Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/31/1985SPECIAL MEETING 1. Thursday, October 31, 1985 The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, met in Joint Session with the Planning and Zoning Commission at the County Commission Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Thursday, October 31, 1985, at 9:30 o'clock A.M. Members present from the Board of County Commissioners were Patrick B. Lyons, Chairman; Don C. Scurlock, Vice Chairman; Richard N. Bird; Margaret C. Bowman; and William C. Wodtke, Jr. Members present from the Planning 8 Zoning Commission were Carolyn Eggert, Chairman; John Tippin, Vice Chairman; and Ruth Stanbridge. Absent were Richard Parent and Ben Bailey, III. Also present were Michael J. Wright, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; and Barbara Bonnah, Deputy Clerk. Chairman Lyons called the meeting to order and Commissioner Bowman led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Chairman Lyons was not sure whether the*road impact ordinance scheduled for a public hearing on December 4th had been before the Planning 8 Zoning Commission as yet, and Attorney Vitunac reported that the attorney from Barton-Aschman has suggested that we adopt the impact fee ordinance as a land regulation. Due to some recent case law he wants it to go through the same process as any zoning change, but this will make the December 4th timeframe difficult to meet. He will be sending us a timetable on the scheduling of the public hearings. In any event, it must go OCT 3 11985 BOLA f,- 58 1 BOOK 62 Pt GF 5?S8 before the Planning & Zoning Commission first and then be advertised for a public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. Planning & Development Director Robert Keating noted that there are several controversial issues on today's agenda and these issues have been broken down and will be presented separately today by the following staff members: Jim Davis, Dir. of Public Works Stan Boling, Planner Robert Keating, Dir. Planning & Development ... Stormwater runoff from single-family lots ... Acquisition of rights -of -way adjacent to canals ... Road Paving STORMWATER RUNOFF FROM SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS Director Davis reviewed the following memo dated 10122/85: TO: The Honorable Members DATE. October 22, 1985 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners and The Honorable Members of the Planning and SUBJECT: STORMWATER RUNOFF FROM Zoning Commission SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS Robert M. Keating, AICP nM� Director, Planning Development Division FROM: & V REFERENCES: James W. Davis .~ Director, Public Wxks Division It is requested that the information presented herein be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commission- ers and the Planning and Zoning Commission at their special workshop meeting on October 31, 1985. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS ° Problem One problem which is occurring in the County with more frequency is that of stormwater runoff from sin- gle-family lots adversely affecting adjacent property. Although this occurs primarily with older subdivisions having. small lots, it is an issue which must be ad- dressed. , ° Background Stormwater runoff has recently become a problem for certain single-family lots for one major reason. That is a requirement that new homes be elevated substantial- ly above the natural grade in some areas, either to meet Health Department septic tank requirements or to meet National Flood Insurance base flood requirements. Whatever the reason, the mandate for raising the final finished grade of a house has changed the drainage pattern of some areas. 2 In many older subdivisions, there are a number of houses which were constructed prior to the enactment of the existing regulations. Consequently, these homes have a lower finished grade than houses currently being built. To compound this problem there is a lack of drainage ditches, swales, and easements in these older subdi- visions, thereby reducing alternatives for diverting the runoff. In some cases, recently constructed homes have had their stormwater directed to the adjacent property, producing flooded conditions on those lots. Present County Policy For single-family homes in either recorded subdivisions or on metes and bounds lots, the County does not address drainage issues. In fact, most County ordinances, including stormwater management, landscaping, tree protection, and others, exempt single-family homes. While setback criteria, other zoning requirements, septic tank rules, and proposed right-of-way improve- ments are addressed on single-family homes, these are reviewed as part of the building permit application process. In. relation to the single-family stormwater runoff problem, the County has attempted to address the problem on a case-by-case, after -the -fact basis. Since"no current ordinance provisions give the County the right to require the submittal of drainage plans for sin- gle-family home construction or to enforce a no -discharge policy, the County has been precluded from taking action to prevent this problem before it occurs or to rectify the problem once it exists. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS There are two principal alternatives for addressing this issue. The first alternative is for the County to continue its present policy and take no action. Under this scenario, stormwater runoff problems would need to be resolved by the homeowners involved; the County would not regulate stormwater on single-family lots. The second alternative is for the County to regulate stormwater discharges from single-family lots, requiring that a homeowner not adversely affect his neighbor with drainage and then enforcing this requirement. County regulation of stormwater runoff could take several forms. While single-family stormwater, requirements, if enacted, should be incorporated within the County's zoning code, these requirements could either mandate a drainage plan to be reviewed by the County as part of the building permit application process, or the regulations could mandate that no single-family lot may have runoff directed to an adjacent parcel, and the County could regulate this at the time of its certificate of occupancy inspection. With the former method, the County would need sufficient information to review the proposed drainage plan; it would require more staff time by the Public Works Department (the Department which would review the drainage plan as part of the overall interdepart- mental building permit review system); and it would require a site inspection by the Public Works Department prior to issuance of a CO. With the latter method_, the responsibility to design and construct an adequate drainage system would be the applicant's. The applicant would, at the. time of the building permitlapplication, certify that drainage will not impact an adjacent lot, and this system would be reviewed for adequacy only after it had been completed. 3 OCT 3 11985 Boa 62 589 OCT 3 11985 BOOK 62 PnE 59® Given the differences in conditions among single-family building sites in the County, it is not possible for the County to determine specific drainage improvements which would be applicable to all lots in the County. There are, however, a number of possible site improvements which could be made to a lot in order to prevent stormwater discharge to adjacent property. These include development of swales, use of roof drains, installation of a french drain system, and innovative site/building design. It is the staff's position that the applicant should be responsible for designing a drainage system that prevents runoff from his lot from impacting adjacent property. The staff also feels that submittal of the conceptual drainage design should be a building permit application requirement. In this way the staff can review the proposed system concur- rent with its review of the applicant's building plans, and the staff can assess its adequacy before the house is built and the applicant's options are more limited. While such a conceptual drainage plan would not need an engineer's certi- fication, it would have to indicate general finished ele- vations, grade transitions to abutting property, proposed drainage improvements, and other pertinent information. With this system, the conceptual drainage plan could be reviewed by the Public Works Division as part of the overall building permit review function. Since this analysis would not have to be detailed or extensive, it could be conducted in conjunction with the right-of-way examination of the building permit application. A final site inspection could be done in conjunction with the building department's final inspection, and construction of the drainage system as depicted on the conceptual drainage plan would be a require- ment for obtaining a certificate of occupancy. To establish a procedure as discussed herein, the staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners amend the zoning code to prohibit stormwater discharge from sin- gle-family lots to adjacent property and to mandate submittal of a conceptual drainage plan as part of a single-family building permit application when deemed necessary by the public works director. The staff specifically suggests that the General Provisions Section of the zoning code be amended to establish Section 25S. That section should read as follows: 25.S STORMWATER DISCHARGE FROM SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS No stormwater discharge in excess of predevelopment rates from single-family lots to abutting property shall be allowed. To ensure that stormwater runoff is adequately managed, each applicant for sin- gle-family home building permit approval shall, if deemed necessary by the public works director, submit a conceptual drainage plan depicting the proposed stormwater management system, including swales, finished elevations, transition grades to abutting property, any off-site tributory drainage entering the property, proposed drainage system improvements, and other pertinent information required by the public works director. No certifi- cate of occupancy shall be issued where improve- ments depicted upon a conceptual drainage plan have not been constructed. 4 RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners and the Planning and Zoning Commission direct staff to initiate a zoning code amendment prohibiting stormwater discharge ,from single-family lots to abutting property and requiring submittal of conceptual drainage plans in conjunction with building permit applications when deemed necessary by the public works director. Director Davis felt the problem is apparent with the new increased height requirements for septic tank installation and the Health Department requirements for maintaining a certain elevation between the bottom of the drain fields and the wet season ground water table. In addition, the flood plain management is requiring a single-family home, or any dwelling, to have a minimum soil elevation. These requirements have put the County in a position where old development is sitting down much lower than new development and the Board needs to decide whether or not we want to get into regulating stormwater runoff from single-family lots. Director Davis advised that staff's recommendation provides some flexibility which will allow a developer or an individual homeowner to come up with some way to mitigate stormwater runoff. Commissioner Scurlock asked what the current elevation is, and Mike Galanis of Environmental Health reported that the State has advised that the liquid which comes from a septic tank drain trench must be maintained two feet above the wet season water table. When they say 36" above the crown of the road for the top of the septic tank, they are simply giving an easy reference in order to control the height of the drain field. He noted that in February, 1985, the requirement of 12" above the wet season water table was increased to 24". 