HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/17/1991BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 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 -Rev. Robt. W. Greene, Asst. Pastor
Community Church
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Comm. Carolyn K. Eggert
4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Co. Adm.Chandler req. addn.of (2) items: 11.G.3, req. to purch.r/w for 510
& A1A & addn of req. to close 40th Ct.for blk.party for New Year's Eve:
He also req.addn. of an Item as 13.E.1, Land Acquis.Advis.Conm.rnembership.
b. Corrm.Eggert req.addn of 13.D,Affordable Hsng &under Consent the addn of
5. PROCLAMATION AND PRESENTATIONS' p Sion to attend 1992 Treasure
atConf.Feb.3 thru 5.
Presentation of Retirement Plaque to Jack twits RMANBIRD req•addn of report.
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Regular Meeting of 11/19/91
B. —Special Meeting of 11/20191
C. Special Meeting of 11/26/91
7. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Received and placed on file in the Office of Clerk to
The Board:
Audit Report and Copy of the Annual Financial
Report on Units of Local Government, 1990, for
Delta Farms Water Control District, for FY Ended
September 30, 1991
B. Occupational License Taxes Collected during Month of
November, 1991
(memorandum dated December 9, 1991)
C. Reimbursement of $998 from Indian River Mosquito
Control for Election Expenses
(memorandum dated December 11, 1991)
DEC 17 1991
(BOOK
DEC . 199
SI
BOOK PAGE
7. CONSENT AGENDA (cont'd):
D. Archaeological Survey Consultant Contract
(memorandum dated December 9, 1991)
E. Request for Extension- of Oak Terrace S/D,
Land Development Permit No. 058
(memorandum dated December 6, 1991)
F. 12th St. Water Service Project / Acceptance
of Utility Easement in Glenwood S/D, 33rd Ave.
(memorandum dated December 4, 1991)
G. Sale of 1991-1992 Grapefruit Crop
(memorandum dated December 9, 1991)
H. Amendment to Furnishings Phase III, IRC Jail
(memorandum dated December 11, 1991)
I. Equipment Surplus (memorandum dated December 6, 1991) -
J. IRC Bid #92-48 / Double Line Striper
(memorandum dated December 9, 1991)
K. Release of Nuisance Abatement Line - Tamara Gardens
Condo, Inc.
(memorandum dated December 11, 1991)
CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS AND
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
I.R.C. Public Health Unit Requests to Purchase
Furnishings and Equipment for I.R.C. Public Health
r_•.. Building
(memorandums dated 12/10/91, 12/10/91, & 12/11/91)
9. PUBLIC ITEMS -
A. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
None
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Annette Karnatz's Request for Special Ex-
ception Approval for an Accessory Non-
commercial Stable
(memorandum dated December 5, 1991)
2. • Todd Darress' Request for Special Exception
Approval for an Accessory Noncommercial
Stable
(memorandum dated December 5, 1991)
3. Bob Schlitt appeal of the P & Z Commission
Decision to Uphold Staff's Determination
that a Parcel cannot be Created in a Manner
Contrary to Comprehensive Plan Standards
(memorandum dated November 27, 1991)
4. Sebastian Assoc., Ltd. Request to Rezone
Approx. 8 Acres from RM -6 to CG (ZC-305)
(memorandum dated December 9, 1991)
5. Lodar, Inc.'s Request for Conceptual
Special Exception Approval for the Indian
River Country Club Planned Development
(memorandum dated December 10, 1991)
•
9. PUBLIC ITEMS (cont'd):
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS (cont'd):
6:— AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 302 -
ANIMAL CONTROL AND KENNEL REGULATIONS
(memorandum dated December 9, 1991)
7. AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 303 -
COURTS
(memorandum dated December 9, 1991)
10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS
None
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
A. ,-COMMUNITY 'DEVELOPMENT
None
B. - EMERGENCY SERVICES
1... Resolution Amending Fees and. Penalties
Under the Animal Control Ordinance
(memorandum dated November - 6, 1991)
. Approval of Renewal of UPS Contract with
EPE Technologies, Inc., for E911 Center
(memorandum dated December 5, 1991)
DEC 171991
3. Approval of Agreement with Zephyr Weather
Information Service, Inc.; Purchase or Certain
Capital Equip.; Termination of Contract with
Conte!: and Budget Amendment
(memorandum dated December 9, 1991)
C. GENERAL SERVICES
1. Surplus Buildings / Health Dept., Main Library
Budget Amendment 008
(memorandum dated December 10, 1991)
—2. Ind. Riv. Co. Health Bldg. Project Application
for Final Payment
(memorandum dated December 10, 1991)
3. Copy Machines
(memorandum dated December 5, 1991)
D. LEISURE SERVICES
None
E. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
1. County Financing of Utility Impact Fees -
10 Years
(memorandum dated December 10, 1991)
2. Tourist Development Council - Reallocation of
$15,000
(memorandum dated December 10, 1991)
F. PERSONNEL
None
80.01C rAGE. 411,
C 199i
BOOK 85 FATE E}'
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS (cont'd):
G. PUBLIC WORKS
1. Additional Monitoring Well at Fleet Management
(memorandum dated December 10. 1991)
2. Purchase Authorization / CR510 and SR AIA R -O -W
Acquisition
(memorandum dated December 10, 1991)
H. UTILITIES
1. St. Rd. 60 Widening Project (Department of
Transportation) Utility Relocation
(memorandum dated December 5, 1991)
2. Miraflores S/D Water Main Extension Change Order
#1 and Final Pay Request
(memorandum dated December 10, 1991)
3. Miraflores S/D (33rd Avenue) Water Line Assess-
ment Project / Final Assessment Roll and _Res. #4
(memorandum dated December 4, 1991)
4. Petition for Sewer Service in Rousseau River
Shores (114th Lane off North Indian River Drive)
(memorandum dated December 9, 1991)
. . - Water Service to I.R.C. Middle and High Schools
(memorandum dated December 6, 1991)
. Relocation of a Packaged Wastewater Treatment
Plant Final Pay Request and Change Order
(memorandum dated December 6, 1991)
• Six -Inch Wastewater Transmission Line on Aban-
doned 16th St. R -O -W Affecting Louis Schlitt
Property on Indian River Blvd.
(memorandum dated - December 10: 1991)-
8.
991)-
8. Engineering Firm Selection / Engineering Services_
for the Update of the Water, Wastewater, and
Effluent Disposal Master Plans
(memorandum dated December 10, 1991)
9. Riverwalk Utilities, Inc., Water and Wastewater
System Franchise
(memorandum dated December 10, 1991)
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY
None
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS
A. CHAIRMAN RICHARD N. BIRD
B. VICE CHAIRMAN GARY C. WHEELER
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS (cont'd):
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
SOUTH. COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT
None
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
None
C.
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
EVID'ENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL WILL BE BASED.
DEC 17 1991
BOOK 85 FM,E
Tuesday, December 17, 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, December 17,
1991, at 9:00 o'clock A. M. Present were Richard N. Bird,
Chairman; Gary C. Wheeler, Vice Chairman; Carolyn K. Eggert,
Margaret C. Bowman and Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Also present were
James E. Chandler, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, County
Attorney; and Patricia Held, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
Reverend Robert W. Greene, Assistant Pastor of Community
Church gave the invocation and Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert, led
the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
County Administrator Jim Chandler requested addition of two
items: 11.G.3, request to purchase right-of-way for 510 and A1A
and the addition of a request to close 40th Court for a block party
for New Year's Eve. He also requested addition of an Item as
13.E.1, Land Acquisition Advisory Committee membership.
Commissioner Eggert requested the addition of 13.D, Affordable
Housing and under Consent Agenda the addition of permission to go
to the 1992 Treasure Coast Legislative Conference February 3
through 5.
Chairman Bird requested addition of Parks and Recreation
Committee Report.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously added the
above items to the Agenda.
DEC 17 1991
Boor. 85 F' GE
fE 17 199"
BOOK 85 [AGE 511
PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS
Chairman Bird announced the- retirement of Jack C. Shaw and
presented a plaque with the following proclamation:
11.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
JACK C. SHA RETIREMENT
Jack C. Shaw announces his retirement from Indian River
County Board of County Commissioners effective December 31, 1991.
Jack C. Shaw, originally from Georgia, has been a resident of
Indian River County since 1972, moving here from the West Coast of
Florida were he was employed as an Equipment Operator.
Jack C. Shaw has been employed with Indian River County Board
of County Commissioners since March 19, 1980. He worked in the
Road & Bridge Division as a Heavy Equipment Operator for all of his
eleven and half years of service.
Jack C. Shaw is self motivated and is an extremely hard worker.
His performance reviews have been above average. Mr. Shaw has been
an asset to the Road & Bridge Division and is highly respected by
his co-workers. He will be missed very much by the Road & Bridge
Division.
The Board of County Commissioners wish to express their
appreciation for the outstanding performance Jack C. Shaw has
contributed on behalf of Indian River County. The County
Commissioners wish him the very best in his future endeavors.
2
Chairman Bird announced the retirement of Virginia Hargreaves
and presented a plaque with the following proclamation:
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, Virginia Hargreaves, known affectionately as
"Ginny" announced her retirement as Supervisor of the
Recorders of the Clerk to the Board effective December 31,
1991; and
WHEREAS, Ginny Hargreaves joined the Clerk to the Board
as a part-time employee in 1973 and in 1975 became a
permanent full-time employee, and was promoted to Supervisor
of the Recorders of the Clerk to the Board in 1982; and
WHEREAS, Ginny Hargreaves' dedication to public service
and integrity in dealing with the myriad problems that
copfront the Deputy Clerk and her understanding of the
problems of the citizenry of Indian River County is
unsurpassed; and
WHEREAS, Ginny Hargreaves' rapport with all past and
present elected members of the County Commission and
Constitutional Officers, in-house personnel, and the
citizens of Indian River County has resulted in having a
well-informed, reliable, office staff; and
WHEREAS, a few of the major County projects that come
to mind that she took Minutes for and, was involved in, was
the 17th Street Bridge; obtaining of the Tracking Station
property; development of the Sheriff's Administration
Building and Jail Complex; Indian River Blvd. Phases I
through IV; the first Comprehensive Land Use Plan and more
recent the Growth Management Plan; the Sanitary Landfill;
the Gifford Sewer and Water project along with numerous
other utility projects; and
WHEREAS, we know that her retirement is well-earned and
we appreciate the legacy of achievements which she leaves;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the
Board expresses deep appreciation for the service Ginny
Hargreaves has performed over the past 18 years on behalf of
Indian River County, and her colleagues wish to express
their appreciation on her outstanding career on behalf of
local government.,
BE IT FURTHER PROCLAIMED that our heartfelt wishes for
her success in future endeavors go with her.
Adopted this 17th day of December, 1991.
DEC 1 7 119gj
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
Richard N. Bird
Chairman
3
BUOK P,4uE.
BOOK. 85 ['AGE. 52
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there -were any additions or corrections
to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 19, 1991. There
were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board approved the Minutes
of the Regular Meeting of November 19, 1991 as
written.
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or corrections
to the Minutes of the Special Meeting of November 20,-1991. There
were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
the Minutes of the Special Meeting of November 20,
1991, as written.
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or corrections
to the Minutes of the Special Meeting of November 26, 1991. There
were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
the Minutes of the Special Meeting of November 26,
1991, as written.
CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Scurlock requested removal from the Consent
Agenda of Item H for discussion.
A. Reports
The following reports were placed on file in the Office of
Clerk to the Board:
Audit Report and Copy of the Annual Financial Report on
Units of Local Government, 1990, for Delta Farms Water Control
District, for Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 1991
B. Occupational License Taxes Collected during Month of November.
1991
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
accepted the following report from Tax Collector
Gene E. Morris during the month of November-. -
4
M@GOBANDUM
TO: Board of County'Commissioners
FROM: Gene E. Morris, Tax Collector-
SUBJECT: Occupational Licenses
DATE: December 9, 1991
Pursuant to Indian River County Ordinance No. 86-59, please be
informed that $7,970.14 was collected in occupational license taxes
during the month of November, representing the issuance of 307
licenses.
C. Reimbursement of $998 from Indian River Mosauito Control
District for Election Expenses
The Board reviewed memo from Supervisor of Elections Ann
Robinson dated December 11, 1991:
December 11, 1991.
TO
HON.•DICK BIRD, CHAIRMAN, BCC
'FROM: .ANN ROBINSON, SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS
-RE:ITEM FOR BCC CONSENT AGENDA OF DECEMBER 17, 1991
The Indian River Mosquito Control District has reimbursed
us $998 for the mail ballot election expenses incurred in
this fiscal year. The total cost of the mail ballot election
held on November 5, 1991, was $1,998.
Please amend our budget so that we can accept this $998.
Thank you.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously amended
the budget to accept reimbursement of $998 for the
mail ballot election expenses incurred this fiscal
year, as recommended by the Supervisor of Elections.
D. Archaeological Survey Consultant Contract
The Board reviewed memo from Senior Environmental Planner
Christine Panico dated December 9, 1991:
DEC 1
1991
5
fiEC
mu 85 Fau
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
DEP A NT HEAD CONCURRENCE:
-•obert Keating,
-Community Devel
THRU: Roland DeBlois, ICP
Chief, Environmental Planning
FROM: Christine PanicoC'e'
Senior Environmental Planner
DATE: December 9, 1991 —`
SUBJECT: -Archaeological Survey
Consultant Contract
It is requested that the information presented herein be given
formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of December 17, 1991.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
On November 5,.'1991, the Board of County Commissioners approved the
selection committee's ranking of consultants for the service of
surveying archaeological resources of unincorporated Indian River
.County.. Staff has prepared a contract with the top ranked
consultant, Archaeological and Historical Conservancy,
Incorporated. A copy of the draft contract is attached to this
agenda item.
The total project budget, as stated in the executed Historic
Preservation Grant Agreement, is $17,000 on a 50/50 matching basis;
$8,500 state match and $8,500 county match. The county match
includes $2,500 of in-kind support services and $6,000 in cash.
The project budget provides for $14,500 to be expended on
consulting services.
As proposed, the draft contract amount of $14,500 does not exceed
the funding allocated for consulting services. The $6,000 cash
match is available from the planning division's approved FY 91-92
budget.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
An archaeological survey is needed for the unincorporated area to
meet several of the county comprehensive plan policies and to
provide necessary planning data for the review of impacts on the
archaeological resources of the county. Execution of the contract
will facilitate completion of the survey and satisfaction of
comprehensive plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the
attached contract with Archaeological and Historical Conservancy,
Incorporated in the amount of $14,500 and authorize the chairman to
execute the contract.
6
ON MOTION by
Commissioner
approved the
Commissioner
Scurlock,
contract
Historical Conservancy,
Eggert, SECONDED by
the Board unanimously
with Archaeological and
Inc., in the amount of
$14,500 and authorized the Chairman to execute the
contract, as recommended by staff.
COPY OF SAID CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF
CLERK TO THE BOARD
E. Request for Extension of Oak Terrace Subdivision Land
Development Permit No. 058
The Board reviewed memo from Civil Engineer David Cox dated
December 6, 1991:
TO:
James Chandler
- County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
:-Public Works Directo
and
Roger D. Cain, P.
County Engineer
FROM: David B. Cox, P.E
Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: Request for Extension of Oak Terrace Subdivision
Land Development _Permit No. 058
• REFERENCE: SD -85-09-58
DATE:
December 6, 1991
DESCRIPTION AND CON ITIONS
Land Development Permit No. 058 was issued on December 19, 1988.to
Mr. Peter Sabonjohn to construct the subject 18.72 acre, 42 -lot
subdivision. Oak Terrace Subdivision is located south -'of Oakridge
Subdivision Unit No. 2, on 6th Court SW, along the east right-of-
way line of I.R.F.W.C.D. Lateral J Canal. Because construction is
not complete, the permit expired on June 19, 1990, eighteen months
after the approval date. [913.07(5)(J)]
On April 12, 1991, Mr. Sabonjohn submitted a written request for an
extension of the permit. Preparation of staff's recommendation on
:the request has been delayed until Mr. Sabonjohn provided the
Planning Division with written verification regarding the status of
mobile home and trailer structures on the site being used for
storage and residences, as well as an existing house located on or
near a right-of-way to be platted. On November 7, 1991, the
Planning Division accepted Mr. Sabonjohn's written agreement to
terminate all existing non -conformities (e.g. mobile homes on the
site) prior to scheduling the project for Final Plat Approval.
Thus, Mr. Sabonjohn is obligated -to remove the mobile homes from
the site and correct other non -conformities occurring on the site,
prior to scheduling the project for Final Plat Approval.
7
DEC 17 1q41
BOOK C F'AUE 35
Air
800K 85 F'AGE
On May 28, 1991, the Department of Utility Services issued an
extension of the project's Utility Construction Permit until
December 13, 1991. The developer has met with the Utility Services
staff during the week of December 2, 1991, and has decided to try
to complete the water line improvements before the December 13,
1991 expiration date.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The alternatives include:
Alternative No. 1 - Grant extension of the Land Development Permit
for another 120 days to provide adequate time to complete all of
the project's required improvements, which include asphalt paving,
sidewalks, traffic signs, pavement markings, and final grading and
grassing of roadway drainage swales. The construction plans show
two phases. If necessary, a new L.D.P. application_ for Phase Two
could be Submitted before the end of the 120 day extension. This
would allow the project's Final Plat Application to be submitted
for review, based on the 1988 Preliminary Plat Approval, with a
condition meeting the Planning Division's requirements for removal
of the mobile homes, and corrections of other non -conformities,
prior to scheduling for Final Pkat Approval.
Alternative No. 2 - Deny the extension of the Land Development
Permit. This would terminate the project's Preliminary Plat
Approval and require meeting the current L.D.R. requirements for
concurrency, upland native plant community percentage set aside,
and maximum stormwater discharge rates. -
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends granting of the Land Development Permit extension
for 120 days with the conditions described in Alternative No. 1.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously granted
a Land Development Permit extension for 120 days
with the conditions described in Alternative 1 in
the above memo, as recommended by staff.
F. 12th Street Water Service Project - Acceptance of Utility
Easement in Glenwood Subdivision. 33rd Avenue
The Board reviewed memo from Utility Services Director Terry
Pinto dated December 4, 1991:
8
DATE:
DECEMBER 4, 1991
TO: _ JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILSERVICES
PREPARED WILLIAM F.
AND STAFFED CAPITAL PR• tr'a' •ENGINEER
BY: DEPARTMENT • UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT:
12TH STREET WATER SERVICE PROJECT
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -90 -09 -DS
ACCEPTANCE OF UTILITY EASEMENT IN GLENWOOD
SUBDIVISION/33RD AVENUE
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
The Department of Utility Services currently has the 12th Street
Water Service Project under construction. It has been determined.
that prior to the installation of a water line on 33rd
Avenue/Glenwood Subdivision, we must formally accept the utility
easement in the Glenwood Subdivision. Please see the attached
Resolution_ accepting this easement and a location map (plat map).
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends adoption
of the attached Resolution on the Consent Agenda.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 91-183 formally accepting Utility
Easements in Glenwood Subdivision, as recommended by
staff.
9
-DEC 1-7-199`i
19.9
3'
BOOK ''6FAGS 58
•
RESOLUTION NO. 91- 183
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
FORMALLY ACCEPTING UTILITY EASEMENTS IN
GLENWOOD SUBDIVISION.
WHEREAS, Indian River County is in the process of installing
water lines in the area bordered on the north by 12th Street, on the south
by 8th Street, on the west by 43rd Avenue, and on the— east by 27th
Avenue; and
WHEREAS, in connection with this project, it is necessary for the
County to install its water lines in certain utility easements in the following
subdivision:
Glenwood Subdivision, Plat Book 10, Page 84
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the Board
hereby formally accepts the utility easements, as offered to the County,
shown on the plat of the above -referenced subdivision.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Eggert
and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Scurlock , 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 17 day of December, 1991.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
10
G. Sale of.1991-1992 Grapefruit Crop
The Board reviewed memo from Utility Services Director Terry
Pinto dated December 9, 1991:
DATE: DECEMBER 9, 1991
TO:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
JAMES E. CHANDLER
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILI/ S VIC S
j14+1 E AL T
PREPARED NOEL J. McMAHO
AND STAFFED ENVIRONMENTAL
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT:
SALE OF 1991-1992 GRAPEFRUIT CROP
BACKGROUND
On October 19, 1991, the Indian River County Board of '..County
Commissioners authorized the Department of Utility Services•to
negotiate the sale of the grapefruit crop for 1991-1992. : (See
attached agenda item.)
ANALYSIS •
Three prices of each type of grapefruit (white and red) have been
received. The best price on the white grapefruit is $1.25 peround
solids "delivered in." This price was quoted by Bowen Brothers.
The best price for the red grapefruit was from Hubert Graves and is
$5.00 per box on the tree with a March 1, 1992 pick date.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of.Utility Services recommend that the
Board of County Commissioners authorize the sale of the 1991-1992
white grapefruit to Bowen Brothers and the sale of the 1991-1992 red
grapefruit to Hubert Graves.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, --the Board unanimously
authorized the sale of the 1991-1992 white
grapefruit crop to Bowen Brothers and the sale of
the 1991-1992 red grapefruit to Hubert Graves, as
recommended by staff.
11
DEC 17 199
BOOK
&]) F'6E c:
C
BOOK G FAGE G
H. Amendment to Furnishings Phase III, IRC Jail
Commissioners Scurlock and Wheeler had questions regarding the
increases in the figures for this equipment. General Services
Director Sonny Dean stated he was not knowledgeable about this item
and had called the jail and asked for a representative to attend
the meeting to answer questions, but at the moment no
representative from the jail was in attendance. Chairman Bird
suggested deferring the discussion to later in the meeting or, if
no one showed up, to the next scheduled Board meeting.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the-Bbard unanimously deferred
Consent Agenda Item H to later in the meeting.
(Please see page 61.)
I. Equipment Surplus
The Board reviewed memo from Purchasing Manager Fran Boynton
dated December 6, 1991:
DATE: December 6, 1991
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
H. T. "Sonny" Dean, General Services Dir
FROM: Fran Boynton, Purchasing Manager
SUMP.' Equipment Surplus
The following equipnent has been declared surplus to the needs of
Indian River County:
IBM 3196 Display Stations:
(For use with IBM System 400)
Asset Number Serial Number
9170 316910220
9172 K8319
,9174 . •..3196-L0304
.9263 00193 *
9420 .• L7670
. 11157. 888523
'.9264 000057
9265' . 000156
000202 •
9176 :, •• 4224 Printer
3196 . Rienninal
*Needs Repair Work.•Screen is not functioning.
