The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About5/15/1995� MINUT�3-ATTACIILt" BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGENDA SPECIAL MEETING MONDAY, MAY 159 1995 5:01 P.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER County Administration Building 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida Kenneth R. Macht, Chairman (Dist. 3) James E. Chandler, County Administrator Fran B. Adams, Vice Chairman (Dist. 1) Richard N. Bird (Dist. 5) Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney Carolyn K. Eggert (Dist. 2) John W. Tippin (Dist. 4) Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board 5:0112.m. Proposed LDR Amendments First Hearing: Review of Staff -Initiated LDR Amendments (Memorandum dated May 9, 1995) Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which maybe 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 x408 at least 48 hours in advance of meeting. SPECIAL MEETING May 15, 1995 The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, met in Special Session in County Commission Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Monday, May 15, 1995, at 5:01 p.m. Present were Kenneth R. Macht, Chairman; Fran B. Adams, Vice Chairman; Richard N. Bird; Carolyn K. Eggert; and John W. Tippin. Also present were James E. Chandler, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney; and P. J. Jones, Deputy Clerk. The Chairman called the meeting to order. LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION AMENDMENTS 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 COUN,ry OF INDIAN RIVER �rc�� 011riklr STA'L'E 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 billed tp_l�' Jes _AM was published in said newspaper in the issue(s) I /WX Sworn to and subscribed before me this A�!JfldL_ day of A.D .,.�... ...... NNo ' / ` Business Manager .:c . IFP7 I H. ll, .. n4.r:•.r. • 'I•..... it/. 1�J97 1 BOOK MAY 159 1995 95, F{ Olt BOOK 95 F,,,Ut 02 NOTICE OF ESTABLISHMENT OR CHANGE OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AFFECTING THE USE OF LAN The Indian River County Board of County Commissioners p►oposns to adopt or change regulations affecting the -use of land for the area shown In the map in Ibis advertisement. Two public hearings on the regulations allecting thn use of land will be held, one on Monday, May 15, 1995 of 5,01 p.m. and one on Wednesday, May 71, 1995 at 5:01 p.m. in the County Commission Chambers in the County Administration Building located of 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida. Proposed changes to the land Development Regulations (LDRs) effective in the unincorporated area of the county consist of an orc h mce containing various tDR amendments, and include -changes to the following LDR chapters. . Chapter 901, Definitions • Chapter 902, Administrative Mechanisms • Chapter 911, toning • Chapter 912, Single Family Development • Chapter 913, Subdivisions d P101% • Chapter 914, Site Pion Review & Approval Procedurns -. Chapter 917, Accessory Uses and Structures • Chapter 930, Sto►mwoler Management & Floodplain Protection • Chapter 934, Excavation & Mining • Chapter 951, Road Addressing System • Chapter 952, Traffic • Chapter 954, Off -Street Parking • Chapter 956, Sign Regulations • Chapter 971, Regulations for Specific land Usn Criteria • Chapter 972, Temporary Uses Topics relating to said amendments Include, but ore not limited to, the following, 1. Required separation distances betweengroup homes/ACtfs (97 1) 2. Approval procedures and requirements For temporary tool estate sales offices (972) 3. Correction of text omisslont parks in Con -3 district 197 1) 4. Non-commercial agricultural usos.in ROSE -4 district (911. 0711 $. Cam" Development sign -off fo• minor site plans 19141 6. Driving aisle widths for mini -storage projects (954) 7. Update of Chopler 912 SR -60 setback allowance (912) 8. Open space calculation for agricultural properties with eronmode walerbodies (901, 911) 9. Hours 61 display for open house signs 19561 10. Development project soils certification requirement (930) 11. ordinance text ay widths fornces to cert"ain residentialff 1projeccts (0521 12. Minimum driveway 13. Parking lot fire stop requirements (954) . 14. Classification standards for driveways and minimum distances from rights-of-way 1952) 15. Staff -level approval of certain admini trative pe►m;ls 1902, 9711 16. Accessory storage unit restrictions and prohibitions (911 917) 17. Buffers between certain Institutional uses (971) 18. Administrative permit appeal procedures • 19711 19. Fina) plat survey requirements (913) 20. Limitations on opaque buffer feature materials 1901 ) 21. Restrictions on certain as acts of mining activities 19341 22. Politica) sign regulations 19561 23. Street name and street number designations 19511 Copies of the proposed orchnonce will be available at the Planning Division Office on the second floor of the ConAdministration Buildingbeginning May 9, 1995. Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made of this meeting will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is mode, which includes testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. ANYONE WHO NEEDS A SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION FOR TRIS 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 BY -s- KENNETH R. MACHT, CHAIRMAN V, MAY 159 1995 r � i The Board reviewed the following items: TO: James Chandler County Administrator D I ION HEAD CONCU RENCE: 111 ober W. Keati , Alf -fir Community Develo ent• irector FROM: Stan Boling AICP Planning Director DATE: May 9, 1995 SUBJECT: First Hearing: Review of Staff -Initiated 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 May 15, 1995. BACKGROUND: Over the last several months, county staff has initiated proposals to amend the county's land development regulations (LDRs). During this time, the Professional Services Advisory Committee (PSAC) and the Planning and Zoning Commission have reviewed and made recommendations regarding these proposed amendments, except for changes proposed for road name designation criteria. Staff has consolidated all of these into ordinance form (see attachment #1). The Board will consider these amendments at two hearings (May 15th and May 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 the proposed ordinance. ANALYSIS: Staff has structured the proposed ordinance format such that each ordinance section contains an amendment or amendments that are related to a single topic. The analysis section of this report is similarly structured, addressirLg each LDR issue section by section. The following issues are addressed by the proposed amendments: 1. Required separation distances between group homes/ACLFs (971) 2. Approval-�procedures and requirements for temporary real estate sales offices (972) 3. Correction of text omission: parks in Con -3 district (971) 4. Non-commercial agricultural uses in ROSE -4 district (911, 971) 5. Community Development sign -off for minor site plans (914) 6. Driving aisle widths for mini -storage projects (954) 7. Update of Chapter 912 SR 60 setback allowance (912) 8. Open space calculation for agricultural properties with manmade waterbodies (901, 911) 9. Hours of display for open house signs (956) 10. Development project soils certification requirement (930) 11. Ordinance text references to public works staff (952, 954) 12. Minimum driveway widths for certain residential projects (952) MAY 159 1995 3 BOOK 95 FAU,Cr 03 BOOK 95 FA,t 04 13. Parking lot tire stop requirements (954) 14. Classification standards for driveways and minimum distances from rights-of-way (952) 15. Staff -level approval of certain administrative permits (902, 971) 16. Accessory storage unit restrictions and prohibitions (911, 917) 17. Buffers between certain institutional uses (971) 18. Administrative permit appeal procedures (971) 19. Final plat survey requirements (913) 20. Limitations on opaque buffer feature materials (901) 21. Restrictions on certain aspects of mining activities 22. Political sign regulations (956) 23. Criteria for allowing road name designations (951) , Staff's analysis of each amendment section follows. References to the relevant PSAC discussion and action for each amendment are given in each analysis section. There are no conflicts between any of the proposed amendments and PSAC recommendations. 