The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About9/11/1990BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGENDA REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 11, 1990 9:00 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 1840 25TH STREET VERO BEACH, FLORIDA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman James E. Chandler, County Administrator Richard N. Bird, Vice Chairman Margaret C. Bowman Charles P. Vitunac, .County Attorney Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Gary C. Wheeler Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board 9: 00 A . M. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. INVOCATION -None 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - James Chandler, County Administrator 4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/ EMERGENCY ITEMS a. Short update on the Comprehensive Plan. 4A. SPECIAL DISTRICTS SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT - EMERGENCY ITEM 1. Approval of Minutes of 8/21/90 Meeting 2. Amendment to District Policies and Procedures Application of Recycling Credit ( memo dated August 31, 1990 ) 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of 8/7/90 6. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Duplicate Tax Sale Certificate No. 007, in the sum of $76.52 for Fred Mensing. B. Received and placed on file in the Office of Clerk to the Board: Fellsmere Water Control District Annual Budget for FY 90/91. C. Release of County Utility Liens ( Memo dated September 5, 1990 ) D. IRC Bid #90-78 -Traffic Counters ( Memo dated June 29, 1990 ) E. Waste Tire Grant Application Authorized Representative Signature ( memo dated August 29, 1990 ) 9 E P 111990 �,��,.� r,.1�_ 0• Fr SEP 1.1 7. 9:05 a. m. 8. 10. CLERK TO THE BOARD None A. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS None B. PUBLIC HEARINGS ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS CONTAINING THE FOLLOWING CHAPTERS; PURPOSE AND INTENT, DEFINITIONS, ADMINISTRATIVE MECHANISMS, NON -CONFORMITIES, CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT, ZONING, SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, SUBDIVISIONS AND PLATS, SITE PLAN, PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS, DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT, ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES, SANITARY SEWER/-" POTABLE WATER, OPEN BURNING/AIR CURTAIN INCINERATOR REGULATIONS, LANDSCAPE AND BUFFER, TREE PROTECTION AND LAND CLEARING, WETLAND AND DEEPWATER HABITAT PROTECTION, UPLAND HABITAT PROTECTION, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND FLOOD PROTECTION, WELLFIELD/AQUIFER PROTECTION, COASTAL MANAGEMENT, HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES PROTECTION, EXCAVATION AND MINING, ROAD ADDRESSING, TRAFFIC, FAIR SHARE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS, PARKING, MOVING STRUCTURE, SIGNS, REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC LAND USE CRITERIA, TEMPORARY USES, PUBLIC NUISANCE, NOISE, PROVIDING REPEAL, PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, AND PROVIDING EFFECTIVE DATE. (Additional ..Information Under Separate Cover) ( Memo dated August 27, 1990 ) COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS None DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT None B. EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT None C. GENERAL SERVICES None D. LEISURE SERVICES None E. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET None F. PERSONNEL None G. PUBLIC WORKS None H. UTILITIES None 11. COUNTY ATTORNEY None 12. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS A. CHAIRMAN CAROLYN K. EGGERT B. VICE CHAIRMAN RICHARD N. BIRD C. COMMISSIONER MARGARET C. BOWMAN D. COMMISSIONER DON C. SCURLOCK, JR. E. COMMISSIONER GARY C. WHEELER 1 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. SEP 111990 �c�c L— I , Tuesday, September 11, 1990 The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, met in Regular Session at the County Commission Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Tuesday, September 11, 1990, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman; Richard N. Bird, Vice Chairman; Margaret C. Bowman; Don C. Scurlock, Jr.; and Gary C. Wheeler. 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 County Administrator James Chandler led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS Chairman Eggert advised that she would like to add under Public Discussion items a very short update on the Comprehensive Plan as we worked it out yesterday. Commissioner Bird wished to add under his items a brief report on Parks & Recreation. (At the end of the meeting, he decided to carry this over to another meeting.) ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the addition of the items described above to today's Agenda. SEP 111990 Bcjo>, 81 PAGE 9,11 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT Chairman Eggert announced that the Board would adjourn temporarily and reconvene acting as the District Board of Commissioners of the Solid Waste Disposal District. Those Minutes are being prepared separately. The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 9:18 o'clock A.M. with all members present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Chairman asked if there were any additions or correc- tions to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of August 21, 1990. There were none. On Motion by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of August 21, 1990, as written. CONSENT AGENDA A. Duplicate Tax Sale Certificate ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved the issuance of Duplicate Tax Sale Certificate No. 007 in the amount of $76.52 for Fred Mensing. B. Reports The following was received and placed on file in the Office of Clerk to the Board: Felismere Water Control District Annual Budget for FY 90/91 C. Release of County Utility Liens The Board reviewed memo from Lea Keller, CLA: TO: The Honorable Board of County Commissioners � R. V4.eA FROM: Lea R. Keller, CLA, County Attorney's Office DATE: -Sept. 5th, 1990 RE: CONSENT AGENDA - BCC MEETING 9/11/90 RELEASE COUNTY UTILITY LIENS . have prepared the following routine lien -related documents and request that the Board authorize the Chairman to execute them: Release of Water Assessment Lien SUMMERPLACE in the name of ALEXANDER DI MILO Release of Sewer Assessment Lien ROCKRIDGE in the names of VEEN and LETHIG Release of Sewer Assessment Lien ROCKRIDGE in the name of BRAITHWAITE Release of Sewer Assessment Lien ROCKRIDGE in the names of KAYE and KANE Satisfaction of Impact Fee Agreement In the name of LENA M. BELL Satisfaction of impact Fee Agreement In the name of RANDY VALENTINO Back-up information for the above documents is on file in the County Attorney's Office. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously authorized the Chairman to execute the lien -related documents listed above. COPIES OF SAID DOCUMENTS ON FILE IN OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD. 5 E P 111990 3 6,00F. F. �E D. Bid #90-78 - Traffic Counters The Board reviewed memo from CPO Manager Mascola: DATE: June 29, 1990 TO: BOARD OF COUN'T'Y THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director Department of General S s FROM: Dominick L. Mascola, CPO Manager Division of Purchasing SUBJ: IEC BID#90-78/7RAFMC BACKGROUND: On request from the Traffic Engineering Department the bid for Traffic Counters was properly advertised and Ten (10) Invitations to bid were sent out. On June 27, 1990 bids were received. • One (1) vendor submitted proposals for the ccamcdity. ANALYSIS: Staff has reviewed the submittal to ascertain adherence to specifications. Control Specialist was the single bidder who met all requirements. FUNDING: Monies for this project will come from Budget Traffic Engineering Funds, other Machine & Equipment which has funds available of $1T, 000.00. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Award of a Fixed Contract for $10,850.00 to the single bidder, Control Specialist for the subject project. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously awarded Bid #90-78 for Traffic Counters to the single bidder, Control Specialist Co., in the amount of $10,850, as recommended by staff and approved a fixed contract with them for same. 4 E. Waste Tire Grant Application The Board reviewed memo from Recycling Coordinator Sam Rohl fing: DATE: AUGUST 29, 1990 TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR THRU: TERRANCE G. PINTO DIRECTOR OF UTILI Y SERVICES FROM: SAM ROHLFING, RECYCLING COORDINATOR SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT SUBJECT: WASTE TIRE GRANT APPLICATION AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNATURE BACKGROUND: As part of the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation third -year Waste Tire Grant application requirement for Indian River County, the application request must be signed off with the signature of the county's Authorized Representative before being sent to the DER. This individual is the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners. The Solid Waste Disposal District has re- ceived the first and second -year Waste Tire grants and wishes to continue the waste tire program with the support of the third -year DER grant. When it has been signed by the Authorized Representative it will be forwarded to the DER. The deadline by which the DER must receive the application is Oct. 1, 1990. RECOMMENDATION: District Staff requests that the Chairman of the Board sign the third -year Waste Tire grant application. Staff respectfully re- quests that this item appear on the agenda for the Sept. 11 County Commission meeting. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously authorized the Chairman to sign the third -year Waste Tire Grant Application. 5 �� SEP 111990 EF �aON'y,!�Ij'•. . ±OEM 9d111 , ll."M0111...... . C,1�trYCot- -��= C1 Florida Department of Environmeyital Regulation ,~slalevv.,1..11.°""App1 """ 1WIn MrAmm Orrice Rldit• • 26M Hlatr Swine Rtrrd • 'thilahze-esm Mrida 425j<)-24'Uu E t1.1e A OEM AVOCA110n NO P.M VE111 114 Solid Waste Tire Grant Application 1. Name of Applicant: Indian River County - 2. Address of Applicant: 1840 25th Street Vero Beach,' F1 32960 3. Federal Employer Identification Number:59-6000674 4. Telephone Number for Applicant: ( 407 ).567-8000 S. List of Counties Included in the Application: Indian River County, Cities of: Vero Beach, Sebastian, Fellsmere, Town of Indian Rivpr Store Town of Orchid 6. Contact Person (person handling program on daily basis): Sam Rohlfing, Recarcling Coordinates 7. Address of Contact Person: County Administration Building 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, F1 _ 32960 8. Telephone Number of Contact Person: ( 407 ) 567-8000 Ext. 39 9. Name and Title of Authorized Representative: Name: Commissioner Carolyn Eggert Title: Chbirman, Board of County Commissioners 10. Purpose for which grant money is requested. (Indicate by checkmarks): Rule 17.716.620 a. Construction of waste tire processing facility1rx-1 I. Contract for removal of waste tires U h Operation of waste tire processing facility ' IK g. Research to facilitate waste fire recycling c. Contract for waste tire facility service © h. Establishing waste tire collection centers El dod. Equipment for waste tire processing facility ® I. Incentives for establishing private waste tire e. Removal of waste tires collection centers 11. This application is due by June 1 of each year. CERTIFY that I am familiar with the information contained in this application, and that to the best of my knowledge and belief such information is true, complete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to apply for this grant on behalf of this county. Si lure of Author) epresentative ewn�.e+1 ameaeme,n 168 Gael—Q-21 Ce". 2.25 9411 Ma P... 22501.3291 Jecasto w.e e•wee 32207 '8/./366300 9G 296'1200 MEM, wlwl��111 ---M Please return form to: Deoartment of Environmental Reoulaiion Bureau of Waste Planning and Regulation Solid Waste Section 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee. Florida 32399.2400 Page 1 d 1 cr tsl0," 3319 Nvyw, 8w0 See 232 this-ae vow -as 32503 P61 305.19/-1553 6 Se,ow—v11 Dm0 4520 0.• 2,. 9Na rM1101 21•-60 116104311 413 $23 Met Indan River Co. Approved Dole Admlm Legal 6udgat Utilitlec s6ait�on.M±flF gr, Sa,11� 11on Moo" •a• as 33901 2196 313 332256* 373 96. 