PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION (P&Z)

Patrick Michael Grall-District 1 Jonathan Day-District 4 Kenneth A. "Chip" Landers-District 3 Angela Waldrop-District 5

Todd Brognano-Member at Large, Vice Chairman Jordan Benson Stewart - Member at Large

Shawn Frost - Non-voting liaison School Board

Alan S. Polackwich, Sr.-District 2, Chairman

The Planning and Zoning Commission will meet at 7:00 p.m. on THURSDAY, May 10, 2018, in the County Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, 1801 27th Street, Vero Beach.

THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SHALL ADJOURN NO LATER THAN 11 :00 P.M. UNLESS THE MEETING IS EXTENDED OR CONTINUED TO A TIME CERTAIN BY A COMMISSION VOTE.

ITEM #1

ITEM#2

ITEM#3

ITEM#4

AGENDA

CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

A. April 26, 2018

ITEM NOT ON CONSENT

A. Arabella Reserve Subdivision: Request for preliminary plat approval for a conventional 71-lot single family subdivision. GHO Arabella Reserve Corp, Owner. Schulke, Bittle & Stoddard, Agent. Located at the southeast comer of 58th

Avenue/49th Street intersection. Zoning: RS-6, Residential Single-Family (up to 6 units/acre). Land Use Designation: M-2, Medium-Density Residential-2 (up to 10 units/acre). Density: 2.58 units/acre (SD-18-01-02 / 2003060207-80394) [Quasi­Judicial]

F:\Community Developmcnt\CurDev\P&Z\Agenda & Lists 2018\5-10-18 agenda.doc 1

ITEM #5

ITEM#6

ITEM#7

ITEM#8

ITEM#9

PUBLIC HEARING

A. Harmony Reserve PD: Request to rezone approximately 2.18 acres from RS-3, Residential Single-Family(upto 3 units/acre) andRM-6 (Residential Single-Family (up to 6 unit/acre), to PD, Planned Development Residential, and to Modify the Conceptual and Preliminary PD Plan Approvals for the Project known as Harmony Reserve PD. Harmony Reserve, LLC, Owner. Schulke, Bittle & Stoddard, LLC, Agent. The 2.18 acres is located on the south side of 3 7th Street just west of 59th

Avenue. Zoning: RS-3, Residential Single-Family (up to 3 units/acre) and RM-6 (Residential Single-Family (up to 6 unit/acre). Land Use Designation: L-2, Low Density 2 (up to 6 units/acre). Density: 3.32 units/gross acre [PD-18-04-02 / 97080101-81067] [Quasi-Judicial]

COMMISSIONERS MATTERS

PLANNING MATTERS

A. Planning Information Package

ATTORNEY'S MATTERS

ADJOURNMENT

Except for those matters specifically exempted under the State Statute and Local Ordinance, The Commission shall provide an opportunity for public comment prior to the undertaking by the Commission of any action on the agenda, including those matters on Consent Agenda or matters added to the agenda at the meeting.

ANYONE WHO MAY WISH TO APPEAL ANY DECISION, WHICH MAY BE MADE AT THIS MEETING, WILL NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS rs MADE, WHICH INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE ON WHICH THE APPEAL IS BASED.

ANYONE WHO NEEDS A SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION FOR THIS l\1EETING MUST CONTACT THE COUNTY'S AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) COORDINATOR AT 772-226-1223, AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING.

Meeting may be broadcast live on Comcast Cable Channel 2 7 - may be rebroadcast continuously Saturday 7 :00 p.m. until Sunda morning 7:00 a.m. Meetin broadcast same as above on Comcast Broadband, Channel 27 in Sebastian.

F:\Community Development\CurDev\F&Z\Agenda & Lists 2018\5-10·18 agenda.doc 2

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION

There was a meeting of the Indian River County {IRC) Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) on Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 7:00 p.m. in the Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, 1801 27th Street, Vero Beach, Florida. You may hear an audio of the meeting; review the meeting agenda, backup material and the minutes on the Indian River County website www.ircgov.com/Boards/PZC/2015.

Present ·were members: Chairman Alan Polackwich Sr., District 2 Appointee; Vice Chairman Todd Brognano, Member-At-Large; Mr. Patrick Grall, District 1 Appointee; Mr. Chip Landers, District 3 Appointee; Dr. Jonathan Day, District 4 Appointee; Ms. Angela Waldrop, District 5 Appointee; and Mr. Jordan Stewart, Member-at-Large.

Mr. Shawn Frost, non-voting School Board Liaison, was absent.

Also present was IRC staff: Mr. Bill DeBraal, Deputy County Attorney; Mr. Stan Boling, Community Development Director; Mr. John McCoy, Chief of Current Development; Mr. Ryan Sweeney, Senior Planner of Current Development; and Ms. Lisa Carlson, Recording Secretary.

Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance

The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and all stood for the Pledge of Allegiance.

Additions and Deletions to the Agenda

There were none

Approval of Minutes

ON MOTION BY Dr. Day, SECONDED BY Mr. Brognano, the members voted unanimously (7 ~O) to approve the minutes of the March 22, 2018 meeting as presented.

Public Hearing

Chairman Polackwich read the following into the record:

A. CERTUS of Vero Beach Adult Congregate Living Facility: Request for conceptual site plan and special exception use approval for a sixty-four­bed adult congregate living facility (ACLF). Vero 53 Landings, LLC, Owner. MCP Design, LLC, Agent. Located within The Landings

PZC/Unapproved 1 April 26, 2018

Commercial Subdivision at the northeast corner of 53rd Street and US Highway 1. Zoning: CG, General Commercial. Land Use Designation: C/1, Commercial/Industrial. (SP-SE-17-08-15 / 2016070073-79431). [Quasi-Judicial]

Chairman Polackwich asked the Commissioners to reveal any ex-parte communication with the applicant or any conflict that would not allow them to make an unbiased decision. He disclosed that he lived in the nearby Grand Harbor subdivision.

The secretary administered the testimonial oath to those present who wished to speak at tonight's meeting on this matter.

Mr. Ryan Sweeney, Senior Planner of Current Development, reviewed information regarding the request for conceptual site plan and special exception use approval and gave a PowerPoint presentation, copies of which are on file in the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) Office. He recommended that the Commissioners grant special exception approval for an ACLF to be known as CERTUS of Vero Beach with conditions stated in the staff report.

Mr. Stan Boling, Community Development Director and Mr. Ryan Sweeney responded to inquiries from the commissioners regarding the proposed request.

ON MOTION BY Mr. Brognano, SECONDED BY Mr. Stewart, the members voted unanimously (7-0) to approve staff recommendations on this Quasi­Judicial matter.

Commissioner's Matters

There were none.

Planning Matters

Mr. Stan Boling updated the Commissioners regarding a recent case that they recommended that the BCC approve and noted that there is a Public Hearing planned for the May 10, 2018 meeting.

Attorney's Matters

There were none.

PZC/Unapproved 2 April 26, 2018

Adiournment

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:18 p.m.

PZC/Unapproved 3 April 26, 2018

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA MEMORANDUM

TO: The Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission

DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE:

~ Stan Boling, Af P;-1 ommunity Development Director

THROUGH: John W. McCV CP; Chief, Current Dev::S~~t

FROM:

DATE:

Ryan Sweeney; Senior Planner, Current Development..,z­

April 30, 2018

_J_-retn 4A l'Rf:L!rvlfl\,.\RY PL ,'\T

(QI IASI-Jl f>I< 'l-\1 1

SUBJECT: GHO Arabella Reserve Corp's Request for Preliminary Plat Approval for a Subdivision to be known as Arabella Reserve [SD-18-01-02 / 2003060207-80394]

It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission at its regular meeting of May 10, 2018.

DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS

Schulke, Bittle, and Stoddard, LLC, on behalf of GHO Arabella Reserve Corp, is requesting preliminary plat approval for a conventional 71-lot single-family subdivision to be known as Arabella Reserve. The site is located at the southeast comer of the 58th Avenue/49th Street intersection, and is zoned RS-6, Residential Single-Family (up to 6 units/acre) (see attachment 2). The subject site is vacant and has never been previously developed (see attachment 3).

The Planning and Zoning Commission is now to consider granting preliminary plat approval for a subdivision known as Arabella Reserve.

ANALYSIS

1. Size of Development: Gross area: Net area (after ROW dedication):

27.50 acres 26.42 acres

2. Zoning Classification: RS-6, Residential Single-Family (up to 6 units/acre)

3. Land Use Designation: M-2, Medium-DensityResidential-2 (up to 10 units/acre)

4. Number of Lots: 71 lots

F:\Community Development\CurDev\P&Z\2018\ArabellaReservePZC - SD-18-0 l-02 (80394).docx 1

S. Density: RS-6: 6.00 units/acre Proposed: 2.58 units/acre

Note: The proposed density calculation is based on the project's gross area.

6. Minimum Lot Size: Required: 7,000 sq. ft. Proposed: 7,523 sq. ft.

7. Minimum Lot Width: Required: 70 feet Proposed: 70 feet

8. Phasing: The project is proposed to be constructed in one phase.

9. Utilities: The project will be served by public water and sewer service provided by County Utility Services. The County Department of Utility Services and the Department of Health have approved these project utility provisions.

10. Traffic Circulation: Access to the proposed development will be provided by a single, gated, full­movement connection to 49th Street. The proposed subdivision traffic circulation plan consists of a loop road and short cul-de-sac road segment (see attachment 4). The subdivision roads will be privately maintained by, and dedicated to, the property owners' association. No local street connections to adjacent properties are required or proposed.

The proposed driveway connections, cul-de-sac, and traffic circulation plan have been reviewed and approved by Traffic Engineering and Fire Prevention. Additionally, Traffic Engineering reviewed and approved the traffic impact study (TIS) submitted by the developer. Based on the approved TIS, the developer is required to pay a fair share contribution towards required intersection improvements for the 58th Avenue/49th Street intersection. The developer is also required to dedicate additional right-of­way for 58th Avenue. Both the fair share contribution and 58th Avenue right-of-way dedication are outlined in more detail in Section 13 of this report (see below), and will be further outlined in a proposed Developer's Agreement.

11. Stormwater Management: The preliminary plat proposes a modified Miami curb street design and five stormwater management tracts to manage runoff generated by the project as well as runoff generated by the future widening of 5 8th A venue. The two larger storm water tracts will accept runoff generated by the project, and the three smaller stormwater tracts (located along 58th Avenue) will accept runoff generated by the widening of 58th Avenue. Through the final plat process, all five storm water tracts will be dedicated to the property owners' association, and storm water easements will be dedicated to the County over the three storm water tracts located along 58th Avenue.

The Public Works Department has approved the preliminary drainage design. The final design will be reviewed and approved by Public Works via the land development permit (LDP) review process. Also, the proposed Developer's Agreement will outline additional details regarding the timing, provision, and design of the three storm water tracts located along 58th Avenue.

F:\Community Development\CurDev\P&Z\2018\ArabellaReservePZC • SD-18-01-02 (80394).docx 2

12. Environmental Issues:

a. Wetlands: County Environmental Planning staff has detennined that no jurisdictional wetlands exist on the subject site. Therefore, no wetlands criteria apply to the proposed development.

b. Uplands: Since the site is over five acres, the County's native upland set-aside requirement potentially applies; however, County Environmental Planning staff has detennined that no intact native upland plant communities exist on the project site. Therefore, no native upland set-aside requirements apply to the proposed development.

c. Tree Preservation: Presently, the site is partially wooded with a mixture of palm, hardwood, and non-hardwood tree species. Most of the existing hardwood trees will be preserved in place within preservation tracts and/or between lots; however, several will be removed. Hardwood trees proposed to be removed must be mitigated per the County's tree mitigation requirements which allow re-planting and/or payment into the County's tree mitigation fund. All invasive exotic trees will be removed during development. The developer must obtain Environmental Planning staff approval of the project's final tree protection and mitigation plan prior to issuance ofland clearing and tree removal pennits.

d. Gopher Tortoise: The developer provided a preliminary environmental assessment of the site that indicated the presence of several gopher tortoise burrows. The developer must obtain a gopher tortoise permit from the Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) prior to issuance of a land clearing and tree removal permits. The FWC permit will address gopher tortoise relocation.