IBM 400 CPS Printer:
9176 4224-02 0033979
ANALYSIS:
Staff recommends that authority be granted by the Board of- County -
Commissioners to declare the above surplus.
12
ON _MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
declared the above -listed equipment surplus, as
recommended by staff.
J. IRC Bid 92-48 - Double Line Striper
The Board reviewed memo from Purchasing Manager Fran Boynton
dated December 9, 1991:
DATE:
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
December 9, 1991
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
James E. Chandler, County Admin trator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director
Department of General Servi
Fran Boynton, Purchasing Manager
IRC Bid #92-48/Double Line Striper
Traffic Engineering
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Bid Opening Date:
Specifications mailed to:
Replies:
BID TABULATION
'Kelly Crestwell
Xenia, Ohio
Linear Dynamiiacs
-Parsippany, NJ
BUDGETED AMOUNT:
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
Equipment
November 27, 1991
Eleven (11) Vendors
Two (2) Vendors
Three ( 3) "Statements of No
Bid"
''TOTAL LUMP SUM PRICE
$7,980.00
$9,190.00
$8,000.00
Traffic Engineering Other Machinery and
TOTAL AMOUNT OF BID: $7,980.000
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the bid be awarded to Kelly
Creswell Company as the lowest, most responsive and responsible
bidder meeting specifications as set forth in the Invitation to Bid.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously awarded
Bid #92-48 to Kelly Crestwell Company, in the amount
of $7,980, as the lowest, most responsive and
responsible bidder, as recommended by staff.
13
DEC 17 19N
BOOK • c.' F,,"4A 6
DEC 17 '99
BOOK 85 ,A6, 5
K. Release of Nuisance Abatement Lien - Tamara Gardens Condo. Inc.
The Board reviewed memo from Deputy County Attorney Will
Collins dated December 11, 1991:
TO: The Board of County Commissioners
FROM: IOC!' William G. Collins II - Deputy County Attorney
DATE` _ December 11, 1991
SUBJECT: Release of Nuisance Abatement Lien - Tamara Gardens Condo,
Inc.
Indian Beach Associates, Inc., through its agent, has contacted our office in
regard to a nuisance lien which they recently became aware of, which was
attached to their property on February 13, 1990; one and a half- years prior
to Indian Beach Associates, Inc.'s purchase of the subject property, and two
owners later.
Upon lengthy research into this matter, we have learned that the lien
(Resolution No. 90-21) in the amount of $2,455.17 had been recorded out of
the chain of title, i.e.,. the property had been sold to Paul L. Roth and
Monty C. Beber, as Trustees from Tamara Gardens, Inc. on November 28,
1989, and the County's lien was not made of record until February 13, 1990...
When Indian Beach Associates, Inc. purchased the property on August 23,
1991, the lien was out of the chain of title and, therefore not picked up.
Also, to compound the problem, the lien did not reflect the accurate name of
j the corporation back when the violation .existed, i.e., the owner of the
property was Tamara Gardens, Inc., and the lien was filed as Tamara
Gardens Condo Inc.r t p� ,; �= fi ,a ;•.t.
RECOMMENDATION: •
•
,\ Authorize the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to execute . the
attached -.Release of Lien..;
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
authorized the Chairman to execute the Release of
Nuisance Abatement Lien on Tamara Gardens Condo,
Inc., as recommended by staff.
COPY OF RELEASE OF LIEN IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF
CLERK TO THE BOARD
L. Out -of -county Travel for Commissioners and Staff to Attend the
Treasure Coast Legislative Conference
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
approved out -of -county travel for Commissioners and
Staff to attend the Treasure Coast Legislative
Conference in Tallahassee from February 3 to 5,
1992. -
14
I.R.C. PUBLIC HEALTH UNIT REQUESTS TO PURCHASE FURNISHINGS AND
EOUIPMENT FOR I.R.C. PUBLIC HEALTH BUILDING
The Board reviewed two memos from Public
Bernard Berman, M.D., dated December 10, 1991:
December 10, 1991
TO: Richard Bird, Chairman
Indian River County Commission
THRU: James Chandler
County Administrator
FROM: Bernard D. Berman, M.D., Director
Indian River County Public Health
RE: Computer Systems Purchase
Indian River County Public Health
We are again --requesting authorization to
Un
Health Director
Building
.purchase computer
equipment for our new facility (as originally outlined in..our
request of February 12, 1991). We have obtained quotations
from several Local and National firms and would recommend the
purchase thru Progressive Data Management of Vero Beach the
hardware, software and installation of the Patient
Registration and Billing Module_in the amount of $24,1.64 (as
outlined on the attached quotation summary sheet) and the
further purchase for computer hardware and peripherals for
the Medical Records module to Sebastian Computers in the
amount of $8885 fora total of $33049. This amount is $18351
less than our original estimate.
We would appreciate the Board's prompt and favorable
consideration of our request.
15
DEC 17 j99
LIOO 5 E [ E
December 10, 1991
TO: Richard Bird, Chairman
Indian River County Commission
THRU: James Chandler
County Administrator
FROM: Bernard D. Berman, M.D., Director
Indian River County Public Health
RE: Furnishings & Equipment Purchase
Indian River County Public Health
Unit
DOM
FA.E
Building
We are requesting authorization for purchase of the following
items of equipment for our new facility which were not
included in our original request of February 12, 1991.
A household dishwasher with sterilizing cycle for the
laboratory. This was to have been provided "by building
owner" and somehow got overlooked. This item (cost about
$500) is necessary for our operations.
There is a need for 6 large fluted stone urns with sand at a
cost of about $100 each for collecting cigarette butts outside
each door.
These items have a total cost of approximately $1100.
We have deleted items totalling approximately $148,000 (list
attached) from our original request.
We are still in discussion of a few change -repair items.
We would appreciate the Board's prompt and favorable
consideration of this present request.
Commissioner Scurlock objected to the purchase of six large
fluted stone urns with sand at $100 each. He felt smoking is not
to be condoned. Commissioner Bowman pointed out that there is a
need for a place to stub out cigarette butts before the clients
enter the building, but a bucket full of sand could be used.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
purchase of computer equipment and a household
dishwasher as described above, as requested by the
Public Health Director.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Commissioner Eggert reported a large number -of phone calls
regarding the scheduled public hearings and said she had to tell
these people that with the new court ruling Commissioners cannot
discuss anything that is scheduled for public hearing.
County Attorney Vitunac stated he had written a memo to the
16
Commissioners -_ansa explained the ruling and that Commissioners are
not permitted to privately discuss matters which will be before the
Board sitting as a quasi-judicial body. In the case of zonings,
Commissioners may speak privately to applicants.
Commissioner Eggert felt it might be helpful to
Community Development Department notify applicantsp have the
of the rule that
Commissioners cannot speak privately to applicants.
Community Development Director Bob Keating stated that they
have been including a memo about the rule along with notification
about the public hearing to the applicant, and anybody else the
contact through mailings. Y
Commissioner Eggert wanted to be sure applicants
e the
Commissioners are allowed to discuss certain m tters onl eat public
hearings. Y public
ANNETT KARNATZ'S RE.UEST FOR SP CIAL EXCEPTION APP OV FOR AN
ACCESSORY NON-COMMERCIAL STABLE
The hour of 9:05 o'clock A.
M. having passed, the County
Attorney announced that this public hearing has been properl
advertised as follows: Y
VERO. BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA - '4;1
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
��'B,eaach In Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
1
In the matter of
In the Court, was pub -
LA
Iished in said newspaper In the Issues of % V9%24, , ,r ../f7/
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal Is a newspaper published al
Vero Beach, In said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published M Bald Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post ollice in Vero Beach. In said Indien River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period o1 one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and altlant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate. commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed bet t metthis .,. "2(day of/.107,44.1)1. 19
44.11Butliehgs Manager)
id 0
4:11
(SEAL) .
DEC _7 W1
fI
•
tfetary refile. Moto of Tiorkio
rig' Ccvmnlv., F_:7dr,, Juno 49. 1993
17
r.
D '
Subject
I. ••Site -
II!L
_. A-1< N
L •I
NORSE OR PIIBuC REARM
tetice ce hearing to consider the granting of spe-
cial emotion shored for a tharommercial stable.
The subject
.a AnnetteKarn,"pe b praae"UMW"y UMW b7 Joseph
TTf1eeSoua athe teeth one -he of described ar *'
the East welted lot 11e Welt one hen ot . "
Tract 12, Seethe 34, Towel* 33 ti.
=439 E., ging In Indian Wren COM%
end Ivbrem as 410 21th Street S.W. (yam
n>�
ddAA ptblic she arra nt theft pars10 Interest serest and
opportune ho lobe
the Board al County Commissioners
Matehde
River of _
sisn Meof the Canty anaustgfbn Bold.Ing, baiteded 01 et 11140 25th Street, Vero
ke on Tuesday,December 17, 1991 at 0 m
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision
which rimy be made et this mese% el need to en-
sure that a verbatim record of he proceedings Is
made, which includes which Moment h based.
testimony am evidence tqm
RIVER COUNTY
BBOARDN OF COUNTY
Nov.25 1991 N. Bid. ORAIRMAN
853540
LOOK
1107
DEC 17 Tigil
AMOK
Frau[ 66
Community Development Planning Director Stan Boling commented
from a memo dated December 5, 1991:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
obert M. Kea ng, ii P
Community Deve opm Director
THROUGH: Stan BolingNICP
Planning Director
FROM: a Christopher D. Rison _CjJ'
Staff Planner, Current Development
DATE: December 5, 1991
SUBJECT: Annette Karnatz's Request for Special Exception Approval
for an Accessory Noncommercial Stable
SP -MI -91-11-65
#91090050-001
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal.
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of December 17, 1991.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Annette Karnatz has submitted a request for special exception use
approval for a noncommercial stable to be located at 4125 21st
Street S.W. The aforementioned request was accompanied by -a
concurrent request for minor site plan approval which has been
granted by the Technical Review Committee (TRC), subject to
approval of the special exception use.
A use which requires special exception approval is one which
normally would have an adverse impact on its surroundings unless
carefully regulated in scale, duration, or nature. Special
exception approval requires submittal of an approvable site plan
meeting all site plan criteria, zoning district criteria, and
criteria set forth in the regulations for the specific use. It is
then the responsibility of the Board of County Commissioners, based
on a recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, to
either grant or deny approval. The Board of County Commissioners
may attach to its approval any reasonable conditions which it feels
are necessary to further lessen any possible impacts.
At its regular meeting of November 14, 1991, the Planning and
Zoning Commission voted unanimously (7-0) to recommend that the
Board of County Commissioners grant special exception use approval
for Annette Karnatz's request.
ANALYSIS:
1. Acreage of Property: 3.64 acres
2. Maximum Number of Adult Horses on Site: Allowed: 3
3. Ratio - Horses Proposed: 3
per Acre: .8
4. Specific Land Use Criteria: Accessory Noncommercial Stable in
RS -3 Zoning District (971.08(12)(d)]:
18
a.- `Noncommercial stables shall be allowed in nonagricultural
districts only as an accessory use.
b. Such uses shall be located on lots having an area no less
than two (2) acres.
c. The number of horses shall not exceed one per acre.
d. Enclosed structures, such as barns, shall have a minimum
setback of fifty (50) feet from any property lines.
e. The applicant shall provide a fence which has a minimum
height of four (4) feet and totally encloses the property:
to be used in association with the stable.
Staff has verified that the specific land use criteria will be
satisfied; the applicant has indicated and depicted the
corresponding information on the submitted site plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners grant Annette Karnatz's request for special
exception use approval for a noncommercial stable with the
following condition:
1. Commercial use of the stable facility and/or pasture area
is prohibited.
DEC 17 X99•
!_27
131r34
Tw. ,..1
•1
'1
MAI
TR!
z;1
TR81
I � 1
I 1
I
SUBJECT I Gei.ITN
1 F i I
SITE .
• �I i 1 i RS -3 ,a !21et 4T"SW.,•e 1
•
. ATrAu
af? 2
19
ST. LUCIE COUNTY
BOOK :.) F„tt
67
DEC7
9
BOOK 1 f'rtiUE
Commissioner Bowman clarified that commercial uses of a stable
included boarding horses not -owned by the property owner and
renting them out for rides.
Mr. Boling agreed.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, he closed the
public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously granted
the `request for speciar exception use Tor a
noncommercial stable with the condition that
commercial use of the stable facility and/or pasture
area is prohibited, as recommended by staff.
TODD DARRESS' REQUEST FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION APPROVAL FOR AN
ACCESSORY NONCOMMERCIAL STABLE
The hour of 9:05 o'clock A. M. having passed, the County
Attorney announced that this public hearing has been properly
advertised as follows:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
. I
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he Is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach In Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a)
r
In the matter of .)? A't it /.�'iy%/
In the
gaped In said newspaper In the issues of L,Z711007Gi/I017 . Jq /
Court, was pub -
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 Indlen River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office In Vero Beach. In said Indian River Caton.
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and aftiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate. commission or refund for the purpose of securing thls
advertisement for publication In the said newspaper.
Sworn tq and subscribed before me this.� a5' day o1
• (SEAL)
ZirlLrQ fAls. 19 9�
(Bust ase Manager)
11 •'r,. r,aJt .'I firth'
Arc-, ,i•••••••"'t' , 1:r•,+5f )a..
20
,SubjeCi_8ite
1 ,g6
TR.'.
1
NOTCH OF PUBLICS SMARM •
Notice 01 reeky
NrOiNin aPer et 0
The smear property r pf07erMy main by 1
end Leile Dawns.
The subject property le described '
The NOrthWelli corner of Tract 2, Saar
4, Tara 33 &alarm 39 lying In In
see known as 4755 25th Street (Watrk Avatae
A pale hosing at which parties Si Interest
Mons alae hare 1n apparently lo be hoar
be reed by Ow Bard of County Cormiseene
been Aker Cm
Non Chanters of , Ronan. in the y Admhhstr.&o... I
Ina, located at 1840 25th Street. Vero Beach.
Ida;:vown Tuesday. December 117, 119p911 at 9:05 a
may WMWish may bebe madde at gib meetsp we reed t
sure that a soften record of the proceed'
made. which tncedes testimony 1114 eines
nice the Isbased.
DOAN'tBOARD I
Nov. 25Y.s-iRldtwd N. Bird, CHAIRMAN
Planning.Director Boling commented from a memo dated December
5, 1991:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. KeaCing, (ItCP
Community Development Director
THROUGH: Stan Boling AICP
Planning Director
c
FROM: Christopher D. Rison C
Staff Planner, Current Development
DATE: December 5, 1991
SUBJECT: Todd Darress' Request for Special Exception Approval for
an Accessory Noncommercial Stable
SP -MI -91-10-57
#91080088-002
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal.
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of December 17, 1991.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Todd Darress has submitted a request for special exception use
approval for a noncommercial stable to be located at 4755 26th
Street. The aforementioned request was accompanied by a concurrent
request for minor site plan approval which has been granted by the
Technical Review Committee (TRC), subject to approval of the
special exception use.
A use which requires special exception approval is one which
normally would have an adverse impact on its surroundings unless
carefully_regulated in scale, duration, or nature. Special
exception approval requires submittal of an approvable site plan
meeting all site plan criteria, zoning district criteria, and
criteria set forth in the regulations for the specific use. It is
then the responsibility of the Board of County Commissioners, based
on a recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, to
either grantor deny approval.__The Board of County Commissioners
may attach- to its approval any reasonable conditions which it feels
are necessary to further lessen any possible impacts.
At its regular meeting of December 14, 1991, the Planning and
Zoning Commission voted unanimously (7-0) to recommend that the BCC
grant special exception use approval for Todd Darress' request.
ANALYSIS:
1. Acreage of Property: 2.39 acres
2. Maximum Number of Adult Horses on Site: Allowed: 2
Proposed: 2
3. Ratio - Horses per Acre: .8
4. Specific Land Use Criteria: Accessory Noncommercial Stable in
RS -6 Zoning District [971.08(12)(d)]:
21
DEC 17 1991
BOOK 85 FANG
u t?n
1991
BOOK 85 PAGE 7
a. Noncommercial stables shall be allowed in nonagricultural
districts only as an --accessory use.
b. Such uses shall be located on lots having an area no -less
than two (2) acres.
c. The number of horses shall not exceed one per acre.
d. Enclosed structures, such as barns, shall have a minimum
setback of fifty (50) feet from any property lines.
e: The applicant shall provide a fence which has a minimum
height of four (4) feet and totally encloses the property
to be used in association with the stable.
Staff has verified that the specific land use criteria will be
satisfied;• the applicant has indicated -and -depicted the
corresponding information on the submitted site plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the analysis performed, staff recommenda that the Board of
County Commissioners grant TOW Darress' request Tor special
exception use approval for a noncommercial stable with the
following condition:
1. Commercial use of the stable facility and/or pasture area -
is prohibited.
AITACIONNT Q
22
Commissioner Bowman asked about the surrounding zoning. Mr.
Boling stated this entire area is zoned RS -6.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, he closed the
public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously granted
the request of Todd Darress for special exception
use approval for a noncommercial stable with the
condition that commercial use of the stable facility
and/or pasture area is prohibited.
BOB SCHLITT APPEAL OF THE P & Z COMMISSION
STAFF'S DETERMINATION THAT A PARCEL CANNOT BE
CONTRARY TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN STANDARDS
Planning Director Stan Boling commented
November 27, 1991:
DECISION TO UPHOLD
CREATED IN A MANNER
from his memo dated
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. Reat ng
Community Develop
-Stan Boling t5AICP
Planning Director
November 27, 1991:
CP
t Director
BOB SCHLITT APPEAL OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
DECISION TO UPHOLD STN'S DETERMINATION THAT A PARCEL
CANNOT BE CREATED IN A MANNER CONTRARY TO COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN STANDARDS
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of December 17, 1991.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
This is an appeal by Bob Schlitt of the Planning and Zoning
Commission's decision to uphold the staff's determination that
splitting a 5 acre parcel designated as AG -1 by the comprehensive
plan would be inconsistent with the plan. At its regular meeting
of November 14, 1991, the Commission voted 6 - 1 to deny Mr.
Schlitt's appeal of the staff's determination on this matter:
23
PEG 17 •99
�0'OK Cee �'�.1E 71
1 1991
BOOK
h;VE
The subject property is a #5 acre parcel owned by Bob Schlitt and
located on the west side of 66th Avenue, north of 4th Street: (see
attachment #1). Mr. Schlitt's residence is located on the southern
portion of the subject property- The site is currently zoned RS -1,
Residential Single Family (up to 1 unit per acre), but has a land
use designation of AG -1, Agriculture (up to one unit per 5 acres).
As provided for in policy 10.5 of the Future Land Use Element of
the comprehensive plan, the land use designation governs the use
and development of a parcel whenever there is a conflict between
that parcel's zoning and its comprehensive plan land use
designation. Therefore, the subject property is restricted to the
lot size and density standards of the AG -1 designation. Because of.
the AG -1 5 acre minimum lot size requirement, it is staff's
position that the parcel cannot be divided into smaller lots
without violating the county's current land use designation
standards.
The conflict between the parcel's one unit per acre (RS -1) zoning
density and its one unit per 5 acre land use designation arose on
June 18, 1991, when the Board of` -County Commissioners -re -designated
large areas of the county (which included the parcel) from R, Rural
(up to 1 unit per acre), to AG -1, Agriculture (up to 1 unit per 5
acres). The redesignation was required by thea stipulated
settlement agreement between the State of Florida Department of
Community Affairs (DCA) and the county.
On May 11, 1990, slightly more than a year before the settlement
agreement comprehensive plan amendment was adopted, the subject
property was rezoned from A-1, Agriculture (up to 1 unit per 5
acres), to RS -1, Residential (up to 1 unit per acre). At that
time, the property had an R, Rural, land use designation which
allowed for the one unit per acre zoning.
During the thirteen month period between the rezoning action which
increased the parcel's allowable density to 1 unit per acre and - the
subsequent land use plan redesignation which reduced the parcel's
density to 1 unit per five acres, no subdivision action occurred
with respect to the subject property. Mr. Schlitt is now proposing
to divide the ±5 acre tract into "Parcel 1" and "Parcel 2" by
selling -off_ a portion of the ±5 acres to Michael Schlitt, a
contract buyer (see attachment #2). Michael Schlitt proposes to
construct a residence on "Parcel 2" and intends to subdivide
"Parcel 2" into two parcels at some point in the future. Staff -has _.
informed Mr. Schlitt that the ±5 acre parcel cannot be split under
the current AG -1 land use designation, since such an action would
not comply with the adopted comprehensive plan (see attachment #3).
At the November 14th Planning and Zoning Commission meeting,
Michael Schlitt asserted that in September, 1991 he had a
conversation with a staff planner during which several items were
discussed. One matter involved building a residence on all or a
portion of the subject ±5 acre parcel. Michael Schlitt asserts
that the staff planner did not warn him or inform him of any
problems with a proposal to construct a house on the subject
property. While the staff planner involved does not recall all the
specifics of the discussion, he does remember that several items
were briefly discussed, and he does not recall checking the land
use map in relation to any discussion items. Staff is not able to
assess whether or not details of the proposal were discussed in a
complete enough manner for an assessment to be made of--a11.-
applicable planning requirements.
Since Michael Schlitt had contacted staff regarding this matter, he
believed.there was no problem with the proposal to construct a
second residence on the subject property. Believing there to be no
problem, he subsequently filed a building permit application. It
should be noted that no specific proposal was submitted to staff
until a building permit application and accompanying plot plans
were filed. Upon review*of the actual proposal, staff determined
that two residences could not be constructed on the subject parcel
and determined that the subject parcel could not be divided under
the current land use designation.
24
NIP
72
At its regular meeting of November 14, 19911the Planning and Zoning
Commission voted to:
1. affirm that it evaluated the subject appeal pursuant to the
four criteria cited in section 902.07(4) of the LDRs; and
2. find that staff did not fail to act appropriately in relation
to any of the four areas; and
3. deny the appeal of staff's determination; and
4. uphold staff's determination that the AG -1•#5 acre minimum
parcel size standard be applied to the #5 acre subject
property and the proposed parcel split.
