Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/15/1994� MINUTES 119'TACHED " BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA A G E N D A SPECIAL MEETING MONDAY, AUGUST 15, 1994 5:01 P.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 1840 25TH STREET VERO BEACH, FLORIDA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS John W. Tippin, Chairman (Dist. 4) Kenneth R. Macht, Vice Chairman ( Dist. 3 ) Fran B. Adams ( Dist. 1) Richard N. Bird (Dist. 5) Carolyn K. Eggert ( Dist. 2 ) James E. Chandler, County Administrator Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board 5:01 P.M. 1. Proposed LDR Amendments: First Hearing (memorandum dated August 9, 1994) 2. LDR First Hearing Consideration of Road Frontage Requirements for Lot Splits '`Requirements dated August 9, 1994) 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. August '15, 1994 I SPECIAL MEETING Monday, August 15, 1994 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 15, 1994, at 5:01 p.m. Present were John W. Tippin, Chairman; Kenneth R. Macht, Vice Chairman; Fran B. Adams; Richard N. Bird; and Carolyn K. Eggert. Also present were James E. Chandler, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney; and Patricia Held, Deputy Clerk. The Chairman called the meeting to order. PROPOSED LDR AMENDMENTS - FIRST HEARING The hour of 5:01 p.m. having passed, the County Attorney announced that this public hearing has been properly advertised as follows: P.O. Box 1268 Vero Beach, Florida 32961 562-2315 COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER �uln 1i . STATE OF FLORIDA t'J l Before the undersigned authorityrsonally appeared J.J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he peis Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that billed was published in said newspaper rrJin the iasue(s) /#V 0/( , fO Sworn to and subscribed before me this day R t/ A.D ? My Comm, ryofft ,m = BARBARA C Sraarlrrc. NO7eHv Business Manager Jnn029'f! 7 = SUW W rlo.du, My(.k" a .1,p.-74, I 4 s`/'��y�'%�'M�'o. CC3�W 72 t Conmc"w�. Noma... Cr:3frv. •7 C ' ��0 �e\�P • &,e-- raa w tuHnawA r ema�a h — 1 August 15, 1994 eooK BOOK 93 P,,, E 57 NOTICE OF ESTABLISHMENT'OR CHANGE OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AFFECTING THE USE OF LAND The Indian River County Board of County Commissioners proposes to adopt or change regulations affecting the use of land for the area shown in the map in this advertisement. Two public hearings on there lotions affectingg the use of land wi0 be held, one on Monday, August 15, 1994 at 5:01 p.m. and one on Wednesday, August 31, 1994 at 5.01 p.m. in the County Commission Chambers in the County Administration Building located at 1840 25th Street, Ve►o Beach, Florida. Proposed changes to the Land Development Regulations (LDRsI efFective in the unincorporated area of the county consist of an ordinance containing various LDR amendments, and include changes to the following LDR chapters: • Chapter 1, Definitions •Chapter 902, Administrative Mechanisms • Chapter 919, Zoning • Chapter 912; Single Family Development r Chapter 913, Subdivisions &Plats • Chapter 914, Site Plan Review & Approval Procedures • Chapter 917, Accessory Uses and Structures • Chapter 930, Stormwater Management & Floodplain Protection • Chapter 934, Excavation & Mining • Chapter 953, Fairshore Roadway Improvements • Chapter 955, Moving Structures • Chapter 971, Regulations for Specific Land Use Criteria Topics relating to said amendments include, but are not limited to, the following: - Bufferyards in multi -family districts (911) - Bonding requirements for moving structures (955) - Site plan project classifications (914) - FEMA -recommended stormwater management regulations 1901/930) - Platting -over site pplan projects (913) - Calculation of AC /Group home land use intensity (971) CH, IL, IG districts: sideyard setback against railroad (91 1) - TIF ordinance 15% reduction for individual assessments (953) - Road frontage requirements for lot splits (912/913) - Regulations affecting liveabbord vessels and dock rentals (901/9171 - Changes to littoral zone area ratios (934) - Vehicle storage lot (paved or unpaved) use category (91 1) Automobile sales in industrial districts (911) Special yard situations for multi -frontage lots (911) - Heights of walls and fences (917) -Setbacks and buffers for country clubs and associated uses (97 1) - Planning and Zoning Commission representation on the TRC (902) - Changes in land development permit submittal requirements (913) - Changes in preliminary plat submittal requirements (913) - Changes in conceptual site plan submittal requirements (9141 - Staff approval signature for minor site plans (914) Copies of the proposed ordinance will.be available at the Planning Division Office on /he second floor of thg County Administration Building beginning August 9, 1994. Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which includes testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. ANYONE WHO NEEDS A SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION FOR THIS MEETING MUST CONTACT THE COUNTY'S AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) COORDINATOR AT 567-8000 X223 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS :elle BY -s- JOHN W. TIPPIN, CHAIRMAN The Board reviewed memo from Planning Director Stan Boling dated August 9, 1994: 2 August 15, 1994 TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator DIVI ON HEAD CONCURRENCE: Robert M. Keating, ICP Community Dev lopment D� actor FROM: Stan Boling, A CP Planning Director DATE: August 9, 1994 SUBJECT: Proposed LDR Amendments: First Hearing It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its special meeting of August 15, 1994. BACKGROUND: Over the last several months, county staff, the Professional Services Advisory Committee (PSAC), and the Board of County Commissioners have initiated various proposals to amend the county's land development regulations (LDRs). During this time, the PSAC has reviewed and made recommendations regarding most of these LDR amendment proposals, and the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and made recommendations regarding all of these LDR amendment proposals. Staff has now consolidated all of the amendments into a single proposed ordinance. The Board will consider these amendments at two hearings (August 15th and August 31st) . At the first. hearing, it is the Board's duty to consider each amendment within the proposed ordinance and to direct staff to make any changes deemed necessary. At the second hearing, the Board will need to take final action on th proposed ordinance. ANALYSIS: e Staff has structured the proposed ordinance such that each ordinance section contains an amendment or amendments that are related to a single topic (see attachment #1). The analysis section of this report is similarly structured, addressing each LDR issue section by section. The proposed ordinance contains 27 sections. Sections 24-27 contain standard legal language contained in all LDR ordinances. Sections 1-23 deal with particular issues, as follows: 1. Vehicle storage lot (paved or unpaved) use category. 2. Automobile sales in industrial districts. 3. Special yard situations for multi -frontage lots. 4. Heights of walls and fences. 5. Veterinary clinic/animal hospital special land use criteria conflict. 6. Setbacks and buffers for country clubs and associated uses. 3 August 15, 1994 BOOK F1GFQ �� BOOK 93 DGE 7. Planning and Zoning Commission representation on the Technical Review Committee. S. Bufferyards in Multi -Family Projects. 9. Bonding Requirements for Moving of Structures. 10. Site. Plan Project Classification. 11. Platting=over Site Plan Projects.. 12. Calculation of ACLF/Group Home Land Use Intensity. 13. CH District Side Yard Setbacks Against FEC Railroad. 14. IL & IG District Side Yard Setbacks Against FEC Railroad. 15. Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) Ordinance 15% Reduction for Individual Assessments. 16. Review Fee for TIF Individual Assessments. 17. Changes to Subdivision Application Submittal Requirements & Procedures. 18. FEMA - Recommended Changes to Stormwater Management & Flood Protection Requirements 19. Live -aboard Vessels: Definition & Restrictions. 20. Dock Rental Restrictions. 21. Limitations on Littoral Zone Requirements. 22. Setbacks for Legal Nonconforming Lots of Record. 23. Setbacks for Swimming Pool Structures on Corner & Multi - Frontage Lots. Staff's analysis of each section of the proposed ordinance follows. Where the PSAC or Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation differs from staff's recommended amendment, such differences are reported and explained under the appropriate ordinance section analysis. 