AGENDA
ORMOND BEACH PLANNING BOARD
Regular Meeting
August 13, 2009 7:00 PM
City Commission Chambers 22 South Beach Street Ormond Beach, FL
PURSUANT TO SECTION 286.0105, FLORIDA STATUTES, IF ANY PERSON DECIDES TO `APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE PLANNING BOARD WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS PUBLIC MEETING, THAT PERSON WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND FOR SUCH PURPOSE, SAID PERSON MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING IS MADE, INCLUDING THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
PERSONS WITH A DISABILITY, SUCH AS A VISION, HEARING OR SPEECH IMPAIRMENT, OR PERSONS NEEDING OTHER TYPES OF ASSISTANCE, AND WHO WISH TO ATTEND CITY COMMISSION MEETINGS OR ANY OTHER BOARD OR COMMITTEE MEETING MAY CONTACT THE CITY CLERK IN WRITING, OR MAY CALL 677-0311 FOR INFORMATION REGARDING AVAILABLE AIDS AND SERVICES.
I. ROLL CALL II. INVOCATION III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
IV. NOTICE REGARDING ADJOURNMENT THE PLANNING BOARD WILL NOT HEAR NEW ITEMS AFTER 10:00 PM UNLESS AUTHORIZED BY A MAJORITY VOTE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT. ITEMS WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN HEARD BEFORE 10:00 PM MAY BE CONTINUED TO THE FOLLOWING THURSDAY OR TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING, AS DETERMINED BY AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF THE MAJORITY OF THE BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT (PER PLANNING BOARD RULES OF PROCEDURE, SECTION 2.7).
V. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
VI. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES A. July 9, 2009
[08.13.09 Planning Board Agenda.doc] Planning Board Agenda Page 2
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. LDC 09-23: Landmark Designation Land Development Code Amendment This is a request by the Preservation Committee of the Ormond Beach Historical Society Inc. and an administrative request respectively, to amend Section 2-71 (Historic Districts and Landmarks) of the Land Development Code (LDC) to have one (1) Landmark property – 715 West Granada Boulevard (Three Chimneys) added to the Ormond Beach Historic Landmarks List and to change the requirement for notice for public hearings from certified mail to regular mail. B. LDC 09-28: Land Development Code Amendment – Section 2-50(F) Carports This is an administrative request to amend the existing language in the Land Development Code Chapter 2, Article III, Section 2-50(F), Carports, by adding language that clarifies requirements for a permanent structure.
VIII. OTHER BUSINESS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS A. EAR-Based Amendments Discussions: • Cultural and Historic Resources Element; • Recreation and Open Space Element; and • Transportation Element.
IX. MEMBER COMMENTS
X. ADJOURNMENT
[08.13.09 Planning Board Agenda.doc]
STAFF REPORT City of Ormond Beach Department of Planning
DATE: August 1, 2008 SUBJECT: Amendment to Section 2-71, Chapter II, Article VI of the Land Development Code (Landmark Designation and changing the requirement for certified mail.) APPLICANT: Preservation Committee of the Ormond Beach Historical Society Inc. and the City of Ormond Beach NUMBER: LDC 09-23 HTE FILE NUMBER: 09-17500009 PROJECT PLANNER: S. Laureen Kornel, AICP Senior Planner
INTRODUCTION: This is a request by the Preservation Committee of the Ormond Beach Historical Society Inc. and an administrative request respectively, to amend Section 2-71 (Historic Districts and Landmarks) of the Land Development Code (LDC) to have one (1) Landmark property – 715 West Granada Boulevard (Three Chimneys) added to the Ormond Beach Historic Landmarks List and to change the requirement for notice for public hearings from certified mail to regular mail. The section to be amended is as follows:
Name of Section or Purpose of Item Section(s) Amendments
1 Section 2-71, Chapter II, Article VI Historic Districts and Landmarks
BACKGROUND:
Landmark Addition – 715 West Granada Boulevard (Three Chimneys) A description of the proposed landmark designation, including its historical attributes location and photos, are included in a staff report dated March 5, 2009 (see Exhibit A – Historic Landmark Preservation Board Staff Report). The Historic Landmark Preservation Board (HLPB) unanimously (6-0) recommended approval of the local designation of the Three Chimneys property on March 16, 2009 (see Exhibit B – March 16, 2009 HLPB Meeting Minutes).
PB 0809 LDC 09-23 Landmark Designations Ordinance July 28, 2009 Preservation Committee of the Ormond Beach Historical Society Inc. and the City of Ormond Beach Page 2
Certified Notification Requirement In addition to updating the Ormond Beach Historic Landmarks List, staff is following up with the previously adopted land development code amendment (LDC 08-44) which changed the requirement for notice of public hearings by certified mail to regular mail in January, 2009. At the time of processing of LDC 08-44, staff had intended to change the notification requirement throughout the entire LDC, including for Certificates of Appropriateness. However, staff decided Chapter II, Article VI, Section 2-71 of the LDC would be amended in a comprehensive manner at such time when another amendment to Section 2-71 was needed. Since Three Chimneys is being added to the Ormond Beach Historic Landmarks List at this time, it was decided that it would also be appropriate to change the requirement for notification of public hearings by certified mail to regular mail. The proposed change for notice of public hearings by certified mail to regular mail was discussed by the HLPB at the July 20, 2009, HLPB meeting and is supported by the HLPB (see Exhibit C - July 20, 2009, HLPB Meeting Minutes ). The recommendation of the Planning Board is tentatively scheduled for 1st reading by the City Commission on September 15, 2009, and subsequently for a 2nd reading at the October 6, 2009, City Commission meeting.
ANALYSIS: The purpose of the proposed amendment is to add Three Chimneys to the Ormond Beach Historic Landmarks List and to change the public hearing notification requirement for certified mail to regular mail (see Exhibit D - Proposed Amendment, Section 2-71, Chapter 2, Article VI). The fundamental intent of Section 2-71 of the LDC will remain. There are certain criteria that must be evaluated before adoption of an amendment. According to Section 1-15 of the LDC, the reviewing boards should consider the following, when making their recommendation: (1) Whether it is consistent with all adopted elements of the Comprehensive Plan.
There are no specific references in the Comprehensive Plan pertaining to the proposed changes. However, Objective 5.1 of the Future Land Use Element discusses the revision of the City’s regulations in order to reflect changing conditions.
(2) Its impact upon the environment or natural resources, including but not limited to drainage, wetlands and other environmentally sensitive areas.
There shall be no impacts on natural resources or the environment resulting from this.
(3) Its impact on neighborhood and adjoining properties and the compatibility or proposed or allowable uses with existing land use patters.
The proposed amendment to the LDC will not impact the compatibility of proposed or allowable uses with existing land use patterns.
PB 0809 LDC 09-23 Landmark Designations Ordinance July 28, 2009 Preservation Committee of the Ormond Beach Historical Society Inc. and the City of Ormond Beach Page 3
(4) Its impact on necessary governmental services such as schools, water sewage disposal, solid waste or transportation system.
The proposed amendment will not have any adverse impacts on necessary governmental services.
(5) If the request is necessary to correct a mistake in the original zoning district boundaries.
The proposed amendment is not needed to correct any mistake(s) in the original zoning district boundaries.
(6) Its impact upon the public health, welfare, safety or morals.
The proposed amendment will not have any adverse impacts on the public health, welfare, safety or morals of the community.
(7) If the proposed change would create an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts.
The proposed amendment will not create isolated districts to adjacent or nearby districts.
(8) If adequate sites are already appropriately zoned for the proposed use and the subject site is suitable for the currently allowed use.
This criterion does not apply to the proposed amendments.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Board recommend Approval to the City Commission of LDC 09-23, amending Chapter II, Article VI, Section 2-71 Historic Districts and Landmarks, to add 715 West Granada Boulevard (Three Chimneys) to the Ormond Beach Historic Landmarks List and to change the public hearing notification requirement for certified mail to require regular mail.
Attachments: Exhibit A – HLPB Staff Report (March 5, 2009) Exhibit B – March 16, 2009, HLPB Meeting Minutes Exhibit C – July 20, 2009, HLPB Meeting Minutes Exhibit D – Proposed Amendment, Section 2-71, Chapter 2, Article VI
PB 0809 LDC 09-23 Landmark Designations Ordinance July 28, 2009 Preservation Committee of the Ormond Beach Historical Society Inc. and the City of Ormond Beach Page 4
EXHIBIT A
HLPB Staff Report
PB 0809 STAFF REPORT City of Ormond Beach Department of Planning
DATE: March 5, 2009 SUBJECT: Local Historic Landmark Designation – 715 W. Granada Blvd. (Three Chimneys), Parcel ID #4241-01-10-0120 APPLICANT: Dr. Philip J. Shapiro, Ormond Beach Historical Society Inc. PROJECT PLANNER: S. Laureen Kornel, AICP, Senior Planner
INTRODUCTION: This is a request by Dr. Philip J. Shaprio, Chair of the Preservation Committee of the Ormond Beach Historical Society Inc. acting on behalf of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Division of State Lands, property owner, to have the property located at 715 W. Granada Blvd., placed on the City of Ormond Beach’s Local Historic Landmarks List. Section 2-71 (Historic Districts and Landmarks) of the Land Development Code (LDC) requires that any designation of an historic landmark, archaeological site or other notable feature be adopted, by Ordinance, by the City Commission.
BACKGOUND: The subject property is known as “Three Chimneys” (Florida Master Site File #8Vo196) and encompasses ±7.6 acres located on the north side of SR 40 (West Granada Blvd.) in an undeveloped section of land between I-95 and the Intracoastal Waterway (See Exhibit A – Location Map). According to a report prepared in 1995 entitled Archaeological Assessment for the Three Chimneys Site and a Reconnaissance Survey, surface and subsurface investigations identified a prehistoric isolated occurrence with four artifacts and an early twentieth century residence (now demolished). The site assessment survey indicated that the Three Chimneys ruins are associated with the sugar and rum production facilities of the British period Swamp Settlement and were part of Richard Oswald’s plantation of the late 1700’s (See Exhibit B – Photos).
In 1764, England’s King George III gave Scottish merchant Richard Oswald a land grant of 20,000 acres in the East Florida Colony. The Swamp Settlement portion of the plantation was built in the 1770’s for a new sugar plantation. It was later abandoned in 1780 due to threat of attack from Spanish privateers. In 1783, England ceded East Florida to Spain and Oswald, never having visited the Swamp Settlement, lost his land grant. In 1803, Henry Yonge petitioned Spain and received a land grant for the subject property which was subsequently named the Yonge Plantation. Henry Yonge may have used the same sugar and rum facilities on the site.
In the early 1900’s, the Fagan family lived on the subject property near the ruins. Sometime after, but prior to 1936, the property was owned by Edmund and Alice Fisher. There were six owners and one trustee of the property between 1936 and 2002. In the
715 W.Granada Blvd. - HLPB Staff Report - March 2009.doc 1 715 W. Granada Blvd. March 5, 2009 Local Historic Landmarks Designation
1940’s the Flegert farm complex was built; it was removed at the request of the State of Florida in 2003. Sun Beach Investments Company, Inc. acquired the property from William H. Flegert in 1994. Finally, in March 2003, the State of Florida Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund purchased the property and retains current ownership. The Ormond Beach Historical Society Inc. maintains a 50-year lease to manage the historic site under a 10-year management plan that they developed for the site.
In 1997, the distillery chimney collapsed before it could be stabilized and has been left as it fell with hopes for future restoration. In 1999, a consultant prepared the Historic Preservation Plan. In 2002, Harding ESE completed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of the subject property. In 2005, the Ormond Beach Historical Society developed the Land Management Plan. In 2007, Professional Restoration Inc. completed a stabilization project to prevent further erosion of the boiling facility. Presently, the Ormond Beach Historical Society Inc. is preparing a National Register of Historic Places Registration Form for review by the United States Department of Interior National Park Service.
The subject property is a unique historic resource in the region and has preserved important research value concerning eighteenth century industrial practices in Florida’s British period. The significance of the property and associated historic uses is as follows:
1. The sugar and rum production facilities are one of the earliest in Volusia County; 2. Its technology predates the industrial revolution, while most other regional sugar works were steam powered; 3. Construction on the remaining ruins is a unique regional example of British colonial plantation sugar and rum making; 4. The English brick bonding style is a regionally unique example of British architectural tradition; and 5. The industrial elements in sugar boiling and rum distillation technology are preserved and constitute an important research and educational resource.
ANALYSIS: According to Section 2-71 of the Ormond Beach Land Development Code, an historic landmark designation may be placed on any historic structures or sites which meet any of the following criteria:
A. Exemplify or reflect the broad cultural, political, economic or social history of the nation, state or community; B. Are identified with historic personages or with important events in national, state or local history; and C. Embody the distinguishing characteristics of an architectural type specimen, inherently valuable for a study of a period, style, method of construction, or of indigenous materials or craftsmanship.
715 W. Granada Blvd.- HLPB Staff Report – March 2009 2 715 W. Granada Blvd. March 5, 2009 Local Historic Landmarks Designation
Based on the established criteria and background history, the subject property at 715 West Granada Blvd. qualifies for listing under Criteria A, B and C as listed above. The site is reflective of the cultural and social history of eighteenth century industrial practices in Florida’s British period and is linked to historic personages. Though Richard Oswald was an absentee owner and never actually visited the Swamp Settlement, the property was part of a larger tract that he owned. Oswald was a British peace negotiator involved with 1783 Treaty of Paris and worked to bring peace terms between the United States of America and England. The site exemplifies the distinguishing characteristics of an architectural type specimen unique to this region. Three Chimneys is an example of British colonial plantation sugar and rum making. In addition, the English brick bonding style of the ruins is a regionally unique example of British architectural tradition.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the HLPB recommend Approval of the designation of the structure located at 715 W. Granada Blvd., to add this historically significant property to the Ormond Beach Historical Landmarks List. Pending the recommendation of the HLPB, the Planning Board will tentatively review the proposed landmark designation application as a Land Development Code amendment on April 9, 2009 and subsequently a City Commission public hearing will be held, tentatively scheduled on May 19, 2009.
EXHIBITS: The following exhibits are included as attachments:
1. Location Map; and
2. Photos
715 W. Granada Blvd.- HLPB Staff Report – March 2009 3 715 W. Granada Blvd. March 5, 2009 Local Historic Landmarks Designation
EXHIBIT A Location Map
715 W.Granada Blvd. - HLPB Staff Report - March 2009.doc Exhibit A
N N C e O n r M c t e h e r a m S r d o t r S i t a
l r C D us i a r rth Ste
N
O 715 W. GRANADA BLVD l d
K i 0) n . 4 g .R s (S lvd R SUBJECT a B d ad PARCEL an Gr W
?ã r Tomok D a Av e
g
n S r i
D s C
s e e
o n g r t t a S e C l
l e r
i v e o r S n r S
V g g L d t D O tt o d s e o i n W n l n n d r e
o B o b
i Ki
c
s t
a
c n g
e g n M
l i
f s
d K
e
l Rd R O d R lv o B b Old Mill Run s l ak e O dy L r n n D Sa ad Village Dr he n ns k L Lio oc mm Willow Run Ha
THREE CHIMNEYS LOCATION MAP 715 W. GRANADA BLVD (4241-01-10-0120) The City of Ormond Beach G.I.S. Department Prepared by: Steve Johnson 3/5/09 ² 715 W. Granada Blvd. March 5, 2009 Local Historic Landmarks Designation
EXHIBIT B Photos
715 W.Granada Blvd. - HLPB Staff Report - March 2009.doc Exhibit B
715 W. Granada Blvd. March 5, 2009 Local Historic Landmarks Designation
2006 – Three Chimneys facing north
December 4, 2008 – Three Chimneys facing Northwest
715 W.Granada Blvd. - HLPB Staff Report - March 2009.doc Exhibit B LDC 09-23 Landmark Designations Ordinance July 28, 2009 Preservation Committee of the Ormond Beach Historical Society Inc. and the City of Ormond Beach Page 5
EXHIBIT B
March 16, 2009, HLPB Meeting Minutes
PB 0809 Historic Landmark Preservation Board March 16, 2009 Page 2
IV. Approval of Minutes – January 12, 2009
Dr. Shapiro stated the date for the open house in Members Comments section should be changed from “March 2” to “March 22”.
Ms. Parkerson moved seconded by Mr. McQuarrie to accept the minutes as amended of the January 12, 2009, meeting. The motion passed unanimously. (7-0)
V. Landmark Designation Application – 715 West Granada Boulevard (Three Chimneys)
Dr. Shapiro recused himself since he was on the Three Chimneys preservation committee. He passed the gavel to the former vice-chair, Sue Parkerson.
Ms. Parkerson opened the Public Hearing.
Ms. Kornel stated this was a Certificate of Appropriateness requested by Dr. Shapiro for 715 West Granada Boulevard also known as Three Chimneys. The property was owned by the State and managed by the Historic Society and was about 7.5 acres located on State Road 40 west of the Granada Bridge. The structure consists of rooms associated with sugar and rum production facility dating back to the 1700’s. Grant funding has been used to stabilize the structure over the years. The ruins are considered one of the earliest in Volusia County, the technology pre-dates early revolution, and the site is a unique example of rum making during the British period. The brick bonding style is unique and also dates back to the British period and the industrial elements have been preserved and constitute a resource for education in Volusia County. The Site meets the criteria under Sections A, B and C. Staff recommends approval that the HLPB approve the designation of the structure located at 715 West Granada Boulevard to be added to the Ormond Beach Local Landmark List. As the applicant of the proposed landmark designation, Dr. Shapiro was invited to comment.
Dr. Shapiro stated the Historical Society has worked on this project for 16 years and putting it on the Local Landmark List was a big achievement. He noted they were also applying for designation on the National Register of Historic Places.
Mr. Stowers asked whether there were any plans for parking.
x:\09.0005/Board Minutes/sm Historic Landmark Preservation Board March 16, 2009 Page 3
Dr. Shapiro stated there were restrictions on what can be done with the land, but they were looking into that issue. Should a favorable designation be reached with FDOT and the City, it would be a big step towards making the site a state park. Dr. Shapiro stated it was a long process.
Ms. Parkerson stated there were some parking spaces at the office. She noted this was long over due and was pleased with the outcome.
Ms. Kornel stated one reason the landmark designation may not have been pursued in the past was because the site used to be privately owned.
Ms. Eifert moved, seconded by Ms. Jackson that the Historic Landmark Preservation Board accepts staff’s recommendation to approve the designation of the structure located at 715 West Granada Boulevard to be added to the Ormond Beach Local Landmark List. The motion passed unanimously. (6-0) Dr. Shapiro did not vote.
Ms. Parkerson closed the Public Hearing.
VI. Discussion Item
A. Historic Preservation Website
Mr. Benton stated he was in the process of redesigning the Planning Department website and was compiling information. The idea of the website was so that everyone could have access to meeting schedules, agendas, minutes, audio recordings, with links to historic places and national sites.
Dr. Shapiro stated the vice chair needed to be updated and Mr. Stowers needed to be added as a Board member.
Mr. McQuarrie asked whether the projects that the Board approved could be added as well, and if the site could be on the City’s main page instead of having to search through the website.
Mr. Benton stated he only had access to the Planning Department’s website, but would keep that in mind.
Ms. Kornel stated there was a list of 2008 projects that would be posted on the site as well, and she would make sure that the Board received a copy of that list.
B. EAR-Based Amendment: Historic (Cultural Affairs) Element
x:\09.0005/Board Minutes/sm LDC 09-23 Landmark Designations Ordinance July 28, 2009 Preservation Committee of the Ormond Beach Historical Society Inc. and the City of Ormond Beach Page 6
EXHIBIT C
July 20, 2009, HLPB Meeting Minutes
PB 0809 MINUTES HISTORIC LANDMARK PRESERVATION BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
July 20, 2009 4:00 p.m.
Ormond Beach City Hall Training Room 22 South Beach Street Ormond Beach, Florida
I. Call To Order
Chairman Dr. Shapiro called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m.
II. Roll Call
Members present were: John Adams, Ann Eifert, Carl Gerken, Michael McQuarrie, Sue Parkerson and Dr. Philip Shapiro. Member excused was James Stowers. Members absent were: Geneva Jackson and Sean O’Sullivan.
Staff present was Senior Planner Laureen Kornel, Deputy City Attorney Ann- Margret Emery, Grants Coordinator Loretta Moisio and Recording Secretary Shá Moss.
III. Approval of Minutes – June 15, 2009
Mr. Gerken moved seconded by Mr. McQuarrie to accept the minutes of the June 15, 2008, meeting. The motion passed unanimously.
IV. Public Hearing – Certificate of Appropriateness for Alteration – 208 Central Avenue (Rigby Elementary School – PACE Center for Girls), File No. 1700005
Dr. Shapiro opened the Public Hearing.
Ms. Kornel stated this was an administrative request in that the City of Ormond Beach owns the property and leases it to PACE. The proposal was Historic Landmark Preservation Board July 20, 2009 Page 2
to replace all the roofs located at 208 Central Avenue. She stated the Rigby School was built in 1924 and added to the Local Landmark List in 2002. The style is masonry vernacular with some Mediterranean influences. The conditions of the roof are very poor, consisting of tar and gravel as well as asphalt shingles, though the original materials of the roof cannot be verified. While the City of Ormond Beach owns the property at 208 Central Avenue, PACE is responsible for the upkeep of the structure. The City has provided a $60,000 contribution but an additional +$60,000 from other funding sources was needed to complete the project. The Building Department stated replacement of the roof is necessary before the new roof could be put on.
Ms. Kornel stated there were three options for roofing materials:
Option 1 was to replace the tar and gravel with the Dura-Last membrane system, a new energy efficient roofing system used on roofs with little slope. Visibility from the ground of the Dura-Last is low on roofs with a low pitch. Shingles to be replaced with shingles. Cost estimate was $102,254.
Option 2 was to replace the tar and gravel with tar and gravel and replace asphalt shingles with asphalt shingles, but noted tar and gravel material is known to cause problems during severe weather. Cost estimate was $92,700.
Option 3 was to replace the tar and gravel as well as the asphalt shingles with the Dura-Last membrane system. Cost estimate was $137,287.
Ms. Kornel noted staff recommends approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for alterations to re-roof the Rigby Elementary School (PACE Center for Girls) located at 208 Central Avenue as outlined in Option 1. She noted PACE was also in favor of Option 1, and it was a balance between aesthetic, energy efficiency, technology and cost. Ms. Kornel stated there were also tax credits and rebates with the Dura-Last system.
Ms. Eifert asked whether the roof would look white; wherein Ms. Kornel answered that the majority of the roof would not be visible from ground level. Those roofs visible from the ground are proposed for shingles.
Project Manager for PACE Ken Duval stated the current tar and gravel was white, which gave a white appearance
Mr. Gerken moved seconded by Mr. McQuarrie to accept staff’s recommendation to approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for alterations to re-roof the Rigby Elementary School (PACE Center for Girls) located at 208 Central Avenue as outlined in Option 1. The motion passed unanimously. 6 to 0.
x:\2009-07-20/Board Minutes/sm Historic Landmark Preservation Board July 20, 2009 Page 3
Dr. Shapiro closed the Public Hearing
V. Discussion Item
A. LDC 08-44 – Land Development Code (LDC) Amendment to Chapter 2, Article IV (Change requirement for notice of public hearings from certified mail to regular mail)
Ms. Kornel stated staff has made a few changes to Chapter 2, Article IV of the Code and one of the recommended updates was to change the requirements of certified notice of public hearing to subject and abutting property owners to not require notice by certified mail. Staff noted it caused problems because some people refuse to accept certified mail or were out of town and missed receiving the mail. It was thought that more people would be reached if it was sent by regular mail. The decision was made by the Planning Board and approved by the City Commission in January, but not changed in the LDC. The Public Hearing would still be advertised in the newspaper.
Ms. Emery stated certified mail was not required. She noted when something was sent to a correct address, it was presumed that it was received.
Three Chimneys
Ms. Kornel stated Three Chimneys would officially be placed on the Local Landmark List.
B. Updated EAR-Based Amendments: Cultured and Historic Resources Element
Ms. Kornel stated there were no policy changes, but staff proposed new language by noting the Board would continue to implement historic preservations, continue to update the existing Florida Master Site File and continue to review Certificates of Appropriateness.
VI. Member Comments
Ms. Kornel stated she sent an email to the Board about a meeting she had concerning the American Legion Hall regarding alterations to the property and whether or not they needed a Certificate of Appropriateness. In her review, she noted a Certificate of Appropriateness would not be required because the alterations would
x:\2009-07-20/Board Minutes/sm LDC 09-23 Landmark Designations Ordinance July 28, 2009 Preservation Committee of the Ormond Beach Historical Society Inc. and the City of Ormond Beach Page 7
EXHIBIT D
Proposed Amendment,
Section 2-71, Chapter 2, Article VI (deleted text is in strikethrough and new text is underlined)
PB 0809 LDC 09-23 Landmark Designations Ordinance July 28, 2009 Preservation Committee of the Ormond Beach Historical Society Inc. and the City of Ormond Beach Page 8
SECTION 2-71: HISTORIC DISTRICTS AND LANDMARKS
A. Purpose. No change.
B. Applicability. No change.
C. Designation Procedures
1. Historic Landmarks and Archaeological Sites. The designation of an historic landmark, archaeological site, or other such notable feature shall be done by ordinance adopted by the City Commission in accordance with the following procedures: a. The applicant shall submit a written request to the Planning Department and shall provide studies, documentation, or other evidence regarding the historic significance of the proposed landmark, site or feature. If the applicant is someone other than the property owner, the applicant shall send by regular certified mail, return receipt requested, a copy of the written request, a letter indicating his intention to pursue the historic landmark designation from the City Commission, and a copy of all studies, documentation, or other evidence to the property owner demonstrating the historical or archeological significance of the site. The applicant shall provide to the Planning Director a copy of the certified mail receipt indicating that the information has been received by the property owner. b. If the applicant is someone other than the property owner, the Planning Director shall wait 14 days from the date of the certified mail receipt that notification was sent by regular mail to receive a response from the property owner regarding the written request for a landmark designation. After the 14-day period has expired, the Planning Director shall proceed with City review of the request as set forth herein. c. Any initiation of local landmark designation by anyone other than the property owner must be reviewed by the City Commission before an application is processed, unless the property owner has no objection to such designation. If the written request is from someone other than the property owner, the Planning Director or his or her designees shall send by certified regular mail, return receipt requested, notification of the necessary public hearings to the property owner of the proposed landmark, archaeological site, or other such notable feature. Said notification shall be post- marked at least ten (10) days prior to the public hearing. The Planning Director or his or her designees will prepare a proposed ordinance and schedule public hearings with the Historic Landmark Preservation Board (HLPB) and the City Commission to consider the request for a historic landmark designation. d. If the property owner submits a request for a historic landmark designation, the Planning Director shall prepare a proposed ordinance and schedule the necessary public hearings before the Historic Landmark Preservation Board, the Planning Board and the City Commission.
