12/1/1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOOK 10i PAGE b 2. [Page 2 & 3 of the amendments] Changes to interior parking requirements are proposed that would ensure that the current 10% interior parking landscaping requirement will result in an adequate volume of vegetation within parking and driveway areas. It should be noted that in 1991 the county's parking lot interior i-^Rdscaping area requirement was increased from 5% to 101/6 to match the City of Vero Beach requirement and to ensure better landscape effect. The changes now proposed clarify what areas constitute "parking area" and tighten up the landscape areas that can count toward meeting the requirement. In staffs opinion, most currently approvable project designs provide adequate interior parking lot landscaping in meeting the 10% requirement. However, some types of designs for larger parking lots have not resulted in the desired appearance. The result of the proposed changes will be to preclude those types of designs by restricting interior landscape credit for some green areas which are on the perimeter of but not interior to, parking areas. Therefore, the proposed changes would more strictly require the 10% of green area to be tally interior to proposed parking lots (see graphic attached to proposed ordinance). The number of trees required within these interior parking landscape areas will not change; so the one tree per 300 square feet of vehicular open space requirement will remain as is. Also, the proposed approach will not increase the 10% requirement. However, revised changes will require minimurn green area dimensions of 10' around locations of required tree plantings. This change will result in more green area around required parking lot trees so that trees can better attain a healthy maturity and size. The effect should be fuller, larger tree canopies within parking lot areas. Also, language from the SR 60 Corridor Plan has been inserted to address potential landscaping sight distance problems at intersections of internal driving aisles. The requirement establishes a visual "clear window" at the ends of landscape islands located at such intersections. 3. [Page 3 of the amendments] To address concerns about the quality of installed required landscape materials, the project landscape architect or landscape contractor will be required to certify in writing prior to C.O. that: a. he or she has inspected the installed required material, and b. the installed required material meets the existing Chapter 926 quality standard, namely, Florida No. 1 or better. It should be noted that landscape material above and beyond required minimums (e.g. extra trees and ornamental landscaping) would not be subject to the quality standards. The quality certification would be similar to and in addition to the overall project certification that is required of the project engineer or architect under the current ordinance. Aside from this proposed certification requirement, and outside of the formal structure of the LDRs, staff training for inspecting plant quality and developer/owner information on landscape quality issues are being addressed by planning and code enforcement staff in coordination with the agricultural extension agent. In addition, specifications for allowing a developer to bond -out for required landscaping are proposed Such bonding -out would be allowed only in the event that a disaster (e.g. freeze or hurricane) adversely affects availability of landscape materials and the Board formally recognizes such a disaster and sets timeframes for delayed installation. Also, a second type of bonding -out allowance is specified for situations where installation of certain required landscaping needs to be delayed due to conflicts with adjacent road construction. An example of such a situation occurred with the Home Depot and Eckerds projects on 58th Avenue, south of SR 60. For those projects, the county agreed to allow bonding -out installation of the 58th Avenue Home Depot/Eckerds landscape strips because 58th Avenue construction (including the location of temporary construction easements) would conflict with the normal timing of installation. Both bonding -out allowances proposed in the LDR amendments would require the posting of security in.the auaoumt of 115%7 of the installation bid prise, similar to existing bonding -out provisions for required subdivision improvements. 4. [Page 4 of the amendments] An exception has been added to a proposed pruning restriction. The exception would allow the pruning of any dead or diseased wood of a canopy tree, regardless of the impact on the canopy size. 5. [Page 5 of the amendments] The proposed roadway landscape buffer has been altered slightly to require fewer canopy trees per lineal feet when such trees are larger than the standard 10' minimum. 6. [Page 6 ofthe amendments] Although the Board, at the September 8th workshop, determined that the tree Placement standards and restrictions proposed by FP&L would be too restrictive and contrary to establishing adequate landscaping adjacent to roadways, some alternative standards were discussed. In staffs opinion, the county should address the issue of DECEMBER 1, 1997 -10-