1. Vehicle storage lot (paved or unpaved) use category. Section 954.08(6) of the parking chapter provides standards for unpaved vehicle storage lots. For several years, staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission have approved vehicle storage lots in the CH, IL and IG zoning districts. However, to date, this use category is not specified in the zoning district use tables. This use is proposed to be added to the use tables for clarification and to distinguish vehicle storage lots from the "outdoor storage" use category. The outdoor storage use involves the storage of general merchandise and supplies. 2. Automobile sales in industrial districts. Currently, automobile sales are not allowed in the IL (Light Industrial) zoning district, although sales of motorcycles, RVs, and boats are allowed. Staff's position is that automobile sales is a use similar to motorcycle, RV, and boat sales. Therefore, the automobile sales use is proposed to be added as an allowable use in the IL district. 3. Special yard situations for multi -frontage lots. Currently, for corner lots abutting arterial roads, the LDRs allow for the yard abutting the arterial road to be considered a rearyard for purposes of applying swimming pool setbacks. Staff policy has been to treat multi -frontage lots (e.g. double and triple frontage lots) similarly. The proposed amendment would formalize this policy within the LDRs. 4. Heights of walls and fences. Heights of walls and fences have been regulated in the LDRs for years. Generally, walls and fences up to 6' in height are allowed in side and rear yards and fences up to 4' in height are allowed in front yards. For years, staff's general policy has been that wall and fence heights be measured from lot grade and that "extra" height cannot be obtained merely by berming-up first and then placing a wall or fence atop the berm. However, a specific 4 August 15, 1994 a prohibition against such a practice is not contained in the existing LDRs. The proposed LDR amendment spells -out that wall and fence heights are to be measured vertically from the finished lot grade (not from the top of a berm) at the location of the wall or fence to the top of the structure. Thus, under the proposed amendment, a property owner could not gain extra fence height by building a fence on top of a built- up berm. 5. Veterinary clinic/animal hospital special land use criteria conflict. There currently exists a conflict in the 971 criteria applied to veterinary clinics/animal hospitals. The conflict involves whether or not commercial boarding of animals is allowed at a clinic or hospital. Staff's opinion is that such a use is normal and customary as an accessory use to animal hospitals, and is reasonable if noise impacts are adequately addressed. The recommended amendment addresses these issues and eliminates the existing conflict. 6. Setbacks and buffers for country clubs and associated uses. Recently, the LDRs were amended to allow a buffer option in lieu of special setbacks for golf course buildings located adjacent to non-residential uses (e.g. institutional uses such as schools). The LDRs also establish buffer criteria, as opposed to special setbacks, for tennis facilities. Golf and tennis facilities are oftentimes included in country club projects. In staff's opinion, specific criteria for these kinds of specific uses should be referenced in a particular LDR section that governs country club uses.' Such a reference, as proposed in the ordinance, would make it clear that golf course and tennis facilities associated with country clubs can be governed by the specific criteria that apply to those specific uses, as opposed to being governed by criteria that apply only to country club buildings. 7. Planning and Zoning Commission representation on the Technical Review Committee. Under current caselaw related to the issue of ex parte communication involving elected and appointed officials, it is the opinion of the county attorney's office that Planning and Zoning Commissioners cannot attend TRC meetings. Therefore, staff proposes that the LDR section which requires that a member of the Planning and Zoning Commission serve on the TRC be amended as stated in the proposed ordinance. 8. Buff eryards in Multi -Family Projects. The wording changes are proposed to make this buffer section read similarly to the buffer section contained in the commercial districts portion of Chapter 911. The proposed wording specifies that bufferyards are required along side and rear property lines and that buffer depth is measured at a right angle to such property lines. 9. Bonding Requirements for Moving of Structures. This section is proposed by the County Attorney's Office based upon direction from the Board of County Commissioners. The purpose of the LDR change is to allow the Board of County Commissioners the authority to waive certain bond requirements (related to moving structures) for projects that benefit the community and that are conducted by various organizations. Under the proposed amendment, such waivers would not be granted automatically but could be allowed at the discretion of the Board on a case by case basis. August 15, 1994 5 BOOK . '11:_11J FACE BOOK 3F,gG, 61 10. Site Plan Project Classification. Current site plan provisions require major site plan review for projects involving the replacement or addition of 2,000 square feet of building area, even when the amount of new impervious surface area does not itself trip the major site plan threshold (5,000 sq. ft.). Planning staff's experience is that projects involving over 2,000 square feet of building area that do not otherwise trip other major site plan thresholds are truly minor in nature. In relation to such projects, the proposed amendment would require minor rather than major site plan approval. 11. Platting -Over Site Plan Projects. For several years, the subdivision ordinance has provided a means for "platting -over" site plan approved projects. Under such circumstances, the approved site plan (which meets all normal requirements) governs project development. Lots underneath building units and private living areas (e.g. patio courtyards) have been allowed to be created via this platting -over provision. Projects that have used this provision include Village Walk and Cambridge Park. Staff is proposing this amendment to clarify the platting -over provisions. 12. Calculation of ACLF/Group Home Land Use Intensity. The specific land use criteria for ACLFs/Group Homes currently contain a long narrative that explains the maximum number of residents (as opposed to dwelling units) allowed on ACLF/Group Home sites. The proposed ordinance proposes changes to convert a portion of the narrative language to a formula. The proposed changes also specify how such residents per acre intensities are to be compared with intensities allowed on adjacent properties. 13 & 14 CH & IL & IG District Side Yard Setbacks Against FEC Railroad. The current LDRs allow for a 0' setback where the rearyards of properties zoned CH, IL, or IG abut the FEC Railroad. This 0' setback provision is allowed primarily to accommodate the use of railroad access for the warehouse and manufacturing uses allowed in those districts. Through various inquiries, it has come to planning staff's attention that some CH. IL, and IG properties abut the FEC Railroad along the site's sideyard (rather than rearyard) where uses needing railroad access could and should be built. The proposed ordinance proposes that the special FEC Railroad setback provision be applied to side yards (as well as rearyards) for CH, IL, and IG zoned properties. 15. TIF Ordinance 15% Reduction for Individual Assessments. Current TIF schedule rates include a 15% "automatic" discount. Under current regulations, developers wishing to perform an individual TIF assessment, rather than accepting the TIF schedule rate, are not allowed to use the 15% discount. Instead, withholding the 15% discount under the current regulations is deemed to be the administrative fee for reviewing the individual assessment. Based upon recent caselaw, the County Attorney's Office has advised staff that the 15% discount must be applied equally to the TIF schedule and to individual assessments. Therefore, the County Attorney's Office has proposed changes to allow the 15% discount for individual assessments. August 15, 1994 6 M M 16. Review Fee for TIF Individual Assessments. This item relates to the previous item, and allows establishment of a specific fee to review TIF individual assessments. It should be noted that a resolution establishing a $500.00 review fee for TIF individual assessments will be considered by the Board when it considers this LDR amendment. 