MEXICO BEACH CITY OF MEXICO BEACH PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING MONDAY,JANUARY 6, 2025 AT 6:00 P.M. Jack Kerigan, Chairman Post 3 Rock Kries Post 4 Larry Henderson - Post 1 Steve Cox Post 5 Lee Ellzey - Post 2 Erik Fosshage Alternate 1 Alternate 2 - Open Tim Sloan, City. Attorney Chris Truitt, City Administrator Tammy Brunon, City Clerk This meting willl be live streamed on the City ofMexico Beach Facebook Page.. Ifyou have any questions or comments on the agenda, please email them up to 2 hours prior to the meeting to ciy@mevicheahlgoy I. Call to Order II. Swearing in of Expiring Terms 1. Jack Kerigan Post 3 2. Larry Henderson Post 1 3. Steve Cox Post 5 III. Consent Agenda 1. Minutes September 9, 2024 P&Z Workshop 2. Minutes - September 9, 2024 P&Z Meeting 3. Minutes - October 7, 2024 P&Z Meeting 4. Minutes - December 2, 2024 P&Z Meeting IV. 111 38th Street Setback Variance Request = Allara Mills Gutcher, tpc City Council requested to bring variance request back to P&Z at the 12/10/24 Council Meeting a. Open Public Discussion b. Close Public Discussion C. Discussion d. Motion to Recommend Approval or Denial to Council V. 2902 Hwy 98 Development Order - Allara Mills Gutcher, tpc a. Open Public Discussion b. Close Public Discussion C. Discussion d. Motion to Recommend Approval or Denial to Council VI. Adjournment Emailed to interested parties and posted on the website on 01/02/25. Note: Copies of the agenda items posted on the City's Website at ivyamexisobeachlgovy This meeting will be recorded on the website. *You are hereby notified that in accordance with Florida Statutes, you have a right to appeal any decision made by the Council with respect to any matter considered. You may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made which may need to include evidence and testimony upon which the appeal is based. Any person requiring a special accommodation at this meeting because of a disability or physical impairment should contact Tammy Brunson, City Clerk, at 201 Paradise Path, Mexico Beach, Florida 32456; or by phone (850) 648-5700 at least five calendar days prior to the meeting. Ify you are hearing or speech impaired, and you possess TDD equipment, you may contact the City Clerk using the Florida Dual Party Relay System, which can be reached at 1-800-955-8770 (TDD) * / MEXICO BEACH F L 0 R : D A 201 Paradise Path Mexico Beach, Florida 32456 PHONE: 850-648-5700 FAX: 850-247-2702 OATH OF OFFICE I, Jack Kerigan, do affirm that I will support and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States and the State of Florida; that I will support and defend the Ordinances of the City of Mexico Beach that I am duly qualified to hold office under the Constitution of the State and the Charter of the City of Mexico Beach; and I will well and faithfully perform the duties of the Planning and Zoning Board of the City of Mexico Beach, Florida, on which Iam about to enter, So Help Me God. Jack Kerigan Sworn and subscribed before me this 6th Day of January 2025. Tammy Brunson, City Clerk wnwemcticobeachigovcom & & 4 MBXIC - E BEACH K D A 201 Paradise Path Mexico Beach, Florida 32456 PHONE: 850-648-5700 FAX: 850-247-2702 OATH OF OFFICE I, Larry Henderson, do affirm that I will support and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States and the State of Florida; that I will support and defend the Ordinances of the City of Mexico Beach that I am duly qualified to hold office under the Constitution of the State and the Charter of the City of Mexico Beach; and I will well and faithfully perform the duties of the Planning and Zoning Board of the City of Mexico Beach, Florida, on which I am about to enter, So Help Me God. Larry Henderson Sworn and subscribed before me this 6th Day of January 2025. Tammy Brunson, City Clerk wwnsmesicoheachgoxcom - & & / MIEX - 6 BEACH R D A 201 Paradise Path Mexico Beach, Florida 32456 PHONE: 850-648-5700 FAX: 850-247-2702 OATH OF OFFICE I, Steve Cox, do affirm that I will support and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States and the State of Florida; that I will support and defend the Ordinances of the City of Mexico Beach that I am duly qualified to hold office under the Constitution of the State and the Charter of the City of Mexico Beach; and I will well and faithfully perform the duties of the Planning and Zoning Board of the City of Mexico Beach, Florida, on which Ia am about to enter, So Help Me God. Steve Cox Sworn and subscribed before me this 6th Day of January 2025. Tammy Brunson, City Clerk wwnemesicobachgoxcom City of Mexico Beach Planning & Zoning Workshop Meeting Minutes MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2024 - 5:00 PM The City of Mexico Beach Planning & Zoning Board met on Monday August 2024, at 5:00 pm in the Public Works Building in Mexico Beach. Board members present were Jack Kerigan, Chair, Lee Ellzey, Steve Cox, Erik Fossage, Larry Henderson, and Rock Kries. Also present were Interim City Administrator, Mell Smigielski, and City Clerk, Tammy Brunson. I. Call to Order: Mr. Kerigan called meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. II. Planning Board Overview/Principles = Allara Mills Gutcher,tpc Allara Mills Gutcher with tpc presented overview and principles of the duties of the Planning Board and reviewed the following: What is the Local Planning Agency The Comprehensive Plan The Land Development Code Responsibilities as the Local Planning Agency Legislative VS Quasi-Judicial Hearing Process Board members given opportunity to ask questions concerning the duties and responsibilities and Allara answered the questions and concerns accordingly. Workshop adjourned at 5:46 p.m. Attest: Jack Kerigan, Chairman Tammy Brunson, City Clerk City of Mexico Beach Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2024 - 6:00 PM The City of Mexico Beach Planning & Zoning Board met on Monday September 9, 2024, at 6:00 pm in the Public Works Building in Mexico Beach. Board members present were Jack Kerigan, Chair, Lee Ellzey, Steve Cox, Erik Fosshage, Larry Henderson, and Rock Kries. Also present were Interim City Administrator, Mell Smigielski, City Clerk, Tammy Brunson, and Tim Sloan, City Attorney. I. Call to Order: Mr. Kerigan called meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. Posting of Reappointments of Board Members: Tammy Brunson, City Clerk informed the Board that Julie Gardner had resigned from her post as a Planning and Zoning Board member and that Mr. Larry Henderson would move from his Alternate post 1 into her position and Mr. Fosshage would move from the Alternate 2 post to the Alternate 1 position. There is now and opening for the Alternate 2 post and this will be advertised on the City's Facebook page and City Website. III. Consent Agenda - Minutes - August 5, 2024 P&Z Meeting Mr. Fosshage approved minutes with amending his statement to the engineer concerning the Salt Creek temporary parking lot and if there was a waiver process concerning the reasons why there could not be and entrance off Hwy 98 to this parking lot. The engineer's S answer was yes. Mr. Fossage stated he wanted this question and answer included in the minutes. Mr. Henderson motioned to approve with the changes and Mr. Ellzey seconded the motion. Motion passed to approve with the changes. IV. Development Order-Salt Creek Temporary Parking Lot - Allara Mills Gutcher, tpc Ms. Gutcher approached the podium and for the record stated that this meeting was a Quasi-Judicial Public Hearing, and she needed to be sworn in. Mr. Kerigan asked the City Attorney to explain to the public exactly what a Quasi- Judicial Hearing was and why the swearing in was necessary. Mr. Sloan explained the Quasi-Judicial process. Ms. Gutcher noted for the record that she had an authorization from the developer authorizing the engineer, Chris Shortt, to represent them on this DO on their behalf. Mr. Sloan asked the Board if there were any disclosures the board needed to address. Mr. Kries stated that he had made previous disclosures concerning this item. He had made motions in the past, made recommendations to the council and has walked the property to assess it. No additional or recent disclosures have been made. Mr. Henderson visited the property but did not speak to anyone. Ms. Gutcher asked if all that was going to speak or testify could be sworn it at one time. Mr. Sloan clarified that anyone that wants to speak must be sworn in. The City Clerk had those that were going to speak or testify raise their right hand and were sworn in. Ms. Gutcher proceeded to present the Development Order. She stated the conditions have not changed since previously presented on August 5, 2024, to the P&Z Board. She wanted to go over part of the motion that was made as a request to the applicant that included to look at the alternatives to the ingress and egress of the parking lot from Hwy 98 rather than Canal Parkway, the applicant is to address all the engineering comments, ask the applicant to address the access easement fori the publici to have legal access of the parking lot and to offer a definition oft temporary for the purpose of determining the lifespan of the temporary parking lot. Information has been received that the easement for the public to have legal assess to the parking lot is in the works. She does not have this document in front of her tonight but something that she is keeping a look out for. City of Mexico Beach Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2024 = 6:00 PM She feels sure that Chris Shortt, engineer, is prepared to discuss the alternatives for the location of the ingress and egress from Hwy 98. They have addressed all the engineering comments. There are some conditions that engineering has requested. She stated that Chris Shortt will discuss the definition of temporary. Reviewing the status of the application, the recommendation is for approval with the stipulation that the applicant address all the outstanding issues prior to the scheduling of the City Council meeting. Public Comments: Bonnie Paulson, MB - stated she did not think this parking lot will be used as a temporary parking lot but a construction site. Concerned about the bald eagle nest in the area. Allara stated that this is not a commercial parking lot. Mr. Fosshage asked if she would object of this parking lot if the access came off Hwy 98 and she stated no. Chris Shortt, Dewberry Engineering, came to podium and presented a historical timeline of the parking lot and pedestrian path. Timeline was handed out to members and documented in the record. He explained how this parking lot came about. Mr. Shortt stated that no one has ever brought to their attention of a bald eagle nest in the area. Engineering comments have been addressed and some changes have been made based on those comments. Road access is still in original place. He discussed in detail the reasonings for not being able to have access coming from Hwy 98. Floodplain and wetland requirements not met. In the original PUD plan, there is a major roadway connection plan off Hwy 98 but there is going to have to be turn lane improvements and things along that line which will be a traffic generator. He states that the traffic generator is at the end of Canal Parkway. There is no established permitted beach access to the west because of the 2 dune systems that run parallel to the shore and would have to have extensive permitting to get a true established beach access permit. There is one at Canal parkway and that is one of the reasons why they chose this location for the parking lot. He presented a draft license agreement that St. Joe Co. put together and, in that agreement, stating that unless terminated by the licensor, the license shall run for a period of 5 years unless sooner terminated or extended. The definition of temporary is incorporated in this agreement. The comment about landscaping is their recommendation that if in 5 years this has not been removed and a more permanent solution established elsewhere, that they will go in and landscape parking lot. Therefore, 5 years is the definition of temporary which appears in the draft license agreement. Also, use of property for long term or overnight trailer or oversized vehicles will not be allowed. The eventual plan as the PUD builds out is to incorporate the beach access parking to be public access into a more permanent parking lot but for now 5 years is what the agreement states. Mr. Shortt stated this is being proposed specifically because the