Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/8/1997MINUTES ATTACHED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA A D E N D A SPECIAL MEETING MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 8,1997 7:00 p.m. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER County Administration Building 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman (District 2) John W. Tippin, Vice Chairman (District 4) Fran B. Adams (District 1) Caroline D. Ginn (District 5) Kenneth R. Macht (District 3) James E. Chandler, County Administrator Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney - Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC WORKSHOP ON LANDSCAPING ISSUES ANYONE WHO MAY WISH TO APPEAL ANY DECISION WHICH MAY BE MADE AT THIS MEETING WILL NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE WHICH INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL WILL BE BASED. ANYONE WHO NEEDS A SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION FOR THIS MEETING MAY CONTACT THE COUNTY'S AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) COORDINATOR AT 567-8000 X408 AT LFA 4T 4R TWIT TR Q TAT a nv a ATf-V nV ,► .r -,,r, wlr-r' l JUN 1U. Meeting broadcast live on: TCI Cable Channel 13 - rebroadcast various times throughout the week Falcon Cable Channel 35 - rebroadcast Friday evening BOOK I U �:?i PACE 45- 9 September 8, 1997 The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, met in Special Session at the County Commission Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Monday, September 8, 1997, at 7:00 p.m. Present were Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman; John W. Tippin, Vice Chairman; Fran B. Adams; Kenneth R Macht; and Caroline D. Ginn. Also present were James E. Chandler, County Administrator; Terrence P. O'Brien, Assistant County Attorney: and Patricia Ridgely, Deputy Clerk. The purpose of the meeting was to hold a PUBLIC WORKSHOP ON LANDSCAPING ISSUES. Also in attendance were the following members of the Planning and Zoning Commission: Monte K. Falls, Richard H. Dittman, William A. McNamee, Leland Gibbs, Jr., George F. Hamner, Jr., and Norman W. Hensick, Jr. In addition, the following members of the Professional Services Advisory Commission were present: Peter Robinson, Warren Dill, Kay Trent, and Robert Swift. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. She introduced the members of both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Professional Services Advisory Board into the record and to the audience assembled. The Board reviewed a Memorandum dated September 3, 1997: 1 September 8, 1997 600E 10, PAGE 450 BOOK U. , PAGE 4611 TO: James Chandler County Administrator DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: Ro ert M. Kea g,. CP Community Development Di ector FROM: Stan Boling, AICP Planning Director DATE: September 3, 1997 SUBJECT: Board of County Commissioners, Planning and Zoning Commission, Professional Services Advisory Committee Joint Workshop on Landscaping Issues It is requested that the data herein be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its special, joint workshop of September 8, 1997. BACKGROUND: On July 22, 1997, the Board of County Commissioners invoked the pending ordinance doctrine for a proposed ordinance that modifies the county's existing landscaping requirements. At that same meeting the Board, in response to a request from the Planning and Zoning Commission, PSAC, and staff; agreed to have a public workshop to discuss several landscaping issues, including: private sector landscaping requirements within both the current LDRs and the pending ordinance; public sector expectations and commitments to roadway landscaping; and a countywide policy on corridor planning. To focus discussion and assist the Board in providing policy direction, staff has researched and analyzed various issues and prepared this staff report to facilitate discussion. Planning and Zoning Commissioners, members of the PSAC, county staff, local landscape architects and contractors, FP&L and city electric representatives, and persons involved in past corridor Planning efforts have been provided a copy of this report and specifically invited to participate in this workshop. Also, the Press -Journal is publishing a news brief to inform and invite the general public to the workshop. The Board is now to conduct workshop discussion, address policy issues presented in this report, and provide direction to staff. ANALYSIS• Private Sector Requirements: LDRs. Policies & Practices A. Current & Pending Ordinance Landscape LDRs The current landscaping LDRs (Chapter 926, see attachment #1) require landscaping plans for site plan and PD projects. Thus, landscaping plans and corresponding landscaping improvements are required for multi -family, institutional, office, commercial, and industrial 2 September 8, 1997 uses and PD projects. Standard single-family development is exempt. Chapter 926 generally addresses landscaping issues as follows: •Timing No C.O. is to be issued for a project until landscaping requirements are satisfied. •Quality/Quantity 1. Plant materials are to conform to the Standards for Florida No. 1 or better. 2. At least 50% of the plant material is to be drought tolerant. 3. Specie diversity is required, and certain nuisance species are prohibited. 4. Minimum at -planting sizes are specified for trees (canopy), understory trees, shrubs, and vines. Credits are given on a graduated scale (by size) for preserving existing trees. 5. Standards for buffer types (A, B, C, D) and opaque features are given: requirements vary by buffer type and buffer strip depth. Note: the various zoning district regulations (Chapter 911) and specific land use criteria (Chapter 971) dictate under what circumstances and where various buffer types and opaque features are required to be installed. 