<%BANNER%>

Built-Out Municipalities in Florida

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022220/00001

Material Information

Title: Built-Out Municipalities in Florida The Challenges of Planning for Redevelopment and Infill in Small and Medium-Sized Communities
Physical Description: 1 online resource (186 p.)
Language: english
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: atlantic, beach, biscayne, broward, builtout, case, coastal, collier, comprehensive, dade, documents, duval, florida, growth, indian, inland, island, key, lee, manors, marco, medium, municipality, neptune, observation, pete, pinellas, plannning, rocks, saint, sanibel, small, study, treasure, wilton
Urban and Regional Planning -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Urban and Regional Planning thesis, M.A.U.R.P.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The present study explores the challenges for the planning of redevelopment, infill development, and urban planning strategies based on the economic, community, and geographic characteristics of small and medium-sized built-out municipalities in Florida. The objective of this study is to understand how small and medium-sized built-out municipalities plan for infill and redevelopment. This study achieves this objective through three methodologies. First, the following planning documents are reviewed to find development strategies in comprehensive plans, evaluation and appraisal reports (EAR), downtown redevelopment plans, and land development code. Second, the researcher examined socioeconomic and demographic information to identify the characteristics of the population. Third, planners and elected officials were interviewed to understand planning challenges in small and medium-sized built-out municipalities. The results of the qualitative analysis indicate that the effects of the disconnect between the implementation of redevelopment and infill strategies in small and medium-sized built-out municipalities, state-mandated growth management policies, and the will of the residents and business owners collectively.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Thesis: Thesis (M.A.U.R.P.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Steiner, Ruth L.
Local: Co-adviser: Schneider, Richard H.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0022220:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022220/00001

