Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
11-19-2020 PZ Agenda
Cncr HOME OF PEUCAN ISLAND 1225 MAIN STREET ® SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32958 TELEPHONE (772) 589-5518 ■ FAX (772) 388-8248 AGENDA PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2020 — 6:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1225 MAIN STREET, SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA ALL AGENDA ITEMS MAYBE INSPECTED IN THE OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1225 MAIN STREET, SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA OR ON THE CITY WEBSITE 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND/OR AGENDA MODIFICATIONS Modifications and additions require unanimous vote of members. Deletions do not apply. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular meeting of October 15, 2020 6. QUASI-JUDICIAL and PUBLIC HEARINGS • Chairman opens hearing, attorney reads ordinance or resolution or title • Commissioners disclose ex-parte communication • Chairman or attorney swears in all who intend to provide testimony • Applicant or applicant's agent makes presentation • Staff presents findings and analysis • Commissioners asks questions of the applicant and staff • Chairman opens the floor for anyone in favor and anyone opposing the request (anyone presenting factual information shall be sworn but anyone merely advocating approval or denial need not be sworn in) • Applicant provided opportunity to respond to issues raised by staff or public • Staff provided opportunity to summarize request • Commission deliberation and questions • Chairman calls for a motion • Commission Action A. Public Hearing - Recommendation to City Council - PUD Subdivision Preliminary Development Plan/Plat - Spirit of Sebastian, Pods 1 & 2 - 77.99 Acres, 208 Single - Family Lots - 2.67 Units per Acre - Old Dixie Highway, Del Monte Road - LDR Future Land Use (Low Density Residential, 5 units per acre) - PUD-R Zoning District (Planned Unit Development - Residential) B. Public Hearing - Recommendation to City Council - Ordinance 0-20-03, Establishing Starting Points for Building Height Measurement - Amending Land Development Code Section 54-2-5.10(2), Size and Dimension Criteria - (No Proposed Amendments to Maximum Building Heights) 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None 8. PUBLIC INPUT Public Input on items other than on the printed agenda, is five minutes, however, it can be extended or terminated by a majority vote of members present 9. NEW BUSINESS 10. COMMISSIONERS MATTERS 11. CITY ATTORNEY MATTERS 12. STAFF MATTERS 13. ADJOURN DUE TO HEALTH CONCERNS REGARDING CORONAVIRUS, ALTERNATIVE METHODS WILL BE IN PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC TO PROVIDE INPUT REGARDING THIS MEETING. INTERESTED PARTIES MAY CONTACT THE CITY AT 772-388-8226 OR E-MAIL QUESTIONS AT COSTV COSTV.CITYOFSEBASTIAN.ORG OR MAY VISIT THE CITY'S WEBSITE AT http:llwww.citvofsebastian.org/Dublic-input-methods. However, the public is advised to check the City website for up-to-date information on any changes to the manner in which the meeting will be held and the location. HEARING ASSISTANCE HEADPHONES ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS FOR ALL GOVERNMENT MEETINGS ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE HEARD. (F.S.286.0105) IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICAN WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA), ANYONE WHO NEEDS A SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION FOR THIS MEETING SHOULD CONTACT THE CITYS ADA COORDINATOR AT 589-5330 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THIS MEETING. All government meetings in City Council Chambers will be broadcast live on COS -TV Comcast Channel 25 and ATT UVerse Channel 99 and streamed via the city website — vlvlw.cr:ofseb stro OIL., unless otherwise noticed and rebroadcast at a later date — see COS -TV Channel 25 for broadcast schedule 2 1 2 91 CITY OF SEBASTIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIONILOCAL PLANNING AGENCY MINUTES OCTOBER 15, 2020 Call to Order -- Acting Chairman Roth called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Pledqe of Alleqiance was recited by all. Roll Call 0 Present: Mr. Roth Mr. Christino (a) CD C Mr. Simmons Mr. Qizilbash O Ms. Kautenburg (a) •C � i An Also Present: Ms. Lisa Frazier, Community Development DirectorCd E a. E Mr. Kelley Klepper, Project Manager, Kimley-HornCL E Ms. Dorri Bosworth, Planning Manager C Mr. Manny Anon, City Attorney (Zoom) Ed 5 Mr. Robert Loring, Senior Planner+ Co S O v Ms. Barbara Brooke -Reese, MIS Manager Ms. Janet Graham, Technical Writer (Zoom) a�'C o o Not present: Mr. Carter -- Excused N Q Qf5 Mr. Reyes -- Excused Mr. Hughan -- Excused Mr. Alvarez -- Excused Ms. Mara Schiff, Indian River County School Board Liaison, was not present. 4. Announcements and/or Agenda Modifications Mr. Roth excused the above -mentioned commissioners and noted the alternates, Mr. Christino and Ms. Kautenburg, would be voting tonight. Aooroval of Minutes: Regular meeting of September 17, 2020 Acting Chairman Roth asked if anyone, having reviewed the Minutes of September 17, 2020, had any changes or corrections to those Minutes as presented. Hearing none, Mr. Roth called for a Motion to approve the Minutes. Motion to approve the Minutes of the September 17, 2020 meeting as presented was made by Mr. Simmons, seconded by Mr. Christino, and passed unanimously via voice vote. 6. Quasi -Judicial and Public Hearings PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY PAGE 2 MINUTES OF OCTOBER 15, 2020 A. Public Hearing -- Recommendation to City Council -- City of Sebastian Comprehensive Plan 2040 -- Final Draft -- Revised Elements: Land Use; Transportation and Mobility; Housing; Infrastructure; Conservation Management; Parks, Recreation & Open Space; Governance & Implementation; and Public Schools Mr. Roth complimented the City's staff for their detailed work and hiring Kimley-Horn as consultants for this project. He stated he has been very impressed with the amount of historical data that were included which helped with preparing this document. Mr. Anon, City Attorney, read the item into the record. Ms. Frazier thanked this Commission as well as all the other boards and committees whose input went into the drafting of this document. She reviewed and explained the attachments to the Agenda as follows: Attachment 1: Approved meeting minutes, public comments, staff notations from Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency presentations. Minutes contain comments providing reference to updates/additions in Comprehensive Plan from public input. Attachment 2: Final Draft Elements include underlined additions/strikethroughs and clean versions in accordance with the Minutes provided. Attachment 3: Matrices include all changes to the Comprehensive Plan from existing (2009) to updated (2040). Edits are recommended actions based on statutory changes, consolidations, additions, etc. Ms. Frazier stated that the City has received correspondence from the DEO that they will accept this document. She further referred to a one -page document that lists the suggestions and comments by the Natural Resources Board (NRB) at their October 6th meeting. (SEE ATTACHED) At that meeting, the NRB requested one more opportunity to review the Conservation and Coastal Management Element. The attached one -page document is a summary of their recommended changes and where in the draft plan those changes will be inserted if accepted. If this Commission is in agreement with these changes being incorporated, that statement will need to be included in the Commission's recommendation to City Council. In addition, there are several land use changes that are being considered. She reviewed that there are two areas in the City that are being recommended to be changed to mixed - use land use. Notices were sent out to all the property owners in these areas. She stated that the airport is also requesting that a piece of their property be changed to mixed -use from institutional. She emphasized that the proposed changes are only to the land use, not the zoning PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY PAGE 3 MINUTES OF OCTOBER 15, 2020 She introduced Mr. Kelley Klepper of Kimley-Horn who gave a PowerPoint presentation on the document (SEE ATTACHED). Before he began, he asked that the Commissioners as well as the City Attorney present their comments or questions as each section is addressed rather than waiting to the end of the presentation. He also pointed out that there is a ninth element that is not being amended as part of this Comprehensive Plan update. Because it is an optional element, it is not required to be brought forward or discussed. The City has an existing Economic Development Element that will continue to stand on its own. He then reviewed each element in the draft. 1. Land Use Element Mr. Klepper explained the changes that have been proposed and the maps that are included in this Element. He addressed a question that came up from members of this Commission that suggested a property maintenance policy. That question is addressed in the body of the Land Use Element and there is a policy regarding property maintenance that sets up the process for the Land Development Code, and that is where those standards need to be inserted for property maintenance. He then called for questions or comments from the Commissioners. Mr. Qizilbash: Is concerned that some of the maps throughout the whole document are not readable. He asked if there is any way to brighten and/or enlarge the maps to make them readable. Mr. Klepper said he would go back and address that. Changes were discussed among staff and Commissioners that would make the maps easier to read and where they should be placed in the document. If necessary, they can go to 11- x 17-inch paper. Mr. Qizilbash stated that otherwise, it is very nicely prepared. • Stated there is another element involved in the City, and that is the sewer system. As long as the City has a septic system, the housing numbers will stay low. Mr. Simmons: Regarding the section Policy 1-1.2.3: Medium Density Development and Objective 1-1.5: Transfer of Development Rights, he asked if the transfer of rights is subjective or objective. In other words, is that done through a formula, or is it done through negotiation. Ms. Frazier explained that in the Comp Plan is states the City is going to consider transfer of development rights, and that the City shall formulate a policy regarding transfer of development rights. So the City does not have anything in writing as of yet. With the acceptance of the Comp Plan, it is not going to be available until there is actually an ordinance or policy put in place. There are many different ways to define transfer of development rights. What the City is PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY PAGE 4 MINUTES OF OCTOBER 15, 2020 considering is that on a piece of property that someone has development rights on that they do not want to develop or cannot develop for whatever reason, the density rights can be transferred to another piece of property. Those development rights then go to that owner's property to be developed or added to. She emphasized that the property that the rights have been transferred from cannot be developed on the original piece of property. The development rights must be transferred from and to lots in the City. Mr. Klepper explained more in-depth transfer of development rights (TDRs) and stated he would be happy to help the staff on coming up with a policy. Mr. Christino: • Had a question regarding the number of persons per housing unit. He recalled that there was discussion on this subject previously, where figures of 2.24 and 2.42 were discussed. He did more research recently, and the figure in reality is closer to 2.65. That is based on census numbers. He is concerned that more homes than are needed are being qualified by bringing those numbers down. He stated that it seems that the trend is to fit more people into a house with the cost of housing being what it is. Mr. Klepper stated that state law says communities have to make sure they are applying standards to get to the minimum. He stated records show that the number of people per household is coming down for different reasons. Figures show that this is the trend in Florida. He stated if it is 2.65, they can go back and revise it. Mr. Christino said there is definitely a trend of a child moving back in with the parents, which bumps that number up. He added that rentals are still on the higher side as well. Mr. Klepper stated he will meet with Ms. Frazier on this subject so that everyone is on the same page. He said there will be solid data coming out in the coming months, but it probably will not be available for inclusion in this Plan. Ms. Frazier stated that subject is addressed in the Housing Element. 2. Transportation & Mobility Mr. Klepper wanted to make sure that everyone understood that some additional language was inserted regarding complete streets and defined specific elements. This will be further defined within the City's Land Development Code or a technical manual. One thing that was requested was to make sure that he and staff continue to coordinate with the County on many of these aspects. Another primary component was to make sure that the Land Development Code was going to be reviewed and updated with respect to parking standards for all modes of transportation. Boat parking was addressed mostly within the Parks & Recreation Component, but it also falls under the parking standards. Another thing that was questioned was the level of service regarding sidewalks and multi- use paths throughout the City. The Florida Department of Transportation has a manual PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY PAGE 5 MINUTES OF OCTOBER 15, 2020 that provides the City with guidance to establish the various levels of service for the non - vehicular components of sidewalks, pathways, etc. Mr. Anon stated that when references are made to something like the FDOT manual, he would like to see the phrase "as amended" added after the title. Mr. Klepper stated that phrase is already included and requested that anyone reviewing the Plan, if they see a document listed, be sure that "as amended" is written after the title of the document. Mr. Christino: Stated that a subject that was discussed during a previous meeting was widening of roads. He does not want vehicle speeds to be increased along the City roads and streets, but any widening of the roads would be for bicycles, etc. Reviewed that he and Ms. Frazier have discussed something like a shuttle bus along Indian River Drive, perhaps seasonally. He believes it would ease congestion while adding charm to the City. Ms. Frazier stated that subject is addressed under Policy 2-1.1.3 where prioritizing is covered. Ms. Kautenburg: • Suggested something akin to a Disney tram that would cover a particular route and be run by a private business. Ms. Frazier called attention to Policy 2-1.1.17 where public transit is discussed. Mr. Qizilbash: • Asked for clarification of the table on page 23 where it talks about roadways and their primary use. It particularly mentions Vocelle Avenue and states it is GC, General Commercial. He questioned if that is correct. Ms. Bosworth stated that is not correct. Ms. Frazier stated the correction will be made. 3. Housing Mr. Klepper stated he and staff addressed the concerns voiced by many regarding the lack of affordable housing in the City. Policies were added to the new Plan regarding opportunities for addressing the affordable housing shortage in the City. He also emphasized the importance of high-speed internet. Since the COVID-19 situation, the need for high-speed internet has been brought to the forefront. He also mentioned that the Zillow Analysis is now mentioned in the Housing Element. Other information was sought from the National Association of Realtors, and that was also included. That is information that was actually derived two weeks ago. Ms. Kautenburg: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY PAGE 6 MINUTES OF OCTOBER 15, 2020 • Gets concerned when the term "median" is used. She feels that the numbers used for the median are too far off. Mr. Klepper stated that there are data that are accepted by the state, and communities are limited to using those data. He also stated Ms. Frazier has the ability to update those figures on a regular basis which would be more akin to a real-time housing checker. Ms. Kautenburg stated that is a start, and Mr. Roth and Mr. Christino voiced that they are comfortable with the plan to update the data. Hopes there are plans for City staff to reach out to property owners and developers to find out what they need to help the City reach its goals for affordable housing. Ms. Frazier stated she is familiar with another community who had developers' input, and it was addressed in the Land Development Code. Mr. Klepper also reviewed that Sarasota County had what is called a developers' roundtable, and one thing that was put in place was recognizing that any unit less than 750 square feet of habitable space counts as half a dwelling unit towards density. They also qualify for half impact fees as well as qualifying for reduction in trip generation when developments are planned. Mr. Roth: • Is pleased that what is in this document is the framework to allow those types of programs to be developed. 4. Infrastructure Mr. Klepper pointed out that there was a lot of discussion regarding green infrastructure, and staff wanted to make sure to reference it in this element, but there is also policy that has been identified in the Infrastructure Element as well as other portions of the Comprehensive Plan in memorializing the need to use and implement the green infrastructure components. Mr. Roth: • Feels that the document in this section covers all the major points as well as the high-speed internet access. Mr. Christino: • Brought up an issue that Ms. Kautenburg and he had addressed. It has to do with solid waste. In Objective 4-1.3, he wishes the wording would be more strongly set forth to urge City Council to consider a mandate to put people on what is available through Waste Management for the City. Ms. Frazier stated that the City's Land Development Code has already addressed this, and that would be the appropriate PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY PAGE 7 MINUTES OF OCTOBER 15, 2020 place for this to be addressed. She added that there is a whole section on illegal dumping and garbage collection and unsanitary conditions. Mr. Anon stated the issue of illegal dumping, etc. is a separate issue that could be addressed with Code Enforcement. He is involved with Code Enforcement as far as prosecuting these cases. As far as the City mandating citizens to contract out with a private company, he opined that that would be a policy decision that has to be made by Council, not by this Commission. 