Loading...
2010-01-21 E.A.R.CITY OF OKEECHOBEE JANUARY 21, 2010 EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SCOPING MEETING I. INTRODUCTION AND WELCOME: January 21, 2010, E.A.R. Scoping Meeting, 1:00 p.m. II. PURPOSE OF MEETING AND RELATION TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN III. REVIEW OF MAJOR ISSUES LIST. 1. The need to provide for a transition from residential use to commercial use in certain areas of the City. PAGE 1 OF 3 Mr. Jim LaRue of LaRue Planning & Management Services and City Planning Consultant, began the meeting at 1:06 p.m., by welcoming and thanking everyone for attending. A sign -in sheet was available for those in attendance. In attendance were: Jim LaRue, LaRue Planning Bill Brisson, LaRue Planning Mike O'Connor, City Council Member Brian Whitehall, City Administrator Gary Ritter, South Florida Water Management Rod Braun, South Florida Water Management John Morgan, South Florida Water Management Bill Royce, County Planning Ty Hancock, County Planning Noel Chandler, County Commissioner Tom Tuminia, Department of Community Affairs (was present by conference call) Lane Gamiotea, City Clerk Melisa Jahner, Deputy City Clerk Mr. LaRue explained that every ten years the Comprehensive Plan is reviewed for successes and failures and to note any necessary changes for future growth of the City. This meeting invites the public for their input of any changes they deem necessary. Mr. LaRue reviewed the major issues identified to date by City Staff and Planning Board to be discussed and which will also be submitted to the Department of Community Affairs, DCA, for consideration. Mr. Tuminia, commented that these were excellent issues for the growth of the City. Next step is to review the Comprehensive Plans Goals, Objectives and Policies, to see whether they have been achieved. Mr. Brisson, discussed briefly Major Issue No.1, the City is considering the transition from residential to commercial to be two blocks within State Road 70 and US Highway 441. Questioning whether this would result in too much Commercial use for the City? Mr. Tuminia, replied that this is still a young city with lots of opportunity for growth. 1 JANUARY 21, 2010 - E.A.R. SCOPING MEETING - PAGE 2 OF 3 401 III. REVIEW OF MAJOR ISSUES LIST CONTINUED. 2. The need to eliminate inconsistencies between the official Zoning Mr. Tuminia commented that now was the time to integrate the inconsistencies between the Future Land Use and Map and the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). Zoning Maps in order to prepare for potential growth of the City for the next 10 to 15 years. The need to re-examine the Taylor Creek area and related Plan In regards to Major Issue No. 3, Commissioner Chandler questioned, what was being done to upgrade water quality? Policies in order to allow development that would not degrade its Mr. Ritter responded that all new development will have their own water retention. Mr. Morgan, added that there are water quality. new state requirements that need to be considered. Mr. LaRue asked for the information in regards to the new requirements so the standards can be reviewed and implemented. Mr. Morgan will forward the information. 4. The need to establish compatible and consistent urban design Mr. Royce, then moved on to Major Issues No. 4 and No. 5; noting that these are more local issues rather than standards for the City's downtown area. "comprehensive plan issues." Mr. LaRue, stated the comprehensive plan gives you enabling power for urban design standards. Mr. Tuminia explained that the comprehensive plan is the nuts and bolts of the local government, suggested that trade-offs should be in the plan, once in the plan it takes an amendment to change it. Mr. Whitehall, was interested in the mechanics of how to incorporate No. 4 into the Comprehensive Plan, or is it worthy of striking? We need to look at the design for the downtown area. Mr. LaRue responded there is a need to look at the urban design standards policy, this will be done in an overlay process. Mr. Morgan added in regards to design discussion, there is emerging technology in the environmental area with low impact design which can help capture some of the energy conservation and the principles in water conservation, there are standards that can be woven into the plan as part of the overlay. Mr. Morgan will forward this information to the City as well. Mr. Tuminia added each local government looks at the design in a different way. The E.A.R. is a vision for the local government, and the review shows how well the plan worked. Recommendations should reflect how the local government wants to grow in the future. The need to emphasize pedestrian connectivity and establish III Briefly discussed in conjunction with Item No. 4 above. streetscape standards within the City. IV. SPECIAL ISSUES. Mr. Chandler asked whether the Community Wide Assessment (CWA) included both the City and the County? Mr. LaRue answered the assessment was considered for the City. Mr. Chandler questioned No.12 of the CWA, regarding coastal high hazard areas. Mr. LaRue explained that the City of Okeechobee is not considered a coastal high hazard. Mr. Brisson stated that the City is considered a flood area which is different than coastal high hazard areas, per F.S. 163.3191(2)(m). 