The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07-30-2020 PZ MinutesCITY OF SEBASTIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 30, 2020 1. Call to Order — Chairman Reyes called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. Pledae of Alleaiance was recited by all. �r Present: Mr. Roth Mr. Reyes Mr. Simmons Mr. Christino (a) Ms. Kautenburg (a) Mr. Hughan Mr. Carter Not Present: Mr. Alvarez — Excused Mr. Qizilbash -- Excused Also Present: Ms. Dom Bosworth, Planning Manager Ms. Lisa Frazier, Community Development Director Mr. Manny Anon, City Attorney Mr. Kelley Klepper, Kimley-Horn and Associates Ms. Barbara Brooke -Reese, MIS Manager Ms. Janet Graham, Technical Writer (via Zoom) 06 (MC N r m _�E0 h caU�-5 0 Qa3> W N Q Ms. Mara Schiff, Indian River County School Board liaison, was not present. 4. Announcements and/or Aaenda Modifications Mr. Reyes announced that Mr. Alvarez and Mr. Qizilbash are excused, and Ms. Kautenburg and Mr. Christino will be voting in their places. 5. Aooroval of Minutes -- Reaular Meetinas of June 18. 2020 and Julv 16. 2020 Mr. Christino asked that a correction be made to the Minutes of June 18, 2020, on page 4 regarding his comments on the County's plans for the density of the project where he clearly stated that the capacity "did not exist" instead of what is in the Minutes as "did not exceed the limit." Being that they mean two entirely different things, he wanted that correction to be on the record. Mr. Reyes asked for any other corrections to the Minutes of June 18, 2020. Hearing none, he called for a vote to approve the Minutes of the June 18, 2020 meeting, with the corrections as noted above. A motion to approve the Minutes of the June 18, 2020 meeting as corrected was made by Ms. Kautenburg and seconded by Mr. Christino. Roll Call Fa PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING OF JULY 30, 2020 Mr. Roth — Yes Mr. Reyes — Yes Mr. Simmons — Yes Mr. Carter — Yes Vote was 7-0. Motion passed Mr. Hughan — Yes Ms. Kautenburg (a) — Yes Mr. Christino (a) — Yes PAGE 2 Mr. Reyes called for a motion approving the Minutes of the July 16, 2020 meeting. A motion to approve the Minutes of the July 16, 2020 meeting as presented was made by Mr. Simmons, seconded by Mr. Roth, and approved unanimously via voice vote. 6. Quasi -Judicial and Public Hearinos — None 7. Unfinished Business -- None 8. Public Input -- None 9. New Business A. Review of Proposed 2040 Comprehensive Plan Elements -- Goals, Objectives, and Policies & Updated Data and Inventory Analysis I. Land Use Element ii. Transportation & Mobility Element III. Housing Element a. PowerPoint Presentation by Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. b. Discussion facilitated by Consultant and staff C. Public Input d. Next Steps Ms. Frazier and Mr. Kelly Klepper of Kimley-Hom reviewed a PowerPoint presentation (SEE ATTACHED) describing the proposed 2040 Comprehensive Plan for the City relating to the three elements listed above. Ms. Frazier proposed that the Land Use Element and the Housing Element be covered first and then the Transportation & Mobility Element will be addressed depending on time constraints. It was the consensus of the Commissioners that all three elements be covered at this meeting. Ms. Frazier reviewed that the proposed 2040 Comprehensive Plan has been presented to the Parks and Recreation Committee and the Natural Resources Board. Their recommendations will be incorporated into the final draft of the Comprehensive Plan. She added that the proposed Comprehensive Plan has been loaded onto the City's website PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 3 MINUTES OF MEETING OF JULY 30, 2020 and is available for the public to review. She then introduced Kelley Klepper from Kimley- Horn and Associates. Mr. Reyes asked if the strikethroughs were available on the copy that is on the website. Ms. Frazier stated the strikethroughs are not included on the copy on the website, but she will add them. Mr. Klepper reviewed the PowerPoint presentation addressing the Land Use Element in depth, explaining what factors were considered when composing the draft of the Plan. One of the subjects addressed in particular under the Land Use Element is transfer of development rights (TDRs). Another subject that was covered by Mr. Klepper was the idea of better use of the properties already within the City rather than extending the boundaries of the City and acquiring more land. Another subject that was addressed was the industrial use of land within the City. Ms. Frazier explained several options for addressing the different classifications of industrial land use in Sebastian. She stated that City Council has recently asked staff to develop a change of use regarding heavy industrial property in the City to allow salvage yards. In the existing Comprehensive Plan regarding industrial use there is language that prohibits salvage yards. If the City allows salvage yards, there will need to be language to the effect that they will be allowed under the section describing recycling facilities with conditions, one of those conditions being that junk yards are prohibited. Mr. Klepper then called for questions or comments from the Commission. Mr. Reyes stated that he does not feel comfortable being told to get to an approval on the allowing of salvage yards. He stated he thinks this Commission is being forced to come to a decision on something that has already been voted on. Mr. Hughan commented regarding junkyards in the City. He is not in favor of them for the reason that they are environmental hazards regarding the liquids that are involved. Mr. Christino commented regarding changes and strikethroughs, specifically protecting the environmentally sensitive land use in Comprehensive Plans, especially the wetlands. He thinks that the language contained in the existing Comprehensive Plan should be kept and not struck. Ms. Frazier stated that this subject will be addressed in the Conservation and Coastal Management Element, not the Land Use Element of the Plan, and that language will appear there. Mr. Klepper stated that this Committee will be reviewing the Coastal Management Element on August 20th. There has been a significant enhancement to the City's conservation components, from not only the wetlands and the native habitats, but also vegetative communities, etc. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 4 MINUTES OF MEETING OF JULY 30, 2020 Ms. Kautenburg stated that with respect to the creation of junkyards, she does not have a problem with having a zoning district called heavy industrial, where that would be appropriate. She stated her problem with this suggestion is that the City does not presently have that type of land. She stated that if at some time in the future the City were to annex land, that type of land may be included. After reviewing the maps, she does not see anywhere that there is the type of land needed for salvage yards. Ms. Kautenburg also addressed the section on land use where there is a section on mobile homes in residential developments. She questioned if it would be possible to insert maintenance criteria for these mobile home parks. Mr. Klepper, in addressing Ms. Kautenburg's suggestion, stated those types of standards are typically found in the Land Development Code or in a companion with the Building Code, like a property maintenance component. Ms. Kautenburg addressed the matter of limited commercial development, she asked if residences would be permitted in a limited commercial area. Mr. Klepper stated that commercial use should remain commercial, and mixed use would allow for commercial and residential under the one designation. Mr. Simmons inquired whether the future land use maps that are shown include the existing annexations of property over the past couple of years. Ms. Frazier answered that they include the annexation titled "Spirit of Sebastian' and the 60+ acres north of Route 510. They do not include the current annexation under discussion with City Council. Mr. Simmons also asked why the language describing residential density was changed which now refers to a specific number. Mr. Klepper stated that it was felt that that language was redundant. Mr. Christino asked in follow-up to Mr. Simmons' question regarding the annexation along Route 510 if that land is designated as Commercial General. Ms. Frazier answered yes. Mr. Christino asked if it would be within the City's purview to change that land's designation to institutional. Ms. Frazier stated that would not be possible unless the owners of the property would agree. Mr. Roth asked for an explanation regarding the transfer of development rights in the Riverfront Mixed Use section. Ms. Frazier explained that that is an opportunity that is being presented within this land use category, and she explained how it is done. Mr. Roth asked who controls that activity. Ms. Frazier stated the City would have to approve those transfers. Mr. Keppler stated there is a formal process involved, and there could be an exchange of cash involved. Mr. Roth had a question about the Objective of Annexation Studies section. He wondered if there must be an annexation study on each annexation. Mr. Keppler stated that was a PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 5 MINUTES OF MEETING OF JULY 30, 2020 recommendation by the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council. There is the ability of the City to require one, and there is proposed language in the new Comprehensive Plan which designates what is required in the study. Regarding the wording as to Community Appearance and Urban Design, he likes that section, but he wonders if it is actionable. He would like the City to inform developers what the City is looking for, i.e. the "Old Fishing Village" theme. Mr. Reyes inquired about the statement that through incentives a developer can go from 8 units to 10 units on an acre lot. He is a little uncomfortable with that idea. Mr. Klepper explained that the areas where the density can be increased are the medium -density residential as well as the mixed -usage areas. That would have to go through a formal process with the City. Mr. Reyes is concerned about increasing the density by building up. Ms. Frazier stated that height limits are addressed in the Land Development Code, and that is not being proposed to be changed at this time. Mr. Klepper stated that the City does have the right to add something into the Land Development Code while addressing the new Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Reyes called for input from the public. • John Reilly, Sebastian. He is not in favor of increasing the density of units per acre. He also thinks TDRs is a terrible idea. He thinks four units per acre is plenty. • Christopher Nunn, Sebastian. He asked where the area is located whose owner is asking for the heavy industrial designation. He is aware that this platform is not the place to bring that up, but he thinks the City should look at the situation and have a discussion about it. Mr. Christino stated the property is near the airport. Mr. Reyes stated that this Commission has already voted on that. • Sharon Herman, Sebastian. She agreed with what Mr. Nunn said about the heavy industrial question. She also wished the PowerPoint presentation had been included with the agenda for the public to see. Mr. Reyes stated making the PowerPoints available to the public will be looked at. • Bill Flynn, Sebastian. He stated that part of his job with St. Lucie County Schools is fluid management. There are good practices that are regulated by both the State and the Federal Governments on how the fluids are handled by salvage/junkyards. He is sure anyone in Sebastian would be following those regulations. As a community, it should be growing and allowing people to create jobs for the local community. Mr. Reyes asked Mr. Flynn how often the laws are violated regarding PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 6 MINUTES OF MEETING OF JULY 30, 2020 the fluids. Mr. Flynn said there was a problem in the past before the regulations were put in place. Graham Cox, Sebastian (via Zoom). He agreed that it would be good to have the PowerPoint presentations available to the public, and to limit them to 15 minutes instead of 60 minutes. He also asked If the projection of 9,400 added to the population just addresses the population within the City limits or does that also include the population in the Graves Brothers annexed properly. He also asked why it is desired to add 9,000-10,000 to the population. Residential costs more to develop, and commercial development provides more tax money for the City. Mr. Reyes closed the Public Input and asked staff to move on to the next element of their presentation. Mr. Klepper reviewed a PowerPoint presentation on the Housing Element of the proposed Comprehensive Plan. He stated housing is an important element for the community to address. All forms of housing, including ownership, rentals, assisted living, housing values, affordable workforce -attainable housing --all forms and functions of housing and how it supports the community --are addressed. There are both State and Federal standards that are in place regarding this subject. He emphasized that staff looked at all the redundancies in the existing Comprehensive Plan and streamlined those redundancies in the proposed 2040 Comprehensive Plan. He then called for questions or comments from the Commissioners. Mr. Christino addressed the discrepancy on household size, being 2.24 versus 2.42 persons per owner. Mr. Klepper said he will doublecheck on which figures are correct. Ms. Kautenburg stated she is disappointed that the data used are so inaccurate. She emphasized that the median cost of a home in Sebastian as listed in the new Comprehensive Plan is not accurate. She opined that the rental rates and the mortgage rates are way off. She appreciates the efforts that the City is making to move forward, but she thinks it is necessary to have more accurate information. Mr. Klepper addressed her concerns by relating that there is professionally accepted