Cedar Key Planning Board
Meeting
November 13, 2003 Present: Chair Kevin Flynn, Members Don Duden, Jay Myers, Greg Lang.
Absent: Member Jolie Davis. Also Dr. Earl Starnes, Dr. Richard Schneider,Gene Boles and Building Official Mickey Wieland. Absent Water Board Rep.Wick Bostick
I. Call to Order Roll Call Chair Kevin Flynn opened the meeting at 6:03p.m. with a roll call.
II. Adoption of the Agenda There were no changes requested.
III. Adoption of the Minutes of October 9, 2003 and the LP/DCA Workshop October 8, 2003 MOTION MADE BY MEMBER JAY MYERS TO ADOPT AND DISPENSE WITH THE READING OF THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 9, 2003. SECONDED BY MEMBER DON DUDEN.
MOTION PASSED. MOTION MADE BY MEMBER GREG LANG TO ADOPT THE MINUTES AND DISPENSE WITH THE READING OF THE MINUTES FROM THE DCA/LAP WORKSHOP OCTOBER 8, 2003. SECONDED BY MEMBER DON DUDEN. MOTION PASSED.
IV. Communications Announcements
Greg Lang - Levy County Planning Board Meeting November 3
The meeting was well attended: Cedar Key residents, Commissioner Sue Colson and others from the Aquaculture Association and Commissioner Cecil Quates. the heard testimony from the developers, citizens and official. They
recommended to deny that the County would go forward with the action of changing the Comprehensive Plan. The developer may still submit a plan for development and can seek other remedies within the existing code. The County Commission must make their own decision and that will be an important meeting.
NOTICE: Florida Senate Natural Resources Committee is holding a hearing Thursday November 20, 6 p.m. at Chiefland H.S. to hear citizen views about water transfer to South Florida.
Chair Flynn introduced the new Building Official, Mickey Wieland. He Mr.Mickey said that he thrived in a learning atmosphere. Chair Flynn said that he was welcome to all LPA meetings and the CRA planning. He will make the minutes available and welcomes his input regarding the Comprehensive Plan, the Land Development Code and other work.
DCA Meeting November 13, 2003 Dr. Starnes and Chair Flynn met with two DCA representatives Michael Conrad and Jana Schmud. The DCA has pledged verbally a $10,000 to help with the visioning process which will include paying consultants and publishing brochures. He expects this will be an incentive to the Commission to choose a consultant soon. This has no LPA Mtg. deadline but they do expect action.
Working Waterfront Communities Conference Dec. 10 & 11 The DCA Reps again emphasized how helpful this could be. Chair Flynn also felt the timing was perfect. He is hopeful that some of the issues Cedar Key has with FEMA
regulations are shared by other waterfront communities. There will be new manager meetings to share progress and issues and graduate program managers meetings. They need to be there by 8 a.m. Both Greg Lang and Jay Myers are
interested in attending. Don Duden will try to be there at least one day also. Chair Flynn has mentioned it to the City Commission and to Mickey Wieland. He would like to see several of them to attend to cover as many sessions as they can.
V. Report of Officers
A. Update from Cedar Key¹s Building Official - Mickey Wieland Chair Flynn said that he wanted this to be a staple agenda item so Mickey can share anything that is important from his point of view including items concerning the consultants.
Mr. Mickey shared that he saw something about the Development Review process in the regulations that Cedar Key can out source a Development Review at the developers expense. He wanted to know if that was ever done. Both Dr. Starnes and Greg Lang said that they did not think it had been used up to now. Member Greg Lang said that it was passed a few year¹s ago to help if a project was large and complex (Storm Water Control for example). Gene Boles was familiar with this process and said they need to publish a
schedule of fees since the developer still pays the city and then the city pays the reviewer. The Code does not establish who does that review.
Mr. Mickey also said that the laws also mentioned a Technical Review Committee. This was disbanded. Gene Boles said that this was a way for the town to receive high tech advice when they needed it without employing these experts on a continual basis. He advised that they keep it in mind.
