The URL can be used to link to this page

2007-04-25 CITY OF OKEECHOBEE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES APRIL 25, 2007 AGENDA PAGE 1 OF 10 - DISCUSSION - VOTE I. Call to Order. Chairperson. Technical Review Committee Meeting - Chairperson, Administrator Whitehall called the April 25, 2007 Technical Review Committee meeting to order at 10:05 a,m, II. Chairperson and Staff Attendance. Secretary. Voting Members: Brian Whitehall, City Administrator Ray Schaub, Building Official Denny Davis, Police Chief Herb Smith, Fire Chief Oscar Bermudez, City Engineer Donnie Robertson, Public Works Director Non-Voting Ex-Officio Members: John Cook, City Attorney Eddie Trent, Okeechobee County Health Department Jim LaRue, LaRue Planning and Management Services John Hayford, Okeechobee Utility Authority School Board Representative Betty Clement, Secretary Secretary Clement called the roll. Present Present Absent (with consent) Absent (with consent) Present Present III. Minutes. Secretary Present Present Present (Mr, Bill Brisson attending for Jim LaRue) Present (entered chambers at 10:11 a,m,) Absent (without consent) Present A. Motion to dispense with the reading and approve the Summary of Technical Review Motion to approve minutes by Director Robertson, seconded by Engineer Bermudez, Committee for March 28, 2007 regular meeting, WHITEHALL. YEA SMITH. ABSENT MOTION CARRIED, VOTE SCHAUB. YEA BERMUDEZ. YEA DAVIS. ABSENT ROBERTSON. YEA AGENDA April 25, 2007 - TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE - PAGE 2 OF 10 ACTION- .DISCUSSION- VOTE IV. New Business. A. Central Park Oak, The application for Pre-Application Plat Review was submitted by Asmussen Engineering, on behalf of applicant and property owner RJ Remodeling Enterprises, Inc. The applicant proposes Pre-Application Plat Review to develop a four lot subdivision for four residential homes to be built. Legal description: The East Y2 of Lot 20 and all of Lots 21 through 24, Block D Central Park, according to the Plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 39, of the Public Records of Okeechobee County Florida - Planning Consultant. Central Park Oak. The application for Pre-Application Plat Review was submitted by Asmussen Engineering, on behalf of applicant and property owner RJ Remodeling Enterprises, Inc. The applicant proposes Pre- Application Plat Review to develop a four lot subdivision for four residential homes to be built. Legal description: The East Y2 of Lot 20 and all of Lots 21 through 24, Block D Central Park, according to the Plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 39, of the Public Records of Okeechobee County Florida. Mr. Brisson presented the LaRue Planning Staff findings: Section 86-72. Plats and data for conditional acceptance or approval. The preliminary plat shall be at a scale of not more than 200 feet to the inch. It shall show or be accompanied by the following information: Provided: (1) Proposed subdivision name or identifying title, which shall not duplicate or closely approximate the name of any other subdivision in the City, (2) Key plan, shown location of tract in reference to other areas of the City, Yes, (3) North arrow, graphic scale, scale, and data; basis of bearing (desired and true bearing), Yes, (4) Name of the owner of the property or his authorized agent, RJ Builders & Renovators, Inc, (5) Name of registered engineer or surveyor responsible for the plat and supporting data, Expedition Surveying & Engineering/Asmussen Engineering, LLC. (6) Tract boundaries, with angles and distances, Yes. (7) Conditions on tract, including all existing watercourses, drainage ditches, and bodies of water; marshes; rock outcrop, isolated preservable trees one foot or more in diameter; and other significant features. Yes, engineer should confirm. (8) All existing streets and alleys on or adjacent to the tract, including name, right-of-way width, street pavement width, and established centerline elevations. Existing streets shall be dimensioned to tract boundaries, Yes. (9) All existing property lines, easements, and rights-of- way and the purpose for which the easements or rights-of-way have been established, Engineer should confirm. (10) Location, names where applicable, and width of all proposed streets, alleys, rights-of-way, easements, and purpose of easements, proposed lot lines with approximate dimensions; lot numbers, and block numbers. Yes. (11) Ground elevations on the tract, based on USCGS datum level at minimum contour intervals and sufficient data to show disposition of surface drainage (City datum based on USCGS datum acceptable), Requires verification with engineer. (12) Subsurface conditions on the tract; location and results of tests made to ascertain subsurface soil, rock, and groundwater conditions; depth to groundwater unless test pits are dry at a depth of three feet; location and results of soil percolation tests should individual wastewater disposal systems be permitted. IV. New Business Continued. A. Central Park Oak continued. AGENDA II April 25, 2007 - TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE - PAGE 3 OF 10 ACTlON- DISCUSSION-VOTE I Engineer should confirm. (13) Written statement and graphic representation and profiles, whether necessary, showing proposed grades of streets and facilities for drainage. Yes, (14) When applicable, future land use classification on and near the tract. Planning Staff has confirmed that the surrounding property is designated Single-Family, but it should be shown by the Applicant in map form. (15) Utilities on or adjacent to the tract. Indicate whether above the ground or below the ground. Needs to be shown. (16) Sites, whether any, to be dedicated or reserved for public use. None indicated. (17) Preliminary specifications for required improvements such as streets, curb and gutter, water, sanitary wastewater, storm drainage, etc. Some are shown, but appears incomplete. (18) Title and certifications; present tract designation according to official records in the office of the county clerk; names and addresses of owners, including certification from developer's attorney or abstract company that the dedicator of the plat is the owner of record at the time plat is to be accepted for filing; statement from the owner that there are no mortgages on the property; whether there are none, or whether there be a mortgage, a letter of acknowledgment from the mortgagee stating that the approves the platting; certificate from the developer's attorney, or the county tax collector, that all due taxes have been paid at time of application for condition approval or acceptance is filed, City Attorney will need to review, (19) Draft of protective covenants, whereby the developer proposes to regulate land use in the subdivision and otherwise protect the proposed development. City Attorney to review.(20) Statements in accord with section 86-71 (1). See above (21) Draft of proposed developer's agreement, City Attorney to review. Requirements for Residential Multiple-Family (RMF) District Section 90-196. Lot and structure requirements, provided except where further restricted by these regulations for a particular use, minimum requirements for the RMF districts shall be as follows: 1} Minimum lot area. (a) Single Family dwelling: The measurements for the smallest proposed lot for this subdivision are used below: Area: 6,250 square feet, Requirement met. 7,125 square feet width: 50 feet, Requirement met. 50 feet.(2} Minimum yard requirements, Except where a greater distance is required by these regulations for a particular use, the minimum yard setbacks shall be as follows: (a) Single Family dwelling: Front: 25 feet, Requirement met. 40 feet on all lots, Side: 10 feet, Requirement met. 10 feet on all sides for all lots. Parcel 1 (corner lot) 25 feet. Rear: 10 feet, Requirement met. 50 feet on all lots. (3) Maximum lot coverage by all buildings. Maximum coverage, Maximum impervious 40%-60%, requirement met, coverage is 19.4% on the smallest lot and 18% overall. Impervious area is not shown for individual lots, but overall impervious area constitutes only 34% of the site. AGENDA April 25, 2007. TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE. PAGE 4 OF 10 ACTION. DISCUSSION. VOTE IV, New Business Continued. A. Central Park Oak continued, Comments: The subject property is within the Multi-Family Residential Future Land Use category and is within the RMF Zoning District. From an existing neighborhood perspective, the present density has been maintained at lower than the maximum 10 dwelling units per acre allowable under the Multi-Family Future Land Use category in the Comprehensive Plan, All other aspects of the Plat seem to meet the requirements for the Residential Multiple-Family (RMF) Zoning District. Mr, Brisson reported that there were several areas that were omitted in the original staff report, The applicant has provided information for the next step of preliminary platting, Chair Whitehall asked Mr, Asmussen to address the Committee, Mr, Asmussen distributed a copy of the site plan to show the undeveloped lots to plat. He also distributed a copy of existing services that are available for the lots, Building Official Schaub stated that he needed footprints of the houses when the permits were submitted. City Engineer Bermudez corrected the streets on the sheet that was distributed to the committee, Public Works Director Robertson noted that the culvert pipe needs to be 15 inches, not the 18 inches and 30 inches in length in the Southeast 6th Avenue section, He stated that he would work with the developer when he was ready to install. This will be a modification to the site plan submitted, Mr. John Hayord, of the Okeechobee Utility Authority reported sewer and water was available, Director Robertson asked Mr, Hayford whether he anticipated cutting the road to furnish the utilities, Mr. Hayford replied that he would only cut in the alley, Mr. Whitehall asked whether there were further comments from the committee or the public, There were none, Director Robertson made a motion for Pre-Application Plat Review for Central Park Oak submitted by Asmussen Engineering on behalf of applicant and property owner RJ Remodeling Enterprises, Inc, for Lots 21 through 24 of Block D Central Park recommending approval to City Council contingent upon LaRue Planning Staff comments (Comments: The subject property is within the Multi-Family Residential Future Land Use category and is within the RMF Zoning District. From an existing neighborhood perspective, the present density has been maintained at lower than the maximum 10 dwelling units per acre allowable under the Multi-Family Future Land Use category in the Comprehensive Plan); seconded by Engineer Bermudez, AGENDA IV. New Business Continued, A. Central Park Oak continued. Application for Preliminary Plat Approval to be forwarded to the City Council for Public Hearing On May 15,2007. B. Southern Trace, The application was submitted by Steve Dobbs of Rudd Jones P.E. and Associates on behalf of applicant Curt Lundberg and property owner Insite Development Group, LLC. The application is for site development improvements with 238 units on 37.73 acres, multi-family residential development to be developed in two phases for property located one Block West of Highway 441, Legal description: Lots 1-26 of Block 4, Lots 1-6 of Block 11, Lots 1-26 of Block 12, Lots 1-26 of Block 13, Lots 1-26 of Block 20, Lots1-26 of Block 21 and Lots 1-6 of Block 22, City of Okeechobee Subdivision, Okeechobee Florida - Planning Consultant. II April 25, 2007 - TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE - PAGE 5 OF 10 ACtiON - DISCtJSSION...vOte I WHITEHALL - YEA SMITH - ABSENT MOTION CARRIED, VOTE SCHAUB- YEA BERMUDEZ -YEA DAVIS - ABSENT ROBERTSON-YEA Application for Preliminary Plat Approval to be forwarded to the City Council for Public Hearing On May 15, 2007. Mr. Brisson reported the LaRue Planning Staff findings. 1. Sec. 82-32 of the LDC requires development proposals to be accompanied by evidence that environmental studies/inventories have been completed or are not relevant to the property as pertaining to wetlands, soils, unique habitat, endangered species and flood prone areas, 2. The plans should show a "blow-up" of a typical building and its associated access, buffer, and parking, including dimensions, to allow an adequate review of the proposed project. It will also allow for an accurate determination as to the access aisle width, which appears to be only 23 feet as opposed to the required 24 feet. 3. Because this is a project to be developed under conventional zoning, the plans should show calculations for density, number of units (including the number of units by bedroom count), building coverage, impervious surface, and off-street parking and loading for each individual parcel, not project width or by phase. While the Staff has estimated the building coverage and impervious area for each parcel, the Applicant should provide accurate data for each parcel. PUBLIC FACILITIES CONCURRENCY: According to the U.S. Census, the City of Okeechobee averages approximately 2.7 persons per household (pph), Thus, the development of this property will include up to 120 dwelling units in Phase 1 and 116 in Phase 2, indicating a potential population of 324 persons in Phase 1, and 313 in Phase 2 for a total population of 637 buildout. Roadways: The City's adopted level of service standard (LOSS) for local roads is Level of Service (LOS) D. The subject property will be serviced by local roads. The Applicant has just recently submitted a revised traffic analysis and this analysis needs to be reviewed before a recommendation is made concerning possible degradation of Transportation LOS. Potable Water: The adopted LOSS for potable water is 114 gpcpd. The impact for the proposed development is as follows: IV. New Business Continued, B. Southern Trace continued, April 25, 2007. TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE. PAGE 6 OF 10 ACTION. DISCUSSION. VOTE Phase 1: 120 units X 2.7 pph x 114 gpcpd = 36,936 gpd, Phase 2: 113 units x 2.7 pph x 114 gpcpd = 34,781 gpd Total both phases 71,807 gpd, Sanitary Sewer: The adopted LOSS for sanitary sewer is 130 gpcpd, The impact for the proposed development is as follows: Phase 1: 120 units X 2.7 pph x 130 gpcpd = 42,120 gpd, Phase 2: 113 units x 2,7 pph x 130 gpcpd = 39,663 gpd, Total both phases 81,783 gpd Solid Waste: The adopted LOSS for solid waste is 13 Ibs/person/day. The impacts for the proposed development is as follows: Phase 1. 120 units X 2,7 pph x 13 I bs/person/d ay = 4,212 ppd, Phase 2. 113 units x 2.7 pph x 13Ibs/person/day = 3,996 ppd, Total both phases = 8,208 ppd, Drainage: The proposed development will be required to meet all standards required by the City of Okeechobee and the South Florida Water Management District. Parks & Recreation: The adopted LOSS for parks and recreation is 3 acres/1 ,000 persons, Based on the estimated population, the minimum acreage requirement for parks and recreation would be approximately 0,97 acres of recreation for Phase 1 and 0,94 acres for Phase 2. The Applicant has stated in its application for a Small Scale Amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan that the resident population's recreation needs would be met by on-site facilities and provision of fair share contribution, However, no recreation lands or facilities are shown on the site plan for either phase of the project. There is also no mention of a fair-share contribution by the Applicant. Recommendations: Staff recommends that consideration for approval of the site plan be deferred until such time as: 1. The traffic impact study can be adequately analyzed, 2. Applicant has identified the height of the buildings and number of bedrooms in each unit. 3. Applicant to provide the following: A current landscape plan, A blow-up of a typical building and associated buffer, An explanation and environmental analysis related to Section 82-32, Access and parking areas, 4. Addressed the deficiency in required loading spaces and needed recreational area and facilities, 5. Modified the site plan to be in conformance with the allowed number of dwelling units and maximum allowable impervious area in Block 4. COMPARISON OF REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS WITH APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL PHASE 1 PHASE 2 EXISTING PROPOSED EXISTING MF MF SF Land Use PROPOSED MF AGENDA II April 25, 2007 - TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE. PAGE 7 OF 10 ACTION. DISCUSSION. VOTE I IV. New Business Continued, B. Southern Trace continued, REQUIRED/ALLOWED PROPOSED 10/ac, (4,356 sf/unit) 211,050 sf = 48 units 211,050 sf = 48 units 211,050 sf = 48 units EXISTING Zoning RMF Existing Uses Vacant STANDARD Density Block 4 Block 13 Block 20 Block 11 Block 12 Block 21 Block 22 PHASE 1 EXISTING Min, Lot Area 10,000 sf Min. Lot Width 100 feet Setback Requirements Front 25 feet Street Side 25 feet Side 20 feet Rear 20 feet Water Body 20 feet (block 4) Minimum Distance Between Buildings 40 feet Maximum Lot Coverage Block 4 40% Block 13 40% Block 20 40% Block 11 Block 12 Block 21 Block 22 EXISTING RSF-1 Vacant except for four SFunits in Block 21 REQUIRED/ALLOWED PROPOSED PROPOSED RMF 24 48 48 PROPOSED 211,050 sf 670 feet 47,250 sf = 10 units 211,050 sf = 48 units 211,050 sf = 48 units 47,250 sf = 10 units PHASE 2 EXISTING 10,000 sf 100 feet 53 feet 25-29 feet NA NA 25 feet 25 feet 20 feet 20 feet 40-88 feet 40 feet Calculations not provided 14% 28% 28% 40% 40% 40% 40% PROPOSED MF 11 48 48 11 PROPOSED smallest is 47,250 sf 315 feet 53 feet NA 20 feet 36 feet 40-88 feet Calculations Not provided 29% 28% 28% 29% AGENDA IV. New Business Continued. April 25, 2007 - TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE - PAGE 8 OF 10 ACTION - .DISCUSSION.. VOTE B. Southern Trace continued. STANDARD REQUIRED/ALLOWED Maximum Impervious Area Block 4 60% Block 13 60% Block 20 60% Block 11 Block 12 Block 21 Block 22 PHASE 1 STANDARD REQUIRED/ALLOWED Maximum Height 45 feet Off-Street Parking Block 4 54 Block 13 108 Block 20 108 Block 11 Block 12 Block 21 Block 22 Access Aisle 24 feet Off-Street Loading Block 4 1 Block 13 1 Block 20 1 Block 11 Block 12 Block 21 Block 22 PROPOSED REQUIRED/ALLOWED PROPOSED Calculations not provided Calculation not provided 64.5% 56% 56% 60% 60% 60% 60% 58% 56% 56% 58% PHASE 2 PROPOSED REQUIRED/ALLOWED PROPOSED Not Shown 45 feet Not Shown 56 112 112 23 26 (for 11 du's) 112 112 26 (for 11 du's) 23 feet 23 feet 108 108 23 24 feet o o o o o o o IV. New Business Continued. B. Southern Trace continued, AGENDA II April 25, 2007. TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE. PAGE 9 OF 10 ACTION. DISCUSSION. VOTE I Landscaping Buffer Plan Required No Plan Submitted Plan Required No Plan Submitted 10 feet along street 10 feet 10 feet along street 10 feet Mr, Steve Dobbs requested that the application be postponed to the next TRC meeting, May 23,2007, when he will have the additional information requested by LaRue Planning and Development. Chair Whitehall prefaced the next item on the agenda by announcing that the Committee cannot furnish the applicant with a punch list to do all required, Mr, Dobbs acknowledged that he understood, Mr, Dobbs stated that he has been through site plans before and he just wanted to address the committee for any critical issues, Mr, Dobbs reported that he had met with Mr. Brisson before this meeting and had also met with Engineer Bermudez, Mr, Bermudez asked Mr Dobbs whether he had addressed with LaRue Planning regarding the entrance of the parking, Mr, Dobbs answered yes, That will be a major change in the drawings, along with the sidewalks and permits from SFWMD, Mr. Dobbs stated that he got completion from SFWMD and they were actually supposed to have issued a permit by April 12, 2007, but have contacted them and asked to hold off until the new set of plans are ready so we are not having the City approve one set of plans and SFWMD approving a separate set of plans, Mr. Dobbs will supply a waiver. Mr. Bermudez also remarked that in the future alleys could be vacant so the roads can continue from the east to the west. Mr, Dobbs inquired of Mr, Bermudez whether the existing roads were abandoned? Mr. Bermudez replied, no, Mr. Dobbs then said whether City wanted to take the roads through, that's the idea remarked Mr, Bermudez. Mr, Whitehall asked Mr, Brisson where the recreation area was located, He replied that they are talking about taking one of the buildings out south of the lake, Probable the West building, Mr, Brisson said, that would provide for the recreation area as well as reduce the impervious surface, Mr, Brisson then reported that there was some data or standards used that are not current that could cause some problems in the traffic analysis. In that case Highway 441 and Highway 70 may have more of a concurrency issue than is indicated in the current documents, Mr, Dobbs explained that he had been in conversation with the traffic analyzer, Trips and length were the main issues, AGENDA IV. New Business Continued, B. Southern Trace continued. V. Adjournment - Chairperson. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE AND BE ADVISED that if any person desires to appeal any decision made by the Technical Review Committee with respect to any matter considered at this proceeding, such interested person will need a record of the proceedings, and for such purpose may need to ensure a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based, General Services media are for the sole purpose of backup for official records of the Department. ATTEST: II A ril 25, 2007 - TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE - PAGE 10 OF 10 ACTION - DISCUSSION - VOTE I Mr. Whitehall asked whether anyone had any clarification questions? There were none. Director Robinson moved to postpone the site review application for Southern Trace to the next regular meeting, as requested by Steve Dobbs; seconded by Building Official Schaub. WHITEHALL - YEA SMITH - ABSENT MOTION CARRIED. VOTE SCHAUB-YEA BERMUDEZ -YEA DAVIS - ABSENT ROBERTSON-YEA There being no further items on the agenda, Chairperson Whitehall adjourned the Technical Review Committee Meeting at 10:25 a,m, ., AFFIDAVIT OF paLlSHER ... OKEECHOBEE TIMES 106 S.E. 51h 51., Okeechobee, FL 34974 (863) 763.7283 Published Weekly STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF OKEECHOBEE: e Before the undersigned a~jthority personally appeared James A. Hughes, Jr., who on oath says that he is publisher of the Okeechobee Times, a newspaper published weekly at Okeechobee in Okeechobee, Florida: Affiant further says that the said Okeechobee Times is a newspaper published at Okeechobee, in said Okeechobee County, Florida, and that said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Okeechobee, Florida a::: a daily, weekly, or bi-weekly and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Okeechobee, in said Okeechobee County, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. TECHNICALKt:.VlbW LVJVllVlIllGG MEETING NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Technical Review Committee of the City of Okeechobee will meet in Regular Session on . Wednesday, April 25, 2007, IQ;OO a.m"Ciry Hall, 55 SE 3rd Ave, Rm 200, Okeechobee, Florida, 1l1e public is invited and encouraged to attend. For a copy of the agenda contact the General Services Department (863) 763-3372 x 218, PLEASE TAKE NOTICE AND BEAD- VISED thai if any person desires to appeal any decision made by the City Council with respect to any matter considered at this meeting. such interested person will need.. a record of the pro- ceedings. and for such purpose may need to en- SUIe a verbatim record afme pro&edings is made. which record includes the teStimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Tapes an: used for tbe sole pUfl>ose of back.