Mr. Schlitt is now appealing the Planning and Zoning Commission's
decision to the Board of County Commissioners, requesting that the
parcel split be allowed on grounds of "fairness". Mr. Schlitt's
position is that the new comprehensive plan density limitation
should not apply to his situation because he:
1. Relied upon the May 11, 1990 RS -1 zoning approval;
2. Was unaware of the effect of the June 18, 1991 re -designation
action; and
3. Made a "good faith" effort to sell-off a portion of the ±5
acre parcel since the May 11, 1990 rezoning.
In essence, Mr. Schlitt is requesting that, for the reasons cited
above, the current comprehensive plan land use designation not be
applied to his proposed property division.
ANALYSIS AND ALTERNATIVES:
•Agreement on Relevant Information
Mr. Schlitt and staff appear to be in agreement over the following
information and statements related to the request.
On May 11, 1990, the Board of County Commissioners approved
Mr. Schlitt's request to rezone the subject #5 acre parcel
from A-1 (Agriculture, up to 1 unit per 5 acres) to RS -1
(Residential Single Family, up to 1 unit per acre).
At the time of the rezoning (May 11, 1990), the comprehensive
plan land use designation was R (Rural, up to 1 unit per acre)
and allowed for the rezoning to the RS -1 district.
The reason Mr. Schlitt requested and obtained the rezoning was
to divide the subject #5 acre tract into separate parcels.
To date, the subject ±5 acre tract has not been divided into
two separate parcels and has not been subdivided by,platting.
On June 18, 1991, the Board of County Commissioners,: in:
accordance with a stipulated settlement with the state
Department of Community Affairs (DCA), amended the
comprehensive plan and changed the land use designation of
many properties in the county. Among those changes was a
change in the land use designation of the subject property to
AG -1 (Agriculture, up to 1 unit per 5 acres). [Note: due to
the extent of area covered by the changes, the county was not
legally required to and did not attempt to individually
contact all potentially affected property owners. Public
notices and advertisements were run in the local newspaper.]
Since June 18, 1991, the subject
for development at a density of
acre minimum parcel size. The
precedence over the zoning. Thus
restricted to a 1 unit per 5 acre
parcel size.
25
OEC 1? 199
property has been designated
1 unit per 5 acres with .a ±5
land use designation takes
, the subject property is now
density and a 5 acre minimum
EEC i7
991
BOOK
85 FA;;E
A potential buyer of a portion of the subject ±5 acre parcel,
Michael Schlitt, has applied for a building permit for a
single family home on a portion of the ±5 acre parcel (shown
as "Parcel 2" on attachment #2). No building permit can be
issued, since no separate -parcel for the new residence can be
created that is under the 5 acre minimum parcel size.
Mr. Schlitt is now requesting that the county allow the property to
be split and issue the building permit. His justification for this
request is that he has relied on the May, 1990 rezoning approval,
was unaware of the effect of the June 18, 1991 land use designation
changes, and has made a "good faith" effort to effect a split (by
selling -off a portion of the subject ±5 acre tract) since the 1990
rezoning. To support his request, Mr. Schlitt has sent information
to planning staff (see attachment #4) asserting that:.
a. After obtaining the 1990 rezoning approval, he assumed that no
regulatory changes would be made that would affect his ability
to create two or more lots out of the subject ±5 acre parcel.
b. He was not aware that the -June 18, 1991 land usW designation
changes would affect the subject property.
c. He was not able to split the ±5 acre tract by selling -off a
portion of the tract to another party until recently when he
found a willing buyer (Michael Schlitt). [Note: the parcel
could have been split by__recording a separate_ deed for a
portion for the subject parcel.]
d. He has attempted to sell-off a portion of the property since
the 1990 rezoning by:
listing a portion of the property for sale, and
subsequently lowering the offering price;
- arranging with the mortgagor to release the mortgage over
a portion of the property subject to an executed contract
with a buyer; and
- expending funds for appraisals and surveying work
necessary to sell-off a portion of the property.
Staff's determination, which has been upheld by the Planning and
Zoning Commission, is that the 1 unit per 5 acre minimum parcel
size restriction applies to the parcel and cannot be legally waived
or altered by the county under the existing comprehensive land use
plan.
It is also staff's opinion that there is no compelling equitable
estoppel argument that would enable or force the county to allow.
Mr. Schlitt to go forward with his parcel split proposal under the
current comprehensive plan. Mr. Schlitt argues that he has relied
upon the county's May 11, 1990 rezoning action to allow the
proposed split. Although Mr. Schlitt did expend some funds around
the time of the rezoning to sell-off a portion of the property, a
parcel split could have been accomplished anytime between May 11,
1990 and June 18, 1991 without selling -off a portion of the subject
property. Anytime in that 13 month periodia separate deed could
have been filed, subject to. the existing mortgage (no mortgagee's
consent would have been required) , that would have split the _ ±5
acre parcel. Thus, Mr. Schlitt had the opportunity for 13 months
to act upon the RS -1 zoning/R land use designation standards
without selling -off a portion of the:property; but he failed to do
so.
It is staff's opinion that there is no compelling equitable
estoppel argument that would keep the county from applying the
existing Comprehensive plan standards to the parcel split proposal.
Accepting such an argument could set a dangerous precedent.. that
could force the county to grandfather -in "well-intentioned"
property owners, while forcing others to adhere to the new
comprehensive plan standards. The effective dame -of the new
comprehensive plan standards has been equitably and consistently
enforced and must continue to be applied and enforced uniformly.
26
',considerationof the Appeal
The letter of appeal does not allege that staff either acted
improperly or that staff mis-applied any ordinance. The appeal is
made on grounds of "fairness" inlightof the circumstances.
Pursuant to section 902.07(4) of the LDRs, the Board of County
Commissioners is to uphold, amend, or reverse wholly or partly the
Planning and Zoning Commission's determination based upon certain
findings. The Board, as did the Planning and Zoning Commission, is
to make findings in the four following areas:
1. Did the reviewing official fail to follow the appropriate
review procedures?
2. Did the reviewing official act in an arbitrary or capricious
manner?
3. Did the reviewing official fail to consider adequately the
effects of the proposed development upon surrounding
properties, traffic circulation or public health, safety and
welfare?
4. Did the reviewing official fail to evaluate the application
with respect to the comprehensive plan and land development
regulations of Indian River County?
In staff's opinion, as well as the opinion of the Planning and
Zoning Commission, the staff did not fail in any of these four
areas.
1. Staff did not fail to follow appropriate review procedures.
Mr. Schlitt's parcel split problem came to staff's attention
recently through the routine building permit review process.
It was during such review that staff determined that a second
residence was being proposed on the ±5 acre parcel and that a
parcel under ±5 acres in size was being proposed. Staff
immediately contacted the building permit applicant (contract
buyer Michael Schlitt) who contacted the owner. Subsequently,
two meetings were held by staff with the Schlitt's. Following
the last meeting, Bob Schlitt sent staff additional
information and an "appeal" letter (see attachment #4). Staff
responded in writing (see attachment #3) and scheduled the
appeal for the next available Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting.
2. Staff did not act in an arbitrary or capricious manner. All
normar procedures were fol1Owed, and the county attorney''s.-
office was consulted throughout the staff determination
process. Staff's determination is based upon existing
comprehensive plan standards and the effective date of the
.existing comprehensive plan. Staff's determination is also
based on the need to equitably and consistently apply the
comprehensive plan standards -to the subject propetty as well
•as to surrounding property owners. Surrounding property
owners, as well as Mr. Schlitt, are made to comply with the
comprehensive plan standards in effect at the time of=any
development proposal such as a rezoning request or a division
of property. It would be arbitrary and capricious to -not
apply the standard to Mr. Schlitt.' -
3. Staff did not fail to consider adequately the effects of the
proposed development upon surrounding properties, traffic
circulation or public health safety and welfare. By applying
the land use plan standards, staff is implementing all of the
traffic, health, safety and welfare aspects of the
comprehensive plan as expressed in the land use plan.
Furthermore, staff's uniform treatment of all property owners,
including Mr. Schlitt, ensures that no special privilege is
granted Mr. Schlitt that is not given to the surrounding
property owners.
27
DEC 1.7 1991
NOP
drp
F"uL d u)
E C '�.� 7 91
BOO 85 [AGE
4. Staff did not fail to evaluate the application with respect to
the comprehensive plan and LDRs of the county. It is the
application of the existing comprehensive plan standards that
is being appealed.
If the Board of County Commissioners agrees with the Planning and
Zoning Commission and staff, and finds that staff did not fail in
any of these four areas, then the appeal cannot be approved.
• Alternatives
In essence, there is one other alternative available to the
applicant. Mr. Schlitt could now or at some later date request to
amend the>_comprehensive plan or—he could even wait -toL see if the
comprehensive plan "evolves" over time and is eventually modified
to allow non-agricultural densities and parcel sizes on the subject
property. Given the fact that the stipulated settlement agreement
amendment was only recently adopted, changing the land use plan at
this time may not be feasible but may be feasible in the future.
The next comprehensive plan amendment filing "window"ls January,
1992.
•Summary
Although Mr. Schlitt's circumstances are unfortunate, he failed to
act upon development standards advantageous to him resulting from
the RS -1 zoning he obtained on May 11, 1990. Thirteen months
later, the standards changed for Mr. Schlitt and many similarly
situated owners of property affected by the comprehensive plan land
use amendments adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. Since
the AG -1 land use standards apply to the subject property and the
proposed parcel split, it is staff's position that the
administrative decision on this issue must be upheld. Furthermore,
no equitable estoppel argument has been made that would compel or
allow the county not to apply the existing comprehensive plan
standards. The comprehensive plan standards and effective date
must continue to be applied and enforced uniformly.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners:
1. affirm that it evaluated the subject appeal pursuant to the
four criteria cited in section 902.07(4) of the LDRs; and:;
2. find that staff did not fail to act appropriately in relation
to any of the four areas; and
3. deny the appeal of the Planning and Zoning Commission's action
to deny the appeal of staff's determination; and
4. uphold the determination of the
and the staff that the AG -1
standard be applied to the ±5
proposed parcel split.
28
Planning and Zoning Commission
±5 acre minimum parcel size
acre subject property and the.
a
Ja
C
cp
1
gAV q199
3M IL
0
•
•
- • e—S8
• . . '
•'•'"'
1.1 •.;
- - - - •
1(1
ott,
"Il .51
*@;$
;•.4i • •
• L V't
< ' " '-- •
,•
Ire
. *
I'
. .
' • • '
• • 661.1VD.`:'7•
WIRE FENCE '"
no.55*
0
PARCEL 1
Existing
House
rSET CAP
6 'WIRE !INCE 330.55
6t5thCr AP
u
PARCEL 2 11*
SOUTH 1/2
NO
35'
•
461".
et
(.19.
x.x1-it....60) 165-15.
1
661.1 V- D
29
DEC 17 199L1
330.55'
Boor 6t) FA`uE
FND
1"7
—
I
BOOK 85 FAGE 78
Commissioner Scurlock understood the concern for setting a
precedent and the possible domino effect on other properties. In
this particular case he felt the applicant had planned to retire to
a small estate -type homesite. He also felt the entire area of 66th
Avenue from 4th to 6th Streets will grow and will have different
densities assigned. He asked if staff could find something that
would apply to the applicant as a vested right since he was in the
process of rezoning and splitting his property and was not aware of
the 13 -month time frame. Commissioner Scurlock felt, under those
circumstances, it would not set a precedent.
Planning Director Boling enumerated cases where people
effected splits on property before the comprehensive land change
but stressed that we no longer allow them to contradict the comp
plan when there is a zoning conflict. He felt that for the subject
case the argument could be made that a rezoning was granted, but it
is also an argument against in that there was a 13 -month time
period in which to act. It was not an immediate change after the
rezoning was granted.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that on site plans, if somebody
has not been able to get financing, we allow one extension for up
to 12 months. He also stated he would be happy if the entire area
bounded by 4th and 6th Streets and 66th and 74th Avenues would
develop at one unit to two and a half acres. Of course, the comp
plan focus is on the urban service area concept which does not take
into consideration a person in Mr. Schlitt's position. He just
wants to live in a low density area that is buffered. Commissioner
Scurlock did not like being in a position where the Board cannot,
or it is suggested that the Board cannot do anything about it.
Commissioner Bowman felt we cannot allow it because of our
stipulated agreement with Department of Community Affairs (DCA).
Commissioner Scurlock asked whether this deviation is so
substantial that DCA would call us on it.
Commissioner Bowman believed if we have one we could have
more.
Chairman Bird asked, and Community Development Director Bob
Keating used the enlarged map to indicate the dividing line in the
comp plan between this agricultural zone and the residential zone
to the east.
Commissioner Wheeler asked what our legal position is on this
and County Attorney Vitunac advised that zoning cannot be changed
except by going through the process of changing the comp plan. He
further advised that the only present method the Board has to grant
the request of this applicant is to make a finding_that the County
is equitably estopped from enforcing the existing zoning because of
30
some actionor omission of the County staff that Mr. Schlitt
reasonably relied upon to his detriment. However, Mr. Vitunac did
not think this is such a case.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter.
Attorney Bruce Barkett, representing Bob Schlitt, the
applicant, came before the Board and said he agreed with everything
staff said. Staff did not make a mistake; it was correctly
decided, the law was correctly applied. He said only the Board can
make the determination that fairness requires that Mr. Schlitt be
allowed to split his property. He said if the Board determines
that an official act took place, i.e., rezoning, that he relied on
that rezoning while he was making his application for loans and
proceeding to develop his property, and that he changed his
position in reliance upon that application, then you can find an
estoppel. Mr. Barkett agreed with Commissioner Scurlock's opinion
that this is an unfair situation and that the Board is in a
position to correct that unfairness. Mr. Barkett recounted the
steps taken by Mr. Schlitt in listing his property for sale and
paying the various fees, all in reliance on the rezoning he
received from the County. When the comp plan amendments were
published in the newspaper, it was too vague for most people to
comprehend. -Mr. Schlitt received certified letters telling him
about the hearings to rezone his property but he received no notice
that he was about to lose that right. If he had gotten notice that
he was about to lose his right to split his property, he certainly
would have recorded a deed splitting the property. This is not the
fault of County staff; that is the system and in this case it is
not fair. In reliance on the zoning which Mr. Schlitt received on
May 11, 19907 -he paid for an appraisal and a survey. His son
Michael, who signed a contract to purchase the property, expended
funds for building permits, land clearing, and an appraisal;
approximately $1,300 at this point. The most specific thing Mr.
Schlitt did in reliance is not to take immediate action. As staff
indicated, it would have been simple for Mr. Schlitt, if he had
known that he was about to lose his right, to go down and record a
deed splitting the lot, but he did not because he had no reason to
expect his RS -1 zoning (up to one unit per acre) was going to be
changed to A-1 (up to one unit per five acres).
Mr. Barkett summarized that this property is next to L-2, Pine
Tree Park, which is zoned RS -1(p to one unit u per acre). The comp
plan, which was basically handed down by the State, did not give
31
DEE 1 1991
DEC 17
gppr; Cid F'AGE 80
Mr. Schlitt any notice that he was going to lose his one unit per
acre status, and he did not getanythingin the mail about it. Mr.
Barkett said there is justification for amendment to the comp plan,
if the Board decides to go that route; however, he thought that
route is not expedient and not necessary in this case. He agreed
with the County Attorney that you can find estoppel, you can treat
the property according to the zoning that it actually has today and
you can grant the appeal.
Chairman Bird recalled that at the time the County went
through that massive change under pressure from DCA, it was
mentioned that a lot of people were going to wake up some day and
find out they had something taken away, in spite -or the Board's
efforts, because they just did not realize what was happening in
that area. Chairman Bird said in order to vote favorably to the
applicant he would need to feel that this was a unique situation
because there are a lot of people who were affected by the change
who may come before the Board and say, "Well, you did it for him,
we want the same treatment."
Community Development Director Keating said there were very
few like this.
Commissioner Scurlock and Chairman Bird asked if that means it
is unique.
Mr. Keating said there are ten -acre tracts in Fellsmere which
have been affected and have asked for rezoning to retain their
right to subdivide.
Mr. Barkett pointed out that Mr. Schlitt actually went forward
and made an effort to rezone; he was relying on the rezoning and he
did not know he had a time limit.
County Attorney Vitunac advised that there is always a
possibility of the County being sued
Relying on the existing zoning is
estoppel. The act or omission must
staff was hiding plans to rezone it
change, or to redo the comp plan, or
that there is no problem and making
this case there was a 13 -month time
could have split his lot. He had a
not doing so. There was
holdup on the application
Vitunac thought there was
did anything inequitable.
Commissioner Scurlock argued that neither did Mr. Schlitt
intentionally delay his process. He went through a lengthy process
made more difficult because of the present economic conditions.
by neighbors or somebody else.
not enough to be equitable
be drastic. For example, the
very quickly after the zoning
one day telling the applicant
the change the next day. In
period during which the owner
personal financial reason for
no intentional delay by the County, no
while the change was going on. Mr.
no evidence whatsoever that the County
32
Attorney_ Barkett pointed out that if the neighborhood did
bring suit, the solution would be to rezone it back. There would
be no monetary damages or any loss or any attorney fees.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if there was a process for Mr.
Schlitt to ask for an extension.
Mr. Keating said there was not, but he could have done the
split which would have vested him in the two parcels, and he could
have reconfigured those at some future time as long as he kept
those two parcels.
Attorney Barkett stated that there was one other factor
involved. While Bob Schlitt was relying on the rezoning to allow
the division of the property, his son, Michael Schlitt, the
contract purchaser, had discussions with staff several times and
never was put on notice that he should record the deed or lose his
right to do so.
Bob Schlitt, 505 66th Avenue, came before the Board and stated
his case. He told the Commissioners that he is a native of Indian
River County, had raised nine children and he and his wife were
foster parents for over 400 children from Indian River County. He
has been selling insurance in Indian River County for over 30
years. They sold their 10 -bedroom home and purchased this five
acres and built their dream home on two and a half acres,
surrounded by trees. Approximately two years ago his wife started
a small business funded by a second mortgage on this property.
They expected to have to feed the business for five years, but
without the sale of the two and a half acres, he expects to have
problems. Mr. Schlitt recounted the expenses involved with placing
the property on the market and having to reduce the price from the
original $84,000 to $67,000. At that point his son Michael offered
to buy it and, relying on the RS -1 zoning, Michael began the
process. Mr. Schlitt said his bank determined he could not split
the property -without -a buyer, bu_had agreed to an interest only
loan in reliance on the RS -1 zoning. In addition, he is concerned
about anticipated assessments for water and roads which are
calculated on square footage. Mr. Schlitt thanked the Board and
asked for their approval of his appeal.
Michael Schlitt, 1725 25th Avenue, came before the Board and
detailed his activities in the case. He said there seemed to be no
question during all his visits to the Building Department that his
plan was feasible until he filed a building permit application, at
which time he was told the property could not be split.
Commissioner Eggert asked for clarification on the zoning in
the surrounding property.
33
C 1.7 199`
BOOK 6b fA GE
' 1991,
BOOK 85 FACE 82
Mr. Keating stated they are zoned agricultural right now. At
the time the comp plan was put together they were zoned R, Rural,
which is why that property could be rezoned RS -1 back in 1990.
Commissioner Scurlock asked the County Attorney to explain
again who might bring suit against the County if this were rezoned
to RS -1.
Attorney Vitunac responded that certainly neighbors of the
property could bring suit, as well as anyone in the county who
wants to uphold the comp plan. If the suit were decided against
the County, we would be ordered to take action consistent with the
comp plan and we would have to change the zoning back. In the
meantime, anyone filing a lawsuit would also file in injunction
against building while the lawsuit was pending.
Commissioner Eggert felt frustrated because- during the
negotiations with DCA, Pine Tree Park came up and the subject
parcel was not discussed.
Chairman Bird agreed and said if all these facts had been
presented during those negotiations, we could have bypassed or
carved out this parcel in the rezoning.
Attorney Vitunac advised that no court would find the County
did anything wrong. However, if the Board decides the County did
something wrong, and the Commissioners do not enforce the zoning,
there is little likelihood of a lawsuit. The legal department is
just giving the best legal advice.
Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that the Commission must
decide whether the facts as presented create a situation to vote
for the appeal.
Commissioner Wheeler added that the applicant was dealing in
good faith. The bureaucratic system puts demands on property
owners when they make a request, but when the County wants
something, we just do it.
Mr. Joe Schlitt wanted to clarify that while staff said that
all he would have had to do is split his property, he was not put
on notice. He was sure the bank would have cooperated had he known
how it would affect his property.
Shelley Adams, resident of Pine Tree Park, 6600 Fourth Street,
came before the Board and spoke in favor of Mr. Schlitt's plan.
She said she and her husband helped fence the property with Bob
Schlitt and commented that his home is very nice, not visible from
the road. _
Commissioner Bowman did not understand how Mr. Schlitt did not
hear about this rezoning. He owned property in an Ag area and
there was a lot of publicity and discussion about the fact that DCA
was requiring us to rezone Ag land.
34
Commissioner Wheeler noted that many people in the County did
not realize how they would be affected.
An unidentified voice asked if Commissioner Bowman had ever
tried to read -the notices and Commissioner Bowman agreed that
putting in latitude and longitude for a public notice was not
acceptable. She said she had suggested they should be identified
by street name and number, and for a while they were doing that,
but for some reason they stopped.
Dean Lockwood, Dogwood Lane, came before the Board to speak in
support of the Planning & Zoning Commission's decision. He thought
the Board should not rezone agricultural land when there are so
many buildable lots in the developed areas of the County. Mr.
Lockwood said he and his wife moved to Indian River County by
choice because of the lifestyle that was available here, and wished
the Board would follow the comprehensive land use plan. He felt
there are exceptions and if Mr. Schlitt does prove he is an
exception, that is fine, but he wanted the County to avoid setting
precedent.
Bill Griffith, resident of Vero Beach Highlands, stated that
you can read these notices all day long and unless you are an
attorney or have property right in that spot, you would not
understand it. He felt if Mr. Schlitt was not notified that they
were changing something, he should not be going through the cruelty
he is going through now.
Linda Lindsey, General Manager at Coldwell Banker, came before
the Board and explained that with all their involvement in the comp
plan changes, and having Mr. Schlitt's property listed for sale,
she and her staff should have been aware of this rezoning, but it
slipped by them, too.
It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the
Chairman closed the public hearing.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wheeler, to reverse the decision of
the Planning & Zoning Commission and grant relief to
Mr. Schlitt for the following reasons: the
uniqueness of the circumstances; the rezoning had
been issued: he was in the process of trying to
develop the property; and it would not set a broad
precedent.
