Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
10/22/1991
OARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGENDA REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 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 Administrator Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board ************************************************ 9:00 A.M. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. INVOCATION - None 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Comm. Carolyn K. Eggert It. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS No additions. Deletion of Item 15 - Space Needs Study Report Acceptance. 5. PROCLAMATION AND PRESENTATIONS Adoption and Presentation of Proclamation Designating Nov. 2, 1991 as Children's Art Festival Day in IRC, FL 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Regular meeting of 9/17/91 B. Special meeting of 9/23/91 C. Regular meeting of 9/24/91 D. Regular meeting of 10/1/91 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Occupational License Taxes Collected During Month of September, 1991 (memorandum dated October 10, 1991) B. Release of Utility Liens <,nG,rlot andurn dated Octcbe, 15, 1391 ; C. Report of Division of Forestry's Fire Control 8 Prevention Activities for FY 7/1/90 - 6/30/91 (letter dated October 2, 1991) 3011 L OCT 22 1991 OCTr 22 19 1 mu. 84 PAGE 3 7. CONSENT AGENDA (cont'd. ): D. Kevin Hawkins' Request for Extension of Dixie Ridge Commercial Park S/D Preliminary Plat Approval (memorandum dated October 14, 1991) E. Kevin Hawkins' Request for Extension of the Highlands Commercial Park S/D Preliminary Plat Approval (memorandum dated October 14, 1991) F. The Turbine Group's Request for Extension of the Sandrift S/D Preliminary Plat Approval (memorandum dated October 14, 1991) G. Release of Easement Request by: Samuel A. Block, for: Roy G. & Joyce B. Blackwell, C. Richard Splittorf, & Warner Pyne & Ina M. Pyne, Jr., Lots 12, 13, & 14, Replat of Bent Pine Subdivision, Units 3 & 4, Plat Book 11, Pages 9, 9-A & 9-B (memorandum dated October 2, 1991) H. 1st PI. R -O -W Purchase; Rev. Gordon Hine, Faith United Fellowship, Inc. (memorandum dated October 14, 1991) I. Budget Amendment 001 (memorandum dated October 16, 1991) 8. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES None 9:05 a.m. 9. PUBLIC ITEMS A. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS Request by Treas. Coast Film & Visual Arts Soc., Inc. for written support from BCC (letter dated October 10, 1991) B. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ESTABLISHING A GENERAL LIEN PROVISION WHEN COUNTY FUNDS ARE EX- PENDED TO BRING ABOUT CONFORMITY WITH THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CODE (memorandum dated October 7, 1991) 2. Royal Poinciana Park Water Service .Project Resolution 111 (memorandum dated October 9, 1991) 10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS None 11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. Robert Bruce's Request for Modification of the Boundary of the P10 Unit of the Coastal Barrier Resources System (memorandum dated October 15, 1991) 2. Richard Graves' Appeal of the P & Z Comm.'s Denial of an Administrative Permit Request to Convert (Change Use of) an Existing House to a Child Care Facility (memorandum dated October 15, 1991) B. EMERGENCY SERVICES None C. GENERAL SERVICES 1. IRC Courthouse Project / Asbestos Survey Services Contract (memorandum dated October 16, 1991) 2. IRC Courthouse Project / Purchase of Vero Printing Property (memorandum dated October 14, 1991) D. LEISURE SERVICES None E. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET None F. PERSONNEL None G. PUBLIC WORKS 1. R -O -W Acquisition; Site Plan Approval of St. Augustine Canterbury Episcopal Church, 43rd Ave. (memorandum dated October 11, 1991) 2. As -Built Resolutions & Assessment Rolls for Paving & Drainage Improvements to: 1) 15 PI . between U.S. 1 & 7th Ave. 2) 35th Ave. between 4th St. & 6th St. 3) 85th Ave. & 85th Crt. in Paradise Pk S/D (memorandum dated October 14, 1991) 3. Issuance of a County Driveway Connection Permit to CR512 West of F.E.C.R.R. (memorandum dated October 14, 1991) 4. Work Order No. 1 - Wabasso Causeway (CR510) Bridge Inspection and Repairs (.i�t►uJ. aJwu Jotted OLl,bet 16, 1991) H. UTILITIES 1. Petition for Water Service in Floridacres S/D (36th Ave. south off 8th St.) (memorandum dated October 8, 1991) Boni( ) 4 06E 58 y OCT 22 199 0CT- 2 2 '0 BOOK' �`� PAGE 11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS (cont'd.): H. UTILITIES (cont'd): 2. Water Main Extension Growth Plan - Ph. I Water Service Assessment Project (memorandum dated October 1, 1991) 12. COUNTY ATTORNEY Annual Dinner Meeting of the Treasure Coast Council of Local Governments - 11/6/91 (memorandum dated October 16, 1991) 13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS A. CHAIRMAN RICHARD N. BIRD Annual Appointments to Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (memorandum dated October 14, 1991) B. VICE CHAIRMAN GARY C. WHEELER C. COMMISSIONER MARGARET C. BOWMAN D. COMMISSIONER CAROLYN K. EGGERT 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, ANNA ...,.I .[ M;l►..Ls Meethiy .,t 9/10/91 2. Approval of Minutes - Meeting of 9/24/91 3. Approval of Minutes - Meeting of 10/1/91 14. SPECIAL DISTRICTS (cont'd. ): C. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT (cont'd.): 4. IRC Bid 91-92 - 966-F End Loader (memorandum dated October 8, 1991) 5. Landfill Scale - Bid #91-110 (memorandum dated October 9, 1991) 6. Yard Trash Collection - Container Requirements (memorandum dated October 15, 1991) 7. SWDD Assessment Program - Request for Proposals (memorandum dated October 15, 1991) 15. Space Needs Study Report Acceptance (memorandum dated October 14, 1991) 16. 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. ETOF 84;A.511 OCT 22`FA1 October 22, 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, October 22, 1991, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were.Richard N. Bird, Chairman; Gary C. Wheeler, Vice Chairman; Margaret C. Bowman; Carolyn K. Eggert; and Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Also present were James E. Chandler, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; and Barbara Bonnah, Deputy Clerk. The Chairman called the meeting to order, and Commissioner Eggert led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS No additions. Administrator Chandler requested the deletion of Item 15 - Space Needs Study Report Acceptance. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously deleted Item 15, as requested by Administrator Chandler. PROCLAMATION AND PRESENTATIONS Proclamation - Children's Art Festival Day Chairman Bird read aloud the following proclamation and presented it to Toni Hammer, representative from Center of the Arts: OCT 22 1991 aGOK Pr" OCT 22 1991 PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING NOVEMBER 2, 1991 AS CHILDREN'S ART FESTIVAL DAY IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA &WJK 6EA,E 5 u WHEREAS, on November 2, 1991, the Children's Art Festival, sponsored by the Center for the Arts, will celebrate its llth anniversary; and WHEREAS, the theme for this year's festival will be "A Celebration of Color." This event provides the opportunity for hands-on art experiences for young people of all ages, preschoolers through teens. The entire family can enjoy the student art displays, entertainment, music and food available throughout the day; and WHEREAS, the reason the Children's Art Festival came into existence was because there was a concern by those involved in establishing a Center for the -Arts that the youth of the area were underexposed and given limited opportunities to participate in visual arts activities. Since the inception of the Children's Art Festival- eleven years ago, art instruction in the school systems, both public and private, has increased significantly making art and humanities awareness an enriching part of the lives ofthe young people in our community: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that November 2, 1991 be designated as CHILDREN'S ART FESTIVAL DAY in Indian River County, and the Board expresses its appreciation to the many hard working volunteers for instituting and continuing this fine program for the youth in our community. Adopted this 22nd day of October, 1991. 2 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA -,401;/. Richard N. Bird, Chairman APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or additions to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 17, 1991. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 9/17/91, as written. The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or additions to the Minutes of the Special Meeting of September 23, 1991. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved the Minutes of the Special Meeting of 9/23/91, as written. The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or additions to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 24, 1991. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 9/24/91, as written. The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or additions to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 1, 1991. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 10/1/91: 3 E OOV 84 F'A E 580 OCT 221999 OCT 22 1, CONSENT AGENDA BOOK 8 4 PAGE c N � A.. Occupation License Taxes - Month of September, 1991 The Board reviewed the following memo dated 10/10/91: .MEMORANDUM TO: ®[INCE MCS iii COLLECTOR GENE E. MORRIS, C.F.C. • TAX COLLECTOR Board of County Commissioners • FROM: Gene E. Morris, Tax Collector . SUBJECT: Occupational Licenses DATE: October 10, 1991 P. O. Box 1909 VERO BEACH. FLORIDA • 32961 TELEPHONE: (407) 5E74ieo SUNCOM 1 424-133e Pursuant to Indian River County Ordinance No. 86-59, please be informed that $134,181.08 was collected in occupational license taxes during the month of September, representing the issuance of 5,713 licenses. Gene E. Morris, Thx Collector ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously accepted the above report. 4 B. Release of Utility Liens The Board reviewed the following memo dated 10/15/91: TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: DATE: ,October 15 RE: 4g4L., P. VratLuc) Lea R. Keller, CLA, County Attorney's Office CONSENT AGENDA - B.C.C. MEETING 10/22/91 RELEASE OF UTILITY LIENS I have prepared the following lien -related documents the Board authorize the Chairman to sign them: 1. Satisfaction of Impact Fee Extension Lien in the name of: HAWKINS and request that . n 2. Release of Special Assessment Lien from CITRUS GARDENS PROJECT in the name of: NOAKES . Release of Special Assessment Lien from SUMMERPLACE PROJECT in the names of: WEBSTER 4. Releases of Special Assessment Liens from A -1-A (North Beaches) PROJECT in the names COWART (2) TURNER BUILDERS KIERNAN STARK & MEYERS YOUNG of: . Release of Special Assessment Lien from INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD PROJECT in the name of: EMPIRE GROUP . t 6. Release of Special Assessment Lien from ANITA PARK PROJECT in the name of: TABER ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved the lien -related documents listed above, as requested by staff. COPIES OF RELEASES OF LIENS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD OCT 22 5 BOO. 8 Pr OCT 22 199 BOOK C '4 P,1L,E J J2 C. Report of Division of Forestry's Fire Control & Prevention Activities for FY 7/1/90-6/30/91 The Board reviewed the following letter dated 10/2/91: BOB CRAWFORD COMMISSIONER Florida Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services The Capitol Tallahassee 32399-0810 • October 2, 1991 Indian River County • Board of County Commissioners .1840 25th Street 'Vero Beach, Florida 32968 Dear County Commissioners: • PLEASE REsPo D To: 0,012i u� '1 e>/:: l'‘d11\1 s1 Cr) eo,f7Po %ft e 4144; YF kP I respectfully submit the attached report of the Division of Forestry's Fire Control and Prevention activities for fiscal year July 1, 1990 to June 30, 1991. The report includes the following items: * Number of burning Authorizations issued * Fire Activity * Law Enforcement * Fire Prevention Efforts * R.C.F.P. Lease * Training * The total acreage under wildland fire protection and cost to the county. Our goal is zero man -caused fires and through the cooperation and help of the structural fire service and the public we can make great strides in achieving this goal. We appreciate the opportunity to serve you and the citizens of the county. If you have any questions about this report or would like further information please do not hesitate to contact me. 6 Sincerely, Bob Crawford Ccyat;niss1one aAs Paul V.-Palmiotto District Manager Suncom 721-7830 813/763-2191- LOCI 2 ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously accepted the Annual Fire Control Report submitted by Bob Crawford of the Florida Dept. of Agriculture & Consumer Services for FY 90/91. REPORT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD D. Kevin Hawkins' Request for Extension of Preliminary Plat Approval - Dixie Ridge Commercial Park Subdivision The Board reviewed the following memo dated 10/14/91: TO: THROUGH: FROM: DATE: October 14, 1991 James E. Chandler County Administrator DIVSION HEAD CONCURRENCE Robert M. eat g, Stan Boling, ICP Planning Director Christopher D. Rison Staff Planner, Current RE: Development KEVIN HAWKINS' REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE DIXIE RIDGE COMMERCIAL PARK SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL SD -90-09-16 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of October 22, 1991. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS On August 9, 1990, the Planning and Zoning Commission conditionally approved a preliminary plat application submitted by Peterson and Votapka, Inc., on behalf of Kevin Hawkins, for the Dixie Ridge Commercial Park Subdivision. Dixie Ridge Commercial Park is a four (4) lot commercial subdivision, located between Old Dixie Highway and the F.E.C. Railroad right-of-way in the 1100 block of Old Dixie Highway Southwest. Kevin Hawkins has requested that a preliminary plat extension be granted. Due to financial considerations, Mr. Hawkins is of the opinion that the current preliminary plat approval expiration date will pass before construction can commence. If no construction has begun by January 9, 1992, the preliminary plat approval will lapse unless otherwise extended by the Board of County Commissioners. 99% 7 uor'� FAuL OCT22 1991 BOOK PAGE bJ4 The County adopted and implemented its new Land Development Regulations (LDR's) in September of 1990. While some regulations have changed, the changes are not significant enough to warrant revisions to the project's design if it were reviewed as a new application today. The members of the Technical Review Committee (TRC) concur that the changes that have occurred are not significant enough to require any preliminary plat plan revisions. Kevin Hawkins is requesting a preliminary plat approval extension pursuant to the provisions of the Subdivision and Plats Ordinance, Chapter 913. Pursuant to the Subdivision and Plats Ordinance, the Board of County Commissioners may grant, or grant with conditions, such preliminary plat extensions. In staff's opinion, the current subject preliminary plat application would substantially conform to current requirements. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Kevin Hawkins' request for a one (1) time, eighteen (18) Month extension of the conditionally approved Dixie Ridge Commercial Park Subdivision Preliminary Plat.•The new preliminary plat expiration date will be August 9, 1993. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously granted a one-time, 18 -month extension of the conditionally approved Dixie Ridge Commercial Park Subdivision Preliminary Plat with a new expiration date of August 9, 1993, as recommended by staff. E. Kevin Hawkins' Request for Extension of Preliminary Plat Approval - Highlands Commercial Park Subdivision The Board reviewed the following memo dated 10/14/91: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE Robert M. Keat THROUGH: Stan Bolin AICP Planning Director FROM: Christopher D. Rison ()'X Staff Planner, Curren Development DATE: RE: October 14, 1991 KEVIN HAWKINS' REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE HIGHLANDS COMMERCIAL PARK SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL SD -90-06-09 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of October 22, 1991. 8 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS On May 24, 1990, the Planning and Zoning Commission conditionally approved a preliminary plat application submitted by Peterson and Votapka, Inc., on behalf of Kevin Hawkins, for the Highlands Commercial Park Subdivision. Highlands Commercial Park is an eleven (11) lot commercial subdivision, located between Old Dixie Highway and the F.E.C. Railroad right-of-way, east of the Vero Beach Highlands, Unit 1 and Plantation Ridge Subdivisions. Kevin Hawkins has requested that a preliminary plat extension be granted. Due to financial considerations, Mr. Hawkins is of the opinion that the current preliminary plat approval expiration date will pass before construction can commence. If no construction has begun by November 24, 1991, the preliminary plat approval will lapse unless otherwise extended by the Board of County Commissioners. The County adopted and implemented its new Land Development Regulations (LDR's) in September of 1990. While some regulations have changed, the changes are not significant enough to warrant revisions to the project's design if it were reviewed as a new application today. The members of the Technical Review Committee (TRC) concur that the changes that have occurred are not significant enough to require any preliminary plat revisions. - Kevin Hawkins is requesting a preliminary plat approval extension pursuant to the provisions of the Subdivision and Plats Ordinance, Chapter 913. Pursuant to the Subdivision and Plats Ordinance, the Board of County Commissioners may grant, or grant with conditions, such preliminary plat extensions. In staff's opinion, the current subject preliminary plat application would substantially conform to current requirements. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Kevin Hawkins' request for a•one (1) time, eighteen (18) month extension of the conditionally approved Highlands Commercial Park Subdivision Preliminary Plat. The new preliminary plat expiration date will be May 24, 1993. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously granted a one-time, 18 -month extension of the conditionally approved Highlands Commercial Park Subdivision Preliminary Plat with a new expiration date of May 24, 1993, as recommended by staff. F. The Turbine Group's Request for Extension of Preliminary Plat Approval - Sandrift Subdivision 0 C i 22 `991 The Board reviewed the following memo dated 10/14/91: 9 n,or!r. 4 FA -. bY5 ©CT 22 Td BOOK TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator DIV ION HEAD CONCURRENCE obert M. Keati THROUGH: Stan Boling XICP Planning Director Christopher D. Rison /1-*/ Development FROM: DATE: RE: Staff Planner, Current October 14, 1991 THE TURBINE GROUP'S REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE SANDRIFT SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL SD -90-05-07 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of October 22, 1991. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS On April 26, 1990, the Planning and Zoning Commission conditionally approved a preliminary plat application submitted by McQueen and Associates, Inc., on behalf of the Turbine Group, for the Sandrift Subdivision. Sandrift Subdivision is an oceanfront six (6) lot single family residential subdivision in the 12200 block of N. State Road A1A, just south of the Ampersand Subdivision. McQueen and Associates, Inc., on behalf of the Turbine Group, has requested that a preliminary plat extension be granted. Due to F permitting delays and financial conditions, the applicants have been undable to commence construction of the approved preliminary plat. Futhermore, the applicants are of the opinion that the current preliminary plat approval expiration date will pass before construction can commence. If no construction has begun by October 26, 1991, the preliminary plat approval will lapse unless otherwise extended by the Board of County Commissioners. The County adopted and implemented its new Land Development Regulations (LDR's) in September of 1990. While some regulations have changed, the changes are not significant enough to warrant revisions to the project's design if it were reviewed as a new application today. The members of the Technical Review Committee (TRC) concur that the changes that have occurred are not significant enough to require any preliminary plat revisions. - The Turbine Group is requesting a preliminary plat approval extension pursuant to the provisions of the Subdivision and Plats Ordinance, Chapter 913. Pursuant to the Subdivision and Plats Ordinance, the Board of County Commissioners may grant, or grant with conditions, such preliminary plat extensions. In staff's opinion, the current subject preliminary plat application would substantially conform to current requirements. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Turbine Group's request for a one (1) time, eighteen (18) month extension of the conditionally approved Sandrift Subdivision Preliminary Plat. The new preliminary plat expiration date will be April 26, 1993. 10 ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously granted a one-time, 18 -month extension of the conditionally approved Sandrift Subdivision Preliminary Plat with a new expiration date of April 26, 1993, as recommended by staff. G. Release of Easement Request - Replat of Bent Pine Subdivision The Board reviewed the following memo dated 10/2/91: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrative DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE THROUGH: Robert M. Keati g,%P Community Deve opme- Director Roland M. DeBlois, AICP Chief, Environmental Planning & Code Enforcement FROM: Charles W. HeathL:W Code Enforcement Officer DATE: October 2, 1991 SUBJECT: RELEASE OF EASEMENT REQUEST BY: Samuel A. Block, P.A. for: Roy G. & Joyce B. Blackwell, C. Richard Splittorf, and Warner Pyne & Ina M. Pyne, Jr. Lots 12, 13, & 14, Replat of Bent Pine Subdivision, Units 3 & 4, Plat Book 11, Pages 9, 9-A & 9-B It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of October 22, 1991. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: The County has been petitioned by Samuel A. Block, P.A., on behalf of Roy G. & Joyce B. Blackwell, C. Richard Splittorf, and Warner Pyne and Ina M. Pyne, Jr, owners of the subject properties, for the release of four (4) common seven and one-half (7 1/2) foot side lot utility easements, being the southerly seven and one-half (7 1/2) feet of Lot 12, the northerly seven and one-half (7 1/2) feet of Lot 13, the southerly seven and one-half (7 1/2) feet of Lot 13, and the northerly seven and one-half (7 1/2) feet of Lot 14, Replat of Bent Pine Subdivision, Units No. 3 and No. 4; Section 15, Township 32 South, Range 39 East Plat Book 11, Pages 9, 9-A & 9-B, of the Public Records of Indian River, County, Florida; according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book II, Pages 9, 9-A, and 9-B, of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida. It is the petitioners' intention to reconfigure these lots to allow for the construction of a single-family residence on Lot 12. The current zoning classification of the subject property is RS -3, Single -Family Residential District. The Land Use Designation is L- 1, allowing up to three (3) units per acre. • 11 LO T 22 1991 FOD I..LJ FA,L Ou` • O C e 22 . °` POCK FALL ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: This request has been reviewed by Southern Bell Telephone Company, Florida Power & Light Company, United Artist Cable Corporation, the Indian River County Utilities Department and the Road & Bridge and Engineering Divisions. Based upon their Reviews, staff has determined that the subject easements can be released with no adverse effects if a new 15 foot easement is established. In order to reconfigure the referenced lots, the applicants must record a Unity of Title for Lot 12 and the north 25 feet of Lot 13, and a separate unity 'of title for the south 100.63 feet of Lot 13 and the north 30 feet of Lot 14. This is necessary to combine the added portions of each lot into a single parcel for each. Further, the applicants must establish and record a new utility easement to serve the functions to the easements to be abandoned. This new easement shall be a (15) foot utility easement, more particularly described as the south (15) feet of the north 37 1/2 feet of Lot 14, Replat of Bent Pine subdivision, Units 3 & 4, Section 15, Township 32 South, Range 39 East, Indian River County, Florida; according to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book II, Pages 9, .9A, and 9-B, of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida. It .is staff's position that the referenced easements can be abandoned by the Board with the condition that the abandonment resolution not be executed until the Unity_' of Title and new easement documents are recorded by the applicants and determined acceptable by the County attorney. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached resolution to release the common seven and one-half (7 1/2) side lot utility easements, being the southerly seven and one-half (7 1/2) feet of Lot 12, the northerly seven and one-half (7 1/2) feet of Lot 13, the southerly seven and one-half (7 1/2) feet of Lot 13, and the northerly seven and one-half (7 1/2) feet of Lot 14, Replat of Bent Pine Subdivision, Units No. 3 and No. 4; Section 15, Township 32 South, Range 39 East Plat Book 11, Pages 9, 9-A & 9-B, of the Public. Records of Indian River, County, Florida. Staff also recommends that the attached resolution not be executed until the applicants have recorded a Unity of Title for Lot 12 and the north 25 feet of Lot 13; recorded a Unity of Title for the south 100.63 feet of Lot 13 and the north 30 feet of Lot 14; and record a utility easement over the south 15 feet of the north 37 1/2 feet of Lot 14. 12 ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved the release of easement request, with the conditions set out in the above staff recommendation, and adopted Resolution 91-160, abandoning certain easements on Lots 12, 13, and 14 in the Bent Pine Subdivision Unit No. 3, according to the Replat of Bent Pine Unit 3 and Unit 4, as recorded in Plat Book 11, pages 9, 9-A and 9-B, Public Records of Indian River County Florida. RESOLUTION NO. 91-160 A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ABANDONING CERTAIN EASEMENTS ON LOTS 12, 13, AND 14 IN THE BENT PINE SUBDIVISION UNIT NO. 3, ACCORDING TO THE REPLAT OF BENT PINE UNIT 3 AND UNIT 4, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 11, PAGES 9, 9-A AND 9- B, PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA WHEREAS, Indian River County has easements as described below, and WHEREAS, the retention of those easements serves no public purpose, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida that: This release of easement is executed by Indian River County, Florida, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, whose mailing address is 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960, Grantor, to Roy G. & Joyce B. Blackwell, C. Richard Splittorf, and Warner Pyne & Ina M. Pyne, Jr. their successors in interest, heirs and assigns, Grantee whose mailing address is c/o Samuel A. Block, P.A., 2127 10th Avenue, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 as follows: Indian River County does hereby abandon all right, title, and interest that it may have in the following described easements: SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE. THIS RESOLUTION was moved for adoption by Commissioner Scurlock , seconded by Commissioner Eggert and adopted on the 2 day of October , 1991, by the following vote: 13 OCT 22 i991 Lal 800 84F'H6E �q�� OCT 22 i BORK ,84 F:: ,CE O, Commissioner Richard N. Bird Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Ayp Ayp Ayp Ayp Ayp The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 27 , day of nctober , 1991. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By Richard N. Bird " ChaV• an ee�r JeffrVy K. Barton Clerk V Attest By RESOLUTION NO. 91-160 EXHIBIT "A" The common seven and one-half (7 1/2) foot side lot utility easements of Lot 12, 13, and 14, Bent Pine Subdivision, Unit No. 3, according to the Replat of Bent Pine Unit 3 and Unit 4, being the southerly seven and one-half (7 1/2) feet of .Lot 12, northerly seven and one-half (7 1/2) feet of Lot 13, the southerly seven and one-half (7 1/2) feet of Lot 13, and the northerly seven and one- half (7 1/2) feet of Lot 14, Bent Pine Subdivision, according to the Replat of Units 3 & 4, as recorded in Plat Book 11, Pages 9, 9- A and 9-B, of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida. u\r\c\bent 14 H. County Purchase of Right -of -Way on 1st Place - Faith United Fellowship, Inc. The Board reviewed the following memo dated 10/14/91: TO: James Chandler County Administrator THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E. Public Works Directoi' and ✓' Roger D. Cain, P.E. County Engineer FROM Donald G. Finney, SRA County Right of Way Agent SUBJECT: 1st Place Right of Way purchase; Reverend Gordon Hine, ,Faith United Fellowship, Inc. DATE: October 14, 1991 OCT 22 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS The Board of County Commissioners previously approved the purchase! of a 25 foot wide right of way along 1st Place for $4,313.00. 4 Several years ago the property owner previously dedicated an 8 foot plus right of way on a site plan. Just recently it came to light that an additional 16 feet is needed as there was a misunderstanding locating the: property lines as depicted on the owners survey at the time the site plan was approved. Upon the advice of the County Attorney's Office, all parties have agreed to a $1,000.00 settlement for the additional 16 feet of right of way. The value is estimated at over $3,000.00 based on the appraisers value of the other parcels on this road. - CONSENT AGENDA RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING Staff requests authorization to purchase the additional right way for $1,000.00 as full compensation. FUNDING Petition Paving, Right of Way Account No. 173-214-541-066.12 ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously authorized staff to purchase the additional right-of-way for $1,000 as full compensation, as set out in the above staff recommendation. 1 5 tlo()1( S i F'AE 01_ of �; OCT 2.2 99 BOOK 84 PAGE b,U' I. Budget Amendment 001 _Miscellaneous The Board reviewed the following memo dated 10/16/91: TO: DATE: SUBJECT: FROM: Members of the Board of County Commissioners October 16, 1991 BUDGET AMENDMENT 001 - CONSENT AGENDA Joseph A. Bair OMB Director DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS The attached budget amendment is to appropriate funding for the following: 1. Disaster Preparedness Grant as approved by the Board of County Commissioners on August 20, 1991 for 1991/92 FY. 2. South County Park contract was awarded in the meeting of August 27, 1991. The funding needs to be moved into the 1991/92 FY. 663,125.46 Contract Hunley-Hubbard 39,877.00 Playground Change Order 19,741.70 Paving 37,600.00 Contingency - 5% 760,344.16 TOTAL Indian River County Citrus League donated $871.00 to the County Agriculture Extension Department for the purchase of a - fax machine to use for a weather advisory program. ;'RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached budget amendment. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved Budget Amendment 001, as set out in the above staff recommendation. 16 TO: Members of the Board SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT of County Commissioners FROM: Joseph A. Bair OMB Director NUMBER: 001 DATE: October 16. 1991 Entry Number Funds/Department/Account Name Account Number Increase Decrease REVENUE 1. General Fund/Grant Disaster Preparedness 001-000-342-041.00 $ 60,506 EXPENSE General Fund/EMS Re•ular Salaries 001-208-525-011.12 30 774 Social Security Retirement 001-208-525-012.11 $ 1,908 $ 0 001-208-525-012.12 $ 5.229 0 Insurance 001-208-525-012.13,$ 5, 699 .0 Workers Compensation 001-208-525-012.141$ 240 0 Medicade 001-208-525-012.171$ 446 0 utomobile llowance 001-208-525-034.01' 3 300 Travel 001-208-525-037.221$ 1,800 $ 0 Equipment Maintenance Supplies -Exercise i 001-208-525-037.241$ 600 0 i 001-208-525-037.331$ 500 Contractual Services 001-208-525-037.41 $ 8,000 $ 0 Travel' Telephone Washdown Lightening Recept. Communications Radiological Instrument Maint. 