Material Information

Title: Built-Out Municipalities in Florida The Challenges of Planning for Redevelopment and Infill in Small and Medium-Sized Communities
Physical Description: 1 online resource (186 p.)
Language: english
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: atlantic, beach, biscayne, broward, builtout, case, coastal, collier, comprehensive, dade, documents, duval, florida, growth, indian, inland, island, key, lee, manors, marco, medium, municipality, neptune, observation, pete, pinellas, plannning, rocks, saint, sanibel, small, study, treasure, wilton
Urban and Regional Planning -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Urban and Regional Planning thesis, M.A.U.R.P.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The present study explores the challenges for the planning of redevelopment, infill development, and urban planning strategies based on the economic, community, and geographic characteristics of small and medium-sized built-out municipalities in Florida. The objective of this study is to understand how small and medium-sized built-out municipalities plan for infill and redevelopment. This study achieves this objective through three methodologies. First, the following planning documents are reviewed to find development strategies in comprehensive plans, evaluation and appraisal reports (EAR), downtown redevelopment plans, and land development code. Second, the researcher examined socioeconomic and demographic information to identify the characteristics of the population. Third, planners and elected officials were interviewed to understand planning challenges in small and medium-sized built-out municipalities. The results of the qualitative analysis indicate that the effects of the disconnect between the implementation of redevelopment and infill strategies in small and medium-sized built-out municipalities, state-mandated growth management policies, and the will of the residents and business owners collectively.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Thesis: Thesis (M.A.U.R.P.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Steiner, Ruth L.
Local: Co-adviser: Schneider, Richard H.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0022220:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101106_AAAAGM INGEST_TIME 2010-11-07T03:57:48Z PACKAGE UFE0022220_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 40258 DFID F20101106_AACBMH ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH oberlander_m_Page_136.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
3c526160c7e5a11d688f57e2a232660f
SHA-1
7d2e2797d1608b9ba975714b034eddf7bf23e6cc
89305 F20101106_AACBLT oberlander_m_Page_112.jpg
54baca15ba1de3f6e8f76e922386e8f0
5a32a747ee29c337edf09ee0eceb98f70d53f248
36100 F20101106_AACBMI oberlander_m_Page_138.jpg
75221ab86bab7af7c9fe7227faa8af16
be76279f12ebd82a40f9d9444ac1aa8f45f241e4
87369 F20101106_AACBLU oberlander_m_Page_113.jpg
3a5ea29d5d2cc8528ed6072b8dd95ba2
998b27b84d5011b9763eb8e71418a388bb4ab56e
43531 F20101106_AACBMJ oberlander_m_Page_139.jpg
53c90a39a6d6e656215648718ad474b7
9b712292fcfbca84794a08c3e7f4040b75ac39d8
82146 F20101106_AACBLV oberlander_m_Page_121.jpg
46d6fc36a0195d1500dfd4365882a429
7c6d74cefb86cf65da835167a3b0abae4443ef55
54785 F20101106_AACBMK oberlander_m_Page_140.jpg
d9c4e7fc1d7b5d10dd346508f6568454
7d432bfe6e17e0c815f92b866b834c3f1a725760
45821 F20101106_AACBML oberlander_m_Page_141.jpg
bb4c7345ef75480d0906f15cfd1b75de
3475108cc6983f2632ba5e65c1ca76c5451564d1
85140 F20101106_AACBLW oberlander_m_Page_122.jpg
06812f0a2e698eae255dea0e5286519d
ae14eecc522553a05c8d9f65f1b7e3bd7c4b6b65
21836 F20101106_AACBNA oberlander_m_Page_169.jpg
dd901779b836198766afb79a16825260
2cf3ed15cfd67bedd3f361e48eef631161c0eb90
4258 F20101106_AACBMM oberlander_m_Page_142.jpg
d79ebc920b601913cdf3445d50fbbfbe
424216025e48bb9ca071e82b4d13a029aec9d2e8
91501 F20101106_AACBLX oberlander_m_Page_123.jpg
0a4e07738970d99f5d866112e8a19d3e
eda4669addd1f1f6398e3c5dac1b032ccebfe92f
36789 F20101106_AACBNB oberlander_m_Page_170.jpg
1321f789f61728d3624f7a2a03e5225b
59aac30eed4f6588f2f78d933e4416be74b5d3d1
30801 F20101106_AACBMN oberlander_m_Page_144.jpg
83e3b915b9ae7cb29688869994a37489
5a900800aef9ad8a7e0af62450e30fb34760871f
90303 F20101106_AACBLY oberlander_m_Page_124.jpg
83f5c405e89b5cb181767507e0657472
08ffe3a90a42b23dce5d6386cf8a34e4b8419520
26319 F20101106_AACBNC oberlander_m_Page_171.jpg
042d31630bde5d844cddc8a6b55c8636
eed7c02c7f4927f8b8fbf4ee0576157941b5c8e2
33125 F20101106_AACBMO oberlander_m_Page_145.jpg
6d2e475531e8e846beee355e7b43d629
cf85a8ba16e34d82dc719487cebdfabb3d367019
85646 F20101106_AACBLZ oberlander_m_Page_125.jpg
c6378a4476c36d20d47f581995ab399e
b4d637ad0f4658fb3714e20d0ca893cfbfb2c012
66690 F20101106_AACBND oberlander_m_Page_172.jpg
79fd944e9de21a835e81ed93eac26ab8
167613a189b442bd5e4c59c2fbb5f84e94fec457
35597 F20101106_AACBMP oberlander_m_Page_148.jpg
d754a0fe8cf03d0b8311dfc180e68e65
3063d96e2d9a56d3dff5b0cd3d4c7e8e8ef25a91
60732 F20101106_AACBNE oberlander_m_Page_173.jpg
f6f393b58dc8478c84c5c5bb0de8fef5
c2410a8d29333d44993e681951fd663b605beb33
53700 F20101106_AACBMQ oberlander_m_Page_149.jpg
b7b7e22c48b6e9a36e6a6341495e38a2
0fe30b1a0e41194311236abcd83a0fe68f55f7b1
4560 F20101106_AACBNF oberlander_m_Page_175.jpg
6f13073d6471f16b8d4bfb799b7da137
c7aea28983085b54569dc80846822e323e052440
65186 F20101106_AACBMR oberlander_m_Page_151.jpg
987d15c60bfae39744a727cbba01d034
b9976c8862bcc08e0b72049eeb9f50290bc703a7
52731 F20101106_AACBNG oberlander_m_Page_176.jpg
e7599f3c04741f95fc462698be142b1f
09182a306b554fefab998bbdb50f3fd8c771abc2
35693 F20101106_AACBMS oberlander_m_Page_152.jpg
e66c7738acf15cde238a294c6456f3b7
39283932a0acff0f7d18608cd8c1ae9aed829f6b
40319 F20101106_AACBNH oberlander_m_Page_177.jpg
a0321096c72baf86b79add8f819838a7
7b3f30501c140bb79309f00adf0228a4314b7d0c
4361 F20101106_AACBMT oberlander_m_Page_153.jpg
3404e7649a02bb4d705da9fcd5c79007
d686c3e8acde807fc448592adc45b1fd8ba4b9b3
4401 F20101106_AACBNI oberlander_m_Page_178.jpg
ac560d3a054eeef77c5fb3b6644811e9
39da0f5c925c0d8eb3098e112087ad0da7218f2c
19385 F20101106_AACBMU oberlander_m_Page_155.jpg
64dcefb64fb5aa8abf48d8f7e64c69ed
d5cc2632a0c06e6ea17fdaebbc422449855ea19f
59421 F20101106_AACBNJ oberlander_m_Page_179.jpg
c6954ecb5d78f195286e903884b19111
8ebd572eb0e0f2ffee5b4dd63247f61418d85ffb
33126 F20101106_AACBMV oberlander_m_Page_158.jpg
db2478aa5857be60c95de1a7f8b30de6
6162721cdb816045810807f418e3564bf3cee299
73589 F20101106_AACBNK oberlander_m_Page_180.jpg
faf3578a36cb9ab321318054b400b4eb
b3cdecfc2f942904f5d2f80ae59e6007a68de5db
78472 F20101106_AACBMW oberlander_m_Page_163.jpg
4a60d5a9028184c75eeb8d9bc8d03280
7b24c8561dc2e2fbea6c84b430c47b5429f5ed43
88932 F20101106_AACBNL oberlander_m_Page_181.jpg
9f5e0c3d7fddd9cecf5db29efcf08fd0
e314d18fc364f960c999365d12af10ae58b8cc93
105396 F20101106_AACBNM oberlander_m_Page_184.jpg
012cfc6ade5cc3c3ea57496e816e8709
d55987ad96badfb887a126e44a6c0b3582687fa1
64715 F20101106_AACBMX oberlander_m_Page_165.jpg
deb2927adf5b2c6788a15cf422463eee
d5a9430573b193efaccd90ca87724ef68548247e
1051985 F20101106_AACBOA oberlander_m_Page_024.jp2
4a576fa1acee52faf1726930cc2db6ca
c78d0606f3ab8b082b173b68456a4a75d8c124fc
103253 F20101106_AACBNN oberlander_m_Page_185.jpg
913b669d919ada85d027fdc928e474ee
3412f6b9a61887b94878d3c63933efdb13068a87
57266 F20101106_AACBMY oberlander_m_Page_167.jpg
efccbdcac0895a121517a5e0e1196433
9beb82c95d55e859e99c32e7b3d9b36dfc56c2cd
1051979 F20101106_AACBOB oberlander_m_Page_026.jp2
026e18d358e2ca20e262724f2136f947
e950e1ab374fd08437beb156a69f5844e90a3370
45902 F20101106_AACBNO oberlander_m_Page_186.jpg
9af1c0a298cb3b3f8095be0e4436e84b
370a22dcb6129e752dc456b6cc5b5e011a178864
21018 F20101106_AACBMZ oberlander_m_Page_168.jpg
f84885864d3070f754acfb6c223cd701
9d480abf681821d610359b7ea3f637b342c7d273
1051961 F20101106_AACBOC oberlander_m_Page_027.jp2
98dd09d1cfba82cdd4b729efc83d8153
07d37f5c3d52fec82fb3879cac1891488ee9b8c9
720960 F20101106_AACBNP oberlander_m_Page_004.jp2
56a5d79787a7cdee7077d723cb88130e
d3e24e58b3b3e7fc17c1e19a6075bef3d2d6ee7d
1051982 F20101106_AACBOD oberlander_m_Page_028.jp2
fb168ab4b80144670eebbc4f5091ab3a
4360dd04661aab46a56a812935ec1ef7ffa2fe7a
1051966 F20101106_AACBNQ oberlander_m_Page_005.jp2
13d3a2b0363743674ed09bbea6c9c180
a713cbce4f426bc2ac316c1d3c58013e2bb6ac04
1051976 F20101106_AACBOE oberlander_m_Page_031.jp2
53d90b81a5b6cf98c8d05cbf90db856f
e0f400cd5c9e5bc6d86a31f792bb16221ed28676
1051978 F20101106_AACBNR oberlander_m_Page_008.jp2
cda9964e24ca192608f503d7512bc2de
2268e68519194d12abffe63ba2b4f8f114585e80
1051977 F20101106_AACBOF oberlander_m_Page_032.jp2
5c88dd3c5c0c039253023ad925de7fd3
9e09136b657fcfd5205f809bb8d3ce02d4a140da
1051970 F20101106_AACBNS oberlander_m_Page_009.jp2
3e99e3a2b4b8db990bd7af85b6b51f9d
da7237de9109a4ef544d0b8534e97aaa94292e64
F20101106_AACBOG oberlander_m_Page_035.jp2
6cc690d0e6903cf7cf28b209c6c80abc
c9baa6756cbe48e4f9acbf8fe1acf0d5c7b56a15
1051974 F20101106_AACBNT oberlander_m_Page_010.jp2
7c2b0760dd9875e5a673ab0a9fb1c945
87a7a9df3f61660a09d0006eaa4919fbaa52ec5f
806768 F20101106_AACBOH oberlander_m_Page_038.jp2
21c8dddacba5caa151e156a0b32af00f
1743677454e38bc9ecacaf92e3a4db2946f7fbf3
1027651 F20101106_AACBNU oberlander_m_Page_014.jp2
e5ad7db68337021ecdeb463e1c6ed634
8ba30229b85de4c0f184041efc7eec3f19df9102
1051950 F20101106_AACBOI oberlander_m_Page_039.jp2
e3e8d55328074270bcce42f0ff090d2c
811ad2f144059930952b86c1f334fbb3fd9f0336
F20101106_AACBNV oberlander_m_Page_016.jp2
0b385f5a22583041e0b13fec11f37198
c5415807596a45b0815d7f58d0758d34d8d92efb
F20101106_AACBOJ oberlander_m_Page_041.jp2
af17455c7b81cd571963be1ebe7c8cbf
814b1339d0a8ea1338b225380a6de991f47eb165
1051921 F20101106_AACBNW oberlander_m_Page_017.jp2
2d3555c237afc11ccbc8c5fdd8ae2fa1
57efa993e13345401ab374821930cdc9cabea58a
1051975 F20101106_AACBOK oberlander_m_Page_042.jp2
e0a3c311c440b0fbfc3b3062b85b2d51
9b40b32826d0415e8fbad13e509ba05783901317
F20101106_AACBNX oberlander_m_Page_018.jp2
3c9846ce35aa7485f83f5cd9721ddb6e
855a7996d23e7e710a41f5a2bb566248589fb597
1051952 F20101106_AACBOL oberlander_m_Page_043.jp2
7ec6e9935e393616d8fe68d20a656538
ff1f9c4b319e70895949507894eb0b5f256057f6
772736 F20101106_AACBPA oberlander_m_Page_074.jp2
d281866cb16b61160151d21d51015674
d97f649309776c9baba06c3fe8b458928175e2a6
880421 F20101106_AACBOM oberlander_m_Page_046.jp2
b3302737e640b7a1b84da35ab1ddf744
68c84d4a2d1488f57defe47c14b8a1f3e6d749dc
1051983 F20101106_AACBNY oberlander_m_Page_021.jp2
7c204636cf1ca27f7f7c33d566eaf19f
02180ab9ff5085284d5fb1c022b3a77b467800f2
725613 F20101106_AACBPB oberlander_m_Page_079.jp2
ac8edc65544a03a2c362ecc8fc1de30d
7acfc4db7fefce1506ca7cd30e2a3c7bca93a16d
1051954 F20101106_AACBON oberlander_m_Page_047.jp2
8d260d8dc3a188ba05448a9e7d37c417
0f57dce04b8b7c924030030d8f5fc93238a4748b
1051929 F20101106_AACBNZ oberlander_m_Page_022.jp2
6ddc20d24277f6484d5b04709dfe6a66
63c6db83d60482e9870ae02e73537da784deafde
833413 F20101106_AACBPC oberlander_m_Page_080.jp2
06f246438a3bc5ea0bdc9dafa67ed863
950123643e71e98491c1e4e89eaa5efbf40d8b27
1051964 F20101106_AACBOO oberlander_m_Page_048.jp2
8a381ff6ef19531b1b3d2a87afdbdb52
7b06fde3af21abc95afc32ec492261592bc17020
611624 F20101106_AACBPD oberlander_m_Page_082.jp2
c2aa07cf0ee04ad6952ef4e10980144a
55b51449e2e886ada76ea87577a55fa0d8352cd6
1051959 F20101106_AACBOP oberlander_m_Page_050.jp2
581293c5c7a872bcd7bf89e577d19f5c
52a6f57f9d558b2178e12e37190226207fcb7f54
F20101106_AACBPE oberlander_m_Page_088.jp2
48c8e7356d2224280c007f9553b86f47
4a1332480e7be68ea7784996f5174caf093016e6
F20101106_AACBOQ oberlander_m_Page_051.jp2
ddcdbddb6c7f9290694aeca44093a99d
778ad9c1a2f60a29d111f7ff81cfd7cb58fd5aa0
651669 F20101106_AACBPF oberlander_m_Page_089.jp2
02ea9a41e59270ccea0a3e9d9653d14d
57c53757640c1f2e21f0d55592d994b713ae4130
F20101106_AACBOR oberlander_m_Page_056.jp2
d5d61174eae2dc05982d1a46134bf3c8
3450216751b9aff641f82761a0c72a178e2f84d3
604514 F20101106_AACBPG oberlander_m_Page_092.jp2
68db528b55116684422aaf80b44234a5
f63dc64c7e306c27fcee5c116a5bd49f9ccb18ff
1051943 F20101106_AACBOS oberlander_m_Page_057.jp2
9044d13d56cb83c64b3168ee9c81a095
8478ecc006a7fcf53ec4dbd7b509b060476f1305
525467 F20101106_AACBPH oberlander_m_Page_093.jp2
c32cbdd42bbd29e34ee1179234eb8675
f92331cdea73f761c92e60b947f2a1ac99ba5c0f
1051933 F20101106_AACBOT oberlander_m_Page_058.jp2
3f50606e12f93b9a88bdbbf3fe789068
2108d30de92edc45dfc9e282ee3ef2e419c582b5
288363 F20101106_AACBPI oberlander_m_Page_094.jp2
f1c510d452a1fdf555d275d3d7e541a7
5004300271df27e87a26a62cb1e06930244c60c9
1051972 F20101106_AACBOU oberlander_m_Page_060.jp2
415a79b3e0f5c8d0fb3f0e3eed9f6526
5f3cb86febbb9c335b17b8e0bb269435a8e82b81
391549 F20101106_AACBPJ oberlander_m_Page_095.jp2
6f38f7c1b907378c6013341dff9d7ee2
5e9d4b0d136ba29430833615241b3c302862619b
F20101106_AACBOV oberlander_m_Page_066.jp2
ed97b063052855e6fee438566f453b62
f6fbe906a6d5c2d09ee4b2576029ab5748ddc7f1
364123 F20101106_AACBPK oberlander_m_Page_099.jp2
5145c381866af30924ad344006805f14
ae7f563bc95b72a00231b9baa94d898cd733f40f
F20101106_AACBOW oberlander_m_Page_068.jp2
963bf023158a91bc865ee567d3f91f55
5feb19bcffb06c719c9ffa9a891ec6f0ccd9a680
349228 F20101106_AACBPL oberlander_m_Page_100.jp2
47f2963f518e3d5c54ad7eca1b85c9c1
a9103c3346d97a43e875a2fe78c39714505a9c94
1051969 F20101106_AACBOX oberlander_m_Page_070.jp2
247edf53c1bd3f8ae011069cbab0f377
a46e04c6d649706f25da385d0bf73ed5434e5b08
118548 F20101106_AACBQA oberlander_m_Page_120.jp2
ef3bd36ab5496de1bfbf07da088f341c
83fa9e2c680bb85a9e408211d31f9431cab3ebb2
360114 F20101106_AACBPM oberlander_m_Page_102.jp2
761165be80cfa8961c598ae14165d072
4ab1ceeb2a43712ed8b36dd7b54304bfedd8f319
659386 F20101106_AACBOY oberlander_m_Page_071.jp2
ba730d7d4f6a5782bb9be44b73d64dfe
40a129f303344dede986ab86907ba81156d47dea
107349 F20101106_AACBQB oberlander_m_Page_121.jp2
dbad2e5eb025ebcfda9ad30089dc67a8
92ca40b47f00cc7b7c204011c050210d55771057
317104 F20101106_AACBPN oberlander_m_Page_104.jp2
f3d8716dcecea4bd1847a2146d3556de
722f78de1899ce3dfe50ada7f6f5883a706122f6
110328 F20101106_AACBQC oberlander_m_Page_122.jp2
5972955074e9fd73e290eb0dd8467226
221cecbd0ce928aa3ecfe045e3e604cbc8b75c88
324924 F20101106_AACBPO oberlander_m_Page_105.jp2
d419f3d96592abca4d54bc185cb621bb
8e582fdbb69a28f0b574623cf78d65bccb0fc636
513753 F20101106_AACBOZ oberlander_m_Page_073.jp2
c9f58fdc07099cd72db2bd784e7d2852
e252d74661187aca8d7c4c28663eb9af4bc2f7eb
28329 F20101106_AACANA oberlander_m_Page_124.QC.jpg
76b6878ac1353e441d2e495a407c63a9
fff90850c1c02de02416d479bd44a3f4f2431dc6
117072 F20101106_AACBQD oberlander_m_Page_124.jp2
11785bedc3d2329fcf2155438b7df428
4783690846c4ce3d63e5a67dcb163e23eba7bfa2
410558 F20101106_AACBPP oberlander_m_Page_106.jp2
4f3dde8a942f5725ef1f5e6a6951c631
1a5754ce909b84acd2915ed088d7bb7abc1b2ec7
3310 F20101106_AACANB oberlander_m_Page_086thm.jpg
51f7f24a412da188689a8b41fa003bb2
eab998b4a2c5788b675af9398273288c2f820521
7944 F20101106_AACBQE oberlander_m_Page_128.jp2
42067dd0ac56dbe72b2e22434b194763
70d1a7043e4affd9de6c80de3617d2cd1ed115a9
1051984 F20101106_AACBPQ oberlander_m_Page_107.jp2
852f291ae4a98d6c5c5d239ea451af23
fdce3238498e9445c4cdd4b6856d73df36d9da9e
6405 F20101106_AACANC oberlander_m_Page_118thm.jpg
1ba90c665b659d2081667f0d90523fb4
07e8fbbae6b7fdaed35066c8c2bd35184da3f0b4
29691 F20101106_AACBQF oberlander_m_Page_129.jp2
cb61bcbb3d14b8c96e2f5a94bdb14c74
9a9af19302c3d27b124b4286326910b402768034
F20101106_AACBPR oberlander_m_Page_110.jp2
128ddadd282f2afe76a43ac7e8bf637c
1048a88c40c5420bbd4cac6de809fd3468524c17
1051927 F20101106_AACAND oberlander_m_Page_065.jp2
3c7320df02be79e0936e197541277e50
a109c077e7afa8e68ff869d5a72730304271ce3d
120800 F20101106_AACBQG oberlander_m_Page_130.jp2
9685cd7469fa2ecb273ad4c4fd14f53c
c0b03cacd89f5be26eaa1acb653b7f255da9f0ff
118974 F20101106_AACBPS oberlander_m_Page_111.jp2
fbdc8a5e7df018f81429ae98ec223219
a7c1625293f402b495c339c3b1652c39d83cd2a5
42054 F20101106_AACANE oberlander_m_Page_150.jpg
b0a79495e65649faf639d6c02c8b7cac
23765312beebb02ada59d30f977312735c69b0bf
126708 F20101106_AACBQH oberlander_m_Page_131.jp2
7cd13d7a70305f52c6f4aab963cdd962
812229c63528abea93b22ac0a2b2dbd08374d50e
116752 F20101106_AACBPT oberlander_m_Page_112.jp2
521078fcb5314eeafd4a1b8c8f03b246
7267d6afa0a7997b536bda168f206081406cdb8c
1892 F20101106_AACANF oberlander_m_Page_074.txt
a8f2de2972f5e19193bfd27768f68d1d
8eac4febd1e817748f9bc4e862cff0d1d02adebc
6179 F20101106_AACBQI oberlander_m_Page_133.jp2
d4ecbf9f825b6efba7a8514d33b848a3
e43cf575992eac319ba2124af151c32355be0414
113453 F20101106_AACBPU oberlander_m_Page_113.jp2
6af710640db7eafbbe8854efa1cd9330
988642fd9a1ba334620d368be190a31a383a42b9
94434 F20101106_AACANG oberlander_m_Page_119.jpg
e93577a4932ade82e70c407d7b0520ad
463880fab8f27bd10a65d5bd534aad88967354a0
127014 F20101106_AACBPV oberlander_m_Page_114.jp2
d2256179b3b454cae3b00f959033570a
b91a088e9f4ff262bff6034c00caf2d4c738b2f1
29070 F20101106_AACANH oberlander_m_Page_049.QC.jpg
6f5726b1a07756eeed6c7faa02ca1ab7
118c25c98eafd15dc18819f194232a0f6da2542e
111187 F20101106_AACBQJ oberlander_m_Page_134.jp2
3296ca3c7148e6e39d0b67f9d61ecd85
fd4ff4e00cf3baaa96b5f0d3b674cd938432b906
1051932 F20101106_AACBPW oberlander_m_Page_115.jp2
4d058f29a350ff74721826111137975f
a08c9cc162873e5dc72e03d8f233db153b8cc361
28650 F20101106_AACANI oberlander_m_Page_026.QC.jpg
11fad2122a35881256b8f1ab4a48121f
5100fc2e1057e1efb1a29260b4b5e32d25277f85
89946 F20101106_AACBQK oberlander_m_Page_135.jp2
379fedeed9be4110a3801e69bb09a769
7d74a64222c5e79433e35d179082c0ed8b0dbd0f
121853 F20101106_AACBPX oberlander_m_Page_117.jp2
5fce1860883084b28adcb239e301db64
09c2519102eddbba9bbd847fb7045e7fb9405051
1265 F20101106_AACANJ oberlander_m_Page_019.txt
7d95e25b13fa03dc433b972a25985e03
ab9460b39fa8d8759f921d6f92fd6c4add8084e2
57578 F20101106_AACBQL oberlander_m_Page_137.jp2
3402b508cc51ff1be30dbb72a7225a37
1e0702df5b00508c8562e41540fe45d4b2f6ea90
119002 F20101106_AACBPY oberlander_m_Page_118.jp2
a2b2e0d5b4ff74888ea93bf8c734cb9e
529818fca422179988ee66a68fa336fb2f8164cc
104261 F20101106_AACBRA oberlander_m_Page_156.jp2
d28846f53e9d9933a702457bba4b4f28
467b5d676db9c411a515e4de43535a4a9b353abd
3756 F20101106_AACANK oberlander_m_Page_005.txt
425f013f904a09c13f8e3ab745cf1f0c
3879110bed7124762c2d8b23ee964f4fa5bc72fc
78879 F20101106_AACBQM oberlander_m_Page_138.jp2
ae62117ab9780c89cb1c72d240b962b5
e7ded5085d2d5c7929dcdba7f46d582cf68d6bf5
121521 F20101106_AACBPZ oberlander_m_Page_119.jp2
3138a5a6731501c48bb91259e71e5ae8
bda4651adc47e5c940bf4662133ecaf494647bd4
87545 F20101106_AACBRB oberlander_m_Page_157.jp2
0cd569555349588ef26eeb9a0add1f15
7f7092b25dbfc606a80825f6851d75391d886be1
27815 F20101106_AACANL oberlander_m_Page_020.QC.jpg
b1e863906eb5f2db0a12904a681265e0
102583b6b9a62914c9fa3d66b31bd2999d59fe78
94515 F20101106_AACBQN oberlander_m_Page_139.jp2
e9e95ffa0d1a59db5625d5f4c32c3b2b
94c846576b4d712d2284d5ed563805f63571df46
2330 F20101106_AACAOA oberlander_m_Page_130.txt
4a710c283b4ffb1411c6de367dd5a652
11670453c5619d63ba7422520555cc702928d6bc
9529 F20101106_AACBRC oberlander_m_Page_159.jp2
f1afe3a50606f4afc64449bcf094dffb
0e9222313261441e502dec4cf35128735c05314e
26456 F20101106_AACANM oberlander_m_Page_143.jpg
18fc015de1e72fb61d6d1b855bbd16de
c465ba7e7509e052bb81e8179585c983247448c4
108851 F20101106_AACBQO oberlander_m_Page_140.jp2
75e78c5cc1e4f79e9885335f6317f551
3f54a2d903a42c4744c5f6f14ddffab6f9acdc9f
1384 F20101106_AACAOB oberlander_m_Page_082.txt
0b721d3b3b4fec0555850bbca73aac7c
48384018277c1a7b92cda1b17e928e1fb98bf1a3
158922 F20101106_AACBRD oberlander_m_Page_163.jp2
ea55106f88761443ecc2c1f93d17d537
a52d6b5826004f2197bc2dffd11eab68f71fff4f
11129 F20101106_AACANN oberlander_m_Page_103.QC.jpg
e3c9bd7e764b92a67e0ef79eddc0bf7a
a9855653908d3304515346879c9dd90ebbfc89c8
92737 F20101106_AACBQP oberlander_m_Page_141.jp2
03cfcda3184708d5e6dd54cf8d3ab8bf
61aa1354ab33d0583c5dd78e72b3f8cedd1ffafa
90177 F20101106_AACAMZ oberlander_m_Page_182.jpg
ffa1f8aeda21253a89c7d67124334bc6
6b2182e300e82447197f1a3d5cb76164f6469000
86049 F20101106_AACAOC oberlander_m_Page_057.jpg
e83ce85a6dbee3174558a43108d4a742
9988d9e476a755eeb5343bbbc0bd1c8b6ffc13fa
5387 F20101106_AACBRE oberlander_m_Page_164.jp2
fca42c730ce3f42f770701fddd896717
b7654dfa77eb58473ae81118421a2491d2d65afa
25271604 F20101106_AACANO oberlander_m_Page_049.tif
f2cdad273f71a3d58f930639409adc3f
dc869fb4ba237227b1daeecd6303bad1a843b543
5488 F20101106_AACBQQ oberlander_m_Page_142.jp2
fca3bd89e22b55563f83a382546f0ff7
ecee60cf56eb3393382dd6f439f8297124b1200b
1051923 F20101106_AACBRF oberlander_m_Page_165.jp2
7959df48b097e334bf273c77cecddf7c
626080f433c826f9ef65081f41b7a54a9722ae5c
F20101106_AACAOD oberlander_m_Page_054.jp2
86ec3b6b3a745265684941c6da78073d
ff079961089790df4bc784b4301583db2d6e8642
F20101106_AACANP oberlander_m_Page_064.jp2
235dd0887191191f624d935b3b4312eb
68cddf0542c4a6d2b819d648dcbac8eb71041ee8
64088 F20101106_AACBQR oberlander_m_Page_145.jp2
aed3d3dc128c4cbbd52e97b4e65b91f5
76c09bebe0d8022435e87ccb465909c329f05e35
125955 F20101106_AACBRG oberlander_m_Page_166.jp2
da3a2b3138dca05c2fd04ba6f6a7649f
674690638066d22139c4378cda4e9b84650e4ddf
1051922 F20101106_AACAOE oberlander_m_Page_030.jp2
00cc2d49a2e207b5ebfdf21b479e39d9
789c355ff441bdd29a566cffb4960931e6e24d06
4418 F20101106_AACANQ oberlander_m_Page_139.txt
e9e2ff5b957dfc86109695db86f9fb0f
92badfed139af6e257ed21bfd67ff698c33b34e6
111350 F20101106_AACBQS oberlander_m_Page_146.jp2
69f4e76404e07f1ec97224607c7e651e
01e09045de97df9d3e61e42767a03c570b8bd41f
118175 F20101106_AACBRH oberlander_m_Page_167.jp2
f81a64d3939d44899cff755eee0f14f3
35bb6a019bf7fc86d7dc51ec11467efc0a9a6a9f
94210 F20101106_AACAOF oberlander_m_Page_056.jpg
52e74d26913661b80aa05922b2564207
56d3707a7aaba66c5b84eb4b6f4c9d1c30609e4b
15383 F20101106_AACANR oberlander_m_Page_045.pro
23c63c5d9cb26da8d38d331c33b869df
2629f5772ad9d46b2af5b7d3afff9551360a243f
74786 F20101106_AACBQT oberlander_m_Page_147.jp2
e7dbe6caf9e65ff1adbf5fadb3425001
22432664ed4bc3c0e754a7fa2624ed67c975645e
41165 F20101106_AACBRI oberlander_m_Page_168.jp2
e0121a29ce76a67c857b04659498d95a
c54ae03a919b28f2ebff90368da553ce402cf66b
F20101106_AACAOG oberlander_m_Page_032.tif
636157e1adc1193301d4f09605104ef7
1ea647ec96aa8ad466d8a9de57d4a2d5553740b8
102174 F20101106_AACANS oberlander_m_Page_006.pro
1648f61908ba8e303eeb112e5e0b1720
80390d0c33d7d0ba9bcc7f4128d7c1d0506e935a
109081 F20101106_AACBQU oberlander_m_Page_149.jp2
041f5889a4294b2c8e18c70616ffaafa
d1c16c0a6c56207d420d01665d39bc1c906a00e1
43555 F20101106_AACBRJ oberlander_m_Page_169.jp2
cfc710e8b4f006e42f0bc643e568c174
d80ffe7ff5be58648deb967734b0e42176737876
1051860 F20101106_AACAOH oberlander_m_Page_061.jp2
222b9b019ad24eb1281a5b353091334c
f4699dd8034d3223e7c9ff9ab411efef80143689
1970 F20101106_AACANT oberlander_m_Page_162.txt
98b29fedf9283fda870989a5cab9f041
55211f05a74038c33bf12ab2c9b0086acc7dd6fb
130386 F20101106_AACBQV oberlander_m_Page_151.jp2
6f484605978b9ec58ecc714393d48523
bd8ecad25ba833ef031c1cc18ff1746dcbc8e7ef
83085 F20101106_AACBRK oberlander_m_Page_170.jp2
66eb8eb04ed711fa552584d2dbd89825
891a9e0fd4040c068d76bd0761acf88daa959399
5046 F20101106_AACAOI oberlander_m_Page_160.jp2
d9e3d9a616210f54a5c8393bf862528f
1232532faa49bfd0813c946075cec36d812f12c8
2180 F20101106_AACANU oberlander_m_Page_055.txt
05f1f83b3e40c3e70f5b849574bab831
3da8c76a77d61c5656ae3d6b8255f058734a9489
69193 F20101106_AACBQW oberlander_m_Page_152.jp2
79f35b9e60ea81fd10ee03072b3be43f
70a2250f0ae63c8afb0e7595633e1b62390f1221
53476 F20101106_AACBRL oberlander_m_Page_171.jp2
5dbd35cb95b849574abdf4091c01809d
ec7eb070f7409b07e33bcabba0690c91b629b740
302250 F20101106_AACAOJ oberlander_m_Page_001.jp2
9a516bd1315ad45336247b9842d7e747
b5fc36907f69464f71c9d3948c232344ba1d45f0
31211 F20101106_AACANV oberlander_m_Page_090.pro
895abe3c52e06d961360f3bc933c97d3
68a7a4f3d563dd6d25df19e1d46952f170f31fd6
5526 F20101106_AACBQX oberlander_m_Page_153.jp2
1e421c52d9c2c76d2f382244b3328dae
0eec74b6f2aa14ac5c0ca913154c640f8db4f9d6
F20101106_AACBSA oberlander_m_Page_008.tif
531f9c2f1dd2846533579be384eae162
c40989dec30735f10b78cc8c21980ee25166faf9
133891 F20101106_AACBRM oberlander_m_Page_172.jp2
5493af2d56ac3dda780202d060ae26af
c685953a2336fb8ea1f3248d37b26bce7fe8a496
31162 F20101106_AACAOK oberlander_m_Page_089.pro
e72eaa0fda84d435b93d6a83afa68f52
cbe247d4a2e9b6c1a2e4078f4d524fa4e4dd1f4d
3713 F20101106_AACANW oberlander_m_Page_173thm.jpg
ba29d24a775c2d7ce3ee637c9274d843
1599b5a2f02066e1f9d1f16419790511a30eaf07
126668 F20101106_AACBQY oberlander_m_Page_154.jp2
39e3bb70c5ea00a51f3452372388cfcd
6968c369583f511212cb4d0cb87d107b9074b6a4
F20101106_AACBSB oberlander_m_Page_010.tif
1e3ac7ae31409b8c9dda2df66a7b1df0
795457358418134c07987a5ac297c8d8515fd78e
142160 F20101106_AACBRN oberlander_m_Page_174.jp2
ef1b65b3b214f3a75974e7eb631c6dcb
47c3e4760681e1110a3a6a410195704e71193db3
43357 F20101106_AACAOL oberlander_m_Page_157.jpg
3f76c7f8e9b07bbd271361f5868ec46d
7999c2e4b77b53b5e0d0d0f61fd95f79487e80a6
28438 F20101106_AACANX oberlander_m_Page_051.QC.jpg
f66a37b76c2401767bf22cfd765e73af
90f0f2f75ab2dbee11bc0fd3a9b1d44330081a9a
37472 F20101106_AACBQZ oberlander_m_Page_155.jp2
b3d5ee806b2e196ef00eae96606309ff
46244b96a5afd2cc42ba7c5fb42723edb91ab388
F20101106_AACBSC oberlander_m_Page_011.tif
f35cda79e3243d5da76499531bb6052b
d024884fb521745ef8a57b878c1fddf5dbdfd8da
5586 F20101106_AACBRO oberlander_m_Page_175.jp2
e19309e262e8380b7d2f7aae3740f88d
1bf365b60cb7436b060955034c2f7b610d17deb1
F20101106_AACAPA oberlander_m_Page_044.tif
33174de4ffdc5e9b844ffc1c7d6cfb93
457f52910d530d199f67d800698330bc2371fd36
1129 F20101106_AACAOM oberlander_m_Page_099.txt
b167dbfda5a27cccff32acc102417869
0724b59f93d551c37af75efddc495b2156a65402
22119 F20101106_AACANY oberlander_m_Page_106.pro
fa4189fae582a374e3f361d0f96bfe2c
769496fd65a63456dc5e1cb7fed29572b797e5de
F20101106_AACBSD oberlander_m_Page_013.tif
6acf0879feff9c900da6cfaeae3b917b
4c9d343b34a29723d5d0789c35141034a1a701d8
103876 F20101106_AACBRP oberlander_m_Page_176.jp2
70752cc658467775f3e3d61cecdf2e6e
30a8f2e3acf77c08255b090aae534787681868fc
25339 F20101106_AACAPB oberlander_m_Page_186.pro
dcb8a27f52be848d7cfcf823d6cc1b89
3102cadec785c44884f28236410f501b5c033ff0
2087 F20101106_AACAON oberlander_m_Page_016.txt
591c23df251b47efa1896f700cf4e206
bbe3113497a0acb1ce87c167252be9064f4a7b0b
F20101106_AACBSE oberlander_m_Page_016.tif
36db4c1efd3908d5ecde99b53bfe8746
ff8116971242e3001795b8ce7237b70e590e8a8d
76229 F20101106_AACBRQ oberlander_m_Page_177.jp2
b719e84cf112d73a0843b8178680ad27
39d1a04fc208c6e5f2a61c494a2b4c876063da36
6467 F20101106_AACAPC oberlander_m_Page_042thm.jpg
ee1b8c2caa3c23fc55cda0120f48f03c
d83f62f1f6c9a1aed68bc6fb53128454485ee85a
14945 F20101106_AACAOO oberlander_m_Page_183.pro
192477008e9ce3b2bcd75f9a61753360
fa067f8c93ebb9bc0992d78f8e576a2c7f1bfff1
27274 F20101106_AACANZ oberlander_m_Page_113.QC.jpg
e6a72d5bac2db72125668b00bf43a99a
4532d5fdcf75fb2a9c1476f6d319d645b772ced8
F20101106_AACBSF oberlander_m_Page_017.tif
caabc95105b8596a0f2f8a37bb47a03d
55bb904732adf5a7672e3daf31caff3ab2633045
956543 F20101106_AACBRR oberlander_m_Page_180.jp2
77bba684e884abec8f681ad8c088d893
10a8aa5d772fb69106b7ceecbc7d44b25f972d5a
290054 F20101106_AACAPD oberlander_m_Page_013.jp2
5c6b91fef99b2daa03e1f79f54d3e107
d01d98189b5e87c2ca3f63f42ee668905fe0c8a5
F20101106_AACAOP oberlander_m_Page_035.tif
118dc7e43c0aa72e2c6d4a8775aebe9b
4709e3898ad6c6b952bd1f4ff2a9b50a35a73bce
F20101106_AACBSG oberlander_m_Page_018.tif
a522a3460db97f716522e48c97719f60
1b78414cc1390d47bd0116bdb9951801971b37b8
1051958 F20101106_AACBRS oberlander_m_Page_181.jp2
b15009b9dbc1a89f0214e22bfa96365b
64415b99364a900e4f9a7da71a4f091e5d4d8b32
35404 F20101106_AACAPE oberlander_m_Page_150.pro
4d1d04157cdec109fda599488a15bda6
04c209495975b4017669c0a17ffb8e5fd3fb5654
1114 F20101106_AACAOQ oberlander_m_Page_012.txt
4833dbd7f880e34851f0db7e017d679a
20bb56eca606fc75c5185dee9c3ee47340b40ffa
F20101106_AACBSH oberlander_m_Page_020.tif
01dfe3cc78b81f08988924a9e27717b9
3333b59cec333135a51a209b4d52b7af50cf8d84
1051925 F20101106_AACBRT oberlander_m_Page_182.jp2
6b3ce4ef3343fa358bf28274fb3edf45
130a66f18cf9bd38ab4ef3850b78aa642b553658
6903 F20101106_AACAPF oberlander_m_Page_115thm.jpg
7d6106b78c94367aec1a1d25f2ee2924
938c06c05f19ed2672763a954a60ff9a17353b72
1051953 F20101106_AACAOR oberlander_m_Page_069.jp2
1116f335e7c33ae8c6826342d7574b4d
832db2e60aff32ef90c9f51823ddff25a586e073
F20101106_AACBSI oberlander_m_Page_021.tif
38de7fca83df3a6d97355ade4c9fbd84
b6f20dc02bc0f5dd6c616f6411c5e81d28bdb491
1051967 F20101106_AACBRU oberlander_m_Page_184.jp2
dccb5bc693a7e715bd158de9941ba9ac
fdef6737787d55a6bb339536bf6146f91f7bb8ed
6393 F20101106_AACAPG oberlander_m_Page_050thm.jpg
15d72d956cdb9792f1789a0735418096
0d535cc852918b9886524fe5bbdf86ccf50df715
36970 F20101106_AACAOS oberlander_m_Page_077.jpg
3e39431ef69d1608dcbe1be3fb35082d
9471c067043fb79b17321199a37f2571cccd4ece
F20101106_AACBSJ oberlander_m_Page_023.tif
09fb305da78d6e57b39da50f19f31b3a
44f46147ffa40dd400a611e78908e6ee650de1c6
F20101106_AACBRV oberlander_m_Page_185.jp2
a550ece91abdaa4265132d5ff47a6159
b478e23cdb67af4e07dc25f6608b2cadcc54450a
2587 F20101106_AACAPH oberlander_m_Page_003.QC.jpg
799a24766d407fd8865773c063058004
b4f445c5c12a476677f061f78f120c55143bb2ee
12971 F20101106_AACAOT oberlander_m_Page_094.pro
12ec9e118951b267a7d48ee5185df5d4
feb548b92627baa00dc5b3423f7994933440415a
F20101106_AACBSK oberlander_m_Page_025.tif
8de971448f75bcf7a2807371d489be6d
cfb1e4eb25893759487586bb16084a24ebd4b953
597533 F20101106_AACBRW oberlander_m_Page_186.jp2
949ba4fb2e33587b08b679fd91322c05
c484c56d01bfd06a81c57322a31f06e0d030b54c
51986 F20101106_AACAPI oberlander_m_Page_036.pro
385b338526e1a6e95531789d8cc1978f
e952ca3312502bb79316405421517d2807c67d56
89655 F20101106_AACAOU oberlander_m_Page_029.jpg
c1bc451b3a83ace334885e56b60ba47b
606836e5c62bf4f76898d2152b5b8eac6e26b17e
F20101106_AACBSL oberlander_m_Page_027.tif
3d2b366db705a17d6850e58e15840535
9cf214f028dbd0aa9d887c5150c6fb7951a6ea77
F20101106_AACBRX oberlander_m_Page_001.tif
9ac797afed6639cf2a269da5879b9ece
b2e7574ab8f545c6bab956c4b01188d4048dbcf7
1053954 F20101106_AACAPJ oberlander_m_Page_159.tif
846b319652a6646b22670651f5439552
21b4a842d472dcb45e65b6ae4c66f5ab6781ed70
87009 F20101106_AACAOV oberlander_m_Page_016.jpg
7c0dff26f0cf0372bd2262674cbc4f23
498cbfefd6618ec6b7c6621d73bc74e0aaf6b01b
F20101106_AACBTA oberlander_m_Page_061.tif
af857526a5d3e9b8c55571298d2c20e3
271c50cef7b896f41ae11ee021a5c76fdbfc66b1
F20101106_AACBSM oberlander_m_Page_028.tif
c211354777e88a256456ffe46aae7edc
eb3d895bf5e70e7a7289b5a9fbe8f8e668d6a3d7
F20101106_AACBRY oberlander_m_Page_003.tif
5ed3c2c135f0ff16f089bdfcb0c78858
36ced54cf622e8afc6ed8a01d5adb72c9274e312
10414 F20101106_AACAPK oberlander_m_Page_077.QC.jpg
881ab8e8df6520e93caed1c631fb5af7
6285287913e9d43d2cda779c151fd3c072bfac96
2033 F20101106_AACAOW oberlander_m_Page_057.txt
4f8dc6e67857c3b79079efe0fc97b5ed
e1fe0cd32c5097970d70ec4a2156a8324950c8b1
F20101106_AACBTB oberlander_m_Page_062.tif
b887965b6885a52c47ca47fd2cee0176
d8177eb335dea7d082daad9b7ebed0bd5d97e46b
F20101106_AACBSN oberlander_m_Page_029.tif
bcd89c9dc86e7ff088da597b412bee22
b973adce12f79f1d39b6560b0ad622ebba24a89a
F20101106_AACBRZ oberlander_m_Page_007.tif
658818d8ea723625fe4a4d953e68183c
62bb9cee5cb711ab6acfaef0c26d796479c0eb3a
38701 F20101106_AACAPL oberlander_m_Page_074.jpg
328c9e5bc3283952e3061d7979da4971
ebc49926574b208a4920c4772ec696dbdd88ba3d
99603 F20101106_AACAOX oberlander_m_Page_022.jpg
73629f90086e1697539e5c9dcdca395c
f36cd86bec2164cdacb717fc318f14c0a83de113
F20101106_AACBTC oberlander_m_Page_063.tif
682c43334cf711a4c15c37da9d106ebc
e920780705cdb04921172b0099dce68cf66f4b1c
F20101106_AACBSO oberlander_m_Page_030.tif
559c37f1dbf0ba706de80cf60360f50a
5631fa3c8d47b1d96e6943323a5311fdc9158530
21003 F20101106_AACAPM oberlander_m_Page_091.jpg
b69488ffd4e1a4846cc2333ef959b05e
c3f9e0bce08986647f0068292ba9a9714634be0f
2514 F20101106_AACAOY oberlander_m_Page_170.txt
d2ec909fd3b57d2da35b04a9619b7e1d
9ca61a5fb0bcb9f7a5f2df818cd8f0cada7f959a
711587 F20101106_AACAQA oberlander_m_Page_078.jp2
ca7090de4f94ee5dd6db0f5402a5dfba
666fec438f5214be562a3bfbe283f79a31dbce19
F20101106_AACBTD oberlander_m_Page_066.tif
e25dff19aeb81d8e30311006dc8275cf
dceae5df4e60e5418a539fdf40c524d4c01dea73
F20101106_AACBSP oberlander_m_Page_034.tif
0b079715cfd82d0d183f0ddbbd2eedcd
ca664ed2cc4b948d09d67f54e7f1fb556616de83
F20101106_AACAPN oberlander_m_Page_006.jp2
edadfd76ebd9ab9db79da8583f7fa035
e2fafb0afd85f14906133e16d66e3e1ec10cee99
25265604 F20101106_AACAOZ oberlander_m_Page_079.tif
7966ebad6646295e8547abc9efec2dce
d3f83271cd828a0515519e29cd929f5046bb6060
1885 F20101106_AACAQB oberlander_m_Page_096thm.jpg
9f45c60ef08b30f8feaecd3790e6accd
2da4f68d6c013f6ffaedec25f892cd6592a5449b
F20101106_AACBTE oberlander_m_Page_067.tif
4f087ad1c52e83ffbc2ee4fbd6eab0af
29fd844a01191d508282fd0ce9a69c694f7f3cef
F20101106_AACBSQ oberlander_m_Page_039.tif
a50af462390974b049ccfc1250131eb1
66039fa8d91077e634835da594be472326a06e2e
F20101106_AACAPO oberlander_m_Page_074.tif
6b9cd13f1b8fe36c4ada4bf9146108cd
0dccd0faf9e077afc98992be4755f05fe7a016ae
2009 F20101106_AACAQC oberlander_m_Page_034.txt
66bd8238f172a7da593708b21902435a
931db333532d384284e685c3c117d8558b7f1f68
F20101106_AACBTF oberlander_m_Page_068.tif
c2888cf0e50bdbf57495f4b75789ef27
df740ef4861f430215a779d6420b00ddef16878a
F20101106_AACBSR oberlander_m_Page_040.tif
e93f4eed68054f897c30763aa4e1e450
6011f894c4119d7a4813bfdc1ea17e81cb516579
1043 F20101106_AACAPP oberlander_m_Page_186.txt
7c53722577acec006516325f12994059
e5312d4a4269fed6893490cf0d92d76523a1522a
1913 F20101106_AACAQD oberlander_m_Page_014.txt
0e5c06acf2fc4311c7c60c91da618ae6
fcc2f18983792e1559749791f8746ae1c6b88c3a
F20101106_AACBTG oberlander_m_Page_069.tif
9761a37ca067e013ca9c07aa52c4d6bc
168a7ebcf79468f9e2b5b752a1c22fbdec2c2d44
F20101106_AACBSS oberlander_m_Page_041.tif
554ba8a9ff5e027122f2aa02858cc47a
3e2f627ba1fdaa1afcb0809a2cf6f049ceb023c2
24165 F20101106_AACAPQ oberlander_m_Page_181.QC.jpg
563e0146a4256a41f1e2fc527d913692
8824f3c99aa7e2846b3b12278e4495e0744c1d9f
18307 F20101106_AACAQE oberlander_m_Page_098.jpg
49289879ddf755cad1d7419b4cad581a
889c38d279ec265d33e50351b09a8a64ca94e2b9
F20101106_AACBTH oberlander_m_Page_070.tif
db0eab391a2bf79775f0d0c6f141f17c
6e39e8477f74d32048c050386aaee50adc0672de
F20101106_AACBST oberlander_m_Page_042.tif
310e6923cb1d3a96d99b3577a5939ba9
0f1fbd4a67309beb014174f6a9bccd4e4ea51fcc
33139 F20101106_AACAPR oberlander_m_Page_012.jpg
7a412b7ed999d77108b42825bb0f6a2c
901fbe766520504acbfb662ec0d64ff58d0a174f
90043 F20101106_AACAQF oberlander_m_Page_120.jpg
6a22d0b4055f3621bc5c5c591686af61
b57b4051f5cb2ce2e7350af5176c5a715f1572ef
F20101106_AACBTI oberlander_m_Page_071.tif
c7a8c4b9a389ca22fbf0fabd0a93e8e0
3c5852a4079bf3909cd1ffa58956fb34bcb9b9d8
F20101106_AACBSU oberlander_m_Page_045.tif
2d1afccafbd41a2046f45cd60efc94ff
4271abd384ee80248a488eee6e76d2cdef6b9a04
131042 F20101106_AACAPS oberlander_m_Page_173.jp2
b37f9a78c275f65ca88f70c910d3e63b
00c663f7fe32aa4e3a51cf82a4e36a5bdd2f4c7f
6578 F20101106_AACAQG oberlander_m_Page_029thm.jpg
dec6a8d595eff2a400be32b1c4551a60
8a888db8dbc0147f10883139f773ee64dfab7d2e
F20101106_AACBTJ oberlander_m_Page_072.tif
6ede7b7fee114aee0d98ef0ec0c9c2e0
38fe82111f0fbaa2135337a0351ca3a8292439c4
F20101106_AACBSV oberlander_m_Page_050.tif
bf3a6aa5e62fb08740e65b44922f6d52
e867bbfc4cf41f46b41f214ef69fc1b7edb63681
21978 F20101106_AACAPT oberlander_m_Page_132.pro
362f384b16b345a7717116b5efe386f1
e589ad7b2a5723964d5ee5caec8334c5858fd4a6
7302 F20101106_AACAQH oberlander_m_Page_183.QC.jpg
c0f6512ae2f51f4a34594729efb5f6aa
ce2d362607a5fe2a1f988d3336e1f05836825ea2
F20101106_AACBTK oberlander_m_Page_073.tif
a552014eabeb226eba439982af0c4235
1dd0a80b4fd7e770044c0d50e43b795b2be46e5c
F20101106_AACBSW oberlander_m_Page_051.tif
16a89b900eb8579ac7e39235e9aebd3d
5ca63f59a87a14de5f9658f2051e95ab750eead4
671007 F20101106_AACAPU oberlander_m_Page_076.jp2
b79d0d82e954549373b89170b8c3c59f
7d1dc5808c558edc449cb2b0bd26f69e9777c1b1
97539 F20101106_AACAQI oberlander_m_Page_009.jpg
e29bac388a213f280558993aa7822369
629b47f811d4772129a082884a3796a966395fd0
F20101106_AACBTL oberlander_m_Page_076.tif
2a19ad4ab44a49eae9aa2820757d7c47
65db2b9e41faecf7486f8049afa6fd9a185d3875
F20101106_AACBSX oberlander_m_Page_052.tif
d9db837322b00ff2cbae50c9368739b3
4337b6e0665d15ebc0ad65540a92f44d8fe6e125
87633 F20101106_AACAPV oberlander_m_Page_060.jpg
737e12f57c4cb083300e9eb27897a0bb
51ce95604c1be10d7eee7bf33b34c4f9fcebf3bf
F20101106_AACAQJ oberlander_m_Page_110.tif
6eaaea2a90cd9b741b175a970742001b
09f9486f41e854f42508887b2f541b64fa70b7a5
F20101106_AACBUA oberlander_m_Page_111.tif
67ab654f582fae79af45a283bf5f786c
30e0c76ffb59b9208cf6c0aaaf21853611e0b743
F20101106_AACBTM oberlander_m_Page_081.tif
1e0da58c94fc7bfa1fdfd150a2bc0400
b9127a99fe3044a7760e5d52673d5d5139365123
F20101106_AACBSY oberlander_m_Page_053.tif
8070b813b321438092791fe4e261f2b2
982c7da0ca9f6f1fbfb3119a32891fe02f4a2b54
99000 F20101106_AACAPW oberlander_m_Page_026.jpg
54b1e2ce637ca6ca69d2b0d4d2f58f39
09a2189a3d5120e6f2788f785e8f4a6b6d1a3b25
14294 F20101106_AACAQK oberlander_m_Page_166.QC.jpg
bb2524125d178e7d833bdc3112e17db1
b024652e3f3b240e15b2a66b5d40045b4cca60c1
F20101106_AACBUB oberlander_m_Page_112.tif
f463bc820696b6ec528f1a5b54f279dd
f4ad25d0e0195e9172189b4f955599e669a9edb6
F20101106_AACBTN oberlander_m_Page_085.tif
efd6b837b22cf256e29d188b3c940a35
65a3d5d4cf2bede82a4eb82782054dc40dd6969a
F20101106_AACBSZ oberlander_m_Page_060.tif
0d3614f9ea3df2483f845d75b2775b67
40dfaea08cfe12661ee753444eb2d7c1fedc5600
72170 F20101106_AACAQL oberlander_m_Page_174.jpg
ffd871862fca5633e0dcdb794e1e3657
a5c3e0451f75ca90f1546405b05f2edec57e6c3e
686701 F20101106_AACAPX oberlander_m_Page_103.jp2
267c443f4feeef1ce9d875c57a3cb5cd
2d942b11660da47832006bc4ed7da61d2bf081ca
F20101106_AACBUC oberlander_m_Page_113.tif
dae91673bf1b713301a3f78b2f4bfbc3
7e26fbc5ee71abd530819f012325305d796661e9
F20101106_AACBTO oberlander_m_Page_087.tif
299e2d6119ba9c8e361d98016dd30ae0
e62c99b5518c9313dcb8b747fff1b1ad8bca7f1c
13286 F20101106_AACARA oberlander_m_Page_176.QC.jpg
fcd2ee6c62f9d4f09de3f836ee4ce2ca
0a9d392d8fa0e44fb08f556701be8f7d45238751
1320 F20101106_AACAQM oberlander_m_Page_145.txt
f1e15f05589b31965cf69b86967ddfed
93d5c5b06d559b46dd5ac98338e1be0d659945cb
27838 F20101106_AACAPY oberlander_m_Page_042.QC.jpg
d66ae802e351cedc5fe4166862621568
2aa740272c4d47e36a3edf3b0669e844da8d7334
F20101106_AACBUD oberlander_m_Page_116.tif
b664aa73fcbf13242c036bb2e3a7c683
3a416e2a4e91fd5d866ee33f70065ea83d9ebde7
F20101106_AACBTP oberlander_m_Page_089.tif
f3bb47bc0cca86f017b87c959ba12d08
4cb51e97c05fa46d7745eef90033f896ab0ceae0
64175 F20101106_AACARB oberlander_m_Page_162.jp2
2a3dcb4a0d7a45e48267dbc113d2edd4
97056f4287d7e01e2e559da22fe6f9498cadbf71
491316 F20101106_AACAQN oberlander_m_Page_075.jp2
6ba9f92382cabf104ce2ba30a2b2ed88
b109d662ffbcc1a16fb640b733d2afbd9ea367eb
13942 F20101106_AACAPZ oberlander_m_Page_130.QC.jpg
004629ec99130e42c5366463bee387c0
08afe46fa88e850cc41986dfc082ae55998ea778
F20101106_AACBUE oberlander_m_Page_117.tif
815af38313fcaa5810bc2af5d0b41074
9f07d2b2b31cfd9f7f8b31e8ee06578d8856c00b
F20101106_AACBTQ oberlander_m_Page_090.tif
82492efc0c0aa93f6f4e40b86703c2cb
2ae0e4eea30c99550ebb5decac23fc9505da38db
29542 F20101106_AACARC oberlander_m_Page_184.QC.jpg
d203ef6492a738e462d9b01877ba009c
ed76db4e85ff668488291c65e6dd782107a441db
3416 F20101106_AACAQO oberlander_m_Page_151thm.jpg
f73017ce4db40dde91a4748a13d39582
9975126417b3297afdad6958eb3bb0044ad05f25
2068 F20101106_AACCAA oberlander_m_Page_025.txt
613a21cf430f54ada88e84a782e6ca98
88f75c82b49302f1eaa15ab1ac0bcd238f35eb0a
F20101106_AACBUF oberlander_m_Page_118.tif
f7ce73b2ee6fee0febdf76c7d9c807f8
e2dbf2099fca84cb85b4387f3427ee12dc07d0b5
F20101106_AACBTR oberlander_m_Page_091.tif
ab2b46dc82b3d5fdebd7ed989f32a029
d5b93222ec74c7bd892cb110e8a79fc6382aeb1d
F20101106_AACARD oberlander_m_Page_125.tif
2d00f4f6411bf243714faf26824a4b36
083b0b2f12c00914b2bdff1ef23ecd98492e34d7
53360 F20101106_AACAQP oberlander_m_Page_031.pro
9e74f0abab45601c642924df674679f4
c1af38ba1343d6d5e3e34bfb9132c665e3932816
2432 F20101106_AACCAB oberlander_m_Page_026.txt
daf35160a7c72ad47c752a539e71c0e0
d1d3e029992bbe719325dd4bb1cb8b8fa69bad21
F20101106_AACBUG oberlander_m_Page_119.tif
f79c00f4192759793907b6e4a2895848
e033882a9c270f628780d7a3cf2fd6cda31a5fd1
F20101106_AACBTS oberlander_m_Page_093.tif
c8972da838793d2a8b0e9a2b64fcfad5
bb90fe7954da58060c4a7a572752964c2f6470be
5903 F20101106_AACARE oberlander_m_Page_121thm.jpg
fa1fbca9ff2b6cc58db2361aa5a5620c
7089a65c5071994df393d4fdc62828f4a24300bd
7043 F20101106_AACAQQ oberlander_m_Page_107thm.jpg
33f41d01838db144bd50d384a38d6661
d50bc83480aadf8594ae21e0c86929cf2fb69e0c
2092 F20101106_AACCAC oberlander_m_Page_031.txt
e187be8ae3ad921060d8db1598858bfc
acd4f0f6e7c83dffdc36368fcfc28598b7794d4e
F20101106_AACBUH oberlander_m_Page_120.tif
6c40ced2ce3a17d2e161c1850673efd3
c07e71f5202b7624fbd330d052cad3409b9581ca
F20101106_AACBTT oberlander_m_Page_096.tif
2ef0833cc1ce6cf439a744f1736a61bb
22b48687724969c0ca71b084f0d2ec5ac388f115
F20101106_AACARF oberlander_m_Page_002.tif
d89c9447373f4515c23ebbf8fad028fd
4e5be6caf37068a7bf409e3303c592e1133a8350
2275 F20101106_AACAQR oberlander_m_Page_159.QC.jpg
89b47289a23c363da7bf31150f513697
21ed6f7d7e54c8df275ccb3b0b1572b38057f11d
2585 F20101106_AACCAD oberlander_m_Page_032.txt
c8688ed03b969ebb9fc979a949705e16
732a5fe511a0fda03bdd4dc833d7ace9d489df35
F20101106_AACBUI oberlander_m_Page_126.tif
a43fc1476657db721c191c04d5cb4034
365d6917f69377a8af8b9e7e2eb582b69f483d07
F20101106_AACBTU oberlander_m_Page_098.tif
eb54bc5fa0a41d3b28237a12e87b8e4c
dc8653edad9667b46ea5cb91676c8a413d482d74
53307 F20101106_AACARG oberlander_m_Page_059.pro
06b49bfbc31308d1a170a823f0ff27b0
f84671cd453cb993121cae1632573179b03aa4c8
56643 F20101106_AACAQS oberlander_m_Page_070.pro
4c30d9307560c248117caaa5a6072c06
7854b6f91818043543ad2cfe9df53e0c976f5877
2421 F20101106_AACCAE oberlander_m_Page_033.txt
9df1ceb18e3a8253f35e316a5504f36f
4970138d8edbedb00f588e8b586ef63b111eb917
F20101106_AACBUJ oberlander_m_Page_128.tif
062df35666f79b0695804aeba3f88014
064b8fbda5d474fe17206387cdd566cda2b1f715
F20101106_AACBTV oberlander_m_Page_099.tif
5ecd5cda0fc9a648d3c4df3a875c4c70
d5550380db12be6c5efa532378fbcab49f87668c
24608 F20101106_AACARH oberlander_m_Page_106.jpg
607e5145177b6c3e9099f91191ba5dc1
7131399132a380e05f30a39f203f4d6320127f30
176 F20101106_AACAQT oberlander_m_Page_159.txt
f9c288eb727be144afea279accd2e26d
32615fd68483e1ec5419e64a455e7811441f3d7e
2042 F20101106_AACCAF oberlander_m_Page_036.txt
940092c2b7f56bdd639d5339ff7f10cf
997d01224adffaadf0def8a6ee58f20b2aa57c00
1054428 F20101106_AACBUK oberlander_m_Page_129.tif
13439cad8ce3db8629e90f00c792f53f
b31fd6408213db3c017062385559abdd8a7da2fe
F20101106_AACBTW oberlander_m_Page_101.tif
5255a1a6bdbad68f8a9e5e5453abfda4
b74260df654f404034a524385db9551be3f2e4eb
39140 F20101106_AACARI oberlander_m_Page_077.pro
5ac48a047d90cd5d6fede7dd838329c2
ff736c1bfa9e97aed3ac2d4813f01fa8cfc65998
2818 F20101106_AACAQU oberlander_m_Page_074thm.jpg
f2b1c41bb2a456f3f72dc419c5061dc3
702ba3d8c78f180b953e9a4d0078ce044075bcf3
2148 F20101106_AACCAG oberlander_m_Page_037.txt
048c9f913d38c43bca78888cd16cc253
c5d3ddd4d12066cafe878a4e55789f7665323227
F20101106_AACBUL oberlander_m_Page_130.tif
1b0b8691b265000b452665745d9275dd
cb058097c3c25d63d2f86b2f65e853632da06fb1
F20101106_AACBTX oberlander_m_Page_106.tif
f8d5ae2237165fab4d1df62071a16f76
0904a036e808c272694868420b6e1045558fa59f
1615 F20101106_AACARJ oberlander_m_Page_083.txt
a842b4f4e0cd366ffaa6f4a51dcd2a0a
d5597675065fdd9aed6ca8f0a3fba424c8aa6780
F20101106_AACAQV oberlander_m_Page_136.tif
5f5a2d8e380b65ebbf1033af40c68388
f390d909b4894a5a277d7bf0d2e121b350a10667
1436 F20101106_AACCAH oberlander_m_Page_038.txt
8d66e8af6dc82bd186b2c32ca1f364cf
f3d2c8494235bddb73c51c69de50beb887169b7c
F20101106_AACBVA oberlander_m_Page_162.tif
d27326a68d1b027ef91960d6eb1809cd
9db9b1944af577dad042ca68ab250d8b833c5e55
F20101106_AACBUM oberlander_m_Page_132.tif
dae760c4b3f63a0ac2da9207816761b1
825fc108f874eaab3a850857f153287469653d90
F20101106_AACBTY oberlander_m_Page_107.tif
4e7b74d5171bde4aafaea72a006f96fa
fda48d87483840bbd9a09ba5b522145128807d88
2102 F20101106_AACARK oberlander_m_Page_073thm.jpg
6c94ff90f6dca7aab810d1fab98a8977
7be2419f4a166bdd91542d6b893a8539ff670208
1051973 F20101106_AACAQW oberlander_m_Page_052.jp2
2b0bd000ede812d2ffaf5560e167400e
9d537fd044e0fe9dd1b6680ceea68b307e7a0272
2154 F20101106_AACCAI oberlander_m_Page_041.txt
2e7790995ef658d9822f4c098d8257b1
59930ded4c36ba47c8fab50f8747752e6560e9d9
F20101106_AACBVB oberlander_m_Page_163.tif
f2534b9a7375b8b203a475a6a98fe0d9
1d6e2323c8801c38d106077c9365f8cf7722300d
F20101106_AACBUN oberlander_m_Page_134.tif
b0eec6a7f675e677ecf1ca1d32aea7b7
178adf621a844cb157d9f534a2fc1576c9255a6d
F20101106_AACBTZ oberlander_m_Page_109.tif
b97a331def792c3c223a25cf7622cce7
a8c60dfc871e58595c74fb2773d1be772a02ff4f
51344 F20101106_AACARL oberlander_m_Page_057.pro
703a2cf56cd504050d3537ffc5721107
ad0f1423dac56989701d0d06d2aa8c2133df77cf
F20101106_AACAQX oberlander_m_Page_185.tif
c96dfcb0b161be42a33a78ed4d7489c8
a0acaf217d5d7c8fb0b21b5010b274d5fa4c93b1
2110 F20101106_AACCAJ oberlander_m_Page_042.txt
dbfeebf42fcedf0f9d4640ef9f56bf4d
80f18043cb79561eeee6dfed890bef5f711cb9b8
F20101106_AACBVC oberlander_m_Page_165.tif
d6a626d28e7ed6dd6ae5d993dd4f5cb9
fd1faf8040d39abdeb243961c2fedab94e1789f8
F20101106_AACBUO oberlander_m_Page_137.tif
a4b6f7a63c5ed711de047f4f1aba4933
bdd831272c77a57c43f2349ab2772926f1b1b93c
2097 F20101106_AACARM oberlander_m_Page_048.txt
c7926e8ac0b5cacbfe81fd08ac64dc84
5e537ddd5b592fbdd6b8f50281f75f71a7874e38
37371 F20101106_AACAQY oberlander_m_Page_147.jpg
4b38dab707876ebf7da032eddd581ac1
0884660f0de7da63f1fa4014ab6faf09ffb14473
6636 F20101106_AACASA oberlander_m_Page_120thm.jpg
88552c3e22b76c3d5bf138addba078cc
14fab8f4f472688efcc97a7241991e3d42f44ce2
F20101106_AACBVD oberlander_m_Page_166.tif
8b37c9ccf42f3ee8e1a1516fade21c8e
8fe8b946a4bc880b22a4e5858b8720e37119e2fc
F20101106_AACBUP oberlander_m_Page_142.tif
8a8810b21282594e448f50e3a3e1e990
1315abb107e582f52f5460bcec38ab090c77d485
47544 F20101106_AACARN oberlander_m_Page_081.jpg
71acfc7630ef0388b037fc47fa8a93a0
efb2f9bcd66752cd30d7b36d40985a6f1e2fd7cc
78629 F20101106_AACAQZ oberlander_m_Page_014.jpg
8a2960c3c0a15ac2325d36fe02535552
cf5f3fea0faba5abee8d3b60869eed37942e2d3b
F20101106_AACASB oberlander_m_Page_058.tif
69482893ccd98700513538f7201428c9
ab0a42831d1bd3ad0531c481423d5a4d1f637cf0
1930 F20101106_AACCAK oberlander_m_Page_043.txt
95c17badc6666e81294e3c72ef3f7c76
01eb903fc7aeb36102c45c8a2e0d8978ab75805f
F20101106_AACBVE oberlander_m_Page_170.tif
5807e644063edc527b3a5f5630f48a1d
85766abd318be9280cd250fd7ae1c7b02c59d882
F20101106_AACBUQ oberlander_m_Page_143.tif
af8cd32f7c1c8a3af454aea63426b0af
cf9c52a014658877fcbe4da61bdfbc3e1217da87
1704 F20101106_AACARO oberlander_m_Page_102thm.jpg
89d520d0d981b7bb85a720b106853170
d0d7e3011535a080de2eb85d4cb66ca0b5c13c67
2565 F20101106_AACASC oberlander_m_Page_154.txt
98e4aa4c01e90dc8d969d2f65124555d
0bf38d33ffd790a547e262b715ba829370308dd1
2291 F20101106_AACCBA oberlander_m_Page_070.txt
2a5f0627cb139e43c452ab47ab843c4b
87121fac9522e09ad977e77c668566d58a748a94
612 F20101106_AACCAL oberlander_m_Page_045.txt
0671ca91924c7a9788e7e64fd1979c01
679a584b970eadd8f8df7e1ace4177bcb448492c
F20101106_AACBVF oberlander_m_Page_171.tif
7fdd0f422f4f24dfb22dc067b7f628c3
0575e8c621b498fba32b6b02a9da4df8d1a1983c
F20101106_AACBUR oberlander_m_Page_145.tif
266b153975b0ddbdab454cbdd1ca58fe
a6296578ea77052bd8e2590ee5d9d25fd8e16529
F20101106_AACARP oberlander_m_Page_172.tif
229c68638323e0135c2cdabbe7058b93
cecedf10d7cab191fa318dd7f3733404a3e2744c
3445 F20101106_AACASD oberlander_m_Page_046thm.jpg
55819d191fe2beb323d61524c2b628af
ccb3104338d5b34f390b117f88027ed0ece361bf
1198 F20101106_AACCBB oberlander_m_Page_072.txt
58919679497f3365487aabce457cc49e
948db81bdef295a3af4c720c2c3058b56513cc40
279 F20101106_AACCAM oberlander_m_Page_046.txt
ef7c3031640f1e5d09d7b1ec82edfe40
c336c1c6ddf52c4e6d859ec1c2a13aba71360837
F20101106_AACBVG oberlander_m_Page_173.tif
17a6ca6e6049d1a87778333d17bc860a
0f74e681cae5e75fea215bbf76a81dbb66a36beb
F20101106_AACBUS oberlander_m_Page_146.tif
05d02c5ba9003dd7ebda9c1995dfc088
14b2e3ecf0719e4744654876e5e664df1b43d028
6427 F20101106_AACARQ oberlander_m_Page_111thm.jpg
3609dbb14e259cbad718452d403d2c70
e22b5685349e5bcdcbebd9e72b9f9c3a11bc6289
2346 F20101106_AACASE oberlander_m_Page_061.txt
ba661281ede70aa4bcf6b28b9bf16aab
850efa2ba316da8bc26563f71975707fcacb535b
1022 F20101106_AACCBC oberlander_m_Page_075.txt
3f79d7d0d658070df6029cbbf4e2becd
16dac571a4e6522ef9150ea44d426257092f46f7
327 F20101106_AACCAN oberlander_m_Page_047.txt
7fcb8bf743cbea62c765069901b21a39
91fcc172c2916d59513f83bf903b092b14bfad78
F20101106_AACBVH oberlander_m_Page_174.tif
7d1427885913949eb24fdadd01e97cda
b293facc5a50e1074671fd48d5e490593a132445
F20101106_AACBUT oberlander_m_Page_147.tif
f3a573c967605a1dece39210f7a435c7
b1e4bd2cfb809560090f9953f1cae5176036d985
F20101106_AACARR oberlander_m_Page_092.tif
d7f239cd546d6f1b55b71c40fcc26e7c
b6e2005d62617aa3c5d325d78a3104fda0afd9b4
2375 F20101106_AACASF oberlander_m_Page_028.txt
2c7f462e6775060035a0dcc0b82f3121
6517b411d8dc8aaeab3ab3cc33ddc5a36aee6f7a
1934 F20101106_AACCBD oberlander_m_Page_077.txt
ce2c248c8bf3631bb835e7070c3f8895
53ccca3b574caab8d30abab6b4acd7d567e5afe1
2178 F20101106_AACCAO oberlander_m_Page_049.txt
7de8eb813f986f098a95b3e946533aa9
5c53b45f0fa4f380e53da189bcb7002f1cc69a01
F20101106_AACBVI oberlander_m_Page_175.tif
6259a5e56ea4dafe1256544f7b8443a5
10bb9a4a29c84b28b7f2313a802ff17a787999fa
F20101106_AACBUU oberlander_m_Page_150.tif
c8a2dd0f08ab0e1c6a4d4884112d885c
a37aabb4dcb87a3f729f0c566af0137819a7e84d
28399 F20101106_AACARS oberlander_m_Page_120.QC.jpg
4d5f5b03964a6227b427e6ed654249fc
d51c9454378e3f04602972c4d12ad1b49d51341b
F20101106_AACASG oberlander_m_Page_012.tif
d02e3cef1bc2e7316d73b3cb204d041f
6c3359b61230ce23d8e0b18a5f0fbd8920b18992
1396 F20101106_AACCBE oberlander_m_Page_079.txt
e413abaabb1ce09fcd7c8c6a309a4cca
b695c737e30c4905bfde477e892cae9fb8e53807
F20101106_AACCAP oberlander_m_Page_050.txt
96ac9bb74cf16ef4c28ec067b5a80b6e
41071c2655a77142a6903a10c9a31e00a224e46e
F20101106_AACBVJ oberlander_m_Page_176.tif
e89f3f8c7788b65133b8b0a052ccf945
d6c09f22b8ba550ce838788c1947f56645ef04ff
F20101106_AACBUV oberlander_m_Page_151.tif
9cdb678f3154ccaad237d2c44ad278f1
22a80b5c0f9da8597f7085fa2e47a5e4d02e2022
33924 F20101106_AACART oberlander_m_Page_090.jpg
f5ab37a88b9ea0b90f43f09b75307aba
4b89b62576074ded78c049f669c60d043c5c9ec2
1160 F20101106_AACASH oberlander_m_Page_071.txt
23845e3392805be0ca474a8f29ee59a5
72d7bd40f3c39efcf18fdf353404975496277a74
1529 F20101106_AACCBF oberlander_m_Page_080.txt
cba6e0673af09a191ec5da0d4f981749
af9fa2e8f1632ce628c6626c522ec865cec61752
2139 F20101106_AACCAQ oberlander_m_Page_051.txt
cfd1fbc9775fd46a8fba5f32933db919
256a9a128ffe859b90d35dbe2e83cc9b3db724f2
F20101106_AACBVK oberlander_m_Page_178.tif
0ef3fc2d20c1ed7ee5272c629b35f00b
79cea4f58b704456c75091fcb2a0281039ae5a38
F20101106_AACBUW oberlander_m_Page_154.tif
24a57f6c6c4e53fbb38a99a6f79adfa5
6d1a586bc3a8f399140df9ce7d91bfc1484f7283
353594 F20101106_AACARU oberlander_m_Page_072.jp2
055bffaf761cf63d2d77654aa616ab7b
fb00cf2533b63234c29ac2f17d50b4cb9411cb5a
5471 F20101106_AACASI oberlander_m_Page_072.QC.jpg
4a30a0adb20842b2ba668ab4245bd07e
cd562615888bb651074179d764b4cfc040fbc155
2183 F20101106_AACCBG oberlander_m_Page_081.txt
4dccc61de8eaf1db1d9fcb36bb23e0d9
2d67f75e7d6d3b6bf2c97e23b7f016ede0ce94bb
2173 F20101106_AACCAR oberlander_m_Page_052.txt
13c4e34903f2c45bb958224b995e1d1f
0256552f9e55e7b36748741eb109d8bf4e736520
52479 F20101106_AACBWA oberlander_m_Page_025.pro
ef2e0a99a996ecdc0c2ec8260f223ca9
bd00f8bc3d9a7c5e262ae7790d28f603b1b9567d
F20101106_AACBVL oberlander_m_Page_180.tif
ac8bd8d68bb3e19773da4728c2947a44
824ac3372618a14d2efc703442b97b5477364683
F20101106_AACBUX oberlander_m_Page_155.tif
e10a2686a94079e64858e2ff877316be
2b94abe02782a787afbff06c3b586cb1090e47ea
19471 F20101106_AACARV oberlander_m_Page_102.pro
b65cb33ce6b8c700b312afe16daf6b5d
fd96dc04912f92bb331504d2f6a7b5fe0cd1a56c
F20101106_AACASJ oberlander_m_Page_115.tif
77fe66255c0d5b1b13f26bd255c28271
6dc6a05126e614165948a7ed6a3f659a6f4aa3d0
1367 F20101106_AACCBH oberlander_m_Page_084.txt
57aca934cad2707af26d7a71b9e88e0d
96909565f0e422d70cc65e49c54f352f4f3e99fc
2011 F20101106_AACCAS oberlander_m_Page_053.txt
b606028eccc72a52e08339141f039dd4
e667a75bf2ea03befee7dccf4580be53f6065f8a
F20101106_AACBVM oberlander_m_Page_182.tif
abd6ece0bf5456d36de85163981f3acc
a6df9fd6dc3d95ce32cc23e24d7073f9b8b3a92f
F20101106_AACBUY oberlander_m_Page_157.tif
be918e487ade05e4a4b7a17bcf1e1e46
f98605f1492efb5be316290eb7e2d23ac73219fe
675 F20101106_AACARW oberlander_m_Page_155.txt
0383628b252374c31ecd191ac68621de
1fc1f8c09e3044446f7a920517ecf69dde4ee78c
F20101106_AACASK oberlander_m_Page_102.tif
dbaa607789934339b17e79b73e23c924
0c8db445ca1ee91b8d2c108f19a952c09f804fdd
2020 F20101106_AACCBI oberlander_m_Page_088.txt
841d03a2cf061ff1bf7735164e7ba2f5
da97f37e0ae8b08536701182fe34d8aadc0632d4
2062 F20101106_AACCAT oberlander_m_Page_054.txt
fb1bad546427ff6c9d50973cf0e94b64
aa2413141a56cfad69708b43e243db147ba50d82
60765 F20101106_AACBWB oberlander_m_Page_026.pro
e392fcc0c98b79242fe520ddffedc2f1
b5e4f7adff26f8c43b1f0e5c7b64932b508f881f
F20101106_AACBVN oberlander_m_Page_184.tif
bac0f838ce58e09f716bbde756f4ceef
4c176b83625e96fa471f70d5cb25198e4f28dc5a
F20101106_AACBUZ oberlander_m_Page_161.tif
9e2a27967d7938a23358befe015ddd45
66344476d19adb17d631c876df5d0121dbf63076
56885 F20101106_AACARX oberlander_m_Page_030.pro
6406292d372e4a8b0d2095ccfaf0933a
ff8945c8fd1f26cc0b687761e369dd1b64970ee3
92014 F20101106_AACASL oberlander_m_Page_030.jpg
70c1807b7b197ce084bedbd68e9195c3
84f7aca10e221078ab44f6c0e59c694543992a71
1482 F20101106_AACCBJ oberlander_m_Page_089.txt
16faaac33c441ba29a4e6eba1ed24937
b95691ef6df02150be2f4443d16de3a84f6e47fb
2235 F20101106_AACCAU oberlander_m_Page_056.txt
ce7a3977769c7f639cb4cf2dbbb630a6
f74e35972e1bfeb00f1de3157d17f7b0ac108db6
61612 F20101106_AACBWC oberlander_m_Page_027.pro
16f1a0b633e41e2ae9805d78e4453111
c6ec89f11ab861ca211d3cec84bd816be2f3dd0a
10157 F20101106_AACBVO oberlander_m_Page_001.pro
6298effb45241847bcfe41fc186101aa
4cf7518c3887aa8b38e68601fb18085412ab15ab
86571 F20101106_AACARY oberlander_m_Page_050.jpg
25d744279ac5346968b9535b2d6f8c34
fa857f5dd2010e29263cb297df14f8910c72c71c
F20101106_AACATA oberlander_m_Page_167.tif
fc4fbfeca360dc8f67af82cc1a6bef54
bbe8145431b1b4e2e68ae767c33dd6e05bdfa7aa
2548 F20101106_AACASM oberlander_m_Page_157thm.jpg
3c68e49b2cf46dfbae3d5d90f10ec0d6
0906f5aa38638cb0f439413d120afec48fb0104c
1519 F20101106_AACCBK oberlander_m_Page_090.txt
eb2cf05873256803999c06d900d2e347
2cc7781b3610a51bf8d277e4ec4b35820d18b6cf
2111 F20101106_AACCAV oberlander_m_Page_058.txt
a95eab1baf2fdc5585a0f958aad92d0b
32bc0fbf8151919f2d4bfdbfe4c61681cf0172dd
59663 F20101106_AACBWD oberlander_m_Page_028.pro
69873ba2c43fa79ee2a4902d27c93927
62e9d05afc2136dee1b3bc942c10b69178cac474
917 F20101106_AACBVP oberlander_m_Page_002.pro
e7bc78396460da56fa5f96cfdb4233d2
25252f25a291f0ec7da2dcecc3fa1254f6d5e4ec
6080 F20101106_AACARZ oberlander_m_Page_101.QC.jpg
48232344e76fb244fb15289650ebe2ee
7a936ea933c18ca2674b583b5adb06e4ba674fe6
66844 F20101106_AACATB oberlander_m_Page_158.jp2
ae317cb120dfe8343babc885c3b6fc1d
572b0af584e990369f4150ce3fd8ae516b20fa10
19887 F20101106_AACASN oberlander_m_Page_101.pro
dd6f2f285eb36d2799d44388bffa0708
79a96d2bb96376535ad059aa9e77eb017bebb35c
2096 F20101106_AACCAW oberlander_m_Page_059.txt
a32b1c3a617524468c2bb77b534400b1
af9bde602c06a36dea5665e5bab219e7edcc37ab
55483 F20101106_AACBWE oberlander_m_Page_029.pro
dc81ddcc34d38c8d7b13c0f8ee4e3106
2f4e687786fa9392fa1069ee0a4ca4a207108c2f
4102 F20101106_AACBVQ oberlander_m_Page_003.pro
64dcdef5e24e09534553aab7c0c2cfb5
641ec93912826a9d69778b475859c3dca2970ded
21142 F20101106_AACATC oberlander_m_Page_101.jpg
58f2059e847288506c1db33859da9257
ebd934d7b8dc56efc70bc3b99561d4927fae9697
1648 F20101106_AACASO oberlander_m_Page_132thm.jpg
4aad4c6d86b8ed7d18ae498370f2f8db
3d7c68149a064aac06aa0cef909239a877f0861f
F20101106_AACCCA oberlander_m_Page_116.txt
e5541bca910b6f342b5160a066cb5986
b5da18fc55ecc4ed3626fc7834910850b18a9986
1112 F20101106_AACCBL oberlander_m_Page_091.txt
b5f1c833fee34721b6bb71505a440818
35d6155df86bfbbf5679176cad627b467c08c974
2212 F20101106_AACCAX oberlander_m_Page_062.txt
244cd032be26973e26064b2323dae687
3882276fcb8ba8db39154a3fdef773d5bfec4acb
64716 F20101106_AACBWF oberlander_m_Page_032.pro
f1bad5bd690a95ff1f730a76f4caa2ce
4fedac07cea2a0edf18d2e1d0dcea1fa4e3c71dc
30101 F20101106_AACBVR oberlander_m_Page_004.pro
862b85e8aa50f9835fd31aea16a55adc
90e933d53ecc6429579cbc3e529ba228944f71ce
2203 F20101106_AACATD oberlander_m_Page_126.txt
0da3686fb4633693cc5c42abd041e6b1
89eff8e0937366ec2cf2870dc8248c3cc91f525f
5566 F20101106_AACASP oberlander_m_Page_178.jp2
4f7e14b0d0a4275b694e701ac58e989f
930e461fc75f88fcf01f88cad1666909160e61c0
2261 F20101106_AACCCB oberlander_m_Page_119.txt
361a289776d7e040bed7819a3e720cfb
4f34c029fbb6b12c3bf553b204b43ed289131a2e
1192 F20101106_AACCBM oberlander_m_Page_092.txt
43bc03f128f0fb6380d84045ecdf46b8
34578799d93beb29299424740a7df16ba7a03cf1
2054 F20101106_AACCAY oberlander_m_Page_064.txt
1925c7ef5ad321baafbfc50378661779
a7dc50fa90abb25bf68ca6825312f64c87621c0c
60743 F20101106_AACBWG oberlander_m_Page_033.pro
3ee6c7ba57103c21763d324bc46b7f83
394b9c796a6b6630506605ea3e6b1a1f22503840
67733 F20101106_AACBVS oberlander_m_Page_008.pro
c37d9bc1c5ce244d5912de538f9afc0e
f64522c25cf5eb05976a498c6c355260c02f019e
F20101106_AACATE oberlander_m_Page_177.tif
cf9af73e93e877ba30ee78f502fc6f12
64cb3192b08cfbe866472ff63d257c02e935960c
396527 F20101106_AACASQ oberlander_m_Page_096.jp2
3461b70ccdf91f1d41ffd4aa2eb81e69
01fbbd9d45c4e042b0f9b52f19eb6a2b5ad214ce
2008 F20101106_AACCCC oberlander_m_Page_121.txt
16c3b72037ba724c57dfaadbd8e1d421
a242581c99b13b675e7529060bb1253848d8bdba
1170 F20101106_AACCBN oberlander_m_Page_096.txt
2fd823757fe8c0a881db9797f028fdbd
11dbbfe0028deaaab895e467614596e669e569ab
2182 F20101106_AACCAZ oberlander_m_Page_065.txt
c8261156c860e9b920d56f84a37a2a18
81bf81fdb06d496a41fad2bc75110bfb8443dd09
49958 F20101106_AACBWH oberlander_m_Page_034.pro
f98adf4c841d7a80bc56e2473e8c5f04
d9fff3470d0f7d044667c7f00a9128fa180d03c0
76504 F20101106_AACBVT oberlander_m_Page_010.pro
b90fb4891cfe8281be14b95362cff717
0c07ebb439f83546dd6df7f301317e59915f68d2
F20101106_AACATF oberlander_m_Page_049.jp2
aa8f176190736b3e8abf69f3f812ac9d
6ed230108e44be53f7c5e20469fefeca64e4bc08
2264 F20101106_AACASR oberlander_m_Page_138thm.jpg
86f1f7164e415cc5809d91aa217c79c2
8c6c07f413584952cf7c104861fab5f35bec09db
F20101106_AACCCD oberlander_m_Page_122.txt
0549807990c137551ac791749e88942b
302948a80467545e37e056146c728465ad1786dc
706 F20101106_AACCBO oberlander_m_Page_097.txt
9aa89d0b9bfeb5c55f1558ccb030f6a4
190512ad3bf0555018d6c6daa0c5daca0d9eb9e2
36148 F20101106_AACBWI oberlander_m_Page_038.pro
f71362a96b8937ab8edcc27eef645fc9
68b6e6886b223c3ecb4e3db9adc881347fd2d6f2
26355 F20101106_AACBVU oberlander_m_Page_012.pro
20afb1049a60ca1bf91841a8f6f98208
cac56d72f7c66d793772a3d2fbc438bcd3c2c3b4
4118 F20101106_AACATG oberlander_m_Page_006.txt
72f367f39463a87293e7f43f572dc8ce
8e1e11c35beb15004de2f833b003fe693e7ac65d
2140 F20101106_AACASS oberlander_m_Page_044.txt
0b6c4e594a16fe86a1b3f0257e85b589
266d34147469b1f000d87641a1b81ac15f966ac4
1274 F20101106_AACCCE oberlander_m_Page_132.txt
84f5f45b37cf863f94f8151d307c7879
4ef43f850d89b4a624a8dba77238c80ad49bb86f
865 F20101106_AACCBP oberlander_m_Page_098.txt
9f65ee7304c6b20aa1d5b7654afb940a
8f1522527152f7e04f2d4a3ce20183db7333e4f0
49924 F20101106_AACBWJ oberlander_m_Page_039.pro
3779aeae0694fdbdcb14155a1cf65418
b6389f42d625c63c716a0b825e6d70030128cbf2
44289 F20101106_AACBVV oberlander_m_Page_014.pro
486b05d0d3fd96758aa28fd393d76045
a935e9a8276b25a94d92fda09d025e6e08700aad
53802 F20101106_AACATH oberlander_m_Page_019.jpg
c1de69a8e128430ab0b0f9ffe40d2a3c
c92be26011c71c502d9e6fe9fd38d0e0c7c2edcf
6108 F20101106_AACAST oberlander_m_Page_043thm.jpg
1bc09a3838f948f97dc4d4fb68ec8a78
d9e95065fd3b5a43c3a9839c5664dc016d5eb58b
51 F20101106_AACCCF oberlander_m_Page_133.txt
ab10ddaa0361c367fbfb4b89276348d8
7a1f6c6d8e10a56dd5106ee2b3a71fc6247cb501
995 F20101106_AACCBQ oberlander_m_Page_100.txt
9e110c4e6f333ae8b7f9a4982fd2f11a
fa1bfe0267247883ef4f4c6acc942ede336d743a
54852 F20101106_AACBWK oberlander_m_Page_041.pro
f41814c2a5e178630091ec3fefb01d9d
ab1ae5fd63065d5009131dd5c31ecd406d20437d
57901 F20101106_AACBVW oberlander_m_Page_015.pro
065f1497efd44003352ff62a897583e5
d95dafd4bc584b7d4fd8ea4b428f0320a2d24a15
9336 F20101106_AACATI oberlander_m_Page_148.QC.jpg
60a711bf71fa26612ecb960d224d0a63
252551999d127b2d59ff05a36562770b9ca6fb7f
16635 F20101106_AACASU oberlander_m_Page_172.QC.jpg
f3369b250b9497e9355cdbb5711d69c6
f1bdb770adeaafb4fb6657d822277da32e1522f6
2109 F20101106_AACCCG oberlander_m_Page_135.txt
1457afcd457a177762f391ef7886edca
140d7fefcebecacf32e85c4d3eca3286a152ae8f
1020 F20101106_AACCBR oberlander_m_Page_101.txt
17ba66c1b5d219485b36ff39cca6c91e
882ec3179ec29efaebeba1dc10e964a6e83d30fc
53305 F20101106_AACBXA oberlander_m_Page_067.pro
685f3018d2e5d4a05d4b6bd8133751da
db1f3e2cdf1c322f02d38de8b6ac2cdedc7c4102
53004 F20101106_AACBWL oberlander_m_Page_042.pro
ae56a3bb85420b3252098b5a391c220c
655bf6065bc7761c93ed50a20b20761f585b8c81
52855 F20101106_AACBVX oberlander_m_Page_016.pro
04d9f56e18278acb7f7d892ca5cc34d0
60b1a820e3781a0acdff86447a79f183ec5eba95
1725 F20101106_AACATJ oberlander_m_Page_078.txt
bd3b3525e5e0e9ecd04d1a4a86fb3abf
243459f9efd9157a846042ac27d919e9536036a9
28147 F20101106_AACASV oberlander_m_Page_183.jpg
e800692349eb966c4fd846f7847c5b53
209e18c1382bbded91da71308331ce2afff03c1b
3235 F20101106_AACCCH oberlander_m_Page_137.txt
9e7aff6967eee1bf00434db4dc24ceaa
09b6990a29a28501d65fdc26247c8659c77d5ee4
818 F20101106_AACCBS oberlander_m_Page_104.txt
9b8acf98a91048d0b7939179caef472e
e4b745c4487a53163c3c34ed23b3fd6d1f7119cb
52901 F20101106_AACBXB oberlander_m_Page_068.pro
e3487760ee4bf2381f9c8f0fd3e05f49
a77678b0050b17cb7c63a7376a6c3d9871fbdae2
48854 F20101106_AACBWM oberlander_m_Page_043.pro
019ccc240cf6ec5d829cfd688da13174
daa8c4190e48c88c79cbd78a5bb7230eb2b4d723
54021 F20101106_AACBVY oberlander_m_Page_017.pro
5426b62b981148dcfffebc9206793676
0f61ef2c336a48fe75777840e170defac9aa33f5
1443 F20101106_AACATK oberlander_m_Page_142.QC.jpg
ae6d6e93cc1d949acd1b4ec257174ff4
2526efb8537d8a0586f83554e2404689fcf1bb0b
6115 F20101106_AACASW oberlander_m_Page_132.QC.jpg
97f7cb1d2bed065d584935ea194ef687
ba0c65380f124436d1b54bb3bc29a9fb67f47677
1931 F20101106_AACCCI oberlander_m_Page_138.txt
0b11aebfc79f28d117209292a9f67c45
f041423cef80cbc4f69562a41a8a990ab95f80c8
1189 F20101106_AACCBT oberlander_m_Page_106.txt
15b40bd1e763a81a5d62a60cdd096ee5
06bdfaddcc0e32129f5896d671d03f4e43ce0d20
52264 F20101106_AACBWN oberlander_m_Page_044.pro
e5640f0c8571eba4efb649a721a02ce1
58861322b628a5ea11ff6cf27e0935e636853e9d
54359 F20101106_AACBVZ oberlander_m_Page_021.pro
5b0216beb0614b2746780e5481462856
e6aaab36d015ee4cd56441ab51f90831ea34da96
26366 F20101106_AACATL oberlander_m_Page_161.pro
e99796c654b3da36295bf49bbc2ec1f6
4679285681eac7ef188d73119835d1d7bda5ff20
F20101106_AACASX oberlander_m_Page_160.tif
8137a642f4ce55456f9143185f9e597a
253ca6d4bb1f71a130961b68a0f1825a5d2031d0
2919 F20101106_AACCCJ oberlander_m_Page_140.txt
627297bb1a0f278ae9ed8e07a834f62e
6aa2023a491021c68b2234cddf9fc187883e73d9
237 F20101106_AACCBU oberlander_m_Page_107.txt
aed98b7825facb8f86a0e2e9070315e2
ffdb02ef2d5b8266825dc8f3aa82764b38a5207c
29317 F20101106_AACBXC oberlander_m_Page_071.pro
cb2aea4a4d0766354e3133fb7c11f42e
a621ffeb72d7433708a37ee0cac3032c0990c0a9
6927 F20101106_AACBWO oberlander_m_Page_046.pro
1013f17227cbadc76a46104539670f40
cfd894602d9738a643176ebb90de9e7c115d601a
F20101106_AACAUA oberlander_m_Page_149.tif
d023c87b4c84329872fc7cd16d14f550
78c0ee999a7bf75d3965bcef0a1f638755b3024a
F20101106_AACATM oberlander_m_Page_033.tif
508c3cc8525138f818a5a751de27cb63
080111260121e7f9e6970b91d2313d7b2f6f3edb
5925 F20101106_AACASY oberlander_m_Page_181thm.jpg
282d3c753877bb4e02a4f7e3b400edaa
59e6d459376e75b92244d662b69281f766859030
2539 F20101106_AACCCK oberlander_m_Page_141.txt
221d7d5e38d5ec32e86fa2e99f5a81f6
19d07384181e4bd0aacd436e9c3994876cc9d5b5
287 F20101106_AACCBV oberlander_m_Page_109.txt
63b4bd4cb2c626a4c8bc7a20b43a99d5
e3a0b5d24ba2e7f0ea26c639d76b6e95365b0b01
39716 F20101106_AACBXD oberlander_m_Page_074.pro
dbd4ad75199c1179355d708bfa0a040f
a40cfe52135123c99c72dc5ef58dc3a273b21b8d
49182 F20101106_AACBWP oberlander_m_Page_048.pro
759acd68f0710152d8b238ab2b1a349b
c0b88521eca322adfaf54e306713661667a4ca7d
54723 F20101106_AACAUB oberlander_m_Page_120.pro
1d9cdeaf780c88e949d775be08a090fb
169dbc94c66792663ef13ff14665307d2e976753
2202 F20101106_AACATN oberlander_m_Page_118.txt
3d3975712987b2176cc757c8faba7398
d3aa68530a2d1e7bb50e7f824624d3c3658fa230
19964 F20101106_AACASZ oberlander_m_Page_006.QC.jpg
7a206dfb59c70e0cb551b2f4fb38a312
8916f67ec3c2d3a8622b427266826203f74ab6ae
41 F20101106_AACCCL oberlander_m_Page_142.txt
74977a07e67e6fed9f6efcd75a77fcff
9267bf7760d3a35103332dbdaee6b05a23de96ee
2151 F20101106_AACCBW oberlander_m_Page_112.txt
030e21a6075fe15b6aa1262f10fadb46
2bb538c4332246967ddc7e420a049c10a29d9c98
21826 F20101106_AACBXE oberlander_m_Page_075.pro
572e71a81a5547821ecbc57345b607ec
4b45528a06012717ca735bb8668ffe1131d7a91d
54384 F20101106_AACBWQ oberlander_m_Page_051.pro
b6bae4887b5361f672f95e51ccbb54bd
6e9f7d982517b5a547256235f253be9693a87532
31494 F20101106_AACAUC oberlander_m_Page_019.pro
d885faa040535a91fceb055b2de2e21d
f44a5b75b93566b66a0181b574c08bb69e3c767d
13455 F20101106_AACATO oberlander_m_Page_167.QC.jpg
b5438dd70cd9d31a8aafd0cab47be2fb
0bac8b5513b35945bfe2dfb79d20414279d4d2b8
47 F20101106_AACCDA oberlander_m_Page_175.txt
f8b0cdc2e82aa7eb6c3511b7e0fcfef8
98839e4f20828341807ee5af5f146079c9f19b75
2107 F20101106_AACCBX oberlander_m_Page_113.txt
2d0d8ee79924d86a4bc9246e3325d9a1
c78545c6c03090829a38a9ee53749b8414596cdd
32854 F20101106_AACBXF oberlander_m_Page_080.pro
6ae5cadc2b03692d43bb58be6351915d
32e3e78a4db71949f87c0bd07ce2a1ca529889f6
55476 F20101106_AACBWR oberlander_m_Page_052.pro
2ca8a6e188a7f8fdc31a70b775645775
39763ef963a628c4632e4c25420d13224d524769
F20101106_AACAUD oberlander_m_Page_156.tif
d62a7db32e1787f62334d7d5bb1b86ba
e915fc71bd531fc49b58f8fb975c77c7dc94744f
99055 F20101106_AACATP oberlander_m_Page_114.jpg
fbcd9966558062b393c2f26565c16b49
32d7683ad86aa5e73aa99d801947eab59fa824f0
2427 F20101106_AACCDB oberlander_m_Page_176.txt
3a22cacee04b53323836cc3fad357393
9044025dea0ec473367cc6d2bc3548bd59f2f97d
1313 F20101106_AACCCM oberlander_m_Page_144.txt
7eec28fd390e833dbae203f351ffa236
7e966b73cc404417bfc52f6d6a6453aa563bde0f
2396 F20101106_AACCBY oberlander_m_Page_114.txt
66b1494b094e23da8649d6f09a8da489
612a7f169f17cc271211e47657d764bc8a8a88bb
28859 F20101106_AACBXG oberlander_m_Page_082.pro
d5814e8fcf55bc0ca0bcca0c89a85d97
085afb2d7af7a80c814e8d06b642b229cdab5b72
51024 F20101106_AACBWS oberlander_m_Page_053.pro
300efe9d284ac7cd51e0ff37c3706f18
f046be0838650e868e3f22b5c1604c73283f3f1b
F20101106_AACAUE oberlander_m_Page_022.tif
1b71dec8884777df2d33c382220d63ae
a0464d382e4a0507ef247e72039c621d9c4e6fbc
1472 F20101106_AACATQ oberlander_m_Page_085.txt
0c71c94d5dfcbf0f3d963ab874ba6aac
880715bb8a14603de5da71bcf77fff3ad3e62742
F20101106_AACCDC oberlander_m_Page_181.txt
65772e44dca1ef120e5eb9e5f41badd1
ee7b75a1072c2b9635235b32cbf8568770d83f92
2474 F20101106_AACCCN oberlander_m_Page_146.txt
d88fbd14727d54f8ea2fc1161fa5e164
10d6d9f6efba48a9534b4c4dff8554666e3614cd
2234 F20101106_AACCBZ oberlander_m_Page_115.txt
1399c057ff77fe203b12a0048d5f543d
2c0d459c74a23b38b3091f814b202493c749096a
31765 F20101106_AACBXH oberlander_m_Page_083.pro
584b81fa2e5c0c133500ef666ce119a7
f4e660153c526faec668916644aaaea061a954c8
51751 F20101106_AACBWT oberlander_m_Page_054.pro
09ee070e77dad6fe0d79740d2b9dc978
8b86675392e039726aef1a1782f8ca2ed911b837
6310 F20101106_AACAUF oberlander_m_Page_066thm.jpg
abd8edec603efd76e9bf814dab2c5c1c
85ee0fc6f1d97890a4ce086788bbb80ced2bc7a9
1051908 F20101106_AACATR oberlander_m_Page_063.jp2
9433d447efc66e6982082fd8ff90af97
0896ba4a9102be950ae7325d53431bbeda200fb1
28864 F20101106_AACBAA oberlander_m_Page_063.QC.jpg
97ae9b6653c50ee11137112163bca759
571062370307a24a281f264c64fe9f69deef21e3
2328 F20101106_AACCDD oberlander_m_Page_182.txt
9663201b4cc31b1d304732d14abe8bb8
b353488dab6034f35a8cfdb4819b3415ec206215
1630 F20101106_AACCCO oberlander_m_Page_147.txt
1489b5cf54e42e846dd5cf3b6795e649
60fa149764e7882ad414589738881d1c53ecaee2
29760 F20101106_AACBXI oberlander_m_Page_085.pro
086a4f24791f87a7743f70324753822a
1b7ef6e2e7cf6a5e0033af7c5bbaec63653f3447
56678 F20101106_AACBWU oberlander_m_Page_056.pro
ec8e45c7d416f8e8bb35564811560d4b
34dced9777d2d58d2a02cc6fd5334d03511b65d1
55332 F20101106_AACAUG oberlander_m_Page_062.pro
9500b56e27b234049b63da03de5a29df
950b87c002b467aee30b3d5f4dc947ecd0908554
1051971 F20101106_AACATS oberlander_m_Page_086.jp2
b33eb459c7a30f8bd821637fb7d64307
f9bc025674a14a0da69b77a0283df44df70bce1d
1087 F20101106_AACBAB oberlander_m_Page_002.QC.jpg
9fe548e2707262d608c48195851c7477
a1c7edd2741a556b4741b13e79d295385e29d872
593 F20101106_AACCDE oberlander_m_Page_183.txt
59e188431e4587be940ea3798235eb58
e0017be9a047be67c00f605ae99fd5e5807ce56c
1742 F20101106_AACCCP oberlander_m_Page_152.txt
965887519102d72281c64482d4737559
8b227cd17419ac6a4a682254692ce14bc449712e
45033 F20101106_AACBXJ oberlander_m_Page_088.pro
5ae7f1f441c14e1ef07af43a9625deed
3b3e1a4af7809caa7aa2f95fa10b32538d517af7
53661 F20101106_AACBWV oberlander_m_Page_058.pro
eda96f10ea8c233c1048defa329a56c8
051c197b9f0d6a36183c9c35bed39fdb89047bbc
19403 F20101106_AACAUH oberlander_m_Page_169.pro
848706e0f3113f27f8899578e1865947
3b863aee01c9b39c5cf7952bb0f71179f443b9ec
85687 F20101106_AACATT oberlander_m_Page_054.jpg
a8d06f95f68982af5b3faffc259b4291
7d3ba62b72582e1eef070cced08ca0319f59e7c4
26416 F20101106_AACBAC oberlander_m_Page_009.QC.jpg
7128fbc29569c07787be73761e45f5e6
00931dffc54427794cfdc44074d5e727a7a81db2
1834 F20101106_AACCDF oberlander_m_Page_001thm.jpg
2114029cec8592ae415e981350193827
5799c82f7b9969916244472be5b69734004ece51
F20101106_AACCCQ oberlander_m_Page_153.txt
8aa68651e5f4f77fdc44e14ad96572f9
b63a6ca6505a8cbcdb55cf1a3640c2d0571cae8f
21452 F20101106_AACBXK oberlander_m_Page_091.pro
6d151739b3e9d0a841a8ef1aa3bedc7a
28cb80b341784cf53b90e95772b548e579dfcae5
51758 F20101106_AACBWW oberlander_m_Page_060.pro
c6fd7a4ad2ec73ffebcb73161004668b
377279ad30254f050a723dfd34c14addaea9158e
F20101106_AACAUI oberlander_m_Page_133.tif
d8af89694592e4adcd629c7082f775ea
9929ada3e98ce15ec18f78033e3a468a4dbe4a4b
4801 F20101106_AACATU oberlander_m_Page_136.txt
3bb82d5aeec04cefc45fbea8a5864b56
d79c35eac82b62e16b8a625e8b2db13c9e8a9410
14385 F20101106_AACBAD oberlander_m_Page_013.pro
3d0d031924403b09911bcc4a2be21a02
b82552ca7ace2914df7121736ab351bbf582eb2c
1644263 F20101106_AACCDG oberlander_m.pdf
0a05985656dc663eecb6655ef2a42010
872993940726dc55cdac77ffe32663b77c453fbb
2028 F20101106_AACCCR oberlander_m_Page_156.txt
0829afc8e3049c739314e4e7bfc44bf3
3cbffb4994564e48be6909c3adb26aea5f1dec9c
50672 F20101106_AACBYA oberlander_m_Page_122.pro
695e15f024608de7f5ef24354c579508
b492b413279518ddbe5c3753056fe3f311669738
29473 F20101106_AACBXL oberlander_m_Page_093.pro
41f187843c520efe00822382dff40dad
dc72a4e9c4250bdc8a4a0259aa1ba24f8225c998
55045 F20101106_AACBWX oberlander_m_Page_063.pro
600a28f464c514189ff0f08ae23a917f
649cd67935e7d7dd011434f7c58b488b6a8d71e8
27948 F20101106_AACAUJ oberlander_m_Page_031.QC.jpg
c3d1d5ee7c3f963f59f2fe7d65ceb05f
e2b0aec0f4de9c57b9dfbfba6c0dc0509d4be21c
3358 F20101106_AACATV oberlander_m_Page_186thm.jpg
f082580cd8d44ce302e47de7c4b71a06
5bbfaeb7b247e9970bbba73b2dca71856dc64a9e
F20101106_AACBAE oberlander_m_Page_084.tif
c1582f45b2d436ec21511605cc55f0b8
f2ac51ca789c911ee2784993eefa35000aeabd14
7854 F20101106_AACCDH oberlander_m_Page_001.QC.jpg
0f92cf49c4ac46fa32767d2c9714df0c
98fe5403f96e878eb89bde008d68508794dc6e33
3070 F20101106_AACCCS oberlander_m_Page_163.txt
3ac7795023fccf252ebca6f8144122e6
c6e44d9bf104cbb236d1aeed07b09772de29043b
51675 F20101106_AACBYB oberlander_m_Page_125.pro
6c81d8b51bd59fe64d00bb5383cc3a66
ae8e7172786d125033b7031e2c440b44e385fe56
23080 F20101106_AACBXM oberlander_m_Page_096.pro
372d88146b76fae461a7598352c95a6e
6a2da14f6bf64f632257483c10ff4c9605fc8683
52327 F20101106_AACBWY oberlander_m_Page_064.pro
1befba8f805c91104d6d5d93fe78fb43
5eeec59968e6209d1352c752594a489d2f189c17
82924 F20101106_AACAUK oberlander_m_Page_039.jpg
dd375f5fe1cee025452a09a787845cb0
15341082b96f9518fce2577ca308f28af5060d21
7058 F20101106_AACATW oberlander_m_Page_106.QC.jpg
fd49cedd0e42392f6f471619496144f9
4cc03a938dfdbe3d42a5d5165dfd0b536bfa98b2
F20101106_AACBAF oberlander_m_Page_043.tif
f4f4be524045b4eae2061daac5ebd441
3bd410c8ee4ecfbe49950c1fa6e1cac4f55805b8
947 F20101106_AACCDI oberlander_m_Page_003thm.jpg
2f879ead2faab86ed7456749807a5d31
4c7b506f0662f9f1f28617fabc53c2416b47fa67
43 F20101106_AACCCT oberlander_m_Page_164.txt
b362bb167ee711c35584a0454c083450
eb77a3413910e9110ec1a713fe7dd7ecaf5a742a
48970 F20101106_AACBYC oberlander_m_Page_127.pro
ff38bcf822663f9b4291e7586ab4f370
d3b11c7ea6d11b30359521c7e502e18fc0eebe84
15511 F20101106_AACBXN oberlander_m_Page_097.pro
869f75dc575be79e12e75ce919a64b4d
70396c6cbf04d1eb3ca0f6a108c7a7a6d1144a41
51464 F20101106_AACBWZ oberlander_m_Page_066.pro
dce3b0c70a263b81f3617b193ed4b527
01957f415e9d3ee1617fcc40ce95795c5e443c7b
F20101106_AACAUL oberlander_m_Page_080.tif
31bf79eb9df3bce13952c6ff7e22b47e
f1f2368aec66e3653b56505f5a9d0149d83601a3
59002 F20101106_AACATX oberlander_m_Page_035.pro
a1a0867e8a2191d0965a963bd385b9ab
bcbc776abfc46755ed2aeb190887a4f73cc54fce
61232 F20101106_AACBAG oberlander_m_Page_166.jpg
1b29d5a467c2cb59f1bced0a373c6c93
2d9312186d15c0ba9daef657e93f96318d708d89
6802 F20101106_AACAVA oberlander_m_Page_052thm.jpg
3c828a3b041b45596a3876fb119473b5
8fd4e2587408209a29f76f83f76f5f76eabb40a6
17173 F20101106_AACCDJ oberlander_m_Page_004.QC.jpg
f8f3fa5bf61ee96c2d6699de6315cfaf
7bcf982045933334147b872610769913070a558a
2863 F20101106_AACCCU oberlander_m_Page_166.txt
6ff328010a8403df5a5d50b81bd07fd2
b79d46599f46b38c7eb0b02f3b88486c37a0bf96
16370 F20101106_AACBXO oberlander_m_Page_098.pro
91e9bd23bb580eb66df148b25ff48db5
8db727566488814601db89f4a6ce4b1a0d1bd3a3
86436 F20101106_AACAUM oberlander_m_Page_116.jpg
b4958c3910b3686c0e21825bbd58da27
2a5946e11e0d376887dadc43000417200bfd8064
16525 F20101106_AACATY oberlander_m_Page_087.QC.jpg
92d04bc5c37438d433adfe908668c0b3
712778b3106bcf8ee286d0b0a1c4e06dfbed53ca
90633 F20101106_AACBAH oberlander_m_Page_020.jpg
6db4684015e40c55ccc5fb8214ab37b7
3e69ff2a2c7f53a0f2f94d75309692cc4741533b
4626 F20101106_AACCDK oberlander_m_Page_005thm.jpg
036ac9e17ede1f9e260cee294fc7a7d7
cc708af5dec585fc38682aeeeca760e468b9cc2b
2345 F20101106_AACCCV oberlander_m_Page_167.txt
7bb9b37884542db6e2e8853f761d1160
92a9cab306b6540a73fd94d962a051ce46f37271
12589 F20101106_AACBYD oberlander_m_Page_129.pro
3b5dbfa44bc037446ae99adb3c598042
a8697f859bc91bf4eb1775ec08045874e539ff9a
15716 F20101106_AACBXP oberlander_m_Page_104.pro
5881ec89b568d08363cfdaa7c76669ac
73588e7c25fddada4f49b1d2c788f4c7ed08ec38
F20101106_AACAUN oberlander_m_Page_004.tif
7794187c07934dca5ecb800b2ae00a33
807e7afaa0c97366bab84b3a27cce8ae2b6a0e2b
62490 F20101106_AACATZ oberlander_m_Page_131.jpg
d65a55ad109b1660ee8484c7e36facb2
52a453f7f493c5949bcc591d7492f9deea64bf71
6537 F20101106_AACBAI oberlander_m_Page_015thm.jpg
1b9c1e43696f2ad5b1a4154dab8a57d0
5dd64896cc2ad9a5d1d333531413cb454dea55d1
2072 F20101106_AACAVB oberlander_m_Page_125.txt
cf0f44d9a6fe2ae351e8c8b81547754b
d83fe766567d3fdc7de7ec27906b1105ffc78d54
2659 F20101106_AACCDL oberlander_m_Page_007thm.jpg
168d8479aa34da6df6de9d47d7eecd9f
b686f8470ff0346aef8906e5d4c80aed55a33052
715 F20101106_AACCCW oberlander_m_Page_168.txt
e66aa80ca2263a464863055bedfa565c
b1cd0c8514da2ac3c15b9371189b90c60d7e98f5
65242 F20101106_AACBYE oberlander_m_Page_131.pro
79fa453d6d6f437b263c57fcb1c2a51b
2d1a48e66d4e6c1a663995a6d0ba8b3c2fa86429
18649 F20101106_AACBXQ oberlander_m_Page_105.pro
391809c0f908627f11fe33110449a3bb
71eb6e6e5ea2a7319e5b2f3e448e3fff5cd81cfd
2460 F20101106_AACAUO oberlander_m_Page_185.txt
d03223bdfe3c9f387aabe34af1d8163e
09abd90798184d609cbf30c8676dfc9a08c1ad1c
F20101106_AACBAJ oberlander_m_Page_108.jp2
fc454cb7143018e42a89da317353fe80
e317caf8d4f5db41bd919baf09c371bf450a87d9
1251 F20101106_AACAVC oberlander_m_Page_095.txt
e2bdf8657c46322375b5e849792a73e2
7f08f896c0a9ab403752e20c2f535d45cdd136f9
16644 F20101106_AACCEA oberlander_m_Page_019.QC.jpg
7862d2b3bcb1c14a2a0d68a9c7c4176c
714dae96bcd52ae40c32c1e78c4059a38a9f96f9
29575 F20101106_AACCDM oberlander_m_Page_008.QC.jpg
2682c0fae85562dee35dabad7306352c
96879f8d268059fcb8d391cf6f9ebfd000df5b6f
880 F20101106_AACCCX oberlander_m_Page_169.txt
f88b0c45e5c26ce434639b4c7b59611b
ebab16fe645958743fdfdf992073e05496f55c0e
1060 F20101106_AACBYF oberlander_m_Page_133.pro
c762e5edd2e0d4d07a199283b0b1bbbd
7aead00201862e9025cde9499f9f815766aa641c
5065 F20101106_AACBXR oberlander_m_Page_108.pro
352cbb4bffed34ab5f66c1a9d69cafa6
a62d35bc7943d38d238cb45bb3de320d14d56d6a
714961 F20101106_AACAUP oberlander_m_Page_019.jp2
89d159d7c6eea55380763ac748df25c7
1241778e49bde0aceb552bd8b4ba4238c3d9b848
26800 F20101106_AACBAK oberlander_m_Page_016.QC.jpg
4ba7692dea430ff70904d20b1289cdaf
34bc9923c18f44dc9e5101f12a9712ac422ef684
F20101106_AACAVD oberlander_m_Page_044.jp2
674d0144ecf35e253ccae6a85a8660a3
6ce7a4f92f88059e29514f9a29424c477a238ec0
6465 F20101106_AACCEB oberlander_m_Page_020thm.jpg
d1f42cd702a43758aff46dd94499ef73
a825a0490e1266a3e6f82938f65da54520155e24
1118 F20101106_AACCCY oberlander_m_Page_171.txt
bd62cfc6bf9fede83ea1839f35b7332d
a31b47b36a1891ff8fa879f630962042f2e97ef7
68162 F20101106_AACBYG oberlander_m_Page_134.pro
fa0b1eea80d14913b815a69912dcdab8
2a0b3a794c8473cbcfde5c4565184934287d9337
55378 F20101106_AACBXS oberlander_m_Page_110.pro
1e0a014c336ad7a6e6109fc36abf38ea
73ab0b34fed202fbfff657a681be6b27f2b185da
3387 F20101106_AACAUQ oberlander_m_Page_179thm.jpg
58168fd2ca3ebf2559e4c7c4e4771174
188557ae0153da2067c9c56e61c9a713c070c43a
F20101106_AACAVE oberlander_m_Page_087.jp2
9f7339cc22b97cc0be0f3c42a909dcbc
4cde6f8b3966ee3c4d42d3132c3a580cabc1271d
28195 F20101106_AACCEC oberlander_m_Page_021.QC.jpg
0e38a254a7e1f558966f4a88ad66adc5
273aebe8065761e6a25061024fd330c70be35f9b
7036 F20101106_AACCDN oberlander_m_Page_008thm.jpg
9dfcf91bd8f8339daf6b8f738f0559d6
2b3a3e2b846178a34553b787abea57fc0737e78b
2572 F20101106_AACCCZ oberlander_m_Page_172.txt
ad7707bdd734b520b27b19ff9ef7d683
0f8d33c09cd8023e9a92c2a52f6a982431877325
55229 F20101106_AACBYH oberlander_m_Page_135.pro
984dde1a386ececab8eb36f1304202ba
665443355ad15cb354fc0dc621e2392c557f8277
55227 F20101106_AACBXT oberlander_m_Page_111.pro
6589c71ea5f199e08550fe911b98c7b6
ba25a99babea6013308559f754da56fe4e4db82e
2392 F20101106_AACAUR oberlander_m_Page_086.txt
68a3b4953b65844c9143860f8f309fe0
c0e5ac421ab8549d6d5a408fedc894745781fb82
334547 F20101106_AACBBA oberlander_m_Page_097.jp2
0087f1bf78fb7a6e2cc0a77444852e25
e6165abdc715c2d231fc8b603d1bd5fd72d0f4a2
3961 F20101106_AACBAL oberlander_m_Page_019thm.jpg
6df96bde1e5ecab658326430dcfb92b1
24e9fe26959557c9db830651da8919047f51d194
10691 F20101106_AACAVF oberlander_m_Page_074.QC.jpg
c9acbb44f84ef72051ceac74f8c1388f
4c463232c8aea1f645e28a86b25db1c512ccedfc
6557 F20101106_AACCED oberlander_m_Page_021thm.jpg
0ca3af05a2145c443aa87ddf9cd7095d
ca6a424aa43ef5871caaac907faa1f44447fe665
28234 F20101106_AACCDO oberlander_m_Page_010.QC.jpg
241b36a642f855b2f7b1d138d8d3f3b1
9f4b459f30265b5fd425c54a0b03e81ad7e880f2
54008 F20101106_AACBYI oberlander_m_Page_136.pro
003629f45f5d665bb63e1501942fb42c
eda677a84d56ae72052a8b33d1a63c9ea35bb7b2
54788 F20101106_AACBXU oberlander_m_Page_112.pro
85b3f025642827c42cd4ca310122ef69
0f2e803469c825aff2a93defa7c083b2e41c9b63
F20101106_AACAUS oberlander_m_Page_152.tif
218277a058306f652aea95ee05c564a3
318cd3c00f1daef2a389148072d74f7583d34c40
1457 F20101106_AACBBB oberlander_m_Page_177.txt
f063417141b7756c5116096fc4e6cf76
270e062b6b8757ec0d9a91d9cbb2d9b0df3c1329
1527 F20101106_AACBAM oberlander_m_Page_076.txt
704ef5d92a424e5abac55131a59403aa
0751a7a75bf1599ef3afa4bac0041bbab7797dda
53701 F20101106_AACAVG oberlander_m_Page_037.pro
7f01bedb0092720f6912f63e75b4ac43
889ac5cd4b677b361481e3cc4fc2a12915530163
29724 F20101106_AACCEE oberlander_m_Page_022.QC.jpg
eaaf12c567946cd3b68d8e9d5837c1b1
f3a11ed2f92dcd730afc054d4ac9bc73e09bd96e
7655 F20101106_AACCDP oberlander_m_Page_011.QC.jpg
09f7727c4312039c9dcfe4160a1b4d2e
0cbd4e04d9bfef56c9173b470268625994180974
34033 F20101106_AACBYJ oberlander_m_Page_137.pro
7c524078cfd331f4fc5e83407ed9d7bc
0e596ac8000616c8b0bdc36ab559b90c87e9e147
53669 F20101106_AACBXV oberlander_m_Page_113.pro
deed79ce3cc92cd83f6773f39c5b627a
68b67107b99fde40f078fb45ef5b0bc617734afb
F20101106_AACAUT oberlander_m_Page_094.tif
579558bc09c5d32b29fd4d713f2ce1ad
3908c8edf80e518471a18549f557df67f70c1ffe
6091 F20101106_AACBBC oberlander_m_Page_125thm.jpg
bbfd8dcd2381b076655dbc8c2de55efc
6e19ba6cce044cfd426ddf6ce891a9372bab0245
2616 F20101106_AACBAN oberlander_m_Page_077thm.jpg
54f61b7c9e7b9fe0b2b203c1c0cf3d0e
2226b0ea98897e2b060ac67d5667727323c68a6d
28933 F20101106_AACAVH oberlander_m_Page_065.QC.jpg
915cc0b6597a4f3b4d450306d6bb258b
fe41bc52fcab8b025f57afd18ca796b246c9e9ae
6751 F20101106_AACCEF oberlander_m_Page_022thm.jpg
9bbced05379b3e044af6bf19c5660d49
020423343849721c7edc073f9fd2bc7ae42aaef4
2098 F20101106_AACCDQ oberlander_m_Page_011thm.jpg
149764287138b8ccc30be283b3ab315b
f4166353a12432f3d23adfd211f87007365114f1
46135 F20101106_AACBYK oberlander_m_Page_138.pro
d31dee60f52840b4eb575cb5aed5bb55
d111ec5f1fc3a09dcc4e05698da969a4b0c5191a
52575 F20101106_AACBXW oberlander_m_Page_116.pro
8f1246fc008d783bf66525c9ad2694c9
e1fa3a69d76630035c3eb3c136c3617ee1858bd5
3627 F20101106_AACBBD oberlander_m_Page_131thm.jpg
3edc929bef45a1a9cecdb0a00a1566d1
ec2d50b13eb9db360ba3e62a36e7a2bda9a4dfde
79061 F20101106_AACBAO oberlander_m_Page_163.pro
4030986b97e4e5c8c0446e837b6da659
2449e001ae05802ad163cb8ea376f1fa89293ff0
40496 F20101106_AACAVI oberlander_m_Page_046.jpg
88e9caed612d7f55fbc8bea93ceb54d1
8e80532817d35abe629a601e13f5412a080de071
F20101106_AACAUU oberlander_m_Page_046.tif
f7201c5c2e19a310a28a6af646c8fd75
aa62459284f8af0b72f2e55310cc98966eca524e
27728 F20101106_AACCEG oberlander_m_Page_023.QC.jpg
f25ca5d9fd81fde3283a8ebf72f08832
18bafed1b2959bb2b344d37f6804141e65d08821
9687 F20101106_AACCDR oberlander_m_Page_012.QC.jpg
ddab9185e59051a984e7b1ccb4720afe
daef0489df134eab8dc648d9deda250f9edcdd0e
32590 F20101106_AACBZA oberlander_m_Page_158.pro
eec8fda2b073ba70dc7f8b87a8b88f05
287b0fb31a34bb8905d3f6d6ddf458727d7155ac
52784 F20101106_AACBYL oberlander_m_Page_139.pro
1fd2daf34750b87e66c156fa251438b2
a0e9813511f6a89d30d2074f7ea1dcfce7cc4842
57853 F20101106_AACBXX oberlander_m_Page_117.pro
7c4449a847ba1b41622a70c4ba1b19ba
b2bdbe61fff6d00292ac7dfccc8259c8575cc6cf
6638 F20101106_AACBBE oberlander_m_Page_123thm.jpg
c6e571240e771a3a03092bd64beaa67f
9201fb35a3f3c021ad79a8cb9b737e3e9d7f35ae
54364 F20101106_AACBAP oberlander_m_Page_020.pro
869780e5704ad2ebc4f9574381767afc
d7b163ecf2ee8fd0a74935e032d7f762a24012ce
2891 F20101106_AACAVJ oberlander_m_Page_165.txt
60c343a4bbbdd23cdfc10541d1f8b39c
6d9ada26410fbd7ef23713c087b8958dca5c9c32
1248 F20101106_AACAUV oberlander_m_Page_160.QC.jpg
ee6353c2d6f570a1d1a219188db5138d
5f070219124dfb5b5d9485f5169d7701af618688
6242 F20101106_AACCEH oberlander_m_Page_023thm.jpg
0308f8ab0390d8ae5225e3136e24264f
be0ac24aa3a6a96c4a70ac71a87632d4da2e5ce7
2583 F20101106_AACCDS oberlander_m_Page_012thm.jpg
7e73e26f24ccee145511ec2af6661276
a9f2e50904147c06ac96f7cf68d09cee7f5fded0
956 F20101106_AACBZB oberlander_m_Page_164.pro
c56f54bc4251bb4cef4de5237b6ccff4
a848d586a5cebe598ff903591d3984562d2fe314
55851 F20101106_AACBYM oberlander_m_Page_140.pro
7ed69b602b2b3961daad0b4fa919fa47
1e3e79497ef775f460663f866134f51778636c18
57041 F20101106_AACBXY oberlander_m_Page_119.pro
8ed6aef43447ad0c8b21669e34989343
13574966c5b72e063e39716e0b7c82bd91be7784
4044 F20101106_AACBBF oberlander_m_Page_004thm.jpg
8086027549754d8b97227f3bbf0a3260
358955ddd0ec618fce1b9b4d84ff753f947b6c50
29267 F20101106_AACBAQ oberlander_m_Page_052.QC.jpg
fd4228aaacb9e7afba074535bcfa2cca
384ffec79f782178a83246fedb5efb340660d008
46385 F20101106_AACAVK oberlander_m_Page_081.pro
2ed73f38d63b469abacd40f12ecb94fc
0c2403503960830ce4904799d883a0b5d1530675
87606 F20101106_AACAUW oberlander_m_Page_136.jp2
9cea8b89c259e89bf1f84cb7a2e0378b
b36bd29b20a65e8d458481b5fd1ec77de8e05c4a
27913 F20101106_AACCEI oberlander_m_Page_024.QC.jpg
39f56320ef71c4fc2cbed0571092b802
a0fd1453bd0bdd902a627af9c815488fc277d0eb
8213 F20101106_AACCDT oberlander_m_Page_013.QC.jpg
1a4234f57260eb473705d843fe661fc1
24e3580d02833c6cf42e244ec77f65b3acdab6a6
64019 F20101106_AACBZC oberlander_m_Page_165.pro
63025d6d06e336a0ccae1d8612a748bb
b3a63739da6f6f95ac77cab0533b130bde6afe64
44951 F20101106_AACBYN oberlander_m_Page_141.pro
93959557e1c9c5db970d458ff198d17a
1a054be451fbd28be2e2f8aa3a5cd98d96b67da2
50090 F20101106_AACBXZ oberlander_m_Page_121.pro
3fc71ace8d4b563708ff1a6d3fcbfece
c690e27cdab02af77cf9ed87e75ef16f040cc428
F20101106_AACBBG oberlander_m_Page_005.tif
f076b9abd16d875dc7d461dccb4455d5
ee3df117e59074d4e0c9bd9700aca45922fba62f
2322 F20101106_AACAWA oberlander_m_Page_170thm.jpg
556be1b0c4b9170c1e9ed6fcf50dfcbd
293c8d2db0a5554ed7a03642f544bad0d4271370
94420 F20101106_AACBAR oberlander_m_Page_110.jpg
a0988d80a159f927621d9475b8c7c313
6542764376f4b20e11c3be3f6a1ccf1bad5a1757
578 F20101106_AACAVL oberlander_m_Page_129.txt
ba46786f6f7f3c46fa93aa8c207f6cc2
9781ea2c2541958158577c5e28c094700a77ae21
F20101106_AACAUX oberlander_m_Page_010thm.jpg
a082771ee39b5f728d3b680faebe2ed0
8ad1c45ff02aa126754af8423dcce129c57f7cda
6597 F20101106_AACCEJ oberlander_m_Page_024thm.jpg
4843e3fd976bb8ee5bbb569a85d3270b
5c6202fe8b40958b8ecd2f643bf64923b60af059
23121 F20101106_AACCDU oberlander_m_Page_014.QC.jpg
369aac425e109c958469c29501511a7b
446051fbada4459ed3fe5c4bbad7beee12640e68
58550 F20101106_AACBZD oberlander_m_Page_167.pro
bf6ac4b09e1fcb70b55c1c12408fc9ed
6621493c3f33c1861172f048b2d7ab5e45953ffa
904 F20101106_AACBYO oberlander_m_Page_142.pro
a7dd00aea9d9ebf5f3c61e59eed96a98
562341def46c6a186821d71ad95faecb53ac2cf7
F20101106_AACBBH oberlander_m_Page_077.tif
06ee0788addd966815d1a5eb0dd3dd69
e05a670e952a71dd3139660fe8d12e5b06fa0814
27465 F20101106_AACAWB oberlander_m_Page_068.QC.jpg
15d04fb95554120319c2c24b561f2890
429c099b80397438daa21a2b4b75986681444d02
27754 F20101106_AACBAS oberlander_m_Page_002.jp2
d6ffef5f6e1e40fc4be76d633b446e8c
a3c89e8b861d174b35553d652bc40ae72212c910
27749 F20101106_AACAVM oberlander_m_Page_017.QC.jpg
2759d37b6b9213cc299f3add718e5dce
ac76fee1338a75bb673d912f682d872a98329a03
75732 F20101106_AACAUY oberlander_m_Page_009.pro
a419a942c0136c0b1a36f62345a607ae
b4dfb5aca6a34b9a6814c54ecf417d6a5e3ddb14
27508 F20101106_AACCEK oberlander_m_Page_025.QC.jpg
9567bd143f9d63e6aefcb153e7786f37
f1f943f3ab57fc4a30e15c2aed10efc67adf610a
5451 F20101106_AACCDV oberlander_m_Page_014thm.jpg
21af84850b185bd6dec06abf501ebb3c
893586d9bad17cc90090302a2c2913310a7fd588
26085 F20101106_AACBYP oberlander_m_Page_143.pro
4ca904a78012f2d58cf2b63c73409ff1
203441239b70be0902483be8e492bb32628a3ff4
548895 F20101106_AACBBI oberlander_m_Page_085.jp2
8e3406dfd4b2ce93316a41f1d9b2bd2a
2ece314a9c5713617feb4f209e4dc87ba66aa487
19998 F20101106_AACBAT oberlander_m_Page_072.jpg
bd8bdd8bf212b0cb51943c27a605dac1
d4a749c1982b06d1b7edc16f7b863cc474751b94
24770 F20101106_AACAVN oberlander_m_Page_092.pro
8a55fa9b7f62d1e732141524229090e6
2fec1b1803b6fe0442233580f20bc4660c265f6c
19125 F20101106_AACAUZ oberlander_m_Page_100.jpg
afe1c54db2379c6cef06a16d371be6ff
99867e3a5493b3b6ba47a83374ae367ed1d01193
6598 F20101106_AACCEL oberlander_m_Page_025thm.jpg
735891319248044b0eb45d7295fee683
05295ef3b632b0ec6dba6fc3fa363e8a8162f2a7
6567 F20101106_AACCDW oberlander_m_Page_016thm.jpg
b65c69b08c884ed8d3d6851702ba2e35
0ce89c80962b06ec33a3419cc1d3300a2f9603e6
18786 F20101106_AACBZE oberlander_m_Page_168.pro
060bb5a205f5bd1d3d59597dbf10985a
18c73ce2f3d7bab31f258f37c97a8fe15addad0c
28082 F20101106_AACBYQ oberlander_m_Page_144.pro
176c8c818d9b3b7c01662e51219232c0
1ea172d15d1e9a8fa2ab3b58c0cf75af40fbac5e
F20101106_AACBBJ oberlander_m_Page_127.tif
1b7d62e06c633f88cf0497859c1d34d0
fb022c798ebb66eaba227171bd2fb68436575b0a
7010 F20101106_AACAWC oberlander_m_Page_143.QC.jpg
ca7c63e92b57fff92e6b55124c665fe6
127462a501b24e627632337631f95663d0b99205
1051963 F20101106_AACBAU oberlander_m_Page_037.jp2
63c2e3a5ad9dd3f6c0eedf3620d09121
4245db19af4855fee8dc0796cdf6cf446bf016aa
53861 F20101106_AACAVO oberlander_m_Page_023.pro
274e6f48d7f864a559bd3acc45a2bc72
ab850d7ab2ab12569d42247348056bf4d0a4731e
27285 F20101106_AACCFA oberlander_m_Page_036.QC.jpg
4b9c921c7268e0bff1e157a10c6bf5df
5a097415114374108da46421f91b3ae492292433
6429 F20101106_AACCEM oberlander_m_Page_026thm.jpg
bfacfc620a3d0c562bed858452adea20
813b8ce0dfc69a330e290ca55d58ef9352a5c342
6421 F20101106_AACCDX oberlander_m_Page_017thm.jpg
e9a3dbe12b78ed44ef817fcb71203bec
135a424f46f6248610ff8657835d5578a19e906d
79533 F20101106_AACBZF oberlander_m_Page_173.pro
83f20d0f6f3057f7615d4b93392009e5
eaaee5d88b4d894742dd1c76aa613945e94aa20d
30722 F20101106_AACBYR oberlander_m_Page_145.pro
25d94b038e4ba06e26bd0ea081a0461c
99ad3440b95b349f9eb7ef5f138930de856e5897
F20101106_AACBBK oberlander_m_Page_138.tif
e2774db4426aabfb3d799454fe5357a7
b81df3041f56a7f3a6d6a9d54990290004931ba5
F20101106_AACAWD oberlander_m_Page_104.tif
f82eee27a8928cf7cd24650d349d1213
2c368bb3969df8e548190620afd082ed96c01a5f
60695 F20101106_AACBAV oberlander_m_Page_144.jp2
d69478dc13d2a120655048343b48f605
05f2842d3013822b875d52c32d8e43574dab0331
1051900 F20101106_AACAVP oberlander_m_Page_029.jp2
f75902a04edf4fd5eb09f3181cb1ecdb
d893ad7139700333d388dbd8470745debdf24533
6230 F20101106_AACCFB oberlander_m_Page_036thm.jpg
74a1a2d24fb6b3d3c18d8b6d5e463fd9
df2e49bea6c9d8243c6ac26d27ba0a98bcf364e6
28949 F20101106_AACCEN oberlander_m_Page_027.QC.jpg
066be91dcecbe0df7a23e0f62d6d68c0
7029ca573a164b613c0b076531c9afdc867170ac
26525 F20101106_AACCDY oberlander_m_Page_018.QC.jpg
540902f1939e46e6e384846bfad0ee51
5be348418ed00bc6430bd1db8311204c9bde3237
68478 F20101106_AACBZG oberlander_m_Page_174.pro
feb5a46473e7356f6dc15b9f71b3ed72
b4b7bc3f5d6fe90939a76f38a3c7395d4ea1b796
35475 F20101106_AACBYS oberlander_m_Page_147.pro
98c33edd43b9f4d0b21436be26930c17
fba6e328e8f9c6c32516a352080f0f30b43c5750
359887 F20101106_AACBBL oberlander_m_Page_045.jp2
aa47e417d52dce779081cd8967f8354d
c0fe9b66741e54a081320f965bcb0a84456677ec
2138 F20101106_AACAWE oberlander_m_Page_021.txt
873029af7b4419b8175b06b066d88adf
9c2a97d48b4fbe39d8d9745b5fa1afb7dabdce89
18429 F20101106_AACBAW oberlander_m_Page_100.pro
8b9e918334359fb55bc0fcccb3077ba3
d70f78d0eea31e4c55037bdfc4a3f167e44e16ee
6020 F20101106_AACAVQ oberlander_m_Page_091.QC.jpg
1171ace6acf0f1b0bcc054499d1038ce
55afdd187fb1237d2deef1c994ffe1d93385c762
27299 F20101106_AACCFC oberlander_m_Page_037.QC.jpg
9a94c3359c61198180d31aed3d17ca24
60f87aa62a80433a34ff77f486b3193e13a97c19
6232 F20101106_AACCDZ oberlander_m_Page_018thm.jpg
6ab3de22f3acf4ada31a495e2feaa20b
ae675e78c42e68c9aaf4f123ebc0c6be53245a01
50503 F20101106_AACBZH oberlander_m_Page_176.pro
373114ad9fb58cfbbd34d8f8d6442586
115f1b53ca29561682c45a9ea00de86b401cf7ac
33087 F20101106_AACBYT oberlander_m_Page_148.pro
71f983ddd29d3d1717632b3460622c81
d93f8f9b9eae6be8a38adc66ab9d2ffecdcc4741
37111 F20101106_AACAWF oberlander_m_Page_162.pro
fc23d3a9f5d15156cff8a974ee53b161
6b7f48a5a6d38bce6cf91bbd198451d3080a729a
2784 F20101106_AACBAX oberlander_m_Page_134.txt
ff642bc79cbbde694351716ba235139e
fd915bfd02a399435bf7d439a93c310c200a7cfc
54978 F20101106_AACAVR oberlander_m_Page_055.pro
8c3e36e625d3fdcecf3df72b9f45c0d0
de8535559c71737c7d8b0d04ef6ae35de67a51f4
F20101106_AACBCA oberlander_m_Page_037.tif
c26761754b6b5bb570ef392cda5525cb
aa7e9d06d11bf0aa3dba952bbbf505b132d5521b
4536 F20101106_AACCFD oberlander_m_Page_038thm.jpg
0448c2d4842790dc64cf32b972c34a5b
cc6a865c37eddb0ba48d401a22fbb7ccf6bfc1da
6508 F20101106_AACCEO oberlander_m_Page_027thm.jpg
87cdaa93370a4f012ae0f681323dda3f
9cbafeaa3a782c66043938b9d7dc8e204a84cf7c
57691 F20101106_AACBZI oberlander_m_Page_179.pro
d5ae005b5938549d51c450a7d9119e39
55b39634a97640d37f660839ac35640c4a1baeac
33097 F20101106_AACBYU oberlander_m_Page_152.pro
b7c9685aebc4a28613705c1dba125be0
eb7f2fb1523d61d53412a473a2fa314fc10807ac
F20101106_AACBBM oberlander_m_Page_024.tif
c4bad9b53a1f859f87e848987f0a682b
82ebd21ffe4396edf465665ed9f4fe1eebfea13c
F20101106_AACAWG oberlander_m_Page_114.tif
02e5c6b48c56750f5060888cda02777a
4c588668701bade4dcaef490a72a21c41719be77
1051962 F20101106_AACBAY oberlander_m_Page_023.jp2
9ae7de08b4f43a76378ed2b543f14c34
84cd805f72fd7fdd847aaa5331f2632e676a8aaf
116784 F20101106_AACAVS oberlander_m_Page_126.jp2
abfefca84efe1cf28538f39b89525ed5
9507be8e974f62f268320d60588b9e2f24128db4
F20101106_AACBCB oberlander_m_Page_033.jp2
b304de04826cc6bec91d26186af98b0b
58ec47cb17b6fd66cf3d77a304a787f60d8d4038
26378 F20101106_AACCFE oberlander_m_Page_039.QC.jpg
da96a7dbedd0879ddc1fe05100138571
caf953a439b8a131d4ec2c89b36fba024087a7fc
28158 F20101106_AACCEP oberlander_m_Page_028.QC.jpg
0b3a80ab22818b7669fcc465a3051031
ba3054b7145b0ab28e8abed86ca7c95a7b0baf9c
53917 F20101106_AACBZJ oberlander_m_Page_181.pro
2ab88a9fe2b8756a77f78742c75632f8
6ba3c30b9a5d7439ded99769a32a018c76891d07
F20101106_AACBYV oberlander_m_Page_153.pro
b726e83fa2355a7dd9be2b8f965623ab
aa6f8c4b08cb1f29a8e24bd9461ea3b5072345d9
10765 F20101106_AACBBN oberlander_m_Page_141.QC.jpg
85ff17c0934d0782b9dbdb9ea888ce39
af5efe52e34c9d94941b3d6fc758bd61660bdfa3
F20101106_AACAWH oberlander_m_Page_144.tif
52a8badddc6e0b8f4d44393f7667d3a4
aeac3e9a864126ece9ac74e5ba6e88495b9e4ee7
5851 F20101106_AACBAZ oberlander_m_Page_107.pro
288d8e69ee140f462b469a7897b8def3
bd8e0544f7affe3bfcc8a1cebca5c823c284af1b
16030 F20101106_AACAVT oberlander_m_Page_071.QC.jpg
ff506da59ab12f88b48ecf49af9cf930
6fd776c32c542af2d6ff6bbf29ef06b31ddc9d68
6757 F20101106_AACBCC oberlander_m_Page_040thm.jpg
c6a857657580425a2546d4cd519cbd27
b847399f975f8030a61e60750917c24be627415a
6197 F20101106_AACCFF oberlander_m_Page_039thm.jpg
2bb32646ab5ca90fe23be806b0025924
9c7617b04973b9526fd5613e0a9e7e9ccd3d922c
6737 F20101106_AACCEQ oberlander_m_Page_028thm.jpg
6989a744e7272fd2472c9b6d6811d943
73bfcb29aa604a66e2f2367a0f1416faadece1a3
55167 F20101106_AACBZK oberlander_m_Page_182.pro
1feaefa1c07a402c4d712c2a92dec284
601e2dd56d2352da889b18b1ca31f17a5389cc6e
66591 F20101106_AACBYW oberlander_m_Page_154.pro
190f857673066a0046b974a1a6b89378
c8c6a2a4ac247a4e8992fddb2ee513b5f62a2e1c
55307 F20101106_AACBBO oberlander_m_Page_118.pro
86b8d0728bfe14cb2b3077abf470c92c
f85c120a6bce920724b4d13300ab6c8d432e931d
2095 F20101106_AACAWI oberlander_m_Page_067.txt
578cfc875f3fca38267034160d71a73d
92cd240fd503d9bf49e3af41a0aa1e7fde6060bf
8425398 F20101106_AACAVU oberlander_m_Page_088.tif
03c22437ae015501178ca8d8f1385ae2
a0b9ab9082111c570b63b1faa9673da70a73c9cd
50524 F20101106_AACBCD oberlander_m_Page_086.pro
0c336fd0b43cb1c5786a7e682eda9344
00aca749840408bcb7e9ce58dc159b77c9a87845
28948 F20101106_AACCFG oberlander_m_Page_040.QC.jpg
4e974ae8eb01f9f2b51ff0e4c8b2c280
d4a929b1b0885a1cc4ce4a4e7ddc400312ab1d0f
6490 F20101106_AACCER oberlander_m_Page_031thm.jpg
7fc6bcd78121aa8840a1742a72ec0ad0
b452ac1f1b03732225d5111341e2bb6397cfba80
61447 F20101106_AACBZL oberlander_m_Page_184.pro
a090db06f43ffa8fe6dff5ad5b08d50c
c430957234069aac540c975ca744311072349ca6
17006 F20101106_AACBYX oberlander_m_Page_155.pro
3deead8369e5bf77a55a862566f289d0
17a410f696faf05d1393d8b9ad7c3b7d45f5594a
1462 F20101106_AACBBP oberlander_m_Page_178.QC.jpg
4ddd8eb36bca5ab75533cfa3c9c2ceaf
6434ad418069b97f3e658f94e3f75b80e64b107d
572921 F20101106_AACAWJ oberlander_m_Page_083.jp2
4bffcdedcebea5cfadebc7ad1868b0da
82128a7bd40e1a9895000899ea9cd7b59ab48d75
91058 F20101106_AACAVV oberlander_m_Page_015.jpg
595de001784c35f6a79f74d31d6beeb7
d0cfc0ff737ed4f540aaa54272cc52ac70b5c170
60688 F20101106_AACBCE oberlander_m_Page_022.pro
b397cfb3932ffe5413a1942be37faddc
c36efa9c18d600c049dbf2827909b3b617a253e6
25216 F20101106_AACCFH oberlander_m_Page_043.QC.jpg
0394764c3e5414f4e6913e4bb3bcf44b
16594a974838ece821e149060872bf8d48dad469
29610 F20101106_AACCES oberlander_m_Page_032.QC.jpg
de4a04ad5209298c2dbd0226b06bcb06
472ff1520799e8f848d1bc43be775f59333f67d4
60181 F20101106_AACBZM oberlander_m_Page_185.pro
7b9d9d7a48a499c297fc9432cb5116f5
62755fb680a85020acea868133840e647f08f2ad
52120 F20101106_AACBYY oberlander_m_Page_156.pro
7642d913c542a96133bebf034c26f347
3068b9fdb29790203f7eddcbd1c366177452fafa
2430 F20101106_AACBBQ oberlander_m_Page_087.txt
e11012f831076b0e8cd5cf8158492343
89e888f1abc9e182690e44e64fac40004b8db2b8
F20101106_AACAWK oberlander_m_Page_149.txt
bdd0daa174670e6b921323009f943738
b9a4e57e938194dacedc521aa60b52380dadb61e
1926 F20101106_AACAVW oberlander_m_Page_007.txt
a97c52746108e0097f84d92d081d263b
204302347196e5b3625ee1f82533d44cdfc79e19
2188 F20101106_AACBCF oberlander_m_Page_120.txt
d89d72f30d1a483ad0acca090a35f5d5
91f9d090fe8240f76c576de068e13d6e8006eacb
27573 F20101106_AACCFI oberlander_m_Page_044.QC.jpg
dfcbe6a91b888bf60fa84ea6430fc1f1
b6f0604794791a9e729aba9273b746c6b3dec141
6852 F20101106_AACCET oberlander_m_Page_032thm.jpg
7a63ad9733f99e5dce74a7c041c33700
0293f09340d0543bdddae3364bdf58c1b7a1f60b
528 F20101106_AACBZN oberlander_m_Page_001.txt
3436bb050ab6383434e37051af5c6eea
0d7863bbb0c9614ecd506291069389eb7df2da97
43053 F20101106_AACBYZ oberlander_m_Page_157.pro
888fe03e4aa2e66a7a767baf08fbdf12
cb35966ba9aafe0f379c88604cc3675daee14182
2141 F20101106_AACAWL oberlander_m_Page_180.txt
5e3dc7b53f2d6f2ba70fe07707cec967
e5e05108ce7e92e044058bd95645e9428c285d65
F20101106_AACAVX oberlander_m_Page_121.tif
6a70db99b5572b9e132f2a8470f4d3fe
67f29dd17864ab329c79fb17275b9a928c9c9d73
2728 F20101106_AACBCG oberlander_m_Page_179.txt
d9fdd6846d00f66942878aba6d05b62d
f503d142a06add7925797ce4a4342d82fe80b240
1968 F20101106_AACAXA oberlander_m_Page_069.txt
cdafcf9da0020e3838c0896d15555056
2834e0fa2caa4483b5d00c8067366206be095033
28018 F20101106_AACBBR oberlander_m_Page_064.QC.jpg
72b40fcdeb9464d4e3f91485eac3d175
e456c6cc1d81a04a30433a52cc393ea4d55198d4
9468 F20101106_AACCFJ oberlander_m_Page_045.QC.jpg
f33ce9ded6868c216a909bfa766afbec
35438428d3ebcdc1c1375d9638baa29c345cab56
28332 F20101106_AACCEU oberlander_m_Page_033.QC.jpg
0bcd8a236ff39fa1d870cc03922de1a8
e06775dbf5c0b3197db1dbd983b0d146de7dec47
93 F20101106_AACBZO oberlander_m_Page_002.txt
7cb9fbd8beaecd8925a852ceab1e539e
caf7baf2a68970b2e90184313414df0ea80f392e
5867 F20101106_AACAWM oberlander_m_Page_169.QC.jpg
aebe7fdcbf09e117a24134470f2f3097
6701895946548ca727081f8be103c892bdf822b4
28477 F20101106_AACAVY oberlander_m_Page_111.QC.jpg
7eec407329a879098fe64a0936b199b9
c3b9a2b30a10c14de8b999564501dde0a719fcda
23592 F20101106_AACBCH oberlander_m_Page_171.pro
28da33fafd4bcfc9ed1c3d49a8b1b70f
2ef71187be1d5c96f2d1bb5bbd4d7d3475143b7b
64285 F20101106_AACAXB oberlander_m_Page_161.jp2
068faf065556916db3bae2136e96bb50
452c9c46c0c2497c53b346701115ce2bae36d5be
65453 F20101106_AACBBS oberlander_m_Page_151.pro
105e71d1b47a81db5a736cd755ad3668
8c57ef34a84071c3f6d69c8da3b3869974f3939b
F20101106_AACCFK oberlander_m_Page_045thm.jpg
8613627a049c1646ce7c3ee1b79ea2f9
d01614d23c21411c5a6c322ac51d2eb01f9c8456
6765 F20101106_AACCEV oberlander_m_Page_033thm.jpg
2a3110f1e8de2364eed1b30848fa9d54
104fe3fd914e7aefccf47d3334d7a0445eccd51c
2724 F20101106_AACBZP oberlander_m_Page_008.txt
fbb582044deeead758ea57d365d4d6b2
6a5cbc4389e2bbdcfec3cfe378ab7fcd84143b65
1051947 F20101106_AACAWN oberlander_m_Page_034.jp2
02ac2a38e9b286ac6637349a1d71b4a3
036d0a9d800c849de0464c39a5babb94b11d46c6
113197 F20101106_AACAVZ oberlander_m_Page_116.jp2
e6a5a5229b826faafc77483ce435b35c
77aadd546e3732ac371fe4cc30e3dc0ea62f0e95
F20101106_AACBCI oberlander_m_Page_026.tif
d76dab80906b0f58674633a9e5634f90
37a1ebd2bd31b7593081cb5a65f6ae221c19ce1d
49741 F20101106_AACAXC oberlander_m_Page_156.jpg
d78e65caa144b39f5e943095b1e97eb0
29901ef3b5f49016ff7681379e59123149e36495
F20101106_AACBBT oberlander_m_Page_029.txt
40b79f63067c4f7e187cfb2af4e50d9f
fc1d9b4794b79a77760291af56ab66b433845d56
11854 F20101106_AACCFL oberlander_m_Page_046.QC.jpg
31969de63aad63e334d12b1f285d2f13
b03fdca49fd5e4a7dff37ab6fa81dac302a362b7
26013 F20101106_AACCEW oberlander_m_Page_034.QC.jpg
8f6587d149fcd47413254641ab87d415
e8286de931baddada811164e995661d2f6b2920c
2972 F20101106_AACBZQ oberlander_m_Page_009.txt
4c0b322e6ff7729b6e3d7ce7ee852dde
d7169d873a28ea0fef7b489ff59e0d51cf6833e4
28109 F20101106_AACAWO oberlander_m_Page_126.QC.jpg
f5c139fae6c0d2239bf094eb1e5f7983
f87ca1bf52098566ccce08d3479744abf0cd28f1
F20101106_AACBCJ oberlander_m_Page_022.txt
de52d14e862f6ecf8d92db169a456292
330f8f78ec431603c9c50bb6e8515b0aaef64326
6805 F20101106_AACBBU oberlander_m_Page_114thm.jpg
a17d128773e4ee4204149437d88517d6
912e89030548e98423bc7846c439ec6998091f90
27715 F20101106_AACCGA oberlander_m_Page_059.QC.jpg
39bcd9a66944a7de41f7e30074d8e2a8
20e73799dc9ab75fef7ba2868a47754f74896055
15807 F20101106_AACCFM oberlander_m_Page_047.QC.jpg
b4c8c4797293ef21b375060554c77e5f
57510238d77ddda7aadee917000fe8efa936b6c2
6272 F20101106_AACCEX oberlander_m_Page_034thm.jpg
521743a335c194318c0a063d82bab869
2367f4310d258fd2adf163df1d0cc3115e2cdb2c
2999 F20101106_AACBZR oberlander_m_Page_010.txt
357ece23382de2b5763a534fd66369ad
0a33704a434c1e3a8200e860caad2db6ef26b3f3
F20101106_AACAWP oberlander_m_Page_122.tif
8e458af793b1146bb396bb1da89263f1
5114723c89c35f3ed2389393b06fcf3ebb9cdeb5
F20101106_AACBCK oberlander_m_Page_141.tif
b7e0c2174b454c0b467d5681e7644954
9d33cc3e8f4e6c41afb6072322b9abb33274ecbd
2951 F20101106_AACAXD oberlander_m_Page_174.txt
18e55c6aa6fda9e39e5c9a311725bd4f
22bd193c598b3f087762318b2b357baae3048430
28616 F20101106_AACBBV oberlander_m_Page_030.QC.jpg
30e023f837d84259cf34f20630ccee58
d2b66bdafb86ae25b2f0cc4020578ba258cc12cc
6729 F20101106_AACCGB oberlander_m_Page_059thm.jpg
bb1052c7528df238914f439264aff6a8
5fd28324cd9b4355218c73f16efce94f8ab1dae2
4585 F20101106_AACCFN oberlander_m_Page_047thm.jpg
425003abc8257328f9ecc1ce622e243c
2da6038c54a62aedf9a5b9a61b1a47e4fa2b38bc
28080 F20101106_AACCEY oberlander_m_Page_035.QC.jpg
95ab0bdfd7d9b08b8799f88fabd8fc50
1ed81f5eb6271d207c0b34691ea4643e6f059b39
692 F20101106_AACBZS oberlander_m_Page_011.txt
43b986ecc3a60989252bdf884a92dbcc
33ada1283b66df6fbba47453348897c798944c96
2283 F20101106_AACAWQ oberlander_m_Page_013thm.jpg
7247f3717faa40a27b1a912eedd26ce2
ee69ca4a838a24a8d2317726cd4a43d975c9b580
F20101106_AACBCL oberlander_m_Page_036.jp2
31787ecccc65f2eab5a921fabed45936
a13f7286ad9e06a409a8c8dda26f6a58a5e702db
1758 F20101106_AACAXE oberlander_m_Page_158.txt
d688720a233a59ff4584ecb568e27ffc
954ae47190671967e3b2d6950be6e97d0f9013dd
72017 F20101106_AACBBW oberlander_m_Page_148.jp2
898f816af2d895d875f73d321f69a246
6b8dee060df20a559d0474dd630ff191cade26de
6332 F20101106_AACCGC oberlander_m_Page_060thm.jpg
f0d63ce09ab4cc242efe3d631896f749
6fcb2a9c3c5dec2d5f9206b048ea1cb27ecb32f3
26340 F20101106_AACCFO oberlander_m_Page_048.QC.jpg
b03a0d804b9b3c4d2b54d8799ac31d01
b85ff6e3497c69fc2bae6fb21598a2a3e1c32eaf
6637 F20101106_AACCEZ oberlander_m_Page_035thm.jpg
cef8958866064b113535d4dcd45464e5
d09b0501357a09565913d3e1f37819ed15dfa835
705 F20101106_AACBZT oberlander_m_Page_013.txt
b24af53d4b935c53705d892a346d2b5f
785e31cbefa9c418c8f684e8cbf6dcdab7750470
1480 F20101106_AACAWR oberlander_m_Page_150.txt
7a5ed9292ae16eaad0ae6d37c8f72ac4
1ea7d567d934a01a44b320e5b25f0e6d8c8c3df7
1703 F20101106_AACBDA oberlander_m_Page_143thm.jpg
c85b5d06e847b56cad661afe20102f8b
1cbb9355ac4f15a38bdbe331c52f41af2487fc98
10465 F20101106_AACBCM oberlander_m_Page_139.QC.jpg
cee7c84e3ac959c42a8da2f432df5e08
611c5be2657e72f8cc07c3f5e0e6f371ee853ea6
1658 F20101106_AACAXF oberlander_m_Page_128.pro
88747c733f7b945a8fd2bbf9ec532261
e736506ff9b1abf31a23480469a3ce6c9f48c10d
27561 F20101106_AACBBX oberlander_m_Page_015.QC.jpg
c4315819bdd89b49cb30e9e87ff3d678
f492b5d22e79ead4d7790c70567cfe563f2dd100
29500 F20101106_AACCGD oberlander_m_Page_061.QC.jpg
bf784f926f95a78c0e043cad567e31c5
27ece0746ca76e3d8071766fbeab090b1d884019
2343 F20101106_AACBZU oberlander_m_Page_015.txt
f5f0fc0af3275e7dd63cc7f24a0379bb
59c79da08f9a576a1434e8e0b40d63713ae0cb13
17674 F20101106_AACAWS oberlander_m_Page_005.QC.jpg
4fdccf38ee0e4703482ff40e93790211
e18e14d355fbbda6f2ee278ab15722c97fdafa4f
436 F20101106_AACBDB oberlander_m_Page_153thm.jpg
93966ccbc23862b5e4115aa9926a42e4
cf70bd2f30884fce04d5707dfbf3d613d73e211e
28252 F20101106_AACAXG oberlander_m_Page_060.QC.jpg
c2ffc781f711d4531bcadde79ef371b3
4dddcda1044ac01fc9b5dea8b4ea696619cdcd52
6287 F20101106_AACBBY oberlander_m_Page_069thm.jpg
ac393c5e6f536bb004a12339fbfa70e3
86b50144dfb271bca7c7762151725de061b39652
6797 F20101106_AACCGE oberlander_m_Page_061thm.jpg
4d1969d9e3de0e0eb55e5602d20b0b6a
85d48e86b2c12ae1a74e622f614b82090b4643e4
6234 F20101106_AACCFP oberlander_m_Page_048thm.jpg
7a1bfbd8e3039c0b466705b6e7cb6bd5
9b311ef773b4163b8575a0fdcfc81a2f9eb1ca94
2129 F20101106_AACBZV oberlander_m_Page_017.txt
11f9b871bcf07c336dde6bcbdf9a2ac9
d10cbe351ce85d741df8ddeeeaee891b6ee6161a
F20101106_AACAWT oberlander_m_Page_183.tif
2b69843f8267f8b75d03e1618bfdc9b3
014f5c30e23fd8fe83d3355539a0cd933c522716
F20101106_AACBDC oberlander_m_Page_019.tif
a8f0e429f08487d84798e9b6ace359b0
a89792c9079f5516b6803abb99f2d4a10b6ff1a2
30216 F20101106_AACBCN oberlander_m_Page_084.pro
0793eea708b1bd1050f4af60992c7694
c68a7b675af9bb07b5df58885d744b22e4ecdf34
10815 F20101106_AACAXH oberlander_m_Page_078.QC.jpg
31268b94042be861aeb4f92c90501a55
2c393d53c59b76bb16295e6dae62b3ff5da11e2d
F20101106_AACBBZ oberlander_m_Page_065.tif
1208e3330196202f7b4ff0ee41b75318
6c6d136bca04351d237234398cc161a00a7a19ca
6550 F20101106_AACCGF oberlander_m_Page_062thm.jpg
46bd13346c9aaac8d5f26515e867e279
a64ab7c51e1fe8d3b0edcb0bd0766fa0deee8eb3
6658 F20101106_AACCFQ oberlander_m_Page_049thm.jpg
1e9eb2bd36e772fdeab5b092c214e2c8
4320867e72667256a3ede88a009011ea454fe962
2025 F20101106_AACBZW oberlander_m_Page_018.txt
92dc1fe90a12298b1c300088e2c50e90
2c42b8b7276945ae52b627211407dc093e26b64f
6346 F20101106_AACAWU oberlander_m_Page_070thm.jpg
ecdd79700bfadd0843cd272cc99ee039
eea91e935f2d018b24180acd3d6f5c86ad4efde9
4133 F20101106_AACBDD oberlander_m_Page_163thm.jpg
833fa0108ea471aac8d88a53b10ba1b3
4f64b1fb7cbb9ce53929238f47ef4ca6524d0f26
4055 F20101106_AACBCO oberlander_m_Page_129.QC.jpg
8c91f00a1eb927e7acf0c497169a57af
7002637a46cda12fc34fd73c95b9760da752d7e6
57012 F20101106_AACAXI oberlander_m_Page_024.pro
5a61910eb0ab2564d2d0378aa5f964b9
26e482b8744bcbe72384ea65669d8e1cebe015ad
F20101106_AACCGG oberlander_m_Page_063thm.jpg
28220820be6c610b464096a53411cb1c
7f340f0ae3612a099fd65a90fc0b67fc790768aa
F20101106_AACCFR oberlander_m_Page_051thm.jpg
6fb2a2c9f3b2193226adc07068f5c253
5b0839998a543854f88aaea0aa501400ae47dd6e
2206 F20101106_AACBZX oberlander_m_Page_020.txt
d17e07d67378f2aa15cbb1685a6390ca
4c9cce32e45c7fba7939e90d74dbd0a237334101
51481 F20101106_AACAWV oberlander_m_Page_050.pro
00cfb37e3c2998fe10d37fbf61d3dddb
feb7504729c86e01950836d970b169ea440999e1
1051980 F20101106_AACBDE oberlander_m_Page_067.jp2
9fef0e4e87af0e28454d456686a7d673
1d73f1b01ada8e0baa40e061cad0f728334df0a9
37790 F20101106_AACBCP oberlander_m_Page_103.jpg
3411342ecb44e70aa4e22a0ddffde171
8f3fefff451489f2699593c618134e0b2e84d615
28939 F20101106_AACAXJ oberlander_m_Page_056.QC.jpg
e43b1c99d70f7a88940446a8e6d64d68
7a9f1be3f4be18cf86d3d135d82a46382c249037
6606 F20101106_AACCGH oberlander_m_Page_064thm.jpg
8b2d5eada4ba529880c499dbfd3892d2
34b5b72682320a6effdf12d614cf237a82e41096
6334 F20101106_AACCFS oberlander_m_Page_053thm.jpg
3c497e473ff0394dce718f38a0d48f7c
d9d29fd700bef54412ec7c19dc7d73631162d6d3
2116 F20101106_AACBZY oberlander_m_Page_023.txt
4c1955c2e09adcbc3dacc6ac5f0f4462
cf2cf058ca4314dd75ecfc0d8ae3910496bba3ff
22500 F20101106_AACAWW oberlander_m_Page_095.pro
6809f11a68afab1c5d035d8a941b78c9
40390eecff7fcb889549cb55654597d00ef1f7c5
6783 F20101106_AACBDF oberlander_m_Page_030thm.jpg
b1a4bab69b6489c633cd2eb2dd3c8bfd
9870fd60a26fd4cf4d9386c5fa212f7f57a811a0
4792 F20101106_AACBCQ oberlander_m_Page_006thm.jpg
d55911b1235e840812a841c367baaf85
e57752ff9a5f1f0db3a7e61ac11476f739c34ad2
F20101106_AACAXK oberlander_m_Page_099.QC.jpg
e2b16118b9901db84f43846b824b4cb2
9e48d5563db346f06dc7d0ff48599d3f7696c652
6779 F20101106_AACCGI oberlander_m_Page_065thm.jpg
3c853d29411f14bab99426ee44f1d59f
9bfbe515685afed0c8680c68e8bce3eedf180669
27409 F20101106_AACCFT oberlander_m_Page_054.QC.jpg
d97812b63925c28f7c523f6fe88d618b
fc209ee857ec1d773c6d96b3a3048d6d2d24eb39
2268 F20101106_AACBZZ oberlander_m_Page_024.txt
6941cc000b1f325e3989217896314c24
0d3e5ee0c3153c215b3decb6aedb72233503d6da
489 F20101106_AACAWX oberlander_m_Page_133thm.jpg
355a392a3600709b8b57cfe0661f961a
275ff405d8827395a0e88693bfe6d4e2858fba6d
1685 F20101106_AACBDG oberlander_m_Page_104thm.jpg
15780da0cd8b9bddf7691d85aef042c7
82e1e70b0fd086e5d087d4caaf8304a85984aa84
35660 F20101106_AACAYA oberlander_m_Page_076.jpg
bafdd3b341ec48769fb6eacbdcb5e70d
ea05b814f562aa088175dd7a779e032cdde73dc8
1051968 F20101106_AACBCR oberlander_m_Page_053.jp2
27c201cc9e810f93f571fb55a43b3058
5711468f781b77da5fce309f8b322fc72932d735
2167 F20101106_AACAXL oberlander_m_Page_063.txt
ff6ca85989f9513271b1443250088ac3
66da525b032e358c969930c9d036907336cafa4c
27756 F20101106_AACCGJ oberlander_m_Page_067.QC.jpg
06173a5b11dc5d7a8bed8c1cf19feb81
1f43332717ce9ea3db798afba8c8ce553200117c
6379 F20101106_AACCFU oberlander_m_Page_054thm.jpg
0f6b18c0e4ea1ef19cf381db676ca431
5a47b311b2cc0ada3c3589541c354ed6dede3915
2081 F20101106_AACAWY oberlander_m_Page_082thm.jpg
f62ce0eabedd43eb40b834ddcaa05c23
fe5916e71717a6e325089015b8793928f9d736d0
F20101106_AACBDH oberlander_m_Page_139.tif
0469ec9d737c14a8302d485fa896041c
88cc695b710b6951b41ffadea920f17653af8be9
1955 F20101106_AACAYB oberlander_m_Page_095thm.jpg
15aa8ac01d7e65caf5e90461fe731e65
92c93b784bfaf244ab6bfb43cc347f8874e01f25
2034 F20101106_AACBCS oberlander_m_Page_060.txt
905d57d928440f640285984ba6911a6c
b3644865f440b671eda40eb9d51ea00b7983c6e4
333243 F20101106_AACAXM oberlander_m_Page_183.jp2
5e9b0d0cabedffc886de90f95b43f0e4
0fff7634efafbefac8421f31b844a0df2d5d80ee
6333 F20101106_AACCGK oberlander_m_Page_067thm.jpg
52efeb7a58555387e10de167c3e9ad8b
b3006d03098059a58069315faca50459237fe829
27683 F20101106_AACCFV oberlander_m_Page_055.QC.jpg
30ff7e1ce4b2168a6450b49281d1db9e
a08773d7a277976abe5d558bd02c444d3cb0e1d0
14977 F20101106_AACAWZ oberlander_m_Page_179.QC.jpg
d067804ba06d1f830a25093a227784d5
8d30442d51d9b96743c0fd84ff3e2e0ec3ceebb9
5467 F20101106_AACBDI oberlander_m_Page_104.QC.jpg
a6055dd888532a012eb43d184980e5b8
433c2a2f79ba06bef9a7da5a278e409554abdb32
1334 F20101106_AACAYC oberlander_m_Page_073.txt
d91ec8eb9e7fcc0ebeb62bc339ae7c11
844a7b03c38e773c77c8056dcc896bbd1ff04b85
85 F20101106_AACBCT oberlander_m_Page_128.txt
2874beea41a9bb8ef7b84744ca80f983
3428095c155adf0f4746623000a913a85ce56b4f
2639 F20101106_AACAXN oberlander_m_Page_079thm.jpg
69d487db8f0f04ced85464d8c515208a
920b01d07bcaca852288de365f8ded958f764b33
6573 F20101106_AACCGL oberlander_m_Page_068thm.jpg
06cf03ece138237c51221aa173482fdf
1a1715ebcc3cc597619490027cd38991ebd94632
6257 F20101106_AACCFW oberlander_m_Page_055thm.jpg
27c5e24224559a73c4aa3f07a1d770ea
7e129218064296d940b835d9e676a44c442fe451
84358 F20101106_AACBDJ oberlander_m_Page_069.jpg
bcd92ee85a960dd82b77d037325d37bf
864c7f2142381f5930146632b0ac81cc2e2072f2
18699 F20101106_AACAYD oberlander_m_Page_163.QC.jpg
83a32d7009fbbf6f0ab07633d016833c
c93d0d5752328775159792a76351c9ecf5476e4f
923092 F20101106_AACBCU oberlander_m_Page_081.jp2
8da4c924a046d10e4d6bf9e0b0368297
bdc654018178e4c4a64573d79d9a97a85b61a997
22576 F20101106_AACAXO oberlander_m_Page_072.pro
8e47e80f4639b7bc9958a21e01d9d5ff
ed6fdb485892f38015a254d3f97c566b82412238
8704 F20101106_AACCHA oberlander_m_Page_085.QC.jpg
f9702a9c49377133869b4e412c638810
7270a0b37a13ccd208678395aefb1679e05f025b
F20101106_AACCGM oberlander_m_Page_070.QC.jpg
a96e72f4ac4170527bd5e13866f28cf9
2dec90c4d27e87a0fff94f6994defa1789460219
6694 F20101106_AACCFX oberlander_m_Page_056thm.jpg
ca52e700b399c5d5bcae24cad5b1ca2a
2228ef24e7c648789331320d31636721f9579917
94044 F20101106_AACBDK oberlander_m_Page_028.jpg
24643eaeefac97c376f96a8942ecb23e
9fa9b2966efb623b4ddb4402066b9ef47010bb6f
F20101106_AACBCV oberlander_m_Page_103.tif
5b5307327d0122cc74f4de327ce794a9
15c4cdca15f2e7e460e9e2ccf1586d949c3d2a79
23578 F20101106_AACAXP oberlander_m_Page_109.QC.jpg
46a14bd260ced6fe798b94c416c61c3d
5caaafa467d08520eded289569d7c87881fd3be0
14231 F20101106_AACCHB oberlander_m_Page_086.QC.jpg
1f9ef90f319046f02aa1e2b77ab1b559
143a62d1a40ce6bc9758621b956586bc0fc44162
3619 F20101106_AACCGN oberlander_m_Page_071thm.jpg
ec4b67791d555544179fd6d629480d88
789a6c07d09dcb75e500fe3014c4afa0f7468232
6373 F20101106_AACCFY oberlander_m_Page_057thm.jpg
71117efe737ae1345beada6c3762f348
ca578200decff04d7fd268eea151197b41becd82
F20101106_AACBDL oberlander_m_Page_168.tif
2d63f55d6c1cbc0009f91ab41cdbb3d5
d8c61325605b88ff5896878e928554aaf2b80220
60363 F20101106_AACAYE oberlander_m_Page_154.jpg
c32b746b513f9e8c037a08af86693109
0ee2f7e8b751c683ba551a21dfdad4026a328eb4
1521 F20101106_AACBCW oberlander_m_Page_093.txt
dcf13eba4f39605cc4cb453642aa9df8
edd65769d4a05fb3fa4372cc36f08d646e826e39
20038 F20101106_AACAXQ oberlander_m_Page_102.jpg
13835fe81053e4719d455756f0ee7b42
f7a29fd3ba1552f3a2f3858e22e95d274f68aa5e
18105 F20101106_AACCHC oberlander_m_Page_088.QC.jpg
f9fc41e554deb37d6b5960367d111fd7
fd166bc82aa0036b3d022aea868980b212949f27
1627 F20101106_AACCGO oberlander_m_Page_072thm.jpg
ac3dcf4c9dcda669080cf7160c404b5f
026a4cc72dfb0929a15aa556d41e1ff0f03c3af2
6548 F20101106_AACCFZ oberlander_m_Page_058thm.jpg
ed14d495be1b463770e03fce2a423351
2bfeb3496d4c43169c36891c7e15ad5d0ce898ef
F20101106_AACBDM oberlander_m_Page_054.tif
e0dffaba7c767862bdbc17e04059d5b8
0cc016917c576976da5544df0a9eeaecdd448aa9
54760 F20101106_AACAYF oberlander_m_Page_146.pro
adc1115c8a734facc9c6fd0f0acf147f
12a585880986bbf3b171fcff57b2e41d55d37fbe
6459 F20101106_AACBCX oberlander_m_Page_047.pro
1836cb88df13b3e1cb3a0c0bbb8b042a
1b31345c7b12eb8bbab0ff4ff2d73809e7bdb517
44 F20101106_AACAXR oberlander_m_Page_178.txt
2ca517e249efe16dc29b4a5766220d20
97495758b8e37f936527288b0f9318ce828ab210
78875 F20101106_AACBEA oberlander_m_Page_150.jp2
835fc0767a6daee1d81bd7c970997e7a
80f8cb28911f4999d6970f4a0ccc40faf39c2f66
4130 F20101106_AACCHD oberlander_m_Page_088thm.jpg
8d16136c6417662689b97435a4c826b9
d2206a9f64f8c316a7049ad63842455384e7a280
7754 F20101106_AACCGP oberlander_m_Page_075.QC.jpg
506c3f9c2e6c0029975ab45bec6c4baf
c88abd927741bc7c6756fa4f5b1efef955536232
F20101106_AACBDN oberlander_m_Page_082.tif
ceceef0c852c3ed3358ed3a941f19175
74593dbdd28cec10530fce26b69c376d0ad87db0
425 F20101106_AACAYG oberlander_m_Page_160thm.jpg
37e349ed9a0d751d71223c95d6e063b9
5deb961fa38d86f57bb6f297f5357b155627c617
49750 F20101106_AACBCY oberlander_m_Page_069.pro
aab4e9bd4fddd09646d61540332635e0
ae04f62e85af172ecdcc51dac9426b53b728ad48
92871 F20101106_AACAXS oberlander_m_Page_005.pro
530c100f0ec7cdd4a9a0b0192cdc1ee2
b9887348cda91b1bd15f4e33ed971c63da7041fc
12368 F20101106_AACBEB oberlander_m_Page_156.QC.jpg
5aa0975be4a75c9955977414e0e0f1ab
7d6fa3ccd563110cb4ab8303aa180e7b99091ecb
10045 F20101106_AACCHE oberlander_m_Page_089.QC.jpg
e38f6cc0a62ddbc0b6414215e812535f
b3045397d39bb0e17e4b136ca5c7efc0b2524ec1
F20101106_AACAYH oberlander_m_Page_009.tif
850f8ed70e6ea63bb4d729bfa69edf76
166051b98f0028d2c13b84e844a23a7232a80ee1
2244 F20101106_AACBCZ oberlander_m_Page_110.txt
92ab6f30982dee7b70669c9898285009
1ccfd7498173d46aeda4458422e7b66d01d72602
34318 F20101106_AACAXT oberlander_m_Page_162.jpg
533318eaf23bbb5e24fd679f8a582d50
a8fe8c427c88f5f6e9ed956cd9f91a7094013d31
90452 F20101106_AACBEC oberlander_m_Page_111.jpg
9278cfb26a6d842cfafc8b28cca8392a
bd09c0d73f608f5df105e2271ea62be3720a28eb
3130 F20101106_AACCHF oberlander_m_Page_089thm.jpg
9baa61546a4dec9275566ed32bb58014
902931b14f2e6f3ecf2db6c5180c66739ab96d97
10049 F20101106_AACCGQ oberlander_m_Page_076.QC.jpg
d7ca17bb4176f207db8eb03330e93466
305eae3464c78ea9bfc4bf5c4f54ebdae9791d04
F20101106_AACBDO oberlander_m_Page_040.jp2
45ebbbf4cb88e38a742142482ff9e723
c2897ad6e9cc9b8bdf1663cedb93ca362bee4ff5
55293 F20101106_AACAYI oberlander_m_Page_143.jp2
db6d5d2d62c115742fff7e3eea76aefc
6daa47ed759e397e10bba0b72b11e011b7407b12
F20101106_AACAXU oberlander_m_Page_064.tif
9b3726d82a0bb56f31c13cb78c9a6ff9
e159dbc377721582650aa658e1986a5d1d1db375
88807 F20101106_AACBED oberlander_m_Page_017.jpg
42d5a897f726ef3c47954f51c5427998
ab749250b09633c080efaa5519f7cabf69df19dc
9632 F20101106_AACCHG oberlander_m_Page_090.QC.jpg
ff77d02681217fcfaf8ccc44c1b37d95
663c0e7cd7f190a5d36efa5ccadc6748cd0f77cc
F20101106_AACCGR oberlander_m_Page_076thm.jpg
5e75c77374656de415a1d8f36b6cbb36
b12544194482c00024505741ac688fa692d2e15f
90844 F20101106_AACBDP oberlander_m_Page_055.jpg
b0bbeabb13e705eed7943e26ad8ca100
81a0366d5be049630b9082446f1c57f10d162cab
2230 F20101106_AACAYJ oberlander_m_Page_030.txt
d2dece52b1ce8c705f384b3de31e4548
340f17cd1948bb29e07bf1e6e7590ba26d923bfe
37261 F20101106_AACAXV oberlander_m_Page_079.jpg
1ccef5254a52973936cd9c244047922f
960b289114278d42cc12a371c8e8f78603af25b6
27169 F20101106_AACBEE oberlander_m_Page_069.QC.jpg
f5b2684cf0974e6e50db6cdd76ebbe63
333f705c0c1c4287027742e13a1083808a9514eb
2809 F20101106_AACCHH oberlander_m_Page_090thm.jpg
05f726deb2ba302480b30ce3a46aae75
8d58e1921aad98b8e2c5a4cfc60369100801ae62
2642 F20101106_AACCGS oberlander_m_Page_078thm.jpg
7cc938526cea1f4a503887a13c5bdb24
4fda0494bd7c611df64e41829cb0640436c018a9
F20101106_AACBDQ oberlander_m_Page_097.tif
ce6c6a6e7e0825dc5c1aa41e6b1e535e
ec1f9ac027938180573c4e0b16f34c68ebd8d482
F20101106_AACAYK oberlander_m_Page_055.jp2
59ed4ce33e245d66a885573244219581
aaf86d66221a602fa902ec9a54c1e2770b976867
50092 F20101106_AACAXW oberlander_m_Page_134.jpg
1fa073d4c171b478b1bd07b54b95e31f
188965450dc151715a2551e63917bf4b3c19bd89
8682 F20101106_AACBEF oberlander_m_Page_093.QC.jpg
6df931f9a1fcb28c54f52aa03b89d85a
660cab1e107915fea1ec771baa23aca6d0429b85
1739 F20101106_AACCHI oberlander_m_Page_091thm.jpg
e7a46ab352242dbb3bafdb4f5b9b9bb8
6a0fd30a33bff91ad49c25464d5aa9c6878bfed3
13577 F20101106_AACCGT oberlander_m_Page_080.QC.jpg
75ff66eaf4669c23a3f93a84f17c9339
dfc18df509027ad4f5b88550db0a21fe2fe9bd4d
1000 F20101106_AACAZA oberlander_m_Page_105.txt
665710ab39ec3099fe89d320b4dc5d52
8e4dbeec56c7a5b0e335503f1662c87faab85ff2
80723 F20101106_AACBDR oberlander_m_Page_109.jpg
3174eb384b69b909c98402bce7e22fda
7f462e6400547e896e130be02f57d49f122debd8
930 F20101106_AACAYL oberlander_m_Page_178.pro
984b58bf804315efe7c3f1ee46514fa1
405ff31fb8a39a5e8e996341efc6b83d9b63dcf9
3299 F20101106_AACAXX oberlander_m_Page_151.txt
1ad213c1a990e72913292e3f049f3180
a0a8522394692a6c5f53f9d7b5af39c115b287bc
97811 F20101106_AACBEG oberlander_m_Page_010.jpg
873672a7e7bc031df65afe45e49f7a92
1b2de08f09e1cea4f4b1168917ff6fbdc5ecc14e
10494 F20101106_AACCHJ oberlander_m_Page_092.QC.jpg
a12a1c7bad6c167696c41abc43c0a780
40456119b93e590052ca8542c06e1b38dc87131e
4101 F20101106_AACCGU oberlander_m_Page_080thm.jpg
f885ce556f29d9b9230c7b060b237409
1ac1efac7abfdb61092c7a3b568abe47c545b218
F20101106_AACAZB oberlander_m_Page_100.tif
e41facecd998d9161267028ef4ea3bb4
53801965063da02213c1561adb15de9c54d4394d
59309 F20101106_AACBDS oberlander_m_Page_061.pro
009f03a2e925f3e549e0cccd27d5e6ef
f58b7bf22779ef37e20c49911d75707fb984ea8b
87567 F20101106_AACAYM oberlander_m_Page_037.jpg
4f750795c7298d910234da128d351f11
66bac1df97f70eab10d3b490f598e74587163f51
F20101106_AACAXY oberlander_m_Page_031.tif
5e8cc47abfba4edc3e638871f8632df4
91d74d113ac9027f6c34483f17860a22646a38f2
3531 F20101106_AACBEH oberlander_m_Page_173.txt
3c83f8c39895f1f26548a8a6de5138bc
abbe60277548b56fff43eb305d21a55c04af34be
2593 F20101106_AACCHK oberlander_m_Page_093thm.jpg
e1b4d75ad9ba204dc7e9268c9f0bb4c3
ed75a69c6e8ea641e26b65d51aa0670da51cf1a2
13319 F20101106_AACCGV oberlander_m_Page_081.QC.jpg
6091c2a707d2a90bccc33b2a05c41a18
1a8056551d631adb027b47c9a963800afb447033
F20101106_AACAZC oberlander_m_Page_158.tif
940e35bd6ee5d570b819b7387ba29b8e
4386269a4916834d2e4d6fd757e176c191c2fdf0
54538 F20101106_AACBDT oberlander_m_Page_049.pro
30af4c32cf5a846d001eaef394f793dd
ff617e0cf47d9b9096801a7950769934bfb82a9e
34620 F20101106_AACAYN oberlander_m_Page_092.jpg
846d6c594158fe3dac0ff2988e427a97
1508dd3a151d1c3ff60b86eb71fbfcbd1e1b4970
F20101106_AACAXZ oberlander_m_Page_131.tif
a12ebac0f49eae60f9690269245cd47e
4fcdafb9e8e951d972b3fffee9ce4e3ce0b9b2f3
65859 F20101106_AACBEI oberlander_m_Page_166.pro
e0c7bf236dcc0a74b4baaae6c8d50151
5c311c4c248f27438b39cd4a66ad9c680d75d912
4957 F20101106_AACCHL oberlander_m_Page_094.QC.jpg
2afa03b1683db8be01001cb00c9f2a50
2cd559a96bbee6b44d38ef038c9576044d5a0700
8676 F20101106_AACCGW oberlander_m_Page_082.QC.jpg
a8314622d90e34ea112f2949169506bb
a4c3c4f6b9eb75c54afa5e548d2b6b5fcbacc03c
2079 F20101106_AACAZD oberlander_m_Page_068.txt
bce4b9cd13672098f835d4e4f817b940
8b3e7d09a1164ea413ec67fc9aebfd53610a87d1
F20101106_AACBDU oberlander_m_Page_007.jp2
66850825f0819c142a540373fa64cc32
5086f4163f327ee3e7beb95a5d8b946cef53cf06
329701 F20101106_AACAYO oberlander_m_Page_098.jp2
3ccc086bc559f23d5dfed90dcd17b66f
d6e86ab9d3b43bbb22bb9bb58be3ed14d9d232a1
720883 F20101106_AACBEJ oberlander_m_Page_077.jp2
97bf3686684884717176c26ae6ed711a
6bbec9778d7a04614983106558d4ca8b4b144313
6295 F20101106_AACCIA oberlander_m_Page_108thm.jpg
fbbc2b4076a194b993c1a4eec0d3628d
8625e541698f7c607374f64d644da3aec939684f
6132 F20101106_AACCHM oberlander_m_Page_095.QC.jpg
b2a1858247b7ce089e8ccc4eabaf72f8
58f23b1c3287e1e8191653bbd01e44a26926f3b1
2293 F20101106_AACCGX oberlander_m_Page_083thm.jpg
35a347f752fede0d71cece03f8975dd0
30e7c3af2f5fc31d43cc845074c9b04027831e28
85913 F20101106_AACAZE oberlander_m_Page_066.jpg
6e20b523ecd238a1e95b9770da9933eb
3bea6b628ec92973d8109cd2e8b0c44b4f9be5e0
92078 F20101106_AACBDV oberlander_m_Page_062.jpg
5d410b2072396e6b5d048b4ae3da98fb
95bb6eba48ba705c79fc3e277bfafab6cd54e772
2661 F20101106_AACAYP oberlander_m_Page_159.pro
cf0793fe5823cbfe2e90afd2ca18c4b3
d6fef4ca358b964f11a0953b2e9838485d82bc77
60495 F20101106_AACBEK oberlander_m_Page_038.jpg
35f2f79a7b31b0047131d258dbbec459
a39f0ec211bb888dd6dfbe8ac88123330c49e666
6119 F20101106_AACCIB oberlander_m_Page_109thm.jpg
ecf1b8a953a0303f73543fe70742f8b7
b058c877dd1130887ebb390823b59226e6b00f22
6244 F20101106_AACCHN oberlander_m_Page_096.QC.jpg
beda84f80f60dbb95f8695b462715f71
1f7fec68112883b6ab4e6f9ac06432f91d266281
9242 F20101106_AACCGY oberlander_m_Page_084.QC.jpg
cabbeb7e6bbaa6e000933c4b2abe3c3e
477e5f7eba12725b1988d9e07c61a8a82ac06c2c
4076 F20101106_AACBDW oberlander_m_Page_087thm.jpg
b3c51302c3726b8779773bb619ef793c
648adeded25e66b4271a814297440ccbadf02727
87241 F20101106_AACAYQ oberlander_m_Page_018.jpg
1cf2853e779fde06ff3e3ae5bc67f21a
124c47b51bc0bbf686f0f2d942f9c91765a172c8
25498 F20101106_AACBEL oberlander_m_Page_073.pro
e27e09d4135e896fb3ebeb076dfa4122
cfa6f6a81ffe3aa9abdb30f9f42422e59144a6a0
28910 F20101106_AACCIC oberlander_m_Page_110.QC.jpg
d0064885830437c2a557d5e9388d1dd4
5f6c446d01285293ad6a65851d4397796c158fdb
1618 F20101106_AACCHO oberlander_m_Page_097thm.jpg
908534e525a1c64ddffe439ec7fe2afa
17534883e7a125109c30b06bcef2917e52854e1a
2382 F20101106_AACCGZ oberlander_m_Page_084thm.jpg
7be554f071e70670bf7054f8442cf185
a773e53773ad666bd88b4dc6b8d4af381b441f00
9706 F20101106_AACAZF oberlander_m_Page_147.QC.jpg
3f4134e4a436f4920bc2f071f4c08f60
ca664ede6a6f8e0a377eb65b1a8c545a5ccb9ad7
1496 F20101106_AACBDX oberlander_m_Page_094thm.jpg
06d7a1c09f5f741e686904ca0c309369
ae36afb59163833b4e3de146c78c5a76ab992012
F20101106_AACAYR oberlander_m_Page_117.txt
ef318dd4f2b9e3fad09b5da8f4644c10
39bc89237dab36df3532c2487070b0fca1c28d14
28054 F20101106_AACBFA oberlander_m_Page_185.QC.jpg
d8ab140fcf3e46d348e6fc16224d2030
517e52a2e881ff2a20a556dbefe7b1df0e2eeec0
1051981 F20101106_AACBEM oberlander_m_Page_109.jp2
594f54e4c162b6a1319e3f21dcb1762e
b494a0ff3478d502422d1a3729f4735381276cf7
28068 F20101106_AACCID oberlander_m_Page_112.QC.jpg
e9bc630d1a861897fec0ca007656ec12
0ad3911b51cd2715c2de142a9f7ebbf8448f59fe
5692 F20101106_AACCHP oberlander_m_Page_098.QC.jpg
ebc7926fc9d9ebf0e71caa4262684a74
b8ab73b120c2c1b017365dc42e12f4b021cdb345
119878 F20101106_AACAZG oberlander_m_Page_123.jp2
1e347f5a9554c5c63ea217a7c387514f
6bd4bc5d4199e69d587e6bf5bcebbb5cd1e570ec
60197 F20101106_AACBDY oberlander_m_Page_114.pro
95c10a8084504179e4f011c636fafc2f
5440576971ada21c48a9d97e3c0425f4d046c264
F20101106_AACAYS oberlander_m_Page_083.tif
c102c0922878df34eb1a684c613e8121
43679bd771c66f365530770a1a3e7924d4839d82
56249 F20101106_AACBFB oberlander_m_Page_040.pro
b5b91e7e8df16ae734843ddf0cc4e4b9
d59e22f68c676b12041864a21a7e91b97e6011c7
F20101106_AACBEN oberlander_m_Page_059.tif
2f768c2c28fb241268bad7ac42c725c3
26ab4aabca56c1ee6cb7b23f2b18d916b268b8fe
6585 F20101106_AACCIE oberlander_m_Page_112thm.jpg
7614efc23026de568b10833d00045151
d77c6e27b1b9bd140bb94218dc81c5f655e1df04
1772 F20101106_AACCHQ oberlander_m_Page_098thm.jpg
8704a41ee4c66ca360eefb5e5e671d67
c7c02cb86495ccbdcebebc2e4770be4f8c104095
F20101106_AACAZH oberlander_m_Page_164.tif
5528d09b52f7f81111e6d22b4063dc32
17f762e74ebb66ad10ac38b041fd43f81b7d88db
F20101106_AACBDZ oberlander_m_Page_056.tif
06c4dad45b7d8174286a8c6426ae4be8
a0ed03c1059ffacf8ead33955769c8fc196aab35
6854 F20101106_AACAYT oberlander_m_Page_110thm.jpg
99a90e8bdbddd6e7ef323b892a238f91
b2ec366507a012e0dacda6fb07b4ec67df99c9b4
55989 F20101106_AACBFC oberlander_m_Page_123.pro
e85445494f63481de0906395ccb9678f
50a1c928baf094b979ec4629efb83176a4d50cfb
28203 F20101106_AACBEO oberlander_m_Page_041.QC.jpg
cf151be097947b60c3153bcb45c24e53
9c47df0ff4c91c31c5be29413f6d7fca7e9e2db3
6601 F20101106_AACCIF oberlander_m_Page_113thm.jpg
0dfc728c7b5840f25152c7940098021e
9ac4b7b9b435b0541954b4922b4a645c79ad7fcc
2401 F20101106_AACAZI oberlander_m_Page_035.txt
ee7c42e868d85e749d8399d0e5eff2cf
f5685928a12c392d43d9d888802d48ed7fd360b4
F20101106_AACAYU oberlander_m_Page_055.tif
6aad24376b58a87224644f1b7f422ad8
9187ff1615d45f961c06fe3154d0b55aeb396327
10448 F20101106_AACBFD oberlander_m_Page_177.QC.jpg
8daa6d7ab58dddeeb917d9873ea084f0
e06ed4ba872153ea5508fbb34ca05851f0d355e5
28784 F20101106_AACCIG oberlander_m_Page_114.QC.jpg
74877d13d4d570c6e5d1d6f3f89fb3b3
d91bba2c87d9b5130919c939ca6fd8f8ae29c1e4
1791 F20101106_AACCHR oberlander_m_Page_099thm.jpg
6b74888ab4db9617d6fc8b8d9a31ec26
7e591dee14b96a48f22df21173ecd943172769c8
1549 F20101106_AACAZJ oberlander_m_Page_168thm.jpg
87d4ab62f022c23a2885041134f36dbe
4bfa7f4ec6d333d8c8224246d565857934f5651e
F20101106_AACAYV oberlander_m_Page_015.jp2
0c11bf877de8e0188ac4c222bd0b767b
43751c484a147a09b458f4def1be840a02fd1100
5671 F20101106_AACBFE oberlander_m_Page_097.QC.jpg
36be24f790ed45b44df45acf2f63eeda
9109ec19ba736eeabb3a70ad1eda20d877131373
8782 F20101106_AACBEP oberlander_m_Page_152.QC.jpg
e8cebf3afdca1f4573c4879d69cec4fc
d789da3c0c724c386cc49f7ed71e797c88dfc86c
28410 F20101106_AACCIH oberlander_m_Page_115.QC.jpg
55764bfa7dc2fb607e836ecd6ca04162
ca5f72153d518932b872d59470f3c31b9d77444e
5679 F20101106_AACCHS oberlander_m_Page_100.QC.jpg
9fd71a252ea6a11aa7101e5830a0d5f8
b0f41d32ba6babd1124881a2a81269f45964f663
34149 F20101106_AACAZK oberlander_m_Page_161.jpg
9f60da7cfaa034b4572f2a88c09b3e02
abb24a87b9294d24a219bab9d9eb33b73f9fc431
F20101106_AACAYW oberlander_m_Page_020.jp2
0120be20bb3f7c18223f23c8f5a7d14c
8fcfd4c2080c459093b89510598a80caa71cf8b1
10229 F20101106_AACBFF oberlander_m_Page_079.QC.jpg
8445146c5bb94c843032d1d1b40a28ba
d9383d48e09c828113fa583d5da4638e311f6244
91660 F20101106_AACBEQ oberlander_m_Page_118.jpg
024800e981f8b4a04117b36b5b11de53
f80e5957b2bf963f84c32928bd618661c827b891
6570 F20101106_AACCII oberlander_m_Page_116thm.jpg
370653be2f9d63c8aace083766f7773c
c4aea8267df879a471ffc39b62253add4eb3ecfa
1726 F20101106_AACCHT oberlander_m_Page_100thm.jpg
580658a670675236e3608cb7618af7a0
c319928a820dd335bf270da0516891a875656949
2367 F20101106_AACAZL oberlander_m_Page_085thm.jpg
d522af66c2819049a0b83e6b09404123
009c923d09cc1bec505eb4ee279e46925afa9817
1698 F20101106_AACAYX oberlander_m_Page_157.txt
7e7b85774a54bc99f14a35ae2b04950f
8e91badd7c95909d4cfb33537f5e0d1aade8b7e0
55231 F20101106_AACBFG oberlander_m_Page_124.pro
1a13e037d0a5c0e9321d6ed826cc9892
ba6ebc027c2be6e2bc6e469acc8d493b03096d59
93225 F20101106_AACBER oberlander_m_Page_070.jpg
bd75524c027ab6f7a5099183dc3a6a54
4135d431b40ed537370916733c947b465635dce8
29905 F20101106_AACCIJ oberlander_m_Page_117.QC.jpg
9adce262370a424e00a3188d18cd76ec
5f6b39610193e2085e0f783144477738a2b4143c
3141 F20101106_AACCHU oberlander_m_Page_103thm.jpg
88f1ac5690e8299d145a68a999bb5a07
1c17116aa4590edc58b2fd027adbf37e4db3ab16
2190 F20101106_AACAZM oberlander_m_Page_111.txt
975ccc5fe37ffdb991957fa1f11aa997
abf2aed6de607bc80995a080d072e1ef8189e2a7
1956 F20101106_AACAYY oberlander_m_Page_144thm.jpg
3367201948d03147d2bf1aa3906f0bc8
341c1e45bb633e8d284a3f9f410c97139e992c6c
14560 F20101106_AACBFH oberlander_m_Page_186.QC.jpg
fe96234279565d1dee4f3a6cd732b8f2
0682c6582f4d1beeae587c9c54d61544acab9751
1007 F20101106_AACBES oberlander_m_Page_102.txt
259ca47d39574020d24ed42649ef36a8
97ce83c5276596868a610b1d3b12ddebd5a475de
6843 F20101106_AACCIK oberlander_m_Page_117thm.jpg
d35ee1f0bec02fd7c883470174d88a73
27f4544c5de048652d5fc0c3788eb11748008a8e
5391 F20101106_AACCHV oberlander_m_Page_105.QC.jpg
378c3f21fd4def16ce06a45073955104
dfd3f029584388bf5ec85d61fee9b8c9e0dc7270
4339 F20101106_AACAZN oberlander_m_Page_164.jpg
9a6da6d559a480c6a6005608ae363450
ffe262b231d465d8a994169e656c2a1a4c4ff8a7
F20101106_AACAYZ oberlander_m_Page_153.tif
0dcdb4204343e053f9e287af3228570b
bec371f478e9641b91bba029e0d69845a8f0f431
34681 F20101106_AACBFI oberlander_m_Page_078.pro
f1e66ded9083137930fbe895c7fa166c
86b132cf465a25a52b5ceba74aa298d2074d1469
8964 F20101106_AACBET oberlander_m_Page_138.QC.jpg
eb68b73e179c882414194f10621374e4
78e155d4f56debbb588a38d116494ee9ec4db33e
28313 F20101106_AACCIL oberlander_m_Page_118.QC.jpg
b529bbb7a8e1aae4ab9074d92d6cd0ff
87df90d2870a96e761ba39b525b3eb05d4c58110
1701 F20101106_AACCHW oberlander_m_Page_105thm.jpg
9bb0b1cca60fbce1bfab5a94575c903c
5bcf92a3dd44f6686ba53c5deeb10571ad75eeef
54761 F20101106_AACAZO oberlander_m_Page_087.pro
859d9bc8f0693aacb27ed4f0b7fb5272
e3e903f385a5e3e339664dc95e8a6c4a7893ae74
2633 F20101106_AACBFJ oberlander_m_Page_161thm.jpg
7f955cedfe405f8e39008059564790b6
c2f4b4f98b70cf93264b40a9f894f73dd77812d6
8614 F20101106_AACBEU oberlander_m_Page_083.QC.jpg
8d26386b7d998080b1aad3e6b97b5e6a
74d2dca57ccb3b0ef54ec5d2725849f918e0e591
1621 F20101106_AACCJA oberlander_m_Page_133.QC.jpg
f2b84364cc7360a3cb42260403f7fe00
d1f4ce2d98cf627334a2a5def21354c11d268071
6818 F20101106_AACCIM oberlander_m_Page_119thm.jpg
04e3b7cd2443774d8627faf88cd27d55
55a86a6f13f33678e2127349afa939c71899918e
2036 F20101106_AACCHX oberlander_m_Page_106thm.jpg
717b939fe631642b97235ced5165eecc
710f9461c2547b606c06e105eda994ea594e4193
94008 F20101106_AACAZP oberlander_m_Page_115.jpg
12d1c85c5d840962ea7ad237e302430b
ca3f3f93b35ccee959a93584326ee39b7ce1be2e
573720 F20101106_AACBFK oberlander_m_Page_011.jp2
ac7520d71ac8be8cf75abf39b6e0dcdf
ce549b53cb04a37cb05cc686fa5c33fc855551fb
458 F20101106_AACBEV oberlander_m_Page_178thm.jpg
4a35a67d906725b22fb7170b3309901c
216fe2a981dc04fd6c02285699018153aa17cffb
2867 F20101106_AACCJB oberlander_m_Page_134thm.jpg
bdbeed881f99be6155dca59b40bce41b
d1e0a1f301ded98768ad058d4d085c5da83c3511
25838 F20101106_AACCIN oberlander_m_Page_122.QC.jpg
0ed924d53129981762b6ca2bd08ada1a
b6d849a44e4182be9dc82e0158ae597e078e8bda
27450 F20101106_AACCHY oberlander_m_Page_107.QC.jpg
b8061e7006532d9a5bae7457b5ca6f38
e63d701aef80d82565ba9f00f9d8c6edd99b9e1d
2988 F20101106_AACAZQ oberlander_m_Page_156thm.jpg
3ee309fee7e3e52baf218dda0a651cf0
4427513378ccb0225e69477c558db7e2002a88d9
26742 F20101106_AACBFL oberlander_m_Page_050.QC.jpg
4c6d3a7ce6e4fc7d1c4cbfdfd9e6fa19
f5a5479bfb2cf63feb613a04d30fb635b232931b
32915 F20101106_AACBEW oberlander_m_Page_079.pro
e2da69ed290d2faf841431d05620772f
c79d8fd4e39422a1d32ce3a1d8fccfc1a51147f9
2394 F20101106_AACCJC oberlander_m_Page_135thm.jpg
a6cff633a8b2161aefc19721e70a1f27
720f11c699d7fe58eec2f19f0f8d78c97e3bae3d
6311 F20101106_AACCIO oberlander_m_Page_122thm.jpg
25ea1e2219e7de1fc6564fdcbcd2de41
9a856f05a03362ea09a2261eaf7ebfe4d2e16ddf
22969 F20101106_AACCHZ oberlander_m_Page_108.QC.jpg
afa8e0cc8002a7a5da6fe04c2837945f
9c23bb455ed2922746e11f90a3536d21c9adf21d
5682 F20101106_AACBGA oberlander_m_Page_102.QC.jpg
d0833ece4a4ea65e7a3c09c55c13303f
fd202a21f519e58b22f501ac905cd36ca6b373e9
1231 F20101106_AACBFM oberlander_m_Page_004.txt
7a4f7532ddccf7c16d162a7bd9a763ce
f2f04924c05031983667f9d67d52a73a1408e7a2
31194 F20101106_AACBEX oberlander_m_Page_076.pro
8b6d4cd6ece627d41ef6293b11cae51d
c226bc8c851d638767921e0006c5de48e0ec671b
27105 F20101106_AACAZR oberlander_m_Page_137.jpg
7aec5affb450042fde6fa91ee8147ae8
307ce5e8a4b23633f6d4ce32da156022216fd976
9546 F20101106_AACCJD oberlander_m_Page_136.QC.jpg
102a286e6bad9081e1b72210f96b686c
ddd3d215d77f29c5739836f7a9c85ae8cff76575
28330 F20101106_AACCIP oberlander_m_Page_123.QC.jpg
59b16abdbb812bc374e525e57cb5dd0c
53d0edde86a369a05879efda3ae75787a4e403e2
95648 F20101106_AACBGB oberlander_m_Page_003.jp2
d003ba1f02c0dbf6bd1007b23847ff79
3b0550efa6999162480e905fed9dc3fc6ce4effd
F20101106_AACBFN oberlander_m_Page_135.tif
d5d7aed451341f3a2b33814106f836b3
aa71fcbfb56e7860b436f494e6a681d169519077
621497 F20101106_AACBEY oberlander_m_Page_090.jp2
10d79b55a968eca868288167fc33ce24
014af7ba4435bc62bca82f0db4c27374e0affb13
F20101106_AACAZS oberlander_m_Page_169.tif
780670344dc0735635a0350ca04d9587
a6e81d2fba146dbf3e101f3785eb74ee3d9a3ee6
F20101106_AACCJE oberlander_m_Page_136thm.jpg
eb820b825179d51204edfb1a699e8a04
daf9b2d5d69b85704363f35a28e660309efdb1d7
6551 F20101106_AACCIQ oberlander_m_Page_124thm.jpg
6660f49d38b0676bd8e1fb67bebc0e84
7ee5446f98d33eb1e666ea01e435a3644dce2479
718525 F20101106_AACBGC oberlander_m_Page_084.jp2
ed6d5ba0aadbb74abedb7a7a37757113
793c194c3b5e3bc60c36d85fe574ecc015d99390
1373 F20101106_AACBFO oberlander_m_Page_148.txt
c5a5bade5380661bc27ac5a0b68ae133
090da4a71656553522f4779f500a085628807519
47917 F20101106_AACBEZ oberlander_m_Page_132.jp2
e24330e386bd46e6e9a7cf3b7d0b9ea2
0037e2b13028914490e20a1c24775449fbe530fb
1786 F20101106_AACAZT oberlander_m_Page_103.txt
7fa224880094d035a2363bdd4cee21f4
548e85d17a9274ee82c1f9a8cd83f5c0962f8a7b
6596 F20101106_AACCJF oberlander_m_Page_137.QC.jpg
4c93928774e0e7a4384baf4d8ca3fec3
1ed1fbbccd3922517963bc5e58ad344f3dc2cfd4
27332 F20101106_AACCIR oberlander_m_Page_125.QC.jpg
c93f3b5d9feca77a716120522b41177e
fc48169616353a38ebda2c6ef50e1d1b2e2d246e
F20101106_AACBGD oberlander_m_Page_057.tif
78e7e6f2df32c1b6fc2a061adb063dcb
4ec2773e1882771148bee9be867ae634d1ee39a7
17366 F20101106_AACBFP oberlander_m_Page_011.pro
35c72f273c174f84aeabfb46413c2b67
6853373cc895f0e6edcb4c65e21435617884d774
6741 F20101106_AACAZU oberlander_m_Page_041thm.jpg
5236b2438a06313c32e02ec861fce30d
a179e1dade73376e470763d3f9a501a61b071678
2575 F20101106_AACCJG oberlander_m_Page_139thm.jpg
3053ee4ee57d6b1b44d840cc630d5208
bfdeaffdc67cfcd0c454bc0095295c0a3ba6d54c
19938 F20101106_AACBGE oberlander_m_Page_099.pro
f5d4637ad0400e1d0cde6d3652821922
f5d1011e275971064f35ed90ecb6599aef23c9ee
2284 F20101106_AACAZV oberlander_m_Page_147thm.jpg
c61ab8afdc4e9045b0a475688ca15d8a
52bd767b962aa6dc9f66aa7fb242dab576fd68cf
13251 F20101106_AACCJH oberlander_m_Page_140.QC.jpg
bd42a35a703a4ae88e12fa63e3660999
aa052c9b2f61a1a6870424fefceb9542af9f5009
6474 F20101106_AACCIS oberlander_m_Page_126thm.jpg
b1d9d167e7e9f2fd5c709c30c54fae9b
f4827918966836f29b7124715fad6547c3ffb2ec
6289 F20101106_AACBGF oberlander_m_Page_044thm.jpg
ef52b6039dbaf1d545e86c5ac28c45eb
5995cb0327ec6710fa53784af1f7a62c99212395
6299 F20101106_AACBFQ oberlander_m_Page_009thm.jpg
82d09a1af4520ecab618ad0751d46227
21e029c4b46ab89a67d2cf84f0322f98828caa0f
105526 F20101106_AACAZW oberlander_m_Page_127.jp2
9e1d2d78c40e74d71130abe8f4fcaf8e
9dc9e240a892f9745f1c213a9f7345c9f678e143
3183 F20101106_AACCJI oberlander_m_Page_140thm.jpg
6b4bb805eb2edb89a971100108c9def4
7b0e7c2ce11e68a7e0b90ca554a8c571d1d82a58
25404 F20101106_AACCIT oberlander_m_Page_127.QC.jpg
a245de578d988f36c33142dee3719963
4960027bdc00854f6cbb33ae2326b0fe320d599f
249 F20101106_AACBGG oberlander_m_Page_108.txt
4ab2b39472291b40c9405ed99d5ca1e6
b758a8fa271fc0236707cc4c02e8eef1077816b1
2957 F20101106_AACBFR oberlander_m_Page_092thm.jpg
bd10327449470b80b3adc2a6969e491e
c8ec7e35202238a6674003aee76c3860eab4f574
6409 F20101106_AACAZX oberlander_m_Page_037thm.jpg
449cf1706c2ebe65b35b8c61a5b44c42
9694df064d173e94f5d0d8fa12d1a05677e7759a
2630 F20101106_AACCJJ oberlander_m_Page_141thm.jpg
25549296f6288ee859f933448afa91cd
5165ef8aad819a6e4fba86459b81e8a1db3add1d
5850 F20101106_AACCIU oberlander_m_Page_127thm.jpg
3c54150924045533df0a0e6df2a35a04
a455a99a85e339e56f725b0ce86f5550e4676a6d
1051939 F20101106_AACBGH oberlander_m_Page_059.jp2
81fba0b1355119d037c91501be417780
a4514d6b6b736eb7ded3ce2da9aa9f5e468e635f
82197 F20101106_AACBFS oberlander_m_Page_127.jpg
7c54a398224a20fb27ff148175657481
c0dbe15a5b0639f57dc559e434a13aae6adddd60
18978 F20101106_AACAZY oberlander_m_Page_038.QC.jpg
0ed41ef9b455675648dd39a446ca9c26
3e8151fd1d32be33be1e03a416ffc0e30b09b4e9
F20101106_AACCJK oberlander_m_Page_142thm.jpg
8dd87d5bcccc5abce82407df84b89813
504d50bcc87657c9e029ae517289243bd85f242e
2358 F20101106_AACCIV oberlander_m_Page_128.QC.jpg
e6214408c6f054a6e1ac81cb64f412b0
ce75839e9b458c82b404bfb204b1e526bff646ed
F20101106_AACBGI oberlander_m_Page_048.tif
b7388f2fd7635040a967b1aff6ff62a5
47d27d1f0da2c40c5586299d7ef26b5182acb5fa
1993 F20101106_AACBFT oberlander_m_Page_075thm.jpg
ff18ebb226493d98345b137307c3183e
1ba043c62e7d0c21c8034dc80b5a0d142c338a9f
55396 F20101106_AACAZZ oberlander_m_Page_115.pro
7472d907d0d91c86a8f52af911d2a174
c8d770686894ddb32f0c922518dd6247f1c50ed5
8142 F20101106_AACCJL oberlander_m_Page_144.QC.jpg
439d3afa2d7be7f5c216516323f7cec8
762b3200c8214cdf7624b802f86780187cc7520c
628 F20101106_AACCIW oberlander_m_Page_128thm.jpg
266b67ad9cb643282178fed342916b7a
7e5e09b31403d77870759ad1c7ac0fa1a195a49f
50642 F20101106_AACBGJ oberlander_m_Page_071.jpg
19c883d876e8672db2f46fed22d5392f
21356f63e168935b1f9179e48adbbf212c758307
586 F20101106_AACBFU oberlander_m_Page_094.txt
fa2fe3b2d27945ba7d99f0b3b745ab96
96be476a18afdf76a5fa38248166e3d1d8262cee
1518 F20101106_AACCKA oberlander_m_Page_155thm.jpg
2760c8e6dc355ec407e31d2074be50cc
47ab11da2c9b21818f81452a0f0bd6bb335bf8ee
8297 F20101106_AACCJM oberlander_m_Page_145.QC.jpg
ab80d79bb7631b3201408da2bf5e1bb8
cb12857eb05f130cb7a108a19f1bb42cee11399e
1205 F20101106_AACCIX oberlander_m_Page_129thm.jpg
402e430f0c58deb39d2793d1edf00fba
ae6c14027c7cbcb38f1b9cb3224afd95b2e3453d
F20101106_AACBGK oberlander_m_Page_124.tif
68eab3ce13ff312deec129d644ad1b86
d5c0f578f614b503909425cab0346f3f45dcacf2
F20101106_AACBFV oberlander_m_Page_047.tif
617e12e39569859daac880351aad313e
08dd13d79ef9172378dcce79664d9e91f876cc4a
10550 F20101106_AACCKB oberlander_m_Page_157.QC.jpg
a9a193fe4b935dce2925e587e019631b
1eead0b8a041b36fe55d33ce1ed08d85beeb7533
F20101106_AACCJN oberlander_m_Page_145thm.jpg
9df2bb9849d2e6dff2ff757bce210644
c67a56f6d8699aff7081d2ef54e97ab78b40d368
3184 F20101106_AACCIY oberlander_m_Page_130thm.jpg
983cf524d2289d9329b27afa7d2bae05
287b38c87575c77242d948d52c875f05d7cdcd35
6143 F20101106_AACBGL oberlander_m_Page_109.pro
3a136024de2e3e3458082051518d02d0
5d451649f65a5eb0f40834d3ce1fe58f56559ebb
F20101106_AACBFW oberlander_m_Page_038.tif
0c45533536f4fbaedfd39acb8952ad8a
0f7d1661a7202c23be3c7c3fb3a95e136a1c33dd
2194 F20101106_AACCKC oberlander_m_Page_158thm.jpg
9fe8b48cb5d1d22586954503730917f8
53cbfa4abe4e7d8660ff7cdacece22d884c5a115
13575 F20101106_AACCJO oberlander_m_Page_146.QC.jpg
d6b2cb630274eaa428655877494b9cf4
a09034d5d760cfc53ee67747dbf4564d7644c0da
15184 F20101106_AACCIZ oberlander_m_Page_131.QC.jpg
eb2ff645b1236182a91a231b6442cd92
bace3bd553612107f5b397b806dee8beb619bfde
29088 F20101106_AACBGM oberlander_m_Page_119.QC.jpg
82ff138f70276022c88411acb66ea400
abca2e2e835f29822bdc0de7e14a39afa2ceb8b4
24406 F20101106_AACBFX oberlander_m_Page_013.jpg
7d0111ed2d5aa4080ed1fb7b3cceaccb
23bb083742f8d2c5fb0382d087762e0da48627c8
2525 F20101106_AACBHA oberlander_m_Page_131.txt
ba4811de0dd895cc4460d1b2c3e7fe1b
2fb182e99e9eeac8e6944bd1ca21b070c922eef2
732 F20101106_AACCKD oberlander_m_Page_159thm.jpg
1a321fa4450fa2cc8e4f0a9b4ef52fda
d8de8af7e561a5ca8f80e69d076450ee9514b7bf
3192 F20101106_AACCJP oberlander_m_Page_146thm.jpg
8c0dad5d5637f3c5cb61e09c98722e70
e2af5a85682fd10112d8b2af8d25dce0ba3460e0
F20101106_AACBGN oberlander_m_Page_148.tif
55ca3075c0742f50b3819066fc1bebf4
3fd800f1b1035f81d4d7c311a1287c3e634d65c1
26723 F20101106_AACBFY oberlander_m_Page_053.QC.jpg
4ae8b120a587a3eec025af9f7e9efe04
ca991b3cb1174e8e384b535b8e97e6db0b3fde6e
F20101106_AACBHB oberlander_m_Page_014.tif
67994c66e10daefd0d33da05f49d5805
0ef80f2983ad29a72b4098c8eeaa366255b34ea5
9618 F20101106_AACCKE oberlander_m_Page_161.QC.jpg
04e0cbbceb6d75766db0249120474ca5
0c23824aac132ca1c32a764889331bb8a8007b83
2219 F20101106_AACCJQ oberlander_m_Page_148thm.jpg
8df287d0c73531872dfbdcfef45e72b2
8c66bd227549f6c7fea3c8b89816511fd2483450
2496 F20101106_AACBGO oberlander_m_Page_184.txt
7214b38ecfe5b0d19d7e6cb8a3114f92
bf62d7181df0857d0ed4145c146fbb2c2eae1ce1
63956 F20101106_AACBFZ oberlander_m_Page_172.pro
31d4366868ccbd9ec4e13a5d7a6c75ea
a39753fc1772dd2919fec253d96d73c976521132
F20101106_AACBHC oberlander_m_Page_108.tif
2ca9eb9e1a85fb3c089e611aac569d95
1a1bee9abc0c823e3a372ba02411bd1f85077809
9348 F20101106_AACCKF oberlander_m_Page_162.QC.jpg
3f4d8c1243a6c4d887f7a68d8e35d551
cbcea23f220d22e78a3124d918bce21d13f35202
13735 F20101106_AACCJR oberlander_m_Page_149.QC.jpg
b7625845e2b4768a2fd57adcbd6d959b
ebc1c5f8214335b117e5abb3d55b18aa337b7001
F20101106_AACBHD oberlander_m_Page_006.tif
ba3d8cf8b5e4816383b790987698b351
d5b5a74811ac3cf6d5ae6eb90f64fb56276b9a1b
3796 F20101106_AACBGP oberlander_m_Page_160.jpg
ff48540fb380db711f7fc3de0046eff4
404f95774a7d97ba5e9bc961d0fac1efed91a4e6
2493 F20101106_AACCKG oberlander_m_Page_162thm.jpg
61b5aca3886300acbddc389aff069334
865b3950916bb6d0f92f2e12be604b2e2ec27fef
11132 F20101106_AACCJS oberlander_m_Page_150.QC.jpg
1202c16003f41ad977b5f613fb7dba8b
3475b743a71d4f3cb85db156161d93b196371351
381990 F20101106_AACBHE oberlander_m_Page_101.jp2
091014ef62b7fcb350f8ec2cc6c65102
1896c79c835df4a88e7cc7a8f6584c3194ec40cf
774 F20101106_AACBGQ oberlander_m_Page_160.pro
d40448d5b2a27305ac89addfc6b05743
486d6cdd6e4177c818a9e335ad83a54ebf6f6e5f
1439 F20101106_AACCKH oberlander_m_Page_164.QC.jpg
6691431fc03c2d00c289c7483c49a5a2
9d3d8fa8e2b0bc37b318f19dd22748ab2ef11e1c
28532 F20101106_AACBHF oberlander_m_Page_029.QC.jpg
faf663a5d7d0e8f0cc55e24d1d20bd2f
c415692799843c421009fdd671dbbbd77acdc722
447 F20101106_AACCKI oberlander_m_Page_164thm.jpg
df2bd6ed6fa12bff22604c2033746cd4
26856b7928f6d74f07391ef2df867cc618d53d96
2755 F20101106_AACCJT oberlander_m_Page_150thm.jpg
109b8be3423745d9220c8aabf5297b9c
867b9f7a0f26e926ae8961018ea7389334f57b99
52325 F20101106_AACBHG oberlander_m_Page_149.pro
3fdaa0b2a414e8195039c4a7a594c569
7baf74898b8c83abb0a785e3903c03a5579c5f73
3357 F20101106_AACBGR oberlander_m_Page_081thm.jpg
0ff4b8ae10b782c6f142beb1354a4bad
a3aeec6cab3d683e39e541a645ebbe405c36aa8e
15492 F20101106_AACCKJ oberlander_m_Page_165.QC.jpg
8b3bf09e877f7121c5c273d7fc5c300e
c827fbc61409cd68d2a9af94860cc0fda9ed8cad
15139 F20101106_AACCJU oberlander_m_Page_151.QC.jpg
99c94ce15f45f12e9773aae931c6ecdf
b56718da5a50dbf29ff5d3e33b7fb3a904642097
42370 F20101106_AACBHH oberlander_m_Page_180.pro
1ca4311ecd742977a0495af25afb7590
de929572aef841db508acea36814004d8a23c8e1
55501 F20101106_AACBGS oberlander_m_Page_146.jpg
4621c6354436b943f39fe1fe7eb56672
05d2d4fa1bfd424ca1da570934db5879f2b65b63
3652 F20101106_AACCKK oberlander_m_Page_165thm.jpg
ebd66d1e02cd4191a8ebab9eb3c2a6c5
140950f3865fd5090688ffd07ae3090fa1c8ab5c
F20101106_AACCJV oberlander_m_Page_152thm.jpg
84bb89e48928bdef76aab23bfae6dd10
b7f75eadcae56b441693ae36c80b472945689584
51486 F20101106_AACBHI oberlander_m_Page_018.pro
f9857b16919f03628a52053b0164f0bf
0628dbfc78171472bd3f071abfe382a4a4223c5e
1140 F20101106_AACBGT oberlander_m_Page_143.txt
85f20a77bf6c0bbbccb8445a86a55c3c
acc7de55c8fdf82dd56cd2b5dd885521646e7177
3394 F20101106_AACCKL oberlander_m_Page_166thm.jpg
17c3b20fc0239ec5426f1c327c28a8d0
9ab8aeba09bb7616c51d496e975288761c9efce6
1467 F20101106_AACCJW oberlander_m_Page_153.QC.jpg
432218423aa392ce39e4a83b08a84d6a
a655eb5258f3501493dfd2beaeb23226a1b5466e
25974 F20101106_AACBHJ oberlander_m_Page_121.QC.jpg
e2bd0036815b1fd12c75665b855e4850
f6b14e98a50d7d59187555af8fbee8e11cd2aa01
10889 F20101106_AACBGU oberlander_m_Page_007.QC.jpg
e301e62c1483598be2c24da634fee738
fb30ae2e34637f98c6e3880eb0acb22b2cb4120b
24603 F20101106_AACCLA oberlander_m_Page_182.QC.jpg
ff035a092491c293158b60f889b18b2c
e1675d20fd479a19dd3d511050786020d3033660
3298 F20101106_AACCKM oberlander_m_Page_167thm.jpg
9b47406d441cc16adb0868768e2dfce8
014b098841e8e64451d7b47567c56a3fc71a385c
14192 F20101106_AACCJX oberlander_m_Page_154.QC.jpg
59bd0d8d248ebee285f8d1b4d047f345
d7284dd88b365af8d0652d69fd489ed6979c6827
49684 F20101106_AACBHK oberlander_m_Page_170.pro
e4ba1e7e8fc74bfd2b132b14036d75dc
ab06a80dab36865f811d1262d17025f6becf5c29
94666 F20101106_AACBGV oberlander_m_Page_117.jpg
8a9c44aab79a2e0747f16236dea6e5b0
cd150aac24a41f4785cddbd80f711528650c13b8
6048 F20101106_AACCLB oberlander_m_Page_182thm.jpg
81f85f455c76eb197f3263c4a5e95a85
51e0b39c8b59812fa27053aa91e84891ad1c4efe
5217 F20101106_AACCKN oberlander_m_Page_168.QC.jpg
2e67575583fe10c8ef43c9f5f38e219f
7eb91c862e75c7855382b91ee0daa3f53e4393e1
3386 F20101106_AACCJY oberlander_m_Page_154thm.jpg
df0b343bbe2d55ca1329a7d377a7412f
30144bbe2dde365c8f59d75935ad9dcd0a643aa2
1086 F20101106_AACBHL oberlander_m_Page_161.txt
20ff7044d5b295d60b4ed3eb77e62fd8
94f864b9fc44cf35fb057a69e2b8642c93bee6d3
60641 F20101106_AACBGW oberlander_m_Page_130.pro
66bb5de8bba762282b294bf782e2143f
f04ae346b53e1b5ac43acf3a77135d5ba546092b
1794 F20101106_AACCLC oberlander_m_Page_183thm.jpg
79461733bed3d54c711df85065899143
7830392e384c3f98562421dfb71030d3b41f1300
1587 F20101106_AACCKO oberlander_m_Page_169thm.jpg
1e5ce588c934934f2e7a29b15e5f743e
541776c5879194d46b5d0af14db51bb4715592cc
4946 F20101106_AACCJZ oberlander_m_Page_155.QC.jpg
1044e3831e6a05db077c589bdda7d64d
0865dffdff034d4102d9ad5f7880623191541b42
55721 F20101106_AACBIA oberlander_m_Page_065.pro
e4bbae8e75f823fc4166b432e925cb22
7c3bf790438545ce6d0321f9c031133cff3e270a
26481 F20101106_AACBHM oberlander_m_Page_066.QC.jpg
644968aba28cbccc58028f098c918026
5d19859ca1a2c14c0e370c357e22c7aaa7277a93
44720 F20101106_AACBGX oberlander_m_Page_007.pro
a825d68e8ead1afa9c69878260bb70fe
ae4fef512db75ff152b35f2a40f09397a8e25c8a
7164 F20101106_AACCLD oberlander_m_Page_184thm.jpg
b60c758f22060053f20360ee40ae0336
42ad8cf78780b9c77e62d279d06da1d0858a0b2b
8965 F20101106_AACCKP oberlander_m_Page_170.QC.jpg
e78ce4d793111386df6a1fd767fbe7cc
e23f6ea2104504dc9480ff3f26680e8a5c2674ba
F20101106_AACBIB oberlander_m_Page_025.jp2
d9600d1932560c89eca2d531ac2051ac
329a15bcdce72b9027daf80c525d70c8530228bd
26646 F20101106_AACBHN oberlander_m_Page_057.QC.jpg
8cefecd7a127ec049dd9ae8448e6fcf2
fc7f1140cb8b22f5176f89aad92a726af098dc3e
537 F20101106_AACBGY oberlander_m_Page_002thm.jpg
ff99a7852ef7fd169156bee27ad61e1e
ece63a9ea31b77ead2fc448b3bae6c274576a7e1
6831 F20101106_AACCLE oberlander_m_Page_185thm.jpg
84fd86363721ec2449f8a7926b10626d
e21822fa4bcfa49fcbda1e0373d6364f9ba99a43
6979 F20101106_AACCKQ oberlander_m_Page_171.QC.jpg
79f9bd2b58cd3e6b3fe9885d98d4bd89
8506ecf808bc7ef553dc9a7309fd95130920763e
F20101106_AACBIC oberlander_m_Page_062.jp2
b0d89be446c05aa436aaa81c5a7e4cff
8325243062859ed48ca58435a1f0dc7dc3683fac
101214 F20101106_AACBHO oberlander_m_Page_032.jpg
4761c5ddcb518fec232364c92f34f41c
3e0e413e5df970053bdb59c1e38467a3dcbed650
F20101106_AACBGZ oberlander_m_Page_015.tif
742440d27fb02d5affd3bb10fa9d22c0
3cdcc2b1b092340558ab945bb5c108b2a22ca50f
217874 F20101106_AACCLF UFE0022220_00001.mets FULL
44c31926047503dc4dd2e67171ff5e68
371e2ae9befbc5aade91787c1c87cccd92f7de07
2005 F20101106_AACCKR oberlander_m_Page_171thm.jpg
b3947be3aa38f8406cc37c24f67796b8
4433c85fe14ac34de8a298d24542326feaa64188
90687 F20101106_AACBID oberlander_m_Page_058.jpg
e78edaa8984bd7eec9b4dbcbc82d2228
b52266a20e225bb1a26fa62bec28f84da88a7d6a
F20101106_AACBHP oberlander_m_Page_095.tif
722ceb3be9842d6fef2387662aaeecd4
8a89af3b1bc667aea47b830c7881a814dbf783ea
3815 F20101106_AACCKS oberlander_m_Page_172thm.jpg
d63b2b22bbe1da73bc04d2434364929d
1b8bc06398aa1e64f085c3d61ae6bd46daa092b5
2207 F20101106_AACBIE oberlander_m_Page_040.txt
5c140ba02fa2124e101905b4d27479b5
39d5e25adf6a50b958673f99735227c5ca4890a3
111316 F20101106_AACBHQ oberlander_m_Page_125.jp2
f332dbd75003252fafaf7adceee2154a
7e216306e8b34c00f8c66c3212dc97c3c5892852
16205 F20101106_AACCKT oberlander_m_Page_173.QC.jpg
c3ca891600f8113f81e5f4f45dcf567a
3f10d5a6addbd321a1b7bc880a7d898808c469ee
35965 F20101106_AACBIF oberlander_m_Page_103.pro
2b1c6b46d1605241ace52ef64e8a70ee
504ebf12201e55fbd9e1d634213620698aad9011
36498 F20101106_AACBHR oberlander_m_Page_177.pro
cfd94cfb79d7144d82a6f5a2b96ee903
822ee7b2f8a8ae2f0b1a400c9988b4c69672b850
982 F20101106_AACBIG oberlander_m_Page_175.pro
bc6083d2af6a740b39690c286a354d23
b74d4435dcfd706dd535da4abbead7d4226d0036
17667 F20101106_AACCKU oberlander_m_Page_174.QC.jpg
3f5d4d30692a4d175f403afd2f32d278
f0a1274b3c492317880af079047eabfaa4c27c2a
F20101106_AACBIH oberlander_m_Page_181.tif
b07891f11249cca2e75ca100f0113f3d
82ab5744beb075d9b2e75d62979f8d1fc24504cb
220 F20101106_AACBHS oberlander_m_Page_003.txt
80975472198fd4c26ff092362d671b46
c91c0de452a12d9942e4f1cbb37298bb841dea14
1538 F20101106_AACCKV oberlander_m_Page_175.QC.jpg
569f3820ed7f41ccaa588f8953c1fea2
9b9f9e83018aae3d1b6806cd7bbe3e67a3eb30f6
28019 F20101106_AACBII oberlander_m_Page_058.QC.jpg
0e692af023ffcc5551cb15ced73285e7
bd856bd7abb4cb6b99b665db1a59bca64f6ed378
8109 F20101106_AACBHT oberlander_m_Page_073.QC.jpg
28fb2129ebed22ef8b43400f49264e8e
e3b0a0ccdc912f642370ecb4f7a3172e5a7ad51e
469 F20101106_AACCKW oberlander_m_Page_175thm.jpg
87c93d393da99863268c12bdc2866325
3d7a984fab2155a10177875cfafde9c63cf94bdc
3425 F20101106_AACBIJ oberlander_m_Page_149thm.jpg
a69f845e4c13882a0b69a8d515550014
7ec9e694e598244a1abdfbbb6e8a75f9da3f3775
90059 F20101106_AACBHU oberlander_m_Page_041.jpg
152966e8b754aadeb8d0c108684a9724
c0f09d012ccd66c892c478542b13e095ec94d3c3
2478 F20101106_AACCKX oberlander_m_Page_177thm.jpg
bac6ad17931d2a36579edb21e21ca5bd
c91c72d2501f6c1fad2ce802ce854a0730935d3d
97861 F20101106_AACBIK oberlander_m_Page_061.jpg
4e364b0b2a301c8d132d4d320c3a0bef
e91420c94331839805df629bf8a950868d46cb6a
7054 F20101106_AACBHV oberlander_m_Page_159.jpg
e5d6c6e61480ee067f503c0827a741c8
8e5bb22ba01cff517a5a8a28a15270f68844f327
19524 F20101106_AACCKY oberlander_m_Page_180.QC.jpg
b09dd704d4a6e3188585cae1f2703c45
0faaf7e89c7500acca995389ca20149b083696cc
1938 F20101106_AACBIL oberlander_m_Page_127.txt
b8f90a43124fe7416a60a81d7246d85d
82c6fe6064abbe3b5c1e876d655e0e07a7e38094
3068 F20101106_AACBHW oberlander_m_Page_176thm.jpg
7121fe25fffbb5f24aea8c2ceafe08ad
9290aa74c7d1daf1507e9dc1f768bab338f3f609
4314 F20101106_AACCKZ oberlander_m_Page_180thm.jpg
909e19ad72100c5afd55b0d1ee117a51
40f0bed49b32f88eecb31335c9fc466351855e29
1759 F20101106_AACBIM oberlander_m_Page_137thm.jpg
0d657d0e621abffc30c4a0870e70029c
400c29e40356853b1f6f3724c303d4358ceecf24
85772 F20101106_AACBHX oberlander_m_Page_044.jpg
06f7431f7cd7ce3efedb6ba8e6a87651
596546fae05627280528dc9524d29c173a929720
7957 F20101106_AACBJA oberlander_m_Page_158.QC.jpg
6291d18a89a421b13c22de96dce2c7ff
5cc51fd8fb01c4f77ec5caabe3d648c2fb3740a2
F20101106_AACBIN oberlander_m_Page_066.txt
cf830a5d75c6282f05ec68407ad5097a
e283d1a9a96b9ff6681ae5facbc1b2eeb3bc6fb9
F20101106_AACBHY oberlander_m_Page_123.tif
27c87360ed203862b1e8143d51153a59
68eedd412c1e9de75ad614b9a877ab8c7e15a36c
12186 F20101106_AACBJB oberlander_m_Page_134.QC.jpg
62b31965ca5336ff8186290e04815954
149fd46377e446b150d230a5219b7c8356daa2cf
F20101106_AACBIO oberlander_m_Page_179.tif
2d0ff1b07e0c3a29a09680f3ff3e9c03
2dc896707484961ab99fd370e803463974d070ea
F20101106_AACBHZ oberlander_m_Page_036.tif
2e5ed7cd50bb414d6fc90ff92f53b0da
69b77dd61975d109c0922f527063cbb8e5bddadd
F20101106_AACBJC oberlander_m_Page_075.tif
0c51212eda56dcdbf6f971c5fe72edb0
d4717b4602ece040d131353d99c98f5c5b4e2cd9
2115 F20101106_AACBIP oberlander_m_Page_039.txt
ff9b56df65d0ed65b68193c99717b264
9c7fa1d9267c864bbd47388a0184ce7f33010d5c
4027 F20101106_AACBJD oberlander_m_Page_174thm.jpg
8ae883495eb179f843c7c95c3d466c60
e3ed3317ecb653c567e677e62141ef7ad09a3fb9
F20101106_AACBIQ oberlander_m_Page_140.tif
f1c06db55b51ae716fcf2edd6c85ae5e
71e2b7e363c346aa518849158e7276267c808812
55218 F20101106_AACBJE oberlander_m_Page_126.pro
2cd8b3c01ced8de3bb6f36504cf638e8
66e5e1fb6373f5628c3e5bb21f21d756261082da
F20101106_AACBIR oberlander_m_Page_086.tif
5f414b01e1317c9561092db15028b2d9
10d51c66d00a709701f5e91984f7d1774181c52b
21460 F20101106_AACBJF oberlander_m_Page_096.jpg
283af52e6d6297beb25e0e3d1b3a8515
0b9850d23b28a8ea8cf584890db0a90668a50cd1
1901 F20101106_AACBIS oberlander_m_Page_101thm.jpg
c0404d83029122ce660ab31654691cf8
13d1e62baef87006dc5c4a0ed5af4d8a04f2f1e4
F20101106_AACBJG oberlander_m_Page_105.tif
966ccb229495faf1dba2ffddf8f0b9ef
290b7c9c9367a4546c43152635baaf10b32c84b6
F20101106_AACBJH oberlander_m_Page_078.tif
23e6d02bbb99362b60e245336fd3e4bb
a21352d64dddace1119fbacc8056775fdb988bcc
F20101106_AACBIT oberlander_m_Page_186.tif
1fe4f9bc646b21aba9f7e908e48de76d
075c0856499557dded5b12691fbff49744b19a00
89945 F20101106_AACBJI oberlander_m_Page_067.jpg
65e22b49b83a8a6d7c0f0ebbad23c9e6
26948052207ae0514fe7ad020bf22b8e30c98a14
99498 F20101106_AACBIU oberlander_m_Page_027.jpg
9ab6e1b728c8afa578878c0b4cd472aa
ee694efa53e4d28c0708c1003e10246542390bfb
366018 F20101106_AACBJJ oberlander_m_Page_091.jp2
21c12f2e466d3438a4a043918aacb53a
60852d32871989232b9b050e4074327a8ee7add4
729402 F20101106_AACBIV oberlander_m_Page_012.jp2
0182bc2f72df8787a1a0fd46048f0e75
e994fac5234fab2c1f7311b58271a10e9841dd05
28573 F20101106_AACBJK oberlander_m_Page_062.QC.jpg
b29b9b9c9a5382b23a67fdd8dbe258bb
079c34e8584115c766e67e488412b3a0ddf29b70
2198 F20101106_AACBIW oberlander_m_Page_124.txt
91e37fc2a3984a82fcb97a91cbda4534
6443c16e8c6f778a81a21d29d0a3ddd360977ce7
36 F20101106_AACBJL oberlander_m_Page_160.txt
9fd82188d3c7b88980be16a8179e2d01
083c8545ebeb37d5a5b7d62742cc86ebcb2484c4
26904 F20101106_AACBIX oberlander_m_Page_116.QC.jpg
cf629054f318ef2c9216c840fbec910d
ca8fa527aed21d24a7976c9b7cab0e8b23f89780
90140 F20101106_AACBKA oberlander_m_Page_021.jpg
e6e3277010cc53612ccfaa61c31253b3
b6e13b3b4243766774836ba9dd02793c0a910670
2469 F20101106_AACBJM oberlander_m_Page_027.txt
34b5a4aa0adf2558f67b89d3f4afee98
5a7819274f7dae802290276777ffa575dfb4e257
2197 F20101106_AACBIY oberlander_m_Page_123.txt
cf4deb7d7b9b6ac56e36a20bf4afa45c
684b9b0169e45ed069b7be3fd4eb260aad20983a
88549 F20101106_AACBKB oberlander_m_Page_023.jpg
abe020b7e346668600c08aa0a86a9da8
c5408df0c9375d20ddcb962327a91654456188f7
10052 F20101106_AACBJN oberlander_m_Page_135.QC.jpg
fb44d205ac08db12f8fbadd903f91998
0868b814b41cdbed8fb325e1e4765d749067a51c
118562 F20101106_AACBIZ oberlander_m_Page_179.jp2
befc96b0dcdb6d5abd58101cace6c0de
08ed520a1462516d513d2f20b167e262b8203af1
92913 F20101106_AACBKC oberlander_m_Page_024.jpg
13eafd0c6f9e241259094c0696055a56
793df531eaeb5c794d6954c3a6e3369549f4d875
282504 F20101106_AACBJO UFE0022220_00001.xml
83f750866d5e52ed9833abdd4b4763ac
e43f22fb9a1fc28c5d812cec319aa79bb146f401
87235 F20101106_AACBKD oberlander_m_Page_025.jpg
90f11163d944d2104687d7b52465a908
a4d84a44463919a60389d9063a97e0101e082f8a
86285 F20101106_AACBKE oberlander_m_Page_031.jpg
dea2886b1bd8deecd61a5d1162cbf0d1
0f3a35c1dc48ad5898df86eb39350390632c4cf6
97570 F20101106_AACBKF oberlander_m_Page_033.jpg
2852ce40abb629c3c6f9239afb2093e6
bdf7c9d241f5ea941615b67360c9b9ac9489269c
26612 F20101106_AACBJR oberlander_m_Page_001.jpg
0b4f7d93a4f57db111cfb78c26d8ed86
04eea15579776c90504729ef5f69ddd17ea7da8b
83895 F20101106_AACBKG oberlander_m_Page_034.jpg
953b3ce72e2072dff6c3e34a4211c273
a261dfff355603a3c7910c7089b456a73a166822
3702 F20101106_AACBJS oberlander_m_Page_002.jpg
0ad6b912d05af639bb67a38fb1d127f7
182a35ce74e499a76ca5e60a70da0fba8dec0eb3
96158 F20101106_AACBKH oberlander_m_Page_035.jpg
fdf9f6e917b6f66d86aa02dddbc60707
195af75d39379c960c564921b0efb3dd2f7ddad4
8625 F20101106_AACBJT oberlander_m_Page_003.jpg
8a31a64eb1d6388bc2a481d04d330e0a
1764fc55b0fcae0e2b73370214c8080accbb3b14
87125 F20101106_AACBKI oberlander_m_Page_036.jpg
03b77aae15d10c26e27a055b88bfc9d2
d6c38a17ac369860c3941b3a1252a2104229c794
91996 F20101106_AACBKJ oberlander_m_Page_040.jpg
c242f24c82c6d4b3068f73c3548c34f0
d4264dd1e4a616ca62ad5ca2663646a8dfd72d9e
55421 F20101106_AACBJU oberlander_m_Page_004.jpg
62520fdef953b6deda68e97818eec12e
27456fc3cebba27694a035e33020d7a04df368b9
88529 F20101106_AACBKK oberlander_m_Page_042.jpg
00fa1cd508f14e4873b921be87928ab3
76a2168ebbb1f53a126f6e29326da58e421937c1
81980 F20101106_AACBJV oberlander_m_Page_005.jpg
e34b801a3fa4d3a275bdf18b0aff769d
a82f8898e71b194be2309b083a4cce4a1ebe2af9
81457 F20101106_AACBKL oberlander_m_Page_043.jpg
cd86c17564bb8592ccfa8ffdce7d0890
0398f3f07c22ac1fb82eec256b960ee0dd917d45
95621 F20101106_AACBJW oberlander_m_Page_006.jpg
8e9bcc8eddb84df784a4baf6a8bc4fad
e66c45cbb094559ddc3b31e1913c635f5e56583a
37484 F20101106_AACBLA oberlander_m_Page_078.jpg
ddc7864ad0070cd735db0fb3af1b9753
d69a7930db5b30ef871ab34f4f41a6c19be86967
28676 F20101106_AACBKM oberlander_m_Page_045.jpg
7fbbe2f49e63cfe20bc741697a09ddd4
63556594cc578921407cfda50a190de53c0a64d5
46138 F20101106_AACBJX oberlander_m_Page_007.jpg
bdcfd588e97931a24263c83c0caf6ac4
3f08a72df072d0f6b71008478ce72c79f94344e0
43421 F20101106_AACBLB oberlander_m_Page_080.jpg
bd3196af7a12a12dfc0c6f818694e2bf
40bbddc0050d8462611e90a4d00ff656c7948110
53300 F20101106_AACBKN oberlander_m_Page_047.jpg
d28b6b3d04db04183888594a588908b4
248cacd151be0786cea72c75b4f7ab27c87de382
106072 F20101106_AACBJY oberlander_m_Page_008.jpg
65f6117d53827ce6973e4aea20cfe6b4
6a7b870e9f33b2027ce507125512282f3f174252
31001 F20101106_AACBLC oberlander_m_Page_082.jpg
14e67ba15b7d7e9f815ce339c67665f5
8243333cb6576c356a67d5638e066bb4e744db3a
80836 F20101106_AACBKO oberlander_m_Page_048.jpg
875647c4421bcc4d94fd9d3f68f83557
8274e60dc405fd668a261da51c8e0bd9cda771f2
26491 F20101106_AACBJZ oberlander_m_Page_011.jpg
0f5e0d742f589885700ffa937c3e52e1
de6bd802b5a1f397cfa0d6f9c771a01347109bee
31232 F20101106_AACBLD oberlander_m_Page_083.jpg
9d4ab70e4d5ca353093a8646eda101a7
c171444d019f6f3e7e22502eef802d422b8364aa
91385 F20101106_AACBKP oberlander_m_Page_049.jpg
d9ed9021b85786203af4c895ab2ddcbc
721a3c9f56476d54498c1de9d6196c96feacb8c6
36084 F20101106_AACBLE oberlander_m_Page_084.jpg
038b82e65c5254933193e0b4f50aab96
dce35173e9b83839877ecd80a63667cead5e52a8
91353 F20101106_AACBKQ oberlander_m_Page_051.jpg
9e795d2cdedd35f4333fb930593f90ed
43ef3bd97eb4d79a864a65c95ffa95b013704608
30167 F20101106_AACBLF oberlander_m_Page_085.jpg
7026477f26a0f8a569a1a9736bb73a72
65a8797972de2eee368abc23bf693fef31e83334
91554 F20101106_AACBKR oberlander_m_Page_052.jpg
47d1522e8adacd3c4240a399041e0134
5fcd1aa97d4994b05514ba4d2e4da18d408bdfb8
52700 F20101106_AACBLG oberlander_m_Page_086.jpg
4986244e2e40bb4a2546c0b0ab16df6e
bcb59527546510b37bdcba89203b674684889135
85951 F20101106_AACBKS oberlander_m_Page_053.jpg
9e61feacf4a92e4cbb3a9a0891f76fa0
d05f79c52a86126930e3c250d3be56e5b686c087
58371 F20101106_AACBLH oberlander_m_Page_087.jpg
1c82c8cd7674d902529cc56d5fcae9fa
223f20f0773a520d4ae85d0c6d88e1271e830784
89638 F20101106_AACBKT oberlander_m_Page_059.jpg
c65bdf8104ced7e34405e72cd2140d81
5db654ac13032394e1ee8524a17ef738d4fde2d2
57680 F20101106_AACBLI oberlander_m_Page_088.jpg
6b157fcc571d4830142ada9dad633fd8
eeb2bc068ca298d2c6aa684ef08e95a38ce1e5a8
91925 F20101106_AACBKU oberlander_m_Page_063.jpg
c1b4cafcf1fbb72b96097a1246a832a2
c6d1f1586fb1e424f8a311d8593210d78acfc991
34245 F20101106_AACBLJ oberlander_m_Page_089.jpg
9c1c8cb4782ea04b59a923ee573364ee
15e28d17db4e1c10ee2a721d51f9ebd2255a9e79
29788 F20101106_AACBLK oberlander_m_Page_093.jpg
0f84a71396821bc205b66b9d078be4b2
08d51b0b11447f7a0a2edb453b45e1279965de2a
88122 F20101106_AACBKV oberlander_m_Page_064.jpg
0ad07053e4a3839d54ed07fdb09658ad
a5edfaa7046c333e1bb71a506179021e364d42e5
16413 F20101106_AACBLL oberlander_m_Page_094.jpg
e875620f73c3a0d56b158aaac0ba5471
162a5dc8bd7a4b98510b50c743bbb9f18d183f7e
92253 F20101106_AACBKW oberlander_m_Page_065.jpg
ae3b8a2bb369cc267e45956ab33369ec
c57630ea7556e35f5417a976e1b053aab3722cec
89453 F20101106_AACBKX oberlander_m_Page_068.jpg
bcf4adfb61c337848df95d9840bea8d9
02a51089858ce4982b2fce74d4648580a0bf3bd5
89693 F20101106_AACBMA oberlander_m_Page_126.jpg
de6095f4f28251600ef87d6fd52565a6
c10475313b7c33538877e5b4b86e9dbc966d8548
21713 F20101106_AACBLM oberlander_m_Page_095.jpg
63cdb380f225389c048c735c66f99780
7041607c88560ba2723a75e33a76ef402853bcc3
26875 F20101106_AACBKY oberlander_m_Page_073.jpg
47c9adc1d07a0d6cd60bc38e4f05d45c
a02d9ce6e547a4e6603f4b9b6d79d424dcc6e16b
6588 F20101106_AACBMB oberlander_m_Page_128.jpg
50ebbcf8f800d9044dd134fbb972d9ea
9c3a1af49052f788c5683c4a58d74190e8a6f96f
19080 F20101106_AACBLN oberlander_m_Page_097.jpg
83dba3024bb1dec51272ace8756c4d2e
b09d684db66d98355aa453d89d85d7e6e226712c
26065 F20101106_AACBKZ oberlander_m_Page_075.jpg
a96fbaf08c034fb53dd39a66683e06d0
a65717c91189c2fda3891d064d73fb23433ce09c
16376 F20101106_AACBMC oberlander_m_Page_129.jpg
be68b42d220b04c77a28fc27b123db06
7c96bfea76ef1850194e093c662fe9bc56b83ece
20323 F20101106_AACBLO oberlander_m_Page_099.jpg
59992791f0308a3ddecd4712f7af49cf
2a6cd1db618eb6d80a230f7dd7d234a86f08afbf
59518 F20101106_AACBMD oberlander_m_Page_130.jpg
5c46e425162ca1c55657079ca48816ba
68308b349009a23a7b6844fd7f5980f7f7e6c30b
18815 F20101106_AACBLP oberlander_m_Page_104.jpg
6f45dd3fb38b827adf9bd4a9b004e818
ad0e20b12af43478b1c479c1c2f858994c1d1e1f
24330 F20101106_AACBME oberlander_m_Page_132.jpg
ab9bed102b4b0c47611edba994b1b6fd
f9f4454b8f30cbcf2a43cfff8e6c679bc24f6597
18751 F20101106_AACBLQ oberlander_m_Page_105.jpg
4366bfa4bf8874f59e25178a7dd9c521
1a516504f0a8ba44e36f39e197642ad5b91713cc
4740 F20101106_AACBMF oberlander_m_Page_133.jpg
9da39a498ee8d04e772a777f2e8a4cc3
cbf41bbe50d9decee92ebc31b37fef7246c6e180
98530 F20101106_AACBLR oberlander_m_Page_107.jpg
0a9fbc100c7950d0b82d3d6e375d3055
c03c30c41675d2f74580b349ad4de73b22cb1bff
40649 F20101106_AACBMG oberlander_m_Page_135.jpg
7e091b9e01e462cf7a54eab3e89ff86a
0c72d6d979dc95e0d9ce46190026de50f0dc479c
76185 F20101106_AACBLS oberlander_m_Page_108.jpg
37b5c3f947b1042286b9a3026e2b0026
818c10ea40a9aaa1f175396610883497cabddfb4







