The URL can be used to link to this page

12-16-Full Agenda (3) CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Tuesday / December 16, 2014 / 6:00 pm Commission Chambers / 800 Seminole Road 1. Call To Order and Roll Call. 2. Approval of Minutes. A. Draft minutes of the November 18, 2014 regular meeting of the Community Development Board. 3. Old Business. 4. New Business. A. ZVAR-14-00100048 (PUBLIC HEARING) Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64 for a decrease in the square footage of gross floor area per parking space for retail uses from 400 square feet per 1 space as required by Section 24 - 160(h)(3) to 250 square feet per 1 space at RE# 169398-0410 (aka 2321 Mayport Road). 5. Reports A. Tree Protection Code Revisions Discussion 6. Adjournment. All information related to the item(s) included in this agenda is available for review at the City of Atlantic Beach Planning and Zoning Department, located at 800 Seminole Road, Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233, and may be obtained at this office or by calling (904) 247 -5800. Interested parties may attend the meetin g and mak e comment s regardin g agend a items , o r comment s may b e maile d t o the address above. Persons appealing decision made by the Community Development Board with respect t o any matte r considere d a t this meetin g may nee d t o ensur e that a verbati m recor d o f the proceedings, including the testimony and evidence upon which any appeal is based, is made. Notic e t o persons needing special accommodation s and t o all hearing impaire d persons : I n accordanc e with the American s wit h Disabilitie s Act , persons needin g special accommodation s t o participat e in this proceedin g should contact the City of Atlantic Beach, 800 Seminole Road, Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233, or (904) 247- 5800, not less than five (5) days prior to the date of this meeting. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD November 18, 2014 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL. The meeting was called to order at 6:04 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. Sam Garrison. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. A. Minutes of October 21, 2014 Mr. Elmore asked that the person making the motions be revised. Mrs. Paul asked that the individual board member names be listed in votes when there is not a unanimous decision. Mr. Hanson motioned to approve the minutes with the proposed corrections. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Simmons. The motion carried unanimously. Mrs. Simmons asked the chair about verifying the corrections that were to be made to the September minutes. Mr. Hubsch stated that the staffer Jenny Walker has been out and that the September minutes will be on the December agenda. 3. OLD BUSINESS. None. 4. NEW BUSINESS. Mrs. Paul motioned to take item B out of order due to the large number of public speakers in attendance for this item. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hanson. The motion carried unanimously. B. ZVAR-14-00100042 (Public Hearing) Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64 for a reduction in side yard setback from 10 feet as required by Section 24-17 “Lot, Corner” to 5 feet at Atlantic Beach Subdivision Block 13, Lot 47 (aka 398 11th Street). Staff Report Mr. Reeves introduced the item and gave a background on the property. The property was previously part of 1075 Seminole Road but the previous home was demolished and the property was divided into 3 platted lots. There is an existing 47 inch diameter at breast height live oak tree located in the center of the lot and the desire to preserve the tree is the reason for the requested variance. The applicant is proposing to build a single family home around the oak tree at least 15 feet from the base of the tree. The variance is requesting to reduce the required side yard setback for corner lots from 10 feet to 5 feet to increase the buildable area. The proposed plan decreases the side yard setbacks normally required of corner lots in RS-1 from 17.5 feet to 15 feet. The proposed plan is also to build a primarily single story structure due to the overhanging branches. The edge of pavement of Seminole Road is about 37 feet from the western property line and the sidewalk is about 4 feet from the western property line. A comparison was made to the fence code relative to the allowable height along wider right-of-ways and the resulting sight triangles. A brief description of the surrounding properties’ setbacks along Seminole Road was given. There are plans for an 8 foot wide sidewalk to be built along the western property line as part of the Safe Routes to School program. The applicant has identified topographic issues and reasonable use both related to the oak tree as grounds for approval. Mrs. Simmons asked for clarification on the location of the oak tree and a site plan. Mrs. Paul asked if the tree has any special designation by code. Mr. Hubsch clarified that it is a protected tree and would have to be mitigated for if removed, but nothing beyond any other tree. Mrs. Simmons discussed the likelihood of the oak tree to survive as result of damage to the roots beyond the area to be protected. Applicant Comment Lindley Tolbert, the applicant, of 465 Beach Avenue, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 spoke to the concerns of the board. Mrs. Tolbert described the reasoning and logic of the proposed plan and the limited site plan at this time. The goal is to preserve the oak tree and designing around it as much as possible while still getting a functioning house. There are no guarantees on the outcome and success of the tree because that is not possible. Future owners of the property can do what they will and that cannot be avoided. It was reiterated about the fact that the oak tree could be removed and that surrounding conditions won’t be significantly impacted by a 5 foot variance. Public Comment Teresa Flores of 233 Belvedere Street, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 spoke to the need to protect the tree and to deny the variance if the oak tree is not protected. Rich Reichler of 2025 Beach Avenue, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 spoke to possible conditions of approval such as running it with the life or removal of the tree. Jeff Montanye of 334 11th Street, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 spoke in opposition to the variance in order to preserve the tree. Bob Liggero of 389 12th Street, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 spoke to the applicant’s knowledge of rules and that the oak tree does not pose a hardship. This variance should be denied. Edward VanVoorhis of 388 11th Street, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 spoke to safety concerns related to visibility at the corner and believes the variance should be denied to prevent further blockage of sight lines. Dick Hiliard of 338 11th Street, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 