City of Cedar Key Planning Board
February 28, 2006
1. Call to Order/Roll Call
Chairperson Greg Lang called the meeting to order at 5:02 PM and called the roll. Present were Board members David Watson, Stanley Bair, Frank Pattillo, and Linda Seifert. II. Adoption of Agenda
MOTION BY STANLEY BAIR TO ADOPT THE AGENDA; SECONDED BY FRANK PATTILLO. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED BY VOICE VOTE. III. Adoption of Minutes from February 15, 2006
MOTION BY LINDA SEIFERT TO DISPENSE WITH THE READING OF AND TO ADOPT THE MINUTES; SECONDED BY DAVID WATSON. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED BY VOICE VOTE. IV. Communications/Announcements
Greg Lang passed out comments on Comprehensive Plan element summaries he had received from Dr. Earl Starnes, who is acting as a volunteer professional planner for the LPA. V. Report of Officers and Committees
A. Moratorium Committee report
Greg Lang said this committee met last week, refined consensus items further, and is close to making a formal recommendation to the City Commission. In answer to a question from Frank Pattillo, he said no committee report was made at the last City Commission meeting.
In answer to a question from Stanley Bair about whether all first floors in the commercial area should be businesses, Lang read the applicable wording and said he has a comment for the next Moratorium Committee meeting that he is unclear what is meant by their wording.
David Watson said the suggested wording sounds like the reverse of what the LPA had intended, which was that people could live on first floors; Stanley Bair said that, for example, if someone wanted to build a house in that area, they didn't have to have a business on the first floor; David Watson said the language was also meant to apply to existing buildings. Greg Lang suggested that all LPA Board members review what the future Land Use Plan says about the mixed-use commercial district issue and bring their concerns to the next meeting.
B. Map Exhibits
Greg Lang reported that three of the maps in revision had been returned by Civic Design; he passed out copies of the latest drafts of the maps. The remaining maps that were sent back to Civic Design are still in the revision process there, and Leigh Kerr & Assoc. are adding information for titles, tables, etc.; Greg will e-mail the maps to LPA Board members as they become available and believes they will be complete by the next meeting.
Greg recommended and Linda Seifert agreed that she would do a preliminary review to compare the three maps in hand with the ones the LPA sent to Civic Design, at least as far as checking the boundaries; Linda said these maps are better but she still sees some problems.
Greg said they are waiting to hear back from Kerr & Associates on the time frame for their work to be done. VI. Requests to address the Board
[None.] VII. Old Business
A. Comprehensive Plan Element & Summaries
1. Review of updated summary drafts : Greg Lang suggested looking first at the summaries on which Dr. Starnes had comments.
• Coastal Management: Dr. Starnes marked a typo
• Conservation: Greg said Dr. Starnes commented that the Water Board has no authority to dictate to the city on this issue. Greg said he thought the LPA's intention was that the Water Board and the City would enter into interlocal agreements as appropriate to help build a closer working relationship. The Board consensus was that no wording change is needed in the summary but it will receive further review. Greg Lang said the objective of this part of the element is just to get the City and Water Board on the same page as it relates to projects where they will be working together.
• Capital Improvement Development: Greg pointed out Dr. Starnes's comment ("should not permit any development without paved streets and sidewalks"); he said he thinks the plan adequately addresses the need for sidewalks and hoped that the elected officials be willing to build sidewalks. Greg said he remembered the Gulf Trail sidewalk project that was killed and said in his opinion it was a shame; Frank Pattillo agreed that the plan is now adequate, as did David Watson, who said he sees no need for requiring sidewalks in Cedar Key. Greg Lang said he agreed with Dr. Starnes's comment regarding a wording change—from "adequate supply of potable water and wastewater" to "adequate supply of potable water and treatment of wastewater"—as did other Board members. Regarding Dr. Starnes's question re the policy on LDRs, Greg Lang suggested this was a general question that all Board members could review. David Watson suggested adding "applicable" to make the statement "Requires all new development to comply with applicable LDR." Frank Pattillo said he would go back and look at the issue.