1. Required Separation Distances Between Group Homes/ACLFs. Currently, the LDRs require a 1,200' separation distance between group home/ACLF uses, regardless of where they are located. The purpose of the requirement is to avoid an undue concentration of such uses in a residential neighborhood. There are two reasons why staff believes the existing LDRs should be changed: a. The separation distance should not apply to group home/ACLF uses located in commercial districts. Larger group home/ACLFs are allowed in commercial districts, and 2 such projects have been proposed and approved within the last year. In staff's opinion, a concentration of larger group home/ACLFs in a commercial district would not interfere with a residential neighborhood because the use would not be located in a residential neighborhood. Any concentration of larger group home/ACLFs would probably result in an "institutional area" that would be compatible with the commercial zoning district. b. The separation distance should not apply to larger group homes/ACLFs located along arterials. Under such circumstances, the uses would not break-up or intrude into residential neighborhoods since such projects would probably access the arterials and would not be integrated into any adjacent neighborhood area. Such uses would either be isolated from neighborhoods (as indicated above) or could even provide a transition from major thoroughfares to neighborhoods. The proposed LDR amendment would apply the 1,200' separation distance only to group home/ACLF uses located in residential districts, and would "exempt" larger projects located along arterial roadways from having to meet the separation distance requirement. Reference: PSAC meeting summary: 12/15/94 (attachment #3; pp. 4 & 5). Planning and Zoning Commission meeting minutes (attachment #7). 2. Approval Procedures and Requirements for Temporary Real Estate Sales Offices. The proposed changes would clarify the distinction between temporary sales offices within mobile homes versus those- located in buildings or modular units. Also, the requirement to obtain a temporary use permit (TUP) 4 MAY 159 1995 M and an administrative approval site plan approval would be reduced to a requirement for a TUP only. In addition, informational requirements for the TUP application sketch would be specified. Reference: PSAC meeting summary: 12/15/94 (attachment #3, p. 5). Planning and Zoning Commission meeting minutes (attachment #7). 3. Correction of Text Omissions of Parks in Con -3 District. This proposal would correct the omission of the Con -3 district from the LDR Chapter 971 list of districts within which public parks and playgrounds are allowed as special exception uses. Reference: PSAC meeting summary: 12/15/94 (attachment #3, p. 5). Planning and Zoning Commission meeting minutes (attachment #7). 4. Noncommercial Agricultural Uses in ROSE -4 District. Recently, it was brought to staff's attention by an owner of property in the ROSE -4 district that no agricultural uses are allowed in ROSE -4. Current LDRs, however, allow certain noncommercial agricultural uses. in other single family districts (e.g. RS -1, RS -2, RS -3, and RS -6). Since it is logical to allow the same type of uses in ROSE -4 as allowed in other single family districts, staff is proposing that noncommercial stables, kennels, and greenhouses be allowed in ROSE -4 as administrative permit uses. To ensure compatibility within single family areas, all of these uses would meet the applicable specific land use criteria specified in Chapter 971. Reference: PSAC meeting summary: 12/15/94 (attachment #3, p. 5). Planning and Zoning Commission meeting minutes (attachment #7). 5. Community Development Director Sign -Off on Minor Site Plans. This proposal would simplify minor site plan approval procedures by having the community development director, rather than the Planning and Zoning Commission chairman, sign - off on minor site plans after TRC approval. It should be noted that, due to ex parte communication caselaw, no Planning and Zoning Commissioner is allowed to serve on the TRC or participate in TRC meetings. Reference: PSAC meeting summary: 12/15/94 (attachment #3, p. 5). Planning and Zoning Commission meeting minutes (attachment #7). 6. Driving Aisle Widths for Mini -Storage Projects. Engineering and planning staff's experience in reviewing mini -storage projects indicates that 20' wide one-way driveway aisles for mini -storage facilities are adequate to allow for vehicular circulation and intermittent parking (for loading/unloading of vehicles) alongside mini -storage buildings. It should be noted that minimum widths for two-way aisles can be increased above the 20' standard by the Public Works Director. Reference: PSAC meeting summary: 12/15/94 (attachment #3, p. 5)• Planning and Zoning Commission meeting minutes (attachment #7). 5 MAY 159 1995 BOOK 05 BOOK 95 F,1u 7. Update of Chapter 912 SR 60 Setback Allowance. This proposal merely updates a section of 912 that parallels a section in 911.15(5)(c) regarding the SR 60 special building setback provisions. Reference: PSAC meeting summary: 12/15/94 (attachment #3, p. 5). Planning and Zoning Commission meeting minutes (attachment #7). 8. Open Space Calculation for Agricultural Properties with Manmade Water Bodies. On project sites, the current LDRs limit the amount of required open space that can be satisfied by water bodies. This limitation is intended to ensure that a sufficient amount of green area is provided on multi -family and commercial sites. The limitation, however, has not proved practical for mining projects in agricultural districts where open space requirements range from 60% - 80% and where significant portions of a site are, by the nature of mining operations, covered by manmade lakes. The proposed amendment allows for an alternate open space calculation for agriculturally zoned properties, whereby open water area could simply be excluded from a site's open space calculation. Examples: Under current LDRs, A-1 zoned site Under proposed LDRs, A-1 zoned open space is calculated as follows: site open space is calculated by alternative method as follows: Gross site: 100 acres Gross site: 100 acres Lake area: 65 acres Lake Area: 65 acres Impervious improvements: 5 acres Impervious improvements: 5 acres Open space required: 60% of gross Open space required: 60% of area = 60 acres non -lake area = 21 acres Open space provided =non -lake area Open space = 35 acres (non - open space + lake area open space: lake area) - 5 acres = 30 acres •Non -lake area open space: 100 acres - which exceeds the requirement 65 acres - 5 acres = 30 acres Lake area open space: 30% of 60 acres = 18 acres *TOTAL: 30 acres + 18 acres = 48 acres, which is 12 acres short of the requirement In staff's opinion, these changes would provide a more logical alternative for certain agriculturally zoned properties that consist largely of manmade lakes. Reference: PSAC meeting summary: 12/15/94 (attachment #3, p. 5). Planning and Zoning Commission meeting minutes (attachment #7). 9. Hours of -Display for Open House Signs. According to two real estate professionals on the PSAC, the current LDR restriction on the hours an "open house" sign can be displayed does not realistically reflect the fact that some open house traffic usually occurs in the early evening hours. Currently, the LDRs restrict "open house" sign display to the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. In staff's opinion, these signs should be allowed to be displayed in the early evening hours and should match the hours that model homes are allowed to be open for display. Therefore, the draft proposes changing the "open house" sign display hours. The new hours will be: 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. These are the same hours that model homes are allowed to be open for display. MAY 159 1995 3 M M 10, Reference: PSAC meeting summary: 12/15/94 (attachment #3, p. 5). Planning and Zoning Commission meeting minutes (attachment #7). 