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