City requested a parking lot be a condition of the permit for beach access. The developers agreed to do. Mr. Fosshage asked when City Council approved, did they mention anything about road access. Allara stated not to her knowledge. Mr. Shortt stated this has been the location site when proposed in January 2023. Mr. Kries stated he did not have a problem with the parking lot itself but access to the parking lot. He stated that when approved by Council the parking lot was to be built before Salt Creek Phase II went vertical and asked when did that change. Mr. Shortt stated the site work is being done currently. Mr. Fossage asked how the boat ramp entrances, and The Crossings entrance were built with a waiver on the North side of 98. Mr. Shortt stated that they were denied twice to build these 2 entrances, and they resubmitted again. It is his understanding that it was allowed because it was an alternate connection to the boat ramp road. It wasn't a new facility defined by DOT. He also asked if there is an entrance on the southside of 98 and it is 440 feet and 1 inch from Canal Parkway, where would they put it? City of Mexico Beach Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2024 - 6:00 PM Allara and Mr. Shortt stated it is based on speed limit. Mr. Cox asked that the future development of that wetland is going to be filled in and moving the road further west or the access point to meet the DOT guidelines, how would it impact the client's development of that area? Allara stated that Phase II is trying to get approved, but the Council would not approve until parking lot is built. The developer cannot get DO for Phase II until they get this parking lot built. In order to fill wetlands, permitting takes a long time and will hold this development up for a while. It is a timing issue. Mr. Henderson stated that this timing issue was their creation. Mr. Fosshage stated he sees this as an additional delay. Mr. Ellzey asked Mr. Shortt if he showed this plan to the City with this access to the parking lot and they approved with no objections. Mr. Shortt confirmed with the date of January 23, 2024. Allara said the parking lot conceptional design was brought to council on January 23, 2024, for discussion and no vote was taken only a conceptional proposal. Mr. Fosshage asked ift that conceptional proposal included an access road to Canal Parkway. Mr. Shortt confirmed it did show the access road coming off of Canal Parkway. Public Comments: Karen Wolff, MB - asked if this was voted on. She stated that the residents on Canal Parkway were not informed of this roadway going on Canal Parkway. Concerned if easement granted. Mr. Sloan stated this has been termed as a temporary parking lot and a legal document will be needed to clarify who has rights and what rights the public has to this lot. Ms. Wolff is opposed to having the entrance at Canal Parkway and there needs to be a permanent plan of where this lot is going to be. She stated there was going to be an influx of traffic due to this parking lot access being on Canal Parkway. Mr. Ellzey asked her if the existing parking lot was full this summer. She said that there were a few days that it was close to full. Mr. Kerigan stated that when he has been that there were zero cars in the parking lot. Mr. Fosshage stated that Ms. Wolff just read from a 3-page memo presented to the Board and he asked if one of the members would make a motion that this 3-page document be added to the record. Mr. Cox motioned, and Mr. Henderson seconded the motion. Passed unanimously. Lisa Logan, MB = Asked what is best for the town? She said our plans and St. Joe's plans do not mesh. How are they going to get the St. Joe residents across Hwy 98 to the beach access in a more timely and efficient area? John Harold, MB - Comparing roadways on the maps. Not fair to come to the residents with a concept and not an actual plan. Much discussion between Allara and Chris to the public concerning what a concept plan is. Chris Shortt clarified that the roadway connection will be on Hwy 98 once they provide access to the PUD area. It may not be specifically where it is on the map. The future phase of this design will not have this roadway on Canal Parkway. It is only here now because it is a temporary parking lot that was requested by the Council which was part of the development order. Allara reminded the board that if there were a citation in the code that would prevent recommending approval tonight that it needs to be used, but there is nothing in the code that prevents them from approving. Bonnie Paulson, MB - she said she would have a freeway at her door and concerned why now they are concerned about disturbing the wetlands when they decimated the wetlands on the north side. City of Mexico Beach Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2024 = 6:00 PM Karen Wolf, MB - Asked why can't they go further west with this roadway? This is going to cause too much traffic. The agreement should hold St. Joe Company for all damages and costs that may occur. Closed Public Comments at 7:12 p.m. Mr. Henderson - Cannot shift the burden of their project to Mexico Beach because it convenient and cost effective to St. Joe Company. Thinks they need to go ahead and put in a permanent lot now. Lee Ellzey The Council asked St. Joe to build a temporary lot. They did not ask them to build a permanent lot and that is what they have brought to them. They did exactly what was asked of them to do. Rock Kries - Stated that this is true, but this parking lot location is in a different lot than previously discussed. Erik Fosshage - Believes the problem is the details not being clearly stated. Steve Cox - This is a tough spot, and it will affect these residents for years. Erik Fosshage- They need to take into consideration that ordinances are being violated according to document that was presented by Karen Wolf. Allara Mills Gutcher - She stated that she had not seen this 3-page document or reviewed but responding to what Mr. Fossage mentioned and asked what the argument was about. The ordinances were related to transportation systems and subdivision regulations Mr. Kerigan - He has not seen evidence from anyone that the lot was going to be full, and no one has observed being full but may change when more residents are across the street. There was a parking lot their pre-storm and he sees it more as a convenience for the residents of Mexico Beach and not for beach access for the residents of Salt Creek. The alternate path seems like a better idea. He would hope the developer would start looking at the long-term solution. Rock Kries - The property values are going to be destroyed on Canal Parkway due to this parking lot, public safety issues, and thinks it would make more sense to have this roadway come off Hwy 98. Ms. Gutcher stated that it is her job to make sure that what comes before the board has been reviewed against the Comp Plan and LDC and that requirements are met. The City has asked her to make a recommendation and there is not anything that she can find that would cause them to be inconsistent with those documents. She does not have anything to give to the Board to say that they cannot do what they have asked to do. Erik Fosshage - Asked Allara if there were any outstanding engineering questions. Allara stated that have been addressed which are in the reports they were given. Sidewalks modified to 6 ft, ADA requirements, and access easement being drawn up. Lee Ellzey - Based on what we have asked them to do, they have done everything, except we do not have the access easement agreement as of today. Mr. Sloan = He has the agreement but has not finished reviewing it as of today. Rock Kries - Would it make more sense to delay the parking lot and ask them for a timeline from the applicant. City of Mexico Beach Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2024 - 6:00 PM Lee Ellzey - This is the second time the applicant has come to the board, and they have done everything they were asked to do. We gave them parameters and they came back twice with what they were asked. Steve Cox - Would it be appropriate to include in the motion our definition of temporary and not leave it open ended for renewal every 5 years and mandate that the developer come back to the City within 5 years with a permanent parking lot plan. Mr. Kerigan - Asked Chris Shortt how many homes going into Salt Creek Phase I. He stated approximately 92 homes. A combination of single family plus townhomes. Mr. Sloan stated that instead of renewing for 5 years to put an obligation on for them to do something in 5 years. Allara = Her experience working in this field that DO expire, permits expire, state agency permits expire and they are market driven. They will not start building homes until the market is ready. It is a matter of supply and demand. Erik Fosshage - The City Council has already levied a provision for this parking lot to be built as a requirement. Allara confirmed. Mr. Cox - Even if development does not start within this 5 years, the developer could at least give the City a permanent plan for a parking lot. Mr. Sloan - The P&Z task is to make sure the developers have complied with the Mexico Beach LDC and Comp Plan. If they have not, then you can use as basis for denial. If they have or if there are conditions that would make it better, then you would set that up with your recommendation that the City maintain an adequate easement or license in a form acceptable to the Council. Larry Henderson - Asked could this be done as a condition on the easement. Erik Fosshage - Could a timeline be a condition for the DO not the PUD? Mr. Sloan stated that DO do expire. Allara - Expiration of a DO is usually about 6 to 12 months, but she would have to verify this. Rock Kries - Asked Allara if there was anything in the Comp Plan the legally prevents a road and adding a parking lot after the fact being built in a development. She concurred. Canal Parkway is a public road. Steve Cox - Aj permanent plan of where the permanent parking lot is going to go and where the permanent access road off Hwy 98 needs to be established. He suggested leave open for 3 years and then shut it down. Mr. Kerigan asked if there was a motion on the table. Mr. Ellzey motioned to approve the Development Order for the Salt Creek Temporary parking lot with the recommendation with conditions on an easement or license acceptable to the City, the parking lot will cease to exist in 3 years, that the developer present his permanent solution for access from Hwy 98 to this parking lot within the same 36 months, the site plan be resubmitted as indicated by the applicant, they will modify sidewalk to 6 feet, the parking lot will have ADA accessible access acceptable to the council I and the easement access accepted by council. Mr. Cox seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously 4 - 1 with Mr. Kries voting no. City of Mexico Beach Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2024 = 6:00 PM Adjournment: Mr. Henderson motioned to adjourn, and Mr. Cox seconded the motion at 7:50 pm. Signed: Attest: Jack Kerigan, Chairman Tammy Brunson, City Clerk City of Mexico Beach Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2024 - 6:00 PM The City of Mexico Beach Planning & Zoning Board met on Monday, October 7, 2024, at 6:00 pm in the Public Works Building in Mexico Beach. Board members present were Jack Kerigan, Chair, Lee Ellzey, Erik Fossage, and Rock Kries. Also present was City Clerk, Tammy Brunson, and Tim Sloan, City Attorney. I. Call to Order: Mr. Kerigan called meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. Salt Creek Phase II Final Plat Approval - Elizabeth Moore, Anchor CEI Ms. Moore stated the Final Plat for Salt Creek Phase II has been reviewed against the technical requirements and no items of concern in the final plat. They spoke with Dewberry to get approval from a surveyor due to Florida Statues requires certain items be on the final plat. They have had that reviewed and their signature will be on the final plat confirming the plat does conform to the Florida Statute. She saw no reason not to recommend. Mr. Sloan did indicate a clause that needed to be struct from the cover page. Mr. Sloan stated the dedication clause states 2 dedication utilities of easements. The bottom clause needs to be stricken, and that Mr. Shortt with Dewberry agreed. Chris Shortt - Dewberry Engineers confirmed what Ms. Moore stated. The only change from the preliminary plat that was approved is