BUILT-OUT MUNICIPALITIES IN FLORIDA: THE CHALLENGES OF PLANNING FOR
REDEVELOPMENT AND INFILL IN SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED COMMUNITIES




















By

MARCUS OBERLANDER


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS IN URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2008


































2008 Marcus Oberlander



























To my parents who supported and believed in me, to my friends who have been there for me, and
to Gail Easley who inspired me to pursue this topic.









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank the following people who have contributed both time and effort towards my

thesis. My thesis committee consisted of Ruth Steiner (Chair), Richard Schneider (Cochair), and

Gail Easley. In Atlantic Beach, I interviewed Sonya Duerr (Community Development Director),

Erika Hall (Planner), and John Meserve (Mayor). In Indian Rocks Beach, I interviewed Danny

Taylor (Planning Director) and Bill Ockunzzi (Mayor). In Key Biscayne, I interviewed Jud

Kurlancheek (Director of Building, Zoning, and Planning) and Robert Vernon (Mayor). In

Marco Island, I interviewed Steve Olmsted (Community Development Director). In Neptune

Beach, I interviewed Amanda Askew (Director of Community Development) and Harriet Pruette

(Vice Mayor). In Sanibel, I interviewed Robert Duffy (Planning Director) and Mick Denham

(Mayor). In St. Pete Beach, I interviewed Karl Holley (Community Development Director) and

Ward Friszolosky (Mayor). In Treasure Island, I interviewed Lynn Rosetti (Senior Planner),

Steve Demerritt (Planner), and Mary Maloof (Mayor). In Wilton Manors, I interviewed Wayne

Thies (Building and Zoning Department Director).









TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A CK N O W LED G M EN T S ................................................................. ........... ............. .....

LIST OF TA BLES ................. .............................................................. 8

LIST OF FIGURES .................................. .. .... ...... ................. 12

L IST O F A B B R E V IA T IO N S ......... ......................................................................... 13

A B S T R A C T ......... ....................... ............................................................ 14

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION ............... .............................. ........................ ..... 15

2 R EV IEW O F LITER A TU R E .................................................................... ..... ..................20

O b stacles ..................................................................................................2 1
Regulatory and Policy Shortcom ings ........................................................ ..............21
The Special Challenges in Small and Medium Communities.......................................22
C o n cu rren cy ........................................................... ................ 2 3
L and U se C controls and Exclusion ....................................................................... ....24
Existing vs. Alternative Development Patterns.............................................................29
E c o n o m ic ......................................................................................................................... 3 1
Approaches .........................................34
S u m m ary ................... ...................3...................7..........

3 METHODOLOGY .............................. ...................... ............39

In tro d u c tio n ....................................................................................................................... 3 9
Selection of C ase Studies............ .... ................................................................ .. .... ..... .39
D evelopm ent of C ase Studies ............................................................................... ..........42
R eview of Planning D ocum ents ............................................................... ..................42
Key Informative Interviews with Planning Officials and Elected Officials...................42
O b serve atio n ...............................................................................4 3
A analysis of C ase Studies ............................................ .. ..... ...... ....... 44
S u m m ary ................... ...................4...................4..........
M a p s ..............................................................................4 6

4 F IN D IN G S ................... ...................4...................8..........

In tro d u ctio n ................... ...................4...................8..........
C ity P ro file s ..................................................................................4 8
D e m o g ra p h ic s .........................................................................................................................4 9
P o p u la tio n .................................................................................................................. 4 9










Predom inant A ge G group ........................................................................... .............. 50
Predominant Housing Types ..................... .................................. 51
Predominant Commuting Method to Work .......................................... ...............52
Predominant Industry ......................... .................................54
Planning D ocum ents and Interview R esults.................................... ..................................... 54
B a ck g ro u n d .................................................................................5 4
A tla n tic B e a c h ........................................................................................................... 5 5
Indian R ocks B each ........................................................... .. ...............58
K ey B isc ay n e .................................................................................................6 0
M a rc o Isla n d .......................................................................................................6 2
Neptune Beach............................................. 64
Sanibel .........................................65
St. Pete Beach ...................................................................... ........ 67
T reasu re Islan d ................................................................6 8
W ilto n M a n o rs ........................................................................................................... 6 9
S u m m ary ................... ...................7...................0..........
M a p s .............................................................................1 0 7

5 D ISC U S SIO N ...................................................... 110

Financial and Institutional Capacity ........................................................ ...... ............... 111
E x clu siv ity ................... ...................1...................1.........5
Density and Federal, State, and Regional Coastal High Hazard Areas ..............................117
Economic Development and Investment ...... ........ .............. .............................118
Public Participation .................. ....................................... ........ ......... 119
R e co m m en d atio n s........................................................................................................... 12 0
Summary of the Discussion .......... ..................................... ..... ................ 121

6 C O N CLU SIO N ...................................................122

Sum m ary of R research Findings ........................................................... ............... 122
Lim station of Research ........... ................................................... ........124
Areas for Future Research ........................... ............... .......125
C onclusions.....................................................................126

APPENDIX

A ATLANTIC BEACH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RESULTS ........................................128

B IN D IA N R O C K S B E A C H ............................................................................................. 133

C K E Y B ISC A Y N E ...................................................... .................................. 142

D M A R C O ISL A N D ...................................................................... ..................... ................... 153

E N EPTU N E BEA CH ........................... ............... ................................................ 159

F S A N IB E L ........................................................................................................ ...............1 6 0


6









G ST. PETE B EA CH ............... .............................. ........... ........... ........... 164

H T R E A SU R E ISL A N D .............................................................................. ......................175

I W IL T O N M A N O R S ...................................................... ............................................ 178

J IN TE R V IEW SC H ED U L E ..................................................................... ..... ..................181

Interview Questions: Planning Professionals .................................................................. 181
Agreements and Changes to the Comprehensive Plan..............................181
Redevelopment/Infill Development/Urban Design .....................................................181
E co n o m ic ............................................................................... 18 1
Job C reaction ........................................................ 18 1
Econom ic Investm ent ............................................................. ............... 182
In cen tiv e s ...............................................................18 2
Public Participation ................................... ... .......... .......... .... 182
Interview Q questions: Elected O fficials..................................................................... ...... 182

L IST O F R E F E R E N C E S ............................................................................. ..........................184

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E T C H ......................................................................... .. ...................... 186

































7









LIST OF TABLES


Table page

4-1 Profiles of Case Study M municipalities Location............... ........................................... 72

4-2 Profiles of Case Study Municipalities Comprehensive Plan and Evaluation and
A appraisal R report (E A R ) .......................................................................... ....................73

4-3 Population of Selected Case Study Municipalities 1980 2005 (Actual and Estimate)...74

4-4 Age of the Population in Selected Case Study Municipalities 1980 (in percentages)....75

4-5 Age of the Population in Selected Case Study Municipalities 1990 ............. ..............76

4-6 Age of the Population in Selected Case Study Municipalities 1990 (in percentages)....77

4-7 Age of the Population in Selected Case Study Municipalities 2000 ............. ...............78

4-8 Age of the Population in Selected Case Study Municipalities 2000 (in percentages)....79

4-10 Median Age in Selected Case Study Municipalities......................................81

4-11 Housing Types in Selected Case Study Municipalities 1990............ ................81

4-12 Housing Types in Selected Case Study Municipalities 1990 (in percentages)............... 82

4-13 Housing Types in Selected Case Study Municipalities 2000 ............... ..................83

4-14 Housing Types in Selected Case Study Municipalities 2000 (in percentages)...............84

4-15 Predominant Housing Type in Selected Case Study Municipalities 1990 and 2000......85

4-16 Mode of Transportation to Work of Residents of Case Study Municipalities 1990 .......86

4-17 Mode of Transportation to Work of Residents of Case Study Municipalities 1990
(in percentages) ............. ...... ........... ........... ...............................86

4-18 Mode of Transportation to Work of Residents of Case Study Municipalities 2000 .......87

4-19 Mode of Transportation to Work of Residents of Case Study Municipalities 2000
(in percentages) .............. .... ............ ........................................87

4-20 Predominant Industry 2007 (# of Businesses Located in the Municipality) ...................88

4-21 Small Scale and Large Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendments .....................................89

4-22 Promotion of Redevelopment and Infill by the Private Sector, Public Sector, or
Public-Private Partnerships ..................................................................... ............... 89









4-23 Determining the Success of a Project ............................ ...................................... 90

4 -2 4 Jo b C re atio n ................................................................................................................. 9 0

4-25 Reasons for a Lack of Job Creation ............................ ........... ..............................91

4-26 Economic Developm ent and Investm ent ........................................ ........ ............... 92

4 -2 7 In cen tiv es ...................................................................................................... 9 3

4-28 Is Public participation strong within the municipality? ............................................. 94

4-29 Factors contributing to the success of Public Participation .................... ............... 95

4-30 The Groups Most Supportive of Growth Management Changes....................................96

4-31 Reasons for Limited Public Involvement in Growth Management Decisions ..................97

4-32 The Preferred Growth Management Strategy ...........................................................98

4-33 M municipality Challenges ............................................................ .. ............... 99

4-34 Solutions for M unicipality Challenges ........................................ ........................ 100

4-35 M municipality Strengths........................................................................... .......... .......... 10 1

4-36 M municipality W weaknesses ........................................................................ .................. 102

4-37 Growth Management Tools in the Comprehensive Plan: Are they adequate to meet
your m municipality 's needs? ..................................................................... ...................103

4-38 Have the residents and businesses located within the city limits been strong
supporters of growth management changes? ............... ......................................103

4-39 Is your municipality interested in attracting economic development? .........................104

4-40 Which types of economic development are encouraged?................................................105

4-41 Is there a focus on economic development and job creation? ..................................106

A-i Atlantic Beach Future Land Use Element Introduction .............................................129

A-2 Atlantic Beach Goals, Objectives, and Policy ....... .............................................130

B-1 Indian Rocks Beach Comprehensive Plan Goals, Objectives, and Policies.................. 134

B-2 Indian Rocks Beach Review of Comprehensive Plan Elements: Future Land Use......140

B-3 Indian Rocks Beach EAR Review of Comprehensive Plan Elements: Housing........141









C-1 Key Biscayne Development Trends: Land Use Changes (1999-2006)* .......................143

C-2 Key Biscayne Citizen Survey Land Use.......................................... ............... 144

C -3 K ey B iscayne Strengths............................................................................... ..... .... 145

C-4 K ey B iscayne W weaknesses ................................................. ............................... 146

C-5 K ey Biscayne Opportunities .................................................. ........................ 147

C -6 K ey B iscayne T threats ...................................................................... .......................148

C-7 Key Biscayne Assessment of the Future Land Use Element Goals, Objectives, and
P olicies......... ............................... ................................................14 9

C-8 Key Biscayne Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendments ..................................150

C-9 Key Biscayne EAR Issue E .................................................. ........................ 151

D-l Marco Island EAR Issues Redevelopment...........................................................154

D-2 Marco Island EAR Issue Mixed Use Development...............................................156

D-3 M arco Island EAR Issue Rezoning .............................................. ............... 157

D-4 M arco Island EAR Issue Commercial Space ........................................................ 158

F-1 Sanibel Approximate Acreage of Land Uses 2006 compared to 1995....................... 161

F -2 C characteristics of Sanibel ....................................................................... ...................16 1

F-3 Sanibel Land Use Projections: Dwelling Units at Buildout (2026)..............................162

F-4 Sanibel Approximate Acreage of Land Uses Buildout (2026)............................... 162

F-5 Sanibel Negative Externalities to the Local Economy and Redevelopment ...............62

F-6 Sanibel Plan Goals, Objectives, and Policies........................... .................... 163

G-l St. Pete Beach Redevelopment Recap: Where we stand? ..........................................165

G-2 St. Pete Beach Locally Identified Issues Issue 2 ................................ ............... 166

G-3 St. Pete Beach Locally Identified Issues Issue 3..................................................... 169

G-4 St. Pete Beach Locally Identified Issues Issue 6..................................................... 170

G-5 St. Pete Beach Vacant Land Analysis (County Figures).........................................171

G-6 St. Pete Beach Vacant Land Analysis Based on a Windshield Survey ......................171









G-7 St. Pete Beach Assessment of Objectives and Policies Future Land Use Element.... 172

H-l Treasure Island M ixed Use and Density ........................... ............... ... ............... 176

H-2 Treasure Island Redevelopm ent .............................................................................. 177

I-1 W ilton M anors R edevelopm ent............................................. ............................ 179

1-2 Wilton Manors Future Land Use Element Assessment...............................................180

I-3 Wilton Manors Vacant Land for Future Development......................................180









LIST OF FIGURES

Figure page

3-1 Location of original 13 case studies........................................................ ............... 46

3-2 Location of 9 case studies ...................................................................... ............... 47

4-1 Northeast Region Atlantic Beach and Neptune Beach. ..........................................107

4-2 Southeast Region W ilton M anors. ..........................................................................107

4-3 Southeast Region Key Biscayne. ............................................................................108

4-4 Southwest Region M arco Island ................................. ............... ............... 108

4-5. South est R region Sanibel. ......... .................................. ................................... 109

4-6 West Central Region Indian Rocks Beach, Treasure Island, St. Pete Beach..............109









LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AB Atlantic Beach

BEBR Bureau of Economic and Business Research

CHHA Coastal High Hazard Area

DCA Department of Community Affairs

EAR Evaluation and Appraisal Report

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Administration

FLUE Future Land Use Element

IRB Indian Rocks Beach

KB Key Biscayne

MI Marco Island

NB Neptune Beach

S Sanibel

SPB St. Pete Beach

TI Treasure Island

WM Wilton Manors









Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Urban and Regional Planning

BUILT-OUT MUNICIPALITIES IN FLORIDA: THE CHALLENGES OF PLANNING FOR
REDEVELOPMENT AND INFILL IN SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED COMMUNITIES

By

Marcus Oberlander

May 2008

Chair: Ruth Steiner
Cochair: Richard Schneider
Major: Urban and Regional Planning

The present study explores the challenges for the planning of redevelopment, infill

development, and urban planning strategies based on the economic, community, and geographic

characteristics of small and medium-sized built-out municipalities in Florida. The objective of

this study is to understand how small and medium-sized built-out municipalities plan for infill

and redevelopment. This study achieves this objective through three methodologies. First, the

following planning documents are reviewed to find development strategies in comprehensive

plans, evaluation and appraisal reports (EAR), downtown redevelopment plans, and land

development code. Second, the researcher examined socioeconomic and demographic

information to identify the characteristics of the population. Third, planners and elected officials

were interviewed to understand planning challenges in small and medium-sized built-out

municipalities. The results of the qualitative analysis indicate that the effects of the disconnect

between the implementation of redevelopment and infill strategies in small and medium-sized

built-out municipalities, state-mandated growth management policies, and the will of the

residents and business owners collectively.









CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Florida has been growing rapidly for the last several decades. For many communities, the

growth in population has been accompanied by a growth in the size of the city. However, for

many municipalities1 in Florida that are classified as built-out, where 85 percent of the land

within the city limits is developed, this growth presents a special challenge. These municipalities

face challenges unlike other communities because they cannot easily expand their tax base.

Built-out municipalities in Florida are located on barrier islands near the Atlantic Ocean or the

Gulf of Mexico or near larger municipalities where the future annexation of land is not possible.

Built-out municipalities face geographical and political challenges that are distinct compared to

other developing cities. This challenge is especially difficult for small and medium-sized

municipalities with a population between 5,000 and 20,000 because they also have a small

population and tax base.

Florida's comprehensive planning process does not differentiate the planning strategies

used between built-out or other types of cities. A built-out city, unlike a continuously developing

city, does not have the opportunity to develop one or multiple large parcels of land. This leads

municipalities to pursue other planning strategies and techniques in order to manage growth.

In order to meet the needs to expand the tax base, small to medium-sized municipalities

can use redevelopment and infill strategies. Redevelopment is a complex process that considers

many factors. According to the Florida Statute 163.340 (2007), redevelopment is defined as the

renovation of a blighted area or the replacement, remodeling, or reuse of existing structures to

accommodate new development (Florida Legislature, 2007). Infill is defined as the development


1 According to Florida Statutes Title XII (Municipalities) and 165.031, "municipality" means a municipality created
pursuant to general or special law authorized or recognized pursuant to s. 2 or s. 6, Art. VIII of the State
Constitution. Cities, towns, and villages are referred to as a municipality throughout this document.









of vacant or remnant lands passed over by previous development in urban areas. Florida Statutes

treat urban infill and redevelopment as a single comprehensive planning strategy to revitalize the

urban core within a municipality (Florida Legislature, 2007).

Each municipality's comprehensive plan and land development code provide the tools to

encourage innovative land development and redevelopment techniques. The comprehensive plan

also allows for redevelopment, infill, and urban design changes in a way that is consistent with

the community's character. Comprehensive plans provide guidelines for the public and private

sectors to work together for the benefit of residents and visitors. Established processes such as

the evaluation and appraisal report (EAR) allow municipalities to determine whether the

objectives and policies, within the current comprehensive plan, are adequate to meet their

municipality's needs.

Regulatory restrictions set by the federal and state governments and contained within the

comprehensive plan determine the extent to which property owners can redevelop or initiate

infill development. The federal and state governments limit redevelopment and infill in all

communities. For built-out municipalities, these restrictions can provide additional challenges to

the economic vitality and expansion of the tax base. Built-out municipalities have regulatory

restrictions because of the need to protect residents during natural disasters. Density and intensity

levels and building heights are restricted in municipalities located in coastal high hazard areas

(CHHA). Beyond the federal and state regulatory restrictions, the residents of built-out

municipalities may prefer to keep lower density and intensity levels to limit population growth

and maintain the community as it is.

