PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION (P&Z)
Donna A. Keys-District 1 Craig Fletcher-District 3 Gregory W. Smith-District 4 George Christopher-District 5
Richard H. Baker-Member at Large George Hamner-Member at Large Ann Reuter – Non-voting liaison School Board
Robert E. Bruce, Chairman-District 2
The Planning and Zoning Commission will meet at 7:00 p.m. ON THURSDAY, February 22, 2007, in County Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach.
THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SHALL ADJOURN NO LATER THAN 11:00 P.M. UNLESS THE MEETING IS EXTENDED OR CONTINUED TO A TIME CERTAIN BY A COMMISSION VOTE.
AGENDA
ITEM #1 CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ITEM #2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. February 8, 2007 Meeting
ITEM #3 ITEM NOT ON CONSENT
A. Top Hat N’ Tails Pet Ranch: Request for administrative permit use approval for a pet boarding kennel to be known as Top Hat N’ Tails Pet Boarding Facility. Mercer Beck Enterprises, LLC, Owner. Kimley-Horn & Associates Inc., Agent. Located at 7890 66th Avenue. Zoning Classification: A-1, Agricultural 1 (up to 1unit/5 acres). Land Use Designation: AG-1, Agricultural 1 (up to 1 unit/5 acres). [Quasi-Judicial] (SP-MA-07-01-06/2006070238-56709)
P:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\P&Z\Agenda & Lists 2007\2-22-07 Agenda.rtf 1
ITEM #4 PUBLIC HEARING
A. Consideration of Proposed Amendments to the Landscape and Buffer Regulations of LDR Chapter 926, the Corridor Landscape Regulations and the Multi-family Green Space Regulations of LDR Chapter 911, the Subdivision Green Space Requirements of Chapter 913, the Stormwater Maintenance Area Regulations of LDR Chapter 930, the Littoral Zone Regulations of LDR Chapter 934, and the Definitions of LDR Chapter 901. [Legislative]
ITEM #5 COMMISSIONERS MATTERS
A. Proposal from George Christopher for a Workshop on Improving Quality of Developments
ITEM #6 PLANNING MATTERS
A. Planning Information Package
ITEM #7 ATTORNEY'S MATTERS
ITEM #8 ADJOURNMENT
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 ON WHICH THE APPEAL IS BASED.
ANYONE WHO NEEDS A SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION FOR THIS MEETING MUST CONTACT THE COUNTY'S AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) COORDINATOR AT 772-226-1223, (TDD #772-770-5215) AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING.
Meeting may be broadcast live on Comcast Cable Channel 27 – may be rebroadcast continuously Saturday 7:00 p.m. until Sunday morning 7:00 a.m. Meeting broadcast same as above on Comcast Broadband, Channel 27 in Sebastian.
P:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\P&Z\Agenda & Lists 2007\2-22-07 Agenda.rtf 2 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
There was a meeting of the Indian River County (IRC) Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) on Thursday, February 8, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. in the Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida.
Present were members: Chairman Bob Bruce, District 2 Appointee; Donna Keys, District 1 Appointee; Craig Fletcher, District 3 Appointee; Greg Smith, District 4 Appointee; George Christopher, District 5 Appointee; George Hamner and Dr. Richard Baker, Members-at-Large; and Ann Reuter, non-voting School Board Liaison.
Also present were IRC staff: William G. Collins, County Attorney; Joseph Baird, County Administrator, Bob Keating, Community Development Director; Jim Davis, Public Works Director; Chris Mora, Assistant Public Works Director; Stan Boling, Planning Director; John McCoy and Brian Freeman, Senior Planners, Current Development; and Terri Collins-Lister, Staff Assistant IV.
Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance
Chairman Bruce called the meeting to order and led all in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Approval of the Minutes
ON MOTION by Mr. Fletcher, SECONDED BY Mr. Hamner, the members voted unanimously (7-0) to approve the January 25, 2007 meeting minutes as presented.
Items on Consent
A. Top Hat N' Tails Pet Ranch: Request for administrative permit use approval for a pet boarding kennel to be known as Top Hat N' Tails Pet Boarding Facility. Mercer Beck Enterprises, LLC, Owner. Kimley-Horn & Associates Inc., Agent. Located at 7890 66th Avenue. Zoning Classification: A-1, Agricultural 1 (up to 1unit/5 acres). Land Use Designation: AG-1, Agricultural 1 (up to 1 unit/5 acres). [Quasi-Judicial] (SP-MA-07-01-06/2006070238-56709)
Chairman Bruce stated the only item on consent had been pulled and asked Mr. Stan Boling, IRC Planning Director to explain.
P&Z/Unapproved 1 February 8, 2007 F:\BCC\AII Committees\P&Z\2007 Ag&Min\Minutes 02-08-07 .doc Mr. Boling told the committee, the applicant had agreed with IRC Staff, to postpone the item to the February 22, 2007 P&Z Meeting. He continued IRC Traffic Engineering informed staff that there was a correction to one of the attachments and asked for it to be in the next P&Z packet.
Item not on Consent
Chairman Bruce read the following into record.
A. Indian River Service Center: Request for major site plan approval to construct a service center for Florida Power & Light (FPL) electric utility infrastructure. FPL Company, Owner. Rhon Ernest-Jones Consulting Engineers, Inc., Agent. Located at the southwest corner of 98th Avenue and 16th Street. Zoning Classification: IL, Light Industrial. Land Use Designation: C/I, Commercial/Industrial. [Quasi-Judicial] (SP-MA-06-10- 55/2006060024-55508)
Mrs. Collins-Lister administered the testimonial oath to all those present wishing to speak on any quasi-judicial items.
Mr. John McCoy, IRC Senior Planner, Current Development, reviewed the information contained in his memorandum, a copy of which is on file in the Commission Office. He remarked the project would affect a link on State Road (S.R.) 60 between 66th and 82 nd Avenues, which has a concurrency deficit. He indicated FPL would need to mitigate their impact on that link and explained two ways it could be done. He stated FPL could mitigate though a Proportionate Share Agreement or if the BCC passed a decision to advance fees, they would be responsible for the payment of a fee, basically to serve as interest on the funds that the County advanced to widen S.R. 60.
Mr. McCoy referred to Attachment 8 of the P&Z packet, a memorandum from Mr. William G. Collins, IRC County Attorney, which was a suggested change for modification of the condition contained in the staff report. He opined either condition would work, however essentially FPL would need to make the necessary modifications going forward to be able to meet concurrency on S.R. 60 for that link between 66th and 82 nd Avenues. ·
Mr. Christopher verified whether staff recommendation included the condition presented by Attorney Collins. Ms. Keys mentioned there was no right of-way on 98th Avenue to widen the road and the site plan design accommodates 120 feet of right-of-way and the applicant had agreed to dedicate without compensation the right-of-way on 98th Avenue, but she wondered how much
P&Z/Unapproved 2 February 8, 2007 F:\BCC\AII Committees\P&Z\2007 Ag&Min\Minutes 02-08-07 .doc right-of-way FPL would be dedicating. Mr. McCoy stated there was an existing 60 feet of right-of-way and FPL would dedicate another 60 feet to create 120 feet of right-of-way.
Mr. Nick Blount, Manager of Internal Affairs, FPL, told the committee FPL currently served almost 50,000 accounts in IRC. He indicated FPL's crews travel from St. Lucie County up to IRC to maintain and operate the infrastructure as well as build new infrastructure and felt it was not an efficient and effective way to do business. He mentioned the proposed facility would allow field crews, as well as the staff of engineers and designers to be more productive during normal operating procedures. He said more importantly it would be a place where the FPL, other foreign crews and contractors could enhance commitment to respond following a major storm.
Mr. Hamner asked Mr. Blount if he had read and understood Attorney Collins' recommendation. Mr. Blount responded in the affirmative and informed Mr. Hamner, FPL had been following the concurrency issue on S.R. 60 very closely and would like to the service center to be completed by the next hurricane season.
Mr. Fletcher told Mr. Blount of his issue with 98th Avenue and why he would not be able to support this project. He felt the FPL Service Center was necessary, but there was well over 1,700 homes being developed that would eventually absorb all of the traffic flow on 98th Avenue. He continued it was the County's responsibility to widened 98th Avenue and it needed to be done within a timely fashion to let FPL build a service center. He noted 98th Avenue could not be widened on the northwest side unless there was a taking of public land.
Mr. Gene Waddell, 8155 25th Street, pointed out in September 2004, FPL was widely criticized because of their response time was not as expeditious as the citizens of IRC felt it should be. He opined this was a great response on FPL's part to tell this County that they would invest the money and build a facility in order to give better response after a major storm. He urged the P&Z to do everything possible to let this project move forward.
Mr. Joseph Baird, IRC County Administrator, told the committee, the County had requested FPL build a facility in IRC, so they could better respond in a time of a hurricane and that was what they were doing. He pointed out in a time of a hurricane S.R. 60 and 98th Avenue would be the least of the problems.
A question was raised to FPL on the nature of the emergency that would cause the use on 98th Avenue. Mr. Blount replied the emergency access would
P&Z/Unapproved 3 February 8, 2007 F:\BCC\AII Committees\P&Z\2007 Ag&Min\Minutes 02-08-07 .doc be used to bring in additional crews to the area during a major storm and at normal times the gate would remain closed.
Ms. Keys directed she would like to find some way for the P&Z to make the project work. She continued there was a canal on the east side of 98th Avenue and industrial buildings on the west side and wondered if there was a way to be proactive on 98th Avenue and divide into northbound and southbound lanes by bridging the canal and putting two other lanes on the east side of the canal.
Mr. Bob Keating, IRC Community Development Director, replied in the affirmative and said culverting the canal was also an option. He explained the County could widen the road to the east and use the Indian River Farms Water Control District's right-of-way as long as the County could accommodate their needs by culverting the canal and meeting their criteria. He mentioned the County was looking at extending 4th Street to 98th Avenue and making it an alternative way to get to the east.
Mr. Hamner understood the units that had been committed to 98th Avenue, but asked the P&Z to also look at the building patterns. He felt P&Z should be realistic about the traffic counts and there. was no question once all the units were built, the road would be over capacity. He continued the road was not over capacity today and the FPL Service Center was something needed.
Ms. Keys felt the only reason 98th Avenue needed to be widened was because· of the development 1n. the future and' could there be some type of Developer's agreement used to share the cost.
A discussion followed on the concurrency problems in the County and some other alternatives for 98th Avenue.
Mr. Jim Davis, IRC Public Works Director, stated the canal itself was not a constraint. He remarked to culvert the canal would cost $300 a foot and it was about 2,600 feet long. He pointed out the actual canal was dug in the wrong place and the Drainage District had additional right-of-way there. He opined if the Hibiscus Airport did shut down it would create an opportunity to relocate the canal to the east to provide for a 120 foot right-of-way.
Ms. Keys wondered how and when this could be implemented. Mr. Keating mentioned the proposed development projects were on hold and was not an immediate situation.
Mr. Davis stated a traffic study had been done and the 98th Avenue corridor was looked at when the 2030 Plan was developed. Mr. Davis outlined
P&Z/Unapproved 4 February 8, 2007 F:IBCC\AII Committees\P&Z\2007 Ag&Min\Minutes 02-08-07 .doc the plan projected the need beyond the year 2011 and he advised that was why there was no immediate project. He continued there were no vested concurrency developments which had paid impact fees to break the road, however there was a lot of speculative development and it would be very· difficult to predict at this time. He referred to the link sheets and remarked the link was not broken with the trips that had paid impact fees and vested.
Mr. Fletcher agreed the link was not broken, however it would be soon. He indicated all these future developments were being approved with no plans whatsoever to widen the road knowing there would be a problem soon.
Mr. Christopher asked Mr. Baird when the S.R. 60 Interest Agreement would come before the BCC for approval. He raised the question because there were two conditions for meeting concurrency, one being fanciful. He opined there had not been any expressed interest in putting S.R. 60 on the County's Five Year Plan and fair share could not be done unless it was put on the plan. He gave the second condition was the interest approach.
Mr. Baird said there was discussion whether to move forward with S.R. 60 because of the cost and the loss of interest. He stated the S.R. 60 Interest Agreement would go before the BCC around mid-March 2007, for consensus and then it would go back to the BCC for approval of the ordinance.
Mr. Baird stated the County was moving ahead with the agreement and was trying to come up with a solution. He indicated legal staff had gone through several drafts to make sure the agreement could stand up in court.
Mr. Christopher asked if there were any unresolved issues between the County and the State of Florida that needed to be agreed upon. Mr. Baird replied the County had a resolution to move ahead with both phases of S.R. 60 and then would enter into a Joint Partnership Agreement (JPA) with the state.
Mr. Davis mentioned the State had moved the final design of both links up a year, in other words they were advancing the final engineering in anticipation of an agreement.
Mr. Christopher stated there were a number of projects backed up that wanted to come before the P&Z and staff was prepared to condition approval on meeting concurrency upon resolving the interest fee situation. He felt there were a lot of unknowns out there and did not want to receive application after application not meeting concurrency.
P&Z/Unapproved 5 February 8, 2007 F:\BCCIAII Committees\P&Z\2007Ag&Min\Minutes 02-08-07 .doc Attorney Collins told the committee to keep in mind if the site plan was approved with a condition on it, the site could not be released so the building permit could be pulled until conditions were met.
Mr. Bruce opined this was a very special situation and was inclined to approve this project. Ms. Keys referred to Attorney Collins' memo regarding the change in the recommendation and wanted to know what the process was.
Attorney Collins replied when Senate Bill 360 was implemented, it changed the process for amending the Capital Improvements Element so it could be done in a single public hearing before.the BCC at a regularly advertised public hearing.
A discussion ensued on the process for Capital Improvements.
Ms. Keys reiterated there were a number of projects that had not been approved because of the issue with S.R. 60 and asked if any of those projects also offered to be a part of S.R. 60 Interest Agreement. Mr. McCoy stated either of the two choices under the concurrency conditions would go to the BCC. The BCC would see all the facts and make a decision at that time, so anything going forward would need to be satisfied by the BCC decision.
Dr. Baker questioned what would be on the FPL Service Center Facility site. Mr. McCoy stated it would be a large staging area; however there would be an administration center, parts building and a repair facility for their trucks.
Dr. Baker asked how many FPL trucks would be located on the site and how soon did FPL estimate building the facility once all approvals were in place. Mr. Blount estimated 20 to 30 trucks would be on site at one time and from a schedule standpoint they would still need to obtain the building permits, go through the bidding process, and hopefully start building this summer.
Mr. Rich Gibbons, Project Manager, FPL, stated if they could get all of the permits by the end of May 2007, it would take 12 months to construct the entire facility which they planned to be in service by June 2008.
Or. Baker asked if the FPL Service Center was approved how this would effect the future developments, would P&Z be more obligated to approve other projects in the process because we approved the FPL Service Center.
Attorney Collins said whether you approve the site plan depends on whether that individual site plan meets all the criteria for approval, not someone else's.
P&Z/Unapproved 6 February 8, 2007 F:IBCCIAII Committees\P&Z\2007 Ag&Min\Minutes 02-08-07 .doc Ms. Keys asked if FPL entered into a Proportionate Share Agreement would they be automatically vested right away. Mr. Keating replied if an applicant does a Proportionate Share Agreement, paid all of the impact fees, water and sewer capacity charges, they would be vested on all of the roads impacted. Ms. Keys concluded if FPL was first on the site, they would receive all of the vesting, trips and the next applicant would need to prove concurrency.
ON MOTION BY Ms. Keys, SECONDED BY Mr. Hamner, the members voted (6-1), to approve the request for a major site plan approval with Attorney Collins' recommendation. Mr. Fletcher opposed.
Public Hearing
Chairman Bruce read the following into record:
A. Bloomfield at Vero Beach: Request for planned development (PD) special exception use approval for a project to be known as Bloomfield. MGC Development Group, LLC, Owner. Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc., Agent. Located on the south side of 9th Street SW (Oslo Road), west of 1ih Avenue SW. Zoning Classifications: RM-6, Residential Multi-Family (up to 6 units/acre) and RS-6, Residential Single-Family (up to 6 units/acre). Land Use Designation: L-2, Low Density Residential (up to 6 units/acre). Density: 4.59 units/acre. [Legislative] (PD-06-10-08.2006020021-55458)
Mr. Brian Freeman, !RC Senior Planner, Current Development, reviewed the information contained in his memorandum, a copy of which is on file in the Commission Office. He indicated this was a request for special exception use and conceptual Planned Development (PD) Plat. He noted it would be a recommendation since the approval would go before the BCC. He referred to the PD Process and noted P&Z would make a recommendation to the BCC. He continued if the Conceptual Plan was approved by the BCC, then the applicant would come back to the P&Z with a preliminary plan.
Mr. Smith referred to the sidewalks on the south side of the development along 11th Street Southwest. Mr. Freeman replied the sidewalks would be constructed by the applicant with the development of the project and needed to be in place prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy within the development. Mr. Smith asked if Grace Woods Development would need to develop a sidewalk as well. Mr. Freeman replied in the affirmative and noted the sidewalks would tie in together. Mr. Smith inquired on the time frame for the development of Grace Woods. Mr. Keating stated it would be very soon because they were getting hurricane housing recovery money from the County to
P&Z/Unapproved 7 February 8, 2007 F:\BCC\AII Committees\P&Z\2007 Ag&Min\Minutes 02-08-07.doc subsidize some of the units and should receive a land development permit by late spring.
Mr. Smith mentioned his thought of which ever development would be built first there would be an agreement between both developments for the development of a sidewalk extended to Thompson Elementary School.
Mr. Davis mentioned the IRC Public Works Department would be paving 11 th Street Southwest under contract, so within four to five months the road th would be paved from 9 Court to 1y!h Avenue.
A discussion ensued on extending the sidewalk and the number of units in the new development which could impact the schools in the area.
Attorney Collins questioned the southern access on the site plan referred to as emergency access only and if 1ih Avenue and 11 th Street was paved and there were sidewalks, it would seem like any vehicular traffic would be forced almost to Oslo Road. He asked the reason for the access being listed as emergency access and felt it should be full connection to 1ih Avenue.
A discussion ensued on the emergency access. Mr. Dave Woodward, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., opined it may be labeled incorrectly as an emergency access. He continued Bloomfield at Vero Beach would be a gated community with the main gated access on the north entrance. He suggested the south entrance would be used by the residents at any time.
Mr. Hamner referred to Mr. Woodward and asked if the Bloomfield at Vero Beach development was done prior to the Grace Woods completion of their sidewalk, would the developer agree to consider going ahead with paving the sidewalk to Thompson Elementary School. Mr. Woodward felt the Grace Woods development would be ahead of the Bloomfield at Vero Beach, however he did not see it being a problem.
Dr. Baker wanted to know if a tree survey was done and why did P&Z not get a copy of the survey. Mr. Woodward replied a conceptual tree survey was done to plan the development; however it was a conceptual plan and they were not necessarily required to provide one at this time.
A discussion ensued on the tree survey and Mr. \Noodward expressed when the development gets into a more detailed design, they would be able to show more areas of trees being saved.
P&Z/Unapproved 8 February 8, 2007 F:\BCCIAII Committees\P&Z\2007 Ag&Min\Minutes 02-08-07 .doc Mr. Baker remarked it was detailed in the report that Gopher Tortoises were found on the site and asked if a professional performed the survey. Mr. Woodward pointed out three Gopher Tortoises were found on the site and the survey was done by Ms. Lisa Frazier, Environmental Planner, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Ms. Frazier stated a preliminary assessment was done on the property and it was discovered a few Gopher Tortoise burrows. She indicated according to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, they do not require a survey and Kimley-Horn and Associates does not propose to do a full survey until much further ahead in the site plan process. A discussion followed.
ON MOTION BY Mr. Fletcher, SECONDED BY Mr. Smith, the members voted unanimously (7-0) to approve the request for the planned development special exception with the clarification of the southwest walkway and the correction to the site plan labeled emergency access to read south entrance.
Commissioner Matters
Ms. Keys pointed out there was a discussion at the January 23, 2007 BCC meeting in regards to the Developer's Agreement. She stated there was a developer at one of the P&Z meetings and his project was denied, he asked how it could be denied when the BCC had already approved the Developer's Agreement. She continued Attorney Collins came up with an idea of adding standard wording to the Developer's Agreement, so that an applicant understood this does not mean the project had been approved and asked Attorney Collins to bring the matter back before the P&Z. A discussion followed.
Ms. Keys thanked Attorney Collins for his recommendation in the memo regarding the FPL Service Center.
Ms. Keys mentioned Commissioner Wheeler made statement at a BCC Meeting a couple months ago about taking villages out of the Comprehensive Plan which staff was working on and she wanted to know the progress. Mr. Keating stated it was one of the January 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendments that would be coming through the cycle.
Mr. Keating explained during the months of January and July Comprehensive Plan Amendments were accepted and it takes a while to finish the staff reports and advertise for public hearings. Mr. Keating emphasized there
P&Z/Unapproved 9 February 8, 2007 F:\BCCIAII Committees\P&Z\2007 Ag&Min\Minutes 02-08-07 .doc were five Comprehensive Plan Amendments including all of the school concurrency related Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
Mr. Christopher asked when the Comprehensive Plan Amendments would go to the state. Mr. Keating stated the Comprehensive Plan Amendments would go before P&Z for approval and then the BCC. He continued the issue before the BCC would be whether or not to transmit those to the state, after the state. would review and they would issue an Objections, Recommendations ·and Comments Report which would go back to the BCC for adoption. A discussion followed.
Ms. Keys indicated she would prefer to see strikeouts and underlines on the Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Mr. Keating stated it could be done, however it would be very difficult to read with all of the changes. It was determined the Comprehensive Plan Amendment would show all of the changes made to the plan.
Dr. Baker discussed the Century Town Shopping Center which was not approved at the January 11, 2007 P&Z Meeting and mentioned he had received a call immediately after the meeting wondering why 8th Street was not being paved to avoid the 58th Avenue and S.R. 60 problem.
Mr. Mora answered as part of the diversion study being looked at for the intersection, IRC Staff was looking at other east and west roads, one being th College Lane to make the connection over to 16 and also1 ih Streets. He opined there would be right-of-way issues on 8th Street further west. Mr. Baird spoke up and stated the County had problems getting right-of-way in that section because the owners did not want to give the right-of-way. Dr. Baker proposed using Eminent Domain, however it was explained the money was used to allocate the funds to the road projects that were further advanced in the Capital Improvements Program.
Mr. Baird explained there was a no right-of-way policy adopted by the BCC to be more aggressive in obtaining the right-of-way.
Ms. Keys pointed out in the condemnation process a resolution was proposed, but was never adopted or voted on. She confirmed a resolution was in written form with certain specific dates and procedures and wondered what happened to the proposal.
Mr. Joseph Paladin, Developer, Atlantic Coast Construction and Development, indicated the resolution was submitted to the BCC for approval and Attorney Collins wanted to review it again in case he had some legal
P&Z/Unapproved 10 February 8, 2007 F:IBCC\AII Committees\P&Z\2007 Ag&Min\Minutes 02-08-07 .doc questions before it was adopted. He explained the County Attorney's office would bring it back to the BCC.
Mr. Hamner referred back to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment deletions and asked Mr. Keating if this would add a lot of time or could it done easily. Mr. Christopher felt the changes needed to be shown to help the P&Z understand what changes were being made to the document. Mr. Fletcher felt with too many strikeouts and deletions, the table became very confusing. Mr. Keating replied showing the changes were not that time consuming and thought it had been done the last time.
Mr. Christopher inquired about Ocean Concrete and would it be coming before the P&Z and the BCC. Mr. Keating stated the application was in for an entire year and it had expired, then the applicant re-submitted the application.
Mr. Keating explained the IRC staff was being proactive with Ocean Concrete and were meeting with them on February 9, 2007. He said there would be a segment on the County website where it would contain all the information related to Ocean Concrete.
Mr. Christopher reported at the January 25, 2007 P&Z meeting, he had suggested P&Z look at doing a workshop on improving the quality of subdivisions. He had talked with ten people in various professions and it would be discussed at the workshop how to improve subdivisions and commercial developments. The workshop would be made up of four panels, each with three to four professionals consisting of architects, engineers, builders, planners and environmentalists.
Chairman Bruce suggested the Workshop to be added to the February 22, 2007 P&Z Agenda and asked Mr. Christopher to include backup materials.
A discussion ensued on the facilitator of the workshop. Attorney Collins pointed out the P&Z Chairman had the power to make recommendations to the BCC and suggested a separate meeting of the P&Z allowing public discussion from the panels. He continued based on what was heard from the various panels and the Chairman Bruce could make recommendations as to any changes he felt were appropriate.
Planning Matters
Mr. Boling reported there would be a U.S. Highway 1 Workshop on February 9, 2007 at 9 a.m. in the Commission Chambers. There would be discussions on U.S. Highway 1 in regards to concurrency, the deficit link between
P&Z/Unapproved 11 February 8, 2007 F:IBCC\All Committees\P&Z\2007 Ag&Min\Minutes 02-08-07.doc 49th Street and 65th Street, six lane widening, parallel north/south roads such as Indian River Boulevard and Old Dixie Highway and the Developer's Agreement.
Chairman Bruce stated there were two appeals, Century Town Center and The Source coming before the BCC at their February 13, 2007 meeting.
Mr. Boling concluded other meetings were scheduled for February 15, 2007, a School Concurrency Meeting at the Richardson Center, and on February 19, 2007, IRC would be having a joint meeting with St. Lucie County to discuss Cloud Grove and a few other issues. Also at the February 20, 2007 BCC meeting there would be a rehearing on the Nextel Tower.
Attorney's Matters
Attorney Collins stated when the BCC turned down the Nextel Tower, Nextel filed suit in Federal Court and there had been negotiations regarding a settlement that would be presented to BCC and because it was denied in a public hearing it was determined the public should be noticed.
Attorney Collins mentioned the County was being sued by DiVosta, the developer of Waterway Village. He reported they were contesting the BCC's determination that Waterway Village was not vested through the Developer's Agreement for the entire project for the purposes of traffic concurrency.
Adjournment
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:52 p.m.
Bob Bruce, Chairman Date
Terri Collins-Lister, Staff Assistant IV Date
P&Z/Unapproved 12 February 8, 2007 F:\BCC\All Committees\P&Z\2007 Ag&Min\Minutes 02-08-07 .doc ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT USE 3A (QUASI-JUDICIAL) INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
MEMORANDUM
TO: The Honorable Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission
T ENT HEAD CONCURRENCE: '1/, _:.;--f Ro ert M. Keating, AIC ; Comm nity Develo ment Director 413 THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP; Planning Director ~ FROM: Steven Deardeuff; Senior Planner, Current Development
DATE: February 13, 2007
SUBJECT: Mercer Beck Enterprises, LLC's Request for Administrative Permit Use Approval for a Pet Boarding Kennel to be Known as Top Hat and Tails Pet Boarding Facility. [SP-MA-07-01-06 2006070238-56709]
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission at its regular meeting of February 22, 2007.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
This request was originally scheduled for the February 8, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. At the February 8th meeting, however, the item was postponed to the February 22, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. has submitted an application on behalf of Mercer Beck Enterprises, LLC for administrative permit use approval for a pet boarding kennel on a 7.74 acre site. The proposed use constitutes a "commercial kennel" under county land development regulations. Located at 7890 66th Avenue, the subject site is zoned A-1 (Agricultural up to one 1 unit per 5 acres), a zoning district in which administrative permit use approval is required for commercial kennels.
Currently, there are two existing horse stables and two pole barns on the site. The applicant proposes to remove the pole barns, construct a kennel building, and retain the two existing stables. The applicant also proposes to construct an outdoor animal exercise yard (to be enclosed by a 6-foot chain-link fence) next to the proposed kennel building.
The Planning and Zoning Commission is now to consider approval of the administrative permit use request for the commercial kennel. A use that requires an administrative permit is one that normally would not have an adverse impact on surrounding properties when carefully regulated in scale, duration, or nature. Administrative permit use approval requires submittal of a site plan that meets all of the specific use criteria set forth in Chapter 971.08(7) of the county's land development regulations.
F:\Community Development\Users\Steven Deardeuff\SPMA (Major)\Top Hat & Tails\Top Hat & Tails P&Z Staff Report Feb 22rtf 1 ANALYSIS
1. Zoning Classification: A-1 (up to 1 unit per 5 acres)
2. Land Use Designation: AG-1 (up to 1 unit per 5 acres)
3. Minimum Lot Size: Required: 200,000 sq. ft. Existing: 337,150 sq. ft. or 7.74 acres
4. Development Area: Proposed 117,676 sq. ft. or 2.70 acres
5. Building Area: Phase One 4,230 sq. ft. Enclosed Kennel Building 3,830 sq. ft. Unenclosed Roofed Dog Runs 8,060 sq. ft. Build Out Phase One
Phase Two 1,900 sq. ft. Addition to Enclosed Building 3,830 sq. ft. Unenclosed Roofed Dog Runs 5,730 sq. ft. Build Out Phase Two
6,130 sq. ft. Enclosed at Build-Out 7,660 sq. ft. Unenclosed at Build-Out 13,790 sq. ft. Total Under Roof at Build Out
Note: At proposed build-out, there will be 7,660 square feet of unenclosed dog runs under the roof of the proposed building. Although, these dog runs are considered unenclosed, they will be secured with a six (6) foot chain link fence with an opaque feature. The total footprint of the proposed under roof area at build-out will be 13,790 square feet.
6. Phasing: Phase One Completion Date December 2007 Phase Two Completion Date July 2009
7. Off-Street Parking: Required: 21 Parking Spaces Provided: 21 Parking Spaces
Note: 1 space for every 300 square feet of gross building area is required. Of the twenty-one required parking spaces, one must be designated as handicapped accessible. The twenty remaining spaces may be standard parking spaces. While the handicapped parking space, ramp, nine additional parking spaces and the driveway are proposed to be paved, the additional parking areas will be stabilized. Because this project is located outside of the urban service area, stabilized parking may be approved by the public works director (LDR 954.10(3).
8. Traffic: Currently, the site accesses 66th Avenue through an existing, unpaved driveway located within a Sebastian River Water Control District (SRWCD) right-of-way. This access is located at the northwest comer of the site. The subject site plan proposes paving this existing driveway to the standard two-way twenty-si~ (26) foot width requirement for an intermediate driveway. These improvements will not change the southern limits of the existing unpaved driveway and will bring the driveway no closer to the adjacent property that lies to the south of the driveway. During staff review of the site plan application, SRWCD did not object to the
F:\Community Development\Users\Steven Deardeufl\SPMA (Major)\Top Hat & Tails\Top Hat & Tails P&Z Staff Report Feb 22rtf 2 proposal, but did indicate that a SR WCD permit will be required prior to site plan release. As proposed the internal driveway will provide paved access to the north side of the proposed building and parking lot. In addition, a stabilized emergency access connection is provided along the site's south perimeter. The internal traffic circulation plan and driveway design have been approved by the County's Traffic Engineering Division and Fire Prevention Division.
A traffic impact analysis has been reviewed and approved by the Traffic Engineering Division. According to the study, the project will impact the intersection of CR510 and 66th Avenue. Currently, that intersection fails to meet an acceptable level of service during full development conditions. The intersection, however, is scheduled for improvements beginning in 2008. These improvements include widening 66th Avenue to four lanes, with two left tum lanes and one right turn lane in all directions at the intersection of CR510 and 66th A venue. In addition to the widening, bike lanes will be included on the 66th Avenue phase of the project.
When a development project impacts an intersection that fails to meet acceptable levels of service, the project applicant must propose improvements to bring the intersection up to an acceptable level of service (LDR 952.07(19)(c)). Once intersection improvements are proposed and accepted, a developer's agreement is then required to establish the developer's fair share cost of the needed improvements.
9. Utilities: The site will be served by county water and a septic system. Prior to the release of the site plan, the applicant must obtain applicable Department of Health permits and/or approvals for the septic system.
10. Concurrency: The applicant has applied for and obtained a conditional concurrency certificate for the project, as required under the county's concurrency regulations. In accordance with county concurrency regulations, the developer will be required to obtain final concurrency certificates prior to issuance of building permits.
11. Specific Land Use Criteria for Commercial Kennel. Pursuant to LDR section 971.08(7), the following criteria apply to the proposed use:
1. Indoor facilities shall maintain a thirty-foot setback from adjacent properties. Outdoor facilities must maintain a minimum of seventyjive (75) feet separation distance from adjacent properties. Conditions may be imposed to ensure adequate mitigation. or attenuation ofnoise impacts;
Note: The proposed site plan satisfies this requirement. The indoor facility is set back a minimum of 57 feet from the site's north boundary, 164 feet from the west boundary, 75 feet from the south boundary, and over 900 feet from the east boundary line. The proposed outdoor dog run will be located a minimum of 75 feet from the nearest adjacent property. To minimize potential noise nuisance impacts on surrounding properties, the proposed kennel building will be constructed of CBS block walls with a metal roof. In addition, staff recommends that the outdoor dog runs be restricted to daylight use only. This daylight use restriction is recommended as a condition of approval.
F:\Community Development\Users\Steven Deardeufl\SPMA (Majo_r)\Top Hat & Tails\Top Hat & Tails P&Z Staff Report Feb 22rtf 3 2. All animal boarding facilities shall be enclosed by a security fence at least six (6) feet in height;
Note: To satisfy this requirement, a 6-foot chain-link fence will be provided around the perimeter of the outdoor animal exercise area.
3. The site shall not abut any property having a residential land use designation.
Note: All adjacent properties have an agricultural land use designation. Therefore, this requirement is satisfied. ·
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission grant administrative permit use approval for the proposed commercial kennel, subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to site plan release, the developer shall:
a. Enter into a developer's agreement to pay his share of the cost of improvements to the intersection of CR510 and 66th Avenue, and
b. Obtain the necessary SRWCD permit for access improvements within the SRWCD right-of-way.
c. Obtain a Department of Health septic system permit.
2. Outdoor dog run hours of use shall be limited to daylight hours only.
ATTACHMENTS
I. Application 2. Location Map 3. Site Plan 4. Landscape Plan 5. Aerial 6. Exterior Building Elevations 7. Traffic Summary APPROVED AS TO FORM 8. LDR Definition of Commercial Kennel ~DLEGAI.S~Y 9. Copy ofLDR 952.07(19)(c) ~ Al 10. Copy ofLDR 954.10(3) .., . WILI.IAM G. COLLINS It COUNTY ATTORNIW'
F:\Conununity Development\Users\Steven Deardeufl\SPMA (Major)\Top Hat & Tails\Top Hat & Tails P&Z Staff Report Feb 22rtf 4 .,r··,.\ -,-, '(_ / soi:, :,lJ, ' /,,. [·_ '<" MAJOR SITE PLAN ' ,__ <\:,, · · "':; \ APPLICATION FORM ... ·?1\J , : (SPMJ) ;; ;.J ~<·'
0 COMPUTER ASSIGNED PROJECT#: c({f)Db 01() ;l 3 'J FILE #--'"--'-'---'---~~~J,,,,·:}'.}.
PROJECT NAME (PRINT): Top Hat N' Tails Pet Ranch
PROPOSED PROJECT USE:..._;P~et~b=o=ar=di=n0-gk=e=nn=e~I ___S~P_-_m~A~-_o_r;~· _-_O_l_-_o_{o_
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE PROJECT NAME: Top Hat N' Tails Pet Ranch
OWNER: (PRINT) AGENT: (PRINT) Mercer Beck Enterprises, LLC Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc NAME NAME 4774 61 st Circle 601 21 st Street Suite 300 ADDRESS ADDRESS Vero Beach FL Vero Beach FL CITY STATE CITY STATE 32967 ( 772)=39~8~-1~1=6~3 ______32960(772)562 -_7.ce9=8""-1 ____ ZIP PHONE ZIP PHONE U1JJ 398-9225 (772)562,9689/[email protected] FAX E-MAIL FAX E-MAIL ~~~~~------/,--~Allen Korson , ~~~~------Jim Vitter CONTACT PERSON Llde,(g/' CONTACT PERSON slcfirATURE OF OWNER OR AGENT
PROJECT ENGINEER: (PRINT) PROJECT ARCHITECT:(PRINT) Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. Burke Architects NAME NAME 601 21st Street Suite 300 888 Dahlia Lane ADDRESS ADDRESS Vero Beach FL Vero Beach FL CITY STATE CITY STATE 32960 (772)~79~4~-4=1=55'------32963 (772)_23_1_-8~9~88~---- ZIP PHONE ZIP PHONE (772)562-9689/jim. [email protected] (772)231-8920/gjburkearchilects.com FAX E-MAIL FAX E-MAIL Jim Vitter Gregory Burke, AIA CONTACT PERSON CONTACT PERSON
G:147725000\WPIAppsllRC\Major SP App only.rtf Revised June 2006 Page 1 of3 A-1 + A-1 1
lM
A-1 ~' - a
It - • 1 ' 1l)\\f~ fifjfj 12¥1, . I :m + , TR3 + _ ~. -- _. a~>. ..L 1, M'-UUV.L'-'0 l\llllLt'.rl: HUKN @002
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
THE TOP HAT 'N TAILS-TRAFFIC IMPACT SUMMARY • August2006 Suite 103 10521 S.W. Village Center Drive Revised November 2006 Port St. Lucie, Florida January 2007 34987 February 2007
047725000
th th 1. Location: East side of 66 Avenue between 77 Street and 81 st Street
2. Size: 19,707 square feet of dog kennel with 80 kennels
3. Trip Generation: Net new daily= 30 I Net new AM = 25 peak hour trips Net new PM = 52 peak hour trips ·
4. Area of Influence Boundaries: N. County Line (north), 26th Street (south), SR A- l-A (east), 82nd Avenue (west) .
5. Significant Roads - U.S. I (Old Dixie Hwy..... N. County Line), Schumann Drive (CR 510 .... US 1), CR 510 (CR 512 ... SRA-l-A), 66th Avenue (45th St. .. C.R. 510), and 77 th Street ( 66th Ave ... U.S. 1)
6. Significant Intersections: • CR510/66th Ave.
7. Trip Distiibution: See Appendix A
8. Internal Capture: none
9. Pass-by Capture: Day Care - 84% new trips
10. A.M. Peak Hour Directional% (ingress/egress): 53% entering/ 47% exiting. P.M. Peak Hour Directional% (ingress/egress): 47% entering/ 53%% exiting
11. Traffic Count :Factors Applied: 4.82% annual growth to build-out 2007
12. Off-Site Improvements: Applicant agrees to pay iheir proportionate share of programmed intersection improvements for:
• CR 510 J 66 th Avenue - Proportionate Share 0.06%
• TEL 772 345 3600 FAX 772 286 0136 .1:Ul\1Ll:.O'. J:I.U.l{N 141003
111""7-H Kimley-Horn . llllii..J • LJ and Associates, Inc. . 13. Roadway Capacities (IRC Link Sheets): See Appendix B
14. Assume roadway and / or intersection improvements:
• CR 510166th Avenue • CR 510 4-laning
15. Significant Dates a) Pre-study conference: August 2, 2006 b) Traffic counts:
Intersection Count AM Peak Count PM Peak Peak Date Peak Season Date Hour Season Hour Factor Factor CR 510 I 66'" Avenue 5/16/06 7:00-8:00 1.06 5/16/06 4:45-5:45 1.06
Remaining count data and all signal timing sheets provided by Indian River County. Link sheets based upon year 2005 seasonally-adjusted traffic counts also provided by Indian River County. c) Study approval: ......
S:\047\047725000 Top Hat 'N Tails\Traffic\Revised study due to comments dated 11-1-06\Rev#l4 due to comment dated 12-14-06TRAFFIC IMPACT SUMMARY.doc
APPROVED BY INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AAFFIC ENGINEERING /· . ' . ¼/47 ~-·· ,, Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc.
APPENDIX A
Traffic Distribution and Assignment ... 8 ~· eo.
'' '\• \ __ .,,-' --~---
0
a • ,, ' :.' a 0 ' ~ <.. 3 • ' 4 J'"..,. r--- • ' "' '' li' " f\. '7 ' ,.