13. Required Dedications and Improvements:

a. 58th Avenue Buffer: A 25 foot wide Type "B" buffer with a 6 foot opaque feature is required and proposed along the project's 58th Avenue frontage. The opaque feature will consist of a combination benn/hedge, and will be located within a separate tract that is not be part of any lot. The developer must obtain Planning staffs approval of the final design of the buffer and opaque feature prior to issuance of an LDP. The required buffer improvements must be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Completion (C. ofC.).

b. 49th Street Buffer: A 25 foot wide Type "B" buffer with a 6 foot opaque feature is required and proposed along the project's 49th Street frontage. The opaque feature will consist of a combination berm/hedge, and will be located within a separate tract that is not be part of any lot. The developer must obtain Planning staffs approval of the final design of the buffer and opaque feature prior to issuance of an LDP. The required buffer improvements must be installed prior to the issuance of a C.ofC.

c. Right-of-Way Dedication/or 58th Avenue: The County's thoroughfare plan requires an ultimate right-of-way width of130 feet for the project's 58th Avenue frontage. Presently, 50 feet ofright-of­way exists along the project's 58th Avenue frontage. The developer has coordinated with Public Works, and has agreed to a 67 foot right-of-way dedication with compensation. The 58th Avenue right-of-way dedication must be completed prior to issuance of an LDP, or as provided in an approved Developer's Agreement.

F:\Community Development\CurDev\P&Z\2018\ArabellaReservePZC • SD-18-01-02 (80394).docx 3

d. Stormwater for 58th Avenue Widening: The developer has coordinated with Public Works, and has agreed to provide three stormwater tracts that will accept stormwaterrunoff generated by the future widening of 58th Avenue. The proposed Developer's Agreement will outline additional details regarding the timing, provision, and design of those stormwater tracts.

e. 58th Avenue Sidewalk: A 5' wide sidewalk is required along the site's 58th Avenue frontage. However, that sidewalk, if constructed by the developer, would likely be destroyed during the future widening of58th Avenue. Therefore, the developer has coordinated with Public Works, and both parties have agreed to defer the sidewalk until the future widening of 58th A venue. The project's sidewalk obligation will be satisfied as part of the 58th Avenue widening project, and will be addressed by a fee-in-lieu payment or as provided in a Developer's Agreement.

j Internal Sidewalks: A 5' wide sidewalk is required and proposed along one side of the project' s internal street system. All internal sidewalks will be included in the project's LDP, and must be constructed along the frontage of common areas and individual lots in accordance with the requirements of subdivision ordinance section 913.09(5)(b)2.

g. Streetlighting: Streetlights are required and proposed, and will be maintained by the property owners' association. The proposed streetlight locations are depicted on the preliminary plat. Final design of the streetlights will be reviewed via the project's LDP. The project's streetlights shall be installed prior to the issuance of a C. of C.

h. Common Green Space and/or Recreation Area: At least 7 .5% of the total site area shall be set-aside as dedicated common green space and/orrecreation area. For this project, the developer proposes to provide 2.17 acres, which is 8.2% of the site. The 2.17 acres will be provided in the form of several passive recreation/common area tracts located the four comers of the interior block and a stabilized pedestrian pathway provided along the northernmost stormwatertract (along 49th Street). Sta:ffhas verified that the common green space/recreation areas are located and designed as an amenity conveniently accessible via the project's internal sidewalk system. Therefore, the project satisfies the County's green space/recreation area requirements.

14. Landscape Plan: A preliminary landscape plan has been included with the project's preliminary plat application. That preliminary landscape plan shows the location of the project's 58th Avenue buffer, 49th Street buffer, open space landscape areas, lake shoreline trees, and littoral zone plantings. Prior to the issuance of an LDP, the developer must obtain Planning staff's approval of the final landscape plan.

15. Concurrency: As required under the County's concurrency regulations, the developer has applied for and obtained a conditional concurrency certificate for the project, which is sufficient for preliminary plat approval. The concurrency certificate was issued based upon a concurrency analysis and a determination that adequate capacity was available to serve the subject project at the time of the determination. The developer will, in accordance with County concurrency regulations, be required to obtain a final concurrency approval prior to issuance of a building permit for each home.

16. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:

North: East:

49th Street, Waterway Village PD / PD Vacant / RS-6

F:\Community Development\Cw-Dev\P&Z\2018\ArabellaReservePZC • SD-18-01.02 (80394).docx 4

South: West:

Single-family homes/ RS-6 58th Avenue, Vacant/ A-1

All conditions recommended by staff have been accepted by the developer.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission grant preliminary plat approval for the Arabella Reserve subdivision with the following conditions:

1. Prior to issuance of land clearing and tree removal permits, the developer shall:

a. Obtain Environmental Planning staff approval of the project's final tree protection and mitigation plan.

b. Provide a copy of the project's gopher tortoise permit from the Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC).

2. Prior to issuance of a land development permit, the developer shall:

a. Obtain Planning staff approval of the project's final landscape plan. b. Obtain Planning staff approval of the final streetlighting design. c. Dedicate 67 feet of right-of-way for 58th Avenue, as shown on the preliminary plat, or enter into a

Developer's Agreement that addresses the 58th Avenue right-of-way dedication.

3. Internal sidewalks shall be constructed along the frontage of common areas and individual lots in accordance with Section 913.09(5)(b)2. of the County LDRs.

4. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Completion, the developer shall:

a. Install all required buffers and landscape improvements. b. Install the required streetlighting improvements. c. Pay the project's fair share contribution towards required intersection improvements for the 58th

Avenue/49th Street intersection as provided in an approved Developer's Agreement. d. Construct the 58th Avenue sidewalk or pay a fee-in-lieu of providing the sidewalk or enter into a

Developer's Agreement that addresses the sidewalk provision. e. Construct the three stormwater tracts that will accept runoff generated by the future widening of

58th Avenue or enter into a Developer's Agreement that addresses the storm water tract provision.

Attachments:

1. Application APPROVED AS TO FORM 2. Location Map AN LEGAL SUFFI C 3. Aerial 4. Preliminary Plat 5. Landscape Plan

F:\Community Development\CurDev\P&Z\1018\ArabellaReservePZC - SD-18-01-02 (80394).docx 5

I

Arabella Reserve PROJECT NAME (PRINT):

Computer assigned project#: ) /)0 3 D 6'?} t:? /J 1 ... tP D3 9 Y . . ;

Project Name & Number from Corresponding pre-application conference GHQ Addison Reserve 2003060207

PROPERTY OWNER: (PLEASE PRINT) GHQ Arabella Reserve Corp.

NAME 590 NW Mercantile Place

ADDRESS Port St. Lucie, FL 34986

CITY, STATE, ZIP (561) 688-2020 EXT117

PHONE NUMBER billh@ghohomes.com

EMAIL ADDRESS William Handler

CONTACT PERSON

AGENT (PLEASE PlUN1) Same as Engineer

NAME

ADDRESS

CfiY,.Sf ATE, ZIP

PHONE NUMBER

EMAIL ADDRESS

CONTACT PERSON

SIGNATURE OF OWNER OR AGENT

PROJECT ENGINEER: (PLEASE PRINT)

Schulke, Bittle & Stoddard, LLC

PROJECT SURVEYOR: (PLEASE PRINT) Meridian Land Surveyors

NAME NAME 1717 Indian River Blvd, Suite 201 1717 Indian River Blvd, Suite 201

ADDRESS Vero Beach, FL 32960

CITY, STATE, ZIP 772-770-9622

PHONE NUMBER(s) jschulke@sbsengineers.com

EMAIL ADDRESS Joseph W. Schulke, P.E.

CONTACT PERSON

ADDRESS Vero Beach, FL 32960

CITY, STATE, ZIP 772-794-1213

PHONE NUMBER(s) rls5755@bellsouth.net

EMAIL ADDRESS Charles Blanchard

CONTACT PERSON

180127th Street, Vero Beach FL 32960 F:\Cammunity DcvelopmcllMPPLICATIONS\CuiDcv applications\Pl'dlmilllr)' Plat .App.rtf Revised April 2016

ATTACHMENT 1 Page 1 of2

SITE TAX p ARCEL ID#'S: 32392100001012000002.0; 32392100001012000003.3; 32392100001012000003.0

3JB9·2,acoo1011..c,00001. o

CT USE Residential subdivision PROJE :. _________________________ _

IS ALL OR A PORTION OF THE PROJECT IN AN "ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE" AR&\,AS ADDRESSED IN THE PROJECT PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE? YES __ __;NO_,,,-,-__,

RS-6 M-2 • ZONING: , FLUE=------~:-H~.,__-

• TOTAL (GROSS). ACREAGE OF PARCEL:,_,~_·_6_+_/--=:).~1,_?_· ---~.W+---4--1----

• AREA OF DEVELOPMENT (NET) ACREAOE:_~ __ +_l-_;)._/_,..,.;:;~--------____..::::L..--¼J.

• TOTAL NUMBER OF LOTS: .Ji5 1 t DENSITY {UNITS PER ACRE}:.~---'--.......:;---:....,.,... . . 1}1$ J N '1 t-'rl

••PLEASE FILL-OUT APPLICATION SUBMISSION CHECKLIST•• At~ !If, U,>4'2.. ¥

MATERIAL (mark ''NIA" where applicable)

1. Response from Pre-Application (comment by comment)

2. Fee <or= to 10 acres: $700.00 > 10 acres: $950.00

3. Completed Preliminary Plat Application Form

4. Ten (10) Copies of the Preliminary Plat

s. Two (2) Sealed Site Surveys

6. Two (2) aerials of site with project overlay, showing surrounding 200 feet

7. One (1) copies of the Owner's Deed

8. Letter of Authorimtion from Owner if owner not applicant

9. Tree Removal Permit Application OR Signed Exemption Form

10. Land Clearing Permit Application OR Signed Exemption Form

11. Two (2) copies of an environmental survey if all or a portion of the project is in an environmentally sensitive area

12. Written statement and photograph of posted sign

18012Jth Street, Vero Beach FL 32960 F:\Commwuty Development\APPLICATIONS\CurDev applications\Pmimiury Plat App.rtf Reviled April 2016

YES ¥

NO -✓

✓

✓ ✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

ATTACHMENT 1 Page2 of2

a 1N3IIH3V11V -_..:.,.

c·...accconc,cccNntr.

9-s11 9-s"M 9-S"M 9-s11 1 9-s11

.',\it' ,,;:

9-s11

c·,ccccc.,,Ncccc,~-.?'i

I~\., .- .:-·'i- : ; > .

m•

,,.~_ .. ·'l.;;J:. :uN,.;. :-:-. ,--.s_ ·.c:~-' "3-~r,f ~ '&12"1.~? !Vi

(Q~ ).3SQN/1} lS Hl6t'

[81 CCCl:6,J

Gd Gd

\\

C-tCCCU.?I Cl e-ncetC:!t'!:l:

· 9-s11

9-s11 • '-'~ CC';nt, ~~~~I ~ii:l:i

9-stl • ·rl:.:,t c1:-::~ a L ciec:c ~-z·,,·iz;; ~

~ x ~ Cl)

::t

~

rn 1f ' '-·

C'i:CCCOOtCO ICCCc c;

l·NO:J

c·, CCOCC'iCCICOCCC?6i ~

1-v

t.al:J/.:iS·G.~'fl) l.S Hll:\!t

--- - --------·--

GNlOd C'ICCCOCHCCI COCOC?8tr'Z

N

•

jl OB !~ 0, 1B

ci r· ~ ~I

i .@ a:I:,j!