information and that the multiple listing service has not been recognized to the best of his knowledge. He is aware that the data that have been used are somewhat dated. Staff will go back and confirm the data that have been used. Mr. Roth addressed the section on affordable housing. He thinks if a proposed developer meets all the codes and requirements, it should not be dictated by the City to be developed otherwise. Mr. Klepper stated that when developers come into the City, they will be told what the development codes and policies are, and the developer can then decide whether to pursue development in Sebastian, whether it is affordable housing or PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 7 MINUTES OF MEETING OF JULY 30, 2020 something else. Mr. Roth also addressed the accessory dwelling units (ADUs). He is concerned about the language that is proposed and whether it protects the homeowners. Mr. Klepper stated that the language used does not mean that these things are going to happen in all areas of the City. It means that the City is going to identify those areas in which ADUs can be used. Ms. Frazier added that the ADUs are becoming part of a solution to the problem of affordable housing. Mr. Roth stated that he is not against ADUs as long as there is a checkpoint to protect other homeowners. Mr. Roth asked if there is any area in the proposed Plan that addresses tiny homes. Ms. Frazier stated that staff did not add that because there is not enough land available to support something like that. There is a higher density to accommodate those houses. She stated there have been some developers who showed interest in tiny home developments, but the density would not support those developments. She stated if the Commissioners would like staff to address that subject, they will look into it. Mr. Klepper read a section of the proposed Plan labeled Changing Conditions where it states, 'The City shall undertake special housing studies as deemed necessary to develop speck local strategies for addressing housing conditions, market trends, and housing -related challenges." He said that under that language, the City could decide to study tiny houses. Mr. Roth stated that if the City annexes additional land, the development of tiny home areas might be permitted. Mr. Klepper mentioned Sarasota County and the options they used to create tiny home developments. Mr. Reyes is concerned with the ADUs turning into vacation rentals. He stated that energy -efficient housing, LEED, green space, and green products are a great idea, and there is not enough of that here. Those things should be pushed when developers come here. Mr. Reyes asked what constitutes an historic structure. Mr. Klepper stated there is a definition through the State Department of Historic Resources as well as the federal standards. There are certain qualifications, and he thinks baseline is that the structure is 50 years old. Mr. Reyes addressed the idea of streamlining the information in the Comprehensive Plan. He opined that streamlining makes it harderfor people to find the wording in the document if it is only in one place. He also stated the data that are used for the analyses should definitely be confirmed. Mr. Reyes called for input from the public on the Housing Element. • Sharon Herman, Sebastian. She inquired whether there is anywhere in this Plan that addresses the surface water issue. Ms. Frazier stated that stormwater is addressed in the Infrastructure section, and it is also addressed in the Conservation and Coastal Management section. Ms. Herman is also concerned PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 8 MINUTES OF MEETING OF JULY 30, 2020 about the affordable housing problem. She opined that this is becoming a community where the people who work in Sebastian cannot afford to live in Sebastian. She says it is sounding more and more like Sebastian is becoming more a community of the wealthy, supported by the outlying areas. She hopes that is not the way the City is headed. Regarding ADUs, she suggested keeping in mind that this is also a retirement community, and there might be more granny pods being erected. • Victor Young, Sebastian. He is also concerned about the lack of affordable housing in Sebastian. He specifically addressed those people whose income levels are too high to qualify for low -rent housing and yet are not high enough to afford other housing. He asked what the City is doing to try to address those people as well. Mr. Christino asked who sets the income limits for qualifying for affordable housing. Mr. Klepper stated that is based on the area median income, which is based on the metropolitan statistical area. Ms. Frazier stated that what Mr. Young is referring to is the "missing middle housing." It is the housing that our essential workers need, but they do not make enough to afford to live in this City. This is not isolated just to Sebastian. She understands the concern about increased density, butwhen developers come in and want to put in some type of relevant housing that the missing middle can afford, they have to do studies that will show them how much they have to sell the housing units for. Increasing density on the site brings down the cost of the house they are going to produce. • Graham Cox, Sebastian. (Inaudible) Mr. Reyes closed the Public Input and asked staff to move on to the next element of their presentation. Mr. Klepper reviewed a PowerPoint presentation on the Transportation and Mobility Element of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. (SEE ATTACHED) He talked about all the modes of transportation and tying together the roads, paths, sidewalks, parking, traffic, etc. Maps were included which showed levels of transportation. Ms. Frazier pointed out that plans are being made to increase Route 1 to six lanes from Wabasso south to 53rd Street. Plans are also being made to increase CR 512 to six lanes from the edge of the City to 1-95. She wanted the Commissioners and the public to be aware that these are plans that are outside of the City's purview but will affect the City. She also said CR 510 is also going to be widened. They are planning to build 82nd street, and that road is going to be identified as a truck route. Mr. Klepper stated it is critical that the City and the County maintain the relationships in this area and the agreements that they have. That will mean that the City is included in the discussions when and why these improvements are being proposed. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 9 MINUTES OF MEETING OF JULY 30, 2020 There was extensive discussion among the Commissioners and Ms. Frazier and Mr. Klepper as they went through the PowerPoint. The subjects discussed included width of the roads in the City, bike lanes, walking trails, sidewalks, roads, parks, etc. Mr. Reyes called for input from the public regarding the Transportation and Mobility Element. Victor Young, Sebastian. He thanked the Consultant and staff for going outside the City and looking at the surrounding areas when they drafted the proposed Plan. The plan of the County to connect 82nd Avenue to CR 510 is a good thing. He states it is crucial when that project is done the two quarries between 69th Street and Route 60 are considered. There is a lot of dump truck traffic, and there will be more dump trucks on 512 if that is connected over to the City. That will allow more dump truck traffic on 512. The subject of parking lots was brought up. He feels the problem is that the parking that is available presently is overflowing, and with another 10,000 increase in population over the next 20 years, many of whom will have boats, where will the additional parking come from. Christopher Nunn, Sebastian. Regarding the sidewalk along 512, he would like to see that whole row of trees removed, the area widened, and make it more of a bike path and a walking path. He thinks it would serve the community better as well as being safer. He thinks most people are afraid to walk on that sidewalk because nobody can see they are there. He agrees that there should be more sidewalks in the City. Mr. Reyes said he thinks that the sidewalk along 512 is maintained by the County. If it were maintained better, there may be more people use that sidewalk. Mr. Roth complimented the City in that it has an excellent engineer now, and he is doing a really good job of evaluating sidewalks in addition to traffic control. 10. Commissioners Matters Mr. Roth is confused by all the acronyms contained in the document. Mr. Klepper stated the list of acronyms is being finalized as a separate pull-out section for everyone. Mr. Carter commented regarding the data that are being used, especially in the Housing Element. He is concerned about having to make decisions and base them on data that are not accurate. 11. City Attomev Matters -- None 12. Staff Matters PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 10 MINUTES OF MEETING OF JULY 30, 2020 Ms. Frazier reminded everyone that this is not the only time for the public to comment on these elements. People can email the Community Development Department, call by phone, or send written correspondence. Staff will make sure that the stnkethroughs and PowerPoints are loaded onto the website. The next meeting will be August 20th with the Conservation and Coastal Management and Parks and Recreation Open Space elements. 13. Adiourn There being no further business, Mr. Reyes adjourned the meeting at 9:04 p.m jg OrAlfl ppp�-�� z-Nqq What's Next? Amu u st 20, 2020: • Parks, Recreation, & Open Space Element • Conservation & Coastal Management Element October 2020 • Final Draft 3 Home � Departments � Carnmunity oevelooment - Comprehensive Plan 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2040 The City is currently working on the fro rnework for the future! The City of Sebastian Comprehensive Plan 2040 is well on the way and needs your input. Please refer to the calendar of meetings and current Elements far review. Comments may be provided at any time by contacting the Community Development Department. Current Elements Under Review • City of Sebastian Comprehensive Development Plan 2040 Schedule REV June 2020 • Governance and Implementation Element PZ June 18 2020 • Housing Element PZ July 30 2020 • Infrastructure Element PZ June 18 2020 • Introduction PZ June 18 2020 • Land Use Element PZ July 30 2020 • Public Schools Element PZ June 18 2020 Supplemental Information • Sebastian Consolidated Plan 2019 • Sebastian CRA Market Analvsis Final i k t I F Background Integrated Livability Workshop concepts and feedback • Smart Growth (Need to plan for inevitable growth) • Key Terms: • Encourage mixed -use development, • Increased densities, • Mobility improvements, • Accessibility, • Affordability, • Environmental protection, • Sewer infrastructure, • Economic opportunities, and • Predictability J3usertas�s 'llir•frs',t SaXs Te�ryawa r frn raa+tit �/� once rr J'��11f L�{/�i/ ■1//J IjYl ��: 4'17.vtti?+ iN 1 ?�deNY rok r„f -117, SA�s rd "�'��' `i5ca51R.sses 7.a(Esiil&r Ssd+f�.sak +.f ly W�4ii 14i#rfu"'e .�lac_1a�.r:r�:• ,..r.� '1,,5raeusbr. �C: L'.' ' Li.S.rx,37re' J:�LM�'i",'OTL+ Cna+u6 :. hJi+it L.iiVV�T J. L.� �Isserr� - � 1L�l+J{{frOJYVI!/J�fr/�� What is the Land Use Element? • Designating proposed future general distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land for residential uses, commercial uses, industry, agriculture, recreation, conservation, education, public facilities, and other categories of the public and private uses of land. • An analysis of the availability of facilities and services. • An analysis of the suitability of the plan amendment for its proposed use considering the character of the undeveloped land, soils, topography, natural resources, and historic resources on site. • An analysis of the minimum amount of land needed to achieve the goals and requirements of this section. • Based on population projections. N Population 40,000 • Current Population: 25,168 40POPULATION GROWTH ,000 • Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research 30,000 (BEBR) 2019 official estimate 25,000 z V) 20,000 Uj • Population gain of approximately 9,400 people in 15,000 next 20 years (average growth rate of 8%) 10,000 5,000 • Median Age: 53 0 2010 2016 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 1 Seasonal Population 953 1,029 1,122 1,234 1,333 1,413 1,498 ■ Permanent Population 21,929 23,735 25,957 28,562 30,806 32,757 34,567 • Race: 8 5.9 % White, 6.9 % Hispanic, 5.5 % African oSource: Florida Housing Data Clearinghouse and U.S. Census Bureau American, 1.1/ Multi -racial, .03/ Asian, .04/ Other • Individuals below poverty rate: 12.7% E:3 Future Land Use vs. Existing Land Use • Future Land Use • What the City "envisions" and supports for future development. • Existing Land Use • What is on the "ground" right now. • Vacant Land Use: land that is not developed or is underdeveloped (and what is its development potential). E Existing Land Uses (on the ground today) 2019 Existing La nd Use Acres % of Tota I Residential 4,328 51.56% Commercial 301 3.59% Industrial 76 0.91% Institutiona 1 98 1.17% Government 2,075 24.72% Agriculture 280 3.34% Miscellaneous 29 0.35% Vacant 1,205 14.36% Tota 1 8,392 100% Source: Florida Department of Revenue Residential - Commercial - Industrial - Institutional Government Agriculture Miscellanecus Vacant I N a �J "bogn �Mmul NEEYIlawki. Kimley>>) Horn 0 0.25 0.5 -Conservation Low Denisty Limited Commercial Riverfront Mixed Use (0.25 FAR) Residential (5 dulac) (0.6 FAR) - (0.6 FAR. 8 dulac) Agriculture Mobile Home - General Commercial - Industrial (t dW5 ad) (5 dul (0,6 FAR) [05 FAR) Very Low Denisty Medium Denity -Commercial 512 Institutional 0 FTM 11 EX , , . Residential (3 dulac) Residentilal (8 dulac) (0.5 FAR) - (0.6 FART Existing (Currently Adopted) 2025 Future Land Use Map Future Land Use Designations Future Land Use 2025 Map Acres % of Total Agriculture 0 0.0% Very Low Density Residential 1,073 14.0% Low Density Residential 3,093 40.3% Mobile Homes 198 2.6% Medium Density Residential 228 3% Commercial Limited 22 .3% Commercial General 198 