Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/12/1991BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGENDA SPECIAL MEETING 5:01 P.M. - FEBRUARY 12, 1991 COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBERS COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 1840 25TH STREET VERO BEACH, FLORIDA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Richard N. Bird, Chairman Gary C. Wheeler, Vice Chairman Margaret C. Bowman Carolyn K. Eggert Don C. Scurlock *************** 5:01 p.m. James E. Chandler, County Administrator Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * PROPOSED MINOR AMENDMENTS TO THE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (LDR'S) 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. 3 3 12 1991 NOOK * * * Tuesday, February 12, 1991 The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, met in Special Session at the County Commission Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Tuesday, February 12, 1991, at 5:01 o'clock P.M. Present were Richard N. Bird, Chairman; Gary C. Wheeler, Vice Chairman; Margaret C. Bowman; Carolyn K. Eggert; and Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Also present were James E. Chandler, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; and Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk. The hour of 5:01 o'clock P. M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notices with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: P.O. Box 1268 Vero Beach, Florida 32961 562-2315 COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER Prc!j!j 3ounial STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority rmrsonally appeared J.J. Schumann. Jr. who on oath says that he Is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a newspaper published at Vero Beach In Indian River County. Florida; that ..(, tttal:tag /Let' `11Ci1.UtrifW 2-3" at 4 I0,SD par Pz1umn ciihl . billed to 1di(yrt River &:Ut\•Gt, P(anrnni% 110 published In said newspaper In the lasue(s) or tlh. i1'', I'!'11 /ht .pays. 8A Sworn to and subscribed before me this dsyor_-ibrttait.f.4 A.D 1'3 1 (SEAL) FEB 12 1991 Business Manager Neap ISA*. tido d trend, 111,Comninien rin+.. Jen 25. twt NOTICE OF ESTABLISHMENT OR CHANGE OF A REGULATION(S) ;.. AFFECTING THE USE OF LAND .H...,t The Indian River County Board of County Commissioners proposes to adopt or change a regulation(s) affecting the use of Jand for the area shown in the map in this advertise-, ment. A public hearing on the regulation(s) affecting the use of land will be held on Tuesday, February 12, 1991 at 5:01 p.m. in the County Commission Chambers in the County Ad- ministration Building located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida. Proposed changes to two chapter sections of the land de- velopment regulations (LDRs) effective in the unincorporated area of the county would: e Chapter 911: allow "residential centers" in the RM • - 3 (Multi -family Residential up to 3 units/ acre) and the RM -4 (Multi- family Residential up to 4 units/acre) I , zoning districts as special exception . uses) and • Chapter 971: add the RM -3 and RM -4 zoning dis- 7 frith to the list of districts in which • specific land use criteria for "resi- •,, :. dential centers" apply. • INDIAN RIVER COUNTY- UNINCORPORATED AREA rt A copy of the proposed Ordinance will be available at the Planning Division office on the second floor of the County Administration Building. 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 testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BY -s -DICK BIRD, CHAIRMAN Rocs 82 PAGE 31 FEB 12 19f,ri i P.O.Box1268 Vero Beach. Florida 32961 562-2315 COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER STATE OF FLORIDA Woo 3ournat Before the undersigned authority personally appeared JJ. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a newspaper published at Vero Beach In Indian River County, Florida; that �aeJ .tf.G� ✓131�/f A/ li it lq" a 0.:30 .p r Column cnnit, cJ billed to 7-"n]inrr R, ver (ov, k 1 lin nni was published In said newspaper In the Issues) of Feb.14 h 19W (tn pal Q 7A Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of srititi.a-L A,D 1991 r (SEAL) � Business Manager 4 Qt ets Jaw 19µPExpire. 93 • 2 BOOK O PAGE D NOTICE OF ESTABLISHMENT OR CHANGE OF A REGULATION(S) AFFECTING THE USE OF LAND The Indian River County Board of County Commissioners proposes to adopt or change a regulation(s) affecting the use of land for the area shown in the map in this advertise- ment. A public hearing on the regulation(s) affecting the use of land will be held on Tuesday, February 12, 1991 at 5:01 p.m. in the County Commission Chambers in the County Ad- ministration Building located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida. Proposed changes to various chapter sections of the land development regulations (LDRs) effective in the unincorpo- rated area of the county would be: •Chapter 9011 • Chapter 9111 • Chapter 9111 • Chapter 9111 *Chapter 9111 •Chapter 911s • Chapter 9111 • Chapter 9111 *Chapter 912s 'Chapter 913: •Chapter 913: . *Chapter 971: *Chapter 911s Chapter 902, 913, 917, 930 and 971: allow some open space credit for waterbodies; clarify the zoning districts allowable in the "conservation; land use areas; clarify transmission tower height categories; , allow veterinarian clinics in the CG (General Commercial) and CH (Heavy Commercial) districts; allow places of worship in the CL (Limited Commercial), CG and CH districts; allow civic and social membership organizations in the MED (Medical), CL and CG districts; restrict the amount of retail, take-out restaurant, and personal services ' allowed within OCR (Office, Commercial, Residential) district projects; establish size and dimension criteria for hotel/motel units; eliminate "local" fuel tank size restrictions in certain zoning districts; establish final plat lettering size requirements; reduce the affidavit of exemption lot - size requirement from 5 acres to 200,000 sq. ft.; eliminate "local" child care outdoor recreation requirements for certain projects; reduce the open space requirement in the A-1 (Agriculture, 1) district from 80% to 60%; make other minor changes to clarify language and to eliminate inconsistencies and typographical errors. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY- UNINCORPORATED AREA • A copy of the proposed Ordinance will be available at the Planning Division office on the second floor of the County Administration Building. • 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 testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. • ' i s • j„ it;....,.. I INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BY -s -DICK BIRD, CHAIRMAN Chairman Bird called the Special Meeting to order and announced that it was for the purpose of reviewing the proposed minor amendments to the Land Development Regulations (LDRs). Planning Director Boling made the staff presentation, as follows: TO: The Honorable Members of The Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: o ert M. Keating, AICP( Community Developmentn,�D'rector FROM: Stan Boling, AICP Planning Director DATE: February 5, 1991 SUBJECT: Minor Amendments to the Land Development Regulations (LDRs): Barkett Petition and Staff Initiated Changes It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of February 12, 1991. BACKGROUND AND CONDITIONS: In December 1990, Attorney Bruce Barkett on behalf of National Retirement Company filed an application to amend a subsection of the LDRs. This was the first petition, and the only one filed thus far, to amend the new LDRs. Since the LDRs were adopted in September 1990, staff has kept a file on each LDR chapter and has kept a record of all necessary "clean-up" changes as problems or errors have been discovered. To minimize public hearings and to expedite a first-time minor revision "clean-up" of the LDRs, staff has worked with Mr. Barkett to allow consideration of staff - initiated minor LDR changes along with the petitioner's request. Thus staff has "piggy -backed" many minor "clean-up" changes along with consideration of the Barkett petition. Mr. Barkett's proposed changes, along with staff's proposed changes except the Section 32 item of the proposed ordinance (see attachment #2), have been discussed and considered by the Professional Services Advisory Committee. At its regular meeting of January 10, 1991, the Committee voted unanimously to recommend that the County approve the proposed changes. The Planning and Zoning Commission at its meeting of January 24, 1991 also considered the proposed LDR amendments and recommended that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed amendments. It should be noted that the staff -initiated and Barkett petition amendments were advertised separately so that, at its discretion, the Board could consider and/or adopt these requests separately. Staff is presenting both the staff -initiated and Barkett petition requests together and under one proposed ordinance at this time. 3 FEB 12 19'cA , Wiz-, AMY . 7 F'A��E 688 1991 ANALYSIS AND ALTERNATIVES: • BOARD ACTION BOOK 82 FAGF.6S Pursuant to recently enacted state legislation, the Board of County Commissioners is to hold two public hearings to consider the proposed LDR amendments. At its initial hearing, the Board is to consider the proposed amendments and receive public input. At its second hearing (scheduled for Wednesday, February 27, 1991 at 5:01 p.m.), the Board is to receive any additional public input and take final action. • PROPOSED AMENDMENTS A total of 34 separate amendments are proposed in sections 1-34 of the proposed ordinance (see attachment #2). Of the 34 sections, sections 1-32 are staff initiated changes; sections 33 and 34 are related to the Barkett petition. None of the 34 changes are considered by staff to be controversial or to be of such significance that special workshops are required. As indicated previously in this report, the Professional Services Advisory Committee has reviewed the changes, with the exception of section 32, and considered all of the changes as minor in nature. • Staff -Initiated Changes (Sections 1-33) The following is a description of each staff -initiated change, by section. The exact language of each section is contained in the proposed ordinance, attachment #2. 1. Section 1: The current "new" LDR definition of open space does not allow any open space credit for waterbodies, despite the fact that planned developments (Chapter 915) allow up to 30% open space credit for waterbodies. The proposed change amends the definition of open space to allow up to 30% open space credit for waterbodies, in keeping with the planned development treatment of open space. 