Dock St. Renovation Chair Flynn said that the City Commission is taking action on some renovations on Dock st. to address safety and traffic/parking concerns. He saw the presentation of what has been suggested and he would like City Attorney Coffey to make that presentation to them at some time. It is based on more general recommendations made by the LPA. He briefly summarized the highlights: narrowing the travel lanes to 9¹ parking to 7¹ and 5¹ sidewalks on each side of the road. They will move the boat
attendant where he/she can direct boat traffic more efficiently. The City is talking with the County and working towards an Interlocal Agreement. They have already overcome the real hurdle - getting agreement from the Dock St.
Merchants. Only one item was contested and was dropped for the moment - a time limit on parking. He commends the City Commission. B. FEMA Flood Protection and Historic Preservation- Dr. Starnes
Dr. Starnes brought several copies of a handbook on retrofitting buildings for them to look over. The DCA has financial support for getting the work done. He is looking into other information. Also Jana Schmud suggested they
check the General Counsel¹s Office of the DCA regarding exemptions for historic buildings. The first step to this is an inventory. Buildings need to already be listed as historical before applying for an exemption. Mr. Mickey said that he understood that the City had already gone this route for exemptions for City buildings and was not successful. C. Results of the RFQ Review
The RFQ committee has already received the 4 work samples requested. they have not met yet to review them. He wants to schedule that at this meeting. This would select the top three to be interviewed by the whole LPA Board. He would like the Board to be able to recommend the top three in January 2004, so that they would have a consultant on board and ready for a visioning process with the community in the spring. The DCA liked this timeline. D. City Commission Meeting - Chair Kevin Flynn
The City Commission had a presentation of two LPA recommendations by City Attorney David Coffey. These resolutions regarding Clustering and Variances were presented in ordinance form Tuesday night. This was a first
presentation, so no action was taken, but they will consider them at their next meeting. This will be in December, since they will set one meeting per month for November and December. He circulated the two ordinance recommendations.
He asked David to look at any other motions they wanted to present to the City Commission. He found only one other which concerns bulkheads and sea walls. Dr. Starnes added that the bulkhead item was a policy not an ordinance and that must go through the Plan process. Chair Flynn clarified
that Attorney Coffey will take it to the City Commission and if they agree it should be changed, they will instruct the LPA to prepare an amendment to the Plan.
VI. Requests to Address the Board None
VII. Old Business A. Results of Matrix Ranking - Dr. Schneider
This is a way to revisit and refine the Matrix. They gave a copy for Mr. Mickey. They will look at suggested changes which he received from them.
In the Land Use Element they reviewed the top three questions. The only addition he received was unanimous decision of the Board to remove the TDR provision when the revision is complete. Most other elements have no additions. In Coastal Management the LPA came to one recommendation concerning conservation lands. When presented to the Commission they chose another. Chair Flynn feels this is an important question for public input . The next area for specific addition was in Intergovernmental Coordination: Should all lands seaward of the Number 4 Bridge be part of the City of Cedar Key? Chair Flynn said that this was a high priority for the LPA as a whole.
In the Capital Improvements Element: Should the CRA support the goals, policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan? This is so obvious should this be a question? Dr. Starnes said that Chapter 163 will require this coordination. Member Lang said he thought of it as a reminder to himself when CRA projects are ranked to look at how they fulfill the Comprehensive Plan. Dr. Schneider will revise it as a question and get back to them.
Historic Preservation had the most additions/changes:
*Add needed inventory and research input for Historic Preservation Hazard Mitigation
Chair Flynn said this may not be a question for the public. After meeting with the DCA this seems like we must do this. Itthen would be in the matrix as an data issue.
* How to stimulate historic downtown development while while meeting the spirit/letter of FEMA? This is a data issue rather than something for the public. Don Duden said it could be asked as whether the public wants to keep
the downtown as a storefront section or as a two story area. Dr. Schneider will reword it as a question.
* Should Cedar Key strengthen the Architectural Review Board? Member Lang has had experience with the Board and feels it can be strengthened. It may have to be asked differently for the public. Chair Flynn wondered if the
Board is active and what role they play. They need to answer this first.
Member Lang said that the Chair is Mr. Mickey, the Building Official.