2.6% Commercial 512 36 .5% Riverfront Mixed Use 191 2.5% Industrial 299 3.9% Institutional 1,249 16.3% Conservation 1,089 14.2% Tot I 7,676 100% Note: The Florida Department of Revenue and the City of Sebastian consist of different datasets (parcels vs. polygon shapes) resulting in a difference between the total acreages calculated. it U :err 0. Ph".lill Lim Ia i:il:: e:a IIInnI nm um ilu�' i.. 19liiI. i1 a i�:M�, ion _� Kimley>>> Horn U 0.25 0.5 , N Riles - Conservation Agriculture II LaIFire Vacant Parcels by Future Land Use Future Land Use Acres % of Total Vacant Designation Acreage Conservation 1 0.1% Agriculture 0 0.0% Very Low Density 268 22.5% Residential Low Density Residential 665 55.7% Mobile Home 29 2.4% Medium Density 54 4.5% Residential Commercial Limited 9 0.8% Commercial General 66 5.5% Commercial512 15 1.3% Riverfront Mixed Use 27 2.3% Industrial 52 4.4% Institutional 6 0.5% Total 1,192 100 jource: Florida Department of Revenue and the City of Sebastian Note: The Florida Department of Revenue and the City of Sebastian consist of different datasets (parcels vs. polygon shapes) resulting in a 13 acre (1%) difference between the vacant land acreages calculated. Very Low ❑enisty Residential Low Denisty Residential Mobile Home Medium Der Residentilal Commercial - Commercial Commercial - Rivertront M Industrial - Institutional Kimley>Morn o 0.2s 0.5 N smiles Build Out Analysis • Most dense and intense development that Sebastian could expect. • Using BEBR's expectation of 2.24 people per dwelling unit, the City of Sebastian can expect to absorb 10,541 additional people. • This meets the dwelling units needed to absorb the amount of growth projected in Sebastian (9,400 persons) through ata minimum the planning period. • Opportunity to develop commercial development as the City's population continues to grow. Future Land Use Vacant Acres Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum Category DU/AC FAR Density Intensity DU/AC SF Conservation 1 - - 0 - Agriculture 0 1 DU/5 AC - 0 - Very Low 268 3 - 804 - Density Residential Low Density 665 5 - 3,325 - Residential Mobile Home 29 5 - 145 - Medium Density 54 8 - 432 - Residential Commercial 9 - 0.6 - 235,224 Limited Commercial 66 - 0.6 - 1,724,976 General Commercial 512 15 - 0.5 - 326,700 Riverfront 27 8 0.6 216 705,672 Mixed Use Industrial 52 - 0.5 - 1,132,560 Institutional 6 - 0.6 - 156,816 Total 1,192 4,922 4,281,948 ivote: i ne i-ioriaa u%--partment of revenue ana the uty o,'sevastian consist of aifferent aotasets (parcels vs. polygon shapes) resulting in a 13 acre (1%) difference between the vacant land acreages calculated. 13 Adjacent Densities • Growth is also occurring adjacent to the City boundary (i.e., in the County) Densities up to 8 du/ac border the City limits Mix of Residential and Non -Residential i� AG-1 (1 dul5ac) AG-2 (1 dull ac) C-1 (0 dulac) - C-2 (1 dul40 ac) - C-3 (1 du/25 ac) - C/l IL-1 (3 dull ac) L-2 (6 dull ac) M-1 (8 dull ac) - MHRP (8 dull ac) R (1 dullac) N Kimley>>>Hori 1 025 05 1 Density of Development CITY OF SEBASTIAN - Comprehensive Plan 2040 DensityDevelopmentof ' CITY OF SEBASTIAN - Comprehensive Plan 2040 A IMF a � Jw _ w 1 � •T9 .. DensityDevelopmentof ' CITY OF SEBASTIAN - Comprehensive Plan 2040 A I . -�� .E�--,.�— �1 ■ � '' 1 � =y ,L r a'f 1 ��r Medium Density Residential Example (9 du/ac) • City of Sebastian Medium Density is 8 du/ac • (example: Pelican Isle Apartments, Sebastian Lakes Townhomes, &Duplex areas within Sebastian Highlands) W • Calculated using O.SFAR Floor -to -Area Ratio (FAR) 1.0 FAR • Example: A 5, 000— 1 Story square foot building on a 2.0FAR 10,000 square foot of equals an FAR 2 Stories of 0.5 Entire Lot Area Floor Area Ratio 1 Story 2 Stories 2 Stories 4 Stories Half Lot Area 7 4 Stories 8 Stories Quarter Lot Area 19 Proposed Changes/Policy Decisions Overview • Addition of a Mixed -Use Designation (Policy 1-1.3.6) • Proposed densities and intensities (Policy 1-1.1.4) • Additional Industrial Land Use language (Policy 1-1.3.7) • Addition of a Transfer of Development Rights Objective and Policy (Objective 1-1.5 and Policy 1-1.5.1) • Addition of Low -Impact Development and Annexation Policies (Policy 1-2.3.1, Policy 1-2.4.3, Policy 1-2.4.4, and Policy 1-2.4.5) • Addition of a Smart Growth Policy (Policy 1-2.1.1) • Addition of Emergency Management Objective and Policies (Objective 1-2.5, Policy 1- 2.5.1, Policy 1-2.5.2, and Policy 1-2.5.3) • Addition of an Infill Development/Redevelopment Policy (Policy 1-2.2.10) and Design for Healthy Communities Objective and Policies (Objective 1-3.4, Policy 1-3.4.1, Policy 1-3.4.2) 20 Policy Decision: Addition of a Mixed -Use Designation (Policy 1-1.3.6) • Why? Allow greater flexibility and changing market types in identified areas outside of the Riverfront Mixed Use district Proposed: • Sebastian Boulevard Triangle Area • Form -based code principals incorporated into the LDRs • Maximum intensity is 0.6 FAR, and up to 1.0 with incentives • Maximum density is 8 du/ac, and up to 10 du/ac with the use of TDRs or incentives • Serve as TDR receiving areas • Incentives may include but are not limited to projects that incorporate regional stormwater pond(s), shared parking structures(s), bike/pedestrian connectivity, and quality of public open space 21 Policy Decision: Proposed densities and intensities (Policy 1-1.1.4) • Why? Discourage sprawl and promote growth in existing developed areas Proposed • Proposed updates are shown in green Note: Maximum density or Intensity is not entitled to any individual property or project. Site and environmental constraints, infrastructure capacity, buffer requirements, and compatibility with adjacent property uses and community/neighborhood character may limit the development potential within these Future Land Use Designations. 1 A_ND USE ricultural Residential Very Low Density Low Density Medium Density Mobile Home Development Riverfront Mixed Use -Commercial - ---------------------- Limited C;omrnercial, including offices General Commercial, including offices Commercial 512 R verfront Mixed Use Conservation Industrial Institutional F ESIDENTIAL DENSITY (Units per Gross Acre/Floor Area Ratio) 1 ip to I du/5 ac Up to 3 du/ac upto5du/ac up to S du/ac up to 5 du/ac up to 8 du/ac 0A FAR O.6 1 A R 03 FAR O.O FAR .25 FAR 03 FAR O.6 34AR Land Use I Density (units per gross acre) & Intensity (floor area ratio) Residential Land Use Very Low Density Low Density Medium Density Mobile Home Development Non -Residential Land Use Limited Commercial General Commercial Commercial 512 Riverfront Mixed Use Mixed Use Industrial Institutional Agriculture Conservation Note: 1: Up to 10 du/ac with incentives 2: Up to 1.0 FAR with incentives Other 3 du/ac 5 du/ac 8 du/ac' 5 du/ac 0.6 FAR 1.0 FAR 0.5 FAR 8 du/ac' & 0.6 FAR2 8 du/ac' & 0.6 FAR2 0.5 FAR 0.6 FAR 1 du/5 ac 0.25 FAR 22 -Conservation (025 FAR) Agriculture (1 du15 ac) Very Low Deristy Residential (3 dulac) Proposed 2040 Future Land Use Map • Addition of Mixed Use District • Reflects proposed densities and intensities Law Deristy Limited Commercial - Riverfront