0 B~J 0 ~ om;;: 0 ro~ t;

!! a:

l~ii: ca ~1;; w ...J r0~ I= U§ Iii ui f· ~ ii: &l ...J ~~ :) i~ I u "' .... r:::

Cl) ~ ~~ ·--

...J <(

Cl'.'. w <(

w~~ >-Z a.:"'=> wgo (II ... (.) ..,w

~"':::c"' ~j~~ G-'"-'"' WIii

al z ,c(Q,c( a.:a::-,cwO

>~

3

I

- - I­I I I "'I

<!I

a ·:.:...--c:-:c-_l_:~\ ==-=L:.:..:r)

I I I I I I I

NM• 46' 09'W 231,29

NOT INCLUDED

LNIDUIE: M-2 ZONNCi:RM

($1N0Lf fAhlLY HOflE)

LAN)UIE: "'2 ZONfiQ:RS-6

(IINCAE FAMILY HOME) INJIAN RIYER FAFWI SUB

TIOACT'-' 2.IIIAC

STORt.Mlltt.TER (1.17ACDEt.. 18JII

..... .;a...-+-----,LAND="'use"'·"".M-2,:------+---,,""'"'0"'u"',e"",M-2=----"-----------.......... ------1----------ZONNO: RI.. lONNO: Rl -6

(.SINGLE FMIL'I' HOME.) (SINGLE FAMILY HCt,IE}

l~Nol RNEA: ~'-RMI • LB INDIAN " IYER FARM& &UI

ZONING: RW (8 1N131..E FAMLY HOME)

IION't RNER FARMS $U8

·:::··n-ta'• ---.~· ·•·-···--·····--· ·-- - ·-··- - ···-

BENCHMARK FO 1/2" IR NO H) :, Ji' NORTH

•

• -----""-----• :-~.:"'-• ~ ..... -= """' .. !El"

C-100 """""'""· 17-062 ,

ATIACHIIEIT 4

LMDUSE:M-2 ZONING:RM

(SNGLE FAMllY ~OME)

L».OUl£: M-2 ZONINO:RM

(IINCI..EFAMLYHCNE.) IN~ RIVER FARMS 5U8

LN«> UIE; ~ ZONING: Ra-41

(INGLE FAMILY HOME) l~AM!R:FNW& SUB

I / <I II/

'-------------• • ________ _J

:Zl.-4-20.a

• • 21· 1 tm rn ,ow 1 ,ooo• 1 ,~.~ rn 70W 1 5711•

l~I ~~~ :1~ ~_: '! ~,: I! ~~ :1~ I! ~~ I:: (<.05C,OF) I I,= C&000 1F) I:: '~""• Fl I:: .._.F) 1 Ii: I:: ~ .... SF)

I I I I I I I I

71l.Oll'-...I -70:w-- - .,~- -,o:o_r- 1... -~0U'- -

-- . ·-. · __ .. - . . . -----· . - · · .. , -

_ JIL.<)g: - l _,.ivl t _za.w,·_ - f -.10,20:._ _t -_]Q_OO_'.. -, - _7.!I.Qlr _f _ l'.O,l!Q'_ - r ll),gp'_ -

I!! tarn I!! LOTl1 18 LOU) I'll Lorn II'! LOT'2 Ill LDT.. II'! LOTM r i LOT 36 I!! LOT,O I~ I~

lOTS7 ~ZTAO

(11,"°7SF)

LOT40 0.18/IC.

(B,050SF)

I~ C:~~ I~ <:~s1, I~ :~~ t1 ;:C~F> ,~ <•~_:~ I!: ~";, It (l°,c!~ I~ 11~";, 1t t1~:i"!i

I - ., 24·0'~72~. ,.-•• ~,.-t,"""""""""'' 248 ~159"'."43~, =-~

LNCJ Ull:M-2 ZONINQ:RM

(SINQl.f l'AMLY HOME.) INDIAN RM:R FARMS sua

LN,D

ZCINING: R&.a (lilNOlE FAMILY HOME)

INDLIN RI\IER FAAN8 ltJB

HENCHMAHK FD 1/2" IR NO If) ? A' N01H I I

(, --t

LANDUSE;~ Z.ONINO;M-2

(I.R,IDE\IELCPED)

.. !lJ N

• "'0 a z

2

i

I I ~

i I -

z <( ...J a. LU a. <( 0 Cl)

• z :5

C-600

"""""""· 17-062

ATTACH II ENT

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA MEMORANDUM

TO: Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission

DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE:

Stan Boling, AIC:( C unity Development Director

FROM: John W. McCoy, AfC ~~\'w\ Chief, Current Development

DATE: April 30, 2018

Pl'BUC IIEAR!l\G PD RF.ZONil\·c

QCASI-.JllDICIAL

SUBJECT: Harmony Reserve, LLC's Request to Rezone Approximately 2.18 Acres from RS-3, Residential Single-Family (up to 3 units/acre) and RM-6 (Residential Single-Family (up to 6 unit/acre), to PD, Planned Development Residential, and to Modify the Conceptual and Preliminary PD Plan Approvals for the Project known as Harmony Reserve PD [PD-18-04-02 / 97080101-81067)

It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission at its regular meeting of May 10, 2018.

DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS:

This is a request by Harmony Reserve, LLC, through its agent Schulke, Bittle & Stoddard, LLC, to rezone approximately 2.18 acres and modify the conceptual and preliminary PD plan approvals. The subject 2.18 acres is currently zoned RS-3, Residential Single-Family (up to 3 units/acre) and RM-6, Residential Single-Family (up to 6 units/acres). As part of the rezoning request, a conceptual and preliminary PD plan has been submitted for review and approval. The overall subject site is located west of 58th Avenue, between 37th Street on the north and 33rd Street on the south, while the 2.18 acres to be added is located on the south side of 37th Street just west of 59th

Avenue.

The purpose of this request is to add two enclave parcels which consist of 2.18 acres and add 16 single-family lots to the overall Harmony Reserve project, raising the total number of units from 397 to 413. The applicant is not requesting any changes to lot sizes, setbacks, or any other lot dimension criteria.

• Planning and Zoning Commission Review

The first step in the PD rezoning process is for the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) to review the application, conduct a public hearing, and make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (Board) to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the PD rezoning

F:\Community Development\CurDev\P&Z\20 l 8\HannonyRescrvcPD-18-04-02.rtf 1

request and the accompanying conceptual PD plan. The PZC is to take action on the preliminary PD plat/plan modification subject to the BCC's action on the rezoning. Following PZC action, a public hearing is scheduled for Board consideration and action.

• Development Approval Options Available to the Developer

There are two options available to the developer to seek approval of the proposed project. Either of the two options, if approved, would allow the applicant to proceed with the desired residential project. The options are as follows:

I. Rezone the property to a conventional zoning district, such as RM-4, RS-6 or RM-6, then seek PD special exception use approval for the proposed development with lot size and setback waivers, or

2. Rezone the site to a PD zoning district that allows the proposed PD plan at a density not exceeding the site's underlying land use designation maximum density, consistent with the existing PD zoning for the remainder of the site. The existing Harmony Reserve project site is zoned PD.

The developer has opted to apply for a PD rezoning ( option #2 above) to incorporate the subject 2.18 acres into the overall project. If the subject application is approved, the site will be rezoned to PD and will be governed by an approved Harmony Reserve conceptual PD plan.

• The PD Zoning District, Generally

A number of residential projects have been approved through the PD rezoning process. These include Pointe West, Old Orchid, Woodfield, Waterway Village, and Citrus Springs. Unlike standard zoning districts, PD districts have no prescribed limits regarding lot size or dimensional criteria. Instead, the PD district is based on the underlying land use plan designation for density and use limitations, and on PD compatibility requirements regarding lot sizes and setbacks. In the PD zoning district, setbacks and other typical zoning district regulations are established on a project-by-project basis through approval of a conceptual PD plan. Adopted as part of the PD zoning for a property, the conceptual plan establishes the unit arrangement, lot size, and dimensional standards for the project.

A rezoning to the PD district requires submission of a binding conceptual PD plan which, along with certain PD district requirements, limits uses and sets-forth specific development standards on the site. Thus, a PD rezoning allows a unique PD district to be developed specifically for each development site.

In this case, the proposed Harmony Reserve conceptual PD with the additional 2.18 acres will provide for the phased development of 317 (16 additional) single-family lots and 96 (unchanged) multi-family units ( from 3 97 to 413 units total), as well as a clubhouse, recreation area, and various preservation areas.

F:\Community Development\CurDev\P&Z\2018\HarmonyReservePD-18-04-02.rtf 2

In planning staff's opinion, the PD rezoning option is an appropriate mechanism for approving residential development on the subject site, especially since the additional development will be fully integrated into the existing Harmony Reserve PD. Unlike other zoning districts, the PD zoning district allows the county to consider the appropriateness of the proposed development design and project benefits as part of the rezoning request.

• The PD Rezoning Process

The PD rezoning review, approval, and development process is as follows:

STEP 1

STEP2

STEP3

STEP4

STEP 5

STEP6

Rezoning and conceptual PD plan approval: review and recommendation made by staff and by the PZC. Final action taken by the Board.

Preliminary PD plan (combination of site plan and preliminary plat) approval: review and recommendation made by staff. Final action taken by the PZC, subject to the Board's action on the rezoning request.

Land Development Permit or Permit Waiver: reviewed and issued by staff for construction of subdivision improvements ( roads, utilities, drainage).

Building Permit( s): reviewed and issued by staff for construction of buildings.

Final PD Plat approval: review and recommendation made by staff. Final action taken by the Board.

Certificate of Occupancy: issued by staff ( after inspections) for use and occupancy of buildings.

The applicant is pursuing STEPs 1 and 2 of the process.

Once a PD conceptual plan is approved, only minor modifications to the conceptual plan may be approved at a staff level. Any changes proposed to an approved conceptual plan that would reduce setbacks, intensify the site use ( e.g. increase the maximum number oflots), or reduce compatibility elements ( e.g. reduce buffering) may be approved only via a process involving public hearings held by both the PZC and the Board, such as this request. If approved by the PZC and the Board, the next step in the process will be the land development permit process.

• Proposed PD District for the Project Site

The subject site has an L-2 land use designation. Since the land use designation controls the use of the property by limiting the zoning districts applicable to the property, any rezoning must be compatible with the uses and densities allowed by the property's land use designations. Once a specific PD rezoning is approved for a site, the applicable PD conceptual plan adopted as part of the rezoning will limit the type of specific uses and the densities allowed on the subject site. If approved this will modify the existing PD district. The approved conceptual plan has established the dimensional criteria applicable to the site, which will not change.

F:\Community Development\CurDev\P&Z\2018\Harmonylu:servePD-18--04-02.rtf 3

Although PD zoning district parameters are flexible, certain standards related to uses, compatibility (buffering), infrastructure improvements, dimensional criteria, and open space areas are set forth in Chapter 915 (P.D. Process and Standards for Development ordinance) of the county's land development regulations (LDRs). The approved criteria which are not proposed to change are as follows:

COMPARISON: RS-3 AND APPROVED PD DISTRICT Development RS-3 Approved PD District

Parameters/Waivers Number of Lots -- 157 144 96 Minimum Lot Size 12,000 sq. ft. 6,200 SQ. ft. 8,000 SQ. ft. 3,168 sq. ft. Minimum Lot Width 80' 50' 65' 32'

(multi-family villas)

Minimum Yard Setbacks: Front: Living Area 25' 20' 20' 15' Front: Front-Loaded Garage 25' 25' 25' 15' Front: Porch 25' 13' 13' 13' Front: Side-Loaded Garage 25' 13' 13' 13' Side 15' 5' 7.5' 5' /0' (CW) Rear 25' 20' 20' 5' Pool/Pool Enclosure Setbacks: Front 25' 20' 20' 5' Side 15' 5' 7.5' 5' Rear 10' 10' 10' 5' Patio and Deck Setbacks: Front 5' 13' 13' 13' Side 5' 5' 7.5' 5' Rear 5' 5' 5' 5' Maximum building coverage per 30% 36% (SF lots) I 70% (multi-family villas) lot Maximum impervious area per 60% 80% (SF lots)/ 100% (multi-family villas) lot Minimum open space per lot 40% 20% (SF lots)/ 0% (multi-family villas) Minimum open space 40% 45% project-wide each lot entire site: lots and common areas Minimum street right-of-way 50' 42' with parallel 5' wide utility easements on each width side (10' total) Note: CW= Common wall setback is O' Note: There is no changed proposed to the dimensional criteria. The total number of units will

increase by 16 single family units from 397 to 413.