Depending upon who supports or opposes redevelopment or infill development, a built-out

community can succeed or fail to implement its growth management plan. Business owners,









especially in municipalities that rely on tourism for revenue, and some residential property

owners remain the largest supporters of redevelopment. According to the planning professionals

and elected officials within built-out municipalities, the tax revenue generated by the

redevelopment of hotels, retail, restaurants, and offices allow the municipalities to provide

services for residents of the community. Long-time and new residents who chose a municipality

for its size and character may fear change. Political infighting among residents, business owners,

and elected officials prevents the municipality from adequately planning for the future because

no one can agree on the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan.

When built-out communities are located in larger urban areas, the pressure of private

sector development extends to all municipalities irrespective of their size and capacity to handle

it. The development pattern becomes a function of the land development code in individual

jurisdictions. The urban centers provide employment opportunities that are not present within the

built-out community. But the small and medium-sized built-out municipalities do not have the

same institutional and organizational capacity as larger and rapidly expanding cities in the

region. During the recent housing boom and other market trends, residential property owners

prospered tremendously by rising property values that, in turn, forced commercial and retail

establishments to relocate to less expensive areas. These same trends produced strains on local

and regional infrastructure as employment centers were located farther away. These market

trends have lead to the transformation of coastal built-out municipalities from residential,

commercial, and retail hubs into predominantly bedroom communities for large employment

centers.

Researchers address the current obstacles with redevelopment and infill development by

conducting studies on policy innovation and the effects of redevelopment and infill development









on small developing municipalities. Current studies highlight the limitations of growth

management and the capacity of small and medium-sized municipalities during implementation.

Few studies specifically address redevelopment and infill development within small and

medium-sized built-out municipalities. Nine built-out communities are selected as case studies to

explore the challenges faced by small and medium-sized communities. This study addresses the

special challenges facing small and medium-sized built-out municipalities as they attempt to

maintain their community's economic vitality. Four methods were followed to understand the

challenges faced by small to medium built-out municipalities. First, planning documents

including comprehensive plans, EARs, downtown redevelopment plans, and land development

codes set the framework for redevelopment, infill development, and urban design changes.

Secondly, these nine case studies were examined to understand the characteristics of the

population. Thirdly, the researcher observed each municipality on the ground. Finally, interviews

with planning professionals and elected officials provide perspectives on the implementation of

redevelopment and infill strategies.

Following this Introduction, a Review of Literature addresses the regulatory, economic,

and community obstacles faced by municipalities attempting to use redevelopment and infill

development planning strategies. The Literature Review presents growth management tools and

empirical evidence of the implementation. In doing so, the Review of Literature describes

historical, economic, and social factors that the implementation of redevelopment, infill, and

urban design changes. The Review of Literature also includes an analysis of the costs of

continuing with existing development patterns and contrasts that view with alternative

development options. The Review of Literature then concludes with a synopsis of









implementation strategies and the importance of the role of the private sector in the

redevelopment process.

Next, the Methodology section describes how the research was completed. Case studies

of nine small to medium-sized built-out municipalities are completed using four types of data

collection. Four methodologies include the review of planning documents, the examination of

population characteristics, the observation of the municipality on the ground, and the

interviewing of planning professionals and elected officials are described.

The Results and Discussion sections describe the findings of the research and place them

into the broader context of development in Florida. Matrixes present the planning professional

and elected official interview results based on the subjects of redevelopment and infill

development, job creation, economic investment and development, incentives, and public

participation. The Discussion section examines the actual level of redevelopment and infill

development activity occurring in the municipality as well as comparing and contrasting the

views of redevelopment and infill based on the size of the municipality, political climate, and

location.









CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Studies or examinations of redevelopment, infill development, and urban design changes in

built-out municipalities containing populations between 5,000 and 20,000 residents remain

limited at best. Unlike continuously developing municipalities, built-out municipalities lack

available vacant land to expand a new tax base and to absorb their share of regional population

growth. In theory, the comprehensive plan, land development code, downtown redevelopment

plans, redevelopment and infill development guidebooks, and urban design plans provide support

and implementation strategies to alternative planning strategies to manage growth. In reality,

small and medium-sized built-out municipalities face distinct obstacles to redevelopment.

"Buildout refers to the point at which development has reached a city's borders or has exhausted

large-scale greenfield options" (Lang and LeFurgy, 2007, p. 537). Municipalities conduct a

build-out analysis to determine an approximate time period when there would be no further

buildable land left under the current zoning regulations and land development code. What

happens when a city or suburb reaches build-out? "...the issue is not just how much land remains

but how it will be used" (Lang and LeFurgy, 2007, p. 537). The biggest issue for these

municipalities is to recognize that they are built-out, identify their options, and pursue the best

option for the betterment of the municipality consistent with the needs of the region.

This chapter first explains the regulatory and policy shortcomings, economic, concurrency,

and urban growth controls that represent obstacles to planning in Florida in general and in built-

out communities in five of the major regions in Florida: northeast, southeast, southwest, west

central, and the Panhandle. Second, the chapter explains possible approaches to address these

obstacles. Finally, the summary highlights the obstacles and solutions present in the literature

and attempt to establish a connection with the findings.









Obstacles


Regulatory and Policy Shortcomings

Florida uses a top-down state-mandated growth management system that consists of

comprehensive planning review and technical enforcement powers at the regional at state levels.

Chapter 163 of the Florida Statutes includes requirements for all local governments for all small,

medium, and large incorporated municipalities to prepare a comprehensive plan. The Florida

Legislature passes the state statutes while the Department of Community Affairs (DCA)

establishes rules to implement those statutes. In the Florida Administrative Code, Rule 9J-1

through 9J-11 implements Chapter 163 of the Florida Statutes.

In the state comprehensive plan, each local government is required to prepare Land

Development Regulations (LDR) to implement the comprehensive plan. Land development

codes reflect the same development patterns set twenty years ago, and comprehensive plans

currently lack the flexibility and adaptability for changing market conditions, innovative

development opportunities, and changing residential and commercial preferences within the

comprehensive plan and land development regulations (Chapin, 2004). No differentiation is

made in the requirements for municipalities based on wealth, history, culture, or social makeup.

States establish regulatory restrictions at times of crisis, but Onesimo and Landis (2002)

believe that, similar to growth management plans, regulatory restrictions need to be adaptable

and flexible based on changing times. California's Proposition 13 capped property tax rates and

made new local tax measures difficult to pass. "One of the main reasons that many... cities don't

promote residential or mixed-use infill currently or housing in general is that there is very

little economic reason for them to do so" (Wheeler, 2002, p. 26). Cash-strapped Californian

municipalities encourage commercial development such as strip development, automobile

dealerships, regional malls, and office parks that generate tax revenue and sales. Municipalities









do not encourage residential development, which remains a drain on government services and

infrastructure. In effect the California's fiscal system encourages sprawl and works against infill

development, residential development, and mixed-use development.

The Special Challenges in Small and Medium Communities

Small and medium-sized rural and urban municipalities respond with difficulty to

socioeconomic change. "The contention is that a freestanding community with a population

ceiling of twenty-five thousand will exhibit certain political and cultural characteristics that

clearly distinguish it from its more urbanized counterparts, often precluding the adoption of

innovative planning practices" (Mattson and Burke, 1989, p. 399). Small municipalities suffer

from a limited economic base, a lack of professionalism, and an individualistic political nature.

These shortcomings contribute to how residents and elected officials of small and medium-sized

municipalities create and implement growth management strategies.

Small municipalities remain cautious by nature due to their lack of capacity and allow the

few with the most power to dictate public policy (Mattson and Burke, 1989). Elected officials

encourage planning professionals to maintain the status quo instead of providing innovative and

costly solutions to the small municipality.

Bryce (1979, 49) claims, because of their size, incrementalism is much more likely to be
the modus operandi in small towns than the rational comprehensive approach... The three
underlying reasons for incrementalism most frequently cited are the personalized nature of
politics, the lack of professional management capacity, and the existence of a political-
cultural value system. Collectively, these three factors foster the attitude that sophisticated
policy planning approaches are either not applicable to or not needed in small town
decision-making.

Decisions are based primarily on choices among competing values. Within such a work

setting, it becomes difficult to separate technical from political choices. Many policy choices are

based on the planner's intuition of the current political climate. According to Mattson (1994),

"... within small-town America, the professional planner is discouraged from embarking on any









innovative activity that will disrupt the existing social order (Hahn, 1970). The political culture

regulates who talks to whom and who influences" (Mattson, 1994, p. 269). Mattson and Burke

(1989) infer that differences in perceptions and historical community context create conflict

between newcomers and old-timers. "For instance, the cosmopolitans are predominantly

newcomers who react to policy issues from a community-wide, public interest perspective... In

contrast, local influentials tend to be old-timers who have a more narrowly defined traditional-

individualistic perspective a system of mutual obligations rooted in personal relationships"

(Mattson and Burke, 1989, p. 400).

Wheeler (2002) supports Mattson and Burke's conclusions regarding the limitations of

small municipalities to effectively issue and manage policy planning. Wheeler (2002) adds that a

municipality's decisions on whether or not to encourage redevelopment or infill is not solely

based on market conditions but by the state and local statutes that either encourage or restrict

development based on tax revenue opportunities. Researchers Juan Onesimo Sandoval and John

Landis (2002) discovered that the San Francisco Bay Area contains a substantial amount of

vacant land suitable for redevelopment. "Nevertheless, Sandoval and Landis conclude that the

biggest constraints to infill... are economic and political, not the physical amount of land"

(Wheeler, 2002, p. 23). State, regional, or local statutes that restrict the ability of a municipality

to explore development options limit the choices that could provide long-term benefits and

limited costs.

Concurrency

Concurrency was intended to help address major infrastructure problems facing the state,

especially increasing road congestion. Comprehensive planning and concurrency management

requirements promote limited local government support and sprawl due to local government's

lack of resources and institutional capacity. Chapin (2007) explains that what began as a broad,









innovative solution to encourage compact development and improve infrastructure as growth

continued resulted in increased frustration for developers and municipalities due to the extensive

regulatory and fiscal requirements.

Although simple in principle, in practice concurrency has proven very difficult to
implement. To effectively implement concurrency, planners and managers of public
facilities must track both system supply and system demand for each of the six facility
types. In many of the state's fast growing cities, supply and demand must be tracked in real
time, since new development is being proposed, permitted, and built on a daily basis
(Chapin, 2007, p. 509).

As the experience in most small and medium-sized municipalities, their lack of fiscal and

institutional capacity and support relaxed strict requirements for transportation concurrency and

the promotion of compact and infill development. Adding to the difficulties, as stated in the

article, is the lack of infrastructure funding and a clear state concurrency mandate and approach

that could easily be followed by the local government (Chapin, 2007). Due to the extensive

regulatory requirements of the Growth Management Act, the resources earmarked for

redevelopment and infill development production would be reallocated to other municipal

programs such as transportation concurrency. Fiscal and institutional capacity limitations affect

the enforcement of growth management legislation. The impact of concurrency requirements on

small municipalities is not based on the fact that in order for concurrency to be implemented you

need to have growth to generate revenue. Small built-out municipality may be currently at

capacity or they are currently experiencing spillover effects of new development by other small

built-out municipalities or the larger urban area.

Land Use Controls and Exclusion

Similar to concurrency requirements, people view urban growth boundaries, boxed-in

cities and other land use controls as tools for boxed-in cities to establish more homogeneous

communities for white affluent homeowners. Previous studies attempted to link urban growth









boundaries with exclusionary outcomes. Pendall (2000) concluded that urban growth boundaries

should constrict urbanization leading to the encouragement of high density development. "The

'boxed-in' city, applies to jurisdictions surrounded by other incorporated areas or bodies of

water. Boxed-in status differs from the others because local governments 'inherit' rather that

adopt it, but like greenbelts, it may limit urban expansion. Urban growth boundaries and boxed-

in status may encourage high-density (multifamily) development by raising land prices.

However, the direct effect of growth boundaries and boxed-in status on housing supply, rentals,

and rental affordability are more difficult to predict" (Pendall, 2000, p. 129).

Although the underlying concerns associated with urban growth boundaries are serious, the

inability to adequately define an urban growth boundary undermines the efforts to ensure against

its negative consequences. Contributing to issues in testing the reasons for urban growth

boundaries, comprehensive plan policies on urban growth boundaries vary by county. "Nelson

and Dawkins (2003, p. 13) define an urban growth boundary as a line on a map based on an

explicit policy to prevent the extension of key public facilities, especially water and sewer line

and urban development, without plan amendments" (Holcombe, 2007, p. 230). Researchers

believed that counties in Florida established urban growth boundaries as a way to manage growth

and stop the proliferation of sprawl.

As early as 1975, Dade and Sarasota Counties created urban growth boundaries. Dade

County enacted a growth boundary where Sarasota County created boundaries based on urban,

semi-rural, and rural development patterns (Holcombe, 2007). Leon County created an urban

growth boundary by establishing urban service areas where water, sewer, and other utilities

would not be extended. Palm Beach County set aside land in rural preservation areas to prevent

development.









These counties established urban growth boundaries before the 1985 Growth Management

Act (GMA) was signed into law. Some researchers believe that with mandatory growth

management in Florida there would no longer be a need for an urban growth boundary. Florida

growth management laws do not require counties to implement urban growth boundaries which

allow local jurisdictions to handle management of this type of land use control.

Randall G. Holcombe (2007) conducted a series of critical analysis of urban growth

boundaries based on three hypothesizes to determine why some counties have preferred this

method of urban containment and who benefits the most.

First, people might support urban growth boundaries because they receive private benefits
from them. The literature suggests that these private benefits tend to be correlated with
income, and that higher-income individual's benefit at the expense of lower-income
individuals in the form of higher property values, the exclusionary properties of growth
boundaries, and the creation of more homogeneous communities that enhance their
lifestyles. Second, people might support urban growth boundaries because of the negative
effects of growth, which suggests the places with greater population growth and higher
population densities would tend to support these boundaries. Third, political and
institutional factors may play a role in whether urban growth boundaries are implemented
(Holcombe, 2007, p. 230).

People support public policies that benefit themselves. Donovan and Neiman (1995),

Knaap (1987), and Bollens (1990) conducted studies concluding that self-interest in a

determining factor in political support for growth management policies. "...One would expect

that higher income areas, which have more people that gain from urban growth boundaries,

would be more likely to impose urban growth boundaries. If policies are created to further the

economic interests of constituents, then higher income areas would be more likely to have urban

growth boundaries" (Holcombe, 2007, p. 229). Although a justifiable reason for establishing an

urban growth boundary, municipalities on barrier islands in coastal high hazard areas establish

urban growth boundaries to limit the amount of growth to lessen devastation during a natural









disaster. The Florida Administrative Code addresses post redevelopment through the

comprehensive planning process.

Justifying the use of urban growth boundaries, Holcombe first tested income and urban

growth boundaries, and in the second test, the author compared growth pressures and urban

growth boundaries. The correlation of income, the form of government, and the existence of

growth management laws resulted in income having the most impact.

Donovan and Neiman (1995) found that growth controls in California had a minimal
impact on population growth, but did affect community characteristics and make
communities more racially homogeneous. Baldassare and Protash (1982) found that in
California growth controls are more likely to be passed in jurisdictions with a greater
percentage of white collar population. Knaap (1987) found that Oregon voters tended to
support growth controls based on their economic interests (Holcombe, 2007, p. 237).

The literature does not always agree with these results.

...Gottdiener and Neiman (1981) found broad support for growth controls in Riverside,
California, and directly called into question the thesis that they are passed by the affluent
who want to limit access to the community. However, as Feiock (1994) notes, growth
controls tend to have a negative impact on economic development, and Bellens (1990)
argues that people with a more direct connection to the local economy tend to show the
least support for growth controls (Holcombe, 2007, p. 237).

Residents with higher income would support an urban growth boundary because the decreased

supply of land and development would make the demand for their property greater.

Holcombe's (2007) statistical analysis suggests that white affluent homeowners remain the

predominant supporters of urban growth controls. Growth controls benefit one or more group

based on race, income, and political power. Confirming Holcombe's observation, Pendall (2000)

states that previous studies do show that restrictive land use controls are more common in

communities with high proportions of wealthy, non-Hispanic Whites than in communities with

minorities. Municipalities where single-family detached dwellings are predominant have been

shown to have a larger proportion of White non-Hispanic residents than places with multifamily









dwellings. "None of these studies necessarily shows that the land use controls in question led to

exclusion; rather, they may simply show that wealthy and White places are more likely to adopt

restrictive land use controls. In fact, recent research has raised questions about whether zoning

and land use controls 'work' at all (Landis, 1992) that is, whether they produce a different

landscape than would be produced in their absence" (Pendall, 2000, p. 129).

Although Pendall agrees with Holcombe on the results from past studies, Pendall's

findings from his study on the effect of land use controls on the chain of exclusion contradicts

Holcombe's results.

According to this study,...growth boundaries, often modeled as supply constraints that will
inexorably elevate housing prices (Elliott, 1981; Frech & Lafferty, 1984; Schwartz & Zorn,
1988), did not consistently reduce housing growth in the 1980s. Neither did they have any
consistent average effect on housing unit types, tenure, or affordability (or on vacancy
rates, which were tested in an unreported analysis)... In short,... growth boundaries
sometimes have exclusionary effects, but often they are little more than symbols of
concern about the pace and shape of new growth" (Pendall, 2000, p. 138).

According to Pendall (2000), urban growth boundaries alone do not cause an exclusion of racial

minorities. The focus on low-density-only zoning leads to either a lower housing production or a

shift towards single-family instead of multifamily units. Following either path leads to a lower

percentage of renters and lower rental affordability. In addition to a municipality's low-density-

only zoning, the municipality's boxed-in status will lead to lower rental affordability and an

exclusion of racial minorities.

Nelson (2007) highlights the perspective that urban containment is related to attitudes

toward growth, even if in some instances containment policy may be more favorable to housing

production in Florida. Nelson (2007) suggests that growth advocates believe that growth

functions as the way in which social and culture initiatives are established and also provide

important tax revenue for the municipality. On the other hand, anti-growth advocates believe that









the continued focused on horizontal growth decreases a municipality's economic, social, and

cultural resources causing long-term detrimental effects for the environment and infrastructure.

Residents and businesses differ on the appropriate strategy to where growth can continue but in a

more structured, environmentally-friendly, and economically viable manner. Pro-growth

supporters follow a wait and see attitude which will generate short-term gains but will lead to

long-term environmental degradation and economic hardships.

Chapin and Connerly (2004) suggest that most Florida residents, on a whole, support the

use of growth controls with the growth management process, but on the other hand, a lot of

groups do not understand the intricacies of the growth management process. Chapin and

Connerly (2004) suggest through their critical analysis that not all groups are positively affected

by growth management and specifically the use of growth controls. Process and procedure

remain difficult to understand and implement, which in turn puts information solely in the hands

of the individuals in the municipality with the most power to affect policy. Even with all its

inadequacies, residents believe that growth management remains necessary to handle growth

pressures in Florida. The encouragement by strong regional entities and private and public

partners over the last decade contributes to the support of alternative development patterns

versus sprawl development.

Existing vs. Alternative Development Patterns

Burchell (1999) infers that the encouragement for other areas to support alternative

development patterns would result in the expansion of economic and institutional capacity within

built-out municipalities. Focusing on regulatory framework updates, the municipalities in the

Eastward Ho! study areas would spend less on infrastructure and transportation additions and

maintenance and spread the wealth to other smaller communities within the five counties. The

study suggests that municipalities could use a proportionate fair-share program or establish









transportation concurrency exception areas to share infrastructure maintenance costs with the

private sector and encourage infill and redevelopment (Burchell et al., 1999).

The researchers created multiple models to examine two types of development patterns.

"The first is Existing development or sprawl, which includes unlimited outward expansion,

leapfrog development, and low density. The second is Alternative or compact development,

which holds a portion of development close to previously developed areas, and emphasizes infill

and redevelopment usually at higher density" (Burchell et al., 1999, Executive Summary). First,

the Eastward Ho! study areas exist inland between Interstate 95 and the Florida Turnpike and do

not apply to coastal areas. Dr. Burchell suggests from his statistical analysis using a

residential/nonresidential allocation model, a land consumption model, a road model, a utilities

model, a development cost model, and a fiscal cost model based on projections that by using an

existing development model, development will not occur in the Eastward Ho! designated areas

but will be concentrated in rural areas. The use of the Alternative model will lead to compact

development only in the Eastward Ho! study areas. The study dictates that with the Alternative

growth pattern populations will be kept away from coastal high hazard areas.

Dr. Burchell stipulates from his study that the use of the Alternative development pattern,

through compact development and increased density, will increase the population in the study

area only and not divert resources to rural or coastal areas. Based on the study, the municipalities

in the coastal high hazard area will not increase in population, but the authors do not stipulate

whether the Alternative development pattern will result in decreased populations. The study

suggests that the use of the alternative development strategy in the larger urban areas creates less

spillover in the smaller municipalities. The authors infer that the costs saved by the county as a

result of creating compact development and not diverting funds to increased infrastructure and









land consumption will be reallocated to the municipalities. The theory remains that

municipalities faced with reduced public service cost result in less focus on reacting to

expanding development patterns and more on expanding institutional and financial capacity to

manage growth.

Economic

The economic success of the region has a direct affect on the fiscal and institutional

capacity of small and medium-sized built-out municipalities. The 1985 Growth Management Act

placed responsibility for fiscal policy planning in the hands of the planning profession. Mattson

(1994) suggests that planners act like mediators who balance the job of protecting the public's

interest in either zoning or policy management with promoting a strong economic image for the

municipality. "Thus, local planners are more comfortable focusing their efforts on traffic flow or

zoning changes than on devising a fiscal policy plan to pay for municipal services (Mills and

Davis, 1963; Buck and Rath, 1970; Hahn, 1970; Catanese, 1974; Howe 1992)" (Mattson, 1994).

Municipalities contain eroding tax bases and continually find it difficult to finance mandated

state requirements. With legislative and constitutional restrictions, Florida's small towns appear

to have few policy options to cover shortfalls, especially when cash management seems to have

its limitations.

Small municipalities lack effective resources to counteract economic or social changes as a

result of spillover from larger urban areas or within their own community. Larger urban areas

contain governments with more fiscal and institutional capacity to attract the professional

expertise necessary to weather economic and social changes. As stressed, local governments

must have sufficient fiscal resources to ensure development of the horizontal and vertical

organizational linkages that sustain the convergence of professional management skills with

political leadership. Depending on the location and the economic and institutional resources of









the built-out municipality, they are sometimes unable to pay the salaries to attract the kinds of

professionals needed. Even if a small built-out municipality has the financial capacity, the staff

hired may face resistance due to the current political will of the municipality.

Most small governments are primarily reactive entities, for at least three reasons. First
because of their narrow economic basis, small towns provide a limited array of municipal
services, which restricts their ability to attract industry. Second, this lack of breadth in the
economic base prevents the town from hiring the professional expertise essential for
planning economic revitalization.. Finally, the scale of freestanding communities tends to
foster a traditional-individualistic political-culture value system that stresses a limited role
for local government. Subsequently, public officials are often unwilling to initiate new
programs or activities" (Mattson and Burke, 1989, p. 398).

The elected officials will support and adopt programs that do not affect or threaten their power

base. The lack of an open but firm political, social, and economic foundation will acerbate the

problem further. Small and medium-sized municipalities will rely on the resources they have and

attempt to share resources with neighboring municipalities, their region, and the state through

interlocal agreements and contracts.

Mattson and Burke (1989) infer that the lack of sophisticated systems prevents small and

medium-sized municipalities from encouraging innovative planning techniques. "Impediments

include land availability, fiscal disincentives for local government to approve infill projects,

outdated zoning requirements, excessive parking standards, financing difficulties, neighborhood

opposition, lengthy permitting processes, toxic contamination sites, and poor schools and a lack

of amenities in older communities" (Wheeler, 2002, p. 3). Urban growth boundaries constrict the

supply of land available which in turn drives up the demand. Lower income groups are forced

out because when supply is limited and demand is great, the costs associated with the limited

supply increase.

Because of their design, Florida's growth management policies act as a restriction on the
supply of developable land. A restriction in supply raises the price, which creates winners
and losers. Higher land prices benefit landowners with developable and developed land,









and benefit homeowners, because the market value of their property increases. Losers in
the process are renters, people who are moving into an area and want to either rent or buy a
residence, and people whose property is outside the developable area according to the land
use map. As such, growth management policies can be viewed as creating a transfer of
income from poorer Floridians to richer Floridians. Those who own their own homes and
who own other real estate tend to be better off financially than those who rent and who do
not own real estate (Holcombe, 2007, p. 228)

"Redevelopment affects more than just individual properties. It has far-reaching effects on

employment, housing, tourism, transportation, and the attractiveness of our communities. As we

plan for the future, it is essential that we understand and address the relationships between land

supply and demand, the regulatory climate, public investment, and private business decisions."

(Pinellas County Economic Development & Pinellas Planning Council, 2005, p. 1).

The organization of the local government and the status of its elected officials in a small or

medium-sized municipality plays a part in how well policy innovation occurs. The focus of

power among the residents and business owners will determine which types of issues will be

supported and whether the municipality has the fiscal and institutional capacity to handle that

support. Small towns contain well-meaning, part-time politicians. "With few political cleavages

and informal civic leadership patterns, elected officials have a strong tendency to seek a

caretaker type of government in which policies have strong traditional-individualistic overtones.

Such policies are designed to provide benefits without regard to income levels, rarely

establishing distinct winners and losers" (Mattson and Burke, 1989, p. 401). In reality, this rarely

occurs. The regulatory framework and the tax system of the municipality determine the extent of

the revenue stream.

Residents, developers, and elected officials of older municipalities are sometimes hesitant

to support infill development in a community because even with further commercial properties,

they believe that the tax base will decrease. Residents oppose infill that will increase the density









and intensity levels within the municipality. Depending on the state, small and medium-sized

municipalities do not always have the financial clout, tools, or experience with offering

economic or tax incentives, which remains a stumbling block to attracting primary employers

and residents back into the municipality. Authors of the Infill and Redevelopment Handbook

(1999) suggest that finance and capital markets remain a barrier to the redevelopment and infill

developer. Lenders perceive mixed-use projects appropriate to redevelopment and infill

development as risky since similar projects cannot be compared. Also, developers are not

producing residential properties based on what is needed or desired, but by the economic factors

that play a part in the housing market. Lenders separate residential and commercial loans

compounding the problems in developing infill development.

Researchers indicate that two of the biggest impediments to redevelopment and infill

development include an individual's perception and bias towards a concept and how the local

government relays the information to individuals (Mattson and Burke, 1989; Wheeler, 2002).

Wheeler (2002) suggests that many associate residential density with large, impersonal

apartment buildings, public housing projects, or physical environments like a downtown area.

Mattson and Burke (1989) indicated that the few influential people control the flow of

information and determine the extent of policy making within the municipality.

Approaches

Redevelopment and infill development are viewed as a comprehensive strategy for

managing growth within a community (Wheeler, 2002; HDR, 2006; HDR, 2005). HDR (2006)

indicates in the Treasure Island Downtown Redevelopment Plan, at the conceptual level, there

are three general factors to consider when looking at the redevelopment potential of a community

or district.









Location: this includes issues associated with the physical and functional context,
including local, regional and even super-regional influences.

Community: this includes the social and cultural context. What are the demographic
characteristics such as average age, household income, education levels, etc.? Is this a
community with long-term roots, or one where most of the residents have arrived
recently? Are there transformations occurring that have implications for future
development?

Economics: what is the financial context of the district in question? What are the real
estate market factors at work? Is property inherently desirable and valuable, or is there
more supply than demand? (HDR, 2006, p. 5)

The intersections of these factors help define some of the necessary elements of the potential

redevelopment strategy.

The intersection between Community and Economics helps define the demand for
services and space.

The intersection between Location and Economics provides insights into a potential
redevelopment program.

The intersection between Location and Community gives insights into the opportunities
to define a unique and fitting Sense of Place for the particular situation (HDR, 2006, p. 5)

"Effective redevelopment balances the needs and characteristics of all three of these three

factors" (HDR, 2006, p. 5). The authors ofPinellas by Design (2005) also suggest that

redevelopment requires a coordinated effort between local governments, elected officials,

citizens, and the public and private sectors. The authors of Pinellas by Design (2005) insist that

local governments and agencies have to work together as individual and cooperative entities on a

volunteer basis. Mattson and Burke (1989) insist that small towns lack the financial and

institutional capacity to manage projects, and without resources to pursue policy planning, small

municipalities would shun away from volunteer government programs.

Two plans demonstrate success in implementing redevelopment and infill development

strategies. The Eastward Ho! Initiative encourages compact development and partnerships with

all stakeholders. Within the Eastward Ho! Study Area, Delray Beach, Boca Raton, Hollywood,









Fort Lauderdale, and Miami initiated projects through public, public-private, or private

partnerships. These municipalities successfully commenced projects by using a variety of

financing methods. Municipalities used non-profit agencies, voter-approved bond issues, art

grants, private funding, Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), HOME, housing

bonds, and State Housing Initiative Plans (SHIP) to fund these projects. This initiative strives to

go beyond residential redevelopment and to encourage various redevelopment strategies such as

adaptive reuse, mixed use, commercial renovation, historic preservation, urban renewal, and

downtown redevelopment.

The Smart Infill guidebook illustrates that a selection of San Francisco Bay Area cities

continue to strive to encourage infill. Municipalities develop specific plans to act as building

blocks to larger community redevelopment projects. The specific plans allow residents and

businesses to take ownership of creating a neighborhood vision in connection with the citywide

and regional plans. Emeryville and San Jose use mapping and other technologies to provide

information about available infill parcels. The City of Mountain View rezoned certain parcels to

encourage infill development by reducing the floor area ratio and reduce permitting processing

timing. The cities of Millbrae and Oakland reduced fiscal disincentives by increasing infill

development near transit stops and used urban design changes to aid current businesses to

expand the tax base. The City of Albany hired consultants to develop urban design standards

which include easy-to-understand graphics to illustrate these guidelines. According to Smart

Infill (2002), such guidelines can speed up the review process and create greater certainty for

developers about what is expected. Cities such as Cupertino, Fremont, Gilroy, Milpitas,

Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, and San Carlos carried out pre-application reviews of development









projects to determine potential obstacles and identify important stakeholders in the community to

be consulted.

"Since the trend toward higher densities and intensities will likely continue for the

foreseeable future, it is vital that communities recognize and address this transition" (Pinellas

County Economic Development & Pinellas Planning Council, 2005, 37). Wheeler (2002)

suggests that local governments can play a central role in making infill happen. "Local officials

can take the lead by creating Specific Plans for areas with infill potential, revising zoning and

parking codes, adopting design guidelines, streamlining permitting processes, facilitating cleanup

of contaminated sites, and coordinating involvement of neighbors and other local constituencies"

(Wheeler, 2002, p. 3). One response by local planners and elected officials is to talk instead

about 'compact development,' 'smart growth,' or 'livable, walkable neighborhoods'... Another

approach used around the country, pioneered by Rutgers professor Anton Nelessen, has been to

conduct a 'visual preference survey' of local residents. People are shown images of typical low-

density suburban development and other types of higher-density development, such as turn-of-

the-century streetcar suburbs and well-designed infill projects. Most residents find they prefer

somewhat higher density than found in recent suburbia because these include more attractive

streetscapes, local shops and restaurants, and a greater diversity of housing choices" (Wheeler,

2002, p. 15).

Summary

All municipalities in Florida face challenges with the implementation of redevelopment

and infill strategies. A plan is only as good as the effectiveness of implementing the objectives

and policies successfully. The studies suggest that traditional individualistic behavior remains

equally present in small, medium, and large communities that hamper innovative policy

innovation and planning implementation strategies. The process of revitalizing individual









districts or whole communities consists of a multidimensional task. It is more than just the focus

on redevelopment and infill itself, but it is the intersection of the location, community, and

economic factors of a small to medium-sized built-out municipality that leads to an effective

strategy. The municipality determines success by how the stakeholders (public sector, private

sector, and civic sector) work together to achieve a common goal.

Municipalities face redevelopment and infill challenges with balancing state-mandated

growth management requirements with the size, diversity, political will of the residents, and the

economic resources of the municipality. Small municipalities in Florida face limited fiscal and

institutional capacity based on broad regulatory and policy requirements, the quality of their

staff, the use of partnerships, and their location in the state. The policies of small municipalities

remain influenced by the few powerful people that control the political arena. Small

municipalities experience spillover effects from larger urban areas. Small built-out municipalities

face challenges from federal and state coastal high hazard requirements, density limitations,

limited economic development and investment, limited housing supply, high land values, and

mixed levels of public participation based on social and economic standards.









CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

Introduction

This research uses case study methodology involving key information and a review of

comprehensive plans to understand how redevelopment and infill strategies are used in small and

medium-sized built-out communities in Florida. The case study methodology was chosen

because it allows for the exploration of additional topics that contributed to a more

comprehensive analysis of the topic being considered redevelopment and infill development in

small and medium-sized municipalities. "The case study is preferred in examining contemporary

events, but when the relevant behaviors cannot be manipulated. Thus, the case study relies on

many of the same techniques as history, but it adds two sources of evidence not usually included

in the historian's repertoire: direct observation and systematic interviewing. Again, although case

studies and histories can overlap, the case study's unique strength is it ability to deal with a full

variety of evidence documents, artifacts, interviews, and observations" (Yin, 1984, p. 19-20).

This research involves several components with each case study. This process included: (1)

selection of case studies; and (2) the development of case studies, which included a review of

planning documents; key informant interviews with planning officials and elected officials; and

elected officials; and observations.

The goal of this research is to understand how small and medium-sized built-out cities

address the challenges of planning for redevelopment and infill strategies in their community.

Selection of Case Studies

The first step in selecting the case study was to identify the pool of likely cities. The state of

Florida has 412 incorporated municipalities. Bureau of Economic and Business Research

(BEBR) Florida Statistical Abstract provides 2005 population projections for all municipalities









in the state. The small and medium-sized municipalities are the focus of this study because they

are generally large enough to have their own planning or building and zoning department, but

they are small enough that they may not have enough staff to manage growth with more complex

planning tools and techniques. Counties or cities with populations that were less than 5,000 were

eliminated from the study. Then, cities with a population between 5,000 and 20,000 were

identified. Next, the small and medium-sized cities were evaluated to determine if they were

built-out. A municipality is classified as built-out where 85 percent of the land within the city

limits is developed.

The initial search of built-out cities in Florida resulted in seventeen municipalities. These

seventeen municipalities were located in all areas of the state of Florida, and were built-out due

to either geographical or political boundaries. Many of the municipalities located in Miami-Dade

County, in or near the Intercoastal Waterway, contained similar characteristics related to size and

the amount of unincorporated land located in various areas near the city limits. Geographical

Information Systems (GIS) data through Florida Geographical Data Library (FGDL) and online

satellite mapping software provided further verification to whether each remaining municipality

was located near unincorporated county land. Any city that was located near unincorporated land

was automatically eliminated due to its ability to annex land into the municipality at a future

time. As a result of finding small parcels of unincorporated land located near the city limits of

these barrier islands, the number of built-out municipalities decreased from seventeen to thirteen.

The thirteen small and medium-sized incorporated municipalities were selected based on

whether they are built-out and located on a barrier island, near natural features, or are in the

middle of an urban area. The thirteen municipalities selected were Indian Rocks Beach, Treasure

Island, St. Pete Beach, Sanibel, Marco Island, Key Biscayne, Pembroke Park, Wilton Manors,









Lighthouse Point, Neptune Beach, Atlantic Beach, Parker, and Valparaiso. The thirteen small

and medium-sized incorporated municipalities are located in major metropolitan areas such as

Panama City, Jacksonville, St. Petersburg, Fort Myers, Naples, Fort Lauderdale, and Miami.

Please refer to figure 3-1 for a map of the location of these municipalities in Florida.

Municipalities were selected to represent a good balance of every region of the state with the

exception that none of the built-out cities are located in the Orlando area.

In the process of contacting cities to verify contact information and mail out consent forms

to planning professionals and elected officials to begin primary research, four additional

municipalities were dropped. The municipalities of Lighthouse Point and Pembroke Park in

Broward County do not have planning departments. Each municipality contracts with a

consultant to create and manage all of their zoning and planning documentation. This consultant,

who is used for both cities, would have required payment to be interviewed. Stated on the

consent form, no payment would be issued to planning consultants, planning directors, or elected

officials for participation in this study. Therefore, Lighthouse Point and Pembroke Park were

dropped from the study. Building and planning professionals and elected officials, from the

municipalities of Parker and Valparaiso, were contacted on numerous occasions to schedule

phone or in-person interviews. After leaving several messages and receiving no responses, these

two cities were also dropped from the study.

The elimination of these four communities adversely affected this research. The loss of

Lighthouse Point and Pembroke Park are both located in the southeast part of the state which is

well represented in the study. However, Parker and Valparaiso contain both geographical

(waterbodies) and political boundaries (Elgin and Tynes Air Force Bases) and other issues such

as height and density restrictions that are distinct compared to most municipalities in Florida.









These two cities were the only small to medium-sized built-out cities in the Panhandle region of

Florida.

Development of Case Studies

Review of Planning Documents

Once the case study cities were selected, several sources of information were gathered for

each city includes: (1) comprehensive plan; (2) EAR; (3) land development regulations; and (4)

other planning documents. The review of the future land use and housing elements in the

comprehensive planning documents were completed to understand the strategies employed by

the city. The review of the future land use, transportation, and housing elements in the evaluation

and appraisal report (EAR) were done to verify whether current comprehensive plan goals,

objectives, and policies addressed redevelopment. The land development code was reviewed to

determine whether municipalities updated their code to match their comprehensive plan. A

variety of other planning documents were reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

Key Informative Interviews with Planning Officials and Elected Officials

Key informative interviews were conducted with the community development director,

planning director, senior planner, the building and zoning department director, and elected

officials. The interview process allowed for the planning professionals and elected officials to

provide insight to whether the planning strategies listed in the comprehensive plan, evaluation

and appraisal report, and the land development code reflected what is currently occurring in

these municipalities. The questions covered the subjects of the municipality's preferred growth

management strategy (redevelopment, infill, urban design changes, or all of the above), the level

of job creation, the level of economic development and investment, the level of tax and

economic incentives offered, and the level of public participation. Elected officials additionally

were asked to provide their perspective on the challenges faced by their built-out municipality









and possible solutions, if available, to those challenges. In all but two case studies, the elected

officials accepted the interview request. The mayor of Wilton Manors and the chair of the city

council in Marco Island did not respond back to numerous emails requesting interviews.

The interviews of these two groups of key informants varied depending upon whether the

interviewee was a planning or community development professional or an elected official.

Interview questions for planning and community development directors and elected officials

covered the subject areas of redevelopment and infill development, small and large scale

comprehensive plan amendments, job creation, economic development and investment,

incentives, and public participation. Comprehensive planning and growth management questions

remained more akin to planning and community development directors, and business and public

policy issues connected more with the elected officials. The planning and community

development director interviews lasted anywhere from forty-five minutes to an hour and a half,

and the elected official interviews lasted anywhere from fifteen to thirty minutes. The experience

and accessibility of the planning professional and elected official, the political climate within the

municipality, and the support of growth management and comprehensive planning within the

municipality determined the length of the interview. Please refer to Appendix B for a complete

list of interview questions asked to both planning and community development directors and

elected officials.

Observation

The researcher visited each municipality and canvassed neighborhoods by foot and

automobile to observe redevelopment and infill activity. Prime elements of each municipality

were photographed, and select photographs were included in this document.









Analysis of Case Studies

The researcher reviewed the comprehensive plan and the EAR, if available; to identify

goals, objectives, and policies in the future land use and housing elements related to

redevelopment, infill, density limitations, and coastal high hazard area requirements. The EAR

provided analysis of whether redevelopment and infill strategies were mentioned and whether the

objectives and policies were completed or remain on-going issues. The EAR also provided an

evaluation of whether the land development regulations were consistent with the objectives and

policies listed in the comprehensive plan.

Once all interviews were conducted, the findings were placed in individual matrixes based

on each subject area to determine whether there were more similarities or differences between

each municipality. The results of each interview were also compared to the comprehensive plan,

if available; evaluation and appraisal report, if available; and the land development code of each

case study. The comprehensive plans, evaluation and appraisal reports, and land development

code addressed the subject area of redevelopment and infill development extensively, but the

subject areas of job creation, economic development, and incentives remained barely mentioned

at all in the above government documents. The location, fiscal capacity, and institutional

capacity of each municipality played a part in whether redevelopment and infill development

were supported by the local government or whether the private sector took the lead. Please refer

to the Findings chapter to view the results of the planning and community development director

and elected official interviews as well as view data from comprehensive plans and evaluation and

appraisal reports.

Summary

The researcher selected nine case studies out of seventeen built-out municipalities. These

municipalities represent all but one region of the state (excluding the Panhandle) and the special









characteristics associated with each region. The researcher developed the case studies through

the review of planning documents, conducting interviews with key informants, and observing

municipalities through visits. Planning documents including the comprehensive plan, EAR, and

land development regulations were completed and analyzed. Interviews with community

development directors, planning directors, senior planners, and building and zoning directors,

and elected officials were conducted and analyzed to understand the municipality's infill and

redevelopment strategies.









Maps


Location of original 13 case studies. [Due to the close proximity of Atlantic
Beach and Neptune Beach to each other in northeast Florida, only one red marker
is shown to represent both cities. Map provided by Google Earth, 2007.]


Figure 3-1.











































Location of 9 case studies. [Due to the close proximity of Atlantic Beach and
Neptune Beach to each other in northeast Florida, only one red marker is shown
to represent both cities. Map provided by Google Earth, 2007.]


Figure 3-2.









CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS

Introduction

This section provides the results of three different sets of analysis of each of the nine case

study cities: (1) a summary of characteristics of the population; (2) a comparison and contrast of

planning documents and interview results; and (3) a summary of the findings. The established

sources present findings to determine whether patterns exist between demographics, community

characteristics, and the initiation of redevelopment and infill development by the public sector.

In addition, the Findings section provides interview findings from planning professionals and

elected officials to confirm whether small and medium-sized built out municipality case studies

implement redevelopment and infill development strategies.

City Profiles

The nine small and medium-sized built-out municipalities consist of eight coastal built-out

municipalities and one inland built-out municipality. Each case study incorporated based on

support from residents and business owners to set strategies to adequately plan for the future.

Atlantic Beach and Neptune Beach incorporated in the 1920s and 1930s; Indian Rocks Beach, St.

Pete Beach, Treasure Island, and Wilton Manors incorporated in the 1940s and 1950s; Sanibel

incorporated in the 1970s; and Key Biscayne and Marco Island incorporated in the 1990s. The

municipality's history and government structure determines the political climate and the policy

making abilities of the built-out municipality.

Atlantic Beach and Neptune Beach, located in Duval County and the northeast region,

share a border and have the Atlantic Ocean as their eastern border and the Intercoastal Waterway

as their western border. The Village of Key Biscayne, located in Miami-Dade County and the

southeast region, shares a northern border with Crandon Park and a southern border with Bill









Baggs Cape Florida State Park. The Atlantic Ocean is their eastern border, and Biscayne Bay is

their western border. Wilton Manors, located in Broward County and the southeast region, was

nicknamed "The Island City." Although Wilton Manors is an inland municipality surrounded by

the larger municipalities of Fort Lauderdale and Oakland Park, the city developed this nickname

due to the delineation of the north and south forks of the Middle River as their city limits. Marco

Island, located in Collier County and the southwest region, has the largest population of all the

case study built-out municipalities. Sanibel, located in Lee County and the southwest region, is a

crescent-shaped island that has a conservation area over sixty percent of the island. Sanibel

borders the Pine Island Sound on the north, the Gulf of Mexico on the south and west, and Fort

Myers Beach on the east. Indian Rocks Beach, St. Pete Beach, and Treasure Island, located in

Pinellas County and the west central region, share a western border with the Gulf of Mexico and

either shares an eastern border with Clearwater Harbor or Boca Ciega Bay.

Demographics

Population

The nine case study municipalities have populations between 5,000 and 20,000. According

to the Bureau of Economic and Business Research's (BEBR) 2006 Florida Statistical Abstract,

all but two case studies gained in population between the 2000 and 2005. Of the nine case

studies, Key Biscayne generated the largest gain in population with 918 people or 8.03% of the

population. Other case studies such as Marco Island and Atlantic Beach generated the second

and third largest increase in population at 768 and 711 people, respectively. Marco Island has the

largest population of the nine case studies. Atlantic Beach remains a popular coastal community

for families and military personnel working in Mayport and Jacksonville.

Unlike Key Biscayne, Marco Island, and Atlantic Beach which gained in population,

Wilton Manors lost population between 1980 and 1989. Corresponding with the decrease in









population in Wilton Manors, residents increasingly moved into the unincorporated areas of

Broward Counties during this time period.

The Jacksonville Metropolitan Area saw the largest increase in population between 1980

and 1989 in both Atlantic Beach and Neptune Beach. Atlantic Beach and Neptune Beach saw

moderate population growth between 1990 and 1999.

The three case studies in Pinellas County (Indian Rocks Beach, Treasure Island, and St.

Pete Beach) varied in their population growth. Indian Rocks Beach saw moderate population

growth between 1980 and 1989, but saw significant population growth between 1990 and 1999.

Treasure Island saw significant population growth between 1980 and 1989, but that growth

tapered off significantly between 1990 and 1999. St. Pete Beach decreased in population

between 1980 and 1989, but they experienced moderate population growth between 1990 and

1999. Pinellas County is 90 percent built-out, and these three case studies are located on barrier

islands in a coastal high hazard area. Indian Rocks Beach, Treasure Island, and St. Pete Beach

have minimal vacant land available and due to the federal and state regulations related to coastal

high hazard areas, these three cities have been unable to increase density and intensity levels.

The market conditions influence the decisions being made on how, where, and when

redevelopment and infill development is initiated and implemented on the barrier islands in

Pinellas County. For further details on each case study's population change, please refer to table

4-3 in the Findings section.

Predominant Age Group

Case studies located in the southeast, northeast, and west central regions contained the

predominant age group of 25 to 44. The second and third highest concentration of age groups

varied among the case studies. Refer to tables 4-4 through 4-8 in the Findings section to view

each case study and their predominant age group.









Based on the United States Census, the municipalities of Key Biscayne, Wilton Manors,

and Neptune Beach have a large number of children between the ages of 5 and 17. These

findings correspond with lower median ages which are shown in the United States Census data.

Based on the 1980 and 2000 United States Census, Key Biscayne, Wilton Manors, and Neptune

Beach have residents with a median age near 40 years. Although the median age of residents

increased in Neptune Beach between 1980 and 2000, Key Biscayne and Wilton Manors

maintained the same median age over that same twenty year period. Another result worth noting

remains that despite the considerable number of school age children located in Neptune Beach,

another case study, Atlantic Beach, a built-out municipality located directly north of Neptune

Beach, does not have a large number of school aged children.

Unlike the northeast, southeast, and west central regions, the predominant age group in the

southwest region, which contains Marco Island and Sanibel, remains 65 to 74 years. Retirees and

high income individuals purchase second or third homes in southwest Florida. Neither city is

located near a larger metropolitan area such as Jacksonville, Miami, Fort Lauderdale, Tampa, or

St. Petersburg. The predominant employment remains hospitality and tourism for residents of

these municipalities. Whereas Sanibel promotes itself strictly as an exclusive residential and

tourist destination for nature lovers, Marco Island promotes itself both as a family and exclusive

tourist destination. As a result, Marco Island's second largest predominant age group consists of

25 to 44 year residents.

Predominant Housing Types

Viewing the 1990 and 2000 United States Census, the built-out municipalities predominant

housing type remained the same. Atlantic Beach, Indian Rocks Beach, Neptune Beach, and

Sanibel continue to be dominated by 1-unit, detached housing. The housing type changed in

Treasure Island and Wilton Manors. Treasure Island's predominant housing type was 1-unit,









detached housing units in 1990. Over the next ten years, the housing increasingly became

structures with 10 units. These changes do not take into account post-redevelopment resulting

from severe hurricane damage in 2004 and 2005 and changing development trends from the

housing boom between 2001 and 2006. In contrast, Wilton Manors made transitioned from

structures with 10 units or more to single unit, detached housing. Between 2001 and 2006,

Wilton Manors continued to build its traditional pattern of structures with 10 or more units. In all

of the case study areas, except Wilton Manors, the municipality is located in a coastal high

hazard area, which prevents these municipalities from building structures that are beyond federal

building height limits of four to five stories or 50 to 60 feet.

Key Biscayne, Marco Island, and St. Pete Beach strive to build structures with 10 units or

more. It is difficult to make a correlation between the predominant housing types, the median age

of residents, and the predominant age of residents because personal preferences such as marital

status, income, and physical capabilities play a part in the collective effect of individual decision-

making. Refer to tables 4-11 through 4-15 for a summary of the characteristics of housing in the

case study municipalities.

Predominant Commuting Method to Work

Not surprisingly, the predominant commuting method to work in all case study

municipalities and the state were cars, truck, or van. According to the 1990 United States

Census, Neptune Beach and Wilton Manors showed the highest use of public transportation at

2.21% and 2.66%, respectively. Key Biscayne and Sanibel showed the highest use of walking to

work or working from home at 11.53% and 14.45%, respectively. According to the 2000 United

States Census, Atlantic Beach and Wilton Manors residents increased their public transportation

usage to 2.28% and 4.17%, respectively. Sanibel and St. Pete Beach showed the highest use of

walking to work at 3.72% and 5.52%, respectively. Indian Rocks Beach and Sanibel showed the









highest levels of working from home at 10.81% and 13.00%, respectively. Comparing the use of

public transportation and walking as the preferred commuting method between 1980 and 1989,

Atlantic Beach has one of the lowest counts of residents walking or working at home at 4.34%,

but Sanibel has the lowest percentage of residents using public transportation to commute to

work at 0.42%. Between 1990 and 1999, Treasure Island residents used public transportation the

least at 0.00%, and Neptune Beach residents walked to work (0.22%) and worked from home

(1.77%) the least.

Counties establish limited mass-transit services on the barrier islands based on demand for

those services. Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (PSTA) established the Suncoast Beach

Trolley to provide transit services for residents and tourists along the Pinellas County barrier

islands. The Suncoast Beach Trolley provides limited services off of the barrier islands and does

not serve as a primary transportation option for residents. PSTA provides bus service in

mainland municipalities but as of the current day, PSTA does not provide bus service in the

beach communities. These users would need regional destinations. Although Indian Rocks

Beach, St. Pete Beach, and Treasure Island contain the same level of public transportation

access, Treasure Island shows no public transportation activity where Indian Rocks Beach and

St. Pete Beach show moderate signs of public transportation usage.

Miami-Dade County maintains a toll plaza at the entrance of the causeway leading to Key

Biscayne which could limit the use of public transportation. The county provides bus access

between the island and various government, education, and business centers in the City of

Miami. Key Biscayne residents and business owners use public transportation and walking as

their preferred commuting method more than the Pinellas County case study municipalities.









Like Key Biscayne, Sanibel also has a toll plaza at the entrance of the causeway leading to

the island, and public transportation and walking remain the least used commuting methods. The

City of Sanibel does not offer public transportation options but provide bicycle and walking

paths as alternatives to automobile travel throughout the island. Marco Island does not require a

toll payment to access the island, but it also suffers from the same commuting issues as Sanibel.

Refer to tables 4-16 through 4-19 in the Findings section to view each case study and their

predominant commuting method to work.

Predominant Industry

The predominant industry in each of the nine small and medium-sized built-out

municipality varies by region. In northeast Florida, Atlantic Beach and Neptune Beach host

professional, scientific, and technical services industries. In southeast Florida, Key Biscayne

hosts professional, scientific, and technical services industries, but Wilton Manors is dominated

by the retail trade industry. In southwest Florida, Sanibel and Marco Island also prefer the retail

trade. In west central Florida, Indian Rocks Beach, St. Pete Beach, and Treasure Island

accommodation and food services are the dominant industries. Refer to tables 4-14 and 4-15 in

the Findings section for the predominant industry for each case study.

Planning Documents and Interview Results

Background

The state of Florida's Growth Management Act requires all municipalities to have a

comprehensive plan that includes goals, objectives, and policies for that municipality to

adequately manage growth. These goals, objectives, and policies are required in the mandatory

elements of the plan including future land use, transportation, and housing. The Growth

Management Act dictates that an evaluation and appraisal report (EAR) needs to be generated

every seven years to assess whether growth management has been successful or is failing in a









particular area. Municipalities use recommendations in the EAR to update their comprehensive

plan as well as their land development codes. The following are the findings of whether each

case study's comprehensive plan and EAR contain goals, objectives, and policies that refer to

redevelopment and infill development specifically. The interviews with planners and elected

officials provide support for the positions of the city's comprehensive plan and its

implementation. The comprehensive plan does not dictate implementation procedures. To review

whether the goals, objectives, or policies have been successful, please refer to Appendix A.

According to the planning professionals and elected officials, the dominant industry, in

each case study, is based on the availability of vacant land, the proximity to larger urban areas,

the predominant age of the municipality, the predominant age of the residents, and whether the

municipality is a bedroom community or close to a commercial or industrial area.

Atlantic Beach

According to the Atlantic Beach comprehensive plan introduction (2004), Atlantic Beach

adopted its original Comprehensive Plan in 1990. The municipality submitted its first EAR in

1997, but DCA found Atlantic Beach's EAR insufficient in meeting the requirements of section

163.3191 (evaluation and appraisal of comprehensive plan), Florida Statutes. The city revised the

EAR and resubmitted the document in 2003, and DCA found the resubmitted EAR to be

sufficient. Atlantic Beach updated their comprehensive plan in 2004 to incorporate the changes

reflected in the EAR.

Atlantic Beach set Goal A. 1 in the Future Land Use Elements to manage growth and

redevelopment in the following manners:

(1) encourages, creates and maintains a healthy and aesthetically pleasing built
environment; (2) avoids blighted influences, (3) preserves and enhances coastal,
environmental, natural, historic, and cultural resources; (4) maintains the City's distinct
residential community character; (5) provides for reasonable public safety and security









from hazardous conditions associated with coastal locations; and (6) that provides public
services and facilities in a timely and cost effective manner (Atlantic Beach, 2004).

Atlantic Beach's building and zoning department created objectives and policies that encourage

redevelopment and infill through urban design changes and the preservation of the natural and

built environments. Redevelopment and infill will remain residential in nature and building

heights will not exceed thirty-five (35) feet. According to Policy A. 1.10 in the comprehensive

plan, the planning professionals and elected officials believe that "the city shall continue to

maintain a development character, which is compact in form, orderly in its land use pattern, and

diversified in its makeup so as to ensure employment opportunities, affordable housing, a

pleasant living environment, and cost-effective public service" (Atlantic Beach, 2004). The

comprehensive plan (2004) stresses that the City shall encourage the clustering of land uses only

in areas that contain the appropriate level of infrastructure along the Mayport Road (AIA)

commercial corridor. Please refer to Appendix A to view all goals, objectives, and policies that

refer to redevelopment and infill development in Atlantic Beach.

Sonya Duerr (2007), the Community Development Director, and John Meserve, Mayor,

provided insight to whether redevelopment and infill strategies in the comprehensive plan are

actually being followed in the municipality. Although Ms. Duerr confirmed that Atlantic Beach

follows a collective planning strategy with redevelopment, infill, and urban design changes, Mr.

Meserve asserted that infill was Atlantic Beach's preferred planning strategy. Ms. Duerr and Mr.

Meserve confirmed that the city encourages commercial redevelopment to occur along the

Mayport Road (AIA) corridor, With limited land zoned for commercial uses in Atlantic Beach,

Mr. Meserve stated that it will be difficult to provide employment opportunities and affordable

housing that are able to be offered in nearby larger urban areas (J. Meserve, personal

communication, December 17).









No additional economic development is encouraged or sought out by Atlantic Beach

despite the challenges of decreasing tax revenue due to state regulations. Atlantic Beach remains

a predominantly residential municipality with over 90 percent of the available land occupied by

single-family and some multi-family units. City officials confirm that "Atlantic Beach does not

contain the tools or the tax authority to encourage redevelopment in the residential

neighborhoods or provide incentives to pursue alternative development patterns" (S. Duerr and J.

Meserve, personal communication, December 7, 2007 and December 17, 2007). The private

sector and private property owners handle the cost for residential redevelopment. Both confirm

that issues with the teardown of smaller existing and outdating housing stock and their

conversion into larger structures goes against the land development regulations and Future Land

Use Policy A. 1.10 which strive for compact development and orderly land use patterns (Atlantic

Beach, 2007).

The building and zoning department initiated a study after the 2003 EAR was accepted

by DCA to determine whether the land development regulations are currently sufficient or need

to be updated based on new goals, objectives, and policies. Ms Duerr (2007) stated that Atlantic

Beach's land development regulations lacked the necessary regulations to discourage private

property owners from building larger structures on smaller lots. She also stated that the building

of larger structures went against the preferred community residential preference of low density

single-family homes and strained current infrastructure levels of service.

In Future Land Use Policy A. 1.5.5, the building height and density limitations were

created in the land development code based on residential preference and federal and state

coastal high hazard regulations. Both individuals confirm that Atlantic Beach represents a









residential hamlet that supports the working class from the larger Jacksonville Metropolitan

Area.

Ms. Duerr and Mr. Meserve (2007) believe that their comprehensive plan and land

development regulations adequately support the residential and commercial redevelopment and

infill despite the limited tax revenue present in Atlantic Beach. Ms. Duerr (2007) confirmed that

Atlantic Beach updated their land development regulations in 2004 when elected officials,

residents, and building and zoning professionals felt that the regulations did not adequate prepare

the City for redevelopment pressures felt by the market. Public participation in growth

management issues remains high, and limited density continues to be encouraged based on

federal and state hazard mitigation standards and residential preference.

Indian Rocks Beach

Indian Rocks Beach last updated their comprehensive plan in 1999. Indian Rocks Beach

submitted an EAR to the Department of Community Affairs, and the EAR was approved on

October 10, 2006. The EAR encourages redevelopment as a land development strategy and

places special emphasis on infill, reuse, and revitalization. Incentives will be supported for infill

and mixed use development and disincentives will be applied to single-family residential

construction. Stated in the Future Land Use Element, the planned unit development (PUD) land

use could serve as an effective tool to promote infill development and redevelopment as well as

encourage mixed-use developments. Please refer to Appendix A to view all goals, objectives,

and policies that refer to redevelopment and infill development in Indian Rocks Beach.

The subject of density remains a contentious issue in Indian Rocks Beach, although Bill

Ockunzzi (2007), Indian Rocks Beach's mayor, views the issue of increased density as under

control. As in many communities, the teardown of older smaller residential structures with new

larger residential structures remains an issue. The EAR suggests changing Future Land Use









Element (FLUE) Objective 1.4 to stress that the City of Indian Rocks Beach should create

disincentives for single uses in a mixed-use land use category. This change conflicts with what

Danny Taylor, Planning Director, stated regarding desired density limits, building heights, and

the use of mixed- use development. Residents desire to keep density limits as low as possible and

reduce building heights from three floors to two floors. Based on the EAR's findings, Indian

Rocks Beach manages to keep the floor area ratio and intensity limits within reasonable state

levels. Mixed-use development is encouraged by business owners, but residents provide limited

support. Businesses are leaving, and hotels are closing. Indian Rocks Beach lacks the tools to

provide both economic and tax incentives towards mixed-use development which discourages its

use.

Similar to mixed-use development, the City includes objectives and policies regarding the

encouragement of redevelopment. FLUE Objective 1.5 (redevelopment) states that "The

enhancement and protection of the city's existing character shall be achieved through

redevelopment which ensures and orderly and aesthetic mixture of land uses" (Indian Rocks

Beach, 1999). Bill Ockunzzi confirms that residents are concerned about community aesthetic

and put a strong emphasis on urban design changes instead of redevelopment (B. Ockunizzi,

personal communication, January 10, 2008). Both his and the residents view contradict what is

stated in FLUE Objective 1.5. To counteract the issue of aesthetics in Indian Rocks Beach, the

City approved a design ordinance. Since the design ordinance was passed recently, both the

planning director and mayor feel it is too early to judge its success.

The EAR recommends that the City evaluate the role of redevelopment as a land

development strategy and connect that strategy with the vision for town character and identity.

Both Danny Taylor, the Planning Director, and Bill Ockunzzi, the Mayor, concur with the EAR









that Indian Rocks Beach needs to focus more on a community vision that encourages a small

town feel with a sense of place (D. Taylor and B. Ockunzzi, personal communication, December

18, 2007 and January 10, 2008).

Although the EAR recommends the clustering of commercial entities, both Danny Taylor

and Bill Ockunzzi confirm that Indian Rocks Beach is losing businesses to high land values and

limited vacant land. Increasing tax revenue remains a priority, but residents prefer to keep

property taxes low (D. Taylor and B. Ockunzzi, personal communication, December 18, 2007

and January 10, 2008). Bill Ockunzzi (2007) stated that the City prefers to maintain the

commercial and retail entities within Indian Rocks Beach and do not support economic

development and investment. Both individuals confirmed that job creation is little to none, and

one of the biggest challenges remains that Indian Rocks Beach is transforming into a low density

residential community with limited tax revenue to support infrastructure updates.

Key Biscayne

The village was incorporated in 1991, and the Village of Key Biscayne Master Plan was

adopted on September 12, 1995 and accepted by the Department of Community Affairs on

October 20, 1995. The Village of Key Biscayne began to prepare their first evaluation and

appraisal report (EAR), the 2020 Vision Plan/Evaluation and Appraisal Report, in 2005 and

adopted the first prepared EAR in 2006. The Village of Key Biscayne added further updates in

2007.

The first comprehensive plan for Key Biscayne was approved in 1995. As stated in the

comprehensive plan (Key Biscayne, 1995), the type of land uses that were present in Key

Biscayne were not an issue but how development was occurring caused serious concerns. Jud

Kurlancheek stated that the Village does not need to encourage redevelopment since it occurs on

its own (J. Kulancheek, personal communication, 2007). The private sector and private









homeowners initiated residential redevelopment throughout the Village. Based on conversations

with the mayor and building, zoning, and planning director in Key Biscayne, residents and

elected officials support keeping density development levels as low as possible (J. Kulancheek

and R. Vernon, personal communication, December 12, 2007 and January 24, 2008). According

to the mayor and the building, zoning, and planning director, the apartment buildings were

converted into condominiums, and the floor area ratio of the new condominiums expanded

without increasing the amount of the population (J. Kulancheek and R. Vernon, personal

communication, December 12, 2007 and January 24, 2008).

According to the EAR, teardowns were a serious problem, and the aesthetics of the newer

structures did not match well with the community's vision or with the surrounding structures in

particular neighborhoods and adjacent areas. Teardowns continued to be an issue in Key

Biscayne due to market forces at play and the desirability of the location of the Village (WRT,

2006). Both Jud Kurlancheek (2007) and Robert Vernon (2008) confirmed that the teardowns

caused the amount of housing stock to stay constant but increased the population. The objectives

and policies in the comprehensive plan created by the citizens and local government stressed that

setback, height, and minimum pervious area and other bulk controls would be encouraged and

strictly enforced through the land development regulations to combat the issue of teardowns.

Between 1995 and 2006 the following current and projected conditions were reflected in

the Village of Key Biscayne.

While Key Biscayne is an area of moderate population growth in comparison to other
municipalities in Miami-Dade County, its growth rate is dropping and its population is
predicted to level by 2010 according to Miami-Dade County projections.

The percentage of people over the age of 65 has dropped over the past decade as the
number of family households with children under the age of 18 has grown...

No land has been annexed, no land is available for annexation, and no vacant lots remain
in Key Biscayne. Future growth will occur in the form of redevelopment. The









composition of the Village will continue to evolve and as older housing stock is knocked
down and replaced by larger dwelling units, a trend that is evident today and likely to
continue until around 2047.

All new construction and redevelopment since 1995 has occurred in accordance with the
Future Land Use Map and complies with FEMA and Coastal High Hazard Area
regulations. (WRT, 2006, p. 14)

The lack of vacant land in the Village of Key Biscayne leads to a lack of economic

development and investment. As stated Robert Vernon, "the lack of commercial activity remains

a challenge to the Village and difficult to resolve" (J. Vernon, personal communication, January

24, 2008). Without available vacant land, the Village will rely on supporting its existing

commercial and retail activity. As an alternative solution, Jud Kurlancheek stated that "the

Village attempts to use alternative funding sources from the public and private sectors to

minimize the cost to residents of infrastructure, development, and redevelopment projects"

(Kurlancheek, personal communication, 2007).

The Village of Key Biscayne continues to implement recommendations set forth in their

most recent EAR. Please refer to Appendix A to view all goals, objectives, and policies that refer

to redevelopment and infill in Key Biscayne.

Marco Island

The island was originally incorporated as Collier City in the 1920s, but the municipality

de-incorporated at a later time. Incorporated in 1997, Marco Island is the largest and most

northern of Florida's Ten Thousand Islands (located in southwest Florida) at 24 square miles. It

has a mix of single family homes and high rise condominiums. The island was developed by the

Deltona Corporation in the 1960s. Founded by the Mackle Family, the Deltona Corporation

gained national notoriety for Marco Island's success as a project. Although some of the homes on

Marco Island are considered "inland" because they are not directly on the water, most single

family homes are directly on a canal or waterway and have their own boat docks with boat lifts.









Marco Island submitted its first comprehensive plan in 2001 and its first EAR in 2005.

Their EAR stressed that Marco Island is involved in two types of redevelopment: redevelopment

of individual properties and structures and large scale projects that influence community-wide

redevelopment. Marco Island's residents remain concerned about the built environment and

support density and intensity limitations. The EAR suggests that mixed use development is

encouraged, but the Marco Island Master Plan and the land development code do not fully define

and provide clear guidelines to how mixed-use projects will be reviewed and approved (Marco

Island, 2005). Marco Island continues to implement the objectives and policies related to

redevelopment and infill development. Please refer to Appendix A to view all goals, objectives,

and policies that refer to redevelopment and infill development in Marco Island.

Confirming the EAR analysis on redevelopment, Marco Island encourages redevelopment

that focuses on individual properties and structures and large scale projects. Contradicting the

original comprehensive plan data and analysis, the City does not involve themselves with

redevelopment, but they allow the private sector and individual property owners to initiate the

process. Although the City is not involved with redevelopment directly, they recently co-funded

public works projects to improve circulation on North and South Collier Boulevard. The City

continuously reviews and updates the land development code to handle the issues of

redevelopment, mixed used development, rezoning, and commercial space.

Density is not a contentious issue in Marco Island. Although the comprehensive plan and

the EAR state that mixed-use development and land uses are encouraged, mixed-use

development remains limited. Based on observation, low density residential remains the

preferred land use. Based on the EAR, Marco Island prefers to use overlay and zoning districts to

be consistent with the community's vision of a small, tropical town (Marco Island, 2005). Marco









Island restricts commercial development, and except for attracting companies in the tourist and

hospitality industries, economic development and investment is not encouraged outside of the

real estate market.

Neptune Beach

The city was originally part of Jacksonville Beach but seceded and incorporated as

Neptune Beach in 1931. When the majority of communities in Duval County consolidated with

Jacksonville, Florida in 1968, Neptune Beach, Jacksonville Beach, Atlantic Beach, and Baldwin,

Florida, remained quasi-independent. Like the other municipalities, Neptune Beach maintains its

own municipal government but its residents vote in the Jacksonville mayoral election and have

representation on the Jacksonville city council.

Neptune Beach has not updated its comprehensive plan since 1990. Due to a lack of

financial resources, unfunded mandates, and residential apathy, there have been very few

attempts to reevaluate the comprehensive plan to verify whether it is adequate to meet the

community's needs (H. Pruette, personal communication, December 22, 2007). An EAR was

created in the late 1990s and sent to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for review.

DCA did not find the EAR sufficient, but the City of Neptune Beach never submitted the

requested revisions. As a result, the City of Neptune Beach was declared non-compliant by DCA

and is not allowed to prepare a new EAR until 2009.

Neptune Beach does not reference redevelopment or infill strategies in their comprehensive

plan. According to Amanda Askew, Director of Community Development, the residents remain

supportive of the growth management process but the City does not have the tools or the

financial capacity to promote or encourage redevelopment (A. Askew, personal communication,

December 7, 2007). Harriett Pruette, vice mayor, confirmed this assertion and added that the lack

of commercial properties in Neptune Beach contributes to its lack of tax revenue, which makes









initiating any project difficult (H. Pruette, personal communication, December 22, 2007).

Neptune Beach has no ordinances to attract redevelopment. Private developers and property

owners must follow outdated land development code. Since the comprehensive plan has not been

updated since 1990, the land development regulations do not match the goals, objectives, and

policies of the comprehensive plan (A. Askew, personal communication, December 7, 2007).

Amanda Askew (2007) stated that this disconnect creates conflicts between residents, business

owners, and elected officials. Related to the land development regulations, if the property is not

up to code due to a health or blight issue, the city will step in and complete redevelopment on

that property or group of properties.

Sanibel

The city was formed in 1974 as a direct result of the main causeway being built in 1963 to

replace the ferry between Sanibel Island and Ft. Myers. Rampant construction and development

occurred afterward. The municipality remains predominantly a conservation and preservation

area with sixty percent of the island zoned for conservation. The zoning and land use is based on

low density and intensity standards. The only buildings above two to three stories now on the

barrier island were built during the first few years after its incorporation.

Sanibel recently updated their comprehensive plan known as "The Sanibel Plan." Sanibel's

comprehensive plan is distinct compared to most municipalities in Florida. Sanibel focuses on

density and intensity. From their incorporation as a municipality in 1974 through the passing of

the Growth Management Act in 1985 and into the current day, Robert Duffy, Planning Director,

stated that the public supports the strict management of low density and intensity levels to match

the City's vision of retaining and embracing the quality of sanctuary (R. Duffy, personal

communication, November 30, 2007). On the ground, residential redevelopment and infill

activity reflects the objectives and policies listed in the Sanibel Plan, the land development codes









currently on file, and the assessment by the planning director, Robert Duffy, and mayor, Mick

Denham.

Residents support the use of the current development patterns, but businesses seek more

flexible development patterns to encourage the creation of innovative tax revenue sources (M.

Denham, personal communication, January 30, 2008). Property taxes remain the main source of

revenue for Sanibel. Robert Duffy stated that tax revenue has decreased on Sanibel which

prevents the City from initiating redevelopment (R. Duffy, personal communication, November

30, 2007). Currently, the City cannot offer incentives due to limited institutional capacity. The

lack of property tax revenue has affected the ability for the island to provide and maintain

services to its resident (M. Denham, personal communication, January 30, 2008).

To counteract decreasing levels of tax revenue, the City of Sanibel is pursuing a

Redevelopment Planning Work Program to evaluate how redevelopment is conducted following

a natural disaster, and whether the redevelopment of nonconforming or functionally obsolete

properties follow the Sanibel Plan and current land development codes (R. Duffy, personal

communication, November 30, 2007). Once the analysis has been completed, then it might be

necessary to amend the land development codes. According to the Sanibel Plan, commercial

redevelopment and development is discouraged when it commercializes natural resources.

Incentives and disincentives will be incorporated into the land development regulations where

commercial development is created in clusters instead of in separate zoning districts. The

Periwinkle Way business area and the Town Center remain the focus areas for maintaining but

not increasing retail or commercial development based on current land uses. Please refer to

Appendix A to view all goals, objectives, and policies that refer to redevelopment and infill

development in Sanibel.









St. Pete Beach

St. Pete Beach was formed from the towns of Pass-a-Grille, Don CeSar, Belle Vista, St.

Petersburg Beach and unincorporated Pinellas County (St. Pete Beach, 2007). At the time of its

incorporation in 1957, its name was St. Petersburg Beach. On March 9, 1994, locals voted to

officially change the name to St. Pete Beach to distinguish it from the City of St. Petersburg,

which is located a few miles to the east.

The EAR identifies the issues that currently affect St. Pete Beach from pursuing successful

redevelopment strategies. Due to political infighting within the municipality, comprehensive plan

amendments (St. Pete Beach, 2006) created in 2006 to establish community redevelopment

districts were voted down by a small margin in a community-wide referendum. Political

infighting resulting from this public referendum caused different factions of the population to

pursue litigation. Attempts have been made to pass the Community Redevelopment Plan, but

they continue to be unsuccessful. Ward Friszolosky confirmed the EAR's analysis that suggests

resident perspectives towards redevelopment remain mixed due to a resident's position toward

change (W. Friszolosky, personal communication, January 10, 2008). Some residents and

business owners embrace change to encourage development that would provide alternative

revenue sources for the City. Other residents prefer to maintain the current development patterns

in St. Pete Beach.

Karl Holley, Director of Community Development, explained that written into the city

charter, regulations state that all comprehensive plan amendments must be put up for a voter

referendum (K. Holley, personal communication, December 19, 2007). Even with the political

infighting among groups, the majority of the public remains supportive of using the public

referendum process (K. Holley, personal communication, December 19, 2007). Save Our Little

Village (SOLV) is a group that wanted development and encouraged the public to change the









public referendum process to decrease the impediments to change. SOLV supported the 2006

comprehensive plan amendments that would have created the community redevelopment

districts.

St. Pete Beach's current evaluation and appraisal report recommends that St. Pete Beach

develop a comprehensive community development approach to look further at these issues (St.

Pete Beach, 2007). To understand what the community desires, likes, and dislikes, another

recommendation includes creating a visioning process to allow the City to make informed

decisions regarding the land use regulations needed to implement and facilitate redevelopment.

Please refer to Appendix A to view all goals, objectives, and policies that refer to redevelopment

and infill development in St. Pete Beach.

Treasure Island

Treasure Island last updated their comprehensive plan in 1999. Treasure Island is currently

working on their EAR and is planning to submit the document to DCA later on this year.

Treasure Island developed as part of same land boom that affected nearby St. Pete Beach in the

early 20th century and became a famous tourist destination. Treasure Island became famous

when two landowners buried wooden treasure cases on the beach and received immense

notoriety when it was first said that these wooden treasure cases contained gold (Treasure Island,

1999). Treasure Island has a mix of single-family homes, condominiums, and hotels.

The Treasure Island comprehensive plan contains one objective that addresses

redevelopment. Objective 1.5 states that "The City of Treasure Island shall encourage

redevelopment and ensure that it is compatible with the existing character in order to achieve an

orderly and aesthetic mixture of land uses" (Treasure Island, 1999). Although policy 1.5.1 states

that the city shall encourage opportunities for the redevelopment or rehabilitation of existing

commercial areas or uses, Lynn Rosetti, Senior Planner, explained that the private sector initiates









redevelopment opportunities in Treasure Island (L. Rosetti, personal communication, December

18, 2007). She also explained that residential redevelopment does not occur solely for economic

reasons.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has been driving force behind

redevelopment in coastal areas. Residents are rehabilitating and remodeling their properties and

structures in order to meet FEMA coastal high hazard area standards. Residents pursue

remodeling since there is no waiting period between permits (L. Rosetti, personal

communication, December 18, 2007). A resident can receive a new appraisal after each

remodeling. Commercial properties can be made flood proof, and do not need to be elevated

because not people's homes. Treasure Island's mayor, Mary Maloof, explained that the City

supports the use of mixed-use development in the downtown area, but it has been difficult to

convince residents and businesses to support a downtown redevelopment plan (M. Maloof,

personal communication, January 13, 2008).

Treasure Island contracted with HDR, a consulting firm, in 2005 to create a downtown

redevelopment plan. Presently, only the clock tower and road calming measures have been

installed on 107th Avenue between Gulf Blvd and the start of the Treasure Island Causeway.

Redevelopment efforts in Treasure Island correlate with what is stated in Treasure Island's

comprehensive plan, but analysis of the effectiveness of the comprehensive plan and the land

development code is unavailable at this time. Please refer to Appendix A to view all goals,

objectives, and policies that refer to redevelopment and infill development in St. Pete Beach.

Wilton Manors

Referred to as the "Island City," Wilton Manors went through the EAR process in 2006.

(Malgren, 2006). The municipality is currently implementing recommendations set forth in that

document.









The Future Land Use Element contains objectives that address controlling development
and redevelopment through land development regulations; support infill, redevelopment,
and revitalization activities in appropriate areas; protect parks and natural resources;
encourage innovative land development techniques, such as cluster zoning and mixed use;
and protect historic resources" (Malgren, 2006, p.68).

Residents remain concerned with the increase in property values. Wilton Manors uses

redevelopment and infill development mostly along Wilton Drive, which constitutes the

downtown arts and entertainment district, and in Highland Estates, a former dilapidated high

crime neighborhood. Wayne Thies, the Building and Zoning Department Director, stated that the

increase in density along Wilton Drive and in the Highland Estates neighborhood has been

supported by the majority of the residents and business and civic associations. (W. Thies,

personal communication, December 12, 2007).

The increase in density corresponds with the goals, objectives, and policies set forth in

the comprehensive plan and land development regulations. The land development regulations

were changed recently to incorporate the changes in the comprehensive plan and the desire to

increase density and intensity in certain areas of the municipality. Wayne Thies stated Broward

County's flexible housing policies, resident and business owner support for the arts and

entertainment district, and the encouragement of mixed-use development contribute to success

with redevelopment and infill strategies in Wilton Manors. Please refer to Appendix A to view

all goals, objectives, and policies that refer to redevelopment and infill development in Wilton

Manors.

Summary

Based on findings from the planning professional and elected official interviews, market

trends and regulatory impediments affect the fiscal resources and tools available for each local

government. Planning professionals and elected officials substantiate the literature which states

that the increased land values due to both a municipality's desirable location and market trends









squeezed out commercial interests. Planning professionals and elected officials, in the west

central and northeast regions' case studies, confirmed businesses closed and hotels converted to

condominiums extensively during the recent housing boom. Elected officials stipulated that

decreases in tax revenue remain a primary concern as they search for viable alternatives in

municipalities that have a preference for single-family residential housing. Explained by the

elected officials, a lack of tax revenue limits the ability for a built-out municipality to perform

infrastructure and development updates (2007 and 2008). Planning professionals worry that the

lack of affordable goods, services, and housing forces service workers to find more affordable

amenities in communities located on the mainland. In some but not all of the built-out cities

examined, planning directors and elected officials remain concerned about the possibility of

infrastructure and transportation services level of service standards being strained currently and

into the future without using adequate growth management strategies.









Table 4-1. Profiles of Case Study Municipalities Location
Municipality Year of Incorporation County Region
Atlantic Beach (AB) 1926 Duval NE
Neptune Beach (NB) 1931 Duval NE
Key Biscayne (KB) 1991 Miami-Dade SE
Wilton Manors (WM) 1947 Broward SE
Marco Island (MI) 1997 Collier SW
Sanibel (S) 1974 Lee SW
Indian Rocks Beach (IRB) 1956 Pinellas WC
St. Pete Beach (SPB) 1957 Pinellas WC
Treasure Island (TI) 1955 Pinellas WC
Note: Cities list in clockwise sequence from northeast to southeast to southwest to west central











Table 4-2. Profiles of Case Study Municipalities Comprehensive Plan and Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR)
Municipality Comprehensive Plan EAR

Year of the Most Current Plan Year of the Most Current Analysis

Atlantic Beach (AB) 2004 2003

Indian Rocks Beach (IRB) 1999 2006

Key Biscayne (KB) 1995 2006 (updates in 2007)

Marco Island (MI) 2001 2005

Neptune Beach (NB) 1990 N/A

Sanibel (S) 2007 1997

W St. Pete Beach (SPB) 1998 2007

Treasure Island (TI) 1999 N/A(1)

Wilton Manors (WM) 2002 2006

Source: Comprehensive Plans and EARs, Atlantic Beach, Indian Rocks Beach, Key Biscayne, Marco Island, Neptune Beach, Sanibel,
St. Pete Beach, Treasure Island, and Wilton Manors
(1) Treasure Island is currently working on their EAR and should be finished in 2008









DEMOGRAPHICS


Table 4-3. Population of Selected Case Study Municipalities
Municipality 1980 1985 1990
Census Estimate Census


1980 2005 (Actual and Estimate)
1980 vs 1995 2000
1990 % Estimate Census
Change


1990 vs
2000 %
Change


2005
Estimate


Atlantic Beach 7,847 8,992 11,636 48.30 12,802 13,368 14.90 14,07
Indian Rocks 3,717 4,298 3,963 6.60 4,178 5,127 29.4 5,31
Beach
Key Biscayne* N/A N/A N/A N/A 8,892 10,507 8.03 11,42
Marco Island* N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 14,879 4.90 15,64
Neptune Beach 5,248 6,154 6,816 29.90 7,423 7,270 6.70 7,25
Sanibel 3,363 4,237 5,468 62.60 5,753 6,064 10.9 6,27
St. Pete Beach 9,354 9,920 9,200 -1.60 9,459 9,929 7.90 10,03
Treasure Island 6,316 6,834 7,266 15.00 7,357 7,450 2.50 7,51
Wilton Manors 12,742 12,500 11,804 -7.4 11,868 12,697 7.6 12,43
S Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1980, 1990, and 2000 Census and Bureau of Economic and Business Research, 1986, 1996, and 20C
Florida Statistical Abstract
Key Biscayne and Marco Island were not incorporated until 1991 and 1997, respectively. Until their year of incorporation, Key
Biscayne and Marco Island were considered unincorporated land of Dade County (changed to Miami-Dade County) and Collier
County.


79
1

5
7
6
72
i2
4
19
l6









Table 4-4. Age of the Population in Selected Case Study Municipalities
Years AB IRB KB MI
Change 1970-1980 0% 39.4% 0% N/A


Under 18 Years
18 to 64 Years
65 Years and Over
Total


30.4%
62.8%
6.8%
100%


12.5%
62.0%
25.6%
100%


18.9%
64.7%
16.4%
100%


N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A


1980 (in percentages)
NB S


0%

22.5%
67.1%
10.4%
100%


0%

13.7%
61.6%
24.8%
100%


Median 28.0 47.6 41.1 N/A 31.7 52.3 57.8 52.9 38.9
Source: United States Census, 1980
Key: AB=Atlantic Beach, IRB=Indian Rocks Beach, KB=Key Biscayne, MI=Marco Island, NB=Neptune Beach, S=Sanibel, SPB=St.
Pete Beach, TI=Treasure Island, WM=Wilton Manors


SPB
16.6%

9.6%
53.7%
36.7%
100%


TI
3.2%

10.4%
60.8%
28.8%
100%


WM
16.4%

14.7%
65.5%
19.8%
100%









Table 4-5. Age of the Population in Selected Case Study Municipalities


Years
Under 5
5 to 17
18 to 20
21 to 24
25 to 34
35 to 44
45 to 54
55 to 59
60 to 64
65 to 74
75 to 84
85 and Over
Total


Source: United States Census, 1990
S Key: AB=Atlantic Beach, IRB=Indian Rocks Beach, KB=Key Biscayne, MI=Marco Island, NB=
Pete Beach, TI=Treasure Island, WM=Wilton Manors


=Neptune Beach, S=Sanibel, SPB=St.


AB
982
1,927
469
775
2,108
2,107
1,211
532
460
728
282
55
11,636


IRB
121
352
116
167
745
745
534
189
233
465
233
63
3,963


KB
493
1,153
243
370
1,443
1,442
1,141
486
559
956
452
116
8,854


MI
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A


NB
366
1,025
234
312
1,342
1,342
717
302
332
524
252
68
6,816


1990
S
172
428
108
136
579
579
605
434
627
1,245
479
76
5,468


SPB
201
498
173
260
1,072
1,071
991
606
843
1,920
1,209
356
9,200


TI
163
408
139
249
1,015
1,015
1,080
573
664
1,189
610
161
7,266


WM
679
1,263
331
535
2,225
2,225
1,185
544
670
1,114
685
348
11,804


Total
3,177
7,054
1,813
2,804
10,529
10,526
7,464
3,666
4,388
8,141
4,202
1,243
65,007









Table 4-6. Age of the Population in Selected Case Study Municipalities 1990 (in percentages)
Years AB IRB KB MI NB S SPB TI WM
Under 5 8.4% 3.1% 5.6% N/A 5.4% 3.1% 2.2% 2.2% 5.8%
5 to 17 16.6% 8.9% 13.0% N/A 15.0% 7.8% 5.4% 5.6% 10.7%
18 to 20 4.0% 2.9% 2.7% N/A 3.4% 2.0% 1.9% 1.9% 2.8%
21 to 24 6.7% 4.2% 4.2% N/A 4.6% 2.5% 2.8% 3.4% 4.5%
25 to 34 18.1% 18.8% 16.3% N/A 19.7% 10.6% 11.7% 14.0% 18.8%
35 to 44 18.1% 18.8% 16.3% N/A 19.7% 10.6% 11.7% 14.0% 18.8%
45 to 54 10.4% 13.5% 12.9% N/A 10.5% 11.1% 10.8% 14.9% 10.0%
55 to 59 4.6% 4.8% 5.5% N/A 4.4% 7.9% 6.6% 7.9% 4.6%
60 to 64 4.0% 5.9% 6.3% N/A 4.9% 11.5% 9.2% 9.1% 5.7%
65 to 74 6.3% 11.7% 10.8% N/A 7.7% 22.8% 20.9% 16.4% 9.4%
75 to 84 2.4% 5.9% 5.1% N/A 3.7% 8.8% 13.1% 8.4% 5.8%
85 and Over 0.5% 1.6% 1.3% N/A 1.0% 1.4% 3.9% 2.2% 2.9%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% N/A 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Source: United States Census, 1990
Key: AB=Atlantic Beach, IRB=Indian Rocks Beach, KB=Key Biscayne, MI=Marco Island, NB=Neptune Beach, S=Sanibel, SPB=St.
Pete Beach, TI=Treasure Island, WM=Wilton Manors










Table 4-7. Age of the Population in Selected Case Study Municipalities 2000
Years AB IRB KB MI NB S


Under 5
5 to 9
10 to 14
15 to 19
20 to 24
25 to 34
35 to 44
45 to 54
55 to 59
60 to 64
65 to 74
75 to 84
Total


824
803
880
807
620
1,773
2,360
2,059
646
537
877
922
13,108


136
136
139
159
160
585
937
1,056
447
369
590
297
5,011


S Median 39.3 48
Source: United States Census, 2000
Source: United States Census, 2000


766
816
660
455
334
1,211
1,902
1,473
685
571
886
594
10,353

40.1


375
444
508
444
309
770
1,383
1,782
1,408
1,741
3,550
1,856
14570

60.1


311
385
429
453
435
1,105
1,314
1,272
397
287
486
322
7,196


39.4


115
175
205
154
64
241
510
854
651
668
1,430
841
5,908


SPB
293
266
262
221
250
826
1,422
1,641
752
713
1,580
1,290
9,516


60.5


53.7


TI
155
203
201
193
136
583
1,157
1,547
753
565
1,136
667
7,296


WM
621
569
567
555
588
1,887
2,737
2,097
621
458
827
696
12,223


52.4


Total
3,596
3,797
3,851
3,441
2,896
8,981
13,722
13,781
6,360
5,909
11,362
7,485
85,181


40.5


Key: AB=Atlantic Beach, IRB=Indian Rocks Beach, KB=Key Biscayne, MI=Marco Island, NB=Neptune Beach, S=Sanibel, SPB=St.
Pete Beach, TI=Treasure Island, WM=Wilton Manors









Table 4-8. Age of the Population in Selected Case Study Municipalities 2000 (in percentages)
Years AB IRB KB MI NB S SPB TI WM


Under 5
5 to 9
10 to 14
15 to 19
20 to 24
25 to 34
35 to 44
45 to 54
55 to 59
60 to 64
65 to 74
75 to 84


6.3%
6.1%
6.7%
6.2%
4.7%
13.5%
18.0%
15.7%
4.9%
4.1%
6.7%
7.0%


2.7%
2.7%
2.8%
3.2%
3.2%
11.7%
18.7%
21.1%
8.9%
7.4%
11.8%
5.9%


7.4%
7.9%
6.4%
4.4%
3.2%
11.7%
18.4%
14.2%
6.6%
5.5%
8.6%
5.7%


2.6%
3.0%
3.5%
3.0%
2.1%
5.3%
9.5%
12.2%
9.7%
11.9%
24.4%
12.7%


4.3%
5.4%
6.0%
6.3%
6.0%
15.4%
18.3%
17.7%
5.5%
4.0%
6.8%
4.5%


1.9%
3.0%
3.5%
2.6%
1.1%
4.1%
8.6%
14.5%
11.0%
11.3%
24.2%
14.2%


3.1%
2.8%
2.8%
2.3%
2.6%
8.7%
14.9%
17.2%
7.9%
7.5%
16.6%
13.6%


2.1%
2.8%
2.8%
2.6%
1.9%
8.0%
15.9%
21.2%
10.3%
7.7%
15.6%
9.1%


5.1%
4.7%
4.6%
4.5%
4.8%
15.4%
22.4%
17.2%
5.1%
3.7%
6.8%
5.7%


Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Source: United States Census, 2000
Key: AB=Atlantic Beach, IRB=Indian Rocks Beach, KB=Key Biscayne, MI=Marco Island, NB=
Pete Beach, TI=Treasure Island, WM=Wilton Manors


100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

=Neptune Beach, S=Sanibel, SPB=St.