9661 � � r UPDATE ON DISCUSSION W/DCA RE COMP PLAN NON-COMPLIANCE Community Development Director Keating reported that at the meeting with the DCA staff yesterday, most of the time was spent talking about the disagreement we had with the Land Use Map. He referred to the map on display, which is the one staff had brought to Tallahassee and thought we had initial agreement with them,_ noting that it brings in the AG area a little further east - of 1-95. He explained that prior to yesterday's meeting, staff did a lot of number crunching and actually went in and defined our Land Use designated areas a lot tighter. They made sure they had extracted all the commercial and industrial designated areas and all that are institutional uses - every school, every church, all the recreational acreage. Then they convinced the DCA that it is really necessary to take into consideration infrastructure acreage - R/Ws, canal R/Ws, etc., and they consented to allow us a 25% reduction for that. Then staff also convinced them that we should just look at the area inside the urban service area to come up with this magic ratio or factor that they look for. Commissioner Scurlock asked if any thought was given to the fact that with our Land Use regulations it is literally impos- sible to develop at the densities that are stated on the map. Director Keating confirmed it was explained to them that most of the time that was the case. But if someone goes PD, they can get their maximum density, and the problem is that DCA only looks at the maximum, and they were reluctant to work with anything else. They contended that given our residential pattern the amount of land we have designated for the 2010 period would accommodate more than 41 times the number of dwelling units we have projected to need, and the DCA generally does not like a factor that high. Their position has been that to prevent urban sprawl, you only should provide for the building of about 1.25 times the number of dwellings you need over a 20 year period. We did get down to 4.5, and he believed the DCA staff was rela- tively happy and will present it to Secretary Pelham today. SEP 11 X990 L_ r � SEP 111990 8.1 ��,ci ; Director Keating advised that we also worked on the native upland vegetation set aside rule. When we went to Tallahassee we originally proposed acquisition Qf 300 acres of pine flatwoods 9 to accommodate the concern of the TCRPC, and staff again crunched numbers and determined how much native upland land was likely to be impacted through development over the 20 year period; what we would get through our 15% and 10% requirement; and what the difference is given the RPC's 250. We took into consideration that our Plan mandates us to acquire at least 50 acres, and then we indicated we would acquire an additional amount of acreage to come up to the difference between the 25% and the 15/100. Our Plan indicates we are going to acquire various amounts of endangered and threatened land over this period, but we don't have a specific number. This is just going to require us to put a number in there for total native land acquisition. Chairman Eggert informed the Board that -what they also took up to Tallahassee was the possibility of changing the AG west of Blue Cypress to 1 units per 20 acres. Commissioner Scurlock believed one element in the Comprehen- sive Plan is affordable housing, and he asked how you provide for affordable housing when they make the pool of land available for development smaller which drives the cost of the land up. Director Keating noted that two things comes into play. Even with the 4.5 factor, it still indicates we have enough units allocated in the urban service area to accommodate our needs for the next 90 years; so, they believe the market hasn't been tightened enough to drive the price up substantially. He continued that they were reluctant to have us reduce any of the higher densities we have in here now. When we were talking about reducing the 8 upa density along the SR60 corridor or the 10 upa south of the City, they were looking at that as places where affordable housing could be accommodated. Administrator Chandler commented that they came in with a map that is substantially different than we see here, but the 8 M affordable housing was discussed extensively particularly in the central area where they wanted to extend the one unit per 5 acres further eastward that what we reflect. Chairman Eggert believed that the DCA truly does not care about the economic factors. Commissioner Scurlock stated that his real concern is that he personally feels the DCA is doing something dramatically different than the state legislature has on the books. They have gotten into this policy, and he finds it very disturbing to go through all our public hearing process with the community as we did and develop an approach we felt might be acceptable, and then they review it and say No. He was not sure that he likes this whole process, and felt possibly the ultimate -answer is to band together with all the other 67 counties and stand our ground now before people out there in the next 5 years suddenly find out what they have lost. He did realize that we stand the risk of losing a large amount of revenue. Commissioner Bird believed the original intent of the Comprehensive Plan Act was good because it forced all counties to plan for the future and you had to come up with a plan, but it was your plan. Now we have come almost to the point where they are not just telling you to plan, but they are doing the plan for you, and he has a problem with that because he believes the local government has a better knowledge of what is best for our county. Commissioner Scurlock wished to know where we got away from the concept that if you could provide the needed infrastructure, you could go from there. Chairman Eggert believed it is because the DCA sees urban sprawl taking over. She also believed our urban service areas can move out as we get growth and we can do something at the 2 and 5 year point. She felt Iwe must do the best we can with this right now while we have the ability to amend it because while people may complain to you about it, when you ask them to go to the state and make the same complaint, they disappear. SEP 11199 9 F UE: Fr - S E P 111990 Commissioner Bird stressed that he hated to see our utilities service plan restricted to the confines of these lines for the next 20 years, but he wondered just how difficult it wi'II be to amend the Plan and change those lines to provide service to some of these non -service areas. Director Keating felt it will be very difficult because to amend the Plan, you have to justify it even more. He explained to the Board that essentially the plan the DCA staff took to Pelham and that he rejected, is the same plan they essentially agreed to and more enthusiastically yesterday when we provided the different numbers, the one change being the 1/20 in the west county. He further informed the Board that every county, other than Charlotte, has gone the compliance agreement route, and Charlotte lost in the administrative hearing. St. Lucie and Martin Counties are close to getting compliance agreements, and their ratios are much lower than ours. Administrator Chandler believed the frustration the Commissioners have expressed is the same as staff has faced, and it came to the point where staff felt the line has to be drawn somewhere. He confirmed that we presented practically the same map we presented before but we did net out lakes, roads, churches, parks, etc. We also included the Highlands in an attempt to show what is actually there in reality. Commissioner Scurlock asked if anyone raised a question of having any kind of density credits for someone willing to give you effluent disposal above and beyond what is required for his property, and Director Keating advised that was not discussed, but he did not think the DCA would have a problem with that type of initiative. Commissioner Bird stressed that the area giving him the most concern is the area east of 1-95 and the undeveloped property there. A lot of it is in producing citrus groves, but a lot of it isn't, and he is afraid we are really painting those people in a corner. Even though that property may be undeveloped, a lot of 10 it may not be suitable for citrus production, and he did not think it is going to develop at 1 unit to 5 acres. He asked if the map being displayed is what we have sent to Pelham. Staff confirmed this is the map that was sent to Secretary Pelham and no action is needed today. PUBLIC HEARING - ADOPTION OF COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT REGS (LDRS) The hour of 9:00 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: was published in said newspaper in the Wua(s) or �StS�i I Wb ern, qe�. p- 4A Swoon to and subscribed before meth s day o• �Tt�' otl�iw.✓�r��^f�ManaQu (SEAL4 ^�nneucs.rra..a, T- a. e- x M r t• NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida wN** consider a proposal to adopt an ordhxmm to adopt the Indian River County Land DevelopmsrM Regulations. A public hearing on the proposal will be held on Tuesday, September 11, 1990 at 9:00 am, in the County Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida. At this public hearing The Board of County Commissionan; will consider adopting the County's land :. . Devekspmant Regulations. AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER . COUNTY, FLORIDA, �_t... ADOPTING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS CONTAINING THE FOLLOWING CHAPTERS: PURPOSE AND INTENT, DEFINITIONS, ADMINISTRATIVE MECHANISMS, NON. CONFORMITIES, CONCURRENCY. MANAGEMENT; ZONING, ;= SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, SUBDIVISIONS AND PLATS, SITE PLAN, PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS, DUVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT, ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES,... SANITARY SEWER/ POTABLE WATER, OPENING BURNING/ AIR CURTAIN INCINERATOR REGULATIONS, LANDSCAPING "V••• AND BUFFERING, TREES AND VEGETATION PROTECTION, WETLAND AND DEEPWATER HABITAT PROTECTION, UPLAND HABITAT PROTECTION, FLOODPLAIN/ STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, WELLFIELD/AQUIFER PROTECTION, COASTAL MANAGEMENT, HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES PROTECTION, EXCAVATION AND MINING, ROAD ADDRESSING, TRAFFIC, TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES, PARKING, MOVING STRUCTURE, SIGNS, SPECIFIC LAND USE CRITERIA, TEMPORARY USES, PUBLIC NUISANCE, NOISE, CODIFICATION, REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS, SEVERABIITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE. Interested parties may appear and be heard at the public hearing regarding the proposed Land Development Regulations Adoption, The Land Development Regulations may be inspected by t'he public at the Cammuniy Development Department offices located on the second floor of the Count' Administration Building at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, 6atwee n the hours of B:30 a.m, and 5:00 pm, an weekdays. This public hearing will be continued to other days if necessary. 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 proceeding is made which includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal will be based Indian River County Board of County Commissioners By-s•Carolyn Eggert, Chairman d Community Development Director Keating made the following presentation: SEP 1.11990 11 y m _ I dh tar P.O. Box 1268 Vero Batch. Florida 32961 562-2315 lY OF INDIAN RIVER 3Q111711� a~L STATE OF FLORIDA STAT Before the undersigned authority pe�raor'a Manager of the Schumann. Jr. who on oath says that he b Ven Beach Preas•Joutnal, anewspaper pubLLshed at Yen Heath In Indian River County. Florida; that - s n, & jot. a01, s s r • billedt-'�•�I •s� COfs/Iit��Q9l�iss,nntl8 was published in said newspaper in the Wua(s) or �StS�i I Wb ern, qe�. p- 4A Swoon to and subscribed before meth s day o• �Tt�' otl�iw.