HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/4/1998BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
A G E N D A
PUBLIC HEARING
MONDAY, MAY 4,1998
5:01 p.m. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER
County Administration Building
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
John W. Tippin, Chairman (District 4)
Kenneth R Macht, Vice Chairman (District 3)
Fran B. Adams (District 1)
Carolyn K. Eggert (District 2)
Caroline D. Ginn (District 5)
PUBLIC HEARING - (LEGISLATIVE)
James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
5:01 p.m. First Hearing: Proposed LDR (Land Development
Regulation) Amendments
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.
Meeting may be broadcast live on TCI Cable Channel 13 - rebroadcast various times
throughout the week
Falcon Cable Channel 35 - may be rebroadcast Friday evening
EOG I G�i I.,,C.-j6,-;
6001,
INDEX TO MINUTES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MEETING OF MAY 49 1998
FIRST PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED LDR AMENDMENTS ................ 1
1. Proposed Amendment: Incidental to Development Mining Exemption (filed
Notice of Second Hearing ......................................... 24
by Bent Pine Golf Club, Inc./Bruce Barkett, Attorney) .............
14
2.
Proposed Amendment: Bed and Breakfast Uses (filed by Mr. and Mrs.
Redstone/John Dean, Architect) ...............................
14
3.
Proposed Amendment: Sign Regulations (staff -initiated) ...........
15
4.
Proposed Amendment: Mini -Storage Parking Requirements (staff initiated)
.......................................................
16
5.
Proposed Amendment Affordable Housing Changes to Match New
Comprehensive Plan Policies (staff initiated) .....................
17
6.
Proposed Amendment: Household Pet Definition & Non -Commercial
Kennels (Potbellied Pigs) (Staff and Planning and Zoning Commission
Initiated) ................................................
17
7:
Proposed Amendment: Mailed Notice Requirements -- Regular Mail vs
Certified Mail (Staff Initiated) ................................
18
8.
Proposed Amendment: Recreational Vehicle Park Occupancy Time Period
and Allowance for Attaching Carports and Porches (Sunshine Travel
Park/Bruce Barkett, Attorney) ................................
19
9.
Relationships Between Zoning Districts and Land Use Designations ...
20
10.
Proposed Amendment: Codification and Modification of SR -60 Corridor
Plan Requirements .........................................
21
Notice of Second Hearing ......................................... 24
P.O. Box 1268 Vero Beach, Florida 32961 . 562-2315
ail
. Jourua�
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority perrg�onaUy appeared Darryl K.
Hicks who on oath says that he is President of the Press -Journal, a
daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County,
Florida; that
billed
4W
was published in said newspaper in the issue(s) of
'16dw,, Cly 1L-19,
Sworn to yand subscribed before me this
qday ot lq9lp
rrrrrrrrrrrrr
President
Y AIV
r •rico
,k.* AMISSIUN EXPIRES �' _ � � KIMBERLY ANNE LAIS
z ; JARM 01.2001 :*I: Notary Public, State of Florida
o CN•Nll•Ub11092 : Q : My Commission Exp. Jan: 01, 2001
• �9 .,• : Q Comm. No. CC 611092
o& D or Produced ID 0
`•,,iOriB
.......... Personally Known
( (�C �,.�' Type of 10 Rraduaacl
`���rrr r1lMr rrM . /
i r") n n
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE OF AMENDMENT TO LAND DEVELOPMENT REGU-
LATIONS (LDRS) CHANGING THE LIST OF PERMITTED
USES WITHIN THE RS -6 and FIT -6 ZONING DISTRICTS, AND
AMENDING THE FOLLOWING CHAPTERS OF THE LAND
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (LDRS): CHAPTER 901, DEF-
INITIONS; CHAPTER 902, ADMINISTRATIVE MECHANISMS;
CHAPTER 911, ZONING; CHAPTER 934, EXCAVATION AND
MINING; CHAPTER 954, OFF-STREET PARKING; CHAPTER
956, SIGN REGULATIONS; CHAPTER 971, REGULATIONS
FOR SPECIFIC LAND USE CRITERIA; AND PROVIDING FOR
REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS, CODIFICATION,
SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUN-
TY, FLORIDA PROPOSES TO ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SPECIAL
EXCEPTION USES ALLOWED WITHIN THE RS -6 AND RT -6 ZONING DIS-
TRICTS. THESE AND OTHER AMENDMENTS WILL BE CONSIDERED FOR
ADOPTION, AS FOLLOWS:
1. Codification and modification of SR 60 Corridor Plan requirements (staff 6
Board Initiated)
2. Relationship between zoning districts and land use designations (staff initi-
ated)
3. Incidental to development mining exemption (filed by Bent Pine Golf Club,
IncJBruce Barkett, Attorney)
4. Bed and breakfasts as special exception uses In the RS -6 and RT -6 zoning
districts (filed by Mr. and Mrs. Redstone/John Dean, Architect)
5. Sign regulations (staff initiated)
6. Mini -storage parking (staff -initiated)
7. Affordable housing changes to match new comprehensive plan policies
(staff -initiated)
8. Household pet definition and non-commercial kennels (staff and Planning
and Zoning Commission -initiated).
9. Mailed notice requirements: regular mail vs. certified mail (staff -initiated).
10. Recreational carports
andhiporches
rche park (SunshineTravel time Park/Bruce riod and allowance
Barkett, attorney).
PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ORDINANCE AMENDING USES WITHIN
THE RS -6 AND RT -6 ZONING DISTRICTS, AND THE OTHER DESCRIBED
AMENDMENTS, WILL BE HELD ON MONDAY N6XAJ2WT 5:01 P.M. AND
ON TUESDAY, MAY 19, 1998 AT 9:05 A.M. AT fHE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS CHAMBERS, 1840 25TH STREET, VERO BEACH, FLORI-
DA. A COPY OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR
THE PUBLIC BEGINNING APRIL 28, 1998 IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK
TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IN THE COUNTY ADMINIS-
TRATION BUILDING LOCATED AT 1840 25TH STREET, VERO BEACH,
FLORIDA. CITIZENS SHALL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD AT
THE PUBLIC HEARINGS.
THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE, IF ADOPTED, WOULD BE EFFECTIVE IN
THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, AS DEPICTED
ON THE LOCATION MAP SHOWN BELOW.
e�
h4
INDIAN NNICN OONN1Ty..•`UNWCCXPCRAT90 ANCA
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 meet -
Ing ll need to ensure Includes averbatimt a pp
testimony evidence upon which appeal is basedroceedings Is
made,which
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- John W. Tippin, Chairman
oeosoeLe
IV 0
0
May 4, 1998
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, met in Special
Session at the County Commission Chambers, 1840 25`h Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on
Tuesday, May 4, 1998. The purpose of the meeting was to hold a public hearing on ten
proposed LDR (Land Development Regulations) Amendments. Present were John W.
Tippin, Chairman; Fran B. Adams; Carolyn K. Eggert and Caroline D. Ginn. Vice Chairman
Kenneth R. Macht was absent/excused to attend a SHOCOP seminar out of the county. Also
present were James E. Chandler, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, County
Attorney; and Patricia Ridgely, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 5:01 p.m.
