PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Transcription

1 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE There was a meeting of the Indian River County (IRC) Professional Services Advisory Committee (PSAC) on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. in the First Floor Conference Room A of the County Administration Building, th Street, Vero Beach, Florida. Present were Vice Chairman Warren Dill, Law Appointee; Peter Robinson, Development Appointee; Robert Gaskill, Architect Appointee; John Blum, Civil Engineer Appointee (arrived at 9:19 a.m.); Stephen Moler, Engineer Appointee; George Kulczycki, Forester, Biologist, Botanist, Horticulturalist, or Arborist Appointee; and Ryan Morrell, Environmental Issues Appointee. Absent were Chairman Rodney Paradise, Real Estate Broker Appointee; Alan Schommer, General Contractor Appointee; Robert Brackett, Finance and Business Appointee (all excused); and Todd Smith, Engineer Appointee (unexcused). Also present were IRC staff: Stan Boling, Planning Director; Bob Keating, Community Development Director; Brian Freeman, Senior Planner; David Hays, Engineering; and Darcy Vasilas, Interim Executive Aide. Others present: Dr. David Cox, Bonnie Veron, Debby Ecker, Jens Tripson, Billi Wagner, and Jean Catchpole, Pelican Island Audubon Society; Joseph Paladin, Growth Awareness Committee; Chris Crawford, Architect; and Ray Jankoski, W.F. McCain and Associates. Call To Order Vice Chairman Dill called the meeting to order at 9:05 a.m. Election of Chairman and Vice Chairman ON MOTION BY Mr. Moler, SECONDED BY Mr. Gaskill, the members voted unanimously (6-0) to re-elect Mr. Paradise as the Chairman of the Professional Services Advisory Committee for PSAC/Approved 1 January 30, 2007

2 ON MOTION BY Mr. Robinson, SECONDED BY Mr. Gaskill, the members voted unanimously (6-0) to re-elect Mr. Dill as the Vice Chairman of the Professional Services Advisory Committee for Approval of Minutes of the December 14, 2006 Meeting Old Business None. New Business ON MOTION BY Mr. Robinson, SECONDED BY Mr. Moler, the members voted unanimously (6-0) to approve the December 14, 2006 minutes, as submitted. Mr. Stan Boling, IRC Planning Director, recapped the changes and upgrades in terms of buffering requirements to the Landscape and Buffer Regulations of Land Development Regulations (LDR s) Chapter 926, the Corridor Landscape Regulations of LDR Chapter 911, the Stormwater Maintenance Area Regulations of LDR Chapter 930, and the Littoral Zone Regulations of LDR Chapter 934, and the Definitions of LDR Chapter 901. Mr. Brian Freeman, IRC Senior Planner, reviewed the information contained in his memorandum, a copy of which is on file in the Commission Office. He highlighted the proposed changes as follows: Chapter 926, Landscape and Buffer Regulations, apply to all nonresidential and multi-family residential development applications. The proposed amendments would apply to new site plan applications for nonresidential and multi-family residential developments and would apply to buffer and common landscape areas for new subdivisions. 1. Increase minimum tree and shrub sizes. 2. Increase buffer standards. 3. Consolidate requirements for landscape areas along roadways. 4. Establish shrub diversity requirements. 5. Reduce building foundation shrub requirements in all corridors. 6. Establish limits on the use of turf grass. PSAC/Approved 2 January 30, 2007