the dimensions of the town home lot. The original plat showed the interior units were approximately 21.67 ft wide but they are narrowing down to 20 ft wide basically to suit the product for the builder which results in the net decrease of impervious area from the original approved preliminary plat. He stated that the second clause on the final plat will be stricken before printed on the mylar plat with all the signatures. Mr. Kries went out to the plat and asked about the open space of land on the property. Mr. Shortt stated it was an open green space park area that the PUD requires for every SO many units or acreage that a dedicated public park area is required and that the City of Mexico Beach will maintain that park. Mr. Sloan stated there was no parking around this area. Mr. Shortt stated that he believes that there was parking on the development plan and that those types of improvements are typically not shown on the plats. Mr. Sloan stated that the parking needed to be included in the description and Mr. Shortt stated he will make a note that green space/park with associated parking would be added. Mr. Fossage stated that a certain percentage must have a certain number of parking spaces associated with a park. Mr. Shortt stated that this would be part of the original DO and he did not have a copy of the original plans with him tonight. Mr. Sloan said the word parking needs to be on the description and Mr. Shortt said they would make this change. Mr. Kries asked if the DO had been submitted to the City and wanting a large copy to view. Mr. Shortt said he could drop copies off at the City Hall for anyone who want to review them. Public Comments: Lisa Logan, Mexico Beach - Asked if there was a DO coming next. Mr. Kerigan stated that it has already been done and asked exactly what happens next with this final plat approval. No Discussion at the table and Mr. Kerigan asked if there was a motion. City of Mexico Beach Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2024 - 6:00 PM Mr. Ellzey motioned to approve with the recommendation of deleting of the last sentence above the signature line on the dedication and the redesignation of the green space /parking instead of park. Mr. Kries seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. Adjournment: Mr. Ellzey motioned to adjourn and Mr. Fossage seconded at 6:13 pm. Signed: Attest: Jack Kerigan, Chairman Tammy Brunson, City Clerk City of Mexico Beach Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes MONDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2024 = 6:00 PM The City of Mexico Beach Planning & Zoning Board met on Monday, December 2, 2024, at 6:00 pm in the Public Works Building in Mexico Beach. Board members present were Jack Kerigan, Chair, Lee Ellzey, Steve Cox, Erik Fosshage, and Rock Kries. Larry Henderson were absent. Also present were City Administrator, Chris Truitt, City Clerk, Tammy Brunson, and Tim Sloan, City Attorney. I. Call to Order: Mr. Kerigan called meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. Consent Agenda - Minutes will be addressed at next scheduled Board meeting. III. 111 38th Street Setback Variance Request = Allara Mills Gutcher Mr. Sloan discussed the need for disclosures and the swearing in of witnesses for the quasi-judicial hearing. Mr. Kerigan and Mr. Kries stated they visited the property but have not spoken to anyone concerning the variance request. Ms. Brunson swore in those that were going to speak on this variance request. Ms. Gutcher and Mr. Sloan discussed the need for disclosures and the swearing in of witnesses for the quasi-judicial hearing. The property in question is located in the town home district, which was created in 2020 with a stipulation for a 7.5-foot setback on each side of the structure. The lots were combined with the stipulation, but the combination was not immediate, leading to a later request for variance. Ms. Gutcher recommends denial of the variance, citing that the application did not meet the six points in the land development regulations for variance. Lance Watson from Southeastern Consulting Engineers, gives reasons for the use of town home district setbacks, noting similar approvals for nearby lots. He referenced the staff notes and stated that the property owner could not have foreseen the stipulation, as it was not known at the time. He questioned the hardship and the need for a variance, while explaining the challenges of meeting the 7.5-foot setback requirement. Public Comments: Greg Boutwell, from the building department, raises concerns about property maintenance, fire separation, and roof design issues related to zero lot line setbacks. Lisa Logan, MB, references a city council meeting where the intent of the town home district was discussed, emphasizing the need for consistency in zoning regulations. Mr. Cox and Mr. Ellzey discuss the need for clear language in the LDC to address combined lots and setback requirements. Mr. Cox asked Lance if he thought when originally presented to the City Council that the decision to stipulate the 71 % ft setback was incorrect. Lance stated that this was before the town home district was adopted. Mr. Cox also stated he was trying to understand the hardship. Mr. Ellzey asked when this originally came before the City Council. Ms. Gutcher stated that the Townhome District was adopted in September 2020 with Ordinance 749 and the application for the combination came forward on October 7, 2020. The Townhome District was created a couple of weeks before the application came forward. Mr. Fosshage stated the City Council put in the order that this shall be 71 % ft and he does not see how the board can approve this going against what the council previously made a decision in 2020. Mr. Boutwell stated that these lots were originally platted for town homes. He explained in detail differences between a townhome and single-family home. He said there's a lot more to this discussion than combining some lots and building. It's not a townhouse, and it shouldn't be treated as a townhouse, because the building code is very specific on what a townhouse is. What is being presented is not a townhouse and should be treated as what is being built. It is a single- family home. Lisa Logan, MB - commented on a previous meeting on September 24, 2024 regarding the town home district and wanting to combine lots to build a single family home. She stated the intent of the district was to build common wall units and single family homes should be prohibited in the townhome district. City of Mexico Beach Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes MONDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2024 - 6:00 PM Close Public Discussion at 6:36 pm. Mr. Kerigan asked any discussion from the board at the table. Mr. Kries stated the LDC says two different things and this issue needs to be readdressed. Mr. Kerigan stated that his recollection of the reasoning for allowing single family homes in the townhome district, even though it was not called the townhome district at that time, was that there were town homes that were taken away by Hurricane Michael and there weren't controlling HOA's and some people couldn't afford to build back and some were not ready to build back. Due to the circumstances, it sounds as if the city council implemented at 7 %2 ft setbacks because it was clear that it was going to behave like homes across the street of the family homes. Mr. Ellzey commented that within the last year or sO, the city's variance ordinance was changed, and it is very specific what you must meet in or order to recommend approval. Mr. Kerigan asked if there was a motion at the table recommending approval or denial. Mr. Cox motioned to deny the setback variance at 111 38th Street. Mr. Ellzey seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously 5 -0 to deny recommendation to the council. IV. Townhome District - Single Family Detached Setbacks - Allara Mills Gutcher revision of the LDC setback language. Ms. Gutcher presents proposed amendments to the land development code to clarify setback requirements in the town home district. Ms. Gutcher trying to make it clear and understandable that if you're inside of the town home district, you are going to be required to have a 7 % ft setback, regardless, unless there's a common wall, SO it's very clear cut. So, if you're a single-tamily home in the town home district, you're going to have 71 % ft, if you're on the edge of the town home district and you don't have a common wall, you're going to have to have a 71 % ft setback. Only when there's not a common wall you can you have the zero attached. So that's why you see the footnote is stricken and the side setback. In fact, we need to strike that footnote under side in the table now that we're requiring seven and a half feet unless there's a common wall or attachment easement, then you can have zero-foot setbacks. And she thinks that the way that's written is very clear that no matter where you are, no matter what you're adjacent to, what district you're adjacent to, you are required to have a seven-and-a- half-foot setback unless you have an attachment easement. So then as we move down through the code and we get into the setbacks, there just needed to be some tweaking in order to make sure that we're consistent internally with the language that we're when we're talking about how we're going to assess these setbacks. The second section talks about setbacks and the language has been amended SO that it is consistent with the seven and a half feet requirement. just recommend to clean up and delete this language that is no longer applicable. And then finally, on the last page, as we did a review of other parts of the code, we just need to have a consistent definition of how we measure setbacks. Mr. Kries discussed the importance of consistent language and the potential issues with combining multiple lots. Mr. Sloan suggested including specific language to address the combination of multiple lots and the need for replating. Ms. Gutcher agreed to include the suggested changes and clarifications in the proposed amendments. Open Public Comments: John Harold, MB, asked if the 7 % feet was wide enough to get a fire truck in. Close Public Comments at 6:58pm Mr. Kerigan asked if there was a motion at the table to recommend approval or deny the requested amendments to the Land Development Code. City of Mexico Beach Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes MONDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2024 - 6:00 PM Mr. Ellzey motioned to recommend approval of the requested amendments to the land development code with the one correction of removing the side footnote. Mr. Fosshage seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously 5-0 to recommend approval to the council. V. LDC Update Discussion = Chris Truitt Chris Truitt discusses the schedule for upcoming public workshops and the council's intention to address problem areas in the land development code. The council is seeking input from the planning and zoning board and the public to identify issues and potential solutions. The workshops will be held December 16th and January gth, with the goal of compiling a list of issues to present to the city council for further action. The council aims to address these issues through either one-off fixes or a full-blown committee review, depending on the scope of the problems identified. VI. Adjournment Mr. Kries motioned to adjourn at 7:14 pm Signed: Attest: Jack Kerigan, Chairperson Tammy Brunson, City Clerk TPC November 26, 2024 the planning collaborative Memorandum for Record To: Planning & Zoning Board From: Allara Mills-Gutcher, AICP Subject: 111 38th Street Variance Application Variance Application Description The applicant submitted a variance request for the development of a parcel including portions of Lots 6 and 7 of the Mexico Beach Unit #5 plat, parcel 04629-213-000, which is addressed as 111 38th Street, in order to construct one residential detached structure within the required setbacks that the City Council placed as a condition of the lot combination in previous years. Future Land Use Designation: High Density Residential (maximum 8 d/u to the acre) Zoning Designation: Townhome District (maximum 8 d/u to the acre) To note: There is a five (5) foot utility easement on the easterly (rear) portion of the property. The parcel is 0.11 acres in size, or 46.7' X 100' more or less. Pursuant to Section 1.12.04.A., this is a quasi-judicial