••
• •1.., i~ ,I ..... • ' -j_ !,.-A ~"" .. ~ .... nJ/. °"' r " t ' • r-·•:.... ------.. ' : ' ' t ~, •• • a:' ', • a !I,· >\ ~ 51... -' ______•
P1ot Salcat ZDA~ ~oa~ -- Pe~cent T~p Hat N Ta11s MCDIF.IEO U:tc 201c 02:AJ,JG06 08 ! 011: 48 o '1772.so•• / /'-l'i'i , Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
APPENDIXB
· Project Link Assignment TOP HAT'N TAILS Traffic counts In the EXISTING column were collected in 2006 Trips indicated in the VESTED column are as of01/15/07
REMAINING %of LOS LINK ON STREET FROM STREET TO STREET CAPACITY EXIST. VESTED PROJECT W/PROJECT ·o·
1010N S.R.A1A S. COUNTY LINE S.VBCITYL 950 325 30 0 595 37% 1010S S.R.A1A s. COUNTY LINE S. VB ClTYL. 950 396 16 0 538 43% 1020N S.R.A1A S. VBCITYL. 17THSTREET 830 19 0 81 81% 1020S S.R.A1A S. VBCITYL 1TTHSTREET ""930 900 7 0 23 98% 10$0N S.R.A1A 1TTHS1REET S,R,60 860 604 55 0 201 77% 10305 S.R.A1A 17THSTR.EET S.R.60 860 0 74% 1040N S.R.A1A S.R.60 N. VB CITIL 860 '"836 6 0 ''"18 98% 1040S S.R.A1A S.R..60 N. VBCl1YL 860 910 6 0 -66 107% 1050N S.R.A1A N, VBC!lYL, FRED TUERK RD. 660 836 2 0 22 97% 1050S S.R.A1A N.VBCITYL FRED TUERK RD. 880 910 1 0 -51 106% 1060N S.R.A1A FRED TUERK RD. OLD WINTER BEACH RO 860 580 0 279 68% 1060S S.R.A1A FRED 71JERK RO. OLD WlNTi:R BEACH RD 860 488 0 0 392 54% 1070N S.R.A1A OLD WINTER BEACH RD N.IRSL 860 5 0 321 63% 1070S S.R.A1A OLD WINTER BEACH RD N. IRS L. 860 "'472 6 0 382 56% 1080N S.R.A1A N. IRSLN. C.R.510 860 534 53. 0 273 68¾ 1080S S.R.A1A N.IRSLN. C.R.!;i10 860 472 38 0 350 59¾ 1090N S.R.A1A C.R.510 N. COUNlY LINE '98 354 .. 0 598 40% 10905 S.R.A1A C.R.510 N, COUNTYUNE 998 613 0 391 61% 1110N INDIAN RIVER BLVD. 4THST.@US1 12THS'TREET 1,860 740 "8 Q 1112 40% 1110S lNDIAN RIVER BLVD. 4lHST.@US1 12THSTREET 1,880 1,366 33 0 461 75% 1120N IND!AN RIVER BLVD. 12THSTREET S.VBCITYL. 1,860 .. , 0 0 861 54% 1120S INDlAN RIVER BLVD. 12THSTREET S.VBCITYL. 1,860 1,425 0 0 435 77% 1130N lNDlAN RIVER BLVD. S. VBCllYL. 17THSTREET 1,860 999 10 0 851 64% 1130S INOIAN RIVER BLVD. S. VB CllYL. 17THSTREET 1,860 1,425 0 0 435 77¾ 1140N INDIAN RIVER BLVD. 17THSTREET 21STSTREET 1,860 1,024 3 0 8'3 55% 1140S INDIAN RIVER BLVD. 17THSTREET 21STSTREET 1,860 1.395 0 0 465 75% 1150N lNDtAN RIVER BLVD. 21STSl'REET S.R.60 1,860 1,420 16 0 ,,. 77% 1150$ lNDfAN RIVER BLVO. 21STS'l'REET S.R.60 1,860 1,861 0 0 199 89% 1160N INDIAN RIVER BLVD. S.R.61'.l W.VBC/lYL 1,860 1,049 63 0 ,.. 60% 1160S INOIAN RIVER BLVD. S.R.60 W. VBCITYL. 1,860 1,120 29 0 711 62% 1170N INDIAN RIVER BLVD. W, VBCrrYL. US 1 @ 53RD ST. 1,860 568 138 Q 1134 39% 1170S INDIAN RIVER BLVD. W. VBCITYL. US 1 @53RD ST. 1,860 832 116 0 912 51% 1210N '95 N. COUN-lY LINE C.R.512 2,740 1,504 10 0 1226 55% 1210S H!5 N. COUNTY LINE C.R.512 2,740 1,509 15 0 1216 58% 1220N 1-95 C.R.512 S.R.60 2,740 1,510 29 0 1201 5'% 1220$ 1-95 C.R.512 S.R.60 2,740 1,519 30 0 1191 57a/4 1230N 1-95 S.R. 60 OSLO ROAD 2,890 1,726 0 1120 61% 1230S 1-95 S,R.60 OSLO ROAD 2,890 1,712 "31 0 1147 60% 1240N 1-95 OSLO ROAD S. COUN1Y LINE 2,890 1,716 35 0 1139 61% 1240S 1-95 OSLO ROAD S. COUNTY LINE 2,890 1,707 24 0 1159 80% 1305N U.S.1 S. COUNTY LINE OSLO ROAD 1,860 1,197 ., 0 596 68% 1305S U.S.1 S. COUNTY LINE OSLO ROAD 1.8~ 1,590 54 0 216 68% 1310N U.S.1 OSLO ROAD 4THST.@!RBLVD. 2,790 1,412 37 0 1341 52% 1310S U.S.1 OSLO ROAD 4TH ST.@ !R BLVD. 2,790 · 1,749 60 0 981 65% 1315N U.S.1 4THST.@IRBLVD. BTHSTREET 1,860 1,195 7 0 656 65% 1315S U.S.1 4THST.@IRBLVO. 8THS1REET 1,860 1,484 19 0 357 81% 1320N U.$.1 BTHSTREET 12THSTREET 1,860 1,289 19 0 552 70% 1320S U.S.1 BTHSTREET 12THSTREET 1,860 1.472 38 0 350 81% 1325N U.S.1 12THSTREET S. VBCliYL 1,710 1,221 36 0 463 74% 13255 U.S.1 12THSTREET $, VBCJlYL, 1,710 1,301 51 0 358 79% TOP HAT'N TAILS Traffic counts ln the EXISTING column were collected In 2006 Trips Indicated In the VESTED column are as of 01/15107
REMAINING % of LOS LINK ON STREET FROM STREET TO STREET CAPACITY EXIST. VESTED PROJECT W/PROJECT "D" 1330N U.S.1 S.VBC!"J'YL. 17THSTREET 1,710 1,120 36 0 554 68% 1330S U.S.1 S. VB C(TYL. 17THSTREET 1,710 1,32S 52 0 329 81% 1335N U.$.1 17TH$1'REJ:T S.R. 60 1,510 1,175 59 276 82% 1335S U.S.1 17THSTREET S.R.60 1,510 1,207 75 228 85% 1340N .U.S.1 S.R.60 ~OYAL PALM Pl 1,510 901 86 523 55% 13.40S U.S.1 S.R. 60 ROYAL PALM PL 1,510 1,124 182 0 204 86% 1345N U.S.1 ROYAL PALM PL All.ANTIC BLVD. 1,710 1,084 ,o, 0 70% 1345S U.S.1 ROYALPALM PL AllANTIC BLVD. 1,710 970 158 '"5'2 ,.,, 1350N U.S.1 AllANTICBLVD. N, VBCITYL 2,010 1,608 135 0 367 '2% 1350S U.S.1 All.ANTIC BLVD. N, VBCITYL. 2,010 1,612 180 0 218 89% 1355N U.S.1 N. VBCITYL OLD DIXIE HWY 2,010 1,634- 186 0 210 90% 1355S U.S,1 N.VBCITYL OLD DIXlE HWY 2,010 1,298 177 535 73% 1360N U.S.1 OLD DIXIE HWY 41STSTREET Z0i0 1.712 169 129 94% 1360S u.s.1 OLD DIXIE HWY 41STSTREET 2,010 1,079 127 0 804 60% 1365N U.S.1 41STSTREET 46THSTREET 2,010 1,451 167 0 372 81% 1385S U.S.1 41STSTREET 45THSTREET 2,0·10 1,021 156 0 833 59% 1370N U.S,1 45THSTREET 49THSTREl:T 2,010 1,425 191 0 394 60% 1370$ u.s.1 45TH SlREET 49THSTREE1' 2,010 930 163 0 917 54% 1375N U.S.1 49THSTREET 65THSTREET 2,010 1,728 268 0 14 99% 1375S U.S.1 49THSTREET 65THSTREET 2,010 1,087 213 710 1!5% 1380N U.S.1 65THSTREET 69THSlREET 2,232 1,711 173 0 348 64% 1380S U.S.1 65THSTREET 69THSTREET 1,860 1,070 163 0 627 66% 1365N U.S,1 89THSTREET OLD DIXIE 1-iWY 2,232 1,675 165 0 392 82% 1385S U.S.1 69THSTREET OLODIX.IErtWY 1,860 1,034 137 ... 63% 1390W U.S:I OLD DIXIE HWY SCHUMANN DR. 2,210 1,411 154 0 645. 71% 1390S U.S.1 OLD DIXIE HWY SCHUMANN PR. 1,860 915 133 0 812 58% 1395N U.S,1 SCHUMANN DR. C.R.512 1,860 1,300 83 4 473 75% 1395S U.S.1 SCHUMANN DR. C.R,512 1,860 973 100 4 783 58% 1400N U.S.1 C.R,512 N. SEB. CITY L 1,710 1,272 60 3 375 78% 1400S U.S.1 C.R.512 N. SES, CITY L 1,710 1,171 76 3 .. , 73% 1405N U.S.1 N. SEB. CITY L ROSELAND RD. 1,860 1,318 42 3 497 73% 1405$ U.S.1 N.SEB.CITYL ROSELAND RD. 1,860 1,323 58 3 476 74% 1410N U.S.1 ROSELAND RD. N. COUNTYUNE 1,860 1,158 8 0 694 63% 1410S U.S.1 ROSELAND RO. N. COUNlY LINE 1,860 965 33 0 862 54% 1510N SCHUMANN DR, C.R. 510@ 66TH AVE. S, SEB. CITYL. 860 705 10 84% 1510$ SCHUMANN DR. C.R.510@661HA~ S. SEB. CITY L. 860 337 15 6 "'502 42'k 1520N SCHUMANN DR. s. SEB. crrv L U.S.1 860 11' 7 6 729 15% 1520$ SCHUMANN DR. S. SEB, Clli' L. U.S.1 860 66 12 5 777 10% 1610E ROSELAND RO. S.R.512 N.SEB.Cm'L. 860 325 14 0 521 39% 1810W ROSELAND RD. S.R.512 N. SES. CITY L 860 16 0 509 41% 1620E ROSELAND RD. N. SES. CITY L U.S.1 860 301"' 18 0 541 37% 1620W ROSELAND RD. N. SEB. CnY L. U.S.1 860 3TT 6 0 477 45% 1710E C.R.512 S.R.60 1-95 860 386 86 0 55% 1710W C.R.512 S.R.60 860 704 14 0 ""142 83% 1720E C.R. 512 095 C.R.510"" 1,860 655 243 0 982 4'% 1720W C.R. 512 1-95 C.R.510 1,860 823 30 0 46% 1730E C.R. 512 C.R.510 W. SEB. CITY L 1,860 730 41 """1080 41% 1730W C.R. 512 C.R.510 W. SEB. C11YL 1,860 716 45 1099 41% 1740E C,R.512 W,SEB.ClTYL ROSELAND RD. U!B0 952 40 0 53% 1740W C.R. 512 W. SEB. CITY L ROSELAND RD. 1,860 732 44 0 1084'" 42% TOP HAT'N TAILS Traffic counts In the EXISTING column were collected In 20D6 Trips indicated in the VESTED column aTe as of 01f15/07
REMAINING % of LOS LINK ON STREET FROM STREET TO STREET CAPACl1Y EXIST. VESTED PROJECT W/PROJECT "D" 17SOE C.R.512 ROSELAND RO. U.S.1 1,860 611 25 0 1224 34% 1750W C.R.512 ROSELAND RO. U.$.1 1,860 700 24 0 1136 39% 1810E C.R.510 C.R.512 66THAVE, 1,860 538 464 4 854 54% 1810W C.R.510 C.R.512 66THAVE. 1,860 776 104 5 975 48% 1820E C.R.510 65THAVE. 58THAVE. 1,860 512 115 5 1228 34% 1820W C.R.510 66THAVE, SSTHAVE. 1,860 718 116 4 1022 45% 1830E C.R. 510 58THAVE. U.S.1 1,660 ... 1'4 3 1179 37% 1830W C.R.510 58THAVE. U.$.1 1,860 774 122 3 981 48% 184-0E C.R.510 U.S.1 S.R. A1A 1,900 571 191 3 1135 40% 1840W C.R.510 U.S.1 S.R.A1A 1,900 1,021 210 3 666 65'' 19056 S.R.t,O W. COUNTY LINE C.R.512 1,810 217 11 0 158.2 13% 1905W S.R,60 W. COUNTY LINE C.R.512 1,810 254 13 0 1543 15% 1907E S.R.60 C.R.512 10DTHAVE. 1,810 256 0 1551 14% 1907W S.R.60 C.R.512 100THAVE. 1,810 257 0 1550 14% 1910E S.R.60 1001HAVE. 1-95 1,860 325 140 0 1395 25% 1910W S.R.60 100l'HAVE. 1-95 1,860 286 213 0 1361 27% 1915E S.R.60 >05 82NOAVE. 1,860 1,391 266 0 181 90% 1915W S.R60 1-95 82NDAVE. 2,000 1,593 263 0 144 93% 1920E S.R.60 82NDAVE. 86THAVE. 2,120 1,550 466 0 104 95% 1920W S.R.60 B2NDAVE. 66THAVE, z120 1,865 359 0 ·104 105% 1925E S.R.60 66THAVE. 58THAVE. 2,790 1,641 335 0 614 71¾ 192SW $.R.60 66THAVE. 58THAVE, 2,790 1,652 385 0 753 73% 1930E S.R.60 58THAVE. 43RDAVE. Z790 1,399 260 0 1111 60% 1930W S.R.60 SSTHAVE. 43RDAV"E.. 2,790 1,497 366 0 907 67% 1~35E S.R.60 43RDAVE. 27THAVE. 2,790 1,315 249 0 1226 56% 1935W S.R.60 43RDAVE. 27THAVE. 2,790 1,544 0 9'3 68% 1940E S.R. 60 27THAVE. 20THAVE. 2,790 1,158 "'166 0 1444 1940W S.R. 60 27THAVE. 20THAVE. 2,790 1,371 284 0 1135 "'"59% 1945E S.R.60 20THAVE. OLD DIXIE HWY 3,252 1,135 132 0 1865 39% 1945W S.R, 60 20THAVE. OLD DIXIE HWY 3,252 1,288 166 0 1798 45% 1950E S.R.60 OLD DIXIE HWY 10THAVE. 3,252 1,258 83 0 1911 41% 1950W S.R. 60 OLD DIXIE HWY 10THAVE. 3,252 1,051 116 0 2085 36% 1955E S.R.60 10THAVE. U.S.1 3,252 1,100 80 0 2072 36% 1955W S.R.60 10THAVE. U.S.1 3,252 757 100 0 2395 :16% 1960E S.R. SO U.S.1 lNDIAN RIVER eLVO. 3,252 769 17 0 2448 25% 1960W S.R. 60 U.S.1 !NDIAN RIVER BlVD. 3,252 513 15 0 2724 16¾ 1965E S.R. 60 tND!AN RIVER BlVD. lCWW 1,860 908 7 0 945 49% 1965W S.R.60 IND!AN RIVER BLVD. !CWW 1,860 1,263 3 0 594 68% 1970E S.R.60 lcWW S.R.A1A 1,860 920 5 0 935 50% 1970W S.R. 60 lCWW S,R.A1A 1,860 991 5 0 ... 54•· 2020E 161H STREET 5BTHAVE. 43RDAVE. 660 160 49 0 651 2020W 16TH STREET 58THAVE. 43RDAVE. 860 240 38 0 582 '"'32% 2030E 16THSTREET 43RDAVE. 27THAVE. 660 348 47 0 .... 46% 2030W 16THS7REET 43RDAVE. 27THAVE. 860 507 36 0 315 63% 204-0E 1"6TH STREET 27THAVE. 20THAVE. 860 390 32 0 438 49% 2040W 16TH SJ'REET 27THAVE, 20THAVE. 660 579 53 0 226 73% 2050E 18l'H STREET 20THAVE. OLD OIXIE HWY 610 597 31 0 182 77% 2050W 16l'H STREET 20THAVE. OLD DIXIE HWY 610 775 45 0 -10 101% 2060E 16TH/tTTH SlREET OLD DIXIE HWY U.S.1 1,710 582 52 0 1076 37% 2060W 16l'H!17TH STREET OLD DIX!E HWY U.S.1 1,710 624 50 0 1036 39% 2110E 1TTH STRl:.ET U.S.1 INOIAN RIVER BL VD. 1,710 560 29 0 1121 34% 2110W 17THSTREET U.S.1 lNDIAN RIVER BLVD, 1,710 754 23 0 933 45% 2120E 17THSTREET !ND!AN RIVER BLVD. S.R.A1A 1,860 1,049 26 0 785 58% 2120W 17THS"JREET INOIAN RIVER BLVD. S.R.A1A 1,860 1,298 16 0 546 71% 2210E 12THS1REET 82NOAVE. 58THAVE. 870 15 3 0 852 2% 2210W 121HSTREET 82NOAVE. 58THAVE. 870 17 0 0 '53 2% 222DE 12THSTREET 58THAVE. 43ROAVE. 860 180 38 0 642 25% 2220W 12lHS1REET 58THAVE. 43RDAVE. 860 254 29 0 577 33% TOP HAT'N TAILS Traffic counts In the EXISTING column were collected In 2006 Trips Indicated In the VESlED column are as of 01/15/07
REMAINING %of LOS LINK ON STREET FROM STREET TO STREET CAPACITY EXIST. VESTED PROJECT W/PROJECT "D" 2230E 12THSTREET 43RDAVE. 27THAVE. 860 313 16 0 531 38% 2230W 12THSTREET ~RDAVE. 27THAVE. 860 471 13 0 376 56% 2240E 12THSTREET 27THAVE. 20THAVE. 860 402 11 0 447 4'% 2240W 12THSTREET 27THA\IE 20THAVE. 860 562 11 0 267 67% 2250E 12Trl STREET 20THAVE. OLDOOOEHWY 660 5 0 366 57% 2250W 12THSTREET 20THAVE. OLD DIXIE HWY 860 "'711 10 0 139 84% 2260E 12THSTREET OLD DIXIE HWY U.S.1 1,368 '27 0 0 1141 17% 2260W 12TH STREET OLD DIXIE HWY U.S.1 1,368 760 10 0 56¾ 2305N OLD DIXIE HWY S. COUNlY LINE OSLO ROAD 860 356 113 0 '"391 55% 2305S OLD DIXIE HWY S. COUNTY LINE OSLO ROAD 660 491 21 0 348 60% 2310N OLDOIXlEHWV OSLO ROAD 4THSTREET 860 329 43 0 4'8 43% 2310S OLD DIXIE HWY OSLO ROAD 4THS1REET 860 4'3 4l 0 336 61% 2315N OLD DIXIE HWY 4THSlREET STHSTREET 810 4/34 39 0 267 65% 2315S OLDOOOEHWY 4THSTREET BTHSTREET 810 630 39 0 141 83% 2320N OLD DIXIE HWY 8THSTREET 12THSTREET 810 529 21 0 260 68% 2320$ OLD DIXIE HWY BTHSTREET 12THSmEET 810 704 24 0 82 90% 2325N 01-I) DIXIE HWY 12THS1REET S.VSCITYL. 810 396 7 0 407 .50% 2325S OLD DIXIE HWY 12THSTREET S.VBCITYL 810 391 8 0 411 49"/4 2330N OLD DIXIE HWY S. VBCJ'TYL 16THSTREET 850 396 8 0 446 48% 2330$ OLD DIXIE HWY $. VB CITY L. 18TH STREET 850 391 6 0 453 47% 2335N OLD DIXIE HWY 1STHS1REET S.R.60 850 284 33 0 533 37% 2335S OLDD!XIEHWY 16TH81REET S.R.60 850 239 22 0 589 31% 2345N OLD DIXIE HWY 41STSTREET 4STHSTREET 860 176 49 0 635 26% 2345S OLD DIXIE HWY 41STSTREET 45THSTREET 860 181 35 0 844 25% 2350N OLD DIXIE HWY 45THSTREET 49THSTREET 860 136 61 0 683 23% 2350S OLD DIXIE HWY 45fHSTREET 49THSTREET 860 114 42 • 704 18o/6 2355N OU) DIXIE HWY 49THSTREET 65THSTREET 860 132 108 0 620 28% 2355S OLD DOOEHWY 49THSTREET 6STHSTREET 860 149 92 0 819 28% 2360N OLD DIXIE HWY 65fHSTREET 69THSTREET 860 218 30 0 612 29% 2360S OLD DlXIE HWY 65'rHS1REET 69THSTREET 860 87 23 0 750 13% 2365N OLD DIXIE HWY 69TI-i STREET C.R.510 860 145 17 0 898 19% 2365S OLD DIXIE HWY 69THSTREET C.R. 510 880 129 12 0 719 16% 2410N 2TTHAVENUE S. COUNTY LINE OSLO ROAD 1,066 519 314 0 235 78% 2410S 27THAVENUE S. COUNTY LINE OSLO ROAD 1,068 800 477 0 -209 120% 2420N 27THAVENUE OSLO ROAD 4TH SffiEET 1.068 548 209 0 311 71% 2420$ 27THAVENUE 08LOROAD 411-ISTREET 1,068 769 325 0 -26 102% 243DN 27THAVENUE 4THSTREET BTHSTREET 1,020 482 149 0 409 60¾ 24308 27THAVENUE 4THSTREET 8lliS1REET 1,020 811 240 0 -01 1oa% 2440N 27THAVENUE S"rHSTREET 12THSTREET 1,020 447 106 0 4'7 54% 24408 27THAVENUE BTHSTREET 12THSTREET 1.020 793 174 0 53 95% 2450N 27THAVENUE 12THSTREET S. VB CITVL. 1.020 456 87 0 477 53% 2450S 27THAVENUE 12THS1REET 8.\113CITIL. 1,020 784 143 0 93 91% 2460N 2TTHAVENUE 8. \113 CITY L. 16THSlREET 1,020 456 81 0 53% 2460S 2TTHAVENUE S. VBCITYL. 16THSlREET 1,020 794 138 0 "'98 90% 2470N 2TTHAVENUE 16THSTREET S.R.60 1,020 411 40 0 589 44% 2470S 27THAVENUE 16THS"TREET S.R.60 1,020 704 70 0 248 76% 2480N 27THAVENUE S.R.60 ATLANTIC BLVD. 610 257 19 534 34% 2480$ 27TH AVENUE S.R.60 ATLANTIC BLVD. 810 439 28 0 343 58% 2510N 27THAVENUE ATLANTIC BLVD. AVIATION BLVD. 810 439 8 0 363 55% 2510S 27THAVENUE ATtANTIC BLVD. AVIATION BLVD. 810 756 14 0 40 95% TOP HAT'N TAILS Traffic counts In the EXISTING column were collected In 2006 Trips indicated In tlte VESTED column are as of 01/15107
REMAINING % of LOS LINK ON STREET FROM STREET TO STREET CAPACITY EXIST. VESTED PROJECT WI PROJECT "D" 2530E OSLO ROAD 82NDAVE. 58THAVE. 870 245 5 0 620 29¾ 2530W OSLO ROAD 82NDAVE, 5BTHAVE. 870 197 0 672 23% 2540E OSLO ROAD 58THAVE. 43ROAVE. 1,953 561 247 0 1145 41% 2540W OSLO ROAD 58THAVE. 43ROAVE. 1,953 128 0 1342 '1% 2550E OSLO ROAD 43RDAVE. 27THAVE. 1,953 "'741 227 0 985 50% 2550W OSLO ROAD 43RDAVE. 27THAVE. 1,953 703 209 0 1041 47% 2580E. OSLO ROAD 27THAVE.. 20THAVE.. 1,953 564 '73 0 1216 38% 2560W OSLO ROAO 27THAVE. 20THAVE. 1,953 695 143 1115 43%- 2570E OSLO ROAD 20THAVE. OLD DIXIE HWY 1,953 595 297 0 1061 46¾ 2570W OSLO ROAD 20THAVE. OLD DIXIE HWY 1,953 805 189 0 989 51% 2580E OSLO ROAD OLD DIXIE HWY U.S.1 1,953 519 75 0 1359 30% 2580W OSLO ROAD OLD DIXIE HWY U.S.1 1,953 631 81 0 1241 36% 2610E 611-iAVENUE 17THSTREET S. VB CITYL. 660 299 1 0 560 35% 2610N 6THAVENUE 17THSTREET S. VBCllYL. 860 450 0 409 52% 2610S 6THAVENUE 17THSTREET s. va crrvL. 860 732 0 127 B$% 2620N 6THAVENUE S. VB CITY L. S.R. 60 850 470 2 0 378 58% 2620S 6THAVENUE S.VBC!TYL. S.R. 60 850 567 0 262 67% 2710N 10TI-IAVENUE S.R.60 ROYAL PALM BLVp. 810 76 23 711 12% 27108 10TI-IAVENUE S.R.60 ROYAL PALM BLVD. 810 73 23 0 714 12% 2720N 10lHAVENUE ROYAL PALM BLVD. 17THSTREET 810 216 24 0 570 30% 2720S 10THAVENUE ROYAL PALM BLVD. 17THSTREET 810 238 23 0 549 32% 2810N 20THAVENUE OSLO ROAD 41liSTREET 860 402 126 0 332 61% 2810S 20THAVENUE OSLO ROAD 4THSTREET 860 153 0 144 83% 2820N 20THAVENUE 4THSTREET 8THSTREET 810 "'360 65 0 385 62% 2820S 20THAVENUE 4THSTREET 8THS1REEr 810 693 85 0 32 28,0N 20lli AVENUE 8IBS1REEr 12THSTREET 810 435 43 0 332 ""59% 2830S 20THAVENUE .8THSTREET 12THS1REET 810 689 59 0 62 92% 2840N 20THAVENUE 12THSTREET S.VBCllYL 1,710 442 27 0 12.41 21% 2e40S 20THAVENUE 12THSTREET S. VBCITYL 1,710 596 ,. 0 1080 37% 2850N 20THAVENUE S. VBCllYL 16THSTREET 1,800 442 16 0 1342 25% 2850S 20THAVENUE S.VBCllYL. 16THSTREET 1,800 596 33 0 1171 35% 2860N 20THAVENUE 16THS'TREET S.R.60 1,800 332 23 0 1445 20% 2860S 20THAVENUE 16TH STRSIT S.R.60 1,600 430 42 • 1328 26% 2870N 20THAVENUE S.R.60 ATLANTIC BLVD. 850 166 24 0 BB0 22% 2870S 20THAVENUE S.R. 60 ATLANTIC BLVD. 850 130 58 0 662 22% 2905N 43ROAVENUE S. COUNTY LINE OSLO ROAD 950 354 207 • 389 59% 2905S 43RD AVENUE S. CDUNlY LINE OSLO ROAD 950 311 323 0 316 67% 2910N 43RDAVtNUE OSLO ROAD 4THSTREET i,058 439 375 0 254 76% 2910S 43RDAVENUE OSLO ROAD 4TH$TREET 1,068 541 284 0 2A3 77% 2915N 43RDAVENUE 4THS1REET 8THSTREET 1,020 473 162 0 385 62% 2915S 43RDAVENUE 4THSTREET 8THSTREET 1,020 671 237 0 112 89% 2920N 43ROAVENUE STHSTREET 12THSlREET 1,071 462 157 0 432 60% 29205 43ROAVENUE 8THSTREET 12THSTREET 1,071 653 219 0 199 81% 2925N 43RDAVENUE 12THSTREET 167HS1REET 1,071 502 138 0 431 60'.(, 2925S 43RDAVENUE 12THSTREET 16THSTREET 1,071 658 189 0 224 79% 2930N 43RDAVENUE 16THSTREET $.R.60 1,796 581 151 0 1064 41% 2930S 43ROAVENUE 16THSTREET S.R.60 1,796 693 197 0 906 50% 2935N 43RDAVENUE S.R. 60 26THSTREET 1,796 467 137 0 1192 34% 2935S 43RDAVENUE S.R.60 26THSiREET 1,798 612 133 0 1851 41% 2948N 43RDAVENUE 267HS'TREET 41~SlREET 880 423 223 0 214 75% 29406 43RDAVENUE 26THSTREET 41STSTREET 880 488 220 0 152 82.% TOP HAT'N TAILS Traffic counts ln the EXISTING column were collected In 2006 Trips Indicated In the VESTED column are as of 01/15107
REMAINING %of LOS LINK ON STREET FROM STREET TO STREET CAPACl1Y EXIST. VESTED PROJECT W/PROJECT ••• 2945N 43ROAVENUE 41STSTREET 4511-1 STREET 880 332 169 0 359 58% 2945S 43RDAVENUE 41STSTREET 45TH SlREET 880 333 121 0 406 53% 2950N 43ROAVENUE 45THSTREET 49THSTREET 860 245 155 0 .. , 47% 2950S 43RDAVENUE 45THSTREET 49THSTREET 850 160 104 0 576 33% 3005N SBTHAVENUE OSLO ROAD 4THSTREET 1,860 363 95 0 1402 25% 3005S 58THAVENUE OSLO ROAD 4THSTREET 1,860 411 129 0 1320 29% 3010N 58THAVENUE 4THSTREET STHSTREET 1,710 657 '2 0 ,01 ""% 30105 58THAVENUE 4THSTREET 8THSTREET 1,710 712 96 0 902 47% 3015N 5Bll-l AVENUE 8TH STREET 1.2THSTREET 1,710 815 99 0 7'6 53% 3015S 58Tii AVENUE 8THSTREET 12THSTREET 1,710 1,138 118 0 458 73% 3020N 58THAVENUE 12THSTREET 16THSTREET 1,710 944 147 0 819 64% 3020S 58TI-lAVENUE 12THSTREET 16THSTREET 1,710 1,046 158 0 508 70% 3025N 58THAVENUE 16THS"TREET S.R.60 1,710 983 218 0 509 70% 3025S 55THAVENUE 16THSTREET S.R.60 1,710 1,035 248 0 429 75% 3030N 5STHAVENUE S.R.60 41STSTREET 1,850 1,137 248 0 471 74% 3030S 58lHAVENUE S.R.60 41STSTREET 1,660 1,109 186 0 583 69% 3035N 58THAVENUE 41STSTREET 45THSTREET 860 587 205 0 .. 92% 3035S 58THAVENUE 41STS1REET 45THSTREET 880 538 99 0 = 74% 3040N 58THAVENUE 45THSTREET 49THS'fFEET 880 496 187 0 177 79% 3040S 681HAVENUE 45THSTREET 49THSTREET 860 487 85 0 278 .... 3045N 58THAVENUE 49THSlREET 65THSTREET 860 479 1S4 0 227 74% 3045S SBTHAVENUE 49TH$TREET 65THSTREET 860 402 114 0 344 BD% 3050N 58lHAVENUE 65THSTREET 69THSTREET 080 432 89 0 339 61% 3050S 58TH/\VENUE 65THSTREET 69THSTREET 860 356 108 0 396 3058N 58TH AVENUE 69THSTREET C.R.510 860 307 78 0 415 '"''2% 3055S 58THAVENUE 69THSTREET C.R.510 860 292 118 0 450 48% 3120N. 66THAVENUE S,R.60 25THSTREET 860 450 163 0 234 73% 3120S 65THAVENUE S.R,60 26THSTREET 860 432 129 0 299 65% 3130N 66THAVENUE 26THSiREET 41STSTREET 860 548 155 0 157 62% 3130$ 86THAVENUE 26THSTREET 41STSTREET 860 398 118 0 344 60% 3140N 66THAVENUE 41STSlREET 45THSTREET 950 559 69 0 322 66% 31405 66THAVENUE 41STSTREET 45THSTREET 850 367 58 0 45% 3150N 66THAVENUE 45THSTREET 65THSTREET 870 537 73 257"' 70% 3150S 66THAVENUE 45THSlREET 65THSiREET 870 331 59 3' 477 45% 3160N 66THAVENUE 65THSTREET 69THSTRl;:ET 870 537 42 3 288 67% 3160S 66THAVENU!:. 65THSTREET 89THSTREET 670 301 40 3 528 40% 3170N 66THAVENUE 69THSTREET C.R,510 870 561 58 14 239 73% 3170$ 66THAVENUE 69THSTREET C.R.510 670 314 48 17 493 43% 3310N 82NDAVENUE OSLO ROAD 4THSTREET 950 180 s 0 785 19% 3310S 82NDAVENUE OSLO ROAD 4THSlREET 950 186 6 0 778 18% 3320N 82NDAVENUE 4lHSTRE.ET 12THSTREET 950 196 15 0 739 22% 3320S 82NDAVENUE 4THSTREET 12THSTREET 950 164 20 0 746 21% 3330N 82NOAVENUE 12THSTRf:ET $.R.60 880 239 84 0 557 35% 3330S 82NOAVENUE 12THSTREET $.R,60 860 144 33 0 683 21% 3340N 82NDAVENUE S.R.60 65THSTREET 410 18 s 0 387 6% 3340S 82NDAVENUE S.R.60 BSTHSTRl;:ET 410 76 6 0 326 20% 3350N 82NDAVENUE 65THSTREET 69THSTREET 410 19 0 ,., 5% 3350S 82NDAVENUE 65THSiREET 69THS1REET 410 23 0 0 '87 6% 3360N 9B'JHAVENUE 8THS1REET 12THSTREET 860 13 43 800 7% 3360$ 981HAVENUE 8THS1REET 12THSTREET 660 79 765 11% 3370N 98THAVENUE 12THSTREET 16THSTREET 860 "72 108 0 680 21% 3370$ 98THAVENUE 12THSTREET 16THS1'REET 860 so 197 0 813 29% 3380N 98THAVENUE 16THSTREET SR60 880 73 108 0 679 21% 3380S 98THAVENUE 16THSTREET SR60 880 48 197 0 915 28% 3390N 9BTHAVENUE SR60 26THSTREET 880 24 0 0 838 3% 3390S 98THAVENUE SR60 26THSTREET 860 143 0 0 717 17% 3610E 77THSTREET 66THAVE. U.S,1 820 70 11 0 739 10% 3610W 7TTHSTREET 68THAVE. U.S.1 820 174 9 0 637 22'• TOP HAT'N TAILS Traffic counts In the EXISTING column were col)ec:ted In 2006 Trips lntficated in the VESTED column are as of 01/15/07
REMAINING % of LOS LINK ON STREET FROM STREET TO STREET CAPACITY EXIST. VESTED PROJECT W/PROJECT 'D" 3710E 69THS1REET 82NDAVE. 66THAVE. 410 16 18 0 376 8% 3710W 691ll S1REET 82NDAVE. 66THAVE. 410 48 18 0 ... 18% 3720E 69THSTREET 66THAVE. 58THAVE. 870 39 13 0 818 6% 3720W 69THS1REET 66THAVE. SBTHAVE. .,. 0 7$4 10% 3730E 69TH S7REET 5BTHAVE. OLD DIXIE HWY $70 53" 26" 0 791 3730W 69THSTREET 58THAVE. OLOOIXIEHWY $70 70 18 0 7$2 10%"' 374-0E 69Til S1RCET OLO DIXIE HWY U.S.1 870 47 11 0 812 7% 3740W 69THS1REET OLD DIXIE HV'IY U.S.1 870 59 13 0 798 8% 3820E 65THSTREET 66THAVE. 58THAVE. $70 44 21 805 7% 3"20W 65THS'TREET 66THAVE. 58THAVE. $70 32 4 0 ... 4% 3830E 651HSTREET 58THAVE. OLD DIXIE HWY $70 86 30 784 13% 3830W 65THS1REET 58THAVE. OLD DIXIE HWY $70 90 22 0 758 13% 3840E 65lHSlREET OLD DIXIE HVVY U.S.1 $70 51 9 $10 7% 3840W 65TH STREET OLD DIXIE HWY U.S.1 870 86 10 0 794 9% 4220E 4911-1 STREET 66THAVE. 58THAVE.. 860 28 35 0 797 7% 4220W 49TH STREET 66THAVE. 58THAVE. 860 31 19 0 810 6% 4230E 49lHSTREET 58THAVE. 43RDAVE. 860 135 28 0 697 19% 4230W 481'HSTREET 58THAVE. 43RDAVE. 860 200 19 641 25% 4240E 491HSTREET 43RPAVE. OLD DIXIE HWY 810 216 113 0 491 41% 4240W 49THSTREET 43RDAVE. OLD DIX!J:. HWY 810 144 90 576 29% 4250E 491HSTREET OLD DIXIE HWY U.S.1 810 221 30 0 559 '1% 4250W 49THSTREET OLD DIXIE HWY U.S.1 810 157 21 0 632 22% 4320E 45THSTREET 66THAVE. 58THAVE. 860 157 21 0 682 21% 432DW 45TH STREET 66THAVE. 58THAVE. $60 130 10 0 714 17% 4330E 45TH S'l'REET 58THAVE. 43RDAVE. $60 176 43 0 641 25% 4330W 45THS'rn.EET 58THAVE. 43RDAVE. 860 207 42 0 611 29% 4340E 45THSTREET 43RDAVE. OLD DIXIE HWY 860 321 77 0 462 46% 4340W 45THSTREET 43RDAVE. OLD DIXIE HWY $60 432 82 0 346 60% 4350E 45THSTREET OLD DIXIE HWY INDIAN RIVER BL VO. 860 188 75 0 5ll7 31% 4350W 45THSTREET OLD DIXIE HWY INDIAN RNER BLVO. 860 273 82 0 ,.. 41¾ 4420E 41STSTREET 66THAVE. 58THAVE. $70 102 33 0 735 16% 4420W 41STS1REET 66THAVE. 5eIBAVE. 870 141 15 0 714 18% 4430E 41STS1REET 5BTHAVE. 43ROAVE. $60 181 55 0 624 27% 4430W 41STSlREET 58THAVE. 43ROAVE. $60 262 73 0 525 39% 444DE 41STSTREET 43RDAVE. OLD DIXIE HWY $60 205 115 540 37% 4440W 41STS'rn.EET 43ROAVE. OLDOIXlEHWY $60 212 48 600 30% 4450E 41STSTREET OLD DIXIE HWY lNDIAN RIVER BLVD. 860 133 16 0 709 18% 4450W 41STSTREET OLD DIXIE HWY INDIAN RIVER BLVD. 860 59 18 0 9% 4460E 3'77H STREET U.S.1 INDIAN RIVER BLVD. 860 44B 0 "'411 52% 4460W 37TH STREET u.s.1 !NDIAN RIVER BLVD. 860 638 21 0 201 77% 4720E: 267H STREET 66THAVE. 58THAVE. 860 352 135 0 373 57% 4720W 26TH STREET 66THAVE. 58THAVE. 860 500 10B 254 70% 4730E 26.TH STREET 58THAVE. 43RDAVE. 860 405 41 414 52% 4730W 261HSTREET 58THAVE. 43RDAVE. $60 807 57 0 186 77% 4740E 261HSTREET 43RDAVE. AVIATION BLVD. 860 50$ 30 0 322 63% 4740W 261HSTREET 43~DAVtc. AVIATION BLVD. $60 666 35 0 159 82% 4750E 2STHSTREET AVIATION BLVD. 27THAVE. 860 197 12 0 B51 24% 4750W 26TH STREET AVIATION BLVD, 27TH AVE. $60 180 19 0 861 23% 4830E BTHSTREET 58THAVE. 43RDAVE. B60 292 16 0 552 36% 4830W 8Tli S'TREET 58THAVE. 43RDAVE, 860 213 10 0 637 26% TOP HAT'N TAILS Traffic counts In the EXJSTING column were collected In 2006 Trips Indicated in the VESTED column are as of 01/15/07
REMAINING %of LOS LINK ON STREET FROM STREET TO STREET CAPACITY EXIST. VESTED PROJECT WI PROJECT ·o· 4840E 8THSTREET 43RDAVE. 27THAVE. 860 352 55 0 453 47% 4840W 8TH STREET 43RDAVE. 27THAVE. 860 521 36 0 3<13 65% 4850E 8TH SlREET 27THAVE. 20THAVE. 860 354 14 0 492 43% 4850W BTHSTREET 27THAVE. 20THAVE. 860 555 1' 0 292 68% 4860E 8lH smEET 20THAVE. OLD DIXIE HWY 610 359 86 0 365 55% 4860W 8TH S1REET 20THAVE. OLD DIXIE HWY 810 711 ZI 0 72 91% 4870E 8TH STREE.T OLDOIXIEHWV U.S.1 810 20 0 ... 4870W 8lH STREET OLD DIXIE HWY U.S.1 "' 0 '""92% 810 715 29 .. 4880E 8TH STREEl' U.S.1 !NDIAN RJVERBLVO. 860 3 0 560 35% 4880W 8TH STREET U.$,1 tNDIAN RIVER BLVD. 860 ""577 4 0 279 68% 4910E 4TI-I STREET -82NDAVE. 58THAVE. 870 80 25 0 765 12% 4910W 4TH S1REET 82NDAVE. 581HAVE. 870 121 7 0 742 15% 4930E 4TH STREET 58THAVE. 43RDAVE. 860 228 15 0 617 28% 4930W 41'H STREET 58THAVE. 43RDAVE. 860 288 11 0 561 35% 4940E 4TH STREET 43RDAVE, 27THAVE. 860 293 26 0 541 37% 4S40W 4TH S1REET 43ROAVE. 27THAVE. 860 365 23 0 472 45% 4950E 4TH SlREET 27THAVE. 20'rHAVE. 860 339 • 0 512 40% 4950W 4TH SlREET 27THAVE. 20THAVE. 860 505 11 0 344 60% 4960E 4TH STREET 20THAVE. OLD DIXIE HWY 860 3'3 37 0 440 49% 4960W 4TH S1REET 20THAVE. OLD DIXIE HWY 860 575 53 0 232 73% 4970E 4TH STREET OLD DIXIE HWY U.S.1 810 569 17 0 224 72% 4970W 4n-t STREET OLD DIXIE 'rMIY U.S.1 810 532 2B 0 250 69% 5610E FREOlUERKOR. A1A W.OFCOCONUTOR. 880 115 0 0 745 13% 5610W FREDTUERKOR. A1A W,OFCOCONUTOR. 660 92 0 0 ,., 11% 5710E W!NlER BEACH.RO, A1A JUNGLE TRAIL 660 84 0 795 8% -5710W WINTER BEACH RO. A1A JUNGLE TRAIL 880 54 0 0 906 6% 5810E An.ANTIC BLVD. 27THAVE. 20THAVE. 860 141 6 0 713 17% 5810W An.ANTIC BLVD. 27TH AVE. 201HAVE. 860 257 7 0 596 31% 5820E ATLANTIC BLVD. 20THAVE. U,S.1 860 123 41 0 696 19% 5820W Al'l.ANTIC BLVD. 20THAVE. u.s.1 860 171 104 0 585 32% 5910E AVIATION BLVD. 26THSTREET 27THAVE. 1,280 547 10 0 723 44% 5910W AVIATION BLVD. 26THSTREIIT 27THAVE. 1,280 732 44 0 504 61% 6010E ROYAL PALM BLVD. ROYAL PALM PL. INDIAN RIVER BLVD. 880 394 9 0 477 46% 6010W ROYALPALMEILVD. ROYAL PALM PL. INDIAN RIVER BL VO. 880 197 9 0 674 23% 6110E ROYAL PALM PL U.S.1 IND!AN RIVER BLVD. 880 223 19 0 638 28% 6110W ROYAL PALM PL U.S.1 lNDIAN RIVER BL VD. 880 444 19 0 417 s,¾
S:\047\047725000 Top Hat 'N Tails\Traffic\ReYised study due to comments dated 11-1-06\[Unk Tables 01-15-07.xlsJUnk Percent Attachment 8
Section 901.03 Kennel or animal boarding place, commercial any lot or premises on which dogs, cats, rabbits, poultry or other domestic animals are housed or accepted for boarding, breeding, trimming, grooming, and/or bathing for which remuneration is received.
Attachment 9
Section 952.07(19)(c) For each intersection in which the project traffic results in a level of service below the acceptable adopted level of service, the applicant and/or engineer will develop proposed improvements to the intersection that result in the intersection operating at an acceptable level of service with the existing, vested and specific project traffic included in the analysis.
Attachment 10
Section 954.10(3) Proposed construction standards which deviate from section 954.09(1) or (2) may be approved by the public works director or his designee, ifin his or her opinion the construction standards are suitable for the proposed use pursuant to the following criteria: I. The project site shall be located outside of the urban service area as shown on the adopted land use map. 111111111~ Ill /Ill111 Ill I Ill II ='" Ill Ill Ill IIll Ill111 IllIii 11I Ill Ill ::: II II Ill \'J I Ill I~ 1 / 111 / m Ill Ill I
;:11 ::: 111 Ill 1111 Ill Ill Ill Ill 11I 111 Ill -w ::: \ I Ill Ill Ill 11 Ill 1111 I Ill Ill g 111i Ill:;, . i 1111" lil;-;:c _o'.l 111 I 111!1 ..!. l:H1 1116 Ill o i"~- I 111: Ill,!., 1! ~ 111.= 111.g,);] I 111 :sl 111 ci:: rn~- 111 ~ u11=:r I~; t:; "O' I • Ill Ill If"0 Ill~ Ill I ~ I 111§1111~ I~~ Ill'" Ill .i 1tii I 111 il' Ill ~ o { :::gl :::iR1;1~ I Ill ~ Ill I Iii g Ill Ill " Ill Ill 1111 I Ill Iii 11 "- Ill Ill "'-'- Ill Ill I Ill 111 1111Ill jI I 111 Ill iii 1111 i I Ill Ill 11 I I ~·, Ill 11: I ~f~t---...... , Ill 5~~!§ Ill I Iii I ;i~;:;~~- 1 111 -." Ill "~ :II I'i~~g5~~!~ 111 Ill I -:;:3gi Ill ;I::. Ill I l ~j Ill Iii 1 1- 111 Ill k ::: I :::~!:.fli Ill 111 :::~fiIll" gr Ill lillJ Ill I Ill Ill 'Ill I Ill Ill I ::: 1111 I I Ill ::: I Ill Ill I I ::: llli 1+- :::frr I 11 Ill al Ill I ~ f Ill: 111 I Ill Ill I I
\11 111 1 i11 Ill I Ill 1 ill I ill Ill 111 111 111 lIll I ,rJ r: t ' - - ___ ,_ --- -, ,, ",, "
I I I I J I I I I \•.I I 1,, I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I ~ I g I 1, I I I I I I \ ' ' ~ .W3WH3llllll
:r: I X I UJ
I I I I !
