HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-18-2020 PZ MinutesCITY OF SEBASTIAN
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
JUNE 18, 2020
1. Call to Order -- Acting Chairman Roth called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
2. Pledae of Allegiance was recited by all. ..,i.
3. Roll Call q '�
Present: Mr. Roth Mr. Christino (a) N
Mr. Simmons Mr. Qizilbash
Ms. Kautenburg (a) Mr. Hughan 06
Mr. Carter Mr. Alvarez tm 0 �
C._ IT
m _
Not Present: Mr. Reyes -- Excused C N Ct8
r — n
Also Present: Ms. Dorn Bosworth, Planning Manager o
Lisa Frazier, Community Development Director IZ E `
Mr. Mike Vaudo, Kimley Home C 0 an
Mr. Manny Anon, City Attorney coo
Present Via Zoom G 4 � 7 0
0 0�
Technology: .0 n n c
Ms. Janet Graham, Technical Writer (n N Q
Ms. Mara Schiff, Indian River County School Board liaison, was not present.
4. Announcements and/or Aaenda Modifications
Acting Chairman Roth announced that all of the commissioners may not be seen on
camera tonight because of the coronavirus seating requirements and keeping the six-foot
spacing. There are three Commission members sitting in front of those on the dais. This
evening Mr. Reyes is excused. Voting in his place will be Mr. Christino. Present via Zoom
is Technical Writer, Janet Graham.
5. ADoroval of Minutes -- June 4. 2020
Mr. Roth asked if any of the commissioners had any changes or comments on the Minutes
of the Meeting of June 4, 2020. Hearing none, Mr. Roth called for a motion to approve
the Minutes of June 4, 2020 as presented. A Motion to accept the Minutes of the meeting
of June 4, 2020 as presented, was made by Mr. Carter, seconded by Mr. Hughan, and
approved unanimously via voice vote.
6. Quasi -Judicial and Public Hearings — None
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 2
MINUTES OF MEETING OF JUNE 18, 2020
Unfinished Business — None
8. Public Input
Mr. Roth called for public input, either in person or via Zoom
Dr. Graham Cox, 1213 George Street, Sebastian. He stated he has several comments
on the Comprehensive Plan. He asked if he could make those comments during the
discussion of the Comprehensive Plan elements. Mr. Roth said he would be able to do
that.
9. New Business
A. Public Input Review of Proposed 2040 Comprehensive Plan Elements --
Goals, Objectives, and Policies and Updated Data and Inventory Analysis
1. Introduction -- Ms. Frazier made an introduction regarding the Comprehensive Plan
and what is to be discussed this evening. She introduced Mr. Mike Vaudo of Kimley-
Hom. He has been working in conjunction with staff for many months on this Plan. He
will give a presentation on each element on this evening's agenda. He will stop after each
element for the commission members as well as for the public to have discussion and to
give input.
A. Power Point Presentation by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
B. Discussion Facilitated by Consultant and Staff
C. Next Steps
Mr. Vaudo gave some background on the Comprehensive Plan process. The City's
existing Plans from 2009 went through some updates through the EAR process. The goal
is to update this Plan by September 2020. He explained that a comprehensive plan is a
set of policies that is the City's guiding vision through 2040. It is expressed in goals,
objectives and policies. Those goals, objectives and policies are supported by the data,
inventory and analysis in the back of each element. A comprehensive plan is not the land
development regulations. To be clear, the goals, objectives and policies in a
comprehensive plan are not the setback requirements, height limits, etc. Once this
process is completed, the City will then go on to updating the land development
regulations. Based on the agenda, this meeting tonight is to discuss the introduction to
the Plan, the Infrastructure Element, the Governance and Implementation Element, and
the Public Schools Element. He described the general process that was used in updating
the Plan as is listed in the Introduction. Mr. Roth called for questions/comments by the
commissioners as well as members of the public regarding the Introduction.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 3
MINUTES OF MEETING OF JUNE 18, 2020
Dr. Cox commented on the Public Engagement Process section of the Introduction. He
reviewed that at the meeting of this Commission on June 4th, members of the public
showed attended, but he suggested staff do a more thorough job in getting people to
comment on this Plan. He suggested a 60-minute video to run on the public information
TV channel explaining the elements.
Ms. Frazier stated that anyone from the public can send to her department comments
regarding the proposed Plan. That can be done at any time during this process, not just
tonight. She also asked Dr. Cox to send her department an email with his comments, as
his audio was not completely clear over Zoom. There being no further public input, Mr.