5. Conservation and Coastal Management Mr. Klepper said wetland protection is covered more thoroughly in this Plan. Mr. Christino had been very adamant about making sure that different soil types and characteristics were listed versus just a general reference. There was discussion regarding the City's emergency management plan as well as continued discussion with respect to green infrastructure, which was added back into this element. Ms. Frazier called attention to the changes/additions that the Natural Resources Board had requested be considered as additives. a. Native Habitats -- They were looking for the significant native habitats to remain within the City limits, and every five years possibly inventory the habitats. b. Protection of Surface Waters -- They wanted to add "and wetlands." C. They also wanted to make sure to include wording to "ensure protection of fisheries and living marine organisms." That wording was added. d. Septic -to -Sewer Conversion -- They asked for wording to the effect that "The City shall consider a moratorium on the installation of new septic systems unless the system utilizes new treatment technology for the mitigation of nutrient loading." The concern is that there are many areas within the City that have no access to sewer. Ms. Frazier emphasized that the intent is that, if someone has a failing septic system, it be replaced with one of the newer technology systems. Again, she emphasized that it is just a consideration, not a mandate. Mr. Christino: Is aware of the new technology regarding septic systems. He wonders if the cost is prohibitive for a new builder to incorporate those new technologies. There are some concerns about the water table rising which makes it more difficult in the placement of these tanks. Ms. Frazier stated that with a policy such as this, City Council can consider a "policy" instead of a moratorium that new septic systems need to meet some of the new technology. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY PAGE 8 MINUTES OF OCTOBER 15, 2020 Ms. Kautenburg: • Does not like use of the word "moratorium." She said this is potentially creating another layer of directives in addition to the state and the county. She stated that all of the new construction has much better septic system installation now than was available even two years ago. She thinks the investigation of the best technology is the purview of the Health Department. Mr. Qizilbash: • Agreed that septic technology is controlled by the Health Department. The biggest problem is the soil conditions. Mr. Roth: • Deferred to the City Attorney in clarifying whether this Commission should consider this tonight. He is concerned that this may be going beyond this Commission's purview to address the wording in Policy 5-1.4.13. Mr. Roth stated he does not feel that this Commission should get into that. Mr. Anon stated he concurs with Mr. Roth. e. Under Objective 5-1.5 where the wording is "...meets or exceeds..." it was recommended that the wording be changed to "...meets or maintains..." Trying to determine how it is being exceeded would be difficult according to the scientist on the Natural Resources Board. There were no objections to this change. Under Objective 5-1.5.3, "...and emissions from idling vehicles." wording was added. Ms. Kautenburg: Objects to the addition of the wording in Objective 5-1.5.3 where it states "...and emissions from idling vehicles." She states that many of the new vehicles stop when they are idling, and this language is going beyond this Commission's purview. Mr. Roth concurred. Mr. Christino agreed and also stated it will be difficult to enforce. g. Under Policy 5-2.4.1, it was recommended to change the phrase "Post - Hurricane Assessments" to "Post -Emergency Assessments." PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY PAGE 9 MINUTES OF OCTOBER 15, 2020 Ms. Kautenburg: • Stated the wording "declared emergency" should be used; otherwise, the wording "emergency" is open to interpretation. Mr. Klepper stated that he would support the wording "post -disaster." Mr. Anon stated there does not need to be a declared emergency for the City to have an emergency. "Declared emergency" is the term of art used for FEMA funding. If the City were to have a local emergency, it is within the City's charter to declare an emergency. He recommends using the broader term of "post -emergency rather than "post -hurricane." Mr. Qizilbash: • Suggested beginning the sentence with the wording "Consistent with City's post - emergency plan..." and leaving the wording as it is. Mr. Roth: • Suggested striking the wording "post -hurricane assessments" and using the wording "post -emergency assessments," as it has a broader meaning. Ms. Frazier stated these are just suggestions from the Natural Resources Board. There being no other comments regarding the Natural Resources Board's suggestions, Mr. Roth moved to the next section of the Plan. 6. Parks, Recreation & Open Space Element Mr. Klepper reviewed that a lot of this information was derived from previously prepared data sources. A lot of those baseline data were updated with regard to certain policies pertaining to population projections within the next 20 years, modification and clarification of the level -of -service standards for the parks, recreation & open space system. Also added was a suggestion to add nameplates to identify native plants, identification and addition of trail linkages, and providing a policy specific to addressing the needs for all- inclusive play equipment within City parks. In addition, a new Policy 6-1.6.4 was added with respect to boat ramps and parking. This is also something that was encouraged for the City to undertake. They need to do a Parks, Recreation & Open Space Master Plan with an emphasis on boating components such as ramps and parking facilities of all kinds. Those were the major items that were modified or added with respect to this element. Ms. Frazier added that some of these comments were brought forth from the Parks & Recreation Board. Mr. Christino: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY PAGE 10 MINUTES OF OCTOBER 15, 2020 • Stated that the City definitely needs more boat ramps. He feels that the numbers in the Data and Analysis section are not correct regarding the boating component. He understands from the City Manager that would be up to the County. Mr. Klepper stated that in the Parks Master Plan is when that matter should be addressed, and then the Comp Plan can be updated based off of those findings. Mr. Klepper stated with respect to adequate facilities, it was recommended that a statement be identified or added no later than its anticipated date to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. That is regarding the issuance of development orders. Under Policy 7-2.6.1, under Evaluations of New Development Impact, additional language, "...with respect to permits or development applications, and also demonstration that all urban services needed for the proposed development shall be provided concurrent with..." was added into that specific policy. Mr. Christino: With respect to the word "shall," he understands that is not a suggestion for the City. So these evaluations would be expected to be undertaken by the City before, for instance, another annexation of property to evaluate the impact on the City. Mr. Klepper stated it depends on how the City wants to structure those. An applicant for a development has to utilize the City's level -of -service standards. Ms. Frazier added that her department already addresses that. 7. Governance and & Implementation Element There were no suggestions or comments by any of the Commission members. 8. Public Schools Element Mr. Klepper stated that what was done was to add some additional language recognizing that schools are neighborhood assets and community attractions. Another addition was to make sure that the City has adequate or approved pedestrian and bicycle transportation linkages around schools for the school -age children that are actually walking, riding their bikes, etc. instead of being driven every day. Mr. Christino: • As to the school population numbers, he has researched this matter, and he arrived at some differing numbers from what are stated in the document. Ms. Frazier emphasized that those numbers are obtained from the school board. She also stated that this element is not required. Most municipalities put it in because it is a good piece of information, and it is obtained from the school board. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY PAGE 11 MINUTES OF OCTOBER 15, 2020 Hearing nothing further from the Commissioners, Mr. Roth opened the meeting to Public Comment. Jim Weber, Sebastian. He is concerned about the mixed land use specifics versus zoning specifics. He owns property on High Street in the Triangle. He is here to share some concerns and input about it. He purchased this property 25 years ago for its location and zoning. It is understood that the higher the permitted uses, the higher the land value is. Industrial zoning is a high -value zoning. It also comes with a negative connotation for its undesirable uses. His issue is that personal property rights are critical. This land is a 25- year investment for him and his family. At the July 30th Planning and Zoning meeting, a Commission member posed a question to Ms. Frazier about changing the CR-510 project property from Commercial General to Institutional. Mr. Anon called for a point of order and stated if Mr. Weber is going to give factual information, he needs to be sworn in. Ms. Bosworth administered the oath to Mr. Weber. (Mr. Weber continued with his testimony.) At the July 30th meeting, Ms. Frazier's response was --and he quoted -"No sir. That is private property, and if you take away their property rights, which would be Commercial General, and downzone it to Institutional, that is taking away people's personal property rights." Mr. Weber reviewed the City's land uses over the years and presented the Commissioners with zoning district information from the General Code and Triangle Overlay Code. (SEE ATTACHED) He feels that the uses and density have been taken away from the property owners over the years. He has talked with Ms. Frazier regarding his concerns, and she advised him that this would be the time to address his concerns. Mr. Roth acknowledged Mr. Weber's concerns and thanked him for his detailed presentation. He asked Ms. Frazier to review the background regarding this property. Ms. Frazier acknowledged that she and Ms. Bosworth have had many conversations with Mr. Weber. She reviewed the history of the property as regards land use and zoning. She stated that years ago the Commission changed the zoning uses in the Triangle. The Triangle Overlay was created. At that time, the Commission changed the permitted uses from the normal industrial and commercial general uses in the City. They reduced what was allowed. That is the zoning that is in place today. She understands that Mr. Weber has no problem with how it is zoned presently, but he wants to make sure that it does not get reduced again in the future. The City staff has assured him that when the land use is changed, it is not going to change his uses. He is grandfathered in. If Mr. Weber wants to develop in the future, he will still be permitted to. His property will remain industrial zoning as it is today. His setbacks and density will remain the same. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY PAGE 12 MINUTES OF OCTOBER 15, 2020 Moving forward, Ms. Frazier explained, the City may want to create a mixed -use zone. This is actually in compliance with the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council's recommendation and the DEO's recommendation. The City may want to rezone the whole Triangle as a mixed -use zone. The City will have to be very sensitive that, if it does that, it does not compromise the existing property owners' rights that they have today. So in a mixed -use zoning, the uses that are there today would be permitted, but there would be a lot more flexibility. Mr. Roth stated that he was not aware that this Plan would change the land use. Ms. Frazier stated staff has pointed out previously that there are two areas in the City that are desired to be change: Mr. Fischer's property around the big lake, the Triangle, and now the airport has asked that the strip that was talked about tonight be changed to mixed use also. Mr. Roth stated he agrees with Mr. Weber that there is no way that the Commission can possibly change the use that would impact his value of the land. Ms. Frazier agreed. There was much discussion among the staff, the Commissioners, and Mr. Weber, who stated he is not necessarily content with the zoning he has on the overlay. He pointed out some inconsistencies there. What was left in the general commercial and taken away from the industrial makes no sense to him. Ms. Bosworth emphasized that there is industrial land use and there is industrial zoning. There is a commercial general land use, and there is a commercial general zoning. The information that Mr. Weber presented has to do with his zoning. But tonight regarding the Comp Plan, only the land use is being addressed. She explained that all of the uses are going to be allowed in all of those zoning districts. The City is opening the door so that when it gets to the zoning in the Land Development Code, Mr. Weber's concerns will be addressed with these different uses and permitted conditional uses in the zoning. But only land use is being discussed tonight. That is different from the zoning. Ms. Frazier explained that this would allow the City to change the zoning so that it would allow these landowners to enjoy a little bit more flexibility and provide them with more opportunity for their properties. She stated that should the City want to change the zoning in that area in the future, the property owners would be contacted, and a meeting would be held with them. Ms. Bosworth also wanted it on the record that, if the Comp Plan changes the land use in the Triangle to a mixed -use land use, the existing zoning is still in place. The City may not get to proposing a new mixed -use zoning for that area for months down the road. Mr. Weber is grandfathered in, all of the uses. His zoning is still there, and his uses are grandfathered in; that is not changing. She opined that when it comes to possibly a PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY PAGE 13 MINUTES OF OCTOBER 15, 2020 mixed -use zoning for the Triangle, that is actually going to open up a lot more opportunities. Ms. Kautenburg stated that she does not think there is anyone on this Commission who has any feeling of restricting Mr. Weber's legitimate uses or an unfair taking of his ability to use his property. She thinks that what is being proposed is to enhance and add to what Mr. Weber can do there. Mr. Christino clarified his understanding that the strip at the airport and the area of the Triangle were the only two areas that are being proposed to have their land uses changed. There was also mention of a property on a lake owned by Mr. Fischer. He asked that staff elaborate on that. Ms. Frazier drew attention to the future land use map in the Comp Plan. She pointed out the property owned by Mr. Fischer. Mr. Christino stated that is presently a sand mine operation. He pointed out that that area is in a neighborhood district. He stated he is not interested in having that area degraded by a zoning request from Mr. Fischer. Ms. Frazier stated this would allow Mr. Fischer to have more flexibility with the site. Mr. Roth stated he did not recall this mentioned earlier in this meeting. Ms. Frazier stated it was mentioned this evening. She stated it was also brought up earlier in this process on July 30th when the Land Use Element was discussed. Mr. Roth stated he does not think it is a good plan to have industrial next to residential. Ms. Frazier stated it is already zoned industrial, and the land use is industrial right adjacent to the residential, which is an incompatible use. Ms. Bosworth reminded everyone that what is being discussed at this meeting is only land use. Mr. Christino does not want any commercial going up next to the residential homes that are in the area. After extended discussion among the Commissioners and staff, Mr. Christino stated he is not in favor of the proposed change. Mr. Roth also is not in favor of the proposed change. Ms. Frazier asked that, if the Commission is not comfortable with the change in Mr. Fischer's property, leaving a high -intensity use adjacent to a very low -density use, they approve the rest of it without that change. Mr. Christino is fine with that suggestion. He will review the Minutes of the meeting where it was discussed previously. Mr. Roth called for anyone on Zoom who would like to comment. Hearing none, he closed the Public Comment section of the meeting. He called for additional input from the staff. Ms. Frazier stated staff recommends approval of the draft of the proposed City of Sebastian Comprehensive Plan 2040 and transmit the Comprehensive Plan to City PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY PAGE 14 MINUTES OF OCTOBER 15, 2020 Council for consideration, including the recommendation to have the maps produced as a larger map series, the addition of five of the NRB recommendations as noted: Policy 5-1.1.8, Policy 5-1.3.1, Objective 5-1.2, Objective 5-1.5, and Policy 5-2.4.1; recommending the addition of the future land -use change at the airport from Institutional to Mixed Use; and remove the future land use change from the sand mine parcel from mixed use back to single-family residential and industrial. Mr. Anon reminded the Commissioners that all discussion relating to the motion should be open to all and not just between two Commissioners. Mr. Roth called for additional discussion/questions regarding the three items mentioned. Hearing none, he called for a motion to approve the Comp Plan draft as submitted with the points that were recommended by the Natural Resource Board. Ms. Frazier stated that staff will also add the recommendation regarding water conservation in the DIA. Hearing nothing further from staff, Mr. Roth called for a motion. Motion recommending approval by City Council of the Comprehensive Plan along with enlarging the map series in the document, plus the proposed changes to the Future Land Use Map as discussed at the airport property and the Triangle property only, as well as the recommendations of the NRB was made by Mr. Christino and seconded by Mr. Simmons. After discussion, an amendment to the Motion with wording pertaining to the addition of five of the NRB recommendations as read into the record listing Policy 5-1.1.8, Policy 5-1.3.1, Objective 5-1.2, Objective 5-1.5, and Policy 5-2.4.1 was made by Mr. Christino and again seconded by Mr. Simmons. Roll Call Mr. Qizilbash -- Yes Ms. Kautenburg (a) -- No Mr. Roth -- Yes Mr. Christino (a) -- Yes Mr. Simmons -- Yes Vote was 4-1 in favor. Motion carries. 