: ~ a ~ ' ] I I El"""1ian'i°qNor.;,·• ProJect:
"' """"'""''""'"",or("1') ,,, """"""""'"""'""' cp ~~~ J::-'"'"' PC.,.KS• ""-""""""("") r r ? "'·'"'"''°""""(m'CNO-"") TOP HAT .,.,ow'"""'""'"'""""~ """"~"''' ....,,.,''"" "'·'"""'"""''"''"'"""'""DOW(m>) RCISTICOR~" ... 0<. SO<,O .. p,Cl0£S,Sf"'l <"-°"""""(""I oooa(m) & cwAA=-eo=0«."""""""""""' CIJC<>' ~- M • oi,._Oll[N~r ~ :~-"f;'ii':r.:. """m,_ (ARC><•••'·<"! <--81 l @!) ______Building Elevation: Left Side (Southeast)------~ ? ~ r r Building Elevations ...... EB hli_J-r_,.., '° ~ ;~".'Efr,,';~~ Rf"J'L.._ ::- :.:11,()1) ... (M MEMORANDUM TO: The Honorable Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission ( o ert M. Keating, AICP; Co ment Director /.ff!:; THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP; Planning Director FROM: Brian Freem:a,~ICP; Senior Planner, Current Development DATE: February 13, 2007 SUBJECT: Consideration of Proposed Amendments to the Landscape and Buffer Regulations ofLDR Chapter 926, the Corridor Landscape Regulations and the Multi-family Green Space Regulations of LDR Chapter 911, the Subdivision Green Space Requirements of Chapter 913, the Stormwater Maintenance Area Regulations of LDR Chapter 930, the Littoral Zone Regulations of LDR Chapter 934, and the Definitions ofLDR Chapter 901 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission at its regular meeting of February 22, 2007. BACKGROUND At the March 15, 2005 meeting of the Board of County Commissioners, members of the Pelican Island Audubon Society presented a package of proposed changes to the county's landscape and buffer requirements. The general purpose of these changes was to increase the amount of overall vegetation within new development projects, increase the use of native plants, and ensure more sustainable landscape buffers. At that meeting, staff expressed support for many of the concepts but also advised that more work would be needed to thoroughly evaluate and draft code changes. The proposed changes were received favorably by the Board, and the Board directed staff to work with the Audubon Society landscape committee in re-writing LDR Chapter 926, Landscape and Buffer Regulations. Over the past two years, both staff and the Audubon landscape committee have conducted research, had numerous meetings, undertaken field investigations, and prepared several drafts of revisions to Chapter 926. These efforts culminated in a well-attended public workshop conducted on August 23, 2006, where landscape and design professionals (including landscape designers, landscape installers, engineers, planners, and code officers) were given the opportunity to comment on the proposed F:\Community Developmen\Users\Brian F\Projects\LandscapaPZOstaff report.rtf 1 rev1s10ns. Staff and the Audubon landscape committee used the workshop comments and the expertise oflandscaping professionals in preparing the attached revisions to Chapters 901, 911, 913, 926, 930, and 934. Separately and concurrent with its Audubon landscape committee efforts, staff also worked with the Growth Awareness Committee on revisions to landscape requirements for single-family and multi family residential developments. Those efforts resulted in LDR amendments that were adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on September 6, 2005 for single-family subdivisions and on May 16, 2006 for multi-family developments. The current proposal now under consideration would apply to all types of development that are subject to Chapter 926 requirements. The Plamiing and Zoning Commission is now to consider the proposed amendments to Chapters 901, 911,913,926,930, and 934 and is to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners adopt, adopt with changes, or reject the proposed amendments. • Professional Services Advisory Committee Action At its January 30, 2007 meeting, the PSAC considered the draft ordinance. At the meeting, the PSAC voted 7-0 to recommend that the BCC approve the proposed amendments ( excluding the proposed littoral zone requirements) with modifications. For the proposed littoral zone requirements, the PSAC voted 5-2 that the BCC approve the proposed amendments with modifications. The PSAC's recommended modifications are discussed in detail below in the Analysis section of this report. ANALYSIS The overall purpose of these revisions is to promote the use of existing natural areas as landscape buffers, increase the use of native plants, promote more natural designs for stormwater areas, and promote conservation of water via the use of native and other drought-tolerant plant species. Additional changes are proposed to improve the quality of both landscape plans and the landscape plant material selected for development sites. In total, the proposed revisions should upgrade the aesthetic quality of new development projects. As structured, the requirements of Chapter 926, Landscape and Buffer Regulations, apply to all nonresidential and multi-family residential development applications. While Chapter 926 does not apply to individual single-family residences, its requirements do apply to required perimeter buffers and common landscape areas of single-family subdivision applications. Thus, 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. Below is a summary of the major changes proposed to the county's landscaping and buffer requirements as contained in the draft ordinance (see Attachment #2): 1. Increase minimum tree and shrub sizes. [Attachment #3, Pages 26-29] The required minimum sizes for all new canopy trees and understory trees, as well as some F\Community Developmen\Users\Brian F\Projects\Landscape.PZC\staffreport.rtf 2 species of shrubs, are to be increased. Presently, canopy trees on sites within corridors ( e.g. SR 60, Wabasso, and others) are required under corridor regulations to be a minimum of 12 ft. tall at time of installation. For sites not located within a designated corridor, the minimum height . requirement is 10 ft. The proposed change applies the corridor size requirement (at least 12 ft. at time of installation) to all unincorporated areas ofthe county. In addition, the minimum height of new understory trees is proposed to be increased from 5 ft. to 6 ft. Presently, the minimum required height for shrubs at installation is 18 inches. Shrubs of non native viburnum and ligustrum species (all are fast-growing species commonly used in local landscaping) will be required to be at least 24 inches in height at installation. To encourage the use of slower-growing, drought-tolerant species, the minimum size for all other shrub species will remain 18 inches. In cases where shrubs are required to form 3-6 ft. tall opaque features, taller sizes at-planting will be required. 2. Increase buffer standards. [Attachment #3, Pages 33-35] Several changes are proposed to required perimeter buffers. These changes affect both buffer width and plant material requirements. While the three buffer types in the existing regulations are retained (Type A, Type B, and Type C), the number of width options for each buffer type is reduced from four to two: Type A- 40' and 50', Type B - 25' and 30', and Type C- 15' and 20'. Current code requirements allow the following widths for buffers: Type A-30' to 60', Type B -20' to 35', and Type C-10' to 25'. The planting requirements ( canopy trees, understory trees, and shrubs) for each buffer type are proposed to be increased. To increase a buffer's effectiveness at installation, it is proposed that each buffer include a mix of both 12 ft. tall and 18 ft. tall canopy trees (current requirement is 10 ft. tall canopy trees for most buffers). To increase the opacity of all buffers, the required numbers of understory trees and shrubs is proposed to be increased. For example, a 25 ft. Type B buffer (one of the most frequently used buffers) is proposed to be modified as follows: 25 ft. Required Per 100 Lineal Feet TypeB Canopy Trees Understory Shrubs Buffer Trees Existing 6 3 24 (10 ft. tall) Proposed 5 8 55 (2.5 @ 12 ft. tall+ 2.5@ 18 ft. tall) 3. Consolidate requirements for landscape areas along roadways. [Attachment #3, Pages 36- 37] For nomesidential development projects, a site's roadway landscaping requirements currently depend on whether a site is located inside or outside of a special corridor (e.g. SR 60, Wabasso). F:\Community Developmen'tUsers\Brian F\Projects\Landscape.PZC\staffreport.rtf 3 In all, there are six different sets ofroadway landscape standards in the existing regulations for nonresidential development projects: five different sets for corridors (SR 60, Wabasso, North Barrier Island, Roseland, and Other Corridors) and one set for non-corridor areas. Overall, the five corridor standards are very similar, but small differences do exist between the corridors. As a result of this arrangement, the amount of required landscaping along roadways is significantly less for nonresidential development projects in non-corridor areas than for those projects located within the designated corridors. The proposed revisions will consolidate the various roadway landscaping requirements into a single countywide standard for nonresidential development projects that is based on the current corridor requirements. This countywide standard will be applied to both thoroughfare roads and local roads and to sites located both within and outside of corridors. As with many ofthe current corridors, this new standard includes both 15 ft. and 20 ft. width options, depending on the depth of a site (in no case, however, shall the required buffer width exceed 10% of a site's depth). The necessary revisions to the corridor regulations are contained in Attachment #3; all other corridor requirements (e.g. architectural, building colors, signs) will remain unchanged and will apply within designated corridor areas only. Not only does this revision upgrade landscape requirements for nonresidential development projects outside corridor areas, but it also simplifies the overall regulations by eliminating multiple versions of roadway landscaping requirements. Single-family and multi-family residential development projects are subject to separate roadway landscaping requirements that were recommended by the Growth Awareness Committee in 2005-06 and are specified in Section 913.09(3)(C)(5) and Section 911.08(8), respectively. No modifications are proposed to these roadway landscape requirements for single-family and multi family residential development. 4. Establish shrub diversity requirements. [Attachment #3, Page 29] Currently, the county has no shrub diversity requirements for landscape plans. Thus, a landscape plan could include a single species of shrubs, regardless ofthe number of shrubs proposed on the plan. The proposed ordinance will require landscape plans to contain a minimum of three to nine different species of shrubs, depending on the required number of shrubs. In addition, at least two thirds of the shrub species and 50% of the overall number of shrubs will be required to be native species. 5. Reduce building foundation shrub planting densities in all corridors. [Attachment #3, Pages 2-21] In all corridors, three shrubs are currently required for every 10 square feet of building foundation landscape area. Staff has observed that this planting density often results in overcrowding of plant material and does not allow the shrubs to reach a mature size in terms of height and spread. The result in some cases has been a relatively short, "ground-cover" effect F:\Community Developmen'tUsers\Brian F\Projects\LandscapeJ>ZCstaffreport.rtf 4 rather than well-arranged landscape areas with mature shrubs. Therefore, the requirement in all corridors is to be reduced from 3 to 1.5 shrubs per 10 square feet. Staff has coordinated with the chairmen of the SR 60 and Wabasso corridor committees, and neither objects to this proposed change. 6. Establish limits on the use of turf grass. [Attachment#3, Page29] Currently, there are no code limitations on the use of turf grass in required landscape areas. Turf grass areas generally require greater amounts of water than areas landscaped with trees and shrubs. To promote greater water conservation, turf grass areas shall be limited to a maximum of 50% of a site's total irrigated, landscaped, and vegetated area. Exceptions are allowed for areas within rights-of-ways, active recreation areas, and sloped areas. 7. Upgrade berm design requirements. [Attachment #3, Page 30] Landscape berms are commonly used as an opaque feature along roadways and other site boundaries. In such cases, landscaping (trees and shrubs) is often planted along the top of the berm. An unfortunate consequence of this practice is that the root systems of vegetation planted on top of the berm are raised above the natural groundwater table, thereby increasing irrigation needs. To reduce the irrigation needs of vegetation planted on top of a berm, the proposed changes will require berms in new projects to be designed to provide a 4 ft. wide "planting plateau" along the crest of the berm with ridges along the edges to retain water. In addition, the 3:1 (3 ft. horizontal to 1 ft. vertical} slope requirement for berms is incorporated into Chapter 926. 8. Require canopy trees around stormwater lakes. [Attachment #3, Page 24] Currently, there are no landscape requirements for stormwater lakes, although some PD projects have been required to provide such landscaping as a condition of approval. This typically results in stormwater lakes with a barren appearance, particularly within conventional residential subdivisions. The proposed revisions require that all new lakes have at least 3 canopy trees planted per 100 feet of shoreline (same as is currently being required at Waterway Village). The trees (minimum 12 ft. tall at planting) may be clustered in a manner that facilitates access for lake maintenance. Staffs experience is that the proposed shoreline tree requirement ensures a more natural or park-like appearance oflake areas. Because the primary purpose of stormwater lakes is to manage stormwater drainage, county planning staff and the Audubon landscape committee have coordinated with county engineering staff regarding this proposed requirement, and this revision is supported by county engineering staff. In addition, this proposal is consistent with recent revisions to Chapter 930, Stormwater, allowing the grouping of landscaping within stormwater maintenance areas around lake boundaries. The shoreline tree requirement is also consistent and complementary with proposed littoral zone requirements (see below). F:\Community Developmen'tUsers\Brian F\Projects\LandscapaPZC\staffreport.rtf 5 9. Require littoral zones along lake shorelines. [Attachments #3, Pages 59-62] A littoral zone is a shallow, vegetated wetland area along the shoreline of a water body. In order to create a more natural appearance for stormwater lakes, all lakes located on project sites exceeding 10 acres in area will be required to provide littoral zones along a portion of the shoreline. In addition to improving the aesthetic qualities of stormwater lakes, littoral zones also assist in water treatment by filtering excess nutrients and impurities in stormwater runoff. Moreover, such areas have some habitat value. For new development projects exceeding 10 acres in area, littoral zones will be required along a portion of the shoreline of stormwater lakes. An average of21 sq. ft. of littoral zone for every lineal foot of shoreline, or 3 0% of the water body surface area, whichever is less, will be required. In new residential subdivisions, maintenance and "nuisance" issues associated with littoral zones can be addressed by locating littoral zones adjacent to common areas and rights-of ways rather than adjacent to private rear yards. In addition, littoral zones and their maintenance requirements will be covered by restrictive covenants in residential subdivisions. Littoral zones will be required to be planted with wetland plants and trees (minimum 5 ft. at planting). As with the above proposal to require canopy trees around the perimeter of stormwater lakes, the proposed littoral zone requirements are supported by county environmental planning and county engineering staff and are based on "optional" littoral zone standards currently contained in Chapter 934. 10. Require landscape plans for larger projects to be prepared by a Florida registered landscape architect or a Florida certified landscape designer. [Attachment #3, Page 23] This revision will improve the overall quality of landscape plans for larger projects by establishing criteria for who may prepare landscape plans for larger projects. Currently, the majority oflandscape plans are prepared by civil engineers. For residential projects over 20 units and for nonresidential projects over 40,000 square feet of new impervious surface area, the landscape plan must be prepared by a Florida registered landscape architect or a Florida certified landscape designer. The 20-unit/40,000 sq. ft. threshold is also the existing threshold in the Chapter 914 site plan regulations that distinguishes larger projects which require a pre application conference from smaller projects not required to submit for a pre-application conference. 11. Establish new requirements for irrigation systems. [Attachment #3, Pages 43-48] To promote greater water conservation, new requirements for irrigation systems are proposed that are consistent with the Green Industries Best Management Practices for Protection ofWater Resources in Florida. To reduce the demand upon the public water supply for irrigation water, developments with wet retention areas or with access to the county's reuse water system are required to use these sources first. In addition, no more than 50% of a system's coverage can be high-volume irrigation area (typically turf grass areas). As proposed, all landscape plans will be required to contain a certification from the landscape F:\Community Developmen'tUsers\Brian r\Projects\LandscapaPZC\staffreport.rtf 6 plan designer that the irrigation system will be designed to conform to these requirements as well as any applicable restrictions on water use established by the St. Johns River Water Management . District for the area of the project site. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy or certificate of completion, a project's irrigation installer will be required to provide a written certification that the irrigation system has been installed and set-up in accordance with the landscape plan. 12. Provide a comprehensive list of native plants. [Attachment #3, Pages 51-57] To assist in the preparation oflandscape plans and promote the use of native species, a series of appendices, listing species native to Indian River County, is provided in Chapter 926. The above discussion is a summary of the major changes to the county's landscape and buffer requirements; numerous other changes are also proposed and are contained within the attachments. • Professional Services Advisory Committee Recommendation At its January 3 0, 2007 meeting, the PSAC considered the draft ordinance. At the meeting, the PSAC voted 7-0 to recommend that the BCC approve the proposed amendments to Chapters 901, 911, and 926 with modifications 1-4 below. The PSAC also voted 5-2 to recommend that the BCC approve the proposed amendments to Chapters 930 and 934 affecting littoral zones with modifications 5-9 below. The PSAC recommended modifications are as follows: 1. For residential projects, the threshold for requiring the landscape plan to be prepared by a registered landscape architect or a Florida-certified landscape designer should be increased from the proposed 20 units to 50 units. 2. Staff should provide more information on costs associated with the proposed amendments to the PZC and the BCC so that the decision-makers are fully aware of the economic impacts of the proposed changes. 3. In cases where the width of a roadway buffer may be reduced due to a site's limited depth, the proposed ordinance should specify that the amount of required landscape material shall also be reduced on a prorated basis (e.g. if the buffer width is reduced by 20%, then the amount of plantings is also reduced 20% ). 4. For nonresidential projects, the roadway buffer requirement along local streets should be reduced where a site is located across from other nonresidential uses. 5. Reduce the cap on required littoral zone planting area from 30% ofthe waterbody surface area to 20% of the waterbody surface area. 6. Exclude Small Lot Subdivisions (now restricted to affordable and workforce housing) from littoral zone requirements. 7. Reword a portion of Section 934.05(8) to state that littoral zones will be considered F:\Community Developmen'tUsers\Brian F\Projects\LandscapeJlZOstaffreport.rtf 7 "fully creditable" to freshwater wetland mitigation requirements. 8. Add to the ordinance language to be used in restrictive covenants regarding property owner association responsibilities for maintenance oflittoral zones. 9. Specify that the bonding requirement for littoral zones be for a I-year period. Since the PSAC meeting, staff and the Audubon committee have met to consider the PSAC's recommendations. Staff has compiled additional cost information (presented later in this report) and modified the proposed ordinance to incorporate the PSAC's recommended changes that are agreeable to staff and the Audubon committee (2, 3, 6, 7, 8, and 9 above). Neither staff nor the Audubon committee agree to PSAC recommendations 1, 4, and 5. Modifications to the proposed ordinance after the PSAC meeting include the following: 1. Attachment #3, Page 36: Section 926.09(l)(a) has been revised to allow a prorated reduction in plant material in cases where the required width of a roadway buffer is reduced due to a site's limited depth. (PSAC recommendation #3) 2. Attachment #3, Page 59: Section 934.05 has been revised to exclude small lot subdivisions, which are intended to provide affordable/workforce housing, from littoral zone requirements. (PSAC recommendation #6) 3. Attachment #3, Page 62: Section 934.05(8) has been modified to state that littoral zones will be considered "fully creditable" to freshwater wetland mitigation requirements. (PSAC recommendation #7) 4. Attachment #3, Page 61: Section 934.05(4)(b) has been rewritten to state that littoral zones maintenance requirements "are to be identified .. .in writing on a restrictive covenant in a form acceptable to the county attorney." The county will provide standard language that all littoral zone restrictive covenants are to include; however, the specific language does not need to be codified in an ordinance. (PSAC recommendation #8) 5. The version of the ordinance presented to the PSAC included a maintenance bond requirement for all littoral zones in residential projects but did not specify a period of time for the maintenance bond requirement. The PSAC recommended that the littoral zone maintenance bond be required for one year. Staff recommends, however, that littoral zone plantings be treated like other landscape requirements and be dealt with via code enforcement action rather than a maintenance bond. Therefore, staff and the Audubon committee have agreed to remove the maintenance bond requirement for littoral zones. (PSAC recommendation #9) • Costs Because the proposed ordinance changes will increase both the quantity and size of landscape material, development costs will increase for most development projects, including projects that F:\Community Developmen't.Users\Brian F\Projects\Landscap~ZC\staffreport.rtf 8 produce affordable housing. Attachments to this staff report provide an analysis of the costs associated with the proposed changes for a sample commercial project (see Attachment #4) and a sample residential project (see Attachment #5). Commercial Sites: The sample commercial project is a 2-acre site located at an intersection. Roadway landscape buffers are required along two of the site's four boundaries, and a Type "B" buffer is required along an additional boundary where the sample site abuts a residential district. According to staffs analysis, the landscape costs for a typical 2-acre commercial project located within a designated special corridor (e.g. SR 60, Wabasso) will increase by approximately 16%. For a commercial site that is not located within a corridor area, the landscape costs will increase by about 81 % (please note that the vast majority of commercial-zoned properties are located in one of the corridor areas). Landscape costs are generally a small fraction of the overall site development and building costs associated with a project. Residential Sites: For the residential analysis, a recently approved preliminary plat (Beale 5th Street SW Subdivision) was used as the sample project. This subdivision consists of 36 lots on a 12.89-acre former citrus grove. The landscape costs would increase by approximately 129% if the proposed LDR amendments were applied to this subdivision. The bulk of the increased costs are due to the increased quantity and size of plant material ( canopy trees, understory trees, and shrubs) within the project's perimeter buffers. Landscape costs are generally a small portion (generally less than 5%) of the overall land acquisition and development costs associated with a subdivision and are offset in part by the increased value of a better-landscaped project. Littoral Zone Costs: As proposed, littoral zones requirements will apply to all development projects that exceed 10 acres in area. Regardless of project size, all small lot subdivisions will be exempt from littoral zone requirements. Generally, the proposed littoral zone requirement could result in an increase in the overall size of stormwater tracts, of up to 30%, depending on location, size, and shape of an individual stormwater lake. Because the created littoral zone can be counted towards a site's 7.5% common green space requirement, this expansion of the stormwater tract may not result in a loss of developable area for proposed subdivisions on grove sites. In the case of the sample residential subdivision discussed above, a portion of the subdivision's common green space could be essentially "transferred" from the open space tract to the littoral zones, and no reduction in the number oflots would occur if appropriately redesigned. For proposed subdivisions with existing uplands, the option to "transfer" open space to the littoral zones will not be as available because much, if not all, of the required 7.5% common green space may consist of upland preserve area. For subdivisions on upland sites, therefore, the primary cost associated with littoral zones will be the additional land area needed to provide the littoral shelf, which will likely result in a reduction in the number of lots. F:\Community Developmen'tUsers\Brian F\Projects\Landscap6PZ0staffreport.rtf 9 Affordable Housing: The proposed ordinance will affect the cost of all housing, including affordable housing. While small lot subdivisions are exempt from littoral zone requirements, such subdivisions will be impacted by increased quantity and size requirements for plant material within perimeter buffers. As is presently allowed by Chapter 971 small lot subdivision standards, a less-intense Type "C" buffer may be substituted for the standard Type "B" buffer along many small lot subdivision boundaries. All new multi-family developments will be impacted by increased costs associated with landscaping, while multi-family developments that exceed 10 acres in area will also be impacted by costs associated with littoral zones. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the attached LDR Amendments affecting landscape and buffer requirements. Attachments: 1. Excerpts from the Minutes of the March 15, 2005 BCC Meeting. 2. Excerpts from the Draft Minutes of the January 30, 2007 PSAC Meeting. (Not Available) 3. Proposed LDR Amendment. 4. Revised Buffer Graphics. 5. Cost Comparison (Commercial Site). 6. Cost Comparison (Residential Site). F:\Community Developmen'tUsers\Brian F\Projects\LandscapaPZC\staffreport.rtf 10 9.B.2. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM - DEBORAH ECKER - RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHANGES TO LDR CHAPTERS 901 - DEFINITIONS AND 926 - LANDSCAPING Deborah Ecker, 550 Rio Mar Drive, prepared a kit for each Commissioner with the recommended changes to the County's landscaping regulations. (See the handout for her full remarks and recommendations. A copy is on file with the backup in the office of the Clerk to the Board.) NO ACTION REQUIRED OR TAKEN. 9.C. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEMS SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON MARCH 29, 2005 9.C.1. SHIVA HOLDINGS, LLC - REQUEST TO REZONE+/- 23.6 ACRES LOCATED SOUTH OF 65TH STREET AND APPROXIMATELY 3,230 FEET WEST OF OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY FROM PD, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT COMMERCIAL/RECREATIONAL, TO RS-6, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (UP TO 6 UNITS/ACRE). SHIVA HOLDINGS, LLC, OWNER. SCHULKE, BITTLE & STODDARD, LLC, AGENT (QUASI-JUDICIAL) 9.C.2. HIGH POINTE: REQUEST TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 160.94 ACRES FROM PD, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT COMMERCIAL/RECREATIONAL, TO PD, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL, AND TO OBTAIN CONCEPTUAL AND PRELIMINARY March 15, 2005 36 AnACHMEHT .... l NOTE: DRAFT PSAC MINUTES NOT AVAILABLE AT TIME OF STAFF REPORT ATTACHMENT 2 ORDINANCE 2007-__ AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA CONCERNING AMENDMENTS TO LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (LDRs); PROVIDING FINDINGS; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER, 901, DEFINITIONS; CHAPTER 911, ZONING; CHAPTER 913, SUBDIVISIONS AND PLATS; CHAPTER 926, LANDSCAPE AND BUFFER REGULATIONS; CHAPTER 930, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND FLOOD PROTECTION; AND CHAPTER 934, EXCAVATIONS AND MINING; BY REVISING THE DEFINITION OF "BUFFER STRIP" IN SECTION 901.03; BY AMENDING THE GREEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 911.08(6)(D); BY REVISING CORRIDOR LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS IN SECTIONS 911.18(3), 911.19(6), 911.20(3), 911.21(3), AND 911.22(5); BY AMENDING REQUIREMENTS FOR LANDSCAPE PLANS IN SECTION 926.05(2); BY AMENDING THE SUBDIVISION GREEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 913.09(21); BY ESTABLISHING LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS FOR STORMWATER LAKES IN SECTION 926.05(4); BY AMENDING LANDSCAPE MATERIAL STANDARDS IN SECTION 926.06; BY AMENDING THE LANDSCAPE POINT SYSTEM IN SECTION 926.07; BY AMENDING THE BUFFER AND OPAQUE FEATURE STANDARDS IN SECTION 926.08; BY AMENDING THE ROADWAY LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS IN SECTION 926.09(1); BY AMENDING PERIMETER LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS IN SECTION 926.09(2); BY AMENDING PARKING AREA INTERIOR LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS IN SECTION 926.09(3); BY AMENDING REQUIREMENTS FOR PROTECTING LANDSCAPE AREAS FROM VEHICULAR ENCROACHMENT IN SECTION 926.09(4); BY AMENDING CANOPY TREE REQUIREMENTS IN NONVEHICULAR OPEN SP ACE AREAS IN SECTION 926.10; BY AMENDING THE STANDARDS FOR IRRIGATION SYSTEMS IN SECTION 926.11; BY AMENDING THE LIST OF RECOMMENDED TREES FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES IN SECTION 926.15(2); BY ESTABLISHING A COMPREHENSIVE LIST OF NATIVE SPECIES IN THE CHAPTER 926 APPENDICES; BY AMENDING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR STORMWATER MAINTENANCE AREAS IN SECTION 930.07(1)(m); BY AMENDING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR LITTORAL ZONES IN SECTION 934.05; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; CODIFICATION; SEVERABILITY; AND EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA THAT THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (LDR'S) BE AMENDED AS FOLLOWS: SECTION #1: AMENDMENTS. Section 901.03, Definitions, is hereby amended to read 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 for the purpose of creating an attractive and opaque boundary to shield or block noise, light or other nuisances, used for physieaJ or spatial separation. (Also see "screening"). Underline: Additions to Ordinance 1 Strike thrm,gh: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance ATTACHMENT F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2007\2007-_901, 911,913,926,930, & 934 Landscaping.RTF · ••··• J ORDINANCE 2007-__ Section 911.08(6)(D), multi-family green space and/or recreation space standards, is hereby amended to read as follows: *D. Green space and/or recreation space: All multi-family developments must set aside a minimum of seven and one-half (7 .5) percent of the total project site area as dedicated to green space and/or recreation space. Upland preserve~ ffil4 wetland areas, and created littoral zones may be credited towards this requirement. Recreation tracts shall be located, designed, constructed, maintained and operated in such a manner that minimizes adverse noise and lighting impacts on adjacent or nearby developments. For purposes of this regulation, "recreation space" may include recreational facilities and amenities such as parks, ball courts, and pools. Common spaces credited toward meeting this requirement shall be located and designed to be conveniently accessible to all project residents, and shall be sized, located, and designed to function as a project amenity such as a park, conservation area, open air recreation facility, or other similar type of amenity. 1. Recreation tracts located within one hundred twenty-five (125) feet of the boundary of the development shall be either: a. Designated on a final plat, or other document recorded in the public records, as being used for passive recreation uses: no active uses, such as but not limited to basketball or tennis courts, shall be pennitted on these tracts. b. Buffered from adjacent development boundaries with a minimum twenty-five (25) foot wide Type B (or better) buffer with a six-foot opaque feature (see Chapter 926). 2. Any and all lighting used within recreation tracts shall be approved by the county and shall be adequately shielded to prevent lighting or glare from encroaching on to properties adjacent to or nearby the development. Section 911.18(3)(g through j), Wabasso Corridor, is hereby amended to read as follows: (g) US 1 and CR 510 landscape buffer: Refer to Section 926.09 for roadway landscape requirements. Within the plaR area the fellowing laRdscape requiremems shall apply: 1. Increased umepy tree size. ,'\ll eaRopy trees required llil.der noffilal laRdscaping aRd buffering reEJ:uiremems aRd special \Yabasso corridor plan reEJ:uiremems for prej eets withln the corridor shall have a minimum height of twelve (12) feet aRd miRimum spread of six (6) feet at time ofplaming. Palm tree clusters may be used as caRopy trees as specified in the laRdscape ordinaRce. Howex,cer, such palm trees shall have a miRimum Underline: Additions to Ordinance 2 Strike through: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2007\2007~ __ 901, 911,913,926,930, & 934 Landscaping.RTF ORDINANCE 2007-__ elear tnmk eftwelve (12) feet. 2. The eeunty wide landseaping requirements ef LDR Chapter 926 shall ap13ly eiwej9t as noted herein. The fellewiRg landseape buffer shall lie 13revided along the entire length ef a site's CR 510 and US 1 frontages, eiwej9t for ap13roved driveways: Buffer JNidili MiRiFRUFR Plantin191Berm Requirements J3 er 100 feet 20 feet or more 4 eano13y trees 5 understery trees Continuous hedget: I 112 2 112 high at 13lanting Berm: 1 V2 3 feet high~ 15 feet 4. 5 cano13y trees 5. 5 understory trees centinuous hedge*: 1 l,12 2 112 feet mgh at 13lanting Betm: 1 1/2 2 112 higwi'- 10 feet 5 cano13y trees 6 understory trees Continuous hedge*: 2 112 3 feet high at 13lanting Berm: 1 1 l /2 feet mgh~ *Nete: The intent efthe hedge and berm combination is te 13revide a visual screen four (4) feet mgh above the grade efthe 13roject site 13arking area. Therefore, at the time of a certificate of ecCUJ3ancy (CO) for the 13roject site, the combination of aerming and hedging shall 13revide a four feet visual screen. Undulatiens in the berm and corrcSJ30Rding hedge height are encouraged. Hedge sh.-uas shall lie 13lanted RO further apart than twenty four (24) en center, in a SeFJ3entine 13attem along the length of the buffer strij3. Berms shall have a sl013e ne steej9er than three (3) horizontal te ene vertical, and shall lie centinueus along the length efthe buffer strqi, eiw6j3t where berm modifications may lie necessary for tree 13reservation as determin.ed by the commURity devele13ment director or ms designee. To 13revide a less formal ap13earance, clustering trees along the buffer stri13 is Underline: Additions to Ordinance 3 Strike through: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2007\2007-_~901, 911,913,926,930, & 934 Landscaping.RTF ORDINANCE 2007-__ encolffilged and umferm spacing oftrnes is discouraged, eiwept where used to emphasize a particular plaming theme or development style. (See Figures F-4 and F-5 at end of section 911.18) (h) Landscape buffer along other streets in the corridor: Refer to Section 926.09 for roadway landscape requirements. IR addition to standard Chapter 926 req-wrements fer landscaping between rights of way and parking areas, such landscape strips withm the corridor must also cofltain two (2) nnderstery trees fer every thirty (30) lineal feet of the req-wred landscape strip. (i) Landscape buffer along commercial/residential border: Within the corridor, where compatibility bufferyards are required by Chapter 911 regulations, two (2) additional understory trees per thirty (30) lineal feet of required buffer strip shall be provided. · (j) Foundation plantings: Foundation plantings shall be required as stated below for buildings in commercial and industrial areas and for businesses allowed in residential areas. However, for industrial and storage buildings located in the CH, IL, and IG zoning districts, foundation planting strips shall be exempted for sides of buildings not fronting on a residentially designated area, or public road. Reference section 911. 18(3 )( c )3 regarding exemptions for historic buildings and resources. 1. Along the front, sides and rear of buildings, the following foundation planting landscape strips shall be provided in accordance with the building height: Building Height Foundation Planting Strip Depth1 Up to 12' high 5' depth 12' to 25' high 10' depth Over 25' high 15' depth 1A distance measured perpendicular to the building, from the foundation outward 2. Within such foundation planting landscape strips, the following landscaping shall be provided; a. Forty (40) percent of the foundation perimeter (excluding entranceways and overhead doors) along all building faces shall be landscaped, as follows: *For buildings up to 12' in height Minimum planting 15' area depth: Underline: Additions to Ordinance 4 Strike thrnugh: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2007\2007~ __ 901,911,913,926,930, & 934 Landscaping.RTF ORDINANCE 2007---- Minimum plant * 1 palm tree or appropriate canopy material required: tree for every IO lineal feet of planting strip ( clustered) * 1 understory tree for every 20 lineal feet of required planting strip *Ll 3- shrubs for every 10 square feet of required planting area *Ground cover, flowering plants or sod in the remaining planting area *For buildings of12' to 25' in height Minimum planting 10' area depth: Minimum planting *1 canopy tree for every 10 lineal material required: feet of required planting strip (3 palms with a minimum height of 12' each may be substituted for each canopy tree) * 1 understory tree for every 20 lineal feet of required planting ship *Ll 3- shrubs for every 10 square feet of required planting area *Ground cover, flowering plants or sod in the remaining planting area *For buildings over 25' in height Minimum planting 15' area depth: Minimum plant * 1 canopy tree for every 7 lineal feet material required: of required planting strip (3 palms with a minimum height of 16' each may be substituted for each canopy tree) * 1 understory tree for every 10 lineal feet of required planting strip *Ll 3- shrubs for every 10 square feet of required planting area *Ground cover, flowering plants or sod in the remaining planting area b. The following modifications are allowed upon approval from the community development director or his designee: 1. Foundation planting strips may be located away from buildings to avoid conflicts with architectural features ( e.g., roof overhangs), driveways, and vehicular areas serving Underline: Additions to Ordinance 5 Strike through: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Co1mnunity Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2007\2007~ __ 901, 911,913,926,930, & 934 Landscaping.RTF ORDINANCE 2007---- drive-up windows. 2. The depth of foundation planting strips may be modified if the overall minimum area covered by the foundation plantings proposed meets or exceeds the area encompassed by a typical layout. G. l) Increased foundation plantings for "blank facade" building faces. As referenced in the architectural/building standards section of this plan, "blank facade" building faces that are unarticulated are allowed if foundation plantings are provided as specified above with a one hundred (100) percent increase ( doubling) in required plant material quantities (as specified above). Section 911.19(6), SR 60 Corridor, is hereby amended to read as follows: (6) Landscaping. The countywide landscaping requirements ofLDR Chapter 926 shall apply except as noted herein. (a) Reserved. Increased etmepy tl'ec size. All canopy trees rnquiFOd under normal landscaping and buffering requirements and special SR 60 corridor plan requirements for proj eels wifuin the corridor shall have a minffiltlffl height of twelve (12) feet and miniH!UH! spread of six (6) feet at time of planting. Palm tree clusters may be used as canopy trees as specified in the landscape ordinance. However, such palm trees shall have a- minimum elea-r trunk of twelve (12) feet. (!! b) SR 60 and thoroughfare plan road buffer. Refer to Section 926.09 for roadway landscape requirements. Wifuin the corridor plan area, the following landscape buffur shall be provided along the entire length ofa- site's SR 60, 43rd ,'\venue, 58th Avenue, 66th Avenue, 74th Avenue, 82nd Avenue, 90th Avenue, and 98th Avenue frontages, ~wept for approved driveways: Buffur Depth MiniH!UH! Planting/Berm Requirements per -WG! 20' or more ' . 5 understory trees Gontinuous hedge-1-: 1. 1/2' 2 1/2' high at Berm: 1 l,12' 3' high-I, ¼! 4.5 canopy trees 5. 5 understery trees Underline: Additions to Ordinance 6 Strike through: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2007\2007-_~ 901,911,913,926,930, & 9341.andscaping.RTF ORDINANCE 2007---~ Cofltiffilous hedge+: 1 1/2' 3' high at ' Beff.B::l' 2 1,12,' hig!l -1-{)! C - CJ 6 ffl!defstoey tfees Cofltiffl!ous hedge+: 2 1/2' 3' high at plaming Benn: l' 1 li2' high+ Prejeet sites with a depth -&om SR 60 or a thoroughfare plan road oftv10 hundred fifty (250) feet to four hundred (100) feet shall have a buffer depth of at least fifteen (15) feet. Sites with a depth ovef four hfflldred (100) feet shall have a buffer depth of at least tweflty (20) feet. (See Figures F 4 and F 5 at end ofseetion 91 l.18. 11 \Vabasso Corridor Regulations") ~!OTE: The hedge and befffi eombination shall provide a visual sereen four (1) feet high above the grade of the prejeet site parking area. An alternative to this standard is available for industrially zoned maffl!faeturing uses loeated in the 98th Av6ffile maffl!faeturing ciistfiet, as provided for in section 91 l.19(3)(a)5. of this ordinanee. Hedge matefial shall provide full sereeaiag to the groffl!d; thefefore, wall myrtles and sh.7lbs with similar leafing eharaeteristies shall not be used for hedge material unless a double row arrangemeflt is used. At the time of a eertifieate ofoe6Uj3aney (CO) for the prejeet site, the eombiaation ofbefl'Hing and hedgiag shall provide a four foot visual sereea, sulJ:ieet to eounty sight distanee requiremeats. Uadulations in the befffi and eorrespoadiag hedge height are .. eneouraged. Hedge sh.7lbs shall be plamed no further apart thaa tweflty four (24) inehes on eeflter aloag the leagth of the buffer strij'l, to forra a hedge that appears eontiffl!ous as viewed -&om the roadway being buffered. Befffis shall have a slope no steeper than three (3) horizofltal to one (1) vertieal, and shall be eoatinuous along the leagth of the buffer smp, eiwept Vihere berm mociifieatiens may be neeessary for tfee preseP,ation as deterraiaed by the eommuaity developmeflt ciireetor or his designee. C!ustefing of tfees along the buffer smp is eneouraged, and fflliforra spaeing of tfees is ciiseouraged, eiwept v,hefe used to emphasize a partieular plaming theme or deve!opmem style. Hedge plantings may be asyrnmemeal, and a buffer wall, not to eiweed four (4) feet in height exeept as speeified below, is allowed within Underline: Additions to Ordinance 7 Strike through: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2007\2007-_~ 901,911,913,926,930, & 934 Landscaping.RTF ORDINANCE 2007-__ the middle one third (1/3) of the buffer strip's width (measured p0fj30fldieular to the mad being buffered) if laf!dseaping material is plaf!ted on eaeh side of the walh ( c) Reserved. Speeiel buffer for multi familyprejects. Multi family projee!s shall provide the SR 60 af!d Thoroughfare Piaf! Road buffer as deseribed above, with the additional requiremeflt !hat the buffer shall inelude a six feet opaque feature (as deseribed in Chapter 926). Where a wall or fenee is used, sueh wall or fef!ee shall be loeated within the middle one third of the buffer strip's width (measured p0fj30fldieular to the mad being buffered), af!d laf!dseaping material shall be plaf!ted on eaeh side of the wall or fef!ee. ( d) Local road and exclusive access driveway buffer. Refer to Section 926.09 for roadway landscape requirements. Landseape strips along loeal mads af!d OJwlusive driveways (as defined in the traffie ordinanee) within the eorridor plan area must eon!ain t>.vo (2) unders!ory trees fer every thirty (3 0) lineal fee!. ( e) Interior parking area. In addition to the normal interior parking area requirements ofLDR Chapter 926. 1. Uncovered parking spaces shall be located no more than five (5) spaces away from a planted landscape area. Said landscape area may be on the parking lot perimeter or interior to the parking lot. This requirement may be waived by the planning and zoning commission where tree preservation efforts require a clustering of interior parking green area around existing trees rather than a spread out placement of landscape islands. 2. Landscape islands shall be backfilled at least to the top of curb or protective barrier, and may be bermed to a maximum height of twenty four (24) inches above the adjacent parking lot grade. (f) Foundation plantings. Foundation plantings shall be required as stated below for buildings in commercial and industrial areas and for businesses allowed in residential areas. However, for industrial and storage buildings located in the CH, IL, and IG zoning districts, foundation planting strips shall be exempted for sides of buildings not fronting on a residentially designated area, or public road. In addition, industrially zoned manufacturing uses in the 98th Avenue manufacturing district and historic buildings and resources are exempt from foundation planting requirements to the extent provided for in section 91 l.19(3)(a)5. and 6. of this ordinance. 1. Along the front, sides and rear of buildings, the following foundation planting landscape strips shall be provided in accordance with the building height: Building Height Foundation Planting I Strin Depth1 Underline: Additions to Ordinance 8 Strike through: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Co1mnunity Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2007\2007-__ 901, 911,913,926,930, & 934 Landscaping.RTF ORDINANCE 2007-__ Up to 12' high 5' depth 12' to 25' high 10' depth Over 25' high 15' depth 1A distance measured perpendicular to the buildiug, from the foundation outward 2. Within such foundation planting landscape strips, the following landscaping shall be provided: a. Forty (40) percent of the foundation perimeter (excluding entranceways and overhead doors) along all building faces shall be landscaped, as follows: *For buildings uv to 12' in height Minimum planting 5' area depth: Minimum plant *1 palm tree or appropriate canopy material required: tree for every 10 lineal feet of planting strip ( clustered) * 1 understory tree for every 20 lineal feet of required planting striP *Ll 3- shrubs for every 10 square feet of required planting area *Ground cover, flowering plants or sod in the remaining planting area *For buildings of12' to 25' in height Minimum planting 10' area depth: Minimum planting * 1 canopy tree for every 10 liueal material required: feet of required planting strip (3 palms with a minimum height of 12' each may be substituted for each canopy tree) * 1 understory tree for every 20 lineal feet of required planting strip * 1.5 3- shrubs for every 10 square feet of required planting area *Ground cover, flowering plants or sod in the remaining planting area *For buildings over 25' in heizht Minimum planting 15' area depth: Underline: Additions to Ordinance 9 Strike lhfrn±gn: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDlNANCE\2007\2007-__ 901,911,913,926,930, & 934 Landscaping.RTF ORDINANCE 2007-__ Minimum plant *1 canopy tree for every 7 lineal feet material required: of required planting strip (3 palms with a minimum height of 16' each may be substituted for each canopy tree) *1 understory tree for every 10 lineal feet of reauired planting strip *Ll ,l- shrubs for every 10 square feet of required planting area *Ground cover, flowering plants or sod in the remaining olanting area b. The following modifications are allowed upon approval from the community development director or his designee: 1. Foundation planting strips may be located away from buildings to avoid conflicts with architectural features ( e.g., roof overhangs), driveways, and vehicular areas serving drive-up windows. 2. The depth of foundation planting strips may be modified if the overall minimum area covered by the foundation plantings proposed meets or exceeds the area encompassed by a typical layout. (g) Increased foundation plantings for "blank facade" building faces. As referenced in the architectural/building standards section of this plan, "blank facade" building faces that are unarticulated are allowed if foundation plantings are provided as specified above with a one hundred (100) percent increase (doubling) in required plant material quantities (as specified above). Section 911.20(3)(g through k), North Barrier Island Corridor, is hereby amended to read as follows: (g) CR 510 and SRA-I-A landscape buffer: Refer to Section 926.09 for roadway landscape requirements. V/ithin the plan area the following landseape requirements shall apply: l. Increased canopy tf'ce oize. All eanopy trees required under nofffial landseaping and buffering requirements and special North Barrier Island eorridor plan requirements for praj eets within the eorridor shall have a llliniffillifi height of twelve (12) feet and minimum spread of sill (€i) feet at time of planting. Palm tree dusters may be used as eanopy trees as Underline: Additions to Ordinance 10 Strike through: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2007\2007-_~ 901,911,913,926,930, & 934 landscaping.RTF ORDINANCE 2007---- specified in the landscape ordinance. However, sueh palm trees shall have a minimum clear trunk of twelve (12) feet. 2. The county wide kmdseeping requiFcmcnts ofLDR Chapter 926 shell apply SfCGpt as noted hcFcin. The follov:ing landscape buffer shall be prnvided along the efltire length of a site's CR 510 and SR A 1 f, frofltages, eiwept for apprnved driveways: Buffer Width Minimum Plantin191 Berm Requiferneflts rnn- -e 20 feet Of more 4 canopy trees 5 understory trees Continuous hedge*: l l,12 2 l/2 high at planting Berm: 1 112 3 feet ~ 15 feet 4 .5 canopy trees 5. 