovochecks.
Mr. Henderson concluded that the staff report is well reasoned
and reaches impartial conclusions based upon comprehensive land use
and good planning concepts. He felt there was no basis or
rationale presented for rezoning the property to RS -1 because the
environmental issue will be harshly and critically addressed
through the appropriate agencies and had no place in this hearing.
Mr. Henderson asked the Board to deny this rezoning.
Steve Hall, 915 Second Street, appeared for himself and also
representing the associated general contractors. He stated that,
historically, staff's recommendations to deny, along with denial by
Planning and Zoning, would stop a request for rezoning. He stated
that the present zoning falls within the land development
regulations and he agreed with staff and Planning and Zoning that
this rezoning request should be denied.
Nancy Offutt, representing the Vero Beach -Indian River County
Board of Realtors, spoke for private property rights. She said
that in eight years she had not seen the County sponsor an
initiation for rezoning between property owners. Ms. Offutt agreed
with Mr. Henderson's suggestion of a workshop to avoid the ordeal
and cost for a property owner to go through litigation and protect
themselves. She warned that we may find ourselves in any number of
cases where the public is vulnerable to rezoning by third parties
and cautioned the Board against doing it again.
Chairman Bird wished the record to indicate a letter was
received from John Luther in favor of the rezoning and another
letter was received from Steve Henderson opposing the rezoning,
with attachments.
Marjorie Krovocheck, 565 South A1A, came before the Board and
quoted from the minutes of the County Commission meeting of May 7,
1991 in which Mr. John Luther indicated he and his wife agreed to
sell Mr. Krovocheck the part he wanted. Mrs. Krovocheck stressed
that the Krovochecks have never asked to buy, nor bought, any land
from the Luthers at any time. The entire purchase was made from
Mrs. Marie Sabonjohn Simmons. Mrs. Krovocheck pointed out at the
May 7 meeting Mr. O'Haire had failed to mention the fact that River
Ridge Subdivision is also a part of this peninsula. She felt
compelled to correct these statements because it was a question of
the credibility of Mr. Luther and Mr. O'Haire. Mrs. Krovocheck
stated the master land use plan was developed with a great deal of
thought by the County and she would not deny the County the option
to initiate its own amendment or rezoning proposals. She is
opposed to anyone's neighbor requesting the County to rezone land
25
AUG 2 7 1991
PON 84 EAU 109
AUG 27 199
BOOK CGS FACF.
4
L
that they do not own when the County staff and the Planning and
Zoning Commission see no need to do so. She felt if this were
allowed to prevail, we would have a disruptive condition and the
master land use plan would have little or no value. Mrs.
Krovocheck hoped the County Commissioners recognize the wisdom of
the two statements of staff along with the Planning and Zoning
recommendation, and deny the rezoning request.
Jack Krovocheck, 565 South Highway A1A, came before the Board
and recapped his background as a developer in the County. He also
described his attorney-client relationship with Mr. O'Haire for the
past 15 years. He stated he was thunderstruck when he received
notice from the County on May 4, 1991 that his property was going
to be rezoned and had to attend a meeting on May 7, 1991 as well as
a Planning and Zoning meeting. He responded to the discussion
regarding splitting his property by reporting that the property has
been split; it occurred on May 10, 1991. He said when he bought
the property back in 1980 he made no promises to anyone; there were
13 utility taps and certainly the zoning would allow for more than
one house on the property. As far as the variance, he said it was
for a widow's walk on his house, which could have been eliminated
if the variance had not been granted. He spoke of the electrical
and cable television lines which were of benefit to both himself
and Mr. O'Haire. He also mentioned that the property had been
listed for sale in 1985 for six months and recently it was listed
for a short.while but that listing has expired. He emphasized that
a change in zoning from RS -3 to RS -1 would seriously devalue his
property and would put at risk all owners of unplatted RS -3 land in
the County to possible requests by their neighbors for rezoning.
He believed the two staff reports were detailed and comprehensive,
were objectively written with the whole community planning and
zoning interests in mind, and these recommendations were confirmed
by the Planning and Zoning Commission when they denied this request
for rezoning. Regarding the environmental issue and the lagoon,
Mr. Krovocheck said this issue would be covered extensively before
the proper agencies. Mr. Krovocheck reminded the Board that he is
a land developer and the Board should not limit his ability to
develop his property. The Board could not ask Mr. O'Haire to limit
the number of clients in his law practice, nor could they tell Mr.
Luther how many acres of citrus he could grow; they should not
change the playing field now. He said his property is in
conformance with the master land use plan and there is no
compelling reason for the rezoning.
Mr. Krovocheck hoped the Board would see the wisdom of
planning staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission and deny the
26
request for rezoning and allow him the chance to present his plan
for dredge and fill at the proper time.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wheeler, to deny the request for
rezoning.
Under discussion, Commissioner Scurlock felt the process of
public hearings in the sunshine is the way to get information and
reach decisions rather than workshops. He is still concerned about
the lagoon and will be looking at that very closely.