spoke to the character of the neighborhood with its lot sizes and the inability of the oak tree to survive with a house on the root system. Based on that and all of the other things discussed the variance should be denied. Karen Ostergren of 374 11th Street, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 spoke to the inability to mitigate for such an old and large oak tree and that the 3 lots do not fit with the neighborhood. Susan Mariani of 360 12th Street, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 spoke to concerns of increasing traffic and drainage issues in the area and that the tree be preserved. Mr. Hubsch addressed concerns as to why and how the property was split into 3 buildable lots because they were platted as 3 lots but have been acting as 1 lot for some time. Gay Weber of 364 11th Street, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 spoke to protecting the oak tree and concerns that any development around it would negatively affect the oak tree. There are also concerns about the character of the neighborhood and density. Marisa Carbone of 391 8th Street, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 spoke in support of the variance because the applicant is trying to save the tree and the variance is the best way since the tree is not a heritage tree. Public comment was closed by Mrs. Paul. Board Discussion The board declared several ex parte communications from several members of the community. Mr. Parkes recognized the strong public support to protect the oak tree. Mr. Elmore discussed the reasonableness of the variance and that the three lots could be developed regardless based on current codes and the result of the variance would be minimal on surrounding conditions. Mr. Elmore continued that he believed the tree could survive based on the proposed plan. Mr. Hansen agreed with Mr. Elmore but did express concerns about sight lines though still supports the variance. Mrs. Lanier spoke to her own and the public’s love of character of the neighborhood. Mrs. Simmons spoke to the public concerns and the general loss of tree canopy in the city. Mrs. Simmons continued with concerns that the oak tree cannot survive this development and is therefore against the variance. Mrs. Paul asked Mr. Hubsch about the mitigation required if the tree were removed at the time of construction. Mr. Hubsch stated the oak tree could be removed if mitigated at one inch for every two inches removed resulting 23.5 inches of mitigation. If the property owner nominated the oak tree as a heritage tree then mitigation would be at a rate of two inches for every one inch removed resulting in 94 inches of mitigation. Mr. Parkes discussed his experience with designing and developing homes around existing trees and believes it can be done in a way to preserve the oak tree. Mrs. Simmons asked the board for possible conditions of approval of a variance. Mr. Hubsch commented that a possible condition could be to have the owner nominate the oak tree as a heritage tree. Discussion ensued about the details of the condition. Simply nominating the oak tree as a heritage tree was seen as more reasonable condition then requiring approved designation from the City Commission. Motion Mr. Hansen made the motion to approve the variance as presented with the condition that prior to approval; the property owner must nominate the oak tree as a heritage tree. Mr. Parkes seconded the motion. All board members voted for approval with the exception of Mr. Elmore that voted against. The motion carried 4 to 1. A. ZVAR-14-00100047 (Public Hearing) Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64 for a reduction in front yard setbacks from 20 feet as required by Section 24-160(e)(1) to 16 feet in the front yard along Beach Avenue and 18 feet in the front yard along Ocean Boulevard at Atlantic Beach Subdivision Block 28, Lot 5 (aka 290 Beach Avenue). Staff Report Mr. Reeves introduced the item and gave a background on the property. This property is a through lot between Beach Avenue and Ocean Boulevard with an existing single story home along Beach Avenue and a two story garage apartment along Ocean Boulevard. The proposed plan is to demolish the existing structures and build a two story single family home 16 feet from the Beach Avenue property line and an attached garage with living space above 18 feet from the Ocean Boulevard property line. The setbacks requested are less than the required 20 foot front yard setback. The lot is comparable in size to most lots in Old Atlantic Beach. The board was reminded that nearby nonconforming structures cannot be used as grounds for approval and that it is largely detached structures that form the character of the area. It was clarified that the code change regarding through lots that was recommended by the board and that is currently in front of the City Commission for approval would not effect this variance application. The approval of that code change would result in a defined front and rear yard for through lots that does not exist today. With both front and rear yard setbacks being 20 feet, the only effect on this variance would be a request from both front and rear yard setbacks instead of just two front yard setbacks. The applicant has identified the substandard lot size compared to the minimum required in RS-2 as restricting the use of the property. Mr. Hansen asked for clarification on the single structure designation since the site plan looks like two structures. Applicant Comment Andy Pitler, the applicant, of 277 Beach Avenue spoke to the discussions of the board in past meetings and the public comments tonight that there is a desire to preserve the character of the community and that this plan is consistent with the character. The 6500 square foot lot that is smaller than the required 7500 square feet for new lots in combination with 20 foot setbacks limits the developable area. Goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan call for the encouragement of high quality development and redevelopment and a preservation of the residential character. This proposed plan was designed to account for safety, aesthetics, the goals and policies of the city and the expressed concern of the board related to this area and has the support of neighbors. Mrs. Paul stated that 6 letters of support were included in the packet. Mr. Parkes stated that he is currently doing work for one of the authors of one of the letters. Public Comment Rich Reichler of 2025 Beach Avenue, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 requested the board base its decision of legal findings of fact and that if approved then a condition be added that required the building to largely resemble the plans presented. Public comment was closed by Mrs. Paul. Board Discussion Mr. Elmore stated that he and rest of the board, as confirmed by them, received a package from the applicant with a letter and additional material. Mr. Elmore pointed to the continued interest in through lots that