Also proposed: • A reduction in the standard roadside planting area width from 6' to 4', subject to Public

Works review and approval during the land development permit process.

F:\Community Development\CurDev\P&Z\2018\HarmonyReservePD-18-04-02.rtf 4

USE TABLE

RS-3 District Uses PROPOSED PD DISTRICT USES Single-Family detached units, accessory dwelling Single-family and multi-family residential units, places of worship, childcare, recreational uses, units and accessory recreational uses. and other uses as listed in LDR section 911.07.

It should be noted that, if the PD rezoning is approved, the approved conceptual PD plan will be included as an actual exhibit to the rezoning ordinance. In addition to the above referenced project standards, the conceptual PD plan also regulates buffering, certain design improvements, and the overall subdivision layout.

REZONING ANALYSIS:

The 2.18 acres consist mostly of parcels previously developed with a few residential buildings and a pond. All existing structures will be removed.

• South, East, & West of the subject site is adjacent to the Harmony Reserve PD project with an enclave parcel further south of the parcels to be added.

• North of the subject site, across 37th Street the area is zoned RS-3 and predominately development with large lot single-family sites.

As is standard for residential PDs, the Harmony Reserve development will have a minimum 25' building setback from all project perimeters.

Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan

Rezoning requests are reviewed for consistency with the policies of the comprehensive plan and must also be consistent with the overall designation of land uses as depicted on the Future Land Use Map. Consistency with goals, objectives, and policies is also essential. The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of the comprehensive plan. Policies are statements in the plan which identify the actions which the county will take in order to direct the community's development. As courses of action committed to by the county, policies provide the basis for all county land development related decisions. While all comprehensive plan policies are important, some have more applicability than others in reviewing rezoning requests. Of particular applicability for this request are the following policies and objectives.

• Future Land Use Policies 5.3 and 5.4

Policy 5.3: Indian River County zoning districts shall permit a variety of residential building and development styles.

Policy 5.5: Indian River County LDRs shall contain a special Planned Development (PD) zoning district. That district shall be designated as an overlay on the County Zoning Atlas. The PD zoning district is intended to provide for the development of projects which require flexibility in order to

F:\Community Development\CurDcv\P&Z\201&\HarmonyRescrvePD-18-04-02.rtf 5

maxmuze open space, conserve natural features, provide alternative designs, incorporate recreational facilities, create a mix of uses, and provide a variety of housing choices.

The proposed PD district is consistent with these policies because the Harmony Reserve PD plan proposes a mixture of residential building types with significant common open space. In addition, the PD plan uses the flexibility provided by the PD process to provide a mix of housing units while still preserving significant environmental features of the site.

• Future Land Use Element Policies 1.11 and 1.12

Future Land Use Element Policy 1.12 states that the L-1, Low Density Residential 1, and L-2, Low Density 2, land use designations are intended for residential uses with densities up to 3 and 6 units/acre, respectively. In addition, Future Land Use Element Policy 1.11 states that these residential uses must be located within an existing or future urban service area.

Because the subject property is located within an area designated as L-2 on the county's future land use plan map and is located within the county's urban service area, and because the proposed PD zoning district provides for residential uses that are less than 6 units/acre in accordance with the site's L-2 designation, the proposed request is consistent with Policies 1.11 and 1.12.

While the referenced policies and objectives are particularly applicable to this request, other comprehensive plan policies and objectives also have relevance. For that reason, staff evaluated the subject request for consistency with all plan policies and objectives. Based on that evaluation, staff determined the proposed PD district is consistent with the comprehensive plan.

Concurrency

A conditional concurrency certificate has been issued for the project. Concurrency is discussed in more detail in the PD Plan Analysis section of this staff report

Compatibility

Compatibility is an important consideration in any PD rezoning request. In this case, it is important to consider compatibility of the proposed project with properties in the area.

The 2.18 acres to be added to the Harmony Reserve PD were previously an enclave with the Harmony Reserve PD bordering the subject site on 3 sides (East, West, and South). The subject site was recently owned by Breath of Heaven Ministries of the Treasure Coast East. The inclusion of the subject site will increase compatibility by creating a more consistent development pattern, and eliminating adjacent enclave parcels.

Environmental Impacts and Concurrency

These issues are evaluated in the analysis section of this report (see below), and have been adequately addressed.

F:\Community Development\CurDev\P&Z\20 l 8\HarmonyReservePD-18-04-02.rtf 6

Rezoning Review Standards:

Section 902.12 contains standards for reviewing a zoning change and that section is included as attachment #3. This staff report addresses those standards either specifically or in general terms where appropriate. Based on sta:f:fs review, the application and analysis adequately address the applicable review standards in section 902.12.

Conclusion on PD Rezoning:

Subject to the conditions recommended at the end of this report, the requested PD rezoning and associated conceptual and preliminary PD plan are compatible with the surrounding area, are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, meet all concurrency requirements, and are consistent with the site's L-2 (Low Density 2 (up to 6 units/acre) land use designation and applicable LDRs, including PD regulations.

PD Plan Analysis:

1. Size: 122.06 acres (existing gross) 2.18 acres addition

124.24 acres

2. Zoning Classification:

3.

4.

5.

6.

Current:

Proposed:

RS-3, Residential Single-Family (up to 3 units/acre) RM-6, Residential Multi-Family (up to 6 units/acre) PD, Planned Development (up to 3.32 units/acre)

Land Use Designation: L-2, Low Density 2 (up to 6 units/acre)

Density:

Open Space:

397 units on 122.06 acres; 3.26 units/gross acres (existing) 413 units on 124.24 acres, 3.32 units/gross acres (proposed)

Required: Provided:

40.0% 45.9% (approved) 45.3% (proposed)

Note: Open space includes areas with private yards and common open space tracts (preservation areas, buffers).

Recreation Area: Required: Provided:

9.17 acres 10.78 acres (approved) 11.05 acres (proposed)

Note: Recreation areas include a clubhouse and associated recreation tract, and conveniently accessible common open space areas including some preservation areas.

F:\Community Development\CurDev\P&Z\20 l 8\HarmonyReservePD-l 8-04-02.rtf 7

7; Phasing: The proposed 2.18 acre addition will affect phase 3. As approved, the project is proposed to be constructed in 4 phases with each phase containing approximately 100 units per phase. Phase 1 will be located in the south central portion of the site, with phase 2 located to the west along the majority of the west perimeter. Phase 3 will include the north portion of the project, with phase 4 along the eastern portion of the project. A brief description of the phasing is as follows:

• Phase 1 includes 68 single-family lots and 26 multi-family villa units, the 33rd

Street entry and sidewalk, littoral zone and on-site wetland mitigation, a clubhouse and recreation site, and related stormwater management areas. [Phase 1 platted and subdivision improvements complete]

• Phase 2 includes 64 single-family lots and 24 multi-family villa units, and related stormwater improvements. Phase 2 platted and subdivision improvement construction is nearing completion (guaranteed by posted security).

• Phase 3 will increase in size by 2.18 acres and go from 76 single-family lots to 92 single-family lots and 24 multi-family villa units (parcel access to 37th Street and related stormwater improvements). No construction has occurred in Phase 3 and that phase is currently unplatted. If the modified preliminary PD plan is approved for Phase 3, the next step will be to apply for a land development permit for the Phase 3 subdivision improvements consistent with the approved modified preliminary PD plan.

• Phase 4 includes 94 single-family lots and 24 multi-family villa units (58th Avenue sidewalk, and related stormwater improvements). No construction has occurred in phase 4 and that phase is currently unplatted. The next step in the process for Phase 4 will be to apply for a land development permit when the applicant chooses.

8. Environmental Issues: The subject 2.18 acres does not have any code related environmental issues due to previous development on the site. All existing structures will be removed, while the existing pond will remain.

9. Concurrency Management: The applicant has obtained a conditional concurrency certificate for 16 additional units, which satisfies the requirement for rezoning and conceptual PD plan approval.

10. Stormwater Management: As with standard single-family subdivisions, a stormwater management plan is required prior to preliminary PD plan/plat approval. For this project, a preliminary storrnwater management plan has been approved by the Public Works Department. The stormwater system will consist of a series of interconnected lakes that collect, hold, and treat stormwater and then discharges the treated stormwater in the Indian River Farms canal located on the south side of 3 7th Street. The preliminary storm water plan has been reviewed and approved by Public Works. Review and approval of the final stormwater management plan will be accomplished through the lands development permit review and approval process.

F:\Community Development\CurDev\P&Z\20 l 8\HannonyResenrePD-18-04-02.rtf 8

11. Thoroughfare Plan: The 2.18 acre addition has frontage on 37th Street which is a Thoroughfare plan road.

• 37th Street is classified as an urban arterial requiring 90' of ultimate right-of-way. Since the project is located on the south side of the sub-lateral canal that separates the site from 37th Street, no additional right-of-way is required for 37th Street with the exception of a 40' comer clip at the comer of 58th Avenue and 37th Street. The comer clip is shown on the conceptual and preliminary PD plan and is to be dedicated to the County without compensation prior to issuance of the project's first land development permit.

12. Traffic Circulation: There is no change to the overall traffic circulation system or conditions which are described below from the previous approval. Internal access to the two parcels have been provided by extending a cul-de-sac which provides access to the proposed new lots. The internal circulation plan has been reviewed and approved by Traffic Engineering.

The applicant proposes two gated access points to the project, one on 33rd Street and one on 37th Street. No connection to 58th Avenue is proposed. The 33rd Street driveway will be a full movement driveway that will align with 62nd A venue, provide initial access to the development, and be served by a westbound right-tum lane. The access and tum lane will be constructed in the project's first phase. The 37th Street driveway will be located on the western portion of the project and will serve as a full movement driveway. This driveway will be improved at an interim level in phase 1 to serve as a construction and emergency access driveway during construction of phases 1 - 2, and then will be improved as a permanent project entrance in phase 3, and possible off-site improvements to be re-evaluated prior to the issuance of an LDP for Phase 4 are described below.

All streets are proposed to be private. All access points and the internal circulation has been approved by Traffic Engineering and Fire Prevention.

A traffic impact analysis (TIA) has been reviewed and approved by Traffic Engineering. Based on the TIA, the following improvements are required:

1. A westbound right-tum lane on 33rd Street at the project entrance (phase 1). 2. A westbound left-tum lane on 37th Street at the project entrance (phase 4).

The westbound left-turn lane on 37th Street in phase 4 is subject to an option for the developer to re-analyze the turn lane warrant prior to issuance of a land development permit for phase 4. Unless a re-analysis is approved by Public Works that documents that a westbound left-tum lane on 3 7'h Street at the project entrance is not warranted, the tum lane must be constructed prior to issuance of a certificate of completion for phase 4. If a re-analysis approved by Public Works demonstrates that the westbound tum lane is not warranted, then the turn lane will not be required by the County.

F:\Comrnunity Developrnent\CurDev\P&ZXl.O l 8\HarmonyReservePD-18-04-02.rtf 9

13. Utilities: Connection to public water and wastewater are required and proposed by the applicant. These utility provisions have been approved by the Health Department and the County Department of Utility Services.

14. Dedications and Improvements: The following dedication and improvement is required and related to the addition of the 2.18 acres.

Enclave Parcels/Albrecht Acres: With the inclusion of these two parcels, there is now a single enclave parcel located in the northern part of the project site is part of Albrect Acres, a subdivision which was platted in 1946 but never formally developed. The Harmony Reserve project will re-plat the vast majority of Albrecht Acres. Through the PD final plat process, the Harmony Reserve re-plats that affect portions of Albrecht Acres will need to be structured so as not to eliminate or interfere with any of the rights afforded by the original plat that provide for access and services to the enclave parcel.

15. Landscape and Buffering Plan: The conceptual landscape plan meets the criteria of Chapter 926 for conceptual plan approval. Detailed landscape plans will be submitted with the land development permit plans and must be approved by staff prior to the issuance of a land development permit. Specific to the 2.18 acre addition, a 25' wide Type B buffer will be provided on all exterior perimeters, including a wider setback adjacent to the north boundary of the enclave parcel.