FIRST PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED LDR AMENDMENTS
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of April 28, 1998:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
D ION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Obert M. eating, CP
Community Development' ctor
• 6 -
FROM: Stan Boling, AICP
Planning Director
DATE: April 28, 1998
SUBJECT: First Hearing: Proposed LDR Amendments
May 4,1998
1
•
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its special meeting of May 4,.1998.
BACKGROUND:
Over the last several months, staff has received and initiated several proposed amendments to the
county's land development regulations (LDRs). These proposed amendments have been reviewed
by appropriate staff and committees and are now ready for Board of County Commissioners review
and consideration. This is the first of two scheduled public hearings at which the Board will
consider the amendments. These proposed LDR amendments are as follows:
1. Incidental to development mining exemption (filed by Bent Pine Golf Club, Inc./Bruce
Barkett, Attorney)
2. Bed and Breakfast Uses (filed by Mr. and Mrs. Redstone/John Dean, Architect)
3. Sign regulations (staff -initiated)
4. Mini -storage parking (staff -initiated)
5. Affordable housing changes to match new comprehensive plan policies (staff -initiated)
6. Household pet definition and non-commercial kennels (staff and Planning and Zoning
Commission -initiated).
7. Mailed notice requirements: regular mail vs. certified mail (staff -initiated).
8. Recreational vehicle park occupancy time period and allowance for attaching carports and
porches (Sunshine Travel Park/Bruce Barkett, attorney).
9. LDR Amendments: Relationship between zoning districts and land use designations.
-10. LDR Amendment: Codification and modification of SR 60 corridor plan requirements.
The PSAC and Planning and Zoning Commission have considered all of these amendments and have
made recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners. Staff, PSAC, and the Planning and
Zoning Commission recommendations are noted for each proposed amendment in the analysis
section of this report.
The Board of County Commissioners is now to consider each of these amendments and is to direct
staff to make any desired changes to the ordinance. In response to Board direction, and any form and
sufficiency comments from the county attorney's office, staff will prepare a revised, "final"
ordinance document for the Board to consider at its May 19, 1998 meeting.
1. Incidental to Development Mining Exemption
In September and November 1995, the Board of County Commissioners held public
workshops on the county's mining regulations. Subsequently, in February 1996, the county's
mining regulations were changed Various changes were made and are still in effect today.
May 4,1998
2
One of the changes extended the incidental to construction mining exemption (e.g. hauling
excess fill from a project site) from 2 months to a maximum of 14 months for large project
sites under certain conditions. Those conditions include: limitations on hours and days of
operation, depth of resulting "borrow pit" lakes, a minimum project size of 350 acres,
incremental permit timeframe approvals, posting of a special road repair bond, and a finding
that the excess material that is to be hauled off site is to be generated by work required or
recommended by a jurisdictional agency (e.g. lake/stormwater expansion required or
recommended by the St. Johns River Water Management District).
The 14 month maximum timeframe set by the Board in 1996 was the result of balancing the
excavation needs of certain large project sites against certain negative impacts. Those
negative impacts include nuisances from a "de -facto mining operation" in a -residential area,
and the unfair advantage that would be created if such exempted operations were to be
permitted for timefames approaching the more permanent, standard mining operations which
are more heavily regulated and are restricted to non-residential areas.
The county recognizes that there are few 350+ acre projects that will generate significant
excess fill and that would apply for the exemption. In fact, only one project, Bent Pine, has
applied for and obtained the exemption. Except for some initial problems with weekend
activity that were quickly resolved, staff has had no complaints regarding the Bent Pine
excavation and hauling project. In fact, all possible exemption extensions allowed under the
current LDRs have been granted and the final extension will expire May 10, 1998. The
operator of the mming/haulmg project has informed staff that the hauling work for the
existing lake phase will be completed by mid-July if the LDRs are amended to allow another
extension. Therefore, it appears that a 16 month timeframe would accommodate Bent Pine's
completion of the lake phase now being excavated but would not accommodate any possible
lake expansion beyond the current phase.
Bent Pine has applied to amend the LDRs to increase the total timeframe from 14 months to
30 months by way of allowing for two additional 8 month extensions beyond the first 14
months. Stas analysis is that the negative impacts of an exempted operation can be
controlled by the current exemption criteria. However, the applicant proposes to more than
double the operation timeframe to 30 months (2% years). If the county were to approve this
request, the changes would allow a type of mining operation to go on too long for what is
intended to be a temporary construction allowance within a residential area. Staff s
recommendation is to scale back the applicant's request and allow a total of 18 months for
an exempted operation. An 18 month timeframe would accommodate what appears to be
Bent Pine's actual lake project needs and would provide a reasonable cap to a construction
activity that can cause nuisances. Staff s scaled back proposal is reflected in the attached
LDR amendment proposal.
Staff Recommendation: Extend mining exemption timeframe by 4 months only.
PSAC Recommendation: Voted 4-3 for the same recommendation as staff.
PZC Recommendation: Voted 7-0 for the same recommendation as staff.
2. Bed & Breakfast Uses
Although no bed and breakfast site plans have ever been filed with county planning, such a
use has been allowed for years as a conditional use in the agricultural, multi -family, and
certain commercial zoning districts. Traditionally, bed and breakfast uses involve conversion
of a larger single family residence to an owner occupied residence with rentable guest rooms
May 4,1998
3
&Oruu 1057 rpu- 37
for short term stays. Although some potential bed and breakfast dwellings may be located
in single family zoning districts, current county LDRs do not allow bed and breakfasts in any
single family district under any circumstances.
Joyce and Paul Redstone have now applied to amend the LDRs to allow bed and breakfasts
as a special exception use in the RS -6 (Residential Single Family up to 6 units/acre) and RT -
6 (Residential Two Family up to 6 units/acre) zoning districts subject to special criteria.
They are interested in seeking approval for a bed and breakfast in the existing house located
at the northeast corner of 43rd Avenue and 8h Street, located in the RS -6 district. Thus, if this
LDR amendment is adopted, it is likely that the Redstones would apply for special exception
use approval at the referenced site.
In response to the LDR amendment application, planning staff reviewed planning
publications and many bed and breakfast LDRs from across the nation. -Staffs research
conclusion is that many, if not most, local governments allow small scale bed and breakfasts
in single family districts as a conditional use (see attachment #3).
Based on its research, staff is proposing additional criteria (found in other ordinances and
suggested in publications) for bed and breakfast uses located outside of single family areas
as well as criteria for those that would be allowed within single family areas if the LDR
amendment is adopted. Staffs conclusion is that, when properly regulated, allowing bed and
breakfasts in single family areas along arterial roadways can help maintain residential
character along such busy roadways. Such an amendment could also provide a way of
preserving and using "landmark" estate houses in a manner compatible with adjacent single
family residences. Also, in staffs opinion, such an allowance could forestall requests for
multi -family or non-residential uses on single family "estate parcels" located on arterials.