need to be addressed at a larger level. Mr. Hansen agreed. Mr. Parkes addressed the positive aspects of the proposed plan including safety and sight lines. Mrs. Simmons brought the discussion to the findings for approval and what the applicant stated in their application. Discussion focused on the onerous effect of regulations after platting. Mrs. Lanier discussed the positive aspects of the proposed plan. Motion Mrs. Lanier made the motion to approve the variance as presented. Mr. Elmore seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. C. ZVAR-14-00100046 (Public Hearing) Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64 for a reduction in rear yard setback from 20 feet as required by Section 24-106(e)(2) to 8 feet at Atlantic Beach Subdivision Block 52, Lots 1 and 2 (aka 1303 Beach Avenue). Staff Report Mr. Reeves introduced the item and gave a background on the property. There is an existing home located one foot from the Beach Avenue property line. The proposed plan is to remodel the interior and exterior of the existing structure while adding a new floor to the top. There is a significant change in elevation on the property so from east side the proposed structure would appear as a two story house while the west looks like a three story house. A variance is required because the rear yard setback along the western property line is required to be 20 feet where the top floor addition starts 8 feet from the western property line. There are issues with tearing down the house and rebuilding related to the DEP and the Coastal Construction Control Line. The proposed plan avoids some of those issues but does add building ma ss closer to Beach Avenue then what is allowed by code. While some of the existing mass facing Beach Avenue is going to be reduced, an entire new floor will be added just 8 feet back. An interpretation issue was presented to the board related to defining the proposed structure as a two story or a three story structure. City code does not address this issue and only has a definition of a basement in the Flood Hazard Areas Chapter. Staff requested a determination from the board if the variance is approved. After some discussion, the board decided to delay further discussion until after the variance was approved or denied. Applicant Comment Richard Skinner of 2245 St Johns Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida; the architect on the project representing the property owners, Dr. Fred Lambrou and Patricia Andrews, spoke first. Additional drawings and letters of support from neighbors were presented to the board. It was pointed out that house was built prior to zoning setbacks and that the owners do love the interior of the house and want to preserve the interior. The reasoning for the 8 foot setback request is because that is the only way to accommodate a staircase and elevator that go from the garage to the top floor due to the fact that the garage level is only under a portion of the overall house. If the discussion about third floor determination does occur then the applicants are prepared to present evidence to support a two story designation. The board asked questions about possible design changes that would reduce t he needed variance but were told that this plan is already the best that could be done. Patricia Andrews of 1863 River Road, Jacksonville, FL 32207, the owner of the property, spoke to their love of the historic 1937 home. Pictures were shown of the interior of the home. The modifications are necessary to make the house livable. Public Comment Rich Reichler of 2025 Beach Avenue, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 requested the board base its decision of legal findings of fact while understanding what onerous effect of regulation means and that if approved then a condition be added that required the building to largely resemble the plans presented and that if any additions to the east are made in the future then the whole house should be made conforming. Sarah Anthony of 1373 Beach Avenue, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 spoke in favor of the variance. Patricia Andrews, the property owner, clarified that the yard would be preserved. Public comment was closed by Mrs. Paul. Board Discussion Mrs. Paul stated Mr. Skinner gave her five letters in support of the variance. Mr. Parkes expressed concerns about large buildable area east of the house and how that might be developed in the future. Mrs. Lanier spoke in favor the living in place design elements of the proposed plan. Mrs. Paul addressed the findings of approval identified by the applicants. Mr. Elmore agreed with applicants’ statement that house was built prior to zoning codes and the Coastal Construction Control Line which present onerous conditions on the property. He continued by identifying the unique character of Beach Avenue that this house contributes to. Mr. Parkes pointed to the uniqueness of the property favoring the variance but again expressed concerns about the buildable area to the east of the house. Mr. Parkes addressed the applicants to see if they would find a condition limiting construction in the buildable area to the east of the house acceptable. Mrs. Paul stated that the applicants were indicating that such a condition would be acceptable. Discussion ensued as to how to word the condition. Motion Mr. Parkes motioned to approve the variance with the condition that no development and/or expansion of the existing structure, occur more than 10 feet eastward of the proposed plans presented to the Community Development Board on 18 November 2014, and that if such development and/or expansion occur then the variance becomes void and the existing structure must be made to meet all zoning codes at that time. Mrs. Lanier seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Discussion ensued about the need to make a determination on the third floor issue. It was decided that the issue of third floor determination would be moved to the December meeting so that the discussion could be put on the agenda and staff could prepare full packages for the members of the board to review. D. UBEX-14-00100045 (Public Hearing) Request for use-by-exception as permitted by Section 24- 112(c)(6), to allow welding, metal fabrication and sheet metal works at 325 Mealy Drive. Staff Report Mr. Hubsch introduced the item and the surrounding conditions. Maps were displayed of the property that showed the site and its location within the Light Industrial and Warehousing zoning district relative to nearby residential. Photos of the existing 0.3 acre site with its metal building and paved parking to remain were shown. The applicants do not intend to make any alterations to the property at this time. The applicants are requesting to operate a welding, metal fabrication and sheet metal shop where they will make repairs to roll off dumpsters and other industrial equipment. This is specifically listed as a use -by-exception within the Light Industrial and Warehousing zoning district. This