Loading...
12-16-14 f t1 A r V-14 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD December 16, 2014 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL. The meeting was called to order at 6:03 pm. Chair Brea Paul verified that all board members are present, with the exception of Patrick Stratton. Also present was Building and Zoning Director, Jeremy Hubsch; Zoning Technician, Derek Reeves, and representing the firm Kopelousos, Bradley & Garrison, P.A. was Mr. Rich Komando. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. A. Minutes of November 18, 2014 Prior to approval of the November 18th minutes, the board reviewed the minutes of the August 19th and October 19th minutes that had outstanding corrections to be made. Mr. Hansen motioned to approve the minutes of the August 19th meeting as amended. Mr. Parkes seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Mrs. Simmons clarified the changes made to the October minutes. Mrs. Simmons motioned to approve the minutes of the October 21st meeting as amended. Mr. Hansen seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Discussion of the November 18th minutes began. Mr. Hansen asked that his comment in item 4E be revised as he felt it did not accurately reflect his statement. Mr. Parkes asked for a similar revision in item 4B. Discussion ensued as to the proper terminology. Mr. Hansen motioned to approve the November 18th minutes as amended. Mrs. Simmons seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. 3. OLD BUSINESS. None. Page 1 of 7 4. NEW BUSINESS. B. ZVAR-14-00100048 (Public Hearing) Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64 for an increase in the allowable excess surface parking spaces from 10 spaces as required by Section 24-161(a) to 25 spaces at RE# 169398-0410 (aka 2321 Mayport Road). Staff Report Mr. Reeves introduced the item and stated that the property is in the Commercial General zoning district and is roughly 270 feet by 300 feet. There is an existing gas station that will be torn down to be replaced with a 9,973 square foot retail store occupied by Dollar Tree. They plan to have 50 parking spaces while utilizing the existing driveways from Mayport Road with a 56 percent impervious surface. A variance is needed because code requires 25 parking spaces based on 1 space per 400 square feet of retail use and allows up to 10 additional spaces. The maximum of 35 spaces is less than the requested 50 spaces. The applicants believe a maximum of 35 spaces is too restrictive for their business model and believe that the shopping center use under city code that allows 1 space per 250 square feet is more appropriate. The applicants used that ratio to reach the 50 proposed spaces. Examples of neighboring jurisdictions parking standards were presented to demonstrate what this project would encounter elsewhere. A possible condition was presented that would require additional landscaping if the variance were to be approved. Mr. Hansen asked why the city would have a cap on the amount of parking when impervious surface requirements are met. Various ideologies were discussed including preventing large amounts of parking that go unused most of the year. Mr. Parkes asked why the city code has such different parking standards to shopping centers and stand alone retail uses. Discussion ensued about the mix of uses in shopping centers. Applicant Comment Darren Eyre with Thomas Engineering Group at 4950 West Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 600, Tampa, FL 33609 representing Dollar Tree stated that Dollar Tree typically likes to have about 55 to 60 spaces for a store of this size and pointed out that the proposed plan is well below impervious surface requirements. The board discussed the need for this store in that area and the reason they would like to build there. Mrs. Simmons asked for the impervious surface of the old gas station. Mr. Eyre responded that it was about 35 percent impervious and that stormwater would be stored on site in the rear of the lot. Mr. Hansen asked if any environmental Page 2 of 7 studies had been done on the site, specifically related to the underground tanks. Mr. Eyre answered that two phases of environmental studies have been preformed and that there are no issues. It was added that the proper removal of the tanks and fill of the property be done to DEP standards be done prior to purchase of the property by Dollar Tree. Mr. Parkes asked if denial of the variance would stop the project from going forward. Mr. Eyre responded that he believed it would. Mrs. Simmons expressed concerns about precedent. Mrs. Lanier asked if there is an existing retention pond on site. Mr. Eyre said that there is a small one on site but the proposed one would be larger. Public Comment Chris Jorgensen of 92 West 3rd Street, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 stated that he was glad to see this property being redeveloped through the private sector and without government funding. With no additional speakers, public comment was closed by Mrs. Paul. Board Discussion Mr. Hansen began the discussion stating that he likes this project and thinks that it will be an improvement over the old gas station and that he likes staff's recommendation to increase landscaping. Mr. Elmore stated that he believed that the current parking standards are in place for a reason though he does agree that this project would be an improvement. Mr. Hansen asked