decision. Background History of the Townhome District The Townhome District was created in 2020 after Hurricane Michael impacted much of the west end of Mexico Beach. The need arose from a lack of an appropriate designation for attached homes (e.g. townhomes, or row homes) to rebuild with a common wall, or a zero side setback. Prior to the creation of the Townhome District, Mexico Beach did not have a zoning district that allowed common wall development. The attached homes were essentially considered a non-conforming structure at the time of the storm. Ordinance 749 adopted on September 22, 2020 amended the Zoning Map to classify several parcels as Townhome District from the High Density Residential district. This assignment was adopted after study of the lot sizes in Mexico Beach, in comparison to aerial photography pre-storm. Subsequently, Ordinance 755 adopted January 12, 2021 amended the Townhome District sO that single family homes were considered allowable. At the time of initial adoption of the zoning district, only attached homes were allowed. Page 1 of! 5 Recently, many lots such as these in Mexico Beach have been combined, to create larger parcels from the pre-storm smaller, townhome development lots. According to review of aerial photography", and analysis at the time the Townhome District was created, this is one of those situations. This site previously held three attached housing units in a row of six. On October 7, 2020 a minor replat of 111 38th Street units C, D and 113 38th Street unit A was requested. The request was to receive "permission to combine the 3 lots into one" (Attachment 1).2 The issue overview stated on the agenda report included: "The applicant would like to combine the three lots in order to construct a single family residence. The parcels are zoned high density residential and contained 3 townhomes prior to Hurricane Michael. Currently, the parcels are vacant. Combining the lots gives the applicant an approximately 47 foot wide lot which is wide enough to construct a single family residence while meeting the required 7.5' setbacks. Approval would reduce the number of homes contained on the property from 3 to 1." Because the lots were not combined and filed with the Property Appraiser's office in 2020, in June 2023 the City Administrator elected to have the City Council consider the request again to combine the lots. The parcels requested to combine were Parcel ID numbers 04639-210-000, 04639-211-000 and 04639-212- 000. The lot combination was approved by the Council on June 14, 2023.3 Analysis Request for Variance The applicant's requests VS. the requirements are outlined in the table below. Setback Requested Required Front (west) 20.5 feet 20 feet 23.5 feet (from the Rear (east) structure; a pool and deck 10 feet is indicated also) Eight inches on the north 0 unless adjacent to a Sides side' parcel not designated as 4.9 feet on the south side Townhome District? 1 The setback listed on the application was shown from the side of the building as 4.9 feet. Section 2.02.07 states that the measurement "shall be taken from the narrowest space between structures, whether a main living unit, principal structure, an allowable attachment, or an accessory use". There is a "proposed 4'X16' wood framed A/C and pool equipment platform" shown on the provided survey on the north side of the structure, where according to the LDC the measurement should be taken from. 2This setback applies only when an attachment agreement exists. See Section 2.02.07. 1 Bay County Property Appraiser, 2015 aerial photography 2 Planning & Zoning Agenda Abstract, meeting date 10-7-2020, prepared by Gena Johnson City of Mexico Beach Meeting Minutes, Tuesday, June 13, 2023, item IV.2. Page 2 of 5 Section 2.02.07 Setbacks states: B. The structure may be built on the property line provided the owner shall grant an attachment easement to the adjacent property owner in Tourist Commercial and General Commercial only. Response: This parcel is designated Townhome District, so the above regulation does not apply. C.N Minimum setbacks between buildings: 1. The minimum setback distance between adjacent buildings shall be ten (10) feet, except that no setback between buildings is required where and attachment easement has been created pursuant to paragraph B of this Section. (above) Response: There is not a structure located on either parcel to the north or south of the subject parcel, and therefore the ten (10) distance setback distance between buildings is not measurable to the vacant lots. 2. Distance shall be measured at the narrowest space between structures, whether a main living unit, principal structure, an allowable attachment, or an accessory use, and shall not include roof overhang (eave). Response: The distance measured must be from any attachment to the home, including structures supporting HVAC equipment. The applicant provided the setback measurements from the side oft the structure on the north side. 3. Residential structures built either on Tourist Commercial, or General Commercial, property must adhere to Residential building setback requirements as shown in Section 2.02.02 with the exception of front setbacks. The front setback remains twelve (12) feet. Response: This portion oft the regulation does not apply since the property is not designated as Tourist Commercial or General Commercial. Standards of Review Section 7.04.02 D of the Mexico Beach Land Development Code outlines the standards of review for all variance application submittals. These include the following standards, and are addressed accordingly. The applicant is requested to address each point in the application narrative. 1. Special conditions or physical circumstances exist which are particular to the land and which are not applicable to other land subject to the same regulations or policies such as the parcel size, shape, or topography of the land. For example, the variance is necessary to protect against wetland infill or protected trees from impact or removal. Response: The applicant indicated that because this parcel lies within the Townhome District, the setbacks meet the requirements of the LDC. Also, the argument is that other "similar lots" have received the same approval. Page 3 of 5 Upon review of aerial photography, TPC did not recognize the zero-lot line application to similar lots for single family home construction. It is important to understand that those parcels on the west side of the street are assigned to the High Density Residential zoning district and are not in the Townhome District. This circumstance is similar to other lot sizes on 38th Street. 6 S & 6 N 6 F 6 6 98 6 6 - 6 & e 9 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 This requirement is not met. In addition, the applicant did not demonstrate any special conditions or physical circumstances exist in the application narrative. 2. The special conditions and circumstances that exist do not result from the actions of the property owner or applicant or are a self-imposed hardship, nor could the condition or circumstances be corrected or avoided by the property owner or applicant. As such, the issuance of the variance shall not confer on the petitioner the grant of a special privilege. For example, a property owner cannot be issued a setback variance on a property that can reasonably contain a house with a smaller footprint. Response: The request for the variance is sO that the applicant can construct a wider house on the combined lots than allowed by the condition of the lot combination approval. This requirement is not met. In addition, the applicant did not demonstrate any special conditions or circumstances that exist that were not the result of any action of the property owner. This request is considered a self-imposed hardship. 3. The relief granted is the minimum degree of relief necessary to make possible the reasonable use of the land in compliance with all other applicable regulations. Response: The applicant has not demonstrated that this condition is met in the application narrative. The reasonable use of the land for residential purposes remains viable. This requirement is not met. Page 4 of 5 4. Literal interpretation of the provisions of this Code would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties that are subject to the same regulations or policies or would render the enforcement of this Code impractical. Response: The applicant is not deprived from rights commonly enjoyed by other properties subjected to the same regulations. The applicant has not demonstrated that this condition is met in the application narrative. This requirement is not met. 5. The grant of the relief will not be in derogation of the general intent and purpose of this Code nor the goals, objectives, or policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Response: This request does not follow the general intent of the Land Development Code. In addition, the applicant has not demonstrated that this condition is met in the application narrative. This requirement is not met. 6. The issuance of the variance will not create an inconsistency from the existing character of the area surrounding the site. For the purpose of this measure, "surrounding site" shall mean those parcels which are within a five-hundred-foot radius of the subject parcel, or within the same platted subdivision, as applicable Response: The issuance of the variance from City Council conditions regarding the approval of the lot combinations will create an inconsistency from other single family residential structure development within Mexico Beach, which is required to build at a 7.5' side setbacks. This requirement is not met. In addition, the applicant has not demonstrated that this condition is met in the application narrative. Finally, Section 7.04.02.F. states "An economic disadvantage due to a property owner's or applicant's preference as to what they want to do with the property is not sufficient to constitute a hardship for the purpose of granting a variance." Recommendation: Arecommendation of denial. The request does not meet the six standards of review required for a variance approval from a City Council decision. Page 5 of 5 TPC January 2, 2025 the planning collaborative Memorandum for Record To: Chris Truitt, City Administrator From: Cody Tillman Allara Mills-Gutcher, AICP Subject: 2902 US HWY 98 Major Commercial Development Application Project Address: 2902 U.S. Highway 98 Parcel ID: 04512-000-000 Future Land Use Map Designation: Tourist Commercial Zoning District: Tourist Commercial Project Description A two (2) story, mixed-use development consisting of one residential 2,869 sq. ft. unit and 2,661 square feet of office space is proposed at 2902 U.S. Highway 98, also identified as parcel D04512-00.00bythe Bay County Property Appraiser. This creates a 5,530 sq. ft. floor area, with an additional 1,991 sq, ft, rooftop deck. The parcel is 0.53 acres.1 The project includes landscaping, parking areas, and onsite stormwater treatment. E A Existing Conditions The acreage includes an existing structure "1-story block commercial building" on the east - 4 side of the property?, and Bay - % $ County classifies this parcel as e "restaurant". Source: Bay County Property Appraiser 2024 aerial photography. 