Jan 20 Agenda PacketCITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Tuesday / January 20, 2015 / 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. B. Draft Minutes of the December 16, 2014 regular meeting of the Community Development Board.
3. Old Business.
4. New Business.
A. 15-ZVAR-1000 (PUBLIC HEARING)
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64 for relief from the roof design requirements of Section 24-171(c)(1) based on the plans submitted to the Community Development Board on 20 January 2015 at RE# 169398-0410 (aka 2321 Mayport Road).
5. Reports
A. Tree Protection Code Revisions Discussion (Part 2)
6. Adjournment.
All information related to the item(s) included in this agenda is available for review at the City of Atlantic
Beach Building and Zoning Department, located at 800 Seminole Road, Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233, and
may be obtained at this office or by calling (904) 247 -5826. Interested parties may attend the meeting
and make comments regarding agenda items, or comments may be mailed to the address
above. Any person wishing to speak to the Community Development Board on any matter at this meeting should
submit a Comment Card located at the entrance to Commission Chambers prior to the start of the meeting.
If any person decides to appeal any decision made by the Community Development Board with respect t o
any matter considered at any meeting may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made,
including the testimony and evidence upon which any appeal is to be based.
In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 286.26 of the Florida Statutes, persons
with disabilities needing special accommodations t o participate in this meeting should contact the City
not less than five (5) days prior to the date of this meeting at the address or phone number above.
ITEM 2A
Page 1 of 12
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. Hansen 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. Hansen. The motion carried unanimously.
Page 2 of 12
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 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.
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
Page 3 of 12
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.
Page 4 of 12
Public comment was closed by Mrs. Paul.
Board Discussion
The board declared several ex parte communications from several
members of the community. Mr. Parkes stated he was surprised that he
did not hear the crowd demanding to save the tree, but instead heard
comments directed at the applicant and that it is clear three homes can
be built here with or without the 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.
Page 5 of 12
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
Page 6 of 12
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
Page 7 of 12
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 mass 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 the 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
Page 8 of 12
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.
Page 9 of 12
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. P arkes 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
Page 10 of 12
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
Page 11 of 12
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 the board how he could reconcile discouraging used car
lots on Mayport Road with recommending approval of this use-by-
exception. 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.
Page 12 of 12
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
ITEM 2B
Page 1 of 7
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 2 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 3 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. Eyr e 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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.
_______________________________________
Brea Paul, Chair
_______________________________________
Attest
ITEM 4A
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM 4A
CASE NO 15-ZVAR-1000
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64 for relief from the roof design
requirements of 24-171(c)(1) based on the plans submitted to the Community
Development Board on 20 January 2015 at RE#169398-0410 (aka 2321 Mayport
Road)
LOCATION 2321 MAYPORT ROAD
APPLICANT DOLLAR TREE
DATE JANUARY 12, 2015
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 gas station and build a new, 9,973 square foot retail Dollar Tree store with a parapet and awnings at various points around the building. A variance is needed for the current design of a building with a parapet and awnings because Section 24-171(c)(1) states that, “roofs, which give the appearance of a flat roof from any street side of the building, are
prohibited. Roofs may be gabled, hipped, mansard or otherwise designed so as to avoid the appearance of a
flat roof from the adjoining street.” Staff has interpreted this to mean that the building must have a slopped roof aspect around a majority of the building that is visible from the street. Staff would allow a small portion of the exterior wall to extend vertically (not slopped) to create a tower like feature for signage. Staff would typically expect a mansard style feature on larger buildings where the appearance of a slopped roof is achieved without having a full roof that comes to a peak. Staff has made the determination that the current plan does not meet staff’s interpretation of the code. The applicant believes that a parapet by itself meets this portion of the code because it hides the flat roof behind and originally submitted plans where that was the only roof design element. After conversations with staff, the applicant elected to use awnings similar to those used on other Dollar Tree stores. The awnings were placed above the windows along the front and faux windows were created along the sides and awnings were placed above them. In the past the Community Development Board received a similar variance for the Panera Bread building on Atlantic Boulevard. The Board made the determination that their design met the code, declined to act on the variance and directed staff to approve the design. The Board could take similar action on this variance.
Page 2 of 3
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.
(3) Exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other
properties in the area.
