HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/1/1991ma. e
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
AGENDA
SPECIAL MEETING
WEDNESDAY, MAY 1, 1991
5:01 P.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER
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, Jr.
James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
5:01 P.M. CALL TO ORDER
PUBLIC HEARING:
"Second Round" Minor Amendments to LDRs:
Staff Initiated Changes and McDowell Request
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..
'MAY 1
991
ROOK 83
SPECIAL MEETING
Wednesday, May 1, 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 Wednesday,
May 1, 1991, at 5:01 o'clock P.M. Present were Gary C. Wheeler,
Vice Chairman; Margaret C. Bowman; Carolyn K. Eggert; and Don C.
Scurlock, Jr. Chairman Richard N. Bird was on vacation. Also'
present were James E. Chandler, County Administrator; Charles P.
Vitunac, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; and
Barbara Bonnah, Deputy Clerk.
Vice Chairman Wheeler called the Meeting to order, and
Attorney Vitunac led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
PUBLIC HEARING - "SECOND ROUND" MINOR AMENDMENTS TO LDRs: STAFF
INITIATED CHANGES AND McDOWELL REQUEST
The hour of 5:01 o'clock P.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to wit:
MAY 1 1991
LOO F'4 HE 100
MAY fl
91
BOOK
P.O. Box 1268 Vero Beach, Florida 32961 562-2315
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER
STATE OF FLORIDA
13rc 3ournat.
83 f,t,st-181
Before the undersigned authority personally 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
A display ad measuring 33" at 10.30
per column inch
billedto Indian River County Planning Department
was published in said newspaper in the issue(s)
of
April 24, 1991
Sworn to and subscribed before me this
6th
(SEAL)
day of
May
A.D 1991
Business Manager
Notify Pubhc. State of Florida
FItyComm ssion Expires June 29, 1993
2
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
advertisement.
Two public hearings on the regulation(s) affecting the use of land will be held, one
on Wednesday, May 1, 1991, and one on Wednesday, May 15, 1991,.at 5:01 in the
County Commission Chambers in the County Administration Building Located at 1840
25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida.
Proposed changes to various chapter sections of the land development regulations
(LDRs) effective in the unincorporated area of the county include:
CHAPTER 901: "Breakaway Wall" definition modified;
CHAPTER 902: Rezoning and LDR amendment process clarified;
CHAPTER 904 Specific reference to redevelopment projects included in non-
. ,conformities regulations,
CHAPTER 910:Concurrency requirements modified for subdivision projects;
CHAPTER 911: "Packinghouse" use category specified for some zoning districts;
CHAPTER 913: Conservation easements language added to platting requirements,
change allowing staff to extend contract and security arrangements for
sidewalks,
CHAPTER 914. Site Plan language regarding classification thresholds clarified,
procedures for obtaining a certificate of occupancy specified,
CHAPTER 915: Open space requirements for planned developments modified to con-
form to new LDR commercial district open space standards;
CHAPTER 918: Typographical errors corrected, utilities franchise requirement clarified;
CHAPTER 932: Modifications made to allow greater flexibility for dock setbacks;
provision made to allow the construction of unwalled boat shelters
("McDowell" request); revisions to requirements for building over light-
sensitive vegetation made.
A copy of the proposed Ordinance will be available at the Planning Division office
on the second floor of the County Administrative 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- RICHARD BIRD, CHAIRMAN
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY- UNINCORPORATED AREA
MAY 1 1991
11.
3
EOOK c)� FAi,E i.1 4,
r
MAY 1 1991
BOOK 83 PAE YS 3
Planning Director Stan Boling reviewed aloud the following
staff recommendation dated 4/19/91:
TO: The Honorable Members of The Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
obert M. Ke'a ing, CP
Community Dev lopm t Director
FROM: Stan Boling' ICP
Planning Director
DATE: April 19, 1991
SUBJECT: "Second Round" Minor Amendments to LDRs: Staff Initiated
Changes and McDowell Request
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its special
night meeting (first hearing) of May 1, 1991.
BACKGROUND AND CONDITIONS
On January 22, 1991, George McDowell filed an application to amend
a subsection of the LDRs to allow boat shelters to be built over
boatslips under certain conditions. To minimize public hearings
and to expedite other needed amendments, staff has "piggy -backed"
other proposed amendments along with the McDowell request into a
single ordinance (see attachment #2).
