Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/23/1993M MINUTEs"ATTACHED M BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGENDA SPECIAL MEETING MONDAY, AUGUST 23, 1993 5:01 P.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 1840 25TH STREET VERO BEACH, FLORIDA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Richard N. Bird, Chairman (Dist. 5) John W. Tippin, Vice Chairman ( Dist. 4) Fran B. Adams (Dist. 1) Carolyn K. Eggert ( Dist. 2 ) Kenneth R. Macht ( Dist. 3 ) 5:01 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING James E. Chandler, County Administrator Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board Proposed Land Development Regulation (LDR) Amendments ( memorandum dated August 17, 1993 ) 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. ANYONE WHO NEEDS A SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION FOR THIS MEETING MAY CONTACT THE COUNTY'S AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) COORDINATOR AT 567-8000 X 408 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF MEETING. AUG 2 3 1953 BOOK 9.0 F-nF �6U Monday, August 23, 1993 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 Monday, August 23, 1993, at 5:01 o'clock p.m. Present were Richard N. Bird, Chairman; John W. Tippin, Vice Chairman; Fran B. Adams; Carolyn K. Eggert; and Kenneth R. Macht. Also present were James E. Chandler, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney; and Barbara Bonnah, Deputy Clerk. Chairman Bird called the meeting to order and announced that the purpose of this meeting is to consider the proposed land development regulations ordinance and direct staff to make any changes to the ordinance which the Board feels should be made prior to final action that will be taken at the second and final public hearing of September 7, 1993. County Attorney Charles Vitunac announced that this Public Hearing has been properly advertised, as follows: P.O. Box 1268 COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER 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 r, aX d//, 3 billedtol•C =c_ was published in said newspaper in the issue(s) OF lliO4.l.[1 34 /212 m) vIAnJ 3A Sworn to and subscribed before me this / fC day of / u4m-4t A.D /rl AL3 Op,PA SPRAGUE. HOlARY Pl1I1Llt:, Business Manaer . My Chitin.bpheWA.t. Florida.Yycammbsenk-.p.JW. 29.19977 I II g Jam 29.1997 0°mm:wn ° a.. RD. CCR10B72 a °.SIS•. A, _. rr. � � i t.L� AFFECTING THE USE OF LAND. The Indian River Countyy Board of County Commissioners proposes to adopt an change regulatbns eflerti4 the we of land for the orae shown in the map In this advertirement. Two public hearings on the regulations affecting the use of land will be held, one on Monday, August 43, 1993 at 5n01 p.m. and one on Tuesday, September 7, 1993 at Se01 p.m. in the County Commission Chambers In the County AdmWs- tralion BuildMR located at 1840 45th Street, Vero Beach, Florida. Proposeedd changes to the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) effective in the uninorporatad area of the county consists of an ordinance containing various LDR amendments, and Include changes to the following LDR chapters, *Chapapter ter 901, Definitions *Ch902, Adminiserotho Mechanisms •Chapter 911, Zoning -Chapter 914, Single Family Development Chapter 913, Subdivisions and Plats eChapter 914, Site Plan Review and Approval Procedures *Chapter 915, Planned Development (P.O.) Process and Standards for DavelopmenI • -Chepter 954,014 -Street Parking •Chapter 971, Regulations for Specific Land Use Criteria Topics relating to said amendments bxlvde, but are net limited to, the fogowbreI residential resort uses and projects - Omited anaemotivs repair services in the CL, limited Commercial, sonb;g district • farmworka ami migrant housing - affordable housing density bonus provklons authority of staff to approve site plan projects and expansions of ape" ex- ception uses - �•� alined development project'9ntemal'• buffering requirements ikewoy olid sidewalk cautroctien and bendhng-eur prov4lona appeab a► decislom on d.velopment project requests Copies of the sed ordinance will be available at the Piamdng Division O`. ►ice on the second of the Canty Administration Building beginning t 16, 1993. Anyon6 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 iruludea testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. ANYONE WHO NEEDS A SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION FOR THIS MEETING MUST CONTACT THE COUNTY'S AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) COORDINA- TOR AT 567.8000 X408 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING. • INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS i BY -s- RICHARD N. BIRD, CHAIRMAN �2x s.i. `�S1AY �„�� • Isar u . . I I I I INDIAN RIVfiR COUNTY- UNINCORPORATED ARBA BOOK 90 PAGE 61 LAND USE REGULATIONS - IST PUBLIC HEARING Telephone: (407)567•8000 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Alice E. White Administrative Aide RE: LDR letters DATE: August 20, 1993 BOOK 90 PACE 262 This office has received many letters regarding the proposed land development regulation amendments. Some of the letters made reference to specific projects where the Board will sit as a judge, therefore, you will not be able to read them:until those projects come, before you in public hearings. The letters have been separated into two folders. The letters dealing only with the LDR amendments are available for your review. The letters that reference specific projects that you cannot read at this time will be in a separate folder. I will be at a seminar on August 23, but Jan Masi will have the letters with her at the meeting. The total number of letters FOR the LDR amendments: 145 The total number of letters AGAINST the LDR amendments: 7 Chairman Bird acknowledged the hundreds of letters on this issue that have been received in the past few weeks, and asked County Attorney Charles Vitunac to elaborate on the recent court ruling which prohibits the County Commissioners from reading letters pertaining to special exception approvals prior to a public hearing. Attorney Vitunac explained that a recent court ruling says that when the Board of County Commissioners acts like -a -judge, no one can lobby them about something that will come before them. 2 When they are acting as a legislative body, you can talk to them all you want. People cannot talk to them in advance when they are considering a special exception. Therefore, any letters dealing with a special exception have been put in'a pile and have not been given to the Commissioners to read. The letters dealing with the general ordinance making procedures, which is when the Board is acting as a legislative body, were made available to the Commissioners. Tonight the Board is here to talk about the ordinance and people could have lobbied them on the ordinance, but the Commissioners have not been making themselves available to talk about special exceptions because that would be lobbying. The lower court ruling was only a few months ago and it has gone to the Supreme Court. The exact way this will play out and work into our County procedures has not been decided yet. The Supreme Court heard arguments on this complex issue in March and still has not issued a ruling. When we get that ruling, we will put it into our Code and explain it to everyone. Chairman Bird advised that staff will make their presentation, after which the Board will discuss any changes they would like staff to pursue to bring forward to the second and final public hearing on September 71 1993. Discussion will be limited to the land development regulations as presented by staff. Director of Community Development Robert Keating introduced himself and explained the LDR process. Planning Director Stan Boling introduced himself and explained that the proposed amendments will be covered under one ordinance. He reviewed staff's recommendation dated 8/25/93: 3 AUG 23 1993 900K 90 FAGS �UJ AUG 23 1993 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA M E M O R A N D U M TO: James Chandler County Administrator DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: Robert M. Keating, AICP FROM: Stan Boling, AICP Planning Director DATE: August 25, 1993 BOOK 90 PAGE 264 SUBJECT: Proposed Land Development Regulation (LDR) Amendments It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its special meeting of August 23, 1993. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS: •Background Over the past several months, various LDR amendment proposals have been initiated by private parties, county staff, the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee (AHAC), and the Board of County Commissioners (BCC). The proposed amendments which are addressed in this report have been reviewed by county staff, the PSAC (Professional Services Advisory Committee), and the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC). Staff has incorporated into a single ordinance all of the amendments which are now to be considered by the Board (see attachment #5). The proposed amendments were considered by the PSAC (March, April, May and June 1993 meetings) and the PZC (June 24, 1993 and July 8, 1993 meetings) in two sets (see attachments #3 and #4). In some instances PSAC, PZC, and staff recommendations differ. Differences in recommendations are referenced in the analysis section of this report and are highlighted in the proposed ordinance by way of "Note to BCC:" endnotes. Issues addressed by the proposed amendments include the following: - residential resort uses and projects limited automotive repair services in the CL, Limited Commercial, zoning district farmworker and migrant housing affordable housing density bonus provisions - authority of staff to approve site plan projects and expansions of special exception uses - planned development project "internal" buffering requirements bikeway and sidewalk construction and bonding -out provisions appeals of decisions on development project requests •Board Consideration The Board is now to conduct the first of two public hearings to consider adoption of the proposed ordinance. (The second public hearing is scheduled for 5:01 p.m. on Tuesday, September 7, 1993.] At this :first hearing, the Board is to consider the proposed ordinance and direct staff to make any changes to the ordinance which the Board feels should be made prior to final action. 4 ANALYSIS: The proposed ordinance contains 16 sections (see attachment #5). Sections -1 - 12 contain actual proposed LMR amendments. Sections 13 - 16 contain standard legal provisions contained in all county LDR ordinances. A description and analysis of each section follows: SECTION 1: Residential Resorts At its May 25, 1993 meeting, the Board of County Commissioners directed staff to initiate, for further consideration, amendments to the existing residential resort LDRs. Specifically, the Board directed that consideration be given to the following issues: 1. Requiring residential resorts to be reviewed and approved as planned development (P.D.) special exception projects. 2. Increasing the minimum project area from 25 acres to 50 acres. 3. Prohibiting the conversion of all or a portion of any existing or approved conventional residential project to a residential resort. 4. Requiring that a residential resort project include or be located adjacent to commercially zoned property. In addition Lo tnese four issues, a fifth issue, the definition of "residential resort", was discussed at the May 25th meeting. Based on that discussion, the Board determined that the definition should be reviewed to consider defining more specifically the term "...extended resort and vacation stays." The proposed LDR amendments (see attachment #5) would implement revisions to address these five specific residential resort issues. As stated at the May 11th and May 25th Board of County Commissioners meetings, it is planning staff's opinion that the existing residential resort regulations and required special exception process can adequately address the impacts and surrounding property owner concerns related to such uses. However, it is also staff's opinion that there is justification for each proposed addition and modification to the residential resort LDRs. Staff has analyzed the five residential resort issues previously described, and has proposed specific LDR amendments that would address each issue. The proposed LDR changes are analyzed below. 1. Residential resort projects shall be reviewed and approved as planned development projects, rather than special exception projects only. [Reference: see proposed changes to the "residential resort" definition and changes to 971.41 (11) (c)] Justification: Currently, residential resort projects can be approved via the special exception approval process or, as an option, via the P.D. special exception approval process. Thus, currently, the P.D. process is optional rather_ than required. The special exception process requires public hearings before the Planning & Zoning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners, as well as surrounding property owner notice and advertisement of each hearing. The planned development (P.D.) review and approval process parallels the special exception process but also provides the county more authority and discretion in reviewing project details, including issues relating to project appearance and aesthetics. In addition, the P.D. process provides the Board of County Commissioners authority to review any proposed project modifications that would increase project intensity or decrease buffers. Because the residential resort concept is based upon a resort project having the appearance of a conventional multi -family project, it is justifiable to require a type of review process (such as 5 BOOK 90 PnF 6 AUG 23 1993 BOOK 90 FA;E 266 the P.D. process) to properly address project appearance and aesthetics. In essence, the P.D. process can give the county more control over the appearance and aesthetic qualities of a residential resort project. Implications: This restriction would have no effect on potential residential resort sites. The review and approval process would be somewhat affected, and a greater percentage of open space would be required for RM -8 zoned projects (40% rather than 30%). Alternatives: The only feasible alternative to requiring P.D. review -and approval is merely to leave the existing special exception approval requirement unchanged. PSAC-Recommendation: At its June 17, 1993 meeting, the PSAC voted 6-1 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the LDR amendments that would require PD approval for residential resort projects (see attachment #5). PZC Recommendation: At its July 8, 1993 meeting the PZC voted unanimously to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the LDR amendments that would require PD approval for residential resort projects. 2. The residential resort minimum project area shall be increased from 25 acres to 50 acres. [Reference: see proposed changes to the "residential resort" definition and the addition of 971.41 (11)(d)7.] Justification: The concept of the residential resort use is to allow development of a project having a size large enough to accommodate on-site recreational amenities as well as extensive buffering. Increasing the minimum project size would ensure more potential physical space for on-site project amenities. Such amenities help to keep resort vacationers on- site and less dependent on development and services located outside of the project area. By keeping vacationers within the project site, fewer impacts should occur off-site. In addition, requiring larger projects with potentially twice as many units could help ensure that the project size (in number of units) would be large -enough to sustain the costs of on- site amenities and "inwardly focused" activities. Staff notes that existing multi -family projects in the county which provide substantial on-site recreational amenities are over 50 acres in size (e.g. Sea Oaks +115 acres, Timber Ridge +53 acres). Implications: This restriction would limit the number of potential project sites but would not necessarily limit the potential amount of residential resort development since existing parcels and tracts can be assembled into larger properties. The restriction could limit the number of potential projects if market economics limit the number of potential developers. Alternatives: A range of minimum acreage figures can be considered, as well as the option of keeping the current 25 acre minimum size requirement. Based upon the county's experience with multi -family projects that have substantial on-site recreational amenities, the 50 acre minimum is a logical threshold for the "sustain -ability" of such amenities. PSAC Recommendation: At its June 17, 1993 meeting, the PSAC voted 7-0 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners not amend the current 25 acre minimum project size requirement (see attachment #5). 6 PZC Recommendation: At its July Be 1993 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 3 to 3 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners increase the current 25 acre minimum project size requirement to 50 acres. Therefore, no official Planning and Zoning. Commission recommendation was made on this issue. 