10. Development Project Soils Certification Requirement. Initiated by the County Engineer, this change would replace the current LDR requirement for a signed and sealed soils suitability certificate with a requirement for submittal of a plan for removing unsuitable soils on a project site. PSAC members agreed that the proposed change represents a cheaper way of addressing the soils suitability issue. Reference: PSAC meeting summary: 12/15/94 (attachment #3, p. 5). Planning and Zoning Commission meeting minutes (attachment #7). 11. Ordinance Text References to Public Works Staff. Initiated by the County Engineer, references in Chapters 952 and 954 to individuals within Public Works, such as the County Engineer and the County Traffic Engineer, would instead be referred to as "the Public Works Director or his designee". Reference: PSAC meeting summary: 12/15/94 (attachment #3, p. 5). Planning and Zoning Commission meeting minutes (attachment #7). 12. Minimum Driveway Widths for Certain Residential Projects. Based upon discussions at a Planning and Zoning Commission meeting last fall, the County Engineer has proposed an amendment that would reduce from 11' to 10' the minimum driveway lane width for residential projects with fewer than 1,500 average daily trips (ADT). The County Engineer's research indicates that such a reduction would be warranted for such projects based upon FDOT standards (Standards Index 700) that would apply to driveways;within'such projects. Reference: PSAC meeting summary 12/15/94, p. 4. Planning and Zoning Commission meeting minutes (attachment #7). 13. Parking Lot Tire Stop Requirements. The County Engineer initiated an amendment whereby the current tire stop waiver provision would simply be replaced by requirements for tire stops or curbing to protect landscaped and pedestrian areas. Therefore, rather than require a waiver for tire stops used on spaces interior to a parking lot, the amendment would simply allow such spaces to be constructed and used without tire stops. Reference: PSAC meeting summary: 12/15/94 & 1/19/95 (attachments 3 & 4). Planning and Zoning Commission meeting minutes (attachment #7). 14. Classification Standards for Driveways and Minimum Distance& from Rights -of -Way. The current LDRs classify development project driveways by type based on anticipated driveway traffic volume. Driveways are classified as minor, intermediate, or major. For each driveway type, the LDRs require a certain separation distance between the point at which the driveway intersects the right-of-way of the road providing project access and the point where the driveway intersects a parking space or driving aisle accessed by the driveway (see attachment #8). The purpose of the separation distance requirement is to prevent traffic circulation conflicts where vehicles waiting to exit the project site eooK MAY 159 1995 7 95 FA%E 97 BOOK 95 F,, a 08 "stack -up" into a parking space back-up area or a driveway/driving aisle intersection. In strictly applying the current separation requirements to various projects, public works staff and design professionals have found the minor and intermediate driveway requirements to be excessive. Public works staff are now proposing an LDR amendment that decreases the separation distances applied to minor and major driveways, and that reformats the LDR section that contains those requirements. In the opinion of public works staff, the proposed changes would adequately ensure proper traffic circulation. At its April 13; 1995 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission discussed these proposed changes. Although no public works staff were present to discuss the separation distance recommendations, planning staff discussed the changes and the reasons for staff's recommendation. As noted in the draft ordinance, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that the separation distance between rights-of-way and on-site driveways and parking spaces, along intermediate driveways, remain at 50' rather than the 25' standard recommended by staff. Staff has not changed its recommendation for a 25' separation distance. Reference: PSAC meeting summary: 12/15/94 & 1/19/95 (attachments 3 & 4). Planning and Zoning Commission meeting minutes (attachment #7). 15. Staff -level Approval of Certain Administrative Permits. The impetus for this proposed change was direction given by the Planning and Zoning Commission at its December 8, 1994 meeting. At that meeting, after approving a guest cottage proposal, Planning and Zoning Commission members agreed that staff should look into allowing staff approval for certain routine administrative permit uses (such as guest cottages). Based upon that directive, planning staff reviewed the current LDR procedures for approving administrative permit uses. Currently, LDR Chapters 971 and 902 require all administrative permit uses, regardless of project size, to be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission as well as by staff. To change this requirement, staff proposes changes to chapters 971 and 902 to accomplish the following: a. Authorize staff -level approval for certain types of administrative permit uses. b. Provide that any uses that are approvable at the staff level be specified as such under the special criteria subsection for that use. C. Provide that staff approvable administrative permit requests accompanied by an administrative approval site plan be approved by the community development director and that requests accompanied by plans reviewed as minor site plans be approved by the TRC. d. Provide that staff apply all 971 specific criteria to requests for such uses and authorize staff to apply necessary safeguards and conditions to approvals of requests (as the P&ZC does under the current LDR's). 8 MAY 159 1995 M M M The results of the proposed changes would streamline the review and approval process for certain administrative permit use requests. Planning staff also reviewed each of the administrative permit use categories covered in Chapter 971, and determined that eight uses were non -controversial,, routine, and were appropriate for staff -level approval. These uses are: a. Specialty farms (raising of animals not classified as livestock or household pets) b. Noncommercial stables (for horses) C. Accessory housing for nightwatchmen (quarters used by a watchmen during his/her shift) d. Guest cottages and servants quarters e. Mobile homes in agricultural areas (overseer's quarters) f. Multiple -family dwellings in commercial areas (accessory units in commercial and mixed-use commercial projects.) g. Docks on vacant single family lots h. Carry -out restaurants (without drive-through facilities) in the MED and OCR districts. It should be noted that, for each of these uses, the appropriate Chapter 971 specific land use criteria would still apply. Reference: PSAC meeting summary: 1/19/95 (attachment #4). Planning and Zoning Commission meeting minutes (attachment #7). 16. Accessory Storage Structure Restrictions and Prohibitions. Recently, staff was made aware of a potential abuse regarding the county's current setback provision for small storage structures. Currently, the LDRs allowlsmall accessory utility buildings that are 100 square feet or less in size to be located within 5' of a rear or side property line. The abuse involves locating to within 5' of a side property line a custom-built utility building that is made to look like an addition to a house. Under such circumstances, a shed which looks like a house addition could be located much closer to a side property line than a true addition. In researching the way -other jurisdictions treat accessory structures, county staff found that Vero Beach's requirement for a 10' separation distance between the main house and the utility building would prohibit the abuse. Also, to prevent a taller than normal structure from being located close to a side property line, the proposed amendment restricts the height of small utility buildings, that are to be located to within 5' of a side property line, to be no taller than the principal dwelling. The proposed amendment also would codify the county's existing policy prohibiting old bus, truck, and mobile home .bodies from being used for or converted into accessory storage structures. By specifically prohibiting such structures, staff can more easily ensure that storage structures are properly designed to meet applicable building code and installation requirements. BOOK 95 FAf;E MAY 15, 1995 9 11 BOOK 95 Fg E 10 Reference: PSAC meeting summary: 2/23/95 (attachment #5). Planning and Zoning Commission meeting minutes (attachment #7). 