• Future Land Use Element: Greg referred to Dr. Starnes's note that the wording "or be more restrictive than the adopted City future Land Use Element" "may not be consistent with 163.II F.S." Sydney Bair asked about the wording "must be in compliance" and said the intent is a bit confusing. She thought the entire paragraph could be replaced by: "City zoning, as to permitted uses and densities must be in compliance with the City Future Land Use Map." David Watson said he thought the intent here was to stress that the Board`s intent was that there not be a loosening of the plan. Greg Lang said the committee will receive the revised Future Land Use drafts by email and they should review them individually.
• Transportation Element: Regarding Dr. Starnes's comment re Whiddon Avenue as an area of concern ("It would be well advised to check Average Daily trips now. When it was checked in 2000 [it confirmed that Whiddon Ave. is a very busy road]"), Stanley Bair asked whether the applicable area of Whiddon was clear. Greg Lang said the area of concern covered nearly the whole length of Whiddon. David Watson was concerned that the problem with Whiddon is that a change might include a recommendation to widen the street, which he felt would make it even more dangerous; he felt that for the purpose of the plan the present wording suffices; Frank Pattillo agreed, pointing out that the committee is simply saying it's an area of concern. Greg Lang also agreed and said the City had been encouraged to work with the school Board and Road Department to resolve the issues involved, which hasn't happened yet and is long past due. The consensus was to leave the wording as is. • Summaries
Greg Lang said the Recreation and Open Space Summary is the only comparison where the headings and format don't match the other summaries; David Watson said he likes it as is. Sydney Bair suggested deleting the policy numbers and changing the general format to match the other summaries. Greg Lang pointed out that the main goal of the proposed summaries is to present the information in a clear and easy-to-read format. Sydney Bair said that there was no need to include the policy and objective numbers in the summary, which is confusing and even discouraging for the general reader; the committee agreed, and David Watson said he will make the changes
Greg Lang recommended a cover sheet needs to be added to the Summaries that includes a table of contents; he volunteered to compose a title sheet as well as number the elements as in Comprehensive Plan, that is:
1. Future land use
2. Transportation
3. Housing
4. Infrastructure
5. Conservation
6. Coastal Management
7. Recreation and Open Space
8. Historic Preservation
9. Intergovernmental Coordination
10. Capital Improvement 2. Reports on proofreading elements. Greg Lang said he has begun compiling a list of final proofed elements and had just emailed the future land use draft to the Board. He recommended that he finish cleaning up the areas the committee has met on. David Watson agreed to give the typos in the elements that he was reviewing to Greg; he said there were only a few. B. Discussion of assembly and distribution of Comprehensive Plan elements.
Greg Lang noted that since the committee doesn`t yet have all the maps back, they can't pursue this item. He said they are nearly finished with the text proofing, so all that is needed now is the exhibits and then they can schedule the public hearings.
He suggested that the 10–11-page element summaries should be made available by the next committee meeting and should be made available in Building and Zoning in paper and CD formats. They could also be emailed to the Beacon and the Cedar Key News. He asked Beacon editor Bill McCrea, who was in the audience, if the Beacon could publish the text; Bill McCrea said maybe. Greg Lang said he would email the text to the Beacon and the Cedar Key News.
Stanley Bair asked if a copy could be put in every mailbox. After some discussion, the consensus was that mailing the summaries would not be pursued at this time. Sydney Bair said she'd put a stack in the hotel. Greg Lang stressed that the availability of the summaries needs to be well advertised and said that folks are used to coming to City Hall to obtain City information; he noted they may want to do a mailing later. He said the committee will finalize more of the details regarding distribution in the coming meetings. Concerning the minutes, Greg Lang said the draft meeting minutes should be emailed first to City Clerk Frances Hodges, so they can be made public record as soon as possible, then to himself. C. Update Comprehensive Plan finishing schedule & assign tasks
Moved until the next meeting and pending map exhibits being completed. VIII. New Business
A. Revisit dredge-and-fill language in Coastal Element
Linda Seifert said that she was given the task to discuss these issues with members of the Aquaculture Association, and that the people she spoke with were not happy with the way the item reads and said they needed more information on what the dredge/fill process would be. She said Commissioner Sue Colson said she found the language "disturbing" and formally requested that the LPA table this item until the next meeting while she looks into all the issues around dredging; she could not make this meeting. Greg Lang said he doesn't like the idea of tabling this and encouraged the Board to discuss it. Frank Pattillo reminded the committee that Bob Treat had raised some questions on this issue and that had brought up that David Watson also had had some concerns. Stanley Bair said she hasn't seen the element; Greg Lang said he would get her a paper copy. He read the applicable policies and Frank Pattillo said he thought Bob Treat was concerned about the word "primarily" as it related to the policy that concerns maintenance dredging. Greg Lang had prepared some suggestions for strengthening the policies. After a thorough discussion by the Board the policies were revised as follows:
Revisions to dredge and fill policies Previous Policy
Policy 6.1.15
No dredging or filling shall be permitted within mangrove areas, marsh areas or on seagrass beds in the city. Revised Policy
Policy 6.1.15
No dredging or filling shall be permitted within mangrove areas, marsh areas or on seagrass beds in the city. No dredging or filling shall be permitted in any areas if it results in a loss of shellfish harvesting waters.
