Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/9/1990o _ BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA A G E N D A SPECIAL MEETING AUGUST 9, 1990 9:00 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 1840 25th STREET VERO BEACH, FLORIDA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman Richard N. Bird, Vice Chairman Margaret C. Bowman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Gary C. Wheeler 9:00 AM 1. CALL TO ORDER James E. Chandler, County Administrator Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board 2. DISCUSSION OF DRAFTS, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS See attached memorandum dated 8/2/90 for order in which the Land Development Regulations will be reviewed Q ANYONE WHO MAY WISH TO APPEAL ANY DECISION WHICH MAY BE MADE AT THIS MEETING WILL NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE WHICH INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL WILL BE BASED. AUG 0 9 1990 J Thursday, August 9, 1990 The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, met in Special Session at the County Commission Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Thursday, August 9, 1990, at 8:30 o'clock A.M. Present were Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman; Richard N. Bird, Vice Chairman; Margaret C. Bowman; and Gary C. Wheeler. Absent was Don C. Scurlock, Jr., who was out of state on vacation. Also present were James E. Chandler, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; and Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk. . The Chairman called the meeting to order and asked Community Development Director Keating to explain the purpose of this Special Meeting. Director Keating reviewed the following: TO: James E: Chandler County Administrator DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: i Robert M. Keat' g, P Community Developme t Director FROM: Sasan Rohani S -X Chief, Long -Range Planning DATE: August 02, 1990 SUBJECT: Discussion of Drafts, Land Development Regulations It is requested that the data herein presented by given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their special meeting of August 9, 1990% DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS: ! On February 13, 1990, the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan. The adoption of the comprehensive plan was required by -the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. Besides mandating adoption of a plan, the act also requires .that within one year of AUG 0 9 1990 I r AUG 0 9 1990 the required comprehensive plan submittal date land development regulations consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan be adopted or amended. Since the county's required submittal date was September 1, 1989, the land development regulations are required to be adopted by September 1, 1990. In rewriting the land. development regulations, the Community Development Department has coordinated with the County Attorney's Office. The result of this coordination is a proposed reformat of the county's entire Code of Laws and Ordinances to a unified Code Book (proposed outline of the new county code is enclosed). The Attorney's office is responsible for titles I through VII, and the Community Development Department is responsible for title VIII (comprehensive plan), and title IX (Land Development Regulations). Since January, the Community Development Department has held workshop meetings every Thursday, from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon, to solicit public input on the rewrite of the land development regulations. A questionnaire was prepared and mailed to the members of the public whose names were included in the workshop participation list. An article published in the Press Journal explained the workshop process, schedule, and encouraged public participation (a copy of questionnaire and workshop schedule is enclosed). Attached to this agenda item are drafts of 32 of the 34 chapters which constitute the set of land development -regulations for the County. These draft chapters have been reviewed in workshops and have been revised to reflect workshop comments as well as comments received from other county departments and interested individuals. The two chapters not included are still in initial draft stages, but these will be completed and workshopped prior to the final adoption hearing, for the land development regulations, scheduled for September 11, 1990. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS In preparing these land development regulations, the staff used existing codes and ordinances as much as possible. While some ordinances such as the sign code have been substantially revised within the last several years and only required reformatting and minor changes, other chapters such as concurrency management, wellfield protection, upland habitat protection and several others are completely new. For this 'reason the draft land development regulations are a combination of existing regulations and new initiatives. - Besides complying with the state mandate to enact revised land development regulations, the staff had several other objectives for the project. These were to make the new land development regulations consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan, make the new land development regulations easy to use and understand, and correct problems in the existing code. Toward this end, the staff critically assessed existing codes, identified comprehensive plan mandated regulations, researched regulatory alternatives, and obtained public input. The result is the draft set of land development regulations attached to this item. The staff will address each chapter in more detail at the workshop meeting. This will include a brief statement of changes, new initiatives, and controversial issues relating to each chapter. RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners review the draft material and consider the drafts at the workshop meeting. I Director Keating advised that the material passed out by Chief Planner Rohani sets out the order in which the Chapters will be discussed, as follows: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WORKSHOP PRESENTATION OUTLINE AUGUST 9, 1990, 8:30 A.M. CHAPTER 910 Concurrency Management System CHAPTER 952 Traffic CHAPTER 918 Sanitary Sewer and Potable Water CHAPTER 913 Subdivisions and Plats CHAPTER 914 Site Plan CHAPTER 915 Planned Developments CHAPTER 916 Development of Regional Impact CHAPTER 917 Accessory Uses and Structure CHAPTER 954 Parking CHAPTER 972 Temporary Uses CHAPTER 930 Floodplain/Stormwater . Management CHAPTER 904 Non -Conformities CHAPTER 925 Open Burning/Air Curtain Incinerator Regulations CHAPTER 926 Landscaping and Buffering CHAPTER 927 Trees and Vegetation Protection CHAPTER 928 Wetland and Deepwater Habitat Protection CHAPTER 929 Upland Habitat Protection CHAPTER 931 Wellfield/Aquifer Protection CHAPTER 932 Coastal Management CHAPTER 933 Historical and Archaeological Resources Protection CHAPTER 934 Excavation and Mining CHAPTER 951 Road Addressing System CHAPTER 956 Signs CHAPTER 973 Public Nuisance CHAPTER 974 Noise and Vibration Control CHAPTER 800 Comprehensive Plan CHAPTER 900 Purpose and Intent CHAPTER 901 Definitions CHAPTER. 902 Administrative Mechanisms CHAPTER 911 Zoning CHAPTER 953 Traffic Impact Fee CHAPTER 955 Moving Structure Planner Rohani came before the Board to review Chapter 910 - Concurrency Management System, the highlights of which are as follows: 3 �AUG 091990 r AUG 0 9 •'. ROOK 80 -Pdr, 78,S CHAPTER 910 — CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM * NEW ORDINANCE * ESTABLISHES CERTIFICATES OF CONCURRENCY DETERMINATION CONCEPTUAL INITIAL FINAL * PROVIDES FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SYSTEM * PROVIDES FOR CONCURRENCY DETERMINATION (GENERALLY, AND SPECIFICALLY) TRAFFIC SANITARY SEWER POTABLE WATER SOLID WASTE DRAINAGE PARKS * PROVIDES PROCEDURES FOR APPEAL AND VESTED RIGHT DETERMINATION Mr.. Rohani advised that this is a new chapter mandated by the state and it deals with making sure that all the various functions maintain the Level of Service (L.O.S.) standard established in the Comp Plan. The implementation is a bit more complicated than the concept itself. He explained that the Conceptual Certificate of Concurrency Determination is for any part of the project for which they do not want to pay the impact fee and reserve the capacity. They get the Initial Concurrency Certificate at the time they pay the impact fee and it reserves the capacity for one year. We also have a provision in our ordinance that this could be extended to five years if they sign a waiver for the return of the impact fee. The reason for this is that we do not want to be in the situation where we spend the money and make the improvement and then the applicant says I'm sorry I changed my mind. Mr. Rohan! explained that when they sign the waiver, it doesn't mean that after 5 years the impact fee they have paid is not good any more. All we are saying is that concurrencywise they have to go to the end of the line and go through the process again. The Final Concurrency Certificate is what they get at the time they actually build something. If they have a valid Initial Certificate and all provisions have stayed the same, we then issue a Final Certification. If 4 conditions of the application have changed, then they have to apply for the Initial Certificate again. County Attorney Vitunac asked if any thought was given to calling the first certificate "Preliminary" instead of "Initial," and Mr. Rohani said it was not, but he did not have any problem with that. Mr. Rohani continued to review the steps in the concurrency determination, checking with all the evaluating agencies, etc., and noted that in general for each one of the items involved, we are looking at supply versus demand and looking at everything planned in the capital improvement program and the impact. Supply is everything we have existing and everything that is planned. For demand we are looking at existing demand and also "committed demand," - plans that are approved and could proceed to completion. It is very important that this chapter provide for vested right determination and appeal. Chairman Eggert noted that in the question of supply and demand, the applicants have to provide a lot of information, and she wished to know if we are going to have data bases coming out of the different departments that will help the applicants. She was very concerned about the impacts of the Growth Management Act and also very concerned that the applicants have the most cooperation and information available. Mr. Rohani confirmed that we do have a data base provided from the various departments and it has to be updated constantly. He did not think concurrencies could be done without a good computerized data base. He further noted that this may soon be a countywide ordinance. Indian River Shores and Vero Beach are participating with us, and he believed Sebastian is interested in - coming in. Concurrency all goes back to the L.O.S. issue and that actually is the same as quality of life. Commissioner Bird hoped that the application that will be used to start the process will be as specific and clear as �,- 1� o 5 AUG0 9 1990 AUG 0 9 1990 ; t.79 (�� possible so the applicant can make some determination as to whether his project is "do -able" or not. Director Keating stressed that,,staff is trying to be very responsive to the community. You can actually come in without a even a conceptual design but just a general idea of your project, and you can get your certificate, possibly even for 5 years. He doubted other counties have such a long lead time. Traffic Engineer Michael Dudeck advised that we have a pre - application conference built in so that people know where they stand up front. Commissioner Bird brought up the question of a fee structure and expressed the hope that in the initial stages we can be as reasonable as possible with our staff fees and possibly make that up as the project develops. Mr. Rohani brought up the possibility of pre -approving for a certain time period some parts of the county where we have all the available capacity; i.e., possibly the south portion of the county could be pre -approved for the next 6 months and all the single family that came in during that period would just be issued the certificate. Then, after the 6 month period, we would check to see what impact that had. Mr. Rohan! noted that we pre -approved the entire county for solid waste until 1993, and after that time, it will be re-evaluated. He further pointed out that the Certificate of Concurrency runs with the land and makes that land more valuable. Commissioner Bowman understood that the master data base will be with Community Development and asked how often it will be updated. Director Keating advised that in most areas it will be done daily. We have a computer network that we will soon have the other departments hooked into - Traffic, Building, Public Works, Utilities, and even Environmental Health. We will have everyone accessing the same data base, and this all will be available to the public. 