Roth moved on to the next item on the agenda.
4. Infrastructure Element — Mr. Vaudo described what this element entails: meeting
needs for potable water, wastewater, solid waste, and stormwater drainage. It
establishes the level -of -service standards for these services and ensuring that capacity
is available to support new development. Wastewater and solid waste capacity are
determined by Indian River County Utilities. The data inventory analysis was updated
using the best available city and county data. Things like the City's existing stormwater
master plan was looked at as well as existing and proposed septic -to -sewer conversion
programs. Goals, objectives and policies are proposed that support the implementation
of those things. He described some proposed changes that are contained in the Goals,
Objectives, and Policies. His group looked at how they could streamline the plan to make
it more user friendly. He stated it was very important in discussions with the City to
implement and reference the City's Coastal Resiliency Plan and to add references to that
Plan into this element, especially as it relates to the adaptive capacity of the City to
maintain critical infrastructure in the case of sea level rise, flooding scenarios, etc. The
City showing its intention to prepare for natural disasters and emergencies is also laid
out, which includes dealing with pandemics and epidemics as well. Also incorporated in
this element is supporting the affordability of high-speed internal, which is an important
factor in livability. This draft policy is supporting septic -to -sewer conversion within the
City and supporting existing and proposed plans to do so. There is also a policy
supporting the City's forthcoming update to the stormwater master plan. He then called
for discussion from the commissioners.
Mr. Qizilbash inquired about the design criteria for this level of service and who is in
charge of that, and who will decide the scale of the service. Mr. Vaudo replied that in
relation to potable water, wastewater, and solid waste, the City is maintaining the County
level of service for those particular services. Mr. Qizilbash also voiced concern regarding
annexation of properties --who is in charge of deciding what is suitable for that area if the
facilities are not available and the capacity is less, and the population growth is more.
Ms. Frazier replied that when a development comes in, the developer/engineer will have
to prove to the City that it can meet the level of service, and the rapacity is available.
They then get a capacity certificate from Indian River County stating that they have now
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 4
MINUTES OF MEETING OF JUNE 18, 2020
reserved so much for their development. If a developer puts its reservation in with the
County and pays for it, now it is set aside for that development. The County is to look at
the land use for that particular area and determine capacity when they are doing future
growth of a plant, future expansions of a plant or make some other modifications.
Mr. Christina commented that last year during the annexation hearing there was a
difference of opinion with the County regarding the plans for the density of that project
where they clearly stated that the capacity did not lie -limit. That needs to beCApy
coordinated ahead of time before it is decided on how many units can be set within the
City and make sure that we coordinate that properly. Ms. Frazier stated that the County
did not say they did not have capacity; they have available capacity. However, they do
not want to allocate it for changes in land use because they have already done their build -
out analysis based on existing land use, and they want to allocate it for some other
developments, not new ones. The capacity is available. Mr. Christino stated the capacity
would exist, but it was unfair for that one project to eat up that large a percentage of the
available capacity for the entire county.
Mr. Roth stated that that is a concern that he has had also, that once you're in, you have
it. But clearly he doesn't believe that to be the case. The capacity appeared to be there,
but by different accounts it was not. He does not believe that is fair. That is why he
brought up the question about meeting with the different groups and trying to make sure
that there is a fair and equitable resolution, and it's not someone there with their thumb
on the scale tipping it one way when they should not be doing that.
Ms. Kautenburg states she has concerns about solid waste. In reading the draft, she
notes that the objectives are clear. She would presume that obtaining those objectives
is related to things that the City Council would put into place. Her concerns are about
solid waste regarding removal being voluntary in the City. She states she has seen issues
where the dumping of solid waste takes place on any available vacant lot --and that is not
a recent problem —that has been a problem over many years. She is of the opinion that
the City should step forward and say $35.00 a quarter is reasonable for anyone. She
believes that if waste were picked up at every home, there would be a whole lot less
dumping. She also has a concern about the handling of hazardous waste and storage at
transfer facilities. She questions if that responsibility could be directed toward the entities
that sell those hazardous waste items. A small fee is paid by the user for the proper
disposal of those items. Her question is whether that problem reverts to the City Council
to take care of those issues. Ms. Frazier stated her understanding of Ms. Kautenburg's
question is that the City should beef up some of the City's policies regarding disposals —
illegal disposals and hazardous waste disposals --and the policy could state that: "We
shall explore the need to insure the proper disposal either of illegal dumping or
hazardous materials by incurring a fee." After the Comprehensive Plan is done, staff
takes it and comes up with a policy and a resolution that says the City should assess fines
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 5
MINUTES OF MEETING OF JUNE 18, 2020
for this. Then it goes to City Council. Ms. Kautenburg stated she gets concerned about
having lofty objectives without having specific paths to reach them.
