HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/1/1997MINUTES"I'TACHED
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
A G E N D A
SPECIAL MEETING
MONDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1997
5:01 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
5:01 p.m. 1. First Hearing: Review of Proposed LDR (Land Development
Regu!xticn) A.rrf:F--Arr. r ,n No- Rv1^"ed to I andscaping Requirements
(n. em undum dated 'November 25, 1997)
2. First Hearing: Proposed Landscaping LDR Amendments
(memorandum dated November 24, 1997)
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 least 48 hours in advance
of meeting.
BOOK PAGE"45
BOOK 10J, PAGE 546
INDEX TO MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING
OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DECEMBER 1, 1997
CALL TO ORDER .................................................. .1-
1. FIRST HEARING: REVIEW OF PROPOSED LDR (LAND
DEVELOPMENT REGULATION) AMENDMENTS NOT RELATED TO
LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENT
.................................... ..........................
1-
1(1). Commercial Nurseries in Agricultural Areas (Chapter 911) ....... -6-
1(2). Corrections of Scrivener's Errors (Chapters 911 AND 971) ........7-
1(3). Drive -Through Lane Width (Chapter 952) ...................... 7-
1(4) County Review and Permitting of Seawalls in the City of Vero Beach
(Sections 932.06 and 932.09) ................................ .7-
1(5). Setbacks for Fruit Spreading (Chapters 911 and 917) ............. 7-
1(6). Vehicles Ancillary to Office Uses (Chapters 911 and 917) ..........8-
2. FIRST HEARING: PROPOSED LANDSCAPING LDR (LAND
DEVELOPMENT REGULATION) AMENDMENTS .................. 8-
2(l).
Canary Island Date Palms .................................
.19-
2(2).
Interior Parking Requirements .............................
.19-
2(3).
Installed Required Landscape Materials .....................
.20-
2(4).
Proposed Pruning Restriction ..............................
.20-
2(5).
Proposed Roadway Landscape Buffer ........................
.20-
2(6).
Powerlines and Landscaping ...............................
.20-
2(7).
Special Buffering Requirements for Loading Docks that are Proposed
on Sites Adjacent to Residential Areas ....................... .20 -
DEC ER 1, 1997
December 1, 1997.
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, met in
Special Session at the County Commission Chambers, 1840 25' Street, Vero Beach,
Florida, on Monday, December 1, 1997, at 5:01 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; Charles
P. Vitunac, County Attorney; and Patricia "PJ" Jones, Deputy Clerk.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Eggert called the meeting to order at 5:01 p.m..
1. FIRST HEARING: REVIEW OF PROPOSED LDR (LAND
DEVELOPMENT REGULATION) AMENDMENTS NOT
RELATED TO LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENT
DECEMBER 1, 1997 -1- GOOK 103 PAGE 547
BOOK 1.0i PAGE 1548
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE OF AMENDMENT TO LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
(LDRS) CHANGING THE LIST OF PERMITTED USES WITHIN THE A-1,
A-2, A-3, PRO, OCR, CN, CL, AND CG ZONING DISTRICTS, AND
AMENDING THE FOLLOWING CHAPTERS OF THE LAND
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (LDRS): CHAPTER 911, ZONING;
CHAPTER 917, ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES; CHAPTER 926,
LANDSCAPE AND BUFFER REGULATIONS; CHAPTER 932, COASTAL
MANAGEMNSCEICHAPTER FOR SPECIFIC LAND USE CRITERIA; ANPROVIDING
FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS, CODIFICATION,
SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA PROPOSES TO ADOPT AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING PERMITTED USES ALLOWED WITHIN THE A-), A-2, A-3,
PRO, OCR, CN, CL, AND CG ZONING DISTRICTS. THESE AND
OTHER AMENDMENTS WILL BE CONSIDERED FOR ADOPTION, AS
FOLLOWS: -p
1. Increasing and clarifying landscaping�' requirements countywide
for new development and redevelopment projects (Chapters
911 and 926).
2. Clarifying commercial nursery and greenhouse uses in agricul-
tural areas: restricting such uses to cultivation and wholesaling
activities (Chapter 911).
3. Specifying standards for minimum allowable driving aisle
widths for drive -up window facilities (Chapter 952).
4.Establishing setback standards for dump)ng and s reading fruit
le.g. citrus) on ogrialtural properties (Chapters 911 and 917).
S.
Specifying standards for uses that consist primarily of office
uses but have other accessory uses (Chapters 911 and 917).
6. Corrections to scrivener's errors and inadvertent omissions in
existing ordinance sections (Chapters 911 and 9711.
7. Specifying that the corny s coastal management ordinance
sections 932.06 and 932.09 (e.g. seawall permitting) opply to
oceanfront properties in the City of Vero Beach (Chapter 932).
A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ORDINANCE AMENDING USES
WITHIN THE A-1, A-2, A-3, PRO, OCR, CN, CL, AND CG ZONING
DISTRICTS, AND THE OTHER DESCRIBED AMENDMENTS, WILL BE
HELD ON MONDAY, -DECEMBER 1, 1997 AT 5:01 P.M. AND ON
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1997 AT 9:05 A.M. AT THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CHAMBERS, 1840 25th STREET, VERO
BEACH, FLORIDA. A COPY OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE WILL BE
AVAILABLE FOR THE PUBLIC BEGINNING NOVEMBER 25, 1997, IN
THE OFFICE OF 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 OPOSED WOULD BE EFFECTIVE
IN THE UNINCORPORATED AAREA OOF NDIAIF N RIVER COUNTY, AS
DEPICTED ON THE LOCATION MAP SHOWN BELOW.
f
:gHYq egKq COLMTT- YNgfCOgYOqATHD AgHA
Please direct planning -related questions to the current
development planning section at 567- 8000, ext. 242.
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- Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman
DECEMBER 1, 1997 � _
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 25, 1997:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. Keating, AICP
Community Development Director
/4 r> -
FROM: Stan Boling, AICP
Planning Director
DATE: November 25, 1997
SUBJECT: First Hearing: Review of Proposed LDR (Land Development Regulation)
Amendments Not Related to Landscaping Requirements
It is requested that the data hs -if n prrsarcted be given f,rmJ-- consideraf:ion by the Board of County
Commissioners at its special meeting of December 1, 1997.
BACKGROUND:
There are six proposed LDR amendments not related to landscaping requirements. These
amendments are being presented separate from proposed landscaping ordinance changes for ease of
discussion. It should be noted that proposed landscaping ordinance changes will also be presented
and considered at the Board's December 1st special meeting. All of the proposed changes have been
reviewed by the Professional Services Advisory Committee (PSAC) and the Planning and Zoning
Commission. Recommendations of the PSAC and the Planning and Zoning Commission (see
attachment #6) are noted in the analysis section of this report.