6 Chairman Eggert announced that two of our Commissioners are pressed for time this morning, and she asked that we delay public input until after presentation of the next chapter. Traffic Engineer Dudeck came before the Board to review Chapter 952 - Traffic, the highlights of which are as follows: CHAPTER 952 - TRAFFIC LOS - (FROM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN). TIS - TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY TYPES * < 100 TRIPS: NO STUDY * > 100 TRIPS < 500 TRIPS: STATEMENT * > 500 TRIPS: ANALYSIS * IMPACTED SEGMENT - 1% PEAK HOUR/PEAR SEASON/PEAR DIRECTION PROJECT TRIPS * ASSIGNMENT * COUNTS * SEGMENT ANALYSIS * INTERSECTION ANALYSIS ROW - NO SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE PAVED ROAD REGS. - NO SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE ACCESS CONTROL - TECHNICAL CHANGES ROADWAY DESIGN - TECHNICAL CHANGES PEDESTRIAN & BIKEWAY SYSTEM ROAD NAMES' Mr. Dudeck stressed that staff tried to tailor the various factors and have trip generation rates, etc., that were appropriate to this county. L.O.S. is as defined in the Comp Plan. Staff will do traffic assignments up to 100 trips a day, but over 500 trips a day will require a complete traffic engin- eering analysis or if you are using a link where over 900 of the capacity is used up. Re 'impacted segments, we are changing that 10 of the peak hour, peak season, down to the level of 5% of the site traffic itself, or 50 trips, whichever is the least. As to Counts, there are 17 different criteria and factors that go.into calculating capacity, and we only have 24 -hour. -counts; so, AUG 0 9 1990 0 ,. ,Ij�K +�u i, lF initially, the applicant will have to get more counts. After we get better data, we will be reducing the number of,counts the applicant has to get. Mr. Dudeck ej<plained that segment analysis means a homogeneous piece of roadway -%you have to look at all the links in the segment. This all relates to the intersection, but the intersection analysis is done separately. Mr. Dudeck talked about addressing ultimate roadway build -out and advised that right now, except for the Merrill Barber Bridge, we have no segments of roadway that are over capacity. State Road A -1-A and U.S.I. are at the 90% stage. Commissioner Bird asked at what point in the process the determination is made as to how extensive the analysis must be. Mr. Dudeck explained that 100 through 500 trips requires a statement which is much simpler than a traffic study, and then we have a Development Size Data Table which the applicant can refer to in order to determine the maximum number of units he can build and there is also a Trip Rate and Percent New Trips Data Table, samples of which are as follows: DEVELOPMENT SIZE DATA TABLE CODE LAND DEVELOPMENT NT ACTIVITY VARIABLE MAX. # OF (UNITS NOTIS TRIP2S) MAX. N OF )UNITS (500 Tti16) 210 Single -Family DW. UNIT 9.0 48.0 221 Mufti -Family DW. UNIT 10.0 81.0 240 Mpbile-Home DW. UNIT 20.0 104.0 252 ACLF 1000 SF 35.0 178.0 710 General Office 0 - 40,999 e1 1000 SF 8.0 30.0 720 Medical Office 1000 SF 2.0 12.0 780 Research Center 1000 SF 18.0 81.0 110 General Industrial 1000 SF 14.0 71.0 130 Industrial Park 1000 SF 14.0 71.0 140 IManulacturing 1000 SF 28.0 1 131.0 150 lWarehousing 1000 SF 20.01 102.0 1 MP RATE AND PEACENT NEW TRIPS DATA TABLE LAND DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (LDA) I VARIABLE RTE A NEW TRIPS0/4 Single -Family DW. UNIT 10.1 100 MuIU-Family DW. UNIT 8.1 100 Mobile -Home DW. UNIT 4.8 100 ACLF 1000 SF 2.8 74 General Office 0 - 48,000 If 1000 SF 18.3 92 General Office 50 -140,090 If 1000 SF 13.7 92 General OMce 150-299,999 N 10DO SF 11.5 92 General Office 300 - 5,90.999 N 1000 SF 10.4 02 General Office 800 - 709.999 of 1000 SF 8.4 92 General Office > 800,000 If 1000 SF 8 2 02 Medical Office 1000 SF 39.0 77 8 Commissioner Bird wished to know who decides how far a study needs to go at an intersection for example, and Director Keating advised that is one criteria we are looking at and that is where we are considering 50 of the site traffic itself or 50 trips, whichever is least. Commissioner Bird then asked if you build a commercial project with 500 trips, who decides where those trips are going, and .is it necessary to hire a traffic engineer. Mr. Dudeck stated that staff can work with them on determin- ing this - they look at it depending on location, and where you have a more critical location, it would require an analysis. Commissioner Bird continued to stress the need to save the applicant's trouble as much as possible. Commissioner Bowman left the meeting at 9:25 A.M. Director Keating pointed out that if someone does not think the figures in these tables are right, they can do their own traffic count. Chairman Eggert asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak on either the Concurrency Management or Traffic Chapters. Todd Smith, of Peterson & Votapka, Engineers, believed that in the Comp Plan, it allows you to go up to 1,000 trips if you are not in a critical transportation location and he felt the LDR now will eliminate that ability completely. In regard to the use of a project, Mr. Smith stated that if a developer comes in with something like a strip building, for instance, with a certain percent of the building to be used for offices, etc., the problem they have been seeing is -'that staff tends to come back and hit them with the highest uses.` In example, if the property is zoned for a convenience store but the developer has no intention of putting that use in his project, staff still says use that figure. In their office they have even tried having restrictive 9 U (i AUG 09 19y 3F 90 1 J AUG 0 9 1990 7 covenants in regard to use, but staff still tends to go with the highest use. Traffic Engineer Dudeck explaiped that one of the reasons we have to do that, is, for example, in a.%situation such as we have on Old Dixie where you are getting increased traffic on a daily basis and you have the need for left turns. If you allow the applicant to come in with only the lowest trip generation uses, it will not require a left turn although in reality, it will. He felt the best way and the fairest is to do what we are, but after the development is built and operational, you then can get an actual count and possibly take that back off the network, and there may be some mechanism to come back to the impact fees and give them a refund. Director Keating stressed that we have to deal with concur- rency at every step of the project, and we must project that something is going to develop at the highest use and intensity for which it is zoned. When you get to the site plan, we then just look at what the developer says is going to be in that building; that is the use we are assessing it for; and the applicant doesn't have to pay the impact fee until after that. Mr. Smith noted that what he is talking about is not impact fees, but the construction fees for turn lanes, etc., which are all out of pocket expenses. Discussion continued, and Commissioner Wheeler pointed out that when you put in a strip plaza, the uses change quite frequently, and you have to plan for the highest use. Chairman Eggert agreed that with the concurrency require- ment, it is hard to allow for the lowest levels all the time. She asked if every strip plaza will be treated as if it had a convenience store in it, and Director Keating advised that if they tell us at site plan time that it will be all retail, that is what they will be charged for. We are not going to make them plan for a convenience store, but we try to tell them that 10 possibly they should plan for a restaurant or two and allow for the traffic that is related. Mr. Smith continued to protest that this can require the developer to have to put in a turn lane costing thousands of dollars, and Engineer Dudeck felt one of the problems is that there has been no requirement to have a trip analysis until the very end, and this is aimed at trying to provide for that. He stressed that if people give staff a reasonably -accurate mix of what is going in there, we can work with them. Commissioner Bird felt that we can't always plan for the ultimate, and tenants do change, but Director Keating again emphasized that at site plan time we get the specifics. It was further noted that it is not only bad for the county in general, but it is bad for those specific businesses if they don't have sufficient places to park or good traffic flow. Carol Johnson came before.the Board speaking for the Chamber of Commerce, Public Affairs. She complimented staff, but had some problem on the way this is being presented since she did not think that we have the continuity needed throughout these chapters and was concerned that the public has no way to be able to pinpoint the changes being made. She noted that in some chapters the material being changed has been struck over and the new material underlined which helps someone to zero in on the changes, but that is not done consistently throughout. Mrs. Johnson stressed the changes that were inadvertently made in the Gifford area in the Comp Plan because the Board members did not understand exactly what had been changed, and felt for the Board's sake as well as the public's sake, this could be pre- sented in a way to make it much easier to follow. Director Keating explained with the change in format, a lot of this is excerpted and taken out of small segments and moved around, and they had difficulty with the underlining; however, he felt this can be done from here on out for anything that is new. AUG 0 9 1990 AUG 0 9 1990 BOOK 0' 11,U. 7 (�' - Discussion continued, and Commissioner Bird asked staff how the Commissioners can feel comfortable when we get all through this process that they thoroughly upderstand what we are doing now as opposed to what we did or didn't have before. Director Keating advised that staff can go back through and do all the underlining. We never had all this on the word processor before, and from here on out, it will be easier. Chairman Eggert commented that she would not anticipate staff underlining policies that were just moved somewhere else, but felt it is important to know if some major policy we had before has been eliminated. It is very difficult to keep up with this until someone who is affected by a change actually comes in and complains. At this point the Chairman determined that no one else wished to speak regarding either Concurrency Management or Traffic, and the Board recessed briefly. Chairman Eggert reopened the workshop meeting at 10:15 A.M. with only herself and Commissioner Bird present, Commissioner Wheeler having had to go out of town, and asked that staff continue their review. Planner Rohan! came before the Board to review Chapter 918 - Sanitary Sewer and Potable Water Regulations, the highlights of which are as follows: CHAPTER 918 — SANITARY SEWER AND POTABLE WATER REGULATIONS * NEW ORDINANCE * IMPLEMENTS POLICIES OF THE SANITARY SEWER AND POTABLE WATER SUB—ELEMENTS FOR: USE OF SEPTIC TANKS AND WELLS EFFLUENT RE—USE — PROVISION OF REGIONAL SEWER AND WATER SYSTEM IN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA CONNECTION REQUIREMENTS 12 Mr. Rohani explained that this is a new element and a new ordinance. These are the new requirements that were in the Comprehensive Plan, and they mainly deal with the issue of when we are allowing a septic tank and well to be used and with requiring the building of dry lines for effluent re -use for such things as golf courses which require a lot of irrigation, which lines are to be dedicated to the County and must connect when the facility is available. Section 918.05 deals with the connection matrix and connection criteria. The matrix is as follows: WATER L WASmmir.R nim. -n(w rwnax LOR A NEW DEVE3DJMVf 5 X m Tine development is required to connect as a condition for acquiring the building permit. A a Site is located in rural residential area. B The following single family residential units and developments can obtain a permit from Indian River County to operate on a private system with an hgreement to connect to the regional system when available. Permits shall be conditioned upon demonstration of compliance with applicable federal, state, and local permit requirements. As a requirement, developer must construct a dry line at the time of construction. The final determination for* the type of cam ercial establishment which can obtain a permit shall be at the discretion of the county. • Single Family Residential • Subdivisions with less than 25 units • Small retail establishments with less than 5,000 sq. ft. i • System Availibility - When a line and lift station exist in a public easement or right-of-way and the plant has sufficient capacity. • Distance Determination a Lot or subdivision shall have accessibility through public easement or public right-of-way. •* The county has the option to allow a small industrial develocrnent •_c be on a\. septic tank or private treatment plant, if it meets all requirements, constructs dry • line and agrees to connect to the county system when available. GOOK 8U rna 79 1 AUG.09'1990 13 ot1TSIDF. OF 770' EXISTING INSIDE OF 770: CaUlINC tnTLITIES SERVICE AREA BIT LTILI7IES SERVICE AREA WITHIN 710" 2010 SERVICE. AREA CCQA4)CT NOr CONNECT' O0tNE1Cr NOT CONNDCr 5 e F lyf Within 200• of sys.