6 1 Bay County Property Appraiser's website, accessed December 12, 2024 2 Plat of Boundary and Topographical Survey for White Sands Investment, prepared by Thurman Roddenberry & Associates, Inc., January 6, 2022 Page 1 of 7 The parcel is landward of the Coastal Construction Controll Line, which lies south of HWY 98. It is located outside of a Special Flood Hazard Area. A preliminary desktop review indicates no wetlands exist on site. Analysis 1. Consistency with Mexico Beach Comprehensive Plan a. Future Land Use Categories Policy 1.1.4.D The Tourist Commercial Future Land Use (FLU) category is "intended to provide areas for low-intensity tourist-oriented commercial activities. "3 The proposed use of the site is mixed-use with one residential unit and 2,661 square feet of office space. Residential uses are allowable in the Tourist Commercial FLU category. However, the non-residential use is not defined as allowable in the Land Development Regulations and therefore cannot be determined to be consistent withi the parameters oft the Future Land Use category. Additionalinformation is required. This condition is partially met, and cannot be determined to be met until the office use is defined. Section 2.02.02.F does not list "office" as a principle allowable use, but also does not list "office" as a prohibited use. The maximum allowable density within the Tourist Commercial FLU category is eighteen (18) units per acre and the maximum impervious surface is 80%. Although the site plans indicates the mixed-use structure will include one dwelling unit, the impervious surface ratio was calculated by using only a portion oft the site 7,135.36* square feet instead of the 0.53 acre 23,089 square feet area). This condition is not determined to be met until the submission is corrected with the full acreage, and accounting for the existing structure and impervious surface on site. Further, the maximum allowable height in the Tourist Commercial FLU category is 32 feet. Sheet LS002 of the architectural site plans indicate the proposed mixed-use structure will be two-stories in height, with a roof-top deck, however a specific measurement is not given. This condition is not met. The development restrictions for the Tourist Commercial FLU category states "All commercial structures constructed in the Tourst-Commercial district shall provide, and maintain in good order, buffers to adjacent residential structures in the Low Density Residential and Residential General Future Land Use categories". The parcel is adjacent to Tourist Commercial zoning districts to the northeast and east, and General Commercial zoning to the west. Tourist Commercial also lies south of HWY 98, thus, the buffer requirements do not apply to this project. b. Availability of Facilities and Services - Policy 1.1.7 The Public Utilities Director will address this under separate cover. C. Shade Trees - Policy. 2.7.2 Policy 2.7.2 requires all non-residential development adjacent to the US HWY 98 corridor to provide shade trees in close-proximity to existing or planned sidewalks sO that the tree will provide shade to pedestrians traveling on the sidewalks." "6 The "Construction Plans for Mexico Beach Mixed Use Building" plans set Sheet 5 indicates thattwo (2) palm trees 8to10' inl height will be installed along the U.S. Highway 3 Mexico Beach Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use Element Policy 1.1.4.D 4 Architectural plans set entitled "M.B. Mixed-Use Building", Cover Sheet G001, dated August 2, 2024. 5 Mexico Beach Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use Element Policy 1.1.4.D 6N Mexico Beach Comprehensive Plan, Transportation Element Policy 2.7.2 Page 2 of 7 98 corridor in addition to four (4) existing palms trees to remain. 7 However, the location oft theset trees was not indicated. This policy is met but the plans set must be revised to include the locations of the trees. d. Bicycle Parking - Policy 2.7.3 Policy 2.7.3 states "To increase alternative modes of transportation, require all new commercial and tourist-related developmentto) provide bicycle parking areas within the developmentsite'.* 8 The site plans do noti indicate any bicycle parking facilities. This policy is not met. e. Non-Residential Open Space Policy 7.5.2.4 Policy 7.5.2.4 requires 20% ofthetotall land area int the Tourist Commercial land use District to be: set aside as open space for 'landscaping, buffer zones, public areas or other similar areas. 9 The site plans must be revised to include all calculations with the 0.53 acre parcel, and notthe portion of new development. This criterion cannot be determined at this time. 2. Consistency with Mexico Beach Land Development Code a. Article II Section 2.02.02: Zoning Districts This parcel is located within the Tourist Commercial zoning district. The intent of this zoning district is to allow "single family residential at a maximum density of 18 dwelling units per acre and commercial land uses as defined below. "10 The proposed development includes approximately 2,661 square feet of office space. The Tourist Commercial zoning district imposes the development standards shown in Table 1. The proposed development meets the minimum required setbacks, but the impervious surface ratio was not determined usingt the 0.53 acrep parcel size. Theheight of thestructure! is indicated as two-stories; however, a specific measurement is not given. This condition is not met. Table 1: Development Standards for Tourist Commercial Zoning District Compared to Proposed Development Development Standards Proposed Development Front Setback 12 feet N 103 feet 12 feet (Left side) Side Setbacks* Ofeet 51 feet (Right side) Rear Setback 10 feet 10 feet Corner Setback 12 feet 12 feet Impervious Surface Ratio 0.80 Needs revision 7 Mexico Beach Mixed-Use Building site plans, dated 17 June Sheet LS 1.0 8 Mexico Beach Comprehensive Plan, Transportation Element Policy 2.7.3 9 Mexico Beach Comprehensive Plan, Recreation and Open Space Element Policy 7.5.2.4 10 Mexico Beach Land Development Code Article II Section 2.02.02.F Page 3 of 7 Development Standards Proposed Development 2-Story with rooftop deck Max (no Height 32 feet height indicated) Source: Mexico Beach LDR Section 2.02.02.F; Development Order Package for Mexico Beach Mixed-Use Building site plans, dated 17. June Sheet 5.0 Ofeet if attachment easement is in place; 5feet if abutting residential property. b. Article II Section 2.02.04: Height Measurement Section 2.02.04 provides guidance for measuring the height of properties based on the Coastal Construction Controll Line and the flood plain. The applicant has indicated that the proposed structure will be two-stories in height. 11 There are no dimensions for the mean roof height provided. This policy is not met. C. Article IV Section 4.01.06: Required Landscaping This section provides guidelines for required landscaping to development and redevelopment projects. Section 4.01.06.A states "A minimum of twenty-five percent (25%) of the total developed area shall be devoted to landscaping. Landscaping can be concentrated in the building setback areas, which is also the primary tree protection area. However, a minimum of five percent (5%) of the landscaped area shall be located within the interior ofthe site." "12 Sheet LS 3.0showsi the perimeter landscape areas and adjacent uses. 13 However, the total percentage of landscaped areas is not indicated on the site plans. This requirement is not met. Section 4.01.06.Brequires the front perimeter landscape area to bet ten (10) feet wide, not including the sidewalk. A six (6) foot wide buffer is required for side and rear perimeter landscape areas. 14 A ten (10) foot wide front landscaped perimeter area is shown in sheet LS 3.0.15 Dimensions for the side and rear landscaped areas are not shown. This requirement is not met. Further, section 4.01.06.B.2 states "Interior Landscape Areas shall have a minimum size of one hundred forty (140) square feet. "16 The total area of the interior landscaped areas is not shown on the site plans. This requirement is not met. Section 4.01.06.Cstates "buffers are required in between incompatible uses as defined in Table 4.01.06." Further, "Two (2) parcels of different zoning districts that are specified in this section as 'incompatible" require al buffer along the parcel boundaries. This includes incompatible Zoning Districts that are separated by a road.' "17 The abutting properties to the north and east of the site are zoned Tourist Commercial and 11 Mexico Beach Mixed-Use Building site plans, dated 17. June Sheet 5.0 12 Mexico Beach Land Development Code Article IV Section 4.01.06.A 13 Mexico Beach Mixed-Use Building site plans, dated 17 June Sheet LS 3.0 14 Mexico Beach Land Development Code Article IV Section 4.01.06.B 15 Mexico Beach Mixed-Use Building site plans, dated 17 June Sheet LS 3.0 16 Mexico Beach Land Development Code Article IV Section 4.01.06.B.2 17 Mexico Beach Land Development Code Article IV Section 4.01.06.C Page 4 of 7 tothewestis a general commercialz zoning district, separated by 30th Street. The current zoning designation for the site is also Tourist Commercial. A ten (10) foot wide perimeter landscape area is shown on the site plans. 18 This requirement is met. Section 4.01.06.D states "No accessory structures, garbage or trash collection points or receptacles, parking, or any other functional use contraryto the intent and purpose oft this Code shall be permitted in a required landscape area. This does not prohibit the combining of compatible functions such as landscaping and stormwater drainaget facilities. "19 The site plans do not indicate the location of accessory structures such as garbage or trash collection points or receptacles. This requirement is not met. d. Article IV Section 4.01.07: Landscape Design and Materials Accordingi to Section 4.01.07.C, "Forty (40%) percent of thetotalr number of individual plants selected from each of the categories of the list of approved species below (tree, shrub, and groundcover) and used to satisfy the requirements of this Code shall be selected from the list of native species in the category."20 Sheet LS 3.0 indicates that 4 palm trees are to be planted within the perimeter landscape areas. The specific species of the palm trees are not listed. 21 This requirement is not met. Further, Section 4.01.07.Dstates a ratio of one tree per fifty (50) linear feet of the boundaryi is required. 22 Sheet LS1.0indicates a total oft twelve (12) trees areto remain on the site with four(4) treest to be installed for a total of sixteen (16) trees. At 709 linear feet, the minimum required planted trees for the site are fifteen (15) trees. 23 This requirement is met. e. Article IV Section 4.02.00: Tree Protection Section 4.02.03.A states that within the primary tree protection area all hardwood trees with a four (4) inch DBH or greater and all softwood trees with an eight (8) inch DBH or greater are classified as protected trees. 24 Sheet LS 1.0 of the site plans indicate two palm trees with a height of fifteen (15) and eighteen (18) feet are to be removed within the primary tree protection area. 25 Palm trees are not classified as protected trees in the Mexico Beach Land Development Code. This requirement is met. f. Article IV Section 4.05.00: Floodplain Requirements The topographical boundary survey submitted byt the applicant and datedJ June 1, 2022 indicates the flood zone ofthe site is within Flood Zone X. 26 The floodplain managerwill address this underseparate cover. g. Article IV Section 4.06.00: Stormwater Management A stormwater report submitted by the applicant and dated November 5, 2024 states Treatment is providedthrough an onsite treatment swalet that ist to be nCdEwemeCRNeN andaround 18 Mexico Beach Mixed-Use Building site plans, dated 17 June Sheet LS 3.0 19 Mexico Beach Land Development Code Article IV: Section 4.01.06.D 20 Mexico Beach Land Development Code Article IV Section 4.01.07.C 21 Mexico Beach Mixed-Use Building site plans, dated 17 June Sheet LS 3.0 22 Mexico Beach Land Development Code Article IV Section 4.01.07.D 23 Mexico Beach Mixed-Use Building site plans, dated 17 June Sheet LS 1.0 24 Mexico Beach Land Development Code Article IV Section 4.02.03.A 25 Mexico Beach Mixed-Use Building site plans, dated 17 June Sheet LS 1.0 26 Plat of Boundary and Topographical Survey for White Sands Investment, dated 1 June 2022 Page 5 of 7 the perimeter of the buildings. "27 The engineer will address this under separate cover. h. Article V. Section 5.04.00: Permitted Permanent Accessory Signs Section 5.04.01 states "A permanent accessory sign may be a ground or building sign or a work of art placed with the intention of advertising a commercial establishment or entity. " No permanent accessory signs are indicated on the site plans. Any signage will therefore be subject to a separate sign permit. i. Article VISection 6.03.00: Off-Street Parking Standards The requirements' sforresidential units are two (2): spaces per unit. For commercial uses, specifically 'office" the requirements are one space per 300 square feet of gross floor area. 28 At one residential unit and 2,661 square feet of commercial sace, the minimum required number of off-street parking spaces for the proposed development is nine (9): spaces for the office and two (2): spaces fort the residential unit. The site plans on Sheet 5.0 indicate thirteen (13) general spaces are provided and one ADA accessible parking space is provided. This is a total of fourteen (14) parking spaces. 