A conceptual landscape plan has been provided, and a Type "B" buffer is proposed around the perimeter of the entire development including the remaining enclave parcel. The buffer is provided as native upland preservation area (minimum width of 50'), wetland mitigation area with vegetation, or more formal landscape buffers with a minimum 25' width. The 6' opaque feature required and provided around the project perimeter will vary between an all-vegetation barrier and a berm with vegetation. Berming will be avoided where fill would conflict with preserving existing native vegetation. Detailed plans for opaque features will be submitted with the land development permit plans.

Public Benefits of the PD Plan

For all PD projects, planning staff asks applicants to identify the public benefits that their project will provide above and beyond conventional development in exchange for the county approving reduced setbacks and other waivers from conventional standards. In this case, the project will provide substantial open space along 33rd Street and 37th Street, dedicate the ultimate right-of-way for 58th Avenue and 33n1 Street, provide stormwater capacity for future improvements to adjacent roads, preserve native uplands in excess of LDR requirements, and provide enhanced perimeter buffers.

To facilitate joint use of the project's stormwater system, the developer will grant an easement to the county for storm.water purposes. Use of the stormwater system will enable the county to design roadway projects within less right-of-way area, resulting in less right-of-way acquisition impacts on property owners in the future. Details of the easement

F :\Community Development\CurDev\P&Z\20 l 8\HarmonyReservePD-18-04-02.rtf 10

and stormwater capacity provisions will be addressed through the preliminary PD plan and land development permit processes.

In addition to the public benefits described above, the project is designed with internal benefits for project residents, including significant recreational facilities and comprehensive architectural controls.

Conditions

The applicant has agreed to the conditions included in staff's recommendation.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission grant Preliminary PD plan approval subject to the Board's action and recommend that the Board of County Commissioners grant approval of the PD rezoning request and the PD conceptual plan, subject to the conditions that were attached to the original Harmony Reserve PD approval which are re-stated as follows:

1. Prior to issuance of the first land development permit, the applicant shall:

a. Dedicate without compensation the ultimate road right-of-way for 33rd Street and 58th Avenue, including the 40' comer clip at 37th Street, as shown on the conceptual PD plan. [Complete]

b. Obtain planning staff approval of detailed landscape and opaque feature plans for the common areas and perimeter buffers, as shown on the conceptual PD plan. [Ongoing]

c. Document that the site's drainage system has stormwater capacity to handle run-off from improvements to 33rd Street and 58th Avenue, in a manner acceptable to Public Works. [Ongoing]

d. Obtain release for the portion of the Murphy Act Easement that affects the project site and lies outside of the ultimate right-of-way for 58th Avenue. [Complete]

2. Prior to issuance of a land development permit for any respective phase, the applicant shall:

a. Provide a gopher tortoise relocation permit or clearance letter from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission for the affected phase. [Ongoing]

b. Provide documentation that wood stork (wading bird) mitigation is adequately addressed by obtaining a jurisdictional permit or clearance letter. [Ongoing]

F:\Community Development\CurDev\P&Z\2018\HarmonyReservePD-18-04-02.rtf 11

3. Prior to issuance of a certificate of completion for any project phase or sub-phase, the applicant shall construct required improvements such as sidewalks and buffers that are tied to that specific phase or sub-phase, or otherwise guarantee completion of the improvements as provided for in the LDRs.

a. Prior to issuance of a certificate of completion for phase 1, a west bound right-tum lane shall be constructed on 33rd Street at the project's entrance. [Complete]

b. Prior to issuance of a certificate of completion for phase 4, a west bound left-tum lane shall be constructed on 37th Street at the project's entrance, unless a reanalysis is approved by Public Works that demonstrates that the left-tum lane is not warranted. [Future]

4. Prior to issuance of a certificate of completion for phase 2, the applicant shall complete a community pool and a clubhouse (minimum enclosed building area of 5,000 sq. ft.). [Complete]

5. Prior to or via the final plat process, the applicant shall establish conservation easements over existing native upland and wetland areas, as shown on the conceptual PD plan. [Ongoing]

6. Via the final plats for the portions of the project that are adjacent to 33rd Street and 58th Avenue, the applicant shall dedicate drainage easements to the County to accommodate stormwater run-off treatment for improvements to 33rd Street and 58th Avenue. [Ongoing]

7. The Harmony Reserve project site shall revert to its original RS-3 zoning if project construction has not commenced within 7 years of the date of the conceptual PD plan and PD rezoning approval. [Reverter no longer applicable]

8. Lots on the project perimeter shall be restricted to one story homes. [Ongoing]

9. Via the PD final plat process, the Harmony Reserve re-plats that affect any portion of Albrecht Acres shall be structured so as not to eliminate or interfere with any of the rights afforded by the Albrecht Acres plat that provide for access and services to the enclave parcels. [Ongoing]

ATTACHMENTS: APPROVED AS TO FORM

1. 2 . 3. 4. 5. 6.

Application Location Map Section 902.12

:m:mcv WILLIAM K. OEBRAAL

DEPUTY COUNTY ATTORNEY Conceptual PD Plan Existing and Proposed Preliminary PD Plan Existing and Proposed Aerial

F:\Community Development\CurDev\p&Z\2018\HarmonyReservePD-t 8-04-02.rtf 12

L\'DIAN lUV.ER COUN".fY rf.1ANNlW DEVJil,OPMENT APPLICATION

Coni:cptqftl PJ) Spcdel E.-ccupdoi1:

Co1u:urnu:tt Couecptwd PO Sp~I ltu,option &: Jlrt,lftm1utrf P..D:

Pretindaa.ry Pm.nncd JJ~,-olopmwr.

1•1.ulll Piflru:1,e,J .Oe~lopm~t:

Not~: For· a. PD .rezoniq mo ineJu(le fbc ti()prn_prl•te raon1ng i&l> . .,Ucation.

PROJECI'NAMB: HARMONY RESERVE

Plan Number: PP. / 8 - 0 LJ - 0 2. Project#: 91 IJ J ()I/JI - f / 0'1 7 PROl:•E...T<.TY O\VN.ER: {PU1ASE P.Rilfl)

HARMONY RESERVE, LLC ----------···• ..... ·-•~.•-· - -- ·-·•·····>-NAME

3880 39TH SQUARE

ADDRESS VERO BEACH, FL 32960

CITY. STATE. ZIP 772-567-9154

PHONE NUMBER t.hill@thehillgroup.biz

EMAIL ADDRESS J. PATRICK (TOBY) HILL

CONTACT PERSON

!'R.O.!ECT Hl'lullfl1ER.: (.PLEASE I'.RINT) SCHULKE, BITTLE & STODDARD, LLC

NAME 1717 INDIAN RIVER BOULEY ARD, STE 201

ADDRESS VERO BEACH, FL 32960

CITY, STATE, ZIP

772-770-9622

PHONE NUMBER jbittle@sbsengineers.com

EMAIL ADDRESS JODAH B. BITTLE, P.E.

CONTACTPBRSON

.AJ'PL!CAt-?T {Pl.E..i\SE PlUNT) SAME AS OWNER

····-·•-···"··-•"-------------NAMll

·---·--·~--------------ADDRBSS

Cf.IY, STATB_ ZIP

PHONE NUMBE..Tl

EMA.lL AODRBSS

CON1".ACT PERSON

AGENT (PLEASE PROO) INSITE SOLUTIONS, INC

NAME 5070 N. HIGHWAY A-1-A SUITE C-1

ADDRESS VERO BEACH, FL 32963

Cl'l'Y', STA TB, ZIP 772-999-3494

PHONE NUMBER chuck@insitesolutions.biz

EMAIL ADDRESS CHUCK MECHLING

hgclaf3

ATTACHMENT •t

T.t:XPARCELID#(s)OFSUBJECTPROPER.lY: _SE_E_SUB_M_ITI_E_D_P_L_AN_S~---------

PROPERTY CLASSIPICATION(S):

Land Use Desipation

L-2

7pnioa District PD

Acn,a,ge

124.24

TOTAL PROJECT ACREAGE: _ 12_4_·2_4 _____________________ _

EXISTING SITB USF.(S); SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES AND UNDEVEWPED LAND

PROPOSED S.fi'E USE(S) AND INIENSITY (e.g. # of units, squa..--e feet by use): __ 4_1_3_UNI_T_s ____ _

** PLEASE COMPLETE·THE SUBM::nTALCHECta.lST *" The following i1ema must be attached m the application:

NIA

✓.,,-

✓ v­

✓

If the applicant is other 1han tho owner(s), a swom stabmmtof authorization .front the owner;

Two deeds and a verified statement naming ,:very individual having legal or equitable ownership in the property; jf owned by a corporation, provide the names and address of each stockholder owning more than 10% of the value of outs1anding corporation shares;

Two copies of the owner's reconled wmanty deed;

A check. money order or cash made payable to "Indian River County":

Planned Development R.oquelilt - Conceptual PD Special Exception less than 20 acres $ 2075.00 20-40 acru 2475.00 over 40 acres 2575.00 + 100.00 for each additional 25 acres over 40 acres

Preliminary PD Pl.lln loss than 20 acres 20-40acres

S 1150.00 1250.00

over 40 acres 1300.00 1 S0.00 for each additional 25 acres over 40 acres

Final PD Plans S 1400.00

For conel!rroot applfeations: combine the approprmte tea and subtract $400.00.

✓ Ten sets of 00D1plete Conceptual. Preliminary or Final PD (final plat plans must be signed and sealed by surveyor). Pl11111 as per Chapter 91S, pursuant to the type of approval being requested.

Any requirements of the mning or subdivision ordinance which the applicant is rcqncsting to be waived (S11ch as minimwn lot width and me, mot frontage roqufteme.nts, setbacks, etc.), shall be clearly indicated by section and paragraph numbers, together with the ntionale for the waiver rcquest(s), on an attached sheet.

...lof3

ATTACHMENT 1

.. / . /' f Acrials for conceptunl or preliminmy PDs

••./ ---Nik"

·•,/ .,,...-

Itemized response 'In pre-applicmon for <ionccptual or concurrent applicatiom ,o ~p,es-?' sealed swvc:ys

3 sets of floor plans and cJevation for commercial or multi-fiunily buildings

Written Statement and Photograph of Posted Sign

Fol' FwJ PW'• 9E

Letter from developer providing timeline for achieving the 75% completion tln~hn!<i for the overall subdivision improvement

ONE OF'l"HE FOLLOWING SETS OF REQUIRED IMPROVEMENT DOCUMENTS:

CONSTRUCTION COI\'1PLET.E • BUILT OUT:

Certificate of Completion from Public Works or copy of letter to Public Works and Utilities requiring inspection of improvements.

IF IMP'BOVEMENTS Af<.E DEDICA'rED TO THE PUBLIC:

Original Engineer's Certified Cost Estimate for Improvements (signed unJ sealed)

Fmlure to provide inlo.."'11tn.tlon on wb.ich option la bamg •elected may n1ult In a de!ny fn processln1 tho applic:aticm,

==OR==-===

CONSTRUC'.CTON INCOM:PLETE - DONO OUT:

Original Engineer's Certified Cost Estimate for lmprovement.s (signed and sealed; note items to be completed or percent con:pleted tt 75% 11ueshold f.or overall subdivision).

Statement that improvements are nearing completion and a certificate of c::ompleti.on will be obtain prior to final plat approval

Copies of Documents to be recorded with. the final plat:

a. Covenants, Deed Restrictions, Bylaws, etc. or Statement There Are None

b. Property Owner's Association Articles of Incorporation or statement indicating why recording of POA is NOT requiffli.

hvised April 2016 Pap3of3

A1TACHM!NT 1

RS-3

.., R1sJ3 ! ---

VERO

:IIZ393300DD101:!000001 0

lffACHMENT 2

Section 902.12. Amendments to the land development regulations text and official zoning atlas.

( 1) Purpose and intent. The purpose of this section is to provide a means for changing the text of the land development regulations or the official zoning atlas. It is not intended to relieve particular hardships or confer special privileges or rights to any person.

(2) Changes and amendments. The board of county commissioners may from time to time, on its own motion, the motion of the Indian River County Planning and Zoning Commission, or the petition of the owner or the owner's authorized agent, amend, supplement, change, modify, or repeal by ordinance, pursuant to the authority and in the manner provided herein, any of the provisions of the land development regulations or any boundaries within the zoning atlas.