5 T 311985 Boa 591 BOOK WT 31 19�� 62 PAGE592 Considerable discussion took place on how to stop water runoff on the 50 -ft lots in Oslo Park, and Director Davis believed it could be done by channeling stormwater to the front or the back of the lot. Another alternative would be to install gutters and downspouts to channel roof runoff down into a small rock drain field if the soils are suitable. Where there is poor soil, however, there is the condition of a high wet season ground water table. Because the ground water table is perched and cannot penetrate the poor soil, a home builder would have to go to some structural means to pipe the stormwater runoff to a front or back swale; however, some of the older subdivisions with metes and bounds type parcels have no back lot easements. Director Davis felt that in some cases, we are between a rock and a hard spot, but in other instances, it can be done easily -- it is just a little more expensive. Commissioner Wodtke felt that while the proposed ordinance is a positive step, Section 25.S would give us more than we want. He suggested striking the first paragraph and rewording it so that it would give the flexibility for a joint swale between houses. However, if one neighbor is below A he level of the road, it would give staff the opportunity to come up with the best viable alternative under the circumstances for the management of that system. He did not know if we could have a set policy that would be so cut and dried that it would be applicable to every site. It could be that the final plan might have some negative effect on adjacent property, but it certainly would have less effect than some of the things that we are seeing presently. Mr. Galanis stressed that we are dealing with a complex situation, particularly down in Oslo Park. Commissioner Bird was concerned about how involved and how costly it would be for an individual home builder to 6 bring in a drainage plan in order to get a building permit. He wondered if a lay person could draw up his own drainage plan, and Director Davis felt that in most cases in a platted subdivision, it will be fairly simple procedure, where the designer simply looks at the lot grades when he builds the house. Chairman Lyons believed that something is going to have to be done to control roof runoff in these small lots, because that is the biggest generator of all. Commissioner Bowman asked if two French drains could handle the roof runoff on a 1000 sq, ft, home, and Director Davis believed it would help in some cases, but not in subdivisions where the soil is poor, such as Rivera Estates. Director Davis believed that it would make things easier to reword Section 25.S on Page 3 of the ordinance to reference impervious surfaces and the pre -development condition. Commissioner Bird suggested that it read, "No stormwater discharge from impervious surfaces on single- family lots to abutting single-family lots shall be allowed." Mr. Tippins wondered about our wisdom in hauling sand off the sand ridge and distributing it to new development all over the county. He wondered if in our great desire to protect our water table and septic tank level, we are at the same instance destroying part of our recharge areas. Mr. Galanis believed we are trying to protect both the level of the water table and the septic tank level as they go hand in hand. Commissioner Bird asked if we could adopt different square footage requirements for different size lots, and Director Davis felt that was what we are doing in the wording that was developed. We are not locking in any specific requirements, but rather giving the options here to 7 ��aK 62 PnF 593 BOOK 62 FAGF594 allow the designer of a single-family home to come up with a system which is compatible for the area. Commissioner Bird did not want it to be too broad and give a gray area so that when someone comes in they find they have to reinvent the wheel. He emphasized that we need to have some guidelines or structure so that people have some idea of how to design their drainage system and won't have to run out and hire an architect or engineer. Director Davis advised that in some areas like Oslo Park we could go in and establish a lot grading plan and that would be on record so that anyone who builds in that subdivision has to conform to the plan. They considered doing that in Rivera Estates; however, there are hundreds of other small subdivisions that have to be considered in some way. Chairman Lyons felt it almost has to be that broad in order to cover homes in all the subdivisions. The Board agreed to Commissioner Bird's suggested rewording of Section 25.S, which is as follows: "No stormwater discharge from impervious surfaces on single-family lots to abutting property shall be allowed." Attorney Vitunac believed we would have a problem with the suggested change as there is a law already in force which prohibits alteration of the natural flow of water to increase the water on your neighbor's property. Therefore, if we say that it is illegal to increase the runoff from impervious surfaces, we would not have as much protection as there is now through the common law, which is enforced through civil action between the two neighbors. Mr. Galanis felt that what Director Keating wants to do is just be able to review the situation and make some recommendations for requirements. Director Keating understood that Attorney Vitunac is saying that eliminating the first sentence in 25.S would be 8 i r � okay because there is adequate backup for that in the common law. Chairman Lyons stressed that all we are trying to do is manage the stormwater runoff. Commissioner Bowman suggested citing the common law in the first sentence of Section 25.S. Attorney Vitunac felt that what Director Keating is trying to do is to have some sort of County regulation to save neighbors from going to court and filing suit against each other. Commissioner Wodtke pointed out that if civil action was filed in one of these situations, a judge might ask why the County issued a permit without some kind of restriction or requirement to prevent the problem and then the County may become part of the suit. Commissioner Scurlock asked if there is any flexibility at all when the Health Department looks at these situations, and Mr. Galanis explained that his staff goes out to a site with instructions to use judgment. He noted another option would be to require every single-family dwelling to install a pump and a lift station to pump up to the drain fields. That system, however, creates possible safety hazards where small children could fall into lift stations with plywood covers, etc. The Health Department has chosen the other route; in fact, we are the only county in the state that requires the septic tank to be installed before anything else is built on a site to prevent the builder from messing up, a Chairman Lyons felt the problem is pretty much set up for us and the question us is what requirement are we going _ to have for drainage. The suggestion on the floor is either to have swales, or if there isn't any room for swales, then require people to install gutters and downspouts on their homes. 9 OCT f1 31 1 1� BOOK 62 PAGE 595 BOOK - 62 PA�F596 Director Keating suggested that we put something on the building permit application stating: "If there are potential drainage problems, you are going to have to solve them", and then the Engineering Department will determine if there is any need`for the proposed drainage systems. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously authorized staff to advertise public hearings of the Planning & Zoning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners for the adoption of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance re stormwater runoff; the amendment to encompass the changes proposed today. Director Davis suggested that when the Building Department inspectors make their final inspection on a single-family home, they also check out the drainage or driveway improvements. He believed this would reduce tremendously the,number of trips by staff and the redundancy of inspections. Administrator Wright felt they could work that out administratively. ACQUISITION OF RIGHTS-OF-WAY ADJACENT TO CANALS The Board reviewed the following memo dated 10/22/85: 10 � � r TO: The Honorable Members DATE: October 22, 1985 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners and the Planning & Zoning Commission DIi7ISION HEAD CONCURRENCE� ` UBa�ECT: ACQUISITION OF RIGHTS- OF-WAY ADJACENT TO Robert M. Keati g, A CANALS inning & Develop nt Director FROM' w. Davis Pc Works Director REFERENCES: Stan Boling �, �• _ Staff Planner It is requested that the information presented herein be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners in consultation with the Planning and Zoning Commission at the special joint meeting of October 31, 1985. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS ° Background The county is served by a system of public road and canal rights-of-way. All of these rights-of-way serve "public" purposes- that is, purposes related to the general health, safety, and welfare. Rights-of-way facilitate legal vehicular and pedestrian access to most homes and business in the county. These rights-of-way are also utilized to manage stormwater and prevent flooding, and to provide a full spectrum of utilities -and sanitary services. The need to establish, acquire, maintain, and use a system of public rights-of-way is a basic necessity. There are insufficiencies and limitations in the County's existing system. Right-of-way system limitations are limitations on the County's ability to provide basic public services, and thus its ability to correct existing problems, meet existing needs, and facilitate future development. One of the County's basic functions and responsibilities is to own, maintain and develop an adequate and efficient system of rights-of-way (thoroughfares) to facilitate the provision of . basic services. In its Comprehensive Plan, the County has recognized the need to establish a thoroughfare system that is adequate to serve existing and future development. The Thoroughfare Plan Map within the Comprehensive Plan is " . . . an essential component of the comprehensive planning effort". The Comprehensive Plan states that the Thoroughfare Plan has a major influence on how and where development is distributed. Therefore, the implementation of the Thoroughfare Plan plays a major role in implementing the Comprehensive Plan and ensuring that there is adequate infrastructure to serve existing and future residents. The Thoroughfare Plan classifies every thoroughfare in the county into one of three classifications: arterial, primary collector, and secondary collector - as designated on the adopted Thoroughfare Plan Map (see attachment #1). [These thoroughfares do not include local residential roads and private streets.] The classifications define the existing or future (planned) functioning of the road. These designations and the entire Thoroughfare Plan system are based -on good traffic engineering principles. 