HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/13/1996 (2)M MINUTLW ATTACHE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
A G E N D A
SPECIAL MEETING
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 1996
5:01 P.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER
County Administration Building
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida
Fran B. Adams, Chairman (District 1)
Carolyn K. Eggert, Vice Chairman (District 2)
Richard N. Bird (District 5)
Kenneth R Macht (District 3)
John W. Tippin (District 4)
James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
Jeffirey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
5:01 P.M. First Hearing: Review of Proposed LDR (Land Development
Regulation) Amendments
(memorandum dated February 6, 1996)
ANYnNF wWn M AV wren Tn a �wE. A� :nr DP..CIST0N WM(, �,4 �r BE per 4nE
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 AM ,;:RICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)
COORDINATOR AT 567-8000 X408 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF MEETING.
BOOK
SPECIAL MEETING
February 13, 1996
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 Tuesday, February 13, 1996, at
5:01 p.m. Present were Fran B. Adams, Chairman; Carolyn K. Eggert,
Vice Chairman; Richard N. Bird; Kenneth R. Macht; 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
P.O. Box 1268 Vero Beach, Florida 32961 562-2315
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER Joul'illi .
STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J.J.
Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the
Vero Beach Press -Journal, a newspaper published at Vero Beach in
Indian River County, Florida; that
1 J� Rn r
was published in said newspaper in the issue(s)
Sworn to and subscribed before me this
dayof
AM
• JN„MYWMy,•4,i
My caro,,. Fxpires _tn 3
Bus7n1nager
.Lunt' 29, 1987 ,
Na CC31X572 =
BARBARA C SPRAGUE. NOTARY PUBLIC.
Stat. M Florda. My Corfflns 1pt L.P J-- 29- 1197
.
'•• F FLOP'
OF [
�tlryMMt,1...,•�••
Co',,oa: Nuntw CC300572
Notary BARBARA C. SPRAGUE
1
FEBRUARY 13, 1996
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE OF AMENDMENT TO LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULA-
T1014S ILDRS) CHANGING THE LIST OF SPECIAL EXCEPTION
USES WITHIN THE RFD, RS -1, RS -2, RS -3, RS -6, RT -6, RM -3,
RMI RM -6, RM -B, AND RM -10 ZONING DISTRICTS.
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA PROPOSES TO ADOPT AN ORDI-
NANCE AMENDING THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES AL-
LOWED WITHIN THE RFD, RS -1, RS -2, RS -3, RS -6, RT -6, RM -
3, RM -4, RM -6, RM -8, AND RM -10 ZONING DISTRICTS. THE
PROPOSED AMENDMENT WOULD ALLOW CEMETERIES AS A
SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE WITHIN THESE DISTRICTS, SUBJECT
TO SPECIAL CRITERIA.
A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ORDINANCE AMENDING
USES WITHIN THE RFD, RS -1, RS -2, RS -3, RS -6, RT -6, RM -3,
RM4, RM -6, RM -8, AND RM -10 ZONING DISTRICTS WILL BE
HELD ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 1996 AT 5:01 P.M. AND
ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, f996 AT 9:05 A.M. AT THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CHAMBERS, 1840
25TH STREET, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA. A COPY OF THE PRO-
POSED ORDINANCE WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR THE PUBLIC BE-
GINNING FEBRUARY 7, 1996 IN THE OFFICE TO THE CLERK
TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IN THE
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING LOCATED AT 1840
25TH STREET, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA. CITIZENS SHALL HAVE
AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD AT THE PUBLIC HEARINGS.
THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE, IF ADOPTED, WOULD BE EF-
FECTIVE IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, AS DEPICTED ON THE LOCATION MAP SHOWN
BELOW.
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
BY -s- Fran B. Adams, Chairman
x=m
BOOK 97 Ppr,F2;'g
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero 6aach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press•Joumal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach In Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a
in the matter of
in the
,, Inf ? Court, was pub.
fished In said newspaper In the issues of 7 w`-' • 3, ) 4q
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press-Joumal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun.
ty. Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisemanh and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Snogi f9 aatLSubscribai betT md'Ahis 9 day of Z�..s.Ll� A.D.19 qk
—
,{yl •.i .`-' i � ... � �n,1^r .fir-. �'
-9`71. (B ine88 Managed
Jur> ;� ��tlires • rr: s BARBARA C SPRAGIIr_. NOTARY PUBLIC.
.- ;aq� y •ummsson L.3 Mw z9. 1997
: ..j�EJ1Ly�Si2 Commasron PJU M CC3W572
L.r
Notary BARBARA C SPRAGUE
BOOK 97 PAGE 300
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of
County Commissioners of Indian River County, Flor-
ida shad hold a public hearing at which parties in in-
terest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be
heard, in the County Commission C-na bers of the
County Administration Building located at 18401
25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Tuesday. Feb-
ruary 13, 1996 at 5:01 p.m., and again on Tuesday,
February 27. 1996 at 9:05 a.m. to consider the
adoptkxn of an Ordinance entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUN-
TY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE FOLLOW-
ING CHAPTERS OF THE LAND DEVELOP-
MENT REGULATIONS (LORS): CHAPTER
901, DEFINITIONS; CHAPTER 902, AD-
MINISTRATIVE MECHANISMS; CHAPTER
910, CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM; CHAPTER 911. ZONING: ' CHAP-
TER 912, SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOP-
MENT; CHAPTER 913, SUBDIVISIONS
AND PLATS: CHAPTER 914, SITE PLAN
REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES;
CHAPTER 915, PLANNED DEVELOP-
MENT (P.D.) PROCESS AND STANDARDS
FOR DEVELOPMENT; ,CHAPTER 930,
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND
FLOODPLAIN PROTECTION; CHAPTER
932, COASTAL MANAGEMENT; CHAP-
TER 934, EXCAVATION AND MINING;
CHAPTER 953,_ FAIRSHARE ROADWAY
IMPROVEMENTS; CHAPTER 954, OFF-
STREET PARKING; CHAPTER 971,
REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC LAND USE
CRITERIA; CHAPTER 972, TEMPORARY
USES; AND PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF
CONFLICTING PROVISIONS, CODIFICA-
TION, SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE
DATE.
Said ordinartce, If adopted, would be effective in
the unincorporated area of the county. -
Topics relat�the amendments contained in the
N)posed o include, but are not United to,
following:
1. Allowing dock structures to project farther into
waterways (932).
2. Amending defintlim of "front yard.. to address
setback Impacts of new subdivision road rights-ci-
way 901 .
3. drai istarxes under which right -of -
required
of- .
subdivision
d Senrel�rttxht ( 13). required with new
4. Correcting a scrivener's error in a flood elevation
regulation section (930).
5. Allowhtg 1 ton rated commercial vehicles to be
kept in residential! areas (911, 912).
6. Expanding allowances _ 'for incdental to construc-
tion mir"'operatio s (934).
7. Correcting mirror errors in subdivision, site plan,
andoff-street parking ordinance sections - (913, 914,
8546
pdating published notice requirements to pdral-
lei changes in state law (902).
9. Clarlfyin open space calculations for new
1planned0. dinegve mernt (PD) more specific projects (915).
fie Impact Fee rateschedule (963jategories to the Tref-
11. Clarifying a concurrency review exemption for
development orders that do not increase density or
Intensity bf use (910).
12. Clarifying lot size and dimension exemptions for
platted site plan
p projects (913).
13. Allowing larger temporary construction trailers
on single lots (972).
14. staff -leve approval of fish farm admiin-
istrative pemdt uses (971).
15. Co a scrivener's error in specific lam
use criteriart crnarics (971).
A kbpy of the proposed Ordinance wii be a
able for public inspection, beginning the afternoon
of February 7, 1996, during'regular business hours
at the of the Clerk to the Board of County
Commissioners in the County Administration ' Bind-
ing located at 1840 25th Street, Veno Beach, Flor-
ida.