* X X Outside of 200• of sys. A.B A,B Subdivisionst within i mi. of the sys. Hae than 25 units x X Less than 25 units Outside of i mi. of syr. Hae than 25 units X X Less than 25 units B B BIiD Deva ops Within ! mi. of syr. X X Outside of 1 mi. of sys. Cb ercial E.stablishsnts Within 1 mi. of syr.. Greater than 5,000 sq. X X ft. X B tess than 5.000 sq, ft. Outside of i mi. of syr. Greater than 5,000 sq. x X ft. Less than 5,000 sq. ft. B 8 :Irdustrial Establistrgnt" I within i miof Sys. X X outside of mi. of or. i X X 5 X m Tine development is required to connect as a condition for acquiring the building permit. A a Site is located in rural residential area. B The following single family residential units and developments can obtain a permit from Indian River County to operate on a private system with an hgreement to connect to the regional system when available. Permits shall be conditioned upon demonstration of compliance with applicable federal, state, and local permit requirements. As a requirement, developer must construct a dry line at the time of construction. The final determination for* the type of cam ercial establishment which can obtain a permit shall be at the discretion of the county. • Single Family Residential • Subdivisions with less than 25 units • Small retail establishments with less than 5,000 sq. ft. i • System Availibility - When a line and lift station exist in a public easement or right-of-way and the plant has sufficient capacity. • Distance Determination a Lot or subdivision shall have accessibility through public easement or public right-of-way. •* The county has the option to allow a small industrial develocrnent •_c be on a\. septic tank or private treatment plant, if it meets all requirements, constructs dry • line and agrees to connect to the county system when available. GOOK 8U rna 79 1 AUG.09'1990 13 AUG 0 9 1990 Mr. Rohan! brought up the problem the county has been faced with in having to take over package plants that were in bad shape and advised that they held a workshop on the connection matrix with the result that it changed their understanding of the package treatment plant, and it was decided to relate it to the amount of flow because in some cases so-called package plants were actually glorified septic tanks. Mr. Rohani continued to review criteria for connection to the county's regional system, and Commissioner Bird asked how much of these regulations are of our own initiative and how much is mandated by state or federal regulations. Environmental Health Director Galanis advised that in regard to the subdivisions, that is basically strictly by state law, but it is structured somewhat to ask that people connect to the public sewerage. The use of septic tanks is pretty much by state law with the exception of the 5,000 sq. ft. requirement in commercial type activity being the point where you have to go into a package treatment plant; that is by local design and structure. Other than that, the county is pretty much following the state rule, but attempting to see that the•new developments have a future availability to connect to sewer. Director Keating advised that with subdivision a 25 lot cap is our own requirements, and as to the 5,000 sq. ft. requirement, he believed the state requirement is 5,000 gallons. Director Galanis confirmed that the state requirement is according to flow where the county is using square footage and there is no doubt the county requirement is more restrictive. Director Keating pointed out that the state wants you to use utilities provision as a growth management tool, and the DCA is saying we did not do that good enough. Commissioner Bird felt that we are being pretty hard on commercial and industrial buildings in the 5,000 sq. ft. range and possibly gallonage would be a fairer criteria. He cited the 14 instance of a 5,000 sq. ft. storage building that might have only one bathroom. Director Keating pointed out that those type buildings are almost always in nodes or on a commercial corridor, and the whole planning concept is to cluster those uses and have the node area served by centralized sewer. Commissioner B'ird noted that there are a lot of areas in the county that have been zoned commercial for years where we don't have public sewers available, and it was noted that the ordinance does allow for the use of package plants in industrial or commercial areas in certain cases. Environmental Health Director Galanis advised that there are 10 or 12 approved products in the state, and they have installed about 4 of those plants in the county in the last year. They are permitted like on-site sewage disposal systems. The problem that comes up is whether Utilities will accept them or not. John Lang of Utilities stated that it is the current policy not to accept these aerated septic tanks for operation or mainte- nance because they are for an individual property owner rather than being a public system. Commissioner Bird felt that policy is fine, but at least let them use those and operate until such time as the County utilities system is available to them, and Mr. Lang confirmed that is what we are doing currently. Attorney Vitunac believed when there is no other way, the policy is that the developer can have his own system, but on the condition that he pay impact fees and when the county system comes in, he will be required to connect. The County will never be buying these package plants any more; they will simply be forced out of business and required to connect. Chairman Eggert asked for comments from the audience. Todd Smith, of Peterson & Votapka, Engineers, noted that there was some discussion in the workshop that rather than the 5,000 square footage requirement, this could changed to flow, and BOOK 65' AUG 09 1990 15 AUG G 9 199Q UppOOf1 N�r ' � �riJ% �� he believed that flow is more appropriate for this chapter than square footage. Commissioner Bird believed that staff's concern is if the usage changes, but felt there must be some way to catch this. Director Keating noted that we can just default to state requirements, not take any initiatives in this Plan and let things go the way they have been going, but the DCA keeps pushing us saying we are not doing a good enough job. We are trying to provide a mechanism to get water and sewer to these nodes by saying you can't develop more than this certain increment unless you bring it there; so, we have gone to a "fall -back" position with allowing the "glorified septic tanks" as meeting our policy. Staff is not concerned about change of use, and as far as having gallonage rather than square footage is concerned, this is simply using utilities as a planning tool. Director Galanis believed Director Keating is correct that this is a growth management tool and that gallonage or square footage makes no difference. If the Board doesn't want to use sewer and water as such a tool, then we can change the figures, but he personally felt 5,000 gallons on a septic tank is a lot, and a 5,000 gallon septic tank system is not cheap. He noted that the state seems to be going towards the use of these package aerobic systems, but eventually they also become maintenance problems and we really want to get the sewers out there. Chairman Eggert noted that what we may go to an Adminis- trative Hearing about is whether our developmental controls are really workable, and we need something that is a good developmental control but is as fair as possible. Commissioner Bird still felt 5,000 sq, ft. is an arbitrary figure, but Director Keating contended that it is not arbitrary - the threshhold for our major site plans is 5,000 sq. ft. of im- pervious area, and we are using 5,000 sq. ft. of buildings here. Steve Snoberger, engineer with Carter Associates, pointed out that, contrary to what has been said, Paragraph 6 at the 16 M bottom of Page 7, says that industrial facilities over 5,000 sq. feet are precluded if they are outside of 1/4 mile of a system Director Galanis stated that you currently couldn't treat that waste on a septic tank anyway, but Mr. Snoberger asked about the other type systems. Director Galanis confirmed that aerobic systems have been approved in those situations, but each is done on an individual basis and it is done by a higher authority than he. That is a variance procedure that operates in conjunction with the DER. He noted that, as a matter of fact, his department rarely sees much industrial development. Commissioner Bird was concerned that we will see even less of it if we are too restrictive. Chairman Eggert felt possibly we should include the words "dependent on DER permitting." Commissioner Bird agreed there should be some ability to consider something over 5,000 sq. ft.. He pointed out that Ramp Master has been operating out there for years with no problem that he knows of. Director Galanis believed the biggest problem that occurs is associated with change of use, and there is very poor state enforcement regarding that. Mr. Snoberger next referred to Page 2, Paragraph 3 under Section 918.04 regarding effluent re -use: (3) When effluent re -use is required and permitted by the Department of Environmental Regulation and the county utilities department, developers of projects having open space areas requiring irrigation, including golf courses, parks, medians, etc., which are located within a county utility department service area and are within one mile of the nearest effluent line containing irrigation quality effluent, shall construct effluent re -use lines on site and effluent re -use lines off site to connect to treated waste water to be used for spray irrigation of the open space areas within the development project:: Such large volume irrigation users are required to take re- use water for spray irrigation. The effluent re -use lines constructed for treated waste water shall be dedicated to Indian River County. Developments having open ispace ;areas requiring irrigation outside. of one mile from the -nearest irrigation quality effluent line shall install dry lines if they are within the county utilities department service area and irrigation quality effluent water is or will be available for re -use. AUG 0 9 1990 17 BOOK tJ .801 AUG 0 9 1990 soap Mr. Snoberger's concern was that we are talking about developers extending main lines off site up to a mile, and we have no threshhold limit in there. Director Keating agreed this should be in there. Director Galanis brought up connection to public water and the requirements for franchises. He wished to know if those rules say that if you do a development on a small public water system, that system must -be turned over to the County. This was confirmed by Mr. Rohani, and Director Galanis noted that the county has 500 systems out there right now and is the County ready for all that? Mr. Rohani explained that this is for new package system plants, and Attorney Vitunac clarified that dedicate means when the County wants to take them over as customers of the system, they will then turn these plants off without cost to us.. Director Galanis thought that in order to build these systems, they have to give the County the well. Director Keating advised that originally in our Comp Plan we had a policy that Utilities on a case by case basis would decide if they want to maintain and own a plant, and .the DCA said that is not a policy - it is an open end statement that doesn't give you any direction and we should clarify it. So, we worked on this, and this is what we got, but it was on package treatment plants that it would be that way, and now it is the new consid- eration of the aerobic treatment units that has put us in a dilemma with this. John Lang of Utilities stated that from the Utility Department standpoint the intent when the regulations were written was for a public system to consist of 25 people or more and have greater than 2500 gpd. If we are talking about a water system, for example, for a strip shopping center that is just one unit and has less than 25 people, Utilities is not interested in operating something like that. However, if we are talking about a subdivision that has over 25 homes, like Copeland's Landing, 18 - M which has a water plant, Utilities is receiving that, and when the final inspection is done, they will give Utilities a bill of sale and we will operate and maintain that facility because we have held its hand right from the permitting stage through construction and it has met all of our standards. Director Keating confirmed that staff will clarify what dedication and maintain means. The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to speak on Chapter 918. There were none. Planning Director Stan Boling informed the Board that there will be a Chapter 912 re Single Family Development, but we do not have it now; that probably will be the last ordinance done. He then proceeded to review Chapter 913 - Subdivisions and Plats, the highlights of which are as.follows: Chapter 913 Subdivisions and Plats Parcel "buildability" determination outlined Size of "exempt" projects limited Submittal requirements updated Applications reviewed through T.R.C. Modification procedures established other chapter requirements referenced Director Boling noted that it is largely the same ordinance. The major changes are regarding parcel "buildability" determina- tion; the size of "exempt" projects has been limited; and submittal requirements have been updated. Commissioner Bird hoped that if there are any major changes as far as the submittal requirements and documentation needed, that it will not cost appreciably more under this ordinance than it did under the old one. AUG 0 9 1990 19 800Y Fp{.