17. Buffers Between Certain Institutional Uses. Recently, staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed a special exception approval application for a church and a school in a residential area. Under the current LDRs, 'the church and school are required to provide a buffer along all property boundaries abutting residentially designated property. No exceptions are allowed. However, the proposed church and school are bordered on two sides by a cemetery. The applicant contends and staff agrees that cemeteries are rather permanent uses that do not need to be buffered from churches or schools. In response, staff has reviewed all buffering requirements for institutional uses located in residential areas. Staff's position is that special buffering, over and above normal landscaping requirements, is not always necessary between abutting institutional uses in residential areas if the abutting uses are not residential in nature and would not be easily converted into a residential use in the future. To achieve that end, the proposed LDR amendment would allow the Board of County Commissioners to waive or reduce buffering requirements where cemeteries, churches, community centers, and schools abut the following uses: •Adult care facility •Cemetery •Child care facility •Church (places of worship) •Community center •School (educational centers) Under the proposed amendment, child care and adult care projects would always be required to provide a Type D buffer, as required under the current LDRs, and the Board would consider security, noise, and visual impacts when reviewing requests to reduce or waive buffer requirements. Also, under the proposed amendment, the Board could reduce buffering requirements in part or in whole and require buffering alternatives such as fencing. Where buffers are waived, the normal landscaping between uses required under the landscape ordinance would still apply. Such landscaping generally requires the planting of 1 canopy tree for every 40' of property perimeter. Reference: PSAC meeting summary: 2/23/95 (attachment #5). Planning and Zoning Commission meeting minutes (attachment #7). 18. Administrative Permit Appeal Procedures. Recently, staff was made aware of a discrepancy in the administrative permit use procedures. The Chapter 971 section regulating such uses states that the Chapter 914 site plan procedures apply to administrative permit use requests; yet another part of Chapter 971 refers to an appeal process found in Chapter 902. The Chapter 902 appeal process is different (longer) than the Chapter 914 site plan appeal process. In staff's opinion, the administrative permit use appeal process should parallel the Chapter 914 site plan appeal procedures. The proposed amendment would delete the Chapter 902 reference, and specify the Chapter 914 process. Such a change would shorten the administrative permit use appeal timeframe from 30 calendar days to 10 working days. 10 MAY 159 1995 Reference: PSAC meeting summary: 2/23/95 (attachment #5). Planning and Zoning Commission meeting minutes (attachment #7). 19. Final Plat Survey Requirements. The area's Horizontal Control Network (HCN) was recently upgraded by extensive survey monumentation. This network ensures more accurate survey tie- ins to a verified monument system. The monumentation was performed under a contract with the state. To ensure that the HCN is properly used and that its benefits are realized, staff is proposing some minor, additional final plat survey requirements, as recommended by the Property Appraiser's Office. These proposed, additional survey requirements require surveying tie-ins to HCN monuments, and will apply only to new projects that will undergo the final plat process. Thus, only certain subdivision and PD/PRD final plat projects will be affected. No site plan applications will be affected. It should be noted that the new requirements will have no effect on description errors and will not "uncover" any more errors than would be uncovered by current requirements. Finally, it should be noted that, in discussions with surveyors and at the January 26, 1995 workshop with area surveyors, surveyors had no objections to the proposed requirements and concluded that: a. All area surveyors should be capable of performing the work necessary to meet the new requirements. b. Additional costs should be minimal, and at most could require an extra day's work. In the long run, as the network is used, the requirements will save time and money. C. The new requirements "...have nothing to do with..." uncovering more legal description errors and discrepancies. Staff, area surveyors, and the PSAC have concluded that the proposed requirements will not add significant costs to future platted projects and will ultimately reduce surveying costs by providing accurate survey information that will be available for general use. Reference: PSAC meeting summary: 2/23/95 (attachment #5). Planning and Zoning Commission meeting minutes (attachment #7). 20. Limitations on Opaque Buffer Feature Materials and Unpaved Vehicle Storage Lot Screening. Recently, the Planning and Zoning Commission asked staff to review the use of screening fabric on chainlink fences to satisfy current opaque buffer feature =requirements, especially in relation to unpaved vehicle storage lots. One such lot that has used fabric screening is located on the west side of US 11 north of the Main Relief Canal. Staff and the PSAC reviewed the current definition of "Buffer, opaque feature", and concluded that use of fabric screening does not meet the intent of the Chapter 926 buffer requirements. Accordingly, the proposed amendment would specifically prohibit the use of such screening to meet opaque buffer feature standards. Aside from the issue of screening materials, staff has revisited the current screening requirements for unpaved vehicle storage lots. Currently, such lots are required to 11 MAY 159 1995 Boa 95 Pa1,Jt BOOK 95 PAGE 12 provide a Type D buffer and 3' high opaque feature along any abutting road right-of-way. Although the current requirement provides some buffering, the 3' high opaque feature does not appear to effectively screen vehicles, especially tall vehicles such as buses and recreational vehicles. Current LDR standards require 6' opaque features where it is intended to more thoroughly screen uses. In staff's opinion, a 6' opaque feature should be provided on unpaved vehicle storage lots along collector and arterial roadways, and along local roadways where properties on the opposing side of the street are not zoned for heavy commercial or industrial uses. The proposed amendment would require a 6' high rather than a 3' high opaque feature under such circumstances. Reference: PSAC meeting summary: 3/16/95 (attachment #6). Planning and Zoning Commission meeting minutes (attachment #7). 