Table 4-9. Predominant Age of Population in Selected Case Study Municipalities 1980, 1990, and 2000
Years AB IRB KB MI** NB S SPB TI
80 90 00 80 90 00 80 90 00 80 90 00 80 90 00 80 90 00 80 90 00 80 90 00 80
5-17 2* *
1Q 'f *


21-24 *
25-34 -
35-44 *
45-54 2 2
55-59 *
60-64 *
65-74 *
75-84 *
85+ *


*

* 2 2
*


*


* 2 2
*


* *

*
* *


2
2


*
*
*
2 *
*


WM
90 00
2


*


I*
2*
2 *
*


*


*


*


Source: United State Census, 1990 and 2000
Key: AB=Atlantic Beach, IRB=Indian Rocks Beach, KB=Key Biscayne, MI=Marco Island, NB=Neptune Beach, S=Sanibel, SPB=St.
oo Pete Beach, TI=Treasure Island, WM=Wilton Manor
The age of the population data was not separated into places and census designated places in the 1980 United States Census similar
to the 1990 and 2000 United States Census.
**Marco Island was neither a place nor census designated place until 1997.
(1) Predominant Age Group
(2) Second Highest Predominant Age Group
(3) Third Highest Predominant Age Group


ir









Table 4-10. Median Age in Selected Case Study Municipalities
Years AB IRB KB MI** NB S SPB TI WM
1980 28.0 47.6 41.1 N/A 31.7 52.3 57.8 52.9 38.9
1990*
2000 39.3 48 40.1 60.1 39.4 60.5 53.7 52.4 40.5
Change 11.3 0.4 -1.0 7.7 8.2 -4.1 -0.5 1.6
Source: United States Census, 1980, 1990, 2000
Key: AB=Atlantic Beach, IRB=Indian Rocks Beach, KB=Key Biscayne, MI=Marco Island, NB=Neptune Beach, S=Sanibel, SPB=St.
Pete Beach, TI=Treasure Island, WM=Wilton Manors
*The 1990 United States Census did not contain a median age for each incorporated municipality.
**Unable to be determined based on one United State Census figure


Table 4-11. Housing Types in Selected Case Study Municipalities 1990
Types AB IRB KB MI*
o 1-Unit Detached 2,776 1,236 1,289 N/A
1-Unit Attached 728 88 222 N/A
2-4 Units 654 719 17 N/A
5-9 Units 256 297 12 N/A
10 or More Units 328 717 4,135 N/A
Mobile Home or Trailer 206 88 49 N/A
Total 4,948 3,145 5,724 N/A


NB
1,747
276
870
69
276
27
3,265


S
2,883
185
482
781
1,828
263
6,422


SPB
2,870
82
706
342
3,100
105
7,205


TI
1,719
391
813
569
1,966
67
5,525


WM
2,503
339
714
312
1,920
195
5,983


Total
17,023
2,311
4,975
2,638
14,270
1,000
42,217


Source: United States Census, 1990
Key: AB=Atlantic Beach, IRB=Indian Rocks Beach, KB=Key Biscayne, MI=Marco Island, NB=Neptune Beach,
Pete Beach, TI=Treasure Island, WM=Wilton Manors
* Marco Island did not become an incorporated municipality until 1997.


S=Sanibel, SPB=St.









Table 4-12. Housing Types in Selected Case Study Municipalities 1990 (in percentages)
Types AB IRB KB MI* NB S SPB TI WM
1-Unit Detached 56.10% 39.30% 22.52% N/A 53.51% 44.89% 39.83% 31.11% 41.84%
1-Unit Attached 14.71% 2.80% 3.88% N/A 8.45% 2.88% 1.14% 7.08% 5.67%
2-4 Units 13.22% 22.86% 0.30% N/A 26.65% 7.51% 9.80% 14.71% 11.93%
5-9 Units 5.17% 9.44% 0.21% N/A 2.11% 12.16% 4.75% 10.30% 5.21%
10 or More Units 6.63% 22.80% 72.24% N/A 8.45% 28.46% 43.03% 35.58% 32.09%
Mobile Home or Trailer 4.16% 2.80% 0.86% N/A 0.83% 4.10% 1.46% 1.21% 3.26%
Total 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% N/A 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
Source: United States Census, 1990
Key: AB=Atlantic Beach, IRB=Indian Rocks Beach, KB=Key Biscayne, MI=Marco Island, NB=Neptune Beach, S=Sanibel, SPB=St.
Pete Beach, TI=Treasure Island, WM=Wilton Manors
Marco Island did not become an incorporated municipality until 1997.



00










Table 4-13. Housing Types in Selected Case Study Municipalities 2000
Types AB IRB KB MI NB S SPB TI WM Total
1-Unit Detached 3,344 1,207 1,313 5,332 1,975 3,335 2,889 1,836 2,611 23,842
1-Unit Attached 1,049 334 140 245 384 323 301 451 276 3,503
2 Units 377 317 9 64 492 225 212 389 389 2474
3 or 4 Units 307 412 21 293 356 229 408 480 429 2935
5 to 9 Units 205 244 55 530 105 868 359 556 365 3287
10 to 19 Units 102 283 154 1,334 85 466 553 678 515 4170
20 or More Units 553 1,235 4,674 7,046 67 1,416 3,004 1,308 1,609 20912
Mobile Home 146 0 2 23 8 237 0 0 124 540
Boat/RV/Van 0 0 0 4 0 8 89 0 4 105
Total 6,083 4,032 6,368 14,871 3,472 7,107 7,815 5,698 6,322 61,768
Source: United States Census, 2000
Key: AB=Atlantic Beach, IRB=Indian Rocks Beach, KB=Key Biscayne, MI=Marco Island, NB=Neptune Beach, S=Sanibel, SPB=St.
Pete Beach, TI=Treasure Island, WM=Wilton Manors

00
w>









Table 4-14. Housing Types in Selected Case Study Municipalities


2000 (in percentages)


Types
1-Unit Detached
1-Unit Attached
2 Units
3 or 4 Units
5 to 9 Units
10 to 19 Units
20 or More Units
Mobile Home
Boat/RV/Van
Total


AB
54.97%
17.24%
6.20%
5.05%
3.37%
1.68%
9.09%
2.40%
0.00%
100.00%


IRB
29.94%
8.28%
7.86%
10.22%
6.05%
7.02%
30.63%
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%


KB
20.62%
2.20%
0.14%
0.33%
0.86%
2.42%
73.40%
0.03%
0.00%
100.00%


MI
35.86%
1.65%
0.43%
1.97%
3.56%
8.97%
47.38%
0.15%
0.03%
100.00%


NB
56.88%
11.06%
14.17%
10.25%
3.02%
2.45%
1.93%
0.23%
0.00%
100.00%


S
46.93%
4.54%
3.17%
3.22%
12.21%
6.56%
19.92%
3.33%
0.11%
100.00%


SPB TI
36.97% 32.22%
3.85% 7.92%
2.71% 6.83%
5.22% 8.42%
4.59% 9.76%
7.08% 11.90%
38.44% 22.96%
0.00% 0.00%
1.14% 0.00%
100.00% 100.00%


Source: United States Census, 2000
Key: AB=Atlantic Beach, IRB=Indian Rocks Beach, KB=Key Biscayne, MI=Marco Island, NB=Neptune Beach, S=Sanibel, SPB=St.
Pete Beach, TI=Treasure Island, WM=Wilton Manors


WM
41.30%
4.37%
6.15%
6.79%
5.77%
8.15%
25.45%
1.96%
0.06%
100.00%









Table 4-15. Predominant Housing Type in Selected Case Study Municipalities 1990 and 2000
AB IRB KB MI* NB S SPB TI WM
Years 80 90 00 80 90 00 80 90 00 80 90 00 80 90 00 80 90 00 80 90 00 80 90 00 80 90 00
1UD 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1
1UA 2 2 3 3 3 3
2-4U 3 3 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3
5-9U 3 3 3 3
10 or 3 2 1 1 1 3 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2
More
MH
or T
*Marco Island was not a place nor census designated place until 1997.
Key 1: AB=Atlantic Beach, IRB=Indian Rocks Beach, KB=Key Biscayne, MI=Marco Island, NB=Neptune Beach, S=Sanibel,
SPB=St. Pete Beach, TI=Treasure Island, WM=Wilton Manors

Key 2: 1UD=l-Unit Detached, 1UA=l-Unit Attached, 2-4U=2 to 4 Units, 5-9U=5 to 9 Units, 10 or More=10 or More Units, MH or
oo T= Mobile Home or Truck

(1) Predominant Housing Type
(2) Second Highest Predominant Housing Type
(3) Third Highest Predominant Housing Type









Table 4-16. Mode of Transportation to Work of Residents of Case
Commuting Method AB IRB KB
Drove alone 4,590 1,800 3,397
In carpools 792 226 327
Using public transportation 101 31 50
Using other means 263 63 48
Walked or worked at home 261 110 498
Total 6,007 2,230 4,320


Study Municipalities 1990
MI NB S
N/A 3,047 1,727
N/A 452 198
N/A 84 10
N/A 57 101
N/A 169 344


N/A 3,809 2,380 3,917 3,800 6,629 20,535


Source: United States Census, 1990
Key: AB=Atlantic Beach, IRB=Indian Rocks Beach, KB=Key Biscayne, MI=Marco Island, NB=Neptune Beach, S=Sanibel, SPB=St.
Pete Beach, TI=Treasure Island, WM=Wilton Manors


Table 4-17. Mode of Transportation to Work of Residents of Case Study Municipalities 1990 (in percentages)
Commuting Method AB IRB KB MI* NB S SPB TI WM
Drove alone 76.41% 80.72% 78.63% N/A 79.99% 72.56% 77.46% 76.55% 79.38%
00 In carpools 13.18% 10.13% 7.57% N/A 11.87% 8.32% 8.83% 12.50% 9.17%
Using public transportation 1.68% 1.39% 1.16% N/A 2.21% 0.42% 1.38% 0.76% 2.66%
Using other means 4.38% 2.83% 1.11% N/A 1.50% 4.24% 3.22% 2.97% 3.36%
Walked or worked at home 4.34% 4.93% 11.53% N/A 4.44% 14.45% 9.11% 7.21% 5.43%
Total 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% N/A 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
Source: United States Census, 1990
*Marco Island was not a place nor census designated place until 1997.
Key: AB=Atlantic Beach, IRB=Indian Rocks Beach, KB=Key Biscayne, MI=Marco Island, NB=Neptune Beach, S=Sanibel, SPB=St.
Pete Beach, TI=Treasure Island, WM=Wilton Manors


SPB
3,034
346
54
126
357


TI
2,909
475
29
113
274


WM
5,262
608
176
223
360


Total
15,979
2,079
353
620
1,504









Table 4-18. Mode of Transportation to Work of Residents of Case Study Municipalities 2000


Commuting Method
Car, truck, or van -- drove alone
Car, truck, or van carpooled
Public transportation (including taxicab)
Walked
Other means
Worked at home
Total


AB IRB
5,373 2,206
639 138
153 17
157 16
201 16
199 290
6,722 2,683


Mean travel time to work (minutes) 27.2 27.6 23.7 19.3 28.6 18.3 25.2 27.1 21.8 24.3
Source: United States Census, 2000
Key: AB=Atlantic Beach, IRB=Indian Rocks Beach, KB=Key Biscayne, MI=Marco Island, NB=Neptune Beach, S=Sanibel, SPB=St.
Pete Beach, TI=Treasure Island, WM=Wilton Manors


Table 4-19. Mode of Transportation to Work of Residents of Case Study Municipalities
Commuting Method AB IRB KB MI NB
Car, truck, or van --
drove alone 79.93% 82.22% 75.37% 75.03% 88.10%
Car, truck, or van --
carpooled 9.51% 5.14% 9.79% 11.22% 6.41%
Public transportation


2000 (in percentages)
SPB


WM


67.20% 73.36% 81.01% 77.17%

10.82% 10.99% 6.52% 10.99%


(including taxicab) 2.28% 0.63% 1.72% 0.24% 1.11% 0.40% 1.73% 0.00% 4.17%
Walked 2.34% 0.60% 1.99% 2.62% 0.22% 3.72% 5.52% 2.18% 2.13%
Other means 2.99% 0.60% 1.70% 2.21% 2.40% 4.86% 2.82% 1.21% 1.66%
Worked at home 2.96% 10.81% 9.43% 8.67% 1.77% 13.00% 5.57% 9.09% 3.88%
Total 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
Source: United States Census, 2000
Key: AB=Atlantic Beach, IRB=Indian Rocks Beach, KB=Key Biscayne, MI=Marco Island, NB=Neptune Beach, S=Sanibel, SPB=St.
Pete Beach, TI=Treasure Island, WM=Wilton Manors


KB
3,326
432
76
88
75
416
4,413


MI
4,006
599
13
140
118
463
5,339


NB
3,641
265
46
9
99
73
4,133


S
1,354
218
8
75
98
262
2,015


SPB
3,016
452
71
227
116
229
4,111


TI
3,156
254
0
85
47
354
3,896


WM
5,254
748
284
145
113
264
6,808


Total
31,332
3,745
668
942
883
2,550
40,120









Table 4-20. Predominant Industry 2007 (# of Businesses Located in the Municipality)


Sort Variables
Order
Geographic Unit
1 ACCOMMODATION & FOOD SERVICES
[NAICS 72]
2 ADMIN, SUPPORT, WASTE MGT,
REMEDIATION SERVICES [NAICS 56]
3 ARTS, ENTERTAINMENT & RECREATION
[NAICS 71]
4 CONSTRUCTION [NAICS 23]
5 EDUCATIONAL SERVICES [NAICS 61]
6 FINANCE & INSURANCE [NAICS 52]
7 FORESTRY, FISHING, HUNTING, AND
AGRICULTURE SUPPORT [NAICS 11]
8 HEALTH CARE AND SOCIAL ASSISTANCE
[NAICS 62]
9 INFORMATION [NAICS 51]
10 MANAGEMENT OF COMPANIES &
ENTERPRISES [NAICS 55]
11 MANUFACTURING, 2007 [NAICS 31]
12 MINING [NAICS 21]
13 OTHER SERVICES [NAICS 81]
14 PROFESSIONAL, SCIENTIFIC & TECHNICAL
SERVICES [NAICS 54]
15 REAL ESTATE & RENTAL & LEASING [NAICS
53]
16 RETAIL TRADE [NAICS 44]
17 TRANSPORTATION & WAREHOUSING [NAICS
48]
18 UTILITIES, 2007 [NAICS 22]
19 WHOLESALE TRADE [NAICS 42]


AB IRB KB MI NB SPB S TI WM ALL OF
USA


City
26


City
32


City
38


City
67


City
19


City
71


City
51


City
65


City
40


593,038


25 8 24 63 12 2 28 15 26 358,703

6 7 15 19 3 8 9 15 3 118,962

30 20 27 90 33 25 22 32 41 762,547
0 2 12 3 2 1 2 6 5 78,765
14 6 31 44 17 16 16 25 20 469,434
0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 25,532

19 2 29 28 17 3 19 19 43 733,799

0 6 9 11 3 1 8 7 12 139,457
0 0 0 0 1 1 0 4 2 46,138


339,221
22,379
736,902
805,606


22 27 65 91 13 35 44 38 36 349,470


118 30
17 4


100 59
3 9


1,122,232
206,998

17,612
428,171


Source: SimplyMap and Census County Business Patterns, 2007









INTERVIEWS: PLANNING DIRECTORS OR SENIOR PLANNERS

Table 4-21. Small Scale and Large Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendments
AB IRB KB MI NB
Small Yes X
No X X X X


SPB


WM
X


Large Yes X
No X X X X X X X X
Source: Planning Professional Interviews; November 30 and December 7, 12, 14, 18, 19, 2007.
Key: AB=Atlantic Beach, IRB=Indian Rocks Beach, KB=Key Biscayne, MI=Marco Island, NB=Neptune Beach, S=Sanibel, SPB=St.
Pete Beach, TI=Treasure Island, WM=Wilton Manors



Table 4-22. Promotion of Redevelopment and Infill by the Private Sector, Public Sector, or Public-Private Partnerships
AB IRB KB MI NB S SPB TI WM
Private X X X X X X X
Public
Partnered X
None X
Source: Planning Professional Interviews; November 30 and December 7, 12, 14, 18, 19, 2007.
Key: AB=Atlantic Beach, IRB=Indian Rocks Beach, KB=Key Biscayne, MI=Marco Island, NB=Neptune Beach, S=Sanibel, SPB=St.
Pete Beach, TI=Treasure Island, WM=Wilton Manors









Table 4-23. Determining the Success of a Project
AB IRB KB MI NB S SPB TI WM
Commercial and Retail Occupation X
Level of Service Improvement X
Design does not cause a negative impact X X X
Fits Community Character X
Built at All X
Creates a Walkable Community X
Unknown X X X
Source: Planning Professional Interviews; November 30 and December 7, 12, 14, 18, 19, 2007.
Key: AB=Atlantic Beach, IRB=Indian Rocks Beach, KB=Key Biscayne, MI=Marco Island, NB=Neptune Beach, S=Sanibel, SPB=St.
Pete Beach, TI=Treasure Island, WM=Wilton Manors



ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT


Table 4-24. Job Creation


IRB


S SPB


Yes
No X X X X X X X X
Source: Planning Professional Interviews; November 30 and December 7, 12, 14, 18, 19, 2007.
Key: AB=Atlantic Beach, IRB=Indian Rocks Beach, KB=Key Biscayne, MI=Marco Island, NB=Neptune Beach,
Pete Beach, TI=Treasure Island, WM=Wilton Manors


WM
X


S=Sanibel, SPB=St.









Table 4-25. Reasons for a Lack of Job Creation
AB IRB KB MI NB S SPB TI WM
Bedroom Community X X X
Limited Commercial and Retail X X X X
Businesses Closing X X
Downturn in Housing Market X
Strictly Service Industries X X
Work in the Larger Urban Area X X
Local Businesses X
Source: Planning Professional Interviews; November 30 and December 7, 12, 14, 18, 19, 2007.
Key: AB=Atlantic Beach, IRB=Indian Rocks Beach, KB=Key Biscayne, MI=Marco Island, NB=Neptune Beach, S=Sanibel, SPB=St.
Pete Beach, TI=Treasure Island, WM=Wilton Manors









Table 4-26. Economic Development and Investment


Yes
No



Sources


Types

Local
Business or
Multinational
O Contributions
to Decrease


AB
X


IRB


AB
Residential
and
Commercial

Service/Office
Retail/Service
Both


N/A


SPB


IRB
N/A


N/A

N/A


KB
N/A


N/A

N/A


Increase N/A


MI
Real
Estate and
Charter
School
Tourism

Both


NB
N/A



N/A

N/A


Unknown N/A


S
N/A



N/A

N/A


N/A


SPB
N/A



N/A

N/A


N/A


Property


WM
X


TI
Real Estate,
Banks,
Professional
Offices
Professional
Tourism
Both -
mostly local
businesses
Conversion
of hotels to
condos


WM
Unknown



Unknown

Unknown


Unknown


Values;
Hotel
closings
Source: Planning Professional Interviews; November 30 and December 7, 12, 14, 18, 19, 2007.
Key: AB=Atlantic Beach, IRB=Indian Rocks Beach, KB=Key Biscayne, MI=Marco Island, NB=Neptune Beach, S=Sanibel, SPB=St.
Pete Beach, TI=Treasure Island, WM=Wilton Manors









Table 4-27. Incentives
AB IRB KB MI NB S SPB TI WM
Yes X
No X X X X X X X X

AB IRB KB MI NB S SPB TI WM
How often N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Not often
offered?
Which N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Housing/
industries Developers
receive the
most?
Why not No taxing No reason to; Not Unknown Not in Not Lack of No public/ Just not
offered? authority or people are necessary the necessary fiscal Private available.
fiscal attracted to budget resources partnerships
resources natural
features
Source: Planning Professional Interviews; November 30 and December 7, 12, 14, 18, 19, 2007.
Key: AB=Atlantic Beach, IRB=Indian Rocks Beach, KB=Key Biscayne, MI=Marco Island, NB=Neptune Beach, S=Sanibel, SPB=St.
Pete Beach, TI=Treasure Island, WM=Wilton Manors









PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Table 4-28. Is Public participation strong within the municipality?
AB IRB KB MI NB S SPB TI WM
Yes X X X X X X X X X
No
Source: Planning Professional Interviews; November 30 and December 7, 12, 14, 18, 19, 2007.
Key: AB=Atlantic Beach, IRB=Indian Rocks Beach, KB=Key Biscayne, MI=Marco Island, NB=Neptune Beach, S=Sanibel, SPB=St.
Pete Beach, TI=Treasure Island, WM=Wilton Manors









Table: 4-29. Factors contributing to the success of Public Participation
AB IRB KB MI NB S SPB TI WM
Reinvestment X
and
revitalization
Encouragement X X
of mixed use
Easily X X
accessible staff
Very involved X X
public in the
planning process
Ability to X
embrace change
Creation of X
pedestrian
\o friendly areas
Unknown X
Source: Planning Professional Interviews; November 30 and December 7, 12, 14, 18, 19, 2007.
Key: AB=Atlantic Beach, IRB=Indian Rocks Beach, KB=Key Biscayne, MI=Marco Island, NB=Neptune Beach, S=Sanibel, SPB=St.
Pete Beach, TI=Treasure Island, WM=Wilton Manors









Table 4-30. The Groups Most Supportive of Growth Management Changes
AB IRB KB MI NB S SPB TI WM
Civic X X X X
Associations
Taxpayer X
Associations
Restaurant X
Association
Religious X
Groups
Elected X
Officials
Businesses X X X X
Chamber of X X X X X
Commerce
Residential X X
Property
Owners
Unknown X
Source: Planning Professional Interviews; November 30 and December 7, 12, 14, 18, 19, 2007.
Key: AB=Atlantic Beach, IRB=Indian Rocks Beach, KB=Key Biscayne, MI=Marco Island, NB=Neptune Beach, S=Sanibel, SPB=St.
Pete Beach, TI=Treasure Island, WM=Wilton Manors









Table 4-31. Reasons for Limited Public Involvement in Growth Management Decisions
AB IRB KB MI NB S SPB TI WM
Residents N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A X
are not vocal
Political N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A X N/A N/A
Turmoil
Source: Planning Professional Interviews; November 30 and December 7, 12, 14, 18, 19, 2007.
Key: AB=Atlantic Beach, IRB=Indian Rocks Beach, KB=Key Biscayne, MI=Marco Island, NB=Neptune Beach, S=Sanibel, SPB=St.
Pete Beach, TI=Treasure Island, WM=Wilton Manors









INTERVIEWS: ELECTED OFFICIALS

Table 4-32. The Preferred Growth Management Strategy
AB IRB KB MI NB S SPB TI WM
Redevelopment X X X
Infill X
Development
Urban Design X X
All of the X X
Above
None of the
Above
Source: Elected Official Interviews, December 2007 and January 2008
Key: AB=Atlantic Beach, IRB=Indian Rocks Beach, KB=Key Biscayne, MI=Marco Island, NB=Neptune Beach, S=Sanibel, SPB=St.
Pete Beach, TI=Treasure Island, WM=Wilton Manors


00









Table 4-33. Municipality Challenges
AB IRB KB MI NB S SPB TI WM
Teardowns X
Affordability X
Property X
Values
Property Taxes X X
Adding X
Commercial
Unfunded X
Mandates
Lack of Tax X X
Revenue
Community X
Buyin To
Redevelopment
o Implementation X
ofa
Redevelopment
Plan
Source: Elected Official Interviews, December 2007 and January 2008
Key: AB=Atlantic Beach, IRB=Indian Rocks Beach, KB=Key Biscayne, MI=Marco Island, NB=Neptune Beach, S=Sanibel, SPB=St.
Pete Beach, TI=Treasure Island, WM=Wilton Manors









Table 4-34. Solutions for Municipality Challenges
AB IRB KB MI NB S
Proper X
Zoning
Limit X
Impervious
Surfaces
Strict Land X
Development
Code
Beach X X
Parking
Permit Fees X
Public Input X
Meetings
Use of X X
s Consultants
0 Visioning
Unknown
Source: Elected Official Interviews, December 2007 and January 2008
Key: AB=Atlantic Beach, IRB=Indian Rocks Beach, KB=Key Biscayne, MI=Marco Island, NB
Pete Beach, TI=Treasure Island, WM=Wilton Manors


SPB


WM


X

Neptune Beach, SSanibel, SPBSt.
=Neptune Beach, S=Sanibel, SPB=St.









Table 4-35. Municipality Strengths
Strengths AB IRB KB MI NB S SPB TI WM
Good X
Regulations in
Place
Desirable Place X X X
to Live
High Property X
Values
Location X X X
Collegial and X
Caring
Population
Residents of the X
Municipality
Accessibility to X
S Elected
Officials
Strong X
Communication
Eco-Tourism X
Source: Elected Official Interviews, December 2007 and January 2008
Key: AB=Atlantic Beach, IRB=Indian Rocks Beach, KB=Key Biscayne, MI=Marco Island, NB=Neptune Beach, S=Sanibel, SPB=St.
Pete Beach, TI=Treasure Island, WM=Wilton Manors









Table 4-36. Municipality Weaknesses
Weaknesses AB IRB KB MI NB S SPB TI WM
Lack of Tax X X X X
Revenue
Conversion X
of Hotels
Into Condos
Updating X
Infrastructure
to Meet
Current
Needs
Built-out X
before World
War II
Outdated X
S Aesthetics
Lack of X
Appealing
Businesses
Source: Elected Official Interviews, December 2007 and January 2008
Key: AB=Atlantic Beach, IRB=Indian Rocks Beach, KB=Key Biscayne, MI=Marco Island, NB=Neptune Beach, S=Sanibel, SPB=St.
Pete Beach, TI=Treasure Island, WM=Wilton Manors









Table 4-37. Growth Management Tools in the Comprehensive Plan: Are they adequate to meet your municipality's needs?
AB IRB KB MI NB S SPB TI WM
Yes X X X
No X X X X
Preferred Planning Tools
Design X
Ordinance
Increased X
Fiscal
Resources

Source: Elected Official Interviews, December 2007 and January 2008
Key: AB=Atlantic Beach, IRB=Indian Rocks Beach, KB=Key Biscayne, MI=Marco Island, NB=Neptune Beach, S=Sanibel, SPB=St.
Pete Beach, TI=Treasure Island, WM=Wilton Manors



Table 4-38. Have the residents and businesses located within the city limits been strong supporters of growth management changes?
AB IRB KB MI NB S SPB TI WM
Yes X X
No X
Mixed X X X X
Reasons for Limited Support
Lack of X
Fiscal
Resources
Change vs. X
No Change
Source: Elected Official Interviews, December 2007 and January 2008
Key: AB=Atlantic Beach, IRB=Indian Rocks Beach, KB=Key Biscayne, MI=Marco Island, NB=Neptune Beach, S=Sanibel, SPB=St.
Pete Beach, TI=Treasure Island, WM=Wilton Manors









Table 4-39. Is your municipality interested in attracting economic development?
AB IRB KB MI NB S SPB TI WM
Yes X X
No X X X
Mixed X X
Why not?
Bedroom X
Community
Lack of X
Available
Land
Source: Elected Official Interviews, December 2007 and January 2008
Key: AB=Atlantic Beach, IRB=Indian Rocks Beach, KB=Key Biscayne, MI=Marco Island, NB=Neptune Beach, S=Sanibel, SPB=St.
Pete Beach, TI=Treasure Island, WM=Wilton Manors









Table 4-40. Which types of economic development are encouraged?
AB IRB KB MI NB S SPB TI WM
Big-Box X
Stores
Small X
Mom and
Pop Stores
Franchises X
Grocery X
Stores
Tourism X
and
Hospitality
Mixed Use X
N/A X X X
Source: Elected Official Interviews, December 2007 and January 2008
Key: AB=Atlantic Beach, IRB=Indian Rocks Beach, KB=Key Biscayne, MI=Marco Island, NB=Neptune Beach, S=Sanibel, SPB=St.
Pete Beach, TI=Treasure Island, WM=Wilton Manors









Table 4-41. Is there a focus on economic development and job creation?
AB IRB KB MI NB S SPB TI WM
Yes X
No X X X X X X
Types of Jobs
Hospitality X


Reasons for Limited to No Job Creation
X


Commute to
Larger
Urban Areas
Retirement
and Second
Home


Community
Conversion X
of Hotels to
S Condos
Lack of X
Financial
Incentives
Source: Elected Official Interviews, December 2007 and January 2008
Key: AB=Atlantic Beach, IRB=Indian Rocks Beach, KB=Key Biscayne, MI=Marco Island, NB=Neptune Beach, S=Sanibel, SPB=St.
Pete Beach, TI=Treasure Island, WM=Wilton Manors









Maps


Figure 4-1.


Northeast Region Atlantic Beach and Neptune Beach. [Map provided by Google
Earth, 2007.]


Southeast Region Wilton Manors. [Map provided by Google Earth, 2007.]


Figure 4-2.































Southeast Region Key Biscayne. [Map provided by Google Earth, 2007.]


Southwest Region Marco Island. [Map provided by Google Earth, 2007.]


Figure 4-3.


Figure 4-4.































Southwest Region Sanibel. [Map provided by Google Earth, 2007.]


Figure 4-6.


West Central Region Indian Rocks Beach, Treasure Island, St. Pete Beach.
[Map provided by Google Earth, 2007.]


Figure 4-5.









CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION

Based upon the findings of the research, five major themes are explored in this chapter.

Factors that determine the municipality's level and type of involvement with redevelopment and

infill include (1) financial and institutional capacity; (2) exclusivity; (3) density and federal,

state, and regional coastal high hazard regulations; (4) economic development and investment;

and (5) the level and type of public participation. Small to medium-sized communities have

limited financial and institutional capacity due to their small size. Small and medium-sized built-

out municipalities have additional constraints because they must depend on infill or

redevelopment in a community. The financial capacity represents the maximum amount or

number of municipal bonds or other types of financial vehicles that a built-out municipality can

accommodated. The institutional capacity represents the maximum amount or number of current

and future city workers, legal structure, and infrastructure that the built-out municipality can

accommodate. Exclusive communities limit individuals or create incompatible uses. Density is

the average number of individuals or units per space unit (http://www.merriam-webster.com/).

Density limits and federal, state, and regional costal high hazard guidelines create regulatory

restrictions on the type of development supported in a built-out municipality. Economic

development can be defined as efforts that seek to improve the economic well-being and quality

of life for a community by creating and/or retaining jobs and supporting or growing incomes and

the tax base (http://www.merriam-webster.com/). The public participation process allows

residents to voice their opinion on issues and take ownership of the process and results. These

factors determine the extent to which residents, elected officials, planners, and business support

redevelopment and infill. Municipalities must coordinate these various elements together when

making decisions. Before examining these factors, it is important to remember that small and









medium-sized built-out municipalities face special challenges in planning for the community's

future.

Financial and Institutional Capacity

Location, community, and economic factors determine the redevelopment potential of a

community or district. The intersections of these factors help define some of the necessary

elements of the potential redevelopment strategy. When community and economic factors

intersect, small and medium-sized municipalities can define the demand for services and space.

When location and economic factors intersect, small and medium-sized built-out communities

can examine how local and regional influences affect their redevelopment and infill strategies.

When location and community factors intersect, small and medium-sized built-out municipalities

are presented with opportunities to define their sense of place in relation to the community with

the physical and function context that influence the community and the region. Effective

redevelopment remains a balancing act between these three factors.

Previous research (e.g., Treasure Island Downtown Redevelopment Plan, Pinellas by

Design, and Smart Infill guidebooks) suggest that municipalities will experience success with

redevelopment and infill when regulations are flexible, elected officials are strong but accessible,

residents are flexible and open to new strategies and ideas, and partnerships are created between

the public and private sectors. Contrary to these ideas, this research suggests that the small

coastal case studies and to some extent the inland small built-out municipalities do not have the

tax authority or institutional framework to offer economic incentives encouraged by state growth

management laws. The state leaves small local governments with the responsibility to manage

and implement growth management strategies despite some local government's limited capacity

to complete these tasks. Broward County provides flexible housing credits that allowed Wilton

Manors to initiate redevelopment and mixed use development on its own. The private sector









stepped in to assist the city once the initial framework was set. Mattson and Burke (1989)

confirm that some small towns lack the economic base to hire the professionals necessary or

maintain the institutional capacity to create and manage innovative planning policy.

Mattson and Burke (1989) assert that municipality conflicts will run along group dynamics

when in reality, issues themselves divide residents. Increased densities and redevelopment

remain the two most contested issues in each of the nine case studies. Old timers and newcomers

focus their energy on how redevelopment and density will affect them on an individual basis.

Newcomers present their image as agents for change, but they rarely have enough power in small

municipalities to prevail. Newcomers hinder change when they focus less on the community's

needs compared to on their own individual economic and social benefit. The struggles within the

community could be less about power but about the lack of institutional capacity, outdated

regulatory framework, and the commitment of certain parts of the population to holding onto to

the past.

The findings in seven out of the nine case studies corroborate the assertions set forth in the

literature that a municipality's location, size, and availability of tools determines whether they

contain the financial capacity to manage redevelopment and infill. Mattson and Burke (1989)

argue that small towns cannot effectively initiate innovative policy planning due to financial and

institutional capacity limitations. Holcombe and Nelson et al. corroborate that assertion and

conclude that urban growth controls are preferred by a select group of the population more for

their economical benefits than altruistic behavior. The use of urban growth controls show the

effects of voluntary versus mandatory regulations on small and medium-sized built-out

municipalities. Small and medium-sized built-out municipalities share a similar dynamic in the

land market to what happens to urban regions under urban growth boundaries. Pinellas County









does not contain an urban growth boundary, but since Pinellas County is approximately 90%

built-out with geographic and political limitations, the county experiences the effects of land use

controls without actually having the control. The limits on the availability of land make it

desirable.

The findings suggest that small to medium-sized built-out municipalities in northeast and

west central Florida do not have an established tax authority or previous knowledge to

implement a community redevelopment area or incentives. Local municipalities attempt to

complete these tasks without adequate institutional capacity or the assistance of the state. These

statutes do not take into consideration the available resources or means of a municipality. The

resources available to a municipality are based on where it is located in the state, the size of the

town, and the functional abilities of its government. With budget cuts, outdated land

development code, ineffective technical advisory abilities from the state and the limited

resources of small and medium-sized incorporated municipalities, residents view the

comprehensive planning process as inflexible instead of adaptable.

Despite the lack of fiscal and regulatory resources available to small and medium-sized

municipalities, the burden of these deficiencies cannot be solely put on their shoulders.

The history of development patterns since World War II; the culture and history of a

particular state, region, and municipality; and how the market reacts to these development

patterns contributes a majority of the blame on larger entities and urban areas. Larger built-out

and developing municipalities have great financial and institutional capacity to manage

redevelopment and infill strategies compared to small municipalities. The economic and social

activities of the larger urban areas in the northeast and west central Florida case studies create a

spillover effect without each municipality having the tools to handle the changes. According to









Sonya Duerr (2007), the Community Development Director of Atlantic Beach, although a

concentration of children between the ages of 5 and 17 exists, the elementary and middle

schools' capacity levels do not exceed 55 percent. She indicated that high school-aged students

are bused to the Jacksonville metropolitan area due to a lack of facilities in her community.

Confirmed by the findings, redevelopment outside of the residential market is not as

widespread especially in small and medium-sized coastal built-out municipalities. The present

study's findings contradict Sandoval and Landis (2002) assertions that a lack of tax base will

result in more commercial and less residential development. The findings do confirm Sandoval

and Landis's (2002) assertions that regulatory restrictions do hamper the ability of any small or

medium-sized municipality from implementing redevelopment and infill strategies.

Similar to California's propositions four and thirteen, Florida municipalities remain limited

in the amount of property tax they can collect.

As provided in Section 193.155(1), F.S., beginning in 1995, or the year after the property
receives homestead exemption, an annual increase in assessment shall not exceed the lower
of the following: (a) three percent of the assessed value of the property for the prior year;
or (b) the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for all urban consumers,
U.S city average, all items 1967 = 100 or successor reports for the preceding calendar year
as initially reported by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (Florida
Statutes, 2007).

Due to regulatory changes, which have decreased property taxes, debates occur about whether

municipalities need to diversify the revenue sources. Residents and business owners balk at

higher taxes. For example, in Indian Rocks Beach, elected officials and planning professionals

stated that residents believe that property, sales, and gas taxes are too high (B. Ockunzzi,

personal communication, January 10, 2008). In reality, Bill Ockunzzi stated that Indian Rocks

Beach has one of the lowest property tax rates on the Pinellas County barrier islands (B.

Ockunzzi, personal communication, January 10, 2008). Unlike Californian municipalities that









have vacant land to promote further commercial development, built-out municipalities remain

limited with which alternative options they can support. The focus on residential redevelopment

leads small built-out municipalities to become exclusive and homogeneous.

Exclusivity

What defines an exclusive community? According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary

(2007), exclusive is defined as the following

Excluding or tending to exclude:
Not allowing something else; incompatible: mutually exclusive conditions.
Not divided or shared with others: exclusive publishing rights.
Not accompanied by others; single or sole: your exclusive function.
Excluding some or most, as from membership or participation: an exclusive club.
Catering to a wealthy clientele; expensive: exclusive shops.
(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary)

The development patterns over the last fifty years transformed some of these resort

communities into urban built-out municipalities near larger urban areas. In turn, these built-out

municipalities became desirable places to live. To understand why a municipality becomes

desirable, we have to examine the laws of supply and demand. The law of supply states that the

higher the price of the product, the more the producer will supply. Producers supply more at a

higher price because selling a higher quantity at a higher price increases revenue. The law of

demand states that the higher the price of the product, the less the consumer will demand. If all

other factors remain equal, the higher the price of a good, the less people will demand that good.

In other words, the higher the price, the lower the quantity demanded. The amount of a good that

buyers purchase at a higher price is less because as the price of a good goes up, so does the

opportunity cost of buying that good. Following this logic, if the supply of a product is low but

the demand is high, then according to the law of demand, the price of the product would go up.

In built-out municipalities, the limited supply of housing stock increased demand and the price of









that housing stock. The rise in price forces out individuals that are no longer able to afford to live

in the municipality.

Growth management tools such as urban growth boundaries contribute to the

transformation of communities. Reviewing the 1990 and 2000 United States Censuses, the nine

cases studies contained predominantly white populations. Between the two censuses, the number

of white residents increased and the number of minorities decreased. Except for Atlantic Beach

and Wilton Manors, the population in the other seven case study municipalities is less than four

percent of the minority. Holcombe (2007) suggests that the impression of most people remains

that urban growth boundaries are encouraged by an affluent white population. Pendall (2000)

adds that the support of urban growth controls is not just due to race alone. The wealth of the

community contributes to the support of urban growth controls. Urban growth boundaries are set

in the attempt to control urbanization. The urban growth boundary constricts the amount of

developable land and attempt to promote higher densities within the boundaries. On the other

hand, built-out municipalities have a minimal amount of developable land, and if the

municipality is located near a major waterbody, density levels are restricted per federal and state

coastal high hazards regulations. Unlike an urban growth boundary, built-out municipalities

cannot expand their boundary and must accommodate development and redevelopment within its

corporate limits.

Although Holcombe's (2007) statistical analysis confirms that urban growth boundaries

affect the development patterns in built-out municipalities, the statistical analysis does not

explain why the findings are similar in Lee and Pinellas Counties with no urban growth

boundary. Do growth management tools alone make a built-out municipality exclusive or do

other factors contribute to a community becoming exclusive? One can say that the statistical









analysis and the Florida Statistical Abstract show that the use of urban growth boundaries does

not eliminate population growth but slows population growth. Population growth would slow

down anyway in built-out municipalities due to the lack of remaining developable land. Local

governments use growth management tools to limit population influxes based on what is in and

out of their control. The geographic and political limitations of these municipalities lend to the

exclusive nature of their location. Although not addressed in the interviews with the planners and

elected officials, the exclusive nature of a municipality and the people with the most influence

affect local government decisions on redevelopment and infill strategies.

Density and Federal, State, and Regional Coastal High Hazard Areas

A quandary exists between a coastal built-out municipality's desire to increase density

and the regulatory requirements that prevent that from happening. Inland built-out municipalities

lack these regulatory requirements. Inland built-out municipalities support redevelopment

strategies involving the increase of density to incorporate residential, commercial, and retail

activities in the same area using current infrastructure. According to section 163.3178 (f), Florida

Statutes, states that "a redevelopment component which outlines the principles which shall be

used to eliminate inappropriate and unsafe development in the coastal areas when opportunities

arise" (Florida Statutes, 2007).

Unfortunately, the encouragement of high density and intensity levels does not take into

account the regulatory requirements of pursuing that strategy in coastal areas. The unintended

consequence of a municipality in the CHHA is that the city becomes exclusive and desirable.

The limitations of building heights and densities in the CHHA prevent developers from building

structures that are beyond safe federal guidelines for a barrier island. With municipalities located

on barrier islands, resident safety is paramount, and the ability for residents to evacuate and

return with minimal distress is crucial before, during, and after a natural disaster. Progress









remains fleeting in some municipalities located in the CHHA to balance current resident needs

with future demands based on current and projected market conditions.

Barrier island municipalities, such as Treasure Island, encourage minor increases of

density in their downtown area which would provide more innovative mixed use opportunities as

reflected in their downtown revitalization plan. Wilton Manors encourages mixed use

development and density increases in their arts and entertainment overlay district along Wilton

Drive and in the Highland Estates neighborhood as their plan to revitalize their municipality and

to provide a better quality of life to their residents. In municipalities such as Sanibel, planners

and elected officials discourage density increases due to the majority of the island being

designated as a conservation area. Sanibel remains the only case study that uses a density and

intensity map as part of their growth management and comprehensive planning process and has

received many awards for their comprehensive plan. In Indian Rocks Beach, Treasure Island, and

St. Pete Beach, the business owners prefer higher densities as it would increase the tax revenue

and contribute to more infrastructure improvements.

Planning professionals and elected officials need to overcome resident's resistance to

density before it can succeed in a small town. Wheeler (2002) suggests that one way to change

resident's perception of density is to present the topic in a different way. The subjects of compact

development and smart growth are perceived as positive concepts whereas density is perceived

as a negative concept based on preconceived notions.

Economic Development and Investment

Planning professionals and elected officials stated in their interviews that due to their

municipality's lack of tools and vacant land, commercial and retail operations would pursue

opportunities in other locations. Except for Wilton Manors, the municipalities either do not

encourage economic development or do not have the tools to manage economic development and









investment. If any jobs are created, those jobs are created in the hospitality and tourism

industries. Due to increase property values and the transformation of many of these

municipalities into bedroom communities, these communities rely on the larger nearby

metropolitan areas as employment hubs and service centers. High levels of young professionals

result from a high concentration of major employment hubs in the larger urban areas. These three

regions include the major employment hubs of Fort Lauderdale, Miami, Tampa, St. Petersburg,

and Jacksonville, which account for the large percentage of young, professional residents in the

State. The larger urban areas pull workers out of the built-out municipalities since land remains

scarce and expensive. Sprawl has affected these municipalities in the same ways resulting in

longer commutes and a strain on infrastructure and other resources.

Public Participation

According to elected officials and planning professionals, within the nine case studies,

local business owners support growth management changes that would improve the quality of

life for its residents and business owners and increase the tax base. The support of residents for

growth management changes is mixed at best. In municipalities such as St. Pete Beach, the

different factions on either side of the change debate have caused political turmoil so great that

their comprehensive plan has not been updated since the late 1990s. In municipalities such as

Wilton Manors, positive changes are being made, but the individual property owners are not

always as vocal. As highlighted by Wayne Thies (2007), the Building Department Director in

Wilton Manors, individual property owners may not be as vocal regarding growth management

issues, but when individual property owners and businesses are represented by either civic or

business associations, their voices are heard. In Sanibel, the level of public participation

involvement resulted in a new comprehensive plan that did not just incorporate the opinions of a

select part of the population, but it incorporated a wider range of perspectives (Sanibel, 2007).









The exclusive nature of Sanibel, the predominant age of the residents, also may contribute to the

high level of public participation.

Recommendations

One of the chief criticisms of the growth management process stressed in literature and by

the elected officials and planning professionals was that the comprehensive planning process

remains too general. Florida Statutes do not differentiate the social, economic, environmental,

and historic characteristics of small, medium, and large municipalities. Based on the findings, the

state should create regulations specifically tailored to municipalities based on their size, financial

capabilities, and location in the state. Changes in the regulations allow for the decrease in

inefficiencies for municipalities that do not have the financial and institutional capacity. Before

any changes can be made, the public must support these changes.

Each planning professional and elected official stated that public participation levels

remain high. Also, the public participated the most when the local government focused on

specific issues. In the case studies, the residents and business owners have different opinions

about density, economic development, and growth management issues. Researchers recommend

encouraging the visioning process as part of the growth management process cycle. One of the

biggest impediments to successful growth management in municipalities remains the lack of

communication between government officials, residents, and business owners (K. Holley,

personal communication, December 19, 2007). In addition, development occurs based on market

trends and not by resident preference. The visioning process allows the ability for residents to

voice their opinions without being judged. Residents, business owners, and elected officials

believe that keeping the process adaptive and flexible is important.

Suggested by Wheeler (2002), specific plans address those issues by bringing the

ownership of the vision process to the residents, business owners, and elected officials. The









findings do exhibit the need for the use of the visioning process, but the use of specific plans in

other states relate to larger municipalities that contain the financial and institutional capacity to

initiate and maintain these plans. State policies are general and broad, and they do not

incorporate the individual aspects of the municipality. By creating state growth management

regulations tailored for both small and medium-sized municipalities with limited vacant land

available, these new regulations will allow for residents and business owners to create a

development pattern best for them instead of being forced to follow policies that do not apply.

Summary of the Discussion

This section confirms the findings that municipalities conduct redevelopment when they

have the tools available to implement the changes. Financial and institutional capacity issues

limit the options available to small and medium-sized built-out municipalities to follow

redevelopment and infill strategies. Within exclusive communities, constricted supply and

increased demand lead to increased prices. Increased prices lead to more focus on residential

development and less focus on commercial and retail development in built-out municipalities.

Coastal municipalities face regulatory requirements that go against the intent of redevelopment.

Redevelopment can increase density, but in coastal communities, federal and state regulations

can limit the amount of density to prevent devastation during a natural disaster. This logic does

not apply to inland built-out municipalities since those types of built-out municipalities are not in

the coastal high hazard areas. High levels of public participation either contribute to successful

redevelopment and infill strategies or create a stranglehold on the growth management process.

Small and medium-sized built-out municipalities face unique challenges.









CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSION

The Conclusion section provides a summary of research findings, the limitation of the

current research, areas for future research, and conclusions and recommendations. The summary

of research findings verifies disconnects between state-mandated growth management

requirements, business owner and residential viewpoints, and the implementation capacities of

small and medium-sized municipalities. The Conclusion section presents the limitation of the

current research related to the lack of empirical and theoretical studies that examine the effects of

redevelopment and infill development strategies on built-out municipalities. Additional studies

would be needed to examine the effects of redevelopment and infill development strategies on

larger built-out cities. A second study would examine the effects of redevelopment and infill

development on the availability of affordable housing within a built-out city. Finally, the

Conclusion section provides conclusions and recommendations of redevelopment and infill

development strategies in built-out cities.

Summary of Research Findings

Although these nine built-out municipalities were incorporated at different times and may

have different philosophies in how they should manage growth, these municipalities face the

same challenges as many communities throughout the state of Florida. State guidelines do not

differentiate between the size of a community, whether they are built-out, and how each

municipality handles growth. Based on the study, the planning professionals and elected officials

believed that growth management tools remain inadequate to meet their needs (Danny Taylor &

Karl Holley, personal communication, December 18 and 19, 2007).

Professionals assume that horizontal growth is automatically replaced by redevelopment

and infill development when a municipality becomes built-out. Mattson and Burke (1989)









suggest that without available financial and institutional capabilities, small towns are unable and

unwilling to implement redevelopment and infill development strategies on their own. Currently,

the land development codes do not adequately reflect the current objectives and policies in the

comprehensive plan. Built-out municipalities establish objectives and policies in their

comprehensive plan that specifically address redevelopment and infill, but the implementation of

these objectives and policies is limited by the market and the financial resources of the

municipality and the desire of residents for the community to maintain its small town character.

The study investigated the effects of redevelopment and infill development strategies on

small and medium-sized built-out municipalities, incorporating literature which suggests that

redevelopment is necessary and inevitable and requires cooperation, new tools, and an

interdisciplinary approach. Counteracting the view that redevelopment is necessary and

inevitable; literature and interview results suggested that small and medium-sized municipalities

face challenges related to economic, regulatory, and social factors. The study examined the

disconnect in growth management and the comprehensive planning process that occurred

between the regulatory requirements set by the state, the differentiating views of redevelopment

voiced by residents and business owners, and the lack of financial and institutional capacity by

the local government. In doing so the present study explored when, where, why, and how

redevelopment and infill development occur within a built-out municipality.

Built-out municipalities face geographical and political challenges that are distinct

compared to other developing cities. Redevelopment is a complex process that must consider

many factors. Regulatory restrictions set by the federal and state governments and are within the

comprehensive plan determine the extent to which property owners can redevelop or initiate

infill development. The federal and state governments limit redevelopment and infill









development especially in coastal areas. Built-out municipalities, located near the Atlantic Ocean

and the Gulf of Mexico, have regulatory restrictions because of the need to protect residents

during natural disasters. Density and intensity levels and building heights are restricted in

municipalities located in coastal high hazard areas (CHHA). Beyond the federal and state

regulatory restrictions, the residents of a municipality may prefer to keep lower density and

intensity levels to limit population growth and maintain the community as it is. Although these

regulatory requirements are crucial to a coastal municipality's well-being, other regulatory

restrictions result from a lack of institutional capacity, resources, and favorable political climate

to make those changes.

The present study highlights the limitations of growth management and the capacity of

small and medium-sized municipalities during implementation phases. Few studies exist that

specifically address redevelopment and infill development within built-out municipalities.

Established resources such as comprehensive plans, EARs, downtown redevelopment plans, and

land development codes set the framework for redevelopment, infill development, and urban

design changes through objectives and policies but do not address or provide direction during the

implementation process. Interviews with planning professionals and elected officials provided

perspectives on whether municipalities implement redevelopment and infill development

strategies and their rate and reasons for success and failure.

Limitation of Research

The limitations of research relate to the types of case studies and the availability of

literature and established resources that support my argument. The nine case studies consisted of

eight coastal communities and one inland community. Inland built-out cities exist in southeast

Florida, but the pool of cities exceeded the study's population limit. The present study could

remain useful for small and medium-sized built-out municipalities in coastal states, but the









application of this study would remain limited to states with state-mandated growth

management.

Established documents contain limitations to their effectiveness. Due to the recent

adoption of comprehensive plans and EARs, no study or established source provides empirical

results analyzing the effectiveness of implementing the recommendations from the EAR into the

comprehensive plan. Municipalities take up to five years to implement the recommendations set

forth in the EAR where at the end of that time period, the recommendations may not apply or

become outdated. Unlike the EAR, the Census is initiated immediately, but the span of time

between each Census limits the effectiveness of the data to explain social phenomenon. The

Census Bureau updates data and categories with each Census making it difficult to compare data

across multiple decades. Since the United States Census is conducted every ten years, individual

economic, community, and regulatory events do not correspond with population and housing

trends.

The interview results addressed the limitations in established resources. Due to a lack of

time and resources, residents and the Chamber of Commerce were not interviewed resulting in a

perspective from only two sources: planning professionals and elected officials. Planning

professionals present a subject based on the tools and resources available. The researcher has no

reason to distrust the participants since they participated in this study voluntarily, but all

participants can contain a personal bias or perspective towards redevelopment and infill

development, economic development, and public participation.

Areas for Future Research

The present study focused on small and medium-sized municipalities, but examining large

built-out municipalities remains unrepresented in previous literature. Large built-out

municipalities do have the financial and institutional capacity to implement redevelopment and









infill strategies, but do the large built-out municipalities implement redevelopment and infill

strategies? Broward and Pinellas Counties would become a great focus on additional research

since both countries are at least 90% built-out and contain large built-out municipalities. The

researcher would conduct interviews with planning professionals, elected officials, business

owners, and neighborhood associations. The researcher would use the same questions asked to

small and medium-sized built-out municipalities to retain consistency.

In addition to conducting research on large built-out municipalities, the researcher intends

to conduct research on growth management strategies and their effect on affordable housing in

built-out municipalities. Affordable housing remains an issue that affects built-out and

developing cities in Florida and throughout the United States. Municipalities located near

waterbodies remain desirable locations to live. Economic impediments limit the availability of

affordable housing for low and medium income citizens. It is required by the Florida Statutes for

each municipality to address the subject of affordable housing, where it will be located, and how

it will be financed through their comprehensive plan. Unfortunately, affordable housing is few

and far between in small, medium, and large built-out communities in Florida since there are

little to no vacant land available within the corporate limits. When the supply of land and

housing units are limited, then the demand for the vacant land and the available housing units

will be greater.

Conclusions

The study of built-out municipalities is in its infancy. Municipalities followed the same

sprawling development patterns over the last fifty years. Municipalities require time and the

appropriate tools and strategies to adequately manage growth when vacant land is no longer

abundant. The present study verified that comprehensive plans and EARs contain the appropriate

focus on redevelopment and strategies. The interviews results verified that small and medium-









sized municipalities do not have the appropriate tools to implement redevelopment and infill

strategies. In all but two case studies, the municipalities either submitted comprehensive plan

updates or EARs to DCA for approval. Based on the review of established sources and

interviews, the municipalities lack the financial and institutional capacity to implement

redevelopment and infill strategies, but not enough time has elapsed since the approval of the

EAR to provide an accurate analysis of their success or failure with the strategies.

The study's findings do not remain limited to the state of Florida. A researcher could

examine small and medium built-out municipalities in other states and determine whether they

are challenged by economic, social, and regulatory conditions. If they do face obstacles, then

does the state have mandatory growth management laws? What contributes to these obstacles? If

the municipalities do not contain obstacles to redevelopment and infill, then which policies lead

to success? Sometimes we focus so hard on a problem that the answer is right in front of us. In

other cases, sometimes we need to learn from other people, and try to avoid the same mistakes

they made.

Researchers address the current obstacles with redevelopment and infill development by

conducting studies on policy innovation and the effects of redevelopment and infill development

in small developing municipalities. Current studies highlight the limitations of growth

management and the capacity of small and medium-sized municipalities during implementation

phases. Few studies exist that specifically address redevelopment and infill development within a

built-out municipality. This study addresses the lack of literature focused on redevelopment and

infill-development within built-out municipalities and provides recommendations.









APPENDIX A
ATLANTIC BEACH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RESULTS









Table A-1. Atlantic Beach Future Land Use Element Introduction
Element Introduction
FLUE Future land use, new development and redevelopment within the City of Atlantic Beach shall be in
accordance with the following Goals, Objectives, and Policies and as further controlled by the Land
Development Regulations, as may be amended to implement the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of this
Comprehensive Plan. (Atlantic Beach Comprehensive Plan, 2004)









Table A-2. Atlantic Beach
Element


- Goals, Objectives, and Policy
Goal, Objective, or Description
Policy


Goal A. 1


Objective A. 1.3


Policy A.1.5.5


Policy A.1.5.6


FLUE


The City shall manage growth and redevelopment in a manner which results in
a pattern of land uses that: 1) encourages, creates and maintains a healthy and
aesthetically pleasing built environment, 2) avoids blighted influences, 3)
preserves and enhances coastal, environmental, natural, historic, and cultural
resources, 4) maintains the City's distinct residential community character, 5)
provides for reasonable public safety and security from hazardous conditions
associated with coastal locations, and 6) that provides public services and
facilities in a timely and cost effective manner.
The City shall encourage future development and redevelopment, which 1)
retains the exceptionally high quality of life and the predominantly residential
character of the City of Atlantic Beach, 2) provides for the preservation and
protection of the dense tree canopy, and 3) which provides for varied and
diverse recreational opportunities, including the preservation, acquisition and
development of public access to the beach and other water-related resources.
The City shall enforce the limitations, as set forth within the Land Development
Regulations, for maximum height of buildings and maximum impervious
surface area for all lands within the City, except that requests to exceed the
maximum height of building of thirty-five (35) feet or twenty-five (25) feet, as
applicable, maybe be considered and approved only within non-residential land
use categories and for non-residential development. Further, any such non-
residential increase to the maximum height of building shall be limited only to
exterior architectural design elements, exterior decks or porches, and shall
exclude signage, storage space or Habitable Space as defined by the Florida
Building Code...
Planned Unit Development regulations and other flexible regulatory methods
shall be utilized to provide incentives for achieving environmental enhancement,
economical land development, and efficient patterns of land use that provide for
an appropriate mix of uses within the City.


FLUE


FLUE


FLUE









Table A-2. Continued
Element


FLUE


FLUE

FLUE


FLUE

FLUE


FLUE


FLUE


Goal, Objective, or
Policy
Objective A. 1.6




Policy A.1.6.1


Policy A.1.6.2


Policy A.1.6.3

Policy A. 1.10


Policy A.1.10.1


Policy A. 1.10.2


Description


The City shall preserve the sound structural condition and the diverse character
of the built environment of the City and shall encourage development programs
and activities that are directed at infill development as well as the conservation,
redevelopment and re-use of existing structures and the preservation of and re-
investment in older neighborhoods.
The City shall continue to implement code enforcement procedures in order to
prevent physical deterioration and blight throughout the City.
The City shall encourage and assist in the revitalization of older neighborhoods
that provide housing for very low, low and moderate-income residents,
particularly neighborhoods containing sound, but aging housing stock, where
adequate public services and facilities re existing.
The City shall discourage redevelopment practices that displace very low, low
and moderate-income residents.
The City shall continue to maintain a development character, which is compact
in form, orderly in its land use pattern, and diversified in its makeup so as to
ensure employment opportunities, affordable housing, a pleasant living
environment, and cost-effective public services.
The City shall undertake land annexation only when it can demonstrate an
ability to provide services and facilities in a manner that maintains the level of
service standards as set forth within this Plan amendment and only when such
annexation contributes to the orderly growth and development of the region
within which the City is situated.
Those areas of the City, which are designated as Development Areas, are substantially
developed as of the adoption date of this Plan amendment with no opportunity for
sprawl development as defined by Rule 9J-5.006(5) F.A.C. The City shall not, however,
approve amendments to the Future Land Use Map that would convert areas designated
as Conservation to Development Areas where adverse impacts to wetland and estuarine
systems would result from development activities. Adverse impacts shall be presumed
to result from activities, which disturb, contaminate, or degrade wetlands and
Environmentally Sensitive Areas, or natural functions and systems associated with such
areas.









Table A-2. Continued
FLUE Policy A. 1.10.3 The City shall encourage the clustering of uses in locations where infrastructure
facilities are available or where extensions and enlargements can be achieved
efficiently, particularly with respect to commercial infill development along the
Mayport Road corridor.
FLUE Policy A. 1.10.4 The City shall actively support the appropriate redevelopment and infill
development of the Mayport Road corridor. Retail and service uses that
encourage a more aesthetically pleasing and pedestrian friendly environment
shall be encouraged. New development along Mayport Road shall be in
compliance with the Commercial Corridor Development Standards as set forth
within the Land Development Regulations.
Source: Atlantic Beach 2015 EAR-Based Comprehensive Plan









APPENDIX B
INDIAN ROCKS BEACH










Table B-1. Indian Rocks Beach Comprehensive Plan Goals, Objectives, and
Element Issue Goals/Objectives
Pertaining to Issue
FLUE Balancing development and private property FLUE 1.2: Land
rights of individual owners, especially small Development
property owners. Might relate but not sure yet. Regulations


FLUE Ensuring that the IRB Code conforms with the
general development densities and intensities
provided by the Pinellas County Rules
Concerning the Administration of the Countywide
Future Land Use Plan, especially in the context of
the city's location in the Coastal High Hazard
Area.


FLUE 1.1: Future Land
Use Map and Land Use
Designations


Policies
Recommendations


Amend the City of IRB Code to include platting procedures and
update future land use maps to regulate the subdivision of land in
favor of small property owners and pre-existing land in favor of
small property owners and pre-existing land use patterns, pursuant
to the following policy: FLUE 1.2.4 The City shall continue to
enforce land development regulations that contain specific and
detailed provisions required to implement this comprehensive
plan, which at a minimum shall: Regulate the subdivision of
land...
The City of IRB could consider community visioningg' to better
define its town character/identity and revising the following policy
about compliance with
Countywide rules to reflect its objectives regarding future land
uses. The City of IRB is located in the Coastal High Hazard Area
and the intensity/density standards require calibration to address
this issue. Review the City of Indian Rocks Beach Code /Land
Development Regulations and Future Land Use Maps for
compliance with Countywide Rules concerning Future Land Uses
and Coastal High Hazard Area standards. The following sections
require coordination: Land use categories, Land use characteristics
and density/intensity limitations, FAR/ISR/density calculations,
Residential equivalency standards, and Exceptions/Variances.
Include locational determinants for future land uses, buffers for
wetlands and flood plain, transportation/utility,
overlays/easements, etc.:
FLUE Policy 1.1.1: The City of Indian Rocks Beach Future Land
Use Map shall have the land use designations and general
development densities and intensities as provided by the Rules
Concerning the Administration of the Countywide Future Land
Use Plan, As Amended adopted by Pinellas County Ordinance No.
89-4 effective February 6, 1989, and subsequent rule amendments.










Table B-1. Continued
Element Issue


FLUE Encouraging Mixed Use Development


Goals/Objectives
Pertaining to Issue
FLUE 1.1, 1.1.3, 1.4,
1.4.3-1.4.6, 1.4.8, 1.4.10,
1.4.14


Recommendations


FLUE Objective 1.1: Future Land Use Map and Land Use
Designations
Development within the City of Indian Rocks Beach shall be in
accordance with the land use categories adopted herein and
continued enforcement of land development regulations consistent
with the comprehensive plan.

Change 1: The success of 'mixed-use' developments is dependent
on location, definition of land use categories by required mix of
uses, proportional distribution of uses within categories, and
density/intensity standards. These factors should be evaluated in
conjunction with visioningg' to define town character and identity.
Revise the following policy to encourage mixed-use developments
and update future land use maps to define physical boundaries for
mixed-use developments:
FLUE Policy 1.1.3: The City of Indian Rocks Beach hereby
adopts those land use categories identified and defined in this
policy as those which shall govern mixed-use development within
the community pursuant to Rule 9J-5.006(3)(c)7, Florida
Administrative Code. Residential/Office General (R/OG), with a
residential density of 0 to 15 units per acre, a maximum floor area
ratio (FAR) of 0.4, and a maximum impervious surface ratio of 0.7
with a citywide percentage land use distribution of 60 to 80
percent residential and 20 to 40 percent office.
Residential/Office/Retail (R/O/R), with a residential density of 0
to 15 units per acre, a maximum FAR of 0.5, and a maximum ISR
of 0.7 with a citywide percentage land use distribution of 0 to 20
percent residential, 0 to 20 percent office, and 10 to 90 percent
commercial. Resort Facility High (RFH), with a residential density
of 0 to 30 units per acre and a maximum FAR of 0.5 and a
maximum ISR of 0.7 with a citywide percentage land use
distribution of 70 to 90 percent residential and 10 to 30 percent
transient accommodation.










Table B-1. Continued
Element Issue Goals/Objectives Recommendations
Pertaining to Issue
FLUE Objective 1.4: Nonresidential Development
Commercial development compatible with environmental and
economic resources shall occur in a planned and orderly fashion.

Change 2: In order to discourage single use developments, the
City of IRB should create disincentives for single uses in a
'mixed-use' land use category and reconsider the
separation and buffering requirement between residential and
commercial uses as described in the following policies:
FLUE Policy 1.4.3: The land development regulations shall
contain provisions which discourage the use of the
Residential/Office/Retail and Residential/Office General land use
categories for single use purposes only.
FLUE Policy 1.4.4: The land development regulations shall
contain provisions which ensure that within any mixed use
development, as appropriate, proper separation and buffering
between residential and nonresidential land uses is maintained.
SRevise the following policy to encourage complementary and
synergistic uses:
FLUE Policy 1.4.5: In order to minimize incompatibility when
residential and commercial land uses share a common boundary,
the land development regulations shall continue to require the
installation of buffering, as appropriate, where there is a change of
use or increase in intensity. Revise the following policies
regarding proportion of commercial uses and quality of life in
accordance with the city's vision for future development:
FLUE Policy 1.4.6: The City shall, through the land development
regulations, encourage the development of commercial uses in
proportion to locally generated demand for these uses.
FLUE Policy 1.4.8: The land development regulations shall
contain provisions which ensure that commercial facilities are
located so as to serve residential land uses without disrupting their
quality of life. Consider prohibiting mixed-use on west side of
Gulf Blvd.:










Table B-1. Continued
Element Issue Goals/Objectives Recommendations
Pertaining to Issue
FLUE Policy 1.4.10: The land development regulations shall
contain provisions establishing the guidelines under which
ancillary commercial uses associated with seasonal tourist
facilities and limited commercial development may be
incorporated into the Resort Facilities High land use category.
Prepare an implementation strategy for the following policy,
including location specific incentives and
exceptions for commercial uses:
FLUE Policy 1.4.11: In order to encourage the best use of the
Residential/Office/Retail, Residential/Office General, and
Commercial General land use categories, the land development
regulations shall include provisions which enhance the
opportunities for the redevelopment or rehabilitation of existing
commercial land uses. Implement the following policy by
identifying specific commercial nodes, such as the Business
District Triangle, and providing incentives for mixed use
development, including parking and density bonuses, in these
specific locations:
FLUE Policy 1.4.14: The land development regulations shall
contain provisions which encourage the concentration or
clustering of commercial activities.










Table B-1. Continued
Element Issue Goals/Objectives
Pertaining to Issue
FLUE Encourage redevelopment as a land development FLUE 1.5
strategy with special emphasis on infill, reuse, and
revitalization.


Recommendations


FLUE Objective 1.5: Redevelopment
The enhancement and protection of the city's existing character
shall be achieved through redevelopment which ensures an orderly
and aesthetic mixture of land uses. The City of IRB should
evaluate the role of redevelopment as a land development strategy
but ensure that the implementation of this objective is in
accordance with its 'vision' for town character and identity.
Prepare an implementation strategy for the
following policies, including incentives for infill and 'mixed-use'
developments, and need-based exceptions from concurrency
standards:
FLUE Policy 1.5.2: The City of Indian Rocks Beach shall
promote business and civic activities in the Business District
Triangle by encouraging redevelopment and revitalization of the
area.
FLUE Policy 1.5.3: The land development regulations shall
contain incentives encouraging redevelopment and/or
revitalization through the use of either the
Residential/Office/Retail or Residential/Office General land use
categories.
FLUE Policy 1.5.4: In order to ensure the continued maintenance
of its beach residential character, the land development regulations
shall contain provisions which enhance the opportunities for the
rehabilitation and/or revitalization of the existing residential
structures, particularly those located west of Gulf Boulevard.
FLUE Policy 1.5.5: The land development regulations shall
contain provisions whereby redevelopment activity is consistent
with the availability of public facilities and services.










Table B-1. Continued
Element Issue Goals/Objectives Recommendations
Pertaining to Issue
FLUE Revaluate Planned Unit Development (PUD) FLUE 1.3, 1.3.1, 1.3.3 FLUE Objective 1.3: Residential Development
regulations. The integrity and quality of life, as exhibited by the
continuation of the city's beach community, family-
oriented, residential character, will be maintained in
residential neighborhoods.
PUDs could serve as an effective tool to promote
infill/redevelopment as well as encourage 'mixed use'
developments (see issue Ic). Revise the following policies
to allow PUDs on smaller development parcels with special
allowances for land uses, density,
dimensional and open space requirements, clustering, etc.:
FLUE Policy 1.3.1: The land development regulations shall
encourage that development or redevelopment of multi-use
projects of one acre or more be developed as a planned unit
development.
FLUE Policy 1.3.3: The planned unit development
regulations shall, at a minimum, address the following:
Allowance for a creative approach for development or
redevelopment; A requirement that more open space be
provided than that called for by the strict application of the
minimum requirements of the land development regulations;
A harmonious development of the site and the surrounding
areas and community facilities while providing safe and
efficient traffic circulation; An allowance for zero lot line,
cluster or other nontraditional lot layout or site design; The
establishment of minimum acreage and dimensional
requirements; The establishment of procedures for the
granting of increase structure height in exchange for
increased open space and decreased amounts of impervious
surfaces; and Other provisions as deemed appropriate by the
city in Continuing with the intent of the Planned Unit.
Source: Renaissance Planning Group, Indian Rocks Beach Evaluation and Appraisal Report, 2006









Review of Comprehensive Plan Elements: Future Land Use


Successes Shortcomings Issues/Recommendations
The City of IRB is successfully The City ofIRB fails to articulate an The City of Indian Rocks Beach (IRB) is mostly
attracting development and overall 'vision' for town character and developed with only 25 acres of vacant land. The
increasing property values are a identity. In order to maintain its small major focus of future development in IRB is
testament to this success. Also, the town character and comply with the redevelopment and revitalization.
city has successfully managed to Countywide Rules, the FLUE requires Key issues related to this element are as follows:
balance redevelopment activity with careful calibration for land use Ensuring continued protection of private
the provision of public facilities and categories, intensity/density standards, property rights, especially of individual small
services. The FLUE is fairly etc., and coordination with the City of property owners.
comprehensive and continues to be IRB Code/Land Development Coordination with Countywide Rules for
implemented effectively. The Regulations and Future Land Use Map. Future Land Use.
FLUE is supportive of the existing The city has not attracted mixed use Encouraging 'mixed-use' development
single family residential development. Encouraging 'redevelopment' as land
development pattern and continues development strategy with emphasis on infill,
to meet targets in terms of FAR/ISR reuse, and revitalization.
and LOS. Addressing the issue of non-conforming
uses.
Amending Planned Unit Development
regulations to address redevelopment
projects.
In order to amend the FLUE, the City of IRB should
undertake community visioning to better define its
goals and objectives with respect to future growth
and development.
Source: Renaissance Planning Group, Indian Rocks Beach Evaluation and Appraisal Report, 2006


Table B-2. Indian Rocks Beach









Table B-3. Indian Rocks Beach EAR Review of Comprehensive Plan Elements: Housing
Successes Shortcomings Issues/Recommendations
The Housing Element strives to High property values reduce equitable Key issues related to the HE are as follows:
achieve a balance between housing access to housing and promote Retaining and expanding transient
quantity and quality for its citizens gentrification of neighborhoods. High accommodation through redeveloping
and visitors alike. The focus of property values also discourage existing hotels and motels.
recent housing development in the commercial development. The Encouraging 'attainable' housing.
City of IRB has been moderate to objectives that address housing Mitigating gentrification of neighborhoods in
high priced condominium housing. conservation and substandard housing the context of increasing property values.
Rising property values demonstrate impede the support for adequate and fair Addressing the issue of displacement.
success of the Housing Element. housing. The housing goals, objectives, and policies for the
City of IRB reflect its vision for future development.
Considering the redevelopment focus of the city
with little vacant land available for development, the
HE should be refocused to address 'attainable'
workforce housing and addressing pressure to
convert existing hotels and motels into
condominiums. 'Attainable housing' combines
issues related to growth and affordability with
innovative approaches to housing design and
property rights.
Source: Renaissance Planning Group, Indian Rocks Beach Evaluation and Appraisal Report, 2006









APPENDIX C
KEY BISCAYNE









Table C-1. Key Biscayne Development Trends: Land Use Changes (1999-2006)*
Land Use Increase/Decrease Percentage
Single-Family Residential Decrease 25%
Public/Semi-Public Decrease 37%
Vacant Land Decrease 24%
Commercial Office Increase 150%
Recreation/Open Space Increase 37%
Conservation/Preservation Increase 32%
Duplex/Triplex/Multifamily Increase 8%
Source: Key Biscayne Evaluation and Appraisal Report, 2007
*According to the most recent evaluation and appraisal report issued in 2006, "The increase in commercial-office land use category
acreage (+150%) is primarily due to resort facilities (approximately 65.82 acres and 1,975 units in 2006). This increase in resort
facilities and the decrease in single family category acreage (-25%) represents a significant increase in seasonal/transient population in
IRB" (Renaissance Planning Group, 2006, pg. 2).









Table C-2. Key Biscayne Citizen Survey Land Use
Results Usable responses were received from some 5,000 survey questionnaires mailed to local residents. The response rate
of almost 20 percent is unusually high. The results were an important consideration in establishing policies for all of
the plan elements but among these results particularly important to the Future Land Use map and policies are the
following:
84 percent want residential development to be at the lowest density possible consistent with the protection of
reasonable property rights
84 percent also said either no more retail development or only "a very limited amount;" 85 percent say the
same about addition office development.
58 percent want public beach access although most want it limited to Village residents; the majority of those
starting an opinion want a bay-front park.
61 percent oppose developments which place apartments above retail uses.
74 percent favor some kind of architectural review process.
Source: Key Biscayne Comprehensive Plan, 1995









Table C-3. Key Biscayne Strengths
Strengths Explanation
Strong Sense of The island's history; the neighborliness and friendliness of its residents; an engaged citizenry; and the
Community physical smallness of the community-create a strong sense of community self-awareness and a desirable
"small-town" environment.
Quality of Life The community's self-reliance; a safe, peaceful, and quiet setting; the beauty, environmental value, and
quality of government, services and amenities contribute to an exceptional quality of life
Location The advantages of convenient proximity to major employment and activity centers in Miami-Dade
County, coupled with the separation and distinct island identity.
Natural The beauty, amenity, and environment value of a barrier island with a tropical landscape and climate, the
Setting/Environment scenic open space and dual waterfront, on the bay and the ocean.
Community Services and The Elemiddle (K-8) school, Village Green, civic center, public safety, and myriad recreational
Facilities opportunities.
Source: Key Biscayne Evaluation and Appraisal Report, 2007









Table C-4. Key Biscayne Weaknesses
Weaknesses Explanation
Community Facilities and Recreational opportunities abound, but insufficient parks and playing fields and a lack of land for
Services future public facilities, deficient maintenance of the community's public spaces.
Mobility, Transportation, and Traffic congestion, lack of pedestrian/bike/golf cart provisions and related safety concerns, lack of
Parking connectivity between individual commercial uses, as a well as between the commercial and
residential areas, and issues related to what is perceived as unsatisfactory performance of existing
traffic calming treatments/poor execution of traffic calming techniques.
Growth and Development Perception of excessive density, the construction of new homes which are out of scale with the size
Impacts of lots and with the surrounding development, blocked views of the water, and overcrowded
facilities.
Changing Community A growing non-permanent/transient population; the loss of "island spirit," which is manifest in,
among other things, a lack of respect for the community's public areas, apathy/lack of involvement,
and seeming elitism and sense of entitlement.
Infrastructure Deficiencies cited include the incomplete central sewer, the presence of overhead utilities, storm
drainage problems, and poor road maintenance.
Planning/Zoning/Regulations Weak or ineffective planning and regulations; lack of long-term "vision"; lack of or inconsistent
enforcement.
High Cost of Living Higher costs associated with living in a coastal community, from disaster insurance to construction
costs, increasing property values, and lack of affordable housing; all have the effect of decreasing
the diversity of the community.
Limited Range of Retail and In particular, the small number and variety of restaurants, the narrow range of retailers and services,
Services and limited cultural/entertainment features and venues.
Source: Key Biscayne Evaluation and Appraisal Report, 2007










Table C-5. Key Biscayne Opportunities
Opportunities Explanation
Parks and Open Space To acquire land for additional parks, to expand ocean/bay access, to develop trails and protect
natural areas.
Community To expand the recreation center, to build a community theater and other cultural facilities, to
Services/Facilities/Amenities improve education and consider a high school.
Improve To reduce vehicular congestion, provide additional facilities/improve connectivity for pedestrian,
Transportation/Circulation cyclists and golf carts, provide commercial area access from Fernwood, and expand public
transportation and traffic calming.
Development/Redevelopment To control density and intensity, preserve needed services and businesses, control building scale,
Controls and improve landscape requirements.
Community Interactions To improve communication/dialogue among diverse community groups as well as between the
Village and its residents, to improve civic involvement
Seniors and Families To provide for elder care on island, encourage affordable housing.
Infrastructure To improve road conditions, expand/complete the sewer system, to upgrade lighting, signage,
landscaping, and stormwater.
S Source: Key Biscayne Evaluation and Appraisal Report, 2007










Table C-6. Key Biscayne Threats
Threats
Overpopulation/Unfettered
Development
Impacts of External Development
Degradation of the Environment
Traffic/Mobility/Parking

Village Government


Loss of Community
Character/Identity


Explanation
Rezonings to increase density, oversized homes impacting older neighborhoods, lose of "small
town" character.
Excessive development/traffic generation from Virginia Key and causeway development.
Beach erosion, pollution, and the loss of biological diversity, open space and scenic beauty.
Congestion and delays related to the single island accessway, increased traffic, and safety
problems.
Unresponsive, bureaucratic, over-restrictive, fiscal limitations, lack of intergovernmental
coordination.
Degraded aesthetics, loss of community spirit, factionalism, excess tourism/visitation.


Hurricanes/Natural Threats Lack of preparedness, failure to evacuate, power failures, storm surge.
High Cost of Living Ever-escalating property values and taxes are perceived as a potential threat to the quality of life
and socioeconomic diversity of the community.
Schools Lack of a high school; overcrowded classrooms.
00 Source: Key Biscayne Evaluation and Appraisal Report, 2007









Table C-7. Key Biscayne Assessment of the Future Land Use Element Goals, Objectives, and Policies
Goals, Element Implementation Status
Objectives,
and Policies


Objective 1.1


Policy 1.1.1





Policy 1.1.2


Objective 1.2








Policy 1.2.1


Future Land Use Categories: Maintain existing
development and achieve new development and
redevelopment which is consistent with the community
character statement articulated in Goal 1.
By statutory deadline or sooner, enact and enforce land
development code consistent with the Future Land Use
Map (FLUM)



Until adoption of the Land Development Code (LDC),
regulate development according to the FLUM, including
specified land uses, densities and intensities.
Commercial Redevelopment: By 2004, achieve private
revitalization of at least one Crandon Boulevard
property that has a blighted impact on the Village.





By statutory deadline or sooner, enact and enforce land
development code standards and incentives to achieve
new development, renovate development and or
redevelopment that meets high signage, landscaping,
circulation/parking and other standards.


Implemented: The Land Development Code is consistent
with the Master Plan.


Implemented: Ongoing. At the time of adoption of the
Master Plan the Land Development Code was based on
County Zoning. However, VKB Single Family -
Residential (SF-R) and remaining zoning districts were
amended on 10/24/00 and 5/9/00, respectively to be made
consistent with the Master Plan.
Implemented.


Implemented: The CVS shopping center was previously a
vacant grocery store before being renovated in 2003. The
parking lot, landscaping, and facades were all redone. The
building at 800 Crandon Boulevard was a decaying service
station site before it was demolished and replaced with a
new hardware store in 2001. 560 Crandon Boulevard was
demolished in 2005; the site is currently being cleaned up
for an office building.
Implemented: See below.









Table C-7. Continued
Goals, Element
Objectives,
and Policies
All new development, renovated development and
redevelopment consistent with FLUM.


Implementation Status


Implemented. At the time of adoption of the Master Plan
the Land Development Code was based on County Zoning.
However, VKB Single Family Residential (SF-R) and
remaining zoning districts were amended on 10/24/00 and
5/9/00, respectively to be made consistent with the Master
Plan.


Source: WRT, Key Biscayne Evaluation and Appraisal Report, 2006


Table C-8. Key Biscayne Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendments
Ordinance 95-8 Amended densities permitted within the "Medium Density Multifamily and Ocean Resort Hotel" land use
category in the Master Plan, separating the tabulation of density for multifamily residential uses and hotel uses
located on the same lot.
Ordinance 97-17 Amended the land use designation on the Future Land Use Map from Medium Density Single Family Residential
to Two Family Residential for seventeen parcels of property on Fernwood Road specified in the appendix of the
ordinance.
Ord. 97-17 and Amended the Future Land Use Map for the property at 800 Crandon Boulevard, changing it from the "office" to
Ord. 2000-1 "commercial" category.


Source: WRT, Key Biscayne Evaluation and Appraisal Report, 2006









Table C-9. Key Biscayne EAR Issue E
Issue Explanation
Implications of Redevelopment Due to ever-escalating property values and the unavailability of vacant land, pressures for
redevelopment continue to grow. Redevelopment issues remain a major concern of the Village. The
replacement of homes built in the 1950s and 1960s with new homes has resulted in increases in
population and vehicular traffic, as well as in visual impacts related to the scale and massing of new
buildings. In addition, existing, older rental apartment buildings will either be substantially
renovated or demolished and replaced with new condominium buildings. The conversion of
apartment buildings affects the availability of housing at price points that might attract seniors,
young adults and others that would enhance the diversity of the community. Similarly, concerns
exist about the impacts that redevelopment of the Sonesta Resort and the Silver Sands Motel sites
might have on density, building mass, traffic and local businesses.
Assessment of Success in Redevelopment's three pronged effect on the island the alteration of the affordability and
implementing Master Plan diversity of housing stock, appearance, and levels of traffic has been addressed over the last
objectives related to issue decade in varying degrees.
Affordability and Diversity Appreciating property values and redevelopment continues to reduce the affordability and diversity
of housing in Key Biscayne. In recent years several rental properties have been converted to
condominiums, thereby diminishing the availability of rental units. Through a variety of
mechanisms, the Village has made and is in the process of making efforts to curb this trend. For
example, it
Converted the zoning designation of several properties on Fernwood Road to be Two-
Family in order to diversify the housing stock. Several of these properties are rentals.
Permit group housing in all multi-family districts.
Monitors the production of housing the larger metro areas to ensure regional needs are met.
Through the 2020 Vision process, continues to discuss the needs of its elderly population
and will continue to explore the feasibility of providing incentives for the provision of
assisted living facilities in the Key.
Explores innovative solutions to increase the affordability and diversity of the stock while
maintaining compliance with Coastal High Hazard Area regulations.









Table C-9. Continued
Issue Explanation
Issues with providing affordable However the Village's ability to provide affordable housing is constrained by several
housing factors:
As a Coastal High Hazard Area within floodplain designation AE, the Village is not
permitted to approve any development applications that would serve to increase density
beyond what exists or is allowed by current zoning and/or vested rights
The Village is almost entirely built out. Purchasing property from the very limited supply of
vacant land would be costly and burden the debt cap. This is in conflict with Policy 1.3.1 of
the Capital Improvements Element of the Master Plan, which states that the 'capital
improvement program schedule shall not include projects that would achieve significantly
more intensive development than authorized by this plan by directly causing developer
applications for Land Use Plan or zoning map amendments.'...
Because the Village is bordered by Biscayne Bay to the west, county-owned Calusa and Crandon
Parks to the north, the Atlantic Ocean to the East, and Bill Baggs Cape Florida State Park to the
south, annexation is not an option.
Source: WRT, Evaluation and Appraisal Report, 2007









APPENDIX D
MARCO ISLAND









Table D-l: Marco Island EAR Issues Redevelopment


Issue
Redevelopment


Description
As stated in the original
Data and Analysis
discussion, "There are two
types of redevelopment the
City should be involved
with. The first is the
redevelopment of individual
properties and structures.
Those should be adequately
addressed via the
architectural and site design
guideline study. The second
type of redevelopment
involves a larger scale
project, a process in which
specific areas are reviewed
for the potential for area-
wide redevelopment..."
(2001)


Progress Made
The City has adopted
enhanced architectural
and site design
guidelines for
commercial and mixed-
use projects. These
design regulations
govern the development
and redevelopment of
commercial properties,
and have resulted in
significant improvements
to building facades and
on-site amenities.


Future Direction
City Council has held
numerous discussions on the
topic of redevelopment, both
in terms of density and
intensity. Council is
supportive of efforts to
thoroughly evaluate bulk
regulations (e.g., heights,
setbacks), and possible
density reductions for
mixed-use projects. Council
is concerned with the
potential redevelopment of
low-rise multifamily
projects along Collier
Boulevard, and the need to
implement regulations that
will avoid "canyonization"
along the corridor. In
addition, immediate
attention and action should
be directed to provide
transitional relief (e.g.,
building height, bulk
regulations) at locations
where higher
density/intensity multi-
family zoning districts abut,
or are separated by an alley,
from lower density/intensity
single-family zoning


Proposed Action
Identify opportunities to
reduce overall Island density
below 4 dwelling units per
net acre, and adopt Future
Land Use Element policy
with new target density.
Investigate creation of a
"Collier Boulevard Overlay"
to control future
redevelopment of
multifamily properties
consistent with the
community's vision of a
small, tropical town. And as
stated above, immediate
attention and action should
be directed to provide
transitional relief (e.g.,
building height, bulk
regulations) at locations
where higher
density/intensity multi-
family zoning districts abut,
or are separated by an alley,
from lower density/intensity
single-family zoning
districts. Review
development standards for
mixed-use projects, with
possible reductions in height
and density. Review existing









Table D-1. Continues
Issue Description


Progress Made


Future Direction
districts. Council is also
interested in the increasing
number of residential
teardowns, and the
maximization of the
building envelope for new
single-family dwellings.
Council indicated support
for review of current bulk
regulations for single-family
development, and the
possible need to amend
setback regulations for
multiple-story structures.


Proposed Action
single-family development
standards, with possible
amendment to side yard
setbacks for multiple story
structures.


Source: Marco Island, Evaluation and Appraisal Report, 2005









Table D-2. Marco Island EAR Issue Mixed Use Development


Issue
Mixed Use
Development


Description
"The concept of Mixed Use
Development has been espoused
on Marco Island since the
adoption of the Marco Island
Master Plan (MIMP).
Unfortunately, the MIMP and
the Land Development Code do
not fully define and provide
clear guidelines as to how
potential mixed-use projects
will be reviewed and approved.
Mixed Use development
provides a tremendous
opportunity for a prudent use of
commercial land, yet needs to
be refined to prevent possible
abuses, which could undermine
and detract from commercially
zoned properties." (2001)


Future Direction
While generally pleased
with the appearance of
recent mixed-use
projects, there have been
concerns raised as to the
intensity of
developments.


Progress Made
Upon adoption of the original
comprehensive plan the City
adopted a new land
development code that
provided for mixed use
development as a conditional
use within the C-l, C-2, C-3
and C-4 commercial zoning
districts. Within each
commercial zoning district the
terms and conditions for a
potential mixed-use project are
outlined, including maximum
density, commercial/residential
area ratios, and maximum
heights. Mixed-use projects
must undergo public hearings
before both the Planning Board
and City Council prior to final
approval. Such projects are
also subject to adopted
commercial architectural and
site design guidelines.
Examples of approved mixed-
use projects include the
Esplanade, Provence of Marco,
and Royal Crown.


Source: Marco Island, Evaluation and Appraisal Report, 2005


Proposed Action
Prepare zoning text
amendments to reduce the
intensity and maximum
building heights for
mixed-use projects.
Prepare a comprehensive
plan amendment to
reduce the allowable
density for mixed use
projects to a percentage
(to be determined later) of
the current allowable
underlying zoning district
density.









Table D-3. Marco Island
Issue
Rezoning


EAR Issue Rezoning
Description
"The temptation to rezone
property to accommodate
a desired project can be
very seductive to a
community. Nevertheless
the City of Marco Island
should be wary of any
further rezoning that
would deviate from the
Future Land Use Plan.
The City has inherited a
well conceived and
designed master planned
community. The initial
development plan of the
Mackle brothers and the
Deltona Corporation has
been held true over the
past 35 years. The Future
Land Use Plan developed
in conjunction with the
Marco Island Master Plan
(MIMP) reaffirmed the
community's desire to see
the continuation of the
Deltona development
plan." (2001)


Progress Made
There has been limited
rezoning of property on
Marco Island since
incorporation. Three large
PUD's have been
approved (Glon, Pier 81,
and the Marriott), as well
as one smaller PUD (Olde
Marco Inn). Two other
properties, totaling less
than one acre have also
been rezoned. An
ordinance has been
approved increasing the
minimum acreage
requirement for
consideration of a PUD,
which has proven
effective.
In March 2004 the City
adopted a new Future
Land Use Map with eight
amendments. Those
amendments reflected the
PUD's, properties
acquired for public use,
and two small parcels
recommended for
commercial zoning.


Future Direction Proposed Action
The City will continue to No specific actions) are
utilize the Future Land proposed at this time.
Use Map as policy
guidance to assess and
address rezoning
petitions.


