HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009 - O-08-02 - 2nd Readingan of
SEISASTIM
HOME OF PELICAN ISLAND
city of Sebastian, r ioriaa
Subject: Second reading and public hearing of
Ordinance 0-08-02, Land Use Amendment for
a 17.14 acres of land known as Shady Rest Agenda No.
Mobile Home Park
Department Origin: Growth Mana emen
Purchasing/Contracting:
Finance Director:
Ajpro// }� for Submittal by: City Manager City Attorney:
City Clerk:
Date Submitted: March 17, 2009
For Agenda of. March 25, 2009
Exhibits: Ordinance 0-08-02; DCA ORC Report dated 3-6-09; IRC Utilities letter dated 3-16-09; IRC Links
Maintenance report dated March 9, 2009
N
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: I AMOUNT BUDGETED: I None
OPRIATION REQUIRED
None
SUMMARY
If annexation of the subject property is approved, the 17.14 -acre parcel must be given a City land use and
zoning designation. The applicant has requested Riverfront Mixed Use (RMU) for the land use and
Commercial Riverfront (CR) for the zoning. The staff report (under separate cover) provides analysis of
the land use and zoning requests with regard to the City of Sebastian Comprehensive Plan and Land
Development Code.
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the land use and zoning changes for the
subject property at their January 17, 2008 meeting. On June 11, 2008, City Council held a public hearing
and authorized transmittal of Ordinance 0-08-02 to the Department of Community Affairs for their review.
The City has received the Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report (ORC) from DCA, which
is provided for your information. Of the eight objections outlined in the report, only the first objection
pertains to the Shady Rest land use amendment, and all others pertain to the text amendments proposed by
Ordinance 0-08-10 for the Comprehensive Plan update.
In response to the single objection, a service availability letter has been received from Indian River County
Utilities regarding water, sewer, and solid waste capacity, as well as a links maintenance report regarding
road capacity. Specifically, Shady Rest Mobile Home Park is currently served by the Indian River Utilities
water and sewer regional system which provides adequate facilities. The Indian River County Solid Waste
Disposal District also has sufficient capacity to serve Shady Rest. U.S. I is currently operating at less than
68% capacity, with Shady Rest Mobile Home Park fully developed. If the land use amendment is
approved by City Council, this information will be submitted to DCA, along with the adopted ordinance,
for their compliance review.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Hold public hearing. "Move to approve Ordinance 0-08-02 and authorize transmittal of the ordinance and
supporting data to DCA for compliance review."
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
"Dedicated to making Florida a better place to call home"
CHARLIE CRIST THOMAS G. PELHAM
Govemor Secretary
March 6, 2009
The Honorable Richard H. Gillmor
Mayor, City of Sebastian►
1225 Main Street
Sebastian, Florida 32958-4165 W U 9 2009
Dear Mayor Gillmor: &7, d, W9,g-0h Al�J
The Department has completed its review of the City of Sebastian proposed Comprehensive
Plan Amendment (DCA No. 09-1), which was received on December 31, 2008. Copies of the
proposed amendment have been distributed to appropriate state, regional, and local agencies for their
review and their comments are enclosed.
The proposed amendment was reviewed for consistency with Rule 9J-5, Florida
Administrative Code, and Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and the Department has prepared the
attached Objections, Recommendations, and Comments Report which outlines our findings
concerning the comprehensive plan amendment. There are eight objections and seven comments to
the proposed amendment regarding lack of adequate data and analysis regarding public facilities,
inconsistencies in the Future Land Use Element, lack of water supply concurrency policies, and
Public Facilities Element issues of concern.
My staff and I are available to assist the City in addressing the issues identified in our report.
If you have any questions, please contact Laura Regalado, Community Planner, at (850) 921-3762.
Sincer ly,
Mike McDaniel, Chief
Office of Comprehensive Planning
MM/lmr
Enclosures: Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report
Review Agency Comments
cc: Mr. Al Minner, City Manager, City of Sebastian
Ms. Rebecca Grohall, AICP, Growth Management Director, City of Sebastian
Mr. Michael J. Busha, AICP, Executive Director, Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council
2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD ♦ TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-2100
850-488-8466 (p) # 850-921-0781 (f) ♦ Website: www.dca.state.fl.us
• COMMUNITY PLANNING 850488-2356 (p) 850.488-3309 (f) • FLORIDA COMMUNITIES TRUST 850-922-2207 (P) 850-921-1747 (f)
• HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 850488-7956(p) 850-922-5623(f) ♦
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS
FOR THE
CITY OF SEBASTIAN
PROPOSED AMENDMENT 09-1
March 6, 2009
Division of Community Planning
This report is prepared pursuant to Rule 9J-11.010, F.A.C.
INTRODUCTION
The following objections, recommendations and comments are based upon the Department's
review of the City of Sebastian 09-1 proposed amendment to its Comprehensive Plan pursuant to
s. 163.3184, Florida Statutes (F.S.).
The objections relate to specific requirements of relevant portions of Chapter 9J-5, Florida
Administrative Code (F.A.C.), and Chapter 163, Part II, F.S. Each objection includes a
recommendation of one approach that might be taken to address the cited objection. Other
approaches may be more suitable in specific situations. Some of these objections may have
initially been raised by one or more of the other external review agencies. If there is a difference
between the Department's objection and the external agency advisory objection or comment, the
Department's objection would take precedence.
Each of these objections must be addressed by the City and corrected when the amendment is
resubmitted for our compliance review. Objections that are not addressed may result in a
determination that the amendment is not in compliance. The Department may have raised an
objection regarding missing data and analysis items, which the local government considers not
applicable to its amendment. If that is the case, a statement justifying its non -applicability
pursuant to Rule 9J-5.002(2), F.A.C., must be submitted. The Department will make a
determination on the non -applicability of the requirement, and if the justification is sufficient, the
objection will be considered addressed.
The comments that follow the objections and recommendations section are advisory in nature.
Comments will not form bases of a determination of non-compliance. They are included to call
attention to items raised by our reviewers. The comments can be substantive, concerning
planning principles, methodology or logic, as well as editorial in nature dealing with grammar,
organization, mapping, and reader comprehension.
Appended at the end of the Department's ORC Report are the comment letters from the other
state review agencies and other agencies, organizations and individuals. These comments are
advisory to the Department and may not form bases of Departmental objections unless they
appear under the "Objections" heading in this report.
TRANSMITTAL PROCEDURES
Upon receipt of this letter, the City of Sebastian has 60 days in which to adopt, adopt with
changes, or determine that the City will not adopt the proposed amendment. The process for
adoption of local government comprehensive plan amendments is outlined in s. 163.3184, F. S.,
and Rule 9J-11.011, F.A.C. The City must ensure that all ordinances adopting comprehensive
plan amendments are consistent with the provisions of Chapter 163.3189(2)(a), F.S.
Within ten working days of the date of adoption, the City must submit the following to the
Department:
Three copies of the adopted comprehensive plan amendments;
A listing of additional changes not previously reviewed;
A listing of findings by the local governing body, if any, which were not included in the
ordinance; and
A statement indicating the relationship of the additional changes to the Department's
Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report.
The above amendment and documentation are required for the Department to conduct a
compliance review, make a compliance determination and issue the appropriate notice of intent.
In order to expedite the regional planning council's review of the amendments, and pursuant to
Rule 9J-11.011(5), F.A.C., please provide a copy of the adopted amendment directly to the
Executive Director of the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council.
Please be advised that Section 163.3184(8)(c), F.S., requires the Department to provide a
courtesy information statement regarding the Department's Notice of Intent to citizens who
furnish their names and addresses at the local government's plan amendment transmittal
(proposed) or adoption hearings. In order to provide this courtesy information statement, local
governments are required by law to furnish the names and addresses of the citizens requesting
this information to the Department. Please provide these required names and addresses to
the Department when you transmit your adopted amendment package for compliance
review. In the event there are no citizens requesting this information, please inform us of
this as well. For efficiency, we encourage that the information sheet be provided in electronic
format.
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS REPORT
CITY OF SEBASTIAN
PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 09-1
I. Consistency with Chapter 163, F.S., and Rule 9J-5, F.A.C.
The City of Sebastian 09-1 proposed comprehensive plan amendment has one Future Land Use
Map Amendment and numerous text amendments including the City's Public School Facilities
Element. The Department has identified the following objections and comments to the proposed
comprehensive plan amendment:
II. Objections
Future Land Use Map Amendment - Shady Rest Moblie Home Park
Objection 1: The City did not include data and analysis demonstrating that adequate public
facilities will be available to serve new development at the maximum development potential that
will result from the proposed land use designation. Due to the absence of an impact analysis on
public facilities the City has not demonstrated that its Future Land Use Map is coordinated with
the availability of public facilities or that the proposed land use change is internally consistent
with the Future land Use Objective 1-2.4 and Policy 1-2.4.1; Transportation Element Objective
1.1 and Policy 1.1.4; Infrastructure Element Objective 4-1.1 and Policy 4-1.1.4 and Capital
Improvements Objective 1.2 and Policy 1.2.1. These objectives and policies require the City to
ensure coordination between land uses and the provision of public facilities and to ensure new
development and redevelopment are provided services that meet the City's level of service
standard.
Authority: Section 163.3164(32); 163.3161(3), 163.3167 (13); 163.3177(1), (3), (4)(a), (6)(a)
(b), (c), (d), 0) and (8), F.S.; Rules 9J-5.005(2), (3), (5); 9J -5.055(1)(a); 9J-5.006(2), (3)(b)1, and
(3)(c)3; 9J-5.011(1), (2)(b)1, 2, (2)(c)1, and 2; 9J-5.016(1), (2), (3)(b)1, 3, 4, 5, (3)(c)6, 8, and
(4); and 9J-5.019(3) (4)(b)2, 3, (3)(c)l 1, F.A.C.
Recommendation: Revise the data and analysis to demonstrate that adequate public facilities
are available to serve the maximum development potential or include a site specific policy to
limit development on the site and include notation on the Future Land Use Map to indicate that
development limitations apply to the site.
If data and analysis determines that capital improvements will be needed in the next five years to
address . the public facilities impacts created through this amendment, the those capital
improvements must be included in a financially feasible five year schedule of capital
improvements. To be financially feasible, projects in the first three years of the schedule of
capital improvements must be funded by committed revenue sources. Projects identified in years
four and five can be funded by committed or planned revenue sources.
Text Amendments
Objection 1: The Future Land Use Map I-6 identifies "Conservation" as a land use category.
However, Conservation is not included in the table of land use categories under Future Land Use
Element Policy 1-1.1.2.
Authority: Sections 163.3177(6)(a) and (d), F.S.; and Rules 9J-5.003(28), and (90); 9J-5.005(2)
and (6); and 9J-5.006(3)(c)1, 6, and 7, and (4)(c), and 9J-5.013(2)(b)3, and 4, (2)(c)1, 3, 5, 6, 8,
and 9, and (3), F.A.C.
Recommendation: Revise the table of land use categories under Future Land Use Element
Policy 1-1.1.2. to include Conservation as a land use category and include a description of
allowed uses and a density or intensity standard consistent with the purpose for assigning the
conservation land use category to a site.
Objection 2: The City proposes to eliminate the land use designation "Airport" and modify the
land use designation of the various airport parcels to the Industrial and Institutional categories.