17. Changes to Subdivision Application Submittal Requirements & Procedures A. & B. These changes represent preliminary plat submittal staff and the PSAC. C. & D. minor modifications to requirements agreed to by These changes are minor modifications to land development permit submittal requirements agreed to by staff and the PSAC. E. This change would allow a developer, at his or her option, to submit at the same time a preliminary plat and a land development permit for concurrent staff review. 18-. FEMA -Recommended Changes to Stormwater Management & Flood Protection Requirements. Glenn Woodward, Chief of FEMA's Division of Natural and Technological Hazards, wrote a letter to the County Administrator on October 28, 1993 (see attachment #2). In his letter, Mr. Woodward identified deficiencies in the County's Flood Protection Ordinance that "must be corrected in order to assure compliance with the various regulations of the NFIP" (National Flood Insurance Program). As a participating NFIP community, Indian River County is obligated to comply with FEMA requirements, or risk losing federal flood insurance for residents in the unincorporated county. The LDR changes proposed in this section of amendments fall into the category. of "required" (Subsection A) and "recommended" (Subsection B & C) changes. Subsection A: This proposed subsection amendment would specify the method, required by FEMA, to determine the minimum elevation of structures proposed to be built within a floodplain where no base flood data are available. Subsections B & C: Suggested Revisions: 1 Foot "Freeboard". Although not required, FEMA strongly recommends that the County require all new and substantially improved buildings be elevated at least 1 foot above Base Flood Elevation (BFE). Prior to 1987, County ordinances contained this. "freeboard" requirement. However, in 1987, the requirement was deleted to reduce construction costs. * Advantages In his letter, Mr. Woodward explains FEMA's position that the long-term benefits of requiring 1 foot freeboard outweigh the short-term development cost savings of not requiring the freeboard. Using as an example a $100,000 single-family home with $50,000 contents coverage, he notes that a 1 foot freeboard would save the owner $105 annually in insurance costs, $3,150 over the course of a 30 -year mortgage. The August 15, 1994 7 BOOK 93 ;vuE 6� J 8001 3 "E 63 annual savings increases to $147 if the home is elevated 2 feet above BFE. Mr. Woodward also explains that federal BFEs do not reflect Category 4 or 5 hurricanes. There is, however, an extra margin of safety in requiring the freeboard. The requirement of a freeboard would also result in point credits under FEMA's "Community Rating System" (CRS), which will help the County achieve a classification that could lower insurance premiums county -wide by an additional 5 percent. * Disadvantages The main disadvantage in requiring a 1 foot freeboard is additional up -front development costs for new or substantially improved structures. However, in the FEMA example, long-term savings outweigh short-term costs. Another point of consideration relates to nonconforming structures, whereby the freeboard requirement could result in inconsistencies in the elevation of new vs. nonconforming structures on the same or adjacent property. The issue was discussed at two PSAC meetings and at a PSAC sub -committee meeting. Discussions with a FEMA staff person at the sub -committee meeting indicated that the amendment could be crafted so that substantial improvements to existing structures constructed at base flood elevation (the "old" standard) would not cause the existing structure to be elevated to the "new" standard. This "exemption" is covered in the proposed ordinance. Staff also researched 39 single family Type C stormwater permit files and found that actual construction always exceeded base flood elevation by 0.51' to 5.01' (see attachment #3). At its June 9, 1994 meeting, the PSAC had its final discussion on the proposal to raise the required finished floor elevation of structures located within flood plains by 1'. The PSAC concluded that a .5' rather than a 1' increase would be acceptable because: a. FEMA would "credit" a .5' increase the same as a 1' increase within its rating system; and b. Staff's research into actual minimum elevations of structures built in flood plains shows that all of the 39 sampled single-family houses would have met a .5' increase requirement; not all of them would have met a 1' increase regulation. Thus, the PSAC recommends a .5' increase. After discussion at its July 14, 1994 meeting (see attachment #5), the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4-1 to recommend a .5' increase. Staff recommends a 1' increase, based upon the County Engineer's opinion that: a. The full 1' increase recommended by FEMA affords better flood protection and safety; and b. The negative effects of raising the required finished floor elevation by 1' are minimal, as indicated by the fact that most of the single family houses surveyed (28 of 39) would have met a 1' increase requirement. The 11 August 15, 1994 8 M M I M M samples that did not meet the 1' requirement would need to be raised only .49' to .03' to meet the 1' requirement. The County Engineer's summary of the 1' increase requirement is that the benefits outweigh the costs. Therefore, staff recommends a 1' increase, as stated in the proposed ordinance. Subsection D: This proposed subsection would require certain flood zone information on final plats of lands located in flood plains. Subsection E: This proposed subsection establishes FEMA requirements regarding regulatory floodways. Subsection F: This proposed subsection contains FEMA requirements regarding variances from Chapter 930 stormwater management and flood protection requirements. Subsection G: This proposed subsection contains numerous new definitions used within the Chapter 930 requirements. Subsection H: This proposed subsection contains numerous modifications to existing definitions used within the Chapter 930 requirements. 19. Live -aboard Vessels: Definitions and Restrictions. County Land Development Regulations (LDRs) presently define liveaboards as vessels inhabited for greater than 7 consecutive days (30 consecutive days if the vessel has no operative means of propulsion). County Code Section 932.07(1) prohibits the regular mooring of liveaboards, except in commercial marinas with approved facilities for that purpose. The proposed revisions were initiated by the Board of County Commissioners because of a code enforcement case that was heard a number of months ago by the Code Enforcement Board and County Commission. Specifically, a homeowner with river canal frontage (North Island Harbor Drive) was leasing.a boatslip to friends. The friends stayed on a boat overnight as it was moored, but for no more than 7 consecutive days at any given time. Neighborhood residents complained, and staff was asked by the County Commission to review the County's definition of liveaboard vessels. The proposed ordinance would revise the definition of live - aboard to include vessels inhabited for 7 or more days (whether consecutive or non-consecutive) within a 30 day time period. For enforcement purposes, the revised definition provides criteria for establishing a presumption of inhabitance. Staff recommended to the Planning and Zoning Commission that liveaboards be defined to also include vessels inhabited for 3 or more consecutive days. The Planning and Zoning Commission , however, voted to exclude the proposed 3 consecutive day threshold, indicating that it was too restrictive to allow for extended weekend visitors, and indicating that the inhabitance threshold of 7 days total within a month is more reasonable and would eliminate the enforcement loophole in the current LDRs whereby the 7 consecutive day threshold can be avoided by a one day excursion on the 7th day (see attachment #5). Staff is now in August 15, 1994 9 BOOK d J `A:,E agreement with the Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation, which has been incorporated into the proposed ordinance. 