Laserfiche WebLink
• 5' setback for trees shorter than 20' at maturity <br />82' plus "average frond length" for palms <br />C. A 5' clearance between utility poles, guy wires, and transformers. <br />FP&L has sent written justification for some of its requested items, and an FP&L vegetation <br />management specialist is scheduled to attend the September 8th workshop to provide input and <br />answer questions. Staff has not yet received justification for the prohibited species request. Staff <br />notes that the proposed setbacks could conflict with many roadway/parking lot landscape strips. Two <br />of FP&L's suggestions are already addressed: overhead lines are already required to be shown on <br />landscape plans, and a pre-C.O. landscaping inspection is required. Staff notes that both FP&L and <br />the City of Vero Beach are already on the TRC agenda mailout list, and can directly comment on any <br />proposed site plan, P.D., or subdivision through the TRC review process. Avoiding future powerline <br />conflicts should be balanced with allowing reasonable use of property (including reasonable setbacks <br />to accommodate landscape strips) and provision of adequate roadway landscaping (including canopy <br />trees). <br />QUESTION #1 FOR THE BOARD: BASED UPON REVIEW OF THE EXISTING LDRS & <br />PENDING ORDINANCE AND WORKSHOP DISCUSSION, DOES THE BOARD WISH TO <br />DIRECT STAFF AT THIS TIME TO DELETE, MODIFY, OR ADD ANY PROVISIONS TO THE <br />PENDING ORDINANCE? <br />C. Maintenance & Enforcement <br />Currently, after initial landscaping improvements are inspected and deemed to comply with <br />the approved landscape plan, project sites are re -inspected for compliance and adequate <br />maintenance as follows: <br />1. Ten months after project C.O., code officers re -inspect for compliance. Deficiencies <br />are reported to the owner/manager prior to the expiration of any 1 year guarantees <br />that may cover the landscaping. <br />2. When staff observes a violation. <br />3. When a complaint is received. <br />4. When a development (e.g. building addition) or redevelopment application is received <br />on an existing project site. <br />Compliance is achieved either through timely cooperation or formal Code Enforcement Board <br />action. StaiTs experience is that this four part re -inspection policy is adequate. <br />QUESTION #2 FOR THE BOARD: DOES THE BOARD AFFIRM STAFF'S PRESENT <br />LANDSCAPING RE -INSPECTION POLICY? <br />Public Sector Policies: Landscaping Within Public Rights -of -Way <br />As the county develops and matures, major roadway projects are being designed and implemented <br />that will represent long term or "ultimate" roadway conditions. The aesthetic impacts and <br />opportunities presented by such projects require attention to the aesthetic results: how should the <br />improved major roadways in the county look when a major project is finished? <br />The aesthetic objective of landscaping in public rights-of-way is simply to enhance the appearance <br />of major county roadways through landscaping. To that end, the Board indicated a commitment to <br />reasonable and effective landscaping on two recent county road projects; namely, 58th Avenue and <br />CR 512. However, general policy questions need to be addressed. These include: <br />7 <br />September 8, 1997 <br />460 <br />