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which
may be made at this meeting will need to enure
that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made,
which incudes testimony and evidence upon wft
the appeal is based.
ANYONE WHO NEEDS SPECIAL ACCOMMODA-
TION FOR THIS- MEETING MUST CONTACT THE
COUNTY'S AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
(ADA) COORDINATOR AT 567-8000 X 223 ATS
LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE MEET-
ING.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BY -s -Fran B. Adams. Chairman
Feb. 3, 1996 1275487
FEBRUARY 13, 1996 -
1996:
The Board reviewed the following Memorandum dated February 6,
TO: James E.• Chandler
County Administrator
DI ION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
obe M. Kea ng, P
Community Deve opme Director
FROM: Stan Boling AICP
Planning Director
DATE: February 6, 1996
SUBJECT: First Hearing: Review of Proposed LMR (Land Development
Regulation) Amendments
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its special
meeting of February 13, 1996.
BACKGROUND:
Over the last several months, planning staff has initiated 23
proposals to amend the county's --land development regulations'
(LDRs). During this time, the Planning and Zoning Commission
(PZ&C) and the Professional Services Advisory Committee (pSAC)
reviewed and made recommendations to the Board of County
Commissioners regarding the proposed amendments. Staff has now
consolidated all of the amendments into two draft ordinances (see
attachments #1 & #2).
The Board of County Commissioners will consider both ordinances at
two hearings (February 13th and February 27th). At the first
hearing, it is the Board's duty to consider each amendment of each
ordinance and to direct staff to make any changes deemed necessary.
At the second hearing, the Board will need to take final action on
both proposed ordinances.
ANALYSIS:
In the past, all LDR amendments were combined into a single
ordinance. However, due to recent state legislation changes, LDR
amendments are broken-down into two categories, as follows:
(1) Amendments which.change the actual list of allowed uses in a
zoning district, and
(2 ) All u).her types of •amturtdments .
Because of differing legal advertisement and wording requirements,
staff has drafted ordinances for each of the two types of
amendments.
Staff has structured the format of both proposed ordinances 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, addressing each LDR-issue section
by section. The following issues are addressed by the proposed
amendments:
•Ordinance 1 (see attachment #1)
1, Allowing cemeteries as a special exception use in
areas. residential
!Ordinance 2 (see attachment #2)
I. Yards fronting subdivision road rights-of-way with buffers.,
2. subdivision road right-of-way buffering.
3. Correcting scrivener's error: subdivision cul-de-sqc
standard.
4. Correcting scrivener's error: subdivision bonding -out
procedure.
S. Correcting scrivener's error: paragraph numbering.
6. Correcting scrivener's error: AASHTO standards for parking lot
construction.
7. Correcting scrivener's error: driveway construction standard
reference.
8. Update on rezoning published notice requirement.
9. Clarification of planned development open space credit for
private yards.
3
BOOK 97 F'.1F
FEBRUARY 13, 1996
BOOK
10. Concurrency review exemption for requests that would not
increase land use intensity.
11. Correcting scrivener's error: subdivision ordinance
reference.
12. Elaboration of exemptions from normal subdivision standards
for site plan projects that are platted.
13. Allowing larger temporary construction trailers on single
family construction sites.
14. Allowing fish farm uses to -be approved at a staff level.
15. Correcting scrivener's error: veterinary clinics allowed in
CL district.
16. TIF schedule update and elaboration.
17. Correcting scrivener's errors local flood regulation
exemption.
18 Restrictions on keeping commercial vehicles in residential
areas.
19. Restrictions on keeping commercial vehicles in residential
areas.
20. Allowing certain dock structures to project farther into
waterways.
21. Mining regulations for mining operation and site restoration
timeframes.
22. Extending timeframes for certain incidental to construction
mining operations.
Staff's analysis of each amendment section follows. It should be
noted that, with the exception of sections 18 and 19 of Ordinance
2 (see pp. 8-10 of this report), there are no conflicts between the
amendments proposed by staff and recommendations from the Planning
and Zoning Commission and PSAC. The differing recommendations on
amendments 18 and 19 are detailed in the analysis section of this .
report.
•ORDINANCE 1 (see attachment #11
Section 1. Allowing cemeteries as a special exception use in
residential areas.
The current LDRs allow stand alone cemeteries in the agricultural
districts (A-1, A-2, A-3) only, as a special exception use.
Cemeteries developed as part of a place of worship are allowed as
accessory uses in all districts where places of worship are
allowed.
In Indian River County, as well as other east coast counties,
cemeteries are almost always located on a coastal sand ridge where
the water table is significantly below ground level. Thus,'.
cemetery locations in the county are already limited by natural
conditions. Furthermore, significant portions of the coastal sand
ridge that could potentially be developed as a cemetery are zoned
residential.
'Staff's local government survey indicates that Brevard, Manatee,
Martin, Palm Beach, St. Lucie, Sarasota, and Volusia counties allow
stand alone cemeteries in residential districts or, in the case of
St. Lucie County, allow cemeteries in an institutional district
that is usually located in residentially designated areas. Also,
it should be noted that all of the jurisdictions surveyed require
.special exception or conditional use approval for cemeteries in
residential districts and residentially designated areas.
To ensure compatible siting and design of cemeteries, the county
has existing special land use criteria that require the following:
• A 100' setback between burial areas and abutting residential
property.
• A 50' setback between burial areas and abutting non-
residential property.
• A Type "C" buffer between burial sites and residentially
designated property, and a Type "D" buffer between burial
sites and non -residentially designated property.
• A demonstration from the applicant that the cemetery will
comply with state regulations.
Staff's analysis of these existing criteria is that some
clarifications and additions are needed, as follows:
1. A clarification that the 100' setback from burial areas to
abutting residential property and the 50' setback between
burial areas and abutting non-residential property apply to
buildings such as mausoleums and columbariums. This
clarification will ensure that such structures will be located
an adequate distance from adjacent uses.
0
FEBRUARY 13, 1996
97 PnE 302
2. A specific prohibition on crematoriums as accessory uses to
cemeteries. This clarification will reinforce the fact that
the existing LDRs have a separate use category for
crematoriums. Section 911.10(4) allows crematoriums in the CG
(Commercial, General) and CH (Commercial,. Heavy) districts.
3. A requirement that a cemetery site be accessed from a
Thoroughfare Plan road unless otherwise approved by the public
works department. A similar criLerion exists for places of
worship in residential areas. The reason such a criterion
should be applied to cemeteries is to ensure that cemeteries
will be located where cemetery traffic will not be forced to
travel on local roads through residential areas. '
4. A requirement that on-site driveways accommodate the queuing
of normal grave -side funeral service traffic (estimated to be
20 automobiles).
5. A requirement that the project engineer certify that the site
groundwater characteristics accommodate the normal burial of
cemetery and funeral -related structures (e.g. vaults and
caskets).
With the referenced criteria applied through the special exception
process, it is staff's opinion that cemetery uses should be allowed
in residential zoning districts. The proposed section 21 .
amendments allow such a special exception use and establish* the
previously described criteria.
Sections 2.-5. These sections contain standard legal wording
contained in all LDR amendment ordinances, and do not actually
change development regulations.
ORDINANCE 2 (see attachment #2)
Sections 1. 6 2. Yards fronting subdivision road rights -of -wap
with buffers and subdivision road right-of-way buffering.
Under current regulations, subdivision developers are allowed to
locate new road rights-of-way along the border of a property being
subdivided (platted) and adjacent property. Where a right-of-way
is to be located next to an adjacent property, current regulations
require the subdivision developer to provide landscape improvements
between the new subdivision road and the adjacent property.