Mr. Christino agreed with Ms. Kautenburg's concerns. He believes that the cost of
recycling/garbage pickup here is extraordinarily low. He thinks it should be part of the
future plan with development ahead on the horizon and existing problems that he sees.
He believes it should be in the new Comp Plan that the City is going to require homes in
the City to contract with Waste Management. That includes everything —yard pick-up,
bulk pickup, recycling, etc.
Mr. Carter's concern is on septic -to -sewer conversion. He considers it to be one of the
most important issues over the next decade and further. He suggested something more
robust in the City's Comprehensive Plan to address that issue. Not all the areas of
Sebastian are addressed in this proposed Comprehensive Plan. He thinks that is
something that needs to be considered sooner rather than later. This is affecting the
quality of water in the river and the public's overall health. Ms. Frazier understood him to
believe an additional policy should be included talking about the areas that currently do
not have sewer available and saying that the City shall pursue other avenues. Mr. Carter
stated that is his belief.
Mr. Roth seconded that idea. That is a major concern that he has had all along. He feels
this should be recommended to Council. People need to connect to the sewage, and the
City needs to come up with a way to do it. He inquired if there is a map of the existing
sewer lines in the City. Ms. Frazier stated yes, there is. Mr. Roth addressed the subject
of solid waste level of service. He asked if the numbers in the proposed Plan were taken
from recent data. Mr. Vaudo stated that that data was provided by Waste Management
as of a month or so ago. So their capacity could be expanded.
Ms. Kautenburg asked if the Super Fund is still available. Ms. Frazier stated she is not
sure, as those were federal dollars for cleanup. Ms. Frazier stated there was a study for
the County regarding ranking of areas within the County where they rate the different hot
spots in the County that were contributing more pollutants than other areas based on
septic. Putting sewer into these areas is incredibly expensive. Until the City comes up
with some other alternatives, it will be very difficult to put everyone on sewer. She also
reiterated that new developments within the City have to connect to the sewer line if they
are within 500 feel of the sewer line.
Mr. Christino stated that the approximate 2,000 lots in the City have been platted for many
years. They fall below the 2012 flood elevation maps. So the practice is to bring in
several truckloads of fill. However, in the neighborhoods that utilize swales to remove
stormwater, there is a steep grade to a lot of these lots. These neighbors fertilize, and
these septic systems, if they are failing, accelerate the flow of the wastewater into these
culverts. Perhaps there is away to engineer the lots so that they level off more gradually
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 6
MINUTES OF MEETING OF JUNE 18, 2020
than a steep drop, which allows waste or fertilizers to be absorbed into the soil instead of
getting into the wastewater stream.
Mr. Hughan stated his concern is not only the Indian River, but, as the water table rises,
that puts the septic tanks and the drain fields probably in the first layer of the aquafer. He
knows it will be an astronomical figure to get rid of the septic tanks. The septic -to -sewer
problem is his biggest concern.
Dr. Cox weighed in via Zoom. He has several points that he will send in an email
tomorrow rather than prolong the meeting tonight. (SEE ATTACHED)
7. Governance & Implementation Element -- Mr. Vaudo explained that this element
covers intergovernmental coordination and also addresses the City undertaking capital
improvements as well. In the current Plan, this was actually two separate elements: The
Intergovernmental element and the Capital Improvement element. In collaboration with
City staff the nomenclature was changed a little bit. It also combined these two into one
element. There is also a policy in this Plan that is supportive of the County's efforts in
developing in the local service boundary agreement between the County and the
municipalities in the County. Ms. Frazier emphasized the streamlining of the document
so as not to have redundancy. Mr. Roth then called for discussion.
Ms. Kautenburg addressed the subject of funding. She read the section regarding special
assessments being levied against residents, agencies or districts that directly benefit from
the service or facility. She used the example of sidewalks. Currently, the whole
community pays for a sidewalk wherever it is, even if it is not in everyone's neighborhood.
In her view, a special assessment would be levied against the property that receives the
benefit. She questioned whether that item is new or is that something that has not been
done. Ms. Frazier stated she will look into that. Mr. Christino agreed with Ms.