is a use- by-exception so that it can be ensured that neighboring properties, especially residential, will not be negatively impacted by the business. City codes require all work to be done inside and that outdoor storage is restricted to side and rear yards of the property. Mrs. Paul asked for clarification on what is the front yard on this corner lot. Mr. Hubsch stated the side along Mealy Drive is the front yard. The items to consider for use-by-exceptions were presented. Staff felt a possible condition necessary would be to limit hours of operation due to noise. Mr. Parkes asked for clarification on where the closet residential property is to this site. Mr. Hubsch stated that is roughly 125 feet to the north separated by another property. Applicant Comment Feriz Delkic, the property owner spoke to the history of his business in ceramics and the connection to this property and the proposed business. The business at this location is owned and operated by Zanin Basic and will use some of his ceramic technology in the metal products repaired. Mr. Elmore questioned the nature of the business relative to the application. After a brief discussion it was clarified that this site would only be repairing metal items for customers. Public Comment After no public comment, Mrs. Paul closed public comment. Board Discussion Mrs. Lanier spoke to the limited impact on residential properties due to its location in the center of the Light Industrial and Warehousing zoning district. Mr. Parkes agreed and that welding is consistent with the area and light industrial use. Mrs. Simmons spoke to the concern that noise and disruptions outside of the property related to deliveries of large metal products. Mrs. Paul and Mrs. Lanier pointed to size of the lot and the available area to accommodate deliveries and that code requires such activities to occur on site. Mrs. Lanier spoke to the high skill, high wage nature of the work to be performed and the positive impact that can have. Mrs. Simmons brought up the need for hours restrictions to ensure surrounding properties are not negatively affected and discussion ensued. Motion Mrs. Lanier motioned to recommend approval of the use-by-exception as presented to the City Commission with the condition that the hours of operation be limited to 7 am to 6 pm, Monday through Saturday. Mr. Parkes seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. E. UBEX-14-00100044 (Public Hearing) Request for use-by-exception as permitted by Section 24- 111(c)(10), to allow the sale of used automobiles at 15 Simmons Street. Staff Report Mr. Hubsch presented the item. The property was shown and it was explained that it is part of a larger parcel that would be split if the use -by- exception were approved. The property is zoned commercial general but currently has a single family home built on it. The home would be used as an office while a parking lot would be built along Mayport Road. Some trees would likely have to be removed to accommodate the parking lot. They expect to have 20 cars for sale at any given time. This property is in close proximity to the Dutton Island Road access point for the Atlantic Beach Country Club. A use-by-exception is required by the code for the sale of new and used automobiles in the Commercial General zoning district. The Commercial General zoning is intended to feature uses that are compatible with and serve the City of Atlantic Beach and its neighborhoods. The city’s Commercial General zoning district is not as intense as some other jurisdictions. For example, the city does not allow region serving “big box” stores. The comprehensive plan discourages a proliferation of automotive related uses while encouraging retail that serves the surrounding neighborhood. There are several other used car dealerships in the area including those across the city limits in the City of Jacksonville. Discussion ensued about the existing used car dealerships. The comprehensive plan also has portions calling for the elimination of blighting influences while preserving the residential character of the city. The considerations for approval of use-by-exceptions were given and it was pointed out that it is the expressed intent of use-by-exceptions is to limit a proliferation of a single use in one part of the city. Applicant Comment Ryan Hawkins; of 13020 Biggin Church Road South, Jacksonville, Florida 32224, stated he is requesting to open a used car dealership at this site after purchasing the property. The existing building and the trees behind it are to be preserved. The application contains several contracts and documents to show how the property would be converted. The intent is to have no more than 20 mid priced cars that would be good for the community. Mr. Elmore asked if the applicant owned any other used car dealerships. The applicant said he did not own any others but has worked at a couple throughout Jacksonville. Mr. Elmore asked how this site was chosen. The applicant responded that despite perceptions, this area has relatively few used car dealerships compared to areas such as Beach Boulevard and that this area provided a good safe neighborhood for his cars. Public Comment After no public comment, Mrs. Paul closed public comment. Board Discussion Mr. Hansen asked how the board can recognize a proliferation of used car dealerships in the area while also approving this application. Mr. Elmore stated that this is not a use that the city wants to encourage and that this use goes against the comprehensive plan while also going against redevelopment plans for the area. Mrs. Paul drew attention to the comprehensive plan pointed out that city recently had a moratorium on used car dealerships. Mr. Parkes stated that he disagrees with some portions of the comprehensive plan and this is a major corridor to one of the largest industrial sites in northeast Florida, but does recognize a used car dealership is direct conflict with the comprehensive plan. Mrs. Lanier stated that she wants to encourage the applicant to be a great businessman but also sees the proliferation of used car dealerships. Motion Mr. Hansen motioned to recommend denial of the use-by-exception as presented to the City Commission. Mr. Elmore seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. 