PB 0809 LDC 09-23 Landmark Designations Ordinance July 28, 2009 Preservation Committee of the Ormond Beach Historical Society Inc. and the City of Ormond Beach Page 9
e. After an initial public hearing, the Historic Landmark Preservation Board shall submit the minutes of the public hearing, the recommendations of the Planning Department, and a report with its recommendations to the Planning Board. f. After the Planning Board public hearing, the Planning Board shall submit the minutes of the public hearing, the recommendations of the Planning Board, and a final report with its recommendations to the City Commission. g. The City Commission shall, upon receipt of the meeting minutes and recommendations of the Planning Board, consider an appropriate ordinance adding the proposed property to the local list of historic landmarks, archaeological sites, or other such notable features. h. The City Commission may adopt the ordinance with or without amendments following the necessary public hearings after written notice of the time and place of the hearing has been furnished to the owner of the property proposed to be established as an historic site or landmark, archaeological site, or other such notable feature. i. Any request to remove a historic landmark from the City’s historic landmark list shall follow similar procedures as a request to place a landmark on said list.
2. Historic Districts. The designation of historic districts shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and shall be done by ordinance adopted by the City Commission in accordance with the following procedure: a. The process for the designation of an historic district may be initiated by any property owner(s) within the proposed district, by the Historic Landmark Preservation Board (hereafter Board) or any member thereof, or by the Planning Director. b. The applicant(s) shall submit a written application to the Board, through the Planning Director, which application shall provide at least the following information: (1) A physical description of the proposed district, accompanied by photographs of buildings, structures, objects or sites which are typical examples of contributing and non-contributing properties within the proposed district. (2) A description of typical architectural styles, character-defining features, and types of buildings, structures, objects or sites within the proposed district. (3) A map identifying all zoning, appropriate land use information, buildings, structures, objects and sites within the proposed district, with each building or structure in the proposed district being identified on the map as either a contributing or non-contributing property, as such terms are defined in this Section. (4) A statement of the historical, cultural, architectural, archaeological, or other significance of the district as defined by the “Scope” paragraph of this Section. (5) A statement of incentives requested, if any, and any additional guidelines which should be used in authorizing any alteration, demolition, relocation, excavation or new construction within the boundaries of the district.
PB 0809 LDC 09-23 Landmark Designations Ordinance July 28, 2009 Preservation Committee of the Ormond Beach Historical Society Inc. and the City of Ormond Beach Page 10
(6) Names and addresses of all owners of property in the proposed district. (7) Any other appropriate information requested by the Board. c. Upon receipt of a complete application, the Board shall schedule a public hearing on the application. Written notice of the time, date, and place of such public hearing shall be sent at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing to all owners of record, as determined by the records in the tax assessor’s office on the date the application is deemed complete, of property within the proposed district. The written notice to owners of property within the proposed district shall be by first class mail. In addition, a legal notice setting forth the nature of the hearing, the property involved, and the time, date and place of the scheduled public hearing, shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation in the city at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing. d. After conducting the public hearing, the Board shall submit the application, the minutes of the public hearing, the recommendations of the Planning Department, and a final report with the Board’s recommendations, to the City Commission. e. The City Commission shall, upon receipt of the referenced items and after providing notice in the manner set forth in (c) above, conduct a public hearing and consider an ordinance creating the district and designating each property included therein as either a contributing or a non-contributing property. f. Subsequent to the adoption of the ordinance creating the district and making the said designation, any property owner who desires to have the designation on the property owned by such person changed, such owner may apply to the Board for a hearing, at which hearing such owner shall present evidence and testimony in support of the application. g. The applying owner shall be required to provide at least 30 days notice by regular certified mail to each abutting owner of the time, date, place and purpose of the hearing and shall provide proof of such notice to the Board secretary prior to the hearing. h. Upon conclusion of the hearing, the Board shall determine whether or not to recommend approval of the application and, if for approval, shall forward its recommendation to the City Commission. i. If the Board’s recommendation is for no change in the designation, the owner may appeal such recommendation to the City Commission within 30 days of the Board’s decision by filing such appeal with the City Clerk. If the Board’s recommendation is to grant the requested change, the City Commission shall consider the necessary ordinance amendment at its first available meeting following the Board’s decision. j. Prior to hearing any appeal or finally adopting any ordinance, the City Commission shall provide each property owner within the proposed Historic District as well as each property owner adjacent to the proposed district with at least ten (10) days notice by regular certified mail, of the time, date and place of the meeting at which such appeal shall be heard or such final adoption shall occur. The property owner requesting the change in designation shall bear the cost of such notice.
PB 0809 LDC 09-23 Landmark Designations Ordinance July 28, 2009 Preservation Committee of the Ormond Beach Historical Society Inc. and the City of Ormond Beach Page 11
D. Certificates of Appropriateness
1. A certificate of appropriateness, issued by the Board, shall be required for any of the following activities on property which is included in the local list of historic landmarks, archaeological sites, and other such notable features, or within a designated historic district.
a. Any alteration requiring a permit from the City, which alteration will change the exterior appearance of any individually designated building or structure, or of any contributing property in a designated historic district. b. The demolition of any individually designated building or structure or of any contributing property in a designated historic district. c. The relocation of any building or structure onto an individually designated site; the relocation of any individually designated building or structure to another site; and the relocation of any building or structure into or out of any designated historic district. d. The construction or erection of any principal or accessory building or structure in any designated historic district. 2. A certificate of appropriateness, issued by the HLPB, shall also be required for the demolition of any building or structure that was constructed prior to January 1, 1950. 3. A certificate of appropriateness, issued by the Board, shall also be required prior to impacting any individually designated site, or any contributing property in a designated historic district, by any movement of earth whether by clearing, excavation, grading or filling. 4. A certificate of appropriateness shall be a condition precedent to the issuance of any other required permits; the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness shall not relieve the applicant of the need to obtain other permits or approvals required by the City. 5. Within ten (10) working days of the receipt of any permit application which is determined shall require a certificate of appropriateness as a condition precedent, the Planning Director or his or her designees shall refer such application to the Board for review and decision. 6. The Board shall conduct a public hearing on the application at least 21 days following the date of the Planning Director’s, or his or her designee’s, referral to the Board. Notice of such hearing shall be duly publicized in accordance with the provisions of Section 286.011, Florida Statutes, and provided by hand delivery or regular certified mail, return receipt requested, to the owner of the property in question at least ten (10) days prior to the date of the public hearing. 7. In considering a request for a certificate of appropriateness, the Board shall give due consideration to the following criteria:
PB 0809 LDC 09-23 Landmark Designations Ordinance July 28, 2009 Preservation Committee of the Ormond Beach Historical Society Inc. and the City of Ormond Beach Page 12
a. The decision on all certificates of appropriateness, except those for demolition, shall be guided by the Secretary of the Interior’s General Standards for Preservation Projects and Specific Standards for Rehabilitation stated as follows: (1) Every reasonable effort shall be made to provide a compatible use for a property which requires minimal alteration of the building, structure, or site and its environment, or to use a property for its originally intended purpose. (2) The distinguishing original qualities or character of a building, structure, or site and its environment shall not be destroyed. The removal or alteration of any historic material or distinctive architectural features shall be avoided when possible. (3) All buildings, structures, and sites shall be recognized as products of their own time. Alterations that have no historical basis and which seek to create an earlier appearance shall be discouraged. (4) Changes which may have taken place in the course of time are evidence of the history and development of a building, structure, or site and its environment. These changes may have acquired significance in their own right, and this significance shall be recognized and respected. (5) Distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship which characterize a building, structure, or site shall be treated with sensitivity. (6) Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced, wherever possible. In the event replacement is necessary, the new material shall match the material being replaced in composition, design, color, texture, and other visual qualities. (7) Repair or replacement of missing architectural features should be based on accurate duplication of features, substantiated by historic, physical, or pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different architectural elements from other buildings or structures. (8) The surface cleaning of structures shall be undertaken with the gentlest means possible. Sandblasting and other cleaning methods that will damage the historic building materials shall not be undertaken. (9) Every reasonable effort shall be made to protect and preserve archeological resources affected by, or adjacent to, any acquisition, protection, stabilization, preservation, demolition, rehabilitation, restoration, or reconstruction project. (10) Contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing properties shall not be discouraged when such alterations and additions do not destroy significant historical, architectural or cultural material, and such design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material, and character of the property, neighborhood or environment. (11) Wherever possible, new additions or alteration to structures shall be done in such a manner that if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired.
PB 0809 LDC 09-23 Landmark Designations Ordinance July 28, 2009 Preservation Committee of the Ormond Beach Historical Society Inc. and the City of Ormond Beach Page 13
b. In approving or denying an application of appropriateness for new construction, the Board shall require the following features of the proposed building to be visually compatible with the existing contributing structures in a designated historic district. (1) Height (2) Scale (3) Massing (4) Setbacks (5) Fenestration (6) Roof shape (7) Use of materials (8) Directional expression (9) Style (10) Site plan c. In addition to the guidelines provided in paragraph 7a above, issuance of certificates of appropriateness for relocations shall be guided by the following factors: (1) The historic character and aesthetic interest the building, structure, or object contributes to its present setting. (2) Whether there are definite plans for the area to be vacated and the effect of those plans on the character of the surrounding area. (3) Whether the building, structure, or object can be moved without significant damage to its physical integrity. (4) Whether the proposed relocation area is compatible with the historical and architectural character of the building, structure or object. d. Issuance of certificates of appropriateness for demolitions shall be guided by the following factors: (1) The historic or architectural significance of the building, structure, or object. (2) The importance of the building, structure, or object to the ambiance of a district. (3) The difficulty or the impossibility of reproducing such a building, structure or object because of its design, texture, material, detail, or unique location. (4) Whether the building, structure, or object is one of the last remaining examples of its kind in the neighborhood, the county, or the region. (5) Whether there are definite plans for reuse of the property if the proposed demolition is carried out, and the effect of those plans on the character of the surrounding area. (6) Whether reasonable measures can be taken to save the building, structure, or object from collapse.
PB 0809 LDC 09-23 Landmark Designations Ordinance July 28, 2009 Preservation Committee of the Ormond Beach Historical Society Inc. and the City of Ormond Beach Page 14
(7) Whether the building, structure, or object is capable of earning a reasonable economic return on its value. 8. Following the public hearing on the application, the Board shall approve; approve with conditions, which may include a delay in permit issuance; or deny the application for a certificate of appropriateness. a. Any delay in permit issuance so ordered may be up to 30 days if the building or structure was constructed prior to January 1, 1950, but is not an individually designated historic landmark and is not in a designated historic district, and up to six (6) months if the building or structure is either an individually designated historic landmark or in a designated historic district. (1) During any delay required by the Board pursuant to this Section, the Board, in conjunction with such City staff personnel as the City Manager may direct, shall seek alternatives to the demolition of the structure. (2) If, within the period of delay, no alternative to demolition has been arrived at which is acceptable to the owner, and after architectural and historic documentation has been prepared by the applicant and submitted to the City, the Chief Building Official shall then issue the demolition permit upon demand, if all other requirements have been met. b. If the Board determines that the proposed construction, reconstruction, alteration, moving or demolition is appropriate, it shall approve such application. c. If the Board determines that a certificate of appropriateness should not be issued, it shall place upon the record the reasons for such determination, a suggested method of preserving the structure, historic site or other notable features, and shall immediately notify the applicant of such determination, furnishing him an attested copy of its findings, and its recommendations, if any, as appearing in the records of the Board. d. The Board may approve such application, with or without conditions or delay issuance of the necessary permit, in any case when the owner demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence, that strict enforcement of this Section and denial of the owner’s application will effectively deny such owner all economically viable use of the property unless the certificate of appropriateness were issued forthwith.
9. Copies of the Board’s decision shall be provided by mail to the applicant and all abutting property owners within ten (10) days of the date of execution of the Order setting forth such decision. 10. Any applicant, or abutting property owner, aggrieved by a determination of the Board shall first appeal such determination to the City Commission by filing written notice with the office of the City Manager within 30 days of the date of the execution of the Order setting forth such decision. The City Commission shall affirm, modify or deny the determination of the Board. Further appeal by such person shall be by petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court, which must be filed within 30 days of the date of the decision by the City Commission.
PB 0809 LDC 09-23 Landmark Designations Ordinance July 28, 2009 Preservation Committee of the Ormond Beach Historical Society Inc. and the City of Ormond Beach Page 15
E. Consistency with Code. No change.
F. Maintenance. No change.
G. Enforcement. No change.
H. The Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. No change.
I. Standards for Review, Design Guidelines, Design Criteria. No change.
J. Historic Overlay Districts. No change.
K. Ormond Beach Historic Landmarks List
1. 25 Riverside Drive - The Casements 2. 150 South Beach Street - the Lippincott Mansion 3. 42 North Beach Street - the Anderson-Price Memorial Library 4. 110 North Beach Street - Corbin Family Estate 5. 104 South Beach Street - Clements House 6. 173 South Beach Street - Ames House 7. 186 South Beach Street – the Last Straw or Oaks Ames House 8. 76 Central Avenue – the Hatten Home 9. 33 Dix Avenue – the Moore Home 10. 160 East Granada Boulevard – Old Fire Station No. 91 11. 11-23 West Granada Boulevard – Buschman Building 12. 57 West Granada Boulevard – Hanson Building 13. 174 Grove Street – Wilmer Home 14. 253 John Anderson Drive – Lisnaroe/“By the Water” Estate 15. 393 John Anderson Drive – H. Clay Irons House 16. 31 Lincoln Avenue - Lawson House 17. 61 Lincoln Avenue – George Cusack Home 18. 75 Lincoln Avenue - Pearson Home 19. 156 New Britain Avenue – American Legion Hall 20. 143 Ocean Shore Boulevard – Treasure Trove 21. 71 Orchard Lane – Bracken Cabin 22. 175 Orchard Lane – Delaney Cottage House 23. 127 Riverside Drive – Rockefeller House 24. 63 Seville Street – Barbie House 25. 115 South Yonge Street – New Bethel AME Church 26. 44 South Halifax Drive – the original St. James Episcopal Church 27. 48 Lincoln Avenue – Ross House 28. 195 Riverside Drive – Bosarve Site
PB 0809 LDC 09-23 Landmark Designations Ordinance July 28, 2009 Preservation Committee of the Ormond Beach Historical Society Inc. and the City of Ormond Beach Page 16
29. 70 Highland Avenue – Jacobson House 30. 41 North Beach Street – Village Improvement Gardens 31. 215 Seton Trail – Hillside Cemetery 32. 528 South Beach Street – Ruth House 33. 2 John Anderson Drive – Hotel Ormond Cupola 34. 38 East Granada Boulevard – MacDonald House 35. 196 South Beach Street – Indian Mound Park 36. 208 Central Avenue – former Rigby Elementary School 37. 195 South Beach Street – Whim Gardens at Ames Park 38. 54 South Ridgewood Avenue – Wardwell and Penfield Gravesites 39. 33 Ocean Shore Boulevard – Prettyman House 40. 791 West Granada Boulevard – Pilgrim’s Rest Cemetery 41. 140 S. Orchard Street – Gethsemane Cemetery 42. 106 Marvin Road – Fagen-Marvin Cemetery 43. 380 Tymber Run – Groover Creek Cemetery 44. 242 Tomoka Avenue – former St. John Missionary Baptist Church 45. 63 North Beach Street – Ormond Yacht Club 46. 103 Lincoln Avenue – site of the first Ormond Beach School 47. 39 North Ridgewood Avenue 48. 100 Corbin Avenue – Ormond Elementary School 49. 101 Corbin Avenue – Ormond Elementary School Stone Wall 50. 1 North Beach Street – Pilgrim’s Rest Primitive Baptist Church 51. 1 Sanchez Avenue – Coquina Monuments (2) 52. 45 South Halifax Drive – Emmons Cottage 53. 56 North Beach Street – Ormond Beach Union Church 54. 715 West Granada Boulevard – Three Chimneys
PB 0809
STAFF REPORT City of Ormond Beach Department of Planning
DATE: August 13, 2009 SUBJECT: Land Development Code Amendment APPLICANT: Administrative NUMBER: LDC 09-28 PROJECT PLANNER: Sabrina M. Johnson, Planning Technician
INTRODUCTION: This is an administrative request to amend the existing language in the Land Development Code Chapter 2, Article III, Section 2-50(F), Carports.
Name of Section or Purpose of Item Section(s) Amendments
1 Chapter 2, Article III, §2-50 Accessory Uses (F) Carports
BACKGROUND: A recent inquiry regarding the enclosing of a garage into “livable space” has prompted staff to request an amendment to the current Land Development Code.
ANALYSIS: Currently, the LDC requires that all single-family dwelling units contain a garage or carport structure. The Code, however, also permits a canopy structure as a replacement. The canopy replacement is not required to meet Florida Building Code wind loads.
CODE AMENDMENTS:
The amendment to the Land Development Code is as provided below:
1. To replace the existing language currently contained in Section 2-50(F) of the Land Development Code: f. “No garage or carport shall be occupied as living space unless a similar permanent structure is provided. All replacement structures shall have improved driveways leading to the public rights-of-way. No temporary canvas shelter is permitted as a replacement for an existing garage or carport.”
CONCLUSION: There are certain criteria that must be evaluated before adoption of an amendment according to the Land Development Code (LDC) the Planning Board must consider the following criteria when making their recommendation: 1. The proposed development conforms to the standards and requirements of this Code and will not create undue crowding beyond the conditions normally permitted in the zoning district, or adversely affect the public health, safety, welfare or quality of life. The proposed Land Development Code amendment goes a long way in improving the public health, safety, and welfare. The quality of life is affected if garages can be filled in with living space without replacement. The use of a temporary shelter as a replacement is a safety issue due to hurricanes. 2. The proposed development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed Land Development Code amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as it pertains to the quality of life and welfare of the community.
3. The proposed development will not adversely impact environmentally sensitive lands or natural resources, including but not limited to waterbodies, wetlands, xeric communities, wildlife habitats, endangered or threatened plants and animal species or species of special concern, wellfields, and individual wells. The proposed Land Development Code amendment does not have an adverse impact on environmentally sensitive lands.
4. The proposed use will not substantially or permanently depreciate the value of surrounding property; create a nuisance; or deprive adjoining properties of adequate light and air; create excessive noise, odor, glare, or visual impacts on the neighborhood and adjoining properties. The referenced code amendment prohibits utilizing temporary canvas structures as required garage or carport space as well as a permanent access to the replacement carport or garage.
5. There are adequate public facilities to serve the development, including but not limited to roads, sidewalks, bike paths, potable water, wastewater treatment, drainage, fire and police safety, parks and recreation facilities, schools, and playgrounds. The proposed Land Development Code amendment does not apply to public facilities.
6. Ingress and egress to the property and traffic patterns are designed to protect and promote motorized vehicle and pedestrian/bicycle safety and convenience, allow for desirable traffic flow and control, and provide adequate access in case of fire or catastrophe. This finding shall be based on a traffic report where available, prepared by a qualified traffic consultant, engineer or planner which details the anticipated or projected effect of the project on adjacent roads and the impact on public safety. The proposed Land Development Code amendment does not result in a hazardous situation for adjoining property owners.
7. The proposed development is functional in the use of space and aesthetically acceptable. There is no development proposed for this amendment
8. The proposed development provides for the safety of occupants and visitors. There is no development proposed for this amendment
9. The proposed use of materials and architectural features will not adversely impact the neighborhood and aesthetics of the area. This is a Land Development Code amendment and does propose to have a negative impact on the surrounding area.
10. The testimony provided at public hearings. The comments from the August 13, 2009 Planning Board will be incorporated into the City Commission packet.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Board APPROVE Case # LDC09-28, which amends Section 2-50(F).
CITY OF ORMOND BEACH FLORIDA PLANNING M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Chairman Thomas and Planning Board Members
FROM: S. Laureen Kornel, AICP, Senior Planner
DATE: August 1, 2009
SUBJECT: 2009 Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR)-Based Amendments: Cultural and Historic Resources Element - Update
On June 11, 2009 the Cultural and Historic Resources Element was brought before the Planning Board for review and discussion. Since that time, based on additional analysis, staff has developed two additional policies that support work completed by the City and the Historic Landmark Preservation Board (HLPB) on an ongoing basis. There are no new policies being proposed that support any additional work other than what is already being implemented by the City and the HLPB at this time. Staff recommends proposed new language as follows: POLICY 2.2.4 Implement historic preservation regulations in support of the Historic Landmark Preservation Board in accordance with the Historic Districts and Landmarks section of the City’s Land Development Code.
POLICY 2.2.7 Work with the State to update the existing Florida Master Site File information as appropriate. Said update, as is economically feasible, may be undertaken in its entirety, or in increments in accordance with applicable grant application cycles.
The Historic Landmark Preservation Board reviewed the proposed amendments on March 16, 2009. The two additional subject policies were presented to the HLPB on July 20, 2009. The City Commission will have an opportunity to review the proposed new policies at such time when a complete Draft of the EAR-Based Amendments is finished. A City Commission workshop is tentatively scheduled for October 7, 2009.
- 1 -
CITY OF ORMOND BEACH FLORIDA PLANNING M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Chairman Thomas and Planning Board Members
FROM: S. Laureen Kornel, AICP, Senior Planner
DATE: August 1, 2009
SUBJECT: 2009 Evaluation and Appraisal Report Draft Amendments - Recreation and Open Space Element
Included as Attachment 1 with this Memorandum is a copy of the Draft EAR-Based Amendments for the Recreation and Open Space Element. Included as Attachment 2 is an excerpt from the Draft EAR-Based amendments for the Capital Improvements Element showing only the level-of-service standards (LOSS) for Recreation. The attached proposed amendments were reviewed on June 4, 2009, by the Quality of Life Advisory Board and on June 10, 2009, by the Leisure Services Advisory Board (copies of meeting minutes provided as Attachments 3 and 4, respectively). Below, is an explanation of both significant and minor changes to the policies associated with the proposed EAR-Based Amendments.
Significant Policy Changes: Eliminated past levels-of-service standards and updated same to limit new development to provide for increased demand for services created solely by development. A new policy has been developed to reference the standards in the CIE (Attachment 1, Objective 1.1, Policy 1.1.1, Page 1). The standards have been altogether removed from the Recreation and Open Space Element and are listed in the Capital Improvements Element (CIE) where all of the City’s level-of- service standards are shown under the same Element (Attachment 2, Policy 1.3.2). For the purpose of discussion, it should be noted that staff has reviewed the level-of-service standards in the 2005 Parks and Recreation Master Plan Study. At this time, the standards used in the EAR-Based Amendments reflect the standards of the adopted Study. The standards are unrealistic such that they are not financially feasible or attainable within a reasonable timeframe. However, the level-of-service standards may serve as a means to guide the city toward additional park acquisition and development. In coordination with the Recreation Division, for the purpose of the EAR-based amendments, staff recommends using the level-of service standards as they have been adopted in the 2005 Parks and Recreation Master Plan Study with the intention to work toward further
0809 Recreation & Open Space Element 2009 EAR-Based Draft Amendments Planning Board August 13, 2009
acquisition and development of park lands. Ultimately, the City will need to initiate an update to the 2005 Parks Study that will reflect realistic level-of service standards based on current conditions. Further, the Impact Fee Schedule for Parks and Recreation will need to be updated based on financial feasibility. Minor Policy Changes: Provided for acquisition of lands with environmental assets and access and recreational opportunities for same (Policy 1.3.2, Page 3). Provided for consideration of improving trail accessibility by utilizing utility easements as connections and linkages (Policy 1.7.7, Page 6). Provided criteria that will be used to prioritize bicycle facility improvements (Policy 1.7.8, Page 6). Provided for installation of bicycle detection devices, subject to available funding (Policy 1.7.9, Page 6). Required coordination between local and national level trails efforts such as the East Coast Greenway (Policy 1.10.6, Page 9). Further, in response to suggested new policies submitted by Mr. Alan Burton earlier this year, staff prepared a table addressing each proposed policy (Attachment 5). In addition to the proposed new list of policies, Mr. Burton had a number of questions that he brought before the Leisure Services Advisory Board on June 10, 2009. Attachment 6 provides a list of Mr. Burton’s comments along with staff’s responses. Finally, as stated earlier, staff has included a table that details Parks and Recreation Existing and Projected levels-of-service between 2008 and 2025. The table further breaks out park categories and facilities, and illustrates that levels-of-service standards reflect projected population numbers (Attachment 7).
The Planning Board is being requested to review and provide comment to the Draft EAR-Based Amendments and associated attachments. Once all of the Elements and their proposed amendments have been presented to the Planning Board, all of the EAR-Based amendments will be presented together at a future meeting for recommendation for approval to the City Commission. The Draft EAR-Based Amendments for the Future Land Use and the Capital Improvements Elements are the only two remaining Elements scheduled to be presented to the Planning Board in the Fall. Please contact me at (386) 676-3345 or at [email protected] if you have any questions or require assistance.