2. Section 2: The wording of a subsection heading is corrected. 3. Section 3: A typographical error is corrected. 4. Section 4: The "Relationship of the Zoning Districts with Land Use Map" table is clarified to show that only the appropriate conservation zoning district (Con -1 or Con -2) is allowed in the appropriate conservation land use classification (C-1 and C-2). 5. Section 5: The "Uses" table for the agricultural and rural residential districts is changed to: a. Correct a use heading from "Small Animal Specialty -Farms" to "Specialty Farms"; and b. To better specify the various transmission tower height categories as already reflected in Chapter 971, Specific Land Use Criteria. 6. Section 6: The "uses" text and table for the office and commercial districts are changed to: a. Require commercial uses and activities to be located only in an enclosed area unless specifically allowed otherwise. This corresponds to existing policy that has been implemented under both the old and new LDRs. 4 b. Take the "Legal Services" use heading from the Health and Medical Services category and place it under the offices category. c. Allow veterinarian clinics in the CG and CH districts as an administrative permit use. This use was allowed under the old LDRs in the CG and CH districts but was inadvertently left out of the new LDRs. The proposed change corrects the omission. d. Allows places of worship in the CL, CG, and CH districts (as was allowed in the old LDRs), and allows civic and social membership organizations in the MED, CL, and CG districts (as was allowed in the old LDRs). These changes correct inadvertent omissions. e. Better specify the various transmission tower height categories as already reflected in Chapter 971, Specific Land Use Criteria. f. Allows carry -out restaurant, miscellaneous retail, and personal services uses in the OCR district as administrative permit uses having certain limitations (relates to Section 7). 7. Section 7: The same limitations placed upon restaurant, miscellaneous retail, and personal services uses accessory to a project in the OCR district are added back into the LDRs in a format using the administrative permit process. The change corrects an omission. 8. Section 8: The size and dimension criteria placed upon motel/hotel projects are added back into the LDRs. The change corrects an omission. 9. Section 9: The "Uses" table for the industrial districts is changed to better specify the various transmission tower height categories as already reflected in Chapter 971, Specific Land Use Criteria. 10. Section 10: The natural waterbodies setback found in Chapter 911, Zoning is changed to conform to the natural waterbodies setback regulations specified in Chapter 929, Upland Habitat Protection. 11. Section 11: The special S.R. 60 building setback language is modified to better describe the setback regulations. 12. Section 12 and 13: The fuel tank size restriction in residential districts is deleted since fire codes (which are applied to fuel tank permit applications by Emergency Services) adequately handle safety concerns. 13. Section 14: A typographical error is corrected. 14. Section 15: A final plat lettering size requirement is added back into the LDRs. The change corrects an inadvertent omission. 15. Section 16: Final plat dedication regulations are modified to recognize that subdivision improvements and tracts can be dedicated to a private property owner's association. The subsection to be changed is brought into line with other portions of the subdivision ordinance dealing with private subdivisions. 16. Section 17: At the end of an intersection radii regulation, a reference is made to exceptions to the normal standard as found in Chapter 952, Traffic. 5 FEB 12 .119',) BOOK?� A f� a FEB i2 1991 ia� h BOOK 17. Section 18: The affidavit of exemption provision in the subdivision ordinance is amended to better correspond to the new A-1 district lot size standard which was reduced in the new LDRs from 5 acres (217,800 sq. ft.) to 200,000 sq. ft. 18. Section 19: Two minor changes are made to the reference section of the single family development chapter. 19. Section 20: The natural waterbodies setback found in Chapter 917, Accessory Uses and Structures, is changed to conform to the waterbodies setback regulations specified in chapter 929, Upland Habitat Protection. 20. Section 21: A special provision is added to the regulations for towers 35' to 70' in height that are allowed to be located as an accessory structure within non-residential districts. These towers would be allowed to use a design fall radius rather than 110% of the tower height to determine the tower setback requirements. Use of the design fall radius for a tower setback determination is already allowed in determining setbacks for higher towers. 21. Section 22: Citations referenced in this stormwater management ordinance subsection are corrected. 22. Section 23: Language in the special exception use application requirements is clarified. 23. Section 24: A typographical error in the "Automotive Fluids..." heading is corrected. 24. Section 25: Child care facilities special recreation criteria are deleted and replaced by a requirement for applicants to verify compliance with state recreation standards. Provisions are retained and clarified that require buffering (eg. wall or deep setback) between outdoor recreation areas and adjacent residential areas. 