HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/19/1999BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
A G E N D A
SPECIAL MEETING
MONDAY, APRIL 19,1999 - 5:01 P.M.
County Commission Chamber
County Administration Building
1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Kenneth R. Macht, Chairman (District 3)
Fran B. Adams, Vice Chairman (District 1)
Caroline D. Ginn, (District 5)
Ruth Stanbridge (District 2
John W. Tippin, (District 4)
5:01 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING - Legislative
James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
First Hearing: Proposed LDR (Land Development Regulations) Amendments
(memorandum dated April 13, 1999)
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 TC1 Cable Channel 13 - rebroadcast various times
throughout the week
Falcon Cable Channel 35 - rebroadcast Friday evening
601o,
BOOK FACE
INDEX TO MINUTES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MEETING OF APRIL 19, 1999
FIRST PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED LDR AMENDMENTS ................ 1
4. Proposed Amendment: Distinguishing Piers from Docks ............ 15
11. Proposed Amendment: Home Occupations ...................... 15
5. Proposed Amendment: Height of Buildings with Multiple Roof Structures
& Limits on Height of Roof Peaks ............................. 19
9. Proposed Amendment: Wabasso Corridor Plan Requirements Update .. 21
1. Proposed Amendment: Murphy Deed Reservations ................ 22
2. Proposed Amendment: Right -of -Way Table ..................... 22
3. Proposed Amendment: Building -Front Walkway Vendors at Large -Scale
Retail Projects ............................................ 23
6. Proposed Amendment: Half Streets ............................ 23
7. Proposed Amendment: Gated Entrances ........................ 23
8. Proposed Amendment: Exception to Littoral Zone Requirements ..... 24
10. Proposed Amendment: Prohibition of Special Needs Development in
Coastal High Hazard Area ................................... 24
12. Proposed Amendment: Private Access Road Frontage .............. 24
NOTICE OF SECOND HEARING ....................................... 24
April 19, 1999
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, met in Special
Session at the County Commission Chambers, 1840 251i Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on
Monday, April 19, 1999. The purpose of the meeting was to hold a public hearing on twelve
proposed LDR (Land Development Regulations) Amendments. Present were Chairman
Kenneth R Macht; Vice Chairman Fran B. Adams; Caroline D. Ginn; Ruth Stanbridge; and
John W. Tippin,. Also present were James E. Chandler, County Administrator; Deputy
County Attorney William G. Collins II; 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 13, 1999:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
Community Development
A-6,
FROM: Stan Boling, AICP
Planning Director
DATE: April 13, 1999
SUBJECT: First Hearing: Proposed LDR (Land Development Regulations) Amendments
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its special meeting of April 19, 1999.
April 19,1999
1
BOOK 100 FAGEL 03
o r+r
BOOK ! FAUE 0 ;t
This is the first of two scheduled public hearings at which the Board will consider various LDR
amendments. Since September, staff has reviewed and processed several LDR amendments. These
amendments are as follows:
1. Murch• Deed Reservations: Implements the Board of County Commissioners decision to
treat Murphy Deed Reservation areas as road rights-of-way, affecting setbacks (Board -
initiated).
2. Right -of -Way Table: Revises the road right-of-way requirements table to conform with the
most recent comprehensive plan transportation element changes, and to use road segment
beginning and ending points that correspond with the county's trip count program data base
(staff/comprehensive plan -initiated).
3. Building -front Walkway Vendors at Large -Scale Retail Projects: Codifies county policy of
allowing such vendors as accessory uses to large retail projects, subject to specific criteria
(staff -initiated).
4. Disn_'nguishing Piers from Docks: Sets up definition of "piers" used for fishing, swimming,
and observation as opposed to "docks" that are used for mooring water craft. Would allow
for "piers" in certain areas where "docks" might not be allowed due to environmental impacts
(staff -initiated).
5. Height of Buildings with Multiple Roof Structures & Limits on Heieht of Roof Peaks:
Codifies current policy of applying height limitation standards to buildings with multiple
roof slopes by using the weighted average of roof slopes, and sets an absolute limit on the
height of roof peaks (staff -initiated).
6. Half -Streets: Provides details for requiring existing, necessary half -streets to be upgraded
to whole -streets by developers of new subdivisions and planned developments (staff -
initiated).
7. Crated Entrances: Provides regulations and standards for locating and designing new private
entrance gates in regard to traffic safety and vehicle maneuvers (staff -initiated).
8. Exception to Littoral Zone Requirements: Ties county littoral zone requirements to St. Johns
River Water Management District provisions, per a recent comprehensive plan policy change
(staff/comprehensive plan -initiated).
9. Wabasso Corridor Plan Requirements Update: Updates the Wabasso Corridor Plan
development requirements to be similar to the adopted SR 60 Corridor Plan requirements
(staff/Wabasso Task Force -initiated).
10. Prohibition of Special Needs Development in Coastal High Hazard Area: Codifies recent
comprehensive plan policies that prohibit adult living and total care facilities, nursing homes,
and similar uses within the Coastal High Hazard Area (staff/comprehensive plan -initiated).
11. Home Occupations: Clarifies existing regulations regarding employees who do not reside at
the home occupation residence (Chapter 912).
12. Private Access Road Frontage: Clarifies existing regulations regarding criteria for private
access road frontage for one time lot splits (Chapter 913).
April 19, 1999
2
0 t
The Planning and Zoning Commission and the Professional Services Advisory Committee have
considered all of the amendments listed above, and have made recommendations to the Board of
County Commissioners. Those recommendations are noted for each proposed amendment in the
analysis section of this report.
The Board of County Commissioners is now to consider each amendment and is to direct staff to
make any desired changes to the amendments. In response to Board direction and to 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 4, 1999 meeting.
Each LDR amendment is contained in the proposed ordinance. The following sections contain an
analysis of each amendment.
1. Murphy Deed Reservations
■ Background on Murphy Deed Reservations
In the 1930's, large acreages of land were vested in the State of "Florida due to unpaid taxes.
Subsequently, the State, when it issued deeds back to private owners, reserved unto itself 100' of
right-of-way on each side of the center line of any abutting state road that was in existence as of the
date of the deed. The State's practice of reserving these rights-of-way was based upon the 1937
Murphy Act. Such reservations are known as Murphy Deed Reservations.
During the 1930's, 40's, 50's, and 60's, when the State issued deeds with the reservations, there were
a number of roads under state jurisdiction. Many roads that were State roads in the past, and for
which Murphy Deed Reservations were established, are now county roads. Such roads include 2r,
43rd, 901 Avenue, Oslo Road, and many others. Although these are now county roads, there are
Murphy Deed Reservations over some of the properties that abut these roads.