However, these designations have not been modified to include airport services and facilities as
permitted uses.
Authority: Sections 163.3177(6)(a), F.S.; and Rules 9J-5.003(90); 9J-5.005(2) and (6); and 9J-
5.006(1)(a), (3)(c)5, and 7, and (4)(c), F.A.C.
Recommendation: Revise the Industrial and Institutional land use designations to include
airport services and facilities as permitted uses. Alternatively, establish Airport Industrial and
Airport Institutional land use categories if airport uses will only be allowed at the airport and its
immediate vicinity. Include suitable density and intensity standards as appropriate.
Objection 3: The proposed amendment does not address the requirements of Section
163.3180(2)(a), F.S., pertaining to water supply concurrency.
Authority: Sections 163.3167(13) and 163.3180(2)(a), F.S.; Rules 9J-5.0055; 9J-5.013(2)(c)1;
and 9J-5.016(3)(c), (5) and (6), F.A.C.
Recommendation: Include a policy to state that prior to approving a building permit or its
functional equivalent, the City will consult with the water supplier to determine whether
adequate water supplies to serve the new development will be available no later than the
anticipated date of issuance of a certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent by the City.
Comment: The page numbers in the Future Land Use Element have errors. Some numbers have
been used twice. The City should revise the page numbering prior to adoption.
Comment: While the City does not have any Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) roadways in or
near the municipal limits, there are two SIS facilities located within the municipal limits: the
Florida East Coast Railroad and the Intracoastal Waterway. The City should modify the data and
analysis accompanying the comprehensive plan to identify these two SIS facilities.
Comment: To ensure the necessary coordination between the City and the District on water
supply planning issues, the City should add the following text to the Intergovernmental
Coordination Element Policy 8-1.1.3: "Participate in the development of updates to the St. John's
River Water Management District's Water Supply Assessment and District Water Supply Plan
and in other water supply development -related initiatives facilitated by the St. John's River
Water management District that affect the City."
Comment: Intergovernmental Coordination Element Policy 8-1.1.3 should include coordination
with the Indian River Lagoon Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan. Additionally,
"DER" (Department of Environmental Regulation) is now the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (FDEP). The policy should be revised as follows: "Implementation of
the SJRWMD/FDEP Indian River Lagoon SWIM program and Indian River Lagoon
Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for restoring the Indian River Lagoon."
Public School Facilites Element
Data and Analysis
Objection 1: The City provided a data and analysis summary as supporting documentation for
the proposed Public Schools Facilities Element. However, the City did not include the complete
district facilities work plan and educational plant survey as required by Florida Statute.
Additionally, the map series along with several tables listing the public school facilities do not
include all public school facilities within the district.
Additionally, the City proposes to adopt by reference the Indian River School District's five year
work plan for 2007-08 through 2011-12 in the Capital Improvements Element. That plan is
outdated and has been replaced with the School Board's new five year work plan for the period
2008-09 through 2012-13, which adopted on October 1, 2008.
Authority: Section 163.3177(12)(c), (g) and (h), F.S; Rule 9J -5.025(2)(a), (g) and (h), (3)(b)3
and 4, and (c)6, and (4)(b), F.A.C.
Recommendation: Revise the support documentation to refernce and include the complete 5 -
year district facilities work plan and educational plant survey. Revise the maps and tables to
include all the public school facilities district wide.
Revise the Capital Improvements Element to adopt the current school district 5 -year work plan
as a support document. Further, a policy should be included to adopt the annual updated 5 -year
school district work plan as part of the annual update to the Capital Improvements Element.
Goals, Obiectives, and Policies
Objection 2: The City did not address the following requirements in the Intergovernmental
Coordination Element:
■ The Element did not include a policy to ensure a joint process for collaborative planning
and decision making with the school board on population projections and with the School
Board, County, and the other municipalities on the annual review of the element
regarding enrollment projections and establishing procedures for the annual update
process; and
■ The Element did not include a policy to ensure that coordination between the local
government and the school board is pursuant to the Interlocal Agreement and that the
obligations to the local government are stated in the Agreement.
Authority: Section 163.3177(6)(h)2. and 4.a.; and (12)(c), F.S.; Rule 9J -5.025(3)(c)3.. F.A.C.
Recommendation: Revise the Intergovernmental Coordination Element to:
■ Include a policy with specific programs and activities the City will undertake to ensure a
joint process for collaborative planning and decision making with the school board on
population projections and with the School Board, County, and the other municipalities
on the annual review of the element regarding enrollment projections and establishing
procedures for the annual update process; and
■ Include a policy to ensure that coordination between the local government and the school
board is pursuant to the Interlocal Agreement and that the obligations to the local
government are stated in the Agreement.
The City should review the Indian River County Public Schools Facilities Element to address the
Objection,
Objection 3: Policy 1.1.4 Modification of Concurrency Exception Areas does not use the same
language as Section 13.2 School Service Area Boundary Modification of the Indian River School
District's Interlocal Agreement.
Authority: Section 163.3177(6)(h) and (12)(c); 163.31777(1)(a) and (d), (2) and (12); and
163.3180(13)(g), F.S.; Rule 9J-5.025 (3)(c)l., F.A.0
Recommendation: Revise the policy to use language that is consistent with the language in
Section 13.2 School Service Area Boundary Modification of the Indian River School District's
Interlocal Agreement
Objection 4: The City has not included the following two required policies in the proposed
Public Schools Facilities Element:
■ A policy with specific programs and activities to be implemented by. the City to ensure
coordination of the long range public school facility map with the local government's
comprehensive plan, including the future land use map; and
■ A policy specifying the type of mitigation accepted by the school board to meet
concurrency. The acceptable mitigation must be consistent with the mitigation options in
the Interlocal Agreement and the County and other municipalities school elements.
Authority: Section 163.3177(12)(f) and (g)9., F.S. and Rule 9J -5.025(3)(c)6 and 9., F.A.0
Recommendation: Review the Indian River County School Element for examples of polcies
for:
• Coordinating the long range public school facility map with the local government's
comprehensive plan, including the future land use map; and
■ Establishing the types of mitigation accepted by the school board to meet concurrency
Comment: The City should consider including an analysis of the need for future schools in the
district, school planning and shared costs, and opportunities for shared use and co -location. The
County included some of this information in the data and analysis for their plan. Although this
data is somewhat out of date, the City could use it as a starting point.
Comment: Several of the policies reference the "School Planning Technical Advisory
Committee." The Interlocal Agreement uses the term, "School Working Group." The City
should revise the affected policies throughout the Element to be consistent with the adopted
Interlocal Agreement.
Comment: Objective 1.4 of the Capital Improvements Element is unclear. The City should
revise the Objective to indicate that the School Board is responsible for the new educational
facilities and any improvements to existing facilities and the City amend its Capital
Improvements Schedule to include needed school projects.
III. Consistency with Chapter 187, F.S.
The proposed amendment is inconsistent with the following provisions of Chapter 187, F.S., the
State Comprehensive Plan:
Section 187.20 ] (7), Water Resources, Policy (b) 5: Ensure the availability of water for new
development.
Section 187.201(9) Natural Systems and Recreational Lands, Policies 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, and 10: To
ensure the protection of environmentally sensitive lands, endangered and threatened species and
their habitats.
Section 187.201(15) Land Use Policies, 1, 2, 3, and 6: Ensure development occurs where there
are public facilities to support the development; encourage an attractive and functional mix of
uses for living, working, shopping, and recreation; ensure compatibility with water supplies and
other natural resources.
Section 187.201(16) Urban and Regional Downtown Revitalization, Policy 8: Promote
intergovernmental coordination and cooperation processes regarding educational facilities in
urban areas.
Section 187.201(17) Public Facilities, Policies 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9: To ensure the availability of
public facilities.
Section 187.201(19) Transportation, Policies 1, 7, 9, 11, and 13: To ensure a transportation
system that provides efficient access to services, jobs, and attractions.
Section 187.201(25), Plan Implementation, Policies (b) 1, 3 and 5: Ensure that local plans
implement and accurately reflect State goals and policies.
By addressing the concerns noted in Section I., these inconsistencies with Chapter 187, Florida
Statutes, can be addressed.
a
,fir- 0
TR S �I O<" (NA AN iV
I,ID A Rev I .-� is u�
1B
r a �' ' j:*a� �i 3 4✓*a
February 20, -2009
,Mr. Ray Eubanks, ,administrator
Plan and Review Processin"
Office of Comprehensive Planning
Department of Community Affairs
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100
Subject: City of Sebastian Comprehensive Plan
Draft Amendments - DCA Reference No, 09-1
Dear *Ir. Eubanks:
U 3D
FEB ? 3 2003
`-it✓�
Council has reviewed the above -referenced amendments in accordance with the requirements of
Chapter 163, Florida Statutes and Council's adopted plans, policies, and review procedures.
Enclosed is a copy of our report as approved by Council at its regular meeting on February 20,
.1009 pursuant to Section 163.3 184, Flo)-Ua Statutes.
If you have any questions, please feel tree to call me.
Sincerely,
Terry L. Hess, AIC'P
Deputy Director
TL!-Lsh
(:nc:losure
"Bringing
Communities
Together,"
Est. 1976
1 2 1
S. W. Cam d e n -\ v e n u e
[ o a r i F 1 n r i d a
1 1 9') 4
TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLAN`NFNG COUNCIL
MEMORANDUM
To: Council Members AGENDA ITEM 5Q
From: Staff
Date: February 20, 2009 Council Meeting
Subject: Local Government Comprehensive Plan Review
Draft Amendments to the City of Sebastian Comprehensive Plan
DCA Reference No. 09-1
Introduction
The Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act,
Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, requires that Council review local government
comprehensive plan amendments prior to their adoption. Under the provisions of this
law, the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) prepares an Objections,
Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report on a proposed amendment only if
requested to do so by the local government, the regional planning council, an affected
person, or. if an ORC Report is otherwise deemed necessary by the DCA. If an ORC
Report is to be prepared, then Council must provide DCA with its findings of consistency
or inconsistency with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan (SRPP), and provide any
comments and recommendations for modification on the proposed amendments within 30
days of its receipt.
Backaround
The City of Sebastian has proposed one Future Land Use Map (FLUM) amendment, as
well as text amendments to the Future Land Use, Housing, Transportation,
Intergovernmental Coordination, Public School Facilities and Capital Improvements
Elements of the City Comprehensive Plan. The City has requested a formal review of the
proposed amendments.
Evaluation
A. Future Land Use :1vIap Amendment
The proposed amendment is for two parcels of land totaling 17.1 acres located on
the .vest side of U.S. 1 at the northern boundary of the City (see Exhibits 2 and 3).
The land is being annexed by the City concurrent Nvith the FLUM amendment. The
property contains the Shady RestMobile Home Park. The mobile home park
contains 117 sites, 79 of which were occupied at the time of the application to the
City for the amendment. No specific redevelopment plan for the property has yet
been submitted to the City.
The current FLUM designation is Mobile Home Rental Park, a County designation.