35
L. DEC 1799'
BOOK
[ cam
rjUt (6+
DEC t7gq'i
1
BOOK Pa,E 84
Under discussion, Commissioner Eggert stated that if she had
this parcel in mind during negotiations, it would have been
excepted from the rezoning.
Chairman Bird agreed he would have voted to carve this parcel
.t. out of the area that was rezoned.
Commissioner Bowman did not think it is legal and would vote
against the motion.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried 4 to 1, Commissioner
Bowman voting in opposition.
The Chairman recessed the meeting briefly at 10:15 A. M. and
the Board reconvened at 10:30 A.M. with the same members present.
SEBASTIAN ASSOCIATES, LTD., REOUEST TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY EIGHT
ACRES FROM RM -6 TO CG
The hour of 9:05 o'clock A. M. having passed, the County
Attorney announced that this public hearing has been properly
advertised as follows:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Dally -
Vero Beach. Indian River County. Florida
01 ,
mr..::'t!I„ `.
rt. �,..
:_COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA c'41;.•5111 !• .•
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero'' Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being -
• a lf�j
In the matter of s"o • i LF!.Gr/
art...•
jet .
In the Cowl, was pub.
• •fished In said newspaper In the issues of lfl�%i'. l/ tZ4 N'
Aftient 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 office In Vero Beach. In said Indian River Colin.
ty. Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person. firm
or corporation any discount, rebate. commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in (he said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed befole me 'IAip r _ a, 5- day oft 163. 19 �L_
0 4
rLtIB s es Manager)
b'rritt4/
(SEAL)
11 t.!pt . 1q..,1.1..
36
NOTICE OF PUBLIC REARMS
Notice of hearing to consider the adaption of a
. county ordinance meaning land from: RNA M utB-
pls•FanNh Residential Diable to CO. General Can.
rreretaf District The subbed prone y is
Mum*
owned by Helen Harmon PrepMbn, Ino. aid _
acted west of U.B. Highway i and tysoutheast
f
� ateIpp acres
rid Ispaa pm of tlins iota 1Ro3,
14. 15 and 18• pact of Town of Waureipm
tion StddlM-
tion. Flat Book 1, Pages 178 end 179, Bre,wd
r
Comfy. Florida, ee •row tiling and being Yr
being
dart River
dtIA putty
harm 1 which parties h Interest and
be held 0e Board o cant, oIT Opportunity be �• of
Indian Enver Courtly, Florida, h to County �
Build-
ing. located at 1810 25th Street,Vera Beech. Fla-
k%
loonn Board
y, m
December 17, 1991 at 9:05 em.
a Tae arde County Cornmissbrere adopt
district n+
quested provided Gwithelft ewicram w general use
Anyone who may wish ripped decision
which may be made at this ma res
eetig weed to err
sue that a Verbatim record of the proceedings Is
made. which Includes
which basseed`inawan
and evidence an
Wan Rimer Countamaiimen,
Board of
County•Richard
Olainnen
NOV. N, 1991 853230
1
Community_ Development Director Bob Keating explained that
rezoning has been considered by the Board on two previous occasions
and at the November 19 meeting the Board voted to change the land
use designation on this piece of property to commercial. This
rezoning was also scheduled for that November 19 meeting, but
because of an advertising glitch, we had to postpone until this
time. Mr. Keating also noted that the Planning & Zoning Commission
approved this request in April,1991 and staff recommends approval.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, he closed the
public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 91-50, amending the Zoning Ordinance and
the Accompanying Zoning Map from RM -6 to CG for the
property generally located west of U.S. #1 and
southeast of Roseland Road, as recommended by staff.
ORDINANCE NO. 91- 50
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FROM RM -6 TO
CG, FOR THE PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED WEST OF U.S. # 1 AND
SOUTHEAST OF ROSELAND ROAD, AND DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND
PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the
local planning agency on such matters, has held a public hearing
and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this rezoning
request; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to
rezone the hereinafter described property; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that
this rezoning is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan of
Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has held a public
hearing pursuant to this rezoning_request, at which parties in
interest and citizens were heard;
37
DEC 17 1991
NM 85 FAU
r -
DEC 1L 199
411
BOOK 85 FALL
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning of
the following described property situated in Indian River County,
Florida, to -wit:
BEING A PORTION OF LOTS 13, 14, 15 &
WAUREGAN, RECORDED IN PLATBOOK 1,
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, SAID LANDS
IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
16. PLAT OF TOWN OF
PAGES 178 AND 179,
NOW LYING AND BEING
BEING MORE FULLY
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF TRACT "G" AS
SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF RIVERWALK II AS RECORDED IN PLAT
BOOK 12 PAGE 36 OF THZ—PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE 545044'55"W ALONG THE
SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT "G" A DISTANCE OF 323.56
FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID TRACT "G" AND
ALSO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUE S45044'55"w
A DISTANCE OF 332.90 FEET TO A POINT THAT IS LOCATED 200'
NORTHEASTERLY OF THE NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF
WAUREGAN AVE. (AS MEASURED AT A RIGHT ANGLE); THENCE
N44o25'06"W ALONG A LINE THAT IS PARALLEL TO SAID
NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF WAUREGAN AVE. A
DISTANCE OF 919.97 FEET; THENCE N45039'24"E A DISTANCE OF
445.05 FEET; THENCE S43o31'06"E A DISTANCE_ OF 380.53
FEET; THENCE S45049'17"W A DISTANCE OF 103.89 FEET;
THENCE S44010'35"E ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY PROPERTY LINES
OF TRACTS "D", "F" AND "G" OF SAID PLAT OF RIVERWALK II
A DISTANCE OF 540.31 FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF
SAID TRACT "G" AND POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 8.00
ACRES MORE OR LESS.
Be changed from RM -6 to CG.
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in
said Zoning Regulations.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, on this 17 day of December 1991.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal
on the 25 day of November , 1991 for a public hearing to be
held on the 17 day of December , 1991 at which time it was
moved for adoption by Commissioner Wheeler , seconded by
Commissioner Eggert , and adopted by the following
vote:
Chairman Richard N. Bird
Vice Chairman Gary C. Wheeler
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Aye
Aye
Aye
Nay
AyP
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BY:
Richard N. Bird, Chairman
38
LODAR, INC. 'S REQUEST FOR CONCEPTUAL SPECIAL EXCEPTION APPROVAL FOR
THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
The hour of 9:05 o'clock A. M. having passed, the County
Attorney announced that this public hearing has been properly
advertised as follows:
VERO" BEACH PRESS -JOUR
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indtaa River County, F
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared .1..1. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at VerPW Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a
In the matter o
In the �%/y� /, f r Court, was pub.
Betted in said newspaper M the Issues of /G%iii7Nf .�.2J. /99/
^C. -+"' Alfiant further says that the said Vero Beath Press-Jourlatl is a newspaper published at
, ' Vero Beach, In said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
•;.". been continuously published in Bald Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been 1
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, In said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy o1
advertisement; and aftlant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
OT corporation any discount, rebate. commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement.for publication in the said newspaper.•,, Swain to and 7abscribed belire nrhis �l
h ..t+., r %jr K0(.O 199
igt
7,:4;•‘4....„..N4 1, . .. 1 tal1. e. ^
. . fly ..
M.,: r7 r,.t• a. , -!••••• of rtmi•M
• • NOTICE OF'MSC HOMO •
Nolte of Irby b *onside; en gringo; of ter. ..
• del mmepUm approval fare PlowedONNoonsi
• (PD) b be hewn ss Men River Gil. Ths
Fappreawtatr owmta0 b7 . iro.
The subset property b. WIIIVIA•17 de -
Feed A: Those d Section 38. TTaw Tubb 5e'3S
SS ,
10.11, X 8 3 E =via the Vero
eBeeaach Piste
led by 19th Place S.W. co be rvatlndd
Oat Avenue S.W. an Ss east, do '610"
Orel m the math. 8th An. S.W. m the
east, end 2310 Street S.W. (I0. ,,.;
PDIM arcel A the south endwast. - ,.
98 •
O3.rlded betweenrrin40Ssaelenpaapshapa� ...
y
M "B-1 on 11111 5a3 0.23rd Street
S.W. (Mpltende Drive B.W.) on the south.
east ecoid 031 Averse S.W. m the south.
west
Perp °B.pmr
80 E. Viols Y boededsad Street
S.W. (1sddrste Dere &W.) CO 8a ea01,
Gen-
eral US' Fulty ten ate
stoat and Rh Anna S.W. m tri nab
(Please lee the sharecrop.)
r
..
t•
A Nib hearing at whish pales In Interest andaU
Weans shell have n bid heard, M
the Board of Dowdy Corraisakintes
Man W, be held iera Florida, b 6r Comb Cwmir
ea d
t don Chambre the Canty A0Nystratlsn toad•
Ing. located al 1810 26th !Prost. Von Beads Flor-
ida m Tuesday, December { 17. 1991 at 9:03 am. A Mb may Midi mss any decision
which may be mads at this me elneed ban•
' sure got erecord
proomoIngsn made Mhste na and Warsup
Wish theppeOAN COUNTY
BOARD
• BOMm OF COUNTY Opp
BYMtlehed N. Bed. CHAIRMAN
N. 280691 868537
Planning -Director Stan Boling commented from his memo dated
December 10, 1991:
39
DEC 17 1991
L.
BOOK `I, E
r>'vt
MI
7.7
IEC ill 1991
BOOK 85 PAGE
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
•
DIVIION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
er . Keating
Community Develo
THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP
Planning Director
FROM: Christopher D. Rison
;_ Staff Planner, Current Development
DATE: December 10, 1991
SUBJECT: Lodar, Inc.'s Request for Conceptual Special Exception
Approval for the Indian River' Country Club Planned
Development (PD)
PD -91-10-02
#91080122
:It is requested that the data~ herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of December 17, 1991.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
•General Background
Urban Resource Group, on behalf of Lodar, Inc., is requesting
conceptual planned development (PD), and special exception use
approval for the Indian River Country Club. The site consists of
233 acres of undeveloped land within the Vero Beach Highlands
Subdivision. It is zoned both RS -6 (Single -Family residential up
to 6 units per acre) and RM -6 (Multi -Family residential up to 6
units per acre), and has an L-2 (Low -Density Residential up to 6
units per acre) land use designation. The total site consists of
three separate parcels, bounded by existing road rights-of-way,
canals and platted subdivision lots. The site includes wetland and
upland areas, although some areas of the site have been
significantly burned in the past. Additionally, two lakes, which
will be modified by the development, exist on the westernmost
parcel.
The Indian River Country Club project will consist of an 18 hole
golf course and clubhouse facility with accessory recreation
facilities and a maximum of 300 residential units consisting of a
mixture of single-family and multi -family units.
Indian River Country Club:
Residential Development 53 acres
Golf Course Development 97 acres
Lakes 27 acres.
Open Space/Buffers 34 adres
Wetlands 7 acres
Road Rights -of -Way 15 acres
Gross Site Area 233 acres
The proposed project will be developed in phases, which will
require preliminary PD approvals (consisting of site plan and
preliminary plat "combination" approvals) for the project phases.
Development of the project will provide infill development of the
large undeveloped tracts located within the Vero Beach Highlands
Subdivision where existing service facilities (eg.--roadway, water
service, sewer service, etc.) are currently built or available.
40
•PD Review/Approval Process
The approval steps in the PD process are as follows:
Approval Needed
1. Conceptual Plan/Special Exception
2. Preliminary PD/Site Plan
3. Land Development Permits
4, Final PD (plat)
Reviewing Body
P&ZC and B.C.C.
P&ZC
Staff
B.C.C.
The Board of County Commissioners is now to act on the concept
plan/special exception approval request by approving, approving
with conditions, or denying the request. Pursuant to Section
971.05 of the County's Land Development Regulations concerning the
review of special exception uses, the Board of County Commissioners
is to consider the appropriateness of the requested use based upon
the submitted conceptual plan, the suitability of the site for that
use, the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, and:the:
staff's recommendation. The Board may attach any conditions and
safeguards necessary to ensure compatibility of the use with the
surrounding area.
The Planning and Zoning Commission considered this item at its
regularly scheduled meeting of November 14, 1991. The Planning and
• Zoning Commission voted (5-2) to recommend that the Board of County
Commissioners grant special exception use and conceptual planned
development approval for the Indian River Country Club. The
Planning and Zoning Commission's final recommendation modified 3
conditions recommended by staff. The three conditions addressed
the provision of golf cart crossings, the construction of offsite
sidewalks for the project and the utilization of street names for
the project. An excerpt from a draft of the November 14, 1991
Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting is attached.
(Please see Attachment #8.)
If the conceptual plan and PD
granted, the project may move
Commission will then review and
PD plan requests with the Board
plan requests.
special exception use approval are
forward. The planning and Zoning
consider all subsequent preliminary
considering all subsequent final PD
ANALYSIS:
1. PROPOSED DENSITY (maximum of 300 units on 233 acres): 1.29
units ger acre.
2. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND PHASING: Eight separate
residential parcels will be developed on the overall site in
the following manner:
Parcel Acres Net Density* Type
1 10 acres Up to 6 DU/ac
2 7 acres Up to 6 DU/ac.
3 9 acres Up to 6 DU/ac.
4 6 acres Up to 8 DU/ac.
5 4 acres Up to 8 DU/ac.
6 3 acres Up to 8 DU/ac.
7 4 acres Up to 12 DU/ac.
8 10 acres Up to 12 DU/ac.
TOTAL 53 acres
DEC.17 199
41
Single Family Detached
Single Family Detached
Single Family Detached
Single Family/Multi-Family
Single Family/Multi-Family
Single Family/Multi-Family
Multi -Family
Multi -Family
BOOK t,
nr-c,
BOOK.r
JE,3E
Thus, 53 acres of the overall 233 acre site will be developed
as residential areas; the remaining acreage is to consist of
a golf course, recreational facilities, open space and buffer
areas. The applicant has noted that Parcels #7 and #8, while
currently designated for Multi -Family Development, may be
developed with Single -Family and/or Multi -Family units,
depending upon marketing determinations to be made as..
project progresses. The applicant is currently proposing the
following phasing schedule:
Proposed Residential
Phase Development Units Completion
#1 Golf Course, Club and
Maintenance Facility;
Residential Parcels 3,
4, and 5 100 July 1993
#2 Residential Parcels -3,
2, and 6 100 Dec. 1994
#3 Residential Parcels 7 100 July 1996
and 8
2. UTILITIES: Pursuant to the provisions of the County's Utility
Connection Matrix, this project will connect to public water
and wastewater facilities which will be provided by General
•-•Development Utilities.
`3. PUBLIC WORKS: All lots in the subdivision will be_accessed by
an internal roadway system to be platted via this project.
The Public Works Department has approved the conceptual street
lay -out which utilizes 40' wide rights-of-way and has approved
the project's connections to 23rd Street S.W. The internal
roadway system will include an emergency access on the western
edge of the site, lying on the north side of the B-10 Canal,
between 12th Avenue S.W. and the project's internal roadway.
4. ROADWAY PROVISIONS:
•8th Avenue S.W.
The project abuts a portion of 8th Avenue S.W., which is a
local road requiring a minimum right-of-way width of 60'.
Currently, a 35' wide right-of-way exists for 8th Avenue S.W.
Pursuant to Section 952.08(1)(b), the applicant is required to
dedicate 25' of additional road right-of-way for 8th Avenue
S.W. as a noncompensable right-of-way dedication in order to
attain the minimum local road right-of-way standard width of
60' for 8th Avenue S.W.
•6th Avenue S.W., north of 23rd Street S.W.
The County Thoroughfare Plan designates 6th Avenue S.W. north
of 23rd Street S.W. as a collector roadway requiring a minimum
right-of-way width of 80'. Currently, no right-of-way exists
for this portion of 6th Avenue S.W. (The existing paved
roadway is constructed over the subject private property.)
Pursuant to Section 952.08(1)(b), the applicant is required to
dedicate 60' of road right-of-way for 6th Avenue S.W. north of
23rd Street S.W. as a noncompensable right-of-way dedication
in order to establish the minimum local road right-of-way
standard width of 60'. At this time, no roadway improvements
for 6th Avenue S.W. are listed in the County's Capital
Improvements Program. Therefore, the public Works Department
has elected not to purchase the additional 20' of right-of-way
which will be needed to attain the ultimate 80' wide
Thoroughfare Plan right-of-way width for this portion of 6th
Avenue S.W. _
42
06th -Avenue S.W., south of 23rd Street S.W.
The County Thoroughfare Plan designates 6th Avenue S.W. south
of 23rd Street S.W. as a local roadway with a minimum right-
of-way width of 60'. Currently, a 60' right-of-way exists for
6th Avenue S.W., south of 23rd Street S.W. Therefore, no
additional right-of-way is required for this portion of. 6th_
Avenue S.W.
•23rd Street S.W., 12th Avenue S.W. and 12th Road S.W.
(Highland Drive)
The County Thoroughfare Plan designates 23rd Street S.W., 12th
Avenue S.W. and 12th Road S.W. as collector roadways with a
minimum right-of-way width of 80'. Currently, an 80' right-
of-way exists for 23rd Street S.W., 12th Avenue S.W. and 12th
Road S.W. Therefore, no additional right-of-way is required
for 23rd Street S.W., 12th Avenue S.W. and 12th Road S.W.
5. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT: The Conceptual Stormwater Management
Plan has been approved by the Public Works Department, and
corresponding Type "A" and "B" Stormwater Permits may be
issued for the project as the applicant submits for formal
preliminary PD and land development permit review. -and:
approval.
6. GOLF CART CROSSINGS: The applicant has proposed two golf cart
crossings, one for 6th Avenue S.W. and one for 23rd Street
S.W. Staff has expressed concerns about the proposed
crossings from the outset of the development review process
(pre -application conference).
Public Works Department staff have determined that one or more
of five methods (or possible combinations of the methods) may
be used for the provision of the -cart crossings. (Pleasesee
Attachment #4.) These methods are:
1. Below -grade underground tunnels
2. Above -grade overpasses
3. At -grade, electronically signalized mid -block crossings
4. At -grade, electronically signalized crossings at street
intersections
5. At -grade, non -electronically signalized, mid -block
crossings
The project site's groundwater levels preclude the development
of below -grade tunnels. Thus, Option # 1 has been eliminated
from consideration by staff.
The applicant has proposed at -grade, non -electronically
signalized, mid -block carr crossings (Option- #5). The
applicant's proposal is contained in attachment 4a. Staff
does not recommend approval of such crossings given the safety
conditions and concerns relating to cart crossings of
collector roadways.
Staff's primary recommendation is that the applicant provide
above -grade (overpass) golf cart crossings (Option #2). It is
staff's position that grade separated crossings are preferred
due to concerns of safety for general vehicular traffic and
golf course users. Sixth Avenue S.W. and 23rd Street S.W.,
the roads where the proposed cart crossings will located, are
both designated as collector roadways on the county's
thoroughfare plan, and each roadway serves significant area
traffic. Sixth Avenue S.W. extends north -to -south and feeds
local traffic to the nearby Highlands Elementary School.
Twenty-third Street S.W. extends east -to -west and serves as
the main feeder roadway into and through the Vero Beach
Highlands Subdivision from U.S. #1 and 17th Street S.W..,
43
DEC 17 1991
BOOK
r.
EC .6tl
911
BOOK 8 5 PAGE OE
The provision of above -grade crossings eliminates the
potential for golf cart/vehicular/pedestrian conflicts which
would likely occur given the current nature of traffic and
travel patterns in the area. It should be noted that traffic
volumes in the area are expected to increase in the future as
the surrounding area continues to develop. Therefore, staff
recommends that the applicant be required to provideabove-:
grade overpass golf cart crossings for the project at 6th
Avenue S.W. and 23rd Street S.W. Public Work's golf cart
crossing assessment is contained in attachment 4b.
The Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation
incorporated the applicant's request to provide at -grade, non -
electronically signalized mid -block cart crossings. Staff
does not agree with the Planning and Zoning Commission's
recommendation to require non -electronically signalized
crossings. In staff's opinion, at -grade electronically
signalized mid -block crossing control (Option- #3) is the
minimum acceptable form of crossing control under certain
circumstances. Such electronic signals would be self -
actualized, activated by the golf cart occupant, which would
activate a stop light signal to halt vehicular traffic.
Provision of such signalized crossings could provide an
acceptable method of formalized crossing control if -area
motorists respect the signal indications and if the signals
are activated only when a cart needs to make a crossing
movement.' The applicant has indicated that provision of at -
grade, electronically signalized mid -block cart crossings may
be. acceptable in the future should the non -electronically
signalized crossings initially proposed by the applicant
(Option #5) prove hazardous or ineffective. However, the
applicant is reluctant to agree to providing electronic
crossings up front.
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners
require that the applicant provide above -grade cart crossings.
Should the Board determine that above -grade crossings are not
necessary, then staff would recommend that the applicant be
required to provide at -grade, electronically signalized mid -
block cart crossings.
7. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES:
• Upland Habitat:
Since the subject property is greater than 5 acres in size,
the project is required to provide for the preservation of
on-site upland habitat areas, pursuant to the provisions of
Section 929.05. The applicant has determined, and staff
concurs, that 74 acres of the site consist of native upland
habitat. Compliance with the county's preservation
requirement will require that the applicant provide for the
preservation of 10 to 15% of the 74 acres of upland habitat.
The applicant has acknowledged on the conceptual plan that the
project will comply with the preservation requirement. Staff
concurs with the applicant that the proposed conceptual plan
indicates that the conceptual plan design 'will accomodate
satisfaction of the upland habitat preservation requirement on
the site. Specific provisions (e.g. delineation of
Conservation Easements, etc.) will be addressed during the
project's subsequent preliminary PD reviews.
• Wetlands:
Examination of the subject property indicates that wetland
areas exist on the property. The applicant has noted that
some wetland areas will be preserved, while others will be
altered. The concept plan depicts additional- wetland creation
as mitigation for the wetlands alteration.