✓�r��^f�ManaQu (SEAL4 ^�nneucs.rra..a, T- a. e- x M r t• NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida wN** consider a proposal to adopt an ordhxmm to adopt the Indian River County Land DevelopmsrM Regulations. A public hearing on the proposal will be held on Tuesday, September 11, 1990 at 9:00 am, in the County Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida. At this public hearing The Board of County Commissionan; will consider adopting the County's land :. . Devekspmant Regulations. AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER . COUNTY, FLORIDA, �_t... ADOPTING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS CONTAINING THE FOLLOWING CHAPTERS: PURPOSE AND INTENT, DEFINITIONS, ADMINISTRATIVE MECHANISMS, NON. CONFORMITIES, CONCURRENCY. MANAGEMENT; ZONING, ;= SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, SUBDIVISIONS AND PLATS, SITE PLAN, PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS, DUVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT, ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES,... SANITARY SEWER/ POTABLE WATER, OPENING BURNING/ AIR CURTAIN INCINERATOR REGULATIONS, LANDSCAPING "V••• AND BUFFERING, TREES AND VEGETATION PROTECTION, WETLAND AND DEEPWATER HABITAT PROTECTION, UPLAND HABITAT PROTECTION, FLOODPLAIN/ STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, WELLFIELD/AQUIFER PROTECTION, COASTAL MANAGEMENT, HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES PROTECTION, EXCAVATION AND MINING, ROAD ADDRESSING, TRAFFIC, TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES, PARKING, MOVING STRUCTURE, SIGNS, SPECIFIC LAND USE CRITERIA, TEMPORARY USES, PUBLIC NUISANCE, NOISE, CODIFICATION, REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS, SEVERABIITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE. Interested parties may appear and be heard at the public hearing regarding the proposed Land Development Regulations Adoption, The Land Development Regulations may be inspected by t'he public at the Cammuniy Development Department offices located on the second floor of the Count' Administration Building at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, 6atwee n the hours of B:30 a.m, and 5:00 pm, an weekdays. This public hearing will be continued to other days if necessary. 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 proceeding is made which includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal will be based Indian River County Board of County Commissioners By-s•Carolyn Eggert, Chairman d Community Development Director Keating made the following presentation: SEP 1.11990 11 TO: James Chandler County Administrator DIVISION BEAD CONCURRENCE: i Robert Keating AICP Community Developjhent Director FROM: Sasan Rohani .54L. Chief, Long-Range Planning DATE: August 27, 1990 SUBJECT: Adoption of Indian River County, Land Development Regulations It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of September 11, 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 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, 19891 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. 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. Prior to initiating the workshop process, a questionnaire was prepared and mailed to the members of the public whose names were included on the planning division's workshop participation list. Besides notification of those on the workshop list, an article published in the Press Journal explained the workshop process, provided a workshop schedule, and encouraged public participation. As a result of those efforts, various individuals and groups attended the weekly workshop meetings and made comments on draft chapters. In many cases, changes to initial drafts were made based upon those comments. In order to secure the Planning and Zoning Commission's comments and provide an opportunity for the public who could not participate in the daytime meetings, the Community Development Department held several workshop sessions at the regular and special meetings of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Also, the Community Development Department held a workshop meeting before the Board of County Commissioners. 12 M M Attached to this agenda item are drafts of 33 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, interested individuals, and the Planning and Zoning Commission. On August 23, 1990, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 7 to 0 to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the land development regulations be approved. 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 regulations 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 recommends that the Board of.County Commissioners approve these land development regulations. Director Keating noted that staff would like approval to go ahead and clean up any minor non -substantive things, such as typos, etc., and with those corrected, would recommend the LDRs be approved. Commissioner Scurlock brought up the matter of how we should proceed today. He believed the Commissioners have been approached by different individuals, and it seems that since this procedure has been so time consuming and there has been so much effort put -into it with many language changes, it has been suggested that the Commission form an advisory committee to take d, an overlook at the entire thing over a longer time period. Chairman Eggert noted that she had that on the agenda to be addressed after we went through all the chapters, and she SEP11 X990 13 believed that we are going to go through chapter by chapter and not page by page. IM Commissioner Scurlock pointed put that he was saying that if I we are not going to have an advisory committee to review all this, he felt we could be here for 3 days going over all these chapters. Chairman Eggert emphasized that she just wanted to be sure that when we recognize things in there we are having problem with that those aren't sluffed over. Regarding the suggestion of an ad hoc advisory committee as suggested in the following letter from the President of the Chamber of Commerce, she felt if that included perhaps a developer, builder, architect, landscape architect, engineer, etc., it could be an effective group: vero beach -AOL Indian river s 90 county chamber of 004 ;', v o �° _ commerce . �, °N 1216 21ST STREET P.O. BOX 2947 September 10, 1990 Honorable Carolyn Eggert, Chairman Indian River County Commission 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 Dear Commissioner Eggert, Commissioners�'�''" Administrator, Attorney - Personnel= Public WorkS Com iunit UeV. —_ 407-567-4AQllties FAX: 4074gg-31 t Finance Other On behalf of the Board of Directors of the Vero Beach–Indian River County Chamber of Commerce I would like to address the adoption of the County's proposed Land Development Regulations. This has been a monumental undertaking by staff with an ever changing set of chapter language proposals which has had a great deal of input through weekly workshops as well as review and public hearings by your Planning and Zoning Board. We thank you for directing staff to identify changes from present policy by underlining those changes to make your decision making easier on this critical document. It is our recommendation that you adopt these Land Development Regulations, but that you also establish a "Professional Services Advisory Board" to review these and future changes. The bonus to the County will be a diverse professional group whose expertise and practical application information will help prevent many unforseen problems. As always, we thank you for your time and consideration. S cerelrlius, / d-),C�,.�C... om Corn President Board of Directors 14 _ M M M Commissioner Bird expressed his support of the concept of an advisory committee to be made up of those type of professional people. He understood that if they make recommendations after these are adopted, that we can go back and modify them - that it doesn't have to go back to the DCA every time we want to change our LDRs, and he agreed with Commissioner Scurlock that if we don't have such a committee, it will be a 3 day process to go through the LDRs thoroughly. Commissioners Wheeler and Bowman also expressed their support of the committee concept, and Commissioner Wheeler noted that he not only would like to see such a committee formed but would like to have it go on more or less permanently. Chairman Eggert felt perhaps it should be called something like the Ad Hoc Professional Services Committee. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously authorized the Chairman to.come back to the Commission with the recommended composition of the type committee as discussed, such committee to be established on an on-going basis to review the documents that we have and future documents that will be coming before us. Chairman Eggert opened the public hearing and asked staff to begin their review of the LDRs. SEP 11 1990 15 J Chapter 900, Purpose and Intent * New Chapter - Provides overall purpose & intent Chairman Eggert assumed we are putting severability in another chapter, and it was confirmed that is in Title I. Commissioner Scurlock asked why sale of property is included in 900.08, and Director Keating advised that is addressed in Non -Conforming and Subdivision Ordinance. No public comment. Chapter 901, Definitions * Incorporates all definitions in one chapter * Provides new definitions * Eliminates duplicate definitions Chairman Eggert believed that on Page 19 under Conservation Areas we should add "pine flatwoods," and on Page 49 under Massage Parlor, she felt "massage therapist" should be added after "physical therapist." Commissioner Scurlock referred to the definition of Family on Page 31 and questioned how we draw the distinction of 114 individuals not so related living together...." Director Keating advised that there was a lot of discussion regarding this about 4/5 years ago, and that was the number that was decided on at that time. Chairman Eggert believed the definition of Resident on Page 61 needs to be added to because as defined it seems to refer mainly to group home residents. Director Keating felt we should note that definition is specific to the group home section of the code. Commissioner Bowman referred back to the definition of Conservation Areas on Page 19 and asked why we don't include high and low salt marshes. 16 Planner DeBlois suggested that we just say "including, but not limited to." He explained that the areas mentioned were just meant as examples. Discussion follows as to whether we really want to add pine flatwoods in that definition. Planner DeBlois explained that this was meant to apply to areas set up as conservation areas rather than conservation easements, and it is not necessarily limited to endangered lands. He explained that conservation area only applies to the areas set aside with a conservation easement. It would not apply to an area developed as a subdivision. Also the definition of'a conservation easement is further implemented in the chapter as allowing passive recreation uses, etc. Discussion continued in regard to buying property with pine flatwoods on it and whether or not you could put a subdivision on it. It was noted that you would have to take out the 150 or 10% set aside, and Planner DeBlois suggested we make more specific reference to percent set asides in those specific situations. Chairman Eggert next referred to the definition of Tree on Page 80 which includes a trunk diameter of 2 inches and felt that should be distinguished from a protected tree where we have a dbh of 4". Planner DeBlois agreed there needs to be a cross reference to Protected Tree which is set out on Page 59, and Chairman Eggert suggested that we put "Tree, Protected" back here on Page 80 by the generic definition of Tree. Chairman Eggert asked about "Vegetation Survey" as opposed to "Tree Survey," and further noted that recreational tract is not defined. Director Keating fel--t that we can add Silviculture, Recrea- tional Tracts, and Vegetation Survey, to the definitions. The Chairman asked if anyone wished to be heard. Jim Young of Kimley-Horn came before the Board and advised that he has several 'pages of comments which cover several S E P, 111990 17 E 1 sections of the LDRs, and he would like to get these in the record. He asked if he should do it all at once. Chairman Eggert stated that shg would prefer that Mr. Young make these comments chapter by chapter:. Commissioner Scurlock suggested that possibly these things could be handled by the advisory committee after it is established. Mr. Young stressed that he wants to enter this on the record today, and as regards the proposed advisory committee, he suggested that the Board consider including an environmental specialist. Mr. Young informed the Board that he is representing Mr. Edmund Lappeman who owns 15.1 acres of land located south of Grand Harbor adjacent to the Indian River Lagoon. When he purchased it, it was zoned RM -6. By the new C-2 designation that property now goes to 1 unit per 40 acres. Mr. Lappeman is faced with a situation where he can comfortably put90 units on that property