Staff's experience over the last several years is that the
requirement has worked well by resulting in effective landscape
buffers. Although these landscape requirements mitigate the visual
impacts of an adjacent road right-of-way, current regulations
affect adjacent property owners with increased setbacks. Current
regulations apply front yard setbacks in all circumstances where a
property is adjacent to a road right-of-way. These front yard
setbacks apply even where the right-of-way is established via a new
subdivision, where the right-of-way contains a landscape buffer,
and where the right-of-way provides no access to the adjacent
property. Thus, in certain circumstances, a new subdivision road
right-of-way established along the perimeter of an adjacent
property could change a side yard setback into a front yard setback
for the adjacent property owner. Such•a change usually results in
a setback increase of 101. This increase is beyond the control of
the adjacent property owner and restricts the buildable area of the
parcel. To correct the negative impact of the existing setback
regulations under such circumstances, staff has drafted the section
1 proposed change.
It should be noted that, on December 5, 1995, the Hoard of County
Commissioners reviewed this proposal and invoked the pending
ordinance doctrine to put the proposal into effect "temporarily",
while the actual LDR proposal moves through the formal adoption
process. In effect, the Board agreed with staff that a correction
is needed and that the pending ordinance doctrine should be (and
was) invoked to provide relief now for affected property owners.
In addition -to addressing the setback problem, staff is also
proposing an amendment to clarify under what circumstances
development of new roadways must include buffering. Currently, the
buffer requirement is found in the double frontage lot subsection
of the subdivision ordinance. In staff's opinion, it would be
helpful to users of the. ordinance to reference the buffering
requirement in the subdivision ordinance subsection that refers to
rights-of-way and adjoining property. Therefore, staff'- has
proposed the section 2 amendment.
Sections 3.- 7. Various corrections to scrivener's errors.
.During normal use of the LDRs,. staff has discovered various
scrivener's errors that require correction in the published version
of the LDRs. Each proposed amendment in sections 3-7 corrects such
,an error.
5
FEBRUARY 13, 1996
Boa 97
BOOK 97 Par;E 0
Section 8.. Update on rezoning published notice requirement.
LDR Section 902.12(4)(b)l. contains the county's published notice
(newspaper advertisemeint) requirements that apply to comprehensive
plan amendments [as referenced in county code section
800.07(7)(d)], rezonings, land development regulation amendments,
and special exception use requests [as referenced in LDR section
971.05(6)(c) and (d)]. Section 902.12(4)(b)1. is intended to be
consistent with the state law for rezoning published notice
requirements. To ensure that the county's requirements are
consistent with state law, the section states that requirements set
forth in the section shall apply "...unless Florida Statutes
mandate different notice requirements".
Recently, Florida Statutes published notice requirements were
changed and are- now different than the requirements specified in
902.12(4)(b)l. Although the "catch all" phrase in the section's
existing language ensures consistency with Florida Statutes, staff
recommends that the specific requirements be changed to match
current Florida Statutes regarding published notice requirements.
Section 9. Clarification of planned development open space credit
for'private yards.
During the recent review of the hammock Lakes planned development,
a difference of interpretation between planning staff and the
county attorney's office staff indicated a need to clarify how
private yard green area would be credited toward meeting a planned
development project's open space requirement. The county's policy
in several planned development projects, including hammock Lakes,
has been to credit 1008 of private yard green area as project open
space. The proposed amendment, drafted by planning and attorneys
office staff, would clarify the LDRs in.a manner consistent with
county policy.
Section 10. Concurrency review exemption for requests that would
not increase land use intensity.
For years, it has been the county's policy to exempt from
concurrency review any rezoning or land use amendment application
that would not result in an increase in allowable density or
intensity of use. For example, under this policy staff has neither
required nor performed a concurrency review for rezoning
applications that merely change a property's zoning from CL
(Limited Commercial). to CG (General Commercial), or where an even
"swap" of property merely re -configures an existing
commercial/industrial node. On the advice of the county attorney,
Planning staff wishes to codify this policy under the concurrency
review exemption section of the concurrency management o=inance.
Therefore, staff proposes the section 10 amendment to codify past
and present policy.
Section 11. Correcting scrivener's errors subdivision ordinance
reference.
The proposed section 11 amendment would add an appropriate
subdivision ordinance reference to the county's platted -over site
plan projects provisions.
Section 12. Elaboration of exemptions from normal subdivision
standards for site plan projects that are platted.
Existing subdivision ordinance section 913.09(6) allows residential.
and commercial site planned projects to be "platted over" to create
parcels that. can be sold -off. Under such an arrangement, the
approved site plan controls all setbacks and development; lots.
created by the plat are not required to meet normal zoning district
size, dimension, and road frontage requirements. For residential
projects, this "plat -over" provision applies only to projects where
each platted lot is limited to covering the actual dwelling unit
and immediately adjacent private area (driveways, courtyards).
Where a residential project would create lots that cover a larger
area, the•P:D. (planned development) process would be requiied if
the resulting lots were less than the normal size required by the
zoning district standards.
For non-residential projects, however, no such limitations apply to
the plat -over provision. To clarify the distinction between
residential and non-residential plat -over projects in regard to lot
area limitations, staff has proposed the section 12 amendment.
Section 13. Allowing larger temporary construction trailers on
single family construction sites.
Current LDRs allow temporary construction trailers for site plan
and subdivision projects. No size limitations are placed on such
trailers. For construction on single family lots in the RFD, RS -1,
RS -2, RS -6, and RT -6 zoning districts, such trailers are allowed,
but are limited to a maximum size of 100 square feet. Most single
family homes in the county are constructed without the use of any
temporary construction office on site, and most of those homes are
constructed in a few months. Some very large single family home
A
FEBRUARY 13, 1996
construction projects, however, are quite complex, require
extensive construction, and may take 12 months or more to complete.
General contractors handling such projects have indicated to staff
that construction trailers are needed for such jobs and that a
standard 8' X 32' construction office trailer should be
accommodated under the LDRs.
Staff's research indicates that the 8' X 32' trailers (256 square
feet in area) are the smallest construction office trailers that
are widely available. Furthermore, it is staff's opinion that, on
the rare occasions when a temporary construction trailer is used on
a single family home job site, use of an 8' X 32' trailer is
reasonable to accommodate the approved construction activity.
Therefore, staff has drafted the section 13.amendment.
Section 14, Allowing fish farm uses to be approved at a staff
level.
During the last round of LDR amendments, the Board of County
Commissioners approved changes that allow staff -level approval of
certain types of administrative permit uses. Such staff level
approval is also limited to projects that do not involve major site
plan -review. Administrative permit uses -that -are now approved by
staff rather than the Planning and Zoning Commission include:
specialty farms, non-commercial stables, mobile homes in
agricultural districts, and guest cottages.
The county desires to streamline the approval process for fish farm
uses since such uses are considered non -controversial- in
agricultural districts and since such uses are considered
potentially important for local economic development. All special
criteria for such uses would still apply. Therefore, staff has
proposed the section 14 amendment.
Section 15. Correcting scrivener's error: veterinary clinics
allowed in CL district.
Section 971.14(2) contains a.scrivener's error by omitting the CL.
district from the list of districts in which veterinary clinics may
be located as an administrative permit use. Chapter 911 (Zoning)
states that such a use is allowed in the CL district. To correct
this error, staff has proposed the section 15 amendment.
Section 16. TIF schedule update and elaboration.
These modifications will not result in any TIF rate increases but
will make it easier for applicants and staff to quickly determine
TIF amounts for the new uses specified, and will codify existing
TIF policy.
LDR Chapter 953 contains a traffic impact fee (TIF) schedule table
that provides the TIF rate for specific types of uses by TIF
district. Most development project uses fall within one of the use
categories specified within the existing fee schedule. Over the
years, however, planning staff and traffic engineering staff have
made TIF rate determinations for certain uses not specifically
covered within the existing schedule. These special determinations
are now being applied to certain project uses as a matter of
policy. Staff now proposes to modify the schedule to add specific
use categories and corresponding TIF rates, codifying what is.now
being applied as a matter of policy.