6. Irrigation requirements and standards are specified, •Location 1. Landscaping strips with various material quantities are required to be located: a. Between parking areas and abutting road right-of-way b. Between parking areas and abutting properties C. Interior to parking areas d. Within non -vehicular open space areas 2. For traffic safety at intersections, sight distance requirements are specified. •Maintenance 1. Project owners are required to maintain project landscaping in accordance with the project's approved landscape/site plan. .. The pending ordinance (see attachment #2) reviewed by the Board of County Commissioners on July 23, 1997 is now being applied to new projects. The pending ordinance does not overhaul Chapter 926, but generally clarifies existing requirements and strengthens certain landscaping installation and maintenance standards. The pending ordinance makes various modifications to the Chapter 926 requirements, as follows: 1. Tree Size Requirements Allows palms to count as canopy trees only if clustered (e.g. 3 sabal palms = 1 canopy tree), or is a type of palm with a large canopy (e.g. canary island date palm). Reason: Combined "volume" of palm heads needed to equate to mature crown of canopy tree (15' diameter "sphere"). Codifies existing policy and matches SR 60 standard. Codifies the minimum tree sizes required in the Wabasso and SR 60 corridor plans. Reason: Brings LDRs into line with some of the adopted corridor plan requirements: applies within designated Wabasso and SR 60 corridors only. 3 September 8, 1997 b�JJ1K 2 PAGE 4812 PAGEBOOK yt�c� Increases the tree height within required "compatibility" buffers when a 12' to 25' tall building is located within 50' of a property line. The proposal would increase the tree height from 10' to 12' for 2/3 of the trees used in the buffer and from 10' to 16' for 1/3 of the trees. Reason: Increased screening at time of planting needed to more effectively screen taller buildings located close to property lines, where a compatibility buffer is required. Increase the tree height within required "compatibility" buffers, when a building over 25' is proposed within 70' of a property line. The tree height would be increased from 10' to 16' for all trees within the buffer. Reason: Increased screening at time of planting needed to more effectively screen taller buildings located close to property lines, where a compatibility buffer is required. Taller trees required adjacent to taller buildings. 2. Landscape Maintenance & Replacement Prohibit trimming of mature canopy trees (after 7 years of growth) to less than a 15' diameter canopy. Reason: Excessive pruning defeats intent (definition) of mature canopy tree "volume". Establish replacement criteria for dead material. Any material replaced within 18 months of project C.O. can be planted at the original height specified in the landscape chapter. From 18 to 36 months, replacement canopy trees would need to be 16tall, understory trees 8' tall, and shrubs 30" tall. Thirty-six or more months after C.O., replacement canopy trees would need to be 18' tall, understory trees 10' tall, and shrubs 36" tall. Reason: Replacements need to be consistent with other materials that have been growing well on site. Also, ensures landscape code intent for sites to achieve mature landscaping look and mature landscaping "volume" in a reasonable timeframe. 3. Landscaping Along Roadways Requires landscaping along -a site's entire road right-of-way frontage, rather than only between parking areas and right-of-way. Reason: Provides a modified, enhanced landscaping appearance along the "public view" side of project sites, regardless of parking lot location or orientation. Increases the number of canopy trees along collector roads from 1 tree per 30 lineal feet to 1 tree per 25 lineal feet. Reason: Increases slightly the positive aesthetic effect of roadside landscaping. Increases the number of canopy trees along arterial roads from 1 tree per 30 lineal feet to 1 tree per 25 lineal feet; and adds a requirement for 1 understory tree per 25 lineal feet. Reason: Establishes a denser roadside enhancement along the heaviest traveled roads and "entry -ways" throughout the county. • Establishes the parking lot grade as the benchmark for measuring hedges that are required along roadways. Requires such hedges to be maintained at a height of 3' above parking lot grade. Reason: Relates the hedge to the area it is designed to screen; namely, the Erst 3' vertical distance above a parking lot (partially screens vehicles in parking lot). 4 September 8, 1997 M M M M M It should be noted that, since July 23rd, the enhanced arterial and collector roadway landscape strip standards have been applied to 5 new development projects. 4. Perimeter (Compatibility) Buffer Standards Requires a masonry wall or earthen berm to be the opaque feature component of the buffer unless otherwise approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Reason: Ensures that the opaque feature is at required height and opacity at C.O., rather than relying on a 2 year grow -in period. Requires compatibility buffers adjacent to a local road to be provided but reduced one category (e.g. from a Type "B" to a Type "C" buffer). The height of any required opaque feature would remain the same. Buffers required adjacent to thoroughfare plan roads would be reduced two categories (e.g from B to D). This concept is presently not addressed in chapters 911 or 926, but parallels the way buffers are treated in the planned development regulations of Chapter 915. Reason: Establishes a set rule as to how buffering requirements apply when an intervening roadway exists between two incompatible uses. Recognizes that intervening roadways provide more separation between uses, resulting in the need for less intensive compatibility buffers. Establishes the finished floor elevation of the proposed project building(s) to be the benchmark for measuring the height of 3' and 6' opaque features, unless using such a benchmark would result in a feature exceeding 8' in actual height and the Planning & Zoning Commission agrees to modify the requirement. Reason: Establishes a reasonable and consistent benchmark that relates opaque feature height to the facility it is intended to screen -out. Allows 50% of the normally required buffer hedge material to be deleted when a 6' wall or fence is constructed, if remaining required vegetation (hedge and understory trees) is planted between the wall and the project property line. Reason: Recognizes that less hedge material (lower height vegetation) is needed when a wall is used. Also recognizes that some landscape material is needed to "soften" the appearance of wall exteriors. 