44
To address the proposed wetlands alteration, the applicant has
submitted a functional assessment for the wetlands which
indicates that the wetlands to be filled are marginal in
natur— This assessment has been accepted by the
environmental planning staff. Final determinations _for
preservation and mitigation for the wetland areas will be
addressed during the project's subsequent preliminary PD
reviews in which the applicant will be required to obtain a
county wetlands resource permit prior to obtaining a land
development permit(s). Environmental planning staff indicate
that a wetlands resource permit is issuable for the project,
8. REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS: For the subject property's
corresponding RS -6 and RM -6 Zoning Districts, bikeways,
sidewalks, and streetlights may be required improvements
[911.07(6) & 911.08(6)]. For this project:
a. Bikeways: The applicant is not required to provide a
bikeway by the County's Bikeway/Sidewalk Plan.
b. • Sidewalks On-site: The applicant is required to
provide for some type of internal pedestrian circulation
system for the project [Land Development Regulations
(LDRs) citation 915.17(3)(8)6]. The applicant has noted
that this requirement will be satisfied by utilization of
the project's internal street system, the golf cart
paths, and mulch paths proposed to run throughout the
project's open space areas. Staff concurs that utilizing
these facilities will satisfy the internal circulation
-requirements, with the specific design and location of
the facilities to be determined during the project's
subsequent preliminary PD reviews.
• Sidewalks - Off-site: The applicant is required to
provide 5' wide public sidewalks along its Thoroughfare
Plan designated roadway frontages for 23rd Street S.W.,
12th Street S.W., 12th Road S.W. and 6th Avenue S.W., as
required by the County's Bikeway/Sidewalk Plan and LDR
sections 913.09(5)(C)1.A and 915.17(3)(8)6. The
Thoroughfare Plan (collector) roadway sidewalks which
must be provided via this project application are:
6 -12th Avenue S.W. - east side
• 12th Road S.W. - northeast side
• 23rd Street S.W. north side, east and west of 6th
Avenue S.W.
- south side, east of 6th Avenue
S.W.
--i-6th Avenue S.W. - "west side
(It should be noted that a sidewalk already exists along
the project's eastern 6th Avenue S.W. road frontage,
north of 23rd Street S.W. Therefore, the applicant will
be required to provide 5' sidewalk along only the west
side of 6th Avenue S.W., north of 23rd Street S.W.)
Originally, staff also recommended that a 4' wide local
road sidewalk segment should be provided along the
project's frontage on the east side of 6th Avenue S.W.,
south of 23rd Street S.W., as this portion of 6th Avenue
S.W. is classified as a local road. Initially, staff was
of the opinion that this segment would be used as a
pedestrian route to Highlands Elementary School.
However, after further review by staff of information
presented by the applicant and staff field observations,
staff now concurs that the segment would not serve as a
school access route. Since the overall density of the
proposed project and the surrounding Vero Beach Highlands
is less than 3 units/acre, the applicant is not required
to provide a 4' wide -local road sidewalk under the
provisions of Section 913.09(5)(B)3.b of the LDRs.
Therefore, staff is no longer recommending that this
sidewalk segment be provided.
45
DEC 17 1991
BorK
uC • %c
The applicant has
sidewalks along the
• 23rd Street S.W.
BOOK 85 Fai;c
proposed providing only 4' _wide_
following roadway frontages:
- north side, east and west of 6th
Avenue S.W.
- south side, east of 6th Avenue
S.W.
• 6th Avenue S.W. - west side
The Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation
upheld the applicant's proposal to provide sidewalks only
along 23rd Street S.W. and 6th Avenue S.W. with the
condition that the sidewalks to be provided must be 5'
wide. However, Section 915.20(3)(A) of the Planned
Development Ordinance -.requires that planned.development.
projects be reviewed and approved under the requirements
of the Subdivision and Platting Ordinance, Chapter 913.:
Section 915.15 of the Planned Development Ordinance
specifies which provisions of Chapter 913 may be waived.
The list of possible waivers does not include a waiver
from providing required off-site improvements. Sections
913.09(5)(B)1 and 913.09(5)(c)1 of the Subdivision and
Platting Ordinance, which refer to required off-site
'improvements, require subdivisions to provide 5' wide
sidewalk improvements along the entire frontage _of
adjacent roads designated by the thoroughfare plan as
arterials or collector roadways.
Neither the applicant's proposal nor the Planning and
Zoning Commission's recommendation conform to the adopted
LDRs governing the sidewalk requirements applicable to
this development project. Staff recommends that the
Board require that the applicant provide all 5' wide
Thoroughfare Plan sidewalks listed by staff in this
report, as required by the LDRs. Lastly, it should be
noted that the sidewalk segments can be constructed in
phases which are logically tied to the phasing of the
project itself.
c. Streetlights: The project is required to provide
internal and external (e.g. entrance intersections)
streetlighting. The applicant has acknowledged this
requirement on the submitted conceptual plan. Specific
compliance with the requirement will be addressed during
the project's subsequent preliminary PD reviews.
9. LANDSCAPING AND BUFFERS: The project is required to provide
a varied perimeter planned development buffer due to the
nature of adjacent and abutting properties. A Type "D" Buffer
is required where the project abuts public and private rights-
of-way, specifically streets and canals [915.16(2) & (3)].
A Type "C" Buffer is required where the project abuts
residentially designated properties [915.16(2)]. Finally, a
Type "B" Opaque Buffer is required where the project's golf
course maintenance facility is proposed to be located adjacent
to a residentially designated area [971.40(3)(d)5]. The
applicant has conceptually satisfied these buffer requirements
by indicating their locations on the proposed conceptual plan
and by providing a typical cross-section of the proposed
buffers. (Please see Attachment #5) Formal installation,
placement and maintenance of the buffers will be addressed
during the project's preliminary PD reviews.
10. DEDICATIONS: Dedication of the planned development
improvements will be addressed during -the_ _project's
preliminary PD reviews and finally addressed— during the
project's final PD reviews.
46
11. _REQUESTED_WAIVERS: Pursuant to the provisions of Section
915.15 (4), the applicant has requested specialized waiyers:__
County ordinances provide the following requirements for
developments in the RS -6, Single -Family Residential (up to 6
units per acre) and RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential (up to
6 units per acre) Zoning Districts:
RM -6
RS -6 Single -Family
Development Development
RM -6
Multiple -Family
Development
Minimum Lot
Size
Minimum Lot
Width
Setbacks:
Front Yard
Rear Yard
Side Yard
Side Corner
Pools, Pool
Decks, Patios,
• & Screen
Enclosures
7,000 sq. ft.
70 feet
20 feet
20 feet
10 feet
n/a
• Open_ Space 40%
7,000 sq. ft. 10,000 sq. ft.
70 feet
25 feet
25 feet
10 feet
n/a
100 feet
25 feet
25 feet
10 feet_
a/a
Setbacks vary depending upon placement
in a designated yard. Minimum setbacks,
with encroachment allowances, are:
10 feet for Pools and Screen Enclosures
5 feet for Pool Decks and Patios
40% 40%
The standards and specialized waivers .requested
applicant are summarized in the_-following.chart:
RESIDENTIAL PRODUCT TYPE
Single Zero •
Family Lot - Cluster Townhouse
Detached Line
Minimum
Lot Size
Minimum
Lot Width
by- the
Condominium
5,000 sf 5,000 sf 10,000 sf 2,000 sf 10,000 sf
70 feet 45 feet 100 feet 25 feet 80 feet
Setbacks
Front (1) 15/25 ft
Rear (2) 20 ft
Side 10 ft
Side Corner 15 ft
Pools, Pool
Decks, Patios,
Screen Enclosures
Open space 30%
Notes:- (1)
(2)
-713)
(4)
(5)
15/25 ft 15 ft 15/25 ft 15 ft
10/20 ft 10/20 ft 10/20 ft 10/20 ft
0/10/5 ft(3) 10 ft 0/7.5 ft(4) 10 ft
15 ft 15 ft 15 ft 15 ft
5 ft for all product types.
20% 20% (5)
20% 20%
For front accessed garages: 25 feet
For side accessed garages: 15 feet - as indicated
20 feet from control elevation of any adjacent water body
10 feet elsewhere -,as indicated
Zero Lot Line Side: 0 feet
Opposite Side: 10 feet for Habitable Structure
5 forle
Townhouse side setbacks f otallowN0'� eabittback/coommonture wall
with 7.5 setback for an end unit.
Open space expressed as a percentage of the overall parcel
within which cluster homes are platted.
The applicant has provided typical depictions of the proposed
Residential Product Types which are shown on Attachments 6a
through 6f. Staff has no objection to the standards and
waivers requested by the applicant. As a planned development
project, the required planned development perimeter buffer
will screen the modified development patterns within the
project from the surrounding area. Thus, in staff's opinion,
none of the requested waivers pose any compatibility problems
for properties surrounding the project.
47
-9
BOOK 85
i
e
BOOK U7...) FACE
FACU
12. STREET NAME REQUEST: Section 951.05(4)(b) requires that new
roadways bear street number designations in order to provide„
for a uniform road addressing and designation system. The
applicant has requested the ability to utilize street name
designations for the project roadways. The Planning and
Zoning Commission granted the applicant's request to utilize
street name designations for the project. Staff requests that
the Board reverse the decision of the Planning and Zoning
Commission and require.. that street number designations be
utilized for the project.
Street name designation requests have been approved for
subdivision projects located on the barrier island (eg.
Seaview Subdivision). This—is due to the predominance of a
street name road system that already exists on the barrier
island. The area surrounding the subject site contains
existing development which utilizes a road system beari-ng
street number designations. (Staff acknowledges thatthe
numbered roadways 23rd Street S.W., 12th Avenue S.W. and 12th.
Road S.W. bear the common lime Highland Drive. However,.:it
should be noted that this is the one exception in the area.)
The applicant should be required to utilize road number
designations for the project in order to maintain the existing
pattern of road number designations surrounding the project
site and to be consistent with the provisions of Chapter 951
of the LDRs. The road numbering system was established to
promote an efficient system to be used by the general public,
emergency services and the postal service. _
The Director of Emergency Services has indicated that the
Emergency Services Department consistently supports the use of
road number designation for new projects. (Please see
Attachment #7.) Therefore, both Planning Division and
Emergency Services staff recommend that the applicant's
request to utilize street name designations be denied and that
the project be required to bear road number designations
pursuant to Chapter 951 standards. =
13. TRAFFIC IMPACTS: The applicant has submitted a Traffic Impact
Study. Initial review by the County Traffic Engineer has
indicated that the study appears sufficient, and no revisions
will be required. However, the County Traffic Engineer has
not yet completed a final review of the study, as it was
received separately from and later than the general plan
submission.
The study will determine what, if any, traffic improvements
must be provided by the applicant for the project. Prior to
approval of any subsequent preliminary PD plan, the applicant
must obtain the county Traffic Engineer's approval of the
study and make any revisions required by the County Traffic
Engineer. Any traffic improvements identified in the final
approved study must be provided as specified in the approved
study. The applicant understands and agrees that the
completed traffic study will determine the required traffic
improvements which will be applicable to the project.
14. CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT: A Conditional Concurrency Certificate
for the project has been issued by the Long Range Planning
Division. Prior to obtaining a land development permit for
any subsequently approved preliminary PD phase, the applicant
will be required to obtain a corresponding Initial Concurrency
Certificate.
48
RECOMMENDATION:
Based upon --the analysis performed, staff recommends that the Board
of County Commissioners:
1. Grant planned development and special exception use approval
for the Indian River- Country Club with the following
• conditions:
a. The applicant shall provide above -grade golf cart
crossings on 6th Avenue S.W. and 23rd Street S.W.
b. The applicant shall provide 5' wide sidewalks along its
corresponding Thoroughfare Plan (collector) roadway
frontages.
c. The applicant shall dedicate 25' of additional right-of-
way for 8th Avenue S.W. and 60' right-of-way for 6th
Avenue S.W., north of 23rd Street S.W., as
noncompensable right-of-way dedications.
The project shall utilize street number designations., to. -
be assigned by the planning staff in accordance with
Chapter 951 standards.
Prior to obtaining corresponding land development permits
for the project's Preliminary PD phases:
(1) The applicant shall obtain corresponding Wetlands
d.
Resource Permits.
(2) The applicant shall obtain corresponding Initial
Concurrency Certificates. •„
f. Prior to approval of any preliminary PD plan, the
applicant shall obtain final approval from the County
Traffic Engineer of the project's traffic study. The
applicant shall provide all required improvements
delineated in the approved traffic study as stated in the
approved traffic study.
Prior to approval of any final PD plan, the applicant
shall provide for upland preservation as required by
county regulations.
2. Grant the requested planned development parcel and lot
standard waivers listed in this report as requested by the
applicant.
g.
VERO REA4li .14I170RLAND5
- SUBJECT SITE
{ 1St
044.
71 IL
i rlrlrl'---IIII���
•O
w
TO
"0 _�ti
,'.ro UKITn6
u !
I•.
_... e.^r....
.•t „1 I .. rp plc . .
4 4—
i.
pi
're F ..•.$ JI __UNIT.. `UNIT 6 a a _, C•? tom' a
.). •. ._ _11• 11. Y • ••
I.
1 .. .., - • -.r.. ..»
179991
ST. LUCIE COUNTY
49
•
otto• tux.r •
51' UUIE ants, rr
IAk
DEC '17 WM
BOOK
V4.6E
Commissioner Bowman asked if there are any areas of sand scrub
involved.
Community Development Director Bob Keating responded that it
is mostly pine flat woods with possibly a little bit of sand scrub
in the southeastern portion of the site. He said there is a little
hammock just to the south of the site on part of the General
Development Corporation treatment facility, and there is some
wetland.
Commissioner Scurlock led discussion regarding the street
designation. He asked whether we allow a combination of street
name and number.
Director Keating said that the combination is a compromise
that has been allowed in a new development, but the postal service
has a problem with both name and number designations for a street.
Commissioner Bowman said if the number is the larger, more
prominent designation on the sign and the street name is in smaller
print below it, she saw no reason not to allow it. It has been
done in the -case of historical streets.
Director Keating said we do have roads which have multiple
designations; a number dictated by the grid system, an historical
name, and a state road number. The postal service prefers a single
designation.
Emergency Services Director Doug Wright explained that when a
call comes in on the 911 emergency system, the information is
displayed on a screen for the dispatcher to read and is confirmed
to the caller. The system works by capturing the specific address
and there can be only one designation for the address. Then the
dispatcher directs the responding units in a particular sector to
a specific location. Director Wright stressed that the grid system
of designating streets by number is the most efficient for
emergency services and urged the Board to continue with that
system. — _
Chairman Bird pointed out that in a golf course community a
street may begin by heading in one direction and turn several times
following the contour of golf holes and lakes. If it were
numbered, the number would have to change along the route as the
road changes direction. If it were called Par Drive, it could be
called Par Drive throughout.
Director Keating agreed with Chairman Bird and said the
Community Development Department has the responsibility of labeling
streets according to the direction and the amount of curve. It is
best to indicate east, west, north and south.
County Engineer Roger Cain demonstrated, with the aid of the
enlarged map, the proposed location for a golf cart crossing on 6th
51
DEC 17 199
BOOK O F. �r
199
BOOK
Fj tG
Avenue Southwest and 23rd Street Southwest. He also indicated Vero
Highlands subdivision with close to 5,000 lots, plus 230 acres of
undeveloped land to the west. He pointed out that after this area
is fully developed, 6th Avenue Southwest and 23rd Street Southwest
will be high-volume thoroughfares and that 6th Avenue Southwest is
a route children use to go to the elementary school. Mr. Cain
stressed that Public Works, Traffic Engineers and the County
Engineering Department are concerned about any mix of vehicular
traffic, golf carts and school children. Mr. Cain emphasized that
a golf cart crossing should be separated from the intersection. He
said the ideal situation would be a grade -separated golf cart
crossing. Public Works Director Jim Davis had researched and
determined the approximate cost of putting in a golf cart "bridge"
to be approximately $28,000 delivered to the site, plus the cost of
erection, for an approximate total of $50,000 to $60,000. Mr. Cain
did not support the stop -control approach as recommended by the
developer's traffic consultants because of the lack of positive
control. Golf cart drivers may misjudge the timing and their
ability to get across the roadway, and the seriousness of accidents
is a concern.
Chairman Bird thought that the heaviest traffic on the roads
would be early in the morning, with everyone going to work and to
school, and returning in the evening, while golf course traffic
would be later in the morning to the middle of the day. He
estimated the normal spacing between foursomes is seven to eight
minutes. He understood the concern for safety and felt- it would be
the Board's responsibility to judge whether it is practical to
require the golf cart bridge.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter.
Bob Swift, 3020 Indian River Drive, principal partner in
Lodar, the proposed developer of the subject property, came before
the Board. He introduced Jim DMarzo, another partner, and Keith
Pellan with Urban Resource Group who did the land planning. Mr.
Swift commented that staff had been courteous, professional and
responsive and he hoped the Board would ratify their
recommendations. Mr. Swift agreed with Mr. Boling's enumeration of
points of discussion and stated there is one more- which will be
addressed at the time of final plat design, which is non -
compensable dedication of rights-of-way. Mr. Swift felt the issue
of street name versus street number is a subject that could be
discussed all day long. He pointed out that the design of the golf
52
club development will have a perimeter road, much like Highland
Drive which is a perimeter road in Vero Highlands. He felt there
are cases where a named street is appropriate. Mr. Swift assured
the Board he is concerned with the safety of pedestrians, golf cart
operators and vehicles. He is also interested in the aesthetics of
the golf club community as well as the surrounding neighborhoods.
His group looked at other communities where golf carts cross busy
streets with apparently little conflict. The developers'
consultants advised that grade level crossings really are best. He
said the underground tunnel seems impractical because of the ground
water situation. The attractive nuisance character of an overpass
must be taken into consideration along with the land needed in the
approach to get up to sixteen feet in height. Mr. Swift said the
best alternative is to put the burden on the golf cart operator,
not on the drivers on the road. Mr. Swift noted several other
roadways in the area are scheduled to be extended and expanded,
which will take some of the burden off Highland Drive. He stated
he has asked staff about the feasibility of reducing the speed
limit on Highland Drive and is aware that it is a concern of the
neighbors in that area.
Roberto Piscitelli, 674 23rd Place, Southwest, Vero Beach,
came before the Board to voice his concern about traffic at the
subject intersection. He felt the children on bicycles could be
involved in accidents with golf carts. He suggested golf cart
traffic should be curtailed during the hours when children are
going to and coming from school.
Chairman Bird stressed we are all concerned with the safety of
children. Safety features will be covered in the site plan
procedure, but it would not be practical to stop golf cart traffic.
Golf cart operators must yield the right-of-way to vehicular
traffic on Highland Drive.
Kevin McLaughlin, 3011 Fairway Drive, Fort Pierce, the real
estate broker representing the owners of the property immediately
adjacent to the planned development on the east side, said he and
the owners of the property are in favor of and support the plan.
Joseph DeMayo, 665 21st Street, Southwest, came before the
Board to address another hazard. He said Highland Drive goes up
over a hump, over a creek and curves, causing visibility problems
and is a very dangerous area particularly at sunrise and sunset.
He wished we would correct this problem by acquiring some property
and straightening out the curve. He was also concerned for the
safety of the children.
53
DEC 7 199
f i01
41
DEC 17 199
lye d� " 611
BOOK �1 FA's -JE iUZ
It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the
Chairman closed the public hearing.
Chairman Bird asked Mr. Swift to summarize his position
regarding the items under discussion.
Bob Swift stated his understanding is that the request for
waiver of sidewalks is not something the Board has the ability to
waive so they were not contesting that. The applicant agreed with
staff's second recommendation that the cart crossing be a grade
level crossing, which the developer will monitor, and if the
situation warrants signalization, the developer would be obligated
to do it. On the issue of numbez (names, the applicanit agreed with
the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision to use a name system.
Mr. Swift understood the non-compensability for dedication of
right-of-way was not an issue to_be decided at this time.
Director Keating agreed the Board must decide on the golf cart
crossings and names or numbers of streets. As far as the
dedication of 25 feet of right-of-way, Mr. Keating said the Land
Development Regulations (LDRs) are specific that when there are
local roads of less than minimum width, within or abutting the
site, then the applicant has to make up his share of it.
Chairman Bird suggested that we specify that the 25 feet of
right-of-way will be made available by the developer, and the non -
compensatory issue can be argued later.
Commissioner Scurlock was in favor of using numbers for the
streets with an additional name on the signs in smaller lettering.
Commissioner Eggert wished to see a minimum of name and number
combinations rather than names only.
Chairman Bird asked how many streets there will be.
Mr. Swift pointed out that the plan is conceptual and is
subject to change. There will be one entrance off Highland Drive
which will continue in a looped perimeter road with cul de sacs
created off that road. There would not be many names in the
community, and they would be indicated north, south, square,
circle, or whatever is appropriate to be consistent with the
County's numbering system.
54
ON _MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously granted
planned development and special exception use
approval for the Indian River County Club with the
conditions set out in staff recommendation except in
(a) the applicant shall provide at -grade golf cart
crossings on 6th Avenue Southwest and 23rd Street
Southwest, with the County to monitor the long-term
traffic conditions in that area and in (d) the
project shall utilize street number designations but
will be allowed to use additional names in small
lettering.
ORDINANCE ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 302,
REGULATIONS
The hour of 9:05 o'clock A. M.
Attorney announced that this public
advertised as follows:
ANIMAL CONTROL AND KENNEL
having passed, the County
hearing has been properly
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County. Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he Is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
.741‘../
In the matter of
5:02
in the
(770;e0-11141
/,� /- - / Court, was pub-
lished In said newspaper in the issues of ��0%+G1 +1/!/ �6 / r1/
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mall matter at the post office in Vero Beach. In said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate. commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this /4day of (17, A D 19
(SEAL)
DEC 7 1`d
i /. (Business Manager)
My Commission Frei, .10,A 14.1.1
55
4
NOTICE
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
Courcy, Florida, hereby des notice of a Public.
=erscheduled for 9:05 a.m. on Tuesday,
17, 1991, to discuss the Bowing pro-
posed ordinance waffled:
' AN ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE
COON-
TY FLORIDA, ADDING A NEW CHAPTER
30i — ANIMAL CONTROL AND KENNEL
I REGULATIONS.
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which
December ,
i17 199991 nemadeed the thatvPublic Hearinget m record
of the proceedings is made, which Includes testi-
, Marty1 �eviderce upon which the appeal WON
BOOK
l:.
DEC 17
99
BOOK �.°0
The Board reviewed memo from Assistant County Attorney Terry
O'Brien dated December 9, 1991: -
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Terrence P. O'Brien - Assistant County Attorney 'O
DATE: December 9, 1991
RE: PUBLIC HEARING - 12/17/91 - CHAPTER 302
ORDINANCE ADDING ANIMAL CONTROL AND KENNEL
REGULATIONS
The attached ordinance has been prepared in connection with the
ongoing revision of the Indian River County Code (1974 edition) . The
Board of County Commissioners has previously authorized the
advertising of this ordinance for a public hearing on December -17, -
1991.