-up for the Clerk's Office. In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Florida Statute 286.26, persons with disabilities needing special acconunodation to participate in this proceeding should Contact Lane Gamiotea, no later than two (2) working tiays prior to the proceeding ~t 863- 763-3372 x 214; If you are hearing or VOice Im- paired. call TDD 1-800-222-3448 (voice) or 1- 888-447-5620 (TTY). by: Bnan Wttitehall, Cily AdmmistTator Betty ClemeOl, General Services CO(1rdinalilr that the attached copy of advertisement, being a Technical Review Committee Meetinq Notice PO #13356 in the matter of City of Okeechobee City of Okeechobee 55 SE Third Avenue Okeechobee. FL 34974-2932 In the Court, was published in said newspaper in the issues of 04/19/2007 Puhhsh 0411912007 Okeech\lN>e TlH~~~ ( //) / -?f/.....L.{,.../ vi, ~'--;:' i...A...<...... Jame A. Hughes, Jr., (Publisher)[ Sworn to and subscribed before me this / C;-zj~ day of A.D. 2007 a~J) (j /! 0. U, {ILl L,l!/iU"-.{.UJ_' Notary Public ,'"'' ';oseaiP>" "" rlreruian " y p(/. .' '''' , " }<;:tf. ' "~~;'~ C~mmission #DD318483 ~*:~ :*~ Expires: Jun 25,2008 -~ ~,,o<- edTIuu "~ .. . 'o~ ,,' Bond- "'"":':t>,, A.tlantic Bouaing Co,. !lle ~ CITY OF OKEECHOBEE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE OFFICIAL AGENDA APRIL 25, 2007 I. CALL TO ORDER: April 25, 2007, 10:00 a.m, - Chairperson. CITY HALL, COUNCIL CHAMBERS SS S.E. 3RD AVENUE OKEECHOBEE, FLORIDA 34974 Page 10f2 II. STAFF ATTENDANCE - General Service Coordinator. Voting Members: Ray Schaub, Building Official Denny Davis, Police Chief Donnie Robertson, Public Works Director Herb Smith, Fire Chief Oscar Bermudez, Engineer Brian Whitehall, Administrator Non- Voting Ex -Officio Member: Eddie Trent, Okeechobee County Health Department Jim laRue, LaRue Planning and Management John Cook, City Attorney John Hayford, Okeechobee Utility Authority School Representative Betty Clement, Secretary III. MINUTES - Secretary. A. Motion to dispense with the reading and approve the Summary of Technical Review Committee Minutes for the March 28, 2007 regular meeting. III. NEW BUSINESS - Chairperson. April 25, 2007 - Agenda - Page 2 of 2 A. Central Park Oak. The application for Pre-Application Plat Review was submitted by Asmussen Engineering, on behalf of applicant and property owner RJ Remodeling Enterprises, Inc. The applicant proposes Pre-Application Plat Review to development a four lot subdivision for four residential homes to be built. Legal description: The East lf2 of Lot 20 and all of Lots 21 through 24, Block D Central Park, according to the Plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 39, of the Public Records of Okeechobee County Florida - Planning Consultant. B. Southern Trace. The application was submitted by Steve Dobbs of Rudd Jones P.E. and Associatese on behalf of applicant Curt Lundberg and property owner Insite Develoment Group. The application is for site development improvements with a 238 units on 37.73 acres, multi-family residential development to be developed in two phases for property located 1 Block West of Highway 441. Legal description: Lots 1-26 of Block 4, Lots 1-6 of Block 11, Lots 1-26 of Block 12, Lots 1-26 of Block 13, Lots 1-26 of Block 20, Lots 1-26 of Block 21 and Lots 1-6 of Block 22, City ofOkeechobee Subdivision, Okeechobee Florida - Planning Consultant. IV. ADJOURNMENT TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING - Chairperson. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE AND BE ADVISED that if any person desires to appeal any decision made by the Technical Review Committee with respect to any matter considered at this proceeding, such interested person will need a record of the proceedings, and for such purpose may need 10 ensure a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based, Tapes are for the sole purpose of backup for official records of the Department. . PAGE -1- CITY OF OKEECHOBEE -April 25, 2007 - TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE - HANDWRITTEN MINUTES - O~ I. CALL TO ORDER. Chairperson: April 25. 2007 Technical Review Committee Meeting. 10:QW'a.m. II. STAFF ATTENDANCE - Secretary Present Administrator Whitehall Building Official Schaub Chief Davis Chief Smith Absent Engineer Bermudez Attorney Cook County Health Department Trent Planner LaRue ~UA Hayford School Representative Secretary Clement III. MINUTES - Secretary. A. Motion to dispense with the reading and approve the Summary of Technical Review Committee Minutes for the March 28, 2007 regular meeting. \\~~~k'1\ moved to dispense with the reading and approve the Summary of Technical Review Committee Minutes for the March 28, 2007 regular meeting; seconded by ~. VOTE YEA NAY ABSTAIN ABSENT Bermudez Davis Schaub Robertson Smith Whitehall ~n MOTION: ~- DENIED IV, NEW BUSINESS. Chairperson. A. Central Park Oak. The application for Pre-Application Plat Review was submitted by Asmussen Engineering, on behalf of applicant and property owner RJ Remodeling Enterprises, Inc. The applicant proposes Pre-Application Plat Review to development a four lot subdivision for four residential homes to be built. Legal description: The East ~ of Lot 20 and all of Lots 21 through 24, Block D Central Park, according to the Plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 39, of the Public Records of Okeechobee County Florida - Planning Consultant. PAGE -2- Section 86-72 Plats ~n~ data. for~onditional acceptance .or.~pproval. The preIimil1(lryp.latspallbeatascale of not more than 200 feettg th~ inch. It shaJlshowor be accompanied by the following information: (1) Proposed subdivision name or identifying title, which shall not Central Park Oak duplicate or closely approximate the name of any other subdivision in the City, (2) Key plan, shown location of tract in reference to other areas of the Yes City, (3) North arrow, graphic scale, scale, and data; basis of bearing (desired Yes and true bearing), (4) Name of the owner of the property or his authorized agent. (5) Name of registered engineer or surveyor responsible for the plat and supporting data, (6) Tract boundaries, with angles and distances, RJ Builders & Renovators, Inc, Expedition Surveying & Engineering/ Asm ussen Engineering, LLC Yes (7) Conditions on tract, including all existing watercourses, drainage Yes, engineer should ditches, and bodies of water; marches; rock outcrop, isolated preservable confirm, trees one foot or more in diameter; and other significant features, (8) All existing streets and alleys on or adjacent to the tract, including name, right-of-way width, street pavement width, and established centerline elevations, Existing streets shall be dimensioned to tract boundaries. (9) All existing property lines, easements, and rights-of-way and the purpose for which the easements or rights-of-way have been established, (10) Location, names where applicable, and width of all proposed streets, alleys, rights-of-way, easements, and purpose of easements, proposed lot lines with approximate dimensions; lot numbers, and block numbers, (11) Ground elevations on the tract, based on USCGS datum level at minimum contour intervals and sufficient data to show disposition of surface drainage (City datum based on USCGS datum acceptable), (12) Subsurface conditions on the tract; location and results of tests made to ascertain subsurface soil, rock, and groundwater conditions; depth to groundwater unless test pits are dry at a depth of three feet; location and results of soil percolation tests if individual wastewater disposal systems are permitted, (13) Written statement and graphic representation and profiles, if necessary, showing proposed grades of streets and facilities for drainage. (14) When applicable, future land use classification on and near the tract. Yes Engineer should confirm. Yes Requires verification with engineer. Engineer should confirm, Yes Planning Staff has confirmed that the surrounding property is designated Single-Family, but it should be shown by the Applicant in map form, PAGE -3- (15) Utilities on or adjacent to the tract. Indicate whether above the ground or below the ground, Needs to be shown. (16) Sites, if any, to be dedicated or reserved for public use, None indicated, (17) Preliminary specifications for required improvements such as streets, curb and gutter, water, sanitary wastewater, storm drainage, etc, Some are shown, but appears incomplete. (18) Title and certifications; present tract designation according to official records in the office of the county clerk; names and addresses of owners, including certification from developer's attorney or abstract company that the dedicator of the plat is the owner of record at the time plat is to be accepted for filing; statement form the owner that there are no mortgages on the property; if there are none, or if there be a mortgage, a letter of acknowledgement form the mortgagee stating that the approves the platting; certificate from the developer's attorney, or the county tax collector, that all due taxes have been paid at time application for condition approval or acceptance is filed, City Attorney will need to review, (19) Draft of protective covenants, whereby the developer proposes to regulate land use in the subdivision and otherwise protect the proposed development. City Attorney to review, (20) Statements in accord with section 86-71(1). See above, (21) Draft of proposed developer's agreement. City Attorney to review, Requirements for Residential Multiple-Farnily (RIVIF) District Section 9 Provided requireme Except where further restricted by these regulations for a particular use, minimum requirements for the RMF districts shall be as follows: (1) Minimum"otarea. (a) Single Family dwelling: Area: 6,250 square feet Width: 50 feet The measuremrents for the smallest proposed lot for this subdivision are used below: Requirement Requirement me!t. 50 feet (2) Minimum yard requirements. Exceptwh~rea~teat~rdistanceis required by these regulatiqnsfor yard setpcU::kS shaU.be as follows: (a) Single Family dwelling: Requirementmet. 40feeton~.lllots Requirement met. 10 feet on all sides for all lots, Parcel 1 (corner lot) 25 feet. Requirement l11et.50' Side: 10 feet Rear: 10 feet (3) Ma.x:irnl.lffll.()tcoveragebyaU.buildings. Maximum Coverage Maximum Impervious 40% 60% Requirement met: Coverage is 19.4% on ttle smallest lot and 18% overall. Impervious area is not shown for individual lots, but overall impervious area constitutes only 34% of th,e site, PAGE -4- Comments: The Subject property is within the Multi-Family Residential Future Land Use category and is within the RMF Zoning District. From an existing neighborhood perspective, the present density has been maintained at lower than the maximum 10 dwelling units per acre allowable under the Multi-Family Future Land Use category in the Comprehensive Plan. All other aspects of the Plat seem to meet the requirements for the Residential Multiple-Family (RMF) Zoning District. w~ ~~ rtfA.5eAuk~k- ~d-F fC)J~Wu. ~ ~~ ()J~ ~C/ltL~Ml(/~ ~J..ruf ... \)v1/f;I/ ~ ~(J t1;w~ Wi ~45 ~~/;jj(gr(a - Wa:tLv cy-... ~ ,_~~'+O~~ _ ~-~~~~ //I~ <-Ik. t-1~ ~~ ~ +v0~ ~ 0~ OS~ Motion -r;~ ~rc!:.Au:e- ~ PAGE -5- VOTE YEA NAY ABSTAIN ABSENT Bermudez Davis Schaub Robertson Smith Whitehall MOTION: B. Southern Trace. The application was submitted by Steve Dobbs of Rudd Jones P.E. and Associates on behalf of applicant Curt Lundberg and property owner In~ite Develoment Group, The app lication is for site development improvements with a 238 units on 37.73 acres, multi-family residential development to be developed in two phases for property located 1 Block West of Highway 441. Legal description: Lots 1-26 of Block 4, Lots 1-6 of Block 11, Lots 1-26 of Block 12, Lots 1-26 of Block 13, Lots 1-26 of Block 20, Lotsl-26 of Block 21 and Lots 1-6 of Bi,ock 22, City of Okeechobee Subdivision, Okeechobee Florida - Planning Consultant. GENERAL COMMENTS: I, Sec. 82-32 of the LDC requires development proposals to be accompanied by evidence that environmental studies/inventories have been completed or are not relevant to the property a~ pertain to wetlands, soils, unique' habitat, endangered species and floodprone area~. No evidence of such studies or fIndings has been submitted, This is particularly relevant .in light of the fact that a survey encompassing blocks 13 and 20 indicate the presence of a small (0.42 acre) wetland in the southwest comer of block 13. Aerials of the site also show this wetland as well as vegetation on portions of both Phases 1 and 2, but most particularly on blocks 4, 13 and 20. 2. The plans should show a "blow-up" of a typical building and its associated access, buffer, and parking, including dimensions, to allow an adequate review of the proposed project. It will also allow for an accurate det~~rmination as to the access aisle width, which appears to be only 23' as opposed to the required 24', 3. Because this is a project to be developed under conventional zoning, the plans should show calculati,ons for density, number of units (including the number of units by bedroom count), building coverage, impervious swface, and off-s\Teet parking and loading for each individual parcel, not project wide or by phase. While the Staff has estimated the building coverage ;,'Uld impervious area for each parcel, the Applicant should provide accurate data for each parcel. PUBLIC FACILITIES CONCURRENCY According to the U.S. Census, the City of Okeechobee averages approximately 2.7 persons per household (pph). Thus, the development of this property will include up to 120 dwelling unit" in Phase 1 and 116 in Phase 2, indicating a potential population of 324 persons in Phase 1, and 313 in Phase 2 for a total population of 637 buildout. Roadways: The City's adopted level of service standard (LOSS) for local roads is LOS D. The subject property will' be serviced by local roads. The AppUcant has just recently submitted a revised traffic analysis and this analysis n,eeds to be reviewed before a recommendation is made concerning possible degradation of Transportation LOS. Potable Water: The adopted LOSS for potable water is 114 gpcpd, The impact for the proposed development is as follows: Phase 1: 120 units X 2.7 pph x 114 gpcpd = 36,936 gpd Pha"e 2: 113 units x 2,7 pph x 114 gpcpd = 34,781 gpd Total both phases 71,807 gpd Sanitary Sewer: The adopted LOSS for sanitary sewer is 130 gpcpd, The impact for the proposed development is as follows: Phase 1: 120 units X 2.7 pph x 130 gpcpd = 42,120 gpd PAGE -6- Phase 2: 113 units x 2.7 pph x 130 gpcpd = 39,663 gpd Total both phases 81,783 gpd Solid Waste: The adopted LOSS for solid waste is 13 Ibs/person/day. The impacts for the proposed development is as follows Phase 1: 120 units X 2.7 pph x BIbs/person/day = 4,212 ppd Phase 2: 113 units x 2.7 pph x Bibs/person/day = 3,996 ppd Total both phases = 8,208 ppd Drainage: The proposed development will be required to meet all standards required by the City of Okeechobee and the South Florida Water Management District. Parks & Recreation: The adopted LOSS for parks and recreation is 3 acres/I, 000 persons. Based on the estimated population, the minimum acreage requirement for parks and recreation would be approximately 0.97 acres of recreation for Phase 1 and 0.94 acres for Phase 2. The Applicant has stated in it,; application for a Small Scale Amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan that the resident population's recreation needs wouJd be met by on-site facilities and provision of fair share contribution. However, no recreation land,; or facilities are shown on the site plan for either phase of the project. There is also no mention of a fair-share contribution by the Applicant. Recommendations: Staff recommends that consideration for approval of the site plan be deferred until such time as: 1. The traffic impact study can be adequately analyzed 2. Applicant has identified the height of the buildings and number of bedrooms in each unit 3. Applicant to provide the following: A current landscape plan A blow-up of a typical building and associated buffer An explanation and environmental analysis related to Section 82-32 A~~andpaoongareas 4. Addressed the deficiency in required loading spaces and needed recreational area and facilities 5. Modified the site plan to be in conformance with the allowed number of dwelling units and maximum' allowable impervious area in block 4 PAGE -7- COMPARI Land l se Zorung Existin ~ Uses SON OF REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS WITH APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL PHASI 1 PHASI 2 EXISTNG PROPCDSED EXISTtNG PROPC~SED MF MF SF MF RMF RMF RSFl MF Vacant Vacant except for 4 single-family Wlits in block 21 PROPC SED RE( JI J Kt-<D/AUDWED PROPC)SED RB II II<I-<D/AUDWED lO/ac. ( ~,356 sf/Wlit) 211,05 sf = 48 Wlits 211,051 sf = 48 Wlits 211,05 sf = 48 Wlits 24 48 48 STANJ~ARD Densiv Block 4 Block 13 Block 20 Block 11 Block 12 Block 21 Block 22 47,250 .sf = 10 Wlits 211,05 sf = 48 Wlits 211,05 sf = 48 Wlits 47,250 ~f == 10 Wlits 11 48 48 11 Min. L ~t Area 1 0,000 ~f Min. L t Width 100' 211,05 sf 670' 10,000 f 100' Smalle tis 47,250 sf 315' Setbac1 Requirements Front 25' Street ~ ide 25' Side 20' Rear 20' Water ody 20' (blqck 4) 53' 25-29' NA NA 20' 25' 25' 20' 20' 53' NA 20' 36' NA Mi n. D stance Be~n Bu ildir s Max , L pt Coverage B lock 4 40% B lock 13 40% B lock 20 40% B lock 11 B lock 12 B lock 21 B lock 22 PHASI 1 40 - 8~ 40' 40 - 88 CalC'; r ot provided CalC'; [Ot provided 14% 28% 28% 40% 40% 40% 40% 29% 28'% 28(X) 29% PHASij: 2 PAGE -8- L STANDARD M I ,REOU 'RPD/AllDWED ax. ~pervlOUS Area Block 4 60% Block 13 60% Block 20 60% I PRopd>SED REOlrtRPD/AllD Cales I ot provided WED 64,5% 56% 56% PROPC~SED Cales I ot orovided - Block 11 Block 12 Block 21 Block 22 60% 60% 60% 60% 58% 56% 56% 58% - - - Max. 1- eJgl1t 45' Not sh wn 45' Not sh wn Off-str( let Parking Block 4 54 Block 13 108 Block 20 108 Block 11 Block 12 Block 21 Block 22 Access Aisle 24' Off-strc et Loading 56 112 112 23' 23 108 108 23 24' 26 (for 1 du's) 112 112 26 (for 1 du's) 23' Block 4 Block 13 Block 20 1 1 1 o o o Block 11 Block 12 Block 21 Block 22 1 1 1 1 o o o o Landsc ~ing Buffer Plan R :(lUired 10' alo ~2: street No pia submittMm Rcau,iJ.1ed 10' 10' ala 12: street No oIa submitted 10' L Comments ~ WWv11 ~ ()J~ ~ hjJ~ - ~, ,JtudJ?A fJbb ~ 71f;, ,;Ji)bhS ~ /L ~ c!h- i1<-t- ~. , ()!J~ .... ~ #,' SF()JjV( ~ \ ~~_ IJ~f2u4;/pJ-hky~~~~ ~.~~~~ ~'tk, ~f%~ ~){J/ fIt1.~ '- Ji<< @&J0~ ~~ ~<-dl ~. ?dtd.J; ~ aku). W{.L /t1-U~' ~ _ PAGE -9- !~. /3?~~~~.~. 'tL ):A~:Ch7~~ WM-- ~~. ~ f~<4--. . ~ c/o ~~ ~4~~~- 61~ ~. D ~ >7u::f ~ ~ c.... c;L(r ~ ~k . djf ff9tJ ~ in b -.K2 . Motion 0~ p~ VOTE Bennudez Davis Schaub Robertson Smith Whitehall MOTION: YEA NAY ABSTAIN ABSENT V. There being no further JD" D?:5 a.m, . PAGE-10 ~~~ adjoumed the Technical Review Committee Meeting at .. City of Okeechobee 55 Southeast 3rd Avenue Okeechobee, Florida 34974 Phone: (863) 763-3372 Fax (863) 763-1686 Application for Pre-Application Plat Review Name of Project: tEN ~L ~(2t:::::.- OA-"- Applicant: R.:r Re.moJeJ j fj ~ferf(~{~ I 11\e.. Property Owner: .sn il)P Description of project including all proposed uses: t.cJp$-!n.le;r;Of'i !)-f Lf (e~~ cLe.flt~ (l I hOh"\e.b (;; ,; t"), :"", . \ ..,. io-r ..;dn,'!<J "l :;".0 It l Number/description of phases: ON-€" Location of/Directions to the project: 4-4- i S.o);,ht') -+n s C 5""' SO\- , ~f) f.-U-r ,,; , ; ~.!de., of '1'1\ e.. rn O..~ (l\-I'1 S E" 5+:.\;, ~";:-r' ()~e_e.LnDhe.e.') Existing improvements on property: NOt-..\E Is proposed use different from existing or prior use? ~ Yes) L-No) <-N/A) Total Land area in square feet: oO~Z> or acres: 0.1 Existing impervious surface: D square feet 0 acres 0 '% of site Additional impervious surface: IO,l.o80 square feet 0,0 acres o~ % of site Proposed total impervious surface IO.LD80square feet 0.3 acres 5~ % of site Source of Potable Water: ()\tA Method of sewage disposal: ~.." l.~.. C Current Future Land Use: re.s~ Ae.j; t-~a,' Current zoning: RM ~ Parcel identification number: 3- ~~. 3'1. ~r. 0030 . mOOn - 0"'-0() ... Application for Pre-Application Plat Review Page 2 Name of project CEI'l-reAL p~ t~~ c. . ,. Applicant ~ :r ~,i?hJj !:);,z:.Lr i1: E'" n +e.f'~) n .s e. 5 1\ no. ...~- , Address: ~cn.t 4~~~\;1q}()~~ rHo ~ l' I' (-"~ nKe",U"'o~\O;' , ~'.l U'" ..J;;...;., L~'""""-,,, ,., . ~ ! () "" I . \of- I'i 4- Phone: i~;' .. 3S~ - Io~ 11 Fax: 0.3" II "." , , f.i l\~j - j! '1 - beD?!f Other phone: ~~; ~:':' .l.., .d f'.c> . ,-,,1\ \1 Lrpr I..'..',: .1 'f''.:. l Contact Person: ,t',:!, ___ f "" , \\ RI!M()J~ \ In (, Address: j"o I ~ 1 :1 G'\ it'~t1 h)a~ 110 ~ ()~ l : <,'ft p .ee.J\ (\.)' 11 P PJ r' .. f' w'- '-'i &;~~ ~ ." Phone: ~~~. ~~~ . lo~~' Fax: &b3 . 3(1 - 191';?~ € Other phone: Property Owner:RJ Re.n,cde'l Ftc j E'o.h::rpn ~c.:~ I f~C, Address: Ml~~ \..hjhWa..~ 1\0 \E t>\(e.e.tf~'\O~. C:. tee, , r:~ Phone: gb;. ;(1 - lob 11 Fax: ~lo3 - 5(1" ~~~ g Engineer: J~mu ~Se.n ;:fj.,,(!i ['.L,n &'0 :~ "....,'e... Address: .~^ "."l (cOO ~ Ddrco tt li-Je. lO I " if "Ii ;-.':, r~ lJ. .....,.. i \(e f' . -j, ') <.,<<,,' , ~I Phone: g~~ - ~ 10 1 - gr~,!..:;; surveyor:EZ~t~':2. J:. ,h 00 SHr1I-e.lt , ~,1 \ .>> Address: ~o4 tJ'u) S-!!) ~+ '- ()\\Q.€,(:.$\Ob1.:;::p. Fi Phone: Obi..:\ ("n . I I (J fJ '_':J ,,,.,~., 101P6.~ Fax: fl Jr, ~ ~u.!. '1 .. t'J~.1o 0 't.~,-,,-o. ~. Q..o EI\Q }S\ e..tr~ I\q 1 i Otw_ ~J -J Fax: ~:io~ - ar~ - b~~4- <1 PREPARED FOR: RICK VALENTE OWNED BY: R J BUILDERS & RENOVATORS, INC. PREPARED BY: ASMUSSEN ENGINEERING, LLC P.O. BOX 1998 OKEECHOBEE, FL 34973-1998 48 HOURS BEFORE DIGGING CAll TOll FREE 1-800-432-4770 SUNSHINE STATE ONE CAll OF FLORIDA, INC. ......~. _."- ~ --.- ..="<-.-<--- CENTRAL PARK OAK 3-22-37-35-0030-00000-0200 OKEECHOBEE, FLORIDA SITE w W 0:: ...... (f) ::c ...... <D SW 5TH STREET 3: (f) LOCATION N.T.S. ~~ ~ ~.....JjtJ 3-3~l SHEET INDEX: SHEET 1 OF 5: COVER SHEET 2 OF 5: PAVING, GRADING & DRAINAGE SHEET 3 OF 5: DETAILS SHEET 4 OF 5: TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SHEET 5 OF 5: SPECIFICATIONS ASMUSSEN ENGINEERING. LL P.O. Box 1998 OKEECHOBEE, Fl,ORIDA 3.973-1998 TEL: (883) 763-85.8 PROJECT NUMBER CENTRAL PARK OAK CENTRAL PARK OAK. SHEET 03152007-01 AP~ 2 2J:;~ ~~ a134 1 of 5 --- .,..;;.;.-;- BM MANHOLE RIM EL. 18.97 NGVD '?Jf$, +....q. IS' (LEY OH'w' f$, q~ +.... A '" '" '" '" "'~'" '" '" A CDm t t <:l!m +- "" '" ..v '" y "'2' '" GIZ59 +- '" '" '" '" '" +- '" '" '" "'~'" '" '" 5 ' <::I!m CDm CDm t t t t 3 ' t c:m:m <:l!m <:l!m QUI) <lClillD<l QUI) <lClillD<l QUI) <lClillD<l <lClillD<l t L\<7 , t L\<7 L\<7 . L\<7 t EXISTING 5')(211' CONC. W'ALK CDD mID, mID, CDD <7 G <7 <7 <7 (g) <J!ID . , 'QJ:ZD l3J;m<7<l, '.