Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/8/1992f 0p 1 .1 -r , n COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA A G E N D A SPECIAL MEETING WEDNESDAY, APRIL 8, 1992 5:01 P.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 1840 25TH STREET VERO BEACH, FLORIDA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman Margaret C. Bowman, Vice Chairman Richard N. Bird Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Gary C. Wheeler James E. Chandler, County Administrator Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board 5:01 P.M. PROPOSED LDR (LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS) AMENDMENTS ( memorandum dated March 31, 1992 ) 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. APR 0 8 1992 01 • Wednesday, April 8, 1992 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, April 8, 1992, at 5:01 o'clock P.M. Present were Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman; Margaret C. Bowman, Vice Chairman; Richard N. Bird; Don C. Scurlock, Jr.; and Gary C. Wheeler. Also present were James E. Chandler, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney; and Barbara Bonnah, Deputy Clerk. The Chairman called the meeting to order. PROPOSED LDR (LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS) AMENDMENTS The hour of 5:01 o'clock P.M. having passed, the County Attorney announced that this public hearing has been properly advertised as follows: U F�.GE �+ I P.O. Box 1268 Vero Beach, Florida 32961 562-2315 COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER res Journal STATE OF FLORIDA 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 'PIRTMMUr IJ 4 J a. was published in said newspaper in the issue(s) — su i Sworn to and subscribed before me this 24— day of An - p A.D 199 7— (SEAL) (SEAL) Business Manager Noton, Puw. state et FWh My eO 'ba Ex*es Jwe 29, 1993 AA(Wrl /b b NOTICE OF ESTABLISHMENT OR CHANGE OF A LAND REGULATIONS) AFFECTING THE USE OF LAND . i . v = r 1 • s>.r i:Gp f INDIAN RIVER COUNTY— UNINCORPORATED AREA i : The Indian River County Board of County Commissioners propose to adopt or change a regulations) 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 Feld, one on Wednesday, April 8, 1992, of 5:01 p.m., and one on •. Wednesday, April 22, 1992, of 5:01 p.m. in the County Commission Chom- bars in the • County Administration Building .located at 1840 25th Street, . Vero Beach, Florida. ' Proposed changes to the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) efec- - tive in the unincorporated areas of the county include changes to the fol- lowing LDR chaptersl • Chapter 902, Administrative Mechanisms;. • Chapter 904, Nonconformities; • Chapter 911, Zoning; F . • Chapter 912, Single Family Development; , ' • Chapter 913, Subdivisions and Plats; ' • Chapter 914, Site Plan Review and Approval Procedures; • Chapter 927, Tree Protection and Land Clearing; _ • Chapter 929, Upland Habitat Protection; • Chapter 932, Coastal Management; " i • Chapter 954, Off -Street Parking= • Chapter 971, Regulations for Specific Land Use Criteria; ; • Chapter 973, Public Nuisance A copy of the proposed ordinance will be available at the Planning Divi - Sion Office on the second floor of the County Administration Building begin- ning March 31, 1992, i Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at r. 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. V ' '' INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS i E BY -s- CAROLYN K. EGGERT, CHAIRMAN 0 0 The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/31/92: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator DIV SION HEAD CONCURRENCE: PR ober M. K in opI Community Deveelo ment 01rector FROM: Stan Boling AICP Planning Director DATE: March 31, 1992 SUBJECT: Proposed LDR (Land Development Regulations) Amendments It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its special meeting of April 8, 1992. BACKGROUND AND CONDITIONS: Several LDR amendment proposals have been initiated by staff, the Professional Services Advisory Committee (PSAC), and by an individual applicant, Karl Hedin. All of the proposed amendments have been reviewed by staff. Most of the proposals were reviewed by the PSAC at its February 13, 1992 meeting. Staff has drafted a single proposed ordinance which addresses all of the previously referenced initiatives. PSAC comments and suggestions have been incorporated into the proposed draft; differences between PSAC and staff recommendations regarding specific amendments are indicated in the "Analysis" portion of this report and in certain places within the text of the proposed ordinance. The Planning and Zoning Commission considered the proposed amendments at -its March 12, 1992 meeting. The Commission voted to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed LDR amendments with some changes. Staff has made the changes discussed at the March 12th meeting and has incorporated the changes into the proposed ordinance (see attachment #2). Differences between any staff and Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation are indicated the "Analysis" section of the report and in certain places within the text of the proposed ordinance. ANALYSIS: The proposed ordinance contains a total of 31 sections (see attachment #2). Sections 1 - 27 contain actual LDR amendments. Sections 28 - 31 contain standard legal requirements included in all county ordinances. A brief description of each section follows. An asterisk (*) after the section number indicates that the amendment was specifically reviewed by the PSAC. A double asterisk (**) before the section number indicates that the amendment was specifically reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission. 