CRA: Dr. Joyce Gossom, Chairman; Bill Garvie, Dean Covey, Chuck Kennedy, Vice-Chairman; and Millie Thrush

Transcription

1 MINUTES OF THE JOINT WORKSHOP OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND THE MUNICIPAL PLANNING BOARD JANUARY 24, 2007 INTRODUCTION A Joint Meeting of the Fort Walton Beach Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA), and the Municipal Planning Board (MPB) was held on Wednesday, January 24, 2007, at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Fort Walton Beach City Hall with the following members present: CRA: Dr. Joyce Gossom, Chairman; Bill Garvie, Dean Covey, Chuck Kennedy, Vice-Chairman; and Millie Thrush Absent: Lee Bobo (excused); Paul Kieszek (unexcused) MPB: Richard Gercak, Chairman; Judith Flasco, Vice-Chairman; Charles Scott; Bill Wayne; and Janet Wilson Absent: Glenda Glover, Lee McDonald Also Present: Missy McKim, CDS Director; Len Mitchell, Long-Range Planning Manager; Toni Craig, City Attorney; Peggy Fowler CALL TO ORDER The Chairman called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. CRA PLAN UPDATE 2007 The Chairman advised the purpose of the meeting was to review public comments obtained from the January 17, 2007 charette, and incorporate them into the draft CRA Plan. She continued that after public input is reviewed, members of the MPB will have the opportunity to make comments; finally, the CRA Board will give their input. Once that is done, the CRA Board will review and agree upon a timeline for the approval of the plan, to be followed by the annual report by the CDS Director. The Chairman stated she would like to review each comment on an individual basis and decide whether it should be included in the Plan, and provide guidelines to Staff as to how to include the comments in the plan. She advised she would first like to discuss the comments that have been provided from the charette, to be followed by s that have been received, and finally, letters that were received from First City Bank and the owners of Perry Plaza. Topics discussed included the CRA Vision, Community Development Process, Land Use, Community Design, Housing, Transportation, Community Policing, Economic Development, Neighborhood Impact, and the Implementation Plan. Under the CRA Vision topic, the Board discussed public comments which included high insurance costs and density. Consensus of the Board was that no changes needed to be made or additions added to the plan in regards to the CRA Vision. Under the Community Development Process topic, public comments included the need for two parking spaces per unit and the definition of right of way. Board discussion included that parking management is discussed in the Plan and addressed in the Land Development Code and therefore would not need to be included in the Plan.

2 Bob Rettie, 317 Sudduth Circle and CRA appointee, questioned whether the Plan calls for two parking spaces, or 1 ½ as stated in the Code. Missy McKim, CDS Director, advised the CRA Plan does not specify the number of parking spaces, that those regulations are in the Land Development Code and this Plan is not recommending changes to that. She stated a parking study is underway which has not yet come before the CRA Board. Mr. Rettie stated his thoughts that the Board should consider the comment made and plan for two parking spaces per unit. The City Attorney reminded everyone to keep in mind that the CRA Plan is a general guideline to work with the Comprehensive Plan, and the specifics of how the CRA Plan is implemented is different than the comments being made. She advised if there is specific language in the Parking Section the Board feels should be changed, it needs to be addressed at this time; otherwise, the specifics of the LDC need to be addressed after the Plan. The CDS Director clarified that parking is not by zoning district; however, there is a parking district that encompasses a portion of the MUMS District but not the entire area. Also there are special regulations for that parking district, but it is not part of the CRA Plan. Kabe Woods, 240 Brooks Street and Vision Plan Stewardship Committee appointee, feels that two parking spaces are enough, and suggested more parking spaces to coincide with the vision of the City. Angela Snowball, 349 Brooks Street, stated her feeling that two spaces per unit are necessary because if there are not enough places for residents and their visitors to park, they will have to use City parking lots, taking away parking from downtown merchants and their customers. Under the Land Use topic, public comments included maximum heights with bonus points, a concern over increased density; keep business and residential areas separate; and lower heights. The Board discussed the height issue and received clarification that the Plan is in compliance with the ordinances of the City regarding height limits, and that the Plan references height in stories or the number of floors, and the LDC measures height in feet. Further discussion included that the comments to keep business and residential areas separate cannot be considered in the Plan as mixed-use areas already exists, and the overall vision of the City is for the development of the mixed-use area. David devaux, 348 Marie Circle, stated the comments from the public are their thoughts as to what the vision of the city should include, and he would like the Plan to be more specific. The CDS Director advised that the parking section is included as part of the height, and explained if a building is six stories, the parking area is considered one of the floors and incorporated into the height. She emphasized the LDC encompasses the whole city, including the CRA area, although there are more stringent parameters for a developer to work on in the CRA area.