Ordinance 244 lists what applicants must do to receive a Certificate of Appropriateness. From experience Member Lang¹s opinion is that sometimes the guidelines were followed and sometimes other issues came up to affect their decisions.
Dr. Starnes added that there needs to be a set of standards drawn up and a decision made if this applies to the whole town or just the downtown area.
Member Lang agreed that the goals and boundaries need to be defined. Gene Boles said that when a decision concerns architectural review then they need architectural guidelines. Also the Building Official should not be on the
Board since it becomes a Sunshine Law problem. Chair Flynn said that once the LPA does some research to clean it up before they take it to the public. By then it may it may be an obvious issue once they have authority and expertise to do the job. There are so many complications. There should
be a record of appointments to tthe Board in the City hall office. Dr. Starnes said there are no architectural standards. Member Lang said the language is difficult to understand - one example: is the rhythm of solids to voids compatible with adjacent properties. The National Historic Trust guidelines can help but it is not easy. Member Lang thought that the Architectural Review Board question wasn¹t as essential for the public to consider as the questions of standards in the code and the boundary of the district. Gene Boles rephrasedthe issue as: what ever the town decides to
do with Historic Preservation will dictate the type of Board they create.
They do not need to go into the technicalities of achieving it. Dr. Schneider will rework it and bring it back. Chair Kevin Flynn classified the sorting of the matrix into 4 categories for identification, not change:
Top priority items: what was already listed as the top priority and 12, 13 (How should we preserve CK historic quality), 16 (How to preserve and protect the natural environment ) Combine 29 & 30 (Parking improved, traffic
redesigned) These seem to be what is important for the public to consider as priorities. Also 75 (should protection of marine life etc., be strengthened?) and 90 (Should CK devote more resources to acquire more active and passive recreation areas and open spaces?) The City is already considering acquiring property for public use and Chair Flynn believes that they are looking for some direction from the public on this.
Member Don Duden gave the numbers of his top priorities which are very close to what has already been raised. They are items: 7.13, 16, 18, 19, 25, 36, 57, 69, 71, 90, 108, 111. Several repeat so there are about 12 op issues.
Chair Flynn¹s list continued along the same lines: 7, 13, 16, 19, 27, 29 & 30, 35 & 95, 75, 90, 108. Dr. Schneider will revise and return with them. B. Progress Report of Phase I - Gene Boles/Erika Hall
Gene Boles showed a GIS presentation and showed how layers of data could be turned into a visual picture of Cedar Key. He and Dr. Schneider have gone through the Matrix linking data needs to the matrix and they have a sheet documenting that. They transferred the current plan¹s Future Land Use map and combined it with up tp date information from the Levy County Property Appraiser along with aerial photography taken last April. He showed the latest picture of all parcels . He made a Œdry land map¹ combining the information they see on the poster and the aerial photo. IThe boundary is not a survey line, but probably represents the mean high water line. Outside of annexation over the last few months the tax Office info is the most up to date record.
He made a printed map based on Future Land Use, not an official one. It could be useful for the Building Official. They must take all the records to digital form to make a more correct version. He showed demographic information from the 2000 census on the town map with
one dot for every person and compare it to the county density of population. That can be looked at in many ways: density, gender, # of households to cite a few.
They are looking at existing land use survey and coding commercial and residential uses. The tax appraiser does the same thing and used it to cross check records. They have come to town twice to do this work. You can choose a parcel and a spreadsheet of information comes up, such as name, address, type of activity etc. All of this info can be transferred to the map. Property values and sales information is also recorded and can be shown. They can highlight vacant lands both unincorporated and City property which gets to the question of what trends the present Plan supports. For instance there are 387 or so parcels based on density limits. If that was completely developed how would that affect traffic, schools, services, etc. What other choices are there? What if you change densities or other factors. Other layers that can be shown: sidewalks, including their condition environmental factors such as soils, the aquifer recharge, land contours, depth of the water table. They do not have information on marine life yet and are researching that. In Coastal Management the evacuation routes, and
flood zones. In the Housing Element conditions such as dilapidated buildings can be shown, what is affordable, whether the owner resides at that property(shown by Homestead Exemption in the tax record) or is absentee, the
house value, and the historic age (although it does not specifically note those designated as historic). Mobile homes can be noted also. Dr. Schneider added that it can do quick statistical calculations also such as square footage. They may look at questions such as whether historic
district may be enlarged, based on the concentration of homes 50+ years old, especially to the west of downtown. The downtown area can be looked at more closely. In seeing the center it is evident what open land is still left even though it belongs to lots already developed. They can add the building diagram and photos of the building. This will be important to determine community character and CRA
plans. He mentioned later in the meeting that they discovered many spots listed as public rights of way which have non public activities and structures on them that may need some study. They will package this as a community profile but it can be pulled out to serve a number of purposes. Chair Flynn asked about creating an index as a reminder of other ways to relate the data. Gene Boles replied that it could be done but the product depends more on the skill of the person doing the analysis. The data itself can be retrieved and combined very quickly.
