Loading...
2-17-CDB- Full AgendaCITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Tuesday / February 17, 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 January 20, 2015 regular meeting of the Community Development Board. 3. Old Business. 4. New Business. 5. Reports A. Cloisters Condominium Opening of South Gate B. Tree Protection Code Revisions Discussion (Part 2) C. Sign 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 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 Communit y 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. I n accordanc e wit h the American s with Disabilitie s Act and Section 286.26 of the Florida Statutes , person s with disabilities needin g specia l accommodation s t o participat e 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. Page 1 of 4 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD January 20, 2015 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL. The meeting was called to order at 6:02 pm. Chair Brea Paul verified that all board members are present, with the exception of Mr. Parkes, Mr. Hansen and Mrs. Simmons. Also present was Building and Zoning Director, Jeremy Hubsch; Zoning Technician, Derek Reeves, and representing the firm Kopelousos, Bradley & Garrison, P.A. was Mrs. Darcy Galnor. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. A. Minutes of November 18, 2014 Mr. Elmore motioned to approve the minutes of November 18th. Mrs. Lanier seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. B. Minutes of December 16, 2014 Mrs. Lanier motioned to approve the minutes of December 16th. Mr. Elmore seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. 3. OLD BUSINESS. None. 4. NEW BUSINESS. B. 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). Page 2 of 4 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. The design features a parapet on the front and sides with a tower feature over the front doors for signage. Awnings are located above the front windows and along faux windows along the side of the building. A variance is needed because code requires a roof design that prohibits the appearance of a flat roof. Staff believes the parapets are still a flat roof as presented. The applicants believe that the parapet feature meets the intent of the code as it does hide the flat roof behind. Examples were presented including the Dunkin Doughnuts on Atlantic Boulevard that was approved by staff based on its design. Additionally, One Ocean was shown as an example of a large structure with a sloped roof element. The initial plans did have the awnings. Those were added after staff denial and discussion referencing the Panera Bread on Atlantic Boulevard. That project was denied by staff and came to the Community Development Board as a variance from the same code provision. The board ultimately denied the variance and directed staff to approve the plans because the plans met the code as they interpreted it. It was stated that this is also an option on this variance. The applicants have identified the unusual conditions compared to neighboring properties because this building could be b uilt in any other city without a variance. Mrs. Paul clarified that the code provision is part of the commercial corridor standards. Mr. Reeves confirmed. Applicant Comment Mark Aldred of Clark, Greer, Latham and Associates, 3901 Spring Hill Avenue, Mobile, Alabama 36608 representing Dollar Tree stated that the plan did not initially have the awnings and they were added to provide a slopped element. Additionally, the signing has been worked to provide offsets and break up the walls. Overall this project wou ld be an improvement to the Mayport corridor. Mrs. Lanier asked how the code is interpreted relative to the street side. Mr. Hubsch stated that is has been interpreted to mean any side visible from the street. Page 3 of 4 Mr. Elmore stated that he still thinks it’s a flat roof, especially along the north and south sides. He continued by stating that the parapet is still a flat line along the sides and the addition of a change in the parapet along the sides similar to the front would be acceptable. Mr. Stratton asked if a feature like that at One Ocean should be required. Mr. Elmore stated he didn’t think so and that if they can change the flat line of the parapet that it would create the relief desired. Mrs. Lanier asked how much the architect could deviate from the Dollar Tree “model”. Mr. Aldred stated that there is no defined amount of deviation allowed but that Dollar Tree does have a consistent look that they want to stay with. Mr. Aldred asked if he could present an image from his phone that may meet the side elevation relief that has been discussed. The image was from a Fort Myers project that did feature varied heights of the parapet along the side walls. Mr. Elmore stated that the image would work in his opinion. Public Comment Chris Jorgensen of 92 West 3rd Street, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 stated that he was glad to see this property being redeveloped and that the design was perfectly acceptable. With no additional speakers, public comment was closed by Mrs. Paul. Board Discussion Mr. Stratton asked if the variance was needed if the side walls are changed to resemble those shown in the image. Mrs. Paul stated that this seems very similar to the Panera Bread project and that the variance should be denied while directing staff to approve the plans. Mr. Elmore stated that the staff approval just needs a condition to reflect the change in side wall design. Motion Mrs. Lanier motioned to refer the project to staff for approval finding that a variance is not needed with the condition that the side walls be redesigned to resemble the image shown by Mr. Aldred which would feature raised parapets at the center points of the walls. Mr. Stratton seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Page 4 of 4 