Commissioner Bowman agreed the C-2 designation is a compelling
reason for and it does imply maximum protection. She felt there is
a difference between the runoff from two units and four units and
when this site plan is presented that will be a major concern.
Commissioner Eggert supported the motion and felt, even though
everyone is concerned about the lagoon and got off on the wrong
trail temporarily, there was no reason to do anything but deny the
request.
Commissioner Wheeler supported the motion and, while he
personally likes lower density, felt no case had been made to lower
the density of the property.
Chairman Bird supported the motion and said it is a great day
for property owners.
Commissioner Scurlock suggested and Chairman Bird agreed that
staff should investigate ways to address questions about
conservation areas without going through an expensive, involved
process.
Director Keating stated there is a permit required, which can
be appealed, which would require a public hearing.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
ROBERT G. MOONEY, JR., REGARDING PROPOSED CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS
TO 14TH STREET EXTENDING EAST FROM U.S. #1
Ted Herzog, attorney for Home and Patio, distributed a
photocopy of a site plan acquired from Senior Planner Chris Rison
showing the area of the intersection of 14th Street and U.S.1,
specifically the area between the former Clock Restaurant and Home
& Patio Furniture Store. His understanding is that it was a
minimum change and has not been before the Board and he wished to
make the Board aware of their objections to the proposed plan.
27
AUG 27 199
:9 1
BOOK FAd.1.1 '
"I BOOK O4F'AL
Chairman Bird confirmed the site plan would only come before
the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Mr. Herzog pointed out that the site plan relocates the
existing road about ten feet south, which would affect the
perpendicular parking that has been used by Home & Patio for a good
number of years. His understanding is that part of Home & Patio's
parking extends beyond the property line, which they have as an
established ownership by virtue of their acquisition of the overall
tract on which their store is located. He further stated that the
parking is also part of an existing approved site plan. Mr. Herzog
recounted the actions taken by Home & Patio to pay for the paving
and the history of the road's use by the public and by Home &
Patio. He told of his and Mr. Mooney's efforts to purchase the
property from Mrs. LaCava and the complications regarding title and
Mr. Mooney's offer to donate that property to the County in return
for clarification of the parking situation at Home & Patio. The
County indicated this property could not be acquired as a road
right-of-way but must be acquired as a driveway or access road. He
pointed out the affected parties are Home & Patio and Dependable
Dodge. Mr. Herzog's purpose was to ascertain the time table on the
County's plans for this construction work so that there would not
be a need for hasty decisions or to delay initiation of
construction while title questions are being clarified. Mr. Herzog
described his disagreement with Assistant County Attorney Will
Collins regarding the question of acquiring title to the LaCava
property.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if Mr. Mooney's problems could be
condensed to loss of parking and access for delivery vehicles, and
Mr. Herzog responded that the parking situation needs
clarification.
Commissioner Scurlock stated that from the County's point of
view, it's a good design as far as utilities and as far as
engineering and planning, and Mr. Mooney is caught in the middle
and needs time to work it out.
Commissioner Eggert recalled that this project was being
discussed five years ago and has caused much trouble for Jim Davis.
Public Works Director Jim Davis stated we have not yet
acquired the two pieces of property necessary to complete this
project.
Attorney Herzog said the consistent position of Bob Mooney and
Home & Patio has been that they would like to purchase the LaCava
property and give it to the County, keeping enough to clarify
access for parking and delivery vehicles or, in the alternative, to
28
participate with the County in the purchase in order to clarify
rights which Mr. Mooney feels are related to long-term use.
Community Planning Director Bob Keating made the following
presentation:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
,ed 44
obert M. Ke tin AICP
Community Develo Hent Director
FROM: Stan Boling',ICP
Planning Director
DATE: August 23, 1991
SUBJECT: MOONEY REQUEST TO ADDRESS "14TH STREET" ISSUES
It is requested that the information herein presented be given
formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its
regular meeting of August 27, 1991.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
On the afternoon of August 21, 1991, planning staff received notice
that Robert Mooney has been scheduled to address the Board at its
August 27th meeting, regarding various issues relating to a segment
of "14th Street" adjacent. to Mr. Mooney's property and business
known as the Home and .Patio store located at U.S. #1 and "14th
Street". As indicated in Mr. Mooney's August 21 letter, (see
attachment #1), his concerns relate to modifications and
improvements to "14th Street" that are planned to begin in the near
future. The scheduled changes to "14th Street" are related to two
recent events:
1. the County's agreement to acquire a segment of "14th Street"
known as the LaCava estate property; and
2. conditions of approval to re -develop and bring into conformity
(with the LDRs and FDOT standards) the former Clock Restaurant
site, now owned and controlled by Dependable Dodge.
Mr. Mooney's particular concerns are not
time. Given the limited time to respond,
herein provide information and summarize
related to "14th Street". Regarding
(attachment #1) it should be noted that
inaccurate. These are:
known to staff at this
staff has attempted to
actions taken to date
Mr. Mooney's letter
several statements are
1. Mooney statement: An informal site plan was approved by
the county.