The proposed designation is Redevelopment Mixed Use (RMU). According to the
Comprehensive Plan, the RMU designation is to provide a mixture of residential,
commercial, recreational and institutional uses. The desired mix by 2020, according
to the City, would be residential (25%), institutional/recreational (20%) and
commercial (55%). The RMU designation would allow up to 8 dwelling units per
acre. The RMU designation is applied to properties within the Riverfront
Community Redevelopment Area to promote vitality and redevelopment.
The present land uses on surrounding properties include a big box retail facility to
the north, medical office and an office/retail plaza to the east, a church and vacant
lands to the south and residential development to the west. The FLUM designations
on surrounding properties are Commercial/Industrial* to the north, RMU and
Commercial/Industrial* to the east, Institutional and Low Density Residential*
(maximum 6 dwelling units per acre) to the south, and Low Density Residential* to
the west.
The public hearings to consider the annexation and FLUM amendment generated a
good deal of public comment and opposition. According to the City, the annexation
agreement will include a provision giving mobile home park residents five years
notice of the plan to redevelop the property. A survey done by the landowner at the
time of application indicates there are many comparable housing opportunities in
the area for relocation of the mobile home park residents. The City staff
recommended approval of the proposed amendment. The Local Planning Agency
recommended approval by a 4-2 vote.
* Indian River County FLUM designation.
B. Text Amendments
The City. indicates that the proposed text amendments are to fulfill statutory
requiremnts and to update and revise the Data Inventory and Analysis as well as
Goals, Objectives and Policies. The City indicates that the proposed amendments to
the Future Land Use and Transportation Elements include a complete reorganization
of the goals, objectives and policies because of redundancy, achievement or
incorrect categorization.
A brief summary of the amendments follows:
A. Future Land Use Element
1. Added Agricultural as a new FLUM category, pursuant to a Stipulated
Settlement .Agreement with the City of Fellsmere regarding annexed
property.
2. Removed the High Density Residential (HDR) FLUM from the
comprehensive plan. No property within the City had been assigned the
HDR designation.
3. Objective 1-1.3 establishes a new FLUM designation of Very Low
Density Residential (maximum 3 dwelling units per acre) to be applied in
areas that are considered appropriate for very large lot single-family
residential units.
4. Added new Policies 1-1.7.2 and 1-1.7.3 to the Conservation Land Use
objective to indicate the City's support for the acquisition of natural areas
or open space.
B. Transportation Element
1. The proposed extension of Fleming Street was removed from the
Transportation Element maps, as this extension would need to be built
through a new County Conservation Area. To mitigate for the loss of this
roadway segment on the roadway system, the City has included the
extension of Laconia Street to CR 510.
2. Expanded Policies 1.6.4 and 1.6.5 'to support the establishment and
construction of bike -paths and sidewalks.
3. Committed to the preparation of a Greenways Plan by 2011, in Policy
1.6.2; and gave priority to the financing of Greenways in heavy
recreational use areas in Policy 1.6.7.
C. Housing Element
1. New Objective 1.2 is the provision of affordable housing for special
needs populations, including the workforce and low and moderate income
households.
2. New Policy 1.2.3 lists the incentives the City shall offer which include
expedited permitting, and waiver of building permit fees, impact fees and
inspection fees in developments with affordable housing units that meet
City location/criteria.
D. Intergovernmental Coordination Element
1. added new text regarding the Interlocal Agreement for School
Concurrency.
E. Public School Facilities Element
This element replaces the Public School Element. It incorporates new
statutory requirements and contains provisions as called for in the Indian
River County Public Schools Interlocal Agreement.
F. Capital Improvements Element
Includes the statutory requirements for an annual update to the Capital
Improvements Element.
Extra iurisdictional Impacts
Under the informal agreement established by the Treasure Coast Regional Planning
Council (TCRPQ, local governments in the northern three counties of the region are to
provide copies of amendment materials to other local governments that have expressed an
interest in receiving such materials. The City has provided copies of the amendment
materials to Indian River County, Vero Beach, Fellsmere, the Indian River County
Metropolitan Planning Organization and the Indian River County School District. At the
request of the TCRPC, a copy has also been provided to Brevard County. Council
provided a memorandum dated January 8, 2009 to these local governments and agencies
seeking comments on the proposed amendments. As of the date of the preparation of this
report, no comments were received.
Effects on Significant Regional Resources or Facilities
Analysis of the proposed amendments indicates that they would not have adverse effects
on significant regional resources or facilities.
Analysis of Consistency with Strategic Regional Policy Plan
Comments/Recommendations for Modification
1. Section B.l of the Future Land Use Element lists each FLUM category and
indicates that a definition of each category is included. However, the definition
of some categories is absent or incomplete. This should be addressed by the
City during the EAR amendment process.
2. The City has proposed to eliminate the HDR FLUNI designation (allowing up
to 12 dwelling units per acre) from the comprehensive plan. As a result, the
maximum residential density for the entire City would be 8 dwelling units per
acre. Although there is no land in the City to which the HDR FLUtif currently
applies, the City should retain the designation in the Comprehensive Plan.
Residential densities higher than eight may be appropriate to provide for a
range of housing types and affordabdities and improve the feasibility of transit
Exhibit 1
General Location Map
Exhibit 3
Surrounding Land Use
Shady Rest Annexation
February 2, 2009
Florida Department of Charlie "GovC'." t
over„c}r
Environmental Protection Jeff Kottl amp
Marjory Stoneman Douglas Building Lt. Governor
3900 Commonwealth Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Michael !V. Sole
Secretary;
Mr. D. Ray Eubanks
Bureau of Local Planning
Department of Community Affairs
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
Re: Sebastian 09-1, Comprehensive Plan Amendment Review
Objections, Comments and Recommendations Report
Dear Mr. Eubanks:
The 'Office of Intergovernmental Programs of the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP or. Department) has reviewed the above -referenced amendment
submitted by the City of Sebastian (City) under the provisions of Chapter 163, Part II,
Florida Statutes (F.S.), and Chapters 9J-5 and 9J-11, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.).
The amendment package consists of one future land use map (FLUM) amendment and
text changes to the Future Land Use, Housing, Transportation, Public School Facilities,
Capital Improvements and Intergovernmental Coordination Elements. The Department
submits the following comments and recommendations to assist your agency in
developing the state's response to the proposed amendments.
Concurrency Policies
To implement the City's concurrency management system, FLUE Policy 1-3.1.1 and
Capital Improvement Element Policy 1.6.2 provide that all developments must, at the
time the permit application is submitted, provide information demonstrating that all
urban services needed by the proposed development will be provided concurrent with
the development.
Comments and Recommendations
Section 163.3177(6), F.S. requires that the City's concurre ;.gym nt system
ensure that adequate water supplies and water and was: �� "acilities will be
available to serve new development no later than the dat Bch the City anticipates
issuing a certificate of occupancy. The Department recomi -Is that the City include
”,-fora Protection, Less Process"
I crr• Iv. dep. slate. fl. us
Mr. D. Ray Eubanks
Sebastian 09-1
Page 2 of 2
February 2, 2009
policy language that clearly states that development orders, permits and agreements are
subject to the adopted concurrency management system and that the City will ensure
the availability of both public facility capacity and water supply capacity. The
concurrency management system should also include policies that formalize the
consultation between the City and its water supplier.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed amendments.
Should you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to
contact me at (850) 245-2172 or by email at Suzanne.E.Ray@dep.stateAus.
Yours sincerely,
Suzanne 7- Rpy
Suzanne E. Ray, AICP
Office of Intergovernmental Programs
/ ser
St, JpQhhns
River
oil
Water Management District
e D�rector • David W. Fisk. Assistant Ex..,�.S Drsctcr
Krby B. Green III, Execs !ir
4049 Reid Street • P.O. Box 1429 •Palatka, FL 32178-1429 • (386) 329-4500
On the Internet at 4vww.sjrvimd.com.
February 6, 2009
D. Ray Eubanks, Administrator
3 - 20..
Plan Review and Processing
Department of Community Affairs
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, FL 32399-29100
Subject: City of Sebastian Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment
DCA Amendment #09-1
Dear Mr. Eubanks:
I)
St. Johns River Water Management District (District) planning
mendmenhconsistsave eof tart changes to the
the nced
proposed comprehensive plan amendment. The prop
Future Land Use, Transportation, Housing,
Intergovernmental Coordination, Public Schools, and Capital
ID
Improvements elements; one change to the future land use �ich tap he City)of Sebastian an (C ty) had nosmittal of an t change to the future land use map that occurred in _ ,
previously transmitted to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA). District staff review
es in an effort to link land use
focuses on water supply availability and related water resource issu
planning and water supply planning. In the revi'oter consnmptive uply lability, District se permit (CUP),taff andcsourcde.r
infrastructure, permitted allocation under District -issued
District staff comments are provided below.
Proposed FLUM change
District analysis of the proposed FLUM change indicates there will not be an increase in potable water
demand; therefore, the District has not identified any substantial water supply availability or related
water resource issues.
Proposed text changes
Since the City has adopted its annual update to the Capital Improvements ElementCIE textdChange�tted
it under separate cover for agency review, the District did no proposed
submitted as part of the 09-1 amendment. The District Comments on the Future Land Use Elemenas no comments on the proposed chances t
the
Transportation, Housing, and Public Schools elements.
(FLUE) and Intergovernmental Coordination Element (ICE) are below.
1. To adequately address the water supply con urrency requirements of Section c management system must address watersupply
Florida Statutes (F.S.), the City'.s concurrency o
d when issuing a
availability prior to approval of a building pest
addition, the City's concurrency system must includcy. In
e consultation with theiapplicable certicate lwater supplier
GOVERNING BOARD
U.4F ccrcere v Naris G. TanAer III, TAFAQW
Letter to D. Ray Eubanks
February 6, 2009
PaQ,- 2 of 3
during the permit review process and prior to the approval of a building permit to determine if
adequate water supplies will be available to serve the development by the anticipated issuance date
of the certificate of occupancy. To ensure that the water supply concurrency requirements are
addressed, the District suggests that the following policy is added under ICE Objective 8-1.1:
The City shall issue no development orders or development permits without first
consulting with its water supplier to determine whether adequate water supplies to serve
the development will be available no later than the anticipated date of issuance by the
City of a certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent. The City will also ensure
that adequate water supplies and facilities are available and in place prior to issuing a
certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent.
To ensure the necessary coordination between the City and the District on water supply planning
issues, the following text should be added as a bullet to ICE Policy 8-1.1.3: "Participate in the
development of updates to St. Johns River Water Management District's (SJR�VMD's) Water
Supply Assessment and District Water Supply Plan and in other water supply development -related
initiatives facilitated by SJRWMD that affect the City."
v The last bullet under ICE Policy 8-1.1.3 states, "Implementation of the SixMD/DER SWIM
program for restoring the Indian River Lagoon," but does not mention the Indian River Lagoon
Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan. Also, "DER" (Department of Environmental
of Environmental Protection (FDEP). The bullet should
Regulation) is now the Florida Department
be revised as follows: "Implementation of the SJRWMD/FDEP Indian River Lagoon SWIM
program and Indian River Lagoon Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for restoring
the Indian River Lagoon."
J.
Map I-6, Future Land Use Map, identifies "Conservation" as a land use category; however, the
category is omitted in the table of land use categories under FLUE Policy 1-1.1.2. The City should
1-1.1.2 to include Conservation as a land use category.
revise the table in FLUE Policy
2010 evaluation and appraisal report (EAR) process and future EAR -based amendments
The City will be undertaking the EAR process to meet the EAR adoption deadline of August 1, 2010.