and meet the zoning, but according to the new designa- tion, he can get only 3 units. He accordingly feels his rights have been somewhat restricted, and, on his behalf, Kimley-Horn has issued a petition to intervene in the administrative hearing between the County and the DCA. Mr. Young continued that they have now reviewed the LDRs and have come up with several comments which they would like to enter into the record. He thereupon read aloud exerpts from the following letter and submitted a booklet containing the same letter plus exhibits for the record: 18 � v � Kimley-l>forn Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. ENGINEERS • PLANNERS • SURVEYORS 3885 20th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 407562-7981 Facsimile 407 575-0344 September 11, 1990 8960.01 Indian River County Board of County Commissioners 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 RE: Objections to Indian River County's Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations Proposed for Adoption on September 11, 1990 Dear Chairman: On behalf of our Client, Mr. Edmund H. Lappeman, the following objections and comments are submitted for consideration and action. Mr. Lappeman owns approximately 15.17 acres here in Indian River County, approximately located east of Gifford Dock Road, South of Grand Harbor and adjacent to 'the Indian River Lagoon as shown on Exhibit A. As you are aware, guy Client has entered a petition to intervene and participate in the administrative hearing between Indian River County and the Florida Department of Community Affairs. As you are aware, our Client's petition has been accepted by the hearing officer and you have received correspondence to that effect. The Comprehensive Plan, as adopted, and the proposed Land Development Regulations severely restrict our Client's property rights and is arbitrary and capricious in that his property has been designated Conservation -2, and labeled "environmentally sensitive estuarine wetlands" in that no determination or review of our clients land was made to determine if it was, in fact, "environmentally sensitive estuarine wetlands". A copy of our petition has been enclosed as Exhibit B. The Comprehensive Plan and the proposcd Laiad Development Regulations do not specify how "environmentally sensitive estuarine wetlands" are delineated or designated on private property. As such, there is no criteria a property. owner can use to evaluate whether or not a Conservation land use designation or environmentally sensitive label is appropriate. It is Mr. Lappeman's position that his property is not environmentally sensitive and should not be designated Conservation -2. Furthermore, his private property rights should not be limited without due process and justification. Concerning Scction 901 of the proposcd Land Development Regulations, we request than an appropriate definition be given for "Open Spacc" and "Environmentally Sensitive Estuarine Wetlands". We request that the definition for "Water Quality and Adverse Impact" on page 74 be revised to eliminate discussions of secondary and cumulative Impacts. If the County proposes to consider potential secondary and cumulative impacts of activities that may affect water quality, then the County should provide criteria and a basis for evaluating such potential secondary and cumulative Impacts. 19 SEP 1990 4,C SEP 111990 We object to the definition for "Conservation Areas" as described on page 18 of Chapter 901 in that this designation implies that the lands are environmentally sensitive. In our client's case, it severely limits his private property rights and puts undue burden on him. The County has failed to evaluate our Client's property to determine whether or not the land use designation of Conscrvatiori-2 is appropriate relative to the function and rule of viable wetlands. Therefore, our client objects to limitations of his private property rights when this definition is referred or relied upon. Please provide a clarification of the definition, intent, and proposed use of the words "Estuarine Environment", "Conservation Areas", "Wetlands", and "Environmentally Sensitive Estuarine Wetlands". We request a clarification on their relationship to each other and the affects of their use within the Land Development Regulations. Upon receipt of such clarification, we reserve the right to further comment on these terms. Please clarify between the definitions and intent of the terms "Tree" and "Protected Tree". "Protected Tree" implies protection regardless of size and appears inconsistent with the definition of "Tree". We object. to the definition of "Wetland" on page 75 of Chapter 901 for reasons as discussed in our petition, .page 5, item 6a attached as Exhibit B. In Section 911.03, our Client objects to the maximum density proposed for Conservation - 2 land use as it relates to his property. Our Client objects to Section 911.05.(3). As previously discussed, conservation districts have been designated based on environmentally sensitive lands. To our knowledge, a detailed study of the environmentally sensitive lands within the County has not been performed to allow re -designation of such lands, nor has our Client's property been evaluated to deserve such designation. Furthermore, it is our understanding that private property .owners whose land has been re -designated specifically to Conservation - 2 have not been given specific notice of such designation and the restrictions, limitations and impacts of such designation. Our Client objects to Section 911.12 in its entirety in that' it severely restricts the uses of his property. Further, this new designation of our Client's property, has eliminated the multi -family use for which the property was purchased, without proper justification. 1. Our Client objects to Section 915.08(5). The last sentence states "... in no case shall environmentally sensitive areas be developed at any density greater than allowed under the appropriate Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation". As previously discussed, our Client's property has not been appropriately evaluated to deem the land environmentally sensitive and therefore his property should not be limited to the one unit per 40 acres. Our Client objects to Section 927.08(4)(a). We request that dead mangroves be allowed to be removed in their entirety and consistent with State regulations. We object to Section 928.03 in that no distinction as to the quality of the wetlands in determining which wetlands arc deemed environmentally sensitive. Our Client objects to Section 928.05 in that it does not allow a private property owner to demonstrate that he has a permitable project. There are cases where a private property owner can demonstrate to the regulatory agencies that alterations may be appropriate for a project, which do not adversely affect the function and value of the habitat and thus are not contrary to the public interest. We request that a paragraph D be included to provide such an opportunity, Our Client objects to any and all sections of the Land Development Regulations which refer or rely upon Section 928.05 and "Environmentally Sensitive Estuarine Wetlands" language and restrictions until such properties are appropriately identified. 20 - M M We object to Section 928.06(2)(b). Private property owners should be allowed mitigation credit for wetland enhancement if such State and Federal regulatory agencies approve said mitigation. Our Client objects to Section 928.06(3) in that it takes rights and privileges away from the private property owner without compensation. Section 928.06(4)(a); the mitigation ratio of 10-1 is excessive and should be consistent with 928.06(2)b). Section 932.05(1)(b); during .the permit process, many regulatory agencies comment and may object to portions of a proposed project. Their objections are considered and may be lifted before project approval and final agency action. We request that the words "no objections" be deleted from this paragraph. Our Client makes these objections on the basis that his private property rights have been severely restricted, and that the label of his property being environmentally sensitive and designated Conservation -2 is arbitrary and capricious without a full evaluation of his property. We request that you consider these comments and post -pone the adoption of these proposed Land Development Regulations until these issues are resolved. We call your attention to Objective 14 of the County's Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Element and its policies. We would like an opportunity to discuss these issues as they relate to our Client's particular property. We appreciate your time and consideration. Very truly yours, KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Michael E. Kiefer After some discussion the Board members indicated this material would be accepted for the record, and Mr. Young stated that if the Board is saying this is entered into the record, he is comfortable with that. SAID MATERIAL IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD. 6. 4 SEP 11 '990 21 PAG;E231111 SEP Carol Johnson spoke for the Chamber of Commerce and expressed their appreciation with the actions taken by staff in underlining the changes. 9 Anita Warner, 93rd Street, wished.to know if there is a definition under mining and excavation regarding dust control regulations. Director Keating believed in the LDRs we require that there must be methods of dust control, and Mrs. Warner just wished to know what the dust control regulation is. Planner DeBlois advised that the applicant for a mining permit is responsible for satisfying the county that measures will be taken to control the dust they create. It was determined that no one else wished to speak regarding Chapter 901 - Definitions. Chapter 902, Administrative Mechanisms * Identifies role of Board and Commission as related to planning and development * Establishes new Historic Resource Advisory Committee * Review of administrative appeals has been given to the Planning and Zoning Comission from Board of Adjustment-P&Z decision would be final * Establishes Technical Review Committee Chairman Eggert had a very big problem with Page 4, Paragraph (12) where it says "The decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission is final," and "unless appealed to the Board of County Commissioners" is crossed out. Asst. County Attorney Collins noted that this is just a question of do we want to change what we already have. We have just said the question of interpreting these LDRs would be more appropriately appealed to the P&Z Commission. If you want to have a further appeal to the Board of County Commissioners, you could do that, but right now it is an appeal to the Board of Adjustment appealable only to the courts. Commissioner Scurlock believed that what the Board of 22 Adjustment considered was much more limited, and he felt this should come to the County Commission. Board members indicated their agreement with Commissioner Scurlock, and Director Keating noted that all that has to be done is to take out the strike throughs. Chairman Eggert referred to Page 5 and wanted to be sure that all the procedures of the Historic Resources Advisory Committee come through the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Wheeler stated that he would like a blanket statement that any advisory group we have should be just that, and Attorney Vitunac advised that is addressed in Title I. Chairman Eggert wished to be sure their review process is included in the regular timing framework. It was noted that on Page 6 (2), the sentence that has been struck out regarding appealing to the Board of County Commis- sioners should be put back in. Chairman Eggert noted that on Page 8 (5) Further Appeals on Action by PtZ, has been struck out, and she was advised that will be put back in. After a short recess, it was determined that no one else wished to be heard on Chapter 902. Chapter 904, Non -Conformities * Reformat of existing regulations * Word clarifications * Mobile Home Park non -conformities * 90 day cessation changed to one year No Public Comment ' 2 3 q SEP 111990 c"[J, Face F . FF - S -E P 111990 Cl.nter 910, Concurrency Management System New chapter reflecting state requirements 9 ' Director Keating noted that this chapter probably has more impact than any new chapter. He advised that we need to make some change in the way we have the drainage concurrency require- ments right now because we have in there that the Engineering Department is going to require more information and look at more criteria than is really necessary, and he would like authoriza- tion to change this so that not as much information has to be provided upfront to the Engineering Department. He explained that we will focus just on the two principle LOS criteria that will affect new development - the discharge rate for the Basin or watershed, and also the flood protection elevation requirement for single family. .. Board members indicated they were happy to authorize such a change. Commissioner Scurlock inquired why on Page 31 we changed from 1% to 50, and Planner Rohani explained that the change is from 10 of peak hour, peak season, peak direction traffic to 5% of the average daily traffic. Talmage Rogers came before the Board representing the Council of 100 and the Chamber of Commerce. He noted that they have followed this chapter through its development and agree with its importance, and they do applaud the change in the draft in which the total number of days for the review time element dropped from 28 to 23. They still have three concerns, however. (1) In their opinion the evaluating agencies are not required to explain what the deficiencies are and by how much the demand exceeds the supply in terms of the applicant. Mr. Rogers felt a paragraph could be added in Section 910.07 as 3 (c) to assure that the applicant is always informed of his deficiency and the amount thereof. 