Mixed Use Residential (5 dulac) (0.6 FAR) (0.6 to 1 0 FAR, Mobile Home -General Commercial 8 to 10 dulae) (5 dulac) (1.0 FAR) NoIndustrial Medium Denity - Commercial 512 (0.5 FAR) Residentilal (8 to 10 dWac) (0.5 FAR) -Institutional (0.6 FAR) Mixed Use (0.6 to 1.0 FAR, 8 to 10 (IWac) Kimley>>)Horn D 0.25 0.5 Policy Decision: Additional Industrial Land Use language (Policy 1-1.3.7) • Why? Provides an opportunity to better define industrial district • "MOTION by Council Member Hill and SECOND by Mayor Dodd to direct staff through the comp plan and regulations update to determine the best way to allow salvage yards as recycling within Industrial areas. Consider the potential of establishing a heavy industrial land use during the current comp plan update to include land development regulation changes that would allow salvage yards with stipulations pertaining to the recycling of automobiles." • The City may wish to define light and heavy in the Plan and LDC • Additional language: The City shall establish standards in the LDC including, but not limited to, use, buffering/compatibility, locational criteria, etc. as it pertains to both light and heavy industrial districts. • Currently 4% of land use (52 acres vacant) ME Existing language: • The industrial land use category includes sites accessible to airport facilities, rail facilities, and/or major thoroughfares. Uses allowed include: manufacturing, assembling and distribution activities; warehousing and storage activities; general commercial activities; aviation related industry, services and facilities; and other similar land uses which shall be regulated through appropriate zoning procedures. Heavy metal fabrication, batch plants, salvage yards, chemical or petroleum manufacturing or refining, rubber or plastics manufacturing, or other use generating potentially harmful environmental or nuisance impacts shall be prohibited. These uses typically generate heavy truck traffic, require significant acreage, are difficult to screen and buffer from residential areas, and therefore, should be located in more sparsely developed unincorporated areas. This provision shall not prohibit residences for night watchmen or custodians whose presence on industrial sites is necessary for security purposes. Such a use may be permitted as a conditional use through appropriate zoning procedures. 25 Proposed Language: • The City shall establish standards in the LDC including, but not limited to, use, buffering/compatibility, locational criteria, etc. as it pertains to both light and heavy industrial districts. Uses allowed in the Industrial designation include: manufacturing, assembling and distribution activities; warehousing and storage activities; general commercial activities; aviation related industry, services and facilities; and other similar land uses which shall be regulated through appropriate zoning procedures. Hedvy metal fabrication, batch plants, chemical or petruieuin manufacturing or refining, rubber or plastics manufacturing, or other use generating potentially harmful environmental or nuisance impacts shall be prohibited. PO Policy Decision: Objective 1-1.5: INDUSTRIAL Land Use Designation. Remove "salvage yards" from prohibited uses. Why? Provides an opportunity for recycling of automobiles or boats for resale in their entirety or as spare parts. Add policy language to Plan. Proposed: • Additional language: Modify LDC to allow salvage yards as conditional uses under recycling facilities. The City shall establish standards in the LDC including, but not limited to, use, buffering/compatibility, locational criteria, etc. MA Policy Decision: Addition of a Transfer of Development Rights Objective and Policy (Objective 1-1.5 and Policy 1-1.5.1) • Why? Will allow for blended densities and intensities while protecting conservation lands and areas prone to sea -level rise and flooding Proposed: • Direct development away from targeted (identified) areas including conservation lands, Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA), proposed Adaptation Action Area (AAA) Overlay, public open spaces, wetlands and other native habitats. • Incentives established through the TDR process may include density and intensity bonuses based on the quality of the areas being protected and preserved, provision of public spaces, public infrastructure improvements, or similar. 4.� M t Policy Decision: Addition of Low -Impact Development and Annexation Policies (Policy 1-2.3.1, Policy 1-2.4.3, &Policy 1-2.4.4) • Why? Promote best practices for future development Proposed: • Encourage low -impact development (LID) principles for development including development within newly annexed areas. • The City shall continue to maintain LDCs which include performance standards ensuring that the location, scale, timing, and design of development shall be coordinated with public facilities and services in order to prevent the proliferation of urban sprawl, maximize pubic infrastructure, and achieve cost effective land development patterns. M:1 Policy Decision: Addition of a Smart Growth Policy (Policy 1-2.1.1) • Why? Promote Smart Growth principles in the way the City grows and develops Proposed: • Policy 1-2.1.1: Smart Growth Principles. The City shall promote smart growth principles that direct growth in an intentional, comprehensive way. These principles include but are not limited to promoting a mix of uses, compact building design, housing diversity, environmental preservation, and transportation choices. 30 Policy Decision: Addition of Emergency Management Objective and Policies (Objective 1-2.5, Policy 1-2.5.1, Policy 1-2.5.2, and Policy 1-2.5.3 ) • Why? Resiliency and preparedness measures outside of floods/hurricanes Proposed: • Ensure the City's preparedness and resiliency in the case of a natural disaster or emergency such as sea level rise/flooding events, hurricane/tornado winds, fires, pandemics/epidemics, terrorism, earthquakes or other disasters. • Include emergency management criteria into the LDC to mitigate the impacts of natural disasters or emergency events in order to protect public health and safety. • Include criteria in the LDC that requires post -disaster economic recovery implementation tools to be in place to direct recovery after a disaster has occurred. • Pursue the development of an Emergency Infectious Disease Response Plan in coordination with other local and state response plans. 31 Policy Decision: Addition of an Infill Development/Redevelopment Policy (Policy 1-2.2.10) and Design for Healthy Communities Objective and Policies (Objective 1-3.4, Policy 1-3.4.1, Policy 1-3.4.2) • Why? Incorporated principles of the APA Sustainability Matrix Proposed: • Encourage infill in areas with existing infrastructure and services • Ensure equitably distributed and accessible active transportation facilities (i.e. sidewalks, bike lanes) and recreational opportunities (i.e. parks, greenways) to support healthy lifestyles and physical activity • Encourage crime prevention in public areas through environmental design (OPTED) principles 32 k F o e. Ar 44 el �yriAmio. 