The proposed changes are summarized as follows:
1 • Clarifying commercial nursery and greenhouse uses in agricultural areas: restricting such uses
to cultivation, wholesaling activities and accessory uses (Chapter 911).
2. Corrections to scrivener's errors and inadvertent omissions in existing ordinance sections
(Chapters 911 and 971).
3. Specifying standards for minimum allowable driving aisle widths for drive -up window
facilities (Chapter 952).
4. Specifying that the county's coastal management ordinance sections 932.06 and 932.09 (e.g.
seawall permitting) apply to oceanfront properties in the City of Vero Beach.
5. Establishing setback standards for spreading fiuit (e.g. citrus) on agricultural properties
(Chapters 911 and 917).
6. Specifying standards for uses that consist primarily of and are treated as office uses but have
other accessory uses (Chapters 911 and 917).
The Board of County Commissioners will consider the proposed changes at two hearings (December
1st and December 16th). At the first hearing, it is the Board's duty to consider each amendment and
direct staff to make any changes deemed necessary. At the second hearing, the Board will take final
action on the proposed ordinance.
DECEMBER 1, 1997 -3- BOOK 0-3 FAGS') 9
BOOK 103 PAGE 50
ANALYSIS:
The six proposed LDR amendments have been incorporated into the attached ordinance (see
attachment # 1). Each amendment is described and explained as follows.
1. Commercial Nurseries in Agricultural Areas.
This amendment is intended to codify long-standing policy to differentiate between
"commercial nurseries and greenhouses" allowed in the agricultural zoning districts under the
"Agricultural" general use category heading and the "retail nurseries and garden supplies"
retail trade use category allowed in the CL, CG, and CH districts. Clarification is needed to
address limitations for establishments like The Landscape Stop, which was required through
recent code enforcement action to curtail retail aspects of its nursery operation.
The intent of the amendment is to more clearly specify the difference between allowable
agricultural uses/corresponding arcessory uses and primarily retail nurseries (e.g. Busy Bee
Nursery). The proposed amendment specifies that the commercial nursery and greenhouse
uses allowed in agricultural districts shall consist primarily of cultivation (e.g. raising plants
in the ground or in containers) and wholesaling activities (volume sales to contractors and
businesses, delivery, and installation). Some limited retail sales that are accessory to
wholesaling activities would continue to be allowed as an accessory use (see definition of
wholesale trade and accessory use, attachment #1). In staffs opinion, the specific limitations
proposed are needed to draw necessary distinctions between wholesale and retail nurseries.
PSAC Recommendation: The PSAC recommends approval of this proposal.
PZC Recommendation: The PZC recommends approval of this proposal.
2. Correction of Scrivener's Error.
The item 2.A change is needed to correct a scrivener's error. It should be noted that general
automotive repair is a permitted use in the CG district; therefore the lesser intense repair use
referenced in this change is also a permitted use in the CG district. Also, this change is
consistent with Chapter 971 specific land use criteria.
The item 2.B. change is needed to correct a scrivener's error and to make this section
consistent with the Chapter 911.10(4) use table.
The item 2.C. changes are needed to correspond to proper numbering in LDR section
971.44(1).
PSAC Recommendation: The PSAC recommends approval of proposals A, B, and C.
PZC Recommendation: The PZC recommends approval of proposals A, B, and C.
3. Drive-through Lane Width
The existing LDRs require one-way driveways to have a minimum width of 12' [reference
LDR section 952.12(5)]. However, for years staffs policy has been not to rigidly apply that
standard to one way driveways used for drive-through queuing lanes rather than through
lanes. Instead, widths for such lanes have been determined on a project by project basis by
traffic engineering. Projects have been approved by traffic engineering with queuing lane
widths as narrow as 8' and 91.
Staff is of the opinion that the LDRs should set a specific standard for these types of lanes,
rather than requiring traffic engineering to make a determination on a project by project basis.
Traffic engineering is of the opinion that any queuing lane having a functional width of less
than 9' at any point in its length would be too narrow to accommodate some passenger
vehicles. Therefore, traffic engineering is proposing a 9' wide (unobstructed) minimum width
for queuing lanes." Please see the attached memos from traffic engineering (see attachment
#2). It should be noted that, after discussion at the October 16, 1997 PSAC meeting, the
traffic engineer decided not to propose a specific requirement for a by-pass lane for all drive-
through facilities.
PSAC Recommendation: The PSAC recommends approval of this proposal.
PZC Recommendation: The PZC recommends approval of this proposal.
4. County Review & Permitting of Seawalls in the City of Vero Beach
On February 18, 1997, the City Council of the City of Vero Beach adopted ordinance number
97-07, which repealed Article I -Local Beach Restoration and Article II -Major Beach and
Dune Restoration of Chapter 75 of the city's code (see attachment #3). Since that time, the
DECEMBER 1, 1997
county's Public Works Department and the Community Development Department, in
cooperation with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), have reviewed
permit applications for seawalls and rigid shoreline stabilization methods within the municipal
limits of the City of Vero Beach. This LDR change is needed to make LDR section 932.04
consistent with the current arrangement that the county review and permit seawalls in the City
of Vero Beach. Sections 932.06 (dune and shoreline protection) and 932.09 (sea turtle
protection) are referenced in the proposed change and are contained in attachment #4.
5. Setbacks for Fruit Spreading
Int nnittent spreading of fruit (e.g. citrus) on agricultural property for livestock feed or as a
soil additive is an historical and accepted practice in the county. However, recent dumping
near roadways has created nuisance situations and raised aesthetic concerns. County staff
from solid waste, environmental health, planning and the county attorney's office recently met
with Commissioner Adams in whose district some of the nuisance has occurred. At the
meeting there was a consensus that the practice of fiwt spreading should be allowed to be
continued, that the fruit should not be placed in the landfill, and that setbacks for fruit that is
dumped and spread need to be established from public roads and occupied structures (to
avoid nuisances) and from waterways and wells (for health reasons). The various setback
figures contained in the proposal are based upon relevant environmental health standards and
nuisance abatement setbacks used in the county's existing debris burning ordinance.
Also, it should be noted that the proposed amendment treats fluit spreading as an allowable
accessory use on agriculturally zoned property, subject to the special setbacks. No planning
approval or permitting approval would be required in order to dump and spread the fiuit.
However, the proposed setbacks could be enforced through code enforcement procedures and
the environmental control board. During the AAC (Agriculture Advisory Committee) meeting
at which this proposal was reviewed, county extension director Dan Culbert stated that his
research indicates there are no negative health or environmental impacts from fruit spreading.
Even so, AAC members believe that the proposed 200' setbacks (from public roads, private
wells, and water bodies) should be increase to 500'.
PSAC Recommendation: The PSAC recommends approval of the proposal.
PZC Recommendation: The PZC recommend approval of the proposal.
AAC Recommendation: The AAC recommends approval of the proposal with a change: that
the 200' setbacks referenced in the proposal be increased to 500'.