The applicant stated in their application that Dollar Tree’s prototype design uses a flat roof system with
parapets to conceal RTUs. They also stated that they go to every effort to be flexible in design to blend
with the surrounding community and that designing a hip or mansard roof system on a 10,000 square foot
building creates an unusual hardship from a design aspect.
(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 15-ZVAR-1000, request
for relief from the roof design requirements of 24-171(c)(1) based on the plans submitted to the Community Development Board on 20 January 2015 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. Or,
The Community Development Board may consider a motion to recommend denial of 15-ZVAR-1000, request for
relief from the roof design requirements of 24-171(c)(1) based on the plans submitted to the Community
Development Board on 20 January 2015 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.
APPLICATION FORA VARIANCE
City of Atlantic Beach · 800 Seminole Road · Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233-5445
Phone: (904) 247-5800 · FAX (904) 247-5845 · http://www.coab .us
Date 12-29-14 File No. __________ _
t. Applicant's Name CLARK, GEER, LATHAM & ASSOCIATES
2. Applicant's Address 390j_SPRING HILL AVE MOBILE , AL 36608
3. Property Location 2321 MAYPORT ROAD ATLANTIC BEACH , FL 32233
4. Property Appraiser's Real Estate Number _1.:_6::....9=-3=-9.::....::.8_;-0::....4_:__:_1 0.::...._ __________________ _
5. Current Zoning Classification -=C::....G~------6. Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use designation -=C:...:.M.:..:..._ __
7. Provision from which Variance is requested 24-1 71 (C)(1) Roofs, whi ch give the appearance of a flat roof from any street side of
the building, are proh ibited . Roofs may b e gabled, hipped, mansard or oth erwise designed so as to avoid the appearance of a flat roof from the
ad'oi nin st reet
8. Size of Parcel 1.86 ACRES ~~~~~~-------------
9. Homeowner's Association or Architectural Review Committee approval required for the proposed construction.
DYes [XJ No (If yes, this must be submitted with any application for a Building Permit.)
10. Statement of facts and site plan related to requested Variance, which demonstrates compliance with Section 24-64 of
the Zoning, Subdivision and Land Development Regulations, a cop y of which is attached to this application.
Statement and sit e plan must clearly describe and depict the Variance that is requested.
11. Provide all of the following information:
a. Proof of ownership (deed or certificate by lawyer or abstract company or title company that verifies
record owner as above). If the applicant is not the owner, a letter of authorization from the owner(s) for
applicant to represent the owner for all purposes related to this application must be provided.
b. Survey and legal description of property for which Variance is sought.
c. Required number of copies : Four (4), except where original plans, photographs or documents larger
than 11x17 inches are submitted. Please provide eight (8) copies of any such documents.
d . Application Fee ($250.00)
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ALL INFORMATION PROVIDED WITH THIS APPLICATION IS
CORRECT:
Signature of owner(s) or authorized person if owner's authorization form is attached:
Printed or typed name(s): DARREN EYRE
Signature~): __ ~~\~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~------------/'
ADDRESS AND CONTACT INFORMATION OF PERSON TO RECEIVE ALL CORRESPONDE NCE
REGARDING THIS APPLICATION
Name: MARK ALDRED
Mailing Address: 39 0t) SPRING HILL AVE MOBILE, AL 3 6608
Phone: 251 -344-7073 FAX: N/A E-mail: maldred@cgl e ngin ee rs .co m
Section 24-17. Definition of a Variance.
A Variance shall mean relief granted from certain terms of thi s Chapter. The relief granted shall be only to the extent as
expressly allowed by thi s 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 reli ef granted shall be in accordance with the provi sions as
set forth in Section 24-64 of this Chapter, and such relief may be subject to conditi ons as set forth by the City of Atlantic
Beach .
Sec. 24-64 . Variances.
A Variance may b e s ought in accord a nce wi th this Chapter. Applications for a Variance ma y be obtained from the
Communi ty Development Department. A Variance s hall not reduce minimum Lot Area, minimum Lot Width or Depth;
and shall not increase maximum Height of Building or Impervious Surface Area as established for the various Zoning
Districts. Further, a Variance shall not modify the Permitted Uses or any Use terms of a property.
(a) Application. A request for a Variance shall be submitted on an application form as provided by the City and shall
contain each of the followin g.
(1) a co mplete legal descripti on of th e property for which the Variance is requested .