24 FL] (2) There needs to be a mechanism for refunding front end impact fees when subsequent development plans change, i.e., if you build Phase ["and Phase II and decide not to do Phase Ill. He believed this would speak towards encouragement of not overbuilding. Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that we must design our facilities based on projected demand. We rely on good faith, and it could be a problem for us if there were a dramatic change in customers available to accept the service. Director Keating advised that we have changed this since it was initially presented. We have got 3 types of concurrency certificates - conceptual, initial, and final. We first had this set up that to get the 5 year vesting you had to sign a waiver of ever getting your impact fees back, but we have since changed that -to reflect that is just appropriate for traffic impact fees because we realize that utility impact fees are essentially handled that way right now. Commissioner Scurlock further explained that in regard to expansion, what our financial people are trying to find is a mechanism for having a pool of funds which would allow the county to take the initiative to.build some capital improvements without anybody reserving. The way we are doing it right now, everything is reserved up front. Discussion continued regarding the possibilities of getting refunds, and Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that we have already sized the lines along SR 60 to take in the property behind some of the developments. Now the DCA is saying make some of that 1/5; so, it appears we have oversized the lines, and somebody has already paid for that. Mr. Rogers addressed their third concern, noting they orig- inally asked for 8 years for' maximum reservation of services instead of 5, and he felt some projects may require a much longer time horizon. He stated that this massive legislation is going to slow down.the whole process of development. He brought SEP 111990 25,c F��E SEPo�� UP the large amount of acreage in the county along the 1-95 corridor and noted that is land which in other states could be developed in large chunks, and a logger time frame would be 1 needed for such projects.. Director Keating pointed out that we originally proposed only 3 years, and he did not believe any other county in the state has one with even a 5 year period. He emphasized that the problem is that when you are committing capacity, you are potentially locking other people out of the system. After more detailed discussion, it was felt this question could be dealt with at the advisory committee level. It was determined that no one else wished to be heard regarding Chapter 910. Chapter 911, Zonin * Reformat of existing ordinance - separating zoning requirements from other provisions * Provides use tables for various zoning districts - minor changes in uses by district * Establishes following new districts; A-2, Con -1, Con -2, Air - 1, and PD * Revised requirements such as new buffer requirements to be internally consistent with other chapters * Cleahs ambiguous portions of existing ordinance Planner Rohani advised that on Pages 13 and 69 there is some new language underlined, and this was based on some negotiation with the DCA. He continued that staff would like permission to add one use on Page 38. Under INDUSTRIAL, they wish to add Assembly Production under CH. There was no objection. Chairman Eggert noted that Gift Store was added under MED and asked if book and card store would be considered under that category. Director Keating believed that would be considered as a gift store but agreed we could make it more specific. The Chairman then asked that the language added on Pages 13 and 69, which is as follows, be reviewed: 26 M M M M M M No _residential development in agriculturally designated areas shall occur unless such development is approved•as a planned development and meets the requirements of Section 911.14; the followinq activities shall be exempt from this requirement: .U_ Construction of a single-family dwelling unit on a tract or _parcel existing on October 1, 1990. M Division of a tract or parcel into two lots, each meeting or exceeding the minimum lot size of ' the agricultural zoning district; any subsequent split of such property shall require approval as a planned development project.. (c) Division of a tract into parcels of at least 40 acres in size. 1 any area desionated as AG. Aariculture. on the la The density of the Rroject shall not exceed the maximum density of the AG land use designation; no density transfers from off - "site lands and no density bonuses shall be permitted within PD projects in AG designated lands; (ii) Lots created through the PD process shall•not exceed one acre in size, with the remainder of the area designated as open space; (iii)Open space areas shall be retained as natural areas or used for agricultural uses; however up to thirty percent of the open space area may be used for recreational purposes in AG - 1 areas and twenty-five percent in AG -2 areas. Director Keating explained that the DCA is very concerned about development in AG areas and wished to ensure that if any development did come in that it would have to go through the PD process with the exceptions set out. The language on Page 69 sets out special criteria for PD in an AG district to ensure the development is clustered. Board members had various questions about the date you go back to for a one-time split; building on 1 acre lots in 40 acre tracts that are at a 1/5 density and the amount of area that must be kept open, etc., and Director Keating emphasized that the whole objective here is to do clustering to prevent urban sprawl. Commissioner Bird vehemently opposed this because he F believed we are eliminating 'a lifestyle that is a very important part of this county. Attorney Collins referred to (h) on Page 11, which is as follows: SEP 111990 27�C4,�.�` SEP 111990 8OCiK S" -7 (h) Excluded areas. Unless areas are classified on or by the official zoning atlas of Indian River County, or the appropriate classification can be established by the rules above, such area shall be considered to be classified as agriculture -1 (A-1) east of I-95 and Agriculture -2 (A-2) west of I-195 until such time as the land is rezoned by the Board of County Commissioners. Attorney Collins noted that we will be adding A-3 also, but he pointed out that we also have some A-1 to the west of 1-95 and we must be sure to mention that. Warren Dill expressed his concern about someone who owns a 5 acre AG tract and can only build on one acre of it because this language clearly says that lots created through the PD process shall not exceed one acre in size, with the remainder of the area designated as open space, and Chairman Eggert noted that the DCA is specifically trying to prevent having one house on 5 acres, which they call urban sprawl. Board members continued to express their strong opposition to and frustration with this concept. Commissioner Scurlock believed that we are getting sucked into an approval process we cannot live with, and Commissioner Bird stressed that he cannot vote for something that says at no time in the future -is somebody going to be able to live on a piece of land bigger than 1 acre in size. Chairman Eggert noted that it is not saying never, but until we can get this straightened out. Discussion continued at length in regard to the people who wish to live out in the country and are happy to have less services. Director Keating again emphasized that the state philosophy is anti urban sprawl, but it is not against creating, in essence, new towns where you have the whole range of services. Commissioner Scurlock asked where the Legislature said this when they enacted the Growth Management Act. He believed the state policy is against creating new municipalities. Todd Smith, Engineer from Peterson & Votapka, wished to know when you have a 40 acre tract with eight 1 acre lots, do the 28 stormwater requirements and your 15% vegetative requirement come from the 32 acre tract that is left or the 1 acre lots, and Director Keating advised it would be the 32 acres. Warren Dill had a question as to the boundaries of the Conservation District set out in the new language on Page 12. Director Keating believed we are saying that the eastern boundary of the St. Sebastian River Con -2 District is the western R/W of Roseland Road; the area goes on a diagonal, and Planner DeBlois further explained that on the western side our areas are similar to those studied by the various agencies which they have identified as environmentally important for acquisition. Actu- ally the western boundary is not easily discernible. Mr. Dill understood then that west actually is west of the Sebastian River and not just west of Roseland Road. Leon Walton, 53rd Avenue, referred to Section 911.15 regarding Patios and Swimming Pool Enclosures. He informed the Board that when he came in to get a permit to close in a patio, he found out he could not close it in because he had not put in a swimming pool. This is under the setback rules, and he would like that wording changed to include having a screened enclosure for a patio without a pool. He advised that the City has changed their rule in this regard, and St. Lucie County also allows a patio on a setback to be screened. The Board agreed that this should be changed. It was determined that no one else wished to be heard on Chapter 911. I 190 �h SEP 11 29��1 SEP 111990 �CIC4 81 r.