20. Dock Rental Restrictions. These restrictions are in accordance with a Code Enforcement Board determination regarding accessory use vs. commercial use of single family docks. Basically, the Code Enforcement Board found that rental of dock space on a single family lot constitutes an illegal accessory use. The proposed changes will amend the LDRs to incorporate that ruling. This amendment will not change the county's regulations; instead, it will merely codify an existing requirement. It should be noted that the PSAC voted to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners not adopt ,this proposed amendment. It was the PSAC's position that the existing LDRs and its interpretation (via Code Enforcement Board determinations) are sufficient. The Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend that the Board adopt the proposed amendment. 21. Limitation on Littoral Zone Requirements. County regulations presently require littoral zones for created or expanded waterbodies greater than 1/2 acre in size. County Code Section 934.05(4) specifies that "at least thirty (30) percent of the waterbody surface area shall consist of littoral zone". Staff is proposing that the littoral zone area ratio be either 30% of the waterbody surface area or 21 square feet per linear foot of shoreline, whichever is less. This change is meant to alleviate the burden to developers of providing 30% surface area coverage of littoral zone on large created waterbodies, such as 20 acre mining sites. The 21 square foot area per linear foot shoreline is based upon the existing ordinance design standard of the littoral zone extending from one foot above water control elevation to 2 1/2 feet below, at a maximum slope of 6 feet horizontal to one foot vertical (6:1). 22. Setbacks for Legal Monconforming RM -6, RM -8, and RM -10 Zoned Lots. Currently, the LDRs accommodate special setbacks for legal nonconforming RS -3 lots, whereby RS -6 setbacks are applied. The result is a reduction in front and rear yard setbacks from 25' to 20' and a reduction in sideyard setbacks from 15' to 101. The reason for the reduction is that the nonconforming lots, though zoned RS -3, are actually smaller than RS -3 lots and, therefore, cannot reasonably accommodate normal RS -3 setbacks. The same situation occurs for RM -6. RM -8, and RM -10 zoned nonconforming lots used for single family development. In those cases, the current 25' front and rear yard setbacks should be reduced to 201, to allow a reasonable use of the small, nonconforming lots. The proposed ordinance makes such an allowance. 23. Setbacks for Swimming Pool Structures on Corner and Multi - Family Lots. Currently, special rearyard setbacks are given for pools and pool related structures, and the current MRs already recognize to some degree the special situation of most corner lots and multi -family lots in regards to setbacks. For many corner and multi -frontage lots, areas that are technically "sideyards" are actually used as "rearyard" 10 August 15, 1994 M M swimming pools areas. For that reason, staff proposes that the special setbacks for swimming pools and pool related structures be applied to rearyards and sideyards of multi - frontage lots and corner lots. Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners: 1. Direct staff to make any necessary changes to the proposed ordinance; and 2. Announce its intentions to take final action on the proposed ordinance at the Board's special hearing scheduled for 5:01 p.m. on August 31, 1994, to be held in the County Commission Chambers. Director Boling expected three items to involve the most discussion: Section 19 regarding Live -Aboard Vessels, Section 20 regarding Dock Rental, and Section 18 regarding FEMA Recommended Changes in Stormwater Management and Flood Protection Requirements. He recommended that the Board consider those three items first, followed by the remainder of the listed items in numerical order, if the Board so desired. The Board members agreed to follow the suggested sequence. Mr. DeBlois related that the recommended revision to Definitions and Restrictions of Live -Aboard Vessels included vessels inhabited for 7 or more days (whether consecutive or non- consecutive). within a 30 -day time period. For enforcement purposes, the revised definition provides criteria for establishing a presumption of inhabitance. A person shall be presumed to be aboard the vessel if the lights, television or other appliances are seen and/or heard between 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. If we receive a report of a liveaboard based on observation, the respondent would have the opportunity to come before the Code Enforcement Board and present their side of the story and explain, for example, why the lights were on during those hours. The exemption for registered commercial fishing boats has been in the ordinance and remains in the ordinance with additional language referencing Florida Statutes for the definition of commercial fishing boats. Environmental Planning Chief Roland DeBlois explained that the case involving liveaboards which was discussed in the memo was heard by the Code Enforcement Board. That Board did not make a determination of liveaboard, but they determined there was an accessory use violation related to rental and lease of a dock in a single-family residential neighborhood. Commissioner Eggert led discussion regarding security lights on board the vessels and the need to differentiate security lights from liveaboard lights. Mr. DeBlois stated that staff's discussions included the fact that boats use hazard lights, running lights and security lights, � ,� August 15, 1994 11 Boos 3 rn-, 66 i UUUR 93 pi,E 67 and that would be a point of distinction for the Code Enforcement Board to determine. Generally the ordinance refers to interior lights which would be indicative of inhabitance. Commissioner Bird asked whether we have any requirement in the ordinance requiring waste disposal. Mr. DeBlois responded that liveaboards are allowed only at specifically designated multi -dock facilities or marinas with pumpout capability. Liveaboards are prohibited entirely from single-family accessory docks. The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. Robert Golden, resident of Island Harbor, spoke in favor of the revisions. He requested that the exemption for commercial fishing vessels be excluded because commercial fishermen usually tie up at a marina or fish house and do not care to sleep on board. He also requested that the beginning time for the presumption of inhabitance be changed to 6:00 p.m. rather than 9:00 p.m. He pointed out that a person can be employed evenings and/or nights and live aboard the vessel in the daytime, thereby avoiding the requirement. He suggested a further amendment to the effect that a liveaboard need not be established solely as provided in the ordinance but may be established by any other appropriate evidence, because the ordinance is intended to preclude and prohibit living aboard vessels at single-family docks. Jo Kelley, resident of Harbor Island Road, asked how many complaints of liveaboards have been filed other than the complaints against her. Mr. DeBlois responded that there have not been many, and Ms. Kelley's case is the only one that has been presented to the Code Enforcement Board. The other incidents were resolved. Ms. Kelley argued that if the law is changed after there is only one incident that is equivalent to individual legislation, or changing the law so it affects one person. If there are no other complaints, what's the point of changing the law? County Attorney Charles Vitunac advised that the law would affect everyone similarly situated, not just one person. Mr. DeBlois pointed out that other people are affected by the same ordinance, but they comply with it and we do not hear about it. Ms. Kelley liveaboards. August 15, 1994 argued that enforcement is not possible for 12 � r � Mr. DeBlois responded that enforcement would be based on a complaint or if our attention is drawn to a situation, we deal with it proactively. - Ms. Kelley related conversations with friends who advised her that a dock owner owns the land underneath the water and would be allowed to rent that space. Mr. DeBlois clarified that the owner of property is subject to zoning regulations. Attorney Vitunac confirmed Mr. DeBlois' statements, and added that the County has the right to take the limited action laid out in the ordinance. We are not addressing citizens' rights to use the rest of the Indian River or the Intracoastal Waterway. Ms. Kelley offered to send copies of Florida Statutes to the County Attorney to prove her point, and Attorney Vitunac stated that he would be happy to review whatever she has. Commissioner Bird asked for clarification of "accessory" in relation to docks, because there are communities where docks are individually owned but not attached to an individual property. They are grouped together in a marina. Attorney Vitunac advised that "accessory" means incidental to the principal use. In the subject under discussion, there is a house with a, dock, so the dock is considered accessory to the house. If they had just a dock with no house, it would be an accessory use without a principal use. Attorney Vitunac believed that the accessory use could be grouped together, as in Commissioner Bird's example. Mr. DeBlois pointed out that the case cited in staff's memo went before the Code Enforcement Board and they did not make a finding of a live aboard. They did make a finding that the slip was being rented to someone other than the owner of the residence because that came out in the evidence. As a result, the Code Enforcement Board interpreted the existing accessory use regulations that prohibited the leasing and renting of a boat dock separate from the principal use. The regulation is straightforward with that limitation. Commissioner Bird doubted enforceability. He did not think it would suffice for a neighbor to see a light on a boat. He felt it would take a physical inspection by someone with authority and documentation of the violation over a 30 -day period. Commissioner Eggert mentioned sworn depositions. Further discussion ensued regarding liveaboards and dock rentals, and Ms. Kelley noted that boat owners have very few places to dock their vessels because the secure marinas are full. 13 August 15 1994 BOOK Boor. 93 �AUE 69 Mr. Gordon returned to the microphone and responded to the concerns about enforceability. He maintained that the State legislature considered the liveaboard ordinance enforceable because the State legislature specifically grants the local governmental authorities the right to prohibit or restrict the mooring or anchoring of floating structures or liveaboard vessels within their jurisdiction. He did not believe that Code Enforcement must see it personally. The neighbors could present a case to a Code Enforcement Officer that a violation is taking place. Commissioner Adams agreed that the ordinance may be difficult to enforce. The accessory use was never intended to have rental units in single family neighborhoods. She compared it to having a structure such a barn or storage shed and renting that out. Commissioner Adams favored the revisions because the problems are addressed and will prevent problems in the future. She further cautioned that the dock rental restriction is good for the Indian River because a vessel without pumpout facilities can cause problems. Commissioner Eggert believed it would be difficult to change the beginning time for presumption of inhabitance, and it was the consensus of the Board that the time should not be changed. Commissioner Eggert wished to clarify the issue of lights, and the Board directed staff to present more information on that subject at the final hearing. SECTION 18 Director Boling related that Environmental Planning Chief Roland DeBlois and County Engineer Roger Cain would present staff's recommendations regarding Section 18, FEMA Recommended Changes to Stormwater Management and Flood Protection Requirements. Mr. DeBlois explained that the proposed revisions are largely based on the requirements that were expressed through Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to Indian River County as a participant in the National Flood Protection program. Subsection A covers revisions which are required to comply with FEMA's regulations. Revisions in Subsections B and C are strongly recommended by FEMA and deal with freeboard, which is the elevation of a structure above Base Flood Elevation. The recommendation is that the County should require one foot of freeboard, or one foot elevation above the minimum flood elevation on the flood maps. Mr. DeBlois reminded the Board that back in 1987 we -did require one foot above minimum base flood elevation as a margin of safety and because it was encouraged through FEMA. However, when we revised the Code back then, the one foot minimum was deleted largely based 14 August 15, 1994 - M on concerns expressed by the construction community, as well as individuals building houses, that it added a cost that we did not really need. Recently the FEMA representative met with members of our Professional Services Advisory Committee (PSAC) and staff and tried to explain that while there are added construction costs initially, in the long term there is savings for the homeowner on insurance premiums because FEMA gives discounts for properties with structures elevated higher than the minimum. They gave an example: a $100,000 house with $50,000 content coverage with a 1 -foot freeboard would save $105 annually. Another indirect benefit is that if we require structures to be constructed above the minimum and reach a certain threshold of points county -wide, there is a reduction of premiums. Until now we have succeeded in getting a 5 percent reduction for flood insurance premiums in the county. If we were at the next level, which is one foot, this could be reduced by another 5 percent for a total 10 percent reduction county -wide. Mr. DeBlois reported that the members of Professional Services Advisory Committee were concerned about added construction costs and up -front costs. They were also concerned about relationship of structures in that requiring one foot elevation for new construction may affect the houses next door. Engineering staff did a survey and there really is not that much difference in what people are having built now. Another important point is that if the structure is elevated half a foot (.5 foot), they round it up to a foot, so points are accumulated and there is a reduction in premiums. With that understanding, the PSAC recommended that we require the .5 foot rather than the full one foot and still receive the benefit of lowered insurance premiums, and the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) concurred with that viewpoint. County Engineer Roger Cain advised that information from local suppliers indicated that it would cost about $1100 to raise the elevation to one foot for an average 2,000 -square -foot house. There are also requirements from the State HRS on elevation with septic tanks and requirements for development of subdivisions for type B stormwater permits and cut and fill balance in the flood plain which gives the same effect. Commissioner Bird led discussion regarding the economic impact of the requirement. He realized that it would add to safety and health but the economic impact is an unknown factor. Commissioner Eggert noted that staff indicated that six inches or half a foot will provide a benefit to insurance premiums. Commissioner Macht commented that the revision will affect the cost of affordable housing. 15 August 15, 1994 @8GK �� �•�CE �� BocK J3 r{Uc 71 The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. Nancy Offutt, government coordinator for the Vero Beach -Indian River County Chamber of Commerce, spoke in opposition to a Land Development Regulation that would increase the cost of housing with discernible tangible benefits. She believed that requiring more than six inches does not create additional benefit. Chip Landers, builder, developer and realtor, was concerned about the additional cost. He pointed out that $1100, $1200 is not serious money in some instances, but in the case of Vero Lake Estates, for example, it is serious money. He pointed out that the cost of building supplies has gone up, and he urged the Board to follow the recommendation of PSAC and P&Z and limit the requirement to six inches. Public Works Director Jim Davis emphasized that FEMA and other regulator agencies look at tolerances when they do a final inspection. They point out that FEMA's language is .5 foot or more and that language should be in our ordinance. We do not want to mislead the surveyor or contractor. If he is just 1/100th or 2/100ths off, he is below that threshold. The half a foot is the tolerance that is allowed in the regulatory enforcement. Chairman Tippin announced that it is the consensus of the Board to limit the requirement to .5 foot, no less than .5 foot, at least half a foot. Commissioner Adams asked, and Community Development Director Bob Keating clarified that the elevation is measured when the form boards are set. The elevation certificate which is maintained in our records and which FEMA inspects is done as part of the Certificate of Occupancy. SECTION 9 Deputy County Attorney William G. Collins II explained Section 9, Bonding Requirements for Moving of Structures. When local affordable housing providers wish to move a structure they must post the bond to bring it up to building code. This is a financial burden on