3 Under the Community Design topic, public comments included area for churches and homeless shelters; the need for gateways; parking in the rear of stores; consider what the majority of the public desires; and the need for a traffic count on Brooks Street. Discussion ensued as to the definition of a majority in reference to public comments, and how a majority is arrived at. It was explained that through public input from various public hearings held, as well as the charette, comments and suggestions were compiled and forwarded to the Board this evening. It was also noted that gateways and rear parking have been incorporated into the draft plan; therefore, this comment does not need to be addressed Under the Housing topic, public comments included maximum density with bonus points; a definition of affordable housing; and the addition of more Habitat for Humanity projects. Board discussion included that a better definition of affordable housing needs to be included in the Plan, and illustrations be provided as to what an attainable housing project may look like. It was mentioned that the City is very involved with the Habitat for Humanity program, and that several homes have been constructed. Consensus of the Board was that this section be changed to include referring to affordable and attainable workforce housing as attainable housing; include examples of income and what that translates into in terms of rent and purchase power; and the addition of pictures as to what is envisioned as attainable housing projects. Under the Transportation topic, public comments included streetscape and intersection improvement ideas. Board discussion included the need for wider bicycle paths. Lyndon Clifton, owner of Perry Plaza, discussed his objections to the proposed traffic pattern changes on Perry Avenue in front of his business. The Chairman advised this will be discussed after the public comments from the charette are considered. Kabe Woods, 240 Brooks Street, voiced his feeling that the traffic needs to be slowed down and that what he reads in the Plan sounds good, and that he favored one-way streets. Doug Reed, 842 Santa Rosa Court and CRA appointee, stated his thoughts that the proposed traffic pattern changes on Perry Avenue is not a good idea, mainly because of the major state arterial highway running through it. The Chairman reminded everyone that that issue will be discussed later; the only comments being considered at this time are the public comments from the charette. Under the Community Policing topic, public comments included the need for improvement in this area. There were no Board or other comments regarding this topic. Under the Economic Development topics, public comment included the need to improve. The Chairman advised she wasn t sure exactly what the individual meant by this comment, and there were no Board or other comments regarding this topic. Under the Neighborhood Impact topic, public comment included the need to improve. There were no Board or other comments regarding this topic.

4 Under the Implementation Plan topic, public comments included an explanation of how much and where funds will be allocated; that rezoning an area should be brought to the people for a vote; and that underground utilities is a good idea. Mr. Rettie questioned whether the comments regarding the allocation of funds will be implemented and the Chairman advised that it would. The CDS Director advised that the implementation plan is being worked on to include estimating costs of the projects identified and estimating the amount of funds in the future. She advised this information will be provided to the Board next month. Board discussion included the comment regarding rezoning being brought for a vote, and that the CRA has provided many opportunities for the public to attend meetings and get involved. General comments included establishing a timeline so the public can see visible results of what the CRA is accomplishing; clean up Shell Avenue; having an overlay district address a design plan separate from the rest of the CRA plan; one-way traffic design in lieu of an additional bridge; the feeling the plan is being rushed through without enough public participation; the importance of the waterfront and the boardwalk; and placing copies of the draft plan in the library, City offices, and on the City s website in advance of public meetings. Board discussion included adding an explanation of an overlay district for anyone reading the plan; that the public input process may have been rushed through; and that a new law regarding anchoring is being passed and that waterfront anchorages needs to be designated. Mr. Rettie received clarification that action will be taken regarding the public input process. Joyce Shanahan, City Manager, thanked the CRA Board for their efforts the past months on this project. She advised that from a Staff prospective, they stand ready to amend the timeline in any fashion that the CRA Board directs to get as much public input as possible; that there is no agenda from a Staff prospective to move this along, and she encouraged the Board to allow as much and as long as necessary to get citizen input and questions answered. The Chairman stated that the public input at the charette was overwhelming, and she felt at that time that all of the public comments made and modifications that needed to be added would not be able to be accomplished by the February 7 CRA meeting. The Chairman wanted to alleviate any concerns that the Board will rush through the process and feels that more time is needed. Mr. Reed advised this is a wise move since three new members are joining the Board. He also stated the fact that until a document is put before the public, not much attention is paid to it, and now that the public is aware of it, more public input will be provided. Discussion included that once tonight s comments are incorporated into a finalized draft plan, it will be placed on the City s website, and copies will be placed at various City locations. Discussion included that the public needs to be notified that the draft is available and the locations where they can find it. Other suggestions included creating a blog where the public can provide input and to advertise it in the newspaper as well, and that the draft plan be placed on a power-point so during workshops the public will understand what is being discussed.