3. No portion of a residential resort project area shall include any portion of an existing or approved multi -family or single- family residential project. [Reference: see proposed addition of 971.41(11)(d)8.] Justification: The intent of the residential resort use is to allow development of a project that is compatible with conventional multi -family development. Mixing conventional residential units with short-term rental units within the same project can result in incompatibilities, especially if existing project residents bought units with the expectation of living in a conventional residential development. Projects designed for and inhabited by permanent residents cannot achieve a proper neighborhood character if short-term rental units are allowed to be constructed and operated in parts of the same project. Such a mixing of uses within a project is comparable to mixing conventional units and short-term rental units within the same residential neighborhood. Allowing short-term rental units within a project's residential neighborhood could break -down the permanent residential character of the neighborhood. Therefore, to avoid potential "internal" use incompatibilities, all portions of existing or approved residential projects (e.g. Sea Oaks, Coralstone/Moon River) should be kept separate from residential resort uses. Implications: This restriction would prohibit establishment of a residential resort in areas of existing and approved (e.g. site plan or PD/PRD plan approved) RM -6 zoned projects. Examples of such projects are Sea Oaks, Coralstone/Moon River and Grand Harbor. Under such an amendment, residential resort projects could be approved only on vacant land that is not. part of an existing or approved residential project area. Alternatives: The only feasible alternative is to keep the LDRs as they are and address potential "internal project" incompatibilities on a project -by -project basis via the special exception review process. PSAC Recommendation: At its June 17, 1993 meeting, the PSAC failed to pass any motion for a recommendation on this issue. PZC Recommendation: At its July 8, 1993 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve the amendment to prohibit conversion of residential projects. 4. Require a portion of the overall residential resort project to contain commercially zoned property or require the residential resort project to be located adjacent to commercially zoned property. [Reference: see proposed addition of 971.41(11)(d)9.] Justification: Residential resort uses complement tourist commercial uses (hotels, restaurants, retail shops); tourist commercial uses are allowed only in the CL and CG districts. Therefore, residential resort and tourist commercial uses should be located in close proximity to one another. Furthermore, a residential resort is considered a use "in between" conventional residential and commercial uses. Therefore, it is -justifiable to treat residential resorts as a transitional use which should be located between CL and CG districts and conventional residential projects. 7 AUG 23 1993 BOOK 90 FnF 2107 -7 ' AUG 23 M3 900K 90 F��GF.2�� In addition to providing a logical transition, residential resorts would provide a more intensive buffer for surrounding conventional residential uses than is currently required between commercial uses and residential uses, due to extensive buffering requirements [see 971.41(11)(d)6.]. [Note: Residential resort projects must provide a Type A buffer next to residentially designated property, compared to the Type C buffer required between CL or CG projects and adjacent multi- family uses and districts.] Implications: Either of these restrictions would limit potential residential resort projects to a few areas in the county. Potential areas would include RM -6 zoned property adjacent to: the SR A-1-A/CR 510 intersection (Disney site), along -the SR 60 commercial corridor, and along the U.S.1 commercial corridor in the central and north county areas. Alter -natives: There are several alternatives that address this issue. These alternatives are as follows: 1. Determine that the existing LDRs adequately address commercial/residential use compatibility and locational issues, and that no LDR changes are needed. 2. Require that a residential resort project area include CL or CG zoned property. Such a requirement would ensure that development of the multi -family -and commercially zoned areas are well -integrated and planned together; thus, ensuring compatible and complementary development. This alternative achieves the objectives of use integration, buffering, and providing a transition. 3. Require that a residential resort project be located adjacent to CL or CG zoned property. Such a requirement would ensure that residential resort projects are located between commercial and residential areas. This alternative achieves the objectives of buffering and providing a transition. In staff's opinion, alternatives 2 and 3, are comparable. Staff recommends alternative 3. Under either alternative 2 or 3, a percentage or ratio of commercially zoned area to residentially zoned area would need to be established. In order to ensure that there is a sufficient amount of residential resort property to potentially "wrap around" a commercially zoned site to provide a substantial transition and buffer, and to ensure that residential resort uses are concentrated around CL and CG zoned areas, staff recommends that alternative 3, with a 3:1 residential to commercial zoning ratio, be established (example: 75 acre residential resort project located next to 25 acres of commercial zoning). This ratio is consistent with the Disney project proposal. PSAC Recommendation: At its June 17, 1993 meeting, the PSAC recommended that the Board of County Commissioners not amend the LDRs to require residential resort projects to include or be located adjacent to commercially zoned property. PZC Recommendation: At its July 8, 1993 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5 to 1 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve the amendment to require adjacent commercial acreage. 5. The definition of "residential resort" should be modified to clarify the term "...extended resort and vacation stays...". [Reference: proposed changes to definition of "residential resort"] _ Justification: is as follows: The current definition of "residential resort 8 "...a development of no less than twenty-five (25) acres, containing resort housing and accessory recreational amenities, designed for extended resort and vacation stays." Other than the previously mentioned changes in the planned development (P.D.) and minimum size requirement changes, discussion and concern have focused on the distinction of a residential resort use from a hotel use. Aside from special exception approval and extraordinary buffering requirements, residential resort uses (under current LDRs) differ from hotel uses in the following ways: •Maximum Density •Unit Layout/ Composition *Length of Stay Hotel Residential Resort 36.3 units per acre Sleeping quarters and availability of bathroom facilities required [not a complete dwelling unit] overnight (one night) stays allowed 6, 8, or 10 units per acre (varies by RM -6, RM -8, or RM -10 zoning) Sleeping quarters, bathroom facilities, cooking facilities, and availability of laundry facilities required [constitutes a complete dwelling unit] Extended stays required (as interpreted by planning staff) Clearer definition of extended stays would benefit all parties. Such clarification would ensure consistent application of the requirement, rather than addressing the issue on a case-by-case basis during special exception project reviews. In staff's opinion, the length of stay is an important land use characteristic that must be applied to residential resorts, to distinguish residential resorts from hotel operations. In staff's opinion, extended stay requirements are necessary to ensure that the project use is a destination resort that accommodates patron vacation needs on-site, rather than a use that can merely accommodate travel "stop -overs" (i.e. hotel use). Alternatives & Analysis: Planning staff contacted 9 central and south Florida local governments that allow time-share and short- term rental uses in higher density multi -family districts. It appears that none of these jurisdictions have specific, written regulations that restrict the length of stay for such time-share or short-term rental units. In staff's opinion, one-night stays should not be allowed in residential resort units, and a minimum stay of three nights should be required. In analyzing the length of stay issue, staff has determined that there are three basic alternatives that address the issue. 1. The county could determine that no LDR changes are needed, based on the fact that all units must have all the characteristics of a complete dwelling unit, and that the special exception review process allows specific compatibility and use conditions to be attached to project approval. 2. The county could require a minimum average length of stay for residential resort units. Such an average would need to be tied to a specific timeframe and to a specific unit or group of units (e.g. average length of stay during any calendar year for all project units, combined). 