3 7. Upgrade berm design requirements. 8. Require canopy trees around stormwater lakes. 9. Require littoral zones along lake shorelines. 10. Require landscape plans for larger projects to be prepared by a Florida registered landscape architect or a Florida certified landscape designer. 11. Establish new requirements for irrigation systems. 12. Provide a comprehensive list of native plants. Mr. Blum arrived at 9:19 a.m. Mr. Boling interjected changes being proposed here are things that have actually been discussed from time to time over the years at PSAC and at a staff level. He continued this was the first time staff had a chance to go back into LDR Chapter 926 and tried to hit on all the issues that had been brought up. He felt the major changes were getting some larger areas for canopy trees within the parking lot areas, and there was a lot more emphasis on requiring native plants with the overall aim for the conservation of water through irrigation. Mr. Joseph Paladin, Chairman of the Growth Awareness Committee, asked if the changes being proposed in LRR Chapter 926 would affect the incentive program still in place in LDR Chapter 911 concerning the buffer requirements where if a developer used 100% native plants in a buffer, they could decrease the 25-foot buffer requirement to 15-feet. Mr. Boling responded the Growth Awareness Committee s incentives for buffering requirements and common space requirements would not be affected by the amended LDR Chapter 926 requirements. Discussion was held regarding the conflicts with the maintenance areas when there were grouping of plants around a stormwater pond. Mr. Freeman explained there was an allowance in Section allowing for trees within the maintenance area with no more than a 50-foot area of trees and at least a 100- foot area adjacent to it that was clear. Mr. David Hayes, IRC Engineering Department, reported they reviewed each application on a case-by-case basis depending what the design was. They allowed up to a 50-foot wide grouping as long it was possible to get around the grouping for maintenance. He added ideally staff would prefer no more than 50- feet with grass planted at least 100-feet around the groupings to prevent erosion. Mr. Boling related on the roadway landscaping for commercial projects going to a unified corridor, staff specifically put in an allowance to give people a break on the depth or width of the front buffer if they had a small site. They PSAC/Approved 3 January 30, 2007

4 especially wanted to do that in special corridors because they had a number of shallow commercial sites on U.S. Highway 1 in particular, and they wanted to create a relationship with the depth of the site and the maximum area that was needed for the front buffer to address small sites. Mr. Freeman reviewed Attachment #7, a Landscape Cost Comparison with the following: Current Ordinance Not in Corridor Type Size Quality $ per plant Total $ Canopy Trees ,000 Understory Trees ,650 Shrubs ,488 Total Cost 20,138 Revisions Not in Corridor Type Size Quantity $ per plant Total $ Canopy Trees ,750 Canopy Trees ,400 Understory Trees ,800 Shrubs ,500 Total Cost 36,450 Percent Increase for Non-corridor Sample Site 81% Current Ordinance In Corridor Type Size Quantity $ per plant Total $ Canopy Trees ,250 Canopy Trees ,400 Understory Trees ,900 Total Cost 47,100 Revisions In Corridor Type Size Quantity $ per plant Total $ Canopy Trees ,250 Canopy Trees ,400 Understory Trees ,900 Shrubs ,550 Total Cost 47,100 Percent Increase for Corridor Sample Site 16% PSAC/Approved 4 January 30, 2007

5 Mr. Gaskill felt all costs needed to be brought forward before taking these amendments to the Board of County Commissioners. He also questioned if there was a list of native plants why would a project need a landscape architect. Mr. Boling responded the requirement was for the larger projects requiring a preapplication process with 20 or more units for residential, and 40,000 square feet for commercial. Discussion ensued regarding the labeling of a large project being determined as 20 or more units. Mr. Moler felt it was necessary to make the smaller projects more affordable. He continued they would cost more with the need to hire a landscape architect. Ms. Billi Wagner, Pelican Island Audubon Society, expressed her opinion that using a landscape designer would be much less expensive than a landscape architect. Mr. Ray Jankowski, W.F. McCain and Associates, stated the difference between a landscape architect and a landscape designer was there was only one regulatory agency in Florida that certified a landscape designer and that was Florida Nursery Growers and Landscape Associates. He explained the landscape designer was a series of certification classes and the people obtaining this certification would know what plants would survive better in a specific area and there was more hands-on experience as far as horticulture. Mr. Jankowski explained he was in the process of obtaining his certification as a landscape designer and he opined if using the services of a landscape designer versus a landscape architect, money would be saved in the long run with the viability of the plants. Mr. Chris Crawford, Architect, suggested the landscape architect or designer work with the developer before the property was cleared for larger projects. Mr. Kulczycki inquired if there were any maintenance requirements. Vice Chairman Dill responded the maintenance agreements were between the owner and whoever was hired to install the landscaping. Mr. Boling explained the current system was before a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) was issued, a certification was received stating the landscaping was in compliance, then approximately three to four inspections were made before the CO was issued. He continued most of the contracts have a one year guarantee and staff usually performs an inspection nine to ten months after the CO was issued before the guarantee expires to allow for any necessary plant replacement. PSAC/Approved 5 January 30, 2007