Please note that District review of the EAR and EAR -based amendments will focus on the issues listed
above and take into consideration the following:
1. The Conservation Element addresses the requirements of Section 163.3177(6)(d), F.S., and identifies
the current and projected water needs and sources for a minimum 10 -year period considering the
District Water Supply Plan, the City's water supplier's (Indian River County) District -issued
consumptive use permit (CUP), and associated water supply reports.
2. Policies relative to water conservation are updated to be consistent with the City's water supplier's
CUP and Water Conservation Plan that was submitted to the District in 2006.
Letter to D. Ray Eubanks
February 6, 2009
Page 3 of 3
3. VStormwater management, aquifer recharge, and rel.-se water policies and projects are consistent with
the goals of the District's Indian River Lagoon B__in program to protect or enhance water quality
and natural systems.
4. Policies promote and encourage the use of low in-oact development techniques. (For example, the
City could provide development incentives for « :er-efficient developments such as those that use
the Florida Water Star
s`l program, a point-based. new home certification program similar to the
federal Energy Star program.)
5. Potable and nonpotable water supply projects necessary to maintain adopted levels of service are
listed in the capital improvements schedule.
6. Policies to protect water resources are not in conflict with the District's environmental resource
permitting and consumptive use permitting rules.
gnations assigned to District property allow District management activities.
7. Future land use desi
8. Proposed transportation corridors or facilities do not impact District land and easements.
9. Policies that identify the District as receiver of easements include the statement "subject to the
District's acceptance."
rovide comments. If you have any questions, please contact District
We appreciate the opportunity to p
t (386) 312-2369 or sfit<gib@sjncmd.con:.
Policy Analyst Steve Fitzgibbons a
Sincerely,
Jeff Cole, Director
Office of Communications and Governmental Affairs
JC/CF/DF
cc: Rebecca Grohall, City of Sebastian
Michael Busha, TCRPC
Jim Quinn, FDEP
Ann Benedetti, SJR«'MD
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION
T. WILLARD FAIR, CHAIRUAN
MEMBERS
PE-rER BOULWARE
DR. AKSHAY DESAI
ROBERTO MARTINEZ
PHOEBE RAULERSON
KATHLEEN SHANAHAN
LINDA K TAYLOR
February 16, 2009
Mr. D. Ray Eubanks, Plan Processing Administrator
Division of Community Planning
Department of Community Affairs
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
Dear Mr. Eubanks:
Re: Sebastian 09-1 (Including PSFE)
Dr. Eric J. Smith
Commissioner of Education
jworJdRl
�n
Thank you for the. opportunity to review the proposed amendment package for the City of Sebastian.
The transmittal included a plan update, a large-scale map amendment related to Shady Rest Mobile
Home Park, and a proposed new public school facilities element. The Department's comments are
limited to the school concurrency related amendments and are provided below:
1. Interlocal Agreement. — An interlocal agreement was not provided to support the proposed
amendment. Because the Department of Community Affairs published its Notice of Intent to
find the agreement consistent with planning requirements on April 25, 2008, and because
the agreement was previously transmitted to state review agencies, the omission is not of
concern to the Department.
2. Data and Analysis. — The city provided a data and analysis summary supporting
documentation for its proposed school element. The document, however, is outdated and
must be revised to reflect best available data. Best available data include the following: 1.)
July 2008 estimates of public school enrollment published by the Florida Legislature's Office
of Economic and Demographic Research; the Indian River School Board's five-year district
facilities work plan for the period 2008-09 through 2012-13; and current Florida Inventory of
School Houses data regarding school capacity. The following charts in the public school
facilities and the capital improvements elements must be revised to reflect best available
data: PSFE Appendix A., PSFE Appendix B, PSFE Table XI -7, PSFE Table XI -10, PSFE
Table XI -12, PSFE Tables XI -14 through XI -16, and CIE Table XII -1.
SPESSARD BOATRIOIIT
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES
Mr. D. Ray Eubanks
February 16, 2009
Page 2of3
Further, several tables listing public school facilities and the map series (in both the PSFE
and CIE) are incomplete because they do not reflect all public school facilities in the district.
The city must revise them to reflect requirements for uniform implementation of school
concurrency district wide.
The supporting documentation must be revised to include the complete district facilities
work plan and educational plant survey (unless the survey was provided previously and the
city indicates its reliance on the earlier submission).
Finally, the data and analysis would be improved with the inclusion of analysis of the need
for future schools in the district, school planning and shared costs, and opportunities for
shared use and co -location. Although now somewhat out of date due to new enrollment
projections and adoption of a new district five-year facilities work plan, the data and analysis
prepared by the county includes such analyses the city may wish to use as a starting point
(see Indian River County Public School Facilities Element pages 27-31 and pages 40-44).
Goals, Objectives and Policies. — The proposed element does not track closely the elements
adopted by Indian River County, the City of Fellsmere, or the Town of Indian River Shores,
which the Department of Community Affairs found in compliance, nor does it track closely
the Interlocal Agreement for School -Planning, which DCA also approved. The city's proposed
plan, however, is not inconsistent with policies related to level of service standards. Its
policy related to concurrency service areas is not clear. The city proposes to adopt an
outdated five-year district facilities work plan and does not propose a policy to enumerate
options for proportionate share mitigation. The city must work in collaboration with the
school district and other local governments to make the following refinements to its proposed
school concurrency amendment package prior to adoption.
a. Intergovernmental Coordination Element. -- The intergovernmental coordination
element must be revised to include new school planning policies to address the
following requirements: 1.) the ICE shall describe joint processes for collaborative
planning and decision making on population projections [163.3177(6)(h)2. F.S.]; and
2.) the local government shall amend the intergovernmental coordination element to
provide that coordination between the local government and school board is pursuant
to the agreement and shall state the obligations of the local government under the
agreement [163.3177(6)(h)4.a. F.S.]. The proposed public school facilities element
includes Objective 1.7 and associated policies which, if repeated in the ICE, would
meet planning requirements.
b. Capital Improvements Element. — The city proposes to adopt by reference the Indian
River School District's five year work plan for 2007-08 through 2011-12. That plan
was superseded by the School Board's adoption of a new plan for the period 2008-09
through 2012-13, effective October 1, 2008. The city must revise the policy to adopt
the current work plan and include the work plan as a support document. Each year,
as part of 'its annual CIE update, the city must revise the policy to effect adoption of
the School Board's current five-year work plan, include the work plan as a support
document and provide supporting analysis to demonstrate the level of service
standard will be maintained through the new five-year period. The city includes
Table XII -1: Inventory of Public Schools. The table is incomplete and should be
revised to list all public schools within the Indian River School District to insure
compliance with requirements to implement school concurrency on a consistent basis
district wide.
Mr. D. Ray Eubanks
February 16, 2009
Page 3 of 3
c. Public School Facilities Element. — The city must refine the proposed element as
follows:
1. Policy 1.1.4. Modification of Concurrency Service Areas. — The policy is not .
consistent with Section 13.2 of the interlocal agreement and should be revised to
track the language of the agreement to ensure consistency and clarity.
2. Obiective 1.4 and Policy 1.4.1, Capital Improvements — The objective requires the
school board to ensure school capital projects are included in the City's capital
improvements schedule. While the city indeed relies on timely development by
the school board of its district work plan, the city has sole authority to amend its
capital improvements schedule to include needed school projects and should
revise the objective accordingly. The policy adopts a district work plan that is not
in effect. The city should revise the policy to adopt the Indian River School
Board's 2008-09 thought 2012-13 district facilities work plan, and include the
complete work plan in the supporting documentation for the capital
improvements element or public school facilities element. To ensure the policy
meets requirements for adoption by reference, the city must consult with the
school district to obtain the date the work plan was adopted by the school board
and include it in the revised policy.
3. Missing policies. — The city does not propose adoption of two required policies and
must revise the amendment to do so:
a. A policy addressing coordination of the long range public school facility map
with the local government's comprehensive plan, including the future land
use map. [9J -5.025(3)(c)6,. F.A.C., and 163.3177(12)(g)9. F.S.]
b. A policy specifying types of mitigation that a school board will allow to meet
concurrency. [9J -5.025(3)(c)9., F.A.C.]
4. Technical comment. -- The policies make reference to "School Planning Technical
Advisory Committee." The interlocal agreement uses the term, "School Working
Group." The city should revise the policies throughout to conform the policies to
the interlocal agreement. (See Section 2.1 of the agreement.)
Again, thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed plan amendment.
Department of Education staff is available to provide assistance to the parties as they respond to
these comments. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
-e
Tracy D. Suber
Educational Consultant -Growth Management Liaison
TDS/
cc: Ms. Susan Olson, Indian River County School District
Ms. Laura Regalado, DCA
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Kurt S. Browning
Secretary of State
DIVISION OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES
February 2, 2009
Mr. Ray Eubanks
Department of Community Affairs
Bureau of State Planning
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
Re: Historic Preservation Review of the Sebastian (09-1) Comprehensive Plan Amendment
(Indian River County)
Dear Mr. Eubanks:
According to this agency's responsibilities under Section 163, Florida Stahctes, and Chapter 9j-5,
Florida Administrative Code, we reviewed the above document to determine if data regarding
historic resources were given sufficient consideration in the request to amend the Sebastian
Comprehensive Plan.
We reviewed one proposed amendment to the Future Land Use Map, in addition to text
changes to many elements of the. Sebastian Comprehensive Plan, to consider the potential
effects of these actions on historic resources. While our cursory review suggests that many of
the proposed changes may have no adverse effects on historic resources, it is the city's
responsibility to ensure that none of the proposed revisions will have an adverse effect on
significant archaeological or historic resources.
In the revised Future Land Use Element, historic resource protection is addressed in Objective
1-4.2.1 and implementing policies. We are pleased to see that the city has addressed some out
of the ordinary potential adverse impacts to historic sites and properties. We commend the city
on insightful planning. Historic housing concerns are addressed in Objective 2.2 and
implementing policies of the Housing Element. These policies should help protect historic
structures.
500 S. Bronough Street . Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 . http://www.flheritage.com
0 Director's Office O Archaeological Research ✓ Historic Preservation
(850) 245-6300 • FAX: 245-6436 (850) 245-6444 • FAX: 245-6452 (850) 245-6333 1 FAX: 245-6437
Mr. Eubanks
February 2, 2009
Page 2
If you have any questions regarding our comments, please feel free to contact Susan M. Harp of
the Division's Compliance Review staff at (850) 245-6333.
Sincerely,
Frederick P. Gaske, Director
xc: Mr. Bob Dennis
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
1801 27th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960
March 16, 2009
Rebecca Grohall, AICP, Director
Department of Growth Management
City Of Sebastian
1225 Main Street
Sebastian, Florida 32958
Subject: Confirmation of Service availability for: Water, Sewer and Solid Waste
for Shady Rest Mobile Home Park located at 13225 US 1, Sebastian, FL.
Dear Rebecca:
This letter will affirm sufficient capacity of water and sewer service is available to the
Shady Rest Mobile Home Park located at 13225 US 1, Sebastian, Florida. Water and
sewer service is available from the Indian River County water and sewer regional system.