6. Vehicles Ancillary to Office Uses
This amendment is proposed at the request of the Planning and Zoning Commission. At its
October 23, 1997 meeting the Commission, after voting to uphold a staff determination that
a limousine service is principally an office use that is allowed in the OCR (Office,
Commercial, Residential) district, directed staff to codify the determination into the LDRs.
In response to that directive, staff has drafted an LDR amendment that establishes criteria for
vehicles that are part of an office use or a transportation use that involves only the types of
vehicles allowed in residential areas by the zoning code. The criteria will restrict materials
kept on site (e.g. prohibiting storage of construction materials) and will restrict the types of
vehicles kept on site to only the types of vehicles allowed in residential areas (see attachment
#5). Another of the criteria involves the "25% rule", which reflects a long-standing staff
policy on traffic impact fee determinations, whereby secondary uses are allowed to occupy
up to 25% of a structure while the overall use of the structure is determined based on the
remaining 75+0/o. The proposed criteria will limit the total number of "residential" vehicles
kept on site to 25% of the number of spaces required for the site's office use.
PSAC Recommendation: The PSAC recommends approval of the proposal.
PZC Recommendation: The PZC recommends approval of the proposal.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners:
Direct staff to make any necessary changes to the proposed ordinance; and
2. Announce its intentions to take final action on the proposed ordinances at the Board's hearing
scheduled for 9:05 am. on December 16, 1997, to be held in the County Commission
Chambers.
DECEMBER 1, 1997 -5- HOOK PAGE 551
FF__ -1
BOOK PACE bjz
Planning Director Stan Boling advised this is the first of 2 public hearings. Staff is
asking for directives regarding the changes.
1(1). COMMERCIAL NURSERIES INAGRICULTURAL AREAS (CHAPTER 911)
Chairman Eggert was concerned about commercial nurseries who do some
cultivation in residential areas behind their commercial operation, and Director Boling
advised these changes would not affect those who are currently operating in those areas
and have been "grandfathered" in.
Commissioner Adams wanted the record to reflect that she has a wholesale nursery
in an agricultural area but that this particular amendment does not contain any financial
benefit to her.
County Attorney Vitunac confirmed that his office had determined that
Commissioner Adams would not have a personal financial gain from this amendment and
that the law requires her vote.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard
in this matter.
Jim Christiansen, the owner of Releaf Trees, emphasized that there is a definite
distinction between commercial wholesale and commercial retail sales with 2 different
markets involved. Commercial wholesalers sell in bulk form to retail outlets such as
Horizon Nursery, Rock City Nursery, and Wal-Mart, and their business is not directed at
the general public.
General discussion ensued regarding advertising and accessory uses.
Commissioner Adams stated that the biggest distinction between the wholesale and
retail business is that the commercially zoned retail nursery must provide benefits to the
public that the wholesale nursery does not; such as handicapped restrooms, parking,
inspections, additional code compliance and permits. Staff is attempting to protect their
additional investment in these businesses.
Mr. Christiansen felt that retail sales should be banned from agriculturally zoned
property.
DECEMBER 1, 1997 _
Environmental and Code Enforcement Chief Roland DeBlois advised that the
Code Enforcement Board had determined that any advertisement by a wholesaler must be
worded so that it could not be interpreted as retail sales.
Commissioner Adams agreed that enforcement is a problem and pointed out that
someone in the wholesale business buys for resale and provides a sales tax exempt
certificate. The State Department of Revenue audits nurseries and determines exactly
what percentage of sales were retail and which were wholesale.
sales.
Commissioner Macht suggested the deletion of the reference to "occasional retail"
Director Keating felt that, judging from the Board's discussion, the language
should be changed to indicate that there may be no retail activity occurring on the site.
The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to be heard in this matter. There being
none, she closed the public hearing.
1(2). CORRECTIONS OF SCRIVENER'S ERRORS (CHAPTERS 911 AND 971]
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard
in this matter. There being none, she closed the public hearing.
1(3). DRIVE-THROUGHLANE WIDTH (CHAPTER 952,)
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard
in this matter. There being none, she closed the public hearing.
1(4) COUNTY REVIEW AND PERMITTING OF SEA WALLS IN THE CITY OF
VERO BEACH (SECTIONS 932.06 AND 932.09,
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard
in this matter. There being none, she closed the public hearing.
I (S). SETBACKS FOR FRUIT SPREADING (CHAPTERS 911 AND 9171
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard
in this matter.
Commissioner Adams stated that the Agricultural Advisory Committee suggested
an increase in the setback from a public road from 200 feet to 500 feet. She felt that was
excessive but suggested a median of 300 feet.
DECEMBER 1, 1997 -7- BOOK 103
pnsc o
BOOK 103 PAGE bA
After further discussion, Chairman Eggert announced that a CONSENSUS was
reached to increase the setback to 300 feet. (CLERK'S NOTE: SEE MOTION ON
PAGE 21.)
The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to be heard in this matter. There being
none, she closed the public hearing.
1(6). VEHICLES ANCILLARY TO OFFICE USES (CHAPTERS 911 AND 917)
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard
in this matter.
Commissioner Adams questioned whether this change will affect the Council on
Aging, and Director Boling advised that they are located in a commercial district.
Connie Gates of 9707 US# 1 questioned whether other transportation services
would be included, such as fait hauling trucks, and Director Boling responded that type
of vehicle is not allowed in a residential area.
Commissioner Ginn questioned whether 3 or 4 community coaches would be
allowed, and Director Keating advised that mini -vans would be allowed.
Chairman Eggert asked staff to make certain the change would not affect the
Council on Aging.
Ms. Gates then expressed her concern that a construction office could maintain an
office with large vehicles such a dump trucks going in and out of the area several times
during the day, and Director Boling responded that use would not be allowed in a
residential area.
The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to be heard in this matter. There being
none, she closed the public hearing.
2. FIRST HEARING: PROPOSED LANDSCAPING LDR (LAND
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONI AMENDMENTS
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 24, 1997:
DECEMBER 1, 1997
� � r
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
DMSION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
arc
Robert M. Keating, CP
Community Development Director
FROM: Stan Boling, AICP
Planning Director
DATE: November 24, 1997
SUBJECT: First Hearing: Proposed Landscaping LDR Amendments
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commission:x- its special meeting of Decerrber 1, 1997.
BACKGROUND:
At its meeting of June 26, 1997, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and accepted
Proposed landscaping amendments and considered a request from the PSAC to hold a joint workshop
on landscaping issues. The Commission then voted to direct staff to set-up a PSAC/Planning and
Zoning Commission/Board of County Commissioners public workshop on landscaping issues. The
Planning and Zoning Commission also voted to recommend that the Board invoke the "pending
ordinance doctrine" for the proposed ordinance until the county holds the joint workshop and
considers final adoption of revised landscaping requirements.