(2) a reasonable s tatement describing the reasons for the Variance.
(3) a survey or Lot dia gram indicating setbacks; existing and proposed co nstruc tion , as we ll as other significant
features ex isting on the Lo t.
(4) the s ignature of the owner, or the s ignature of the owner's authorized agent. Written authorization by the Owner
for the agent to act on the behalf of the property owner shall b e provided with the application.
(b) Public Hearing. Upon rec eipt of a co mplete and proper app lication, the Co mmunity Development Director s hall
within a reasonable period of time schedule the application for a public hearing b efore the Community De ve lopment
Board following required public notice. At the public hea ring, the applicant may appear in p erso n or may be
represented by an authorized agent.
(c) Grounds for denial of a Variance. No Variance shall be granted if the Community Development Board, in its
disc retion, determines that the granting o f the requested Variance shall have a mate rially adverse impact upon one or
more of the following.
(1) light and air to adjacent properti es .
(2 ) co nges tio n of Streets.
(3) public safety, including risk of fire, flo od , crime or o ther threats to public safety.
(4) establi she d property va lues.
(5) the aesthetic e nvironment of the community.
(6) the natural environment of the community, including Environmentall y Sens itive Areas, wildlife habitat,
Protected Trees, or other significant en vironmental resources.
(7) the ge neral health, we lfare or b eauty of the co mmunity.
Variances shall not be granted sole ly for personal comfort or convenience , for re li ef from financ ia l c ircums ta nces or
for reli ef from situations created by the property owner.
The following paragraph sets forth reasons for which a Variance may be approved. Please
check the circumstances that apply to your request and briefly describe in the space provided.
(d) Grounds for approval of a Variance. A Variance may be granted, at the discretion of the Community Development
Board, for the following reasons.
D (1) exceptional topographic conditions of or near the property. ------------------------------
D (2) surrounding conditions or circumstances impacting the p roper ty disparate ly from nearby properties.
lXI (3) exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable u se of the property as compared to o the r properties in
the area. Dollar Tree's prototype design uses a flat roof system with parapets to concea l RTUs. Dollar Tree goes to every effort
to be fle xible in design to blend wi th the su rroun ding community, howeve r, designing a hip or mansa rd roof system on a 10,000 square
foot bulidmg creates an unu sua l hardship from a aes1gn aspect. In an effort to make steps to meet the 1ntent of the code, the des ign has
been changed to inclu de s lo!'ed metal canopies on the front of the buildiftg over the storefront, as well as adding feau-x storefront on the
sides of the building with sloped metal canopies above. This design is in keeping wi th othe r s imilar buildings. The replacement of the
Hess station with this Dollar Tree store will be an aesthetically pleasing add ition to the current Mayport corr idor .
D (4) onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting o r after development of the property or after
construction of improvements upon the property. -------------------------------------
D (5) irregular shape of the property warranting special consideration. ________________ _
D (6) substandard size of a Lot of Record warranting a Variance in order to provide for the reasonable Use of the
property. ___________________________________ _
(e) Approval of a Variance. T o approve an appli cation for a Variance, the Community Development Board shall fmd
that the request is in accordance w ith the prece ding terms and provisions of this Section and that the granting of the
Variance w ill be in harmony with the Purpose and Intent of this C hapter.
(f) Approval of L esser Variances. The Community Development Board shall have the authority to approve a lesser
Variance than requested if a lesser Variance shall be more appropriately in accord with the terms and provisions of
this Section and with the Purpose and Intent of this Chapter.
(g) N earby Nonconformity. Nonconforming characteristics of nearby Lands, Structures or Buildings shall not be
grounds for approval o f a Variance.
(h) Waiting period for re-submittal. If an application for a Variance is denied by the Community Development Board,
no further action on another application for substantially the same reques t on the same property shall be accepted for
365 days from the date of denial.
(i) Time period to implement Variance. Unless otherwise stipulated by the Community Development Board, the work
to be performed pursuant to a Variance shall begin within six (6) months from the date o f approval ofthe Variance.
The Community Development Director, upon finding of good cause, may authorize a one time extension not to
exceed an additional six (6) months, beyond which time the Variance shall become null and void.
(j) A Variance, which involves the Development of Land, shall be transferable and shall run with the title to the
Property unless otherwise s tipulated by the Community Development Board.