In addition, Solid Waste capacity is sufficient and available through the Indian River
County Solid Waste Disposal District (SWDD) to serve the Park.
Sincerely,
W. EriOlson,
Director of Utility Services
WEO/mj
Links Maintenance Report CM /,� a.` 5c'Sc/;,
CDPR9055 - Links Maintenance Report
March 9, 2009
CURRENT
TOTAL
LINK #
LINK DESCRIPTION
CAPACITY
'SD VESTED
DEMAND
AVAILABLE
% Cam
1395N
U.S. 1//SCHUMANN DR//C.R. 512
1860
1207
103
1310
550
70.45%
1395S
U.S. 1//SCHUMANN DR//C.R. 512
1860
895
132
1027
833
55.24%
140ON
U.S. 1//C.R. 512//N. SEB CITY L
1710
1027
48
1075
635
62.88%
1400S
U.S. 1//C.R. 512//N. Sea CITY L
1710
1089
64
1153
557
67.42%
1405N
U.S. 1//N. SEB CITY L//ROSELAND RD - S.
-- 1860
1094
136
1230
630
66.13% 'W
1405S
U.S. 1//N. SEB CITY L//ROSELAND RD G.c..5
, D 1860
1081
168
1249
611
67.15% 4ff'
141ON
U.S. 1//ROSELAND RD//N. COUNTY LINE
1860
1119
104
1223
637
65.75%
1410S
U.S. 1//ROSELAND RD//N. COUNTY LINE
1860
924
142
1066
794
57.31%
151ON
SCHUMANN DR//C.R. 510 @ 66TH AVE//S. SEB
860
794
9
803
57
93.32% Exceeds 80% Capacity
1510S
SCHUMANN DR//C.R. 510 @ 66TH AVE//S. SEB
860
348
14
362
498
42.08%
1520N
SCHUMANN DR//S. SEB CITY L//U.S. 1
860
129
7
136
724
15.84%
1520S
SCHUMANN DR//S. SEB CITY L//U.S. 1
860
210
19
229
631
26.65%
1610E
ROSELAND RD//C.R. 512//N. SEB CITY L
860
293
24
317
543
36.86%
161OW
ROSELAND RD//C.R. 512//N. SEB CITY L
860
329
24
353
507
41.05%
1620E
ROSELAND RD//N. SEB CITY L//U.S. 1
860
408
43
451
409
52.44%
1620W
ROSELAND RD//N. SEB CITY L//U.S, 1
860
449
44
493
367
57.33%
1710E
C.R. 512//S.R. 60//1-95
860
394
51
445
416
51.69%
171OW
C.R. 512//S.R. 60//I-95
860
665
11
676
184
78.60%
1720E
C.R. 512//I-95//C.R. 510
1860
553
89
642
1219
34.49%
1720W
C.R. 512//I-95//C.R. 510
1860
696
25
721
1139
38.76%
1730E
C.R. 512//C.R. 510//W. SES CITY L
1860
938
62
1000
860
53.78%
1730W
C.R. 512//C.R. 510//W. SEB CITY L
1860
716
68
784
1076
42.15%
1740E
C.R. 512//W. SEB CITY L//ROSELAND RD
1860
1052
44
1096
764
58.92%
1740W
C.R. 512//W. SEB CITY L//ROSELAND RD
1860
577
50
627
1233
33.71%
1750E
C.R. 512//ROSELAND RD//U.S. 1
1860
571
50
621
1239
33.39%
175OW
C.R. 512//ROSELAND RD//U.S. 1
1860
754
43
797
1063
42.85%
1810E
C.R. 510//C.R. 512//66TH AVE
1860
427
190
617
1243
33.16%
1810W
C.R. 510//C.R. 512//66TH AVE
1860
631
123
754
1106
40.55%
1820E
C.R. 510//66TH AVE//58TH AVE
1860
319
115
436
1424
23.42%
1820W
C.R. 510//66TH AVE//58TH AVE
1860
711
126
839
1021
45.09%
1830E
C.R. 510//58TH AVE//U-S. 1
1860
423
114
538
1322
28.90%
1830W
C.R. 510//58TH AVE//U.S. 1
1860
793
151
945
915
50.82%
1840E
C.R. 510//U.S. 1//S.R. AlA
1900
476
235
711
1189
37.44%
1840W
C.R. 510//U.S. 1//S.R. AIA
1900
811
171
982
918
51.71%
1905E
S.R. 60//W. COUNTY LINE//C.R. 512
1810
216
9
225
1585
12.43%
1905W
S.R. 60//W. COUNTY LINE//C.R. 512
1810
214
9
223
1587
12.32%
1907E
S.R. 60//C.R. 512//100TH AVE
1810
266
1
267
1543
14.75%
1907W
S.R. 60//C.R. 512//100TH AVE
1810
244
0
244
1566
13.48%
1910E
S.R. 60//100TH AVE//I-95
1860
809
113
922
938
49.55%
191DW
S.R. 60//100TH AVB//I-95
1860
648
190
838
1022
45.04%
1915E
S.R. 60//I-95//82ND AVE
2570
1146
148
1294
12760
50.37 /o
1915W
S.R. 60//I-95//82ND AVE
2570
1509
188
1697
873
66.02%
1920E
S.R. 60//82ND AVE//66TH AVE
2790
1230
303
1533
12570
54.96 /o
1920W
S.R. 60//82ND AVE//66TH AVE
2790
1292
282
1574
1216
56.40%
1925E
S.R. 60//66TH AVE//58TH AVE
2790
1434
181
1615
1175
57.90%
1925W
S.R. 60//66TH AVE//58TH AVE
2790
1876
255
2132
658
76.41%
1930E
S.R. 60//58TH PVE//43RD AVE
2790
1360
215
1576
1214
56.49%
1930W
S.R. 60//58TH AVE//43RD AVE
2790
1559
352
1912
878
68.52%
1935E
S.R. 60//43RD AVE//27TH AVE
2790
1279
190
1471
1319
52.74%
1935W
S.R. 60//43RD AVE//27TH AVE
2790
1535
284
1821
969
65.26%
1940E
S.R. 60//27TH AVE//20TH AVE
2790
1190
143
1333
1457
47.77%
1940W
S.R. 60//27TH AVE//20TH AVE
2790
1252
287
1539
1251
55.15%
1945E
S.R. 60//20TH AVE//OLD DIXIE HWY
3252
1020
129
1149
2103
35.34%
1945W
S.R. 60//20TH AVE//OLD DIXIE HWY
3252
1149
208
1357
1895
41.73%
1950E
S.R. 60//OLD DIXIE HWY//10TH AVE
3252
1064
50
1114
2138
34.25%
195OW
S.R. 60//OLD DIXIE HWY//10TH AVE
3252
850
135
985
2267
30.29%
1955E
S.R. 60//10TH AVE//U.S. 1
3252
918
42
960
2292
29.52%
1955W
S.R. 60//10TH AVE//U.S. 1
3252
675
102
777
2475
23.89%
1960E
S.R. 60//U.S. 1//INDIAN RIVER BLVD
3252
609
7
616
2636
18.95%
196OW
S.R. 60//U.S. 1//INDIAN RIVER BLVD
3252
470
50
520
2732
15.99%
1965E
S.R. 60//INDIAN RIVER BLVD//ICWW
1860
1047
6
1053
807
56.62%
1965W
S.R. 60//INDIAN RIVER BLVD//ICWW
1860
1280
0
1280
580
68.83%
1970E
S.R. 60//ICWW//S.R. AlA
1860
1412
8
1420
440
76.34%
1970W
S.R. 60//ICWW//S.R. AlA
1860
1242
5
1247
613
67.04%
2020E
16TH STREET//58TH AVE//43RD AVE
860
160
50
210
650
24.43%
202OW
16TH STREET//58TH AVE//43RD AVE
860
266
42
310
550
36.10%
2030E
16TH STREET//43RD AVE//27TH AVE
860
287
40
327
533
38.05%
203OW
16TH STREET//43RD AVE//27TH AVE
860
401
34
435
425°
50.56 /°
2040E
16TH STREET//27TH AVE//20TH AVE
860
338
29
367
493
42.67%
204OW
16TH STREET//27TH AVE//20TH AVE
860
529
45
574
286
66.77%
2050E
16TH STREET//20TH AVE//OLD DIXIE HWY
1260
492
19
511
749
40.55%
205OW
16TH STREET//20TH AVE//OLD DIXIE HWY
1260
696
36
732
528
58.09%
2060E
16TH/17TH ST//OLD DIXIE HWY//U.S. 1
1710
572
37
609
1101
35.61%
206OW
16TH/17TH ST//OLD DIXIE HWY//U.S. 1
1710
446
34
480
1230
28.06%
2110E
17TH ST//U.S. 1//INDIAN RIVER BLVD
1710
507
25
532
1178
31.12%
211OW
17TH ST//U.S. 1//INDIAN RIVER BLVD
1710
645
18
663
1047
38.76%
CM OF
SEB,ASTL
HOME OF PELICAN ISLAND
City of Sebastian, Florida
Subject: Second reading and public hearing of
Agenda No. (��, a 52-
Zannexation
Ordinance 0-08-01; petition for voluntary
annexationby Shady Rest Mobile Home
Park Trust U/A, for a 17.14 acre parcel of
Department Origin: Growth Mana eg ment
land located at 13225 U.S. 1
Purchasing/Contracting:
Finance Director:
City Attorney: _
City Clerk:
A
rIov or Submittal by: City Manager
t
Date Submitted: March 17, 2009
For Agenda of. March 25, 2009
n er
Exhibits: Ordinance 0-08-01 including Annexation Agreement; City Council minutes of 4-23-08 & 6-11-08; Warren
Dill letter dated 3-5-09; Agenda backup from 4-23-08 and 6-11-08 meetings (under separate cover)
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED:
AMOUNT BUDGETED:
APPROPRIATION REQUIRED:
None
None
None
SUMMARY
The owners of Shady Rest Mobile Home Park have submitted a request for annexation of 17.14 acres of
land located at 13225 U.S. 1. The subject property consists of two parcels, 30-38-21-00001-0000-00017.0
and 30-38-21-00001-0000-00020.0, and is located on the west side of U.S. 1 between the St. Sebastian
Catholic Church property and Home Depot.
The owners also submitted applications for a land use designation of Riverfront Mixed Use (RMU) and a
zoning designation of Commercial Riverfront (CR). At this time, the Indian River County future land use
designation is MHRP/M-1 (Mobile Home Rental Park, 8 units per acre) and the Indian River County
zoning designation is RMH-8 (Residential Mobile Homes, 8 units per acre). The property is currently used
as a mobile home park with 117 rental lots.
If annexed, the property will be subject to the Riverfront Overlay District regulations. The property would
not, however, be a part of the Community Redevelopment District, unless the district boundaries are
amended.
The owner has agreed to continue to operate Shady Rest as a mobile home park for five additional years, as
outlined in the annexation agreement. Per the agreement, the five-year period begins at the date of the first
reading of Ordinance 0-08-01, June 11, 2008, and runs through June 10, 2013. This exceeds the state
requirement to provide the mobile home owners and tenants at least six months notice of the projected
change of use.