001-208-525-037.42,$ 001-208-525-037.441$ i 001-208-525-037.461$ i 001-208-525-037.511$ 001-208-525-037.611$ 001-208-525-037.761$ 300 50 0 350 700 360 0 250 0 2. ,REVENUE General Fund Cash Forward 001-000-389-040.00 760,345 0 EXPENSE General Fund/Parks Construction In Progress 001-210-572-066.51,$ 760,345 0 3. REVENUE General Fund/Revenue 'Other Contributions i 'EXPENSE 001-000-366-090.001$ 871,$ ;General Fund/Ag. Extension !Office Equipment OCT 22 MI 001-212-537-066.411$ 17 1 0 8711$ 0 ELioK 84 FA,EO�� OCT 22 1991 BOOK REQUEST BY TREASURE COAST FILM & VISUAL ARTS SOCIETY, INC. FOR WRITTEN SUPPORT FROM BCC The Board reviewed the following memo dated 10/10/91: Treasure Coast Film & Visual Arts Society, Inc. OFFICERS Shawn McAllister Presidont Executive Dtrectm Bruce L Harvey Executive Vice President DiMor of Marketing Harry J. Ferguson Treasurer Mary Anne Harvey Secretary CONSULTANTS K.S. Kallin Dorothy A. Philips BOARD OF DIRECTORS Shawn McAllister Chairman Bruce L Harvey Vice Chairman Bernard Conko Lottal Harry J. Ferguson CPA Kermit Christman PB Shakespeare Festival Joe Catrambone Martin Film Liaison Wylie Green St. Lucio Fam Liaison Monte Markham HonoraryMember ADVISORY BOARD Watson B. Duncan 1a Chairman Emeritus Actcmus Dee Miller The Casting Directors Douglas W. Neway Christensen Group David Korr Television & Screenwriter Jay Aubrey Producer/Screenwriter Beverly McDermott Film & Television Casting Byron Gray Film Critic Cathy Tully Pearson Coconut Grove Talent Melvin Johnson Casting Director clo Harvey & Associates 305 Delaware Ave., Suite C (Fort Pierce, Florida 34950 (407) 464-8340 Presidents Duce: 103 20th Avenue SW Vero Beach, Florida 32962 (407) 778-8861 James C. Price Asst Curator/Humanities Vero Beach Center tor the Arts October 10, 1991 County Clerk Indian River County Board of County Commissioners 184025th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Dear Sir or Madam: I wish to request to be placed on the agenda to go before the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, October 22. My purpose for addressing the Commission is to request the written support from the Board for our Film Society, welcoming our various educational, historical, social, and entertainment programs into the Indian River County community, as well as endorsing our efforts to seek grants and private donations to renovate, preserve and utilize the theatre in Bob Brackett's Theatre Plaza in downtown Vero Beach. With Mr. Brackett's support and cooperation, it is our intention to save the theatre, convert it into a film museum dedicated to Florida's film industry, use it as a headquarters for our film society (and the projected annual Sunshine State Film/Visual Arts Festival), and work with various other local arts, cultural and'bivic organizations to fully utilize the facility for the cultural betterment of the community. The letter I'm requesting from the Board will be used as a support document in our various grant applications and fund raising efforts. I have already supplied each commissioner with material. -about our organization and its goals. I will be out of the state until Monday, October 21. If you need to communicate with me prior to that, please contact the Society's Secretary, Mary Anne Harvey, at Harvey & Associates, 464-8340, in Ft. Pierce. e Thank you for your consideration. Shawn McAllister President & Executive Director 18 Shawn McAllister, president and executive director of the Society, presented their request for a letter of support from the County Commission which would be used as a support document in applying for various grant applications. Commissioner Eggert stated for the record that the grant application states -that this money has to be used only for this theatre and cannot be used for anything else. Mr. McAllister confirmed that to be correct. They have been notified by the State that the application has been rejected and are in the process of applying for an acquisition and planning grant through the State of about $20,000. After that, they will apply for a $250,000 grant through the federal government, which is a non-matching grant. Some of the grants that they are pursuing, however, will be matching grants. Commissioner Eggert wished to have a copy of the new grant application, and Mr. McAllister stated he would send her copies of all applications. ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously authorized the provision of a letter of support for the Treasure Coast Film & Visual Arts Society, Inc. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A GENERAL LIEN PROVISION WHEN COUNTY FUNDS ARE EXPENDED TO BRING ABOUT CONFORMITY WITH THE IRC CODE 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: PUBLIC HEARING FOR PROPOSED ORDINANCE The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, hereby provides notice of a Public Hearing scheduled for 9:05 a.m. on Tuesday, October 22, 1991. to discuss the following pro- posed ordinance entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUN- TY, FLORIDA, ESTABLISHING A GEN- ERAL LIEN PROVISION WHEN COUNTY FUNDS ARE EXPENDED TO BRING ABOUT CONFORMITY WITH THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CODE. ' Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at the Public Hearing on October 22, 1991, will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which Includes testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. Oct. 3, 1991 837980 991 •1g 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 'sliminess Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published a1 Vero Beach In Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy oI advertisement, being In the matter of (C / ye/41 In the lished in said newspaper In the issues of Court. was pub. !l6/ Alf lent lurther says That the said Vero Beach Press -Journal Is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, FtoiIda, and trial 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 al the post of ice 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 alflent further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, iron or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose oI securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. 1 Sworn to and subscribed before me this �� _ day oi& A D 19 `1/ r ! ►-- (Business Manager £:+c..•: .. (Gledt_ol the Circuit C�yourt, Indian River County, Florida) (SEAL) Y BOOK l A OCT 22 1991 BOOK 84 FA TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Terrence P. O'Brien - Assistant County Attorne DATE: October 7, 1991 RE: PUBLIC HEARING OCTOBER 22, 1991 - ESTABLISHING A GENERAL LIEN PROVISION From time to time the County takes remedial action to assure compliance with the Indian River County Code._ This sometimes results in expenditure of public funds. In order to assure, to the extent practicable, that the County is reimbursed, lien procedures should be established. pp Staff recommends approval of the attached proposed ordinance. Attorney Vitunac requested that the wording "unless other notice has already been provided" be added at the end of paragraph (b) in Section 1. He felt this should help us get money whenever the County has to spend money to fix property. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance 91-45, establishing a general lien provision when county funds are expended to bring about conformity with the Indian River County Code. 20 ORDINANCE 91- 4 5 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ESTABLISHING A GENERAL LIEN PROVISION WHEN COUNTY FUNDS ARE EXPENDED TO BRING ABOUT CONFORMITY WITH THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CODE. WHEREAS, from time to time the County takes remedial action to assure compliance with the Code; and WHEREAS, said action often results in the expenditure of public funds; and WHEREAS, logic and orderly administration dictate that in many situations the County should be reimbursed for such expenditures; and WHEREAS, a lien provision will assist in any reimbursement, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION 1. AMENDMENT. A new section 100.08 is added to the Code of Ordinance of Indian River County to read as follows: Section 100.08 Liens Generally. a) . Unless specific lien provisions are provided elsewhere in this Code, whenever the County takes action under a provision of this Code that results in the County expending funds to accomplish the specific act required for conformity with the Code, the Board of County Commissioners may cause, by Resolution, a lien to be filed in the Official Record Books of the County against the owner of the property or person responsible for compliance with the Code for the costs incurred by the County. Notice of intent to adopt a lien resolution shall be given to the proposed lienee. Said lienee may appear before the Commission and be heard on the proposed lien resolution. b) . The lien and notice provisions of Chapter 162, Florida Statute, shall pertain with consequential changes unless other notice has already been provided. SECTION 2. SEVERABILITY. If any section, or if any sentence, paragraph, phrase, or word of this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, inoperative, or void, such holding shall not affect the remaining portions of this ordinance, and it shall be construed to have been the legislative intent to pass the ordinance without such unconstitutional, invalid or inoperative part. iriCT221 21 POOK CCT 22 '99 BOOK SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall become effective on becoming law. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, on this 22 day of October , 1991. This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press - Journal on the 3 day of October , 1991, for a public hearing to be held on the 22 day of October , 1991, at which time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner Bowman and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Eggert , and, adopted by the following vote: Chairman Richard N. Bird Ay e Vice Chairman Gary C. Wheeler Ay e Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Ay e -. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By Richard N. Bird Chairm. 0 Attest by PUBLIC HEARING - ROYAL POINCIANA PARK WATER SERVICE PROJECT - RESOLUTION III 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: 22 VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Dally 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 Bleach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement. being in the matter of l•i,r1 In the Court. was pub. Iished In said newspaper In the Issues of i-` Lir / Al tient 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 mall matter al the post off ice in Vero Beach. in said Indian River Court. ly, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the lirst publication of the attached copy of advertisement: and alliant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person. firm or corporation any discount, rebate. commission or relund for the purpose of securing This advertisement for publication In Ile said newspaper. r � r SwOm to and subscribed�,�+elorpme th!is. luau day o1,1,A:L•f/_ t• A 0 19 F r `i e (- ,' t4..7te D. (l 4" r, /.rtaushlees Manager) V t cit (SEAL) r: t.r t; OM1. . •r .. PUBLIC HEARING — - SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS • WATERLINE EXTENSION — ROYAL POINCIANA PARK The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, hereby provides notice of PUBLIC HEARING scheduled for 9:05 A.M. on TUESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 1991, to discuss a pro- posed resolution relating to a SPECIAL ASSESS- . MENT PROJECT in Indian River County for the In- stallation of a WATER SERVICE IN ROYAL POIN- CIANA PARK, and providing for special assessment liens to be made of record on the properties to be served. 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 testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. Oct. 7,14,1991 839089 James Chastain, Manager of Utility Assessment Projegts, presented the following staff recommendation for adoption\of Resolution III which affirms the preliminary assessment on the subject project: DATE: OCTOBER 9, 1991 TO: FROM: PREPARED AND STAFFED BY: SUBJECT: JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TERRANCE G. PINTO DIRECTOR OF UTILITY S $aVICES JAMES D. CHASTAI4 MANAGER OF ASSEe ME ,►' PROJECTS DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES ROYAL POINCIANA PARR WATER SERVICE PROJECT RESOLUTION III INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -90 -18 -DS BACKGROUND On October 1, 1991, the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners approved Resolution I (91-154), which contained the preliminary assessment roll describing the project and cost, and Resolution II (91-155), setting the date of the public hearing for the subject project. Property owners have been notified of the public hearing by certified mail. Resolution 91-154 was published in the Vero Beach PRESS JOURNAL on October 7, 1991. (See attached agenda item and minutes of the above meeting.) 23 OCT 22 199 • Pr - OCT CCT 22 19g' BOOK ANALYSIS Design of the water distribution system is complete. Approval of the attached Resolution III will confirm and approve the preliminary assessment. The attached map displays the area to benefit from the assessment project, which is generally bordered by 4th and 6th Streets and 20th and 12th Avenues. There will be 316 1/2 lots to benefit from and be assessed in this 369 -lot subdivision, due to existing water lines on portions of 18th Court, 6th Street, 12th and 20th Avenues; 186.5, or 58.9% of the lots benefitting -have been signed for on the petition by the owners. There are 198 (owners) tax parcel I.D. numbers in the assessment. _ Possibly the only unusual aspects of this assessment is that within the project, there is a privately -owned 85,015 square foot parcel containing a lake. A., review of this property with the Planning Department resulted in =their opinion that "it appears very likely that a couple of residences could meet the requirements to be constructed at the south end of the lake on the north side of 4th Lane;" therefore, 13,020 square feet is included in this assessment. The site containing the lake is 17.3.5 x 490 feet and was purchased in December 1989 for $19,000.00 (attached are copies of a map and memorandum). All of the lots in this project are substandard or "undersized," according to Indian River County's Comprehensive Plan, and the County Public Health Unit, Division of Environmental Health, -which require that new lots utilizing well and septic systems be a minimum of one-half acre. If served by a public water system, the lot may be reduced to one-quarter acre in size. Lots not meeting these minimum standards are called "undersized lots." The total estimated cost -to be assessed is $257,428.28. The cost per square foot is $0.12609965. RECOMMENDATION L: The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the "Board of County Commissioners approve Resolution III, which affirms the preliminary assessment on the subject project. Mr. Chastain advised that in addition to the petitions in favor of the project, he would like to place on record a notarized letter from Hilda and Howard Massey who strongly support the assessment project. There were two property owners who did write letters of opposition, one of whom said their primary objection was that the petition was never submitted to them and they did not have the opportunity to speak in favor or objection. Other than that, there have been no complaints and no opposition. The petition roll has 58% in favor of the assessment project. Commissioner Scurlock asked if these people who will be assessed will be offered the 10 -year payment plan, and Administrator Chandler confirmed that they will be offered a 10 -year plan at 9-3/4%. The Chairman opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. 24 Helen Booth, 1220 5th Street, stated that she started the petition drive two years ago and went to every house with the help of two neighbors. She wrote to people on the tax assessment on her own stationery, using her stamps, and she is sorry if she missed one person. Mrs. spoke strongly and eloquently in favor of the water project, emphasizing the many advantages of having county water. On behalf of the petitioners, she urged the Board to affirm the preliminary assessment on the project. There being no others who wished to be heard, the Chairman closed the Public Hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 91-161, confirming the special assessments in connection with a waterline extension in Royal Poinciana Park and providing for special assessment liens to be made of record. PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD 25 OCT 22;99 nor � 41 F� ;E bi OCT 221991 ROOK .RESOLUTION NO. 91- 161 A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONFIRMING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH A WATERLINE EXTENSION IN ROYAL POINCIANA PARK AND PROVIDING FOR SPECIAL ASSESSMENT LIENS TO BE MADE OF RECORD.. F' AGE - 121 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County has, by Resolution No. 91-154, adopted October 1, 1991, determined to make special assessments against certain properties to be serviced by a waterline extension of the County located in the area of Royal Poinciana Park; and WHEREAS, said resolution described the manner in which said special assessments shall be made and how said special assessments are to be paid; and WHEREAS, the resolution was published as required by Section 11-52, Indian River County Code; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County passed Resolution No. 91-155, on October 1, 1991, which set a time and place for a public hearing at which the owners of the properties to be assessed and other interested persons would have the chance to be heard as to any and all complaints as to said project and said special assessments, and for the Board to act as required by Section 11-53, Indian River County Code; and WHEREAS, notice of the time and place of the public hearing was published in the Press Journal Newspaper on Monday, October 7, 1991, and October 14, 1991 (twice one week apart; the last being at least one week prior to the hearing) , as required by Section 11-52, Indian River County Code; and WHEREAS, the land owners of record were mailed notices at least ten days prior to the hearing, as required by Section 11-52, Indian River County _ Code; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of' Indian River County on Tuesday, October 22, 1991, at 9:05 a.m. conducted the public hearing with regard to the special assessments, 26 RESOLUTION NO. 91-161 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows: 1. The special assessments shown on the attached assessment roll are hereby confirmed and approved, and shall remain legal, valid, and binding first liens against the properties assessed until paid in full. 2. The County will record the special assessments and this resolution, which describes the properties assessed and the amounts of the special assessments, on the public records, which shall constitute prima facie evidence of the validity of the special assessments. The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner S c u r 1 o c k , and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Eggert and, upon being put tm a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Richard N. Bird Ay e Vice Chairman Gary C. Wheeler Ay e Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Ay e Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Ay e The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 2 2 day of October, 1991. Attachment: ASSESSMENT ROLL OCT 22 199i BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA ichard N. Bird Chairman By Indian River Go. Approved Admin. Legal Budget Utilities Rick Mgr. Date 2 7 BOOK 84 1 --Ad OCT 22 1991 BUUK ��11��,�, P1,6E �.y REQUEST BY ROBERT BRUCE FOR MODIFICATION OF THE BOUNDARY OF THE P10 UNIT OF THE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM The Board reviewed the following memo dated 10/15/91: TO: James Chandler County Administrator FROM: Robert M. Keating, AICP ltA Community Development Director DATE: October 15, 1991 SUBJECT: ROBERT BRUCE'S REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF THE BOUNDARY OF THE P10 UNIT OF THE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCESSYSTEM It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the board of county commissioners at their regular meeting of October 22, 1991. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS: In 1982, congress enacted the Coastal Barriers Resources Act (CBRA) for the purpose of establishing federal policy not to subsidize future development in hazardous coastal barrier areas. As adopted, the CBRA of 1982 designated 186 "undeveloped" areas or units along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts which were subject to the provisions of this act. While the act prohibits all federal expenditures or federal assistance for development in these units, the most notable effect is the prohibition of flood insurance to any new structure located within these Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) units. Of the 186 CBRS units designated in 1982, two are located partially or fully within Indian River County. The P-10 unit is located on the north barrier island, while the P -10A unit is located on the south barrier island. Portions of P -10A are in both Indian River and St. Lucie Counties. As established in 1982, the P-10 unit included the Ambersand Beach Subdivision and other areas in the vicinity of Ambersand. In March of 1982, the board of county commissioners sent a letter of objection to the Department of Interior, objecting to the Department's then proposed maps. Despite that letter of objection and a board resolution -also objecting to the proposed maps, the P- 10 and P -10A units were established in Indian River County. Since that time, construction has continued in Ambersand and the other areas located in the P-10 unit, despite the prohibition of flood insurance for new structures in these areas. According to the Coastal Barriers Resources Act, the Department of Interior was to submit a report to congress regarding the CBRS within three years of the adoption of the Act. Released in 1987, this draft report recommended a number of changes to the CBRS, including a substantial expansion of the P-10 unit in Indian River County. As proposed by the Department of Interior, P-10 would be expanded to incorporate almost the entire unincorporated area north of the boundary of the Town of Indian River Shores as well as the area within the Town of Orchid. 28 In response to the 1987 report and its recommendations, the North Beach Property Owners Association was formed to lobby against the proposal. In addition the board of county commissioners :passed resolution 87-49 and sent a letter to the Department of Interior which not only objected to the expansion of the P-10 unit, but recommended that the P-10 unit be deleted entirely from the coastal barrier resources system. As a result of the 1987 report by the Department of Interior on the Coastal Barrier Resources System, Congress passed the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990 (CBIA). Signed into law on November 16, 1990, the CBIA substantially expands the overall-CBRS. Not only did the CBIA fail to expand the P-10 unit of the CBRS as originally recommended by the Department of Interior in its 1987 report; the CBIA eliminated the Ambersand Beach area from the P-10 unit. Attachment 1 depicts the P-10 unit as established by the CBIA and identifies the area previously in P-10 but now excluded with passage of the CBIA. In June of 1991, the planning staff received copies of the maps depicting the revised boundaries of the P-10 and P -10A units of the CBRS as adopted by the CBIA of 1990. Along with those maps, staff received notice that congress delegated to the Department of Interior the authority to. make technical revisions to these maps. This authority, however, only extends to November 16, 1992. Local governments have until December 1, 1991 to submit proposed CBRS minor technical revisions to the Department of Interior. According to the Department, minor technical revisions to the CBRS maps "are not intended to result in major deletions or additions to system units or portions thereof." In reviewing the maps to determine if any minor technical revisions to the,P-10 unit were warranted, staff was contacted by Mr. Robert Bruce. Mr. Bruce, a property owner in the existing P-10 unit, submitted a request to the board of county commissioners that the board petition the Department of Interior to make a minor technical revision to the map by moving the boundary of the P-10 unit of the CBRS south approximately 750 to 800 feet. It is Mr. Bruce's position, as referenced in his recent letter to the board (Attachment #2), that the area requested for removal does not comply with CBRS criteria for inclusion. This change would remove Mr. Bruce's residence from the CBRS and allow him to obtain flood insurance. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS: Staff has reviewed the map changes which have occurred to the P-10 unit as a result of the CBIA of 1990. It appears .that the correspondence by the county and the North Beach Property Owners Association in 1987 was successful in- not only preventing the expansion of the P-10 unit of the CBRS, but also in having the area of the P-10 unit reduced to exclude the Ambersand Beach subdivision. As revised, the P-10 unit now excludes almost all developed areas on the north barrier island. At approximately 456 acres of upland, most of P-10 is undeveloped land with substantial development constraints. Even with the changes made to the P-10 unit, however, the existing designated area of P-10 adversely affects Mr. Bruce's property. Located approximately 600 feet south of the northern boundary of the P-10 unit, Mr. Bruce's residence is ineligible for flood insurance protection. 29 22 ?991 F',0l0FA6E ! , blt) OCT 22 1991 BOOK 4616 F�?Gt Mr. Bruce in his letter cites a part of the -10 hold t at was it which is denser than the one unit per five acre density used to represent "undeveloped" in the CBRS criteria. Based upon that factor, Mr. Bruce feels that the northern portion of the P-10 unit was inappropriately included within the CBRS. However, when one considers the density of the revised P-10 unit,as a whole, that overall density is approximately one unit per 100 acres of upland. As a result, the P-10 unit as a whole meets the CBRS definition of undeveloped, while Mr. Bruce has a valid point that the unit's north boundary should have been drawn several hundred feet south. 3 • Regardless of the specific characteristics of this area, Mr. Bruce's request is consistent with the county's 1982 and 1987 positions regarding the P-10 unit. For that reason, the staff feels that the county can support Mr. Bruce's position. Besides the area referenced by Mr. -Bruce, staff feels that the P-10 area is appropriately designated, since it is mostly land with major development constraints. While correspondence from the Department of Interior indicates that changes of the magnitude requested by Mr. Bruce constitute more than minor technical revisions and therefore can only be made by an act of Congress, staff would recommend that the board authorize staff to send a letter to the Department requesting a modification of the P-10 boundary. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends thatthe board of county commissioners direct staff to draft and authorize the chairman to sign a letter to the Department of Interior requesting that a minor technical revision be made to the P-10 unit of the CBRS moving the north boundary south a distance of 750 feet. M150116NT 111 0 � 0 EXCLUDED .. mw Pio :k. • IlmanPia • • 5 ti. , .. •••••••••••• 6..� \` • `-'v • (•,.• • P10 1.»01 MAO M 051e1 . 1, • 6586 DOW Lan dsplel N W 6� 1M ... .a. M. NMAlseted • . ,1A m. Lotto 7' femowIng 5+ 41.11 =mar. • P10P 15 30 NIB MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, that the Board direct staff to draft and authorize the Chairman to sign a letter to the Dept. of Interior requesting that a minor technical revision be made to the P-10 unit of the CBRS moving the north boundary south a distance of 750 feet. Under discussion, Commissioner Eggert asked if the Bruces had an attorney when they closed on the property, and Mr. Bruce explained that there wasn't a problem in 1978. They didn't know about it when they built their house. Commissioner Bowman stressed that when you take out a mortgage, you must get flood insurance, and Mr. Bruce said that they did get flood insurance for a couple of years. He maintained that when this area was developed in 1983, the Department of Interior made a mistake and should not have included the Ambersand Beach area in the P-10 unit. When they released it in 1990, they did not release enough. He pointed out that there were two houses in the northern section of the excluded area that fit exactly the same circumstances as his area in the south. Commissioner Bowman didn't know what was so magical about having flood insurance because in order to collect anything, your slab would have to be undercut, but Mr. Bruce emphasized that the point is that you can't get a mortgage without it. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion was voted on and carried unanimously. 31 BOOK i` F'AU-6' L OCT 22 1991 I OCT 22 1991 BOOK RICHARD GRAVES' APPEAL OF THE P&Z COMM.'S DENIAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT REQUEST TO CONVERT AN EXISTING HOUSE TO A CHILD CARE FACILITY The Board reviewed the following memo dated 10/15/91: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: Robert M. Keats g, CP Community opm .t Director THROUGH: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: October 15, 1991 Stan Boling, AICP Planning Director ,A���. John W. McCoy, AICP 4\ Senior Planner, Current Development Richard Graves' Appeal of the Planning & Zoning Commission's Denial of an Administrative Permit Request to Convert (Change the Use of) an Existing House to a Child Care Facility It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of October 22, 1991. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: Background Mr. Richard Graves has appealed the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision to deny an administrative permit application to convert (change the use of) an existing house to a child care facility. The property upon which the facility is proposed is located at 7801 85th Street. The subject property is zoned A-1, a district which requires administrative permit approval to establish a child care facility use. An administrative permit use is a use which, because of its scale, duration, or nature, would not generally have an adverse impact on its surroundings when regulated in accord with the standards set forth in the land development regulations (LDRs), which includes specific land use Criteria applicable to the specific use requested. The County may approve, approve with conditions, or deny an administrative approval application. Also,, the county may attach to any approval of an administrative permit reasonable conditions, limitations or requirements which are found necessary in its judgement to further the public health, safety, welfare and ensure compatibility with the surrounding environment. At its regular meeting of September 26, 1991, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously (6-0) to deny the administrative permit use (see Planning Zoning Commission Minutes Attached). The Commission denied the request because the application failed to meet several applicable LDRs, indicating that other socially beneficial uses must comply with all LDR requirements. The applicant has appealed the Commission's decision to the Board of County Commissioners. The Board may uphold or overturn the Commission's decision. To overturn the Commission's decision, the Board would need to find that the application satisfies the applicable LDRs and that the Commission erred in its findings and decision. 32 Project Proposal The applicant filed for administrative permit approval to change the use of an existing home to a child care facility. As required in section 914.04(1) (b) and (c) of the site plan chapter of the county's LDRs, all developments proposing a change of use or requiring administrative permit use approval must file for and obtain site plan approval. In conjunction with the administrative permit request, the applicant also submitted a minor site plan application which has been reviewed by the Technical Review Committee (TRC). In his response to a TRC discrepancy letter, the applicant requested that several substantive sections of h eaeDRS ben" aived" (please see attachment #4). There are, provisions for waiving the requirements that the applicant wishes to be waived. These requirements are basic to properly establishing the requested use and are standards that are equitably applied to all other developers of similar projects. According to the county attorney's office, granting such waivers would not be legal (see attachment #5). The applicant requested that regulations requiring the following not be applied with respect to his project: * paved parking and driveway improvements * drainage and stormwater improvements, especially as related to required paved driveway and parking areas * payment of traffic impact fees The applicant was informed by the staff through the TRC review process that all of the items listed above are improvements required by the code, and that the proposed site plan does tot t meet et all applicable LDRs. Staff also informed the applicant site plan was not ready or "ripe" for Planning & Zoning oin in Commission n consideration. The applicant, as permitted 914.06(5)(e)1 of the site plan chapter, requested that the application request, as submitted, be forwarded for consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The applicant acknowledged that the staff did not consider the application ready for Planning and Zoning Commission consideration due to lack of compliance with PanLDRs (see attachment #8). unanimouslye denied the application reviously indicated, the Planning & Zoning Commission request. ANALYSIS: Project Specifics: 1. Size of Development Area: 2.72 acres 2. Zoning Classification: A-1, 3. Land Use Designation: AG -1 4. Building Area: (Agricultural) existing house: existing garage: Total Note:, The request is to convert the facility. The existing garage would facility and would continue to be area. *5. Total Impervious Area: Existing: Proposed: Total: OCT 22 1991 2,121 892 3,013 sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. existing house to a child care be accessory to the child care used as a garage and storage 21,267 sq.ft. 0 sq. ft. 21,267 sq. ft. 2 33 OCT 2 2 199 800K Note: Although no new impervious area is proposed, required paving would result in an 'increase in impervious surface area. The existing impervious area includes the existing house, garage, and stabilized driveway. 6. Open Space Required: 60% Provided: 82% *7. Traffic Circulation: The applicant has proposed to use a one- way loop driveway (unpaved, marl) to access the project, with parking (unpaved, marl) off of the loop driveway. *8. Off -Street Parking Required: 12 spaces (paved) Provided: 12 spaces (marl) Section 954.10 of the parking chapter requires that all off- street parking areas..shall be paved with either asphalt or concrete, or with other surface types approved by the County engineer. The County Engineer has indicated that the applicant needs to pave the parking lot and driveway in accordance with chapter 954.10. According to the County Engineer, hard surfaces must be used due to the frequency and volume of traffic; the planning staff concurs. Since a child care facility is not an infrequent use and marl is not an approvable parking lot surface for child care facilities, no alternative parking lot treatments are allowed pursuant to Chapter 954... *9. Stormwater Management: The stormwater management plan has not been approved by the Public Works Department. The paving requirements will require the submission of a major site plan application (over -5,000 sq. ft. of new impervious surfaces) in accordance with section 914.14(15)(1) and requirements of chapter 930 (Stormwater Management and Flood Water Protection Ordinance). No applicable stormwater management plan or calculations have been submitted by the applicant. 10. Landscape Plan: The landscape plan meets the tree requirements of Chapter 926. The requirement to screen parking spaces from CR 510 is satisfied by screening provided in the form of existing vegetation and the garage. 