��,,r?40- Chapter 912, Single -Family Development * Single source for regulations, gxplanations, references * Diverse topics * Original topics in this chapter only: - Garage sales limits - Home occupation reqs. - Single-family driveway/access regulations. - Permit matrix: what permits, when Chairman Eggert noted that on Page 15 (b) 2, the words Setback Stabilization" should be reversed to read "Dune Stabilization Setback Line." No public comment Chapter 913, Subdivisions and Plats * "Grandfathered -in" dates specified - exemption added * Parcel "buildability" determination outlined * Platting for road rights-of-way specified * "Exempt" projects limited: 50 or more lots requires platting * 20 acre tracts exemption increased to 40 acres * Submittal requirements updated * Completeness check required * Applications reviewed through T.R.C., as done now * Timeframes for review: similar to now, specified * Applicant may request to go to P&Z at any time * Modification procedures: prelim. plats, land dev., permits * Phasing requirements specified: * Land devel. construction tests required * Plat vacation and right-of-way abandonment procedures specified * Street extension(s) required to avoid closed street systems (larger '.S/Ds ) * Emergency access may be required * Sidewalks/bikeways escrowing option better specified * Sidewalk exemptions expanded in existing residential areas * Dune crossovers reqs. from Chapter 932 added * Recreation tracts & facilities in S/Ds: location and buffering reqs. added * Other chapter regulations cited: S/D must comply Chairman Eggert stressed that she wants to be certain that everything isn't becoming so regimented that people don't feel they can't come in and talk things over without paying $100 to do it, and Planning Director Boling assured her that people can still come in and just generally discuss potential plans. Commissioner Scurlock felt it is important to have a process 30 M M as you are going through where all these various things are documented rather than just "staff told me." Chairman Eggert brought up the inability for the applicant to talk at the Technical Review Committee level, and Director Boling advised any question is generally worked out outside of the meeting. Commissioner Bird noted that he has had people ask for the opportunity to talk with a specific a specific time limit being set. Chairman Eggert expressed concern about minor things being worked out without having to resubmit to TRC. She then referred to Page 50 where it says Emergency Access "may" require one or more emergency accessways. She felt that for over a certain size development, it should say "shall." Director Boling advised that there is discretion the way it is written now relating to the size, but we can add criteria. Chairman Eggert continued to stress that we are concerned about those developments that have one exit, but Director Boling noted that in some cases there is no option for another exit, such as those subdivisions between A -1-A and the river; so, there needs to be some discretion built in. Chairman Eggert believed that bikeways and sidewalks remain a matter of concern and possibly they should go to committee. Director Boling pointed out that we did put in the option for escrowing for bikeways and sidewalks. Commissioner Bowman later wished to know where the fee actually begins in Subdivision planning. She felt the way it is set out is confusing, and Director Boling agreed it should be made clear that the fee actually begins with the formal pre - application conference when they come in and submit plans. No public comment. SEP 111990 31 '' Fc .2 , SEP 11 1990 Chapter 914, Site Plan Review and Approval Procedures * Major re -formatting �J" FAvr �3, 6 .n * Thresholds for major, minor, administrative approval categories better specified I * Significant redevelopment projects require major site plan approval 2* Formal pre -app conference required for larger projects * Completeness check required * Submittal requirements updated * Timeframes for review: similar to now, specified * Applicant may request to go to P&Z Commission at any time * More specified criteria for BCC review of site plan extensions * Conceptual site plan submittal requirements specified * Site must be maintained as shown on approved site plan * Other chapter reqs. cited: site plan must comply Director Boling informed the Board that staff would like to propose adding at the top of Page 28 (e) a requirement that a project show the phase lines on the site plan. He further noted that on the bottom of Page 34 they would like to specify that for minor site plans you don't have to meet the bikeway/sidewalk requirements and the paved road requirements. They want to put in a section up front that deals with that, and just below that a section that deals with phasing. Director Boling stressed that they want to make sure that when you phase a project, each phase can stand alone. He also wished to emphasize that a formal preapplication conference is proposed to be required for larger projects. No public comment. Chapter 915, Planned Development (P.D.) i * Other land development reqs. referenced: PDs must comply * 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 * Standards for industrial, commercial, residential, and agricultural uses specified * Compatibility measures specified * Open space and recreation standards specified (as in PRD) * Proper connections to public infrastructure required * Submittal requirements up-to-date and specific for all application types * Modification procedure better specified No public comment. 32 Chapter 916, Development of Regional Impact (DRI) * Binding letter threshold updated * 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 No public comment. Chapter 917, Accessory Uses and Structures * Single source for regulations, reference * Specific criteria and allowances added: towers, walls and fences * Convenant for removal of structures in easement procedures specified No public comment. Chapter 918, Sanitary Sewer and Potable Water Regulations * New chapter reflecting Comprehensive Plan policies Chief Planner,Rohani advised that staff worked very closely on this chapter with Utilities, as well as with the Department of Environmental Health. He advised that Environmental Health Director Galanis suggested that on Page 1 in Section 918.04 (1) retail establishments should be changed to read commercial establishments. Mr. Rohani agreed this is a good point and noted that this should be changed on Page 2 also. He informed the Board that he also received a letter from the Utilities Department requesting the following changes: (1) On Page 2 (3) 50,000 gpd be changed to 10,000 gpd. (2) On Page 2 (5) that a sentence be added on at the end requiring that the applicant must obtain a utility construction permit and, if applicable, a franchise application from the Utilities Department. Mr. Rohani advised the above are the only changes. Engineer Todd Smith discussed the threshholds on commercial establishments. He noted that at the last workshop, he brought SEP 111990 33 dr SEP 11 1990 Booa< PA O,Jf up the problems associated with having 5,000 sq, ft. as a threshhold,.and staff said they thought this threshhold was being used as a growth management tool. The Board had seemed to be 1 receptive to the idea of having a flow. -type threshhold, and he contended that the square footage threshhold restricts small commercial developments. If the flow criteria was used, then those uses that are 10,000 sq, ft., but only have a sink and a toilet will not be penalized. Director Keating pointed out that the 5,000 sq, ft., is the standard that is in the Comp Plan right now; so, we don't really have the discretion to go to flow. He stressed that this is not designed to restrict growth; it is to make sure that utilities are extended to the areas where they are really needed. Mr. Smith did not see why the guy with 10,000 sq. ft. but just one bathroom should be the one to foot the bill to extend this infrastructure. Chairman Eggert pointed out that there is a cumulative effect to be considered. Attorney Collins addressed the question of whether we could change from a square footage to a gallonage flow. He noted that the Growth Management Act says the Comp Plan shall be broadly construed to accomplish its purposes; so, the question is what was the intent of the 5,000 sq. ft. threshhold. If it was related to some kind of health hazard from the size of the septic tank, then we could make the change, but Director Keating has said the square footage was not in there as a health measure but as a growth control measure. If the intent was to utilize the 5,000 sq. ft. as a threshhold on growth management utilities extension, then it would require a Plan amendment. Argument continued at length with Director Keating noting that 5,000 sq. ft. of impervious surface is a major site plan threshhold. Health Director Galanis advised that they do use flow figures in state codes, and he would suggest possibly a 34 M M combination of square footage and flow. He further noted that sometimes if you have oversize facilities and not sufficient flow, you have a very poor facility. Commissioner Bird felt that flow is more closely related, but Commissioner Scurlock was not sure that the problem is not being overstated in terms of economic impact. After further discussion, it was generally agreed that this cannot be answered now and it should go to committee. Health Director Galanis volunteered to be on the committee. Developer Peter Robinson commented that he was not sure what our AG densities are any more, but he pointed out that in (4) on Page 5 if you go through the criteria for single family residen- tial dwellings using a septic tank, the way he sees it right now, it stops at 1 unit per 5 acres and 1 unit per acre; so what about 1 unit for 10 acres, etc. Chairman Eggert agreed that this would have to be corrected all the way through to show that 1 unit for 5 acres also means for 10 and 20. There was no further public comment on Chapter 918. Chanter 925, Open Burning/Air Curtain * New Ord. based on Comp. Plan * Required use of air curtain/urban dev. debris 1000' setback from occupied bldg. - operation weekdays only * Ag. exempt. * Impliemented cooperatively by Environ. Health, Fire Authority, D.O.F. Commissioner Bird did not see the point of limiting the burning to week days only. He felt if conditions are right we would want to get rid of.'this material whenever we can. Planner DeBlois advised' that the timeframe relates to when most people are at home in the urban areas. He believed there is a sunrise to sundown requirement also. P mor� ��cn� SE 111990 35 Fr- —7 SEP 11199 f Joe Spataro, Area Supervisor with the Division of Forestry, advised that presently you can burn 7 days a week, but they received a lot of objections from people who don't mind if you do 9 the burning when they are at work, but.object to it when they are at home. Since Florida Statutes allow burning 7 days a week, they wanted to address this at a local level. Commissioner Bird felt that fires don't just stop that quickly, but Supervisor Spataro further noted that the law says that fires must be completely extinguished one hour before sunset. No public comment. Chapter 926, Landscape & Buffer * Reformat of existing reg. with changes based on Comp Plan and staff recommendation * Highlights: - 50% drought tolerant - Large tree plant/preserve incent. - Landscape point system - Performance buffers - Irrigation/effluent reuse - Increased landscape standards Chairman Eggert noted that we talk about not building a structure in an intersection to obstruct your sight, but there are a lot of corners here where, when you stop at a stop sign, you cannot see through the landscaping or general trees and bushes. She did not see anything that says you have to have good visibility there. It was noted that we do have a requirement in regard to visibility, and the Chairman felt that actually, she would like to see something that would require Public Works to go out and clear these corners of any trees or bushes, not just formal landscaping. Attorney Collins believed that if you are aware of problems at any particular intersection, that is something to do through an administrative mechanism, and Director Keating confirmed that we do have a requirement in Zoning about visibility at a corner. 36 M M M Planner DeBlois reported that since the workshop with the Board, staff did add a section on Page 16 about providing more landscaping between buildings, walls or fences, and R/Ws. No public comment. Chapter 927, Tree Protection & Land Clearing * Reformat of existing reg. with changes based on Comp. Plan policies and staff recommendation * Highlights: - Protected tree Dbh: 8" to 4" - Dune maintenance permit - Mangrove permit - FDER consist./dead wood - Encouraged cons. plan for Ag. exempt. No public comment Chapter 928, Wetlands/Deepwater Habitat Protection * New ordinance bAsed on Comp. Plan detailed policies * Highlights- - Mitigation reqs. - Mitigation bank Native upland edge veget. - Assessment relief Planner DeBlois noted that the material submitted earlier by Jim Young representing Edmund Lappeman had comments about this Chapter. No public comment. Chapter 929, Upland Habitat Protection * New ordinance based on Comp. Plan policies * Highlights: - Upland cons. areas - St. Sebastian River/tagoon buffer - Removal of exotic vegetation - Environmental survey Assessment relief No public comment. 