5. REPORTS. A. Tree Protection Code Revisions Discussion (Part 2) Motion Mrs. Paul motioned to defer the discussion until the next meeting in fairness to the members of the board that are absent. Mr. Elmore seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Mr. Elmore asked for an update to the variance that was previously approved at 398 11th Street. Mr Hubsch stated that the board had granted a variance with the condition that the 47 inch Oak tree be nominated as a Heritage Tree and that for reasons that are unknown to staff, the owner decided to remove the tree rather than designate it a Heritage Tree. By doing so, the variance is nullified and all future development of the property will have to meet zoning code. They did get a Tree Removal Permit and had to do mitigation which included plantings and payment into the Tree Fund. As the tree was being removed, an underground kerosene tank was found that had been leaking and now clean up is needed. 6. ADJOURNMENT. Mrs. Paul motioned to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Elmore seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 6:30 pm. _______________________________________ Brea Paul, Chair _______________________________________ Attest CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH CITY COMMISSION MEETING STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM: Cloister South Gate Opening SUBMITTED BY: Jeremy Hubsch Building and Zoning Director DATE: February 11, 2015 BACKGROUND: In 1973, the Atlantic Beach City Commission approved a 66 unit at the site of the former Continental Hotel. This development has come to be known as the Cloister Condominiums. At the time the project was approved by the City Commission, it was stated that there would only be one primary access to the property at its northern terminus with 10th Street. The southern portion of the property was granted emergency access to Beach Avenue at that time. The City Commission minutes from the March 12, 1973 meeting specifically say that any changes to the approved proposal will require City Commission approval. In September 2014, the Cloister board voted to open the south gate for access to Club Drive. This proposed access point is just for cars to exit the property onto Club Drive. The board of the Cloister believes there are issues with traffic coming to and from the property at 10th Street, and would like for traffic to enter only on 10th Street and exit only onto Club Drive. This will bring more traffic onto Club Drive, but reduce traffic on 10th Street. Some nearby residents have expressed concerns about this new traffic pattern. The Cloister board has proposed several measures in an effort to ensure that no hazardous public safety issues arise from the new gate opening (see attached letter). However, at this time the City’s Police Chief and Public Works Director (engineer) do not have any objections to the project. Please see an attached memorandum from Police Chief Deal regarding the proposal. This item is going before the Community Development Board for a recommendation prior to it being heard by the City Commission BUDGET: None. RECOMMENDATION: Approve southern gate at Cloister Condominiums solely for traffic to exit onto Club Drive ATTACHMENTS: Attached letter from Cloisters; Atlantic Beach Police Department report REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: _____________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM TO: Jeremy Hubsch, Building and Zoning Director FROM: Michael Deal, Chief of Police DATE: February 12, 2015 RE: Request to Open South Gate at the Cloisters ______________________________________________________________________ The Police Department was asked to review a request to open the gate located at the south end of the Cloisters, allowing vehicles to exit onto Club Drive. The purpose of this review is to determine whether or not there is a public safety issue at the current exit point on 10th Street, and if opening the south gate will create a public safety issue at Beach Avenue and Club Drive. I met with several residents who currently reside on Beach Avenue and Club Drive. These residents are opposed to the opening of the south gate for reasons that include:  Vehicles coming out of the Cloisters will be facing "head on" with traffic traveling north on Beach Avenue which is one-way traffic. These residents feel that some of the vehicles exiting the Cloisters will proceed the wrong way on Beach Avenue. These residents believe this is a public safety issue which could result in a vehicle collision with another vehicle, pedestrian, or cyclist.  The driveway located 885 Beach Av is positioned in a "blind spot" that would make it difficult for the residents to see vehicles exiting the Cloisters. The resident at this location is particularly concerned that his grandchildren could be struck by a vehicle exiting the complex.  The increased volume of vehicular traffic coming out of the Cloisters will add to an already heavily congested roadway with parked vehicles and numerous pedestrians and cyclists. I also met with Alan Gleit, President of the Cloisters Board of Directors. Mr. Gleit stated that the majority (71%) of owners in the Cloisters have voted to open the south gate to allow vehicles to exit onto Club Drive versus the current exit onto 10th Street. Mr. Gleit expressed the following concerns with the current exit onto 10th Street:  The north gate provides room for only one vehicle to enter or exit at a time. Vehicles exiting through the north gate onto 10th Street currently have limited visibility and may not see pedestrians and cyclists due to traffic waiting on 10th Street to either turn into the Cloisters or waiting to park into one of the angled parking spots located adjacent to the gate. According to Mr. Gleit, the limited visibility and congestion is a public safety issue that could result in a collision.  