&lm><> A <l A 25 LF 18' CMP INV. EL 17.1' 'oJ /MES 25 LF 18' CMP INV. EL 17,1' 'oJ /MES INV. EL 'oJ /MES 25 LF 18' CMP INV. EL 17.1' 'oJ /MES t t .'~. _, '~'.h..-_.-:"'" _........,. . ..."".--- . -- ....- IS' CMP INV. LEDGEND SITE 30,750 SQ FT .70 AC IMPERVIOUS 10,680 SQ FT 34% BUILDINGS 5,532 SQFT 51% CONCRETE 6,811 SQFT (<l... ) 64% r- CONCRETE ON SITE 3,744 SQFT 55% W .W CONCRETE OFF SITE 3,067 SQFT 45% I~ ASPHALT ( ~ PERVIOUS 20,070 SQFT 65% .!: 16,155 SQFT ( ) +> GRASS 80% \D 3,915 SQFT ( J 20% RETENTION AREAS '" W' PROPOSED ELEVATION ~<;1 EXISTING ELEVATION V) -+ DIRECTIDNAL F'LDW' (/ // /' J BUILDING ,. . . 'TOP OF' BERM EL 19.70 o PROPERTY CORNER ALL ELEV A nONS ARE NGVD BUILDINGS ARE LESS THAN 45' HIGH '. q~ . :s: . XISTING 18' CMP INV. EL 17.1' J ~ n n..... ..~ ;) .O~-7 ASMUSSEN ENGINEERING, LLC P.O. Box 1998 OKEECHOBEE!,. FlORIDA 3~973-1998 TEL: (Ct63) 763-8546 PROJECT NUMBER CENTRAL PARK OAK CENTRAL PARK OAK. SHEET S 1". CERl'IFlCATE OF 2 5 03152007-01 APR' 2 2007 NJ1HClRIlA11ON NO. H134 of ___""..., .._"....,.,'.. .............'_, ~"'-""~=_'e"""""~,~,,,,"_ .'-.~~_:::..... -'~~'!t~70~ "":~,-'-~.""'~7o._~~:'''''''.: ""~..~.~-~ PL o.g. VARIES 'l' 20' " o.g. VARIES SECTION A-A NOTE: 1) COMPACT SWALES TO 95" MAX DENSITY FOLLWING COMPlETION OF FINISHED GRADE. 2) DRY RETENTION TO BE SODDED WITH BAHIA. WOVEN SILT - LOK 36-200-P POLYPROPYLENE FABRIC OR APPROVED EQUAL EXISTING GROUND o.g. VARIES PL ~.5' 5' "r1'1 n.g. VARIES 1 ~-l/11 2 2 SECTION B- B SILT CURTAIN DETAIL NTS 68 THICK CONCRETE 3000 PSI 0 28 DAYS W! 68x68 1010 WWM. GRUBBED!STABIUZED SUB-GRADE COMPACTED TO 95" DENSITY PER AASHTO-18O PL l' PERMETER BERM EL. 19.70 15' & I ::Jl 2 ASPHALT ROADWAY 128 UMESTONE!SHELL!CRUSHED CONCRETE (SIX INCH Urn) COMPACTED TO 98" MAX. DENSITY PER AASHTO T -180 o.g. VARIES TYPICAL CONCRETE DETAIL NTS 5' CONC WALK IlL 2 SECTION C-C MITERED END CMP WITH CULVERT INVERT AT SWALE INVERT Section VIew MITERED END PER FOOT INDEX 272 C!L ROADSIDE SWALE CONCRETE MITERED END IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 430, FOOT STANDARD SPECIFlCTlONS TYPICAL CULVERT DETAIL N.T.S. CONCRETE ACCESS - PARKING Plcn VIew N.T.S. ASMUSSEN ENGINEERING, LLC P.O. Box 1881 OI(EECHOBEE, ~IDA 34873-1888 TEL: (163) 763-1546 PROJECT NUMBER CENTRAL PARK OAK CENlRAL PMK OAK. SHEET 03152007-01 APRI 2 2:'~S. ~TE:H134 30,5 ~ ~ '\,q. + ~ +,q """ . +...q~ ~. ') +,fb ~~ +,\fb' ~ tO~ +~ 4 <t <t'1J ,IJ ~ .4 SE 5th STREET, .;",<"~;;~;;-~",~;-,~::;;':';~~;.;;:::;-',,-'-+""- ~' co +'co' ~ ~ +,\co' b qC;S +~ II I' ASMUSSEN ENGINEERING, P.o. Box t998 OKEECHOBEE. FlORIDA 34973-t 998 TEL: (863) 783-8546 PROJECT NUMBER CENTRAL PARK OAK CENlRAL PARI< ON<. t. -30' c:smFlCATE OfF 03152007-01 APRI 2 2007 MnHlllIlmIN NO. HtJ4 XISTING 15' CMP INV. EL 17.7' .-. W W .~ I t1.... ..r: .:p .....0 .', W (,I). I .. . fO ' '\,q. . XISTING 18' CMP INV. EL 17.1' J ~~.r +~,~f;;) EXISTING ELEVATION LLC & , TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS: ,. Clearinq and Grubbing' Clearing and Grubbing shall be performed in accordance with Section 110, Aorida Deportment of Transportation (FOOT) Spec/flcatlons. This shall include, but not be limited to, the complete removal of all trees, brush, stumps, roots, gran, weeds, rubbish and other undesirable material to a depth of 18 inches below natural ground or proposed finished grade, whichever is lower. Areas to be cleared generally consist of the right-of-way (necessary for rood construction and swale installation), conveyance swales and drainage and utility easements. Erosion control shall be accomplished by seeding and mulching, as determined ta be necessary by the contractor, the engineer or City of Okeechobee, All material removed from the site shall be legally disposed of In accordance with local, state and federal requirements. Organic material may be burned on-site provided the Contractor obtains all the required bum permits. AIry unburned remains shall be disposed of off-site in accordance with established requirements. THE CONTRACTOR SHAlL MAINTAIN ALl STORMWATER ON-SITE DURING CONSTRUCTION, TO PREVENT DISCHARGE OF lURBID WATER TO THE RECEMNG SYSTEM. SHOULD SEVERE STORM EVENTS OCCUR, THAT MAKE CONTAINMENT IMPOSSIBLE, THE CONTRACTOR SHAlL TAKE ALl POSSIBLE STEPS TO PREVENT DISCHARGE OF lURBID WATER. SOME Of THESE "STEPS" INCLUDE: INSTAU.ATlON OF ADDITIONAL SILT FENCE, UTIUZATlON OF HAY BALES AND CONTAINMENT BERMS, 2. Earthworic &: Grading' All earthwor1c and grading lhall be performed as required to achieve the final gradel, typical sections and elevations indicated on the plons. In all other respects, materials and construction methods for earthwork, embankment, excovatlon and grading lhall conform to the requirements of FOOT Specifications, SectIon 120. Any plastic or otherwise undesirable material within three (3) feet of finished road grade shall be removed and replaced with suitable material. 3. Paving Improvements: All areas proposed for paving shall be constructed in accordance with the design grades and typical leet/ons lhown on the drawings. ConstructJon shall be In conformance with City of Okeechobee requirements. Asphalt may be substituted for concrete, but must meet City of Okeechobee minimum standards (see LORs). A. Asphalt: Prime coat and tack coat for base course, and between lifts, shall conform to the requirements of SectIons 300-1 through 300-7 of the FOOT Specifications. Prime coat shall be applied at a rate of 0.25 gallons per square yard and tack coat at a rate af 0.10 gallons per square yard, unl_ otherwise approved by the Engineer. Asphalt lurface COUI'I8 sholl be one and 1/2-lnch of Type S-3 per FOOT SectIon 331, with a maximum aggregate Ilze of 1/2-lnch and shall hove a minimum Mal'lhall stabntty of 1,000 pounds. Thlckn_ shall be as specified above for each pavement section. B. Base: An twelve-Inch base shall be compacted to 98" maximum density (six-Inch lifts) per MSHTO T-l80. All Iimerock-shell shall meet the minimum requirements of FOOT SectIon 911. As an alternative, cemented coquina conforming to FOOT SectIon 915 may be used as a substitute, with the same compoctlon speciflCOtions prevloualy described. C. Sub-grade: The sub-grade shall be compacted to 95" of maximum density per MSHTO T -180, and etoblllzed to a minimum FBV of 50 psi. Sub-grade shall be thoroughly rolled with a pneumatic-tired raRer prlor to scheduling any aub'4lrade inspection. D. Sod: A minimum of a four-foot wide strip of Bahia sod shall be placed along the edge of all constructed pavement to aide In controlRng _Ion and maintaining IaII atobInty. In addition, Bahia sod lhall be placed along the entire length of the detention area. Thla sod wi" be located landward from the propoeed control elevation. Sod lhall be pIacecI In conformance with FOOT SectIon 570, 575 and 981. E. Seeding, Fertilizing and Mulching: All disturbed areas shall be stabilized with seed, fertilizer and mulch upon completion and acceptance by the Engineer of final grading, Seeding, fertilizer and mulch shall be used In conformance with FOOT SectIons 570, 575 and 981. Hydromulching wUl be an acceptable method of providing graund cover, where sod is not required. However, established methods of applicotlon must be employed. The contractor is responsible for establishing a stand of gran sufficient to prevent erosion and to allow ultimate removal of temporary silt fencing. This applies to those areas not covered by sod (specified above). F, Testing: The contractor shall secure the services of an approved independent testing laboratory to conduct all required testing on sub-grade, base, asphalt and concrete. LocatIons required for these tests shall be the minimum, as required by the City of Okeechobee. The engineer may require additional tests. Should any test fail, the contractor shall at his own expense, repair the deficiencies and retest the work until compliance with the specifICations. G. Traffic control: The Installation of Traffic Control Devices shall be In conformance to the requlrments of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices and Okeechobee County requirements. 4 DRAINAGE IMPROVEUE:NTS' All labor, materials and construction methods shall be In conformance to the minimum engineering and construction standards of the CIty of Okeechobee and FOOT. Trench excavation and back-filling operations lhall meet or exceed the requirements of FOOT lpecificatlons, SectIon 125. The contractor lhall provide the necessary back-ml compoctlon testing required to demonstrate compliance with thil MCtIon. The pipe trench shall be dry when pipe is laid and the pipe shall be bedded as per FOOT speclflCOtlons. THE CONTRACTOR SHALl COMPlY WITH CHAPTER 90-96, LAWS Of FlORIDA. WHICH REQUIRES THE CONTRACTOR PERFORMING TRENCH EXCAVATIONS OVER FM: FEET IN DEPTH TO COMPLY WITH ALl APPUCABI.E TRENCH SAFElY STANOAADS AND SHORING REQUIREMENTS AS SET FORTH IN THE OCCUPA1lONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADNINISTRATlON'S (OSHA) EXCAVATION AND SAFElY STANDARDS, 29 C.F.R. 19926.650, SUB-PART P AND INCORPORATED AS THE STATE Of FLORIDA STANDARD, AS REVISED AND/OR UPDATED. THE COST Of COMPLIANCE WITH THIS REQUIREMENT SHAlL BE INCLUDED AS A SEPARATE UNE ITEM ON THE CONTRACTOR'S BID. OTHERWISE. THE CONTRACTOR CERTIAES THAT THE COST Of COMPLIANCE IS INClUDED IN THE UNIT COST Of ALl ITEMS OF WORK, WHICH THIS REQUIREMENT APPUES. A. Sufficient cover shall be pravided to conform with FOOT requirements. B. Existing drainage consists of sheet flow to the north to an existing ditch (refer to the topographic sheet). Proposed dry detention will provide starage and water quality treatmenl Following treatment, discharge will be via an outfall control structure (refer to Details). C. Contractor to used the grades shown on the plan sheet as a guide. Site Is to be graded to drain to (dry detention) and outfall to the existing ditch to the north via the control structure. D. Contractor to locate all utilities prior to Initiation of on-site construction activity. E. Minimum building finished floor shown Is above the 100 yeor-3 day storm stage(JO.8 NCW). "" elevation of 32.25' NGW wal selected CIS the finished floor elevotlon for this site. F. Water and sewer, (to be provided by OUA and a lift-station connecting to the existing _er system). Approvals from QUA and FDEP will be obtained as required. --<<<'-'>""'-,""":.:: -~,' ":" -' "..,'".. -'-.""'~~;,:""l-"",:;'fl"";:""-' ~,~",,:,~-:,"~-p"';,,/,,__~~c-'-' EROSION AND SEDIWENT CONTROL NOTES: Construction activities can result in the generation of significant levels of pollutants, which may reach surface and/or ground waters. One of the primary pollutants of surface waters Is sediment In erasion. Excessive quantities of sediment reaching water bodies has been shown to adversely affect the physical, biological and chemical properties of receiving waters. Transported sediment can obstruct stream channels, reduce the hydraulic capacity, reduce the conveyance capacity of culverts and ather conveyance facllltes and adversely impoct benthic Invertebrate and fish species through slltatatlon. Excenlve suspended sediments reduce light penetration and therefore reduce primary productivity within these receiving systems. MINIMUM STANDARDS: 1. Sediment basins, perimeter berms, erosion control barriers and other measures, implemented to trap sediment transport. shaH be constructed as the first step In any land disturbing activity and shall be made functional before any land disturbance takes place. 2. All sediment contral measures are to be adjusted to meet field conditions at the time of construction and be constructed prior to any grading or disturbance of existing surface material, Perimeter sediment barriers shall be constructed to prevent sediment or trash from flowing, floating or blowing onto adjacent properties. 3. Permonent or temporary soil stabilization shall be applied to denuded areas within seven days after final grade Is reached on any portion of the site. Temporary soli stabilization shall be applied within seven days to denuded areas that may not be at final grade, but will remain undisturbed for longer than 30 days. Permanent stabilization shall be applied to areas that are to be left undisturbed for more than one year. 4. During construction af the project. sail stockpiles shall be stabilized or protected with sediment trapplng measures. The applicant Ia reeponeIble for the temporary protection and permanent stablRzatlon of all stockpiles maintained on-site, as well as, sail Intentionally transported from the site. 5. A permanent vegetative cover shall be established on denuded areas, not otherwise permanently stabilized. Permanent vegetation shall not be considered established until a ground cover is achieved that, In the opinion of the Reviewer, Is uniform, mature enough to survive and will function ta Inhibit erosion. 6. Stabilization measures shall be applied to earthen structures such as dams, perimeter berms, dikes and diversions Immediately following Installation. 7. Surface runoff from disturbed areas, that are comprised of flow from drainage areas greater than or equal to one acre, shall be contralled by a sediment basin. The sediment basin shall be designed and constructed to accommodate the anticipated sediment loading from the disturbed area. The outfall device or design shall take Into account the total drainage area flowing thraugh the device from the disturbed area. 8. Following any signifICant rainfall event, sediment control structures will be InIpected for Integrity and functionality. Any damaged devices shall be corrected immediately. 9. Concentrated runoff shall not flow down, cut or fill slopes unl_ contained within an adequate temporary or permanent channel or structure. 10. Whenever water -ps from a slope face, adequate drainage or other effective protection shall be provided. ~~~~ ", Prior to swales becoming operational, compaction and sodding of these areas shall be completed in accordance with the plans. City of Okeechobee and FOOT requirements, 12. Periodic Inspection and maintenance of sediment control must be provided to ensure that the intended purpose Is accomplished. The developer, owner and/or contractor shall be continually responsible for all sediment leaving the property. Sediment contral measures shall be In working condition at the end of each woricing day, 13. Underground utility lines shall be installed In accordance with the following standards, in addition to all other applicable criteria: , A. No More than 500 linear feet of trench may be opened at one time. B. Excavated material shall be placecf' on the uphill side of trenches. C. Effluent from dewatering operations, if proposed, shall be filtered or poned through an approved eediment trapping device, or both. Then discharged in a manner that does not adveresly affect receiving systems or adjacent lands. D, Restabllization shall be accomplished in accordance wlth theee regulations. 14. Where construction vehicle access rautes Intersect poved public roadl, pravisions shall be made to minimize the transport of sediment by tracking onto poved surfaces. Areas where eediment Is transported onto public road surfaces shall be cleaned regularly. Sediment shall be removed from the roads by shoveling or sweeping with transport to a sediment contral disposal area. Street washing shall be allowed only after sediment is removed in this manner. 15. All temporary erosian and sediment contral measures shall be removed within 30 days after final site stabilization or after the temporary measures are no longer needed. Disturbed soil areas, resulting fram the disposition of temporary measures, shall be permanently stabilized to prevent further erosion and/or sedimentation. 16. Properties and waterway1l dawnstream from the construction site shall be protected from sediment deposition and erasion. 17. Erosion control design and construction shall follow the requirements in Index No. 101, 102 and 103 of FOOT Roodway and Traffic Design Standards. 18. The reviewer may approve modifications or alter the plans for these erosion contral criteria due to site specifIC conditions. 19. Elevations shown are referenced to NGVD. Please see engineer for benchmaric Information prior to commencement of construction. ASMUSSEN ENGINEERING, LLC P.o. 80x 1998 OKEECHOBEF,;, FLORIDA 54973- 1998 TEl: (883) 7e3-85-48 CENTRAL PARK OAK ICENlRAL PARK OAI<.dwaT SHEET SCAI....E: N. T.$. I CERII'lCA1E OF .I 5 f 5 APRIL 2 2007 I MIIttClflIlA11C NO. .'34 0 rPROJECT NUMBER I 03152007-01 1375 Jackson Street, Suite 206 Fort Myers, Florida 33901-2845 Phone: 239-334-3366 Fax: 239-334-6384 Email: larue-planning~att.net LaRue Planning & Mana ement Services, Inc. Staff Report Pre-Application Plat Review Prepared fOr: City ofOkeechobee Applicant: RJ Remodeling Enterprises, Inc. Staff Report Pre-Application Plat Review Applicant's Name: RJ Remodeling Enterprises, Inc. General Information Owner Phone Number: RJ Remodeling Enterprises, Inc. 2912 Highway 710 E Okeechobee, Florida 863-357-6677 Owner: Owner Address: Legal Description of Subject Property: Property Identification Number: 3-22-37-35-0030-000DO-0200 THE EAST Y:2 OF LOT 20 & ALL OF LOTS 21-24, BLOCK D, CENTRAL PARK, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 39, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF OKEECHOBEE COUNTY, Florida. Discussion: This is a pre-application plat review for the above described property. The applicant would like to divide the property into four lots and construct one (1) single family dwelling unit on each lot. The proposed legal descriptions of the lots are described below: Parcell: ALL OF LOT 24 AND A PORTION OF LOT 23, BLOCK "D", "CENTRAL PARK" ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 39 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF OKEECHOBEE COUNTY. FLORIDA. BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 24, BLOCK "D", THENCE PROCEED SOUTH 89049'31" WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID BLOCK "D", ALSO BEING THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY (R/W) LINE OF SE 5TH STREET (70 FEET WIDE), A DISTANCE OF 65.00 FEET; THENCE DEPARTING SAID SOUTH LINE OF BLOCK "D", BEAR NORTH 00013'05" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 142.50 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE AFORESAID BLOCK "D"; THENCE BEAR NORTH 89049'31" EAST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE. A DISTANCE OF 65.00 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE AFORESAID LOT 24. BLOCK "D", BEING A POINT ON THE WEST R/W LINE OF SE 6TH AVENUE (30 FOOT WIDE); THENCE DEPARTING SAID NORTH LINE OF BLOCK "D", BEAR SOUTH 00013'05" EAST ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 24. M A DISTANCE OF 142.50 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SAID PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINING 0.21 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, Parcel 2: A PORTION OF LOT 22 AND A PORTION OF LOT 21, BLOCK "D". "CENTRAL PARK" ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 39 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF OKEECHOBEE COUNTY, FLORIDA. BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 24, BLOCK "D", THENCE PROCEED SOUTH 89049'3 I" WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID BLOCK "D", ALSO BEING THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY (R/W) LINE OF SE 5TH STREET (70 FEET WIDE), A DISTANCE OF 65.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUE SOUTH 90000'00" WEST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE OF BLOCK "D" AND RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE A DISTANCE OF 50,00; THENCE DEPARTING SAID SOUTH LINE OF BLOCK "D", BEAR NORTH 00013'05" WEST, A DISTANCE OF Staff Report Pre-Application Plat Review Applicant's Name: RJ Remodeling Enterprises, Inc. 142.50 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE AFORESAID BLOCK "D"; THENCE BEAR NORTH 89049'3 I" EAST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, A DISTANCE OF 65,00 FEET; THENCE DEPARTING SAID NORTH LINE OF BLOCK "D" BEAR SOUTH 00013'05" A DISTANCE OF 142.50 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, SAID PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINITN 0.]6 ACRES MORE OR LESS. Parcel 3: A PORTION OF LOT 23 AND A PORTION OF LOT 22, BLOCK "D", "CENTRAL PARK" ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 39 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF OKEECHOBEE COUNTY, FLORIDA. BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 24, BLOCK "D", THENCE PROCEED SOUTH 89049'31" WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID BLOCK "D", ALSO BEING THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY (R/W) LINE OF SE 5TH STREET (70 FEET WIDE), A DISTANCE OF ] ]5.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUE SOUTH 90000'00" WEST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE OF BLOCK "D" AND RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE A DISTANCE OF 50,00; THENCE DEPARTING SAID SOUTH LINE OF BLOCK "D", BEAR NORTH 000]3'05" WEST, A D]STANCE OF 142.50 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE AFORESAID BLOCK "D"; THENCE BEAR NORTH 89049'3]" EAST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, A DISTANCE OF 65.00 FEET; THENCE DEPARTING SAID NORTH LINE OF BLOCK "D" BEAR SOUTH 000]3'05" A DISTANCE OF 142.50 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, SAID PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINING 0.]6 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, Parcel 4: A PORTION OF LOT 23 AND A PORTION OF LOT 22, BLOCK "D", "CENTRAL PARK" ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 2. PAGE 39 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF OKEECHOBEE COUNTY, FLORIDA. BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 24, BLOCK "D", THENCE PROCEED SOUTH 89049'31" WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID BLOCK "D", ALSO BEING THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY (R/W) LINE OF SE 5TH STREET (70 FEET WIDE), A DISTANCE OF 165.