11 BOOK 2 PnF 5.97 The Thoroughfare right-of-way widths BOOK 62 pnF 598 Plan calls for the following minimum for each of the: 1) Arterials. . . . . . . 2) Primary Collectors . . 3) Secondary Collectors . . . . . . . . 120 feet . . . . 100 feet . . . . 80 feet These right-of-way widths based on standard engineering design, have been incorporated into the site plan and subdivision ordinance requirements. Shown in attachment #2, the typical cross-sections demonstrate the space needed within each type of thoroughfare for pavement, shoulders, drainage, sidewalks/bikewalks, and utilities. It should be noted that the County's first subdivision ordinance, adopted in 1958, required right-of-way widths greater than these.. The old ordinance required 200' wide arterials, 120' wide primary roads, and 80' wide secondary roads. °Present Policy The County is implementing the Thoroughfare Plan by requiring the dedication of right-of-way at the time of, development approval for those projects where existing right-of-way does not meet County standards. The County also acquires right-of-way via direct purchasing where it is needed immediately for construction of a road project. Such has been the case for portions of Indian River Boulevard. The County is also developing a long-range road capital improvements program and corresponding impact fee ordinance. The current road program cost estimates include acquisition costs of all Thoroughfare Plan designated rights-of-way. Estimates assume the utilization of swale drainage. Presently, additional right-of-way is acquired via the application of subdivision and site plan requirements when existing right-of-way widths on roads abutting proposed development sites do not meet minimum right-of-way standards. The dedication requirements that are part of the development process implement the Board's general policy that new development "pay for itself" by paying its fair share of upgrading existing infrastructure in a manner that fulfills the Thoroughfare Plan standards. Generally when a development proposal is reviewed, the applicant is required to make up half of any right-of-way deficiency through dedication. For example, if a project site is located on one side of Highway U.S. #1 (required right-of-way width: 120'), and only 100' of right-of-way exists along his frontage, then he would be required to dedicate 10' feet of right-of-way. The remaining deficiency would be rectified by acquiring 10' of right-of-way from the other side of U.S. #1 at"a later date. Thus, property owners on both sides of the road generally contribute their fair share of right-of-way, and they set back their development from the new right-of-way area. °Problem For roads adjacent to canals, it has been the County's policy to acquire all additional right-of-way from the land opposite the canal -side of the street. Therefore, although landowners on the canal -side of a street incur culverting expenses at the time of development, only landowners on the opposite side of the street incur the loss of land via right-of-way dedication. Where canals are involved, landowners on one side of a road are contributing all of the additional needed right-of-way. Because there are many roads in the County that parallel canals (see attachment #3), this is a major issue. Basically, the problem 12 M M r _ M M is one of equity: the landowners on one side of a roadway must dedicate substantial amounts of land for right-of-way, while landowners on the other side have no responsibility for dedicating right-of-way. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: Alternatives for Satisfvina Riaht-of-wav Needs The alternative policies described herein are possible means of achieving the following objectives: 1) Implementation of the Thoroughfare Plan, thereby adequately providing for planned growth as mandated and outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. 2) Coordination with Drainage District plans, as part of the County's inter -governmental coordination policy and in recognition of the long-standing public purposes of the Drainage District. 3) Effective timing of dedication and acquisition, wherein rights-of-way are dedicated and acquired prior to allowing construction that may later impede right-of-way acquisition, and prior to increases in land value. 4) Utilization of existing rights-of-way and facilities, to ensure the use of what has already been dedicated and acquired and to continue the existing pattern of right-of-way alignment. 5) Expansion costs to be borne mostly by new development, ensuring that the County's policy of having new development "pay for itself" is implemented. Facilitation of. cost-effective improvements, whereby less expensive methods of construction can be used, such as utilization of swale drainage. 7) Equitable distribution of the dedication/acquisition burden among property owners, to ensure that the costs and benefits of public dedications and improvements are balanced between property owners on both sides of the thoroughfare. A. Policies Using Present Right -of -Way Alignment Policy ALTERNATIVE #1 Continue the present policy of acquiring all additional right-of-way from the side opposite the canal, via dedication to the County' -at the time of development approval. For projects requiring site plan approval, the right-of-way is dedicated via the recording of a deed prior to the issuance of a C.O. for the project. For subdivisions, the right-of-way portion to be dedicated is described and shown on the plat, becoming effective upon the recordation of the plat. ALTERNATIVE #2 Continue the present policy of acquiring all additional right-of-way from the side opposite the canal and compensate the land owner for substantial dedications. Credit towards traffic impact fees, if adopted, would be the source of compensation. Thus, the County would continue its present alignment policy, taking advantage of all the previous dedications made under the present policy, but would mitigate equity and fairness problems by compensating developers dedicating "an extra share" of right-of-way. 13 OCT 311985BooK 62 Fr��F 5"` OCT 3 11985 I B. Policies Utilizing the Existing Canals Boa 62 P4GF 600 ALTERNATIVE #3 Utilize the existing canal right-of-way (generally 30 feet in width) for road purposes. This would require an extensive .agreement with the Drainage District and the enormous cost of culverting many miles of existing canal.. The needs of possible future'canal expansion would have to be considered, as well as maintenance responsibilities and costs. The space gained by culverting existing canals could be limited to pavement and shallow swale improvements only, and would in many instances still require the acquisition of additional amounts of right-of-way. However, the amount of right-of-way to be acquired from private property owners would be reduced. ALTERNATIVE #4 Utilize the existing canal for road purposes by filling it, and digging a replacement canal. This too would require an extensive agreement with the Drainage -District and enormous construction costs, and would still require the acquisition of additional right-of-way. Also, the present canal right-of-way location is used as a boundary description for a multitude of parcels. Shifting the location of the. canal could require extensive re -surveying and adjustments in legal property descriptions. The needs of possible future canal expansion would also have to be considered, as well as extensive new culverting construction to provide access to existing residences. This alternative would not reduce the amount of right-of-way to be acquired from private property owners but would shift the burden of right-of-way acquisition. C. Policies Using Design -based Alternatives 1. ALTERNATIVE #5 Boulevarding along the -canals, by acquiring and utilizing right-of-way on both sides of the canal. This would involve the use of one-way streets on either side of the canal, as is currently the situation along 20th Avenue between 26th Street and 16th Street. This type of design would necessitate the acquisition of extensive' road right-of-way on the canal- side of the road and would confine the canal right-of-way, thus limiting possible future canal expansion. Also, extensive culverting would be needed for street crossovers, and the design and construction of intersections would be more costly than standard designs. This alternative would not reduce the amount of right-of-way to be acquired, but would shift the burden of acquisition to ano_ther side of the canal. ALTERNATIVE #6 Apply any number of the previously or subsequently described alternatives and designs to specific roads or specific road segments. Applying different alternatives to different segments of the same road could be infeasible due to problems with right-of-way alignment and transitioning from segment to segment. It could also be difficult to convince property owners of the -fairnes's of applying different policies to different areas served by the same road. Likewise, applying different alternatives to different roads could involve problems of fairness from the viewpoint of affected property owners. Thus, determining what alternative to apply to every collector road or their segments could be time-consuming, and it would leave the County without a coherent policy for an extended period of time. There may be situations in areas that are already developed where the costs of land acquisition and the 14 effect on the useability of certain properties would exceed the costs of design -based alternatives that utilize less right-of-way. Therefore, there may be some situations where alternatives (such as #7) would be more equitable and less expensive than full right-of-way acquisition. D. Policies to Reduce or Shift Right-of-way Needs ALTERNATIVE' #7 Utilize curb and gutter drainage with exfiltration or retention pond systems to reduce right-of-way needs. These types of drainage systems could require 20-30 feet less right-of-way width, because swales would not be used to retain and discharge stormwater. However, these types of improvements are expensive. In areas where soils are not suitable for exfiltration systems, swale or retention pond systems would have to be used, requiring acquisition of full amounts of right-of-way. ALTERNATIVE #8 Re-classify and down zone areas directly served by thoroughfares, to reduce potential traffic, utility, and drainage demands and thereby reduce right-of-way needs. The Thoroughfare Plan is designed to serve the projected growth of the County as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. Restrictions on growth and development could result in the need for less infrastructure and right-of-way. However, such a drastic change in the land use plan or zoning districts could have a variety of adverse impacts. Such a change could reduce the market and assessed value of properties, could force changes in development plans and proposals within the public and private sector, could decrease the projected user -base of County water and sewer utilities, and could decrease the future amount of affordable housing. In effect, this alternative would limit the potential development of many areas in the county. In areas where additional right-of-way is needed for street, drainage, or utility improvements, no such services could be efficiently provided. Service problems would likely persist, and growth would be either impossible or costly to accommodate without deterioration of existing traffic levels of service. ALTERNATIVE #9 Amend the Thoroughfare Plan so that the higher class roads are situated in corridors with the greatest existing right-of-way widths and with the least expensive right-of-way acquisition opportunities. The Thoroughfare Plan works as whole; changing one aspect of the plan changes the traffic characteristics of the whole plan. For example, designating either 16th Street* or 8th Street as a primary collector rather than 12th Street, could adversely impact the plans for the south county area. Using 16th Street as a primary collector is infeasible because of severe right-of-way constraints along its western segment. It is also not a through street, being off -set at 58th Avenue. Using 8th Street as a primary collector would move a major collector further away from the urbanized area close to the city, and would be close to 4th Street, a primary collector designed to connect to the southern extension of Indian River Boulevard. Also, sufficient right-of-way has already been acquired within many thoroughfares, in accordance with the existing Thoroughfare Plan. Thus changes may not take advantage of right-of-way already acquired and aligned for the presently designated collectors. 