5. Buffers Between Commercial & Residential Uses AND 6. Buffers Between Industrial & Residential Uses Requires loading docks to be screened by an 8' tall masonry wall, when the loading dock is adjacent to or visible from a residential site. Reason: Applies the Wabasso and SR 60 corridor plan requirements for loading dock buffers countywide. Recognizes that an 8' wall at docks would screen more of the taller vehicles (trucks). that use such facilities and more effectively attenuate noise impacts of loading docks. During the PSAC's June 26, 1997 review of the pending ordinance, some members expressed concerns about the increased costs resulting from the new requirements, and one member questioned the need for any increase in landscaping requirements. An estimate of costs associated with the pending ordinance requirements (see attachment #3) was provided to the PSAC, Planning and Zoning Commission, and Board of County Commissioners when those boards reviewed the pending ordinance. Some members also expressed concerns that, by requiring larger trees at time of planting, supply constraints could be a problem, and taller planted trees take longer to settle -in and start growing vigorously. Planning staff agrees with some concerns discussed at the PSAC meeting regarding the pending ordinance's proposed loading dock buffering. In stars opinion, better 5 September 8, 1997 bonyPACE BOOK —1020 PAGE 05 definition of the type of docks or loading areas affected and the extent of screening required warrants more research and analysis. B. Additional Possibilities (1) Inspection or certification of plant quality at time of C O ection Currently, Chapter 926 requires Florida No.l or better quality. Code Enforcement Officers perform the landscaping C.O. inspection and inspect for landscape plan compliance (e.g. location, species, minimum size), but are not trained to distinguish various, recognized quality parameters for canopy, understory, and shrubs. If the Board desires the county to "check up" on the developer/landscape contractor for quality and to reject installed plant materials deemed by code officers not to be Florida No. 1, then special training of code officers (and possibly, site planners) is needed. An alternative would be to require the landscape contractor or landscape architect to certify in writing that all required landscape materials that have been installed on the project site are Florida No. 1 or better. (2) Me —w in_g heights of installedplants: pruning allowances. Under the existing LDRs and the pending ordinance, installed tree height is measured from grade to the highest point of the tree with a graduated, telescoping measuring stick. However, staff recognizes that there may be an important qualitative difference between a well - pruned installed tree and an unpruned tree. A well pruned 9V2' tall canopy tree could grow faster and fuller than an unpruned 11' tall canopy tree. An allowance could be made for well -pruned trees and special training could be given to code off cers/site planners to make such qualitative determinations. (3) Allowing size to be traded -off for quantity Currently, LDR section 926.06(3)(I) allows credits for planting larger sized trees up -front in return for planting fewer trees (e.g. allowing one 16' tree to count as two 10' trees). However, there are no allowances for allowing trees below height at time of planting in exchange for more trees (e.g. allowing two 8' trees to count as one 10' tree). In the past, developers and landscaping contractors have offered to make up for insufficient installed plant size by planting additional trees, "beyond the minimum requirements". The current-LDRs and pending ordinance contain no such allowance. Some landscaping ordinances (e.g. Queen Anne County, Md.; Clemson, S.C.) appear to allow some trade-offs between canopy, understory, and shrubs as long as an equivalent plant volume is maintained or exceeded. Similar allowances could be added to the pending ordinance for consideration. (4) FP&L concerns: protection of overhead utility lines Shortly after the Board invoked the pending ordinance doctrine and set the September 8th workshop date, FP&L contacted planning staff with suggested 7 additions to the county's landscape ordinance (see attachment #4). FP&L is requesting all local governments in the region to adopt their suggestions. Generally, the FP&L suggestions would result in the following: a. Add the following to the prohibited species list: Earleaf acacia, Woman's tongue, Norfolk Island Pine, Bishofia, Scheffiera, Ear tree, Eucalyptus, Non- native ficus, Sills oak, Chinese Tallow, and Java plum. b. Set minimum horizontal setbacks between overhead powerlines and trees as follows: September 8, 1997 •30' setback for trees 30' or taller at maturity •20' setback for trees 20'-30' at maturity M M M • 5' setback for trees shorter than 20' at maturity 82' plus "average frond length" for palms C. A 5' clearance between utility poles, guy wires, and transformers. FP&L has sent written justification for some of its requested items, and an FP&L vegetation management specialist is scheduled to attend the September 8th workshop to provide input and answer questions. Staff has not yet received justification for the prohibited species request. Staff notes that the proposed setbacks could conflict with many roadway/parking lot landscape strips. Two of FP&L's suggestions are already addressed: overhead lines are already required to be shown on landscape plans, and a pre-C.O. landscaping inspection is required. Staff notes that both FP&L and the City of Vero Beach are already on the TRC agenda mailout list, and can directly comment on any proposed site plan, P.D., or subdivision through the TRC review process. Avoiding future powerline conflicts should be balanced with allowing reasonable use of property (including reasonable setbacks to accommodate landscape strips) and provision of adequate roadway landscaping (including canopy trees). QUESTION #1 FOR THE BOARD: BASED UPON REVIEW OF THE EXISTING LDRS & PENDING ORDINANCE AND WORKSHOP DISCUSSION, DOES THE BOARD WISH TO DIRECT STAFF AT THIS TIME TO DELETE, MODIFY, OR ADD ANY PROVISIONS TO THE PENDING ORDINANCE? C. Maintenance & Enforcement Currently, after initial landscaping improvements are inspected and deemed to comply with the approved landscape plan, project sites are re -inspected for compliance and adequate maintenance as follows: 1. Ten months after project C.O., code officers re -inspect for compliance. Deficiencies are reported to the owner/manager prior to the expiration of any 1 year guarantees that may cover the landscaping. 2. When staff observes a violation. 