Laserfiche WebLink
MAY 1 199 <br />{r!CK F'„Gr <br />.8. Section 8: [Amend 914.06(1)] This change would. make the <br />Threshold standards for major and minor site plans clearer. <br />The ten percent of site coverage standard applied in the <br />threshold definition of major site plan projects does not need <br />to be repeated in the minor site plan threshold definitions <br />since no project meeting major site plan threshold <br />requirements can be treated as a minor site plan. This change <br />is merely for clarification purposes and does not change any <br />threshold standards. <br />9. Section 9: [amend 914.12(3)(c)] This amendment would add <br />specific language that describes the existing county process <br />for receiving a certificate of occupancy (C.O.) for all or a <br />portion of a site plan project. The proposed language clearly <br />indicates that no C.O. can be issued until staff has verified <br />that construction conforms to the approved site plan(s) and <br />that no project can be occupied or operated commercially or <br />industrially without a C.O. <br />10. Section 10: [Amend 915.18] This amendment applies only to <br />the open space standards of Planned Development (P.D.) <br />projects and increases the open space standard .for <br />commercial/industrial P.D. projects from 20% to 25%. The 25% <br />standard conforms to the new LDR commercial. district open <br />space standards. <br />11. Section 11: [Amend 918.04(5)] This change corrects a <br />typographical error and clarifies that the Utilities <br />Department determines when a utility franchise approval is <br />needed in relation to a development project. <br />•MCDOWELL REQUEST [Amend 932.07]. <br />12. Section 12 of the proposed ordinance contains the elements of <br />the McDowell request as well as some staff -initiated changes. <br />The changes are summarized as follows. <br />Sections 932.07(2) and 932(4): In coordination with county <br />attorney staff, planning staff is proposing minor <br />modifications to allow greater flexibility in dock setback <br />requirements in order to allow for the utilization of riparian <br />rights. The requirement of written approval from all affected <br />property owners has been deleted, based upon staff's opinion <br />that such a requirement is inappropriate. <br />Section 932.07(3): The McDowell request is for the county to <br />allow the construction of unwalled boat shelters waterward of <br />the shoreline. Environmental planning staff have researched <br />state and federal agency regulations concerning this matter, <br />and have found that such boat shelters are allowed by the <br />agencies, provided there is no adverse impact on light- <br />sensitive submergent aquatic vegetation (such as seagrasses). <br />Also, the Florida Department of Natural Resources (FDNR) <br />limits the combined total surface area of boat shelters and <br />dock terminal platforms to 160 square feet in an aquatic <br />preserve. The proposed changes would better conform to the <br />county's regulations as to what is allowed by state and <br />federal agencies. <br />Section 932.07(5): Staff is recommending this revision <br />(allowing a special exemption from building partially over <br />light-sensitive vegetation) to make local regulations more <br />consistent with state (FDNR) and federal (ACOS) agency <br />requirements. By doing so, inter -governmental agency <br />coordination and enforcement will be enhanced. <br />6 <br />