9/17/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r- SEP w 1992 BOOK 87 PAGE 6'33 SECTION 25: would allow a developer credit for satisfying all county stormwater quality standards if a St. Johns, River Water Management District (SJRWMD) permit is obtained. The proposal, made by the County Engineer, would still require a developer to obtain a county stormwater permit to meet county stormwater quantity standards. SECTION 26: would add new, locally -derived categories and trip rates to the county's trip rate data table. The proposals are being made by the County Traffic Engineer, based upon recently completed local trip rate traffic surveys. The new categories "fill in" some gaps in the current rate table (which is based predominantly on national rates), and provide a specific category for contractors trades uses which are a common type of use in the county. The new categories and rates are considered to be more accurate for Indian River County and are more specific and useful in review of small strip centers and stores, and contractors trades buildings projects. SECTION 27: would establish a formula for equating large truck traf f is volume with passenger vehicle traf f is volume in relation to project turn lane requirements. The formula, proposed by the traffic engineer, would affect only warehousing/manufacturing projects and would require a developer to take into account the impact of large truck maneuvers in relation to maneuvers of passenger vehicles. SECTION 28: would change some traffic impact fee credit requirements and procedures. These requirements and procedures will apply to developments within all participating municipalities as well as the unincorporated area of the county. The intent of the proposed changes is to: 1. Require up -front agreements on credit for constructed improvements before the improvements are designed and constructed. Such a requirement would eliminate post - construction credit claims which can present various problems. 2. Substitute a precise date for a current requirement tied to "...the effective date of this chapter...". 3. Better specify what types of improvements constitute non - creditable, site -related improvements. 4. Better specify existing procedures. It should be noted that prior to PSAC consideration of this proposal, a draft of the proposal and an invitation for comments and attendance at the PSAC were sent to every municipality in the county. No comments were received from the municipalities. SECTION 29: would correct a discrepancy between the parking ordinance (954) and the landscape ordinance (926). The change would allow a developer to use less paving at the end of a parking space by permitting a design that allows vehicles to overhang up to 3' beyond a bumper stop, over grassed areas. This provision is an incentive to design less paving area and more open space. SECTION 30: would prohibit signs (over four square feet) attached to parked vehicles where the signs are used to attract the attention of adjacent right-of-way travelers, unless the vehicle is parked in a designated parking area and is used in day-to-day operations. The intent of this LDR revision is to "close a loop- hole" and prohibit strategically parked vehicles to be used as on - premise or off -premise signs. 10