It should be noted that, even along county roads, the State alone has the authority to release Murphy
Deed Reservation area. The release request process involves formal application with the State. The
State seeks county public works staff input for any release adjacent to a county road. It has been the
State's practice to release reservation area along county roads, if the county supports such a release.
Thus, the county has significant influence regarding such release requests.
Over the last few years, the county has sought to research, identify, and assert its Murphy Deed
Reservation rights. For site plan projects affected by Murphy Deed Reservation areas, such areas
have been treated as rights-of-way, and setbacks have been applied and measured from the
reservation line. When reviewing a reservation release request, the county's policy is to retain only
reservation area needed to meet right-of-way standards. Thus, in making reservation release
decisions the county equates reservation area -with right-of-way area. On September 1, 1998, the
Board of County Commissioners affirmed the policy of treating reservation area the same as right-of-
way area for setback purposes, and directed staff to amend the LDRs to reflect this policy.
■ Proposed Amendments
As a result of the September 1998 decision of the Board of County Commissioners, four existing
LDR definitions are proposed to be amended. These definition changes will codify the Board's
stated policy of treating Murphy Deed Reservation areas the same as road right-of-way. One
implication of that policy is that building setbacks are now measured from reservation lines, the same
as measuring setbacks from right-of-way or property lines.
April 19,1999
3
BOOK i0' PAIGE n5
F,
BOOK 109 'FAG,E
06
At its September 1, 1998 meeting, the Board affirmed this long-standing county policy of treating
reservation areas the same as rights-of-way for setback purposes. At that meeting, the Board directed
staff to codify the policy in the LDRs. The proposed amendments define the term "Murphy Deed
Reservation", and specify how such reservation areas relate to the definition of "right-of-way",
"setback", and "yard(front)".
Staff Recommendation:
Approve the proposed amendment
PSAC Recommendation:
Voted (7-0) for the same recommendation as staff
PZC Recommendation:
Voted (7-0) for the same recommendation as staff
2. Right -of -Way Table
Last may, the county adopted changes to the comprehensive plan that included changes to the
transportation element. Some of those changes involved road right-of-way requirements for specific
Thoroughfare Plan roadway segments. The road right-of-way requirements table in Chapter 952 of
the LDRs is meant to reflect the transportation element requirements. Therefore, the Chapter 952
table must be amended to conform to the transportation element changes that were enacted last May.
Most of the changes proposed merely reflect the transportation element changes. However, some
changes reflect recommendations by the Public Works Director for road right-of-way segments not
specifically covered in the transportation element. In addition, some changes to roadway segment
descriptions (defining a segment's beginning and end points) are proposed to be amended to
conform to the road segment descriptions used in the county's trip count data and on-going trip count
program.
Staff Recommendation: Approve the proposed amendment
PSAC Recommendation: Voted (7-0) for the same recommendation as staff
PZC Recommendation: Voted (7-0) for the same recommendation as staff
3. Building -front Walkway
This proposed amendment would codify an existing staff policy that is not addressed in the existing
LDRs. The current policy, as reflected in the proposed amendment, allows a small-scale push cart
concession (e.g. hot dog vendor) on walkways or sidewalks that front and are immediately adjacent
to larger retail buildings. Such a limited use has been allowed at several retail buildings without
problems and is regulated by the Department of Business Regulation (hotel and restaurant division)
in regard to health standards. The DBR issues a permit for such vendors, and that permit is required
to be displayed to the public by the vendor. Under the proposed amendment, such vendors would
be limited to large retail buildings (100,000 sq. ft. or more) where such food concessions would
function merely as an accessory use rather than as a principal attraction. Such a vendor and his push
cart would be allowed on-site during building store hours only. Also, a vendor would be required
to obtain an administrative permit use to ensure that the proposed criteria are satisfied.
Staff Recommendation: Approve the proposed amendment
PSAC Recommendation: Voted (6-0) for the same recommendation as staff
PZC Recommendation: Voted (7-0) for the same recommendation as staff
4. Distinguishing Piers from Docks
The current definition of pier, as contained in LDR Section 901.03, refers to structures used by the
public only. Thus, the LDRs do not provide for "private piers" except where a private "dock" may
be used as a private pier. Problems arise where a private pier (no mooring allowed) could otherwise
be allowed, but a dock cannot be allowed due to the adverse impacts of boating and corresponding
April 19,1999
El
jurisdictional agency permitting regulations that relate to docks but not piers. For example,
waterfront lots in St. Andrew's Island subdivision (Grand Harbor) cannot have docks, but could have
private piers if the LDRs specified such a use. Also, there are instances where a landowner may
want a small private fishing pier on a stormwater tract/pond within a subdivision, whereby the
alternative of a boat dock would not be appropriate.
A good case can be made for prohibiting "docks" in areas of the Indian River Lagoon (IRL) that have
shallow depths, such as the area of the IRL near St. Andrew's Island subdivision. Such a prohibition
is based on scientific studies proving that "prop dredging" by boats, which is detrimental to seagrass
beds, occurs when boats are moored and used in shallow areas. However, there is less evidence to
indicate that an overwater structure not used for mooring boats (such as a pier) adversely impacts
environmentally sensitive resources when designed (to deter mooring) in accordance with Florida
Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and County regulations. Such was the reasoning
when the FDEP permitted fishinglobservation piers in the Orchid Isle Estates subdivision. Also,
public piers, which are usually larger than private piers_ , are permitted by the FDEP in shallow areas
where docks are not permitted.
Under the proposed amendment, "private piers" would be allowed as an accessory structure to a
single-family residence, mobile home or multiple family dwellings) under this proposed definition.
Due to the similar designs of docks and piers, "private piers" would be subject to the same county
criteria as single-family docks (LDR Section 932.07 - Piers, docks and boatslips). Also, "private
piers" would be permitted in the same zoning districts as single-family docks, which include: A-1,
A-2, A-3, RFD, RS -1, RS -2, RS -3, RS -6, RT -6, RM -3, RM -4, RM -6, RM -8, RM -10, RMH-6,
RMH-8, R-BCID, (Blue Cypress Improvement District), ROSE -4 (Roseland Residential District)
and PD (Planned Development).
The proposed amendments also create a definition for a "public pier", in accordance with
conservation regulation allowances regarding submerged bottomlands and wildlife observation.