Attachment cc: Robert Carolin, Leisure Services Director Ric Goss, AICP, Planning Director
0709 Recreation & Open Space Element 2009 EAR-Based Draft Amendments Planning Board August 13, 2009
ATTACHMENT 1
Draft EAR-Based Amendments – Recreation & Open Space Element
0709 Recreation & Open Space Element 2009 EAR-Based Draft Amendments RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES
Deleted: OVER THE TWENTY- YEAR SPAN OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT Deleted: PROJECTED Deleted: ALL GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES Deleted: Prior to 2002, Ormond Beach shall develop a system of recreation sites and facilities to meet the level-of-service standard of the City. The impact of development activities shall be required to be THE FOLLOWING GOALS AND OBJECTIVES INCLUDE concurrent with the adopted level-of- LEVELS-OF-SERVICE (LOS) AND THE POLICIES AND service standards. PROCEDURES NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN THE CITY’S Deleted: the following RECREATIONAL AND OPEN SPACE NEEDS. REVENUE Deleted: according to the adopted Parks and Recreation Master Plan Study and in SOURCES AND REQUIRED FUNDING TO IMPLEMENT THE accordance with the Capital PLAN HAVE BEEN GENERALLY IDENTIFIED IN THIS Improvements Element of the Comprehensive Plan. ELEMENT AND WILL BE SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED IN THE Deleted: of parks until 1998, when the CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT. City would update this standard utilizing the following National Parks and Recreation Association (NPRA) needs- based, facility-driven, land-measured methodology, of 10 acres per 1,000 GOAL 1. population.: PROVIDE AN ACCEPTABLE QUALITY, QUANTITY, AND VARIETY OF ACTIVE AND Deleted: Park categories and allowable facilities shall be defined as:¶ PASSIVE RECREATION AREAS AND FACILITIES NECESSARY TO MEET THE Mini-Park: Mini-Parks are the smallest EXISTING AND FUTURE RECREATIONAL NEEDS OF THE CITY’S RESIDENTS AND classified parks and serve an aesthetic, relaxation, or open space purpose. Mini- OF ITS VISITORS. parks are usually less than five acres in size and have a service area of approximately ¼ mile. These parks usually serve concentrated populations, OBJECTIVE 1.1. isolated areas, or unique recreational or scenic opportunities. Areas along natural The City shall require of new development activities concurrency with the adopted level-of resources that have pedestrian improvements may be considered mini- service standards according to the adopted Parks and Recreation Master Plan Study, as parks. An example of a mini-park is amended. Huguenot Park at the east end of Melrose Avenue. Mini-parks may include any combination of the following facilities:¶ benches scenic vista points¶ POLICY 1.1.1. open space/picnic areas pedestrian facilities¶ The City shall apply level-of-service standards for park categories and facilities in accordance historic/cultural points of interest playground¶ with the adopted Parks and Recreation Master Plan Study as amended and listed in the Capital Neighborhood Park: Neighborhood parks Improvements Element of the Comprehensive Plan. are local residential parks that serve the population in the immediate area. The service area for a neighborhood park is approximately ½ to 1 mile. POLICY 1.1.2. Neighborhood parks may include a multi- purpose sports field, open space, and Parks and recreational facilities shall be located throughout the City to allow access opportunities pedestrian facilities. The average size of to all segments of the population. a neighborhood park is 5 acres. Sanchez Park is an example of a neighborhood park in Ormond Beach. Neighborhood parks may include any combination of the POLICY 1.1.3. following facilities:¶ benches open space/picnic The City shall continue to provide sufficient lighting where needed at any active recreation area¶ ... [1] facilities existing at that time. Deleted: 3 Deleted: 4
3 POLICY 1.1.4. Deleted: 5 The City shall continue to acquire the appropriate acreage for neighborhood and community park and recreation sites to meet its level-of-service standards when necessary. Deleted: ¶ POLICY 1.1.6.¶ POLICY 1.1.5. The City shall continue to acquire property adjacent to the South Recreation Area Alligator Island shall be maintained under the Open Space/Conservation land use designation. (Division) and shall orient development of this complex toward a Citywide Recreation facility.¶ POLICY 1.1.6. Deleted: 7 Deleted: POLICY 1.1.8.¶ The City’s facility needs and program planning shall be determined through a continuous By 2000, the Ormond Beach Racquet Club assessment of facility capacities and community needs, thorough surveys, citizen responses, civic facilities shall either be renovated or replaced with a new sports complex in Planning Area interaction, and population growth. Surveys shall be completed as needed by the Leisure A.¶ Services and Planning Departments. The following criteria shall be applied in implementation of Deleted: 9 this policy. Deleted: Annual s a. Coordination with other City departments and civic groups of studio (e.g., continuing Deleted: by April of each year education) programs, special events and referral services. Such programs shall be available for all ages and not limited to any level of proficiency. b. Coordination of or liaison to the development of other community enhancement projects (e.g., Santaland Art in the Park, and Easter Egg Hunt). c. Develop an outreach strategy that provides recreation activities and programs on a neighborhood basis. d. Determine the need for additional multi-diversified leisure facilities to better accommodate existing and future needs. e. Survey of the use of recreation facilities by developmentally disabled and physically handicapped people. The plan shall further contain specific recommendations for correcting existing deficiencies and meeting future needs. Formatted: Bullets and Numbering f. Assess the special population needs and provide structured activities for youth and adults that would interface with mainstream youth programs. Deleted: POLICY 1.1.10.¶ By 2000, the city shall inventory existing vacant land and buildings that are considered OBJECTIVE 1.2. important to either short-term or long-term recreation and open space planning. Vacant To maximize the responsible use of existing public lands and facilities, City parks and lands in the Central Business District shall be reviewed for recreation and open space recreation facilities shall be maintained by the City’s Leisure Services Department in order planning.¶ to promote public use and community pride, and discourage vandalism. Deleted: In order t Deleted: Public Works POLICY 1.2.1. Deleted: On a continuous basis, t The City shall manage undeveloped City-owned land for the long-term public interest, doing so in a manner by which the City sets an example for others to follow.
POLICY 1.2.2.
4 RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES
The City shall maintain its boat ramps, piers, docks, and other water-access facilities in a safe Deleted: On a continuous basis, t and operable condition.
POLICY 1.2.3. Deleted: 1991 By 2025, the City shall develop a facility at Central Park to support after school programs and other activities. Deleted: youth Deleted: specifically for Deleted: and summer POLICY 1.2.4. Deleted: POLICY 1.2.4.¶ By 1999, the City shall develop a picnic The City shall actively maintain any saltmarsh areas adjacent to area at Central Park, complete with a City property to be free of litter and/or other garbage. ballfield and playground facility.¶ Deleted: 5 POLICY 1.2.5. Deleted: On a continuous basis, t Deleted: POLICY 1.2.6.¶ The City shall continue to provide information and interpretive signs at all City-operated boat By 2002, Arroyo Park shall be developed into a landscaped mini-park with ramps to alert users of the endangered manatees, the Tomoka River Manatee Sanctuary, and the benches.¶ City personal watercraft ordinance. Deleted: 7 Deleted: POLICY 1.2.8.¶ A public safety plan shall be prepared for OBJECTIVE 1.3. all special events sponsored on public property within the City. This shall apply Balance the functioning value of the natural environment so there is an optimum to all events where attendance is expected to total at least 200 people. The plan will combination of aesthetic, ecological, and recreation values. be reviewed and approved by the Police and Fire Departments and shall contain the following:¶ POLICY 1.3.1. ¶ <#>Name and address of sponsor.¶ <#>Nature of the event.¶ Use park systems or open space to buffer incompatible land uses, where parks or open spaces are <#>Estimated public attendance, date, compatible with these land uses. and time.¶ <#>Traffic control and crowd control measures.¶ POLICY 1.3.2. Deleted: Acquire lands with minimal The City shall acquire or preserve lands with unique environmental assets, as well as provide development potential due to size or community access and/or recreation opportunities/value to the community. shape that are adjacent to environmentally sensitive lands and incorporate them into the public open space system. POLICY 1.3.3. To the maximum extent consistent with Federal, State, and City objectives, policies, and responsibilities, multiple uses of public lands shall be considered, to reduce the cost of and expedite the acquisition of additional needed public lands. Deleted: POLICY 1.3.4.¶ The City shall periodically conduct an environmental/recreational audit to OBJECTIVE 1.4. determine if there are recreational activities within the City that are harming The City shall maintain and improve access to its parks, recreation, and open space areas, or pose significant potential harm to the facilities, programs, and events and encourage development of facilities, programs, and environment.¶ events of state and regional excellence.
5 POLICY 1.4.1. The Leisure Services Department shall develop and distribute literature and maps listing the parks, leisure service sites, and historic sites located within the City, their facilities, location, and operating hours.
POLICY 1.4.2. The Leisure Services Department shall, in October of each year, prepare an annual report that in general describes the status of for presentation to the City Commission that department’s functions in the City; assess the general needs of the population; describes event which affect or are affected by that department; and assesses interdepartmental and intergovernmental areas of concern and proposed solutions to these areas of concern.
OBJECTIVE 1.5. The City shall develop a fiscally sound public parks recreation facilities program.
POLICY 1.5.1. The City shall continue to pursue outside funding sources by monitoring on an on-going basis, the availability of parks and recreation grants and funds. The applications shall be submitted in a timely manner to ensure procurement and proper outside review.
POLICY 1.5.2. A user fee system shall continue to be an integral and vital component of the overall funding mechanism for recreation programs and events. The following criteria shall apply in implementation of this policy: a. The fee shall be reasonably established and shall not restrict access on the basis of affordability. b. The City shall periodically review the fee structures of other local government jurisdictions and per capita operating expenses and recurring capital expenses as a basis for determining the equity of the fee structure. c. Reasonable fees shall be established for use of all City facilities based on the type of event, the particular facility and the expected number of people attending. d. The fee schedule shall be reviewed and updated on an annual basis.
POLICY 1.5.3. The City shall continue to financially support the activities, events, and programs offered by the Leisure Services Department, in order to maintain programs at their current level-of-service Deleted: (e.g., 1989) according to the adopted Parks and Recreation Master Plan Study as amended.
POLICY 1.5.4.
6 RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES
The City shall continue to assess a Recreational Impact Fee as per the City Land Development Deleted: Chapter 2, Article II, of Code in order to provide for the acquisition and development of additional recreational space and facilities needed by the occupants of such new residential dwelling units.
POLICY 1.5.5. New development shall be encouraged to provide land for accessible and usable public parks in accordance with the adopted Parks and Recreation Master Plan Study as amended and the City Land Development Code. Deleted: exchange for impact fee credits or to develop on-site recreation areas by continuing to allow 50% impact POLICY 1.5.6. fee credits Deleted: Unless otherwise provided by The City shall continue to charge a non-resident fee determined by the Leisure Services interlocal agreement, t Department and the City Commission for the use of City recreation facilities. Deleted: s Deleted: an annual POLICY 1.5.7. Deleted: The annual fee shall be at a rate equal to the proportionate share of The City shall continue to utilize user fee charges for services and facilities to help offset costs at operating and recurring capital expenses. recreation sites. Deleted: existing Deleted: The City shall also request that Volusia County annually review OBJECTIVE 1.6. relevant policies. Deleted: POLICY 1.6.2.¶ The City shall recommend policies and programs to Volusia County that maintain and Prior to 2002, the City shall, in cooperation with FDOT and Volusia improve public access to beach recreational opportunities. County, study the feasibility of installing pedestrian-activated crossing lights along A1A at all beach access points where no POLICY 1.6.1. traffic control devices exist. This feasibility study shall include an analysis Participate in and encourage State, Regional, and County programs to provide on and off-site of constructing devices such as crosswalks and warning signs as an beach parking. alternative to pedestrian-activated lights. All improvements should be coordinated with the A1A corridor plan currently under development by FDOT.¶ OBJECTIVE 1.7. POLICY 1.6.3.¶ The City shall review and enforce its Safe bicycling opportunities, for both recreation and transportation, shall be provided zoning regulations designed to maximize ocean views and sea breezes with regard within the city where possible. to new oceanfront structures.¶ ¶ POLICY 1.6.4.¶ POLICY 1.7.1. Prior to 1999, the City shall develop a sidewalk construction management plan that provides, at a minimum, for Bicycle facilities shall be incorporated into arterial and collector roadway construction widening, connection of existing residential areas on and reconstruction plans and programs as provided by the Land Development Code. the peninsula with public beach access points, and safe access to schools, churches, and shopping areas.¶ POLICY 1.7.2. Deleted: POLICY 1.7.2.¶ By 2002, the City shall develop, in The City shall cooperate with bicycle organizations, law enforcement agencies, and the FDOT to conjunction with the FDOT and Volusia County, a priority plan for bikeway and promote a bicycle safety program; this shall include a program in the schools and a media bike path construction; this plan will identify funding sources for these projects information program. (identification and implementation planning) and will provide an implementation schedule.¶ Deleted: 3
7 Deleted: 4 POLICY 1.7.3. Bicycle facilities connecting schools with nearby active recreation areas shall be a priority of the City. Deleted: ’s bicycle plan Deleted: 5 POLICY 1.7.4. Deleted: racks The City shall continue to provide bicycle facilities at all City-owned buildings or facilities that are open to the public. Deleted: 6 POLICY 1.7.5. When providing bicycle and pedestrian pathways the City shall determine, through its traffic consultant, upon which streets or roads bicycle traffic would constitute an unacceptable hazard. This shall also determine the time of day when this hazard would exist. Deleted: 7 POLICY 1.7.6. The City shall maintain regulations requiring new developments to incorporate bicycle and pedestrian paths as an integral part of their transportation plans. POLICY 1.7.7 To the extent practical, utility easements (overhead transmission lines, gas and water) shall be considered in the development of trails to provide for connections and linkages to neighborhoods, and recreation and open space facilities. POLICY 1.7.8 The following criteria shall be used in prioritizing bicycle facility improvements: Formatted: Bullets and Numbering a. Beach access points and crossings; b. Proximity to major public parks, cultural facilities, public schools, high-density residential and commercial areas. c. Lack of alternative routes; d. Streets serving important transit stops; e. Areas exhibiting high incidence of vehicle accidents with bicycles; and f. Arterial and collector streets. POLICY 1.7.9 Deleted: The City, in cooperation with the County and FDOT, shall encourage the installation of bicycle detection devices at traffic activated signals on arterial and collector streets, subject to the availability of funding.
OBJECTIVE 1.8.
8 RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES
Active and passive recreation facilities shall be designed and used in a manner that protects the quality of the natural systems including, but not limited to, the surface waters, significant wildlife habitats, designated species habitats, and wetlands. The permitting criteria of Federal, State, and regional agencies shall be met during the design and construction of active and passive recreation facilities.
POLICY 1.8.1. The use of off-road recreational vehicles in wetland or upland habitats shall be limited to the maximum extent allowed by law. Deleted: and shall be effectively monitored to protect against adverse environmental impacts POLICY 1.8.2. New proposed land development adjacent to parks, recreation, and conservation areas shall be compatible with both natural systems and the intended function of the park, recreation, or conservation area.
POLICY 1.8.3. The City shall acquire sensitive lands to meet open space objectives and/or adopt regulations to protect and enhance the functional values of such lands.
OBJECTIVE 1.9. Public recreation facilities shall both accommodate and integrate handicapped and disabled persons consistent with Federal and State standards.
POLICY 1.9.1. The City shall provide physical programs for the handicapped and disabled of all ages, based upon demand.
POLICY 1.9.2. Recreation facility construction or renovation shall be designed to accommodate and integrate the handicapped and disabled consistent with Federal and State ADA standards.
POLICY 1.9.3. When possible, handicap access to the beach shall be improved by the process of handicap parking spaces and pedestrian beach access ramps.
POLICY 1.9.4. Playgrounds shall include handicap and disability accessible and usable facilities, to integrate handicapped children into the mainstream.
9 OBJECTIVE 1.10. Deleted: ¶ POLICY 1.9.5.¶ The provision of recreation programs and facilities shall be coordinated among adjacent The City shall construct playgrounds oriented towards handicapped children.¶ local government jurisdictions and private sector providers to develop the most cost- effective services to the public. Deleted: POLICY 1.10.1.¶ The City shall continue to coordinate with the POLICY 1.10.1. Volusia County School District per Resolution No. 88-136 which authorizes an The City shall notify in a timely manner, for review and comment, the Tomoka State Park interlocal agreement for the use by each agency of the other’s facilities for recreation management and provide information regarding any development activities and ordinances that and other programs.¶ POLICY 1.10.2.¶ may significantly affect the park environment and operations. The City shall cooperate with the School District regarding the location and design of new schools, bike paths, and recreational POLICY 1.10.2. areas in such a manner that will maximize efficient use by school children and area The City shall continue to actively participate in the Volusia County land acquisition programs residents.¶ POLICY 1.10.3.¶ and to request utilization of such funds for open space land purchases within the City as The City shall maintain with the School appropriate and to the maximum extent feasible. District a coordination mechanism that allows the City to review and comment upon school development proposals for expansion of existing facilities or for construction of new POLICY 1.10.3. facilities in order to promote to the maximum extent feasible the joint development and use The City shall submit when appropriate and applicable grant applications to local, state and of recreation facilities at the school sites.¶ federal grant programs for the acquisition, planning and development/management of City- Deleted: 4 owned lands. Programs include, but are not limited to: Deleted: 5 Deleted: Land Acquisition Trust Fund Florida Recreation and Development Assistance Program; Committee Land and Water Conservation Fund Program; Deleted: 6 Deleted: the Ponce de Leon Inlet and Port Florida Forever; Authority to acquire and develop land Florida Boating Improvement Program; Save our Rivers Program (SJRWMD); Ponce DeLeon Port Authority; Florida Inland Navigation District; Florida Communities Trust Program; and ECHO. Deleted: 7
POLICY 1.10.4. Deleted: Game and Fresh Water The City shall continue to submit applications for grants under programs sponsored by various Deleted: POLICY 1.10.8.¶ By 2002, the City shall consider the adoption State and regional governments including the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, of an interlocal agreement with Volusia the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, and the Florida Inland Navigation County to identify park, recreation, and cultural facility service area boundaries and District. define specific areas of responsibility. Issues to be resolved include, but are not limited to, identification of service areas; methodologies POLICY 1.10.5. for allocation of facility capacity (i.e., level- of-service standards); funding methods for capital improvements and operating expenses The City shall enter into agreements, as appropriate, with private institutional recreation including the recouping of funds for services.¶ organizations to provide services and programs including joint use of facilities and personnel. Deleted: 9
10 RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES
POLICY 1.10.6 Wherever possible, Ormond Beach Recreational trail corridors shall be coordinated with other national level trails such as the East Coast Greenway, as well as other state trail systems. Deleted: ¶
OBJECTIVE 1.11. The City shall periodically review and amend the Land Development Code relative to current open space definitions and standards to implement the Recreation and Open Space Element. The following policies shall apply to the review of development activities and the conduct of public activity. Deleted: POLICY 1.11.1.¶ By 1999, the Planning Department shall POLICY 1.11.1. study the applicability of using the following definitions in the Land The following shall be applied by the City to protect and provide buffers, greenbelts, and Development Code. Open space areas could be identified as Corridor, Pastoral recreation within the open space system: and Utilitarian Open Spaces as defined below:¶ a. Regulate the use of land and water consistent with the Future Land Use, Conservation, and <#>Corridor Open Space – areas through which people and/or animals may travel Coastal Management Elements. and which provide linkages between recreational or residential areas. b. Ensure the protection of natural vegetation and unique land features. Thoroughfares, scenic roads, abandoned railroads, recreation trails, rivers, creeks c. Regulate areas subject to seasonal and periodic flooding and provide for drainage and and utility easements are to be identified as corridors.¶ stormwater management. <#>Pastoral Open Space – areas identified to provide resource-based and d. Maintain and protect major environmental areas, parks, preserves, wildlife management user-oriented recreation. Federal, State, County and City parks, forests, areas and refuges. archaeological and historic sites or any other areas established for the protection e. Provide mechanisms for the on-site transfer of development rights as per the Future Land of natural resources shall be considered Use Element. as pastoral.¶ <#>Utilitarian Open Space – areas identified as necessary to preserve or f. Develop performance standards for protecting lands with historic, scenic, recreational or conserve for the protection of the public environmental significance. safety, health and welfare. Owners of these properties have no absolute and g. Protect against significant adverse impacts to wildlife, wildlife habitats/corridors. unlimited right to change the essential natural character of such land so as to use it for a purpose for which it was unsuited in its natural state and which injures the POLICY 1.11.2. rights of others. Development for residential, commercial and industrial Innovative techniques shall be utilized to protect identified open space areas. Such techniques purposes shall be limited by the appropriate regulations. Typical areas could include overlay districts, flood zones, performance standards, or other incentive-based shall include floodplains, surface water methods. bodies, wetlands, the Tomoka Marsh Aquatic Preserve, the Tomoka River OFW, and critical wildlife habitat areas.¶ POLICY 1.11.3. Deleted: 2 Deleted: Designated open space areas encompassing natural resource areas, significant environmental 3 features, marine and wildlife habitats, conservation or potential recreation areas shall, at Deleted: 4 minimum, be protected, by buffer zones, deed restrictions, limiting density and intensity of development, conservation easements, acquisition, transfer of development rights, and purchase of development rights or land exchanges.
11 Deleted: 5 POLICY 1.11.4. Criteria and standards to be used for reviewing development proposals within existing and proposed open space areas shall be maintained in the Land Development Code. Upon adoption of the plan, site specific analysis shall include an Environmental Assessment Report as per the criteria of the Conservation Element to be submitted, reviewed and approved prior to the issuance of a development order. Deleted: 6 POLICY 1.11.5. Coordinate with local governments, State and other public agencies in developing consistent standards, criteria and land development regulations for the protection of open space areas.
OBJECTIVE 1.12. The City shall continue to increase the public provision, protection and enhancement of open space by utilizing the Volusia County Land Acquisition Programs with the cooperation of the Florida Forever, Save Our Rivers, Land and Water Conservation Fund, Deleted: Conservation and Recreational County Port Authority, St. Johns River Water Management District land acquisition Lands programs, and similar programs to acquire by purchase or donation those lands identified by the City Commission. Provision of open space by private enterprise shall be accomplished through donation or requirements for dedication of open and common space as specified in the Land Development Code.
POLICY 1.12.1. Land or easements suitable for the provision of open space shall be encouraged as donations from public agencies and private enterprises. The location, shape, size and character shall be evaluated for applicability to City land development regulations. The City is not obligated to accept donations of open space areas from public areas and private enterprise.
POLICY 1.12.2. Open Space areas shall be preserved for the following types of development: a. Residential development required to provide park needs and open space areas as required by the Land Development Code. b. Planned overlay districts required to provide open space and common open space per the Land Development Code. c. Development plans encompassing valuable resource habitats such as, but not limited to, environmental corridors as identified in the Conservation and Future Land Use Elements. d. Non-residential development required to provide open space areas as required by the Land Development Code.
12 RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES
OBJECTIVE 1.13. Deleted: Adequate and appropriate Provide for recreational corridors to link the City-owned parks as well as other open access ways shall be provided for space/conservation areas.
POLICY 1.13.1. The City shall designate scenic roadways under the State and Federal Programs, as provided for by the Coastal Management Element and the Land Development Code.
POLICY 1.13.2. The City’s standards designed to ensure preservation of the scenic value of designated routes shall be maintained in the Land Development Code.
POLICY 1.13.3. The City shall continue to coordinate with utility companies the potential multi-use concept for open space and recreation uses within utility easements.
POLICY 1.13.4. Deleted: POLICY 1.13.5.¶ By 1999, the Planning Department shall To the extent practical, utility easements (overhead transmission lines, gas and water, sewer and study the applicability of using the following definitions in the Land drainage) shall be made available for bike path, nature, jogging, and horse trail development. Development Code: Pastoral open space areas shall be protected from This off-road corridor system shall be designed and developed to connect neighborhoods and incompatible land uses and development communities to recreation and open facilities. by implementing standards and criteria, which will preserve the natural character, scenic values and public benefit of these areas.¶ POLICY 1.13.5. POLICY 1.13.6.¶ By 1999, the Planning Department shall Open space systems or conservation areas identified for potential outdoor classroom sites or study the applicability of using the following definitions in the Land nature study facilities shall be provided with the appropriate access facilities. Facilities shall Development Code: The recreational use include, but are not limited to: on-site circulation system elements, natural trails, above ground of Utilitarian Open Space Resource lands adjacent to or a part of floodplains, boardwalks and limited passive areas designated for picnicking. wetlands, lakes, rivers, streams and forests shall be considered for public access provided that the safety of the POLICY 1.13.6. public is ensured and the environmental function of these open space areas is not Public access to the beach and waterways shall be provided in accordance with the policies under adversely affected. Utilitarian open space areas shall be protected in accordance Goal 7 of the Coastal Management Element. with criteria established for each natural system.¶ POLICY 1.13.7.¶ By 1999, the Planning Department shall study the applicability of using the following definitions in the Land Development Code: The development of open space areas for recreational facilities/public access shall be compatible with primary usage (corridor, pastoral, utilitarian) of the natural resource areas, significant environmental or ecological features, critical wildlife habitat or conservation areas.¶ Deleted: 8 Deleted: 9
13 RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES
Park categories and allowable facilities shall be defined as:
Mini-Park: Mini-Parks are the smallest classified parks and serve an aesthetic, relaxation, or open space purpose. Mini-parks are usually less than five acres in size and have a service area of approximately ¼ mile. These parks usually serve concentrated populations, isolated areas, or unique recreational or scenic opportunities. Areas along natural resources that have pedestrian improvements may be considered mini-parks. An example of a mini-park is Huguenot Park at the east end of Melrose Avenue. Mini-parks may include any combination of the following facilities:
benches scenic vista points
open space/picnic areas pedestrian facilities
historic/cultural points of interest playground
Neighborhood Park: Neighborhood parks are local residential parks that serve the population in the immediate area. The service area for a neighborhood park is approximately ½ to 1 mile. Neighborhood parks may include a multi-purpose sports field, open space, and pedestrian facilities. The average size of a neighborhood park is 5 acres. Sanchez Park is an example of a neighborhood park in Ormond Beach. Neighborhood parks may include any combination of the following facilities:
benches open space/picnic area
pedestrian facilities playground
one or two multi purpose fields health/fitness equipment
court facilities racquet facilities
parking facilities
Community Parks: Community parks focus on meeting community based recreational needs, as well as preserving unique landscapes and open spaces. These parks are “ride to” parks located on major city roads. Community parks are designed to serve the needs of the entire community. Community parks provide recreation facilities and organized programs, as well as open space. An example of a community park in Ormond Beach is the Nova Recreational Center. Community parks may include any combination of the following facilities:
benches open space/picnic area
pedestrian facilities multi-purpose fields
playground health/fitness equipment
gymnasium/multi-purpose room racquet sport facilities
Ormond Beach, Florida 2 Recreation and Open Space Element 2010 Comprehensive Plan Updated April 1, 2004
bicycle paths parking facilities
Athletic Complex: A small community (under 50,000 population) will usually only have one athletic complex. Athletic complexes are designed to serve the recreational needs of the entire community or the entire city. These facilities provide recreation areas and organized programs Section Break (Next Page) that are facilities-based. The athletic complex in Ormond Beach is the Airport Recreation Complex.
Special Use Complexes: Special use complexes cover a broad range of parks and recreation facilities oriented toward single-purpose uses. The typical special use complex addresses areas such as, but not limited to:
. Historic/Cultural/Social Sites – Examples are the Casements, MacDonald House, Performing Arts Center, historic downtown areas, performing arts centers, ornamental gardens, churches, public buildings or dramatic theaters.
. Recreation Facilities – Examples are senior centers, marinas, golf courses, and aquatic parks.
POLICY 1.1.2. By 1998, the City shall ensure that an appropriate level-of-service for parks and recreation facilities are maintained by utilizing the most recent version of the National Parks and Recreation Association guidelines as stated below. These standards shall relate to city-provided, school- provided, and private facilities that are open to the public.