(3) Standards of review. In reviewing the application of a proposed amendment to the text of the land development regulations or an application for a proposed amendment to the official zoning atlas, the board of county commissioners and the planning and zoning commission shall consider:

(a) Whether or not the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portion of the land development regulations;

(b) Whether or not the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan;

(c) Whether or not the proposed amendment is consistent with existing and proposed land uses;

(d) Whether or not the proposed amendment is in compliance with the adopted county thoroughfare plan;

(e) Whether or not the proposed amendment would generate traffic which would decrease the service levels on roadways below level adopted in the comprehensive plan;

{f) Whether or not there have been changed conditions which would warrant an amendment;

(g) Whether or not the proposed amendment would decrease the level of service established in the comprehensive plan for sanitary sewer, potable water, solid waste, drainage, and recreation;

(h) Whether or not the proposed amendment would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment;

(i) Whether or not the proposed amendment would result in an orderly and logical development pattern, specifically identifying any negative effects on such pattern;

U) Whether or not the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and interest of the land development regulations; as well as

(k) Any other matters that may be deemed appropriate by the planning and zoning commission or the board of county commissioners in review and consideration of the proposed amendment such as police protection, fire protection, and emergency medical services.

NOTE: Some of these items of consideration may be deemed as inapplicable in the review and approval of Land Development Regulation amendment requests.

(4) Amendment procedures.

(a) Application and content. All applications (other than board of county commissioners initiated amendments) for changes and amendments shall contain all the information required of this section and shall be in a form prescribed by the community development department and approved by the board of county commissioners. The following information shall be provided by the applicant for an amendment to the official zoning atlas.

1. Legal description; boundary survey. The application shall describe by legal description and any street address, where possible, the property to be affected by the proposed change, setting forth the present zoning applicable thereto and specifying the district, zone or use requested by the applicant. The application shall also include a copy of the deed and at least one other

ATTACHMENT 3

conveying instrument indicating present legal and/or equitable ownership together with notarized authorization from the owner of the subject property if the applicant is not the owner. The application shall also include a boundary survey, sealed by a registered land surveyor, of the property proposed to be rezoned.

2. Statement of verification. All such applications or petitions shall include a verified statement showing each and every individual person having legal and/or equitable ownership interest in the property upon which the application for rezoning is sought.

3. Concurrency certificate. Each application shall include a valid conditional, or initial concurrency certificate or evidence of a concurrency certificate application.

4. Fees. Each application shall include a publication and application fee for each requested change; provided, however, that as many lots or parcels of property as the applicant may desire may be included in a single petition if they constitute one contiguous area. Such fee shall be established by the board of county commissioners.

5. Application time limitations. A rezoning or land development regulation text amendment application shall be considered active for a period of one year after it is submitted to the community development department. If the application is not complete or if the board of county commissioners does not hold a public hearing on the application because of delays by the applicant, the application shall be terminated one year after the submittal date.

(b) Staff review. The community development department shall have twenty (20) working days from the date the completed application and required fees are submitted to review and comment upon the application. The community development department shall then place the completed application on the agenda of a regularly scheduled county planning and zoning commission meeting; provided, however, the following notice and publication requirements are met prior to the public hearing before the county planning and zoning commission.

1. Published notice requirement. The community development department shall publish the material contents of the application, together with a map indicating the area proposed to be rezoned, (map required only for rezoning requests and land development regulations amendment requests where state regulations require the publishing of a map), at least ten (10) days prior to the county planning and zoning commission's public hearing on the application, unless Florida Statutes mandate different notice requirements.

2. Mailed notice; posted notice. Additionally, the community development department shall send by regular mail a written courtesy notice to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the outer limits of the area described in the petition requesting a change, advising all such owners as shown upon the last prepared and completed tax assessment roll of the county, in simple terms, the proposed change and the time and place of the public hearing. In the event that more than ten (10) lots or parcels are proposed for rezoning, notification shall be by published notice only. For rezoning requests the community development department shall erect and conspicuously place upon the subject property at least one notice which shall contain the following information:

a. Map of property which is the subject of the rezoning petition;

b. Present zoning and requested rezoning classification; and

c. Dates of scheduled hearings.

3. Failure to provide notice. The provisions hereof for mailing notice are directory only and the failure to mail such notices shall not affect any change or amendment of said land development regulations. Moreover, regarding rezoning requests, failure to maintain a conspicuous notice on the property shall not affect said requests.

(c) Action by planning and zoning commission. After the public hearing, the county planning and zoning commission shall report its recommendations to the board of county commissioners for final action. For rezoning requests, a denial of the application by the county planning and zoning commission, unless appealed as provided for herein, will be final.

ATIACHMENT 3

(5)

(6)

(d) Appeals of decisions by the planning and zoning commission to deny a rezoning application. Any applicant who is aggrieved by a decision of the county planning and zoning commission regarding denial of a rezoning application may file a written notice of intent to appeal the county planning and zoning commission decision with the director of the community development department, the chairman of the county planning and zoning commission, and the chairman of the board of county commissioners. Such appeal must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of the decision of the county planning and zoning commission.

(e) Action by the board of county commissioners. Upon receipt of the recommendations from the county planning and zoning commission, or upon receipt of a written notice of intent to appeal, the board of county commissioners shall consider the proposed change, amendment or rezoning application and appeal within forty-five (45) days of the submission of said recommendations or written notice of intent to appeal, at an advertised public hearing as required by F.S. § 125.66. An appeal of a denial of a rezoning application shall be heard de novo.

Time for reapplying. No new application for an amendment, change or modification of the official zoning atlas shall be permitted to be filed until after the expiration of at least twelve (12) months from the filing of a previous application with the community development department, covering substantially the same lands.

Interim zoning. The board of county commissioners may adopt stop-gap or interim zoning for periods of time not to exceed one year designed to preserve the status quo in any area in the county, pending the completion of zoning, water and sewer, urban renewal or other similar type plans.

AnACHIIEIIT 3

CLUettCU!lr:AND RECREA T)0ltW. AREA

TNCTX ......

"

Conceptual PD Plan Existing

fill ""-•l!'llbt.tow. cau,,....,..,.

..-iTTACHUEIIT 4

:1.: : : : : I I

'1: : I

111:

: I I I

: I

:11: :1]1

i11,: : ~ I l ,,,,

NORTH I: I GIUPIIICIW.S 1:111

·lwLH I Tl'I ====:1=~~~~~ :-= --- .~~-------------- ; ;1::

11

! l

Conceptual PD Plan Proposed ATtACHIIEIIT 4

-­.. -... _. =-== ... -.: ·::,'Tl 'mNOOOl.S y ~=•=i-7::i': A~\t'NMll13~d

HARMONY RESERVE PD

NW"ld Cid lll\lNlllnJld l/1113131-

SECT~ON 32, TOWNSHIP 32 s RANGE 39 E ~ ,ro<a1"EET-~.!rr~~v~l~ER COUNTY FLORIDA

--""""U..., .. .,

I r,-;-7 l ~ I ~:, I I I ..h- J I

I I

· r 7 I I I I ,; I L - J i ~. 1 r

•:i 11 iP.i J L J i r --7 I 13 I

.J:----_J I r

c .. -,

I ~:a I L _J

r - -.--1 1 I ~5 I I L __ _J ;

- "" ,-7:r-11,- 7 r-11r~!,--, r-, / .

Ii lj I :1 I '11 - I I - iii

Preliminary PD Plan Existing

-

--r-I

__l;--r-I

_l;;,~ r-I I L---·f-=

\

~

AlTACKMEIIT 5

,,,.--

__J

I

1110:Ye.aw1 l""IIYJlll3 DlliHHIUJ~ltV:;I !ZffOU/rtt'"l:IJ. OB~ WOM0'1::I 'H::Wa8 O!S/1. l,(,r; 3.Ll(l9 •QA,s W3MI NWKJMI J:W __,._._,a,_,., _____ ~ ... ........... ~'°~ I

·:::rTl 'm1vaaOJ.S 'II 37J.J.18 '3>tlOH~S

l\fld A~VNl1r.1173~d

VQIII01J '.uNnO:l HAIi NWDU NYld CW Ml¥Nll'll13lkl -~ ANCll'IIMt

HARMONY RESERVE PD SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 32 S, RANGE 39 E

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FLORIDA

.,.., ·r ii: 1i,--, 1 -, r 7 •

111 I I I I - iii ·

-----, ( i~ I ' __J

----7 I I~• I ' ,I

Preliminary PD Plan Proposed

I I

---,-I ! L_

i-------r-I

ATTACHMENT 5

9 J.N311H3V11V .•.. ~

._ ;--

~

;t It - ~ ,. '' t. 1,;";~ (·

'···\1.'1.' ,--•t= .. ~.-... ~ • II. _\ ~-~ • ,•, • '

..... C' :"..__~ ___ JiA--1

HARMONY RESERVE CONCEPTUAL PO REZONING

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FLORIDA

CONCEPTUAL PLAT AERIAL

TO:

FROM:

DATE:

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA MEMORANDUM

Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission

Stan Bolin~ P; Community Development Director

May 1, 2018

I.Tern 7A

I

PLANNING MArl'ERS

SUBJECT: Planning Information Package for the May 10, 2018 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting

For this meeting's packet, the following articles are provided:

(1) "2018 Economic Yearbook" March 28, 2018.

(2) "Lansing is Your 2018 Parking Madness Champion!", Streetsblog, April 20, 2018, Angie Schmitt.

(3) "U.S. sets a nationwide goal to end traffic deaths by 2050", Curbed.com, April 25, 2018, Alissa Walker.

(4) "A critical look at suburban triumphalism", City Commentary, April 12, 2018, Joe Cortright.

(5) "The Cappuccino Congestion Index", City Commentary, April 2, 2018, Joe Cortright.

cc: Board of County Commissioners (via e-mail) Jason Brown (via e-mail) Michael Zito (via e-mail) Michael Smykowski (via e-mail) Phil Matson (via e-mail)

F:\Community Development\CurDev\P&Z\ARTICLES\Articles for 2018\5-10-18 articles.docx

2018 Economic Yearbook by Posted 3/28/2018 Updated 1 hour ago

Population Growth Projected increasa 2018· 22

Florida: 5.99%

• 10%-plus

• 7%-9%

4%-6%

0%-3%

Southwest

. --•-,·••-··--·-·-----·· •·----···-- ·-··•··-··••···-··7

... . ,\-..

Click to enlarge map showing Florida's p...QP-ulation growth. -···•-·••··· -··---· -·-------

This year, Florida Trend's Economic Yearbook focuses on specific issues - from economic development

and public safety to transpo1tation and education - that challenge the cities and counties across the

state, assessing whether progress has been made in each category. In addition to giving a thumbs up or a

thumbs down, the Yearbook package also includes people to watch in each region and news from all of

Florida's 67 counties.

First up in "Florida's Report Card" is a look at some demographics from around the state.

Miami-Dade

Broward

2,786,142 Liberty

1,977,435 Lafayette

8,631

8,897

Palm Beach

Hillsborough

Orange

Sumter

Charlotte

Citrus

Sarasota

Highlands

, I

Collier

Monroe

Martin

Palm Beach

Indian River

Hendry

Hardee

Citrus

Sumter

Glades

1,502,518 Franklin

1,418,100 Glades

1,353,553 Hamilton

68.6 Leon

59.6 Alachua

57.2 Hendry

56.3 Orange

53-4 Hardee

t :

$85,421 Union

81,211 Glades

77,258 Lafayette

74,980 DeSoto

73,564 Calhoun

12,195

14,128

14,444

30.0

31.0

34.2

35.3

35.3

$19,749

22,246

23,795

24,921

26,010

6.5% St. Johns 2.8%

5.5 Wakulla 3.0

5.4 Monroe 3.0

5.0 Okaloosa 3.0

4.9 Orange and Seminole counties (tie) 3.1

0-14

15-19

20-39

40-64

65+

15.92%

5,48

24.59

31.93

22.09

Sources for income, population and age charts: Woods & Poole Economics Inc., Washington, D.C.