On July 22, 1997, the Board of County Commissioners reviewed proposed landscaping amendments
and invoked the pending ordinance doctrine for a proposed ordinance that modifies the county's
existing landscaping requirements. Since that time, county staff has applied the pending ordinance
requirements to new applications for development and re -development projects countywide. At that
same July 22nd meeting, in response to a request from the Planning and Zoning Commission, PSAC,
and staff; the Board 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. That workshop was held on September 8, 1997.
During the workshop, the Board provided staff direction on various landscaping issues (see
attachment #1). Issues related to public right -of --way landscaping enhancements, corridor planning,
and code enforcement landscaping inspection practices were addressed at the workshop and are being
implemented outside of the context of the landscaping LDRs. However, private development
responsibilities are being addressed and implemented through the proposed landscaping amendments
now being considered. At its October 16, 1997 meeting, the PSAC recommended that the Board of
County Commissioners adopt the proposed landscaping LDR amendments. Likewise, at its
November 13, 1997 meeting the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that the Board
adopt the proposed ordinance, with some minor modifications (see attachment #2). Those minor
modifications have been incorporated into the proposed ordinance (see attachment #3).
The Board of County Commissioners will consider these proposed changes, as well as amendments
not related to landscaping, at two hearings (December 1 st and December 16th). At the first hearing,
it is the Board's duty to consider each amendment and direct staff to make any changes deemed
necessary. At the second hearing, the Board will take final action on a proposed ordinance.
ANALYSIS:
At the September 8th workshop, the Board generally re -affirmed support for the version of
landscaping amendments proposed at that time. Those changes include increased road frontage
landscaping, increased sizes for material required to be replanted, and increase buffer requirements
for taller buildings located closer to property lines. However, at the workshop the Board gave
direction to modify or consider modifying certain aspects of the amendments. Based on the Board's
direction, staff has made post -workshop changes to the proposed amendments. These changes are
highlighted by bold italics in the attached "Post Workshop Version" now under consideration, and
are explained as follows.
1. [Page 1 of the amendments] Specific reference to Canary Island date palms is used as an
example of a palm tree type that could be treated as a canopy tree at a 1:1 ratio (without
clustering).
DECEMBER 1, 1997 -9- 800K I U 13 PAGE
BOOK 10i PAGE b
2. [Page 2 & 3 of the amendments] Changes to interior parking requirements are proposed that
would ensure that the current 10% interior parking landscaping requirement will result in an
adequate volume of vegetation within parking and driveway areas. It should be noted that
in 1991 the county's parking lot interior i-^Rdscaping area requirement was increased from 5%
to 101/6 to match the City of Vero Beach requirement and to ensure better landscape effect.
The changes now proposed clarify what areas constitute "parking area" and tighten up the
landscape areas that can count toward meeting the requirement. In staffs opinion, most
currently approvable project designs provide adequate interior parking lot landscaping in
meeting the 10% requirement. However, some types of designs for larger parking lots have
not resulted in the desired appearance. The result of the proposed changes will be to preclude
those types of designs by restricting interior landscape credit for some green areas which are
on the perimeter of but not interior to, parking areas. Therefore, the proposed changes
would more strictly require the 10% of green area to be tally interior to proposed parking lots
(see graphic attached to proposed ordinance).
The number of trees required within these interior parking landscape areas will not change;
so the one tree per 300 square feet of vehicular open space requirement will remain as is.
Also, the proposed approach will not increase the 10% requirement. However, revised
changes will require minimurn green area dimensions of 10' around locations of required tree
plantings. This change will result in more green area around required parking lot trees so that
trees can better attain a healthy maturity and size. The effect should be fuller, larger tree
canopies within parking lot areas.
Also, language from the SR 60 Corridor Plan has been inserted to address potential
landscaping sight distance problems at intersections of internal driving aisles. The
requirement establishes a visual "clear window" at the ends of landscape islands located at
such intersections.
3. [Page 3 of the amendments] To address concerns about the quality of installed required
landscape materials, the project landscape architect or landscape contractor will be required
to certify in writing prior to C.O. that:
a. he or she has inspected the installed required material, and
b. the installed required material meets the existing Chapter 926 quality standard,
namely, Florida No. 1 or better.
It should be noted that landscape material above and beyond required minimums (e.g. extra
trees and ornamental landscaping) would not be subject to the quality standards. The quality
certification would be similar to and in addition to the overall project certification that is
required of the project engineer or architect under the current ordinance. Aside from this
proposed certification requirement, and outside of the formal structure of the LDRs, staff
training for inspecting plant quality and developer/owner information on landscape quality
issues are being addressed by planning and code enforcement staff in coordination with the
agricultural extension agent.
In addition, specifications for allowing a developer to bond -out for required landscaping are
proposed Such bonding -out would be allowed only in the event that a disaster (e.g. freeze
or hurricane) adversely affects availability of landscape materials and the Board formally
recognizes such a disaster and sets timeframes for delayed installation. Also, a second type
of bonding -out allowance is specified for situations where installation of certain required
landscaping needs to be delayed due to conflicts with adjacent road construction. An example
of such a situation occurred with the Home Depot and Eckerds projects on 58th Avenue,
south of SR 60. For those projects, the county agreed to allow bonding -out installation of
the 58th Avenue Home Depot/Eckerds landscape strips because 58th Avenue construction
(including the location of temporary construction easements) would conflict with the normal
timing of installation. Both bonding -out allowances proposed in the LDR amendments would
require the posting of security in.the auaoumt of 115%7 of the installation bid prise, similar to
existing bonding -out provisions for required subdivision improvements.
4. [Page 4 of the amendments] An exception has been added to a proposed pruning restriction.
The exception would allow the pruning of any dead or diseased wood of a canopy tree,
regardless of the impact on the canopy size.
5. [Page 5 of the amendments] The proposed roadway landscape buffer has been altered slightly
to require fewer canopy trees per lineal feet when such trees are larger than the standard 10'
minimum.
6. [Page 6 ofthe amendments] Although the Board, at the September 8th workshop, determined
that the tree Placement standards and restrictions proposed by FP&L would be too restrictive
and contrary to establishing adequate landscaping adjacent to roadways, some alternative
standards were discussed. In staffs opinion, the county should address the issue of
DECEMBER 1, 1997 -10-
powerlines and landscaping to ensure that landscaping efforts are not wasted by putting the
wrong tree in the wrong place, resulting in severely pruned canopies in the future. Therefore,
staff proposes to "designate" a 30' zone next to high voltage powerlines (the area of FP&L's
concerns) as an area requiring special attention in regard to canopy tree placement and species
selection. For projects proposing to locate landscaping within this 30' zone, staffs proposal
would require applicants to estimate the size and shape of the future mature tree canopy in
relation to the actual horizontal and vertical location of adjacent powerlines. The amendments
would require a minimum distance of 3' from the estimated edge of mature tree canopy to a
powerline. The 3' separation distance is based upon -the National Electric Safety Code
standard of requiring a 3' separation from an electrical service drop to an adjacent structure
to avoid arcing between the electrical service and the adjacent structure. The 3' distance is
also consistent with FP&L's suggested distance between powerlines and the edge of adjacent
palm tree fronds.