21. Restrictions on Certain Aspects of Mining Activities. During the recent appeal of the Rebel Ranch sand mine proposal, the Board of County Commissioners directed staff to initiate an LDR amendment for increased setbacks from various mining activities such as excavation pit areas and material stockpiles. During discussion with the PSAC, the PSAC concluded that the LDRs should include a special setback from mining pits and stockpile areas to occupied dwelling units in the same manner as is applied to land clearing debris burning operations. In its review of mining ordinances of other jurisdictions and in available land use literature, staff found that no definitive standards are given -in regards to separating pits and material storage areas from adjacent residences. The county's current land clearing debris burning regulations, however, do set a minimum standard to mitigate the impacts of smoke and blown particulates on surrounding residences. That minimum standard requires a separation of at least 500' between the burn pit and any adjacent, occupied structure unless the occupant of the structure(s) submits a letter of no objection to the operation. An alternative to the 500' setback from occupied structures would be to apply the current required mining pit setback (150') to material stockpiles and on-site haul roads, except in the area where on site roads connect to the off-site haul route. This alternative would ensure a greater setback from aspects of mining activities, other than the mining pit itself, which could produce negative impacts (e.g. dust and. blowing particulates, noise) on surrounding properties. To gauge the development impacts of the 500' occupied structure and the 150' mining activities setbacks, staff reviewed 9 mining projects (8 approved projects, plus the Rebel Ranch project proposal) against these two alternatives. Staff found that 8 of the 9 reviewed projects would meet the 150' setback for all mining activities. The one project which would not meet the setback is the Rebel Ranch proposal. Staff also found that only 4 of the 9 reviewed projects would meet the 500' to occupied structures setback. In staff ' s opinion, a mining project applicant should be given the option to meet either of the two alternatives. The advantage to allowing such an option is that both alternatives provide protection to existing/surrounding residents, while the 500' occupied structure setback alternative could allow 12 MAY 159 1995 M M M applicants for mines in remote areas use of the site perimeter for stockpiling and on-site haul roads. Therefore, the proposed amendment would require that, in addition to existing mining requirements, project applicants satisfy either: (1) A 500' setback between occupied structures and mining pits, material stockpile areas, and on-site haul roads, or obtain a letter(s) of no objection from affected occupants; or (2) A 150' setback from the site perimeter to mining pit and material stockpile areas, and on-site haul roads (except in the area where the on-site haul road connects to the off-site haul route). Reference: PSAC meeting summary: 3/16/95 (attachment #6). Planning and Zoning Commission meeting minutes (attachment #7). 22. Political Sign Regulations. During recent elections, there were numerous candidates, numerous signs, and numerous violations of existing political sign regulations in the county. As a result, many political candidates had their political sign bond money forfeited, and some of those candidates appealed the forfeiture. During its hearing of two such appeals, the Planning and Zoning Commission discussed two primary issues with staff, and requested that staff consider revising the county's current political sign regulations. The two issues raised by the Planning and Zoning Commission were: 1. Although political signs are not allowed to be placed in rights-of-way, how do candidates and supporters know the physical limits'of road rights-of-way? 2. How are partial forfeitures determined: are forfeiture amounts commensurate to the number or degree of violations? After receiving these comments from the Planning and Zoning Commission, staff initiated amendments to the county's political sign LDRs. In doing so, staff researched how other Jurisdictions regulate political signs, and researched a Planning Advisory Service (PAS) publication on signs. Staff found that other jurisdictions and the PAS publication address the two primary issues raised by the, Planning and Zoning Commission (see attachment #9). In regards to the right-of-way location issue, the City of Vero Beach and City of Sebastian have sign placement prohibitions tied to distances from physical improvements such as a sidewalk or the edge of pavement. In regards to the issue of forfeiture amounts, the City of Sebastian and the PAS model ordinance set a fine or forfeiture amount for each violation; therefore, forfeitures or fines are related directly to specific, individual violations. From this research, staff proposed an initial set of changes to address placement of signs in rights-of-way and relating bond forfeiture amounts to the number of actual violations. At its April 13, 1995 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended a few changes to staff's initial proposal, and these recommendations have all now been incorporated into the proposed amendment. MAY 159 1995 13 BOOK 95 FACE 1 3 BOOK 95 F,9u� 14 The proposed amendment retains the existing $250.00 bond requirement and sign placement prohibitions as well as existing sign size, height and spacing restrictions. The proposed amendment would add the following language: 1. State that for each violation discovered, $25.00 of the bond amount will be forfeited to the county, up to the total $250.00 bond amount. 2. State that for such violations discovered, county code enforcement staff will record the date, time, location, and candidate or campaign involved. 3. State that placement of signs in public or private rights-of-way is a violation, and grounds for forfeiture of bond money. 4. State that, for purposes of determining the right-of-way line location, the edge of sidewalks or utility pales furthest from the road will be deemed to be the right-of- way line. Where no such structures exist, the right-of- way line will be deemed to be 20' back from the near edge of road pavement or, for unpaved roads, 20' back from the near edge of the roadbed surface. The proposed ordinance also deletes a current reference to a 2 day "courtesy notice" for violations. 23. Criteria for Allowing Road name Designations. Recently, the Board of County Commissioners granted a request by the developer of the Indian River Club planned development project to use road names rather than a combination of road numbers and road names. The Board then directed staff to include,in the current round of LDR amendments, changes that specify the. circumstances under which road names (rather than road numbers) can be used. Since that Board meeting, planning staff have reviewed with Emergency Services staff potential changes to Chapter 951. Staff agree that the primary, numbered road grid system already in place should be the basis for most new roads. However, staff also agree that the Board's policy of allowing name designations for new roads, under certain circumstances, should be specified in Chapter 951. As shown in the proposed amendment, planning staff proposes establishing 3 exceptions to the normal road number designation requirement for new roads, as follows: a. Continuations of existing, named roads b. Roads on the barrier island C. Roads within planned developments or private subdivisions that do not fit into the county's grid system of east - west and north -south roads. These exceptions would be applied by staff to any requests to use road names for new roads proposed within development projects. In addition, the proposed changes specify that staff road name decisions can be appealed (to the Planning and Zoning Commission, and ultimately to the Board of County Commissioners) and that road names cannot duplicate or closely approximate names of existing or approved road names. Emergency Services recommendations are consistent with the proposed amendments. However, it should be noted that 14 MAY 159 1995 M M r although Emergency Services recommendations do not specifically address private subdivisions (in addition to planned developments), the proposed amendment does make allowances for private subdivisions. RECOMMENDATION: 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 May 31, 1995, to be held in the County Commission Chambers. FINANCIAL IMPACTS OF PROPOSED LDR AMENDMENTS ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING. Fall 1994/Winter 1995 LDR Amendment Proposals Proposed LDR Financial Impact on Affordable Housing 1. Group home/ACLF separation Positive. Could allow for more distance group housing in certain areas. 2. Temporary real estate sales Positive. Reduces certain offices sales facility requirements and may, therefore, slightly reduce.costs for residential developments. 3. Correct omission of Con -3/ None. park listing 4. Agricultural uses in ROSE -4 None. 5. Sign -offs on minor site plans None. 6.. Driveway widths for mini - storage uses 7. Update Chapter 912 SR 60 setback 8. Open space for agricultural properties 9. Open house signs 10. Chapter 930.08 changes 15 MAY 159 1995 None. None. None. None. Positive. Reduces a soil certification requirement and may, therefore, slightly reduce costs for residential developments. BOOK95 FADE 15 11.