Item 8BAGENDA ITEM # 8B
JUNE 9, 2008
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
CITY COMMISSION MEETING
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM: Public hearing to take further public comment and consider topics identified
as "major issues" of importance to the City, which will be specifically addressed during the
Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) process of reviewing the Comprehensive Plan and
authorize transmittal of these issues to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) requesting
a Letter of Understanding that DCA concurs that these are the issues on which the EAR will
focus.
SUBMITTED BY: Sonya Doerr, AICP ,~
Community Development Director
DATE: May 21, 2008
BACKGROUND: The City is continuing with the EAR process as required by Growth
Management law with the assistance of the Northeast Florida Regional Council. On March 14th,
the City had an Agency Scoping Meeting, and on May 20th, a public workshop with the
Community Development Board was held to seek citizen input. Please see attached staff
report prepared for the May 20th workshop. To this date, the following issues have been
identified, with input received during these meetings, as the "major issues" to be focused on
during the EAR process. Please note that the term "major issues" is statutory language and may
misleadingly infer major problems. The intent rather is to:
1. identify and agree on issues that are most important to the community; and
2. review how the current Comprehensive Plan addresses these issues (within the
framework of Growth Management law); and
3. determine if amendments to the Plan are needed to give policy direction to the
City related to these issues.
The City will continue with the preparation of the EAR, which will include additional
opportunities for public participation. Once the EAR is completed and adopted, and found by
DCA to be "sufficient" the EAR-based Comprehensive Plan Amendment process begins.
After the May 20th public workshop, the CD Board acting in their capacity as the Local Planning
Agency considered and discussed the EAR process and recommended that the Commission
accept the following as the City's "major issues." Additional issues can certainly be added based
upon further public input or City Commission input, if appropriate. This list would seem to
substantively encompass issues of primary importance to the City.
1. Preserving and protecting Intracoastal Waterway marshes and associated estuarine
environments - These areas are designated as Conservation and present little
opportunity for any significant development. While these areas have no access or
services, current policies should be reviewed during the EAR process to evaluate whether
additional or strengthened policies are needed to maintain and protect these areas or to
support increased public access and appropriate recreational use of these resources.
June 09, 2008 regular meeting
AGENDA ITEM # 8B
JUNE 9, 2008
2. Redevelopment and reinvestment in older neighborhoods -Atlantic Beach is almost
fully developed with little opportunity for new residential subdivisions of any size. A
number of the largest subdivisions located on the southern and western portions of the
City were developed 30 or more years ago. The Seaspray, Royal Palms and Section "H"
subdivisions contain solid but aging housing stock where homes remain affordable in
comparison to the residential areas nearer to the beach. Housing costs in the residential
areas east of Seminole Road, even in this current housing market, remain extremely high
and not affordable for most young families or average income residents. The amended
plan should contain new objectives and policies to encourage reinvestment in older
neighborhoods such that these areas do not decline into undesirable neighborhoods.
3. Issues related to redevelopment of commercial corridors -The commercial areas of
Atlantic Beach are confined to two corridors along state facilities: 1) the north side of
Atlantic Boulevard (SR10) extending from the beach to the approach to the Intracoastal
Waterway Bridge, and 2) Mayport Road (SRAlA) extending from Atlantic Boulevard to
the City's northern limits.
Both are "aging" corridors, although the Atlantic Beach side of Atlantic Boulevard has
seen a more substantive level of redevelopment than other areas. (The south side of the
corridor is within the City of Neptune Beach.) This redevelopment has been compatible
and appropriate with respect to size, quality, scale and types of uses, given the established
residential development pattern of the City. With improved market conditions, current
strategies that are in place by the City should be sufficient to promote continued
redevelopment of this corridor. Mayport Road, however, presents challenges and issues
not likely to be addressed by market factors alone. Mayport Road and the neighborhoods
immediately to the west have suffered urban decline such that redevelopment is limited
and neighborhoods have become ridden with drug related street crime, prostitution, low
quality rental housing and a perception that these are undesirable and unsafe
neighborhoods. The City is preparing to undertake a major strategic initiative to address
these issues.
4. CHHA and hurricane evacuation -The City will adopt the new statutory definition of
the CHHA, and new maps will be prepared. The City is concerned, however, that the
new definition may exclude some areas that are now included in the CHHA, and may
consider including policies which strengthen limitations on any increase in density within
areas prone to coastal flooding and other hurricane related impacts, which is effectively
the entire City.