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUE SOUTH 90000'00" WEST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE OF BLOCK "D" AND RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE A DISTANCE OF 50.00; THENCE DEPARTING SAID SOUTH LINE OF BLOCK "D", BEAR NORTH 00013'05" WEST, A DISTANCE OF ]42.50 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE AFORESAID BLOCK "D"; THENCE BEAR NORTH 89049'3]" EAST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, A DISTANCE OF 65.00 FEET; THENCE DEPARTING SAID NORTH LINE OF BLOCK "D" BEAR SOUTH 000[3'05" A DISTANCE OF 142.50 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SAID PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINING 0.16 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, Findings: The materials do not provide the general information describing the existing conditions of the site required by Sec, 86-71. The general information about the proposed development intended to support the drawings required under Section 86-72 is also not provided. Finally, none of the maps show adjacent and surrounding properties. However, the Staff has provided an aerial of the site and general vicinity, but this material should be provided by the Applicant. Since the Applicant submitted material that appear to be intended to meet the requirements of Sec. 86-72, Staff has reviewed the submission with regard to those requirements as well. This review follows, Staff Report Pre-Application Plat Review Applicant's Name: RJ Remodeling Enterprises, Inc. Section 86-72 Plats and data for conditional acceptance or approval. The preliminary plat shall be ata scale of not more than 200 feet to Provided the inch. It shall show or be accompanied by the following information: (1) Proposed subdivision name or identifying title, which shall not Central Park Oak duplicate or closely approximate the name of any other subdivision in the City, (2) Key plan, shown location of tract in reference to other areas of the City. (3) North arrow, graphic scale, scale, and data; basis of bearing (desired and true bearing). (4) Name of the owner of the property or his authorized agent. (5) Name of registered engineer or surveyor responsible for the plat and supporting data. (6) Tract boundaries, with angles and distances, (7) Conditions on tract, including all existing watercourses, drainage ditches, and bodies of water; marches; rock outcrop, isolated preservable trees one foot or more in diameter; and other significant features. (8) All existing streets and alleys on or adjacent to the tract, including name, right-of-way width, street pavement width, and established centerline elevations. Existing streets shall be dimensioned to tract boundaries. (9) All existing property lines, easements, and rights-of-way and the purpose for which the easements or rights-of-way have been established, (10) Location, names where applicable, and width of all proposed streets, alleys, rights-of-way, easements, and purpose of easements, proposed lot lines with approximate dimensions; lot numbers, and block numbers. (11) Ground elevations on the tract, based on USCGS datum level at minimum contour intervals and sufficient data to show disposition of surface drainage (City datum based on USCGS datum acceptable), (12) Subsurface conditions on the tract; location and results of tests made to ascertain subsurface soil, rock, and groundwater conditions; depth to groundwater unless test pits are dry at a depth of three feet; location and results of soil percolation tests if individual wastewater disposal systems are permitted, Yes Yes RJ Builders & Renovators, Inc, Expedition Surveying & Engineering/Asmussen Engineering, LLC Yes Yes, engineer should confirm. Yes Engineer should confirm, Yes Requires verification with engineer. Engineer should confirm. Staff Report Pre-Application Plat Review Applicant's Name: RJ Remodeling Enterprises, Inc. (13) Written statement and graphic representation and profiles, if necessary, showing proposed grades of streets and facilities for drainage, (14) When applicable, future land use classification on and near the tract. (15) Utilities on or adjacent to the tract. Indicate whether above the ground or below the ground, (16) Sites, if any, to be dedicated or reserved for public use, (17) Preliminary specifications for required improvements such as streets, curb and gutter, water, sanitary wastewater, storm drainage, etc. (18) Title and certifications; present tract designation according to official records in the office of the county clerk; names and addresses of owners, including certification from developer's attorney or abstract company that the dedicator of the plat is the owner of record at the time plat is to be accepted for filing; statement form the owner that there are no mortgages on the property; if there are none, or if there be a mortgage, a letter of acknowledgement form the mortgagee stating that the approves the platting; certificate from the developer's attorney, or the county tax collector, that all due taxes have been paid at time application for condition approval or acceptance is filed, (19) Draft of protective covenants, whereby the developer proposes to regulate land use in the subdivision and otherwise protect the proposed development. (20) Statements in accord with section 86-71(1), (21) Draft of proposed developer's agreement. Yes Planning Staff has con- firmed that the surround- ing property is designated Single-Family, but it should be shown by the Applicant in map form. Needs to be shown. None indicated, Some are shown, but appears incomplete, City Attorney will need to review, City Attorney to review. See above, City Attorney to review. Staff Report Pre-Application Plat Review Applicant's Name: RJ Remodeling Enterprises, Inc. Requirements for Residential Multiple-Family (RMF) District Section 90-196 Lot and structure Provided reqUirements Except where further restricted by these regulations for a particular use, minimum requirements for the RMF districts shall be as follows: (1) Minimum lot area. (a) Single Family dwelling: Area: 6,250 square feet Width: 50 feet The measurements for the smallest proposed lot for this subdivision are used below: Requirement met. 7,125 square feet Requirement met. 50 feet (2) Minimum yard requirements. Exceptwhere a greater distance is required by these regulations for a particular use, the minimum yard setbacks shall be as follows: (a) Single Family dwelling: Front: 25 feet Side: 10 feet Rear: 10 feet Requirement met. 40 feet on all lots Requirement met. 10 feet on all sides for all lots. Parcel 1 (corner lot) 25 feet. Requirement met. 50 feet on all lots, (3) Maximum lot coverage by all buildings. Maximum Coverage Maximum Impervious 40% 60% Requirement met: Coverage is 19.4% on the smallest lot and 18% overall. Impervious area is not shown for individual lots, but overall impervious area constitutes only 34% of the site. Comments: The Subject property is within the Multi-Family Residential Future Land Use category and is within the RMF Zoning District. From an existing neighborhood perspective, the present density has been maintained at lower than the maximum 10 dwelling units per acre allowable under the Multi-Family Future Land Use category in the Comprehensive Plan. All other aspects of the Plat seem to meet the requirements for the Residential Multiple-Family (RMF) Zoning District. Submitted by: James G. LaRue, AI CP Planning Consultant April 18, 2007 -:' ~ T'j -r 4" .,i rI', (~' r"", "'-" X) -::J ~ <' f,;) ",",' '(;5 ru 0 ill ~ "" a. ce c i:! VJ -=; V ih ~ 0) > a:: ..--'" ,C '.;) '-' ;.... ffi :; 0) C/j 01 C/j ,......, ....... .c ~ u ::::> m '.;) (]) (I) :':l > C ,,," G.) OJ :) Z .D r. ~ -u -':J 'c) '~' ..:<: ::::> ..- .... "t:I ..c :::: .... l.I ;... 0 .... .... l.I t1l Q) ~ 2- a: Okccch(\hcc COllnty Properly Appraiser lVlap Pnnled 011 4/16'20072:5124 Pf'vl Page 1 of 1 PARCEL: 3-22-37 -35-0030-00000-0200 - VACANT (000000) CENTRAL PARK E 1/2 OF LOT 20, LOTS 21 22 23 24 BLOC!\ D Namp R .J REMODELING ENTERPRISES iNC Site 417 SE 5TH ST, OkeeclloL:ee Mail ~0:E~~;;~~E~V~~J(;;912 SalE's 1:'18/2004 $100,000.00V ! 0 i)!21)i2004 $30,000 OOV ;' U Inf(> 7/:3/2003 $28,00000\1 0 LandVal BldgVal ApprVal JustVal Assd E:xmpt Ta>:able $/5.49300 so 00 S75.498 00 S/5,49tUO $75.498,00 SOU() $75.49800 This information, Last Updated 4/10/2007, V...',:"iS derived from data wri;d1 was compiled by ttw Okeechobee County Property f\ppra;scr'~) Office solely for the g0vernrnent~JI purpose of property assessment. TI'li';; information should not be relied upon by anyone ,J3 ;] determination of the o~vnBrship ot property' or market vo.lUD. No warn:;ntles, or irnplied, drc provK1ed for the of the ctala herein, it's USH, or It'S interprelah<:ln Although It is periodically updated, this may not reflect ttle data currently on in the Property Appraiser's office The assessed "ltJ!ues are NOT certified values and therefore 3re subject to change before boing finalized for ad valorem assessment purposes lHtp:. /www,okccchobccpa.convG IS/Prilll Map,asp')pjboiibchll)bnl igearctjJllOjiachdomhJo." 4/16/2007 City of Okeechobee 55 Southeast 3rd A venue Okeechobee, Florida 34974 Phone: (863) 763-3372 Fax: (863) 763-1686 Application for Site Plan Review Name of project: Southern Trace Applicant: Curt Lundberg Property Owner: Insite Development Group Description of project including all proposed uses: Owner proposes site development improvements with a 238 unit 37.73 acre multi- family residential development Number/description of phases: Two Phases Location off directions to project: 1 Block West of HWY 441 Existing improvements on property: None Is proposed use different from existing or prior use? eX_Yes) (_No) (_N/A) Source of potable water: OVA Method of sewage disposal: OVA Total project area in square feet: or acres: 37.86 Existing impervious surface: square feet 2.5 acres 6.6 % of site Additional impervious surface: square feet 14.53 acres 38.5 % of site Proposed total impervious surface: square feet 17.03 acres 45.1 % of site Current/Proposed zoning: RSF & RMF Future land use: RSF & RMF Parcel Identification number: Parcel ID 3-15-37-35-0010-00040-0010, 3-15-37-35- 0010-00040-0140, 3-15-37-35-0010-00130-0010, 3-15-37-35-0010-00130-0140, 3-15- 37 -35-001 0-00200-0010, 3-15-37-35-0010-00200-0140, 3-15-37-35-0010-00120-0010, 3-15-37 -35-0010-00120-0170, 3-15-37-35-0010-00120-0110, 3-15-37-35-0010-00210- 0010, 3-15-37-35-0010-00210-0040, 3-15-37-35-0010-00210-0060, 3-15-37-35-0010- 00210-0070, 3-15-37-35-0010-00210-0080, 3-15-37-35-0010-00210-0100, 3-15-37-35- 0010-00210-0170, 3-15-37-35-0010-00210-0110, 3-15-37-35-0010-00110-0010, and 3- 15-37 -35-0010-00220-0010). Application for Site Plan Review: Name of project: Southern Trace Applicant: Curt Lundberg Address: 2 Niblick Lane Columbine Valley, CO 80123 Phone: 303-909-1017 Fax: 303-795-0304 Other Phone: 321-356-1356 Contact person: Steven L. Dobbs Address: 210 NW Park Street Suite 204 Okeechobee, FL 34972 Phone: 863-467-0076 Fax: 863-467-0091 Other Phone: 863-634-0194 Property owner: Insite Development Group, LLC Address: 2 Niblick Lane Columbine Valley, CO 80123 Phone: 303-909-1017 Fax: 303-795-0304 Other Phone: 321-356-1356 Engineer: Steven L. Dobbs, P.E. Address: 210 NW Park Street Suite 204 Okeechobee, FL 34972 Phone: 863-467-0076 Fax: 863-467-0091 Surveyor: Expedition Surveying & Mapping, Inc. Address: P.O. Box 1610 Okeechobee, FL 34973 Phone: 863-357 -6688 Fax: 863-357-6684 Project Name: Southern Trace March 12, 2007 City of Okeechobee 55 Southeast 3rd Avenue Okeechobee, Florida 34974 Dear Reviewer: Subject: Southern Trace - Technical Review Committee Meeting, October 25, 2006 Okeechobee County, S 16/ T37S / R35E In response to the Technical Review Committee Meeting on October 25, 2006 enclosed please find additional information requested in reference to Southern Trace. The committee's comments follow in regular type and responses to the comments are in italics, 1, Existing Site Information Required - Property and Topographic Survey, with adjacent properties within fifty (50) feet of the project boundaries showing existing elevations, all existing utilities, easements, perimeter streets and interceptions with Right of Way widths, one benchmark (NGVD) for each control structure with one benchmark minimum per project. Sheet 2 of the submitted plans shows the existing conditions as requested above. 2. Site boundaries dimensions for existing OVA lift station are not clearly determined, Sheet 2 of the submitted plans shows the fencing and easements that exists for the existing OUA lift station. 3. Parking layouts are not indicated in the drawing. The parking has been modified to meet the City's LDR's that do not allow access directly to a public road or allow stacked parking. The parking layout is as follows; one car in the garage, one in front of building unit one on either end of each unit. 4, Sidewalk along the entire sub-division will be required within the project limits. (LDR 78-36) Sidewalks have been extended to both sides of the street throughout the project with the exception of the northwest portion, where the land is remaining undeveloped 5, SFWMD permit for storm water management and drainage positive drainage outfall route will be required. Also inventory of wetlands and its approval from SFWMD to be used. A SFWMD permit application has been submitted and the response to the Request for additional information is attached to this response, 6. Landscaping Plans were not included. ;210 Mf 1W1_'i1ra!t . 5t1ite//-Ctr . ~ fl ~ . ~ t6;7-~7-a?76 . & t6;7-~7-((;9f .. Southern Trace January 24, 2006 Page 2 Landscaping plans were submitted during the Technical Review Committee meeting. 7. Provide description of measurements to implement during construction to mitigate adverse effects to water quality and quantity of the project and offsite areas and bodies of water. The erosion control and sediment measures are included in the Construction Drawings. 8, Proposed Site Plan with all development information required - Location of all proposed buildings, setbacks and separation dimensions for all structures, roads, parking, landscaping and buffer plan and details, wheel stops/curbing, fire hydrant locations and sidewalks, Additional iriformation requested has been added to the Horizontal Control Plan. Wheel stops and curbing have not been included as these units are planned as Townhomes as shown on the enclosed typical plan with elevations. 9, City Alleys are accounted but the Developer had not submitted applications to abandon those, The Alley Abandonment Applications have been submitted to the City of Okeechobee, the ordinance first reading was approved by City Counci/1-16-2007 and the second reading was approved on February 20, 2007, and the second reading was approved February 20, 2007. 10. The Technical Review Committee requested the developer extend NW 13th Street to the west into the project. Please note the plans have been revised to tie NW 1 ih Street into the project as requested. If you should have any additional questions or require additional information, please call me at 863-467- 0076. Sincerely, /,,_.,.,., .. -" A:~ ",.,..< Steven L. Dobbs, P. E, Senior Project Manager cc: Curt Lundberg Mary Hinton Engineer's Report Okeechobee County Preliminary Site Plan & SFWMD ERP Approval For Southern Trace City of Okeechobee, FL September 20, 2006 Revised November 21,2006 Revised March 6, 2007 By: Steven L. Dobbs, P.E. # 48134 Rudd Jones, P. E. & Associates, P. A. 210 Northwest Park Street, Suite 204 Okeechobee, FL 34974 ~~ Steven L Dobbs, P.E. MAR 09 2007 48134 Purpose: The purpose of this report is to provide the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) and Okeechobee County with the calculations and documentation necessary to demonstrate the proposed surface water management system complies with state and local criteria. Proiect Description: The site is made up of five full blocks and two half blocks in the City ofOkeechobee and includes Blocks 4, 11, 12, 13,20,21, and 22. This project includes all lands encompassed by NW 11th Street, NW 3rd Avenue, NW 13th Street, and NW 7th Avenue and the two half blocks west of NW 7th Avenue (north ofNW 11th Street and south ofNW 13th Street) and the block north ofNW 13th Street (east ofNW 5th Avenue and west ofNW 3rd Avenue). Each full block is approximately 4.84 acres in size and each half block is 1.08 acres in size. The entire site is approximately 37.86 acres in size (drainage basin = 37.73 acres). This project includes the construction ofNW 11th, NW 12th and NW 13th Streets (from NW 7th Avenue east to NW 3rd Avenue) and NW 3rd and 7th Avenues (from NW 11th Street to NW 13th Street) and also a portion ofNW 5th Avenue (from NW 12th Street to NW 13th Street). This project is located in Section 15, Township 37 South, Range 35 East - east of US Highway 441 (Parcel ID 3-15-37-35-0010- 00040-0010, 3-15-37-35-0010-00040-0140, 3-15-37-35-0010-00130-0010, 3-15-37-35-0010-00130-0140, 3-15-37-35-0010-00200-0010, 3-15-37-35-0010-00200-0140, 3-15-37-35-0010-00120-0010, 3-15-37-35- 0010-00120-0170, 3-15-37-35-0010-00120-0110, 3-15-37-35-0010-00210-0010, 3-15-37-35-0010-00210- 0040, 3-15-37-35-0010-00210-0060, 3-15-37-35-0010-00210-0070, 3-15-37-35-0010-00210-0080, 3-15- 37-35-0010-00210-0100, 3-15-37-35-0010-00210-0170, 3-15-37-35-0010-00210-0110, 3-15-37-35-0010- 00110-0010, and 3-15-37-35-0010-00220-0010). The historic and current discharge is sheet flow across the parcels and into previously constructed road Right of Ways then to the north into the City Line ditch east to Taylor Creek. The owner proposes to construct residential buildings and a parking area to support a condominium complex with dry detention areas and a wet detention area with drainage offsite to Taylor Creek. The drainage calculations and routing will cover water quality and quantity for the proposed site improvements. The Soils Map for Okeechobee County indicates that this parcel's soil is made up oflmmokalee soil, which is very poorly drained in the natural state. However, the drainage system in this area has been improved as it is a part ofOkeechobee County's drainage system and the Immokalee soil's characteristics are improved with a drainage system and the drainage system is sized accordingly by incorporating the poorly drained soils. The site is currently partially developed with road right of ways developed and NW 5th A venue constructed between NW 11th and 12th Streets and NW 12th Street constructed between NW 5th Avenue and NW 7th Avenue with 4 houses constructed on the existing portion ofNW 12th Street. It is located in the S-133 Basin. Proposed Use: The owner proposes construction of238 multi-family residences. Storm water runoff from the proposed development will be collected by a series of interconnected inlets and conveyed to 8 separate dry detention areas within the project. The dry detention areas will then convey the runoff to the proposed 1.78 acre lake located in the northeast sector of the project. Runoff shall discharge through a control structure located in the proposed lake to the existing City Line ditch which runs along the northern boundary of the project site. Water quality treatment and attenuation will be provided for the site prior to discharge. Drainaee Considerations: To attenuate the increased run off generated by the proposed improvements and to insure that water quality standards are met, we propose to pass all drainage through the dry detention areas and lake. The high water table is set at elevation 26.00 ft-NGVD based on the attached geotechnical report prepared by Universal Engineering. The control elevation for the proposed lake has been established at 26.00 ft-NGVD, and the bottom elevations for the proposed dry detention areas have been set a foot above control at 27.00 ft-NGVD. Allowable discharge for the S-133 basin is 15.6 csm for the 25 year - 3 day storm event: Q= 15.6 csm / 640 acres * A A discharge rate of 0.92 cfs is calculated for the project using the above equation. However, a conservative pre-development run off analysis performed over the site using ICPR shows the run off generated for the pre-developed site to be 36 cfs (see attached pre-development run off analysis). Considering this information, we are proposing to use 2.35 cfs as a discharge rate for the developed site. This discharge rate will allow the control structure bleeder to be adequately sized to allow for recovery of the run off volume associated with the 25 year, 72 hour storm event within 12 days as required by Section 6.9 ofthe SFWMD Basis of Review (see attached ICPR recovery graph). Technical Data Basin area breakdown: Land Use Category Total Impervious Building Lake @ control Pavement Pervious Dry Det. Area (TOB) Green Area 18.81 acres 6.76 acres 1. 78 acres 10.27 acres 18.92 acres 2.52 acres 16.40 acres Total Basin Area 37.73 acres Determine Curve Number: The following curve numbers will be used in the storm routing: 70 for the hydrologic group B soils of which all pervious areas are designated in accordance with SCS TR-55 and 98 for the impervious areas, and as recommended by SCS TR-55. Weighted Curve # = CN = [(70 x (18.92/37.73)) + (98 x (18.81/37.73))] = 83.96 Water Ouality Water quality treatment is provided in the form of dry and wet detention for the project drainage area. Water quality calculations are provided as follows: Req. WQ Volume = 1" * (37.73) * (1 '/12") = 3.14 Ac-Ft; or 2.5" x % impervious x WQ area/12 = 2.5" x ((10.27 acres/29 , 19 acres) x 35.95 acres)/12 = 2.64 acre-feet. One inch over the site is the controlling equation for this project. The control structure bleeder has been sized at 7" (circular) to allow for proper recovery and treatment of the required water quality volume. The bleeder shall be set at the control elevation of 26.00 ft-NGVD. The control structure grate has been set at 30,00 ft-NGVD, which is above the routed 25 year, 72 hour design storm elevation. Due to the low allowable discharge rate, the only control structure orifice provided for storm water discharge below the 25 year, 72 hour design elevation is the proposed 7" circular bleeder. Water Ouantity This project is located in the Taylor Creek Basin which gravity discharges into Lake Okeechobee. As previously noted, the discharge rate to be utilized for this project is 2.35 cfs. The stormwater management system for the proposed site has been designed to operate using the above discharge rate. The 10 year, 24 hour storm (5.0") wldischarge, the 25 year, 72 hour storm (9.0") wldischarge, and the 100 year, 72 hour storm (10.0") wlo discharge has been evaluated based on the proposed plan. Please refer to the attached AdICPR flood routing input/output parameters. 2 A summary of the flood routings is provided as follows: 10 Year Storm (5.0") Peak Stage Peak Rate '(ft-NGVD) (cfs) 25 Year Storm (9.0") Peak Stage Peak Rate (ft-NGVD) (cfs) 100 Year Storm (10.0") Peak Stage (no discharge) (ft-NGVD) 28.80 2.04 29.63 2.35 30.09 Environmental: There are no South Florida Water Management District or Corps jurisdictional wetlands on-site. Construction Recommendations: Run-off and any water generated by short-term dewatering during construction shall be contained on-site. However, there is some potential for transport of sediment to off- site areas should heavy rainfall occur. We therefore recommend installation of temporary silt fence around the entire construction area during site work to reduce the potential of any off-site transport of sediment or turbidity. Conclusions: In my professional opinion, the proposed construction should have no impact to existing drainage patterns off-site and should have no impact on off-site areas. The recommendations above should be followed during and after the site work until such time as the ground surface has been adequately stabilized to prevent the off-site transport of any soil or suspended solids. The proposed design and construction will meet all local, state and federal requirements. 