MEETING OF THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PSAC)

Transcription

1 MEETING OF THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PSAC) Alan Schommer Todd Smith John Blum Stephen Moler Robert Gaskill Peter Robinson Robert Brackett George Kulczycki Ryan R. Morrell Linda Schlitt Gonzalez Warren Dill, Vice Chairman (The PSAC meeting scheduled for September 28, 2007 has been cancelled due to a lack of quorum. A special meeting has been called in order to attend to matters originally scheduled for August 23 rd ) The PSAC will meet at 10:00 a.m. ON FRIDAY, October 5, 2007, in First Floor Conference Room B1-501 of the County Administration Building B (North Building), th Street, Vero Beach. I. Call to Order AGENDA II. III. IV. Election of Chairman Approval of Minutes of the June 21, 2007 Meeting Old Business: None V. New Business: A. Consideration of Proposed LDR Amendments Prohibiting Citrus Greening Host Plants in New Development Projects B. Consideration of Proposed LDR Amendments to Chapter 910 Concurrency Regulations and Allowances for Vesting Concurrency C. Consideration of Proposed LDR Amendments to Chapter 934 Regulations for Mines in Agricultural Areas VI. VII. VIII. Matters by Members Matters by Staff Adjournment C:\Documents and Settings\sjohnson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\OCJ1QWGU\ agenda.doc 1

2 ALL MEETING BACK-UP IS BEING DELIVERED BY MAIL AND NOTICE IS ALSO BEING PROVIDED BY . Note to Committee Members: If you have trouble receiving this information please contact Current Development at If you are unable to attend this meeting, please call Darcy Vasilas at In order to maintain your position on the Board, you must not have more than three unexcused absences. Please bring your LDR's to the meeting. cc: Joseph Baird Mike Zito Bob Keating Stan Boling Darcy Vasilas Scott Johnson Nancy Offutt John Carroll Bill McCain Sharon Brower Frank Johnson Penny Chandler Mark Scott Robert Poore Press Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting may contact the County's Americans with Disabilities Act Coordinator at , (TDD # ) at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting. Any person who may wish to appeal any decision made at this meeting will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which includes testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. C:\Documents and Settings\sjohnson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\OCJ1QWGU\ agenda.doc 2

3 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA M E M O R A N D U M TO: The Honorable Members of the Professional Services Advisory Committee DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE: William Collins, County Attorney THROUGH: Bill DeBraal, Deputy County Attorney FROM: George Glenn, Assistant County Attorney DATE: August 15, 2007 SUBJECT: Consideration of Proposed Amendments to Two Provisions of Title IX- Land Development Regulations- Regarding the Prohibition of Citrus Greening and Caribbean Fruit Fly Host Plants. It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Professional Services Advisory Committee at its meeting of August 23, BACKGROUND At its regular meeting of July 17, 2007, Chairman Wheeler brought up for consideration a request from citrus industry representatives that the County amend its Land Development Regulations to prohibit citrus greening host plants from being planted in new subdivisions (see attachment 1). The Board of County Commissioners (BCC) directed staff to amend the Land Development Regulations to eliminate two varieties of plants (Orange Jasmine and Chinese Box Orange) from new subdivisions, and to exclude these two plants from allowable plantings in landscape and buffering requirements. Further, the BCC requested staff to research the legality of banning the sale of the Orange Jasmine and Chinese Box Orange from nurseries located within the county. Since the July 17 th BCC meeting, the County Attorney s Office has conducted research in regard to the three proposed regulations. The County Attorneys Office has issued an opinion that the first two proposed regulations relating to land development regulations- the banning of Orange Jasmine and Chinese Box Orange from new subdivisions and the exclusion of the two plants as allowable plantings in landscape and buffering requirements- are legal and a valid use of the County s legislative power. However, the state has expressly preempted local governments from regulating the sale of plants from certified nurseries. Therefore, the PSAC is now to consider the proposed amendments to Section and Section of the Code, and recommend that the BCC adopt, adopt with changes, or reject the proposed amendments. C:\Documents and Settings\sjohnson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\OCJ1QWGU\Prohibiting Citrus psac staff report.rtf 1