Fact: Formal minor site plan application was filed by
Dependable Dodge and was extensively reviewed by the TRC
and approval was granted to Dependable Dodge; and
2. Mooney statement: The county is purchasing "14th Street"
property for $25,000.
Fact: The County is purchasing a strip of property
(LaCava strip) for $20,000.
29
AUG 27 19
Boor 4 F4;,
11A16 27 199
"14th Street":
8001( 4F'tCjJ
The current status of "14th Street", both physically and legally,
is an important aspect of any consideration of "14th Street"
issues. For that reason, the following information is presented.
What is known as "14th Street" is a continuous roadway/pathway
signed as "14th Street", used by the public, and running between
and connecting U.S. #1 and 6th Avenue. Most of the roadway is
paved; however, a portion is unpaved and is not maintained. Some
of the roadway lies within dedicated right-of-way and other
portions run across private property. The roadway serves several
uses along its course, including residences, businesses, and uses
open to the public such as the Council on Aging (see attachment
#2). It should also be noted that some County Utilities Department
lines and facilities are located along the roadway.
The creation of parcels and the development of much of the
commercially zoned property served by "14th Street" occurred prior
to more current county regulations. Current regulations would have
precluded the creation of parcels without dedicated road right-of-
way frontage and would have addressed legal access issues "up-
front". However, due to past development patterns and uses,
various enterprises and the general public have come to use the
roadway despite its various problems. Opinions may vary as to the
ultimate best use and improvement of the roadway. While some
parties may wish the roadway to be "dead -ended" at the east end of
the former Clock Restaurant site, others desire continued and
improved access to U.S. #1 from sites east of the "Clock" site (see
attachment #3).
At issue with Mr. Mooney is a segment of "14th Street" which runs
eastward from its intersection with U.S. #1 between the Home and
Patio store and the former Clock Restaurant site (see attachment
#4). Recently, the Board of County Commissioners agreed to
purchase from the LaCava estate a 35' strip of property within
which most of the existing "14th Street" roadway is located (see
attachment #5 and #6). The acquisition, which is now being
finalized, has been delayed due to a complex estate probate
process. While a portion of the existing roadway is located on the
former Clock Restaurant site, most of the existing roadway is
situated on the LaCava property. Besides the roadway, some other
improvements, notably a landscaped area, have also been located on
this 35' strip by (apparently) the Home and Patio store owners. It
appears that additional landscaping has been installed within the
landscaped area within the last several days. The planned roadway
improvements would require the removal of the landscaped area.
For several years, the County has been working toward clearing -up
code violations related to the development of the former "Clock
Restaurant" site. Some of these violations relate to the segment
of "14th Street" under discussion (see attachment #7). These
violations could not be resolved without some resolution to the
"14th Street" situation. A final, agreeable resolution to these
long-standing violations was accomplished via approval of a site
plan, submitted by Dependable Dodge, to re -develop the "Clock" site
and upgrade access, drainage, and landscaping (see attachment #8
and #9).
Proposed "14th Street" Modifications/Improvements
The proposed improvements to the LaCava access, as agreed to in the
approval of the Dependable Dodge site plan, will be as follows:
1. Move the curb cut to the south to better align with the
centerline of the 35 foot strip.
2. Remove the encroaching 6" X 6" wood beams and the grass area
and pave using 10 inch limerock base and 1 inch hot asphaltic
concrete surface.
30
3. Repair all distressed areas of pavement which are included in
two areas of distress, approximately 27' X 9' and 30' X 9'.
4. Overlay the paved area within the 35 foot strip with 3/4 inch
hot asphaltic concrete surface coat.
5. Re -grade the northern portion into a retention swale.
6. Re -locate vegetation that is
improvement of sight distance.
These are minimal improvements that
usage of this parcel as an access.
safety and accessibility of this
maintenance costs.
blocking the alignment for
will not infringe upon the
These will also enhance the
strip as well as reduce
The proposed improvements' cost should not exceed $6,600.00 and
should serve to continue existing access and usage until a decision
to improve 14th Street from 6th Avenue to U.S. #1 is made by the
Board of County Commissioners.
Legal Issues: Rights of Access and Development
There are many complicated legal issues which could not be reduced
to writing due to time constraints. Listed below are several legal
issues that AssiStant County Attorney Will Collins will present at
the August 27th Board meeting.
*Trespass
*Code Enforcement Board: Site plan Violations
*Inverse Condemnation
*Prescriptive Easement
*Contracts
Summary
Access uncertainties and problems related to the "14th Street" use
have plagued the County and area property owners .for several years.
The County, through its pending acquisition of the 35' LaCava
strip, is.initiating steps to legalize and help control a roadway
which has been used by the public and has served area property
owners for years. By redeveloping the former Clock Restaurant
site, Dependable Dodge has worked with the County to maintain a
safe accessway, and to address some of.the legal problems and code
violations referenced in this report. The proposed improvements
and modifications should make a bad situation better.