Vehicles on 10th Street are frequently required to backup in order to allow vehicles to either exit the Cloisters or exit one of the angled parking spaces located along 10th Street adjacent to the Cloisters. According to Mr. Gleit, this also creates a public safety issue with the steady flow of pedestrians, skateboarders, and cyclists in the area. It is my understanding that both areas outside the north and south gates have significant vehicle congestion, parking issues, and heavy pedestrian and cyclist activity during the "beach months." While it could be argued that increased congestion at these locations will also increase the probability of traffic related collisions, research shows there has only been one documented traffic crash at either location in the last five (5) years. That lone report was a minor crash that occurred on 10th Street as a result of a vehicle backing up into another vehicle. Based on this data alone, I do not believe the increased traffic congestion and current conditions on 10th Street present a public safety issue. With that said, I also believe a public safety issue would not necessarily be created by opening the south gate and increasing the amount of traffic on Club Drive. The Cloisters indicated that they will paint a large arrow on the pavement in front of the south gate directing vehicles to turn right onto Club Drive. They will also post a large reflective sign on this gate indicating right turn only. I also recommend that a "Do Not Enter" sign visible from the south gate be posted on the west side of Beach Avenue. These traffic control measures should be adequate to warn motorists exiting The Cloisters that they need to turn right onto Club Drive instead of traveling straight onto Beach Avenue. The residence at 885 Beach Av does have limited visibility from their garage and a significant portion of their driveway. However, the residents at this location can still see vehicles exiting the Cloisters onto Club Drive prior to leaving their driveway and entering the roadway. While opening of the south gate will create more traffic on Beach Avenue at Club Drive, it will also alleviate some of the same traffic congestion on 10th Street. Currently, this congestion is able to clear out much quicker since 10th Street is a direct route to Seminole Road. This issue is certainly a matter of inconvenience. Since Club Drive is not directly routed to Seminole, opening the south gate could create a greater inconvenience to residents than what is currently being experienced by using 10th Street. Clearly, there are similar concerns about traffic and pedestrian safety on both sides of the gate. Like many of the roadways here in Atlantic Beach in close proximity to the beach which are inundated with heavy volumes of traffic, pedestrians, and cyclists, there is the risk of a traffic crash and someone getting injured. However, based on the limited number of incidents, these roadways have proven to be safe for our residents and guests. Because it is not a public safety issue on either side, consideration should also be given to allow vehicles to exit through both gates which may lessen the impact on Beach Avenue, Club Drive, and 10th Street. CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM 5B (TREE CODE REVISIONS) STAFF JEREMY HUBSCH, BUILDING AND ZONING DIRECTOR STAFF COMMENTS The City Commission asked city staff to analyze the city’s tree code and make recommendations for improving the code last fall. In October 2014, staff gave a presentation to the commission about the tree code and ways it could be strengthened. After further review of the code, below are proposed recommendations for amending Chapter 23 of the Atlantic Beach Code (Protection of Trees and Native Vegetation). 1. Amend Sections 23-21 and 23-22, which outline when a permit is needed. Currently a tree permit is needed when: new infill development occurs; where construction over $10,000 occurs on a site; and where undeveloped land is going to be cleared for future development. There are eight different scenarios where tree removal can be exempt from a requiring a tree removal permit. 1. No development activity. 2. Emergency situation. 3. Safety hazard. 4. Diseased or pest-infested trees. 5. Noxious invasive trees. 6. Utility operations. 7. Surveyors/engineers. 8. City crews. Staff is recommending that the exemption related to development activity be removed. The way the code is currently written, people can remove a tree for any reason, so long as they are not conducting any construction on their home within 6 months. Removing this provision would only allow people to remove trees without a permit if they had cause to do so. The burden of proof would then be on the owner to show that they are exempt from a permit. 2. Strengthen Protection of Oaks. Oaks are a treasured species by many in Atlantic Beach, and greatly contribute to the character of the community. They are one of a few things that distinguish Atlantic Beach from its neighboring beach communities. Staff is recommending that mitigation be increased on oaks from 1:2 to 1:1. Currently if you remove an oak, you have to mitigate 1 inch for every two inches removed (same as other trees in Atlantic Beach). Strengthening protection of oaks will not prevent their removal, but it will make it more cost prohibitive to do so. The code also says that only new oaks can be used to replace removed oaks. This means a property owner would need to mitigate 40 inches if they remove a 40 inch oak. This is simply not physically feasible on many properties and would likely force the property owner to pay into the tree fund. However, staff would like to ensure that some mitigation is provided on site. Staff is also recommending that a certain percentage of mitigation be provided on site in the form of replacement oaks (25%). If a property owner removed a 40 inch oak, they would need to provide