5 understory trees Continuous hedge*: 1112 2 1/2 high at planting Berm: 1 l,12 2 l,12 ~ 10 feet -C .. 6 understory trees Cofltinuous hedge*: 2 l,12 3 foot high at ' ~ Bffifl::l 1 l,12 feet ~ *}!ate: The ifltent of the hedge and berm combination is to prnvide a visual sC£een feur (4) feet high above the grade of the prnjeet site pai·king a:rea.Therefore,at-the-time ofa eertifieate ofoeeupaney (CO) for the project site, the eembination ofberming and hedging shall prnvide a feur feet visual sC£een. UndulatiOflS in the berm and corresponding hedge height are encouraged. Hedge shrubs shall be planted no further apart than tv,eflty four (24) inehes on eeflter, ill a serpefltiae pattern along the length of the buffer skip. Benns shall have a slope RO steeper than three (3) horizefltal to oae vertical, and shall be eeatinueus aloag the leagth of the buffer strip, eiwept Underline: Additions to Ordinance 11 Strike ilirough: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2007\2007-__ 901,911,913,926,930, & 934 Landscaping.RTF ORDINANCE 2007---- wheFe herm m0dificati0ns may he necessary fef tree p£ese£Vati0n as determined hy the ceilllffilflity develepmem direetef ef his designee. Te previde a less fermal ·appearance, elusteFing trees aleng the huffer strip is enceuraged and uruferm spacing eftrees is disc0uraged, eirnept ·.vheFe used t0 emphasize a particular planting theme er develepment style. (See Figures F-4 and F-5 at the end of section 911. 18 and apply to CR 510 and SR A-1-A) (h) Landscape buffer along other streets in the corridor: Refer to Section 926.09 for roadway landscape requirements. In additien te standard Chapter 926 requirements fer landscaping hetween rights ef way and parking areas, such landscape strips within the cerrid0r must alse eentain tvle (2) understery trees for e'leF)' thirty (30) lineal feet efthe required landscape strip. (i) Landscape buffer along commercial/residential border: Within the corridor, where compatibility bufferyards are required by Chapter 911 regulations, two (2) additional understory trees per thirty (30) lineal feet of required buffer strip shall be provided. (i) Foundation plantings: Foundation plantings shall be required as stated below for non-residential buildings. 1. Along the front, sides and rear of buildings, the following foundation planting landscape strips shall be provided in accordance with the building height: Building Height Foundation Planting Strip Depth1 Up to 12' high 5' depth 12' to 25' high 10' depth Over 25' high 15' depth 1A distance measured perpendicular to the building, from the foundation outward 2. Within such foundation planting landscape strips, the following landscaping shall be provided; a. Forty (40) percent of the foundation perimeter ( excluding entrance ways and overhead doors) along all building faces shall be landscaped, as follows: I *For buildings up to 12' in height Underline: Additions to Ordinance 12 Strike thfough: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2007\?.007-__ 901, 911,913,926,930, & 934 Landscaping.RTF ORDINANCE 2007---- Minimum planting 5' area depth: Minimum plant * I palm tree or appropriate canopy material required: tree for every 10 lineal feet of planting strip ( clustered) * 1 understory tree for every 20 lineal feet of required planting strip *Ll::, shrubs for every IO square feet of required planting area *Ground cover, flowering plants or sod in the remaining planting area *For buildings of12' to 25' in height Minimum planting 10' area depth: Minimum planting * 1 canopy tree for every 10 lineal material required: feet of required planting strip (3 palms with a minimum height of 12' each may be substituted for each canopy tree) * I understory tree for every 20 lineal feet of required planting strip *Ll ::, shrubs for every IO square feet of required planting area *Ground cover, flowering plants or sod in the remaining planting area *For buildings over 25' in height Minimum planting 15' area depth: Minimum plant * 1 canopy tree for every 7 lineal feet material required: ofrequired planting strip (3 palms with a minimum height of 16' each may be substituted for each canopy tree) * 1 understory tree for every 10 lineal feet of required planting strip *Ll::, shrubs for every IO square feet of required planting area *Ground cover, flowering plants or sod in the remaining planting area b. The following modifications are allowed upon approval from the community development director or his designee: 1. Foundation planting strips may be located away from buildings to avoid conflicts with architectural features ( e.g., Underline: Additions to Ordinance 13 Strike !llfough: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Con1.lnunity Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2007\2007-__ 901,911,913,926,930, & 934 Landscaping.RTF ORDINANCE 2007-__ roof overhangs), driveways, and vehicular areas serving drive-up windows. 2. The depth of foundation planting strips may be modified if the overall minimum area covered by the foundation plantings proposed meets or exceeds the area encompassed by a typical layout. (k) increased foundation plantings for "blank facade" building faces. As referenced in the architectural/building standards section of this plan, "blank facade" building faces that are unarticulated are allowed if foundation plantings are provided as specified above with a one hundred (100) percent increase (doubling) in required plant material quantities (as specified above). Section 911.21(3)(i through m), Roseland Corridor, is hereby amended to read as follows: (i) Roseland Corridor landscape buffer. Refer to Section 926.09 for roadway landscape requirements. \Vithln the plan area the fellowittg landscape requirements shall apply: 1. Inere£1Sed ettnepy tree size. f,ll canopy trees required under normal landscaping and buffering requirements and special Roseland corridor plan requirements fer proj eots within the corridor shall have a mirnmum height oftwelve (12) feet and mirnmum spread of sill (6) feet at time of planting. Palm tree clusters may be used as eanopy trees as specified in the landscape ordinance. However, such palm trees shall have a minimum clear trunk oftwclve (12) feet. 2. The county wide landscaping requirements of LDR Chapter 926 shall apply except as noted herein. The fellowing landscape buffer shall be provided along the entire length of a site's U8 1 and Roseland Road frontage, ellcept fer approved driveways: Buffer \l/idth Mirnmum Planting/Berm Requirements per HJG feet 29 feet or more 4 canopy trees § understory trees Gontiwous hedget: l JJ2 2 1/2 feet hlgh at planting Berm: l 1/2 3 feet high'i'- Underline: Additions to Ordinance 14 Strike thfot1gh: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2007\2007-_~901, 911,913,926,930, & 934 Landscaping.RTF ORDINANCE 2007---~ 15 feet 4. 5 eaHopy tfees 5. 5 oodeFstoFy tfees eoHtiffilolis hedge*: 1 l/2 2 1/2 feet high at plaHtillg Beffil: 11,Q 21/2 feet high* 10 feet 5 eaHopy tfees €i lilldefstory tfees Col!tiffi!olis hedge*: 21/2 3 feet high at plaHtillg Beffil: I I I /2 feet high* *Note: The illtefit ef the hedge !Hid b effil eombillatiOll is to prnvide a viSllal S6feell fullf (4) feet high above the grnde of the prnject site parkillg aFea. Therefufe, at the time ef a emifieate ef eeeupaHcy (CO) fuf the pflJ:ieet site, the combillatioll ofbe1millg a!!d hedgillg shall prnvide a fullf feet visllal scrnCI!. Undlllatiolls ill the beffil !Hid eorrespolldillg hedge height aFe CllCOllfaged. Hedge shnilis shall be plaHted llO further apart thaH tweHty fullf (24) illohes Oil cellter, ill a Seff)efitille pattern alollg the IC!!gth of the bliffer stfip. Beffils shall have a slope llO steeper tha!! thrne (3) horizoHtal to olle vertical, !Hid shall be col!tiffi!OliS alollg the lellgth of the bliffer stfip, ffilCef)t 'Ni'lere beffil modificatiolls may be llecessary fer tfee preservatioll as det6ffl'lilled by the community developmeHt director Of his desig!!ee. To provide a less formal appearal!ce, elllsterillg tfees alollg the bliffer stfip is ellCOllfaged a!!d uniform spacillg of tfees is discollfaged, eilCept where used to 6fllf)hasize a partiOlllaF plal!tillg theme or developmeHt style. (See Figure F-4 at the end of section 911.18) G) Landscape buffer along other streets in the corridor. Refer to Section 926.09 for roadway landscape requirements. In additioll to sta!!dard ChapteF 926 rnquiremefits fur loodscapi!!g betweCI! rights of way and parking areas, loodscape stfips withill the corridor must also coHtain two (2) understory tfees fur eveFy thirty (30) lineal feet of the required loodscape strip. (k) Landscape buffer along commercial/residential border. Within the corridor, two (2) additional understory trees per thirty (30) lineal feet of required buffer strip shall be provided where compatibility bufferyards are required by Chapter 911 regulations. Underline: Additions to Ordinance 15 Strike through: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2007\2007-__ 901, 911,913,926,930, & 934 Landscaping.RTF ORDINANCE 2007-__ (1) Foundation plantings. Foundation plantings shall be required as stated below for buildings in commercial and industrial areas and for businesses allowed in residential areas. Reference section 911.21 (b )3 and 6 regarding exemptions for historic buildings and resources. 1. Along the front, sides and rear of buildings, the following foundation planting landscape strips shall be provided in accordance with the building height: Building Height Foundation Planting Strip Denth1 Up to 12' high 5' depth 12' to 25' high ' 10' depth Over 25' high 15' depth 1A distance measured perpendicular to the building, from the foundation outward 2. Within such foundation planting landscape strips, the following landscaping shall be provided; a. Forty ( 40) percent of the foundation perimeter (excluding · entranceways and overhead doors) along all building faces shall be landscaped, as follows: *For buildings up to 12' in height Minimum planting 5' area depth: Minimum plant * 1 palm tree or appropriate canopy material required: tree for every 10 lineal feet of planting strip ( clustered) * 1 understory tree for every 20 lineal feet of reauired planting strip *Ll ,l- shrubs for every 10 square feet of reauired planting area *Ground cover, flowering plants or sod in the remaining planting area *For buildings of 12' to 25' in height Minimum planting 10' area depth: Minimum planting * 1 canopy tree for every 10 lineal material required: feet of required planting strip (3 palms with a minimum height of 12' each may be substituted for each canopy tree) Underline: Additions to Ordinance 16 Strike tbfeugh: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2007\2007-__ 901, 911,913,926,930, & 934 Landscaping.RTF ORDINANCE 2007-__ * 1 understory tree for every 20 lineal feet of required planting strip *Ll el- shrubs for every 10 square feet of required planting area *Ground cover, flowering plants or sod in the remaining planting area *For buildings over 25' in height Minimum planting 15' area depth: Minimum plant * 1 canopy tree for every 7 lineal feet material required: of required planting strip (3 palms with a minimum height of 16' each may be substituted for each canopy tree) * 1 understory tree for every 10 lineal feet of required planting strip *Ll el- shrubs for every IO square feet of reauired planting area *Ground cover, flowering plants or sod in the remaining planting area b. The following modifications are allowed upon approval from the community development director or his designee: I. Foundation planting strips may be located away from buildings to avoid conflicts with architectural features ( e.g., roof overhangs), driveways, and vehicular areas serving drive-up windows. 2. The depth of foundation planting strips may be modified if the overall minimum area covered by the foundation plantings proposed meets or exceeds the area encompassed by a typical layout. (m) Increased foundation plantings for "blank facade" building faces. As referenced in the architectural/building standards section of this plan, "blank facade" building faces that are unarticulated are allowed if foundation plantings are provided as specified above with a one hundred (100) percent increase ( doubling) in required plant material quantities (as specified above). Section 911.22(5), Other Corridors, is hereby amended to read as follows: (5) Landscaping. The countywide landscaping requirements ofLDR Chapter 926 Underline: Additions to Ordinance 17 Strike tmough: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\C01mnunity Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2007\2007-__ 901, 911,913,926,930, & 934 Landscaping.RTF ORDINANCE 2007---- shall apply except as noted herein. (a) Reserved. Inereased eanepy tFee size. f,11 canopy trees shall have a minimum height ofhvelve (12) feet and mimmtlffi spread of six (6) feet at time of planting. Palm tree clnsters may be nsed as canopy trees as specified in the landscape ordinance. However, such palm trees shall have a minimtlffi el ear trunk of twelve (12) feet. (b) Thoroughfare plan road buffer. Refer to Section 926.09 for roadway landscape requirements. 'N1thin the eenider area, the following landscape buffer shall be provided along the entire length of a site's thoroughfare plan road frontage: Buffer Depth Mimmtlffi Planang/B erm Requirements per -100! 20' or more 4 canopy trees withbCFIB 1' 3' 5 understory trees Contimious hedge, off set deusle row, 3' sh.'W'Js at planting +§' 4. 5 canopy trees with b CFIB I' 3' 5. 5 understory trees Cenamious hedge, off set deusle row, 2' 3' shruss at planting The required combined depth efthe thoroughfare plan road buffer and the foundation planting strip en any site shall net eiweed ten (10) percent of the depth of the site, measured perpendicular to the thoroughfare plan road. Praj eet sites with a depth from a thoroughfare plan road of four hundred (4 00) feet or less shall have a buffer depth of at least fifteen ( 15) feet. Sites with a depth over four hundred ( 400) feet shall have a buffer depth of at least hventy (20) feet. (See Figures F 4 and F 5 at end of section 911.18. "Wabasso Conidor Regulations") 'l'!OTE: The hedge and bCFIB combination shall provide a visual screen a minimum of four (4) feet high above the grade efthe project site parking area. (c) Local road and exclusive access driveway buffer. Refer to Section 926.09 for Underline: Additions to Ordinance 18 Strike through: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\C01mnunity Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2007\2007-__ 901,911,913,926,930, & 934 landscaping.RTF ORDINANCE 2007-__ roadway landscape requirements. Landscape strips a±oag !seal reads aad eiwlusive driveways (as defiaed ia tao traffic efdiaaaee) withia tao eerridef plan arna lffi!St eeataia twe (2) rmderntBfy !fees fBf every tairty (3 0) liaeal feet. (d) Interior parking area. In addition to the normal interior parking area requirements ofLDR Chapter 926. I. Uncovered parking spaces shall be located no more than five (5) spaces away from a planted landscape area. Said landscape area may be on the parking lot perimeter or interior to the parking lot. This requirement may be waived by the planning and zoning commission where tree preservation efforts require a clustering of interior parking green area around existing trees rather than a spread out placement oflandscape islands. 2. Landscape islands shall be backfilled at least to the top of curb or protective barrier, and may be bermed to a maximum height of twenty four (24) inches above the adjacent parking lot grade. (e) Foundation plantings. Foundation plantings shall be required as stated below for buildings in commercial and industrial areas and for businesses allowed in residential areas. However, for industrial and storage buildings located in the CH, IL, and JG zoning districts, foundation planting strips shall be exempted for sides of buildings not fronting on a residentially designated area, or public road. In addition, industrially zoned manufacturing uses in the 98th Avenue manufacturing district and historic buildings and resources are exempt from foundation planting requirements to the extent provided for in section 911.19(3)(a)5. and 6. of this ordinance. I. Along the front, sides and rear of buildings, the following foundation planting landscape strips shall be provided in accordance with the building height: Building Height Foundation Planting Strip Depth1 Un to 12' high 5' depth 12' to 25' high 10' depth Over 25' high 15' depth 1A distance measured perpendicular to the building, from the foundation outward. The required combined depth of the thoroughfare plan road buffer and the foundation planting strip on any site shall not exceed ten (I 0) percent of the depth of the site, measured perpendicular to the thoroughfare plan road. 2. Within such foundation planting landscape strips, the following landscaping shall be provided: Underline: Additions to Ordinance 19 Strike tllfough: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2007\2007~ __ 901, 911,913,926,930, & 934 Landscaping.RTF ORDINANCE 2007-__ a. Forty (40) percent of the foundation perimeter ( excluding entranceways and overhead doors) along all building faces shall be landscaped, as follows: *For buildings up to 12' in height Minimum planting 5' area depth: Minimum plant *1 palm tree or appropriate canopy material required: tree for every 10 lineal feet of olanting strin (clustered) *1 understory tree for every 20 lineal feet of required planting strip *Ll ,l- shrubs for every IO square feet of required olanting area *Ground cover, flowering plants or sod in the remaining planting area *For buildings of 12' to 25' in height Minimum planting 10' area depth: Minimum planting * 1 canopy tree for every 10 lineal material required: feet of required planting strip (3 palms with a minimum height of 12' each may be substituted for each canopy tree) * 1 understory tree for every 20 lineal feet of required planting strip *Ll ,l- shrubs for every IO square feet of required planting area *Ground cover, flowering plants or sod in the remaining planting area *For buildings over 25' in height Minimum planting 15' area depth: Minimum plant * I canopy tree for every 7 lineal feet material required: of required planting strip (3 palms with a minimum height of 16' each may be substituted for each canopy tree) * I understory tree for every 10 lineal feet of required olanting strip *Ll ,l- shrubs for every 10 square feet of reauired planting area *Ground cover, flowering plants or sod in the remaining planting area Underline: Additions to Ordinance 20 Strike through: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Co1mnunity Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2007\2007-__ 901, 911,913,926,930, & 934 Landscaping.RTF ORDINANCE 2007---- b. The following modifications are allowed upon approval from the community development director or his designee: I. Foundation planting strips may be located away from buildings to avoid conflicts with architectural features ( e.g., roof overhangs), driveways, and vehicular areas serving drive-up windows. 2. The depth of foundation planting strips may be modified if the overall minimum area covered by the foundation plantings proposed meets or exceeds the area encompassed by a typical layout. (f) Increased foundation plantings for "blank facade" building faces. As referenced in the architectural/building standards section of this plan, "blank facade" building faces that are unarticulated are allowed if foundation plantings are provided as specified above with a one hundred (100) percent increase (doubling) in required plant material quantities (as specified above). Section 913.09(21), subdivision common green space and/or recreation space standards, is hereby amended to read as follows: (21) Common green space and/or recreation space. All residential subdivisions with a density of more than one and one-half (I .5) units per acre shall provide in separate tracts a minimum of seven and one-half (7.5) percent of the total project site area as common green space and/or recreation space. Upland preserve§, and wetland areas, and created littoral zones may be credited towards this requirement. Required perimeter buffers shall not be credited toward meeting this common green space requirement. For purposes of this regulation, "recreation space" may include recreational facilities and amenities such as ball courts, pools, clubhouses, similar facilities, and supporting improvements such as parking area. Common spaces credited toward meeting this requirement shall be located and designed to be conveniently accessible to all project residents, and shall be sized, located, and designed to function as a project amenity such as a park, conservation area, recreation facility, or other similar type of amenity. Chapter 926, Landscape and Buffer Regulations, is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 926.01. Short title. This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the "Indian River County Landscape and Buffer Ordinance." (Ord. No. 90-16, § I, 9-11-90) Underline: Additions to Ordinance 21 Strike tmough: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2007\2007-__ 901,911,913,926,930, & 934 Landscaping.RTF ORDINANCE 2007-__ Section 926.02 Purpose and intent. The board of county commissioners recognizes that the unique characteristics and qualities of Indian River County justify regulations to retain and perpetuate a beneficial, natural, and visually pleasing environment. It is the purpose and intent of this chapter to establish standards for the installation and continued maintenance oflandscaping, without inhibiting creative landscape design, so as to improve the appearance of proposed developments. These standards are intended to protect and preserve the appearance, character, and value of surrounding neighborhoods. Moreover, landscape vegetation benefits the environment and living conditions by contributing to the production of oxygen, transfer of water, precipitation of airborne pollutants, and conversion of carbon dioxide, in addition to the provision of cooling shade, and reduction of nmse. It is further the purpose and intent of this chapter to promote water conservation through the preservation of existing native Florida vegetation into landscape designs, the use of drought tolerant plant materials, the promotion of landscape plans which do not require permanent irrigation systems and instead utilize temporary systems for establishing new drought tolerant plantings, the use of efficient low-volume systems where permanent irrigation is necessary, and the use ofreuse water for irrigation when available. It is the purpose am! intent of this chapter to improve the appeanrace of certain setback and yard areas, including off street vehieular parking and nonvehieular open space areas, in Indian River County; to protect and preserve the appearance, character and value of the surrounding neighborhoods, and thereby promote the general welfare, by providing for installation and maintenance of landscaping for screening and elimination of visual pollution, since the board of county commissioners finds that the uni~e characteristics and ~alities of Indian River County justify regulations to perpetuate the appeal of its natural visual pollution free environment. Moreover, landscape vegetation benefits the environment and living conditions by contributing to the production ofoilygen, transfer of water, precipitation of airborne pollutants, and conversion of carbon dioilide, in addition to the provision of cooling shade, and reduction of netS&. It is further the purpose and intent of this chapter to promote water conservation through the use of efficient low volume irrigation systems, the incorporation of mlisting native vegetation into landscape designs, and the use of drought tolerant plant materials. (Ord. No. 90-16, § 1, 9-11-90) Section 926.03. Applicability. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to the development and maintenance of unincorporated Indian River County property in the unincorporated area of Indian River County which is subject to the provisions of Chapter 914, Site Plan Regulations; Chapter 915, Planned Underline: Additions to Ordinance 22 Strike through: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2007\2007-__ 901,911,913,926,930, & 934 Landscaping.RTF ORDINANCE 2007-~~ Development; and Chapter 913, Subdivisions and Plats, of the County Land Development Code. Section 926.15 of this chapter shall apply to the development and maintenance of property in the unincorporated area of the county that is subject to the provisions of Chapter 912, Single-Family Development, of the County Land Development Code. (Ord. No. 90-16, § I, 9-11-90; Ord. No. 2004-041, § 3, 12-7-04) Section 926.04. Definitions referenced. The definitions of certain terms used in this chapter are set forth within this chapter, including appendices, and in Chapter 901, Definitions, of the County Land Development Code. (Ord. No. 90-16, § 1, 9-11-90) Section 926.05. General requirements. (1) Unlawful activity. It shall be unlawful for any person to establish, remove or alter landscape contrary to the provisions of this chapter. The lack of maintenance of landscape installed pursuant to a county approved landscape plan shall also be a violation subject to penalties provided by law. No construction requiring site plan review shall be undertaken in Indian River County until a landscape plan has been approved by the planning and zoning commission. The planning and zoning commission will not approve any landscape plan unless it conforms to the requirements of this chapter. When the redevelopment, reconstruction, upgrading, expansion or change in use of a previously developed site is such that site plan review is required by county regulations, then this chapter shall be applied to such site as if it were previously undeveloped. (2) Landscape plan required. A landscape plan showing proposed landscape design shall be submitted for review and approval by the county. Such plan shall be required for all applicable development as referenced in section 926.03. For residential projects (including subdivisions, major site plans, and planned developments) over twenty (20) units or for nonresidential projects over forty thousand (40,000) sguare feet of new impervious surface, the landscape plan shall be prepared by either a Florida registered landscape architect or a Florida certified landscape designer. Landscape plans shall include and indicate the following: (a) Location, species, type and size of all existing trees to be preserved or removed pursuant to Chapter 927, Tree Protection; (b) Location of all structures, freestanding signs, parking areas, drives, vehicular use areas and other improvements to remain or proposed for installation on the property; (c) Location of overhead powerlines and adjacent rights-of-way; (d) Location and description of existing native plant communities to remain Underline: Additions to Ordinance 23 Strike tmougli: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2007\2007-~_901, 911,913,926,930, & 934 Landscaping.RTF ORDINANCE 2007---- undisturbed, as applicable; (e) Location, species (with identification if native or non native) type, size, and quantity of all proposed landscape materials; (±) Plant list including quantity of all proposed landscape materials; (g) General notes including mulching requirements, fertilization and installation details, and such other information as needed; (h) Planting details as needed; (i) Dimensions of the property; and (j) Required opaque features, including berms; and (k) Tabulations which clearly show relevant statistical information necessary to evaluate compliance with provisions of this chapter. This shall include, but not be limited to, required buffers, vehicular use landscaping/screening, nonvehicular landscaping, an such other information as needed. (3) Irrigation plan required. In conjunction with a landscape plan, an irrigation plan shall be required. Such plan shall indicate use of a low ·,colume irrigation system designed specifically fer 1:he proposed landscape installation, delineate planting zones if proposed, and clearly illustrate compliance with section 926.11 of this chapter. ( 4) Created lakes/ponds including stormwater retention/ detention areas. For proposed lakes/ponds or lake/pond systems that are one (I) acre in area or larger, the lake/pond bank must be designed in a non-rectangular, irregular shape to provide an aesthetic amenity. Regardless of size, all lakes/pond shall have at least three native, water tolerant trees planted per one hundred (100) feet of shoreline. The trees may be clustered along the upland shoreline in a manner that facilitates access for lake maintenance. Littoral zones shall be provided as required in Section 934.05. The common areas contiguous with and above the littoral zones are subject to the non-vehicular landscaping requirements set forth in 926.10, and the landward edges of the littoral zone shall be clearly delineated by a raised lip. (5) Prohibited plant species. For all new development, or redevelopment of existing property, the applicant is required to remove, under county environmental supervision, all invasive, exotic plant species defined and listed in Appendix B prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy or certificate of completion, whichever is applicable. (§. 4) Certificate of occupancy. No final certificate of occupancy shall be given or issued to the an owner or his agent until all conditions of this chapter have been met and the code enforcement official has given an approval. However, tiemporary power, however, may be issued in those instances where all improvements on a site except landscaping have been completed, where power is required for the irrigation system, and where the developer of the Underline: Additions to Ordinance 24 Strike tlirnugh: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Co1mnunity Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2007\2007-__ 901,911,913,926,930, & 934 Landscaping.RTF ORDINANCE 2007-__ project certifies in writing that the required landscaping for the project will be installed as depicted on the plan and provides a timetable for installation of the landscaping. Failure to fulfill the proposed timetable shall be grounds for immediate and summary revocation of the temporary power allowance. (Ord. No. 90-16, § I, 9-11-90) Section 926.06. Landscape materials standards. ( 1) Quality. Plant materials used in conformance with the provisions of this chapter shall conform to the Standards for Florida No. 1 or better, as given in the most current edition of "Grades and Standards for Nursery Plants" Part I and Part II, State of Florida, Department of Agriculture, Tallahassee, or equal thereto. Grass sod shall be clean and free of weeds and noxious pests or diseases. Grass seeds shall be delivered to the job site in bags with Florida Department of Agriculture tags attached, indicating the seed grower's compliance with the department's quality control program. Plant materials which are known to be intolerant of paving environments, or whose physical characteristics may be injurious to the public, shall not be specified for use. (2) Drought tolerance requirements. A minimum of fifty (50) percent of total cumulative landscape plant material used to meet the provisions of this chapter shall be "moderate! y" or "very" drought tolerant, as classified and listed in the most recent edition of the "South Florida Water Management District Xeriscape Plant Guide" or a comparable publication. Existing native plant species preserved on-site may be considered as credit toward the drought tolerance percentage requirement. (3) Trees. (a) Canopy trees. 1. Canopy trees shall be species having an average mature crown spread of greater than fifteen (15) feet (under local climatic conditions) and having a trunk(s) with over five (5) feet of clear wood. "Clear wood" refers to that portion of the trunk between the ground and the lowest lateral limbs. 2. Installed eanepy !Fees shall be censidernd "matuFe" seven (7) yearn afteF installation. 2. All new canopy trees shall be planted in a planting area of at least one hundred forty-four (144) square feet, with minimum dimensions being at least twelve (12) feet in any direction. Larger areas may be required by the community development director or his designee for newly planted or existing trees to be preserved, as required by Chapter 927, Tree Protection. 3. Clusters of palms ffifl may be used as a canopy tree~ provided that a minimum of three (3) palms are clustered to equal one (1) canopy tree. Clusters of palms, if used, shall consist ofno more than one-third of the Underline: Additions to Ordinance 25 Strike through: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\C01mnunity Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2007\2007-__ 901,911,913,926,930, & 934 Landscaping.RTF ORDINANCE 2007---- total canopy tree requirement. However, the three (3) to one (1) ch,stering requirement can be reat1ced or eliminated by the colllil'ftlnity developmffit director or his designee for palms with large canopies such as Canary Island date palms. 4. Single date palms (not including pygmy date palms) may be substituted for a canopy tree. (b) Trees having an average mature crown spread less than fifteen (15) feet may be substituted by grouping the same so as to create the equivalent of a fifteen-foot crown spread. (e) Palm clusters shall ee considered trees. Palms, if used, shall consist ofno more than fifty (50) perceut of the total new tree requirement when said palms are eilisting on the site or are relocated on the same site. {c) Understory trees shall be species defined as medium or small trees having a mature crown spread of fifteen (l 5) feet or less. (d) Tree sizes: 1. Required canopy trees shall be a minimum of twelve (12) ten (10) feet overall in height and two (2) inch diameter at 0.5 feet above grade with a minimum crown spread of six (6) feet, at the time of planting, except as follows: ---a. Within the Wabasso and SR 60 corridor areas, required canopy trees shall be a minimum of twelve (12) feet overall in height, minimum two (2) inch diameter at 0.5 feet above grade, and six (6) feet minimum spread at the time of planting. When palm clusters are used, the ten-foot and twelve-foot minimum shall be provided as clear wood, rather than an overall tree height. !! b. Where a building between twelve (12) feet and twenty-five (25) feet in height is proposed to be located within fifty (50) feet of a perimeter property line, canopy trees within required buffers (Types A-!:'. 9) located between the building and a site perimeter shall be a minimum of fifteen (15) twelve (12) feet in height and with a three twe-inch diameter at 0.5 feet above grade at planting and a minimum six-foot spread, ei[Cept that at least one third ( 1/3) of the required buffer canopy trees shall ee a mimmum of sillteen (16) feet in height and three inch diameter at 0.5 feet above grade and a miaimum eight foot spread at time ofplantiag. Where a building between twelve (12) feet and twenty-five (25) feet in height is proposed more than fifty (50) feet from a perimeter, the canopy tree height requirements of ( d)l ., above, shall apply to canopy trees within the buffer. Underline: Additions to Ordinance 26 Strike throttgh: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2007\2007-__ 901,911,913,926,930, & 934 Landscaping.RTF ORDINANCE 2007-__ 12 e. Where a building over twenty-five (25) feet in height is proposed to be located within seventy (70) feet of a perimeter property line, all canopy trees within required buffers (Types A-C 9) located between the building and a site perimeter shall be a minimum of sixteen (16) feet in height aoo with a three-inch diameter at 0.5 feet above grade and a minimum eight-foot spread at planting. Where a building over twenty-five (25) feet in height is proposed more than seventy (70) feet from a perimeter, the canopy tree height requirements of ( d) 1., above, shall apply to canopy trees within the buffer. 2. Required understory trees shall be a minimum of six (6) five (5) feet overall in height and one-and-a-half (1.5) inches one (1) inffi diameter at 0.5 feet above grade, at the time of planting. Multi-trunk trees shall have a combined one-and-a-half (1.5) enc-inch caliper for all trunks at six (6) inches above grade. (e) The number of different species of trees, other than palms, shall be as follows: Table 1 Required Number of Minimum Number Trees of Species 2--10 .... 2 11--20 .... 3 21--30 .... 4 31--40 .... 5 41--Over. ... 6 For sites or parcels located in a sand ridge or xeric scrub environment as determined by county environmental planning staff, a minimum of three (3) species shall be required, regardless of the required number of trees. Such trees shall be indigenous to, and tolerant of, sand ridge or xeric scrub conditions. (f) For sites er pareels located en the barrier island, the miniffi1flll IIBf!Wer efspecies required herein shall not mweed three (3), notwithstanding that the required number eftrees may eiweed thirty (30). Su6fl trees shall be species both indigenous to, and tolerant of, barrier island conditions. (f g) At least fifty (50) percent of all required canopy trees, understory trees, and palms shall be a native species as listed in Appendix A. (g) Trees in proximity to public works or easements. Trees of a species whose roots are known to cause damage to sidewalks, roads, or driveways publie '.vorks or easements shall not be planted closer than six (6) twelve (12) feet to such Underline: Additions to Ordinance 27 Strike through: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Use:rs\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2007\2007-~~ 901,911,913,926,930, & 934 Landscaping.RTF ORDINANCE 2007-__ structures unless a tree root system barrier, a1mroved by the public works director or his designee, is provided that protects the structure(s) from damage by the root system. Said root barrier, where required, shall be installed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy or certificate of completion. publie werks, unless the tree met systemc is eempletely contained within a harrier fer which the miniffillffi interier eentaining dimensions shall he five (5) feet square and five (5) feet deOJJ, and fer which the eenstruetien requirements shall he feur inch thick eencrete reinfereed with Ne. 6 re ad mesh (6 x 6 x 6) er equivalent. (h) The fellowing species ·;viii net he used t0 fulfill the requirements efthis article: Australian pine (Casuarina spp.) Brazilian pOJJper (8chinus terebinthifelius) Melaleuea (Melaleuea quinquenervia) Chinaberry (Melia azedarch) (h) Prohibited trees. The installation of any of the species listed in Appendix Bis prohibited. (i) Credits for the use of newly planted trees larger than the minimum size will be as indicated in Table 2. Fractional measurements shall be attributed to the next lowest category. These credits shall not apply to trees pre-existing or relocated on-site. Table 2 Crown Spread and and Height of Tree At = No. of Tree At Time of Time of Planting Credits Planting A. Diameter 14 or more feet and 6 inch at 1 foot and 25 feet and above - 4 above grade 10--16 feet and 4 inch at 0.5 feet and 18-24 17 24 feet = 3 above grade 6--12 feet and 3 inch at 0.5 feet and 15-17 14 16 feet - 2 above grade (4) Shrubs and hedges. 8lh-ubs shall he a miniffillffi ef eighteen (18) inches in height vmen measured immediately after planting. Hedges, ·Nhere required, shall he planted and maintained s0 as te ferm a eentinueus, uubreken, solid screen within a maxiffillffi ef twe (2) years after time ef planting. (4) Shrubs. Underline: Additions to Ordinance 28 Strike through: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Co1mnunity Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2007\2007-__ 901, 911,913,926,930, & 934 Landscaping.RTF ORDINANCE 2007---- (a) Shrubs shall be a minimum of eighteen (18) inches in height when measured immediately after planting, except that shrubs of non-native viburnum and ligustrum species shall be a minimum of twenty-four (24) inches in height immediately after planting. (b) Shrubs, where required, shall be planted in an offset double row and maintained so as to form a continuous, unbroken, solid screen. Where required to form a continuous screen to satisfy a buffer or opaque feature requirement, shrubs shall be planted on twenty-four (24)-to-thirty (30) inch centers, unless a greater spacing is necessary to accommodate larger shrubs and is approved by planning division staff. (c) Every landscape plan shall contain a mm1mum number of shrub species as indicated in the table below. Excluding shrubs used in opaque features, at least fifty (50) percent of the required number of shrubs shall be of native species, listed in Appendix A. Required Number Minimum Number Minimum Number of Shrubs of Snecies ofNative Species 3 - 100 3 2 101 - 300 6 4 301 or greater 9 6 (5) Vines. Vines shall be a minimum of eighteen (18) inches in height directly after planting and no less than thirty (30) inches apart. Vines may be used in conjunction with fences, screens or walls to meet physical barrier requirements as specified. At least fifty (50) percent must be native. Vines qualifying as native are listed in Appendix A. The installation of any species listed in Appendix B is prohibited. (6) Mulch and Gground covers. The use of cypress mulch is prohibited. Mulch that is not cypress may be used. Ground covers (not including sod grass) shall be planted in such a manner as to present a finished appearance and reasonably complete coverage within one year after planting. At least fifty (50) percent of the area covered by living material shall be of native species. Refer to Appendix for a list of native ground covers and flowers. The complete coverage of an area by ground covers precludes the use of mulch thereafter. (7) Turf Ggrass. Turf grass areas shall be identified on the landscape plan and shall be limited to a maximum of fifty (50) percent of the total irrigated, landscaped and vegetated project area, excluding rights-of-way, active recreation areas (e.g. playfields), and slopes within dry retention areas. Turf grass shall be placed so that it can be irrigated in a separate zone. Preferred turf grasses are those qualifying as native and are listed in Appendix C. Grass areas may be sodded, plugged, sprigged or seeded, except that solid sod or hydro seeding shall be used in swales or other areas subject to erosion. Seed, where used, shall be of a variety that will produce coverage within ninety (90) days from sowing; where other than solid Underline: Additions to Ordinance 29 Strike thFoagl!: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Cmmnunity Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2007\2007-__ 901,911,913,926,930, & 934 Landscaping.RTF ORDINANCE 2007---- sod, grass seed or grass sprigging is used, nurse grass seed shall be sown for immediate effect and protection until coverage is otherwise achieved. When necessary, a reseeding program shall be implemented to produce complete coverage within one year. (8) Walls. The wall articulation and wildlife opening requirements stated in Chapter 913.09(9)(C)(4) shall apply to all walls provided in perimeter buffers and landscape areas. (9) Buffers o{Florida native vegetation. For the purposes of conserving water and promoting original native landscape, an unelevated buffer of undisturbed Florida native vegetation preserved in situ, or a buffer planted to re-create native uplands (as listed in Appendix A) is preferred over the creation of a landscaped berm. Supplemental native plantings may be added to meet the specifications of the required buffer type. Solid opaque features, such as panel-system walls, may be required within native buffers where the approving body (i.e. staff, the planning and zoning commission, or the board of county commissioners) determines that such features are needed to mitigate potential noise impacts. (IO) Berms. Earthen berms shall have a slope no steeper than three (3) feet horizontal to one (I) foot vertical. The crest of the berm shall have a four (4) foot planting area plateau, with ridges on the ends for the retention of water on top of the berm. Berms must be constructed of appropriate soils; the use of either hydric soils or excessively drained soils in constructing berms is prohibited. All berms Guidelines for soils are referenced in Appendix D. (11) Fences. When fences are installed, the side of the fence facing public view shall have a finished appearance. Fences shall be consistent with all corridor plan criteria. Landscaping is required on the side of the fence facing a roadway, in conformance with the requirements set forth in paragraph (5) above and Chapters 911, 913, 915 and 971. Fences shall provide openings to allow for wildlife passage as specified for walls in Section 913.09(9)(C)(4). (Ord. No. 90-16, § 1, 9-11-90; Ord. No. 92-39, § 22, 9-29-92; Ord. No. 97-29, § 7, 12-16-97) Section 926.07. Landscape point system and tree preservation credits. (I) Landscape point system. Notwithstanding the other provisions of this chapter, each landscape plan must satisfy a minimum of thirty (30) points from the following list of options: (a) Irrigation system: 1. Moisture sensing controller ..... 5 2. Plan submitted with low, moderate and high water usage zones indicated . . . . . 5 (b) Shrubs: 1. Twefity five (25) to fifty (50) pereeat of total quantity of plams rnted Underline: Additions to Ordinance 30 Strike through: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2007\2007-__ 901, 911,913,926,930, & 934 Landscaping.RTF ORDINANCE 2007---~ "very drought tolerant" ..... 5 1. Fifty (50) to seventy-five (75) percent of total quantity of plants rated "very drought tolerant" ..... 5 2. Fifty oHe (51) to oHe ftllfldred (100) pereent of total quantity of plants rated "very drought tolerant" ..... 10 2. Seventy-six (76) to one hundred (100) percent of total quantity of plants rated "very drought tolerant" ..... 10 (c) Trees: 1. TweHty five (25) to fifty (50) pereent of the total quantity of trees rated "very drought tolerant" ..... 5 1. Fifty (50) to seventy-five (75) percent of the total quantity of trees rated "very drought tolerant" ..... 5 2. Fifty OHO (51) to OHS ftllfldred (100) percent of the total quantity of trees rated "very drought toleraat" ..... 10 2. Seventy-six (76) to one hundred (100) percent of the total quantity of trees rated "very drought tolerant" ..... 10 ( d) Extra shade/canopy trees in vehicular use areas: 1. Twenty (20) to forty ( 40) percent more than required ..... 5 2. More than Fforty ( 40) percent more than required ..... 10 (e) Sod/grass areas: 1. Sod/grass area less thaa sixty (60) percent Thirty:one (31) to fifty (50) percent oflandscape area ..... 5 2. Less than thirty (30) percent oflandscape area ..... 10 (f) Florida native landscape: 1. One hundred (100) percent oflandscape area is preserved or re-established Florida native vegetation~, or new native plantings of species listed in Appendix A and Appendix C. Plan must include trees, understory, and groundcover with a maximum of fifty ( 50) percent of site sodded/grassed . . . . . 30 2. Seventy-five (75) to ninety-nine (99) percent oflandscape area is Underline: Additions to Ordinance 31 Strike through: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2007\2007-_~901, 911,913,926,930, & 934 Landscaping.RTF ORDINANCE 2007-__ preserved or re-established Florida native vegetationc, or new native plantings of species listed in Appendix A and Appendix C. Plan must include trees, understory, and groundcover with a maximum of fifty ( 50) percent of site sodded/grassed ..... 15 (2) Tree preservation credits. (a) Existing trees that have been determined to be in good health by a certified arborist or by county environmental planning staff may be credited towards the minimum tree planting requirements of this chapter according to the following table. Fractional measurements shall be attributed to the next lowest category. Table 3 Calculation of Tree Preservation Credits Existing Crown or Diameter of Tree at = Number of Tree Spread of Preserved 4.5 Feet Above Credits Trees Ground 40 feet or more or 20 inches or more = 4 30 to 39 feet or 13 to 19 inches = 3 20 to 29 feet or 8 to 12 inches = 2 10 to 19 feet or 2 to 7 inches - 1 Less than 10 feet or less than 2 inches = 0 (b) Trees excluded from preservation credit. No credit shall be given for preserved trees which are: 1. Not located within the area of the property ( e.g., buffer area, parking lot) for which trees are required by this chapter; 2. Required to be preserved by law, such as mangroves; 3. Not properly protected from damage during the construction process, as provided for in Chapter 927, Tree Protection; 4. Prohibited or controlled species identified in section 926.06(3)(h); 5. Dead, dying, diseased, or infested with harmful insects; or 6. Located in reereation traets, golf courses or similar subareas within developments which are not intended for residential, commercial, or industrial use. (Ord. No. 90-16, § 1, 9-11-90; Ord. No. 91-48, § 43, 12-4-91) Underline: Additions to Ordinance 32 Strike througl,: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2007\2007-__ 901, 911,913,926,930, & 934 Landscaping.RTF ORDINANCE 2007-__ Section 926.08. Perimeter buffer standards. (I) A perimeter buffer is a landscaped strip along parcel boundaries that serves as a buffer between incompatible uses and zoning districts, as an attractive boundary of the parcel or use, or as both a buffer and attractive boundary. Existing native vegetation and upland native plant communities as described in Chapter 929, Upland Habitat Protection, maybe utilized to meet buffer requirements. (2) The width and degree of vegetation required depends on the nature of the adjoining thoroughfares and uses. Chapter 915, Planned Development, mIB Chapter 911, Zoning, and Chapter 971, Specific Land Uses, of the County Land Development Code, set forth buffer type requirements for adjacent properties, based on land use and zoning districts. (3) Buffer types and opaque features. There are three (3) four (4) buffer types to be utilized in Indian River County. They are, in order of intensity, as follows: Type A buffer; Type B buffer; and Type C buffer and Type D buffer. Buffers may require opaque features, including three-foot and six-foot opaque features, where specified in the land development regulations. (a) The following table summarizes the Type A buffer, Type B buffer, and Type C buffer requirements. The trees and shrubs shall be spread in a staggered, off-set pattern to establish a full and opaque buffer. Buffer type options are further defined in Chapter 901, Definitions, of the County Land Development Code. Required Per 100 Lineal Feet Canon " Trees Large Small ( 4" in (2" in diameter at diameter at 0.5 feet above 0.5 feet above grade & 18 ft. grade & 12 ft. Understory ~ Width height) height) Trees Shrubs Type A 50' 3 3 10 75 40' 4 4 12 70 TypeB 30' 2 2 6 55 25' 2.5 2.5 8 55 TypeC 20' 1 3 4 40 15' * 1 3.5 5 40 * Must be 75% native plantings. For sites less than one hundred fifty (150) in depth, the required depth of a Type C buffer shall not exceed ten (10) percent of the depth of the site, measured perpendicular to the road. For all sites, the required depth of a Type A or Type B buffer shall not be required to exceed twenty (20) percent of the depth of a site, measured perpendicular to the road. Where buffer depth is reduced by this provision, the applicant shall obtain planning division staff approval of a modified Underline: Additions to Ordinance 33 Strike tmouga: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2007\2007-__ 901, 911,913,926,930, & 934 Landscaping.RTF ORDINANCE 2007-__ planting plan that generally satisfies the planting density of the respective buffer ~ . +ype Width Required Per I 00 LiReal Feet CaRopy '.frees Ynderstery '.frees 8h."OOS +ypeA W- 6 ; ±± W-'- & 4 ±4 4-G-'- -14 ~ ±6 W-'- -1-± 6 ~ +ypeB w 4.