Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
97-R-20
.... ..."." 41/"-~ <'/ ';~~j ~.~/- A RESOLUTION NO. 97-R-20 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDGEWATER, FLORIDA, ADOPTING THE EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT OF THE CITY OF EDGEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; REPEALING ALL RESOLUTIONS IN CONFLICT HEREWITH AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Edgewater, Florida, has made the following determinations: 1. Pursuant to Section 163.3191, Florida Statutes, the Local Planning Agency is responsible for the preparation of an Evaluation and Appraisal Report of the City of Edgewater Comprehensive Plan (EAR)at least once every five years. The EAR shall be submitted to the City Council, who upon adoption or upon adoption with changes shall submit the EAR to the Department of Community Affairs. 2. The Department of Community Development prepared the EAR in accordance with the requirements of Section 163.3191, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-5.0053 of the Florida Administrative Code. The Local Planning Agency reviewed drafts of the EAR on February 26, 1997, April 23, 1997 and May 28, 1997. 3. On June 25, 1997, the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing to consider transmittal of the EAR to the City Council after publishing notice of such hearing in The News-Journal on June 21, 1997. That notice is attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Exhibit A. After conducting that public hearing the Local Planning Agency voted 6-0 to transmit the EAR to the City Council. 4. On August 18, 1997, the City Council held a public hearing to consider adoption of the EAR after publishing notice of such hearing in The News-Journal on August 11, 1997. That notice is attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Exhibit B. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edgewater, Florida: Section 1. The Evaluation and Appraisal Report of the City of Edgewater Comprehensive Plan which is incorporated by reference is hereby adopted. 97-R-20 1 Section 2. The Director of Community Development is hereby directed to transmit the EAR to the Department of Community Affairs. Section 3. All resolutions or parts of resolutions in conflict herewith be and the same are hereby repealed. Section 4. This resolution shall take effect upon adoption. After motion by Councilman Mitchum and Second by Councilman Hays, the vote on this resolution is as follows: Mayor Jack Hayman, Sr. ABSENT Councilman Danny Hatfield AYE Vice Mayor Louise A. Martin AYE Councilman Mike Hays AYE Councilman David L. Mitchum AYE PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED this 18th day of August, 1997. 97-R-20 2 CITY COUNCIL OF THE CIVDGEWATER�FLORIDA gy: �'7/\6�'�LCIIiLt,� Louise A. Martin Vice Mayor APPROVED FOR FORM AND CORRECTNESS: Rrista A. Storey City Attorney EXHIBIT A I it ~ I; Iii 'J' ,I: ;1; ,,' i ,~ I': Ii 'I ;1 'I II i'l J :1. II II 11, jll. 11 ii, .l~ : i I I. I j! n III II II i ! I!: , ' , I j. I . I j' I I I ji I j I ....,. ...... 1 i I LEGAL ADVERTISEMENT CITY OF EDGEWATER NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN I i ;/ Notice is hereby given that the Local Planning', Agency of the City of Edgewater, Florida, will hold a public hearing on Wednesda~ June 25, 1997, at 6:30 p,m, or as soon hereafter as the matter may be heard in the Community Center, 102 N. Riverside Drive, Edgewater, to consider transmittal of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report of the City of Edgewater Comprehensive Plan to the City Council. All interested persons are invited to attend. A copy of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report may be obtained from the Department of Community Development, 139 East Park Avenue, Edgewater. A copy of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report will also be available for review at the Edgewater Pu1;>lic Librar:y, 103 West Indian River Boulevard, Edgewater. If any person decides to appeal any decision made by the Local Planning Agency with respect to any matter considered at such hearing, a record of the proceedings may be needed, and in that event, such person may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons needing- assistance. to participate in this hearing should contact the City Clerk at (904) 424-2407. Submitted b:y, Mark :P. Karet, Director of Community Development I I, i r ~ , I j, ; ugall28847, June 21, 1997, II, ) '- ...,...u....a."'"""J,~w..,~"'......,....<J.." ~.4.4~.,..."v...._...............-.. __ EXHIBIT B LEGAL ADVERTISEMENT . " .17:: "'i:.:.,:'<CITY OF EDGEWATER~~".,'.:,.:,:t ; ~OTIQEOF:PuBLIC' HEi\IuNG ~.;~~ ~ . REGARDING EVALUATION Affl) '~.: . "..,. .'..... '" ",' ..'~. .... ..;~.'..;.,..,.. J...!'..~:'>.;'~1~ " ., ,1\Pr:RMS~ 'RE.P().RT."Of/:'\:"i:::~ .... COMPREHENSIVE'PLAN)" ..r. . '. ;.,. ; .'.: 'i' .,.... '. . .... :' ", "'.' '\ . Notice is hereby given that the City 90"4ndi'" of the City of Edge~ater,Florida,willhold a; . ~ ". . . ,: ... -.. .;.:. '.. _ ,'_. ," 1" \ t. pub~ic hearmg on Monday, August 18, 1997, at: 7;OOp.m.'or as 'soon thereafter as the matter .. may be heard in the Community Center, 104 N. Riverside Drive, Edgewater, to considet:,:, adoption of, the Evaluation and, Appraisat~. : Report . of . the City of, Edgewater:" ; . r. . Comprehensive Plan. AIl interested persons 'are:., invited to attend and/or submit wtitten;l;- .- . co'mments. A copy of the Evaluation and'" Appraisal Report may be obtained from the::' I Department of Community Development, 139.~ ' East Park Avenue, Edgewater. A copy of th~' Evaluation and Appraisal Report will also be: available for review at the Edgewater Public'~: Library, 103 West Indian River Boulevard;': Edgewater. If any person decides to appeal any~ decision made by the City Council with respect to any matter considered at such hearing, a', record of the proceedings may be needed, and~:' in that event, such person may need to ensure',' that a verbatim record of the proceedings is~' made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. In,' accordance with the Americans with, Disabilities Act, persons needing assistance to" participate in this hearing should contact th~' City Clerk at (904) 424-2407. Submitted by, Krista A. Storey City Attorney Legal L29425. August 11, 1997, It. I w~~~v::~~~ws THE NEWS.JOURNAL. ......., COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT 1997 CITY OF EDGEWATER, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT Table of Contents ITEM ELEMENT Introduction..................................................... INTRO -Pg.I Future Land Use .................................................. FLU - Pg. 1 - 36 Traffic Circulation ................................................ TCE - Pg. 1- 17 Housing........................................................ HOS- Pg. I-25 Infrastructure..................................................... INF - Pg. 1 - 36 Coastal Management .............................................. CME - Pg. I - 42 Conservation.................................................... CNS - Pg. 1 - 16 Recreation and Open Space ......................................... REC - Pg. 1 - 18 Intergovernmental Coordination ...................................... ICE - Pg. 1 - 15 Capital Improvements .............................................. CIE - Pg. 1 - 26 a:kontents.W Introduction An assessment of results is an important component of any planning process. If a plan is going to be useful, it must be kept current. This is the purpose of the evaluation and appraisal report (EAR). This EAR is an assessment of the 1990 Edgewater Comprehensive Plan. It reviews the successes and failures of that document. It is an opportunity to identify needed changes based on new information and altered conditions. It is the first step in the process of revising and improving the comprehensive plan. Section 163.3191 of the Florida Statutes requires local governments to prepare an evaluation and appraisal report for submission to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA). DCA reviews EAR's to determine the reports compliance with the requirements of Chapter 163, Part II of the Florida Statutes and Rule 9J-5.0053 of the Florida Administrative Code. DCA's examination is called a sufficiency review. The City cannot amend its comprehensive plan until DCA has found the EAR is sufficient. Once DCA has made that determination, the City will have one year to make any amendments to the comprehensive plan identified in the report. Public Participation Citizen input is a meaningful part of any public planning process. The City of Edgewater has taken steps, consistent with the requirements of Section 9J-5.004, FAC, to ensure that the public has had opportunities to participate in the preparation of this document. The Edgewater Land Development and Regulatory Agency (LDRA) is the City's designated local planning agency. The LDRA is a seven member board of citizens each appointed by the City Council. In its capacity as the local planning agency, the LDRA has been responsible for the formal review of the various drafts prepared by staff. This review has occurred over several months at regular and special meetings. The public has been invited to comment at each of these meetings held on February 26, 1997; April 23, 1997 and May 28,1997. The local press wrote advance stories on these meetings. The LDRA held a formal hearing to fully consider public comments on transmittal of the EAR to the City Council on June 25, 1997. Prior to this hearing, an advertisement was placed by the City in a local newspaper to inform all citizens and property owners of the proposed action on the EAR. The City Council held a hearing to receive and consider public input on transmittal of the EAR to DCA on . This hearing was also advertised in a local newspaper. Copies of the EAR have been made available for public review in the Department of Community Development and the Edgewater Public Library. The public has been encouraged not only to appear at the advertised hearings and meetings, but also to submit any comments they might have in writing to the Department of Community Development. INTRO. Pg. I CONDITION OF THE PLAN AT THE TIME OF ADOPTION Existing Land Use Data A. Existing Land Use Map Figure LU-1 shows the general location of the land uses that were in existence at the time the comprehensive plan was adopted. B. Natural Resources Map The City's Future Land Use Element included a map titled vegetative cover that was used as the natural resource map. It is included in this document as figure LU-2. C. Table of Existing Land Uses Table LU-1 shows the amount of acreage in each existing land use category at the time the comprehensive plan was adopted and the percentage of the total that each category represents. D. Adjacent Land Uses The City's Future Land Use Element does not contain information on the adjacent land uses that existed at the time the comprehensive plan was adopted. Adjacent jurisdictions include Volusia County and the City of New Smyrna Beach. The City does have a number of unincorporated enclaves. There are no areas of critical state concern adjacent to the City. Land Use Analysis A. Availability of Facilities and Services to Serve Existing Land Uses Potable Water At the time of the adoption of the comprehensive plan all commercial and residential uses within the City were served by central water service. The element briefly mentioned planned projects to increase the capacity of the water production and distribution facilities in order to accommodate growth. Wastewater At the time of the adoption of the comprehensive plan a large portion of the City was not served by sanitary sewer. Septic tanks provided wastewater treatment in soils that were often unsuitable FLU - Pg. 1 due to the high water table. The element identified expansions to the wastewater collection system that were necessary to serve existing development. Drainage At the time of the adoption of the comprehensive plan the City did experience localized flooding in some areas. The element indicated that improvements were necessary to support existing and future development. The element also stated that plans were underway to develop a stormwater master plan and create a utility to fund improvements. Solid Waste At the time of the adoption of the comprehensive plan all solid waste was taken from a City operated transfer station to Volusia County's Tomoka Farm Landfill. The Landfill had sufficient capacity for the entire planning period. Traffic Circulation At the time of adoption of the comprehensive plan adequate roadway capacity was available to support all land uses within the City. The element stated that some roadway improvements were necessary to support future growth. Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge At the time of adoption of the comprehensive plan no recharge areas were identified within the City. B. Vacant Land Analysis The City had 2,400± acres of vacant land at the time the comprehensive plan was adopted by the City. This represented more than half the available land or 55 % of the total acreage. The Future Land Use Element noted that much of the vacant land was not suitable for the use of septic tanks and was not served by a central wastewater collection system. No topographic or other limitations were identified on vacant lands within the City. C. Amount of Land Needed to Accommodate Projected Populations The comprehensive plan estimated that approximately 15,900 new residents would be added to the City by the year 2000. In order to accommodate this growth it was determined that 1,380± acres of residential land, 180± acres of commercial land, 96± acres of industrial land and 88± acres of recreational land would be needed. FLU - Pg. 2 D. Need for Redevelopment The comprehensive plan did not note specific residential or commercial areas in need of redevelopment. E. Development in Flood Prone Areas The comprehensive plan identified areas adjacent to the Indian River and the northwestern part of the City that lie within the 100-year flood zone. The plan indicated that new development in that area will meet the standards established by the National Flood Insurance Program. FLU - Pg. 3 FLU - Pg. 4 FLU - Pg. 5 ro C XII Land Use Category Acres Percent of Total Residential 1,209 27.9 Commercial 318 7.3 Industrial 170 3.9 Recreation 64 1.5 Agriculture 0 0.0 Coneervation 0 0.0 Educational, Public Buildings, lands and Facilities 142 3.3 Institutional 33 0.8 Historic Resources 0 0.0 Water/Lades 24 0.6 Vacant/Undewloped 2,370 54.7 TOTAL 4,330 100 a:Vu1-2table FLU - Pg. 6 AMENDMENTS MADE TO THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT SINCE ADOPTION The City of Edgewater originally adopted its Comprehensive Plan on May 21, 1990. Since that time, the City has processed 12 Future Land Use Amendments of which 9 were approved, 2 were denied and 1 was withdrawn. Of the nine amendments approved, the average size of each land use change was 1.41 acres. The total amount of land involved was 12.70 acres or approximately .18% of the total area of the City today. The number of amendments varied slightly from two in 1993 to four in 1995. Of the total 12.70 acres, 11%were transferred from residential categories to industrial and 78% from residential to commercial. These amendments involved changes to the Future Land Use Map only, requiring no other comprehensive plan text amendments. They are listed as follows, and shown on Figure LU-lA through LU- 1G. Ordinance # Date Changes Made From - To Acres 93-0-3 4-5-93 High Density Residential - Indusnial (to correct split .16 zoning on two contiguous lots under single ownership) 93-0-6 4-5-93 Industrial - Commercial (to allow an adult day care center) 1.03 94-0-9 4-4-94 Low Density Residential - Commercial (to allow a mixed 3.02 use development) 94-0-12 6-6-94 Medium Density Residential - Commercial (to permit a .85 private recreational facility in an existing residential subdivision) 94-0-15 6-6-94 County Urban Low Intensity - Commercial (to correct a 6.00 zoning map error and to allow a mixed use development) 95-0-1 4-17-95 Low Density Residential - Medium Density Residential (to .42 meet the requirements for an Adult Congregate Living Facility) 95-0-16 2-5-96 Low Density Residential - Industrial (to allow expansion .59 of an existing industrial plant) 95-0-I8 2-5-96 Low Density Residential - Indusnial (to allow expansion .31 of an existing industrial plant) 95-0-20 2-5-96 Low Density Residential - Industrial (additional parking .32 area for existing industrial plant expansion Total 12.70 FLU -Pg. 7 FUTURE LAND USE MAP C CITYOFEDGEWATER LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL RURAL RESIDENTIAL ® COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL S' PLANNED INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT 1 PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC ;K RECREATIONAL ® CONSERVATION FLU -Pg. 8 0 FIGURE LU-lA Future Land Use Map FLU - Pg. 9 .Ii��lY�!C, 4\<.\Z�• 'Yl..l f�� i � �fj.�1:��1�^�ti�1�1�1�w7•'��w 0 CA Ll O ♦ ♦ • FIGURE LU-1B Future Land Use Map FLU - Pg. 10 KO / 117 RAN 0 1 - r..••••.•.• .•.�•. •� I• •.• .1...• ......•. --A hA \•l.•. •. fir%• .... IL14• • l- FIGURE LU-IC Future Land Use Map FLU 4 0.1% 1 1 4 000.0 1 � a. O- O 0 OOO O 1 O O O 0,000 000000 O( VWA FIGURE LU-1E Future Land Use Map FLU Pg. 13 e V wi m 00 0 O FIGURE LU-IF Future Land Use Map FLU - Pg. �14 0 1♦ • � 1 J°00 •! opp •\ DO00 • 000 000 +` 30000C ( "00(0 •� '7T0 �O n-O. ♦y 0 ♦� ♦♦� ♦♦� {ot ♦ {{ ♦♦♦ {♦{` ♦♦ ♦: ♦♦: ♦♦ o0 00 L Vo0 ♦♦ ♦♦♦: ♦ #00 00� ♦♦ ♦{{ {{ -{ 00 i ♦ o O \♦0 o0o ♦0 ♦♦o 0000000000� ♦♦:: ♦1000000 {00 ♦♦ .0QOO 000000 O ♦♦{ ♦{: {{ ♦♦ 000 00 •♦: ••: 00 ♦♦ °000°n O ' ♦♦: ♦♦: { ♦♦ 0 O FIGURE LU-1G Future Land Use Map FLU - Pg. 15 CONDITION OF THE PLAN AT THE TIME OF EAR Introduction: This Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) was prepared to be consistent with the requirements of Chapter 163, Part B, Florida Statutes and Rule 9J-5.003 Florida Administrative Code. The City has provided baseline data and analysis including an updated Existing Land Use Map, Natural Resource Map and a general summary of the changes that have occurred since the adoption of the 1990 Comprehensive Plan. Existing Land Use Data A. Existing Land Use Map Figure LU-3 shows the general location of the land uses in existence at the time of preparation of this report. The Existing Land Use Map has changed since the adoption of the comprehensive plan due to infill development and annexation. B. Natural Resources Map Figure LU-4 shows the general location of natural resources within the City. C. Table of Existing Land Uses Table LU-2 shows the amount of acreage and percentage of each existing land use category and identifies the changes in acreage that have occurred since the adoption of the comprehensive plan. The major changes are the result of annexations which brought in over 700 acres in agricultural lands and alterations to the existing land use categories. The consistency matrix between land use designations and zoning categories will need to be updated. D. Adjacent Land Uses Edgewater is predominantly bounded by residential and agricultural land uses to the south and west in Volusia County. East of the City is the Indian River Lagoon Estuary. North of the City in New Smyrna Beach are commercial and residential uses. There are a number of small enclaves within the City. Most of these enclaves contain vacant undeveloped land, although the smaller parcels contain existing businesses or residential uses. There are no areas of critical state concern or dredge spoil sites adjacent to the City. The Florida Inland Navigation District (FIND) has identified a potential spoil disposal site in the northwest portion of the City. Figure LU-3 identifies adjacent land uses. FLU -Pg. 16 Land Use Analysis A. Availability of Facilities and Services to Serve Existing Uses Potable Water The City has constructed new well fields and a new 5.0 MGD water treatment plant. These facilities came on-line in 1993 and will provide sufficient capacity for population growth well beyond the planning period. Wastewater The City has constructed a new 2.25 MGD wastewater treatment plant and extended its wastewater collection system. The plant was completed in 1993. The collection system expansion was finished in 1994. The new plant will provide sufficient capacity for population growth beyond the planning period. The collection system expansion provided centralized sewer service to the Florida Shores Subdivision. This subdivision comprised of approximately 6,000 building sites contained soils unsuitable for septic tanks. There are nowjust a few small developed areas within the City that are un-sewered. The City needs to develop plans to extend sewers to these areas. (See Table CIE-4 in the Capital Improvement Element). Drainage The City created a stormwater utility and formulated a stormwater master plan. Improvements have been made to correct flooding problems within the City. Maintenance of the City's stormwater system is continual. New development complies with the City's level of service standard. MffMYEE - Volusia County's Tomoka Farm Landfill has sufficient capacity to continue operations beyond the planning period. Since the adoption of the comprehensive plan the City has developed a recycling program. This program has reduced the daily tonnage of solid waste sent to the landfill by 37%. Traffic Circulation All roadways within the City are operating at an adequate level of service (LOS). In most areas, roadways are operating at the same LOS as when the comprehensive plan was adopted in 1990. This is because the most recent edition of the Florida's Level of Service Standards and Guidelines Manual for Planning increased the capacity of most of the functionally classified roadways within the City. FLU - Pg. 17 Natural Groundwater Aquifer Re Areas within the City range from very low to no groundwater recharge. The City has taken steps to reduce draw downs of groundwater supplies. The most important of these has been the creation of a reclaimed water system. This system has reduced the use of irrigation wells within the City. B. Vacant Land Analysis The City currently has 3,391± acres of vacant land within the City. This figure has increased due to annexations. Since the adoption of the comprehensive plan the City has annexed over 2 square miles of land. Most of this land is west of the original City limits along SR 442 to a point about 1 mile west of US Interstate 95. Much of the land near I-95 contains an agricultural use and is not considered vacant. This accounts for over 900 acres of agricultural land. The vacant land between the old City limits and the agricultural area is generally low and contains wetlands. In the northwest portion of the City is another large area of vacant land. This land is comprised mostly of Hardwood Hammocks. FLU -Pg. 18 C C Percentage Land Use Category Acres Residential Low Density 1404 20 Residential Medium 109 1.5 Residential High 54 .7 Commercial 364 5.1 Industrial - 106 1.5 Recreation 113 1.6 Agriculture 980 14 Conservation 7 .09 Public/Semi-Public 512 7.2 Undeveloped 3391 48 TOTAL 7,040 100% The intensity of non-residential uses axe controlled by floor area ratios and impervious surface ratios on a site by site basis and therefore the non-residential land use designations shown above are not broben down into more specific intensity categories. Foot Note: Percentages do not total due to rounding. FLU - Pg. 19 ANALYSIS OF FUTURE LAND USE OBJECTIVES The following analyzes why certain objectives may or may not have been achieved during the plan implementation period. 