Within the text of the bed and breakfast proposed special criteria, staff has noted the reasons
for each of the new bed and breakfast development criteria proposed.
Staff Recommendation: Allow bed and breakfast uses in single family zoning districts
as a special exception use, subject to strict criteria.
PSAC Recommendation: Voted 7-0 for the same recommendation as staff.
PZC Recommendation: Voted 7-0 for the same recommendation as star
-3. Sign Regulations
Deputy County Attorney Will Collins has indicated that, based on a Missouri court case
decision, Indian River County's sign ordinance needs to be amended relating to political sign
restrictions (see attachment #6). Generally, county regulation of political signs must not be
more restrictive than regulation of other types of signs (e.g., commercial signs). In fact,
deference should be given to political signs, as they have a higher level of protection under
the Constitution. Thus, political signs cannot be prohibited where commercial and other
types of signs are allowed.
Attached are proposed revisions to the county sign ordinance (LDR Chapter 956) to address
this issue. As proposed, political campaign signs and special event signs are grouped under
the heading of "temporary signs requiring permits," and the restrictions have been changed
to apply more evenly to the overall "temporary sign" category. It is important to note that,
as proposed, special event signs (e.g. art show, fairground events) will no longer be allowed
in public rights-of-way (which is currently a restriction on political signs under the existing
sign ordinance). Such a change is legally necessary to ensure that political signs can continue
to be prohibited from being placed in public rights-of-way.
May 4, 1998
9
FAG,-
for
ACc
One other issue is addressed in the attached amendments. For commercial freestanding signs
near I-95 interchanges, a footnote to Table 1 of the ordinance is proposed to be added to
clarify that such signs can be up to 50 feet tall , but only if the applicant demonstrates that
the taller sign is oriented so as to be seen by I-95 motorists approaching the interchange.
The purpose of the change is to ensure that the taller sign provision is properly used along
I-95, rather than for traffic along intersecting arterials such as SR 60 and CR 512. Such a
change is currently contained in the SR 60 corridor plan LDRs, and should be considered for
all existing and future interstate interchanges.
Staff Recommendation: Restrict all signs in rights-of-way so that the county's long-
standing prohibition of political signs in rights-of-way can be
retained. Also, place orientation and visibility conditions on
the current allowance for tall signs near interstate
interchanges.
PSAC Recommendation: Voted 5-1 for the same recommendation as staff.
PZC Recommendation: Voted 6-1 for the same recommendation as staff.
4. Mini -Storage Parking Requirements
Review of a few recent mini storage project applications has brought into question whether
or not the existing LDRs require significantly more parking for mini storage than what is
actually needed Attached are two pages from Planning Advisory Service (PAS) report #396,
a comparison of some rates from around the country, and a proposed LDR amendment for
mini storage parking rates. The county LDRs currently require one space per 3,000 square
feet of gross floor area However, the PAS report indicates that parking rates should be tied
to number of storage units, since the number of units is the true generator of parking demand.
The literature suggests rates between 1 space per every 100 storage units and 1 space per
every 200 storage units. The proposed LDR amendment would create a parking rate based
on number of storage units, on the conservative side of the PAS recommendation (1 space
per 100 storage units).
Also, the report suggests that the other important traffic circulation feature for mini storage
developments is aisle width. The county's current minimum aisle standard is 20' for one-way
traffic, which is based on a 12' wide travel lane and 8' parallel loading space. The proposed
LDR amendment establishes a 28' wide two-way driving aisle by requiring another 8' for
parking. The concept is, if two vehicles meet in an aisle where a vehicle is loading, one can
pull over to let the other pass. -
A recent application for Magi Mini Storage proposed 675 units (87,287 sq. ft.) with a
resident manager. Under the present LDRs, 29 spaces are required for the 87,287 square foot
mini storage facility. The proposed parking rate would require 7 spaces for the 675 units and
two for the manager residence for a total of 9 spaces. The applicant is proposing a two-way
aisle width of 30' which exceeds the 28' aisle proposed in the LDRs.
Staff Recommendation: Reduce and modify the current mini -storage parking
requirements to bring them in line with other jurisdictions and
planning publication recommendations.
PSAC Recommendation: Voted 6-0 for the same recommendation as staff.
PZC Recommendation: Voted 7-0 for the same recommendation as staff.
May 4,1998
5
601A
rB"7r3
Fr�C'L •J i a�
WOK
5. Affordable Housing Changes to Match New Comprehensive Plan Policies
The changes proposed to the affordable housing density bonus LDRs are needed to reflect
recently adopted comprehensive plan policy changes that address the same subject. Thus,
these changes are needed to bring the LDRs into compliance with the comprehensive plan.
Staff Recommendation: Adopt the changes to bring the LDRs into compliance with
adopted comprehensive plan changes.
PSAC Recommendation: Voted 6-0 for the same recommendation as staff.
PZC Recommendation: Voted 7-0 for the same recommendation as staff.
6. Household Pet Definition & Non -Commercial Kennels
At its February 26, 1998 meetinglthe Planning and Zoning Commission voted to deny an
administrative permit request to establish a non-commercial kennel on a .3 acre residential
parcel. That request included the keeping of potbellied pigs in an outside pen. The
Commission denied the request primarily due to the relatively small size of the site. It should
be noted that the Commission's decision was appealed by the applicant to the Board of
County Commissioners. At its March 24, 1998 meetingthe Board heard the appeal, agreed
with the Planning and Zoning Commission and upheld the Commission's denial.
After denying the request, the Commission directed staff to research changes to the LDRs
to establish a minimum parcel size for non-commercial kennels. Staff has researched non-
commercial kennel regulations of other jurisdictions and has coordinated with county animal
control regarding kennel regulations and the regulation of potbellied pigs.
Staff's research findings indicate that the county's existing kennel and household pet
regulations are fairly lenient in comparison with other jurisdictions. Current county
regulations allow non-commercial kennels in all residential districts with minimal specific
criteria (see attachment #7). Staff's research indicates that some jurisdictions do not address
pet and animal care issues in their zoning codes. Those jurisdictions that do either prohibit
non-commercial kennels in residential districts or allow them on larger sized parcels such
as the 1 acre parcel size minimum required in St. Lucie County. Research also indicates that
setbacks for indoor and outdoor pet housing structures should be established consistent with
the county's current setbacks for commercial kennels (e.g. 75' for outdoor structures).
Also, staff has received information from Animal Control and The Humane Society
regarding pot-bellied pigs. Both agencies have stated that national and local experience
shows that pot-bellied pigs simply cannot be maintained as normal household pets, because
as pigs age their "swine instincts" (e.g. rooting) become more pronounced. The experience
of these agencies, and agencies across the nation, is that mature pot-bellied pigs become large
and unmanageable for keeping within a house and are eventually kept outside in a pig pen
and are simply let go or escape. Animal Control and The Humane Society recommend that
pot-bellied pigs be specifically categorized as livestock and be allowed only where livestock
are allowed (e.g. agricultural areas).
The proposed LDR changes specifically categorize pot-bellied pigs as livestock and provide
stricter criteria for non-commercial kennels.