Both the staff proposed changes and the McDowell request have been
discussed and considered by the Professional Services Advisory
Committee (PSAC). At its regular meeting of March 14, 1991, the
committee voted unanimously to recommend that the county approve
the proposed changes. The Planning and Zoning Commission, at its
regular meeting of March 28, 1991, voted unanimously to recommend
that the Board of County Commissioners amend the LDRs by adopting
the proposed ordinance.
It should be noted that subsequent to both the PSAC and Planning
and Zoning Commission considerations and recommendations, staff has
proposed an additional LDR change. This change involves extending
contracts and security for sidewalk improvements and is contained
in Section 7 of the proposed ordinance. Thus, all sections of the
proposed ordinance, except section 7, have been considered by the
PSAC and Planning and Zoning Commission.
ANALYSIS:
The exact language of each of the twelve (12) proposed amendments
is contained within the proposed ordinance. The ordinance has been
reviewed by staff, including the County Attorney's Office.
•STAFF -INITIATED AMENDMENTS
Section(s) 1-11 of the proposed ordinance (see attachment #2) were
initiated by staff. The following are summaries of the changes
proposed within each section:
4
MAY 1
1. Section 1: [Amend 901.03] This proposed change is the result
of discussion occurring at a PSAC meeting. By deleting the
last sentence of the current definition of "Breakaway Wall or
Frangible Wall", the definition will be made to better fit the
actual county stormwater management regulations. The sentence
to be deleted does not apply to all breakaway wall regulations
and thus, makes the current definition too narrow. The
proposed change will correct this problem.
2. Section 2: [Amend 902.12] Several changes are proposed
throughout this section so that the section more specifically
addresses both types of amendments that the section is
intended to cover: amendments to the zoning atlas and to the
LDRs. The proposed changes are intended to make the necessary
distinctions between these two types of amendments in terms of
review criteria, and notice requirements.
3. Section 3: [Amend 904.05(3)] This change clarifies that
additions to non -conformities specifically include development
and redevelopment of a site having site -related non -
conformities.
4. Section 4: [Amend 910.07(1)(a) and (b)] These changes are
the result of a recommendation by the PSAC, with which staff
concurs, to amend the way in which concurrency requirements
are presently applied to various steps in the subdivision
development and review process. The proposed changes would
treat preliminary plats as "conceptual" types of plans that
would only require a conditional concurrency review. Land
development permits, which actually allow subdivision
improvements (such as roads and utilities) to be constructed,
would not be issued until an initial concurrency certificate
is issued. No concurrency review would be applied to final
plat applications because, according to the County Attorney's
Office, final plat approval is a "rubber stamp" type of legal
review and does not require any concurrency review over and
above the initial concurrency review performed previously in
the review process. In addition, "change of use" requests are
specifically addressed as requiring an initial concurrency
certificate (present policy applied by staff).
5. Section 5: [Amend 911.11(4)] This change would specifically
address the "packing house" use which was inadvertently
omitted from this section during the September 1990 LDR
adoption. The proposed change conforms to the old LDR IL
(Industrial, Light) and IG (Industrial, General) zoning
district requirements and the new LDR Chapter 971 specific
land use criteria regulations pertaining to packing houses in
the IL district. With this change, packing houses would again
be allowed as administrative permit uses in the IL district,
and would again be permitted uses in the IG district.
6. Section 6: {Amend 913.07(6)(F)] This change, proposed by the
County Attorney's Office, would implement existing County
policy to have conservation easement language appear on plats
of projects where conservation easements are required.
7. Section 7: [Amend 913.09(5)(D)] This change has not been
considered by the PSAC or Planning and Zoning Commission.
However, in staff's opinion, the change is minor and is in
harmony with Board policy regarding extensions of contracts
for required improvements and corresponding security
instruments. The present wording of this section allows a 2
year extension for sidewalk construction but requires Board
approval of an extension request. The proposed change would
allow staff (the public works and community development
directors) to approve extensions without having to schedule
such routine business for Board consideration and action. It
should be noted that staff is already authorized to extend
contracts and security instruments for more major improvements
such as roads.
5 F',1., E 18 `i
MAY 1 199'
<r or 83 FALL 185
8. Section 8: [Amend 914.06(1)] This change would make the
threshold standards for major and minor site plans clearer.
The ten percent of site coverage standard applied in the
threshold definition of major site plan projects does not need
to be repeated in the minor site plan threshold definitions
since no project meeting major site plan threshold
requirements can be treated as a minor site plan. This change
is merely for clarification purposes and does not change any
threshold standards.