Staff recommends approval of the attached proposed ordinance,.
Attorney O'Brien noted a correction would be made on page 18
of Attachment A.
Commissioner Bowman requested and Attorney O'Brien agreed to
strike the word "dumb" and substitute "lacking the power of speech"
in the definition of Animal.
Commissioner Bowman led discussion regarding notice to owner
before an animal is destroyed. Emergency Services Director Doug
Wright assured the Board that every effort is made to- contact the
owner before any action is taken, but the humane society has
limited facilities and there must be some time limit.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, he closed the
public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 91-51, adding a new chapter 302, Animal
Control and Kennel Regulations, with the definition
of "Animal" to be "any living creature lacking the
power of speech."
ORDINANCE 91-51, IN ITS ENTIRETY WITH ATTACHMENT "-A", IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
56
ORDINANCE 91_51
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 302 -
ANIMAL CONTROL AND KENNEL REGULATIONS.
WHEREAS, Indian River County is in the process of
enacting a new code of Ordinances, and
WHEREAS, this ordinance has for its purpose the
editorial transfer of the regulations governing Animal
Control from the old code to the new code with Kennel
Regulations to be by a later ordinance,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that:
SECTION 1. NEW CHAPTER
A new Chapter 302, Animal Control and Kennel
Regulations, as set forth in Attachment "A" to this
ordinance is hereby adopted.
SECTION 2. REPEAL
Those portions of the Indian River County Code
(1974) superseded or in conflict with the provisions herein
adopted, in particular Chapter 3, are hereby repealed.
SECTION 3. 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.
SECTION 4. 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 17
day of December 1991.
DEC 17
57
BOOK
r
DEC 1' 1911
BOOK
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach
Press -Journal on the 15 day of November , 1991, for a
public hearing to be held on the17 day of December
1991, at which time it was moved for adoption by
Commissioner Scurlock , seconded by Commissioner Eggert
and adopted by the following vote:
•
Chairman Richard N. Bird
Vice Chairman Gary C. Wheeler
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert
Ave
Ate_
Ave
Ave
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
-RTcFiat
Chairman
ORDINANCE ADDING NEW CHAPTER 303
The hour of 9:05 o'clock A. M. having passed, the County
Attorney announced that this public hearing has been properly
advertised as follows:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press-Joumal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero
oBBeach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
, NOTICE
a The Board of Coady canarniacionera of Indian
P notice of a
Pus County, blic Hearing scheduled
a.m. on Tuesday,
na 17. 1991, to discuss
ar9 the following pro-
posed the matter of �U3 posed ordinance entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUN-
TY, FLORIDA, ADDING A NEW CHAPTER
303 -COURTS.
Anyone who may wish toweal any decision which
may be made at the vuo a Hemsgf on December
in the Court, was pub- 17, 1991, w0 need to enure that a verbatim record
of the proceedings Is made, wtdch includes testi-
mony and evidence upon which the appeal Is based.
Nov. 23, 1991
lished in said newspaper in the issues of
1;w01 -14/a: / iY
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal Is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each dally and has been
entered as second class mall matter at the post office in Vero Beach, In said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and aftlant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this
(SEAL)
x 7
day of�7i1D: 19 9�
(Business Manager)
rl-..1a -';;•t A
`g fes- I'u't .,'FI ,,-
58
The Boar@ reviewed memo from Assistant County Attorney Terry
O'Brien dated December 9, 1991:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Terrence P. O'Brien - Assistant County Attorney
DATE: December 9, 1991
RE: PUBLIC HEARING - 12/17/91 - ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 363
COURTS
The attached ordinance has been prepared in connection with the
ongoing revision of the Indian River County Code (1974 edition) . The
Board of County Commissioners has previously authorized the
advertising of this ordinance for a public hearing on December 17,
1991.
Staff recommends approval of the attached proposed ordinance.
Attorney O'Brien commented that Section 303.24 has been added
to provide the funding mechanism to reflect the new state law.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, he closed the
public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 91-52, adding a new Chapter 303, Courts,
as recommended by staff.
ORDINANCE 91-52, IN ITS ENTIRETY WITH ATTACHMENT, IS ON FILE IN
THE OFFICE OF CCK TO THE BOARD
ORDINANCE 91- 52
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 303 -
COURTS.
WHEREAS, Indian River County is in the process of enacting a
new code of Ordinances; and
WHEREAS, this ordinance has for its purpose the editorial transfer
of the regulations governing courts from the old code to the new code
and including a funding mechanism for family mediation and conciliation
service,
59
DEC 17 SNI
BOOK Li
our.
PEC 11
BOOK 85 FA, E 10
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, that:
SECTION 1. NEW CHAPTER.
A new Chapter 303 Courts, as set forth in Attachment "A" to this
ordinance is hereby adopted.
SECTION 2. REPEAL.
Those portions of the Indian River County Code (1974) superseded
or in conflict with the provision -lierein adopted, in particula'ar Chapter
6, are hereby repealed.
SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY.
If any section, or 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.
SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This ordinance shall become effective upon becoming law.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, on this 17 day of December , 1991.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal
23 November
on the day of , 1991, for a public hearing to be held
on the 17 day of December , 1991, at which time it was moved for
adoption by Commissioner S r u r] o c k , seconded by Commissioner
Eggert
, and adopted by the following vote:
Chairman Richard N. Bird Aye
Vice Chairman Gary C. Wheeler Aye —
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye—
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert
Ay c
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
Chairman
60
•
CONTINUATION OF ITEM H. ON CONSENT AGENDA
H. Amendment to Furnishings Phase III. IRC Jail
The Board reviewed memo from Purchasing Manager Fran Boynton
dated December 11, 1991:
DATE: December 11, 1991
TO: =BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director
Department of General Services
FROM: Fran Boynton, Purchasing Manager
SUBJ: Amendment to Furnishings Phase III
Indian River County Jail
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
On April 23, 1991, the Board of County Commissioners approved the
furnishings list for Phase III of the Indian River County Jail.
The specifications for the dental equipment was very vague, so
Purchasing met with the nursing staff and administration -at -the
Sheriff Department to arrive at a more complete set of equipment
specifications.
The dental unit originally requested is a portable unit which will
allow staff better use of existing space in the clinic. Pricing
was obtained for this portable unit, reviewed and approved by the
Sheriff's Department.
RECOMMENDATION:
This is an essential piece of equipment which allows for the jail
to provide in-house dental care. The cost of this unit exceeded
the original estimate provided in the furnishings list, but the
Sheriff's Department authorized its purchase because they did not
plan to purchase the computer equipment on the list.
The unit has been delivered, the receiving report has been signed
off by all parties. Staff is bringing forth this item as
clarification to the Board since the original cost estimate for
the dental equipment was considerably less than the final purchase
price.
Original Cost Estimate - $ 6,020.50
Final Purchase Price - $16,086.00
Total Furnishings Budget - $93,400.00
Chairman Bird recognized that Captain William Baird
representing the Sheriff's office was present.
Capt. Baird stated that the $6,020.50 original cost projection
was approximately two years old. He did not know how that figure
was arrived at.
Commissioner Wheeler recalled that a dentist was consulted and
these were estimates provided by that dentist.
Capt. Baird said the Sheriff's Department tried to determine
the cost of having a dentist provide the emergency dental care at
DR 17 99
61
BOOK 6 [AUIt.US
Pr"
DEC 1 B 199
SI
BOOK1.112
the jail, and it was suggested this equipment would suit that
purpose. There is no dental equipment in the jail at this time;
this would be new equipment. At the present time, the prisoners
are taken to the office of a local dentist. The problem is they
need to be transported, which breaches security, and some dentists
do not like prisoners walking through their waiting room. However,
state guidelines mandate the Sheriff make arrangements to handle
emergency dental situations. There is a contractual arrangement
with a dentist but Capt. Baird did not know the details.
Commissioner Scurlock was concerned with the various problems
involved in having a dentist treating prisoners at the jail. He
felt a dentist's office is better equipped to handle 'complications
that sometimes arise, and the dentist and his assistants are better
able to function in a professionally equipped office, rather than
a portable unit in a jail where you have the possibility of
contamination and transmitting diseases.
Capt. Baird said there is a traditional problem with finding
medical and dental care for prisoners. Health care providers do
not always want to take on the job.
Commissioner Scurlock asked about our county health department
and was told they do not have a dentist.
Commissioner Wheeler recalled we cut the dental equipment and
dental lab from the health department because it is not essential.
Chairman Bird said there are mandates, but it can be done
either at the jail or elsewhere. -
Capt. Baird agreed there are requirements that jails have to
be able to provide emergency dental care. The Sheriff is trying to
provide the care without having to transport the prisoners to a
dentist's office which, in the case of felons, requires two
certified officers to accompany the prisoner.
Commissioner Scurlock asked how many prisoners needed dental
care last year and Capt. Baird believed the average was something
like five per week.
Purchasing Manager Fran Boynton detailed her involvement in
the purchase of the subject portable dental unit. When it first
appeared on the furnishings list, there were insufficient
specifications included. She made visits to the Sheriff's office
to determine exactly what it was they needed and this was the only
item available.
Chairman Bird asked if the dentist who is under contract
indicated a preference to having this equipment in the jail versus
bringing the prisoners to his office. He felt any professional
would prefer a fully equipped medical office.
62
Capt._Baird did not have a specific answer, but from his
experience, doctors and dentists try to avoid having prisoners
walking through their waiting rooms. He said there may be as many
as twelve prisoners a week needing dental care and it is difficult
to determine if they have an emergency situation.
Commissioner Eggert voiced concern about the sanitation and
sterilization procedures, and Capt. Baird assured the Board these
details have been worked out.
Commissioner Scurlock asked whether the state facility for
youthful offenders has dental treatment equipment where prisoners
from the jail could be treated in a secure facility, and
Commissioner Wheeler said he had toured the facility and they do
have one.
Commissioner Eggert preferred to get more information about
whether this equipment should be installed in a correctional
institution. She felt with the new guidelines regarding dental
treatment after the death from AIDS transmitted through dental
procedures that the whole situation should be re-examined.
OMB Director Joe Baird advised this item has been delivered,
but he had refused to send the check until the Board authorized it.
Chairman Bird asked who authorized the purchase of this
equipment, and Purchasing Manager Fran Boynton said it had been
treated like the rest of the items on the furnishings list with the
exception that it was available from only one supplier and was not
let out for bids.
County Administrator Jim Chandler explained that
determinations were made that this was the equipment the Sheriff's
Department wanted and it should have come back for authorization
when it was discovered it was in_excess of the estimate.
OMB Director Joe Baird explained that at the time of this
project the Purchasing Manager was new on board and was not aware
of the policy_.that we cannot exceed the estimate on any one item,
even though the whole project was well under budget. She is aware
of it now.
Purchasing Manager Boynton pointed out that if it is sent back
we will be charged a restocking charge plus freight.
Commissioner Wheeler wanted to find out whether it would be
more economical to contract with a dentist and transport prisoners
to that dentist's office.
Commissioner Eggert preferred an opinion from the Risk
Manager. She was concerned whether the Board would be liable for
something that happens at the jail.
Chairman Bird said the Sheriff is an elected constitutional
officer who is responsible for running the jail and following the
63
DEC `d i991
BOOKits
fur.
Pr -
DEC 17 199A
BOOKDuE X 1
state mandates. He was not sure the Board has authority to tell
the Sheriff whether to transport prisoners for dental care or to
get the equipment to treat them at the jail.
Commissioner Scurlock agreed with Chairman Bird. He felt
since we approved $6,020.50, we should approve that budgeted amount
and allow the Sheriff to make the decision.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously confirmed
the original not -to -exceed budgeted amount of
$6,020.50 for dental equipment for Indian River
County. Jail Phase III.
RESOLUTION AMENDING FEES AND PENALTIES UNDER THE ANIMAL CONTROL
ORDINANCE
The Board reviewed memo from Assistant County Attorney Terry
O'Brien dated November 6, 1991:
TO: Board of County Commissioners ,,.,.D
FROM: Terrence P. O'Brien - Assistant County Attorney `le d
DATE: November 6, 1991
RE: RESOLUTION AMENDING FEES AND PENALTIES UNDER THE
ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE
This resolution is an adjunct to the Animal Control Ordinance which will
be the subject of a public hearing earlier on this Agenda.
It is recommended that the attached Resolution be adopted.
Chairman Bird felt the $40.00 fee for a license for a dog
could be a burden in some instances.
Emergency Services Director Doug Wright said we have an
unusually large number of stray animals and this is an effort to
encourage pet owners to have their pets neutered.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 91-184 amending the fees, penalties and
procedures related to the enforcement of the Animal
Control Ordinance.
RESOLUTION 91-184, IN ITS ENTIRETY WITH ATTACHMENT, -IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
64
RESOLUTION 91- 184
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AMENDING THE FEES,
- PENALTIES AND PROCEDURES RELATED TO THE
ENFORCEMENT OF THE ANIMAL CONTROL
ORDINANCE.
WHEREAS, in Resolution 91-57 the Board of County
Commissioners established certain fees, penalties and procedures
related to the enforcement of the Animal Control Ordinance, and
WHEREAS, these fees, penalties and procedures need to be
revised to reflect changes in the new Animal Control Ordinance; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
that:
1. The fees, penalties and procedures established in Resolution
91-57 are hereby superseded by this Resolution.
2. The fees, penalties and procedures are revised as follows:
a. Licensing Fees
1. Female or male, dog or cat, initial or renewal
license, not sterilized -- $40.00 per year.
2. Female or male, dog or cat, initial or renewal,
sterilized -- $5.00 per year.
3. Half price to be assessed for issuance of any
initial license after April 30th of a licensing year.
4. All renewals shall be at full price per category.
5. Additional late charge for licensing after date
required by law -- $5.00.
6. Fee for issuance of duplicate license tag -- $3.00
7. There is no f required for an animal license for
the year in which the animal is sterilized.
8. There is no license fee required for police dogs
(sheriff and municipal police departments) , sight
assisting dogs and hearing assistance dogs;
however, said dogs are required to be licensed.
9. All licensing fees are be paid to the Department
of Emergency Services, Animal Control Division of
Indian River County, Florida.
b. Impoundment Fees
$5.00 per diem or part thereof for all animals.
65
1
BOOK
��,iJt 11
ELC
BOOK 8J w,E 1
c. Redemption Penalties in addition to Impoundment Fees
1. $ 30.00 for the first offense (of an owner) .
2. $ 60.00 for a second offense.
3. $100.00 for any third or subsequent offense.
d. Impoundment fees and redemption penalties shall be paid
during business hours at the Office of the Clerk of
the Circuit Court, Indian River County Courthouse,
2145 14th Avenue, Vero Beach, Florida. Impoundment
and redemption penalties shall be paid during
non -business hours at a location to be designated by
the Animal Control Drrector.
e. An owner shall pay all actual expenses or fees
incurred for which the County has obligated itself for
additional care for quarantine or veterinary services
as an impoundment fee, at time of redemption of the
animal.
f. Rabies vaccination prepayment fee for redemption shall
be $15.00 per animal.
g. Civil Penalities for violation of the Code:
(See attached Exhibit "A")
h. All fees, penalties, charges and expenses shall be paid
prior to release of an animal from an impoundment
facility.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner
F g g P r t and the motion was seconded by Commissioner
Bo wm a n , and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as
follows:
Chairman Richard N. Bird N a y
Vice Chairman Gary C. Wheeler A y e
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman A y e
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Ay e
The C r n thereupon declared the resolution duly passed
and adopted this / day of December , 1991.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
Richard N . Bird
Chairman
66
,e.(zZ7
4
APPROVAL OE RENEWAL OF MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH EPE TECHNOLOGIES,
INC., FOR UNINTERRUPTED POWER SUPPLY (UPS) AT E911 CENTER
The Board reviewed memo- from Emergency Services Director Doug
Wright dated December 5, 1991:
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
•
Board of County Co ssioners
Doug Wright, Director
•
Department of Emergency Services
-December 5, 1991
Approval of Renewal of UPS Contract with
EPE Technologies, Inc., for E911 Center
'It is respectfully requested that the information contained herein
be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners
_at the next scheduled meeting.
'DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
The service agreement with EPE Technologies for scheduled and
remedial maintenance for the uninterrupted power supply (UPS)
equipment at the E911 Communications Center is due for renewal at
this time. -The company has fulfilled contract commitments over the
past year and service has been very satisfactory. No failure of
the equipment has been experienced over the past year and staff
feels this is largely due to the preventative maintenance program
,provided in the contract.
•
Funding for renewal of the contract was budgeted in this fiscal
;year in the amount of $6,450. :This figure includes the second
`payment of $1,500 for the spare parts kit which is on site. If
`approved the third and final payment of $1,500 on the $4,500 spare
parts kit will be due next fiscal year.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
•. \ 1` .1J .. ..\fps.. J�.. 11
The spare parts kit.:. is beneficial to the county- in -that needed
repairs .on—the UPS :system could be completed on site quickly
.without having to wait .for parts to be flown in from one of the
company parts depots.:;
Funds in the amount of $6,450 have been budgeted for renewal of the
UPS maintenance agreement with EPE this fiscal year.
'.RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve renewal
of the EPE Maintenance Agreement in the amount of $6,450 which
includes the second payment of $1,500 on the spare parts kit.
Staff also recommends that the Board authorize the Chairman to
execute the necessary documents to formalize the agreement.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
renewal of the annual EPE Maintenance Agreement in
the amount of $6,450 which includes the second
payment of $1,500 on the spare parts kit, as
recommended by staff.
67
DEC 1? X991
LOOK
DEC 17 x391
BOOK
APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT WITH ZEPHYR WEATHER INFORMATION STATION.INC.;
PURCHASE OF CERTAIN CAPITAL EOUIPMENT; TERMINATION OF CONTRACT WITH
CONTEL; - BUDGET AMENDMENT
The Board reviewed memo from Emergency Services Director Doug
Wright dated December 9, 1991:
TO:
Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH: James E. Chandl r
County ist ator
FROM: ,Doug Wright, Director
Emergency Services - -
•
DATE: December 9, 1991
SUBJECT: Approval of Agreement With ZEPHYR WEATHER INFORMATION
SERVICE, INC.; Purchase of Certain Capital Equipment;
Termination of Contract with CONTEL;_and Budget Amendment
It is respectfully requested that the information contained herein be-_
given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at
the next regular scheduled meeting.
`DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
On •January'31, 1989, Indian River County entered into a five year
:.lease contract with CONTEL to provide National Oceanic -'-and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) weather wire information. -which
.included the Weatherstream 2000 plan. The Weatherstream 2000 plan
'provided data services in the form of maps, charts, etc.,:from
satellite communications,technology.
•"°-f.4•.;4.W.'G4r'..�' �> ..5. � 7 •{
•• Id ''; it
!e'On -September `.'29,x"199}1,"'the .• Indian River County Department 'of
:-Emergency Services received a letter from CONTEL dated September 26,'
„..1991, which stated that the WXBase software package was being removed
',from -the weather wire /weatherstream product lines effective October
1991. In another letter dated November 13, 1991, CONTEL FEDERAL -
.SYSTEMS (GTE) advised that effective March 14. 1991, CONTEL was
formally merged into GTE Corporation, that CONTEL was being dissolved
and the contract with the county was being assigned to GTE GOVERNMENT
'`.SYSTEMS CORPORATION. CONTEL was contacted by phone on December 6,
• 1991, and the company was advised the county did not consent,to an
:;assignment of the contract and that the county intended to terminate
the contract.
The letter received on September 29, 1991, had a significant impact
on Indian River County. While the company stated that GTE/CONTEL had
been working on a replacement software package with Marta Systems of
Santa Paula, California, the county was informed with one day's
notice that no support or maintenance would be available. The
company notified us that if we had substantial in-house UNIX
capabilities and the WXBase software package still met our needs, we
could continue to use the system without CONTEL support or
=assistance.
When staff checked with MARTA SYSTEMS, the service was not what was
desired. Also the weather dish, receivers, controllers, and computer
equipment currently leased from CONTEL would not support the software
package they were offering. Additionally, if the department wanted
the weather wire and the data services through this company, the
county would be required to have two separate systems with costs that
staff could not recommend. - -
68
Another company has been found that can offer the services the county
needs on one system, but the one time costs are significant. The
company is ZEPHYR WEATHER INFORMATION SERVICE, INC., and staff has
been negotiating with this organization culminating in fifteen (15)
alternatives of which one has been selected on the basis of
affordable short and long term costs. The proposed weather system is'
as follows:
ONE TIME EXPENSES FOR PURCHASE
386/33 Tower Computer
Alden WS5500 w/Satellite Imagery Software
Weather Wire System
C -Band Antenna
Satellite Receiver
Antenna/Receiver Installation
Software Installation/Testing
Jet Color/Laser Printer
$4,764.00
9,600.00
650.00
1,935.00
3,990.00
1,000.00
495.00
1,900.00
TOTAL ONE TIME COST $24,334.00
MONTHLY RECURRING EXPENSES
Maintenance/C-Band Antenna & Receiver 30.00
Maintenance/WeatherComm 90 Board & Software 40.00
Weather Wire Service 75.00
Satellite Imagery Service 150.00
Satellite Imagery Module '20.00
TOTAL RECURRING MONTHLY EXPENSES ;;.:;$315.00
The Department of Emergency Services has $40,000.00 in reserve.
account #001-000-247-008.00. Funds from this account would be used
to fund the one time costs for the weather system in the amount of
$24,334.00. The $40,000.00 was obtained in 1983 as a result of a
development order and Resolution #81-59 notes thefunds were to -be
used for emergency management purposes.
ANALYSIS AND ALTERNATIVES
•
The proposed weather system from ZEPHYR will provide and allow the
Department of Emergency •Services .to continue to provide our citizens .•
with daily weather information.' °A `recent addition to our • program
provides the populace with• a direct phone number to call 'to obtain
information as relates to Indian River County. It is much more
,specific than the general information received from other sources..::,
•It " is unfortunate that CONTEL has taken the position ' to delete
services the .agreed .to provide the= county over a five year term. If .:
!,-the Board approves, the County Attorney will be asked to teeminate'`�
the contract as soon as possible. :At the time of termination, the
monthly recurring cost for receiving the weather information will be
reduced from $434.00 to $315.00 with the new service.
