2008-05-20 (workshop minutes) vMinutes of the May 20, 2008 Community Development Board Workshop
~`
s~'
J
~ss~
r
F' ~ 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 then 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
Minutes of the May 20, 2008 Community Development Board Workshop
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 2005 legislative 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
Minutes of the May 20, 2008 Community Development Board Workshop
4. PUBLIC COMMENT.
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 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: Coastal High Hazard Areas (CHHA). Ms. Doerr explained that the legislative
sessions resulted in a change to the definition of Coastal High Hazard Areas. 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
Page 3 of S
Minutes of the May 20, 2008 Community Development Board Workshop
CHHA is not yet known. However, it is anticipated that some 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 the 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
Minutes of the May 20, 2008 Community Development Board Workshop
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 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, 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 airm n
L.. 7 nn l7iPYS d,~l..e ~ /~c fia~ ~~aii2. `s- ~ ~
Attest
Page s of s