7. Unfinished Business -- None 8. Public Comment 9. New Business -- None 10. Commissioners Matters PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY PAGE 15 MINUTES OF OCTOBER 15, 2020 Mr. Qizilbash inquired of staff regarding the project west of the library. Ms. Bosworth reviewed that there was a small time extension granted because of the death of the project's civil engineer. After three years, staff took the unfinished project before the Code Enforcement, Special Magistrate. From that hearing, there is a daily fine accruing until the subdivision is finished and the plat is recorded. There are potential buyers for the property, and staff is hoping that the project will begin moving again. She stated staff has been attempting diligently to get that project finished. Mr. Qizilbash said there is a problem with the existing culvert. When there is a heavy rain, it buckles up. Ms. Bosworth stated that is considered a temporary driveway into that property for which a permit was issued by Indian River County. It will not be the permanent pipe for drainage at that entrance. Mr. Roth complimented staff and Mr. Klepper for the great job they have done with this new Comprehensive Plan. 11. City Attornev Matters Mr. Anon requested that the document that was provided by Mr. Weber, who gave sworn testimony, be attached and become part of the official record. 12. Staff Matters -- None 13. Adiourn There being no further business, Acting Chairman Roth adjourned the meeting at 8:53 p.m. jg atvCIF HOME OF PELICAN ISLAND Community Development Department Preliminary PUD Development Plan/Plat Application Staff Report 1. Project Name: Spirit of Sebastian PUD Subdivision — Pods 1 & 2 2. Requested Action: Preliminary Development Plan/Plat Approval 3. Project Location a. Address: Old Dixie Highway, south of CR 512 b. Legal: See survey for full legal description C. Indian River County Parcel Numbers: 31-39-07-00000-1000-00004.0 31-39-07-00000-1000-00005.0 31-39-07-00000-7000-00008.0 31-39-07-00000-7000-00010.0 4. Developer: Spirit of Sebastian, L.L.C. P.O. Box 690621 Vero Beach, Florida 32969 5. Project Agent: Chuck Mechling Spirit of Sebastian, L.L.C. 6655 491h Street Vero Beach, Florida 32967 (772) 999-3494 E-Mail: admin@insitesolutions.biz 6. Project Engineer: John Blum, P.E. Carter Associates, Inc. 1708 215t Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 (772) 562-4191 E-Mail: johnb@carterassoc.com 7. Project Surveyor: Frank S. Cuccurese, P.S.M Carter Associates, Inc. 1708 21 st Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 (772) 562-4191 1 8. Project Description: a. Narrative of proposed action: In 2018, the applicant, Spirit of Sebastian, LLC, annexed 182 acres into the city, rezoned their property to PUD-R and CG, and received approval for their Conceptual Development Plan. Subsequently, the applicant is following with the next step by requesting approval of the Preliminary Development Plan/Plat with full subdivision design for Pods 1 & 2 (out of 5). The first two Pods contain 77.99 acres, and will be developed in three phases which include 208 single-family lots together with 12 acres of stormwater lakes, a 2.17 acre recreational tract and a number of open space tracts. Additional Right -of -Way will be dedicated to Indian River County for future improvements on Old Dixie Highway, and drainage and landscaping improvements are proposed for Del Monte Road. b. Current Zoning: PUD-R (Planned Unit Development — Residential) — 75.47 acres CG (Commercial General) — 2.52 acres C. Site Characteristics (1) Total Acreage: (Pods 1 & 2) 77.99 acres (2) Current Land Use(s): (3) Soil: (4) Vegetation: (5) Flood Hazard: (6) Water Service: (7) Sanitary Sewer Service: (8) Parks: (9) Police/Fire: 9. Preliminary Development Plan criteria Vacant Astatula Sand, St. Lucie Sand, Immokalee Fine Sand, Pomelo Sand, & Myakka Fine Sand Mainly second growth vegetation from past Mining and Agriculture activities Flood Zones X and A Indian River County Utilities Indian River County Utilities On -Site Recreational Amenities Sebastian Police - 1 Y mile County Fire — 2 miles a. Compliance with subdivision regulations: Yes, with approval of two requested Adjustments/waivers by the applicant for: 1) increased length of a street terminating in a cul-de-sac; and 2) One public means of ingress and egress along with a provided emergency access until such time as Pod 3 is developed, or Old Dixie Highway improvements are approved by Indian River County. (See further details in #12, Staff Comments) 2 10 b. Compliance with zoning regulations: Yes C. Compliance with comprehensive plan: Yes d. Compliance with conceptual development plan Contents of Preliminary Development Plan: a. Written material: (1) Development schedule: (2) Quantitative data Yes Pod 2 — Completion date 2021/2022 Pod 1 — Completion date 2022/2023 (a) Total number of dwelling units by type: 208 Single-family units (b) Total parcel size: 77.99 acres (c) Proposed lot or building site coverage by buildings and structures: Residential: Minimum 36% open space Commercial: Maximum 30% building coverage (d) Proposed lot or building coverage by impervious surfaces: Residential: Maximum 64% impervious Commercial: Maximum 80% impervious (e) Residential Density: 2.67 units per acre (f) Proposed amount of open space: Provided - 39.00 acres Required — 39.00 acres (50% minimum) (g) Proposed amount of public lands including all dedicated rights -of - way, easements and other lands dedicated for public facilities and services: Approximately .47 acres± conveyed to Indian River County for additional Old Dixie Highway R-O-W (3) Updated environmental impact statement: Provided. However, a current tree survey, and a scrub jay and tortoise survey in accordance with FWS guidelines will need to be submitted for each Pod, along with any required Tortoise Relocation Permits and/or mitigation, before issuance of landclearing permits. (4) Public facilities impact statement: (a) Quantity of wastewater generated: 250 GPD (Gallons per day) per unit (b) Description of proposed recreational facilities: Recreation Tract 1 in Pod 2 is 2.17 acres and proposed to be a combination open air pavilion 3 with event rooms and restrooms, along with associated green areas, playground, and parking. A separate site plan must be submitted for this facility. The Park Tract in Pod 1 is .11 acres and will provide benches, parking, and a covered sitting area over the water. (c) Quantity of potable water required: 250 GPD per unit (d) Estimated number of school age children expected within the development (Pods 1 & 2): 39 elementary students 20 middle school students 26 high school students Estimated student numbers were provided by the IRC School District. A School Concurrency Availability Determination Letter (SCADL) was issued by the school district indicating that adequate capacity within the School Service Area Boundary for Spirit of Sebastian was available. (e) Estimated property tax and/or sales tax revenue generated by the project: Estimated property tax at build out would be $168,162+/- per year (without homestead exemptions) calculated using a Millage Rate of 2.9399 and a median value of homes at $275,000. Annual Stormwater Fee collected would be $24,960. The one-time Recreational Fee collected at building permit submittal would be $203,424. b. Graphic element of preliminary development plan. (1) Plat: (a) Proposed name of the PUD, title of map, name of city, and description of section, township and range: provided (b) Name and address of record owners, applicant, and person preparing preliminary development plan: provided (c) The locations and names of abutting subdivisions and the names of owners of record of adjacent acreage: provided (d) Date, north arrow and graphic scale: provided (e) Legal description and survey of the proposed PUD boundaries made and certified by a Florida registered land surveyor: provided (fi) Proposed lot or building site lines with dimensions, setbacks, and landscaped yards. Location and floor area size of all existing and proposed buildings, structures and other improvements. Designation of all dwelling unit types and number of units. Net residential density calculations. Plans for nonresidential uses shall include the square footage to each respective use: provided (g) Location, name and dimensions of all existing and proposed 4 dedicated public lands and the conditions of such dedication: provided (h) The width and location of any street or other public way shown upon the comprehensive plan within the PUD and the proposed width, location and grade of all streets or other public ways proposed by the application: provided (i) Location of closest available public water supply system and proposed preliminary design for water service improvements, and schematic drawings as required by the City Engineer. The final construction drawing shall not be required prior to preliminary plan approval, but shall be required prior to commencement of the installation of such improvements: provided. (j) Area in square feet of each lot or building site, to be indicated in a rectangle within each lot or building site: provided (k) Typical cross sections of proposed streets, sidewalks, canals and ditches and other proposed improvements: provided (I) Location of proposed wastewater collection system and proposed preliminary design of wastewater collection improvements, including proposed location of improvements, level of service proposed, and schematic drawings as required by the City Engineer. Final construction drawings shall not be required prior to preliminary development plan approval, but shall be required prior to commencing the installation of such facilities: provided (m) Location of proposed improvements for collecting and discharging surface drainage and the preliminary design of such facilities, including the proposed level of service, and schematic drawings as required by the City Engineer. Final construction drawings shall not be required prior to preliminary development plan approval, but shall be submitted prior to commending the installation of such facilities: provided (n) Location and preliminary design of proposed bridges or culverts which may be required, including the type of facility and general level of service as well as schematic drawings as required by the City Engineer. Final construction drawings shall not be required prior to preliminary development plan approval, but shall be required prior to commencing the installation of such improvements: provided. Separate, full construction plans will be required to be submitted for City Engineer review and approval. (o) Proposed locations and preliminary designs for sidewalks, curbs, storm drainage facilities, water mains, sanitary sewers, fire hydrants, and flow facilities: provided 5 (p) Location and width of proposed permanent utility easements. The easements shall provide satisfactory access to existing rights -of - way or other open space shown upon the tentative PUD plat. Permanent drainage easement shall also be shown: provided (q) When the tentative PUD plat covers only a part of contiguous land owned by the applicant, a master phasing plan shall also be required unless the application certifies that the remaining real property shall be developed independently of the proposed PUD plat: provided. Pods 1 & 2 will be developed in three phases: Pod 2, then Pod 1A & Pod 1B (r) The proposed treatment of the perimeter of the PUD plat, including material and techniques used, such as landscape, fences and walls for screening and buffering: provided (s) Location of wetlands and/or environmentally sensitive areas located within the site. Discuss any endangered wildlife habitats or vegetative communities, wellfield, aquifer recharge areas, wetlands that will be impacted by construction of stormwater runoff: An environmental study has been provided indicating the presence of protected Gopher Tortoises in Pod 2, and wetlands in Pod 5. Appropriate measures including mitigation and/or submittal of necessary jurisdictional permits to address these sensitive areas will be required before any landclearing permits are issued. (2) General appearance. (a) Floor plans and square footage of all multifamily and nonresidential buildings and structures: Provided for the recreational structures. There are no multi -family dwellings in Pods 1 or 2. (b) Elevations, sections and/or perspectives as necessary to indicate the basic architectural intent, the height of buildings and structures, and the general window and door arrangements: provided (3) Dedication or reservations of land for public use: provided (4) Vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle circulation and parking: provided (5) Open space and landscape plan: provided (6) Information concerning adjacent lands: (a) Existing land uses: IN, LDR, VLDR (b) Zoning classification: IN, RS-10, PUD-R, RS-20 C01 (c) Circulation system: Local streets, CR-512, Old Dixie Highway (d) Density: Sebastian Highlands: 4.00 units per acre Laurel Reserve: 1.2 units per acre South Moon Under: 1.1 units per acre (e) Public facilities: provided (f) Unique natural features: provided 11. Analysis: Planned Unit Developments allow for unique design flexibility (Section 54-2- 5.11(f)(5)). The Spirit of Sebastian Subdivision Preliminary Development Plan/Plat, is proposing the following development parameters: Minimum lot size (interior) 7,500 SF to 8,750 SF Minimum lot size (perimeter) 9,000 SF to 10,500 SF Minimum lot depth (interior lots) W 125 feet l Minimum lot depth (perimeter lots) 150 feet_1 Minimum lot width 60 & 70 feet Minimum front setback to building 20 feet Minimum front setback to garage — front loading 25 feet Minimum front setback to a front porch or side 15 feet loadin Sara e Secondary front setback for a corner lot 15 feet Minimum side setback to building 7.5 feet Minimum separation of structures 15 feet Minimum rear setback (interior lots) 20 feet Minimum rear setback (perimeter lots) 45 feet Maximum building height 35 feet Minimum living area 900 SF i Maximum lot impervious area 64% Minimum open space per lot 36% R-O-W 50 feet The Spirit of Sebastian Preliminary Development Plan/Plat is in conformance with the approved Spirit of Sebastian Conceptual Development Plan. r7 Comparatively, the proposed development parameters of Spirit of Sebastian are similar and in line with other existing PUDs within the city limits: Minimum lot size: Ashbury Subdivision 6,050 SF Collier Club Phase 1 7,500 SF Collier Club Phases 2 & 3 8,750 SF Sebastian Crossings 6,720 to 9,000 SF Sebastian River Landings Phase 1 6,000 SF I Minimum lot width: Ashbury Subdivision 55 feet f Collier Club Phase 1 60 feet Collier Club Phases 2 & 3 70 feet Sebastian Crossings 55 feet & 75 feet Sebastian River Landings Phase 1 50 feet Minimum front setback to building: Ashbury Subdivision 20 feet Collier Club Phase 1 25 feet ! Collier Club Phases 2 & 3 20 feet Sebastian Crossings 20 feet Sebastian River Landings Phase 1 20 feet Minimum side setback: Ashbury Subdivision 7.5 feet Collier Club Phase 1 5 feet Collier Club Phases 2 & 3 7.5 feet Sebastian Crossings 7.5 feet Sebastian River Landings Phase 1 5 feet I Minimum rear setback: Ashbury Subdivision 20 feet & 40 feet Collier Club Phase 1 20 feet Collier Club Phases 2 & 3 25 feet Sebastian Crossings 20 feet Sebastian River Landings Phase 1 20 feet 12. Staff comments: The conceptual development plan proposed three means of public ingress and egress to the subdivision via Del Monte Road on the west, Bailey Drive to the south, and Old Dixie Highway on the east. The developer also proposed off -site paving and drainage improvements to Old Dixie Highway from the entrance heading north to connection with CR 512/Sebastian Boulevard. However, Indian River County has jurisdiction over the maintenance of Old Dixie Highway, and after numerous meetings between the developer and county, an agreement was not reached on the design. The county is requiring improvement to the entire highway based on standard traffic patterns from the subdivision, assuming a portion of cars turning south. The developer proposed constructing a left -out only intersection to address their concerns, but the county has been resolute and agreed only to allow an emeraencv exit on to Old Dixie Highway. Temporarily, the exit will also be used as the construction entrance. Sheet 8 C-18 of the plan set indicates the proposed design of the construction entrance and final emergency entrance/exit design. A separate conceptual "Old Dixie Widening Sketch" has been included for review, and staff has requested that the developer continue to seek a future interlocal resolution that would allow the Old Dixie egress to become public, in accordance with the proposed Widening Sketch — and with the addition of a sidewalk. Because construction of the Bailey Drive entrance is not proposed until Pod 3, Pods 1 & 2 will not have the required two entrances, and as such, the applicant has requested a temporary adjustment from this section of code. The LDC states "If an adjustment is authorized pursuant to Section 54-4-19.1(d) such that only one public means of ingress and egress is required under this paragraph, the subdivision shall be designed to provide at least one additional means of ingress and egress for emergency vehicles." The proposed plat provides an emergency entrance/exit onto Old Dixie Highway. A second adjustment is requested for the length of a cul-de-sac road, which the code regulates to be a maximum length of 600 feet. Archie Smith Lane in Pod 1A is proposed to be 966.75 feet long. To compensate for the extra length, an access tract onto Spirit Boulevard has been designed at the end of the cul-de-sac which will allow for pedestrian and bicycle traffic, and be stabilized for emergency vehicles, if necessary. An access tract has also been added to the cul- de-sac of White Pelican Lane in Pod 2. If the off -site improvements to Old Dixie Highway do not get approved by final platting of Pod 4, a substitutable off -site improvement should be provided. Staff feels the additional of 5-foot wide bike lanes on both sides of S. Wimbrow Drive from Del Monte Road north to Sebastian Boulevard would publically benefit the City's pathway system. Any use of the City right-of-way by this subdivision, including gates, entrance features and improvements on Del Monte Road, signs, bridges, crossings, etc., will require special agreements and/or a license to encroach, as approved by City Council. The applicant shall prepare the agreement documents for review by the City Attorney and approval by City Council, prior to final approval of the Construction drawings for the first Pod to be developed (Pod 2). The proposed entryway located over the waterway canal should begin construction after the internal roadways, specifically Spirit Boulevard, are completed in order to keep minimum construction traffic using Del Monte Road. A letter received from Florida City Gas indicates that natural gas lines can service the Spirit of Sebastian community. The gas lines should be installed at the same time as water and sewer utilities, which are proposed to come down Old Dixie Highway from Sebastian Boulevard, and gas line details should be added to the construction plans. Location of light poles has conceptually been added to the plat sheets. Final locations will be coordinated with FPL. At minimum, decorative light poles should be required for Spirit Boulevard. The initial Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for the HOA indicates that Fertilizer Free Zones will be established, and that fertilizer applications by individual homeowners are prohibited and must be done by a Certified Professional or Green Industry Landscape Company. In lieu of landscaping and buffer tracts, with the exception of a proposed tract adjacent to the South Moon Under Subdivision, perimeter lots will be platted with a 20' or 25' landscape 9 easement — to be maintained by the individual homeowner. Dual frontage lots (that back up to Spirit Boulevard and Sabal Way) will be platted with a "limited access easement" that will require landscaping, and prevent rear driveways. The submitted landscape plan for the subdivision details the guidelines and plant materials for these easements. Staff would like to see stronger language in the HOA documents that necessitates homeowner maintenance of the easements, compliance to the approved plan, and sound HOA enforcement of the plan with regards to removal and replacement of the plant materials. Understandably, construction of the sidewalks in front of the residential lots (vs. along Spirit Boulevard) will be required by the contractors as each individual home is built, as to save possible reconstruction costs if existing sidewalks were damaged when the lots were developed. However, a complete pedestrian system should be required after a certain length of time to ensure that gaps within the sidewalk system will not exist in front of a vacant lot that is not being built on. Each pod should be given 5 years or 90% built -out, whichever comes first, before mandatory completion of the sidewalks for that pod is required. A bond may be warranted. 