3. The county could require a minimum stay for any given residential resort unit. Planning staff recommends that a minimum stay per unit of three nights be required. Use of a minimum stay requirement that applies to each and every unit 9 BOOK 90 wuF 269 � AUG 23 No AUG 231993 BOOK 90 FACE 27® would be more straight -forward, and easier to apply and enforce. This alternative is reflected in the proposed LDR changes [see definition of "residential resort"]. PSAC Recommendation: At its June 17, 1993 meeting, the PSAC voted 5-0 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners amend the LDRs to require a minimum 3 day stay for residentially zoned residential resort units. PZC Recommendation: At its July 8, 1993 meeting, the Planning and. Zoning Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve the amendment to require a minimum 3 night stay. SECTION 2: Limited Automotive Repair Uses in CL John Laird and Louis Schlitt have applied to amend the MRs to allow limited automotive repair uses in the CL (Limited Commercial) zoning district as an administrative permit use (see attachment #2). *Existing LDRs Existing MRS allow automotive repair services as follows: Current specific land use criteria applied to automotive fluid sales and service uses allow the "...draining and replacing of fluids and minor part replacement (filters, lights, wipers)." Furthermore, under the criteria "...repair services and paint and body work are expressly prohibited." In addition, the criteria also require services to be performed within an enclosed building, prohibit outdoor storage, and require storage facilities for oils and flammable liquids to be located underground. Current specific land use criteria applicable to gasoline service stations require the underground storage of oils and flammable liquids, prohibit outdoor storage, and require sites to be located at least 100' from any residentially designated property. •Proposed Changes The applicants' request is specifically to expand the automotive fluid sales and service criteria to allow replacement of batteries, tires, and bolt -on parts. The applicants' justification for the requested amendment is that limited automotive repair services are consistent with the intent of the CL district to provide convenient retail and service needs for area residents. Also, the proposed limited repair services are "quick -stop" or same day types of services that are similar to other automobile service uses already allowed in the CL district (e.g. gasoline service stations, automotive fluids and service facilities). Furthermore, via the administrative permit process, specific land use criteria can be applied to address compatibility concerns. FU, M s M CL CG CH- IL IG 1. Body and paint shops - - P P P 2. General automotive repair - P P P P 3. General fluid sales & - service, other than gasoline A A P - A 4. Gasoline service stations A P P P S *NOTE: P = permitted use A- administrative permit use S = special exception use Current specific land use criteria applied to automotive fluid sales and service uses allow the "...draining and replacing of fluids and minor part replacement (filters, lights, wipers)." Furthermore, under the criteria "...repair services and paint and body work are expressly prohibited." In addition, the criteria also require services to be performed within an enclosed building, prohibit outdoor storage, and require storage facilities for oils and flammable liquids to be located underground. Current specific land use criteria applicable to gasoline service stations require the underground storage of oils and flammable liquids, prohibit outdoor storage, and require sites to be located at least 100' from any residentially designated property. •Proposed Changes The applicants' request is specifically to expand the automotive fluid sales and service criteria to allow replacement of batteries, tires, and bolt -on parts. The applicants' justification for the requested amendment is that limited automotive repair services are consistent with the intent of the CL district to provide convenient retail and service needs for area residents. Also, the proposed limited repair services are "quick -stop" or same day types of services that are similar to other automobile service uses already allowed in the CL district (e.g. gasoline service stations, automotive fluids and service facilities). Furthermore, via the administrative permit process, specific land use criteria can be applied to address compatibility concerns. FU, M s M In planning staff's opinion, limited automotive repair uses such as replacement of bolt -on parts, tires, and batteries, as well as tune-ups and adjustments are consistent with other uses, such as gasoline service stations, which are allowed in the CL district. Such uses would also be consistent with the intent of the CL district to..."accommodate the convenience retail and service needs of area residents". In staff's opinion, such uses, if properly regulated via the administrative permit process, should be allowed in the CL district. Based upon the applicants' request, staff proposes to expand the "automotive fluid sales and services" criteria specifically to allow the replacement of batteries, tires, and bolt -on parts; and to allow tune-ups and minor adjustments. The specific land use criteria applied to such uses in the CL district would include: 1. Service of all automobiles within an enclosed building. 2. Prohibition of outdoor storage. 3. Proper storage and disposal of: hazardous wastes. 4. Proper containment of all liquids and screening of above ground storage tanks. 5. Prohibition of audio speaker transmissions outside of enclosed buildings. 6. A minimum separation distance of 100' between repair services buildings and residentially designated properties. In staff's opinion, these criteria would properly regulate the proposed limited automotive repair service uses. Note: The PSAC and the PZC recommend that the Board of County Commissioners adopt this amendment. SECTION 3: Farmworker and Migrant Housing Amendments The AHAC initiated these proposed changes to distinguish between tenant housing and migrant housing, and to revisit the specific land use criteria applied to such uses. • Sections 3A and 38: These. sections add or modify definitions to Chapter 901, Definitions. The changes provide new definitions for uses not currently defined in -the LDRs. These include: "Tenant dwelling (Farmworker housing)", and "Residential migrant housing facility (Migrant labor camp, labor camp)". The proposed definitions are compatible with definitions currently used by the State. The term "Tenant dwelling" refers to housing provided on an agricultural site for those working on that site and their families. The term "Residential migrant housing facility" refers to the housing of agricultural workers on a site --that is not necessarily the workplace for those being housed. _ • Section 3C: This section updates the use classification chart for the agricultural zoning districts to reflect the new use category "Residential Migrant Housing Facility". • Sections 3D and 3E: These sections update the general Table of Uses for Chapter 971, Specific Land Uses. • Sections 3F and 3G: These sections add and modify land use criteria in Chapter 971, Specific Land Uses, for the tenant dwelling and migrant housing uses. Modifications and additions include a prohibition of tenant dwellings or migrant housing within the Urban Service Area, modification of setback and parking requirements, and establishment of a minimum 1 mile separation distance for migrant housing facilities. 11 Bo®K 90 P,r 271 AUG 2 31993 BOOK 90 FGF 272 • Sections 3H and 3i: These sections add parking standards to Chapter 954, Off -Street Parking, specifically for the tenant dwelling and migrant housing uses. Note: The PSAC and the PZC recommend that the Board of County Commissioners adopt these amendments. SECTION 4: Affordable Housing Density Bonus Amendments Under current LDRs, residential project density bonuses are available through the P.D. (planned development) process in return for providing affordable housing. Although these affordable housing provisions have been in effect for almost three years, the provisions have not been used by any developer. Thus, it appears that the existing LDRs have not provided a feasible density bonus incentive:- Proposed amendments, initiated by the AHAC, would revise the density bonus provisions to increase the incentive for providing affordable housing. Under the proposed amendment,. P.D. approval would still be required of all project sites receiving a density bonus. However, the proposed LMR changes would allow a density bonus to be given in exchange for the following: 1. Affordable units provided on-site (allowed under current LDRs), or 2. Affordable units provided off-site (not allowed under current LDRs), or 3. Providing funds to the affordable housing trust fund, according to a set formula, to provide for affordable housing (not allowed under current LDRs). Most of the other proposed changes provide specific, detailed regulations that will ensure that all units "credited" as affordable remain affordable. • Sections 4A - 4D: These sections add or modify definitions to Chapter 901, Definitions. The changes provide new definitions for items not currently defined in the LDRs. • Section 4E: This section modifies the P.D. section of the LDRs that gives density bonuses for developments which provide affordable housing. Particular portions of this section would do the following: 914.14(4)(a)l: Establish general price restrictions for the affordable dwelling units for which density bonuses are given. 