SW ENVY SW AESTHETIC WHITE
/ STO SMOKED PUTTY SW VIRTUAL TAUPESW BALANCED BEIGE
/ STO SANDSTONE
REAR ELEVATION LEFT ELEVATION
RRMM
ARCHITECTS
ATLANTIC BEACH , FL
Dollar Tree - Mayport F/S
FRONT ELEVATION
4’8’16’0’
RIGHT ELEVATION
h:\1405 dollar tree\137 atlantic beach, fl\A-2.0 Exterior Elevations.dwg, A-2.0, 12/12/2014 1:22:45 PM, DWG To PDF.pc3, Mark
h:
\
1
4
0
5
d
o
l
l
a
r
t
r
e
e
\
1
3
7
a
t
l
a
n
t
i
c
b
e
a
c
h
,
f
l
\
A
-
4
.
1
W
a
l
l
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
d
w
g
,
A
-
4
.
1
,
1
2
/
1
2
/
2
0
1
4
1
:
2
3
:
0
7
P
M
,
D
W
G
T
o
P
D
F
.
p
c
3
,
M
a
r
k
ITEM 5A
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEBT BOARD
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
preserve 50 inches of trees. In this scenario, the property owner is able to make a net reduction
of 50% of the protected trees that were initially on site.
Tree Protection Results
Staff did an analysis of tree removal from the beginning of 2013 to present. In this period a total
of 2,070 inches of trees were removed; while 2,868 inches were preserved, 229 inches were
relocated, 12.5 inches were planted, and 76 inches ($3,724) paid into the tree fund. This means
that 5,167 inches of trees has been reduced to 3,109.5 inches, plus the $3,724 that was paid into
the tree fund. This means there was a net loss of 2057.5 inches of trees.
Fortunately, the total amount of trees that were preserved was higher than required by code, but
you can still see that a significant net reduction has occurred.
Recommendations
The only way to ensure that a net loss of protected trees 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.
Tree Canopy Assessment
City of Atlantic Beach, Florida
January, 2015
Prepared by: Charles Marcus
Legacy Arborist Services
Tallahassee, FL
charliem@nrpsforeseters.com
SUMMARY
The City of Atlantic Beach, Florida has contracted with Legacy Arborist Services (LAS) of
Tallahassee, Florida to conduct an assessment of the historical tree canopy within their city
boundaries. LAS utilized the iTree Canopy software developed by the US Forest Service to analyze
digital images of the city tree canopy taken in both December, 2003 and January, 2014. Charles
Marcus, an ISA certified arborist employed by LAS, performed the assessment.
The current tree canopy covers 30.0% of the city’s total area. Grass and bare soil occupies an
additional 21.1%. Impervious surfaces, including pavement and roofs, cover 25.0%. Marshes and
open water occupy 21.1%, and beach or dune areas occupy 2.7%. These figures compare with a 2003
tree canopy of 31.8%, grass and bare soil covering 21.7%; and impervious surface covering 22.6%
(Marsh/open water and beach/dune area remain the same). This represents a decrease in tree canopy
of 5.7%, a decrease in grass and bare soil coverage of 2.8%, and an increase in impervious surface of
10.6% during the 10 year period of the assessment. These figures are listed in tabular format in the
addenda.
Atlantic Beach appears to be maintaining a healthy and vital tree canopy overall. It is recommended,
however, that city leaders maintain a proactive approach to both minimizing tree canopy loss and
limiting or mitigating increases in impervious surfaces as the city grows and re-develops.
IMPORTANCE OF TREE CANOPY
People inherently understand the aesthetic or visual value of trees to their community. In
addition, however, they also need to recognize the economic contributions that trees make to
the developed environment, as well as their contribution to public health, crime reduction,
and other amenities that are more difficult to quantify. Although trees require resources to
maintain them, the value of the “ecosystem services” they provide in return exceeds their
cost of maintenance. Examples of ecosystem services provided by trees include reducing the
costs of stormwater management, energy production and use, and absorbing air pollution.
iTree Canopy can estimate the value of air pollution mitigation provided by the city’s tree
canopy (see the attached addenda). Additional ecosystem services can be measured using
other modules of the iTree Software Suite. The value of the stormwater and energy benefits
are typically quite a bit more than the air pollution benefits. Since trees located on privately
owned land contribute ecosystem services to the overall community, some reasonable
regulation of privately owned trees benefits the overall community.