13. Consulting City Engineer & City Engineer's review: The Consulting City Engineer for this application, Joe Schulke, P.E., along with the City Engineer, Ken Griffin, P.E. have both reviewed the Spirit of Sebastian Preliminary Development Plan, as well as the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Brian Good, P.E. of Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. They have advised that the following should be addressed during the subsequent Subdivision Construction Plan applications: • A very general Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is presented on sheet C-14. Because of the proposed improvements in the City ROWs (canal and roads), a more fully development SWPPP providing specific pollutant prevention methodologies to protect the city's facilities should be submitted with the subdivision construction plans • After consultation with St. John's River Water Management District (SJRWMD), final stormwater design should be re -submitted with subdivision construction plans for review and acceptance by the city engineer. [Note: Discussion with the civil engineer indicates that the final design will most likely incorporate a Harvesting system, which re -utilizes stormwater to be an integral part of the master irrigation system for the subdivision, a SJRWMD best management practice.] 14. Conclusion: The proposed Spirit of Sebastian Preliminary Development Plan/Plat is in compliance with the approved Conceptual Development Plan, the Comprehensive Plan, and the Land Development Code. 15. Recommendation: In consideration of comments and reviews by the staff Technical Advisory Committee and other jurisdictional agencies, the Community Development staff recommends approval of the Spirit of Sebastian Preliminary Development Plan/Plat subject to the following conditions: See Attachment A 10 Staff also recommends approval of the two requested adjustments in accordance with LDC Section 54-4-19.1(d): • Temporarily allowing one means of public ingress and egress and one emergency exit until such time Pod 3 is developed with a second entrance onto Bailey Drive, or an agreement is reached with Indian River County for improvements to Old Dixie Highway • For a cul-de-sac street (Archie Smith Lane) to exceed 600 feet in length (proposed 966.76 LF) PREPARED BY 11 i�,�i DA E Resolution R-20-29 ATTACHMENT A SPIRIT OF SEBASITAN PODS 1 & 2 — Preliminary Plat Conditions of Approval: 1. Completion of the internal roadway (Spirit Boulevard) and driveway connection to Bailey Drive is required prior to final platting of Pod 3, including the improvements to Schumann and Bailey Drives as described in the Conclusion section of the Traffic Impact Analysis done by Kimley-Horn, dated December 2018, in addition to any other determined intersection improvements needed at Schumann Drive & US Highway #1. 2. Prior to final platting of Pod 4, five-foot wide bike lanes shall be constructed on both sides of S. Wimbrow Drive from Del Monte Road north to Sebastian Boulevard only if permits for road and drainage improvements to Old Dixie Highway from Sabal Way north to Sebastian Boulevard cannot be received from Indian River County. Until construction of Pod 4, the developer shall continue to pursue Indian River County for such permits on behalf of the subdivision. If permits are received for improvements to Old Dixie Highway before development of Pod 4, construction of improvements shall commence within 30 days of receipt of approval date. Improvement design of Old Dixie Highway shall include construction of a sidewalk. 3. Before approval of construction drawings for each Pod, a Base Flood Elevation (BFE) shall be established for properties located in the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA) using accepted engineering practices, or submittal of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) issued by FEMA. 4. A current tree survey, and a scrub jay and gopher tortoise survey in accordance with FWS guidelines for each Pod shall be submitted before issuance of Landclearing permits. 5. Approval by City Council of a "License to Encroach Into Right -of -Way" agreement for the construction of the entranceway over the Collier Creek Drainage Canal and improvements to Del Monte Road, which shall also include a detailed maintenance agreement for each improvement, must occur before approval of the Construction Drawings for the first Pod developed. 6. The entranceway over the Collier Creek Drainage Canal shall begin after construction of the internal roads is completed with the bulk of construction activity occurring from the subdivision side in order to abate disturbance on Del Monte Road. Approved improvements to Del Monte Road shall commence after 33% residential build -out of the first Pod platted, and recreational facilities completed before final platting of the last phase (of Pods 1 & 2). 7. A more fully developed Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is prepared and submitted with the subdivision construction plans that specifically address work within the city's drainage canal and Del Monte Road ROW. 8. Final stormwater design shall be re -submitted with subdivision construction plans after review and approval by SJRWMD including their agreement on the appropriate BMP's necessary to provide adequate pollutant abatement. 9. A bond equal to 125% of the estimated costs for the final layer of asphalt for the streets in each Pod or phase, as determined by the project engineer and approved by the city engineer, shall be submitted to the city before approval of the Construction Drawings for each Pod or phase. 10. A complete sidewalk system shall be completed for each Pod and/or phase within 5 years from the date of first building permit issuance (for that Pod or phase) or 90% residential build -out (of that Pod or phase), whichever comes first. A bond equal to 50% of the estimated sidewalk cost shall be submitted to the city before approval of the Construction Drawings for the Pod or phase. 11. Natural gas lines shall be installed and available to the subdivision with details provided in the Construction Drawings for each Pod or phase. 12. The Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for Spirit of Sebastian shall provide durable assurances regarding strong adherence to individual property owners maintaining the dedicated perimeter and internal landscape easements in accordance to the city -approved landscape plan for the subdivision. 13. At minimum, decorative light poles must be installed along the entire length of Spirit Boulevard, in coordination with Florida Power & Light. CPIRrr lJebastian December 20, 2019 Mrs. Dorri Bosworth Community Development Department City of Sebastian 1225 Main Street Sebastian, Florida 32958 RE: Spirit of Sebastian PUD Preliminary Development Plan/Plat Pods 1 and 2 Dear Dorri: PO Box 690621 Vero Beach, FL 32969 772-999-3494 Please accept this letter as a request for adjustment for the vehicular access connection to Old Dixie Highway. The PUD conceptual plan was approved depicting a full permanent access driveway onto Old Dixie Highway. However, after several discussions and meetings with Indian River County representatives, only an emergency and construction only access will be allowed. The PUD preliminary development plans have been revised to reflect this condition. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Feel free to contact me with any questions. Sincerely, Al--'a4—e Chuck Mechling Spirit of Sebastian, LLC RECEIVED JAN 16 2020 City of Sebastian Community Development Dept. PT of l.lebastian December 20, 2019 Mrs. Dorri Bosworth Community Development Department City of Sebastian 1225 Main Street Sebastian, Florida 32958 RE: Spirit of Sebastian PUD Preliminary Development Plan/Plat Pods 1 and 2 Dear Dorri: PO Box 690621 Vero Beach, FL 32969 772-999-3494 Please accept this letter as a request for adjustment for the maximum cul-de-sac length depicted on the plans for the above referenced project. Section 54-4-19.11(i)(4)(h) states streets shall not exceed the length of 600 feet. To address this issue, access tracts have been provided at the terminal ends of the cul-de-sacs over 600 feet to provide connectivity and allow for pedestrian and. bicycle access. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Feel free to contact me with any questions. Sincerely, Chuck Mechling Spirit of Sebastian, LLC RECEIVED JAN 16 2020 City of Sebastian Community Development Dept. CARTER ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND LAND SURVEYORS 1708 31st STREET - VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 329603472 - 772.562-4191 - 772-562-7180 (FAX) JOHN H. BLUM, P.E., PRINCIPAL DAVID E. LUETHJE, P.S.M., PRINCIPAL GEORGE A. SIMONS, P.E., PRINCIPAL PATRICK S. WALTHER, P.E., PRINCIPAL MARVIN E. CARTER, P.B.M.. Consultant to the Firm DEAN F. LUETHJE, P.E,, x , Consultant to the Finu In o !V N a j FRANK S. CUCCURESE, P.S.M. LU CLINTON J. RAHIES, P.E. .-- m TYLER N. SPENCER, P.E. W (D O J UE E 0 U PUBLIC FACILITY IMPACT STATEMENT for SPIRIT OF SEBASTIAN — PODS 1 and 2 12/20/19 (Revised August 10, 2020) The following information is provided to support the property's negligible impact on the concurrency management system including public facilities, the environment, and compatibility with the neighboring properties: a) Wastewater The property will be served by public sewer facilities provided by Indian River County Utility Services. The point of connection to existing sewer facilities (i.e. force main) is located along Old Dixie Highway just north of the property. The development will provide gravity sanitary sewer collection conveyed to an on -site lift station constructed in the recreation tract of Pod 1. Assuming 250 gallons per day for the 208 single-family units in Pods 1 and 2, an estimated 52,000 gallons per day of projected flow will be generated for the property. The plant capacity available for the North and Central Wastewater Treatment Facilities is 2.08 MGD. b) Recreation and Open Space The demand for recreation area shall be determined by multiplying the city's recreation area level of service standard (4.0 acres per 1,000 population or .0040 acre multiplied by each person served by the development). Therefore, assuming 2.5 persons per unit (208 single- family), a total of 2.08 acres of recreational area is required for the development. A total of 2.48 acres of recreational facilities which includes the recreation tract and pavilion, bike lanes, and parks are provided in Pods 1 and 2. Furthermore, a minimum 50% open space is required for the development. The open space provided in Pods 1 and 2 exceeds the minimum. Open space is provided in the lawns of the homesites, green area in the rights -of -way, landscape tracts, stormwater tracts, and the green area in common area tracts. /jl A r SeMig Fluicla ILA P.117-42E Spirit of SebasfianTermittinglCitylPlanningIPublic Facility Impact Statement (Pods 1 and 2).doc I Since ICI I Page 1 of 3 c) Potable Water The property will be served by public water facilities provided by Indian River County Utility Services. The on -site water distribution system will be looped throughout the development and connect to existing water mains along Old Dixie Highway just north of the property and to a water main stub -out near the western property line at Del Monte Road. Assuming 250 gallons per day for the 208 single-family units in Pods 1 and 2, an estimated 52,000 gallons per day of projected flow will be generated for the property. The plant capacity available for the North and South RO Water Plants is 7.59 MGD. d) Stormwater Management The subject property previously had mining operations performed that created two large ponds in Pods 1 and 2. These ponds will be incorporated into the stormwater management system for retention of stormwater runoff prior to any off -site discharge into the adjacent Collier Creek canal system along the western portion of the project. Runoff fiom the homesites will sheetflow into the roadside curbing and be collected in catch basins that will pipe the stormwater into the retention ponds. e) Traffic Generation A traffic impact analysis has been performed with the following trip generation estimates for Pods 1 and 2: Average Dailv Trips 9.44 trips per single-family unit (9.44 trips/unit) x 208 s-f units = 1,964 average daily trips Total Average Daily Trips = 1,964 average daily trips P.M. Peak Hour Trips (4 - 6 P.M.) 0.99 trips per single-family unit (63% enter, 37% exit) (0.99 trips/unit) x 208 s-f units = 206 peak hour trips = 130 peak hour trips entering = 76 peak hour trips exiting Total P.M. Peak Hour Trips = 206 peak hour trips (130 entering, 76 exiting) (Reference: ITE Trip Generation Manual, 101h Edition - Code 210) f) Solid Waste Garbage and recycling collection are provided by Waste Management and will be curbside pick-up. Bulls yard waste collection will also be provided. Seiyui no,io, (A-1sillm PA1742E Spirit of SebastianlPermktinglCitylPlanninglPublic Facility Impact Statement (Pods 1 and 2).doc 1911 Page 2 of 3 g) School District Information Schools that will service this develovment: (Note: School capacity information below was provided by the Indian River County School District) Current Current Project School Name Enrollment Cavacitv Demand Sebastian Elementary 401 637 39 Storm Grove Middle School 1043 1244 20 Sebastian River High 1930 2318 26 The school service area boundary has sufficient space available to accommodate the students projected to be generated from this project. h) Financial Analysis — Tax Revenue Ad Valorem Taxes Median Value x # of units x Millage Rate = Value to the Community Median Value of Homes = $275,000 Median Single -Family Homes = 208 City of Sebastian Millage Rate = 2.9399 • $275,000 x 208 units x 2.9399 = $168,162.28 Stormwater Fee • 208 units x $120/unit/year = $24,960.00 Total Annual Revenue = $193,122.28 per year One -Time Recreational Fee at Bldp-. Permit Issuance • 208 units x $975/unit/year = $203,424.00 i) Compatibility with neighboring properties The property is directly adjacent to two residential neighborhoods (Sebastian Highlands and South Moon Under) and also near The Laurel Reserve. The proposed "low density residential" land use is compatible with these developments. All three neighborhoods were developed with a density between 1.1 units per acre and 3.44 units per acre, which is consistent with the subject property (Pod 1— 2.56 units per acre, Pod 2 - 2.97 units per acre). P.117412E Spirit of SebasUanlPermiflinglC!t kPlanninglPublic Facility Impact Statement (Pods 1 and 2).doc _A I S81Sen'm_�; t�yt�nrki rc: 1911 Page 3 of 3 Time Stamp Received School Impact Analysis Form Instructions: Submit one copy of completed application, location map, and applicable fee for each new residential project or building permit requiring a determination of school capacity to the applicable local government. ® Conditional School Capacity Availability Determination 0 School Capacity Availability Determination Type of Application Request: 0 Request for Exemotion Project Information Project Name: Spirit of Sebastian - Pods 1 and 2 Municipality (if applicable): _ City of Sebastian Parcel ID#: (attach separate sheet for multiple parcels): 31-39-07-00000-1000-00004.0, 5.0. 