1. **Section 1.* This section is the result of direction given by the Board of County Commissioners to staff and the PSAC to assess the county's paved parking and child care facility requirements. The Board's direction was given during a hearing at which the Board denied an appeal by Graves Brothers, Inc. of a denied site plan application for a child care center. Based upon the Board's direction, staff 3 BOOK APR ® 8 1992 f'��t lJ L I N 0 8 199 BOOK 86 f'A't 05 researched the county's child care facility and paved parking requirements in relation to requirements of other local governments (see attachment #3). The PSAC discussed and considered existing county child care and paved parking requirements at three separate meetings (November, 1991, December, 1991, and January, 1992). As a result of the meetings, the PSAC is now recommending that the board change an existing section of the county's off- street parking ordinance (Chapter 954). Currently, section 954.10(3) allows the county engineer to approve parking surfaces (other than pavement or concrete) based upon the suitability of the surface type for the proposed project use based upon "generally accepted standards". Other than for infrequent use projects, such as churches or vehicle storage lots, the county engineer has not approved non -rigid surfaces for regularly used parking. The PSAC recommends a change to section 954.10(3) to specify criteria that the county engineer would use to review requests for unpaved parking surfaces for regularly used parking lots, such as lots used by child care facilities and other businesses. County staff do not recommend approval of unpaved surfaces for regularly used parking lots. Paved surfaces provide better on-site and off-site traffic maneuvering and safety, provide for better drainage, and function better in terms of wear and maintenance (see attachment #3). In staff's opinion, the benefits to the property owner ( as well as to the users of the site and the general public) of paving outweigh paving's upfront costs. In staff's opinion, the county should not now relax a paved parking standard which has been in effect in the county for over ten years and which now has become an expected "community standard". However, if the Board of County Commissioners wishes to allow unpaved parking for regularly used parking lots serving new developments, then strict criteria should be adopted that provide reasonable assurances that the function and impact of such parking lots will be addressed. Such criteria are embodied in the proposed ordinance. As proposed, "Section 1" contains criteria which address the allowable location of unpaved parking lots, the allowable traffic intensity of projects which may construct an unpaved parking lot, and various engineering criteria related to surface function and integrity, drainage, traffic circulation, maintenance, and effect upon adjacent roadways. The PSAC, Planning and Zoning Commission, and county staff paving waiver criteria recommendations differ in regards to proposed criteria 1 and 8 (see attachment #2, pages 1 - 2). Both county staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend via criterion #1 that any paving waiver option for regularly used parking lots be limited to new development that is located outside of the urban service area (such as the Graves Brothers, Inc. proposed child care site). Differentiating between rural and urban areas is rational. Applying a more urban, "paved lot" standard in urban areas and allowing a more rural, unpaved construction in the rural areas would recognize the different characteristics of urban and rural areas. The PSAC recommends deletion of criterion 1, altogether. As part of the fist paragraph of criterion #8, staff recommends including a requirement of a base material on top of a stabilized subgrade. In staff's opinion, this requirement is not costly and would ensure a better functioning of the parking surface. Neither the PSAC nor the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that a base layer be required; both groups recommend deleting the last clause in the first paragraph of criterion 8. In staff's opinion, deleting the base requirement would entirely defeat_ the purpose of any meaningful surface type standard (see 4 M M M attachment #4). The PSAC, staff, and the Planning and Zoning Commission agree on all other aspects of the proposed criteria. 