The proposed use category rates were determined by staff using the
same formula and type of input data used to determine the rates
found in the existing schedule (see attachment •7). The TIF rate
formula takes into account the demand that a particular use type
places on the county's Thoroughfare Plan roadway network. Demand
components include trip rate, trip length, percent new trips, lane
capacity, and road cost per lane mile. ITE and available local
study -data are used. The formula also gives credit for revenues,
including license fees and gas taxes, and includes a 15% discount
to ensure that the resulting TIF is.a conservative and easily
Justifiable number. It should be noted that the TIF ordinance
allows developers the option of performing an individual TIF
assessment in lieu of the fee schedule rates. Staff's experience
over the last 9 years is that developers almost never opt to do an
individual TIF assessment since the fee table rates are
conservatively derived.
The proposed fee schedule modifications add some use categories for
classification purposes and add other categories to more
specifically address certain uses. In summary, the additions
include:
1. Accessory single family unit (same fee as multi -family unit)
2. Condominium/efficiency apartment (same fee as•multi-family
unit)
3. Clinic/veterinary clinic (same fee as medical clinic)
4. Mini -warehouse (new fee)
5. Vehicle storage (new fee)
6. Automotive repair (new fee)
7
FEBRUARY 13, 1996
BOOK 97 Pn 0
7. Contractors trades -multi -tenant (new fee) BOOK 97 PAGF -30 6
8. Contractors trades single -tenant (new fee)
9. Car wash (new fee)
10. Health and fitness club (same fee as racquet club)
11. Tennis court (new fee)
12. Marina (new fee)
13. Club house (new fee)
.14. Movie theater (new fee)
15. Live theater (new fee)
16. Government office (same fee as office buildings)
17. Social hall/civic center (now fee)
18. Funeral home•(new fee)
19. School (new fee)
20. Fire station (new fee)
Section 17. Correcting scrivener's error: local flood regulation
exemption.
This section 17 amendment corrects a scrivener's error that appears
in the published version of the LDRs.
Sections 18. 6 19. Restrictions on keeping commercial vehicles in
residential areas.
The Board of County Commissioners, at its regular meeting of
October 17, 1995, heard a request from Mr. Manuel J. Silva, Jr.
that the County revise its restrictions on commercial vehicle
parking in residential areas. Mr. Silva owns a one -ton box van
(step van), and was recently ordered by the County Code Enforcement
Board to remove the vehicle from his property to comply with
current regulations (hereinafter described). After discussion, the
Board voted to direct staff to bring this matter to the
Professional Services Advisory Committee (PSAC) for review. and
recommendations on a possible LDR amendment.
County Code Section 912.17(1) [also Sec. 911.15.(3)) generally.
prohibits commercial vehicle parking in residential areas. An
exception, however, allows:
"commercial vehicles not exceeding three-quarters (3/4)
ton rated capacity used by the resident of the premises;
and parked off-street in a garage, carport or driveway.
No construction or similar materials shall be stored or
transported on the outside of such vehicles."
Mr. Silva requests that the County revise the commercial vehicle
Parking allowance size threshold from 3/4 -ton to one -ton rated
capacity. Mr. Silva's viewpoint is that the present code
restriction of one -ton work trucks in residential areas is a
hardship for many trades people.
County restrictions on commercial vehicle parking in residential
areas have remained unchanged since at least 1985. These
restrictions are enforced frequently, with dozens of related code
violations handled each year countywide. The County Code
definition of commercial vehicle is "any motor vehicle which:
(1) is designed or used principally for business, governmental, or
non-profit organizational purposes or for carrying passengers
for hire; and
(2) has a platform, cabinet, box, rack, compartment, or other
facility for transportation of materials, equipment, and items
Other than the personal effects of private passengers."
The County's definition of commercial vehicle is generally
consistent with the State's definition of "track", but the State
differentiates between "truck" and "heavy truck" by means of a
5400 pound net vehicle weight threshold.
In comparison to the state's threshold, the County's ton -rated
capacity threshold is a similar but different measure of vehicle
.size. The intent of the County's commercial vehicle regulations is.
to promote aesthetics and public safety, by limiting a use not
customarily associated with a residence or residential
neighborhoods. The Code is structured to allow certain trucks, such
as vans and pickup trucks, that are commonly used for personal, `not
commercial, transportation.
Mr. Silva raises the point that a number of the newer pickup trucks
and van models commonly used for personal transportation have a
one -ton rated capacity, as does his box van. Also, Mr. Silva
questions why commercial vehicles in residential areas are more
restricted than recreational vehicles, which are allowed at
residences even though they are often times bigger than -many of the
restricted commercial vehicles.
Since the October 17th County Commission meeting, staff has
researched new truck model designs and agrees with Mr. Silva that
the 3/4 ton allowance threshold is antiquated and warrants
revision. However, staff has concerns about establishing a higher
allowance threshold without consideration of vehicle style and
design, as hereafter discussed. It should also be noted that the
PSAC and Planning and Zoning Commission, in their discussions on
this issue, struggled with determining what is appropriate within
a residential neighborhood.
8
FEBRUARY 13, 1996
� M t
Safety and Aesthetics
Commercial vehicle parking is restricted in residential areas
mainly for two reasons: safety and aesthetics. Commercial vehicles
parked near residential roadways, --when viewed as a whole, are a
safety concern from the general standpoint of potential traffic
hazard and sight -line obstruction. Also, commercial vehicles
generally have more driver "blind spots" than vehicles typical to
residential areas, which is a concern in areas frequented by
playing children. In addition, these vehicles are in use.everyday
and are maneuvered into and out of residential driveways more
frequently than other large vehicles such as RVs.
The other main reason for commercial vehicle restrictions in
residential areas is aesthetics. Most people will agree that they
do not want -to see large commercial vehicles, such as semi -tractor
rigs and trailers regularly parked in their neighborhood. Again,
this issue becomes less clear for vehicles that fall between the
size extremes of small pickup trucks and semi -tractors.
In comparing the parking and storage of commercial vehicles in
residential areas to boats and other recreational vehicles, an
argument can be made that, aesthetically, people find boats and
recreational vehicles less objectional in a residential setting.
This is because boats and recreational vehicles are customarily
associated with and. expected at residences. In this vein, the
design of a commercial vehicle - whether it is a pickup, panel
truck, box van, or tow truck - may be more of a concern then its
weight or hauling capacity.
Comparison with Other Counties/Municipalities
Attached is a table summarizing how other counties and
municipalities regulate commercial vehicle parking in residential
areas (see attachment #6). A number of local governments - St.
Lucie County, Martin County, and Port St. Lucie - use gross vehicle
weight as a size reference. Sebastian, Port St. Lucie, and Martin
County make specific reference to vehicle style/design in
determining which types of vehicles are allowed or not allowed in
.residential areas. Sebastian and Port St. Lucie .have certain
allowances if a commercial vehicle is stored/parked within an
enclosed wall structure.
Staff's recommendation regarding the proposed LDR amendment has
evolved based on discussions at meetings of the PSAC and the
Planning and Zoning Commission. It has become apparent. from these
discussions that restriction of commercial vehicles in residential
areas based primarily on vehicle weight is not effective since
vehicle weight alone does not adequately relate to actual vehicle
size and bulk. In addition, vehicle weight measurements are
confusing, particularly when comparing different weight references.
Common weight references are "net vehicle weight"; "gross vehicle
weight", and "ton rated capacity" (also referred to as "payload").
For the reasons described herein, staff is proposing commercial
vehicle restrictions in residential areas with emphasis on vehicle
type and design, rather than basing restrictions primarily on
vehicle weight. Such an approach is similar to the approach used
in Port St. Lucie's commercial vehicle regulations (see attachment
#6). Staff's revised recommendation allows in residential areas
trucks and vans commonly used for personal transportation, and also
allows commercial vehicles under 10,000 lbs. gross vehicle weight,
but only if such commercial vehicles are stored in an enclosed
walled structure (out of sight). In staff's opinion, this approach
continues to address the safety and aesthetic concerns previously
described, and allows some flexibility. Under this recommendation,
Mr Silva's cutaway box van would be allowed at his premises, but
only if parked in a garage or other enclosed walled structure.