9J-5's assessment criteria has been used in this process. Table LU-3 lists each of the Future Land Use policies by objective and indicates their status. OBJECTIVES: Objective 1: Adopt Land Development Regulations (LDRs) restricting development activities consistent with limitations by soil, topographical, groundwater or surface water conditions. Evaluation: This objective has been completed with the adoption and administration of the LDR's and City codes. Prior to the issuance of permits, the City requires site plan approval whereby soils, topographical, groundwater, surface water conditions and other factors are reviewed for new construction activities. The City monitors its wells and reports draw downs on a monthly basis. If applicable, other regulatory agency approvals are required. The Volusia Water Alliance has established regulations to monitor aquifer recharge areas, draw downs, and impose watering restrictions County wide. The majority of the municipalities have membership on this board. The City ( by ordinance), prohibits any new use, handling, production or storage of hazardous substances in its established well field protection zones. The exception to meeting this objective's measurable target is extending central sewer service to all developed properties within the City limits. The City recognized that due to soil limitations, surface water conditions and the need to continue with development activities, major capital improvements were necessary. A new wastewater treatment plant has been completed along with the installation of approximately 28 miles of central sewer lines. To date, the City has expended $27,768,241.00 towards this project. At this time however, there remain small sections within the City that are unserviced. Recommendation: Policy 1.1: Eliminate as it has been added to the LDR's Policy 1.2: No change, review again in the year 2000 Policy 1.3: Eliminate as it is implemented through City code Policy 1.4, Eliminate and transfer language to the LDR's FLU - Pg.20 Objective 2: Adopt Land Development Regulations restricting development to protect wetlands, mangrove swamps, estuarine marsh ecotone, and freshwater marshes Evaluation: The City, although having limited areas of sustainable wetlands, swamps and marshes, recognized early the importance of protecting its natural resources and adopted environmental regulation standards to further enhance this element's objective. The City adopted regulations for floodplain and stormwater management, wetland alteration permits and mitigation requirements. Wetland buffer requirements include setbacks of 50 feet from the high water mark and 25 feet from any wetland vegetation to any structure. In addition, environmental impact and assessment studies are required for proposed development projects as a part of the City's Land Development Code. The LDR's currently limit development on lands designated conservation, to reasonable access along the Indian River shoreline. Other sites containing wetlands are also limited to 20% or 25 feet of disturbance of the shoreline to allow reasonable access for docks, boat ramps, walkways etc. Recommendation: Policy 2.1: Eliminate as it is implemented through City code Policy 2.2: No change, continue supportive efforts, add language to LDR's. Policy 2.3: Eliminate as implemented through City code. Policy 2.4: Eliminate and add language to LDR's. Policy 2.5: No change. Survey prospective conservation areas and provide new policies. Policy 2.6: Eliminate, implemented through LDR's Objective 3: Ensure that future development is provided essential services and facilities into the site plan and concurrency management system. Evaluation: This goal has been met. Since the adoption of the plan, development activities have had no degradation or negative impacts on existing Levels Of Service (LOS). Waste water collection, improvement of existing roadways, reuse water, and formal concurrency management systems and development agreement provisions are in place. FLU - Pg. 21 Recommendations: Policy 3.1: No change Policy .2• No change Policy 3.3: No change Policy 3.4: Eliminate policy, as it is implemented through the LDR's. Obiective 4: Adopt Land Development Regulations and procedures which will limit development activities outside of defined service areas. This will reduce limitations on infill and redevelopment activities consistent with the land uses and densities indicated in this plan. Evaluation: An interlocal agreement was reached with the County to extend the City service area southward along the U.S. Hwy. # 1 corridor. Construction of potable and wastewater pipe lines to meet existing and future concurrency management needs and system requirements are completed for a portion of this area. Currently only potable water is being provided in a portion of the extended South service area. An EAR based amendment will be required to recognize the modification to the City's originally adopted 180 Reserve Area. In 1994, approximately 1400 acres West of the City was annexed. This area consists of predominately vacant agricultural and rural residential land uses. No additional development, Comprehensive Plan Amendments, land use or zoning changes have occurred since annexation. The City has the capability to service this area and has not entered into a formal agreement nor has any objection from the County been raised. An EAR based amendment will be required for this area. The remainder of the objective has been accomplished with the exception of evaluating the SR 51U.S.Hwy. # I corridor and developing a plan for its revitalization. The City has begun a program of removing deteriorated structures. The City's Building Official has identified eight unsafe buildings, of which six have been demolished, two have been repaired with one citation pending. Although the City has no "downtown" area, there has been some discussion of establishing a Community Redevelopment Agency to improve the U.S. Hwy. #1 corridor. Recommendations: Policy 4.1: Rewrite policy. The City may object, but not prohibit development outside of its established service area. Policy 4.2: No change FLU - Pg. 22 Policy 4.3: No change Policy 4.4: Eliminate policy as revised LDR's now include these requirements. Obeective 5: Review land use, development proposals and activities for consistency with the Future Land Use Map and incorporate provisions into the Land Development Regulations requiring amortization or modification for uses inconsistent with the plan. Evaluation: Prior to approving a development order, a City Technical Review Committee evaluates the proposal. This is to identify stormwater management, and utility needs, potential impacts to traffic, fire, and police services, buffering, landscaping and land use compatibility requirements. The City has incorporated language into the LDR's addressing uses which may be deemed inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. A revised LDR for signs was adopted in February 1997, which includes amortization and modification requirements. The City participates in the County administered HUD program known as Community Development Block Grants (CDBG). This program is designed to financially assist in the elimination of blight and deteriorating areas. It includes affordable housing construction, weatherimtion programs and provides technical, professional and contractual services for identified needs in targeted areas within the community. The exceptions to meeting all the goals as outlined in this objective are: a) finalization of a new landscape ordinance; b) development of standards for historically significant properties and; c) requiring 5% open space for new development. Status is as follows: a) A new landscape ordinance is in draft form, however, tree preservation and protection regulations are in place and enforced. b) A local amateur historian and City staff have conducted a preliminary windshield survey to identify and locate potential historical properties/structures within the City. Although the City has homes dating back to the early 1900's, the majority of the structures observed indicated substantial alterations, deeming them potentially ineligible for national registration. The development of preservation standards at this time would be premature or may not be necessary. Further research should be undertaken and professional surveys performed, if funding sources can be identified. c) The current zoning ordinance has restricted lot coverage for all districts. The range is from 30-35% in residential categories, 30% for commercial and 42-50% for industrial districts. Specific language requiring 5% open space for new development exclusive of improved parking areas or required buffers will need to be re-evaluated. It must be noted that during the EAR process, deficiencies were found in the data base for FLU - Pg. 23 acreage by land use designations. The information in this text may not be accurate and new base line data will need to be established. This will be done as a EAR amendment. There have been no residential, commercial or industrial mixed use development proposals submitted since the adoption of the plan to be able to assess the related policies. Recommendation: Policy 5.1: No change Policy 5.2: Eliminate policy as zoning ordinance addresses buffering requirements. Policy .3• Eliminate policy and transfer to LDR's Policy .4• Eliminate policy, implemented through development review for MOT requirements Policy 5.5: No change. A new landscape ordinance draft is in progress. Policy 5.6 Re-write/eliminate policy regarding historically significant properties. Policy 5.7: Re-write/eliminate policy on development of historical standards. Policy 5.8: No change, add FAR and ISR identifiers to LDR's Policy 5.9: No change Policy 5.10: Eliminate policy. New ordinance in effect. Policy 5.11: Rewrite policy. Policy 5,12: No change, add to LDR's Policy 5.13: No change, add to LDR's Policy 5.14: No change, add to LDR's Policy 5.15: No change, add to LDR's Policy 5.16: No change, add to LDR's Policy 5.17: No change, add to LDR's FLU - Pg. 24 Policy 5.18: Eliminate, implemented in LDR's Objective 6: Adopt Land Development Regulations that will require the provision of land, for utility facilities necessary to support development. Evaluation: This objective has been implemented. The LDR's include as part of the development review process, the identification of any utility system needs. Prior to approval, the developer is required to provide either installation or reservation of those items identified. The City, in an effort to spur economic development, has implemented a tax incentive program for new businesses and industrial development activities that create new and higher payingjobs. Recommendation: Policy 6.1: No change Policy 6.2: Eliminate policy as it has been transferred to the LDR's. Policy No change FLU - Pg. 25 C y ts- , ° C N p 9 y y c ° o X c - - c c❑ c e c a vz Y� 6 y °. O Y Td Y G 6 G S FLU - Pg. 26 ~ 75_ - 7 \\A ) FLU -& 27 v c d o c c Ul Y " �' m •YJ � 'C] 'O'er i m v-C C 11.. ] Y � -O GS � ✓ Y O '� C 6 G � q q E E E 9 r= y? d E ^e S q h C AIR .. C �°i'4, �' w E q ^LL •� p G q � n 4p S O 2 FLU - Pg. 28 V; 3 -tl O C F C C F s F s s m s s s s O - ° ? - ° m a m m v a m a m g ] Z — rn F ^ N € Ay n C 3 1 E a i x i m S _ E s y o E 72 6 � m v 75 _ S m41 m rM 9 S '9 ✓ -9 O C 9a c a 6 5 m? E n v�i� v O O 71� n FLU - Pg. 29 b. a E a c c i p J C o _ c 0. A � Y O N T a e C J c _ � O C � C - c i z ` N ct1 £ 5 A FLU - Pg. 30 Effect of Changes to Future Land Use Element The Future Land Use Element has been assessed for consistency with the State Comprehensive Plan, Regional Policy Plan, Rule 91-5, F.A.C. and Chapter 163, Part II, F.S. The following is the evaluation based on that assessment. Property Rights Legislation In the 1995 legislative session, a new law was passed that provides for compensation to landowners for new government regulations that reduce property values. While well-meaning, the law contains ambiguous language that will likely only be clarified through numerous court cases. Most experts agree that the law will have a "chilling effect" on the passing of any new regulations that would reduce or limit the use of property. This law will definitely affect future goals, objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plan, in that any proposed actions must be evaluated in terms of their potential cost of the City for compensation to property owners. F.S. Chapter 163. The Chapter has been revised to require the City to identify specific land use designations allowing schools as permitted uses. Facilities owned or operated by Federal, State, County or municipal governments are a permitted use in all the City's residential, commercial and industrial zoning classifications with the following exceptions: 1) Mobile Home Parks, 2) Shopping Centers, and 3) Heavy Industrial District(s). This allows schools to be located in approximately 93% of the City. Rule 91-5. F.A.0 Changes to the FAC have effected the Future Land Use Element. The Existing Land Use Map must now show public water wells and protection areas. A policy is also to be added to address these wells. This was initially shown on maps in the Infrastructure Element and included policies for protection. A new requirement to identify spoil site locations on the Existing Land Use Map has been added to the FAC. There is a proposed spoil site location within the City as presented by the Florida Inland Navigational District. The location will be identified on the Future Land Use Map and a policy making provisions for this use will be added upon finalization of the site selection process. This element should address the elimination or reduction of uses that are inconsistent with any interagency hazard report. The City is not affected by this issue. The Future land Use Map must identify transportation concurrency management area boundaries. The City has no concurrency management transportation area boundaries, but will address the level of service standards for transportation in its Traffic Circulation Element's EAR based amendment. FLU - Pg. 31 Since adoption of the plan the definition of Coastal High Hazard Areas (CHHA) have changed from an easily identifiable area to one that is harder to identify. Originally CHHA's were defined as an evacuation zone for a category three hurricane. The definition now ties the definition to category one storms as established in the Regional Hurricane Evacuation Study. This study does not define this area. The possible impact of this change is not fully known as of this date. Rule 9J-5, F.A.C. discourages urban sprawl, by utilizing infrll developments, while the State plan discourages redevelopment and infill based on the new delineation of the Coastal High Hazard Areas. The new rules encourage the use of mixed use categories. The City had implemented policies for mixed use development, however, no development applications for this use have been received since its adoption. FLU - Pg. 32 Impact of Unanticipated and Unforeseen Problems and Opportunities The population projections contained in the Comprehensive Plan were based on a continuation of the high growth rates experienced over the previous decade. In 1991, a recession struck the national and state economics. Since that time, the level of growth has subsided considerably. This has become an unforeseen problem in that tax revenue levels and economic vitality were not as high as anticipated. The City built a new water and wastewater plant. The plants were sized to accommodate anticipated growth that has not materialized. This is an opportunity as the service area can now be extended due to excess capacity. An unanticipated problem arose in establishing the south service area with the County. Current State laws make it difficult for Cities to develop rational service boundaries because of cumbersome annexation guidelines. Another opportunity related to land use planning were the changes to FS Chapter 163, which allowed for the processing of land use amendments up to 10 acres in size without regard to the twice -a -year limitation. Subject to certain restrictions, as much as 60 acres of land per year may be modified through these small-scale amendments. These changes allowed the City to expeditiously process a number of amendments. One unforseen problem was in the 1995 legislative session, a new law was passed that provides for compensation to landowners for new government regulation that reduces property values. While well-meaning, the law contains ambiguous language that will likely only be clarified through numerous court cases. Most experts agree that the law will have a "chilling effect' on the passing of any new regulations that would reduce or limit the use of property. This law will definitely affect future goals, objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plan, in that any proposed actions must be evaluated in terms of their potential cost to the City for compensation to property owners. FLU - Pg. 33 EAR Based Amendments - Future Land Use Element 1. School site location policy: Adopt a new objective and measurable policy clearly identifying which future land use designations will permit educational facilities. 2. Florida Inland Navigational District spoil site project: If and when the proposed spoil site is approved, add objectives and measurable policies making provisions for this use. Identify the location on the Future Land Use Map. 3. Annexed properties: Provide comprehensive plan amendment(s) designating future land use patterns, as reflected in the goals, objectives and policies. Identification of density and intensity and protection of natural resources. 4. Land use amendments for Hibiscus and Guava Drives: Provide comprehensive plan amendment(s) designating future land use patterns and identify density and intensity of uses. 5. Western and South Service Area and Master Plan: Revise element to recognize new service area boundaries and needs. 6. New population projections: Develop new estimates and projections for resident and seasonal population. 7. Open space requirements: Review policy. If needed, revise open space policy for incorporation into the Land Development Regulations. S. Historical site data and analysis: Pending funding sources, provide new objectives and measurable policies and identify historically significant sites and structures on the Future Land Use Map. 9. Additional conservation land use designations: Adopt new objectives and measurable policies and identify area locations on the Future Land Use Map for prospective conservation areas. 10. Remove references to dates: For those policies that have been implemented or eliminated. 11. Revise acreage for land use categories: Revise/update land use data base by acreage for all land use designations. 12. Revise matrix: Revise the consistency matrix between land use designations and zoning categories. FLU - Pg. 34 EXISTING LAND USE MAP CITY OF EDGEWATER wuf r =roar ■ ■v�vr�a1� �.v�.� LEGEND Im SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ff 0 MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MOBILE HOME COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL WESTERN WELL FIELD VACANTAXWEVELOPED CONSERVATION VXA PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC 11 UNDEVELOPED El AGRICULTURE am 03 REcRE►norM 1: r �• t did -. • • /a - .-.- • �II•II•/I •I •- •I ♦/ /I / +1 /• /1 ♦I ♦I / 11• • a • ♦• f ♦I ♦f • / \/I• s • . a'/ / •+ ♦.• • • • a • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • ✓ ro �I •II•r/•. .I II`►f•/I•II•♦• •I•//•♦!•+••••••I•+1`♦J•r JI`♦•`II ••♦I`%II`♦I •/I • •I •• ♦ .do •I `II `I+`1+`/•• • I • r I • . I I • . 1 • t . a • I / t do, t / I t I • I J • / I • I I • I I • • 1 • ♦ I • / 1 • / / • • • • • • • • t • • \ / I • r • J I J • I • II /I I rI +I I /I II II II rI II ♦1 •I /I /I ♦I /I / 11 •• •f 1••I♦II`/I`♦! •�♦I�rl� • `JI` I•e•I+•a•�I•= :I I i.1•.a• •rI\rI • II /J ♦I •/ i II rf ♦I ♦J ♦! I ♦• a• ♦1 ♦I ♦ ♦/•♦ft•I♦+Is+ � • • I • •I • t • • • • • • • • • •♦ • • • • • • s • %• rI I• • • + • . . • • • • lb r `/I`/J`♦I•II•/I`II`•I•• •••II`♦• I•/1`♦I`•1`/• I•♦I•I!•/ • I• •• , • • `/I`J• a• • ~~y~, ~ I•/••rI`•I`I I`/I`/Ia• `/I`♦I`♦J`♦I`/1`11•/I•I•` `•I`I!`I If`/I`/I`♦1`I /!`♦1`/•` . • •t • t • s• • • • • • • •+ ••/`+I`II`I • •I • •/I`♦I`+IAp `•I•I •/I•♦I`I II I• •a• •♦/`♦I`//•♦1 I`11•+ • • • • • • `I• • • • • •I�• •r1• • I• • • • / I•I•• I I� • • • • J• • • • • • • • ♦ • • • • 4,b I• II•I •I boo. II•I /•I+• . . •. • • • • • • • • • • ♦ • • • • • • • ♦ • • • • a ♦ • I 1• • • • • • r I I I r I • I ♦ 1 I I I / I ♦ I I ♦/ ♦ I I• 1 I •// +• I I / 1 1 I►• I/ a 1 1 / I I•\•/• I I•♦ I I • \ • • • I J• • • • • • \ • • • • • • • i • • • • • • • I • I • + •I • • • • • •II• •11•r1•/I•♦J,•I• •/I♦•I r1•♦!♦♦I• • J• • 1• • • • •a • • !• • • • • • • • /I•I• JI• r/•/♦•I+•II•J/•II•a • • • • • t • • •% ♦ ♦ a% • • • • • • • t • ♦ •♦ • ♦! // • s • • • • • • • s • •I r1 • I •/ •I •I •I 11 I II / II rf ♦f /I IJ /I +1 / / I! // ♦1 / •! ♦1 /•• ♦ /• • ` • • • I ♦ • I • I / JI Ir •'` •/%I` /••I•/I`rf•11`II`I /I`II /I rI 1I ♦I •• ♦I /J •I •♦1 II II r /I rI /1 ♦f 1 /• • • I/% I/ II •• •• a.• Z' • • • • • • • • • , • • ♦ • • • • ♦ %• • %• • • • • • • • • ♦ ♦ • I %♦ ♦ • / • • • • y • • • • lb , • • I / I • I ♦ I / a I I • + I • ♦ • I ` • ♦ f • / / • • I ` I I • I • / I 1,b I I • • I • ! ♦ f • f I • • ♦ • • • ` ♦ • • •a I +I • II •I • •r IVACANT ` I % •`•1 `•I` I` • I• f I • /I ♦• /I / • I• lb lb p • • • • • • • ' AMDEVELOPED - a I I • + •/f%♦ ♦! I/ I 11•I •+ • • • • •••• /• II`II• I•I•` 11 aI a• /• I• I• ~ �// ♦I •r II / 1 •/ +1 / r •I •J /1 +! 11 •I •J •• • ♦• 11 I/a♦ 1 r1 +• • !•/!• • •• • • • • • I•I+`r+• •`I/`a1•a• •I I• •+f`II••1•+!•♦/`•I`I II I`11`/1lb %`•I `11 `11`♦f`+f♦I ♦1`/I•+I`♦I•• I•+J%•+ I •%•46 /%, • • ••• •• •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ♦ • • • do • • a • • • • + • • I • • • • • • • • • • • a II I /I /• •I /I ♦I // • ♦I •! .! r! 11 %•I•/f••I• I,♦/•♦1.11 ♦/ / /I /1 1• • • •I•`11•I♦••+`a •+ 1 1• I• I• •• •II•+/ +/••f•Ia�r/•a'••f•II• db /••J••/•+I••/ •rJ%••I•r1♦r ♦••.J•IIa♦I.11•+ •II•lb I••II• /• f • • ♦ • • I/f I I• + • •I r1 •I rI •/ r1 r1 r1 •1 •! •I 1I •• 11 I ♦f♦IIar1 ♦• •! I • • • !I r•a♦• I I• • /• I/ I/ I+ ;Ad .,. • • do 0 • • • • lb . ♦ %• • • • • • • • • • • • • • ♦ • I • • • • • • /I +I r I •• /J rI•IJ••!••I r1 •/I ••/••♦• • I /I !• I •II• ♦ • • • • I ♦/ I •�lb I I • I♦ 41 /I / •I 11 / •I /I •I /I • • ♦/ // • I +I .1 •I /1 •1 ♦1 •1 I %♦f •I I! 11 /• I +I ♦I II +/ I• • • • • •j1\ +• +• •• I` `••. ''�. ♦•t • •• /I•/11/ a• lk %% ♦do • dr lb •. • .♦•!•♦!;/ •/I/Ia •I•J••II• I\1•••.I ;�♦• I' '•~ti;,, ••. • ~ •• / +I •• +I •I /I •I I• +1 // +/ r1 r1 •I II rI .! •I +I.11 II ♦I I II /I • • . • • do II I/ II •I / • ♦ •/ • •/ •I •• r1 rJ •I /I ♦J •I /I /I ♦f•♦I •II• f• lb` • ` ` •� • , a I`11\I/`rI`I•` �' `•. I ♦ • / I •♦•.r• •I .I I I • / •♦ r1 r •I••••I•• +• I• • `• . • • ♦ • • • ♦ I • I • ` I I•/ I• • • • • �♦ • • ;• • \rI• ♦•• • ••• i`•• %♦!•\••./ ♦I.J •••• /ft • I•I `+•• •`I,• I•Ia;.• l. I`.+ I• a I`rI`•lb f�♦l�rl�r1;/a; !�r/:rI• I II •I •f II II•I•,•1•II •I• ♦/ +I +/• • • ♦ • • • • • * • • • • r I• JI /c 11 aI 11 /r 11 •II•r1•• II•rf\♦•••I•II`//•• II•►Jt /I\II\/7 / /I •/ %♦I • • • ♦ • • • • • • • • • a Ir I/ 1• • II•do % / lb I 11 ♦! rI •I •I I rI +I •I II ♦I I •/ • I�II••I•/1•I • •11•/I•lb lb/• ♦ • • • • • •�,-* •a +• r• • • • • • • ♦ t • • • • • t • t • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • \ • • • • • • a • I I • • • ♦ • • I ♦ I V • • • ••I •.I r1 •! .• •I If ♦I,♦1 11 •I ♦/ •I ♦I•♦ /J•IJa ••1• ;I••I ,I ; • • • •/ I •//•+ `1•♦I••11I I/`1 `I/•1♦`11`I� .�I.,•y •,♦ ,,,. ♦•♦• +I` II •• I ` /1 •I` I • J • I •r1` •I%• I` �•• J` I`.I• • 11;•I /I; // • •II• •♦I• II I;II;+I I \ • \ • • •• • - \ \ do • • • t • • • • I ; • I • • I • ` / • •% r / • / I a lb • / a I 1 • • f + I t • I • r I `• I • • I • / I •% ♦ I • • r I 1 1 I ♦ • I • I + • ♦ • ` • • • • • ► •00 I • I +I 11 I• I I rJ 1I II r II r rI /I rI•♦I /�• ♦ • • • • • • • • do • • ••1•II••1• a11`/1 •rI••a••It +I I!`•I••I••I•/I••I•II •• •rI�•I�•I•rI•• ••,•I, /•/I . �♦ ♦• /• `•/ `/ `•+•f •I+•//•I • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • a • I•I• + I •! •f • • • • • • • • •I ` • I ` / I ` I f • I ! ` I I • r / • / 1 ` • I • ` • f ` I / ` I I ` r I • • I / I • r • I • ♦ 1 • N • • I • • I • / f • ♦ • . + • .. • + % • I • r I / I • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • I I I / ► I • • • • s • • t • t • • • • • • I I • I • I • r I r f . f • I . I I • • J • • • • • . • • • • • • • , • ` • ` • • I ` I •• / • • • f • I I • a • I ' / / • I I a r f • I I • • J • / / / • / I • I I , I I • • ♦ • • • • • • • • • • ♦ • ♦ • • / I • ! / + • I I / • • a .0 • ••I I.1I `I 1I`I I`11`II•II •II `/ `•I`/I`II`+/`I I` II`/r I IJ •I.1 •I I •I 1I •J•1I •• ♦••••• •,•• ••• • • • • .�•~:. �. �. ' • • • • • • • • • • • • • ♦ .• • • •\ • • • • • • • t • • `• • •+ • • !I !r f.r •• I• / all•• • • • • ♦ • • • • • • • • • • • • rI •I • •/ I/ •I •I / • • • • • • ♦'• • • a •' •• ••a••a•Ia • ♦I 11 +I 11 +• II I 11 ♦/ I• •I •I 11 • I/ ; a•a t • • • • • • • • • • •• • • I •`•/`fI /• !♦ !/ 11 • •I I • • • • • • • ♦ • • • • a \ • • s s • s • , • • • • • • • I •I • / I ` . I ` I • • I • / • / • / / ` • ` • ` / a • • • • I `I • • I ` • I • I • I a r I / / / • / • I • I I I • I • • • • • • • • •so • • • • • • 11•I••1I •r • • • • • • • • • • a ••I`11`/ `I/` ♦ •/, •/� •II •' • •• a •I0a1 �•.� .� .. ♦. ♦ f I I f 1 1 I / ♦ • 1 • 1 I • ♦ a r 1 • • 1 1 I I a + • I s r J \ 11 • • 1 • I I • a • • I • • • • • 0 lbI • •lb 1 1 • • ! • I • ! / 1 • 1 • ` I a • I• I I• I I a I • a I I• 1/ a I 1 a lb I I• I • r 1 a 1 1• 1 a a• I s/ I, I 1 a I•• I, I /, • •, I I a • I• • ••••• • ••` • a • • • r `I / `I • `•1 I• 1 I` •/ I • • • • • ♦ • • • • • • ♦ • • • • / a I I • • • I +• I + • • • • • • • • • . / • . • r • I / • • I • / I ` I ► I / • I I I lb 11 lb I • I / • I • I ♦ I / • • • • / • + 1 + I • I . I I I I • I • / I a • • • \ • �\ • 1 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • a • • lb lb• • • �I r• i •• do t II •I /I •/•/I` �/ •I •I •! • I• •• •` •• I •• ♦ • • • • I / I / • I I ♦ • I r I / I a • I a I I I • / I • I I • • • . • • • ♦ • • • • • • • • ♦ • • • • ♦ • • I•• •• •• •• • • • • • `• • I Ir •♦ 11•Ir•I••11 /Ia1 11 '-.-'ti• • • • • • • • • 1I • • • • I • I 1 I • ♦ • • • • • I • • I •1I al/a• I • IaI • r •• •I I I a• •1• rI• IIa •Ia • + ;/• :I• ; . ;I t ;a • ; `a t :1 • =1• ; • • • • • It + I• I. 11 �••• /I••It 1•• II • �I,SA • • • • a / ! • \ • • • • • ' • • • • • • t • • • • • • • '• I I • I ♦ • • •• r • , / • ;I • ; • • I , • I • I I • I I • I / • I I , I • . I ♦ • . • a • I a / /• IV • • •I • Ia • Ia s / • • I • ` •I • • ♦ • •I • •I • • • • • • %• I I • / • • I . I • 1 I :1 I : I / ;1 I : I • • • ~: • • • • • ♦ • a • I • ♦ • •. ' �. •'�. • • I ♦ I • • I • • I a + I • / • r • / • • • a • I • • / • • • I • / / a • // • • • • • • • • • I • • • I / ♦ • I • • • • • • \ I / I j I • • I L �..���•� '� lb ••/• +I•/I`II• • • • • • • • • • • • • a I +• •I I• •I • I + •• %11 r/ •I I • • • •• • • • • • a • --"+• ••' • • • • • • • + • • / I • I I • / / • I / • I , • • I I • ♦ • ♦ / I a • I a • I • I I • I • • • • • • • • • • • a • • I 1 • I / I I • I I • • • • • • • • • • • • • • a / / • • I / / • I 1 a I • • • • . I. 1 1 • • • • 1 I • / I •1 1 + • I • • / • • • • • t t • , • \ II •I I II II •a I • /I • I • II ♦I II I +I. 11• • ♦ • • a !! 11 /yr 11 11 • I 1 I I I I I r I • • • • • • • • • I I I I 1• ' • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • I • I I I' I •I1411 `I I`I Ia•I`II •IIa11•••a1 • `•I`II• ••I•I aII.11• /`II••I• • • • • • • • ••I• ,s` �•tr Ir / • • • • •••/I .} II I •I • I •I rI I• I I 11 • / • • • • •• �- •'a •Ia1• I ••11 •I• • ••y l• • j '•+J: �r•~ ~�• •.,, • ♦ • • • • . • • • • • . • a • V. • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • . f/•r1•rf •I I•I 1•rs •r I•r1• • • • •a� • ..''+. • t t • •. •• ��� ♦•• r• If •• I, I r I I• I I a I I, I I • If • 00 I I• I f I•% •/ s I • I I ♦/ I I• •• • • ,• ,• • ••• •• •• I• I• f I I I I/* a / I f I 1 I / I • % �• ••I•If ••IaII aI/•1I •I /•II •I I•I I`I I•I •a •I•II•II•II`II• I`II•IIa 1I,II; 1I••Ia1Ia 11••ra •I••a •,•a••••••a '•••,.+•�I`I ;•;♦•:I• • • • • • • ♦ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • I I I.11 •/♦11•/ •II„ate • • • • • .� ...i.�..� �F.1+1► � �+l....ir• .i�...L�.t �.i...r� ...1�+. i a/i.ii/ LiLtl L.ii. s.•..sj�'i1.i+� 1 .2 L� rr � VACAMARADEVE AM ` ~ y 1 •r• ���•�ora• tip. �•s�•• FLU - Pg. 35 T`V�• -• r•�r' - •/••,•• 1 I LOW DEMTY RESVENTIAL rW vl~cANT fUNMVELOPED i '/ /J' 0900 dw voloo RI,~ n HARDWOOD HAMMOCK WMED HARDWOODS PON FLATWOOOS CABBAGE PALM PINE SCRUB OAK MANGROVE SWAMP nwrunwL neavvIsUPe MAW CITY OF EDGEWATER FIGURE LU=4 ESTUARINE MARSH ECOI OW FRESHWATER MARSH DISTURBED UPLANDS FORESTED LOT 9STUARY/09IAN RIVER 1 c=%_ z 0 —i—i ._ o 0 o TO, og$goo° 00 090p0p0 10 — .--i�00000 p0 �0� 00000 —iw.�= ice—140OQO O O — i.= ....�� VV O o00000 It v°00---- O- 0 - OV'Woo,o00- �00500 /- 0 eog-- nozot - �000°oo°° o?- o • to c,Ao r.t 0000aos.00'/00°00°0 OOOOpO° O �oQo 0 ql �o 0000Qoo�� • p0 Oopp Opp - 10000 OVpp0p000O0 0p000000°0 p0O00�pO 00p0p0 Opp 0OOo pp000 00 OO 0n00_ 00000000000000000 OOOOg0000000000000003 000000 000000000eoeo0 0000000000000 Oo000o000 100000000 0000000 211 0000010 — — 00000000 1000000 — 00000 i — OOOOd000010000 OOo000000 — — — 000000000 — 0000 00000 o00,0000000 0000D00000 d00000°d00000000000000/1 Oo00000000000000000001! OOaOacennnen}i?4ng �. •ne-1 00000000000000*00000 00000000000000000000) 00000000000000000000 v00000000 OOo0000o 00000000000 0000000 D0000000000 — OOOOOOG 0000000000 — 0000 D0000000000 000 00000000000 0000000 D000000000 0000000000 0000000 000000000000 D0000 000000000000000 000 00000000000000000 700 00000000000000000000 O 00000000000000000000 -��•� 00 —+�- 000 s i 000 t:- Of oO100000'o��— FLU - Pg. 36 CONDITION OF THE PLAN AT THE TIME OF ADOPTION Existing Traffic Circulation Data A. Existing Traffic Circulation Map Table TC-I shows an inventory of the City's roadways and identifies those roads that were functionally classified at the time the comprehensive plan was adopted. Figure TC-I shows the Traffic Circulation Map as adopted. Traffic Circulation Analysis A. Existing Levels of Service and System Needs At the time of adoption of the comprehensive plan the City's traffic circulation network functioned well. Most roads operated at or above their adopted level of service (LOS). Only one LOS deficiency was noted in the Traffic Circulation Element. Two state roads, SR 5/US1 and SR 442, run through the City. SR 51US 1 is a four lane divided principal arterial roadway. All segments of US 1 were operating at LOS "C" or better. SR 442 is a two lane divided minor arterial. It connects US 1 to I-95. All segments of SR 442 were also operating at LOS "C" or better. West Park Avenue is a two lane undivided County Road which functions as an urban collector. A segment of W. Park Avenue from US I to Old County Road was identified in the element as operating at LOS "D". This segment was identified as deficient. The remaining segment of W. Park Avenue operated at LOS "A". Four local roadway segments were classified in the element as collectors. These roadways are: Riverside Drive which runs along the Indian River and parallels US 1; Virginia Street which connects US 1 and Riverside Drive; East Park Avenue which also connects US I and Riverside Drive; and Queen Palm Drive which runs north and south within the Florida Shores Subdivision. All these roads were operating at LOS "A". Virginia Street is a local access road and was incorrectly designated as a collector in the element. Indian River Boulevard functions as a collector which connects US 1 and Riverside Drive and is a locally maintained extension of SR 442. B. Projected Levels of Service and System Needs The element predicted traffic volumes for the functionally classified roads for the years 1995 and 2000. These projections were based on population growth and employment. Table TC-1 shows each of the roadway segments and the projected levels of service. TCE - Pg. 1 C � C a§}§ ]±§ E ! ; ! ! # \ # \ 7 � . ; - ! - - 7 , ih ,, V, \ } g - § / / ]* ! A z -Pg. ! C � ® 2 7 ; ; ! 