3 SOUTHERN TRACE PROJECT NO. 2006-202 DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS Total Site Area 37.SI> ac Zero Dischare:e Storm Stae:es Stace 10-year. t-day PIO= ;,00 in V = (((5,oo-o.2(0.72))^2)/(5,OO-o.8(O,72)))'37.73/12 = l3,31 ac-ft 19,14 ft-NGVD 25-year. 3-day P25= 9,00 in V = (((9,oo-o.2(0.72))^2)/(9,oo-o.8(O,72)))'37.73/12 = 25,76 ac-ft 19,98 ft-NGVD 100-year. 3-day PIOO= 10,00 in V = (((1O.00-o.2(0.72))^2)/(l0.00-0,8(O,72))).37.73112 = 28.89 ac-ft 30.09 ft-NGVD Basin Information For: Southern Trace Total Basin Area 37.73 ac Impervious Area RooflineIBldg, Wetland Lakes Pavement Total Impervious Area Total Pervious Area Percent Impervious Adjusted Soil Storage Calculated SCS Curve Number Time of Concentration 6.76 ac 0,00 ac 1.78 ac to.27 ac 18,81 ac 18,92 ac 49.9% 0,72 in 84 20.00 min Control Structure Desie:n Max. Allowable Discharge Control Elevation Req. Weir Crest Elevation Pro, Weir Crest Elevation Provided Water Quality Bleed Down Volwne Allowable Bleeder Discharge '2.35 cfs ft-NGVD ft-NGVD ft-NGVD ac-ft ac.ft cfs t/2 detention volwne 26,00 27.,14 29,00 9,08 4,54 2.29 Required Water Quality Volume Wet Detention Multiplier Adjusted Required Water Quality Volume 3.14 ac-ft 2.64 ac-ft 3.14 aOoft toO 3.14 ac-ft Circular Orifice Desi&D' Q ~ 0,6. A .(2.g.HY.' Solving the above equation for Diameter yields 0= 2.(Q/(O,6"".(2.g.H)".5))o'.12 inIFt Assuming 3-inch bleeder initially D = 2'[2,29/(0.6'3.414'(2'32.2.(29.00-(26.00+O.125)))^0.5)]^O.5'12 inlFt Water Quality Calculation t" x Total Area Runoff from 2,5"x % net Impervious - SFWMD criteria o 7.17 in for one bleeder Therd~)n~. om~ 7.00 indl hlc..:del' at de"ation 2(),OO ft~1\C\'D will bt' UH~tt (This: is m~t~t~ssary iu alhm' (Hj" hh'('d down to fOrin'HI ":Wlin 12 days) Water Quality Stage Min. Req Road Crown EI,(routed 10 yr-14 br storm) MiD. Req Perimeter Berm (routed 15 yr-71 br storm) MIn, Req F,F.E, (100 yr-71 br - zero discbarce) 27.44 ft-NGVD 28,80 ft-NGVD Q = 3,13'L .H" solving for L, L ~ Q/(3,13.H''l. use 25-year, 3-day zero stage for 29,(.3 ft-NGVD initial head on weir, L = l,lSl(l.13*(19,98-17,44)^l,S) = 0,19 ft 30,09 ft-NGVD Stae:e Storae:e Calculations for Basin Southern Trace Storace Cumulative Stat!e-Storat!e (ac-ftI Land use Catet!ory Type Area lac.l From Elev, To Elev, 16,00 17,00 18,00 19,00 30,00 31.00 31,00 33,00 34.00 35,00 36,00 Wet Detention Vertical 1.78 26,00 0,00 1.78 3.56 5,34 7,12 8,90 10,68 12.46 t4.24 16,02 17,80 Wet Detention Banks Linear 0.55 26.00 29,00 0,00 0.09 0,37 0.83 1.38 1.93 2.48 3.03 3.58 4.\3 4,68 Drv Detention Vertical 1,60 27.50 0.00 0,00 0.80 2,40 4,00 5,60 7.20 8,80 10,40 12,00 \3.60 Drv Detention Banks Linear 0.92 27,50 29.50 0,00 0,00 0,06 0,52 1.38 2,30 3,22 4,t4 5,06 5,98 6,90 Pavement Linear 10.27 28,85 30.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0,10 5,91 16,18 26.45 36,72 46,99 57.26 67.53 Green I Linear 12.68 29.00 30.00 0.00 0,00 0,00 0,00 6,34 19,02 31.70 44,38 57,06 69,74 82.42 Green 2 Linear 3,17 30.00 31,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1.59 4,76 7,93 11.10 14,27 17.44 Buildin~ Linear 6,76 31.00 41.00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,34 1.35 3,04 5.41 8.45 Totul: 37,73 Totals: 0,00 1.87 4,78 9.18 16,11 55,51 86.81 118.80 151.46 184,79 118.81 316/2007 P:\2006-202 Insite DevelopmentlDrainage Revised 2\Southern Trace Revised 2,xls Southern Trace Proposed Site Node Diagram Nodes A Stage/Area V Stage/Volume T Time/Stage M Manhole Basins o Overland Flow U SCS Unit Hydro S Santa Barbara Links P Pipe W Weir C Channel D Drop Structure B Bridge R Rating Curve H Breach A: SITE > D:CONTROL STR '> / I T, DITCH U:SITE Interconnected Channel and Pond Routing Model (ICPR) ~2002 Streamline Technologies, Inc, Southern Trace Proposed Site Input Report ========================================================================================== ==== Basins ============================================================================== ========================================================================================== Name: SITE Group: BASE Node: SITE Type: SCS Unit Hydrograph Status: Onsite Unit Hydrograph: Uh256 Rainfall File: Sfwmd72 Rainfall Amount (in) : 9.000 Area (ac) : 37,730 Curve Number: 84.00 DCIA(%): 0,00 Peaking Factor: 256.0 Storm Duration (hrs) : 72.00 Time of Conc(min): 20.00 Time Shift (hrs) : 0.00 Max Allowable Q(cfs): 999999.000 Southern Trace Proposed Model ========================================================================================== ==== Nodes ~====~====~===-====-=============================~=============-=============== ========================================================================================== Name: DITCH Group: BASE Type: Time/Stage Base Flow(cfs): 0.000 Init Stage(ft): 26.000 Warn Stage (ft) : 30.000 Node for Tailwater Time (hrs) Stage (ft) 0.00 100.00 26.000 26.000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Name: SITE Group: BASE Type: Stage/Area Base Flow(cfs): 0,000 Init Stage (ft) : 26.000 Warn Stage(ft): 30.000 Southern Trace Proposed Model Stage (ft) Area (ac) 26.000 27 . 000 28.000 29.000 30.000 1,7800 1.9600 3.8600 4.9400 28,9400 ========================================================================================== ==== Drop Structures ======================================~============================== ========================================================================================== Name: CONTROL STR From Node: SITE Length (ft) : 55.00 Group: BASE To Node: DITCH Count: 1 UPSTREAM DOWNSTREAM Friction Equation: Average Conveyance Geometry: Circular Circular Solution Algorithm: Automatic Span (in) : 24.00 24,00 Flow: Both Rise (in) : 24.00 24.00 Entrance Loss Coef: 0.500 Invert (ft) : 17 . 500 17.500 Exit Loss Coef: 1. 000 Manning's N: 0.012000 0.012000 Outlet Ctrl Spec: Use dc or tw Top Clip (in) : 0,000 0.000 Inlet Ctrl Spec: Use dn Bot Clip (in) : 0.000 0,000 Solution Incs: 10 Upstream FHWA Inlet Edge Description: Circular Concrete: Square edge w/ headwall Downstream FHWA Inlet Edge Description: Circular Concrete: Square edge w/ headwall Control Structure 7" circular bleeder @ 26.00 ft-NGVD Grate @ 30.00 ft-NGVD *** Weir 1 of 2 for Drop Structure CONTROL STR Count: 1 Type: Vertical: Mavis Flow: Both Geometry: Circular Span (in) : 7.00 Rise(in) : 7.00 *** Weir 2 of 2 for Drop Structure CONTROL STR TABLE Bottom Clip(in): 0.000 Top Clip(in): 0.000 Weir Disc Coef: 3.130 Orifice Disc Coef: 0.600 Invert (ft) : 26.000 Control Elev(ft): 26.000 Interconnected Channel and Pond Routing Model (ICPR) @2002 Streamline Technologies, Inc, Page I 00 Southern Trace Proposed Site Input Report TABLE Count: 1 Type: Horizontal Flow: Both Geometry: Rectangular Bottom Clip (in) : 0.000 Top Clip (in) : 0.000 Weir Disc Coef: 3.130 Orifice Disc Coef: 0.600 Span (in) : 54.00 Rise(in): 36.00 Invert (ft): 30.000 Control Elev(ft): 30.000 ========================================================================================== ===~ Hydrology Simulations -~~====~~==-=~~===-~====~====~~====~=====-~~=====~~~====-~===== ========================================================================================== Name: 100Y3D Filename: P:\2006-202 Insite Development\Drainage Revised 2\ICPR3\100Y3D.R32 Override Defaults: Yes Storm Duration (hrs) : 72.00 Rainfall File: Sfwmd72 Rainfall Amount (in) : 10.00 Time (hrs) Print Inc (min) 80.000 5.00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: 10YlD Filename: P:\2006-202 Insite Development\Drainage Revised 2\ICPR3\10YlD.R32 Override Defaults: Yes Storm Duration (hrs) : 24.00 Rainfall File: Flmod Rainfall Amount (in) : 5.00 Time (hrs) Print Inc (min) 40.000 5.00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: 25Y3D Filename: P:\2006-202 Insite Development\Drainage Revised 2\ICPR3\25Y3D.R32 Override Defaults: Yes Storm Duration (hrs) : 72.00 Rainfall File: Sfwmd72 Rainfall Amount (in) : 9.00 Time (hrs) Print Inc (min) 360.000 5.00 ========================================================================================== ==== Routing Simulations ================================================================= ========================================================================================== Name: 100YR3D Hydrology Sim: 100Y3D Filename: P:\2006-202 Insite Development\Drainage Revised 2\ICPR3\100YR3D.I32 Execute: Yes Alternative: No Restart: No Patch: No Max Delta Z (ft) : Time Step Optimizer: Start Time (hrs) : Min Calc Time (sec) : Boundary Stages: 1.00 10.000 0.000 1.0000 Delta Z Factor: 0.01000 End Time (hrs) : 80.00 Max Calc Time (sec) : 60.0000 Boundary Flows: Southern Trace Proposed Model Time (hrs) Print Inc(min) 56.000 64.000 68.000 90.000 15.000 5.000 15.000 60.000 Group Run BASE Yes Name: 10YRlD Hydrology Sim: 10YlD Filename: P:\2006-202 Insite Development\Drainage Revised 2\ICPR3\10YRlD.I32 Interconnected Channel and Pond Routing Model (ICPR) <<:>2002 Streamline Technologies, Inc. Page 2 on Southern Trace Proposed Site Input Report Execute: Yes Alternative: No Restart: No Patch: No Max Delta Z(ft) Time Step Optimizer Start Time (hrs) Min Calc Time (sec) : Boundary Stages: 1.00 10.000 0.000 1.0000 Delta Z Factor: 0.01000 End Time (hrs) : 40.00 Max Calc Time (sec) : 60.0000 Boundary Flows: Southern Trace Proposed Model Time (hrs) Print Inc(min) 8.000 20.000 40.000 15.000 5.000 15.000 Group Run BASE Yes ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: 25YR3D Hydrology Sim: 25Y3D Filename: P:\2006-202 Insite Development\Drainage Revised 2\ICPR3\25YR3D.I32 Execute: Yes Alternative: No Restart: No Patch: No Max Delta Z(ft): Time Step Optimizer: Start Time (hrs) : Min Calc Time (sec) : Boundary Stages: 1.00 10.000 0.000 1. 0000 Delta Z Factor: 0.01000 End Time (hrs) : 360.00 Max Calc Time(sec): 60.0000 Boundary Flows: Southern Trace Proposed Model Time (hrs) Print Inc(min) 56.000 64.000 68.000 90.000 360.000 15.000 5.000 15.000 60.000 300.000 Group Run BASE Yes ========================================================================================== ==== Boundary Conditions ================================================================= ========================================================================================== Interconnected Channel and Pond Routing Model (ICPR) <<:>2002 Streamline Technologies, Inc. Page 3 on Southern Trace Proposed Site Node Maximums Max Time Max Warning Max Delta Max Surf Max Time Max Max Time Max Name Group Simulation Stage Stage Stage Stage Area Inflow Inflow Outflow Outflow hrs ft ft ft ft2 hrs cfs hrs cfs -..--.- DITCH BASE 10YR1D 0.00 26.000 30.000 0.0000 0 23.72 2.035 0.00 0.000 DITCH BASE 25YR3D 0.00 26.000 30.000 0.0000 0 72.19 2.346 0.00 0.000 SITE BASE 10YR1D 23.72 28.797 30.000 0.0100 205627 12.17 63.381 23.72 2.035 SITE BASE 25YR3D 72 .19 29.634 30.000 0.0100 878372 60.08 107.496 72.19 2.346 Interconnected Channel and Pond Routing Model (ICPR) @2002 Streamline Technologies, Inc. Page I of I Southern Trace Proposed Site Link Maximums Max Time Max Max Max Time Max Max Time Max Name Group Simulation Flow Flow Delta Q US Stage US Stage DS Stage DS Stage hrs cfs cfs hrs ft hrs ft ----- CONTROL STR BASE 10YRlD 23.72 2.035 0.019 23.72 28.797 0.00 26.000 CONTROL STR BASE 25YR3D 72 .19 2.346 0.005 72 .19 29.634 0.00 26.000 Interconnected Channel and Pond Routing Model (ICPR) @2002 Streamline Technologies, Inc. Page I of I Southern Trace Proposed Site Recovery Analysis - 1/2 detention volume in 24 hours 1/2 detention volume = 4.54 ac-ft Simulation Node Group Time Stage Warning Surface Total Total Total Total Stage Area Inflow Outflow Vol In Vol Out hrs ft ft ft2 cfs cfs af af WQ SITE BASE 0.00 29.000 30.000 215186 0.000 2.116 0.0 0.0 WQ SITE BASE 1.02 28.964 30.000 213493 0.000 2.102 0.0 0.2 WQ SITE BASE 2.02 28.929 30.000 211825 0.000 2.088 0.0 0.4 WQ SITE BASE 3.02 28.893 30.000 210154 0.000 2.074 0.0 0.5 WQ SITE BASE 4.02 28.857 30.000 208481 0.000 2.060 0.0 0.7 WQ SITE BASE 5.02 28.822 30.000 206807 0.000 2.046 0.0 0.9 WQ SITE BASE 6.02 28.786 30.000 205131 0.000 2.031 0.0 1.0 WQ SITE BASE 7.02 28.751 30.000 203453 0.000 2.017 0.0 1.2 WQ SITE BASE 8.02 28.715 30.000 201774 0.000 2.002 0.0 1.4 WQ SITE BASE 9.02 28.679 30.000 200093 0.000 1.987 0.0 1.5 WQ SITE BASE 10.02 28.643 30.000 198410 0.000 1.972 0.0 1.7 WQ SITE BASE 11.02 28.608 30.000 196726 0.000 1. 957 0.0 1.9 WQ SITE BASE 12.02 28.572 30.000 195040 0.000 1.942 0.0 2.0 WQ SITE BASE 13.02 28.536 30.000 193353 0.000 1. 927 0.0 2.2 WQ SITE BASE 14.02 28.500 30.000 191665 0.000 1.911 0.0 2.3 WQ SITE BASE 15.02 28.464 30.000 189976 0.000 1. 896 0.0 2.5 WQ SITE BASE 16.02 28.428 30.000 188286 0.000 1.880 0.0 2.6 WQ SITE BASE 17.02 28.392 30.000 186594 0.000 1. 864 0.0 2.8 WQ SITE BASE 18.02 28.356 30.000 184902 0.000 1.848 0.0 3.0 WQ SITE BASE 19.02 28.320 30.000 183209 0.000 1. 832 0.0 3.1 WQ SITE BASE 20.02 28.284 30.000 181516 0.000 1. 815 0.0 3.3 WQ SITE BASE 21.02 28.248 30.000 179822 0.000 1.799 0.0 3.4 WQ SITE BASE 22.02 28.212 30.000 178127 0.000 1.782 0.0 3.6 WQ SITE BASE 23.02 28.176 30.000 17 6433 0.000 1. 765 0.0 3.7 WQ SITE BASE 24.01 28.141 30.000 174766 0.000 1.749 0.0 3.8 Interconnected Channel and Pond Routing Model (ICPR) <<:J2002 Streamline Technologies, Inc. Page I of I Southern Trace Proposed Site Recovery Graph Simulation 25YR3D 27 - DITCH -SITE 30 29 g 28 Ql Cl J!! en 26 o 100 200 300 400 Time(hrs) Interconnected Channel and Pond Routing Model (ICPR) <<:l2002 Streamline Technologies, Inc. 5 e:>c...c-I--h. 'f!..\{\. ~ c... 0(. ~rct. - ok.t,J)c..lop t-"-c.f\+ 'fZ-4() ~ ~~ ''-ISiS 00 Advanced Interconnected Channel & Pond Routing (ICPR Ver 2.20) Copyright 1995, Streamline Technologies, Inc. [1] ********** Basin Summary - DEHAYS ********************************************** -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *** Basin Name: Group Name: Node Name: Hydrograph Type: Spec Time Inc (min): Comp Time Inc (min): Rainfall File: Rainfall Amount (in): Storm Duration (hr): Status: Time of Cone. (min): Lag Time (hr): Sub Ele Curve Number ---------------------------------------------------------------- DCIA (%) Area (Ac) S TRACE 1 BASE STRACE1 OV 2.00 2.00 SFWMD72 9.00 72.00 ONSITE N/A 0.00 Length (ft) Time Max (hrs): Flow Max (cfs): Runoff Volume (in): Runoff Volume (cf): 60.33 36.14 5.33 733048 Mannings N Slope (%) 1 6.37 70.00 144.00 0.35 0.00 0.14 2 6.37 70.00 144.00 0.35 0.00 0.14 3 6.37 70.00 144.00 0.35 0.00 0.14 4 6.37 70.00 144.00 0.35 0.00 0.14 5 6.37 70.00 144.00 0.35 0.00 0.14 6 1.20 70.00 72.00 0.35 0.00 1.40 7 1.20 70.00 72.00 0.35 0.00 1.40 8 1.20 70.00 72.00 0.35 0.00 1.40 9 1.20 70.00 72.00 0.35 0.00 1.40 10 1.20 70.00 72.00 0.35 0.00 1.40 Sub Max Time Max Flow Max Vel Elem Rain Excess Ele (hrs) (cfs) ( fps) (in) ---------------------------------------------------------- 1 59.97 14.00 0.046 5.33 2 60.03 20.53 0.054 5.33 3 60.47 26.40 0.060 5.33 4 60.70 29.00 0.062 5.33 5 60.93 31. 76 0.110 5.33 6 60.07 32.61 0.191 5.33 7 60.17 33.52 0.193 5.33 8 60.23 34.33 0.195 5.33 9 60.30 35.25 0.197 5.33 10 60.33 36.14 0.199 5.33 , - . . Engineer's Report Okeechobee County Preliminary Site Plan & SFWMD ERP Approval For Southern Trace City of Okeechobee, FL September 20, 2006 Revised November 21,2006 Revised March 6, 2007 By: Steven L. Dobbs, P.E. # 48134 Rudd Jones, P. E. & Associates, P. A. 210 Northwest Park Street, Suite 204 Okeechobee,FL 34974 tr&0JJv Steven L Dobbs, P.E. MAR 09 2007 48134 . ' Pumose: The purpose of this report is to provide the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) and Okeechobee County with the calculations and documentation necessary to demonstrate the proposed surface water management system complies with state and local criteria. Proiect Descriotion: The site is made up of five full blocks and two half blocks in the City ofOkeechobee and includes Blocks 4, 11, 12, 13,20,21, and 22. This project includes all lands encompassed by NW 11th Street, NW 3rd Avenue, NW 13th Street, and NW 7th Avenue and the two half blocks west of NW 7th Avenue (north ofNW 11th Street and south ofNW 13th Street) and the block north ofNW 13th Street (east ofNW 5th Avenue and west ofNW 3rd Avenue). Each full block is approximately 4.84 acres in size and each half block is 1.08 acres in size. The entire site is approximately 37.86 acres in size (drainage basin = 37.73 acres). This project includes the construction ofNW 11th, NW 12th and NW 13th Streets (from NW 7th Avenue east to NW 3rd Avenue) and NW 3rd and 7th Avenues (from NW 11th Street to NW 13th Street) and also a portion ofNW 5th Avenue (from NW 12th Street to NW 13th Street). This project is located in Section 15, Township 37 South, Range 35 East - east of US Highway 441 (parcel ill 3-15-37-35-0010- 00040-0010, 3-15-37-35-0010-00040-0140, 3-15-37-35-0010-00130-0010, 3-15-37-35-0010-00130-0140, 3-15-37-35-0010-00200-0010, 3-15-37-35-0010-00200-0140, 3-15-37-35-0010-00120-0010, 3-15-37-35- 0010-00120-0170, 3-15-37-35-0010-00120-0110, 3-15-37-35-0010-00210-0010, 3-15-37-35-0010-00210- 0040, 3-15-37-35-0010-00210-0060, 3-15-37-35-0010-00210-0070, 3-15-37-35-0010-00210-0080, 3-15- 37-35-0010-00210-0100, 3-15-37-35-0010-00210-0170, 3-15-37-35-0010-00210-0110, 3-15-37-35-0010- 00110-0010, and 3-15-37-35-0010-00220-0010). The historic and current discharge is sheet flow across the parcels and into previously constructed road Right of Ways then to the north into the City Line ditch east to Taylor Creek. The owner proposes to construct residential buildings and a parking area to support a condominium complex with dry detention areas and a wet detention area with drainage offsite to Taylor Creek. The drainage calculations and routing will cover water quality and quantity for the proposed site improvements. The Soils Map for Okeechobee County indicates that this parcel's soil is made up oflmmokalee soil, which is very poorly drained in the natural state. However, the drainage system in this area has been improved as it is a part ofOkeechobee County's drainage system and the Immokalee soil's characteristics are improved with a drainage system and the drainage system is sized accordingly by incorporating the poorly drained soils. The site is currently partially developed with road right of ways developed and NW 5th A venue constructed between NW 11th and 12th Streets and NW 12th Street constructed between NW 5th Avenue and NW 7th A venue with 4 houses constructed on the existing portion of NW 12th Street. It is located in the $-133 Basin. Prooosed Use: The owner proposes construction of238 multi-family residences. Storm water runoff from the proposed development will be collected by a series of interconnected inlets and conveyed to 8 separate dry detention areas within the project. The dry detention areas will then convey the runoff to the proposed 1. 78 acre lake located in the northeast sector of the project. Runoff shall discharge through a control structure located in the proposed lake to the existing City Line ditch which runs along the northern boundary of the project site. Water quality treatment and attenuation will be provided for the site prior to discharge. Drainalle Considerations: To attenuate the increased run off generated by the proposed improvements and to insure that water quality standards are met, we propose to pass all drainage through the dry detention areas and lake. The high water table is set at elevation 26.00 ft-NGVD based on the attached geotechnical report prepared by Universal Engineering. The control elevation for the proposed lake has been established at 26.00 ft-NGVD, and the bottom elevations for the proposed dry detention areas have been set a foot above control at 27.00 ft-NGVD. Allowable discharge for the S-133 basin is 15.6 csm for the 25 year- 3 day storm event: Q= 15.6 csm / 640 acres * A " A discharge rate of 0.92 cfs is calculated for the project using the above equation. However, a conservative pre-<ievelopment run off analysis performed over the site using ICPR shows the run off generated for the pre-<ieveloped site to be 36 cfs (see attached pre-<ievelopment run off analysis). Considering this information, we are proposing to use 2.35 cfs as a discharge rate for the developed site. This discharge rate will allow the control structure bleeder to be adequately sized to allow for recovery of the run off volume associated with the 25 year, 72 hour storm event within 12 days as required by Section 6.9 of the SFWMD Basis of Review (see attached ICPR recovery graph). Technical Data Basin area breakdown: Land Use Category Total Impervious Building Lake @ control Pavement Pervious Dry Det. Area (TOB) Green Area 18.81 acres 6.76 acres 1. 78 acres 10.27 acres 18.92 acres 2.52 acres 16.40 acres Total Basin Area 37.73 acres Determine Curve Number: The following curve numbers will be used in the storm routing: 70 for the hydrologic group B soils of which all pervious areas are designated in accordance with SCS TR-55 and 98 for the impervious areas, and as recommended by SCS TR-55. Weighted Curve # = CN = [(70 x (18.92/37.73)) + (98 x (18.81/37.73))] = 83.96 Water ~uality Water quality treatment is provided in the form of dry and wet detention for the project drainage area. Water quality calculations are provided as follows: Req. WQ Volume = 1" * (37.73) * (1'/12") =3.14 Ac-Ft; or 2.5" x % impervious x WQ area/12 = 2.5" x ((10.27 acres/29.19 acres) x 35.95 acres)/12 = 2.64 acre-feet. One inch over the site is the controlling equation for this project. The control structure bleeder has been sized at 7" (circular) to allow for proper recovery and treatment of the required water quality volume. The bleeder shall be set at the control elevation of 26.00 ft-NGVD. The control structure grate has been set at 30.00 ft-NGVD, which is above the routed 25 year, 72 hour design storm elevation. Due to the low allowable discharge rate, the only control structure orifice provided for storm water discharge below the 25 year, 72 hour design elevation is the proposed T' circular bleeder. WaterOuantity This project is located in the Taylor Creek Basin which gravity discharges into Lake Okeechobee. As previously noted, the discharge rate to be utilized for this project is 2.35 cfs. The stormwater management system for the proposed site has been designed to operate using the above discharge rate. . The 10 year, 24 hour storm (5.0") wldischarge, the 25 year, 72 hour storm (9.0") wldischarge, and the 100 year, 72 hour storm (10.0") wlo discharge has been evaluated based on the proposed plan. Please refer to the attached AdICPR flood routing input/output parameters. 2 A summary of the flood routings is provided as follows: 10 Year Storm (5.0") Peak Stage Peak Rate '(ft-NGVD) (cfs) 25 Year Storm (9.0") Peak Stage Peak Rate (ft-NGVD) (cfs) 100 Year Storm 1l0.0") Peak Stage (no discharge) (ft-NGVD) 28.80 2.04 29.63 2.35 30.09 Environmental: There are no South Florida Water Management District or COIpS jurisdictional wetlands on-site. Construction Recommendations: Run-off and any water generated by short-term dewatering during construction shall be contained on-site. However, there is some potential for transport of sediment to off- site areas should heavy rainfall occur. We therefore recommend installation of temporary silt fence around the entire COnstruction area during site work to reduce the potential of any off-site transport of sediment or turbidity. Conclusions: In my professional opinion, the proposed construction should have no impact to existing drainage patterns off-site and should have no impact on off-site areas. The recommendations above should be followed during and after the site work until such time as the ground surface has been adequately stabilized to prevent the off-site transport of any soil or suspended solids. The proposed design and construction will meet all local, state and federal requirements. 