-& M +9 W-'- . ~ ±-(I. ±± w 6 ; ±4 ±G-'- &.{; B ±& +ypeC w M M .J-4 ±G-'- 4 -he ¼ w ~ -h& -IB -1-G-'- ~ ± ±0 (4) ReEfUired epaEfUC features shall eensist ef a selid maseray wall er earthoo berm Uflless the planning and zoning cemmissien approves a substitute material (such as a cempletely epaque living laRdscape barrier) based upeR the use aRd cenditiens efthe project site aRd adjaceflt site. LaRdscapiRg is required aleng beth sides ef a wall unless otherwise approved by the planniRg aRd zoning commission. ( 4) Opaque features. Three (3)-foot and six ( 6)-foot opaque features may be required within buffers, where specified in the land development regulations. (a) A required six (6)-foot opaque feature shall consist of a solid native plant buffer, a masonry wall, an earthen berm, or a combination berm/vegetation (berm must comprise at least three (3) feet of required opaque feature; vegetation shall consist of shrubs planted in an off-set double row) unless the planning and zoning commission approves a substitute material (such as a completely opaque living landscape barrier) based upon the use and conditions of the project site and adjacent site. Landscaping is required along both sides of a wall unless otherwise approved by the planning and zoning commission. To minimize the impact upon existing tree roots in cases where a wall is to be located among existing trees, such wall shall should be a pre-cast concrete panel wall or other similar system that minimizes footer impacts to root systems. Wherever a wall is used as the opaque feature, required understory trees and shrubs shall be planted on the side of the wall facing a public street or adjacent property, whichever is applicable. (b) A required three (3)-foot opaque feature may consist of a wall, berm, or a continuous screen of shrubs. Shrubs planted to form this opaque feature shall be arranged in an off-set double row. Underline: Additions to Ordinance 34 Strike through: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2007\2007-~_901, 911,913,926,930, & 934 Landscaping.RTF ORDINANCE 2007---- {c) Required three-foot and six-foot opaque features shall be measured from the finished floor elevation of the proposed structure{s). This requirement may be modified by the planning and zoning commission based upon grade differences and the relationship between the height and mass of the proposed building and its setback from the property line. The maximum required height of an opaque feature shall be eight (8) feet above the finished site grade where the feature is located. {d) In cases where an abutting use/district is separated from the project site by a thoroughfare plan road, the height of a six ( 6)-foot opaque feature shall be reduced to three (3 )-feet, except in cases where the buffer is to be provided around the perimeter of a single-family or multi-family residential development as required by Section 911.07(8) or 911.08(8). (5) In eases vmere the abutting use/district is separated -from the prajeet site by a local road, the buffer type shall be reduced one (1) category type (e.g. Type "A" or Type "B"), but the height of the opaque feature shall remain the same. In cases vmere the abutting use/district is separated -from the prajeet site by a thoroughfare plan road, the buffer type shall be reduced t>.vo (2) category types (e.g. "A" to "C") but in all eases shall required at least a Type "D" buffer. (a) Required thrne foot and six foot opaque features shall be measured from the finished floor elevation of the proposed strueture(s). This requirement can be modified by the planning and zoning commission based upon grade differences and the relationship between the height and mass of the proposed building and its setback from the property line. The maximum required height of an opaque feature shall be eight (8) feet above the site grade vmere the feature is located. (7) Hedge or shruh material within buffers may be reduced by fifty (50) percent when a six foot wall or fence is provided within the buffer, if the remaining amount of required shruh material and at least fifty (50) percent of required understory tree material are planted between the prajeet site perimeter and the wall or fence. Alternative planting locations may be approved by the planning and zoning commission. The standards for the buffer categories are set forth in the illustrations herein that specify the number of plants required per one hundred (100) linear feet. To determine the total number of plants required, the linear footage ofeaeh side of the property requiring a buffer shall be divided by one hundred (100) and multiplied by the number of plants shown in the illustration. The plants shall be spread in a reasonably (YVen manner along the lengtb of the buffer. Buffer opaque feature options are also illustrated herein and are further defined in Chapter 901, Definitions, of the County Land Dea,celopment Code. (Ord. No. 90-16, § 1, 9-11-90; Ord. No. 97-29, § 11, 12-16-97) ADD DIAGRAMS, P. 429.1--429.5 OF ORD. Underline: Additions to Ordinance 35 Strike tllrouga: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2007\2007-__ 901,911,913,926,930, & 934 Landscaping.RTF ORDINANCE 2007-__ Section 926.09. Landscaping along roadways. (1) Required landscaping adiacent to rights-of.way. (a) A landscape buffer shall be provided along the entire length of a site's frontage upon a thoroughfare plan road, local road or exclusive driveway (as defined in the traffic ordinance) Within the buffer, the following landscaping shall be provided: Street Minimum Minimum Plantings Per 100 Lineal Feet Width Canopy Understory Shrubs Trees Trees Thoroughfare Plan 15 ft. 4.5 5.5 50 Road, Local Road 20 ft. 1 2 50 Exclusive Driveway 10 ft. 3.3 6.6 40 Project sites with a depth from a thoroughfare plan road of four hundred (400) feet or less shall have a minimum buffer depth of fifteen (15) feet. Sites with a depth over four hundred ( 400) feet shall have a minimum buffer depth of twenty (20) feet. The required depth of the thoroughfare plan road/local road buffer on any site shall not exceed ten (10) percent of the depth of the site, measured perpendicular to the thoroughfare plan road. In such cases where the roadway buffer depth is reduced, the required amount of plant material may also be reduced on a prorated basis. (b) A four (4)-foot high visual screen is required between any project site parking area and any adjacent roadway or exclusive driveway. This visual screen may consist of a berm with shrubs planted across the top in either an offset double row or a serpentine pattern, or a four-foot vegetative screen. The visual screen must be at least four feet high above the grade of the project site parking area and must be installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy (CO). Shrubs shall be planted on twenty-four (24)-to-thirty (30) inch centers. Berms if used shall have a slope no steeper than three (3) horizontal to one vertical, with a four-foot plateau. Berm modifications may be necessary for tree preservation as determined by the community development director or his designee. To provide a less formal appearance, clustering trees along the buffer strip is encouraged and uniform spacing of trees is discouraged, except where used to emphasize a particular planting theme or development style. (c) Single-family and multi-family residential developments have special roadway landscaping/buffering requirements that are specified in Section 913.09(3)(C)(5) Underline: Additions to Ordinance 36 Strike thfeugh: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2007\2007-~~ 901,911,913,926,930, & 934 Landscaping.RTF ORDINANCE 2007---- and Section 911.08(8), respectively. (!) Required landset1j9ing adjacent te rights of way. A larulseaping strip, at least ten (10) feet in depth shall be loeated adjaeent to the right of way along the site's entire rnad frontage. '.Vithin the strip, landscaping shall be prnvided as follows: (a) Landscaping materials shall be planted in the following quantities: 1. Aleng leeal roads: One (1) eanopy tree for each thirty (30) lineal feet or fraction thereof. 2. Aleng eolleeter roads: One (1) canopy tree for each twenty five (25) lineal feet OF fraction thereof for eanopy trees ten ( 10) feet high at time of planting or one (1) canopy tree for each thirty (30) lineal feet or fraetion thereof for eanopy trees twelve (12) feet high at time of planting. 3. Aleng arterial roads: One (1) understory tree for each twenty five (25) lineal feet or fraction thereof and one (1) canopy tree for each twenty five (25) lineal feet or fraction thereof for canopy trees ten (10) feet high at time of planting or one(!) eanopy tree for each thirty (30) lineal feet or fraction thereof for canopy trees twelve (12) feet high at time of planting. Nate: Trees are not required to be spaeed uniformly along the landscape strip. Different, special roadway landscaping/buffering requirements apply to proj eels within areas, such as 'Nabasso, SR60, the· North Barrier Island, and Roseland, which are severed by adopted corridor plans. Also, speeial landseape/buffering requirements, as specified in subsection (h), below, apply to multi family projects (b) All trees planted adjaeent to a right of way, shall be planted in a planting area of at least one hundred (100) square feet, with minimum dimensions being at least ten ( 1 0) feet in any direction. (e) In addition, a hedge, wall, fence or other durable landseape barrier of at least three (3) feet in height above the adjaeent parking lot grade shall be maintained along the perimeter of such landseaped strip. Use oflandscaped berms is encouraged to meet this requirement. (d) If such durable barrier is of nonliving material, one shrub or vine shall be planted at each ten (10) feet thereof abutting such barrier, but need not be spaced ten (10) feet apart. (e) Such shrubs or vines shall be planted along the street side of such barrier unless they are of sufficient height at the time of planting to be readily visible over the top of sueh barrier. (f) The remainder ofthe required landscaped areas shall be landscaped with grass, Underline: Additions to Ordinance 37 Strike through: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2007\2007-_~901, 911,913,926,930, & 934 Landscaping.RTF ORDINANCE 2007-__ gt'OUHd cover or other landscape treatmeflt, eiwluding pacving. (g) l'!ecessary access ways from the public right of way through all such landscaping areas shall be pillmitted to service the parking, and such access ways may be subtracted from the lineal dimension used to determine the number of trees required. (h) For multi family site plan pro:i ects, eiwluding planned developmeflts (PDs) and single Eiuplml or single triplml prajects, the follovring special landscape requiremeflts shall apply: 1. J,fajer readway'S: ,\long collector and arterial roadways, a six foot opaque feature meeting the requiremeflts of Landscape Ordinance section 926.08 and Subdivision Ordinance section 913.09(3)(e)5. shall be provided. In addition, the following landscape strip requirQ!Ueflts shall ap13ly: }.finirm,mz Planting Bieffer and Depth , . ~,.~,.,,,.,., ~ "" ~ ~ ,, ~ 4 canopy trees 5 UHderstery trees continuous hedge, off set double row, 3' at planting ~ 4. 5 canopy trees 5. 5 UHderstery trees continuous hedge, off set double row, 3' at planting :where two story buildings are proposed adjacent to an arterial er eolleetor road, required canopy trees shall have an increased minimum height of twelve (12.) feet at planting where trees often (10) feet are normally required, and an increased minimum height of fourteen (14) feet where trees of twelve (12) feet are normally required. 'VVhere three story buildings are proposed a(ij aeeflt to an arterial or collector road, required canopy trees shall have an increased minimum height of sixteen ( 16) feet at planting. 'Nhere walls are used, they shall be solid masonry, concrete, or other similar solid and substantial material. Canopy trees shall be installed at least Se",en (7) feet from the face ofthe wall, and UHderstory trees shall be installed at least five (5) feet from the face of the wall and from any adj aeeflt eilisting er proposed side"v1alk. Required UHderstory trees and sh..-ubs shall be located on the side efthe Viall facing the arterial or collector roadway. *Praject sites with a dOflth over four flUfldred (4 00) feet shall have a minimum buffer dOflth of twenty (20) feet. Underline: Additions to Ordinance 38 Strike tbroagh: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2007\2007-__ 901,911,913,926,930, & 934 Landscaping.RTF ORDINANCE 2007---- **PHJ:i eet sites with a depth of foUF hUHclfed (4 00) feet or less shall have a minimum buffer depth of fifteeri (15) feet. 2. Lace! raedweys: Aloag local roadways, t>.vo (2) uaderstory trees per thirty (3 0) liaeal feet, ia additioa to the standard requiremerits of Landscape Ordiaanee seetioa 926.09, shall be provided. · (2) Perimeter landscaping relating to abutting properties; exemption. (a) On the site of a building or structure or open lot use providing an off-street parking area; where such areas will not be entirely screened visually by any intervening building or structure from abutting property, that portion of such area not so screened shall be provided with an off-set double row of shrubs a hedge or other durable landscape barrier maintained at not greater than six (6) feet in height nor less than four (4) three (3) feet in height to form a continuous opaque screen between the off-street parking area and such abutting property. (b) Such landscaped barrier shall be located between the common lot line and the off street parking area, and shall be planted in a planting strip no less than five (5) foUF (4) feet in width. (c) In addition, one tree shall be provided for each forty (40) lineal feet of such landscape barrier or fractional part thereof. (d) Such trees shall be located between the common lot line and the off-street parking area. ( e) Each such tree shall be planted in at least one hundred forty-four (144) ene hllliclfed (100) square feet of planting area with a minimum dimension of at least twelve (12) tea (10) feet. (f) Each such planting area shall be landscaped with grass, ground cover or other landscape material, excluding paving, in addition to the required tree. Turf grass, where planted, shall be in conformance with the provisions of 926.06 (7). (g) The provisions of subsection 926.09(2)(a) shall not be applicable in the following situations: 1. When a property line abuts a dedicated alley, or those portions of the property that are opposite a building or other structure located on the abutting property. 2. Where the subject property and abutting property are zoned or used for nonresidential uses, only the tree provision with its planting area as prescribed in this subsection shall be required. Underline: Additions to Ordinance 39 Strike tllr0ugh: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Co1mnunity Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2007\2007-__ 901,911,913,926,930, & 934 Landscaping.RTF ORDINANCE 2007-__ (3) Parking area interior landscaping. For additional landscaping requirements, refer to the corridor overlay districts in Sections 911.18 through 911.22. (a) For off-street parking (driving aisles, driveways, parking spaces, loading areas), areas equal to at least twelve (12) ten (10) percent of the total paved area (driving aisles, driveways, parking spaces, loading areas) shall be provided with interior landscaping. Please see graphie The graphics at the end of this chapter illustrating illustrate how this requirement is calculated. (b) Each separate, required landscaped area shall contain a minimum of one hundred forty-four (144) ene hundred (100) square feet with minimum dimensions of at least twelve (12) ten (10) feet in areas where a tree is planted, and shall include at least one tree having a clear trunk of at least five (5) feet, with the remaining area adequately landscaped with shrubs, ground cover or other authorized landscaping material not to exceed three (3) feet in height. 1. To preserve adequate sight distance, end islands at intersection of internal driveways shall be designed and maintained to preserve a visual "clear window" for the area between three (3) feet and seven (7) feet above the adjacent parking lot grade. (c) The total number of trees shall not be less than one for each three hundred (300) square feet of fraction thereof of required interior landscaped area. Such landscaped areas shall be located in such a manner as to divide and break up the expanse of paving. (d) When, upon the request of the developer and in the opinion of the community development director, the placing of all required interior trees would create an impractical landscape effect, a portion of the required interior trees may be placed along the perimeter of the parking area to satisfy this requirement. (e) The area to be counted for interior landscaping requirements shall be graphically depicted on landscape plans by cross-hatching or other graphic means. (4) Protection from vehicle eEncroachrnent. Landscape areas shall be protected require preteetien from vehicular encroachment by use of curbs, tire stops, or other types of barriers approved by the community development director. Tire stops, where used, shall be placed at least three (3) feet from the edge of such landscaped areas. Where a tire stop or curb is utilized, the paved area between the curb/tire stop and the end of the parking space may be omitted, provided it is landscaped in addition to the required landscaping otherwise required previded. Tire stops shall be located so as to prevent damage to any planting areas by automobiles. ( 5) 8ife Sight distance for landscaping adjacent to roadways and points of access. Underline: Additions to Ordinance 40 Strike through: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2007\2007-~_901, 911,913,926,930, & 934 Landscaping.RTF ORDINANCE 2007---- (a) All landscape plans submitted hereunder shall meet the minimum sight distance requirements established herein, as viewed from the perspective of the driver of a vehicle leaving the project premises to access the abutting public or private roadway. (b) Crossing maneuver. The sight distance required for the safe execution of a crossing maneuver is dependent upon the acceleration .capabilities of the vehicle, the crossing distance, and the design speed of the street or highway to be crossed. The minimum required sight distance in both directions, measured from the centerline of the roadway being entered to the initial position of the vehicle before the crossing (as shown on Figure No. 1) for various classes of vehicles shall be as stated in Tables 4 and 5, which follow. Table 4 or 5 shall be applied, as the case may be, depending upon whether a given vehicle class constitutes five ( 5) percent or more of the total crossing traffic, or if that class experiences thirty (30) or more crossings per day. A developer shall provide sufficient information on the nature of vehicles using the project to substantiate which class of vehicle table is being incorporated into the landscaping plan. ( c) Assumptions. The vehicle offset shall be assumed to be at least ten (10) feet from the nearest pavement edge. The setback required for site sight distance shall be at least five (5) feet greater than the vehicle offset, as reflected in Figure No. 1. ( d) All landscaping shall be installed and maintained in a manner which provides unobstructed visibility within the sight distance area calculated hereunder, at a level between two and one-half (2 1/2) feet and ten (10) feet above grade; provided, however, trees or palms having limbs or foliage trimmed in such a manner that no limbs or foliage extend into the visibility area shall be allowed, provided they are so located as not to create a traffic hazard. Other landscaping, except required grass or ground cover, shall not be located closer than tlH-ee (3) six (6) feet from the edge of any access way pavement, unless otherwise approved by the public works director or his designee. (e) Left-tum crossings. Sight distance for left-tum crossings shall be measured in the same manner as provided for crossing maneuvers. On median-separated roadways, sight distance to the left may be based upon the sight distance required for a two-lane road. (6) Landscaping near overhead electrical transmission or distribution lines. (a) When canopy trees are proposed to be planted within thirty (30) feet (horizontal distance) of overhead electrical transmission or distribution lines (not service lines), the following shall apply: 1. A cross-section shall be provided on the landscape plan, depicting the estimated canopy shape and size at maturity in relation to the location of the lowest electrical overhead transmission or distribution wire, and the Underline: Additions to Ordinance 41 Strike tmough: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2007\2007-__ 901,911,913,926,930, & 934 landscaping.RTF ORDINANCE 2007-__ distance from the mature tree canopy edge to the wire. 2. The distance from the estimated mature tree canopy edge to the wire shall be at least ten (10) feet. (b) Within a horizontal distance of thirty (30) feet ofan overhead electrical transmission or distribution line (not a service line), in addition to generally prohibited exotic nuisance species, the following plant species are prohibited from being used on any landscaping plan proposed for county approval: Earleaf Acacia, Woman's Tongue Tree, Norfolk Island Pine, Bischofia, Schefflera, Ear Tree, Eucalyptus, Non-Native Ficus, Silk Oak, Chinese Tallow Tree, and Java Plum. (7) Landscaping near utility poles, guy wires, and transformer pads. Trees, shrubs, and vines shall be planted and maintained so as to provide a clearance of at least five (5) feet around utility poles, guy wires and anchors, and transformer pads. LANDSCAPING TABLE4 DESIGN VEHICLES: PASSENGER CAR, SINGLE UNIT TRUCK, SINGLE UNIT BUS Sight Distance Speed(moh) Two-Lane Four-Lane 30 or less 375 650 35 425 575 40 500 650 45 550 700 50 600 750 55 675 900 TABLE 5 DESIGN VEHICLE: SEMI-TRAILER COMBINATION INTERMEDIATE, AND LARGE Sight Distance Speed Two-Lane Four-Lane 30 or less 550 650 35 640 750 40 725 850 45 800 950 50 900 1050 Underline: Additions to Ordinance 42 Strike thfeugh: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2007\2007-~_901, 911,913,926,930, & 934 Landscaping.RTF ORDINANCE 2007-__ I 55 I 975 11200 (Ord. No. 90-16, § 1, 9-11-90; Ord. No. 97-29, §§ 7, 9, 10, 12-16-97; Ord. No. 2005-004, § 1, 2- 22-05) ADD DIAGRAM, FIGURE 1, P. 433.1 OF ORD. Section 926.10. Nonvehicular area landscaping standards. (1) General landscaping treatment. All nonvehicular open spaces, on any site proposed for development in all zoning districts, except for single-family dwellings shall conform to the minimtlffi landscaping requirements herein provided in Section 926.06. N onvehicular open space is ground that is not covered by buildings, paving, or other structures. Grass, ground cover, sh.-ubs, native plant areas and other landscaping materials shall be used to treat all ground not covered by building, paving or other structures. (2) Canopy +trees required. Canopy +trees shall be planted in the nonvehicular open space to meet the following requirements: (a) Multiple-family residential zoning districts and mobile home residential zoning districts requiring site plan approval: a minimum of one tree per each one thousand (1,000) two thousand (2,000) square feet ofnonvehicular open space or fraction thereof; (b) Commercial zoning districts (except "heavy commercial") and medical districts: a minimum of one tree per each two thousand (2,000) three thousand (3,000) square feet of nonvehicular open space or fraction thereof; ( c) Heavy commercial, and industrial zoning districts: a minimum of one tree per each three thousand (3,000) four thousand (4,000) square feet ofnonvehicular open space or fraction thereof. (Ord. No. 90-16, § 1, 9-11-90; Ord. No. 97-29, § 9, 12-16-97) Section 926.11. Irrigation standards. (1) Required irrigation. Underground irrigation systems shall be required for all development subject to the provisions of this chapter. New construction which does not require any supplemental landscaping or contain cultivated landscape areas shall be exempt from this provision. Irrigation plans must include a system which provides for restrictions on irrigation use as specified by the St. Johns River Water Management District. (2) Irrigation system design. All landscape plans shall contain a certification that the irrigation system shall be designed to conform to the requirements of this section and the Underline: Additions to Ordinance 43 Strike through: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\C01mnunity Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2007\2007~__ 901,911,913,926,930, & 934 Landscaping.RTF ORDINANCE 2007-~~ restrictions on irrigation use as specified by the St. Johns River Water Management District. (a) Landscape demand. 1. Irrigation of existing and undisturbed vegetation shall not be required. 2. Irrigation of reestablished native vegetative communities shall be required for a minimum of one year after initial installation. Once the landscape materials have been firmly established, the irrigation system must may be abandoned. 3. Cultivated landscape areas shall be watered with an underground irrigation system designed to provide one hundred (100) percent coverage on a day when winds are no more than five (5) miles an hour. Cultivated landscape areas shall include all areas not described in paragraphs 1. and 2. above. (b) Required system fc€ltures. 1. fdl landse0j3e irrigation system shall be low volume irrigation systems. 2. ,'\.11 underground irrigation systems shall be regHlated by an automatic timer or controller. 3. The design of systems shall inelude sprinkler heads and devices OJ3J3£0J3riate for the landse0j3e material to be irrigated. 4. Low trajectory heads or low volume water distributing devices shall be used to irrigate confined areas in order to 13rea,ent overspray onto iIDJ3ervious areas. 5. Vihenea;er 13raetical, irrigation systems shall be designed to place high water demand ares, such as lawns, on separate zones from those areas with reduced water retJ:llirements. 6. fdrtomatically controlled irrigation systems shall be operated by an irrigation controller that is OOJ3able of irrigating high requirement areas on a different schedule from low water retJ:llirement areas, provided that SO'j3arate zones rn(ist as deseribed in (5) above. 7. Irrigation systems shall be designed so that, to the greatest eictent practical, water being 0j3plied to iIDJ3ervious areas is eliminated. 8. \.!/hen technically feasible, moisture sensing deafices shall be installed to regulate the frequency of controller operation. 9. ,'\.11 automatic landscape irrigation systems shall be installed with a rain Underline: Additions to Ordinance 44 Strike through: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2007\2007-__ 901,911,913,926,930, & 934 Landscaping.RTF ORDINANCE 2007---- sensor deviee er raia seasor svfite!J. vmie!J. will override the irrigatioa eyele efthe sprinkler system vmen adequate raiafall has occurred. (b) System design. Irrigation systems shall be designed, constructed, and permitted to include: I. Automatic irrigation controllers, when utilized, shall contain a functional rain sensor device, capable of being set to one minute run times, and battery backup capability to retain programming in the event of a power failure; 2. A rain sensor placed on a stationary structure, free and clear of any overhead obstructions and above the height of the sprinkler coverage; 3. Equipment with check valves used in low-lying areas to prevent low head drainage; 4. Backflow prevention methods; 5. Irrigation design with the appropriate uniformity for the type of plant being grown and for the type of soil; 6. Irrigation system equipment installed as designed; 7. Irrigation zones divided according to: available flow rate, vegetated groupings (i.e., turf, shrubs, native plants, etc.), sprinkler types (i.e., sprinklers with matching precipitation rates), and soil characteristics; 8. Spray heads and rotors not mixed in same zone; 9. Distribution equipment in a given zone having matched precipitation rates; 10. Application rates that avoid runoff and permit uniform water infiltration into the soil, considering land slope, soil hydraulic properties, vegetative ground cover, and prevailing winds; 11. A minimum separation of four inches between distribution equipment and pavement; 12. A minimum separation of 12 inches between distribution equipment aud buildings and other vertical structures; 13. No direct spray onto walkways, buildings, roadways, and drives; 14. Lawn spray patterns providing head to head coverage; Underline: Additions to Ordinance 45 Strike through: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Developme:nt\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2007\2007-_~901, 911,913,926,930, & 934 Landscaping.RTF ORDINANCE 2007-__ 15. . Water conveyance systems with a flow velocity of five feet per second or 16. Pipelines designed to provide the system with the appropriate pressure required for maximum irrigation uniformity; 17. Pressure regulating heads; and 18. A maintenance checklist provided to the property owner by the irrigation contractor accompanied by a recommended maintenance schedule, proper irrigation system settings according to season, recommendations for checking rain sensor device, filter cleaning recommendations and information on the current water restrictions. (c) System Layout and Native Vegetation Retention. Irrigation systems shall comply with the following requirements: 1. A high volume irrigation area shall not exceed 50 percent of the landscaped area. Low or medium volume irrigation areas may be utilized in lieu of any high volume irrigation area. 2. A medium volume irrigation area shall not exceed 25 percent of the landscaped area. However, the landscaped area may contain up to 75 percent medium volume irrigation area, if no high volume irrigation area is utilized on site. 3. A low volume irrigation area may be utilized for an entire landscaped area with the exception of native vegetation areas regulated by Section 926.l 1(2)(b)( 4). 4. In the alternative to Section 926.l 1(2)(b)(l through 3) above, if25 percent of the pre-existing native vegetation is retained on site, the remaining 75 percent of the landscaped area may be a high volume irrigation area. For all pre-existing native vegetation retained on a parcel: a. No supplemental water shall be applied to the native vegetation b. Only hand pruning of native vegetation is allowed; C. Mechanical mowing or clearing is prohibited. (d) System operation flows. Systems shall dispense no more than: 1. One inch of water per week for high volume irrigation areas; Underline: Additions to Ordinance 46 Strike thrm,gh: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2007\2007-__ 901,911,913,926,930, & 934 Landscaping.RTF ORDINANCE 2007-__ 2. One-half inch of water per week for medium volume irrigation areas; 3. One-quarter inch of water per week for low volume irrigation areas. (e) Irrigation system operation and maintenance. Systems shall be operated and maintained according to the Green Industries Best Management Practices for Protection of Water Resources in Florida (DEP 2002) or (for homeowners) the Florida Yards and Neighborhood program. 1. Irrigation systems shall be operated properly and in compliance with this section. 2. All automatic controllers shall be programmed to the appropriate level of water conservation set forth in this section. 3. Irrigation systems shall be maintained to meet the requirements of this section. (fe) Sources of irrigation water. Effluent reuse. 1. Reclaimed or other non-potable water source shall be used in accordance with the requirements for Section 918.04(3) In order to supplement the retention system, property owners may utilize wells when the county system cannot meet their needs. When the water supply for the irrigation system is from a well, a constant pressure flow control device or pressure tank with adequate capacity shall be required to minimize pump cycling. 2. +. All new landscape irrigation systems shall be required and all existing irrigation systems shall be encouraged to connect to wastewater effluent lines when determined to be available. The reuse of wastewater effluent in such cases shall be required. All new landscape irrigation systems shall be designed for ultimate connection to proposed wastewater effluent lines. 4. Developments with wet retention/detention areas are required to use this water to meet project irrigation needs or justify why this water cannot be used as an irrigation source. (3) Conformance. (a) Prior to or at the time a site inspection is requested for a certificate of occupancy or a certificate of completion, whichever is applicable, the irrigation installer shall submit to planning division staff a written certification that all irrigation requirements of this section have been satisfied and that the system is set to operate in conformance with this section and the restrictions on irrigation use as Underline: Additions to Ordinance 47 Strike tlarnugh: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2007\2007-__ 901, 911,913,926,930, & 934 Landscaping.RTF ORDINANCE 2007---- specified by the St. Johns River Water Management District. (Ord. No. 90-16, § 1, 9-11-90; Ord. No. 92-39, § 21, 9-29-92) Section 926.12. Installation and maintenance standards. (1) Installation. (a) All landscaping shall be installed in a sound workmanlike manner and according to accepted good planting procedures, with the quality of plant materials as herein described. Prior to or at the time a certificate of occupancy inspection is requested of code enforcement staff, the project landscape architect or landscape contractor shall certify in writing the date he or she last inspected the landscape installation and that all installed landscape material that is required by ordinance is Florida No. 1 or better. All elements oflandscaping, exclusive of plant material, shall be installed so as to meet all other applicable ordinances and code requirements. Landscaped areas shall require protection from vehicular encroachment. A code enforcement official shall inspect all landscaping, and no final certificates of occupancy or similar authorization will be issued unless the landscaping meets the requirements provided herein. (b) Bonding to guarantee installation. Required landscape materials can be bonded out for future installation in the event of a board of county commissioners recognized disaster ( e.g. freeze or hurricane) that adversely affects availability of landscape materials. At the time that it recognizes such a disaster, the board shall set a time frame by which required landscaping must be installed. In addition to bonding-out after such disasters, the planning and zoning commission is authorized to approve bonding-out for installation of required landscape materials where such installation needs to be delayed in coordination with adjacent road construction that would disrupt adjacent landscape areas. To bond-out for future (post C.O.), installation, a cash bond must be posted with the county in the amount of one hundred fifteen (115) percent of the contract installation price. (2) Maintenance. (a) The owner, or his agent, shall maintain all landscaping depicted on the approved plan in good condition, so as to present a healthy, neat and orderly appearance, free from refuse and debris, and in a manner quantity and variety required by this article, for the duration of use of the site. All landscaped areas shall be provided with an adequate irrigation system, as provided for in section 926.11. Completed project sites shall be reviewed periodically by code enforcement officials for Underline: Additions to Ordinance 48 Strike tflfm,gl,: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2007\2007-__ 901,911,913,926,930, & 934 Landscaping.RTF ORDINANCE 2007---- compliance with these provisions, and any violations shall be presented to the code enforcement board. (b) Native plant areas used for landscaping purposes may be left in their natural condition, providing they are maintained so as not to create a health or safety hazard. These areas may also be excluded from the water supply requirements, providing they are in a healthy condition upon issuance of a final certificate of occupancy. Consistent with section 929.08, all approved sites and "native plant areas" shall be required to maintain the site free of any nuisance exotic plant species, as listed in Appendix B. (c) Mature trees shall not be pruned to reduce the canopy to less than the minimum fifteen-foot spread, except for the removal of dead or diseased wood. {d) Pruning techniques that are unhealthy or produce an unnatural appearance to a tree or native palm are prohibited. Such techniques include topping, over-lifting, hat-racking,----arui lolly-popping, and excessive removal of green fronds and inflorescences, among others. INSERT GRAPHICS (3) Replacement ofrequired landscaping. Required landscaping that has died or has been removed shall be replaced by material which is equivalent to the size that the material should have attained from the time of project C.O. ( certificate of occupancy), as follows: • From zero (0) to eighteen (18) months after project C.O., landscape materials may be replaced at the sines must be replaced at a size no smaller than indicated on the approved site plan. • More than eighteen (18) months after project C.O., replacement shrubs shall be a minimum of thirty (30) inches in height, replacement canopy trees shall be a minimum of sixteen (16) feet in height and three (3) inches in diameter at 0.5 feet above grade, and replacement understory trees shall be a minimum of seven (7) feet tall with a one and one-half (1 1/2) inch diameter at 0.5 feet above grade. (Ord. No. 90-16, § 1, 9-11-90; Ord. No. 97-29, § 8, 12-16-97; Ord. No. 2001-031, § 1, 10-23-01) Section 926.13. Upland habitat protection regulations referenced. Chapter 929, Upland Habitat Protection, of the County Land Development Code sets forth criteria to conserve native upland plant communities occurring on a development site. Such provisions apply in addition to or overlap the requirements of this chapter, as specifically provided for in Chapter 929. (Ord. No. 90-16, § 1, 9-11-90) Underline: Additions to Ordinance 49 Strike tmough: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2007\2007-_~ 901,911,913,926,930, & 934 Landscaping.RTF ORDINANCE 2007-__ Section 926.14. Tree protection regulations referenced. Chapter 927, Tree Protection, of the County Land Development Code sets forth criteria regulating land clearing and tree removal activities, in addition to the provisions of this chapter. (Ord. No. 90-16, § 1, 9-11-90) Section 926.15. Single-family lot development canopy tree requirements. (1) Two (2) canopy trees, as defined in Chapter 901, shall be planted or preserved on single-family lots in conjunction with lot development. Said trees are required to be planted or preserved prior to county issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the residence. This requirement of two (2) canopy trees shall not apply to any single-family lot where an initial building permit application for home construction was submitted prior to March 14, 2005 (the effective date of this ordinance). Planted canopy trees shall be of a size, quality and type as specified in section 926.06 of this chapter. The owner of the lot shall be required to maintain the canopy trees in viable condition. (2) The following trees are approved for use to meet the single-family lot canopy tree requirement of this section. Other canopy tree species may be used subject to county staff approval. Live oak (Quercus virginiana) Laurel oak (Quercus hemisphaerica) Diamond-leaf oak (Quercus laurifolia) Red maple (Acer rubrum) Dahoon holly (flex cassine) East Palatka holly (flex x attenuata 'East Palatka) American holly (Ileil opaea) Southern magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora) Sweet Bay Magnolia (Magnolia virginiana) Southern Red Cedar (Juniperus silicicola) Persimmon (Diosvpros virginiana) Red Bay (Persea borbonia) Swamp Bay (Persea palustris) Underline: Additions to Ordinance 50 Strike tmoagh: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2007\2007-__ 901, 911,913,926,930, & 934 Landscaping.RTF ORDINANCE 2007---- Loblolly-Bay (Franklinia lasianthus) Florida Elm (Ulmus Americana var. floridana) Sugarberry, Hackberry ( Celtis laevigata) Sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua) Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) SeagF8f)e (Ceeeo!oba uvifcra) Red mulberry (Marus rubra) Slash pine (Pinus elliottii) Bald Cypress (Taxodium distichum) (Ord. No. 2004-041, § 3, 12-7-04) Appendix A: Native Plants Listed below are plant species native to Indian River County. While not required, the use of these species is encouraged on all landscape plans. A common definition of native plants is species indigenous to the land before European settlers arrived. A practical definition is a plant that occurs naturally in this area, with no assistance from any humans, and one that has established an interrelationship with the other organisms of the area in which it grows. Sources for Florida native plants currently available for landscaping are easily found on http://www.afm1.org. (See Appendix B for definition of"exotic".) Plants qualifying as native species that grow in this county include but are not limited to the following: (1) Native trees and shrubs for dunes or coastal hammock region. For purposes of this section, the coastal hanm10ck region is the land located east of US Highway 1. (a) Native trees: 1. Semi salt-tolerant, suitable for barrier island: Live oak (Ouercus virginiana) Red bay (Persea borbonia) Seagrape (Coccoloba uvifera) Cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto) Gumbo limbo (Bursera simaruba) Hercules club (Xanthoxylum clava-herculis) Buttonwood, green or silver (Conocarpus erectus) Black mangrove (Avicennia germinans) White mangrove (Laguncularia racemosa) Underline: Additions to Ordinance 51 Strike through: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2007\2007-__ 901,911,913,926,930, & 934 Landscaping.RTF ORDINANCE 2007---- Red mangrove (Rhizophora mangle) White stopper (Eugenia axillaris) Spanish stopper (E. foetida) 2. Suitable for harmnocks or sandy areas not on barrier island: Slash pine (Pinus elliottii var densa) Live oak (Ouercus virginiana) Scrub/Sand live oak (Ouercus geminata) Sand pine (Pinus clausa) Chapman oak (Ouercus chapmanii) Runner oak (Ouercus minima) Myrtle oak (Ouercus myrtifolia) Wax myrtle, Bayberry (Myrica cerifera) Scrub hickory (Carya floridana) Bluejack oak (Ouercus incana) (b) Native Palms: all considered salt-tolerant and cold hardy. Varied characteristics: clumping, shrub, understory or tree height. Cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto) Paurotis palm (Acoelorraphe wrightii) Saw palmetto, green or silver varieties (Serenoa repens) (c) Native Shrubs: 1. Semi salt-tolerant, suitable for barrier island: Florida privet (Forestiera segregata) Simpsons stopper (Myricanthes fragrans) Marlberry (Ardisia escallonioides) Myrsine {Rapanea punctata) White indigo berry (Randia aculeata) Necklacepod (Sophora tomentosa) Simpsons stopper or Twinberry (Myricanthes fragrans) Fiddlewood (Citharexylum fruticosum) Wild coffee, shiny leaved (Psychotria nervosa) Cocoplum (Chrysobalanus icaco) Jamaican caper (Capparis cynophallophora) Snowberry (Chiococca alba) Saw palmetto (Serenoa repens) 2. Non salt-tolerant. Suitable for hammocks or sandy areas not on barrier island. Firebush (Hamelia patens) Beautyberry (Callicarpa americana) Swamp hibiscus (Hibiscus grandiflorus) Rusty lyonia {Lyonia ferruginea) Wild coffee, soft leaved (Pyschotria sulzneri) Underline: Additions to Ordinance 52 Strike through: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\C01mnunity Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2007\2007-__ 901,911,913,926,930, & 934 Landscaping.RTF ORDINANCE 2007-__ Walter's viburnum (Viburnum obovatum) Tallowwood (Ximenia americana) (2) Native trees and shrubs for inland pine flatwoods or hammocks. For purposes of this section, inland area is land located west of US Highway 1. (a) Native Trees. 1. Prefer low-lying areas: Loblolly bay (Gordonia lasianthus) Swamp red bay (Persea palustris) Bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) Sweet gum (Liguidambar styraciflua) Sweet bay magnolia (Magnolia virginiana) Red maple (Acer rubrum) Dahoon holly (Ilex cassine) Diamond leaf oak (guercus laurifolia) 2. Prefer upland areas: Sugarberry, Hackberry (Celtis laevigata) Florida elm (Ulmus Americana) Live oak (Ouercus virginiana) Laurel oak (Ouercus hemisphaerica) Cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto) Slash pine (Pinue elliottii var densa) Longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) Persimmon (Diosypros virginica) Southern magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora) Southern red cedar (Juniperus silicicola) Sumac, winged or shiny (Rhus copallina) East Palatka holly (Ilex attenuata 'East Palatka) Wax myrtle, Bayberry (Myrica cerifera) (b) Native Shrubs. 1. Prefer low-lying areas: Carolina willow (Salix caroliniana) Virginia willow (Ilea virginica) Shiny lyonia, fetterbush (Lyonia lucida) Florida anise (Illicium floridanum) Gallberry (Iiex glabra) 2. Prefer upland areas: Florida privet (Forestiera segregata) Rusty lyonia (Lyonia ferruginea) Beautyberry (Callicai:pa Americana) Underline: Additions to Ordinance 53 Strike thfough: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2007\2007-__ 901, 911,913,926,930, & 934 Landscaping.RTF ORDINANCE 2007---- Gallberry (Ilex glabra) Walters viburnum (Viburnum obovatum) Cocoplum (Chrysobalanus icaco) Coontie (Zamia floridana) Coralbean (Erythrina herbacea) Firebush (Hamelia patens) Golden dewdrop (Duranta repens) Scarlet Hibiscus (Hibiscus coccineus) Marlberry (Ardisia escallonioides) Necklacepod (Sophora tomentosa) Yucca (Yucca aloifolia) Snowberry (Chiococca alba) Simpsons stopper or Twinberry (Myricanthes fragrans) Saw palmetto (Serenoa repens) (3) Native ground covers and flowers. (a) Semi salt-tolerant suitable for barrier island: Beach sunflower (Helianthus debilis) Blanket flower (Gaillardia pulchella) Prickly pear cactus (Opuntia humifusa) Sand cordgrass (Spartina bakerii) Saltmarsh cordgrass (Spartina patens) Railroad vine (Ipomoea pes-caprae) Sea oats (Uniola paniculata) Sea Ox-eye Daisy (Borrichia frutescens) Horsemint (Monarda punctata) (b) Suitable for hammocks or sandy areas not on barrier island: Gopher apple (Licania michauxii) White lantana (Lantana involucrata) Sunshine mimosa (Mimosa strigulosa) Pink muhly grass (Muhlenbergia capillaris) Blue porterweed (Stachytarpheta iamaicensis) Southern shield fem (Thelypteris kunthii) Blechnum fem (Blechnum serrulatum) Red sage (Salvia coccinea) Sword fem (Nephrolepis exaltata) (4) Native climbing vines suitable for fences: Coral or southern honeysuckle (Lonicera sempervirens) Maypop (Passiflora incamata) Native grape (Vitis spp.) Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia) Morning Glory (Ipomoea spp.) Climbing Aster Symphyotrichum carolinianum Underline: Additions to Ordinance 54 Strike through: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Cmmnunity Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2007\2007-__ 901,911,913,926,930, & 934 Landscaping.RTF ORDINANCE 2007-~~ Carolina Yell ow Jessamine Gelsemium sempervirens Appendix B: Exotic, Invasive Plants Exotic plants are not native to Florida, defined as those introduced, either purposefully or accidentally. Some exotic plants can expand on their own, thereby out-competing, displacing, and disrupting naturally occurring native plant communities. Invasive exotic plants listed on the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council's "Category I List oflnvasive Species" are prohibited. The updated list may be viewed at: http://www.fleppc.org/list/list.htm Appendix C: Preferred Grasses. Preferred grasses are those native to South Florida Flatwoods as listed by the Soil Conservation Service of the United States Department of Agriculture. Preferred grasses require little or no fertilizer, irrigation or mowing, to achieve ornamental effect. If the grasses listed below are not available, bahia may be used. Chalky bluestem (Andropogon capillipes) Creeping bluestem (Schizachyrium stoloniferum) Lopsided Indiangrass (Sorghastrum secundum) South Florida bluestem (Schizachyrium rhizomatum) Low panicum (Panicum spp.) Pineland threeawn (Aristida stricta) Seashore Paspalum Appendix D: Definitions of soils for use in landscape construction. (1) Myakka soil: The soil type adopted (May 22, 1989) as the state soil. Its composition is as follows: Surface layer: gray fine sand Subsurface layer: light gray fine sand Subsoil: dark reddish brown fine sand with organic stains Substratum: brown and yellowish brown fine sand Source: US Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Society. (2) Criteria for hydric soils: all Histosols except Folists; soils that are frequently ponded for long duration, or very long duration during the growing season; or soils that are frequently flooded for long duration or very long duration during the growing season. Source: USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Hydric Soils, Criteria/NRCS Soils (3) Examples ofhydric soils in Indian River County: Underline: Additions to Ordinance 55 Strike thrnugh: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDJN"ANCE\2007\2007~ __ 901,911,913,926,930, & 934 Landscaping.RTF ORDINANCE 2007---- Terra Ceia muck Canova muck Gator muck McKee mucky clay loam Manatee mucky loamy fine sand, depressional Floridana mucky fine sand depressional Samsula muck Delray muck Kesson Muck Source: Florida Portion of the National Hydric Soil List, August 11, 2005. Appendix E: Littoral Species. (1) Native species suitable for littoral shelf plantings. (a) Transitional zone (planting depth: 0 to 1 ft. above the ordinary water line): 1. Trees and shrubs: Buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis) Cypress (Taxodium spp.) Cocoplum (Chrysobalanus icaco) Dahoon holly (ilex cassine) Firebush (Hamela patens) Laurel oak (guercus laurifolia) Leather fem (Acrostichum danaeifolium) Pond-apple (Annona glabra) Redbay (Persea borbonia) Red maple (Acer rubrum) Swamp fem (Blechum serrulatum) Sweet bay magnolia (Magnolia virginiana) Wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera) Wild coffee (Psychotria nervosa) 2. Wetland plants: Blue flag iris (Iris virginicus) Lizard's tail (Saururus cemuus) Muhly grass (Muhlenbergia capillaris) Sand cordgrass (Spartina bakeri) Short spike rush (Eleocharis geniculata) Soft rush (Juncus effusus) St. John's wort (Hypericum fasiculata) (b) Shallow zone (planting depth: 0 to 1 ft. below the ordinary water line): Arrow-arum (Peltandra virginica), likes shade Underline: Additions to Ordinance 56 Strike lflfeugli: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\CommunityDevelopment\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2007\2007-_~ 901,911,913,926,930, & 934 Landscaping.RTF ORDINANCE 2007-__ Blue flag iris (Iris virginicus) Coastal arrowhead (Sagittaria graminea) Common arrowhead (Sagittaria latifolia) Duck potato (Sagittaria lancifolia) Fire flag (Thalia geniculata) Floating hearts (Nymphoides aguatica) Golden canna (Canna laccida) Lizard's tail (Saurnrus cemuus) Pickerelweed (Pontedaria cordata) Soft msh (Juncus effusus) Soft-stem bulrush (Scii;pus validus) Swamp lily (Crinum americanum) (c) Mid-range zone (planting depth: 1 to 2 ft. below the ordinary water line): Bulrush (Scii;pus spp.) Pickerelweed (Pontedaria cordata) Soft-stem bulrush (Scii;pus validus) Spike rush (Eleocharis interstincta, Eleocharis cellulosa) (d) Deep zone (planting depth: 2 to 3 ft. below the ordinary water line): Fragrant water lily (Nymphaea odoata) Spatterdock (Nuphar luteum) (2) Exotic-invasive and undersirable-invasive plant species (Prohibited from littoral zone plantings): Alligator weed (Altemanthera philoxeroides) Cattails (Typha spp.) Common reed (Phrag,mites australis) Elephant grass (Pennisetum pui;purea) Elephant, wild taro (Colocasia esculenta) Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata) Maidencane (Panicum hemitomon) Primrose willow (Ludwigia peruviana) Torpedo grass (Panica repens) Water hyacinth (Eichhomia spp.) Water lettuce (Pistia stratiotes) Willow (Salix spp.) Section 930.07(1)(m), stormwater maintenance areas, is hereby amended to read as follows: (m) (1) All stormwater facilities shall be established in dedicated stormwater management tracts, easements, or specified common areas. The plat and any Underline: Additions to Ordinance 57 Strike through: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2007\2007-_~ 901,911,913,926,930, & 934 landscaping.RTF ORDINANCE 2007---- homeowners' association documents, property owners' association documents, condominium documents, deed restrictions, or other legally binding instruments shall describe the location of such areas, specifically define the mechanism for preservation and maintenance of any private drainage systems, and shall appoint an entity responsible for perpetual maintenance and preservation. (2) All wet detention stormwater management tracts (not including swales) greater than one-half (0.5) acre at control elevation, shall include a maintenance area free of obstructions except as otherwise provided below. The maintenance area shall have a slope not steeper than eight-foot horizontal to one-foot vertical (8: 1) and shall be a minimum of fifteen (15) feet wide, completely around and outside the area submerged by the twenty-five-year, twenty-four-hour design stormwater elevation. Within residential developments, the maintenance area shall be located entirely within the stormwater management tract and shall not be part of any lot. If proposed lots or tracts are to be under separate ownership, then the maintenance area shall be connected to an ingress-egress or other appropriate easement, or public right-of-way, having a minimum width of fifteen (15) feet. Open channels and swales in single-family residential developments shall be located within easements that are a minimum of fifteen (15) feet wide for access and maintenance. (3) The requirement of a maintenance easement area and the prohibition of obstructions in subsection (m)(2) may be waived in part or in whole by the public works director based on site and design characteristics, which may include the following: 1. The ability to maneuver and operate maintenance equipment as necessary, 2. Preservation of existing trees and native vegetation, and 3. Proposed landscaping improvements. Generally, landscaping within the maintenance area must be designed using groups of plantings not exceeding fifty ( 50) feet in length with a minimum separation of one hundred (100) feet between planting groups. Between such groupings a ten-foot wide access path shall be maintained. The county .shall not be responsible for restoration of any damage to the landscaping that may occur in the event the county performs maintenance within the maintenance area. (4) The design of retention or detention facilities within a single-family residential development shall meet slope requirements of the county and any other agency that may employ such criteria. Such retention or detention facilities designed to impound more than two (2) feet of water shall be graded to slopes no steeper than four-foot horizontal to one-foot Underline: Additions to Ordinance 58 Strike through: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDfNANCE\2007\2007-__ 901, 911,913,926,930, & 934 Landscaping.RTF ORDINANCE 2007-__ vertical (4: 1) to a minimum depth of two (2) feet below the control elevation, or a properly designed retaining wall shall be used. Drainage systems that will not impound more than two (2) feet of water shall not exceed slopes of three-foot horizontal to one-foot vertical (3:1) unless otherwise approved by the county or provided for under specific design criteria by other sections of the land development regulations. (5) Drainage systems, in all developments other than single-family residential developments, shall maintain maximum slopes of two (2) horizontal to one (1) vertical for swales less than or equal to two (2) feet deep and three (3) horizontal to one (I) vertical for all swales more than two (2) feet deep. (6) Dry retention slopes and wet retention slopes above the design normal or control water elevation shall be grassed or otherwise stabilized. Retention or detention ponds with any area having more than two (2) feet of water at design storm or permanent pool with the exception of ponds, or lakes, in golf courses, public parks or in developments in which the pond, or lake is designed to serve as an aesthetic amenity to the development, shall be fenced with a minimum four-foot high fence as determined by the public works director. {7) Maintenance areas shall not be required along shorelines adjacent to littoral zones, provided that maintenance access is not inhibited to the remainder of the stormwater management tract. Such access may be provided by means of an easement around the littoral zone, an ingress egress easement of a minimum width of fifteen (15) feet, a tum-around area within the maintenance area, or as otherwise approved by the public works director or his designee. Section 934.05, water management standards, is hereby amended to read as follows: On project sites exceeding ten (I 0) acres in area, A ,!ny excavation or mining activity in the unincorporated county which results in the creation or expansion of a waterbody ( as defined in Chapter 901) greater than enc half(l/2) aero in size shall be subject to the following standards, except as specifically exempted in Section 934.04 of this chapter. The litteral zene previsions efthis seetien shall not apply to ereated or eiqianded watereeElies efany size in eases '.vhere the 8t. Johns River 'Nater Management District has permittingjurisdietion and does not require litteral zene(s) due to permanent pool vohnne design or other design parameters. The requirements of this section shall not apply to small lot single-family subdivisions, which, as designated in Section 971.41(9), are expressly to provide workforce or affordable housing. (1) A littoral zone(s) shall be established as part of the created waterbody. A design and management plan must be submitted which shall: Underline: Additions to Ordinance 59 Strike through: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CUrDev\ORDINANCE\2007\2007-_~901, 911,913,926,930, & 934 Landscaping.RTF ORDINANCE 2007---- (a) Include a topographic map of the proposed littoral zone(s) showing the control elevation contour and the minus two-and-one-half-foot control water elevation contour, and include a cross-sectional view of the littoral zone( s) planting design, showing the required slopes from the top of the bank to a depth of two and one half (2 1/2) feet below the control water elevation; (b) Specify how vegetation is to be established, including the extent, method, type and timing of any planting provided; ( c) Provide a description of any water management procedures to be followed in order to ensure the continued viability and health of the littoral zones; ( d) Include a plan view which documents the location and extent of the littoral zones, including the percentage of the waterbody surface area (at control elevation) covered by vegetated littoral zones. (2) The established littoral zone(s) shall consist of native vegetation, and shall be maintained permanently as part of the waterbody. All landscaping, littoral zone revegetation plans and lake management plans shall comply with St. John River Water Management District rules. (3) Littoral zone design requirements: (a) The slope for the planted littoral zone shall be no steeper than one (1) foot vertical to ten (10) feet horizontal to a distance of five (5) feet waterward of the designated planted littoral zone area. Excluding the planted littoral zones, slopes shall not exceed one (1) foot vertical to four (4) feet horizontal. Certified drawings of the littoral zone slopes must be sent to the planning division within thirty (30) days of slope construction. (b) Littoral zones must be at least thirty (30) percent of the waterbody surface area, or twenty-one (21) square feet per lineal foot of shoreline, whichever is less. Littoral zones must be located between one (1) foot above ordinary water level (OWL) and two (2) feet below OWL, as determined by the applicant's engineer or designee unless otherwise approved by the community development director or his designee. (c) The littoral zone must be provided with a minimum of six ( 6) inches of sand topsoil mix unless otherwise approved, and planted with at least five (5) species at an average spacing of two (2) feet on center. Inter-plant spacing will vary with species, and must be depicted on the littoral zone vegetation plan. (d) A minimum of one tree shall be provided for every five hundred (500) square feet of littoral zone coverage. The proposed trees must be a minimum of five (5) feet in height at time of planting (measured at planting depth) and consist of native, freshwater wetland varieties (e.g. red bay, red maple, bald cypress, loblolly bay). Underline: Additions to Ordinance 60 Strike through: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Cmmnunity Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2007\2007-__ 901,911,913,926,930, & 934 Landscaping.RTF ORDINANCE 2007-__ (e) Appropriate species for littoral zone plantings, including trees, are listed m Chapter 926, Appendix E. (4) Conformance: (a) The planted littoral zone must meet an eighty (80) percent coverage within six ( 6) months, and be less than five (5) percent exotic or invasive non-native plant species after the first year. Monitoring reports are required, and must be submitted to Staff at time zero (0), ninety (90) days, six (6) months, and one (1) year after planting. The applicant must notify the planning division forty-eight (48) hours prior to completion oflittoral zone planting. (b) Littoral planting zones are to be identified graphically and in wntmg on a restrictive covenant in a form acceptable to the county attorney. The plat, if applicable, must reference the restrictive covenant. The exact language as seen in the Littoral Zone Restrictive Covenant must be followed. The restrictive covenant and plat, if applicable, must be reviewed by the planning division prior to recording. A copy of the recorded restrictive covenant must be provided to Staff prior to approval of the land development permit. (c) Planting of the littoral zones must be completed prior to issuance of a certificate of completion or the first certification of occupancy for any lot adjacent to or abutting the lake, whichever occurs first. (d) All excavations must comply with "Best Management Practices for the Construction Industry." (f) Planted littoral zones must be maintained in perpetuity in compliance with these planting requirements, and with "Best Management Practices." (3) \'lifuin Slctended littoral zone shelves (at the landward base of the littoral zone side slopes), the applicant is required to provide a minimum of one tree for every five hundred (500) square feet oflittoral zone co,,erage. The proposed trees must be a minimum of five (5) feet in height at time of planting (measured at planting ~ size consistent \Vith Florida Division of Forestry seedlings (ten (10) inches tall at planting depth) and consist of native, freshwater wetland varieties (e.g. red bay, red maple, bald cypress, loblolly bay). (1) The slopes of the waterbody areas from top of bank to the littoral zone area shall not eirneed one foot vertical to three (3) feet horizontal. Littoral zones and eictended littoral zone shelves shall be located within an area bounded by a hmdward limit of one foot above the control water ele>,ation and a waterward limit of two and one half (2 1/2) feet to four (1) feet below the control water ele>lation. i\t least thirty (30) percent of the waterbody surface area, or twenty one (21) square feet per lineal foot of shoreline, whichever is less, shall consist of a Underline: Additions to Ordinance 61 Strike tmougla: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CwDev\ORDINANCE\2007\2007-__ 901, 911,913,926,930, & 934 landscaping.RTF ORDINANCE 2007-__ litteral :wne. The thirty (3 0) pereent is ealoolated based en the ratie ef vegetated litteral :wne te surfaee area ef the waterbedy at the eentrel elevatien. Within the planted litteral :wne(s) area(s), the litteral ,mne slepe shall net be steeper than an average slepe ef ene feet vertical te six (6) feet herizental, and the litteral zene need net be established in a eentinueus band areund the waterbedy. 1\ltheugh ne minimum slepe belew the litteral zene is required, the slepe belew the litteral zene shall be eenstrueted se that natural seil mevement will net reduee the litteral zene area. ( 5) There will be no significant adverse off-site impact on groundwater quality or groundwater levels. In the event of dewatering associated with excavations (including mining), the applicant shall present evidence that no salt-water intrusion and/or reduction in quality or quantity of well water available to properties within one-fourth (1/4) mile of the pennitted activity will occur. (6) The water management system, including swales and interconnected wetlands and lakes, must be specifically designed to inhibit siltation and eutrophication processes. To ensure this, the applicant must submit an environmental management and lake monitoring plan, specifying the method for monitoring the system and corrective actions should eutrophication and/or siltation occur. (7) A fifteen-foot-wide access maintenance easement shall be provided for every one thousand (1,000) feet of shoreline. This easement shall extend from below control elevation of the lake to a public or private road right-of-way. (8) The littoral zone will be considered as fully creditable towards the 2: 1 mitigation ratio for freshwater emergent wetlands; (ref. Chapter 928, Wetland and Deepwater Habitat Protection). SECTION #2: SEVERABILITY. If any clause, section or provision of this Ordinance shall be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional or invalid for any cause or reason, the same shall be eliminated from this Ordinance and the remaining portion of this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect and be as valid as if such invalid portion thereof had not been incorporated therein. SECTION #3: REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES. The provisions of any other Indian River County ordinance that are inconsistent or in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are repealed to the extent of such inconsistency or conflict. SECTION #4: INCLUSION IN THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES. The provisions of this Ordinance shall become and be made a part of the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Indian River County, Florida. The sections of the Ordinance may be renumbered Underline: Additions to Ordinance 62 Strike tmeugh: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Co1mnunity Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2007\2007~ __ 901, 911,913,926,930, & 934 l.andscaping.RTF ORDINANCE 2007-__ or relettered to accomplish such, and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section", "article", or any other appropriate word. SECTION #5: EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall take effect on·------ Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, on this __ day of _____~ 2007. This ordinance was advertised in the Press-Journal on the ____ day of----~ 2007, for a public hearing to be held on the ____ day of 2007, at which time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner seconded by Commissioner______~ and adopted by the following vote: Chairman Gary C. Wheeler Vice Chairman Sandra L. Bowden Commissioner Joseph E. Flescher Commissioner Wesley S. Davis Commissioner Peter D. O'Bryan BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BY: Gary C. Wheeler, Chairman ATTEST BY: ------Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk This ordinance was filed with the Department of State on the following date: ------~ andistotakeeffecton ------ APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY William G. Collins II, County Attorney Underline: Additions to Ordinance 63 Strike through: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\C01runw1ity Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2007\2007-__ 901,911,913,926,930, & 934 Landscaping.RTF ORDINANCE 2007-__ APPROVED AS TO PLANNING MATTERS Robert M. Keating, AICP; Community Development Director Underline: Additions to Ordinance 64 Strike through: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2007\2007-~_901, 911,913,926,930, & 934 Landscaping.RTF TYPE A BUFFER CANOPY TREES LARGE = 18' IN HEIGHT 4" DBH SMALL = 12' IN HEIGHT 2" DBH UNDERSTORY TREES SHRUBS 50 FOOT DEEP CANOPY TREES = 3 LARGE 3 SMALL 0 l{) TOTAL = 6 UNDERSTORY 10 SHRUBS = 75 40 FOOT DEEP CANOPY TREES = 4 LARGE 4 SMALL TOTAL = 8 UNDERSTORY = 12 SHRUBS= 70 TYPE B BUFFER CANOPY TREES LARGE = 18' IN HEIGHT 4" DBH SMALL = 12' IN HEIGHT 2" DBH UNDERSTORY TREES SHRUBS 30 FOOT DEEP CANOPY TREES = 2 LARGE 2 SMALL TOTAL = 4 UNDERSTORY = 6 SHRUBS = 55 25 FOOT DEEP CANOPY TREES = L[) 2.5 LARGE N 2.5 SMALL TOTAL = 5 UNDERSTORY 8 SHRUBS = 55 TYPE C BUFFER CANOPY TREES LARGE = 18' IN HEIGHT 4" DBH SMALL = 12' IN HEIGHT 2" DBH UNDERSTORY TREES SHRUBS 20 FOOT DEEP CANOPY TREES = 1 LARGE 3 SMALL TOTAL = 4 UNDERSTORY = 4 SHRUBS= 40 15 FOOT DEEP CANOPY TREES 1 LARGE 3.5 SMALL TOTAL = 4.5 (5) UNDERSTORY = 5 SHRUBS= 40 12 4 12 3 ~1=111~ - =11111 =- LOPE 'S/"I 4 12 EARTHEN BERM '.;j N '. I I I I --, I WALL & BERM COMBINATION OPTION B 12 4 WALL & BERM COMBINATION OPTION A r··- Landscape Cost Comparison Based on Sample 2-Acre Commercial Site Current Ordinance -- Not in Corridor Type Size Quantity $ per plant Total$ Canopy Trees 10' 70 200 14,000 Understorv Trees 5' 22 75 1,650 Shrubs 18" 359 12.5 4,488 Total Cost 20,138 With Revisions -- Not in Corridor Type Size Quantity $ per plant Total$ Canopy Trees 12' 71 250 17,750 Canopy Trees 18' 8 800 6,400 Understory Trees 6' 58 100 5,800 Shrubs 18" 520 12.5 6,500 Total Cost 36,450 Percent Increase for Non-corridor Sample Site 81% Current Ordinance -- In Corridor Type Size Quantity $ per plant Total$ Canopy Trees 12' 94 250 23,500 Understorv Trees 5' 58 75 4,350 Shrubs 18" 1007 12.5 12,588 Total Cost 40,438 With Revisions -- In Corridor Type Size Quantity $ per plant Total$ Canopy Trees 12' 93 250 23,250 Canopy Trees 18' 8 800 6,400 Understorv Trees 6' 69 100 6,900 Shrubs 18" 844 12.5 10,550 Total Cost 47,100 Percent Increase for Corridor Sample Site 16% AnACHMENT 5 Current Regulations Sample Site (Not in Corridor) Zoning: CG 90,000 sq. ft. (2.07 ac.) Open Space: 25% 0 -S-to_r_m_w-at_e_r_: -15__1/o______--il L Arterial Road 10' Arterial Buffer 12 canopy, 12 understory, 110 +/. shrubs -C!J 111111111111111 ·- .& ~ i:; V>, Parking Lot: 12 canopy G) <1> .Q E ~2.------~ ,:,~~ _,_ E C + 18,000 sq. ft. 0 j:2 0 L..::,:; Building CJ g $ Q. •• "'0EC G) -~ 8 en 0.. 00 :::, No Foundation .. Plantings C G) (,) . C!J ·-~ Open Space: 8 canopy 20' Type B Buffer 20 canopy, 1O understory, 84 shrubs 300' r- 0 Adjacent Use: (') D) Residential - Total Required Landscaping 70 canopy trees (all 10') 22 understory trees 359 shrubs Estimated Cost: $20, 138 Date: Jan 23, 2007 Sample Site Proposed Revisions (Not in Corridor) Zoning: CG 90,000 sq. ft. (2.07 ac.) Open Space: 25% Stormwater: 15% I L ------' Arterial Road 15' Roadway Buffer 14 canopy, 17 understory, 150 shrubs C'S - . 111111111111111 ·-~ ·;: II) -~ ll Parking Lot: 15 canopy Q. 2 E ~i.------, "' ' E 1~ 18,000 sq. ft. 0 ..J "' (.) "' 2 1i: Building .. ~ c1) 0 II) EC Ill :~ ~ ::, a."' .. No Foundation C Plantings II) u C'S ·-~ Open Space: 12 canopy 25' Type B Buffer 16 canopy {8@12', 8 @18'), 24 understory, 165 shrubs 300' r- 0n Adjacent Use: D) Residential - Total Required Landscaping 79 canopy trees (71 @ 12' + 8 @ 18') 58 understory trees 520 shrubs Estimated Cost: $36,450 Date: Jan 23, 2007 Sample Site Current Rea,ulations (In Corridor) Zoning: CG 90,000 sq. ft, (2.07 ac.) Open Space: 25% Stonnwat•r. 15% I L ______. Arterial Road 15' Corridor Buffer 14 canopy, 17 understory, 110 +/- shrubs -cu 111111111111111 ·-~ C. Parking Lot: 12 canopy GI ~~c.2 ______"' -" E ra .c: 0"' E "' ' 18,000 sq. ft. 0 -g+ (.) .5 :g 0 ~::,:;, Building •• ~ ..... 0.. Cl) "'0E c: en '§ ~ ::::, a. 20' Type B Buffer 20 canopy, 10 understory, 84 shrubs 300' r- 0 (') Adjacent Use: I» Residential - Total Required Landscaping 94 canopy trees (all 12') 58 understory trees 1,007 shrubs - Estimated Cost: $40,438 Date: Jan 23, 2007 Sample Site Proposed Revisions (In Corridor) Zoning: CG 90,000 sq. ft. (2.07 ac.) Open Space: 25% swm=t•r. 15% I L ---- Arterial Road 15' Roadway Buffer 14 canopy, 17 understory, 150 shrubs -C'G 0.. 111111111111111 ·- E ~ (/) .,, G) ·-~ Open Space: 12 canopy 25' Type B Buffer 16 canopy {8@ 12', 8@ 18'), 24 understory, 165 shrubs 300' ...0 Adjacent Use: (') ~ Residential - Total Required Landscaping 101 canopy trees (93 @ 12' + 8 @ 18') 69 understory trees 844 shrubs Estimated Cost: $47,100 Date: Jan 23, 2007 Landscape Cost Comparison Based on Sample 36-Lot Residential Subdivision Current Ordinance Type Size Quantity $ per plant Total$ Buffers Canopy Trees 10' 290 200 58,080 Understorv Trees 5' 145 75 10,890 Shrubs 36" 868 30 26,046 Lake Shores Canopy Trees - - - Littoral Zones Not Required - - - Total Cost 95,016 Cost Per Lot (36) 2,639 With Revisions Type Size Quantity $ per plant Total$ Buffers Canopy Trees 12' 105 250 26,175 Canopy Trees 18' 105 800 83,760 Understory Trees 6' 322 100 32,200 Shrubs 36" 2,010 30 60,300 Lake Shores Canopy Trees 12' 35 250 8,750 Littoral Zones Trees 5' 20 75 1,500 Plants - 2,500 2 5,000 Total Cost 217,685 Cost Per Lot (36) 6,047 Percent Increase 129% Sample Subdivision: Beale 5th Street SW Subdivision (Preliminary Plat Approved Jan. 25, 2007) ATTACHMENT 6 Sample Residential Current Regulations Subdivsion 25' Type B Buffer 26 canopy, 13 understory, 106 shrubs Lake Shore I I No requirement I I ill ,ii ·1 I . fi . f-. I Littoral Zones No requirement Total Required Landscaping 290 canopy trees (all 10') 145 understory trees 868 shrubs Estimated Cost: $95,016 Cost Per Lot: $2,639 I 25' Type A Buffer {Uses 30' Type A Planting Reqmnts.) 59 canopy, 29 understory, 147 shrubs Date: Feb 14, 2007 Sample Residential Proposed Revisions Subdivsion 25' Type B Buffer 22 canopy (11 @ 12', 11 @ 18'), 35 understory, 242 shrubs __ j__ Lake Shore 35 canopy trees (12') «> N N<.n Littoral Zones 0 ...:j 20 trees (5'), 2,500 plants '"'< ::,0 "<1) Note: Lots 10 & 36 are relocated to the ~):, south end of site.(open space is transferred to littoral zones) Total Required Landscaping 265 canopy trees (105@ 18' + 140@ 12' + 20@ 5') 322 understory trees I I 2,010 shrubs I I I 2,500 wetland plants I I I·· Estimated Cost: $217,685 I . Cost Per Lot: $6,047 25' Type A Buffer (Uses 40' Type A Planting Reqmnts.) 40 canopy (20@ 12', 20@ 18'), 59 understory, 343 shrubs Date: Feb 14; 2007 MEMORANDUM TO: P&Z Commissioners FROM: George Christopher DATE: February 16, 2007 RE: Workshop on Improving Quality of Developments Proposal: To have a workshop to receive specific recommendations from persons in the building community on how the quality of residential and commercial developments within the Urban Service Line may be improved. Based on the recommendations and discussion at the workshop, it is contemplated that the P&Z Commission, if it supports any recommendations, would make recommendations to the County Commission for LDR or other changes, thereby following up on the previous work of the County staff, the Growth Awareness Committee, the Audubon, and others. Format: The proposal contemplates 4 panels leading the workshop discussion. Each panel would have one-half hour to make its recommendations and to respond to questions from the P&Z and the staff. After the panel presentations, the workshop would be open for public comment. The panels and the participants (see attached resumes) are proposed as follows: Environmental Panel David Cox George Kulczyeki Robin Vieira Bob Adair Architect and Engineering Panel Richard Biolasky Greg Burke David Knight Frank Watanabe Builder Panel Joe Paladin Jerry Swanson Chuck Mechling Debb Robinson Planners Panel Marcela Camblor Keith Pelan Louis VanCotton DC-889373 v2 The participant list was developed following discussion with a number of builders, developers, architects, and others doing business in the county. All the panelists have welcomed the opportunity to participate and believe that the workshop could produce meaningful recommendations. It is anticipated that each panel would meet in advance to divide up their topics in view of the limited time each panel would have. At a subsequent P&Z meeting, the P&Z could review the recommendations, receive comments from staff and make recommendations to the County Commission. cc: County Commissioners Joe Baird Bob Keating Stan Boling -2- Gregory John Burke, AIA, CSI, NCARB Gregory John Burke I ARCHITECT, Pa Profile Twenty-two years as a registered architect with a track record in design, project management and delivery of building, planning and interior architecture projects. Mr. Burke combines visual communication skills with verbal skills to build project team consensus for successful client I architect/ builder relationships: An organized, direct communicator and problem-solver with wide ranging experience. Professional PRESIDENT Experience (05/98 - Present) Gregory John Burke I ARCHITECT, Pa, Vero Beach, Florida DESIGN PRINCIPAL (11/95 - 05/98) Donadio & Associates, Architects, PA, Vero Beach, Florida TECHNICAL DIRECTOR/ PROJECT MANAGER (10/89 - 11/95) The Hillier Group, Princeton, New Jersey (06/89 - 10/89) HOK, New York, New York PROJECT ARCHITECT (06/88 - 06/89) CUH2A, Princeton, New Jersey (06/85 - 06/88) Gensler & Associates, Houston, Texas (08/79 - 02/81) NBBJ, Columbus, Ohio Education Knowlton School of Architecture, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio Bachelor of Science in Architecture, (History of Art Minor) 1981 Professional Ohio, 1984 New Jersey, 1988 Georgia, 1999 Licenses NCARB Certificate 1984 Florida, 1996 Alabama, 2005 Louisiana, 2005 Honors and Architectural Woodworking Institute, Juror Awards National Student Design Competition, 1992 Who's Who in Interior Desi9cn Biography Listed, 1991 - 1995 Who's Who of International Professionals, 1996 The American Institute of Architects New Jersey Honor Award: Howard Hughes Medical Institute, 1991 Texas and Houston Chapter Honor Award: Enron Corp, 1988 United Arab Emirates Telephone Company Headq_uarters Design Competition,Winning Design, 1985 Interior of Business Designers Offices of James R. Treptow Developers, 1985 Indian River County Chamber of Commerce, Como Oil Office I Showroom, 2005 888 Dahlia Lane, Vero Beach, Florida 32963 - PH: 772.231.8988 Gregory John Burke, AIA, CSI, NCARB Gregory John Burke I ARCHITECT, Pa Affiliations and National Trust for Historic Preservation, 1979 - Present Activities The Ohio State University Alumni Association Life Member, 1981 - Present · Sigma Chl Fraternity Life Member, 1980 - Present Children's Hospital, Houston Texas Counselor, 1985- 1988 Indian River County Code Enforcement ffoard Member, 1997 - 2001 Chairman 1999 Coalition for Attainable Housing of Indian River County Member 2006-Present The Goafilfon for ihe Homeless oflhdian River County Board Member, 1998 - 2001 Vice-President 2000, 2001 Indian River County Chamber of Commerce., Board of Directors 2006-Present Legislative Committee 2005 - Present Member, 2003 -Present The American Institute of Architects Treasure Coast Chapter President, 2006 Treasure Coast Chapter, Architecture Week Chair, 2006-2007 Treasure Coast Chapter Vice President/ President Elect, 2004-2005 Treasure Coast Chapter Vice President, 1999, 2000 Treasure Coast Chapter Design Awards Committee Chair, 2000 Treasure Coast Chapter Golf Tournament Chair 2004-Present Treasure Coast Chapter Golf Tournament Co-Chair 2003 New Jersey Board of Trustees, 1994 New Jersey Governance Task Force, 1993 New Jersey Central Section Treasurer, 1992 - 1993 New Jersey Central Section Practice Committee, 1992-1993 National AIA Practice Committee, 1993 Texas Chapter Student Liaison Committee, 1987, 1988 Texas Chapter Student Liaison Committee, Chair 1988 Texas Chapter Interiors Committee, 1984 - 1986 Houston Chapter Intern Deveioprnent Program, 1985-1988 Houston Chapter Design Awards Committee, 1985-1988 Houston Chapter 4th Ward Design Charrette, 1986 888 Dahlia Lane, Vero Beach, Florida 32963 - PH: 772.231.8988 Gregory John Burke, AIA, CSI, NCARB Gregory John Burke I ARCHITECT, Pa Project POINTE WEST TOWN CENTER, Vero Beach, Florida (2006) Experience Gregory John Burke I ARCHITECT, Pa Design / Bid / Build Delivery System 129,500 GSF Mixed-Use (Restaurant, Office/Retail, Apartment) Design, Design Development, Contract Documents Fogal Office Building, Fort Pierce, Florida (2005) Gregory John Burke I ARCHITECT, Pa Construction Management Delivery System 8,000 GSF Speculative Office Building Design, Design Development, Contract Documents New Life Christian Centre Worship Center, Port St. Lucie, Florida (2003) Gregory John Burke I ARCHITECT, Pa in association with John J. Schlitt, Jr., AIA, Architect Design / Bid / Build Delivery System 20,000 GSF Sanctuary and Chapel - $1.7M Design, Design Development, Contract Documents, Bidding and Construction Administration, Project Management Bridgewater Professional Office Condominium Building "C" , Vero beach, Florida (2003) - Gregory John Burke I ARCHITECT, Pa Construction Management Delivery System 22,000 GSF Office Building Design, Design Development, Contract Documents, Bidding and Construction Administration, Project Management St. John of the Cross Roman Catholic Church, Vero Beach, Florida (2001) - Gregory John Burke I ARCHITECT, Pa Design / Bid / Build Delivery System 25,000 GSF Sanctuary and Chapel - $4M Design Development, Contract Documents, Bidding and Construction Administration THE VILLAGE, Vero Beach, Florida (2000) Gregory John Burke I ARCHITECT, Pa Design / Build Delivery System Eight unit cluster housing project. Three plans from 3100 sf to 4200 sf., approximate cost of $450,000 each. Design, Design Development, Construction Documents The Indian River Club Gatehouse & Swim / Fitness Center, Vero Beach, Florida (2000) Gregory John Burke I ARCHITECT, Pa Design / Build Delivery System 400 GSF Gatehouse 10,000 GSF Swim / Fitness Center Design, Design Development, Construction Documents Citrus Elementary School, Vero Beach, Florida (2000) Donadio and Associates Architects, PA Construction Management Delivery System Renovation of Classrooms, Cafeteria, Library and new Multi-Purpose Building Design, Design Development, Construction Documents, Construction Administration 888 Dahlia Lane, Vero Beach, Florida 32963 - PH: 772.231.8988 Gregory John Burke, AIA, CSI, NCARB Gregory John Burke I ARCHITECT, Pa Bracco Diagnostics, Inc., Princeton, New Jersey (1995) The Hillier Group Construction Management Delivery System (Interiors) 60,000 GSF $2.5M Office Space Architecture, Interior Architecture, Construction Documents Pitney-Bowes Incorporated, Guilford, Connecticut (1995) The Hillier Group Construction Management Delivery System (Building and Interiors) 250,000 GSF, $3.125M Office Space Architecture, Interior Architecture, Construction Documents Marion Merrill Dow World Headquarters, Kansas City, Missouri (1994) The Hillier Group Construction Management Delivery System (Building and Interiors) 750,000 GSF Office Space (including 1-2,000 GSF auditorium/Meeting Hall 10,000 GSF Cafeteria 12,000 GSF Fitness Center), $105M) Project Management, Programming, Design Deloitte & Touche, Inc., New York, New York (1994) The Hillier Group Project Management Delivery System (Base Building Modification and Interiors) 350,000 GSF Office Space (including 15,000 GSF Conference Center 12,000 GSF Fitness Center), $5.2M Design, Interior Architecture, Construction Documentation Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., Plainsboro, New Jersey (1994) The Hillier Group Project Management Delivery System (Interiors) ·375,000 GSF, Office Space, $3.2M Project Management, Design, Construction Documents, Construction Administration American Home Products Headquarters (Wyeth), Madison, New Jersey (1993) The Hillier Group Construction Management Delivery System (Building and Interiors) 650,000 GSF Office Space (including 15,000 GSF Cafeteria 20,000 GSF Fitness Center) 300,000 GSF Parking Garage, $115M Design, Construction Documentation, Construction Administration 888 Dahlia Lane, Vero Beach, Florida 32963 - PH: 772.231.8988 Gregory John Burke, AIA, CSI, NCARB Gregory John Burke I ARCHITECT, Pa Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Chevy Chase, Maryland (1993) The Hillier Group Construction Management Delivery System (Interiors). 250,000 GSF Office Space (including 250 seat Auditorium / Conference Center 20,000 GSF Dining Facility), $42M Design, Construction Documentation, Construction Administration Bristol-Myers Squibb, Princeton, New Jersey (1992) The Hillier Group Design / Bid/ Build (Base Building Modification and Interiors) 32,000 GSF Office Space, $4M Project Management, Design, Construction Documents, Construction Administration The Office of Thrift Supervision, Department of the Treasury, Jersey City, New Jersey (1991. The Hillier Group Construction Management Delivery System (Interiors) 52,000 GSF, Office Space, $3.4M Project Management, Design, Construction Documents, Construction Administration Hoffman - LaRoche Pharmaceutical, Nutley, New Jersey (1990) The Hillier Group Construction Management Delivery System (Interiors) 35,000 GSF, Office Space $4.8M Project Management, Design, Construction Documents, Construction Administration Roher Pharmaceutical Co. Headquarters, Collegeville, Pennsylvania (1989) CUH2A Construction Management Delivery System (Interiors) 850,000 GSF, $62M Design, Construction Documents Enron Corp., Houston, Texas (1988) Gensler & Associates/Architects Construction Management Delivery System (Base Building Modification and Interiors) 1,250,000 GSF, $138M Project Management, Design, Construction Documents, Construction Administration 888 Dahlia Lane, Vero Beach, Florida 32963 - PH: 772.231.8988 Gregory John Burke, AIA, CSI, NCARB Gregory John Burke I ARCHITECT, Pa lngebrigtsen Residence, Melbourne Beach, Florida (Project - 2000) Gregory John Burke I ARCHITECT, pa Design I Bid / Build Delivery System 5,200 GSF, 4 Bedroom, 4 ½ Bath, 3-Car Garage Valvo Residence/ Orchid Isle Estates, Vero Beach, Florida (Project - 2000) Gregory John Burke I ARCHITECT, pa Design / Bid / Build Delivery System 5,400 GSF, 4 Bedroom, 4 ½ Bath, 5-Car Garage Design, Design Development, Contract Documents THE VILLAGE, Vero Beach, Florida (2000) Gregory John Burke I ARCHITECT, pa Design I Build Delivery System Eight unit cluster housing project. Three plans from 31 DO sf to 4200 sf., approximate Cost of $450,000 each. Design, Design Development, Construction Documents Speculative Residence/ Chilberg Construction, Seagrove Lot 2, Vero Beach, Florida (1999) Gregory John Burke I ARCHITECT, pa Design / Build Delivery System 3,800 GSF, 3 Bedroom, 3 ½ Bath, 2-Car Garage Design, Design Development, Construction Documents Lyons Residence/ Orchid Isle Estates, Vero Beach, Florida (1999) Gregory John Burke I ARCHITECT, pa Design / Build Delivery System 7,000 GSF, 4 Bedroom, 3 ½ Bath, 3-Car Garage, Guesthouse and Poll Cabana Design, Design Development, Construction Documents, Construction Administration Potter Residence/ Riomar II, Vero Beach, Florida (1998) Gregory John Burke I ARCHITECT, pa . Design / Bid / Build Delivery System 3,800 GSF, 3 Bedroom, 3 ½ Bath, 3-Car Garage and Guesthouse Design, Design Development, Construction Documents, Construction Administration Caspersen Residence/ Far Hills, New Jersey (1996-97) The Hillier Group Construction Management Delivery System 30,000 GSF, 7 Bedroom, 8 ½ Bath, 3-Car Garage, Home Theater, Wine Cellar Design, Design Development, Construction Documents 888 Dahlia Lane, Vero Beach, Florida 32963 - PH: 772.231.8988 Gregory John Burke, AIA, CSI, NCARB Gregory John Burke I ARCHITECT, Pa Project LAKE-in-the-WOODS Condominiums, Vero Beach, Florida (2005) Experience / Gregory John Burke I ARCHITECT, pa Residential Construction Management Delivery System Nine Buildings from 2,500 GSF - 5,400 GSF Design, Design Development, Contract Documents, Construction Administration Langley Residence, Vero Beach, Florida (2005) Gregory John Burke I ARCHITECT, pa Design/Bid/Build Delivery System 4,200 GSF, 4 Bedroom, 4 Bath, 3-Car Garage Design, Design Development, Contract Documents Foxwood Townhouses, Vero Beach, Florida (2004) Gregory John Burke I ARCHITECT, pa Construction Management Delivery System 55 Unit Townhouse complex Design, Design Development, Contract Documents Reynolds Residence, The Indian River Club, Vero Beach, Florida (Project -2003) Gregory John Burke I ARCHITECT, pa Design / Negotiated Contract Delivery System 10,000 sf residence, 4 bedrooms, 4 ½ baths, 3-car garage courtyard home with pool and spa and outdoor kitchen/entertainment space Design Hardy Residence Addition, Orchid Island, Florida (2003) Gregory John Burke I ARCHITECT, pa Design/Bid/Build Delivery System Addition and renovation of Master Bedroom Design, Construction Documents Lightle Residence, Vero Beach, Florida (2003) Gregory John Burke I ARCHITECT, pa Owner I Builder Delivery System Two individual 3,000 GSF Homes Design Flick Residence, , The Moorings, Vero Beach, Florida (2002) Gregory John Burke I ARCHITECT, pa Design I Bid / Build Delivery System 4,500 GSF, 4 Bedroom, 4 Bath, 3-Car Garage Design, Design Development, Contract Documents Sowinski Residence, North Hutchison Island Florida (Project - 2001) Gregory John Burke I ARCHITECT, pa Design / Bid / Build Delivery System 5,200 GSF, 4 Bedroom, 4 ½ Bath, 2-Car Garage, 2 Kitchens Design, Design Development, Contract Documents 888 Dahlia Lane, Vero Beach, Florida 32963 - PH: 772.231.8988 02/15/2007 09:25 772-589-9784 ATLANTIC COAST CONST PAGE 01/03 6450 Tropical W"I I Vero Beach, Florida 32967 objective • To streugrhe-n our or.~.;mization in a cap:1eity that utili:zt~ my bnr~und ~\J.\cl. prof(:'S$(Oual training >ffurd;r,g tne ttie potctdial to grow, impact ""d ov,,i,:omo "°"' challenges. • Through. my ,-::i lid p.irtidpation /committee. worksi to pfay a major roll in developing the county build-out. educati.on Stranahan High &hool Gradua\1' - 1963 experience 1963- 1968 Cabinet Shop, Employee l.968-1972 C•binct MillworkShop, Owne,: 1972 Added Rcstromn Partition Mimufucturlng Business to '"'1Sting Cabinet Shop 1974 AbA Handkap Code Construction In addition to die abooe; branched out into building fttnchise, in the eastern Unit,d Stat1es including, Wi"'-1:d's ke Cream Ston,s, Supercut, Hair Salons, Pcn.ochc' lfa!r Salons, Clock Restaurants, etc. 1978-1988 British Government contract, building roads, Embassy's and the remodeling of historic landmark buildings in the Caribbean and Central Ame,:ica. Sign.iftcant a,;,;,,mplol=ts for this t,roject: "N~ml:'d theQne-en's B-ltild.er · • Administration ()ffiret from Caribhe-l\n to United St~tei;: .tncl l~ntrnl AmerirJ 1989 Returned to building construction in the Uniwd States., including extrosiv,, constrnction in St. Lucie West. Original builder/developer in Heatbcrwood. Granted contract to build out fou.r Semi.u.ok Trlbal 1.1.eoervations in Flo,;ida; took over state funded project another conttactorwas unabk to completewhfr;h led to additional City, County and Si,,re projects. 1996-1999 Famify Busines~ Mtll.work, Tr.,veled around the state doing affurdable housing, Owner (~4) .\999 • Completed Sta!<' fonded project io St. Cfoud, left unfit1ished by pre,fou, hllildcr, whik doin,~ wotkfurce housing. • Took mH ,1 l.irge- ~tan.'- ptcik(.'t in Ft. Pierce) completed 35 t.\t.''W. hon.le:::, tlw (ir;:..t proJeL"t of thi~ !'yJle to be completed within one \'¢at- Durlng that time, I was abk to vcr,tu.,, i,\to bu.ilding custom million -personal references &,ny Billington Attorney· 35 yrs. 954 943-7200 l business references Indian River Collnty Administrator Joe Bairo 772 226 1408 Indian Rivu County Commissioner Wesley Davls 772473 8688 Indian River County Commissioner iom T..owthet 772 +73 8414 fodlau Ri\'tr County P & Z Chairman Donna Keys 772 5719369 Jndian Rt=: County P & Z Connn. Geocge Christopher 7722318880 State &pr,sentative Stan Mayfield 772 ;1.341.611 David Cox Consulting Dr. D•vid Co~ 7723Z13421 First Natioruil Bank, Sr. Vice Pre.,. Jay Hart 77Z5648808 Rm National Bank, Pte,ident Bill Curtis 77Z5628803 Schulke Bittle & Stoddard Joe Schulke 772 7709622 Demetree Builde,:s, .President Ron Schw.uta 407 4228191 MHWilliams, President Mike Williams 3217575750 Pointe West, Pn,sident Chuck Mechling 772 794 9912 Kelle, Williams, l areas of concentration & signtfi.cant expertise • R<1ad-s, ~t;\rt to finis:h • Gen~l C.ontrnctin~ • fofi:M{'t;\lt.'tuft" • RcX>flng • High rii-t.~~ • Dl'.'\\·lopnwnt • M,,tttple DwelUt1gs • Comuu,mity/ • CA1U'l.\l,\e-t'tial a~1i1diu.g Ntighb,)rho(w,1 De-sigt1 ,._ Re.~idential Honw~ • Rt'-1.t,ming " Mil.lw(.)rk • Pti:n\itting current & most recent projects VithMari:a Paladin Shores S•n Scl:,astw,. Woods Paladin Hammock Vero l..ak Estates WeberWoqds Emcmld Estawi Windover of Malaba, Shannon's Walk Magnolia Plantation Inlet at San SebastiM Parklane Estates Paladin Place I Paladin 1'la,;c 11 Paladin Estates Hidden Lake 'Txopical Is!., Trilllum West current committee affiliations Sebastian Chamber of Commrn:e Membc,: 2003 Growth Awareness Committee Chaittnan 2004 Housing A"Wareness Committee Chairman 2005 Rc>ad Awareness Committee Chairman 2005 Indian River Neighbomood Assoc. Member 2005 Consorwtion &. Rum[ Lands Comm, Membet 1005 Pelican Island Pmervation Society Member 2005 New Towns Committee Member 200<, G,tfutd Youth Activity Center Boacl o(Dir 2006 Substance Abu:;c Council IRC Boanl ofDfr. 2006 Charlie Ctist Election Boru:d Membtr 2006 Richard Bialosky, AIA Architecture and Development Februrary 2007 Richard Bialosky, AIA is a leader in green community development. Mr. Bialosky been practicing architecture and actively engaged in real estate development for over 30 years. He is a graduate of the School of Architecture at UC, Berkeley (1969). Over the past two decades he has received over 60 national, state, and local design awards. Mr. Bialosky pioneered the use non-toxic building materials in the construction of his personal residence in 1987, one of the early models of sustainable 'healthy home" design. Over the course of his career Mr. Bialosky has developed over 1500 residential units, as well as many commercial and office projects. In 2000, concerned with the direction the construction industry was continuing to take, and frustrated with the notion of fostering change in small incremental steps, Mr. Bialosky left the successful practice he had established in California to devote his energy solely to sustainable development. He is currently involved in the development of Mandala Club in Vero Beach, Florida, one of the most unique projects in the United States-combining the age-old principles of Vedic architecture; non-toxic, health promoting construction protocols; environmental sensitivity; and an emphasis on planning techniques that promote a sense of community. Mr. Bialosky began his architectural practice in 1975 and has been acti\;ely engaged in real estate development since 1977. Mr. Bialosky resides in Vero Beach, Florida. He is licensed to practice architecture in Florida, North Carolina, and California, and holds NCARB certification. 940 Oyster Shell Lane Vero Beach, Florida 32963 TEL: 772. 231-0691 FAX: 772 365-8050 [email protected] 2 Projects Designed and Developed by Richard Bialosky, AIA Current Projects Mandala Club, Florida, Vero Beach Florida I 50 Homes + Commercial in Three Phases Personal Residence, Vero Beach Sunnyside Up 350 Home TND, Vero Beach, FL Two Luxury Residences, Vero Beach, FL 2300 3'' Court 22,500 SF Office Renovation, Vero Beach, FL * Chamber of Commerce Renovation of the Year 2004 Residential Casa De Las Fuentes, Santa Barbara, 42 Unit Residential and Mixed Use Mixed- Use Residential and Commercial ,::- Gold Nugget Award, Grand Award, Best Affordable Project- 2003 ,:l-Gold Nugget Award, Grand Award, Best Redevelopment, Rehab or Infill Site Plan - 2003 *Gold Nugget Award, Grand Award, Best Apartment Project - 2003 * AIA Design Awards, Architectural Excellence, Residential Multi-Family New Construction-2003 *California Redevelopment Association, Award of Excellence- 2003 *American Planning Association, California Chapter Planning Project Award - 2003 ,c1'League of California Cities, Helen Putnam Grand Prize Award - 2003 1} U.S. Conference of Mayors, City Livability Award -2004 Sierra View Apartments, Palmdale, CA 144 Unit Senior Apartments, 2001 Gateway Plaza Apartments, Oxnard, CA 107 Unit Studio Apartment Project, 2001 Palm Terrace Apartments, Oxnard, CA 22 Unit Apartment Project with Child Care Center, 2001 Aurora Village, Lancaster, CA 132 Unit Senior Apartment Project, 2001 WestCreek Villas Apartments, Lompoc, CA 88 Unit Apartment Project, 2000 3 De La Vina Courtyard, Santa Barbara, CA 98 Unit Affordable to Low Income Senior Apartment Project, 2000 ,.:- AJA Chapter Award of Honor 2000 ,-,} NABB National Council of Senior Housing. Gold Achievement Award * Gold Nugget Grand Award 2000, Best Affordable Project * Gold Nugget Grand Award 2000, Senior Project Award of Merit 1} California Redevelopment Association Award of Excellence * National Assoc. of Local Housing Finance Agencies Achievement Award * Best in American Living Award -Best Rental Development 1t- Best of Seniors Housing Design, Gold Award t!rSanta Barbara Contractors Assoc., Best New Construction over $750,000 4-Key Award, Housing Authority of Santa Barbara ,!.-Santa Barbara Beautiful Award for Best Multi-Family Residential Project- 2001 tlNAHRO National Award of Merit, 2001 :4-American Planning Association, Outstanding Planning Project Award -2000 ~-Contemporary Long Term Care, Order of Excellence Award, Low Income Housing - 2000 * Peoples Choice Awards, Freddie Mac, Best Affordable Housing Community-2000 Vineyard Gardens Apartments, Oxnard, CA 96 Unit Apartment Project, 2000 Los Olivos Townbomes, Santa Barbara, CA 9 Unit Condominium Project, 1999 518 East Canon Perdido, Santa Barbara, CA 8 Unit Apartments Units, 1998 Rancheria Village Apartments, Santa Barbara, CA 16 Unit Apartments, 1996 Village Gardens Condominiums, Carpinteria, CA 40 Condominiums plus Mixed-Use Commercial, 1996 4 Sierra La Verne, La Verne, CA 20 lot luxury home subdivision, 1995 Shoreline Villas, 222 Meigs Road, Santa Barbara, CA 22 Luxury Condominiums, 1994 Cottage Gardens Senior Apartments, 227 W. De La Guerra, Santa Barbara, CA 17 Unit Affordable to Low Income Senior Apartment Project, 1993 * AIA Chapter Award of Citation Montecito Del Mar, 1515 Danielson Road, Montecito, CA 15 Unit Luxury Condominium Project, 1989 Bialosky Personal Residence 1038 Ladera Lane, Montecito, CA 3,200 SF Single Family Home, Montecito, CA Villa La Cumbre Senior Apartments, 521 N. La Cumbre, Santa Barbara, CA 60 Unit Senior Apartment Project, 1987 ,1- AIA Chapter Award of Merit * Santa Barbara Beautiful Award 5 Villa Rosa Apartments, Santa Paula, CA 16 Unit Apartments, 1987 Laurel Springs Apartments, Lompoc, CA 94 Unit Apartment Project, 1986 Pueblo Del Amanacer, 711 W. Ortega St. Santa Barbara, CA 15 Unit Condominium Project, 1985 ,:} AJA Chapter Award of Honor Vista Del Estero, 4297 Carpinteria Ave. Carpinteria CA Mixed Use Project, 20 Unit Condominium and Office Building, 1990 Prospect Townhomes, Santa Barbara, CA 4 Unit Luxury Condominiums, 1984 rJ Santa Barbara Beautiful Award 922 Chelham Way Residence, Montecito, CA 2,000 SF Single Family Home, 1984 1026 De La Guerra, Santa Barbara, CA 6 Unit Condominium Project, 1983 1056 Camino Viejo, Montecito, CA 3,000 SF Single Family Home, 1979 ):} Santa Barbara Beautiful Award 1033 San Miguel St, Santa Barbara, CA 1,800 SF Single Family Home, 1978 Personal Residence, 257 Cloydon Circle, Montecito, CA 1974 Commercial, Office, Industrial 4690 Carpinteria Avenue, Carpinteria, CA 6,000 SF Office Building, 1996 Daydream Publishing Headquarters, Carpinteria, CA 9,000 SF Publishing Company Office Building, 1990 Dako Corporation Headquarters, Carpinteria, CA 25,000 SF Medical Research Facilities, 1989 6 Rincon Business Plaza, Carpinteria, CA 40,000 SF Research and Development Center, 1989 Goodyear Place, Ventura, CA 20,000 SF Industrial Condominiums, 1985 Projects Designed by Richard Bialosky, AIA Multi-Family Residential Olive Greene Condos, Santa Barbara, CA 2 Units, 1984 Oak Street Apartments, Santa Paula, CA 8 Apartment Units, 1985 Marble Condos, Santa Barbara, CA 2 Units, 1988 Mount Kilarnajaro Hospital Dormitory, Tanzania 1988 Anapamu Heights, Santa Barbara, CA 4 Luxury Condominium Units, 1988 * Santa Barbara Beautiful Award Garden Estates, Ventura, CA 60 Apartment Units, 1989 Villa Escondido, Montecito, CA 8 Luxury Condominiums, 1991 tr Santa Barbara Beautiful Award Single-Family Residential Alta Vista Residence, Santa Rosa, CA 1977 McGibbon Residence, Santa Barbara, CA 1977 Gibson Residence, Montecito, CA 1977 Happy Hollow Residence, Santa Rosa, CA 1978 Borgatello Residence, Montecito, CA 1980 Kaufman Residence, Oxnard, CA 1980 Sales Residence, Oxnard, CA 1981 11 California House" Dar es Salaam, Tanzania 1982 Rice "Fly-In" Residence and Hangar, Lockwood Valley, CA 1983 * National Systems Building Assoc. Building of the Year Award ,:} Annco Building Systems, Building of the Year Award Hermosillo Ave. Residence, Montecito, CA 1983 Lloyd Residence, Big Sur, CA 1984 Silva Residence, Kauai, HA 1985 Swiss Foreign-Aid Ambassadors Residence, Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania 1985 Tabor Lane Residence, Montecito, CA 1985 Richman Residence, Montecito, CA 1986 Foerschler Residence, Montecito, CA 1987 Alto Drive Residence, Goleta, CA 1987 Cleveland Ave. Residence, Santa Barbara, CA 1987 Madsen Residence, Santa Barbara, CA 1987 Bialosky Residence, Montecito, CA 1988 Foerschler Beach House, Isla Vista, CA 1989 Brown Residence, Montecito, CA 1990 Trent Residence, San Marcos Pass, CA 1991 7 Commercial, Office, Industrial Knechts Plumbing, San Louis Obispo, CA 12,000 SF Industrial Building, 1979 Alliance Square, Paso Robles, CA 30,000 SF Office/Retail Condo, 1980 ,}AIA Chapter Award of Merit .d--Simpson Redwood Imagination Award :1-California Systems Building Assoc. Building of the Year Award ftNational Systems Building Assoc. Building of the Year Award Advance Adapters, Paso Robles, CA Office and Plant Facilities, 1981 t.