10,0, and 31-39-07-00000-7000-00008.0 Location/Address of subject property: Old Dixie Highway, south of CR 512 (77.99 acres] (Attach vicinity location map —with Closest Major Intersection) Ownership/Contact Information Owner/Contract Purchaser Name(s): Spirit of Sebastian. LLC Agent/Contact Person: Chuck Mechling (If agent or contact information is completed the District will forward all information to that person) PAailing address: 6655 49th Street Vero Beach_ Florida 32960 Telephone#: (772j 999-3194 Current Land Use Designation Low Density Res Current Zoning PUD-R _ Fax: Development Information Proposed Land Use Designation Proposed Zoning Proposed N Dwelling unit Show only the # of uni s for this application not the total for the development Low Density Residential s I hereby certify the statements and/or information contained in this application with any attachments submitted herewith are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. [� Owner or Agent Signature (Il/ `' F _ _ �bste [ " V (if applicant is not the owner of record, a letter of authorization from t. a property owner(s) must be included with this form at time or application submittal.) FOr Sctt-3o) Di.atFRA lisc 60} (Capacity Availability Determination) School Capacity Available: X School Capacity Not Available: Exempt:_ School Capacity Available in Adjacent Service Area: cGlYldrLd _ 9/18/19 School District Facilities Specialist Signature Date Tuesday, September 17, 2019 Indian River County School District School Concurrency Availability Determination Project Name: Spirit of Sebastian — Pods 1 & 2 Project Unit Yield By Type of School Date Received: 9/17119 Yield Elem Mid High Case Number: Single 0.189 39 Builder Name: Spirit of Sebastian, LLC Single 0.097 20 Single 0.123 26 Location: Old Dixie Highway, South of CR 512 (77.99 acre) Sebastian, FL ParcellD# 32390700000100000004.0 32390700000100000005.0 32391700001015000010.0 31390700000700000008.0 Project Planned Units: # Single Family: 208 # Multi-Family(Condos): # Townhomes: # Apartments: Additional Aaalicant: Spirt of Sebastian, LLC Information: Contact: Chuck Mechling 6655 491h Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 772-999-3194 — Phone school Service Area Boundary Current Programmed Total current Vested Total Available Project (SSAS) Capacity I Capacity Capacity Enrollment Demand Demand Capacity Demand Sebastian ES 637 0 637 401 0 401 236 39 Storm Grove MS 1244 0 1244 1043 0 1043 201 20 Sebastian HS 2318 0 2318 1930 0 1930 388 26 This letter is in response to a Conditional School Capacity Availability Determination Request for the Project Spirit of Sebastian - Pods 1 & 2. This Project is located in SSAB for Sebastian Elementary School, Storm Grove Middle School, and Sebastian High School. The SSAB does have sufficient space available to accommodate the students projected to be generated from this project. Florida City Gas e August 10, 2020 Chuck Mechling Operations Insite Solutions 6655 49,h St. Vero Beach, FL 32967 Re: Natural Gas Service — Spirit of Sebastian Dear Chuck, This letter is provided to verify that Florida City Gas is the company which is responsible for providing natural gas service to the above listed location in Sebastian, Florida. Florida City Gas presently operates a 6" polyethylene gas main at 30 PSI on the South side of Sebastian Blvd (CR-512) in which we would be able to serve your project. I have attached a screenshot of our system in that area for your information. This letter may be relied upon by you, your successors and assigns as lessees of the property, and any mortgagees. Sincerely, Tim Knutson Customer Advisor timothy.knutson@nexteraenergy.com RECEIVED Florida City Gas, Inc. AUG 1 t 2020 561 NW Mercantile Place, Port St. Lucie, FL 34966 Clty of Sebastian Community Developmem r TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Spirit of Sebastian City of Sebastian, Florida Prepared for: Insite, LLC 142344001 December 2018 ©Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. CA Number 00000696 445 241h Street, Suite 200 Vero Beach, Florida 32960 772-794-4100 TEL � Horn t RECEIVEp DEC 12 2018 City of Sebastian Community Developme,,, Dept. Spirit of Sebastian PUD Traffic Impact Analysis Spirit of Sebastian TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Prepared for.' Insite, LLC Prepared by: Kirnley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 445 24th Street, Suite 200 Vero Beach, Florida 32960 f 1/Itt/ December 2018 `��� A.. . : 56939 $fg—Go , P.E.w * _. o'$egi 5.5 , Etiiitg!flE��p �ONAL �N�'• 142344001 The entirety of this report, induding text and images, is property of Kimley-Horn and Associates, protected under U. S. copyright law. Copyright 0 2018, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. I ISpirit of Sebastian PUD Traffic Impact Analysis I TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................1 P. q 1 4 A A II. PROJECT TRAFFIC............................................................................................3 TripGeneration....................................................................................................... 3 Trip Distribution and Assignment......................................................................... 5 Study Area Intersections......................................................................................... 5 III. SITE ACCESS....................................................................................................15 N. CONCLUSION..................................................................................................17 APPENDICES LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 — Site Location Map.................................................................................. 2 Figure 2 — Projected Driveway Volumes............................................................16 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 — Trip Generation....................................................................................... 4 Table 2 — AM Pk Hr Existing Traffic Intersection Analyses ............................. 7 Table 3 — AM Pk Hr 2028 Background Traffic Intersection Analyses ............ 8 Table 4 — AM Pk Hr 2028 Total Traffic Intersection Analyses ........................ 9 Table 5 — PM Pk Hr Existing Traffic Intersection Analyses ............................10 Table 6 — PM Pk Hr 2028 Background Traffic Intersection Analyses ........... 11 Table 7 — PM Pk Hr 2028 Total Traffic Intersection Analyses .......................12 142344001 Page i Kimley» A ISpirit of Sebastian PUD Traffic Impact Analysis I i. INTR DU TC ION The intent of this report is to identify the potential traffic impact, if any, associated with the Spirit of Sebastian project proposed generally on the west side of Old Dixie Highway between CR 512 and Schumann Drive in the City of Sebastian, Florida. A map depicting the location of the subject development is provided as Figure 1. A site plan is included in the Appendix. The proposed development program includes 456 single-family residential dwelling units and ' 130 duplex residential dwelling units. In accordance with the agreed upon methodology between the applicant and the City of Sebastian, a traffic impact analysis is required to document the external traffic impacts of this proposed development. The objectives of this report are as follows: • To adequately assess the traffic impacts associated with the proposed development and identify the level of off -site access and traffic control improvements required. • To provide public agencies a comprehensive study which evaluates and documents the traffic impacts and off -site improvements, where warranted. • To provide a technically sound basis to identify impacts and related mitigation requirements in response to off -site traffic impacts. 142344001 Page 1 Kimley*� of iN 1 Spirit of Sebastian PUD Traffic Impact Analysis II. PROJECT TRAFFIC The anticipated traffic impacts associated with the proposed development were derived using a process of trip generation, distribution, and assignment in accordance with the agreed upon methodology. TRIP GENERATION The volume of traffic generated by a subject project is dependent on the intended land use and size of the development on that property. Trip generation can be defined as an estimate of the number of trips generated by a specific building or land use. These trips represent the volume of new traffic added to the roadway network. The cumulative estimate of new trips associated with the subject development program was developed using the methodology and equations contained in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Triii Generation Manual, Tenth Edition. Trip generation characteristics for the project were based on ITE Land Use Code ITE 210 (Single -Family Detached Housing) and ITE 220 (Multi -Family Housing [Low -Rise]). The projected number of Daily trips, AM peak hour trips, and PM peak hour trips are detailed in Table 1. 1 142344001 Page 3 Kimley*Horn 1.1 A A A A 1 Spirit of Sebastian PUD Table 1— Trip Generation Traffic Impact Analysis Deily AM Peek Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Scenario Intensity Trips of 11pacent street of A 13acent S-eet Total In Out Total In Out Grassi! fact Trios l Pr000sed Dev men Single -Family Detached Housing 456 DU 4,305 337 84 253 451 284 167 Multi -family Housing (La. -Rise) 130 DU 952 6o 14 46 73 46 27 Subtotal 5,2S7 397 98 299 524 330 194 Driveway Volumes 5,257 397 98 299 524 330 194 NET NEW EXTERNAL TRIPS (PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT) -) 5,257 397 98 299 S24 330 1% Note: Trip generation was calculated using the following data from ITE's Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition: Single-Famlly Detached Housine rr E 2101 Daily T=9.44•(X); (Xis# of dwelling units) AM Peak Hour of Adjacent5treet T=0.74•(X); (Xis# of dwelling units; 25%In, 75%out) PM Peak Hour of Adjacent Street T=0.99•(X); (XIs# of dwelling units; 63%in, 37%out) Maltfamily Housina ttow-RIsd fjjf, 2201 Daily T=7.32•(X); (Xis#of dwelling units) AM Peak Hour of Adjacent Street T=OA6•(X); (XIs# of dwelling units; 25%In, 75%out) PM Peak Hour of Adjacent Street T-0.56•(X); (Xis# of dwelling units; 63%In, 37%out) 142344001 Page 4 Kimley>»Horn ISpirit of Sebastian PUD Traffic Impact Analysis TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT The distribution and assignment of trips associated with the proposed development was derived through a gravity model based on the transportation planning modeling programs contained in the Florida Standard Urban Transportation Modeling Structure (FSUTMS). The FSUTMS programs were employed to provide an objective distribution and assignment of project trips onto the roadway network. Hand adjustments to the model output were made based on engineering judgment and based on input from the City of Sebastian. The hand -adjusted model output, as approved by the City, is provided in the Appendix. ISTUDYAREA INTERSECTIONS The project is anticipated to be developed in phases. Study area intersections were evaluated based on a 10-pear buildout horizon (2028 buildout). Upon review of the proposed methodology for this analysis, the City of Sebastian staff requested that the following eight (8) intersections be evaluated to comprise the project's study area: • CR 512 & Easy Street ' • CR 512 & Delaware Avenue • CR 512 EB & S Wimbrow Drive r• CR 512 EB & US 1 0 Del Monte Road & Easy Street • Del Monte Road & S Wimbrow Drive • Schumann Drive & Bailey Drive • Schumann Drive & US 1 Intersection analyses were performed based upon existing traffic conditions, 2028 future background (without project) traffic conditions, and 2028 total (with project) traffic conditions. AM peak hour analysis results for existing 1 142344001 Page 5 Kimley*Horn Spirit of Sebastian PUD Traffic Impact Analysis traffic conditions, 2028 future background (without project) traffic conditions, and 2028 total (with project) traffic conditions are presented in Tables 2, 3, and A 4, respectively. Similarly, PM peak hour analysis results for existing traffic conditions, 2028 future background (without project) traffic conditions, and 2028 total (with project) traffic conditions are presented in Tables 3, 6, and 7, respectively. Note that the analyses were based on existing signal timing data provided by Indian River County and turning movement data collected in October 2017, March 2018, and May 2018. Raw count data was adjusted to reflect peak season 2018 traffic conditions. Raw data and intersection volume development worksheets are included in the Appendix. 142344001 Page 6 Klmlep) Spirit of Sebastian PUD 142344001 Traffic Impact Analysis Table 2 AM Peak Hour Existing Traffic Conditions Intersection Analysis Results Existing Intersection Conditions LOS Delay (1) CR 512 & Easy Street D 40.8 CR 512 & Delaware Avenue C 34.1 CR512EB& B 122 S Wimbrow Drive(2) CR 512 EB & US 1 E 64.4 Del Monte Road & Easy Street(2) A/A 9.5/8.9 Del Monte Road & S Wunbrow Drive(2) A/A 9.3/9.0 Schumann Drive & Bailey Drive(2) B 10.3 Schumann Drive & US 1 C 22.7 Notes: (1) Delay is represented as seconds per vehicle (2) LOS and Delay are reported for the stop - controlled approaches at unsignalized intersections Page 7 Kimley*Horn Spirit of Sebastian PUD Traffic Impact Analysis Table 3 AM Peak Hour 2028 Background Traffic Conditions Intersection Analysis Results 2028 Background 2028 Background � Required Improvements in I Traffic Conditions Intersection Traffic Conditions 2028 Background Traffic with Required Conditions Improvements (2) LOS Delay (1) LOS Delay (1) CR 512 & Easy Street D 43.0 None -- -- CR 512 & Delaware D 35.7 None -- -- Avenue CR 512 EB & B 14.6 None -- -- S Wimbrow Drive(3) CR 512 EB & US 1 F 136.2 Additional NB through lane; D 51.4 Additional SB through lane Del Monte Road & A/A 9.8/9.0 None -- -- Easy Street(3) Del Monte Road & A/A 9.5/9.1 None -- -- S Wimbrow Drive(3) Schumann Drive & B 10.8 None -- -- Bailey Drive(3) Schumann Drive & US 1 C 28.5 None -- -- Notes: (1) Delay is represented as seconds per vehicle (2) Includes required intersection improvements (3) LOS and Delay are reported for the stop -controlled approaches at unsignalized intersections 142344001 Page 8 Kimley*Horn Spirit of Sebastian PUD Traffic Impact Analysis Table 4 AM Peak Hour 2028 Total Traffic Conditions Intersection Analysis Results Intersection CR 512 & Easy Street 2028 Total Traffic Conditions LOS Delay (1) D 43.9 CR 512 & Delaware Avenue D 36.6 CR 512 EB & S mbrow Drive(2) C 21.3 Wi CR 512 EB & US 1 D 53.4 Del Monte Road & Easy Street(2) B/A 10.2/8.8 Del Monte Road & S mbrow Drive(2) B/A 11.2/9.9 Wi Schumann Drive & Bailey Drive(2) B 13.6 Schumann Drive & US 1 C 29.3 Notes: (1) Delay is represented as seconds per vehicle (2) LOS and Delay are reported for the stop - controlled approaches at unsignalized intersections (3) Note that each improvement required in the AM Peak Hour 2028 Background Traffic Conditions analysis was incorporated in the 2028 Total Traffic Conditions analysis 142344001 Page 9 Kimley>))Horn Spirit of Sebastian PUD Traffic Impact Analysis Table 5 PM Peak Hour Existing Traffic Conditions Intersection Analysis Results Existing Intersection Conditions LOS Delay (1) CR 512 & Easy Street D 42.4 CR 512 & Delaware Avenue D 38.4 CR512EB& B 11.1 S Wimbrow Drive(2) CR512EB&US1 F 139.2 Del Monte Road & A/A 9.5/9.0 Easy Street(2) Del Monte Road & A/A 9.2/8.5 S Wimbrow Drive(2) Schumann Drive & A 9.8 Bailey Drive(2) Schumann Drive & US 1 C 31.9 Notes: (1) Delay is represented as seconds per vehicle (2) LOS and Delay are reported for the stop - controlled approaches at unsignalized intersections 142344001 Page 10 Kimley)#Horn Spirit of Sebastian PUD Traffic Impact Analysis Table 6 PM Peak Hour 2028 Background Traffic Conditions Intersection Analysis Results 2028 Background 2028 Background Required Improvements in Traffic Conditions Intersection Traffic Conditions 2028 Background Traffic with Required - Conditions Improvements (2) LOS Delay (1) LOS Delay (1) CR 512 & Easy Street D 44.5 None -- -- CR 512 & Delaware D 40.2 None -- -- Avenue CR 512 EB & B 12.0 None -- -- S Witnbrow Drive(3) _ CR 512 EB & US 1 F 209.2 Additional NB through lane; Additional SB through lane D 52.8 Del Monte Road & A/A 9 8/9 1 None -- -- Easy Street(3) Del Monte Road & A/A 9.5/8.6 None -- -- S Wimbrow Drive(3) Schumann Drive & B 10.1 None — -- Bailey Drive(3) ` Schumann Drive & US 1 i E 69.4 Signal timing adjustment D 41.8 Notes: (1) Delay is represented as seconds per vehicle (2) Includes required intersection improvements (3) LOS and Delay are reported for the stop -controlled approaches at unsignalized intersections 142344001 Page 11 Kimley*Horn Spirit of Sebastian PUD Traffic Impact Analysis Table 7 PM Peak Hour 2028 Total Traffic Conditions Intersection Analysis Results 2028 Total Traffic Intersection Conditions LOS Delay (1) CR 512 & Easy Street D 46.0 CR 512 & Delaware D 41.0 A- __ CR 512 EB & S Wimbrow Drive(2) B 14.2 CR 512 EB & US 1 D 54.8 Del Monte Road & Easy Street(2) B/A 10.6/8.8 Del Monte Road & S Wimbrow Drive(2) B/A 12.6/9.9 Schumann Drive & Bailey Drive(2) B 13.2 Schumann Drive & US 1 D 42.8 Notes: (1) Delay is represented as seconds per vehicle (2) LOS and Delay are reported for the stop - controlled approaches at unsignalized intersections (3) Note that each improvement required in the PM Peak Hour 2028 Background Traffic Conditions analysis was incorporated in the 2028 Total Traffic Conditions analysis 142344001 Page 12 Kimleyl Horn Spirit of Sebastian PUD Traffic Impact Analysis As detailed in these tables, six of the eight study area intersections were shown to perform acceptably (LOS D or better) through future year 2028 for both background (non -project) and total (with project) traffic conditions. The intersection of CR 512 Eastbound & US 1 is shown to experience a level of service deficiency under existing conditions for both the AM peak hour (LOS E) and PM peak hour (LOS F). Increased traffic volumes from background growth worsen the operational deficiencies in the 2028 future background (non -project) traffic conditions. Additional operational analyses were performed for the intersection of CR 512 Eastbound & US 1 to determine what improvements would allow this intersection to operate acceptably. With the addition of a northbound through lane and a southbound through lane, the intersection was shown to operate acceptably. The Indian River County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan, published in December of 2016, identified a roadway deficiency on US 1 from CR 512 to Roseland Road, which includes this intersection. Therefore, the addition of through lanes at this intersection is anticipated as a future need even without development of the subject project The intersection of Schumann Drive & US 1 is shown to experience a level of service deficiency under 2028 future background (non -project) traffic conditions during the PM peak hour. Minor signal timing adjustments were sufficient to improve the operations of this intersection to an acceptable level of service. Table 3 and Table 6 detail the results of the additional analyses and the improvements required to alleviate the deficiencies. HCS output reports are included in the Appendix for the described scenarios. ---- The following list describes the improvements required during 2028 0 142344001 Page 13 Kimley>»Horn ISpirit of Sebastian PUD Traffic Impact Analysis Background Traffic Conditions: • Additional northbound through lane at US 1 & CR 512 Eastbound • Additional southbound through lane at US 1 & CR 512 Eastbound • Signal timing adjustments at US 1 & Schumann Drive The improvements noted above for the intersections of CR 512 Eastbound & US 1 and Schumann Drive & US 1 were needed prior to the addition of project traffic. Chapter 163.3180 of the Florida Statutes state that any improvements determined to be needed prior to adding project traffic are to be considered to be in place when evaluating buildout (with project) traffic conditions. Therefore, these improvements were added to the buildout (with project) traffic analysis. As detailed in Table 4 and Table 7, all the evaluated intersections are projected to operate acceptably when assuming the improvements identified as needed in 2028 Background Traffic conditions were in place. Because no further improvements are required to accommodate project traffic volumes beyond those required for the 2028 future background (non -project) traffic, no improvements are required to be constructed by the applicant. 