2. **Section 2.* Based upon experience with non -conformities and recent discussion at a Board of Adjustment meeting, staff is proposing this amendment to the non -conformities section of the LDRs. This amendment would grandfather -in, as legal, those non -conforming structures which have "passed the test" of previous county approvals and inspections. 3. **Section 3.* This amendment is proposed by staff to make clearer the requirement that three specific criteria must be satisfied in order to reduce the minimum PRO district size from 5 acres to 2.5 acres. 4. **Section 4.* Staff proposes this section in order to update the single-family development chapter (912) in terms of the native vegetation set-aside requirement. The set-aside requirement is already applied to single-family development on large tracts (5 acres or larger) via Chapter 929 regulations. 5. **Section 5.* Planning staff proposes this section to better specify required improvements that are exempted from affidavit of exemption subdivision developments. This amendment maintains and continues the county's local road right-of-way dedication requirements that currently apply to affidavit of exemption projects. 6. **Sections 6* and 7.* Staff proposes these sections which would require the county to mail a courtesy notice to owners of property adjacent to either plats to be vacated or rights-of- way to be abandoned. S. **Section 8.* This section is proposed by staff to better reference the source of handicap parking space requirements applied by the county. 9. **Sections 9.* and 10.* These sections are proposed by staff to clarify that dead Australian pine trees that pose health and safety hazards are nuisances that must be removed from private property._ Although dead Australian pines have been treated as nuisances in past code enforcement cases, the Assistant County Attorney has suggested adding to the LDR's specific references such as the ones proposed in these sections. 10.**Sections 11* and 12.* Staff is proposing language to allow compost piles within rear yard setback areas. 11.**Section 13.* This section is proposed by staff and would allow docks to be located in riparian sideyard setbacks where such location would preserve natural resources such as mangroves and grass beds. 12.**Section 14. In 1990, when the LDRs were comprehensively updated, the open space requirement for developments within the CH, Heavy Commercial zoning District, was increased from 15% to 25% of the site area. Open space requirements in other districts are as follows: MED, Medical District.............30% CL, Limited Commercial............25% CG, General Commercial............25% CH, Heavy Commercial..............25% (20% is proposed) IL, Light Industrial.... .... 4#0 ... 15% IG, General Industrial...... ... ...158 The open space requirement is "stepped -down" from the commercial to the industrial districts. In staff's opinion, the CH district has characteristics of both the CG and IWIG 5 APR 0 8 1992 809K I APR, 0 8 M2 N 0 K 86' FAGE 07 districts and as such should have an open space requirement between 25% and 15%. Thus,. staff proposes establishing a 20% minimum open space requirement for the CH zoning district. 13.**Sections 15 and 16. These sections are considered by the county attorney's office to be necessary for the county to comply with Florida Statutes Chapter 333.05 which requires local governments to adopt airport zoning ordinances. These sections would authorize the Planning and Zoning Commission and Board of Adjustment to function in capacities that will be necessary to implement any local airport zoning ordinance adopted by the county in the future. Furthermore, adoption of this. section will allow staff to go forward with the review process of a drafted county airport zoning ordinance which is to be considered in the months to come. 14.**Section 17. Staff proposes this section to specify non -paved surface requirements for vehicle storage lots which are currently approved by staff pursuant to section 954.10(3) of the off-street parking ordinance. Staff proposes this amendment because section 954.10(3) might be changed via Section 1 of this ordinance, and because specific buffering provisions need to be applied to such vehicle storage lots. The proposed amendment will formalize existing county practice and is consistent with existing LDRs which govern �dutdoor vehicle storage lots constructed in conjunction with self- service storage facilities. 15.**Sections 18-21. These sections propose some changes to portions of the final plat general dedication and "special notes" language. The proposed wording has been agreed to by planning, engineering, and county attorneys office staff and is proposed in order to clarify responsibilities of various parties (lot owners, homeowners associations, the county). 16.