Previous Policy
Policy 6.3.3
The city will limit dredge and fill activities in the coastal area primarily to maintenance dredging. Revised Policy
Policy 6.3.3
The city will limit dredge and fill activities primarily to maintenance dredging. Any maintenance dredging must not be harmful to the aquaculture industry and other lawful commercial fishing interests, as determined by the City Commission with input by the Cedar Key Aquaculture Association. In addition, no dredge and fill activities shall degrade the quality of any shellfish harvesting waters. MOTION BY STANLEY BAIR TO AMEND POLICIES 6.1.15 and 6.3.3; SECONDED BY FRANK PATTILLO. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED BY VOICE VOTE. B. Capital Improvements Element: discuss updating projects and funding plan
Greg Lang said the bottom line is that the information in the Capital Improvements element is inaccurate and out of date and noted that CRA director Jackie Gorman has offered her help and is working on a CRA budget/five-year projects plan for the City. He recommended that at least two members of the Board form a committee to meet with Ms. Jackie to update the funding plan and the projects part of the Capital Improvements element—anything to do with the financial side—and bring it back for a full LPA review. Frank Pattillo suggested the committee might take the CRA budget and use it as the capital expenditure budget; Greg Lang said Ms. Jackie had the same hope, and should be finished with her budget in a week or so, but that this still needs to be followed up by the committee. David Watson said he could help, and Greg Lang suggested starting with David Watson, Frank Pattillo, and himself. In answer to a question from Sydney Bair, Frank Pattillo said all LPA committee members will still have all the summaries at the next meeting, because this is an exhibit, not text. David Watson asked if the committee can realistically plug in the CRA plan, and Greg Lang said in a city the size of Cedar Key, the CRA plan is the capital improvement plan. C. Set meeting and possible hearing dates and proposed agendas for March
Frank Pattillo suggested scheduling the next meeting after the Board has received back all the maps and other essential materials are in hand; David Watson asked if Greg Lang could call committee members when this is the case and then set a date. Greg Lang said that for purposes of advertising the meeting, the date needs to be set in advance. The next meeting was set for March 21, 2006, Tuesday, at 9 AM. Greg Lang asked Linda Seifert to confirm this with the City Clerk so it can be advertised. Linda Seifert excused herself from the meeting. Announcement: Greg Lang told the committee that Levy County Building and Zoning had sent the LPA a review of the Marsh Harbor project across No. 4 Bridge. He encouraged everyone to read the review and said he thought he would speak with several commissioners about addressing this and attend the hearing. Greg Lang told Commissioner Pat O'Neal, who was in the audience, that the staff report on the project was excellent and pointed out several errors in the Thompson Group proposal and that staff believes that the proposal is incomplete. He said the Group`s approach differs from the Andrews family approach, in that the Group is looking for density bonuses in the county land development code instead of a comprehensive plan amendment. He said he hopes the City will look at it similarly to the last such proposal and will bring concerns to the County. XI. Adjournment.
MOTION BY DAVID WATSON TO ADJOURN THE MEETING; SECONDED BY STANLEY BAIR. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED BY VOICE VOTE.
Chairman Lang adjourned the meeting at 5:28 PM. Chairperson
City Clerk
Prepared by Bobbe Needham | 