11. Utilities: The project, as proposed, would utilize a well and septic system. These utility provisions have been approved by the State Health Department, and they satisfy the Comprehensive P1`an Connection Matrix regulations. The applicant has agreed to execute, but has not. yet executed, a utilities connection agreement with Utilities Services. There would be no additional requirements with a major site plan submittal: *12. Dedication and Improvements: None are applicable with a minor site plan application; however, there will be a sidewalk required along C.R. 510 in conjunction with a major site plan application. *13. Concurrency: A concurrency certificate has not been issued, because the developer has not executed a utilities connection agreement or paid applicable traffic impact fees. 1 14. The following are the specific land use criteria for a child care facility: a. The site shall be located on a paved road with sufficient width to accommodate pedestrian and vehicular traffic generated by the use. The 3 34 *b. facility shall be located near thoroughfares, as designated in the county's major thoroughfare plan, so as to discourage traffic along residential streets in the immediate area. Special passenger loading and unloading facilities shall be provided on the same site for vehicles to pick up or deliver clientele. Such facilities shall include driveways that do not require any back-up movements by vehicles to enter or exit the premises. c. All regulations of the State of Florida that pertain to the use as presently exists or may hereafter be amended shall be satisfied. d. Child care facilities shall provide recreation area(s) and facilities that meet or exceed applicable state standards. The applicant shall supply to the planning division, prior to site plan approval, written acknowledgement from the state that the proposed recreation area(s) and facilities meet or exceed applicable state standards. The applicant shall provide either a 6' opaque buffer or 150' setback between all outdoor recreation areas and adjacent residentially designated properties. A Type "D" buffer will be required, acceptable to the planning department. While the design generally meets and addresses these criteria, criterion "b" could not be effectively satisfied without clear pavement markings. Providing the required parking and pavement markings would satisfy criterion "b". *Note: The request fails to meet LDR requirements related to these items. 15. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Groves/A-1 South: Groves/A-1 East: Groves/A-1 West: Groves/A-1 Child Care Requirements and Issues: In order to determine how other local governments regulate child care centers, staff contacted other county planning departments in the region by telephone. Those contacted were Brevard, Martin, and Palm Beach counties. Answers to staff's inquiries indicate that these other counties would require paved parking and driveway improvements for new child care centers. Also, none of these counties differentiate between child care provided in rural vs. urban areas; the same standard is applied regardless of location or anticipated clientele. Although not strictly a land use or site plan consideration, staff has received information from the Indian River County Child Care Association indicating that a federal child care "voucher system" is soon to be in effect (see attachment #9). The voucher system will apparently allow low income households to seek child care in any child care facility... not just facilities established to primarily serve children from low income households. The.. Child Care Association letter indicates that there are currently openings for children in existing north county child care facilities. 4 OCT 22 1991 35 CjOnK64FAE u� OCT 22 1991 BOOK 8 D,=, Paving Requirements: Justification The change of use to a daycare will significantly increase the intensity of the use on the subject site. The site will go from generating 7-10 average daily trips as a single family house to generating 180-200 average daily trips as a daycare for 70 children. This increase in the intensity of use makes paved driveways and parking areas practical improvements. For this project, paved driveways will provide for a smooth transition from a high speed roadway (C.R. 510) to the paved driveways. In general, drivers have a tendency to slow almost to a stop when turning from a paved road to an unpaved road or driveway, especially during or after rainy periods. Vehicles entering a paved road from an unpaved road will tend to "crawl" onto the edge of pavement, getting. all 4 wheels on the pavement before accelerating. Neither of these types of maneuvers are desirable or ;safe for the proposed daycare,given the anticipated increase in project traffic, the existing rate of speed on C.R. 510 and the 'anticipated increases in C.R. 510 traffic volumes as the area develops. Paved parking areas are necessary specifically for daycares, because paved parking areas allow for the use of pavement markings which help organize the traffic circulation on the site. Pavement markings can guide drivers to the parking spaces, drop-off zones or by-pass lanes. A well organized traffic pattern is important with daycares due to the lack of visibility of small children. Pavement ' also provides a physical symbol for small children indicating that parking and driveway areas are to be used for vehicular traffic and not a play area. In general, paved parking requirements ensure smoother and safer traffic circulation within a project site and ensure smoother and safer circulation and maneuvering to and from the site. The result is a benefit to the operation of the establishment and to the function of the public roadway network. ALTERNATIVES AND SUMMARY As indicated in the Attorneys Office Memo (attachment 6) , there are several options available to the Board of County Commissioners in considering the appeal. Options available to the. Board are as follows: 1. The Board could grant the appeal and approve the administrative permit use for the daycare use, as requested by the applicant. This action would essentially render the LDR requirements referenced above unenforceable for any subsequent daycare applications. Failure to apply the LDR requirements to this application would restrict the county from applying the "waived" LDR requirements to other projects. 2. The Board could deny the appeal, choosing to require satisfaction of the LDRs while at the same time committing to subsidize the required improvements and the traffic impact fee (TIF). Thus, all LDR provisions would be met, and the application would be approvable due to conformance with the LDR requirements. 3. The Board could grant the appeal subject to amending the LDRs to not require the subject improvements. The proposed LDR amendment could attempt to distinguish "urban" from "rural" daycare centers and establish two sets of standards for daycares. However, staff's research indicates that other counties do not make this distinction. Furthermore, a basis for the distinction would be difficult to maintain given the fact that the impacts and requirements of day, care facilities are similar regardless of urban vs. rural location or existing clientele. [Note: the TIF requirement could not be changed 5 36 to waive the fee without possibly jeopardizing the entire TIF ordinance.] The staff feels the subject improvements are necessary for this type of development for the reasons cited earlier in this report. Also, it should be noted that amending the LDRs would significantly affect other future projects. 4. The Board could deny the appeal due to a failure to satisfy applicable LDR requirements. This action would confirm that the county's applicable LDR requirements are appropriate. The use and site plan request fails to meet the following LDR requirements: (1) driveway and parking area paving requirements (954.10) (2) stormwater management requirements (930.07) (3) major site plan application requirements (914.14(15)(1)) (4) sidewalk requirements (914.15(6)) (5) concurrency requirements (910.07(1)(b)) The wording of the LDR sections not satisfied by the subject request can be found in attachment #8. Since the county does not have legal provisions for waiving or not applying these requirements, and since the LDR requirements are necessary and appropriate, the application, as submitted, must be denied. Therefore, this appeal must be denied, and the Planning & Zoning Commission's decision to deny the submitted application must be upheld. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners choose "option 4" and deny the appeal and uphold the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision to deny the administrative permit use approval request due to the applicant's failure to submit a site plan which complies with the applicable land development regulations. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Application 2. Location Map 3. Site Plan 4. Applicant's Letter 5. Attorney's Memo 6. Applicant's Appeal letter 7. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes 8. Land Development Regulation Excerpts 9. Letters Received Relating to the Project APPROVAL AGENDA ITEM: FOR: 10 a2 Z \u\c\j\graves.pz OCT 22 1991 37 ROCK:. .,.,C 6 OCT 22 1999 BOOK 84 Jt d Robert Keating, Community Development Director, showed a graphic plan of the facility indicating the location of the existing driveway on the side, unpaved parking spaces, etc. He reviewed staff's memo regarding the requirements for administrative permit use and the need for a minor site plan submittal due to the change of use. Commissioner Scurlock asked if there is an ability to do any alternatives to the concrete paving, and Director Keating advised that there are alternatives, but they end up being more expensive than concrete paving. There are exceptions for infrequent use, but considering the number of trips this use will generate, staff recommends paved parking spaces. Commissioner Scurlock understood there are 4 issues here: 1) Paved parking 2) Sidewalk 3) Impact fee for transportation 4) Stormwater requirements triggered by the parking Director Keating advised that staff checked with other counties and confirmed that we are not being unduly restrictive with regard to child care centers. Commissioner Scurlock understood there is no ability within our ordinances to waive the impact fees for water, sewer and transportation, and Administrator Chandler confirmed that to be correct. However, if the Commission was so inclined, the fees could be funded by the County from another source. Director Keating directed the Board's attention to the following memo written by Assistant County Attorney Will Collins: TO: FROM: 00 Robert M. Keating - Community Development Director William G. Collins II - Deputy County Attorney DATE: September 19, 1991 SUBJECT: Graves Request for Waiver of Ordinances Relating to Day Care Centers You have advised me that Richard Graves has applied for approval of a day care center which does not meet many of our ordinance requirements. He has asked to be heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission despite the fact the ordinances are not met by the submitted development plan. 38 The Board of County Commissioners has the power to rescind any ordinance which it finds too onerous. However, neither the Board nor- its employees can waive the terms of ordinances established to protect the public health, safety and welfare. Any "waiver" of the application of the ordinances would constitute an arbitrary and capricious act, that is, holding different applicants to different standards. It would result in any future applicant for a day care center being able to successfully challenge any of the "waived" ordinances. In other words, each chapter or section of our ordinances for which a "waiver" is requested would be unenforceable in the. future. I note in particular that there is a request for waiver of traffic impact fees. Traffic impact fees cannot be waived. A decision could be made to subsidize a private development at public expense, but the funds to offset the impacts of new development must be paid into the trust account established for the district in which the new land development activity is proposed. CONCLUSION: 1. The County Commission can rescind any ordinances. 2. Ordinances which are in effect cannot be waived on a selective basis. 3. Certain of our ordinances have waiver provisions built into them if certain criteria are met. Any request for waivers provided for in our ordinances can be processed per the Code. 4. Traffic impact fees cannot be waived. 5. If the proposed day care center is approved, a concurrent recommendation should be made to rescind all the ordinances for which "waivers" are granted. • - The Chairman opened the Public Hearing, and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. Richard Graves, applicant, appreciated the Commission's time in taking up this issue. He wished to inform the Board that they do have the ability to amend the requirements in the County's ordinances pertaining to child care facilities. The need for affordable day care is perhaps the most crucial issue in the county. Some children of migrant grove workers are either left at home with older children or they spend the day in the back of a car. Headstart is able to serve only one out of five children in this state. At the start of this school year in this county, there were 150 3-5 year old children waiting for child care programs. Mr. Graves explained that his specific proposal is to take an existing house on his grove property and convert it to a child care, pre-school facility for children of his citrus employees. Their plans call for doing everything necessary within that house to comply with the requirements for a child care facility. In addition, they are planning to provide a safe playground, safe access to the building and a stabilized parking area. The problem arose when they got to the County requirements OCT 22 1991 39 GU 22 1991 O()K F',iCE for site plan approval. Since the P&Z meeting, a number of things have been resolved, but their argument is that since this is not a private child care facility, the County could waive some requirements for the parking, etc. With respect to the paved parking requirements and stormwater management requirements, Mr. Graves noted that Commissioner Bowman visited the site after a 6 -inch rain and found the property high and dry. With regard to traffic generation, most of the children are on the property already. Mr. Graves referred -to the following letter from School Superintendent Gary Norris to Chairman Bird: Dr. Gary W. Noris Superintendent . School Board Gene Waddell Chairman Sandra Bowden Vico-Chairman - . toe N. Idlette. Jr. Member Gary Lindsey Member Warn L. Marine. Jr. Member School District of Indian River County A CommUNITY Partnership Toward Educational Excellence September 27. 1991 Dick Bird, Chairman Indian River County Commissioner 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 • RE Day Care Facilities Zoning Dear Chairman Bird: 11 9 -` 007-7 p roy 91 :.