**Section 22*. The intent of this section is to specify in the Tree Protection and Land Clearing chapter that the owner of the property on which a violation has occurred is presumed to be responsible for the violation unless the owner can show otherwise. The proposal appearing in the draft ordinance was revised by planning staff and attorneys office staff based upon comments made at the February 13, 1992 PSAC meeting. 17.**Section 23*. This section is proposed by staff to specify under what circumstances sidewalk escrowing may be accepted in lieu of up -front construction. Currently, escrowing for site plan projects is allowed "...as provided for..." in the site plan chapter; however, no specific provisions currently exist within the site plan chapter. The proposed specific provisions would allow a developer the option to escrow if physical or design constraints warrant a delay in construction or if a programmed construction project will provide an opportunity for coordinated future construction. 18. **Sections 24* and 25.* These sections are proposed by Attorney Michael O'Haire on behalf of Karl Hedin (see attachment #1). The applicant owns property zoned CL, Limited Commercial, located on the north side of S.R. 60 in the 4700 block (the new "Keith's Oil Can" is located on the southern portion of the site). The applicant desires to construct a self-service storage facility on the site. However, the existing site is zoned CL, Limited commercial. The current LDRs allow self- service storage facilities in the IL and IG (industrial) districts and the CH (Heavy Commercial) District as a permitted use, and allow the facilities in the CG, General Commercial District as a special exception use. Self-service storage facilities are not allowed in any of the "lower intensity" commercial districts such as the CL District. 6 The applicant proposes amendments to the LDRs which would allow self service storage facilities in the CL District as a special exception use with corresponding specific land use criteria. The proposed criteria are somewhat stricter than the criteria applied to CG district self-service storage facilities. Staff does not recommend approval of these proposed amendments. In staff's opinion, self-service storage facilities are more characteristic of warehouse facilities than retail and convenience uses. Warehouse type uses are not compatible with the purpose and intent of the CL District, which is to provide for retail and convenience uses. In staff's opinion, the current LDRs "draw the proper line" between the districts where a warehouse type of use may be appropriate and where such uses are not appropriate. At its March 12, 1992 meeting, the Planning & Zoning Commission specifically considered the section 24 and 25 amendments proposed by Mr. Hedin. The Planning & Zoning Commission voted unanimously (5-0) to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners deny the requested amendments and continue to prohibit self-service storage uses in the CL zoning district. In regards to the criteria proposed by the applicant, both staff and the PSAC agree that the criteria are adequate to address negative impacts of self-service storage facilities if the Board of County Commissioners determines that such facilities are appropriate in the CL District. The proposed criteria limit the type of activities allowed in the facilities and limit the utilities provided to storage units. The criteria also impose limits on storage unit and building heights, restrict hours of operation, and establish buffering requirements. 19. Section 26. This section corrects a previous error and allows either a distance separation or a building sound proofing option for the development of a veterinary clinic/animal hospital. 20. Section 27. This section clarifies a procedural requirement for modifying an approved preliminary plat if the developer proposes to change the number of lots. The amendment proposal would require a Planning and Zoning Commission re -approval of a preliminary plat if a change in the number of lots resulted in an increase in the total number of lots. All other modification criteria would remain as previously adopted. 21.**Sections 28 - 31. These sections contain standard legal language that addresses repeal of conflicting provisions, codification, severability, and effective date. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners: 1. Provide staff with direction(s) for any changes to the proposed ordinance; and 2. Announce its intention to take final action on the proposed ordinance on Wednesday, April 22, 1992 at 5:01 p.m. in the Commission Chambers. 