Staff Recommendation: Approve the proposed amendment
PSAC Recommendation: Voted (6-0) for the same recommendation as staff
PZC Recommendation: Voted (5-2) for the same recommendation as staff
5. Height of Buildings with Multiple Roof Structures
For many years, the county's current definition of "Building, height of has been used to apply the
county's height limitations ( which are specified in the Chapter 911 Zoning Regulations) to all
proposed buildings. The definition adequately specifies the beginning (low) and ending (high)
points for measuring the height of a flat roof building and a building with a single sloped roof. This
definition has served the county well by drawing a simple height threshold for "flat-topped", box -like
buildings and by allowing portions of a sloped roof building to be above the height limit if a
compensating amount of the roof mass is below the height limit (see attachment #I). This
compensating balance is allowed via the existing definition's use of the mean height (eave to ridge)
of a sloped roof building to meet the height limit. Such an allowance is necessary to allow 3 -story
(35) buildings with sloped roofs as well as 3 -story flat-topped, box -like buildings. The provision
for sloped roofs has allowed architectural variety and aesthetic improvements beyond "box
buildings" while at the same time ensuring that the overall mass of a 3 story sloped roof building is
no greater than the mass of a 3 story box -like building.
Under the current building height definition, however, dealing with the roof height for a single
building with multiple sloped roof structures involves some interpretation. Over the years, staff has
applied an interpretation to proposed buildings with multiple sloped roof structures that has allowed
a weighted roof height average of sloped roof structures. According to previous planning staff, the
county's Planning and Zoning Commission approved use of such a formula for a multiple roof
April 19,1999
5
BOOK h PAGE 07
F'
BOOK 109 FAGS 08
building in the early 1980s. Over the years, that interpretation has applied to fewer than a dozen
buildings, and is now reflected in the proposed LDR amendment. In practice, this interpretation has
resulted in more articulated and architecturally interesting building designs, especially for larger
buildings.
There are numerous ways to apply height limitations. In staff s opinion, the county should not
significantly alter its current and long-standing definition and policy which seems to have worked
well. For comparison purposes, the City of Vero Beach's height definition is attached (see
attachment #2). The city and county definitions are the same in regard to the starting (low) point of
where to measure building height from. However, the city's definition establishes the high point of
the height measurement at the "...inside ceiling of the highest useable space...", and allows sloped
roof structures another 15' beyond the height limitation.
In regard to flat roofed buildings, the county definition sets the high point for measurement at the
deck line rather than the inside of the highest ceiling. Thus, the city's definition would allow for a
slightly taller flat -roofed building.
In regard to sloped roof buildings, the county's definition requires an averaging of roof height (and
thus, roof mass) that results in an average roof mass at or below the height limitation. Thus, the
county's definition ensures that, on average, a building's mass will not exceed the height limitation.
The city's definition, however, does allow for a building mass, on average, to exceed the height
limitation. Unlike the county's definition, the city's definition does set an absolute limit on any
portion of a roof structure. That limit is 15' above the height limitation.
Final Proposal
At the March 11, 1999 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, staff presented recommended
changes and alternative changes to the county's building height definition. At the meeting,
discussion on the issue boiled -down to three basic options:
(1) Apply the weighted mean roof height average and set absolute limits on the number
of habitable stories (i.e. 3 stories for 35' height limit areas, 4 stories for 45' height
limit areas).
(2) Apply the mean roof height to the highest sloped roof structure.
(3) Apply the weighted mean roof height average and set an absolute height limit on roof
peaks, (similar to the method used by the City of Vero Beach which allows sloped
roof elements and architectural embellishments to extend 15' above the maximum
building height).
At the conclusion of its discussion, the Planning and Zoning Commission directed staffto come back
with an amendment that incorporates an'absolute roof peak height limitation (Option 3 described
above). Staff then revisited the proposed amendment and incorporated Option 3 into the proposal.
The weighted mean roof height average was retained to keep in balance the mass and vertical scale
of overall building structures. The absolute height threshold for roof peaks that is now proposed is
based upon a similar allowance in the City of Vero Beach building height definition. Thus, the
proposed amendment would allow roof peaks no higher than 50' in all areas of the county controlled
by a building height maximum of 351. It should be noted that this roof peak limitation would apply
to buildings with single as well as multiple roof slopes.
There is one location in the unincorporated area of the county where the building height limitation
is 45'. That location is the site of the Disney Resort main building. The proposed ordinance
addresses this 45' height area, and provides a 20' absolute limit above the 45' building height (top
April 19,1999
of roof peak no higher than 65). As discussed and recommended by the Professional Services
Advisory Committee and the Planning and Zoning Commission, this provision will ensure
conformance of the existing Disney Resort main building with the proposed changes.
Staff's research indicates that the few buildings that have been approved over the years under the
weighted mean roof height averaging policy would conform to the proposed amendment. Therefore,
the amendment would be consistent with past practice but would not allow "abuses" where taller
portions of buildings would otherwise be possible if no absolute threshold were proposed.
In summary, it is staffs opinion that the county should continue to use the mean roof height
approach on sloped roof structures because that approach limits building mass and has seemed to
work well for years. The proposed amendment is consistent with that approach.
Staff Recommendation: Approve the proposed amendment
PSAC Recommendation: Voted (6-0) for the same recommendation as staff
PZC Recommendation: Voted (6-0) for the same recommendation as staff
6. Half -Streets
In past decades, subdivision developers platted standard grid subdivisions that sometimes resulted
in half -streets platted at an edge of the subdivision. Such half -streets were approved with the intent
that, when the adjacent property was platted, the half -street would be made whole by dedications and
improvements from the second developer. In that way the grid pattern would simply be extended.
Staff s research indicates that there are 42 half -street segments in the unincorporated area of the
county. Almost all of these segments are in the south county and around Vero Beach.
Right or wrong, the county no longer requires the street grid to be extended. Instead, the county
subdivision ordinance allows creation of private streets and cul-de-sacs that are not required to
integrate with or "extend" public streets. Since 1983, however, the county subdivision ordinance
has required half -streets to be made whole by developers whose projects abut existing half -streets.
Through a recent legal review of the county's half -street requirement, staff has determined that an
LDR amendment is needed if, in all cases, the county is to successfully ensure that half -streets can
be made whole by developers of projects that abut existing half -streets. Re -enforcing the county's
half -street requirement is necessary becauseif a property abutting a half -street is platted without
contributing toward making the street whole, then the community can be forever saddled with a
substandard half -street that should function as a whole street.
Under current legal theory and existing subdivision regulations and policy, a developer who is not
required to design his or her subdivision to access an abutting half -street cannot then be required to
contribute toward making the half -street whole. Making it whole at the very least involves
dedication of right-of-way.
To maintain the county's long-standing requirement and policy, the proposed LDR amendment
would require a developer to contribute toward making a half -street whole, even if the developer is
not required to access and upgrade the half -street or otherwise integrate it into his or her project.