Kautenburg. Mr. Roth suggested holding this subject in abeyance until there is
clarification. Ms. Frazier suggested that when the Mobility element is addressed, perhaps
the sidewalk issue can be added in that element.
Mr. Christino addressed the roadways in the City. He states the roads are very narrow.
He asked if there are any plans to widen the roadways. Ms. Frazier stated the standard
for roadways in the City is 22 feet for two-way streetstroads. Mr. Christino feels the
widening of the roads is a subject that needs to be addressed. Ms. Frazier stated that
could be in the Transportation element, and widening roadways will be looked at, with
consideration being given to bike lanes in new developments.
Mr. Roth called attention to Section 7-1.3.4 of the draft Plan where it mentions automobile
occupancy rates. He wonders if the wording should include vehicles other than
automobiles. Mr. Vaudo stated that will be looked at. Mr. Roth also questioned Section
7-1.6.2 which he read. Ms. Frazier stated that what is described in that section is being
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 7
MINUTES OF MEETING OF JUNE 18, 2020
done continuously. He also called attention to Section 7-1.8. He hopes that it is carried
out.
Ms. Frazier reviewed Objective 7-1.2, which is the Land Use Intergovernmental
Coordination. It was in the old document, but it never came to fruition. She wants to
make sure it is still included in the document, which delineates the future of the County in
cooperation with all of the municipalities. Mr. Roth and Mr. Christino think it is important
that it be included.
8. Public School Facilities Element -- Mr. Vaudo described what this element entails.
This reflects the five-year facilities work plan. This element is almost entirely derived from
information provided by the School District. This element is no longer a requirement per
State statute, but the City has chosen to move forward in showing that interest in further
coordination with the School District. The information has been updated, and this
information is consistent with the interlocal agreement that was adopted in 2008 as far as
school facilities. There are no major changes in this from the existing version of this
element in the current Plan. He then called for discussion.
Mr. Roth suggested that the acronyms be defined in an index or glossary. Mr. Vaudo
stated that, once they are close to a final draft, they will be creating a definition system
that will list acronyms and definitions of common terms that are listed. He referred to "co -
location and community focal point." He asked for the meaning of this phrase. Mr. Vaudo
explained this describes the City working with the School District to locate other
community amenities adjacent to or with the school, with the intent of making the school
a focal point of the neighborhood. Mr. Roth also asked if the State funds charter schools.
Ms. Frazier stated there is money that is allotted by the State and Federal Government.
Mr. Anon stated that charter schools are created by the state, and they do fund them.
Mr. Simmons stated it appears there was not a lot of coordination between the population
projection and the number of students. Mr. Vaudo stated that data came from the School
District. He will follow up on that. Mr. Christino shared Mr. Simmons' concerns regarding
the projection of number of students.
Mr. Cizilbash addressed the burden to the school system because of new development.
He wondered how that will be handled. Ms. Bosworth reviewed the process for when a
new development comes in. There is a formula that is used for each single-family home
that comes in. She reviewed those numbers in order to get a projection on how many
students will come from that development. If there is not enough capacity, the developer
will have to pay for it.
3. Next Steps
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 8
MINUTES OF MEETING OF JUNE 18, 2020
Mr. Roth inquired about the process going forward. Ms. Frazier stated that all the input
from this meeting will be taken into consideration. She asked that any members of the
public who have suggestions or comments send them to her department, and they will be
taken into consideration. All eight elements will come back to this Commission in the final
form in October. At that time, this Commission will vote to approve the final draft. Ms.
Frazier stated the Commissioners will have the final draft two weeks before the meeting
during which they will vote on approval so that they have adequate time to study the draft.
X. Commissioners Matters
Mr. Christino stated it would be prudent to involve the public in the Public Schools
element, perhaps a workshop, before September. Regarding the letter from DEC, it
states that the Department reminds the City that all citizens who commented on the
amendment need to be notified of the extension. Ms. Frazier stated that is correct, and
those notices have been sent out. Mr. Roth agreed with Mr. Christino.
Ms. Kautenburg complimented the staff on all the work they have done on this project.
Mr. Alvarez concurred. Mr. Roth also concurred.
Mr. Carter had a citizen make a comment about Riverview Park, stating that the screws
on the bridge are popping out and present a hazard. Ms. Frazier stated she would refer
that to Leisure Services.
rC'fiTl7r�iFSiC7b�@..-
XII. Staff Matters
Ms. Frazier expressed her appreciation for all the time and effort that is required for the
Commissioners to see this project through.