The National Parks and Recreation Association Methodology Guideline (1995) 1. Determine the Park/Recreation Classifications for which the LOS will apply. Each type of park has a different intended use. 2. Determine the activity menu for each classification. This represents the facilities that can be constructed at each type of park or recreation area. 3. Determine the size standards for each type of park. Every intended use requires different spacing criteria. 4. Determine the present supply of park/recreation facilities. This represents an inventory of park/recreation facilities. This will be determined by the Leisure Services Department utilizing the following formula: EU x A = RFS Where: EU = Expected Use A = Availability
Ormond Beach, Florida 3 Recreation and Open Space Element 2010 Comprehensive Plan Updated April 1, 2004 RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES RFS = Recreations Facility Supply
Determine the Demand of the population being served. This will be completed as a survey of Ormond Beach residents to be completed every three years. This will be required by the Comprehensive Plan and the results will be utilized annually in the Capital Budgeting process. This will be determined by the Leisure Services Department utilizing the following formula: RFD = RP x PF SS Where: RP = Recreation Participation PF = Participation Frequency SS = Sample Size RFD = Recreation Facility Demand
Determine the Minimum Population (Ormond Beach residents) Service Requirements for the recreation choices specified. This will be determined by the Leisure Services Department utilizing the following formula:
RFD/RFS = MPSR Where: RFS = Recreation Facility Supply RFD = Recreation Facility Demand MPSR = Minimum Population Service Requirements
Determine the LOS for each park classification based on the usage and activity choices reflected in the survey. This will be determined by the Leisure Services Department utilizing the following formula: Parks Acres/Classification/Total Population Served = Level-of-Service by Classification 1,000 people
Determine the LOS for the entire Park/Recreation System. Based on the individual park classification LOS, Leisure Services will determine an overall LOS based on acreages. This will be determined by the Leisure Services Department utilizing the following formula: LOS Class 1 + LOS Class 2 + LOS Class 3 + LOS Class 4 (etc.) = Total Level-of- Service
Ormond Beach, Florida 4 Recreation and Open Space Element 2010 Comprehensive Plan Updated April 1, 2004 Planning Board August 13, 2009
ATTACHMENT 2
Excerpt from the Draft EAR-Based Amendments – Capital Improvements Element
0709 Recreation & Open Space Element 2009 EAR-Based Draft Amendments
b. Parks facilities and trails: Parks 13.045 acres per 1000 population Outdoor Aquatic and Passive Facilities 0.925 per 1000 population Sports Facilities 1.471 per 1000 population Outdoor Trails 0.254 mile per 1000 population Indoor Active/Passive Facilities 0.224 per 1000 population
Planning Board August 13, 2009
ATTACHMENT 3
Quality of Life Advisory Board Meeting Minutes June 4, 2009
0709 Recreation & Open Space Element 2009 EAR-Based Draft Amendments MINUTES CITY OF ORMOND BEACH QUALITY OF LIFE ADVISORY BOARD REGULAR MEETING
June 4, 2009 7:00 PM
City of Ormond Beach Training Room 22 South Beach Street Ormond Beach, Florida
1) Call to Order
Dr. Shapiro called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Members present were: Joe Daniels, Vicki Foley, Becky Montgomery, Fran Pezzimenti, Dr. Philip Shapiro and Dr. Gerald Woodard. Excused were Debbie Berner, Matt Coleman, Marianne DiFiore, Lewis Heaster and William Masters.
Others present were: Leisure Services Director Robert Carolin, Senior Planner Laureen Kornel, Grants Coordinator Loretta Moisio and Recording Secretary Shá Moss.
Dr. Shapiro stated there might not be enough members present at the meeting to make a formal motion.
2) Approval of Minutes – May 14, 2009
Ms. Montgomery moved seconded by Ms. Pezzimenti to accept the minutes of the May 14, 2009 meeting. The motion passed unanimously.
3) 2009 Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Dr. Shapiro stated at the last meeting, the Board discussed the Florida State Standards regarding history, culture and architecture of the EAR. He noted this portion of the EAR was regarding the Recreation Open Space Element.
Senior Planner Laureen Kornel stated this was a discussion item and a motion was not necessary. She stated in 2007, the City initiated the Evaluation and Appraisal Report, which is an evaluation of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The City received a letter from the Department of Community Affairs regarding the Quality of Life Advisory Board June 4, 2009 Page 2 data which was submitted in December, 2008, noting it was sufficient. The findings of sufficiency should be taken as the final determination of the report. Ms. Kornel stated the next steps would be to submit the changes to the Planning Board, two reading before the City Commission, resubmit it to the DCA and then final approval from the Commission.
The Board had no questions or comments.
Ms. Kornel noted if anyone had any comments or questions to please feel free to contact her.
Dr. Woodard moved, seconded by Mr. Daniels that the Quality of Life Advisory Board endorses 2009 Evaluation and Appraisal Report as presented. The motion passed unanimously.
x:\09-0011/Board Minutes\sm Planning Board August 13, 2009
ATTACHMENT 4
June 10, 2009 Leisure Services Advisory Board Meeting Minutes
0709 Recreation & Open Space Element 2009 EAR-Based Draft Amendments City of Ormond Beach Leisure Services Advisory Board Regular Meeting June 10, 2009 – 7:00 p.m. Performing Arts Center Conference Room – First Floor 399 N. US 1, Ormond Beach, FL
I. Call Meeting to Order – Mr. Boehm called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m.
II. Roll Call – Roll was taken by Virginia Collins:
In Attendance – Members Not in Attendance - Members Rick Boehm, Chairman Alex “Chip” Loyd, Excused D. Douglas Thomas, Vice Chairman Aaron Phillips, Absent Scott Edwards Justin Gates, Excused Douglas Mierzykowski David James, Excused Andrew Romano John Restuccia Lori Tolland Harry Wendelstedt
In Attendance – City Staff Steve Stershic, Facilities Maintenance Supervisor Virginia Collins, Recording Secretary Laureen Kornel, Senior Planner
Guest Alan Burton, Citizen Gloria Wyatt, Soccer Club President
III. Approval of Minutes – Mr. Romano made the motion to approve the May 13, 2009 minutes as written, seconded by Mr. Mierzykowski. All were in favor.
Mr. Boehm suggested the Board move on to New Business items to allow the guests the chance to speak first before the Board went on to items of Old Business on the agenda.
IV. New Business Ms. Laureen Kornel, Senior Planner for the City of Ormond Beach, was present to discuss the 2009 Evaluation and Appraisal Report Draft
1 Amendments for the Recreation Open Space Element. Ms. Kornel explained to the Board that in 2008 the Planning Department came before the Board and explained what changes were being proposed for updating the Recreation and Open Space Element which is part of the Comprehensive Plan. She explained that they submitted that package to the Department of Community Affairs in December of 2008, and in February of 2009 a letter was received stating the Department of Community Affairs was happy with how the Comprehensive Plan was being updated. Therefore, the Planning Department is in the process of writing the EAR based amendments, and Ms. Kornel is back before the Board to get input, comments and suggestions. Ms. Kornel then reviewed some of the proposed changes and reasons for them:
• The most significant policy change made is the elimination of the past level of service standards and updated same to limit new development to provide for increased demand for services created solely by development based on the adopted 2005 Master Plan study. It is required that those standards be updated based on the recreation master plan study.
• Minor policy changes include: Policy 1.3.2. – This is a rewrite of this policy relating to the acquisition of land with environmental assets. Policy 1.7.7. – This is a policy that supports improving trail accessibility by utilizing easements as connections and linkages. Policy 1.10.10. – This is a new policy which supports the East Coast Greenway. This is a policy Ms. Kornel spoke to the St. Johns Water Management District about, and they asked if it would be added into our Comprehensive Plan.
• The Department of Community Affairs requires that we plan in terms of a 20-year time frame. The comprehensive plan is updated every seven years; this update will be finalized in 2010.
Mrs. Tolland asked if there were provisions made for wildflower grants made under the highway portion of the amendments. Ms. Tolland stated that she received an email from Garden Clubs of America regarding a study on wildflower scenic places along highways in the State of Florida, and she will pass that information along to Ms. Kornel.
Mr. Alan Burton, citizen of Ormond Beach, had several questions, comments and suggestions for Ms. Kornel:
2 • He asked if the Capital Improvement Elements (CIE) could be included in the annual budget as well.
• Policy 1.11. – Mr. Burton asked if it was a true and accurate reflection of the Park and Recreation Master Plan because the 2005 Parks and Recreation Master Plan had a park classification of different types of parks and did not lump them all together as a whole.
• Policy 1.1.6. (f) – At the end of the sentence it should read mainstream “youth” programs, rather than mainstream “you” programs.
• Policy 1.2.3. – Regarding the youth facility at Central Park, Mr. Burton suggested changing the language to read “facility” rather than “youth facility” as it may be quite costly to build such a facility.
• Policy 1.3.4. – Mr. Burton questioned as to why it is being deleted because the policy deals with invasive environmental species. Mr. Thomas suggested that this item should not fall under the umbrella of Leisure Services.
• Policy 1.5.4. – Mr. Burton would like to request that the audit specifically address the use of recreation impact fees and have a specific recommendation for the use of recreation impact fees as it relates to Florida State Statutes.
• Policy 1.5.5. – Mr. Burton asked which sections of the Land Development Code this policy relates to. Ms. Kornel pointed out that as the policies are updated, the Planning Department is trying to keep the policies broad-based and focused on more general references. This way, when codes and plans are updated, they are not tied into specifics. When referencing the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, Mr. Boehm suggested it could be referred to as “plan most recently adopted” or “plan most recently adopted by the City Commission”.
• Policy 1.6. – This policy deals with defining the beach access on the beach side, and Mr. Burton stated he would hope that the policy would directly reflect the issues brought up last year on beach access and beach parking by Mr. Romano. Ms. Kornel asked if Mr. Burton if he had suggestions for better language for the policy. She also added that the intention of the City is to improve beach access wherever possible, but
3 stated that items in the Comprehensive Plan must be able to be backed financially. Mr. Burton would like a clearer definition of what beach access really is.
• Objective 1.7 – This objective deals with bicycling. Mr. Burton stated that bicycling is a very important part of recreation. He has also submitted approximately 20 suggested new policies to Ms. Kornel, and she will be reviewing them.
• Policy 1.92. – This policy concerns recreation facility construction being consistent with ADA standards. Mr. Burton is wondering if this is true for all facilities built after 2005. He questioned if the fishing pier at Central Park is ADA wheelchair accessible. He has brought this to the Mayor and City Council’s attention. He believes that if the top rail is dropped down about nine inches, this work will help to make the pier wheelchair accessible, and it would not be a costly project.
• Objective 1.10. – There are three policies crossed out that deal with the School Board, and Mr. Burton questions why they should be crossed out. He stated under Policy 1.10.1., Resolution No. 88-136 is a major agreement between the City and the School Board. Mr. Burton believes this should not be deleted.
• Objective 1.12. – Mr. Burton asked that conservation easements be included since it was voted on by the Florida constitution last year.
• Policy 1.12.1 – Mr. Burton pointed out that easements and conservation easements are not necessarily the same. He suggested that in Policy 1.12 or 1.12.1 perhaps conservation easements could be added into the toolkit, and it may be a powerful way to provide some open space.
• Policy 1.13.6 – beach access is listed as a coastal management element; Mr. Burton just wanted to make sure beach access was covered.
Mr. Burton was finished with his list of concerns. Mr. Boehm thanked Mr. Burton for his time and research, and Mr. Burton thanked the Board for allowing him to present his ideas.
Mr. Thomas asked Ms. Kornel if the City would be held to the standards of the plan. She explained that the City is expected to implement the policies
4 that are in the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan is designed to be measureable and that is why you have to include very specific levels of service standards. The purpose the Comprehensive Plan is to have a guiding document for the City with broadly stated policies. Based on that, is the Land Development Code which has much more specific requirements that implement the Comprehensive Plan; the rules and regulations that fall underneath what is in the Comprehensive Plan.
There being no further questions for Ms. Kornel, she then thanked the Board, and the Board thanked Ms. Kornel for her time and presentation.
V. Old Business Mr. Boehm noted that Leisure Services Director Robert Carolin is on vacation and Facilities Maintenance Supervisor Steve Stershic would be covering Old Business items in his absence.
Mr. Stershic gave the Board the following updates:
• The resurfacing of the tennis courts at Nova began on June 5th and barring any unforeseen problems, it is anticipated the work should be completed no later than the end of next week.
• The tennis building at Nova has been refurbished. The building has been completely stripped inside and out down to the studs; new Hardieboard and new insulation has been has been put in, and the interior is the process of being finished. Once finished, a group will be using it in conjunction with the tennis center.
• The Rockefeller Gardens project was a few weeks ahead of schedule, and then the rains came in and set the project back about a week. It is anticipated that the project will be completed by the third week of June.
• At the Sports Complex baseball and soccer field renovations began June 1st. On soccer fields 5, 6, 7, and 8 the crowns have been stripped, top soil has been spread, they have been rough lasered, final lasered and sod is to be laid Friday and Saturday of this week. Baseball field renovations will start next week and several weeks after that all of the soccer fields, with the exception of 9 and 10, will be top dressed.
• At Kiwanis Field workers were at the field until 1:30 a.m. this morning laser adjusting the light heads. The poles have been removed. They are
5 Planning Board August 13, 2009
ATTACHMENT 5
Suggested New Policies and Corresponding Policies
0709 Recreation & Open Space Element 2009 EAR-Based Draft Amendments 08/03/09
STAKEHOLDER SUGGESTED POLICIES AND CORRESPONDING POLICIES
Stakeholder Suggested Policy Corresponding Recreation and Open Space Corresponding Transportation Element Policies* Element Policies* 1. The City shall strive to achieve an New Policy 3.1.4: Provide bicycle parking and
interconnected bicycle system with a route separate, high quality, pathways and trails for to every major destination in the city. pedestrians and bicycles between internal parts of a development as well as adjacent parcels. New Policy 3.15: Applicants for individual development projects shall be required to maintain continuity of off‐site transit roadways, circulation between adjacent parcels, and provide easements for trails, pathways, or sidewalks. 2. The City in cooperation with the County and Policy 1.7.1: Bicycle facilities shall be FDOT shall strive to ensure that the incorporated into arterial and collector roadway installation of a turn lane will retain and/or construction widening, and reconstruction plans and include a continuous bike lane on the curb programs as provided by the Land Development lane through the intersection. Code. 3. The City in cooperation with the County and New Policy 1.7.9: The City in cooperation with the FDOT shall install or encourage the County and FDOT shall encourage the installation installation of bicycle detection devices at of bicycle detection devices at traffic activated traffic activated signals on arterial and signals on arterial and collector streets subject to collector streets. the availability of funding. 4. By 2013, the City shall design a balance New Objective 7.7: The City shall promote between the needs of the pedestrian, bus, alternative modes of transportation through the bicycle and car with consideration given to construction of bike paths, pedestrian facilities locations with high pedestrian volumes, and the use of transit. bicycle volumes, or both. The crossing time provided at crosswalks shall take into account the speed of those non‐motorized users with the slowest crossing speed. *The policies referred to in this table are considered a part of the Draft EAR‐Based Amendments.
1 08/03/09
Stakeholder Suggested Policy Corresponding Recreation and Open Space Corresponding Transportation Element Policies* Element Policies* 5. By 2013 the City shall identify all arterials New Policy 7.7.2: Bike lanes shall be established New Policy 1.1.7: Bicycle facilities shall be and collector segments which are not where feasible on one side of every arterial incorporated into arterial and collector roadway currently designed for in‐street bicycle (except I‐95) and collector streets with construction widening, and reconstruction plans and transportation, and determine the most sidewalks established on the opposite side of the programs as provided by the Land Development appropriate design to accommodate such street. transportation, where appropriate. The Code. City’s Park and Recreation Advisory Board shall be consulted to prioritize such modifications. 6. The following criteria shall be used in New Policy 1.7.8: The following criteria shall be prioritizing bicycle facility improvements: used in prioritizing bicycle facility improvements: a. Proximity to major public parks, cultural a. Beach access points and crossings; facilities, public schools, high‐density residential and commercial areas. b. Proximity to major public parks, cultural b. Arterial and collector streets. facilities, public schools, high-density c. Promotion of bicycle route community. residential and commercial areas. d. Lack of alternative routes. c. Lack of alternative routes; e. Streets serving important transit stops d. Streets serving important transit stops; such as park‐in‐ride. e. Areas exhibiting high incidence of vehicle f. Areas exhibiting high incidence of vehicle accidents with bicycles; and accidents with bicycles. f. Arterial and collector streets. g. Beach access points and crossings. 7. By 2013, when sufficient right of way is New Policy 7.7.2: Bike lanes shall be established Policy 1.7.1: Bicycle facilities shall be available, all new construction, where feasible on one side of the every arterial incorporated into arterial and collector roadway reconstruction and resurfacing of arterials (except I‐95) and collector streets with construction widening, and reconstruction plans and and collectors shall be designed to sidewalks established on the opposite side of the programs as provided by the Land Development accommodate in‐street bicycle street. transportation as approved by State bicycle Code. facility design standards. *The policies referred to in this table are considered a part of the Draft EAR‐Based Amendments.
2 08/03/09
Stakeholder Suggested Policy Corresponding Recreation and Open Space Corresponding Transportation Element Policies* Element Policies* 8. The City shall provide continual routine The City has policies in the Capital maintenance programs for all designated Improvements Element (Objective 1.1 and bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the city associated policies) that first and foremost rights‐of‐way. Maintenance shall include support maintenance of existing facilities. but not limited to sweeping bicycle lanes, filling potholes, and confirming calibration of bicycle detection devices at all signalized intersections. 9. By 2010, the City shall conduct a survey of Policy 1.7.6: When providing bicycle and the major streets network within city limits pedestrian pathways the City shall determine, to identify bicycle hazards and barriers and through its traffic consultant, upon which streets or prepare a plan to abate such hazards and roads bicycle traffic would constitute an barriers and/or mitigate such impediments. unacceptable hazard. This shall also determine the time of day when this hazard would exist. 10. The City in cooperation with the County The city has a number of new multi‐modal shall equip a bicycle parking at each bus policies in cooperation with Votran throughout stop. the Transportation Element that support this suggested policy. 11. All new city facilities shall be designed to Policy 1.7.5: The City shall continue to provide accommodate bicycle parking such as bicycle racks at all City-owned buildings or Central Park and the Ormond Beach Sport facilities that are open to the public. Complex. 12. The City shall support an annual bicycle Policy 1.7.3: The City shall cooperate with bicycle safety program with all public and private organizations, law enforcement agencies, and the schools within the city limits. FDOT to promote a bicycle safety program; this
shall include a program in the schools and a media information program. *The policies referred to in this table are considered a part of the Draft EAR‐Based Amendments.
3 08/03/09
Stakeholder Suggested Policy Corresponding Recreation and Open Space Corresponding Transportation Element Policies* Element Policies* 13. The City shall support the County, State and New Policy 7.7.7: The City shall implement the New Policy 1.10.6: Wherever possible, Ormond Regional Bicycle Master Plans in addition to Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Master Plan Beach Recreational trail corridors shall be any plan(s) adopted by the Metropolitan recommendations prepared by the MPO for all coordinated with other national level trails such as Planning Organization to the extent that it elementary schools within the City through its does not conflict with policies contained in the East Coast Greenway, as well as other state trail annual sidewalk program. the City plan. systems.
14. The City’s bicycle parking design guidelines Policy 1.7.5: The City shall continue to provide New Policy 5.15: Require all developments and shall only allow bike racks which promote bicycle racks at all City-owned buildings or (re) development to incorporate bicycle durability, security, ease of use, facilities that are open to the public. facilities such as bike racks into the overall attractiveness, adaptability to different design of the site and require all developments styles of bicycles and lock types with which exceed the Votran Transit Guideline minimal hazard to pedestrians. thresholds for review to also incorporate lockers and showers to support employees to walk or bicycle to and from work. 15. The City shall fill gaps in the City and/or Objective 1.7: Safe bicycling opportunities, for County Trail System plans that include both recreation and transportation, shall be bicycles or pedestrians. provided within the city where possible. 16. The City shall amend as necessary the Land Newly adopted level‐of –service standards based Development Code to require new on the adopted Parks and Recreation Master development and redevelopment to provide Plan Study address levels‐of‐service within the pedestrian and bicycle access to nearby trail, Capital Improvements Element under Policy where feasible or to enable future retrofit 1.3.2. connection such as the Trails trail system. *The policies referred to in this table are considered a part of the Draft EAR‐Based Amendments.
4 08/03/09
Stakeholder Suggested Policy Corresponding Recreation and Open Space Corresponding Transportation Element Policies* Element Policies* 17. The City shall evaluate all public lands for New Policy 1.7.8: To the extent practical, utility New Policy 3.1.4: Provide parking and separate, pedestrian and bicycle trail connections that easements (overhead transmission lines, gas and high quality, pathways and trails for pedestrians link various land uses destinations, such as water) shall be considered in the development of and bicycles between internal parts of a Tiger Bay State Forest or the Beach. Utility trails to provide for connection and linkages to development as well as to adjacent parcels. and storm water management rights‐of‐way neighborhoods, and recreation and open space Policy 3.1.5: Applicants for individual and easements will also be evaluated for facilities. development projects shall be required to such connections and linkages. maintain continuity of off‐site transit roadways, circulation between adjacent parcels, and provide easements for trails, pathways, or sidewalks.
18. The City shall strive to make conversions of This policy does not apply to Ormond Beach. rail corridors to rail‐to‐trails permanent and There are no rail resources being considered for not for interim use. The City shall consider conversion at this time. adapting a rails‐to‐trails program. 19. The City shall encourage adaptive re‐use of This policy does not apply to Ormond Beach. rarely used or out‐of service rail spurs into There are no out‐of‐service rail spurs in Ormond bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Beach at this time. 20. The City shall encourage the use of the Loop Policy 5.26 of the Future Land Use Element Policy 4.1.5: The City shall assist the Corridor and provide appropriate signage and adopts the Ormond Scenic Loop and Trail Management Entity to implement the vision designations when and where appropriate Corridor Management Plan (CMP) by reference. statement within the adopted Corridor Management to maintain and sustain the vegetative The adopted CMP provides for specific Plan of the Florida State designated Ormond Scenic canopy. management objectives. Loop and Trail. *The policies referred to in this table are considered a part of the Draft EAR‐Based Amendments.
5 Planning Board August 13, 2009
ATTACHMENT 6
Stakeholder Questions – June 10, 2009 Leisure Services Advisory Board Meeting
0709 Recreation & Open Space Element 2009 EAR-Based Draft Amendments Stakeholder Questions June 10, 2009 Leisure Services Advisory Board Meeting
(Responses appear in bold immediately following each raised question.)
1. Is it possible to add in that the revenue sources will be listed in the Capital Improvements Program (Introduction)? The reference of the Capital Improvements Element (CIE) in the Introduction is already indirectly referencing the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) since the CIE is a reflection of the CIP. An additional reference to the CIP would be redundant. The state mandates a once per year update of the CIE, therefore any changes to the CIP will be reflected in the CIE. 2. Do the classifications follow the 2005 Recreation and Open Space Master Plan Study (Policy 1.1.1)? The level-of service standards have been deleted from the Recreation & Open Space Element, since the June 10, 2009 Leisure Services Advisory Board Meeting, as the standards are contained in the CIE. The classifications listed in recreation level-of-service standards follow the classifications as summarized in the 2005 Parks and Recreation Master Plan Study. Staff is working to minimize a high level of detail in the Comprehensive Plan to reduce staff time in preparing comprehensive plan amendments. A further breakdown of classifications can be found in the adopted 2005 Parks and Recreation Master Plan Study. 3. A typographical error was pointed out (Policy 1.1.6). The typographical error has been corrected. 4. It was asked to not identify the facility at Central Park as a youth facility (Policy 1.2.3). The reference to the facility being a youth facility has been removed. 5. The deletion of Policy 1.3.4 was questioned. This policy was deleted since environmental audits are a function of the County rather than the City. 6. Consider the audit to specifically address the use of recreation fees (Policy 1.5.4). The purpose of the policy is to support continued assessment of the Recreation Fees per the LDC. The recreation impact fees are regulated by an ordinance that limits the use of the impact fees. 7. Is it possible to cite the Land development Code in Policy 1.5.5? Staff is working to remove specific references to the LDC throughout the comprehensive Plan in order to minimize changing the Comprehensive Plan as the LDC changes.
1
8. A request was made to define beach access on the beachside (Objective 1.5). The Land Development Code is considered a more appropriate venue for definitions of key terms. The Comprehensive Plan does not provide for definitions. 9. With reference to Objective 1.7 and associated policies, it was asked that suggested bicycle opportunities policies be considered. The suggested policies submitted by Alan Burton were considered. The attached table lists the suggested policies and provides a response as to the consideration of each suggested policy. As indicated, a number of the suggested policies are already covered in existing comprehensive plan policies. After review, some policies were added based on the suggestions provided. 10. The question was asked if all facilities built since 2005 meet ADA Standards (Policy 1.9.2). Specifically, it was asked if the Fishing Pier at Central Park meets ADA Standards. It was verified with the Leisure Services Division that the Fishing Pier at Central Park does meet ADA Standards. 11. It was asked why policies 1.10.1 through 1.10.3 were deleted. These policies have been replaced with the newly adopted Schools Element as mandated by the State. 12. It was asked if conservation easements could be included into Objective 1.12. Conservation Easements will be added as a tool toward achieving open space. 13. The question was asked if Policy 1.13.6 is still listed under Goal 7 of the Coastal Management Element. The policies under Goal 7 of the Conservation Element have not changed. Policies related to beach access fit most appropriately under the Conservation Element because they are directly related to the acquisition of conservation lands. Goal 7 of the Conservation Element is only indirectly related to beach access. Therefore, Policy 1.13.6 of the Recreation and Open Space Element makes reference to the Conservation Goal.