Under the proposed LDR amendment, the developer would have the following options:
1. Apply for and obtain abandonment of the half -street. If the half -street is abandoned,
then no requirements would apply regarding making it into a whole street.
2. Design access to and integrate the pre-existing half -street into all or a portion of his
or her project. Contribution toward making the half -street whole would be required,
and the improved half -street would directly serve lots in the new subdivision.
April 19, 1999
7
BOOK 100 FAGS OO
BOOK 109 FAGS
3. Choose to not access the pre-existing half -street if interconnection is not required by
the county. Under the proposed amendment, the developer, even if he chose to not
access from the half -street, would still be obligated to contribute toward making the
half -street whole because he could benefit from the newly formed whole street.
Thus, the proposed amendment would allow the developer to choose the option of
rejecting the benefit of the new whole street, while obligating the developer to
provide his or her fairshare of right-of-way to make the half -street whole.
Based upon discussion at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, Option 3 of the proposed
amendment has been revised to require the contribution of right-of-way but no contribution of funds
for future road paving.
Staff Recommendation: Approve the proposed amendment
PSAC Recommendation: No motion carried, except for final a motion recommending that staff
should revisit the issue. Staff subsequently has revisited the issue.
Note: some PSAC members believed that developers should be
compensated for any right-of-way dedicated and should not be
required to provide partial funding for fidure half -streets. Other
members believed that developers on a case-by-case basis should be
required to provide right-of-way and sometimes funding for future
paving.
PZC Recommendation: Voted (7-0) to recommend approval of the proposed amendment
7. Gated Entrances
Recently, the county experienced problems not specifically addressed in the county's LDRs relating
to a private subdivision's entrance gate. The design and location of this project's gate could
Potentially adversely impact adjacent property owners if service vehicles (e.g. landscape service
trailers) are denied entry and must turn around and exit without entering the project.
To ensure that this problem is not repeated, staff initiated an Land Development Regulations change.
Research of several "sample" gates along SR A -1-A shows that gates are set back 46- 1341 from the
SR A-1 -A travelway to the gate. The average setback is 75'. StafPs proposal would require a 70'
setback from the travelway edge of pavement to the gate but would allow designs with a lessen
setback to be approved by Traffic Engineering if an enlarged entryway width and adequate clear zone
are provided.
The proposed LDR amendment would specifically require Traffic Engineering approval of a
proposed entry gate for any project (e.g. subdivision, site plan, PD). Furthermore, the proposed LDR
would require the entrance and gate to be designed so as not to adversely impact adjacent travelways
in regard to traffic flow and turn around maneuvers. The proposed amendment would address the
problem situation recently encountered, and would allow approval of designs similar to the many
gated entrances throughout the county that have worked well without problems.
Staff Recommendation: Approve the proposed amendment
PSAC Recommendation: Voted (6-0) for the same recommendation as staff
PZC Recommendation: Voted (7-0) for the same recommendation as staff
8. Exception to Littoral Zone Requirements
For years, the county has required littoral zone wetland plantings (and associated creation of littoral
zone "shelves' for newly created ponds of a certain size. These requirements have been applied to
April 19, 1999
8
enhance water quality and to create beneficial habitat. In fact, some developers have found that
required littoral zones become a desirable development amenity from an aesthetic and habitat
standpoint.
In its latest amendments to the comprehensive plan (May 1998), the county determined that littoral
zones should not be required when SJRWMD does not require them. As a result, the county adopted
a comprehensive plan policy stating that the county will not require littoral zones when the
SJRWMD determines that littoral zones "...are not necessary from the standpoint of water quality".
Where projects are exempted from SJRWMD littoral zone requirements, an alternative method or
design is approved to ensure water quality. Thus, projects are allowed to use various methods for
meeting water quality standards.
To implement this new comprehensive plan allowance, the county's current littoral zone
requirements need to be modified. The proposed amendment would implement the new
comprehensive plan policy by allowing a littoral zone exemption based upon a determination by
SJRWMD that the littoral zones are not required.
Staff Recommendation: Approve the proposed amendment
PSAC Recommendation: Voted (6-0) for the same recommendation as staff
PZC Recommendation: Voted (7-0) for the same recommendation as staff
9. Wabasso Corridor Plan Requirements Update
Background
In November 1995, the Board of County Commissioners, by a 3-2 vote, adopted the Wabasso
Corridor Plan. The plan presently covers an -area along CR 510 from W Avenue to the Atlantic
Ocean, and along US 1 from 811 Street to 95* Street. On December 17, 1996, the Board
unanimously adopted an ordinance to codify the Wabasso Corridor Plan special development
requirements by incorporating those requirements into the county's land development regulations
(LDRS) section 911.18.
Recognizing that the Wabasso Corridor Plan would have a positive impact on the community, the
Board directed a committee to draft a similar corridor plan for S.R. 60. On April 22, 1997, the Board
adopted the S.R. 60 Corridor Plan on a 5-0 vote. As it did with the Wabasso Corridor Plan, the
Board adopted an ordinance to codify the S.R. 60 Corridor Plan special development requirements
into the county's LDR section 911.19. Besides codifying the S.R. 60 plan requirements, the Board
also voted to revise the S.R. 60 Corridor Plan. Those corridor plan revisions were primarily
clarifications and modifications identified as necessary during the codification process.
Related to corridor plans was an action that the Board took on May 19, 1998. At that time, the Board
adopted LDR changes to increase county -wide buffering requirements and landscaping requirements
along project roadway frontages. In addition, the county has been proactive in designing roadway.
project special landscaping, including the following projects: Wabasso Causeway, I-95/S.R. 60, 581
Avenue, 43`d Avenue, and C.R. 512.
Because of all these changes, the Wabasso Corridor Task Force recently revisited the Wabasso
Corridor Plan requirements and determined that plan revisions are warranted. In general, the task
force determined that many sections and details of the SR 60 Corridor Plan should be added and
integrated into the Wabasso Corridor Plan. Over the course of 5 workshop meetings (see attachment
#4), the task force reviewed the entire Wabasso Corridor Plan and is recommending, along with staff,
the proposed amendments to LDR section 911.18.
April 19,1999
0
BOOK 109 PAGE
BOOK PAGE
Analysis
The proposed amendments will make the Wabasso Corridor Plan requirements similar to, but not
identical to, the SR 60 Corridor Plan requirements. The task force determined that some of the SR
60 plan requirements were not appropriate or necessary in the Wabasso corridor due to the differing
characteristics of the two corridors. The following summarizes proposed changes by corridor plan
element category.