402 JANUARY 21, 2010 - E.A.R. SCOPING MEETING -PAGE 3 OF 3 IV. SPECIAL ISSUES CONTINUED. III Mr. Tuminia, informed there is new legislation regarding greenhouse gases, and transportation which need to be reviewed and considered. Mr. Royce, suggested that transportation be a major issue since the main roads are a huge impact on both the City and County. V. INFORMATION NEEDS. Mr. LaRue asked whether there were any informational needs that would effect these issues, or pertain to their III agency? There were none stated. VI. SUMMARY OF EAR APPROACH AND SCHEDULE Mr. LaRue reviewed the tentative adoption schedule as follows: ♦ October - November 2009, local workshops and public meetings to identify subject matter and prepare the list of issues. ♦ January 2010, Scoping meeting with agency representatives and presentation of final list of issues. ♦ February 2010, a letter of understanding with DCA ♦ March 2010, complete a first draft of the E.A.R. ♦ April 2010, public hearing with the Land Planning Agency to review the first draft ♦ May 2010, transmit proposed E.A.R. to DCA and other reviewing agencies ♦ June 2010, receive comment from DCA and produce final E.A.R. for adoption ♦ July 2010, public hearing with City Council and adoption of the E.A.R. A summary of this meeting will be forward to DCA as well as those present. VII. ADJOURN MEETING. Mr. Tuminia thanked everyone for attending and suggested to take a good look at the past and how the City wants III to grow in the future. Meeting adjourned at 1:53 p.m. SA, 2 c-, E-AW. Ateolll nc 1itilt_ rl 11 /, �Cj/& q(�k C'aP-P P anu OLO u-ar4 (:) t, D-cm W Q nrcL - C - , T17 cn% -/77-) eClYr, P1Qj-, %C,4 W .. �c t 0 &.ca,Accl-AcbAao, InCe U ctlic', 4-6 kcEp-4ol oa�lt--Z� SO �( Ck+ o-,p. Q^O-N UALK LLY— fi cut Cbvlq)k-� (IJ 1 corn - It" Left1�1, � k?e GJ& It/ueunc.� �aot � �'Oo 4.eo� ad �� aU�,o� �o �� Pic�a:& good ?7aJ14,, Paw aortL )Utlkk(LVIIA,� u�A �v cS� ©LLLJ-d. cox (I-Ak- Ra L ��Cuo V-v6� Cok1Ck � ' Rw6c�- f qkt EAC Off - UJI C, CtO —AKGV��, qLLLAtC V--Lt,nL., Y CSC Q , 4 Pam L ✓�, CCACY11 01 m Ott A`-Vd�� c4 Pk-b)) CYO p �/Uc -/Lt d 'A,6a 5aAL mo-O vLtk� 611c aa - Aa— oft " � vim- 0--N� wo-(o -�WLj CAIP &U� jn.F p Fa A�ja,4 30)" UT- uo - a mod l c Fr �- Kkc Pam(- n le' 'aacJ, f k,rri r �t 1 a-- G ltttril-( l 'S GLA r ,� zP �`' Y �'i ��"'" �-1�.� � � i./� i,C. � �`.� --��-ti �k ' � }' r°% C47 _.c_�..L•c-+� .cv ' L ci Jac J C,[ tLc X, J i City of Okeechobee SS SE 3'd Av Okeechobee FL 34974-2932 Office of the City Administrator Brian Whitehall Ph 863-763-3372 Fax 763-1686 email. bwhitehall(a)cityofokeechobee.com * * * * *Memorandum '�1915ff Date: 1/28/10 TO: Mayor & City Council C: Planning Board, City Clerk, PWks Dir., City Eng, Gen Sery Coordinator FR: City Administrator RE: City Comp Plan Evaluation & Appraisal Report (EAR) Incl 1/21/10 `Scoping Meeting' notes Please find enclosed herewith transmittal documents from LaRue Planning to the DCA in connection with the City's EAR process and the summary of the `scoping meeting held 1/2 1 / 10. As you are aware, over the next several months and even after the formality of the Planning Board/City Council/DCA approval of the EAR amendments, the City will continue to address those issues listed therein, including the Land Use map/Zoning map inconsistencies, the transitional residential/commercial use areas, along with the other previously determined issues. Thanks! Planning & Management Services, Inc. January 29, 2010 D. Ray Eubanks, Plan Processing Administrator Office of Comprehensive Planning Division of Community Planning Florida Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shurmard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 RE: Letter of Understanding for the 2010 City of Okeechobee Evaluation and Appraisal Report Dear Mr. Eubanks: Enclosed please find the City of Okeechobee's scope of work pursuant to Section 163.3191(2), Florida Statutes and the major issues the City proposes to address in its 2010 Evaluation and Appraisal Report. The City hereby requests that the Department of Community Affairs provide them with a Letter of Understanding agreeing to the proposed major issues and scope of work. On January 21, 2010, City of Okeechobee conducted a scoping meeting with representatives from State, regional and local agencies to discuss their scope of work and proposed major issues that will serve as the basis for the City's 2010 Evaluation and Appraisal Report of its Comprehensive Plan. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at 239-334-3366. Respectfully, James G. LaRue, AICP Planning Consultant JGL/lk Enclosure cc: Brian Whitehall, City Administrator _ Providing Planning and Management Solutions for Local Governments Since 1988 1375 Jackson Street, Suite 206 Fort Myers, FL 33901 239-334-3366 www.larueplanning.com The City of Okeechobee 2010 Evaluation and Appraisal Report The proposed City of Okeechobee Evaluation and Appraisal Report will consist of the following three (3) Sections: Section 1— Community Assessment This Section will include the following subsections: Introduction — This subsection will provide a profile of the City, discuss the purpose of the EAR, describe the EAR process and requirements, the format of the EAR, and the process for identifying the City's major issues. Profile of the City — This subsection briefly discuss the history and general location of the City. Population Analysis — The City will discuss changes in population and in land area since the Plan was last adopted and compare actual changes with changes projected by the 2000 Plan. 5163.3191(2) (a), F.S. Land Use Analysis — The City will identify the extent of vacant and un-developable land and the location of existing development in relation to the location of development as anticipated in the plan. 5163.3191(2)(b) and (d), F.S. The City will evaluate whether there is any vacant land available and suitable for development and if any existing areas are in poor condition, in need of repair, or in need of redevelopment. The City will evaluate the annexation of land since the 2000 Plan Adoption and discuss the potential for annexation of land in the future. Financial Feasibility of Providing Needed Infrastructure — The City will discuss the financial feasibility of providing needed infrastructure to achieve and maintain adopted levels of service standards and sustain concurrency through capital improvements, as well as the City's ability to address infrastructure backlogs and meet the growth demands of public services and facilities. §163.3191(2)(c), F.S. The discussion will include the financial implications of providing public services while maintaining an adopted level of service for the following areas: potable water, sanitary sewer, drainage and stormwater management, solid waste disposal and collection, recreation facilities, and transportation. This subsection will also discuss the extent to which the City has been successful in identifying alternative water supply projects and traditional water supply projects, including conservation and reuse, necessary to meet the water needs within its jurisdiction. In addition, this subsection will discuss the success or failure of coordinating future land uses and residential development with the capacity of existing and planned schools by coordinating with the School Board on appropriate population projections and the planning and siting of new schools. §163.3191(2)(k), F.S. Assessment of Successes and Shortcomings of the Elements: This subsection of the Report will contain a brief assessment of the successes and shortcomings related to each element of the Comprehensive Plan. § 163.3191(2) (h), F.S. Compliance with Growth Management Laws: The City will evaluate relevant changes in Growth Management Laws since the adoption of the original Plan for consistency with the State Comprehensive Plan. 5163.3191(2)(f), F.S. Other legislative and statutory requirements will also be evaluated. 5163.3191(2)(l-p), F.S. Public Participation Summary — The City will provide a summary of the public participation activities involved in preparing the report. 5163.3191(2)(j), F.S. Section 2 — Major Issues This Section will include the following subsections: Identification of Major Issues: The major issues were developed based on certain challenges currently facing the City. This subsection will provide an assessment of these issues. The major issues identified by the City are as follows: L Need to provide for a transition from resitleadal use to commercial use for certain areas of the City. Z. The need to eliminate inconsistencies between the ORcial Zoning Map and the Future Land Use Map (FLUW� 3. The need to re-examine the Taylor Creek area and related Plan policies in order to allow development that would not degrade its water quality. 4. The need to establish compatible and consistent urban design. 