15 OCT 3 11985 600K04 PA E 601 OCT 3 11985 BOOK '62 PAGE 602 *Analysis of Alternatives The effectiveness of each alternative presented can be judged by the degree to which it achieves the previously stated objectives. The following matrix compares the strengths (+) and weaknesses (-) of each alternative in relation to its - effectiveness is achieving the stated objectives. #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 1) Implementation of + + + + + - + #8 #9 Thoroughfare Plan 2) Coordination with the + + - - - Drainage District 3) Effecting timing + + - 4) Utilization of existing + + +.„ - - rights-of-way 5) Expansion costs borne + + mostly by new development 6) Cost efficient improvements + + - - - + - + 7) Equitable distribution of - + + - - dedication burden NET IMPACT: +5 +7 +1 -3 -3 0 0 -2 -1 It should be noted that a traffic impact fee could be adopted that would distribute the costs of right-of-way acquisition and facilities expansion. An impact fee can address some of the above objectives. For example, an impact fee formula can be designed to distribute most of the costs of right-of-way and road expansion to new developments. ° Summary Alternative #1: CONTINUATION OF PRESENT POLICY advantages: implements Thoroughfare Plan, no public costs — disadvantages: unfair to some individual property owners: Alternative #2: CONTINUATION OF"PRESENT POLICY WITH COMPENSATION OPPORTUNITIES advantages: implements Thoroughfare Plan, fair to property owners disadvantages: requires adoption of an impact fee system that can be applied in such a way as to credit some dedications. Alternative #3: UTILIZING CANAL RIGHT-OF-WAY THROUGH CULVERTING advantages: implements Thoroughfare Plan, lessens amount of needed right-of-way disadvantages: high cost, necessitates extensive agreement with Drainage District, constrains potential for future canal widening 16 Alternative #4: SHIFTING ACQUISITION MOVING CANALS advantages: implements the acquisition burden side of the canals BURDEN BY FILLING AND Thoroughfare Plan, shifts to land owners on either disadvantages: high costs without reducing amount of right-of-way needed, necessitates extensive agreement with Drainage District Alternative #5: SHIFTING ACQUISITION BURDEN BY BOULEVARDING ALONG THE CANALS advantages: implements Thoroughfare Plan, shifts the acquisition burden to land owners on both sides of the canals disadvantages: more complicated intersections, high cost without reducing the amount of needed right-of-way, constrains potential for future canal widening. Alternative #6: APPLICATION OF VARIOUS ALTERNATIVES advantages: attempts to apply most appropriate alternative to specific location disadvantages: breaks down continuity and completeness of a unified plan, increases administrative and staff costs for specific studies, fairness issues could be difficult to resolve, increases time needed for development approval. Alternative #7: UTILIZING CURB AND GUTTER DRAINAGE WITH EXFILTRATION OR RETENTION SYSTEMS advantages: reduces right-of-way needs through design and extensive improvements disadvantages: high cost, may not be appropriate in some areas. Alternative #8: RE-CLASSIFYING AND DOWNZONING PROPERTIES TO REDUCE RIGHT-OF-WAY NEEDS advantages: reduces right-of-way needs disadvantages: abandons previous direction of development regulation, affects current public and private development proposals and plans, increases housing costs and probably utility costs (smaller customer base) Alternative #9: DESIGNATE HIGHEA`CLASS ROADS TO AREAS WHERE RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION WOULD BE LESS EXPENSIVE AND EASIER TO ARRANGE advantages: attempts to minimize acquisition costs disadvantages: alters Thoroughfare Plan, alters traffic improvement plans and programs, could decrease efficiency and function of present system, may not utilize previous dedications (presently designated thoroughfares are probably the most feasible in terms of acquisition costs) *Conclusion In contacting the right-of-way agents in Palm Beach, Martin, and St. Lucie Counties, staff has discovered that all three of these counties have a policy similar to the County's present policy or policy alternative #2. In all three counties, rights-of-way are 17 OCT 31 1995, BOOK 62 PrvjF 603 OCT 31 1985 BOOK 62 nr�F 604 expanded on the side of the road opposite the canal in all but a few circumstances. In some circumstances, the counties have been able to utilize canal rights-of-way via agreements with drainage districts. In every one of these cases, canals were piped and use of extraordinary improvements proved to be more cost-effective and less disruptive than buying and removing - houses and other structures impeding normal acquisition. Also, in these cases, drainage district rights-of-way exceeded 40' in width, allowing the drainage district some flexibility. It should be noted that in Indian River County, canal rights-of-way are usually only 30' wide. Staff has determined and analyzied a number of alternatives to the current policy and the extent to which these alternatives can achieve desired objectives. The County's current policy is generally more effective than the other alternatives, yet does not equitably distribute the burden of right-of-way dedication/acquisition. This equity problem can be addressed by adopting policy alternative #2, wherein impact fee credit compensation is made available to land owners from which extraordinary dedications are required. The compensation would come from the traffic impact fee fund to be built from fees provided by projects on both sides of a road. Thus the equity problem would be resolved by the implementation of an impact fee ordinance. It should be noted that Palm Beach, and recently Martin County have adopted traffic impact fee ordinances. St. Lucie County is presently considering one. All three counties are applying impact fees to right-of-way acquisition. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt alternative #2, by continuing the present policy of acquiring right-of-way, in accordance with the Thoroughfare Plan, with the following additional actions. 1) Adopt an impact fee ordinance to help fund a long-range road improvements program that will achieve the goals and objectives of the Thoroughfare Plan. 2) Compensate property owners for right-of-way dedications that are in excess of 50a of the right-of-way deficiency. 3) Arrange for compensation to take the form of traffic impact fee credits and possible compensation from the impact fee fund. 4) Allow deviations from the Thoroughfare Plan right-of-way widths only when a proposed` road project involves an area of existing development that constrains the use or acquisition of a full right-of-way. In such cases extraordinary design and improvements, such as curb and gutter drainage with exfiltration trenches, may be employed to fulfill the function and purpose of the road as described in the Thoroughfare Plan. 18 � ® r �� �'��v°'��••.♦ •� INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 10 s ♦ ♦`♦ Thoroughfare Plan 1, w ��♦� ♦♦ ♦♦♦i� July 10, 1488 - ,'',,�♦ ♦♦♦♦v\♦♦ ♦s ��', ` ♦♦♦ ARTERIAL •♦♦ a '�� ♦♦: �� ♦♦♦ PRIMARY COLLECTOR '��� � 0 •j SECONDARY COLLECTOR nAr� ♦ 0 �ittl 1111/1 2t1et11U111y1, ♦♦ ♦ 111 Its=�♦ w. tT � • . r • ■///////// /// 1/// ///////// //// 9♦♦ •♦ am 0 C C 0 • 7710 By (� ••• ♦ii 73,d j s fIS S� ♦♦♦ ♦ri i r sou ar r } j r r trt r i r c.a. ssa p ♦ assn sr � l r .= > ♦• r > al.. By r 10 ° r •♦ : •r 's r 57+. ST r •♦ so • r 's ii : r i r sa.4 sTr/es///► f O i 0 . 0 _ i O r � ..0 t7 r r ♦� ♦ 7 i10 10 100 ♦� tet. aT : _ � ♦♦ O .' ♦ ° a71. tT r � . T 11L - r° : ►` atvo IS r i �♦♦� ae+% r i s r 21.1 ST r IBTATH RD. 80 � 2a.r sT 1/love err. � erltllttt/11/tl tett/ t/ 1/11/21/2 tl1/title ■111/21st tlllllltlQttt/11 111 t/111112===e1/1 111 Al/tom SIR i vL IT googol goal] a S <r ran n mt/ `�{LaWoc.uts w.r a = rr : ` �� 1Ii r �J r > > a . u ° 171. ST r o r Mo ii i >r > r f ♦Or r i r r re C.A. .r7 <r < al. ST 'r > r e .r • r < ., r et. 1T .wrwlt�^ r r 0 • i +.+ ST Sw r o o ♦ i r m r � eu tr aw . O G •1 ♦♦ r Sim . rim A r to ♦ �I t OSLO RO I r r In.Ot .1. Sr Sw jlsll tt/rt/trh ■/Ittrtlttr r' 1212111121 sell 011/111 lrlttllll rlsillt2t/Itrll/1111 WE ♦ +au ST SW 4 ♦♦♦ w +7+% IT awl I • ♦ ♦•♦ r r • ♦ i ♦ nu tr awl ow on ♦•aa as s ♦ >r 19 BOOK 62 M"'F M -I OCT 31 1985 BOOK 62. PAcF 606 Planner Stan Boling explained that the County's present policy for acquiring right-of-way has resulted in some inequity for owners of property fronting on roads adjacent _ to canals, and explained that staff's recommendation of Alternative #2 as future policy is tied to the County adopting a road impact fee ordinance. Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that the impact fee ordinance is structured so that owners will receive credit against their impact fees for both sides of the road, so to speak, and if it is never developed, they would never pay. Director Davis cautioned that the impact fee will fund only those roads included in the capital improvement program. There are situations where the in the next 20 years the traffic study has indicated that some secondary roads need to be widened. He believed that the County should secure the right-of-way for those roads. This will involve 9 connector roadways, residential streets and some connectors that are not a part of the road improvement program. Chairman Lyons believed a good way to solve those problems would be to take the first dedication and then consider the next piece of right-of-way before we start the setbacks. If we never have to take it, fine, but it is there if we do. In other words, that would be considered reserved right-of-way, which is not to be dedicated, but an additional setback. Director Davis agreed that was a viable solution, and Chairman Lyons felt that the main thing we need to know is that we.will be able to widen those roads when the time comes. Mr. Boling explained that this problem came up with regard to Old Sugar Mill Estates on 12th Street where we have to decide whether or not to take all the right-of-way from the north side of the road. Staff considered all the 20 a � � alternatives and the 4 -part recommendation is mainly to continue the policy of getting all the right-of-way from one side of the road and give compensation/credit through the impact fee ordinance. Part 1 recommends the adoption of an impact fee ordinance, and Parts 2 and 3 could be changed depending on how the impact fee ordinance is structured with respect to giving credit for right-of-way and how we formulate the value of a piece of property. Part 4 is really a reality clause in that extraordinary measures would have to be taken in some existing situations where there are a lot of houses and a very narrow road right-of-way. Ruth Stanbridge questioned the timeframe for acquiring dedication on laterals running north and south when 10 years down the line we might find those are not the roads we figured would handle the traffic in that area. She asked if that might be the case with 12th Street. Director Davis reported that Barton-Aschman has taken a hard, unbiased look at our Thoroughfare Plan and seem to be comfortable with it. However, for staff to say that the plan would not change in the future would be rather naive. Staff does not anticipate that 12th Street will be classified as a lesser road. Mrs. Stanbridge was concerned that traffic flow might shift after developers dedicate right-of-way, especially in the north county area. Director Davis pointed out that right-of-way is needed for many more functions than just a roadway, i.e'. utilities, water, sewer. By setting a minimum setback through a 20 -year plan, instead of requiring dedication, we could at least protect that corridor for the future. We may not take a dedication, but it would be there. Mrs. Stanbridge believed the reservation of a setback probably would be best, especially when we don't know how the rural areas will develop. 21 BOOK PAGE 607 OCT 3 1 198 6300K 62 PAGE 698 Chairman Lyons felt that since we are looking at a 20 -year plan, it is certain that roads will be needed at sometime in the future in that area. During considerable discussion on the feasibility of reserving setbacks, Carolyn Eggert noted that it has been a major problem of the' Planning & Zoning Commission and she felt that the inequity that stands with the current policy is very deeply felt and that some credit should be given. Commissioner Wodtke wondered if every one of those roads would need widening in the future since it would involve significant amounts of right-of-way. Director Davis explained that we are not really planning on a major increase in traffic volume on a lot of the secondary roads, but they are designed to serve the surrounding properties by providing a center left-hand turn lane. Duncan Bowman of Laurel Builders asked if the impact fee ordinance would allow the flexibility for developers to be compensated for dedication of property on roads that are not on the Thoroughfare Plan. Commissioner Scurlock spoke of how difficult it has been for him, personally as a Commissioner, to receive donations from some people and not others, and he felt he is at a point of going to the policy of paying everyone for everything and then tax it, even though it is cheaper for the County to encourage people to give right-of-way. Mr. Bowman emphasized that his concerns are more directed at credits under the impact fee ordinance, and Director Davis explained that the drafted ordinance calls for credit to be given only for roads designated on the capital improvement plan. Commissioner Bird asked if we adopt Alternative #2 and the proposed impact fee ordinance as presently drafted, would the combination of the two make it more equitable for 22 r—� people on both sides of the canal, and Mr. Boling believed it would. Commissioner Scurlock felt we need to find a vehicle, either through a credit against the impact fee or actual cash dollars, and that we pay for the right-of-way when we take it. Commissioner Wodtke suggested giving a credit even if a road is not on the capital improvement plan, say if a developer goes in and the road needs to be paved or additional right-of-way is needed out front, and calculate those improvements and give a credit for them. Chairman Lyons felt that we don't want to get off the main issue and that is that we want a certain width of road to go through there, but the question is how do we get there. Commissioner Scurlock believed that what we are going to have to do in some cases where we don't want the right-of-way, is simply reserve the setbacks so that when the road is to be built, we can acquire the right-of-way, pay a fair amount, and get on with our business. Commissioner Bird agreed that was the only thing to do on those roads where the impact fees do not apply, and Administrator Wright commented that they could donate it now and receive a tax credit and then someday we might buy it. Attorney Vitunac cautioned that simply reserving a future right-of-way might constitute a taking and the County might end up having to pay for it. There are some recent cases that say you can't take half a man's property just because in 20 years you might want it while in the meantime he cannot do anything with it. Commissioner Scurlock felt we were just going to have to go to reserved setbacks and that the County Attorney will have to defend us in court. If we have to pay for it, we will. 23 OCT 3 11985 BOOK 2 Far, 699 I CT 3 1985 BOOK 62 PAGE 614 William Caldwell, attorney representing Ralph Sexton, owner of Old Sugar Mill Estates on 12th Street, asked if Alternate #2 indicates that the developer might be compensated for more than the additional 40 -feet of right-of-way that will be needed to bring the road up to the width specifications for a primary collector. He noted it is advantageous for a developer of a multi -family project to dedicate right-of-way when they receive a transfer of densities in return, but a transfer of densities would not be a benefit to Old Sugar Mill Estates, a single-family development. Commissioner Wodtke understood that this policy concerns only those roads adjacent to existing canals, and, basically, what we are saying is that if we need additional right-of-way for a thoroughfare, we have the Drainage District with 30 feet for their canal and the 30 feet road right-of-way; and whatever additional road right-of-way is needed, whether it is 50, 60 or 70 feet, that this policy will come into play. Being that we cannot get some right-of-way on both sides of the road, we are going to compensate the owner for the part that is extra that is going to come off the north side at sometime in the future. He stressed that this policy only concerns roads next to existing canals. Tom Adams of the Water District advised that the District plans on just maintaining the canals, rather than filling them in, but it is possible that they might have to enlarge some. .Commissioner Wodtke felt in that case, we should not go into any of the District's right-of-way, but Mr. Adams stated they would maintain them on the County's right-of-way. The Commissioners accepted Commissioner Wodtke's earlier statement as policy setting instructions to staff. 24 � ® r ROAD PAVING The Board reviewed the following memo dated 10/24/85: TO: The Honorable Members DATE: October 24, 1985 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners and Planning'& Zoning Commission SUBJECT: ROAD PAVING Robert M. Keating, AICP� Director Planning & Development Division FROM:James W. Davis REFERENCES: Director /� It is requested that the following information be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners and the Planning and Zoning Commission at their 'special joint workshop meeting of October 31, 1985. ISSUE One major issue facing Indian River County at this time involves road paving. As the County continues to urbanize, the decision as to whether proposed developments are required to provide paved access to their sites is more important than ever. It is necessary for the Board of County Commissioners to set a standard policy applicable to all proposed develop- ments, both site plans and subdivisions, regarding the re- quirements for paving roads which are located off-site. BACKGROUND Indian River County has approximately 600 miles of road. Of those, 200 miles are paved. That leaves more than 400 miles of road currently unpaved. Some of these are existing dirt, shell, or marl roads; others are trails or grassed paths; many are nothing more than lines on maps. Throughout the County, the ownership of both paved and unpaved roads vary. In some cases the County has clear undisputed title to road rights-of-way. In many cases, however, the amount of right-of-way may be inadequate or may not exist at all. Where the County is and has been maintaining roads for which it has no clear title for the right-of-way, the County may have the ability to acquire the right-of-way by filing a maintenance map. A number of the unpaved roads `in the unincorporated area are currently maintained by the County Public Works Department. Primarily, this maintenance involves grading the roads on a regular basis. This is an activity which is affected by rainfall and the utilization of a road. Basically, the more trips over an unpaved road, the more demand for regular maintenance and the more cost to the County. Not all unpaved roads are located in the less developed, western part of the County. Such roads exist in all zoning district classifications and all land use designations. While many serve local traffic to rural residences, others service commercial and industrial uses within designated nodes, commercial corridors, and MXD areas. These roads, in particu- lar, often either currently experience or have the potential to experience a high volume of traffic. W BOOK 62", 6 1 A r ° Present Polic BOOK 62 PAG F. 6i2 -- In assessing proposed residential, commercial, and industrial development projects in the County, the staff has addressed" the issue of road paving and developed a policy which is applied to proposed development projects. Following the Comprehensive Plan's Thoroughfare Element objective of coor- dinating development intensity with the carrying capacity of the existing roadway and the plan's policy that traffic improvements necessitated by new development shall be provided by the developer, the staff has required that developers of non-residential projects provide paved access to their site and participate financially in the paving of other roadways abutting their site but not used for access. In applying this Policy, characteristics of the development and the area are considered by the staff in determining the developer's paving responsibility. For non-residential sites located on unpaved roads but within close proximity of a paved road, as well as non-residential projects which are large traffic attracters and are located anywhere on an unpaved road, the developer must pave to this access point. For any unpaved roads abutting a non- residen- tial project where that portion of the road is not used for access, as well as for small scale proposed non-residential projects on unpaved roads located a substantial distance from a paved road, the developer must escrow an amount of money equivalent to his share of a petition paving project for the road. The same general criteria is also applied to multi- family residential projects. Paving requirements for residential subdivisions, however, are subject to different criteria. According to the County's subdivision ordinance, the developer must pave all roads within and