Source: Marco Island, Evaluation and Appraisal Report, 2005









Table D-4. Marco Island
Issue
Commercial Space


Future Direction
The City should
investigate and evaluate
the potential of creating a
Community
Redevelopment District
for the Elkcam Circle
area.


Proposed Action
Initiate investigation and
assessment of the Elkcam
Circle area as a candidate
site for a CRA.


density, residential zoned
areas, which a) limit the
ability for future
expansion, and b) places
potential high intensity
development in close
proximity to low intensity
residential uses. With the
constraints imposed the
City must take an active
role in ensuring that our
commercial resources are
utilized wisely and
available for the level of
commercial usage
expected from a
residential community."
(2001)
Source: Marco Island, Evaluation and Appraisal Report, 2005


EAR Issue Commercial Space
Description Progress Made
"Based on the original Since adoption of the
master plan layout for the Comprehensive Plan the
community and the desire City has reviewed and
to restrict commercial adopted commercial
development, the amount zoning standards and
of land zoned for regulations.
commercial purposes is
limited. As such, the
existing commercial areas
are surrounded by low-









APPENDIX E
NEPTUNE BEACH

No redevelopment or infill development information was available.









APPENDIX F
SANIBEL









Table F-1. Sanibel Approximate Acreage of Land Uses 2006 compared to 1995
Land Use Category 2006


Conservation Uses
Residential Uses
Vacant/Undeveloped
Land
Recreation Uses
Roadways
Commercial Uses
Public Facilities
Other Uses
Industrial Uses
Agricultural Uses


Acreage
7200
2550
400


%
62.1
22.0
3.4


Acreage
6850
2475
815


Rec
650


1995
:alculated
0


4-1-16-5


%
59.1
21.3
7.0


Recalculated
i6-0


575
500
150
60
175
0
0


Total 11,600 100
Sources: Sanibel Planning Department, Sanibel Plan, 2007


Table F-2. Characteristics of Sanibel
Total Area of Sanibel
Principal Use
Year of Incorporation
Located within a Floodplain
Areas of Critical State Concern
Expansion of Corporate Boundaries

Percentage of dwelling units constructed


11,600


100


17.5 Square Miles (11,600 acres)
Conservation Area (60%)
1974
Yes
No
In 1990, expanded corporate limits /2 mile offshore; into the
coastal waters on State owned submerged land.
92%









Table F-3. Sanibel Land Use Projections: Dwelling Units at Buildout (2026)
Projected amount of dwelling units constructed 800
Dwelling units located in existing developments 600
Dwelling units located on vacant/undeveloped land 200

Table F-4. Sanibel Approximate Acreage of Land Uses Buildout (2026)
Land Use Category Acreage %
Conservation Uses 7375 63.6
Residential Uses 2625 22.6
Vacant/Undeveloped Land 0 0.0
Recreation Uses 600 5.2
Roadways 525 4.5
Commercial Uses 175 1.5
Public Facilities 75 0.7
Other Uses 225 1.9
Industrial Uses 0 0.0
Agricultural Uses 0 0.0

TOTAL 11,600 100
Source: Sanibel Planning Department, Sanibel Plan, 2007

Table F-5. Sanibel Negative Externalities to the Local Economy and Redevelopment
Destruction caused by Hurricane Charley Resort housing was affected which results in less tax revenue
Increased tolls on the Sanibel Causeway The local economy has been negatively impacted by the
substantial increase, instituted by Lee County, in tolls to cross the
Sanibel Causeway









Table F-6. Sanibel Plan Goals, Obiectives, and Policies


Goal
Statement A


Objective Al
Policy A 1.1


Policy A1.2


Policy A1.3

Objective B2

Policy B2.1

Objective B6



Objective B7


Policy B7.1


Objective B9
Policy B9.1


The three-part statement of the community's vision of its future is a hierarchy; one in which the dominant principle is
Sanibel's sanctuary quality. Sanibel shall be developed as a community only to the extent to which it retains and
embraces this quality of sanctuary. Sanibel will serve as attraction only to the extent to which it retains its desired
qualities as sanctuary and community.
Sanibel shall remain a small town.
The City of Sanibel will foster quality, harmony, and beauty in all forms of human alteration of the environment. The
community aesthetic is defined as a casual style; one which is adapted to a relaxed island quality of life and respectful
of local history, weather, culture and natural systems.
The City of Sanibel chooses to remain unique through a development pattern that reflects the predominance of natural
conditions and characteristics over human intrusions. All forms of development and redevelopment will preserve the
community's unique small town identity.
The City of Sanibel chooses to preserve its rural character. "Auto-urban" development influences will be avoided. The
commercialization of natural resources will be limited and strictly controlled.
As development anticipated in the Future Land Use Element occurs, protect natural resources, including soils, by
limiting development as a percentage of total land area.
Protect natural resources by application of best management practices and continued implementation of the
development regulations and performance standards of the Land Development Code.
Development, consistent with the Future Land Use Map, that is consistent with densities and permitted uses regulated
by the Development Intensity Maps, the Ecological Zones Maps, the Commercial District Map, Wetlands
Conservation Lands Map and the Resort Housing District Map, will be managed by implementation and enforcement
of the Land Development Code.
To discourage sprawl, ensure that future development is consistent with the Future Land Use Map that is consistent
with the densities and permitted uses regulated by Development Intensity Maps, the Ecological Zones Maps, the
Commercial District Map, Wetlands Conservation Lands Map and the Resort Housing District Map.
The Plan for Permitted Uses, the Plan for Residential Development Intensity, the Plan for Commercial Development
and the Plan for Community Design will continue to be implemented by the development regulations and performance
standards of the Land Development Code.
Continue the implementation of innovative land development regulations to achieve the objectives of the Plan.
Annually review the Land Development Code to consider innovative techniques that can improve achievement of Plan
objectives.


Source: Sanibel Plan, 2007









APPENDIX G
ST. PETE BEACH









Table G-1. St. Pete Beach Redevelopment Recap: Where we stand?
Name of Description Status
Redevelopment
Project
Redevelopment As required by the recent charter amendments, all Comprehensive Plan Amendments and increase in Ongoing
Plan allowable building heights must be approved by the voters. Workshops on the subject have not yet
been rescheduled but may begin as early as the end of the summer 2007. Any new Comprehensive
Plan amendments will need to be approved by all agencies by early January in order to be placed on
the March 2008 ballot. [There was no indication that plan amendments were going to be approved
by early January]
Dolphin Village In November 2006, residents voted to not repeal Division 43 of the Land Development Code. On Ongoing
February 14, 2007, RMC Property Group, owners of Dolphin Village, applied for a rezoning under
Division 43 to reconstruct the shopping center with a mixed use development. The project includes
100,000 sq/ft of new commercial development, including a new 45,000 sq/ft grocery store, as well as
a 175 unit, seven story residential building. The City Commission approved the project which is
currently under appeal in Circuit Court by several residents. Assuming the approval stands, the
property owners have indicated it is likely at least two years before any construction activity begins.
East Corey Voters did not approve the vacation of Corey Circle for the Corey Landings project which will not Ongoing
allow the previously approved site plan to move forward. Staff is working with the owners to
demolish the existing structures on the site. The property owners have not submitted a revised site
plan to the city.
Pass-A-Grille The Planning Board and City staff have been working on a number of planning issues relating to 8th Ongoing
Avenue and the small tourist lodging facilities. The primary goal is to assure any redevelopment on
8th Avenue is consistent with historic development pattern of the area and that we retain some
presence of small tourist lodging facilities that were all made non-conforming nearly twenty years
ago. Changes will require amendments to the Comprehensive Plan that will require numerous public
hearings and a public referendum before they can be enacted.
Source: St. Pete Beach Municipal Website, 2007, http://www.stpetebeach.org/sub/devel/redevelopment.html









Table G-2. St. Pete Beach Locally Identified Issues
Issue # Description
2 St. Pete Beach, like many areas in
Florida, has faced increased
redevelopment pressures since the last
update to the Comprehensive Plan. The
City is built out, and many of the older
hotels, motels, and commercial buildings
are reaching the point of functional
obsolescence. The City Commission
initiated the visioning process in 2002 in
an effort to solicit the input from
residents (including those that are
seasonal) and business owners about
their future vision for the city. The
Master Planning process developed
frameworks for renewal and proposed
comprehensive plan amendments
establishing several community
redevelopment districts as an approach
to address this issue. Although the
citizens of St. Pete Beach eventually
repealed these comprehensive plan
amendments (previously adopted by the
City Commission) in November 2006,
there are components of this issue that
should still be addressed. Components of
this issue include:


- Issue 2
Recommendations)
St. Pete Beach should develop a
comprehensive community
redevelopment approach to look further
at these issues. The City should reassess
the Community Redevelopment Plan that
was rejected by voters in November 2006
to determine if revisions or modifications
to that plan could be made to address the
community's concerns. Additionally, a
comprehensive assessment of the current
status of the tourist lodging industry
should be undertaken to examine future
likely trends and to provide an economic
analysis of what kinds of units are being
built. This would allow the City to make
informed decisions regarding the land
use regulations needed to implement
and/or to facilitate redevelopment.


Objectives and Policies
The current Future Land Use Element
demonstrates the desire of the
community
to exist as a residential community
benefiting from the economics of
tourism.
Goal 1 states:
The City shall ensure that the residential
character of the City of St. Pete Beach is
maintained and protected while:
Maximizing the potential for
economic benefit resulting from the
tourist trade and the enjoyment of
natural and man-made resources by
citizens and visitors alike;
Minimizing the threat to health,
safety, and welfare posed by hazards,
nuisances, incompatible land uses,
and environmental degradation; and
Maintaining the community's
recreation, open space and beaches.
[Emphasis Added]









Table G-2. Continued
Issue # Description
Maintaining or attracting new
investment into the tourist lodging
facilities while maintaining the quality
of life for the City's residents
Protecting existing single-family
neighborhoods from encroachment by
incompatible uses
Preserving the City's community
infrastructure and maintaining "small
town feel"


Recommendations)
The City should consider revisiting the
visioning process in order to better
understand what the community desires.
It will be important to find an appropriate
method for reaching a representative mix
of citizens so that a clear perspective on
what they like and don't like, as well as
their expectations for what their local
government should be doing about
planning and land use issues can be
discussed.
Staff should assess the City's LDRs to
address concerns regarding incompatible
use impacts are mitigated, as well as to
review the consistency of currently
permitted uses within the RFM District
with Policy 1.3.6. Additionally, the
LDRs should be revised such that a
minimum of 51 percent of the use of
mixed-use projects is required to be
consistent with the primary use of the
applicable future land use classification
as established by the Comprehensive
Plan.


Objectives and Policies
Within this Goal, Policy 1.1.5 attempts
to protect residential uses from
encroachment of incompatible uses
through the Land Development
Regulations (LDRs). The City's LDRs,
however, should be reviewed and
updated to ensure the impacts of
incompatible uses are properly
mitigated in light of the increasing
redevelopment pressure in St. Pete
Beach.
Policies 1.3.5 and 1.3.6 encourage the
maintenance of tourist lodging
facilities in keeping with the character
of the community and prohibit the
conversion or development of tourist
lodging units for use as permanent
residential dwellings within several
land use categories. Additionally,
Objective 1.4 states:

Co,,siteut ii ith this comprehensive
plan, as amended, the City of St. Pete
Beach shall enhance and protect the
City's character through the
encouragement of redevelopment
which ensures an orderly and aeI'/ theti
mixture of land uses.









Table G-2. Continued
Issue # Description


Recommendations)


Objectives and Policies
This is achieved through several
policies encouraging "the adaptive re-
use of no longer viable commercial
properties" and the "rehabilitation
and/or revitalization of existing
residential structures allowing for a
mixture of compatible residential and
non-residential uses within a single
development site." While the
Comprehensive Plan policies
encourage of mixture of uses within a
project, the LDRs should ensure that
most of the land area is consistent with
the primary use of the applicable land
use classification.


Source: St. Pete Beach, Evaluation and Appraisal Report, 2007










Table G-3. St. Pete Beach Locally Identified Issues Issue 3
Issue Description Recommendation(s)

3 Rising land costs, a lack of undeveloped None listed that apply
land, and its location within the Coastal
High Hazard Area (CHHA) exacerbate
the issue, making it nearly impossible to
address the issue solely within the
boundaries of the City itself. St. Pete
Beach recognizes the importance of
coordinating where possible to reduce
roadblocks to the construction of a
variety of housing types and to
coordinate with Pinellas County to find
a multi- jurisdictional solution to a
regional issue.
Source: St. Pete Beach, Evaluation and Appraisal Report, 2007


Objectives and Policies

None listed that apply










Table G-4. St. Pete Beach Locally Identified Issues Issue 6
Issue # Description Recommendation(s) Objectives and Policies
6 St. Pete Beach residents have expressed St. Pete Beach should analyze the relationship between None listed
concerns regarding the potential for increased the allowable Plan densities and actual densities within
development densities within the city through the City to determine if the densities should be reduced in
the use of as yet undeveloped units allowed by the context of the Future Land Use Plan.
the Future Land Use Plan Map. Of particular
concern is the allowed density for both
residential and transient accommodations within
the city; while a mixture of residential and
transient lodging is allowed in many Future
Land Use classifications, these densities have
not been actualized to date and if they were to
be, there could be very significant increases in
the built density of St. Pete Beach. Density has
been limited in part by differences between the
City's Future Land Use Plan and the maximum
allowable densities within the City's zoning
categories. Detailed data regarding the extent of
this difference between existing residential and
o transient unit counts by Future Land Use
classification for the entire City of St. Pete
Beach is not currently available; in 2005,
however, staff completed field counts of existing
residential and transient units within the
proposed Community Redevelopment District
(CRD) and compared existing counts with the
numbers of units allowed on the Future Land
Use Map. The proposed CRD encompassed the
entire downtown business district and the large
resort areas on the Gulf of Mexico. Although the
CRD was later repealed by referendum in 2006,
the data is representative of the issue
Source: St. Pete Beach, Evaluation and Appraisal Report, 2007










Table G-5. St. Pete Beach Vacant Land Analysis (County Figures)
Vacant Lots Remaining
Approximate Acres Remaining
Arithmetic Mean Size of the Vacant Lots
Lots Smaller than the Mean
Lots Larger than 1 Acre
Source: St. Pete Beach, Evaluation and Appraisal Report, 2007


99
24 (1/6 of total land area)
0.245 Acres (approximately /4 acre)


Table G-6. St. Pete Beach Vacant Land Analysis Based on a Windshield Survey
Vacant Lots Remaining 60 (Represent parcels recently developed, have permits issued for
the construction of improvements on the lots, or are serving other
purposes such as parking for local businesses)
Vacant Lots Remaining 38 (approximately 6 acres or 0.4%)*
, Source: St. Pete Beach, Evaluation and Appraisal Report, 2007
This does not take into account what would actually be available for development (e.g. for sale).









Table G-7.
FLUE
1.1/1.1.1
FLUE
1.1.2


FLUE
1.1.5




FLUE
1.1.6


FLUE
1.2.2








FLUE
1.3.1


St. Pete Beach Assessment of Objectives and Policies Future Land Use Element
Lists the different land use categories in St. Pete Beach

The City shall, through the land development regulations, encourage a balanced land use mix providing a variety of
housing styles, densities and open space.
Status: Ongoing
Recommendation for change: "Balanced" not clearly measurable. Should consider revising.
Through the enforcement of the land development regulations, existing residential areas shall be protected from the
encroachment of incompatible uses; likewise, other land use areas shall be protected from the encroachment of
incompatible residential uses.
Status: Ongoing
Recommendation for change: LDRs define allowable uses and other requirements for each category, consistent with the
FLUE. No policy revisions required. Revise LDRs to address Locally Identified Issue #2.
The conservation, maintenance and rehabilitation of existing residential areas shall be encouraged through provisions
contained in the land development regulations and other applicable City codes.
Status: Achieved
Recommendation for change: Achieved. No policy revisions required.
The site plan review provisions, as contained in the land development regulations, shall, at a minimum, address the
following:
Allowance for a creative approach for development of redevelopment
A harmonious development of the site with consideration given to the surrounding areas and community
facilities, while providing for safe and efficient traffic circulation
Status: Not achieved
Recommendation for change: LDRs are not in place that require "more open space, if practical, be provided" or that
establish "procedures for the granting of increased structure height..." No policy changes required, but LDRs need to be
updated. Additionally, the City should review the policy provisions allowing height variances.
Within any mixed use development, as appropriate, proper separation and buffering between residential and
nonresidential land uses shall be maintained through the administration of the land development regulations.
Status: Not achieved
Recommendation for change: This policy has not been implemented. Additionally, there appears to be a contradiction
between mixed-use development and a separation of uses. Consider revising language of policy.










Table G-7. Continued
FLUE 1.4 Consistent with this comprehensive plan, as amended, the City of St. Pete Beach shall enhance and protect the City's character through
the encouragement of redevelopment which ensures an orderly and aesthetic mixture of land uses.
Status: Ongoing
Recommendation for change: St. Pete Beach citizens recognize the importance of ensuring that whatever redevelopment may occur at some
point in the future provides an orderly and aesthetic mix of land uses. This objective is an ongoing task for the city, and discussions regarding
what type of redevelopment the community desires are still taking place.
FLUE 1.4.1 The City shall, through administration of the land development regulations, encourage the redevelopment or rehabilitation of existing non-
residential areas and uses.
Status: Not achieved
Recommendation for change: Redevelopment or rehabilitation of existing non-residential areas is not occurring. This policy may be revised to
include language regarding the limitation of density and intensity.
FLUE 1.4.2 The City shall, through administration of the land development regulations, encourage the adaptive re-use of no longer viable commercial
properties.
Status: Not achieved
Recommendation for change: No policy changes required, but LDRs need to be updated.
FLUE 1.4.3 The City shall, while emphasizing residential uses, encourage the creative redevelopment of non-viable properties by allowing for a mixture of
compatible residential and non-residential uses within a single development site.
Status: Ongoing
Recommendation for change: Planned Developments are allowed only within lands designated Commercial General and Resort Facility
- Medium north of 37th Ave. RFM lands must be east of Gulf Boulevard to be considered for PD. Policy revisions may be considered. Revise
LDRs to address Locally Identified Issue #2.
FLUE 1.4.4 In order to ensure the continued maintenance of its beach residential character, the City, through administration of the land development
regulations, shall encourage the rehabilitation and/or revitalization of existing residential structures.
Status: Ongoing
Recommendation for change: Achieved. No policy revisions required.
FLUE 1.5 Existing land uses or structures which are either incompatible or inconsistent with the adopted Future Land Use Element shall be
deemed non-conforming as of the effective date of this comprehensive plan and be encouraged to be eliminated through redevelopment
of such uses or structures; however, existing residential densities shall be grand-fathered except when excess residential units have been
abandoned voluntarily.
Status: Achieved
Recommendation for change: Actual Result: This objective has been implemented and has been somewhat effective. During the EAR-based
amendment phase, this objective may be revised to include considerations for tourist lodging facilities that may be considered non-conforming
but are an important aspect of the community's economy.









Table G-7. Continued
FLUE 1.9.1 As administered by the land development regulations, the City of St. Pete Beach shall ensure that all development and
redevelopment taking place within its municipal boundaries does not result in a reduction of the level of service
requirements established and adopted in this comprehensive plan.
Status: Achieved
Recommendation for change: Division 29 (Concurrency Management) has been implemented in order to meet this
policy requirement. No policy revisions required.
FLUE 1.9.6 Consistent with this Comprehensive Plan, as amended, all permits for future development and redevelopment activities
shall be issued only if public facilities necessary to meet the level of service standards adopted pursuant to this
comprehensive plan are available concurrent with the impacts of the development.
Status: Achieved
Recommendation for change: Accomplished through concurrency requirements. No policy change.
FLUE The City of St. Pete Beach will continue to ensure that development and redevelopment projects do not adversely
1.12.1 impact neighboring governmental jurisdictions including the cities of Treasure Island, St. Petersburg, South Pasadena
and Pinellas County by including these communities in the site plan review process, where applicable.
Status: Achieved
Recommendation for change: St. Pete Beach sends information regarding any amendments and rezonings to the PPC,
TBRPC, and neighboring communities for review. No policy revisions required.
FLUE 2.3.3 The City shall permit no new developments where the facilities and services are not available or planned to be available
in accordance with the Concurrency Management System adopted in 1992 as Chapter 102, St. Pete Beach code of
Ordinances, as amended.
Status: Achieved
Recommendation for change: Division 29 of the LDRs regulates concurrency management. Chapter 102 of the St. Pete
Beach code of Ordinances was repealed in December 2004. Revisions required to update references.
FLUE 4.1 Recognizing that the City of St. Pete Beach is located on a barrier island, future growth and development shall be
managed through the preparation, adoption, implementation and enforcement of land development regulations
consistent with this adopted Comprehensive Plan, as amended.
Status: Ongoing
Recommendation for change: Actual Result: The EAR process has helped to identify sections of the LDRs that
need to be updated to be consistent with the 1998 comprehensive plan. The LDRs will be updated accordingly
following the EAR-based amendments phase. No objective revisions required.









APPENDIX H
TREASURE ISLAND









Table H-1. Treasure Island Mixed Use and Density
Element Objective Description
or Policy
FLUE Policy 1.1.3 The City of Treasure Island hereby adopts those land use categories identified and defined in this policy as
those which shall govern mixed-use development within the community pursuant to Rule 9J-5.006(3)(c)7,
Florida Administrative Code.
Resort Facilities Medium-30 (RFM-30), with a residential density of 0 to 15 units per acre and a
tourist accommodation density of 0 to 30 units per acre with a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of
0.65 and an impervious surface ratio (ISR) of 0.85 with a percentage distribution of 50 to 70 percent
residential, 30 to 50 percent tourist accommodation, and 10 to 20 percent "other."
Resort Facilities High-50 (RFH-50), with a residential density of 0 to 15 units per acre and a tourist
accommodation density of 0 to 50 units per acre with a maximum FAR of 1.2 and an ISR of 0.95 with
a percentage distribution of 30 to 60 percent residential, 40 to 70 percent tourist accommodation, and
5 to 10 percent "other."
FLUE Policy 1.1.4 The City of Treasure Island hereby adopts those land use categories identified and defined in this policy as
those which shall govern other development within the community pursuant to Rule 9J-5.006(3)(c)7, Florida
Administrative Code.
Commercial General (CG), with a density of 0 to 22 units per acre for tourist accommodations, a
maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.55, and an impervious surface ratio (ISR) of 0.9
Recreation Open Space, (R/OS), with a maximum FAR of 0.25 and ISR of 0.6 (special permit required)
Preservation (P), with a maximum FAR of 0.1 and ISR of 0.2 (special permit required)
Institutional (I), with a maximum FAR of 0.55 and ISR of 0.75
Transportation/Utility (T/U), with a maximum FAR of 0.55 and ISR of 0.75
Source: Treasure Island, Comprehensive Plan, 1999









Table H-2. Treasure Island Redevelopment
Element Objective or Description
Policy


FLUE Objective
1.5
FLUE Policy 1.5.1

FLUE Policy 1.5.2


FLUE Policy 1.5.3


FLUE Policy 1.5.4


Source: Treasure Island,


The City of Treasure Island shall encourage redevelopment and ensure that it is compatible with the existing
character in order to achieve an orderly and aesthetic mixture of land uses.
The City shall, through provisions contained in the land development regulations, encourage opportunities
for the redevelopment or rehabilitation of existing commercial areas or uses.
In order to ensure the continued maintenance of its beach residential character, the City shall, through
provisions contained in the land development regulations, encourage opportunities for the rehabilitation
and/or revitalization of existing residential structures.
The City shall encourage the redevelopment of that the area bounded by John's Pass on the north and 127th
Avenue on the south on both sides of Gulf Boulevard as depicted on adopted Map B-2: John's Pass
Redevelopment Area.
By 2005, the City shall conduct an area study of the Central Business District to explore the possibility of
establishing a redevelopment district, pursuant to Chapter 163, Part III, Florida Statutes.
Measure: Redevelopment in compliance with the Future Land Use Map
Comprehensive Plan, 1999









APPENDIX I
WILTON MANORS









Table I-1. Wilton Manors Redevelopment
FLUE Objective or Description
Policy
FLUE Objective 2 Support, encourage and guide infill, redevelopment and revitalization activities in appropriate areas (B.C.P.C.
08.03.00. 08.03.03)
FLUE Policy 2.1 The redevelopment of residential neighborhoods shall be designed to include a more efficient system of
internal circulation, including the provision of collector streets to feed the traffic onto arterial roads and
highways. (B.C.P.C. 14.03.06)
FLUE Policy 2.2 Promote infill development through the provision of potable water and sanitary sewer service to those
developed portions of Wilton Manors which are currently inadequately served. (B.C.P.C. 08.03.02)
FLUE Policy 2.4 The lands encompassed by the Traditional Neighborhood Development overlay zoning district as defined by
the City Council and the Powerline Road corridor shall be target areas for the promotion of infill,
redevelopment, revitalization and reuse activities. (B.C.P.C. 08.03.06, 10.01.00, 10.01.03)
FLUE Policy 2.5 To encourage infill, redevelopment, revitalization, and reuse activities, the City shall endeavor to accomplish
the following within a reasonable period of time:
Obtain a market analysis to determine the feasibility of infill, redevelopment, revitalization, and reuse
in appropriate areas of the City;
Amend the Land Development Regulations in accordance with the results of the market analysis to
encourage infill, redevelopment, revitalization, and reuse in appropriate areas of the City within two
years of completion of the market analysis;
Establish a Community Redevelopment Agency;
Establish a Community Redevelopment Area and associated master/regulating plan;
Establish a Main Street or similar program to aid in business attraction, development, and retention;
and
Adopt appropriate implementation measures which may include incentives such as property tax
abatement; lowered or waived license, impact and permit fees; expedited plan review and permitting;
City absorption of developer concurrency costs; and minor exceptions to development standards.
Source: Williams, et al., Comprehensive Plan, 2002









Table 1-2. Wilton Manors Future Land Use Element Assessment
Element Objective/Policy Explanation
FLUE Introduction The Future Land Use Element contains objectives that address
controlling development and redevelopment through land
development regulations; support infill, redevelopment, and
revitalization activities in appropriate areas; protect parks and
natural resources; encourage innovative land development
techniques, such as cluster zoning and mixed use; and protect
historic resources.
FLUE Policy 2.5 Lists measures to take in order to encourage infill, redevelopment,
revitalization, and reuse activities. These steps include performing
a market analysis, developing a community redevelopment agency,
establish a "Main Street" program, and adopting economic
development measures such as property tax abatement and waiving
license fees. Market forces have caused redevelopment to take
place in struggling areas of Wilton Manors, and the steps listed
under this policy, with the exception of the "Main Street" program,
which is in place, are no longer considered necessary and this
policy should be removed.
Source: Melgren, Wilton Manors Evaluation and Appraisal Report, 2005



Table 1-3. Wilton Manors Vacant Land for Future Development
Vacant Land Remaining 4.44 Acres
Type of Vacant Land Remaining Small, infill parcels generally less than an acre
in size
Vacant Land Designated as Commercial 3.5 Acres (80.4%)
Development
Remaining Vacant Parcels for Residential 0.62 Acres
Development
Source: Melgren, Wilton Manors Evaluation and Appraisal Report, 2005









APPENDIX J
INTERVIEW SCHEDULE

Interview Questions: Planning Professionals

Agreements and Changes to the Comprehensive Plan

1. Have these agreements been successful based on goals and strategies that have been set in
the city's comprehensive plan?
2. If these agreements have not been successful, what is/are the reasons) why these
agreements have not been successful?
3. Has the municipality used small scale comprehensive plan amendments as a tool to better
manage future growth within the municipality?
4. Has the municipality used large scale comprehensive plan amendments as a tool to better
manage future growth within the municipality?

Redevelopment/Infill Development/Urban Design

1. Does your local government promote redevelopment compared to allowing it when it is
proposed? (If the answer is yes, answer questions 2 and 4 through 8; if the answer is no,
then answer question 3)
2. If so, are you focused on the independent or partnered redevelopment?
3. What are the reasons why redevelopment is not a preferred planning tool?
4. Since your municipality is built out, does your municipality focus on redevelopment,
infill development, and urban design as separate planning tools or as a collected planning
technique?
5. Of the following redevelopment tools, which specific redevelopment categories were
used?
a. Adaptive reuse
b. Infill development
c. One-for-one replacement
d. Redevelopment consistent with existing regulations
e. Redevelopment that increases the allowable density
f. Intensity and/or mix of land uses
g. Scales
6. Related to question number 5, of the following redevelopment tools that have been used
by your municipality, were these redevelopment tools successful?
7. What were the reasons why they were successful?
8. Which tools do you use to determine whether a project is success?

Economic

Job Creation

1. Has job creation increased? (If the answer is yes, answer questions 2 and 3; if the answer
is no, answer question 4)
2. What are the reasons why the quantity of jobs has increased?









3. Which sectors have increased the level of employment opportunities?
4. Why have the amount of jobs available decreased?

Economic Investment

1. Has economic investment increased? (If the answer is yes, ask questions 2 through 4; if
the answer is no, ask question 5)
2. What are the sources of the economic investment?
3. Which types of businesses have provided the most economic investment?
4. Was the amount of economic investment provided by businesses currently in the
municipality or were they provided by businesses not currently based in the municipality?
5. What has contributed to the decrease in economic investment?

Incentives

1. Which types of incentives have been offered? (If the answer is yes, then ask questions 2
through 3; if the answer is no, then ask question 4)
2. How often are incentives offered?
3. Which industries received the most incentives?
4. Why were incentives not offered?

Public Participation

1. Has the public been supportive of redevelopment within the municipality? (If the answer
is yes, ask questions 2 and 3; if the answer is no, ask question 4.)
2. Which factors have contributed to the success of public support for growth management
changes?
3. Which groups) of individuals are the most supportive of growth management changes?
4. What has contributed to limited public involvement regarding growth management
decisions?

Interview Questions: Elected Officials

1. Which of the following growth management tools does your municipality prefer?
a. Redevelopment
b. Infill development
c. Urban design
d. All of the above
2. What do you feel are the biggest challenges your municipality faces with being close to
or at build out?
3. Which options does your municipality feel are best to address the challenges your
municipality faces?
4. What are the municipality's strengths? Weaknesses?
5. How are these inter-local agreements monitored? Which tools are used to determine the
success of an agreement?
6. Are the growth management tools provided in the comprehensive plan adequate to meet
your municipality's needs?









7. If not, which growth management tools would be preferred for your municipality?
8. Have the residents and the businesses located within the city limits been strong
supporters of growth management changes?
9. If not, why have the residents and businesses not been supporters in growth management
decisions?
10. Is your municipality interested in attracting economic development?
11. If so, which type of businesses does your municipality desire to attract?
12. If not, why do elected officials, residents, and/or businesses not support economic
development?









LIST OF REFERENCES


Burchell, R., in association with the Center for Urban Policy Research Rutgers University,
New Brunswick, NJ and Florida Department of Community Affairs, Tallahassee, FL.
(1999). Eastward Ho! Development Futures: Paths to More Efficient Gi I I th/ in
.Southe, tt Florida. Tallahassee, FL: Author.

Chapin, T.S. (2007). Local Governments as Policy Entrepreneurs: Evaluating Florida's
"Concurrency Experiment." Urban Affairs Review, 42, 505-532.

Chapin, T.S. and Connerly, C.E. (2004). Attitudes Towards Growth Management: Comparing
Resident Support in 1985 and 2001. Journal of the American Planning Association, 70-4,
443-452.

City of Atlantic Beach. (2004). 2015 EAR Based Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Atlantic
Beach, FL: Community Development Department.

City of Marco Island. (2005). Evaluation andAppraisal Report. Marco Island, FL: Planning and
Zoning Department.

City of Sanibel. (2007). An Amendment to the Sanibel Plan: The Comprehensive Land Use Plan
of the City of Sanibel. Sanibel, FL: Planning Department.

City of St. Pete Beach. (2007). 2010 Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and Appraisal Report. St.
Pete Beach, FL: Community Development Department.

City of Treasure Island. (1999). City of Treasure Island Comprehensive Plan. Treasure Island,
FL: City of Treasure Island Local Planning Agency with Staff Assistance from the
Pinellas Planning Council.

City of Wilton Manors. (2002). City of Wilton Manors, Florida Comprehensive Plan. Wilton
Manors, FL: Williams, Hatfield & Stoner Inc. (Planning); Keith Gay (Mapping); Richard
Rubin & Associates (Planning and Mapping).

Florida Legislature. (2007). Florida Statutes, Chapter 163: Intergovernmental Programs.
Retrieved March 28, 2008 from http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/

HDR, Incorporated, in association with the Treasure Island Planning Department. (2006). City of
Treasure Island Downtown Redevelopment Plan. Treasure Island, FL: Author.

Holcombe, R. (2007). Why Do Florida Counties Adopt Urban Growth Boundaries? In T.S.
Chapin, C.E. Connerly, & H.T. Higgins (Eds.). GI thl Management in Florida:
Planning for Paradise (pp. 227-240). Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

Lang, R. and LeFurgy, J. (2007). Boomburb "Buildout": The Future of Development in Large,
Fast-Growing Suburbs. Urban Affairs Review, 42, 533-552.









Mattson, G.A. (1994). Retrenchment and Fiscal Policy Planning: The Political Culture of Small
Southern Towns. Public Productivity & Management Review, 17-3, 265-279.

Mattson, G.A. and Burke, A.T. (1989). Small Towns, Political Culture, and Policy Innovation.
Journal of Planning Literature, 4, 397-412.

Melgren, Michele. City of Wilton Manors Evaluation and Appraisal Report June 2006. Fort
Lauderdale, FL: Michele Melgren & Associates.

Nelson, A.C., Dawkins, C.J., Sanchez, T.W., Danielson, K.A. (2007). Urban Containment and
Neighborhood Quality in Florida. In T.S. Chapin, C.E. Connerly, & H.T. Higgins (Eds.).
GI nI I th Management in Florida: Planningfor Paradise (pp. 191-237). Burlington, VT:
Ashgate.

Oregon's Transportation and Growth Management Program, a joint program of the Oregon
Department of Transportation and the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and
Development. (1999). The Infill and Redevelopment Code Handbook. Salem, OR:
Author.

Pendall, R. (2000). Local Land Use Regulation and the Chain of Exclusion. Journal of the
American Planning Association, 66-2, 125-142.

Pinellas County Economic Development, Pinellas County Board of Commissioners & Pinellas
Planning Council. (2005). Pinellas by Design: An Economic Development and
Redevelopment Plan for the Pinellas Community. Clearwater, FL: Author.

Renaissance Planning Group. (2006). Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and Appraisal Report.
Orlando, FL: Renaissance Planning Group.

South Florida Regional Planning Council, in association with the Governor's Commission for a
Sustainable Florida and the Department of Community Affairs. (1999). Building on
Success: A Report from Eastward Ho! Miami, FL: Author.

Swarthout, R. (1995). Village ofKey Biscayne, Florida Master Plan. Boca Raton, FL: Robert
Swarthout, Incorporated.

Wallace Roberts & Tood, LLC. (2007). Village of Key Biscayne Master Plan Evaluation and
Appraisal Report. Miami, FL: Wallace Roberts & Todd, LLC.

Wheeler, S., in association with the Greenbelt Alliance. (2002). Smart Infill: Creating More
Livable Communities in the Bay Area A Guide for Bay Area Leader: Prepared for the
Greenbelt Alliance. San Francisco, CA; Author.

Yin, R. (1984). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Publications.









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Marcus Oberlander was born in 1976, in Edison, New Jersey. He grew up in Neptune, New

Jersey and graduated from Neptune High School in 1995. Upon completion of high school, he

attended American University. In 1999, Mr. Oberlander graduated from American University

with a bachelor's degree, majoring in Economics (international track). Mr. Oberlander

commenced graduate studies at the University of Florida in 2006 towards a Masters of Arts in

Urban and Regional Planning. During graduate study he has participated in various research

projects through department classes and through a planning consultant with over 30 years

experience. He has accepted and performed many leadership roles within the Department of

Urban and Regional Planning Department and the Student Planning Association. Mr. Oberlander

will receive a Master of Arts in Urban and Regional Planning, with a specialization in growth

management and transportation systems.





PAGE 1

BUILT-OUT MUNICIPALITIES IN FLORID A: THE CHALLENGES OF PLANNING FOR REDEVELOPMENT AND INFILL IN SMA LL AND MEDIUM-SIZED COMMUNITIES By MARCUS OBERLANDER A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN URB AN AND REGIONAL PLANNING UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2008 1

PAGE 2

2008 Marcus Oberlander 2

PAGE 3

To my parents who supported and believed in me, to my friends who have been there for me, and to Gail Easley who inspired me to pursue this topic. 3

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank the following people who have contri buted both time and effort towards my thesis. My thesis committee consisted of Ruth St einer (Chair), Richard Schneider (Cochair), and Gail Easley. In Atlantic Beach, I interviewed So nya Duerr (Community Development Director), Erika Hall (Planner), and John Meserve (Mayor). In Indian Rocks Beach, I interviewed Danny Taylor (Planning Director) and Bill Ockunzzi (M ayor). In Key Biscayne, I interviewed Jud Kurlancheek (Director of Building, Zoning, and Planning) and Robert Vernon (Mayor). In Marco Island, I interviewed Steve Olmsted (Co mmunity Development Director). In Neptune Beach, I interviewed Amanda Askew (Director of Community Deve lopment) and Harriet Pruette (Vice Mayor). In Sanibel, I interviewed Robert Duffy (Pla nning Director) and Mick Denham (Mayor). In St. Pete Beach, I interviewed Karl Holley (Commun ity Development Director) and Ward Friszolosky (Mayor). In Treasure Island, I interviewed Lynn Rose tti (Senior Planner), Steve Demerritt (Planner), and Ma ry Maloof (Mayor). In Wilt on Manors, I interviewed Wayne Thies (Building and Zoning Department Director). 4

PAGE 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........8 LIST OF FIGURES.......................................................................................................................12 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS........................................................................................................13 ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................................14 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. .15 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE.................................................................................................20 Obstacles...................................................................................................................... ...........21 Regulatory and Policy Shortcomings..............................................................................21 The Special Challenges in Sm all and Medium Communities.........................................22 Concurrency....................................................................................................................23 Land Use Controls and Exclusion...................................................................................24 Existing vs. Alternative Development Patterns...............................................................29 Economic.........................................................................................................................31 Approaches.............................................................................................................................34 Summary.................................................................................................................................37 3 METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................................3 9 Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........39 Selection of Case Studies........................................................................................................39 Development of Case Studies.................................................................................................42 Review of Planning Documents......................................................................................42 Key Informative Interviews with Pla nning Officials and Elected Officials....................42 Observation.................................................................................................................... ..43 Analysis of Case Studies........................................................................................................44 Summary.................................................................................................................................44 Maps.......................................................................................................................................46 4 FINDINGS..................................................................................................................... .........48 Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........48 City Profiles............................................................................................................................48 Demographics.........................................................................................................................49 Population..................................................................................................................... ...49 5

PAGE 6

Predominant Age Group..................................................................................................50 Predominant Housing Types...........................................................................................51 Predominant Commuting Method to Work.....................................................................52 Predominant Industry......................................................................................................54 Planning Documents and Interview Results...........................................................................54 Background......................................................................................................................54 Atlantic Beach.................................................................................................................55 Indian Rocks Beach.........................................................................................................58 Key Biscayne...................................................................................................................60 Marco Island....................................................................................................................62 Neptune Beach.................................................................................................................64 Sanibel.............................................................................................................................65 St. Pete Beach..................................................................................................................67 Treasure Island................................................................................................................68 Wilton Manors.................................................................................................................6 9 Summary.................................................................................................................................70 Maps.....................................................................................................................................107 5 DISCUSSION................................................................................................................... ....110 Financial and Institutional Capacity.....................................................................................111 Exclusivity.................................................................................................................... ........115 Density and Federal, State, and Regional Coastal High Hazard Areas................................117 Economic Development and Investment..............................................................................118 Public Participation...............................................................................................................119 Recommendations................................................................................................................ .120 Summary of the Discussion..................................................................................................121 6 CONCLUSION................................................................................................................... ..122 Summary of Research Findings............................................................................................122 Limitation of Research......................................................................................................... 124 Areas for Future Research....................................................................................................125 Conclusions...........................................................................................................................126 APPENDIX A ATLANTIC BEACH COMPRE HENSIVE PLAN RESULTS...........................................128 B INDIAN ROCK S BEACH...................................................................................................133 C KEY BISCAYNE................................................................................................................. 142 D MARCO ISLAND................................................................................................................1 53 E NEPTUNE BEACH..............................................................................................................15 9 F SANIBEL...................................................................................................................... .......160 6

PAGE 7

G ST. PETE BEACH............................................................................................................... .164 H TREASURE ISLAND..........................................................................................................175 I WILTON MANORS............................................................................................................178 J INTERVIEW SCHEDULE..................................................................................................181 Interview Questions: Planning Professionals.......................................................................181 Agreements and Changes to the Comprehensive Plan..................................................181 Redevelopment/Infill Development/Urban Design.......................................................181 Economic.......................................................................................................................181 Job Creation............................................................................................................181 Economic Investment.............................................................................................182 Incentives...............................................................................................................182 Public Participation.......................................................................................................182 Interview Questions: Elected Officials.................................................................................182 LIST OF REFERENCES.............................................................................................................184 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................186 7

PAGE 8

LIST OF TABLES Table page 4-1 Profiles of Case Study Municipalities Location..............................................................72 4-2 Profiles of Case Study Municipalities Comprehensive Plan and Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR)....................................................................................................73 4-3 Population of Selected Case Study Municipalities 1980 2005 (Actual and Estimate)...74 4-4 Age of the Population in Selected Case Study Municipalities 1980 (in percentages)....75 4-5 Age of the Population in Select ed Case Study Municipalities 1990..............................76 4-6 Age of the Population in Selected Case Study Municipalities 1990 (in percentages)....77 4-7 Age of the Population in Select ed Case Study Municipalities 2000...............................78 4-8 Age of the Population in Selected Case Study Municipalities 2000 (in percentages)....79 4-10 Median Age in Selected Case Study Municipalities..........................................................81 4-11 Housing Types in Selected Case Study Municipalities 1990..........................................81 4-12 Housing Types in Selected Case Stu dy Municipalities 1990 (in percentages)...............82 4-13 Housing Types in Selected Case Study Municipalities 2000..........................................83 4-14 Housing Types in Selected Case Stu dy Municipalities 2000 (in percentages)...............84 4-15 Predominant Housing Type in Selected Case Study Municipalities 1990 and 2000......85 4-16 Mode of Transportation to Work of Re sidents of Case Study Municipalities 1990.......86 4-17 Mode of Transportation to Work of Re sidents of Case Study Municipalities 1990 (in percentages)..................................................................................................................86 4-18 Mode of Transportation to Work of Re sidents of Case Study Municipalities 2000.......87 4-19 Mode of Transportation to Work of Re sidents of Case Study Municipalities 2000 (in percentages)..................................................................................................................87 4-20 Predominant Industry 2007 (# of Bu sinesses Located in the Municipality)...................88 4-21 Small Scale and Large Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendments.....................................89 4-22 Promotion of Redevelopment and Infill by the Private Sector, Public Sector, or Public-Private Partnerships................................................................................................89 8

PAGE 9

4-23 Determining the Success of a Project................................................................................90 4-24 Job Creation.............................................................................................................. .........90 4-25 Reasons for a Lack of Job Creation...................................................................................91 4-26 Economic Development and Investment...........................................................................92 4-27 Incentives................................................................................................................ ...........93 4-28 Is Public participation st rong within the municipality?.....................................................94 4-29 Factors contributing to the su ccess of Public Participation...............................................95 4-30 The Groups Most Supportive of Growth Management Changes.......................................96 4-31 Reasons for Limited Public Involveme nt in Growth Management Decisions..................97 4-32 The Preferred Growth Management Strategy....................................................................98 4-33 Municipality Challenges....................................................................................................99 4-34 Solutions for Municipality Challenges............................................................................100 4-35 Municipality Strengths.................................................................................................... .101 4-36 Municipality Weaknesses................................................................................................102 4-37 Growth Management Tools in the Compre hensive Plan: Are they adequate to meet your municipalitys needs?..............................................................................................103 4-38 Have the residents and businesses located within the city limits been strong supporters of growth management changes?...................................................................103 4-39 Is your municipality interested in attracting economic development?............................104 4-40 Which types of economic de velopment are encouraged?................................................105 4-41 Is there a focus on economic development and job creation?.........................................106 A-1 Atlantic Beach Future Land Use Element Introduction................................................129 A-2 Atlantic Beach Goals, Objectives, and Policy..............................................................130 B-1 Indian Rocks Beach Comprehensive Plan Goals, Objectives, and Policies..................134 B-2 Indian Rocks Beach Review of Compre hensive Plan Elements: Future Land Use......140 B-3 Indian Rocks Beach EAR Review of Comprehensive Plan Elements: Housing........141 9

PAGE 10

C-1 Key Biscayne Development Trends: Land Use Changes (1999-2006)*.......................143 C-2 Key Biscayne Citizen Survey Land Use.....................................................................144 C-3 Key Biscayne Strengths.................................................................................................145 C-4 Key Biscayne Weaknesses............................................................................................146 C-5 Key Biscayne Opportunities.........................................................................................147 C-6 Key Biscayne Threats...................................................................................................148 C-7 Key Biscayne Assessment of the Future Land Use Element Goals, Objectives, and Policies.............................................................................................................................149 C-8 Key Biscayne Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendments....................................150 C-9 Key Biscayne EAR Issue E........................................................................................151 D-1 Marco Island EAR Issues Redevelopment..............................................................154 D-2 Marco Island EAR Issue Mixed Use Development................................................156 D-3 Marco Island EAR Issue Rezoning.........................................................................157 D-4 Marco Island EAR Issue Commercial Space..........................................................158 F-1 Sanibel Approximate Acreage of Land Uses 2006 compared to 1995.......................161 F-2 Characteristics of Sanibel................................................................................................161 F-3 Sanibel Land Use Projections: Dwelling Units at Buildout (2026)...............................162 F-4 Sanibel Approximate Acreage of Land Uses Buildout (2026)...................................162 F-5 Sanibel Negative Externalities to the Local Economy and Redevelopment.................162 F-6 Sanibel Plan Goals, Objectives, and Policies................................................................163 G-1 St. Pete Beach Redevelopment Recap: Where we stand?.............................................165 G-2 St. Pete Beach Locally Id entified Issues Issue 2........................................................166 G-3 St. Pete Beach Locally Id entified Issues Issue 3........................................................169 G-4 St. Pete Beach Locally Id entified Issues Issue 6........................................................170 G-5 St. Pete Beach Vacant La nd Analysis (County Figures)...............................................171 G-6 St. Pete Beach Vacant Land Anal ysis Based on a Windshield Survey.........................171 10

PAGE 11

G-7 St. Pete Beach Assessment of Objectiv es and Policies Future Land Use Element....172 H-1 Treasure Island Mixed Use and Density........................................................................176 H-2 Treasure Island Redevelopment....................................................................................177 I-1 Wilton Manors Redevelopment.....................................................................................179 I-2 Wilton Manors Future Land Use Element Assessment.................................................180 I-3 Wilton Manors Vacant Land for Future Development..................................................180 11

PAGE 12

LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 3-1 Location of original 13 case studies...................................................................................46 3-2 Location of 9 case studies..................................................................................................47 4-1 Northeast Region Atlantic Beach and Neptune Beach.................................................107 4-2 Southeast Region Wilton Manors.................................................................................107 4-3 Southeast Region Key Biscayne...................................................................................108 4-4 Southwest Region Marco Island...................................................................................108 4-5. Southwest Region Sanibel.............................................................................................109 4-6 West Central Region Indian Rocks B each, Treasure Island, St. Pete Beach................109 12

PAGE 13

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AB Atlantic Beach BEBR Bureau of Economic and Business Research CHHA Coastal High Hazard Area DCA Department of Community Affairs EAR Evaluation and Appraisal Report FEMA Federal Emergency Management Administration FLUE Future Land Use Element IRB Indian Rocks Beach KB Key Biscayne MI Marco Island NB Neptune Beach S Sanibel SPB St. Pete Beach TI Treasure Island WM Wilton Manors 13

PAGE 14

Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Urban and Regional Planning BUILT-OUT MUNICIPALITIES IN FLORID A: THE CHALLENGES OF PLANNING FOR REDEVELOPMENT AND INFILL IN SMA LL AND MEDIUM-SIZED COMMUNITIES By Marcus Oberlander May 2008 Chair: Ruth Steiner Cochair: Richard Schneider Major: Urban and Regional Planning The present study explores the challenges for the planning of redevelopment, infill development, and urban planning strategies ba sed on the economic, co mmunity, and geographic characteristics of small and medi um-sized built-out m unicipalities in Florida. The objective of this study is to understand how small and medium -sized built-out municipalities plan for infill and redevelopment. This study achieves this obj ective through three me thodologies. First, the following planning documents are reviewed to fi nd development strategies in comprehensive plans, evaluation and appraisal reports (EAR ), downtown redevelopment plans, and land development code. Second, the researcher examined socioeconomic and demographic information to identify the characteristics of th e population. Third, planners and elected officials were interviewed to understand planning challe nges in small and me dium-sized built-out municipalities. The results of th e qualitative analysis in dicate that the effects of the disconnect between the implementation of redevelopment and infill strategies in small and medium-sized built-out municipalities, state-mandated growth management policies, and the will of the residents and business owners collectively. 14

PAGE 15

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Florida has been growing rapidly for the last several decades. For many communities, the growth in population has been accompanied by a growth in the size of the city. However, for many municipalities1 in Florida that are classified as built-out, where 85 percent of the land within the city limits is developed, this growth presents a special challe nge. These municipalities face challenges unlike other communities becau se they cannot easily expand their tax base. Built-out municipalities in Florida are located on barrier islands near the Atlantic Ocean or the Gulf of Mexico or near larger municipalities where the future annexation of land is not possible. Built-out municipalities face geographical and politic al challenges that are distinct compared to other developing cities. This challenge is espe cially difficult for small and medium-sized municipalities with a population between 5,000 and 20,000 because they also have a small population and tax base. Floridas comprehensive planning process does not differentiate the planning strategies used between built-out or other types of cities. A built-out city, unlike a continuously developing city, does not have the opportunity to develop on e or multiple large parcel s of land. This leads municipalities to pursue other pl anning strategies and techniques in order to manage growth. In order to meet the needs to expand the tax base, small to medium-sized municipalities can use redevelopment and infill strategies. Redevelopment is a complex process that considers many factors. According to the Florida Statut e 163.340 (2007), redevelopment is defined as the renovation of a blighted area or the replacement, remodeling, or reuse of existing structures to accommodate new development (Florida Legislature, 2007). Infill is defined as the development 1 According to Florida Statutes Title XII (Municipalities) and 165.031, municipality means a municipality created pursuant to general or special law authorized or recognized pursuant to s. 2 or s. 6, Art. VIII of the State Constitution. Cities, towns, and villages are referred to as a municipality throughout this document. 15

PAGE 16

of vacant or remnant lands passed over by previous development in urban areas. Florida Statutes treat urban infill and redevelopment as a single comprehensive planning strategy to revitalize the urban core within a municipality (Florida Legislature, 2007). Each municipalitys comprehensive plan and land development code provide the tools to encourage innovative land development and redeve lopment techniques. The comprehensive plan also allows for redevelopment, infill, and urban design changes in a way that is consistent with the communitys character. Comprehensive plans provide guidelines for the public and private sectors to work together for the benefit of resi dents and visitors. Establ ished processes such as the evaluation and appraisal report (EAR) a llow municipalities to determine whether the objectives and policies, within the current comp rehensive plan, are adequate to meet their municipalitys needs. Regulatory restrictions set by the federal and state government s and contained within the comprehensive plan determine the extent to wh ich property owners can redevelop or initiate infill development. The federal and state governments limit redevelopment and infill in all communities. For built-out municipalities, these re strictions can provide additional challenges to the economic vitality and expans ion of the tax base. Built-out municipalities have regulatory restrictions because of the need to protect residents during natural disasters. Density and intensity levels and building heights are restricted in muni cipalities located in co astal high hazard areas (CHHA). Beyond the federal and state regulatory restrictions, the residents of built-out municipalities may prefer to keep lower density and intensity levels to limit population growth and maintain the community as it is. Depending upon who supports or opposes redevelopment or infill development, a built-out community can succeed or fail to implement its growth mana gement plan. Business owners, 16

PAGE 17

especially in municipalities that rely on tourism for revenue, and some residential property owners remain the largest supporte rs of redevelopment. Accordi ng to the planning professionals and elected officials within built-out municipalities, the tax revenue generated by the redevelopment of hotels, retail, restaurants, and offices allow the municipalities to provide services for residents of the community. Long-ti me and new residents who chose a municipality for its size and character may fear change. Poli tical infighting among residents, business owners, and elected officials prevents the municipality from adequately planning for the future because no one can agree on the goals and object ives of the comprehensive plan. When built-out communities are located in la rger urban areas, the pressure of private sector development extends to all municipalities irrespective of their size and capacity to handle it. The development pattern becomes a function of the land development code in individual jurisdictions. The urban centers provide employment opportunities that are not present within the built-out community. But the sma ll and medium-sized built-out municipalities do not have the same institutional and organizational capacity as larger and rapidly expanding cities in the region. During the recent housing boom and other market trends, residential property owners prospered tremendously by rising property values that, in turn, forced commercial and retail establishments to relocate to less expensive area s. These same trends produced strains on local and regional infrastructure as employment centers were located farther away. These market trends have lead to the transformation of coas tal built-out municipali ties from residential, commercial, and retail hubs into predominantly bedroom communities for large employment centers. Researchers address the current obstacles wi th redevelopment and infill development by conducting studies on policy innovation and the eff ects of redevelopment and infill development 17

PAGE 18

on small developing municipalities. Current st udies highlight the limitations of growth management and the capacity of small and medi um-sized municipalities during implementation. Few studies specifically address redevelopmen t and infill development within small and medium-sized built-out municipali ties. Nine built-out communities are selected as case studies to explore the challenges faced by small and medium -sized communities. This study addresses the special challenges facing small and medium-sized built-out muni cipalities as they attempt to maintain their communitys economic vitality. Four methods were followed to understand the challenges faced by small to medium built-out municipalities. First, planning documents including comprehensive plans, EARs, downtown redevelopment plans, and land development codes set the framework for redevelopment, in fill development, and urban design changes. Secondly, these nine case studies were examin ed to understand the characteristics of the population. Thirdly, the researcher observed each municipality on the ground. Finally, interviews with planning professionals and elected officials provide persp ectives on the implementation of redevelopment and in fill strategies. Following this Introduction, a Review of Lite rature addresses the regulatory, economic, and community obstacles faced by municipalitie s attempting to use redevelopment and infill development planning strategies. The Literature Review presents growth management tools and empirical evidence of the impl ementation. In doing so, the Revi ew of Literature describes historical, economic, and social factors that th e implementation of redevelopment, infill, and urban design changes. The Review of Literature also includes an anal ysis of the costs of continuing with existing development patterns and contrasts that view with alternative development options. The Review of Literatu re then concludes with a synopsis of 18

PAGE 19

implementation strategies and the importance of the role of the private sector in the redevelopment process. Next, the Methodology section describes how th e research was completed. Case studies of nine small to medium-sized built-out municipalitie s are completed using four types of data collection. Four methodologies include the review of planning documents, the examination of population characteristics, the observation of the municipality on the ground, and the interviewing of planning professionals and elected officials are described. The Results and Discussion sections describe the findings of the research and place them into the broader context of development in Florida. Matrix es present the planning professional and elected official interview results based on the subjects of redevelopment and infill development, job creation, economic investment and development, incentives, and public participation. The Discussion section examines the actual level of redevelopment and infill development activity occurring in the municipality as well as comparing and contrasting the views of redevelopment and infill based on the si ze of the municipality, political climate, and location. 19

PAGE 20

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE Studies or examinations of redevelopment, in fill development, and urban design changes in built-out municipalities cont aining populations between 5,000 and 20,000 residents remain limited at best. Unlike continuously developing m unicipalities, built-out municipalities lack available vacant land to expand a new tax base a nd to absorb their shar e of regional population growth. In theory, the comprehensive plan, la nd development code, downtown redevelopment plans, redevelopment and infill development guidebooks, and urban design plans provide support and implementation strategies to alternative planning strategies to manage growth. In reality, small and medium-sized built-out municipalitie s face distinct obstacles to redevelopment. Buildout refers to the point at which developmen t has reached a citys bor ders or has exhausted large-scale greenfield options (Lang and LeFurgy, 2007, p. 537). Municipalities conduct a build-out analysis to determine an approximate time period when there would be no further buildable land left under the current zoning re gulations and land development code. What happens when a city or suburb reaches build-out? ...the issue is not just how much land remains but how it will be used (Lang and LeFurgy, 2007, p. 537). The biggest issue for these municipalities is to recognize that they are built -out, identify their optio ns, and pursue the best option for the betterment of the municipality consistent with the needs of the region. This chapter first explains the regulatory and policy shortcomings, economic, concurrency, and urban growth controls that re present obstacles to planning in Florida in general and in builtout communities in five of the major regions in Florida: northeas t, southeast, southwest, west central, and the Panhandle. Second, the chapter e xplains possible approaches to address these obstacles. Finally, the summary highlights the obstacles and solutions present in the literature and attempt to establish a connection with the findings. 20

PAGE 21

Obstacles Regulatory and Policy Shortcomings Florida uses a top-down state-mandated growth management system that consists of comprehensive planning review and technical enfo rcement powers at the regional at state levels. Chapter 163 of the Florida Statutes includes requirements for all local governments for all small, medium, and large incorporated municipalities to prepare a co mprehensive plan. The Florida Legislature passes the state statutes while the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) establishes rules to implement those statutes. In the Florida Administrative Code, Rule 9J-1 through 9J-11 implements Chapter 163 of the Florida Statutes. In the state comprehensive plan, each lo cal government is required to prepare Land Development Regulations (LDR) to implement the comprehensive plan. Land development codes reflect the same development patterns se t twenty years ago, and comprehensive plans currently lack the flexibility and adaptabi lity for changing market conditions, innovative development opportunities, and changing residen tial and commercial pr eferences within the comprehensive plan and land development regul ations (Chapin, 2004). No differentiation is made in the requirements for municipalities base d on wealth, history, cultu re, or social makeup. States establish regulatory restrictions at times of crisis, but Onesimo and Landis (2002) believe that, similar to growth management plans, regulatory restrictions need to be adaptable and flexible based on changing times. Californi as Proposition 13 capped property tax rates and made new local tax measures difficult to pass. One of the main reasons that manycities dont promote residential or mixed-use infill currently or housing in general is that there is very little economic reason for them to do so (W heeler, 2002, p. 26). Cash-strapped Californian municipalities encourage commercial developmen t such as strip development, automobile dealerships, regional malls, and office parks that generate tax revenue and sales. Municipalities 21

PAGE 22

do not encourage residential de velopment, which remains a drain on government services and infrastructure. In effect the Californias fiscal system encourages sprawl and works against infill development, residential development, and mixed-use development. The Special Challenges in Small and Medium Communities Small and medium-sized rural and urban m unicipalities respond with difficulty to socioeconomic change. The contention is that a freestanding commun ity with a population ceiling of twenty-five thousand will exhibit certain political and cultural characteristics that clearly distinguish it from its more urbanized counterparts, often precl uding the adoption of innovative planning practices (Mattson and Burke, 1989, p. 399). Small municipalities suffer from a limited economic base, a lack of professi onalism, and an individua listic political nature. These shortcomings contribute to how residents and elected offici als of small and medium-sized municipalities create and implement growth management strategies. Small municipalities remain cautious by nature due to their lack of capacity and allow the few with the most power to dictate public po licy (Mattson and Burke, 1989). Elected officials encourage planning professionals to maintain th e status quo instead of providing innovative and costly solutions to the small municipality. Bryce (1979, 49) claims, because of their size, incrementalism is much more likely to be the modus operandi in small towns than the rational comprehensive approachThe three underlying reasons for incrementalism most freque ntly cited are the pers onalized nature of politics, the lack of professional manageme nt capacity, and the existence of a politicalcultural value system. Collectivel y, these three factors foster th e attitude that sophisticated policy planning approaches are either not applicable to or not needed in small town decision-making. Decisions are based primarily on choices am ong competing values. Within such a work setting, it becomes difficult to separate techni cal from political choices Many policy choices are based on the planners intuition of the current political climate. According to Mattson (1994), within small-town America, the professional planner is discouraged from embarking on any 22

PAGE 23

innovative activity that will disrupt the existing social order (Hahn, 1970). The political culture regulates who talks to whom and who infl uences (Mattson, 1994, p. 269). Mattson and Burke (1989) infer that differences in perceptions a nd historical community context create conflict between newcomers and old-timers. For instance, the cosmopolitans are predominantly newcomers who react to policy issues from a co mmunity-wide, public inte rest perspectiveIn contrast, local influentials tend to be old-timers who have a more narrowly defined traditionalindividualistic perspective a system of mutual obligations rooted in personal relationships (Mattson and Burke, 1989, p. 400). Wheeler (2002) supports Mattson and Burkes conclusions regarding the limitations of small municipalities to effectiv ely issue and manage policy pla nning. Wheeler (2002) adds that a municipalitys decisions on whethe r or not to encourage redevelopm ent or infill is not solely based on market conditions but by the state and local statutes that either encourage or restrict development based on tax revenue opportunities. Researchers Juan Onesimo Sandoval and John Landis (2002) discovered that the San Francisco Bay Area cont ains a substantial amount of vacant land suitable for redevelopment. Neverthel ess, Sandoval and Landis conclude that the biggest constraints to infillare economic a nd political, not the phys ical amount of land (Wheeler, 2002, p. 23). State, regional, or local statutes that restrict the ability of a municipality to explore development options limit the choices that could provide long-term benefits and limited costs. Concurrency Concurrency was intended to help address ma jor infrastructure probl ems facing the state, especially increasing road congestion. Compre hensive planning and concurrency management requirements promote limited local government support and sprawl due to local governments lack of resources and institutional capacity. Chap in (2007) explains that what began as a broad, 23

PAGE 24

innovative solution to encourage compact develo pment and improve infrastructure as growth continued resulted in increased fr ustration for developers and muni cipalities due to the extensive regulatory and fiscal requirements. Although simple in principle, in practice concurrency has proven very difficult to implement. To effectively implement conc urrency, planners and managers of public facilities must track both system supply and system demand for each of the six facility types. In many of the states fast growing cities, supply and demand must be tracked in real time, since new development is being proposed, permitted, and built on a daily basis (Chapin, 2007, p. 509). As the experience in most small and medium-si zed municipalities, thei r lack of fiscal and institutional capacity and support relaxed strict requirements for transportation concurrency and the promotion of compact and infill development. Adding to the difficulties, as stated in the article, is the lack of infrastructure funding and a clear state concurrency mandate and approach that could easily be followed by the local government (Chapin, 2007). Due to the extensive regulatory requirements of the Growth Mana gement Act, the resources earmarked for redevelopment and infill development production would be reallocated to other municipal programs such as transportation concurrency. Fis cal and institutional capacity limitations affect the enforcement of growth management legisla tion. The impact of concurrency requirements on small municipalities is not based on the fact that in order for concurrency to be implemented you need to have growth to generate revenue. Sma ll built-out municipality may be currently at capacity or they are currently experiencing spillover effects of new development by other small built-out municipalities or the larger urban area. Land Use Controls and Exclusion Similar to concurrency requirements, pe ople view urban growth boundaries, boxed-in cities and other land use controls as tools for boxed-in cities to establish more homogeneous communities for white affluent homeowners. Previous studies attempted to link urban growth 24

PAGE 25

boundaries with exclusionary outcomes. Pendall (2000) concluded that urban growth boundaries should constrict urbanization leading to the encouragement of high density development. The boxed-in city, applies to juri sdictions surrounded by other incorporated areas or bodies of water. Boxed-in status differs from the others because local governments inherit rather that adopt it, but like greenbelts, it may limit urba n expansion. Urban grow th boundaries and boxedin status may encourage high-density (multifamily) development by raising land prices. However, the direct effect of growth boundaries and boxed-in status on housing supply, rentals, and rental affordability are more diffi cult to predict (Pendall, 2000, p. 129). Although the underlying concerns associated with urban growth boundaries are serious, the inability to adequately define an urban growth boundary undermines the efforts to ensure against its negative consequences. Contri buting to issues in testing the reasons for urban growth boundaries, comprehensive plan policies on urba n growth boundaries vary by county. Nelson and Dawkins (2003, p. 13) define an urban grow th boundary as a line on a map based on an explicit policy to prevent the ex tension of key public facilities, especially water and sewer line and urban development, without plan amendments (Holcombe, 2007, p. 230). Researchers believed that counties in Florida established urba n growth boundaries as a way to manage growth and stop the proliferation of sprawl. As early as 1975, Dade and Sarasota Coun ties created urban growth boundaries. Dade County enacted a growth boundary where Saraso ta County created boundaries based on urban, semi-rural, and rural development patterns (H olcombe, 2007). Leon County created an urban growth boundary by establishing urban service areas where water, sewer, and other utilities would not be extended. Palm Beach County set asid e land in rural preservation areas to prevent development. 25

PAGE 26

These counties established urban growth bounda ries before the 1985 Growth Management Act (GMA) was signed into law. Some resear chers believe that with mandatory growth management in Florida there would no longer be a need for an urban growth boundary. Florida growth management laws do not require countie s to implement urban growth boundaries which allow local jurisdictions to handle manageme nt of this type of land use control. Randall G. Holcombe (2007) conducted a series of critical analysis of urban growth boundaries based on three hypothesizes to determin e why some counties have preferred this method of urban containment and who benefits the most. First, people might support urban growth bounda ries because they receive private benefits from them. The literature suggests that these private benefits tend to be correlated with income, and that higher-income individuals benefit at the expense of lower-income individuals in the form of higher property va lues, the exclusionary properties of growth boundaries, and the creation of more hom ogeneous communities that enhance their lifestyles. Second, people might support urban growth boundari es because of the negative effects of growth, which suggests the places with greater population growth and higher population densities would tend to support these boundaries. Third, political and institutional factors may play a role in wh ether urban growth bounda ries are implemented (Holcombe, 2007, p. 230). People support public policies that benefit themselves. Donovan and Neiman (1995), Knaap (1987), and Bollens (1990) conducted stud ies concluding that self-interest in a determining factor in political support for growth management policies. One would expect that higher income areas, which have more people that gain from urban growth boundaries, would be more likely to impose urban growth boundaries. If policies are created to further the economic interests of constituents, then higher inco me areas would be more likely to have urban growth boundaries (Holcombe, 2007, p. 229). Alt hough a justifiable reason for establishing an urban growth boundary, municipali ties on barrier islands in coastal high hazard areas establish urban growth boundaries to limit the amount of gr owth to lessen devast ation during a natural 26

PAGE 27

disaster. The Florida Administrative Code addresses post redevelopment through the comprehensive planning process. Justifying the use of urban gr owth boundaries, Holcombe first tested income and urban growth boundaries, and in the second test, the author compared growth pressures and urban growth boundaries. The correlation of income, the form of government, and the existence of growth management laws resulted in income having the most impact. Donovan and Neiman (1995) found that growth controls in California had a minimal impact on population growth, but did affect community characte ristics and make communities more racially homogeneous. Baldassare and Protash (1982) found that in California growth controls are more likely to be passed in jurisdictions with a greater percentage of white collar population. Knaap (1987) found that Oregon voters tended to support growth controls based on their ec onomic interests (Holcombe, 2007, p. 237). The literature does not always agree with these results. Gottdiener and Neiman (1981) found broad su pport for growth controls in Riverside, California, and directly called in to question the thesis that th ey are passed by the affluent who want to limit access to the community. However, as Feiock (1994) notes, growth controls tend to have a negative impact on economic development, and Bellens (1990) argues that people with a more direct connection to the local economy tend to show the least support for growth controls (Holcombe, 2007, p. 237). Residents with higher income would support an urban growth boundary because the decreased supply of land and development would make the demand for their property greater. Holcombes (2007) statistical analysis suggest s that white affluent homeowners remain the predominant supporters of urban growth controls. Growth controls benefit one or more group based on race, income, and political power. C onfirming Holcombes observation, Pendall (2000) states that previous studies do show that re strictive land use contro ls are more common in communities with high proportions of wealthy, non-Hispanic Whites than in communities with minorities. Municipalities where single-family de tached dwellings are predominant have been shown to have a larger proportion of White non-Hi spanic residents than places with multifamily 27

PAGE 28

dwellings. None of these studies necessarily show s that the land use controls in question led to exclusion; rather, they may simply show that w ealthy and White places are more likely to adopt restrictive land use controls. In fact, recent research has raised questions about whether zoning and land use controls work at all (Landis, 1992) that is, whether they produce a different landscape than would be produced in their absence (Pendall, 2000, p. 129). Although Pendall agrees with Holcombe on the results from past studies, Pendalls findings from his study on the effect of land use controls on the chain of exclusion contradicts Holcombes results. According to this study,...growth boundaries, ofte n modeled as supply constraints that will inexorably elevate housing prices (Elliott, 1981; Frech & Lafferty, 1984; Schwartz & Zorn, 1988), did not consistently reduce housing growth in the 1980s. Neither did they have any consistent average effect on housing unit type s, tenure, or affordability (or on vacancy rates, which were tested in an unrepor ted analysis)In short,growth boundaries sometimes have exclusionary effects, but of ten they are little more than symbols of concern about the pace and shape of new growth (Pendall, 2000, p. 138). According to Pendall (2000), urban growth boundaries alone do not cause an exclusion of racial minorities. The focus on low-density-only zoning l eads to either a lower housing production or a shift towards single-family instead of multifamily units. Following either path leads to a lower percentage of renters and lower rental affordabilit y. In addition to a municipalitys low-densityonly zoning, the municipalitys boxed-in status w ill lead to lower rental affordability and an exclusion of racial minorities. Nelson (2007) highlights the perspective that urban containment is related to attitudes toward growth, even if in some instances cont ainment policy may be more favorable to housing production in Florida. Nelson (2007) suggests th at growth advocates believe that growth functions as the way in which social and culture initiatives are estab lished and also provide important tax revenue for the municipality. On th e other hand, anti-growth advocates believe that 28

PAGE 29

the continued focused on horizontal growth decr eases a municipalitys economic, social, and cultural resources causing long-term detrimental effects for the environment and infrastructure. Residents and businesses differ on th e appropriate strategy to where growth can continue but in a more structured, environmentally-friendly, a nd economically viable manner. Pro-growth supporters follow a wait and see attitude which w ill generate short-term gains but will lead to long-term environmental degradation and economic hardships. Chapin and Connerly (2004) suggest that most Florida residents, on a whole, support the use of growth controls with the growth management process, but on the other hand, a lot of groups do not understand the intricacies of th e growth management process. Chapin and Connerly (2004) suggest through their critical analysis that not a ll groups are positively affected by growth management and specifically the use of growth controls. Process and procedure remain difficult to understand and implement, which in turn puts information solely in the hands of the individuals in the municipa lity with the most power to a ffect policy. Even with all its inadequacies, residents believe that growth management remains necessary to handle growth pressures in Florida. The encouragement by strong regional entities and private and public partners over the last decade contributes to the su pport of alternative development patterns versus sprawl development. Existing vs. Alternativ e Development Patterns Burchell (1999) infers that the encouragement for other areas to support alternative development patterns would result in the expans ion of economic and institutional capacity within built-out municipalities. Focusi ng on regulatory framework update s, the municipalities in the Eastward Ho! study areas would spend less on infr astructure and transportation additions and maintenance and spread the wealth to other sm aller communities within the five counties. The study suggests that municipalities could use a proportionate fair-share program or establish 29

PAGE 30

transportation concurrency exception areas to share infrastructure maintenance costs with the private sector and encourage infill and redevelopment (Burchell et al., 1999). The researchers created multiple models to examine two types of development patterns. The first is Existing development or sprawl, which includes unlimited outward expansion, leapfrog development, and low density. The second is Alternative or compact development, which holds a portion of development close to pr eviously developed areas, and emphasizes infill and redevelopment usually at higher density (Burch ell et al., 1999, Executive Summary). First, the Eastward Ho! study areas exist inland between Interstate 95 and the Fl orida Turnpike and do not apply to coastal areas. Dr. Burchell sugge sts from his statistical analysis using a residential/nonresidential allocation model, a land consumption model, a road model, a utilities model, a development cost model, and a fiscal cost model based on projections that by using an existing development model, development will not occur in the Eastward Ho! designated areas but will be concentrated in rural areas. The us e of the Alternative mode l will lead to compact development only in the Eastward Ho! study areas. The study dictates that with the Alternative growth pattern populations will be kept away from coastal high hazard areas. Dr. Burchell stipulates from his study that the use of the Alternative development pattern, through compact development and increased dens ity, will increase the population in the study area only and not divert resource s to rural or coastal areas. Ba sed on the study, the municipalities in the coastal high hazard area will not increase in population, but the authors do not stipulate whether the Alternative developm ent pattern will result in decreased populat ions. The study suggests that the use of the alte rnative development strategy in th e larger urban areas creates less spillover in the smaller municipalities. The author s infer that the costs saved by the county as a result of creating compact development and not diverting funds to increased infrastructure and 30

PAGE 31

land consumption will be reallocated to th e municipalities. The theory remains that municipalities faced with reduced public serv ice cost result in less focus on reacting to expanding development patterns and more on expa nding institutional and financial capacity to manage growth. Economic The economic success of the region has a dir ect affect on the fiscal and institutional capacity of small and medium-sized built-out municipalities. The 1985 Growth Management Act placed responsibility for fiscal policy planning in the hands of the planning profession. Mattson (1994) suggests that planners act like mediator s who balance the job of protecting the publics interest in either zoning or policy management with promoting a strong economic image for the municipality. Thus, local planners are more comfortable focusi ng their efforts on traffic flow or zoning changes than on devising a fiscal policy plan to pay for municipal services (Mills and Davis, 1963; Buck and Rath, 1970; Hahn, 1970; Catanese, 1974; Howe 1992) (Mattson, 1994). Municipalities contain eroding tax bases and continually find it difficult to finance mandated state requirements. With legislative and constitu tional restrictions, Floridas small towns appear to have few policy options to cover shortfalls, especially when cash management seems to have its limitations. Small municipalities lack eff ective resources to counteract ec onomic or social changes as a result of spillover from larger urban areas or within their own community. Larger urban areas contain governments with more fiscal and in stitutional capacity to attract the professional expertise necessary to weather economic and social changes. As stressed, local governments must have sufficient fiscal resources to ensu re development of the horizontal and vertical organizational linkages that sust ain the convergence of professional management skills with political leadership. Depending on the location and the economic and institutional resources of 31

PAGE 32

the built-out municipality, they ar e sometimes unable to pay the salaries to attract the kinds of professionals needed. Even if a small built-out m unicipality has the financ ial capacity, the staff hired may face resistance due to the current political will of the municipality. Most small governments are primarily reactive entities, for at least three reasons. First because of their narrow economic basis, small towns provide a limited array of municipal services, which restricts their ab ility to attract industry. Secon d, this lack of breadth in the economic base prevents the town from hiri ng the professional expertise essential for planning economic revitalizationFinally, the scale of freestanding communities tends to foster a traditional-individualistic political-culture value system that stresses a limited role for local government. Subsequently, public o fficials are often unwilling to initiate new programs or activities (Mattson and Burke, 1989, p. 398). The elected officials will support and adopt programs that do not affect or threaten their power base. The lack of an open but firm political, social, and economic foundation will acerbate the problem further. Small and medium-sized municipa lities will rely on the resources they have and attempt to share resources with neighboring muni cipalities, their region, and the state through interlocal agreements and contracts. Mattson and Burke (1989) infer th at the lack of sophisticated systems prevents small and medium-sized municipalities from encouragi ng innovative planning tech niques. Impediments include land availability, fiscal disincentives for local government to approve infill projects, outdated zoning requirements, ex cessive parking standards, fi nancing difficulties, neighborhood opposition, lengthy permitting processes, toxic contam ination sites, and poor schools and a lack of amenities in older communities (Wheeler, 2002, p. 3). Urban growth boundaries constrict the supply of land available which in turn drives up the demand. Lower income groups are forced out because when supply is limited and demand is great, the costs associated with the limited supply increase. Because of their design, Floridas growth mana gement policies act as a restriction on the supply of developable land. A restriction in su pply raises the price, which creates winners and losers. Higher land prices benefit landowne rs with developable and developed land, 32

PAGE 33

and benefit homeowners, because the market va lue of their property increases. Losers in the process are renters, people who are moving into an area and want to either rent or buy a residence, and people whose property is outsi de the developable area according to the land use map. As such, growth management policies can be viewed as creating a transfer of income from poorer Floridians to richer Fl oridians. Those who own their own homes and who own other real estate tend to be better off financially th an those who rent and who do not own real estate (Holcombe, 2007, p. 228) Redevelopment affects more than just indivi dual properties. It has far-reaching effects on employment, housing, tourism, transportation, and the attractiveness of our communities. As we plan for the future, it is essential that we understand and address the relationships between land supply and demand, the regulatory climate, public investment, and private business decisions. (Pinellas County Economic Development & Pinellas Planning Council, 2005, p. 1). The organization of the local government and the st atus of its elected o fficials in a small or medium-sized municipality plays a part in how well policy innovation occurs. The focus of power among the residents and business owners will determine which types of issues will be supported and whether the municipality has the fiscal and institutional cap acity to handle that support. Small towns contain well-meaning, parttime politicians. With few political cleavages and informal civic leadership patterns, elected officials have a strong tendency to seek a caretaker type of government in which policies have strong traditionalindividualistic overtones. Such policies are designed to provide benefits without regard to income levels, rarely establishing distinct winners and losers (Mattson and Burke, 1989, p. 401). In reality, this rarely occurs. The regulatory framework and the tax system of the municipality de termine the extent of the revenue stream. Residents, developers, and elec ted officials of older municipa lities are sometimes hesitant to support infill development in a community because even with further commercial properties, they believe that the tax base will decrease. Residents oppose inf ill that will increa se the density 33

PAGE 34

and intensity levels within the municipality. Depending on the state, small and medium-sized municipalities do not always have the financia l clout, tools, or expe rience with offering economic or tax incentives, which remains a stumbling block to attrac ting primary employers and residents back into the municipality. Au thors of the Infill and Redevelopment Handbook (1999) suggest that finance and capital markets re main a barrier to the redevelopment and infill developer. Lenders perceive mixed-use projec ts appropriate to redevelopment and infill development as risky since similar projects ca nnot be compared. Als o, developers are not producing residential properties ba sed on what is needed or desi red, but by the economic factors that play a part in the housing market. Lende rs separate residential and commercial loans compounding the problems in developing infill development. Researchers indicate that tw o of the biggest impediments to redevelopment and infill development include an individu als perception and bias towards a concept and how the local government relays the information to indivi duals (Mattson and Burke, 1989; Wheeler, 2002). Wheeler (2002) suggests that many associate residential density with large, impersonal apartment buildings, public housing projects, or physical environments like a downtown area. Mattson and Burke (1989) indicated that the few influential people control the flow of information and determine the extent of policy making within the municipality. Approaches Redevelopment and infill development are viewed as a comprehensive strategy for managing growth within a community (W heeler, 2002; HDR, 2006; HDR, 2005). HDR (2006) indicates in the Treasure Island Downtown Redeve lopment Plan, at the conceptual level, there are three general factors to cons ider when looking at the redeve lopment potential of a community or district. 34

PAGE 35

Location : this includes issues a ssociated with the physical and functional context, including local, regional and even super-regional influences. Community : this includes the social and cultural context. What are the demographic characteristics such as average age, househol d income, education levels, etc.? Is this a community with long-term roots, or one wh ere most of the resi dents have arrived recently? Are there transformations occurri ng that have implications for future development? Economics: what is the financial context of the district in question? What are the real estate market factors at work? Is property inherently desira ble and valuable, or is there more supply than demand? (HDR, 2006, p. 5) The intersections of these factor s help define some of the necessary elements of the potential redevelopment strategy. The intersection between Co mmunity and Economics helps define the demand for services and space. The intersection between Lo cation and Economics provides insights into a potential redevelopment program. The intersection between Loca tion and Community gives insi ghts into the opportunities to define a unique and fitting Sense of Place for the particular situ ation (HDR, 2006, p. 5) Effective redevelopment balances the needs an d characteristics of all three of these three factors (HDR, 2006, p. 5). The authors of Pinellas by Design (2005) also suggest that redevelopment requires a coordi nated effort between local governments, elected officials, citizens, and the public and priv ate sectors. The authors of Pinellas by Design (2005) insist that local governments and agencies have to work to gether as individual a nd cooperative entities on a volunteer basis. Mattson and Burk e (1989) insist that small to wns lack the financial and institutional capacity to manage projects, and without resources to pursue policy planning, small municipalities would shun away from volunteer government programs. Two plans demonstrate success in implementi ng redevelopment and infill development strategies. The Eastward Ho! Initiative encourag es compact development and partnerships with all stakeholders. Within the Eastward Ho! Study Area, Delray Beach, Boca Raton, Hollywood, 35

PAGE 36

Fort Lauderdale, and Miami initiated projec ts through public, public-private, or private partnerships. These municipali ties successfully commenced proj ects by using a variety of financing methods. Municipalities used non-prof it agencies, voter-approved bond issues, art grants, private funding, Commun ity Development Block Gran ts (CDBG), HOME, housing bonds, and State Housing Initiative Plans (SHIP) to fund these projects. This initiative strives to go beyond residential redevelopment and to encourage various redevelopment strategies such as adaptive reuse, mixed use, commercial renova tion, historic preservation, urban renewal, and downtown redevelopment. The Smart Infill guidebook illustrates that a selection of San Fran cisco Bay Area cities continue to strive to encourag e infill. Municipalities develop specific plans to act as building blocks to larger community redevelopment proj ects. The specific plans allow residents and businesses to take ownership of creating a neighborhood vision in connection with the citywide and regional plans. Emeryville and San Jose use mapping and other t echnologies to provide information about available infill parcels. The C ity of Mountain View rezoned certain parcels to encourage infill development by reducing the floor area ratio and reduce permitting processing timing. The cities of Millbrae and Oakland redu ced fiscal disincentives by increasing infill development near transit stops and used urban design changes to aid current businesses to expand the tax base. The City of Albany hired consultants to develop urban design standards which include easy-to-understand graphics to illu strate these guidelines. According to Smart Infill (2002), such guidelines can speed up the revi ew process and create greater certainty for developers about what is expected. Cities such as Cupertino, Fremont, Gilroy, Milpitas, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, and San Carlos carried out pre-applic ation reviews of development 36

PAGE 37

projects to determine potential obstacles and identi fy important stakeholders in the community to be consulted. Since the trend toward higher densities and intensities will likely continue for the foreseeable future, it is vital that communities recognize and address this transition (Pinellas County Economic Development & Pinellas Planning Council, 2005, 37). Wheeler (2002) suggests that local governments can play a central role in making infill happen. Local officials can take the lead by creating Specific Plans for areas with infill potential, revising zoning and parking codes, adopting design guidelines, stream lining permitting processes, facilitating cleanup of contaminated sites, and c oordinating involvement of neighbors and other local constituencies (Wheeler, 2002, p. 3). One response by local planners and elected officials is to talk instead about compact development, smart growth, or livable, walkable neighborhoodsAnother approach used around the country, pioneered by Ru tgers professor Anton Nelessen, has been to conduct a visual preference survey of local residents. People ar e shown images of typical lowdensity suburban development a nd other types of higher-density development, such as turn-ofthe-century streetcar suburbs and well-designed in fill projects. Most residents find they prefer somewhat higher density than found in recent su burbia because these include more attractive streetscapes, local shops and re staurants, and a greater divers ity of housing choices (Wheeler, 2002, p. 15). Summary All municipalities in Florid a face challenges with the implementation of redevelopment and infill strategies. A plan is only as good as th e effectiveness of impl ementing the objectives and policies successfully. The studies suggest th at traditional individualistic behavior remains equally present in small, medium, and larg e communities that hamper innovative policy innovation and planning implementa tion strategies. The process of revitalizing individual 37

PAGE 38

districts or whole communities consists of a multidim ensional task. It is more than just the focus on redevelopment and infill itself, but it is the intersection of the location, community, and economic factors of a small to medium-sized built -out municipality that leads to an effective strategy. The municipality determines success by how the stakeholders (public sector, private sector, and civic sector) work toge ther to achieve a common goal. Municipalities face redevelopment and inf ill challenges with balancing state-mandated growth management requirements with the size, dive rsity, political will of the residents, and the economic resources of the municipality. Small municipalities in Florida face limited fiscal and institutional capacity based on br oad regulatory and policy require ments, the quality of their staff, the use of partnerships, a nd their location in the state. The policies of small municipalities remain influenced by the few powerful people that control the political arena. Small municipalities experience spillove r effects from larger urban areas Small built-out municipalities face challenges from federal and state coasta l high hazard requirements, density limitations, limited economic development and investment, limited housing supply, high land values, and mixed levels of public participation ba sed on social and economic standards. 38

PAGE 39

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Introduction This research uses case study methodology i nvolving key information and a review of comprehensive plans to understand how redevelopment and infill strategies are used in small and medium-sized built-out communities in Flor ida. The case study methodology was chosen because it allows for the exploration of add itional topics that contributed to a more comprehensive analysis of the topic being consid ered redevelopment and infill development in small and medium-sized municipalities. The cas e study is preferred in examining contemporary events, but when the relevant behaviors cannot be manipulated. Thus, the case study relies on many of the same techniques as history, but it ad ds two sources of evidence not usually included in the historians repertoire: direct observati on and systematic intervie wing. Again, although case studies and histories can overlap, the case studys uni que strength is it ability to deal with a full variety of evidence documents, artifacts, interviews, and observations (Yin, 1984, p. 19-20). This research involves several components w ith each case study. This process included: (1) selection of case studies; and (2) the development of case studie s, which included a review of planning documents; key informant interviews with planning officials and elected officials; and elected officials; and observations. The goal of this research is to understand how small and medium-sized built-out cities address the challenges of planning for redevelopm ent and infill strategies in their community. Selection of Case Studies The first step in selecting the case study was to identify the pool of likely cities. The state of Florida has 412 incorporated municipalities. Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) Florida Statistical Abstract provides 200 5 population projections fo r all municipalities 39

PAGE 40

in the state. The small and medium-sized munici palities are the focus of this study because they are generally large enough to have their own planning or building and zoning department, but they are small enough that they may not have eno ugh staff to manage growth with more complex planning tools and techniques. Counties or cities with populations that were less than 5,000 were eliminated from the study. Then, cities with a population between 5,000 and 20,000 were identified. Next, the small and medium-sized citi es were evaluated to determine if they were built-out. A municipality is classified as built-out where 85 percent of the land within the city limits is developed. The initial search of built-out cities in Florida resulted in seventeen municipalities. These seventeen municipalities were located in all areas of the state of Florida, and were built-out due to either geographical or politic al boundaries. Many of the munici palities located in Miami-Dade County, in or near the Intercoast al Waterway, contained similar ch aracteristics related to size and the amount of unincorporated land located in vari ous areas near the city limits. Geographical Information Systems (GIS) data through Florid a Geographical Data Library (FGDL) and online satellite mapping software provided further verification to whether each remaining municipality was located near unincorporated county land. Any city that was located near unincorporated land was automatically eliminated due to its ability to annex land into the municipality at a future time. As a result of finding small parcels of uninc orporated land located near the city limits of these barrier islands, the number of built-out municipalities decreas ed from seventeen to thirteen. The thirteen small and medium-sized incorpor ated municipalities were selected based on whether they are built-out and lo cated on a barrier island, near na tural features, or are in the middle of an urban area. The thir teen municipalities selected we re Indian Rocks Beach, Treasure Island, St. Pete Beach, Sanibel, Marco Island, Key Biscayne, Pembroke Park, Wilton Manors, 40

PAGE 41

Lighthouse Point, Neptune Beach, Atlantic Beach, Parker, and Valparaiso. The thirteen small and medium-sized incorporated municipalities are located in ma jor metropolitan areas such as Panama City, Jacksonville, St. Petersburg, Fort Myers, Naples, Fort Lauderdale, and Miami. Please refer to figure 3-1 for a map of the lo cation of these munici palities in Florida. Municipalities were selected to represent a good balance of every region of the state with the exception that none of the built-out ci ties are located in the Orlando area. In the process of contacting ci ties to verify contact informa tion and mail out consent forms to planning professionals and elected official s to begin primary research, four additional municipalities were dropped. The municipalitie s of Lighthouse Point and Pembroke Park in Broward County do not have plan ning departments. Each municipality contracts with a consultant to create and manage all of their zoning and planning documen tation. This consultant, who is used for both cities, would have require d payment to be interviewed. Stated on the consent form, no payment would be issued to pla nning consultants, planning directors, or elected officials for participation in this study. Ther efore, Lighthouse Point and Pembroke Park were dropped from the study. Building and planning prof essionals and elected officials, from the municipalities of Parker and Va lparaiso, were contacted on nu merous occasions to schedule phone or in-person interviews. After leaving se veral messages and receiving no responses, these two cities were also dropped from the study. The elimination of these four communities adversely affected this research. The loss of Lighthouse Point and Pembroke Park are both located in the southeas t part of the state which is well represented in the study. However, Parker and Valparaiso contain both geographical (waterbodies) and politi cal boundaries (Elgin and Tynes Air Force Bases) and other issues such as height and density restrictions that are distinct compared to most municipalities in Florida. 41