5. The need to emphasize pedestrian connectivity and establisb streetscape standards within the City. Evaluation of Major Issues: This Section will evaluate the major issues identified by the City for the purpose of the EAR. The City will analyze these issues for their potential social, economic, and environmental impacts. §163.3191(2)(e), F.S. The City will also assess whether Plan Objectives within each Element, as they relate to the major issues, have been achieved, and whether unforeseen and/or unanticipated changes in circumstances have resulted in problems and/or opportunities with respect to the major issues in each Element. §163.3191(2) (g), F.S. Section 3 — Recommendations The City will identify any actions, corrective measures and strategies to address the issues, including whether Plan Amendments are anticipated to address the major issues identified and analyzed in the report. Such identification shall include, as appropriate, new population projections, new revised planning time -frames, a revised future conditions map or map series, and updated Capital Improvements Element, and any new and revised Goals, Objectives and Policies for the major issues identified within each Element. §163.3191(2)(i), F.S. SUMMARY OF THE CITY OF OKEECHOBEE'S EAR SCOPING MEETING January 21, 2010 Attendees: Bill Royce, Okeechobee County Planning Department Gary Ritter, SFWMD Brian Whitehall, City Administrator Ty Hancock, Okeechobee County Planning Department Mike O'Connor, City Council Member Noel Chandler, County Commissioner, Okeechobee County John Morgan, SFWMD Rod Braun, SFWMD Jim LaRue, LaRue Planning & Management Services, Inc. Bill Brisson, LaRue Planning & Management Services, Inc. Tom Tumminia, Department of Community Affairs (via phone) Jim presented a brief summary of the City's five major issues, which are: 1. The need to provide for a transition from residential use to commercial use in certain areas of the City. 2. The need to eliminate inconsistencies between the Official Zoning Map and the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). 3. The need to re-examine the Taylor Creek area and related Plan Policies in order to allow development that would not degrade its water quality. 4. The need to establish compatible and consistent urban design standards for the City's Downtown area. 5. The need to emphasize pedestrian connectivity and establish streetscape standards within the City. Tom Tumminia commented they were excellent issues for this community and gave a brief planning summary of the EAR process. Jim elicited input from the audience, noting that we hope to adopt the EAR in June or July. John Morgan of the SFWMD suggested that the Taylor Creek issue should be expanded to be more general and include looking into the more recent water quality standards in the Comp Plan relative to their consistency with new standards/requirements. Jim asked John to let us know what analysis is needed and what information is available. Page 1 of 3 John Morgan said he will send us and the City and will work with us. He also suggested that water supply is an important issue, particularly getting Okeechobee Utility Authority's Consumptive Use Permit (CUP) renewal resolved. Bill Royce commented that the City is the commercial center for the entire area and we should expect that commercial development in the City would be greater than normally expected of a city the size of Okeechobee. He also noted the transitional commercial issue has been around for years and should be addressed in the form of transition policies and guidelines. Bill Royce suggested that the resolution of conflicts between the zoning and FLUM may present an opportunity to foster improved transportation. Tom Tumminia noted that this presents an opportunity to incorporate provisions relative to greenhouse gas emission and transportation trips and developing an integrated system would be a plus. Bill Royce suggested that since Okeechobee is a "DULA" the two-year period for the mobility plan coincides with the 18-month period for the EAR -based amendment. He suggested including transportation as a major issue and incorporating the mobility plan in the EAR process, thereby tying in with major issues 1, 2 and 5. Jim LaRue responded that this would be a separate analysis in the EAR rather than a local major issue. Bill Royce suggested being careful with issues 4 and 5 (consistent and compatible urban design and connectivity and streetscape standards) and to avoid going into too much detail that is more appropriate to the LDC. Jim LaRue responded that issues 4 and 5 would be incorporated into the EAR -based amendment in the form of policies enabling design guidelines. The criteria would be in the Comp Plan (e.g., trade-offs or bonuses). Brian Whitehall questioned how would the mechanics of incorporating issue #4 (compatible and consistent urban design) be addressed. Jim LaRue responded that this would be discussed and would be included at the policy level in the Comp Plan, but the detail of implementation would be addressed in the LDC. John Morgan noted that "Low Impact Design (LID)" could be incorporated as a policy. Page 2 of 3 Jim LaRue summarized that the five local issues presented during the meeting would be included in the "letter of understanding" that will go the DCA. The input from the participants at this meeting will be helpful in preparing the EAR. We will provide a summary of the meeting to the attendees and will keep them posted regarding the schedule, etc. As a result of the input received during the meeting, we suggest the local major issues chosen