31
AUGf9
BOOKS F'.v��
Pr -
hl
a
1'1
ert
1 -A
BOOK 84 PAGE.. . J
4/
Wool ,V.Vi ,;. iiMI.L.)
VUv� ,SC .
=
r
�i
.
y.
Public Works Director Jim Davis recapped his efforts to
purchase the property. He said that after Ms. LaCava died] her
heirs became more cooperative and there are indications they are
willing to sell the property. Assistant County Attorney Collins
has been communicating with the estate to try to purchase the
property. Mr. Davis was not aware of any proposal by the owners of
Home & Patio to offer to purchase the land. Mr. Davis advised the
32
Board of the continuing efforts of staff to improve this site but
it all hinges on the purchase of the property.
Attorney Collins informed the Board of the many legal
complications involving the former Clock Restaurant, the
involvement of DOT because of access to U.S.1, and the issue of
paving the road to the Council on Aging Senior Center. Attorney
Collins stated that there are many factors involved, including
utilities, drainage, parking requirements, and specific needs of
each entity. He described the current situation regarding the
LaCava estate and the County's offer to purchase and thought the
signed papers would be returned within a week. There is one other
piece at the Southgate Mobile Home Park that the County needs to
acquire to supply the missing link in this strip of land.
Commissioner Scurlock felt the County should be moving towards
acquiring the property and do all the things mentioned at this
intersection and still accommodate in a reasonable fashion the
adjacent property owner, Home & Patio, who has been there for 20
years.
Attorney Collins thought the adjoining property owner will
benefit because he has never had a real right of access to the
property and by creating a driveway for ingress and egress he is
going to be better off.
Director Davis said in early 1980's the plan was to segregate
the east and west portions of this street with a double cul de sac
but would not be opposed to opening up the road if we design a safe
roadway that can meet the needs of traffic, plus drainage,
stormwater management, utility accommodation, all the necessary
functions of a right-of-way.
Chairman Bird asked about the benefit to Home & Patio if the
configuration of the road eliminates the parking capability on the
north side of the building.
Attorney Collins described the special problems involved with
any design for this right-of-way.
Roger Cain explained that the original plan was to avoid a
design where it would be called a public street. He said their
intention was for very minimal improvements so the parking could
essentially function as it is now.
Commissioner Eggert was concerned because this area is used as
an access road between Home & Patio and the former Clock Restaurants
and she does not want to see an inferior road which will be used by
people using other facilities to the west.
Chairman Bird felt the traffic load on 6th Avenue would not be
increased greatly because there is not a lot of undeveloped
property to the east of this area.
33
AUG 27 991
BOOK 84 FA6E
AUG 27
99
BOOK 84 P,4 .th
Arlene Fletcher, Director of Council on Aging, came before the
Board and said that the conception that this is a road to nowhere
is not exactly true because the Senior Center has at least 300
people a day and they have 52 employees who use the road everyday
with additional traffic on special occasions. She felt it is one
of the busiest streets in the County and described the appalling
condition of the road. She also mentioned that at 4:00 p.m. it is
very difficult to turn onto 6th Avenue. Ms. Fletcher stated that
in 1982 the Council on Aging paid to have sewer and water lines
brought to their building and paid to have the road paved, which
has never been done. Ms. Fletcher thought Home & Patio should not
be penalized in the least because their store is one of the most
attractive stores in Vero Beach. They keep their property neat and
tidy. Ms. Fletcher stressed that this is an important roadway and
stated something has to be done to get ingress and egress to the
Senior Center and the rest of the properties on 14th Street.
Chairman Bird felt we need to move on the acquisition of the
LaCava property.
Attorney Herzog thought the key to making the situation with
Home & Patio pacific is to give notice that existing use will be
accommodated. He said Mr. Mooney wants to cooperate with his
neighbors, but the parking matter is directly related to the
County. Mr. Herzog stated that all they want is notice and
accommodation for existing parking.
Chairman Bird understood Mr. Herzog and Mr. Mooney were here
in a cooperative vein and the staff will continue to accommodate
their needs on the north side of the building.
Commissioner Scurlock agreed with the Chairman that we need to
acquire the LaCava property and do something that is compatible
with everybody's use, and that will be the goal.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Eggert, to purchase the LaCava
property and design this project to be compatible
with the needs of all surrounding property owners.
Robert Mooney, President of Home & Patio, came before the
Board to clarify the use of his property. He felt calling this a
road to nowhere is giving it more than it is because it is not a
road. He said there is a drive between the former Clock Restaurant
and Home & Patio that deadends that private property and although
some people said that the County used to give access to the people
in the back, you really can't give access across private property.
34
There is use by custom or prescriptive rights but the 35 feet that
the County is considering acquiring is only surrounded by three
pieces of private property. He said that a few years ago, when Mr.