Mr. Elmore if he thought increased landscaping could reduce the negative visual impact of excess parking. Mr. Elmore responded that he believes most commercial landscaping ends up dead or gone by 70 percent within five years of planting for one reason or another. Mr. Parkes stated he disagreed with Mr. Elmore and believed that the developer knew best about how much parking they needed and that if this had two units this wouldn't be here. Mr. Elmore directed a comment towards the applicant about the existing store on Atlantic Boulevard and if it would be closed after this one is opened. Mr. Eyre did not know for sure. Mrs. Lanier stated that she supported this project because she felt it would fit in well, survive for a long period of time and be an improvement for the community. Mrs. Paul asked if additional bicycle parking could be provided since that is a common mode of transportation at the beaches. Mrs. Simmons asked for details on the landscape plan. Staff listed the type and number of trees to be planted on site based on the submitted plan that is part of the building permit application. Mr. Eyre clarified that most of the development is to occur in the same place as the existing development so more existing trees are being preserved. Mrs. Paul asked if there was any additional discussion and asked for a motion. Page 3 of 7 Motion Mr. Hansen motioned to approve the variance as presented. Mrs. Lanier seconded the motion. The motion carried 5 to 1 with Mr. Elmore as the lone dissenting vote. 5. REPORTS. A. Tree Protection Code Revisions Discussion Staff Report Mr. Hubsch introduced the item and stated that because of a concern in the community about the recent loss in the tree canopy that he had done some analysis and presented findings to the City Commission at a prior meeting. Based on that presentation, the Commission expressed interest in making some revisions to the tree code and that it is being brought here to begin that discussion. A brief history of the tree code and the changes over time was given. A description was given of the current code and how it works today including when trees can be removed, calculations and mitigation. The analysis of Tree Removal Permits from January of 2013 to the time of this study a couple of months ago was presented. During that time, 2,070 inches of trees were removed, 2,868 were preserved, 229 relocated, 12.5 inches planted and 76 inches paid into the Tree Fund. The initial tree canopy was 5,167 inches with 3,109 inches preserved, relocated or planted. It was clarified that these numbers do not include the country club or other commercial projects. Mr. Parkes asked if it included any trees planted beyond building permits. Mr. Hubsch stated that it did not. A brief discussion was had about missing data and the ability to collect it all. Mr. Hubsch presented some options to improve the tree code that would result in an increase in preservation of the tree canopy. The first was to increase the mitigation ratio from 1 inch preserved to every 2 inches removed. It was pointed out that the current ratio allows for a net reduction in 50 percent of the tree canopy. A ratio of 2 inches preserved to every 1 inch removed would prevent any loss. Another change would be to make it so that all trees over 6 inches are protected. This eliminates special treatment based on the location of the tree on the lot and increases the mitigation for the removal of larger trees up to 20 inches in the interior of the lot. A third possible change would be to remove mitigation credit for the preservation of trees. This would force new trees to be planted for every tree removed. Page 4 of 7 Mr. Parkes asked what the required contribution to the Tree Fund is per inch. Mr. Hubsch replied that it is currently$49.00 per inch but that rate is based on the City of Jacksonville's rate which changes to reflect current pricing and installation of a 4 inch hardwood. Mr. Parkes stated that increasing this would have an impact on preserving trees as builders would not want to have to pay into the Tree Fund for unnecessary trees that were removed. Mr. Elmore stated that this rate was over$100.00 per inch but when the economy went down so did the rate, but he expects it will increase soon. Mrs. Lanier asked if a removed oak tree could be replaced by a palm. Mr. Hubsch stated a single palm could not replace an oak tree but a cluster of 3 could. Discussion ensued about the practice of what trees are being planted today and why they feature so many palms. Another option to improve the tree code would be to Increase the utilization of the Historic Tree Corridor and Heritage Tree aspect of the code which is a designation by the City Commission would increase the mitigation rate along those corridors. Other ideas to increase the tree canopy beyond code changes are things like the Tree Fund. The city does have money in the Tree Fund and that can be used to improve the tree canopy in the right-of-ways. This has obvious issues related to utilities but there are planting locations available for quality trees. The city could also partner with private property owners to do plantings, especially along areas such as Mayport Road. An active garden club in the city could also be a strong participant. Mrs. Paul mentioned the possible use of young people looking for community service hours and other groups such as Boy Scouts to assist with public plantings. Mr. Parkes