3 ! - ) ,�. ( ]` 4 \» (,\I B � ]� ƒ� a! •! «! 2�d w! !! ]« / \ \ - )) \ / 5 _ z -Pg. , Illli.�._ 111111111 1/11111111 � 111111111 11111111111111111111 Illlllllelllllllllll �11111111111 (��Ilel�lll �111�111111111111111 llllllllllil ��1/1111111 /1111111 11111111111 Illllllllill ��/1111111 Illlilll Il�lleliil Illlriil ;���Il�lell ,1IIb1111111 ���� �Iwlllll 111i11111i111yi ��IIIIIIIIIIIIIIHIM 1 1111 1111 1111� 1111 .. _..... TCE-Pg. 4 CONDITION OF THE PLAN AT THE TIME OF EAR Introduction: The purpose of the Traffic Circulation Element as adopted, was to plan for the future motorized and non -motorized traffic circulation systems. The City has provided baseline data and analysis including an Existing Traffic Circulation Map, levels of service and system needs and concurrency management practices. With the exception of the County providing a public bus system, little has changed in this Comprehensive Plan Element. The City has no port or aviation facilities. Existing Land Traffic Circulation Data Existing Traffic Circulation Map Figure TC-2 shows an inventory of the roadways and identifies those that have been functionally classified as of the preparation of this report. Traffic Circulation Analysis Existing Traffic Circulation Levels of Service and System Needs Some of the most significant degradation in levels of service predicted in the comprehensive plan for the year 1995 have not occurred. This is due in part to definition changes in highway capacity and a slower rate of growth than anticipated. In 1995, the Florida Department of Transportation published a new edition of Florida's Level of Service Standards and Guidelines Manual for Plannine. The practical effect of this manual increased the capacity allocated to certain roadways. As a result, segments of US I north of SR 442 that were projected to degrade to LOS "D" and "E" are operating at LOS "C". The same is true for a segment of SR 442 from US 1 to Hibiscus Drive that was predicted to degrade to an LOS "E". However that segment operates at LOS "C". Unfortunately, two other segments of SR 442 have degraded farther than projected to LOS "C" instead of LOS "B" and „A„ The six-laning of US I that was identified in the element for the year 2000 has not been scheduled by FDOT and probably will not be necessary during the present planning period. US I has been restriped to increase the width of the traffic lanes and eliminate on -street parking. These improvements will increase the safety and improve the function of the roadway. Future needs will have to be coordinated with the development of the Metropolitan Planning Organization's (MPO) 2020 Long Range Plan. SR 442 is scheduled for four-laning in the MPO's Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP). The TIP breaks this project into two phases. Work is scheduled to begin in the year 2000 and should TCE - Pg. 5 be completed the following year. West Park Avenue's deficiency has been eliminated. Volusia County added a turning lane in 1993. West Park Avenue now operates at LOS "C". The County used transportation impact fees to fund this project. The four local roadway segments that were classified have not been consistently monitored since the adoption of the comprehensive plan. The element predicted that each of these segments would maintain a LOS "A" except East Park Avenue. The element predicted E. Park Avenue would degrade to LOS "B" by 1995. The City will need to establish an effective monitoring system to determine the traffic volumes on the local road segments. Queen Palm Drive may not be appropriately designated as a collector. This will need to be reviewed in comparison with other streets within the Florida Shores Subdivision when the element is revised. TCE - Pg. 6 \'I LEGEND CRT LPATS FEG RR LINE PPWCIPLE ARTERIAL (O LANE) w MWOR ARTpVIAL(2 LANE) ---MEAN COLLECTOR-COVNTY G LANE) .•........... MEAN COLLECTOR -CRY (2 LANE) --'--,RURAL MINOR ARTERIAL R LANE) TRAFFIC CIRCULATION FIGURE TC-2 TCE-Pg. 7 Recommendation: Policy4.1: No change Policy 4.2: No change Objective 5: Adopt regulations to ensure safe and adequate movement of pedestrians. Evaluation: Since the adoption of this plan, the City has constructed approximately seven miles of four to five foot wide walk/bike ways. One is located on Roberts Road (a collector) in the Florida Shores Subdivision. The other is located on scenic Riverside Drive. The FDOT has also made sidewalk improvements along U.S. Hwy. 41. Bicycle signage and striping have also been placed on Needle Palm Drive between 26th and 30th Streets and 26th Street to S.R. 442. Recommendation: Policy 5.1: Eliminate, has been completed. Policy 5.2: No change Policy 5.3: No change Mass Transit At the time of the plan adoption, there was no mass transit within the City. The County has since extended its public transportation to include bus routes to serve the City. An EAR based amendment will be prepared to address this. Aviation There are no public airport facilities in the City. Ports There are no ports, as defined by the State in the City or within Volusia County. TCE - Pg. 8 Effect of Changes to Traffic Circulation Element The Traffic Circulation Element has been assessed for consistency with the State Comprehensive Plan, Regional Policy Plan, Rule 9J-5, F.A.C. and Chapter 163, Part IL F.S. The following is the evaluation of that assessment. State Comprehensive Plan No changes were made which would require amendments to the Traffic Circulation Element, However, some changes were made to its road classifications based on capital improvement projects and annexations. F.S. Chapter 163 Has been amended to allow the option of exempting certain developments from the transportation concurrency requirements if the project is consistent with the comprehensive plan, promotes public transportation or is within an area designated for infill development, redevelopment or downtown revitalization area. The adopted plan does not address these circumstances and has not designated any areas for urban infill development or redevelopment and has no downtown area. The City may consider designating such areas and corresponding policies. The City has no realistic compact developed areas and has not designated a transportation concurrency management area. The statute's intent to promote infill development and redevelopment by allowing the establishment of concurrency management areas does not affect the City, as there are no multiple alternative travel paths. Another exemption from concurrency is the States definition for de minimus impact on a transportation facility. Currently, the threshold used in the comprehensive plan is 500 trips per day for concurrency test exemption This will be analyzed further and if necessary addressed in an EAR based amendment. F.S., Chapter 163 establishes allowances for a land owner to proceed with development notwithstanding a failure to meet concurrency under certain conditions. The City's comprehensive plan does not address this, but a policy may be considered in the future. Rule 9J-5. F.A.0 Local Governments located in urbanized areas of a Metropolitan Planning Organization required to adopt a new transportation element. The City is in the process of revising this element. The City is reviewing its level -of -service standards for any needed revisions based on the Rules change. Some additional data and analysis will need to be performed. TCE-Pg. 9 Impact of Unanticipated and Unforseen Problems At the time the City's comprehensive plan was prepared and adopted, the City had no transit system and it was not required to include amass transit element in its plan. Since our comprehensive plan was adopted, the Federal government adopted the Intermodal Surface Transportation Enhancement Act (ISTEA). This act requires local governments to provide closer coordination of all modes of transportation and more fully integrate them into a combined system. VOTRAN, a County -wide transportation system was instituted. With the bus service by VOTRAN, several changes have occurred. As part of the larger system, bus service has been extended into Edgewater and a transit connection has been provided through Port Orange to the Daytona Beach area. These changes provide opportunities not formerly available to the public. Ridership to date is meeting VOTRAN expectations, but it is still low. TCE -Pg. 10 pi• A. r i„ i• r d . O F: /h qua qua qua uuca �° �� a -a fi E ri -" _mw V rnw V ... cnwU -. mW V O'� V rn 0 O C a C � G - � u c .9 b S O s Pi y C Ff.. U] U] V V s y E E b d A TCE - Pg. 11 y E Gam, VUQ UV O �Pr V V Q c o: j G L m m 0 " rJ O C Y V e .c c �j fri P y i a � 9 S y W m 99 ri TCE-Pg.12 WE - Pg. 13 \d \ ( � : . A i � \ ) ) ? \ \ \ 0 Effect of Changes to Traffic Circulation Element The Traffic Circulation Element has been assessed for consistency with the State Comprehensive Plan, Regional Policy Plan, Rule 9J-5, F.A.C. and Chapter 163, Part 11, F.S. The following is the evaluation of that assessment. State Comprehensive Plan No changes were made which would require amendments to the Traffic Circulation Element, However, some changes were made to its road classifications based on capital improvement projects and annexations. F.S. Chanter 163 Has been amended to allow the option of exempting certain developments from the transportation concurrency requirements if the project is consistent with the comprehensive plan, promotes public transportation or is within an area designated for infrll development, redevelopment or downtown revitalization area. The adopted plan does not address these circumstances and has not designated any areas for urban infill development or redevelopment and has no downtown area. The City may consider designating such areas and corresponding policies. The City has no realistic compact developed areas and has not designated a transportation concurrency management area. The statute's intent to promote infrll development and redevelopment by allowing the establishment of concurrency management areas does not affect the City, as there are no multiple alternative travel paths. Another exemption from concurrency is the States definition for de minimus impact on a transportation facility. Currently, the threshold used in the comprehensive plan is 500 trips per day for concurrency test exemption. This will be analyzed further and if necessary addressed in an EAR based amendment. F.S., Chapter 163 establishes allowances for a land owner to proceed with development notwithstanding a failure to meet concurrency under certain conditions. The City's comprehensive plan does not address this, but a policy may be considered in the future. Rule 9J-5. F.A.0 Local Govemnrents located in urbanized areas of a Metropolitan Planning Organization are required to adopt a new transportation element. The City is in the process of revising this element. The City is reviewing its level -of -service standards for any needed revisions based on the Rules change. Some additional data and analysis will need to be performed. TCE - Pg. 15 Impact of Unanticipated and Unforseen Problems At the time the City's comprehensive plan was prepared and adopted, the City had no transit system and it was not required to include a mass transit element in its plan. Since our comprehensive plan was adopted, the Federal government adopted the Intermodal Surface Transportation Enhancement Act (ISTEA). This act requires local governments to provide closer coordination of all modes of transportation and more fully integrate them into a combined system. VOTRAN, a County -wide transportation system was instituted. With the bus service by VOTRAN, several changes have occurred. As part of the larger system, bus service has been extended into Edgewater and a transit connection has been provided through Port Orange to the Daytona Beach area. These changes provide opportunities not formerly available to the public. Ridership to date is meeting VOTRAN expectations, but it is still low. TCE - Pg. 16 EAR Based Amendments Traffic Circulation Element 1. Change LOS standards per FDOT designations: Revise the Traffic Circulation Map and table(s) to reflect FDOT's new LOS standards and adopt new policies if warranted. 2. Reclassify Roads: Revise Traffic Circulation Element maps and chart(s) to recognize Hibiscus Drive, Guava Drive, Mango Tree Drive (from Park Avenue to 12th Street), 12th Street and Willow Oak north of SR 442 as 2 lane urban collectors and set a LOS standard classification(s) to these roads. 3. Annexed areas: Revise Traffic Circulation Element maps to include those areas annexed since adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. 4. Address public transportation: Adopt goals, objectives and measurable policies that encompass the new County -wide transportation system. 5. Remove reference to dates: For those policies that have been implemented or eliminated. 6. Concurrency test exemption requirements: Adopt formal concurrency test exemption goals, objectives and measurable policies. 7. Designation of possible infill development areas: Adopt policies that specifically address infrll development. 8. Policy 1.7: Review and clariify access limitations on collectors for residential land uses TCE - Pg. 17 CONDITION OF THE PLAN AT THE TIME OF ADOPTION A. Number of Housing Units The element reported there were 3,036 permanent dwelling units in the City during the 1980 Census of Housing. Single family residences accounted for 2,527 or 83.2% of those units. Multi- family dwellings accounted 193 units or 6.4%. The remaining 316 units or 10.4% were Mobile homes. B. Comparison to Housing Characteristics in Volusia County The element noted that during the 1980 Census of Housing, Volusia County had 121,236 total dwelling units. The element also stated that owners occupied 105,773 of those units or 87.3%. Renters occupied 15,463 of the units or 12.7%. In Edgewater, owners occupied 89.9% of the dwelling units. Renters occupied the remaining 10.1 % of the dwelling units. The element made no mention of vacancies. C. Standard and Substandard Housing Conditions The element stated that the 1980 Census reported no dwelling units were found without private plumbing facilities. This is the traditional definition of a substandard unit. More modern definitions include other deficient factors reported in the census including lack of heating, inadequate kitchen facilities, and poor access. The use of census data to determine the total number of substandard units may lead to over counting since each deficient item is reported independently of other factors. The element stated that a housing condition survey was performed in 1987. The survey identified 5,230 total dwellings and found that 98.9% of the housing stock was in good condition. The remaining 1.10% or 58 units were identified as being in fair or poor condition. D. Renter -occupied Housing The element reported that during the 1980 Census 402 units or 14.7% of all the occupied dwellings in the City were occupied by renters. Edgewater had very few apartment complexes. The element did not include an inventory of these developments. E. Group Homes The element stated that during the 1980 Census of Housing there were no group homes located within the City. HOS - Pg. 1 F. Mobile Homes The element noted that a survey of mobile homes was performed in 1987. The survey found 556 mobile home units in 10 separated parks throughout the City. The largest mobile home park contained 141 spaces while the smallest had only 9. G. Historically Significant Housing The element did not contain an inventory of historic housing. The element did contain a list of known archaeological sites. None of these sites related to housing. H. Housing Construction Activity According to the element 3,092 dwelling units were permitted between 1980 and 1987. More than 65% of those permits were for single family residences. The element stated that in the first six months of 1987, 162 dwelling units were permitted. Approximately 93% of those dwelling units were single family residences. HOS - Pg. 2 CONDITION OF THE PLAN AT THE TIME OF EAR Introduction: The purpose of the Housing Element in the adopted Comprehensive Plan was to preserve the existing housing stock and to accommodate anticipated future housing needs. Many of the goals, objectives and policies that were established in this element have proven to be unnecessary due to slower than anticipated growth. The City will need to develop a new housing element as a result of this evaluation and appraisal report. A. Number of Housing Units Since the 1990 Housing Census 1,120 dwelling units have been permitted. Single family homes account for 67.4% of the new dwellings. Mobile Homes account for 28.55% of the units and multi -family units make up the remaining 4.05%. This brings the total number of dwellings to just under 8,000 units when added to the 6,888 found during the census. (See Table HOS-1) B. Comparison to Housing Characteristics in Volusia County The 1990 Census found 180,972 dwelling units in Volusia County. Owners occupied about 61% of the total units. Renter occupied about 24% of the total dwellings. The remaining units were either vacant or had some other occupancy arrangement not reported in the census. The stated vacancy rate for Volusia County was 13.5%. The 1990 Census found 6,888 dwelling units in the City. Owners occupied 69% of the total units. Renters occupied 19% of the total dwelling units. Again, the remaining units were either vacant of had some other occupancy that was not reported. The census stated that the vacancy rate for the City was 10.9%. C. Standard and Substandard Housing The quality of housing in the City has remained high. In 1995, the City instituted an unsafe building abatement program. This program has enabled the City to require the improvement of the few seriously deficient homes within the City. A new windshield survey identifying the condition of all homes within the City should be performed. D. Group Homes The City has only one group home licensed by Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. The City's land development regulations treat group homes of 7 or fewer residences as a single family home. They are permitted in all zoning districts that permit single family residences. Larger group homes are permitted in the City's multi -family and commercial zoning districts. HOS - Pg. 3 F. Mobile Homes Since the 1990 Census, the City has added 310 mobile home units to its housing stock. The majority of those units have located within the Edgewater Landing subdivision. This development is a manufactured home subdivision. Each of the lots is owned by its residents. Growth among the other mobile home parks has been negligible. G. Historically Significant Housing The City has not performed a professional survey of historically significant housing. Informal surveys have been performed by staff and an individual associated with the local historical society. This process has identified a few structures of purely local interest. Most of these structures have been significantly altered from their original architectural appearance. H. Housing Construction Activity Since the adoption of the element, the pace of new housing construction has slowed considerably. In 1990, a total of 304 dwelling units were permitted. In 1995, only 131 dwellings were permitted. Sixty-three percent of the homes permitted in 1995 were single family residences. The remaining 37% were classified as mobile homes. No multi -family dwelling units were constructed. The majority of the single family residences were constructed in the Florida Shores Subdivision. The mobile homes were almost exclusively manufactured dwellings and were placed in Edgewater Landing. HOS - Pg. 4 ; ! §§ /� °- \ § !) _ � SS) ANALYSIS OF HOUSING OBJECTIVES The following analyzes why certain objectives may or may not have been achieved during the plan implementation period. 9J-5's assessment criteria has been used in the process. Table HOS-2 lists each of the housing policies by objective and indicates their status. OBJECTIVES Mective 1: Assist the private sector to provide 4,160 new dwelling units by 1995, plus an additional 3,600 new units between 1995 and 2000 to meet the anticipated housing needs. Evaluation: The Housing Element was prepared by an independent consultant and after careful examination, it has been determined that this objective of providing 7,760 new dwelling units by the year 2000 is unrealistic and unattainable. Since the adoption of the plan in 1990 to the end of 1996, there has been a total of 1,165 units constructed. These include 757 single family residential homes, 45 two family or duplex units and 318 manufactured/mobile homes. The majority of the manufactured/mobile homes we located in one river front subdivision approved in 1986. It is in the final phase of development with approximately 20 undeveloped lots remaining out of 450. Revised population projections and building construction trends have been included. See Exhibits HOS-A and HOS-B. Table HOS-3, indicates the projected need for housing by type as prepared by "Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing. The public is provided educational assistance information for housing construction and rehabilitation, and works closely with Habitat for Humanity. The City has amended application procedures to "fast tracking" of permits to the general public. Site selection criteria for the elderly and handicapped have not been added to the regulations, and is not necessary. ecommendation: Policy 1.1: No change Policy 1.2: No change Policy 1.3: Eliminate. Performed administratively. Policy 1.4: Eliminate Objection 2: Revise the Land Development Regulations to remove constraints on the HOS - Pg. 6 development of mobile home subdivisions. Evaluation: This objective has been completed except for amending the subdivision regulation requirements for new mobile home parks and traditional residential subdivisions, however, new subdivision regulations are currently in draft form. Recommendation: Policy 2.1: Eliminate. Provisions in place. Policy 2.2: Eliminate. LDR's in place. Policy 2.3: No change Objective 3: Revise the LDR's to remove constraints on development of the low and moderate income housing. Evaluation: The City currently provides technical assistance to organizations such as Habitat for Humanity and other non-profit groups seeking help on low cost housing developments. However, the City has not revised its zoning ordinance to increase densities as density issues have been transferred to the LDR's in conjunction with the FLUE. This will be reviewed for appropriateness in light of the State's new definition of Coastal High Hazard Areas and its potential restrictions on increased densities and intensities of development. Table HOS-4 contains figures of surplus or deficit of affordable housing units. Tables HOS-5 and HOS-6 indicate householder by income and tenure and estimated and projected householder by household size. Recommendation: Policy 3.1: No change Policy 3.2: Re-evaluate Obeective 4: Develop an overall analysis of annexation opportunities for various forms of housing. Evaluation: A summary of housing needs to be evaluated for any proposed annexation has not been formally done, due to a lack of resources. However, the City considers future land uses, infrastructure needs, financial impacts of providing services and types of housing prior to and for the basis of its annexation decision. The majority of newly annexed properties are considered agricultural and rural residential which require 5-10 acres for single family residences, or are already developed. Recommendation: HOS - Pg. 7 Policy 4 • Eliminate Objective 5: Provide the supporting infrastructure to enhance the Housing Element. Evaluation: This goal has been met with the exception of waiver of fee policy for low income housing projects. The City has undertaken, and almost completed, major capital improvement projects which include providing wastewater, potable and reclaimed water, new road and drainage improvements to over 7,200 building lots. Recommendation: Policy 5.1: Eliminate, 95% complete. Policy 5.2: Eliminate, implemented through development review process. Policy .3: Re-evaluate Objective 6: Establish a public/private dialog that will lead to the provision, by the private sector, recreational facilities within all subdivisions, including mobile home parks. Evaluation: This objective has been met in that recreational facilities meet the current per capita requirement. A task force has not been established with the responsibility for developing standards for recreational development within residential areas, mainly because of complaints of noise and vandalism from the residents in areas that already have developed neighborhood parks. The City does, however, have a Parks and Recreation Advisory Board which analyzes current and future needs. The focus has been on community based recreational sites. The private sector participation has also focused on luring larger scale projects such as a YMCA facility at the Daytona Beach Community College South Campus site located within the City. Recommendation Policy 6.1: Eliminate Policy No change OOI 7iective: Revise the Land Development Regulations to remove constraints on the development of group homes and foster care facilities. Evaluation: The State has required that cities allow Community Residential Homes within their jurisdictions. They are divided into three categories, and the City has enacted ordinances for the HOS - Pg. 8 location of these type facilities. Although the City would support the County's Housing Authority, they have had no contact with the City and therefore no specific sites for group homes have been identified. One adult congregate living facility (14 people or more) and a few small adult cue homes (six people or less) that are privately owned and operated, currently exist within the City. The majority of large group and foster care facilities are located in the unincorporated area of the County, primarily in large acreage areas. Recommendation: Policy 7.1: Eliminate Policy 7.2: Eliminate, implemented through City Code Objective 8: Establish a regular program of housing inspections to supplement inspections made during the construction of or remodeling of housing units. Evaluation: Inspections for code deficiencies at the time a residential unit has changed ownership or offered for rent was rejected by the City Council, due to unavailable resources. The City does, when contacted, inspect homes with owner/occupant permission to determine if unsafe conditions exist. These policies will be removed from this element. Recommendation: Policy S.1• Eliminate Policy 8.2: Eliminate Policy 8.3: Eliminate Policy 8.4: Eliminate Policy 8.5: Eliminate, County function. Objective 9: Conduct a survey of historic structures located within the City. Evaluation: A professional survey has not been conducted. However as stated in the Future Land Use element, the City has no known Nationally Registered historic structures. Establishing an Historic Preservation Board, providing rehabilitation, and State and Federal grant assistance is not warranted at this time. HOS - Pg. 9 Recommendation: Policy 9.1, No change Policy 9.2, No change Policy 9.3, No change Obiective 10, Assign responsibility for housing program coordination to a City official. Evaluation: Due to budget constraints and other major capital projects undertaken by the City, the position of a Housing Official has not been created. Recommendation: Policy 10.1: Eliminate Policy 10.2, Eliminate Policy 10.3, Eliminate HOS -Pg. 10 .. � ® .... . \ 17, _ IT ] . - - C HOS-Pg. 12 /h kr� } c 3A �� o p z Y `yt i- ". et %£ ,x G �t O R1 � S /6 NS Cj o V o S E¢ f c _ o M c f V u-ij Zw _ ... �. � J � y � 444iiii S V pppy24 sn g—E n ��� u �O �OT� N N � • ' � WT W c0 ^0 HOS -Pg. 13 HOS-Pg. 14 C EXHIBIT HOS-A POPULATION PROJECTIONS Population Projections Revised Population Projections As Adopted 1990=14,900 1990 =15, 337 2002 = 20,206 1995 = 20,400 1992=16,394 2004 = 20,988 2000 = 27, 900 1994 = 17,316 2006 = 21,771 2005 = 33,000 1996 = 17,761 2008 = 22,553 1998 = 18,642 2010 = 23,345 2000 = 19,424 Population FLOW CHART 35,000 C 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 C i j%0 s II 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 HOS - Pg. 15 C EXMIT HOS-B CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY SINCE PLAN ADOPTION Year Single Family Duplex Mobile Homes 1990 202 14 74 1991 94 2 44 1992 104 4 34 1993 87 15 43 1994 119 6 46 1995 82 0 49 1996 69 4 28 Total - 757 45 318 Units Built FLOW CHART 325 300 C 275 250 225 200 175 150 125 C 100 1990 91 92 93 94 95 96 HOS - Pg. 16 ® \ !T }} ) N 0 u m w o• � o� � v> m .o m o o• o� � �n �o N a� �n a� o• � -� .. "m h � N N ^C Y V C u 5z � O O <N lr O O h vJ d, m W O• 7 '� N O• N O� N � � m N N � O` m � h y ' � 0 v 1 � ozr x v� � n y •� F ^ p o uj v C Q � z co N w v� m co rn m co o �o N �n O 0 1-OI O it � CQ � �, � q m a� �n .o w o• 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c HOS -Pg. 18 v u N N N N N N N M M M M N p w N Q v m m m m m m M M m 7 � « � o v o E _ x 7� � v E p p Ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v wIQ (V h h O h O N O VJ O O G U 0 Ul m HOS -Pg. 19 G o a rtl N 0 m m ai C a c N F C4 O M N N m rMi i t a 0 5 o cu 0 C a 0 N F z c CdC F 0 � O W O W C y X X X X Y Y Y X X Y Y Y X Y m h N 0 .Ni Ui vJ N �( N V] m m m m m m O (V HOS - Pg. 20 ; ; © ! / . / ! § mkt � §.