The tree canopy measured in this assessment can be defined as the total estimated land area
covered by the leaves, branches, and trunks of all standing trees when viewed from above.
The proportion of land covered by the tree canopy – typically expressed as percent canopy
cover – serves as a convenient measure of the magnitude of the community forest and the
services the canopy provides. Tree canopy can be readily assessed, easily communicated,
and provides a useful measure for setting goals, prioritizing actions, and tracking changes.
Impervious surfaces, although necessary for a number of reasons, increase the cost of
stormwater management for local public works departments. They increase stormwater
volumes and associated non-point source pollution. They also increase ambient summer air
temperatures in the city by reflecting heat that was previously absorbed by the tree canopy
and the soil beneath. This in turn can also result in higher energy costs for nearby buildings
and a less favorable environment for residents. Impervious surfaces also reduce the
availability of oxygen, water, and nutrients to tree roots, which in turn reduces the ecosystem
services that these trees can provide.
METHODOLOGY
Atlantic Beach city officials have recognized the importance of the city’s tree canopy. For that
reason, they directed LAS to estimate changes to the canopy over the past 10 years. They wished to
quantify long-term impacts from the three hurricanes that passed through the city in August and
September, 2004, as well as evaluate the effectiveness of current city ordinances designed to protect
the tree canopy. The iTree Canopy software provided LAS with a relatively inexpensive and
expedient means of carrying out this assessment. This software is scientifically based and has been
peer reviewed.
The user begins the assessment by defining the land cover types they wish to measure. For this
assessment, those cover types include the following:
• Trees and Shrubs (current canopy)
• Grass and Bare Soil (potential areas to increase canopy)
• Impervious Surfaces (areas permanently disturbed by development – no longer plantable)
• Marsh/Open Water/Dunes (natural areas not suitable for canopy increase)
Once the user identifies these land cover types and then defines the geographical boundaries of the
assessment area, the software generates a series of random points on current Google Earth images. As
each point appears on the screen, the user enters the cover type on which the point falls. The user
continues to sample a sufficient number of points to achieve the desired level of statistical accuracy.
In this case, 1000 points within the city boundaries were sampled. Once current imagery is sampled
and a report is generated, the software transposes the same sample point locations onto Google Earth
images from a selected previous reference year, 2003 in this case. The user records the land cover
types present on those points at that time, and generates a new report for the reference year for
comparison purposes. Points were classified as Trees/Shrubs if the tree canopy covered from above
an impervious surface or other cover type. If the trees only shaded the other cover type from the side,
however, they were not classified as tree canopy.
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS
The city tree canopy appears to primarily consist of Live Oak (Quercus virginiana), North Florida
Slash Pine (Pinus elliotii), and Sabal (Cabbage) Palm (Sabal palmetto), as well as other species
indigenous to flatwoods and upland soils of North Florida. These species grow for the most part in
mixed stands, but occasionally in either pure stands or as individual trees. There doesn’t appear to be
any widespread disturbances to the tree canopy, either natural or human-caused. Individual residential
and commercial property owners have converted small areas over the past 10 years from tree canopy
to either grass, pavement, roofs, or improvements such as decks or swimming pools. Some previously
grassed or unpaved areas are now built upon and paved over. Some previously unshaded impervious
surfaces and grassed areas are now covered by tree canopy because of adjacent tree growth and some
new plantings. Some individual trees were retained in areas that previously either had dense canopy
or were not yet developed. This could indicate that property owners are being at least somewhat
conscientious in conserving tree canopy, and that measures taken by the city are having some positive
effect.
COMPARISON TO OTHER CITIES
There is no set tree canopy percentage that would be considered “optimal” everywhere. Each
community has a number of considerations that are unique to its particular circumstances,
including climate, geography, land cover, previous land use patterns, available resources, local
priorities, and other factors.
Atlantic Beach currently has an estimated tree canopy percentage of 30%. If the land area
occupied by marshes, open water, and dunes is deducted, this percentage increases to 39%.