May 4,1998
Staff Recommendation: Specifically define potbellied pigs as livestock (rather than
pets), and require 1 acre minimum lot size and extra setbacks
for non-commercial kennels for "noisy" animals such as dogs
and talking birds.
PSAC Recommendation: Voted 6-0 for the same recommendation as staff.
PZC Recommendation: Voted 7-0 for the same recommendation as staff.
7. Mailed Notice Requirements: Regular Mail vs. Certified Mail
Current county regulations require certified mailed notice to property owners surrounding
a site for which the following types of application/requests have been filed: land use map
changes, rezonings, and special exception uses/planned developments. Current regulations
require regular mail (not certified) to surrounding property owners for the following types
of application/requests: variances, appeals, right-of-way abandonments, plat vacations, and
DRIB. Thus, the county has two different mailing methods for surrounding property owner
notice. Based upon a recent directive from the Planning and Zoning Commission, planning
staff has implemented a policy of going beyond the normal 300' surrounding property owner
notice radius where non-residential areas (e.g. a golf course) need to be skipped -over to reach
homes that are nearest a development site but are more than 300' from the development site.
Also, it should be noted that the LDRs now have an expanded notice for certain tower
applications. That expanded notice area is either from 600' or %2 mile, depending upon the
site's location.
Given the current disparity between types of application/requests and method of mailed
notice service (regular vs. certified), expanded notice requirements, and significantly
increased mailing costs, staff is proposing that the LDRs be changed to allow all mailed
notices be sent by regular mail. Staffs experience is that certified mail adds no better
assurance of delivery. Furthermore, the existing LDRs do not require that all owners receive
notice, since notice can be refused. Therefore, in stafTs opinion, use of regular mail would
be just as effective as certified mail, will be cheaper, and will make all notice requirements
consistent. In addition, such a change would make all notice requirements the same.
At its April 9, 1998 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission discussed and
recommended using regular mail and increasing the notice radius from 300' to 600'. Such
a change would increase the notice area (and mailings and associated costs) by 200%-300%
on average. At its April 16, 1998 meeting, the PSAC decided that, in lieu of increasing the
notification radius to 600' in all cases, ngtification should be given to any property owner
association or condominium association having "jurisdiction" over any property or units
within the 300' radius. Such a requirement could provide increased notice coverage at
minimal time and expense.
Staff Recommendation: Change notice requirements to use regular mail rather than
certified mail.
PSAC Recommendation: Voted 7-0 to recommend using regular mail only, and using
the existing 300' notification radius and notifying any known
property/condo associations that have any units within the
300' radius.
PZC Recommendation: Voted 7-0 to recommend using regular mail only and expand
the notification radius from 300' to 600'.
May 4, 1998
iA
EOLIK U `3i
� Fr�.Cr o
E,00 { J F,%E •9 i
8. Recreational Vehicle Park Occupancy Time Period and Allowance for Attaching
Carports and Porches
There are three existing recreational vehicle park uses in the county: Sunshine Travel Park,
KOA RV Park, and Whispering Palms RV Resort. All three are located in the north county
and are zoned CRVP (Commercial Recreational Vehicle Park). Current CRVP regulations
are intended to provide for "...temporary habitation during travel, vacation and recreation
purposes... for short periods of time" rather than for permanent residences. Limiting RV sites
to short stay uses is implemented in the current CRVP regulations by limiting continuous
occupancy to 3 months and by prohibiting attachments such as screened porches and carports
that are normally associated with more permanent residences.
There are known violations of the screened porch/carport prohibition; most notably for 10
RV sites in the Sunshine Travel Park. To legalize these existing structures, Sunshine RV
Park has requested that the county's CRVP regulations be changed to reflect wording
contained in Florida Statutes 513, which governs mobile home and recreational vehicle
parks. Specifically, the request is to allow screened porches and carports with "removable
attaching devices" and to allow continuous occupancy at a site for up to 6 months.
Staff s research indicates that the request is consistent with Florida Statutes 513 and
requirements of most other local governments (see attachment #8). Most of the local
governments surveyed allow screened porches and other accessory structures so long as such
structures are not permanently attached to a recreational vehicle. Such structures are
considered part of the RV space improvements, similar to the way concrete pads are treated
as acceptable RV space improvements under current CRVP regulations. Although staff is
concerned that the proposed changes will allow RV park spaces to be used for more
permanent residences, the changes are consistent with state rules and most other surveyed
jurisdictions which have set a more lenient standard for what constitutes temporary
residential use for an RV site.
In addition to changes regarding the occupancy period and attachment of accessory
structures, a third proposed change would establish separation distance requirements between
RVs. Current regulations address setbacks from lot/property lines but do not address
distances between RVs in parks that are not platted, such as the Sunshine RV park.
Consistent with minimum fire code standards, the proposed amendment would establish a
minimum separation distance between RVs of 10' side-to-side, 8' end-to-side, and 6' end-to-
end.
Staff Recommendation: Approve the requested changes, consistent with state
regulations and most other local governments.
PSAC Recommendation: Voted 7-0 for the same recommendation as staff.
PZC Recommendation: Voted 7-0 for the same recommendation as staff.
-9. LDR Amendments: Relationship Between Zoning Districts and Land Use Designations
The existing zoning Chapter 911 contains regulations regarding which zoning districts are
allowed in which land use designations. Such regulations are necessary to ensure that
rezoning actions result in assigning a-zoningdistrict that is consistent with and that furthers
the comprehensive plan. For example, such regulations do not allow residentially designated
properties (e.g. L-1, L-2, M-1, M-2) to be rezoned to agricultural districts, but do allow
rezonings of such properties to one of a few appropriate residential zoning districts.
May 4, 1998
8
The primary reason staff has initiated the proposed changes is because some of the existing
LDRs are out of date and do not refer to all of the existing commercial land use designations.
Staff is also initiating changes that would more narrowly define which zoning districts are
appropriate within certain land use designations. For example, within the M-1 designation
(Medium Density Residential up to 8 unitstacre), staff is proposing to allow 6 and 8 units per
acre zoning districts but not 3 and 4 unit per acre districts.
The proposed changes are reflected in the following sections of the LDRs:
- 911.06(3)(a) for Agricultural and rural districts
- 911.07(3) for Single-family residential districts
- 911.08(3) for Multiple -family residential districts
- 911.10(3) for Commercial districts
- 911.11(3) for Industrial districts
- 911.13(3)(b) for Special districts (Rose -4)
- 911.14(2)(a)L, 2., 3., 4., and 5., for Planned Development district
- 911.03 zoning district/land use designation matrix.
The reasons for recommended changes are as follows:
•To modify the matrix by including all land use designations. On the existing matrix the
following land use designations were not included: Pub, Rec, RC, Mixed Use, and BCID.
The proposed changes add these designations.
•To modify the matrix for CRVP and R-BCID zoning districts to indicate where they are
allowed. The proposed changes address this oversight.