[Page 8 of the amendments) Changes have been made to special buffering requirements for
loading docks that are proposed on sites adjacent to residential areas. As now proposed, an
8' wall requirement would apply only to projects that normally require frequent dock use (e.g.
grocery stores, department stores, and big box retail). This approach was suggested at the
June 26th PSAC meeting, and is now incorporated within the proposed amendments. Also,
language similar to existing landscaping ordinance wording is proposed in regard to loading
docks to ensure that the 8' wall would not be required where an intervening building or
structure screens the dock from view from adjacent residential property.
In staff s opinion, these proposed post -workshop changes reflect input and direction given by the
Board at the September 8th workshop. Other matters addressed at the workshop, such as roadside
landscaping provided by the public, fiuther corridor planning, and staff training and landscaping
inspection practices, are being handled outside of the LDR amendment process.
RECOMMENDATION.•
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners:
Direct staff to make any necessary changes to the landscaping amendments and incorporate
such amendments into an LDR ordinance; and
2. Announce its intentions to take final action on the proposed amendments at the Board's
hearing scheduled for December 16, 1997 at 9:05 am.
POST WORKSHOP VERSION
PROPOSED LANDSCAPING/BUFFER LDR CHANGES
(REVISED 11/14/97)
1. TREE SIZE REQUIREMENTS
Amending landscaping chapter 926.06(2):
(2) Drought tolerance requirements. A minimum of fifty (50) percent of total
cumulative landscape plant material used to meet the provisions of this chapter
shall be "moderately" or "very" drought tolerant, as classified and listed in the most
recent edition of the "South Florida Water Management District Xeriscape Plant
Guide" or a comparable publication. Existing native plant species preserved on-
site may be considered as credit toward the drought tolerance percentage
requirement.
Amend landscaping chapter section 926.06(3)(a) -(d) as follows:
(3) Trees.
(a) Canopy trees
1. CanoDV trees shall be species having an average mature spread of
crown of greater than fifteen (15) feet (under local climatic
conditions) and eventually having a trunk(s) with over five (5) feet
of clear wood.
2. Installed canopy trees shall be considered "mature" 7 years after
installation.
DECEMBER 1, 1997 -11-
BOOK 103 PaGE a`�57
BOOK IUj FAGEbj
3 Clusters of palms can be used as a canopy tree provided that a
minimum of 3 palms are clustered to equal one canopy tree
However. the 3 to I clustering requirement can be reduced or
eliminated by the community development director or his designee
for palms with large canopies such as Canary Island date palms
4. "Clear wood" refers to that portion of the trunk between the
ground and the lowest lateral limbs.
(b) Trees having an average mature spread of crown less than fifteen (15) feet
may be substituted by grouping the same so as to create the equivalent of a
fifteen -foot crown spread.
(c) Palms clusters shall be considered trees. ani Palms. if used, shall
consist of no more than fifty (50) percent of the total new tree requirement
when said palms are existing on the site or are relocated on the same site.
{ Tr+se apexes shag be a :often {I4feetvsrall uretglt andrp
2� tndt caliper attire tme of � planted<as
plan. Undersea tr�tt3 be;
srf a recrytred' buffer'shall be:fiire (5);feet overall ut he�tt had aae (I}
iach:;ealtper ate turtef plying
u Tree Sizes:
1. Required canopy trees species shall be a minimum often (10) feet
overall in height and two (2) inch caliperdiameter at 0.5' above
grade, at the time of planting., except as follows:
A.- Within the Wabasso and SR 60 corridor areas required
canopy trees shall be a minimum of twelve (12) feet overall
in height. minimum two (2) inch diameter at Of above
shade, and 6minimum spread at time of planting When
palm clusters are used. the 10' and 12' minimum shall be
provided as clear wood. rather than an overall tree height
b. Where a building between 12' and 25' in height is proposed
to be located within 50' of a perimeter property line
canopy trees within required buffers (Types A -D) located
between the building and a site perimeter shall be a
minimum of 12' in height and a 2" diameter at 0 5' above
grade at planting and a minimum 6' Mr except that at
least one-third of the required buffer canopy trees shall be a
minimum of 16 in height and 3" diameter at 0.5' above
grade and a minimum 8' spread at time of planting Where a
building between 12' and 25' in height is proposed more
than 50' from a perimeter, the canopy tree height
reciuirements of (d) 1. above shall apply to canopy trees
within the buffer.
c. Where a building over 25' in height is proposed to be
located within 70' of a perimeter property line all canopy
trees within requLed buffers T A -D) located between
the building and a site perimeter shall be a minimum of 16'
in height and a 3" diameter at 0 5' above grade and a
minimum 8' spread at planting Where a building over 25' in
height is proposed more than 70' from a perimeter, the
canopy tree height requirements of (d) I above shall apply
to canopy trees within the buffer.
2. Required understory trees shall be a minimum of five (5) feet
Overall in height and one (1) inch diameter at 0 5' above grade at
the time of planting. Multi -trunk trees shall have a 1 " caliper for all
trunks at 6" above grade.
Amending landscaping chapter section 926.09(3);
(3) Parking area interior landscaping.
(a) For off-street parking fdrndng aisles, driveways narking Wages Joa&nr
areas). areas equal to at least ten (10) percent of the total paved area
(driving aisles• driveways narking spaces loading areas) shall be
DECEMBER 1, 1997 -12-
provided with interior landscaping. Please see graphic at end of this
chanter illustrating how this requirement is calculated
(b) Each separate, required landscaped area shall contain a minimum of
one hundred (100) square feet and AW have a minimum dtmension
with minimum dimensions of at least ten (10) feet in areas where a tree
is Planted, and shall include at least one tree having a clear trunk of at
least five (S) feet, with the remaining area adequately landscaped with
shrubs, ground cover or other authorized landscaping material not to
exceed three (3) feet in height
1. To preserve adequate sight distance, end islands at intersections
of internal driveways shall be designed and maintained to
preserve a visual "clear windmv" for the area between V and 7'
above the adjacent parking lot grade
(c) The total number of trees shall not be less than one for each three hundred
(300) square feet of fraction thereof of required interior landscaped area.
Such landscaped areas shall be located in such a manner as to divide and
break up the expanse of paving.
(d) When, upon the request of the developer and in the opinion of the
community development director, the placing of all required interior trees
would create an impractical landscape effect, a portion of the required
interior trees may be placed along the perimeter of the parking area to
satisfy this requirement.
(e) The area to be counted for interior landscaping requirements shall be
graphically depicted on landscape plans by cross -hatching or other graphic
means.
2• LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE & REPLACEMENT
Amend landscape chapter section 926.12 as follows:
(1) Installation.
La,) All landscaping shall be installed in a sound workmanlike manner and
according to accepted good planting procedures, with the quality of plant
materials as he<einzer described. Prior to or at the time a certificate of
occupancy inspection is requested of code enforcement staff the project
landscape architect or landscape contractor shall certify in writing the
date he or she last inspected the landscape installation and that all
installed landscape material that is required by ordinance is Florida No
I or better.
All elements of landscaping, exclusive of plant material, shall be installed so
as to meet all other applicable ordinances and code requirements.
Landscaped areas shall require protection from vehicular encroachment. A
code enforcement official shall inspect all landscaping, and no final
certificates of occupancy or similar authorization will be issued unless the
landscaping meets the requirements provided herein.
(b1 Bonding to guarantee installatjom Required landscape materials can
be bonded -out for future installation in the event of a Board of County
Commissioners recognized disaster (eg freeze or hurricane) that
adversely affects availability of landscape materialL At the time that it
recognizes such a djsaster, the Board shall set a timeframe by which
required landscaoine must be installed
In addition to bonding_out after such djsasters the Planning and
Zoning Commission is autkonwd to approve bonding -out for
installation of required landscape materials where such installation
needs to be delayed in coordination with adiacent road construction that
would disrupt adiacent landscape areas.
To bond -out for future (post G 0.) installation a cash bond must be
Posted wjth the county in the amount of 115% of the contract
installation price
DECEMBER 1, 1997
BOOK juj
(2) Maintenance.
(a) The owner, or his agent, shall maintain all landscaping depicted on the
approved plan in good condition, so as to present a healthy, neat and
orderly appearance, free from refuse and debris, and in a manner quantity
and variety required by this article, for the duration of use of the site. All
landscaped areas shall be provided with an adequate irrigation system, as
provided for in section 926.11. Completed project sites shall be reviewed
periodically by code enforcement officials for compliance with these
provisions, and any violations shall be presented to the code enforcement
board.
,1f1 Native plant areas used for landscaping purposes may be left in their
natural condition, providing they are maintained so as not to create a health
or safety hazard. These areas may also be excluded from the water supply
requirements, providing they are in a healthy condition upon issuance of a
final certificate of occupancy. Consistent with section 929.08. all approved
sites and "native Alam areas" shall be required to maintain the site free of
ay nuisance exotic plant 1pecies.
W Mature trees shall not be pruned to reduce the canopy to less than the
minimum 15' spread a wept for the removal of dead or diseased wood
u Replacement of Required Landscaping.
Required landscaping that has died or has been removed shall be replaced by
material which is equivalent to the size that the material should have attained from
the time ofproj_ect C.O. (Certificate of Occupancy). as follows:
From 0-18 months after project C.O., landscape materials maybe replaced
at the sizes indicated on the approved site plan.
From 18 to 36 months after vroiect C.O.— replacement shrubs shallbe a
minimum of 30" in heighreplacement canopy trees shall be a minimum of
Win height and 3" diameter at 0.5' above grade. and replacement
understory trees shall be a minimum of T tall with a 1'/z" diameter at 0.5'
above grade.
More than 36 months after moiect C.O.. replacement shrubs shall be a
minimum of 36" in height replacement canopy trees shall be a minimum of
ate 8' in height with a 4"diameter at 0.5' above grade and replacement
understoly trees a minimum of 10' with a 2" diameter at 0.5' above parade.
All lacement material shall be the species shown on the approved site
plan or a substitute approved by the county in the specified location.
3. LANDSCAPING ALONG ROADWAY
Amend landscaping chapter section 926.09(1) as follows:
(1) Landscaping Along Roadwa +a Y... upt ttse area �dsicap e. tdazd
feet in depth shall be located adjacent to the ri -of--way along the site's entire
road frontage. Within the strip, landscaping shall be provided as follows:
(a) A strip of land at least. ten (10) feet in depth located between the abutting
right-of-way.:and the off -scree parking area which is exposed to an
abutting right-of-way shall be landscaped, such landscapmg.to.indude one
tree for each thirty (30) lineal feet or fraction thereof. Landscaping
materials shall be planted in the following quantities:
1. Along local roads: one (1) canopy tree for each thiM (30) lineal
feet or fraction thereof.
2. Along collector roads: one (1) canopy tree for each twenty-five
(25) lineal feet or fraction thereof for canopy trees 10' high at time
of PlandnE or one (1) canopy tree for each thirty (30) lined feet
or fraction thereof for canopy trees 1 Z' high at time _of g—la#Ln1.
DECEMBER 1, 1997 -14-
(b)
I Along arterial roads: one (1) understory tree for each twenty-five
(25) lineal feet or fraction thereof and one (1) canopy tree for each
twenty-five (25) lineal feet or fraction thereof for canopy trees
10' high at time of planting or one (1) canopy tree for each thirty
(30) lineal feet_orhaction thereof -for canoov trees 12' high at
time o� Ip anting.
Note: Trees are not required to be spaced uniformly along the landscape
strip. Different, special roadway landscapin uffering requirements apply
to projects within areas covered by adopted corridor plans such as the
Wabasso and SR 60 corridor plans.
trees planted adjacent to a ri t -of --way shall be planted in a planting area
of at least one hundred (100) square feet, with minimum dimensions being
at least ten (10) feet in any direction.
(c) In addition, a hedge, wall, fence or other durable landscape barrier of at
least fj rM three 3 feet in height above the adjacent par ' lot grade
shall be maintained along the perimeter of such landscaped strip. Use of
landscaped berms is encouraged to meet this requirement.
(d) If such durable barrier is of nonliving material, at each ten (10) feet thereof,
one shrub or vine shall be planted abutting such barrier, but need not be
spaced ten (10) feet apart.
(e) Such shrubs or vines shall be planted along the street side of such barrier
unless they are of sufficient height at the time of planting to be readily
visible over the top of such barrier.
V,
The remainder of the required landscaped areasshall be landscaped with
grass, ground cover or other landscape treatment, excluding paving.
;... Necessary access ways from the public right-of-way through all such
landscaping areas shall be permitted to service the parking, and such access
ways may be subtracted from the lineal dimension used to determine the
number of trees required.
Amend landscaping chapter 926.09(6):
L61 Landscaping near m�erhead electrical transmission or distribution lines
Lal When canopy trees are proposed to be planted within 30' (horizontal
distance) of overhead electrical transmission or distribution lines (not
service lines), the foDowing shall apply:
L A cross-section shall be provided on the landscape plan.
depicting the estimated canopy shape and size at maturity in
relation to the location of the lowest electrical overhead
transmission or distribution wire. and the distance from the
mature tree canopy edge to the wire
2 Tlie distance from the estimated mature tree can edge to the
wire shall be at least 3 1.
fib Within a horizontal distance of 30' of an overhead electrical
transmission or distribution line (not a seri ice line), in addition to
generally prohibited exotic nuisance species, the following plant species
are prohibited from being used on any landscaping Plan proposed for
county avoroval. EarleafAcacia. Woman's Tongue Tree Norfolk
Island Pine. Bischofia, Schefflera. Ear Tree Eucalyptus, Non -Native
Ficus, Silk Oak, Chinese Tallow Tree and lava Plum.