6 Mr. Boling related a large amount of the code enforcement cases dealt with landscaping and staff hoped with the inclusion of landscape design professionals in the beginning, the quality of landscaping would improve and decrease the code enforcement cases. Vice Chairman Dill opined the issue raised at this meeting was the threshold of 20 units for residential, and 40,000 square feet for commercial. Mr. Robinson opined the increase in cost to the small businessman would be difficult. Mr. Boling explained there may be a decrease in costs on the maintenance if more was spent initially on the design and the value of the properties would be increased with the increased plantings. He added staff does want to provide the right cost information for the decision makers to know and staff would do that. Mr. Paladin asked how the small lot subdivision would be affected. Mr. Boling responded it would not affect the roadway buffering requirements at all, it would be for stormwater. He opined there would be less of an impact on small lot subdivisions. Mr. Moler inquired if these requirements would be for industrial and light industrial as well. Mr. Freeman responded in the affirmative. Mr. Moler felt there should be a point where the landscaping requirements could decrease when a site was internally located. He felt on the local roads leading to the internally located sites the benefit to a commercial subdivision was not worth the cost. Mr. Boling summarized the concerns discussed as: not requiring an increase in the landscaping requirements along local roads when not separating commercial and residential; and if falling below the table standard because of the narrow width or depth of a lot, prorate the requirements so the site is not overplanted. Vice Chairman Dill provided a synopsis of what was discussed regarding the amendments to LDR Chapter 926. PSAC/Approved 6 January 30, 2007

7 ON MOTION BY Mr. Robinson, SECONDED BY Mr. Moler, the members voted unanimously (7-0) to approve the amendments to Land Development Regulations Chapter 926 as presented, subject to the four areas of concern as listed: 1. Concern with residential threshold of 20 units, changing it to 50 units before having to hire a landscape architect; 2. Cost issue with a request for staff to provide a more itemized breakdown in total costs before item goes before the Board of County Commissioners; 3. Prorating the landscaping on small lots; 4. On local roads where there was nonresidential uses adjacent or across from each other there should be a reduced standard. Mr. Freeman reviewed Attachment #3, Section (3)(g through j), a copy of which is on file in the Commission Office. He summarized there were two items amended on this section, one was to delete the existing roadway standard and using the standard discussed in LDR Chapter 926. The second change was the number of shrubs required for the foundation planting requirements was changed from three for every 10 square feet to every 1.5 square feet resulting in a 50% reduction. ON MOTION BY Mr. Moler, SECONDED BY Mr. Blum, the members voted unanimously (7-0) to approve the amendments to Land Development Regulations Section (2)(g through j) as presented. Mr. Freeman reviewed Section and by stating there were only two changes to in Paragraph 2 specifying the maintenance area has to be located within the stormwater tract and not part of any adjacent lot. He added that was essentially the current practice, staff was just wanting to get it codified. The second change was a new Subsection 7 as follows: Maintenance areas shall not be required along shorelines adjacent to littoral zones, provided maintenance access is not inhibited to the remainder of the stormwater management tract. Such access may PSAC/Approved 7 January 30, 2007

8 be provided by means of an easement around the littoral zone, an ingress-egress easement of a minimum width of 15-feet, a turnaround area within the maintenance area, or as otherwise approved by the public works director or his designee. Mr. Freeman announced the biggest changes come under Section in the section having to do with littoral zones and the first paragraph would now read: On project sites exceeding 10 acres in area, any excavation or mining activity in the unincorporated County which results in the creation or expansion of a waterbody (as defined in Chapter 901) shall be subject to the following standards, except as specifically exempted in Section of this chapter. Mr. Freeman then reviewed the design standard for littoral zones in Subsection (3) where there was a requirement for 21 square feet per lineal foot of shoreline and requirements of canopy trees which have to be at least 5-feet in height and also wetland-type plants spaced 2-feet on center, along with slope requirements. Mr. Freeman related in Subsection (4) there were conformance requirements on the follow-up of how the littoral zone was installed and maintained properly. He continued in a residential setting probably the best location for littoral zones were where they were adjacent to common areas, adjacent to rights-of-ways and in the design of ponds that was where littoral zones would be more focused upon. Mr. Blum asked what the push was for littoral zones. Mr. Boling responded the reasons were to improve water quality, aesthetics, and some habitat value. Mr. Blum stated he used to get a credit in mitigation for littoral zones. Mr. Kulczycki described the environmental benefits of littoral zones. Dr. David Cox reinforced the improvement of water quality benefits along with significant aesthetic improvements. Vice Chairman Dill inquired if stormwater management areas received any credits. Mr. Kulczycki responded in the negative. Mr. Moler related when littoral zones were applied to very small lakes, it was difficult to design for survivability and expressed concern with the cost involved. PSAC/Approved 8 January 30, 2007