*To modify the matrix for the districts listed below to ensure compatibility among
residential development, to reduce density variation among residential projects and to
provide a better base for future planning as it relates to the provision of infiwtructure. These
changes will prevent rezonings to very low density residential districts in areas designated
on the future land use map for higher density residential developments. There are many
areas in the county that are designated for low or very low density developments. If
rezonings to very low density residential districts are allowed in areas designated for higher
density, such rezonings could result in a constituency that objects to appropriate but higher
density residential development nearby even though the land is designated for that density
of development. The proposed amendments would not allow the following:
— A-1 district rezonings under R, L-1, & L-2 land use designations
— A-2 district rezonings under AG -1 land use designation
— A-3 district rezonings under AG -1 and AG -2 land use designations
— RFD district rezonings under L-1, and L-2 land use designations
— RS -1 district rezonings under L-1 and L-2 land use designations
— RS -3 district rezonings under M-1 land use designation
— RM -3 district rezonings under M-1 land use designation
— RM -4 district rezonings under M-1 land use designation
Staff Recommendation: Approve the requested changes for consistency and to ensure
a closer density "match" between a site's comprehensive plan
allowable density and zoning allowable density.
PSAC Recommendation: Voted 7-1 for the same recommendation as staff.
PZC Recommendation: Voted 5-1 for the same recommendation as staff.
May 4,1998
D
C,pnKi u FAGS. J i
10. LDR Amendment: Codification and Modification of SR 60 Corridor Plan
Requirements
At its April 22, 1997 regular meeting, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the SR
60 Corridor Plan. The plan contains detailed regulations that have been applied to new
development applications filed after the April 22nd adoption date. For several months prior
to adoption, via use of the pending ordinance doctrine invoked by the Board, general corridor
plan requirements (architectural enhancements, landscaping, signage) were applied to
development projects. Therefore, certain projects have been constructed that generally meet
some or most of the SR 60 Corridor Plan requirements (Rex T.V., Wal-Mart Superstore,
Sam's, Home Depot, Rooms -to -Go, Boot Outlet, Amoco at 82nd Avenue, Holiday Inn
Express). Other projects have been reviewed and approved that meet all corridor plan
requirements (Toys -R Us, Eckerds at 58th Avenue/SR 60, Hedin commercial project). Thus,
the county and the development community have experience with applying various corridor
plan requirements.
At the time that the corridor plan was adopted, the Board and staff discussed some
modifications to the plan requirements that could be made at the time that the requirements
are codified into the LDRs (see attachment #1). Staff has now drafted LDRs that codify the
SR 60 Corridor Plan requirements. The proposed LDRs eliminate some "plan language" that
is not necessary in an LDR format, address issues raised by the Board during plan adoption,
and address issues that have come up over the last several months during review of proposed
projects.
At two meetings (February 3 and February 19, 1998), the PSAC (Professional Services
Advisory Committee) reviewed the proposed modifications. Members of the SR 60 on-going
review task force and a member of the overall SR 60 task force attended and participated in
those meetings. At its February 19' meeting, the PSAC voted 7-1 to recommend approval
of the resulting proposed LDR amendment. Thus, the proposed amendment represents input
and agreement among staff, the PSAC, and members of the SR 60 task force.
Like the Wabasso Corridor Plan requirements, the proposed amendments would be placed
in a special section of the zoning ordinance (Chapter 911) and would act as a set of special
regulations that overlay a defined corridor area That corridor area would be depicted on the
county's official zoning atlas, in the same way that the Wabasso Corridor is currently
depicted.
For ease of comparison, the proposed amendments indicate changes to adopted corridor plan
wording. Many changes involve elimination of purpose and intent wording that has been
summarized and placed at the beginning of the proposed LDR section. Other changes
involve creation of a special definitions section, a review and submittal section, and an
expanded exemptions section placed toward the front of the regulations. Also, there are
other changes that involve clarification of wording or elimination of requirements that are
now contained -an countywide landscaping and buffering LDRs.
There are, however, some more substantive modifications to plan requirements. Such
substantive changes include the following:
A. Exemption for industrial uses (pp. 29, 35, and 38): A foundation planting
exemption for industrial'and storage buildings is proposed for the sides of such
buildings that do not front residential areas, roads, or exclusive access driveways.
Because industrial and storage uses do not invite the general public or residents to the
site, foundation plantings out of view of the public would not generally enhance the
May 4, 1998
10
aesthetic environment of the corridor and, therefore, are not necessary. This
exemption is consistent with the corridor plan's existing exemption of architectural
standards for industrial building facades that are not visible from roadways or
residential areas. That building facade exemption is included in the proposed LDRs.
B. Architectural exemption and increased landscaping standard for electrical
substations (pp. 29 and 39): An architectural/building standards exemption for
electrical substations and similar uses is proposed where buildings associated with
such uses will be visually screened from adjacent properties and roadways. Such
structures will be out of public view and in restricted areas. In addition, such
structures are required to meet safety standards (such as electrical standards) that
could conflict with the architectural standards. Therefore, the exemption is justified
to allow such structures to be hidden from view and restricted from public access by
requiring a higher landscaping standard to visually screen all aspects of the substation
(including taller electrical equipment). This "pending ordinance" proposal was
applied to the Vero Beach substation at 261' Street and 58' Avenue which was
recently approved by the Board. Application of the proposed standards significantly
increased perimeter landscaping in exchange for an architectural exemption for that
project.
C. Extension of the temporary use road buffer (p.29): The plan currently addresses
the buffering of temporary uses from SR 60, but does not specifically address
buffering such uses from other Thoroughfare Plan roads (e.g. 581 Avenue).
Specifically extending the buffer requirement to all Thoroughfare Plan roads within
the corridor is logical because the landscape regulations apply the same roadway
buffer to the Thoroughfare Plan roads and SR 60. Thus, with the proposed
amendments, all Thoroughfare Plan roads will be equally buffered from temporary
uses as well as from "permanent" uses.
D. Deeper roadway buffers for larger projects (p. 33): At its April 22, 1997 hearing,
the Board of County Commissioners recognized that larger projects have a greater
visual impact and a greater ability to provide a deeper buffer along SR 60 and
Thoroughfare Plan roads. In keeping with the adopted buffer depth standards (10',
15', and 20'), the proposed amendment requires a greater buffer depth for projects on
sites that have a greater depth from SR 60 and Thoroughfare Plan roads. The
thresholds chosen correspond to site sizes staff has encountered in its review of
various stand alone and "out parcel" projects, and are consistent with projects
approved over the last 2 years.
E. Exclusive access driveway buffer (p. 34): Exclusive access driveways (e.g. mall
"ring road", major entrance driveways serving large projects) function similarly to
local roads. Such driveways are already defined in the existing LDRs and are
specifically regulated in the existing Chapter 952 traffic regulations. The proposed
amendments would apply local road buffer (landscaping) requirements to exclusive
access driveways, to provide consistent roadside landscaping between local roads and
exclusive access driveways.
F. Interior parldng area landscape standard (pp. 34 and 35): After considerable
discussion at the February PSAC meetings, a proposal was devised to ensure that,
generally, every bank of 10 parking spaces will be broken -up with at least one
planted landscape area. Waivers to the devised formula could be granted by the
Planning and Zoning Commission where tree preservation efforts would be better
served by concentrating rather than dispersing green areas throughout a parking lot.