7 RPR 08 02 r) BOOP( - 66 F-, �Ua APR U'Z 1992 BOOK pp OOIyy 8 i,�6 `. PA UE 0 9 Planning Director Stan Boling announced that this is the first of two final public hearings on the current LDR amendments. At the close of this evening's meeting, the Board will direct staff to make any changes to the proposed amendments and announce its intention to adopt the proposed amendments by ordinance on Wednesday, April 22, 1992 at 5:01 o'clock P.M. in Commission Chambers. Director Boling advised that he would begin by going over two controversial issues which involve Section 1 and Sections 24 and 25. Section 1 concerns the paving waiver issue that was initiated by the Graves Brother, Inc. site plan for a child care center. Sections 24 and 25 were proposed by Karl Hedin for the allowance of self storage facilities as a special exception use in the CL District (Limited Commercial District). Section 1: Amend Section 954.10(3)- Paving Waiver Proposal Criteria 1 and 8 Director Boling advised that it is staff's opinion that no change should be made in the ordinances and that Section 1 should not be adopted. However, if the Board decides that a paving waiver should be granted, staff's position is that it should meet the proposed 12 criteria. The Professional Services Advisory Committee (PSAC) recommends all 12 criteria except for #1 and the last sentence in the first paragraph in #8 which calls for a base on top of a subgrade. The Planning & Zoning Commission recommends all 12 criteria including #1, but excluding the base requirement in criterion #8. The 12 criteria are meant to address some of the concerns the best way possible in an unpaved parking situation. Criterion #1 limits this type of paving waiver to areas located outside the urban service area and makes a distinction between what we consider rural locations and more urban locations. As it is presently written, criterion #8 would require a subgrade instead of paving with a base material on top of the subgrade. In a normal paving situation, you would have a subgrade and a base and you 8 M on M would have some sort of surface on top, either asphalt or concrete. The difference of opinion on criterion #8 is whether or not to have anything on top of the subgrade. He noted that County Engineer Roger Cain is here this evening to explain the basic differences, but it is Mr. Cain's opinion that you must have something on top of the subgrade for it to work. Chairman Eggert asked how the handicapped parking and access requirements relate to the subgrade, and Director Boling explained that in most cases it would not be required to pave the parking space itself, but the 4 or 5 foot access way has to be of rigid material such as asphalt or concrete. In addition, there are certain specifications for the ramp up to the building. That is regardless of whether or not it is in a frequent use and is a state and federal requirement. Director Boling wished to point out that all of our normal width standards and the number of spaces standards are not being proposed for any change. The questions here concern whether the subgrade is going to be compacted and to what degree, and whether asphalt will be required as a wearing surface. Commissioner Scurlock felt the school's driveway would be impacted the most and could become impassable in terms of pot holes, standing water, etc. Parking is a different situation as far as safety and everything else. The grass may not grow in that area, but there would not be much impact. Director Boling felt that the distinction is made in criterion #8 between the parking stalls and the driveway. The first sentence deals with the parking stall itself and says that you would have a subgrade and then sod or something on top of that. The second sentence gets into the unpaved driveway areas which are more heavily used, and that is where staff is recommending subgrade and a base material on top of that. The PSAC is recommending just a subgrade for the driveway with nothing on top of that. 0 BOOK .�� RPR 0 199 � �a BOOK 86 fACUE 11 In answer to Commissioner Wheeler's question, Traffic Engineer Roger Cain explained that Group 4 is a standard FDOT base material that can be a number of things such as 4" base coquina or lime rock. Commissioner Bird understood that staff's recommendation is that Section 1 not be changed, but that if the Board should vote to allow a paving waiver, that the 12 criteria be adopted. He further understood that there are some differences in opinion with regard to criteria #1 and #8. Chairman Eggert asked why you would grass the driveway when you have that many cars coming in and out every day, and Mr. Cain explained that neither staff nor the PSAC is really requiring that it be grass, just a stabilized subgrade. He felt that some kind of vegetation would grow on it if it is not used too frequently. Director Boling pointed out that if this is adopted, it would apply to more than just day care uses. It would be for any use that generates no more than 200 average daily trips on the site and that parallels our paved road requirement that we have had in this county for quite some time. Commissioner Bird asked how staff felt about the urbanized service area versus a non -urbanized service area. Director Boling advised that staff found that a few other jurisdictions have made that distinction. He felt it deals with the community standard with regard to what you expect in an urban area as opposed to a rural area. It is kind of an aesthetic