Amend landscaping chapter section 926.10 as follows:
(1) General landscaping treatment. All nonvehicular open spaces on any site proposed
for development in all zoning districts, except for single family dwellings, shall
conform to the minimum landscaping requirements herein provided.
DECEMBER 1, 1997
-15-
BOOK 103 FAGS 4"
BOOK JUJ PAGE
Grass, ground cover, shrubs, native plant areas and other landscaping materials
shall be used to treat all ground not covered by building, paving or other
structures.
(2) Trees required. Trees shall be planted in the nonvehicular open space to meet the
following requirements:
Q
(a) Multiple -family residential zoning districts and mobile home residential
zoning districts requiring site plan approval: a minimum of one tree per
each two thousand (2,000) square feet of nonvehicular open space or
fraction thereof,
(b) Commercial zoning districts (except "heavy commercial") and medical
districts: a minimum of one tree per each three thousand (3,000) square
feet of nonvehicular open space or fraction thereof;
(c) Heavy commercial, and industrial zoning districts: a minimum of one tree
per each four thousand (4,000) square feet of nonvehicular open space or
fraction thereof.
(a} i srr:aflarui at least:: (Ifl} %e rti:sieth %meted betvveep theabug
r€ght-of vy+ay: grid fire btuidrng,..wall�.Qr:fencx shall be landscaped; `such
landscagiag t+o-: cnida:$ miairnum ofone.uw., 6 t. every:#hu#y ( ti}fineal
fra�cttvzt.tir acid oae slnvb yr .-I {10). feetor
fraction thereof, relating to the amount of building, wall, or fence lineal
footage parallel to the right-of-way.
(b) Such trees and shrubs. shall be planted in clusters, and shall be planting in
planting areas of at least one hundred (100) square feet, with minimum
dimensions being at least ten (10) feet.
(c) The remainder of the: nonvehicular:open. space.shali be landscaped with
grass,.ground cover or other landscape treatment, excluding paving.
(d) Necessary accessways from the public right-of-way through such
landscaping;areas:shad. be:pennitted.to service.. paridngaud such:access
ways may be:subtracted from.ifie'.lir:eal dimension userl to..detcrnim the
ttiunber o£trees.:and dubs .required:
4. PERIMETER BUFFER STANDARDS
Amend landscaping chapter section 926.08, as follows:
(1) A perimeter buffer is a landscaped strip along parcel boundaries that serves as a
buffer between incompatible uses and zoning districts, as an attractive boundary of
the parcel or use, or as both a buffer and attractive boundary. Existing native
vegetation and upland native plant communities as described in Chapter 929,
Upland Habitat Protection, may be utilized to meet buffer requirements.
(2) The width and degree of vegetation required depends on the nature of adjoining
thoroughfares and uses. Chapter 915, Planned Development, and Chapter 911,
Zoning, of the County Land Development Code, set forth buffer type requirements
for adjacew properties, based on land use and zoning districts.
(3) Buffer types and opaque features. There are four (4) buffer types to be utilized in
Indian River County. They are, in order of intensity, as follows: Type A buffer;
Type B buffer, Type C buffer and -Type D buffer. Buffers may require opaque
features. including three foot and six foot opaque features where specified in the
land development regulations.
W Required opaque features shall consist of a solid masonry wall or earthen berm
unless the Planning and Zoning Commission approves a substitute material (such
as a completely opaque living landscape barrier) based upon the use and
conditions of the project site and adjacent site. Landscaninz is required along
both sides of a wall unless otherwise annroved by the Planninzand Zoning
Commission.
DECEMBER 1, 1997 -1= -
(i) In cases where the abutting useldistrict is separated from the project site by a local
road. the buffer We shall be reduced one catego1y We (e.g. from Type "A" or
Lme "B"). but the height of the opaque feature shall remain the same In uses
where the abutting use/district is separated from the project site by a Thoroughfare
Plan road, the buffer type shall be reduced two category types (e.g. "A" to "C")
but in all cases shall require at least a Type "D" buffer. Reference section
915.16(3).
01 Required 3' and 6' opaque features shall be measured from the finished floor
elevation of the proposed structure(s). This requirement can be modified by the
Planningand Zoning Commission based upon gElde differences and the
relationship between the height and mass of the proposed building and its
setback from the property line. The maximum required hekht of an onaaue
feature shall be 8' above the site grade where the feature is located
u Hedge or shrub material within buffers may be reduced by 50'/o when a 6' wall or
fence is provided within the buffer if the remaining amount of requirrd shrub
material and at least 50% of required understoly tree material are lanted between
the project site perimeter and the wall or fence Alternative planting locations may
be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission
The standards for the buffer categories are set forth in the illustrations herein that specify
the number of plants required per one hundred (100) lineal feet. To determine the total
number of plants required, the linear footage of each side of the property requiring a
buffer shall be divided by one hundred (100) and multiplied by the number of plants shown
in the illustration. The plants shall be spread in a reasonably even manner along the length
of the buffer. Buffer opaque feature options are also illustrated herein and are further
defined in Chapter 901, Definitions, of the County Land Development Code.
5. BUFFERS BETWEEN COMMERCIAL & RESIDENTIAL
Amend zoning chapter section 911.10(8), as follows
(8) Required buffer yards:
Notes: Buffer yards are required along rear/side property lines and measured at
right angles to lot lines. All screening and buffering requirements shall meet the
standards established in section 926, Landscaping and Buffering. No parking or
loading shall be permitted within buffer yards.
Note- When a lnari;^p pock is ptoposed to serve a use that normallLregutres
fent dock use/e g_Mcery st_ ori d Parrment store. bip box retain. and :s to
be located adiacent to a residentially designated site and will not be screened
one view from an adiacent residential site by an interpeninr buiIdMne or
s_tractare. m 8' high wall shall be required between the loading dock and the
restderrttal site Wall height shall be measured from the grade elevation of the
parldna are s adiacent to the loading dock Plantings along the wall are renuired in
a rdance with the standards of landscape section 926.08.
6. BUFFERS BETWEEN INDUSTRIAL & RESIDENTIAL
Amend zoning chapter section 911.11(7), as follows:
(7) Buffer yard requirements. Where a nonresidential use within an industrial district
directly abuts a single family or multi -family residential zoning district or use, a
landscaped buffer yard meeting the following specifications shall be required along
the side and/or rear property lines.