Pinto requested it, he gave the County an easement across the back
of his property to serve property owners to the south of Home &
Patio. If the 35 -foot strip of property were owned by Home & Patio
and whoever would be buying the Clock Restaurant, easement would
also be given over that piece of property. He felt the property
should be acquired by the people who adjoin it and give the County
whatever utility easements they need because the people that are
going from Sixth Avenue to U.S. 1 are crossing private property for
several hundred feet.
Chairman Bird stated that situation will change when the
County acquires the two LaCava pieces and the Southgate Mobile Home
Park piece. Then it would all be County owned and it would all be
public.
Mr. Mooney thought the Southgate Mobile Home park property was
not for sale at any price.
Public Works Director Jim Davis advised that the owner of the
Southgate Mobile Home Park property, the senior Mr. Wold, when he
was alive, was reluctant to sell. He further advised that staff
had not spoken with the heir but plan on doing that once the LaCava
property purchase is cleared.
Chairman Bird thought we should go ahead and proceed to buy
the LaCava property. If we run into a stone wall on the Southgate
property and we determine we cannot do what we want, we always have
the option of offering this property back to Mr. Mooney and the
other abutting property owner.
Mr. Mooney questioned the time table. He stated he has been
working on this issue for 20 years and he would like to clarify his
position.
Debra Smith, representing Dependable Dodge, informed the Board
that Dependable Dodge has an approved site plan and wondered if
there will be any adverse effect if something is worked out with
Home & Patio.
Chairman Bird responded that the site plan would not be
affected by the County acquiring this land.
Planning Director Stan Boling demonstrated the locations of the
various pieces of property, the proposed configuration of the
roadway and the parking spaces related to Home & Patio.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
35
AUG 2719 1
f a
BOOKS f.?�c ti
BOOK 8 120
SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL PARK - IRC BID #91-101
The Board reviewed memo from Purchasing Manager Fran Boynton
dated August 13, 1991:
To: Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
and
H.T. "Sonny" Dean
General Services D or
FROM: Fran Boynton
Purchasing Manager
SUBJECT: South County Regional Park - IRC Bid #91-101
IRC Project #8716
DATE: August 13, 1991
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Advertisement Dates:
Bid Opening Date:
Plans & Specifications
Sold to:
Replies:
BID TABULATION
May 8, 15 and 22, 1991
May 29, 1991
Seventeen (17) Vendors
Four (4) Vendors
SUBMITTAL UNIT PRICE
1. Hunley-Hubbard Construction Bid (Corrected) $806,636.76 ✓
Vero Beach, FL
2. Barth Construction
Vero Beach, FL
3. Kirchman
Stuart, FL
4. Britt Construction
Stuart, FL
DISCUSSION & ANALYSIS:
The apparent low bidder's proposal exceeds what was budgeted for
this project by over $200,000.00 as the budget set aside only
$600,000.00 for this project. In addition, costs for loader
rental, burn machine rental and landfill fees totaling $57,085.67
have been incurred in preparing this site for construction.
Equipment costs and labor in clearing the site by county forces
furnished as "in kind" services total $12,701.14. It is estimated
that the county will incur further equipment and labor costs of
$20,000.00 in grading the site to near final grade as required by
the Contract. The clearing and grading was undertaken by county
forces in order to reduce the expense of this project. County
staff is also pursuing modification to the softball fields'
lighting system to see if additional savings can be realized for
this item without sacrificing functionality or performance. If so,
a change order will be issued subsequent to commencing the
Contract.
Bid $916,889.00
Bid $898,423.00
Bid , $886,358.00
This project can be funded by deleting certain items from the
Contract in the entirety, and by having the county perform work for
other items. The disadvantage to this would be that some of the
playground equipment, totaling $63,469.00; the parking area
lighting, totaling $23,027.00 would be either reduced in scope, or
36
omitted altogether from the Contract. In addition some savings
could be obtained by having the county provide the asphalt paving
under our current contract rather than the low bidder's proposal.
This approach would, however, reduce the Contract amount. The
contractor is agreeable to this, if a negotiated change order is
executed with him to provide the reduced playground equipment.
In Summary:
Delete:
Item No.
Reduce:
Item No.
Item No.
17 Parking Area
Lighting
21 Playground Area
Sand Base
22 Playground
Equipment
(Reduce both by
for a total equal
to or less
than $39,877)
Piave County Perform:
Item No. 4 Asphaltic Cement
Pavement -$ 30,745.50 $ 14,584.00
Item No. 9. Asphaltic
Cement Bikepath
Pavement -$ 6,364.80 $ 2,784.60
Deletion Total -$143,511.30
Delete
Contract
Amount Savings
-$ 23,027.00 $ 23,027.00
-$
-$
19,905.00
63,469.00
$ 33,500.00
Reduced Contract Amount $663,125.46 ($806,636.76-$143,511.30)
Total Project Savings $ 73,895.60
Total Projected Reduced Project Cost:
$663,125.46
$ 39,877.00
$ 12,701.14
$ 57,085.67
$ 20,000.00
$ 19,741.70
$ 37,600.00
$850,130.97
$669,125.00
$181,005.97
Contract with Hunley-Hubbard (as
reduced by change order)
Playground Change Order
In Kind Costs (to date) '
Rental Fees, Landfill Fees (to date)
Grading Labor & Equipment Charge
Paving
Contingencies at 5%
Required Project Amount
Budgeted Funds
General Fund Contingency Funds Needed
Requiredamount for South County Project $850,130.97
By using General Fund contingency funds along with other funds, the
reduced Contract and project can be funded.