7w jo) Me •IVY L I % rm I�jp I OKI, 0 Housing Element CITY OF SEBASTIAN - Comprehensive Plan 2040 f`%;�y r F'_--}}A•M1 �`1't .�1'F•I .i'•!�� 1�:;yy O4. Zi- _-.�. I Housing DIA Highlights • Single family detached homes make up the largest majority (87%) of the inventoried housing units. • Owner based dwellings (80%) are the most prominent dwelling units by tenure. • The majority of housing structures built (83%) were constructed between 1980-2009. • The median monthly gross rent is approximately $1,020 while the median monthly owner cost is approximately $1,139. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates 36 Housing DIA Highlights Continued • The median home value is $157,200. • The median household income is $49,655, per capita income is $26,001, and the percent of persons in poverty is 13%. • The highest percentage of renters are paying 30% or more of their income for housing while the highest percentage of owners are paying less than 30% of their income for housing. • Approximately 1.7% of occupied units are indicated as substandard housing. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates 37 Naticnal Register 0 Histcrical Structures Historical Resources There are 82 structures documented in the City as having historic significance. 5 of which are on the National Register of Historic Places including 2 Historic Districts. • Historic districts are defined by a group of historically significant structures or sites. Old Town Sebastian Historic District West includes 9 historic structures. Old Town Sebastian Historic District East includes 15 historic structures. Source: Division of Historical Resources of the Florida Department of State J N Kimley>>)Horn 0 0.1 0.2 0,41 las A Affordable Housing Definition • Provide a clear definition using Florida Statutes definition. • Ch. 163.3164(3) Florida Statutes defines affordable housing as monthly rents or monthly mortgage payments including taxes, insurance, and utilities do not exceed 30 percent of the median adjusted gross annual income for households. Low- to Moderate -Income Households Definitions • The City of Sebastian Consolidated Plan 2019-2024 (prepared by Guardian CRM) defines very low, low, and moderate income households. These are based upon the most recent information available from the USHUD and is adjusted annually and by family size. The following definitions will be used: • Very Low Income: Households that do not exceed 30% of the area median income (AMI) • Low Income: Households between 31%— 50% of the AMI • Moderate Income: Households earning 51% - 80% of the AMI 39 Proposed Changes/Policy Decisions Overview • Streamlined and reduced redundancies. • New Objective and Policies related to Livable Communities (Objective 3-1.4, Policy 3-1.4.1, and Policy 3-1.4.2). • New Objective and Policies related to and Energy Efficiency/Sustainability (Objective 3-1.8, Policy 3-1.8.1, and Policy 3-1.8.2). 40 Policy Decision: Streamlined and reduced redundancies • Why? Increased readability and more user friendly Example: • Streamline list of infrastructure and reference as adequate public facilities. Policy 3-1.3.3: All group homes, foster care facilities, community residential homes, and similar developments shall contain adequate public facilities. fra-strueture *ncIud;,g. r„+able cr, a c surface w r manageppe-nt; and appreve-dl system of wastwateF a-iS.Pesal; and an ,doq„a+o c"c+om fir c„l;d ,�„cto^lleci-on a .The sites shall also be free of safety hazards and all structures shall comply with City ordinances and applicable State laws including applicable licensing and program requirements of the State. 41 Policy Decision: New Objective and Policies related to livable Communities (Objective 3-1.4, Policy 3-1.4.1, and Policy 3-1.4.2). • Why? Support housing's role in creating a livable community Proposed: • Ensure the availability of suitable and adaptable housing that accommodates City residents at all stages of life. • Promote a diverse mix of housing stock that is well -integrated with the City's mobility network and accessible to services and amenities. • Promote the implementation of innovative housing design and development concepts such as Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). 42 Policy Decision: New Objective and Policies related to and Energy Efficiency/Sustainability (Objective 3-1.8, Policy 3-1.8.1, and Policy 3-1.8.2). • Why? Support the City's sustainability goals Proposed: Encourage sustainable construction methods and energy efficiency in the development and rehabilitation of housing to promote affordability and conserve natural resources. Provide incentives for housing developments that meet recognized green building (e.g. LEED, Green Globes). Encourage the incorporation of Florida -Friendly landscaping and low impact development (LID) principles in the provision of housing. 43 r �� T .J ( Rff y �; "J j�'? y':.• .i �- tr � .:i AC ls, {S•,:, �y ~`t' �� I� `,.r•. �� )' t v %� .� t� J � y-.. ?yi.'' ,�r t.. � � l � � � .y:. r., �'�.. :�. _ 'w' -i x,.��' :L' �a�l ,�vKi."� !) l.�E..•.'�Y ~' 'r, jr '*`�.$• ~ J, L �� •yam ,3+ V� •1i;"'• .x ' �< i'4,, .�'' P 3'L 4s t "i"� jy,'',�„�,,?'� y ` j�OC � ' ' y r ',X15al�� y � � � �• -,l . �"��''.�,',x�: �� `+?i 'r,, i, .�, J � �a R �� ,�?� '; •+. .yZ� � r f' F fir, � `;+, i � .J ::a, '�r,�4.��A,,,'�.\7,y� � �s?�--,*=+r 7�t• �`c.:4� ,�.y�,�`� -:��'k'F ,�' lip Ak ;. I el ........... r2L What's Next? Amu u st 20, 2020: • Parks, Recreation, & Open Space Element • Conservation & Coastal Management Element October 2020 • Final Draft 45 �� _��r__ r �,�- "�� .- �1 --�- -� - �{� - {r _� -- � �. t'.. = �"- +� _ � ,� �,L.�*� ''� ;'� What is the Transportation & Mobility Element. • Assesses the condition and capacity of the existing transportation facilities, projects future needs, sets LOS standards for roads, and determines future system improvements • Recognizes the need to provide transportation alternatives to increase accessibility and provide a comprehensive transportation system z -ransp ortation j,pdates F SEBASTIAN - Comprehensive Plan 2040 nctional Class of Sebastian ary 2020 • • DIY Y ROAST HOME OF PELICAN ISLAND )ad Jurisdiction of Sebastian iary 2020 Transit Routes • 5 routes Proposed Bike & Pedestrian Routes • Through planning period Transit Routes '�U{ Proposed Bike 8 S� s' ; �5 �.r•�, Pedestrian Routes 1 Route 6 IlkFY NO A Route1 Route0 4+ Proposed Bike j Lanes - Route 11 S Proposed - Route 12 Pedesidan Sidewalks . Bus slaps Proposed &ke ana Pedestrian Raines v, ii t to Kimsey>>)Horn Mires A \#I Kimley)))Horn d d 05 Level of Service (LOS) LOS - LDS A LOSB - LO50 - LOS 0 - LOSE - LOSF Kimley)))Horn G 025 as LOS - LOSA_' LOS B - Los LDS C LOS E LOS F LOSA E� LOSB LOSC LC6 0 a - LOSE LOS F ``.;, > O °a p'P dyR i a ° \ R MGM 02 m ° \ of ENGIAa PR � r ens s� �^ sr O 0 —SAIFRF AI.tt Rh 2040 Kimley)))Horn 0 025 05 ,NII� A s.F., Kimley)))Horn ° G,� °s , A .. '. ry 0 t�rwi} Legend 9 VERO BEACH >�ar ar N � t IT1 g 1 Rude. FELLSMERE p �ORCHIO 4 Afra®nd,e 3FHAS1U21 0 c e n C.,—inrd Prujeas Rop"YNwds Arpmfi.c Al A.kgr—d ., 3u19. i07C j2NS - 2A16j Rnadµgpp Llb3n 2 Llnn 2 Lim EIMMIN 4 LBPiB 4 L.en[3 County �BLirrui 41 rwWn nhrd. mprGwnrml fiOVitlery 0 IKarsee4on i Irfl—wn — Crating R-d, inlptnVew T Impfo m M ST LL —E Figure 2. Initial Roadway Needs Assessment INDIAH RIVER ru SHORE'S umn xx VERO DUCH a�xu �R aln mr1 �r rnw �.I an t1 SEBASTKN HOME OE PELICAN ISLAND 6 0 0 ... F j fir• eebastn Wd MW Ilu A.. i ■ •• Bab■IWnIW ir M • ■ ■ Seh■tlen Htte Recreellon Me o • •* ` a �6 i •I �+ EIREVARD COUNTY • d • + I •■ • 9 3 Troll `TT" 3 1 tin fi (Indlal RArr Pdve andl)untown,SPlbo ianl d Felon,.East 6 {p S�Xr9,�A%-ra uctx))&Central 6 q�Nlh �efias:(� P�'�" var 7 'elemera':;. o !M 10 -1 • INDANHIV€ COUNTY .. naWrkAoo�fklPark � ,mntooa C■rl■IYIYw7V7RRehp1 11::.I;.:,:I • ■ f:.. xk�.