3 SOUTHERN TRACE PROJECT NO. 2006-202 DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS Basin Information For: Southern Trace Total Site Area 37.8(, ac Zero Discharl!e Storm Stal!es Stare IO-year, l-day PIO= ~.Oo in V - (((S.00-0.2(0.72)l^2)1(S.oo-o.1(0. 721))'37.73112 = 13.31 ac-ft 29.24 ft-NGVD 2~-year, 3-day P" = 9.00 in V = (((9.oo-o.2(0.72))^2)1(9.00-0.1(0.72)))'37.73/12 = 25.76 ac-ft 29.98 ft-NGVD IOO-year, 3-day P,oo= 10.00 in V = (((10.00-0.2(0.72))"2)1(10.00-0.1(0.72)))'37.73112 = 28.89 ac-ft 30.09 f1-NGVD Total Basin Area 37.73 ac Impervious Area RoollineIBldg. Wetland Lakes Pavement Total Impervious Area Total Pervious Area Percent Impervious Adjusted Soil Storage CMcwmedSCSCwveNwn~r Time of Concentration ().76 ac 0.00 ac 1.78 ac 10.27 ac 18.81 ac 18.92 ac 49.9"/. 0.72 in 84 20.00 min Control Structure Deshrn Max. Allowable Discharge Control Elevation Req. Weir Crest Elevation Pro. Weir Crest Elevation Provided Water Quality Bleed Down Volwne Allowable Bleeder Discharge 2.35 16.00 27.44 29.00 9.08 4.54 2.29 cfs ft-NOVD ft-NOVO II-NOVO oc-II ftC.II cfs 1/2 detention volume Water Oualitv Calculation I" x Total Area RunofTftom 2.5"x % net Impervious - SFWMD criteria 3.14 ac-ft 2.64 ac-ft 3.14 ac-ft 1.00 3.14 ac-ft Clrcwar Orifice Des1rn: Q = 0.6' A '(2'g'Hf.5 Solving the above equation for Diameter yields 0= 2'(Q/(0.6"n'(2'g'Hf.5))o5'12 in/Ft Assuming 3-inch bleeder initially D = 2'[2.29/(O.6'J.414'(2'J2.2'(29.lJO..(26.00-lil.125)))^O.5)]"O.5'12 inlFt Required Water Quality Volume Wet Detention Multiplier Adjusted Required Wmer QuMity Volume o 7.17 in for one bleeder Water Quality Stale Min. Req Road Crown EI.(routed 10 yr-24 hr storm) Mln. Req Perimeter Berm (routed 25 y....72 hr storm) Min. Req F.F.E. (100 y....72 hr. zero dlschal'le) 27.44 II-NOVO 28.80 ft-NOVO Q = 3.13'L'H'5 solving for L, L = Q/(3.13'11.5), use 25-year, 3-day zero stage for 29.63 ft-NOVD initiM head on weir. L-1.351(3.13'(29.91-27.44)^1.S) _ 0.19 ft 30.09 ft.NOVO Stal!e Storal!e Calculations for Basin Southern Trace The..efor". or", 7.00 ;m,h hl..d... at e1<>alion 21i.00 ft-!\GVn will h. ".'011. (Thi!ll is rU~t~t~ss..r)' iu allm\ flU' bh~ed down '0 t'ontrul within 12 days) Stora." Cumulative Sta.e-Storaore 'ac-ft) Land use Ca_ol'Y Tvn; Area 'ac.1 From Elev. To Elev. 26.00 27.00 28.00 29.00 30.00 31.00 32.00 33.00 34.00 35.00 36.00 Wet Detention Vertical 1.78 26.00 0.00 1.78 3.~6 5.34 7.12 8.90 10.68 12.46 14.24 16.02 17.80 Wet Detention Banks Linear 0.55 26.00 29.00 0.00 0.09 0.37 0.83 1.38 1.93 2.48 3.03 3.58 4.13 4.68 Drv Detention Vertical 1.60 27.50 0.00 0.00 0.80 2.40 4.00 5.60 7.20 8.80 10040 12.00 13.60 DIV Detention Banks Linear 0.92 27.50 29.50 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.~2 1.38 2.30 3.22 4.14 ~.06 5.98 6.90 Pavement Linear 10.27 28.85 30.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 5.91 16.18 26.4~ 36.72 46.99 57.26 67.~3 Oreen I Linear 12.68 29.00 30.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.34 19.02 31.70 44.38 ~7.06 69.74 82.42 Green 2 Linear 3.17 30.00 31.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.59 4.76 7.93 11.10 14.27 17.44 Buildina Linear 6.76 31.00 41.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 1.3~ 3.04 5041 8.4~ Total: 37.73 Totals: 0.00 1.87 4.78 9.18 26.12 55.51 86.81 118.80 151.46 184.79 218.81 3IllI2007 P:\2006-202 InsHe DevelopmennDralnage Revised 2\Southam Trace Revlsad 2.xll Southern Trace Proposed Site Node Diagram Nodes A Stage/Area V Stage/Volume T Time/Stage M Manhole Basins OOverland Flow U SCS Unit Hydro S Santa Barbara Links PPipe W Weir C Channel D Drop Structure B Bridge R Rating Curve H Breach A: SITE U: SITE > 0: CONTROL STR ) / IT' DrTCH Interconnected Channel and Pond Routing Model (ICPR) <<:>2002 Streamline Technologies, Inc. Southern Trace Proposed Site Input Report -=-==-=-=-==-=-===---==-====-=-=-=====---=-===--=-----=----=-=-=--=-=----=-=-=---=-=--=-=-= =--- Basins ---__-=_==________===-==-=----===-______-=______=-=_________==__=-=-====-=-=== ----------------------===-=====---=-----=------=-----=--==--~-=----=------=-=-----=------ Name: SITE Group: BASE Node: SITE Type: SCS Unit Hydrograph Status: Onsite Unit Hydrograph: Uh256 Rainfall File: Sfwmd72 Rainfall Amount (in) : 9.000 Area(ac}: 37.730 Curve Number: 84.00 DCIA(%): 0.00 Peaking Factor: 256.0 Storm Duration(hrs): 72.00 Time of Conc(min): 20.00 Time Shift (hrs) : 0.00 Max Allowable Q(cfs): 999999.000 Southern Trace Proposed Model ---------------------------==-=--==-------==--------=-=---------------------------------=- -- Nodes --=-_____=-=--=-=-=___-=____-=-________-=_________ -=--------==-----=-----=--------=-=----------------------------------=-=-=----~-=---=- Name: DITCH Group: BASE Type: Time/Stage Base Flow(cfs): 0.000 Init Stage (ft) : 26.000 Warn Stage (ft) : 30.000 Node for Tailwater Time (hrs) Stage (ft) 0.00 100.00 26.000 26.000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Name: SITE Group: BASE Type: Stage/Area Base Flow(cfs): 0.000 Init Stage (ft) : 26.000 Warn Stage(ft): 30.000 Southern Trace Proposed Model Stage (ft) Area (ac) 26.000 27.000 28.000 29. 000 30.000 1.7800 1.9600 3.8600 4.9400 28.9400 -----_..._---~---------------=----=-......._------------- ---------------==-----------=-=-=-=-=----------------------=-=---------------------------- --- Drop Structures ___________________=-=_________________ Name: CONTROL STR From Node: SITE Length (ft) : 55.00 Group: BASE To Node: DITCH Count: 1 UPSTREAM DOWNSTREAM Friction Equation: Average Conveyance Geometry: Circular Circular Solution Algorithm: Automatic Span(in): 24.00 24.00 Flow: Both Rise(in): 24.00 24.00 Entrance Loss Coef: 0.500 Invert(ft): 17.500 l7.500 Exit Loss Coef: 1. 000 Manning's N: 0.012000 0.012000 Outlet Ctrl Spec: Use dc or tw Top Clip (in) : 0.000 0.000 Inlet Ctrl Spec: Use dn Bot Clip (in) : 0.000 0.000 Solution Incs: 10 Upstream FHWA Inlet Edge Description: Circular Concrete: Square edge w/ headwall Downstream FHWA Inlet Edge Description: Circular Concrete: Square edge w/ headwall Control Structure 7" circular bleeder @ 26.00 ft-NGVD Grate @ 30.00 ft-NGVD *** Weir 1 of 2 for Drop Structure CONTROL STR *** Count: 1 Bottom Clip (in) : 0.000 Type: Vertical: Mavis Top Clip (in) : 0.000 Flow: Both Weir Disc Coef: 3.130 Geometry: Circular Orifice Disc Coef: 0.600 Span (in) : 7.00 Invert (ft) : 26.000 Rise (in) : 7.00 Control Elev(ft): 26.000 *** Weir 2 of 2 for Drop Structure CONTROL STR TABLE Interconnected Channel and Pond Routing Model (ICPR) @2002 Streamline Technologies, Inc. Page I on Southern Trace Proposed Site Input Report Count: 1 Type: Horizontal Flow: Both Geometry: Rectangular Bottom Clip(in): 0.000 Top Clip(in): 0.000 Weir Disc Coef: 3.130 Orifice Disc Coef: 0.600 TABLE Span(in): 54.00 RiseCin): 36.00 Invert (ft) : 30.000 Control Elev(ft): 30.000 =-===-----=--=----~------=------=----=____=____=a=___=_=_____________=_=______=___________ -=== Hydrology Simulations ____=__=-=____________________________=-=____-=________________ ==-=-=--------=--=-=----=------=-=---==--=-----=---------=-=------=---=-=-------==---=-=-= Name: 100Y3D Filename: P:\2006-202 Insite Development\Drainage Revised 2\ICPR3\100Y3D.R32 Override Defaults: Yes Storm Duration(hrs): 72.00 Rainfall File: Sfwmd72 Rainfall Amount(in): 10.00 TimeChrs) Print IncCmin) --------------- --------------- 80.000 5.00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: 10YlD Filename: P:\2006-202 Insite Development\Drainage Revised 2\ICPR3\10YlD.R32 Override Defaults: Yes Storm Duration (hrs) : 24.00 Rainfall File: Flmod Rainfall Amount(in): 5.00 Time (hrs) Print Inc Cmin) --------------- --------------- 40.000 5.00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: 25Y3D Filename: P:\2006-202 Insite Development\Drainage Revised 2\ICPR3\25Y3D.R32 Override Defaults: Yes Storm Duration (hrs) : 72.00 Rainfall File: Sfwmd72 Rainfall Amount(in): 9.00 Time (hrs) Print IncCmin) --------------- --------------- 360.000 5.00 -=-= Routing Simulations __________________________=__________=__________________________= =--=-------=--=-=----=--=-----==---=-====-=-====---=-=---=--=-=-=---=-=-------~-------- ===-====-=-=-==-=----=----------=---------------------------------=-=---=-==-_=-=a=_______ Name: 100YR3D Hydrology Sim: lOOY3D Filename: P:\2006-202 Insite Development\Drainage Revised 2\ICPR3\100YR3D.I32 Execute: Yes Alternative: No Restart: No Patch: No Max Delta Z(ft): Time Step Optimizer: Start Time (hrs) : Min Calc Time(sec): Boundary Stages: 1.00 10.000 0.000 1. 0000 Delta Z Factor: 0.01000 End Time (hrs) : 80.00 Max Calc Time(sec): 60.0000 Boundary Flows: Southern Trace Proposed Model Time (hrs) Print Inc(min) 56.000 64.000 68.000 90.000 15.000 5.000 15.000 60.000 Group Run BASE Yes ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: 10YRlD Hydrology Sim: 10YlD Filename: P:\2006-202 Insite Development\Drainage Revised 2\ICPR3\10YRlD.I32 Interconnected Channel and Pond Routing Model (ICPR) <<:>2002 Streamline Technologies, Inc. Page 2 on Southern Trace Proposed Site Input Report Execute: Yes Alternative: No Restart: No Patch: No Max Delta Z(ft): Time Step Optimizer: Start Time (hrs) : Min Calc Time(see): Boundary Stages: 1. 00 10.000 0.000 l.OOOO Delta Z Factor: 0.01000 End Time(hrs): 40.00 Max Calc Time(sec): 60.0000 Boundary Flows: Southern Trace Proposed Model Time (hrs) Print Inc (min) 8.000 20.000 40.000 l5.000 5.000 15.000 Group Run BASE Yes ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: 25YR3D Hydrology Sim: 25Y3D Filename: P:\2006-202 Insite Development\Drainage Revised 2\ICPR3\25YR3D.I32 Execute: Yes Alternative: No Restart: No Patch: No Max Delta Z (ft) : Time Step Optimizer: Start Time (hrs) : Min Calc Time (sec) : Boundary Stages: 1.00 10.000 0.000 1. 0000 Delta Z Factor: 0.01000 End Time (hrs) : 360.00 Max Calc Time(sec): 60.0000 Boundary Flows: Southern Trace Proposed Model Time (hrs) Print Inc (min) 56.000 64.000 68.000 90.000 360.000 15.000 5.000 15.000 60.000 300.000 Group Run BASE Yes ---- Boundary Conditions __________________--==-______=____===______________=-_____________ ---------=---------=--------=-=-=-------=----------=--------~----=--=--------=----------- ---------=-=--=-------------------------------------=----------=---=-=---=---=------------ Interconnected Channel and Pond Routing Model (ICPR) <<:>2002 Streamline Technologies, Inc. Page 3 on Southern Trace Proposed Site Node Maximums Max Time Max Warning Max Delta Max Surf Max Time Max Max Time Max Name Group Simula tion Stage Stage Stage Stage Area Inflow Inflow Outflow Outflow hrs ft ft ft ft2 hrs cfs hrs cfs -_._------~~._-_. DITCH BASE 10YR1D 0.00 26.000 30.000 0.0000 0 23.72 2.035 0.00 0.000 DITCH BASE 25YR3D 0.00 26.000 30.000 0.0000 0 72 .19 2.346 0.00 0.000 SITE BASE 10YRlD 23.72 28.797 30.000 0.0100 205627 12.17 63.381 23.72 2.035 SITE BASE 25YR3D 72.19 29.634 30.000 0.0100 878372 60.08 107.496 72.19 2.346 Interconnected Channel and Pond Routing Model (ICPR) <02002 Streamline Technologies, Inc. ._--~---._- Page I of I Southern Trace Proposed Site Link Maximums Max Time Max Max Max Time Max Max Time Max Name Group Simula tion Flow Flow Delta Q US Stage US Stage DS Stage OS Stage hrs cfs cfs hrs ft hrs ft CONTROL STR BASE 10YRIO 23.72 2.035 0.019 23.72 28.797 0.00 26.000 CONTROL STR BASE 25YR3D 72.19 2.346 0.005 72 .19 29.634 0.00 26.000 Interconnected Channel and Pond Routing Model (ICPR) @2002 Streamline Technologies, Inc. Page I of 1 Southern Trace Proposed Site Recovery Analysis - 1/2 detention volume in 24 hours 1/2 detention volume - 4.54 ac-ft Simulation Node Group Time Stage Warning Surface Total Total Total Total Stage Area Inflow Outflow Vol In Vol Out hrs ft ft ft2 cfs cfs af af .---.---- WQ SITE BASE 0.00 29.000 30.000 215186 0.000 2.116 0.0 0.0 WQ SITE BASE 1.02 28.964 30.000 213493 0.000 2.102 0.0 0.2 WQ SITE BASE 2.02 28.929 30.000 211825 0.000 2.088 0.0 0.4 WQ SITE BASE 3.02 28.893 30.000 210154 0.000 2.074 0.0 0.5 WQ SITE BASE 4.02 28.857 30.000 208481 0.000 2.060 0.0 0.7 WQ SITE BASE 5.02 28.822 30.000 206807 0.000 2.046 0.0 0.9 WQ SITE BASE 6.02 28.786 30.000 205131 0.000 2.031 0.0 1.0 WQ SITE BASE 7.02 28.751 30.000 203453 0.000 2.017 0.0 1.2 WQ SITE BASE 8.02 28.715 30.000 201774 0.000 2.002 0.0 1.4 WQ SITE BASE 9.02 28.679 30.000 200093 0.000 1. 987 0.0 1.5 WQ SITE BASE 10.02 28.643 30.000 198410 0.000 1. 972 0.0 1.7 WQ SITE BASE 11. 02 28.608 30.000 196726 0.000 1. 957 0.0 1.9 WQ SITE BASE 12.02 28.572 30.000 195040 0.000 1. 942 0.0 2.0 WQ SITE BASE 13.02 28.536 30.000 193353 0.000 1. 927 0.0 2.2 WQ SITE BASE 14.02 28.500 30.000 191665 0.000 1.911 0.0 2.3 1'10 SITE BASE 15.02 28.464 30.000 189976 0.000 1. 896 0.0 2.5 1'10 SITE BASE 16.02 28.428 30.000 188286 0.000 1. 880 0.0 2.6 1'10 SITE BASE 17.02 28.392 30.000 186594 0.000 1. 864 0.0 2.8 WQ SITE BASE 18.02 28.356 30.000 184902 0.000 1.848 0.0 3.0 1'10 SITE BASE 19.02 28.320 30.000 183209 0.000 1. 832 0.0 3.1 WQ SITE BASE 20.02 28.284 30.000 181516 0.000 1.815 0.0 3.3 WQ SITE BASE 21. 02 28.248 30.000 179822 0.000 1. 799 0.0 3.4 WQ SITE BASE 22.02 28.212 30.000 178127 0.000 1. 782 0.0 3.6 1'10 SITE BASE 23.02 28.176 30.000 176433 0.000 1. 765 0.0 3.7 1'10 SITE BASE 24.01 28.141 30.000 174766 0.000 1. 749 0.0 3.8 Interconnected Channel and Pond Routing Model (ICPR) @2002 Streamline Technologies, Inc. Page I of I Southern Trace Proposed Site Recovery Graph 30 Simulation 25YR3D - DITCH -SITE 29 = - Q) C) S C/) 28 27 26 o 100 200 300 400 Time(hrs) Interconnected Channel and Pond Routing Model (ICPR) @2002 Streamline Technologies, Inc. '.. . .. 5~~\1\. --rii:co:c:....c' tJre. -~c..lop Mc.f\+ '1Z-4f'l ~ aq,nql~SiS rn Advanced Interconnected Channel & Pond Routing (ICPR Ver 2.20) Copyright 1995, Streamline Technologies, Inc. [1] ********** Basin Summary - DEHAYS ********************************************** -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *** Basin Name: Group Name: Node Name: Hydrograph Type: Spec Time Inc (min): Comp Time Inc (min): Rainfall File: Rainfall Amount (in): Storm Duration (hr): Status: Time of Cone. (min): Lag Time (hr): Sub Ele Area (Ae) Curve Number ---------------------------------------------------------------- S TRACE 1 BASE STRACE1 OV 2.00 2.00 SFWMD72 9.00 72.00 ONSITE N/A 0.00 Length (ft) Time Max (hrs): Flow Max (cfs): Runoff Volume (in): Runoff Volume (cf): 60.33 36.14 5.33 733048 Nannings N DeIA (%) Slope (%) 1 6.37 70.00 144.00 0.35 0.00 0.14 2 6.37 70.00 144.00 0.35 0.00 0.14 3 6.37 70.00 144.00 0.35 0.00 0.14 4 6.37 70.00 144.00 0.35 0.00 0.14 5 6.37 70.00 144.00 0.35 0.00 0.14 6 1.20 70.00 72.00 0.35 0.00 1.40 7 1.20 70.00 72.00 0.35 0.00 1.40 8 1.20 70.00 72.00 0.35 0.00 1.40 9 1.20 70.00 72.00 0.35 0.00 1.40 10 1.20 70.00 72.00 0.35 0.00 1.40 Sub Max Time Max Flow Max Vel Elem Rain Excess Ele (hrs) (cfs) (fps) (in) ---------------------------------------------------------- I 59.97 14.00 0.046 5.33 2 60.03 20.53 0.054 5.33 3 60.47 26.40 0.060 5.33 4 60.70 29.00 0.062 5.33 5 60.93 31. 76 0.110 5.33 6 60.07 32.61 0.191 5.33 7 60.17 33.52 0.193 5.33 8 60.23 34.33 0.195 5.33 9 60.30 35.25 0.197 5.33 10 60.33 36.14 0.199 5.33 ~ - InSite Development, LLC Request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment Future Land Use Change from Single-Family Residential to Multi-Family Residential Comoliance with Okeechobee County Comorehensive Plan The proposed amendment is consistent with the following objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan which are relevant to the subject request. As the CGMP has been found to be internally consistent as required by State statutes, the proposed amendment is thus also consistent with the remainder of the Comprehensive Plan. Future Land Use Element Objective 1 - The location of future development in the City of Okeechobee shall continue to be guided by the availability and efficient use of public facilities and services as well as site characteristics such as soil conditions and topography. With public water and wastewater already onsite, this site is most advantageous for the change of future land use from Residential Single Family to Residential Multi- family. While the soils are not the most advantageous for urban development according to the Soil Survey of Okeechobee County, the two concerns for this soil type are wetness and high water table. With improved drainage, which this site will benefit from and the existing public sewer system these items will not be a concern for this development. The topography of this site has been partially developed due to road beds in the City Right of Way being prepared and is well suited for this level of development. This site is perfectly located to provide attainable multi-family housing for the resident of the City of Okeechobee due to its strategic location just blocks from downtown, an elementary school, middle school, freshman campus and senior high school. This site meets and exceeds this objective. Policy 2.1.a/b - The primary purpose of these categories is to manage future growth. Since the current future land use on this parcel is Single-Family Residential and land to the south and east is multi family, it is reasonable to change this area to a higher density classification to help curtail urban sprawl. This project will help manage the future growth by providing higher density housing. Transportation Element Objective 7 - Calls for the City to establish levels of service standards that are acceptable for existing and future conditions. Please refer to the traffic statement prepared by McMahon Associates, Inc. Housing Element Policy 1.1 - The City is to permit new residential development only where facilities such as roads, sanitary sewer, and potable water are available and adequate. There is an adequate road system available as seen in the traffic statement prepared by McMahon Associates, Inc., adequate water and sanitary sewer service is available onsite and capacity exist at the plants to serve this project refer to water and sewer statement prepared by Rudd Jones, P. E. & Associates. Sanitary Sewer, Solid Waste, Drainage, Potable Water, and Natural Groundwater Recharge Element Page 1 InSite Development, LLC Request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment Future Land Use Change from Single-Family Residential to Multi-Family Residential Objective 1 - The City determine availability of service capacity based on the minimum level of service and the demand generated by development. Please refer to Sanitary Sewer and Potable Water and the Drainage statement prepared by Rudd Jones, P. E. & Associates for compliance with this objective. Conservation Element Goal- The City is committed to conserve, protect, and appropriately manage the natural resources to promote the highest environmental Conversion to the Multi-Family Residential designation will allow for a development program to be brought forward that will be sensitive to natural systems of the area. Recreation Element . Objective R.1 - Requires that recreation facilities meet the existing and future needs of the County's population through the planning period. Please refer to the Adequate Public Facilities Analysis section of this report for a specific analysis of the additional demand for public facilities caused by this request. Objective R.2 - Requires the County to coordinate with the private sector to provide recreational facilities. The proposed project can easily accommodate the recreation needs of its anticipated population through the provision of on-site facilties. In addition, through a fair-share cost basis, the proposed project, at time of development application, can also provide for its required recreation needs. Compliance with State Growth ManaQement Requirements. Florida's Department of Community Affairs evaluates local plan amendments for consistency with Rule 9-J5, Florida Administrative Code, which sets out criteria for determining whether a proposed plan amendment demonstrates consistency with the mandates of the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act and the State Comprehensive Plan. The applicant must demonstrate that the proposed plan amendment is consistent with all state requirements. Since the City of Okeechobee's Comprehensive Plan has been found to be consistent with all state requirements, a demonstration of compliance of the proposed amendment with the City of Okeechobee Comprehensive Plan in turn demonstrates compliance with all state requirements. Please refer to the section titled Compliance with City of Okeechobee Comprehensive Plan for the applicant's demonstration of compliance. The proposed future land use must also not encourage urban sprawl as outlined in Sections 9J5- 006.(5)(g) through (5)(j) of the Florida Administrative Code. The noted regulations set forth the major components of a methodology to determine the presence of urban sprawl. Paragraph (5)(g) identifies 13 primary indicators of urban sprawl which are to be applied and analyzed as set forth in the rille. Paragraph (5)(h) describes how land use aspects of a plan shall be analyzed. The land use element, including both the future land use map and associated objectives and policies, represents the focal point ofthe local government's planning effort. Paragraph (5)(i) describes the unique features and characteristics of each jurisdiction which provide the context of the analysis and which are needed to evaluate the extent, amount or frequency of an indicator and the significance of an indicator for a specific jurisdiction. Paragraph (5)(j) recognizes that land use plans generally may be significantly affected by other development policies in a plan which may serve to mitigate the presence of urban sprawl indicators based on the land use plan alone. Page 2 InSite Development, LLC Request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment Future Land Use Change from Single-Family Residential to Multi-Family Residential Paragraph (5)(j) describes development controls which may be used by a local government to mitigate the presence of sprawl. In general, Section 9J-5.006(5)(l) states that provision of innovative planning such as urban villages, new towns, satellite communities, area-based allocations, clustering and open space provisions, mixed-use development and sector planning that allow the conversion of rural and agricultural lands to other uses will be recognized as methods of discouraging urban sprawl and will be detennined consistent with the provisions of the state comprehensive plan, regional policy plans, Chapter 163, Part II, F.S., and the Florida Administrative Code regarding discouraging the proliferation of urban sprawl. As such, the proposed future land use amendment to the MULTI- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL district, which allows the creation of mixed-use development, urban villages, and open space, is thus consistent with the requirements for discouraging urban sprawl. Nevertheless, a detailed urban sprawl analysis is provided below. Our analysis of consistency is provided within a text block following each indicator. Analysis of primary indicators 1. Promotes, allows or designates for development substantial areas of the jurisdiction to develop as low-intensity, low-density, or single-use development or uses in excess of demonstrated need. The proposed request to Multi-Family Residential will actually increase densities within the urban area of the City in close proximity to the urban center while also ensuring a balanced mix of uses and their intended benefits. 