1. Purpose and intent No changes are proposed in this section.
2. Boundaries of the Wabasso Corridor The proposed amendment would extend the
corridor approximately one-half mile south along US 1 from 81" Street to 7/* Street
(see attachment #3). The corridor covers all properties designated
Commercial/Industrial. Therefore, staff notified all owners of C/I designated
properties from 81 ' Street to the 77' Street/US 1 intersection of the task force
workshops at which the proposed corridor expansion would be considered Affected
property owners attended and participated in discussions. At the end of the
discussions, no affected property owners raised objections to inclusion in the
Wabasso Corridor Plan area.
3. Specific Development Regulations, The Wabasso Plan regulations will apply to new
non-residential and mixed use (residential/commercial) developments.
4. Fxerrtptions for Industd 1 and dial Uses, The proposed amendments include the
same industrial and special uses exemptions that are contained in the SR 60 plan.
Under the amendments, industrial and storage buildings would be exempted from
foundation planting and architectural requirements where buildings do not face
public roads or residential areas. Also, electrical substations and similar restricted
access uses would be exempted from architectural requirements if visually screened.
5. Sign Remilations. Most of the SR 60 plan special sign regulations would be included
in the Wabasso plan. Some of the SR 60 provisions that will not be included in the
Wabasso requirements are: prohibition of appliques and vinyl letters, changeable
copy signs, and the 5 year amortization/upgrade of existing nonconforming signs.
6. Architectural/Building Standards. Most of the SR 60 plan architectural/building
standards would apply in the Wabasso corridor, although the proposed amendments
would allow log cabins and asphalt shingles in the Wabasso corridor. The proposed
Wabasso regulations also do not include any special fascia requirements.
7. Colors and Building Graphics. The Wabasso corridor color and building graphics
requirements will be exactly, the same as the SR 60 color and building graphics
requirements. . I
8. Lightlin& The Wabasso corridor lighting requirements will be exactly the same as
the SR 60 lighting requirements.
9. Landscapes The SR 60 plan street buffer requirements were based on the Wabasso
Corridor Plan standards. The standards will remain identical, while some SR 60 plan
wording will be added to the Wabasso plan. The existing Wabasso plan foundation
planting requirements will be replaced by the SR 60 plan requirements which require
more and taller plantings for taller buildings.
April 19, 1999
10. Development Review. Like the SR 60 plan, an ongoing review task force (rather
than the entire task force of 12-15 members) will be established to assist in the
review of development projects in the Wabasso corridor. The Wabasso on-going
review task force would consist of 6 members (the SR 60 on-going review task force
has 3) appointed by the Board of County Commissioners.
If the Board intends to adopt this change, then separate and apart from its action on
the LDR amendments the Board needs to appoint members to the on-going review
task force. Based upon input from Task Force Chairman Tom Lowe, it is requested
that the Board approve the following list of 6 on-going review task force members:
a.
Tom Lowe
b.
Ruth Meyers
c.
Steve Parsons
d.
Mary Fredell
e.
John Atz
f.
Jeff Bass
Chairman Lowe indicates that these individuals have served as active members of the
overall Task Force and represent interests of both residents and businesses in the
corridor. If the board approves this list, then staff will contact these individuals
regarding project proposals that are subject to the Wabasso Corridor special
requirements.
11. l-tonconformities. Under the proposed amendments, the SR 60 plan nonconformities
provisions would be included in the Wabasso Corridor Plan requirements. These
provisions include the "compatible property" provision which requires owners of
nonconforming sites undergoing major building renovations to upgrade street buffer
landscaping and comply with color and signage requirements.
The variance and voluntary guidelines sections of the Wabasso Corridor Plan requirements would
be unchanged. If at its April 19' meeting the Board agrees to change the Wabasso Corridor Plan
requirements, then at the May 49` Board meeting, staff will ask the board for authorization to revise
the official Wabasso Corridor Plan in accordance with the Land Development Regulations
amendments.
Staff Recommendation: Approve the proposed amendment
Wabasso Task Force Recommendation: Approve the proposed amendment
Note: please refer to attachment #4 for meeting
summaries and votes on individual issues and
regulations contained in the proposed
amendments.
PSAC Recommendation: Voted (6-1) to approve the proposed amendment
PZC Recommendation: Voted (7-0) to approve the proposed amendment
10. Prohibition of Special Needs Development in Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA)
Within the state's coastal communities, a Coastal High Hazard Area has been defined to encompass
areas vulnerable to hazards of storms, such as hurricanes. These are the first areas to require
evacuation when a storm is threatening. In the most recent comprehensive plan amendments (the
May 1998 EAR -based amendments), the county incorporated the CHHA into its comprehensive
Plan. CHHA policies were adopted, including a policy that prohibits re -designating properties in the
CHHA to higher densities, and a policy prohibiting uses that include special needs residents. Such
April 19,1999
11
BOOK 1J9 FADE
FF, I
BOOK 1@9 PAGE 14
uses include nursing homes, adult living facilities, total care facilities, and group homes. The
proposed amendments codify into the LDRs the policy that prohibits new projects containing special
needs residents within the CHHA. In this way, the amendment will implement the comprehensive
plan policy.
Staff Recommendation: Approve the proposed amendment
PSAC Recommendation: Voted (6-1) to approve the proposed amendment
PZC Recommendation: Voted (7-0) to approve the proposed amendment
11. Home Occupations
Staff is proposing revisions to the County's home occupation requirements (LDR Section 912.05(6))
to address concerns raised at the February 25, 1999 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting
appeal of Robert Davis, regarding his home-based lawn care business. The issue of appeal related
to non-resident employees parking daily at Mr. Davis's premises under the home occupation.
The proposed revisions clarify in "paragraph 5" that non-resident employees are not allowed to work,
park their vehicles, or congregate at a home occupation premises under the conduct of the home
occupation (see attachment amendment, paragraph 912.05(6)(D)5). Also, staff is proposing to delete
use limitation paragraph 912.05(6)(D)7, which pertains to traffic and parking. Staffs viewpoint is
that the traffic/parking section (paragraph 7) should be deleted since it raises more questions than
it answers, and because traffic and parking issues are addressed in other LDR requirements,
including the prohibition of non-resident employee parking now proposed in paragraph 5.
A discussion ensued at the February 25th Planning and Zoning Commission meeting as to whether
or not it is acceptable to allow some minor level of traffic and non-resident employee (or client)
parking at a home occupation site. Staffs position is that the County should not allow any such
traffic or parking under the conduct of a home occupation. Staff recognizes that "normal" traffic
volume and parking at a single-family residence varies with the size of a family and the number of
licensed -driver residents. Staff feels that the County should not compound that normal range of
traffic/parking volume by allowing additional traffic generated by a home occupation via clients
and/or non-resident employees. Any allowance of clients or non-resident employees coming to a
residence would be difficult to enforce and could essentially open the door to office -like or
commercial -like uses in all neighborhoods countywide. Such an allowance, if exploited, would
conflict with the intent of the zoning ordinance to separate incompatible uses.