abutting his subdivision. For abutting roads not used for primary access, the developer may escrow funds representing his share of the petition paving cost for the project. The size of a subdivision, its density, and its distance from a paved road are factors influencing the staff's Position regarding paving. Usually, the staff will recommend that any subdivision generating a relatively high number of average daily trips connect to a paved road. Certain subdi- visions, particularly those filing an affidavit of exemption, are not subject to any paving requirements. ° County Commission Action In the past, the Board of County Commissioners has addressed road paving requirements on several occasions. Most recently, the Board faced the issue when presented with a draft of the Site Plan Review and Approval Procedures section of the new zoning code. At its meeting in May of 1985, the Board adopted the site plan section of the code, but it reserved the section setting paved road standards for site plan projects. The Board also directed the staff to prepare an analysis of the road paving issue and schedule public workshops on this matter. i W 26 I FI Prior to its consideration of site plan standards for road paving, the Board had addressed the paving issue in relation to subdivisions. In December of 1983, the staff was requested to consider the feasibility of requiring all subdivisions to connect to a paved road. Responding to that request, the staff prepared an analysis of the proposal requiring all subdivisions to connect to a paved road. While the staff recommended that all subdivisions other than those located in agricultural areas (5 acre minimum lot size) be 'required to connect to a paved road, the Board decided against establish- ing such a requirement. The Board,. however, did direct the staff to bring the issue back for reconsideration sometime in the future. In addition to those actions, the Board has supported the staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission in their position regarding road paving requirements applied to proposed devel- opments. Although the Board has not formally addressed a site plan appeal on the road paving issue, the Board has indicated that it expects new development to pay its way and to not create or worsen any problems. Absent specific site plan paving requirements, that is the policy that has been pursued by staff. SPECIFIC ISSUES The issue of road paving really involves a number of various sub -issues. First and foremost, of course, is the question of necessity. When and under what circumstances is road paving needed? Related to necessity is the issue of responsibility. Who should be required to pave a road, for what distance, during what timeframe? Finally, there is the issue of fair- ness and equity. Why should one developer pave an entire section of roadway when others share in the benefits without sharing in the costs? ° Necessity of Road Paving Whether the County should mandate road paving at all is the first question which must be resolved. Although the need for road paving varies with the type and intensity of development projects, a number of factors can be identified which relate to all projects to some degree. These include: cost to the County, impact upon drainage systems, safety, convenience, aesthetics, and future improvements. The County reviews proposed development projects for various reasons. Besides considering the public's health, safety, and general welfare, the County requires that development projects meet various standards to ensure that the proposed project will not impose excessive costs upon the County. Unpaved roads on which traffic intensity increases is a potential added cost to the County. On publicly maintained roads where the intensity of use increases either because of an increase in the volume of traffic or ,the amount of heavy truck traffic, there will be a need for additional maintenance by the Coun- ty's Public Works Division. Such added maintenance will then increase the County's cost. Another factor supporting the need for road paving is drainage system impact. On unpaved roads with heavy traffic volumes, the stormwater runoff is often loaded with dirt and sand. Upon entering the drainage system, this sand can impede drainage flows causing either local drainage problems or siltation in major canals. In either case, the impacts can result in higher public costs. 27 BOOK 62 F'A E 613 r OCT 3 11985 BOOK 62 wr`614 Both safety and convenience are less on unpaved than on paved roadways. With the establishment of higher traffic volumes through approval of high intensity residential or non- residential development projects, the County assumes a respon- sibility to enhance safety and facilitate convenience for the general public. Mandating road paving in such cases increases both safety and convenience. One final factor necessitating road paving is the prospect for future paving. As more development is approved on an unpaved road, more entities become involved, and the prospects for a voluntary effort to effect paving decrease. Of course, complaints to the County continue from the general public who use the road to get to the businesses located on it. Since the public will use unpaved roads to access businesses located on such roads and approved by the County, the principal question becomes whether or not the County, in approving the business, also assumes the responsibility to assure the public's health, safety, and convenience, as well as to control its own cost. ° Responsibility The issue of responsibility for paving involves several questions and may vary significantly depending upon the circumstances. Given the necessity to pave an unpaved road- way, the responsibility issue must be addressed and resolved. Basically, this issue relates to identification of the indivi- dual, group, or entity required to make specific infra- structure improvements. With road paving, as with the extension of water and sewer lines, responsibility for making improvements to major system components, whether arterial or collector roadways or major - water distribution or wastewater collection lines, is usually + shared between the developer and the County. Regarding road paving, however, other questions arise. On local roads abutting a project but not used for access, developers often have no incentive to pave. However, if paving or contributing toward paving is not required of the developer, the County may absorb the paving costs in the future. Another aspect of responsibility is timing. When the paving should occur must be related to the impact produced by the project. Approval of a project on an unpaved road creates more traffic when the project becomes operational. Paving to provide access must be accomplished prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy to maintain the relationship between the impact and the improvement. Other required paving which affects roadways or portions of roadways not used for primary access may be paved later. ° Fairness/Equity Closely related to road paving responsibility is the issue of fairness or equity. This .issue may soon be resolved for arterial and collector roads, the roadways on the County's adopted' Thoroughfare Plan. These roads will be paved using impact fee funds. This method ensures fairness by funding those improvements necessitated by new development from fees paid by new development. Local roads, however, are not eligible for impact fee funding, a situation that makes fairness/equity remain an issue for most required road paving. The basic factor involving the fairness/equity issue as it pertains to road paving is the benefit derived from the paving versus costs assessed to the beneficiaries. Although all 28 M property owners on unpaved roads benefit when the road is paved, in many cases few of the owners share in the cost of the paving. When a development project is required to pave a roadway as a condition of approval, owners of both vacant and developed parcels benefitting from the paving have no incen- tive to participate in its cost. Those owners know that the developer of the project requesting approval must pave the road or not be allowed to develop; therefore, owners of other properties seldom share the road paving cost. Although a developer whose project is located on an unpaved local road may participate in the County's petition paving program whereby the County pays 25% and the property owners on each side of the road pay 37J% of the cost of paving, the requirement to submit a valid petition endorsed by at least 66 2/3% of the property owners on the roadway to be paved can seldom be attained. Another alternative which has seldom been used by developers is to request that the County do a forced petition paving of the roadway. By that method, the cost of paving could be distributed fairly. However, the County would be in a position of forcing a number of property owners, including those having vacant parcels and no immediate devel- opment plans, to pay a portion of road paving costs that in the short term will primarily benefit one developer. Because of the costs and administrative difficulties, a reimbursement program, whereby developers pay the up -front costs of paving and are reimbursed through payments from future developments along the subject roadway, has not been acceptable to the County. For these reasons, the fair- ness/equity issue related to road paving remains prominent. .Since developers have financing options which may provide more equity, the question of the County's responsibility in promot- ing fairness arises. Should the County ensure that property owners benefitting from a paving project pay their fair share, _ or should the requirement for paving a portion of a roadway where others will benefit be considered part of the cost of developing or at least part of the cost of developing in areas where infrastructure improvements do not already exist? ° Specific Issue Summary The County, through various programs and policies pursued'in the past, has addressed each of these specific issues to some degree. By establishing its petition paving program and sharing in the cost of paving local roads, the County has indicated that it believes that -the paving of roads in devel- oping or developed areas of the County is necessary, or at least desirable. Since that program has been targeted primar- ily towards residential areas, it would seem that the County's position would be that the paving of unpaved roads serving non-residential or high density residential uses would be imperative. By preparing an impact fee ordinance, the County has addressed the issue of fairness/equity in roadway improvements on arterial and collector roadways. With the adoption of an impact fee system, the County will be taking the position that roadway improvements should be distributed among those new projects which are creating the impact and necessitating the improvement. The impact fee system also establishes respon- sibility for improvements. While improvements will be the responsibility of the County as determined by its capital improvements plan,- improvements to the collector/arterial system required to serve new development but not consistent with the timing identified in the capital improvements plan become the responsibility of the developer. 