10/23/2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

dead and failing landscaping (including approximately 30 canopy trees) is required to be replaced. Under the current section 926.12(3) standards, the size of replacement canopy trees on project sites like Indian River Square, that have been completed for more than 36 months, is 18 feet tall, versus the original at -planting height of 10'-12' feet. According to code enforcement records, the 926.12(3) standards for shrubs, understorv, and canopy trees have been enforced on numerous other project sites, although most of those sites did not involve as many canopy trees as the Indian River Square case. As an alternative to requiring compliance with the existing 926.12(3) requirements, the Code Enforcement Board, at the Indian River Square owner's request, has granted the owner sufficient time to propose and have processed an amendment to reduce the replacement size standards. Thus, the manner in which the Indian River Square site is partially re -landscaped will depend upon whether or not the replacement standards are amended. Although the proposed amendment was prompted by a specific case, it would have a county- wide effect, if adopted. Therefore, the requested amendment must be considered in the context of all projects within the unincorporated area of the county that require landscaping (site plan and planned development projects). At its August 30, 2001 meeting, the Professional Services Advisory Committee (PSAC) discussed the issue at length, and voted 6-0 to amend the current standards based on staff research presented at the meeting (see attachment #4). The PSAC amendment proposal differs from Mr. Bishop's original request and staff's original recommendation. In essence, the PSAC proposal retains a strong incentive for adequately maintaining landscaping on project sites while slightly modifying the requirements to bring them more in line with the results of staff research and the City of Vero Beach's replacement requirements for "established" trees. Based on the PSAC meeting discussion, staff has changed its original recommendation and supports the PSAC proposal. Support for that proposal is reflected in staff's recommendation at the end of this report. The PSAC/Staff proposal is contained in attachment #6. At its September 27, 2001 meeting the Planning and Zoning Commission considered Mr. Bishop's proposal and the PSAC/staff proposal. The PZC voted 5 to 1 to recommend that the Board adopt the PSAC/staff proposal (see attachment #5). ANALYSIS • History of Existing Standards In the spring of 1997, the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) initiated changes to "beef - up" the then -existing Chapter 926 landscaping standards. Changes proposed by the PZC and staff in the summer of 1997 included: increases in at -planting minimum tree sizes, road frontage landscaping requirements, and certain buffer types; more stringent review of landscaping material quality; and standards for replacement landscaping (Section 926.12(3)). At its June 26, 1997 meeting, the Professional Services Advisory Committee (PSAC) considered those proposed changes and recommended that a PSAC/PZC joint workshop be held on landscape issues. Subsequently, at its July 26, 1997 meeting, the PZC recommended that a joint workshop be held with the Board of County Commissioners and that the Board invoke the pending ordinance doctrine to enact the proposed amendments as an interim measure. On July 22, 1997, the Board invoked the pending ordinance doctrine which enacted the proposed ordinance on an interim basis. That pending ordinance included the Section 926.12(3) replacement standards that are in effect today. The Board also scheduled ajoint public workshop to discuss landscaping issues and to form the basis of a "final" ordinance. That workshop was held on September 8, 1997, and was well attended. At that workshop, the Board reviewed various landscaping issues and each section of the pending ordinance. including the replacement OCTOBER 23, 2001";1 .48. MW I