�r8 03 AUG 0 9 1990 BOOK f1�Ey Director Keating stated that the only thing is that you will have to have a Concurrency Certificate on application and there is a fee for that. Also whether yob need an endangered species study or something of that nature might enter in. Commissioner Bird commented that he has heard some complaint that the applicant and engineers are not allowed to speak at the Technical Review Committee meetings, . Director Keating explained that almost always a staff Planner goes outside with the design specialist, if desired, and gets any question cleared up right then and there. When you open the meeting up is when you get into major policy discussions, and that is what they want to avoid. Commissioner Bird hoped there is some point in this whole process where someone can come in and discuss a possible project without having to pay any fee, and Director Keating noted you can get a general opinion rom staff without a charge, but not in writing. Chairman Eggert brought up the question of having more than one exit, especially in some of the larger subdivisions, and Director Boling confir ed that something will be included about the ability to require emergency access. The Chairman asked if anyone had any comments. Asst. County Attorney Collins pointed out that Page 63 of the Subdivision Ordinance adds a new paragraph about the surety that can be posted to secure subdivision improvements. He had no problem with this addition, but just wanted the Board to be aware of it. Commissioner Birdlreferred to the requirements for Bikeways, etc., and stated that a still has a problem with requiring these little incremental sidewalks and bikeways which do not hook up to anything. He did not think this is the right way to do this and felt that instead we should escrow the money and then do the whole length all at on time and maintain it. 20 - M M Director Keating noted that we do have the alternative where Public Works accepts escrow. The Public Works Director advised that his problem with the escrow is that some day we will have a whole list of little projects that we will suddenly have to go out to bid on. We have quite a list now of such projects that are mainly being ignored. Chairman Eggert also had a problem with putting in side- walks and bikeways that no one is using. Director Boling advised that Page 56, Paragraph (D) allows escrowing, and actually we have expanded the 2 -year period up to 4 years. He further noted that on Pages 54 and 55 there is a provision that gives you discretion in looking at segments of sidewalk that could not be effectively integrated into an existing sidewalk system. Director Davis continued to stress that right now we don't have an easy method to keep up with this, and he worries about dealing with a multitude of small projects. Most of these situations are in remote areas, and it may be many years before it gets to the point where the improvement is needed. Director Keating pointed out that there is also the problem of the R/W required for these improvements, and we are trying to allow for this now. Commissioner Bird emphasized that he wished to keep in the option of escrowing the funds. No one else wished to be heard on Chapter 913. Director Boling next reviewed Chapter 914 - Site Plan Review and Approval Procedures,.the highlights of which are as follows: 0 AUG 0 9 1990 21 -BOOK 0 [-,,u 80 BOOK 6 V`t. s Chapter 914 Site Plan Review and Approval Procedures Pre -application conferences spmetimes required "Completeness" review required Major, minor, administrative approval categories better specified Submittal requirements updated Other chapter regulations referenced Director Boling advised that the Site Plan Ordinance is stripped down from our present ordinance. We are now doing a "Completeness" review, and we check to make sure all the required elements are there before we route it on through the review process. Commissioner Bird asked if anything is basically changed as far as submitting requirements or cost is concerned, and Director Boling noted that we have increased the number of plan sets that need to be submitted from 5 to 7. Commissioner Bird then wished the difference between the Minor Site Plan and Major Site Plan process reviewed. Director Boling explained the steps involved in each, and Director Keating further explained that the major site plan will take 10 to 14 days to get to the TRC and conceivably could get through the process in 4 weeks; it is possible a minor site plan could be through right after going to the TRC; and Administrative Approval could involve only 2 or 3 days. Commissioner Bird stressed that time is money. He would like to make the process simpler rather than more complicated and asked if it would be possible to consider changing the threshhold and moving some projects into the minor category. Chairman Eggert believed staff has been working in that direction for quite some time. There were no public comments on Chapter 914. 22 _I Director Boling next reviewed Chapter 915 - Planned Develop- ment (P.D.), the highlights of which are as follows: Chapter 915 Planned Development (P.D.) PRD concept expanded: Residential and agricultural, office, commercial, industrial covered. Zoning overlay district process established Existing PRD ordinance retired: can convert to P.D. Density credit for environmental transfer, affordable housing Compatibility measures specified Submittal requirements up-to-date Other chapter regulations referenced Director Boling informed the Board that this is an expansion of the PRD concept and there are two primary changes, the first being that it now can apply to agricultural, commercial/office, and industrial, as well as residential. Secondly, PRD is a Special Exception process, and what we are proposing here is not only a Special Exception process but also a zoning overlay district. What this means is that you can do the PD at the same time you -are looking at the zoning issue; in fact, you can do them either together or separately. Director Boling stressed that the existing PRD ordinance is going to be a "dinosaur." The projects already approved under the PRD can continue under the PRD, but we will not have any new projects under PRD. A PRD project such as Grand Harbor or Windsor can come in and convert under the PD at any time...' Director Boling continued to review Chapter 915, and there was no public comment. AUG 09 1990 23 BOOK AUG 09 1990* 11115tUOKs jE �� - Director Boling reviewed Chapter 916 - Development of Regional Impact (D.R.I.), the highlights of which are as follows: Chapter'916 Development of Regional Impact (DRI) Binding letter threshold updated j - Aggregation letter criteria specified Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing required Mailed notice required for Planning and Zoning Commission, Board of County Commissioners public hearings. Director Boling noted that they have opened up the public input process and will have a public hearing at the P6Z level and have them make a recommendation to the Board. Chairman Eggert did not think they had the thresholds listed, and Director Boling explained that because they are subject to change by state statute, staff just referenced the threshholds that are in the Statutes. There was no public comment. Director Boling reviewed Chapter 917 - Accessory Uses and Structures, the highlights of which are as follows: Chapter 917 Accessory Uses and Structures Single source for regulations, reference Specific criteria added Director Boling explained that this Chapter either gives the regulation or tells you where to go to find out about that particular accessory structure. There was no public comment. 24 L_— J � � r Director Boling reviewed Chapter 954 - Off -Street Parking, the highlights of which are as follows: Chapter 954 Off -Street Parking More categories added (35 to 58) 3 uses increased, 5 decreased Non -paving options expanded Parking lot design flexibility increased Circulation criteria added Shared parking for mixed uses allowed Director Boling advised that this is an ordinance we have wanted to expand for sometime, and probably the most significant change is to increase the number of categories. He noted that we have copies of 45 parking ordinances from various states and continued to go over the highlights. Commissioner Bird commented that he gets the impression staff is trying to be as reasonable as possible on these requirements which use up green space and cost a lot of money. He felt there is a whole list of reasons why an oversize parking lot is bad in a lot.of ways. Director Boling noted that we are heading in the direction of allowing some grass parking areas for "peak" season. Robert Gaskill of Vista Properties voiced his objection to the requirement that all multifamily developments having 50 or more dwelling units shall provide one screened space for the storage of recreational vehicles for each 10 dwelling units. He noted that there is a provision that this requirement can be waived if the developer puts in the covenants a statement restricting the storage of such vehicles to a certain time period. Firstly, he did not think you can have covenants in rental projects, and secondly, if you can, he felt it should be optional to have a covenant that you won't allow such vehicles on the property. AUG 0 0 1990 25 NOK ���vE. ��„ f J r AUG Q S 'WU, 1' -7 Attorney Dorothy Hudson commented that the condos she has been involved with don't make it a covenant, but a rule, and they have had no problem with this on the beach. Mr. Gaskill believed that you can..have covenants on condos but not on rental property. Director Keating explained the reason for this requirement is that we only allow minimum spaces for cars, and we don't want them taken up with recreational vehicles. Mr. Gaskill felt the figure of 50 or more units was an arbitrary figure. Commissioner Bird commented that he personally would not expect to be provided with space -for his recreational vehicle, but would rent space somewhere else, and he favored taking out this requirement. Attorney Collins noted we only wanted to provide an option, and we can change this requirement and see whether it is a problem or not. Commissioner Bird favored taking this requirement out. Chairman Eggert asked if there has been a problem that brought this up, and Director Keating stated there was no specific problem; it is just that we are real tight with multi family project parking. He felt the alternative is that we can just have a prohibition of recreational vehicle and boat parking in multi family site parking lots unless there is a specific area delineated for that purpose. Commissioner Bird felt that would be better, and Director Keating agreed this would be put in. Warren Dill complimented staff on cleaning up the regula- tions, but believed that on Page 2, in regard to Section 954.05 (6) Bed and Breakfast, it had been agreed at the workshop session that their parking requirements would go down to 2 spaces plus one space per rentable room. Director Boling agreed but explained that change just didn't show up in this draft. 26 Mr. Dill then referred to Section 954.07 in regard to the Cross Parking Agreement, which involves sharing and a deduction for non -concurrent uses, i.e., nighttime use rather than daytime. He wished to propose the addition of a third category which would allow a parking study in those cases where parking requirements are specific to a certain use. Mr. Dill noted that on Page 10, Paragraph 59 says that if you don't see a particular use that fits your use, you are supposed to go to the next similar use. Restaurants are listed, but how about a deli that is only open certain hours a day. He felt there are many commercial uses that may not need what is being required, and he, therefore, would like to see something that provides, if you want to challenge staff requirements, you can do your own study on your particular parking requirements. Commissioner Bowman returned to the meeting at 11:50 A.M. Mr. Dill referred to change of use and felt that at the time when an applicant goes to the Building Department for a permit to remodel their facility, there should be a checks and balance implemented that does not exist now so that a person could not get a building permit for a use that has not been approved on a site plan. If this can be caught at that stage, it will save a lot of aggravation down the road. Director Boling advised that for the last several months we have had a system in place for interior modifications so that whenever such an application comes into the Building Department, Planning checks it against the site plan and signs off on it. He then referred back to Mr. Dill's first point, and noted that using the example of a deli, for instance, that has certain hours when it begins operating andbonly 3 tables and you do a parking study based on that, but then what if he adds 3 tables and stays open 2 more hours? Director Boling felt that at some point.you have to balance all this out and must look at some kind of 27 BOOP AUG 0 9 1990 ���A11 AUG 0 9 1990 MOO ti,. ; average. There is a question of how specific you want to get, and whether, when those things are added, you have to do another study. Discussion continued at length about refining categories, threshholds, owner's responsibility to rent to clients that come under the categories provided for, etc., and Mr. Dill commented that he was just suggesting there may be a way to refine this so we don't always go with the maximum parking for peak demand and subsequently end up with paving that is not being used for most of the year. He wanted to find a way to cut down on the amount of pavement we have in this county. Director Keating believed P&Z considered this idea and turned it down at their workshop. Mr. Dill concluded by expressing his feeling that the little guy, the small developer with a small strip center, is being required to build to maximum standards, but the requirements for regional malls have been reduced. Steve Hawkins referred to the requirement on Page 8 which calls for 5 spaces per gross acre for each acre of open space generating user parking demand, and wondered how that demand is determined. Chairman Eggert assumed that a ball field in the South County Park, for instance, would be one thing, but the nature area would be addressed differently. Director Boling advised that some of the specific recreation uses are treated elsewhere. This deals with things such as botanical gardens with paths going through them. He explained that you have to look at something to tie your space to, and he felt the area generating parking demand would be whatever attraction people are winding around and through to see. For example, if you had paths all the way through McKee Jungle Gardens, you would probably look at that entire sight and you would end up with 75 spaces for that entire park. 28 Mr. Hawkins felt that 75 spaces would be excessive for something like that. He used as an example the possibility that the 240 acres north of the Entomology Lab could become a public park at some point, and if it ever did, it would require 1200 parking spaces, which he felt is ridiculous for a passive use. He asked how we protect this open space from parking. Director Keating commented that although he hates this kind of thing, this would relate to a discretionary decision. Commissioner Bowman referred to the following parking configuration displayed in the left figure on Page 11: s— c C d ny 45o B �✓ A Max. �Ic E LC fi G o� F A •- — ' 3 Ch. Commissioner Bowman realized this is the usual configuration of parking, but when two people back out simultaneously, you have a problem. Director Boling pointed out that you can have single tier parking areas, but you would get less spaces, and Commissioner Bird believed what is shown is just an example of a parking configuration; it is not required. Commissioner Bowman just felt that configuration should be discouraged. There were no further comments on Chapter 954. The Chairman announced that the Board would recess for lunch from 12:15 to 1:15 P.M. AUG Q 9 1990 29 �o0K. 6 PAGE 8 j I r AUG 0 9 1990 The Board reconvened at 1:15 P.M. with Chairman Eggert, Commissioner Bird and Commissioner Bowman present, Commissioner Scurlock being on vacation and Commissioner Wheeler having gone out of town. Chairman Eggert called the meeting to order, and Director Boling came before the Board to review Chapter 972 - Temporary Uses, the highlights of which are as follows: Chapter 972 Temporary Uses Specific review standards added Review process timeframes established Director Boling explained that this is a section of general provisions that staff pulled out and made a separate section. Some things were added in regard to specific events and some new criteria and timeframes. There was no public comment on Chapter 972. County Engineer Roger Cain next came before the Board to review Chapter 930 - Stormwater Management and Flood Protection, the highlights of which are as follows: 30 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND FLOOD PROTECTION NEW CHAPTER 930 REPLACING CODE CHAPTER 21112 BASIS OF THE ORDINANCE .,EXISTING ORDINANCE PCOMPREHENSIVE PLAN SIGNIFICANT CHANGES , )DESIGN STORM 10 YEAR - 24 HOUR TO 25 YEAR - 24 HOUR 16% INCREASE W RAWFALL ADDITIONAL FLOOD MITIGATION MEASURES ADDED -,CONFINING WATERS TO EASEMENTS AND R/W -,LOCAL ROAD PROTECTION WATER QUALITY SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMITY WITH Sr. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT D/STR/CT CONTROVERSIAL OWES INDIAN RIVER FARMS DRAINAGE DISTRICT 2'24 HR. DISCHARGE REQUIREMENT TIE IN WITH MINING_ ORDINANCE CUT AND FILL BALANCE REQUIREMENT 4N CURRENT ORDINANCE REQUIRING WET DETENT70N PONDS USE WATER FOR IRRIGATION CONFLICTS WITH WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT. PERMIT POLICY Mr. Cain advised that in this chapter the portions deleted have been stricken over and anything added has been underlined. He noted that this chapter is based on our current ordinance and the policies contained in.'the Comprehensive Plan. The signifi- cant changes are as listed ih the highlights, and Mr. Cain explained that the additional flood mitigation measures call for a 20' total width in our side lot swales. They interpret that to mean 10' on one lot and 10' on the other for a. -total of 20' and 31 BOOK � fFy n AUG 0 9 1990 '. AUG 0 9 1990 = rr� BOOK. will- change our current draft to reflect that. Water Quality requirements mainly conform with St. John's rules, but are less stringent. The permits would have to be obtained from the St. John's District. County Engineer Cain brought up the controversial issues and commented that through the workshop process, he believed we eliminated some of the problems that surfaced in the first draft. One of the major ones is the requirement that if a drainage district has adopted a discharge standard, we would meet that in our LDR. The Indian River Farms Drainage District has a 2" in 24 hour discharge requirement, and this, in effect, requires an increase in the volume of storage and in many cases, some inventive thinking on the part of the engineer to meet this. Commissioner Bird wished this elaborated on a bit more, and Mr. Cain explained that on most of the properties, it would be reasonable to consider that you would have under existing natural conditions more than 2" of runoff coming off that property without any development, and, therefore, you would have to store to limit that runoff. What this District is saying is that the amount you are discharging now is an artificial standard because, in effect, the receiving waters of the canal get up so high that you don't have a flow off that property; it just backs up. Mr. Cain thought the District will continue to look at their stand- ard, and if they can modify it in some areas and become less stringent, it is possible they will do so. Director Keating advised that 2" is a new requirement the District just approved on July 13th, and he believed that even if we didn't go through and revise our Code, this would probably be applied to most projects anyway by the District in their permitting. Mr. Cain continued that another concern was the tie in with the Mining Ordinance, because when you do developments and have to do some excavation to provide the storage, this gets into Special Exceptions, but he believed this is being dealt with in 32 the Mining Ordinance. Cut and Fill Balance Requirements are in the current ordinance, but the feeling at the workshops was that this might cause some problems with small lots because of the physical inability to provide a hole in the ground to take the place of where you are going to put the fill. Mr. Cain noted they did not resolve that issue, but feel there must be some mitigation provisions to alleviate this problem so that you don't end up flooding other areas. Commissioner Bird commented that on some of the little 50' lots in Oslo by the time they put in the fill for the pad of the house, there isn't any room left on the lot to dig a big hole. Mr. Cain pointed out that if you are outside of a flood zone, the cut and fill balance is not required; so, the theory is don't build in a flood zone. Commissioner Bird asked if Mr. Cain was saying that these lots in flood zones would be deemed unbuildable. Mr. Cain stated they would not be deemed unbuildable. It would be more difficult to build on them, and while they can do such things as build foundations that do not use fill, there still would be a question with the fill needed for the septic tank. Director Keating noted that the new subdivisions are doing their entire cut and fill balance at the time the subdivision comes in so the individual lots don't have to consider this. it was further noted that a lot of the older subdivisions with smaller lots are not in the flood zone. Commissioner Bird still felt we should have some grand- fathering provision, and Mr. Cain believed we could work out some exceptions for some of the smaller lots. Mr. Cain addressed the last controversial issue which is requiring wet detention pond's to use their water for irrigation. Apparently there is a conflict in the Water Management District permit policy in allowing consumptive uses and also a practical limit on the amount of water that can be used in a pond that is AUG 0 9 199033 Boor F���l��t I A11 G- Q.9 199G' POUK A �.��' used for stormwater management and would be used concurrently for irrigation. In the wet detention you can draw the water only between certain elevations. Mr. Cain felt that we need to go back and look at the Comp Plan policy to see if it has perhaps gone a little too far, and perhaps a solution may be that we could make the LDR permissive rather than mandatory. Commissioner Bird brought up the possibility of challenging the Flood Zone Maps, but it was noted that ultimately it has to be the federal government that makes any change in these and it would be an involved procedure. Todd Smith, Engineer with Peterson & Votapka, felt there were a couple of issues brought up at workshops that still need to be answered. He first referred to 930.5(1) (e) which exempts the County from their own ordinance and did not see why that is in there. Secondly, in regard to adopting the lower discharge rate, Mr. Smith felt that the Indian River Farms study will have a very significant effect upon development in this county because the restriction of 2" runoff in most instances will require a developer to lose 25/300 of his property to put in the area needed to store the difference, especially when you add this to the County stormwater requirements. Mr. Smith next referred to the requirement on Page 5 that "Post development runoff shall not exceed pre -development runoff unless a maximum discharge rate has been adopted for the applicable drainage basin and the discharge does not exceed that rate." He wished to know who it has to be adopted by and does it have to go before a public hearing or is it being adopted at the staff level. He also asked if independ- ent studies, such as the Indian River Farms study, have to be checked to be sure they are concurrent with the technical data being required by this County's ordinance. . Director Keating believed what we are dealing with here are different basins. Some of the basins are entirely water control districts, and when one is out -falling into a drainage district canal, one is using someone else's facilities; so, in that case, 34 the entity with the drainage jurisdiction will adopt the discharge rate. In basins that are not within a water control district, Public Works being the County's representative, would have the ability to set the discharge rate. Mr. Cain believed the question Mr. Smith raised of who has the authority to adopt the discharge standard, and can the Indian River Farms Drainage District do this without the approval of the County and have the County enforce it, is something that does need an answer. Mr. Smith felt if there is an independent agency doing this which has their own funds, possibly they should enforce this themselves rather than dumping it off on the county. County Attorney Vitunac commented that if our standards and their's are inconsistent, this should be looked into, and his office can look into this if Planning feels there is an incon- sistency. Mr. Cain believed the Comp Plan said we would adopt the standards set by the Drainage District. Because of concurrency, we have to make sure our drainage system is not over capacity; so, we do have a responsibility, and he sees the question relating to whether or not the County has to approve the standards set by the Drainage District. Asst. County Attorney Collins believed the County has the authority to regulate the drainage, and as to whether we should enforce district standards, he felt we have to because there is no other development agency around and we are the only one who can enforce these standards. He agreed that the Comp Plan has adopted the District standards, but pointed out that the standard that adopted did not happen until after, the Comp Plan; so, there could be a question as to should we ratify that standard or just accept the fact that they halve more expertise in establishing their discharge figures. Mr. Smith commented that he just raised those questions because there is a lot of confusion about this -and how it will be AUG 0 9 1990 35SO uIAIO AUG 0 9 1990 �ooK 6 89FJ enforced. He next wished to know if there is a legal reason for exempting counties, districts, etc., from their own ordinances. Attorney Collins di -d not see if the work is -being done in our own easements and R/W who we would..get a permit from, and noted that any time we do development, we have to meet the standards. Mr. Smith felt that technically according to this, the County doesn't have to, and while he doesn't think the County would sidestep their own rules, it just doesn't look good. Chairman Eggert asked that this be looked into. Mr. Smith next referred to Page 15, lines 16 through 27, which language he felt was completely contradictory to the requirements of the Type B stormwater permit, which flatly requires a Cut and Fill Balance for fill below that flood plain elevation. This appears to allow you to increase that flood up to a 1' distance. Mr. Cain advised Mr. Smith that in the next draft that language will be removed. Mr. Smith then referred to Page 29, about required informa- tion for permit application. He realized that this get into the question of what profession can practice what, but noted that they speak about drainage being permitted by a registered architect for one acre or less. He did not believe that St. John's, the DOT, or any Drainage District, will accept any drainage work from a registered architect, and he would suggest that the people with background in hydrology and geotechnology should be doing this work. Warren Dill noted that he is not an engineer, and his comments are just based upon the workshop they had on this section. He referred to Page 12, Line 8 which states that detention ponds with any area having more than 2" of water at design storm or permanent pool shall be fenced and noted they had a lot of discussion on this at the workshop because this would require you to fence water areas on golf courses, in public 36 parks, on private lots, etc., and he did not believe that is what was intended by staff. He had thought this was to be changed. County Engineer Cain confirmed that he has this down to be changed, but they simply have not had the time to make the change. Director Keating agreed the workload has been the problem, but believed we can have revised drafts out by next week. Commissioner Bird noted this had included the phrase "in high traffic areas" before, and he thought that probably should be left in. Mr. Dill next referred to Page 25 where it says that resi- dential buildings must have the lowest floor elevated to the Flood Protection Elevation for that site and if fill is used, you have to compensate for that fill. Mr. Dill stressed that you have a lot of small single family lots where you don't have room to dig a hole. It was noted that this was discussed earlier, and Mr. Dill agreed that it was, but he did not know what is going to happen on that. Mr. Dill also thought that on Page 28, Line 11/12, "flood will not be increased" should read "floodway will not be increased." Director Keating advised that we only have one regulatory floodway in the County along the St. Sebastian River and this should read "flood." Attorney Collins agreed. Commissioner Bird referred back to the discussion on the fact that the cut and fill balance requirements won't work in the old small lot subdivisions, and felt we are just going to have to forget about it there and apply it on the new subdivisions. Engineer Todd Smith suggested a possible solution to the problem with these smaller lots might be going back to the exemp- tions where it speaks of less than 5,000 sq. ft. or 1006 of the site and raising that percentage a bit - for example, on a 70 x 100 foot lot if that percentage was lifted up to 15%, that would allow a home owner to put in a 1,000 sq. ft. home and be exempt. AUG 0 9 1990 3 7 BOOK � r BIW - J AUG 0 9 1990 Roos:4,; County Engineer Cain agreed that working with the exemption might be the answer. Warren Dill commented that he believed what is proposed is more restrictive than FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) requires, and Commissioner Bird stressed that we can't make these small lots unbuildable. The only chance people in this county have to go in and build a small, affordable starter home is on these older grandfathered lots. Attorney Collins stated that if this requirement is more restrictive than FEMA, that is not what was intended. William Koolage, interested citizen, expressed concern with the runoff that will be created with the new building elevation, and wished to know if the runoff increases, who takes care of the canal where this runs to. Director Keating noted that those canals, ditches, etc., have a limited capacity, and that gets back to the 2" discharge rate. Considerable discussion ensued regarding discharge from single family lots, and Commissioner Bird believed the Indian River Farms drainage system was designed for agricultural runoff some years ago. He felt strongly that we have some old sub- divisions where we are going to have to work out some grand- fathering provisions and then do the best we can with the new subdivisions. Public Works Director Davis talked about the concept of a mitigation bank where you can contribute money to purchase lands somewhere else in the 100 year flood plain. He pointed out that this is a dilemma we have had since adopting the original ordinance in 1982, but you can't ignore filling in the 100 year flood plan because you will just force the water into other subdivisions. It was determined that no one else wished to speak regarding Chapter 930. 