9. Section 9: [amend 914.12(3)(c)] This amendment would add
specific language that describes the existing county process
for receiving a certificate of occupancy (C.O.) for all or a
portion of a site plan project. The proposed language clearly
indicates that no C.O. can be issued until staff has verified
that construction conforms to the approved site plan(s) and
that no project can be occupied or operated commercially or
industrially without a C.O.
10. Section 10: [Amend 915.18] This amendment applies only to
the open space standards of Planned Development (P.D.)
projects and increases the open space standard for
commercial/industrial P.D. projects from 20% to 25%. The 25%
standard conforms to the new LDR commercialdistrict open
space standards.
11. Section 11: [Amend 918.04(5)] This change corrects a
typographical error and clarifies that the Utilities
Department determines when a utility franchise approval is
needed in relation to a development project.
•McDOWELL REQUEST [Amend 932.07]
12. Section 12 of the proposed ordinance contains the elements of
the McDowell request as well as some staff -initiated changes.
The changes are summarized as follows.
• Sections 932.07(2) and 932(4): In coordination with county
attorney staff, planning staff is proposing minor
modifications to allow greater flexibility in dock setback
requirements in order to allow for the utilization of riparian
rights. The requirement of written approval from all affected
property owners has been deleted, based upon staff's opinion
that such a requirement is inappropriate.
• Section 932.07(3): The McDowell request is for the county to
allow the construction of unwalled boat shelters waterward of
the shoreline. Environmental planning staff have researched
state and federal agency regulations concerning this matter,
and have found that such boat shelters are allowed by the
agencies, provided there is no adverse impact on light-
sensitive submergent aquatic vegetation (such as seagrasses).
Also, the Florida Department of Natural Resources (FDNR)
limits the combined total surface area of boat shelters and
dock terminal platforms to 160 square feet in an aquatic
preserve. The proposed changes would better conform to the
county's regulations as to what is allowed by state and
federal agencies.
• Section 932.07(5): Staff is recommending this revision
(allowing a special exemption from building partially over
light-sensitive vegetation) to make local regulations more
consistent with state (FDNR) and federal (ACOE) agency
requirements. By doing so, inter -governmental agency
coordination and enforcement will be enhanced.
6
'LEGAL REQUIREMENTS
Sections 13-16 contain standard legal language used by the county
in the preparation and adoption of its ordinances.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners:
1. Provide staff with directions(s) for any changes to the
proposed ordinance; and
2. announce its intention to take final action on the proposed
ordinance on Wednesday, May 15, 1991 at 5:01 p.m. in the
Commission Chambers.
Director Boling noted that all sections of the proposed
ordinance have been considered by the PSAC and P&Z Commission,
with the exception of Section 7 which involves extending
contracts and security for sidewalk improvements. The exact
language of each of the 12 proposed amendments is contained
within the proposed ordinance.
There being no questions of staff, Vice Chairman Wheeler
opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard
in this matter.
George McDowell, owner of the property on 135th Lane, stated
that he has been working with the Code Enforcement people and the
various agencies involved regarding the allowed size of an
unwalled boat shelter. In talking with the DNR yesterday and
last week, they indicate that the State probably will change the
160 sq. ft. limitation. Apparently, they already have changed it
in some areas. When Mr. Merman from the DNR in Melbourne came
down to check it out and take some pictures, he indicated that
the boat shelter wasn't any different from a lot of the others.
Mr. Merman further indicated that the change would be very soon,
and had shown him a letter on one that they already had changed.
Vice Chairman Wheeler asked if he had a problem with the 160
sq. ft., and Mr. McDowell said that his boat shelter is approxi-
mately 600 sq. ft. Actually, it is a 16' x 39' platform with a
cover over it and no hoist. The boat is docked on the St.
MY I. J99
7
LOOK 6 F',"+ut 1.8il.g'
MAY I_ 1991
BOOK 83 FA6E 18 7
Sebastian River behind Humana Hospital, north of Wimbrow Park,
and there are no sea grasses in there because the water is filthy
dirty and black from the silt on the bottom. It is near the
Oyster Bay area where they are dumping sewage illegally.
Roland DeBlois, chief of Environmental Planning & Code
Enforcement, explained that staff came up with the 160 sq. ft.
restriction in an aquatic preserve for our ordinance based on
discussions with the DNR Melbourne office and the reviewing
staff. He wished to point out that what Mr. McDowell is saying
today about the pending change is something that is new
information, because as he understands it right now, the DNR is
exercising the 160 -ft. limitation for a boat dock in an aquatic
preserve.