44 SEP SEP 111990 37 bI r SEP 111990 CHAPTER 930, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT & FLOOD PROTECTION County Engineer Roger Cain advised that things have been rearranged a little bit because of the need to clarify the flood management portions of 930.07. The wording and intent is not changed, but some things are in different places. Engineer Cain then referred to Page 10, noting that in the second sentence in (k) beginning "Temporary ponding...," the words "if of shallow depth" should be underlined as that is new wording. He continued that on Page 29 Item 5, in lines 24 through 26 the words "must be notified at least 24 hours in advance of the tests being conducted" should be struck out so that it just reads - the County reserves the right to witness the test procedure. Mr. Cain advised that the Cut 8 Fill Balance issue has been addressed, and he believed we have reached a fairly good compromise on Page 24 where we provide an exemption for small lots in existence prior to July 1, 1990, and, in addition, the Mining Ordinance has been modified to provide some relief in these cases. The Indian River Farms Water Control District standards are still in, and we have allowed for ponding in parking lots to provide some temporary relief. The fencing of ponds and lakes has been addressed in 930.07 (m) found on Pages 10 and 11 and we have carved out some exceptions on that. We have been provided the new FEMA regulations and some of this wording has been inserted since the last meeting. This wording provides one of the means of modifying the flood areas, and you will find those administrative procedures explained on Pages 20/21. Commissioner Bowman referred to Page 24 and the statement "will not create a material adverse impact on flood protection on other lands in the estuarine environment." She wished to add "or on the estuarine environment." No public comment. 38 M _' Chapter 931, Wellfield/Aquifer Protection * New Ordinance based on Comp. Plan policies * Highlights: Public wellfield regulated areas Reg. area restrictions, exemptions Sand ridge overlay district reqs. M Planner DeBlois advised that since the workshop, they have added the underlined sections on Pages 9 and 10. He noted that (b) and (c) were pretty much existing, and (a) would be an addition in regard to coordinating with Public Health. Section 931.09 - Abandoned Flow Well Plugging Requirements is an addition also. No public comment. Chapter 932, Coastal Management * Consolidation/reformat of exist reqs. with some changes * Highlights: Dune walkover/trimming reqs. Sea turtle lighting - 11:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. - Water related/dependent use regs. No public comment. Chapter 933, Historic & Archeological Resources Protection * New ordinance based on Comp Plan policies * Highlights: Historic Resource Advisory Committee Archeological survey Designation criteria Planner DeBlois advi;'sed that the only change since the k workshop is an additional sehtence under Designations at the bottom of Page 3. No public comment. SEP 111990 39 P.c� �'''`: I Chapter 934, Excavation & Mining * Reformat & revisions to existing ord. * Highlights: Commercial mining —Ag. only Conditional exemption for 5,000 cu. yds. removal incident to develop. S.F. pond exemption revisions Attorney Vitunac commented that in the last 3 or 4 ordi- nances, staff is putting the penalty provision in at the end of the ordinance, and except for possible the Historic one, all the others are covered in Title 1. He continued that if there is anything that is new in that provision, it should be put in, but otherwise just reference Title I. No public comment. Chapter 951, Road Addressing System * Reformat of existing reg. * Minor changes/clarification * Nonconform. address compliance: 90 days changed to 30 days No public comment. Chapter 952, Traffic * New section Traffic Impact Study * Types of Traffic Impact Studies - Small Project (0-99) - Traffic Impact Statement (100-499) - Traffic Impact Statement (500-1000) - Traffic Impact Analysis (>1000) * Critical transportation locations (90% and 70%) * Roadway design & paved road requirements - essentially unchanged * Access Control - types of driveways - essentially unchanged * New Specific Thoroughfare Plan Road Right -of -Way Table County Traffic Engineer Michael Dudeck emphasized that the intent is to streamline the whole system. He advised that the concern expressed about landscaping has been addressed on Pace 35 (5) Site Distance. 40 Engineer Dudeck noted that we have beefed up the section on Traffic Control Devices. One other change brought to our attention by the engineers was that in the trip table there was no mention of what they should do for the AM/PM peak hours, and we have added as a note at the bottom of the second table that they should use the ITE trip generation report for those generations. Attorney Collins referred the Board to (4) on Page 39 - Frontage Road Systems and Access Easements. He noted that we are on notice from Carl Hedin that we would be sued unless we amended our requirements to allow a traffic impact fee credit for a the dedication of a marginal access road easement. Staff is adamant that this is a concept that is consistent with state practice, but Attorney Collins noted that he is contending this may not be a legal requirement, and he believed we may end up going to court over this. Mr. Hedin contends this is not site related to his property but that it is to benefit an adjoining property owner. At Collins stated that unless this is substantially advancing a public purpose, it is not legal. Chairman Eggert believed that it does advance a public purpose, but Attorney Collins felt it would only if there were a next developer coming in and we had a positive plan in place. Director Keating stressed that there is a benefit because clients can move from one property to another without going to a major arterial, and further noted that we have a similar type provision in the Subdivision Ordinance where you have to stub out a road. Commissioner Scurlock felt the question isn't what you do but whether you pay them for the easement or take it. Commissioner Wheeler had a problem paying them because he d. believed it benefits them as business people. Discussion continued at length, and Commissioner Bowman suggested that we put some frontage roads in our 20 Year Plan and provide for this in 'our Capital Improvements Program. SEP 111990 41 L� R,L,- 1 13 �Dff . �A,,.ra, S -E P 111990 I�UGK 4 _ti Engineer Todd Smith commented that the Comprehensive Plan makes reference to peak hour trips (54 trips requires a study, etc.), and he asked if those threshholds are picked up in here. 9 Director Keating stated that staff feels the AVT reference in here covers that. No further public comment. Chapter 953, Fair Share Roadway Improvements * Eliminated general recreation from fee schedule * Removed construction section of chapter - it will be included in the Title I * Modified level of service to indicate differentiation between rural arterials and freeways * No change in impact for amounts No public comment. Chapter 954, Off -Street Parking * More use categories added (from 35 to 62) * 4 uses increased (contractor's trade, golf courses, places of assembly, libraries/museums) * 6 uses decreased (furniture stores, larger manufacturing, mini -storage, private clubs, public parks/recreational areas, larger shopping centers) * Specified max. distances from spaces to res. units served * Recreational vehicle standards deleted: prohibited in car spaces * Non -paving options expanded: can be employed with more uses (eg. golf courses) * Bicycle spaces required in larger commercial projects (per Comp. Plan) * Parking lot design flexibility increased * Driveway standards added and specified *. Circulation criteria added * Cross -parking agreement specified * Shared (non -concurrent) parking for mixed uses allowed after study * "No similar use" study allowed to derive standards for use categories not listed * Deviation from standard county paving specifications may be allowed Planning Director Boling advised that the only change proposed to the draft the Board has before them is on Page 10. #55 Shopping Centers greater than 100,000 sq. ft. - they want to 42 v � r add a sentence reading that "Other independent stand-alone uses would require parking for the individual use as specified in this chapter." He noted that we also have to have a parking standard for bicycles, and that is on Page 11. Commissioner Wheeler was concerned that this would require a lot of bicycle racks, but it was noted that you could have just concrete slots. Planning Director Boling noted that we also added the ability to do a study for a use that is not listed. No public comment. Chapter 955, Moving of Structures * Reformatted chapter * No substantive changes * Clarified text No public comment. Chapter 956, Sign Regulations * Reformat of existing reg. * Minor changes/clarifications Planner DeBlois advised that we have changed the political sign timeframe to no more than'30 days before election rather than 60. Comment was made that we have problems with out -of -County candidates flaunting our laws. No public comment. Chapter 971, Specific Land UseCriteria * Proposal to specify old policy: no subsequent public hearings for expansions of special exception uses * Old buffer requirements "translated" into new buffering reqs. * New uses specified as administrative permit and/or special 43 SEP 111990 r S E P 11 1990 exception uses in certain districts: Aquaculture - bed and breakfast - comm. fisheries - comm. marinas Community centers - demolition debris sites - drug stores (CN dist) Dude ranches - emergency services - fish farms - hunting & fishing lodges - Off-road vehicle tracks - recycling centers - retreats and campus - sludge spreading Planning Director Boling advised that on Page 88 staff would like to delete (d) 5. Anita Warner, 93rd Street, F.ellsmere, wished to offer some objections. She referred to (6) Off -Road Vehicle Tracks (Special Exception) which presently reads as follows: (6) Off -Road Vehicle Tracks (Special Exception) (a) Districts requiring SPECIAL EXCEPTION approval, (pursuant to the provisions of 971.05): A-1 A-2 (b) Additional information requirements: A site plan meeting all the requirements of Chapter 914. (c) Criteria for off-road vehicle tracks: 1. The track must be designed to minimize impact to native vegetative plant communities. 2. The track must be designed -to setback a minimum of seventy-five (75) feet from any adjacent property 'boundary. 3. The project must be located on a site no smaller than ten (10) acres. 4. The project must demonstrate compliance with Indian River County's noise and vibration control regulations. F 5. The site must maintain dust control regulations. 6. No storage of gasoline shall be allowed on site. 7. Type "A" buffering with a six (6) foot opaque feature is required on boundaries adjacent to residential uses. 8. No commercial tracks shall be allowed. Ms. Warner proposed that (c) 2 be modified to require that the track must be designed to setback a minimum of 400' from any adjacent property boundary; that (c) 3 require a site no smaller than 40 acres;•that (c) 5 define dust control regulations; that (c) 7 require the Type "A" buffering with an opaque feature to 44 M M reach the same maximum level as the highest point of the off-road track; and that (c) 9 be added stating that no outdoor lighting or illumination shall be allowed. Director Keating noted that staff assumed there are a lot of people in the county who own off-road vehicles and want to use them some place. The intent was to try to allow people use of their land without affecting others adversely, and if we adopt what Ms. Warner has proposed, you would effectively prohibit this. Commissioner Scurlock believed with some motor cross vehicles, even with an 1,000' distance, the noise still would drive you out of your home. Ms. Warner emphasized that they are not trying to say that people can't ride these vehicles, but she stressed that a track Is totally different than someone just riding a vehicle. She advised that there was a stock car race track in Warsaw, Indiana, on Lake Winona which had been there 50 years. Nine home owners built homes there within the last 10 years, filed a suit, and were able to get the track closed completely. She actually called Warsaw to confirm this and learned the home owners were located a mile away from the track. She brought this up to illustrate the noise problem. Chairman Eggert asked if the Noise Ordinance won't help with this, and Ms. Warner noted that was not in the code before, and now that it is being added, she felt it should be more stringent. Discussion arose about this being a Special Exception and the fact that the Board does not have to say yes to it. Attorney Vitunac pointed out that if the people meet the criteria, the Board must grant the Special Exception. Director Keating noted that you can consider the general 4 area in a Special Exception,' but Attorney Vitunac believed the law requires you to specify this in your