Prior to the City Council meeting of June 11, 2008, Mr. Howland provided each resident of the park with
the proposed annexation agreement, along with a petition to express their opinion. Results of the petition
are stated in a letter by Attorney Warren Dill (attached) showing 86% of the residents in support of the
annexation with the agreement.
a
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Hold public hearing. "Move to approve Ordinance 0-08-01."
Regular City Council Meeting
April 23, 2008
Page Eight
12. PUBLIC INPUT
Public Input for each individual is five minutes, however, it can be extended or terminated by a majority vote
of Council members present.
13. NEW BUSINESS
08.052 A. First Readinq Ordinance No. 0-08-01 - Voluntary Annexation of Shady Rest
(backup provided under separate cover)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR THE
VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION FOR LAND CONSISTING OF 17.15 ACRES, MORE OR
LESS, LOCATED AT 13225 U.S. 1, KNOWN AS SHADY REST MOBILE HOME PARK;
PROVIDING FOR INTERIM LAND USE AND ZONING CLASSIFICATION; PROVIDING
FOR CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
The City Attorney read the title and stated this is a legislative matter and not quasi-judicial
and the discretion to annex lies strictly with Council.
Warren Dill, representing applicants Ed Howland and Carole Wagner stated the applicants
have owned the park for fifty years and Mr. Howland as well as the park manager was
available for questions tonight.
Mr. Dill pointed out the contiguous property on a map and asked that compassion be
shown for the residents of Shady Rest, said the County has placed a serious burden on
this property owner in that it can only be a mobile home park and the County will not allow
RVs in mobile home parks which are needed to supplement the park's income. He
continued to explain that Commissioner Wheeler is willing to work with staff to allow RVs
but the problem is that the process takes a year to 18 months and the owner is currently
breaking even.
Mr. Dill said the residents suggested filling the vacancies with RV's and during the meeting
break Mr. Howland deleted any percentage requirement of vacancies and stated he will
keep the park open for a minimum of five years.
10:20 pm
MOTION by Mr. Paternoster, SECOND by Mr. Neglia to extend the meeting until 11:00
p.m. passed with a voice vote of 5-0.
The Growth Management Director stated staff has advocated the owner provide longer
than required six month notice to move from the beginning, there would be no trigger if
vacancy fell below a percentage, and RV's would be allowed.
Public Comment
Ken Lerby, 13225 US Hwy 1, said he has mixed feelings about this and it sounds like it's
going to be all right.
Regular City Council Meeting
April 23, 2008
Page Nine
Ms. Simchick asked if Council voted for the annexation, how would that affect the
agreement in the packet. The City Attorney explained this ordinance can be passed on
first reading with the condition that the agreement be rewritten and final adoption will
take place in a few months after review by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA).
He also said the agreement could be on the next agenda with the condition that the park
is annexed.
Jane Adams asked if the park is annexed, does it mean the park stays for five years with
RVs which is non -conforming with the City. She said she called DCA who said they
would deny the RV's. The City Attorney said whether or not RVs are there is not within
DCA's authority.
Ms. Adams said if Mr. Howland wants it to remain a park why doesn't he keep it in the
County.
Mr. Paternoster asked for a show of hands for those who wanted the annexation with the
amended agreement. There were about 20 citizens for the annexation and three wanted
to stay in the County.
Evelyn Rupp said if it is true Mr. Howland is going to give them five years she is all for it.
Mr. Paternoster asked if during five year period the owner could sell the property. The
City Attorney said the agreement would run with the land and a new owner would be
subject to the agreement.
Mr. Wolff asked what if he raises the rent. The City Attorney replied there are statutory
restrictions for what owners can do with mobile home parks.
Claire Ranahan, 13225 US Hwy 1, stated she is comfortable with five years.
Diane Reynolds, who shares a lot with her mother, said she hopes the right decision is
made for the people of Shady Rest.
Ilene Flom said she heard there is a new prospectus being drawn up and the park might
not remain a 55+ park, and that taxes will go up and be passed on to residents.
Mayor Coy asked if taxes are passed through their rent. The City Attorney said that
would be in their lease agreement.
Gary Wheeler, Indian River County Commissioner, stated his concerns are the residents
who should have an opportunity to digest this; they are not represented by an attorney,
they may feel pressured to accept the five years as opposed to the six months; asked
why Mr. Howland is changing to commercial riverfront which might be in non-compliance
if he wants to remain a park. He reminded Council that a few years back, there was a
straw ballot that voters didn't want residential annexation.
Regular City Council Meeting
April 23, 2008
Page Ten
Mr. Wheeler also said they were sold a lifestyle not just a mobile home, it is very difficult
to displace older residents and at a minimum they need time to discuss and think with a
clear head. (For the record, the straw ballot result opposed any annexation)
Edward Howland, owner of the park for 22 years stated he didn't raise the rent when the
hurricanes came through, he does not pass through capital improvement expenses or
taxes, and he is very sincere with the five year agreement.
MOTION by Mr. Paternoster, SECOND by Ms. Simchick to postpone this issue (the
annexation) until such time residents had opportunity to seek advice of counsel, ensure
the fact that they completely understand everything that is going and if they are then
satisfied, we can go forward.
The City Attorney asked the motion to include the next item in the continuation.
Mr. Dill, attorney for the petitioner, requested a continuation date of June 11`h -
Mr. Paternoster and Ms. Simchick agreed to amend the motion to include continuation of
the Public Hearing for Ordinance No. 0-08-02 (land use change) as well to June 111h
2008.
(Editor's note — The first reading of Ordinance No. 0-08-03 (rezoning), due to it's relation
to these two ordinances, will automatically cavy to the June 11, 2008 meeting as well
because it cannot be addressed or acted upon prior to the annexation and land use
issues — Sally Maio, City Clerk)
The motion carried with a voice vote of 5-0.
13. PUBLIC HEARING
08.052 B. First Reading and Transmittal Hearing Ordinance No. 0-08-02 - Land Use -
Shady Rest Mobile Home Park, 13225 US Highway 1 —17.15 Acres — Riverfront
Mixed Use (RMU) (backup provided under separate cover)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA, APPROVING AN
AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHICH AMENDS THE FUTURE
LAND USE MAP TO DESIGNATE AN INITIAL LAND USE CLASSIFICATION OF
RIVERFRONT MIXED USE (RMU) FOR ANNEXED LAND WITH A PRIOR COUNTY
LAND USE DESIGNATION AS MOBILE HOME RENTAL PARK, 8 UNITS PER ACRE
(MHRP/M-1) FOR LAND CONSISTING OF 17.15 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, LOCATED
AT 13225 U.S. 1, KNOWN AS SHADY REST MOBILE HOME PARK; AUTHORIZING
FINDINGS AND ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE.
08.052 C. First Reading Ordinance No. 0-08-03 — Rezoning — Shady Rest Mobile
Home Park, 13225 US Highway 1 —17.15 Acres — Commercial Riverfront Zoning
(backup provided under separate cover)
10
Regular City Council Meeting
April 23, 2008
Page Eleven
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA, DESIGNATING AN
INITIAL ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF COMMERCIAL RIVERFRONT (CR) FOR
ANNEXED LAND WITH A PRIOR COUNTY ZONING DESIGNATION AS
RESIDENTIAL MOBILE HOME, 8 UNITS PER ACRE (RMH-8) FOR LAND
CONSISTING OF 17.15 ACRES, MORE OR LESS LOCATED AT 13225 U.S. 1,
KNOWN AS SHADY REST MOBILE HOME PARK; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF
ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE.
The following items will be carried forward to the May 14th, 2008 Regular City Council Meeting:
08.054 D_ Land Development Code Business Sign Change Recommendations (GMD
103-107 Transmittal, Memo)
08.055 E. Liberty Park Planned Development Discussion (GMD/City Manager Transmittal,
109-134 Memo, Plan, Maps, Letter, Q & A from Developer's book)
08.031 F. Resolution R-08-04 — Florida Dept. of Transportation Supplemental Joint
131-140 Participation Agreement for Hangar Construction (Airport Transmittal, FDOT
Letter, Agreement, R-08-04)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PUBLIC TRANSPORTATON
SUPPLEMENTAL JOINT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH THE FDOT TO PROVIDE
FUNDING TO CONSTRUCT HANGARS; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR
EFFECTIVE DATE.
08.056 G. Resolution R-08-06 — Florida Forever (City Manager Transmittal, Resolution)
141-143
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, SUPPORTING THE CREATION AND
FUNDING BY THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE A SUCCESSOR PROGRAM TO THE
FLORIDA FOREVER LAND CONSERVATION PROGRAM; DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK
TO FORWARD A COPY OF THIS RESOLUTION TO STATE LEADERS; AND PROVIDING
FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
14. CITY ATTORNEY MATTERS
15. CITY MANAGER MATTERS
16. CITY CLERK MATTERS
17. CITY COUNCIL MATTERS
18. ADJOURN
Approved at the May 14, 2008 Regular City Council meeting.
_,��6l�
Andrea Coy, Mayor
ATTES .
Sally A. Maio, C — City Clerk
11
Regular City Council Meeting
June 11, 2008
Page Four
08.001 B. Parks & Recreation Advisory Committee
51-56
i. Interview, Unless Waived, Submit Nominations for One Position (Clerk
Transmittal, Application, Ad, List)
Ms. Brown addressed Council.
MOTION by Mr. Paternoster and SECOND by Ms. Simchick to appoint Jennifer
Brown to the Parks and Recreation Committee passed with a voice vote of 5-0.
10. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Public Input for each individual is five minutes, however, it can be extended or terminated by a majority vote of Council
members present.
Items A, B and C below were continued from the April 23, 2008 Regular Meeting to the June 11,
2008 Regular Meeting. Advertisement for the land use change hearing (item B) ran on 417/08.
• Item A is legislative first reading only.
• Item B is a legislative first reading and public hearing for transmittal to DCA.
• Item C is a first reading of a quasi-judicial matter.
08.052 A. First Reading Ordinance No. 0-08-01 - Voluntary Annexation of Shady Rest Mobile
57-111 Home Park, 13225 US Highway 1 — 17.15 Acres (Backup Previously Provided Under
Separate Cover — New Information: Transmittal, 4123 Minutes Excerpt, Petition,
Agreement)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR THE VOLUNTARY
ANNEXATION FOR LAND CONSISTING OF 17.15 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, LOCATED AT
13225 U.S. 1, KNOWN AS SHADY REST MOBILE HOME PARK; PROVIDING FOR INTERIM
LAND USE AND ZONING CLASSIFICATION; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Ex -parte communication was disclosed. The Clerk pointed out this was a first reading of
an annexation ordinance and disclosure of ex -parte communication was not necessary.
The City Attorney read the title and explained it doesn't take effect until the land use is
reviewed and finally approved by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) and noted
there is an updated annexation agreement between the park owner and the residents in
the packet. He advised this is a legislative act, that there is no requirement to annex and
should Council choose not to annex there would be no further action on the remaining
ordinances.
Mr. Warren Dill, 1565 US 1, Sebastian, representing the applicants, stated this has no
significant impact on the City and over time will generate business and sales tax and the
residents will have certainty in their lives. He said the residents have been individually
polled and only three of the responses were in opposition.