Tow Trucks on Emergency Call Rotation
In addition to concerns raised by Mr. Silva, staff has become aware
that it is in the public interest, in certain circumstances, to
accommodate emergency service tow trucks in residential areas.
Specifically, the County Sheriff's Department and City Police
Department maintain rotation lists of emergency tow truck
operators. Because time can be of essence in emergencies, allowance
Of tow trucks on emergency call warrants consideration. Staff is
aware that, countywide, there are approximately 6 tow trnck
operators on an emergency service list.
*PSAC recommendation: by a 3-2 vote the PSAC recommended that the
Board adopt an LDR amendment to allow 1 ton commercial vehicles of
any type (including box vans such as Mr. Silva's) in residential
areas, and to allow "on-call" tow trucks: In contrast, staff
recommends the LDR amendment attached to this report which allows
1 ton commercial vehicles but prohibits commercial box vans in
residential areas, and to allow "on-call" tow trucks. Please refer
to pages 1 and 2 of attachment #5 regarding the pSAC meeting
discussion on this issue.
9
FEBRUARY 13, 1996 Boa 97 PA,E 307
BOOK 97 wzE 308
*PZC recommendation: by a 4-2 vote the Planning ,and Zoning
Com„iosio"'recommended that the Board adopt an amendment to allow
in residential areas commercial vehicles with net weights of less
than 51000 pounds. Please refer to pages "10" - 012" of attachment
#6 regarding the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting discussion
on this issue.
Section 20. Allowing certain dock structures to project farther
into waterways.
Current LDRs limit the distance water-rdlated structures (e.g. boat
slips, docks, mooring poles) are allowed to project out -from a
shoreline into a waterway (e.g. river or canal). Currently, boat
slips and boat slip walkways can project out from a shoreline no
more than 208 of the width of the waterway. Mooring poles,
however, are allowed to project out 258 of the waterway width.
Recently, environmental planning staff reviewed a dock proposal
that did not fit within the current requirements but had merit and
seemed to fit within the intent of the existing regulations. Staff
and the PSAC agree that all dock structures should be allowed to
project into waterways as far as mooring poles are currently
allowed to project (258). Such flexibility allows good dock
designs that will not adversely affect waterway navigation.
Therefore, staff has proposed the section 20 amendments to
implement such changes. _
Section 21. Mining regulations for mining operation and site
restoration timeframes.
During discussions at a September 1995 Board of County
Commissioners workshop, the Board asked staff to look into mining
timeframe issues. Current Chapter 934 LDRs require timeframes to
be established for all long-term commercial mining operations.
However, in practice, the county has essentially acknowledged
timeframes proposed by applicants and has extended the timeframes
of operations via annual mining permits. The existing LDRs contain
no specific guidelines for timeframes.
In its survey of other counties (see attachment #11), staff found
that a majority have no definitive time limits on long-term
commercial mining operations (Brevard, Collier, Palm Beach,
Volusia). The other surveyed counties have various time limits,
all of which can be extended by county approval (Martin, Sarasota,
St. Lucie). Martin County imposes a 3 year time limit which can be
extended. St. Lucie County imposes a 6 year time limit for mines
under 20 acres in size and a 20 year limit for larger mines= both
limits can be extended. Sarasota County imposes time limits that
correspond to the quantity of material to be removed, as follows:
Less than 10,000 cubic yards.................................1 year
10,000 - 99,999 cubic yards.................................2 years
100,000 - 500,000 cubic yards...............................5 years
over 500,000 cubic yards...................................10 years
Note: commercial mining operations in Indian River County usually
exceed 500,000 cubic yards of material removed over the life of the
mine. For example, an 11 acre excavation pit with an average depth
(below ground level) of 10' would yield approximately 532,400 cubic
yards.
Sarasota County's approach or setting 'specific timeframes based on
the amount of material to be removed is reasonable in staff's
opinion. In addition to these timeframes, a 6 month reclamation
and restoration deadline should be established to provide a
workable, known end -date for restoring a mining site. For example,
a 600,000 cubic yard mine would need to be closed -down at the end
of 10 years, and at the end of 10 years and 6 months, the site
would need to be reclaimed and restored. Such restoration
generally includes: final grading, grassing slopes, and
establishing littoral zones. Finally, the county should allow for
extensions that correspond to the period(s) of time a mine was
inactive due to market conditions, such as during an economic
.recession when fill material for new development is not marketable.
The section 22 proposed amendments implement these timeframe and."
extension items.
Section 22. Extending timeframes for certain incidental to., -
construction mining operations.
The Board of County Commissioners discussed this issue at its
September 21, 1995 mining regulations workshop and again at its
NovembeY 14, 1995 follow-up discussion on various mining issues.
At the November 14th meeting, the Board reviewed potential LDR
changes similar to these proposals and directed staff to initiate
such changes through the normal LDR amendment process.
LDR Section 934.04(7)(b) allows excavation and hauling of material
incidental to an approved construction project where more than
5,000 cubic yards of material is exported off-site. Such activity
can occur throughout the county in all zoning districts, including
10
FEBRUARY 13, 1996 0
residential districts, but is reNcted in various ways. The
restrictions are applied to incidental to construction mining
activities to protect the environment, address road impacts, and to
tightly limit the length of time and time of day that such mining
and hauling activity is allowed to impact surrounding properties.
At the September 21st workshop, engineer Dean Luethje presented a
proposal to create a ±40 acre stormwater management and irrigation
lake at the western portion of the Bent Pine development. Creation
of'such a lake would respond to the St. Johns River Water
Management District's stated desire for the Bent Pine golf course
to be irrigated from a source other than by high chloride Floridan
Aquifer well water. Creation of the lake would produce an enormous
amount of excess fill to be hauled off-site. Mr. Luethje asserted
that such a proposal could not be approved under the current county
LDRs because of the following:
1. The site -does not have the proper zoning (agricultural) for a
long-term commercial mining operation, and
2. The incidental to construction provisions limit excavation and
hauling off-site to a 2 month timeframe, and lakes are limited
to a 12' depth. Under Mr. Luethje's proposal, more time and
greater lake depth would be needed.
At the September 21st workshop, staff expressed concerns about
impacts of excavation and hauling that are inherent with such
activities. The purpose and intent of the current incidental to
construction mining provisions are to balance the concerns and
needs of developers with those of surrounding residents. Thus, the
incidental to construction provisions recognize and accommodate the
legitimate need to haul excess fill from certain construction
sites. Since more and more lakes are likely to be dug to satisfy
stormwater management requirements for new development projects,
there may be more development. projects that will "produce" large
quantities of excess fill -material.
Incidental to construction mining operations are not restricted to
agriculturally zoned property and can occur in any zoning district,
including residential zoning districts. Thus, such operations are
allowed in higher density areas where more residents can be
impacted by the mining operation. In effect, the 2 month time
limitation is intended to minimize the amount of time nuisances
from off-site hauling are allowed to impact an area. However, the
current 2 month limitation may not accommodate large development
projects that may involve hauling large quantities of excess fill
material off-site.
The existing 12.1 lake depth limitation on incidental to
construction mining is to ensure that resulting lakes, which will
be integrated into development projects, will more easily function..
as viable lakes. •According to St. Johns River Water Management.
District staff, lake depths below 12' can result in oxygen depleted
"dead zones" at lake bottoms. Such oxygen depletion can be
addressed by aeration and circulation techniques; however, those
techniques can require a high degree of maintenance. Therefore,
the 12' depth limitation serves the purpose of ensuring that the
resulting lake will function well without a high degree.'af
maintenance by project residents or owners. It should be noted'
that PSAC members and the Planning and Zoning Commission
unanimously agreed that the current 12' limitation should be
retained, since exceeding the 12' depth is not necessary to provide
for stormwater management.
Planning staff's position is that the existing 12' lake depth is
justified for the reasons previously described. Therefore, no
changes to the 12' criterion should be made, and none are proposed.