5. REPORTS. A. Sign Code Update Staff Report Mr. Hubsch presented that the current sign amortization is set for January 1, 2015 and that staff is seeking to extend the time period to June 1, 2015. This would allow staff time to plan a course of action and notify property owners with nonconforming signs. The City of Neptune Beach is going through similar issues and is pushing their deadline back as well and matching them would provide consistency along Atlantic Boulevard. Motion Harley Parkes motioned that the Community Development Board recommend to the City Commission that, by ordinance, the City Commission extend the deadline for nonconforming signs to be made conforming to June 1, 2015 and that no further extensions be granted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hansen. The motion carried unanimously. B. Tree Protection Code Revisions Discussion This discussion was rescheduled for the next Community Development Board meeting on December 16th, 2014 due to time. 6. ADJOURNMENT. Mrs. Simmons motioned to adjourn the meeting. Mrs. Lanier seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:39 pm. _______________________________________ Brea Paul, Chair _______________________________________ Attest CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM 4A CASE NO ZVAR-14-00100048 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) LOCATION 2321 MAYPORT ROAD APPLICANT DOLLAR TREE DATE DECEMBER 4, 2014 STAFF DEREK W. REEVES, ZONING TECHNICIAN STAFF COMMENTS The applicant, Dollar Tree, has a contract pending for the purchase of 2321 Mayport Road. The property has an abandoned gas station on it and is located on the east side of Mayport Road in the Commercial General (CG) zoning district. The applicants want to demolish all elements of the existing ga s station and build a 9,973 square foot retail Dollar Tree store with 50 parking spaces. As currently designed, the project will have an Impervious Surface Ratio of 56%, which is below the required 70% A variance is needed for the 50 proposed parking spaces because Section 24-161(a) limits the amount of excess surface parking to no more than 10 spaces or 10 percent, whichever is greater. The additional 10 spaces and 10 percent is calculated based on Section 24-161(h) which sets the minimum number of parking spaces required for each use. Section 24-161(h)(3) states, “business, commercial, retail or service uses not otherwise specified: One (1) space for each four hundred (400) square feet of gross floor area.” The 9,973 square foot retail store proposed best fits under this category and results in a required 25 parking spaces after rounding. The excess parking allowed under Section 24-161(a) would allow up to 35 spaces. The applicant believes that one space for each 400 square feet does not provide enou gh parking for their customers and points to Section 24-161(h)(20) which requires the equivalent of one space for each 250 square feet for shopping centers. A shopping center of identical size would be required to provide 40 spaces and could have up to 50 spaces with the allowable excess. This is how the applicants determined 50 spaces would be a reasonable design. However, shopping center is defined by the code as, “shall mean a group of retail stores or service establishments, planned, developed, owned and managed as an integral unit, with off-street parking provided on the property, and related in location, size and type of shops to the trade area the shopping center serves.” By definition, the proposed retail store is not a shopping center because it is not a group of stores. In conversation the applicants stated that our codes result in less parking than they are used to in other jurisdictions. For comparison our neighboring cities would address this issue as follows; Neptune Beach: 1 space per 300 square feet of retail and shopping centers with a maximum of the lower of 25 percent or 30 spaces. (43 spaces) Jacksonville Beach: 1 space per 200 square feet for “commercial uses not specifically listed”. (50 spaces) Page 2 of 3 City of Jacksonville: 1 space per 333 square feet of retail and a max of 1 space per 167 square feet. (60 spaces) ANALYSIS Section 24-64(b)(1) provides that “applications for a variance shall be considered on a case-by-case basis, and shall be approved only upon findings of fact that the application is consistent with the definition of a variance and consistent with the provisions of this section.” According to Section 24-17, Definitions, “[a] variance shall mean relief granted from certain terms of this chapter. The relief granted shall be only to the extent as expressly allowed by this chapter and may be either an allowable exemption from certain provision(s) or a relaxation of the strict, literal interpretation of certain provision(s). Any relief granted shall be in accordance with the provisions as set forth in Section 24-64 of this chapter, and such relief may be subject to conditions as set forth by the City of Atlantic Beach.” Section 24-64(d) provides six distinct grounds for the approval of a variance: (1) Exceptional topographic conditions of or near the property. (2) Surrounding conditions or circumstances impacting the property disparately from nearby properties. The applicant stated that the proposed layout would meet the parking requirements of the CG district if the proposed use could be classified as shopping center. (3) Exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other properties in the area. The applicant stated that with the proposed layout, the site meets or exceeds the zoning requirements of the CG district for percent impervious area and storm water management. (4) Onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after construction of improvements upon the property. (5) Irregular shape of the property warranting special consideration. (6) Substandard size of a lot of record warranting a variance in order to provide for the reasonable use of the property. Page 3 of 3 REQUIRED ACTION The Community Development Board may consider a motion to recommend approval of ZVAR-14-00100048, request 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), upon finding this request is consistent with the definition of a variance, and in accordance with the provisions of Section 24-64, specifically the grounds for approval delineated in Section 24-64(d) and as described above. A variance may be granted, at the discretion of the community development board, for the following reasons: (1) Exceptional topographic conditions of or near the property. (2) Surrounding conditions or circumstances impacting the property disparately from nearby properties. (3) Exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other properties in the area. (4) Onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after construction of improvements upon the property. (5) Irregular shape of the property warranting special consideration. (6) Substandard size of a lot of record warranting a variance in order to provide for the reasonable use of the property. Possible Conditions to consider: Increased Landscaping around parking areas or requiring the excess parking spaces to use pervious pavers Or, The Community Development Board may consider a motion to recommend denial of ZVAR-14-00100048, request 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), upon finding that the request is either inconsistent with the definition of a variance, or it is not in accordance with the grounds of approval delineated in Section 24-64(d), or it is consistent with one or more of the grounds for denial of a variance, as delineated in Section 24-64(c), described below. No variance shall be granted if the Community Development Board, in its discretion, determines that the granting of the