29 This requirement is met. j. Article VISection 6.04.00: Design Standards Section 6.04.00.A requires parking spaces at a ninety (90) degree angle to have a stall width of ten (10) feet and depth of twenty (20) feet. Further, ADA accessible spaces must have a stall width of twelve (12) feet and depth of twenty (20) feet. 30 Sheet 5.0 indicates general parking spaces will have a width of ten (10) feet and ADA accessible spaces will have a width oftwelve (12)feet. However, the site plans indicate both general and ADA accessible spaces will havea stall depth of eighteen (18) feet. 31 This requirement is not met. Section 6.04.00.E states "All parking areas, except residential, are required to set aside five percent (5%) ofthe parking area for landscaping. Ifac commercial parking area is proposed, a six(6) foot fence is required in addition to the buffer requirements established in Chapter 4 of this Code. "32 Accordingi to Sheet LS 3.0, an existing six (6) foot wooden fence between the adjacent parcels to the northeast oft the site is to remain. In addition, interior landscaping is provided within the parking area. 33 However, the percentages of the landscaped area within the parking area are not indicated on the site plans. This requirement is not met. k. Article VI. Section 6.05.00: Access Management Section 6.05.00.C.2 states "On roads not maintained by the State, the separation between access points onto arterial or collector roads, or between an access point and an intersection of an arterial or collector with anotherroad, shall be in accordance with the following table. "34 Sheet! 5.0i indicates one access point to the parking area from 30th Street, a roadway not maintained bythe State of Florida. 35 The site plans do 27 Mexico Beach Mixed-Use Stormwater Report, dated 5 November 2024 28 Mexico Beach Land Development Code Article VI Section 6.03.00.A 29 Mexico Beach Mixed-Use Building site plans, dated 17 June Sheet 5.0 30 Mexico Beach Land Development Code Article VI Section 6.04.00.A 31 Mexico Beach Mixed-Use Building site plans, dated 17 June Sheet 5.0 32 Mexico Beach Land Development Code Article VI Section 6.04.00.E 33 Mexico Beach Mixed-Use Building site plans, dated 17 June Sheet LS 3.0 34 Mexico Beach Land Development Code Article VI Section 6.05.00.C.2 35 Mexico Beach Mixed-Use Building site plans, dated 17 June Sheet 5.0 Page 6 of 7 noti indicate the distance between the centerline of the proposed access point and the intersection of 30th street and U.S. Highway 98, a principal arterial roadway. 36 This requirement is not met. Recommendation: A recommendation to continue to a future hearing the Planning and Zoning Board recommendation for approvaloft the development ofthe mixed-usetwo-story structure located at 2902 U.S. Highway 98, until which time the applicant satisfies all requirements of the application material submission and Land Development Regulations. The applicants did not provide all ofther necessary items for a major commercial development order. Below is a list of missing items from the development application: A written narrative describing the nature of the proposed development and proposed improvements to the site. This should also discuss the non-residential usage of the site. A copy of the recorded warranty deed or title certificate, to include a complete legal description. Dimensions for the height of the proposed two-story structure pursuant to Section 2.02.04 Percentage of the total area dedicated to landscaping pursuant to Section 4.01.06.A. Dimensions for the side and rear landscaped areas pursuant to Section 4.01.06.B. Percentage of the total area of the interior landscaped area of vehicle use areas pursuantto Section 4.01.06.B.2. Indicate the location of accessory structures such as garbage or trash collection points or receptacles pursuant to Section 4.01.06.C. Indicate the location and dimensions of any permanent accessory signs pursuant to Section 5.04.01. The distance between the centerline of the proposed access point to the site and the intersection of 30th street and U.S. Highway 98 pursuant to Section 6.05.00.C.2. All calculations must be made accordingto the recorded parcel size, and must include existing structures and impervious surfaces. Further, the development is inconsistent with the Mexico Beach Land Development Code and Comprehensive Plan: Bicycle parking areas are not included in the site plans as required of nonresidential development in Policy 2.7.3 of the Transportation Element of the Mexico Beach Comprehensive Plan. The provided stall depth of all parking spaces in the site plans are 18', which is less than the minimum requirement of 20 feet in Article VI Section 6.04.00.A of the Mexico Beach Land Development Code. 36 FDOT Bay County Functional Roadway Classification Map, dated June 23, 2014 Page 7 of 7 gdtcn December 12th, 2024 Mrs. Juli Danaher Deputy City Clerk/Executive Assistant City of Mexico Beach 201 Paradise Path, Mexico Beach, FL 32456 Sent via email to: Gansherametleaises RE: 2902 HWY 98 STORMWATER REVIEW NO. 1 ANCHOR PROJECT NO. 1328.04 DO Dear Mrs. Danaher: As requested, Anchor Consulting Engineering and Inspection, Inc. (Anchor) has completed a stormwater review of the documentation for the 2902 Hwy 98 development in Mexico Beach, FL. Below is Anchor's response to be forwarded to the Applicant. STORMWATER REVIEW Review Comment No 1. Clarify how emergency discharge will be handled. It appears that an emergency outlet control structure is not included in the proposed stormwater management system. Review Comment No 2. Provide pre-development versus post-development runoff attenuation per section 4.06.03 (B) of the City of Mexico Beach LDC. Review Comment No 3. Provide an Erosion & Sediment Control Plan to meet the requirements outlined in section 4.06.03 (E) of the Mexico Beach LDC. Review Comment No 4. Ensure that any off-site runoff is being accommodated per section 4.06.03 (C) of the Mexico Beach LDC. Review Comment No 5. Provide calculations to demonstrate that the proposed swale is capable of collecting the runoff imposed by the design storm event without overtopping. Review Comment No 6. Clarify how the design top of bank elevation of 17.50' is achieved. It appears that the top contour of the swale on the proposed Grading Plan varies from 16.50' to 17.00'. FINAL COMMENTSRECOMMENDATION Please ask the applicant to respond to the above comments with the additional information needed for this stormwater review. Anchor Consulting Engineering and nspection, Inc. M ley omaser Emily Thomasee, Project Manager 850-215-1285 ethomaseeanchorcei.com CC: Ms. Elizabeth Moore, President, Anchor temoore@anchonreicom, MEXICOBEACH A Major Commercial Development Order Application Fee must be remitted prior to the scheduling of public hearing. To be Completed by Staff: Project Name: Date Received: Fee: Cash Check: a Check No. Credit D Pre-Application File Number: A) Applicant and Authorized Agent (if applicable) Information Owner's Name: Mb 101 LLC / Richard Moore Mailing Address: 805 N. Gadsden Street; Tallahassee, FL 32303 E-mail: moore@morebass.com Telephone: 850-321-4225 Authorized Agent (if applicable and including Agent Authorization): Mailing Address: E-mail: Telephone: An agent affidavit for authorization signed by the property owner is required prior to a. submission of any application if the agent will act on behalf of the property owner. If the property owner is an entity, proof that the signatory is an authorized agent of the entity is required. B) Site Information Address/Location of Proposed Project: 2902 Highway 98; Mexico Beach, FL Property ID Number(s): 04512-000-000 Property Size Acres/Square Feet): 1.8 AC Future Land Use Map Designation: Commercial Zoning District: Current Property Use: Commercial Proposed Development: C) Required Documentation 1. Completed Development Order for Site Work Application 2. Project Narrative describing the nature of the proposed development and proposed improvements to the site. 3. Construction timeline, including any phasing of improvements. 4. Proof of Ownership: This is a copy of the recorded warranty deed or title certificate, to include a complete legal description. (A sales contract cannot be accepted.) 5. Boundary Survey 6. Site development constructions plans must be prepared and signed/sealed by a registered professional engineer. Plans shall include any offsite improvements required as a requirement of approval or agreed to by the applicant. Plans shall include detailed engineering plans for the following, as applicable, in accordance with Section 7.02.04.C: 1. Existing Conditions a. The location of existing property or right-of-way lines both for private and public property, streets, railroads, buildings, transmission lines, sewers, bridges, culverts, drainpipes, water mains, fire hydrants, and any public or private easements. b. All water courses, water bodies, floodplains, wetlands, important natural features, and vegetative cover. C. The topography of the site. d. The approximate location of Protected Environmentally Sensitive Zones as established in Article V of this Code. e. Existing land uses and existing zoning of the parcel and abutting parcels. f. A depiction of the abutting properties within four hundred (400) feet of the subject property including: 1. Densities of surrounding residential uses, if applicable, and 2. Existing Traffic circulation systems. g. The intensity or density of the proposed development, as indicated in the notes or a table inserted within the plans set. 2. Proposed Development Activities and Design a. Generally 1. Area and percentage of total site area to be covered by impervious surface. 2. Grading plans specifically including perimeter grading. 3. Construction phase lines. 4. A compatibility description of how the plan mitigates or avoids potential conflicts between land uses. b. Buildings and Other Structures 1. Building plan showing the location, dimensions, gross floor area, and proposed use of buildings. 2. Building setback distances from property lines, abutting right- -of-way center lines, and all adjacent buildings and structures. 3. Minimum floor elevations of buildings within any 100-year floodplain. 4. The location, dimensions, type, composition, and intended use of all other structures. C. Potable Water and Wastewater Systems 1. Proposed location and sizing of potable water and wastewater facilities to serve the proposed development, including required improvements or extensions of existing off-site facilities. 2. The boundaries of proposed utility easements. 3. Location of the nearest available public water supply and the proposed tie-in points. 4. Exact locations of onsite and nearby existing and proposed fire hydrants. 5. A permit is required from the Bay County Public Health Department for approval of on-site wastewater systems. d. Streets, Parking, and Loading 1. Points of ingress to and egress from the site including existing or planned public or private road rights-of-way. 2. The layout of all streets and driveways with paving and drainage plans. 3. A parking plan showing the total number and dimensions of proposed parking spaces, spaces reserved for handicapped parking, and projected on-site traffic flow. 4. The location of any proposed garbage dumpsters. 5. Specifications of all proposed pavement. e. Tree Removal and Protection 1. All protected trees to be removed and a statement of why they are to be removed. 2. Proposed changes in the natural grade and any other development activities directly affecting trees to be retained. 3. A statement of the measures to be taken to protect the trees to be retained. 4. A statement of tree relocations and replacements proposed. 5. A site plan identifying tree protection areas, structure footprint, and tree protection zones. f. Landscaping Plan, Completed by a Certified Landscape Architecture 1. Location and dimensions of required buffer zones and landscaped areas. 2. Description of plant materials existing and to be planted in buffer zones and landscaped areas. g. Stormwater Management 1. An erosion and sedimentation control plan that describes the type and location of control measures, the stage of development at which they will be put into place or used, and maintenance provisions. 2. Minimum floor elevations of buildings within any 100-year floodplain. 3. A stormwater permit issued by the Northwest Florida Water Management District for developments other than a residential dwelling. 4. Direction of water flow and areas of the site to be used for detention of the first one-half (%) inch of runoff for single-family developments. h. Environmentally Sensitive Lands and Other Protected Natural Resources 1. The exact sites and specifications for all proposed drainage, filling, grading, dredging, and vegetation removal activities proposed within areas containing environmentally sensitive lands or other protected natural resources. 