§e 39 \]] ) \ \ ) \ C C C TABLE HOS-6 Housing Element Householder by Household Size Estimated & Projected Projected Difference Size 1995 2000 2005 2010 2000 2005 2010 1 Person 1269 1455 1671 1880 186 402 611 2 Persons 2699 3191 3794 4389 492 1095 1690 3 Persons 1224 1529 1769 2006 305 545 782 4 Persons 1003 1265 1456 1643 262 453 640 5 Persons 375 470 545 620 95 170 245 6 Persons 129 164 185 205 35 56 76 7 Persons 56 70 78 86 14 22 30 TOTAL 6155 8144 9498 10829 1389 2743 4074 Source: Sbimberg Center for Affordable Housing / University of Florida c:\bos-6\final.wpd HOS-Pg. 22 Effect of Changes to Housing Element The Housing Element has been assessed for consistency with the State Comprehensive Plan, Regional Policy Plan, Rule 9J-5, F.A.C. and Chapter 163, Part 11, Florida Statutes. The following is the evaluation of that assessment. F S. Chapter 163. Florida Statutes, the City is required to include the Affordable Housing Needs Assessment that was provided by the Florida Department of Community Affairs in the EAR. This assessment estimates the number of affordable housing units required to meet the needs of the City's existing and future population. The estimates are based on a number of variables, including population, income, and housing prices in the City. It is necessary to adopt the affordable housing needs projections into the background data of the Housing Element, as well as adding policies addressing the provision of needed unites The data and analysis of the Housing Element has not been updated since the1980 census. A new Housing Element will be prepared as part of the EAR based amendments. HOS - Pg. 23 Impact of Unanticipated Problems and Opportunities At the time the housing element was developed, aggressive goals and policies, based on a continuation of strong growth were incorporated into the plan. The impacts of those goals were not anticipated at that time. Funding sources to achieve the targets were and are unavailable, due to the major capital improvements that have occurred since the plan adoption. This created problems in that the goals were unattainable and unrealistic in nature. HOS-Pg. 24 FAR Based Amendments - Housing Element 1. Data and analysis: Develop new data and analysis for Housing Element. 2. Objectives and policies: Adopt new goals, objectives and measurable policies based on more realistic growth projections. 3. Inspection program: Remove objectives and policies relating to housing program. 4. Remove references to dates: For those policies that have been implemented or eliminated. HOS - Pg. 25 CONDITION OF THE PLAN AT THE TIME OF ADOPTION Data and Analysis Potable Water At the time of the adoption of the comprehensive plan the City owned and operated a 2.4 million gallons per day (MGD) water treatment plant which provided potable water within the City limits. The source of water was from nine deep wells located in two separate wellfrelds. The eastern well field was located adjacent to the water treatment plant and produced 1.7 MGD of raw water. The western well field, located near Interstate 95, produced 1.44 MGD. The plant provided a daily average of 1.1 MGD of potable water to the service area. The level of service (LOS) standard was established at 100 gallons per capita per day (GPCD). The element indicated that current demand for potable water was being met , but projected a shortfall by 1994. The element also stated that the eastern well field was planned to be abandoned. The Potable Water System service area is shown on Figure INF-l. Water supply well field locations are shown on Figure INF-2. Wastewater At the time of the adoption of the comprehensive plan the City owned and operated a 1.0 MGD wastewater treatment plant. The service area for the plant was the corporate limits of the City. However, the collection system only served half the residences in the City. A large portion of the City with soil types unsuitable for septic tanks, known as Florida Shores, was unsewered. The plant's average daily flow was 0.7 MGD. The LOS for the plant was 90 GPCD. The element indicated that the collection system needed to be expanded to serve the unsewered areas and the treatment plant needed to be reconstructed to handle the increased flows and improve the quality of treatment. The waste water service areas are indicated on Figure IlV17-3. Drainage The element identified three major drainage basins within the City: the 18th Street Canal System, the Gabordy Canal System, and the Turnbull Canal System. All three of these systems were originally created to lower the water table and drain land for agriculture and development. The element noted recent changes to the City's stormwater management regulations. These regulations required all new development to incorporate best management practices into the design of their stormwater systems. Solid Waste At the time of the adoption of the comprehensive plan it was estimated that the City collected 4.4 pounds of solid waste per capita each day from within the City limits. The collected waste was INF -Pg. 1 taken to the City's transfer station. This transfer station had a capacity of 10 pounds per capita per day. The solid waste was then transported to the County's Tomoka Farm Landfill. It was noted in the element that the landfill had capacity beyond the planning period. The City also operated an incinerator to dispose of yard wastes. The incinerator had a capacity of 18 pounds per capita per day. The incinerator burned 6.67 pounds per capita per day. The element noted that these facilities were adequate to meet existing and future needs. It noted that the transfer station was due shortly to be refurbished. This activity would extend the life of the transfer station well beyond the planning period. Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge The element identified three aquifers underlying the City of Edgewater: the surficial aquifer; the upper Floridan aquifer; and the lower Floridan aquifer. The surficial aquifer or water table lies just below the surface of the land and is open to infiltration from rainfall. The water table is also interconnected to the surface water system. Water entering the surficial aquifer generally travels eastward, entering canals or discharging directly into the Indian River. Another known area where some drainage occurs is west of the Florida Shores subdivision into the Turnbull Hammock area. The element noted that the City lies in an area of generally no recharge to the Floridan aquifers. This is due to soils that form a confining layer between the surficial aquifer and the Floridan aquifer. INF - Pg. 2 I,. ,EXISTING CITY LIMITS $�SERVICE,y C r _ } AREA Pr'i -17 s t � Jj g CHAPTER 180 b RESERVE AREA I ; �,klx♦ f 1 ..6 PROPOSED SERVICE_-.• n r AREA DOUNDARY l.) _ SOURCE: DYER, RIDDLE, MILLS & PRECOURT INC., 1996, DYER, RIDDLE, MILLS CITY OF EDGEWATER EXISTING AND FIGURE AND PRECPRECOURT, INCPROPOSED SERVICE AREAS A®. ..m,,.:..,,INF-] INF - Pg. 3 C C C INF - Pg. 4 C N C Now Smyrna Beach32009 'Edgewaterd._� s a 2 W gi1r".e �m4a.y. • ��12 11 f iP 6 � _ W N SILV61 m � a O 9 c W yJ� , t I�m'Y•n I i _ INF - Pg. 5 CONDITION OF THE PLAN AT THE TIME OF EAR Introduction: The purpose of the Infrastructure Element of the adopted Comprehensive Plan describes nearly sixty million dollars worth of capital improvements made to sanitary sewer, drainage and potable water. It also includes solid waste disposal and aquifer recharge areas and the City's services and facilities, data and analysis, capacity, demand and levels of service. Potable Water In 1993, the City completed construction of a 5.0 MGD water treatment plant which provides potable water to a service area which includes land inside and outside the City. The source of water is from a well field located near the new water treatment plant. The well field produces a maximum flow of 3.49 MGD of raw water. The plant provides a daily average flow of 1.4 MGD of potable water to the service area. The level of service (LOS) is 100 gallons per capita per day (GPCD). The plant has sufficient capacity to meet the demands of population growth well beyond planning period. The Revised Potable Water system area is shown on Figure INF-4. Water supply well field locations are shown on Figure INF-5. Wastewater In 1993, the City completed construction of a 2.25 MGD advanced wastewater treatment plant. The service area for the new plant is the corporate limits of the City. The collection system was expanded so that by 1994 almost all land within the City is served by centralized sewers. The plant's average daily flow is 1.5 MGD. The LOS for the plant is 90 GPCD. The plant's capacity is sufficient to meet the demands of population growth within the service area beyond the planning period. The City received a re -rating of the capacity of this plant to potentially serve lands in an expanded service area beyond the corporate limits of the City. The revised wastewater service area is shown on Figure INF-6. The plant discharges effluent to the Indian River and a reclaimed water system. Demand for the reclaimed water is very high. Annually, 67% of the plant's effluent is reused. Drainage Since the adoption of the comprehensive plan the City has completed a stormwater master plan and created a stormwater utility. The stormwater utility is intended to fund the maintenance and improvement of the publicly owned stormwater conveyance and treatment facilities. New development has been required since 1990 to construct on -site stormwater management systems. Properties are required to retain stormwater from 25-year storm event and post - development run-off is required to be no greater than pre -development run-off. These regulations have been enforced and new development does not contribute to drainage problems within the City. INF - Pg. 6 Solid Waste The City currently collects 3.43 pounds of solid waste per capita each day from within the City limits. The collected waste is taken to the City's transfer station which has been improved since the comprehensive plan was adopted. This transfer station has a capacity of 13.3 pounds per capita per day. The solid waste is then transported to the County's Tomoka Farm Landfill. The landfill has capacity to the year 2040. The City also operates an incinerator to dispose of yard wastes. The incinerator has a capacity of 18 pounds per capita per day. The incinerator bums 6.67 pounds per capita per day. These facilities are adequate to meet existing and future needs beyond the planning period. The City has developed a recycling program since the comprehensive plan was adopted. This program is operated through a contract with a private recycler. At the time of preparation of this document it is estimated that the recycling program has reduced the waste stream headed to the landfill by 40%. Natural Groundwater Aouifer Recharge The City lies in an area of generally no recharge to the Floridan aquifers. It does not appear that any lands annexed into the City since the adoption of the comprehensive plan have changed this fact. The City has developed a reclaimed water system in conjunction with the construction of the new wastewater treatment facility. This system provided reuse water to 1200 customers on a daily basis. This system reduces withdrawals from the surficial aquifer for irrigation purposes. INF - Pg. 7 8 •,"I M NEW WATER PLANT ,vl POTABLE AREA CITY OF EDGEWATER FIGURE INF-4 INF - Pg. 8 57 -` p --- Yl WELL FIE D SER ICE AREA I - WESTERN WELL FIELD �I-� / . rr CITY OF EDGEWATER FIGURE INF-5 INF - Pg. 9 M NEW WASTEWATER PLANT y AREA OF EDGEWATER FIGURE INF-6 INF -Pg. 10 ANALYSIS OF INFRASTRUCTURE OBJECTIVES The following analyzes why certain objectives may or may not have been achieved during the plan implementation period. 9J-5's assessment criteria has been used in this process. Table INF-1 lists each of the Infrastructure policies by objective and indicates their status. OBJECTIVES Potable Water Objective 1: The City will not issue a development order permit unless the potable water system has the capacity to supply the amount of water expected. Evaluation: Development orders are not issued without prior approval of the Utilities Department, as part of the Technical Review Committee process. The developer is required to pay for the extension of and/or connection(s) to potable water lines. Recommendation: Policy 1.1: No change Policy 1.2 No change Policy 1.3: No change Policy 1.4: No change Policy 1.5: No change Objective 2: Identify needed water system improvements and correct previously identified water system deficiencies. Evaluation: The City continuously identifies any areas that may need improvements through the capital improvement planning process. All needed water system improvements we made such that facilities are available concurrently with development. If deficiencies are deemed to be a health threat, they are corrected immediately. Recommendation: Policy 2.1: No change INF - Pg. 11 Policy 2.2: No change Policy Eliminate and update policy. Policy 2.4: 1) No change 2) No change 3) No change Objective 3: Provide potable water which meets all standards for drinking water as required by D.E.R. and E.P.A. Evaluation: This Policy has been accomplished as the City meets or exceeds all State and Federal guidelines and has incorporated these regulations in the City Code. Recommendation: Policy 3.1: Eliminate, implemented through City Code. Policy 3.2; Eliminate, implemented through City Code. Policy 3.3: No change Policy 3.4: Eliminate, implemented through City Code. Policy 3 • Eliminate, implemented through City Code. Objective 4: Promote existing facilities and discourage urban sprawl by extending potable water service within the service area. Evaluation: The City has built a new 5.0 MGD water treatment plant and installed a 20-inch water transmission main on S.R. 442. The current capacity will be able to meet the future growth demands. Recommendation: Policy 4.1: Eliminate, completed. Policy 4.2: Eliminate, completed. Policy 4.3: Eliminate, completed. INF - Pg. 12 OBJECTIVES Sanitary Sewer/Wastewater Objective 1: The City will not issue development permits unless the wastewater treatment system has the required capacity. Evaluation: A new waste water treatment plant was constructed in 1993. This increased the capacity from 1.0 MGD average daily flow to 2.25 MGD. The plant was recently re -rated to 2. 75 MGD. As part of the City's development review process, no development orders are issued unless connection is made or is at such a distance that connection is not feasible. City code requires that a Level Of Service standard of 85 gallons per capita per day be used for proposed developments. Recommendation: Policy 1.1: Eliminate, implemented through City code. Policy 1.2: No change Policy 1.3: Eliminate, completed. Policy 1.4: No change Policy No change Objective 2: Continue to identify needed wastewater system improvements. Evaluation: The identification of any needed improvements are done through the capital improvement planning process. Any deficiencies that are a public health risk are corrected immediately. Recommendation: Policy 2.: Eliminate, self supporting. Policy 2.2: No change Policy 2.3: No change Policy 2.4• No change Policy 2.5: No change INE - Pg. 13 oob'ective 3: Identify and eliminate existing sources of pollution in service areas Evaluation: The City has met this goal in the service area as adopted. The City's largest source of pollution was from septic tank leachate in the Florida Shores Subdivision comprising of 7200 building lots. A new wastewater treatment plant was constructed and wastewater and reuse lines installed. This has reduced effluent discharge into the Indian River by more than 50% and helps to insure the surficial aquifer is protected. Substantial stormwater management systems were also constructed in conjunction with the paving of the roads in this same subdivision. There remains some small pocket areas in the City still unserviced with wastewater collection. They have been identified and sources of funding are under consideration. See Table INF-2 and Figure INF -7 Recommendation: Policy 3.1: No change Policy 3.2: No change Policy .: Eliminate, completed. Policy 3.4: Eliminate, completed and implemented. Objective 4: Discourage urban sprawl by extending sanitary sewer services to developments within the City's service area. Evaluation: This objective has been completed. Recommendation: Policy 4.1: Eliminate, completed. Policy 4.2: Eliminate, completed. Policy 4 • Eliminate, completed. Policy 4.4: Eliminate, completed. Policy 4.5: Eliminate, completed. INF - Pg. 14 OBJECTIVES Drainage Objective 1: Enforce stormwater regulations through the review of site plans. Evaluation: Currently the City has a development review process for all proposed projects and on site inspections for which stormwater regulations are enforced. Recommendation: Policy 1.1: Eliminate, implemented through City Code. Policy 1.2: Eliminate, implemented through City Code. Policy 1.3: Eliminate, implemented through City Code. Policy 1.4: Eliminate, implemented through City Code. Objective 2: Maintain a stormwater system so that structural flooding during a 25-year24-hour storm event is eliminated and reduce the amount of pollution entering the Indian River from 18th Street Outfall Canal by 50%. Evaluation: The 50% reduction goal has essentially been achieved with the drainage improvements affiliated with the Florida Shores Road Improvement Project, which is the primary contributing area for the 18th Street Canal. A Quality Assurance Plan has been developed that will assist in evaluating pollutant reduction figures. Recommendation: Policy 2 : No change Policy 2.2: Eliminate, implemented and permitted by SJRWMD. Objective 3 Review stormwater management regulations every two years. Evaluation: The stomtwater management regulations are evaluated periodically and are continuously updated or modified with SJRWMD regulations. Recommendation: policy 3.1: Eliminate, implemented through City code. INF - Pg. 15 Polic 2• Eliminate, implemented through City code. Objective 4: Discourage urban sprawl by extending drainage facilities to developments within the service area. Evaluation: This objective has been implemented with the drainage improvements constructed with the RIP. A number of roadway miles were eliminated and converted to detention areas. Recommendation: Policy 4.1: No change Policy 4.2: No change Policy 4. • Eliminate, implemented through City code. INF - Pg. 16 OBJECTIVES Solid Waste Objective 1: Provide solid waste collection and disposal facilities to meet the projected demand. Evaluation: The City currently transfers 60 tons per day to the County land fill, as apposed to the 122.8 tons per day projected in this plan. This is largely due to the City recycling program and the slower population growth rate. The County land fill will meet the disposal needs of the City to the year 2040. Recommendation: Policy 1.1: Eliminate, implemented as standard operating procedure. Policy 1.2: Eliminate, implemented as standard operating procedure. Policy 1.3: No change Policy 1.4: No change Objective 2: Maintain city-wide Capital Improvement Program to identify the needs for solid waste facilities. Evaluation: The City regularly reviews the effectiveness of the solid waste operation and strives towards increasing efficiency and cost effectiveness. The City has included additional collection of corrugated cardboard and telephone books to its program. Recommendation: Policy 2.1: Eliminate, adopted Master Plan in 1992. Policy 2.2: Eliminate, implemented through Master Plan. Policy 2.3: Eliminate, equipment purchased in 1992. Policy 2.4: Eliminate, implemented through LDR's. Objective 3: Operate the solid waste system so that the actual costs are covered. Evaluation: The solid waste refuge collection system is operated as an Enterprise Fund. Five years ago, a fifty cent fee was placed on each household. This is reserved in an INF-Pg. 17 escrow account and has been sufficient for equipment replacement. Recommendation: Poly 3.1: No change Objective 4: Develop a plan for monitoring hazardous materials generated. Evaluation: Although no formal plans have been written, biohazardous waste is handled through the City's Fire Rescue Department. Other hazardous solid waste is handled through the County. The City also promotes "Amnesty Days" they occur through public notice and announcements to its residents. Recommendation: Policy 4.1, No change Policy 4.2: No change Objective 5: Establish a program for recycling. Evaluation: The City, in participation with Volusia County, has an established recycling program, that is designed to reduce landfill disposal. Currently the recycling program generates 22 tons per month, and has reduced landfill disposal by 37%. Recommendation: Policy .1, No change Policy 5.2, No change Policy 5.3, No change INF - Pg. 18 OBJECTIVES Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Obiective 1: Conduct a study of groundwater aquifer recharge areas in the existing and proposed service area. Evaluation: St. Johns River Water Management District has mapped Recharge Areas of the Floridan Aquifer. However, it is used as a regional planning aid for ground water resource management and is not intended for site -specific assessments. Generally, it appears that the City's service area is within the 0-4 inch per year delineation, with the exception of a portion of the newly annexed area at I-95 and S.R. 442 which is shown as 4-8 inches per year. Twelve inches or more are considered areas of high recharge. The City will need to evaluate annexed land since the plan adoption and may need an EAR based amendment to address these areas. Recommendation: Policy .1: Re -write policy Polite 1.2: No change Objective 2: Develop a program for maintaining aquifer recharge area functions. Evaluation: The City is currently revising its subdivision regulations. The draft has not been finalized. It will include standards for inclusion of recharge areas in open space preservation requirements. The City has adopted standards for wellfield protection and buffer requirements that meet County and State guidelines. A separate aquifer recharge ordinance has not been prepared, however, if after analysis, indications are recharge areas now exist within the City, a program will be designed. Recommendation: Policy 2 : No change Policy 2.2: No change Policy 2 : No change INF - Pg. 19 N C INF - Pg. 20 c-tl e v —xx V ..>WA _ Y � o_ ] N J m d L q VJ w Rmi P •� a d ry o a c GL' n u Sol v •• E m '9 ° v� `a gEg L� N � fV tt1 tt1 < n1 tt1 9 Rf � I T T 0 INF - Pg. 21 r 1 P ryju -a o 1 / h 0-8 C c, x z A v sp E � � h n E $ o ., i ryAt u,t�,. V `�': ice. °o m ° E s u o c Y n — N tt1 44 INF - Pg. 22 C C `O P yU G 9 q'd . U of n y O m C u S S E 'tit 4 v -e s° E = e Y o 0 � Z L m � m ° A $ E m E a v°o _ n O Y `o v .. a ° � E 3 0 e� C C q'a y 14 _ a f � e a 4 E � q E o 5 G qp d q G U O q N N lV C INF - Pg. 23 r � r C F •^ y a a n a w ay uE E Y'9 p Q N rr c °4 d � y Y $ -e O �n h c o ❑ e 6 b V may G d l G ` ° 'g •'. m a mT mT m ° ��. a� a� a� INF - Pg. 24 10 f(° : � ( \ \ \ \ \ �� }\ } } INF-Pg. 25 ) ») 2\\ ») � 1 I� � « t,` ! } 2 \\ \ 0\ o ;I! � g E \)« f �}] )\ \ J }4F � \\ - 9 7 \ C INF - Pg. 27 \{ ) ) § ) {)) a \ 9 & \\ \. \t i] _-% 28 � ` �3.jtS \ 7 };; 4 } -.d _ -- - \)] _-Pg. 29 INF - Pg. 30 b e 5 INF-Pg. 31 TABLEINF-2 Infrastructure Element Unsewered Areas Street From To 1. Thomas Street U.S. Hwy. #1 Riverside Drive 2. 2nd Street Thomas Street, North Thomas Street, South 3. 3rd Street Thomas Street, North Thomas Street, South 4. 4th Street Thomas Street, North Thomas Street, South 5. 15th Street Juniper Drive Lime Tree Drive 6. Boston Road Riverside Drive Indian River 7. Virginia Street Riverside Drive Indian River 8. South half of Ruth Street Beulah Drive (circle) Beulah Drive (circle) 9. Beulah Drive Ruth Drive (circle) Beulah Drive (circle) 10. 'Air Park Road State Road 442 22nd Street 11. ' State Road 442 Willow Oak Drive West Corporate Limits 12. Dale Street Park Avenue Dead End 13. Flagler Avenue Park Avenue RXR Spur 14. Flagler Avenue (vacated) RXR Spur Dead End ' Annexed Area 1994 ,At,bW,,f-2gi,,a1.apd INF - Pg. 32 N l Y[N --f-N N1 Figure INF - 7 INF - Pg. 33 Effect of Changes to Infrastructure Element The Infrastructure Element has been assessed for consistency with the State Comprehensive Plan, Regional Policy Plan, Rule 9J-5 F.A.C. and Chapter 163, Part II, F.S. The following is the evaluation based on that assessment. le 9J-5. F.A.0 Minor changes have occurred that affect the infrastructure element. There are specific requirements for goals, objectives and policies addressing each of the facilities and resources. The City's adopted plan addressed each goal, objective and policy separately. The FAC contain a requirement to include standards for water quality and stormwater discharge Water quality standards for new and existing stormwater management systems are in place. Direct discharge has been reduced well below the permitted level due to an aggressive reuse program. F.S.. Chanter 163. No changes were made that affected this element. State Commehensive Plan The only change made to the State Comprehensive Plan was the addition of policies under hazardous, non -hazardous materials and the reduction of solid waste by 30%. Expanding recycling programs was also a required policy. Currently the City has reduced its solid waste disposal by 37 percent. Hazardous and non -hazardous waste programs and policies are already in place. The reduction of solid waste has already occurred due to the expanded recycling program within the City. No changes are needed for compliance. INF - Pg. 34 Impact of Unanticipated Problems and Opportunities One problem unanticipated was the problem of ceasing to dispose of wastewater effluent disposal into the Indian River led to an opportunity for the City. Since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, the City has implemented a wastewater reuse program. Approximately 50 percent of the City's effluent is now applied to the ground where it is able to be filtered. The City plans to continue its efforts to further reduce effluent discharged into the Indian River and eventually to cease disposal. This program is not only an opportunity to improve the water quality of the Indian River, but also an opportunity to reduce reliance on the irrigation wells which extract water from the aquifer and enables saltwater intrusion. Another unanticipated opportunity has been the success of the City's recycling efforts and the reduction of solid waste disposed to the County land fill, by more than 37 percent. INF - Pg. 35 EAR Based Amendments - Infrastructure Element 1. Aquifer Recharge Area(s): Identify, and map recharge areas located within the existing and proposed service area. If recharge areas are found to be present in the City, develop and adopt a management protection program and related objectives, goals and measurable policies. 