PAGE 42

These two cities were the only small to medium-si zed built-out cities in the Panhandle region of Florida. Development of Case Studies Review of Planning Documents Once the case study cities were selected, severa l sources of information were gathered for each city includes: (1) comprehensive plan; (2) EA R; (3) land development regulations; and (4) other planning documents. The review of the future land use and housing elements in the comprehensive planning documents were completed to understand the strategies employed by the city. The review of the future land use, tr ansportation, and housing elem ents in the evaluation and appraisal report (EAR) were done to verify whether current comprehensive plan goals, objectives, and policies addressed redevelopment. The land development code was reviewed to determine whether municipalities updated thei r code to match their comprehensive plan. A variety of other planning documents were reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Key Informative Interviews with Pla nning Officials and Elected Officials Key informative interviews were conducted with the community development director, planning director, senior planner, the building and zoning depa rtment director, and elected officials. The interview process allowed for the planning professionals a nd elected officials to provide insight to whether the planning strategi es listed in the comprehensive plan, evaluation and appraisal report, and the land development c ode reflected what is currently occurring in these municipalities. The questions covered the s ubjects of the municipali tys preferred growth management strategy (redevelopment, infill, urban design changes, or all of the above), the level of job creation, the level of economic devel opment and investment, the level of tax and economic incentives offered, and the level of public participation. Elected officials additionally were asked to provide their pers pective on the challenges faced by their built-out municipality 42

PAGE 43

and possible solutions, if available, to those chal lenges. In all but two ca se studies, the elected officials accepted the interview request. The mayor of Wilton Manors and the chair of the city council in Marco Island did not respond back to numerous emails re questing interviews. The interviews of these two groups of key informants varied depending upon whether the interviewee was a planning or community development professi onal or an elected official. Interview questions for planning and community development directors and elected officials covered the subject areas of redevelopment and infill development, small and large scale comprehensive plan amendments, job creation, economic development and investment, incentives, and public participation. Comprehensiv e planning and growth management questions remained more akin to planning and community development directors, and business and public policy issues connected more with the elec ted officials. The planning and community development director interviews lasted anywhere from forty-five minutes to an hour and a half, and the elected official interviews lasted anywhe re from fifteen to thirty minutes. The experience and accessibility of the planning professional and el ected official, the politic al climate within the municipality, and the support of growth management and comprehensive planning within the municipality determined the length of the interview. Please refer to Appendix B for a complete list of interview questions asked to both plan ning and community development directors and elected officials. Observation The researcher visited each municipali ty and canvassed neighborhoods by foot and automobile to observe redevelopment and infill activity. Prime elements of each municipality were photographed, and select photographs were included in this document. 43

PAGE 44

Analysis of Case Studies The researcher reviewed the comprehensive pl an and the EAR, if available; to identify goals, objectives, and policies in the future land use and housing elements related to redevelopment, infill, density limitations, and coastal high hazard area requirements. The EAR provided analysis of whether redevelopment and in fill strategies were mentioned and whether the objectives and policies were completed or rema in on-going issues. The EAR also provided an evaluation of whether the land de velopment regulations were cons istent with the objectives and policies listed in the comprehensive plan. Once all interviews were conducted, the findings were placed in indi vidual matrixes based on each subject area to determine whether there we re more similarities or differences between each municipality. The results of each interview were also compared to the comprehensive plan, if available; evaluation and apprai sal report, if available; and th e land development code of each case study. The comprehensive plans, evaluation and appraisal reports, and land development code addressed the subject area of redevelopmen t and infill development extensively, but the subject areas of job creation, economic developmen t, and incentives remain ed barely mentioned at all in the above government documents. Th e location, fiscal capac ity, and institutional capacity of each municipality pl ayed a part in whether redeve lopment and infill development were supported by the local government or whether th e private sector took the lead. Please refer to the Findings chapter to view the results of the planning and community development director and elected official interviews as well as view data from comprehensive plans and evaluation and appraisal reports. Summary The researcher selected nine case studies out of seventeen built-out municipalities. These municipalities represent a ll but one region of the state (excluding the Panhandle) and the special 44

PAGE 45

characteristics associated with each region. Th e researcher developed the case studies through the review of planning documents, conducting in terviews with key informants, and observing municipalities through visits. Pl anning documents including the co mprehensive plan, EAR, and land development regulations were completed and analyzed. Interviews with community development directors, planning directors, senior planners, an d building and zoning directors, and elected officials were conduc ted and analyzed to understand the municipalitys infill and redevelopment strategies. 45

PAGE 46

Maps Figure 3-1. Location of original 13 case studies. [Due to th e close proximity of Atlantic Beach and Neptune Beach to each other in northeast Florida, only one red marker is shown to represen t both cities. Map provided by Google Earth, 2007.] 46

PAGE 47

Figure 3-2. Location of 9 case studies. [Due to the close proximity of Atlantic Beach and Neptune Beach to each other in northeast Florida, only one red marker is shown to represent both cities. Map provided by Google Earth, 2007.] 47

PAGE 48

CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS Introduction This section provides the results of three different sets of anal ysis of each of the nine case study cities: (1) a summary of char acteristics of the population; (2 ) a comparison and contrast of planning documents and interview results; and (3 ) a summary of the findings. The established sources present findings to determine whether pa tterns exist between de mographics, community characteristics, and the initiation of redevelopm ent and infill development by the public sector. In addition, the Findings section provides interview findings fr om planning professionals and elected officials to confirm whether small and medium-sized built out municipality case studies implement redevelopment and infi ll development strategies. City Profiles The nine small and medium-sized built-out muni cipalities consist of eight coastal built-out municipalities and one inland built-out municipa lity. Each case study incorporated based on support from residents and business owners to set strategies to adequately plan for the future. Atlantic Beach and Neptune Beach incorporated in the 1920s and 1930s; Indian Rocks Beach, St. Pete Beach, Treasure Island, and Wilton Manors incorporated in the 1940s and 1950s; Sanibel incorporated in the 1970s; and Key Biscayne an d Marco Island incorporated in the 1990s. The municipalitys history and govern ment structure determines the political climate and the policy making abilities of the built-out municipality. Atlantic Beach and Neptune Beach, located in Duval County a nd the northeast region, share a border and have the Atlantic Ocean as th eir eastern border and the Intercoastal Waterway as their western border. The V illage of Key Biscayne, located in Miami-Dade County and the southeast region, shares a northern border with Crandon Park and a southern border with Bill 48

PAGE 49

Baggs Cape Florida State Park. The Atlantic Ocea n is their eastern border and Biscayne Bay is their western border. Wilton Manors, located in Broward County and the southeast region, was nicknamed The Island City. Although Wilton Manors is an inland municipality surrounded by the larger municipalities of Fort Lauderdale and Oakland Park, the city developed this nickname due to the delineation of the north and south forks of the Middle River as their city limits. Marco Island, located in Collier County and the southw est region, has the larges t population of all the case study built-out municipalities. Sanibel, located in Lee County and the southwest region, is a crescent-shaped island that has a conservation area over sixty percent of the island. Sanibel borders the Pine Island Sound on the north, the Gulf of Mexico on the south and west, and Fort Myers Beach on the east. Indian Rocks Beach, St Pete Beach, and Treasure Island, located in Pinellas County and the west centr al region, share a western border with the Gulf of Mexico and either shares an eastern border with Clearwater Harbor or Boca Ciega Bay. Demographics Population The nine case study municipalities have populations between 5,000 and 20,000. According to the Bureau of Economic and Business Resear chs (BEBR) 2006 Florida Statistical Abstract, all but two case studies gained in population between the 2000 and 2005. Of the nine case studies, Key Biscayne generated the largest gain in population with 918 people or 8.03% of the population. Other case studies such as Marco Is land and Atlantic Beach generated the second and third largest increase in population at 768 and 711 people, respectivel y. Marco Island has the largest population of the nine case studies. Atla ntic Beach remains a popular coastal community for families and military personnel working in Mayport and Jacksonville. Unlike Key Biscayne, Marco Island, and Atla ntic Beach which ga ined in population, Wilton Manors lost population between 1980 an d 1989. Corresponding with the decrease in 49

PAGE 50

population in Wilton Manors, residents increasin gly moved into the unincorporated areas of Broward Counties during this time period. The Jacksonville Metropolitan Area saw the largest increase in population between 1980 and 1989 in both Atlantic Beach and Neptune B each. Atlantic Beach and Neptune Beach saw moderate population growth between 1990 and 1999. The three case studies in Pinellas County (Indian Rocks Beach, Treasure Island, and St. Pete Beach) varied in their population growth. Indian Rocks Beach saw moderate population growth between 1980 and 1989, but saw significa nt population growth between 1990 and 1999. Treasure Island saw significant population growth between 1980 and 1989, but that growth tapered off significantly between 1990 and 1999. St. Pete Beach decreased in population between 1980 and 1989, but they experienced mo derate population growth between 1990 and 1999. Pinellas County is 90 percent built-out, and these three case studies are located on barrier islands in a coastal high hazard area. Indian Ro cks Beach, Treasure Island, and St. Pete Beach have minimal vacant land available and due to the federal and state regulations related to coastal high hazard areas, these three cities have been un able to increase density and intensity levels. The market conditions influence the decisi ons being made on how, where, and when redevelopment and infill devel opment is initiated and implemen ted on the barrier islands in Pinellas County. For further details on each case studys population change, please refer to table 4-3 in the Findings section. Predominant Age Group Case studies located in the southeast, north east, and west central regions contained the predominant age group of 25 to 44. The second and third highest concentration of age groups varied among the case studies. Refe r to tables 4-4 through 4-8 in the Findings section to view each case study and their predominant age group. 50

PAGE 51

Based on the United States Census, the municipalities of Key Biscayne, Wilton Manors, and Neptune Beach have a large number of children between the ages of 5 and 17. These findings correspond with lower median ages which are shown in the United States Census data. Based on the 1980 and 2000 United States Census, Key Biscayne, Wilton Manors, and Neptune Beach have residents with a median age near 40 years. Although the median age of residents increased in Neptune Beach between 1980 and 2000, Key Biscayne and Wilton Manors maintained the same median age over that same twenty year period. A nother result worth noting remains that despite the consid erable number of school age ch ildren located in Neptune Beach, another case study, Atlantic Beach, a built-out municipality located directly north of Neptune Beach, does not have a large num ber of school aged children. Unlike the northeast, southeast, and west cen tral regions, the predominant age group in the southwest region, which contains Marco Island and Sanibel, remain s 65 to 74 years. Retirees and high income individuals purchase second or third homes in southwest Florida. Neither city is located near a larger metropolitan area such as Jacksonville, Miami, Fort Lauderdale, Tampa, or St. Petersburg. The predominant employment remains hospitality and tourism for residents of these municipalities. Whereas Sanibel promotes it self strictly as an exclusive residential and tourist destination for nature l overs, Marco Island promotes itsel f both as a family and exclusive tourist destination. As a result, Marco Islands second largest predominant age group consists of 25 to 44 year residents. Predominant Housing Types Viewing the 1990 and 2000 United States Census, the built-out municipalities predominant housing type remained the same. Atlantic Beach, Indian Rocks Beach, Neptune Beach, and Sanibel continue to be dominated by 1-unit, detached housing. The housing type changed in Treasure Island and Wilton Manors. Treasure Is lands predominant housing type was 1-unit, 51

PAGE 52

detached housing units in 1990. Over the next ten years, the housing increasingly became structures with 10 units. These changes do not take into account post-redevelopment resulting from severe hurricane damage in 2004 and 2005 and changing development trends from the housing boom between 2001 and 2006. In contrast, Wilton Manors made transitioned from structures with 10 units or more to si ngle unit, detached housing. Between 2001 and 2006, Wilton Manors continued to build its traditional pattern of structures with 10 or more units. In all of the case study areas, except Wilton Manors, th e municipality is located in a coastal high hazard area, which prevents these municipalities fr om building structures that are beyond federal building height limits of four to five stories or 50 to 60 feet. Key Biscayne, Marco Island, and St. Pete Beach st rive to build structures with 10 units or more. It is difficult to make a correlation betw een the predominant housing types, the median age of residents, and the predominant age of reside nts because personal preferences such as marital status, income, and physical capabilities play a part in the collec tive effect of i ndividual decisionmaking. Refer to tables 4-11 throug h 4-15 for a summary of the characteristics of housing in the case study municipalities. Predominant Commuting Method to Work Not surprisingly, the predominant commu ting method to work in all case study municipalities and the state were cars, truck, or van. According to the 1990 United States Census, Neptune Beach and Wilton Manors showed the highest use of public transportation at 2.21% and 2.66%, respectively. Key Biscayne and Sa nibel showed the highest use of walking to work or working from home at 11.53% and 14.45%, respectively. According to the 2000 United States Census, Atlantic Beach and Wilton Manors residents increased their public transportation usage to 2.28% and 4.17%, respectively. Sanibel and St. Pete Beach showed the highest use of walking to work at 3.72% and 5.52%, respectively. Indian Rocks Beach and Sanibel showed the 52

PAGE 53

highest levels of working from home at 10.81% and 13.00%, respectively. Comparing the use of public transportation and walk ing as the preferred commuting method between 1980 and 1989, Atlantic Beach has one of the lowest counts of residents walking or working at home at 4.34%, but Sanibel has the lowest perc entage of residents using public transportation to commute to work at 0.42%. Between 1990 and 1999, Treasure Isla nd residents used public transportation the least at 0.00%, and Neptune Beach residents wa lked to work (0.22%) and worked from home (1.77%) the least. Counties establish limited mass-transit services on the barrier islands based on demand for those services. Pinellas Suncoast Transit Auth ority (PSTA) establishe d the Suncoast Beach Trolley to provide transit services for reside nts and tourists along th e Pinellas County barrier islands. The Suncoast Beach Trol ley provides limited services off of the barrier islands and does not serve as a primary transportation option for residents. PSTA provides bus service in mainland municipalities but as of the current day, PSTA does not provide bus service in the beach communities. These users would need regional destrinations. Although Indian Rocks Beach, St. Pete Beach, and Treasure Island cont ain the same level of public transportation access, Treasure Island shows no public transportation activity where Indian Rocks Beach and St. Pete Beach show moderate signs of public transportation usage. Miami-Dade County maintains a toll plaza at the entrance of the causeway leading to Key Biscayne which could limit the use of public transportation. The county provides bus access between the island and various government, educ ation, and business centers in the City of Miami. Key Biscayne residents and business owners use public transportation and walking as their preferred commuting method more than th e Pinellas County case study municipalities. 53

PAGE 54

Like Key Biscayne, Sanibel also has a toll plaz a at the entrance of the causeway leading to the island, and public transportation and walking remain the least used commuting methods. The City of Sanibel does not offer public transpor tation options but provide bicycle and walking paths as alternatives to automobile travel th roughout the island. Marco Island does not require a toll payment to access the island, but it also suffers from the same commuting issues as Sanibel. Refer to tables 4-16 through 4-19 in the Finding s section to view each case study and their predominant commuting method to work. Predominant Industry The predominant industry in each of the nine small and medium-sized built-out municipality varies by region. In northeast Flor ida, Atlantic Beach and Neptune Beach host professional, scientific, and tec hnical services industries. In so utheast Florida, Key Biscayne hosts professional, scientific, and technical serv ices industries, but Wilton Manors is dominated by the retail trade industry. In southwest Florida, Sanibel and Marco Island also prefer the retail trade. In west central Florida, Indian Rock s Beach, St. Pete Beach, and Treasure Island accommodation and food services are the dominant industries. Refer to tables 4-14 and 4-15 in the Findings section for the predominant industry for each case study. Planning Documents and Interview Results Background The state of Floridas Growth Management Act requires all municipalities to have a comprehensive plan that includes goals, objectiv es, and policies for that municipality to adequately manage growth. These goals, objectives, and policies are required in the mandatory elements of the plan including future land use, transportation, and housing. The Growth Management Act dictates that an evaluation and appraisal repor t (EAR) needs to be generated every seven years to assess whether growth mana gement has been successful or is failing in a 54

PAGE 55

particular area. Municipalities use recommendati ons in the EAR to update their comprehensive plan as well as their land development codes. The following are the fi ndings of whether each case studys comprehensive plan and EAR contai n goals, objectives, and policies that refer to redevelopment and infill devel opment specifically. The intervie ws with planners and elected officials provide support for the positions of the citys comprehensive plan and its implementation. The comprehensive plan does not dictate implementation procedures. To review whether the goals, objectives, or policies have been successful, please refer to Appendix A. According to the planning professionals and el ected officials, the dominant industry, in each case study, is based on the ava ilability of vacant land, the proxi mity to larger urban areas, the predominant age of the municipality, the predominant age of the residents, and whether the municipality is a bedroom community or cl ose to a commercial or industrial area. Atlantic Beach According to the Atlantic Beach comprehens ive plan introduction (2004), Atlantic Beach adopted its original Comprehensive Plan in 1990 The municipality submitted its first EAR in 1997, but DCA found Atlantic Beachs EAR insuffici ent in meeting the requirements of section 163.3191 (evaluation and appraisal of comprehensive pl an), Florida Statutes. The city revised the EAR and resubmitted the document in 2003, and DCA found the resubmitted EAR to be sufficient. Atlantic Beach updated their comprehe nsive plan in 2004 to incorporate the changes reflected in the EAR. Atlantic Beach set Goal A.1 in the Future Land Use Elements to manage growth and redevelopment in the following manners: (1) encourages, creates and maintains a healthy and aesthetically pleasing built environment; (2) avoids blighted influen ces, (3) preserves and enhances coastal, environmental, natural, histor ic, and cultural resources; (4) ma intains the Citys distinct residential community character; (5) provide s for reasonable public safety and security 55

PAGE 56

from hazardous conditions associated with coas tal locations; and (6) that provides public services and facilities in a timely and co st effective manner (Atlantic Beach, 2004). Atlantic Beachs building and zoning department created objectives and policies that encourage redevelopment and infill through urban design changes and the preservation of the natural and built environments. Redevelopment and infill will remain residential in nature and building heights will not exceed thirty-fiv e (35) feet. According to Policy A.1.10 in the comprehensive plan, the planning professionals a nd elected officials believe that the city shall continue to maintain a development character, which is comp act in form, orderly in its land use pattern, and diversified in its makeup so as to ensure employment opportunities, affordable housing, a pleasant living environment, and cost-effective public service (Atlantic Beach, 2004). The comprehensive plan (2004) stresses that the City shall encourage the clustering of land uses only in areas that contain the appropriate level of infrastructure along the Mayport Road (AIA) commercial corridor. Please refer to Appendix A to view all goals objectives, and policies that refer to redevelopment and infill development in Atlantic Beach. Sonya Duerr (2007), the Community Developm ent Director, and John Meserve, Mayor, provided insight to whether redevelopment and infill strategies in the comprehensive plan are actually being followed in the municipality. A lthough Ms. Duerr confirmed that Atlantic Beach follows a collective planning strategy with redevelopment, infill, and urban design changes, Mr. Meserve asserted that infill was Atlantic Beachs preferred planning strategy. Ms. Duerr and Mr. Meserve confirmed that the city encourages commercial redevelopment to occur along the Mayport Road (AIA) corrido r, With limited land zoned for commercial uses in Atlantic Beach, Mr. Meserve stated that it will be difficult to provide employment opportunities and affordable housing that are able to be offered in near by larger urban areas (J. Meserve, personal communication, December 17). 56

PAGE 57

No additional economic development is encouraged or sought out by Atlantic Beach despite the challenges of decreasing tax revenue due to state regulations. Atlantic Beach remains a predominantly residential municipality with over 90 percent of the available land occupied by single-family and some multi-family units. City officials confirm that Atlantic Beach does not contain the tools or the tax authority to encourage redevelopment in the residential neighborhoods or provide incentives to pursue alternative development patterns (S. Duerr and J. Meserve, personal communication, December 7, 2007 and December 17, 2007). The private sector and private property owners handle the cost for residentia l redevelopment. Both confirm that issues with the teardown of smaller existing and outdating housing stock and their conversion into larger structures goes against the land developm ent regulations and Future Land Use Policy A.1.10 which strive for compact development and orderly land use patterns (Atlantic Beach, 2007). The building and zoning department ini tiated a study after the 2003 EAR was accepted by DCA to determine whether the land development regulations are currently sufficient or need to be updated based on new goals, objectives, and po licies. Ms Duerr (2007) stated that Atlantic Beachs land development regulations lacked th e necessary regulations to discourage private property owners from building larger structures on smaller lots. She also stated that the building of larger structures went against the preferred community residential preference of low density single-family homes and strained curren t infrastructure levels of service. In Future Land Use Policy A.1.5.5, the buildi ng height and density limitations were created in the land development code based on residential preference and federal and state coastal high hazard regulations. Both individual s confirm that Atlantic Beach represents a 57

PAGE 58

residential hamlet that supports the working cl ass from the larger Jacksonville Metropolitan Area. Ms. Duerr and Mr. Meserve (2007) believe that their comprehensive plan and land development regulations adequa tely support the resi dential and commercial redevelopment and infill despite the limited tax revenue present in Atlantic Beach. Ms. Duerr (2007) confirmed that Atlantic Beach updated their land development regulations in 2004 when elected officials, residents, and building and zoning professionals felt that the regulat ions did not adequate prepare the City for redevelopment pr essures felt by the market. Pub lic participation in growth management issues remains high, and limited de nsity continues to be encouraged based on federal and state hazard mitigation standards and residential preference. Indian Rocks Beach Indian Rocks Beach last updated their comp rehensive plan in 1999. Indian Rocks Beach submitted an EAR to the Department of Community Affairs, and the EAR was approved on October 10, 2006. The EAR encourages redevelopment as a land development strategy and places special emphasis on infill, reuse, and revitalization. Incentives will be supported for infill and mixed use development and disincentives will be applied to singl e-family residential construction. Stated in the Future Land Use Element, the planned unit development (PUD) land use could serve as an effective tool to promote infill development and redevelopment as well as encourage mixed-use developments. Please refer to Appendix A to view all goals, objectives, and policies that refer to re development and infill development in Indian Rocks Beach. The subject of density remains a contentious issue in Indian Rocks Beach, although Bill Ockunzzi (2007), Indian Rocks Beachs mayor, vi ews the issue of incr eased density as under control. As in many communities, the teardown of older smaller residential structures with new larger residential structures remains an issue. The EAR suggests changing Future Land Use 58

PAGE 59

Element (FLUE) Objective 1.4 to stress that th e City of Indian Rocks Beach should create disincentives for single uses in a mixed-use land use category. This change conflicts with what Danny Taylor, Planning Director, stated regarding desired density limits, building heights, and the use of mixeduse development. Residents desi re to keep density limits as low as possible and reduce building heights from three floors to tw o floors. Based on the EARs findings, Indian Rocks Beach manages to keep the floor area rati o and intensity limits within reasonable state levels. Mixed-use development is encouraged by business owners but residents provide limited support. Businesses are leaving, a nd hotels are closing. Indian Ro cks Beach lacks the tools to provide both economic and tax in centives towards mixed-use deve lopment which discourages its use. Similar to mixed-use development, the City includes objectives and policies regarding the encouragement of redevelopment. FLUE Objective 1.5 (redevelopment) states that The enhancement and protection of the citys ex isting character shall be achieved through redevelopment which ensures a nd orderly and aesthetic mixture of land uses (Indian Rocks Beach, 1999). Bill Ockunzzi confirms that reside nts are concerned about community aesthetic and put a strong emphasis on urban design chan ges instead of redevelopment (B. Ockunizzi, personal communication, Janua ry 10, 2008). Both his and the resi dents view contradict what is stated in FLUE Objective 1.5. To counteract the issue of aesthetics in Indian Rocks Beach, the City approved a design ordinanc e. Since the design ordinance was passed recently, both the planning director and mayor feel it is too early to judge its success. The EAR recommends that the City evaluate the role of redevelopment as a land development strategy and connect th at strategy with the vision for town character and identity. Both Danny Taylor, the Planning Director, and Bill Ockunzzi, the Mayor, concur with the EAR 59

PAGE 60

that Indian Rocks Beach needs to focus more on a community vision that encourages a small town feel with a sense of place (D. Taylor and B. Ockunzzi, personal communication, December 18, 2007 and January 10, 2008). Although the EAR recommends the clustering of commercial entities, both Danny Taylor and Bill Ockunzzi confirm that Indian Rocks B each is losing businesses to high land values and limited vacant land. Increasing tax revenue remains a priority, but residents prefer to keep property taxes low (D. Taylor and B. Ockunzzi, personal communica tion, December 18, 2007 and January 10, 2008). Bill Ockunzzi (2007) stated that the City prefers to maintain the commercial and retail entities within Indian Rocks Beach and do not support economic development and investment. Both individuals confirmed that job creation is little to none, and one of the biggest challenges rema ins that Indian Rocks Beach is transforming into a low density residential community with limited tax re venue to support infrastructure updates. Key Biscayne The village was incorporated in 1991, and the Village of Key Bisca yne Master Plan was adopted on September 12, 1995 and accepted by th e Department of Community Affairs on October 20, 1995. The Village of Key Biscayne be gan to prepare their first evaluation and appraisal report (EAR), the 2020 Vision Plan/Evaluation and A ppraisal Report, in 2005 and adopted the first prepared EAR in 2006. The Village of Key Bis cayne added further updates in 2007. The first comprehensive plan for Key Bisca yne was approved in 1995. As stated in the comprehensive plan (Key Biscayne, 1995), the ty pe of land uses that were present in Key Biscayne were not an issue but how developm ent was occurring caused serious concerns. Jud Kurlancheek stated that the Village does not need to encourage redevelopment since it occurs on its own (J. Kulancheek, personal communica tion, 2007). The private sector and private 60

PAGE 61

homeowners initiated residential redevelopmen t throughout the Village. Based on conversations with the mayor and building, zoning, and planni ng director in Key Bi scayne, residents and elected officials support keeping density development levels as low as possible (J. Kulancheek and R. Vernon, personal communication, December 12, 2007 and January 24, 2008). According to the mayor and the building, zoning, and pla nning director, the apartment buildings were converted into condominiums, and the floor ar ea ratio of the new condominiums expanded without increasing the amount of the population (J. Kulancheek and R. Vernon, personal communication, December 12, 2007 and January 24, 2008). According to the EAR, teardowns were a seri ous problem, and the aesthetics of the newer structures did not match well with the community s vision or with the surrounding structures in particular neighborhoods and adjacent areas. T eardowns continued to be an issue in Key Biscayne due to market forces at play and the desirability of the location of the Village (WRT, 2006). Both Jud Kurlancheek (2007) and Robert Vernon (2008) confirmed that the teardowns caused the amount of housing stock to stay constant but increa sed the population. The objectives and policies in the comprehensive plan created by the citizens and local go vernment stressed that setback, height, and minimum pervious area and ot her bulk controls would be encouraged and strictly enforced through the land development regulations to combat the issue of teardowns. Between 1995 and 2006 the following current and projected conditions were reflected in the Village of Key Biscayne. While Key Biscayne is an area of moderate population growth in comparison to other municipalities in Miami-Dade County, its grow th rate is dropping and its population is predicted to level by 2010 according to Miami-Dade County projections. The percentage of people over the age of 65 has dropped over the past decade as the number of family households with children under the age of 18 has grown No land has been annexed, no land is available for annexation, and no vacant lots remain in Key Biscayne. Future growth will occur in the form of redevelopment. The 61

PAGE 62

composition of the Village will continue to evolve and as older housing stock is knocked down and replaced by larger dwel ling units, a trend that is evident today and likely to continue until around 2047. All new construction and redevelopment sin ce 1995 has occurred in accordance with the Future Land Use Map and complies with FEMA and Coastal High Hazard Area regulations. (WRT, 2006, p. 14) The lack of vacant land in the Village of Key Biscayne leads to a lack of economic development and investment. As stated Robert Vernon, the lack of commercial activity remains a challenge to the Village and difficult to reso lve (J. Vernon, persona l communication, January 24, 2008). Without available vacant land, the Vi llage will rely on supporting its existing commercial and retail activity. As an alternative solution, Jud Ku rlancheek stated that the Village attempts to use altern ative funding sources from the public and private sectors to minimize the cost to residents of infrastructu re, development, and redevelopment projects (Kurlancheek, persona l communication, 2007). The Village of Key Biscayne continues to im plement recommendations set forth in their most recent EAR. Please refer to Appendix A to view all goals, objectives, and policies that refer to redevelopment and infill in Key Biscayne. Marco Island The island was originally incorporated as Co llier City in the 1920s but the municipality de-incorporated at a later time. Incorporated in 1997, Marco Is land is the largest and most northern of Florida's Ten Thousand Islands (located in southwest Fl orida) at 24 square miles. It has a mix of single family homes and high rise condominiums. The island was developed by the Deltona Corporation in the 1960s. Founded by th e Mackle Family, the Deltona Corporation gained national notoriety for Marco Island's success as a project. Although some of the homes on Marco Island are considered "inland" because th ey are not directly on the water, most single family homes are directly on a can al or waterway and have their own boat docks with boat lifts. 62

PAGE 63

Marco Island submitted its first comprehensive plan in 2001 and its first EAR in 2005. Their EAR stressed that Marco Island is involve d in two types of redevelopment: redevelopment of individual properties and stru ctures and large scale projects that influence community-wide redevelopment. Marco Islands residents remain concerned about the built environment and support density and intensity limitations. The EAR suggests that mixed use development is encouraged, but the Marco Island Master Plan an d the land development code do not fully define and provide clear guidelines to how mixed-use pr ojects will be reviewed and approved (Marco Island, 2005). Marco Island continues to implem ent the objectives and policies related to redevelopment and infill development. Please re fer to Appendix A to view all goals, objectives, and policies that refer to redevelopment and infill development in Marco Island. Confirming the EAR analysis on redevelopment, Marco Island encourages redevelopment that focuses on individual propert ies and structures and large s cale projects. Contradicting the original comprehensive plan da ta and analysis, the City does not involve themselves with redevelopment, but they allow the private sector and individual property owners to initiate the process. Although the City is not involved with redevelopment directly, they recently co-funded public works projects to improve circulation on North and South Collier Boulevard. The City continuously reviews and update s the land development code to handle the issues of redevelopment, mixed used development, rezoning, and commercial space. Density is not a contentious issue in Marc o Island. Although the comprehensive plan and the EAR state that mixed-use development and land uses are encouraged, mixed-use development remains limited. Based on observa tion, low density residential remains the preferred land use. Based on the EA R, Marco Island prefers to use overlay and zoning districts to be consistent with the community s vision of a small, tropical town (Marco Island, 2005). Marco 63

PAGE 64

Island restricts commercial development, and ex cept for attracting companies in the tourist and hospitality industries, economic development and investment is not encouraged outside of the real estate market. Neptune Beach The city was originally part of Jacksonville Beach but seceded and incorporated as Neptune Beach in 1931. When the majority of communities in Duval County consolidated with Jacksonville, Florida in 1968, Nept une Beach, Jacksonville Beach, Atlantic Beach, and Baldwin, Florida, remained quasi-independent. Like the ot her municipalities, Neptune Beach maintains its own municipal government but its residents vote in the Jacksonville mayoral election and have representation on the Jacksonville city council. Neptune Beach has not updated its comprehe nsive plan since 1990. Due to a lack of financial resources, unfunded mandates, and resi dential apathy, there have been very few attempts to reevaluate the comprehensive plan to verify whether it is adequate to meet the communitys needs (H. Pruette, personal communication, December 22, 2007). An EAR was created in the late 1990s and se nt to the Department of Comm unity Affairs (DCA) for review. DCA did not find the EAR sufficient, but the City of Neptune Beach never submitted the requested revisions. As a result the City of Neptune Beach wa s declared non-compliant by DCA and is not allowed to prepare a new EAR until 2009. Neptune Beach does not reference redevelopment or infill strategies in their comprehensive plan. According to Amanda Askew, Director of Community Development, the residents remain supportive of the growth manageme nt process but the City does not have the tools or the financial capacity to promote or encourage redevelopment (A. Askew, personal communication, December 7, 2007). Harriett Pruette, vice mayor, confirmed this asse rtion and added that the lack of commercial properties in Nept une Beach contributes to its l ack of tax revenue, which makes 64

PAGE 65

initiating any project difficult (H. Prue tte, personal communication, December 22, 2007). Neptune Beach has no ordinances to attract rede velopment. Private developers and property owners must follow outdated land development code Since the comprehensive plan has not been updated since 1990, the land development regulati ons do not match the goals, objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plan (A. Aske w, personal communication, December 7, 2007). Amanda Askew (2007) stated that this disconnect creates conflicts betw een residents, business owners, and elected officials. Related to the la nd development regulations, if the property is not up to code due to a health or blight issue, th e city will step in and complete redevelopment on that property or group of properties. Sanibel The city was formed in 1974 as a direct result of the main causeway being built in 1963 to replace the ferry between Sanibel Island and Ft Myers. Rampant construction and development occurred afterward. The munici pality remains predominantly a conservation and preservation area with sixty percent of the island zoned for conservation. The zoning and land use is based on low density and intensity standards. The only bui ldings above two to three stories now on the barrier island were built during the first few year s after its incorporation. Sanibel recently updated their comprehensive pl an known as The Sanibel Plan. Sanibels comprehensive plan is distinct compared to mo st municipalities in Florida. Sanibel focuses on density and intensity. From thei r incorporation as a municipali ty in 1974 through the passing of the Growth Management Act in 1985 and into th e current day, Robert Duffy, Planning Director, stated that the public supports th e strict management of low density and intensity levels to match the Citys vision of retaini ng and embracing the quality of sanctuary (R. Duffy, personal communication, November 30, 2007). On the ground, residential redevelopment and infill activity reflects the objectives and policies listed in the Sanibel Plan, the land development codes 65

PAGE 66

currently on file, and the assessm ent by the planning director, R obert Duffy, and mayor, Mick Denham. Residents support the use of the current development patterns, but businesses seek more flexible development patterns to encourage th e creation of innovative tax revenue sources (M. Denham, personal communication, January 30, 2008). Pr operty taxes remain the main source of revenue for Sanibel. Robert Duffy stated that tax revenue has decreased on Sanibel which prevents the City from initiating redevelopm ent (R. Duffy, personal communication, November 30, 2007). Currently, the City cannot offer incenti ves due to limited institutional capacity. The lack of property tax revenue ha s affected the ability for the island to provide and maintain services to its resident (M. Denham, personal communication, January 30, 2008). To counteract decreasing levels of tax re venue, the City of Sanibel is pursuing a Redevelopment Planning Work Program to eval uate how redevelopment is conducted following a natural disaster, and whether the redevelopm ent of nonconforming or functionally obsolete properties follow the Sanibel Plan and current land development codes (R. Duffy, personal communication, November 30, 2007). Once the analys is has been completed, then it might be necessary to amend the land development codes. According to the Sanibel Plan, commercial redevelopment and development is discouraged when it commercializes natural resources. Incentives and disincentives will be incorporated into the land development regulations where commercial development is created in clusters instead of in separate zoning districts. The Periwinkle Way business area and the Town Center remain the focus areas for maintaining but not increasing retail or commercial development based on curr ent land uses. Please refer to Appendix A to view all goals, objectives, and poli cies that refer to redevelopment and infill development in Sanibel. 66

PAGE 67

St. Pete Beach St. Pete Beach was formed from the towns of Pass-a-Grille, Don CeSar, Belle Vista, St. Petersburg Beach and unincorporated Pinellas County (St. Pete Beach, 2007). At the time of its incorporation in 1957, its name was St. Peters burg Beach. On March 9, 1994, locals voted to officially change the name to St. Pete Beach to distinguish it from the City of St. Petersburg, which is located a few miles to the east. The EAR identifies the issues that currently a ffect St. Pete Beach from pursuing successful redevelopment strategies. Due to political infighting within the m unicipality, comprehensive plan amendments (St. Pete Beach, 2006) created in 2006 to establish community redevelopment districts were voted down by a small margin in a community-wide referendum. Political infighting resulting from this public referendum ca used different factions of the population to pursue litigation. Attempts have been made to pass the Community Redevelopment Plan, but they continue to be unsuccessful. Ward Friszolosky confirmed the EARs analysis that suggests resident perspectives towards redevelopment rema in mixed due to a residents position toward change (W. Friszolosky, personal communication, January 1 0, 2008). Some residents and business owners embrace change to encourage development that would provide alternative revenue sources for the City. Othe r residents prefer to maintain the current development patterns in St. Pete Beach. Karl Holley, Director of Comm unity Development, explained that written into the city charter, regulations state that all comprehensiv e plan amendments must be put up for a voter referendum (K. Holley, personal communication, December 19, 2007). Even with the political infighting among groups, the majority of the pub lic remains supportive of using the public referendum process (K. Holley, personal commun ication, December 19, 2007). Save Our Little Village (SOLV) is a group that wanted develo pment and encouraged the public to change the 67

PAGE 68

public referendum process to decrease the im pediments to change. SOLV supported the 2006 comprehensive plan amendments that would have created the community redevelopment districts. St. Pete Beachs current evaluation and appr aisal report recommends that St. Pete Beach develop a comprehensive community development approach to look further at these issues (St. Pete Beach, 2007). To understand what the commun ity desires, likes, and dislikes, another recommendation includes creating a visioning process to allow the City to make informed decisions regarding the land use re gulations needed to implement and facilitate redevelopment. Please refer to Appendix A to view all goals, objectives, and policies that refer to redevelopment and infill development in St. Pete Beach. Treasure Island Treasure Island last updated th eir comprehensive plan in 199 9. Treasure Island is currently working on their EAR and is planning to submit the document to DCA later on this year. Treasure Island developed as part of same land boo m that affected nearby St. Pete Beach in the early 20th century and became a famous tourist destination. Treasure Island became famous when two landowners buried wooden treasure cases on the beach and received immense notoriety when it was first said that these w ooden treasure cases contained gold (Treasure Island, 1999). Treasure Island has a mix of single-fam ily homes, condominiums, and hotels. The Treasure Island comprehensive plan contains one objectiv e that addresses redevelopment. Objective 1.5 states that T he City of Treasure Island shall encourage redevelopment and ensure that it is compatible w ith the existing character in order to achieve an orderly and aesthetic mixture of land uses (Treasure Island, 1999). Although policy 1.5.1 states that the city shall encourage opportunities for the redevelopmen t or rehabilitation of existing commercial areas or uses, Lynn Rosetti, Senior Planne r, explained that the private sector initiates 68

PAGE 69

redevelopment opportunities in Treasure Island (L. Rosetti, personal communication, December 18, 2007). She also explained that residential redevelopment does not occur solely for economic reasons. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has been driving force behind redevelopment in coastal areas. Residents are rehabilitating and remodeling their properties and structures in order to meet FEMA coasta l high hazard area standards. Residents pursue remodeling since there is no waiting period between permits (L. Rosetti, personal communication, December 18, 2007). A resident ca n receive a new appraisal after each remodeling. Commercial properties can be made flood proof, and do not need to be elevated because not peoples homes. Treasure Islands ma yor, Mary Maloof, explained that the City supports the use of mixed-use de velopment in the downtown area, but it has been difficult to convince residents and businesse s to support a downtown redevelopment plan (M. Maloof, personal communicatio n, January 13, 2008). Treasure Island contracted with HDR, a cons ulting firm, in 2005 to create a downtown redevelopment plan. Presently, only the clock tower and road calming measures have been installed on 107th Avenue between Gulf Blvd a nd the start of the Tr easure Island Causeway. Redevelopment efforts in Treasure Island correlat e with what is stated in Treasure Islands comprehensive plan, but analysis of the effec tiveness of the comprehensive plan and the land development code is unavailable at this time. Please refer to Appendi x A to view all goals, objectives, and policies that refer to redevelopm ent and infill developm ent in St. Pete Beach. Wilton Manors Referred to as the Island City, Wilton Ma nors went through the EAR process in 2006. (Malgren, 2006). The municipality is currently implementing reco mmendations set forth in that document. 69

PAGE 70

The Future Land Use Element contains objectiv es that address controlling development and redevelopment through land development re gulations; support infi ll, redevelopment, and revitalization activities in appropriate areas; protect parks a nd natural resources; encourage innovative land development techniques, such as cluster zoning and mixed use; and protect historic reso urces (Malgren, 2006, p.68). Residents remain concerned with the increa se in property values. Wilton Manors uses redevelopment and infill development mostly along Wilton Drive, wh ich constitutes the downtown arts and entertainment district, and in Highland Estate s, a former dilapidated high crime neighborhood. Wayne Thies, the Building and Z oning Department Director, stated that the increase in density along Wilton Drive and in the Highland Estates neighborhood has been supported by the majority of the residents a nd business and civic associations. (W. Thies, personal communication, December 12, 2007). The increase in density corresponds with th e goals, objectives, and policies set forth in the comprehensive plan and land development regulations. The land development regulations were changed recently to incorpor ate the changes in the comprehe nsive plan and the desire to increase density and intensity in certain areas of the municipality. Wayne Thies stated Broward Countys flexible housing policies, resident and business owner support for the arts and entertainment district, and the encouragement of mixed-use development contribute to success with redevelopment and infill strategies in W ilton Manors. Please refer to Appendix A to view all goals, objectives, and policies that refer to redevelopment and infill development in Wilton Manors. Summary Based on findings from the pla nning professional and elected o fficial interviews, market trends and regulatory impediments affect the fiscal resources and tools available for each local government. Planning professionals and elected officials substantia te the literature which states that the increased land values due to both a muni cipalitys desirable locat ion and market trends 70

PAGE 71

71 squeezed out commercial interests. Planning prof essionals and elected officials, in the west central and northeast regi ons case studies, confirmed businesses closed and hotels converted to condominiums extensively during the recent housi ng boom. Elected officials stipulated that decreases in tax revenue remain a primary concer n as they search for viable alternatives in municipalities that have a pr eference for single-family residential housing. Explained by the elected officials, a lack of tax revenue limits th e ability for a built-out municipality to perform infrastructure and development updates (2007 an d 2008). Planning professi onals worry that the lack of affordable goods, services, and housing fo rces service workers to find more affordable amenities in communities located on the mainland. In some but not all of the built-out cities examined, planning directors and elected officials remain concerned about the possibility of infrastructure and transportation services level of service standards being strained currently and into the future without using adequa te growth management strategies.

PAGE 72

Table 4-1. Profiles of Case Study Municipalities Location Municipality Year of Incorporation County Region Atlantic Beach (AB) 1926 Duval NE Neptune Beach (NB) 1931 Duval NE Key Biscayne (KB) 1991 Miami-Dade SE Wilton Manors (WM) 1947 Broward SE Marco Island (MI) 1997 Collier SW Sanibel (S) 1974 Lee SW Indian Rocks Beach (IRB) 1956 Pinellas WC St. Pete Beach (SPB) 1957 Pinellas WC Treasure Island (TI) 1955 Pinellas WC Note: Cities list in clockwise sequence from north east to southeast to southwest to west central72

PAGE 73

Table 4-2. Profiles of Case Study Munici palities Comprehensive Plan and Eval uation and Appraisal Report (EAR) Municipality Comprehensive Plan EAR Year of the Most Current Plan Year of the Most Current Analysis Atlantic Beach (AB) 2004 2003 Indian Rocks Beach (IRB) 1999 2006 Key Biscayne (KB) 1995 2006 (updates in 2007) Marco Island (MI) 2001 2005 Neptune Beach (NB) 1990 N/A Sanibel (S) 2007 1997 St. Pete Beach (SPB) 1998 2007 Treasure Island (TI) 1999 N/A (1) Wilton Manors (WM) 2002 2006 73 Source: Comprehensive Plans and EARs, Atlantic Beach, Indian Rocks Beach, Key Biscayne, Marco Island, Neptune Beach, Sanibel, St. Pete Beach, Treasure Island, and Wilton Manors (1) Treasure Island is current ly working on their EAR and should be finished in 2008

PAGE 74

DEMOGRAPHICS Table 4-3. Population of Selected Case Study Municipalities 1980 2005 (A ctual and Estimate) Municipality 1980 Census 1985 Estimate 1990 Census 1980 vs 1990 % Change 1995 Estimate 2000 Census 1990 vs 2000 % Change 2005 Estimate Atlantic Beach 7,847 8,992 11,636 48.30 12,802 13,368 14.90 14,079 Indian Rocks Beach 3,717 4,298 3,963 6.60 4,178 5,127 29.4 5,311 Key Biscayne* N/A N/A N/A N/A 8,892 10,507 8.03 11,425 Marco Island* N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 14,879 4.90 15,647 Neptune Beach 5,248 6,154 6,816 29.90 7,423 7,270 6.70 7,256 Sanibel 3,363 4,237 5,468 62.60 5,753 6,064 10.9 6,272 St. Pete Beach 9,354 9,920 9,200 -1.60 9,459 9,929 7.90 10,032 Treasure Island 6,316 6,834 7,266 15.00 7,357 7,450 2.50 7,514 Wilton Manors 12,742 12,500 11,804 -7.4 11,868 12,697 7.6 12,439 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1980, 1990, and 2000 Census and Bureau of Economic and Busi ness Research, 1986, 1996, and 2006 Florida Statistical Abstract 74* Key Biscayne and Marco Island were not incorporated until 1991 and 1997, respectively. Until their year of incorporation, Key Biscayne and Marco Island were considered unincorporated la nd of Dade County (changed to Miami-Dade County) and Collier County.

PAGE 75

Table 4-4. Age of the Population in Selected Ca se Study Municipalities 1980 (in percentages) Years AB IRB KB MI NB S SPB TI WM Change 1970-1980 0% 39.4% 0% N/A 0% 0% 16.6% 3.2% 16.4% Under 18 Years 30.4% 12.5% 18.9% N/A 22.5% 13.7% 9.6% 10.4% 14.7% 18 to 64 Years 62.8% 62.0% 64.7% N/A 67.1% 61.6% 53.7% 60.8% 65.5% 65 Years and Over 6.8% 25.6% 16.4% N/A 10.4% 24.8% 36.7% 28.8% 19.8% Total 100% 100% 100% N/A 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Median 28.0 47.6 41.1 N/A 31.7 52.3 57.8 52.9 38.9 Source: United States Census, 1980 Key: AB=Atlantic Beach, IRB=Indian Rocks Beach, KB=Key Bis cayne, MI=Marco Island, NB=Neptune Beach, S=Sanibel, SPB=St. Pete Beach, TI=Treasure Island, WM=Wilton Manors75

PAGE 76

Table 4-5. Age of the Population in Sele cted Case Study Municipalities 1990 Years AB IRB KB MI NB S SPB TI WM Total Under 5 982 121 493 N/A 366 172 201 163 679 3,177 5 to 17 1,927 352 1,153 N/A 1,025 428 498 408 1,263 7,054 18 to 20 469 116 243 N/A 234 108 173 139 331 1,813 21 to 24 775 167 370 N/A 312 136 260 249 535 2,804 25 to 34 2,108 745 1,443 N/A 1,342 579 1,072 1,015 2,225 10,529 35 to 44 2,107 745 1,442 N/A 1,342 579 1,071 1,015 2,225 10,526 45 to 54 1,211 534 1,141 N/A 717 605 991 1,080 1,185 7,464 55 to 59 532 189 486 N/A 302 434 606 573 544 3,666 60 to 64 460 233 559 N/A 332 627 843 664 670 4,388 65 to 74 728 465 956 N/A 524 1,245 1,920 1,189 1,114 8,141 75 to 84 282 233 452 N/A 252 479 1,209 610 685 4,202 85 and Over 55 63 116 N/A 68 76 356 161 348 1,243 Total 11,636 3,963 8,854 N/A 6,816 5,468 9,200 7,266 11,804 65,007 Source: United States Census, 1990 Key: AB=Atlantic Beach, IRB=Indian Rocks Beach, KB=Key Bis cayne, MI=Marco Island, NB=Neptune Beach, S=Sanibel, SPB=St. Pete Beach, TI=Treasure Island, WM=Wilton Manors76

PAGE 77

Table 4-6. Age of the Population in Selected Ca se Study Municipalities 1990 (in percentages) Years AB IRB KB MI NB S SPB TI WM Under 5 8.4% 3.1% 5.6% N/A 5.4% 3.1% 2.2% 2.2% 5.8% 5 to 17 16.6% 8.9% 13.0% N/A 15.0% 7.8% 5.4% 5.6% 10.7% 18 to 20 4.0% 2.9% 2.7% N/A 3.4% 2.0% 1.9% 1.9% 2.8% 21 to 24 6.7% 4.2% 4.2% N/A 4.6% 2.5% 2.8% 3.4% 4.5% 25 to 34 18.1% 18.8% 16.3% N/A 19.7% 10.6% 11.7% 14.0% 18.8% 35 to 44 18.1% 18.8% 16.3% N/A 19.7% 10.6% 11.7% 14.0% 18.8% 45 to 54 10.4% 13.5% 12.9% N/A 10.5% 11.1% 10.8% 14.9% 10.0% 55 to 59 4.6% 4.8% 5.5% N/A 4.4% 7.9% 6.6% 7.9% 4.6% 60 to 64 4.0% 5.9% 6.3% N/A 4.9% 11.5% 9.2% 9.1% 5.7% 65 to 74 6.3% 11.7% 10.8% N/A 7.7% 22.8% 20.9% 16.4% 9.4% 75 to 84 2.4% 5.9% 5.1% N/A 3.7% 8.8% 13.1% 8.4% 5.8% 85 and Over 0.5% 1.6% 1.3% N/A 1.0% 1.4% 3.9% 2.2% 2.9% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% N/A 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Source: United States Census, 1990 Key: AB=Atlantic Beach, IRB=Indian Rocks Beach, KB=Key Bis cayne, MI=Marco Island, NB=Neptune Beach, S=Sanibel, SPB=St. Pete Beach, TI=Treasure Island, WM=Wilton Manors77

PAGE 78

Table 4-7. Age of the Population in Sele cted Case Study Municipalities 2000 Years AB IRB KB MI NB S SPB TI WM Total Under 5 824 136 766 375 311 115 293 155 621 3,596 5 to 9 803 136 816 444 385 175 266 203 569 3,797 10 to 14 880 139 660 508 429 205 262 201 567 3,851 15 to 19 807 159 455 444 453 154 221 193 555 3,441 20 to 24 620 160 334 309 435 64 250 136 588 2,896 25 to 34 1,773 585 1,211 770 1,105 241 826 583 1,887 8,981 35 to 44 2,360 937 1,902 1,383 1,314 510 1,422 1,157 2,737 13,722 45 to 54 2,059 1,056 1,473 1,782 1,272 854 1,641 1,547 2,097 13,781 55 to 59 646 447 685 1,408 397 651 752 753 621 6,360 60 to 64 537 369 571 1,741 287 668 713 565 458 5,909 65 to 74 877 590 886 3,550 486 1,430 1,580 1,136 827 11,362 75 to 84 922 297 594 1,856 322 841 1,290 667 696 7,485 Total 13,108 5,011 10,353 14570 7,196 5,908 9,516 7,296 12,223 85,181 Median 39.3 48 40.1 60.1 39.4 60.5 53.7 52.4 40.5 78Source: United States Census, 2000 Key: AB=Atlantic Beach, IRB=Indian Rocks Beach, KB=Key Bis cayne, MI=Marco Island, NB=Neptune Beach, S=Sanibel, SPB=St. Pete Beach, TI=Treasure Island, WM=Wilton Manors

PAGE 79

Table 4-8. Age of the Population in Selected Ca se Study Municipalities 2000 (in percentages) Years AB IRB KB MI NB S SPB TI WM Under 5 6.3% 2.7% 7.4% 2.6% 4.3% 1.9% 3.1% 2.1% 5.1% 5 to 9 6.1% 2.7% 7.9% 3.0% 5.4% 3.0% 2.8% 2.8% 4.7% 10 to 14 6.7% 2.8% 6.4% 3.5% 6.0% 3.5% 2.8% 2.8% 4.6% 15 to 19 6.2% 3.2% 4.4% 3.0% 6.3% 2.6% 2.3% 2.6% 4.5% 20 to 24 4.7% 3.2% 3.2% 2.1% 6.0% 1.1% 2.6% 1.9% 4.8% 25 to 34 13.5% 11.7% 11.7% 5.3% 15.4% 4.1% 8.7% 8.0% 15.4% 35 to 44 18.0% 18.7% 18.4% 9.5% 18.3% 8.6% 14.9% 15.9% 22.4% 45 to 54 15.7% 21.1% 14.2% 12.2% 17.7% 14.5% 17.2% 21.2% 17.2% 55 to 59 4.9% 8.9% 6.6% 9.7% 5.5% 11.0% 7.9% 10.3% 5.1% 60 to 64 4.1% 7.4% 5.5% 11.9% 4.0% 11.3% 7.5% 7.7% 3.7% 65 to 74 6.7% 11.8% 8.6% 24.4% 6.8% 24.2% 16.6% 15.6% 6.8% 75 to 84 7.0% 5.9% 5.7% 12.7% 4.5% 14.2% 13.6% 9.1% 5.7% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Source: United States Census, 2000 Key: AB=Atlantic Beach, IRB=Indian Rocks Beach, KB=Key Bis cayne, MI=Marco Island, NB=Neptune Beach, S=Sanibel, SPB=St. Pete Beach, TI=Treasure Island, WM=Wilton Manors79

PAGE 80

Table 4-9. Predominant Age of Population in Se lected Case Study Municipalities 1980, 1990, and 2000 Years AB IRB KB MI** NB S SPB TI WM 80 90 00 80 90 00 80 90 00 80 90 00 80 90 00 80 90 00 80 90 00 80 90 00 80 90 00 5-17 3 3 2 2 * 2 3 18-20 * * 21-24 * * 25-34 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 35-44 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 45-54 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 3 2 3 2 55-59 * * 60-64 * 3 65-74 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 3 2 3 75-84 3 * 3 3 85+ * * Source: United State Census, 1990 and 2000 Key: AB=Atlantic Beach, IRB=Indian Rocks Beach, KB=Key Bis cayne, MI=Marco Island, NB=Neptune Beach, S=Sanibel, SPB=St. Pete Beach, TI=Treasure Island, WM=Wilton Manor 80* The age of the population data was not se parated into places and censu s designated places in the 1980 United States Census si milar to the 1990 and 2000 United States Census. **Marco Island was neither a place nor census designated place until 1997. (1) Predominant Age Group (2) Second Highest Predominant Age Group (3) Third Highest Predominant Age Group

PAGE 81

Table 4-10. Median Age in Select ed Case Study Municipalities Years AB IRB KB MI** NB S SPB TI WM 1980 28.0 47.6 41.1 N/A 31.7 52.3 57.8 52.9 38.9 1990* 2000 39.3 48 40.1 60.1 39.4 60.5 53.7 52.4 40.5 Change 11.3 0.4 -1.0 7.7 8.2 -4.1 -0.5 1.6 Source: United States Census, 1980, 1990, 2000 Key: AB=Atlantic Beach, IRB=Indian Rocks Beach, KB=Key Bis cayne, MI=Marco Island, NB=Neptune Beach, S=Sanibel, SPB=St. Pete Beach, TI=Treasure Island, WM=Wilton Manors *The 1990 United States Census di d not contain a median age for each incorporated municipality. **Unable to be determined based on one United State Census figure Table 4-11. Housing Types in Selected Case Study Muni cipalities 1990 Types AB IRB KB MI* NB S SPB TI WM Total 1-Unit Detached 2,776 1,236 1,289 N/A 1,747 2,883 2,870 1,719 2,503 17,023 1-Unit Attached 728 88 222 N/A 276 185 82 391 339 2,311 2-4 Units 654 719 17 N/A 870 482 706 813 714 4,975 5-9 Units 256 297 12 N/A 69 781 342 569 312 2,638 10 or More Units 328 717 4,135 N/A 276 1,828 3,100 1,966 1,920 14,270 Mobile Home or Trailer 206 88 49 N/A 27 263 105 67 195 1,000 Total 4,948 3,145 5,724 N/A 3,265 6,422 7,205 5,525 5,983 42,217 81 Source: United States Census, 1990 Key: AB=Atlantic Beach, IRB=Indian Rocks Beach, KB=Key Bis cayne, MI=Marco Island, NB=Neptune Beach, S=Sanibel, SPB=St. Pete Beach, TI=Treasure Island, WM=Wilton Manors Marco Island did not become an incorporated municipality until 1997.

PAGE 82

Table 4-12. Housing Types in Selected Case Study Municipalities 1990 (in percentages) Types AB IRB KB MI* NB S SPB TI WM 1-Unit Detached 56.10% 39.30% 22.52% N/A 53.51% 44.89% 39.83% 31.11% 41.84% 1-Unit Attached 14.71% 2.80% 3.88% N/A 8.45% 2.88% 1.14% 7.08% 5.67% 2-4 Units 13.22% 22.86% 0.30% N/A 26.65% 7.51% 9.80% 14.71% 11.93% 5-9 Units 5.17% 9.44% 0.21% N/A 2.11% 12.16% 4.75% 10.30% 5.21% 10 or More Units 6.63% 22.80% 72.24% N/A 8.45% 28.46% 43.03% 35.58% 32.09% Mobile Home or Trailer 4.16% 2.80% 0.86% N/A 0.83% 4.10% 1.46% 1.21% 3.26% Total 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% N/A 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Source: United States Census, 1990 Key: AB=Atlantic Beach, IRB=Indian Rocks Beach, KB=Key Bis cayne, MI=Marco Island, NB=Neptune Beach, S=Sanibel, SPB=St. Pete Beach, TI=Treasure Island, WM=Wilton Manors Marco Island did not become an incorporated municipality until 1997. 82

PAGE 83

Table 4-13. Housing Types in Selected Case Study Muni cipalities 2000 Types AB IRB KB MI NB S SPB TI WM Total 1-Unit Detached 3,344 1,207 1,313 5,332 1,975 3,335 2,889 1,836 2,611 23,842 1-Unit Attached 1,049 334 140 245 384 323 301 451 276 3,503 2 Units 377 317 9 64 492 225 212 389 389 2474 3 or 4 Units 307 412 21 293 356 229 408 480 429 2935 5 to 9 Units 205 244 55 530 105 868 359 556 365 3287 10 to 19 Units 102 283 154 1,334 85 466 553 678 515 4170 20 or More Units 553 1,235 4,674 7,046 67 1,416 3,004 1,308 1,609 20912 Mobile Home 146 0 2 23 8 237 0 0 124 540 Boat/RV/Van 0 0 0 4 0 8 89 0 4 105 Total 6,083 4,032 6,368 14,871 3,472 7,107 7,815 5,698 6,322 61,768 Source: United States Census, 2000 Key: AB=Atlantic Beach, IRB=Indian Rocks Beach, KB=Key Bis cayne, MI=Marco Island, NB=Neptune Beach, S=Sanibel, SPB=St. Pete Beach, TI=Treasure Island, WM=Wilton Manors 83

PAGE 84

Table 4-14. Housing Types in Selected Case Study Municipalities 2000 (in percentages) Types AB IRB KB MI NB S SPB TI WM 1-Unit Detached 54.97% 29.94% 20.62% 35.86% 56.88% 46.93% 36.97% 32.22% 41.30% 1-Unit Attached 17.24% 8.28% 2.20% 1.65% 11.06% 4.54% 3.85% 7.92% 4.37% 2 Units 6.20% 7.86% 0.14% 0.43% 14.17% 3.17% 2.71% 6.83% 6.15% 3 or 4 Units 5.05% 10.22% 0.33% 1.97% 10.25% 3.22% 5.22% 8.42% 6.79% 5 to 9 Units 3.37% 6.05% 0.86% 3.56% 3.02% 12.21% 4.59% 9.76% 5.77% 10 to 19 Units 1.68% 7.02% 2.42% 8.97% 2.45% 6.56% 7.08% 11.90% 8.15% 20 or More Units 9.09% 30.63% 73.40% 47.38% 1.93% 19.92% 38.44% 22.96% 25.45% Mobile Home 2.40% 0.00% 0.03% 0.15% 0.23% 3.33% 0.00% 0.00% 1.96% Boat/RV/Van 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.03% 0.00% 0.11% 1.14% 0.00% 0.06% Total 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Source: United States Census, 2000 Key: AB=Atlantic Beach, IRB=Indian Rocks Beach, KB=Key Bis cayne, MI=Marco Island, NB=Neptune Beach, S=Sanibel, SPB=St. Pete Beach, TI=Treasure Island, WM=Wilton Manors 84

PAGE 85

Table 4-15. Predominant Housing Type in Sele cted Case Study Municipalities 1990 and 2000 AB IRB KB MI* NB S SPB TI WM Years 80 90 00 80 90 00 80 90 00 80 90 00 80 90 00 80 90 00 80 90 00 80 90 00 80 90 00 1UD 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 1UA 2 2 3 3 3 3 2-4U 3 3 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 5-9U 3 33 3 10 or More 3 2 1 1 1 3 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 MH or T *Marco Island was not a place nor census designated place until 1997. Key 1: AB=Atlantic Beach, IRB=Indian Rocks Beach, KB=Key Biscayne, MI=Marco Island, NB =Neptune Beach, S=Sanibel, SPB=St. Pete Beach, TI=Treasure Island, WM=Wilton Manors Key 2: 1UD=1-Unit Detached, 1UA=1-Unit Attached, 2-4U=2 to 4 Unit s, 5-9U=5 to 9 Units, 10 or More=10 or More Units, MH or T= Mobile Home or Truck 85 (1) Predominant Housing Type (2) Second Highest Predominant Housing Type (3) Third Highest Predominant Housing Type

PAGE 86

Table 4-16. Mode of Transportation to Work of Residents of Case Study Municipalities 1990 Commuting Method AB IRB KB MI NB S SPB TI WM Total Drove alone 4,590 1,800 3,397 N/A 3,047 1,727 3,034 2,909 5,262 15,979 In carpools 792 226 327 N/A 452 198 346 475 608 2,079 Using public transportation 101 31 50 N/A 84 10 54 29 176 353 Using other means 263 63 48 N/A 57 101 126 113 223 620 Walked or worked at home 261 110 498 N/A 169 344 357 274 360 1,504 Total 6,007 2,230 4,320 N/A 3,809 2,380 3,917 3,800 6,629 20,535 Source: United States Census, 1990 Key: AB=Atlantic Beach, IRB=Indian Rocks Beach, KB=Key Bis cayne, MI=Marco Island, NB=Neptune Beach, S=Sanibel, SPB=St. Pete Beach, TI=Treasure Island, WM=Wilton Manors Table 4-17. Mode of Transportation to Work of Residents of Case Study Municipalities 1990 (in percentages) Commuting Method AB IRB KB MI* NB S SPB TI WM Drove alone 76.41% 80.72% 78.63% N/A 79.99% 72.56% 77.46% 76.55% 79.38% In carpools 13.18% 10.13% 7.57% N/A 11.87% 8.32% 8.83% 12.50% 9.17% Using public transportation 1.68% 1.39% 1.16% N/A 2.21% 0.42% 1.38% 0.76% 2.66% Using other means 4.38% 2.83% 1.11% N/A 1.50% 4.24% 3.22% 2.97% 3.36% Walked or worked at home 4.34% 4.93% 11.53% N/A 4.44% 14.45% 9.11% 7.21% 5.43% Total 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% N/A 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%86 Source: United States Census, 1990 *Marco Island was not a place nor census designated place until 1997. Key: AB=Atlantic Beach, IRB=Indian Rocks Beach, KB=Key Bis cayne, MI=Marco Island, NB=Neptune Beach, S=Sanibel, SPB=St. Pete Beach, TI=Treasure Island, WM=Wilton Manors

PAGE 87

Table 4-18. Mode of Transportation to Work of Residents of Case Study Municipalities 2000 Commuting Method AB IRB KB MI NB S SPB TI WM Total Car, truck, or van -drove alone 5,373 2,206 3,326 4,006 3,641 1,354 3,016 3,156 5,254 31,332 Car, truck, or van -carpooled 639 138 432 599 265 218 452 254 748 3,745 Public transportation (including taxicab) 153 17 76 13 46 8 71 0 284 668 Walked 157 16 88 140 9 75 227 85 145 942 Other means 201 16 75 118 99 98 116 47 113 883 Worked at home 199 290 416 463 73 262 229 354 264 2,550 Total 6,722 2,683 4,413 5,339 4,133 2,015 4,111 3,896 6,808 40,120 Mean travel time to work (minutes) 27.2 27.6 23.7 19.3 28.6 18.3 25.2 27.1 21.8 24.3 Source: United States Census, 2000 Key: AB=Atlantic Beach, IRB=Indian Rocks Beach, KB=Key Bis cayne, MI=Marco Island, NB=Neptune Beach, S=Sanibel, SPB=St. Pete Beach, TI=Treasure Island, WM=Wilton Manors 87Table 4-19. Mode of Transportation to Work of Residents of Case Study Municipalities 2000 (in percentages) Commuting Method AB IRB KB MI NB S SPB TI WM Car, truck, or van -drove alone 79.93% 82.22% 75.37% 75.03% 88.10% 67.20% 73.36% 81.01% 77.17% Car, truck, or van -carpooled 9.51% 5.14% 9.79% 11.22% 6.41% 10.82% 10.99% 6.52% 10.99% Public transportation (including taxicab) 2.28% 0.63% 1.72% 0.24% 1.11% 0.40% 1.73% 0.00% 4.17% Walked 2.34% 0.60% 1.99% 2.62% 0.22% 3.72% 5.52% 2.18% 2.13% Other means 2.99% 0.60% 1.70% 2.21% 2.40% 4.86% 2.82% 1.21% 1.66% Worked at home 2.96% 10.81% 9.43% 8.67% 1.77% 13.00% 5.57% 9.09% 3.88% Total 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Source: United States Census, 2000 Key: AB=Atlantic Beach, IRB=Indian Rocks Beach, KB=Key Bis cayne, MI=Marco Island, NB=Neptune Beach, S=Sanibel, SPB=St. Pete Beach, TI=Treasure Island, WM=Wilton Manors

PAGE 88

Table 4-20. Predominant Industry 2007 (# of Businesses Located in the Municipality) Sort Order Variables AB IRB KB MI NB SPB S TI WM ALL OF USA Geographic Unit City City City City City City City City City 1 ACCOMMODATION & FOOD SERVICES [NAICS 72] 26 32 38 67 19 71 51 65 40 593,038 2 ADMIN, SUPPORT, WASTE MGT, REMEDIATION SERVICES [NAICS 56] 25 8 24 63 12 2 28 15 26 358,703 3 ARTS, ENTERTAINMENT & RECREATION [NAICS 71] 6 7 15 19 3 8 9 15 3 118,962 4 CONSTRUCTION [NAICS 23] 30 20 27 90 33 25 22 32 41 762,547 5 EDUCATIONAL SERVICES [NAICS 61] 0 2 12 3 2 1 2 6 5 78,765 6 FINANCE & INSURANCE [NAICS 52] 14 6 31 44 17 16 16 25 20 469,434 7 FORESTRY, FISHING, HUNTING, AND AGRICULTURE SUPPORT [NAICS 11] 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 25,532 8 HEALTH CARE AND SOCIAL ASSISTANCE [NAICS 62] 19 2 29 28 17 3 19 19 43 733,799 9 INFORMATION [NAICS 51] 0 6 9 11 3 1 8 7 12 139,457 10 MANAGEMENT OF COMPANIES & ENTERPRISES [NAICS 55] 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 4 2 46,138 11 MANUFACTURING, 2007 [NAICS 31] 3 0 6 8 0 0 4 6 16 339,221 12 MINING [NAICS 21] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22,379 13 OTHER SERVICES [NAICS 81] 32 18 56 90 18 21 41 30 47 736,902 14 PROFESSIONAL, SCIENTIFIC & TECHNICAL SERVICES [NAICS 54] 38 31 80 74 39 40 40 39 59 805,606 15 REAL ESTATE & RENTAL & LEASING [NAICS 53] 22 27 65 91 13 35 44 38 36 349,470 16 RETAIL TRADE [NAICS 44] 33 20 51 118 30 36 100 59 73 1,122,232 17 TRANSPORTATION & WA REHOUSING [NAICS 48] 8 1 6 17 4 0 3 9 2 206,998 18 UTILITIES, 2007 [NAICS 22] 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 17,612 19 WHOLESALE TRADE [NAICS 42] 6 10 40 27 12 8 2 24 30 428,171 88Source: SimplyMap and Census County Business Patterns, 2007

PAGE 89

INTERVIEWS: PLANNING DIRE CTORS OR SENIOR PLANNERS Table 4-21. Small Scale and Large Scal e Comprehensive Plan Amendments AB IRB KB MI NB S SPB TI WM Yes X X X X Small No X X X X X Yes X Large No X X X X X X X X Source: Planning Professional Interviews; November 30 and December 7, 12, 14, 18, 19, 2007. Key: AB=Atlantic Beach, IRB=Indian Rocks Beach, KB=Key Bis cayne, MI=Marco Island, NB=Neptune Beach, S=Sanibel, SPB=St. Pete Beach, TI=Treasure Island, WM=Wilton Manors Table 4-22. Promotion of Redevelopment a nd Infill by the Private Sector, Public Sector, or Public-Private Partnerships AB IRB KB MI NB S SPB TI WM Private X X X X X X X Public Partnered X None X 89 Source: Planning Professional Interviews; November 30 and December 7, 12, 14, 18, 19, 2007. Key: AB=Atlantic Beach, IRB=Indian Rocks Beach, KB=Key Bis cayne, MI=Marco Island, NB=Neptune Beach, S=Sanibel, SPB=St. Pete Beach, TI=Treasure Island, WM=Wilton Manors

PAGE 90

Table 4-23. Determining the Success of a Project AB IRB KB MI NB S SPB TI WM Commercial and Retail O ccupation X Level of Service Improvement X Design does not cause a negative impact X X X Fits Community Character X Built at All X Creates a Walkable Community X Unknown X X X Source: Planning Professional Interviews; November 30 and December 7, 12, 14, 18, 19, 2007. Key: AB=Atlantic Beach, IRB=Indian Rocks Beach, KB=Key Bis cayne, MI=Marco Island, NB=Neptune Beach, S=Sanibel, SPB=St. Pete Beach, TI=Treasure Island, WM=Wilton Manors ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 90Table 4-24. Job Creation AB IRB KB MI NB S SPB TI WM Yes X No X X X X X X X X Source: Planning Professional Interviews; November 30 and December 7, 12, 14, 18, 19, 2007. Key: AB=Atlantic Beach, IRB=Indian Rocks Beach, KB=Key Bis cayne, MI=Marco Island, NB=Neptune Beach, S=Sanibel, SPB=St. Pete Beach, TI=Treasure Island, WM=Wilton Manors

PAGE 91

Table 4-25. Reasons for a Lack of Job Creation AB IRB KB MI NB S SPB TI WM Bedroom Community X X X Limited Commercial and Retail X X X X Businesses Closing X X Downturn in Housing Market X Strictly Service Industr ies X X Work in the Larger Urban Area X X Local Businesses X Source: Planning Professional Interviews; November 30 and December 7, 12, 14, 18, 19, 2007. Key: AB=Atlantic Beach, IRB=Indian Rocks Beach, KB=Key Bis cayne, MI=Marco Island, NB=Neptune Beach, S=Sanibel, SPB=St. Pete Beach, TI=Treasure Island, WM=Wilton Manors 91

PAGE 92

Table 4-26. Economic Development and Investment AB IRB KB MI NB S SPB TI WM Yes X X X X No X X X X X AB IRB KB MI NB S SPB TI WM Sources Residential and Commercial N/A N/A Real Estate and Charter School N/A N/A N/A Real Estate, Banks, Professional Offices Unknown Types Service/Office Retail/Service N/A N/A Tourism N/A N/A N/A Professional Tourism Unknown Local Business or Multinational Both N/A N/A Both N/A N/A N/A Both mostly local businesses Unknown Contributions to Decrease N/A Increase in Property Values; Hotel closings N/A Unknown N/A N/A N/A Conversion of hotels to condos Unknown 92 Source: Planning Professional Interviews; November 30 and December 7, 12, 14, 18, 19, 2007. Key: AB=Atlantic Beach, IRB=Indian Rocks Beach, KB=Key Bis cayne, MI=Marco Island, NB=Neptune Beach, S=Sanibel, SPB=St. Pete Beach, TI=Treasure Island, WM=Wilton Manors

PAGE 93

Table 4-27. Incentives AB IRB KB MI NB S SPB TI WM Yes X No X X X X X X X X AB IRB KB MI NB S SPB TI WM How often offered? N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ A N/A N/A Not often Which industries receive the most? N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ A N/A N/A Housing/ Developers Why not offered? No taxing authority or fiscal resources No reason to; people are attracted to natural features Not necessary Unknown Not in the budget Not necessary Lack of fiscal resources No public/ Private partnerships Just not available. 93 Source: Planning Professional Interviews; November 30 and December 7, 12, 14, 18, 19, 2007. Key: AB=Atlantic Beach, IRB=Indian Rocks Beach, KB=Key Bis cayne, MI=Marco Island, NB=Neptune Beach, S=Sanibel, SPB=St. Pete Beach, TI=Treasure Island, WM=Wilton Manors

PAGE 94

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Table 4-28. Is Public participati on strong within the municipality? AB IRB KB MI NB S SPB TI WM Yes X X X X X X X X X N o Source: Planning Professional Interviews; November 30 and December 7, 12, 14, 18, 19, 2007. Key: AB=Atlantic Beach, IRB=Indian Rocks Beach, KB=Key Bis cayne, MI=Marco Island, NB=Neptune Beach, S=Sanibel, SPB=St. Pete Beach, TI=Treasure Island, WM=Wilton Manors 94

PAGE 95

Table: 4-29. Factors cont ributing to the success of Public Participation AB IRB KB MI NB S SPB TI WM Reinvestment and revitalization X Encouragement of mixed use X X Easily accessible staff X X Very involved public in the planning process X X Ability to embrace change X Creation of pedestrian friendly areas X Unknown X 95 Source: Planning Professional Interviews; November 30 and December 7, 12, 14, 18, 19, 2007. Key: AB=Atlantic Beach, IRB=Indian Rocks Beach, KB=Key Bis cayne, MI=Marco Island, NB=Neptune Beach, S=Sanibel, SPB=St. Pete Beach, TI=Treasure Island, WM=Wilton Manors

PAGE 96

Table 4-30. The Groups Most Supportiv e of Growth Management Changes AB IRB KB MI NB S SPB TI WM Civic Associations X X X X Taxpayer Associations X Restaurant Association X Religious Groups X X Elected Officials Businesses X X X X Chamber of Commerce X X X X X Residential Property Owners X X Unknown X 96 Source: Planning Professional Interviews; November 30 and December 7, 12, 14, 18, 19, 2007. Key: AB=Atlantic Beach, IRB=Indian Rocks Beach, KB=Key Bis cayne, MI=Marco Island, NB=Neptune Beach, S=Sanibel, SPB=St. Pete Beach, TI=Treasure Island, WM=Wilton Manors

PAGE 97

Table 4-31. Reasons for Limited Public Invol vement in Growth Management Decisions AB IRB KB MI NB S SPB TI WM Residents are not vocal N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ A N/A N/A N/A X Political Turmoil N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ A N/A X N/A N/A Source: Planning Professional Interviews; November 30 and December 7, 12, 14, 18, 19, 2007. Key: AB=Atlantic Beach, IRB=Indian Rocks Beach, KB=Key Bis cayne, MI=Marco Island, NB=Neptune Beach, S=Sanibel, SPB=St. Pete Beach, TI=Treasure Island, WM=Wilton Manors 97

PAGE 98

INTERVIEWS: ELECTED OFFICIALS Table 4-32. The Preferred Growth Management Strategy AB IRB KB MI NB S SPB TI WM Redevelopment X X X Infill Development X Urban Design X X All of the Above X X None of the Above Source: Elected Official Intervie ws, December 2007 and January 2008 Key: AB=Atlantic Beach, IRB=Indian Rocks Beach, KB=Key Bis cayne, MI=Marco Island, NB=Neptune Beach, S=Sanibel, SPB=St. Pete Beach, TI=Treasure Island, WM=Wilton Manors 98

PAGE 99

Table 4-33. Municipality Challenges AB IRB KB MI NB S SPB TI WM Teardowns X Affordability X Property Values X Property Taxes X X Adding Commercial X Unfunded Mandates X Lack of Tax Revenue X X Community Buyin To Redevelopment X Implementation of a Redevelopment Plan X 99 Source: Elected Official Interv iews, December 2007 and January 2008 Key: AB=Atlantic Beach, IRB=Indian Rocks Beach, KB=Key Bis cayne, MI=Marco Island, NB=Neptune Beach, S=Sanibel, SPB=St. Pete Beach, TI=Treasure Island, WM=Wilton Manors

PAGE 100

Table 4-34. Solutions for Municipality Challenges AB IRB KB MI NB S SPB TI WM Proper Zoning X Limit Impervious Surfaces X Strict Land Development Code X Beach Parking X X Permit Fees X Public Input Meetings X Use of Consultants X X Visioning X Unknown X 100 Source: Elected Official Interv iews, December 2007 and January 2008 Key: AB=Atlantic Beach, IRB=Indian Rocks Beach, KB=Key Bis cayne, MI=Marco Island, NB=Neptune Beach, S=Sanibel, SPB=St. Pete Beach, TI=Treasure Island, WM=Wilton Manors

PAGE 101

Table 4-35. Municipality Strengths Strengths AB IRB KB MI NB S SPB TI WM Good Regulations in Place X Desirable Place to Live X X X High Property Values X Location X X X Collegial and Caring Population X Residents of the Municipality X Accessibility to Elected Officials X Strong Communication X Eco-Tourism X 101 Source: Elected Official Interv iews, December 2007 and January 2008 Key: AB=Atlantic Beach, IRB=Indian Rocks Beach, KB=Key Bis cayne, MI=Marco Island, NB=Neptune Beach, S=Sanibel, SPB=St. Pete Beach, TI=Treasure Island, WM=Wilton Manors

PAGE 102

Table 4-36. Municipality Weaknesses Weaknesses AB IRB KB MI NB S SPB TI WM Lack of Tax Revenue X X X X Conversion of Hotels Into Condos X Updating Infrastructure to Meet Current Needs X Built-out before World War II X Outdated Aesthetics X Lack of Appealing Businesses X 102 Source: Elected Official Intervie ws, December 2007 and January 2008 Key: AB=Atlantic Beach, IRB=Indian Rocks Beach, KB=Key Bis cayne, MI=Marco Island, NB=Neptune Beach, S=Sanibel, SPB=St. Pete Beach, TI=Treasure Island, WM=Wilton Manors

PAGE 103

Table 4-37. Growth Management Tools in th e Comprehensive Plan: Are they adequate to meet your municipalitys needs? AB IRB KB MI NB S SPB TI WM Yes X X X No X X X X Preferred Planning Tools Design Ordinance X Increased Fiscal Resources X Source: Elected Official Interv iews, December 2007 and January 2008 Key: AB=Atlantic Beach, IRB=Indian Rocks Beach, KB=Key Bis cayne, MI=Marco Island, NB=Neptune Beach, S=Sanibel, SPB=St. Pete Beach, TI=Treasure Island, WM=Wilton Manors 103 Table 4-38. Have the residents and businesses located within the city limits been strong supporters of growth management change s? AB IRB KB MI NB S SPB TI WM Yes X X No X Mixed X X X X Reasons for Limited Support Lack of Fiscal Resources X Change vs. No Change X Source: Elected Official Interv iews, December 2007 and January 2008 Key: AB=Atlantic Beach, IRB=Indian Rocks Beach, KB=Key Bis cayne, MI=Marco Island, NB=Neptune Beach, S=Sanibel, SPB=St. Pete Beach, TI=Treasure Island, WM=Wilton Manors

PAGE 104

Table 4-39. Is your municipality interest ed in attracting economic development? AB IRB KB MI NB S SPB TI WM Yes X X No X X X Mixed X X Why not? Bedroom Community X Lack of Available Land X Source: Elected Official Interv iews, December 2007 and January 2008 Key: AB=Atlantic Beach, IRB=Indian Rocks Beach, KB=Key Bis cayne, MI=Marco Island, NB=Neptune Beach, S=Sanibel, SPB=St. Pete Beach, TI=Treasure Island, WM=Wilton Manors 104

PAGE 105

Table 4-40. Which types of economi c development are encouraged? AB IRB KB MI NB S SPB TI WM Big-Box Stores X Small Mom and Pop Stores X Franchises X Grocery Stores X Tourism and Hospitality X Mixed Use X N/A X X X Source: Elected Official Interv iews, December 2007 and January 2008 Key: AB=Atlantic Beach, IRB=Indian Rocks Beach, KB=Key Bis cayne, MI=Marco Island, NB=Neptune Beach, S=Sanibel, SPB=St. Pete Beach, TI=Treasure Island, WM=Wilton Manors 105

PAGE 106

106Table 4-41. Is there a focus on econo mic development and job creation? AB IRB KB MI NB S SPB TI WM Yes X No X X X X X X Types of Jobs Hospitality X Reasons for Limited to No Job Creation Commute to Larger Urban Areas X X X X Retirement and Second Home Community X X X Conversion of Hotels to Condos Lack of Financial Incentives Source: Elected Official Interv iews, December 2007 and January 2008 Key: AB=Atlantic Beach, IRB=Indian Rocks Beach, KB=Key Bis cayne, MI=Marco Island, NB=Neptune Beach, S=Sanibel, SPB=St. Pete Beach, TI=Treasure Island, WM=Wilton Manors

PAGE 107

Maps Figure 4-1. Northeast Region Atlantic Beach and Neptune Beach. [Map provided by Google Earth, 2007.] Figure 4-2. Southeast Region Wilton Manors. [Map provided by Google Earth, 2007.] 107

PAGE 108

Figure 4-3. Southeast Region Key Bi scayne. [Map provided by Google Earth, 2007.] Figure 4-4. Southwest Region Marco Island. [Map provided by Google Earth, 2007.] 108

PAGE 109

Figure 4-5. Southwest Region Sanibe l. [Map provided by Google Earth, 2007.] Figure 4-6. West Central Region Indian Ro cks Beach, Treasure Island, St. Pete Beach. [Map provided by Google Earth, 2007.] 109

PAGE 110

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION Based upon the findings of the research, five major themes are explored in this chapter. Factors that determine the municipalitys level and type of involvement with redevelopment and infill include (1) financial and institutional capac ity; (2) exclusivity; (3) density and federal, state, and regional coastal high hazard regulations; (4) economic development and investment; and (5) the level and type of public particip ation. Small to medium-sized communities have limited financial and institutional capacity due to their small size. Small and medium-sized builtout municipalities have additional constraint s because they must depend on infill or redevelopment in a community. The financial capacity repres ents the maximum amount or number of municipal bonds or othe r types of financial vehicles th at a built-out municipality can accommodated. The institutional capacity represents the maximum amount or number of current and future city workers, legal structure, and in frastructure that the bui lt-out municipality can accommodate. Exclusive communities limit individuals or create incompatible uses. Density is the average number of individuals or units per space unit ( http://www.merriam-webster.com/). Density limits and federal, state, and regional costal high hazard guidelin es create regulatory restrictions on the type of development supported in a built-out municipality. Economic development can be defined as efforts that seek to improve the economic well-being and quality of life for a community by creati ng and/or retaining jobs and s upporting or growing incomes and the tax base (http://www.merriam-webster.com /). The public participation process allows residents to voice their opinion on issues and take ownership of the process and results. These factors determine the extent to which residents, elected officials, plan ners, and business support redevelopment and infill. Municipalities must coordinate these various elements together when making decisions. Before examining these factors, it is important to remember that small and 110

PAGE 111

medium-sized built-out municipa lities face special challenges in planning for the communitys future. Financial and Institutional Capacity Location, community, and economic factors dete rmine the redevelopment potential of a community or district. The inters ections of these fact ors help define some of the necessary elements of the potential rede velopment strategy. When co mmunity and economic factors intersect, small and medium-sized municipalities can define the demand for services and space. When location and economic factors intersect, small and medium-sized built-out communities can examine how local and regional influences a ffect their redevelopment and infill strategies. When location and community factors intersect, small and medium-sized built-out municipalities are presented with opportunities to define their sense of place in relation to the community with the physical and function context that influe nce the community and the region. Effective redevelopment remains a balancing act between these three factors. Previous research (e.g., Treas ure Island Downtown Redevelo pment Plan, Pinellas by Design, and Smart Infill guidebooks) suggest that municipalities will experience success with redevelopment and infill when re gulations are flexible, elected o fficials are strong but accessible, residents are flexible and open to new strategies and ideas, and pa rtnerships are created between the public and private sectors. C ontrary to these ideas, this rese arch suggests that the small coastal case studies and to some extent the inla nd small built-out municipalities do not have the tax authority or institutional framework to offe r economic incentives encouraged by state growth management laws. The state leaves small local governments with the re sponsibility to manage and implement growth management strategies despite some local governments limited capacity to complete these tasks. Broward County provide s flexible housing credits that allowed Wilton Manors to initiate redevelopmen t and mixed use development on its own. The private sector 111

PAGE 112

stepped in to assist the city once the initial framework was set. Mattson and Burke (1989) confirm that some small towns lack the economic base to hire the professionals necessary or maintain the institutional capacity to crea te and manage innovative planning policy. Mattson and Burke (1989) assert that munici pality conflicts will run along group dynamics when in reality, issues themselves divide re sidents. Increased densities and redevelopment remain the two most contested issues in each of the nine case studies. Old timers and newcomers focus their energy on how redevelopment and density will affect them on an individual basis. Newcomers present their image as agents for cha nge, but they rarely have enough power in small municipalities to prevail. Newcomers hinder cha nge when they focus less on the communitys needs compared to on their own in dividual economic and social bene fit. The struggles within the community could be less about power but abou t the lack of institu tional capacity, outdated regulatory framework, and the commitment of ce rtain parts of the popula tion to holding onto to the past. The findings in seven out of the nine case stud ies corroborate the assert ions set forth in the literature that a municipalitys location, size, and availability of tools determines whether they contain the financial capacity to manage rede velopment and infill. Mattson and Burke (1989) argue that small towns cannot effectively initiat e innovative policy planni ng due to financial and institutional capacity limitations. Holcombe a nd Nelson et al. corroborat e that assertion and conclude that urban growth controls are pref erred by a select group of the population more for their economical benefits than altruistic behavi or. The use of urban growth controls show the effects of voluntary versus mandatory regula tions on small and medium-sized built-out municipalities. Small and medium -sized built-out municipalities share a similar dynamic in the land market to what happens to urban regions under urban growth boundaries. Pinellas County 112

PAGE 113

does not contain an urban growth boundary, but since Pinellas County is approximately 90% built-out with geographic and political limitations the county experiences the effects of land use controls without actually having the control. The limits on the availability of land make it desirable. The findings suggest that small to medium-si zed built-out municipa lities in northeast and west central Florida do not have an establis hed tax authority or previous knowledge to implement a community redevelopment area or incentives. Local municipalities attempt to complete these tasks without adequate institutiona l capacity or the assistance of the state. These statutes do not take into consideration the ava ilable resources or means of a municipality. The resources available to a municipal ity are based on where it is located in the state, the size of the town, and the functional abil ities of its government. With budget cuts, outdated land development code, ineffective technical adviso ry abilities from the state and the limited resources of small and medium-sized incor porated municipalities, residents view the comprehensive planning process as in flexible instead of adaptable. Despite the lack of fiscal a nd regulatory resources available to small and medium-sized municipalities, the burden of these deficienci es cannot be solely put on their shoulders. The history of development pa tterns since World War II; th e culture and history of a particular state, region, and municipality; and how the market reacts to these development patterns contributes a majority of the blame on la rger entities and urban areas. Larger built-out and developing municipalities ha ve great financial and inst itutional capacity to manage redevelopment and infill strategi es compared to small municipa lities. The economic and social activities of the larger urban areas in the northeas t and west central Florida case studies create a spillover effect without each municipality having the tools to handle the changes. According to 113