,ALTERNATIVES:
Alternative, No. 1 - Reduce the Contract and fund as set out in the
Discussion & Analysis.
Alternative No. 2 - Fund the entire Contract ($806,636.76) using
funds that are available, including contingency funds, to make up
the difference in the budget and the Contract amount.
Alternative No. 3 - Re -bid the Contract, deleting the items and
reducing the scope of work.
BUDGETED AMOUNT: $600,000.00
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends awarding the low bid to Hunley-Hubbard at the bid
amount of $806,636.76, then delete items 4, 9, 17, 21 & 22, by
change order, and in addition, negotiate a change order to provide
reduced playground equipment installation. The reduced contract
would then be for $663,125.46. Allocate contingency funds of
$181,005.97 to fund a reduced project.
37
A@JC 27
� o�
BOOK ' fkuE
..AUG 27 99
Cd 67)
BOOK 4 ['AUL 0t ..C.,ts,
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously awarded
Bid 91-101 to Hunley-Hubbard at the bid amount of
$806,636.76, deleted items 4, 9, 17, 21, and 22 by
change order, instructed staff to negotiate a change
order to provide reduced playground equipment
installation for a reduced contract price of
$663,125.46, and agreed to allocate contingency
funds of $181,005.97, all as recommended by staff.
SAID CONTRACT DOCUMENTS WILL BE PLACED ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF
CLERK TO THE BOARD WHEN FULLY EXECUTED AND RECEIVED
AMENDMENT TO DNR FRDAP GRANT AGREEMENT - TREASURE SHORES PARK
PHASE -1
The Board reviewed memo from Capital Projects Manager Terry
Thompson dated August 19, 1991:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.,I
Public Works Director
FROM: Terry B. Thompson, P.E.S.V'e'
Capital Projects Manager
SUBJECT: Amendment to DNR FRDAP Grant Agreement for
Treasure Shores Park - Phase I
DATE: August 19, 1991. FILE: frdap.agn
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Indian River County submitted a Sea Turtle Protection Plan
(STPP) to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) as
required by DNR Permit #IR -362 for construction of Treasure
Shores Park. The STPP included a proposal to monitor and
relocate nests from the construction area seaward of the
dune vegetation line during the turtle nesting season. The
DNR approved the STPP, but denied the County's proposal to
monitor and relocate nests. This means that construction
seaward of the dune vegetation line prior to the end of the
turtle nesting season on October 31, 1991 is prohibited.
The FRDAP grant for construction of Treasure Shores Park
requires that construction be completed be November 1, 1991.
Staff requested that the DNR amend the FRDAP grant agreement
to delete the dune walkover and lifeguard tower from the
project elements because they are seaward of the dune
vegetation line and will not be completed by the November 1,
1991 FRDAP completion deadline. The dune walkover and
lifeguard tower were included in the contract awarded to
Schopke Construction, but a separate Notice -to -Proceed will
be issued to Schopke for these structures on November 1,
1991. Schopke will be required to complete construction of
the dune walkover and lifeguard tower within 45 calendar
(days from the Notice -to -Proceed for these structures.
38
Attached is an Amendment to FRDAP Grant No. F89-099 that was
prepared by the DNR. The monies that were originally
appropriated in the grant for the dune walkover and
lifeguard tower have been reallocated to fund the hiking
trail, picnic area, playground, restroom and related support
facilities and improvements. The amount of funding provided
by the DNR has not been revised and will remain at $120,000.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends that the Chairman be authorized to execute
the attached Amendment to FRDAP Agreement No. F89-099.
The County's $60,000 match for construction will be funded
from Account #311-210-572-066.51 - Treasure Shores Park.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Eggert to authorize the Chairman to
execute the Amendment to FRDAP Agreement No. F89-
099, as recommended by staff.
Under discussion, Chairman Bird stated that Public Works
Director Jim Davis had given him the name of the person at DNR who
is telling us we cannot do any construction at the foot of the dune
until November 1. Chairman Bird felt this does not make sense, as
it is one set of steps coming down at the foot of the dune and one
small lifeguard tower, very minor construction. He plans to pursue
this issue.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION
It was voted on and carried unanimously. /`
SAID DOCUMENT WILL BE PLACED ON FILE IN THE OF ICE OF
CLERK TO THE BOARD WHEN IT IS FULLY EXECUTED AND RECEIVED
REQUEST BY CITY OF VERO BEACH TO EXTEND 16TH STREET BALLFIELD
COMPLEX LEASES UNTIL OCTOBER 21, 2010
The Board reviewed memo from Public Works Director Jim Davis
dated August 21, 1991:
•
AUG 271991
39
BOOK 84 0.6E
.4.0 j
99
BOOK 84 f1GE.