District Single Family Zoning Multi -Family Zoning
IL Type A 6 R Opaque Feature
IGType A 6 & Opaque Feature
Type A 61 Opaque Feature Type A 6 R Opaque Feature
DECEMBER 1, 1997 -17- BOOK
Abutting Use/District
Single Family
Multi -Family
District
Buffer Type
Buffer Type
PRO
C - 6 ft. Opaque
D - 3 ft. Opaque
OCR
C - 6 ft. Opaque
D - 3 ft. Opaque
MED
C - 6 ft. Opaque
D - 3 ft. Opaque
CN
B - 6 ft. Opaque
C - 6 ft. Opaque
CL
B - 6 ft. Opaque
C - 6 ft. Opaque
CG
8 - 6 ft. Opaque
C - 6 ft. Opaque
CH
B - 6 ft. Opaque
B - 6 ft. Opaque
Notes: Buffer yards are required along rear/side property lines and measured at
right angles to lot lines. All screening and buffering requirements shall meet the
standards established in section 926, Landscaping and Buffering. No parking or
loading shall be permitted within buffer yards.
Note- When a lnari;^p pock is ptoposed to serve a use that normallLregutres
fent dock use/e g_Mcery st_ ori d Parrment store. bip box retain. and :s to
be located adiacent to a residentially designated site and will not be screened
one view from an adiacent residential site by an interpeninr buiIdMne or
s_tractare. m 8' high wall shall be required between the loading dock and the
restderrttal site Wall height shall be measured from the grade elevation of the
parldna are s adiacent to the loading dock Plantings along the wall are renuired in
a rdance with the standards of landscape section 926.08.
6. BUFFERS BETWEEN INDUSTRIAL & RESIDENTIAL
Amend zoning chapter section 911.11(7), as follows:
(7) Buffer yard requirements. Where a nonresidential use within an industrial district
directly abuts a single family or multi -family residential zoning district or use, a
landscaped buffer yard meeting the following specifications shall be required along
the side and/or rear property lines.
District Single Family Zoning Multi -Family Zoning
IL Type A 6 R Opaque Feature
IGType A 6 & Opaque Feature
Type A 61 Opaque Feature Type A 6 R Opaque Feature
DECEMBER 1, 1997 -17- BOOK
BOOK 103 PAGE 50
Note': The buffer yards shall be at right angles to the lot line. All screening
requirements shall meet the standards established in Chapter 926, Landscaping and
Buffering. No off-street parking or loading areas shall be permitted within the
buffer yard.
Note': When a loading dock is proposed to serve a use requiring freguent dock
use (e -L. Pro M store, department store), and is to be located adjacent to a
residentially designated site, and will not be screened from view from an
ad
iacent residential site by an intervening building or structure, an 8' hien wall
shall be required between the loading dock and the residential site. Wall heisltt
shall be measured from the Srade elevation of the parking area adjacent to the
loading dock. Plantings along the wall are required in accordance with the
standards of landscape section 926.08.
Coding: Words in 1044ceu type are deletions from existing law. Words underlined are
additions. Bolded italicized teat represents changes made after the September 8th
BCC/PZC/PSAC landscaping workshop. 9
PERIMETER
LANDSCAPE
I
It
F
It
DECEMBER 1, 1997 -18-
I
4
VEHICULAR
LANDSCAPE
AREA
PARKING LOT
SHELL
BOUNDARY
EXAMPLE PROVIDES
APPROX.14% OF
THE PAVED AREA
AS GREEN AREA
2(1). CANARYISLAND DATE PALMS
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard
in this matter. There being none, she closed the public hearing.
2(2). INTERIOR PARKING REQUIREMENTS
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard
in this matter.
Commissioner Ginn felt these changes are a great improvement but still felt we
should try for a little more. She believed that in 10 to 20 years the County would be glad
for more restrictive guidelines.
Chairman Eggert commented that in her heart she would agree to more restrictive
guidelines but the Board must think County -wide and going from 5% to 10% is a big
jump. She felt going any higher would be prohibitive to businesses.
Commissioner Macht agreed with Chairman Eggert and felt the Route 60 Corridor
Plan will further address restrictions.
Commissioner Ginn felt the area around a tree should be 10 X 10, and Chairman
Eggert agreed that 5 X 5 is too small but believed there must be a compromise.
Commissioner Ginn felt the 10% should be increased to 15% and believed that if it
is not done now, the opportunity will be lost.
Community Development Director Bob Keating commented that staff has
examined this restriction very closely and believes that any additional square footage
devoted to landscaping would mean a reduction in building and parking lot size.
Commission Ginn did not have a problem with that and expressed her belief that
Wa1Mart would have built even had the Board been more restrictive. She felt the Board
should not be shortsighted.
Director Boling reminded the Board that there will be opportunities for further
amendments beginning in January, 1998, as well as opportunities to include further
restrictions in the State Road 60 Corridor Plan.
Commissioner Tippin commented that staff is doing a very good job encouraging
builders to go beyond the minimum restrictions.
Commissioner Ginn then questioned the minimum of 10 feet on replacement
understory trees and felt that is a very minimal restriction. She believed that 15 feet
should be the minimum.
DECEMBER 1, 1997 -19- BOOK PAcE 585
BOOK 103 FnE bb
After further discussion, Commissioner Ginn MOVED that the parking lot interior
landscaping area requirement be increased to 15% and that replacement understory trees
be required to be a minimum of 15 feet tall.
THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to be heard in this matter. There being
none, she closed the public hearing.
2(3). INSTALLED REQUIRED LANDSCAPE MATERIALS
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard
in this matter. There being none, she closed the public hearing.
2(4). PROPOSED PRUNING RESTRICTION
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard
in this matter. There being none, she closed the public hearing.
2(5j. PROPOSED ROADWAYLANDSCAPE BUFFER
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard
in this matter. There being none, she closed the public hearing.
2(6). POWERLINES AND LANDSCAPING
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard
in this matter. There being none, she closed the public hearing.
2(7). SPECIAL BUFFERING REQUIREMENTS FOR LOADING DOCKS THAT ARE
PROPOSED ON SITES ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL AREAS
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard
in this matter. There being none, she closed the public hearing.
DECEMBER 1, 1997 _20_
ON MOTION by Commission Macht,
SECONDED by Commission Ginn, the Board
unanimously directed staff to make the necessary
change to the amendments relative to Setbacks for
Fruit Spreading (Chapters 911 and 917) by
increasing the setbacks from public roads, private
wells, and water bodies to 300 feet and incorporate
such changes into the proposed LDR Ordinance;
and announced its intention to take final action on
the proposed amendments at the Board's regular
meeting scheduled for December 16, 1997 at 9:05
a.m.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the
Board adjourned at 5:55 p.m.
ATTEST:
P
Minutes Approved: ,2).o-140,� /"/, 1997
-C, - 4) 4/ 4 L - , -
Carolyn. Eggert, CPWnan
DECEMBER 1, 1997 -21- U
�.UCiK