those agencies and the Board directed staff to carve out an exception for these circumstances. The intent of the bond is to prevent people from removing old shacks and moving them onto somebody else's property to get rid of a nuisance. These housing providers move structures with the intent to renovate and bring them up to code. The proposed revision would allow the Board to 16 August 15, 1994 o consider these situations on a case by case basis for waiver of the bonding requirement. Attorney Collins noted that the revision also clears up the language regarding a bond to cover the cost of repairs or road damage. The movers provide liability insurance to cover that. Attorney Collins explained that the bond is pegged to the deposit for improving or bringing the building up to code and utilities hookups. The revision allows the Board to grant waivers on a case by case basis if a community organization presents a case that is worthy. The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. Charles Cox, organizer of the Coalition for the Homeless, spoke in favor of the revision. He recounted the situation wherein a home was not moved because of the bond requirement and everyone lost. He described the work of his organization and urged the Board to approve the revision. He pointed out that a requirement for three sets of drawings sealed by an architect is a legal barrier to affordable housing and is not. logical because the original construction of the structure would require those drawings. He. felt that the building official should be authorized to permit the buying of the house and notify the Finance Director that the requirements have been met in order to eliminate the legal roadblocks to affordable housing. Discussion ensued regarding the Board's ability to grant waivers to non-profit agencies and procedures for permitting renovation. Attorney Vitunac suggested the language, "Some proof other than drawings which would be satisfactory to the building official." It was the consensus of the Board that staff revise this section to allow waivers for non-profit organizations. (DURING THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, COMMISSIONER EGGERT LEFT THE MEETING TO ATTEND ANOTHER MEETING AND DID NOT RETURN.) ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board (by a vote of 4-+0y Commissioner Eggert having left the meeting) directed staff to proceed to a final hearing for Sections 1 through 23 with the suggested changes in Sections 9, 18, 19 and 20. 17 nn August 15, 1994 BOOK �.x,r BOOK 93 f'AGF LDR FIRST HEARING CONSIDERATION OF ROAD FRONTAGE REOMMIENTS FOR LOT SPLITS The Board reviewed memo from Planning Director Stan Boling dated August 9, 1994: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator DIV ION HEAD CONCURRENCE: Robert M. Keg ng AIC Community Development rector Ao FROM: Stan Boling, AICP Planning Director DATE: August 9, 1994 SUBJECT: LDR First Hearing Consideration Requirements for Lot Splits of Road Frontage It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its special meeting of August 15, 1994, in conjunction with the other LDR amendments to be considered at the same meeting. DESCRIPTIONS & CONDITIONS: Several months ago, Attorney Bruce Barkett appealed staff's interpretation of the county's road frontage requirements. Because staff's interpretation of the requirements had been applied for many years and because of the importance and broad effect of significant changes to the requirements, the Board of County Commissioners considered and adopted an emergency ordinance on April 5, 1994 to clarify beyond all doubt the county's current road frontage requirements. During discussion of the emergency ordinance, and at a subsequent meeting when the Board considered Mr. Barkett's interpretation appeal, the Board directed staff to review the road frontage requirements through the normal LDR amendment process. Staff has performed research on this subject, has analyzed the current requirements, and has devised alternatives to the present road frontage requirements. The PSAC considered this information at its June 9, 1994 meeting and voted unanimously to keep the existing LDR road frontage requirements as they are (as clarified by the April 5, 1994 emergency ordinance), with no changes. On July 14, 1994, the Planning and Zoning Commission considered this matter and voted 5-0 to recommend that the Board keep the existing LDR road frontage requirements as they are (see attachment #7). The Board of County Commissioners is now to consider this matter and determine whether to confirm the county's- existing road frontage LDR requirements as reflected in the April 5, 1994 emergency ordinance or to change the road frontage requirements. August 15, 1994 18 M M 13 BACKGROUND: M *Need for Re -review of Road Frontage Requirements M The existing road frontage requirement, as applied to lot splits, is contained in subdivision ordinance section 913.06(1)(c) [see attachment #1]. This section was amended by the Board of County Commissioners on April 5, 1994 via adoption of an emergency ordinance. The ordinance currently requires that all lots created after December 8, 1973 have a minimum amount of frontage on one of three types of roadways: 1. A dedicated public road right-of-way; or 2. A private, platted road right-of-way; or 3. A roadway historically and currently maintained by the county. No lot splits are allowed when any lot resulting from a split would fail to have the minimum amount of frontage on one of these three road right-of-way types. The minimum amount of required frontage varies. While 30' is required on curves and cul-de-sacs, 60' is required on properties zoned A-1, A-2, A-3, RFD, and RS -1. For property located in the other zoning districts and along straight road segments, the frontage length must equal the minimum lot width of the zoning district in which the property is located. •History Purpose, and Importance of the Road Frontage Requirement Within Indian River County, single family development is the most predominant land use type and has significant impacts. Since each single family unit must be developed on its own, individual lot, regulation of single family development occurs primarily at the time lots are created. To regulate lot creation, Indian River County, like many other counties, regulates subdivision development and lot splits. One major component of subdivision and lot split regulations is access and traffic circulation. By establishing road frontage requirements for new lots, the county ensures that new lots are properly laid -out in relation to a coordinated and maintained roadway system. For over 20 years, the county has regulated lot splits by requiring that all newly created lots have frontage on a public road right- of-way or a private platted road right-of-way. This road frontage requirement is similar to requirements of other counties in the region, including Brevard and St. Lucie counties. In fact, St. Lucie County requires that new lots resulting from lot splits front on roads that are paved to county standards. As is the case in other counties, Indian River County's existing requirements are intended to ensure proper access to newly created lots from a roadway that is a part of an overall, coordinated roadway network. In addition, the requirement ensures that the new lots front on road rights-of-way that: (a) Are maintained by the county or by a property owners association that has maintenance responsibility; and (b) Are properly dimensioned and aligned in a manner that allows future improvement (e.g. paving) of the roadway; and (c) Are dimensioned and legally established. in a manner that accommodates future utilities and drainage improvements within the rights-of-way. 19 August 15, 1994 �L'On F,�)JI� RD A BOOK 93 F -AGE 75 Thus, the road frontage requirements ensure that future development on created lots can be served by roadways that are adequately maintained, that are capable of being improved, and that are served by utilities and drainage. The road frontage requirements were originally enacted to prevent the creation of new lots where those lots would be inadequately served by narrow, unmaintained roadways laid -out without county review and approval. These purposes have not changed. According to a recent model subdivision ordinance publication, such regulations are necessary to avoid problems in delivering emergency services, maintenance and related problems, and obstructions to utilities services (see p. 1-5 of attachment #2). Over the years, the road frontage requirement has been applied to hundreds of lot splits and proposed lot splits throughout the county. Planning staff estimates that this requirement is applied to lot split proposals on an average of 10-20 times a month. Therefore, the existing requirements have served and continue to serve as important regulatory tools to ensure that newly created lots and parcels have direct access to dedicated, maintained road rights-of- way that are part of a coordinated roadway system. ANALYSIS: •Framework for Reviewing Road Frontage Options In reviewing road frontage requirements, the county must consider the type and quality of infrastructure necessary to serve anticipated development, and must also consider -the integration of that infrastructure into the county's overall system. These consideration criteria should include: 1. Roadway alignment: connection to and integration into the public road system and adjacent areas. 