2. Promotes, allows or designates significant amounts of urban development to occur in rural areas at substantial distances from existing urban areas while leaping over undeveloped lands which are available and suitable for development. The proposed request to Multi-Family Residential will actually increase densities within the City in close proximity to the urban center. The proposed request is also adjacent to an existing designation of Multi-Family Residential on the future land use map. 3. Promotes, allows or designates urban development in radial, strip, isolated or ribbon patterns generally emanating from existing urban developments. The location of the proposed future land use amendment is not in a radial, strip, isolated or ribbon pattern generally emanating from existing urban developments. 4. As a result of premature or poorly planned conversion of rural land to other uses, fails adequately to protect and conserve natural resources, such as wetlands, floodplains, native vegetation, environmentally sensitive areas, natural groundwater aquifer recharge areas, lakes, rivers, shorelines, beaches, bays, estuarine systems, and other significant natural systems. The proposed request to a Multi-Family Residential future land use will not result in the premature or poorly planned conversion of undeveloped land to other uses. Adequate site design techiques will be employed to adequately to protect and conserve natural resources, such as wetlands, floodplains, native vegetation, environmentally sensitive areas, natural groundwater aquifer recharge areas, lakes, rivers, shorelines, beaches, bays, estuarine systems, and other Page 3 InSite Development, LLC Request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment Future Land Use Change from Single-Family Residential to Multi-Family Residential significant natural systems. 5. Fails adequately to protect adjacent agricultural areas and activities, including silviculture, and including active agricultural and silvicultural activities as well as passive agricultural activities and dormant, unique and prime farmlands and soils. The location of the proposed future land use amendment is within a future land use of Single- Family Residential and will not impact agricultural operations to the west. From the SCS Soil Survey of Okeechobee County designated the soil in this area as not productive for Agriculture. 6. Fails to maximize use of existing public facilities and services. The proposed site will be served by a full complement of existing urban services. 7. Fails to maximize use of future public facilities and services. A higher utilization of this site will ensure that future pubIc services are minimized within outlining areas. 8. Allows for land use patterns or timing which disproportionately increase the cost in time, money and energy, of providing and maintaining facilities and services, including roads, potable water, sanitary sewer, stormwater management, law enforcement, education, health care, fire and emergency response, and general government. The proposed site will be served by a full complement of existing urban services. Because the property is within the public facility service area, it will enable public facilities and services to be extended in an orderly manner without disproportionate increases in cost. 9. Fails to provide a clear separation between rural and urban uses. The proposed site is adjacent to other lands within the City ofOkeechobee with a Multi-Family Residential future land use designation and thereby maintains clear separation between urban and rural uses. 10. Discourages or inhibits infill development or the redevelopment of existing neighborhoods and communities. This project is infill of existing lands designated for housing and only looks to increase the density allowed by changing the Future Land Use Classification from Single-Family Residential to Multi- Family Residential. 11. Fails to encourage an attractive and functional mix of uses. The proposed site being adjacent to other lands designated Multi-Family Residential, Public and Single-Family Residential allows for an attractive and functional mix of uses. 12. Results in poor accessibility among linked or related land uses. Page 4 InSite Development, LLC Request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment Future Land Use Change from Single-Family Residential to Multi-Family Residential The proposed project will provide for reasonable connections to surrounding development to ensure among linked or related land uses. 13. The proposed change will not result in the loss of significant amounts of functional open space. The proposed change will not result in the loss of significant amounts of functional open space. The existing use does not provide functional open space. With the conversion to a Multi-Family Residential future land use, the proposed land use will provide significant amounts of functional open space that will be planned for active and passive recreation by residents of the new community and others. Page 5 InSite Development, LLC Request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment Future Land Use Change from Single-Family Residential to Multi-Family Residential Encroachment of Incompatible development As the City of Okeechobee experiences development, a mix of uses has evolved such as residential, hotels, restaurants, and service businesses, repair shops and retail stores. The residential uses in the area though have remained largely the same stock that has been in place for a number of years. This project will bring to fruition many failed attempts to bring housing to this area. The subject site is bound on the west by a cattle stockyard with an Agricultural future land use designation, to the south by a DOT maintenance yard with a Public future land use designation, to the east by undeveloped land with a Multi-Family Residential future land use designation and to the north by undeveloped land with a Single-Family Residential future land use designation. Given the adjacent existing and future land uses, the proposed request for Multi-Family Residential future land use will not result in the encroachment of incompatible development but will actually complement the existing and planned uses and provide a balanced mix of uses in a well planned development. Natural resource protection The site is currently devoid of native vegetation or wetlands. A full environmental assessment will be conducted for the entire property as part of any future development application. Adequate Public Facilities Analvsis The following analysis demonstrates that adequate facilities are present or planned to accommodate the incremental demand that may be generated by the proposed future land use. The analysis determines the net incremental demand from a worst-case development scenario of the existing and proposed future land use categories. The net demand is then compared to the existing and planned capacity. The current demand from the existing future land use is assumed to be addressed within the background growth assumptions of the City's local concurrency management system and the long term planning horizon of the capital Improvement Element. The later analysis has previously been determined by the Department of Community Affairs to be internally consistent based upon the current future land use maps. Transportation Please refer to the enclosed traffic statement. Schools Currently, the Okeechobee County School District has adequate capacity at the middle and upper school levels; however, the elementary school system is currently at capacity. The School Board has programmed additional elementary school capacity through the State's Rural Schools Program. Funding has been requested through the legislative delegation. Appropriation is expected in FY2007 with construction to commence by 2008. The Okeechobee School District has utilized this funding source for expansion to the school system in the past. Page 6 InSite Development, LLC Request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment Future Land Use Change from Single-Family Residential to Multi-Family Residential The timing is concurrent with the expected timeframe of proposed project. The request for a future land use amendment is expected to be transmitted to the State Department of Community Affairs in 2007 with final adoption expected by mid-2007. With the State's new requirements for public school concurrency passed during the 2005 legislative session, the proposed project is expected to meet the concurrency requirements through mitigation proportionate to the demand for capacity as allowed by State statutes. As the local government application for site plan approval is not expected to be submitted untillate-2007, with approval granted in early-2008, the certainty of the funding program for the additional capacity will be in place. Site construction would then commence with the first certificate of occupancy in late-2008 - the expected timeline for the construction of the new elementary school. Please refer to the enclosed letter of Okeechobee County School Board for confirmation. The closest elementary school, Central Elementary, is located at 610 SW 5th Avenue and is approximately 2 miles from the site. The closest middle school is Yearling Middle located at 925 NW 23rd Lane and is approximately 2 miles from the site. The closest high school, Okeechobee High, is located at 2800 N.W. Highway 441 North and is approximately 2 miles from the site.. The closest Freshman Campus is located at 610 SW 2nd Avenue and is approximately 2 miles from the site. Water & Wastewater The water and wastewater service for this project is provided by the Okeechobee Utility Authority. Application for capacity reservation has been submitted to ~UA. Existing Conditions Under the current Single-Family Residential future land use, the property would be served by a central Water and Sewer System. Proposed Conditions The following is an analysis of the water and wastewater flows for the property with the proposed future land use designation allowing up to 4 units per acre. The analysis is based upon maximum development scenario of 130 units. The estimated water and wastewater flows are as follows: Use Measure Rate Gallons per day Multi Family 118 units 114 GPD - water 13,452 water Residential 130 GPD - sewer 15,340 sewer *Reference: HRS 10D-6 Water and Wastewater Treatment Plants Based on information obtained from the Okeechobee Utility Authority, the permitted capacity of the surface water treatment plant is 5.0 mgd with the ground water treatment plant rated at 1.0 mgd. The wastewater treatment plant permitted capacity is currently 1.0 mgd. Page 7 InSite Development, LLC Request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment Future Land Use Change from Single-Family Residential to Multi-Family Residential The Okeechobee Utility Authority is currently in the construction phase of additional filters which will bring the wastewater treatment plant to a temporary capacity of 1.23 mgd. This work should be completed by June 2006. Additionally, the wastewater treatment plant is under a design/permitting phase for an expansion of 3.0 mgd that will bring the total treatment plant capacity to 4.0 mgd and should be operational by June 2008. The average daily flow of the combined water treatment plant finished water production is 1.93 mgd for the period of January 2005 through December 2005. The average daily flow of the wastewater treatment plant is 0.89 mgd for the same time period. The Okeechobee Utility Authority reports an outstanding water treatment plant flow commitment of approximately 0.25 mgd with an outstanding wastewater treatment plant flow commitment of approximately 0.1 mgd. Water 6.00 m d 1.93 m d 0.25 m d 3.82 m d Based upon these figures, the Okeechobee Utility Authority will have on or before June 2008 adequate capacity to serve the proposed demand created by the increased density of the proposed future land use amendment. Police The nearest police station is located at 55 SE 3rd Avenue. No additional police stations are scheduled. The existing police station should be able to maintain its level of service standard with the proposed amendment given that the project is immediately adjacent to other land designated for urban development, is within the public service area, and is approximately 3 miles from the site. Fire The nearest fire station is located at 55 SE 3rd Avenue. No additional fire stations are scheduled. The existing fire station should be able to maintain its level of service standard with the proposed amendment given that the project is immediately adjacent to other land designated for urban development, is within the public service area, and is approximately 3 miles from the site. Solid Waste The Okeechobee County solid waste level of service is 4.1 pounds per capita per day and a three year availability of landfill capacity. Given the 100 maximum number of potential units with 2.5 person per dwelling, the maximum demand for the project would be approximately 1,025 punds per day. Okeechobee County operates the regional solid waste landfill. A letter from the solid waste service provider, Waste Management, pertaining to solid waste service was not available. However, confirmation was provided by Joe Fazula, Solid Waste Manager, that 50 years capacity is available. Consequently, the existing landfill has surplus capacity in excess of three years. Page 8 InSite Development, LLC Request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment Future Land Use Change from Single-Family Residential to Multi-Family Residential Stormwater Management The project is located in the City of Okeechobee and FEMA FIRM Panels do not include the City of Okeechobee, however, this site is adjacent to the City Limits Ditch to the north that has a bottom elevation of 17.0 NGVD and discharges in to Taylor Creek to the east, which is controlled at elevation 13.5 NGVD. There are currently no known flooding or erosion control problems associated with the project site. No 1 DO-year flood prone areas exist on site, therefore no structures, roadways or utilities are proposed within any 1 DO-year flood prone areas. There are no existing wellfields located within two miles of the project site. Potential adverse impacts to ground and surface waters will be minimized by implementation of appropriate erosion control measures during construction in accordance with the NPDES Generic Permit for Stormwater Discharge from Large and Small Construction Activities. Erosion control measures that may be implemented include stabilization practices such as temporary seeding, permanent seeding, mulching, geotextiles, or sod stabilization; structural practices such as silt fences, earth dikes, diversions, swales, sediment traps, check dams, or storm drain inlet protection; and sediment basins. Stormwater runoff quantity and quality are strictly regulated by the City and the SFWMD to ensure that pre-development drainage conditions are maintained. The proposed rate of discharge from the site will be less than or equal to the existing discharge rate from the site. The discharges off-site will be minimized by on-site detention within the stonnwater management system. The drainage system will be owned, operated and maintained by a public entity or a responsible property owners association acceptable to the City and the SFWMD. The Stonnwater Management System will employ, wherever practical, a variety of Best Management Practices (BMP). The following are a list of potential BMP that could be integrated into the Water Management System during the final design and permitting stage: · Oil and grease skimmers; · Environmental swales; · Minimize "short-circuiting" of pond flow patterns; · Raised storm inlets in grassed swales; · Utilize stormwater retention where feasible; and · Street cleaning and general site maintenance. Parks and Recreation The project will be designed to provide residents with a variety of recreational facilities and open spaces to ensure the community's quality of life. No land will be removed that was previously used by residents of the region for any recreational use. No existing recreational trail is designated across the property. Therefore, the project doesn't have the potential for impacting a recreational trail designated pursuant to Chapter 260, F.S. and Chapter 16D-7, F.A.C. The City's adopted level of service standard for recreation and parks is 3 acres per 1,000 people. Based on the estimated population of 325 people (130 units x 2.5 ppd), the project's minimum acreage requirement for recreation and park space is approxmate/y 0.975 acres. The project will meet the park Page 9 InSite Development, LLC Request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment Future Land Use Change from Single-Family Residential to Multi-Family Residential and open space mandates through on-site facilites and provision of fair-share contribution. The planned system of parks and open spaces is consistent with the City of Okeechobee's Comprehensive Plan. HistoricaV Archeological Resources There are no known archeological or historical sites within the project boundaries. A request has been sent to the Florida Division of Historic Resources. Given the improvements made to date (improved pasture), the likelihood of the presence of a historic or archeological site regarded as potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Sites to occur on the parcel is limited. Hurricane Preparedness According to information in the Treasure Coast Transportation Analysis Hurricane Evacuation Study Update 2003, dated November 2003, the property is not located in any storm surge zone. The property is not within the Category 3 Hurricane Evacuation Area. It is estimated that the majority of people will remain in their homes within the project during a hurricane event, due to the project location relative to the Atlantic coastline. However, in the event of a significant hurricane, the County Emergency Operations Center (EOC) may activate evacuation shelters throughout the County as it deems necessary. The evacuation shelters are typically opened in areas within the hurricane's 100-mile path. Many of the public schools in Okeechobee County serve as evacuation shelters. US-441, east of the project site, is the closest evacuation route. Additionally, SR-lO, approximately 2 miles to the south will assist in evacuation of the area by providing additional evacuation routes. All traffic control devices will utilize hurricane tested mast arms and street lights further minimizing service interruptions and enhancing safety prior to, during, and after a major hurricane. It should also be noted that due to recent changes to the Florida Building Code, specifically, Chapter 16, Structural Design, as well as the construction methods to be used in the project, the residential homes will provide shelter for residents during hurricane events. As a result of the changes in the construction process, residents will have safer and more secure homes, thereby reducing evacuation volumes and shelter space requirements. In addition, underground utilities will be used throughout the development reducing potential service interruptions. Finally, additional mitigation measures for special needs populations will be determined through the local government approval process of the Planned Unit Development. Page 10 InSite Development, LLC Request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment Future Land Use Change from Single-Family Residential to Multi-Family Residential Miscellaneous Data Legal Description Please refer to the attached legal and sketches that comprise this application for future land use amendment. Maximum Allowable Development Existing Future Land Use - Single-Family Residential allowing up to 4 units per acre Proposed Future Land Use - Multi-Family Residential allowing up to 10 units per acre 11.29 x 10 = 113 units The following Blocks make up the total future land use change requested Block Number Block 11 Block 12 Block 21 Block 22 Acreage 11.29 Existing FLU Propose FLU Single-Family Residential Multi-Family Residential Page 11 Southern Trace Site Section 15, Township 37S, Range 35E, Block 11, 12,21, and 22 Preliminary Water & Sewer Statement Prepared 9/29/2006 By: Rudd Jones, P.E. & Associates, P.A. (#8303) 1905 S. 25th Street, Suite 200 Fort Pierce, FL 34947 772-461-6997 I. Project Description: The referenced project is a 11.29 acre +/- site located in The City of Okeechobee; west of Highway 441 N, just south of the City Limits Ditch on blocks 11, 12,21, and 22. II. Description of Available Utilities: Potable water and sewer service will be provided to the site by Okeechobee Utility Authority. There is an existing gravity sewer collection system with a liftstation in the area that have to be extended to provide service to this project. The sewer liftstation will require an additional pump to provide adequate service once this project is added to the system. There are watermains that run through this project that will again have to be extended to provide service to this proect III. Proposed Utility Construction: The proposed site improvements will require extension of water and sewer services onsite. The water main extensions will be sized to provide adequate fire suppression flow throughout the site. A gravity sewer connection will be all that is required since the liftstation is already in place and with the addition of a pump will have adequate capacity to serve this project. The utilities will be placed in the road right of ways which will provide access to these proposed utilities for operation and maintenance by Okeechobee Utility Authority. The system will be designed to meet the requirements of the Okeechobee Utility Authority and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. IV. Required Capacity Based on Okeechobee Utility Authority's policy of 250 gallons per ERC, this project would require 111 ERCs or 27, 750 gallons per day. V. Water and Wastewater Treatment Plants Based on information obtained from the Okeechobee Utility Authority, the permitted capacity of the surface water treatment plant is 5.0 mgd with the ground water treatment plant rated at 1.0 mgd. The wastewater treatment plant permitted capacity is currently 1.0 mgd. The Okeechobee Utility Authority is currently permitted to treat 1.232 MGD or wastewater at their current facility; however, while the plant is permitted they are currently in the construction phase of additional filters which will bring the wastewater treatment plant to that capacity of 1.23 mgd. This work should be completed by June 2006. The current capacity of the plant is used up as the current plant is permitted for 1.0 MGD and the average daily flow is approximately 0.89 MGD and they currently have 0.1 MGD of Executed Developer agreements. This portion of the plant has no excess capacity, but once the expansion as described above is complete, there will be sufficient capacity to serve this project. Additionally, the wastewater treatment plant is under a