4
Regular City Council Meeting
June 11, 2008
Page Five
Mr. Paternoster asked if this Council could bind a future Council and the City Attorney
responded a future Council and land owner could change the agreement. It was noted
that both parties would have to agree to change the agreement.
Mayor Coy noted that we will have a permanent record of this proceeding at which we
made a commitment that could be brought to a future Council.
Ms. Simchick asked about the agreement effective date noted on circle page 63 and
said it should read June and the Mayor Coy said it would actually be the date of the
adoption hearing. Ms. Simchick asked for more information on the plan for the empty
lots and that if Shady Rest were annexed, would they be eligible for the fagade grant.
The Growth Management Director said they would not be eligible since they are not
within the Community Redevelopment District boundaries. Mr. Dill said a number of
improvements would be made to the park including the signage and landscaping.
Mr. Paternoster asked when the property was taken off the market because he had recently
seen it listed on Realtor.com.
Mr. Dill said it was taken off two to three years ago. He then clarified that under the
agreement, the park would remain open for five years but from five years to ten years it is up
to his client's discretion.
The City Attorney said in the case of Chapter 11 bankruptcy, the City would request the
receiver to allow the contract to remain but it is ultimately up to the bankruptcy judge.
Damien Gilliams, 1623 US 1, suggested the City should pay for the residents' attorney and
stated he received a letter and wanted to go on record that he is against the annexation.
He stated previous Council minutes show Mr. Neglia was against annexation.
Mayor Coy gave him his first warning to keep politics out and he proceeded to state
Council minutes show Ms. Coy was against annexation and Mr. Paternoster ran on a
platform that he was against annexation and commended him. Mayor Coy noted she was
not on Council at that time.
Clifford Estes, Shady Rest resident, said he is 100% in favor of annexation, and that the
owners have got to make money and will do their best for the residents.
Mr. Kilderby, 13225 US Highway 1, stated he didn't think Mr. Howland would change what
he says he would do because he is a gentleman; said that he likes what has been
promised, and is for the annexation as are his two sisters who live in Shady Rest.
Robin Meyers, 739 S. Easy Street, Social Justice Committee of St. Sebastian Church,
applauded the questions Council is asking, and said the committee is in favor of the
annexation.
5
Regular City Council Meeting
June 11, 2008
Page Six
Claire Ranahan, 13225 US Highway 1, said it is a great conciliation to have five solid
years, expressed heartfelt gratitude for Council's time in meeting with the residents, and
said the owner is a businessman and has been very fair to the residents. She asked
Council to consider the possibility of losing their homes when they reach her age.
Betty Robson said she is for the annexation.
James Williams, Shady Rest Park Manager, who has worked for Mr. Howland for ten
years, applauded the residents for their cooperation in considering options, said he owned
a home in the park, and that he supported the annexation.
Jane Adams, Shady Rest, said she called Attorney Mike Stuckey, State Department of
Legal Services, who said, if the owner is sincere, the City Attomey could include in the
annexation ordinance a promise that the owner would not to seek a change of land use for
a period of five years.
Ms. Simchick expressed disappointment at negative comments from the audience when
Jane Adams approached the podium to speak, stating Mrs. Adams had a right to speak
and was well versed in the laws regarding this issue.
Mayor Coy called recess at 8:42 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:55 p.m. All
members were present.
Council Deliberation
Mr. Wolff said when he first looked at this he was not happy because he thought the land
owner was attempting to skirt the regulations of another agency by applying for
annexation, said the owner should have contested the County regulation to the State
courts. He said these elderly folks are unrepresented against a property owner of means,
stated he did not think the RV plan will succeed in light of fuel price increases, these
people will walk away with nothing and should have been offered a buyout. He said
though he thinks the owner's intentions are honorable, if he passes away his intentions
may not be carried out, said the developmental rights are the golden ring and it will be a
windfall profit if the property is sold. He said he could not put his name to this agreement
whereby in five years these people would be put into the streets.
Ms. Simchick said this decision has weighed heavily on all of them, that Ms. Adams asked
all the right questions, residents did hire an attorney and residents expressed a need for
five years of peace. She questioned whether Council should accept what the residents
are comfortable with. She asked the City Attorney since the Shady Rest residents signed
a petition to convince Council to approve the agreement, if the playing field changed,
would the residents have a civil lawsuit -
6
Regular City Council Meeting
June 11, 2008
Page Seven
The City Attorney said there isn't a clear answer on that, but if a future Council wanted, he
would attack it in that vein as the residents are the third -party beneficiary, but whatever the
case the petition would be admissible evidence.
Ms. Simchick said she agreed with Mr. Wolff's comments, but the residents are begging
Council to approve and she wanted to be sure their eyes were wide open and they had
received good advice.
Mayor Coy asked Mrs. Ranahan to come forward and tell Council what transpired between
the residents and their attorney. Mrs. Ranahan said the residents did meet with Attorney
Mari Parsons, who represents the homeowners' association, to go over the contract and
Ms_ Parsons said it was excellent protection for the residents.
In response to Mr. Neglia and Mr. Paternoster, Mrs. Ranahan said Ms. Parsons had been
the homeowners' association attorney for seven years and was still practicing.
The City Attorney said he had discussions with Ms. Parsons and gave his opinion on behalf
of the City on a couple of questions.
Mayor Coy said Mari Parsons advised that the new wording was a benefit to the residents
and they came to their own independent decision, and as to Mr. Gilliam's quotes from 2004
she was not on Council. She said she had spoken to County Commissioners Wheeler,
Davis, and O'Bryan by phone, and Mr. Davis and Mr. O'Bryan said it was not Indian River
County's intent to prevent Shady Rest from closing but to delay the time for the residents.
She said the County's ordinance doesn't prevent the owner from closing the park within 60
days under Florida Statutes but the City agreement will protect them for five years. She said
her vote is for what the residents want and she will fight for them if anything goes wrong.
Mr. Neglia pointed out that Council is genuinely concerned for what happens to the
residents, that Shady Rest is affordable housing being taken away, agrees that less
and less RVs are coming down to Florida, hoped the decision was right and everything goes
well for the residents and that they are taken care of. He agreed people should not be hard
on Mrs. Adams.
Mr. Paternoster said this is the first he had heard about their attorney, and asked the City
Attorney why Ms. Parsons' comments were not in the packet. The City Attorney responded
he did not have anything in writing from her and saw her handwritten notes from the
homeowners' association president she had with her in their meeting. Mr. Paternoster said
maybe the 50% rule was originally put in the agreement for leverage, said he could not say
the owner was honorable because he didn't know, said the park was in disarray and now
they are getting a few things done. He said it was his worry that the residents won't get five
years, that attorneys can take the law and manipulate it, Council can promise the world and
in five years he would guarantee that this City staff will say 'we want the property' because
they want it now. He said this is a way of getting around the County regulations and he
would not support it.
7
Regular City Council Meeting
June 11, 2008
Page Eight
Mayor Coy asked the City Manager and City Attorney if anyone on City staff implied or
stated that they did not want to honor the agreement for five years and want the property for
commercial use now. They both answered no.
Mr. Paternoster asked the City Manager what he had told him about that property. The City
Manager asked to keep this in context because the City did not seek a petition, nor go out
and ask. Mr. Paternoster interrupted him and the City Manager asked to finish. They began
to talk over each other and the Mayor gaveled both sides of the dais and said we are not
going to argue. The City Manager asked to finish his answer and Mr. Paternoster said he
needed his answer and asked again what he told him about the property. The City Manager
started to respond and Mr. Paternoster asked him to be frank. The Mayor gaveled again
and asked Mr. Paternoster to give courtesy and he said he was speaking and she had no
right to shut him up so not to try it. He continued telling the City Manager that if he didn't
want to answer he didn't have to.
The City Manager said he would answer the question the way it should be answered and
Mr. Paternoster told him to try honesty.
Mayor Coy called recess at 9:40 p.m. and asked for everyone to come back with cool
heads and reconvened the meeting at 9:51 p.m. All members were present.
Mayor Coy asked Mr. Paternoster to restate his question. He asked the City Manager
what he said to him in regard to Shady Rest Mobile Home Park in the City Manager's
office and on the telephone.
The City Manager asked to be provided the liberty to answer so that a piece of his
conversation would not be manipulated to support one position or another. He said in his
opinion, the question was lined to put the footstep of this staff's head, and their
recommendation was that the property should be annexed, that has not waivered, and the
conversation was that it should be annexed and changed to commercial because in the long
term benefit of the City it will be better for the community. He said the portion of the
question that was unfair, was that staff in no way went out and solicited annexation, rather it
was put on staff's doorstep and staff put it on Council.
Mr. Paternoster asked about proximity to water. The City Manager stated it is in a bad
location for a mobile home park because of natural disasters, that staff did not solicit it but
provided their planning opinion that the best use is commercial. The City Manager stated
this is a tough call and he did not envy Council.
Mr. Paternoster said he had asked him how he would feel if it was his parents, said he was
not answering his question and said the City Manager had told him "we need to do
something because these people are going to be without a home". The City Manager said
there were disparaging remarks in fun connotation but this is a serious subject and Mr.
Paternoster continued that the City Manager said, "if it were my parents, I'd tell them to get
the hell out of there." The City Manager stated he wouldn't answer his line of questioning
anymore because it was unprofessional.
8
Regular City Council Meeting
June 11, 2008
Page Nine
Mr. Neglia called for a point of order and the Mayor asked him to state his point of order
and Mr. Neglia said it was the arguing and bickering.
MOTION by Mr. Neglia to approve and SECOND by Mayor Coy to approve the first reading
of Ordinance No. 0-08-01.
Mr. Paternoster told Mr. Neglia he was surprised at him interrupting his questioning of Mr.
Minner and said he is not satisfied with the City Manager's answers to his questions, and it
appears he doesn't want to answer.
The City Manager told Mr. Paternoster that he would not allow him to impugn his integrity,
that Mr. Paternoster knew what the conversation was, he could not judge what was in his
heart, and the property should be commercial.
Ms. Simchick said during the recess things were flying and concerns were expressed about
buyouts and the residents have expressed uncertainty again. She said the residents were
concerned their attorney was not here and she was concerned about annexing tonight and
said as good stewards Council has to make this decision for them and it would not be right
to make that decision tonight.
Mayor Coy stated this is only the first reading and doesn't mean it will pass at the second
reading/public hearing, the attorney could be here for the second reading, if we deny it, it is
dead and delaying it again would be a disservice.
Mrs. Ranahan said she would appreciate the time and would like to get input from the other
residents.
Mayor Coy again said this is a first reading, if it is denied tonight it is dead, but if it passes on
first reading, it will come back a second time before it becomes gospel and if the residents
change their minds, she will also change her mind.
The City Attorney clarified that it wouldn't come back until the City received comments from
DCA on the land use which would be four to six months.
Mr. Wolff asked if the homeowners' attorney works out of Mr. Dill's office and Mrs. Ranahan
said she did not think so. Mayor Coy said the attorney works out of Attorney Rene Van de
Voorde's office.
The City Attorney outlined the three options: vote to pass on first reading and hold public
hearing upon return from DCA, vote to deny, or continue the first reading to a future time.
Mr. Wolff pointed out there could be a different Council in six months.