2. Roadway and right-of-way (or easement) dimensions: adequate width and length to serve anticipated traffic. 3. Roadway construction: adequate to serve anticipated traffic. 4. Emergency access: adequate for use by emergency vehicles. 5. Drainage: adequate to handle stormwater run-off. 6. Maintenance: responsibility and ability of an entity to maintain the roadway. 7. Perpetuity: access ensured for the future. 8. Future improvements: ability for roadway to be paved and utilities to be installed and maintained. The current road frontage requirement options (dedicated county road, private platted road, and county -maintained road), as reflected in the April 5th emergency ordinance changes, adequately address each of these 8 criteria. Another option allowed by the current LDRs, the option to file a private road plat, also adequately addresses each of the 8 criteria. In considering additional options to the current requirements, the county should evaluate such additional options with respect to these 8 criteria. 20 August 15, 1994 M *Options to Current Road Frontage Requirements The primary option to the existing road frontage requirements is to allow frontage on private access easements to satisfy frontage requirements. Staff's research indicates that many recommended standards assume road paving and improvement standards in excess of the county's current subdivision local road standards. However, staff's research indicates that there are some recommended "alternative" standards for using roadway easements and unpaved roads to serve lot splits (see attachment #5; summary). However, these alternative standards are recommended in rural areas where a few lots (up to 4) or large lots (2 or more acres in size) are served by such roadways. Also, it should be noted that these alternative standards address only a few of the 8 criteria previously described. Furthermore, in Indian River County, most lot splits are proposed or occur under different circumstances. In fact, the case that precipitated this re -review, Hedden Place (located on the south side of S.R. 60, just west of 60 Oaks), would not qualify for any of these alternative standards since Hedden Place involves well over 4 lots and involves parcels well under 2 acres in size. •Barkett/Hedden Place Proposal Attorney Bruce Barkett has proposed an alternative frontage requirement based upon a "grandfathering -in" and general adequacy test for certain private roadways, such as Hedden Place, which are located within private access easements (see attachment #6). It is Mr. Barkett's opinion that such "historical" roads have stood the test of time and have proven their adequacy over time. Such an option would involve a staff review, via an administrative approval review, to determine if an existing private roadway qualifies to be used to satisfy road frontage requirements. Under such a proposal, roadways, such as Hedden Place, that have historically served unplatted "subdivisions" should..be accorded a special status. Staff's position is that Mr. Barkett's alternative is based upon a faulty assumption. What has worked in the past for Hedden Place is not guaranteed to work in the future, especially as more lots are created and roadway use increases. It is also staff's position that Mr. Barkett's alternative, as well as any other alternative, must adequately address all 8 of the previously referenced criteria. Staff's analysis is that Hedden Place adequately addresses some but not all of the criteria, as follows: 1. Roadway alignment pattern is set and spaced at a normal #330' separation from adjacent roadways. No paved apron of adequate width is in place, with the result that cars must slow significantly prior to turning off of S.R. 60 onto Hedden Place at S.R. 60. 2. Roadbed measures 20' - 22' in width. Easement width is only 30' - 40'. 3. Roadbed is stable and compacted but serves 18-22 lots. 4. Roadbed width seems adequate for emergency services but no cul-de-sac turnaround exists. 5. There appear to be no known drainage problems. 21 August 15, 1994 eooK 93 f -t1 r- 76 FF-- 7 mK 93 7 6. Maintenance is apparently performed by residents. However, no formal, enforceable maintenance agreement exists, and no single entity is accountable for future maintenance. 7. Common access easements are established by deed, apparently for all lot owners. 8. Future improvement for paving would be difficult; however, county- water lines were recently installed in a utility easement running within or along the road easement. Although staff does not support the Barkett proposal, staff has prepared an alternative amendment that would allow lot splits off of roads such as Hedden Place (see attachment #8). *Determining Alternatives There are a variety of alternatives regarding lot split access. These alternatives include: 1. Public road right-of-way 2. Private subdivision platted road right-of-way 3. Publicly -maintained roadway 4. Private, platted road right-of-way 5. Easement with roadway 6. Private roadway without easement 7. Land -locked parcel Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 are already available via the road frontage requirements contained in the existing LDRs. . Thus, no LDR changes are needed to allow any of these 4 alternatives. Alternative 5 is not allowed under the existing LDRs but could be developed as an LDR amendment. Such an "Alternative 5" amendment would allow an easement (rather than a platted right-of-way) to be established that: a. meets existing county right-of-way alignment and dimensional standards, and b. is subject to and cannot be altered without county approval, and C. includes an enforceable maintenance agreement that identifies a maintenance entity and guarantees current and future maintenance, and d. encompasses a roadway that is comparable in construction and integrity to unpaved, county -maintained local roadways. Such an alternative could adequately address the 8 criteria previously referenced in this report. However, because the. review process would so closely parallel the preliminary and final plat processes already in place for private road plats (Alternative 4), neither staff nor the PSAC believe there is any reason or advantage to establishing such a similar, "parallel" process. Neither Alternative 6 nor Alternative 7 would ensure access or satisfy any of the 8 previously referenced criteria. Therefore, neither of these alternatives should be seriously considered. In the opinion of staff, the PSAC, and the Planning and Zoning Commission, the existing LDR road frontage requirements reflected in the April 5th emergency ordinance wording changes should be retained. 22 August 15, 1994 Planning staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners re -affirm the road frontage requirement changes contained in the emergency ordinance adopted on April 5, 1994, and direct staff to incorporate into the proposed LDR amendment ordinance the April 5th emergency ordinance changes, and similar changes to LDR Chapter 912, as shown in attachment #9 of this report. REDDEN PLACE ALTERNATIVE (NOT RECOMMENDED BY STAFF) Section 913.06(1).(C) is hereby amended to read as follows: "(1) unlawful activity. It shall be unlawful and subject to penalties provided herein for any person to: (C) Divide property after December S. 1973 by any means where a resulting lot does not have frontage on: a dedicated public right-of-way, private platted right-of-way (street), or a roadway historically and currently maintained by the county, as referenced on the county road grading map, of at least: 1. Sixty (60) continuous feet, unless exempted under section 913.06(2), or unless the lot fronts upon a cul-de-sac or curve and meets the requirements of section 913.09(6)(C), for properties located within the A-1, A-2, A-3, Con -2, Con -31 -RFD and RS -1 zoning districts; 2. The minimum lot width of the zoning district applicable to the lot(s) created for properties located within zoning districts other than those referenced in the above' paragraph 1., unless exempted under section 913.06(2), or unless the lot fronts upon a cul-de-sac or curve and meets the requirements of section 913.09(6)(c). Access, ingress/egress; or other easements shall not be deemed to constitute a publicly dedicated road right-of- way unless previously dedicated to and accepted by the county. Private access easements shall be considered "private platted rights-of-way (street)' for purposes of this section, if: a. 