38 1 Roland DeBlois, Chief of Environmental Planning, came before the Board to review Chapter 904 - Nonconformities, the highlights of which are as follows: CHAPTER 904 - NONCONFORMITIES * FORMAT REVISIONS TO EXISTING REGULATIONS * WORDING CLARIFICATIONS * MORE THAN 50% RECONSTRUCTION WARRANTS TERMINATION OF NONCONFORMITY * MOBILE HOME PARR NONCONFORMITIES Chief Planner DeBlois felt any changes made are pretty straightforward, and no one from the public had any comments. Chief Planner DeBlois next reviewed Chapter 925 - Open Burning/Air. Curtain Incinerator Regulations, the highlights of which are as follows: CHAPTER 925 - OPEN BURNING/AIR CURTAIN INCINERATOR REGULATION * NEW ORDINANCE, BASED ON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES * REQUIRED USE OF AIR CURTAIN INCINERATOR FOR DEBRIS ASSOCIATED W/URBAN DEVELOPMENT 100.0' SETBACK FROM OCCUPIED BLD. - OPERATION.WEEKDAYS ONLY * AGRICULTURE EXEMPTION * IMPLEMENTED BY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND DIVISION OF FORESTRY Planner DeBlois advised that this chapter is completely new and has come about because of concern expressed by community members. It was developed in coordination with the Division of Forestry along with comments" received from Emergency Management, and the Solid Waste Disposal District has some concerns we are still looking at. 39 - uw= r� 6501K i. r AUG 0 9 1990 - Commissioner Bird A nquired if under this we are saying there is no provision to pile and burn in AG areas, and Planner DeBlois explained that the definition of land clearing as applies to this chapter would not include the small single family home owner and there is an exemption for AG operations. This is aimed more at urban areas. Commissioner Bird asked if you can lease an air curtain incinerator and take it to your site, and it was confirmed that there are portable ones. Director Keating believed an important point that he should have made the Commission aware of much earlier is that you won't find any definitions in any section - they are all included in one chapter. There was no public comment on Chapter 925. Planner DeBlois next reviewed Chapter 926 - Landscaping, the highlights of which are as follows: CHAPTER 926 - LANDSCAPING * REVISION TO EXISTING ORDINANCE * REVISIONS TIED TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS * HIGHLIGHTS OF PROPOSED CHANGES: 50% OR MORE DROUGHT TOLERANT SPECIES -_INCENTIVE FOR LARGE TREE PLANTING AND PRESERVATION — LANDSCAPE POINT SYSTEM INNOVATIVE BUFFERS STANDARDS IRRIGATION REQUIREMENTS/ EFFLUENT REUSE Planner DeBlois commented that something new that staff felt was a good concept was more of a performance criteria landscape buffer where a person has an option based on the width of the buffer as to how dense it has to be planted. 40 77 I Commissioner Bird talked about the possibility of giving a bonus of some kind for having more landscaping along the front street in commercial areas to screen parking from the road. Staff discussed perimeter requirements, and Director Keating noted that there is a parking space reduction incentive for having bigger trees. Planner DeBlois advised that we are increasing the amount of landscaped area within the parking areas from 5% to 100, and a fairly big change is the addition of irrigation requirements, which he felt is not an unreasonable requirement. He also brought up the question of whether a landscape architect should be required to sign off on any size project. Chairman Eggert believed the P&Z was against that. She questioned if anyone has yet found a moisture sensing device that works, and Planner DeBlois noted that is not a requirement, but just an option to get points. Commissioner Bowman inquired about "trickle" irrigation, and Planner DeBlois explained that is what we referred to as "low volume" irrigation. Commissioner Bird continued to stress the importance of "front yard" landscaping to make our commercial corridors more attractive and felt incentives should be offered. Attorney Collins noted there were comments at the workshops about the timing when a landscape plane or an irrigation plan is required. He believed the consensus was that the landscape plan should be submitted at the time the site plan was submitted and the irrigation plan submitted prior to site plan release. He next referred to Page 4, Paragraph 3 (a) where it refers to trees having to have a height of 15' and noted that he did not understand why (when grown in Indian River County) is included there parenthetically. ` Planner DeBlois explained that he just meant something that will grow at the same rate in this county as it does in the more northern counties. He felt that could be deleted. 41 SObF 6' U rF%Ili, l AUO 0 9 1990 AUG d 9 199Gp Discussion followed as to the workshop suggestion regarding changing the requirement for shrubs and hedges to be a minimum of 18" in height when measured immediately after planting to 24." Chairman Eggert believed that 24"•.unplanted gives you about 18" above the ground, and if you want 24" above the ground, it requires a bigger plant and greater cost. She believed the wording as we have it is fine if we only want the plantings 18" above the ground. William Koolage voiced support for Commissioner Bird in regard to doing away with visual pollution in the county, especially along access corridors. He cited the attractiveness of Boca Raton which has an architectural and landscape review. Director Keating noted that we have a 75' buffer on SR 60 and he believed we also are going to address landscaping in front of walls. Juan Posada, interested citizen, totally agreed with the need for such landscaping. He personally would like to develop some properties on Old Dixie and make it look nice, but did not see any work on the County's part to help develop Old Dixie in a nice manner. He wondered what plans there are for doing something about Old Dixie. He is all for putting in extra trees and making it look nice, but asked that the County work with the developers and see if they can generate some excitement in regard to doing something there. Warren Dill referred to Page 17 (c) which says that new and existing landscape irrigation systems shall be required to con- nect to wastewater effluent lines when determined to be available. He wondered if there is any decision on whether there would be a project threshhold for that and also wished to know what is the definition of "when determined to be available." Planner DeBlois agreed that we need to look into that further and coordinate with Utilities. Mr. Dill believed that you will run into resistance from "existing" developments, and Commissioner Bird suggested that 42 perhaps instead of saying "shall be required," we should say "shall be encouraged." Commissioner Bowman did not see why we should let them off the hook, and Attorney Collins pointed out that effluent will be a limited resource and probably there will be less than is demanded because it is a cheap way to irrigate. Since it is a limited resource, possibly we should just apply this requirement to the new systems. Attorney Vitunac agreed the supply is going to be limited, but pointed out that when Utilities goes down a certain street, it is necessary to make everyone on that street hook up to make the project financially feasible. There was no further public comment on Chapter 926. Planner DeBlois reviewed Chapter 927 - Tree Protection, the highlights of which are as follows: CHAPTER 927 - TREE PROTECTION * REVISIONS TO EXISTING ORDINANCE * REVISIONS BASED ON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION * HIGHLIGHTS OF PROPOSED CHANGES: LOWER PROTECTED TREE dbh FROM 8" TO 4" DUNE VEGETATION MAINTENANCE PERMIT - MANGROVE ALT. PERMIT CONSISTENCY W/ FDER; REMOVAL OF DEAD WOOD SPECIMEN TREE PROTECTION Planner DeBlois advi-:sed that Chapter 901, which contains all definitions, references trees and tells us what is not protected, and everything not listed would be protected. He noted that one of the main changes is to lower the protected tree dbh (diameter at breast height) from 8" to 411. 43 NO 00, rn'r-Ki+ AUG 09 1990 AUG 0 y q,1a 8- ?S - Commissioner Bowman expressed concern about protecting the small oaks that seldom get to 4" DBH even at maturity. Planner DeBlois agreed that is a good point but felt that some of that will be covered under Upland Habitat Protection and the conserva- tion setasides. Director Keating noted that the more complex you make the definition and criteria, the more difficult you make the enforcement. Planner DeBlois advised that they are trying to tie the issuance of a land clearing permit more into the issuance of site plan approval, but we still would allow clearing before site plan approval for general maintenance. Commissioner Bird referred to Page 2, Paragraph (2) in regard to it being unlawful to perform any land -clearing or grubbing unless a land -clearing permit has been issued and is posted on-site and asked that the words "if required" be added. Planner DeBlois confirmed that would be added. Commissioner Bird asked when we get into whether a cabbage palm is a protected species, and he was informed that right now it is referenced as a landscape credit tree, but it is not listed as a protected tree. In discussion it was noted that the cabbage palm is the State tree, but it was generally agreed to leave it off the list. There was no public comment. Planner DeBlois reviewed Chapter 928 - Wetlands and Deep- water Habitat Protection, the highlights of which are as follows: 44 M M CHAPTER 928 - WETLANDS & DEEPWATER HABITAT PROTECTION * NEW ORDINANCE BASED ON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES * HIGHLIGHTS: MITIGATION ALLOWANCES AND REQUIREMENTS MITIGATION BANK PROGRAM NATIVE UPLAND EDGE VEGETATION BUFFER ZONE ASSESSMENT RELIEF Planner DeBlois advised that there is some incentive for restoration of wetlands, and the mitigation bank program is new. Another change based on the Comp Plan is the Native Upland Edge Vegetation Buffer Zone, which calls for a minimum of ten square feet of such buffer for each linear foot of wetland or deepwater habitat perimeter that lies adjacent to uplands - this upland edge buffer to be located so that no less than 50% of the total shoreline is buffered by a minimum width of 10" of upland habitat. Commissioner Bowman pointed out that 2 (a) on Page 2 refers to raising flood heights, and she felt it should also say "or lowering flood heights" because lowering is just as damaging. Warren Dill questioned the provision on Page 4 that "No activity shall be allowed that results in the alteration, degradation, or destruction of wetlands..." and wanted to know what happens if your property happened to be all wetlands. Planner DeBlois advised that as it is written, the property would have to meet one of the 3 criteria listed. Commissioner Bird believed there is an ability to transfer density off site, and Planner DeBlois confirmed that you can transfer density to non-contiguous property. Engineer Monte Falls believed at the workshops removal of undesirable plants intermingled with mangroves was discussed and he does not see it included here. L_ AUG 0 9 1990 45 A U G 4 9 19 W BOCJK Planner DeBlois explained that removal of nuisance vegetation has been included in the Chapter on Upland Habitat Protection. He agreed that we need,,to make it clear this would carry over to the wetlands. There was no further public comment on Chapter 928. Planner DeBlois next addressed Chapter 929 - Upland Habitat Protection, the highlights of which are as follows: CHAPTER 929 - UPLAND HABITAT PROTECTION * NEW ORDINANCE BASED ON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES * HIGHLIGHTS: UPLAND NATIVE PLANT COMMUNITY CONSERVATION AREAS ST. SEBASTIAN RIVER/INDIAN RIVER LAGOON BUFFER ZONE REQUIRED REMOVAL OF EXOTIC NUISANCE VEGETATION ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEY FOR RARE AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ASSESSMENT RELIEF Planner DeBlois commented that the main part of this is the percent set-aside the County adopted but which is still being disputed. This chapter also calls for a 50' shoreline protection buffer for unplatted parcels and a 25' buffer for existing platted lots on parcels bordering the St. Sebastian River of the Indian River Lagoon Aquatic Preserve, and we are proposing a qualifier that in no case shall this buffer exceed 200 of the lot depth. County Attorney Vitunac referred to the last paragraph on Page 10, which is as follows: Sec. 929.14 Assessment Relief. Any owner of ah undeveloped upland native plant community area who has dedicated an easement or entered into a perpetual conservation restriction with the Indian River County or a nonprofit organization to permanently control some or all regulated activities in the upland shall be exempted from special assessment on the controlled upland to defray the cost of municipal improvement such as sanitary sewers, storm sewers, and water mains. 