These figures compare favorably with the average Florida statewide tree canopy coverage in
developed areas of 26.7%, and 32.1% when unplantable natural areas are eliminated. The
statewide average for impervious surface in developed areas is 16.9%, which is lower than the
current 25.0% in Atlantic Beach. Examples of tree canopy cover from other Florida cities include
Tampa@28%, Orlando@22%, Miami@5%, Gainesville@52%, Jacksonville@46%, Orange
Park@45%, and Ocala@29% (Nowak, 2009). Other southeastern city tree canopies include
Atlanta@48%, Austin, TX@32%, and New Orleans@23% (Leff, unpublished).
Setting ambitious canopy cover goals can help to engage the public, motivate officials to action,
secure funding for tree management, and encourage stewardship. On the other hand, several
communities have launched ambitious tree planting initiatives to increase their tree canopy
which failed because of poor planning and execution. The right species needs to be planted in the
right place and receive adequate post-planting care.
STATISTICAL ACCURACY
A tabular summary of the results of this assessment and the statistical boundaries are included in
the addenda. This assessment is accurate enough to provide the City of Atlantic Beach with a
historical perspective of the condition of the city tree canopy and a basis for developing
strategies for future management of the canopy. Tighter confidence intervals can be obtained
either by collecting data from a network of sample plots in the field or employing more
sophisticated (and expensive) software for conducting tree canopy analyses.
WHERE TO GO FROM HERE
The following measures can help the City to increase, or at least maintain, the tree canopy
coverage over the next several years.
Conserve the Current Tree Canopy: Protecting larger trees or clumps of trees is the most
effective strategy. Energy savings can be derived from retaining canopy trees within 20-60 feet
of buildings. The tree’s Critical Root Zone (CRZ) needs to remain undisturbed as much as
possible. This could mean rearranging the configuration of buildings and improvements on the
development site, as well as restricting construction equipment from the CRZ.
Minimize the Creation of Additional Impervious Surfaces: Consider alternatives to asphalt and
concrete on at least portions of development or re-development sites. Establish tree islands or
corridors of adequate size in parking lots (these can be incorporated into the site stormwater
management system). Install pavers or some type of pervious pavement in proximity to trees.
Engineers can provide these alternatives if asked to do so.
Identify Opportunities for Tree Plantings on Publicly Owned Lands: The 21% grass and bare soil
cover identified in this assessment provides at least some opportunities for additional tree
plantings. Select sites where it would be desirable to add tree canopy, and calculate the number
of canopy trees that could be planted on these sites. Conflicts with overhead and underground
utilities, as well as other existing infrastructure need to be considered in advance.
Hold a Tree Sale/Giveaway for Property Owners: Both Greenscape Jacksonville and the Duval
County Cooperative Extension Service have considerable experience in carrying out these
events. Selecting suitable species for your area that residents will like and obtaining quality
nursery stock of the appropriate size need to be carefully considered in advance. Providing
recipients with an educational venue which includes site selection, proper planting technique,
and post-planting care is also essential. Some type of fanfare, or incorporation with another
community event, can also help increase resident participation.
Conduct More Detailed Assessments: As previously mentioned, more precise assessments of
your community trees can be procured by either data collection on the ground or more
sophisticated Urban Tree Canopy (UTC) analysis. These can be done city-wide, or just in areas
of particular concern to city leaders. It may be more economical to conduct these studies in
cooperation with other neighboring communities. Trees along hurricane evacuation routes and
other significant thoroughfares can be the initial focus for street tree inventories. Trees in heavily
used parks and other public areas would also be good candidates for individual inventory and
condition assessment. Review of city tree and landscape ordinances by an outside entity may
help to identify where they can be made more effective without being too intrusive.
Develop an Urban Forestry Management Plan: This document would synthesize all of the above
recommendations into a comprehensive long-range document specifically designed for the City
of Atlantic Beach. The plan would include current conditions, future goals, strategies for
achieving the goals, and resources needed to do so. Input from city leaders and the general
public, perhaps in a facilitated session, would be an essential part of formulating the plan.
Legacy Arborist Services remains available to the City of Atlantic Beach to provide
assistance with the management of their tree canopy, whether through casual
communication by phone or email or through the implementation of specific projects for a
nominal fee. We can also direct you to a number of sources of additional information about
trees.
Development of iTree Canopy Software is a Cooperative Initiative Between:
www.itreetools.org
Canopy Assessment and Tree Benefits Report
City of Atlantic Beach, Florida
Estimated using 1000 random sample points from Google Earth images taken January 19, 2014.