'The physical roadway locate existed prior to the c requirement (December 8, 1� b. The physical roadway has local road standards (2 develonmentl! arm c. A nota respons cow for ma erf orm d. _The per obtains va rized letter fron ible for road main _indicating the pei Lntenance and the - ad; s) proposing the dministrative within the easement(s inty's road frontag 3)• and _width meeting count for single famil _the person or entitv ?nance is filed with the on or entity responsible method of maintenance _lot split files for and approval from staff, are satisfied rpffarA4". Note: Parcels created between September 21, 1990 and December 4, 1991 are subject to the sixty (60) continuous feet (rather .than a minimum lot width) frontage requirement, regardless of the zoning district in which the property is located. 23 August 159 1994 MJ I n - 78 BOOK 93 P.1UE 19 RE -ADOPTION OF APRIL 5TH CHANGES (RECOMMENDED BY STAFF) A. Section 913.06(1)(C) is hereby amended to read as follows: "(1) Unlawful activity. It shall be unlawful and subject to penalties provided herein for any person to: (C) Divide property after December 8, 1973 by any means where a resulting lot W does not have frontage on: a dedicated public right-o.f-way, private platted right-of-way (street), or a roadway historically and currently maintained b the county, as referenced on the county road grading map, - of at least: 1. Sixty (60) continuous -feet, unless exempted under section 913.06(2); or unless the lot fronts upon a cul-de-sac or curve and meets the requirements of section 913.09(6)(C), for properties located within the A-1, A-2, A-3, Con -2, Con -3, RFD and RS -1 zoning districts; 2. The minimum lot width of the zoning district applicable to the lot(s) created for properties located within zoning districts other than those referenced in the above paragraph 1., unless exempted under section 913.06(2), or unless the lot fronts upon a cul-de-sac or curve and meets the rei4uirements of section 913.09(6)(c). Access, ingress/egress, or other easements shall not be deemed to constitute a publicly dedicated road right-of- way unless previously dedicated to and accepted by the county. Note: Parcels created between September 21, 1990 and December 4, 1991 are subject to the sixty ( 60 ) continuous feet (rather than a minimum lot width) frontage requirement, regardless of the zoning district in which the property is located. *B. Section 912.06(3)(C) is hereby amended to read as follows: (C) after December 8, 1973 by any means where a I does not have frontage on a dedicated public 1. Sixty (60) continuous feet, unless exempted under section 912.06(2), or unless the lot fronts upon a cul-de-sac or curve and meets the requirements of section 913.09(6)(C), for properties located within the A-1, A-2, A-3, Con -2, Con -3, RFD and RS -1 zoning districts; 2. The minimum lot width of the zoning district aDDlicable to the lot(s) created for properties located within zoning districts other than those referenced in the above paragraph 1., unless exempted under section 912.06(2), or unless the lot fronts upon a cul-de-sac or curve and meets the requirements of section 913.09(6)(c). Access, ingress/egress, or other easements shall not be deemed to constitute a publicly dedicated road right-of- way unless previously dedicated to and accepted by the county. 24 August 15, 1994 • . "Parcels created 990 and December 4, 1991 are subject to the sixty ( 6 0 ) continuous feet (rather than a minimum lot width) frontage requirement, regardless of the zoning district in which the property is located. *Note: Although changes to section 912.06(3)(c) were not made as part of the April 5th emergency ordinance, such changes should now be made to ensure that this Chapter 912 section parallels section 913.06(1)(c). Coding: Words in � type are deletions from existing law. Words underlined are additions. 1 Director Boling illustrated with the aid of graphics the situation on Hedden Place which caused the Board to consider Road Frontage Requirements for Lot Splits. The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. Bruce Barkett, local attorney who represented Mr. Van Vorst at prior hearings, stated that he was not representing anyone. He pointed out that staff followed the Board's direction and presented an alternative which would allow people like Mr. Van Vorst to make application for a lot split. Mr. Barkett proposed that the Board adopt staff's alternative to give the Board authority to grant a permit on a case by case basis so that somebody like Mr. Van Vorst is not stopped by blind application of the ordinances. Community Development Director Bob Keating preferred some standards or criteria rather than decisions on a case by case basis. One major requirement is that there be a maintenance entity identified to provide assurance that maintenance of the road will continue. Public Works Director Jim Davis agreed, and added that the criteria should indicate that the road be maintained comparable to a county maintained unpaved road. Discussion ensued regarding the evaluation of Hedden Place, and Mr. Barkett conceded that Hedden Place does not meet the 75 - 25 August 15, 1994 BOOK .FA�� 8001( 9 3 rmu- F 81 point test for County takeover of maintenance of the road. He pointed out that there is a historical record of maintenance by the owners, and there is no reason that the Board cannot at least consider the request to split the lot. He further pointed out that the revision would apply only to situations created before 1973. Director Boling stressed that Hedden Place does not meet the right-of-way standards, and to allow the lot split would allow a version of a finishing out of a de facto subdivision which will be substandard with no way to improve it. Commissioner Adams led discussion regarding larger tracts which have the same situation, and Commissioner Bird felt that the one-time splitting of five -acre tracts would be a matter for a long discussion, and he would like to see us study that and readdress it. Director Boling emphasized that the current policy regarding lot splits has been on the books for at least ten years, has been applied rigorously to every single family building proposal, and transactions and decisions as recent as a week ago were made based on that policy. This is a big change and obviously will be a benefit in some situations. Discussion ensued, and Commissioners Adams and Bird felt that there are not too many situations like Hedden Place. Director Boling advised that there were dozens of times a year through the past 10 years when this situation arose with a private road easement. People were told they cannot split the lot without a plat, and they cannot receive a plat because of the requirements. Chairman Tippin preferred to try it and see what happens. Commissioner Bird stressed that there must be some standards and criteria for the benefit of staff. Commissioner Adams clarified that the criteria should include existence of the easement prior to 1973, width of 20 feet, and a notarized letter regarding continuous maintenance. Director Boling cautioned that the policy would apply to every parcel on that easement so we could wind up having a lot more new parcels on the roadway. Commissioner Macht was reluctant to not accept the judgment of staff. Chairman Tippin commented that if it does not work we can change it again. Commissioner Adams clarified that the policy would apply to RS -6 zoning. August 15, 1994 26 M M I ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board (by a vote of 3-1, Commissioner Macht voting in opposition and Commissioner Eggert being absent) directed staff to proceed to a final hearing with the Hedden Place Alternative (Not Recommended by Staff). Chairman Tippin announced that the next public hearing to consider the Land Development Regulations is scheduled on August 31, 1994 at 5:01 p.m. There being no further business, the Board adjourned at 6:56 p.m. ATTEST: "- ? k��`Y' Riga hq W,`dq J. K. MINUTES APP. August 15, 1994 27 'W. Tippin hairman boox 93 im,6E 8