The Planning and Zoning Commission voted to recommend that a limited number of non-resident
employees (up to two) be allowed to park and meet at a home occupation premises, provided the
actual conduct of the occupation occurred off -premises. In reviewing that recommendation, the
Professional Services Advisory Committee (PSAC) voted to expand the allowance such that up to
two vehicles of non-resident employees or clients could be parked at a residence associated with the
conduct of a home occupation. The PSAC's recommendation would thus allow business clients, as
well as non-resident employees, to visit a home occupation residence on a daily basis.
Staff's position is that the current regulation, as it has been applied, has adequately balanced home
occupation allowances with neighborhood public interest. Over the past four years, approximately
1,200 home occupation permits have been i§sued, and staff has processed approximately 50 code
enforcement actions based on neighborhood complaints. Staff thinks that the LDR revisions should
only clarify the current allowance and not expand the allowance. This approach would be consistent
with the regulations of the City of Sebastian, which prohibits non-resident employees and clients
from coming to a home occupation premises. The City of Vero beach prohibits visits from non-
resident employees but does allow customer visits from 9:00am to 9:00pm.
April 19,1999
12
0 is
•
Staff Recommends: Approval of an amendment with no allowance for visits of clients and non-
resident employees.
PSAC Recommends: Approval of an amendment that allows visits of clients and non-resident
employees so long as no more than 2 non-resident vehicles are on site at any
given time.
PZC Recommends: Approval of an amendment with no allowances for client visits but allowing
for up to 2 non-resident employees to visit, park, and meet on site.
NOTE: On pages 12 - 14 of the proposed ordinance, staff has noted in bold letters the
differences in recommendations.
12. Private Access Road Frontage
In 1994, the Board of County Commissioners approved changes to the county's subdivision
ordinance. Those changes allowed certain private roadways that were in existence prior to December
8, 1973 to constitute road frontage for lot (parcel) splits. Thus, under certain circumstances, the
changes allow a property owner to create one additional parcel that fronts upon an older, unplatted,
private roadway. Under these provisions, several private roadways have been approved for lot split
frontage purposes, and several lots have been created.
On January 19, 1999, the Board of County Commissioners heard a request for clarification of the
LDRs relating to private, grandfathered -in roadways used as frontage for lot splits. The clarification
was needed to settle a disputed lot split road frontage administrative approval application from
Michael O'Haire. The Board was asked to determine if grandfathered -in private roadways could be
shifted from their 1973 alignment and remain grandfathered -in (qualifying as road frontage). The
Board's determination was necessary because the current lot split road frontage regulations are silent
on the issue and the Board's 1994 LDR change discussion did not address the issue.
At its January 10 meeting, the Board reviewed a specific lot split road frontage application and
determined that a grandfathered -in private road could be shifted from its 1973 alignment and
maintain its grandfathered -in status (see attachment #5). The Board based its decision on the
following findings:
It is reasonable to assume that the alignment of unpaved roadways, such as those that
can be grandfathered -in, shift over the years.
Some roadway shifting can be beneficial for reasons of traffic safety or circulation,
or preservation of trees or environmentally sensitive lands.
If a road remains in the same general location and has the same beginning and ending
points as its 1973 alignment, then the shifted roadway still complies with the intent
of the lot split road frontage provisions of the subdivision ordinance.
At the January 19th meeting, the Board directed staff to make LDR changes to codify the clarification
to allow shifting of grandfathered -in private roadways that qualify for lot split road frontage. The
proposed amendment implements the Board's directive. In addition, the proposed amendment
clarifies other "clean-up" issues that staff has encountered during its review of private road frontage
lot split applications. Those issues include specifying the "passable width" of the grandfathered -in
physical roadway, and recording in the public records the entity responsible for maintaining the
grandfathered -in private roadways. The proposed amendment would change a portion of the
subdivision ordinance (Chapter 913), and a parallel section of the single-family development
ordinance (Chapter 912).
April 19,1999
13
BOOK 109 GAGS
0
r �
BOOK 109 [AGE
Staff Recommendation:
Approval of the proposed amendment
PSAC Recommendation:
Voted (6-1) to approve the proposed amendment
PZC Recommendation:
Voted (6-0) to approve the proposed amendment
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 9:05a.m. on May 4, 1999, to be held in the County
Commission Chambers.
1. Building Height Graphics
2. City of Vero Beach Building Height Definition
3. Wabasso Corridor Map and Graphics of Requirement Changes
4. Wabasso Task Force Meeting Summaries
5. Private Access Road Graphic
6. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes: March 11, 1999 Meeting
7. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes: March 25, 1999 Meeting
8. Financial Impact Statement: Impacts on Housing
9. Proposed Ordinance Amending the LDRs
Chairman Macht understood this first public hearing ofthe proposed LDR's is to give
direction to staff for changes the Board wished to make prior to their vote at the second
public hearing on May 4, 1999, at 9:05 a.m. Due to the nature of the items and the public
present who wished to speak, he changed the order so that item 4 would be first; item 11
would be second; and item 5 would be third. He requested and received consensus from the
Commissioners to change the order of the items as announced.
Planning Director Stan Boling advised that there might also be people present to speak
on the Wabasso Corridor Plan Requirements Update (item 9) and suggested the Board might
wish to take that fourth. There was no objection.
Director Boling announced that this is the first of two public hearings and staff is
seeking the Commissioners' input.
April 19,1999
14
40 0
Q. Proposed Amendment: Distinguishing Piers from Docks
Director Boling reviewed the information and recommendations contained in the
memorandum above concerning this proposed amendment.
Chairman Macht 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.
Eric Ash, an attorney representing a private landowner, believed that the only issue
was enforcement. He wanted to point out that the design of the pier, as a practical matter,
is going to prevent its use as a dock. There is a 5' mean high water line limitation, which
means that on someone of average height (standing in a boat) , the pier would be chest high
and it was impossible to crawl up onto a pier from that height. Also, a continuous railing
will go around the pier. The purpose of the 5' requirement is not just to prevent the pier from
being used as a dock, but is also to permit sea grasses under it to get light in order to grow.
He urged the Board to support staffs recommendation.
The Chairman determined there were no other speakers and closed the hearing.
There was CONSENSUS to agree with staff's recommendation.
11. Proposed Amendment: Home Occupations
Director Boling reviewed the information and differences in the recommendations
contained in the memorandum above concerning this proposed amendment.
Chairman Macht asked if the Commissioners had any questions.