1 142344001 Page 14 Mmley»)Horn Spirit of Sebastian PUD III. SITE ACCESS Traffic Impact Analysis Site access will be provided via a full -access connection to Bailey Drive and a full -access connection to Del Monte Road. Figure 2 illustrates the anticipated project trips at each driveway connection during the AM and PM peak hour timeframes. REQUIRED SITE ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS Pursuant to City of Sebastian Land Development Code (LDC) ingress turn lane standards, a westbound ingress right -turn lane is warranted on Schumann Drive at Bailey Drive for the 132 PM peak hour right -turns and an eastbound ingress left -turn lane is warranted on Schumann Drive at Bailey Drive for the 66 PM peak hour left -turns. Additionally, a southbound left -turn lane is warranted on Baily Drive at Schumann Drive. A northbound right -turn lane on Baily Drive at the project entrance is also warranted. 1 142344001 Page 15 Kimley*Horn ISpirit of Sebastian PUD Traffic Impact Analysis W. CONCLUSION A proposed development consisting of 456 single-family residential dwelling Punits and 130 duplex residential dwelling units will be generally located on the west side of Old Dixie Highway between CR 512 and Schumann Drive in the PCity of Sebastian, Florida. An analysis of the traffic impacts associated with the proposed project was performed in accordance with the methodology approved by the City of Sebastian. The results of this analysis indicate that acceptable levels of service will be maintained at the study area intersections with the incorporation of the intersection improvements that are required under 2028 Background Traffic conditions. Pursuant to City of Sebastian Land Development Code (LDC) ingress turn lane standards, a westbound ingress right -turn lane and an eastbound ingress left -turn lane are warranted on Schumann Drive at Bailey Drive. Additionally, a southbound left -turn lane is warranted on Bailey Drive at Schumann Drive. A northbound right -turn lane on Bailey Drive at the project entrance is also warranted. 1 1 142344001 Page 17 Kimley*Horn From Florida Statutes Chapter 163.3180 b. In using the proportionate -share formula provided in this subparagraph, the applicant, in its traffic analysis, shall identify those roads or facilities that have a transportation deficiency in accordance with the transportation deficiency as defined in subparagraph 4. The proportionate -share formula provided in this subparagraph shall be applied only to those facilities that are determined to be significantly impacted by the project traffic under review. If any road is determined to be transportation deficient without the project traffic under review, the costs of correcting that deficiency shall be removed from the project's proportionate -share calculation and the necessary transportation improvements to correct that deficiency shall be considered to be in place for purposes of the proportionate -share calculation. The improvement necessary to correct the transportation deficiency is the funding responsibility of the entity that has maintenance responsibility for the facility. The development's proportionate share shall be calculated only for the needed transportation improvements that are greater than the identified deficiency. ^ " BKIF INC. Consulting Ecologists William W. Kerr, President August 23, 2018 Chuck Mechling Ridgewood Sebastian, LLC 5070 North Highway A 1 A Suite CA Vero Beach, Florida 32963 Project: Spirit of Sebastian f182 acres 401 Ocean Avenue, Suite 204, Melbourne Beach, Florida 32951 321.951.7964 Office * 321.951.8909 Fax www.bki-ecolo2ists.com in Sections 7, 8, and 17, Township 31 South, Range 39 East Parcel ID: 31390700000100000005.0, 31390700000100000004.0, 31390700000700000010.0, 31390700000700000011.0, 31390700000700000008.0, 31390700000700000006.0, 31390700000100000010.0, 31391700000300000010.0, 31391800000100000001.0, 31390700000700000007.0, 31390700000700000012.0 Sebastian, Indian River County, Florida BKI File No. 18016 Subject: Gopher Tortoise Survey Dear Sirs: B.K.I., Inc. Consulting Ecologists (BKI) has completed a 100% gopher tortoise survey on the first development area of the above -referenced site. This includes areas denoted as Pod 1 and a park area within Pod 2. This survey was conducted on August 16 and 22, 2018. The following is a discussion of our findings. INTRODUCTION The subject parcel is located in the City of Sebastian, south of SR 512, west of Old Dixie Highway. The site is located in Sections 7, 8, 17, Township 31 South, and Range 39 East, in Indian River County, Florida (Figure 1). According the Indian River County Property Appraiser, the subject parcel acreage is listed as 182.87 acres. County property appraiser acreages can be slightly different from the GIS acreages that are calculated (GIS 181.97 ac). There has been a large amount of disturbance from the parcel's historical natural conditions. The site has been highly modified from its native condition. The historic aerials indicate the site was a large citrus grove until the mid 1990s. Mitigation/Conservation Bank Permitting * Land Management Plans * Environmental Assessments & Permitting GIS/GPS Mapping *Wildlife Evaluations * Feasibility Studies * Wetland Assessments & Enhancements BKI 18016 Spirit of Sebastian — Gopher Tortoise Survey Between 1994 and 1999 the site was used as a sand mine. These land uses resulted in a radical change of the native topography. Gopher tortoises are adept at utilizing disturbed habitats. VEGETATIVE COMMUNITY The land use according to St. Johns River Water Management District data is composed of several Land Use types including both uplands and wetlands (Figure 2). Codes describe what land uses are present onsite. Several land uses are indicated, especially on the periphery of the approximate site boundary, but may not actually be located on the parcel. Table 1 includes a brief description and the approximate acreage of each land use type. Table 1: Land Use Types Located in Survey Area. J Code Description Acres i 2240 Abandoned Grove 68.3 f 4220 Brazilian Peeper 7.9 5340 Reservoir <10 Acres 7.6 83.8 Abandoned Grove (2240) — 68.3 acres This area of the site appears to be have been highly modified from its natural condition. This area was utilized as a sand mine, which removed material from the ground and resulted in a generally flat area. After the sand mine, the area was utilized as a palm tree farm. The area is vegetated with some of slash pine (Pinus elliottii), some laurel oaks (Quercus laurifolia), and cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto). The understory is composed of saw palmetto (Serenoa repens), broomsedge (Andropogon spp.), Bahia grass, gallberry (Ilex glabra), and grapevine (Vitus rotundifolia). The areas that were utilized as a palm tree farm now have several ornamental palm species including washingtonia palms (Washingtonia robusta). Many of these palms are greater than 20' in height. There is also xeric recruiting vegetation such as prickly pear cactus (Opuntia spp.), that probably comes from the remaining native elevation areas or the seed source within the soils. Brazilian Pepper (4220) — 7.9 acres This area of the parcel is dominated by a monoculture of Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius). The pepper is very dense. There is also some other forested vegetation including slash pine, laurel oak, and some exotic, terrestrial grasses. Reservoir <10 Acres (5340) — 7.6 acres These excavated reservoirs were created after the sand mine was completed. It is BKI's opinion that the area is surface water. Elevations onsite range from 20-34 feet NAVD. The tortoise burrows occur above the 20' elevation contour. A map of the available LIDAR elevation data is included as Figure 3. BK1 18016 Spirit of Sebastian — Gopher Tortoise Survey 2 SOILS There are seven (7) soil types found onsite (Figure 4). The following is a general descriptions of the soils, as described within the soil survey. 4—Immokalee fine sand Hydric Setting This is a nearly level (0 to 2% slopes), poorly drained soil of flats on marine terraces. There are fine sandy layers at a depth of 0 to 80 inches. Normally the water table is at a depth of 0 to 12 inches, with no chance of flooding or ponding. The native vegetation of these soils would be typical of pine flatwoods. This soil does meet hydric criteria. Non-Hydric Setting This is a nearly level (0 to 2% slopes), poorly drained soil on flatswoods on marine terraces. There are fine sandy layers at a depth of 0 to 80 inches. Normally the water table is at a depth of 6 to 18 inches, with no chance of flooding or ponding. The native vegetation of these soils would be typical of pine flatwoods. This soil does not meet hydric criteria. 11—St. Lucie sand, 0 to 8 percent slopes This is a steep (0 to 8% slopes), excessively drained soil of dunes and knolls on marine terraces. There are sandy layers at a depth of 0 to 80 inches. Normally the water table is at a depth of 80 inches, with no chance of flooding or ponding. The native vegetation of these soils would be typical of sand pine scrub. This soil does not meet hydric criteria. 12—Archbold sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes This is a steep (0 to 5% slopes), excessively drained soil of dunes and knolls on marine terraces. There are sandy layers at a depth of 80 inches. Normally the water table is at a depth of 42 to 72 inches, with no chance of flooding or ponding. The native vegetation of these soils would be typical of sand pine scrub. This soil does not meet hydric criteria. 21—Pomello sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes This is a steep (0 to 5% slopes), moderately well drained soil of knolls on marine terraces. There are sandy layers at a depth of 80 inches. Normally the water table is at a depth of 24 to 42 inches, with no chance of flooding or ponding. The native vegetation of these soils would be typical of sand pine scrub. This soil does not meet hydric criteria. 33—Astatula sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes This is a steep (0 to 5% slopes), excessively drained soil of ridges on marine terraces. There are sandy layers at a depth of 80 inches. Normally the water table is at a depth of 80 inches, with no chance of flooding or ponding. The native vegetation of these soils would be typical of sand pine scrub. This soil does not meet hydric criteria. 45—Myakka fine sand, frequently ponded, 0 to 1 percent slopes This is a nearly flat (0 to 1% slopes), very poorly drained soil of depressions on marine terraces. There are fine sandy layers at a depth of 80 inches. Normally the water table is at a depth of 0 inches, with no chance of flooding, but frequent ponding. The native vegetation of these soils would be typical of freshwater marshes and ponds. This soil does meet hydric criteria. BKI 18016 Spirit of Sebastian — Gopher Tortoise Survey 3 99—Water Much of the site includes soils that can be suitable habitat for gopher tortoises. GOPHER TORTOISE Gopher tortoises are listed by Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) as a Threatened species. FWC regulates the species (through Chapter 68A-27 FAC). Suitable gopher tortoise habitat typically includes the following three (3) factors: well -drained loose soil in which to burrow, adequate low -growing herbs for food, and open sunlit sites for nesting. Frequently gopher tortoises will utilize rural or disturbed lands for nesting and foraging. Several photographs have been included for illustration (Appendix A). DESCRIPTION OF SURVEY METHODOLOGY Pedestrian surveys were conducted throughout the entire site (---83.8 acres). The entire parcel area was surveyed for the presence of gopher tortoise burrows. This survey was done to encompass all of the available habitat in which tortoises could reside onsite. The undeveloped land provides adequate tortoise habitat. Evidence of tortoise usage was observed and noted by all of the following indicators: active tortoise burrows, tortoise scat, and critter trails in and around the ground cover. SURVEY RESULTS As a result of the survey, 105 adult gopher tortoise burrows and 2 juvenile burrows were identified within the parcel (Figure 5). These burrows were described as potentially active. A pink flag was placed above each burrow. The majority of the burrows were located within disturbed habitats including the large mined, tree farm area. According to FWC regulations and calculations, the 105 burrows can represent that there are approximately 53 tortoises located onsite. The effective density of gopher tortoises on the parcel is 1.4 gopher tortoise per acre according to FWC regulations. FWC regulations require that no taking of gopher tortoises is allowed. All gopher tortoises must be relocated from potential development areas. If burrows remain 25 feet or farther from the clearing or construction area, no permit is required. There cannot be any disturbance, clearing, or construction within 25 feet of any burrows. If burrows are going to be impacted, the tortoises must be relocated. GPS points were collected with a handheld unit that has limited accuracy and may not be the exact location. Tortoise burrows within any potential clearing or construction area will have to be relocated. A FWC Conservation Permit will have to be obtained for the site. Tortoises will be relocated to a long- term recipient site. The associated fees to be paid to FWC are estimated as $213 permit fee and $319 per adult tortoise after the first five. The FWC total will be approximately $15,525. If less than 53 adult tortoises are relocated the balance is refunded from FWC to the applicant minus 2% handling fee. BK1 18016 Spirit of Sebastian — Gopher Tortoise Survey 4 The recipient site costs vary with demand and typically range from $750-$950. Assuming relocating 55 tortoises at $900 per tortoise the recipient site costs will be approximately $49,500. Excavation of the burrows is estimated at approximately 10 days of digging. The excavation typically costs $2,200 per day for an excavator, operator, and the biologist. Total excavation cost is estimated at $22,000. The total relocation cost for Pods 1 and 2 of the site will be approximately $87,000. A survey is considered current for 90 days. Since tortoises will excavate new burrows at any time, it is suggested that care should be taken to not impact tortoise burrows if any clearing is taking place. This survey will be valid until November 22, 2018. If there are any questions or comments regarding the information included within this report, please feel free to contact me at (321) 951-7964 or via email at chrisharnden0vcfl.rr.com . Sincerely, Chris Hamden Project Manager/ Ecologist Attachments: Figure 1 - Vicinity / Aerial View Map Figure 2 - Land Use Map Figure 3 - LIDAR Elevation Map Figure 4 - NRCS Soils Survey Map Figure 5 - Gopher Tortoise Burrow Location Map Conceptual Plan — Carter Associates Appendix A - GPS Burrow Locations Appendix B - Photographs BKI 18016 Spirit of Sebastian — Gopher Tortoise Survey 5 BKI, INC. Consulting Ecologists 401 Ocean Avenue, Suite 204, Melbourne Beach, Florida 32951 William W. Kerr, President 321.951.7964 Office * 855.237.5281 Toll Free 321.951.8909 Fax www.bki-ecolopists.com August 23, 2018 Chuck Mechling Ridgewood Sebastian, LLC 5070 North Highway A 1 A RECEIVEp Suite C-1 Vero Beach, FL 32963 AUG 3 U 2018 Project: Spirit of Sebastian Comm l ty ty Deve opme,f Dept f 182 acres in Sections 7, 8, 17 and Township 31 South, Range 39 East Parcel ID: 31390700000100000005.0, 31390700000100000004.0, 31390700000700000010.0,31390700000700000011.0, 31390700000700000008.0,31390700000700000006.0, 31390700000100000010.0,31391700000300000010.0, 31391800000100000001.0,31390700000700000007.0, 31390700000700000012.0 Sebastian, Indian River County, Florida BKI File: #18016 Subject: Wetland and Endangered Species Assessment Dear Mr. Mechling: BKI, Inc. Consulting Ecologists (BKI) has completed an environmental assessment of the above referenced property. A site visit was conducted on August 16 and 22, 2018 to investigate the habitats onsite. The following is a summary of the conditions onsite and discussion of the soils, vegetative community types, potential endangered species occurring, and description of any conditions found during the site inspection which may affect development of the subject parcel. INTRODUCTION The subject parcel is located in the City of Sebastian, south of SR 512, west of Old Dixie Highway. The site is located in Sections 7, 8, 17, Township 31 South, and Range 39 East, in Indian River County, Florida (Figure 1). According the Indian River County Property Appraiser, the subject parcel acreage is listed as 182.87 acres. County property appraiser acreages can be slightly different from the GIS acreages that are calculated (GIS 181.97 ac). The site has been highly modified from its native condition. The historic aerials indicate the site was a large citrus grove until the mid 1990's. Between 1994 and 1999 the site was used as a sand mine. These land uses resulted in a radical change of the native topography. Mitigation/Conservation Bank Permitting * Land Management Plans * Environmental Assessments & Permitting GISIGPS Mapping * Wildlife Evaluations * Feasibility Studies * Wetland Assessments & Enhancements TOPOGRAPHY AND SOILS The USGS Topographic Map (5' contours) indicates the entire parcel is between 20' and 35' in elevation (NGVD). There is a 25' contour running north to south throughout the parcels and a 38' spot elevation located in the central portion of the site. The Sebastian topographic quadrangle is depicted in Figure 2. The quadrangle indicates that half of the site is located within an undeveloped area that is depicted as having varied topography. The other half of the site is depicted as being some type of grove. The map also indicates that there were some wetland areas on the western side of the site. This version of the map was produced in the late 1980's and is useful in determining if there is a potential for unique habitats onsite. The site appears to have wetlands located on the onsite. The forested wetland is located in the southwest corner of the site. To further evaluate the elevations of the site, Indian River County LiDAR data was overlayed on the aerial, Figure 3. The data indicates that the entire site is between 16' and 34' elevation (NAVD). This NAVD data is typically around 1.4 feet lower than the NGVD referenced USGS data. The LiDAR data was acquired after the site had undergone a mining operation, resulting in a modification of the native topography. This suggests the entire modified area of the site is relatively flat (20' to 24'). There are seven (7) soil types found onsite (Figure 4). The following is a general descriptions of the soils, as described within the soil survey. Again, the soil survey mapping reflects the native soil types of the site and not the mined, modified soils. 