2 Planning Board August 13, 2009
ATTACHMENT 7
Levels-of-Service Standards and 2008-2025 Parks and Recreation Existing and Projected Levels-of- Service Table
0709 Recreation & Open Space Element 2009 EAR-Based Draft Amendments 2008-2025 Parks and Recreation Existing and Projected Levels of Service
Year: 2008¹ 2010² 2015² 2020² 2025² Population: 40,914 42,533 45,951 48,880 51,079 Per 1000 population: 40.9 42.5 46.0 48.9 51.1
¹ 2008 BEBR estimate ² Draft 2008 EAR
1 Types of Parks³ 2008 Surplus (Deficit) Existing Adopted Required Acreage LOSS Acreage 2008 2010 2015 2020 2025
Mini 26.12 0.512 20.9 5.2 4.3 2.6 1.1 0.0 Neighborhood 22.90 0.837 34.2 -11.3 -12.7 -15.6 -18.0 -19.9 Community 60.00 1.801 73.7 -13.7 -16.6 -22.8 -28.0 -32.0 Large Sports Complex 147.60 3.274 134.0 13.6 8.3 -2.8 -12.4 -19.6 Natural Resource 157.50 5.343 218.6 -61.1 -69.8 -88.0 -103.7 -115.4 Single Purpose/Special Use 57.60 1.278 52.3 5.3 3.2 -1.1 -4.9 -7.7 Total 471.72 13.045 533.7 -62.0 -83.1 -127.7 -165.9 -194.6
2 Types of Outdoor Aquatic and Passive Facilities³
2008 Surplus (Deficit) Existing Adopted Required Facilities LOSS Facilities 2008 2010 2015 2020 2025 Outdoor Swimming Pools 1 0.013 1 0 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 Picnic areas/shelters 15 0.423 17 -2 -3.0 -4.4 -5.7 -6.6 Playgrounds 12 0.313 13 -1 -1.3 -2.4 -3.3 -4.0 Skateboard area 1 0.026 1 0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.3 -0.3 Off-leash dog areas 0 0.02 1 -1 -0.9 -0.9 -1.0 -1.0 Remote control cars and planes 1 0.026 1 0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.3 -0.3 Canoe and Kayak areas 0 0.104 4 -4 -4.4 -4.8 -5.1 -5.3 Total 30 0.925 38 -8 -9.3 -12.5 -15.2 -17.2 3 Types of Sports Fields³
2008 Surplus (Deficit) Existing Adopted Required Facilities LOSS Facilities 2008 2010 2015 2020 2025
Baseball Fields 15 0.391 16 -1 -1.6 -3.0 -4.1 -5.0 Outdoor regulation soccer fields 1 0.181 7 -6 -6.7 -7.3 -7.8 -8.2 Outdoor junior soccer fields 7 0.09 4 3 3.2 2.9 2.6 2.4 Football fields 2 0.026 1 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.7 Outdoor Tennis courts 21 0.548 22 -1 -2.3 -4.2 -5.8 -7.0 Softball fields 10 0.222 9 1 0.6 -0.2 -0.9 -1.3 BMX/cyclocross courses 0 0.013 1 -1 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.7 Total 56 1.471 60 -4 -6.6 -11.6 -15.9 -19.1
4 Types of Outdoor Trails³
2008 Existing Adopted Required Miles LOSS Miles 2008 2010 2015 2020 2025
Paved walking/bike trails 5.62 0.195 8 -2 -2.7 -3.3 -3.9 -4.3 Nature trails/natural areas 0 0.059 2 -2 -2.5 -2.7 -2.9 -3.0 Total 5.62 0.254 10 -5 -5.2 -6.1 -6.8 -7.4
5 Types of Indoor Active/Passive Facilities³
2008 Existing Adopted Required Facilities LOSS Faclities 2008 2010 2015 2020 2025
Indoor gym space 2 0.06 2 0 -0.6 -0.8 -0.9 -1.1 Indoor swimming pool 00000.00.00.00.0 Indoor fitness and exercise 2 0.065 3 -1 -0.8 -1.0 -1.2 -1.3 Indoor community/rec. centers 2 0.065 3 -1 -0.8 -1.0 -1.2 -1.3 Senior Recreation centers 1 0.034 1 0 -0.4 -0.6 -0.7 -0.7 Total 7 0.224 9 -2 -2.5 -3.3 -3.9 -4.4
³ 2005 Parks and Recreation Master Plan (Types of facilities, existing facilities, and LOSS) Note: Existing facilities, miles of trail, and acreage updated as of 8.22.08
CITY OF ORMOND BEACH FLORIDA PLANNING M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Chairman Thomas and Planning Board Members
FROM: Ric Goss, AICP, Planning Director
DATE: July 21, 2009
SUBJECT: Transportation Element
CC: File
During the preparation of the Evaluation Appraisal Report (EAR), staff indicated in the Transportation Issue section of the EAR that the City, County, and State could no longer afford to continue widening roads within Ormond Beach without substantial cost both in terms of rights-of-way purchases and business interruptions. As such, staff indicated that a more balanced approach to the transportation needs of Ormond Beach was needed. Less emphasis on roadway capacity improvements and increased emphasis on addressing transit, trailways, intermodal connections, and network connectivity were needed to make the existing roadway system more efficient. See Exhibit 1 for EAR background regarding this subject.
In 2009, the Legislature passed SB 360ER. This bill designated dense urban land areas (DULA’s) and one of the definitions of DULA was an area having over 1,000 people per square mile. Pursuant to that bill, the Florida Legislative Office of Economic and Demographic Research transmitted to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) on July 1, 2009, a list of counties and municipalities including the City of Ormond Beach, qualifying as DULA’s. As a DULA, Ormond Beach is automatically designated a Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA). A designation of a citywide TCEA means that state concurrency no longer applies to development, provided that the City has a multi-modal strategy approved and adopted in its Comprehensive Plan within two years of the bill’s passage. However, Ormond Beach can elect through its home rule powers to be more stringent. To that end, the Transportation Element has been prepared as an EAR-Based amendment and is more stringent than State concurrency since the TCEA’s have been selectively identified for certain areas of the city. It should be noted that staff is proposing a complete re-write of the Comprehensive Plan’s Transportation Element (Exhibit 2). Staff is not recommending a citywide TCEA.
The Transportation Element has been prepared as a balance between all roadway capacity improvements and all vehicle reduction strategies. Table 1, on Page 2 of this memorandum, depicts a matrix cross- referencing the Transportation Element’s themes with the multi-modal strategies of increased roadway capacity, achieving more efficiency out of the existing roadway system, reducing vehicle miles traveled and most importantly land use considerations. An effective mobility plan should address not only modal improvements, but land use considerations.
The Center for Urban Transportation Research prepared a Florida Mobility Fee Study dated March 25, 2009. The study suggested that an effective mobility plan must consider land use relative to design, density, and mix, which in turn promotes walkable, mixed-use environments with relatively high densities and connected by transit. Of particular note, the study indicates that, “One way to foster growth that is
s:/CompPlan/2008 EAR/Amendments Chairman Thomas and Planning Board Members Date: 7.21.09 Subject: Draft Transportation Element Page 2
sensitive to context is through the use of form-based codes that address the size and scale of buildings in relation to the public realm and each other.” Staff is in the middle of this effort whereby all the blocks within the Downtown Overlay District have been surveyed and documented. This documentation, along with the vision articulated in the approved 2007 Downtown Redevelopment Plan, is currently being used to transform the text into conceptual building layouts using a software package called Auto Desk. During our discussions with the Planning Board in discussing Form Based Codes, the most effective approach to promoting higher density, mix, and design is through mandatory compliance with financial incentives provided through the Tax Increment Financing District.
Table 1- Multi-Modal Strategies Promoted by Theme
Increased Roadway Efficiencies out of Vehicle Reduction Themes Capacity Existing Roadway System Strategies Land Use ROW Preservation x Access Management x TCEA x Multi-modal strategy x Context Sensitive Design x Transit Oriented Design x Concurrency x x x Sidewalks & Trails x TDM x
Theme 1: Preservation of Rights-of-way Corridors
Corridor preservation provides numerous benefits to Ormond Beach, its taxpayers, and the public at large. Preserving right-of-way for planned transportation facilities promotes orderly and predictable development. The decisions Ormond Beach continues to make regarding the location and design of its transportation network will have a lasting impact on growth patterns, community design, and modal alternatives. For these reasons, effective corridor preservation is critical to accomplishing a wide range of planning objectives. Another benefit of corridor preservation is that it minimizes damage to homes, businesses, and the corresponding costs of acquiring rights-of-way when improvements are made. Right- of-way costs often represent the single largest expenditure for a transportation improvement, particularly in growing urbanized areas where transportation improvement needs are the greatest. Consequently, preservation policies have been added to ensure that should development occur and roadway corridors are depicted on the Future Traffic Circulation Map, then rights-of way must be set aside. Policies have been added to permit temporary use of proposed rights-of-way, but no permanent structures may be placed within these future right-of-way corridors (Objectives 1, 2, and 3 and all associated policies).
Theme 2: Access Management
Costly improvements are not always the solution to safety and congestion issues. Roads, like other resources, also need to be carefully managed. Corridor access management strategies extend the useful life of roads at little or no cost to taxpayers. Objective 4 and Policy 4.1 require that all development needing site plan, plat, rezoning, or a land use plan amendment shall be subject to access management. Previously this was not always true. Consequently, a list of access management techniques have been identified that could be applicable given a proposed development.
s:/CompPlan/2008 EAR/Amendments Chairman Thomas and Planning Board Members Date: 7.21.09 Subject: Draft Transportation Element Page 3
Theme 3: Transportation Concurrency Exception Areas:
Staff has identified three commercial corridors which have potential to be TCEA’s. They include: 1. A1A from SR 40 to the city line (commercial redevelopment); 2. SR 40 from A1A to I-95 (includes downtown and the commercial corridor west of Orchard to the I-95 interchange; and 3. US 1 from Wilmette Avenue to the city line on the southern boundary (commercial redevelopment).
These corridors have been recommended because 1) Votran operates core bus service (Routes 1 and 3) along these corridors; and 2) the areas for the most part contain commercial corridor and downtown redevelopment opportunities that could benefit from a TCEA. Higher densities and intensities can support transit and assist Votran in their goal of reducing headways and extending service hours.
The East Side Transit Study dated November 2008, conducted a Comprehensive Operations Analysis (COA) of the eastern and southeastern portions of the Votran service area. Between October 2007 and June 2008, Routes 1 and 3 were ranked 4 and 5 respectively out of 22 routes within the Votran eastern and southeastern system. As such, these routes along with Routes 4, 17, and 60 comprise a spine route network where future improvements to the Votran system are projected to occur over the next ten years.
Since much of the City of Ormond Beach is built out, outside of Ormond Crossings, the future of Ormond Beach lies with infill and redevelopment. The downtown has been an area of emphasis for years and success in redeveloping the downtown has been limited. The beach corridor at some time in the future will require a redevelopment strategy as well as portions of US 1 within the old section of Ormond Beach. SR 40 has been selected west of Orchard Street because SR 40 is a non-SIS facility, has an LOS that is projected to be LOS F in the future, and the City is not supportive of widening SR 40 through removal of the landscaped medians, even though FDOT does not consider this segment of SR 40 constrained. SR 40 is considered constrained by FDOT from A1A to Nova Road (Objective 5.5 and all associated policies).
Theme 4: Multi-modal Strategy The best approach to implementing the multi-modal (Objective 6.6 and all the associated policies and in particular policy 6.6.6) is to incorporate measures both in the development review process (short term) and in the Comprehensive Plan for land use planning (long term) based upon the following logic:
1. FLUM consistent, no current or forecasted road congestion: Development proposals that are consistent with the City’s Future Land Use Map (FLUM) in terms of both land use type and density or intensity and located along road corridors where congestion does not exist or is not forecasted to occur should be treated differently than development proposals which are inconsistent. Development proposals deemed consistent should include mitigation strategies that are tied to the size of development (VOTRAN thresholds) and include strategies that are basic to promoting multi-modal choices. Strategies most conducive to size of development include: access management, bike racks, sidewalk connectivity, and review by VOTRAN during the development review process.
2. FLUM consistent, road congestion exists or forecasted: Development proposals that are consistent with the City’s FLUM in terms of land use type and density and intensity but are located along road corridors where congestion exists or is forecasted to occur would require transit facility improvements based upon the degree of the traffic problem.
s:/CompPlan/2008 EAR/Amendments Chairman Thomas and Planning Board Members Date: 7.21.09 Subject: Draft Transportation Element Page 4
3. FLUM amendment required, no current or forecasted congestion: Development proposals which are inconsistent with the City’s FLUM in terms of land use and density or intensity but are located along road corridors where no congestion exists or is projected,would have a set of strategies applied related to the degree of the development’s inconsistency. The inconsistency would be measured comparing the trip generation factors for by-right development with the proposed development. All of the strategies identified in this section would apply to include either a Proportionate Fair Share Agreement to fund transit improvements or a specified contribution for operations to support existing or expanded transit service.
4. LUM amendment required, road congestion exists or forecasted: Development proposals which are inconsistent with the City’s FLUM in terms of land use and density or intensity but are located along road corridors where congestion exists or will exist, would also have a set of strategies applied related to the degree of the development’s inconsistency.
See Exhibit 3 which is drafted text for an LDC amendment to implement the above strategy. Specifically, Policy 6.6.6 addresses the strategy associated to road congestion.
Theme 5: Concurrency Outside of TCEA’s
All development outside of the designated TCEA’s shall be required to mitigate their impacts on city, county, and state roads. The City has adopted by policy the Volusia County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Transportation Impact Assessment Guidelines as the methodology by which impacts will be studied (Policy 2.1.1). Mitigation may be through the current Proportionate Fair Share contribution process already adopted in the Land Development Code (LDC). However, the prop-share money can be used for more than road improvements. It can be used to finance transit facility or operations, construct sidewalks and bike trails, finance transit demand management techniques, or other appropriate improvements which reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) (Policy 2.1.3).
Theme 6: Sidewalks and Trails
The City’s multi-modal strategy is more than just transit. Policies are proposed to establish LOSS for sidewalk coverage in the city. The concept is to connect all residential areas to destination points such as shopping areas; public facilities such as libraries; parks and recreation; schools; and transit points. A pedestrian shed of 1.4 miles is proposed to analyze connectivity. This represents the maximum distance a person is willing to walk. LOSS shall be adopted to include existing LOSS. Where the existing LOS is below the adopted LOS, sidewalk improvements will be required of development within the pedestrian shed that contains a substandard LOS. It is proposed that development not only build sidewalks on site, but they build sidewalks offsite or contribute cash in lieu of construction to enable the City to complete improvements (Objective 7.7 and all related policies).
Theme 7: Transit Oriented Design Land Use Principles
As part of the Transportation Element, staff is relying heavily on Votran’s Transit Design Guidelines (Policies 6.6.3 and 7.7.3) prepared in 2008 as well as FDOT’s draft Transit Oriented Development Design Guidelines which form the basis from which transit oriented principles are required of development within the TCEA’s.
s:/CompPlan/2008 EAR/Amendments Chairman Thomas and Planning Board Members Date: 7.21.09 Subject: Draft Transportation Element Page 5
Applicants for development approvals to include plat, site plan, zoning, and land use plan amendments which are sub-threshold as determined by the Transit Design Guidelines, shall be required to meet the transit oriented design policies only (Goal 3 and all related policies). Development which exceeds the thresholds and require city approvals to include plat, site plan, rezoning, and land use plan amendments and which require Votran review, shall be required to make transit facility and/or operational improvements as recommended by Votran to the City as well as meet the transit oriented design policies.
Policies considered controversial but necessary from the perspective of staff to support a multi-modal strategy include Policy 3.1.2 which requires mix use, if appropriate; Policy 3.1.7 that requires development in the downtown to build to the line (BTL – implements Form Based Design); and Policy 3.1.12 requiring new development or redevelopment to construct at a minimum FAR, density, height (measured in stories), lot coverage and street frontage. There is a policy to permit the applicant to opt out of the TCEA who does not want to comply but development is then subject to concurrency (Policy 5.5.4).
Theme 8: Context Sensitive Design
Ormond Beach is defined by the roadway corridors leading into and through the City. SR 40, US 1, Nova Road, and A1A all have some type of landscaping treatment and the roadways have been designed to be compatible with their surroundings. Goal 4, Objective 4.1 and all related policies have been crafted to continue the aesthetic improvements of roadways and how roadways relate to the area through which they traverse. The city’s effort in developing a form based code only strengthens sensitivity to context since its focus is on design and how it relates to the public surroundings and each other.
Theme 9: Transit Demand Management (TDM) Strategies
Outside of a multi-jurisdictional effort, Ormond Beach has little ability to impact VMT through TDM. However, Ormond Crossings has great potential for TDM strategies and there is sufficient industrial development within the City that a Transportation Management Initiative (TMI) could be coordinated either through the Chamber of Commerce or another entity that has an interest in business prosperity and economic development. Consequently, policies exist which foster a multi-jurisdictional effort possibly through the MPO as well as with other organizations (Goal 5 and all related policies).
Finally, the Functional Roadway Classification Chart has been updated along with the addition of a new Map 1 entitled Future Traffic Circulation Map.
Attachments: Exhibit 1 - 2008 EAR Excerpt, Section 3.2 Transportation – Moving from System Management to Demand Management Exhibit 2 - Draft EAR-Based Amendments - Transportation Element Exhibit 3 - Draft LDC provision to implement Policy 6.6.6.
s:/CompPlan/2008 EAR/Amendments
Exhibit 1
2008 EAR Excerpt Section 3.2 Transportation –
Moving from System Management to Demand Management
s:/CompPlan/2008 EAR/Amendments
Exhibit 2
Draft EAR-Based Amendments - Transportation Element
s:/CompPlan/2008 EAR/Amendments TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES
General Statement…………………………………………………………….…….1 Goal 1...... 2 Objective 1.1……………………………………………………...……..….. 2 Policy 1.1.1………………………………………………………….…….2 Policy 1.1.2………………………………………………………….…….2 Policy 1.1.3………………………………………………………….…….2 Objective 2.2………………………………………………………….……..3 Policy 2.2.1………………………………………………………….….…3 Policy 2.2.2……………………………………………………….…….…3 Policy 2.2.3…………………………………………………………….….4 Policy 2.2.4………………………………………………………………..4 Policy 2.2.5………………………………………………………………..4 Policy 2.2.6………………………………………………………………..5 Policy 2.2.7………………………………………………………………..5 Policy 2.2.8………………………………………………………………..5 Policy 2.2.9………………………………………………………………..5 Policy 2.2.10………………………………………………………………5 Objective 3.3………………………………………………………………...6 Policy 3.3.1………………………………………………………………. 6 Policy 3.3.2………………………………………………………………. 6 Policy 3.3.3………………………………………………………………. 6 Policy 3.3.4………………………………………………………………. 6 Policy 3.3.5………………………………………………………………. 6 Objective 4.4……………………………………………………………….. 6 Policy 4.4.1………………………………………………………………. 6 Objective 5.5………………………………………………………………...8 Policy 5.5.1………………………………………………………………. 8 Policy 5.5.2………………………………………………………………..8 Policy 5.5.3………………………………………………………………..8 Policy 5.5.4………………………………………………………………..8 Objective 6.6………………………………………………………………...8 Policy 6.6.1………………………………………………………………..9
TOC - A TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES
Policy 6.6.2…………………………………………………………..……..9 Policy 6.6.3………………………………………………………………9 Policy 6.6.4……………………………………………………………....9 Policy 6.6.5………………………………………………………………9 Policy 6.6.6………………………………………………………………9 Objective 7.7………………………………………………………………10 Policy 7.7.1……………………………………………………….……...10 Policy 7.7.2………………………………………………………………10 Policy 7.7.3………………………………………………………………10 Policy 7.7.4………………………………………………………………11 Policy 7.7.5………………………………………………………………11 Policy 7.7.6………………………………………………………………11 Policy 7.7.7………………………………………………………………11 GOAL 2…………………………………………………………………...... 12 Objective 2.1……………………………………………………………....12 Policy 2.1.1………………………………………………………………12 Policy 2.1.2………………………………………………………………12 Policy 2.1.3……………………………………………………………... 12 Policy 2.1.4………………………………………………………………12 Policy 2.1.5………………………………………………………………12 GOAL 3………………………………………………………………………13 Objective 3.1………………………………………………………………13 Policy 3.1.1………………………………………………………………13 Policy 3.1.2………………………………………………………………13 Policy 3.1.3………………………………………………………………14 Policy 3.1.4………………………………………………………………14 Policy 3.1.5………………………………………………………………14 Policy 3.1.6………………………………………………………………14 Policy 3.1.7………………………………………………………………14 Policy 3.1.8………………………………………………………………14 Policy 3.1.9………………………………………………………………14 Policy 3.1.10……………………………………………………………..14 Policy 3.1.11……………………………………………………………..15 Policy 3.1.12……………………………………………………………..15 GOAL 4………………………………………………………………………15 Objective 4.1……………………………………………………………….15 Policy 4.1.1……………………………………………………………….15 Policy 4.1.2……………………………………………………………….15 Policy 4.1.3……………………………………………………………….16
TOC - B
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES
Policy 4.1.4…………………………………………………………….16 Policy 4.1.5…………………………………………………………….16 GOAL 5…………………………………………………………………… 16 Objective 5.1……………………………………………………………..16 Policy 5.1.1……………………………………………………………..16 Policy 5.1.2……………………………………………………………..16 Policy 5.1.3……………………………………………………………..17 Policy 5.1.4……………………………………………………………..17 Policy 5.1.5……………………………………………………………..17 Policy 5.1.6……………………………………………………………..17
TABLE 6 – Future Roadway Functional Classification………………………18 TABLE 7 – Roadway Design Standards………………………………………20 MAP 1 – Future Traffic Circulation Map…………………………………….. 21
TOC - C
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES
GENERAL STATEMENT THE OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES PRESENTED IN THIS ELEMENT ARE BASED UPON THE 2008 EVALUATION APPRAISAL REPORT. THE CITY RECOGNIZES IT CAN NOT CONTINUE TO RELY ON INCREASING ROADWAY CAPACITY AS ITS SOLE TRANSPORTATION STRATEGY. TO THAT END, A MULTI-MODAL STRATEGY IS PRESENTED THAT PLACES GREATER EMPHASIS ON REDUCING VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT) THAN PROVIDNG MORE ROADWAY SUPPLY. THIS STRATEGY PROVIDES FOR FUTURE ROADWAY CORRIDOR PRESERVATION, MORE EFFECTIVE ACCESS MANAGEMENT, GREATER EMPHASIS ON PEDESTRIANS AND BIKE TRAILS, AND IMPLEMENTATION OF SMART GROWTH DESIGN PRINCIPLES TO AREAS WHERE (RE) DEVELOPMENT SHOULD OCCUR BASED UPON CURRENT TRANSIT CORRIDORS. WHILE THE CITY IS DESIGNATED A DENSE URBAN LAND AREA (DULA) AND IS EXEMPT FROM STATE TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY (TOP DOWN) CITYWIDE, THE CITY (BOTTOM UP) IS REQUIRING THAT TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS ON STATE, COUNTY AND CITY ROADWAYS BE MITIGATED EXCEPT FOR THE DOWNTOWN, AIA (SR 40 SOUTH TO THE CITY LINE), US 1 (FROM WILMETTE AVENUE SOUTH TO THE CITY LINE); AND SR 40 (FROM AIA TO I95). FOR THESE AREAS, VOTRAN PROVIDES CORE BUS SERVICE WHICH WILL BE ENHANCED THROUGH DEVELOPMENT AND (RE)DEVELOPMENT AT HIGHER DENSITIES AND INTENSITIES. DEVELOPMENT AT OR ABOVE THRESHOLDS RECOMMENDED BY VOTRAN TRANSIT DESIGN GUIDELINES SHALL BE REQUIRED TO MAKE TRANSIT FACILITY OR OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS. THROUGHOUT THE CITY LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) FOR PERCENTAGE OF SIDEWALK COVERAGE LINKING RESIDENTIAL AREAS TO DESTINATION POINTS AND TRANSIT STOPS WILL BE ESTABLISHED. WHERE SIDEWALK LOS IS BELOW THE ADOPTED LOS, APPLICANTS FOR DEVELOPMENT AND (RE) DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE REQUIRED TO CONSTRUCT OR PAY A FEE IN LIEU OF TO IMPROVE THE CURRENT SIDEWALK LOS TO THE ADOPED LOS WITHIN THE PEDESTRIAN SHED THAT SERVES THAT PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT. ORMOND BEACH DUE TO ITS SIZE AND LOCATION HAS A LIMITED ROLE IN DEVELOPING TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES, HOWEVER, THE CITY IS HOME TO MANY INDUSTRIAL USERS MOSTLY LOCATED ON US 1 BETWEEN WILMETTE AVENUE AND THE I95 INTERCHANGE THAT COULD BENEFIT FROM A PRIVATELY ORGANIZED TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT INITIATIVE (TMI) OPERATED THROUGH AN EXISTING ENTITY SUCH AS THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION THAT COULD MARKET, ADVOCATE AND HOST TDM INITIATIVES.
Ormond Beach, Florida 1 Transportation Element 2010 Comprehensive Plan Updated February 9, 2009 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES
GOAL 1. PROMOTE A BALANCED, AFFORDABLE, RELIABLE, CONVENIENT AND EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM THAT SUPPORTS THE LAND USE VISION OF THE ORMOND BEACH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
OBJECTIVE 1.1:
Protect Florida’s Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) by preserving future ROW corridors.
POLICY 1.1.1
The City shall utilize Map 1 entitled, “The Future Traffic Circulation Map” as well as Tables 6 and 7 for addressing its long range transportation needs.
POLICY 1.1.2:
The Future Traffic Circulation Map shall be derived primarily through use of MPO travel demand forecast models, where applicable, and shall reflect the MPO Adopted Cost Feasible Plan, locally designated corridors, corridors identified for Project Development Studies and any future identified corridors. The Future Traffic Circulation Map shall not be subject to the financially feasible criteria applied to the five and ten year planning horizon.
POLICY 1.1.3:
The City shall utilize the long-range traffic circulation map for:
a. Review of all proposed development orders for consistency with the map; b. Establishing the long range (2035) level of service standards on major existing or future roadways by determining the resultant level of service on each roadway impacted by a project travel demand as determined using the MPO, or other travel demand forecasting models; c. Reviewing all proposed capital projects proposed to widen existing or develop new major roadways. All capital projects shall be consistent with the Future Traffic Circulation Map; d. Achieving consistency of this comprehensive plan where appropriate with: the long range transportation plans of all local governments adjacent to Ormond Beach; the FDOT's Transportation Plan and approved work program; and the MPO's transportation improvement plan.
Measure: Incorporate provisions implementing policies into the Land Development Code.
Ormond Beach, Florida 2 Transportation Element 2010 Comprehensive Plan Updated February 9, 2009 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES
OBJECTIVE 2.2:
The City shall insure the availability of structure free right(s)-of-way for major and important minor roadways and for Votran transit corridors necessary or desirable to accommodate projected travel demand in 2035.
POLICY 2.2.1:
The City shall adopt a major thoroughfare provision in the LDC which:
a. References the Future Traffic Circulation Map that will provide for adequate traffic circulation within the city; b. Identifies the right-of-way widths for each roadway in a manner consistent with the Future Traffic Circulation Map and in a manner consistent with the inventory of right-of- way already provided by Ormond Beach, other local governments, or the State of Florida; c. Establishes the Future Traffic Circulation Map as the official listing of right(s)-of-way to be reserved pursuant to Policy 2.2.2 below; and d. Establishes procedures and guidelines for the appropriate amendment of the map.
POLICY 2.2.2:
A right-of-way protection provision shall be adopted for the purpose of protecting right(s)-of- way necessary to develop the roadway network shown on the Future Traffic Circulation Map. This right-of-way protection is required so as to insure compliance with long range level of service standards established by those policies within the comprehensive plan. Such ordinance shall prohibit the development of any structures, parking areas, or drainage facilities (except as allowable on an interim basis) within the corridors indicated on the Future Traffic Circulation Map or within any other surface transportation corridors (i.e. rail corridors) identified by FDOT. Other uses, consistent with this comprehensive plan, may be considered within the protective right-of- way. Nothing in the right-of-way protection ordinance shall preclude location of temporary uses within protected right(s)-of-way. Any right-of-way protected under the right(s)- of-way protection ordinance may be dedicated to Ormond Beach during the development of a project. Dedication shall be accompanied with a Level 1Environmental Audit of the ROW dedicated or the parcel from which the ROW was dedicated whichever is appropriate. Any such dedication shall not be subject to time limits on right(s)-of-way reservation as required by Chapter 336 F.S. As used in this policy, “corridors” means that area of protected right-of-way for any roadway, as generally configured and as located on the Future Traffic Circulation Map. Protected right(s)-of-way shall be defined as:
1. Required right-of-way on either side of the centerline of an existing roadway shown as having more lanes on the Future Traffic Circulation Map than the number of lanes currently existing.