Copyright 2018. Woods & Poole does not guarantee the accuracy of this data. The use of this data and the

conclusions drawn from it are solely the resP.onsibili!Y. of Florida Trend. Population data include military

stationed in Florida, college residents and inmates.~ data are from the Florida Agency for Workforce Innovation and include total non-agricultural employment. The numbers are preliminary and not

seasonally adjusted. Housing numbers are from Florida Realtors. Prices are median.

Quick link to regional reports below:

HOME USA NYC LA CHI SF DEN CAL SE OH STL TEX STREETFILMS DONATE

STREETS BLOG Podcast / Transit / Bike/Ped / Smart Growth f --

Lansing Is Your 2018 Parking Madness Champion! By Angie Schmitt Apr 20, 2018 - 16

(fl lansing_crater

I n the last few weeks we've gotten to know 16 ugly asphalt wastelands overrun by surface parking. But only one

city (per year) can emerge victorious from the Parking Madness bracket and win the Golden Crater™. Our

readers have spoken, and this year that city is Lansing, Michigan.

The state government complex in downtown Lansing beat out the area around the Long Island Railroad station in

Hicksville, New York, to claim the championship.

Congrats, sort of, to Lansing- it's a deserving winner!

In the true spirit of Parking Madness, Lansing's parking crater stretches out for acres in the middle of town. While

there's a healthier downtown area east of the state capitol, make no mistake: This is a large, center city employment

cluster where surf ace parking has metastasized to an outrageous extent.

The parking crater complex is home to the state capitol and various appendages of state government, including

Michigan DOT headquarters.

Commenting on the championship match, reader Nick Helmholdt told us he used to have a state job and commute to

this very crater. The parking situation is even more extreme than the satellite view lets on, he says, because below

the surface are fields of underground parking. It's a different story for bike parking though: Helmholdt often

commuted by bicycle, but there were no bike racks, so he had to lock up to a hand rail.

The real estate market is soft around the state office complex, and these parking lots won't get redeveloped with the

wave of a hand. Helmholdt says the urban design in this area is basically set up to suffocate street life:

It would take a lot more than simply redeveloping underutilized asphalt to make this portion of Lansing an

attractive investment. Many of the State's office buildings in this area have terrible street frontages. My colleagues joked that the architectural style of our building was "neo-penal". Large portions of the office complex

are grade separated from the street. (You never have to cross a street at grade along the half-mile path between

the Hall of Justice and the State Capitol.)

Interesting backstory: We actually received two parking crater nominations in Lansing this year. The other was by

the riverfront and could have gone far.

We've been contacted by the Lansing State Journal about the competition and look forward to the local coverage of

Lansing's victory.

Last year's winner - Denver - is making moves to redevelop its parking crater. Maybe Lansing will take steps to end

the parking madness and make the area around Michigan's seat of government more hospitable for human beings.

!£l parking_mac1ness __ 2018

Filed Under: Parking Madness 2018, Promoted

Subscribe to our

DAILY EMAIL DIGEST

Enfer Email

Parking Madness 2018

San. Die o

Nashville

Nashville

iProvidenc:e

Prov

Surre

Washin ton

Fremont

Fremont.

Hiclc:iville

Hicksville

Nashville

Hicksville

Lansin

Lansin

Lansing

Phill . Hicbvill.e

. Phill

: Housf,on

San Jose

Lansin

·G·reen.ville

Portla:nd

Phnl

Lon Beach

Jacksonville

Houston

Curbed.Com

U.S. sets a nationwide goal to end traffic deaths by 2050

·1 b COMMENTS

"This is our moonshot"

-...,_ ...... Complete

streets like this one in South Bend, Indiana are cited in the Road to Zero strategy document as a key tool for reducing traffic deaths. City of South Bend via .§.11,art Growth America

Traffic deaths continue to plague U.S. streets, with pedestrian deaths reaching a 33.-vear high last year. Now, federal safety agencies are stepping in with an ambitious strategy to completely eliminate road fatalities nationwide by 2050.

Road to Zero is the initiative of the National Safety Council, which worked closely with the Department of Transportation and over 600 industry groups over the past year. Although dozens of cities across the country already have set their own goals to eliminate traffic deaths as part of Vision Zero initiatives, this is the first national strategy, with recommendations outlined in a scenario-type _r__~p_QJj: by the RAND Corporation.

"Our study is forward-thinking and a bit speculative," says Liisa Ecola, one of the authors of the report. "If it's 2050 now and there are no deaths-what is it that happened over the last 30 to 40 years to get us to this point?"

Decades-long progress in reducing roadway deaths has begun reversing in the past five years

Safety Council

11,300 fewer people died in.

crashes in 2011 than in 1985

5,000 more people died in crashes in 2016 than in 2011

2011

2016

SOURC[: l\'~t1011•I Hig!m•,y TrMlit S;itely ,\,lmlnl•lroelon (NH1'SAJ, l'•l•lil)' Anal)',i< il<1'nrtint "Y"'"' (f,\ RS),

National

The report details the U.S.'s troubling reality: After decades of watching roadway deaths decline, the last five years have seen a BhtlrJUl_ptick in fatalities. But some Vision Zero cities-like New York_and San Francisco-have been able to buck those trends with policies focused on reduced speed limit;i and in1proved street ;,_lCStgJ1.

Key recommendations from the report confirm that the Vision Zero strategy is working-focusing on physical changes to the urban streetscape that are known to save lives. The report cites specific improvements as particularly effective, like narrowing crossing distances using curb extensions or reprogramming walk signals to give pedestrians a head start at intersections (known as a Leading Pedestrian Interval, or LPI).

The report also champions what's called a "safe systems" approach for transportation planning- integrating life-saving improvements consistently and universally into every roadway, where unforgiving design currently makes errors deadly. As Ecola points out, there are currently six million crashes per year in the U.S. but only .5 percent are fatal-so the goal of the approach is not to necessarily to eliminate all crashes, but to eliminate the deaths. "What we should strive for is 1naking sure those mistakes do not have fatal consequences," she says.

The report also issues a strong call to automakers and tech companies-which are currently ~}.YfilIP.i.!1,gJllQ _ _µrban tran~portation space and introducing new problems for road safetv-to turn their attention to solving what is largely a preventable crisis. As part of the initiative, the Federal Highway Administration is a warding grants to groups like Sniart Growth Alnerica focused on reducing speeds, redesigning streets, and introducing innovative technologies to vehicles.

"I don't suspect the average American knows that 100 people are killed in crashes every day."

But the bigger challenge for cities is that proposed safety improvements are often met with pushback fr01n drivers who fight changes to U.S. streets. A councilmember in Los Angeles is n:yi~1g to ban the in1ple1nentation of road diets, one of the safety tools highlighted bv the federal govenunent as particularly effective in reducing deaths.

A recent \Vorld Resources Institute report came to the same conclusion, noting that safety improvements have been proven to work, yet U.S. cities lack the political will to imple1nent them. The result is that the U.S. lags far behind its economic peer countries, which have managed to dra1naticallv reduce traffic deaths over the last few decades.

"I don't suspect the average American knows that 100 people are killed in crashes every day,'' says Ecola, who notes that education campaigns could go a long way to change public perception. "Over time, as road deaths become less frequent, every time they happen it will become a bigger and bigger story, and people will want to know why the roads are not safe."

By highlighting the cause of each fatal crash-and questioning what can be done Jq i rnprove the design of the street where crashes occur-cities can combat the idea that eliminating deaths is not a worthwhile or possible goal.

"A lot of people think it's impossible," says Deborah Hersman, president and CEO of the National Safety Council. She equated the Road to Zero announce1nent to President John F. Kennedy's 1962 call to go to the moon-and less than a decade later, the U.S. had landed on the moon.

"It's going to take the same thing: leadership, committment of resources, and new technology," she says. "This is our 1noonshot."

City Commentary

A critical look at suburban triumphalism By Joe Cortright 12.4.2018

The "body count" view of suburban population misses the value people attach to cities Lately, we've seen a barrage of comments suggesting that the era of the city is over, and that Americans, including young adults, are ready to decamp to the suburbs. We think this new wave of suburban triumphalism is missing some key points about the growing value people attach to urban living. Our takeaways:

• Well-educated young adults are increasingly moving to cities and propelling city growth; their numbers are up 19 percent since 2012.

• Counties are the wrong units for measuring whether city centers are growing or not. (We explore how misleading this is, using Chicago as an example).

• In overall population growth, cities are performing better than they did in the previous decade, suburbs are performing worse than they did a decade ago.

• We're bumping up against the limits of how much cities can grow: For a while they could grow by reducing vacancy in existing housing; now they have to grow by building new units. That's happening, but not fast enough.

• People are paying a premium to live in cities; the value people attach to urban living (diverse, interesting, walkable neighborhoods) continues to rise relative to auto-dependent suburbs. In this case, price rather than quantity is a better measure of preference.

"The suburbs are back, baby" or so we're told.

At least that's the message we're getting from many who look at population trends. The very careful Jed Kolko looks through the latest county population estimates and notes that in the aggregate the most suburban counties are again growing somewhat faster than the most urban counties. Joel Kotkin, the patron saint of suburbanization hails this as a decisive turning point:

The trend of people moving to metros with the densest urban cores-a mainstay of media coverage­is clearly over.

Writing at Bloomberg. Conor Sen chimes in:

But every year that passes, the more population patterns are starting to look like the old sprawling dynamic serving suburban and exurban demand.

CityLab tracks down Joel Garreau, who coined the term "Edge Cities" back in the 1980s, to reprise his views on suburban triumphalism. He dismisses city growth as limited and exceptional, confined to just a few rich cities.

Garreau dismissed the idea of a return to central cities as much ado about a handful of coastal locales that just happen to be home to most of the people who write and read about these kinds of things. The only downtowns that are seeing significant growth, he said, are New York, Washington, Boston, Seattle, Portland, Oregon, and San Francisco. All of them are very wealthy, and very non­representative.

"Yes, in six cities it's happening, where the children of the people who read The New York Times live," he said. "But I'm a numbers guy, and you'll find that the vast majority of Millennials don't live in the old downtowns but in the suburbs, like sensible human beings. Because that's where the jobs are, or where their parents' basements are if they don't have a job."

A closer look at the numbers

Let's start with the population estimates. Jed Kolko has done a neat job of parsing census data, dividing counties in the nation's large metro areas into broad categories of city and suburb. He correctly notes that in the aggregate, counties in the "suburb" category have added people faster in the past year than counties in the "city" category.

But as we've pointed out before, counties are fundamentally the wrong unit for measuring urban growth. County boundaries vary tremendously from region to region, and seldom match up with dense city centers. (See the discussion of Chicago and Cook County, below, for a detailed explanation of how county data conceal rapid growth in the core by combining it with declining first-tier suburbs).

It's also important to put these numbers in a broader historical context: While city growth has slowed and suburbs have rebounded in the past couple of years, compared to the first decade of the 2000s, city growth has accelerated, while suburban growth has slowed. Growth in the lowest density suburban counties which was running more than 2 percent per year (the gray line below) is still well below that level. Higher density suburbs are also below their growth rate of the previous decade ( orange line). While growth in urban counties has slowed, its higher than it was in the prior decade (blue line). What we've really seen is convergence: low density counties wildly outpaced urban ones a decade ago; now all three categories are growing at much more similar rates. (And remember: this is the county level data that conceals what's happening in the densest urban neighborhoods)

2.5%

2.0%

1.5%

1.0%

0.0%

-1.0%

Population Growth by County Type

(Within Large Metros Onfy}

- urban

- Hig her-density s uburban

lovJer-density suburban

20012002. 2003 2004 200S.20062007200820092010 20112012 2013 201.:l 2015 2016

Source: Jed Kolko

It's also a mistake to look just at domestic migration data. For example, Kotkin and Cox repeatedly point out that big cities like New York and Los Angeles are experiencing high levels of domestic out­migration. That's actually always been true because these cities are immigrant gateways. Domestic migration only counts those who lived in the US in the past year, and so misses foreign immigrants. The combination of births, international immigration and still considerable gross flows of in-migrants have fueled growth in large cities.