* : ` ..'.Perk+ae6a.■�unitl■alAtporl •• 1dPt AlA iG■ 1c =< .'=5r d�}��4 a99 Rcu[F • vp. / • * • ■ 16 667h St /// any.•• 4 Mam F. • f j• �• 17 BMNRu.:a1 �� ■ • • 21 Le Hartle[ ParkEesi 8teet■erk 11MGeeuec 10 1,io19 A4E a'd CR 512 ♦ • st. alolplun R.M emle Part r • M1e � ■ Kr 1 19 ryf�P r, ilal ■ 0 . • �so-� ■ r � 4 � �7 3 . Shasian Rive war �$• t ; ,� I i •a 21 12- F955eCacllan Rhx[en2 Cr�cYn f • � � �• ZpO L■ Iwael •on• L : ; yu �jjj RED iRNL i[ + � . sebacnan rem Flecnr y1� wd■ ale D..bm ■ w 67 lk ` a 1i Intlle Cmn,r �� ttSrte!9� L IFOnn Oft ftk A. f f erard Park w' .c' 8h n9: me Cdora i�'e erI Cn■77 Ftls ttrTollheetl • ■ ■ ■ ■ • I Compk ■ PVnc 0. A- ......... j�■aaa..r.�............... �rL=�+ii� ■ • ■ �f 55m a �rk Sebastian •,� : �•;,...`: •■�.. +. ■ ■ , • . 14 ■ • ■..■•• 8eWrLmp.rt RecreellonCmokG • F i �4f + 7q jrgrk �■SI Fellsmere„•b�asbC�rJm ,a■r■a��urta n.uxr i 13 4. IL4 • ' ■ .. R _ il• �' • fir; I9xe6-11otaR Prk ■ g—ays tleploxtlere for pbmhp y I ■ 5 '��y`;�' �Th, pmpwea a d* he tlesebpetl In _ ;t - 4 • + , Mrdlneion "" approprah Ind omen entl repulelor, apenoki. ■ * r - .. • • ■ • 7■dIllrF4.N 8■.Ie"9i�lY ;••••••••+■■■V■■■■•■••+•+•••••••••• AAA' ■7■Y• y. {' Airport Q Campsites 0 Library j Schools —Existing Shared -Use Pads Existing Greenways3 NIRC proposed greenways 0 05 1 N 1' CommunityCenterslClubs $ Major Shopping Centers Park & Ccnmmtan Land — Exi4g Rie Lane Hiking --River Greenway � Miles a I ■9 Boa[ Ramps Transit Routes East Cust Greenw Trail MulIFV5e f • f OR -road Mullimuse TT ® HismricRairoad5tation ®PicrlicArea �� aY 75 Elkreways ; • f On -mad Muh-use 4 �rY.1 InVYR..NW+++r.,.r,Woi.. wso..r:l..rx.a..n,a.aww cal o�xa,mn ai+1r SEBASTKN HOME OF PELICAN ISLAND Ah 0 mF41pam f INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN Figure 5-6. Bicycle Facilities Prioritization by Improvement Type I .y.ow.fi INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN Bicycle Prioritization by Improvement -< — .. I ! MII fwrfl4MnCwMMY • •� •_ — !la,r •Ww A,M� P� Fw fi 7 Enr.lYw iwr d. it 1A DIY Y RAT HOME OF PELICAN ISLAND 8 CHAPTER 5: NEEDS PLAN AND PRIORITIZATION RC Pedestrian Prioritization Plan ® INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN Figure 5-4. Pedestrian Facilities Prioritization by Improvement Type kpw Ci&wow vow No ,1 UEW htluhW MkAI�Ylon 4S 7. NIwrIMI lOn M1�/P Rry yMlIYi7 6riwlYaM 9ia.>1pMerr Ulsp fw7. [fir. Wp Ys� P� fn —111 2 MMFl IN Ah leMwGiO+q � 7�ei hr�rb eon sa! syae�m�q — hfl {W. WP 3+N-M P+1 Adz SYl1 111Mw� Mtiln.uw-ti?W9 q y"HPlFq 7 W S ew.w� AAA iA! . V nMY4M� �11Ml EVrw�MnhT! igwtl'GwQ INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN Pedestrian Prioritization by Improvement �W I mti I - 9 CHAPTER 5; NEEDS PLAN AND PRIORITIZATION Proposed Changes/Policy Decisions Overview • Added Prioritizing Policy (Policy 2-1.1.3) • Added Connection Policy (Policy 2-1.1.4) • Added Parking Policy (Policy 2-1.1.14) • Added Environmental Impact Policy (Policy 2-1.1.19) • Added Safety Objective and Polices (Objective 2-1.2) • Added Design Policy (Policy 2-1.4.2) and Roadway Standards Policy (Policy 2-1.5.6) • Added Traffic Calming Policy (Policy 2-1.6.11) 10 Policy Decision: Added a Prioritizing Policy (Policy 2-1.1.3) • Why? Prioritize mobility with consideration to sustainability, environmental, social, accessibility and equity factors Proposed: • Where adequate facilities exist for all modes, enhancing the quality and integration of the facilities will be prioritized based on the hierarchy of modes Provides a sustainable mobility hierarchy as a guideline for prioritizing projects based on transportation mode 11 Policy Decision: Added Connection Policy (Policy 2-1.1.4) • Why? Provide for increased mobility options Proposed: • Policy 2-1.1.4: Connection. Implement land use strategies that support "park once environments", increase vehicular trip capture, reduce vehicle dependence, promote non - vehicular travel, and decrease vehicle -miles -traveled (VIVIT), through development of mixed -use projects by requiring vehicular and pedestrian interconnection between adjacent properties, and by providing connections to transit facilities. 12 Policy Decision: Added Parking Policy (Policy 2-1.1.14) • Why? Reflect parking trends and needs Proposed: Policy 2-1.1.14: Parking. The City shall regularly analyze, assess, and update parking requirements in the LDC to reflect actual parking trends and needs. Parking requirements may be customized for various parts of the City. 13 Policy Decision: Added Environmental Impact Policy (Policy 2-1.1.19) • Why? Minimize the impacts on the environment Proposed: • Policy 2-1.1.19: Environmental Impact. The City shall implement standards in the LDC that minimize the impacts of mobility infrastructure on the environment. 0011 Policy Decision: Added Safety Objective and Polices (Objective 2-1.2) • Why? Emphasize safety including the reduction of crashes involving those walking, riding a bicycle, riding or driving transit and other vehicles Proposed: • Strive to design roadways that meet the desired speed • Promote traffic calming design standards on roadways that share a multi -modal component • Review proposed development and redevelopment and reduce the number of driveways where possible. As properties are developed or redeveloped encourage the use of connecting commercial parking areas to reduce the num of driv . Y a s 15 �%L-�CIII. ,I 0% A'' Policy Decision: Added Design Policy (Policy 2-1.4.2) and Roadway Standards Policy (Policy 2-1.5.6) • Why? Require roadway design that meets FDOT Design Manual standards Proposed: • Policy 2-1.4.2: Design. The City will coordinate with FDOT on roadway design meeting the FDOT Design Manual standards. • Policy 2-1.5.6: Roadway Standards. Proposed developed will be reviewed to include appropriate roadway standards to include bicycle and pedestrian faciljl*s basemen the FQ-Oj DesigryAA� nual. 5ha.,d e 01. Policy Decision: Added Traffic Calming Policy (Policy 2-1.6.11) • Why? Traffic calming measures on public roadways Proposed: • Policy 2-1.6.11. Traffic Calming. The City shall consider developing a technical traffic calming manual identifying measures for prioritization and implementation of traffic calming measures on public roadways. FM, -- __o b I lityll" ter_—"- �"? _ � _- �_ - � --��-- _ �-� •_, - � {r—"� -N ~ %%6 %6,%- - • may, -