The centerpiece of the meeting was the review of the comprehensive plan update presented by Kathy Eva from JB Pro. This update, marking the first public hearing on the comprehensive plan, aims to guide Palatka’s development until 2045. Eva explained that the comprehensive plan serves as a master plan for city governance, focusing on elements such as land use, transportation, economic development, and historic preservation. She emphasized the importance of aligning the plan with Florida statutes and best planning practices.

A notable aspect of the plan is its future land use element, which extends the planning horizon to 2045. This extension allows for a thorough assessment of population growth and infrastructure needs. A significant change proposed is the introduction of a mixed-use development designation in the downtown area, reflecting current zoning classifications. Eva clarified that Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) would be used selectively.

The meeting also delved into the housing element of the plan, which aims to promote diversity and affordability in the city’s housing stock. Key objectives include policies for housing diversity and the rehabilitation of substandard units. The transportation element was another important topic, focusing on enhancing pedestrian and bike connectivity and exploring multimodal transportation options. Suggestions included reinstating a ferry system to boost economic development and tourism, addressing concerns about congestion on Reed Street.

The recreation and open space element was discussed, with an emphasis on improving access to parks and recreational facilities. The board considered updating service standards to ensure parks are well-distributed across the city, allowing residents, particularly children, to easily access local parks. The speaker highlighted the importance of maintaining accessibility as the city develops, proposing that the level of service standard include both acreage and location considerations.

Further discussions addressed the conservation element, which focuses on preserving and restoring native resources and vulnerable ecosystems. The public facilities element was also introduced, detailing the city’s utilities and plans to consolidate level of service standards for consistency. The intergovernmental coordination element outlined the city’s collaborative efforts with other governmental entities, with recommendations for developing an interlocal service boundary agreement with Putnam County.

The economic development element received considerable attention, particularly the proposal for an “economic development coordinator” position. Concerns were raised about potential conflicts with existing arrangements, such as the chamber of commerce’s role as the city’s economic development agent. The discussion centered on whether the language should mandate or merely suggest the exploration of this position, with a consensus leaning towards more flexible wording to avoid legal issues.

Public comments introduced additional concerns, including the potential for discrimination resulting from naming specific arts organizations in the plan. Suggestions were made to remove references to specific groups to promote inclusivity. Moreover, the conversation touched on the main street program, with a call for more flexible language regarding its establishment to prevent conflicts with existing programs.

Another topic was the ongoing charter review process, particularly regarding height limits outside historic areas. A board member questioned whether the comprehensive plan should reflect potential changes to height limits, but it was decided to await the charter’s adoption before making any amendments.