differentiation. Commissioner Scurlock emphasized that we always need to look at the impact on neighboring properties, and Chairman Eggert noted that we have a requirement of buffering against spraying. Chairman Eggert opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. Richard Graves, 1015 34th Avenue, Vero Beach, advised that this issue was initiated by him when he was trying to establish a 10 J M E-7 child care center in Fellsmere for children of employees and migrant workers in this county. He expressed his thanks to everyone who has been concerned with this issue and who has worked on it over the last 6 months. This issue has evolved from iust a provision for a child care center to become an avenue for a small business to be established in a more rural part of this county outside of the urban service area without the necessity of a lot of front-end cost requirements put on it by site plan expenses. Considering the economical times, Mr. Graves believed that the residents of this community would greatly benefit by these amendments if adopted by the Board. Considerable time has been spent on this by staff, this Commission, the P&Z and the PSAC, and this issue has been thought through very thoroughly. He recommended that the Board adopt the paving waiver with the 12 criteria with the exception of requiring a base material in criterion #8. The only thing that would be left out is the 1 -inch of wearing surface (asphalt); everything else would still be required. Mr. Graves pointed out that many existing parking lots in this county do not have any base material as a wearing surface, just a subgrade that is compacted and is made of natural soil. He has two such parking lots at Graves Brothers, Inc. on which they park loaded semi -trailers and all kinds of heavy farm equipment and have done so for years and years. Except for occasional grading, the surface is quite sufficient and has provided all of the parking they need. Commissioner Scurlock asked how we would monitor the requirement for grading, and Director Boling explained that criterion #9 addresses that through a required driveway maintenance plan. If those requirements are not met, it really gets down to code enforcement. Commissioner Wheeler asked what happens when these areas are no longer out in the country and they begin to generate commercial areas. 11 APR 0 8 199 L APR ® 8 1992- BOOK Community Development Director Robert Keating advised that they would be grandfathered in as long as they retained their same characteristics. If they expand the use, they become non- conforming and have to meet new criteria. Commissioner.Scurlock just felt there needs to be a stepping point for these grandfathered facilities when they become non- conforming to allow them to renovate or expand in a way that is not absolutely perfect, just reasonable. He felt that allowing something like that would result in significant improvement to lot of these little businesses that are not too nice looking and that it would be a benefit to the community. Director Keating noted that there is a provision in the ordinances to allow someone to go ahead and make improvements if it is reducing the degree of non -conformity, and we have implemented that a number of times. Director Boling explained that what the ordinances require right now is sort of a stepping process. If you trigger a major site plan, then you have to bring it up to code for the area of development that is being affected by the change. If you do minor improvements, you don't get hit for bringing it up to code. The ordinance tries to address that. Commissioner Wheeler noted that we have that problem now where they have built up around these places and economics are playing, and the owners want to make improvements but want some sort of a break where they don't have to bring it all the way up to standards. He agreed it would be a benefit to the community to allow them to make improvements. Commissioner Scurlock felt it would be beneficial if staff could identify those things that are so important that they just have to be done as opposed to the things that are just nice to have. Mr. Graves pointed out that the building they want to use for a child care center is basically unusable if it triggers all of the 12 major -site plan requirements. The reason that prompted this LDR amendment is to be able to use property in a more or less rural area for a commercial type business without all the front-end costs of site plan requirements. He wished to note that he has lost his funding for this current year for the center, but with the approval of these amendments he intends to apply for it next year because he feels that the need for this facility is just as great as it ever has been. There being no others who wished to be heard, the Chairman closed the Public Hearing on Section 1. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously directed staff to follow the recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Commission to allow a paving waiver under the 12 criteria but delete from criterion #8 the following phrase: "...as well as a base on top of the subgrade consisting of FDOT base Group 4 or greater." Sections 24 and 25 Director Boling advised that it is staff's position that regardless of what is stored in these facilities, they still have a lot of characteristics of a warehouse and that taking it down below the CG District (General Commercial District) is not appropriate. It is the applicant's position that the CL District (Limited Commercial District) should allow this type of use as a convenience to residents and that the proposed criteria they have submitted afford the protection and buffering, etc. Staff and the P&Z are recommending that neither Sections 24 nor 25 be adopted. Chairman Eggert opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard with regard to Sections 24 and 25. Attorney Michael O'Haire, representing Karl and Keith Hedin, agreed with Director Boling that CL is not appropriate for 13 P k 0 83 19A APR 0 8 1992 BOOK 86 F,1 ,UE 15, warehousing. However, he wished to point out that we are not talking about warehousing, we are talking about personal storage. He explained that after his brother, Keith Hedin, built a self - storage facility behind his oil change facility located on U.S. #1 and Vickers Road in the north county, they found that the facility was being used by people in the neighborhood. The tenants are mostly "empty nesters" who have come from the north from a larger home to a smaller place and no longer have the space to store household items that they once had. They make use of these personal storage facilities for any number of things -- to store a roll -away bed until the kids come to visit; to store winter clothes; to store the stuffed moose head they can't bring themselves to part with, etc. That is the kind of thing we are talking about, and his clients feel it is an appropriate use for CL. Attorney O'Haire explained that they are asking for this change because the property out on SR -60 west of 43rd Avenue is in the vicinity of Village Green and in an area very similar to what is on U.S. #1 and Vickers Road. The area has a lot of the same demographics, the "empty nesters" moving into smaller places who want a convenient place to store their personal things. Attorney O'Haire reviewed the following criteria submitted by the applicant to adequately address any negative impacts of the proposed self-service storage facilities. 14 I 77 7 Attachment to Application form for Land Development Regulation Amendment Section I: To amend 0911.10 to include as a special exception use in the CL zoning district under Commercial: ..Domestic household goods and personal effects enclosed self storage; To amend 0971.12 by adding a subsection (4) : "(4) Self storalre of domestic personal effects and household eoods (Special Exception). (a) Districts requiring SPECIAL EXCEPTION • approval, (pursuant to the provisions of 971.05) : CL and CG (b) Additional information requirements: 1. A written statement (i) that no commercial activity, vehicular service or repair, or storage of hazardous materials shall be allowed and that this requirement will be Included in every tenant's lease agreement; and (il) that only domestic and household goods of personal and non- commercial goods will be kept or stored on the premises. Both of these provisions will be set forth in appropriate and visible signage. 2. A site plan meeting all of the requirements of Chapter 914. (c) Criteria for self -storage facilities: 1. Storage unit interior areas shall not exceed ten (10) feet in height. 2. Storage units shall not exceed one hundred fifty (150) square feet in size. 3. Outdoor storage is prohibited. 4. All outdoor lights shall be shielded to direct light and glare only onto the self-service storage facility premises. Light and glare shall be deflected, shaded and focused away from all adjoining property. 5. Self-service storage facility sites shall not exceed three • (3) acres in gross area. S. A type B landscape buffer shall be provided between all structures and adjacent properties zoned for single family residential use. 7. Buildings containing storage units shall not exceed 10,000 square feet in floor area each and shall not exceed 100,000 square feet of floor area for all buildings. S. Access shall only be to arterial or collector roadways and In no case through areas zoned for residential use. 9. No utilities (other than air conditioning) may be supplied to storage units. 10. Hours of operation shall be limited to no earlier than 6:00 A.M. or later than 6:00 P.M. and appropriate signage provided to such effect. 11. Buildings may not exceed fifteen (15) feet in height. 15 BOOK f,.