46 Attorney Vitunac expressed concern that somebody has to pay for this, and is there a fund to pay that, possibly to the Utilities Department. Attorney Collins believed the intent is to attempt a trade-off, and Chairman Eggert felt that paragraph could be made a lot clearer. Planner DeBlois agreed that staff will look at it, and Director Keating suggested possibly limiting this to an entire lot or parcel might help. Attorney Vitunac pointed out that the same paragraph is at the end of Chapter 928 re wetland habitat protection. Commissioner Bird brought up the need for an environmental survey before a land clearing permit is issued and asked if we want any threshhold about the size of property to be cleared. Planner DeBlois advised this is tied into the threshholds of the land clearing permit, and Director Keating noted that they will have a test of this with an item that is coming up at the P&Z meeting tonight, which would also involve the possible need for an archaeological survey. There were no comments from the public on Chapter 929. Planner DeBlois reviewed Chapter 931 - Wellfield Protection, the highlights of which are as follows: CHAPTER.931 - WELLFIELD PROTECTION * NEW ORDINANCE BASED ON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES * HIGHLIGHTS: PUBLIC WELLFIELDS, REGULATED AREA MAPS PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES WITHIN REGULATED AREAS EXEMPTIONS SPECIAL EXEMPTION WITH COUNTY APPROVAL There were no comments on Chapter 931. 47 PQOK: 0 �'9GF �� AUG 0 9 1990 AUG 09 1990 80 Planner DeBlois reviewed Chapter 932 - Coastal Management, the highlights of which are as follows: CHAPTER 932 - COASTAL MANAGEMENT * CONSOLIDATION/REFORMAT OF EXISTING REGULATION * REGULATIONS FOR DUNE WALKOVER STRUCTURES AND DUNE VEGETATION TRIMMING * PERMIT REQUIRED FOR DUNE VEGETATION . TRIMMING * NEW TIME FRAME FOR SEA TURTLE PROTECTION 9 P.M. * NEW SECTION AQUACULTURE/WATER RELATED — WATER DEPENDENT USES Planner DeBlois advised that Planner Mark Crosley drafted this chapter, and among other things, it calls for a permit to do dune maintenance trimming. Commissioner Bird referred to Page 7, Paragraph (d) which mentions a 1125 year or less intensity storm event," and asked if that wording is correct. Planner DeBlois confirmed that it is - it means a more frequent storm which is generally of less intensity. Commissioner Bird wished it confirmed that we are not saying oceanfront property can't put in a bulkhead as a final protection, and Planner Crosley confirmed that we are not, but noted that DNR criteria is more restrictive than ours. Director Keating pointed out that the "Catch 22" we are in is that we are still under the Hutchinson Island Management Plan and need to be consistent with their restrictions about coastal armoring. He further noted that the DNR will not even consider a permit until we issue a letter saying it will not contravene local requirements. There were no comments from the public on Chapter 932. 48 M, Planner DeBlois next reviewed Chapter 933 - Historic and Archaeological Resource Protection, the highlights of which are as follows: CHAPTER 933 - HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE PROTECTION * ORDINANCE BASED ON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES * HISTORIC RESOURCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE (REFER TO ADMINISTRATIVE MECHANISM CHAPTER) * ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIREMENT * MINIMUM CRITERIA AND INCENTIVES FOR DESIGNATION Planner DeBlois informed the Board that this chapter, which is a new one, was drafted by Planner Crosley in coordination with Attorney Collins and the Historical Society. In this chapter, we now have the issue of an archaeological survey requirement whereby a developer who may come across a suspected archaeological site, artifact, etc., is required to cease his operation until he can assess the significance of his find. There were no comments from the public on Chapter 933. Planner DeBlois reviewed Chapter 934 - Excavation and Mining, the highlights of which are as follows: CHAPTER 934 - EXCAVATION AND MINING * REVISIONS TO EXISTING ORDINANCE * REVISIONS BASED ON STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS * HIGHLIGHTS: COMMERCIAL MINING OPERATION ALLOWED ONLY IN A-1, ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT CONDITIONAL EXEMPTION ALLOWANCE FOR EXCAVATION INCIDENTAL TO A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, IN EXCESS OF 5,000 CUBIC YARD FILL REMOVAL OFF-SITE MINOR REVISION BASED ON STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS/CLARIFICAT.ION 49 AUG 0 9 1990 BOOK AUG 0 9 19M Planner DeBlois advised that the major revision, which is not reflected directly in this chapter, has to do with what districts mining is to be allowed in,, and we are now proposing in the Zoning that requiring a mining permit would be Limited to A-1 districts. The second revision would now allow the removal of more than 5,000 cubic yards off site for excavation incidental to authorized site plans with specific conditions attached. That review would be done concurrent with subdivision approval, and one of the main factors is limiting the time period allowed for that removal. Commissioner Bowman asked about the pot holes people are digging in their yards and then hauling off the fill and selling it, and Planner DeBlois noted that we have had some enforcement problems and we do need more control to cut down on violations. Planner DeBlois continued that shoreline plantings are required for all water bodies created regardless of size, but it has been found that this may not be appropriate for very small water bodies; so, we are creating an 1/4 acre threshhold. Attorney Collins had a question relating to the security required for hauling over unpaved roads. He felt that should be pinned down as to amount, etc. Commissioner Bowman felt this could be based on the cubic yards they haul. Monte Falls, Engineer, objected to the requirement on Page 3, (b) 2 that water depth within a created waterbody shall not exceed 12 feet, which he felt is a little harsh. He noted that if this relates to water quality, they can demonstrate quality to 20/301, and he felt that wording should read as long as you can maintain water quality standards. Attorney Collins commented that he has seen this same figure used in Palm Beach County, and it related to the depth to which light can penetrate. Director Keating advised that we have looked long and hard at a depth. We don't have a depth requirement for mining 50 activity, and this is for a subdivision lake that they say is needed for stormwater purposes. This wasn't meant to allow mining activity. There was no additional public comment on Chapter 934. Planner DeBlois next addressed Chapter 951 - Road Addressing System. He explained that this is an existing ordinance, and the only real change is regarding the word "boulevard," which has become a popular designation for entrance roads into new devel- opments and they now agree that "boulevard" may be used for roads with landscaped medians instead of just for a major 4 lane or larger road. There was no public comment on Chapter 951. Planner DeBlois reviewed Chapter 956 - Sign Regulations, the highlights of which are as follows: •CHAPTER 956 - SIGN REGULATIONS * REFORMAT AND MINOR CHANGES TO EXISTING ORDINANCE * RECAP OF MAJOR SECTIONS: PROHIBITED SIGNS EXEMPTIONS TEMPORARY SIGNS PERMANENT FREE STANDING SIGNS OFF — PREMISE SIGNS FACADE SIGNS "MODIFICATION TO THE SCHEDULE" OPPORTUNITIES PHASING OUR OF NONCONFORMING •SIGNS 51 AUG 0 9 1990 MR 0" 1.,�GE 8 ,,�J AUG 0, 9 199, tzoow �' � PAGF, Planner DeBlois commented that the only real change is that we are looking closely at definitions to tighten them up, and we are proposing to eliminate the requirement of an adhesive label for new sign permits as it is felt we really don't need them. Commissioner Bird believed the general public will never criticize you for reducing the size of signs - the smaller we can make them, the better. Commissioner Bowman did not see any regulation as to how long before an election political signs may be erected. She was advised that Sec. 956.15 (1) (a), limits the erection of political signs to no more than 60 days prior to the election date. Commissioner Bird expressed his feeling that this time limit could be cut back to 30 days. There was no public comment on Chapter 956. Planner DeBlois addressed Chapter 973 - Public Nuisance, the highlights of which are as follows: CHAPTER 973 - PUBLIC NUISANCE * REFORMAT OF EXISTING ORDINANCE * NO PROPOSED CHANGES, EXCEPT REVISIT "WEED" DEFINITION * RECAP OF MAJOR SECTIONS: OVERGROWN WEED CONTROL JUNK, TRASH, & DEBRIS COUNTY ABATEMENT' NOTICE PROCEDURES Planner DeBlois noted that we just need to revisit the definition of weeds as suggested at workshop, and that will be reflected in the Definitions Chapter. Other than that, this chapter is existing and just reformatted. 52 Monte Falls commented that there was some discussion about the fact that lawns that are not maintained can grow as high as 18" before the Code Enforcement Board can step in, and he felt that is high. He further noted that under Penalties, it cites a fine not to exceed $500, and he wished to know if that is total or per day. Planner DeBlois advised that is per violation, and felt we should look at taking that paragraph out because it is covered under other sections of the Code. . Mr. Falls hoped another look would be taken at the lawn maintenance requirement. There was no other public comment on Chapter 973. Planner DeBlois reviewed Chapter 974 - Noise and Vibration Control, the highlights of which are as follows: CHAPTER 974 - NOISE AND VIBRATION CONTROL * NEW ORDINANCE BASED ON COMMUNITY INPUT- HIGHLIGHTS: NPUT- HIGHLIGHTS: SPECIFIC NOISE AND VIBRATION PROHIBITION - GEARED TOWARDS NIGHT TIME RESTRICTIONS OF DISTURBANCES - DECIBEL LEVEL STANDARDS PER ZONING DISTRICT - EXEMPTIONS - OPPORTUNITY FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL Planner DeBlois informed the Board that this is a new chapter, mostly based on:community input. Staff looked at quite a few model ordinances, and Ethis is fairly consistent with the City of Vero Beach ordinance, but we have added something relating to decibels that they don't have. BOOK 53 L- AUG 0 9 199 J AUG 0 9 199& E!OGK 'i h OF Commissioner Bird noted that on Page 4, paragraph (15), the word "untake" should be "undertake." Chairman Eggert inquired ,aboutIregulating the noise made by motorcycles, and Planner DeBlois explained that this would be dealt with under Paragraph (3) on Page 2 entitled Engine Mufflers, and then you would look at the decibel level thresh - holds. Question arose about pinning down the definition of residential development, and it was agreed we need to look at that further. Commissioner Bowman noted that she did not see anything included about jet skis. She personally felt they should all go out in the ocean and not be allowed in the river. Planner DeBlois confirmed that there is nothing included about jet skis at this time. He believed the muffler require- ment would extend to them also but was not sure that will work. Staff is also looking at trying to incorporate some zoning restriction in regard to the dirt -bike issue. Commissioner Bowman was particularly concerned about jet skiers on the St. Sebastian River. Director Keating felt that when the signage goes up about manatee protection, we then will see some enforcement. Warren Dill expressed his agreement with Commissioner Bowman's concern about jet skiers, especially on the St. Sebastian River. He lives near Dale Wimbrow Park, and the jet skiers circle around in the river and scare the wildlife. He noted that air boats also cause a problem, and he would suggest that the County prohibit the launching of these in the St. Sebastian River. Attorney Vitunac felt we could put that in the police power ordinance under Title 3 later on when that comes up. There was no further public comment on Chapter 974. 