2. Land Use: If recharge areas exist, designate conservation land use patterns for those areas on the Future Land Use Map. 3. Service area(s): Re -define and map the service area boundary 4. Capital improvements: Adopt objectives goals and measurable policies for the extension of infrastructure needs to annexed areas. 5. Hazardous waste : Develop a formal monitoring program for hazardous waste materials, including measurable policies. 6. Remove reference to dates: For those policies that have been implemented or eliminated INF - Pg. 36 CONDITION OF THE PLAN AT THE TIME OF ADOPTION Data and Analysis A. Existing Land Use Figure CM-1 is a map depicting the existing land uses in the City at the time of the adoption of The comprehensive plan. The element was prepared in conjunction with Volusia County and other Cities in the eastern portion of the County. Although Edgewater has no ocean frontage, the entire City falls within the coastal area. Table CM-1 depicts an inventory of land uses in the coastal area at the time of adoption. Conflicts Amone Shoreline Use The element stated that there are few conflicts among existing shoreline uses within the City. It was noted that the predominant use along the river is residential. The nonresidential uses included parks, access facilities and one private marina. The element noted that conflicts may result from attempts to introduce new nonresidential uses along the shoreline or to expand the existing ones. Economic Base The element stated that the major component of the City's economic base was the construction and retail sectors of the economy. Need for Water -Dependent and Related Use The element identified the water -dependant uses within the City as fishing piers, boat ramps, and a private marina/fish camp. Water -related uses included the parks and recreation areas along the river. The element stated that there was no current need for additional water -dependant or related development sites. B. The Effect of Land Uses on Natural Resources The element did not contain a detailed analysis on the impact of existing land uses on natural resources. The element discussed briefly the role of past development played in altering the shoreline and reducing wetland vegetation along the edge of the river. C. The Effect of Development on Historic Resources The element identified two known archaeological sites in the City. One site, a midden, was CME - Pg. 1 partially destroyed in 1917. The other site, a shell mound, was destroyed in 1986 by development after receiving approval from the State Division of Historic Resources. Two other known sites were not mentioned in the element. D. Estuarine Pollution The element stated that the Indian River was receiving pollution from both point and non -point sources. The point source of pollution within the City was the outfall from the City's wastewater treatment plant. The non -point sources in the City included leachate from septic tanks in the Florida Shores subdivision and stotrnwater run-off. The element identified a lack of good data on the quality of water within the estuary. The element recommended the establishment of a water quality monitoring program and reviewing the permit requirements for all existing and proposed point source discharges. E. Natural Disaster Planning This portion of the element only described hurricane evacuation and coastal flood areas which addressed all of Volusia County and was not tailored specifically to meet the needs of the City. The element concluded that the present population of Volusia County located in hurricane vulnerable areas could be evacuated in less than 6 hours. No deficiencies were identified which related to infrastructure within the City. F. Beach and Dune Systems The City has no beach or dune system. It is located on the mainland with shoreline along the Indian River Lagoon Estuary only. G. Public Access Facilities Table CM-1 is an inventory of the public access facilities that were existing at the time the comprehensive plan was adopted. The element stated that no additional access would be needed during the planning period. H. Existing Infrastructure The element contained a summary of the existing public infrastructure extracted from the Traffic Circulation and Infrastructure Elements. The facilities addressed were roads, potable water, wastewater, and drainage. The only deficiency noted was on a segment of West Park Avenue. CME - Pg. 2 C CME - Pg. 3 x C TABLE CM-1 Coastal Management Element Lana. Use in Coastal Area (1990) Name Acres Low Density Single Family Residential 870.73 Mid/High Density Residential 192.05 Mobile/Manufactured Homes 146.56 Commercial 317.83 Industrial 169.84 Recreational 63.54 Agricultural -0- Conservation -0- Educational; Public Lands, Buildings, Facilities 141.96 Institutional 33.37 Historic Resources - -0- Water/Lakes 23.84 Vacant/Undeveloped 2,369.57 TOTAL 4,329.33 a:\cm-1 CME - Pg. 4 CONDITION OF THE PLAN AT THE TIME OF EAR Introduction: The purpose of the Coastal Management Element is to plan for and where appropriate, restrict development activities where those activities would damage or destroy coastal resources, protect human life and limit public expenditures in areas subject to destruction by natural disaster. It not only addresses the protection of coastal resources, but also land use, traffic circulation, public access, facilities and services. Data and Analysis A. Existing Land Use Figure CM-2 is a map of the existing land uses within the City at the time of preparation of this document. Table CM-2 depicts an inventory of land uses in the coastal area. Economic Base The economic base of the City remains unchanged since the adoption of the comprehensive plan. The primary components of the base are still construction and retail sales. However, the construction sector is much weaker than it was in 1990. The industrial sector is growing and has taken on a slightly greater importance than in the past. Need for Water -Dependent and Related Uses There have been no changes to the water -dependant or related uses since the adoption of the comprehensive plan. There is no current need for additional water -dependent or related uses. The existing facilities may last longer than projected in the comprehensive plan due to slower than anticipated growth. B. The Effect of Land Uses on Natural Resources Very little development has occurred along the shoreline since the adoption of the comprehensive plan. Some infill of residential uses has taken place. This infill has been required to meet stricter standards than past development. These standards have included a shoreline protection buffer, prohibitions on the hardening of the shoreline, setbacks from wetlands, and stormwater pollution abatement. C. The Effect of Development on Historic Resources No development since the adoption of the comprehensive plan has effected the known archaeological resources in the City. CME - Pg. 5 D. Estuarine Pollution The Indian River Lagoon Estuary is subject to pollution from point and non -point sources within the City. Storrrrwater run-off is the most significant non -point source in the City. Development which has occurred since the adoption of the comprehensive plan has been required to provide on -site stormwater pollution abatement. The City has expanded its wastewater collection system eliminating septic tank leachate from its canal system. The City has developed a pilot program for retrofitting existing drainage canals in an attempt to eliminate oils and heavy metals from the discharges. The only point source in the City is from the wastewater treatment plants outfall. A new plant was constructed in 1993. The plant provides advanced wastewater treatment. The quality of the effluent is greatly improved over the discharge from the old plant. In addition, the City has developed a reclaimed water system. Through this system, 67% of the plants output is reused instead of being discharged to the river. E. Natural Disaster Planning The City has developed its own Disaster Preparedness Plan which it coordinates closely with Volusia County. Volusia County is the entity that is primarily responsible for hurricane evacuation. The City's plan sets forth procedures for the preparation, response and recovery from a disaster and ensures that City activities are coordinated with the County. The element needs to be revised to recognize this plan. The City's location on the mainland gives it some protection from hurricanes. Hurricane evacuation clearance times remain good. However, there is no current model that addresses clearance times within the City. During a recent storm event the City was able to evacuate all mobile home parks within two hours. F. Beach and Dune Systems The City has no beach or dune system. It is located on the mainland with frontage along the Indian River. G. Public Access Facilities There has been some changes to the public access facilities since the adoption of the comprehensive plan. In two areas, resolutions were passed to abandon unopened streets east of Riverside Drive in order to construct the 2.5 mile Riverwalk project. They are Thomas and Orange Avenue. One other street, Sanchez Avenue, East of Riverside Drive formerly providing pedestrian access to the river was abandoned due to the State denying the City upland ownership of accretions. The original platted portion of the street is used for a park, but no longer has river access. CME - Pg. 6 H. Existing Infrastructure In 1993, the City constructed new potable water and wastewater treatment plants. These plants have sufficient capacity to provide services well beyond the planning period. Also in 1993, the County added a turning lane to West Park Avenue. The improvement eliminated the deficiency on that roadway. The City has developed a stonnwater utility fee which funds improvements to the drainage system. New development is required to provide on -site stormwater pollution abatement. There are no existing deficiencies in any of the City's adopted levels of service. I. Port Master Plan There are no deep water ports in Volusia County, therefore, it has not been addressed in the plan. CME - Pg. 7 C C [f � L�d Use Category RMOFiIMM ®� SO Residential •. t ®® The intensity of non-residential uses are controlled by floor area ratios and impervious surface ratios on a site by site basis and therefore the non-residential land use designations shown shove are not 6rohen down into more specific intensity categories. Foot Not.: Percentages do not total due to rounding. aAcm-2 CME - Pg. 8 ANALYSIS OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT OBIECTIVES The following analyzes why certain objectives may or may not have been achieved during the plan implementation period. 9J-5's assessment criteria has been used in this process. Table CM-3 lists each of the Coastal Management policies by objective and indicates their status. OBJECTIVES Objective 1: Adopt management programs to ensure long term protection of natural upland and wetland habitats and water quality. Evaluation: The City has been able to implement the majority of the policies associated with this objective through the development review process. However, a prepared and prioritized list of habitats and properties for future public acquisition has not occurred as budgetary and resource constraints, due to capital improvement projects, render this policy unfeasible. Recommendation: Policy 1.1: No change Policy 1.2: No change Policy No change Policy 1.4: No change Policy 1.5: No change Policy 1.6: Eliminate, implemented through LDR's Policy 1.7: No change Policy 1.8: No change Policy 1.9: Eliminate, no resources available Policy 1.10: Add to LDR's Policy 1.11: Add to LDR's Objective IA: Develop regulatory programs to enhance and protect the natural function of the estuarine shoreline. CME - Pg. 9 Evaluation: This objective has been met. The City has implemented regulations requiring shoreline protection buffers, limited impervious surface coverage, reduced access and disallowed vertical sea walls or bulkheads. Hardening of the shoreline must demonstrate a serious threat to life or property. State permits are required for all shoreline modifications and alternative stabilization methods are encouraged. Recommendation; Policy-1.A1: Eliminate, implemented through City Code Policy LA2: No change, add to LDR's Policy 1.A3: Eliminate, implemented through City code Obiective 2: Establish land use regulations that provide for the protection of coastal resources. Evaluation: The City through its Technical Review Committee evaluates proposed projects for their impact on coastal resources and prepares written comments to the developer for compliance. These include but are not limited to; surveys depicting wetlands, the mean high water mark, contour lines, drainage features, ecological data and analysis and natural and required buffers areas. Recommendation: Policy 2 : No change Policy_2.2: Eliminate, implemented through LDR's olic 2. • Eliminate, implemented through LDR's Obiective 2A: Develop performance standards for development adjacent to aquatic and natural preserves, wildlife refuges, and environmental system corridors. Evaluation: Additional development standards and criteria for protection of coastal resources in the Land Development Regulations have not been completed as of this submittal. It does not appear that there are inconsistent or incompatible land uses in conflict with coastal resources. Recommendation: Policy 2.A1: No change CME -Pg. 10 Polia 2.A2: No change policy 2.A3: Eliminate, prepared by County Policy 2.A4: No change Objective 2B: Shoreline land uses shall be water -dependent over water -related land uses. Evaluation: The few remaining undeveloped parcels of shoreline land in the City are slated for low density, single family residential development. No resource management plan has been developed as of this submittal. Recommendation: Policy 2.B 1: 1) No change 2) No change 3) No change 4) No change Policy 2.B2: No change Objective 3: Monitor and improve estuarine water quality by cooperating with Volusia County Evaluation: The Coastal Management Technical Steering Committee no longer exists. Attendance at Ad -Hoc or special committees are on an as needed basis and the City is usually not asked by State agencies for information or data. The City supports the county wide effort to monitor water quality for the coastal area. The County has an ongoing estuary water quality sampling and monitoring program but have had no conclusive results and are in fact behind schedule. The City has implemented its reuse water program and reduced treated effluent discharge by 50% to the Indian River. Recommendation: Policy 3.1: No change Policy .2: No change Poi 3.3: No change CME - Pg. 11 Policy 4• No change Policy 5• No change Policy 3.6: Eliminate, implemented through County Health Department Policy 3.7: No change Policy 3.8: No change Policy 3.9: Eliminate, completed Policy 3.10: No change Policy 3.11: No change Policy 3.12: Eliminate, implemented through City Code Policy 3.13: Eliminate, prepared by County Policy 3.14: Eliminate, adopted Policy 3.15: Eliminate, completed Policy 3.16: No change Policy 3.17: Eliminate implemented through City Code Policy 3,18: No change Policy 3.19: A) No change B) No change C) No change D) No change E) No change F) No change G) No change H) Include in LDR's I) No change CME -Pg. 12 Objective 4: Maintain clearance time for evacuation of six hours during the time of hurricane in any category storm. Evaluation: The evacuation clearance time has not changed Recommendation: Policy 4.1: No change Policy 4.2: No change Policy 4.3: Eliminate, implemented through LDR's Policy 4.4: Eliminate, implemented through City Code Policy 4.5: Eliminate, implemented through Emergency Plan Policy 4.6: Eliminate, implemented Objective 4.A: Designate hurricane evacuation shelters in the event of a hurricane. Evaluation: The City has coordinated its evacuation shelter locations with the County. Previously designated shelters within the City have been discontinued due to susceptibility to storm surge flooding. Recommendation: Policy 4.A1: Eliminate, located in the County Policy 4 A2: No change Policy 4.A3: Eliminate, located in County Objective 4.13: Adopt Land Development Regulations (LDR's) governing development in the Coastal Hazard area that minimizes danger to life and property. Evaluation: The City is in the process of updating and revising its Land Development Regulations. It is currently in draft form and will include language to meet the objective. Recommendation: Policy 4.B1: No change Policy 4.B2: No change CME -Pg. 13 Policy 4.B3: Eliminate, implemented through City Code Policy 4.134: Eliminate, adopted with Comprehensive Plan Objective 4.Ci Develop a Post -Disaster Relief Plan. Evaluation: The City has adopted and has utilized its Disaster Preparation, Response, and Recovery Plan. It includes emergency operations center and organization, evacuation plan, security, search and rescue, damage assessment, human services, medical care for the injured, debris removal/roads, water and wastewater, disaster assistance, public information and communications. Additional identification of lands and structures that should not be reconstructed or should be demolished or abandoned has not been completed, as this is generally done as part of the post disaster assessment process. As the LDR's are in draft form, the build back policy has been adopted only for signs and non- conforming structures thus far. The City has not revised the LDR's to include performance criteria for shoreline uses. This will be incorporated in the new draft. Recommendation: Policy 4.C1: Re -write policy Policy. 4.C2: No change Policy 4.C3: Eliminate, principles implemented Policy -4.C4: Eliminate, implemented through City Code Policy 4.C5: No change, add to LDR's Policy 4.C6: Change to reflect state definition Policy 4 C7: Eliminate, adopted olicy 4.C8: No change, add to LDR's Policy 4.C9: No change Policy_4.C10: No change Policy 4 C11: No change add to LDR's CME - Pg. 14 Objective 41): No public funds shall be used for infrastructure and services which subsidize increased development densities and intensities in the Coastal High Hazard Area. Evaluation: At the time of adoption, the Coastal High Hazard area was defined as that area east of U.S. Hwy. 1. This area is predominately low density residential and is substantially built out. The public facilities located in this area consists of roads, utilities, City Hall and one fire station. An EAR based amendment will be required to reflect the States new definition of Coastal High Hazard Area, which will include a much larger area of the City. Further evaluation will be necessary. Recommendation: Policy 4 Dl • Re-evaluate Objective 5: Establish regulations that identify adverse impacts, restoration and mitigation needs of natural resources. Evaluation: This objective has been met. However, criteria to restore and limit developments negative impacts on natural resources, and regulations to mitigate disruptive or degradation of natural resources are included in City Codes. They will be included in the new LDR's. The State requires that permits be issued for mangrove removal, and the City is responsible for overseeing the work performed. Recommendation: Policy 5. • No change Policy .2: No change lic 5 : Eliminate, adopted Ijc 5 4: Eliminate, implemented through LDR's Policy .5: No change, add to LDR's Policy .6: Eliminate, no jurisdiction Policy 5.7: No change Policy 5.: No change Objective 6: Existing public access to the river will be maintained and operated by the City. CNE - Pg. 15 Evaluation: Currently there exist, five river access points that are operated and maintained by the City. The City has not provided any additional access points. Recommendation: Policy 6.: Eliminate, criteria has been met Policy .2: No change olic 6.3 No change Objective 6.A: Provide fishing piers for each resident of the coastal management area (181 linear feet/10,000 persons). Evaluation; Currently the City has two fishing piers and one fishing area which meets the intent of this objective. Recommendation: P9ltcy6.Al: No change Objective 6.B Provide one boat ramp lane for every 7,500 residents. Evaluation: The 1996 population figures are 17,761. The City has four concrete boat ramps with five Imes and one sand lane. There are three additional boat launching facilities in a privately owned marina, a residential subdivision and in a retirement community within the City. Additional City boat lanes will not be required until the population reaches 22,500. Recommendation: Policy 631: No change Objective 6.0 Volusia County and the City shall develop a marina siting program. Evaluation: There are no lands available within the City to establish a new marina site. The City has one privately owned marina, and has worked with the County in identifying possible sites in the unincorporated area south of the City limits. Recommendation: Policy 6.CI: No change Policy 6.C2: No change CME - Pg. 16 lO j'ective 6D: Establish scenic routes and roadways to preserve the natural beauty and vistas of the coastal management area. Evaluation: Riverside Drive is designated in the adopted plan as a scenic drive. It is 3.1 miles long, adjacent to the Indian River. The construction of "Riverwalk" has added visual beauty that is experienced by pedestrians and bicyclists. The adjacent City of New Smyrna Beach has also designated Riverside Drive as a scenic route. Policy 6.D1: Eliminate, not necessary Policy 6.132: No change Objective 7: Land Development Regulations will ensure that public services and facilities shall be adequate and available to serve current and future residents. Evaluation: Under the current LDR's, development or redevelopment requires public facilities and services to be concurrent with the impacts of development. Recommendation: Policy 7.1: Eliminate, implemented through LDR's and Technical Review Objective 7.A: Transportation: Ensure through Land Development Regulations and capital improvements and adopted Level -Of -Service standards. Evaluation: Established Levels -Of -Service for roads, and evacuation needs have not been diminished. Recommendation: Policy 7.A1: No change Policy 7.A2: No change Q jective 7.B: Ensure through Land Development Regulations, potable water to meet the needs of the coastal area population. Evaluation: This goal has been completed with the construction of the new water treatment plant. CME - Pg. 17 Recommendation: Policy 7.111: No change Policy 7.B2: No change Policy 7.B3: Eliminate, complete Policy 7.B4: Eliminate, agreements in place Policy 7.B5: Eliminate, complete Policy 7.B6: Eliminate, complete Policy 7.B7: No change Policy 7.B8: No change Policy 7.B9: No change Objective 7.C: Wastewater: Provide sufficient treatment capacity and effluent disposal methods to meet projected growth consistent with the adopted water quality standards. Evaluation: The City has completed the construction of a new wastewater facility that will meet the needs of future growth. The City has reduced significantly the direct discharge of effluent into the Indian River by more than 50%. This is a direct result of construction of reuse water lines and disposal mostly to the Florida Shores Subdivision. Recommendation: Policy 7.C1: Eliminate, implemented through City Code Policy 7.C2: Eliminate, required by DER Policy 7.C3: No change Policy 7.C4: No change Objective 7.D: Prepare a Stomtwater Master Plan by watershed so as not to degrade coastal resources. Evaluation: Coordination with Brevard and Flagler Counties in basin -wide stormwater CME - Pg. 18 management programs and studies have not been achieved. V olusia County has established a dialog with Flagler County and has prepared and adopted a County wide storrnwater master plan. The City has adopted its own Stormwater Master Plan. Policy 7.D1: No change Policy 7.D2: a) eliminate, implemented through City Code b) eliminate, implemented through City Code c) eliminate, implemented through City Code Policy 7.D3: No change Policy 7.D4: Eliminate, implemented through Stormwater Master Plan Policy 7.D5: Eliminate, implemented through City Code Policy 7.D6: Eliminate, implemented through City Code Objective 7.E: Ensure through monitoring programs that solid waste facilities do not result in violation of adopted standards or degradation of coastal resources. Evaluation: A formal hazardous waste survey to determine possible contamination of ground and surface waters have not been performed but is part of an ongoing process in conjunction with the County. Policy 7.E1: No change Policy 7.E2: Eliminate, implemented Objective U* Ensure through capital improvement planning that public buildings are located outside of areas susceptible to damage from storms or flooding, Evaluation: No new public buildings have been constructed in areas prone to stone surge or flooding since the adoption of the plan. However, designation of existing school facilities as hurricane evacuation and emergency shelters will most likely not happen as those facilities are not as safe as other locations in the County. These policies will be removed as they are no longer applicable. The Regional Planning Council is creating a hurricane evacuation model that each CME - Pg. 19 coastal city may consider adopting. Further evaluation by the City will be necessary once the model is complete. Through the development review process, the needs of fire and law enforcement services are evaluated commensurate with population growth and procedures to update emergency protection are on going. Recommendation: Policy 7.F1: Eliminate, N/A Policy 7.F2: No change Policy 7.F3: Eliminate, N/A Policy 7.F4: No change Policy 7 F5: No change Policy 7.F6: No change Obiective 7.G: Recreation: Ensure through annual reviews that recreation services and facilities are provided throughout the service area. Evaluation: The City currently requires land be provided for recreational needs for large developments or a recreational impact fee be paid for new home construction. These funds are used to provide recreational services and facilities. Recommendation: Policy 7 Gl: Eliminate, implemented Policy7.G2: No change Objective S: Prepare and adopt development standards for Coastal Resources. Evaluation: The City under its Technical Review Committee, coordinates efforts with the County to identify and protect environmental systems corridors, and to ensure consistency with development standards. The City provided a Coastal Management Technical Steering Committee member to review development standards for Volusia County was completed at the adoption of the 1990 Comprehensive Plan. This committee no longer exists. This policy will be removed as it is no longer applicable. CME - Pg. 20 Recommendation: Policy 8.1: Eliminate, task completed Policy 8.2: No change Polio .3: No change Polio .4: No change Objective 8.A: Utilize the Coastal Management Element area land use plan. Evaluation: The City's Technical Review Committee reviews all applications for land use amendments, zoning changes and proposed developments to ensure compatibility with adjacent local governments. If necessitated, inter -local agreements are arranged for the extension of service areas. Recommendation: Policy 8.A1: No change Policy 8 A2: No change Policy$ A3: No change CME - Pg. 21 ° m ° d v - a 8 �c 9 71 = a EW a 9w m Ego .EA z m � ° ° gg5 � gg w m g 04 y $ E -a a CME - Pg. 22 CME - Pg. 23 C C CME - Pg. 24 l_ C CME - Pg. 25 v � z y C 9 ~d+ _ o J C u CJ 9 o ti e L L m e � v L ' K+ U r�ri m m rci rci ni tti CME - Pg. 26 C 0 0 o L m 0 L z z z ,. a z ,. p3",oc e $Qm° $00ro£ m m m q p ' A.O z i-'ohm,.V 'GE a�-0 oo m tF 50 F¢s� "aW a aL $. -2 c.wW A c6wWz rt c e L u C ^ o c m C E -ag Li � m v ' d � C a 5n.Dz _ A C � rtf tt1 € tt1 b CME - Pg. 27 CME - Pg. 28 L C CME - Pg. 29 CME - Pg. 30 � \} � J ± ] )} l - }))) - /` 0 ` ) - \ \ - )! \ I { \ _ \ ƒ| \] ( ƒ \ CUE -Pg. ® L L CME - Pg. 32 C 4 1 �k p a 5 g p 8A y c "c 8 a Z Z E e Z c My � O q Q 0 "c S A s RprR� V V ¢g¢g g� C 3 v— 3 � W c a ••� ,4. � lam. � ?