requested variance shall have a materially adverse impact upon one (1) or more of the following: (1) Light and air to adjacent properties. (2) Congestion of streets. (3) Public safety, including traffic safety, risk of fire, flood, crime or other threats to public safety. (4) Established property values. (5) The aesthetic environment of the community. (6) The natural environment of the community, including environmentally sensitive areas, wildlife habitat, protected trees, or other significant environmental resources. (7) The general health, welfare or beauty of the community. Variances shall not be granted solely for personal comfort or convenience, for relief from financial circumstances or for relief from situation created by the property owner. November 24, 2014 Derek W. Reeves Zoning Technician City of Atlantic Beach 800 Seminole Road Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 RE: Statement of Facts for Parking Variance Proposed Dollar Tree Site – 2321 Mayport Road Dear Derek, Thomas Engineering Group is respectfully requesting a variance to allow for increased parking than what is allowed under Section 24-161 based on the following statement of facts. 1. The maximum allowed number of parking spaces would be 50 spaces if the property was classified as a shopping center under the parking requirements in Section 24-161(h) which allows for 4 spaces for each 1,000 SF of gross floor area. Proposed Building Area = 9,973 SF Required spaces = 40 spaces Maximum Allowed = 10% or 10 spaces (whichever is greater) = 50 Parking Spaces Allowed 2. With the proposed 50 space layout, the site meets the zoning requirements of the CG, Commercial General district for both percent impervious area and increased storm water management requirements of SJRWMD. Maximum % Impervious Area Allowed = 70% Proposed % Impervious Area = 56.04% Required Storage Volume = 0.5” of runoff (3,049 CF) Proposed Storage Volume = 11,846 CF (per SJRWMD) Should you have any questions or would like to discuss this application at any time, please contact me at deyre@thomaseg.com or (813) 379-4100. Sincerely, THOMAS ENGINEERING GROUP Darren T.R. Eyre, PE Project Manager LOADING ZONE NO PARKINGLOADING ZONE NO PARKING 10 3 . 7 ' FAIRW A Y V I L L A S PLAT BOOK 3 9 , P A G E S 2 2 - 2 2 A LOT 52 LO T 5 1 LO T 5 0 CI T Y O F A T L A N T I C B E A C H RE # 1 6 9 3 9 8 0 0 7 0 MAYPORT ROAD X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X PPPPPPPPLPLP CI T Y O F AT L A N T I C B E A C H RE # 1 6 9 3 9 8 0 0 7 0 PR O P . T R A S H E N C L O S U R E (S E E S H E E T T - 4 F O R D E T A I L S ) PROP.SIGN 6'18'30' 18' 9' 35.8' 16 ' 24 ' 36'10.8'18'24'18'12.2'9'12'5'12'9'6'18'30'18' 6' 9'9' 18' 6' R8 ' R1 0 ' R8'R8'R8'R8' R 8 ' 82.4'77.3' 77.2' 10 3 . 8 ' 104.2' 104.2'82.6' 5' L A N D S C A P E B U F F E R 5' LANDSCAPE BUFFER 5' LANDSCAPE BUFFER 10' LANDSCAPE BUFFER PR O P . PA V E M E N T MA R K I N G S ROOFOVERHANG PROP.TYPE 'D' CURB(TYP.)PROP.TYPE 'D' CURB(TYP.) PR O P . TY P E ' D ' C U R B (T Y P . ) PROP. LITER RECEPTACLESBOLTED TO SIDEWALK (SEESPECS.) SET CORNER OFRECEPTACLE 3' OFF FACEOF STOREFRONT & 5' OFF OFDOOR JAMBPROP. ADARAMP ANDLANDING (TYP)PROP. ADAPARKING SIGN(TYP)PROP. PEDESTRIANCROSSWALK PR O P . TJ PROP. BIKERACK (SEESHEET C-5.0) PR O P . TJ PROP.TJ PROP. CONC.WHEELSTOP(TYP)PROP. 6" DOUBLEYELLOW STRIPE (SEESHEET C-11.0)PROP. ADA RAMP(CR-G) PER FDOTINDEX 30436' 9' 27 ' 9' 18 ' 8. 4 ' 81' 92 . 4 ' 54 ' 8. 4 ' 9' 54'17.9'24'MATCHEXISTINGSIDEWALKSAWCUT CONCRETEDRIVEWAY ALONG BACKOF CURB PROPOSEDRIGHT-IN RIGHT-OUT(PER FDOT INDEX No. 515)MATCHEXISTINGSIDEWALK REMOVE AND REPLACEEXSITING CONCRETE DRIVEWAY(PER FDOT INDEX No. 515)6'6' R1 0 ' PR O P . DI R E C T I O N A L AR R O W S (S E E S H E E T C - 1 1 . 0 ) PR O P . DI R E C T I O N A L AR R O W S PR O P . DI R E C T I O N A L AR R O W S 49 5 0 W . K E N N E D Y B L V D , S U I T E 6 0 0 TA M P A , F L O R I D A 3 3 6 0 9 Ph o n e : (8 1 3 ) 3 7 9 - 4 1 0 0 Fa x : (8 1 3 ) 3 7 9 - 4 0 4 0 Th o m a s E n g i n e e r i n g G r o u p .c o m No . 7 7 9 9 6 L I C E NSE DA R R E N T . R . E Y R E , P . E . No v e m b e r 2 1 , 2 0 1 4 FL O R I D A L I C E N S E N o . 7 7 9 9 6 ST A T E O F FLO R I D A PROFESSIONA L E N G INEER 1" = 20 ' 0 20 5 10 20 1. AL L D I M E N S I O N S S H O W N A R E A T F A C E O F C U R B , U N L E S S O T H E R W I S E N O T E D . B / C I N D I C A T E S DI M E N S I O N I S T O B A C K O F C U R B . 2. AL L R A D I I D I M E N S I O N S A R E 3 ' T O F A C E O F C U R B U N L E S S O T H E R W I S E N O T E D . 3. AL L P A V E M E N T M A R K I N G S A N D S I G N A G E S H A L L B E I N A C C O R D A N C E W I T H T H E " M A N U A L O N UN I F O R M T R A F F I C C O N T R O L D E V I C E S F O R S T R E E T S A N D H I G H W A Y S , " L A T E S T E D I T I O N ; A N D DU V A L C O U N T Y L A N D D E V E L O P M E N T C O D E . 4. FR E E S T A N D I N G S I G N A G E S H O W N O N L Y F O R R E P R E S E N T A T I O N A L P U R P O S E S , A N D S H A L L B E PE R M I T T E D S E P A R A T E L Y . 5. TH E P R O P E R T Y S H O W N H E R E O N A P P E A R S T O L I E I N F L O O D Z O N E " X " A C C O R D I N G T O T H E FL O O D I N S U R A N C E R A T E M A P , C O M M U N I T Y N U M B E R 1 2 0 0 7 7 , P A N E L N U M B E R 0 3 7 8 , S U F F I X H , EF F E C T I V E J U N E 3 , 2 0 1 3 , F O R T H E C I T Y O F J A C K S O N V I L L E , F L O R I D A . 1. AL L H A N D I C A P P E D P A R K I N G S P A C E S A N D A C C E S S A I S L E S A D J A C E N T T O T H E H A N D I C A P P A R K I N G SP A C E S S H A L L H A V E A M A X I M U M O F 2 % S L O P E I N A L L D I R E C T I O N S ( T H I S I N C L U D E S R U N N I N G SL O P E A N D C R O S S S L O P E ) . 2. AN A C C E S S I B L E R O U T E F R O M T H E P U B L I C S T R E E T O R S I D E W A L K T O T H E B U I L D I N G E N T R A N C E MU S T B E P R O V I D E D . T H I S A C C E S S I B L E R O U T E S H A L L B E A M I N I M U M O F 6 0 " W I D E . T H E R U N N I N G SL O P E O F A N A C C E S S I B L E R O U T E S H A L L N O T E X C E E D 5 % A N D T H E C R O S S S L O P E S H A L L N O T EX C E E D 2 % . 3. SL O P E S E X C E E D I N G 5 % B U T L E S S T H A N 8 % W I L L R E Q U I R E A R A M P A N D M U S T C O N F O R M T O T H E RE Q U I R E M E N T S F O R R A M P D E S I G N ( H A N D R A I L S , C U R B S , L A N D I N G S ) . N O R A M P S H A L L E X C E E D A N 8% R U N N I N G S L O P E O R 2 % C R O S S S L O P E . 4. IN T H E C A S E T H A T A N E W S I D E W A L K W I L L B E C O N S T R U C T E D I N T H E R I G H T O F W A Y O F A S I T E T H E RU N N I N G S L O P E O F T H E S I D E W A L K S H A L L N O T E X C E E D 5 % A N D T H E C R O S S S L O P E S H A L L N O T EX C E E D 2 % . T H I S S T A N D A R D A P P L I E S T O C R O S S W A L K S I N T H E D R I V E W A Y A S W E L L A N D W I L L RE Q U I R E S P E C I A L A T T E N T I O N D U R I N G S T A K I N G T O M A K E S U R E T H E 2 % C R O S S S L O P E I S M E T I N TH E C R O S S W A L K . 