TO:
James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Request by City of Vero Beach to Extend 16th
Street Ballfield Complex Leases until
October 21, 2010
REF. LETTER: Lawrence E. Braisted to Charles Vitunac
dated June. 10, 1991
DATE: August 21, 1991 FILE: 16stles.agn
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Two existing leases between the City of Vero Beach(lessee)
and Indian River County (lessor), which leases to the City
11.76 acres of land north of the•Vero Beach High School,
expire October 21, 1994 and February 26, 1994. The leased
land is improved with lighted ballfields and is used for
recreational purposes and parking only. The City is
requesting the lease extension prior to the 1994 expiration
dates due to planned improvements costing in excess of
$200,000 that are scheduled in the next two years.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The County staff and Parks and Recreation Committee have no
objections to extending the above leases until October 21,
2010. A termination clause gives either party the right to
terminate the lease on a one year notice. The County must
reimburse the City of Vero Beach for capital improvements
based on a 16 year depreciation schedule if the County
terminates the lease prior to 2010. City and County
residents can use the recreation facilities and there are no
differences in charges to the City and County residents in*
using the facilities.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends approval of the Lease Extension Agreement
land requests authorization for the Chairman to execute the
agreement.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
approved and authorized the Chairman to execute the
Lease Extension Agreement with the City of Vero
Beach for ballfield complex leases until October 21,
2010, as recommended by staff.
SAID LEASE AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF
CLERK TO THE BOARD
40
REOUEST BY MS. MADELINE KAYE FOR COUNTY TO CLOSE 78TH AVENUE
BETWEEN 129TH STREET AND 128TH COURT IN ROSELAND
The Board reviewed memo from Public Works Director Jim Davis
dated August 21, 1991:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Request by Ms. Madeline Kaye for County
to Close 78th Avenue between 129th Street
and 128th Court in Roseland
DATE: August 21, 1991 FILE: kaye.agn
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
During the August'6, 1991 meeting of the Board of County
Commissioners, Ms. Madeline Kaye, resident of 7840 128th
Court in Roseland, requested permission to close the public
right-of-way referred to as 78th Avenue between 129th Street
and 128th Court. Mrs. Kaye has stated that vehicles travel
the right-of-way where no physical road exists and disturbs
the peace in that area. Ms. Kaye has previously barricaded
the roadway without obtaining a right-of-way construction
permit. In addition, Ms. Kaye requested that the drainage
ditches in the area be cleaned.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Staff has investigated this complaint and 78th Avenue is a
35' wide platted right-of-way. At the present time, an
improved roadway does not exist.
The right-of-way is needed for future access to unplatted
lands to the south, and to provide drainage in the Roseland
area. The barricades installed by Ms. Kaye are not standard
barricades, and the County could be exposed to liability if
someone collided with the structure.
Numerous similar requests are received from property owners
throughout the County for unopened right-of-ways to be
barricaded and the Public Works Department's policy has been
to only _barricade those right-of-ways where continual,
significant traffic problems exist. A properly designed
barricade that is effective could cost $2,000.
Certain other citizens in the Roseland area have objected to
the closing.
The following Alternatives are presented:
Alternative No. 1
Approve the County Road and Bridge Division inst4ling
standard barricades at a cost of approximately $2,000.
Alternative No. 2
Leave the 78th Avenue right-of-way open as has existed
over the past 70 years.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends that the right-of-way remain open and
Alternative No. 2 be approved. In addition, the Road and
Bridge Division has recently cleaned out the drainage ditch
in the area. 41
S hg
BOOK U
F. E
UG2'•
BOOK 8
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously agreed to
leave the 78th Avenue right-of-way open as it has
existed over the past 70 years, as recommended by
staff.
Under discussion, Commissioner Bowman asked what is the
County's exposure to liability.
County Attorney Vitunac advised if the roadways are properly
maintained there is no liability.
Public Works Director Jim Davis offered photographs showing
the condition of the right-of-way and that there is no problem with
frequent vehicles using the right-of-way. He thought there were
some isolated incidents where people wander back there but he
pointed out in the photographs that the grass is well-maintained
and there does not appear to be a large use. It is on the boundary
of a platted subdivision and it is a half right-of-way.
Commissioner Bowman, with Commissioner Eggert agreeing, stated
that from personal observation of the area, she felt anyone riding
a motorcycle or beach buggy on the site would run the risk of going
head over heels.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
STREET LIGHTING ALONG S.R. 60 WEST OF 43RD AVENUE PROPOSED BY
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
The Board reviewed memo from Public Works Director Jim Davis
dated August 21, 1991:
42
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Street Lighting along SR60 West of 43rd Avenue
Proposed by Department of Transportation
DATE: August 21, 1991 FILE: sr601ts.agn:
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The Florida Department of Transportation. Utilities Section
has offered to construct roadway lighting along SR60 west of
43rd Avenue under the Lighting Justification Program
whereby Indian River County would maintain the system once
it was installed. If the County were interested;..,an
agreement, plus a resolution (attached) signed by the
Chairman,would be required.)