3. When a complaint is received. 4. When a development (e.g. building addition) or redevelopment application is received on an existing project site. Compliance is achieved either through timely cooperation or formal Code Enforcement Board action. StaiTs experience is that this four part re -inspection policy is adequate. QUESTION #2 FOR THE BOARD: DOES THE BOARD AFFIRM STAFF'S PRESENT LANDSCAPING RE -INSPECTION POLICY? Public Sector Policies: Landscaping Within Public Rights -of -Way As the county develops and matures, major roadway projects are being designed and implemented that will represent long term or "ultimate" roadway conditions. The aesthetic impacts and opportunities presented by such projects require attention to the aesthetic results: how should the improved major roadways in the county look when a major project is finished? The aesthetic objective of landscaping in public rights-of-way is simply to enhance the appearance of major county roadways through landscaping. To that end, the Board indicated a commitment to reasonable and effective landscaping on two recent county road projects; namely, 58th Avenue and CR 512. However, general policy questions need to be addressed. These include: 7 September 8, 1997 460 BOOK 102. FAGS 467 (1) Expectations: How much landscaping is enough and what type of landscaping is appropriate? (2) Location: Which roadway segments should be landscaped? (3) Implementation: Who should be responsible for planning, designing, and installing landscaping? (4) Cost and Maintenance: Who should be responsible for performing maintenance and how will installation and maintenance costs be funded? A. Expectations The SR 60 Corridor Plan provides specific landscape and hardscape design expectations for SR 60, as well as funding and implementation policies (see attachment #5). Staff proposes that the Board consider setting general "expectation guidelines" for 3 different types of roadway sections: major urban, major rural, and major residential. Major urban roadway segments (e.g. 58th Avenue, SR 60) will generally have the heaviest traffic and greatest visual exposure to the public, and will have a curbed medianthat will allow for larger trees and will generally be free of utility conflicts and constraints. Therefore, staff's proposal, consistent with the approach being taken with the county's 58th Avenue road improvement project, is that the most intensive landscaping efforts be directed along selected segments of major urban roadways. An example "typical" urban road landscaping guideline is depicted in attachment #6. Larger trees, a variety of understory, shrubs and ground cover, with an irrigation system, would characterize an urban section median. Major rural roadway segments (e.g. CR 512) will generally have less traffic and visual exposure to the public compared to urban sections, and will have open medians that will allow for smaller understory trees but not larger canopy trees. Therefore, staff's proposal, consistent with previous Board input on the county's CR 512 road improvement project, is that less intensive landscaping be installed along selected segments of major rural roadways. An example "typical" rural road landscaping guideline is depicted in attachment #7. Drought tolerant understory trees and a limited variety of smaller plants, with no irrigation system provided, would characterize a rural section median. Major urban roads that run through developed residential areas (e.g. 43rd Avenue south of SR 60) present an opportunity for a community street tree effort. Such roadway segments generally do not have medians but are bordered by individually owned residential lots. Through a public/private coordinated effort, appropriate types of street trees could be planted in appropriate locations on privately owned lots that abut such streets. Individual owners would maintain such trees and benefit from the additional buffering from the roadway. The general public would benefit from the enhanced aesthetic appearance of the public roadway and avoid additional maintenance responsibilities and costs. A variety of canopy and understory trees adjacent to the sides of major urban roads in residential areas would characterize such a "street treed" roadway segment. B. Cost of Installation & Maintenance Costs of landscaping installation and maintenance are interrelated and can constrain landscaping design options. Proper selection of plant species and quantities, and proper plant placement, will have the greatest impact on maintenance costs. In some instances, a cheaper installation alternative such as sodding can be more expensive, in terms of maintenance, than another type of ground cover that has a higher installation cost. Therefore, total landscaping improvement costs must consider installation and maintenance over a given timeframe. Attachment #8 provides comparisons of estimated installation and maintenance costs, and will be explained at the September 8th workshop. September 8, 1997 M M M County obligations to fund landscaping improvements will vary depending upon roadway jurisdiction and alternative funding sources such as grants and private donations. For instance, during SR 60 Task Force workshops FDOT staff stated that, in regard to SR 60, landscaping installation could be funded by FDOT in conjunction with state road improvement projects (e.g. resurfacing, adding lanes) as long as the county agrees to maintain the landscaping. For county road projects such as the CR 512 project, all costs will be the county's obligation. In some instances highway beautification grants and enhancement fund grants could be applied for and administered by staff, although such duties would require additional staff time. Staff is also aware that private donations from citizens, civic organizations, and businesses are possible sources for specific, designated areas. For "big picture" planning purposes, the Board should assume that all maintenance costs will be borne by the county, that all county road landscaping installation costs will be borne by the county, and that state road landscaping installation costs will be borne by FDOT, where the county enters into an agreement with FDOT to maintain such landscaping. In regard to supply of landscaping material for installation and replacement, the county could consider using existing, unused county property to establish and maintain a nursery for county landscaping needs. Such