� � 8 $ ; i shy y 8 c � fir �� a• ''. OW ,,. •o � n � tr it i o _ CME • Pg. 33 ��••9 \ O O W q s 9 g q n a a 9 A J ^i a 9 _s E� Y A. �/ '° N m � � N � •O lV � P o F; Coma� C C G L; L. E om o n •^0 0 o O p 0.> 0-0 0. 0. O g 0 CME - Pg. 34 L ffi u' J� a , „ o Sk 0 @ ffi ffi Op o 0 174 E 14KY . m CME - Pg. 35 C CME - Pg. 36 CME - Pg. 37 F7 CME Pg. 38 Effect of Changes on Coastal Management Element The Coastal Management Element has been assessed for consistency with the State Comprehensive Plan, Regional Policy Plan, Rule 9J-5 F.A.C., and Chapter 163, Part 11, F.S. The following is the evaluation based on that assessment. Rule 945 F.A.C. Requires that local governments within the coastal area participate in a County wide marina siting program. The City does not participate as there are no marina sites within the City. Regulations or management techniques are to be identified for the relocation, mitigation or replacement of infrastructure in the coastal high hazard area. The definition of coastal high hazard area has changed. The City will need to assess the impact of this change by inventory and analysis and new policies. Procedures to resolve inconsistencies between the comprehensive plan and the port master plan do not affect the City as there are no deep water ports in the County. Florida Statutes Chap[er 163 The designation of coastal high hazard areas have been changed from a category 3 hurricane to category 1 evacuation zones. The City has not yet determined the impact of this change. Data, inventory and analysis will need to be preformed and map and policy amendments made. Florida Statutes Chapter 163 requires participation in marina siting program. However, neither the City or County have a deep water port. The City will cooperate with the Coastal Resource Interagency Management Committee for marina sites if warranted. CME - Pg. 39 impact of Unanticipated Problems and Opportunities One unanticipated problem that occurred since plan adoption was the State ruling changing the definition of development in the coastal high hazard area. The new definition may take in a much larger percentage of the City. The true impacts of this change will not be known until the areas are identified. Unforseen opportunities include the diversion of wastewater effluent discharge into the Indian River. By constructing a reuse water supply system, the benefits of this alternative use have exceeded our expectations. The City's recycling program has proven to reduce the amount of solid waste transferred to the land fill by 20 percent more than anticipated and has been widely accepted by the general public. CME - Pg. 40 EAR Based Amendments - Coastal Management Element 1. Coastal High Hazard Area: Identify and map new State defined Coastal High Hazard Areas. 2, Hurricane Evacuation: Adopt the City's Disaster Preparedness Plan as part of this element. 3. Post Disaster Relief Plan: Identify, and map land areas, structures and public facilities for possible abandonment, non -reconstruction, reconstruction or relocation.. 4. Conservation designations: Identify and map potential conservation land use patterns. 5. Resource management plan: Adopt a resource management plan for water dependent uses. 6. Performance Standards: Adopt performance standards and criteria for coastal resource protection for incorporation into the Land Development Regulations. 7. Build Back: Adopt specific and measurable build back policies for inclusion in the Land Development Regulations. 8. Remove references to dates: For those policies that have been implemented or eliminated. 9. Policy LA2: Review/revise, 30% lot coverage requirement for this policy. CME - Pg. 41 a�� �,�`�` •�� teary � � t„• •.• �: MV TXAAT VCLM Of NOV" MT •uv% ice" �. r_•:l ..�It� •r ,-z:�± , ., � R G AN- - . 1 4 WESTERN WELL FIELD t VACANT/UNDEVELOPED 'fsI`,•fI Ia•••• f,II,a•, I •• I ♦ 1 a•• #II`a•I/I ••••• #I/+aII♦.••I • +a , r♦•• III••aaaI•r•• 1/,a aIII1+••\. # 1I ssI a•I1III\•• I II+Ia , IIa, l •+ +ra• I lsaIr/•• •lI ra frraI#r•1r•� •#f +aI•/ •• #II♦•• I I/ '•• #IIa•• /r1••.l l•aarr•••ll'•a•r•♦a♦ •♦•a•I#/•sf••••f•'I♦♦•I ,+ • II•• •• I••a• / •a• I+ •, I Ia'• I + a•• 1/•a• IsI♦a l /s Ia`a• 1 Ia•a ,sIa`1 • •• f•asa1/, • .♦a I•I•I arr/••♦ I••.• ' •• /•••• a • I .•a • •• I•••, I •. ♦•IJ • •,+••.s• to •aI I+I+ • Z. ,• ,II•I#•III•//, f • •• ,'- '' •. •'• !r .e.' �•"��.�•+'••',,.fi.`. r..••�;"• ' �. '•"•r•. •✓,'•.,:�• •.••.i.. ••N.o...�•r : ••••••• : • •••• :••••• ; • ••• •� }l r �V. % Alb so go % • i••IfIaII'•� J •�•a• 1•'rl ,, • a•',a ''• rafI 'ar1•I+•f/••••!•'.•I`I••I I• •/s♦'fIsIr'l/'/+ • • J•a • ` • I I,a• •IJ• ••/ •I•I /I If/III s• r1 •I•+• rf /Ia% rIa •• •.II• %llI/ ♦f# I'/'I/'•v./'+1 rf;Ia'/Il'#a+#•of J •f • II' ` • ,•ar •• •• •• •• I••r • I••• r• I %I • I• • s a• ••=••• I . hh •, '� .••':.�'� •rr•••• ;;w' ..• ••�••••�••••;•• r•• f•. arla ar/aIf I#a rlarl arf •+ •I#a /#••Ia rf ••II•/ • a, •I 'Ilan Ia11'at'+ ••. �% `• ♦ •••'I•aJa 'Ia' s,' •+ ~' .r ~�' 4 •••••� • ' . . • • • • •I rI ./ If ./•/!'+►'./` 'r1'r1' •. `+ ', •. II'11'sI' � r J • ,r •. I• • II I .• /I r! +• II / II s1 If r• •/ r1 IIa r • a • • • , • • • a • • • • a •, •,J fal•,Ira s•r•I a,• aafralralra • - % ,•• II •/ �I ••r rI,J r•Ir�lI r•s•; •I•I•I:JI+I.I•• I•I• I`•• •,r••I •I•'• r•• I'•I• Ia'r• •••••• •I ••r 1 ••• ra•f ••• •• a• •• I• .• +' • •a,,,I •♦♦ a••1 a I•• , ••, •.•IIlr••r ♦ ••I: +I••rl•.• / I/ I, ♦+,rI aI I•a•J • „ , • r•. ••IlJ,•r• /•a#I I• • /.r, . a•I I•� r J •• I•I tI• be** f••, •• r1 r1 •♦ ,,,I,I,Ia#I••I ,I •+• •I•••r If I 'y-...T !fI r/• # r f•I / I rf•I •, •• �•.h ••h • • •••• 1f1-•••••�••�•••j•jr•••••• . • •••••• ••• r f ` . _e• • • • ♦ , • • • • • • • • • • • a • • • • • • •' • • , ar•,r 'be a+ •Ia1/a/I, II as •`rlaa Ia ♦ • I\r'I I' •I aI/a/+ ,••, r' gal r• �• , • . n' •• •� r J 11 I r 1 rI r I r I •I s I r I I , r I I I r s/ , a 1 r 1 + f r I • , • ! • • • • • ••.~•` ••a•ai A• •• • • • • a ♦ , , • ♦ ♦ • ♦• • • •lb lb a • • • • • • ti•: • • • • • • I,• I I a I••. I, rI a r I r I as • ♦•I .•I••••••I I;.•II••••I+I; I••IaI'r•l /a•rra I•,•rr•a• I .•• I. '• I, r• 1, • ••I r'•! r•1 I'•1I r Ir •r • • ♦•• \ I •a ♦ • I • / I ' a• • IIa I • ••1 I•l • II•• \ r. I • +a,f a. ' ., `,, •Ia• ,•••. 'be II • .I ,► a• ••. •a , •+ • ao•f • a!• •♦\. Is • `II •♦. Is• • /•• I a • • I •••II I ♦ • IJ I#r••I •f,••Ilb •I•.la•#'r, Ia#`•a•f'• •a•.• + • %•.� `•: ' *�-•s• ••••_• •�•;f • , ��..� •• • • • • vp % r1•I• alb a • ft • /r f a • • r#rI t+• 1I 1 ♦lb 11 aa •aa0000, ••a♦ • ,•rI II to •I •f •1•I r Iawo of ••I a, ;• •••.: •I •f '% II•I •AV • • III %+ f•,• • • ,•/• • •Jas f ♦0000*0 11 /•% % to •• •••I rf•r I II rf•+l . •dop ,I ••f • • ,f•/ II•• r •.••% rI• +• . , a ,+ •Ir•I•+Ila• a•s•• a a •t• I J•I •r flb I •/II/J •I I a • • •• • �� - aura � � �• • I f •1'•a•I , • / II •#•• I• • rI • ♦I f r I +I /I•+ I ♦I I••II•I♦ ., rI ♦ f Ir I „.,I •I• a •Ir•I• •♦ ,%• I+ • /• •I• \ r \•Ir •r,I fIII I ♦• /` 1♦•,4, • Ia ♦•• / "••• :;:•• `• • ~�`,•h•. •. to % • I rf r1 /I r1 +I I, , rI •I J r1 r! If .• • rI II r1 +I II I/ •I`I,•P r, , f+ fI Ir Jr •+1•a•• • • • • • • • • - a • • ; • • • • I• a ♦ • • a • • • ♦� .I Ilal ral l•I ra 1• i' �alral• s 1 /ISII•I!'rI•s rlsrl•rI •♦ I► I'/If • • • • \ ♦ • ,\•/\IJ•II\ \ •• •• • a • • ♦ , • r rI / I/ /• • II •I of + •.I'.I•rf•..•..•I.• ,•r.'r '%r!••It • •r.•r.%•,.•. •,,. .r / Jr %.I fra..,1 `,'••.4 ,,� `Y/rCJ1NT • • , • • \ • a • 1• I I r , of OR arJ,I/a/Iar1,If*. r# rl rI % lbrI /• I II /I r1 •• •f %aI •I rI II • I/ a • ♦ • • • • • • •f•+f ar 1'•, I'rI •r1'rI •r •r • I'rI• I'•I••I• •rI'rf r ' I/`• • a/` `II`If• • • • I II #r f• Ir 1a I• I II 1I I•,J •`• ••,••I• • • • • • • • • • a • • \ • • • i \ • • \ \ ra •'Ira •a •r'1r c •I • I/ JI 1• ♦a 4; ~' • • •• r1 r1 II II +J rI +• •• •I rI r! •I /I •f II •I rI r# I •, IJ + •� • , • • • • • . ♦ • f aI •I II I • r1 rf 11 • I # • •rl +I •I •I r1'• ♦,,'♦J • •• /• !• ,• to I% I• a\I• Ira11,I+4111 lb •f , • • I I • • • r r I / I • I / a • • • • • • , •• •• 1 aII' ♦ • • • \ • • • \ • • \ • • i • \ • • • • • • ♦ ,r1♦Illb , ,rf II +I OR 01 I• %+/ •! r# /I rl OR rI • r r1 r• •• rI • rI •J I rI , . , b ♦ • • • a •• a • • •\ • • �/ • I I a / I • • I • , • s ;1 • • I a / I a I I • I I I I' a 1 ` r I ` • I „ I r I • • • a • • \ \ • \ r \ • a f, a 1. , I r a ♦ . ♦ • • a • . • +I,•• Ir I• •I •II•f/\II •f •/ •••r1'rl%lb S #11 I••r a I`+I, •1'r1•• •I••I• • • • ,I•a11•I ra aalr a.Ia alra rat, ,f; ,,•~'� - •� +• • •+ I r •• r, I r •, s •• • I f , r l• r 1 a I I • • I I I • ,Ilan,, Ia •,a • , s • • • ♦ ••I••,• ••Iarl.• \ • • • \ • ♦ •!• \ • • • • a • • r • ♦ w • • +I • ,I ,'rlsrr`.I'r1' r1•If'r •Issf •I •I • •I•II•rI•rfall•I,• •a/,a#,a# a#a %, %f•� �,' • a a • • , • • •% • • • ♦ • • ♦ ► • • • • • • • • • a • • , , • • • a 1 / a I I a I , • I / I , , + , • J a I , , • , • , • • r , I I I r J r 1 , • 1 a • I a , • , I a • I , • I %• I • + • I , , • , , a , • , a • a ♦ a • \ •, .. •r If r1 r . •, lb i f •, I. .. .. ., r/ I I, .f •I IJ •J ., • % 1 •• a• a • , •• r I •, r I .• • • a• a•I•a ,1•`,fI ,• JrI%•a,l•II,Ia••,,%,a••aIa I•• a • #, • J•,1 •Ia•• ♦ 'rI•I•,I•♦ •• , ••♦l '�` , • `• . .h•, • • • • • • '• • • ` •'� f a I r,•• a r r• I I' r f• r I'• • • •a r I'• • I I ,' a`,'•a, • ♦, a• I •,. • r •I # #, ' ' ' • , • • I r I • II- I f I I •• lb•I •.,I r • r .. w % ••, % % i, •r•aIIII •a• I•aI1•a, , I.` , ,I..I o•• •I• I♦ ••r,• I•• •• • , • • • •r•• .• •••f •'• •• •I ' a• a • `• •• r • `.• • ♦ •,• •a1,• I aI I•'I I` f♦I • I •• I • • • J • I • I• f rr•If •1•,rl• a 1•a1I •I I\• 1I ••+I••r Is•I ••1••„•\ I,•a I••• \•Ja'r \ 1• 1•1 I,•If I ♦ I •I ♦I to I • !a • • I I•,►,•ll% 0 • ►.,•,II•,I•I,• • •I •I•, • %•f ♦ ,III ••I . • •• . \ %• II ••'alb r• I• lb #1 lb •I I • • ' I • r• I I, I I , t r I r I I•• I•r I I , 1 [h•`.y_ •+ "rh}'•1 `r . . ' •. •• h •�rI • I r I I I • I • • • • ♦ • • • . • • •` f •I% II r I •• • ,I %II' • •,allalf', fa l,'♦Ia IIa• ,I•,I•rf rI ••`•,a. Ia •I'•I`IJa aII•, •,I /a#r•Ia•1 ral•,►Ial ral •a1f•I ••1• • �.'i•: :' • .• • II • ,/'I/ I, •• +r • • I, I • I • I I •, •, • f I, •I • • • r f •, • I •• • • • f •I II ,11 •l r�I ra, Iaf +,I •''1 r, ►,, 1• a1, a1 +•I a • ♦ • • • • • ♦ • • I I ♦ • I . • I I • I . • • • • •• , • • . • , • , • , • � • � • • • ♦ • • • • • ,•I•sl,r'Ir al fall a#1 •,/asla �I •`I+�ff� i�.i r�..� � �+ ti...L- 1 �.i.1...•L.— w� i i �.� ��ii. s LPL LI.iL i1.�:..'1 • � •~ • � _ — — VACWn94DEVELOPEo : �; �-- i LOW DENSITY aE� 4 i • 1D VAC,ANT/UMEVELOPED i-----.._..... � • ------ � CME - Pg. 42 d� I CONDITION OF THE PLAN AT THE TIME OF ADOPTION A. Identification and Analysis of Natural Resources The element discussed in detail the existing resources within the City of Edgewater. The following is a brief summary of the resources identified in the element. Indian River/Mosquito Lagoon Estuary - The element identified this aquatic preserve and an Outstanding Florida Waterway (OFW). It stated that the estuary is the single most important resource in the City. The element also stated that long -tens water quality data for the lagoon did not exist. The waters adjacent to the City are designated Class II and III. Class II waters are appropriate for shellfish harvesting. Class III waters are appropriate for the propagation of fish and wildlife. Flood Plains - The element identified floodplain areas adjacent to the Indian River and in the northwest portion of the City. The element noted that the floodplain areas absorb water protecting higher elevations from flooding. Groundwater - The element identified the Floridan aquifers underlying the City. The element stated that the aquifers we recharged from lands in the central portion of Volusia County. Ecological Communities - The element contained a list of ecological communities found within the City. The element indicated that most undeveloped areas in the City are very small. It stated that the only large undeveloped area is in the northwest portion of the City. This area is approximately 400 acres in size and was identified as hardwood hammock. The element contained a list of various flora and fauna that might be found in each of the ecological communities within the City. Soils - The element identified the soil types found within the City. The element noted that the Soils within the Florida Shore Subdivision were unsuitable for septic tanks. B. Commercial Recreational and Conservation Uses The element stated that there were no commercial uses in the City that utilized natural resources. The element referred discussion of recreational uses to the Recreation and Open Space Element. No formal conservation programs were identified that specifically dealt with the natural resources identified in the element. C. Pollution Problems The element discussed point and non -point sources of pollution to the Indian River Lagoon. The CNS - Pg. 1 only point source of pollution in the City was the wastewater treatment plant outfall. The non - point sources discussed included stormwater run-off, septic tank leachate, boats and dredge and fill activities. The element indicated that air quality and groundwater quality were good. C. Water Sources and Needs The element did not include a detailed analysis of water sources available to the City or project future needs. The element included discussion of the need to develop a well field protection zone around the western well field. CNS - Pg. 2 CONDITION OF THE PLAN AT THE TIME OF EAR Introduction: The purpose of the Conservation Element in the Comprehensive plan is to promote the conservation, use and protection of natural resources and protection against pollution. The Element discusses the existing environmental and analyzes current and projected water sources, including water quality, quantity and any adverse impacts of growth on the environment. Data and Analysis A. Identification and Analysis of Natural Resources There have been very few changes to the natural resources in the City. The hardwood hammock area in the northwest of the City remains undeveloped. The Florida Inland Navigation District has discussed developing a dredge spoil site on a portion of this property. Those changes that have occurred are due to annexations. The annexation of lands to the west of the former city limits has included lands containing some wetlands. The natural resources inventory needs to be revised to reflect these changes. B. Commercial, Recreational and Conservation Uses There has been some commercial development since adoption of the plan, but nothing that affected any natural resources. There have been no changes to the recreational and conservation uses of natural resources in the City. In the lands annexed West of the former City limits, there are some agricultural uses, including silviculture. The majority of the silviculture activities involve pine trees. The City has made great efforts to reduce pollution entering the Indian River Lagoon. In 1993, the City constructed an advanced wastewater treatment plant. The plant has greatly improved the quality of effluent discharged to the river. The City has also created a reclaimed water system. Sixty-seven percent of the plant's discharge is now reused on an annual basis. The City has expanded its wastewater collection system throughout the Florida Shores Subdivision. This has eliminated septic tank leachate from entering the drainage canals within the subdivision. The City's stormwater regulations are strictly enforced. Stormwater from new development is contained and treated on -site. The growth in this non -point source of pollution has been eliminated. The City has also developed a pilot program for retrofitting existing canals with pollution abatement devices designed to remove oils and heavy metals from the canal discharges. CNS - Pg. 3 C. Current Water Sources The City obtains raw water from its western well field located near its new water plant. The City withdraws a maximum flow a 3.49 millions of gallons per day from this well field. The water is obtained from the Upper Floridan aquifer. This water source is high in dissolved solids and color. The new plant was designed specifically to treat raw water of this type. Water produced by the plant meets or exceeds all applicable potable water standards. The City is in the process of updating its consumptive use permit (CUP). Once the CUP has been obtained the plan should be updated to include new information on withdrawals from the aquifer. CNS-Pg. 4 An&ais of Cgnagryation Objectives The following analyzes why certain objectives may or may not have been achieved during the plan implementation period. 9J-5's assessment criteria has been used in this process. Table CNS-1 lists each of the Conservation policies by objective and indicates their status. Objective 1: To conserve, appropriately use, and protect the quality and quantity of the City's groundwater resources. Evaluation: All of the policies associated with this objective have been completed with the exception of recharge area regulations and landscaping requirements. Saint Johns River Water Management District and the County have carried the responsibility of identifying groundwater recharge areas. Adopting regulations to control the type and intensity of development has not been undertaken as there are no known undeveloped recharge areas within the City limits. Revised landscape requirements are in a draft form, but not finalized as of this submittal. An EAR based amendment may be required for recharge areas if it is determined that they exist within the City's newly annexed properties. Recommendation: Policy 1.1; Eliminate, implemented through City Code Policy 1.2; Eliminate, implemented through City Code Poli 1.3; Eliminate, implemented through City Code oli 4: No change, add to LDR's !Po icy 1.5; Eliminate, no known recharge areas in City Policy 1.6: Eliminate, implemented through City Code Policy No change Objective 2; The environmental quality of the Indian River/Mosquito Lagoon Estuary shall not be degradated. Evaluation: This objective has been met. The City has adopted a stormwater master plan and CNS-Pg. 5 the Class E waters minimum standards and policies. The City also participates with the County and uses the Surface Water Improvement and Management Plan (SWIM) to manage and protect this resource. Current City codes also address design, best management practices and construction standards, treatment of stormwater runoff from existing development, and assessment of freshwater discharge to the Indian River. " Formal" public education programs to reduce excess runoff have not been conducted. However, there have been considerable discussions since the plan adoption at local government meetings. and articles in the newspapers addressing this issue. Specific requirements for height, bulk, and yard requirements for structures located east of Riverside Drive are addressed in the City Codes and will be transferred to the new LDR's. Recommendation• Policy 2.1; Eliminate, adopted Policy 2.2: a) eliminate, completed b) eliminate, implemented through City Code c) eliminate, implemented through City Code d) eliminate, implemented through Quality Assurance Program e) eliminate, implemented through City Code f) no change li No change Policy 2.4: Eliminate, adopted Policy 2.5; No change Policy No change Policy 2.7: No change Policy No change li Eliminate, implemented through City Code, transfer to LDR's Policy 2,10: No change CNS-Pg. 6 Objective 3: To protect and manage all ecological communities, fisheries, wildlife, endangered and threatened species. Evaluation: The majority of this objective has been met. The City coordinates with the County and the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission and other governmental agencies to meet the State and Federal guidelines pertaining to endangered and rare species. Designation of "additional" conservation areas on the Future Land Use Map is not completed. It will be incorporated with the EAR based amendments, along with additional LDR's to preserve and protect ecologically unique vegetative communities. The City continues to enforce regulations to assure that development would not adversely impact known endangered or rare species. It(aYaiqh-.tglnrill U1, Policy 3.1: No change, add to FLUM Policy 3.2: No change P to icy 3.3: No change Policy 3.4: No change, add to LDR's Policy. 3.5: No change, add to LDR's Policy 3.6: No change, add to LDR's Objective 4: Protect the natural functions and values of the 100-year floodplain. Evaluation: The City has adopted and enforces a floodplain management ordinance which is in compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program policies. Recommendation: Policy 4.1: Eliminate, implemented in City Code Policy 4.2: No change Objective 5: Maintain and enhance air quality. Evaluation: The City has a tree preservation and protection ordinance, that effects single-family as well as commercial properties. Enforcement is aggressive and the City is designated as a bird CNS-Pg. 7 sanctuary. The City requires traffic analysis studies be provided when applicable, for new development to assure that the LOS standards are not degraded. Recommendation: Policy 5.1: Eliminate, implemented through LDR's Policy 5.2: No change Policy No change Policy 5.4: No change Objective 6: Ensure Land Development Regulations require use of methods to protect soil from erosion during and after development. Evaluation: The City currently has policies and procedures in place requiring soil erosion protection during and post development. Inspections are made to assure compliance. Regulations are also in place for excavation and filling activities Recommendation: Policy. 6.1: Eliminate, implemented through City Code Policy 6.2: Eliminate, implemented through City Code CNS - Pg. 8 C I II I, I! I! I! I! `) |) ¥ Fj }«#«o =%f: \\ \\ -it. } !! ±s ; mR &9 Y- e a i' FU QUm Em E L pCJ 5 ° S � G its v C C u a g E A � � z °O g� V c �y G• c ° u� u d on on 39 F N t`I 8 N E ry fV N 9 lV IV " y° a° c y a P. CNS - PC 10 � ■ } z I! 1! 1! 1! I» ! z z z z $ �- ): % ! ] � } ) a } ]} { / \\ } - ))) k} \ } )] }{ }! I* * A ±/ }) }} a4 mERe E� z z Ec E V 6 � �iE° E E CNS - Pq. 12 r V CNS - Pg. 13 Effect of C'hauEes m Conservation Element The Conservation Element has been assessed for consistency with the State Comprehensive Plan, Regional Policy Plan, Rule 9J-5 F.A.C., and Chapter 163, Part 11, F.S. The following is the evaluation based on that assessment. Florida Slat—uWa. Chapter 163 No changes were made that effect this element of the comprehensive plan. Rule 9J_5. Requires objectives and policies implementing the restriction of land uses that adversely affect the quality and quantity of water sources, recharge areas, surface waters, and the protection of wetlands, and public well fields. The adopted plan includes objectives and policies that address well field protection zones, estuarine water quality, potential recharge areas, potable water supply and stormwater management. The City codes and Land Development Regulations have provisions for the protection of wetlands. There are no (mown undeveloped recharge areas within the City. CNS - Pg. 14 impact of Unanticipated Problems & Opportunities The City has not experienced any problems relating to natural resources located within the City. Land designated on the Future Land Use Map at the time of adoption, has been and continues to be protected. The City's newly annexed area to the West will necessitate new data and analysis for future land use patterns. The opportunity for long range planning for activities surrounding the Interchange now exist. Other opportunities for the preservation of additional natural resources between the original City boundary and the new City boundaries can also be accomplished. CNS - Pg. 15 FAR Based Amendments - Conservation Element 1. Natural resources: Revise inventory of natural resources in newly annexed areas. 2. Remove references to dates: For those policies that have been implemented or eliminated. 3. Vegetative communities: Identify and map any new ecological unique vegetative communities and designate conservation land use patterns in areas that warrant this classification. 4. Recharge areas: If determined that undeveloped recharge areas exist within the new City boundaries, adopt objectives, goals and measurable policies that protect these areas. CNS - Pg. 16 CONDITION OF THE PLAN AT THE TIME OF ADOPTION A. Existing Recreation Sites Table REC-1 is an inventory of recreation sites and open space sites within the City at the time of the adoption of the comprehensive plan. B. Current Need for Recreation Sites The element contained an analysis of the need for recreation lands and facilities at the time the comprehensive plan was adopted. This analysis involved a comparison of population to established recreation standards. The element indicated that there was a surplus of existing parkland acreage. However, the element did identify a need for some new facilities including a new tennis court, soccer fields, and basketball courts. C. Projected Need for Recreation Sites Based on projected growth in population the element indicated that additional parkland would have to be acquired throughout the planning period. The element identified a need for 21 additional acres by the year 1995 and 93 more acres by the year 2010. The element also stated that there was need for a gymnasium/activity center, a neighborhood park and 5 additional mini - parks. D. Location of Future Recreation Uses Figure REC-1 is a generalized map which depicts the future recreation uses that were identified at the time of the adoption of the comprehensive plan. REC - Pg. I L C C TABLE REC-1 Recreation and Open Space Inventory of .Sites and Facilities (1990) 1. Sanchez Paris .55 Acme (Public) 2. Highland Shores Park 3.52 Acme (Public) 3. Kennedy Park 2.70 Acme (Public) 4. Menard May Park 2.67 Acres (Public) 5. Riverside Drive/Orange Avenue .13 Acres (Public) 6. Riverside Drive/Magnolia Avenue .13 Acres (Public) 7. Hardin Place .27 Acres (Public) 8. Virginia Street .46 Acres (Public) 9. Veterans Park 1.47 Acres (Public) 10. Cameron Marina Acres Unknown (Private) 11. Edgewater Landing 4.0 Acres(Private) 12. Evergreen/U.S. Hwy.