5. IT W I L L B E T H E R E S P O N S I B I L I T Y O F T H E G E N E R A L C O N T R A C T O R T O E N S U R E T H A T T H E H A N D I C A P PA R K I N G S P A C E S , A C C E S S I B L E R O U T E S , A N D S I D E W A L K S / C R O S S W A L K S A R E C O N S T R U C T E D T O ME E T A D A R E Q U I R E M E N T S . 6. AN Y R E Q U I R E M E N T S L I S T E D A B O V E T H A T C A N N O T B E M E T S H A L L B E B R O U G H T T O T H E (1 * , 1 ( ( 5 ¶ 6 $ 7 7 ( 1 7 , 2 1 , 0 0 ( ' , $ 7 ( / < $ 1 < 7 + , 1 * 1 2 7 % 8 , / 7 7 2 7 + ( $ % 2 9 ( 6 7 $ 1 ' $ 5 ' 6 : , / / RE Q U I R E R E M O V A L A N D R E P L A C E M E N T O F T H E N O N C O M P L I A N T A R E A S A T T H E G E N E R A L CO N T R A C T O R S C O S T . PA R C E L I . D . N O . : 01 6 9 3 9 8 - 0 4 1 0 TO T A L S I T E A R E A : 81 , 0 2 8 S . F . ( 1 . 8 6 A C R E S ) EX I S T I N G P E R V I O U S A R E A : 51 , 5 2 2 S . F . ( 1 . 1 8 A C R E S ) - 6 3 . 5 9 % EX I S T I N G I M P E R V I O U S A R E A : 29 , 5 0 6 S . F . ( 0 . 6 8 A C R E S ) - 3 6 . 4 1 % EX I S T I N G B U I L D I N G A R E A : 1 , 0 9 1 S . F . ( 0 . 0 3 A C R E S ) - 1 . 3 5 % EX I S T I N G A S P H A L T / C O N C R E T E : 28 , 4 1 5 S . F . ( 0 . 6 5 A C R E S ) - 3 5 . 0 6 % PR O P O S E D P E R V I O U S A R E A : 35 , 6 2 0 S . F . ( 0 . 8 2 A C R E S ) - 4 3 . 9 6 % PR O P O S E D S T O R M W A T E R P O N D : 11 , 1 8 6 S . F . ( 0 . 2 6 A C R E S ) PR O P O S E D I M P E R V I O U S A R E A : 45 , 4 0 8 S . F . ( 1 . 0 4 A C R E S ) - 5 6 . 0 4 % PR O P O S E D B U I L D I N G A R E A : 9 , 9 7 3 S . F . ( 0 . 2 3 A C R E S ) - 1 2 . 3 3 % PR O P O S E D A S P H A L T A R E A : 32 , 4 6 6 S . F . ( 0 . 7 4 A C R E S ) - 4 0 . 0 5 % PR O P O S E D S / W - D U M P S T E R : 2 , 9 6 9 S . F . ( 0 . 0 7 A C R E S ) - 3 . 6 6 % PR O P O S E D V U A : 33 , 3 3 6 S . F . PR O V I D E D V U A G R E E N S P A C E : 3, 9 3 5 S . F . - 1 1 . 8 % RE Q U I R E D P A R K I N G S P A C E S : 1 S P A C E S / 4 0 0 S . F . = 2 5 S P A C E S PR O V I D E D P A R K I N G S P A C E S : 50 PR O V I D E D P A R K I N G R A T I O : 1 S P A C E S / 2 0 0 S . F . PR O V I D E D H A N D I C A P S P A C E S : 3 PR O V I D E D B I K E R A C K S P A C E S : 3 TY P I C A L P A R K I N G S T A L L : 9' x 1 8 ' ( A D A : 1 2 ' x 1 8 ' ) CU R R E N T Z O N I N G : CG , C O M M E R C I A L G E N E R A L BU I L D I N G S E T B A C K S : FR O N T : 0 F E E T SI D E : 0 F E E T RE A R : 10 F E E T LA N D S C A P E B U F F E R R E Q U I R E M E N T S : FR O N T ( A D J A C E N T T O R . O . W . ) : 10 F E E T SI D E ( W E S T ) : 5 F E E T SI D E ( E A S T ) : 5 F E E T RE A R : 5 F E E T MA X I M U M B U I L D I N G H E I G H T : 60 F E E T PR O P O S E D B U I L D I N G H E I G H T : 28 F E E T 1. NO S I N G L E L A N E C L O S U R E S O N M A Y P O R T R O A D F R O M 7 T O 9 A M A N D F R O M 4 T O 6 P M . 2. AL L W O R K P E R F O R M E D W I T H I N T H E F L O R I D A D E P A R T M E N T O F T R A N S P O R T A T I O N R I G H T - O F - W A Y SH A L L C O N F O R M T O T H E M O S T C U R R E N T E D I T I O N O F T H E F O L L O W I N G P U B L I C A T I O N S : S T A N D A R D SP E C I F I C A T I O N S F O R R O A D A N D B R I D G E C O N S T R U C T I O N ( E N G L I S H ) ; F D O T S T A N D A R D S I N D E X (E N G L I S H ) ; F D O T P L A N S P R E P M A N U A L ; F D O T F L E X I B L E P A V E M E N T D E S I G N M A N U A L F O R N E W CO N S T R U C T I O N A N D P A V E M E N T R E H A B I L I T A T I O N 3. SH O U L D A C O N F L I C T A R I S E B E T W E E N T H E D E T A I L S S H O W N I N T H E P L A N S A N D T H E D E P A R T M E N T OF T R A N S P O R T A T I O N S T A N D A R D S T H E E N G I N E E R / P E R M I T T E E S H A L L I M M E D I A T E L Y C O N F E R W I T H TH E D E P A R T M E N T ' S E N G I N E E R I N O R D E R T O R E S O L V E T H E D I S C R E P A N C Y . I N N O C A S E W I L L AN Y T H I N G L E S S T H A T T H E D E P A R T M E N T ' S M I N I M U M S T A N D A R D B E A L L O W E D . 4. AL L T R A F F I C S T R I P I N G A N D M A R K I N G S A R E T O B E L E A D - F R E E , N O N - S O L V E N T B A S E D TH E R M O P L A S T I C . 5. 5( 0 2 9 $ / 2 ) ( ; , 6 7 , 1 * 6 7 5 , 3 , 1 * 6 + $ / / % ( $ & & 2 0 3 / , 6 + ( ' 8 6 , 1 * 7 + ( ³ + < ' 5 2 % / $ 6 7 ´ 0 ( 7 + 2 ' , ) TH I S P R O C E S S D A M A G E S / S C A R S P A V E M E N T , T H E N T H E P A V E M E N T S H A L L B E M I L L E D A N D RE S U R F A C E D P E R F D O T S T A N D A R D S . 6. AL L C U R B A N D G U T T E R A N D S I D E W A L K W I L L B E R E M O V E D A N D R E P L A C E D J O I N T T O J O I N T . 7. AL L D I S T U R B E D A R E A W I T H T H E D E P A R T M E N T O F T R A N S P O R T A T I O N R I G H T O F W A Y W I L L RE S T O R E D T O O R I G I N A L O R B E T T E R C O N D I T I O N B Y G R A D I N G A N D S O D D I N G T H E A R E A D I S T U R B E D (B E R M U D A I N R U R A L , C E N T I P E D E I N U T I L I T Y S T R I P S ) . 8. BU R N I N G O F M A T E R I A L A N D / O R D E B R I S I S P R O H I B I T E D W I T H I N F D O T R I G H T - O F - W A Y . 9. AL L L A N E S M U S T B E O P E N E D F O R T R A F F I C D U R I N G A N E V A C U A T I O N N O T I C E O F A H U R R I C A N E O R OT H E R C A T A S T R O P H I C E V E N T A N D S H A L L R E M A I N O P E N F O R T H E D U R A T I O N O R T H E E V A C U A T I O N OR E V E N T . PR O P E R T Y L I N E EX I S T I N G T R E E ( R E F E R T O S U R V E Y ) PR O P O S E D B U I L D I N G PR O P O S E D A S P H A L T P A V E M E N T PR O P O S E D H E A V Y D U T Y A S P H A L T P A V E M E N T PR O P O S E D F D O T A S P H A L T P A V E M E N T PR O P O S E D C O N C R E T E P A V E M E N T PR O P O S E D C O N C R E T E D R I V E W A Y P E R F D O T I N D E X 5 1 5 PR O P O S E D P E R V I O U S P A V E M E N T PR O P O S E D P A R K I N G S P A C E C O U N T PR O P O S E D L I G H T P O L E (R E F E R T O P H O T O M E T R I C P L A N ) PR O P O S E D F D O T T Y P E " D " C U R B CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH CITY COMMISSION MEETING STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM: Tree Ordinance SUBMITTED BY: Jeremy Hubsch Building and Zoning Director DATE: September 25, 2014 STRATEGIC PLAN LINK: None BACKGROUND: Introduction to Tree Protection The current tree protection code is lengthy and complex, but can be summarized a little more simply. When new development, redevelopment, or clearing of undeveloped land occurs, certain trees are protected and others are not. In the buildable area of the lot (everything that meets setbacks) trees that are larger than 20 inches in diameter are protected, while trees that are less than 20 inches in diameter are not. In the non buildable area of the lot (everything outside the setbacks) trees that are larger than 6 inches are protected, while trees less than 6 inches are not. The assumption is that trees should be more easily preserved outside of the buildable area of a lot. See exhibit 1 for an example of how this works. Removal of protected