4 ANALYSIS Citrus greening is a debilitating disease to the citrus industry (see Attachment 2). The symptoms strike quickly and are severe in nature, causing damage to the fruit and tree itself in a short matter of time. The BCC has expressed a strong interest to ensuring the long term stability of our citrus industry. That stability is furthered by amending the county s regulations in two key areas. First, by amending Section of the code, the county will start requiring all final plats to have a notice restriction prohibiting the planting of Orange Jasmine and Chinese Box Orange. Second, the county will prohibit the planting of Orange Jasmine and Chinese Box Orange in all landscaping and buffering requirements per Section of the Code. Currently, (6)(D)(24) sets forth a list of statements that must appear on the plat in a prominent place. These notices act as restrictions for future owners of lots within the subdivision. The following notice is proposed to be added to the list of existing notices: Notice: Property owners are prohibited from planting any Caribbean fruit fly and citrus greening host plants as specified hereon and are required to remove the same if any exists: Cattley Guava, Common Guava, Loquat, Rose Apple, Surinam Cherry, Orange Jasmine, and Chinese Box Orange. The county has in past practice required a similar notice to appear on final plats. That notice relates to the prohibition on planting Caribbean fruit fly host plants and the requirement to remove if any exist. This requirement stems from Comprehensive Plan Policy 6.5 of the Future Land Use Element which relates to development projects near active citrus groves. Indian River County will amend its Comprehensive Land Use plan through the EAR process to reflect the addition of citrus greening host plants and to reflect a county wide prohibition, regardless of whether active citrus groves are located near the development site (see Attachment 3). The second proposed regulation pertains to the landscape materials standards of As currently written, the only list of prohibited plantings in this section relates to species of trees found in (3)(h). The four species of trees listed as not satisfying the requirements of the section are: Australian pine, Brazilian pepper, Melaleuca, and Chinaberry. A similar list does not currently exist for prohibited shrubs. Therefore, the proposed list of prohibited plants would be created in a new section found at (4)(a). where subsection 4 relates to requirements for shrubs and hedges. The proposed regulation would state the following: Landscape Materials Standards (4) Shrubs and hedges. Shrubs shall be a minimum of eighteen (18) inches in height when measured immediately after planting. Hedges, where required, shall be planted and maintained so as to form a continuous, unbroken, solid screen within a maximum of two (2) years after time of planting. (a) The following is a list of prohibited plants that shall not be planted within any landscape areas: C:\Documents and Settings\sjohnson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\OCJ1QWGU\Prohibiting Citrus psac staff report.rtf 2

5 (b) Cattley Guava Common Guava Loquat Rose Apple Surinam Cherry Orange Jasmine Chinese Box Orange Governmental institutions conducting scientific research are exempt from any regulations prohibiting the planting of Caribbean fruit fly and citrus greening host plants. At the request of citrus industry representatives, an exemption has been carved out for governmental related research regarding citrus greening and Caribbean fruit fly host plants. STAFF RECOMENDATION Staff recommends that the Professional Services Advisory Committee recommend that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the attached LDR Amendments relating to citrus greening and Caribbean fruit fly host plants. Attachments: 1. Letter from Douglas C. Bournique to Chairman Gary Wheeler 2. Background information on Asian Citrus Psyllid and Citrus Greening Disease 3. Proposed Revised Code (6)(D)(24) 4. Proposed Revised Code (4)(a) C:\Documents and Settings\sjohnson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\OCJ1QWGU\Prohibiting Citrus psac staff report.rtf 3

6 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA M E M O R A N D U M TO: Honorable Members of the Professional Services Advisory Committee THROUGH: Robert M. Keating, AICP Community Development Director FROM: Stan Boling, AICP Planning Director DATE: August 13, 2007 SUBJECT: Consideration of Proposed LDR Amendments to Chapter 910, Concurrency Regulations, and Allowances for "Vesting" Concurrency It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Professional Services Advisory Committee at its regular meeting of August 23, BACKGROUND At its regular meeting of July 10, 2007, the Board of County Commissioners directed staff to revisit regulations that govern concurrency vesting. The need to revisit the regulations is based on a recognition that the current regulation limiting vesting to the time of building permit application is an impediment to developers making significant "up-front" investments for commercial/industrial projects. In accordance with the Board's direction, staff has initiated a proposed amendment and an "alternative amendment" for consideration. The PSAC is now to consider the proposed amendments and is to recommend that the BCC adopt, adopt with changes, or reject the proposed amendments. ANALYSIS History of Concurrency Regulation Reviews and Amendments From December 2004 through January 2007, the Board of County Commissioners, Planning & Zoning Commission, Professional Service Advisory Committee, and staff discussed and considered various approaches to concurrency and reviewed several proposed amendments to concurrency regulations. Highlights of BCC actions during that period are as follows: December 2004 and January 2005: BCC directs staff to initiate LDR amendments to require (rather than allow) developers to pay impact fees and vest concurrency earlier, at or near the time of project plan approval rather than at building permit. C:\Documents and Settings\sjohnson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\OCJ1QWGU\Consideration of 910.rtf 1