May 4, 1998
11
rr p 378
c" —'
E��E7!{ .�0 . F' CE
Ji
G. Connection to pedestrian system (p. 37): Although one of the express purposes of
the adopted plan is to accommodate a corridor -wide pedestrian system, no
requirements yet exist that ensure safe pedestrian access from public pedestrian paths
(e.g. SR 60 and Thoroughfare Plan road sidewalks) into project sites. The proposed
amendment requires such connections, and is based on similar requirements applied
countywide in Collier County.
H. Compliance certification from project architect or engineer (p. 32): The
architectural/building, color, and sign requirements allow flexibility but are complex.
Therefore, early and consistent involvement of the project architect or engineer is
necessary to ensure a smooth development process for the developer and to help
ensure compliance with the regulations. The proposed certification is similar to the
site plan compliance engineering certification that has been required for years from
site plan project engineers.
I. I-95 tall sign allowance (p. 50): The proposed amendments would continue to allow
taller signs (50' above the crown of I-95) within 1,000' of an I-95 entrance or exit
ramp. Under the proposed amendment, however, such signs would be required to be
located and oriented so as to be seen by I-95 motorists, since the justification for
allowing the taller signs is based upon the speed and decision-making time of I-95
motorists. It should be noted that staff is proposing such a change to the county's
Chapter 956 sign regulations that would apply to all interstate interchanges. Also,
the proposed SR 60 corridor plan amendment would require that poles for such signs
be treated the same as light poles within the corridor. Such poles -must be painted
dark colors to visually blend into the background environment.
I Canopy facia (pp. 40 and 52):The treatment of canopies and canopy facia was
discussed at length during the February PSAC meetings. The Committee recognized
that special restrictions on canopies are logical since canopies are allowed to be
located much closer to SR 60 than are buildings (10' setback vs. 75' setback). It was
also recommended that the corridor regulations treat SR 60 frontage and
Thoroughfare Plan road frontage similarly. The adopted corridor plan requires
canopies to have sloped roofs and restricts all metal and plastic facias to a 6"
maximum height. Since most canopies are metal, the current plan essentially restricts
canopy facia height to 6".
May 4,1998
The proposed amendment offers more flexibility and relates allowable facia height
to the distance of the structure from SR 60 and Thoroughfare Plan roads and the size
of the sloped roof structure. As proposed, canopy structures more than 75' from SR
60 or any other Thoroughfare Plan road would have no facia height restriction.
Those canopies located closer to SR 60 would be regulated by a formula pegged to
roof slope distance.
In addition, the use of canopies as "de facto sign boards" is proposed to be regulated
by prohibiting internally illuminated signs from being mounted on canopies and by
restricting to 33% the area of canopy facia that can be covered by lettering, logos, and
trim .color. The proposed 33% facia area restriction is consistent with common
practice for corporate accent stripes and logos on canopies. In keeping with past and
current policy, logos and lettering on canopies will count toward a project's
allowable facade sign area.
In regard to gas pump canopies, it should be noted that any canopy roof, including
a true mansard, is required to have a vertical rise of at least 61
.
12
K. Application of standards to administrative approval applications (p. 55): The
intent of the corridor plan is to require conformance with the SR 60 Corridor special
requirements within the area of development of minor projects: Logically, such
projects include "administrative approval" applications as well as "minor site plan"
applications. Therefore, the amendments propose to treat administrative approval
and minor site plan proposals the same in terms of proposed new development
within a defined area of development.
Staff Recommendation: Adopt the proposed SR 60 corridor special regulations.
PSAC Recommendation: Voted 7-1 for the same recommendation as staff.
PZC Recommendation: Voted 6-0 for the same recommendation as staff.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners:
1. Direct staff to make any necessary changes to the proposed ordinance, and
2. Announce its intentions to take final action on the proposed ordinance at the Board hearing
scheduled for 9:05 a.m. on May 19, 1998, to be held in the County Commission Chambers.
ACVWNTS:
1. Bent PineBarkett LDRA Application & Sunshine RV Park LDRA Application
2. Redstone/Dean LDRA Application
3. Comparison of Bed & Breakfast Regulations
4. Comparison of Mini Storage Parking Requirements
5. Mini Storage Parking Reference Article Excerpt
6. Attorney's Memo on Sign Regulations
7. Comparison of Animal Regulations
8. Comparison of RV Park Regulations & F.S. 513 & Code Excerpts
9. Excerpt of Minutes from April 22, 1997 Board of County Commissioners Adoption Hearing
10. Corridor Plan Boundaries Map
11. Matrix: Impact of Proposed LDRs on Affordable Housing
12. Excerpts from March 26, 1998 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
13. Excerpts from April 9, 1998 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
14. Proposed LDR Amendments
May 4,1998
13
E�Ou v.0 ?ACE •��
r
500K F',U"1
Planning Director Stan Boling advised that this is the first of two public hearings
regarding ten different proposed LDR amendments. The purpose of this meeting is to have
input from the public and for staff to receive direction from the Board. Changes will be
brought to the next public hearing which will be held on May 19, 1998. He suggested that
they consider the amendments one at a time following a brief presentation of each one.
Chairman Tippin announced that the public will be invited to speak on each item and
that Vice Chairman Macht's absence was excused as he was on County business attending
a SHOCOP seminar in Orlando.
1. Proposed Amendment: Incidental to Development Minim
Exemption sled by Bent - Pine Golf Club, InaBruce Barkett,
Attorneyj
Director Boling reviewed the information and recommendations contained in the
memorandum above concerning this proposed amendment.
Chairman Tippin asked if the Commissioners had any questions; there were none.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in
this matter. There being none, he closed the public hearing.
There was CONSENSUS to agree with staffs recommendation.
2.Proposed Amendment: Bed and Breakfast Uses (fal� v Mr.
and Mrs. Redstone/John Dean, Architect)
Director Boling reviewed the information and recommendations contained in the
memorandum above concerning this proposed amendment.
Chairman Tippin asked if the Commissioners had any questions; there were none.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in
this matter.
May 4,1998
14
John Dean, representing Joyce and Paul Redstone, advised that he was present to
answer any questions and that he and his clients were happy with staff's recommendation.
It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the Chairman closed the
public hearing.
There was CONSENSUS to agree with staff's recommendation.
3. Proposed Amendment: Sign Regulations (staff-inidatedj
Director Boling reviewed the information and recommendations contained in the
memorandum above concerning this proposed amendment.
In response to Commissioner Ginn's inquiry on double -sided signs on interstate
interchanges, Director Boling advised that they are acceptable as long as they are
perpendicular to I-95. He pointed out, for example, that Cracker Barrel's sign is fine
(oriented to I-95), but the Horizon Outlet Mall sign is not (oriented to I-95).
There was a lengthy discussion concerning special event signs in rights-of-way and
the need for them to help direct motorists to the locations of special events. The discussion
included whether it would be possible to limit the number of days that special event signs
could be on right-of-way. Various durations were suggested.