by the City remain as identified by the LPA and City Council. With regard to the suggestion by the Water Management District to expand the scope of the Taylor Creek issue, we believe the issue should remain described. As a special issue, however, the City's policies for water quality will be examined with regard to their consistency with new water management standards. Page 3 of 3 . Planning x: & Management Services, Inc. City of Okeechobee Scoping Meeting for the Evaluation and Appraisal Report of the Comprehensive Plan January 21, 2010 1:00 P.M. Agenda I. Introduction and Welcome II. Purpose of Meeting and Relation to Comprehensive Plan III. Review of Major Issues List 1. The need to provide for a transition from residential use to commercial use in certain areas of the City. 2. The need to eliminate inconsistencies between the Official Zoning Map and the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). 3. The need to re-examine the Taylor Creek area and related Plan Policies in order to allow development that would not degrade its water quality. 4. The need to establish compatible and consistent urban design standards for the City's Downtown area. 5. The need to emphasize pedestrian connectivity and establish streetscape standards within the City. IV. Special Issues V. Information Needs VI. Summary of EAR Approach and Schedule VII. Adjourn Providing Planning and Management Solutions for Local Governments Since 1988 1 375 Jackson Street. Suite 206 Fort Myers, FI. 33901 239-334-3366 inforolarueplanning.com Introduction Executive Summary The purpose of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) is to provide a summary analysis of the successes and failures of the Comprehensive Plan (Plan), to identify major issues of concern, and to identify proposed changes to amend and update the Plan. The Plan was evaluated through the collaboration of City staff, state agencies, other units of government, and the general public. Many issues were identified during the evaluation process, some of which are new and some of which already are being addressed in existing policies and programs. The original Plan was adopted in 1991 with subsequent Amendments in September 2000, February 2007, August 2008, and March 2009. Implementation of the Plan generally has been good; however, some programs and policies have not been implemented. On -going implementation of the Plan is proceeding and most of the programs eventually will be implemented. The EAR process will help to adopt an improved Plan that will guide the City's growth through 2020. The entire Plan will be updated with the best available data and analysis and will be edited to ensure accuracy and consistency. Goals, Objectives, and Policies also will be updated to reflect new information but major policy revisions are not expected except as noted in this report. Some policies and programs will be revised with more achievable implementation time frames. When completed, the EAR -based Comprehensive Plan is expected to be a much better Plan which will be able to accommodate expected and unexpected growth while still maintaining the quality of life in the City. The EAR identifies 5 major issues that the City will address in the EAR -based Plan Amendments. Each issue and proposed actions are briefly summarized below. Major Issue 1- Need to provide for a transition from residential use to commercial use for certain areas of the City. Major Issue 2 — The need to eliminate inconsistencies between the Official Zoning Map and the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). Major Issue 3 — The need to re-examine the Taylor Creek area and related Plan Policies in order to allow development that would not degrade its water quality. Major Issue 4 — The need to establish compatible and consistent urban design. Major Issue 5 — The need to emphasize pedestrian connectivity and establish streetscape standards within the City. Draft: October, 2009 I-1 Purpose of the EAR The City of Okeechobee's Comprehensive Plan is designed to provide certainty in the development of the City. This is achieved by limitation on amendments and requirements for financial feasibility. Responses to change come through amendments to the Comprehensive Plan by revisions made to methods of implementation and through periodic evaluation of the Plan. An EAR evaluates the Comprehensive Plan every seven years to determine whether the Plan has resulted in progressive development of any particular municipality. As such, the EAR will serve as an audit of progress and problems in using the Plan to achieve the development Goals of the City. The EAR is the first step in updating the Comprehensive Plan. Using requirements set forth in Chapter 163 of the Florida Statutes, the EAR must accomplish the following Goals: 1. Identify major issues for the City; 2. Review past actions of the City in implementing the Plan; 3. Assess the degree to which Plan Objectives have been achieved; 4. Assess both successes and shortcomings of the Plan; 5. Identify ways that the Plan should be changed; and 6. Respond to changing conditions and trends affecting the City. 7. Respond to the need for new data. 8. Respond to changes in State requirements regarding growth management and development. 