5. Regulatory obstacles. While the City is only 4 square miles in size with no true urban
core and no opportunity for urban sprawl, redevelopment of urban commercial and
residential areas and infill development where appropriate are very important issues for
the City. Obstacles which discourage redevelopment should be identified and removed
from the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations. To this end, the City
may consider designating the entire City as a transportation concurrency exception area.
As previously stated, the City is built-out with a fully developed street and roadway
network. Transportation concurrency has little relevance to this community.
2 June 09, 2008 regular meeting
AGENDA ITEM # 8B
JUNE 9, 2008
6. Issues related to stormwater treatment and aging water and sewer infrastructure.
LOS and capacity are not issues, but the City should determine if there are appropriate
policies and issues to be addressed in EAR and Plan amendment process.
The Community Development Board recommended the following additional issues.
7. Consider additional policies that promote a bicycle and pedestrian oriented City with
increased and safer facilities.
8. Consider policies which further demonstrate the City's commitment to water
conservation and water supply planning with specific reference to concerns over future
water withdrawals from the St. Johns River.
9. Strengthen polices which direct the City to adopt or amend the Land Development
Regulations and the Zoning Map to achieve consistency with the Comprehensive Plan.
Most of these are topics that would be addressed during the normal course of reviewing and
updating the Comprehensive Plan in any case, but it is still important to identify and discuss the
most important issues and to provide for public participation in this process. While the
Comprehensive Plan is required to contain many provisions that have limited relevance to a
small build-out community, it is the guiding policy document for the City and carries great legal
deference for the City's decision makes. In addition to all of the requirements to ensure that our
Comprehensive Plan complies with State Growth Management law, it should be personalized to
reflect the needs and values of this community.
RECOMMENDATION: Motion to authorize transmittal of the "major issues" to the
Department of Community Affairs (DCA) requesting a Letter of Understanding that DCA
concurs that these are the issues on which the EAR will focus.
ATTACHMENTS: Staff Report prepared for the Community Development Board's May 20th
public workshop with draft minutes.
BUDGET: No budget issues.
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
~- -
June 09, 2008 regular meeting
AGENDA ITEM # 8B
JiJNE 9, 2008
~' ~,~j1
3
~, ~r
'~~JJf
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT
May 20, 2008 Public Workshop
to identify issues to assess during the
Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR)
process of reviewing the Comprehensive Plan
To: Community Development Board
From: Planning, Zoning and Community Development Department
Date: March 07, 2008
Subject: Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) process
STAFF COMMENTS
Growth Management Law requires local governments to periodically evaluate the effectiveness of their
adopted Comprehensive Plan and to amend the Plan to implement changes in the law, and equally as
important, to include new objectives and policies that may be needed to address issues of local
importance to community residents and the particular physical environment, both built and natural.
Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, establishes the requirement to prepare and adopt the EAR and any
subsequent "EAR-based" amendments that may be needed. The Department of Community Affairs
(DCA) has established a preferred process for preparing the EAR. DCA's web-site has very good
information on the EAR process. I will also a-mail you the following link.
http://www.dca.state.fl.us/fdcp/dcp/EAR/index cfin
The City of Atlantic Beach has contracted with the Northeast Florida Regional Council to assist with this
process, primarily to provide technical resources that the City does not have ready access to collect. The
City of Jacksonville completed their EAR process late last year. The schedule to complete the EAR for
the municipalities within a County is approximately one year later, so the three Beach cities are all
engaged in this process simultaneously.
The initial phase of this process was an agency "scoping meeting" with City staff and representatives
from the various State agencies that, in accordance with Florida Statutes, have a role in the review,
adoption or amendment of Comprehensive Plans, including DCA, FDOT, FDEP, SJRWMD, and the
Departments of State and Education. Surrounding local governments are also invited to this meeting.
The City held our agency Scoping meeting on March 14th.
The purpose of this meeting was to seek input from the State agencies regarding what they may see as
pertinent issues from their particular agency perspective that should addressed in the Comprehensive
Plan. NEFRC staff and representatives from the SJRWMD, FDOT, the Cities of Jacksonville Beach,
Neptune Beach, and Jacksonville, attended our meeting.
AGENDA ITEM # 8B
JUNE 9, 2008
Clearly, the issues that `fall under the growth management umbrella" are very different in a small fully
developed community than those in large cities or in counties where growth and development creates
demands and pressures on services, roads and infrastructure, schools, etc.
Our challenges are a bit different. The attached list was put together with input from most City
departments, and was discussed at the Agency Scoping meeting. The general concurrence was that these
issues encompass the range of topics that are of particular importance to this community. (And there
may well be other issues of great importance to the City, but this process can only respond to those
within the framework of the Comprehensive Plan.)