In response to Commissioner Adams, Director Boling advised that two buses would
be possible under the two non-resident vehicles as recommended by the PSAC.
Director Boling thought that "two vehicles" came out of a case that went before the
PZC which, after a lot of discussion, the members thought that was not really that bad.
Deputy County Attorney William G. Collins H recalled the discussion also involved
the fact that the employees' cars might also be parked in a two -car garage.
April 19, 1999
15
BOOK �`- F'�G� 17
BOOK PAGE .CC
Commissioner Ginn believed that staff s recommendation concerning no allowance
for visits of clients was too restrictive.
Chairman Macht reminded everyone that if this becomes a law,,it will need to be
enforced.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in
this matter.
Procter Barber,103618thStreet SW, related that the new buyers of the house across
the street have set up an upholstery shop and furniture repair in their garage. The garage
door is open all day and the garage is stuffed from floor to ceiling with furniture. He said
it is unsightly and downgrades the neighborhood. He reported that customers and delivery
trucks are in and out as often as 4 times a day loading and unloading furniture and the sounds
of sewing machines and stapling machines go on all day. He was certain the Board was not
in favor of this happening in a residential neighborhood and trusted they would right this bad
situation.
Responding to Commissioner Ginn's inquiry, Director Boling responded that the
intent ofthe home occupation ordinance has been applied with no clients and no non-resident
employees until the appeal case. Environmental Planning & Code Enforcement Chief Roland
M. DeBlois reviews applications for home repair businesses. Artists, sculptors, and home
crafts may also have a business within a home, but the idea is that the business *is basically
transparent. It is not always easy to precisely legislate that type of business.
Mr. DeBlois added that what Mr. Barber had described sounded like a business that
could be permitted with a home occupation permit, but at a certain level. It is expected to
be small scale, with the garage door closed, not obtrusive, maybe a delivery once every week
or two. That generally is witbin the parameters of the current ordinance. Volume and
intensity are hard to control and fall under _enforcement. The applicant must initially respond
to certain questions and provide a notarized statement indicating the volume ofbusiness they
expect; it is reviewed for compliance with what is customarily found in neighborhoods.
What Mr. Barber described could be a situation where a permit was issued, but the business
became more intense than what was originally indicated in the application.
Chairman Macht recalled this concern coming before the City of Vero Beach and the
guidelines were that home occupations could occur so long as the general neighbors and
April 19,1999
16
passers by would be unable to distinguish it from a private residence. What Mr. Barber
described, however, could readily be seen as a thriving activity, through an open garage door,
which would violate that principle.
Commissioner Ginn definitely thought what was described should not be allowed in
a residential neighborhood, but more appropriately belonged in a commercial area.
Commissioner Adams suggested this may have started out as a hobby that had gotten
too big. Very few garages are air-conditioned so the door would need to be open. She saw
the problem, but was not sure anything would be solved other than using staff's
recommendation which she believed too restrictive.
Mr. DeBlois advised that the current ordinance covers levels of activity, residential
character, equipment processing and nuisance aspects. The problem with the appeal is that
it is not specific and is open to interpretation. He explained that staff's recommendation
came about as a result of that appeal. From a county -wide application and enforcement
standpoint, it is necessary to prohibit visits.
Judy Lightfoot, 155 31' Avenue SW, advised she had faxed a letter to the
Commissioners earlier in the day and reviewed same:
April 19, 1999
Board of County Commissioners.
I have received a copy of a proposed change :o the County Code regarding the issue of
non-resident employees parking at premises ender home occupation permits which will
be discussed at this evening's meeting.
Against County's staff recommendation the Pi ofessional Services Advisory Committee is
recommending that a change be made to the come Occupation zoning law allowing 2
non-resident vehicles to be parked at or meet on the home occupation premises.
This request for change has been brought by a gentlemen who operates his lawn
maintenance business from his home and ha, his employees come to his residence
each day to meet and park their vehicles for tt a day. This gentlemen lives on my street
and his employees come and go at various he urs during the day. As well as coming
Monday through Friday they often come Saturday and Sunday.
If the County Commissioners vote in favor of t its zoning change a whole new Pandora's
box will be opened:
1. Vehicle — is that defined as a car h Wing four persons or a van holding 12
persons? Although -the new wordir g.states "........two non-resident
employees shall be allowed to parl, their vehicles......' it leaves wide open for
interpretation how many persons K ill be allowed in each of the two vehicles?
2. Hours — can employees' vehicles came and go at any time of the day? A
normal workday is 9 to 5, but In the lawn maintenance business it is pawn
until dusk. It might be something else for a plumber or carpenter, etc.
3. Days — will it be allowed Monday tt rough Fridays or 365 days per year. Will
weekends and holidays be excluded? If holidays are excluded, is it religious
holidays or legal holidays?
April 19, 1999
17
BOOK 0 N�GE AU
BOOK 109 PAGE 20
I request that you consider carefully th.a effect this change to code would have in
any neighborhood, not just mine. To change it zoning law for the convenience of one
business owner who does not want to rent cot nmercial space down the road will
eventually affect numerous neighborhoods thraughout the county.
Thank you for considering my reques: not to change the code.
Sincerely,
Judith E. Lightfoot
155 316t Avenue SW
Vero Beach, FL 32958
RECEIVED
APR 19 1999
CLERK TO THE BOARD
RIECEIVED
APR 19 1999
bkj'6 MISSION Y
DISTRIBUTION LIST
Comm.'ssioners
Administrator
Attorney
Personnel
Public Worsts
Communitj Dev.
Utilities
Finance
OMB
Emerg. Serv.
Risk Mgt.
Other r"?, v, ick
George Sigler, 155 31' Avenue SW, had appeared before the Board several years
prior concerning a complaint about tow trucks. His neighbor has a lawn service business as
does he himself. His own lawn business had grown and he rented a facility where he keeps
his equipment and has his employees report for work. His neighbor has employees coming
to the house. He argued against the PSAC and PZC recommendations, questioned some of
the logic used in arriving at those recommendations, and urged the Board to support staff's
recommendation.
Commissioner Tippin strongly favored staffs recommendation, that is, merely to
clarify the allowance and not expand it.
Commissioner Stanbridge agreed.
Commissioner Adams was concerned about over -legislation but she did not want to
have home businesses get out -of -hand. People had a right to do what they want on their
property "until they step on somebody else's toes." That is the difficult part. Out of 20
licenses issued each year, only 1 results in a complaint. She did not agree with any of the
recommendations, but did not have an alternative to offer.
Commissioner Ginn thought more specifics needed to be developed as to what is
viewable from the street. She was concerned about, for an example, an architect who had
a client come to his residence once a week. She still thought staffs recommendation was
overly restrictive.