material could be used exclusively or as a supplement for any given project. Such a nursery could ensure supplies of certain trees and/or plants in the great quantities that might be needed for extension projects. As of this time, staff has not researched the costs of such an operation. Currently, a limited number of Public Works personnel maintain county road rights-of-way. Special roadway landscaping will probably increase maintenance needs beyond present mowing requirements. In lieu of adding staff and performing maintenance in-house, the county could contract out special road or corridor maintenance duties to a private company. Such privatizing could be specifically costed -out on a project by project basis by accumulating private estimates or bids and could be a more efficient alternative to gearing up a new "program" with county staff. It should be noted that the City of Port Orange, which recently completed a significant landscaping project within its Dunlawton corridor, contracted -out to a private firm the performance of a corridor specific maintenance schedule. County funding of installation can be handled on a project -by -project basis under current practices if the cost of landscaping is a reasonable percentage of a road project budget. For instance, all county road projects have a "landscaping budget" for sod, and most projects, according to Public Works stag could support a special landscaping budget (landscaping above and beyond sodding) of 7°/.-10% of total project budget without additional, specially designated landscape funding. It appears that such funding could cover the costs of providing enhanced roadway landscaping similar to the previously discussed urban and rural guideline designs depicted in attachments 6 and 7. However, any additional maintenance needs that might arise -from enhanced landscaping will require specific funding. Such needs would be identified during project design and would require county (Board) action at that time to ensure adequate maintenance funding. QUESTION #3 FOR THE BOARD: CONSIDERING AESTHETIC EXPECTATIONS, ROAD AND UTILITY DESIGN CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES, AND INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS, DOES THE BOARD APPROVE THE PROPOSED URBAN AND RURAL LANDSCAPING SECTIONS AS GENERAL COUNTY GUIDELINES FOR IMPROVING DESIGNATED CORRIDORS? C. Implementation If approved, the guidelines will need to be implemented on a project by project basis. Landscaping improvements will need to be designed along with the design of the road improvements. For FDOT roadways designated by the county as special corridors (e.g. SR 0 September 8, 1997 RIM 11®OK 04! PAGE 404 60 and US 1), staff proposes that the SR 60 Corridor Plan process be used, whereby county staff is charged with coordinating with MOT and ensuring that county input is given and FDOT plans are reviewed for conformance with the county's aesthetic guidelines. Under such a process, where an FDOT/County maintenance agreement is required or proposed, landscaping design plans would be forwarded to the Board along with the required/proposed maintenance agreement. In regard to county road projects, a similar process should be established where an inter- departmental review is conducted to ensure that landscaping designs are prepared, are in accordance with the county's aesthetic guidelines, and are incorporated into road designs. Such landscaping plans would be forwarded to the Board at the appropriate time in the Board's approval process for the road project. QUESTION #4 FOR THE BOARD: DOES THE BOARD APPROVE THE FDOT ROADWAY PROJECT AND COUNTY ROADWAY PROJECT LANDSCAPING DESIGN REVIEW POLICIES DESCRIBED ABOVE, FOR DESIGNATED CORRIDORS? D. Designating Corridors for Special Right -of -Way Landscaping To date, the Board has targeted three major east -west principal arterial roadways for special corridor planning that includes a county commitment to special landscaping within the public right-of-way. Those three roads are: (1) CR 510 from 66th Avenue to SR A -1-A (plan adopted 1995) (2) SR 60 from 102nd Avenue to 43rd Avenue (plan adopted 1997) Note: within the SR 60 Corridor, the county has committed to special landscaping along 58th Avenue as part of a project to widen 58th Avenue. (3) CR 512 from I-95 eastward (plan to be initiated) Note: the county has committed to special landscaping along CR 512 from 108th Avenue to Roseland Road as part of a project to widen CR 512. In stall's opinion, these roadway segments represent the major east -west entryways into the north and south county communities, and are appropriate for public right-of-way landscaping. Another principal arterial roadway that is a major entryway to the county on its north and south ends is US 1 (see attachment #9). Therefore, in stafs opinion, the Board should designate CR 510, CR 512, SR 60, and US 1 (north and south county entrances) as roadways where the county will consider special public right-of-way landscaping on a project by project basis. QUESTION #5 FOR TBE BOARD: DOES THE BOARD WISH TO DESIGNATE CR 510, CR 512, SR 60, AND US 1 (NORTH AND SOUTH COUNTY ENTRANCES) AS ROADWAYS WHERE THE COUNTY WILL CONSIDER SPECIAL PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY LANDSCAPING ON A PROJECT BY PROJECT BASIS? Corridor Planning Aooroaches In addition to special landscaping in public rights-of-way, corridor plans address other, additional aesthetic aspects. The SR 60 corridor plan, for example, addresses several aspects of on-site landscaping, building and architectural requirements, color and graphics restrictions, special freestanding and facade sign regulations, special screening requirements, and median hardscape requirements. To date, two corridor plans have been adopted by the Board: the "Wabasso Corridor 10 September 8, 1997 M M M Plan" (November 1995), and the "State Road 60 Corridor Plan" (April 1997). Both plans were developed and workshopped by Board -appointed task forces, were reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board prior to adoption, and required 9-12 months of work to complete. The Board has directed staff to prepare a CR 512 corridor plan. Other major entryways could be considered for special corridor planning efforts. During development of the SR 60 Corridor Plan, there was discussion about applying corridor requirements along all or most major roadways in the county. At this time it is