25. Section 26: A typographical error is corrected. 26. Section 27: A typographical error is corrected. 27. Section 28: The open space requirement in the A-1 zoning district is adjusted from 80% to 60%. The A-1 open space requirement in the old LDRs was 50%. The change is made to bring the A-1 district into line with what is allowed in other zoning districts in regards to open space, building coverage, and allowable impervious surface ratios. 28. Section 29: Add the CG and CH commercial districts to the list of districts where veterinarian clinics are allowed as administrative permit uses (related to Section 6 amendment). 29. Section 30: A citation is corrected. 30. Section 31: Some minor changes are made to clarify a notification requirement for subdivision construction inspections. 31. Section 32: The term "zoning chapter", which is a left -over from the old LDRs, is corrected and replaced with the term "land development regulations". Other minor corrections to terms are made. Note: this correction was not considered by the Professional Services Advisory Committee. 6 • Barkett Petition (Sections 33 and 34) Sections 33 and 34 would change the LDRs to allow residential centers, which are the largest type of "group home", in the RM -3 and RM -4 zoning districts by special exception approval. Currently, residential centers are allowed in the other multi- family diistricts a(RM-6, RM -8, RM -10) by special exception use approval. As proposed, the same specific land use criteria that apply to the other multi -family districts would now apply to the RM -3 and RM -4 districts. It should be noted that the number of residents per project acre are limited by the applicable zoning district densities. Thus, residential centers in the RM -3 district would be less "dense" than projects in the RM -4 district; projects in the RM -4 district would be less dense than projects in the RM -6 district, and so on. Staff has no objection to these changes. The Professional Services Advisory Committee voted unanimously to recommend that the County adopt the proposed changes related to the Barkett petition. • Sections 35 - 38 These sections are standard legal language used by the County in the preparation and adoption of ordinances. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners: 1. Provide staff with direction(s) for any changes to the proposed amendments; and 2. Announce its intentions to take final action on the proposed amendments on Wednesday, February 27, 1991 at 5:01 p.m. in the Commission Chambers. Planning Director Boling recapped that LDR amendments will require 2 night hearings. This first hearing will be for input, any direction the Board has for staff, and to establish formally the next hearing date to finalize the action recommended tonight. He informed the Board that we do have another amendment applica- tion in; so, we will be going through this procedure probably in April and staff will try to "piggy back" minor changes at that time. Planning Director Boling continued that what is Board this them being again some more before the evening is basically two sets of proposals, most of staff initiated minor changes; i.e., clarifications, typos, etc. The others relate to the Barkett petitions which involve two changes to the ordinance. Referring to transmission towers, Director Boling noted that mostly the changes that occur are just a matter of formatting. There are no substantive changes in the tower regulations with one exception and that gives a option for the setbacks for towers in non-residential districts. The other staff initiated change of some substance is the change in the open space requirement in the A-1 zoning district, which has been changed from 80% to 60%. 7 FEB 12 1991 I1001( 82 PAGE 692 KB 12 i 9 ROOK 82 FAGS Director Boling then reviewed the changes requested in the Barkett petition relating to allowing residential centers in RM -3 and RM -4 districts by special exception approval, noting that both the P&Z Commission and the Professional Services Advisory Committee recommended adoption of these changes. Commissioner Eggert asked if we are simply going to use the state rules on the Child Care, and Director Boling advised that we will use the state requirements for recreation, but we do leave in there the buffering requirements between outdoor play areas and adjacent residential. Chairman Bird opened the public hearing and asked if anyone present wished, to be heard. Attorney Bruce Barkett, representing National Retirement Company and Florida Baptist Retirement Center, just wished to point out that the amendment he originally proposed and that is before the Board, does not change the underlying density of the RM -3 and RM -4 zoning districts - they would not lose any of their density if this is passed. The Chairman determined that no one else wished to be heard and thereupon closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously recommended approval of the proposed ordinance, which is coming back for final action at the second public hearing. Chairman Bird announced that the second public hearing will be held on Wednesday, February 27, 1991, at 5:01 o'clock P.M. in the County Commission Chambers. There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 5:12 o'clock P.M. ATTEST: Clerk 8 Chairman