PAGE 114

Sonya Duerr (2007), the Community Developmen t Director of Atlantic Beach, although a concentration of children between the ages of 5 and 17 exists, the elementary and middle schools capacity levels do not exceed 55 percent. She indicated that high school-aged students are bused to the Jacksonville metropolitan area du e to a lack of facilities in her community. Confirmed by the findings, redevelopment outsi de of the residential market is not as widespread especially in small and medium-sized coastal built-out municipalities. The present studys findings contradict Sandoval and Landis (2002) assertions that a lack of tax base will result in more commercial and less residen tial development. The fi ndings do confirm Sandoval and Landiss (2002) assertions that regulatory restrictions do hamp er the ability of any small or medium-sized municipality from implementing redevelopment and infill strategies. Similar to Californias propositions four and th irteen, Florida municipalities remain limited in the amount of property tax they can collect. As provided in Section 193.155(1), F.S., beginning in 1995, or the year after the property receives homestead exemption, an annual increase in assessment shall not exceed the lower of the following: (a) three percent of the asse ssed value of the propert y for the prior year; or (b) the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for all urban consumers, U.S city average, all items 1967 = 100 or su ccessor reports for the preceding calendar year as initially reported by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (Florida Statutes, 2007). Due to regulatory changes, which have decrease d property taxes, debates occur about whether municipalities need to diversify the revenue s ources. Residents and business owners balk at higher taxes. For example, in Indian Rocks B each, elected officials a nd planning professionals stated that residents believe that property, sales, and gas taxes are too high (B. Ockunzzi, personal communication, January 1 0, 2008). In reality, Bill Ockunzzi stated that Indian Rocks Beach has one of the lowest property tax rate s on the Pinellas Count y barrier islands (B. Ockunzzi, personal communication, January 10, 2008) Unlike Californian municipalities that 114

PAGE 115

have vacant land to promote further commercial development, built-out municipalities remain limited with which alternative op tions they can support. The focu s on residential redevelopment leads small built-out municipalities to become exclusive and homogeneous. Exclusivity What defines an exclusive community? According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary (2007), exclusive is defined as the following Excluding or tending to exclude: Not allowing something else; incompatib le: mutually exclusive conditions. Not divided or shared with othe rs: exclusive publishing rights. Not accompanied by others; single or sole: your exclusive function. Excluding some or most, as from membersh ip or participation: an exclusive club. Catering to a wealthy clientele; expensive: exclusive shops. ( http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary ) The development patterns over the last fifty years transformed some of these resort communities into urban built-out m unicipalities near larger urban areas. In turn, these built-out municipalities became desirable places to live To understand why a municipality becomes desirable, we have to examine the laws of suppl y and demand. The law of supply states that the higher the price of the product, the more the pr oducer will supply. Produc ers supply more at a higher price because selling a higher quantity at a higher price increases revenue. The law of demand states that the higher the price of the product, the less the consumer will demand. If all other factors remain equal, the higher the pr ice of a good, the less people will demand that good. In other words, the higher the price, the lo wer the quantity demanded. The amount of a good that buyers purchase at a higher price is less becau se as the price of a good goes up, so does the opportunity cost of buying that good Following this logic, if the supply of a product is low but the demand is high, then according to the law of demand, the price of the product would go up. In built-out municipalities, th e limited supply of housing stock in creased demand and the price of 115

PAGE 116

that housing stock. The rise in pric e forces out individuals that are no longer able to afford to live in the municipality. Growth management tools such as urba n growth boundaries contribute to the transformation of communities. Reviewing the 1990 and 2000 United States Censuses, the nine cases studies contained predominantly white pop ulations. Between the two censuses, the number of white residents increased and the number of minorities decreased. Except for Atlantic Beach and Wilton Manors, the population in the other seven case study municipalities is less than four percent of the minority. Holcombe (2007) suggest s that the impression of most people remains that urban growth boundaries are encouraged by an affluent white population. Pendall (2000) adds that the support of urban growth controls is not just due to race alone. The wealth of the community contributes to the support of urban gr owth controls. Urban growth boundaries are set in the attempt to control urbanization. The ur ban growth boundary constricts the amount of developable land and attempt to promote higher densities within the boundaries. On the other hand, built-out municipalities have a minima l amount of developable land, and if the municipality is located near a major waterbody, density levels are restricted per federal and state coastal high hazards regulations. Unlike an urban growth boundary, built-out municipalities cannot expand their boundary and must accommodate development and redevelopment within its corporate limits. Although Holcombes (2007) statistical analysis confirms that urban growth boundaries affect the development patterns in built-out municipalities, th e statistical an alysis does not explain why the findings are similar in Lee and Pinellas Counties w ith no urban growth boundary. Do growth management tools alone make a built-out municipality exclusive or do other factors contribute to a co mmunity becoming exclusive? One can say that th e statistical 116

PAGE 117

analysis and the Florida Statisti cal Abstract show that the us e of urban growth boundaries does not eliminate population growth but slows popula tion growth. Population growth would slow down anyway in built-out municipalities due to the lack of re maining developable land. Local governments use growth management tools to li mit population influxes based on what is in and out of their control. The geogra phic and political limitations of these municipalities lend to the exclusive nature of thei r location. Although not addressed in the interviews with the planners and elected officials, the exclusive nature of a municipality and the people with the most influence affect local government decisions on re development and infill strategies. Density and Federal, State, and Regional Coastal High Hazard Areas A quandary exists between a coastal built-out municipalitys desire to increase density and the regulatory requirements that prevent that from happeni ng. Inland built-out municipalities lack these regulatory requirements. Inland bui lt-out municipalities support redevelopment strategies involving the increase of density to incorporate residential, commercial, and retail activities in the same area using current infras tructure. According to section 163.3178 (f), Florida Statutes, states that a redevelopment component which outlines the principles which shall be used to eliminate ina ppropriate and unsafe development in the coastal areas when opportunities arise (Florida Statutes, 2007). Unfortunately, the encouragement of high densit y and intensity levels does not take into account the regulatory requirements of pursuing that strategy in coastal areas. The unintended consequence of a municipality in the CHHA is that the city b ecomes exclusive and desirable. The limitations of building height s and densities in the CHHA pr event developers from building structures that are beyond safe federal guidelines for a barrier is land. With municipalities located on barrier islands, resident safe ty is paramount, and the ability for residents to evacuate and return with minimal distress is crucial before during, and after a natu ral disaster. Progress 117

PAGE 118

remains fleeting in some municipalities located in the CHHA to balance current resident needs with future demands based on curren t and projected market conditions. Barrier island municipalities, such as Tr easure Island, encourage minor increases of density in their downtown area which would provi de more innovative mixed use opportunities as reflected in their downtown revitalization plan. Wilton Manors encourages mixed use development and density increases in their arts and entertainmen t overlay district along Wilton Drive and in the Highland Estates neighborhood as th eir plan to revitalize their municipality and to provide a better quality of life to their resident s. In municipalities such as Sanibel, planners and elected officials discourage density increa ses due to the majority of the island being designated as a conservation area. Sanibel remain s the only case study that uses a density and intensity map as part of their growth manage ment and comprehensive planning process and has received many awards for their comprehensive plan. In Indian Rocks Beach, Treasure Island, and St. Pete Beach, the business owners prefer higher densities as it would increase the tax revenue and contribute to more infr astructure improvements. Planning professionals and elec ted officials need to overcom e residents resistance to density before it can succeed in a small town. Wheeler (2002) s uggests that one way to change residents perception of density is to present the topic in a differe nt way. The subjects of compact development and smart growth are perceived as positive concepts whereas density is perceived as a negative concept base d on preconceived notions. Economic Development and Investment Planning professionals and electe d officials stated in their in terviews that due to their municipalitys lack of tools and vacant la nd, commercial and retail operations would pursue opportunities in other locations. Except for W ilton Manors, the municipalities either do not encourage economic development or do not have the tools to manage economic development and 118

PAGE 119

investment. If any jobs are created, those j obs are created in the hospitality and tourism industries. Due to increase property values and the transformation of many of these municipalities into bedroom communities, th ese communities rely on the larger nearby metropolitan areas as employment hubs and servi ce centers. High levels of young professionals result from a high concentration of major employm ent hubs in the larger urban areas. These three regions include the major employment hubs of Fo rt Lauderdale, Miami, Tampa, St. Petersburg, and Jacksonville, which account for the large per centage of young, professi onal residents in the State. The larger urban areas pull workers out of the built-out municipalities since land remains scarce and expensive. Sprawl has affected thes e municipalities in the same ways resulting in longer commutes and a strain on in frastructure and other resources. Public Participation According to elected officials and planning professionals, within th e nine case studies, local business owners support grow th management changes that would improve the quality of life for its residents and business owners and in crease the tax base. The support of residents for growth management changes is mixed at best. In municipalities such as St. Pete Beach, the different factions on either side of the change debate have caused political turmoil so great that their comprehensive plan has not been updated si nce the late 1990s. In municipalities such as Wilton Manors, positive changes are being made but the individual property owners are not always as vocal. As highlighted by Wayne Thie s (2007), the Building Depa rtment Director in Wilton Manors, individual property owners may no t be as vocal regarding growth management issues, but when individual prope rty owners and businesses are re presented by either civic or business associations, their voi ces are heard. In Sanibel, the level of public participation involvement resulted in a new comprehensive plan that did not just incor porate the opinions of a select part of the population, but it incorporated a wider range of perspectives (Sanibel, 2007). 119

PAGE 120

The exclusive nature of Sanibel, the predominant age of the residents, also may contribute to the high level of public participation. Recommendations One of the chief criticisms of the growth ma nagement process stressed in literature and by the elected officials and planning professionals was that the comprehensive planning process remains too general. Florida Stat utes do not differentiate the so cial, economic, environmental, and historic characteristics of small, medium, and large municipalities. Based on the findings, the state should create regulations sp ecifically tailored to municipalities based on their size, financial capabilities, and location in th e state. Changes in the regulations allow for the decrease in inefficiencies for municipalities that do not have the financial a nd institutional capacity. Before any changes can be made, the publ ic must support these changes. Each planning professional and elected official stated that public participation levels remain high. Also, the public participated th e most when the local government focused on specific issues. In the case studies, the resident s and business owners ha ve different opinions about density, economic development, and growth management issues. Researchers recommend encouraging the visioning process as part of the growth management process cycle. One of the biggest impediments to successful growth manage ment in municipalities remains the lack of communication between government officials, re sidents, and business owners (K. Holley, personal communication, December 19, 2007). In addi tion, development occurs based on market trends and not by resident prefer ence. The visioning process allows the ability for residents to voice their opinions without be ing judged. Residents, business owners, and elected officials believe that keeping the process adaptive and flexible is important. Suggested by Wheeler (2002), specific plan s address those issues by bringing the ownership of the vision process to the resident s, business owners, and elected officials. The 120

PAGE 121

findings do exhibit the need for the use of the vi sioning process, but the use of specific plans in other states relate to larger municipalities that contain the financial and institutional capacity to initiate and maintain these plans. State pol icies are general and broad, and they do not incorporate the individual aspects of the muni cipality. By creating state growth management regulations tailored for both small and medium-s ized municipalities with limited vacant land available, these new regulations will allow fo r residents and business owners to create a development pattern best for them instead of be ing forced to follow policies that do not apply. Summary of the Discussion This section confirms the findings that muni cipalities conduct redevelopment when they have the tools available to implement the change s. Financial and institutional capacity issues limit the options available to small and medi um-sized built-out municipalities to follow redevelopment and infill strate gies. Within exclusive communities, constricted supply and increased demand lead to increase d prices. Increased prices lead to more focus on residential development and less focus on commercial and re tail development in built-out municipalities. Coastal municipalities face regulatory requirements that go against the intent of redevelopment. Redevelopment can increase density, but in coas tal communities, federal and state regulations can limit the amount of density to prevent devast ation during a natural di saster. This logic does not apply to inland built-out municipalities since those types of built-out municipalities are not in the coastal high hazard areas. High levels of public participation either contribute to successful redevelopment and infill strategi es or create a stranglehold on th e growth management process. Small and medium-sized built-out municipalities face unique challenges. 121

PAGE 122

CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION The Conclusion section provides a summary of research findings, the limitation of the current research, areas for future research, a nd conclusions and recommendations. The summary of research findings verifies disconnects between state-mandated growth management requirements, business owner and residential vi ewpoints, and the implementation capacities of small and medium-sized municipalities. The Conc lusion section presents the limitation of the current research related to the l ack of empirical and theoretical st udies that examine the effects of redevelopment and infill development strategies on built-out municipalities. Additional studies would be needed to examine the effects of redevelopment and infill development strategies on larger built-out cities. A second study would examine the effects of redevelopment and infill development on the availability of affordable housing within a builtout city. Finally, the Conclusion section provides conclusions and recommendations of redevelopment and infill development strategies in built-out cities. Summary of Research Findings Although these nine built-out m unicipalities were incorporated at different times and may have different philosophies in how they shoul d manage growth, these municipalities face the same challenges as many communities throughout the state of Florida. State guidelines do not differentiate between the size of a communit y, whether they are bui lt-out, and how each municipality handles growth. Based on the study, th e planning professional s and elected officials believed that growth management tools remain inadequate to meet their needs (Danny Taylor & Karl Holley, personal communication, December 18 and 19, 2007). Professionals assume that horizontal growth is automatically replaced by redevelopment and infill development when a municipality becomes built-out. Mattson and Burke (1989) 122

PAGE 123

suggest that without available financial and institutional capabili ties, small towns are unable and unwilling to implement redevelopment and infill de velopment strategies on their own. Currently, the land development codes do not adequately refl ect the current objectives and policies in the comprehensive plan. Built-out municipalities establish objectives and policies in their comprehensive plan that specifically address rede velopment and infill, but the implementation of these objectives and policies is limited by th e market and the financial resources of the municipality and the desire of residents for the co mmunity to maintain its small town character. The study investigated th e effects of redevelopment and in fill development strategies on small and medium-sized built-out municipalities, incorporating literature which suggests that redevelopment is necessary and inevitable and requires cooperation, new tools, and an interdisciplinary approach. Counteracting the view that redevelopment is necessary and inevitable; literature and interview results sugges ted that small and medium-sized municipalities face challenges related to economic, regulatory, and social factors. The study examined the disconnect in growth management and the comprehensive planning process that occurred between the regulatory requirements set by the stat e, the differentiating views of redevelopment voiced by residents and business owners, and the lack of financial and institutional capacity by the local government. In doing so the presen t study explored when, where, why, and how redevelopment and infill development occur within a built-out municipality. Built-out municipalities face geographical and political challenges that are distinct compared to other developing cities. Redevelopm ent is a complex process that must consider many factors. Regulatory restric tions set by the federal and stat e governments and are within the comprehensive plan determine the extent to wh ich property owners can redevelop or initiate infill development. The federal and state governments limit redevelopment and infill 123

PAGE 124

development especially in coastal areas. Built-out municipalities, located near the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico, have regulatory restric tions because of the need to protect residents during natural disasters. Density and intensity levels and building heights are restricted in municipalities located in co astal high hazard areas (CHHA) Beyond the federal and state regulatory restrictions, the residents of a municipality may prefer to keep lower density and intensity levels to limit populati on growth and maintain the comm unity as it is. Although these regulatory requirements are crucia l to a coastal municipalitys well-being, other regulatory restrictions result from a lack of institutional capacity, resources, and favorable political climate to make those changes. The present study highlights the limitations of growth manage ment and the capacity of small and medium-sized municipalities during im plementation phases. Fe w studies exist that specifically address redevelopment and infill de velopment within built-out municipalities. Established resources such as comprehensive plans, EARs, downtown redevelopment plans, and land development codes set the fr amework for redevelopment, infill development, and urban design changes through objectives a nd policies but do not address or provide direction during the implementation process. Interviews with planni ng professionals and el ected officials provided perspectives on whether municipalities implement redevelopment and infill development strategies and their rate and reasons for success and failure. Limitation of Research The limitations of research relate to the type s of case studies and the availability of literature and established resource s that support my argument. The nine case studies consisted of eight coastal communities and one inland communit y. Inland built-out cities exist in southeast Florida, but the pool of cities exceeded the studys popula tion limit. The present study could remain useful for small and medium-sized buil t-out municipalities in coastal states, but the 124

PAGE 125

application of this study w ould remain limited to states with state-mandated growth management. Established documents contain limitations to their effectiveness. Due to the recent adoption of comprehensive plans and EARs, no st udy or established source provides empirical results analyzing the effectiveness of implementing the recommendations from the EAR into the comprehensive plan. Municipalities take up to fi ve years to implement the recommendations set forth in the EAR where at the end of that time period, the reco mmendations may not apply or become outdated. Unlike the EAR, the Census is initiated immediately, but the span of time between each Census limits the effectiveness of the data to explain social phenomenon. The Census Bureau updates data and categories with each Census making it difficult to compare data across multiple decades. Since the United States Ce nsus is conducted every ten years, individual economic, community, and regulatory events do not correspond with population and housing trends. The interview results addressed the limitations in established resource s. Due to a lack of time and resources, residents and the Chamber of Commerce were not interviewed resulting in a perspective from only two sources: planning pr ofessionals and electe d officials. Planning professionals present a subject ba sed on the tools and resources available. The researcher has no reason to distrust the participan ts since they participated in this study voluntarily, but all participants can contain a personal bias or perspective towards redevelopment and infill development, economic developmen t, and public participation. Areas for Future Research The present study focused on small and medium-s ized municipalities, but examining large built-out municipalities remains unrepresented in previous litera ture. Large built-out municipalities do have the financial and institu tional capacity to implement redevelopment and 125

PAGE 126

infill strategies, but do the large built-out m unicipalities implement redevelopment and infill strategies? Broward and Pinellas Counties would become a great focus on additional research since both countries are at least 90% built-out and contain large built-out m unicipalities. The researcher would conduct interviews with planning professionals, elect ed officials, business owners, and neighborhood associatio ns. The researcher would use the same questions asked to small and medium-sized built-out m unicipalities to retain consistency. In addition to conducting research on large bui lt-out municipalities, th e researcher intends to conduct research on growth management strate gies and their effect on affordable housing in built-out municipalities. Affordable housing re mains an issue that affects built-out and developing cities in Florida and throughout the United States. Municipalities located near waterbodies remain desirable locat ions to live. Economic impedime nts limit the availability of affordable housing for low and medium income citi zens. It is required by th e Florida Statutes for each municipality to address the subject of affo rdable housing, where it will be located, and how it will be financed through their comprehensiv e plan. Unfortunately, affordable housing is few and far between in small, medium, and large bu ilt-out communities in Florida since there are little to no vacant land available within the corporate limits. When the supply of land and housing units are limited, then the demand for the vacant land and the available housing units will be greater. Conclusions The study of built-out municipalities is in it s infancy. Municipalities followed the same sprawling development patterns over the last fi fty years. Municipalitie s require time and the appropriate tools and strategies to adequately manage growth when vacant land is no longer abundant. The present study verified that comprehe nsive plans and EARs c ontain the appropriate focus on redevelopment and strategies. The interv iews results verified that small and medium126

PAGE 127

sized municipalities do not have the appropriate tools to implement redevelopment and infill strategies. In all but two case studies, the m unicipalities either submitted comprehensive plan updates or EARs to DCA for approval. Based on the review of established sources and interviews, the municipalities lack the financ ial and institutional capacity to implement redevelopment and infill strategies, but not enough time has elap sed since the approval of the EAR to provide an accurate analysis of th eir success or failure with the strategies. The studys findings do not remain limited to the state of Florida. A researcher could examine small and medium built-out municipalities in other states and determine whether they are challenged by economic, soci al, and regulatory conditions. If they do face obstacles, then does the state have mandatory growth management laws? What contributes to these obstacles? If the municipalities do not contain obstacles to redevelopment and infill, then which policies lead to success? Sometimes we focus so hard on a problem that the answer is ri ght in front of us. In other cases, sometimes we need to learn from ot her people, and try to avoid the same mistakes they made. Researchers address the current obstacles wi th redevelopment and infill development by conducting studies on policy innovation and the eff ects of redevelopment and infill development in small developing municipalities. Current studies highlight the limitations of growth management and the capacity of small and medi um-sized municipalities during implementation phases. Few studies exist that specifically addr ess redevelopment and infill development within a built-out municipality. This study addresses the lack of literature focu sed on redevelopment and infill-development within built-out m unicipalities and provides recommendations. 127

PAGE 128

128 APPENDIX A ATLANTIC BEACH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RESULTS

PAGE 129

Table A-1. Atlantic Beach Futu re Land Use Element Introduction Element Introduction FLUE Future land use, new development and redevelopmen t within the City of Atla ntic Beach shall be in accordance with the following Goals, Objectives, a nd Policies and as further controlled by the Land Development Regulations, as may be amended to impl ement the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of this Comprehensive Plan. (Atlantic B each Comprehensive Plan, 2004) 129

PAGE 130

Table A-2. Atlantic Beach Goals, Objectives, and Policy Element Goal, Objective, or Policy Description FLUE Goal A.1 The City shall manage growth and redevelopment in a manner which results in a pattern of land uses that: 1) encourag es, creates and maintains a healthy and aesthetically pleasing built environment, 2) avoids blighted influences, 3) preserves and enhances coastal, environm ental, natural, historic, and cultural resources, 4) maintains the Citys distinct residential community character, 5) provides for reasonable public safety and security from hazardous conditions associated with coastal locations, and 6) that provides public services and facilities in a timely and cost effective manner. FLUE Objective A.1.3 The City shall encourage fu ture development and redevelopment, which 1) retains the exceptionally high quality of life and the predominantly residential character of the City of Atlantic Beach, 2) provides for the preservation and protection of the dense tree canopy, and 3) which provides for varied and diverse recreational opportunities, incl uding the preservation, acquisition and development of public access to the beach and other water-related resources. FLUE Policy A.1.5.5 The City shall enforce the limitations, as set fo rth within the Land Development Regulations, for maximum height of buildings and maximum impervious surface area for all lands with in the City, except that requests to exceed the maximum height of building of thirty-five (35) feet or twenty-five (25) feet, as applicable, maybe be considered and a pproved only within non-residential land use categories and for non-residential de velopment. Further, any such nonresidential increase to the maximum hei ght of building shall be limited only to exterior architectural design elements, exterior decks or porches, and shall exclude signage, storage space or Hab itable Space as defined by the Florida Building Code FLUE Policy A.1.5.6 Planned Unit Development regula tions and other flexible regulatory methods shall be utilized to provide incentives for achieving environmental enhancement, economical land development, and efficien t patterns of land use that provide for an appropriate mix of uses within the City. 130

PAGE 131

Table A-2. Continued Element Goal, Objective, or Policy Description FLUE Objective A.1.6 The City shall preserve the sound structural condition and the diverse character of the built environment of the City and shall encourage development programs and activities that are directed at infill development as well as the conservation, redevelopment and re-use of existing structures and th e preservation of and reinvestment in older neighborhoods. FLUE Policy A.1.6.1 The City shall continue to impl ement code enforcement procedures in order to prevent physical deterioration a nd blight throughout the City. FLUE Policy A.1.6.2 The City shall encourage and assi st in the revitalizati on of older neighborhoods that provide housing for very low, low and moderate-income residents, particularly neighborhoods containing sound, but aging housing stock, where adequate public services a nd facilities re existing. FLUE Policy A.1.6.3 The City shall discourage redeve lopment practices that displace very low, low and moderate-income residents. FLUE Policy A.1.10 The City shall co ntinue to maintain a development character, which is compact in form, orderly in its land use pattern, and diversified in its makeup so as to ensure employment opportunities, a ffordable housing, a pleasant living environment, and cost-effective public services. FLUE Policy A.1.10.1 The City shall undertake land annexation only when it can demonstrate an ability to provide services and facilities in a manner that maintains the level of service standards as set forth within th is Plan amendment and only when such annexation contributes to the orderly growth and de velopment of the region within which the City is situated. FLUE Policy A.1.10.2 Those areas of the City, which are designated as Development Areas, are substantially developed as of the adoption date of this Plan amendment with no opportunity for sprawl development as defined by Rule 9J-5. 006(5) F.A.C. The City shall not, however, approve amendments to the Future Land U se Map that would convert areas designated as Conservation to Development Areas where adverse impacts to wetland and estuarine systems would result from development activities. Adverse impacts shall be presumed to result from activities, which disturb, contaminate, or degrade wetlands and Environmentally Sensitive Areas, or natural functions and systems associated with such areas. 131

PAGE 132

132 Table A-2. Continued FLUE Policy A.1.10.3 The City shall encourage the cluste ring of uses in locations where infrastructure facilities are available or where extensions and enlargements can be achieved efficiently, particularly with respect to commercial infill development along the Mayport Road corridor. FLUE Policy A.1.10.4 The City shall actively suppor t the appropriate redevelopment and infill development of the Mayport Road corri dor. Retail and service uses that encourage a more aesthetically pleasing and pedestrian friendly environment shall be encouraged. New developm ent along Mayport Road shall be in compliance with the Commercial Corridor Development Standards as set forth within the Land Development Regulations. Source: Atlantic Beach 2015 EAR-Based Comprehensive Plan

PAGE 133

133 APPENDIX B INDIAN ROCKS BEACH

PAGE 134

Table B-1. Indian Rocks Beach Comprehens ive Plan Goals, Objectives, and Policies Element Issue Goals/Objectives Pertaining to Issue Recommendations FLUE Balancing development and private property rights of individual owners, especially small property owners. Might relate but not sure yet. FLUE 1.2: Land Development Regulations Amend the City of IRB Code to include platting procedures and update future land use maps to regulate the subdivision of land in favor of small property owners and pre-existing land in favor of small property owners and pre-existing land use patterns, pursuant to the following policy: FLUE 1.2.4 The City shall continue to enforce land development regulations that contain specific and detailed provisions required to implement this comprehensive plan, which at a minimum shall: Regulate the subdivision of land FLUE Ensuring that the IRB Code conforms with the general development densities and intensities provided by the Pinellas County Rules Concerning the Administration of the Countywide Future Land Use Plan, esp ecially in the context of the citys location in the Coastal High Hazard Area. FLUE 1.1: Future Land Use Map and Land Use Designations The City of IRB could consider community visioning to better define its town character/identity and revising the following policy about compliance with Countywide rules to reflect its objectives regarding future land uses. The City of IRB is located in the Coastal High Hazard Area and the intensity/density standards require calibration to address this issue. Review the City of Indian Rocks Beach Code /Land Development Regulations and Future Land Use Maps for compliance with Countywide Rules concerning Future Land Uses and Coastal High Hazard Area st andards. The following sections require coordination: Land use categ ories, Land use characteristics and density/intensity limitations, FAR/ISR/density calculations, Residential equivalency standards, and Exceptions/Variances. Include locational determinants fo r future land uses, buffers for wetlands and flood plain, transportation/utility, overlays/easements, etc.: FLUE Policy 1.1.1: The City of Indian Rocks Beach Future Land Use Map shall have the land use designations and general development densities and intensities as provided by the Rules Concerning the Administration of the Countywide Future Land Use Plan, As Amended adopted by Pinellas County Ordinance No. 89-4 effective February 6, 1989, and subsequent rule amendments. 134

PAGE 135

Table B-1. Continued Element Issue Goals/Objectives Pertaining to Issue Recommendations FLUE Encouraging Mixed Use Development FLUE 1.1, 1.1.3, 1.4, 1.4.3-1.4.6, 1.4.8, 1.4.10, 1.4.14 FLUE Objective 1.1: Future Land Use Map and Land Use Designations Development within the City of Indian Rocks Beach shall be in accordance with the land use categories adopted herein and continued enforcement of land development regulations consistent with the comprehensive plan. Change 1: The success of mixed-use developments is dependent on location, definition of land use categories by required mix of uses, proportional distribution of uses within categories, and density/intensity standards. These factors should be evaluated in conjunction with visioning to define town character and identity. Revise the following policy to encourage mixed-use developments and update future land use maps to define physical boundaries for mixed-use developments: FLUE Policy 1.1.3: The City of Indian Rocks Beach hereby adopts those land use categories identified and defined in this policy as those which shall govern mixed-use development within the community pursuant to Rule 9J-5.006(3)(c)7, Florida Administrative Code. Residentia l/Office General (R/OG), with a residential density of 0 to 15 units per acre, a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.4, and a maximu m impervious surface ratio of 0.7 with a citywide percentage land use distribution of 60 to 80 percent residential and 20 to 40 percent office. Residential/Office/Retail (R/O/R), with a residential density of 0 to 15 units per acre, a maximum FAR of 0.5, and a maximum ISR of 0.7 with a citywide percentage land use distribution of 0 to 20 percent residential, 0 to 20 percent office, and 10 to 90 percent commercial. Resort Facility High (RFH), with a residential density of 0 to 30 units per acre and a maximum FAR of 0.5 and a maximum ISR of 0.7 with a citywide percentage land use distribution of 70 to 90 percent residential and 10 to 30 percent transient accommodation. 135

PAGE 136

Table B-1. Continued Element Issue Goals/Objectives Pertaining to Issue Recommendations FLUE Objective 1.4: Non residential Development Commercial development compatible with environmental and economic resources shall occur in a planned and orderly fashion. Change 2: In order to discourage single use developments, the City of IRB should create disincentives for single uses in a mixed-use land use category and reconsider the separation and buffering requirement between residential and commercial uses as described in the following policies: FLUE Policy 1.4.3: The land development regulations shall contain provisions which discourage the use of the Residential/Office/Retail and Residential/Office General land use categories for single use purposes only. FLUE Policy 1.4.4: The land development regulations shall contain provisions which ensure that within any mixed use development, as appropriate, proper separation and buffering between residential and nonresidential land uses is maintained. Revise the following policy to encourage complementary and synergistic uses: FLUE Policy 1.4.5: In order to minimize incompatibility when residential and commercial land uses share a common boundary, the land development regulations shall continue to require the installation of buffering, as appropri ate, where there is a change of use or increase in intensity. Revise the following policies regarding proportion of commercial uses and quality of life in accordance with the citys visi on for future development: FLUE Policy 1.4.6: The City shall, through the land development regulations, encourage the development of commercial uses in proportion to locally generated demand for these uses. FLUE Policy 1.4.8: The land development regulations shall contain provisions which ensure that commercial facilities are located so as to serve residential land uses without disrupting their quality of life. Consider prohibiting mixed-use on west side of Gulf Blvd.: 136

PAGE 137

Table B-1. Continued Element Issue Goals/Objectives Pertaining to Issue Recommendations FLUE Policy 1.4.10: The land development regulations shall contain provisions establishing the guidelines under which ancillary commercial uses associated with seasonal tourist facilities and limited commercial development may be incorporated into the Resort Facilities High land use category. Prepare an implementation strategy for the following policy, including location specific incentives and exceptions for commercial uses: FLUE Policy 1.4.11: In order to encourage the best use of the Residential/Office/Retail, Residential/Office General, and Commercial General land use categories, the land development regulations shall include provisions which enhance the opportunities for the redevelopment or rehabilitation of existing commercial land uses. Implement the following policy by identifying specific commercial nodes, such as the Business District Triangle, and providing incentives for mixed use development, including parking and density bonuses, in these specific locations: FLUE Policy 1.4.14: The land development regulations shall contain provisions which encourage the concentration or clustering of commercial activities. 137

PAGE 138

Table B-1. Continued Element Issue Goals/Objectives Pertaining to Issue Recommendations FLUE Encourage redevelopment as a land development strategy with special emphasis on infill, reuse, and revitalization. FLUE 1.5 FLUE Objective 1.5: Redevelopment The enhancement and protection of the citys existing character shall be achieved through redevelopment which ensures an orderly and aesthetic mixture of land uses. The City of IRB should evaluate the role of redevelopment as a land development strategy but ensure that the implementation of this objective is in accordance with its vision fo r town character and identity. Prepare an implementation strategy for the following policies, including incentives for infill and mixed-use developments, and need-based exceptions from concurrency standards: FLUE Policy 1.5.2: The City of Indian Rocks Beach shall promote business and civic activities in the Business District Triangle by encouraging redevelopment and revitalization of the area. FLUE Policy 1.5.3: The land development regulations shall contain incentives encouraging redevelopment and/or revitalization through the use of either the Residential/Office/Retail or Residential/Office General land use categories. FLUE Policy 1.5.4: In order to ensure the continued maintenance of its beach residential character, the land development regulations shall contain provisions which enhance the opportunities for the rehabilitation and/or revitalization of the existing residential structures, particularly those located west of Gulf Boulevard. FLUE Policy 1.5.5: The land development regulations shall contain provisions whereby redevelopment activity is consistent with the availability of public facilities and services. 138

PAGE 139

Table B-1. Continued Element Issue Goals/Objectives Pertaining to Issue Recommendations FLUE Revaluate Planned Unit Development (PUD) regulations. FLUE 1.3, 1.3.1, 1.3.3 FLUE Objective 1.3: Residential Development The integrity and quality of life, as exhibited by the continuation of the citys beach community, familyoriented, residential character, will be maintained in residential neighborhoods. PUDs could serve as an effective tool to promote infill/redevelopment as well as encourage mixed use developments (see issue 1c). Revise the following policies to allow PUDs on smaller development parcels with special allowances for land uses, density, dimensional and open space requirements, clustering, etc.: FLUE Policy 1.3.1: The land development regulations shall encourage that development or redevelopment of multi-use projects of one acre or more be developed as a planned unit development. FLUE Policy 1.3.3: The planned unit development regulations shall, at a minimum, address the following: Allowance for a creative approach for development or redevelopment; A requirement that more open space be provided than that called for by the strict application of the minimum requirements of the land development regulations; A harmonious development of the site and the surrounding areas and community facilities while providing safe and efficient traffic circulation; An allowance for zero lot line, cluster or other nontraditional lot layout or site design; The establishment of minimum acreage and dimensional requirements; The establishment of procedures for the granting of increase structure height in exchange for increased open space and decreased amounts of impervious surfaces; and Other provisions as deemed appropriate by the city in Continuing with the intent of the Planned Unit. 139 Source: Renaissance Planning Group, Indian Ro cks Beach Evaluation and Appraisal Report, 2006

PAGE 140

Table B-2. Indian Rocks Beach Review of Co mprehensive Plan Elements: Future Land Use Successes Shortcomings Issues/Recommendations The City of IRB is successfully attracting development and increasing property values are a testament to this success. Also, the city has successfully managed to balance redevelopment activity with the provision of public facilities and services. The FLUE is fairly comprehensive and continues to be implemented effectively. The FLUE is supportive of the existing single family residential development pattern and continues to meet targets in terms of FAR/ISR and LOS. The City of IRB fails to articulate an overall vision for town character and identity. In order to maintain its small town character and comply with the Countywide Rules, the FLUE requires careful calibration for land use categories, intensity/density standards, etc., and coordination with the City of IRB Code/Land Development Regulations and Future Land Use Map. The city has not attracted mixed use development. The City of Indian Rocks Beach (IRB) is mostly developed with only 25 acres of vacant land. The major focus of future development in IRB is redevelopment and revitalization. Key issues related to this element are as follows: Ensuring continued protection of private property rights, especially of individual small property owners. Coordination with Countywide Rules for Future Land Use. Encouraging mixed-use development Encouraging redevelopment as land development strategy with emphasis on infill, reuse, and re vitalization. Addressing the issue of non-conforming uses. Amending Planned Unit Development regulations to address redevelopment projects. In order to amend the FLUE, the City of IRB should undertake community visioni ng to better define its goals and objectives with respect to future growth and development. 140 Source: Renaissance Planning Group, Indian Rock s Beach Evaluation and Appraisal Report, 2006

PAGE 141

141 Table B-3. Indian Rocks Beach EAR Review of Comprehensive Plan Elements: Housing Successes Shortcomings Issues/Recommendations The Housing Element strives to achieve a balance between housing quantity and quality for its citizens and visitors alike. The focus of recent housing development in the City of IRB has been moderate to high priced condominium housing. Rising property values demonstrate success of the Housing Element. High property values reduce equitable access to housing and promote gentrification of neighborhoods. High property values also discourage commercial development. The objectives that address housing conservation and substandard housing impede the support for adequate and fair housing. Key issues related to the HE are as follows: Retaining and expanding transient accommodation through redeveloping existing hotels and motels. Encouraging attainable housing. Mitigating gentrification of neighborhoods in the context of increasing property values. Addressing the issue of displacement. The housing goals, objectives, and policies for the City of IRB reflect its vision for future development. Considering the redevelopment focus of the city with little vacant land available for development, the HE should be refocused to address attainable workforce housing and addressing pressure to convert existing hotel s and motels into condominiums. Attainable housing combines issues related to growth and affordability with innovative approaches to housing design and property rights. Source: Renaissance Planning Group, Indian Rock s Beach Evaluation and Appraisal Report, 2006

PAGE 142

142 APPENDIX C KEY BISCAYNE

PAGE 143

Table C-1. Key Biscayne Developmen t Trends: Land Use Changes (1999-2006)* Land Use Increase/Decrease Percentage Single-Family Residential Decrease 25% Public/Semi-Public Decrease 37% Vacant Land Decrease 24% Commercial Office Increase 150% Recreation/Open Space Increase 37% Conservation/Preservation Increase 32% Duplex/Triplex/Multifamily Increase 8% Source: Key Biscayne Evaluati on and Appraisal Report, 2007 *According to the most recent evaluation a nd appraisal report issued in 2006, The in crease in commercial-office land use categ ory acreage (+150%) is primarily due to resort facilities (approximately 65.82 acres and 1,975 units in 2006). This increase in res ort facilities and the decrease in single fam ily category acreage (-25%) represents a signif icant increase in seasonal/transient po pulation in IRB (Renaissance Planning Group, 2006, pg. 2). 143

PAGE 144

Table C-2. Key Biscayne Citizen Survey Land Use Results Usable responses were received from some 5,000 survey questionnaires mailed to local residents. The response rate of almost 20 percent is unusually high. The results were an important consider ation in establishing policies for all of the plan elements but among these result s particularly important to the Futu re Land Use map and policies are the following: 84 percent want residential development to be at the lowest density possibl e consistent with the protection of reasonable property rights 84 percent also said either no more retail development or only a very limited amount; 85 percent say the same about addition office development. 58 percent want public beach access alt hough most want it limited to Village residents; the majority of those starting an opinion wa nt a bay-front park. 61 percent oppose developments which place apartments above retail uses. 74 percent favor some kind of architectural review process. Source: Key Biscayne Comprehensive Plan, 1995 144

PAGE 145

Table C-3. Key Biscayne Strengths Strengths Explanation Strong Sense of Community The islands history; the neighborliness and friendline ss of its residents; an engaged citizenry; and the physical smallness of the community -create a strong sense of community self-awareness and a desirable small-town environment. Quality of Life The communitys self-reliance; a safe, peacef ul, and quiet setting; the beau ty, environmental value, and quality of government, services and amenities co ntribute to an excep tional quality of life Location The advantages of convenient proximity to ma jor employment and activity centers in Miami-Dade County, coupled with the separati on and distinct island identity. Natural Setting/Environment The beauty, amenity, and environment value of a barrier island with a tropical landscape and climate, the scenic open space and dual wate rfront, on the bay and the ocean. Community Services and Facilities The Elemiddle (K-8) school, Villag e Green, civic center, public safety, and myriad recreational opportunities. Source: Key Biscayne Evaluati on and Appraisal Report, 2007 145

PAGE 146

Table C-4. Key Biscayne Weaknesses Weaknesses Explanation Community Facilities and Services Recreational opportunities abound, but insufficient park s and playing fields and a lack of land for future public facilities, deficient main tenance of the communitys public spaces. Mobility, Transportation, and Parking Traffic congestion, lack of pedestri an/bike/golf cart provisions and re lated safety concerns, lack of connectivity between individual commercial us es, as a well as between the commercial and residential areas, and issues relate d to what is perceived as unsa tisfactory performance of existing traffic calming treatments/poor exec ution of traffic calming techniques. Growth and Development Impacts Perception of excessive density, th e construction of new homes which are out of scale with the size of lots and with the surrounding development, blocked views of the water, and overcrowded facilities. Changing Community A growing non-permanen t/transient population; the loss of island spirit, which is manifest in, among other things, a lack of respect for the commun itys public areas, apat hy/lack of involvement, and seeming elitism and sense of entitlement. Infrastructure Deficiencies cited include the incomplete central sewer, the presence of overhead utilities, storm drainage problems, and poor road maintenance. Planning/Zoning/Regulations Weak or ineffective planning and regulations; lack of long-term vision; lack of or inconsistent enforcement. High Cost of Living Higher costs associat ed with living in a coastal community, from disaster insura nce to construction costs, increasing property values, an d lack of affordable housing; all have the effect of decreasing the diversity of the community. Limited Range of Retail and Services In particular, the small number and variety of rest aurants, the narrow range of retailers and services, and limited cultural/entertainm ent features and venues. 146 Source: Key Biscayne Evaluati on and Appraisal Report, 2007

PAGE 147

Table C-5. Key Biscayne Opportunities Opportunities Explanation Parks and Open Space To acquire land for additional parks, to expand ocean/bay access, to develop trails and protect natural areas. Community Services/Facilities/Amenities To expand the recreation center, to build a comm unity theater and other cultural facilities, to improve education and consider a high school. Improve Transportation/Circulation To reduce vehicular congestion, provide additional facilities/improve connec tivity for pedestrian, cyclists and golf carts, provide commercial area access from Fernwood, and expand public transportation and traffic calming. Development/Redevelopment Controls To control density and intensity, preserve needed services and businesses, control building scale, and improve landscape requirements. Community Interactions To improve communication/dialogue among diverse comm unity groups as well as between the Village and its residents, to improve civic involvement Seniors and Families To provide for elder care on island, encourage affordable housing. Infrastructure To improve road conditions, expand/co mplete the sewer system, to upgrade lighting, signage, landscaping, and stormwater. 147 Source: Key Biscayne Evaluati on and Appraisal Report, 2007

PAGE 148

Table C-6. Key Biscayne Threats Threats Explanation Overpopulation/Unfettered Development Rezonings to increase density, oversized homes impacting older neighbo rhoods, lose of small town character. Impacts of External Development Excessive development/traffi c generation from Virginia Key and causeway development. Degradation of the Environment Beach eros ion, pollution, and the loss of biologica l diversity, open space and scenic beauty. Traffic/Mobility/Parking Congestion and delays related to the single island ac cessway, increased traffic, and safety problems. Village Government Unresponsive, bureaucratic, over-restri ctive, fiscal limitations, la ck of intergovernmental coordination. Loss of Community Character/Identity Degraded aesthetics, loss of community spirit, factionalism, excess tourism/visitation. Hurricanes/Natural Threats Lack of preparedness, failure to evacuate, power failures, storm surge. High Cost of Living Ever-escalating propert y values and taxes are perceived as a pot ential threat to the quality of life and socioeconomic diversity of the community. Schools Lack of a high schoo l; overcrowded classrooms. 148 Source: Key Biscayne Evaluati on and Appraisal Report, 2007

PAGE 149

Table C-7. Key Biscayne Assessment of the Future Land Use Element Goals, Objectives, and Policies Goals, Objectives, and Policies Element Implementation Status Objective 1.1 Future Land Use Categories: Maintain existing development and achieve new development and redevelopment which is cons istent with the community character statement articulated in Goal 1. Implemented: The Land Development Code is consistent with the Master Plan. Policy 1.1.1 By statutory deadline or sooner, enact and enforce land development code consistent with the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) Implemented: Ongoing At the time of adoption of the Master Plan the Land Development Code was based on County Zoning. However, VKB Single Family Residential (SF-R) and rema ining zoning districts were amended on 10/24/00 and 5/9/00, respectively to be made consistent with the Master Plan. Policy 1.1.2 Until adoption of the Land Development Code (LDC), regulate development according to the FLUM, including specified land uses, densities and intensities. Implemented. Objective 1.2 Commercial Redevelopment : By 2004, achieve private revitalization of at l east one Crandon Boulevard property that has a blighted impact on the Village. Implemented: The CVS shopping center was previously a vacant grocery store before being renovated in 2003. The parking lot, landscaping, and facades were all redone. The building at 800 Crandon Boulevard was a decaying service station site before it was de molished and replaced with a new hardware store in 2001. 560 Crandon Boulevard was demolished in 2005; the site is currently being cleaned up for an office building. Policy 1.2.1 By statutory deadline or sooner, enact and enforce land development code standards and incentives to achieve new development, renovate development and or redevelopment that meets high signage, landscaping, circulation/parking a nd other standards. Implemented: See below. 149

PAGE 150

Table C-7. Continued Goals, Objectives, and Policies Element Implementation Status All new development, renovated development and redevelopment consistent with FLUM. Implemented. At the time of adoption of the Master Plan the Land Development Code was based on County Zoning. However, VKB Single Family Residential (SF-R) and remaining zoning districts were amended on 10/24/00 and 5/9/00, respectively to be made consistent with the Master Plan. Source: WRT, Key Biscayne Eval uation and Appraisal Report, 2006 Table C-8. Key Biscayne Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendments Ordinance 95-8 Amended densities permitt ed within the Medium Density Multifam ily and Ocean Resort Hotel land use category in the Master Plan, separating the tabulation of density for multifamily residential uses and hotel uses located on the same lot. Ordinance 97-17 Amended the land use designation on the Future Land Use Map from Medium Density Single Family Residential to Two Family Residential for seventeen parcels of pr operty on Fernwood Road specified in the appendix of the ordinance. Ord. 97-17 and Ord. 2000-1 Amended the Future Land Use Map for the property at 800 Crandon Boulevard, changing it from the office to commercial category. 150 Source: WRT, Key Biscayne Ev aluation and Appraisal Report, 2006

PAGE 151

Table C-9. Key Biscayne EAR Issue E Issue Explanation Implications of Redevelopment Due to ever-escalating propert y values and the unavailability of vacant land, pressures for redevelopment continue to grow. Redevelopment i ssues remain a major concern of the Village. The replacement of homes built in the 1950s and 1960s with new homes has resulted in increases in population and vehicular traffic, as well as in visu al impacts related to the scale and massing of new buildings. In addition, existing, older rental apar tment buildings will either be substantially renovated or demolished and replaced with ne w condominium buildings. The conversion of apartment buildings affects the av ailability of housing at price points that might attract seniors, young adults and others that would enhance the di versity of the communit y. Similarly, concerns exist about the impacts that redevelopment of the Sonesta Resort and the S ilver Sands Motel sites might have on density, building mass, traffic and local businesses. Assessment of Success in implementing Master Plan objectives related to issue Redevelopments three pronged effect on the is land the alteration of the affordability and diversity of housing stock, appearan ce, and levels of traffic ha s been addressed over the last decade in varying degrees. Affordability and Diversity Appreciating property values and redevelopment continues to reduce the affordability and diversity of housing in Key Biscayne. In recent years seve ral rental properties ha ve been converted to condominiums, thereby diminishing the availabil ity of rental units. Through a variety of mechanisms, the Village has made and is in the pr ocess of making efforts to curb this trend. For example, it Converted the zoning designation of several properties on Fernwood Road to be TwoFamily in order to diversify the housing stoc k. Several of these pr operties are rentals. Permit group housing in all multi-family districts. Monitors the production of housing the larger me tro areas to ensure regional needs are met. Through the 2020 Vision process, continues to discuss the needs of its elderly population and will continue to explore the feasibility of providing incentives for the provision of assisted living facilities in the Key. Explores innovative solutions to increase the a ffordability and diversity of the stock while maintaining compliance with Coastal High Hazard Area regulations. 151

PAGE 152

152 Table C-9. Continued Issue Explanation Issues with providing affordable housing However the Villages ability to provide a ffordable housing is constrained by several factors: As a Coastal High Hazard Area within floodplain designation AE, the Village is not permitted to approve any development applicat ions that would serve to increase density beyond what exists or is allowed by cu rrent zoning and/ or vested rights The Village is almost entirely built out. Pu rchasing property from the very limited supply of vacant land would be costly and burden the debt cap. This is in conflict with Policy 1.3.1 of the Capital Improvements Element of the Mast er Plan, which states that the capital improvement program schedule shall not include projects that woul d achieve significantly more intensive development than authorized by this plan by directly causing developer applications for Land Use Plan or zoning map amendments. Because the Village is bordered by Biscayne Ba y to the west, county-owned Calusa and Crandon Parks to the north, the Atlantic Ocean to the East and Bill Baggs Cape Florida State Park to the south, annexation is not an option. Source: WRT, Evaluation and Appraisal Report, 2007

PAGE 153

153 APPENDIX D MARCO ISLAND

PAGE 154

Table D-1: Marco Island EAR Issues Redevelopment Issue Description Progress Made Future Direction Proposed Action Redevelopment As stated in the original Data and Analysis discussion, There are two types of redevelopment the City should be involved with. The first is the redevelopment of individual properties and structures. Those should be adequately addressed via the architectural and site design guideline study. The second type of redevelopment involves a larger scale project, a process in which specific areas are reviewed for the potential for areawide redevelopment (2001) The City has adopted enhanced architectural and site design guidelines for commercial and mixeduse projects. These design regulations govern the development and redevelopment of commercial properties, and have resulted in significant improvements to building facades and on-site amenities. City Council has held numerous discussions on the topic of redevelopment, both in terms of density and intensity. Council is supportive of efforts to thoroughly evaluate bulk regulations (e.g., heights, setbacks), and possible density reductions for mixed-use projects. Council is concerned with the potential redevelopment of low-rise multifamily projects along Collier Boulevard, and the need to implement regulations that will avoid canyonization along the corridor. In addition, immediate attention and action should be directed to provide transitional relief (e.g., building height, bulk regulations) at locations where higher density/intensity multifamily zoning districts abut, or are separated by an alley, from lower density/intensity single-family zoning Identify opportunities to reduce overall Island density below 4 dwelling units per net acre, and adopt Future Land Use Element policy with new target density. Investigate creation of a Collier Boulevard Overlay to control future redevelopment of multifamily properties consistent with the communitys vision of a small, tropical town. And as stated above, immediate attention and action should be directed to provide transitional relief (e.g., building height, bulk regulations) at locations where higher density/intensity multifamily zoning districts abut, or are separated by an alley, from lower density/intensity single-family zoning districts. Review development standards for mixed-use projects, with possible reductions in height and density. Review existing 154

PAGE 155

Table D-1. Continues Issue Description Progress Made Future Direction Proposed Action districts. Council is also interested in the increasing number of residential teardowns, and the maximization of the building envelope for new single-family dwellings. Council indicated support for review of current bulk regulations for single-family development, and the possible need to amend setback regulations for multiple-story structures. single-family development standards, with possible amendment to side yard setbacks for multiple story structures. Source: Marco Island, Evaluati on and Appraisal Report, 2005 155

PAGE 156

Table D-2. Marco Island EAR Issue Mixed Use Development Issue Description Progress Made Future Direction Proposed Action Mixed Use Development The concept of Mixed Use Development has been espoused on Marco Island since the adoption of the Marco Island Master Plan (MIMP). Unfortunately, the MIMP and the Land Development Code do not fully define and provide clear guidelines as to how potential mixed-use projects will be reviewed and approved. Mixed Use development provides a tremendous opportunity for a prudent use of commercial land, yet needs to be refined to prevent possible abuses, which could undermine and detract from commercially zoned properties. (2001) Upon adoption of the original comprehensive plan the City adopted a new land development code that provided for mixed use development as a conditional use within the C-1, C-2, C-3 and C-4 commercial zoning districts. Within each commercial zoning district the terms and conditions for a potential mixed-use project are outlined, including maximum density, commercial/residential area ratios, and maximum heights. Mixed-use projects must undergo public hearings before both the Planning Board and City Council prior to final approval. Such projects are also subject to adopted commercial architectural and site design guidelines. Examples of approved mixeduse projects include the Esplanade, Provence of Marco, and Royal Crown. While generally pleased with the appearance of recent mixed-use projects, there have been concerns raised as to the intensity of developments. Prepare zoning text amendments to reduce the intensity and maximum building heights for mixed-use projects. Prepare a comprehensive plan amendment to reduce the allowable density for mixed use projects to a percentage (to be determined later) of the current allowable underlying zoning district density. 156 Source: Marco Island, Evaluati on and Appraisal Report, 2005

PAGE 157

Table D-3. Marco Island EAR Issue Rezoning Issue Description Progress Made Future Direction Proposed Action Rezoning The temptation to rezone property to accommodate a desired project can be very seductive to a community. Nevertheless the City of Marco Island should be wary of any further rezoning that would deviate from the Future Land Use Plan. The City has inherited a well conceived and designed master planned community. The initial development plan of the Mackle brothers and the Deltona Corporation has been held true over the past 35 years. The Future Land Use Plan developed in conjunction with the Marco Island Master Plan (MIMP) reaffirmed the communitys desire to see the continuation of the Deltona development plan. (2001) There has been limited rezoning of property on Marco Island since incorporation. Three large PUDs have been approved (Glon, Pier 81, and the Marriott), as well as one smaller PUD (Olde Marco Inn). Two other properties, totaling less than one acre have also been rezoned. An ordinance has been approved increasing the minimum acreage requirement for consideration of a PUD, which has proven effective. In March 2004 the City adopted a new Future Land Use Map with eight amendments. Those amendments reflected the PUDs, properties acquired for public use, and two small parcels recommended for commercial zoning. The City will continue to utilize the Future Land Use Map as policy guidance to assess and address rezoning petitions. No specific action(s) are proposed at this time. 157 Source: Marco Island, Evaluati on and Appraisal Report, 2005

PAGE 158

158 Table D-4. Marco Island EAR Issue Commercial Space Issue Description Progress Made Future Direction Proposed Action Commercial Space Based on the original master plan layout for the community and the desire to restrict commercial development, the amount of land zoned for commercial purposes is limited. As such, the existing commercial areas are surrounded by lowdensity, residential zoned areas, which a) limit the ability for future expansion, and b) places potential high intensity development in close proximity to low intensity residential uses. With the constraints imposed the City must take an active role in ensuring that our commercial resources are utilized wisely and available for the level of commercial usage expected from a residential community. (2001) Since adoption of the Comprehensive Plan the City has reviewed and adopted commercial zoning standards and regulations. The City should investigate and evaluate the potential of creating a Community Redevelopment District for the Elkcam Circle area. Initiate investigation and assessment of the Elkcam Circle area as a candidate site for a CRA. Source: Marco Island, Evaluati on and Appraisal Report, 2005

PAGE 159

APPENDIX E NEPTUNE BEACH No redevelopment or infill development information was available. 159

PAGE 160

160 APPENDIX F SANIBEL

PAGE 161

Table F-1. Sanibel Approximate Acreag e of Land Uses 2006 compared to 1995 Land Use Category 2006 1995 Acreage % Acreage Recalculated % Recalculated Conservation Uses 7200 62.1 6850 6500 59.1 56.0 Residential Uses 2550 22.0 2475 21.3 Vacant/Undeveloped Land 400 3.4 815 1165 7.0 10.0 Recreation Uses 575 5.0 575 5.0 Roadways 500 4.3 500 4.3 Commercial Uses 150 1.3 150 1.3 Public Facilities 50 0.4 60 0.5 Other Uses 175 1.5 175 1.5 Industrial Uses 0 0.0 0 0.0 Agricultural Uses 0 0.0 0 0.0 Total 11,600 100 11,600 100 Sources: Sanibel Planning De partment, Sanibel Plan, 2007 161 Table F-2. Characteristics of Sanibel Total Area of Sanibel 17.5 S quare Miles (11,600 acres) Principal Use Conservation Area (60%) Year of Incorporation 1974 Located within a Floodplain Yes Areas of Critical State Concern No Expansion of Corporate Boundaries In 1990, expande d corporate limits mile offshore; into the coastal waters on State owned submerged land. Percentage of dwelling units constructed 92%

PAGE 162

Table F-3. Sanibel Land Use Projecti ons: Dwelling Units at Buildout (2026) Projected amount of dwel ling units constructed 800 Dwelling units located in existing developments 600 Dwelling units located on vacant/undeveloped land 200 Table F-4. Sanibel Approximate Acr eage of Land Uses Buildout (2026) Land Use Category Acreage % Conservation Uses 7375 63.6 Residential Uses 2625 22.6 Vacant/Undeveloped Land 0 0.0 Recreation Uses 600 5.2 Roadways 525 4.5 Commercial Uses 175 1.5 Public Facilities 75 0.7 Other Uses 225 1.9 Industrial Uses 0 0.0 Agricultural Uses 0 0.0 TOTAL 11,600 100 162 Source: Sanibel Planning De partment, Sanibel Plan, 2007 Table F-5. Sanibel Negative Externalities to the Local Economy and Redevelopment Destruction caused by Hurricane Charley Resort housi ng was affected which results in less tax revenue Increased tolls on the Sanibel Causeway The local economy has been negatively impacted by the substantial increase, instituted by Lee County, in tolls to cross the Sanibel Causeway

PAGE 163

163 Table F-6. Sanibel Plan Goal s, Objectives, and Policies Goal Statement A The three-part statement of the communitys vision of its futu re is a hierarchy; one in wh ich the dominant principle is Sanibels sanctuary quality. Sanibel sha ll be developed as a community only to the extent to which it retains and embraces this quality of sanctuary. Sanibel will serve as attr action only to the extent to which it retains its desired qualities as sanctuary and community. Objective A1 Sanibel shall remain a small town. Policy A1.1 The City of Sanibel will foster quality, harmony, and beauty in all forms of human alteration of the environment. The community aesthetic is defined as a casua l style; one which is adapted to a rela xed island quality of life and respectful of local history, weather, cu lture and natural systems. Policy A1.2 The City of Sanibel chooses to remain unique through a development pattern that reflects the predominance of natural conditions and characteristics over human intrusions. All forms of development and redevelopment will preserve the communitys unique small town identity. Policy A1.3 The City of Sanibel chooses to preserve its rural characte r. Auto-urban development influences will be avoided. The commercialization of natural resources will be limited and strictly controlled. Objective B2 As development anticipated in the Future Land Us e Element occurs, protect natural resources, including soils, by limiting development as a percen tage of total land area. Policy B2.1 Protect natural resources by application of best management practi ces and continued implementation of the development regulations and performance standards of the Land Development Code. Objective B6 Development, consistent with the Future Land Use Map, that is consistent with densities and permitted uses regulat ed by the Development Intensity Maps, the Ecological Zones Maps, the Co mmercial District Map, Wetlands Conservation Lands Map and the Resort Housing District Map, will be managed by implementation and enforcement of the Land Development Code. Objective B7 To discourage sprawl, ensure that future developmen t is consistent with the Future Land Use Map that is consistent with the densities and permitted uses regulated by Deve lopment Intensity Maps, the Ecological Zones Maps, the Commercial District Map, Wetlands Conservation Lands Map and th e Resort Housing District Map. Policy B7.1 The Plan for Permitted Uses, the Plan for Residential Development Intensity, the Plan for Commercial Development and the Plan for Community Design will continue to be im plemented by the development regulations and performance standards of the Land Development Code. Objective B9 Continue the implementation of innovative land developmen t regulations to achieve th e objectives of the Plan. Policy B9.1 Annually review the Land Development C ode to consider innovative techniques th at can improve achievement of Plan objectives. Source: Sanibel Plan, 2007

PAGE 164

164 APPENDIX G ST. PETE BEACH

PAGE 165

Table G-1. St. Pete Beach Redevelopment Recap: Where we stand? Name of Redevelopment Project Description Status Redevelopment Plan As required by the recent charter amendments, all Comprehensive Plan Amendments and increase in allowable building heights must be approved by th e voters. Workshops on the subject have not yet been rescheduled but may begin as early as th e end of the summer 2007. Any new Comprehensive Plan amendments will need to be approved by all agen cies by early January in order to be placed on the March 2008 ballot. [ There was no indication that plan amendments were going to be approved by early January] Ongoing Dolphin Village In November 2006, residents voted to not repeal Division 43 of the Land Development Code. On February 14, 2007, RMC Property Group, owners of Dolphin Village, applied for a rezoning under Division 43 to reconstruct the s hopping center with a mixed use deve lopment. The project includes 100,000 sq/ft of new commercial development, includi ng a new 45,000 sq/ft grocery store, as well as a 175 unit, seven story residentia l building. The City Commission approved the project which is currently under appeal in Circuit Court by seve ral residents. Assuming the approval stands, the property owners have indicated it is likely at least two years before any construction activity begins. Ongoing East Corey Voters did not approve the vacation of Core y Circle for the Corey Landings project which will not allow the previously approved site plan to move forward. Staff is working with the owners to demolish the existing structures on the site. The pr operty owners have not submitted a revised site plan to the city. Ongoing Pass-A-Grille The Planning Board and C ity staff have been working on a number of planning issues relating to 8th Avenue and the small tourist lodgi ng facilities. The primary goal is to assure any redevelopment on 8th Avenue is consistent with historic developm ent pattern of the area and that we retain some presence of small tourist lodging facilities that were all made non-conforming nearly twenty years ago. Changes will require amendments to the Compre hensive Plan that will require numerous public hearings and a public referendum before they can be enacted. Ongoing 165 Source: St. Pete Beach Municipal Website, 2007, http://www.stpetebeach.org/sub/devel/redevelopment.html

PAGE 166

Table G-2. St. Pete Beach Locally Identified Issues Issue 2 Issue # Description Recommendation(s) Objectives and Policies 2 St. Pete Beach, like many areas in Florida, has faced increased redevelopment pressu res since the last update to the Comprehensive Plan. The City is built out, and many of the older hotels, motels, and commercial buildings are reaching the point of functional obsolescence. The City Commission initiated the visioning process in 2002 in an effort to solicit the input from residents (includi ng those that are seasonal) and business owners about their future vision for the city. The Master Planning process developed frameworks for renewal and proposed comprehensive plan amendments establishing several community redevelopment districts as an approach to address this issue. Although the citizens of St. Pete Beach eventually repealed these comprehensive plan amendments (previously adopted by the City Commission) in November 2006, there are components of this issue that should still be addressed. Components of this issue include: St. Pete Beach should develop a comprehensive community redevelopment approach to look further at these issues. The City should reassess the Community Redevelopment Plan that was rejected by voter s in November 2006 to determine if revisions or modifications to that plan could be made to address the communitys concerns. Additionally, a comprehensive assessment of the current status of the tour ist lodging industry should be undertaken to examine future likely trends and to provide an economic analysis of what kinds of units are being built. This would allow the City to make informed decisions regarding the land use regulations needed to implement and/or to facilitate redevelopment. The current Future Land Use Element demonstrates the desire of the community to exist as a residential community benefiting from the economics of tourism. Goal 1 states: The City shall ensure that the residential character of the City of St. Pete Beach is maintained and protected while: Maximizing the potential for economic benefit resulting from the tourist trade and the enjoyment of natural and man-made resources by citizens and visitors alike; Minimizing the threat to health, safety, and welfare posed by hazards, nuisances, incompatible land uses, and environmental degradation; and Maintaining the community's recreation, open space and beaches. [Emphasis Added] 166

PAGE 167

Table G-2. Continued Issue # Description Recommendation(s) Objectives and Policies Maintaining or attracting new investment into the tourist lodging facilities while maintaining the quality of life for the Citys residents Protecting existing single-family neighborhoods from encroachment by incompatible uses Preserving the Citys community infrastructure and maintaining small town feel The City should consider revisiting the visioning process in order to better understand what the community desires. It will be important to find an appropriate method for reaching a representative mix of citizens so that a clear perspective on what they like and dont like, as well as their expectations for what their local government should be doing about planning and land use issues can be discussed. Staff should assess the Citys LDRs to address concerns regarding incompatible use impacts are mitigated, as well as to review the consistency of currently permitted uses within the RFM District with Policy 1.3.6. Additionally, the LDRs should be revised such that a minimum of 51 percent of the use of mixed-use projects is required to be consistent with the primary use of the applicable future land use classification as established by the Comprehensive Plan. Within this Goal, Policy 1.1.5 attempts to protect residential uses from encroachment of incompatible uses through the Land Development Regulations (LDRs). The Citys LDRs, however, should be reviewed and updated to ensure the impacts of incompatible uses are properly mitigated in light of the increasing redevelopment pressure in St. Pete Beach. Policies 1.3.5 and 1.3.6 encourage the maintenance of tourist lodging facilities in keeping with the character of the community and prohibit the conversion or development of tourist lodging units for use as permanent residential dwellings within several land use categories. Additionally, Objective 1.4 states: Consistent with this comprehensive plan, as amended, the City of St. Pete Beach shall enhance and protect the Citys character through the encouragement of redevelopment which ensures an orderly and aesthetic mixture of land uses. 167

PAGE 168

Table G-2. Continued Issue # Description Recommendation(s) Objectives and Policies This is achieved through several policies encouraging the adaptive reuse of no longer viable commercial properties and the rehabilitation and/or revitalization of existing residential structures allowing for a mixture of compatible residential and non-residential uses within a single development site. While the Comprehensive Plan policies encourage of mixture of uses within a project, the LDRs should ensure that most of the land area is consistent with the primary use of the applicable land use classification. 168 Source: St. Pete Beach, Evaluation and Appraisal Report, 2007

PAGE 169

Table G-3. St. Pete Beach Locally Identified Issues Issue 3 Issue # Description Recommendation(s) Objectives and Policies 3 Rising land costs, a lack of undeveloped land, and its location within the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA) exacerbate the issue, making it nearly impossible to address the issue solely within the boundaries of the City itself. St. Pete Beach recognizes the importance of coordinating where possible to reduce roadblocks to the construction of a variety of housing types and to coordinate with Pine llas County to find a multijurisdictional solution to a regional issue. None listed that apply None listed that apply 169 Source: St. Pete Beach, Evaluation and Appraisal Report, 2007

PAGE 170

Table G-4. St. Pete Beach Locally Identified Issues Issue 6 Issue # Description Recommendation(s) Objectives and Policies 6 St. Pete Beach residents have expressed concerns regarding the potential for increased development densities within the city through the use of as yet undeveloped units allowed by the Future Land Use Plan Map. Of particular concern is the allowed density for both residential and transient accommodations within the city; while a mixture of residential and transient lodging is allowed in many Future Land Use classifications, these densities have not been actualized to date and if they were to be, there could be very significant increases in the built density of St. Pete Beach. Density has been limited in part by differences between the Citys Future Land Use Plan and the maximum allowable densities within the Citys zoning categories. Detailed data regarding the extent of this difference between existing residential and transient unit counts by Future Land Use classification for the entire City of St. Pete Beach is not currently available; in 2005, however, staff completed field counts of existing residential and transient units within the proposed Community Redevelopment District (CRD) and compared existing counts with the numbers of units allowed on the Future Land Use Map. The proposed CRD encompassed the entire downtown business district and the large resort areas on the Gulf of Mexico. Although the CRD was later repealed by referendum in 2006, the data is representative of the issue St. Pete Beach should analyze the relationship between the allowable Plan densities and actual densities within the City to determine if the densities should be reduced in the context of the Future Land Use Plan. None listed 170 Source: St. Pete Beach, Evaluation and Appraisal Report, 2007

PAGE 171

Table G-5. St. Pete Beach Vacan t Land Analysis (County Figures) Vacant Lots Remaining 99 Approximate Acres Remaining 24 (1/6 of total land area) Arithmetic Mean Size of the Vacant Lots 0.245 Acres (approximately acre) Lots Smaller than the Mean 81 Lots Larger than 1 Acre 2 Source: St. Pete Beach, Evaluation and Appraisal Report, 2007 Table G-6. St. Pete Beach Vacant Land An alysis Based on a Windshield Survey Vacant Lots Remaining 60 (Repre sent parcels recently developed, have permits issued for the construction of improvements on the lots, or are serving other purposes such as parking for local businesses) Vacant Lots Remaining 38 (approximately 6 acres or 0.4%)* Source: St. Pete Beach, Evaluation and Appraisal Report, 2007 171 This does not take into account what would actually be availabl e for development (e.g. for sale).

PAGE 172

Table G-7. St. Pete Beach Assessment of Obj ectives and Policies Future Land Use Element FLUE 1.1/1.1.1 Lists the different land use categories in St. Pete Beach FLUE 1.1.2 The City shall, through the land devel opment regulations, encourage a balanced land use mix providing a variety of housing styles, densities and open space. Status : Ongoing Recommendation for change : Balanced not clearly measur able. Should consider revising. FLUE 1.1.5 Through the enforcement of the land deve lopment regulations, existing residential areas shall be protected from the encroachment of incompatible uses; likewise, other land use areas shall be protecte d from the encroachment of incompatible residential uses. Status : Ongoing Recommendation for change : LDRs define allowable uses and other require ments for each category, consistent with the FLUE. No policy revisions required. Revise LD Rs to address Locally Identified Issue #2. FLUE 1.1.6 The conservation, maintenance and rehabilitation of existing residential areas shall be en couraged through provisions contained in the land development regulations and other appli cable City codes. Status : Achieved Recommendation for change : Achieved. No policy revisions required. FLUE 1.2.2 The site plan review provisions, as c ontained in the land development regulati ons, shall, at a minimum, address the following: Allowance for a creative approach for development of redevelopment A harmonious development of the site with consideration given to the surrounding areas and community facilities, while providing for safe and efficient traffic circulation Status : Not achieved Recommendation for change : LDRs are not in place that require more ope n space, if practical, be provided or that establish procedures for the granting of increased structure height No policy changes requi red, but LDRs need to be updated. Additionally, the City should review the policy provisions allowing height variances. FLUE 1.3.1 Within any mixed use development, as appropriate, proper separation and bufferi ng between residential and nonresidential land uses shall be ma intained through the administration of the land development regulations. Status : Not achieved Recommendation for change : This policy has not been implemented. Additio nally, there appears to be a contradiction between mixed-use development and a separation of uses. Consider revi sing language of policy. 172

PAGE 173

Table G-7. Continued FLUE 1.4 Consistent with this comprehensive plan, as amended, the City of St. Pete Beach shall enhance and protect the City's character through the encouragement of redevelopment which ensures an orderly and aesthetic mixture of land uses. Status : Ongoing Recommendation for change : St. Pete Beach citizens recognize the importance of ensu ring that whatever redevelopment may occur at some point in the future provides an orderly and aesthetic mix of land uses. This objective is an ongoing task for the city, and dis cussions regarding what type of redevelopment the comm unity desires are still taking place. FLUE 1.4.1 The City shall, through administration of the land development regulations, encourage the redevelopment or rehabilitation of ex isting nonresidential areas and uses. Status : Not achieved Recommendation for change : Redevelopment or rehabilitation of existing non-residential areas is not occurring. This policy may be revised to include language regarding the limitation of density and intensity. FLUE 1.4.2 The City shall, through administration of the land development regulations, encourage the adaptive re-use of no longer viable c ommercial properties. Status : Not achieved Recommendation for change : No policy changes required, but LDRs need to be updated. FLUE 1.4.3 The City shall, while emphasizing residential uses, encourage th e creative redevelopment of non-viable properties by allowing f or a mixture of compatible residential and non-residential uses within a single development site. Status : Ongoing Recommendation for change : Planned Developments are allowed only within lands designated Commercial General and Resort Facility Medium north of 37th Ave. RFM lands must be east of Gulf Boulevard to be considered for PD. Policy revisions may be considered. Revise LDRs to address Locally Identified Issue #2. FLUE 1.4.4 In order to ensure the continued maintenance of its beach resi dential character, the City, through administration of the land development regulations, shall encourage the rehabilitation and/or revitalization of existing residential structures. Status : Ongoing Recommendation for change : Achieved. No policy revisions required. FLUE 1.5 Existing land uses or structures which are either incompatible or inconsistent with the adopted Future Land Use Element shall b e deemed non-conforming as of the effective da te of this comprehensive plan and be enco uraged to be eliminated through redevelopm ent of such uses or structures; however, existing residential de nsities shall be grand-fathered ex cept when excess residential unit s have been abandoned voluntarily. Status : Achieved Recommendation for change : Actual Result: This objective has been implemented an d has been somewhat effective. During the EAR-based amendment phase, this objective may be revised to include cons iderations for tourist lodging facilities that may be considered non-conforming but are an important aspect of the communitys economy. 173

PAGE 174

174 Table G-7. Continued FLUE 1.9.1 As administered by the land development regulations, the City of St. Pete Beach shall ensure that all development an d redevelopment taking place within its m unicipal boundaries does not result in a reduction of the level of service requirements established and adopted in this comprehensive plan. Status : Achieved Recommendation for change : Division 29 (Concurrency Management) has been implemented in order to meet this policy requirement. No policy revisions required. FLUE 1.9.6 Consistent with this Comprehens ive Plan, as amended, all permits for future development and redevelopment activities shall be issued only if public facilities necessary to meet the level of service stan dards adopted pursuant to this comprehensive plan are available concurrent with the impacts of the development. Status : Achieved Recommendation for change : Accomplished through concurrency requirements. No policy change. FLUE 1.12.1 The City of St. Pete Beach will continue to ensure that development and redevelopment projects do not adversely impact neighboring governmental jurisdicti ons including the cities of Treasure Is land, St. Petersburg, South Pasadena and Pinellas County by incl uding these communities in the site plan review process, where applicable. Status : Achieved Recommendation for change : St. Pete Beach sends information regardi ng any amendments and rezonings to the PPC, TBRPC, and neighboring communities for re view. No policy revisions required. FLUE 2.3.3 The City shall permit no new developments where the faci lities and services are not ava ilable or planned to be avail able in accordance with the Concurrency Management System adopted in 1992 as Chapter 102, St. Pete Beach code of Ordinances, as amended. Status : Achieved Recommendation for change : Division 29 of the LDRs regulates concurrency management. Chapter 102 of the St. Pete Beach code of Ordinances was repealed in December 2004. Revisions required to update references. FLUE 4.1 Recognizing that the City of St. Pete Beach is located on a barrier island, future growth and development shall be managed through the preparation, adoption, implementa tion and enforcement of land development regulations consistent with this adopted Co mprehensive Plan, as amended. Status : Ongoing Recommendation for change : Actual Result: The EAR process has helped to identify sections of the LDRs that need to be updated to be consistent with the 1998 comp rehensive plan. The LDRs will be updated accordingly following the EAR-based amendments pha se. No objective revisions required.

PAGE 175

175 APPENDIX H TREASURE ISLAND

PAGE 176

Table H-1. Treasure Island Mixed Use and Density Element Objective or Policy Description FLUE Policy 1.1.3 The City of Treasure Island hereby adopts those land use categories identified and defined in this policy as those which shall govern mixed-use development within the community pursuant to Rule 9J-5.006(3)(c)7, Florida Administrative Code. Resort Facilities Medium-30 (RFM-30), with a residential density of 0 to 15 units per acre and a tourist accommodation density of 0 to 30 units per acre with a maxi mum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.65 and an impervious surface ratio (ISR) of 0.85 with a percentage distribution of 50 to 70 percent residential, 30 to 50 percent tourist accommodation, and 10 to 20 percent other. Resort Facilities High-50 (RFH-50), with a residential density of 0 to 15 units per acre and a tourist accommodation density of 0 to 50 units per acre w ith a maximum FAR of 1.2 and an ISR of 0.95 with a percentage distribution of 30 to 60 percent residential, 40 to 70 percent tourist accommodation, and 5 to 10 percent other. FLUE Policy 1.1.4 The City of Treasure Island hereby adopts those land use categories identified and defined in this policy as those which shall govern other develo pment within the community pursuan t to Rule 9J-5.006(3)(c)7, Florida Administrative Code. Commercial General (CG), with a density of 0 to 22 units per ac re for tourist accommodations, a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.55, and an impervious surface ratio (ISR) of 0.9 Recreation Open Space, (R/OS), with a maximum FAR of 0.25 and ISR of 0.6 (special permit required) Preservation (P), with a maximum FAR of 0.1 and ISR of 0.2 (special permit required) Institutional (I), with a maxi mum FAR of 0.55 and ISR of 0.75 Transportation/Utility (T/U), with a maximum FAR of 0.55 and ISR of 0.75 176 Source: Treasure Island, Comprehensive Plan, 1999

PAGE 177

177 Table H-2. Treasure Island Redevelopment Element Objective or Policy Description FLUE Objective 1.5 The City of Treasure Island shall enc ourage redevelopment and ensure that it is compatible with the existing character in order to achieve an orde rly and aesthetic mixture of land uses. FLUE Policy 1.5.1 The City shall, through provisions contained in th e land development regulations, encourage opportunities for the redevelopment or rehabilitation of existing commercial areas or uses. FLUE Policy 1.5.2 In order to en sure the continued maintenance of its beach residential charac ter, the City shall, through provisions contained in the land de velopment regulations, encourage o pportunities for the rehabilitation and/or revitalization of exis ting residential structures. FLUE Policy 1.5.3 The City shall encourage the redevelopmen t of that the area bounded by Johns Pass on the north and 127th Avenue on the south on both sides of Gu lf Boulevard as depicted on adopted Map B-2: Johns Pass Redevelopment Area FLUE Policy 1.5.4 By 2005, the City shall conduc t an area study of the Central Business Di strict to explore the possibility of establishing a redevelopment district, pursuant to Chapter 163, Part I II, Florida Statutes. Measure: Redevelopment in compliance with the Future Land Use Map Source: Treasure Island, Comprehensive Plan, 1999

PAGE 178

178 APPENDIX I WILTON MANORS

PAGE 179

179 Table I-1. Wilton Manors Redevelopment FLUE Objective or Policy Description FLUE Objective 2 Support, encourage and gui de infill, redevelopment and revitalizati on activities in appropr iate areas (B.C.P.C 08.03.00. 08.03.03) FLUE Policy 2.1 The redevelopment of resi dential neighborhoods shall be designed to include a more efficient system of internal circulation, including the provi sion of collector streets to feed th e traffic onto arterial roads and highways. (B.C.P.C. 14.03.06) FLUE Policy 2.2 Promote infill development through the provision of potable water and sanita ry sewer service to those developed portions of Wilton Manors which are currently inadequately served. (B.C.P.C. 08.03.02) FLUE Policy 2.4 The lands encompassed by th e Traditional Neighborhood Development ove rlay zoning distri ct as defined by the City Council and the Powerline Road corridor sh all be target areas for the promotion of infill, redevelopment, revitali zation and reuse activitie s. (B.C.P.C. 08.03.06, 10.01.00, 10.01.03) FLUE Policy 2.5 To encourage infill, redevel opment, revitalization, and reuse activities, the City shall endeavor to accomplish the following within a reasonable period of time: Obtain a market analysis to determine the feasibility of infill, redevelopment, revitalization, and reuse in appropriate areas of the City; Amend the Land Development Regulations in accordance with the results of the market analysis to encourage infill, redevelopment, re vitalization, and reuse in appropriate areas of the City within two years of completion of the market analysis; Establish a Community Redevelopment Agency; Establish a Community Redevelopment Area and associated master/regulating plan; Establish a Main Street or similar program to aid in business attraction, development, and retention; and Adopt appropriate implementation measures which may include incentives such as property tax abatement; lowered or waived license, impact and permit fees; expedited plan review and permitting; City absorption of developer concurrency costs; and minor exceptions to development standards. Source: Williams, et al., Comprehensive Plan, 2002

PAGE 180

Table I-2. Wilton Manors Future Land Use Element Assessment Element Objective/Policy Explanation FLUE Introduction The Future Land Use Elem ent contains objectives that address controlling development and redevelopment through land development regulations; support infill, redevelopment, and revitalization activities in appropr iate areas; protect parks and natural resources; encourage innovative land development techniques, such as cluster z oning and mixed use; and protect historic resources. FLUE Policy 2.5 Lists measures to take in order to encourage infill, redevelopment, revitalization, and reuse activities. These steps include performing a market analysis, developing a community redevelopment agency, establish a Main Street program, and adopting economic development measures such as property tax abatement and waiving license fees. Market forces have caused redevelopment to take place in struggling areas of Wilt on Manors, and the steps listed under this policy, with the exception of the Main Street program, which is in place, are no longer considered necessary and this policy should be removed. Source: Melgren, Wilton Manors Eval uation and Appraisal Report, 2005 Table I-3. Wilton Manors Vacant Land for Future Development Vacant Land Remaining 4.44 Acres Type of Vacant Land Remaining Small, inf ill parcels generally less than an acre in size Vacant Land Designated as Commercial Development 3.5 Acres (80.4%) Remaining Vacant Parcels for Residential Development 0.62 Acres Source: Melgren, Wilton Manors Eval uation and Appraisal Report, 2005 180

PAGE 181

APPENDIX J INTERVIEW SCHEDULE Interview Questions: Pl anning Professionals Agreements and Changes to the Comprehensive Plan 1. Have these agreements been successful based on goals and strategies that have been set in the citys comprehensive plan? 2. If these agreements have not been successf ul, what is/are the reason(s) why these agreements have not been successful? 3. Has the municipality used small scale comprehe nsive plan amendments as a tool to better manage future growth wi thin the municipality? 4. Has the municipality used large scale comprehe nsive plan amendments as a tool to better manage future growth wi thin the municipality? Redevelopment/Infill De velopment/Urban Design 1. Does your local government promote redevelopment compared to allowing it when it is proposed? (If the answer is yes, answer questi ons 2 and 4 through 8; if the answer is no, then answer question 3) 2. If so, are you focused on the independent or partnered redevelopment? 3. What are the reasons why redevelopmen t is not a preferred planning tool? 4. Since your municipality is built out, does your municipali ty focus on redevelopment, infill development, and urban design as separate planning tools or as a collected planning technique? 5. Of the following redevelopment tools, which specific redevelopment categories were used? a. Adaptive reuse b. Infill development c. One-for-one replacement d. Redevelopment consistent with existing regulations e. Redevelopment that increases the allowable density f. Intensity and/or mix of land uses g. Scales 6. Related to question number 5, of the following redevelopment tools that have been used by your municipality, were these re development tools successful? 7. What were the reasons why they were successful? 8. Which tools do you use to determin e whether a project is success? Economic Job Creation 1. Has job creation increased? (If the answer is yes, answer questions 2 and 3; if the answer is no, answer question 4) 2. What are the reasons why the quantity of jobs has increased? 181

PAGE 182

3. Which sectors have increased the le vel of employment opportunities? 4. Why have the amount of jobs available decreased? Economic Investment 1. Has economic investment increas ed? (If the answer is yes, ask questions 2 through 4; if the answer is no, ask question 5) 2. What are the sources of the economic investment? 3. Which types of businesses have provided the most economic investment? 4. Was the amount of economic investment provided by businesses currently in the municipality or were they provided by busine sses not currently based in the municipality? 5. What has contributed to the de crease in economic investment? Incentives 1. Which types of incentives have been offered? (If the answer is yes, then ask questions 2 through 3; if the answer is no, then ask question 4) 2. How often are incentives offered? 3. Which industries receive d the most incentives? 4. Why were incentives not offered? Public Participation 1. Has the public been supportive of redevelopmen t within the municipa lity? (If the answer is yes, ask questions 2 and 3; if the answer is no, ask question 4.) 2. Which factors have contributed to the succe ss of public support for growth management changes? 3. Which group(s) of individuals are the most supportive of gr owth management changes? 4. What has contributed to limited public i nvolvement regarding growth management decisions? Interview Questions: Elected Officials 1. Which of the following growth management tools does your muni cipality prefer? a. Redevelopment b. Infill development c. Urban design d. All of the above 2. What do you feel are the biggest challenges you r municipality faces with being close to or at build out? 3. Which options does your municipality feel are best to address the challenges your municipality faces? 4. What are the municipality s strengths? Weaknesses? 5. How are these inter-local agre ements monitored? Which tool s are used to determine the success of an agreement? 6. Are the growth management tools provided in the comprehensive plan adequate to meet your municipalitys needs? 182

PAGE 183

7. If not, which growth management tools w ould be preferred fo r your municipality? 8. Have the residents and the businesses locat ed within the city limits been strong supporters of growth management changes? 9. If not, why have the resident s and businesses not been suppor ters in growth management decisions? 10. Is your municipality interested in attracting economic development? 11. If so, which type of businesses does your municipality desire to attract? 12. If not, why do elected offici als, residents, and/or businesses not support economic development? 183

PAGE 184

LIST OF REFERENCES Burchell, R., in association with the Center fo r Urban Policy Research Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ and Florida Department of Community Affairs, Tallahassee, FL. (1999). Eastward Ho! Development Futures: Pa ths to More Efficient Growth in Southeast Florida. Tallahassee, FL: Author. Chapin, T.S. (2007). Local Governments as Po licy Entrepreneurs: Evaluating Floridas Concurrency Experiment. Urban Affairs Review, 42, 505-532. Chapin, T.S. and Connerly, C.E. (2004). Attit udes Towards Growth Management: Comparing Resident Support in 1985 and 2001. Journal of the American Planning Association, 70-4, 443-452. City of Atlan tic Beach. (2004). 2015 EAR Based Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Atlantic Beach, FL: Community Development Department. City of Marco Island. (2005). Evaluation and Appraisal Report Marco Island, FL: Planning and Zoning Department. City of Sanibel. (2007). An Amendment to the Sanibel Plan : The Comprehensive Land Use Plan of the City of Sanibel. Sanibel, FL: Planning Department. City of St. Pete Beach. (2007). 2010 Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and Appraisal Report St. Pete Beach, FL: Community Development Department. City of Treasure Island. (1999). City of Treasure Is land Comprehensive Plan Treasure Island, FL: City of Treasure Island Local Planning Agency with Staff Assistance from the Pinellas Planning Council. City of Wilton Manors. (2002). City of Wilton Manors, Fl orida Comprehensive Plan Wilton Manors, FL: Williams, Hatfield & Stoner Inc. (Planning); Keith Gay (Mapping); Richard Rubin & Associates (Planning and Mapping). Florida Legislature. (2007). Florida Statutes, Chapter 163: Intergovernmental Programs. Retrieved March 28, 2008 from http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/ HDR, Incorporated, in associati on with the Treasure Island Planning Department. (2006). City of Treasure Island Downtown Redevelopment Plan. Treasure Island, FL: Author. Holcombe, R. (2007). Why Do Florida Countie s Adopt Urban Growth Boundaries? In T.S. Chapin, C.E. Connerly, & H.T. Higgins (Eds.). Growth Management in Florida: Planning for Paradise (pp. 227-240). Burlington, VT: Ashgate. Lang, R. and LeFurgy, J. (2007). Boomburb Buildout : The Future of Development in Large, Fast-Growing Suburbs. Urban Affairs Review, 42, 533-552. 184

PAGE 185

Mattson, G.A. (1994). Retrenchment and Fiscal Policy Planning: The Political Culture of Small Southern Towns. Public Productivity & Management Review, 17-3, 265-279. Mattson, G.A. and Burke, A.T. (1989). Small Towns, Political Culture, and Policy Innovation. Journal of Planning Literature, 4, 397-412. Melgren, Michele. City of Wilton Manors Evaluation and Appraisal Report June 2006 Fort Lauderdale, FL: Michele Melgren & Associates. Nelson, A.C., Dawkins, C.J., Sanchez, T.W., Danielson, K.A. (2007). Urban Containment and Neighborhood Quality in Florida. In T.S. Chap in, C.E. Connerly, & H.T. Higgins (Eds.). Growth Management in Florida: Planning for Paradise (pp. 191-237). Burlington, VT: Ashgate. Oregons Transportation and Growth Manageme nt Program, a joint program of the Oregon Department of Transportation and the Or egon Department of Land Conservation and Development. (1999). The Infill and Redevelopment Code Handbook Salem, OR: Author. Pendall, R. (2000). Local Land Use Regul ation and the Chain of Exclusion. Journal of the American Planning Association, 66-2, 125-142. Pinellas County Economic Development, Pinella s County Board of Commissioners & Pinellas Planning Council. (2005). Pinellas by Design: An Economic Development and Redevelopment Plan for the Pinellas Community Clearwater, FL: Author. Renaissance Planning Group. (2006). Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and Appraisal Report Orlando, FL: Renaissance Planning Group. South Florida Regional Planning Council, in asso ciation with the Governors Commission for a Sustainable Florida and the Departme nt of Community Affairs. (1999). Building on Success: A Report from Eastward Ho! Miami, FL: Author. Swarthout, R. (1995). Village of Key Biscayne, Florida Master Plan Boca Raton, FL: Robert Swarthout, Incorporated. Wallace Roberts & Tood, LLC. (2007). Village of Key Biscayne Master Plan Evaluation and Appraisal Report. Miami, FL: Wallace Roberts & Todd, LLC. Wheeler, S., in association with the Greenbelt Alliance. (2002). Smart Infill: Creating More Livable Communities in the Bay Area A Guide for Bay Area Leader: Prepared for the Greenbelt Alliance. San Francisco, CA; Author. Yin, R. (1984). Case Study Research: Design and Methods Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. 185

PAGE 186

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Marcus Oberlander was born in 1976, in Edis on, New Jersey. He grew up in Neptune, New Jersey and graduated from Neptune High Sc hool in 1995. Upon completion of high school, he attended American University. In 1999, Mr. Oberlander graduated from American University with a bachelors degree, majoring in Ec onomics (international tr ack). Mr. Oberlander commenced graduate studies at the University of Florida in 2006 towards a Masters of Arts in Urban and Regional Planning. During graduate stu dy he has participated in various research projects through department cl asses and through a planning co nsultant with over 30 years experience. He has accepted and performed many leadership roles within the Department of Urban and Regional Planning Department and the Student Planning Asso ciation. Mr. Oberlander will receive a Master of Arts in Urban and Regi onal Planning, with a specialization in growth management and transportation systems.