29 BOOK 62 FAPF 615 OCT 1� BDOK 62' PAF 616 ALTERNATIVES There are various alternatives available to the County in addressing the issue of road paving. These alternatives range from not requiring new developments to pave any off-site roadways to mandating that all new development regardless of its size or intensity ensure paved access to the site. Between these two extremes, there are various other alterna- tives to accomplish the County's objectives. Based upon the analysis of specific issues, it appears that the County has several objectives regarding road paving. One objective is to ensure that unpaved roads accessing sites proposed for high intensity development projects be paved. Another objective is to establish road paving responsibility. A final objective is to ensure fairness.. and equity in road paving requirements. Of the available alternatives, the best will be the one which most efficiently meets those objectives. Identification of road paving alternatives involves consid- eration of several components, each having various choices. These major components or categories of any County road paving policy are as follows: the paving required, the responsibility for paving, and the financing/ timing of the paving. Within each of these categories, there are various choices which can be combined in various ways to produce a number of different road paving policy alternatives. ° Required Paving The first and probably most important component of a road paving policy is the delineation of what paving or how much paving is necessary. With respect to this component of the road paving policy, several alternatives exist. These range from no paving to the paving of all access and abutting roadways. -No Paving This alternative is the default alternative. It would establish a policy of not requiring developers to pave any offsite roadways on any type of project. If this alternative were accepted, the other components of the County's road paving policy (responsibility for paving and the financing/timing of paving) would not be issues. Selection of this alternative, however, would not achieve the County's objectives of improving unpaved roadways. -Paved Access for Some Developments Another alternative is requiring paved access for some developments, particularly those which are high traffic generators or attracters and those which are not high intensity developments but are located only a short distance from a paved road. Basically, this is the road paving policy currently.pursued by the County. It does serve to further the County's objective of improving unpaved roads, although by exempting some developments from providing paved access as a condition of project approval this alternative does not completely meet the paving objective. When combined with a requirement for a commitment to participate in future paving, however, this alternative would meet the paving objective. 30 � � r -Paved Access for All Developments A third alternative for the required paving component of the County road paving policy is mandating that all developments other than individual single-family homes provide paved access to their site. This would achieve the objective of improving unpaved roads. However, it would not differentiate between intense heavy 'traffic generators/attracters and those which are less intense projects generating or attracting fewer trips, particularly where a project is located on an unpaved road a significant distance from the nearest paved road. -Paved Access & Paving of All Abutting Roads A fourth and final alternative of the required paving component of the County road paving policy is requiring that all developments other than single-family homes not only provide access to their site, but also pave unpaved roads abutting the project site. This alternative would achieve the County's objective of improving unpaved roads. As with the previous alternative, this alternative would not differentiate between types of projects and their location in relation to existing paved roads. ° Responsibility A second component of a County road paving policy involves responsibility. As with the required road paving component, several alternatives exist for establishing responsibility for improving existing unpaved roadways. The four principal alternatives are: the developer, the beneficiaries, the County, or some combination of those entities. This component is closely related to both the required paving*component and the financing/timing component of the County road paving policy. -Developer The first alternative for the responsibility component is the developer. Under current County policy, it is the developer who in most instances has the responsibility to ensure that required paving occurs. While several alternatives exist for the developer to accomplish such paving as may be required,'it is incumbent upon the developer to implement them. The major advantages of this alternative are: unpaved roads are improved; responsibility is assigned to one individual; responsibility for making improvement is related to a request for project approval; and it achieves the County's objective of requiring that the cost of improvements to be born by those creating the need. The principal disadvantage relating to this alternative involves the fairness/equity issue. Because the developer may be required to pave roadways abutting land owned by others who are not required to share in the cost of paving, this alternative may result in the developer paying a higher share of the paving cost than is warranted by the developer's frontage. 31 BDOA 62 'AGE r 17 OCT 3 11985 BOOK 6 -Beneficiaries The second alternative for this component of the County's road paving policy is to make the beneficiaries of an improvement responsible for the cost of the improvement. Beneficiaries could be defined as property owners having frontage on the road to be improved or could be defined as those property owners within close proximity to the road and deriving benefit from the improvement. The advantage of this alternative are: unpaved roads will be improved and the cost of the improvements will be shared among those benefitting from the improvements. There are, however, several disadvantages. The principal disadvantage is that owners of vacant parcels who have no immediate development plans may be required to share in the cost of paving when the most immediate benefit will be derived from the developer requesting project approval. -County A third alternative would be to assign road paving responsibility to the County. With this alternative, it would be the County's obligation to improve unpaved roads when such improvement is required to serve a proposed development project. While this alternative would meet the objective of improving unpaved roads, it would require the County to absorb the paving cost, not promote fairness and equity, and not relate the payment of the improvement's cost to new development nor the beneficiaries. -Combination The fourth and final alternative is a combination of the first three. Basically, this would involve a shared cost by all groups having an interest in the improvement. Implemented through an assessment, forced petition, or special district program, this alternative retains many of the advantages and disadvantages applicable to the other.three alternatives. While achieving the objective of improving unpaved roads and establishing a fair and equitable method of accomplishing that, this alternative increases costs to the County, establishes requirements for the County; assesses land owners not ready to develop, and specifically benefits the developer requesting project approval. ° Financing/Timing The third component of the County's road paving policy is financing/timing. This involves the establishment of a method to pay for road paving as well as a determination of the timeframe within which the paving must occur. Closely related to both the required paving component and the responsibility component of the County's road paving policy, the financ- ing/timing component is dependent upon the alternatives selected from those components. As with both of the other components, there are a number of financing/ timing alterna- tives. These range from developer financing to complete County funding, as well as a number alternatives between two extremes. 32 Z. Paving Re - No Paving ired ROAD PAVING ALTERNATIVES 11 Responsibility Financin /T - Paved access for all developments (excluding single- family homes) - Paved Access for developments ' vary by type and intensity of project vary by distance from paved road - Paved access and paving all abutting roads T 3 119 5 M - Developer - Funded by developer I- Beneficiaries - County - Combination 33 and installed prior to CO - Funded by developer, installed prior to CO, partial reim- bursement as other sites develop - Developer escrows his share of cost; improvement install- ed -in future - Voluntary Petition - Forced Petition - County Funded - Special Assessment District r�_ OCT 31 1985 BOOK 62 PAU620 -Developer Financed; Installation Prior to CO This alternative is related to the developer alternative of the responsibility component. The developer financing - alternative would require the developer to pay the cost of road paving and have the paving in place prior to obtaining a CO for his project. With this alternative, the major disadvantage relates to fairness/equity. since the developer may pave roads where other property owners will derive benefits but not incur costs, this alternative does not ensure that costs are distributed fairly. Also, the cost may be prohibitive, making many projects infeasible. There are, however, several advantages to this alternative. Roads impacted by development will be paved; administration by the County is simple; and developer has the incentive to work with other property owners to accomplish the paving. -Developer Financed; Installation Prior to CO; Reimbursement As with the first alternative, this alternative requires the developer to install paving at his expense prior to obtaining a CO. The difference is that the developer will be reimbursed for those costs which exceed his portion of the overall paving cost as other properties develop and are required to contribute to the paving as a site plan condition. This alternative ensures that roadways will be improved in conjunction with demand, and it requires the developer to pay a premium for developing prior to installation of the infrastructure by fronting the cost of the infrastructure improvement. However, this alternative also ensures fairness by requiring a contribution for paving from future developers on the roadway being improved and reimbursement of the original developer from those funds. The primary disadvantage of this alternative is the difficulty and the cost of administration which would be incurred by the County. -Developer Escrow Funds; Paving Installed in Future This alternative involves payment by the developer of his proportionate share of the paving costs of the applicable roadway. The road, however, would not be paved until a sufficient amount of money_had been escrowed or the paving was accomplished in some other manner. The principal disadvantage of this alternative -is that the paving is not installed when the project is CO ed and creating demand; no specific timeframe is established for the paving to be accomplished. In terms of disadvantages, it is comparable to no paving. There are advantages to this alternative, particularly when this alternative is applied to small projects having minor traffic impacts when the project is located on an unpaved road a substantial distance from a paved road. In those cases, escrow of paving funds would be appropriate and acceptable. In all instances, this alternative would meet the fairness/equity objective by requiring all beneficiaries to share in the cost of the improvement. 