914.14(4)(a)2: Establish compliance and occupancy restrictions for the affordable dwelling units for which density bonuses are given. 914.14(4)(a)3: Establish density bonus ratios which give a greater density bonus for a greater number (percentage) of affordable units. Note: The PSAC recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt these amendments. In relation to these LDR amendments, the PSAC also passed a motion recommending that the housing authority (rather than county staff) administer housing programs and affordability verification and qualification tasks. County staff supports use of the housing authority to perform these administrative tasks. The Planning and Zoning Commission voted 3 to 2 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners adopt these amendments. The 3 vote majority was not enough to carry the motion as an official recommendation. 12 SECTIONS 5-7: Site Plan Project and Special Exception Use Amendments As part of its action to encourage economic development within Indian River County, staff with the concurrence of the Board of County Commissioners, initiated a review of three aspects of project approval procedures: 1. Use approval categories (permitted uses, administrative permit uses, special exception uses); 2. Requirements for the expansion of special exception uses; and 3. Site plan review thresholds (administrative approval, minor site plan, major site plan). In staff's opinion, certain uses and expansion projects now requiring special exception approval 'could be re-classified as administrative permit uses to streamline the review and approval process. Also, certain types of site plan projects which now require Planning and Zoning Commission approval could be treated differently and approved at a staff level. *Use Categories (Sections 5A - 5P) Current LDRs classify allowable uses as either "permitted", "administrative permit" or "special exception". Both the administrative permit and special exception use categories are "conditional uses"; that is, certain special conditions or specific land use criteria must be met for such a use to be approved on a given site. These special criteria are tailor-made for specific uses and help ensure use compatibility. While both administrative permit uses and special exception uses are subject to these criteria and Planning and Zoning Commission review, special exception uses are considered in more detail. Special exception uses require surrounding property owner notice, advertising and public hearings by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. Thus, special exception use approval is more costly and time-consuming than administrative permit use approval. In most cases, the special exception uses identified in the existing LDRs are appropriate and warrant special public hearings and close county scrutiny. However, staff's experience over the last several years indicates that certain uses now classified as special exception uses are usually non -controversial and are almost "routine" when the applicable specific land use criteria are clearly satisfied. Based upon this analysis, Sections 3A - 3P of the.proposed ordinance implement the following changes: Uee Fra® To 1. 8oncommereial stable BPJCM �m (Ba -2, 88-3, 88-6, A Pin= (88-2, 88-3, _ M-6, BM -3, PM -6, B4-6, BM -8, BM -10) 88-6, M-6, R!D-3, P4-6, AM -6, M4-8, BM -10) - :c 2. Gust oottage and RMCM XM@ (88-2, 88-3, 88-6, MKMEMMMM PRIC.T (88-2, m-3, servant's quarters BT -6, Can -2, Con -3) 88-6, 87'-6, Con -2, Con -3) 3. Hed and breakfast fiPMAL EXCUMm (MBO, m) i PZM= (M®, CO) d. Fruit/vegetable IMMAL BMCBPZM (CM, CS) P8M]T (CG, C8) Packinghouse S. Fruit/vegetable jnlce extraction Bman Bim (m) (CH) 6. Bducatianal aentess BPBCiaTi Bzc� (OCA, M, Cf, CL, AUEMZ829AEM PST (OCR, !M, CO) CM, CG) 7. Colleges ` usiversities BpBCZIL IMM02im (OCR, Mme, CL, CO) ant s PIIBaT (OCR, MBD, CL, CO) 8. Self storage BPBCM B>MWZm (00) my, 3p (Cg) 13 BooK 90 PrUE273 AUG 2 3 1993 BOOK 90 PAGE 274 Note: The PSAC recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt these amendments, as well as allowing limited utilities uses in certain residential districts, and gas stations in the IG district, as administrative permit uses rather than special exception uses. The PZC recommends that the Board adopt the amendment as proposed, which leaves as special exception uses limited utilities uses in certain residential districts, and gas stations in the IG district. •Expansion of Special Exception Uses (Section 6) In 1990, the Board of County Commissioners directed staff to amend the LDRs to require any expansion of a special exception use to be approved through the. special exception use process.. Thus, a 150 square foot building expansion of a special exception use (e.g. a church in- a single family district) requires complete special exception review and approval under the current LDRs. The proposed ordinance would allow existing and approved special exception uses to be expanded by up to 10% or 10,000 square feet (whichever threshold is less) via a conventional site plan approval process; the conventional site plan approval process for special exception use expansion would apply the specific land use criteria established for the use. With such an LDR modification, approval of minor expansions can be expedited, and the appropriate specific land use criteria can still be applied. Also, it should be noted that planned development (P.D.) projects would not be affected by the proposed. changes. Furthermore, the proposed change specifically gives the Board of County Commissioners the authority to place conditions on new special exception requests to require special exception approval for any size expansion. Note: The PSAC recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt an amendment to allow expansions of special exception uses of up to 25% without going through the special exception process. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that the Board adopt an amendment (as proposed: see attachment #5) to allow expansions of up to 10% or 10,000 square feet (whichever is less) without going ____ _Wough the special exception process. •Site Plan Review Thresholds (Section 7) Current site plan review thresholds are generally tied to the amount of new impervious surface area proposed with any site plan development or redevelopment project. These thresholds are as follows: (1) Administrative Approval: less than 1,500 square feet of new impervious surface. (2) Minor Site Plan: more than 11500 square feet but less than 5,000 square feet of new impervious surface OR multi -family residential projects consisting of 1-2 units. (3) Major Site Plan: 50000 or more square feet or 10% of site area covered by new impervious surface OR 3 or more residential units OR 21000 or more square feet of new building area (non-residential projects). In staff's opinion, none of these threshold standards should be changed, and the proposed ordinance would not amend any of these thresholds. However, in staff's opinion, the less substantial major site plan projects could be approved by staff rather than having to be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Thus, the proposed changes would save time for developers and county staff. Therefore, the proposed ordinance modifies the site plan ordinance to allow the following types of major site plan projects to be approved by staff in the same manner that staff approves minor site plans: 14 1. Residential projects involving 4 or fewer dwelling units; and 2. Non-residential projects involving less than 10,000 square feet of new impervious surface (regardless of new building area amount). Note: The PSAC and the PZC recommend that the Board of County Commissioners adopt these amendments. SECTION 8: Voting Quorum These amendments are necessary to resolve conflicts between county code Chapters 102 and 103 and LDR Chapters 902, 913, and 914. The proposed amendments would make'Chapter 902, 913, and 914 appeals sections consistent with the voting quorum requirements in code Chapters 102 and 103. Note: The PSAC and the PZC recommend that the Board of County Commissioners adopt these amendments. SECTION 9: Appeals This amendment is necessary to clarify the timeframe for filing appeals of decisions regarding site plan