}California Systems Building Assoc. Building of the Year Award * National Systems Building Assoc. Building of the Year Award * Armco Building Systems, Building of the Year Award Airport Industrial Plaza, Paso Robles, CA (2) 20,000 SF Industrial Lease Buildings, 1981 ~.}- California Systems Building Assoc. Building of the Year Award Channel Disposal Company, Santa Barbara, CA Corporate Office and Terminal, 1982 ,} California Systems Building Assoc. Building of the Year Award .4-Armco Building Systems, Building of the Year Award Familian Pipe and Supply, Santa Maria, CA Showroom and Sales Office, 1983 ri- California Systems Building Assoc. Building of the Year Award * National Systems Building Assoc. Building of the Year Award ,-.} Armco Building Systems, Building of the Year Award Paris Precision Engineering, Paso Robles, CA Corporate Office & Plant, 1983 * California Systems Building Assoc. Building of the Year Award )"} Armco Building Systems, Building of the Year Award Andresen Building, San Bernardino, CA Major Renovation of 80,000 SF Six Story Office Building, 1984 Engs Motor Truck, Fontana, CA Showroom, Offices and Service Facility, 1984 Goodyear One, Ventura, CA 12,000 SF Industrial Condo, 1984 Mercury Van and Storage, Ventura, CA 1984 tr California Systems Building Assoc. Building of the Year Award * Annco Building Systems, Building of the Year Award 8 Acme Vial and Glass, Paso Robles, CA Corporate Office and Plant, 1984 ,:r California Systems Building Assoc. Building of the Year Award * Armco Building Systems, Building of the Year Award Orosel Industrial Lease Building, Hollister, CA 20,000 SF 1985 Patrol Line, Paso Robles CA Fixed Base Operation, Paso Robles Airport, 1986 1} California Systems Building Assoc. Building of the Year Award Impo International, Santa Maria, CA Corporate Headquarters and Showroom, 1987 ,:r California Systems Building Assoc. Building of the Year Award Patterson Center, Goleta, CA 24,000 SF Shopping Center, 1987 Star Rug/Kleene- Rite, Santa Barbara, CA Corporate Office and Plant, 1988 Cota Street Mixed Use Project, Santa Barbara, CA Office/Industrial and Residential Mixed Use, 1988 Pactuco, Goleta, CA Corporate Office and Plant, 1988 ,t California Systems Building Assoc. Building of the Year Award ,:i- National Systems Building Assoc. Building of the Year Award * Armco Building Systems, Building of the Year Award Aluminum Filter Corporation, Carpinteria, CA 8,000 SF Industrial, 1989 Shoreline Plaza, Santa Barbara, CA 16,000 SF Shopping Center 1990 Lazy Acres Market Major Renovation, 1991 Plaza De La Fuente, Carpinteria, CA 12,000 SF Office Building, 1992 Sleep Inn, Carpinteria, CA 100- unit Motel, 1996 John F. (Jerry) Swanson Principal For 30 years, John F. (Jerry) Swanson has been involved in various aspects of the development business. A graduate of the University of Notre Dame, he has successfully developed resort properties in Minnesota, and has been active in Florida in comprehensive real estate development, management and marketing. In 1986, when the tax law changed, Jerry began representing financial institutions with troubled REO and OREO properties throughout the United States. As a. certified, court-appointed Receiver in Florida, California and Nevada, he represented Bank of America, Valley Bank, Anchor Bank, Barnett, First Union, as well as the RTC and the FDIC. Jerry formed P & S Properties in Vero Beach in 1994 with Donald C. Proctor. The development includes some 350,000 sq. ft. buildings for retail, office and medical clients in Vero Beach and Indian River County, Florida. As a licensed Realtor in Florida and Minnesota, Jerry has represented Fortune 500 companies in relocation, i.e. Winchester Ammunition, a division of Olin Corporation, and Boeing Corporation. He was instrumental in the acquisition of the Tomahawk Missile Facility in Titusville, Florida, a 620,000 sq. ft. facility with 454 acres. Recently, Jerry concluded a joint venture with the Los Angeles Dodgers, and was a Managing Partner of the 54 acre project at Dodgertown in Vero Beach. P & S Properties of Indian River - Principal Oak Point Development - Past Principal Dodgertown Ventures - Principal Certified court appointed Receiver in Florida, California and Nevada Represented Bank of America, Valley Bank, Anchor Bank, Barnett, First Union, RTC and FDIC as Receiver. Keith A. Pelan Horne: 772.231.2739 516 Fiddlewood Road Office: .772.562.7981 Vero Beach, Florida 32963 Cell: 772.633.0400 EDUCATION University of Nebraska- Lincoln Bachelor ofScience-Architecture-1983 PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYMENT HISTORY 1983 - 1985 -Myrick, Newman, Dahlberg and Partners, Inc. - Dallas, Texas Began as summer intern upon college graduation as land planning and landscape architectural assistant. Hired full time at end of internship and managed private sector land development projects, including site analysis, site planning, local code review, rezoning support, landscape architectural design, and public meeting representation. 1985 - Present- Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Current Position - Vice President and Shareholder Responsibilities include oversight of a project team responsible for primarily public and private sector land planning and landscape architectural projects throughout Florida. Projects require expertise in all aspects of land development from code review, site planning, and public meeting presentations to detailed landscape design, pennitting, and construction observation. Began employment with KHA in Austin, Texas in 1985 and transferred to Vero Beach, Florida office in 1987 PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS American Institute of Certified Planners - 1991 American Society of Landscape Architects Registered Landscape Architect, State of Florida- 2000 American Institute of Certified Planners Urban Land Institute COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT Indian River County Code Enforcement Board- 1993-1998 (Chairman 1995, 1998) Professional Services Advisory Connnittee- 1995-1997 Economic Development Board- 1990-1993 SR 60 Task Force CR 510 Task Force City of Vero Beach Vision Team - 2003 - 2004 Vision Implementation Team - 2005 Environmental Learning Center Board of Trustees- 1997 -2003 (Chairman, 1999 - 2003) Cultural Council ofIndian River County Member, Board of Directors - 1999 - 2001 Riverside Theatre Previews Connnittee Chairman- 1995 - 1999 Building Connnittee - 2002 to present (currently serve as Chairman) Board of Trustees - 2005 to present Community Church Board of Deacons - 1992 to 1998 (Chairman 1994 - 1998) Building Connnittee- 1999 - 2001 Capital Campaign Chairman- 1998 - 2000 HONORS Received the Laurel Award for Volunteerism from the Indian River County Cultural Council-2001 Received the Alma Lee Loy Community Service Award from the Indian River County Chamber of Commerce - 2005 G.K, Environmental, Inc. GEORGE R. KULCZYCKI Title Principal/ President, G. K. Environmental, Inc. Expertise Experienced executive-level manager with a background in real estate development, management and related environmental issues, with experience in site selection through final approvals involving cooperation, coordination and interpretation of governmental rules and regulations, and environmental pennitting. Experience G.K. Environmental, Inc., Vero Beach, FL {1997 -present) President of this Environmental and Real Estate Development Consulting Firm Atlantic Gulf Communities, AGC: Pahn Bay, Sebastian, Vero Beach, Port. St. Lucie, FL (1981-1997) 1989-1997 Division Vice President of Community Operations and Governmental Affairs 1984-1989 Director of Community Operations 1982-1984 Assistant Director of Community Operations 1981-1982 Environmental Staff Specialist Developed skills as a major real estate developer and property manager utilizing education and training as an environmental researcher. Responsible for administration and operation of six Florida East Coast communities consisting of approximately 110,000 acres of development. Duties included conflict resolution and public relations, liaison with local government, governmental affairs, liaison activities with civic associations, community development and operations, environmental mitigation, land development approvals, planning and zoning, development of regional impacts, environmental permitting, contract administration, personnel management, corporate spokesperson, and budgeting. Specific accomplishments included: Personally recruited and initiated, to local governments and private buyers, the sale of 1600 acres of various parcels, worth $12,000,000 in land sales. (1991- 1997) Directly assisted AGC National Land Sales Division in exceeding $100,000,000 in land sales oflarge parcels. (1993-1997) Negotiated agreement with local water control district that will result in the potential of$2,000,000 - $3,000,000 in fill sales for AGC. (1993) Created and iroplemented a statewide property and stormwater tax review for AGC land holdings that resulted in a net annual property tax savings. (1992) Expanded the tax savings program to increase savings iropact. (1993-1997) Negotiated agreements with local governments to take over maintenance responsibility of several hundred miles of road and drainage facilities. (1990- 1993) Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Pt. St. Lucie. FL (1978-1981) Environmental Specialist II Responsible for dredge and fill/stormwater pennitting for four county Treasure Coast area. Smithsonian Institute/Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution. St. Lucie County. FL (1973-1978) Fisheries Biologist II Conducted marine. oceanic and freshwater research in the Indian River Lagoon and adjacent waters. which resulted in seven technical publications in professional journals and reports. Professional Awards Best Performance by a Director of Community Operations in Exploring and Establishing New areas oflncome (1989) Best Performance by a Director of Commwrity Operations (1988) Best Performance by a Director of Community Operations in Exploring and Establishing New Areas oflncome (1987) Best Performance by a Director of Community Operations in Operating and Turnover of Property Owners Association (1986) Best Performance by a Director of Community Operations for Negotiating Efforts with Local Governments (1985) Publications/ Presentations The Relationship Between Fish Abundance and Drift Algae Biomass in the Indian River, Florida. George R. Kulczycki, Walter Nelson, Bob Virnstein. (Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 1981, 12. 341-347) Differential Sea Grass Bed Preference by Commercial and Sport Fishes. R. Grant Gihnore, George R. Kulczycki, Phil Hastings, Mike Clark. (Florida Scientist, 1981) Portable Tripod Drop-Net for Estuarine Fish Studies. R. G. Gihnore, J.K. Holt, R.S. Jones, G.R. Kulczycki, L.G. MacDowell, III and W.C. Magley. (Fishery Bulletin: Vol. 76, Nov. 1, 1978) Studies on Decapod Crustacea from the Indian River Region of Florida VIII. A Second Occurrence of the Brazilian Freshwater Shrimp. Potimirirn potimirim (Muller, 1881) in a freshwater canal on the Central Eastern Florida Coast. R.H. Gore, G.R. Kulczycki, and P.A. Hastings. (Florida Scientist, 1978) Crystalline Rotenone as a Selective Fish Toxin. R. Grant Gihnore, George R. Kulczycki, Phil Hastings, Brian Jennison. (Florida Scientist, 1982) Studies of the Fishes of the Indian River Region. Robert S. Jones, R. Grant Gilmore, George R. Kulczycki. Wayne C. Magley. (Chapter 5, pp, 110-183. Indian River Study Annual Report 73-74) Studies of the Fishes of the Indian River Region. Robert S. Jones, R. Grant Gihnore, George R. Kulczycki, Phil A. Hastings. Wayne C. Magley. (Chapter 5, pp, 57-89, Indian River Coastal Zone Study 74-75) Studies of the Fishes of the Indian River Lagoon and Vicirrity. R. Grant Gihnore, George R. Kulczycki. Phil A. Hastings, Wayne C. Magley. (Chapter 11, pp, 133- 146, Indian River Coastal Zone Study 75-76) Subtropical Drift Algae Communities. George R. Kulczycki (International Association of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists. Technical Report/Paper Presentation, 1978, Gainesville, Florida.) The Relationship Between Vertebrate and Invertebrate Macrofauna Abundance and Drift Algae Biomass in the Indian River Lagoon, Florida. George R. Kulczycki. (Technical Report/Poster Session, 1978, Estuarine Research Federation, Pennsylvania) Invertebrate Macrofauna Associated with Drift Algae Communities in the Indian River Lagoon, Florida. George R. Kulczycki. (Technical Report and Paper Presentation, 1983, "Future of the Indian River Systems" Conference, Melbourne, Florida) Academic Background Graduate Studies, Florida Institute of Technology Bachelor of Arts, College of Natural Sciences, University of South Florida REFERENCES G.K. ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. Gary Garrison, Field Office Director St. John's River Water Management District 2133 N. Wickham Rd. Melbourne, FL 32935-8109 Ph. 407-752-3100 Robert Nannie, Deputy City Manager City of Palm Bay 120 Malabar Raod, S.E. Palm Bay, FL 32907-3009 Ph. 407-952-3400 Grace Treadway, President ENVIRONMETRlCS,lNC 683 SW 27th Ave. Vero Beach, FL 32968 Richard Jacobs Utility Director City of Palm Bay 1105 Troutman Blvd., N.E. Palm Bay, FL 32905 Ph. 407-952-3410 l~LNEEL-SCHAFFER ·. ·· · · · Rranf< Watanabe, PJ:.i ~ · . . , . Project Manager EDUCATION PROFESSIONAL OVERVIEW M.S., Transportation Engineering, Mr. Watanabe has over 22 years of professional experience in the planning, design California Polytechnic State and construction of streets and highway facilities. He has been project manager and University, San Luis Obispo, CA. engineer for numerous roadway projects which include: project development, utility Year1986 research, right-of-way coordination, surveying, preliminary engineering, drainage improvements, street widening, lighting and traffic signal, landscaping, striping and B.S., Civil Engineering, the preparation of final plans, special provisions and engineer's cost estimates. California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA - Managed and supervised for all aspects of a public agency Transportation Services Year1985 which include Transportation Planning, Traffic Engineering, Airport Operations and Traffic/Electrical Maintenance. A.A., Diablo Valley College, • Responsible for the management of a Transportation Division including the Pleasant Hill, CA, 1982 review of proposed developments, evaluation of traffic impacts and resolution of mitigation measures; conducted, reviewed and analyzed traffic studies for Completed courses in Master of proposed developments. Business - Cal State Hayward • Supervised the work of staff in performing traffic engineering work including traffic signals, lighting, traffic control devices, streets, parking facilities and other Completed courses in ITS vehicular and pedestrian traffic systems. · communication systems - UCLA • Facilitated the city's traffic calming program and public relations regarding neighborhood traffic, safety and enforcement. REGISTRATIONS • Served in the planning, design and construction of major transportation Registered Professional Engineer in improvement projects associated with outside agencies. California, License Civil #56255 and • Represented the agency at various meetings and conferences; served as the Traffic #1822 liaison for various traffic and transportation engineering projects; prepared funding applications for State and Federal funding programs. Florida Registration - Applied For Mr. Watanabe has extensive experience in the planning, design and implementation PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS of specialized Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) projects for various local and • American Public Works State agencies. He has managed and designed numerous ITS projects which Association included the engineering and construction support of devices such as; closed circuit • Institute of Transportation TV (CCTV), changeable message signs (CMS), highway advisory radio (HAR), video Engineers detection, trail blazer signs, wireless communication and fiber optic communication. In addition, Mr. Watanabe's traffic engineering experience includes the design, modifications and signal timing of nearly a 100 traffic signals for cities in Northern and Southern California. SUMMARY OF CAPABILITIES • Traffic Operations • Transportation Planning • Traffic Signal Systems • Circulation Elements • Signal Timings • Parking Analysis • Traffic Control Plans • Traffic Impact Studies • Neighborhood Traffic Calming • Transit Studies • Pedestrian/Bicycle Studies • Senior Transportation • Signal Warrant Analysis • Roadway and Street Design • Traffic Signal Design • Construction Management • Feasibility Studies • Public Relations/Outreach REPRESENTATIVE PROJECT EXPERIENCE Frank Watanabe, P.E. Page 2 ROADWAY ENGINEERING Tripson Estates Planned Development, Surveying, Due Diligence Services, and Engineering Design, Lennar Communities: Transportation Engineer for this project that involves the preparation of due diligence documents for the feasibility of developing approximately 290 single-family residential units on two parcels totaling over 135-acres. Services to determine the traffic feasibility, conceptual site plan, utilities assessment, on-site and off-site street engineering and design, and site development cost estimate and schedule. Ironwood Townhomes Planned Development, Surveying, Due Diligence Services, and Engineering Design, Shelby Communities: Transportation Engineer for this project that involves the preparation of due diligence documents for the feasibility of developing approximately 263 residential townhome units on two parcels totaling over 135-acres. Services to determine the feasibility included a boundary and topographic survey, conceptual site plan, environmental site assessments, utilities assessment, and site development cost estimate and schedule. Pointe West Town Center Traffic Impact Study: Transportation/Traffic Engineer for this project that involves the preparation of a traffic. impact study for the feasibility of approprimately 67,500 sq ft of commercial development with an approve mix-use residential development within Indian River County. Services to determine the traffic feasibility and impacts included a corridor analysis, trip generation, trip assignment, intersection and street segment level of service, and preparation of a draft and final report with recommendations of traffic mitigations. Town of Howey-in-the-hills -Traffic Study Review: Transportation/Traffic Engineer for this project that involves the review of traffic impact studies for the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills. As part of this assignment, reviewed four major residential developments with appropriately 17,000 Average Daily Trips within Lake County. Services to review and determine the traffic feasibility and impacts included a corridor analysis, trip generation, trip assignment, intersection and street segment level of service, and summary of traffic comments. Transportation Manager for the City of Oceanside, CA (2001-2006): Mr. Watanabe was responsible for the management and coordination in the overall City of Oceanside Transportation Division including the review of proposed. developments, evaluation of traffic impacts and resolution of mitigation measures; conducted, reviewed and analyzed traffic studies for proposed developments; made recommendations based on study outcomes; and supervised the work of city staff involved in performing traffic engineering work. U.S. 101 at Las Virgenes Road Ramp Widening Design: Project manger and engineer for a Caltrans freeway interchange design project with the local city as the lead agency in the design development process. The project designed an existing off-ramp to provide for three SB off-ramp travel lanes. The project included coordination with the local city and the Caltrans design and permit departments for the modification of the off-ramp. The design included; ground survey, utility research, pavement structure design and widening, drainage modifications, traffic signal modifications, signing & striping and traffic management plans. The design used the 2000 Caltrans Metric standard plans and specifications. Roundabout Design Project, City of Calabasas, CA: Project Manager and Engineer for a design of an existing four lane arterial street intersection into a roundabout geometric configuration. The project prepared complex enaineerina desian olans. soecification and cost estimates for the intersection to be Frank Watanabe, P.E. Page 3 .DAVID Cox CONSULTING ECOLOGICAL SERVICES DAVID L. Cox, PH.D. GOALS • Integrate advances in ecological knowledge into policy and management decisions that affect ecological sustainability. • Promote a thoughtful public today and educate future generations so that the best available science will be applied when making choices about sustainability. EDUCATION Postdoc University of Oxford, Animal Ecology Research Group (with Charles Elton) Ph.D. Washington University, Population Biology & Ecology ( with Peter Raven) B.A. Washington University, Biology/Chemistry Vanderbilt University EXPERTISE • sustainable land use planning, design with nature, site assessment • natural lands management plans, habitat evaluation & ecological restoration • strategic conservation planning & green infrastructure development • science-based, land stewardship programs • public communication • design, implementation & management of independent research • successful grant preparation & administration, including budgets • 30 years' experience in education, at all levels "K-postgraduate" RECENT CLIENTS • U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Office of Ecological Services, Environmental History of Indian River County, Florida • Harvard University, Arnold Arboretum, Boston, MA: Institute for Cultural 2044 14m Avern,16, Ste. 24 Vero Beach, FL 32960 772.564.054 [email protected] 2 Landscape Stndies, Web-based Resources for History of Ecosystem Concept • South Florida Water Management District, W. Palm Beach, FL: Pre-Drainage Everglades Landscapes and Hydrology: A System-wide Review. • Kamehameha Schools, Hawaii, Eco-Cultural History Facility Planning • Indian River Land Trust, Vero Beach, FL: Conservation Lands Planning & Grant Writing, Phase I Environmental Site Assessments • Environmental Learning Center, Indian River County, FL: Facilities Design & Development • Indian River Habitat for Humanity, Vero Beach, FL: Phase I Environmental Site Assessments & Due Diligence • Brad Smith & Associates, Melbourne, FL: Habitat Evaluation and Facilities Planning • Indian River County School District: K-5 Environmental Education Curriculum Development (Earth Stewards Program) and Teacher Training • CM & Associates, Ft. Myers Beach, FL: Ecosystems of Florida Traveling Museum Exhibits • Children's Home Society, Ft. Pierce, FL: Grant Writing & Program Planning • St. Edward's Upper School, Vero Beach, FL: Summer Science Teachers' Institute PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE 2000- Principal, David Cox Consulting 1998-1999 Assoc. Professor, Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, Florida 1997-1998 Naturalist, Environmental Learning Center, Vero Beach, Florida 1994-1996 Sr. Research Fellow, USF/Shriners Hospital, Tampa, Florida 1987-1994 Asst. Professor, Dept. of Biology, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon 1986-1987 Senior Scientist, College of Marine Studies, University of Delaware, Lewes, Delaware 1983-1986 Asst. Professor, Department of Biology, Vassar College 1981-1983 Instructor, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri 1979-1980 NATO Fellow, University of Oxford, Oxford, England SELECT EXPERIENCE • work on local/regional/state conservation, land use, education, environmental history, public access and recreation issues • author of over 40 peer-reviewed publications • developed trail systems, educational facilities, outdoor signage, museum exhibits, and interpretive materials at the Environmental Learning Center, Indian River County, FL • directed independent research programs, including staff supervision, 204414th Avenue, Ste. 24 Vero Beach, FL 32960 772.564.054 [email protected] 3 budgets, and graduate training • successful grant-getter, and reviewer for agencies and foundations (NSF, NIH, NEH, Mellon, NOS, APS, Gannett and others) TEACHING EXPERIENCE • Washington University: introductory biology, environmental studies • Vassar College: introductory biology, history of biology, seminar in environmental history, The human relation to nature, biochemistry, molecular biology, developmental biology • University of Oregon: history of biology, environmental history, ecology, animal field ecology, marine biology, coastal ecology, animal reproduction, cellular biochemistry, intro biology • Fl01ida Institute of Technology: mammalian physiology,. developmental biology • Environmental Learning Center: K-12 & adult environmental education, environmental history PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION Certified Senior Ecologist, Ecological Society of America PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Historical Society, American Planning Association, American Society for Environmental History, British Ecological Society, Ecological Society of America, Florida Academy of Sciences, Sigma Xi COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES Indian River County, Planning & Zoning Commission, District 2 Commissioner, 1998-2004; Chairman, Indian River County Planning & Zoning Commission, 2003-; Marine Advisory Committee, Indian River County, 2003-; Pelican Island Audubon Society, Director, 1996- ; Pelican Island Preservation Society, Board Member, 1996-1997, Treasurer, 1998- 2003; President, 2003-; Indian River Land Trust, Land Committee, 1999-; Friends of the St. Sebastian River, Board member, 1997-98; Indian River County Historical Society, 1997-; Indian River Lagoon Envirothon Board member, 1998- ; Environmental Learning Center, Education Committee, 1997- ; School & Regional Science Fairs, advisor & judge, 1997-; Friends of the North Indian River County Library, member & Vice-Pres., 1998-; Upper Basin Advisory Committee, St. Johns River American Heritage River Initiative, 1999-; Sebastian Inlet State Recreation Area Management Plan Advisory Group, 2000; Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge Working 2044 14tr. PNerwe. Ste. 24 Vero Beach, FL 32960 772.564.054 [email protected] 4 Group, 2000-; Pelican Island NWR Working Group, 2003-; Cultural Council of Indian River County, Member, 2003-; Marine Resources Council, Board Member, 2004- PUBLICATIONS Cox, D.L., and Alexander, W. 2006. Traces: The Legacy of Indian River County, Volume 2. European Contact and Colonization. Vero Beach, FL: School District of Indian River County. In preparation. Sexton, OJ., Bramble, J.E., Heisler, LL., Phillips, C.A., and Cox, D.L. 2005. Eggshell composition of squamate reptiles: relationship between eggshell · permeability and amino acid distribution. Journal of Chemical Ecology 31: 2391-2401. Cox, D.L. 2004. Pre-Drainage Everglades Landscapes and Hydrology: A Review. South Florida Water Management District: West Palm Beach, FL. Cox, D.L., and Alexander, W. 2003. Traces: The Legacy of Indian River County, Volume 1. Prehistory. Vero Beach, FL: School District of Indian River County. Cox, D.L., 2001. Science for Earth Stewards: K - 5 Science Curriculum. Vero Beach, FL: School District of Indian River County. Cox, D.L., 2001. An "Ecosystem" timeline: changing definitions in ecology, 1935-2000. A WebProject of the Institute for Cultural Landscape Studies, Harvard University. http://www.ic1s.harvard.edu/current.html Cox, D.L., 2000. Changing the Course of the Future: Earth Stewards Curriculum. Vero Beach, FL: School District ofindian River County. Cox, D.L., Walker, P. and Koob, T.J. 1999. Predation on eggs of the thorny skate. Transactions of American Fisheries Society 128:370-384. Smirnova, E. A., Cox, D. L. and Bajer, A. S. 1995. Antibody against phosphorylated proteins (MPM-2) recognizes mitotic microtubules in endosperm cells of higher plant Haemanthus. Cell Motility and the Cytoskeleton 31 :34-44. Cox, D.L. 1994. What young biologists need to know. A review of The Right Tools for the Job. At Work in Twentieth-Century Life Sciences, Clarke, A. E. and Fujimura, J. H. (Editors). The Quarterly Review of Biology 69: 379-380. Cox, D.L. and Koob, T.J. 1993. Predation on elasmobranch eggs. Symposium 204414'" Avenue. Ste. 24 Vero Beach, FL 32960 772.564.054 [email protected] 5 on Reproduction and Development in Cartilaginous Fishes. In Environmental Biology of Fishes, 38: 117-125. Cox, D.L. and Koob, T.J. 1993. Solid-state catechol oxidase in skate (Raja erinacea) egg capsule. The Bulletin, Mount Desert Island Biological Laboratory, 32: 17-19 Koob, T.J. and Cox, D.L. 1993. Stabilization and sclerotization of Raja erinacea egg capsule proteins. Symposium on Reproduction and Development in Cartilaginous Fishes. In Environmental Biology of Fishes, 38: 151-157. Straus, J. W., Monian, C.L. and Cox, D.L. 1993. Nidamental gland catechol oxidase in the little skate (Raja erinacea): latency caused by an endogenous low molecular weight factor. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology 105B: 117-122. Straus, J.W., Rabidou, N.C., Bogdany, J.K. and Cox, D.L. 1993. Oxidative enzymes and the formation of egg capsules in the little skate (Raja erinacea). The Bulletin, Mount Desert Island Biological Laboratory, 32: 14-16. Straus, J.W. and Cox, D.L. 1992. Purification and characterization of cysteine proteinases from Tetrahymena thermophila. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology 97B: 641-653. Straus, J.W., Monian, C.L. and Cox, D.L. 1992. Catechol oxidase latency in nidamental gland extracts from the little skate (Raja erinacea). The Bulletin, Mount Desert Island Biological Laboratory, 31: 24-26. Straus, J.W., Monian, C.L. and Cox, D.L. 1992. Preparation and characterization of immobilized antipain and chymostatin for the isolation of proteolytic enzymes by affinity chromotography. The Bulletin, Mount Desert Island Biological Laboratory, 31: 20-23. Cox, D.L. and Rogers, B. 1992. A review of The History ofBiology:A Selected, Annotated Bibliography. The Quarterly Review of Biology 67: 350-351. Cox, D.L. and Koob, T.J. 1991. Predation on eggs of the little skate (Raja erinacea) in the Gulf of Maine. The Bulletin, Mount Desert Island Biological Laboratory 30: 123-124. Koob, T.J. and Cox, D.L. 1991. Skate (Raja erinacea) egg capsule proteins. The Bulletin, Mount Desert Island Biological Laboratory 30: 21-23. Straus, J.W. and Cox, D.L. 1991. Catechol oxidase in the little skate (Raja erinacea) shell gland: enzyme latency induced by an endogenous factor. 2044 14th Avenue, Ste. 24 Vero Beach, FL 32960 772.564.054 [email protected] 6 The Bulletin, Mount Desert Island Biological Laboratory 30: 23-25. Cox, D.L. and Koob, T.J. 1990. Latent catechol oxidase in the little skate (Raja erinacea). Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology 95B: 767-771. Koob, T.J. and Cox, D.L. 1990. In~oduction and oxidation of catechols during the formation of the skate Raja erinacea egg capsule. Journal of the Marine Biological Association, U.K. 70: 395-411. Cox, D.L. and Koob, T.J. 1989. Studies on skate (Raja erinacea) egg capsule formation. IV. Catechol oxidase activation. The Bulletin, Mount Desert Island Biological Laboratory 28: 126. Koob, T.J. and Cox, D.L. 1989. Accumulation of calcium and magnesium in Raja erinacea egg capsule during formation and after oviposition. The Bulletin, Mount Desert Island Biological Laboratory 28: 124-126. Koob, T.J. and Cox, D.L. 1988. Egg capsule catechol oxidase in the little skate Raja erinacea Mitchill, 1825. The Biological Bulletin 75: 202-211. Cox, D. L., Mecham, R.P. and Koob, T.J. 1987. Site-specific variation in amino acid composition of skate egg capsule (Raja erinacea Mitchill 1825). Journal ofExperimental Marine Biology and Ecology 107: 71-74. Koob, TJ. and Cox, D.L. 1987. Raja erinacea egg capsule: a model for interactions of metals with membrane-bound quinones. The Bulletin, Mount Desert Island Biological Laboratory 27: 116-117. Koob, T.J. and Cox, D.L. 1986. Effects of salinity, pH and urea on shell gland catechol oxidase activity of the little skate (Raja erinacea). The Bulletin, Mount Desert Island Biological Laboratory 26: I 13-116. Koob, T.J. and Cox, D. L. 1986. Studies on skate (Raja erinacea) egg capsule formation. II. Introduction of catechols occurs in utero. The Bulletin, Mount Desert Island Biological Laboratory 26: 109-112. Koob, T.J. and Cox, D.L. 1985. Shell gland catechol oxidase in the skate (Raja erinacea). The Bulletin, Mount Desert Island Biological Laboratory 25: 132-134. Cox, D.L., Koob, T.J., Mecham, R.P. and Sexton, O.J. 1984. External incubation alters the composition of squamate eggshells. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology 79B: 481-487. Koob, T.J. and Cox, D.L. 1984. Studies on skate (Raja erinacea) egg capsule formation. The Bulletin, Mount Desert Island Biological Laboratory 24: 2044 14th Avenue, Ste. 24 Vero Beach, FL 32960 772.564.054 d!c@davidcoxconsu!ting.com 7 78-81. Cox, D.L. 1983. Chemical composition of Iguana iguana eggshell. Annual Report of the American Philosophical Society 1983: 147-148. Campbell, E.J., Senior, R.M., McDonald, J.A. and Cox, D.L. 1982. Proteolysis by neutrophils: relative importance of cell-substrate contact and oxidative inactivation of proteinase inhibitors in vitro. Journal of Clinical Investigation 70: 845-852. Cox, D.L., Mecham, R.P. and Sexton, O.J. 1982. Lysine-derived cross-links are present in a non-elastin, praline-rich protein fraction of Iguana iguana eggshell. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology 72B: 619-623. Cox, D.L. 1980. The history of ecology: archives of the Ecological Society of America. Bulletin of the British Ecological Society XI(4): 127-129. Cox, D.L. 1980. A note on the queer history of niche. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 61(4 ): 201-202. OTHER CREATIVE WORKS Cox, D.L., Grudens, K., and Stanbridge, R. 2006. St. Sebastian River Greenway Plan. Indian River County, FL. In partnership with Pelican Island Audubon Society, Friends of St. Sebastian River, Indian River County Historical Society, Indian River Land Trust, Sebastian River Area Chamber of Commerce, and the Division of Community Development and Planning, Indian River County. Cox, D.L., and Alexander, W. 2006. Traces: The Legacy of Indian River County, Volume IL European Contact and Colonization. Vero Beach, FL: School District of Indian River County. In preparation. Ecker, D., Veron, B., Catchpole, J., Tripson, J. Baker, R. and Cox, D.L. 2006. Landscape Ordinances. Indian River County, FL. In partnership with Pelican Island Audubon Society, and the Division of Community Development and Planning, Indian River County. Cox, D.L. 2006. Regional Simulation Natural Systems Model: Peer Review for the South Florida Water Management District. This model is currently under development with review to begin about 8/05. Cox, D.L. and Stanbridge, R. 2005. The Trans-Florida Central Railroad. Rails-to-Trails Project, interpretive displays. Vero Beach, FL: Indian River County Parks Department and Indian River Historical Society. 2044 14" Avenue. S!e. 24 Vero Beacl,, FL 32960 772.564.054 [email protected] 8 Cox, D.L. 2004. Pre-Drainage Everglades Landscapes and Hydrology: A Review. South Florida Water Management District: West Palm Beach, FL. Cox, D.L. 2004. The Native Way: Interpretive Trail. Vero Beach, FL: The Environmental Learning Center. Cox, D.L. 2004. County Tree Protection Ordinance. Indian River County, FL. In partnership with Pelican Island Audubon Society, and the Division of Community Development and Planning, Indian River County. Cox, D.L., and Alexander, W. 2003. Traces: The Legacy of Indian River County, Volume I. Prehistory. Vero Beach, FL: School District of Indian River County. Cox, D.L. 2003. Master Interpretive Plan for Public Environmental Education Facilities. Vero Beach, FL: The Environmental Learning Center. Cox, D.L. 2003. Restoring Natural Plant Communities in the Lost Tree Islands Conservation Area. Vero Beach, FL: A Proposal in partnership with Indian River County, The Town oflndian River Shores, The City of Vero Beach, The Marine Resources Council, and Coastal Tech, Inc. · Cox, D.L. 2002. Let's Do This Together. Video Script. Vero Beach, FL: The Environmental Learning Center. Cox, D.L. 2002. Public Environmental Education Facilities and Boardwalk Extension. Vero Beach, FL: The Environmental Learning Center. Cox, D.L., 200 I. Science for Earth Stewards: K- 5 Science Curriculum. Vero Beach, FL: School District of Indian River County. Cox, D.L., 2001. An "Ecosystem" timeline: changing definitions in ecology, 1935-2000. A WebProject of the Institute for Cultural Landscape Studies, Harvard University. http://www.icls.harvarcl.edu/current.html Cox, D.L., 2000. Changing the Course of the Future: Earth Stewards Curriculum. Vero Beach, FL: School District of Indian River County. Cox, D.L., 2000. The St. Sebastian River. Outdoor interpretive trail & panels. Vero Beach, FL: Indian River County Parks Department. · Cox, D.L. and CM & Associates. 1999. Ecosystems of Florida Traveling Museum Exhibits. Prepared for The Environmental Learning Center, Vero Beach, FL. 2044 14"' Avenue, Ste. 24 Vero Beach, FL 32960 772.564.054 [email protected] 9 Cox, D.L., 1999. Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge and the Indian River Lagoon. Public access and education project. City of Sebastian, FL. 2044 14tr-. Avenue, Ste. 24 Vero Beach, FL 32960 772.564.054 [email protected] 10 CONTACT INFORMATION David Cox Consulting 2044 14th Avenue, Suite 24 Vero Beach, FL 32960 772.564.0540 phone & fax [email protected] 2044 i 4u,. Avenue, Ste. 24 Vero Beach, FL 32960 772.564,054 d!c@davldcoxconsulting DeeE!len B. "Debb" Robinson Vice President - Laurel Homes, Inc. Vice President - Laurel Builders, Inc. P.O. Box 2062 Vero Beach, Florida 32961-2062 3201 Cardinal Drive, Vero Beach, Florida 32963 Responsible for the procurement of land, design, permitting and construction of all subdivision improvements - 1988 to present. Responsible for construction of single family homes in Indian River and St. Lucie Counties - 1979 to 1988. Line and Design - owner Interior Design and consulting - 1978 to present Independent consulting and site scaping for new subdivisions - 1994 to present. Professional Designations State Certified General Contractor - CGC038738 State Certified Interior Designer - ID0002281 State Licensed Real Estate Sales Person- SL0515132 Professional Affiliations Treasure Coast Home Builders, Inc. - Life Spike, Member Indian River County Chamber of Commerce - Past President, Member Indian River County Board of Realtors - Member Associations National City Corporation Advisory Board- 1996 to present Florida Foundation for Future Scientists Board Member 1997 to present (State Science and Engineering Fair) PLANNING MATTERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA MEMORANDUM TO: The Honorable Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission Ro ert M. Keating, AICP Community Development Dir ctor FROM: Stan Bolint1rCP Planning Director DATE: February 16, 2007 SUBJECT: Planning Information Package for the February 22, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting For this meeting's packet, the following articles are provided: (1) "Incorporating Sustainability Into Community Development", Planetizen, February 5, 2007, Edward J. Jepson, Jr., Ph.D., AICP. (2) "Sustainability: Planning's Redemption or Curse?", Planetizen, February 8, 2007, Michael Gunder, Ph.D. (3) "US Housing Market - The Mother of All Bubbles", The Market Oracle, February 2007, Mike Whitney. (4) "Yo_ur home isn't selling? Join the Club", Orlando Sentinel, February 13, 2007, Jerry W. Jackson. (5) "Leed-ing By Example: Green Building Grows Up", City Limits Weekly, February 5, 2007, David Giles. (6) "Growth studies predict population, possible policies to ensure livability in 2060", Florida Specifier, February 2007, Melora Grattan. cc: Board of County Commissioners Joe Baird Michael Zito F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\P&Z\ARTICLES\Articles for 2007\022207.doc Incorporating Sustainability Into Community Development I Planetizen Page 1 of3 lti . NEml~~I t'rHE Pl.ANNING i{pi,vao?MENT Nffi~OR.K Home Incorporating Sustainability Into Community Development World I Community & Economic Development I Op-Ed 5 February ;2007 - 7:00am Author: Edward J. Jepson, Jr., Ph.D., AICP Sustainability must become a primary goal of public policy if we want to ensure the long-term health of communities. Despite its ubiquity in the community development literature, the concept of sustainability continues to be marginal in its impact on local public policies and programs. Few communities have incorporated sustainability in the management of their affairs. Such avoidance seems at least partly rooted in the perception among people and government officials that sustainability is not practical, that it is utopian by nature and, therefore, not really very meaningful. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. The basic idea is really a simple one: sustainable development is about continuity. At the local level, it is about residents looking ahead not just twenty years, or even fifty years, but a hundred years or more and finding their community still functioning, still thriving. Now more than ever, the future of cities and towns and villages must be something that is deliberately created through public choice. It can no longer be left so much to. the forces of the market. That's because the only signal that the market heeds is price. But that signal isn't enough to protect our future. There are many other signals that must be heard and heeded. Why isn't price enough? Because the future depends on the protection of the commons, those public spaces, amenities and resources that are being polluted, depleted and degraded. It is the forests, soil, air and the water on which all of our lives depend. Commons fall outside the forces of the market. The services they provide cannot be boxed and sold and the costs of their loss and depletion are being left off the corporate balance sheets. Because of that, their protection can only be found in the realms of individual decisions -- what each of us decides to do on our own -- and public policy -- what all of us decide to do as citizens, collectively. Achieving sustainability requires a more soptiisticated view of the commons, one that extends beyond the world of natural processes and into the social. It should include not only forests and farmland, but also the public squares, the city parks, the paths and corridors, and the buildings that give our communities character and identity. At the community level, the best way to protect the commons is for each community to strive for resilience. Drawn from system theory, resilience is the ability of an organic system, or ecosystem, to survive and recover from change and disturbances. Successful management of changes and disturbances by ecosystems requires that they be detected and responded to appropriately. A successful system effectively collects information about the characteristics of its external support environment -- from which it derives resources and deposits waste -- in the form of.signals. Some signals tell the system to keep doing what it's doing. Other signals tell the system to change -- that something is getting out of balance. In such cases, a system must change its behavior or risk failing. Human civilization is a system, as are the communities of which civilization is comprised. The internal activity of a civilization or community is relative to the external support environment, i.e., nature. To be resilient -- that is, to be sustainable -- they, too, must be able to detect and correctly interpret signals about conditions and respond appropriately. There are many clear negative signals that society is receiving in the form of depleted resources, worsening pollution, disappearing species, and increasing social conflict. This degradation is being caused by the collective behavior of all communities everywhere. And while no single community can force the kind of unified response that is necessary to fully address the problem, it can recognize its existence as a system unto itself and take as much control of its own destiny as possible. How would this be done? By staking a claim on its surrounding region and taking responsibility for protecting and building the assets and capacities that are contained within that region. By viewing local farmlands, forests and rivers as indispensable for their productive and replenishment capacities, as well as their contribution to beauty http://planetizen.com/node/22 7 5 6 2/8/2007 Incorporating Sustainability Into Conununity Development I Planetizen Page 2 of 3 and sense of place. By encouraging locally owned manufacturing enterprises that utilize local resources and diminish dependence on external resources. By replacing oil and coal, which have to be imported, with wind and solar power, which are generated locally. By seeding and nourishing local talent. By viewing taxes as an opportunity to build local inherent capacities for productive activity and satisfying living. By adhering to a foundational viewpoint of, the less we need to go elsewhere for anything -- resources, diversions, products, ideas - - the better. At the base of all of this is the single most important requirement for sustainable development: faith. To pull oneself up by one's own bootstraps, to chart new directions, to feel confidence in taking the new directions that are needed under sustainability requires that people believe in themselves, in their fellow citizens, and in their institutions. This is very different from religious faith, because this kind of faith is built on experience of having directly witnessed the doing of what was "right". What is "right" for each of us is that which is consistent with our values. The values of sustainability derive from reason. If this, then that. Under sustainability, logic and reason are used to determine what is appropriate to be done and (perhaps more importantly) not done. Faith that we are doing the right thin in terms of public policies can only emerge from a process that involves the residents of a community. The properties of healthy and successful systems -- which are self-organized, diverse, and feature spontaneous interaction -- demonstrate that sustainability is reached by getting as many people together and collecting as many ideas as possible. This happens at community meetings in which the participants are involved in a process of discovery through the honest and respectful exchange of information, knowledge, and experiences. Rooted in the transactive and progressive models of planning, this collective sifting results in the best ideas finding their way through. The number of people involved in such a process will be directly related to the extent to which they feel emotionally connected to the community. Thus, protection of the unique attributes of place -- which are the basis of emotional connection -- becomes essential. They must also be convinced that their involvement will matter. This, in turn, requires faith in the institution of government because it is government that is responsible for the formulation of appropriate response through the development, enactment and application of public policies. If such policies are rooted in a collective, collaborative process of idea exchange and sifting, they will, by definition, be reasonable. Reasonable policies will lead to faith in government which, in turn, will encourage even more citizen involvement (in sustainability parlance, a 11 positive feedback loop"). Conversely, policies rooted in closed meetings and controlled discussions (whether reasonable or not!) will reduce faith in government and lead to less citizen involvement. Unfortunately, there is no prescription that can be given as to what specific actions a particular community can or should take at any given point in time to help ensure its resilience. It all depends on the state of local knowledge and the amount of faith that residents have in themselves, each other and their institutions. When these conditions are present, the reasoned debate and the high-order collaboration that is necessary to achieve the protection of the commons will occur. Dr. Edward J. Jepson, Jr_ is an assistant professor in the Master of Science in Planning (MSP) program of the Department of Political Science at the University of Tennessee. His primary academic and research focus is on evaluating the community development-sustainability link, and encouraging the integration of sustainability principles into the practice of community planning. He is also interested in economic development theory and practice, the theory and history of planning, the dynamics of human settlement development, and the regulatory and other land use management dimensions of planning. Comment viewing options !l'hreade_d~list.=ex_l)anded 1fil) jo_iate :.riewest first ~I j?O,.comments per pa9.9. .~ Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes. Buzzword Bonanza Submitted by Robert Cote on 7 February 2007 - 1:17pm. This is one of those Friday Funnies posts right? "Faith based continuity?" How about a definition of sustainability in English? Or sanskrit for that matter? Seriously, where was the usual "problem, process, prescription, solution" outline necessary to actually discuss the proposal? Sure sounded good without actually saying anything. Let's not bog down in all these high level guiding principles. Instead, how about two examples; one a public policy that is http://planetizen.com/node/22 7 56 2/8/2007 Incorporating Sustainability Into Community Development I Planetizen · Page 3 of3 unsustainable, second a sustainable practice and why. It isn't enough to say 11 recycling is good 11 or 11 big boxes are bad." Why and by which criteria? And why are those criteria more important than others? How to shift the debate to the long-term? Submitted by Zvi Leve on 5 February 2007 - 6:56pm, Thank you very much for this editorial on such an important subject. This article brought together a number of key concepts which must be addressed if we. are ever to find a sustainable development path: the commons, resilience, less instead of more, and "faith." But you neglected to mention the "tragedy of the commons" whereby the conflict between individual interests and the "common good" produces socially undesirable results. Ironically, it is perhaps this pursuit of individual self interest (and our ability to decide what those interests are and to plan how to satisfy them) which sets us apart from all other animals. Yet It Is also this relentless pursuit of 'betterment' which can lead us down the path to tragedy .... You also mention the importance of having "faith" in our institutions - personally I think that it is better to maintain a 'healthy skepticism' for our governing institutions. It is all fine and grand to say that "Under sustainability, logic and reason are used to determine what is appropriate to be done and (perhaps more importantly) not done" but as anyone who has every participated in a public consultation process can attest, "getting as many people together and collecting as many ideas as possibleu is not necessa~ily going to produce a more 'sustainable' path. In fact, the more people involved in the process, the more likely it is that the outcome will be thoroughly muddled and will not satisfy anyone. But there probably will not be strong opposition either! I agree" that our governing institutions should be charged with developing a 'collective vision' of who we are and where we are going, but there seems to be precious Httle incentive for our leaders to promote such a vision. We have lost any sense of 'historical continuity', and visionary politicians tend to be punished at the polls. Why would anyone want to pay more taxes? Where are the incentives to consume 1·ess? What is in it for us?! And the people who we choose to represent us have little incentive to be anything but a mirror of these basest of human instincts! As you noted, the "formulation of appropriate response" does not depend on this or that political process or institution, but rather on the time-frame of our perspective. One simple way to shift the time frame of our political debate into the long-term might be to implement single term limits in political office (and presumably slightly longer terms of office). A politician who cannot be reelected (at least not in the next term) can afford to develop a long term perspective. Instead of concentrating on_ balancing various competing and often conflicting demands, they can focus on leaving behind an appropriate 'legacy'. I will leave it to the politicians to debate what that legacy should be ... Roseville, CA Incorporating Sustainability Submitted by frankdarci on 5 February 2007 - 5:47pm. Hope you'll be pleased to here of one community that is already striving for "resilience" and working to address our environmental problems. Last month Roseville City Council voted unanimously to adopt a resolution in support of the region's efforts to promote clean energy technology while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The City has already been working to incorporate and promote a long list of green programs ill recycling, water conservation, energy efficiency, green waste, vehicle emission reduction and solar programs. A newly formed Green Team will also look at and recommend best practices to reduce costs and emissions, while Roseville eventually launches an ongoing marketing campaign to brand itself as a place that's both green-friendly and a magnet for this exciting new industry. The City has partnered with the Renewable Energy Institute International to build a Renewable Energy Research Center and has land adjacent for creating a clean technology industry park. Please read more at: http://www.roseville.ea.us/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=828 Planetizen: Urban Planning and Development Network www.planetizen.com Copyright© 2000 - 2006 Urban Insight, Inc. AU rights reserved http://planetizen.com/node/22 7 56 2/8/2007 Sustainability: Planning's Redemption or Curse? I Planetizen Page I of3 RI! ,filffil~li~~ Tl-IE PJ..Al>INING I> PEVEtOPMENT NETWORK Home Sustainability: Planning's Redemption or Curse? World I Environment I Government&. Politics ! Op-Ed 8 February 2007 - 7:00am Author: Michael Gunder, PhD Sustainability is often defined as a balance of the three E's: the environment, the economy, and social equity. But as planners embrace the concept, the sustainability "balance" heavily favors one E: the economy. Michael Gunder warns that planners risk sacrificing the environment and social equity in the name of sustainable economic development. For many, the planning profession lost direction, credibility and apparent societal value during the last . quarter of the twentieth century. Recently, this loss has been partially offset by an increased concern about planning for the environment. For both planners and many members of wider society, 'sustainabilityt has become the defining term to denote the'se wider environmental concerns and their appropriate responses. The striving for sustainability is now a defining principle of good planning practice. It provides an ideal for which to aim towards, even if its achievement, not to mention any universally shared and concise definition of how to achieve lt, consistently appears to be located somewhere over the horizon. More importantly, this ideal of a sustainable future, understandably, has wide public support. In a recent article in the Journal of Planning Education and Research, I argue that sustainability could well be planning's saving grace. It replaces the discipline's traditional role of protecting the societal common good with an even wider role of helping to save the planet for future generations - a role most planners and members of society, in principle, would want to readily support. Yet, in the same article, I argue that sustainability could also be planning's road to perdition, especially without careful reflection on the part of the profession and its practitioners as to how and in whose interests sustainability is deployed. The Deceptive Use of "Sustainability" for Non-Sustainable Ends Driven by concerns of the adverse impacts of global warming, the government of the United Kingdom recently appears to have jumped strongly on the sustainability bandwagon, as have many American states. Even the U.S. President in his recent State of the Union Address appeared to be shifting his perspective. This is to be cordially welcomed, but with care, for sustainability is a term that can be used to achieve non-sustainable political ends. The Three E's of Sustainability: Environment, Social Equity, and Economy (Source: Wikipedia) http://planetizen.com/node/22812 2/8/2007 Sustainability: Planning's Redemption or Curse? I Planetizen Page 2 of3 Sustainability, even if a fuzzy, ill-defined, concept, has now reached the near-universal status of being a desired concept of 'good'. Indeed, its very fuzziness allows multiple actors to have diverse and even conflicting interpretations of what sustainability means. Yet even in their disagreement all can agree that sustainability is, in itself, a good thing. Moreover, sustainability, in its perceived goodness, transfers its positive value of 'good' to other words or concepts when joined to them. Sustainable cities, sustainable communities, sustainable regeneration, sustainable practices, and sustainable transport, to mention a few examples, all bask in sustainability's reflective goodness. Consequently, sustainable development has arguably emerged as the dominant interpretation of how to achieve sustainability. This is through its triple-bottom-line approach of equally promoting and weighing, in a balanced manner, economic growth, environmental protection, and concern for social equity. Economic Growth Policies Ignore Environment and Equity Yet I argue that the dominant focus of sustainable development, at least as stated in the published policies and plans of many institutions o.f government, is more concerned with sustainable growth than ecologically sustainable measures, such as averting global warming, limiting resource depletion and loss of biodiversity. Further, social issues are rarely given significant concern in what is theoretically supposed to be an equal balancing of the three dimensions: environmental, economic and social. This produces a very different policy response than the traditional planning policy of looking after the disadvantaged in pursuit of the wider public good. In framing this argument, I explored case studies of Toronto, Canada; South East England; and Melbourne and Sydney, Australia. In each case, sustainable development arguments were used by governments to justify policies that were not necessarily environmentally sustainable, or even socially just. Rather they were policies to help position these metropolitan and regional areas to catalyze growth and increase global economic competitiveness. In each case, rather than attempting to nurture prospects for changing consumptive and productive behaviors in a manner consistent with the local and global carrying capacity (i.e. ecological sustainability), the sustainable development rationale was used by planning institutions to justify actions primarily supporting the entrepreneurial interests of each region. These were pro-market interventions that diluted the concept of sustainability to literally that of 'business as usual'. This interpretation of sustainable development and the institutional support it receives comprises a new rationale, value, and, above all, clout for the planning profession. But it also risks maintaining existing social and environmental injustices, as well as producing new kinds of disparity and ecological squalor. These are injuries that arise from the developed world's continuing market imperative of growth and the perceived needs of competitive globalization. Further, it appears to make some environmentally committed planners, at least in the case studies examined, to appear to act as naive dopes in the interest of their institution's wider support of big business. Re-Examining the Role of Planners Planning practitioners need to carefully reflect on their role in fulfilling the political intentions of their institutions. Otherwise, planners may continue to conflate the triple-bottom-line of environment, social equity, and economy together in a manner that risks both the environment and social equity in the name of sustainable wealth creation for the dominant minority profiting from competitive globalization. Mainstream planning's apparent complicity, if not outright acceptance of this materialist view of sustainability precludes what for this author should be sustainability's correct articulation and planning's role in its achievement. The balance of environment, economy, and social equity Is a definition and role of sustainability that would make it planning's and the planet's true saving grace. This is an acceptance of an 'economy of enoughness' (as coined by Bill Rees at the University of British Columbia) where we accept that we should reduce the consumptive habits of the developed world. This requires us to reduce our ecological footprint to that which is sustainable for all global inhabitants - human and other - while ensuring equity in the sharing of this finite carrying capacity. Planning, I suggest, can have, and should have, a central role in this achievement. But, to begin, we must endeavour to re-align our institutions from their dominant imperative of maximizing territorial wealth creation largely without regard for other concerns, and replace it with the fundamental aim of ecological sustainability. This is a difficult and inherently partisan task, but so be it, if we really desire a sustainable future. Michael Gunder is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Architecture and Planning, University Of Auckland. His research interests lie in planning theory where he deploys post-structuralist critique in the interpretation of planning policy and practice. He is currently President of the New Zealand Planning Institute. This editorial is based on an article that was originally published in the Journal of Planning Education and Research (JPER), Vol. 26, No. 2 (208-221). The full article is available online at Sage Publications. http://planetizen.com/node/22812 2/8/2007 US Housing Market-The Mother of All Bubbles:: The Market Oracle:: Financial Market... Page 4 of9 Bad credit mortgage Today's Mortgage Together we'll find you the perfect Compare Mortgage Ra1 . mortgage. Apply today to get . Easy! Find Low Mortga, sorted ZIP Code www.togetherfinance.com LendersinYourArea.cor The Fed should have tightened earlier to avoid a festering of the housing bubble early on. The Fed is facing a nightmare now: the recession will come and easing will not prevent it." Nouriel Roubini, "Fed Holds Interest Rates Steady as Slowdown Outweighs Inflation", Wall Street Journal I'm really baffled by the e-mails I've been getting lately. A lot people have been blasting my predictions that the housing bubble will burst in 2007 and trigger a deep and painful recession. They point to the Commerce Dept's recent report that "new home sales rose 4.8% in December after 7.4% increase in November." The tone of these e-mails is always the same: "Neener, neener, neener ... you goofed up, yciu numbskull. Admit you were wrong." The implication appears to be that the housing bubble is some kind of left-wing conspiracy conjured up by paranoid loonies. While that does fit my Bio. to some extent, the housing bubble is not a conspiracy theory and there's overwhelming proof that the aftershocks will be excruciating. Don't forget, the "happy talk" in the real estate section of the newspaper is designed to soothe jittery nerves and help sales, not give the reader an accurate picture of a market which is sinking quickly. In fact, the hoopla over the "rise in new homes sales" ignores the "real"story which appears in many of the same articles; that is, "In 2006 existing home sales declined by 8.4%, the biggest drop in 17 years, and new homes sales fell by a whopping 17 .3%, the largest in 16 years". This is the real scoop although it is predictably hidden in the fine print. It signals the beginning of a long, downward spiral which will increase unemployment, shrink GDP, and send millions of homeowners into foreclosure and out onto the streets. True, I don't have a crystal ball and I'm not proficient at reading the entrails of dead animals, but I have put together some of the relevant facts and I think they make the case more convincingly than the cheerleading realtors who appear in the Sunday newspapers. I should add, though, that all this misplaced joy about the Commerce Dept's numbers has convinced Wall Street that the housing bust is just about over and that the economy will continue to strengthen. That is a very bad sign because it means that the Federal Reserve probably won't lower rates when ii meets later this week. The downside of the Fed's decision is that the 30 year mortgage rate is inching higher (6.33%} and is bound to put even more downward-pressure on new home sales. Some of Wall Street's heavy-hitters know that trouble is brewing and are finally putting out the red flags. 2 weeks ago Goldman Sachs indicated that "the US Federal Reserve will need to slash rates 3 times this year as the housing slump goes from bad to worse and the American consumer begins to buckle". {Ambrose Evans-Pritchard "US Housing Bust getting worse") "We believe that housing will soon become the 'straw that breaks the camels back', said David Kostin, the investment bank's strategist. Goldman Sachs said homeowners had treated windfall gains from rising house prices as if they were 'recurring income' using home equity withdrawals to subsidize over-stretched lifestyles. This htto://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article303.html 2/13/2007 US Housing Market- The Mother of All Bubbles:: The Market Oracle:: Financial.Market... Page 5 of9 artificial boost to spending has already dropped from 7% to 4% of GDP over the last year, and is likely to halve again in 2007. Mortgage equity withdrawal will fall from 13% of 'discretionary household cash flow' in 2006 to 7% this year, causing spending power to contract for the first time since the dotcom bust". Clearly, the wiz-kids at G-Sachs are not taken in by the 4.8% jump in new homes sales in December. They see the dark clouds forming on the horizon and are anticipating the approaching recession. The mainstream media are starting to be more forthright, too. CNN Money reported last week: "Americans continue having difficulties paying their mortgage obligations, with December foreclosure rates above the 100,000 mark for the 5th straight month. The number of homeowners entering some stage of foreclosure process in December was 109,000 ... up 35% from December 2005 according to Realty Trac". It sounds grim, but the worst is yet to come. Jim Willie at the goldenjackass.com provided this bleak look at the current housing market: "Beazer Homes stuck a hot poker in the heart of the dimwitted optimists who believe the housing market has stabilized. Their spokesman said, 'We have yet to see any meaningful evidence of a sustained recovery in the housing market'. To back that statement up, they reported new orders were down 55% from a year ago, and their cancellations are running at a horrendous 43% rate. People might sign contracts based on hearing the media news, and cancel those same contracts on a contrast with reality checks. The Dec. existing homes sales came in at minus0.8%, the largest decline in 24 years dating back to 1982. The official data contained a contraction which went overlooked on th.e shallow voices on CNBC. The data claims that inventory levels fell by 7.9% at the same time that sales fell in a big way. Well, perhaps the inventory levels do not factor in the cancellations. (They do not) Bear in mind that 3 large homebuilders in recent weeks announced a collective $1.2 billion in land option losses. The pain has not nearly ended for housing." The signs of a major economic downturn are everywhere for those who chose to look beyond the cheery predictions in the real estate section of the news. Next year, an estimated $1 trillion of ARMs (Adjustable Rate Mortgages) are due to "reset" which will cause stiff increases in monthly mortgage payments. We're bound to see a steady rise in defaults as well as a boost in new claims for personal bankruptcy. This downward cycle is just beginning. In 2006, a mere $300 billion in ARMs reset pushing overleveraged homeowners to the brink of insolvency. Imagine what will happen in 2007 when $1 trillion of these explosive loans comes due. And, of course, as more people are unable to hang on and their homes go into foreclosure; inventory will continue to skyrocket. Peter Schiff of europac.net summarized the situation this way: "The recent jump in bond rates suggests that things are about to get much worse for the housing market. Since January 5th interest rates have risen by over 30 basis points and gold has risen over $40 per ounce ... My guess is that rather than a bottom of the housing market, bond investors around the world are beginning to appreciate the inflationary implications of a real estate crisis. A substantial decline in real estate prices will either produce a severe recession on its own or exacerbate one that arises from other factors. In either case the result will likely be the Fed coming to the "rescue" with inflationary monetary policy. Inflation will push long-term rates higher, causing more loans to default. With credit destroyed and home equity and jobs lost, foreign creditors will rush for the exits sending the dollar into a tailspin. The Fed will be forced to buy all of the paper foreign lenders no longer want and that savings-short Americans cannot afford. Domestic money supply will explode sending consumer prices soaring". Schiff's calculations are exactly right; a recession is just one effect of the deflating of housing bubble. The other effects are even more serious; the anticipated "flight" of foreign capital from US markets and an impending currency crisis which is liable to dethrone the greenback as the world's reserve currency. The source of our current problem is complex; deriving mainly from artificially low interest rates, currency deregulation (which has helped to create the enormous account imbalances) and shoddy lending practices. Presently, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass) who is the new chairman of the House Financial Services Committee is leading the charge to enact "nationwide lending standards to protect consumers from deceptive unfair and predatory mortgage practices." Frank intends to pass legislation that will put more pressure on lenders to make httn://www.marketoracle.eo.uk/Article303.html 2/13/2007 US Housing Market- The Mother of All Bubbles:: The Market Oracle:: Financial Market... Page 6 of9 sure that borrowers fully understand the requirements of their loans and ensure that they are financially capable of making regular payments when their loans reset. (increase) But Frank's attempts at consumer protection through "suitability standards" are too, little too late. Mortgage debt has increased $4.5 trillion in just 6 years. As interest rates rise and ARMs reset there's no chance of a "soft landing". By the end of 2007 we should have a much better idea of the magnitude of the damage. Frank is right, though, much of the dilemma stems from goofball loans cooked up by mortgage lenders trying to bulk up their commissions. For example: In 2000, a mere 2% of borrowers took out "nontraditional mortgages". (That is, mortgages that allow borrowers to pay only the loan interest or just a part of the interest each month without paying anything on the principal} In 2006, that number jumped to 35% of all new mortgages! Also, Piggyback loans (which allow people to borrow the money for a down payment) currently represent 25% of all new mortgages. Think about that! The down-payment used to be proof that a loan-applicant was credit-worthy or financially responsible. Now, mortgage lenders have abandoned that standard in order to generate more loans. Finally, sub-prime loans now represent 20% of all new mortgages, whereas, in 2000, sub-primes were only 5% of total loans. These are the loans which are made to people with bad credit who typically pay considerably higher rates of interest. According to the New York Times, nearly 20% of these sub-prime borrowers will default in the next few years pushing 2.2 million borrowers into foreclosure. Lender's are also at risk from loans which don't require strict documentation of income. In fact, 62% of all mortgage originations go to people who simply state their earnings on the loan application without providing any proof from IRS records. That's why they are commonly referred to as "liar's loans". A recent survey found that over half of mortgage-applicants (who don't produce verification of their income) exaggerate their earnings by more than 50%! It is expected that many of these borrowers have purchased homes that are way beyond their means and will have a difficult time avoiding foreclosure once their ARM reset. Liar's loans are just one of the many ticking time-bombs which now litter the entire mortgage industry. SEARCH INSIDE!"' r1ow ro , pROflt FRO THE COMING • REAL ESTATE BUST $17 (34% discount) In the last 7 years the total value of real estate in the US has increased by a mammoth $11 trillion; the greatest expansion of personal debt in history. This monstrous new liability has continued to bloat despite nationwide wage stagnation and declines in real wealth (as per personal savings) It is purely the result of seductively-low interest rates and reckless lending practices. As Bill Fleckenstein says in his article "Face it: The housing bust is here", most of the blame can be pinned on the Federal Reserve and their profligate monetary policies. httn://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article303.html 2/13/2007 US Housing Market- The Mother of All Bubbles:: The Market Oracle:: Financial Market... Page 7 of9 "Alan Greenspan managed to make folks lives ultimately even worse, in attempting to bail out his equity bubble with a real estate bubble," Fleckenstein avers. "Let's never forget who the un-indicted architect of this mess was: Alan Greenspan and the other merry pranksters at the Fed. Of course, these folks didn't learn anything from the equity mania, and who will turn out to have gotten themselves trapped in the housing mania, really have only themselves to blame. As I have been warning for at least a couple of years now, all of this was going to be wonderful until it wasn't. That moment in time is upon us." But what's the point of recriminations and finger-pointing? The fact that we were all taken to the cleaners by the crafty bastards at the Federal Reserve won't help us now. The best plan is to figure out a way to get out of debt while preparing for the eventual crash. Sooner or later, we're all going to be forced by circumstances to live within our means. As for the notion that the housing bubble is a "left wing conspiracy"; here's a summary from the far-right "Weekly Standard" which draws many of the same conclusions: "Just as cheerleaders of the high tech bubble of the late 1990s developed ever more creative explanations for why traditional metrics of valuing stocks no longer applied, the same has been true during the housing bubble. Housing bulls point to immigration, building restrictions, Baby Boomer demand for second homes, and other seemingly plausible justifications for skyrocketing home prices. But examining the value of housing using time tested and common sense metrics such as price-to-income and price-to-rent ratios suggest the gains in the bubble areas can't be explained by economic fundamentals .... People are buying in the face of sky-high prices because they've seen many of their friends or relatives make a fortune in real estate; besides (they tell themselves) no one knows real estate prices never fall. As with the stock market during the tech bubble, many are basing purchasing decisions not on underlying value, but on what they think they can sell a property for in the future-the very definition of a speculative bubble ... Even fiat home prices would therefore slow economic growth unless other parts of the economy rapidly accelerate. But a hard landing-meaning a recession-is a real risk. If home prices fall modestly, millions of homeowners will see their equity wiped out. Many of those with the least amount of equity, as we've already shown, are going to face significant increases in their monthly payments. So what has been a virtuous but unsustainable cycle for the economy-higher home prices, more borrowing against home equity, higher spending, increased job creation, even higher home prices-could easily reverse and become a vicious cycle-higher monthly payments, declining home prices, less spending, job losses, foreclosures, even lower home prices." ("Housing Bubble Trouble: Have we been living beyond our means?" The Weekly Standard, April, 2006) It's better to look beyond the Pollyanna prognostications of the Commerce Department and the National Association of Realtors. (NAR) Their judgment is no more reliable than Bush's promises of "democracy" in Iraq. Housing prices have completely disconnected from reality. And the "correction" ahead is bound to be ugly. By Mike Whitney Email: farntax,[email protected] Mike is a well respected freelance writer living in Washington state, interested in politics and economics from a libertarian perspective. Mortgages at Countrywide® Fast Home Refi, Good Credit Or Not. Countrywide® 4 out c .approved! www.Countrywide.com Most Pooular Recent Articles I Ill : GI"-ernrns1rnCbeaPM@llYIQ)einJbe!.J$HQ~.~Jog_CrnshgL2QQ7.- 7th Feb 07 I I http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/ Article303.html 2/13/2007 Your home isn't selling? Join the club Page 1 of3 Orlando Sentinel http://www.orlandosentine_Lcom/news/custom/growth/orl ADVERTISEMENTS homesl307febl3,0~3039008.storyl_coll=orl-news-growth-headline~ Your home isn't selling? Join the club As Orlando-area housing glut builds, sales take hammering Jerry W. Jackson Sentinel Staff Writer February 13, 2007 Spring is still more than a month away, but the for-sale signs are sprouting early this year as home sellers hope to elbow their way into an increasingly crowded field. For Orlando-area homeowners eager to sell now, the numbers have gotten much worse, and the wait for a sale could be much longer. Orlando Regional Realtor Association members recorded only 1,314 homes or condos sold in January, making it the weakest month for local agents since January 2002. The number of properties for sale in the core Orlando market rose by 1,729 to a near-record 21,266 -- and at January's slow sales pace, that was the equivalent of a 16. 18-month supply. "That's a lot," said Janice Leckart-Smith, who has sold homes for Coldwell Banker Residential Real Estate in Orlando for 15 years. "If you get an offer that's halfway decent, take it. If you get an offer after three months and don't take it, it may sit another six months." Local Realtors have not seen this many months' worth of homes on the market since February 1995, when only 649 houses sold and the 10,527 listings at the time equaled 16.22 months' worth of inventory. And remember: The Realtors' listings don't include thousands of other homes on the market for sale by owner -- houses such as Bobbi-Jo Borges', whose upscale Seminole County pool home has an $859,000 price tag. Borges said she has been running a classified ad and advertising on Web sites for about a month, after listing the Oviedo home through a Realtor last year. So far, she has had no offers she thinks reasonable. "Lots of people are looking, but they're just not serious," Borges said. "I'm about to reduce it to $839,000. I'm getting a little impatient." Buyers' opportunity Gary Balanoff, vice president of the Orlando Realtors group, said the local resale market for homes is "definitely challenging" for sellers but offers opportunities for buyers. "It's about as good a time as we've ever seen in terms of availability -- across every price range," said httn://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/custom/growth/orl-homesl 307feb 13,0, 7155313 ,prin... 2/13/2007 Your home isn't selling? Join the club Page 2 of3 Balanoff, broker-owner for Re/Max Select in Oviedo. Balanoff said many listings hitting the market in recent weeks are condos or town homes -- a category with more than an 18-month supply at the recent sales pace. Single-family homes account for about 15 months' worth of sales. "That's still high," he said. It also requires sellers to be flexible with their asking price and attentive to details, he added, because "if you price the home right and it's in good condition, it will sell." Leckart-Smith said she has sold about $12 million worth of homes in the Orlando area in recent months, partly by focusing on areas she knows very well -- such as the Orwin Manor neighborhood straddling Orlando and Winter Park. Spring is a prime season for home purchases, but Leckart-Smith recommended that sellers get professional help in "staging" their homes with decorator touches if possible. The average time a house spends on the market has crept up to 90 days in the Orlando Realtors' core market, which is mainly Orange and Seminole counties but includes spillover sales in neighboring counties. That's the longest wait time since February 2004, when the average was 101 days -- just before the region went on a two-year sales spree. During 2005, for example, the average amount of time for a home to sell shrank to about 30 days at one point. And for eight of the 12 months that year the core market's inventory was below 6,000 -- or less than a two-month supply at the brisk sales pace of that time. A six-month inventory of properties for sale is generally the dividing line between a "seller's" and a "buyer's" market, while 60 to 70 days on the market for the average existing-home listing is considered a comfortable range. The local Realtors' January report noted that there were 3,648 condos for sale through their Multiple Listing Service, up 12.7 percent from December. Duplexes, town homes and villas accounted for 1,848 units, up 12.1 percent, while single-family homes totaled 15,770, up 7 .6 percent. Condo sales in January were off 47 percent from the same month a year ago, and association members said that's good for renters because units that remain unsold are likely to be leased to tenants. The median price for all types of homes and condos held relatively steady in January at $249,700. That was up 3.6 percent from January 2006 but about even with the median reported for each of the previous nine months. The total number of homes sold in January -- 1,314 -- was off by 31.46 percent, the biggest percentage drop since at least the end of 1994. Balanoff said the average 30-year conventional mortgage rate of 5.91 percent in January was still low by historical standards, another plus for buyers in the market. Builders dangle incentives But the competition is intense between existing-home sales and the many new-but-empty homes marketed by builders, he said, and builders generally have more incentives to entice wavering buyers. ht1n://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/custom/ growth/orl-homes 1307feb 13.0, 7155313,prin. .. 2/13/2007 Your home isn't selling? Join the club Page 3 of3 For people trying to sell a used home, he said, "You have to compete not only with your neighborhood but [with] the new-home neighborhood down the road." Jerry W Jackson can be reached [email protected] or 407-420-5721. Copyright© 2007, Orlando Sentinel I Get home delivery - up to 50% off Get your news on the go by going to www.orlandosentinel.com on your mobile browser. httn://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/custom/growth/orl-homes1307feb13,0,7155313,prin... 2/13/2007 Page 1 of3 City Limits WEEKLY Week of: February 5, 2007: Number: 573 LEED-ING BY EXAMPLE: GREEN BUILDING GROWS UP Local affordable housing developers cite ways - more helpful than the national "Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design" standard - for government to promote green construction. > By David Giles Just a few years ago, a vanguard of environmentally-conscious builders in New Yoi-k thought they could spur a mainstream "green building" movement on grounds of good business practices alone. But now, as the trend matures and interest in green everything accelerates, developers are saying market forces aren"t enough, and more help from government is needed. At a conference called "Making Green Building a Mainstream Practice" at the American Museum of Natural History on Thursday, both market-rate builders and their affordable-housing counterparts seemed to agree that government subsidies, if not government oversight, is a must if green approaches are to become the norm. Developers like Douglas Durst, a pioneer of green office towers in New York, and Ara Hovnanian, one of the nation"s largest developers of single-family housing, were clear on that- even though they face a very different set of hurdles than those in the affordable housing business. "Right now it"s a boutique product that you pay premium prices for," Hovnanian told moderator Tom Brokaw, in response to a question about what "green" means to him. "If all is equal, consumers will choose green, but not all is equal and [most] consumers are not willing to pay more." A major issue for both affordable and market-rate housing developers is the higher upfront costs of LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) -certified green buildings. The U.S. Green Building Council, which administers the certification process, grades buildings on their performance in a number of assigned areas, including energy efficiency, water savings and construction materials. A developer can pick and choose which areas to focus on and how to manage them, but in New York doing well - which in the LEED system means a silver rating or better - is probably going to entail paying 4 to 8 percent more for the technology. One of Dursl"s new projects, for instance, is the Bank of America headquarters in midtown. A sleek 64 stories, the building promises to be one of only 20 buildings - and the only skyscraper - in the world with a platinum rating. Once it"s finished in 2008, it will have a state-of-the-art "cogeneration plant'" that produces electricity on the premises, plus waterless urinals, toilets using rainwater collected from the roof and full-length windows that allow in sunlight while dissipating its heat. Other high-end apartment buildings like Battery Park City"s Solaire, The Helena in Hell"s Kitchen and TriBeCa Green all use expensive new technologies such as photovoltaic cells and electrostatic filter systems. Proponents argue that higher upfront costs will be more than made up for by long-term energy savings, higher property values and, in the case of office buildings, increased worker productivity due to the healthier indoor environment. But at least as important to some developers is the certification itself, since a high LEED rating is essential for those who depend on green tax credits and green marketing to meet their bottom line. Carlton Brown, chief operating officer of Full Spectrum New York, a Harlem-based mixed-income developer, said that though getting LEED certification may not help in marketing individual units, it"s important for creating a brand in the long run. "It's important for people to know that Full Spectrum does buildings that do ultimately get LEED certified," he said. In late 2004, Full Spectrum opened 1400 on 5th, a mixed-income development in Harlem that was funded by the city"s Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) and Bank of America. It earned a silver LEED rating on the basis of a heating and cooling system that operates on water stored in geothermal wells and eco-friendly materials like bamboo floors and recycled drywall. According to Brown, high demand for the building's 43 market-rate units helped subsidize the 85 units reserved for low- to moderate-income buyers. There are now more than 6,000 families on the waiting list for just 128 total units, all presently occupied, and, according to Brown, that has made it much easier to get capital investment on a new mixed-income green development next door. Not all affordable housing developers are convinced they can afford the technology. Full Spectrum's creative public/private partnerships may work in the hot neighborhood of Harlem, where young professionals, especially, htto://www.citvlimits.org/content/articles/vieWJJrintable.cfm?article id=3263 2/8/2007 Page 2 of3 are willing to pay premium prices for the prestige and good conscience of green. But others wonder: what about in the South Bronx? And in the case of New York's affordable housing players, landlords may indeed reap benefits on lower heating costs and renters may save on electricity bills - but the financial benefit to the developer isn't as clear. According to Joanne Derwin of the New York Apollo Alliance, an organization that brings together labor unions and business leaders to set environmental sustainability goals, what's needed to overcome incentive problems like these is smart new government legislation. Last month a new high-performance buildings law. called Local Law 86, went into effect amid fanfare from sustainability experts and community leaders. It requires all new construction using $2 million or more of city funds to meet sustainability standards that are at least as strict as LEED silver-. a move projected to cover $12 billion in construction over the next decade. "Because of this law, anybody who wants to build a school now has to build green," said Derwin. 'That's a great example of government policy helping to move the market. It may even help build a market for local manufacturers." Affordable housing developers successfully defeated attempts by legislators to make the law apply to them, however. Derwin said they were justifiably concerned about high upfront costs. "But an even bigger problem was their ignorance about what building green truly requires." "If the city goes to LEEDs, I can't afford that," said Mary Spink, executive director of the Lower East Side People's Mutual Housing Association. "Getting LEED-certified is expensive. II takes a lot of paperwork and time. And it sometimes doesn't even address what really matters." "The Solaire is LEED-certified, but they're using more energy on their filter systems than a normal building would," Spink maintains. 'They have solar panels but ii doesn't even come close to covering their energy costs." Yet Spink and her longtime architect Chris Benedict and mechanical engineer Henry Gifford are among the few who have figured out how to cut energy costs dramatically while using the same old construction technology everyone else does. They fork over a little extra for essentials like cellulose insulation and a special glazing on the windows that helps reflect heat in summer and retain it in winter. But most of what they do has nothing to do with special gadgets. A specially designed gas boiler is installed on the roof instead of in the basement; weep holes in the brick exterior allow excess moisture to escape from the building's walls where mold might otherwise grow; and a rooftop garden further insulates the building and strengthens the roof. Few cutting-edge materials, and yet, according to Spink and a cadre of third-party observers such as Green Home NYC, the result is a building that costs no more than standard construction but uses only one-sixth the energy. This might be an environmentally positive result by most standards, but Spink's buildings aren't LEED certified and she doesn't get those prized green tax credits as a result. Both Derwin and Rob Crauderueif of the environmental justice group Sustainable South Bronx agreed that the first thing the city could do to counterbalance the affordable housing industry's lack of initiative is offer training. "HPD should be training these developers," said Derwin. "Not everything that's sustainable costs more, but you have to know how to do it." Crauderueff further suggested they offer free structural analysis and work with New York State Energy Research and Development Authority to develop a New York City-based technical assistance program. Meanwhile, many industry insiders think the LEED certification system needs significant tweaking. The first and most obvious problem is a lack of sensitivity to context. "What works in Phoenix or Chicago may not work in Manhattan because of what ii costs," said Mary Spink. "It's one thing if I can sell energy back to Con Ed, but right now that's not possible. So I have no incentive to use solar paneling. Water recycling is not feasible here, and using 80% recycled material costs too much. My buildings were designed according to what works in Manhattan." Back at the symposium - which was sponsored by Bank of America, The Rockefeller Foundation, and The Next American City, an urbanism magazine based in Philadelphia - another worry was whether the LEED system puts too much emphasis on technological innovation when old technology coupled with new consumer habits might http://www.citylimits.org/content/ articles/viewprintable.cfin ?article_ id= 3 263 2/8/2007 Page 3 of3 do just as well, or better. Kath Williams, former president of the World Green Building Council, the organization that created the LEED system, agreed with that worry and suggested everyone would do well to read "Platinum Buildings In Ancient India," a forthcoming book on how ancient Indian construction methods meet the sustainability standards of the highest LEED rated buildings. Amid drinks and cheese trays, she commented: "But, look, we're all learning here. LEED is a work in progress. With a little luck and ingenuity it'll improve with every new year." http://www.citylimits.org/content/articles/viewprintable.cfm?article id=3263 2/8/2007 Growth studies predict population, possible policies to By MELORA GRATTAN _ ensure' liva'bility ln 20,60 nizing support. The plan should contain The only areas that are expected to plans for perm~nently_ protecting some hile np one can truly know ; hold onto sizable areas of open space are lands as well as ident1fymg others that can what Florida will be like in 50 the _northwestern and the Big Bend areas. be developed orredeveloped. Finally, this W. years., Qne new set of studies , "We fully expected to see something v1s1on should be supported by funding predicts massive growth characterized by , dramatic, but maybe not this dramatic,,, said mecharusm_s and a large number of Jead- sprawl and a lessel)ing in quality of life , Pattison. "We just wanted to see would ers and_ residents_. _features unless specific growth manage- , happen if the current decision making pro- . Florida has a history of progressive plan- ment practices are implemented soon, cess continued." rung and management, and these four ele- Collectively grouped under the "Florida . With this study as its foundation, the ments should help it develop a framework 2060" banner, the two studies were recel1(1y group decided to look for ways to build a for addressmg the challenges it has in store released by 1000 Friends of Florida, a non policy framework for growth decisions by m the future, Ross said, _ profit organization that serves as a growth the state's leaders and residents. "We Although not famihar with the specifics management watchdog in the state. wanted to have an,outside party without of these s_tudies,_ one Tallahassee lawyer The first study outlines a population dis- . Florida ties to suggest policy choices that who specialties mclude growth manage- tribution scenario showing where the , might produce a different result," Pattison ment _was skeptical on what can be done to population may tend to settle in the future. : said. control growth. The companion study was aimed at sug For this reason, the second study "A . "We aren't managing our growth and I gested policy choices·for dealing with that , Time for Leadership: Growth Management think we are doomed if we think we can," projected scenario, explained Charles and Florida 2060," was conducted by the I said Wade Hopping of Hopping Green & Pattison, president and CEO of 1000 Center for Quality Growth and Regional Sams m Tallahassee. Friends. · Development at· the Georgia Institute of He went on to give the example of how The first study, completed by the Uni Technology. This study produced four planners want to stop sprawl but seem to versity of Florida's GeoPlan Center, de primary recommendations. inevitably limit the heights of buildings in a veloped graphics that show what would The first one was to accelerate and ex- downtown or urban.area. "So how do you happen if development patterns stayed pand the Florida Forever program for ac- get all those people in those areas," he constant by the years 2020, 2040 and 2060. quiring and protecting lands ranging from asked. "And, then vou have to do some- "We did it by county with the assump natural land and recreation space to open I , thing about mass transit and traffic issues." tion, for planning purposes, that the den _ space and agricultural property. Hoppmg, who participated in drafting sity numbers will stay the same," Pattison , "This land'acquisition program is clearly and passing laws including the state's mas- explained.- "-For instance, in Osceola key for Florida," said Catherine Ross PhD s1ve growth management act said that the County, there are two people per acre and the priI1;iary author of the second study _and aim of many environmentali~t groups is to if that stays the same and you add 100,000, a Harry West chair profeisor and direGtor set the stage for an expanded land pur- it will show how that fills up that county in of Georgia Tech's CQGRD. "We tllink it chase program. SO years. In other words, ifwe continue at is really important to have that available However, Pattison points out that his the same rate, this is what we get." for·future generations." ?rga1:1zat10~ and the sponsors of the stud- And what we get witl1 this assumption is She also suggested a regional revenue ies-mcludmg The St. Joe Company, A. nearly double the overall population of 18 generation policy in the future to provide Duda & Sons and the Nature Conser- million by 2060. With continued trends, this more opportunities since the benefits are vancy-had no control over the research- would translate-to 7 million more acres of ' regional. ers or the published materials . . land being converted from rural to urban The second suggestion was to adopt a Both ~a~ti~on's and Ross' views are uses, with more than 2 million of those con new policy ~oncerning the conversion of m?re optimistic about what can be accom- verted acres within a mile of cons~rvation rural lands to urban uses. This policy would phs"hed to manage growth. areas. only permit conversion if there was sig- 1 ~lnn1c we have a l~~g way to go to Formally called "Florida2060: A Popu nificant public benefit. . make 11 happen and Qur c111es are evidence lation Distribution Scenario for the State "Development should be focused and of that, b~t It doesn't make it unworthy of of Florida," this initial study also breaks' 1 ~ontaine~ where it can be used as part Of pursumg,_ Ross s.a_id._ , down what would happen in various re- its amemty set, so there is cooperation be- ~n terms 0 ~ ~oppmg s eX:ample on the tween the human and natural environ- height of buildmgs, she said that densi~ gions. . . ___ - 1 For example, in the central portion of ments," Ross said. "There should be a se- depends, on the place and what location the state, the I-75 and I-4 corridors would 1 ries of pluses to the publi\O or it stays a fit_ with taller b':'ildings. Participants, sh, be fully developed. The counties of Semi greenspace." said, must be willmg to make some trade nole, Orange, Brevard, Indian River Ros_s said that the idea of Q?t permitting off~; . . P":-ellas and-Manatee would be complete]; development in some places but enc0Ur- It 1s ~asy to be Jaded, but the reality i built out by 2040 and overflow into sur aging it in othe;s is part of the spatial plan- th~t at least half o~,the de~elopment will b rounding areas. Overall, the study said that mng concept. 'We are excited about this builtfromscratch, she said. This prompt almost all of the region's natural systems concept and hope it becomes a part of the ~uest10ns of where and how do you buil and wildlife corridors would be frag national paradigm." 11 so you have green spaces and a hig mented or replaced by urban develop It involves balancing the population and quality _of life in ~laces that are economi ment. · its needs so growth doesn't harm re- cally viable. I think we can reconfigur 1 sowces or the natural environment. Some our existing environments, as well as try t In the southwe_stern region, there will 1 be an almost continuous band of urban factors to consider, especially before build- control our new ones, and make them be· • development along the coast that will spill · ing new towns, include their financially term r<;gards to these JSsues." into neighboring iuland counties: DeSoto ' capability and access to amenities to make I PatUson agrees that controlling an He_ndry an_d Glades counties are projected sure they are viable, she said. ch",!1gmg growth patterns is possible. _ to experience· the largest transformation 1 The other two recommendations in- We think we could have different n by 2060 from a mostly rutal to mostly urban I volve devising a JOO-Year Legacy Plan, suits with different ways of growth mai character, predicted the study. followed by identifying leaders and galva- agement and we will weigh the cons1de atlons from Georgia Tech with discussiot from my board," he said.