important for the Board to define special corridor areas in the county and adopt an approach for corridor planning. The approved approach will need to balance desires for unique approaches and requirements for different roadways against the creation of a myriad of differing requirements for various roadways throughout the county. Staff has outlined four basic corridor planning approaches for the Board to consider: A. Define all special corridors by Board consensus, appoint a task force for each corridor, and spend 9-12 months of effort for each corridor plan. In essence, this would follow the Wabasso and SR 60 models and would result in separate, completely unique plans and sets of plan requirements. B. Define all special corridors by Board consensus, and adopt (apply) existing corridor plan requirements from either the Wabasso Plan, the SR 60 Plan, or a mixture of both. This approach would take a small amount of time, would share consistency with the currently adopted plans but would not allow unique treatment or local community input. C. Define all special corridors by Board consensus, have staff draft a plan based on the Wabasso and/or SR 60 plans, and hold a few open workshops in the local community for input and adjustments. This approach would take a few months, would share consistency with the currently adopted plan and would allow some local community input. D. Perform no more corridor planning on the order of the Wabasso or SR 60 plans. Rather, rely on upgraded landscaping resulting from the countywide pending ordinance and the public right-of-way special landscaping on designated roads. QUESTION #6 FOR TBE BOARD: WHICH CORRIDOR PLANNING APPROACH DOES THE BOARD WANT STAFF TO TAKE? RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board conduct workshop discussion and address the six workshop questions raised in this report. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Chapter 926 (Existing LDRs) 2. Pending Ordinance (Now Being Applied) 3. Estimated Costs of the Pending Ordinance Requirements 4. FP&L Suggested Ordinance Additions and Justification 5. SR 60 Corridor Plan Public Sector Guidelines 6. Proposed Major Urban Roadway "Typical" Landscape Guideline 7. Proposed Major Rural Roadway "Typical" Landscape Guideline 8. Estimated Installation & Maintenance Costs 9. Map of Major Roadways & Corridors 11 September 8, 1997 BOOK _10 r PAGE � 1 t1 000K ' FAG€, Planning Director Stan Boling reviewed the purpose of the meeting and explained that it involved the Land Development Regulations and landscaping countywide. He then reviewed the issues as enumerated on the following Workshop Discussion Outline. 1. 2. 3. Private Sector Requirements: LDRs, Policies & Practices A. Current & Pending Ordinance Landscape LDRs B. Additional Possibilities (1) Pre -C.0. inspection for plant quality (2) Allowances for a shorter "pruned height" (3) Allowances for trading -off sizes for quantities (4) FP&L concerns: protecting overhead utility lines C. Maintenance & Enforcement: current re -inspection policy Public Sector Policies: Landscaping Within Public Rights -of -Way A. Expectations (1) SR 60 Corridor Plan: example of public sector expectations (2) County -wide expectations: typical landscape guidelines for selected roads a. Major urban road sections b. Major rural road sections C. Major urban roads in residential areas (street tree option) B. Cost of Installation & Maintenance (1) Comparison of installation and maintenance estimated costs (2) Installation and maintenance obligations and funding C. Implementation: (1) Require landscaping improvements to be factored into the design of major roadway projects (2) Designing for future utility uses and changes. D. Designating specific corridors for right-of-way landscaping: (1) Major urban and rural roads/entrances: US 1, SR 60, CR 512, CR 510. (2) Major urban roads in developed residential areas (e.g. 43rd Avenue). Corridor Planning Approaches A. Define all corridors, create task forces, 9-12 month workshop/plan effort. B. Define all corridors, apply "generic" corridor plan requirements (1) Apply Wabasso requirements to all corridors, or (2) Apply SR 60 requirements to all corridors, or (3) Apply a mixture of Wabasso and SR 60 plan elements C. Define all corridors, staff presents a plan, adjustments made through a limited number of workshops. D. No more corridor plans: merely apply enhanced landscaping LDRs and public right-of-way special landscaping on selected roads. *Note: no architectural, sign, color, or special screening requirements would apply. 12 September 8, 1997 In closing, Director Boling advised that landscaping contractors and architects had been sent packets and were present. He fiuther advised that other interested parties were specifically invited, as well as the public. He wanted to make it clear that no final decisions would be made this evening. Directions to staff concerning the pending ordinance and countywide landscaping regulations will go through the normal process with future public hearings. The Board may also give direction on related issues. Staff was also seeking input and direction from the Board of County Commissioners on the corridor planning approach. There were questions as to the type of planning, whether the planning should be different for each corridor, or if it should be generic. Chairman Eggert opened discussion with a question, and Director Boling clarified that Indian River Boulevard is functionally classified as a principal arterial roadway. Then Chairman Eggert voiced concern about a provision for landscaping bonds in extreme weather situations, such as hurricanes. Director Boling advised that there are no provisions presently. Landscaping is required to be completed prior to issuance of the CO. Under Quality/Quantity, Commissioner Tippin spoke in favor of using Florida No. 1 grade landscaping materials. He suggested training Code Enforcement officers so they can determine quality with respect to landscaping materials. Director Boling assured Commissioner Adams that the definition of "drought tolerant" was found in the classification of species section and is based on the St. John's guide. Commissioner Adams suggested that under the Landscape Maintenance and Replacement section, where trimming mature canopy trees is prohibited, that "except for disease or injury" was needed. Under "Location", Commissioner Ginn thought that green space in parking