It is also staff's opinion that extending the current 2 month time
limitation is justifiable under certain conditions. Such
conditions include:
• Limiting the extended timeframe to development project sites
over 350 acres in size.
Limiting the quantity of fill hauled off-site and the amount
of time allowed for such hauling to what is necessary in the
project's design to comply &ith stormwater management or
environmental requirements, or to implement recommendations of
jurisdictional agencies.
• Limiting timeframes to an initial 4 month period, a possible
initial extension. of 6 months, and a possible second extension
of 4 months, for a total maximum timeframe of 14 months.
• Allowing the public works director to attach special
conditions relating to road repair or guarantees for road
repair.
The proposed section 22 amendments establish an extended incidental
to construction mining activity timeframe with the conditions
described above.
Sections 23. - 26. These sections contain standard legal wording
contained in all LDR amendment ordinances, and do not actually
change development.regulations.
11
BOOKP,+;��,���
FEBRUARY 13, 1996 9 7
� ■man .-� � � o � .
®-s-b
mc,w �w a �.
M $'ate N w o�
0'C°-°0+��' p m ��a
4j 4141
o Q
b mX
m :S m o UV
-�
3 3� uQ0-
Q '2
avm a v SO
mto ay.
m
:3 o 5
c 0 mCh
�+
41
0,10.1 od
bl m 14
m ?. Q1
ow 44 41 4j 4
V4��Q °w.. aom$U
41
•4 e Q
0 4 V aQr.OJ
41 0C 1 0 9:
�oo+>i Ao oou
ppot .14 0 w
114
M O +'4 N
SURVEY OF CEMETERY LAND USE REGULATIONS
JURISDICTION ZONING APPROVAL PROCESS
CRITERIA.
City of Sebastian
use not referenced in LDRs
would apply special permit
none; general compatibility
process
City of Vero Beach
P-2 park district
site plan
site plan standards
Brevard County
all districts
conditional use
parcel must have 60'
frontageion road right-of-
way; have proper elevation
and drainage per health
department; minimum 10 acre
parcel, mausoleum setback of
100'
Manatee County
agricultural, residential,
distinguishes pet from human
none; general compatibility
and most office and
cemeteries; special exception in
commercial districts
agricultural and residential
districts; administrative permit
in office and commercial
Martin County
agricultural, public service,
conditional use except for
25' setback for graves
rural residential (20 and 5
public service (permitted)
acre arcels)i industrial
Palm Beach County
all districts
conditional use
none obtained
St. Lucie
institutional district which
conditional use
none; general compatibility
is allowed in residential
and state requirements
land use areas
Sarasota County
all districts
special exception except in
none obtained
commercial and industrial
(permitted)
Volusia County
all districts
special exception
50' setback for any
building, landscape buffer
re uired
N
1
1
01
aN
rl
i
i!
F1
J
SURVEY OF CEMETERY LAND USE REGULATIONS
JURISDICTION ZONING APPROVAL PROCESS CRITERIA.-
RITERIA;Indian
IndianRiver County
agricultural A-1, A-2, A-3
special exception
0100' setback between burial
(also, as accessory use to
areas and abutting
place of worship)
residential property;
050' setback between burial
areas and abutting non--
residential property
6Type "C" buffer between
burial sites and
residentially designated
property, Type "D" otherwise
*demonstrate compliance with
state reaulations
Staff proposal for
also allow cemeteries in RFD,
by special exception
apply existing (above)
Indian River County:
RS -1, RS -2, RS -3, RS -6, RT -6,
criteria and add the
RN -3, RM -4, RM -6, RM -S, RN -10
following criteria:
districts
1. For agricultural and
residential districts: 100'
setback for buildings,
including mausoleums and
columbariums
2. Specifically prohibit
accessory.crematoriums
(currently allowed only in
i
CG and CH districts)
3. Require convenient access
to a Thoroughfare Plan Road.
4. Accommodate on-site
queuing for 20 cars.
5. Appropriate site
groundwater characteristics.
M
H
M
BOOK 97 P, fr 12
2) Commercial Vehicles Ordinance Comparison:
COMMERCIAL VEHICLES_
ORDINANCE CONPARISON
AOENcr
VNU= 08FEEZZ[OW
in no=. AVM
aoAo�
Indian elver County
coo, veh. - desired or used
Comm. vas. ascending 3/4 ten rated capacity ars
petitioner smgopta tlaa 3/4
principally far business or for
psnbibited. 2mp. parking of com.vh. over 3/4
ten threshold be raised to
oarryio6 passengers for hire, and
ten &Mated in sena!, aitso•stanw
one ten.
ban facilities for transportation
(van, pickup or panel truck) with a use. carrying
and 10 foot length or less.
of mterials/sgsipsent.
aapenity net exceeding oa ten. Alm allowdl any
state
Cann. veh. - not amsd by gave=-
M/A -
entity, psora vb. weight in
enclosed garage.
menu of 16,000 Do., or bas 3
or an= sales regardless of
weight.
2twdt - net vsb. weisbt of 5,000
port at. Louie
lbs. ne lw, designed for
Commercial veh. trot allowed in residential mons or
Allows tseporary parking In
aarayle0 "ads other than
an abutting strap". s:msptient ones. veb.
certain circumstances.
pmmal effects of passengers.
snolosed In walled structure.
gamy truck - art vah. w•ignt
sore than 5,000 no., designed or
and to Carry goods las draw a
trailer to carry goods) other
then passional effects of
veno Bosch
Srsok - designed or used
Hasse, while house, trailers, stools over 5,000
Allow tesparary parking In
_
prlMoipally for carrying thing
lbs. shall not in parked on private property in
certain oisaosetannes.
other than paessngerst vokiclas
residential district.
w/ cabinet boss, m. for carrying
Merchandise.
Traci treater - vehicle designed
and aped primarily far drawing
othor vehicles, and an m
mnatroated to carry a load other
at. Lurie County
than the vehicle drawn.
AGENCY
VwUCLZ DIFIRM011
ID78ENIMOM 1M ram. A58Aa
COM!�8
6ebes!!en
hoed tr•ator - vah.dwaigued for
parking or stars" of road treater, seal -trailers,
Cam vh. associated w/ bora
pulling seri-trailers, trucks or
bsavy equipment or heavy truck prohibited in
occupation Baited to 3/4 ten
other rad tractors.
residential arse. pmeptimt posemal vehicle
carrying capacity or less,
(van, pickup or panel truck) with a use. carrying
and 10 foot length or less.
semi -trailer - wk. w/o active
aapenity net exceeding oa ten. Alm allowdl any
pacer designed for carrying
vehicle net ozone" one ten parked within an
freight, not including zoo.
enclosed garage.
trailers.
Heavy equip. - veb./a•ukiary
incidentally operated on highway
(e .. sellers, m.
port at. Louie
Coasrolel verb. -'gxm veb.
Commercial veh. trot allowed in residential mons or
Allows tseporary parking In
~t of 10,000 lbs. or core,
an abutting strap". s:msptient ones. veb.
certain circumstances.
designed to transport peeve'
snolosed In walled structure.
pzoperty. Alco, the following
vets. low thea 10,000 lbs.t
•dung trunks
atm trucks
flatbeds A 6 wheeler•
•tractor trailers
.stop va
•aeon. took trucks
•piokaps or vane openly
or ou"Way staring
equip. (eaelosed starags
an pickups or vans
allowed
at. Lurie County
Coes. web. - scone vok. Wight of
10,000 lbs. or mors, including
bases. Alm includes any vehicle
• tar ala.. of ao to aa.
Martin county
Cosa. veh. - as" to transport
Parkins/starers of coca. vehicles (o -defies)
--
passengers or cargo, requiring
prohibited in residential arse
coo. licenses, and/or need for
eve. purposes, having a srw
vehicle waigbt of 1,000 lbs.
>beslnded frm definitioat auto -
Mobiles, pawl trucks and pickup
trucks with no advertising
'
displayed and which azo used as
m.