4—Immokalee fine sand Hydric Setting This is a nearly level (0 to 2% slopes), poorly drained soil of flats on marine terraces. There are fine sandy layers at a depth of 0 to 80 inches. Normally the water table is at a depth of 0 to 12 inches, with no chance of flooding or ponding. The native vegetation of these soils would be typical of hydric pine flatwoods. This soil does meet hydric criteria. Non-Hydric Setting This is a nearly level (0 to 2% slopes), poorly drained soil of flatswoods on marine terraces. There are fine sandy layers at a depth of 0 to 80 inches. Normally the water table is at a depth of 6 to 18 inches, with no chance of flooding or ponding. The native vegetation of these soils would be typical of mesic pine flatwoods. This soil does not meet hydric criteria. 11—St. Lucie sand, 0 to 8 percent slopes This is a steep (0 to 8% slopes), excessively drained soil of dunes and knolls on marine terraces. There are sandy layers at a depth of 0 to 80 inches. Normally the water table is at a depth of 80 inches, with no chance of flooding or ponding. The native vegetation of these soils would be typical of sand pine scrub. This soil does not meet hydric criteria. 12—Archbold sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes This is a steep (0 to 5% slopes), excessively drained soil of dunes and knolls on marine terraces. There are sandy layers at a depth of 80 inches. Normally the water table is at a 2 depth of 42 to 72 inches, with no chance of flooding or ponding. The native vegetation of these soils would be typical of sand pine scrub. This soil does not meet hydric criteria. 21—Pomello sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes This is a steep (0 to 5% slopes), moderately well drained soil of knolls on marine terraces. There are sandy layers at a depth of 80 inches. Normally the water table is at a depth of 24 to 42 inches, with no chance of flooding or ponding. The native vegetation of these soils would be typical of sand pine scrub. This soil does not meet hydric criteria. 33--Astatula sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes This is a steep (0 to 5% slopes), excessively drained soil of ridges on marine terraces. There are sandy layers at a depth of 80 inches. Normally the water table is at a depth of 80 inches, with no chance of flooding or ponding. The native vegetation of these soils would be typical of sand pine scrub. This soil does not meet hydric criteria. 45—Myakka fine sand, frequently ponded, 0 to 1 percent slopes This is a nearly flat (0 to 1% slopes), very poorly drained soil of depressions on marine terraces. There are fine sandy layers at a depth of 80 inches. Normally the water table is at a depth of 0 inches, with no chance of flooding, but frequent ponding. The native vegetation of these soils would be typical of freshwater marshes and ponds. This soil does meet hydric criteria. 49—Pompano fine sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes This is a relatively flat (0 to 2% slopes), poorly drained soil of depressions on marine terraces. There are fine sandy layers at a depth of 80 inches. Normally the water table is at a depth of 0 to 6 inches, with no chance of flooding or ponding. The native vegetation of these soils would be typical of flats of mesic and hydric lowlands. This soil does meet hydric criteria. The presence of hydric soils in the survey can suggest that wetlands can be located on the subject site. The difference of the hydric and non-hydric variants of the Immokalee fine sand is probably a 3-6" change in the average elevation. The soil survey map indicates the potential of hydric soils onsite. In the case of this site, there are mapped hydric soils present. The mapped soils do not represent the soils that are generally present onsite. The parcels were used for a sand mine and much of the soils have been modified from their native conditions. Analysis of soils during the site visit indicate there are hydric soils onsite with indicators such as stripped matrix, muck, and oxidation. Generally, the groundwater was 120 inches or more below the ground surface. VEGETATION and COMMUNITY TYPES Natural vegetation grows in particular associations that can be classified into ecological units known as "communities", and various land uses can be categorized into descriptive classifications. The communities and land uses incorporated into the surveyed area were designated by BKI using the Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System 3 (FLUCFCS) (FDOT 1999) as a guideline. It should be noted that variations between the published FLUCFCS descriptions and the actually occurring onsite land use/communities may exist; consequently, the classifications which came closest to the observed onsite land uses/communities were chosen, but may not match precisely. The acreages calculated are determined by Geographic Information Systems (GIS) analysis and are approximate. The Land Use map is based on the dominant vegetation or characteristics observed in the field. The location of these land use/communities are depicted on Figure S. Pictures from the site are included in Appendix A. The limits of the wetland area were estimated during the site visit and may be larger or smaller. The historic maps give an indication that the site was historically the coastal dune and most likely supported higher elevation sand pine scrub. Table 1: Land Use Types Located Onsite. Code Description Acres 1500 Industrial 0.6 2240 Abandoned Grove 132.4 3200 Shrub and Brushland 13.5 4220 Brazilian Pepper 19.6 5340 Reservoir <10 acres 13.0 6190 Exotic Wetland Hardwoods 2.0 7410 Rural Land in Transition 0.9 182.0 Industrial Buildings (1500) — 0.6 acres The area of the site is comprised of two buildings. The buildings appear to have been part of the grove and palm farm, housing equipment and materials. The area is vegetated with a canopy of laurel (Quercus laurifolia) and live oaks (Quercus virginiana) and cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto). The understory is composed of upland grasses. Abandoned Grove (2240) —132.4 acres This area of the site appears to be have been highly modified from its natural condition. This area was utilized as a sand mine, which removed material from the ground and resulted in a generally flat area. After the sand mine, the area was utilized as a palm tree farm. The area is vegetated with some of slash pine (Pinus elliottii), some laurel oaks (Quercus laurifolia), and cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto). The understory is composed of saw palmetto (Serenoa repens), broomsedge (Andropogon spp.), Bahia grass, gallberry (Ilex glabra), and grapevine (Vitus rotundifolia). The areas that were utilized as a palm tree farm now have several ornamental palm species including washingtonia palms (Washingtonia robusta). Many of these palms are greater than 20' in height. There is also xeric recruiting vegetation such as prickly pear cactus (Opuntia spp.), that probably comes from the remaining native elevation areas or the seed source within the soils. Shrub and Brushland (3200) —13.5 acres This portion of the site has native, upland vegetation. The area is vegetated with scrub oak (Quercus spp.), wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), prickly pear cactus, and sand pine (Pinus clausa). These areas include portions that have been cleared, but that the natural 4 elevation has not been modified. There are large live oaks in some of these areas. Most of the area is 8' or more above the modified elevation, sand mine areas of the site. Brazilian Pepper (4220) —19.6 acres This area of the parcel is dominated by a monoculture of Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius). The pepper is very dense. There is also some other forested vegetation including slash pine, laurel oak, and some exotic, terrestrial grasses. Reservoir <10 Acres (5340) —13.0 acres These excavated reservoirs were created after the sand mine was completed. It is BKI's opinion that the areas will be considered surface waters. Exotic Wetland Hardwoods (6190) — 2.0 acres This portion of the site has exotic wetland vegetation. The area is vegetated mostly with Melaluca (Melaleuca quinquenervia), with some Carolina willow (Salix carolinana). It is BKI's opinion that the area is wetland. The areas would be considered low quality. Rural Land in Transition (7410) — 0.9 acres This portion of the site has exotic, terrestrial grasses. This area has been cleared. The cleared area is now vegetated by herbaceous plants. THREATENED and ENDANGERED SPECIES A preliminary review of literature pertaining to threatened and endangered species as listed by Freshwater Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) and United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) was completed in addition to the site visit. During the site visit, the habitats onsite were evaluated for the likelihood that they would support listed species. Table 2: Potential Listed S )ecies Common Name Scientific Name Eastern Indigo Snake Drrmarchon couperi Gopher Tortoise Gopherus pol}Rhemus Florida Scrub -Jays Aphelocoma coerulescens State Protection Threatened Threatened Federal Protection Threatened Threatened Because of the location and current site conditions, it is anticipated that listed species could utilize the parcel. Indigo snakes have large territories and can utilize habitats like scrub, pine flatwoods, and wetlands. There are some shrub and brush areas that are at native elevations, but impacted vegetation. No scrub jays or quality scrub jay habitat was observed onsite. Gopher tortoise burrows were observed onsite. Over 160 burrows were documented onsite. There will be many more burrows documented when a 100% survey is completed for the Pod 2 and 3 areas. It is anticipated permitting will be required regarding impacts to listed species. Current Florida regulations require that gopher tortoises be relocated out of development areas. This requires burrows to be excavated in order to capture the tortoises onsite. Burrows are considered to be affected by development if they are within 25' of any construction activities. FWC has the regulatory jurisdiction over protection of the tortoises. 5 SUMMARY It is BKI's opinion wetlands are located onsite. The regulatory agencies that will have jurisdiction will most likely be the City of Sebastian, St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD), and potentially U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE). Permits and approvals for development will have to be obtained from these agencies. The uplands onsite make up approximately 180 acres. The majority of the site has been highly modified from its natural condition. The sand mine operation removed large amounts of material and also graded the majority of the site to a relatively flat elevation. The operation also created the four surface waters located onsite. If the wetlands onsite are avoided and have a 25' upland buffer then there will be no impact to the wetlands. The wetland areas are located in the proposed Pod 5 that will be developed at a later date. The Surface Waters located in Pods 1 and 2 are proposed to be modified in shape. It is anticipated that these modifications would be viewed as temporary impacts, not requiring mitigation. The development of the parcel would cause direct impacts to Listed Species. USFWS standard precautions would have to be taken in order to not impact indigo snakes. Gopher tortoises will have to be relocated out of the development area. There will be FWC fees, recipient site fees, and the costs of the burrow excavations. These estimated costs could be upwards of $75,000 for the Pod 1 and 2 areas. If you have any questions or you would like to discuss our report in more detail, please contact our office at (321) 951-7964. Sincerely, 04A-4 f/-44-44&10 Chris Harnden Project Manager / Ecologist Attachments: Figure 1 — Aerial /Location Map Figure 2 — USGS Topographic Map Figure 3 — LiDAR Topographic Map Figure 4 — NRCS Soil Survey Map Figure 5 — Current Land Use Map Conceptual Plan Appendix A - Site Photographs 1.1 TABLE OF CONTENTS LETTER OF i 1.0 INTRODUCTION-------------------- ------------------__-----___ .-------- 1.1 PCIRPf)4E-----------------_---_.�—_------------------_----------_---_- I 1.2 SCOPE OF SERVICES---------------- ---------------------------- --- 1 1.3 INFORMATION SOURCES_ —__— ------------- ----- ------- -------- 3 1.4 3 2.0 PHYSICAL SITE DESCRIPTION-------------------- -- 4. 2.1 GENERAL SITE s 2.2 STORAGE TANKS6 2.3 POLYCHLORINATED BIPENYLS---------------- 7 2.4 ACM's AND LEAD PAINT TESTING------------------------------ 8 2.5 8 3.0 ADJACENT LAND 9 4.0 SITE HISTORY AND RECORDS REVIEW----------- 9 4.1 OWNERSHIP AND USAGE---------------------------------------- 9 4.2 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY -------------------------------------. r_ 9 4.3 REGULATORY REVIEW ----------- -------------- __--- ------------- 10 5.0 CONCLUSION ____--_._._..._-------------------- ------ --------- ---------- 11 6.0 12 APPENDICES APPENDIX A MAPS, SITE PLANS, AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS APPENDIX B SITE ASSESSMENT REPORTS APPENDIX C PHOTOGRAPHS APPENDIX D INSPECTION REPORT HYDROCARBON ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 20 RIO DE PALMAS FT. PIERCE, FL. 34951 PHONE 772-448-8131 Insite Solutions Vero Beach, FL. 32963 Attn: Mr. Robert Votaw, Manager RE: Phase I Environmental Assessment Spirit of Sebastian Property Old Dixie Highway Sebastian, FL.32958 Dear Sirs: September 24, 2018 Hydrocarbon Environmental consultants have completed the environmental inspection for the above referenced property following ASTM Guidelines E-1527-13. To the best of our knowledge and belief, the facts and data used in this inspection are true and accurate, based on the available information as of the inspection date. The undersigned understands that Insite Solutions is relying upon the contents of the report in making a loan secured by or affecting the subject property. You may rely upon the accuracy of the report consistent with the terms, conditions, limitations and exceptions set for within it. Hydrocarbon Environmental appreciates the opportunity to have been of service and looks forward to working with you in the future. Should you have any questions or comments regarding this Environmental Site Assessment, please feel free to contact this office at (772) 448-8131 Sincerely, ItOteW2714,1.47 William R. Martin, Pres. Hydrocarbon Environmental, Inc. HYDROCARBON ENVIRONMENTAL,, INC. 20 Rio de Palmas Ft. Pierce, FL 34951 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this environmental site assessment was to investigate the potential environmental liabilities associated with the subject site, and/or environmental liabilities to the subject property site caused by adjacent site activities. 1.2 SCOPE OF SERVICES The following represents the scope of services authorized by the client and performed as part of this investigation. 1.2.1 SITE RECONNAISSANCE Hydrocarbon Environmental conducted a visual site inspection for the presence of any undergrocund storage tanks (US'I`), aboveground tanks (AST), electrical equipment, vegetative distress, point and non -point sources of waste discharge, waste disposal, hazardous materials., and any evidence of other possible environmental concern,. Features of concern were documented by environmental assessment report and photographs. 1.2.2 SITE HYDROLOGY REVIEW Hydrocarbon Environmental conducted a review of existing features and available hydro -geologic information as they relate, to the potential onvironme.tital concenis at the subject site. 1.2.3 AI;RIAI, PHOTO REWIEW{ l lydrocarbon E-mvironniental conducted interviews with individu€cls with knowledge of the area to assess the environmental impact of past or present site usage or contents. 12.4 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY SEARCH Hydrocarbon Environmental conducted a review of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) listing for the appearance of the subject site. hydrocarbon Environmental conducted a review of the FDEP records to determine if the site ever experienced any environmental violations. 0 HYDROCARBON ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. 20 Rio de Palmas Ft. Pierce, FL 34951 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY RECORD SEARCH Hydrocarbon Environmental conducted a review of the Indian River County records which may reveal information on past incidence that may have occurred on the subject site. 1.3 INFORMATION SOURCE Search of land use, geologic information, hydrologic information, and environmental conditions of the subject site was accomplished through the following sources: A,) Indian River County Engineering Department review of all available and applicable aerial photographs from 2000 to present. D) Indian River County Department of Environmental Resources records review. C) The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), National Priorities List (NPL). D) Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS). 1.4 AUTHORIZATION This Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was authorized by Mr. Robert Votaw of Spirit of Sebastian, LLC. The extent of services supplied by Hydrocarbon Environmental was specified by the client and has been outlined above as the scope of services. 2 HYDROCARBON ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. 20 Rio de Paimas Ft. Pierce, FL 34951 9 2.0 PHYSICAL SITE DESCRIPTION The subject parcels are basically rectangular in shape with good access from US Ilwy #1 and Old Dixie Rwy. POD I contains approximately 56 acres. POD 2 contains approximately 22 acres all located in Section 07, Township 31 and Range 39 of Indian River County, Florida. Thesite visit was conducted by William R. Martin on September 21, 2018. At the time of the site visit, the weather was clear and warm. The site visit consisted of a slow inspection of the subject property and an inspection of surrounding propenics. (See inspection flonns Appendix D). The groundi of the subject property show no indication of ve-getative distress which could be attributed to spillage or leakage of environmentally h,,wardous materials. 2.1 GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS The parcels are vacant land and recently mowed. used on a review of the U.S. Department of Agriculture soil survey of Indian River County, the subject site consists of mainly classified urban land. More than seventy percent (701/6) of this miscellaneous area is covered by urban facilities, such as shopping centers, parking lots, industrial buildings, houses, streets, sidewalks, airports, and related facilities. The natural soil cannot be observed. Soils in the unoccupied areas in this map unit, such as lawns, vacant lots, playgrounds, and parks, mostly consist of astatula, Boca, eaugallie, Paola, and St. Lucie soils. These soils generally have been altered by grading and shaping or have been covered to a depth of about 12 inches of fill material. This fill material consists of sandy and loamy materials that in places contain limestone and shell fragments. These areas of soils are so small that it was not practical to map them separate. Generally, groundwater flows from Lake Okeechobee to the Atlantic Ocean in this region of South Florida. 