XIII. Adjourn
Mr. Roth called for any further business. Hearing none, he adjourned the meeting at 7:41
p.m.
19
Graham Cox provided comments via email on June 22, 2020 following the meeting. The following is a
summary of Mr. Cox's prominent points.
1. Public input: We have to do a much better job of getting information to the city residents. He
supplied a list of alternatives for consideration. He suggests compiling feedback information
and saving. Staff does this with all comments in the file and part of the document.
2. Infrastructure: There is an alphabet soup of acronyms. They need to be listed up front. Need
to include a serious discussion of the repair to the canal system, consider the canals and ponds
as a city assets that are part of the green infrastructure and can increase property values for
many residents if not all. He suggested that stormwater and utility staff assist in writing this
section, which was completed.
3. Septic systems and sewers: The city must give much more attention to getting houses and
commercial businesses hooked into main sewer lines.
4. Budget figures: Mr. Cox suggested being careful on stating cost projections.
5. Solid Waste: We have to step up recycling.
6. Coordination with other agencies: The long list of other state and local agencies and the many
fees and taxes is staggering. In my opinion Sebastian residents do not pay nearly enough in
various property taxes and our city roads, sidewalks, schools etc. all suffer from being short
changed.
7. Schools: Decisions on schools are made at the county level but the city can do much to improve
their functioning and their benefits to the community. They are a neighborhood asset,
community attractions. Schools are focal points and as such we should be directing sidewalk
improvements and wi-fl access to the schools and their students. Things are not walkable, not
environmentally sound, not sustainable with respect to sidewalks and transporting students.
8. In the infrastructure section we need a much improved discussion of providing city-wide
broadband free wi-fi access. The city should be wi-fi free so that all kids and families have
computer access. This is one small way to Improve student equality.
9. Green infrastructure: I am sure we will get to this with the sessions on parks, recreation, open
space and coastal conservation, but it is important to include a green infrastructure section in
the discussion on roads, sewers etc. This is all part of the discussion of a sustainable livable city.
OrAlfl
ppp�-��� z-Nqq
Background
• Existing Comprehensive Plan 2009
• Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) Based
Amendments 2010, Adopted in 2012 (additional
amendments since 2012)
• Seven Year State Evaluation (Ch. 163.3191(1), FS)
• Comprehensive Plan Proposed Update required by
September 2020
z
What a Comprehensive Plan is:
• A set of policies intended to serve as the
Community's Vision and to guide the development
of a community, typically over a 10-20 year period.
Goals, Objectives, Policies (GOPs)
Data Inventory and Analysis (DIA)
• Supporting information that serves as the
foundation for GOPS
4�O
What a Comprehensive Plan is not:
"It is not the intent of this part to require the inclusion of
implementing regulations in the comprehensive plan but
rather to require identification of those programs, activities,
and land development regulations that will be part of the
strategy for implementing the comprehensive plan and the
principles that describe how the, and land development
regulations will be carried out."
(Ch. 163.3177(l), Florida Statutes)
C!
Sebastian Comprehensive Plan
• Introduction
• (1) Land Use
• (2) Transportation &Mobility
• (3) Housing
• (4) Infrastructure
• (5) Conservation &Coastal Management
• (6) Parks, Recreation, &Open Space
• (7) Governance &Implementation
• (8) Public Schools
• (9) Economic Development
61
Approach for Each Element
• Florida Statutes Review/Matrix
• Identify Florida Statutes changes since 2010/2012
• GOPs Amendments Review/Matrix
• Land Development Regulation language
• Consistency of terms (i.e. Land Development Code vs. Land Development Regulations)
• Reference to specific dates (i.e. "By December 31, 1998 the City shall...)