2. Required right-of-way for roadway or other transportation corridors for which no centerline has been established. The location of the roadway right(s)-of-way shall be established during the review of proposed projects in proximity to future roadway corridors located on the Future Traffic Circulation Map. These newly established alignments selected during project review shall
Ormond Beach, Florida 3 Transportation Element 2010 Comprehensive Plan Updated February 9, 2009 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES be continuous so as to provide for a continuous travel corridor of sufficient width to accommodate an appropriate cross section as required by city policy for facility types specified on the Future Traffic Circulation Map.
POLICY 2.2.3:
The City shall ensure that protected right(s)-of-way are reserved at the time of project review for issuance of a level of service compliance decision. Failure to reserve protected right(s)-of- way as a condition of level of service determination shall be considered a violation of the 2035 (long range) level of service standard for that roadway and shall, therefore, be prohibited. Such ordinance shall also contain mitigation measures designed in part to preclude the taking of private property unless fair compensation for any such taking is provided. These measures shall address properties which are located in a manner or exhibit characteristics that precludes the reasonable use of such property if the protected right-of-way is maintained free of drainage facilities, structures, or parking during the development of the property. Measures may include, but not be limited to:
1. The transfer of development right(s), which may be considered pursuant to future land use policy from the area within a protected right-of-way to an area outside of the protected right-of- way on the same project site.
2. The reduction of required building setbacks, required buffers, and other requirements otherwise contained in this comprehensive plan or contained in other local land development regulations, if such reduced requirements are considered on a case-by-case basis and are granted pursuant to a finding of overriding public interest by the local government.
POLICY 2.2.4:
Adopt a right-of-way reservation ordinance that requires the dedication to Ormond Beach as a condition of issuance of a level of service compliance finding. Upon adoption of an ordinance, or upon recording of any update to the Future Traffic Circulation Map, the reserved right(s)-of-way shall be prohibited from all development of drainage facilities, parking or structures, and dedication of the reserved right-of-way shall be required upon issuance of the development order for any property encompassing said right-of-way. Appropriate access through reserved right-of- way as determined by Ormond Beach, will be permitted. Any such reservation of right-of- way for a particular transportation corridor shall be effective for a period not to exceed five years from time of initial right-of-way reservation, unless the extends this five-year period in one-year increments not to exceed an additional five-year period.
Measure: Amount of future ROW preserved.
POLICY 2.2.5:
The City shall provide, on an annual basis, and to the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) a listing of those State right(s)-of-way for which right-of-way protection or right-of-way reservation is in effect pursuant to the above policies, and for which level of service is worse
Ormond Beach, Florida 4 Transportation Element 2010 Comprehensive Plan Updated February 9, 2009 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES than, or is projected within the next five years to decline to a level of service that is worse than, adopted level of service. Also, to coordinate with the Metropolitan Planning Organization and FDOT, so as to establish increased priorities for construction of improvements to such roadways based on enhanced availability facilitated by the City’s plan and right-of-way protection or reservation ordinances.
POLICY 2.2.6
Pursue advanced acquisition of easements and rights-of-way to reduce project costs and adverse impacts from road projects.
POLICY 2.2.7
Prepare engineering plans for future transportation improvements in advance of funding commitments for construction in order to clarify and secure right-of-way requirements and to develop improved cost estimates.
Measure: Incorporate provisions implementing policies into Land Development Code.
POLICY 2.2.8. All building setbacks shall be measured from the centerline of the existing right(s)-of-way line. Measure: Number of new structures or altered structures which encroach on setback from new right-of-way line.
POLICY 2.2.9. The impact of new and/or widened right(s)-of-way on existing residential use or residentially zoned property shall be minimized by the use of walls or combination of berm/landscape buffers, as appropriate to the particular site. Impacts to be considered shall include noise levels, safety, aesthetics, usefulness and property values. Walls and other buffers will be constructed by developers. Measure: Percentage of right-of-way acquisitions of property containing dwellings that provides planted buffers and/or fences.
POLICY 2.2.10. No existing right(s)-of-way for major roads shall be abandoned, vacated or otherwise conveyed from public ownership unless a positive recommendation has been made by the Site Plan Review Committee to the City Commission that the right-of-way will not be needed for the future expansion of the roadway as required in Table 6, “Future Roadway Functional Classification.”
Measure: Amount of right-of-way abandoned, vacated or conveyed
Ormond Beach, Florida 5 Transportation Element 2010 Comprehensive Plan Updated February 9, 2009 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES
OBJECTIVE 3.3 New streets and intersections shall be planned, designed, constructed and operated to be consistent with Table 6 – Future Roadway Functional Classification System as well as maximize safety and convenience.
POLICY 3.3.1 All new streets shall be paved with a minimum paved driving surface to meet the requirements of the Land Development Code. Measure: Number of applicable streets which meet minimum requirements.
POLICY 3.3.2
Pursue advanced acquisition of easements and rights-of-way to reduce project costs and adverse impacts from road projects.
POLICY 3.3.3
Prepare engineering plans for future transportation improvements in advance of funding commitments for construction in order to clarify and secure right-of-way requirements and to develop improved cost estimates.
POLICY 3.3.4
Implement traffic calming and other measures where needed to encourage motorists to drive with caution and consideration in residential communities.
POLICY 3.3.5
Work with FDOT to incorporate medians and separate turning lanes in the design or redesign of roadways having four or more travel lanes.
OBJECTIVE 4.4
Protect existing roadway capacity through access management by ensuring on-site circulation for new development shall not interrupt traffic flow on public road facilities.
POLICY 4.4.1 All land use plan amendments, zonings, plats and site plans requiring City approval and access to Federal, State, County and City roads shall comply with the following access management strategies, if determined applicable to the location: a. Traffic circulation and maneuvering shall be accomplished on-site; b. Driveway entrances and exits shall be located as far as possible from street intersections;
Ormond Beach, Florida 6 Transportation Element 2010 Comprehensive Plan Updated February 9, 2009 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES c. Nonresidential lots having frontage on two or more public streets shall have access to the street(s) with the lowest functional classification; d. Interior throughways within parking areas shall be separated from parking aisle areas; e. Peripheral outparcels designed for freestanding uses shall be integral parts of the total interior circulation system for a larger site; f. Driveways should align with opposite driveways; g. Joint curb cuts, cross-access easements, internal access for outparcels and other transportation system management strategies shall be employed to effectively reduce the number of curb cuts and median openings on all public road facilities; h. Curb cuts for driveways shall be minimized, and the location and number of cuts should relate to lot size, turnover rate, relationship to adjoining streets and the type of clientele served. Access points shall be designed to prevent hazards to vehicular or non-vehicular traffic. Turnout lanes and traffic dividers shall be provided on abutting roadways and on-site where existing or anticipated heavy flows of traffic indicate the need; i. Internal streets, roads, driveways and parking, loading and service areas shall be designed so as to provide safe and convenient vehicular access to all uses and facilities; j. Development proposals exceeding the thresholds established in the 2008 Votran Transit Design Guidelines shall include transportation demand management strategies, such as: ride sharing, van pooling, car pooling, flextime and bicycle usage, as methods to alleviate the need for automobile trips; k. Joint curb cuts with adjacent development parcels shall be provided where feasible; l. Residential and non-residential developments shall provide internal as well as external connectivity in order to support public transportation facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians; m. Reduce and consolidate private entrances, median crossovers, and similar disruptions to traffic flow; n. Minimum throat distances shall be established for driveway entrances based upon the floor area size of developments to ensure development related traffic does not disrupt through traffic on public roadways; o. New residential developments that exceed 200 average daily trips should provide emergency access independent of the primary access to the development as determined acceptable by the SPRC; and p. Residential subdivisions shall have internal road, pedestrian, and bicycle connectivity between each other. Measure: Incorporate access management measures into the Land Development Code.
Ormond Beach, Florida 7 Transportation Element 2010 Comprehensive Plan Updated February 9, 2009 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES
OBJECTIVE 5.5 Establish Transportation Concurrency Exception Areas along Votran core transit corridors to support intensified mix use development and redevelopment as measured by floor area, impervious surface, and density along commercial corridors and in the downtown redevelopment area.
POLICY 5.5.1 The City has determined that it is good public policy to exempt transportation concurrency in the Downtown Overlay District, the A1A corridor from US 40 south to the city line, US 1 from Wilmette Avenue south to the city boundary line to Wilmette Avenue, and SR 40 from A1A to I95 Interchange.
POLICY 5.5.2 All development and (re) development located in the City designated TCEA’s shall comply with the citywide Objective 6.6 and all related policies of such objective.
POLICY 5.5.3 All development and (re) development located in the TCEA’s shall comply with the transit design principles.
POLICY 5.5.4 Applicants for land use plan amendments, site plan, zoning, or plat approvals may elect to opt out of the transportation concurrency exception area requirements and be subject to mitigating the transportation impacts which degrade an existing level of service below the adopted level of service or degrade further an existing level of service already below the adopted the level of service. Failure to mitigate shall be sufficient cause not to approve the land use plan amendment, site plan, zoning, or plat request.
OBJECTIVE 6.6 Coordinate a multi-modal strategy with transportation planning and the land use element to provide alternative travel modes which are sufficient to accommodate the uses depicted on the Future Land Use Map and adopted Downtown Community Redevelopment Area Plan.
POLICY 6.6.1 The City shall continue to support basic transit citywide for development consistent with the Future Land Use Map and located on non-congested roadways throughout the City. For
Ormond Beach, Florida 8 Transportation Element 2010 Comprehensive Plan Updated February 9, 2009 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES roadways that are currently congested or projected to be congested in 2017, the strategy shall incorporate a higher level of measures designed to reduce vehicular motor trips (VMT’s).
POLICY 6.6.2 The multi-modal strategy shall be utilized when reviewing land use plan amendments, rezonings, plats, and site plans on congested or projected congested roadways.
POLICY 6.6.3 The multi-modal strategy shall initially coordinate transit with current or projected congested roadways by requiring development to construct or contribute money to fund operations or construct bus amenities in keeping with the Votran Transit Design Guidelines, as amended.
POLICY 6.6.4 Development or (re) development which occurs along congested roadways regardless of whether a land use plan amendment is required shall be required to enter into joint development agreements to develop transit facilities and services if requested by Votran.
POLICY 6.6.5 The multi-modal strategy shall be triggered where required approvals for future land use plan amendments or development of land are located on roadway corridors currently congested or projected to be congested in 2017.
POLICY 6.6.6 The City shall incorporate the following decision matrix into the LDC when applying transit to Comprehensive Plan amendments involving land located on roads that currently are or projected to be congested:
Future Land Use Map Roadway congestion exist Amendment (FLUMA) or is Projected by 2017 to exist Yes No Consistent with FLUM Mitigation measures tied to the size of the development and include measures that are basic to promoting transit Consistent with FLUM Intensity or range of required mitigation measures would be related to the degree of the traffic problem.
Ormond Beach, Florida 9 Transportation Element 2010 Comprehensive Plan Updated February 9, 2009 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES
Inconsistent with FLUM Intensity of the transit measure related to the degree of the development’s inconsistency. The inconsistency would be measured in terms of a comparison of the trip generation factors, for by-right, planned, and proposed development. Inconsistent with FLUM Intensity of the transit measures would be related to the degree of inconsistency. Inconsistent and located in a traffic congestion area would require a combination of several measures at the highest level. Measures: 1. Expansion of core bus routes through frequency and span of service; 2. Transit infrastructure improvements along system routes; 3. Increase in “choice” ridership per core route; and 4. Reduction in VMT.
OBJECTIVE 7.7 The City shall promote alternative modes of transportation through the construction of bike paths, pedestrian facilities and the use of transit.
POLICY 7.7.1 By 2011, the City shall have established pedestrian walking sheds and a Level of Service Standard (LOSS) for sidewalk coverage between residential areas, retail centers and public destination points such as libraries, schools, parks and designated transit stops. Measure: Linear feet of new sidewalk constructed as a result of meeting sidewalk LOSS coverage.
POLICY 7.7.2 Bike lanes shall be established where feasible on one side of every arterial (except I-95) and collector street with sidewalks established on the opposite side of the street. Measure: Number of bike paths and sidewalks constructed.
POLICY 7.7.3 The City shall incorporate Votran as a reviewing entity for those developments which meet or exceed the recommended review thresholds contained in Votran’s Transit Design Guidelines, as amended.
Ormond Beach, Florida 10 Transportation Element 2010 Comprehensive Plan Updated February 9, 2009 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES
Measure: Percentage of applicable projects providing bus stop improvements and transit information.
POLICY 7.7.4 In order to promote pedestrian safety, pedestrian activated walk signals shall be incorporated at all signalized intersections in Downtown Ormond Beach, at beach access points and other appropriate areas as warranted. Measure: Number of intersections studied for walk signal warrants.
POLICY 7.7.5 The City shall continue to implement its adopted 2002 Sidewalk Master Plan as amended to add sidewalks based upon evaluation criteria that includes safety, school access, recreational access, and transit access and road classification. Measure: Linear feet of sidewalk built .
POLICY 7.7.6 The City shall permit a payment in lieu of sidewalk construction for development if it is determined that the need for sidewalk is much greater in other areas of the city. Measure: Number of payments in lieu of sidewalk construction approved as part of a Development Order (DO).
POLICY 7.7.7 The City shall implement the Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Master Plan recommendations prepared by the MPO for all elementary schools within the City through its annual sidewalk program. ______GOAL 2 ALL DEVELOPMENT AND (RE) DEVELOPMENT OUTSIDE OF LOCALLY DESIGNATED TCEA’S SHALL BE REQUIRED TO MITIGATE IMPACTS OF DEVELOPMENT ON STATE, COUNTY AND CITY ROADS.
OBJECTIVE 2.1 All new developments that may be considered significant traffic generators shall provide a traffic impact assessment consistent with the requirements in the City’s Land Development Code and if required, transportation improvements to mitigate their impacts on the City’s transportation system.
Ormond Beach, Florida 11 Transportation Element 2010 Comprehensive Plan Updated February 9, 2009 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES
POLICY 2.1.1 The City shall utilize Volusia County Metropolitan Planning Organization’s (VCMPO) Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines Methodology as the principal means for assessing site development impacts on state, county and city roads. Measure: Percentage of new developments which provide a traffic impact assessment.
POLICY 2.1.2 New development shall construct that portion of any proposed road identified in the Long Range Traffic Circulation Map that abut or bisect their property and shall align new roads with existing and proposed facilities. Measure: Percentage of applicable developments providing new facilities.
POLICY 2.1.3 Mitigation funded through monetary or Proportionate Fair Share contributions may include either singularly or in combination any of the following improvements: road improvements, transit facility improvements, transit operation contributions, bicycle trail construction, TDM strategies, or other appropriate measures which reduce vehicle miles traveled. POLICY 2.1.4 The following level of service standards are adopted for roadways outside of the TCEA’s:
LOS Daily LOS Peak Hour City C D
County D E
State C (SIS/FIHS) D (TRIP)
POLICY 2.1.5 The following roadways within the City are considered constrained by their respective jurisdiction:
Constrained roads by jurisdiction City State County
SR 40 from Nova to A1A x
A1A from North City Line to SR 40 x A1A from SR 40 to South City line x John Anderson Drive from City Halifax to SR 40 x North and South Beach Street from Big Tree Drive to the city line respectively x
Ormond Beach, Florida 12 Transportation Element 2010 Comprehensive Plan Updated February 9, 2009 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES
______GOAL 3 IMPLEMENT TRANSIT SUPPORTIVE DESIGN PRINCIPLES WITHIN TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY EXCEPTION AREAS
OBJECTIVE 3.1 Integrate transit supportive design policies into the Land Development Code as part of approved development orders. POLICY 3.1.1 Reduce the amount of parking in new development and redevelopments by promoting and permitting the following strategies: 1) Shared parking between uses which have different peak parking characteristics, 2) Encouraging grass parking for low trip generating land uses; 3) Accepting alternative parking demand ratios based upon parking studies; and 4) Establishing parking maximum ratios of no more than 2.0 spaces per unit and 3 parking spaces/1000 square feet of office or retail floor area. Measure: % reduction in impervious surface in new developments or redevelopments; Amending the LDC to incorporate maximum parking ratios; shared use parking; and adjusting downward the number of spaces required per 1000 square feet of floor area. POLICY 3.1.2 Single parcel, mixed use developments shall take priority over separate, adjacent parcels with different land uses. All new office and retail development or (re) development shall be required to have a 55% residential and 45% non-residential mix unless deemed inappropriate given the proposed ground use. Measure: # of single parcel, mixed use projects vs. separate, adjacent parcels. POLICY 3.1.3 To recognize the availability of transit, on-site parking requirements outside of the Downtown Redevelopment Area shall be reduced by 20% for all development and (re) development along a recognized Transit Corridor. Measure: # of site plans approved with maximum parking ratios POLICY 3.1.4 Provide bicycle parking and separate, high quality, pathways and trails for pedestrians and bicycles between internal parts of a development as well as to adjacent parcels.
Ormond Beach, Florida 13 Transportation Element 2010 Comprehensive Plan Updated February 9, 2009 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES
POLICY 3.1.5 Applicants for individual development projects shall be required to maintain continuity of off- site transit roadways, circulation between adjacent parcels, and provide easements for trails, pathways, or sidewalks. POLICY 3.1.6 Sidewalks shall have direct connections between main building entry points and designated transit stops.
POLICY 3.1.7 In the Downtown Redevelopment Area only, building orientation for vacant sites shall be close to the street with “build to” lines at the front setback line. Main entrances should face the street or the street corner when located along two streets and parking shall be located to the rear of the building.
POLICY 3.1.8 The City shall pursue a market based approach to required off-street parking in the Downtown Overlay District. Off-street on-site parking is permitted, but public parking may be counted towards the parking requirement provided such parking is within the downtown pedestrian walking shed distance. POLICY 3.1.9 The City shall establish pedestrian sheds denoting walkability between existing public offsite parking lots and destination points within the Downtown Overlay District. POLICY 3.1.10 The City shall provide additional public parking in the Downtown Overlay District when it is determined through parking studies that parking demand exceeds parking supply.
POLICY 3.1.11 To the maximum extent feasible and without sacrificing safety, the City shall support the continued use of on-street parking on Granada Boulevard between A1A and John Anderson Drive, and between US 1 and Beach Street.
POLICY 3.1.12 Development of vacant parcels and/or (re) development involving removal of 50% or more of building floor area within the TCEA’s shall be subject to the following minimum density and intensity ranges, building heights, and street frontages:
Ormond Beach, Florida 14 Transportation Element 2010 Comprehensive Plan Updated February 9, 2009 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES
Downtown A1A³ US 1³ SR 40³ Minimum FAR .5-1.0 1.0 – 1.5 .5-1.0 .25-.50 Minimum Density¹ 5-30 d/ua 5-32 d/ua 5–15 d/ua 5-15 d/ua Minimum Building Height² 2 or more stories 2 or more stories 2 or more stories 2 or more stories Minimum Lot Coverage .70 .70 .70 .70 Minimum Street Frontage 70% 70% 50% 50% ¹ Transient Accommodations: 32-64 d/ua permitted in Downtown, A1A, and US 1 only. ² Required unless inappropriate due to type of ground use. ³ Standards apply to lands located outside of Downtown ______GOAL 4: TRANSPORTATION DECISION-MAKING AND DESIGN SHALL TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT THROUGH WHICH ROADWAYS PASS THROUGH.
OBJECTIVE 4.1 The transportation system shall be designed to: 1) be context sensitive, thereby improving integration of roads into the physical environment and community; and 2) promote aesthetics through the creation of overlay districts and the provision of appropriate landscaping of medians which will not adversely impact public safety.
POLICY 4.1.1 Medians in subdivision roadways shall utilize drought resistant landscaping whenever possible. Irrigation systems shall be installed in the landscaped medians and maintained in perpetuity by property owner associations. Measure: Percentage of medians which are landscaped.
POLICY 4.1.2 The City shall utilize Greenbelt and Gateway Preservation District Standards on selected major arterial and collector roadways leading into the City. Enhanced setback distances, building design and ground mounted signs shall be signature elements to creating attractive entranceways into the City.
Ormond Beach, Florida 15 Transportation Element 2010 Comprehensive Plan Updated February 9, 2009 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES
POLICY 4.1.3
The City shall not as a general policy support improving roadway LOS, regardless of roadway jurisdiction, at the expense of reducing or eliminating landscaped medians, except for as approved by the City Commission.
POLICY 4.1.4 The City shall formally recognize and provide appropriate protection for scenic highways and roadways. Measure: Number of scenic roads recognized.
POLICY 4.1.5 The City shall assist the Corridor Management Entity to implement the vision statement within the adopted Corridor Management Plan of the Florida State designated Ormond Scenic Loop and Trail.
GOAL 5:
IMPLEMENT TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES DESIGNED TO INCREASE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM EFFICIENCY BY MANAGING THE DEMAND SIDE OF THE DEMAND/CAPACITY RELATIONSHIP THUS REDUCING TOTAL VEHICLE TRIPS
OBJECTIVE 5.1
Promote Transportation Demand Management (TDM) to support efficient use of the transportation and transit system.
POLICY 5.1.1
Develop TDM strategies and programs in cooperation with the VCMPO, VOTRAN, FDOT and other local jurisdictions.
POLICY 5.1.2
Work with the School District, city residents, developers, homeowner associations and property management companies through residential based programs to promote the use of Votran, non- motorized travel, and other alternatives
Ormond Beach, Florida 16 Transportation Element 2010 Comprehensive Plan Updated February 9, 2009 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES
POLICY 5.1.3
Work with the Chamber of Commerce or similar entity dedicated to economic development and business prosperity to establish a Transportation Management Initiative (TMI) designed as an Employer Outreach Service to market TDM programs, advocate transit improvements, and act as host of ridesharing databases for industrial concerns located at the City’s Airport Business Park and Ormond Crossing.
POLICY 5.1.4
Develop a multi-modal access guide providing concise information about how to use various travel modes to get to a particular destination. The multi-modal guide should include but shall not be limited to the following information:
1) maps and graphics on how to use transit as well as walk and bicycle to a particular destination; 2) transit information such as frequency, fares, routes, and schedules; 3) contact information for transit providers, to include telephone numbers; 4) times and distances for those walking from a transit stop to a particular destination such as the beach; 5) information about other modes, such as schedules and contact information for airport service; 6) information for people with disabilities, such as how to make transit access arrangements; and 7) information on bicycle facilities, such as parking, at destinations.
POLICY 5.1.5
Require all development and (re) development to incorporate bicycle facilities such as bike racks into the overall design of the site and require all developments which exceed the Votran Transit Guideline thresholds for review to also incorporate lockers and showers to support employees to walk or bicycle to and from work.
POLICY 5.1.6
Require all applicants requesting a city approval whose development exceed the Votran Transit Guidelines thresholds to show evidence that they have analyzed and evaluated potential TDM strategies.
Ormond Beach, Florida 17 Transportation Element 2010 Comprehensive Plan Updated February 9, 2009 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES
TABLE 6 - FUTURE ROADWAY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION Page 1 of 2 SEGMENT Functional No. of Street From To Classification Lanes Type of Facility I-95 North City Limits South City Limits Principal Arterial 6 Divided-Limited Access US 1 North City Limits South City Limits Principal Arterial 6 Divided Nova Road US 1 Wilmette Principal Arterial 4 Divided Nova Road Wilmette South City Limits Principal Arterial 6 Divided SR 40 (Granada) US 1 West City Limits Principal Arterial 4 Divided SR 40 A-1-A John Anderson Minor Arterial 5 Undivided SR 40 John Anderson Beach Street Minor Arterial 4 Divided SR 40 Beach Street US 1 Minor Arterial 5 Undivided SR A-1-A SR 40 South City Limits Principal Arterial 4 Divided SR A-1-A SR 40 North City Limits Minor Arterial 3 Undivided Clyde Morris Boulevard SR 40 South City Limits Minor Arterial 4 Divided Beach Street SR 40 South City Limits Minor Arterial 2 Undivided Beach Street SR 40 North City Limits Major Collector 2 Undivided Airport Road US 1 Tymber Creek Road Minor Arterial 2 Undivided Airport Road Tymber Creek Road SR 40 Minor Arterial 2 Undivided Williamson SR 40 South City Limits Minor Arterial 4 Divided Tymber Creek Road Airport Road South City Limits Minor Arterial 4 Divided Tymber Creek Road (CR 2013) Airport Road US 1 Minor Arterial 4 Divided Ormond Crossing Boulevard US 1 Tymber Creek Road Minor Arterial 2 Undivided John Anderson Drive (Constrained) Halifax Drive SR 40 Major Collector 2 Undivided Amsden Road John Anderson Drive SR A-1-A Minor Collector 2 Undivided Halifax Drive John Anderson Drive Fluhart Drive Major Collector 2 Undivided Riverside Drive Fluhart Drive South City Limits Major Collector 2 Undivided Riverbeach Drive Riverside Drive SR A-1-A Major Collector 2 Undivided Harvard Drive Riverside Drive SR A-1-A Major Collector 2 Undivided Neptune Avenue John Anderson Drive SR A-1-A Major Collector 2 Undivided Sanchez Avenue Yonge Street Beach Street Major Collector 2 Undivided Wilmette Avenue Nova Road Beach Street Major Collector 2 Undivided Yonge Street US 1 Sanchez Avenue Major Collector 2 Undivided Domicilio Northbrook Beach Street Major Collector 2 Undivided Center Street Wilmette South City Limits Minor Collector 2 Undivided
SEGMENT Functional No. of Street From To Classification Lanes Type of Facility Orchard Street N. of Sterthaus Hand Avenue Major Collector 2 Undivided Tomoka SR 40 Beach Street Minor Collector 2 Undivided Ormond Parkway SR A-1-A Halifax Drive Minor Collector 2 Undivided Kings Road Nova Road Division Minor Collector 2 Undivided Sterthaus Orchard Nova Road Minor Collector 2 Undivided The Main Trail Nova Road SR 40 Minor Collector 2 Divided Hammock Lane Kings Road Orchard Minor Collector 2 Undivided Sunshine Boulevard Airport Road Tower Circle Minor Collector 2 Undivided Runway Drive Extension W. Tower Circle Pineland Trail Minor Collector 2 Undivided Fluhart Riverside Drive Halifax Major Collector 2 Undivided Pineland Trail Airport Road US 1 Minor Arterial 2 Undivided Ridgewood Domicilio Hand Avenue Major Collector 2 Undivided Division Nova Road Beach Street Major Collector 2 Undivided Hull Road US 1 Pineland Trail Major Collector 2 Undivided Hand Avenue Nova Road SR 40 Minor Collector 4 Divided New Collector Airport Road Pineland Trail Major Collector 2 Undivided Shadow Crossings Coll. SR 40 Airport Road Minor Collector 2 Divided South St. Andrews Drive Rio Pinar Drive North St. Andrews Drive Minor Collector 2 Undivided Rio Pinar Drive South St. Andrews Drive North St Andrews Drive Minor Collector 2 Undivided North St. Andrews Drive Rio Pinar Drive S. St. Andrews Dr. Minor Collector 2 Undivided Tomoka Oaks Boulevard South St. Andrews Dr. Nova Road Minor Collector 2 Divided Lincoln Avenue Orchard Street US 1 Minor Collector 2 Undivided Thompson Creek Road Lincoln Avenue Division Avenue Minor Collector 2 Undivided Fleming Avenue Nova Road West of F.E.C.R.R. Minor Collector 2 Undivided Fleming Avenue East of F.E.C.R.R. Beach Street Minor Collector 2 Undivided Ann Rustin Halifax SR A-1-A Minor Collector 2 Undivided Standish John Anderson SR A-1-A Minor Collector 2 Undivided Rio Pinar Trail South St. Andrews Dr. The Main Trail Subdivision Feeder 2 Undivided Iroquois Trail South St. Andrews Dr. The Main Trail Subdivision Feeder 2 Undivided Hand Avenue Ridgewood Nova Road Major Collector 2 Undivided Source: Harland Bartholomew & Associates, Inc.