7 August 2005: BCC discusses vesting and expresses concerns about developers vesting "too early" and tying up road capacity. October 2005: BCC invokes a pending ordinance that prohibits concurrency vesting prior to the time of building permit application. This approach is discussed as an interim measure. BCC approves hiring a traffic consultant to review traffic and concurrency issues. December 2005: BCC holds a joint workshop with PZC and approves a scope of services for a traffic consultant. April 2006: BCC adopts a proportionate share ordinance. May 2006: BCC holds a joint workshop with the PZC and the county's traffic consultant (McMahon & Associates). September 2006: BCC reviews and discusses McMahon & Associates' recommendations along with staff and PZC recommendations; approves set of 23 recommendations regarding traffic and concurrency items. December 2006: BCC opens the public hearing on "final" set of concurrency-related LDR amendments and votes to: * continue the hearing until January 23, 2007, and * hold a workshop in early January January 5, 2007: BCC holds a workshop on the "final" set of LDR amendments (see attachment #1). Board discusses the proposed amendment as well as vesting options, including "rationing" the last portion of a roadway's available capacity. January 23, 2007: BCC holds the final hearing and adopts ordinance (see attachments 2 and 3). Ordinance provided the following changes: 1. Re-formatted portions of Chapter 910 for greater clarity, and updated terminology. 2. Established 7-year concurrency vesting for projects with proportionate share agreements or agreements to build major roadway improvements. 3. Established deminimus exemption for individual homes on single-family lots created prior to Allowed conditional concurrency certificates to be issued with specific, feasible conditions for meeting concurrency. 5. Established 12-month expiration for initial concurrency applications. 6. Specified use of fractional trips for tracking impacts of new individual single-family homes. C:\Documents and Settings\sjohnson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\OCJ1QWGU\Consideration of 910.rtf 2

8 7. Provided for applicant choices when concurrency review indicates insufficient capacity. 8. Established trip assignment thresholds of 8 peak hour trips on 2 lane roads and 15 peak hour trips on 4 lane (or wider) roads for assessing project road capacity impacts. Items 3 and 8 provided concurrency "relief" for older single-family lots and small development projects. The ordinance also kept in place the "pending ordinance" restriction, whereby vesting is allowed to occur only at the time of building permit application (with the exception of #2, above). Under the concurrency regulations now in effect, no project can vest until the time of building permit application unless the development project involves a proportionate share or major road improvement agreement. Vesting Allowances As structured, the existing restriction on vesting is intended to prevent developers of speculative projects from "locking up" critical available roadway capacity at the expense of developers ready to pull building permits. The current restriction, however, has a significant negative consequence. That consequence is the increased risk for a developer expending significant funds (e.g. financing of site acquisition, project design and permitting, and construction) without any guarantee that the project will be able to vest concurrency at the time of building permit issuance. Therefore, a developer in the unincorporated area of the county runs the risk of expending large sums of money with no guarantee of being able to start or complete project development. Such increased risk is an impediment to various types of development in the unincorporated county, including types of development specifically promoted by the county for economic development (commercial, industrial, institutional projects), affordable/workforce housing (residential projects), and beneficial land use and design (mixed use TND projects). In staff's opinion, there are regulatory approaches that allow earlier vesting yet discourage concurrency speculation. Such "speculation" can be discouraged by means other than the existing restriction on vesting at building permit. Such means include staff proposed provisions in earlier amendments that would: a) Prohibit vesting until final site plan approval (not conceptual site plan) for site plan projects or submittal of a complete land development permit application (full engineering plans) for residential subdivision projects. b) Allow 1 year and 3 year vesting (rather than 5 years) for conventional projects that do not involve proportionate share or major road improvement agreements. These provisions (a and b, above) would ensure that no project would be vested prior to approval of final design for site plan projects, or preliminary plat approval and submittal of complete engineering plans for residential subdivisions. Under these provisions, the maximum vesting timeframe would be reduced from the previously allowed 5 years to 3 years, thereby reducing the amount of time that capacity is "lockedup". This vesting timeframe reduction would squeeze the timeframes for speculating and "flipping" projects, resulting in a decreased probability of speculating. In staff's opinion, these two provisions (a and b, above) will prevent future occurrences of significant speculation and "banking" of capacity for concurrency. C:\Documents and Settings\sjohnson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\OCJ1QWGU\Consideration of 910.rtf 3