• Redundant policies in and between elements with opportunities for consolidation and clarity
• Addition of policies reflecting current planning concepts (i.e. transfer of development rights)
• DIA Update
• Updated with latest City, County, and State data
• Strike -Through and Underline
• Proposed GOPs Amendments
• Updated Version of Element
• Incorporating Updated DIA and Proposed GOP Amendments
11
Introduction
The Introduction outlines:
• Plan Framework
• Legal Status
• Vested Rights
• Graphics and Images
• Use of Terms: "Shall"."Should"."Will and "May"
• Plan Interpretation
• Plan Amendments
• Plan Update
• Public Engagement
City of Sebastian a:)
Introduclien
INTRODUCTION
Plan Framework
The City of Sebastian Comprehensive Plan 2040 was developed through a pr"" that in—pomted an
a ant of the City's ex lsting Comprehensive Plan, analysis of existing conditions, a series of community
meetings, input from City of Sebastian Departmentsfstaff, and work sessicns with both the Planning
Commission and the City Council. This Plan analyzed and has been amended to reflect not only changes in
Florida Statutes since the last f prehensive Plan was adopted, it also included a review and elimination of
land development code provisions, removal of inconsistencies, updates to references including use of terms
and agencies. Specifically, the fcllowing items were reviewed as pad of the initial Comprehensive Plan review
and documented as part of a review matrix that is included in the Appendix:
• Growth Management (GM) Charge (changes in Florida Statutes)
• Regulatory (Cade related)
• Consistency (with Other Elements andfor Policies)
• StudieslDates
• Master Plans
• OtherlPlanning Areas
• llmfehned Topics
• Insuff lent Guidance
Each Element contains a series of Goals, Objectives, and Polices, (GOPs) Ihel provide the guidance and
framework of the Element and the Plan as a whole_ Following the GOPs, the supporting CIA documentation is
presented including any supporting studies, reports, maps, data, ani references.
The Carnprehenarm Plan is the City FRAMEWORK for the future. The Plan end its strategies (expressed as
Goals. Objective and Policies) are crucial when preparing for opportunities such as land use,
transpodationfmohility, natural resources, housing and redevelopment. The City's residents and its visitors
need a safe and secure place to live, a healthy economy that provides jobs and services, ways to get around
the City (bike, pedestrian, car, transit], and quality recreational features. It is the respcnsililty of the City to
provide the necessary public services and facilities, develop strategies, coordinate with neighboring
jurisdictions (e.g. Ird ian River County) as well as my anal. state and federal agencies, and adopt regulations
and standards that implement this framework_ The Comprehensive Plan is an umhrella document in that t
guides other City plans, capital projects, and programs which affect the community in large and small ways_
This Plan pn—otes the Clty's neighborhoods, vibrancy of its dewntowq recognition and preservation of its
natural systems, and opportunities far muhimedal connectivity, all of wh lch are integrated into the larger
regional context.
Comprehensive plans may he perceived as being relatively general in nature; however, Comprehensive Plans
foam the Iegal basis for toms unity development and redevelopment within ajuradioli— Comprehensive
Plans are complex pdicy documents required by Florida Statures that account for the relationships among the
various unity issthroughd issues. required anoptic nal Elements. The City must think adaptively be craft a
hold yet flexible Plan that advances a vision with goals, objectives and policies to address emerging issues
such as continued growth with an emphasis on redevelopment oftargeted areas, transportation opportunities,
E:3
poppp-
46
11
F,
f
W,
What is the Infrastructure Element?
• Plan for meeting future public facility needs and
maximizing use of existing facilities
• Wastewater, solid waste, stormwater drainage,
potable water
• Establishment of level of service standards
• Availability of capacity in these systems to support
development
• Note: water/wastewater capacity is determined by Indian
River County Utilities
10
Infrastructure DIA Highlights
Updated data based on:
• Available City and County data
• Existing plans such as the City's Storm
Water Master Plan
• Septic to Sewer Conversion Programs
11
Proposed Changes/Policy Decisions Overview
• Re -organization, streamlined, and reduced redundancies
• 4 Goals > 1 Goal
• 12 Objectives > 5 Objectives
• Incorporated the City's Coastal Resiliency Plan
• Planning for Resilient Infrastructure Policies (Policy 4-1.1.10 &Policy 4-
1.1.11)
• Cross-reference to Conservation &Coastal Management Element
• Septic to Sewer Conversion Policy (4-1.2.3)
• Stormwater Management Master Plan Update Policy (Policy 4-1.4.2)
12
Policy Decision: Re -Organization, streamlined, and reduced redundancies
• Why? Increase readability and usability
Original:
Goal 1: Needed public facilities
Goal 2: Providing facilities to meet existing and projected demands
Goal 3: Provide adequate drainage
Goal 4: Protect functions of groundwater aquifer recharge areas
Proposed:
Goal 1: Provide public infrastructure to meet existing and projected needs
Objective 1: Ensure available public facilities and prevent urban sprawl
Objective 2: Ensure adequate wastewater facilities
Objective 3: Ensure adequate solid waste management and services
Objective 4: Ensure adequate stormwater drainage
Objective 5: Conserve potable water resources
13
Policy Decision: Incorporated the City's Coastal
Resiliency Plan
• Why? Take into consideration the mitigation data,
information, and strategies outlined in the Plan
Proposed:
• Added references to City's Resiliency Plan in regards to:
• Prioritizing the expenditure of public funds
• Increase the adaptive capacity for the City in the
case of sea level rise and chronic flooding scenarios
• Mitigation strategies
• Updating Pollutant load model
• Hardening the pump -stations
norm OF reuuw nano
Coastal Resiliency Plan
Resilience Plan Development
prepared far:
City .1 S®haA-
1225 Main Street
Sebastian. FL 329SS
1�ped by:
KimleyoHorn
Am
00!