lots was inadequate and should be doubled (to 20%). She introduced photographs of the Wal-Mart and the Sam's (under construction) as examples of barrenness. Near SR -60 there were no cars parked and she felt there was no reason why there was not a larger buffer on SR -60. (Clerk's Note: These photographs have been placed in the meeting's backup file in the office of the Clerk to the Board.) She also wondered what had happened to the larger trees that were in that lot. 13 September 8, 1997 BOOK 10;2d PAGE 41174 BOOK 0,41, PAGE Q Discussion moved to problems of irrigation for large trees in a parking lot. Jens Tripson, landscape contractor, explained that having concrete around a large tree limits its growth; it becomes as though planted in a container. Robert Swift thought increasing green space in a parking lot to 20% sounded ideal, but felt that thought should be given as to whether or not anything would be gained by increasing the requirement. Dick Roseland suggested it might be better to try to dictate how the asphalt is placed so air can get to the roots of trees. Liz Gillick, landscape architect, believed better aesthetics in parking lots could be achieved through meaningful planning. Brian Combs commented that if you give tree credits and then pave over the roots of the trees, you have defeated the purpose of saving a tree. He agreed it would be necessary to increase the islands. Mr. Tripson suggested the parking lot islands be 10% wider. Peter Robinson saw problems with tree credits with regard to trees which have outlived their typical life span. Dean Leuthje recalled that, at one time, it was believed that by placing "breathing tubes" of 6" diameter PVC pipe around a tree, it would alleviate the problem being discussed. He wondered if it was still a correct philosophy. Commissioner Tippin thought it had not been successful. George F. Hamner, Jr, thought it was important to keep in mind that more green space should not just refer to grass. He suggested that staff could provide for balance, and the visual that the Board wanted, and they could just move the asphalt around so it is not so close to the trees. Keith Pelan suggested it might be wise to look at our parking requirements and, through that means, staff might be able to achieve what the Board wants to see. Director Boling pointed out that there is a provision for large shopping centers for 30% grassy out -areas for spill-over parking during the holiday shopping times. Mr. Robinson referred to attachment 7; he thought that putting all the tree requirements on the private sector was a mistake. He felt that the public sector must also provide trees in the road rights-of-way. 14 September 8, 1997 Mr. Hamner suggested a balance between the public and private sectors. Public Works Director Jim Davis pointed out that roadway construction and landscaping are governed by the FDOT greenbook mandates with respect to stormwater drainage, curb & gutter requirements, size of trees, and other concerns. Director Davis shared with the Board a photo from the Summer 1997 issue of a publication of the Florida Department of Transportation, Office of Policy Planning Forum illustrating the type of median planting they advocate. There was discussion about other cities and counties having nice parking lots and corridors which are not in compliance with FDOT mandates, and Commissioner Tippin thought we needed a better tradeoff and to get Tallahassee to be more reasonable. Commissioner Adams thought it might be a lack of communication; she favored the big trees for safety so as not to go across the median and hit an oncoming vehicle. There was a discussion about the distance apart large canopy trees should be planted. 15 September 8, 1997 There seemed to be agreement that 30' apart was a good distance. Mr. Swift suggested that a literal determination is sometimes not good. He thought the Board's intent was to have an encompassing canopy. There was then a discussion on how to enhance the growth of trees by extra nourishment and plenty of water. There was also discussion on the number of palm trees to create a canopy effect, and Mr. Robinson pointed out that there needed to be different standards for palm trees versus oak trees. Chairman Eggert reviewed page 4 of the memorandum and asked if there were any more questions. Commissioner Ginn raised the issue of walls versus fences saying that fences look bad quickly. There was a brief discussion about vinyl fences and look -alike -materials; plantings on both sides of a wall; and defining the buffering and camouflaging of loading areas and loading docks. With respect to loading docks, Commisioner Adams thought that each request be handled individually, especially since a business can sell to another who may use the loading dock differently. There was agreement that each site is different and regulations should be written to allow some flexibility. There was brief discussion concerning the request of FP&L with respect to tree planting. Their representative was unable to attend. Commisioner Adams commented that FP&L looks at trees differently, from a trimming and interference view. Many of FP&L's problems come from untended rights-of- way and tree installations by uneducated property owners. She believed the lines should be put underground. Mr. Dittman spoke from experience in a power company and advised that the trouble -shooting for outages in underground lines is much harder than looking for problems in overhead lines. Director Boling recalled that FP&L representatives have stated at meetings that their poles also accommodate cable TV and telephone lines. They have also stated that the underground lines' cost factor is very high. 16 September 8, 1997 Liz Gillick, landscape architect, gave a comprehensive opinion on trees and national standards for safety factors. She felt that each site should be considered separately. Chairman Eggert suggested staying with our old setbacks and specific problems could be addressed through site planning, such as historical trees. Chairman Eggert read the following question: 1. BASED UPON REVIEW OF THE EXISTING LDRS & PENDING ORDINANCE AND WORKSHOP DISCUSSION, DOES THE BOARD WISH TO DIRECT STAFF AT THIS TIME TO DELETE, MODIFY, OR ADD ANY PROVISIONS TO THE PENDING ORDINANCE? Chairman Eggert summarized the changes she had noted during the discussion and asked if there were any other comments or questions. Prompted by Commissioner Adams' question, there was discussion as to whether or not there was enough of the replacement 36" hedge material in the market. Consensus of landscapers was that it depends on how much needed to be replaced, which hinged on the initial quality and planting. There was also a brief discussion about whether or not fences are allowed on SR -60 corridor plan, and Director Boling explained that fences are allowed but plants are required on each side of the fence. There was also discussion about landscaping bond allowances for hardships in commercial or multifamily developments. There was consensus to leave the landscaping requirements to be completed at the time of C.O. Gene Waddell spoke in favor of berms along roadways in front of commercial and industrial buildings. The following items were noted by staff in attendance and were published on the Implementation Agenda: 17 September 8, 1997 BOOK 1-042 PAGE l"Id B®OK 10.