9 Other Considerations Development in the unincorporated county is not done "in a vacuum". If another local government other than the county allows earlier vesting than the county does, then the county's stricter regulation could loose its effectiveness, and the county could still face available capacity problems on impacted roadways. For example, the City of Fellsmere, which does not impose concurrency vesting restrictions such as the county does, could vest large projects at an early stage in the development process and impact unincorporated county roads. Another issue is school concurrency. With school concurrency, all the local governments in the county are going to have to standardize their concurrency processes. It is unlikely that the other local governments in the county will agree to limit vesting until time of building permit issuance. Based on these intergovernmental coordination issues, staff believes that a reasonable vesting allowance governed by provisions a and b, above, would allow for a consistent, long-term, county-wide approach to vesting that would accommodate all local jurisdictions. Basic Alternatives Staff has developed two alternatives for changing vesting allowances. These are: 1. Allow all types of projects to vest prior to building permit application, subject to the 2 restrictions described above in a and b. These provisions will allow a developer the choice of putting off payment of impact fees and vesting until the time of building permit or allow a developer to pay fees and vest earlier, but not too early, in the development process. In addition, this alternative requires vesting at the time of final plat approval for new single-family lots. The final plat vesting requirement, as proposed, would not apply to lots for which preliminary plat approval is granted prior to December 31, In addition, such vesting will be permanent for each new lot. This alternative is consistent with staff's previous recommendations on concurrency regulations. 2. Allow "targeted" types of projects to vest prior to building permit application subject to the 2 restrictions described above in a and b. These targeted projects would involve types of development that are promoted in the county's comprehensive plan, which include: non-residential development (promotes economic development) mixed use TND development (promotes beneficial design and land use mix) affordable/workforce housing (meets affordable housing objectives) This alternative would eliminate the existing vesting problem for development that could be considered beneficial under the comprehensive plan. Both alternatives keep in place all the changes effected by Ordinance except for the vesting allowance provisions. Alternative 1 is incorporated into the draft ordinance attachment # 4. Alternative 2 is incorporated into the draft ordinance attachment # 5. C:\Documents and Settings\sjohnson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\OCJ1QWGU\Consideration of 910.rtf 4

10 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Professional Services Advisory Committee recommend that the BCC adopt the Alternative 1 ordinance, attachment # 4. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Minutes from January 5, 2007 BCC Workshop on Concurrency Regulations 2. Minutes from January 23, 2007 BCC Final Hearing on Concurrency Regulations 3. Ordinance Alternative 1 Ordinance (All development types) 5. Alternative 2 Ordinance ("Targeted" development types) 6. TND Policy 18-1, 18-2, Affordable/Workforce Housing Criteria from Small Lot Subdivision Regulations [971.41(9)(b)9] C:\Documents and Settings\sjohnson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\OCJ1QWGU\Consideration of 910.rtf 5

11 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA M E M O R A N D U M TO: The Honorable Members of the Professional Services Advisory Committee DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE: Robert M. Keating, AICP; Community Development Director THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP; Planning Director FROM: Brian Freeman, AICP; Senior Planner, Current Development DATE: August 10, 2007 SUBJECT: Consideration of Proposed Amendments to the Excavation and Mining Regulations of LDR Chapter 934 for Mines in Agricultural Areas It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Professional Services Advisory Committee at its regular meeting of August 23, BACKGROUND At its May 24, 2007 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) directed staff to prepare a draft text amendment to LDR Chapter 934, Excavation and Mining, that would modify the county s requirements for sand mines in agricultural areas. The draft is based upon the conditions of approval that were recently attached by the PZC to the proposed Fischer sand mine on 86 th Avenue SW. That project was approved with conditions at the April 26, 2007 PZC meeting. In response to the PZC s directive, staff drafted amendments and presented them to the PZC on June 14, At that meeting, the PZC voted 7-0 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) direct staff to initiate the LDR amendment process. Subsequently, the BCC considered the draft amendment at its July 24, 2007 meeting and directed staff to initiate the formal LDR amendment process. The PSAC is now to consider the proposed amendments to Chapter 934 and is to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners adopt, adopt with changes, or reject the proposed amendments. ANALYSIS Mining operations are allowed in agricultural areas as administrative permit uses. Such uses require PZC approval, and the PZC is authorized to attach conditions to such uses to mitigate impacts. C:\Documents and Settings\sjohnson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\OCJ1QWGU\psac staff report.rtf 1