14
FEBRUARY 13, 1996
® � r
3) Characteristics of Mining Regulations for Surveyed Counties:
15
FEBRUARY 13, 1996
�I
I
11
BOOK
97 PAE313
i
g Mp
•Y
•
O
S�jai
�YLYS'�C+
-
M
�•F$�
-rilllli■4�r•
-
p M`` • • • •
• N
•• • • I• •p•►
O
p•$$j qu
� fff��• OOO
1.�O A
..€�1,�
H-1 8 •��
H : • F M�n9
A
;�1 Kill
a�;
a;
R
I Fir
B !A�•
till
.
1%
j. '
MAS'H A
I -I
��
•��..
is
s$
g
I I
�� •�
g.
s
g
0
B
M(!W
ti..O
O•
g
a
J I
all
w-11
��
6
��
15
FEBRUARY 13, 1996
�I
I
11
BOOK
97 PAE313
M-1
*Z1
28511 OF CCMPAMMI CHRlMX=M1nC8 OF I1KM BAULMA1Q8 !DA ROM= CCOb =
s�mTm�B NOWS mnpazc
pAoTIISI4
mmATkausLiTt B®k1f0 CMR
Vale Beach
Agricultural
-Agricultural
Limits an boors of
Trucks seat be
lcu' setback to
No definitive
6otbaob from
bands required for
Littoral rooms
districts as a
•gtil}tise a septic
operation, buffers
covered
private drinking
limitations
welllidde, sells,
littoral ronse (sin,
regrind a
oanditional use
teaks
with berms required
valla
Wetlands, landfills,
1108), and
slopes a depths
•Poole a groves
•Publio projects
contaminated sit". a
restoration (12,500
regulated.
•Mitigation
sanitary hazards,
Per ecu)
veriaoose
Required stain ater
excavation pit.
Batters 6-12, high a
epeaifically
allowed
Pon" incidental to
151-25- wide required
construction Where
basad on adjacent
'
101 or less of
utes
sxcavated material
In exported with an
exception to 101
limitation available
Basset•
Agricultural areas
-Agricultural
Counsel criterion
General criterion,
general criterion
Depends on also of
Pit setbacks range
Banda for
Littoral spnae
as a aonditioad use
r•,gtilitip
road protection bond
mines can be 1,2.5,
from 50'-200
atlanzoqmind
ieelasetion (10.75
gan
•Building pads
'Otdnge
or 10 years A can be
depending no- mine
per' square yard of
ddethssa hop=
ditches
extended by BCC
six* and adjacent
apona slope), road
(no squarse or
•graves a septic
real l eras be
protection (150,000
rsatanglse)
lanae
•ol.
en
rednnae it existing
par mile of hemi
sspnleeed
buttering present
rent*)
• public projects
•Incident" to
construction up to
10,000 cubic yards
exported
at. Loa"
Permitted w in
•Btilitise
General criterion
amoral criterion
genual criterion
Limit of 6 yawn for
general criterion
Burl* required for
County
Industrial
•prudiag P�
mine under 20 acres
about gluing
taelaastioa
districts,
Rlratiags ditchse
tom
eforamines
unreasonable
fe erfeuone
h�
ill
conditional use ih
•6*ptia tanks A
years
Wi
interference rota
iccs
about
agricultural
gtavp
resmi�
r20acres (
nigheerlon !may
projects
pan
districts (public
*Pools
he fid)
novian uo
giving
boring before SM)
•Icaid*atal to
Interference
approved
Interference
with neighboring
ProvertY
valuate
Agricultural a
•Otilities
general criterion,
gaol mate approval
Bydnlogist'e
No definitive
Pit setbacks of 150-1
Honda for
Bo eft -site
industrial areas as
•Bstlding pads
noise ordinance
required
rsporL requird
limitations
Perimeter dmfs (50
protection and rod
discharge
cohditionel use (M
•Drainage ditcbis
with `[lo
Kriel
ptateotion can be
regaled, dopes
approval)
•loptoa tanks A
fledlt s
Comm,z0vinal ,
bink ens, ben, or t
ragnire0
rpolate0
Brava
reaaeaedatloce
wall with 1 tree
•Poole
lmli—tw
every 10• and 1 shrub
-Incidental to
every 10
approved
conatrsatian
'Public projects
—
Now
*Agricultural
tion
H
1
1
1C
CN
ON
4) Impacts of Proposed LDR Amendments on Affordable Housing:
IMPACTS OF PROPOSED LDR AMENDMENTS
ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING (FEB. 1996)
Proposed Amendment Ordinance
Impact on Affordable Housing
Section
ORDINANCE 1
*1. Allowing cemeteries in
None
residential areas
ORDINANCE 2
1.-2.
Subdivision road setbacks
None
and buffering
3.-7.
None
Scriveners errors
S. Published notice
None
requirement update
9. PD open space credit
Potential positive impact by
clarifying allowances for PDs
using smaller single family
lois (confirms existing
10. Concurrency review
Potential positive impact
exemption
(time and money savings) where
certain types of requests are
involved (confirms existing
policy)
11. Scriveners error
None
12. Platted site plan
None
ro ects
13. Temporary construction
None
trailers on single family
sites
14. Staff -level approval of
None
fish farms
15. Scriveners error
None
16. TIF schedule update
None
17. Scriveners error
None
18.-19.
Commercial vehicles in
None
residential areas
20. Projection of dock
None
structures
22. Mining regulation changes
Potential positive impact
where excavation, hauling, or
fill costs are lowered.
*Note: Due to legal requirements, a•separate ordinance for this
amendment has been created.
Planning Director Stan Boling reviewed the proposed LDR
amendments with the Board and advised that the Professional
Services Advisory Committee, the Planning and Zoning Commission and
staff have all reviewed the proposed amendments and staff is
recommending that the Board adopt the proposed ordinances.
The second hearing on these proposed ordinances is scheduled for
February 27, 1996 at 9:05 a.m. There are 2 items in Ordinance No.
17
Bou 97 F,�aL 315
FEBRUARY 13, 1996
BOOK 97 PAGE316
2 which will require some discussion and instruction to staff: (1)
Item 18, Restrictions on keeping commercial vehicles in residential
areas and Item 19, Single-family ordinance restatement of
restrictions on keeping commercial vehicles in residential areas ,
as well as (2) Item 21, Mining regulations for mining operation and
site restoration timeframes and Item 22, Extending timeframes for
certain incidental to construction mining operations.
Ordinance 2 - Item 18: Restrictions on Keeping
Commercial Vehicles in Residential Areas and
Item 19: Single-family Ordinance Restatement
of Restrictions on Keeping Commercial Vehicles
in Residential Areas
Code Enforcement Chief Roland DeBlois reminded the Board that
Mr. Manuel Silva had come before the Board in October, 1995,
requesting that the ordinance be amended to allow parking of a 1
ton box van -in a residential area. Staff has since reviewed this
matter with the Professional Services Advisory Committee and the
Planning and Zoning Commission. In summary, staff concluded that
changes are warranted and both committees agreed although it will
be a challenge to decide what changes should be made. Safety and
aesthetics are the primary concerns. One of the problems is that
some recreational vehicles are larger than some commercial vehicles
but the frequency of use is less. Further, we found that a weight
limit does not address the aesthetics issue. Staff investigated
the requirements of various counties and found the alternatives to
be: (a) ton rate, (b) weight, (c) design/ category, and (d) a -
combination of design/category and weight. Staff is recommending
alternative (d) a combination of design/category and weight.
Chairman Adams questioned what is meant by "enclosed walls"
and Mr. DeBlois explained that it essentially means "out of sight".
Commissioner Eggert questioned the height of the enclosing
walls, and Mr. DeBlois advised that issue has not been addressed.
Chairman Adams then wanted to know how the weight of a truck
can be ascertained, and Mr. DeBlois thought that information could
be obtained from the vehicle's registration.