trees must be mitigated, either in the form of replacement, relocation, preservation, or payment into the tree fund. Mitigation credit is given for the preservation of any non-protected tree on site, but not for preservation of protected trees. For instance, if someone removes a 44 inch oak and also preserves a 22 inch oak, they are not given mitigation credit for the preservation of the 22 inch oak. Credit is not given for protected trees because they are expected to remain. Mitigation on private residential properties is required at a ratio of 1:2. This means for every two inches removed, one inch needs to be preserved, replaced, or paid into the tree fund. This ratio enables properties owners to only have to mitigate for 50% of the protected trees they remove. For instance, if a property owner removes 100 inches of protected trees, they only have to mitigate 50 inches of trees. In summary, under current code, property owners are able to make a 50% reduction in the amount of protected trees by code. Tree Protection Results The tree code primarily deals with protected trees, which are those greater than 20 inches in diameter in the interior of the lot and 6 inches in the exterior. It is wholly possible for a property owner to remove 40 inches of protected trees, preserve 200 inches of trees, and only get credit for preserving 20 inches of trees. The total amount of trees preserved onsite sometimes far exceeds what an applicant gets mitigation credit for. Staff did an analysis of tree removal from the beginning of 2013 to present. In this period, a total of 2,788 tree inches were removed and 3,510 inches were preserved, replaced, or paid into the tree fund on development projects. However, this does not mean that a net loss did not occur. Hypothetically, there could have been a total of 6,298 inches of trees at the beginning of 2013, which have now been reduced to 3,510 inches. In terms of protected trees, there were 1,334 protected tree inches removed from 2013 to present. This required mitigation of 667.25 inches (1 inch preserved for every 2 inches removed). The actual amount of mitigation provided was 1,044.50 inches. Like the previous scenario, it is wholly possible that this still resulted in a large net loss of protected trees. Hypothetically, there may have been 2,378.5 inches of protected trees at the beginning of 2013, which is now 1,044.50 inches. Recommendations The only way to ensure that a net loss does not occur is by requiring a mitigation ratio of 2:1 or two inches preserved for every inch removed. If a property has 200 inches of trees and the owner wants to remove 100 inches, requiring them to preserve 200 inches ensures that a net reduction does not occur. The current tree code has a provision that allows the City Commission to designate certain portions of the city as “historic corridors” simply by a resolution. Per Section 23-41, “The city commission may by resolution designate historic corridors or individual heritage trees. In doing so, the city commission shall specifically identify those streets, or portions thereof, or trees, which shall be so designated.” The city’s tree mitigation chart requires mitigation at a rate of 2:1 within historic corridors. The city currently has somewhat of a historic corridor in its land development regulations. There are specific standards for residential development within “Old Atlantic Beach” (see map, exhibit 2) based on the uniqueness and character of this area. This area is also where most infill development in the city is occurring, and subsequently where many people believe a loss to the city’s tree canopy is occurring. Designating this area as a “historic corridor” would ensure that the tree canopy is maintained. Additionally, staff would like to create a tree manual that would help explain the tree code to residents and contractors. The tree code section is lengthy and complicated to read. A tree manual would greatly improve the tree protection process for all parties. Rebuilding Tree Canopy Regardless of whether or not the commission wants to increase the amount of mitigation required by property owners, staff can make a targeted effort to improve the canopy through plantings in the right-of- way and in park spaces. According to the code, the tree fund is “for the purpose of growing and maintaining the city’s community forest….Priority shall be given to the use of funds for projects that plant or replace trees or vegetation along public rights-of-way or on properties and lands in public use that will provide needed shade, aesthetic enhancement or the re-establishment of tree canopy in neighborhoods and along public roadways.” In recent years, a significant amount of new development has occurred in Old Atlantic Beach and in areas close to the beach. When new development or redevelopment occurs, the tree code is not able to protect or preserve every tree. The city can make a targeted effort to improve the tree canopy in areas that have been affected by new development. Staff would like to propose a multi-year program to improve the tree canopy in Atlantic Beach. This program can be very successful if focused on highly visible areas and by using high quality trees. Staff has not yet done a comprehensive analysis of every possible location for plantings, but based on a preliminary analysis, below are a few areas that are possible candidates for new tree plantings:  Southwest corner of Bull Park  Triangular parcel at corner of East Coast Drive and Seminole Road, other side of Seminole has high profile area as well. Could be a good spot to create a “canopy road”.  Numerous locations along East Coast Drive and Ocean Boulevard  East side of Seminole road, in front of Ocean Village  Higher quality plantings on the west side of Seminole  Work with property owners on Mayport to do plantings on their property. We have little to no right-of-way on Mayport and Atlantic. Staff has one prospective property owner lined up and several more in mind. There is currently $12,821 in the Tree Protection Fund. Staff can use this money to kick start a planting program in some of the high profile locations listed. If the commission would like, staff can formulate a comprehensive planting strategy and bring it back for input. BUDGET: None. RECOMMENDATION: Designate “Old Atlantic Beach” a “historic corridor” for tree protection via resolution. Provide staff direction for utilization of Tree Protection Fund monies for rebuilding tree canopy. ATTACHMENTS: Example of tree mitigation. Map of Old Atlantic Beach (possible “historic corridor”) REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: _____________________________________________________ 20’ 7.5’ 7.5’ 20’ Interior Interior Exterior Exterior REMOVAL (Ext) Requires Mitigation: 6” + No Mitigation Required:≤5” REMOVAL (Int) Requires Mitigation: 20” + No Mitigation Required:≤19” PRESERVE (Int) Receives Credit: 6”‐ 19” No Credit Given: ≤ 5” and 20” + PRESERVE (Ext) Receives Credit: 3”‐ 5” No Credit Given: ≤ 2” and 6” + PROPERTY LINE