#1 Acres Unknown (Private) 13. Enjoi Miniature Goff Acres Unknown (Private) 14. Gymnatorium Acres Unknown (Private) 15. Edgewater Library 1.32 Acres (Public) 16.Pelican Cave West Community Center Acres Unknown (Private) 17. Sbangri-La .99 Acres (Public) 18. Edgewater BaUfields 8.30 Acres (Public) 19. Aqua Park Acres Unknown (Private) 20. Whistle Stop Park 13.74 Acres (Public) 21. Lake & Alice Park .68 Acres (Public) 22. 19th StAndia Palm Drive (Lake) 3.98 Acres (Public) 23. Duck Lake Park 3.92 Acres (Public) REC - Pg. 2 C TABLE REC-1 Recreation and Open Space Inventory of Sites and Facilities (1990) 24. 21st St./Kumquat Drive (Lake) 3.78 Acres (Public) 25. 21st St./Lime Tree Dr. (Labe) .23 Acres (Public) 26. 21st SQMango Tree Dr. (Lake) 2.06 Acres (Public) 27. 29th St./Lime Tree Dr. (Lake) 10.56 Acres (Public) 28. 15th St./Mango Tree Drive .34 Acres (Public) 29. 19th St./Queen Palm Dr. (Labe) 3.35 Acres (Public) 30. Rotary Park 8.65 Acres (Public) 31. 15th St./Royal Palm Drive .23 Acres (Public) 32. 15th St./Travelem Palm Drive .23 Acres (Public) 33. Umbrella Tree Park .46 Acres (Public) 34. Rt.442/Victory Palm Drive .23 Acres (Public) 35. 21st St./Willow Oak Drive .46 Acres (Public) 36. Edgewater Community Center Acres Unknown (Public) 37. Pelican Cove East - Boat Ramp Acres Unknown (Private) 38. Florida Shores Homeowners .68 Acres (Private) 39. Landfill 10 Acres (Public) REC - Pg. 3 II I I�.III 11-1 „ku I flI1 II Illillll 111111111111 --� I �I[I�IJIIIIIII�IIIIRIIIIIIIlIII IIIIIIIIII � 8 MINIM. I IIII111111 1n1�}�1�I��1�9I�I�fBI � IAI�III61 o Till � �IN�I�I�kI(IIIpIVI 1�1�i�lll�l ,- I ' �:1 �t�� 111�111911191AI I�I�Illllll IIIIIIII@@IIEI ' �I�� �II�I �1��NiE pl9�l@I I�1MI�IIiII � �* �x' '- 1� �:'IC�J(1��1klllIAIIIIIIIIIBIIIIiI I IIIIIIII� � e i 1 III�IIFE�I�J�IIIIIIkkV Illfl ��ini iniri „� j#J IN�Nlflll� l4)NIPI iUIrN}IpIpp��Ilfll�l �'&I � _ ���' il�ll� IIfIlI111111111111 �II i � -�<<� � � � 111111111111111 h y � � "'' IIII�IIlIIII 111��111 n" I� U W cc cc REC - Pg. 4 CONDITION OF THE PLAN AT THE TIME OF EAR Introduction: This element of the Comprehensive Plan established recreation and open space needs based on standards by the State of Florida, Division of Recreation and Parks. Data which identifies existing and public and private recreation sites and open spaces available to the public have been included. The goals and policies are to ensure that the City is meeting the current and projected needs of the community. A. Existing Recreation Sites There have been few changes to the existing recreational sites since the comprehensive plan was adopted. However, the City has acquired two parcels totaling 61 acres of additional parkland, of which 26 acres will be activity based. Table REC-2 and Figure REC-2 indicate the current inventory of sites and facilities. Some new facilities have been developed at existing sites including a racquet ball court, soccer fields, a fitness trail, and a volleyball court. Also the City constructed the "RiverwaW' along Riverside Drive. This has proven to be a very popular facility for jogging, walking, and biking. B. Current Need for Recreation Sites The current need for recreation sites is not as great as predicted in the comprehensive plan. This is due to slower than projected population growth. The City currently has approximately 146 acres of parkland. It is anticipated that this acreage will be sufficient throughout the remainder of the planning period. Some of the needs identified in the comprehensive plan have remained unmet. The most significant item is the gymnasium/activity center. The City does remain committed to completing this project. However, the slower than anticipated growth has led to a shortage in impact fee dollars. The City has attempted to make up for this shortfall through innovative fund raising. The most recent example was the raffling off of a home which the City had constructed for this purpose. The neighborhood park identified in the element for lands south of the City has not been pursued. Again this is due to slower than anticipated growth in the southern area as was originally expected,. The 5 additional mini -parks have not been developed as well. This is has been due to a lack of neighbor acceptance for a small park next to their house. The City has received complaints of vandalism and other minor disturbances associated with the existing mini -parks. REC - Pg. 5 TABLE REC-2 Recreation and. Open Space Inventory of Sites and Facilities (1995) 1. Sanchez Park .55 Acres (Public) 2. Highland Shores Park 3.52 Acres (Public) 3. Kennedy Park 2.70 Acres (Public) 4. Menard May Park 2.67 Acres (Public) 5. Riverside Drive/Orange Avenue .13 Acres (Public) 6. Riverside Drive/Magnolia Avenue .13 Acres (Public) 7. Riverside Drive/Hardin Place .27 Acres (Public) 8. Riverside Drive/Virginia Street .46 Acres (Public) 9. Veterans Park 1.47 Acres (Public) 10. Cameron's Marina 1.03 Acres (Private) 11. Edgewater Landing 4.95 Acres (Private) 12. Evergreen/U.S. 14wy.#1 .23 Acres (Private) 13. Enjoi Miniature Golf .82 Acres (Private) 14. Gymnatorium 1.3 Acres (Private) 15. Edgewater Library 1.32 Acres (Public) 16.Pelican Cove West Community Center .85 Acres (Private) 17. Sbangri-La .99 Acres (Public) 18. Edgewater Balllields 8.30 Acres (Public) 19. Aqua Park .6 Acres (Private) 20. Whistle Stop Park 13.74 Acres (Public) 21. Lake & Alice Park .68 Acres (Public) 22. 19th St.jLndia Palm Drive (Lake) 3.98 Acres (Public) C REC - Pg. 6 54 C C TABLE REC-2 Recreation and Open space Inventory of Sites and Facilities (1995) 23. Duch Lake Park 3.92 Acres (Puhlic) 24. 21st St./Kumquat Drive (Lake) 3.78 Acres (Puhlic) 25. 21st St./Lime Tree Drive (Lake) .23 Acres (Public) 26. 21st St./Mango Tree Drive (Lake) 2.06 Acres (Public) 27. 29th St./Lime Tree Dr. (Lake) 10.56 Acres (Public) 28. 15th St./Mango Tree Drive .34 Acres (Public) 29. 19th St./Queen Palm Dr. (Lake) 3.35 Acres (Puhlic) 30. Rotary Park 8.65 Acres (Puhlic) 31. 15th St./Royal Palm Drive .23 Acres (Public) 32. 15th St./Pravelers Palm Drive .23 Acres (Public) 33. 16th St./Umbrella Tree Park .46 Acres (Public) 34. Rt.442/Victory Palm Drive .23 Acres (Public) 35. 21st St./Willow Oak Drive .46 Acres (Public) 36. Edgewater Community Center .12 Acres (Public) 37. Pelican Cove East - Boat Ramp .04 Acres (Private) 38. Florida Shores Homeowners .68 Acres (Private) 39. Brown Field 10 Acres (Puhlic) 40. Mango Tree Lake Park 35.38 Acres (Public) 41. Turgot Park Site 26.00 Acres (Public) c:\tables\rec-1 &Nmal REC - Pg. 7 IN REC - Pg. S FIGURE REC-2 AnalyMs of Recreation and Open Spare Element Objectives The following analyzes why certain objectives may or may not have been achieved during the plan implementation period. 9J-5's assessment criteria has been used in this process. Table REC-3 lists each of the Recreation and Open Space elements policies by objective and indicates their status. zWJx@VWJW Obiective 1: Provide sufficient recreational parks, facilities and open space areas to meet the needs of the population. Evaluation: The acquisition of land to meet the needs of the population have been met. However, due to the slower than anticipated growth, coupled with less impact fee revenue, the development of a new recreation facility has not transpired. The City attempted an innovative idea of constructing a new home and sold tickets with one winner receiving the home. This effort to secure additional funding for the recreational facility was not as successful as anticipated. Community Development Block Chant funds for partial facility construction of a senior activities center at this site is slated for the year 1998. Communication with the Florida Community Development Corporation (FCDC) has transpired and it is anticipated that additional funding may be obtained to help in the activity center construction. This will meet public needs well beyond the year 2010. Recommendation; Policy 1.1; Eliminate, adopted. Policy 1.2; No change Policy 1.3: No change Policy 1.4; No change Policy 1.5: No change Objective 2: Designate open space land that will be protected from incompatible land uses. Evaluation: This objective intent has been met. The City has buffering and open space requirements currently in the City code and subdivision regulations to protect potential incompatibility of land uses. Additional LDR's are being drafted, to enhance open space definitions and standards and criteria to be used to review proposals for new development. REC-Pg. 9 The City has not acquired additional open space areas located on the Indian River due to lack of availability, costs and funding. However, there exists 8.83 acres of activity based parks and 5.06 acres of open space along the 3.1 miles of river front. In addition, a bike/walking path, extensive landscaping and resting areas along Riverside Drive, creating continuous visual scenic views of the river have been developed. Recommendation: Policy 2.1: No change, add to LDR's. Policy 2• No change, add to LDR's. Policy2. • No change Objective 3: All public recreation facilities shall have operational automobile, bicycle and pedestrian access facilities. Evaluation: This goal has been met. Each developed park within the City has public access. The City has provided additional parking, bicycle / pedestrian ways as needed, including a bike lane on Needle Palm Drive and a bike path on 30th Street and Roberts Road. Recommendation: Policy 3.1: No change Policy 3.2: No change Policy 3.3: No change Objective 4: All public recreational facilities shall be accessible to the handicapped, elderly and youth. Evaluation: All new facilities are required under the Americans with Disabilities Act to provide handicapped accessability, to buildings, meet requirements for restroom facilities and provide for appropriate parking. The City has also retrofitted existing facilities, where practical to meet the needs of the handicapped, youth and senior citizens. Recommendation; lic 4. • No change Objective 5: Three additional access points shall be provided to the public waterways. RFC -Pg. 10 Evaluation: The City has not targeted additional access properties to the river as there currently exist nine sites totaling 13.89 acres. It should be noted that Riverside Drive is 3.1 miles long, which provides access at approximately each 1/3 mile. Since the population growth has been less than expected, the existing access sites are sufficient beyond the year 2010. An EAR based amendment will be provided. Recommendation: Policy 5.1: No change Policy 5.2: No change Objective 6: Public parks and recreational facilities will be made safer. Evaluation: This objective has been accomplished on an as needed basis. Recommendation: Policy 6.1: No change Policy No change Objective 7: Coordinate efforts with all levels of government, public agencies and private sector to provide recreational opportunities. Evaluation: This objective has essentially been met. The City has begun working with the private sector in the development of a golf course. Formal approval has not transpired but discussion and a proposal has been presented to the governing body for consideration. There have been improved relationships between recreational interested sectors and government The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board continues its efforts to coordinate recreational opportunities. Formal incentives for developers to provide large recreational facilities have not been accomplished. Developers seem to be more willing to pay the recreational impact fees than to actually develop recreational facilities unless it is part of their marketing strategy for their particular project/sites. Additional incentive criteria should be considered for inclusion on the new LDR draft. Recommendation: Policy 7.1: No change REC - Pg. 11 Policy 7.2: Incomplete, add to LDR's. Policy 7.9: No change Policy 7.4: No change REC - Pg. 12 \a lalfllrl .1121z / ] ] ] / .!\ �} ) !\ ]« ]» § ,# i! f ±a {} * *l |f | a \ } ) REC - Pg. 14 REC - Pg. 15 Effect of Ghana^' to Recreation and O en Space Element The Recreation and Open Space Element has been assessed for consistency with the State Comprehensive Plan, Regional Policy Plan, Rule 91-5 F.A.C., and Chapter 163, Part II, F.S. The following is the evaluation based on that assessment. There were no changes made that affect this element in the comprehensive plan. REC - Pg. 16 Impact ofUnanticipated Problems and Opportunities The unanticipated problems for improving the City's recreation and open space system have arisen due to a lack of funding sources. This is directly related to the fact that growth has not occurred as projected and subsequently recreational impact fees charged for new construction have not generated the revenue anticipated. Opportunities included less demand for services and some grant funding through the County's Port Authority, were made available for boat ramp, pier and walkway construction and improvements. REC - Pg. 17 FAR Based Amendments Recreation and Open Space Elemeat 1. Remove reference to dates: For those policies that have been implemented or eliminated 2. Developer incentives: Adopt measurable policies and incentives for developers to provide large recreational facilities. 3. Neighborhood parks: Re-evaluate and if necessary revise policies relating to development of additional neighborhood parks. 4. Open space: Adopt new goals, objectives and measurable policies for additional open space requirements for inclusion to the LDR's. 5. Open space on Indian River: Revise policies for purchase of additional open space and adopt new policy provisions for access points to the River. REC - Pg. 18 CONDITION OF THE PLAN AT THE TIME OF ADOPTION Existing Data A. Inventory of Existing Coordinating Entities The element contained an inventory of governmental entities with which coordination was necessary at the federal, state, regional, and local levels of govemment. The following entities were identified: United States Government - the Army Corps of Engineers, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Federal Emergency Management Agency State of Florida - the Department of Community Affairs, the Department of Environmental Regulation, the Department of Natural Resources, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, the Game and Freshwater Fish Commission, and the Department of State. Regional Organizations - the St. Johns River Water Management District and the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council Local Government - Volmia County School Board, Volusia Council of Governments, Volusia County, Volmia County Growth Management Commission, and the Volusia County Soil and Water Conservation District. The element did not identify any municipal governments in the inventory, although coordination with the City of New Smyrna Beach does occur. B. Existing Coordination Mechanisms The element noted that most of federal, state and regional agencies listed above have been granted legislative authority to carry out regulatory activities with which the City must comply. The element stated that most of the coordination with Volusia County takes place on an informal basis. Formal coordination with Volusia County did occur through the Volusia Council of Governments (VCOG) and the Volusia County Growth Management Commission (VCGMC). VCOG serves as a liaison between elected officials from the cities and Volusia County. The V CGMC was identified as responsible for the promotion of consistency in planning among local govemments within Volusia County. The element also identified two resolutions of understanding that were signed by the City. The first agreement was with New Smyrna Beach and it identified future annexation lands and utility service areas. The second agreement was the Volusia County School Board and the joint use of recreation facilities. Although not specifically mentioned, there also existed a Mutual Assistance ICE - Pg. 1 agreement with the City of New Smyrna Beach and Volusia County for fire protection. Analysis A. Effectiveness of Existing Coordination Mechanisms The element stated that coordination with federal, state and regional agencies was generally effective. No problems in dealing with these agencies were identified. The element stated that several attempts had been made to develop interlocal agreements with Volusia County. The element did not identify those attempts in detail, but stated that no agreements had been reached. The element was completely silent in regards to effectiveness of the VCOG and the VCGMC. B. Areas in Need of Improved Coordination The element identified several issues that would benefit from improved coordination. The following issues were identified in the plan: Planning for areas adjacent to and surrounding the City Wellfield protection Surface water quality Wetland protection LOS standards for roads Stormwater management Shared use of recreational facilities. C. Need for Coordination with the Regional Policy Plan The element did not identify any need for additional planning coordination based on a comparison with regional policy plan. The element stated that the growth proposed in the City's comprehensive plan was unlikely to have a significant regional impact. D. Need for Coordination with Areas of Critical State Concern There are no areas of critical state concern in or adjacent to the City. ICE - Pg. 2 CONDITION OF THE PLAN AT THE TIME OF EAR Introduction: The purpose of this element of the Comprehensive Plan is to promote adequate coordination of activities in overlapping areas of concern among federal, state, county and municipalities and other authorities. These areas pertain to land use planning, public facilities and services, environmental protection and development regulations. Existing Data A. Existing Coordinating Entities The following is an inventory of governmental entities with which coordination is necessary at the federal, state, regional, and local levels of government: United States Government - the Army Corps of Engineers, The Department of Commerce, the Department of Justice, the Environmental Protection Agency , the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the Fish and Wildlife Service. State of Florida - the Department of Community Affairs, the Department of Environmental Protection, the Department of Law Enforcement, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, the Game and Freshwater Fish Commission, and the Department of State. Regional Organizations - the St. Johns River Water Management District, the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council and the Florida Inland Navigation District. Local Government - The City of New Smryna Beach, City of Oak Hill, Volusia County, as well as South East Volusia Taxing Authority. The Volusia County School Board, Volusia Council of Governments, Volusia County Growth Management Commission, Metropolitan Planning Organization, Volusia City -County Water Supply Cooperative and other municipalities within the County. B. Existing Coordination Mechanisms Most of the coordination mechanisms in place today are the same ones that were in effect at the time of the Comprehensive Plan adoption. Some new arrangements have been made or were not mentioned in the element at that time. These include a utility service area agreement with Volusia County, the Metropolitan Planning Organization, county -wide mutual assistance agreements for police, fire, and public works. Southeast Volusia Chamber of Commerce which coordinates economic development activities between the City and the Cities of New Smyrna Beach and Oak Hill, and the Volusia County Business Development Corporation which coordinates economic development activities throughout the County. ICE - Pg. 3 Analysis A. Effectiveness of Existing Coordination Mechanisms The City of Edgewater is participating in the Volusia City -County Water Supply Cooperative, which is working on intergovernmental coordination of water resources in the region. The Cooperative seeks to address water quality problems through the protection of the area's potable water resources and the prime aquifer recharge areas. The City also coordinates with the Volusia County Emergency Management Department on matters relating to natural disaster preparation plans and post -disaster plans. The Emergency Management Department is the entity responsible for evacuating the City when it is vulnerable to natural disasters. The City has had some on -going conflicts with Volusia County over the provision of utility services in the area south of the City. The City entered into a service area agreement with Volusia County in 1995. This agreement took over five years to negotiate due to differing opinions as to which entity was best suited to serve this area. Once the agreement was signed it took another year to negotiate a bulk rate for the provision of potable water to Volusia County. Conflict is continuing over the provision of wastewater treatment services. None of the existing formal coordination mechanisms including the VCOG and the VCGMC seem to be a relevant or appropriate forum for the resolution of this dispute. The conflict is being worked on through direct negotiations with Volusia County. One difficulty lies with existing enclaves and annexations. The City has not experienced any other difficulties in the area of intergovernmental coordination. Relations with the cities of New Smyrna Beach and Oak I -Ell are stable. B. Need for Coordination with Areas of Critical State Concern There are no areas of critical State concern in or adjacent to the City. ICE -Pg. 4 Analysis of Intergovernmental Coordination Element Objectives The following analyzes why certain objectives may or may not have been achieved during the plan implementation period. 9J-5's assessment criteria has been used in the process. Table ICE-1 lists each of the Intergovernmental Coordination policies by objective and indicates their status. Obiective 1: Continue to work with Volusia County and develop a draft plan for the identification and management of adjacent areas. Evaluation: The majority of this objective's policies have been met with the adoption of minimum environmental standards. The exception is developing a formal interlocal agreement with the County regarding the protection of natural resources. Specifically, addressing the planning of the Turnbull hammock area in the western part of the City. St. Johns River Water Management District is pursuing the purchase of this property with the support of the City and the County. The City and County coordinate and work well together in many areas of environmental and habitat protection and preservation. The remaining policies we geared toward supportive and coordination efforts with other government agencies such as F.D.O.T. the County and School Board. Volusia County is unique in that it has an established Growth Management Commission who are responsible for dispute resolutions between the County and it's municipalities. Comprehensive Land Use Amendments are required to be submitted to this agency for consistency review and approval. This process has reduced the number of inter -local agreements necessary. The City as part of its development review process, forwards plans, if applicable, to the appropriate agencies for comments. There remains however, areas of conflict between the City and County in regard to the provision of providing utilities such as wastewater collection and disposal. Policy 1.1; No change Policy No change Policy 1.3: No change ICE - Pg. 5 Policy M: No change Policy No change li Eliminate, not applicable. Poli 1.7: Eliminate, implemented through City code. Policy 1.8: Eliminate, implemented through City code. Policy No change Policy 1,10: Eliminate, implemented through City code. Policy 1,11: No change Policy 1,12: No change Obiective 2: Provide for coordination of all planning activities mandated by the various elements of the City's Comprehensive Plan with appropriate agencies and commissions and develop a checklist of management and coordination activities. Evaluation: The City has not entered into a interlocal agreement with the County for the planning area related to annexation activities, however, the City forwards and the County reviews and comments on all annexation requests. The City when applicable, coordinates with the County, FDOT, the School District and other interested parties relating to LOS for roads, future school sites, recreational facilities and monitoring water and air quality issues. Under the development review process, consultation with Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission occurs when any rare or endangered species is discovered. Recommendation: li 2. • No change Policy 2.2: Eliminate, not applicable. Policy 2. • No change Policy 2A: No change Policy 2.: No change ICE - Pg. 6 Policy No change Policy 2.7: No change Policy 2.8: No change Objective 3: Establish and update Level -Of -Service standards for roadways. Evaluation: The City has not established land use categories for areas of the County which will affect Edgewater's drainage system. The County's land use categories were adopted prior to the City adopting its plan. The City and County do coordinate planning and construction efforts for new development activities that may effect the City's drainage systems. The City has representation on the Metropolitan Planning Organization (M.P.O.) which reviews FDOT's funding and construction plans and coordinates these plans into the Transportation Element when applicable. Recommendation: Policy No change Policy. 3.2: No change Policy 3.3: No change Policy 3.4: No change P to icy 3.5: No change Objective 4: Work closely with the School Board, the City of New Smyrna Beach, and Brevard County to identify areas of common interest and coordination between plans. Evaluation: The City has a positive on -going informal relationship with the City of New Smyrna Beach and the School Board representatives. Interaction and coordination frequently occurs. There exists some formal inter -local agreements relating to utilities with V olusia County but no interaction has transpired with Brevard County by the City or V olusia County and is not deemed necessary at this time. The City also has representation on the Metropolitan Planning Organization and the Volusia Council of Governments. Most areas of common interest are sufficiently handled through the above mechanisms thereby the need for redundant formal agreements are not necessary. There exist some areas where benefits can be derived from improved coordination such as ICE - Pg. 7 joint planning with the County for adjacent City areas, well field protection, surface water quality, wetland protection, LOS standards for roads, stormwater management and shared use of recreational facilities. Recommendation: Policy 4 • No change Poligy 4.2: No change Policy. No change Policy 4: No change ICE - Pg. 8 ICE - Pg. 9 ! IF APPIErs 01 1l 1a IA l IAj �0 0 0 ƒ 55 } | | , ± ! � i. _ a ) \ } \ \ ) )� \ \§ \ \ i $]}•!