� ,-4-, �£(pp UNIjy CD i FNT�FpT, Vo On .behalf of the Indian River County c ool District, I sincerely request that you permit Mr. Richard Graves to proceed with a day care facility by removing requirements for paving, drainage improvement, and a $2,000 road impact fee. If the county would please consider absorbing these fees, 50-60 preschoolers could attend the facility and begin making preparations to enter our Public School System. The State of Florida's #1 goal is readiness of children to start school. In the absence of a Children's Services Council and the accompany- ing loss of 2.2 million dollars of revenue that a 1/2 mill tax would generate, . we must an work, together to take advantage of offers . from generous citizens. like Mr. Richard Graves. . Sincerely, `rl o_Anc.oJ Dr. G Norris Superin dent cc: Jim Chandler, County Administrator School Board Members Richard Graves 40 Mr. Graves wished to point out that the Child Care Association of Indian River County. who are in opposition to his proposal, is a trade association. He maintained that in this instance they are very definitely lobbying. He believed that they are dedicated to the enhancement of for-profit child care centers only and to the benefit of their members. Apparently, it is their opinion that schools for children of low income and migrant families do not assist in the integration of these children into the mainstream of our society. Mr. Graves believed that opinion is not shared by anyone in the school district or anyone in the criminal justice system. If it is the desire of this Commission to restrict child care in such a way that there is no affordable child care, then it is going to be the public's responsibility somewhere along the way to meet the needs of these (less fortunate children. In the meantime, he is offering a solution that will not cost the taxpayers anything, and the only thing he is asking is that the County meet them halfway. Mr. Graves felt there is no doubt of the need for child care in this county or the importance to the welfare of society that proper child care offers, not to mention the welfare of the child. However, he anticipated efforts to fund these services will continue to be shifted from the federal and state levels down to local levels. He urged the Commission to amend the ordinances to allow for innovative solutions to be used and tried by business to solve these problems by having child care services provided on business premises. He believed everything could be resolved if government could work with them rather than against them. At this point he wished to introduce Shannon Tracy, program director for the Redlands Christian Migrant Association. Chairman Bird wished to ask a few questions before hearing from Ms. Tracy, as he understood that it is Mr. Grave's intention to operate this facility as a fringe benefit for his employees without charging any fees. Mr. Graves stated that families would pay according to their ability. They could not charge what the -local child care centers do because the employees could not afford it. Chairman Bird asked what the total cost would be to comply with the additional requirements for the exterior, and Mr. Graves estimated that costs would run $60,000, and when added to the $80,000 costs for the renovation of the building, would be prohibitive to going ahead with the project. Commissioner Bowman wanted someone to explain how this facility will be funded, and Ms. Tracy advised that the Redlands Christian Migrant Association is a non-profit, non-sectarian 41 OCT 22 1991 �. R'. mor U� F'AGE U OCT 22199q [4UOK4 NU organization and are the largest non-profit provider of child care in the United States serving 5800 children in the State of Florida alone. They have various funding sources. In Indian River County they work with migrant Headstart, the school system through their pre -kindergarten early intervention funds, and migrant education funds through the school system. In addition, they have a state-wide contract to administer Title XX services for children of migrant and low income families. Most of the Graves Bros. employees' children would qualify for Title XX funds because they are children of migrant families. Only if the proposed facility is not filled with children from qualified migrant families would it be opened to other children. This facility would be serving children from six weeks to five years old, or about 58 children Commissioner Scurlock understood that the projected costs for subsidizing child care centers for low income families will exceed the rates charged by private child care centers. Ms. Shannon advised that the present cost per child per day is $11.75, but the projected market rate for Indian River County is expected to increase to $14.00 a day. Commissioner Eggert felt everyone agrees there is no question about the need for child care centers for low income families, but stressed that there is no ability for the Board to amend the LDRs today because that process is quite lengthy, requiring two public hearings, etc. Commissioner Wheeler agreed that there is no question of the need, but believed there is a question about who creates the need. He felt the citrus industry should address this and try to fill that need, but Mr. Graves maintained that it isn't just agriculture that generates the need for affordable child care centers. Basically, this county's economy revolves around agriculture and service, and citrus workers' wages are hardly less than those paid by shopkeepers in this town whose workers cannot afford private child care either. Mr. Graves emphasized that while the proposed facility would benefit Graves Brothers, it would help fill the need for affordable child care centers. If this request is denied, Graves Bros. won't be impacted very much. They probably will rent the house because he has had many, many requests from people who want to rent. Chairman Bird inquired about the proposed voucher system, and Director Keating advised that the Indian River County Child Care Association has indicated that a federal child care "voucher system" will be in effect soon. The voucher system apparently will allow low income households to seek child care in any child 42 care facility, not just facilities established to primarily service children from low income households. Ms. Tracy wished to clarify a few items regarding the voucher system. The voucher system will not go in effect until 1992, and the funding will come through the Child Care and Development Block Grant. There will not be a separate pot of money just for the voucher system. The new money that is allocated will go mostly for rate increases to bring it up to market rate. The fact is that the voucher system is going to be used to serve the present 47,000 children in the Title XX program. If a family still qualifies when they come up for redetermination, they will be given the choice of either sending their child to a contracted center or taking the voucher to a private child care center. The point is that the system will not cover any new children, and by the time a migrant family comes here in October or November, those services will be gone and they will not be eligible for Title XX. Many people are of the understanding that the voucher system will give an increased number of families their choice of child care centers, but the realty is that the voucher system is not going to be there for the migrant worker. The Commissioners agreed there is no question on the need, but were concerned that even though the figures show that it costs more to operate subsidized centers, the County is being asked to waive requirements from LDRs and ordinances that have been applied to existing non-profit and private child care centers. Mr. Graves stated that he would have no problem in paying the $2000 traffic impact fees, but it is the sidewalk and paving requirements that are making the project infeasible. After a brief discussion regarding the ability to waive the escrow requirements for sidewalk and paving requirements, Director Davis suggested that Graves Bros. do the major part of the paving project inhouse since they have much of the necessary heavy equipment on hand, and then contract out for the parts of the job they cannot do. Chairman Bird asked if there were any others who wished to be heard in this matter. Claudia McNulty, director of the elementary programs for the School District of Indian River County, was strongly in support of Mr. Graves' concept of private child care for his workers on his work site. It is a concept that many school districts and agencies around the state are encouraging. The School District has been involved in a pre -kindergarten early intervention program for the past 3 years. Currently the School District is 43 CT 22 199 EooK O4 PAGE bib CCT 22199 BOOK 84 F,', E 0 serving approximately 130 children and most of these children are in contract slots throughout the community, either in private or non-profit centers. As of yesterday, there is a waiting list for these services of 33 three-year olds and 34 four-year olds. There are spaces in private child care centers if funding was available. The point she wished to make is that with all the efforts going on in our community between private child care centers, the various agencies, Headstart, Title XX, and the School District, there are still a Targe number of children needing these services. --Ms. McNulty felt it is an exciting concept for an employer to be willing to put in the effort and the funding to provide a facility on his grounds, and she hoped the Board would give strong consideration to everyone working together to make these kinds of things possible for the students of our community. Lenore Quimby, owner of "For Kids Only" Child Care Center, wished to clarify a couple of points. She read aloud the following statement: Graves Migrant Daycare 10/22/91 If you the County Commissioners feel drainage, road paving, impact fees and parking requirements presently required for ChildCare Centers are too stringent - then I encourage you to not only waive these items for the proposed Graves Migrant ChildCare Center but ask that you delete them for all ChildCare Centers. if you waive these items today, we may in the future allow Centers to operate that do not offer safe and professional places for children. As you consider these waivers today, 1 would remind the Commission that the doors would be open for waivers for other Centers in the future. To waive these requirements because the clientele to be served is migrant would be to say we have one set of standards for migrants and another set for everyone else. 1 believe all children and their families deserve 'a professional place for their children and these exterior requirements are a part of that standard. To waive these requirements because the organization which will operate the proposed Graves ChildCare Center is a nonprofit would be saying that the County has 1 set of standards for nonprofits and another set for profits. A nonprofit childcare and a profit childcare are paid exactly the same fee for a migrant child. The corporation status or a profit or non-profit makes no difference to the state and/or federal agency when they purchase childcare for migrant or other economically disadvantaged child. In fact, the non-profit is at an advantage over the profit - because although they receive, the same amount of reimbursement per child - the non-profit pays no property tax, no sales tax. Thank you for your careful consideration of the matter before you as it will certainly affect the standard for childcare facilities in the future. 44 Dr. Donna Skinner, president of Child Care Association in Indian River County, spoke of their concern of the precedence this would set if the County waived any restrictions for Mr. Graves' proposed child care facility. Currently there are 81 open spaces in the north county area private child care centers. She stressed the advantages of integrating these children at an earlier age rather than at the elementary school age. The Association is opposed to the granting of any variances for this facility. Nancy Offutt, government affairs coordinator for the Vero Beach/Indian River County Board of Realtors, advised that the Board of Realtors is on record that one of its policies is to avoid distinction in land use matters between profit and not for profit. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved staff's recommendation for upholding the denial by the PBZ, but referred the matter to the Professional Services Advisory Committee to see ways can be found to provide more affordable child care in Indian River County, on an equal basis for both private and non- profit facilities, without lowering the County's standards to the point that it is not a safe, healthy experience for the child. IRC COURTHOUSE PROJECT - ASBESTOS SURVEY SERVICES CONTRACT The Board reviewed the following memo dated 10/16/91: TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OCTOBER 16, 1991 THRU: JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTO -DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES SUBJECT: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE PROJECT ASBESTOS SURVEY SERVICES CONTRACT BACKGROUND: At their regular meeting on September 17, 1991, the Board awarded the bid for the subject services, to Environmental Aspecs, Inc. A contract has been prepared by our legal staff for the scope of work - on this project. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends Board approval of the contract and requests authorization for the Chairman to execute the applicable documents. 45 DCT 22 1991 EOGK F'AGE bc1 i OCT 22 199E aoor84 a p, - by ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved the asbestos survey services contract with Environmental Aspecs, Inc. CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD IRC COURTHOUSE PROJECT - PURCHASE OF VERO PRINTING PROPERTY The Board reviewed the following memo dated 10/14/91: DATE: OCTOBER 14, 1991 HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THRU: JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVI SUBJECT: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE PROJECT PURCHASE OF VERO PRINTING PROPERTY BACKGROUND: The subject property is located in Block 45, on lot 12 and east 75' of lots 13 and 14 in downtown Vero Beach. This block is the site of the new courthouse. Staff has negotiated a total price of $458,157.00 for this parcel, broken down as follows: Property Moving Expenses Legal Expense ANALYSIS: Cost of the property is the last year. Although actual agreed on the above figure. $275,000.00 168 157.00 15,000.00 high appraised value that was submitted moving cost were higher, the owner has RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends purchase of the property at $458,157.00 and requests authorization to proceed with the transaction. Also, authorize the Chairman to execute the applicable documents. 46 MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, that the Board approve the purchase agreement in the amount of $458,157, authorize staff to proceed with the transaction, and authorize the Chairman to execute the applicable documents. Under discussion, Administrator Chandler advised that a couple of details need to be cleaned up before closing. These are items we got into with the attorney for the property owner after we had submitted the purchase item to the Commission. Basically, staff is recommending approval of the following items that are in addition to what has been presented previously to the Commission, with an additional cost of $6,500-$6,800: 1) That the County pick up the cost of the documentary stamps. 2) That the County pick up the taxes from May 14, 1991, when the property was vacated. 3) That the County pay $3,126 in impact fees which the property owner had to pay going to into a new facility, since the County will receive credit from the City in terms of those impact fees on the property for the courthouse it is developed. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK ADDED APPROVAL OF THE ADDITIONAL THREE ITEMS TO HIS MOTION. The Motion was voted on and carried unanimously. AGREEMENT OF PURCHASE AND SALE IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION - SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF ST. AUGUSTINE CANTERBURY EPISCOPAL CHURCH, 43RD AVENUE The Board reviewed the following memo dated 10/11/91: TO: James Chandler County Administrator THROUGH: James W. Davis, P. Public Works Directo and Roger D. Cain, P. County Engineer FROM: Donald G. Finney, SRA-) CountyCounty Right of Way Agent SUBJECT: Right of Way Acquisition; Site Plan Approval of St. Augustine Canterbury Episcopal Church, 43rd Avenue DATE: OCT 22 199 October 11, 1991 47 BurlO Cr" FA6E OCT 22 1991 L O0K DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS FAG,. 10 feet (10') of additional right of way is needed along 43rd Avenue for compliance with the approved comprehensive plan. The value of the 4,002 square foot right of way, based on $.62 per square toot, is $2,481.00. Pursuant to the property owner's letter of September 16, 1991 to Carter Associates, Inc., the owner is willing to sell the proposed 10 foot (10') right of way to Indian River County for the amount equal to the traffic impact fee for this site. Since this fee has alreay been paid, a direct purchase is 'recommended. RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING Staff requests authorization for $2,348.11,. to purchase the 10' right of way to the County. Commissioner Eggert asked which of the two amounts mentioned in the memo is correct, and Director Davis confirmed that the correct figure is $2,348.11, which is the amount of the impact fee. ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously authorized the purchase of the 10 -ft. right-of-way in the amount of $2,348.11, as recommended by staff. AS -BUILT RESOLUTIONS & ASSESSMENT ROLLS FOR PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO 15TH PLACE, 35TH AVENUE, AND 85TH AVENUE The Board reviewed the following memo dated 10/14/91: TO: James Chandler County Administrator THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E. Public Works Director and Roger D. Cain, P.E. County, Engineer DATE: FROM: Michelle A. Gentile, Civil Engineer SUBJECT: CET As -Built Resolutions & Assessment Drainage Improvements to: 1) 15th Place between U.S. 2) 35th Avenue between 4th 3) 85th Avenue & 85th Subdivision 48 October 14, 1991 Rolls for Paving and 1 & 7th Avenue Street & 6th Street Court in Paradise Park DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS The paving of the assessments are as 15th Place 2) 35th Avenue 3) 85th Avenue & 85th Court Paradise Park above roads have been follows: Preliminary Estimates $12,921.87_- 100% $ 9,691.40 - 75% (2.79 Acres) $ 3,473.62/per Acre Preliminary Estimates $44,039.49 - 100% $33,029.62 - 75% (1166.30 Front Footage) $28.32/per FF Preliminary $196,146.89 $147,110.17 - (113 Parcels) $1,301.86/per Estimates 100% 75% Parcel completed. The final Final Cost $12,662.23 - 100% $ 9,686.60 - 75%* (2.79 Acres) $ 3,471.90/per Acre Final Cost $32,778.36 - 100% $25,075.45 - 75%* (1166.30 Front Footage) $21.50/per FF Driveway Costs $ 6,161.00 - 100% $ 4,620.75 - 75%** Final Cost $153,898.61 - 100% $117,732.44 - 75%* (113 Parcels) $1,041.88/per Parcel Driveway Costs $26,864.49 - 100% $20,148.37 - 75%** * This figure includes 2% Tax Collector's fee. ** See Assessment Roll for individual cost to each property owner. The final assessment rolls have been prepared and are ready to be! delivered to the Clerk to the Board. Assessments for 85th Avenue & 85th Court in Paradise Park Subdivision and 15th Place are to be paid within 90 days or in 2 equal installments, the first to be made twelve months from the due date and subsequent payments to be due yearly from the due date at an interest rate of 9.75 stablished by the Board of County Commissioners. During the public hearing for paving 35th Avenue, the Board extended the payment schedule to five years. The assessments are to be paid within 90 days or in five equal installments, the first to be made twelve months from the due date and subsequent payments to be due yearly from the due date at an interest rate of 9.,75%. The assessment roll for 35th Avenue, and 85th Avenue and 85th Court show a cost for driveway construction. This driveway construction work was provided on these roadsdue to the Stormwater Management System and the need to prevent erosion of drives and eliminate the possibility of maintenance problems to drives. On 85th Avenue and 85th Court in Paradise Park Subdivision, some driveways were larger than others and therefore the total cost for some parcels having the larger drives, including the cost of paving and drainage total exceeded the preliminary assessment. In this case the preliminary assessment figure was used as the final assessment cost. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS Since the final assessment to the benefitted owners is less than or equal to the preliminary assessment roll, the only alternative presented is to approve the final assessment rolls. 49 OCT 22 1991 E OGr i PAGE b:j OCT 22 1991 BOOK RECOMMENDATION ,r? It is recommended that the final assessment roll and the "As -Built Resolutions" for the paving of the above mentioned roads be approved by the Board of County Commissioners and that it be transferred to the Office of the Clerk to the Board for recording in the "Official Records Book" and to the Tax Collector's office for collection. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved staff's recommendation, as set out in the above memo, and adopted Resolution 91-162, certifying "as -built" costs for certain paving and drainage improvements to 15th Place between U.S. 1 and 63rd Avenue, designated as Project No. 8820. FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved staff's recommendation, as set out in the above memo, and adopted.Resolution 91-163, certifying "as -built" costs for certain paving and drainage improvements to 35th Avenue between 4th Street and 6th Street, designated as Project No. 8903. FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved staff's recommendation, as set out in the above memo, and adopted Resolution 91-164, certifying "as -built" costs for certain paving and drainage improvements to 85th Avenue and 85th Court in Paradise Park Subdivision, designated as Project No. 8822. FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD 50 cg? Iiiiirilt (Fourth Reso.) 8/22/91(ENG)RES4.MAG\gfk RESOLUTION NO. 91-162 A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CERTIFYING "AS -BUILT" COSTS FOR CERTAIN PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO 15TH PLACE BETWEEN U.S. 1 AND 63RD AVENUE, .DESIGNATED AS PROJECT NO. 8820, AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION NECESSITATED BY SUCH PROJECT; PROVIDING FOR FORMAL COMPLETION DATE, AND DATE FOR PAYMENT WITHOUT PENALTY AND INTEREST. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County determined that the improvements described herein specially benefited the property located within the boundaries as described in this title, designated as Project No. 8820, are in the public interest and promote the public welfare of the county; and WHEREAS, on June 5, 1990, the Board held a public hearing in the Commission Chambers at which time the owners of the property to be assessed were afforded an opportunity to appear before the Board to be heard as to the propriety and advisability of making such improvements; and WHEREAS, after such public hearing was held the County Commission adopted Resolution No. 90-71, which confirmed the special assessment cost of the project to the property specially benefited by the•project in the amounts listed in an attachment to that resolution; and WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works has certified the actual "as -built" cost now that the project has been completed is $3,471.90 per acre, which is less than $3,473.62 per acre in the confirming Resolution No. 90-71, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, •that: 1. Resolution No. 90-71 is modified as follows: The completion date for Project No. 8820 is declared to be October, 22, 1991, and the last day that payment may be made avoiding interest and penalty charges is ninety (90) days after passage of this resolution. 2. Payments bearing interest at the rate of 9.75/ per annum may be made in two equal installments, the first to be made twelve (12) months from the due date and the 3. 51 OCT 2 2 199 "tet r:Ar1f PP" OCT 22 199�a No. 91-162 POOK1 pA IJL 6P3l subsequent payments to be due yearly from the due date. The due date is ninety (90) days after the passage of this resolution. 3. The final assessment roll for said project is as set forth in attached Exhibit "A". 4. The assessments as shown in attached Exhibit "A" shall stand confirmed and remain legal, valid, and binding first liens against the property against which such assessments are made until paid. 5. The assessments shown in attached Exhibit "A" will be recorded by the County on the public records of Indian River County, and the lien shall constitute prima facie evidence of its validity. This resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Scurlock , and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Eggert and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Richard N. Bird Vice -Chairman Gary C. Wheeler Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 22 day of 19_9j. Attest: October BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN IVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By RIC D N. BIRD, Chairman JEFF1tEY K. BARTON, Clerk 111/1/441r .W� d Attachment: Exhibit "A" 15asblt.res 2 52 Admin. Legal audget Eng • Dept Risk Mgr. ApprRved mmi wpm nano ragsmEN Date 7-J (.1 i L- 1 -1 / built (Fourth Reso.)-8/22/91(ENG)RES4.MAG\gfk 1111111 RESOLUTION NO. 91- 163 A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CERTIFYING "AS -BUILT" COSTS FOR CERTAIN PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO 35TH AVENUE BETWEEN 4TH STREET AND 6TH STREET, DESIGNATED AS PROJECT NO. 8903, AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION NECESSITATED BY SUCH PROJECT; PROVIDING FOR FORMAL COMPLETION DATE, AND DATE FOR PAYMENT WITHOUT PENALTY AND INTEREST. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County determined that the improvements described herein specially benefited the property located within the boundaries as described in this title, designated as Project No. 8903, are in the public interest and promote the public welfare of the county; and WHEREAS, on June 5, 1990, the Board held a public hearing in the Commission Chambers at which time the owners of the property to be assessed were afforded an opportunity to appear before the Board to be heard as to the propriety and advisability of making such improvements; and WHEREAS, after such public hearing was held the County Commission adopted Resolution No. 90-73, which confirmed the special assessment cost of the project to the property specially benefited by the project in the amounts listed in an attachment to that resolution; and WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works has certified the actual "as -built" cost now that the project has been completed is $21.50 per front foot, which is less than $28.32 per front foot in the confirming Resolution No. 90-73, plus $4,620.75 for driveways which is distributed as shown on the Assessment Roll for this project. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: 1. Resolution No. 90-73 is modified as follows: The completion date for Project No. 8903 is declared to be October 22, 1991, and the last day that payment- may be made avoiding interest and penalty charges is ninety (90) days after passage of this resolution. 1 53 flc- 22 1991 BOOK K 84 FAGS cji CT 221991 No. 91-163 8:00 0 4FE 2. Payments bearing interest at the rate of 9.75/ per annum may be made in five equal installments, the first to be made twelve (12) months from the due date and the subsequent payments to be due yearly from the due date. The due date is ninety (90) days after the passage of this resolution. • 3. The final assessment roll for said project is as set forth in attached Exhibit "A". 4. The assessments as shown in attached Exhibit "A" shall stand confirmed and remain legal, valid, and binding first liens against the property against which such assessments are made until paid. 5. The assessments shown in attached Exhibit "A" will be recorded by the County on the public records of Indian River County, and the lien shall constitute prima facie evidence of its validity. This resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Scurlock , and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Fggtart and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Richard N. Bird Vice -Chairman Gary C. Wheeler Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Commissioners Carolyn K. Eggert Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 22 day of October 19.1u. Attest: JEFFREY K. BARTON, Clerk /.. l/)r /__ _�_..,//,, • Attachment: 35ave.res Exhibit "A" BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIANIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By4.--e!td7 54 RICHARD N. BIRD, Chairman 2 /tet i Adrnin. Legal ducgel Appr,ved Eng, Dept Risk Mgr MI t� IIIII'ilt (Fourth Reso.) 8/22/91(ENG)RES4.MAG\gfk� RESOLUTION NO. 91-164 A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CERTIFYING "AS -BUILT" COSTS FOR CERTAIN PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO 85TH AVENUE AND 85TH COURT IN PARADISE PARK SUBDIVISION, DESIGNATED AS PROJECT NO. 8822, AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION NECESSITATED BY SUCH PROJECT; PROVIDING FOR FORMAL COMPLETION DATE, AND DATE FOR PAYMENT WITHOUT PENALTY AND INTEREST. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County determined that the improvements described herein specially benefited the property located within the boundaries as described in this title, designated as Project No. 8822, are in the public interest and promote the public welfare of the county; and WHEREAS, on June 5, 1990, the Board held a public hearing in the Commission Chambers at which time the owners of the property to be assessed were afforded an opportunity to appear before the Board to be heard as to the propriety and advisability of making such improvements; and WHEREAS, after such public hearing was held the County Commission adopted Resolution No. 90-72, which confirmed the special assessment cost of the project to the'property specially benefited by the project in the amounts listed in an attachment to that resolution; and WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works has certified the actual "as -built" cost now that the project has been completed is $1,041.88 per parcel, which is less than $1,301.86 per parcel in the confirming Resolution No. 90-72, plus $20,148.37 for driveway construction which is distributed as shown on the Assessment Roll for this project. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: 1. Resolution No. 90-72 is modified as follows: The completion date for Project No. 8822 is declared to be October 22, 1991, and the last day that payment may be made avoiding interest and penalty charges is ninety (90) days after passage of this resolution. 1 55 OCT 22 1991 84 P461641 No. 91-164 0 CT 2 2 199 POCK d4 F ,,E 2. Payments bearing interest at the rate , of 9.75%per annum may be made in two equal installments, the first to be made twelve (12) months from the due date and the subsequent payments to be due yearly from the due date. The due date is ninety (90) days after the passage of this resolution. 3. The final assessment roll for said project is as set forth in attached Exhibit "A". 4. The assessments as shown in attached. Exhibit "A" shall stand confirmed and remain legal, valid, and binding first liens against the property against which such assessments are made until paid. 5. The assessments shown in attached Exhibit "A" will be recorded by the County on the public records of Indian River County, and the lien shall constitute prima facie evidence of its validity. This resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner , and the motion was seconded by Scurlock Commissioner Eggert and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Richard N. Bird Aye Vice -Chairman Gary C. Wheeler Aye Commissioner Don C. Scurlock., Jr. Aye Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye t The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 22 day of October 1991. Attest: JEFFREY K. BARTON, Clerk VLWAi:!42_. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ,OF INDIAN IVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By l/� RIC N. BIRD, Chairman Attachment: 85avect.res Exhibit "A" 2 56• /7V/ Admin. Legal au dge t Eng Dept Appr;ve PRIMINEI `= 147.01'2ll iJ tV14_ 2/ /) Ash Mgr. 91 ISSUANCE OF A COUNTY DRIVEWAY CONNECTION PERMIT TO CR -512 WEST OF FEC RAILROAD - SANDWICH SHOP/PUB IN SEBASTIAN The Board reviewed the following memo dated 10/14/91: TO: James E. Chandler, County Administrator FROM: James W. Davis, P.E. Public Works Director SUBJECT: Issuance of a County Driveway Connection Permit to CR 512 West of F.E.C.R.R. DATE: October 14, 1991 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS The City of Sebastian Planning and Zoning Commission recently approved a site plan for a proposed Sandwich Shop and Pub to be located along the south side of CR 512 east of the location where the existing road right-of-way and Gulf and Western Railroad right-of-way diverge. Prior to the City's approval, the County Public Works Department staff informed the City that since the City no longer supports the CR 512 Twin Pairs Project, it may be necessary to acquire additional right-of-way along this project's frontage to widen the existing roadway to four lanes. It was determined that additional right-of-way acquisition along the project's frontage would greatly reduce the size of the small site and the Sandwich Shop/Pub could not fit on the site. The City proceeded to approve the project. At this time, the developer .:.is requesting a right-of-way connection permit from the County to connect a driveway to CR 512 from the site. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS The alternatives are as follows: Alternative No. 1 991 If the CR 512 Twin Pairs Project does not proceed, the most probable alternative is to widen the existing road. A Joint City/County Meeting to discuss this issue is scheduled for November 26, 1991. At the current time, the County has a 66' wide right-of-way fronting the 0.38 acre site. A minimum right-of-way width of 130' is recommended for the four lane design, and 200' is desirable for an ultimate six lane roadway. If the majority of additional right-of-way is acquired along the north side of CR 512, the impact of this project can be reduced, however, it is possible that some needed right-of-way will be required along the projects frontage._ Complete design of the project is required to make this determination. Alternative No. 1 is to approve the driveway connection permit and request the City of Sebastian to refrain from approving development along the north side of CR 512 from US 1 to a point approximately 3000' west of US 1 until the CR. 512 widening plan is finalized. This alternative may result in the County having to purchase a portion of the site and incurring severance damages due to the Sub Shop/Pub facilities being within needed right-of-way limits. Poo 84 FAL 1)431. OCT 22 991 POOK Alternative'No. 2 Deny issuance of this right-of-way connection permit and all others along the east 4000' of CR 512 until the CR 512 widening plan is defined. This would result in a reduction of possible future severance damages if the County elects to widen the existing roadway and purchase substantial additional right-of-way. Approximately 6-12 acres of additional right-of-way estimated to cost $480,000 to $960,000, (assuming a value of $80,000/acre) is probably needed to widen CR 512 along the 4000 lineal feet west of US 1. In addition, the County should request that the City refrain from approving development along the eastern 4000' of CR 512 until the widening plan is finalized. The County staff has been in communication with other property owners in this area who wish to proceed to develop their land along the eastern 4000' of CR512. We have requested that they defer their projects until a future date when right-of-way needs are defined. Alternative No. 3 Negotiate with the property owner to purchase the entire site at this time. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 whereby the driveway connection permit be issued and the City be requested to '_refrain from approving development plans along the north (side of the east 3000' of CR 512. If the City does not consent to this request, it is recommended that no driveway (connection permits be issued along the north side of. the !easterly 3000' of CR 512. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved staff's recommendation for Alternate No. 1, as set out in the above memo. WORK ORDER NO. 1 - WABASSO CAUSEWAY (CR -510) BRIDGE INSPECTION AND REPAIRS The Board reviewed the following memo dated 10/16/91: OCT 22 TO: James E. Chandler, County Administrator FROM: James W. Davis, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Work Order No. 1 - Wabasso Causeway (CR510) Bridge Inspection and Repairs DATE: October 16, 1991 FILE: wol.agn DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS On September 17, 1991, the Board authorized Post, Buckley, Schuh, and Jernigan, Inc., Consulting Engineers, to perform an inspection of the bearing assemblies beneath the Wabasso Bridge superstructure and to design repairs as necessary. The attached work order defines the Scope of Work and Compensation in 'the amount not to exceed $12,620 for professional services and $1,800 for estimated reimbursable expenses. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING Staff recommends approval and authorization for to execute the Work Order. • the Chairman; ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved Work Authorization No. 1 with Post, Buckley, Schuh, and Jernigan, Inc. in the amounts specified in the above staff recommendation. CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD PETITION FOR WATER SERVICE IN FLORIDACRES SUBDIVISION The Board reviewed the following memo dated 10/8/91: DATE: OCTOBER 8, 1991 TO: FROM: STAFFED AND PREPARED BY: JAMES D. CHASTAIN/ MANAGER OF ASSES y•ROJECTS JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TERRANCE G. PIN DIRECTOR OF UTI SERVICES SUBJECT: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES PETITION FOR WATER SERVICE IN FLORIDACRES S/D (36TH AVENUE - SOUTH OFF 8TH STREET) INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -91 -04 -DS 99 59 mot 64 PAGE. Job OCT 22 71,91 �©r�i. 4 F E 4[ BACKGROUND: A petition has been received for a water main extension for 36th Avenue to supply potable water to its residents. We are now coming to the Board of County Commissioners to seek approval to begin design of the above project (see attached petition and plat map). ANALYSIS: The subdivision contains 16 lots owned by 16 owners. Two of the lots abut on 8th Street and are included in the 12th Street Water Service Project, presently under construction; therefore, 14 lots shall benefit from this project. Several owners were not readily available to sign. The 10 property owners signing the petition represent 71.43% of the properties to be served. All of the lots in this project are slightly over one acre in size. The attached map displays the area to benefit from the assessment project. This project is to be paid through the assessment of property owners along the proposed water line route. In the interim, financing will be through the use of impact fee funds. Design services will be provided by the Department of Utility Services. RECOMMENDATION: The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends approval of the above -listed project, in order that they may proceed with the design engineering work in preparation for the special assessment project. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved the project for water service in Fioridacres Subdivision, as set out in the above staff recommendation. WATER MAIN EXTENSION GROWTH PLAN - PHASE I - WATER SERVICE ASSESSMENT PROJECT The Board reviewed the following memo dated 10/16/91: DATE: OCTOBER 1, 1991 TO: FROM: JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATO TERRANCE G. PINTO DIRECTOR OF UTIL1/ SERVICES PREPARED JAMES D. CHASTAIN �� AND STAFFED MANAGER OF ASSESS PROJECTS BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTI SERVICES SUBJECT: WATER MAIN EXTENSION GROWTH PLAN - PHASE I WATER SERVICE ASSESSMENT PROJECT INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -91 -02 -DS 60 BACKGROUND The Indian River County Board of County Commissioners gave conceptual approval on October 23, 1990, of the installation of water facilities as part of the Water Main Extension Growth Plan. In keeping with this conceptual approval, the Department of Utility Services has developed a phased plan to meet the Comprehensive Plan requirements. (See attached agenda item and minutes.) The Board of County Commissioners authorized the Department of Utility Services on January 29, 1991, to conduct negotiations with the selected engineering firms and to proceed with an engineering agreement based upon negotiations. (See attached agenda item and minutes.) Based upon the negotiations, the Board of County Commissioners on March 5, 1991, approved an ...agreement with Masteller, Moler & Mayfield, Inc., for the Ph se I design plus additional services. The final design of this roject is now complete, and we are now ready to begin the asses went process associated with this project. (See attached agenda it and minutes.) ANALYSIS Attached are Resolutions I and II for the assessment project. The cost per square foot is $0.107138, and the project will serve the area described by the attached map and is further described below: SUBDIVISION Emerson Villas Graves Annex Vero Beach Homesites Clearview Terrace Indian River Heights Moreland Estates. Bonny Vista Subdivisions Haecter Highlands Hickory Hill Estates Metes and Bounds/ Nonplatted Properties LOCATION West Side of 27th Avenue generally bordered by 7th Street, SW, and 31st Avenue bordered by* 1st Street, SW and 29th Avenue -bordered by 1st Street, SW, 35th Avenue, and 1st Lane East Side of 27th Avenue bordered by 1st Place, 1st Street, and 24th and 27th Avenues (between 24th Avenue, 8th Avenue, 1st Street, SW, and 4th Street) between 4th and 2nd Streets north side of 4th Street, east of 10th Avenue varies throughout the above, including 5th Street, SW and between 8th Street and 9th Street, SW (Oslo Road) This project contains 1,001 Parcel I.D.'s. Of the platted lots in this project, 946 are substandard or "undersized," according to Indian River County's Comprehensive Plan, the County Public Health Unit, Division of Environmental Health, which require that new lots utilizing well and septic system be a minimum of 1/2 acre. If 61 OCT 221991 y ki'01( t F'A�sr }�i 4 OCT 221591 LOOK S4 f'AUU b4 served by a public water system, the lot may be reduced to 1/4 acre in size. Lots not meeting these minimum standards are called "undersized lots." The attached map also displays the area to benefit from the assessment project. The total estimated cost to be assessed is: $1,686,324.34. RECOMMENDATION The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached Resolutions I and II and set the public hearing date. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved staff's recommendation and adopted Resolution 91-165, providing for Phase 1 of the Water Main Extension Growth Plan; providing the total estimated cost, method of payment of assessments, number of annual installments, and legal description of the area specifically served. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved staff's recommendation and adopted Resolution 91-166A setting a time and place at which the owners of properties located on the east and west sides of 27th Avenue, and other interested persons, may appear before the Board of County Commissioners and be heard as to the propriety and advisability of constructing Phase 1 of the Water Main Extension Growth Plan. 62 ^oviding (First Reso.) 10/4/91(legal)Vk/DC RESOLUTION NO. 91- 16 5 A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR PHASE I OF THE WATER MAIN EXTENSION GROWTH PLAN; PROVIDING THE TOTAL ESTIMATED COST, METHOD OF PAYMENT OF ASSESSMENTS, NUMBER OF ANNUAL INSTALLMENTS, AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA SPECIFICALLY SERVED. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County has determined that the improvements herein described are necessary to promote the public welfare of the county and has deter- mined to defray the cost thereof by special assessments against certain properties to be serviced by Phase I of the Water Main Extension Growth Plan, located in areas on the east and west sides of 27th Avenue, hereinafter referred to as Project No. UW -91 -02 -DS; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows: 1. The County does hereby determine that Phase I of the Water Main Extension Growth Plan shall be installed in 1,001 properties, which are located on the east and west sides of 27th Avenue, and the cost thereof shall be specially assessed in accordance with the provisions of Sections 11-41 through 11-47 of the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Indian River County. 2. The total estimated project assessment cost of the above-described improvements is shown to be $1,686,324.34 or $0.107138 per square foot to be paid by the property specially benefited as shown on the assessment plat on file with the Department of Utility Services. 3. A special assessment in the amount of $0.107138 per square foot shall be assessed against each of the properties designated on the assessment plat. This assessment may be raised or lowered by action of the Board of County Commissioners after the public hearing, at the same meeting, as required by the referenced County Code. 4. The special assessments shall be due and payable and may be paid in full within 90 days after the date of the resolution of the Board with respect to credits against the special assessments after completion of the improvements (the "Credit Date") without interest. 63 OCT X21991 EAorr 8 F9CE l'` 9 1CT 2 2 199 OO iSa Cff RESOLUTION NO. 91- 16 5 If not paid in full, the special assessments may be paid in ten equal yearly installments of principal plus interest. If not paid when due, there shall be added a penalty of 1-1/2% of the principal not paid when due. The unpaid balance of the special assessments shall bear interest at a rate of 9-3/4% from the Credit Date until paid. 5. There is presently on file with the Department of Utility Services a plat showing the area to be assessed, plans and specifications, and an estimate of the cosi of the proposed improvements. All of these are open to inspection by the public at the Department of Utility Services. 6. An assessment roll with respect to the special assessments shall promptly be prepared in connection with the special assessments. 7. Upon the adoption of this resolution, the Indian River County Utility Services Department shall cause this resolution to be pub- lished at least one time in the Vero Beach Press Journal before the public hearing required by Section 11-46. The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Sc u r 1 o c k , and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Eggert , and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Richard N. Bird Vice Chairman Gary C. Wheeler Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Ay e Ay e Ay e Ay e Ay e The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 2 2 day of fl r t nhp r Attest: Je ' K. Barton, Clerk . V.W4 a , 1991. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By 64 Richard N. Bird Chairman ---•-t--- ;ndrn i..)1 Approved LOc.91 ,•.i 1 I• ;. r 1` �;ua int y �. , :1 r Utili;fes if; •; • Daft 9igk Mcc. Time ar.d Place (Second Reso.' 10/4/91(legal)V1 - RESOLUTION NO. 91-1 6 6 A A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, SETTING A TIME AND PLACE AT WHICH THE OWNERS OF PROPERTIES LOCATED ON THE EAST AND WEST SIDES OF 27TH AVENUE, AND OTHER INTERESTED PERSONS, MAY APPEAR BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND BE HEARD AS TO THE PROPRIETY AND ADVISABILITY OF CONSTRUCTING PHASE I OF THE WATER MAIN EXTENSION GROWTH PLAN, AS TO THE COST THEREOF, AS TO THE MANNER OF PAYMENT THEREFOR, AND AS TO THE AMOUNT THEREOF TO BE SPECIALLY ASSESSED AGAINST EACH PROPERTY BENEFITED THEREBY. WHEREAS, the, Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County has, by Resolution No. 91 -16 § determined that it is necessary for the public welfare of the citizens of the county, and particularly as to those living, working, and owning property within the area described hereafter, that a waterline be installed in approximately 1,001 properties hereinafter described; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that the cost to be specially assessed with respect thereto shall be $0.107138 per square foot; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has caused an assessment roll to be completed and filed with the Clerk to the Board; and WHEREAS, Section 11-46, Indian River County Code, requires that the Board of County Commissioners shall fix a time and place at which the owners of the properties to be assessed or any other persons interested therein may appear before the Board of County Commissioners and be heard as to the propriety and advisability of constructing such water main extension, as to the cost thereof, as to the manner of payment therefor, and as to the amount thereof to be assessed against each property benefited thereby, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows: 1. The County Commission shall meet at the County Commission Chambers in the County Administration Building at the hour of 9:05 a.m. on Tuesday, December 3, 1991, at which time the 65 OCT 22 1991 TT . 22 1991 RESOLUTION NO. 91- 166 ROOK 84 PAGE owners of the properties to be assessed and any other interested persons may appear before said Commission and be heard in regard thereto. The area to be improved and the properties to be specially benefited are more particularly described upon the assessment plat and the assessment roll with regard to the special assessments. 2. All persons interested in the construction of said improvements and the special assessments against the properties to be specially benefited may review the assessment plat showing the area to be assessed, the assessment roll, the plans and specifications for said improvements, and an estimate of the cost thereof at the office of the Department of Utility Services any week day from 8:30 a. m: until 5:00 p.m. 3. Notice of the time and place of this public hearing shall be given by two publications in the Press Journal Newspaper one week apart. The last publication shall be at least one week prior to the date of the hearing. The Indian River County Department of Utility Services shall give the owner of each property to be specially assessed at least ten days notice in writing of such time and place, which shall be served by mailing a copy of such notice to each of such property owners at his last known address. The resolution was • moved for adoption by Commissioner Scurlock , and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Eggert , and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Richard N. Bird Vice Chairman Gary C. Wheeler Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 22 day of 0ctobAr , 1991. Attest: or Jeffrey K. B rton, Clerk :a.)011 -6r6). Attachment: A ESSMENT ROLL BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By 66 Richard N. Bird Chairman ANNUAL DINNER MEETING OF TREASURE COAST COUNCIL OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT The Board reviewed the following memo dated 10/16/91: TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FROM: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney DATE: October 16, 1991 RE: ANNUAL DINNER MEETING OF TREASURE COAST COUNCIL OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT We recently ieceived an invitation to attend the annual dinner meeting of the Treasure Coast Council of Local Government, which will be held in Fort Pierce on Wednesday evening, November 6, 1991. Customarily, Indian River County sends a representative to this meeting. I would be available to attend, if the Board would like me to. - - Chairman Bird advised that he was planning to attend the meeting, and Commissioner Eggert expected to attend also. The Board indicated that it wasn't necessary for Attorney Vitunac to attend unless he wished to do so. ANNUAL APPOINTMENTS TO TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL The Board reviewed the following memo dated 10/14/91: TO: Board of County OctQT 4, 1991 Commissioners FROM: Alice E. White Admin. Secretary FILE: SUBJECT: Annual Appointments to Treasure Coast Regional -Planning Council REFERENCES: Fellsmere is the scheduled municipality for 1992, and Orchid is the scheduled alternate. Please make appointments and alternates to the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council. OCT 221991 67 BOOK OCT 22 1991 EOOr 84 PAGEbb4 ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously reappointed Commissioners Eggert and Bowman as representatives from IRC with Commissioners Bird and Wheeler serving as alternates, respectively. Commissioner Eggert wished to contact the Town of Orchid to see if they wish to continue serving as alternate to the City of Fellsmere as the representative for the municipality for the coming year, and if not, -notify them that we will appoint the next in line in the municipalities. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT MEETING The Chairman announced that immediately upon adjournment, the Board of County Commissioners would reconvene acting as the District Board of Commissioners of the Solid Waste Disposal District. Those Minutes are being prepared separately. There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 11:00 o'clock A.M. ATTEST: . Barton, Clerk Richard N. Bird, Chairman 68