design/permitting phase for an expansion of 3.0 mgd that will bring the total treatment plant capacity to 4.0 mgd and should be operational by June 2008. The average daily flow of the combined water treatment plant finished water production is 1.93 mgd for the period of January 2005 through December 2005. The average daily flow of the wastewater treatment plant is 0.89 mgd for the same time period. The Okeechobee Utility Authority reports an outstanding water treatment plant flow commitment of approximately 0.25 mgd with an outstanding wastewater treatment plant flow commitment of approximately 0.1 mgd. Water Sewer Plant Capacity 6.00 mgd 1.232 mgd Avg. Daily Flow 1.93 mgd 0.890 mgd Committed Capacity 0.25 mgd 0.100 mgd Excess Capacity 3.82 mgd 0.242 mdg Based upon these figures, the Okeechobee Utility Authority will have on or before December 2006 adequate capacity to serve the proposed demand created by the increased density of the proposed future land use amendment. Southern Trace Site Section 15, Township 37S, Range 35E, Block 11, 12, 21, and 22 City of Okeechobee, FL Preliminary Storm-water Statement Prepared 9/29/06 By: Rudd Jones, P.E. & Associates, P.A. 1905 S. 25th Street, Suite 200 Fort Pierce, FL 34947 772-461-6997 I. Proiect Description: The referenced project is a 11.29 acre +/- site located in The City of Okeechobee; west of Highway 441 N, just south of the City Limits Ditch on blocks 11, 12,21, and 22. II. Soil Conditionsffopography: According to the USDA Soil Survey of Okeechobee County, the site is made up of only one soil classification that is Immokalee Fine Sand. In natural conditions, Immokalee Fine is described as smooth slopes that are slightly concave or convex and range from 0 to 2% slope and poorly drained sand with a depth to water table of 0.5 to 1.5 feet from June to September and below 1.5 to 3.5 feet for the remainder of the year. Historic improvements in the general vicinity include single family residences to the east, commercial property to the north, multifamily and agricultural to the west and a FDOT maintenance yard to the south. Just to the north of this parcel is the City line ditch that drains to the east into Taylor Creek that is maintained at elevation 13.5. The bottom elevation of the City Line Ditch is approximately 17.0 which remains dry after rain events while the average elevation of this parcel is approximately 28.0. We have obtained soil borings to determine depth to water table and hydraulic conductivity rates. The soil conditions contained in the report are very similar to the above stated Soil Survey information. III. Existing Drainage: The site currently drains to City Line Ditch via direct sheet-flow and via existing ditches. These ditches are in the City Right of Way on all sides of these parcels and drain throught the adjacent ditches to the north into the City Line Ditch. IV. Proposed Drainage: The proposed drainage system will be designed to meet all of the applicable water quality and discharge rate requirements of the City of Okeechobee and the South Aorida Water Management District. These requirements will be met by a combination of wet and/or dry detention areas designed to meet these requirements. The design of this storm-water management system will be typical for project's of this type, in this area of the State. V. Conclusions: The proposed project will be designed to meet the storm-water requirements of all local, state and federal agencies with authority to regulate the proposed improvements. Based on my preliminary evaluation of the site, and in my professional opinion, I find no unusual circumstances that would preclude the development of this site in such a fashion as to meet these requirements. 1375 Jackson Street, Suite 206 Fort Myers, Florida 33901-2845 Phone: 239-334-3366 Fax: 239-334-6384 Email: larue-planning(i:l?att.net LaRue Planning & Mana elTIent SeIVices, Inc. Staff Report - Site Plan REVIEW Prepared fOr: Applicant: City ofOkeechobee Curt LundbergfOr InSite Development Group/Southern Trace Staff Report Site Plan Review Applicant's Name: Curt Lundberg for InSite Development Group General Information Owner: InSite Development Group/Curt Lundberg Contact: Steve Dobbs, PE 210 NW Park Street, Ste 204 Okeechobee, FL 34972 863-467-0076 Owner Address: Owner Phone Number: Legal Description of Subject Property: 1. CITY OF OKEECHOBEE LOTS 1 TO 13 BLOCK 4 2. CITY OF OKEECHOBEE LOTS 14 - 26 BLOCK 4 3. CITY OF OKEECHOBEE LOTS 1 TO 13 INC BLOCK 13 4, CITY OF OKEECHOBEE LOTS 14 - 26 INC BLOCK 13 5. CITY OF OKEECHOBEE LOTS 1 TO 13 INC BLOCK 20 6, CITY OF OKEECHOBEE LOTS 14 TO 26 BLOCK 20 7. CITY OF OKEECHOBEE LOTS 1 TO 10 INC BLOCK 12 8. CITY OF OKEECHOBEE LOTS 17 TO 26INC BLOCK 12 9. CITY OF OKEECHOBEE LOTS 11 -16 BLOCK 12 10. CITY OF OKEECHOBEE LOTS 1 2 3 BLOCK 21 11. CITY OF OKEECHOBEE LOT 4 & E 25 IT OF LOT 5 BLOCK 21 12. CITY OF OKEECHOBEE LOT 6 & W 25 FT OF LOT 5 BLOCK 21 13. CITY OF OKEECHOBEE LOT 7 & E 5 IT OF LOT 8 BLOCK 21 14. CITY OF OKEECHOBEE W 42.5 IT OF LOT 8 & E 32.5 IT OF LOT 9 BLOCK 21 15. CITY OF OKEECHOBEE W 15' LOT 9 ALL OF LOT 10 BLOCK 21 16. CITY OF OKEECHOBEE LOTS 17 - 26 BLOCK 21 17. CITY OF OKEECHOBEE LOTS 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, & 16 BLOCK 21 18. CITY OF OKEECHOBEE LOTS 1 TO 6INC BLOCK 11 19. CITY OF OKEECHOBEE LOTS 1 TO 6INC BLOCK 22 Discussion: This is a site plan review for site development improvements with a 238 unit 37.73 acre Multi-Family Residential Development. General Comments: GENERAL COMMENTS: 1. Sec. 82-32 of the LDC requires development proposals to be accompanied by evidence that environmental studies/inventories have been completed or are not relevant to the property as pertain to wetlands, soils, unique habitat, endangered species and floodprone areas. No evidence of such studies or findings has been submitted. This is particularly relevant in light of the fact that a survey encompassing blocks 13 and 20 indicate the presence of a small (0.42 acre) wetland in the southwest corner of block 13. Aerials of the site also show this wetland as well as vegetation on portions of both Phases 1 and 2, but most particularly on blocks 4, 13 and 20, 2, The plans should show a "blow-up" of a typical building and its associated access, buffer, and parking, including dimensions, to allow an adequate review of the proposed project. It 2 Staff Report Site Plan Review Applicant's Name: Curt Lundberg for InSite Development Group will also allow for an accurate determination as to the access aisle width, which appears to be only 23' as opposed to the required 24' . 3. Because this is a project to be developed under conventional zoning, the plans should show calculations for density, number of units (including the number of units by bedroom count), building coverage, impervious surface, and off-street parking and loading for each indivi- dual parcel, not project wide or by phase. While the Staff has estimated the building coverage and impervious area for each parcel, the Applicant should provide accurate data for each parcel. PUBLIC FACILITIES CONCURRENCY According to the U.S, Census, the City of Okeechobee averages approximately 2,7 persons per household (pph). Thus, the development of this property will include up to 120 dwelling units in Phase 1 and 116 in Phase 2, indicating a potential population of324 persons in Phase 1, and 313 in Phase 2 for a total population of 63 7 buildout. Roadways: The City's adopted level of service standard (LOSS) for local roads is LOS D. The subject property will be serviced by local roads. The Applicant has just recently submitted a revised traffic analysis and this analysis needs to be reviewed before a recommendation is made concerning possible degradation of Transportation LOS. Potable Water: The adopted LOSS for potable water is 114 gpcpd. The impact for the proposed development is as follows: Phase 1: 120unitsX2.7pphx 114gpcpd = 36,936 gpd Phase 2: 113 units x 2.7 pph x 114 gpcpd = 34,781 gpd Total both phases 71,807 gpd Sanitary Sewer: The adopted LOSS for sanitary sewer is 130 gpcpd. The impact for the proposed development is as follows: Phase 1: 120 units X 2.7 pph x 130 gpcpd = 42,120 gpd Phase 2: 113 units x 2.7 pph x 130 gpcpd = 39,663 gpd Total both phases 81,783 gpd Solid Waste: The adopted LOSS for solid waste is 13 Ibs/personJday. The impacts for the proposed development is as follows Phase 1: 120unitsX2,7pphx 13 Ibs/personJday=4,212 ppd Phase 2: 113 units x 2.7 pph x 13 Ibs/personJday = 3,996 ppd Total both phases = 8,208 ppd Drainage: The proposed development will be required to meet all standards required by the City ofOkeechobee and the South Florida Water Management District. Parks & Recreation: The adopted LOSS for parks and recreation is 3 acres/1,000 persons. Based on the estimated population, the minimum acreage requirement for parks and 3 Staff Report Site Plan Review Applicant's Name: Curt Lundberg for InSite Development Group recreation would be approximately 0.97 acres of recreation for Phase 1 and 0,94 acres for Phase 2. The Applicant has stated in its application for a Small Scale Amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan that the resident population's recreation needs would be met by on-site facilities and provision of fair share contribution. However, no recreation lands or facilities are shown on the site plan for either phase of the project. There is also no mention of a fair-share contribution by the Applicant. RECOMMENDA TION Staff recommends that consideration for approval of the site plan be deferred until such time as: · The traffic impact study can be adequately analyzed · Applicant has identified the height of the buildings and number of bedrooms in each unit · Applicant to provide the following: A current landscape plan A blow-up of a typical building and associated buffer An explanation and environmental analysis related to Section 82-32 Access and parking areas · Addressed the deficiency in required loading spaces and needed recreational area and facilities · Modified the site plan to be in conformance with the allowed number of dwelling units and maximum allowable impervious area in block 4 4 . Okeechobee County Property Appraiser - Map Printed on 4/25/20077:14:11 AM Page 1 of 1 Okeechobee County Property Appraiser w,c. "Bill" Sherman, CFA - Okeechobee, Florida - 863-763-4422 I 216 #t s \\'*to: ARCEL: 3-22-37-35-0030-00000-0200 - VACANT (o00ooo) CENTRAl PARK E 1fl OF LOT 20. LOTS 21 22 23 24 BLOCK 0 Name:R J REMODEUNG ENTERPRISES INC landVaI $75,498.00 Site: 417 SE 5TH ST, Okeechobee BldgVaI $0.00 Mail 209 NW 5TH AVENUE ApprVaI $75.498.00 : OKEECHOBEE. Fl34972 JustVaI $75.498.00 Sales 1218J2OO4 $1oo.000.ooV I Q Assd $75,498.00 Info 5120/2004 S30.000.OOV I U Exmpt $0.00 713/2003 $28,OOO.OOV I Q Taxable $75.498.00 This information. last Updated: 4fl3l2oo7. was derived ftom data which was compiled by the Okeechobee County Property Appraiser's Office solely for the governmental purpose of property assessment This information should not be relied upon by anyone as a detennination of !he ownership of property or market value. No warranties. expressed or implied. are provided for the accuracy of the data herein. its use. or its interpretation. Although it is periodicaUy updated. this information may not reflect the data currently on file in the Property Appraiser's ofIice. The assessed values are NOT certified values and therefore are subject to change before being finalized for ad valorem assessment purposes. s http://www.okeechobeepa.com/GIS/Print_ Map.asp?pjboiibchhjbnligcafccjfhojiaehdomhlo... 4/25/2007 ~ . CENTRAL PARK OAK SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS Tomas W & Lorraine L Hoover 1 2 3 4 415 SE 5th St 416 SE 4th St 420 SE 4th 51 426 SE 4th 51 3-22-37-35-0030-00000-0190 3-22-37-35-0030-00000-0060 3-22-37-35-0030-00000-0040 3-22-37-35-0030-00000-0010 Cano J & Anna Maria Grosso 5 600 SE 4th St 2-22-37 -35-0AOO-O0014-OOO0 Gerald Erwav ET AL 6 400 SE 6th Ave 2-22-37 -35-0A00-00027-OOOO Gerald & Maraaret Erwav 7 405 SE 6th Ave 2-22-37 -35-OA00-00026-0000 Gary L & Judith L Canevari 8 501 SE 6th Ave 2-22-37 -35-OAOO-OOO25-0000 Charles V & Bettv N Stevenson 9 10 510 SE 5th 51 502 SE 5th 51 2-22-37 -35-0030-000E0-001 0 2-22-37-35-0030-000E0-0060 ~----------"---- ~~---_.~-_._-~._-_._------- - --- EXISTING 5'x211' CONC. IJALK 2' PVC \VATER MAIN ~ t t CJJ.;:ID I- II') I_~~ o ... ""'.....:.J 5 ,C"l:JL.1Ej t ~5L.:..J ....j::Q~ l !-"is' 12' 6.5,J cmD Cl!ID t cmD C1DD <JIID <JIZD) 25 LF 18' CMP INV. EL 17.1' \V IMES BM MANHOLE RIM EL. 18.97 NGVD 4' GRAVITY SE\VER LINE ~ OJ~ ~ RY RETENTION 3,831 SO T. OTTOM ELEV. = 17.50 NG D c:l!m t CJJ.;:ID t 10' ~ l!li\:l (\! A1"" t)!.J "T...,,1 t 5 ,:~~~ Mt::~~..J ....:E.. CJm) t t A am:> t INV. 4' DOC TILE IRON PIPE \VATER MAIN LEDGEND SITE IMPERVIOUS BUILDINGS CONCRETE CONCRETE ON SITE CONCRETE OFF SITE ASPHALT PERVIOUS GRASS RETENTION AREAS ( 31. 0 0 )PROPOSED ELEVATION -+ DIRECTIONAL F"LOIJ 30,750 SQ FT .70 AC 10,680 SQ FT 5,532 SQFT 6,811 SQFT L~ 3,744 SQFT 3,067 SQFT C ) 20,070 SQFT 16,155 SQFT C ) 3,915 SQFT C ) '!1.....r;; EXISTING ELEVATION 34% 51% 64% 55% 45% 65% 80% 20% Cl!ID cmD Cl!ID CBIlD) cmD ( ) BUILDING .. , TOP OF" BERM EL 19.70 t t t o PROPERTY CORNER ALL ELEVATIONS ARE NGVD C1DD ClD[) ClD[) BUILDINGS ARE LESS THAN 45' HIGH C <JIZD) <JIZD) ClIID cmD OIID 25 LF 18' CMP INV. EL 17.1' \V/MES 5 ' am:> t 3' t c:l!m c:l!m 0' 10' ~ iii I- ~~&lC"l (I)......J t t 5 'M:l~"S /!l..~ ..J ..;ilo. 5' to. 11'/ ~\:I83. (I)!-! t 5' (",~L.lb ~1:l~..J ...:R... t cmD <EID INV. EL \V IMES 25 LF 18' CMP INV. EL 17.1' \V IMES XISTING 18' CMP INV. EL 17,1' ASMUSSEN ENGINEERING, LLC P.O. Box 1 iiS OKEECHOBEEI.. F'LORIDA 34i73-1 ii8 TEL: (a63) 763-8546 PROJECT NUMBER CENTRAL PARK OAK CENlRAL PARK OAK.dw SCA E 1..30' CERnFlCATE OF 03152007-01 APRIL 25 2007 AUTHORIZATION NO. 2&134 Page 1 of I From: Steven Dobbs Date: 4/24/2007 4:33: 18 PM To: bclement@cityofokeechobee.com; James LaRue; bill@larue-planning.com Cc: Mary Hinton Subject: Southern Trace Betty, As discussed previously, please table the official site plan review for Southern Trace. I have requested a meeting with Jim LaRue's staff and a short conversation with the rest of the TSR to see if there are any other issues that I need to be aware of. I will still be there and if we could take a few minutes at the beginning of the meeting to discuss any other issues anyone else may have, Steven L. Dobbs, P. E. Senior Project Manager Rudd Jones, p, E. & Associates, p, A. 210 NW Park Street, Suite 204 Okeechobee, FL 34972 863-467 -0076 fax 863-467-0091 The information contained in this e-mail is intended only for the person or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you have received this e-mail in error, then please note that any review, retransmission, copying, distribution or other use of the e-mail is prohibited. If you are not an intended recipient, please delete the material from any computer that may have it and contact sdobbs@ruddjones.com, Thank you for your co-operation, The contents of an attachment to this e-mail may contain software viruses, which could damage your computer system, We cannot accept liability for any damage you may sustain as a result of software viruses, You should carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachments, Staff Report Site Plan Review AppHcant's Name: Curt Lundberg for InSite Development Group COMPARISON OF REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS WITH APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL PHASE 1 PHASE 2 EXISTING PROPOSED EXISTING PROPOSED Land Use .MF .MF SF .MF Zoning RMF RMF RSFl MF Existing Uses Vacant Vacant except for 4 single-family units in block 21 STANDARD REQUIRED/ALLOWED PROPOSED REQUIRED/ALLOWED PROPOSED Density lO/ac. (4,356 sf/unit) Block 4 211,050 sf= 48 units 24 Block 13 211,050 sf= 48 units 48 Block 20 211,050 sf= 48 units 48 Block 11 47,250 sf= 10 units 11 Block 12 211,050 sf= 48 units 48 Block 21 211, 050 sf = 48 units 48 Block 22 47,250 sf= 10 units 11 Min. Lot 10,000 sf 211,050 sf 10,000 sf Smallest is Area 47,250 sf Min. Lot 100' 670' 100' 315' Width Setback Requirements Front 25' 53' 25' 53' Street Side 25' 25-29' 25' NA Side 20' NA 20' 20' Rear 20' NA 20' 36' Water Body 20' (block 4) 20' NA Min. 40' 40 - 88' 40' 40 - 88' Distance Between Buildings Max. Lot Cales not Cales not Coverage provided provided Block 4 40% 14% Block 13 40% 28% Block 20 40% 28% Block 11 40% 29% Block 12 40% 28% Block 21 40% 28% Block 22 40% 29% 5 ~taff Report .!ite Plan Review Applicant's Name: Curt LUndbe1g for InSite Development Group PHASE 1 I PHASE 2 STANDARD REQUIRED/ALLOWED PROPOSED REQUIRED/ALLOWED PROPOSED Max. Cales not Cales not Impervious provided provided Area Block 4 60% 64.5% Block 13 60% 56% Block 20 60% 56% Block 11 60% 58% Block 12 600.10 56% Block 21 60% 56% Block 22 60% 58% Max. Height 45' Not shown 45' Not shown Off-street Parking Block 4 54 56 Block 13 108 112 Block 20 108 112 Block 11 23 26 (for II du's) Block 12 108 112 Block 21 108 112 Block 22 23 26 (for II du's) Access Aisle 24' 23' 24' 23' Off-street Loading Block 4 1 0 Block 13 1 0 Block 20 1 0 Block 11 1 0 Block 12 1 0 Block 21 1 0 Block 22 1 0 Landscaping Plan Required No plan Plan Required No plan submitted submitted Buffer 10' along street 10' 10' along street 10' 6 Staff Report Site Plan Review Applicant's Name: Curt Lundberg for InSite Development Group I r . /:. li1 !) I' " 5etJTHERN'TRACf: ., 'Ii 1~ -- srF!FE- L .J ~ 6 5 ~ l;_i , t".' .:- :"- l' ~~'.f;f. '.~T~ 5"':=;~fT '11 12 Pt1?Sy 2 ti,'\' '.' T- ;-REt=- J' ,; 22 ~ ~ , c. ~ , .' 21 Submitted by: James G. LaRue, AICP Planning Consultant April 18, 2007 ~." \ .'';;' :; -. :...~, .. 4 't: ': ~ '.I :'; :.:' .. ~ 1 - " '1 l~i ~, ~ ""'-"--"":--'." :.. H2O.., ~- ~ ,f: r" Jr" .. \,! ':! ~'i: ~ r.--"~'-'-n; '1_; \t. .# <:. Phi3se '1~ ',~ 13. Ii'; .. Y . I ~.~ ,....' \1.; r: f, ... ~ ~t l~. ~4 L. " ~ i;,1 29 -,.,:::J~l:, 7 ---I I u___ __J ------1 I I I___J ______.1 1 J ,""-; -- - i~1 I~I -11 ' I "- _.J l I I ~---- ------------------- - -- -- _-.J ~ NW 13th ST R"'C.,~ 1\ ~ ~o ~g o - 0'" .00 ,-, . ~r'1 ~g Ii;fC G,s,>c Jl.. ) \ ,~(,<~fo '(% (C J'~ )<':;;w; ,~-- 'w '0 _0 lJ'd 00 ou -:00 ~n1 ~~/- " :- '5, ,{~lJ Ii',.' c-]/-',';~' j/B- l,;>:y, ?OO r'<!T!-I CAP sr~Li~[(; 'lE'.f)-I-'.:?;!:g< ((}}5'y.::'Oy) ,:.?, :~ I CriA.;/y'J'w; rt.",::.( ~ (iJT srA.J!~<,' - seE N();~,_'f ..... 8 L ,r-X',.,::; 5/'" ~ g 'IRjJ ;~:>: ;~If JAP gU; ~;:; -~rc;'~c ;;;~~:~~;X ~~-------- '!a-"9~;" to n-,I ~/ '::"'~1 'M-I ...... ~ ("-' i ~~~~~~~,,;, : :", "'W ~ BLOCK '3 - S0u"" 1/2 _ 2 3D", '_0" BlO(.:K 2J - NORT,..; 1/2 ~ 2,309~ ;.:.:;~~ BLOCK .2C - SOUTH 1/2 ::: 2 J.l~-;:!" :.::.>~ TOTAL AREA ~ 923H ACP, 0 (NQr 0"01) NB9'4B'14"E (M) 670.13' 670.00' (p) B L 0 C K 1 3 670,00' (P) NB9'4B'WE (M) 670,1B' !~. A':'~EY ("-O';l. PARr CF 1',..,t5 su~~rr'. NB9'4B'14.E (M) 670,19' U4.l~ n"'A.!;!.I5."'in; 670,00' (?) f Sr' C,,.,,P5 BLOCK 1 3 670,00' (P) N89'48'14"E (M) 670,24' XIV 12th S'T I~\i; r r:::;;)[..~.' NS9'48'46"E (M) 670.24' 67000' {F') B L 0 C I< 2 0 670.00' (P) N89'48'4S"E (M) 670.18' ;j' ~,L~Cr (,"'O;T A p"'iir or ,C:-I'S 5c...:_";;::-'.; N89'48'46"E (M) 670.18' 670 OQ' (P) BLOCK 2 0 670.00' (P) N89'49'1B'E (M) 670.12' sw 1 tth S T lsDT CPf,'ii (/) o 0- gg -l>o'"o 000 . . ,J::!? /~~:~t~:\t--f - ~ \ .1 bOUNDARY 5UKVE_Y FKEJ'ARE.D FOK IN5ITL_ DE VELOfMcNT GROUF, LLC fiRe SlFF_T I or , LYING IN SE.CTION 16, TOWNSHIf)7 SOU rH, KANGL ~5 E.,A.ST OKEE.CHOlSrr COUNTY, FLORIDA (/) ~hn 00 ;g 00 . Pi~ 5-; \ <: ~ GJ ",c 'i /?,'i'C R. :J,. ~ \'J wi o ~~u; ~'-:~ --~~~ ~~!:: ~~ (/), o -~cn g;gp o ....... o.~ ~ ~P{r ~~ --:\ '~..-=-- -------- ---~ SCALE. I :~o ....---......... ~ ~,~, O\{](Q)~if[?=:'l '/(-:1-:' -= rc~~ fEET :7J) FCIu.,,'O 5.~' ~'i:P'.' POO f+A,~ CAP sr~!,Jp;!), '(oFh-I.Bf59' (J 25'S )(.~1iY) Pipe "RI: I' STANDARD NOTES: 1. TliiS SURVEY WAS PREPARED 'MTHOUT T'r-fE: SE:NEFlT OF A TlTtE SEARCH OR .AN ABSTRACT 11115 CH1CE HAS NOT FERrOR-IoAED ). St:ARCH OF THE PU8L1C RECORDS FOR [X,STlNG Eo\SEME.NTS, RIGI-iT-OF-W':"'1'. ABANOONMENTS, ZONING SETBACKS OR Dtto RESfRlCTlONS 2, "A8DInDNS OR OELEllONS TO SUR~'I' MA.~ OR REPORT BY OT>-lER TrlAN THE SiGNING PARTy OR PARTIES rS PROHIBITED 'n11HOUT ~imN CONSENT Of iHE SjCNING PART'r OR PARnES. J T"H1S SURVEY IS NOT VAUD WlTl10UT THE SIGNATURE A"-IO RAISEC EMBOSSED SEAL OF THE SIGNINC FLORIDA PROFESSIONA.L SUR\l'EYOR AND MA?PER. 4, UNLESS NOTED OTI-lERlM$E, ALL eEAR~NGS AND DISTANCES $HOiM-l HE?E:ON ARE PER PLAT OR DEED 5. LOCATlONS OF BU1LDINC(S) ARE UMlTED TO THE A80\/[ GPOU/'.D WAUS. rOOTERS OR FOONDAT10NS HAY( NOl BEEN LOCATED. 6. UNDERGROUND UnUTlES, IF ANY, HAVE NOT BEEN LOCATED 7, SYMBOLS ARt NOT 10 SCALE, PROJECT SPECIFIC NOTES: 1. SIT( .'..DDRESS: NOT ASSIGNED 2, flOOD ZONE: SITE APP(ARS Ta UE W'lTHiN TIiE AREA SHOWN AS .OTY CF OKEECHCBEE, AREA NOT INClUDrD. PER TrlE FFDERAJ E~ERGENC,( r.cANAG(M=:'Nl AGtNCYS (rEMA) NA TlONAL FLOOD I~SURANCE' PROGR,l.,tl (t.lflP) FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP (F1R\4) FO~ COMMUN:~':" NUM=f.:R '20177, PANEL NUMBER 02008, DA lED 2/4/1 Si3~. 3. ;"PPAR::N r us::; SANITARY SEWER UFT SAT.-.ION UES \o',n~.,;N S:J9JECT I;>ROP:::RTy THiS SURVEYOR NOT PROVl::lED VvlTl-l EASEMENT DOCUMENT CONCERNING USE L STANDARD ,-EGEND: I A:;':>H, (::;R) ~ SP =- ASPHALT Bf"P .... BACK FL a...~, PR[V::NTO~ BLJ';, '" 8'...;I~[ilNC. flOC ;0 3ACK O~ CUR9 BO'N "" BACK OF (SIDE) WALK, CB - CATCH BASIN CONe '" CONCRET€ COR. = CORNER CMP "" CORRLlGA TED f.Al;:TAl PIPE ELECT. '" ELECTRIc RISE:~. EOP ... EDGE OF PA~Mt:NT. EOS ~ EOGE OF SHELL (ROCK). Fe "" FENCE CORNER. FL '" FLOW UNE Foe... FRONT or: CURB. MH = MANHOLE. NG - NA ruRAL GROUND/GRADE. OH "" OVERHAN G OHU ~ O~RHEAO unuT'l" (I;lRES/U",S), P.O.S, - PO'"T OF BEGNNING, P.O.C. "'" POINT or CO~~ENCEMENT. TELE. = TIl1:PHONE RISER, ~" = WA Tl'R "E'ER. v..?P :::. WOOD P OI'ICR POLE: WSP = WOOD SER\1CE POLE. SURVEY OF: SJR\iE Y OF' ALL or BLOCK 1.3 AND BLOCK 20 ALL l YlN(; IN .OKEECH03EC, "CCORDING TO TrlE PLAT THEREOf RECOROED I~ P_A T SOOK 5, i'\AGE 5 0' THE pue ~c RECORDS OF" OKO:CKOB::E CDUN,Y, FlORIJA. STANDARD LEGEND: (CO~,TI~jLU) RRC -"" fi'::C.'::-''''E:~'::D 5/86 IRON ROC. '..iT'H CA.:J sr':'MPEJ,. J,,t.,. Vv1LSON- LS$: 57. ~ ::0 ELfCTRJC P:S~P./VAL'Li/M'::TP;> ~.", E~EPH:)r-.'E RISER/VAULT, [><::1 "'" VIA IT": V,l.:,.\!/\4ETER M @ '" Fi;[ f-''T'DPA!\';. "" STCR!..l WATE~ MA~lHaLE. ~ - SANiTARY SEW'ER ~ANHOLE Iiii '" S70~~ WAT::R -:UR9 II'1LET, E- - GlIr AI\:CHOR .~ ~ WOODEN PO'Ht'R POLE PREPARED FOR: INSITt: CE:v'HOPhtENT GROuP, l.;...C, A co...OR:Arm UIJITIO UABIUT'I' CO~PANY; AR~STEIN .t ~K?, L.lF AnORN[YS' TlTl.E INSU~AACE. F1JND, INC HeRS. LLC, ITS SUCC'{SS,JRS AND/OR ASSIGNS; ~"~~:~-~."~:;~ HN A, \\1l.SON, PSI.(, o~ -T ,-<ar[SSlQ\Al SUR~ YCR Ar.'u JJAF?fR FLORiDA LJC~Si NO lS5157 flORIO A CERllFlCA 'E''Y AI,}"'ORQ.~T!~ NQ. L971,.2g Ii:' o '" 61~ O:U ~~i~ 2" ~~ 5 w n:: '" f- '" a O....N..,V Z ~ , --)- ~ ,;; ~~: ~:: ::I ,--. ,....,. "0-. '. ~ '.t, '> !l.:;J C:.....;<: -"'( >:: ,I il..;, ," ~ ~~ '-J '.J) ~I ~~~ y: ~ ...:. u ::1(') o w "-...; ..J 8<1"'1 ro 0 N ~;L.') o , 2; ~~~",Ig ~ ~ I 2 ~ I _ I r-; Lf"lLt1 .ti )-'.~ ~I:~: ~ aD<:~ o. w>-Q.::! rvZ~W ::J u.. U>:::'::7 ~ wC!::O '- I::) 01- Q UU'I~O ~'3!3a <( <w;,u.Jc:::. - a~lC::Cl.; . ~,r- c ~~ .'" !ii ,,' liP',:,-",.} . ,'-'..' '.. "'~',,"; . , "V...,~.,J':. 'i I' : '. f - ."" ~.