9 Mr. Robinson felt the credit may be an enticer as part of the greenspace requirement. Mr. Freeman stated commercial projects would not be affected since they were normally less than 10 acres in size. Discussion ensued regarding the requirement of 21 square feet per lineal foot versus 30% of the surface of the water body, and the potential for exorbitant costs that could be involved in removing such a large amount of fill from large lakes to meet the those requirements. Mr. Morrell questioned if there had been any discussion on the merits of using the littoral zone requirements for residential versus commercial. Mr. Boling replied in the affirmative. Mr. Morrell opined aesthetically the littoral zones would enhance residential properties but he did not feel any more impediments should be put upon development of commercial and industrial opportunities in the County. Mr. Morrell inquired if some of the littoral requirements could be reduced in matters of affordable housing. Mr. Boling related affordable housing must first be defined and generally in the small lot subdivisions the distinction could be made for the landscape requirements to be reduced. Vice Chairman Dill summarized the qualities of littoral zones, although they were difficult to design, were unpredictable but could be a benefit to water quality, aesthetics, and an asset to a development. The main negative issues brought up were the issue of the prior 30% cap that was removed from this provision causing an affordability issue. PSAC/Approved 9 January 30, 2007

10 ON MOTION BY Mr. Gaskill, SECONDED BY Mr. Morrell, the members voted (5-2) to approve the amendments made to Land Development Regulations Sections and with changes made leaving the 21 square feet per linear foot but have a 20% cap; exempting the small lot subdivisions from the littoral zone requirements; changing the wording in Subsection (8) to The littoral zone will be considered fully creditable toward the 2:1 mitigation ratio for freshwater emergent wetlands ; under Subsection (4)(b) staff would include language stating what would be approved by the County Attorney; under Subsection (4)(d) adding a time certain of one year for the performance bond. Mr. Moler and Mr. Blum opposed. Mr. Freeman related in LDR Chapter staff was rephrasing the definition as follows: Buffer strip land area which may contain plant material, vegetated berm, fencing, or other landscaping that is used to separate developed land from a roadway or to separate one use from another to create an attractive and opaque boundary to shield or block noise, light or other nuisances. Other Matters ON MOTION BY Mr. Robinson, SECONDED BY Mr. Moler, the members voted unanimously (7-0) to approve the changes to Land Development Regulations Chapter as presented. Mr. Boling thanked the PSAC for providing their comments on the items brought before them today. He noted the changes along with the PSAC recommendations would be going before the Planning and Zoning Commission at their February 22, 2007 meeting, and the to the Board of County Commissioners in March, He added he would the cost analysis to the PSAC members. Mr. Paladin asked if there was a grow in period for the new requirements. Mr. Boling responded there was a size and quality requirement at planting. There was also a section where on a site that had been developed for a number PSAC/Approved 10 January 30, 2007

11 of years, when going to replace a plant, it must be replaced at a more mature size. Mr. Freeman interjected where there was a requirement for an opaque buffer at a certain height, for example 3 or 6 feet, it must be that height at planting. Mr. Gaskill left the meeting at 11:23 a.m. Discussion was held regarding spacing and growing requirements. Members by Staff Mr. Boling reported there would not be a PSAC meeting on February 15, 2007 and the next meeting was scheduled for March 15, Adjournment There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:29 a.m. PSAC/Approved 11 January 30, 2007