The next step in this process is to seek public comment related to these issues to determine if there are
other issues the community thinks should be addressed, and this is typically done in a more informal
workshop format. This will be the first of several public meetings as we proceed through this process
over the next six months. And we should not be too discouraged if we have limited public participation
at this time. I have been through this process several times, and it generally takes a while to engage the
public. This however, is generally a positive and productive effort, and as it proceeds, we will encourage
residents to actively get involved.
The role of the Community Development Board at this time is to consider these issues and add any
others determined to be appropriate; then in the role as the Local Planning Agency, make a
recommendation to the City Commission that these issues should be specifically addressed during the
EAR process. The objective at this point is to simply identify and agree on the most important
community issues. A letter will then be sent to the Department of Community Affairs advising that these
are the issues this community sees as most important with a request for a Letter of Understanding
concurring that these are the issues the City should focus on during the EAR process.
Also keep in mind that all other provisions and policies in the current Comprehensive Plan will be
reviewed during this process. Our Comprehensive Plan is current and is not expected to need major
revisions other than to create some new maps using updated GIS and imagery technology and to include
some new policies to reflect recent changes in Growth Management law.
SUGGESTED MOTION
The Community Development Board may consider a motion to recommend approval of this
list of issues to be specifically addressed during the Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and
Appraisal Report process. (Add others as may be appropriate.)
2
AGENDA ITEM # 8B
JUNE 9, 2008
Draft minutes of the May 20, 2008 Community Development Board Workshop
~`!•
~ ~ r
:+ pl
J
~ f)
;."
r j ~.
MINUTES OF THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
PUBLIC WORKSHOP TO IDENTIFY EAR ISSUES
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
The Community Development Board held a workshop on Tuesday, May 20, 2008 in the
Commission Chambers, located at 800 Seminole Road. The purpose of this public workshop was to
seek input from the community and the Community Development Board to assist in identifying the
most important issues to consider during the process of reviewing the Comprehensive Plan. The
workshop lasted from 6:10 pm to 7:06 pm. Guy Parola, Northeast Florida Regional Council
(NEFRC) was guest speaker, and the topic was City of Atlantic Beach Evaluation and Appraisal
Report (EAR) process.
In attendance were Community Development Director Sonya Doerr, Planner Erika Hall, and
Community Development Board members Blaine Adams, David Boyer, Lynn Drysdale (arrived at
6:35), Ellen Glasser, Kirk Hansen and Chairman Chris Lambertson. Board member Joshua
Putterman was absent, and the position of Recording Secretary is currently vacant.
The focus of the presentation by Mr. Parola was explanation of the purpose and process of the State
mandated Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) which is intended to assess the effectiveness of a
local government's Comprehensive Plan. Following the presentation, public comment was taken to
assist in identifying issues of importance to the community as related to the Comprehensive Plan.
1. CALL TO ORDER. Chairman Chris Lambertson called the meeting to order at 6:10 pm
and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
2. INTRODUCTIONS. Chairman Chris Lambertson turned the floor over to Community
Development Director Sonya Doerr, who explained that all local governments are required to
review their comprehensive plans every seven (7) years, and then amend their plans based
upon those reviews. In the past, Atlantic Beach failed to adopt amendments that were
consistent with state law and thus the Comp Plan was found by the Department of
Community Affairs to be "insufficient". However, approximately four (4) years ago, the
City went through amid-cycle Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) process to address
those issues, and the updated the Plan accordingly.
As a result, Ms. Doerr said that she anticipated only limited revisions will be needed to
address recent changes in Growth Management law and stronger policies to address
important issues. She directed the audience to the Future Land Use Map and noted that few
changes were expected on this map, though there would certainly be updates to other maps in
the series, due to newer and better data now available from a number of contributing
Page 1 of S
Draft minutes of the May 20, 2008 Community Development Board Workshop
AGENDA ITEM # 8B
JUNE 9, 2008
agencies, such as the Saint Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD). Ms. Doerr
then explained that the Northeast Florida Regional Council (NEFRC) is a state agency that
assists local governments in meeting state mandated requirements and provides a great deal
of technical assistance. She then introduced Guy Parola, an Administrator with the Planning
& Development division of the NEFRC, as the guest speaker for the workshop.
3. PRESENTATION. (Below is reproduced in part from Mr. Payola's PowerPoint
Presentation.)