2. Detailed statement or other materials showing the following: a. The percentage of the land surface of the site that is covered with natural vegetation and the percentage of natural vegetation that will be removed by development. b. The distances between development activities and the boundaries of the environmentally sensitive lands. C. The coastal construction control line must be surveyed and clearly identified onsite of the property proposed for development. 3. The manner in which habitats of endangered and threatened species are protected. i. Signs 1. Drawings or diagrams of the plans and specifications of regulated signs, and method of their construction and attachment to the building or ground. The plans shall show all pertinent structural details and display materials in accordance with the requirements of this Code and the building and electrical codes adopted by the City. The plans shall clearly illustrate the type of sign or sign structure as defined in this Code; the design of the sign, including dimensions, colors, and materials; the aggregate sign area; the dollar value of the sign; maximum and minimum heights of the sign; and sources of llumination. 2. For regulated ground signs, a plan, sketch, or diagram which indicates clearly: a. The location of the sign relative to property lines, rights-of-way, streets, alleys, sidewalks, vehicular access and parking areas, and other existing ground signs on the parcel. b. All regulated trees that will be damaged or removed for the construction and display of the sign. 3. For regulated building signs, a plan, sketch, blueprint, blue line print or similar presentation drawn to scale which indicates clearly: a. The location of the sign relative to property lines, rights-of-way, streets, alleys, sidewalks, vehicular access and parking areas, buildings, and structures on the parcel. b. The number, size, type, and location of all existing signs on the same parcel, except a single business unit in a multiple occupancy complex shall not be required to delineate the signs of other business units. C. A building elevation or other documentation indicating the building dimensions. j. Subdivision 1. Proposed number, minimum area and location of lots, if development involves a subdivision of land. k. Land Use and Dedications 1. Location of all land to be dedicated or reserved for all public and private uses including rights-of-way, easements, special reservations, and the purposes for which the land will be held. 2. The location and amount of area devoted to all existing and proposed land uses, including residential, commercial, accessory buildings, and open space as well as the types of activities proposed for all land uses. 3. The total number and type of all structures including square footage and gross size. Residential units shall be categorized according to the total number of residential units per acre (gross density). I. Wellfield Protection 1. Location of on-site wells, and wells within one thousand (1,000) feet of any property line. m. Historic and Archaeological Sites 1. The manner in which known historic and archaeological sites on the parcel will be protected. 7. Signature Applicant Signature: Date: 09-30-24 MEXICOBEACH Pre-Application Conference Request Form Application Fee: One Hour Pre-Application Review Meeting: $250 Additional Pre-Application Discussion - Per Each % Hour: $125 Fee must be remitted prior to the scheduling of the meeting. To be Completed by Staff: Project Name: Date Received: Fee: Cash Check: D Check No. Credit D Meeting Scheduled For: A) Applicant and Authorized Agent (if applicable) Information Property Owner's Name: Mb 101 LLC/ /J Richard Moore Mailing Address: 805 N. Gadsden Street; Tallahassee, FL 32303 E-mail: rmoore@moorebass. com Telephone: 850-321-4225 Authorized Agent (if applicable): Mailing Address: E-mail: Telephone: An agent affidovit for authorization signed by the property owner is required prior to a submission agent will act on behalf of the property owner. If the property owner is an entity, proof that the of any application if the agent of the entity is required. signatory is an authorized B) Site Information Address/Location of Proposed Project: 2902 Highway 98; Mexico Beach, FL Property ID Number(s): 04512-000-000 Property Size (Acres/Square Feet): 1.8 AC Future Land Use Map Designation: Commercial Zoning District: Current Property Use Commercial Is a Future Land Use Map or Rezoning Needed to Accommodate the Proposed Use? Yes No 4 C) Required Documentation Project Description Provide a description of the project including proposed new development (new, addition, use, change of use), type (residential, commercial, mixed-use), size (square footage), residential details (proposed dwelling units, existing dwelling units, existing density, proposed density), non-residential details (proposed use, existing use, proposed building sq. ft., existing building sq. ft.), additional site and any specific questions for staff. improvements, 1 D) Suggested Documentation Preliminary Site/Building Plan - While we recognize that applicants will likely be at a conceptual when applying for a pre-application meeting, preliminary plans providing as much detail as possible will stage assist staff in providing the most accurate information possible. This could include existing site conditions, building location, access, parking layouts, square footage of impervious surfaces, and distances of proposed from property lines. For some request, such as a Future Land Use Map Amendment or a structures site plans are not required. Rezoning Change, E) Signature Applicant Signature: Date: 08-59-24 F) Pre-Application Méeting Notes Date of Pre-Application Meeting: Signature of Partie/Agreement of Notes: 1.) 1.) Printed Name Signed Name 2.) 2.) Printed Name Signed Name 3.) 3.). Printed Name Signed Name Date Copies of Pre-Application Meeting Notes Were Emailed to Meeting Attendees: 2 3 3 di M : era 53 8 sya 8 : e 3 lila : : 5 - 1 d0 : 8; : 3 . 3 : I N 33 : e: 1 t t nI 65 * 3 9 E. 1 e : : - a 1 a $ - ppapasww 12 9 a 33 355 as & : - d 3 28 E si e de a DE S 3 88 33 I I e e 3 a 3 8 9 9 - a de - II! 95 TIEHITEE I I i 95 5 BE : E 8 I . M 3 H I Ilil # a : 15 ju à I * a - 5 3 5 ml : : 17995 & 9 P 8553 3 5 13343355. 8 ee8es86g8 BEGESEEES - AE 2 35 39 € 301 d : s E 323 - 3 E e 8 E 3 - 8 3 B 2 4 de Ea a 39371 - : 8352 8888 53 a I B555B I 4 1113741 5 5263665 a de a 55 - 9 1E TFTEE 99 3 1 € 3 E I E E CoEZI W3 aasEvT TMI 1, laas 30 RH 0e - 3 E n E - M E f E DNCINS asno GAAR OV2BOO0GN I S E a 5 E € : I - &1 5 8 3 - 8 - K & e # € : - 3 0o E & X / - N 8 a a 9 :. 9 8 : 9 - 8 3 Ew W I a 8 9 s% of 8 I 8 % de 68 de 83 e5 I - 8 5 1 6: a 6 8 5 e 8s de - a B B1 - € 33 I a I E 8 B 65 B 84 68 81 : 983 s E - - BA 3 W 2 t5 - voTT I 3i, meze amus W3 aassvn TN a B - a Es A I 3 I f NIC waec asn os0n E E * oo a 1 3 BA I V s lli I * - 9 € 39 e e E I I : # - - Ee ; 6 - 6: 6 e N : a 8 : I B l S y I de a - E & 5 . a E I E I 6 DB : I - I I 9 E 5 ( S € W 3 I 3 8 E - a 8 E I - 6 8 I 4N 3 B I I E a I 8 I 2 I I - I a : a : - : I I E : 8 3 L I E 3 E & : I I 8 - I 8s 3 - I 1 : à p 3 3 - I - 2 E 9 I - I I 3: I - I I I ! I ! E I 88 I I € - I - 8 I N - s: - E 3 I $ 3 3 I 1 I I a :: I E I I - I I 3 1 E e I a I 1 I I 3 B - 8 5 E 1 $ B 3 9 A I M I I 3 5 I I : - E 3 & E 9 1 : a I I I I I I 4 E I 3 I a B - I % ! i à I I I 3 e - 2 I E 1 : I E I I ( I 3 i : I I - g l I I 3 2 5 SE 47 a I i a I s a S 2 2 5 ! 8 W I i I LM I e - I, 1 E I I 4 I I E 9 E E 8. * % e I 1 I y E Ey - I 2 y E - . E E E a 6 I I I I 3 9 8 € MV I B I - : I - l I I 4 N Bs ! - : - BE I B BE 9 I N E I 1 - I 9 45 6 - 3 I 8 o a e I 4 Es I I - I E E I 5 : 5 8e I #; h 4 I I E I I a I I 3 - 4 I I : I 4E - - 8 I 3 - - ! I I E 3 U I - I 1 I S 8: I I a 4 I I E U 1 a * I E 45 I B I 5 5 E I 45 : 44 1 I * I : - I 8 - - a I - 8 € 1 I - I I 4 I - Ba - T E E I I - a I I E 8 - - E 5 I I - 9 - - I I E E I 37 & 8 E1Y I I I 3 # I B B 5 4e 44 9 E I # I I 3 I wS € 1 I I es E E I - ! $ a I 389 a 1 B 2 I I l 8 ! I 3 N - le a - W I E 5 4 I 1I. a 3 I * e - 8 3 1 3 * - 1 : 4 I e - % I I - I e E - E & 3 il 8 I I I I E I 8 - E E I 3 I I I S 9 I E w I I I 3 E £ I 2 I ! E E - E : 8 I 4 9 3 - E I : : I - 2 3 : . - I . w I : E B I S 8 I I - I e B I * : e - I E S I : E 2 I - I E 4 8 I 9 8 S # I 3 I I I 8 5 I 3 E - 1 I 8 9 5 dN - - 2 - 1 I I - a I I & - 36 I 8 E : E I a 4 - I B! : 5 E - - : f : : : I I : I 6 : 9 - 3 $ 0 - I I E E I : 1 I I I- - * I - 3 3 E 4 I I a 3 I E 8 U 3 8 E I I 1 9 - I : I - H B # $ € * 3 e e I I I : - 1 ( I : : I E : E 1 E € - - a I E E I B - I - I - e I B I I - I B , - E $ I E a I I 3 I 9 E - I I 8 1 : S 8 6 i 1 1 - 1 e 5 - 2 15 . 8 I 1 I I - 5 I I - I : I # E E - I I 9 I a 8 8 I y E I I 3 I 2 I E - I 3 I a I E I 2 I I E 1 E : de I I I I I I I e - 1 I I 5 I ! 3 - 5 - - e e E 8 e I I i a 9 : e I I 3 8 I 5: E B de - 8 I I I E I * I 8 E - ! I E 8 1 - I I 1 a 5 I I - I 8 I 1 I 3 8 I E I 3 : - 5 : I 28 2: $ - E I ! E - E : : 1 . E de . 1 ii # 3 - E # BE - - - de : 2 l I I e 2 e - a 1 i I o de I E 6 3 # I E e I 8 I I 2 : e - e - - 1 & - 6 E 3 E ih I 4 9 I # P . 6 & B LE : a 9; E 2 I I I I - I 1 a : 1 e I I * E - E 81 8 B à I 4 8 * 45 I I 9 E I 3 1 I a - - I E : * 1 I 6 . df 6 I I I - : I 8 I : I 3 I % 8 3 I I I E I . I I 4 E : I 8 1 3 - E E $ ee E 4 a a I I 8 € I E I 5 I I I - I 8 I I 1 3 a I I I I I 4 a - . E : E 3 - : I I E 5 b I : 5 I I I - I I 6 I I E a I I * 35 I e 9 I I A 5 1 I I I I E I I 1 I I I - a I E * - * I : I B E7 I I I I 9 ! e - - . 8 I I I 8 I I I I I I ( I E I E I I I I I I I a I 4 I I - 4 I . - I I E I e I E - I I E I E I E I E 4E: e, : : E I I ! : 1 E i E I I I I # : I € W I e . - I I I I I 5 : g I I 4 : I I e! I : 3 I 9 I I I 3 I E I 1 E I I 9 1 I I o E 8 4 1 - E E # I E - e * I e I - - I I 3 a I I I I I I - I I I 1 * - i 1 B 25 I 2 - I M I I I I I 4 I W I I . a le : : lE : : K L . : & - - TEr y E BoEz: w a3S5VA WI I 5i, 1a31s 08 a fal on f e - d f DE E a E ONIOTNS pn om 9 o ovaed o0 44 8 K O : 8 3 26 5 ilerle e 19 ! a A * 4 a 51 8 - : I - a di ai B a E inufadihr 81 % 3 s; I 1 * D e - a + :e a 84 A os Maat e 3 R tynaa anawy HINOS 13381S HLOE sil l: E COEZE w aassv WI a - i, azus 0e 3 ES! 1 48 g - 3 de oune asn E 9 I I I S 8 au 8 8 b E 8 S: $ - E € 9 de 3 I a nl 6 3 & supaa e HINOS 13381S HLOE 1i kes - 8 r EALZE H aassway WI - E aRus N B e B - E E Ngne aenc aaxN oVa9 0003 E e ERS t u 00 E 1 a n e à E E de 1 9 a as S I e E e : 89 I I 3 5 - : - I I I I E - 85 e : * 8 8: 1 E 5 S : 3 2 3 - E . E 5 - : € - : I e - € n E 3 22 CSLA Cos IM.As - HINOS. 13381S HLOE sil B COEZE aasEvT W. Bi, amis 3 - n B e 291 E E DNeoune 0 9 ovas o02 ! I I E. 63 E E e e e EI E IE 35 : 16 ! : : 3 I - R: a $ e . wno Da 6 E 3 D & s - e 5 * 22 * Ms : S : tyne GAN HINOS 13381S HLOE 6 sil e & 1, OE7 1 EASEVAT MA 00 am sOIRN B Es N - : 8 oNagunea asno GHXR H 8 o0G I I e ! B E I E - 3 € de : o E à anww HE HINOS 13381S HLOE sil 3 E : tEZE M7 si, 14S TN: B Eal on 0s IR I I E E 5 oNaCAS asn aan 6 E fr a D : B : 3 a A aA E - DSIAEISA - SL N - - Dl E e E COEZE W aaSSVrT a 3 1 ar RAS € SE 15 I E E NG 18 an E + - ! e Fleele :: ! 3 * - E1 s : : a a li - a E ide.fenslihs - 3 I - Se 3 eey oppe, o ae ewd 2 ILDS MtoS Cse tysa Hi HINOS. 13381S HLOE *. ni le: a E - i, EDEE? aRLE BaSEVArT WI 0e n - B; om 1R : a I I DNGINE3 asn amn - 3 3 6 B 5 5 9 E € 3 I - 9 + s A sus.a AnNGaA AN HINOS. 13381S HLOE à sil le: COEZE H aassvw - , MI - on 01 a B B / - e ng aen aaR 2 pona - I I M 3 I 35 2 e EI e - 3 E - FELO OW G a 4 % a 01 8 e 35 SEIMICoS 5 NGAN Bi HINOS. 