9. Respond to changes in regional plans. 10. Ensure effective intergovernmental coordination. Preparing the EAR The process for preparing the EAR is the same basic planning process used for many local government programs and projects. The first step is to identify the expected result, which in this case is to assess the City of Okeechobee Comprehensive Plan. The next step is to collect the information necessary to conduct an evaluation and analyze the data collected. Finally, a report is prepared that documents the findings and recommendations. The issues that are required to be addressed are only the subjects within the Plan that are important to the community. By conducting public workshops, the City has been able to determine what the Draft: October, 2009 1_2 subject matters are that need to be included in the EAR. The current Comprehensive Plan of Okeechobee, including the EAR -based amendments, includes policies used by City officials to regulate land use, transportation, utilities, and other elements in the Plan. The EAR provides an analysis of all Plan related data from 2000 to 2009 to determine trends and if the City is achieving the Goals and Objectives set forth in the Plan. As a requirement of §163.3191, F. S., the EAR contains information addressing the following: 1. Population growth and changes in land area [163.319](2)(a)]. 2. The location of existing development in relation to the location of development as anticipated in the plan [163.319](2)(d)]. 3. The extent of vacant and developable land [163.319](2)(b)]. 4. The financial feasibility of providing needed infrastructure to achieve and maintain adopted level of service standards and sustain concurrency through capital improvements, as well as the ability to address infrastructure backlogs and meet the demands of growth on public services and facilities [163.319](2)(c)]. 5. A brief assessment of success and shortcomings related to each element [163.319](2)(h)]. 6. Relevant changes in growth management laws (the state comprehensive plan, the appropriate strategic regional policy plan, Chapter 163, Part H, F.S., and Rule 9J-5, F.A.C.) [163.319](2)(1)]. 7. A summary of public participation activities in preparing the report [163.319](2)6F)]. 8. The identification of major issues and, where pertinent, the potential social, economic, and environmental impacts of these issues [163.319](2)(e)]. 9. An assessment of whether plan Objectives within each element, as they relate to major issues, have been achieved, and whether unforeseen and unanticipated changes in circumstances have resulted in problems and opportunities with respect to major issues in each element [163.319](2)(g)]. 10. An assessment of corrective measures, including whether plan amendments are anticipated to address the major issues identified and analyzed in the report. Such identification shall include, as appropriate, new population projections and new revised planning time -frames, a revised future conditions map or map series, and updated Capital Improvements Element, and any new and revised Goals, Objectives and Policies for major issues identified within each element [163.319](2)(i)]. 11. An assessment of the success or failure of coordinating future land uses and residential development with the capacity of existing and planned schools; establishing with the school Draft: October, 2009 I-3 board appropriate population projections; and coordinating the planning and siting of new schools [163.319](2)(k)]. 12. An evaluation of whether any past reduction in land use density within the coastal high hazard area impairs the property rights of current residents when redevelopment occurs. The local government must identify strategies to address redevelopment and the rights of affected residents balanced against public safety considerations [163.319](2)(m)]. 13. The extent to which the local government has been successful in identifying alternative water supply projects and traditional water supply projects, including conservation and reuse, necessary to meet water needs within the local government's jurisdiction [163.319](2)(1)]. 14. An assessment of whether the local government was successful in achieving compatibility with military installations [163.319](2)(n)]. 15. The extent to which a concurrency exception area, a concurrency management area, or a multimodal transportation district has achieved the purpose for which it was created [163.319](2)(o)]. 