�! a $ )) ) !) f \ } } ICE -Pg. 11 J . � > � : ; - � }\ Effect of Changes to Intergovernmental Coordination Element The Intergovernmental Coordination Element has been assessed for consistency with the State Comprehensive Plan, Regional Policy Plan, Rule 9J-5 F.A.C., and Chapter 163, Part II, F.S. The following is the evaluation based on that assessment. State Com=hg_n ' e plan and Rule 9J-5 F A C No changes were made that affect this element of the comprehensive plan. Florida Statutes Chapter 163• Requires local governments to amend the future land use element to identify land use categories to allow schools as a permitted use. Although the comprehensive plan does not specify areas where public schools are permitted, the zoning ordinance does allow them in all zoning districts with the exception of planned shopping centers, heavy industrial and mobile home parks. The City coordinates with the school board staff in the site selection process and provides technical assistance when needed. ICE -Pg. 13 Impact of Unanticipated Problems and Opportunities Although, no major problems outside the service area dispute exist with relation to the intergovernmental coordinations program, some items have arisen. The City Police and County Sheriff Departments are sometimes unsure of the corporate boundaries due to enclaves and/or annexations, thus creating jurisdictional confusion. The City will try and remedy this problem by notifying both City and County of approved annexations. The City is also looking at a program to eliminate the pockets of unincorporated area surrounded by the City. ICE - Pg. 14 EAR Based Amendments Intergovernmental Coordination Element 1. Remove reference to dates: For those policies that have been implemented or eliminated. 2.. Land use planning: Adopt goals, objectives and measurable policies for coordination with the County for drainage and natural resource protection that impact the City. 3. Remove references to Brevard County in plan. ICE -Pg. 15 CONDITION OF THE PLAN AT THE TIME OF ADOPTION A. Location and Service Areas of Public Health and Education Facilities The element did not identify the location or service areas of any public health or educational facilities within the City. While a new elementary school was planned to begin construction shortly after the adoption of the comprehensive plan, the element did not discuss any impacts on public facilities. B. Existing Revenue Sources The element identified a number of financial resources available for capital improvements. Local sources included ad valorem taxes, utility fees, special assessments, franchise fees, utility taxes, impact fees, general obligation bonds, revenue bonds and borrowing. State sources included the revenue sharing trust fund, sales taxes, cigarette taxes, local option gas taxes, excise taxes, grants and the state revolving loan programs. C. Timing and Location of Public Facilities The element contained a brief explanation of the connection between level of service(LOS) standards and development. The element stated that the LOS for each facility was established for the specific purpose of issuing development orders. Because development approval is contingent on the ability of the City to provide services, the element reenforced the importance of coordinating improvements with future land uses and population growth. D. The Fiscal Implications and the Cost of Needed Improvements Table CIE-1 lists all the improvements that were identified in each element and the costs that were projected at the time of the adoption of the comprehensive plan. E. Ability to Finance The element forecasted both revenues and expenditures associated with the planned capital improvements. The element identified a feasible funding strategy that involved long term debt, increased ad valorem taxes, increased utility rates, increased utility taxes, special assessments, and increased impact fees. CIE - Pg. 1 C C TABLE CIE-1 Capita) Improvement Project 1990 - 1995 Project Description Target Year Estimated Cost TRAFFIC CIRCULATION FACILITIES 1. Add one lane to W. Park Ave. From ED-1990 $ 65,000 U.S. Hwy. No. 1 to Old County Line Rd. 2. Add 2lanes to Indian River Blvd, 1990 250,000 (S.R. 442) from U.S. Hwy Nod to Hibiscus Drive 3. Florida Shores Road Improvements 1991 10,764,000 4. Turgot Avenue and Canal St. Paving 1991 231,600 5. Construct bibepath on S.R.442 1992 100,000 right-of-way. 6. Add 2 lanes to U.S. Hwy No. 1 from 1994 750,000 the north City limits to Park Avenue SANITARY SEWER FACILITIES 7. Conduct existing gravity sewer system ED-1990 100,000 repairs. 8. Increase capacity of PS #5 1990 20,000 9. Increase capacity of PS #7 1990 5,000 10. Expand capacity of Influent FM, 1991 91119,000 Outfall GS, and expand/improve level of treatment of WWTP 11. Install central sewer system in 1991 13,491,000 Florida Shores. DRAINAGE FACI MES 12. Conduct City-wide stormwate, ED-1990 193,000 management system analysis and improve study CIE - Pg. 2 Lo TABLE CIE-1 Capital Improvement project 1990 - 1995 Project Description Target Year Estimated Cost DRAINAGE FACHXfIES (coati--d) 13. Remove obstructions from Gabardy 1991 1,000 System Channel G3 14. Conduct improvements to Gabardy 1991 16,500 System Channel G2 15. Maintain existing structures in 18th 1991 1,000 Street System Channel El 16. Maintain existing structures in 18th 1991 500 Street System Channel E4 17. Maintain existing structures in 18th 1991 1,000 Street System Channel E6 18. Conduct additional improvements to 1995 240,000 Gabardy System Channel G2 POTABLE WATER FACILITIES 19. Expand Western Water Supply Well 1991 240,000 field 20. Construct new Western Water 1991 756,000 Transmission main from Western WTP to City Distribution System 21. Construct 20-inch water 1991(50s/u) 988,000 transmission main from Western WTP 1992(50%) 988,000 to City distribution system 22. Florida Shores Area Water System 1991 1,174,000 Improvements CIE - Pg. 3 TABLE CIE-1 Capital Improvement Project 1990 - 1995 Project Description Target Year Estimated Cost RECREATION FACILMES 23. Construct additional parking spaces ED-1990 10,000 and repair existing parking areas at boat ramps. 24. Construct baseball/softball field 1991 100,000 25. Construct gymnasium/actMties 1993 700,000 center 26. Purchase additional bads for 1994 2,120,000 recreation. TOTAL 47,723,000 C ED - Existing Deficiencies C CIE - Pg. 4 CONDITION OF THE PLAN AT THE TIME OF EAR Introduction: The Capital Improvement Element as adopted is to ensure the planning for proper public facilities and services to support orderly growth and development as it occurs. This Element identified existing deficiencies, level of services and determined the capital fords required to construct the improvements as distinguished in other Elements. DATA A. Location and Service Areas of Public Health and Education Facilities There are three public schools in the City. Indian River Elementary serves the portion of the City south of 26th Street. Edgewater Elementary serves the portion of the City north of 26th Street. There are no current plans to expand these facilities or construct new ones within the City. There is one community college campus located between Park Avenue and 1 Oth Street (north City limits) which is an extension of Daytona Beach Community College. The public health facilities in the City are three satellite offices providing outpatient care services. These facilities are affiliated with Bert Fish Medical Center in New Smyrna Beach which is supported by an existing taxing district. This district serves the southeast V olusia County area. The nearest hospital is Bert Fish Medical Center in New Smyrna Beach. B. Existing Revenue Sources Since the adoption of the comprehensive plan the City has spent $44,462,054 to date. Approximately $13 million more dollars are being expended to pave roads within the Florida Shores Subdivision. Table CIE-2 identifies those roadway improvements. This project is forded through a combination of ad valorem taxes, special assessments and stormwater utility fees. Existing revenues to pursue further capital improvements are extremely limited. ANALYSIS A. Timing and Location of Public Facilities The City's concurrency management system has not been changed since the adoption of the comprehensive plan. The LOS standards adopted in the original comprehensive plan remain the same. Those facilities necessary to ensure that development will continue to receive priority. B. The Fiscal Implications and the Cost of Needed Improvements There are currently no deficiencies in the adopted LOS standards for wastewater, potable water, solid waste, drainage, roadways, and recreation facilities. This is the result of two factors: (1) the City has invested heavily in its infrastructure since the adoption of the comprehensive plan; and (2) population growth has been slower than anticipated. CIE - Pg. 5 C. Ability to Finance Fortunately, the City has no more pressing infrastructure needs. The City has taken on very significant financial commitments in order to finance the capital improvements identified in the 1990 Comprehensive Plan. Its ability to finance additional capital improvements without new sources of revenue is extremely limited. The City of Edgewater is essentially a poor community that has made tremendous efforts to remedy its infrastructure deficits and prepare for future growth. Taxable values are an illustration of this point. The statewide average of per capita taxable value in 1995 was $38,697. Edgewater's per capita taxable value was $21,483 or 44.5% below the statewide average. CIE - Pg. 6 C C TABLE CIE-2 Capital Improvement Element Florida Shores Roadway Improvement Project Alamanda Drive from 27th Street to 28th Street Banyan Tree Drive cul-de-sac between SR 442 and 18th Street Canal; from 27th Street to Alamanda Drive Cow Palm Drive from SR 442 to 1 Sth Street Canal; from 19th Street to 20th Street Date Palm Drive cul-de-sac between SR 442 and 18th Street Canal; from 19th Street to Cow Palm Drive; from 22nd Street to Glenwood Drive; from 27th Street to 28th Street Evergreen Drive cul-de-sac between SR 442 and lath Street Canal; from 19th Street to Cow Palm Drive; from 22nd Street to Glenwood Drive; from 27th Street to 28th Street Fern Palm Drive from SR 442 to 16th Street; from 19th Street to 20th Street; from 22nd Street to 28th Street Guava Drive from 26th Street to 28th Street Glenwood Drive from 22nd Street to 27th Street Hibiscus Drive from 16th Street to 31 at Street India Palm Drive from 19th Street to 36th Street Juniper Drive from 30th Street to 36th Street Kumquat Drive from 16th Street to SR 442; from 20th Street to 35th Street Lime Tree Drive from 17th Street to 35th Street Mango Tree Drive from 17th Street to SR 442; from 30th Street to 36th Street Needle Palm Drive from 12th Street to Mango Tree Drive; from SR 442 to 36th Street Orange Tree Drive from 30th Street to 35th Street Pine Tree Drive from 30th Street to 35th Street Queen Palm Drive from 12th Street to SR 442; from 30th Street to 35th Street Royal Palm Drive from 12th Street to SR 442; from 30th Street to 35th Street Sabal Palm Drive from 12th Street to SR 442; from 30th Street to 35th Street Travelers Palm Drive from 30th Street to 35th Street Umbrella Tree Drive from 12th Street to 36th Street Victory Palm Drive from 12th Street to 36th Street Willow Oak Drive from 12th Street to SR 442 Yule Tree Drive from 22nd Street to 35th Street Woodland Drive from 22nd Street to 35th Street Vista Palm Drive from 30th Street to 35th Street Unity Tree Drive from 22nd Street to 35th Street Tamarind Drive from 22nd Street to 35th Street Silver Palm Drive from Air Park Road to 35th Street 12th Street from Mango Tree Drive to Willow Oak Drive 14th Street from Mango Tree Drive to Willow Oak Drive 16th Street from Mango Tree Drive to Willow Oak Drive 19th Street from Alamanda Drive to Coco Palm Drive; from Fern Palm Drive to Guava Drive; from India Palm Drive to Juniper Drive CIE - Pg. 7 A C TABLE CIE-2 Capital Improvement Element Floricla Shores Roadway Improvement Project Street Paved Location 20th Street From Coco Palm Drive to Guava Drive; from India Palm Drive to Juniper Drive 22nd Street From Glenwood Drive to Coco Palm Drive; from Hibiscus Drive to Willow Oak Drive 26th Street From Fem Patin Drive to Silver Palm Drive 27th Street From Arthur Avenue to Fern Palm Drive 28th Street From Guava Drive to Cul-de-sac (east of Alamanda Drive) 34th Street From Travelers Palm Drive to Silver Palm Drive 35th Street From India Palm Drive to Sabal Palm Drive; from Umbrella Tree Drive to Willow Oak Drive; from Yule Tree Drive to Silver Palm Drive 36th Street From Juniper Drive to Needle Palm Drive CIE - Pg. 8 Analyy.ais of Capital Improvement Element Objectives The following analyzes why certain objectives may or may nor have been achieved during the plan implementation period. 9.1-5's assessment criteria has been used in these process. Table CIE-3 lists each of the Capital Improvement Elements policies by objective and indicates their status. OBJECTIVES Objective 1: Provide capital improvements to correct existing deficiencies, accommodate projected growth, and replace obsolete facilities. Evaluation: The City has met all major capital improvement needs. There are some items that have not been met as a result of a lack of resources, commitment or expenditures greater than originally anticipated. The City adopted a 5-yeaz plan including projects that were not the responsibility of the City such as the addition of two driving lanes on State Road 442 and U.S. Hwy. I. Table CIE-4 lists the small areas that we still unsewered that were not a part of the major capital improvement project. All other improvements identified are reviewed and funded as needed. Recommendation: Policy 1.1: Correct policy to reflect 5-year planning Policy 1.2: No change Policy No change Objective 2: The proportionate share of facility improvements to maintain adopted LOS standards shall be home by those directly benefitting from the improvements. Evaluation: This objective has been met. The City established assessments for road construction and wastewater improvements to properties that directly benefitted from these projects. The City has not pursued investigation of transportation impact fees or other fees as stormwater management utility fees and taxes have been raised along with assessments to residents for on going capital improvement projects. Recommendation: Policy 2.1• No change CIE - Pg. 9 Policy 2.2: Eliminate, per governing body Objective 3: Manage financial resources to ensure needed capital improvements for future development and redevelopment. Evaluation: The City has created a concurrency management program to ensure ongomg availability of public facilities prior to development approvals. Although the City did not establish a six year capital improvement program, great strides we continuing. Yearly review, assessment, budgeting and approval of needed capital improvements, are done based on priority in the comprehensive plan. The City does not use proceeds associated with long tern debt for current operations and confines long term borrowing to high cost capital improvements. Special assessments, impact and user fees, bonds or other self supporting proceeds are used for fmancing other capital improvement projects. Tables C1E-5 through CIE-12 list revenues, expenditures, taxable property, rates and collections, debt and financial assistance. Recommendation: Policy 3.1: Eliminate, concurrency management in place Policy 3.2: No change Policy 3.3: Eliminate and revise to 5 year. Policy .4• No change IPo icy 3.5: No change Policy 3.6: No change Policy 7• No change Policy 3.8: No change Mective 4: Base all decisions of development orders and permits on requirements included in this Comprehensive Plan to support such development. Evaluation: This objective has been met. Development orders and permits issued are reviewed for consistency with the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan. The Level Of Service standards for roadways are a part of the development review process and it has been demonstrated that the existing Levels Of Service (LOS) have not diminished. Due to the capital CIE -Pg. 10 improvements projects that have occurred, wastewater, potable water, solid waste and stormwater management drainage LOS has exceeded minimum requirements. Recreational standards for facilities are stable. Recommendation: Policy 4.1: Revise LOS standards based on EAR Policy 4.2: a) revise as needed b) revise as needed c) revise as needed d) revise as needed e) revise as needed f) revise as needed g) no change Policy 4.3: No change Policy. 4.4: Eliminate, complete Obiective 5: Adopt ordinances which limit the size and density of developments in the Coastal High -Hazard Area. Evaluation: At plan adoption the Coastal High Hazard Area was located East of U.S. Hwy. 1. The majority of this area is designated as low density residential with a commercial land use designation directly on the highway for a depth of 250'. This area is 95% built out. Properties located adjacent to the River or in 100 year flood prone areas are required to have breakaway stem walls and raise the elevation of the finished floor to meet flood requirements. The densities have not increased since the adoption of the plan, however, additional evaluation will be necessary due to the state definition changes of Coastal High Hazard Areas. An EAR based amendment may be required. Recommendation: Poli Re-evaluate policy Policy 5.2: No change CIE - Pg: 11 CIE - Pg. 12 CIE - Pg. 13 CIE - Pg. 14 � \\ %\ § \j :} z [ R } } c -% 15 C TABLE CIE-4 Capital Improvement Element Ilnsewered Areas Street From To Thomas Street U.S. Hwy. #1 Riverside Drive 2nd Street Thomas Street, North Thomas Street, South 3rd Street Thomas Street, North Thomas Street, South 4th Street Thomas Street, North Thomas Street, South 15th Street Juniper Drive Lime Tree Drive Boston Road Riverside Drive Indian River Virginia Street Riverside Drive Indian River South half of Ruth Street Beulah Drive (circle) Beulah Drive (circle) Beulah Drive Ruth Drive (circle) Beulah Drive (circle) ' Air Park Road State Road 442 22nd Street ' State Road 442 Willow Oak Drive West Corporate Limits Dale Street Park Avenue Dead End Flagler Avenue Park Avenue RXR Spur Flagler Avenue (vacated) RXR Spur Dead End ' Annexed Area 1994 a:\tahle\cie-4 CIE - Pg. 16 d L 1�'1 P N Ewa p�. p�� N y C L F a d h q N Y Ll q Q C `G � � rmp. �m w 0 9 .gip P m� P O 9O yro, O .rp� P P W sN .OpJ y� .p yry�, '-4 O o� m .�pN `N U rh .NPi q ,73 o � v1 U -ram i b P V of Iq h 4 d N Oz h N N m d N d d N �dj m Wy- C5 T P 1�1 N lV t�l l�l O P p p y� OJ tNp t�f O rd y y�N O 1pNv. �1(p�. rip w- �b rd P ttl G w d d Q V d O 2 U G -d y V d N CIE - Pg. 17 b d E d � • h d M Ivl N �+1 t�l Vyl� � N .hp pGO. w u 0 YV O V1 5♦O� O O !F{Q No pNV h h �pV pp. NI N .O i' �vh1. 10 a •O M1 h M N pr �h ? 5 F w w v aS PN-• 73 m o V N O N th+l V N ��(].�i •.y�1 1N� p (p� •Wp .yp� (p�. 73 d 89 P .p m W . p N C' c o v � m m y G V O /1d � E O O V µiv • � � b C O G Iry V V u CIE - Pg. 18 C C TABLE CIE-7 Capital Improvement Element Assessed. and Estimated Actual Value of Taxable Property (1) Last Ten Fiscal Years an nousands) (2) Fiscal Year Ended Assessed Value (3) Assessed Ta=able Value Ratio d Total Assessed Taxable Value to Estimated Actual Vslue 1987 $269,178 $183,993 68.35 1988 304,468 213,013 69.96 1989 331,993 232,917 70.16 1990 379,025 270,525 71.37 1991 424,565 308,805 72.73 1992 453,643 332,346 73.26 1993 474,058 346,190 73.03 1994 484,289 352,153 72.72 1995 499,443 361,840 1 72.45 1996 516,875 367,272 1 71.06 (1) Obtained from the Revised Recapitulation of the Ad Valorem Assessment Rolls of Edgewater, Florida provided by Volusia County, Florida Finance Department. (2) Each fiscal year contains the ad valorem assessment roll of the preceding year (i.e., fiscal year 1996, contains data on the 1995 assessment roll). (3) Assessed taxable values for all fiscal years presented are stated net of the constitutional homestead exemption of $25,000. a:\tahle\cie-7 CIE - Pg. 19 G O N N N h m V] � V 1 C 0 �z Sn O O P P P P P U P P N O O O O O O O O =a1 Q W W1 M r � N O P P C •O ti OJ lm` N i O d E ^ � � M W W P N N hp •� .L p N N N N N N M N i y C O; ' d' � VI Vl Vl h N N N •O U `c d � � UN W O ; •6 •6 h � d d at vi vi �: e W � IT E-H U M -Y CIE - Pg. 20 C TABLE CIE-9 Capital Improvement Element Property Tax Levies and. Collections Last Ten Fiscal Years Fiscal Year Ended Total Tax Levy Total Tax Collections Percent of Levy Collected 1987 $1,159,436 $1,118,628 96.48% 1988 1,327,745 1,297,075 97.69 1989 1,232,093 1,192,780 96.81 1990 1,292,628 (2) 1,279,899 99.02 1991 1,414,943 1,368,737 96.73 1992 1,528,324 (2) 1,490,549 97.52 1993 1,592,474 1,534,987 96.39 1994 2,073,547 2,010,161 96.94 1995 2,113,146 2,040,928 96.58 1996 2,608,024 2,516,081 1 96.47 (1) Each fiscal year contains data from the ad valorem assessment roll of the preceding year (i.e., fiscal year 1996 contains the 1995 assessment roll tax collections). (2) Source: "Certification of Final Taxable Value" (Form DR-422). a:\table\cie-9- CIE - Pg. 21 C C TABLE CIE-10 Capital Improvement Element Special Assessments Collections Water and Sewer Fund Since Levy Road Improvement Assessments Fiscal Year Ended Current Current Assessments Assessments Due Collected Current Current Assessments Assessments Due Collected 1992 $1,362,631 $1,362,631 $ $ 1993 87,975 257,497 1994 453,668 766,062 1995 473,499 586,927 771,418 1,366,243 1996 529,579 608,631 238,813 298,767 TABLE CIE-11 Capital Improvement Element Computation of Overlapping Debt Net Debt Percentage City of Overlapping Governments Outstanding Applicable to Edgewater the City of Share of Debt Edgewater Volusia County Endangered $ 11,947,891 2.915% $ 348,281 Land Volusia County School District 165,822,585 2.915% 4,833,728 Total Overlapping Debt $5,182,009 (1) Data Provided by above agencies. (2) The City does not have any general obligation long-term debt outstanding. a:\table\cie-10&11 CIE - Pg. 22 TABLE CIE-12 Capital Improvement Element Schedule of Federal Financial Assistance Federal Pass -Through Actual Actual CFDA Grantor's Program Program Number Number Receipts Disbursements Non -Major Programs U.S. Department of Justice 16.710 95-CF-WX-1526 $ 25,949 $ 30,028 Community Oriented Pohaing Service. U.S. Department of Housing 14.218 B-95-UC-12-0008 85,576 85,576 and Urban Development Paseed through County of Vo1n9a Community Development Block Greet $111,525 $115,604 C a:\table\cie-12 C CIE - Pg. 23 Effect of Changes to Capital Improvement Element The Capital Improvement Element has been assessed for consistency with the State Comprehensive plan, Regional Policy Plan, Rule 9J-5 F.A.C., and Chapter 163, Part II, F.S. The following is the evaluation based on that assessment. State Comprehensive Plan. No changes were made that affect this element in the comprehensive plan. Rule 9J-5 F.A.C. and Florida Statutes Chaoter 163 Requires a concurrency management system which the City already addresses in the Comprehensive Plan and in the Land Development Regulations. These provisions are to ensure that public facilities, services and the levels of service standards needed to support development are concurrent with the impacts of development. Capital improvement projects are also reviewed on a regular basis. Florida Statutes Chanter 163: Relates to transportation concurrency management. The offered option grants exception from the concurrency for transportation if the proposed development is otherwise consistent with the adopted plan and promotes public transportation or is located in an area designated for infill development, redevelopment or downtown revitalization area. The adopted plan does not address these exceptions. Designation of areas for infill and redevelopment has not formally occurred and there exists no downtown area within the City. The City may consider designating such areas and corresponding policies. The areas referenced above can also be exempt, if they pose only a part-time demand, defined as having no more than 200 scheduled events per calendar year and not affecting the 100 highest traffic volume house. This exception will be analyzed for possible policy updates. Another change to the rule is intended to promote infill development and redevelopment. One or more transportation concurrency management areas may be designated if the area is compact with an existing network of roads where multiple alternative travel paths are available. There exists no circumstances that meet these requirements as there are no compact areas with existing multiple alternative travel paths. Another exemption from concurrency is the State's definition for de minimus impact on a transportation facility. Currently the threshold used in the comprehensive plan is 500 trips per day for concunency test exemption. This will be assessed and if necessary addressed in an amendment form for capital improvement and the traffic circulation elements. A new provision also establishes the allowances for a land owner to proceed with development notwithstanding a failure of the development to satisfy transportation concurrency under certain conditions outlined within Chapter 163. The City's comprehensive plan does not address this, but may want to consider adding a policy regarding this issue. CIE - Pg. 24 Impact of Unfoeseen Opportunities and Problems Originally, the City anticipated providing wastewater service to all unsewered areas in the City by 1995. However, the Florida Shores Capital Improvement Project (CIP) took longer than anticipated as the construction for road, drainage and sewer projects were separated. This created a backlog for other wastewater projects slated for completion. This year, the City rerated its sewerage treatment plant from 2.25 MGD to 2.75 MGD. This opportunity, although not anticipated, will extend the life of the plant and allow the expansion of our service area. The City has not been able to reach an agreement with Volusia County to provide wastewater to the unincorporated area residents. However, the City was able to expand its potable water service into the County of Volusia. This will help keep water rates down. One unforeseen problem experienced, was a slower than projected growth rate. The projections in the adopted plan were based on trends from the previous decade. New home construction activities were reduced from 1990 to 1995, by more than 43%. This, factored in with the adopted legislation of a 3% per year property tax cap has generated much less revenue than anticipated. Mother problem identified is the four Inning of S.R. 442, scheduled to begin in the year 2000. The additional lanes will improve the road's level -of -service. Obtaining approval of this project through the MPO process took much longer than originally planned. Now that the road is being designed, several new challenges have been created. The proposed design will extend pavement over existing water lines that the City will have to move at its own expense. The proposed design eliminates a number of local street crossovers. This will severely hamper North/South movement along the road corridor. CIE - Pg. 25 EAR Based Amendments - Capital Improvement Element 1. Coastal High Hazard Area: Re-evaluate the State definition changes of the Coastal High Hazard Areas and if warranted amend the element to reflect those changes. 2. Other capital improvements: Identify and adopt new schedules and funding sources for any existing capital improvement deficiencies. 3. Remove reference to dates: For those policies that have been implemented or eliminated. 4. Revise LOS standards for roads: Include revisions for LOS designations consistent with the Traffic Circulation Element. 5. Mill and redevelopment areas: Review and revise if warranted policies relating to infill development. 6. Concurrency exception: Evaluate and if warranted, provide goals, objectives and measurable policies to implement the State's concurrency exception for transportation. 7. Policies: Correct policies that have been found to be in error or non -viable. CIE - Pg. 26