ordinance. Asst. County Attorney Collins agreed, and further pointed SEP 111990 45 :SEP 111990 MCI FeGF � out that if you list certain criteria, then you can It say that in a particular situation, 400' isn't enough. Chairman Eggert noted the ordinance says "a minimum of" so 9 many feet. She asked if they can ever%meet this test on a small property and not be defeated by the Noise Ordinance. Ms. Warner felt that 10 acres is not really wide enough for that purpose. Commissioner Bird wondered if we really need the Type "A" buffering if we go with all Ms. Warner's suggestions because he felt a 400' setback should take care of a lot of this, but it was generally felt that the buffering cuts some of the noise. Director Keating wished the Board to understand that when you set up these criteria, any time anyone rides an off-road vehicle anywhere on his property where he has had to make any modifications at all, that is a track, and we will have to enforce the ordinance if someone makes a complaint. Discussion ensued as to saying that you can have a natural trail but you can't make hills, etc. Chairman Eggert asked if the Board wanted to change the criteria to require a 400' setback, a 40 acre site, and no outdoor lighting, and the Board agreed. Commissioner Bird later commented that he did not think we should say "no" outdoor lights, but just that the lighting must be shielded, but Commissioner Scurlock believed the idea is that you don't want them running at night anyway because of the noise factor. Commissioner Bowman asked if we have anything in here about jet skis, but Director Keating advised that we currently do not regulate any activities on the water. Commissioner Bird felt that when we talk about Hunting and Fishing Lodges, we should say "commercial" hunting and fishing lodges. Director Boling referred the Board to Page 4 (3) in regard to existing special exception uses and noted that staff has added 46 what they believe to be the existing policy of the Board about not having to come back to a public hearing, as follows: Additions and modifications to existing special exception uses. Project applications proposing to add to or modify an existing special exception use shall comply with all specific land use criteria contained herein that are specified for the use(s) involved in the proposed project. However, the public hearing provisions of this chapter shall not apply. All site plan or other project review criteria and review procedures Chairman Eggert and Commissioner Scurlock indicated that they felt any special exceptions that are an expansion should come back to the public hearing process. Director Boling felt that possibly something that is to come back to the board should be tied to some threshhoid as to the degree of change, but Chairman Eggert had a problem when it has anything to do with the structure itself. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously agreed that any increase, .intensification or expansion of any amount of a special exception should come back to the Board. There was no further public comment. Chapter 972, Temporary Uses * Specific review standards added * Review process timeframes established * Specific limitation on transient merchant types of uses * More specific limitations & standards regarding watchman's quarters No public comment. I SEP 111990 47��_ r a -SEP WO ILI, Chapter 973, Public Nuisance t, 11 * Reformat of existing reqs. * Revised weed definition/clarification Mary Wilson came before the Board•%and referred to the following letter which she requested be entered into the record: 12727 91 Street ,�� N �'?�. P.O. Box 605 Fellsmere, FL 32948 September 7, 1990 Cr) t -.r,- -., COU 1r/v �' • ��' CGIdMISS10JV � C?% Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman Board of County Commissioners c/o County Administration Building 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 Dear Chairman Eggert: I am writing to you regarding a subject that will receive consideration during the public hearing on September 11, 1990 to adopt "the Indian River County Land Development Regulations and that you and I have discussed in the past. Since I have attended many of the workshops, I am aware that the hearing may be lengthy and in the interest of time felt it important to reiterate a brief history of our concerns. We have owned agricultural property in this county since 1980 and have lived on that property since 1983. During the past year, an individual has purchased a property in the neighborhood (which is highly developed as a residential area and which the planners and engineers of Florida Power and Light consider to -be residential) and developed a professional -type motorcycle race track which consumes the entire five acres and consists of many hills which reach heights of at least twelve feet. Even though he claims to be using it only for himself and his sons, the noise and detrimental impact to the neighborhood is mammoth. Our quality of life and•property values are greatly diminished because of this and we feel that now is the time to enact ordinances to protect homeowners of rural lands that are zoned A-1 from this sort of land usage. In your forthcoming zoning ordinance (911.06) under (1)Purpose and" Intent, it states "These districts are also intended to provide opportunities for residential uses at very low densities to promote housing opportunities in the county. These districts are further intended to permit activities which require non -urban locations and DO NOT DETRIMENTALLY IMPACT LANDS DEVOTED TO RURAL AND AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES." At the same time, under the same section (4)Uses - Recreation, there are spelled out restrictions for off road.vehicle tracks which are totally inadequate and arbitrarily written without true regard for the enormity of the noise and environmental impact this type of usage engenders particularly in an area where there are residences within a half to one mile of it. Our feeling is that since we are trying to preserve the environment in this county and this type of activity does NOTHING to enhance it, it should be prohibited. At the very least, it should require administrative approval and notification of the neighbors and a public hearing before it is allowed. 48 Since this type of activity apparently posed no problem when the previous ordinances were written, we feel that there should be a general and attractive nuisance ordinance written as a built-in protection against future activities which may affect the environment detrimentally and would also protect us now such as is written in the City of Sebastian's ordinances under Section 16-1: "(6) Essentially interferes with comfortable enjoyment of life and property, or tends to depreciate the value of the property of others. (Code 1970, Section 12-3)" Perhaps the ordinance could be worded in such a way that the land usage of A-1 properties (or any other zoning areas) must be COMPATIBLE with the usage in the surrounding neighborhood. Due to the time of the year (many of our neighbors are on vacation) and the time of day of this hearing, we will be unable to have the proportional representation at the hearing of those neighbors who have strong feelings as we do regarding this problem so I am enclosing a copy of a petition that was signed by only a few of the people in this neighborhood who want this type of activity abolished as this petition was worded and signed before we knew that it was,a civil matter to pursue enforcement of the deed restrictions that affect some properties in this area. Our concerns are to keep this county as beautiful and environmentally desirable a place in which to reside and work as it has been in the past and look to you to help its growth be advantageous to us all. Thank you for hearing us out. We appreciate the attention you have given this matter in the past and if you have any questions regarding this matter, we can be reached at 571-0637. Siricerely yours,�� John E. and Mary B. Wilson COPY OF SAID LETTER W/ATTACHMENTS & PETITION IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD. Mrs. Wilson stressed that she and her neighbors feel they need some help to get rid of this and also to get someone out there so we can invoke the Noise Ordinance. She noted that the kids in the neighborhood are on the track during the day when the owners are not on the land, and she felt this should be addressed F as an attractive nuisance or'a general nuisance. Attorney Vitunac noted that "attractive nuisance" would be addressed through the civil law process. Our "other nuisance" has got enforcement procedures which we can use. SEP 11 49 rP.a f100M Planner DeBlois had some question on the track issue in regard to how much it is vested because of use. He assumed we could apply the noise ordinance but,was not sure about the use issue. Attorney Vitunac noted that the vested rights issue is something the track can raise in a proper procedure. Commissioner Scurlock asked if they ever got any permits, and Director Keating pointed out that they did not need permits at the time. We have the future covered, but the past is the problem. He advised that we have been working with Code Enforce- ment on this, and we are looking at the land clearing and tree protection violations aspect also. Mrs. Wilson stressed that the fact is that it is a general nuisance. It is a total residential area, and this is not a compatible use; also, they do have deed restrictions. Director Keating commented that we do define nuisance specifically, but it is not the same as in civil law. Board members suggested Mrs. Wilson to get with our Code Enforcement people on this. Mrs. Wilson referred the Board to Sebastian's nuisance ordinance which she felt is a pretty adequate one. It was determined that no one else wished to be heard on Chapter 973. Chapter 974, Noise & Vibration Control * New ordinance based on community input * Highlights: - Specific noise/vib. prohibitions - Geared toward nighttime restrictions - Decibel level standards - Exemptions - Opportunity for admin. approval No public comment. 50 I ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance 90-16 adopting the LDRs, as follows: ORDINANCE NO. 90- I6 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA ESTABLISHING TITLE IX - LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE CODE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, CONTAINING THE FOLLOWING CHAPTERS: PURPOSE AND INTENT, DEFINITIONS, ADMINISTRATIVE MECHANISMS, NON -CONFORMITIES, CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, ZONING, SINGLE . FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, SUBDIVISIONS AND PLATS, SITE PLAN, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT, ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES, SANITARY SEWER AND POTABLE WATER, OPEN BURNING/AIR CURTAIN INCINERATOR REGULATIONS, LANDSCAPE AND BUFFER, TREE PROTECTION AND LAND CLEARING, WETLAND -AND DEEPWATER HABITAT PROTECTION, UPLAND HABITAT PROTECTION, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND FLOOD PROTECTION, WELLFIELD AND AQUIFER PROTECTION, COASTAL MANAGEMENT, HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES PROTECTION, EXCAVATION AND MINING, ROAD ADDRESSING, TRAFFIC, FAIR SHARE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS, PARKING, MOVING STRUCTURE, SIGNS, REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC LAND USE CRITERIA, TEMPORARY USES, PUBLIC NUISANCE, NOISE; PROVIDING REPEAL; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING AN -EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, by Chapter 163, Par.t II, Florida Statutes, the State of Florida has required Indian River County to adopt by ordinance and implement a comprehensive plan; and ORDINANCE 90-16 W/ATTACHMENTS IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD. I Commissioner Bowman asked if there is anything we can do about these commercial outfits that are grandfathered in and were never required to buffer or to have any landscaping. At what point can we make them upgrade their property? SEP1 1 199® 51 Not* L_ SEP �. � 90 It was believed this only could be done if the use were discontinued for one year, but Attorney Vitunac felt we have more powers than that and if the Board wants to come back in after the fact and say that it is now required that you put up some trees or some landscaping, we probably can do that. There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 1:25 o'clock P.M. ATTEST: e�2�) J(--,/ Lxx-..-C6 �gha i rman roz 52 0 9-