16. An assessment of the extent to which changes are needed to develop a common methodology for measuring impacts on transportation facilities for the purpose of implementing its concurrency management system in coordination with the municipalities and counties [163.319](2)(p)]. The final report will be sent to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) in July 2010. Within 60 days after receipt, DCA shall review the report and make a preliminary sufficiency determination that shall be forwarded to the City for its consideration. DCA shall issue a final sufficiency determination within 90 days after receipt of the adopted EAR. Table 1.1: Evaluation and Schedule Steps in the Process Local workshops and public meetings to identify subject matter (issues) and prepare the list of issues. Scoping meeting with agency representatives and presentation of final list of issues. Letter of Understanding with DCA. Complete a first draft of the EAR. Public hearing with LPA on first dra F Revise drafts, as needed. Transmit proposed EAR to DCA and other reviewing agencies (optional). Receive comments from DCA. Revise reviewed first draft and produce final EAR for adoption. Public Hearing with Commission and adoption of the EAR. Draft: October, 2009 I-4 Adoption of EAR -based Amendments Chapter 163, Part H,, F.S. requires EAR -based plan amendments to be adopted within eighteen (18) months after the EAR is determined to be sufficient by DCA. The City has until August 2010 to make any necessary changes to the Plan identified in the EAR. Intent of the EAR Report All amendments outlined within this report are considered recommendations to be considered for adoption by the City Council after required public hearings. The authority and duty of the City Council and other City entities to act only after considering all matters presented at a public hearing is expressly recognized and preserved. Organization of the EAR Report The proposed EAR addressing the City's Comprehensive Plan is divided into three (3) Sections. Section 1 — Community Wide Assessment Section 2 — Issues of Major Concern Section 3 — Recommendations Draft: October, 2009 I-5 Profile of the City The City of Okeechobee is located in the southern portion of Okeechobee County, approximately 1.5 miles north of Lake Okeechobee (SEE FIGURE 1.1, GENERAL LOCATION MAP). It is the County's only incorporated City service as a shopping and employment center for the area. The City is situated at the intersections of US 98 and US 441, and SR 70. US 98 connects the City with Sebring, approximately 50 miles to the west. SR 70 links the City with Fort Pierce 30 miles to the east and US 441 approaches the city from the Orlando area and continues south toward West Palm Beach. Figure m: General Location Map Although the City's population is currently less than 6,000, the City experiences a level of intensity in its urban activities that is normally associated with larger cities. This bustling atmosphere is in sharp contrast to the large expanses of rural cattle -grazing land just outside the City in unincorporated Okeechobee County. Draft: October, 2009 I-6 This section of the Report provides updated population estimates and projections, pursuant to Florida Statutes §163.3191(2)(a). 1 he City of Okeechobee shall use estimates of its population from the Table 1.2: Peak Population Forecast Bureau of Economic and Business Research of the University of Florida al Peak (BEBR) for this Report. In 2008, 5,520 2,208 7,728 BEBR estimated Okeechobee's 5,620 2,248 7,868 resident population to be 5,496. Table 5,720 2,288 8,008 1.2 shows the figures which ' represents estimated resident population forecasts for the ten-year planning horizon beginning in 2009. Growth in the City will increase every year as new residential developments are approved. From 2009 to 2019, growth is expected to increase at a rate of approximately 0.3% per year. BEBR statistics are not available for the City regarding seasonal population so the City estimated these figures and included them as well. Because is a center for freshwater fishing and other outdoor related activities, more visitors relocate to the City in winter. The tourist/part-time residents increase by approximately 40% "in season." The estimated peak population is forecasted through the long-range planning period in Table 1.2. The population projections for the resident population reflect the City's management of growth and will be assessed for the short term planning period of 2009-2014, and the long term planning period of 2015-2019. Maintaining these regulations, particularly intensity of use requirements, remains important as build -out approaches and more redevelopment occurs. The City's Land Development Regulations: 1. Prevent overcrowding of land and avoid undue concentration of population; 2. Facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, recreational facilities, housing, water and sewage treatment and other requirements and services; 3. Ensure adequate hurricane evacuation capabilities; and 4. Conserve, develop, utilize, and protect natural resources. Draft: October, 2009 I-7