What is an EAR? Mr. Payola explained that the EAR is essentially an audit of the existing
comprehensive plan, looking back seven (7) years to determine how well the plan addressed
past community issues, in an effort to determine how well it will address the anticipated
issues over the next seven (7) years. In particular, the review examines changes in local
conditions, involves the assemblage and analysis of data, and identifies legislative changes
that affect the way local governments do business. Mr. Payola noted that sweeping changes
came out of the 20051egislative session.
What is the process for creating and adopting the EAR? The EAR evolves out of a very
specific process and is regulated by Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (FS). It is a bifurcated
process, the first part of which concentrates on identifying and analyzing major issues and
drafting amendments based on findings and input from staff, public officials and residents.
Upon a determination of "sufficiency" by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), the
local government can move to the second part of the process which involves preparation and
adoption of the EAR-based amendments.
Mr. Payola explained that the major issues on which a community concentrates are not pre-
defined or pre-determined by any other agency. Instead, they are supposed to be specific to
the community, as identified by city staff, elected officials and residents. So far, staff has
identified six major issues and hopes to refine the list with input from tonight's attendees.
What happens after the EAR is adopted and found to be "sufficient"? Once the Comp
Plan is amended and policies are in place to address the community's major issues, means
and methods for implementation must be formulated and enacted. This generally requires
revisions to the City Land Development Regulations and procedures.
Issues as identified to this point by City staff and the State Agencies:
Issue # 1: Preservation & protection of Intercoastal Waterway marshes and associated
estuarine environments.
Issue #2: Redevelopment & reinvestment in older neighborhoods.
Issue #3: Redevelopment of commercial corridors.
Issue #4: Review & revision of policies related to the Coastal High Hazard Areas (CHHA).
Issue #5: Review & revision of policies that create obstacles to redevelopment.
Issue #6: Stormwater management and review & revision of policies related to aging
infrastructure.
Page 2 of S
Draft minutes of the May 20, 2008 Community Development Board Workshop
4. PUBLIC COMMENT.
AGENDA ITEM # 8B
JiJNE 9, 2008
Mr. Parola encouraged residents to complete and return the questionnaire handed out at the
meeting and/or email their comments directly to him or Valerie Evans at NEFRC (contact
information provided), within the next couple of weeks.
The following summarizes the questions, comments and recommendations of the attending
residents:
Issue #1: Protecting the marsh areas. There was general consensus that more needed to
be done to preserve and protect the ICW and adjacent lands. On a related matter, Board
member Ellen Glasser, noted the confusion that had occurred due to previous inconsistencies
between the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Districts, in relation to what is designated as
"Conservation". She asked that whatever amendments are made to the Comprehensive Plan
be followed up with appropriate revisions to the Zoning, Subdivision and Land Development
Regulations so as to avoid future confusion. Both Ms. Doerr and Ms. Hall confirmed that
they have already reviewed other lands designated as Conservation on both Future Land Use
Map (FLUM) and the Zoning Map for such inconsistencies. Further, Ms. Hall said that she
has begun reviewing the FLUM series, in particular the Wetland Map, and is working to
address some of the inadequacies of the those maps. Mr. Parola added that one problem in
the past has been small local governments' access to data as well as trained staff capable of
working with that data. Over the last few years, data has not only become more readily
available, but it the level of accuracy has also increased dramatically. Ms. Doerr also noted
that previously, much data analysis and map creation had to be outsourced to agencies such
as NEFRC, but with last year's addition of staff skilled in GIS, up-to-date data could be
acquired and maps could be revised and adopted as needed.
Additionally, residents expressed a desire to include definitive language aimed at protection
of the water supply.
Issue #2: Older neighborhoods. The audience agreed that much of Atlantic Beach is in
need of redevelopment and reinvestment, and several attendees commended the proactive
initiatives that the City is already pursuing, with specific mention of installation of sidewalks
and improvements to other public/recreational facilities in Section H. One attendee asked
how this portion would be written. Ms. Doerr responded that it would most probably include
provisions for regulatory tools that would encourage rather than deter redevelopment and
reinvestment in the older neighborhoods.
Issue #3: Aging Commercial Corridors. As with the previous issue, the general consensus
was that this is definitely a major issue for Atlantic Beach. It also was seen as an opportunity
to be proactive and set the example for the adjacent cities that share the commercial
corridors, and create a recognizable community identity and presence.
Issue #4: Ms. Doerr explained that the legislative sessions resulted in a change to the
definition of Coastal High Hazard Areas (CHHA). The previous definition was based upon
on criteria related to hurricane evacuation, but the new definition is based upon storm surge.