Policy Decision: Planning for Resilient Infrastructure
Policies (Policy 4-1.1.10 & Policy 4-1.1.11)
• Why? Prepare for natural disaster or emergency such as
sea level rise/flooding events, hurricane/tornado winds,
fires, pandemics/epidemics, terrorism, or earthquakes
Proposed:
• Identify critical infrastructure in which resident's activities will be
affected by interruptions to these facilities & evaluate vulnerability in
the event of a natural disaster or emergency
• For critical infrastructure assets at greatest risk, identify potential
mitigation projects and implementation feasibility
• Support the availability of affordable high-speed internet to
encourage economic development, enhance access to educational and
healthcare resources, facilitate civic engagement, promote resilience,
and provide for effective response and communications in the event of
natural disasters or emergency situations
0V
Policy Decision: Septic to Sewer Policy (4-1.2.3)
• Why? Encourage septic to sewer efforts
Proposed:
• Policy 4-1.2.3: Septic to Sewer Conversion. The conversion of septic tanks to
centralized sewer services is critical, considering the location of existing septic tanks
within environmentally sensitive areas and areas vulnerable to the impacts of
flooding and sea level rise. The City shall continue to support the implementation
of the Sebastian CRA Septic to Sewer Conversion Program and Indian River County
initiatives to expand sanitary sewer service within the City such as the North
Sebastian Septic to Sewer Phase I Conversion Project.
Policy Decision: Stormwater Management Master Plan Update Policy (Policy 4-
1.4.2)
• Why? Require the update of the Stormwater Management Master Plan
Proposed:
• Pursue the development of an update to the 2013 Stormwater Management
Master Plan to appropriately identify existing conditions, stormwater needs for
planned future growth, and approaches to address existing and potential
deficiencies in the City's existing stormwater management system
• Incorporate the recommendations and mitigation strategies outlined in the City's
Coastal Resiliency Plan
4. Infrastructw,.. "%of,,,.,..%
Governance & Ipmlementation Element
I CITY OF SEBASTIAN - Comprehensive Plan 2040 M .4w
1P 6:
Ji
Governance & Implementation DIA
Overview
• Combined Intergovernmental
Coordination and Capital Improvement
Elements
• Updated with latest data and adopted
Capital Improvement Program for the
2020-2025 planning period
21
Proposed Changes/Policy Overview
• Combined Intergovernmental Coordination
and Capital Improvement Elements;
streamlined and reorganized
• Moved intergovernmental policies and
capital improvement policies located in
other Elements into this Element
• Coordinate on the establishment of an
Interlocal Service Boundary (Policy 7-1.2.3)
22
Policy Decision: Combined Intergovernmental
Coordination and Capital Improvement
Elements
• Why? Increased readability, more user-friendly,
and removed redundancies
Proposed:
• Goal 1: Intergovernmental Coordination
• Goal 2: Capital Improvements
23
Policy Decision: Moved intergovernmental
policies and capital improvement policies
located in other Elements into this Element
• Why? Increased readability and more user
friendly
Proposed:
• Similar or repetitive policies no longer
spread throughout Comprehensive Plan
City of Sebastian - Comprehensive Plan 20,10
■ Governance & Implementation -�
Objective 7-1.3: Transportation and Mobility Intergovernmental
Coordination. Consistent with the Transportation&Mobility Elemant the City'stransportab n
and mobility system shall be coordinated with the work plans and programs of Indian River County,
Fill the Florida Transportation Plan, and the Indian River County MPO_
Palley 7-1.3.1: Workshops. The City shall coordinate its future transportation needs by attending,
when necessary, public hearings and workshops on the Fi Fv - Year Transportation Plan and
Adapted Work Program.