-1-20 PAGE 477 No bonding out for landscaping except for disasters or freeze. Must meet minimum height standard on trees. Under pruning section, allow an exception for diseased and injured trees. Larger amount of interior green spaces - consider increasing planting island size and less parking spaces. Have some flexibility in requiring one tree per 30 linear feet. Different spacing for different size trees. Preference of walls over wooden fencing - consider alternative material for fencing. Define loading dock versus loading area. Consider utility lines underground, where possible. Consider berms around commercial and industrial buildings along roadways. Training for Code Enforcement officers. Consider giving out a brochure on maintenance of landscaping at time of C. O. Chairman Eggert read Question #2 as follows 2. DOES THE BOARD AFFIRM STAFFS PRESENT LANDSCAPING RE- INSPECTION POLICY? Inspect plantings in 6 months instead of 10 months. Commissioner Tippin gave reasons for his opinion that the landscape re -inspection policy be changed to 6 months instead of 10 months. Several spoke in favor of this change and Director Keating advised of on-going code enforcement with respect to landscaping. Chairman Eggert then read Question #3 as follows: 3. CONSIDERING AESTHETIC EXPECTATIONS, ROAD AND UTILITY DESIGN CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES, AND INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS, DOES THE BOARD APPROVE THE PROPOSED URBAN AND RURAL LANDSCAPING SECTIONS AS GENERAL COUNTY GUIDELINES FOR IMPROVING DESIGNATED CORRIDORS? Director Boling briefly reviewed the backup regarding question #3. Commissioner Ginn was concerned about the maintenance being done by the State on SR -60, west of 661 Avenue. A discussion ensued which included a suggestion to remember the need for maintenance on the roadways when addressing the funding of Director Davis' Public Works 18 September 8, 1997 Department. There was discussion on the ultimate size of Indian River Boulevard and Director Davis gave 10 years as his estimate for the completion of its 64anes. He noted that it will be rural design. He described the reasons for the cost differential between rural and urban sections of roadways, estimating that urban is about double the cost of rural. Ms. Gillick urged the Board to encourage the philosophy of aesthetics with respect to landscaping. Discussion continued about aesthetics, and Mr. Hamner suggested the Board was being asked to charge staff with being highly creative where possible. Mr. Gibbs brought up the County having a nursery, and it was the consensus of the Board that it was not a good idea. Approved with flexibility; encourage more and bigger trees on rural road sections. Chairman Eggert read Question #4: 4. DOES THE BOARD APPROVE THE FDOT ROADWAY PROJECT AND COUNTY ROADWAY PROJECT LANDSCAPING DESIGN REVIEW POLICIES DESCRIBED IN THE WORKSHOP REPORT, FOR DESIGNATED CORRIDORS? With limited discussion, consensus of the Board was "yes". Chairman Eggert read Question #5: 5. DOES THE BOARD WISH TO DESIGNATE CR 510, CR 512, SR 60, AND US 1 (NORTH AND SOUTH COUNTY ENTRANCES) AS ROADWAYS WHERE THE COUNTY WILL CONSIDER SPECIAL PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY LANDSCAPING ON A PROJECT BY PROJECT BASIS? There was a brief discussion and the following suggestions were made: Include Indian River Boulevard Consider CR -510 and CR -512 all the way to US# 1 Possibly consider Oslo Road in the future on/off ramps from I-95 19 September 8, 1997 BOJK 102PAGE 478 BOOK IU2 PAGE 4 r 9 May be able to get people who live in the area to help maintain landscaping - include some mechanism to work out a private agreement for maintenance. Chairman Eggert read Question #6: 6. WHICH CORRIDOR PLANNING APPROACH DOES THE BOARD WANT STAFF TO TAKE? After a comprehensive discussion, the Board reached consensus and chose Item C. Discussion then centered on possible corridor plans for US#1 and several opinions were expressed. Director Davis pointed out that US# 1 is unique with the railroad nearby. He explained that there is insufficient depth on the western side of US# 1 for right-of-way in many areas.. There is a need to treat US# 1 differently. Gene Waddell thinks US#1 will start to see rejuvenation and we have to get a plan out there, or we will end up with more of what we have now. Chairman Eggert suggested they could adopt the SR -60 plan with allowances for the railroad and depth. Commissioner Ginn asked about the swales on Indian River Boulevard, and Director Davis explained that those swales are located on "cap rock" and the water will not percolate. He would like to shape the swales more gently, but some of it cannot be removed. Chairman Eggert wanted to know that berms will be continued on SR -60. Commissioner Tippin recalled that berms were first known as "John's Island lumps" in Indian River County. He thought it was great to see community interest in landscaping, aesthetics, and maintenance. He suggested that County Agent Dan Culbreath (in audience) might be able to find diplomatic ways to get new residents and developers to comply, 20 September 8, 1997 perhaps through a pamphlet or booklet, which might be given at the time the Certificate of Occupancy is issued. There being no further business, on motion duly made, seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 9:24 p.m. ATTEST: J. K. Barton, Clerk Minutes Approved September 8, 1997 d -7 21 Carolyn K. ggert, Chan BOOK 102 PAGE 80