Who is moving to cities?

The raw numbers tell part of the story, but what's equally important is to look at who is moving to cities. We've been carefully following these data for more than a decade, and we've seen a consistent, and accelerating trend: it's well educated young people who are fueling city center growth. In our 2014 report, the Young and Restless, we showed that close-in urban neighborhoods-those places within three miles of the center of the central business district, have been adding college-educated young adults twice as fast as in their surrounding metropolitan areas.

We updated this analysis earlier this year, looking at data on city population growth. The number of 25-34 year olds with four-year degrees living in large cities is growing almost twice as fast as that demographic group is growing outside those cities. In just the past five years there's been a 19 percent increase in 25-34s with a college degree. The preference of young workers for urban living is drawing more firms to city centers, generating additional jobs for workers of all ages.

Some, like Conor Sen, try to claim that this back to the city movement will peter out as millennials age and have children. But this view conflates life cycle changes with generational shifts in preferences: older adults are always somewhat more suburban, but less so than in previous decades. And as Millennials age out of the 25-34 year old age group, they are being replaced by an equally numerous next generation, that is similarly, if not more urban-oriented.

Prices tell us people value urbanity and that we've got a shortage of cities

Focusing just on population changes, implicitly makes a naive and questionable assumption about revealed preference that everyone is getting to live exactly where they would prefer. But we have good reason to believe that lots more people would like to live in cities if we built enough housing for them. The most powerful evidence on this point is the high and rising price premium that is being paid for urban housing. A variety of studies have confirmed this fundamental shift. Here's the data on relative home prices (In constant dollars) compiled by Columbia University economist Lena Edlund and her colleagues. Homes located in the urban center now command much higher prices than they did two or three decades ago.

$250.000

S200.000

$150,000

$100,000

S5-0,000 0

- 20 10 - 2000 - ,990 -~-~- 1980

HOME PRtGES BY LOCATION

5

• • ...-,,.--........ . - • j •

10 Mires from city center

- ·.;;.1 ·•-~·•,-•-..·~·· ·.. -·· ·.:~-~--"~

15 20

As we've noted this relative price increase in the most urban neighborhoods compared to suburbs constitutes a kind of "Dow" of cities, and reflects the value Americans attach to urban living. Data compiled by Fitch from the Case-Shiller repeat sales home price index shows that over the past 15 years or so, prices for the densest urban neighborhoods have increased about 50 percent faster than for suburban housing.

The urban price premium is driven by a growing demand for cities, but more recently, it also reflects a constrained supply. For a while, cities could grow faster than suburbs by reducing vacancies. But vacancies have shrunk, and now city population growth is bumping up against the limits of urban housing stock. As is most evident in places like San Francisco, demand for urban housing has increase much faster than supply, with the result that prices are high, and many people who would like to live their (or who did W1til recently) can't afford the rent.

So far from illustrating the demise of the demand for cities, the somewhat faster recent growth of suburbs is fueled in part by the fact that we haven't addressed our shortage of cities.

Lessons from the Windy City

It's illuminating to look to see how these trends play out in a particular city. In some respects, Chicago is the poster-child for city population decline. But if you look in detail, you see a strong urban center and decline in the suburbs. CoW1ty-level data mask the growth in the downtown Loop and nearby neighborhoods. It's actually the case that these parts of the city of Chicago are booming and gaining tons of smart yoWlg residents.

Keep in mind that Cook CoWlty, Illinois, encompasses the city of Chicago-and dozens of surroW1ding suburbs. Cook CoWlty is losing population in the aggregate, but chiefly in its aging, first-tier suburbs. But Cook County is huge, and only partly the center of the metro. Downtown Chicago is booming (with 47 high rises under construction-mostly for new housing). Our analysis earlier this year shows

that in the four years, 2012 to 2016, the City of Chicago (not Cook County) added 42,000 25-34 year olds with a four year degree, up 17% over just five years.

Meanwhile: When you look at Chicago's suburban counties, they're underperforming their previous growth, and many are declining in population. Chicago Business tracked down local demographers who've carefully studied change within the metro area. What they find is a surging center and declining suburbs:

. . . according to demographers at the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, Cook is just returning to the slow decline that pretty much halted during the subprime mortgage recession, in which migration nationally slowed to a crawl.

The real thing that's changed is that outer counties such as Will and McHenry aren't growing nearly as fast as they did in prior decades, combined with a sharp reduction in immigration to the Chicago area, according to Elizabeth Schuh, principal policy analyst at CMAP, which represents the seven Illinois counties in the region but not those in northwest Indiana or southeast Wisconsin. "Almost all of the counties except Kendall are losing," says Schuh, who's had a few days to study the data. ( emphasis added)

According to a new study by Schuh and CMAP's Aseal Tineh, the population drop since 2006 among native-born residents is exclusively concentrated among those who earn less than $75,000 a year and, in the case of the foreign-born, less than $25,000. But the region has gained more than 350,000 residents since 2006 who earn at least $75,000 year, she says. (Those figures are not adjusted for inflation.)

Slow employment growth in many sectors likely is the reason, she says. "Our job growth is just lower than (in) other regions," for middle-skilled positions in fields such as manufacturing and administration that require some post-high school education but not a college degree. But among the college-educated, the region continues to grow.

When you look city-by-city at the data, its apparent that urban centers are extremely robust, are attracting more talented young workers, and the firms who want to employ them. What cities everywhere are bumping up against, however, is the slowly growing supply of housing in great urban neighborhoods-a fundamental fact reflected in the growing city housing price premium.

City Commentary

The Cappuccino Congestion Index By Joe Cortright 2.4.2018

The Cappuccino Congestion Index shows how you can show how anything costs Americans billions and billions

We're continuing told that congestion is a grievous threat to urban well-being. It's annoying to queue up for anything, but traffic congestion has spawned a cottage industry of ginning up reports that transform our annoyance with waiting in lines into an imagined economic calamity. Using the same logic and methodology that underpins these traffic studies, its possible to demonstrate another insidious threat to the nation's economic productivity: costly and growing coffee congestion.

Yes, there's another black fluid that's even more important than oil to the functioning of the U.S. economy: coffee. Because an estimated 100 million of us American workers can't begin a productive work day without an early morning jolt of caffeine, and because one-third of these coffee drinkers regularly consume espresso drinks, lattes and cappuccinos, there is significant and growing congestion in coffee lines around the country. That's costing us a lot of money. Consider these facts:

• Delays waiting in line at the coffee shop for your daily latte, cappuccino or mocha cost U.S. consumers $4 billion every year in lost time;

• The typical coffee drinker loses more time waiting in line at Starbucks than in traffic congestion; • Delays in getting your coffee are likely to increase because our coffee delivery infrastructure isn't

increasing as fast as coffee consumption. Access to caffeine is provided by the nation's growing corps ofbaristas and coffee bars. The largest of these, Starbucks, operates some 12,000 locations in the U.S. alone. Any delay in getting this vital beverage is going to impact a worker's start time-and perhaps their day's productivity. It's true that

sometimes, you can walk right up and get the triple espresso you need. Other times, however, you have to wait behind a phalanx ordering double, no-whip mochas with a pump of three different syrups, or an orange-mocha frappuccino. These delays in the coffee line are costly.

To figure out exactly how costly, we've applied the "travel time index" created by the Texas Transportation Institute to measure the economic impact of this delay on American coffee drinkers. For more than three decades TTI has used this index to calculate the dollar cost of traffic delays-here we use the same technique to figure the value of"coffee delays."

The travel time index is the difference in time required for a rush hour commute compared to the same trip in non-congested conditions. According to Inrix, the travel tracking firm, the travel time index for the United States in July 2014 was 7.6, meaning that a commute trip that took 20 minutes in off-peak times would take an additional 91 seconds at the peak hour.

We constructed data on the relationship between customer volume and average service times for a series of Portland area coffee shops. We used the 95th percentile time of 15 seconds as our estimate of "free flow" ordering conditions--how long it takes to enter the shop and place an order. In our data-gathering, as the shop became more crowded, customers had to queue up. The time to place orders rose from an average of 30 to 40 seconds, to two to three minutes in "congested" conditions. The following chart shows our estimate of the relationship between customer volume and average wait times.

a, .:.? ~ (I) er,

B (I)

E i= ~· 0:, ~

a> > <

Volume S,peed Curve for Coffee Service 1 2.t)

110

1.00

00

80

70

60

50

40 ,.

/

30 0

~-,., ,. ,,,..•

w · .-·• 0

10

0

10 20 30

/ /

0

0

0 , /

/ ., 0

/

0

0

l ;

/ , I

0

40 50 60 70 Customers per holiJI'

/ I

80 90 100

Following the TTI methodology, we treat any additional time that customers have to spend waiting to place their order beyond what would be required in free flow times (i.e. more than 15 seconds) as delay attributable to coffee congestion.

Based on our observations and of typical coffee shops and other data, we were able to estimate the approximate flow of customers over the course of a day. We regard a typical coffee shop as one that has about 650 transactions daily. While most transactions are for a single consumer, some are for two or more consumers, so we use a consumer per transaction factor of 1.2. This means the typical coffee shop provides beverages (and other items) for about 750 consumers. We estimate the distribution of customers per hour over the course of the day based on overall patterns of hourly traffic, with the busiest times in the morning, and volume tapering off in the afternoon.

We then apply our speed/volume relationship (chart above) to our estimates of hourly volume to estimate the amount of delay experienced by customers in each hour. When you scale these estimates up to reflect the millions of Americans waiting in line for their needed caffeine each day, the total value of time lost to cappuccino congestion costs consumers more than $4 billion annually. (Math below).

This is-of course-our regular April First commentary, and savvy readers will recognize it is tongue in cheek, but only partly so. (The data are real, by the way!) The real April Fools Joke here is the application of this same tortured thinking to a description and a diagnosis of the nation's traffic problems.

The Texas Transportation Institute's best estimate is that travel delays cost the average American between one and two minutes on their typical commute trip. While its possible-as we've done here­to apply a wage rate to that time and multiply by the total number of Americans to get an impressively large total, its not clear that the few odd minutes here and there have real value. This is why for years, we and others have debunked the TTI report. (The clumping of reported average commute times in the American Community Survey around values ending in "0" and "5" shows Americans don't have that precise a sense of their average travel time anyhow.)

The "billions and billions" argument used by TTI to describe the cost of traffic congestion is a rhetorical device to generate alarm. The trouble is, when applied to transportation planning it leads to some misleading conclusions. Advocates argue regularly that the "costs of congestion" justify spending added billions in scarce public resources on expanding highways, supposedly to reduce time lost to congestion. There's just no evidence this works-induced demand from new capacity causes traffic to expand and travel times to continue to lag: Los Angeles just spent a whop_ping billion dollars to widen Interstate 405, with no measurable impact on congestion or traffic delays.

No one would expect to Starbucks to build enough locations-and hire enough baristas-so that everyone could enjoy the 15 second order times that you can experience when there's a lull. Consumers are smart enough to understand that if you want a coffee the same time as everyone else, you're probably going to have to queue up for a few minutes.

But strangely, when it comes to highways, we don't recognize the trivially small scale of the expected time savings (a minute or two per person) and we don't consider a kind of careful cost-benefit analysis

that would tell us that very few transportation projects actually generate the kinds of sustained travel time savings that would make them economically worthwhile.

Ponder that as you wait in line for your cappuccino. We'll be just ahead of you ordering a double­espresso macchiato (and holding a stopwatch).

Want to know more? Here's the math: We estimate that a peak times (around 10am) the typical Starbucks makes about 100 transactions, representing about 120 customers. The average wait time is about two and one-half minutes-of which about two minutes and 15 second represents delay, compared to free flow conditions. We make a similar computation for each hour of the day ( customers are fewer and delays shorter at other hours). Collectively GUstomers at an typical store experience about 21 person hours of delay per day (that's an average of a little over 90 seconds per customer). We monetize the value of this delay at $15 per hour, and multiply it by 365 days and 12,000 Starbucks stores. Since Starbucks represents about 35 percent of all coffee shops in the US, we scale this up to get a total value of time lost to coffee service delays of slightly more than $4 billion.