With the ZEPHYR system, the county will not be dependent on phone :,
lines to receive the weather data. It will be generated by
transmission to and from a satellite in orbit. The weather
information will be updated to the county every hour for satellite
imagery and immediate for the weather wire making the data received
very current so appropriate action can be taken in terms of notice
and protection.
The system being proposed for consideration at this time is only two
of the available software programs out of twelve that can be obtained
for weather information. Other programs will be added as funds
become available and the data services are determined to be needed
and justified. -
69
DEC 17 1A1
DEC
BOOK li ) F4GE jj
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the
purchase of the computer hardware; the contract for receipt of the
weather information from ZEPHYR WEATHER INFORMATION SERVICE, INC.;
the recurring charges; and the necessary budget amendment. Staff
also recommends that bids be waived for the computer hardware and
Hoard authorize the purchase of QuickSilver equipment from Computer
Media Service, Inc., for purposes of uniformity and conformity with
existing equipment in the Department of Emergency Services which is
a network system and will preclude another maintenance agreement.
Staff requests the Board authorize the Chairman to execute the
necessary` documents to effect the agreement and those necessary to
terminate the existing contract with CONTEL.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Eggert, to approve staff
recommendations as follows: purchase the computer
hardware; contract for receipt of weather
information from ZEPHYR WEATHER INFORMATION SERVICE,
INC.; pay recurring charges; approve the necessary
budget amendment; waive bids and authorize purchase
of QuickSilver equipment from computer Media
Service, Inc.; and authorize the Chairman to execute
the necessary documents to effect the agreement and
those necessary to terminate the existing contract
with CONTEL.
Commissioner Bowman asked if this matter was researched
thoroughly and Director Wright assured the Board that staff has
investigated all aspects. In the past we have spent $15,000
leasing equipment for three years. Now there will be no per -minute
fee charge because we are buying the equipment and we will be
paying only $315 maintenance fee, reduced from $440.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
SAID AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE
CLERK TO THE BOARD
70
SURPLUS BUILDINGS - HEALTH DEPARTMENT AND MAIN LIBRARY
BUDGET AMENDMENT 008
The Board reviewed memo from General Services Director Sonny
Dean dated December 10, 1991:
•
DATE:
TO:
THRU: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
DECEMBER 10, 1991
HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECT
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES
SUBJECT: SURPLUS BUILDINGS
HEALTH DEPARTMENT - MAIN LIBRARY
BUDGET AMENDMENT - 008
.BACKGROUND:
With vacating the subject .two buildings, staff did a study to.
determine the feasibility of relocating our offices now in the 2001
Building into one of these locations. The attached chart is a
,comparison of the estimated cost for renovation and annual operating
-expenses on each location including expenses associated ::.with
'remaining in the 2001 Building. The anticipated cost are itemized
'for each year through 1996. In looking at just the dollars•,., it
'appears the most economical choice would be to stay in the. 2001
Building. However, we have evaluated the situation from every.langle
An a effort to determine which would be in the best interest for ,.the.
County.; :_•
Itis :anticipated that the'. new space needs study will recommend
moving 2001 Building personnel temporarily into one of the. old
;buildings until a new administration building is constructed. ;It
*ill not recommend exactly which of the buildings but indicates-•- the
Health Building is a marketable product.
rIn an effort to determine if the old -Library Building was marketable,
it was advertised for sale or lease. Although, we had some .inquires
prior to. advertisement, no response was received on the opening date.'
Ed Schlitt has offered to continue our lease in the 2001 Building
without increase in rent for three --years. One .of the problems with
this arrangement is not knowing exactly how long this space'will .be
needed. If monies are not available for a new Administration
Building, it is possible, we could go beyond 1997 as indicated in the
attached chart. A prolong length of time would increase the cost of
occupancy beyond that of renovating our own facility and we would not
have a significant return on our investment.
Exact cost of renovating the Health Building is hard to determine.
This is a specialty building and converting it to office space will
be labor intensive and costly due to the design that includes small
rooms with special plumbing. We have already had two inquires on
possible lease and/or sale of this property. Both parties were
interested in the structure as is. Should we convert the building to
office space, I feel these two parties would no longer be interested.
The property is marketable as it now stands.
71
DEC 17 '99
BOOK C D f,1Gr.1i_
1
BOOK
ANALYSIS:
Renovation of the Library Building would not only accomplish the need
for office space but we could convert some of the extra space to file
storage which is in high demand by other departments 'within the
County. If a new Administration Building was not available for a
prolonged length of time our investment would have a greater return.
Renovation -Will not significantly change the use of that building
which would not decrease the market value. If anything, the market
;value _should increase.
4RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends Board approval to proceed with renovation ofthe
Library Building and requests funding of $179,500.00 to include
renovation cost, operational cost and rent on the 2001-. Building unti3_
move in date. Attached is the Budget Amendment memorandum.
Commissioner Eggert requested this item be tabled to January
because she needed more information before making a decision.
General Services Director Dean said the only problem is we
only budgeted money for the rent at the 2001 Building through
December.
County Administrator Jim Chandler advised it would be
necessary for the Board to authorize a budget amendment for rental
for the month of January.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously tabled
this item but authorized a Budget Amendment to pay
the rent on the space in the 2001 Building for
January 1992.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY HEALTH BUILDING PROJECT APPLICATION FOR FINAL
PAYMENT
The Board reviewed memo from General Services Director Sonny
Dean dated December 10, 1991:
72
DATE: DECEMBER 10, 1991
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVI S
SUBJECT: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY HEALTH BUILDING PROJECT
APPLICATION FOR FINAL PAYMENT
BACKGROUND:
•
The subject project has been completed. and all the.post construction'
problems rectified except for a leaking roof. The contractor has
performed some corrective action along with testing which indicated
they were successful. ° However, there has not been a rain storm to
;really.test for the leaks. ••.
ANALYSIS:
The contractor, Morelli Engineering, Inc. has requested final
payment for the project. •The architect has approved this payment inr
the amount of $19,089.67. Our construction manager has recommended
thatwe withhold $3,000.00 from the requested payment until such
time, as we get a sufficient rain storm and ascertain the roo_:does
not leak. -.
RECOMMENDATIONS:.
. _ ' JL4 ^..'. <r f-.:.. �t j!S y� j
Staff recommends a _ a ent of$16,089.67 '�° .' t„
P Ym be made at this time to° the
general contractor, and requests authorization to pay the remaining
$3,000.00 at a later date after. we are satisfied that the roof..does
not leak. --
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously
authorized payment to Miorelli Engineering, Inc. of
$16,089.67 at this time and $3,000.00 after we are
satisfied that the roof does not leak, as
recommended by staff.
73
DEC 17 g91
BOOKi
BOOK
OEC 17 1991
' E - ,
COPY MACHINES
The Board reviewed memo from General Services Director Sonny
Dean dated December 5, 1991:
DECEMBER 5, 1991
HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
i.T.. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTO
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERV'ICES
COPY MACHINES
'BACKGROUND:
;.The Board approved
;the copy machines
the other machine
'Much to our surprise and with two weeks notice, Kodak cancelled -our
annual maintenance agreement. We now have to pay $195.00 an hour for
'maintenance beginning with travel time from Fort Lauderdale-. --This
;equates to almost $600.00 for travel before any labor time is ::added.
The history of maintenance on the machines, indicate about four calls
=per month. The frequency of -maintenance has increased as ';;:the
;machines have gotten older.
..I have researched the various avenues in an effort to resolve:.this
'problem with the least amount of expense. The first conclusion
reached was that both machines need to be replaced. There is no_way,.
;we can operate with one machine and maintain the ever •increasing
demand in this area of service. We have come from an average of
'130,936 copies per month in 1988 to 187,030 in 1991. Should .';the
present trend continue,.: we will be at 257,148 in :. five years. The
life expectancy of . a copy machine is approximately five years. ; ..
v�Y.' p'•.,,
Three major manufacturers produce high speed copiers that meet ''our
volume. Of the three, only Xerox will accommodate the anticipated
demand for the next five years. They are also the only company that
will give us a trade-in credit for our old IBM machines. Xerox has a
local representative and guaranteed response time in case of
breakdown. Their maintenance agreement calls for a modem monitoring
system whereby they will be able to anticipate many problems and
perform preventative maintenance in advance of a major breakdown.
$50,000.00 in this year's budget to replace one of
in Central Services. It was our intention to make
last for two more years or whenever it gave out.
The cost of the Xerox machines is as follows:
Xerox 5100
Contract Price , $88,500.00
Trade-in IBM 85 12,500.00
Discount 4,810.00
Net Cost $71,190.00
Xerox 5052
$18,412.00
500.00
None
$17,912.00
Total cash price for the two machines is $89,102.00. .
74
If we choose --to finance this acquisition of equipment from Xerox,
There is an additional $7,000.00 discount finance promotion
available. The equipment may be paid off at any time without a
prepayment penalty. I feel that we should take advantage of this
$7,000.00 discount and finance the purchase. After a month, we could
pay the balance off which would give us the benefit of savings on
both the discount and interest. Based on this scenario, we would
require an additional $32,102.00 to purchase the two machines.
ANALYSIS:
We are now experiencing a breakdown on one of our machines and cannot
maintain the level of service needed. I have already authorized—one
maintenance call and the bill came' to almost $900.00 including
travel, labor and a $94.00 part. This travel cost was based on the
technician being in Martin County which reduced the expense. Based
on these conditions, I feel. this is a situation that requires
immediate action.... There are oo ii'rcg pro j ects that are on hold until a
decision is made on this item. if
Y, RECOXMENDATIONS : : `: ,
s
Staff recommends authorization to immediately purchase the above
described Xerox copy •machines that are available on' Government'
::contracts, which wills•=not have to be bid as per our adopted.'
Purchasing Manual. The funds for this purchase will come from
general fund contingency. (Only the additional $32,102.1, 'i11-ciime�'from .- :
contingency.) s •41 r. 4�+ ; .i;
o a+lv ..h,. ..n•Y,... .. <63i0:• V?!L. •..'A'7 .1 'fa V-...T;��'. < ° __. .. ..
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously
authorized immediate purchase of the above described
Xerox copy machines on Government contracts as
recommended by staff.
COUNTY FINANCING OF UTILITY IMPACT FEES - TEN YEARS
The Board reviewed memo from OMB Director Joe Baird dated
December 10, 1991:
75
DEC 17 19 1
BOOK8 r; ,,r :dam
DEC V? I
SOOT 5 f'A6E, 1:/,1
TO:
Members of the Board of
County Commissioners
`.DATE: - December 10, 1991
'to,
•
SUBJECT: COUNTY FINANCING OF UTILITY IMPACT FEES - 10 YEARS -
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
ie. , ` OMB Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
To better assist County property owners affected by recent water main expansion projects,
the Board, asked our staff to investigate the possibility of financing utility impact fees over
a longer period than is currently available. The projects under consideration include not
only the 12th Street and Phase I Water Distribution Systems, but also the upcoming Phase
;'II through VI (as projected - see Comprehensive Plan).
•
The works under study are considered non voluntary assessment projects. As defined,- this
means that property owners would always be required to pay the proportionate share of
new utility lines laid in their area, although they are not necessarily required to hook-up
,to the new system. However, those who do wish to hook-up are immediately subject to a
',;second assessment defraying this cost, a situation which can create tremendous monetary
f..
hardship for some. The Board has requested that we try to find some method of relieving
:this extra financial burden to those wishing to join the system.
RECOMMENDATIONS _
�..
County financing of utility impact fees for up to 5 years is currently available to distressed
homeowners. Using the best assumptions possible, staff created a series of preliminary
projections which we feel would allow the County to finance impact fees for as long as 10
years for above mentioned projects. Although we do not anticipate immediate problems
with cash flow as a result, it should be noted that the extended lending term will eventually
require the County to borrow money at some point in the future. Staff will address the
Board in the near future with the various and appropriate funding mechanisms.
In order to carry out the longer term financing plan, staff recommends that the actual
mechanics be similar to the North County Sewer and Route 60 Water Projects. Those
utility projects required individuals interested in hooking up to the system to sign up within
a specified period of time so that both financing needs and an assessment roll can
eventually be determined in a logical fashion.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
County financing of Utility Impact Fees for ten
years, as recommended by staff.
76
•
TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL - REALLOCATION OF $15,000
The Board reviewed memo from OMB Director Joe Baird dated
December 10, 1991:
TO: Members of the Board of
;.:County Commissioners
•
DATE: " December 10, 1991
SUBJECT: . TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
REALLOCATION OF $15,000
1. FROM: Joseph A. Baird
• OMB Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS'
The Tourist Development Council met on December 10, 1991 to discuss reallocating the
• Arts Council $15,000 that was for the Bourbon Street event. Below are the events, the
amounts requested and the amounts approved by the Tourist Development Council:
ORGANIZATION
Arts Councl
I.R. Festival
Air Show '4y.
Summerfest •
Fellsmere
EVENT DATE
02-15-92
04-04-92
04/11-12/92
08/1-9/92
No Application
AMOUNT
REQUESTED
$3,000-$5,000
$15,000
$5,000
$7,000
-.=so
'RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the amounts approved
by the Tourist Development Council
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
reallocation of $15,000 as approved by the Tourist
Development Council, as recommended by staff.
Chairman Bird asked whether there was discussion at the
Tourist Development Council meeting regarding giving the Arts
Council a reduced portion because they have a reduced performance
planned for this year.
Commissioner Wheeler said there had been discussion about a
reduced amount but the Arts Council felt it would not be enough
and, in fact, asked for $3,000 to $5,000. There had also been a
suggestion that this program should not be funded by tourist taxes
and it is being studied.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
fEC 1? 199'
77
r.
BOOK 85 F'4r J ~�.)
11
DEC 1 1 1:9
BOOK 85 f'a:ci
ADDITIONAL MONITORING WELL AT FLEET MANAGEMENT — BUDGET
AMENDMENT 013
The Board reviewed memo from Public Works Director Jim Davis
dated December 10, 1991:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director
SUBJECT:'' Additional Monitoring Well at Fleet Management
DATE 'December 10, x..991 FILE: well.agn
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
During the regular May 28,----1991 meeting -of the= Board of
County Commissioners, the Board approved an agreement with
Envirx, LTD, -for a contamination assessment study of the
:.abandoned fuel storage tanks at Fleet Management as required
by the Florida DER. The scope of work for the study
'included six' shallow wells and two deep wells to be
installed to monitor groundwater. At this time, these wells
.have been installed and tracing of a contamination flume has
begun. Preliminary'results indicate groundwater -movement to
:.the north-andnorthwest, which was not foreseen when -wells
were -placed. •:The consultant is requesting that one:more -
weli'be installed at an additional cost of $550 for the well'-
:and.:$800:for additional sampling and testing. .;:The original
contrac��t,; amount�.�:!.was $25,700 -
.'�,ty';p;i,�xi:Fpr r':"n=f •...: •, ter:>..�:. .
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS• •.:
Since this work is required by. -DER to assess =possible
contamination the only alternative,. presented is -to authorize
the additional. work.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING.'.
•ri�!.;.`.{' ^.t'. Jr :•:i i't L''y �fS �.a'^:�'+`;,.
;Staff recommends that ; the additional
sampled, and tested
MSTU contingencies
attached budget
004-242-591-033.19)
ata cost.' of .' $1, 350 •Funding • to be from" -
'.(004 -199-581-099,91) as provided in the
amendment ,.:and transferred to
well be `'installed '
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
authorized an additional monitoring well at Fleet
Management to be installed, sampled and tested at a
cost of $1,350, as recommended by staff.
78
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT
NUMBER:
, DATE :
013
January 31, 1992
Entry
Number
1.
Funds/Department/Account Name
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
EXPENSES
M.S.T.U.
Reserve for Continency
Other Professional Services
1004-199-581-099.91
1004-242-591-033.19
$
0
$ 1,350.00
$ 1.350.00
0
PURCHASE AUTHORIZATION - CR 510 AND SR A1A RIGHT-OF-WAY
The Board reviewed memo from Capital Projects Manager Terry
Thompson dated December 10, 1991:
TO:
THROUGH:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
Terry B. Thompson, P.E.
Capital Projects Manager
Purchase Authorization
CR 510 and SR A1A Right -of -Way Acquisition
December 10, 1991 'FILE: p105510.agn
DESCRIPTIQN AND CONDITIONS
Indian River County is planning to widen CR 510 and install .
signalizatjon at the intersection of CR 510 and SR AlA. The
additional- right-of-way needed to accomplish this project
consists of 10 parcels as shown on the attached map.
'An Option to Purchase and Contract for, Sale was sent to each
property owner for the appraised value of the parcel. The
Property owner of Parcel 105 has agreed to sell the County• -
2,700 SF of right-of-way for $17,042. The appraisal value
t of the property ,is $14,715.W -x'
:RECOMMENDATIONS -AND FUNDING
Staff . recommends the•'Board rapprove ^the _Option to Purchase and
Contract for . Sale and Purchase Agreement for .Parcel 105 and :...::.::.
authorize the --Board Chairman to execute the agreement and -
Jill other related documents. ,
;,Staff also ',requests sthat the • . Board--• . authorize
'::.attorney's • fees up..to'•a not -to -exceed amount of
A.
;price•and miscellaneous.closing costs.
79
DEC 1 1991
payment
6% of the selling .•
•
• •
BOOK
•
DEC 17 991
BDOK
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock,-- the Board unanimously
approved and authorized the Chairman to execute the
Option to Purchase and Contract for Sale and
Purchase Agreement for Parcel 105, and authorized
payment of attorney's fees not to exceed six percent
of the selling price and closing costs.
V2� FfuCJ
COPY OF OPTION TO PURCHASE AND CONTRACT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE IS
ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
(ALSO STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED)
RIGHT-OF-WAY ACOUISITION AT CR 520 AND SR AlA
The Board reviewed memo from Public Works Director Jim Davis
dated December 13, 1991:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE: December 13, '1991
James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
James W. Davis, P.E.,%
Public Works Director
Right-of-way Acquisition
CR 510 and SR A1A
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Indian River County is planning to widen CR 510 and install
Signalization at the intersection of CR 510 and -SR A1A.
Additional right-of-way from the Kennedy Grove parcel is
required. The County has obtained an appraisal for the
additional right-of-way which values the parcel at
$17,932.00. Kennedy Groves, Inc. has agreed to sell to the
County the .16 acre parcel for the following compensation:
Trees $ 2,600.00
Land 17,932.00
Costs & Attys Fees 1,026.00
Kennedy Groves is asking that the transaction be closed by
1991, if not they will not except the offer.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
The Public Works Department is in agreement with the selling
price and recommends approval. Funding to be from District
1 Traffic Impact Fees.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously
authorized acquisition of a .16 acre parcel for a
total cost of $21,558, closing to be _prior to__
January 1, 1992, as recommended by staff.
80
REQUEST TO CLOSE 40TH COURT FOR BLOCK PARTY/STREET DANCE
The Board reviewed memo from Public Works Director Jim Davis
dated December 13, 1991: -
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Request from Norman Hensick, Jr. President of
Woodlands Property Owners Association to close
40th Court for Block Party/Street Dance
RE: Letter from Mr. Hensick to James W. Davis
Dated December 12, 1991
DATE: December 13, 1991
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Residents in Woodlands Subdivision have requested permission
to close a portion of 40th Court for a New Years Eve street
dance/block party. The scheduled time for the event would
be 7:00 PM until 1:00 AM on December 31 - January 1. Staff
has no objection to this request, provided that:
1) Proper barricades as
Engineering Division are
2) A block representative be
charge of the event in
opened.
permitted by the Traffic
installed.
listed as a contact person in
case the road needs to be
3) Access to emergency vehicles be maintained.
ALTERNATIVES ANDANALYSIS
Staff has considered this request and has no objections.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends approval. No ceding is applicable.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
approved closing 40th Court from 7:00 p.m. to 1:00
a.m. on December 31/January 1, as recommended by
staff.
81
DEC 17 1991
tAo K
1 c! �+� G
8A
BOOK 8b fArA
STATE ROAD 60 WIDENING PROJECT (DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION)
UTILITY RELOCATION --
The Board reviewed memo from Utility Services Director Terry
Pinto dated December 5, 1991:
DATE: DECEMBER 5, 1991
• TO:
FROM:
-PREPARED
.AND STAFFED
BY: •
,SUBJECT:
JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
WILLIAM. F. McCAINAk.401,,
CAPITAL PROJECTS ENGIA'EER
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
STATE ROAD 60 WIDENING PROJECT (DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION) UTILITY RELOCATION
BACKGROUND
During the last several months, the Utilities Department has been
working with the Department of Transportation (DOT) to coordinate
.,utility relocation to accommodate the widening of State Road -.-60.
The DOT project is predominately involved with widening of road
'.::shoulders and the creation of several deceleration lanes along .the
highway. The other work associated with the project -involves
,:,.improvements to the Route 60 and 90th Avenue intersection and
overall drainage system improvements.
ANALYSIS
,:After a thorough review of the DOT plans, it has been determined
'that 14 fire hydrants must be relocated to the back side -of the -..DOT -
right -of -way, and a 10 -inch force main must be lowered at the 90th
'Avenue intersection to accommodate a 42 -inch drainage culvert being
.installed by the DOT. The Utilities: Department wishes to complete
`"the fire hydrant relocation work prior to the commencement -of the
;widening project. It is the Utilities Departments desire.•to bid
out the fire hydrant relocation work and provide all materials for
the project. To this end, we are proceeding in-house with the
necessary engineering, and this'effort is 80% complete. We are also
proposing to lower the conflicting force main with our own crews
during the construction of the Route 60 improvements.'• The
preliminary cost estimates are between $5,000.00 and $10,000.00 and
will be financed through Renewal and Replacement Funds. Attached
are copies of both the DOT relocation agreement and the DOT
Resolution for the chairman's signature. These documents must be
executed before the project can proceed.
}:
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the execution of the attached
agreement with the DOT and also the DOT Resolution.
Chairman Bird recalled State Road 60 Utilities were completed
not too long ago and asked why we need to relocate it.
Utility Services Director Terry Pinto explained it was because
Department of Transportation is widening the road and redesigning
82
some of theirstorm drainage, which is going to interfere with our
utility lines. We must accommodate their new design. If we
originally had placed the hydrants at the farthest point of our
right-of-way, they would have been very far from the road and
unusable.
Chairman Bird asked for the location of the proposed widening.
Capital Projects Engineer Bill McCain stated it is at 90th
Avenue east to 43rd Avenue. It involves approximately thirteen
hydrants to be relocated and a lowering of a 10 -inch sewer force
main on 90th Avenue which will be accomplished by a County crew.