9 3 HYDROCARBON ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. 20 Rio de Palmas Ft. fierce, FL 34951 2.2 STORAGE TANKS Based on environmental records revie , intervie d visual inspection, there was no evidence of underground or aboveground storage tanks on the subject property. 2.3 POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYL (PCBs) VACANT LAND The insulating oil used in some electrical transformers and fluorescent light ballast may contain PCBs. Even though the use of PCBs in dielectric fluids was discontinued in the United States in 1977, the potential exists for these transformers and ballasts to contain PCBs. Fluorescent light ballasts may contain small quantities of PCBs; therefore, they are a potential concern in large numbers or if they begin leaking. However, since no evidence or damage or leaking was observed, they do not pose an irnmedi.ate concern. Inspection of the outside power transformers appeared in good condition with no signs of leakage or soil staining. 2.4 ASBESTOS -CONTAINED MATERIALS (ACM s) NA An asbestos survey was not part of this assessment. The only way to positively qualify and quantify asbestos containing materials (RCM's) in building material is to perform a comprehensive ACM survey. A comprehensive survey must be performed prior to any future building renovation or demolition. 2.6 UTILITIES Telephone service by AT&T and power by FPL_ 2.6 SOLID OR HAZARDOUS WASTE The grounds of the subject property show no indication of vegetative distress which could be attributed to the spillage or leakage of hazardous materials. 4. 4 HYDROCARBON ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. 20 Rio do Palmas Ft. Pietro, F1, 34951 3.0 ADJACENT LAND USE North 'Vacant Land South Residential East Residential West Vacant Land 4.0 SITE HISTORY AND RECORDS REVIEW 4.1 OWNERSHIP AND USAGE Hydrocarbon consultants conducted interviews with managers familiar with the operations of the subiect site. This was performed to gather information regarding the current and prior usage of the subject site and adjacent sites as they affect the subject site. There were no , indications from interviews of any prior usage of these properties that would pose environmental liability to the subject site. 4.2 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY On September 21, 2018, Hydrocarbon consultants reviewed all available applicable Indian River County aerial photographs of the subject property.. Review of photographs did not indicate that the site was adversely impacted by past land use or fill activities. 4.3 REGULATORY REVIEW Review included: Comprehensive Environmental Response (CERLIS) National Priorities List (NPL) State registered underground storage list (UST) State leaking underground storage incident reports (LUST) State hazardous waste sites (SMS) in addition, interviews were conducted with officials from these agencies to obtain specific information about areas located on or near the subject site with reported problems. These reviews indicated there are no environmental problems involving the subject site. M HYDROCARBON ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. 20 Rio de Palmas Ft. Pierce, FL 34951 J 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Hydrocarbon Environmental, Inc. conducted a review of the available information, i.e. visual site inspection; USGS map, soil -type map review, environmental records review, and aerial photo, and found no signs which may pose environmental liabilities to the subject sites at the present time. No records of any environmental enforcement action or citations regarding the subject site were found during the review of the available county, state and federal records. Low Risk No REC'S at this time William R. Martin, President A- Q, tl' a /?; Vk' //, 9 - Hydrocarbon Environmental, Inc. C HYDROCARBON ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. 20 Otto de Palmas Ft. Pierce, FL 34951 6.0 QUALIFICATIONS Our professional services have been performed and our findings obtained in accordance with customary principles and practices in the finds of environmental science and engineering. This company is not responsible for the independent conclusions, opinions, or recommendations made by ethers based on future field exploration and/or laboratory testing. Additionally, the passage of time may result in a change ite the environmental. characteristics at the site and surrounding properties. 7 A IDorri Bosworth From: Kim Haigler Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2014 4.32 PM To: Dorri Bosworth Subject: FW: SOS Environmental Report Notes Dorri, eThe following are my notes after reviewing the phase I &.11 environmental reports for the Spirit of Sebastian Subdivision. Please let me know if you have any further questions. NPhase I: Hvdrocarbon Environmental • Needs to include the parcel with Old Dixie Access • Needs to address the past uses of this site besides the sand mine and the palm tree farm, with a timeframe for each • A record of the "interviews conducted" needs to be included in the. report • The Phase II report shows evidence of a pump shed and irrigation lines, yet it is stated in the inspection report that there are none • It is mentioned that there was previously a palm tree farm, yet the inspection report indicates that there have been no agricultural uses of the property in 10 years • 1 am fairly certain that this property was used for cattle prior to being mined for sand, documentation of any chemical use, chemical storage, and potential cattle dip areas related to cattle and agricultural uses must be included. Phase II: BKI Environmental • A section of this property, along the western border, was designated in 2000, by the FWC as a scrub jay "core conservation area." Therefore, it is recommended that an official scrub jay survey be conducted, per the FWC guidelines, using local dialect. Kimberly Haigler Environmental Tedinician k oom0d"fsebania (772) 388- 8206 For answen to your questions about Sebastiads Naturd Resources, visit h swww"bastiannrb.comJ SEBASTLA tN [TOME OF PELICAN ISLAND I The City of Sebastian Community Development Depaexnent 122S Main St. Sebastian, FL 32858 1 HYDROCARBON ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 20 RIO DE PALMAS FT. PIERCE, FL. 34951 PHONE 772-448-8131 Spirit of Sebastian, LLC Vero Beach, FL RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM KIMBERLY HAIGLER 8-01-2019 1. Environmental Walk-thru 10-03-2019 Old Dixie parcel NO Environmental Problems at subject parcel (ENCLOSED) 2. Timeline enclosed from Mr. Brown 3. Telephone conversation conducted 10-03-2019 with Mr. Brown October 4, 2019 4. Revised from Phase 1 report. In telephone conservation with FDEP Irrigation well and private resident well do not pose environmental liabilities 5. Timeline enclosed from Mr. Brown past ten years 6. Conversation with Mr. Brown no cattle dip vats where never on property EDR records do not show cattle dip vats (ENCLOSED) Thanks, �0.,904- William R. Martin, President Hydrocarbon Environmental, Inc. RECEIVED OCT 10 2019 City of Sebastian Community Development Dept. MCI HOME OF PELICAN ISLAND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 1225 MAIN STREET ■ SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32958 TELEPHONE (772) 589-5518 w FAX (772) 388-8248 www.cityofsebastion.org MEMORANDUM TO: Local Planning Agency (Planning and Zoning Commission) RE: Proposed Land Development Code Amendment to Article V — Zoning District Regulations; specifically Section 54-2-5.10 Size and dimension criteria DATE: November 13, 2020 Currently, the Land Development Code establishes building height as measured from the Finish Floor Elevation (FFE) to the highest point of the building, i.e. roof ridgeline, excluding permitted architectural embellishments, antennas, and rooftop mechanical equipment, etc. Buildings located in the Special Flood Hazard Areas are measured from the base flood elevation (BFE) also to roof ridgeline. In 2017, the 6a' edition of the Florida Building Code (FBC) was adopted by the State, which, amongst other updates and revisions, and in consideration of FEMA requirements, added additional regulations regarding minimum FFE's for buildings located within Special Flood Hazard Areas. Finished Floor Elevations are required to be raised an additional 12 inches from an established BFE. Also, the bottom of support beams of structures within Flood Hazard V Zones must be above the established BFE. We have recently been approached by contractors who are having difficulties in applying the FBC requirements for properties in the SFHA — mostly along the riverfront - while trying to coordinate building height as the LDC defines it, and still design a home with desired wall sizes and roof pitches. Staff researched other coastal municipalities and their building height measurement regulations and found that many had updated their codes to include consideration of the current FBC requirements. (See attached). We would like to highlight that the proposed Ordinance does not change the maximum building height allowed in any zoning district, and will not affect any of the residential areas. A first reading of the Ordinance has been tentatively scheduled for City Council on December 9'h, 2020. Dorri Bosworth, Manager/Planner Community Development Department ORDINANCE NO.O-20-03 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA, AMENDING LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 54-2-5.10(2), SIZE AND DIMENSION CRITERIA, REGARDING ESTABLISHING STARTING POINTS FOR BUILDING HEIGHT MEASUREMENT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND REPEAL OF LAWS IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION; PROVIDING FOR SCRIVENER'S ERRORS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Council finds it is in the public interest to modify and update certain sections of the code; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to coordinate building height regulations with the requirements of the Florida Building Code regarding properties located in a Special Flood Hazard Area; and WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on November 19, 2020, and made a recommendation to City Council to Ordinance 0-20-03. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows: Section 1. That the Land Development Code, City of Sebastian, Florida, is hereby amended as follows: ARTICLE V. ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS Sec. 54-2-5.10. - Size and dimension criteria. (2) Height regulations and exceptions thereto. The teFm "building " nstrartion grade whiehever is-gr-eaterof an f-a r+z g t point of the building, not ; ,,ludi g these .,tm turos. sp3ci€eally wed *A ex and beyond the hoight of the buikl ng 1 dist.,«ee f:-.,.,., the re re,i base 41ee,7 ete., t;e« to the highest pei«t of the building net ; e1udi these stf eyffes n e;f;e.,ll„ «e,-.,.;tte.l to ex4end beyond the l.,e;e.l.,t of the 1.,,,;l.lk-Ig The term "building height" as used in the land development regulations shall mean the vertical distance from the highest elevation of either: 1) The minimum Finished Floor Elevation as required in the Code of Ordinances Section 26-1 • or 2) The average construction &rade of a site where fill is required by another governmental agency: or 3 The base flood elevation plus one foot as required by the Florida Building Code: or 4) The base flood elevation plus 18 inches if located within a Coastal High Hazard Area (;V Zone), measured to the highest point of the building, not including those structures s ecifically permitted to the extend beyond the height of the building2. Chimneys and radio and television antennas may exceed height limitations upon the prior approval of the Community Development Department staff and the City Engineer based on the compliance with all other applicable technical codes. Steeples, silos, windmills, ventilators, water tanks, cupolas and other appurtenances usually required to be placed above the roof level and not intended for human occupancy or use may exceed height limitations for the respective zoning district by no more than twenty (20) percent upon the prior approval of the Planning and Zeiiing city staff. All apparatus exceeding height limitations by more than twenty (20) percent for the applicable zoning district height restrictions shall require variance approval by the Board of Adjustment. In no event, however, shall any permitted heights be in conflict with the height regulations established by flight angles of state -approved airports in the city. All permitted heights shall comply with all requirements of the Federal Aviation Authority and the Federal Communications Commission. Section 2. Severability. In the event a court of competent jurisdiction shall determine that any part of this Ordinance is invalid, the remainder of the Ordinance shall not be affected and it shall be presumed that the City Council of the City of Sebastian did not intend to enact such invalid provision. It shall further be assumed that the City Council would have enacted the remainder of this Ordinance without said invalid provision, thereby causing said remainder to remain in full force and effect. Section 3. Repeal of Laws in Conflict. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. Section 4. Codification. The sections of the ordinance shall be codified within part of the City Land Development Code and may be renumbered or re -lettered to accomplish such, and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section," "division," or any other appropriate word. Section 5. Scrivener's Errors. Sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or re -lettered and corrections of typographical errors which do not affect the intent may be authorized by the City Manager, or the 2 City Manager's designee, without need of public hearing, by filing a corrected or re -codified copy of same with the City Clerk. Section 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its adoption by the City Council. The foregoing Ordinance was moved for adoption by Councilmember . The motion was seconded by Councilmember and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Councilmember Ed Dodd Councilmember Jim Hill Councilmember Fred Jones Councilmember Bob McPartlan Councilmember Christopher Nunn The Mayor thereupon declared this Ordinance duly passed and adopted this day of , 2021. ATTEST: Jeanette Williams, MMC City Clerk CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA e Mayor, Approved as to form and legality for reliance by the City of Sebastian only: Manny Anon, Jr., Esq. City Attorney 3 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS § 26-2 ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL Sec. 26-1. Floor elevations. (a) The minimum floor elevation of residential, duplex, multiple -family residences, motels, or hotels constructed in the city shall be no less than 18 inches above the crown of the abutting improved street, and no less than six feet above mean sea level, whichever is the higher elevation. Specific standards for properties located in a flood zone shall be in accordance with chapter 46 floods. (b) The minimum floor elevation of commercial and industrial structures, private or public garages, cabanas, utility rooms, storage rooms and similar structures constructed in the city shall be no less than six inches above the crown of the abutting improved street. The elevations of floors where alley right-of-way exists shall not be less than six inches above alley paving. The floor elevation cited under subsection (a) of this section shall comply with the elevations specified in this subsection and shall be no less than six feet above mean sea level, whichever is the higher elevation. Specific standards for properties located in a flood zone shall be in accordance with chapter 46 floods. (c) The federal flood insurance rate maps, as amended, for the city are hereby incorporated into this Code by specific reference, a copy of which shall be available for inspection by the public in the office of community development. (Ord. No. 0-12-08, § 1, 8-22-12) BUILDING HEIGHT MEASUREMENT REGULATIONS - EXAMPLES: Citv of Vero Beach: Sec. 60.15. - Building height measurements. (a) Rules applicable to measurement of building heights. Except where specifically modified by other provisions of this title, the regulations of this section shall govern the measurement of building heights. (b) Starting point for height measurements. The starting point for measurement of any building height shall be whichever is the highest elevation of the following: (1) The existing weighted average grade elevation of the property; (2) The base flood elevation; (3) The base flood elevation plus 18 inches, if located within a coastal high hazard area (V Zone); (4) The required Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) elevation plus 18 inches, if located seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line; or, (5) 18 inches above the crown of the nearest adjoining improved road. Citv of Delrav Beach: (2) The base building elevation, specifically for the measurement of building height, is defined as the highest point for the following site conditions: (Ord. No. 02-19, § 22, 4-16-19) (a) For sites not located within a FEMA designated special flood hazard area (SFHA), the base building elevation shall be a minimum of 18 inches (or less with approval by the City Engineer) and a maximum of 30 inches (which allows for 12 inches of freeboard) above the mean elevation of the crown of the street along the lot frontage or the average of the mean elevation of the crowns of the streets for lots with multiple lot frontages. (Ord. No. 02-19,._§_2, 4-16-19) Base Building Elevation: Not within a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) n Max Height a —I Base Building Elevation Average Crown of Road i m x a NC 2 m .12'Max Op Tonal Freeboard 18' , Req. Floor Sevation (b) For sites located within a FEMA designated SFHA, as amended, the base building elevation is established as the higher of the following: (Ord. No. 19 18 , § 2, 6-19-18; Ord. No. 02-19,-§2, 4-16-19) (i) The minimum required base flood elevation, as required by FEMA and the Florida Building Code (FBC), as amended, and allowing up to 12 inches for freeboard; or, (Ord. No. 15-18 , § 2, 6-19-18; Ord. No. 02-19,_§ 2, 4-16- 19) Base Building Elevation: Within a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) In Max Height,:,—� � t rn x v� c v d3 Lowest Horizontal Structural Member Base Building Elevation I 12'Max Optional Freeboard Base Flood Elevation 12' FBC Elevation `Ca � n: rir.nniar uartfi 0' NAVD INMW ttttttttttttti The average crest of the dune located within the property limits, measured from north to south on the subject site. Any portion of the structure between the minimum required base flood elevation and the point of the average crest of the dune shall not be included in the height measure of the buildings on the subject site. (Ord. No. 15-18 , § 2, 6-19-18; Ord. No. 02-19,_, 4-16-19)