Cover Class Description Abbr. Points % Cover
Tree/Shrub Canopy Cover T 300 30.0 ±1.45
Impervious Buildings, Roads Unplantable I 250 25.0 ±1.37
Marsh, Open Water Unplantable M 211 21.1 ±1.29
Grass, Bare Soil Plantable Areas G 211 21.1 ±1.29
Dunes Unplantable D 27 2.70 ±0.51
Tree Benefit Estimates
Abbr. Benefit Description Value ±SE Amount ±SE
CO Carbon Monoxide removed annually $103.57 ±5.00 1,274.46 lb ±61.55
NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide removed annually $93.97 ±4.54 2.38 T ±0.11
O3 Ozone removed annually $7,807.67 ±377.07 23.29 T ±1.12
PM2.5 Particulate Matter less than 2.5 microns removed annually $14,307.13 ±690.95 1.18 T ±0.06
SO2 Sulfur Dioxide removed annually $10.18 ±0.49 1,444.15 lb ±69.74
PM10* Particulate Matter greater than 2.5 microns and less than 10
microns removed annually $5,090.57 ±245.85 7.78 T ±0.38
CO2seq Carbon Dioxide sequestered annually in trees $112,578.15 ±5,436.87 5,813.98 T ±280.78
CO2stor Carbon Dioxide stored in trees (Note: this benefit is not an
annual rate) $1,822,581.04 ±88,020.14 94,125.36 T ±4,545.71
Development of iTree Canopy Software is a Cooperative Initiative Between:
www.itreetools.org
Canopy Assessment and Tree Benefits Report
City of Atlantic Beach, Florida
Estimated using 1000 random sample points from Google Earth images taken December 31, 2003.
Cover Class Description Abbr. Points % Cover
Tree/Shrub Canopy Cover T 318 31.8 ±1.46
Impervious Buildings, Roads Unplantable I 226 22.6 ±1.36
Marsh, Open Water Unplantable M 211 21.1 ±1.29
Grass, Bare Soil Plantable Areas G 217 21.7 ±1.29
Dunes Unplantable D 27 2.70 ±0.51
Tree Benefit Estimates
Abbr. Benefit Description Value ±SE Amount ±SE
CO Carbon Monoxide removed annually $105.99 ±5.03 1,304.20 lb ±61.95
NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide removed annually $96.16 ±4.57 2.43 T ±0.12
O3 Ozone removed annually $7,989.85 ±379.52 23.84 T ±1.13
PM2.5 Particulate Matter less than 2.5 microns removed annually $14,640.97 ±695.46 1.21 T ±0.06
SO2 Sulfur Dioxide removed annually $10.42 ±0.49 1,477.85 lb ±70.20
PM10* Particulate Matter greater than 2.5 microns and less than 10
microns removed annually $5,209.35 ±247.45 7.96 T ±0.38
CO2seq Carbon Dioxide sequestered annually in trees $115,204.97 ±5,472.33 5,949.64 T ±282.61
CO2stor Carbon Dioxide stored in trees (Note: this benefit is not an
annual rate) $1,865,107.93 ±88,594.16 96,321.62 T ±4,575.36
Development of iTree Canopy Software is a Cooperative Initiative Between:
www.itreetools.org
City of Atlantic Beach, Florida
iTree Canopy Statistical Analysis - 95% Confidence Intervals
Tree Canopy
Cover
Impervious
Surface Grass, Bare Soil Marsh, Open Water Dunes, Beach
Mean LCL UCL Mean LCL UCL Mean LCL UCL Mean LCL UCL Mean LCL UCL
2014 30.0 27.2 32.8 25.0 22.3 27.7 21.1 18.6 23.6 21.1 18.6 23.6 2.7 1.7 3.7
2003 31.8 28.9 34.7 22.6 19.9 25.3 21.7 19.2 24.2 21.1 18.6 23.6 2.7 1.7 3.7
- 5.7%
+10.6%
-2.8%
Upper Confidence Limit (UCL) = Mean + (Standard Error x 1.96)
Lower Confidence Limit (LCL) = Mean - (Standard Error x 1.96)
The actual values of the parameters measured in this analysis have a 95% chance of falling between the LCL and UCL.