34 - M M ® M -Voluntary Petition This method of financing is one of the fairest when it can be used. Under the County's voluntary petition paving program, a valid petition endorsed by owners of property representing at least 66 2/3% of the lots or the front footage along the roadway to be paved must be submitted to the County. Upon validation of the petition, the road will be paved by the County, and the cost will be equally shared by the County (25% of the cost) and the property owners on each side of the road (37.5% of the cost paid by the property owners on each side of the road). The advantage of this alternative is that at least 2/3 of the beneficiaries must approve of the paving, and then all beneficiaries are assessed their proportional share of the cost. In addition, the County participates in the cost of the paving by absorbing 25% of the cost. The major disadvantage of this alternative is the difficulty of obtaining a valid petition. Since this alternative is most often used when the developer has paving responsibility, it is usually the developer who faces that difficulty. One other problem with the voluntary petition alternative is the delay involved with actually getting the paving accomplished.. -Forced Petition Similiar to the voluntary petition, the forced petition road paving financing alternative divides the cost of road paving among the County and the property owners on each side of the road segment to be paved. Unlike the voluntary petition, however, this alternative does not require endorsement of the assessment by the property owners along the to -be -improved roadway. With a forced petition, the County paves the road and then assesses property owners benefitting from the paving; this assessment may or may not include County participation in the cost. While this alternative would be associated with the developer being responsible for securing paving prior to project CO, County Commission action is necessary to force a petition. Advantages of this alternative include improving unpaved roads and equitably distributing the paving costs among the beneficiaries. Disadvantages are that the improvement may be made and costs assessed to property owners not in agreement with the project; the immediate beneficiary will be one developer; and there may be a substantial increase in the number of forced paving requests. -County Funded Another alternative method of financing road paving projects is funding by the County. With this method, the County would improve any unpaved road with County funds when paving is necessitated by a proposed development project. The major disadvantages of this alternative are: inadequate funding available to the County to meet road paving needs; inconsistency with the County's policy of requiring new growth and development to pay the cost of necessary improvements necessitated by increased demands; and a lack of fairness and equity in terms of those benefitting from and those paying for the improvements. The advantages are that unpaved roads will be paved and one entity will have all paving responsibility. 35 CT 3 11985 621 I BOOK `62 PArF 622 -Special Assessment District The last financing alternative is essentially a variation of the forced petition financing mechanism. A special assessment district would involve identification of the beneficiaries of a project and assessment of the costs among those determined to benefit. Unlike the forced petition, however, those assessed by the special assessment district alternative may include more than property owners having lots on the road to be improved. Basically, the special assessment district includes all of the advantages and disadvantages associated with the forced petition road paving financing alternative. In analyzing the various components of the road paving issue and the alternatives associated with .each component, it becomes evident that one simple solution will not suffice for all situations. Instead, a policy that differentiates among various situations and addresses different conditions must be developed. By implementing such a policy based upon specific guidelines, the County can accomplish its objectives of ensuring adequate infrastructure for proposed development projects, ensuring that new growth and development pays its way, and ensuring fairness and equity in assigning infrastructure improvement costs. PROPOSAL The staff proposes that the Board of County Commissioners establish a road paving policy applicable to all new ,development. This policy should be comparable to the existing road paving policy implemented by the staff. The County's road paving policy should assign responsibility to the developer but differentiate between large and small scale projects, between projects located close to and those located a substantial distance from a paved road, and betweem primary access roads and abutting roads not used for access. In all cases, paving should be required of the developer. However, these characteristics should be used to determine whether paving is required before project CO or whether a share of the paving costs should be escrowed by the developer. The proposed road paving policy is detailed in Figure 1. As structured, this policy specifies the requirements to be met by the developer for projects having various characteristics. To implement this policy, the staff proposes that the County's Site Plan Review and Approval Procedures be amended to incorporate these provisions. RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners and the Planning and zoning Commission endorse the proposed road paving policy and direct the staff to amend Section 23.D.3, Paved Road Requirements (Reserved), of the Site Plan Review And Approval Section.of the Zoning Code,to incorporate the proposed policy. 36 M Proposed Road Paving Policy For Projects Located on Unpaved Roads M • Pave Roadway Escrow Share of No Paving Prior to C.O. Petition Paving Required Project Cost °Large Traffic Attractors/Generators' Roadway Accessing Project *Fran Paved Road to Access Point X -From Access Point to Property Line X - Roadway abutting site but not used for project access X °Small Traffic Attractors/Generators - Close Proximity to Paved Road** Roadway Accessing Project °Fran Paved Road to Access Point X °Fran Access Point to Property Line X Roadway abutting site but not used for project access X - Not in Close Proximity to Paved Road Roadway Accessing Project X Roadway abutting site but - not used for project access X oDuplex X Large traffic attractors/generators are those projects required to provide ten or more parking spaces. tt Close proximity is within 200 feet 37 BOOK 62 FAu 673 OCT 3 11985 F- BOCK `62 FAGE 624 Director Keating reported that the good news is that with the adoption of the road impact.fee ordinance,.many of the problems will be solved. The bad news is that many roads that are not on the Thoroughfare Plan will require paving, which is the problem we are trying to solve today. He explained that there are 3 major components of road paving: 1) Paving required, 2) Responsibility 3) Financing/timing Director Keating pointed out that there are several alternatives to each of the three components listed above. What staff is recommending is to amend Section 23.13.3, Paved Road Requirements (Reserved), of the Site Plan Review and Approval Section of the Zoning Code to incorporate the proposed policy, which is primarily that a developer has the responsibility of getting his paving done; the paving has to be done to his access point prior to C.O. if it is a large development, he has to escrow the funds for any roads that abut his site that are not being used for access; and he has to escrow funds for any part of his access road beyond his access point. For smaller projects that are not closed to a paved road, the developer has to escrow his portion of the money. How he actually funds it is the developer's responsibility, be it by voluntary petition or paying for it himself. Commissioner Bird recalled that the reason we got hung up on this issue before was the question of just how far a development must be from a paved road. Bill Messersmith, 572 Peterson Street, suggested tying it to trip generation rather than how far it is from a paved road. The Commissioners considered that an excellent suggestion. M 38 M Commissioner Scurlock agreed it wasn't equitable to place the entire responsibility on the developer because there might be situations where so much money is required up front that some developments might not be built. Commissioner Wodtke felt this would solve a•great deal of our problems, with the exception of the roads that are not on the Thoroughfare Plan. Commissioner Bird asked if we could combine the two -- get some contribution from the developer on a formula for trip generations and then trigger some other mechanism such as petition paving or mandatory paving, which would be fair and equitable to everyone involved. Director Keating explained that because most developments would have to be paved before a C.O. is issued, the developer has the alternatives for financing and the ability to come in to the Board of County Commissioners and request a forced assessment or try to get a voluntary assessment. Attorney Vitunac explained that the City of Vero Beach has a site plan paving program and when anyone has to pave a portion of it, the City requires everyone on the street to chip in and do the paving all at once. Commissioner Bird believed the County has that vehicle also, but Commissioner Scurlock felt the problem is that we have such a large area and there may be a project that fits in and is well designed but is a pretty good distance away from the next paved road and the volume of traffic generated there may not dictate immediate paving. He believed the Commission has the ability to consider how much traffic there is now and how much maintenance is required and then at that time take the initiative and say this is a benefited area and the road is going to be paved and you are going to pay for it. 39 BOOK 62 PAGE 60� OCT 11985 I V l BOOK 62 FAE 626 Commissioner Bird anticipated that many people up and down the street would say that they did not have any problems until that development or project was built at the end of their street. Commissioner Scurlock suggested modeling the assessment fund program similar to the SR -60 special assessment for water and sewer and set it for over 10 or 20 years. The County would bond it, get the money up and go out and get the improvements in place. This would provide individuals the ability to pay for it over a period of time. He believed that would be the easiest way to do it. It works, and it's painless. The idea would be to structure it probably in the range of $3-5 million issues, most of which probably could be sold locally. Director Davis understood that basically we are talking about 100% assessment. Chairman Lyons asked the Board if they were in agreement on asking staff to come back with a new formula on forced paving assessment and tying it into trip generation. The Board indicated their agreement. There being no further business, on Motion duly made and seconded, the Board unanimously adjourned at 12:00 noon. ATTEST: Clerk 40 I