projects. The proposed amendment would make site plan project appeals timeframes consistent with subdivision project appeals timeframes. Note: The PSAC and the PZC recommend that the Board of County Commissioners adopt these amendments. SECTION 10: PD Perimeter Setback This amendment has been filed by attorney Steve Henderson (see attachment #1). The amendment focuses on situations where a unified project has P.D. approval and site plan approval on _portions of the same overall project (e.g. Sea Oaks). The proposed amendment would recognize that certain PD.boundaries are "internal" to the overall project: along -such boundaries the special 25' PD perimeter setback would be waived. Note: The PSAC and the PZC recommend that the Board of County Commissioners adopt these amendments. SECTION 11: Miscellaneous Amendments Section 11A: This amendment would make a Chapter 912 (Single Family Development) patio/screened porch setback provision consistent with a Chapter 911 LDR change adopted 'Et March 1993. The amendment is needed to ensure that Chapter 912- is consistent z with Chapter 911. Section 11B: This amendment would allow more setback flexibility for legal nonconforming lots of record located in the RS -1 zoning district. Such a change is consistent with a previously approved LDR amendment which applied to RS -3 zoned legal nonconforming lots of record. Section 11C: This amendment would the CL, Limited Commercial zoning permit use. In staff's opinion, appropriate in the CL district. 15 allow veterinarian clinics in district, as an administrative such a use is compatible and BOOK 90 F-AGE27 r AUG 23 1993 BOOK 9 0 F,{E 27 Note: The PSAC and the PZC recommend that the Board of County Commissioners adopt these amendments. SECTION 12: Bikeway and sidewalk improvements These amendments are intended to re -format existing regulations and would specifically allow developers three options to provide for bikeways and sidewalks: 1. construct with the project; or 2. bond -out and construct at a later date; or 3. make payment to the county for future construction by the county. Furthermore, the amendments would clarify standards applied to various aspects of sidewalk and bikeway design and marking, and would allow developers a longer period of time to bond -out for construction of sidewalks along internal local roads in new subdivisions. Note: The PSAC and the PZC _recommend that the Board of County Commissioners adopt these amendments. SECTIONS 13 - 16: These sections contain standard legal language contained in all county LDR ordinances. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the the Board of County Commissioners: 1. Provide staff with direction for any changes to the proposed amendments; and 2. Announce its intention to take final action on the proposed amendments at the public hearing scheduled for Tuesday, September 7, 1993 at 5:01 p.m., in the Commission Chambers. 16 Residentiaf resort uses and protects Director Keating projected a slidefilm graphic depicting the use spectrum. Commissioner Macht asked how staff differentiated between CL or CG in change #4, and Director Boling explained that there are two alternatives. One alternative would be to require the inclusion of commercial acreage, the advantage being that the plan would integrate the two uses so that you could have one plan for one project that includes commercial zoning which would show how commercial zoning and the uses on the commercial property would integrate with the residential resort. The other alternative of requiring adjacent commercial would provide some flexibility, but it wouldn't require that a single owner or a single development scheme include the commercial acreage in the residential resort. It would require only that it be side by side. Commissioner Macht understood then that alternative #3 for amendment #4 doesn't necessarily imply ownership, and Director Boling stated that was correct. Chairman Bird noted that the Board would have to make a decision on the alternatives in Item #4 after the close of today's public hearing if the decision is made to take amendment #4 forward to the next public hearing on September 7, 1993. Commissioner Adams asked about the differences in the requirements between a special exception and a Planned Development review, and Director Boling advised that the Planned Development (PD) would give the Board more control and more options. Chairman Bird opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard on the proposed amendment regarding residential resort uses. Bob Schoen, Mayor of Indian River Shores, advised that the Town has been trying to find some kind of compromise between those who favored unlimited development of the residential resorts on the barrier island versus those who are mostly concerned with protecting the residential quality of the existing neighborhoods and developments. They feel that none of the proposed five amendments would be detrimental to the Disney project. Of the 5 amendments, the one that is the most important to them is requiring the 3-1 residential to commercial zoning ratio, and their request is that it be under common ownership. Mr. Schoen urged the Board to adopt the 5 changes relating to residential resorts as recommended by staff. 17 AUGBOOK 90 F�1UE77 AUG 231993 Boa 90 F-Au27.8 Attorney Steve Henderson, representing Majestic Partners of Vero Beach, Ltd., the new owner of the remainder of the Sea Oaks project, emphasized that Sea Oaks has, indeed, filed an application for residential resort. His clients maintain that if the proposed LDRs are adopted, they would not be applicable to their application. That may be an issue that may come up at a later time and by appearing here today, they do not want that taken to mean that they waver from that position. Attorney Henderson noted that his clients question whether, in fact, the current LDRs or even the prior LDRs--actually prohibit the short-term stays of less than 30 days. Staff has been relying upon the definition of hotel/motel to assert that position, but his clients disagree. They feel that the current LDRs and prior LDRs do, in fact, permit rentals of less than 30 days in RM -6 zoning and other zoning categories as well. Having said that, he intended to refer to Sea Oaks' application for special exception only as an example of why they are opposing some of the amendments. Specifically, they oppose the adoption of items #2, #3, and #4. Attorney Henderson pointed out the special exception approval process provides the Board with discretion and significant control such as attaching special conditions and safeguards in order to insure compatibility and no adverse impacts. They feel that items 2, 3, 4 and 5, to some extent, are amendments that bear on the issue of compatibility, and they question why it is necessary to adopt these amendments when the special exception review process gives the ability to determine compatibility on a case by case basis. Majestic believes that developing the remainder of the Sea Oaks project into a residential resort would be compatible with the existing development. Obviously, if amendments #3 and #4 are enforced against Sea Oaks, it will eliminate the application, but Sea Oaks would like an opportunity to have a fair hearing on the issue of compatibility. Attorney Henderson stated that they are particularly concerned about the issue of the length of stay. Even though they maintain that the current ordinances do not impose a minimum length of stay, one of the reasons the developer is seeking residential resort is to legitimize the existing rental policies at Sea Oak and eliminate the question about the length of stay. He noted that covenants of 9 of the 11 associations at Sea Oaks permit rental periods of less than 30 days. Two of those associations permit rentals of a minimum of 7 days year-round. Sixty-seven percent of all the rentals at Sea Oaks during the period of June, 1992 to June, 1993 were for periods of less than 30 days. Majestic Partners is planning to continue the rental program that has been in effect for many, many years. 