- 14. Chapter 952 and 954 changes: staff references, driveway widths, tire stops, driveway setbacks. (Note: covers 3 ordinance sections) 15. Staff -level approval of certain administrative permits 16. Accessory storage units 17. Buffer requirements BOOK 95 PAGE 16 Positive. Could reduce driveway setback and driveway width requirements for residential developments. Positive. Reduces approval time for watchman's and servants quarters housing units. None. None. None. Negative. Could slightly increase final plat costs. None. None. None. None. TO: Stan Boling, Planning Director Community Development Department FROM: Doug Wright, Director Department of Emergency ServiceL(� DATE: May 9, 1995 SUBJECT: House Addressing System Ordinance, Chapter 951 I have reviewed your comments with my staff regarding the permitted uses of street name designations and exceptions to the House Addressing System Ordinance, Chapter 951. My recommendations for exceptions to the changes of subsection 951.05 (4)(b) are as follows: 1. All new interior roads lying within a Planned Development or, 2. All new roads located on the barrier island, or, 3. Extensions of an existing interior named road within a Planned Development. 16 MAY 159 1995 between certain institutional uses 18. Administrative permit appeal procedures 19. Final plat survey requirements 20. Limitations on opaque buffer materials 21. Limitations on mining activities 22. Political signs 23. Road name designations BOOK 95 PAGE 16 Positive. Could reduce driveway setback and driveway width requirements for residential developments. Positive. Reduces approval time for watchman's and servants quarters housing units. None. None. None. Negative. Could slightly increase final plat costs. None. None. None. None. TO: Stan Boling, Planning Director Community Development Department FROM: Doug Wright, Director Department of Emergency ServiceL(� DATE: May 9, 1995 SUBJECT: House Addressing System Ordinance, Chapter 951 I have reviewed your comments with my staff regarding the permitted uses of street name designations and exceptions to the House Addressing System Ordinance, Chapter 951. My recommendations for exceptions to the changes of subsection 951.05 (4)(b) are as follows: 1. All new interior roads lying within a Planned Development or, 2. All new roads located on the barrier island, or, 3. Extensions of an existing interior named road within a Planned Development. 16 MAY 159 1995 The criteria which must be met to qualify for the exceptions -are as described below. 1. All proposed road designations must follow the existing grid pattern. 2. Proposed road names shall not duplicate, or closely approximate, an existing road name within Indian River County. 3. Proposed road names for a Planned Development or proposed roads located on the barrier island must be submitted to the Community Development Department for approval concurrently with submittal of the preliminary planned development plat or subdivision plat. 4. Any existing or proposed road name change received aft6r the recording of an approved plat,shall require a recording of a corrective.plat at the requestor's expense. Subsection 951.09(2)- Appeal of road name designation requirement By proposing the permitted use of named roads within a Planned Development as an exception to subsection 951.05 (4)(b), the appeals process would only be applicable to subdivision plat plan approval. My staff and I will be happy to meet with you and it would be appreciated if you would keep the Department of Emergency Services informed of any proposed changes to the House Addressing Systems Ordinance, Chapter 951. Planning Director Stan Boling reviewed the proposed amendments with the Board and advised that the Professional Services Advisory Committee, the Planning and Zoning Commission and staff have all reviewed and are in agreement on the proposed amendments, with the exception of amendments to Item 23 , . Criteria for Allowing Road Name Designations. Staff is recommending that the Board adopt the proposed Ordinance. Commissioner Eggert stated that she had a few questions on several of the items, and Commissioner Bird requested that Director Boling go over each item individually, giving the Board an opportunity to pose questions. 1. Required Separation Distances Between Group Homes/ACLFs Director Boling advised that requirements are in place to avoid concentration of these usages in residential areas; however, the uses are also allowed in commercially zoned districts and staff does not feel that the required separation distance is appropriate in commercial areas or for larger projects that are along major roadways since these tend not to be in residential neighborhood areas. 17 Boa 95 PAGE 17 MAY 159 1995 BOOK 95 F,Au IS The proposal is to do away with the 1200 foot separation distance in commercial districts and in situations where larger projects in those categories occur along major roadways. Commissioner Eggert inquired how the number of 21 or more residents was chosen as the definition of large group homes or ACLFs, and Director Boling responded that the levels were changed to concur with state permitting requirements. 2. Approval Procedures and Requirements for Temporary Real Estate Sales Offices Director Boling explained that this amendment deals with temporary real estate sales offices and is an attempt to streamline some of the informational requirements. 3. Correction of Text Omissions: Parks in Con -3 District Director Boling stated that this amendment is just to correct an editorial problem in one section of the requirements. 4. Non-commercial Agricultural Uses in ROSE -4 District Director Boling advised that when the ROSE -4 district was created several years ago, it did not parallel some of the other residential districts. There was no mention of certain non- commercial agricultural uses such as non-commercial stables which are allowed under certain conditions in other residential districts. This amendment would allow a property owner in a ROSE -4 district the same uses as other residential districts. Commissioner Adams asked for an explanation of ROSE -4 districts, and Director Boling explained that the district is in the Roseland area, just off Roseland Road. Director Boling continued that up to 4 units per acre are allowed. This is a district permitting single-family homes as well as mobile homes. The district allows several in-home occupations that are fairly commercial, even industrial in nature. Staff has received inquiries regarding having horses on these properties. When other single-family districts were investigated, it was found that a procedure for approval of a non-commercial stable specifically for horses only was allowed but was not mentioned in the ROSE -4 district. Commissioner Adams questioned whether raising animals to sell would be allowed, and Director Boling responded that if the animal were considered to be a household pet, then it could be allowed, but any use involving payment for animals would not be allowed. 18 MAY 159 1995 M 5. Community Development Director Sign -Off on Minor Site Plans Director Boling explained that presently the Chairman of the Planning & Zoning Commission has to sign -off on minor site plans even if staff approves the plan. This amendment will streamline that process and allow staff to do the sign -off. Commissioner Eggert inquired whether tapes or minutes are actually made of the meetings, and Director Boling responded that the Technical Review Committee has a discrepancy letter that lists all comments made by staff. Commissioner Eggert wanted to know if there were a question about a sign -off, whether a tape of the meeting would be available for investigation, and Director Boling advised that the meetings are not taped; however, each individual department signs off on the actual plans much like the Chairman of the Planning & Zoning Commission does. Commissioner Adams hoped that Indian River County will try to be the first to get the ex parte communication caselaw guidelines on line as soon as they are drawn in Tallahassee. 