5 The CDS Director advised the power-point presented at the charette is on the City s web site. The Chairman turned attention to the s that were received, the first from Bob Rettie, which included several comments regarding the CRA Plan Update. The City Attorney advised this may not be the time to address these comments. The Chairman advised the next two items were a letter from the officers of First City Bank, and an from the owners of Perry Plaza, and provided an opportunity for them to make a statement regarding their concerns. Bob Bennet, President of First City Bank at 135 Perry Avenue, voiced his concern and objection to the proposed plans for the updated CRA Plan that Perry Avenue be designated as northbound only from First Street to US Highway 98. He advised a similar change was made in the 1980 s which proved disastrous to small businesses on Perry Avenue, which helped to create the blight which the CRA is presently addressing. He encouraged the CRA not to change the traffic pattern so as to not ruin the positive direction the area is taking. Lyndon Clifton, one of the owners of Perry Plaza, also voiced his concern and stated the importance of getting from one point easily and that traffic will be backed up on Highway 98 if the proposed traffic pattern is approved. Heidi Morris, Publix Corporate Office, wanted to make their opposition to the proposed traffic change known. The Chairman stated that after receipt of the letter from First City Bank, she went back and reviewed the draft plan and considered the fact that although traffic could be improved, one-way traffic could have an adverse effect on the businesses in the area, and that the traffic problem is city-wide, not just in the CRA area. She advised that she discussed the issue with Staff and asked if the traffic issue could be looked at for the whole City, most specifically the CRA area. Staff agreed and the Chairman advised she did some editing to the section of the Plan involving Improving Traffic Flow, and distributed the information to the Board as a course of dialogue to discuss actions and recommendations. The CDS Director explained that consultants were brought in to study the traffic issue, and that the proposed change is considered to be a short-term, low-cost solution that would delay the need for a second bridge. She advised that Council endorsed the recommendation, and at this point, it is still just a recommendation. She emphasized the changes are not on any MPO or TPO priority lists and there is no funding being considered. The City Attorney cautioned the Board to be careful as to omit any suggestions that Staff has taken or in any position taken by Council on the issue of traffic. She explained that any omissions or changes would leave the City with no recommendations, so the Board needs to be cautious as to how it is drafted in the CRA Plan. The CDS Director reiterated that the traffic change was a recommendation that appeared to work from a modeling standpoint, and that no design work has been done. She advised that Perry Avenue would continue to be a two-way street north of First Street, with only one-way traffic from US 98 to First Street on Perry.

6 The City Manager wanted to ensure everyone understood the context in which the traffic issue was developed and approved. She explained Council was tasked to look at an alternative to a replacement Brooks Bridge, and several public meetings were held in this regard. She advised the TPO, not the City, came up with alternatives to the bridge, and that is the context in which it was recommended and considered by Council. She emphasized Council voted to move the recommendations forward to the RUA only as a replacement bridge, and was not looking at it in context to downtown business flow. The City Manager advised she concurs with the rewrite of the idea as a more generalized approach to looking at transportation management in the CRA and how it fits into the overall context of the City. Mr. Clifton and Mr. Reed felt the economic impact needs to be considered. Ms. Snowball stated her thought that traffic on Brooks Bridge would be completely backed up if this was ever developed. Tonya Price, business owner on Perry Avenue, advised one-way traffic would adversely affect her business and encouraged the Board not to consider the one-way traffic idea. There were no additional comments from the MPB or the CRA Boards. The Chairman asked for discussion on how to move forward from this point, adding the comments that Staff needs to incorporate and how to notify the public. It was decided that Staff will have the next draft of the CRA Plan on the City s web site by January 31, 2007, with copies to be included at public buildings, such as the library and City Hall. Also a notice (flyer) will be sent to all residents and businesses within the City by January 31, 2007 stating the document is on the web and available at City locations. The CDS Director informed she would also include a comment sheet on the web site and at the City locations that can be ed, mailed, or faxed for citizens to send in their comments. UPDATE OF ANNUAL REPORT ON 2006 CRA ACTIVITIES The CDS Director displayed a collage that was presented at the City Council meeting that displayed projects that were approved or are on-going in the CRA area during She advised she would like to have an on-going collage for 2007 so there are visuals as to what is being accomplished in the area. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. lve