pointed to group that raised money in the community and used it to plantings but expressed concerns about the maintenance of the tree to ensure its success. Mrs. Simmons agreed that public interest groups would be good. After a reference to the old Tree Board, Mr. Parkes stated that, in his opinion, returning to a Tree Board would not be a good decision because of the added delays when the process is basically a numbers game that staff can easily administer. Mr. Parkes continued that he felt it would best to increase the dollar amount per inch going into the Tree Fund and using that money to do plantings in the ample city owned properties and right- of-ways. Mrs. Simmons expressed concerns about planting trees in the right-of-way is how parking would be affected, especially close to the beach. Mr. Parkes agreed that parking in the right-of-way near the beach must be maintained for federal beach renourishment and that quality plantings over quantity would be best. Page 5 of 7 Mrs. Lanier asked if the current code specified certain types of trees to be used as mitigation so that quality could be addressed. Mr. Hubsch responded that the code does not but the city has hired an arborist with Tree Fund money to do an analysis of the tree canopy including changes over time with one of the outcomes to be learning more about the life span of the existing canopy related to different types of trees. Mr. Elmore commented about the life span issues of certain types of trees and continued by adding the discussion shouldn't just focus on oaks but also palms and other trees that do well in this environment. Mr. Parkes pointed to the history of the area and that there were not many trees in the city 100 years ago and that they only exist today because people voluntarily planted them. He continued by saying more regulation is not the answer, but instead to encourage voluntary plantings through programs and education. Mr. Hubsch asked if a partnership program to do plantings on private properties would be good. Mr. Elmore stated that he does not think those programs work well because of a lack of maintenance on the tree after planting. Public Comment Mrs. Paul paused the discussion as the staff presentation was done and opened the floor to public comment. Marisa Carbone of 391 8th Street, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 stated that she believes that the dollar figure per inch paid to the Tree Fund should be increased and that all live oaks removed in the city should have to pay and not be able to mitigate with other trees. She also called for a moratorium on the removal of Live Oaks in the city till the city can evaluate things further. With no additional speakers, public comment was closed by Mrs. Paul. Board Discussion Mrs. Simmons stated that she was in favor of doing more than education by increasing mitigation and stopping tree removal outside of construction. She continued by drawing attention to the loss of the understory of the city and the impact that has. Mrs. Paul stated that this is not just an Old Atlantic Beach problem and the whole city is affected. Mr. Parkes talked about need to allow dangerous trees to be removed without burdens but that he was in favor of increasing the mitigation dollar amount for paying into the tree fund as that would act as a deterrent while giving the city resources to do plantings on its land. Mr. Hansen asked if this was a problem with enforcement of the code or the code being weak. Mr. Hubsch responded that little money was taken in by the Tree Fund but in recent months several thousand dollars were Page 6 of 7 received and that might reflect new leadership and increased focus. Mr. Parkes also pointed to the need for greater enforcement. Mrs. Lanier stated that she agreed with the other points made, especially increasing mitigation. She also felt that portion of the code that gives credit for trees that probably wouldn't be cut down in the exterior zone should be removed. Mrs. Lanier asked staff what the biggest issues were to them as they review and inspect plans. Mr. Hubsch stated that simple education would really help. He then said that a specific provision of the code that is difficult to watch is the ability to remove a tree up to 20 inches in diameter with no mitigation required. Those are the trees that turn into the large shade trees. A second code provision to remove would be the ability to remove a tree as long as it is not within 6 months of construction. Discussion ensued about property rights and the need to find a balance between over regulation and the current code. Mr. Hansen agreed with the need for a balance but that he also supports increasing mitigation. Motion Mrs. Paul made a motion to stop the discussion and allow staff to take what had been said and come back to meeting next month with more detail about possible changes and specifically changes to the more obvious problems with the current code. Mr. Elmore seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. 6. ADJOURNMENT. Mrs. Paul asked about the terms of current board members. Mr. Hubsch stated that Commissioner Hill has recently taken over the committee for board appointments and requested a 90 day extension for current members so that he could get up to speed. Mrs. Paul motioned to adjourn the meeting. Mrs. Simmons seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 7:58 pm. Qaa Brea Paul, ChairVA - ttest Page 7 of 7