Mr. DeBlois further explained that a truck up to a gross
vehicle weight of 10,000 pounds, if enclosed, would be allowed
under the recommendation, with recreational vehicles being
exempted.
18
FEBRUARY 13, 1996
Commissioner Bird then questioned the length of time a vehicle
would need to be in the residential area in order to be in
violation of the ordinance, and Mr. DeBlois stated that the
ordinance defines an extended period as "more than 10 hours per
calendar month". -
Commissioner Eggert wanted to know whether there have been a
lot of complaints received, and Mr. DeBlois advised there were
about 50 cases last year.
Community Development Director Robert Keating felt that
staff's recommendations arise from complaints received regarding
aesthetics and staff believes this is a good compromise which would
allow a lot of commercial trucks as long as they are garaged, with
general restrictions for those over 10,000 pounds.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter.
Manuel Silva of 455 13th Lane Southwest, Dixie Heights,
expressed his frustration with the regulations and felt that they
allow most commercial vehicles but his. He intends to keep his
personal vehicle but is landlocked and cannot build a garage. Mr.
Silva felt that using gross vehicle weight would be a better rule;
however, Code Enforcement personnel would have to open each truck
and look inside the door frame to check for the weight. He stated
that his vehicle is a private vehicle by the State's -definition.
His title indicates that his vehicle is a private one with a weight
allowance limit of 3,917 pounds. However, this proposal would not
allow his truck which has a weight of 10,000 pounds as the
recommendation states "less than 10,000 pounds". Mr. Silva
believed that the fair approach would be to allow 1 ton vehicles.
He felt it was unfair that work trucks must be hidden but
recreational vehicles can be out in full view. From 8 a.m. to 5
p.m. his truck is not in view.
Commissioner Bird commented that the problem is one of
aesthetics. There cannot be unregulated parking in residential
neighborhoods. Where to draw the line is the problem, but the line
must be somewhere. He questioned whether staff would have a
problem with the Professional Services Advisory Committee
recommendations, and Mr. DeBlois felt their recommendations were
almost the same as the current regulations.
Chairman Adams wanted to know if there is any way to tell how
many of the complaints are from deed restricted neighborhoods.
19 BOOK 97 Paf-F •,��
FEBRUARY 13, 1996
BOOK 97 PvF318
Commissioner Bird commented that those complaints would result
in civil actions and would not be handled by Code Enforcement.
Bud Jenkins of 2046 39th Avenue felt there are a lot of
working people in the area and everyone does not have a lot of
money. He felt that Mr. Silva is trying to make a living and asked
the Board to try to help him.
The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to be heard in this
matter. There being none, she closed the public hearing.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, seconded by
Commissioner Tippin, that the Board adopt the
Professional Services Advisory Committee
recommendations allowing 1 ton commercial vehicles
of any type in residential areas and providing an
exception for "on-call" emergency service tow
trucks.
Under discussion, Commissioner Tippin emphasized that the Code
Enforcement people are to be commended for their efforts.
Commissioner Macht felt that these recommendations would be a
very great mistake because there would be no remedy for these
complaints. Aesthetics are important and are the reason for
landscaping and other regulations preventing obstruction of a
homeowners' view.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion
passed by a 4-1 vote (Commissioner Macht opposed).
Ordinance 2 - Item 21: Mining Regulations for Mining
Operation and Site Restoration Timeframes and
Item 22: Extending Timeframes for Certain Incidental
to Construction Mining Operations
Planning Director Stan Boling explained the main changes will
be to establish timeframes for the longterm commercial mining
operations, allowing 10 years with opportunities for extension if
there is a period of recession, and to allow projects incidental to
construction mining activity 350 acres or larger in size to
continue activities up to 14 months with several restrictions such
20
FEBRUARY 13, 1996
as site plan approval, and adding a requirement of a bond of up to
$20,000 that the public works director could require to repair any
paved road damages.
Commissioner Eggert thought she had understood that St. Johns
River Water Management District was supportive of this kind of use
However, she has received questions wanting to know if this is true
because apparently someone from St. Johns is telling people now
that this is not what they want, they want them to take the water
out of canals.
Director Boling responded that Rich Berklew, a hydrologist
from the Melbourne field office, who was here at one of the
workshops, faxed a letter and stated over the telephone that what
the St. Johns River Water Management District has basically been
pushing Bent Pine to do for years is to not use the type of
irrigation system they are now using where they are using the
groundwater. They want Bent Pine to either use reclaimed, reuse
water which is not available or, if they could work out the
engineering of it, they could pump the water out of the canal or
do a lake project and use surface water. St. Johns has indicated
they would recommend approval of the permits that are associated
with a lake project.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter.
Bud Jenkins of 2046 39th Avenue congratulated staff for their
good work, brit felt the regulations allow the operation to be
situated too near houses on the site plan.
Director Boling commented that Mr. Jenkins' remarks relate to
a particular site plan that is under review. The proposed
regulations affect mining operations incidental to construction on
projects unlike longer term commercial mining operations;
therefore, there are no setbacks from excavation areas to adjacent
residences because the goal is to have a lake around which homes
can be built.
Commissioner Bird inquired what existing structures would be
close, and Director Boling replied that there is a house to the
south of the proposed lake on the site plan Mr. Jenkins referred
to.
County Attorney Vitunac advised that particular issue will
come up on the site plan review but the issue will be coming up
again and again.
21
FEBRUARY 13, 1996
BOOK 97 FrjrE `. 19
UBOOK �,�'J
Mr. Jenkins advised that he had looked at the proposed site
plan and the house is pretty close. His objection is not to
digging a lake but to the by-product of $6,000,000 worth of dirt.
Applicants have been turned down for commercial mining because
there is a house within 150 feet. He also expressed his concerns
about the truck traffic and noise.
Commissioner Bird reminded Mr. Jenkins that the haul route
will be addressed at the site plan review.
Attorney Bruce Barkett stated that he and his clients are in
favor of the amendment but he did want to get on the record the
fact that the wording in one amendment is tricky because it puts
the emphasis on the quantity of excess fill to be removed. The
second bullet on page it of proposed Ordinance No. 2 refers to
"complying with water management district or environmental
requirements..." In reality, the lake itself is the compliance
with the environmental agency requirements, not the quantity of the
fill. They are in receipt of a copy of the letter from St. Johns
River Water Management District and want to be certain that letter
is in compliance with this requirement.
Director Boling explained that the gist of Mr. Barkett's point
and of the ordinance is that St. Johns does not care where the fill
goes. They cannot keep all that fill onsite so they do have excess
fill. That is staff's interpretation of the way this is written,
to accommodate that type of situation.
Attorney Barkett stated that he agreed. He wanted to be
certain that someone at a future time does not check the Minutes
and confuse the issue that St. Johns has to tell the developer to
haul the excess fill offsite. That is not what this ordinance says
although it can be read like that. He wanted to be sure the
Minutes reflect that the emphasis should lie with the project
construction, the digging of the lake.
The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to be heard in this
matter. There being none, she closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Bird suggested these proposals be sent forward to
the next hearing as presented.
Ordinance 1 - Section 1: Allowing Cemeteries
as a Special Exception Use in Residential Areas.
Commissioner Eggert questioned the 100 foot setback for
buildings such as mausoleums and columbariums and wanted to know
why 100 feet was chosen.
22
FEBRUARY 13, 1996
Director Boling stated that the setback is included to clarify
that this is an area of burial, essentially the same as a grave.
Chairman Adams opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
in the audience -wished to address any of the land development
regulation changes that are proposed tonight that we have not
already discussed. There being none, she closed the public
hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, seconded by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
submitting the ordinances to the next public hearing
on February 27, 1996 at 9:05 A.M. with the changes
made today.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded
and carried, the Board adjourned at 6:03 p.m.
ATTEST:
J. rton, Clerk
Minutes Approved: :-�)` - a-) - I
23
FEBRUARY 13, 1996
Fran B. Adams, Chairman ep
BOOK 9 7 Pa. 'E-321