In reply to Commissioner Bowman's question, Mr. McDowell
advised that his dock is 4 feet above the mean high water mark.
Commissioner Bowman pointed out that docks have to be 5 feet
above the water in order to comply with the Corps of Engineers'
requirements. Sunlight must be able to reach the seagrasses. If
the bottom is cleaned up and sunlight can get in there, there is
a potential for seagrasses to grow and thrive.
Mr. McDowell advised that he sent the plans to the DNR and
the DER and has a permit with them. They came down and inspected
it and said it was high enough.
Mr. DeBlois believed they might have signed off on that
based on the lack of submerged aquatic vegetation in that area.
Commissioner Bowman emphasized that just because there is no
seagrasses there now doesn't mean that none will grow if given
the right conditions.
Community Development Director Robert Keating explained that
with the way it reads now, Mr. McDowell would have to reduce the
size of his boat dock. He felt there are a couple of
alternatives with this new information about the pending change.
One would be to revise this and say that unwalled boat shelters
are allowed with these conditions and revise this one to say that
instead of 160 sq. ft. that it is in compliance with the maximum
size that the State allows in aquatic preserves. That way, we
wouldn't have to worry whether they changed it or not.
Commissioner Eggert wondered whether the change by the State
would be enough to allow a dock the size of Mr. McDowell's, but
Mr. DeBlois believed it might.
Director Keating explained that we have been pursuing this
and it is unusual in the sense that the DER has issued its
permit, but the DNR hasn't signed off on it like they are
supposed to. Brian Poole, the DNR person whom we have been
dealing with, has not signed off on this and we are not quite
8
sure whether this fell through the cracks or if they are not
enforcing their rules correctly. What we are presenting to the
Board today reflects current rules regarding unwalled boat
shelters in aquatic preserves.
Commissioner Scurlock understood that as proposed, Mr.
McDowell still doesn't comply.
Commissioner Bowman suggested the following change in
wording in Item (5) on the bottom of page 10 of the proposed
ordinance:
such structure shall be constructed a minimum of
five (5) feet above the mean high water level "where if
conditions are right, aquatic vegetation may occur". That means
the whole river. Grass beds are essential for the health and
production of fish and shellfish in the river.
Mr. McDowell stated that he really wasn't asking for
anything that all the other people don't have already.
Commissioner Bowman pointed out that Linda Farrell of the
Corps of Engineers will tell you that there are more violations
than she could possibly list. Right now, the Corps does no
enforcement, and they quite frankly admit that they do not have
the manpower to do the enforcement. Commissioner Bowman stressed
that is why she would like to see the County take over the
enforcement.
Vice Chairman Wheeler noted that 160 sq. ft. is not a lot of
area since most boats start at 16 feet, and it seems only
reasonable for somebody to want to cover all of their boat. That
is one thing, but requiring people to build their docks higher is
another matter.
Commissioner Eggert felt that if it ends up that the County
is going to be the ones to watch over this, maybe we should have
something practical.
Director Keating advised that in our ordinance we could be
more restrictive than the DER, but he is willing to go with
whatever they set because they have more expertise than us.
Commissioner Scurlock felt the 160 sq. ft. limitation is a
lot of baloney and not based on anything as far as he could see,
and Mr. McDowell felt that is why they are changing it.
Commissioner Eggert suggested that we find out before the
next meeting on May 15th exactly what the State is planning to do
on the square footage requirement.
Commissioner Wheeler didn't have a problem with the 5 -ft.
docks if we grandfather in the existing ones where there are no
seagrass beds or vegetation, but in that we should require those
docks to be raised to 5 feet over mean high water level at such
MAY 1 '991
9
ROGI< 83 88
MAY 1 1991
BOOK
pAi,E18
time as they are repaired or rebuilt. He couldn't see asking
people to spend a lot of money to raise their 4 ft. docks to 5
ft.
Commissioner Bowman emphasized that there are people out
there who were told the docks had to be 5 -ft. above the water,
but went ahead and built them lower anyway.
As one Commissioner, Commissioner Scurlock didn't want to
pass something here that would require people all over the county
to take out their docks or boat slips, but Commissioner Bowman
stressed that they all know they are in violation.
Commissioner Scurlock countered that while they may know
they are in violation, he didn't believe they went out there
intentionally and violated the law.
Commissioner Bowman maintained that they did, because they
paid no attention when the Corps of Engineers officer told them
of the requirements.
Director Keating advised that our existing non -conforming
language in another part of the ordinance covers this, but
Commissioner Eggert felt we should include some language right in
this section and not depend on something in another part of the
ordinance.