Regular City Council Meeting
June 11, 2008
Page Ten
The City Attorney said the annexation first and second reading could be done in a two week
gap, separate from the land use. Ms. Simchick asked if there is a change in terms, would
the annexation ordinance have to be redone. The City Attorney said it is staff's
recommendation all the ordinances be done together, though annexation can be done
separate from the land use. He said if terms of the annexation agreement change, because
it is an attachment referenced in the ordinance, there would not need to be another first
reading.
In response to Mr. Wolff, the City Attorney said the land use does not have to occur with the
annexation, but is being done for certainty; if not done at the same time, on an interim basis
it would go to the closest County land use. Mr. Wolff asked if the land use is the reward for
filling the five year obligation. The City Attorney said while we can bind them for five years,
they could not bind us.
Mr. Dill stated his concern is that when this started in April, there was time to run the land
use with the City's land use amendment, but the park has to be open and running as a
mobile home and RV park by December and if that doesn't happen, his client has no
incentive to proceed and though the County is working to allow RVs it will take more time.
The City Attorney clarified that DCA review is 45 days and then the City has 90 days to
respond.
MOTION by Mr. Paternoster and SECOND by Mr. Neglia to extend the meeting until 11:00
p.m. passed on a voice vote of 5-0.
Roll call on the annexation motion was as follows:
Ayes: Simchick, Coy, Neglia
Nays: Wolff, Paternoster
Motion carried 3-2
08.052 B. First Reading and Transmittal Public Hearing of Ordinance No. 0-08-02 - Land Use
113 - Shady Rest Mobile Home Park, 13225 US Highway 1 — 17.15 Acres — Riverfront
Mixed Use (RMU) (transmittal, previous backup provided under separate cover)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHICH AMENDS THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP TO
DESIGNATE AN INITIAL LAND USE CLASSIFICATION OF RIVERFRONT MIXED USE (RMU)
FOR ANNEXED LAND WITH A PRIOR COUNTY LAND USE DESIGNATION AS MOBILE HOME
RENTAL PARK, 8 UNITS PER ACRE (MHRP/M-1) FOR LAND CONSISTING OF 17.15 ACRES,
MORE OR LESS, LOCATED AT 13225 U.S. 1, KNOWN AS SHADY REST MOBILE HOME PARK;
AUTHORIZING FINDINGS AND ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE.
The City Attorney read the title.
The Growth Management Director and Attorney Dill stated staff report is before Council
and Mr. Dill noted staff recommends approval.
10
Regular City Council Meeting
June 11, 2008
Page Eleven
The City Attorney said the decision to assign the land use designation is at the discretion of
Council, and noted every piece of property except institutional, that lies east of the railroad,
is Riverfront Mixed Use (RMU).
Clare Ranahan asked what will happen if DCA rejects this. The City Attorney said basically
feedback is received from DCA and the City has discretion.
Cindy Falco asked for clarification on what had occurred previously and whether residents
would have to leave if the business does not open in December and Mayor Coy said the
County ordinance would not preclude him from using Florida Statutes which allow six
months notice for residents to vacate. Ms. Simchick pointed out this question does not
pertain to land use.
Damien Gilliams, 1623 US Highway 1, stated maybe we will get a Lowes next to the Church,
asked what if he petitioned DCA as a property owner, suggested changing the land use to
mobile home park and guarantee the residents a place to live, it is a concern their attorney
is not present, stated making this commercial is not good, the property should be abutting
more than 50% of the City property and this is not.
Evelyn Rupp, Shady Rest, stated she didn't understand what is happening because when
they came tonight they thought they had five years. Mayor Coy explained the annexation
passed on first reading and residents have three to six months to consult with each other
and their attorney.
MOTION by Mr. Neglia and SECOND by Ms. Simchick to pass Ordinance No. 0-08-02 on first
reading and authorize transmittal to Department of Community Affairs for comments.
Roll call on the motion was as follows:
Ayes: Coy, Neglia, Simchick
Nays: Wolff, Paternoster
Motion carried 3-2
08.052 C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 0-08-03 — Rezoning (Quasi -Judicial) — Shady Rest
115 Mobile Home Park, 13225 US Highway 1 — 17.15 Acres — Commercial Riverfront
Zoning (transmittal, previous backup provided under separate cover)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA, DESIGNATING AN INITIAL ZONING
CLASSIFICATION OF COMMERCIAL RIVERFRONT (CR) FOR ANNEXED LAND WITH A PRIOR
COUNTY ZONING DESIGNATION AS RESIDENTIAL MOBILE HOME, 8 UNITS PER ACRE
(RMH-8) FOR LAND CONSISTING OF 17.15 ACRES, MORE OR LESS LOCATED AT 13225 U.S.
1, KNOWN AS SHADY REST MOBILE HOME PARK; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF
ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE.
The City Attorney read the title and asked that input not be taken at this time on first reading
because the hearing will be quasi-judicial.
Regular City Council Meeting
June 11, 2008
Page Twelve
MOTION by Mr. Neglia and SECOND by Ms. Simchick to pass Ordinance No. 0-08-03 on
first reading.
Roll call on the motion was as follows:
Ayes: Coy, Simchick, Neglia
Nays: Paternoster, Wolff
Motion carried
The City Manager asked to move up item B because some of CDM's services on Collier
Creek seawall will be needed soon.
MOTION by Ms. Simchick and SECOND by Mr. Neglia to move item B up passed on a
voice vote of 5-0.
08.010 B. CDM Contract Work Authorization # 6 - Collier Creek Wall RFP (Engineering
117-124 Transmittal, Work Authorization, Exhibit A)
The City Manager explained that this will help the City Engineer get to the notice to
proceed stage on the project and pointed out that half of the amount is for work that has
already occurred.
MOTION by Mr. Wolff and SECOND by Mr. Paternoster to pass item B — CDM Contract
Work Authorization Collier Creek Wall Engineering in the amount of $25,000.
Roll call on the vote was as follows:
Ayes: Neglia, Paternoster, Simchick, Wolff, Coy
Nays: None
Motion carried 5-0
11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
08.077 A. Lot Clearing Ordinance History (Separate Cover)
The City Attorney said this ordinance has had a tortured history even before the scrub jays
entered the picture.
MOTION by Mr. Paternoster and SECOND by Mr. Wolff to bring this back to the next
meeting.
Ms. Simchick pointed out the last correspondence from US Fish and Wildlife (USFW) in
December requested a reply so the ball is in our court and she could not move forward until
the federal agency received a reply and their concerns are answered regarding the
ordinance. She requested the motion be modified to have answers at the next meeting.
Mr. Paternoster noted he has been asking for that information for quite some time.
12
DILL & EVANS, P.L.
WARREN W. DILL JOHN G. EVANS
Also admitted in ATTORNEYS AT L,AW
Wyoming 1565 US Highway 1 Also Admitted in
Y B � Y California
Nebraska Sebastian, Florida 32958
MICHELLE D. NAPIER
.March 5, 2009
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL: rgrohall(a�cityofsebastian.or�
Rebecca Grohall, AICR
Growth Management Director
City of Sebastian
1225 Main Street
Sebastian,. FL 32958
Re: Shady Rest Annexation
Dear Rebecca:
I am send you an Annexation Agreement dated March 5, 2009. As was discussed.
last Friday; I have inserted in paragraph 6 the date of June 11, 2008 as the as
date
for the five (5) year period to.operate the mobile home park. Please understand that there
.is nothing that _says Shady Rest cannot stay open longer than five (5) years. In order to
;give the park residents some assurance that there was no intention to close Shady Rest
once it was annexed, it was generally agreed that a future date should be established
which is how the five (5) years came about.
I have also deleted the third sentence in paragraph 8. (See attached page 3). Ed
Howland was never comfortable with the language .that provided for the City to petition a
court of law to appoint a "receiver" to manage Shady. Rest in the event Ed determined he
could not financially operate the park because there were insufficient spaces rented to
generate the necessary income. Government should not be involved in the business
affairs of a landowner. Ed has made over three hundred and fifty thousand dollars of
improvements to the park and he has no intention of closing it.
In response to Jan King's question regarding the accuracy of the numbers and
percentages in my June 4; 2008 letter to you, I have been advised by .Jim Williams, the
park manager, that there have been some changes in mobile home owners but the
numbers and. percentages are the same. Apparently, two (2) of the seven (7) mobile
home owners that did not respond have sold their mobile homes. Both of these mobile
homes were owned by out of State individuals who sold to out of State individuals. The
new owners have
Tel: (772) 589-1212 9 Fax:.(772) 589-5212.
Rebecca Grohall, AICP
Growth Management Director
March 5, 2009
Page 2 of 2
been advised of the five (5) year period. Jim Williams owns two (2) mobile homes in the
park and the lady living in one of them recently passed away. This does not affect the
fifty-nine (59) lots in favor of the annexation because Jim, as the mobile home owner that
occupies the lot, is still in favor of the annexation.
If you have any questions, please let me know.
Very truly yours,
Warren W. Dill
WWD/jlb
Enclosure
cc: Ed Howland (w/encl)
Jim Williams (w/enol)
Clay Price (w/encl)
Jan King (w/encl)
4YaC ict!<,59TJsShndyRcA-01-153' S-l"YEFTOGROHA1.1,03.05.0, oc
However, since the use of the Property is designed and built to accommodate mobile homes and
recreational vehicles within its 117 rental spaces, the Property and its 117 rental spaces shall be allowed
to be used for such purposes for a period of ten (10) years following the annexation of the Property into
the City. At the end of said ten (10) year period, the rental of the 117 spaces shall cease and the use of the
Property as a mobile home and recreational vehicle rental park shall terminate and any further use of the
Property shall be in conformance with the zoning of the Property.
6. The Owner of the Property is subject to the provisions of Chapter 723, Florida Statutes, the
Florida Mobile Home Act. When there is a change in use of the Property, Section 723.061 (1)(d) Florida
Statutes requires the Owner to give the mobile home owners and tenants "at least six (6) months' notice
of the projected change of use and of their need to secure other accommodations". Owner acknowledges
that a period in excess of six (6) months to secure other accommodations would be of great help to the
mobile home owners and tenants. Therefore, Owner agrees that it will continue to operate the mobile
home park for a period of five (5) years from June 11, 2008 to June 10, 2013.
7. This Annexation Agreement is not intended to supersede or expand in any way, the provisions
of Florida laws as set forth in Chapter 723 Florida Statutes, except for the limited purposes as specifically
provided herein.
8. Either party may enforce the terms of this Annexation Agreement by any action at law or in
equity. It is stipulated, without limitation to other such remedies, that injunctive relief be available
without requirement that the absence of an adequate remedy at law be proved. in the ,..,.,,.,` that it is
adequately shown; that Ovmef er- its agent is unable te, of- other -wise eeases to, sustain and inanage-the
mobile 1manner- that maintains its fw . len 1'k. et result of a n r -al disasste
enfer-eement of this Agreement. Nothing herein should be construed as a waiver of any right granted by
law or equity to enforce this Annexation Agreement.
9. This Agreement incorporates and includes all prior negotiations, correspondence,
Page 3 of 5
W:1ClicntslST[J16hadv, I�gst ,5hady R�3.-�nacation MI3.5.09