Mr. Parola added that while the written definition has changed, all the data has not yet been
collected and plotted. Therefore, the final delineation of the CHHA is not yet known.
Page 3 of 5
AGENDA ITEM # 8B
JUNE 9, 2008
Draft minutes of the May 20, 2008 Community Development Board Workshop
However, it is anticipated that areas previously designated as CHHA would no longer be,
according to the new definition. Board members and attendees expressed concern over this
"relaxation" of the definition, and how it would affect primarily low-lying, flat communities
surrounded by water, such as Atlantic Beach. Ms. Doerr explained that this was precisely
why CHHA was included as an issue - so that more restrictive language could be included in
the local Comprehensive Plan that would limit development that might be deemed a hazard
to the safety of the entire community.
Ms. Doerr continued that such restrictions would not create obstacles for redevelopment, and
the effect would be negligible on existing residential lots. Primarily, it would be a hindrance
only to those developments seeking an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for the
purpose of increasing residential density within the CHHA. She gave the example of the Sea
Turtle, which before the recent renovations had discussed conversion to condominiums.
Such a conversion would have significantly increased regular, full-time residential density, as
opposed to the temporary or part-time low intensity associated with the short-term rental use
of the hotel. While the Sea Turtle will probably always be included in what is defined as the
CHHA, other properties will now fall out. Thus, additional measures must be taken that,
while promoting development and redevelopment of the City still ensure safety of all
residents in a time of emergency.
One inquiry was regarding difficulty of the Comp Plan amendment process. Ms. Doerr
replied that it was just that - a process -that required demonstration of consistency with
various goals, objectives and policies of the City, as well as those of the State and some
Federal agencies. She estimated that it takes at minimum six (6) months to complete the
process, from receipt of the application to approval and adoption by the City.
Issue #5: Obstacles to redevelopment. Ms. Doerr explained that though related to issues #2
and #3, this particular issue seeks to identify and removed specific language in the
Comprehensive Plan that discourages or creates obstacles to redevelopment. In particular,
transportation concurrency can become a problem for small communities in need of
economic growth, whenever a proposed development goes over the specified threshold by a
single trip. Essentially, the developer must find a way to decrease the number of trips below
the magic number, or abandon the project. As a means to assist certain communities with
special circumstances and to encourage proactive planning, the Florida Department of
Transportation (FDOT) has developed what is known as a Transportation Concurrency
Exception Area. As a TCEA, a community is required to develop a very specific plan to deal
with its transportation needs such that level of service (LOS) is maintained. Examples might
include increased use of mass or shared transportation, or alternate modes of transportation.
Within a TCEA, the transportation needs are necessarily addressed in anticipation of
development, rather than as a reaction to development, and most importantly, the plan must
be implementable. The audience was supportive of pursuing such proactive planning.
On a related topic, Board member Ellen Glasser asked that multi-modal transportation,
particularly bike and pedestrian paths be added to list of issues. Given the size, character and
location of Atlantic Beach, healthier alternative modes of transportation should be
encouraged. However, the lack of adequate facilities is not only discouraging but also
dangerous. Board member Blaine Adams concurred.
Page 4 of S
Draft minutes of the May 20, 2008 Community Development Board Workshop
AGENDA ITEM # 8B
JiJNE 9, 2008
Ms. Doerr said that the City had pursued inclusion of bike lanes in the Mayport Road
improvements, but FDOT declined. Mr. Adams requested that the continued maintenance
and improvements to the mass transportation facilities needed to be included as well.
Issue #6: Stormwater and aging infrastructure. There was consensus that drainage and
the City's aging infrastructure needed to be addressed before there was a catastrophic failure,
as recently experienced by many other cities across the country.
5. NEXT STEPS. Ms. Doerr explained that the Community Development Board (CDB), at the
regular business meeting that was scheduled to follow this workshop, would be asked to
formally make a recommendation that the list of major issues be forwarded to the City
Commission. In turn, the Commission would have the same opportunity to review the issues
and seek public input before approving a final list that would then be forwarded to DCA in
the form of a Letter of Understanding. City and NEFRC staff will begin to collect and
analyze data and prepare a first draft of the EAR, which will then come back before the CDB
for additional discussion and public comment. The EAR will then return to the Commission
for further discussion and public comment, and before transmittal back to DCA for agency
review and a determination of sufficiency.
6. WORKSHOP ADJOURNMENT. Chairman Lambertson adjourned the workshop at 7:06
pm.
Signed: Chris Lambertson, Chairman
Attest
Page S of 5