Ormond Beach, Florida 19 Transportation Element 2010 Comprehensive Plan Updated February 9, 2009 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES
TABLE 7 - ROADWAY DESIGN STANDARDS Minimum Type of Right-of-Way Lane No. of ADT Sidewalk/ Street Width Width Lanes Drainage Structure Served Bikeway* Intersects with Land Access Principal 120’-300’ 12’ 4-6 Curb & Gutter (urban) 15,000 + Yes Minor Arterials, Limited to Arterial Swale (rural) Major Collectors, Major Trip Minor Collectors Generators Minor 120’ 12’ 2-5 Curb & Gutter (urban) 10,000 - Yes Principal Arterials, Limited to Major Trip Arterial Swale (rural) 30,000 Major Collectors, Minor Collectors Generators Major 80’ 12’ 2-4 Curb & Gutter 3,000 - Yes Principal Arterials, Limited Collector 12,000 Minor Arterials, Direct Minor Collectors Access Minor 60’-80’ 12’ 2-4 Miami Curb 1,500 Yes Subdivision Limited Collector 3,000 Feeders, Major Direct Collectors, Access Arterials Subdivision 60’ 11’ 2 Miami Curb 500 - Yes Local Access, Direct Feeder 1,500 Minor Collectors, Access Cul-de-Sacs Local 50’ 10’ 2’ Miami Curb 500 Yes Subdivision Direct Access Feeders, Minor Access Collectors, Cul-de-Sacs Cul-de-Sacs 50’ 10’ 2 Miami Curb Less than No Local Access Direct 200 Subdivision Access Feeder
Sidewalks shall have a minimum width of five feet. Bikeways shall consist of either bicycle lanes or bicycle paths. Bicycle lanes at the edge of streets shall have a minimum paved width of four feet in each direction. Bicycle paths separated from the street shall have a minimum paved width of five feet for one-way traffic and ten feet for two-way traffic. Source: Harland Bartholemew & Associates, Inc.
A d H n R a c k m c h r o D hts p R n o ig r e L s e H le id t I s D g n f l 8. m e ur ia a a t S r r a e E h e p
d m
r I ch Dr n C 7. Sunny Bea s e
L 6. r t
d O l o a
A n w t c e D
O TOMOKA BASIN C e n u 9 ld i a Cay
n r d Dr H C
D n lan P 5 ix s
ie i e I a r
H s 2. o w 1.
r y Little Cay Cir i 1.
w n (
C.R hor t c
i . n ose Cir 2. Upper Cay Cir c e 4 an J
01 A r S
k
1 D
L )
R
L r o n San Jose D
ya n l P o Juniper Dr in t Ln Wisteria Dr Camellia Dr Berkley Rd Briggs Dr Raymonde Cir AÓ Oakview Cir
B
o
n
Sunrise Ave n
L n ry Ln W 1. Tippera
.
i Morning Star Ave e A 2. Tipperary Ln E
.
V Ocean
S 3. Sovereign Ln W
i . MM 274 Valhalla Ave e reeze Cir
U B w 4. Sovereign Ln E
n Buckingham Dr )l D ight Dr o Starl
i
r
t
a 1. 2. 3. 4.
n
i
t Marden Dr
s n
e a L ll e a Watchtower Dr D n a D a c a J n a d ta n s o City of Ormond Beach o n s a o h Spanish Waters Dr N t i T to Saint V c n . y s o U o moka a a R To Johns Pl S T L A Kathy Dr D n 1 State Park d
H n w e Longfellow Cir
o
y i r C t s Entrance r e a o Magnolia Cir Long Range Traffic Circulation Map 1. n s est Dr n Ocean Cr
i t
t 2. Water Oak Cir D D s r r lvd 3. Pine Tree Cir e W Sunset B (
D a ln C 4. Holly Cir u . Silk Oaks Dr e Dr R t Villag 5. Ligustrum Cir C . t 2 6. Melaleuca Cir ! 8 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. ! 0 7. Eucalyptus Cir 3 Aqua Vista Dr ! ) ) 8. Palm Cir ! O 20 W a 8 ! k 2 LEGEND . Sandra Dr a ! lvania Ave L R Pennsy l . n C ! n ( ! u r t D e ! L enheim Dr B re Butt ! n T e e ! n Dr CLASSIFICATION H n Rivocean
H i
t ! P
o a F a n m
l
! E EXIT ze Dr
i t Cir Seabree alnu
C f W P ! S m a o R 273 N
t x t i ! . o C n . Seacrest Dr PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL (ROW 120' - 130')
R k t n A
a v B ! .
d O i
v e r e A i ! y w r e W L t S O a Holland Rd l n n C a
a L i c A ! g l t e n s d i v
m e g f h t
l L f e i ! e d i u c e O n n S Concord Dr
s e s D MINOR ARTERIAL (ROW 120')
l c ! o t N d R t M (
C C d C Town & Conutry Ln ! S R l A i O r r o O ir .
V e Roberta Rd tl l c iff C R
! a C d l e C MM 273 n i i k a . l r P y n ! ! ! ! ! ! k C i t l l qu 4 a ! t ic t o if B Co Laurie Dr r C fw 0 g MINOR ARTERIAL - CORRIDOR (UNIMPROVED) S e R S t i lu T r o 1 ! v o f d e M
n i d f P N A a m D 1
o L Carol Rd ! i . t D g u lot r ) T y ddison Dr n n n sce n a A c O
y e rs r o e
! u
l P m w i t
V C argaret Rd a C M
B e Bella a d r b i
! t n i
r
w r C e a a n
r e MAJOR COLLECTOR (ROW 80')
o o l
i
D c W D W r
C r F e ore Dr ! P Ocean Sh
l G r e y k
r B a a O i
e d s M l
y d g n T
! e i o l r s l t r C d L D k e o n e i C River Shore Dr
n n e s o t R r w e C g r ! n d R e e m L L a E D d n o a t n w d D O e P a L Seaside Dr a ie m L w n e r ! r n V i an i k r c D L g ove Dr n y O an e MINOR COLLECTOR (ROW 60' - 80') e Gr e D e id r D o c D C e e S ! O h S b n n Seaview Dr n c r a a a r r C l W e e D a c e l re B s ! u O n ne
w o e r W a a u
e f L Beechwood Dr ce D ! t
k m ! f e E n e i W O a
ld r a e ! ! ! ! ! !
C k D c ! B i b O
l ! e s
u l F r l zalea Dr
t T u A ! s p s t ! e MINOR COLLECTOR - CORRIDOR (UNIMPROVED)
P m s e
h r a n f e t
N a e C L ip r f v e r ! l
r l L e ll n A l ! a
. k l r i y a r y
U 'C a h a s R l Poinsettia Dr r ! C I r ! MD e y
k nP l D D
S t W L g i n D
e g d e ! n v D a r ! I d S r D n on r e r
i i oc r c o
1 re c a r D e h D
t e K co r lm Dr O S y ! a ! r P R o o
H m l N n a a
h i n n O r e w
d n oc n f t y S e r !
! w L L f h C l w z D
e L e
n r o llo a e h SUBDIVISION FEEDER (ROW 60') y e J i r c y ! n
! e t n B a
a a to W k Palmetto Dr e
l te t C B !
! d o y
th n view C t d
Cliff C F n ! a
! u R lu n D ill r S
L la o Alamanda Dr
! o id o n r M s p ! L r
g V s o t e r
! S P d
W e t C l e ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! s
!
! e r E
! ! t
! s r d p C x s
! n C L n i o ! ! Hibiscus Dr ! ! f y
! ! e a k t ! f
! D n o l n li B ORMOND BEACH
n t y rc C r a d e M ! t n ! D i r g a L a s L N n W ir W n od Dr r o s w P d ongw e i r C s i L a r u r n
t Ln L i u e B r n i P
a r
L n e D l r d d ! l d B i e a
e i
w a a
a e o p a h R t
C s n i r ! o
w y L d
S C l D S P V t e P
S
l S n C R t a a rk ! L o o C t a
t
a
t e t P
s H p a u e l n ! e i n C n c e m u
k rel L l a v S t
La Blvd Squir a c A ep A t ! e a N
d r rendale Dr n B
s e L ton t r ! o n S u ch ow L a S C r
w in u
o in nb qu B t o d ia f Co C t ! B l d o uf k ock h In Bl n a Lynnhurst Dr
n d L
m L LC k O
r
n a D ! r
F l O
a
i e
E O f Ln r
! f s P D E
C D Essex Dr
i m d r
R r O i ! e C
e Moonglow Dr 1. Alexander Ct .R a ra
F k l Tropical Dr ! . D lo s d 2. Ironwood Ct MM 272 ee w L rs n W e
! kin e re 1. v 3. Robin Ct Ln e r o A Sunny Shore Dr
l tr am a io ! k R e c L ld 4. River Pine Way Brooks Dr c n e y e a L S n e l
r D c r ! 5. River Palm Way n r G r i D H iver Dr
S R ! 6. Parkside Way C G 2. e
e h 3. ! a v e I o P o n t Riverbreeze Blvd A L d c a h
! H l r a Sh y l g ig k oc a M r e u a e n kn WC k l o n e i r
! l N d y D d l s n Plaza Dr T W A e r oo t l L r e . R w R i D r U n r y P e d l R d s d g u S e d e ok d o e S L n E n Sandcastle Dr ro 1 b r t n in b r a R B s r e it e o s ve T on e H r u n k k n O e B r a w ts l ile e Banyan Dr y a r E u a e l r S D e n r P y S T e i z t D e a v a t e r s A M i C
z r r i t r v
a . d r h L e Cir A r t St. Ann 1. Ginger Cir C 4. e h
S R G T t r a a r I m e t e l nd a 4. l r n v 2. Holly Cir l ia e t a e n D P Be a e r S A Ann Rustin Dr ar P v . P e ia u 3. 6 b T c t i P P l ela Cir r m a A e u C 3. Pa n t e L H h n M a s S m r o Jill 2. 3. 5. 6. a d r 4. m l h 1. e H a a e d ya e i e e ar n e S r C T l 4. Lynn Cir y m b b
l u n o d s o n Cir B n r o Aliso a n u r m y e B i B n n a r T A i v e h h W Marie Cir r n B r C 5. e a v ea n r w t e S e l Ormwood Dr . r W o P r T a a o d a t t
w t A l h w L . O o e r s W ir N 5 ita C o a g e y Dormont Dr 6. Margar a k r o d r la Path a i T i T r
C r C a n s C o u B B n b N k n Ellicott Dr
C h d i a n B r i a n d K 2. t g s ry e i l r e y d A Cir a e a s th a B D r M e u l u r r P e i C i So d e P a r n r r D C r ir H q i D C e ul B o r g t D C g d y l R k in n in it n d la P o o d r e s r o o e av W er r 5. a br o t ir H iv D P N ear t e C r h yw ir S C d n h ir G B h v e D rt err C d oo U is l C e aB r d o d l W ir d d
n anda Be en A si N M o ra C n oo S
rmony Ave t P e D th k o e od ta r w r
Ha t a e o w i
P P t o e
l a l o S D g C a O T e t s r m w h r S ath r B e i E ir le e d d h P h b r C l e o B r H t C v C P C e n o r oney a d B r n W w y e e a m t e o y i a e J l e o a n C i g
l e n P a r lw fa D r a d o B ear B b o f e r i D r B rr ir n W o B G r a k T n y C e w u e e o C D ar a B Pa l w o a er
H th C t D L r t o W e T S e r e ek s i k o m O n P a L a aA a r o
t e th T o C c H c l r Cre t d B 1. ekP o e a O T e l C d y ar a d d a a D e F th L o C R r l H i o o i o m n D l n m t T K l w D r r rl C x ir a o o o e T M P u B r o d r p i a b e s a e e C e s t P th id r n e e u n h k s k i D u D a o r l D e y t ro v n W a l r S h T B ir A L er oy ya 1. Pooh Bear Trl C ne T R o ir S o r R t i d C H k il ou E an lv r o ic K . e B D t b c 2. Golden Bear Path ro m d y )l O b o n R O a o o th W w
or D W o i ir
3. Spectacled Bear Path N n N l v a
L ir . l 1. Knollwood Cir F 1 M v e MM 271 7 C . d R i r d 4. Running Bear Path o e irwood Cir R S o R i 2. Fa r P w E v w n D Cn r e b e . i e D d w lu 5. Bear Tooth Path T d L d eO s N ie C S in a L r g fv L u g id m i l . n r a A c o R c i d G Y N n B Y O d e o k N h n e d o L l W l o
e r w O v D .
I e y
T n T l
N C W w o a d B a r r t e n r
k C s T o w o e D g n
. s n r N K i N o a t t u r L o d D a l t i
i C d o u n t i r o r c h P L o
C L n CD A n ic n o AÓ d L P C U U y n g h N l e
6 r d o e n e r r R b ir v n ia r
i A e u C o n G 2 e b d C s S o T C n u e d l I R O i o r o d
O b E A r o !"c$ C t N i D H C w t l
S r W
W l e d e d
e B o o ( ir ) t n E w
h
C C a D o C C
o r
a
w d a 3 i
J r o B e n i
K d D a . od
y l C 1 t o
ly R A u o
d e
a B F A e r
C v r tw d 8 C e
R
A E b A
H A . d
B e i r 2 i m 1. D
l r i z I D f a C 4
e K e n t
o r . i R
E 2. h L s A L c r
l 0 e
8 o c y L r l R
i h n c
S
R r n
c r i 1 e
n a E n O . D L . C S i L a W D R D P e d 1 r
t O o D c g a C r . o n r e U E I ) n n y ( D w od L v e e L G Ormond Beach A P S en o v a d F rw d A a T L O K o n d n a i e o e H r N L e iv w n n A R D . v R ld u t t iew C S A i p e W O Municipal Airport t a V R d e l S L r k n A N r r o E m N la T h n o To A E r e
V r . e c
F L ff i n K b n o i p lu S a t r B d er d m T n O r i i iv C a ) u X u e R e r C e a S L A e i A v a S t n C n y w N A n od B n i t 5 o k h e m g w A s . t H P l . a J l if e l e l n e r D v an r D Y t o C D Av
D r R u d g a . i w w P r W a D r A o R h r r r e a V S e o v ( y f o n v e n A f ( n A v o e S o g k l d c A A d a . W u d N d d i d ll l E r e w o I i Ln R a e r o n H e B g R a L re v . . er East Ln N l S w d y Dr Tow E e V u A Runwa o w W n s t D a e a a A ! ! ! ! T t t e e lm ! . W D in r v s re n Tr a W r g E e r O 1 ! o G v P T in h a o M s d l ! r d a g S A aW i A Ln w m o a T Durrance s e C y n o l E m ! ! ! ! ! ! ! e o e N t c s o ) ! ! r o n R i k d
e i w v i D C . I lr r n r t n e a N w r 35 N M D d G e R r N t k . a C . o e R r w r r urrance Ln U v H o r D s I A a d i C B Tomoka O S e r aks B h v a lvd 1 tt a r e d e C i y C W R O l r w H i lm o nsfield Ln 1. Hunter's Run Cir w G i H f S i ve d W r a L r o r y C i e c d a W r l v o x n t D D 2. Lakewood Park e m A h i r R r th t D s e e e r a e . 3. Glen Arbor Park o w s n t w r l r
d N t l d e S t w C i v e n e ( S r l 4. Oakwood Park t e v C d o ir K O B d A i v o m g d . ay n h l 5. Arbor Lake Park o ha S Aviator W 8. ?Á a B d it R A a k o Baja Trl n t W L el C R o s w t Carm t u n F e . B a L m w 6. Arborvue Trl n MM 270 r n q o o E s t 2 i i a n o C o S o
l e t l to b T d R v ) a a g a R 8 0 v 7. Nature Trl 4 A C n A n i e e . a k S T W rr 6. .R z 0 A C a a r M W e .R a r v t O o y t Ravensfield Ln . in v res . C 5. 8. S. d 3 S u d o R n F 7. L n ( e F f a ) V q e m S o a d o Dr . A n lv C F 1. Torrey Pines Ct ne Blvd i r r i Sunshi o k d G l e B L t 4. S n t l n C n H a u o n Trl e C U C Warde r a N d Lau r u i C r 2. Dorado Beach Ct P t i t a n c m . e n e E k k O s l R t v ra g o i r R A t y n e w q n e l S 2. L x G C c r 3. i i . 3. In e r verray Ct d T E d E u t a a D e r n C r M e i r Woodland Trl lla A T . v g n D o r t. r c k L e S C J 1. Maplewood Trl M A a S e a l e y a L T e D d S l e o e W y t r j w i t n g n e A 2. Havenwood Trl e b n a C e r rv D a l a r z a m d a e d o D a
r h t s r l v
g r h N o o o o r v i e
t T A o c A o a B 2. t 3. Birchwood Trl d T 3. r u C w e )l d T n D a r r A t . W r 1. C a t r r P a t D
t i g e S c l l e s a e e O A e D y r C o N P o r r e e O a h i t
e m v n r c v e C C l y il v s n r i a A C C
y i A N n a l r e a l e i L r P s
m P W v e a n l u c in p e m o P C es e T a D L N A e B o Dr n P 1. R h e O r s e r t e c Rive w u r n d T s u a e w . n
a e k r a y O t C l a C h a m E l e r e s b t rl S l w Y v B T r t r e l e h r o dg l ?ã T v s Ri T o c d ig e sa D a S e n a L S
Trl R A abian N E o v r r P o A l o
l H t t
D r S y n B r u A a P a h l i
R S . W l n N r i
i Tree . o n C a b d u
e a k
E k K i v o
u ro c f C C
o W H e o il t g . a f n n d C n
w e i t v
z
n o i
a n o S
e o i T d e L r c A
o W n rl l e a T l d a
T b B w l
e g 2. o t e r
r k r r o t e
D
l r e S l s a
l d S S
r o T n D r D e i v i e T l n s l C i T e d l f l 3.
e F A s . il o
o e t t w a
C T n r c k l i g N r h e t a e o S W S r s h B r
A l d N m
R R i r L l ( i x t y
1. r a e r S r t n e A l U T . a T w i o W d ) e S
u i o S t N g 0 1. e D k T L v u E L d d 4 1. Lewis St id A B rry lv S B P C a B a s R e t c u .
a s r
a eq T e . i d
i k t o O
g q n a u e r
S d to n L R l n t
P m S . c v in l T w e i u a l k i I r o r i
Trl r d P n o r l
e d d a M e 1 S t R o h r r d O l S D ( e D a l e t h m r T v e
l rl l b r r r T e v s o r l
l g e ) e
N b C A n r I i o r T T r e D A O n n d C n e S
a Tr l r in S N i v
oka l T e un m l t . Tom w r b d Fox r r r B r a r i e n t i o R l o o t W c
G g r R c D . o L n C
o T s o a n n l
l rl c d (
i o T o u t G e i e
l t r i r T a l N a A
R a Trl w r n t C y
d a n i v C l i a A n g s T l c h L a a Lipizzan Trl o e ine a t h a A r V li y
u g r r v O n l e o W k C
P o a . c i l a R r b te o G k o R n e y g e r e S .S o a
O p b v r v l n a r e o m W n a Circle S o l C e m . M D
Cir S Trl a . e o n Ardisia C r o R t r
l V C h N e T g d l 4 o
a r p P n n ( t T T i i
C d S i l l R E h Oa . k 0 r C l S h k i s Trl y W joS rie Trl s e v A E u r Ma K e M F R r P B n W O D v t 1 e e
r o
h . u d y James Way r i R A B n C Bryan a a i r R m g e Cir y R B n Pinio i o d n m n 1 r e i d r e k r s r s a e
1. Rising Moon Trl i l l r y c y v y n n n d d o a s d a a v
B e i h ( a . l
a A e B v )
l O
s l
r l d v i r p
S y e M d C l D t l Tr C vel r n Ri l d R k 2. Tomahawk Trl r K t e A A e b t l r v B r N i
l l l i
e B nita P y t T o
B .
n a a e
t l e i a F L A r a r y 1 r a h
p r a T R i t C r 3. Appaloosa Trl W y g n w r l T . e n
e e s s
r d e a A N n T l r i n D y
n i e b C D l l e g a g L t r M
. u b s T o C
m o f y
v t G d r n e R s )
h
r e M A f C r
C n d k l Pl s w S a e i i Colina 5 o H C r r i r e r n
y a h n r
b u u c Wood a G v D t
D r e s u i L T S t . l H d W l R T a
P A A F P r T R m
o t S
r W e R a m R T s R y P d n D B r n r . W T O M R k M o n i r
c ) m r o
l e r i is d T s i n i d
G O u v e r D C b l e l n l o P
L r Cuadr d l u D r i o a o e o e S R d v w l l e r ff l e T e g e ' e M H e s e l r s H e P a k i s P o T A r e v J . e d O e
L i G ve r r e d A el r y v o d s C A r e r Tw Trl M e v
e A u w Ct e w 1. Chippingwood Ln T S cen O d W w A v Ali r D a e R r n l l O n Trl 2. e v r P e G ks S r l i a g r a g O e T . s r w v ine Dr r r e 3 r' T o e y r v s V a v Cros i I D o e l e g C ?ã m l e l i n o l a e i 2. Ormond Shores Dr o r o e u n ok w e n s t l a e n e r t i n a O o S e i L L D Av v f S M g P c t r l Eclipse a i e S M l C i e n k e a y l l i S s d r o a L a a kM t t L n l w e m k W s . 3. London Ln s i c r n w
o F e
l C 2 r T . r e l h o o P r A g 1 . i A S L P Trl A a s N m l R A V P d e o o
d W 4. Bristol Ln l H e r i t L D P e C a n v g O r F e l Little W C v J o b o R a v K e l s m .
o l a e k e i e n Tr s ng y l g A n i S S d r E d D k n s D b e a e g e a o i s e a r a a e n r r e o n t o o P k e J o e m k ond Trl v s n t o t y lo i o P o e E i r R Lynwood r k r o i e C o w M n o y MM 269 e C t F v a o l
o p M t s O h i a
m M n i i S k C c g e A s v P O n w M L t S i a A r F n t e y n l v r t C r n
l o d i l S t t S r i
a r e a e m a P D n e g g T t a a R h A D v
c
Ln a a T e t s
d e I F k o C b n n r l M N v h h
e i
R . Q v a t e y d u g n r C a r . i e S
n i S c e e r d Ave e a M n 1. E. Ridgewoo 1 r r o r n i s n . W e c r l d - a r o t r R D . o l y S r d o l R Midwa O g i o .
t r 4 d d e S R r e
D f
L g 3
R r C s
r e E M T t l w i t N A e T e r u n B a t D B d a e d n T O s r
g
u o D I a l r
e t
l e r r p C w r o l 2. Grove St D l l C C . r n t i s t i a o ! e e ! W
r r r o E o Northshore Dr
r d a ! A T
t e d l v W v e V A v h
l
le D l E r b i L
i R r
! t T
r b r n a O r l t W S a I l
C i D o 2. R r
i L
C o e A i v
l
r i Cir d C R 3. Capr
S
l r K i n s s o d i
R a .