It needs to be kept up to date. This is being updated from 10 years ago, but with this system it can be updated continuously.
They will have all the public domain information gathered shortly. Then they will need to generate data for their own purposes, such as which houses are already listed as officially historic. That won¹t be found in the public domain. He cautioned when working with consultants not to use proprietary information. It needs to fit into the public domain system. If they can frame the question, very likely they can find information to help answer it. They do not have Water and Sewer information. Lia King met with
Gene Boles to ask if they could do a map of actual water and sewer lines. That would be a separate piece of work. Member Greg Lang said that the City just appropriated money to upgrade their computers, hopefully to run this GIS system. He asked Mr. Mickey if he had done that . He had not. How difficult would it be to develop that skill in
Cedar Key? He also thought that a new field could be created noting the value added to a property when it is developed, as a way of seeing investment trends. Gene said there are ways to do this but it depends on the
accuracy of the value determination. Tax assessments are below market value for instance. You could see the difference in the tax roles. It¹s not always consistent.
How easy it is to learn? There are two levels; the technician who creates the maps and the user. It is better if someone uses it frequently. Otherwise the ways it can be used are forgotten. It is harder than word processing. tTe software is also updated often so without using it
frequently it gets harder to learn the updates. Chair Flynn asked if they had some specific needs related to the visioning process by January could they help with that ? He thought so and also was willing to meet to sit around the new computer and show some things that can be done on Mr. Mickey¹s computer.The Gis data they are organizing is
directly transferrable to the Cedar Key system. It is a matter of the learning curve of the person using it. Chair Flynn had samples of brochures from the DCA from other FL town visionings. There are about 5 issues to take to the community. These samples can get them started on how to group the items for the community.
VIII. New Business
A. Establish Interview Dates.
Chair Flynn would like the committee to meet next week
- Jolie cannot make 11/19
- the Senate Water Mtg is 11/20
- Dr. Earl needs to check his calendar
They will meet at 9 a.m. one morning and Dr. Earl will bring work samples.
Gene Boles who has been through this process advised that who ever starts the process must stay with it to the end. For the interviews they should all be the same length (an hour was suggested) and use the same set of questions. Dr. Starnes said there should be no discussion among members out
side the meeting and Don Duden thought all the interviews should take place on the same day. These standards Chair Flynn would like to set at the December meeting. B. Establish next Meeting Date and Agenda
The next meeting will be Thursday, December 11, 6 p.m.
Items for that:
- Don Duden will finish his term in December. He will write a letter to notify the City Clerk so that the Commission and Dr. Starnes can look for his replacement.
- They need to rotate the Chair responsibility and the Secretary. They need to be thinking of how they would like to do this for January.
- Time for Mr. Mickey to address the Board
- Sharing of information from the Waterfront communities Conference
- Committee update on the RFQ committee review of work samples
- Dr. Starnes will report if he has information from FEMA
- Dr. Schneider will return with new questions on the matrix
- Gene Boles may report if needed in December on Phase I, but will be set for a January presentation otherwise
IX. Public Comment None
X. Adjournment MOTION MADE BY MEMBER JAY MYERS TO ADJOURN THE MEETING.SECONDED BY MEMBER DON DUDEN. MOTION PASSED. The meeting was adjourned at8:25 p.m. | 