6. Driving Aisle Widths for Mini -Storage Projects Director Boling explained that this amendment would provide a 20 foot width for one-way aisles in storage facilities. Traffic engineering and Emergency Services have agreed that this width is adequate. 7. Update of Chapter 912 SR -60 Setback Allowance Director Boling advised that 'this amendment is a parallel section to the zoning code for SR -60 setbacks. 8. Open Space Calculation for Agricultural Properties with Manmade Water Bodies Director Boling reminded the Board of the Eagle's Nest planned development which utilizes a site with an existing water body created as a result of a mining operation. The ordinance is currently structured to limit how much a water body can count toward the required open space which creates problems when you have existing sites with water bodies on them. This amendment would provide an alternative calculation excluding the water body area from the overall calculations for the required amount of green space. MAY 159 1995 19 GOOK 95 Pa;r 19 BOOK 95 PACE 90 Commissioner Eggert requested clarification of the footnote at the top of Page 5 of the proposed Ordinance. 9. Hours of Display for Open House Signs Director Boling advised that this changes the regulations to make them agree with what is now required for model homes. 10. Development Project Soils Certification Requirement Director Boling explained that this amendment addresses soil suitability and allows a more practical approach to the certification requirement. 11. Ordinance Tent References to. Public Works Staff Director Boling advised that this amendment covers several sections of the existing ordinance by replacing "division heads that are under the Public Works Director" with the term "Public Works Director or his designee". 12. Minimum Driveway Widths for Certain Residential Projects Director Boling reviewed the proposal for the Board, and Commissioner Adams asked for an example. Director Boling responded that for a multi -family project that had less than the projected - 1500 average daily trips, rather than having to have 22 feet of pavement for a driveway within the project, a 20 foot paving width could be allowed since it has been determined that the number of trips that are actually generated and vehicles that are using that roadway could function just as we allow for a single-family neighborhood. 13. Parking Lot Tire Stop Requirements Director Boling explained that this amendment is to eliminate• a waiver provision, including the criteria to protect landscape and pedestrian areas, with a provision to omit the requirement in the midst of internal parking spaces. 14. Classification Standards for Driveways and Minimum Distances for Rights -of -Way Director Boling stated that this item is the one where there is a difference between the recommendations of staff, the Planning & Zoning Commission and the Professional Services Advisory Committee. The Planning & Zoning Commission has recommended 50 20 MAY 159 1995 feet on the intermediate driveways, while staff and the PSAC are recommending that the requirement be lowered to 25 feet. The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. County Engineer Roger Cain gave a brief demonstration for the Board's edification and explained that the 50 foot requirement is really not necessary for a minor or intermediate driveway; especially in an instance where the lot is just a little over 100 feet, which puts a very severe strain on the use of the property. Randy Mosby of Mosby & Associates stated that he is a member of the PSAC which is totally in support of staff on this issue. As a practicing engineer in the county, he has had many problems with the current requirement as it is very tight on small sites. He advised that a site that generates 500 ADTs during a peak period would end up being 25 trips in and 25 trips out, one car every 5 minutes. In this instance, stacking is really not an issue at 500, or at 1,000 where you get 2 trips every 5 minutes. The ordinance currently does not take into account the additional distance you have from the edge of the pavement in the right-of-way. He mentioned a small site on 43rd Street (a small convenience store) where the owner was forced into buying the land next door just to build a driveway into the property. He repeated that, as a local engineer and as a member of the PSAC, he is in support of the County Engineer's recommendation for a reduction to 25 feet. 15. Staff -Level Approval of Certain Administrative Permits Director Boling informed the Board that all administrative permit uses have to be approved by the Planning & Zoning Commission at the present time. This amendment attempts to allow staff to approve non -controversial types of uses where the criteria are spelled out, including specialty farms, non-commercial stables, accessory housing for night watchmen, guest cottages and servants quarters, mobile homes in agricultural areas, multiple family dwellings in commercial areas, docks on vacant single-family lots, and carry -out restaurants in the MED and OCR districts. Commissioner Eggert wanted to be certain that if an item does become controversial, the appeals process would be spelled out, and Director Boling advised that no notice is now required for special exception uses. The request may be approved by the Technical Review Committee and sent to the Planning & Zoning Commission for approval if it did prove to be controversial. 21 BOOK 95 FAGS 21 MAY 159 1995 BOOK 90' PAGE 22 Deputy County Attorney William Collins stated that, if the issue is notice, the answer would be to require notice to adjoining property owners of an administrative permit. If the notices were sent as soon as the application was filed, informing only that an application had been received, the time required would be shortened. Commissioner Adams felt that the immediate neighbors should be protected, and County Attorney Vitunac proposed an alternative of sending a copy of staff's recommended order or the permit to all the neighbors, advising that the decision is final unless someone appeals to the Planning & Zoning Commission within 10 days. Commissioner Eggert wanted to add an appeals procedure and a consensus was reached that the item would be approved with that addition. 16. Accessory Storage Structures Restrictions and Prohibitions Director Boling advised that the Vero Beach ordinance has a 10 foot setback required for such structures. Staff is proposing that be applied to utility sheds, which would tend to put the storage structure to the rear of the house, avoiding the situation of having the shed look like an addition. The other part of the amendment is to include a policy not allowing truck bodies and mobile home bodies to be converted and used as accessory storage structures. Commissioner Bird requested that a few more definitions be included, other than just mobile homes and motorized vehicles; such as travel trailers and truck bodies. Commissioner Bird inquired if there were a grandfather provision for existing sheds, and Director Boling responded in the affirmative. 17. Buffers Between Certain Institutional Uses Director Boling explained that this amendment provides the Board with the ability to waive buffering requirements between non- residential uses and just require the normal landscaping, or fencing, etc. He realized that usually the Board would want to continue to have buffering based on the zoning and explained that the applicant for development of a use would be required to put in the buffering. 22 MAY 159 1995 M M M M M M 18. Administrative Permit Appeal Procedures Director Boling explained that this amendment would bring these procedures into uniformity with site plan appeal procedures. 19. Final Plat Survey Requirements Director Boling explained that this amendment would affect plats of new projects only and would require a tie-in when a project is close enough to the horizontal control network. The amendment ultimately would provide really good, detailed survey information that should bring down the cost of surveys. Staff has worked extensively with the Property Appraiser's Office, County Engineering, and the County and area surveyors in coming up with the wording of this requirement. 