Policy 7-1.3.2: Updates. The City Planning and Public Works Departments shall review subsequent
versions ofthe FDOT F—Ye it Transportation Plan and Adopted Work Program, in orderto update or
modify the Transportation & Mobility Element, as necessary
Palley 7-1.3.3: Indicators. The City shall use County and State numerical indicators for measuring the
achievement of City mobility goals. Numerical Indicators shall include:
• Model Splits;
• Annual Transit Trip. Par Capita; and
• Automobile Occupancy Rates_
Policy 7-1.3.4: Sebastian Municipal Airport. The City shall continue to operate and maintain the
Sebastian Municipal Airport in accordance with Federal Aviation Administretlon and Florida Department
cf Transportation standards and requirements.
Objective 7-1.4: Conservation and Coastal Management
Intergovernmental Coordination. The City shall coordinate with Indian River County through
the Technical Review Committee and regional and state agencies as applicable on development and resource
conservation activities_
Palley 7-1.4.t Intergovernmental Coordination Within the Coastal Area and For Managing
Conservation Activities. The City shall coordinate with Indian River County and appropriate regional,
State, and federal agencies in managing coastal resources. The City shall participate In an
intergovernmental coordination mechanism in order to manage coastal resourrxs within thejurisdidion
of more than one local government or public agency and assist in implementing appropriate portions of
existing mutt -jurisdictional resource planning and management plans addressing the coastal area,
including the Indian River Lagoon (Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program (IRLNEP)) and other
natural systems within the City_
Policy 7-1.4.2: Multi-juriadictional Environmental Issues. At a minimum, twice annuallythe City shall
coordinatewith the Technical Review Committee alother similar organization established bythe
Countyta ensure consistent and coordinated management at multi -jurisdictional environmental issues_
Policy 7-1.4.3: Liaison with Permitting Agencies. The City shall maintain relationships with County,
State, and federal agencies which have permitting responsibility within the City of Sebastian
24
Policy Decision: Coordination on Interlocal Service Boundary (Policy 7-1.2.3)
• Why? Provide a formalized procedure to deal with interjurisdictional impacts
Proposed:
• Policy 7-1.2.3: Interlocal Service Boundary. The City shall coordinate with
Indian River County and other municipalities within the County to establish
an ISBA to address issues including, but not limited to, utility services,
public facilities and services, and future annexation areas for each
municipality.
al
7. Governance .x
Y�'
a
+li
000
t ♦ ♦._� ,� 40 + M
40
i J• v 7 �� 1 f� i
ry
What is the Public Schools
Facilities Element?
is Plan for meeting future public
school facility needs and
maximizing use of existing
facilities.
• Indian River County School
District: 2019-2020 5-years
District Facilities Work Plan
�— Mres
a 1 2
March 17, 2009
Frl IcmP„- sm
L— Citrus
Elementary Boundaries 2O09-10
Beach i—I
Gtr-
- Dodger--
Sebastian �
6tl Q
= Pelican Island`
\�ts
I.ibe1rsYlig��', i
•�S�c�aa,[, nd
mn
C;Itnzlai
s � l
Osceola .11ugrfel —
§ ndrnr 1&ier µ
er 7? ;!
Fellsmete Sebastian `
Glendale Treasu-C—t 1
- Indian River = Vero Beach
Academv
Pelican Island
Uij
Public School Facilities DIA Overview
• In 2011, the Florida Legislature changed school concurrency from mandatory to
optional. The City has opted to maintain school concurrency.
• Indian River County School Board updated information based on:
• Indian
River County School
Board,
Educations
Facilities
Survey June 2018
• Indian
River County School
District:
2019-2020
5-years
District Facilities Work Plan
• Indian River County, 2014 Adopted Rate Ordinance 2014-16 (Note: 2020 Proposed Rates Are Pending
Impact Fee Study approval)
• FTE October 2019
• Indian River County School Board "A Strategic Plan — School Year 2017-2022"
• Information is consistent with the Interlocal Agreement adopted in February 2008.
29
Policy Decision: Streamlined and reduced redundancies
• Why? Increased readability and more user-friendly
Examples:
• Consistency of terms (i.e. Interlocal Agreement, School Board, LOS).
• Moved Capital Improvements Objectives and Policies to Governance and
Implementation Element.
• Moved Intergovernmental Coordination Objective and Policies to Governance and
Implementation Element.
• Combined/Consolidated similar policies.
30
8. Public Scher,,,, ".,,,,..,,%
What's Next?
july 30, 2020:
• Land Use Element
• Mobility Element
• Housing Element
Amu u st 20, 2020:
• Conservation & Coastal
Management Element
• Parks & Recreation Element
October 2020
• Final Draft
T
32
OrAlfl
ppp�-��� z-Nqq