54 Planner Sasan Rohani came before the Board to review Chapter 800 - Comprehensive Plan, the highlights of which are as follows: CHAPTER 800 - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN * REFERS TO THE ORDINANCE NO. 90-3 FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN * IDENTIFIES THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN * PROVIDES PROCEDURES FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS Planner Rohani advised that this chapter deals with the routine Comprehensive Plan amendment procedure. There were no comments from the public on Chapter 800. Planner Rohani next reviewed Chapter 900 - Purpose and Intent, as follows: CHAPTER 900 - PURPOSE AND INTENT * PROVIDES FOR THE GENERAL CRITERIA RELATED TO LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS SUCH AS JURISDICTION, EFFECTIVE DATE, RELATIONSHIP TO EXISTING ZONING, RELATIONSHIP TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SEVERABILITY AND OTHERS County Attorney Vitunac noted that there is a typo in Section 900.03 and "comprises" should be "comprised:" Also, Paragraph (1) in Section 900.07 doesn't read right. Attorney Collins believed there is a sentence missing, and it was noted that this paragraph will be redone. Attorney Vitunac further noted that Section 900.09 should read that "It is hereby declared ....... " There were no comments 'from the public on Chapter 900. PAU AUG 09 1990 55 L- I1 AUG 0 9 1990 Planner Rohani addressed Chapter 901 - Definitions, the Highlights of which are as follows: CHAPTER 901 - DEFINITIONS 1 * TERMS TAKEN FROM ALL CHAPTERS., AND INCORPORATED INTO ONE CHAPTER * ELIMINATES DUPLICATION AND MULTIPLE-DEFINITIONED TERMS * ALPHABETICAL ORDER MAKES IT EASIER TO FIND A DEFINITION Planner Rohani stressed that this is a very important chapter, and explained the reason it was decided to put all the definitions in one chapter is that sometimes in different chapters, we had more than one definition with one term, which was confusing. He noted that at this point the Definitions Chapter is in very rough form; staff will continue going over these definitions to clean them up and possibly add more. Attorney Vitunac believed that Chapter 901 needs a Title as well as an introductory sentence. He further noted that on Page 1, Accessory Use, a) should read "Is clearly incidental to one, customarily....." There was no public comment on Chapter 901. Planner Rohani next reviewed Chapter 902 - Administrative Mechanisms, the highlights of which are as follows: CHAPTER 902 - ADMINISTRATIVE MECHANISMS * THE ROLE OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS AS THEY RELATE TO PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT * NEW COMMITTEE - HISTORIC RESOURCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE * HAVE GIVEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION THE REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS (USED TO BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT). Mr. Rohani noted that they decided to incorporate these all in one chapter, and the reason for the review of administrative appeals of the LDR being given to the P&Z Commission is because they are the ones who are the most familiar with the LDR that are 56 M being developed, and they are involved day by day with site plans, etc. Planning Director Boling advised that the Board of Adjust- ments.did not go along with this recommendation. Their point of view was that there should be an independent board for these type decisions. At this point staff would recommend that we continue having the Board of Adjustments look at variances and technical deviations from the strict requirements of the Code, but when it comes to interpretations in applying the LDR, it was felt it would be better for those to go to the PBZ. This is also an approach the State was suggesting the localities go to. It was believed there is a potential for abuse in more or less picking your board. Attorney Vitunac referred to the establishment of the new Historic Resource Advisory Committee, and felt that part should be moved to Title I and that just how it functions should be in this section, the same as with PBZ and the Board of Adjustment. Planner Cheryl Tworek advised that Attorney O'Brien said we should keep it in here because it is just a committee, not an established Board. Chairman Eggert expressed her preference for not having this divided between different chapters, and Attorney Vitunac explained that there will be one chapter with every Board that there is and how they are appointed. How they function will be in the separate chapters. County Attorney Vitunac next referred to the Paragraph (8) on Time Limitations at the top of Page 15. He believed variances are something that run with the land; so, he did not see why you would have a time limit on a variance. Attorney Collins agreed with the County Attorney that there shouldn't be a time limitation. Attorney Vitunac felt we should get rid of Paragraph (8) and also delete Paragraph (9) in regard to judicial relief because you don't want to give someone a right to go to court. 57 ROCU 841 -14 AUG 0 9 199a Attorney Collins felt that this just tells people their avenue of appeal, but Attorney Vitunac contended that it is not in our interests to have this langupge and he will work on it. There was no public comment on Chapter 902. Planner Rohani reviewed Chapter 911 - Zoning, the highlights of which are as follows: CHAPTER 911 - ZONING * REFORMATTED EXISTING ZONING ORDINANCE * USE TABLES FOR: - AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DISTRICTS - SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS - MULTIPLE -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS - COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS - INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS * NEW DISTRICTS CONSERVATION DISTRICTS (CON -1 AND CON -2) AIRFIELD/RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (AIR -1) PLANNED DEVELOPMENT.DISTRICT (PD) * GENERAL PROVISIONS * ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES (REZONINGS) Planner Rohan! hoped the Use Tables will serve to make things clearer and noted that the new Airfield/Residential District (AIR -1) was developed at the instruction of the Board because of the problem we had with Aerodrome Subdivision. The new Planned Development District starts on Page 65. He explained that PD allows a Density Bonus up to 20% for providing affordable housing units or for the transfer of units from offsite C-2 designated land as set out under the Environmental Protection paragraph. Planner Rohani further noted that with the median family income in Indian River County being $29,000 yearly, it is too high to get grants. Chairman Eggert was concerned about not having enough uses allowed in the MED District - no miscellaneous shopping goods, for instance, and Mr. Rohani advised that they will add that. 58 Mr. Rohani then referred to Page 49, for the Conservation District, the table with the size and dimension criteria, and noted for maximum lot coverage we have 10% and minimum open space 800. This is good when you are dealing with a new lot which is 1 unit for 40 acres, but it was brought to his attention that we have some existing small lots where, if the 10% is applied, you cannot build; so, we have to make sure this is taken into consideration. Attorney Collins inquired why Sec. 911.16 - Administrative Procedure on Page 75 can't go into Chapter 902 - Administrative Mechanisms. Mr. Rohani had no problem with that if the Attorney felt it is better. Chairman Eggert asked why not have it in zoning, but Attorney Collins thought that it is easier to have these procedures all in one place. Commissioner Bird suggested that we just reference in this chapter that the administrative procedure is in the other chapter. Attorney Collins noted that the Planned Development District starts on Page 65 and then on the following pages allows for density bonuses for affordable housing and environmental protection. He felt it would be a good idea to allow units to be transferred in from other environmentally sensitive sites, and he was not sure if this provides for that. Planner Rohani agreed we could do that. Attorney Collins was confused by the density bonus. He noted that if you have 100 acres and half of it should be protected, why not shift it all to the upland area, but why get a bonus and increase the si•:ze of your project. Director Keating explai'ned that in the transfer you don't have the same densities and you would not be increasing the size of the project.. 59 moo 8 0 F- "1, 84 , AAJ G 0 9 1990 a a Attorney Collins then asked if you are allowed 20% bonus for affordable housing and 20% for environmental protection, are you are stacking these bonuses so you could end up with 40%. Director Keating agreed that is a•.good point, and that 200 should be a maximum. Chairman Eggert referred to the wording on the bottom of page 8. She felt the width after setback shouldn't be in there, and Mr. Rohani advised they took care of that language. Warren Dill brought up the fact that the Con -2 District on Page 47 includes everything on the east side of the Sebastian River between Roseland Road and the Sebastian River, plus it is on the west side of the river also. There is a relatively short distance on the east side - probably less than 1,0001, but by having 1 unit per 40 acres, every lot is now thrown into a non -conforming status. While he recognizes the need for the protected area, he believed what will happen is that some will annex into the City of Sebastian because they can't meet the setbacks and would have to go in for a variance. Director Keating noted that part of this land is being considered for CARL acquisition, and it is an overall environ- mentally sensitive area. Planner Rohan! felt you could take care of the setback problem by saying the setbacks do not apply to existing lots, and possibly have 2 tiered minimum setbacks, etc., for the existing ones. Mr. Dill emphasized that virtually all these properties are under 40 acres, and he felt something must be done about this so the owners don't have to pay a $500 application fee for a variance. Possibly this could be considered for RS -1. Director Keating felt that we can change the setback requirement; that won't be any problem, and we will probably put in that any non -conforming lots of record existing prior to February 13, 1990, can develop meeting the size and dimension criteria of the RS -1 District. 60 Mr. Rohani stated that on Page 49 we would just have to add that they would have to meet the requirements of RS -1, and Chairman Eggert felt that would be good. Monte Falls referred to Page 8, Item 4, regarding corner lots providing a front yard on each street frontage, but the buildable width not being reduced to less than 30 feet and commented that he felt we probably should state "or the minimum lot width minus two times the sideyard setbacks' so we don't have something that conflicts. He then referred to Page 18, which he believed has added improvements to RS -2 and RS -3 that they didn't have before in regard to bikeways, sidewalks, etc. Mr. Rohani explained that single family and multi family subdivisions have all those requirements, but this is on the frontage, not internal roads. Mr. Falls stressed that he would like to see it clarified that was not required for the interior streets in those districts. He asked if we need to show mining as a special permission use on Page 21, and Director Keating noted that is included under the Mining Ordinance as an exemption. Mr. Falls continued that Page 22 shows a setback in the RM -6 District of 251, and if a single family use occurred in that district, why wouldn't the Single Family setback of 20' apply. Director Keating explained that we are not differentiating regarding setbacks any more between single family and multi family use within the multi family district. Mr. Falls personally felt that would penalize someone bringing in a development with less density. He then referred to Page 28 Commercial Use areas and noted that he did not see language stating no industrial or manufacturing uses shall be allowed in a commercial district unless public sewer is available. ` Director Keating advised that will be in the new draft. Mr. Falls next referred to Page 60 4a. and wished to have a more specific definition of what "properly screened" means. AUG 0 9 61 1990 AUG 0 9 1990 - Director Keating felt that was a good point and advised that we will put in a buffer type requirement. Mr. Falls commented that Sec. 911.16 - Administrative Procedures, talks about notice when rezoning or amending the ordinance and in all the paragraphs, it only talks about rezoning not amending. Attorney Collins advised that if you are amending the ordinance, it applies countywide, and you wouldn't be notified. Mr. Falls referred to Page 21 (6) Required Improvements and noted that in the past if you developed to a density of less than 3 upa, the sidewalks, bike paths, etc., haven't been required. Director Keating advised that is still an exemption in the Subdivision Ordinance. There was no further public comment on Chapter 911. Chapter 953 - Fair Share Roadway Improvements. The highlights of this Chapter are as follows: CHAPTER 953 - FAIR SHARE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS * MINOR CLASSIFICATION CHANGES * FEE SCHEDULE ADDITIONS POSSIBLE (RECREATION USES) Attorney Collins commented that we are currently under threat of lawsuit for our marginal access road requirement Hedin Jiffy Lube has not yet filed suit because they hoped the Traffic Ordinance could be amended to allow for a traffic impact fee credit when someone installed a marginal access road and thereby provided a public benefit. They want at least some percentage credit on the traffic impact fee. Case law in Florida recently said you can only require marginal access roads to be dedicated if it can be said that you have a reasonably immediate need to build one. He believed if we had it in the 5 year capital improvement plan to put in marginal access roads, we 62 could survive that test. If the marginal access road provides some capacity relief to the arterial, why would it not be eligible for some partial impact fee credit. His feeling is that we would have a very difficult time prevailing in court on this, but staff is very insistent on this requirement. Director Keating noted that this is one of the things that the Chamber of Commerce supports, and the DOT identified this as a suggested mechanism to reduce curb cuts. Attorney Collins pointed out that he is not saying this requirement is not a good idea - just that he does not think we can defend it. Public Works Director Davis noted that another alternative is to identify where we want to have these roads and fund them by special assessment. Debate continued, and Attorney Vitunac felt we should just go to court and see if we win or lose. He noted that Attorney Collins just wants you to know his feelings now. Chairman Eggert suggested that since it is now past 5 o'clock, that the Attorneys and staff work this out. Chapter 955 - Moving of Structures. Staff advised that there are no changes from the existing ordinance, only format changes. There were no comments on this chapter. There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the.*Board adjourned at 5:10 o'clock P.M. ATTEST: Clerk 5� wo 'wine �. A V X71 0 9 990 63 Oia9fo� -J