ALTERNATIVES AND'ANALYSIS
The City of Vero Beach Electrical service area lies east of
"74th Avenue where a majority of the lights are proposed.
The cost would be
• 400 watt HPS - 52 @ $11.98/light
(includes electricity and relamping)
per month = $623/month or $7,475 per year
Due to the presence of senior adult communities such as
Indian River Estates, Village Green, Countryside, Vista
Plantation, Lake -in -the -Woods; etc., lighting is probably
justified,. however, the Traffic Engineering budget for
FY92/93 would have to accommodate this additional cost,
since the project completion dated is September, 1992.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Although the yearly cost is substantial beginning FY 92/93,
staff recommends approval. Funding shall be budgeted in
the FY92/93 Traffic Engineering Fund -111-245-541-034.31
($60,000 FY91/92 budget).
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
roadway lighting along SR 60 west of 43rd Avenue and
adopted Resolution 91-96 authorizing execution of a
Highway Lighting Agreement.
RESOLUTION 91-96 AND'THE AGREEMENT ARE ON FILE IN THE
OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
43
AUG 2?'1991
� _ � `dj mil P /
LOOK 4 F4Ej�,, i
AN 2 1,')•9
BOOK 8
4 FAGS L 8
WASTEWATER SERVICE TO I.R.C. MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOLS AT C.R. 512
THE BOARD REVIEWED MEMO FRS! TERRY PINTO DATED AUGUST 14, 1991
DATE: AUGUST 14, 1991
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY/ SERVICES
PREPARED WILLIAM F. McC
AND STAFFED CAPITAL PROJEC .L'RER
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT:
ROBERT O. WISEME
ENVIRONMENTAL ENG
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
WASTEWATER SERVICE TO INDIAN RIVER COUNTY MIDDLE AND
HIGH SCHOOLS AT C.R. 512
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. US -91 -21 -CS
BACKGROUND
On January 29, 1991, the Board of County Commissioners approved an
agreement between Indian River County and the Indian River County
School Board for utility service connections for the
above -referenced schools. The status of the items in the agreement
were covered in an agenda item for school water service brought to
the Board on August 12, 1991 (see attached).
The staff is now ready to proceed with in-house design for the sewer
lift station and force main, which will be extended from an existing
main at Chesser's Gap on C.R. 512 to the intersection of C.R. 510
and C.R. 512. -- -
,ANALYSIS
The staff's preliminary estimated construction cost is $300,000.00;
a preliminary cost breakdown is presented below:
1. 13,200 LF of 8" pipe @ $15.00/LF $198,000.00
2. Lift Station and associated on-site 80,000.00
piping
3. 2 canal crossings 16,000.00
Subtotal: $294,000.00
10% Contingency: 2,940.00
Total: $296,940.00
Use for Budgetary Purposes: $300,000.00
This project will be funded from the impact fees paid by the School
Board, which total $122,848.00, with the remainder coming from the
Utility Department's impact fee fund, which will be recouped as
other customers connect and pay their impact fees.
The line sizes'have been adapted from the Wastewater Master Plan and
are in line with the flows that will be generated from the C.R. 512
land I-95 area.
44
We have outlined the total engineering cost for design below:
Survey fee quotes:
Kimball/Lloyd, Inc.
Carter Associates, Inc.
Masteller, Moler & Reed, Inc.
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
$10,000.00
4,940.00
6,300.00
Four quotes for the project survey were obtained
and are listed above; we are recommending that we
proceed with Kimball/Lloyd, Inc., for this work
(see attached quotes).
.Estimated administrative costs, including postage,
reproduction, and permitting fees
Soil and other additional professional services
(to include canal crossing structural, soil
corrosiveness testing, etc.), with upper limit of
Engineering fees (by County personnel)
Total Estimated Design Cost
The total project cost (design and construction) is
$338,870.00.
RECOMMENDATION
$3,870.00
$5,000.00
10,000.00
20.000.00
$38,870.00
The Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners approve proceeding with in-house design,
permitting, and bidding to construct the project, and authorize
execution of the attached agreement with Kimball/Lloyd, Inc. for
surveying.,
1
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
proceeding with in-house design, permitting and
bidding to construct the above described project and
authorized the Chairman to execute the agreement
with Kimball/Lloyd, Inc. for surveying, as
recommended by staff.
SAID AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF
CLERK TO THE BOARD
45
AUG 2ri 1991
BOOK 0 4 F„;_, �.1�
AUG 2'7 '99
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
BOOK
Chairman Bird announced that immediately upon adjournment the
Board would reconvene sitting as the Commissioners of the Solid
Waste Disposal District. Those Minutes are being prepared
separately.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded
and carried, the Board adjourned at 12:25 o'clock P. M.
ATTEST:
Clerk Chairman
46