12 Based on its experience with mining applications, the PZC now desires to codify what have become standard conditions relating to buffering and hours of operation, and to update requirements for maintaining roads used by new mining operations. Staff supported the PZC s request and drafted the attached ordinance. At its July 24, 2007 meeting, the BCC authorized staff to take the draft ordinance through the formal amendment process. The proposed ordinance contains the following amendments: Require Type A buffers where mining project sites are adjacent to agriculturally-zoned parcels of 10 acres or less. The drafted change would require buffering in areas that have low-density ranchettes or ranchette-sized parcels. Currently, Type A buffering is required by code only in relation to residentially-zoned sites. Limit hours of operation from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekdays for mining project sites adjacent to agriculturally-zoned parcels of 10 acres or less. In addition, prohibit hauling off-site after 5 p.m. Presently, limitations on hours of operation apply only to sites adjacent to residential zoning districts. Subject a project s compliance bond to forfeiture for failure to maintain the hauling route. Increase road maintenance bond amounts. Presently, road maintenance bond amounts are set at $2,000 per mile of unpaved roads used as part of the haul route. That amount was established many years ago. The Public Works Department has calculated an updated (higher) amount of $10,000 per mile, and that new amount is proposed in the draft ordinance. Justification Mining operations are typically located in agricultural areas, and many of those areas are developing as large lot rural residential areas characterized by low-density ranchettes as well as, or in lieu of, bona fide agricultural operations. The current regulations offer no special protections for agriculturally-zoned ranchettes. The current Chapter 934 regulations minimize a mine s impact on adjacent residentially-zoned parcels by requiring that a Type A buffer be provided along all project boundaries abutting the residentially zoned area. In addition, the existing regulations provide limitations on the mine s hours of operation when the mine abuts residentially-zoned property. In many cases, however, mining operations actually abut ranchette-style residential uses or future ranchette property rather than residentially-zoned parcels. In these cases, the proposed revisions will extend the same protections to adjacent ranchettes and ranchette-sized properties that are currently provided to residentiallyzoned properties located adjacent to new mining operations. Type A buffers will now also be required for mining operations adjacent to agriculturally-zoned parcels of 10 acres or less. In addition, hours of operation will be limited to 7a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekdays with no off-site hauling after 5 p.m. for mining sites adjacent to agriculturally-zoned parcels of 10 acres or less. The proposed ordinance also updates requirements for maintaining unpaved roads used by mining operations. All mine operators are required to maintain any unpaved portion of a mine s haul route. C:\Documents and Settings\sjohnson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\OCJ1QWGU\psac staff report.rtf 2

13 Such maintenance is to include grading and, when necessary, watering. While many mine operators have been diligent in maintaining unpaved roads used as part of the haul route, other mine operators have failed to adequately maintain such roads, thereby creating a nuisance for other users of such public roads. Two LDR amendments are proposed to ensure that unpaved roads are adequately maintained in such cases. The first amendment is an increase in the road maintenance bond amount from $2,000 to $10,000 per mile of unpaved roads used as part of the haul route. The updated (higher) bond amount is based on the county s costs associated with maintenance of unpaved roads. The second amendment is a change to the regulations that will subject a mine s compliance bond to forfeiture, in part or in whole, for failure to maintain the haul route. Thus, more security will be posted to guarantee maintenance of public roads used by mining operations. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Professional Services Advisory Committee recommend that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the attached LDR Amendments affecting mining operations in agricultural areas. Attachments: 1. Minutes from the June 14, 2007 PZC Meeting 2. Minutes from the July 24, 2007 BCC Meeting 3. Proposed Revisions to LDR Chapter 934, Excavation and Mining C:\Documents and Settings\sjohnson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\OCJ1QWGU\psac staff report.rtf 3