13381S HLOE 6 E 5 1, oEzE - aassvy VI 3 a n aN I - E Magnne: a8n oE DV B vasd ponG ! I & : : E3 - 48 a I - - - 5 i e + . # $ - 8 E e d Mr de - e * : S tuys anwy HINOS 13381S HLOE sil * & E : - i mEy assvT TwI 0e B a om' OLEN a a E ecung asn amn oV2Bc o00ar 8 I 3 a E I - 8 A si - : e E 3 I - 0 S NNGIA B HINOS 13381S HLOE sil MB Mixed Use Stormwater Report Date: November 26, 2024 Digitallys DNE signedbyA Darabi, Air Darabi 19000FA872, BASSO Amir E Darabi O-MOOREE CONSULTING, C-US Date: 2024.1 12.0209.02:4 44-0500" Amir Darabi State of Florida, Professional Engineer License No. 68298 This item has been digitally signed and sealed by Amir Darabi on the date indicated here. Printed copies of this document are not considered signed and sealed and the signature must be verified on any electronic copies. MB 805 North Gadsden Street - Tallahassee, Florida 32303 - (850) 222-5678 Table of Contents 1) Narrative 2) Swale Calculations 3) USGS Soil Data MB 1. Narrative MB e LAND USE PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING TALLAHASSEE - 850.222.5678 A LAND SURVEYING ATLANTA 770.914.9394 a LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE moorebass.com - CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION MB MOORE BASS CONSULTING & DRONE LIDAR SURVEYING & MAPPING Project Narrative for Mexico Beach Mixed Use Building Parcel ID # 04512-000-000 November 26, 2024 Summary The Mexico Beach Mixed Use Building project has been analyzed for required treatment and recovery in accordance with NWFWMD design criteria. Required treatment volume is the greater of 0.5" over the site or 1" of runoff from the site. The post development percent impervious is approximately 61% however, for the purpose of the treatment calculations, 80% impervious surface coverage was assumed. Based on this land use coverage, the controlling treatment standard for this project is based on 1" of runoff over the site which equals 1,561 cubic feet. Treatment is provided through an onsite treatment swale that is to be constructed between parking spaces and around the perimeter of the buildings. The swale bottom will be at elevation 16.0 with a design top of bank at elevation 17.5. With the swale improvement constructed as proposed, the required treatment volume is provided by elevation 17.21. Recovery of the SWMF swale should be provided within 72 hours. USGS web soil survey shows the sight to be covered in Type A, Arents (disturbed beach sand) with saturated hydraulic conductivity of vertical infiltration rate 20 in/hr. For the purpose of recovery calculations, the required treatment volume should recover in about 54 minutes with a factor of safety of 80. 805 North Gadsden Street . Tallahassee FL 32303 2. Swale Calculations MB & LAND USE PLANNING CIVILE ENGINEERING TALAMASSEE/80225P8 A LAND SURVEVING ATLANTA1709149394 A LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE moorebass.com e CONSTRUCTION) ADMINISTRATION MB MOORE BASS CONSUET ING * DRONE LIDAR SURVEYING & MAPPING Project: Mexico Beach mixed use Date: 11/26/2024 MBC Job Number: Rev: Compiled By: STAGE STORAGE CALCULATIONS Stage Area Area Inc. Vol. Sum Vol. Sum Vol. (feet) (sf) (ac) (cf) (cf) (af) 16.0 374 0.0086 0.0 0.0 0.00 17.0 1785 0.0410 1,079.7 1,079.7 0.02 17.5 2589 0.0594 2,222.5 2,222.5 0.05 Pond Stage VS Storage Chart 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 dE 0.02 0.01 0.00 16.0 17.0 17.5 Stage (ft) e LANDI USE PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING TALLAHASSEE 850.222.5678 R LAND SURVEYING ATLANTA 770.914.9394 A LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE moorebass.com e CONSTRUCTION, ADMINISTRATION MB MOORE CASS CONSULTING e DRONE LIDAR: SURVEYING & MAPPING Project: Mexico Beach mixed use Date: 11/26/2024 MBC #: Revision: TREATMENT VOLUME CALCULATIONS NWFWMD TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS 0.5 Inch of Runoff Over the Contributing Drainage Area Contributing Drainage Area (sf) = 23,132 Runoff (in) = 0.5 Treatment Volume (cf) = 963.85 Required Treatment for 1 Inch of Rainfall Weighted C Calculation Cweighted = (Aimp x Cimp)+(Asmi x Gwm)t(Apervz Gperv) Atotal Area (sf) Impervious = 18,506 0.95 Treatment SWMF = 0 1.00 Pervious = 4,626 0.25 Total Area = 23,132 Cweighted = 0.81 Cweighted = 0.81 Contributing Drainage Area (sf) = 23,132 Runoff (in) = 1.00 Treatment Volume (cf) = 1,561 REQUIRED TREATMENT VOLUME NWFWMD Treatment Volume (cf) = 1,561 Provided Treatment Volume (cf) = 2,222 Elevation of Treatment Volume (ft) = 17.21 SYSTEM RECOVERY Drawdown of Treatment (District) 1.5 depth (ft) 18 depth (in) 72 hrs REQUIRED 0.25 in/hr USGS SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY 20 in/hr FS 80 3. USGS Soil Data MB 4 & OPIPIEE OEIMEE CIVEE OHVIEE OOLMEE 060MEE OBOMIEE OAOMEE M.T. SZ 058 E M.T SL E S d B 8 2 8 8 S C à N M.9S2 058 S8 OMMEE OELPIEE OIMEE OMPIEE COIPIEE OBDMEE OBDMEE DOMEE - la 6 B R & & & OMMIEE OEIMEE ORIMEE OLLVIEE DOLMEE OBOMEE OBOMIEE CAOMEE M.ISZ S8 5 M.. SL 8 € - 8 B € C 8 M W.95 C eS8 OMAEE OEIMEE CIEE OHPEE COLPIEE OBDMEE OBDMEE QOPEE a 6 R & & Map Unit Description: Arents, 0 to 5 percent slopes--Bay County, Florida, and Gulf County, Florida Bay County, Florida 40- -Arents, 0 to 5 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbo!: brv9 Elevation: 0 to 350 feet Mean annual precipitation: 61 to 69 inches Mean annual air temperature: 63 to 70 degrees F Frost-free period: 252 to 282 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Arents and similar soils: 80 percent Minor components: 20 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Arents Setting Landform: Rises on marine terraces Landform position (hree-dimensiona): Rise Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Altered marine deposits Typical profile A-Oto 10 inches: sand C1 - 10 to 32 inches: sand C2 - 32 to 60 inches: sand Properties and qualities Slope: 01 to 5 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Somewhat poorly drained Runoff class: Negligible Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very high (20.00 to 50.06 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 18 to 36 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum: 4.0 Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Very low (about 2.4 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Hydrologic Soil Group: A Forage suitability group: Forage suitability group not assigned (G152AA999FL) USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 11/5/2024 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 3 Map Unit Description: Arents, 01 to 5 percent slopes--Bay County, Florida, and Gulf County, Florida Other vegetative classification: Forage suitability group not assigned (G152AA999FL) Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Centenary Percent of map unit: 3 percent Landform: Knolls on marine terraces, rises on marine terraces Landform position (hree-dimensiona): Interfluve Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Linear Other vegetative classification: Sandy soils on rises, knolls, and ridges of mesic uplands (G152AA121FL) Hydric soil rating: No Pottsburg, non-hydric Percent of map unit: 3 percent Landform: Flats on marine terraces Landform position (hree-dimensiona): Talf Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Linear Other vegetative classification: Sandy soils on flats of mesic or hydric lowlands (G152AA141FL) Hydric soil rating: No Leon, non-hydric Percent of map unit: 3 percent Landform: Flatwoods on marine terraces Landform position three-dimensiona): Talf Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Linear Other vegetative classification: Sandy soils on flats of mesic or hydric lowlands (G152AA141FL) Hydric soil rating: No Albany Percent of map unit: 3 percent Landform: Knolls on marine terraces, ridges on marine terraces Landform position (hree-dimensiona): Interfluve, talf Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Linear Other vegetative classification: Sandy soils on rises and knolls of mesic uplands (G152AA131FL) Hydric soil rating: No Kureb Percent of map unit: 2 percent Landform: Dunes on marine terraces, ridges on marine terraces Landform position (hree-dimensiona): Interfluve Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Linear Other vegetative classification: Sandy soils on ridges and dunes of xeric uplands (G152AA111FL) USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 11/5/2024 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 3 Map Unit Description: Arents, 0 to 5 percent slopes-Bay County, Florida, and Gulf County, Florida Hydric soil rating: No Blanton Percent of map unit: 2 percent Landform: Knolls on marine terraces, ridges on marine terraces Landform position (three-dimensiona): Interfluve, side slope Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Linear Other vegetative classification: Sandy soils on rises, knolls, and ridges of mesic uplands (G152AA121FL) Hydric soil rating: No Foxworth Percent of map unit: 2 percent Landform: Ridges on marine terraces Landform position (three-dimensiona): Interfluve Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Linear Other vegetative classification: Sandy soils on rises, knolls, and ridges of mesic uplands (G152AA121FL) Hydric soil rating: No Lakeland Percent of map unit: 2 percent Landform: Ridges on marine terraces, hills on marine terraces Landform position three-dimensiona): Interfluve Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Linear Other vegetative classification: Sandy soils on ridges and dunes of xeric uplands (G152AA111FL) Hydric soil rating: No Data Source Information Soil Survey Area: Bay County, Florida Survey Area Data: Version 24, Aug 22, 2024 Soil Survey Area: Gulf County, Florida Survey Area Data: Version 21, Aug 21, 2024 USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 11/5/2024 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3 1 a D a 3 3 B Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (Ksat), Standard Classes-Bay County, Florida SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (Ksat), Standard Classes Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating micrometers Acres in AOI Percent of AOI per second) 40 Arents, 01 to 5 percent 247.0000 0.5 100.0% slopes Totals for Area of Interest 0.5 100.0% Description Saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat) refers to the ease with which pores in a saturated soil transmit water. The estimates are expressed in terms of micrometers per second. They are based on soil characteristics observed in the field, particularly structure, porosity, and texture. Saturated hydraulic conductivity is considered in the design of soil drainage systems and septic tank absorption fields. For each soil layer, this attribute is actually recorded as three separate values in the database. A low value and a high value indicate the range of this attribute for the soil component. A "representative" value indicates the expected value of this attribute for the component. For this soil property, only the representative value is used. The numeric Ksat values have been grouped according to standard Ksat class limits. The classes are: Very low: 0.00 to 0.01 Low: 0.01 to 0.1 Moderately low: 0.1 to 1.0 Moderately high: 1 to 10 High: 10 to 100 Very high: 100 to 705 Rating Options Units of Measure: micrometers per second Aggregation Method: Dominant Component Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie-break Rule: Fastest Interpret Nulls as Zero: No USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 11/5/2024 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 4 Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (Ksat), Standard Classes-Bay County, Florida SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIMITY Layer Options (Horizon Aggregation Method): Depth Range (Weighted Average) Top Depth: 0 Bottom Depth: 60 Units of Measure: Inches USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 11/5/2024 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 4 of 4 a a a LJ of $ : 1 : ( 3 3 Depth to Water Table-Bay County, Florida DEPTH TO WATER TABLE Depth to Water Table Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating (centimeters) Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 40 Arents, 0 to 5 percent 69 0.5 100.0% slopes Totals for Area of Interest 0.5 100.0% Description "Water table" refers to a saturated zone in the soil. It occurs during specified months. Estimates of the upper limit are based mainly on observations of the water table at selected sites and on evidence of a saturated zone, namely grayish colors (redoximorphic features) in the soil. A saturated zone that lasts for less than a month is not considered a water table. This attribute is actually recorded as three separate values in the database. A low value and a high value indicate the range of this attribute for the soil component. A' representative" value indicates the expected value of this attribute for the component. For this soil property, only the representative value is used. Rating Options Units of Measure: centimeters Aggregation Method: Dominant Component Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie-break Rule: Lower Interpret Nulls as Zero: No Beginning Month: January Ending Month: December USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 11/5/2024 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3