�E APR 08 M2 BOOK 86 PACE 17 Attorney O'Haire emphasized that the use is hedged with safeguards to provide exactly what the CL District was designed to provide and that is convenience for a geographical area or neighborhood. This is not the sort of thing that people are going to come from the beach to use; it is the sort of thing that people living in the area are going to use. He urged the Board to allow this use in CL under the special exception requirements that he feels would make it virtually impossible for it to be used for anything other than the storing of personal and household items. Chairman Eggert asked how it would be policed, and Attorney O'Haire advised that it would be policed through the code enforcement process. Commissioner Wheeler felt it certainly would be to the owner's advantage to police it also. Karl Hedin explained that they have both types of these facilities. He has an office/warehouse complex within the City of Vero Beach where he allows trades people and it has turned into a mini -industrial park. His brother Keith does not allow any commercial in his facility on Vickers Road and U.S. #1, and they are proposing exactly the same use for the SR -60 location. It would be strictly for personal or domestic storage. No trades would be allowed. The units would be air conditioned, but there would not be any electrical outlets. Chairman Eggert's struggle over this matter was with her concept of CL and the fact she never viewed storage of any kind as being light commercial. She agreed it is a convenience to the neighborhood and that there is not a lot of traffic at any given time. Commissioner Bird felt it was a matter of writing up the ordinance and having the proper enforcement. To him there was a tremendous amount of difference between a commercial type of storage facility and a personal or residential type self -storage 16 M M M M facility. He thought that any facilities allowing commercial uses should be located in a industrial district. Commissioner Wheeler stated he didn't have a problem with it either. There being no others who wished to be heard regarding Sections 24 and 25, the Chairman closed the Public Hearing. The Board indicated their consent to take Sections 24 and 25 on to the next public hearing. Director Boling proceeded to review the remaining sections which were not considered controversial. The following are Sections where changes were suggested. Sections #9 and #10 Director Boling explained that these sections would be amended by adding dead Australian pines to the list of items officials can order property owners to remove under the County's; nuisance ordinance. Commissioner Bird emphasized that the County has a lot of Australian pines in county -owned rights-of-way, and he -felt we shouldn't require private property owners to do something we're not willing to do ourselves. He recommended that the ordinance read "private and public property." Administrator Chandler had no problem with applying this to the County as we do to everyone else. If it is a dangerous situation, we are going to have to find a way of taking the trees down whether we have the funding or not. He understood that dead pines would be considered a nuisance only if they posed a definite health or safety hazard. Commissioner Bird felt we need to establish criteria and apply it equally to ourselves and to the public. 17 if T BUQKi1� ,c J GOOK Nlt6l 19 Deputy County Attorney Collins advised that a hazard exists if a tree might fall on someone's house, but if it is a tree that is going to fall in a vacant field, that is another matter because we don't have the money to take down every dead Australian pine. Commissioner, Bird didn't know that we should limit this to Australian pines and suggested that as long as we are changing the ordinance that we apply this to all dead trees that pose a health or safety problem. The Board directed staff to insert into Sections 9'and 10 the wording "dead trees posing a health or safety hazard", and to insert the wording "private or public property" into Section 10. Section 22 Chairman Eggert suggested that the term "rebuttal presumption" be clarified, and Attorney Vitunac felt it would be besttto leave it the way it is but add another sentence explaining what it means. The Board indicated their consent to adding another sentence to make it clearer. Section 23 Chairman Eggert assumed that when the County Engineer approves the costs, he is doing it from a set formula, and Director Boling confirmed that to be correct. He advised that after the last PSAC meeting, we sent out a memo prepared by Roger Cain that gives the costs which are known quantities for those amounts. Chairman Eggert asked if anyone else wished to be heard regarding any of the sections being considered for amendment. There being none, she closed the Public Hearing. Chairman Eggert announced the Board's intention of taking forward the proposed LDR amendments and changes that have been M 18 M discussed tonight to the final public hearing where they will be considered for adoption by ordinance. The final hearing to be held April 22, 1992 at 5:01 o'clock P.M. in Commission Chambers. There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 6:10 o'clock P.M. ATTEST: J. K. Barton, Clerk 19 F Caroly K. Egg t, Chairman 8 0 0 K 8)6' f,i1,c 0 I