20. Limitations on Opaque Buffer Feature Materials Director Boling explained that there are 2 parts to this amendment; Item 1 being to exclude the use of fabric screening to meet opaque feature requirements, and Item 2 to increase the 3 foot opaque feature requirement for unpaved vehicle storage lots to 6 feet, which would be more effective in screening larger vehicles, such as buses. 21. Restrictions on Certain Mining Activities Director Boling advised that the existing Land Development Regulations have a minimum separation distance' required between project boundaries and the actual mining pit, but do not address any specific setbacks for material stockpiles that might be on-site or an actual haul road that might be on the site and heavily used by trucks. One alternative being proposed is to apply the 150 foot setback not only to the pit, but to the stockpile and the driveway as well to ensure that those activities are also specifically addressed in regard to the project boundary. Another proposed alternative would be for a project being performed in very rural areas where there are no houses anywhere near the project, just agricultural operations. In that particular case, a separation distance of 500 feet to adjacent occupied structures much like we have now for the debris burning ordinance, with an option provided that if the occupant of the structure has no objections, a letter of no objection can be given for that 500 foot separation distance which could then be waived. Regardless of the option applied, there would always be a 150 foot setback to the mining pit. 23 900K 95 PAGE �3 MAY 15, 1995 BOOK 95 Fnc.F 24 Chairman Macht inquired whether it would be necessary to address the maximum height of a stockpile and wondered whether it would be possible to stockpile a much higher level than 25 to 27 feet. County Engineer Roger Cain expressed his opinion that the height of the stockpile is limited by the height of the equipment being used, as well as the angle of repose in which sand will slide down to where it reaches equilibrium and will not fall off anymore, maybe 30 feet at the most. Chairman Macht then inquired whether it would be practical to put a safety limit of 35 feet on the height. Commissioner Tippin felt that if the stockpile got much higher, there would be an encroachment on the 150 foot setback as the pile would just get wider and wider. Deputy County Attorney William Collins drew the Board's attention to Page 33 of the ordinance where the underlined text says: ".....500' setback from adjacent occupied structures ...... or a letter of no objection from affected occupants". Attorney Collins felt that could be considered a delegation of police powers to individuals on a case-by-case basis. If 500 feet is the appropriate setback, then people on a case-by-case basis should not be allowed to bargain for other things. Another point to be considered is that the regulation reads: ".... the applicant shall satisfy either .....". In the second case, with the 150 foot setback, if the adjacent house is only 40 feet away, then you only have 190 feet separation and the standard is 500 feet. If there is no house, you need 150 feet and there would not be a problem. Director Boling explained that staff had looked at projects which were approved in the past where there have apparently been no compatibility problems. If you apply the 500 foot separation from an occupied structure in those instances, you would be 350 feet into the project perimeter. If you go 350 feet into the project on all 3 sides, there is no site left for the mining activity. We have not had many proposals like Rebel Ranch where we had stockpiles and a major driveway close to the perimeter; they usually have been well inside the project. That is where the 150 foot buffer would be appropriate. Commissioner Bird wanted the Board to keep in mind that there is a potential secondary use of these mining operations which is to convert the site to residential use when the mining is completed. 24 MAY 159 1995 M M M Community Development Director Bob Keating emphasized that, in the case of a mining operation such as the one west of I-95, just south of Oslo Road, there was nothing around the site but groves. In such a case you do not necessarily want the stockpile or road to have to be set back 150 feet from the property line. If your intent is to provide the maximum of protection for adjacent residences, then all you need is the first criteria, the 500 foot setback. Commissioner Bird suggested the removal of Item (b)2. as well as the deletion of the words "either of" from Item (b). Commissioner Eggert then suggested the removal of "or a letter of no objection from affected occupants" from Item (b)1. 22. Political Sign Regulations Director Boling advised that this amendment was initiated by the Planning & Zoning Commission after noting that there were numerous sign violations during the last election. One issue deals with whether or not sign placement is allowed in County rights-of- way. Under the existing ordinance, signs are not allowed because permission of the property owner is required. The property owner is the County and the County does not allow signs in the right-of- way. This has now been added to the regulation. Another issue was how someone would determine the location of the right-of-way line. Staff looked at what other jurisdictions have done and checked a model ordinance dealing with this issue in order to arrive at the proposal for definition of the right-of-way line. Where there are no sidewalks or utility poles, 20 feet... from the edge of the pavement is where the right-of-way line is - located. Another issue was how forfeiture of the $250 bond amount could be made commensurate with the number of violations. Staff is proposing that $25 of the bond be forfeit for each violation. The code officers would record the date, time, location and campaign involved with the violation. Also the Planning & Zoning Commission agreed to delete any reference to a courtesy notice. Deputy County Attorney Will Collins stated that staff has canvassed other jurisdictions and there is a state law on the usage and removal of political campaign advertisements which says that signs have to be removed within 30 days of withdrawal of candidacy, being eliminated, or being elected. If a person fails to do that, the government simply picks up the signs and charges the candidate for the actual cost of removal. Municipalities are allowed to 25 BOOK ` 5 PATE 25 MAY 159 1995 BOOK 95 PnE 26 impose more stringent requirements, but not counties. The County, however, can remove signs in rights -of -ways and charge the violator. Director Keating advised that staff, with the assistance of Code Enforcement, the Sheriff's Department and the municipal police departments, confiscated quite a few signs during the last election,' especially on election day near the voting precincts. Commissioner Adams suggested possibly investigating the idea of setting aside a few areas which would be designated political sign areas, with restrictions for maybe the 30 days before the election. County Attorney Vitunac advised that could be done with public property or rights-of-way but not with private property. Commissioner Tippin emphasized that it is an imperfect world, there are some people who do not always tell the truth, and laws cannot be passed to change that. 23. Criteria for Allowing Road Name Designations Director Keating reviewed the section and advised that this last item has not been reviewed by the PSAC or the Planning & Zoning Commission but incorporates the issue addressed regarding the road name designation for Indian River Club. The exceptions to requiring road numbers would be (1) continuation of existing named roads; (2) roads on the barrier island; and (3) roads within a planned development or a private subdivision that do not fit into the County's existing grid system of east -west and north -south roads. Staff determination would be final unless appealed and appeal would go to the Planning & Zoning Commission and then to the Board of County Commissioners. The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, he closed the public hearing. There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 6:30 p.m. ATTEST: J. arton, Clerk Minutes Approved: 26 MAY 159 1995 GLK Kenneth R. Macht, Chai3fman