Paul McCarthy, 500 Eugenia, was concerned about the safety issue of having non-
resident employees come to a residential neighborhood and he wondered how it would be
possible to limit visits of clients.
April 19,1999
18
Commissioner Tippinfelt staff shouldhave some leewaybased onreasonableness and
common sense.
Commissioner Adams suggested that some criteria thatt might be considered is lot size
and complaints by the neighbors.
Chairman Macht thought that a home business requiring. employees should not be
considered a home business and should be moved to a commercial area. He thought that if
it becomes visible to the point of being obtrusive outside the home, it would not meet our
code.
Commissioner Stanbridge told of her home business writing historic grants and her
clients do not visit her home, nor does she have any employees who come to her home.
Commissioner Ginn believed that was the way a home occupation should be.
Chairman Macht thought consensus was to accept staff's recommendation, but
Commissioner Tippin suggested they remove the word "clients" from staff's
recommendation.
Commissioner Ginn agreed, there should not be traffic in and out of the home.
Chairman Macht suggested they make it "obtrusively' visible. If a complainant
looking for something they can find it.
Commissioner Stanbridge concurred.
Commissioner Adams still was not happy with any of the recommendations or
suggestions.
(CLERK'S NOTE: COMMISSIONER ADAMS LEFT THE
MEETING AT 5:44 P.M. TO ATTEND ANOTHER
MEETING.)
S. Proposed Amendment: Height ofBuildings with Multiple Rood'
Structures & Limits on Height of RoofPeaks
Director Boling reviewed the information and recommendations contained in the
memorandum above concerning this proposed amendment with the aid of the sketch below:
April 19,1999
19
BOOK DO PAGE 1
(insert Attachment 1)
Figure (a):
Current County Definition for Single Roof
Figure (b):
Current City of Vero Bead Definition for Single Roof
HIGHEST POINT OF ROOF
Figure (c):
Proposed County Multiple Slopes Roof Definition
BOOK 10- PAGE 2,2 7
Commissioner Ginn had several questions of Director Boling concerning this
proposed amendment and stated she preferred the City of Vero Beach's version (located in
the backup).
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in
this matter.
John Genoni had appeared a week prior on the Bermuda Club project. Their
project's issue is that their design calls for three stories above a parking level. With a 35'
height maximum, the problem they are running into is there is no volume and they are stuck
April 19,1999
20
with 8' ceiling heights. In the price range and size they intend to build the units, they will
be seriously restricted to come in with more inferior units than they really want to build. He
requested the Board consider a building height of 35' above the first floor for buildings with
a parking garage below to allow higher ceilings which will make their units larger so they
can be sold, marketed, and ultimately taxed at a higher value.
It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the Chairman closed the
public hearing.
Commissioner Ginn and Commissioner Stanbridge advised they would not support
Mr. Genoni's request.
Commissioner Ginn wanted to keep an absolute height of 50' and could not go along
with staff's recommendation.
Commissioner Tippin and Commissioner Stanbridge stated their support for staff s
recommendation.
After a question to Director Boling about the maximum height above the starting
point, Chairman Macht stated his support for staffs recommendation.
9. Proposed Amendment: Wabasso Corridor Plan Reguirements
Update
In his presentation on this proposed amendment, Director Boling highlighted the big
differences between the Wabasso Causeway Corridor Plan and the State Road 60 Corridor
Plan and used the following map in his presentation:
April 19,1999
11 LF�
Em17M� s
21
ID - EXISTING wARASSO CORRIDOR
PLAN AREA
E3 -PROPOSED EXPANSION OF THE
WARASSOCORRIDORAREA
BOOK M PAGE
Fr -1
BOOK 100 FADE
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 was hoping to see stricter regulations and more green space. She
was not pleased with the massive Citgo gas station at US 1 and CR510. She thought the
Amoco station at 82' Avenue and SR 60 was more desirable. She was unsure how to correct
the bright light from the Citgo station.
Director Boling pointed out that lighting was one of the reasons the Task Force
wanted to revisit the Plan. There were no requirements in the Corridor Plan when the Citgo
station was permitted. Based on some of the problems with that station's lighting, the SR
60 update had some lighting standards to correct those problems. Those new lighting
regulations are included in this proposed amendment.
In response to Commissioner Stanbridge, Director Boling advised that the Citgo
station had made some adjustments to tone down their lighting, but it still does not comply
with the new requirements.
Chairman Macht asked the Board for their recommendations.
Commissioner Ginn wanted more restrictions.
Commissioners Tippin and Stanbridge and Chairman Macht supported staff's
recommendation.
1. Proposed Amendment: Murphy Deed Reservations
Director Boling briefly reviewed the information and recommendations contained in
the memorandum above concerning this proposed amendment.
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 were no suggested changes and, therefore, CONSENSUS to agree with staff's
recommendation.
2. Proposed Amendment: Right -of -Way Table
Director Boling reviewed the information and recommendations contained in the
memorandum above concerning this proposed amendment.
April 19,1999
0
22
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.
3. Proposed Amendment: Building -Front Walkway Vendors at
Large -Scale Retail Proms
Director Boling reviewed the information and recommendations contained in the
memorandum above concerning this proposed amendment.
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.
6. Proposed Amendment: Half Streets
Director Boling reviewed the information and recommendations contained in the
memorandum above concerning this proposed amendment.
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.
7. Proposed Amendment: Gated Entrances
DirectorBolingbriefly summarized theinforma .onandrecommendationscontained
in the memorandum above concerning this proposed amendment.
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 recommendations.
April 19,1999
23
BOOK 109 PAIGE Z
BOOK� err
Pt.uc
8. ProposedAmendment:ExcetiontoLittoralZoneftuirements
Director Boling reviewed the information and recommendations contained in the
memorandum above concerning this proposed amendment.
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 recommendations.
10. Proposed Amendment: Prohibition of Sbecial Needs
Development in Coastal High Hazard Area
Director Boling reviewed the information and recommendations contained in the
memorandum above concerning this proposed amendment.
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 recommendations.
12.Proposed Amendment: Private Access Road Frontage
Director Boling reviewed the information and recommendations contained in the
memorandum above concerning this proposed amendment.
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 recommendations.
Chairman Macht extended compliments to staff on behalf of the Board.
NOTICE OF SECOND HEARING
The second public hearing will be held on May 4, 1999, at 9:05 a.m.
April 19, 1999
24
There being no further business, upon motion duly made and seconded, the Chairman
adjourned the meeting at 6:18 p.m.
ATTEST:
Jeffre arton, Clerk
Minutes approved l
April 19, 1999
` -i
BOOK M PAGL- 7