18 Commissioner Macht asked if sales tax and tourist tax are commonly collected on rentals of less than 6 months, but Attorney Henderson didn't know the answer as the rental program is handled primarily by an outside broker. In response to Commissioner Macht's questions, Attorney Vitunac explained that virtually every code has specific criteria for special exceptions as well as the general ones. If the developer meets the specific criteria, boards and commissions which want to deny a project can deny it on the basis of the overall catchall phrase, but in truth the burden of proof is on them to show that the special exception should not be granted. In order to deny a special exception, they have to show true some sort of evidence that the proposed project would do some sort of harm, such as traffic or compatibility. Rolf Bibow of the Indian River Citizens' Study Group which represents 1500 households, stated that they submitted more than 1000 petitions and numerous letters in favor of the five amendments in the residential resort use as proposed by staff. Richard Graves, 1015 34th Avenue in Vero Beach, wished to address the minimum 3 -day requirement. He believed the LDR that was adopted back in March was a good thing, but didn't feel that the 3 -day stay makes any sense since the length of stay does not make any difference on the impact to this county. In addition, he felt it would be a nightmare to enforce a 3 -day minimum stay. Mr. Graves felt that to saddle a facility with the 3 -day minimum might make it economically infeasible. He urged the Board not to adopt amendment #5. Joe Scarmuzzi of Sea Oaks advised that he and Mrs. Meyers, also of Sea Oaks, were representing 628 owners in Sea Oaks who are in favor of the adoption of the 5 proposed changes and opposed to Majestic Partners' recent request to convert part of the Sea Oaks subdivision to a residential resort. Attorney Vitunac cautioned Mr. Scarmuzzi not to speak specifically to Sea Oaks but direct his arguments directly to the proposed LDRs. Mr. Scarmuzzi, spoke of the amenities and ambience of their community and noted that 79% of the owners do not plan to rent their units. Their prospectus states that no time shares will be created in their community, and they are looking to the Board for help in keeping their development from becoming a residential resort. Using the main argument of required contiguity, he urged the Board to adopt the proposed 5 changes regarding the residential resort use. 19 BOOK 90 PAGE 279 AU� � BOOK 90 PAGE 280 Bill Johnson of Sea Oaks Residents' Committee, Inc. read into the record the following letter written by their attorney supporting the adoption of the proposed amendments and opposing the development of residential resort in Sea Oaks: LAW OFFICES MCKINNON,. STEWART, NALL & MCKINNON CHARLES R. MCKINNON WILLIAM J. STEWART ROBERT C. NALL CHARLES W. MCKINNON Mr. William C. Johnson 1155 Winding Circle East Vero Beach, FL 32963 CHARTERED POST OFFICE BOX 3345 VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32964-3345 August 23, 1993 Re: Sea Oaks Residents Committee, Inc. Dear Bill: 3355 OCEAN DRIVE VERO BEACH. FLORIDA 32963 TELEPHONE (407) 231-3500 TELEFAX 1407) 231-9B76 Pursuant to your request, we have reviewed the Indian River County Land Development Regulations Ordinance Section 902.12 concerning amendments to the Land Development Regulations Text and Official Zoning Atlas. Subsection (3, provides that in reviewing the application of a proposed amendment to the text of the Land Development Regulations, the Board of County Commissioners and the Planning and Zoning Commission must consider a number of factors, including, but not limited to: 1. Whether or not the proposed amendment is consistent with existing and proposed land uses; 2. Whether or not the proposed amendment will result in an orderly and logical development pattern, specifically identifying any negative effects on such pattern; and 3. Whether or not the proposed amendment would be in conflict with public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and interest of the land development regulations. It appears clear to me that the proposed amendments concerning residential resorts in Indian River County which are to be reviewed by the County Commissioners tonight are consistent with existing and proposed land uses in the area of the Sea Oaks development. This area is currently zoned and has been developed for residential and multi -residential homes which are not available for transient rentals. It certainly seems that to permit transient rentals in the area would be inconsistent with existing land uses. 20 I understand that the main opponent to the proposed amendments is Majestic Partners of Vero Beach, Ltd. It opposes the amendments because it wishes to develop transient rental projects in the midst of and immediately surrounding Sea Oaks. I do not know how such a plan would do anything other than result in a disorderly and illogical development pattern. To permit the renting of units to transients in buildings next to condominiums which are not rented or rented annually or seasonally would, in my opinion, have an adverse impact upon your development.. Short term renters will make a greater use of your facilities and will be less inclined to abide by the rules and regulations which were adopted by the Sea Oaks Homeowners Associations for the purpose of establishing a harmonious living environment. Finally, I think that the conflict with the public interest and the lack of harmony with the purpose and intent of the land development regulations are clear from the potential problems set forth above and those that you have expressed to me. The fact that almost every owner of property at Sea Oaks and member of the Sea Oaks Club have informed you of their concern over a residential resort being constructed in, or immediately adjacent to, the Sea Oaks development clearly indicates the public's concern that to permit such a development would adversely affect current use and enjoyment of the property. If you have any questions or comments concerning any of the above, please do not hesitate to let me know. Sincerely yours, �war- Charles W. McKinnon Bruce Barkett, attorney representing Disney Development Company, spoke in opposition to the adoption of item #5 requiring a 3 -day minimum length of stay: He felt the requirement goes beyond the scope of what the ordinances are intended to do and would have some very serious impacts on the Disney development or any other development that is built in this county. He emphasized that the 3 -day minimum stay would be a nightmare to enforce. Summarizing, Attorney Barkett stated that Disney Development opposes the minimum 3 -day stay and feels the ordinance is fine as it is. J. B. Norton and Carol Johnson of the IRC Chamber of Commerce stated that they already have presented a letter back in May stating their opposition to any changes in the LDRs from what they are at present. However, they wish to address the proposed changes tonight. They like #1 and feel that if the Board adopts amendment #1, -it would take care of the intent of #2, #3 and #4. With regard to #5, they are opposed to the 3 -day stay or any other limit because it is not economically feasible and because it is an over 21 AUG 2 3 1993 BOOK 90 PAGE281 AUG 2 31993 BOOK 9�8� regulation of business. He urged the Board not to approve the 3 - day stay requirement. John Cairns, 11128 Lake Butler Blvd., Windemere, Florida, advised that he is part owner of property north of Indian River Shores that can be zoned at this time for residential resorts with a special exception. He agreed with the Professional Services Advisory Committee that there should be no change to require residential resorts to include or be adjacent to commercially zoned property. They would like to consider a residential resort for their propexty, not a commercial resort. They do not want hotels or motels. Any food or convenience stores in a residential resort are there strictly for the people staying there. Situating residential resorts next to commercial land is not necessary or desirable. Residential resorts are inward oriented residential developments with fewer needs for -commercial facilities since their basic requirements are provided on site. There is no need for a transitional area since the County's planning department has indicated that there are adequate regulations for buffering between residential resorts and regular residential properties. The bottom line is that people want to come to the beaches of Indian River County for a week or two and stay in a residential resort. This could be provided on the barrier island at no increase in residential density with attractive units and amenities. It also would provide year-round employment for many Indian River County residents with no negative effect on surrounding properties. Mr. Cairns asked the Board to reject the adoption of the proposed amendments which would kill any residential resorts on the barrier island. Jacques Brion of Majestic Partners, developer of the remainder of Sea Oaks, pointed out that residential resort zoning doesn't necessarily mean time sharing units, and Director Boling confirmed that there is no requirement for time share. Attorney Vitunac clarified that time share is a type of ownership and resort is a type of use. Mr. Brion wished to clarify that Majestic is not seeking anything less than a 7 -day stay, which is what Sea Oaks is at present. They just want to legitimize what is going on at Sea Oaks today. He extended an invitation to everyone at Sea Oaks to meet with them to discuss Majestic's plans. Chairman Bird asked -why Sea Oaks couldn't continue to do what they have been doing, and Mr. Brion explained