The hydrants will be moved in advance of the construction.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
the Utility Relocation Agreement with Department of
Transportation (DOT) and adopted Resolution 91-185
authorizing execution of said agreement.
COPY OF PARTIALLY SIGNED CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF
CLERK TO THE BOARD
83
BOOK
,47
411
DEC i,
STATE OR FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OR TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OR PRECONSTRUCTION AND DESIGN
COUNTY RESOLUTION
UTILITY RELOCATION AGREEMENT
BOOK
COUNTY
SECTION
UTILITY JOB NO.
STATE ROAO NO.
COUNTY NAME
PARCEL & R/W JOB NO.
88
060
6525
60
Indian River
-
A RESOLUTION AUTIIORIZING EXECUTION OF AN UTILITIES AGREEMENT FOR THE ADJUSTMENT,
CHANGE OR RELOCATION OF CERTAIN UTILITIES WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY LIMITS HEREAFTER
DESCRIBED, AND PROVIDING WHEN THIS RESOLUTION SHALL TAKE.EFFECT.
ON MOTION OF Commissioner
Eggert
RESOLUTION NO 917185
Scurlock
, seconded by Commissioner
, the following Resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, the State of Florida Department of Transportation proposes to construct or reconstruct a
60
part of State Road
AND WHEREAS, in order for the State of Florida Department of Transportation to further and complete
said project, it is necessary that certain utilities and/or facilities within the Right -of -Way limits of said State
Road 60 be adjusted, changed or relocated,
AND WHEREAS, the State of Florida Department of Transportation having requested the County of
Indian River , Florida, to execute and deliver to the State of Florida
Department of Transportation an Utilities Agreement, agreeing to make or cause to be made such adjustments,
changes or relocations of said utilities and/or facilities as set out in said Agreement, and said request having
been duly considered,
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of the County of
Indian River , Florida, that the Chairman and Clerk of the Board of
County Commissioners be and are hereby authorized to make, execute and deliver to the State of Florida
Department of Transportation an Utilities Agreement for the adjustment, change or relocation of certain utilities
within the Right -of -Way limits of said State Road 60 Section 88060-3525
BE IT FURTHER' RESOLVED that this Resolution be forwarded to the State of Florida Department
of Transportation at Tallahassee, Florida.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, in regular session, this 1 7 day of December.
, 19 9L
Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners
MIRAFLORES SUBDIVISION WATER MAIN EXTENSION CHANGE ORDER #1 AND
FINAL PAYREQUEST
The Board reviewed memo from Utility Services Director Terry
Pinto dated December 10, 1991:
84
DATE: DECEMBER 10, 1991
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
FROM:
STAFFED AND
'� PREPARED BY:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
T �+' • CE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF ILI
Ala
H. a. DUKE" OSTER, P.E.
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SERVICES
MIRAFLORES SUBDIVISION WATER MAIN EXTENSION
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 AND FINAL PAY REQUEST -
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -90 -21 -DS
':BACKGROUND: .... v.
;The subject project for construction
residents 'of Miraflores Subdivision
installation has been accepted by
Services, and proper certification
Department of Environmental Regulation.
ti9 s a -
;ANALYSIS:
of a water main to service
has been completed.--' The
the Department of -Utility
has been provided- -to--=•the
On May. 7, ..1991, . the Board of County Commissioners approved funding
:of -;$24,036.00 for this project, and the contractor is now requesting
•final payment. The contractor's final cost totaled $20,504.0.0,
;;.including Change Order No. 1 (attached). This cost, plus
'engineering, inspection, and administrative costs, totals
.$23,970.00, or approximately $0.0342 :per square foot. --
.:.RECOMMENDATION:
'The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends approval
of the attached change order and request for payment in the amount
of $20,504.00 for services rendered.
ON MOTION by. Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
Change Order No. 1 and authorized payment in the
amount of $20,504.00 to Belvedere Construction, as
recommended by staff.
SAID CHANGE ORDER IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF
CLERK TO THE BOARD
85
DEC
BOOK
t, i
jtj
DEC 1'6)
BOOK
4 a�
Frwt�
MIRAFLORES SUBDIVISION (33RD AVENUE) WATER LINE ASSESSMENT PROJECT
RESOLUTION AND FINAL ASSESSMENT --
The Board reviewed memo from Utility Services Director Terry
Pinto dated December 4, 1991:
DATE:
TO:
DECEMBER 4, 1991
JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINT
DIRECTOR OF UTIL SE' VICES
PREPARED = JAMES D. CHASTAIN
AND STAFFED MANAGER OF ASSESSAlt
►'REJECTS
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTIL Y SERVICES
SUBJECT:
MIRAFLORES SUBDIVISION (33RD AVENUE) WATER LINE
ASSESSMENT PROJECT
FINAL ASSESSMENT --ROLL AND RESOLUTION NO. 4
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -90 -21 -DS
i3ACKGROUND
..On May 7, 1991, the 'Board of County Commissioners approved
Resolution III, No. 91-50, for the preliminary assessment roll on
the above -referenced project. The Utilities Department has
completed the construction of the project.'. We are now ready to
begin customer connections and request the Board of -County
'Commissioners' approval of the -final assessment roll. •(See attached
minutes and Resolution No. 3.)
•
,ANALYSIS ..
The preliminary assessment was for a total estimated project costof$24,036.00, which equates to + $0.0343 per square foot of property
owned. The final assessment -(see attachment Resolution No. 4 "and`
the accompanying assessment roll) is in the amount of $23,970.00,
which equates to a cost of $0.03417860137 :per square foot .;of
;property.
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board.of County Commissioners approve the adoption of .Resolution
No. 4.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 91-186 certifying "As -Built" costs for
installation of a waterline extension in Miraflores
(33rd Avenue) designated as Project #UW -90 -21 -DS and
other construction necessitated by such project, as
recommended by staff.
RESOLUTION 91-186, WITH ASSESSMENT ROLL ATTACHED, IS ON FILE IN
THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
86
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
A
1 -A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, CERTIFYING "AS -BUILT" COSTS FOR
INSTALLATION OF A WATERLINE EXTENSION IN
MIRAFLORES (33 AVENUE), DESIGNATED AS
PROJECT #UW -90 -21 -DS AND OTHER SUCH
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 for the property located
within the boundaries described in this title were necessary to promote
the public welfare of the county; and
WHEREAS, on May 7, 1991, the Board held a public hearing at
which time and place the owners of property to be assessed appeared
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. 91-50, which confirmed the special
assessment cost of the project to the property specially benefited by
the project in the amounts listed in the attachment to that resolution;
and
WHEREAS, the Director of Utility Services has certified the actual
"as -built" cost now that the project has been completed is less than in
confirming Resolution No. 91-50,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows:
1. Resolution No. 91-50 is modified as follows: The completion date
for the referenced project and -the last day that payment may be
made avoiding; interest and penalty charges is ninety days after
passage of this resolution.
2. Payments bearing interest at the rate of 9-3/4% per 'annum may be
made in ten annual installments, the first to be made twelve
months from the due date. The due date is ninety days after the
passage of this resolution.
3. The final assessment roll for the project listed in Resolution No.
91-50 shall be as shown on the attached Exhibit "A."
87
TEC
BOOK
1,99
BOOK
FA.JE Li
4. The assessments, as shown on the 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 on Exhibit "A," attached to Resolution No.
91-50, were recorded by the County on the public records of
Indian River County, and the lien shall remain prima facie
evidence of its validity.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner
Bo wm a n , and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Scurlock'
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 17
day of December , 1991.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
Richard N. Bird
Chairman
PETITION FOR SEWER SERVICE IN ROUSSEAU RIVER SHORES (114TH LANE OFF
NORTH INDIAN RIVER DRIVE)
The Board reviewed memo from Utility Services Director Terry
Pinto dated December 9, 1991:
88
. DATE :
TO:
mo
'FROM:
r. PREPARED
AND STAFFED
SUBJECT:
-DECEMBER 9, 1991
JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILI 7 SERVICES
JAMES D. CHAS 411
MANAGER OF AS ';'ENT PROJECTS
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
PETITION FOR SEWER SERVICE IN ROUSSEAU RIVER SHORES
(114TH LANE OFF NORTH INDIAN RIVER DRIVE)
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. US -92 -08 -CS
BACKGROUND -
A petition has been received for a sewer main extension for' 114th
;Lane. We are now coming to the Board of County Cominissioners to
seek approval to begin design of the above project. (See attached
:petition and plat map.)
•
;ANALYSIS
"The subdivision contains nine lots owned by six owners. __The
'property owners signing the petition represent 66.670 of •the
:properties to be served. Two of the owners were not readily
:available to sign due to being out :of town. _.One•of the properties
As tenant -occupied. -
The attached map displays the area to benefit from the assessment
project.
This project is to be paid through the assessment of propertyowners
along the proposed sewer line route. In the interim, financngg 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.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
Project No. US -92 -08 -CS for sewer service in
Rousseau River Shores, as recommended by staff.
WATER SERVICE TO INDIAN RIVER COUNTY MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOLS
The Board reviewed memo from Utility Services Director Terry
Pinto dated December 6, 1991:
89
DEC 17 1
BOOKS f,qG� :J) II'
BOOK 8b f„ uE.. „:J8
DATE: DECEMBER 6, 1991
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATO
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINT
DIRECTOR OF UTIL SERVICES
'PREPARED ROBERT 0. WISEMEN, P.E.
AND STAFFED ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER r -
.BY: o_ DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
si,
f, SUBJECT:
WATER SERVICE TO INDIAN RIVER COUNTY MIDDLE SCHOOL
AND HIGH SCHOOL
IRC PROJECT NO. UW -91 -20 -DS
`BACKGROUND
On August 13, 1991, the Board of County Commissioners approved
and
executed the agreement with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc::for
surveying of said project.
:,ANALYSIS
Attached please find the final pay request in the amount of
$790'00
'(10% retainage of the total authorized amount of $7,900.00).
•
1ECOMMENDATION
'The Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board"of
County Commissioners approve the release of said retains a or the
:final pay request. g
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
release of retainage from final payment to Kimley-
Horn and Associates, Inc., in the amount of $790.00,
as recommended by staff.
RELOCATION OF PACKAGED WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT FINAL PAY REQUEST
AND CHANGE ORDER
The Board reviewed memo from Utility Services_ Director Terry
Pinto dated December 6, 1991:
90
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
DECEMBER 6, 1991
"JAMES E. CHANDLER
_`'COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
PREPARED
AND STAFFED
BY:
SUBJECT:
TERRANCE G. PINT
D CTO I
VICES
ENVIRO LTi NTAL..SPECIALIST
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
RELOCATION OF A PACKAGED WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
FINAL PAY REQUEST AND CHANGE ORDER
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. US -90 -01.1 -DC
BACKGROUND
•
The Indian River County Board of County Commissioners approved on
.September .3, 1991, -the relocation of the River Run packaged
`wastewater treatment plant to the area of Blue Cypress Lake (see
':attached agenda item). ,,This was part of a larger project that will
r'•provide a wastewater treatment system to the Blue Cypress Lake area.
;:,The subject relocation project is now complete.
ANALYSIS -
Attached is Change Order 1, with a net decrease, of $2,178.00. The
:.;contractor used .less fill in building the driveway than was
'estimated, resulting in this reduction in cost. Also attached is
the Final Pay Request in the amount of $21,702.80. (See attached
Change Order and Final Pay Request.)
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of -the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the attached Change Order and
Final Pay Request and authorize the Chairman of the Board of County
Commissioners to sign both items.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the_Board unanimously approved
Change Order No. 1 and final pay request and
authorized the Chairman to execute both items, as
recommended by staff.
SAID CHANGE ORDER IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF
CLERK TO THE BOARD
SIX-INCH WASTEWATER TRANSMISSION LINE ON ABANDONED 16TH STREET
RIGHT-OF-WAY AFFECTING LOUIS SCHLITT PROPERTY ON INDIAN RIVER
BOULEVARD -
The Board reviewed memo from Utility Services Director Terry
Pinto dated December 6, 1991:
91
DEC 11
a^� a
BOOK i F,9i,c. 3
DEC
c
BOOK Ce.� FA,E
DATE:
TO:
'FROM:
• =:`STAFFED AND
PREPARED BY:
"SUBJECT:
'BACKGROUND:
DECEMBER 10, 1991
JAMES E. CHANDLER --
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
TERRANCE G. PINT
DIRECTOR OF UTILI.gY SERVICES
HARRY E. ASHER
ASSISTANT DIREC OR OF UTILITY SERVICES
SIX-INCH WASTEWATER TRANSMISSION LINE ON ABANDONED
16TH STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY AFFECTING LOUIS SCHLITT
PROPERTY ON INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD
The Department of Utility Services was requested..to investigate the
;status of the sewer facilities location on the above -referenced
property.
,ANALYSIS:
,Upon completion of the Indian River Boulevard Wastewater Force Main,
the above -referenced six-inch force main was permanently removed
from service. The line can be abandoned permanently with the
installation of a plug valve and cap.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff of the Department of Utility Services requests release of
any interest in the easement.
Commissioner Scurlock thought that as a part of releasing this
easement Mr. Schlitt had agreed to work with the County staff in
terms of replanting in the areas where exotic plants were removed.
Mr. Chandler recalled no agreement by Mr. Schlitt to
accelerate his landscaping plans.
Attorney Vitunac explained that the City of Vero Beach had
abandoned any interest they might have in this easement and we are
not sure we had an easement but the title company needs this
release to clear the title. Attorney Vitunac explained that an
easement like this is generally released at the request of the
owner.
Director Pinto explained that actually Mr. Schlitt had asked
the County to remove the sewer line from his property. That sewer
line is not in service and we have no interest in it. It is to be
capped at each end.
Commissioner Scurlock thought we should request Mr. Schlitt to
replant in the areas where trees were removed because the removal
of the trees had affected many citizens in the County and this
could be a method of improving that situation.
Chairman Bird felt there was no relationship between planting
trees and releasing an easement, and Attorney Vitunac agreed.
92
Ruth Chapman came before the Board and felt if this easement
was released we would lose forever the ability to open 16th Street
in that area. _
Commissioner Scurlock said he understood there wasnever
really an easement.
Ms. Chapman voiced concern about Mr. Schlitt's plan to have an
entrance on 14th Street, which would necessitate the four-laning of
14th Street. Chairman Bird assured her that would be discussed at
the time of site planning.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously released
the easement and requested Mr. Schlitt accelerate
his plans for landscaping.
ENGINEERING FIRM SELECTION FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE UPDATE
OF THE WATER. WASTEWATER AND EFFLUENT DISPOSAL MASTER PLANS
The Board reviewed memo from Utility Services Director Terry
Pinto dated December 10, 1991:
DATE: DECEMBER 10, 1991
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM:
TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILt SERVICES
STAFFED AND HARRY E. ASHE
PREPARED BY: ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT:
ENGINEERING FIRM SELECTION
ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE UPDATE OF THE WATER,
WASTEWATER, AND -EFFLUENT DISPOSAL MASTER PLANS
:BACKGROUND:
The Department of Utility Services received thirteen (13) responses
*to its Request for Proposal to provide engineering services for the
update of the water, wastewater, and effluent disposal master plans.
The selection committee reviewed Thhe responses and selected fhhr'
.firms to be interviewed for the project.
'INALYSIS:
fir: »Y.;..
::On December 6, 1991, the selection committee interviewed the four (4)
'firms and, as a result of the
'follows:
'.:; 1. Brown and Caldwell, Inc.
2. James M. Montgomery
3.- Black and Veach
,• 4. HNTB Engineers
RECO ENDATION: ` ' ` •`'
The Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners authorize the Department to conduct
negotiations with the No. 1 ranked -firm, Brown and Caldwell, Inc.,
and to proceed with an agreement based upon the outcome of the
negotiations. The Department also requests the authorization to
proceed with negotiations with the second, third, and/or fourth firm
if negotiations. fail with any firms.
i'
interview, ranked the firms .as
93
(i 1991
BOOK
41
OEC,
BOOK
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock,- the Board unanimously
authorized Utilities Department to negotiate with
Brown and Caldwell, Inc., and proceed with an
agreement based on those negotiations; and to
negotiate with the second, third and/or fourth firm
if negotiations fail with any firms, as recommended
by staff.
RIVERWALK UTILITIES. INC.. WATER AND WASTEWATER SYSTEM CHISE
The Board reviewed memo from Utility Services Director Terry
Pinto dated becember 10, 1991: -
DATE:
.TO:
FROM:
1._.
•':44:;1
STAFFED AND
PREPARED BY:
SUBJECT:
DECEMBER 10, 1991
JAMES E. CHANDLER.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
HARRY E. ASH
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
RIVERWALK UTILITIES, INC., WATER AND WASTEWATER
FRANCHISE
SYSTEM
,BACKGROUND:
Indian River County granted a water and wastewater -franchise to
Riverwalk Utilities, Inc., (RUI) on February 6, 1985, to provide
water and wastewater service to the Riverwalk -Shopping Center.
Section XVI, Item 4, calls for the utility to connect to a County'
water and wastewater system. if the County provides a public
system.
,ANALYSIS:
TheCounty'has constructed the North County Wastewater system and
fhas'!:requested that -Riverwalk Utilities connect to the County system
c,and dissolve the Riverwalk Utilities, Inc., franchise. Cyj
After much discussion and negotiation, the Utilities Department And -
Riverwalk Utilities, Inc., have agreed on the connection of
.Riverwalk Utilities, Inc., into the County system- under the terms
,and.conditions set forth in the attached agreement.
Under_the terms of the franchise agreement, RUI has paid and Indian
:River' County has escrowed water and wastewater impact fees in the
.amount of $176,860.00 for 74 ERUs of capacity. All escrowed funds
transfer to Indian River County upon termination of the franchise.
Upon execution of an easement between the Developer and the County
for operation and maintenance of the water plant, the franchise
agreement shall be terminated.
RECOMMENDATION:
.The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends approval
of the proposed agreement with Sebastian Associates,-- Inc.,
(Riverwalk Utilities, Inc.) and authorization for the Chairman to
execute the Agreement.
94
ON _MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
the agreement with- Sebastian Associates, Inc.,
(Riverwalk Utilities, Inc.) and authorized the
Chairman to execute the agreement, as recommended by
staff.
SAID AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF
CLERK TO THE BOARD
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE REPORT
Chairman Bird gave the following report:
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE'
SUMMARY
December 5, 1991
1) Request to use Kiwanis/Hobart baseball field for girls
Little League
Committee recommended that the County enter into an
agreement with Indian River County Little League to
lease Kiwanis/Hobart field for girls softball league,
from January to July.
2) Donald MacDonald Park status report
The Forestry Service is agreeable to extending maintenance
of the -park until September 30, 1991. They request
financial assistance from the County for operating costs,
i.e., water testing, dumpster and repairs. Jim Davis
will talk to Joe Spataro regarding the specific amount.
AFFORDABLE HOITSING ADVISORY COMMITEE -
Commissioner Eggert gave the following report:
95
DEC 17 19911
BOOK F4F.
D
199
BOOK
4
TO: Board of County
Commissioners
DATE: December 12, 1991 FILE:
SUBJECT: Affordable Housing
Advisory Committee
•
FROM: Carolyn K. Eggert REFERENCES:
Chairman
Affordable Housing Advisory Committee
At our meeting on December 12, 1991, status reports were
presented by the Housing Finance Subcommittee and the Housing
Planning Subcommittee. Copies are attached.
The Affordable Housing Advisory Committee would like to proceed
with a draft ordinance for the Housing Finance Authority
outlining guidelines for its =operational -powers Suggestions
will also be made for appointment of members. When ready, this
will be brought back to the County Commission.
Resolutions should be developed for the Housing Trust Fund and
brought to the Commission.
The recommendations for the small lot subdivision should be
further studied and criteria established for review.
The use of Accessory Dwelling Units should be further studied and
specific recommendations made on revisions of the _County's Land
Development Regulations.
Please approve these recommendations.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
approved County staff to study, -make
recommendations, establish criteria and prepare
appropriate resolutions for Board approval to
proceed toward our comprehensive plan requirements,
as requested by the Affordable Housing Advisory
Committee.
LAND ACOUISITION ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP
Commissioner Scurlock recounted the formation and purpose of
the Land Acquisition Advisory Committee (LAAO). There are 14
members whose backgrounds are diverse and they work toward helping
Indian River County meet our comprehensive plan requirements as
well as provide additional land in Indian River County for the
future. They research and prioritize a list of properties and
possible funding mechanisms. Commissioner Scurlock reported he had
received a letter from John Morrison pointing out that persons
listed on the letterhead of Indian River Land Trust as Board of
Directors were also on the Land Acquisition Advisory Committee.
Mr. Morrison felt this was improper and possibly_a violation of
Florida's Sunshine Law. Commissioner Scurlock suggested the Board
96
of County Commissioners should require that if a person is on both
LAAC and IRLT, that person must make a choice and resign from one
or the other. The problem arises because this is a small community
and a concerned citizen may serve on many committees.
Tony Robinson, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the
Indian River Land Trust, explained that the IRLT is one of fourteen
such organizations in Florida; there are 800 nationally. The Trust
is able to aid government in acquiring land by being able to move
quickly taking options on land until that government body is able
to purchase it. The Board of the Trust works as advisors to LAAC.
They do not meet, they do exchange ideas, they do not influence
LAAC. Ms. Robinson, as Chairman, is the only member who sees all
the other members. The letterhead is misleading in that respect.
Commissioner Eggert stressed that members of the Board of IRLT
should not be on LAAC. She also felt use of the letter gives the
appearance of the writer speaking for the organization.
C. C. "Bud" Kleckner, IRLT Advisory Board member, confirmed he
does not attend Board of Directors meetings, even though advisors
are allowed to attend. His contact is strictly with Tony Robinson
as the Chairman.
Tony Robinson suggested and Commissioner Scurlock supported
the policy of any member of IRLT who is appointed to LAAC should
resign from IRLT.
Discussion ensued regarding the Sunshine Law and its
requirements and the necessity of avoiding even the appearance of
impropriety.
Commissioner Scurlock requested the attorney's office to make
the policy or guidelines to be followed in this respect.
There being'no further business to come before the Board, on
motion duly made, seconded and unanimously carried, the
meeting adjourned at 12:40 olclock P. M.
ATTEST:
J. K. Barton, Clerk
97
Richard N. Bird, Chairman
soca 85€145