County Attorney Vitunac pointed out that if special event signs are allowed in rights-
of-way, then political signs would also have to be allowed. He also warned that retail
establishments might advertise "special event" sales.
City sign ordinances were discussed and it was pointed out that if the city excludes
political signs from rights-of-way, the would need to make a similar change.
Discussion then turned to enforcement concerns of all signs.
Environmental Planning & Code Enforcement Chief Roland M. DeBlois explained
the permitting and time duration provisions as proposed for non -right-of-way property.
Commissioner Adams was very concerned about directional signs for special events.
Many suggestions were offered about how to solve having directional signs for special events
such as the Frog Leg Festival, Art Festival, automobile shows, and so forth. It was
determined that special event signs could be placed on private property, adjacent to rights-of-
way if permission from the property owner is obtained.
May 4,1998
15
UO K'- ts0 3
._.� PACE J:��,
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in
this matter.
Gene Waddell was getting a bad feeling from the way discussion was going. He
warned that if they open this "can of worms" on rights-of-way, there will be a huge increase
of "special events" every weekend. He envisioned the proliferation of signs on SR -60 at the
Mall exits. Right now, there are some teeth in the rule which says that no commercial or
political signs are allowed in the right-of-way and it can be enforced. He believed there
would be no problem finding property owners who would be willing to allow legitimate
special event signs on their property. He strongly recommended they follow staff's
recommendation.
It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the Chairman closed the
public hearing.
Both Commissioner Eggert and Commissioner Ginn voiced reluctant agreement to
Mr. Waddell's comments.
There was CONSENSUS to agree with staff's recommendation on the right-of-way
signs and the tall signs near interstate interchanges.
Q. Proposed Amendment: Mini Storage Parking ftuirements
(staff initiated
Director Boling reviewed the information and recommendations contained in the
memorandum above concerning this proposed amendment.
Chairman Tippin asked if the Commissioners had any questions; there were none.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in
this matter. There being none, he closed the public hearing.
There was CONSENSUS to agree with staff's recommendation on mini -storage
parking requirements.
May 4,1998
16
S_ Proposed Amendment Affordable Housing Changes to Match
New Comprehensive Plan Policies (staff initiated
Director Boling reviewed the information and recommendations contained in the
memorandum above concerning this proposed amendment.
Commissioner Ginn wished it noted for the record that she is still very opposed to
increasing density for affordable housing. She believed the County could find another way
to help anyone wishing to build affordable housing — other than increasing density.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in
this matter. There being none, he closed the public hearing.
There was 3-1 (Commissioner Ginn against) agreement with staff's recommendation.
6. Proposed Amendment: Household Pet Definition & Non -
Commercial Kennels (Potbellied P(gs) (Staff and Planning and
Zoning Commission Initiated)
Director Boling reviewed the information and recommendations contained in the
memorandum above concerning this proposed amendment.
Chairman Tippin asked if the Commissioners had any questions.
Commissioner Adams asked about the people who already had potbellied pigs, and
Director Boling thought that Animal Control might be getting calls to pick them up. He
explained that what happens is they grow so large that the owners are no longer willing to
keep them inside. Under this ordinance, the County will no longer consider potbellied pigs
"household" pets.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in
this matter. There being none, he closed the public hearing.
There was a CONSENSUS to agree with staff's recommendation.
May 4, 1998
17
t,0,; i 055 F,,U,E 3,2% `I
7. Proposed Amendment: Mailed Notice Requirements —Regular
Mail vs Cern ied Mail (Staff Initiated,
Director Boling reviewed the information and recommendations contained in the
memorandum above concerning this proposed amendment.
Chairman Tippin commented that he thought star s recommendation and policy was
satisfactory and asked if the Commissioners had any questions.
Commissioner Adams related a humorous story about a citizen who received a
certified mail notice from the County. Her point was that the certified mail serves a purpose
proving whether they received notice or did not. She was not keen on increasing notice to
600' unless it is something special.
Commissioner Eggert inquired how frequently the department received challenges
about not getting notice by certified mail, and Community Development Director Bob
Keating responded that it was not too often. The few times that it does happen, it has been
good to have a signed return receipt.
Director Keating advised that he had initiated recommending this change after looking
at the budget subsequent to sending certified mail to Indian River Club and others. Several
of the mailings totaled several thousand dollars and each project requires at least two
notifications.
Commissioner Eggert suggested they try regular mail and if it doesn't work, it can be
changed back.
Both Commissioner Ginn and Chairman Tippin liked her suggestion.
Commissioner Eggert suggested staff keep some kind of list and documentation, and
Director Keating advised that was one of the PSAC's recommendations, that staff do a
"certified list" as documentation for the file.
Commissioner Ginn wondered if she was the only one who wanted the radius
increased.
Commissioner Eggert felt that 300' was usually sufficient and word does tend to get
around a neighborhood.
Chairman Tippin preferred that staff continue what they are already doing to use good
judgement in the radius they notify. He felt that 600' was too great; even by regular mail,
it could get very expensive.
May 4,1998
18
Commissioner Eggert agreed to staff's recommendation, plus the caveat of using good
judgement in extending the radius of 300' notification.
Commissioner Ginn believed that the PZC thought increasing the notification radius
to 600' was important according to their recommendation.
Director Boling again explained that if the 300' radius does not reach any residences,
then staff expands it to next nearest group of lots.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in
this matter. There being none, he closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Ginn asked that the minutes reflect that she would like notification
radius extended to 6001
.
Chairman Tippin, Commissioners Adams and Eggert agreed to try staff's
recommendation (regular mail) with the caveat explained above regarding expanding the
300' notification radius.
8. Proposed Amendment: Recreational Vehicle Park Occupancy
Time Period and Allowance for Attaching Carports and Porches
(Sunshine Travel Park/Bruce Barkett. Attorney
Director Boling reviewed the information and recommendations contained in the
memorandum above concerning this proposed amendment.
Chairman Tippin asked if the Commissioners had any questions.
Commissioner Eggert inquired if these separation distances would affect anyone now,
and Director Boling thought that it would not adversely affect anyone. He went on to
explain that the problem now is that we just have setbacks from property lines and most of
the RV spaces are not platted, so we really do not have a requirement to address it and this
needs to be in there.
May 4,1998
60OK
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in
this matter.
Bruce Barkett, attorney, advised that he was present to answer any questions. He
commended staff for their accommodation of an existing problem and on a nice job of
putting it together.
It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the Chairman closed the
public hearing.
There was CONSENSUS to agree with staff's recommendation.
9. Reladonships Between Zoning Districts and Land Use
Designations
�o
Director Boling briefly summarized the information and recommendations contained
in the memorandum above concerning this proposed amendment.
Chairman Tippin asked if the Commissioners had any questions.
Commissioner Ginn had discussed with Director Boling the first recommended
change concerning 911.06(3)(a) for Agricultural and Rural districts. She felt the second
phrase of the last sentence on (b), page 25 of the proposed Ordinance, was inappropriate and
asked that it be struck. (Delete: "and do not negatively impact the development of more
intense uses.") To support her request, she gave examples of specific properties that fell
under this provision.