that the County notified them in writing that their rental program is in violation of the 7 -day minimum requirement. He understood that all the owners in Sea Oaks received letters notifying them -of the 22 violation. Apparently, County rules prohibit residents from renting their properties for less than 30 days. He assured those present that Majestic would continue to sell units in exactly the same way as in the past. However, they are being told that the 7 - day stay is illegal. Director Keating explained that the hotel/motel is defined as a unit that is rented for less than 30 days. He admitted that there needs to be some dividing point where something stops being a traditional, conventional residential use and becomes more of a commercial hotel use. There needs to be something in there -- some definition, some characteristic, some criteria -- but, 30 days is in the ordinance at the present time. Mr. Brion reiterated that all they are attempting to do is legalize the practice that has been in effect at Sea Oaks for the last 12 years. Director Keating explained that the break off point is 30 days and anything under that is hotel/motel. Anything over that is considered as a residential unit. Elaine Taggert of Sea Oaks wondered if Sea Oaks planned to sell the units or rent the units, and Mr. Brion explained that their intentions are to continue the same way they have been, which is to sell the units to individuals who would have the ability to rent their units under some system like they have had in the past. Robert O'Connell, 1825 Lakeside Blvd., resident and owner of property south of the Disney property and north of Indian River Shores, stated that he has rented his property on occasion through the Sea Oaks rental system. Originally, he was told that owners could rent their property for a minimum of two weeks, but recently they were told that the County prohibits anything under 30 days. He felt the Commission has a responsibility to define a limited stay to reflect the reality of the present situation. He did not oppose the proposed amendments. There being no others who wished to be heard regarding the residential resort amendments #1 through #5, Chairman Bird asked if the Board wished to direct staff to make any changes in the 5 amendments that have been proposed for residential resort. Commissioner Macht suggested that the Board consider the 5 items separately. Amendment #1 -- Director Keating assured Commissioner Adams that the Planned Development review is more subjective than a special exception. 23 L_AUG 231993 BOOK 90 P�rUF 283 r Auc 23 1993 BOOK 90 P,ti;F 1S4 It was the consensus to direct staff to take amendment #1 forward to the September 7 meeting. Amendment #2 Commissioner Eggert was very supportive of the 50 acres because she felt it should be all inclusive and because she didn't think that 25 acres would provide what a true resort should be. Commissioner Adams noted that there would be more open, green space with 50 acres. It was -_the consensus to take amendment #2 forward to the September 7 meeting. Amendment #3 Commissioner Eggert was very supportive of this amendment because as a resident of a concdo, she would be right out front fighting against a conversion if she was confronted with that situation. Commissioners Adams and Macht also were supportive of #3 in that it would prohibit the conversion of an existing residential development into a residential resort. Chairman Bird supported #3 also, but felt that perhaps we should look at the Sea Oaks' rental program which seems to be compatible with the residents' lifestyle, and determine if we should modify our ordinance to allow that sort of thing if it is, indeed, compatible. He felt staff was smart enough to look at the way that situation is working there presently and see if we can adopt some ordinances that will fit their situation rather than trying to make them fit ours. The consensus was to go take amendment #3 forward to the September 7 meeting. Amendment #4 Commissioner Eggert was very supportive of requiring the inclusion of commercial. The consensus was to go forward with Alternative #2, which would require a residential resort project area to include CL or CG zoned property. Amendment #5 The consensus was to stop this proposed amendment from going any further. The Board directed staff to look at the definition of residential on the length of stay as there seemed to be a large gray area there. After a brief recess, Chairman Bird requested that the record show that no members of the public remain in attendance. He noted 24 _ M M that one member of the press is here, and everyone else is a member of staff . - Chairman Bird directed staff to review for the record Sections 2 through 16: Section 2 Staff recommended adoption. Section 3 Commissioner Adams had a problem with the prohibition of tenant dwellings or migrant housing within the Urban Service Area and the establishment of a minimum one mile separation distance for migrant housing facilities. Commissioner Eggert explained that we have found it helpful in obtaining grants to have that separation in order to avoid having a potential ghetto or slum. It is very similar to the County's separation of neighborhood commercial and some of the other things we do. Chairman Bird also was concerned about providing them with all health and safety services. Director Keating explained that the whole concept is to allow migrant workers to reside close to the groves where it might not otherwise be -allowed. Since these are all subject to special exception approval, we could house them in the Urban Service Area and they could be bussed out to the groves. Commissioner Macht asked how they would get their utilities, and Director Keating advised that they could have a package plant. Commissioner Adams wished to have some feedback from Patrick Leary and Richard Graves, and perhaps someone from Berry Groves. Chairman Bird asked that we get some information from the Health Department and the Utilities Department before we discuss this again on September 7 and decide how we are going to service these areas. Section 4 Staff recommended adoption. Sections 5-7 Barbara Bonnah, 5845 23rd Street, spoke in opposition to extending administrative permit approval because she believed all requests for these changes should be reviewed before the County Commission in order to maintain proper checks and balances and the protection of property rights. Director Boling explained that what is proposed deals only 25 L_ AUG 231993 BOOK 90 RA,F 285 raoaK 90 Farr AUG 3 1�� with 8 specific uses and not special exceptions in general. At present, Section 6 states that a public hearing is required for anyone requesting any degree of expansion of their building area. Staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission are proposing to allow expansion of up to 10% or 10,000 square feet, whichever is less, to be reviewed under special criteria without going through the public hearing process. That is a considerable difference from the way the situation -works now, and that would apply across the board to special exception uses, but it would not apply to Planned Developmen�s.which have their own requirements. Commissioner Eggert understood that the use of colleges or universities would not come under administrative permit, and Director Boling confirmed that it isn't included under AG. Under Section 5d of the ordinance, colleges and universities would go to special exception through administrative permit in OCR, MED, CL and CG. Section 8-16 Staff recommended adoption. Chairman Bird asked if anyone else wished to- be heard in regard to the proposed 16 amendments. There being none, he closed the Public Hearing. SUMMARY OF ACTION Chairman Bird summarized tonight's action. SECTION 1: Residential Resorts After extensive discussion regarding the five proposed changes pertaining to residential resort uses and projects, the Board unanimously directed staff to bring forward changes #1, #2, #3, and #4 to the second public hearing of the LDRs to be held September 7, 1993 at 5:01 o'clock p.m. They further directed staff not to pursue the fifth proposed change pertaining to a minimum 3 -day stay. SECTION 2: Limited automotive repair services The Board directed staff to bring Section 2 forward to the second LDR public hearing. SECTION 3: Farm worker and migrant housing The Board directed staff to bring Section 3 forward to the second LDR public hearing, with the request that representatives of 26 the Health Department and Utilities Department be on hand to explain how these projects would obtain water and sewer. SECTIONS 4 THROUGH 16 The Board directed staff to bring Sections 4 through 16 forward to the second LDR public hearing on September 7, 1993 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 7:45 o'clock p.m. ATTEST: J. K. Barton, Clerk 27 AUGL_ 23 1993 Richard N. Bird, Chairman BOOK 90 FAr,F 287