Attorney Vitunac advised that non -conforming language now
says that they had to be validly existing before the law changed.
The people who put them up without a permit would not come under
the non -conforming exception unless the Board changed that. The
Board would have to give a blanket exception that any dock that
is there now, no matter how illegal, would qualify for this
exception.
Commissioner Eggert understood then that we are going to
wait until the next public hearing on May 15, 1991, to make a
decision about the square footage limitation for a boat shelter
since the State may have made a change by then.
Discussion returned to the protection of the seagrass beds,
and Commissioner Scurlock asked if Grand Harbor is complying with
the 5 -ft. requirement in their $4 -million boat basin.
Director Keating explained that the way this is written they
would not have to meet the 5 -ft. criteria. That is an artificial
waterway and there is no grass there.
Mr. DeBlois understood that the Corps of Engineers does not
require the 5 feet in all cases, so this would be going beyond
the State restrictions as presently written, but Commissioner
Scurlock pointed out that Commissioner Bowman's suggestion is for
"wherever seagrass may occur".
Commissioner Wheeler felt we really would be opening up
something if we did that.
10
i
Commissioner Bowman didn't feel that grass beds would occur
in a canal with steep sides, but Commissioner Wheeler was con-
cerned about who would determine "wherever seagrass may occur".
Director Keating advised that if we could limit the 5 -ft.
requirement to the aquatic preserve areas, it would exempt
man-made canals and man-made basins, and it essentially would
affect all the portions of the Indian River lagoon that are in
the unincorporated area, as well as the St. Sebastian River. If
we do that, it at least would take care of the problem with the
canals, the Grand Harbor basin, and other basins like that.
Commissioner Scurlock felt we need to have some sort of
language stating that after a certain date, all existing docks,
permitted or non -permitted, will have to comply with all these
other requirements, but Director Keating felt that the current
language "shall be constructed" takes care of that because
"shall" implies in the future.
Attorney Vitunac advised that the language "shall be con-
structed" still leaves out the issue of existing non -permitted
docks, and Director Keating agreed to put in a date.
Mr. DeBlois suggested that if there is going to be a grand-
fathering allowance, it be specific to the 5 -ft. dock requirement
so that it couldn't be interpreted to grandfather in other
aspects that might be more of a problem.
Commissioner Eggert asked that we have the appropriate
wording for the next meeting.
Nancy Offutt, representing the Vero Beach/Indian River
County Board of Realtors, had two questions. The first one
concerns Item 5 on page 3 of the proposed ordinance regarding
application time limitations which sets a time of one year from
the submittal date to the County until it is expired. She
wondered if that one year is enough time to allow submittals to
travel back and forth to Tallahassee.
Director Keating felt that one year does allow enough time.
We only accept submittals twice a year during the window time of
January and July, and after the first public hearing by the
Board, the amendments are sent to Tallahassee for review, and
that takes 90 days. After that, it comes back to the Board in a
second public hearing. It takes roughly 8 months to process a
submittal.
Commissioner Eggert understood that as it stands now, it
could be active for longer than one year if the delays weren't
the fault of the applicant, and Director Keating confirmed that
to be .the case.
Mrs. Offutt didn't have a problem if everyone feels it is
sufficient time. Her second question concerned the increased
MAY 11991
11
ROCK FbE i,9�-
SAY 1 199d
BOOK 83 PAGE 1.91
open space requirement for Commercial/Industrial as set out in
Section 10 on page 8 of the ordinance. She wished to hear a
little more discussion on the rationale regarding the increase
from 20o to 25% on the PD ordinance.
Director Boling explained that the rationale for changing
the PD Section is that right now the 20% is not consistent with
the 25% we require from a normal site plan in a commercial area.
The rationale is to make it consistent with the other processes
we have in place. When the LDRs were adopted last fall, the open
space requirements for commercial areas were increased from 20%
to 25%.
Mrs. Offutt wished to respectfully suggest that to make
Planned Developments conform to free-standing commercial sites
kind of takes away the whole reason for applying for a PD, which
is to get more consideration than a free-standing commercial
site.
Commissioner Eggert guessed she thinks of a PD having more
open space, not Tess.
There being no others who wished to be heard, Vice Chairman
Wheeler closed the Public Hearing.
Attorney Vitunac announced that the proposed ordinance will
be considered again at the second Public Hearing on May 15, 1991,
at 5:01 o'clock P.M.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made,
seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 5:40 o'clock P.M.
ATTEST:
Clerk Chairman
12