Director Boling advised that staff had no objection.
There was CONSENSUS to remove the clause as suggested by Commissioner Ginn.
Commissioner Ginn had no further questions, but in response to some of her earlier
queries of staff, Director Boling advised that on page 26 of the proposed ordinance, they will
add meanings for RC, C/I, and PUB.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in
this matter. There being none, he closed the public hearing.
May 4, 1998
20
There was CONSENSUS to agree with staff's recommendations and the two
suggestions offered for pages 25 and 26.
10. Proposed Amendment: Codification and Modification ofSR-60
Corridor Plan Requirements
Director Boling reviewed the information and recommendations contained in the
memorandum above concerning this proposed amendment.
Chairman Tippin asked if the Commissioners had any questions.
Commissioner Ginn appreciated the fact that staff has tried to put in deeper buffers
for larger projects, but she really thought 20 feet was inadequate. She also felt there was a
need for greater interior parking landscaping. She also did not want to allow canopy facia
signs.
Commissioner Eggert pointed out that these were the same comments Commissioner
Ginn had made previously, and Commissioner Ginn remarked that she kept saying them
hoping to convince other Commissioners to see things her way. Commissioner Eggert
responded that in many ways she agreed with Commissioner Ginn until economics are
considered, then she begins to have a little problem.
In response to Commissioner Adams' inquiry, Director Boling advised that the new
Eckerds on SR -60 was required to have a 10' buffer and actually has 13'. Under the new
requirements, they would need 15'.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in
this matter.
Gene Waddell, Chairman of the SR -60 Corridor Task Force, understood that the
businesses on the intersection of SR -60 and 58' Avenue have been allowed by staff to hold
off completion of their (landscape) projects. When the intersection is finished, Eckerds,
Home Depot, and Walgreens will finish their landscaping. He assured Commissioner Ginn
that it will look a lot better.
May 4,1998
21
EOC� U FACEYJ
•
Director Boling explained further that Home Depot was allowed to bond out for
landscaping, since the County has a construction easement over that area and will be tearing
it up soon. Walgreens is still under construction and no landscaping has been installed there
yet.
Commissioner Adams asked if there was additional talk in the committees about
making the buffers denser or wider, and Mr. Waddell responded there was not, that the
PSAC was a tough group.
Mr. Waddell suggested they also keep in mind that the landscaping is new and needs
time to mature. In five years, he thought there would be a difference. He encouraged the
Board to agree with staff's recommendations.
There was a question from the audience from an unidentified person concerning facia
signs on canopies, and Director Boling referred to information on page 52 of the proposed
ordinance and explained how calculations are made as to size of signs.
Ed Walker, owner of property on SR -60 between 90' Avenue and I-95, was
concerned about the height and size limitations of signs. He was very concerned that he was
going to be limited to a 10' sign. He felt that a 10' sign puts a business at a disadvantage.
He complained that on some of the monument signs at gas stations it is impossible to read
the gasoline prices.
In response to Mr. Walker, Director Boling explained the size, height, and orientation
requirements for signs at interstate interchanges.
Mr. Walker understood that park but wanted to know the current height maximum
between 90`' Avenue and the I-95 interchange facing SR -60, and Director Boling responded
that the maximum height is 50 feet based on its proximity to the interchange.
It seemed to Mr. Walker that there was great disparity between the two allowed sign
heights.
Commissioner Eggert pointed out that if Mr. Walker's sign was oriented to I-95, he
could have the 50' height.
Mr. Walker thought that would be very expensive and would not look nice. He
believed that most developers want to have a very beautiful entrance into Indian River
County. He has been able to contact two of the four property owners out there (Messrs.
Reilly and Fountain) and they are also concerned about sign height limitations. In a letter
May 4,1998
22
to Chairman Tippin, he had respectfully requested that the Board consider (since there are
only 4 property owners between 90' Avenue and the interchange) that each sign in that
locale be reviewed either by the Board of County Commissioners and/or the Planning and
Zoning Commission on a case-by-case basis.
Commissioner Adams thought the Board would not want to put that type of
subjectivity in it and asked why he felt he needed a larger sign to attract the SR -60 traffic.
Mr. Walker felt that people would not be able to adequately see a 10' sign.
Commissioner Adams explained the purpose of the SR -60 Corridor Plan is to avoid
having an eyesore looking like Kissimmee and Brevard County on the 192 corridors. The
complaint and abuse of large signs has been heard continually through the process of creating
the SR -60 Corridor Plan.
In response to another question of Mr. Walker, Director Boling replied that what is
proposed is some additional language in the table, which is referred to most often. In the text
of the sign ordinance it says that off premises signs shall not exceed the height limitation for
the district in which the sign is located except that such signs located on I-95 shall not exceed
50 feet in height. When you go to the table, you see that it references sites within 1,000 feet
of I-95 off/on ramps. But the intent is there in the text, but is not specific on this point of
how the sign is actually oriented, although the text references "on 1-95". This new ordinance
is attempting to make sure that signs are oriented toward I-95.
Director Boling estimated that 50 square feet would be the largest sign that Mr.
Walker could erect.
There was then discussion regarding plans to 6 -lane SR -60, which would intensify the
traffic but would not increase signage sizes.
Mr. Walker appreciated the Board hearing him and asked if any variances are allowed.
County Attorney Vitunac replied that any variance would have to be based on
something unique about the shape of the property and he did not see how that could happen
here.
Director Boling explained that the SR -60 Corridor Plan has its own variance criteria
which is tailored to the requirements under the Burton Harris Act.
Mr. Walker then asked about landscaping and placement of the sign, and Director
Boling explained that the SR -60 special regulations will allow sign placement closer to the
SR -60 right-of-way than is normally allowed in other areas of the county. Director Boling
added that the strip of landscaping for the buffer can be planned so that the sign is not
May 4,1998
23
E0t1K 1 0 Cc.390
obscured by plantings. Director Boling also advised that a sign in the shape of an orange
would be acceptable.
Mr. Walker thought that property owners were noticed in instances like this, and
Commissioner Eggert explained that this is a general matter (Comprehensive Plan and
LDR's) and the hearings were noticed in the newspaper, which is what is required.
Chairman Tippin added that zoning changes are quite different and require
notification of property owners in the area of the proposed zoning change.
It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the Chairman closed the
public hearing.
Chairman Tippin asked if there were any more comments.
Commissioner Ginn wanted it noted for the record that she would like deeper buffers,
more green space in interior parking, and no signs on canopy facia. She also wanted it noted
that she feels the 25' buffer between residential and agriculture is inadequate.
Other Commissioners expressed various reasons for disagreeing with Commissioner
Ginn's comments.
Chairman Tippin expressed his preference for larger signs when SR -60 is widened to
six lanes.
Notice of Second Hearing
Chairman Tippin announced that the second hearing will be May 19, 1998, at 9:05
a.m.
There being no further business, upon motion duly made and seconded, the Chairman
adjourned the meeting at 6:18 p.m.
ATTEST:
Jeffrey . Barton, Clerk
Minutes approved
May 4,1998
24
r
L J . W. Tippet, Ch an