L i W d n ! n
e R
l e C
u t s R o lv tt N o
r d S ir
g t Soco Oak Village D i g e iole C C R d Or
n m
C t n B o
d E S C e n ! h r
i
K
e i n S
w s
a r .
b n r O R r
r S b
T y g k o s a S D
f i
i S
y Scott Dr e e
! r
A n r
r r a
Trl k J B o e
y Y i r
a l l Run a E d o il
i Old M t r
a b e B r s b a . r n
y O S r
! c
f L
C D K L A
o p
i d
p o r .
o k e e i t
y
K d e o w an hl i n S Hig C l l a O o n a
d r
l R n K . n R e
! L h
ird d D
mingb a a Hum e i a l
s R
b n
H d r C
o p
n a C C p w r k s
a
a v
B r V t i B lla l ! g C
s e r a J D r L r D O d y t .
d t e D S M
rl A aks T M g a N e AÓ O
o i c l a d r
o a
r
n i r r S r F l r a
dlands a
! Woo
e P B n n A A ) r D
W 813 B o 2 i C.R. e C P i r
d ( l D e o port R a h r o
Air g
o n N p D
r L t h i a
gale d M L Nightin s l a I ! y
a o s F Airport Rd n D r s Q d n m o C g t . m n a N n d
u o n
r u o S T t
o e i d S n m Blvd o t y d i r
d o S S o m ! i r 3. n i h To r C L d a i u n r m l P
e n h r S o
O i n k c a M Willow w S ield
Mayf a Run k F b R
t o n t A
o L e m E L r d t r r
r a y L
! e
e P a T x A g o o C r a s a i m a e o L l r
L m e d a k e o t l H r v
t o e
e e L
H t
l T S g g r e
i l e i i a o e e c (
E L s s e P n o b i R
! n will n l D l
s r o o d l k s w w k Whipp eD Cir t i o P U e n l r i h n C u D m
u k R a t
t l d D n K n
S w S e n t
d k d m i
Harris n C ! r a e a a a r g d F
t in a D d a w a e L ald R t T s k r
B o a L r R a a u m O r S a a n r r e e h A i i o
h d oyal e P D t R n h n u w
! L ood C w d Brook n il R a e r m O l r t Q a a r n y L u i l A t n a e Q d C r ja o
n S t r o st P
i B Fore f a t r rif T n e e H e y a G wl Hollow n o E n q a ia
Hoot O e R B k p o n e L
C e B ! t o h i S a e c i r s v u k r Ln g 1 l D
y ipe D e A p r d nd y o R a n Sa r n d d p r r t Rd a D u S
B C W C
s d p p ! t n
r G e l a L i u r o e a S t t i e e s D
l B r c s Ct C v e H r il n an C k erm D A n Fish i r L r
A i G ! u m v o e te e M s n r P c
a l i a L T c e W lis O n e o r r B t A o Thornhill r n l v
H c l e L A w c P q T L Trl d
! t O r Fernery d O ford a d P a p d n Scottsdale D i a a M R R
h r Dimmers R d n e As e T d n Cir l a e v
! d a S F l v y n B t l a k m Dr A vi
a t Jason S o Moreland e r S C n d a y w a e k L L D e ) e
! r hoe Falls Dr ernway Dr P i vi M
H l i Horses F d e O r er
k r d
C a Black Pi f C r B d b v ne i i
M v n S A L
n t e L ls Dr R
! Curved idden Hil d n i N S r
Bent H v llow Dr A l c i R Fox Ho n S
u le L a e r l l r
r l d a
s irc n R Blv
D P
d C u S T e S D
R H R n d
k t
! e k n Rd e r
n h Way k 2. Gallate o la T
k y l
o l B t e i a W d e i r l D
Creek Way r r ow o
h Rainb n v . o r P
Stream Way e a u s L y e
f e C i i L o !
t d B T A P L o n v
d e
e Ln t o
ird s A
e eb e i
a H W Blu k B e h
F r a l B y
s r t . a d rland Rd l r T D r
r i Fai ty r e
r l 9 l d x ! c o lls Dr D C o n
y e a F Fa k
g r i
C t
d i k a o r e
e n O a w ye Rd r P k a v e C cke t u u B L e
' o s A
s e c l o c F k T k H s n K l e r m l a a B L d
! C C r h e l R
r
Tropic y r H i
W a o p
L a k x l S a
i S a . O A n r
c k d i s e y o r
l 4. u 3. r w
r C o O n n r e r
k T v n W e s 2 v e
r t R h g
q h l C a i e R i r p D
n l S C
e t i
h r ! d
k d i i l c m 1 W
R k e u T g t B l n
e T r v s a c r S w
h D S W n A S k Lake Way a rrow l r s o h T
ea i d e r t C n e C T T i h
e n F T o
i d a s Dr i s y T a tmore o r s L Bil i
C s e
! -w l e
e a o d ls e l r h d a Y n u H r a
d o d D m y d S w
k Trail u 6. a 1.
a i r a r
l P l r y
l n il e a J n k l s L l o r e e g a w r N
! r g k S o P A
g Rd e in m u l i n P a erso A k W o s
1. W e Hend S l T Dr B s o . . n h o s a C O s B o o e r
i r n y t
v k u t 1 D e e c C 3 o o
! D l r . B r m A n e S l t l r t on m e
i g n h 5. r 1 i a
a T F 1 r H t - s A B oe w s T
a S t o e d B C i O h
B o
o e e D k Dr s V lt
W r a erbi a ! d nd l d e t Va a e n A
r C y ss R . C t l ( e a
B y k pr 0 e v u
b s a s C c v L 7. y l r e I
a s C l W d C
a y H a C . 1 - r r
! a
T l Dr S A E L
s S u r L y r F 4 t D r t e C e a
l W r d r L
i y e o n
! e 8. v 1 r g l l W v i n i o P d D l o
d a C r b o n . a ! D r o O
f d e Brook Cir Lifetime C a o n i n z w i t
C r l n R R
W ck r r
d f e W Bla w ) F y k r S ! r Rd g o o i a m P l e Linville t o n
s s d a r w a r r ! e S o a
e d i C M e l C
k W k 0 l 1. n n D T P t r l . . D R W t e o l r i r e
P t i u t
r ine o S
Hollow W C s e s F o r W
a W 4 D d n d d
a e r C R i r C ! e A t W n r i i y Wa Saddlers Run r o k P s R 4 o r r
a l s S u S n a c
a d d m r r a
P l r v l
te r . a i A o a H s r g h o t
m a leg i u r v p h a y
y Ap o l D i v
d f a e o r e
F b r C l F r W 0 n Wa w a P c y a ! h ay J a t C L n i a a t
t R B l
y y e s l i y a a i m v A a v a y i S a o t t d e W P d r A a
n v i . g b i e d H i
a C
L l A n a a l l P w s e
do x l i l 1 e d ha i p i n
S g w p a a a a a n d
Ln P E e e . t S t g t C M S o F d i d o y P g n v
! a
c C m L h r t P v V e r t C t w 1 e h ( P l s t a t a a o
t p a t r t r
W l r C D w m iag n r o h B a s Y A i N ar l N . l k r e o e f C e n ed r B f
! y o C C a f k il f r r G r c r t i i i a ) r o C F o a r d n i
y d o
A C C C m e
L Hicko z n e l e C t p v ry Hill P r a D N W T n w n l e L M D f C H C
y r e n L r i
! v i t o Way ToL mokaR v e s C s o S q se T ll le Cha a o k il l
River g a l Fa a L r P t Sev r
e C M Dr O s S a e C w l d 2. lls e y o B e
s a M Fa d l s n D s t B i o d i e d
n i o o b
!
u d u o l ( d A h l H d r
TY t t B i e r
N Look e H t o Ashton i n OU B e l a l a D l r r
C F n B l V D S F R t r r r E h W r a P k
GL Stallion Way s r o r v A
a A i S g r L m F g e o n
v r l r t t a a y o k a A n P r
! a l
e o e S w u t e a n
d a C i l
R e Ga
ny p tewood b w r W r t o l e un S i a D h a d t . F C s
S W e n d e o C o v
n F R i D o e e e A W
d q a C d u r o n t o R C l D
e r Bria m l l v g ! rfi n Cante eld rbury Ct t r L m o ls S o k l l S B e i k B e r r a o a a e o a a F k M a
n m r s
k k t D . n e r n k I h d A g a C o R e o 1. D o e q v
B w a a t
c Ct n w S G e t g l i . o Dr l o e Clydesdale a a n e
! m r L L d n n a S g Navajo Ave l 15. l r r k e A A
e i e y C N v e w o e r C D s u d e l i a D v l s n e a s d i t t n r TY s W A y Wo o N od C s n u L U u r c O o e O C n a
i D A C l r i i C B I r o v S B u U e L t e v e
t W e
B r O l e V g W F t ty V w r .
e r s y m G n S n a i a
E
D s d o o
a S r M v v e a l i ! e k r a a P w ( s i a z 1 o 2. o m h r h
G n F k a a C M o y pache Trl o a i v A e e C A e D m o H d a d o y e i
Ln F g R t S a W r l n rick v C e e o r i r av v o M k . D A a o r g t e i t g k o o MM 268 e F P n
k p R T r t m s i o O e n m S o w n t F C a n n Ln C e
o Peruvia i g L a d i o l l i d M c r d k d o n . L a y e w r L l i d x a ) d i r n ! D n g e i
4. e W m C e o R o d
d C i e n R m t e 12. r r V r . e
x d
o a y s o W C e n o P o W R r W l r l i . o t n W u e
e C d . 2 o x o C r t r l k 3. v G s i f i R k e a r 1 R
n r o w o a F C G m o r C d a al t S f t a pic y . p i r n Tro S C L E d k n a a a C i s f a Dr ! an h v Sylv T S L e 1. Creek Branch Way D 5. e h a
e e h o a a i ' l P C
k o t e W C d T
B t y t e a r l a 5 z u o m a g p u 3. s o C K v e
R
l o o f e qu s in t M a r r a a 11. r l l r e t W f i D P y a x r c L C u e l C
y e
d t l B a e r n T u n u o l o lls D A i r a Fa S o d W ! a l S t l r n t a F a b n S u n a n a P 2. Cedar Creek Way C r l e ll t C g B 10. n a f ti r i L y 6. d s A s T s a l n h a D l C C C e a c r a t D n l n l ) t a h l i r a Tulip Tree Ln m i a . S e y M e k O e C a 4 n r n e
s g l n
t T i P e e e o r o ! s idge y t r n v o e Br t e Old H r C n a a t
a i Lost C s i Ln S M u ree P G iew r k t oi v r C R r Ln nt r A n
y o Dr l m S e W Gre
e ) h e c W lm 9. g a C t G c F e a B ! e M S s r ea A c h do a r 0 a r t wfield D S g w e P S R Hand Ave R
n s s ay k i t e r
4 nd Ru e n s t ra c W e 7. n r l a a h e ( D
s . e i stla I o k l a s t c ll e - a i p S t D
R W ! T L y r A C e S C a r B n e W r . d n O
d lv i P Ct S t s r A a kn m d P 8. e e h n Water a
S a I a c
( s s a 1. Sandy Spring Rd C k P a o d r
e t h t t W y T i r u u r p n . d n a p Hi ! P e g r L h r ir B
g g k n C n R
u n p h s h P n h i n d v S B u R n r
lv i wo ' W T b n a n a o C i a e H r n o L i S
F o t C W a s W
l i
B h i i d r p f o S m a r C e r 2. Woodfield Ct C n o ! i M o e s n r L d e t n n e . s o d r W y C 1. Angel Falls Cir n a g A a o C R n o e o o r o o u p C W s F T e m ?ã i e r o a n
d d S a C r i r s o uburn Dr h A g L s E y w g r i a a 2 A
e t c a L s
a x e i o h n T m s s S b v a C v ! D s g o d s i a
r i
n l x L h t d C 3. Creeksbridge Ct Green r r e i A o h y
c y o
a h r a n t a l l r w c 8 o N es Rd O g o a r T l . Georg r a p r St e i e e l 1. 2. Hudson Falls Dr W D u w r r Chas i R A e A n C o J n r
F n e Rive o Avenu o o r
G u d u W W i a d D h 0 a d k r
C L o O C a L e . r W y h r D F a ! O p d l S . e u n t M g 4. Shallow Creek Ford d r e t Boylston Av n o k w S i a y A
L e e s L D A W H a b a t 3 l D B a W e a k C P M D o a M f w S r
a k l e S a l uda . a t o w 2. e T i Berm 3. Pine Falls Dr t k R r a y e R a k k a W e T 1 k w 1. u a P y a e y v r r v e K l s th ) B g y d a P
t k a
! n y W 5. Baymeadow Ct e A R O a e l o ue B i y n n Aven P P r r y e
d c P t a D b o a W o o d o s g . e W T h e d a e o l 2 y y l
e r i a l K s Dr n z m Estate i
k s r 4. Pine Shadows Trl i o R S d g a d e r l o n l Hollow G r y n P t t s Ave ! y g 6. Waterford Ct r E William s A N m S
o e C o D t g A i t a
d S a e
d s l T v E t r b s i a
r M
o n e n e W F r on Cir o S Hamilt R Branch 7. Snaresbrook Ct 1. r i ! B L a 5. Saddle Creek Trl e h thorn e venue C S d Buck V c A u e t G L e L
J B n a B i n e
i I t
V r r h a h
s N a o e e n R S V r n r r e t a t D n e L n nd Av e t Crossing 8. Wicksfield Ct Woodla ! a n L o i
i L
y G r i Look o a a P r 6. Old Barn Trl C d A m a E n e i
e s n V e e C o s e e n k o l t r E d
k e ay M EXIT D M C W W a r e a w
y R Avenu l s w a i v i m 9. Crestwood Ct g M u t W ! s n r s g t n I a
s i F
s r s L i ic W l a N r o g e o c e t 7. Cotton Seed Trl o t e h S n o o e ara M A e e S e s h o a m a P a i
y o o n r o ve 268 P
n e ide A ! 10. Baywater Ct B n ornings M y o W o n ?Á e l s M i B t l e l F e v d y b P r y l t e o l r nue E B o a C d Ave i a i a A o d l l l Ct a l F
l 8. Hay Bale Trl v n e o e T C e k a W s e r A v s L B
v l n O! r s 11. Windrift Ct r ld e l c T S v om r v t i
oka R k e r i W a T e d v d
a W e s r D n l v a E M L e d e R d a T Pi s C r neview Avenue F e e r a t e C t 9. Avalon Way e T
v R A ! e a r 12. Ravenwood Ct o T f s T e i l okline Ave y e r y o Bro r R
d tvie ( i w y J o e D wF e p
a o e l g k W I Lake v T Cir C i b k G
k n n r
y o v P r o ! i A r v n i i a
a B 10. Victoria Ct Louis Dr d e e e i r a l a ( r i r n
e t Avenue G R m P y e r r v a i A
W . D e i a
a C n A C e v c D e s v h w A A
i R
w t
r r l h C y e
r ry t t l 5
r r v i
e u C a o Ave r g v r b g 1 Hartford w e v in r r ane St a d t a D i . D
a d T b 11.Guinevere Ct r o a v W n D d r e a C i . S W S . y e d c G W R L R l
e t i e E e r r a m a a a n e y e s C r k a h a s a d W e H u a B ce ay s h 4 Avenu C r c ic k D
l .
v W t C t d L n k B 12. Lancelot Ct Belle St S n i i o ( a M l r r S t e a n m .R k re g 8 i T c . e e a a 40 C 2 D . r o a lo o ) W r S e n n 3 F lid Ave o r A Euc a i D A P e y 8 N C
e I r l
r o g 13. Manchester Ct Avenu n ) r John St t y k v v a p 1 i s S W t o n t e r ia e I T e e B a Ap n h ge Ln t h 3 Villa A t S e v
S d 14. Knights Ct E B S u 5 e l
i Pixie Dr s 1
a ) a
S v O M a Avenue J v a G v V n R i s n o s
R ia R p A r n e 1 v e n Ave . Turkey Creek Pass oma a ri t 15. Diamond Falls Dr R o m a c a P Pelica n d C i B K n
i i t d P r a ca
m n g n r i a eli o n t r P
d s P d g i e n o o C d 2. Holly Fern Chase C c t a Avenue K a t n D lo t m In y H r tle g n e S y
a ir a S a e ( l e e s g e a ir Columbus Ave B Ave m e o M D y C
r r v a r Pa l v M S A S o t n th d w i e A C h o S G m A t e s 5 k H F o
R 3. Foxbrow Look l D w C c 1 P F v !"c$ p f . n a n e m a o t w C l a R e rt r a S r w l a eavie
r e n l S d R m N o a i r e o o n b e h L o P G e a l d s i G r P m e m A t r S
d G n b o A M lv e e B g . S r S rac H 4. New Forest Look rn T p r s e g Southe s g e N y d a g i u i n l t s r a e r
k l e 5 in v l v W i Ave o A C n t e o W r l e l y E A n a . L a r a e n C e e K t n p a a k e r A e T L l a o r Nautilus Ave a D H i y n w c
o n T f l v
h i L r P n O A o a n l C e w f s l A R ! a l D ) a n t e in t o o a e v e v ! i D S d y d y S s C a l o v P c ! o o o l d l r A v e h l t i C d ! r r r R A E u t t h a v m e m r n e w y ! o r m G D A w n te A v e 4 a Manhattan y a ! o 1 t l S s a A v A i ! w d R a A a ! r e A v e e b a D o lu r v e A B L A v r v v e Av w y e D o n C v e d D e c Fairway Ave S e v ! r a e e O a v G e n Blvd e S v e i r ! i h l B A M u A F )l x r ! d t ng ! ! e r a Flushi A ! T MM 267 n e p S e e l v i r r E C o ! v L O r h e N ! G e d r c r e m d i v ! ! a d in r C Ave l e A r o t m i S o !k ( g o s e e a ! s o D n l C i w F t v Zelda ! R ll L R a e H V r e d ! . A C H N ! R k Alabam a Ave n . t k t e o Blvd ! ! . r M M e o R ! ! 4 a T g G l l t R a o B t l . A l S Golf Blvd g ! r P a e ri D y y W 0 e W R e A h ! n r n v l a E t d h i ! ! r 0 a l t g H e J a v 2 D r t n v ! p a a H i d ! e i o P S y L S a 1 p ! ew o 9 L g a l B a e ! Vi B C h r e h e ! o o H t r p a n ! ! e M ) a l a n C e o o n i Medney R ! L e z C l o r
o e L ! ! ! ! ! ! w k d D a S P e a l A i ro S e r k a a t l v o r a m n e S C o o p s c S
er L e s i l u C n m R r p k C n r i o v u w n g b w r ero s A m r h c Ln u H i w e t t d a L n
S r n n d 5 w i e i n w D e k e l e h d r 1 n o e l a
O i e e s m e o e
L n r u e y v i
n s w D l e g r l n n y k A O e r r l r E L e g B l o T T l r e w e n
1 0.5 0 1 r
d r l n C o t e y e A T s t d k C D s l v e v n n D c w n k d l e o P e T Dr c L a n n o C o A D o C i A v t A a R rm l e lant a k K y s Miles r r J e r · O m r t h n o a A n t c t A e i K a r e L R o M v te l v n c r C d w i m a u D m t. e S A r o e ro d k n i m gs ic la t v e p ar C e e e e n a M n l l S C d P r D r M Ki A e r v e r ob M c r t g b e i t Flomich S B G e l e a lk a s A C R N City of Ormond Beach G.I.S. Department s r C n a n Wil ia C r U v e . d C wood r B y a a W C v a T Ln t t R H e S o S i c n n e C e H r u G s e t e m a d o y d S A H r Prepared By: Eric Dickens - 06/8/09 e P r S h n a I l l h t ( n o r C o t D v e M lv a a o ly 3 t v U a R l r ia n l Col umb t p a 1 e i t e E L
i i V i f n e n n S F e S r v m n r t n a r h G o e e r Dr a a t y f h J 5 A x s r 1 o r r l d 1 l o L e o te e e o o t n v r K A n t a s a n s e n H d u n e n s a t T v t c e A w o s B A e e M r e i v l l e l l
a B ir v y v 9 L e d ) ( A l C e C
D v 5 n v d .
r R e .
2 8 0 3 )
Exhibit 3
Draft LDC provision to implement Policy 6.6.6.
s:/CompPlan/2008 EAR/Amendments TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT STRATEGY FOR ORMOND BEACH
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) is the establishment of measures to influence travel behavior by mode, frequency, time, route, or trip length in order to achieve a maximally efficient use of transportation facilities.
Ormond Beach’s initial TDM policy focuses on reducing total travel trips by achieving a reduction of single occupant vehicle trips. It seeks this goal by initially requiring transit contributions and/or accommodations for certain size or types of development less than DRI size along roadways which are congested or projected to be congested. As time and experience with this concept develops locally, this TDM policy can be expanded beyond just transit measures for sub-threshold DRI type development.
Table I identifies the 2007 and projected 2017 congested roadway corridors. Any current or projected roadway segment that fell below the adopted level of service standard (LOSS) triggered the entire roadway corridor to be subject to this TDM policy. The corridor served by transit closest to the congested corridor with no service shall be the corridor to which this TDM Program applies.
Table 1 – 2007 & 2017 Congested Roadway Corridors Level of Service (LOS) Votran Routes Roadway Corridor 2007 2017 SRA1A - E 1A US 1 - E 3 SR 40 - F 1B Hand Avenue E F No Service John Anderson Drive - F No Service Tymber Creek Road F - No Service
TDM in Ormond Beach is planned and carried out as a result of the City’s 2008 Evaluation Appraisal Report. The objectives are consistent with and further the City’s Transportation Element, including achievement of arterial and collector street and intersection level of service standards (LOSS). The key elements in implementing Table II for Ormond Beach include a plan as part of either any future land use plan amendment approval or a standard Development Order condition as part of a site plan approval.
Table 2 contains a menu of options including transit promotion, on and off off-site construction, and contributions for transit route operations to be mutually negotiated between Votran and the developer as part of the TDM Program. In any case, these requirements are in addition to any payments that may result from either the City’s or the County’s Transportation Impact Fee Program. The demand management program distinguishes the intensity of the strategies and the impact of the development on the transportation system based upon the type of city approval needed. The greater the impact, the more intense the mitigation measures to be sought. The land use strategies and density thresholds are depicted in Table II with a more detailed explanation contained in the Guidance Notes.
The Ormond Beach TDM program seeks to achieve the following results:
a) Maintain an acceptable level of service at major intersections at or preferably above Level of Service (LOS) “D”. b) Maintain or improve the existing level of service at major intersections which currently do not meet LOS “D.” c) Reduce single occupancy vehicle trips generated by development by maximizing transit usage. d) Utilize existing transportation facilities and routes efficiently. e) Enhance Votran utilization through improvements in accordance with the VCMPO’s adopted 2008 Transit Development Design Guidelines. f) Coordinate with Votran in the provision of access to Ormond Beach’s office and retail centers. g) Provide Votran an opportunity to participate in the site plan review process for the review of development which meets certain stated development size thresholds. h) Provide ADA improvements to existing and new transit stops to enhance user accessibility. i) Introduce the City to TDM and build capacity and experience for future expansion of TDM beyond transit measures. 1
TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Standard city policy is set forth in Table II. However, upon showing of clear and convincing evidence that particular elements of the TDM table may be inappropriate for a particular project, the applicant may propose substitution of other elements which provide equivalent value. Substitution with other elements not shown in Table II shall be subject to Votran and City approval. Table II contains a number of transit measures which are required singly or in combination depending on the degree of congestion and type of city approval required for a parcel undergoing development. There are four possible scenarios that development could confront based upon the presence of non-congested or congested roadways and the type of development approval require from Ormond Beach.
2
Table II - TDM Strategies FLUMS Code A B C D I. Transit Operations a. Contribute to operation of a Votran transit route# ____ for ____ years.¹ o x o x II. On Site Construction – New facilities a. Bike lockers, racks o x x x b. Shower facilities o x x x c. Bus stop improvements: Local Stop to include all Table 9 Recommended and/or conditional improvements.¹ x x x x Secondary Stop to include all Table 9 recommended and/or conditional o x x x improvements.¹ Primary Stop to include all Table 9 recommended and/or conditional improvements.¹ o x x x III. On or Off Site Enhancements to existing facilities. a. Park and Ride o x o x b. Bus shelter or contribute cash equivalency o x x x c. Bus Bays o x x x d. Bike Racks at existing Bus Shelters or contribute cash equivalency x x x x e. Bus Stop Signs or contribute cash equivalency x x x x f. Bus benches at existing bus stop signs or contribute cash equivalency x x x x g. Bus Stop leaning rails or contribute cash equivalency x x x x h. Trash receptacles at existing bus stop shelters or contribute cash equivalency x x x x I. Bus stop pads at existing bus stops without shelters or contribute cash equivalency x x x x j. Provide rights-of-way to accommodate bus stop improvements or contribute cash o x x x equivalency k. Install missing walkways with 1250 feet of the site or contribute cash equivalency x x x x l. Install ADA improvements to improve accessibility or contribute cash equivalency o x x x
LEGEND o = Not required x = Required
Future Land Use Map Strategy Code (See subsequent guidance notes for a more detailed explanation of the code and the measure):
A = FLUM consistent, no projected LOS degradation below adopted standard. B = FLUM consistent, projected LOS degradation below adopted standard. C = FLUM amendment requested, no projected LOS degradation below adopted standard. D = FLUM amendment requested, projected LOS degradation below adopted standard.
Thresholds¹ to which TDM applies:
1. Commercial/Industrial (+ or >25,000 square feet of floor area or 10 acres). 2. Residential/Mix Use (+ or > 500 MFD units; 100 acres; and all Senior, Low Income, Special Need, and 55+ age qualified housing) 3. Medical (All hospital, 5,000 or more square feet for medical office or medical laboratory, and all urgent care facilities and dialysis centers) 4. Recreational (Sports Complexes of 1,000+ occupancy, parks 10+ acres, and all entertainment and major area attractions). 5. Government (All government offices, social service agencies, libraries, and community centers) 6. Education (All public, private, and colleges exceeding 500 students) 7. Road Construction (arterial or collector – new, rehab, extensions) 8. DRI’s (all) FOOTNOTES
¹ Transit Development Design Guidelines, Votran. 2008
3
GUIDANCE NOTES
A brief description of the strategies and the transit measures contained in Table II is provided below
A. Future Land Use Map Strategy (FLUMS):
1. FLUMS A includes development proposals which are consistent with the Future Land Use Map in terms of both land use type and intensity (i.e., floor area ratio (F.A.R.)) and is located in an area not forecasted to have a traffic congestion problem. Mitigation measures are tied to the size of the development and include measures that are basic to promoting transit.
2. FLUMS B: This includes development which is consistent with the Future Land Use Map and is located in an area that is forecasted to have a traffic congestion problem. The intensity or range of required mitigation measures would be related to the degree of the traffic problem.
3. FLUMS C: This includes development which is inconsistent with the Future Land Use Map in terms of either land use or density/intensity (or both) and is located in an area not forecasted to have a traffic congestion problem. Like FLUMS B measures, the intensity of the strategies would be related to the degree of the development’s inconsistency. The inconsistency would be measured in terms of a comparison of the trip generation factors, for by-right, planned, and proposed development.
4. FLUMS D: This includes development which is inconsistent with the Future Land Use Map in terms of either land use or density/intensity (or both) and is located in an area forecasted to have a traffic congestion problem. Like FLUMS B and C, the intensity of the measures would be related to the degree of inconsistency. Inconsistent and located in a traffic congestion area would require a combination of several measures at the highest level.
B. Transit Measures:
1. Transit Program Operations: To improve transit access to office, residential developments, and commercial businesses, applicants may be required to subsidize transportation operations. The subsidy should also include provisions for adjusting the contributions annually by the CPI to account for inflation.
2. On-Site Construction: All developments may be required to dedicate on-site easements to Votran and to construct associated roadway improvements adjacent to the site, such as bus bays. “On-site” shall be deemed to include the site itself and all adjacent areas related to the site, consistent with established practice in the City. a. All site plan development is required to provide secure bicycle storage facilities in a location convenient to office, commercial or residential development areas. The facilities shall be highly visible to the intended users and protected from precipitation. b. Depending upon the type of development, shower facilities may be required to be provided within the development as an amenity promoting bicycle or walking commuting by employees to the site.
3. On or Off-Site Construction and or Contribution: Whereas the previously discussed measures may be associated with typical site plan review approval and would be included in part in virtually all site plan reviews, measures which deal with off-site construction must be viewed as unique and must be addressed on a case-by-case basis. There will be instances where it will be mutually beneficial for the city and the developer to pursue off-site construction.
The following measures are put forth as guidelines. These guidelines may be discussed as a part of the land use plan amendment approval or site plan negotiations dependent upon the scale of development and its relationship to the adopted Future Land Use Map. a. To improve pedestrian access between the site, Votran and other development, proposed developments may find it desirable to enhance the pedestrian system by widening sidewalks or providing connections or extensions. b. Bus shelter enhancements, where such enhancements do not currently exist at bus stops. 4