at least 10 inches of mitigation on site. They could then pay the remainder into the tree fund. Page 2 of 2 3. Change the definition of “private regulated tree”. Currently, the tree code states that protected trees (private regulated trees) are all trees that are 6 inches or larger in the “exterior zone” of a property. The exterior zone is everywhere outside of the buildable area on a lot. All tree s over 20 inches are protected in the “interior zone”, or buildable area of the lot. The logic behind this is that it should be easier to preserve trees outside the buildable area on a lot. However, this provision allows trees up to 20 inches in the interior of the lot to be removed without any mitigation. Additionally, trees up to 20 inches are given preservation credit for mitigation. Hypothetically, a property owner can remove a 38 inch tree, get 19 inches of preservation credit for maintai ning a tree, and then later cut down the 19 inch tree that it got credit for with no mitigation required (the 19 inch tree is not protected). There is also an argument t hat if the city allows every 15 to 20 inch tree to be removed with no mitigation, the city’s future canopy will suffer. Staff is recommending that the definition of “private regulated tree” be changed to all trees over a certain size. Staff has no precise, scientific way to arrive at a recommended size, but would like the Community Development Board and Commission to consider changing it to either 6, 8, or 10 inches. One important thing to consider with this proposed change is it will also impact the amount of preservation credit property owners get. The code currently only gives preservation credit to trees that are not protected (less than 6’’ in exterior zone and less than 20’’ in interior zone). If this section is changed to either 6, 8, or 10 inches, only trees below that size will be given preservation credit. This means property owners will likely have to mitigate more in the form of replacement or payment into the tree fund. This will minimize the overall loss of trees on a property. 4. Give replacement credit for palms. As the code is currently written, property owners are only given replacement credit for palms when they are replacing removed palms. Palms are native to the beach and are more salt tolerant than some other species. One important point to note is that oaks must be replaced by oaks, so property owners will not be able to use palms to replace oaks. Staff would like the Community Development Board and Commission to consider allowing palms to get replacement credit when replacing other removed species. This could be a citywide provision, or one that is specifically geographically related, such as all areas east of East Coast Drive and Seminole Drive north of its terminus with East Coast Drive. The idea being that palms may thrive better than other species in immediate proximity to the beach. 5. Change the dollar amount required for mitigation. Atlantic Beach has used the same dollar figure that the City of Jacksonville uses for payment into the tree fund. Up until recently that number was $49 an inch. The City of Jacksonville recently changed this to $113 to more accurately reflect current market costs. Staff will continue to follow the City of Jacksonville’s rates and charge $113, unless directed otherwise by the City Commission. 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. CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM 5C (SIGN AMORTIZATION) STAFF JEREMY HUBSCH, BUILDING AND ZONING DIRECTOR STAFF COMMENTS Section 17-51 (5) of the city’s sign code stated that all non-conforming signs in commercial and industrial zoning districts in the city were required to come into compliance with current codes on January 1st, 2015. This was recently extended until June 1st 2015 in order to give the city time to further evaluate the code. The city’s sign code was re-written in 2002. At the time, the maximum height for pole signs was reduced from 25 feet to 8 feet. The maximum sign width was increased from 10 feet to 12 feet, and maximum sign area was increased from 80 square feet to 96 square feet. The main focus of these changes was the reduction of pole signs, which can contribute to visual clutter. All non-conforming signs were given a 10 year amortization period to come into compliance with the new codes. In 2011, the City Commission extended this to January 2015. Atlantic Beach now has to determine whether to require signs to come into compliance by June 1, 2015, whether to extend the date further, or do away with a date and allow signs to come into compliance on their own. Staff is recommending that the city require properties on Atlantic Beach to come into compliance by June 1st, and properties on Mayport Road come into compliance by 2018. As it stands now, properties along Mayport Road in the City of Jacksonville are not required to come into compliance until 2018. This would sync our amortization up with Jacksonville along Mayport Road. Please see staff’s initial report to the City Commission about Sign Amortization, which is attached to this report. AGENDA ITEM NO. __________ DATE: ______________________ CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH CITY COMMISSION MEETING STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM: Sign Amortization SUBMITTED BY: Jeremy Hubsch Redevelopment and Zoning Coordinator DATE: May 15, 2014 BACKGROUND: In 2002, the City of Atlantic Beach re-wrote its sign code, which reduced the maximum height for freestanding signs from 25 feet to 8 feet, increased the maximum sign width from 10 feet to 12 feet, and increased the maximum sign area from 80 square feet to 96 square feet. At the time these changes were enacted in 2002, there were 79 freestanding signs that exceeded the eight-foot height limit. These signs were then given ten years to come into compliance with the new code changes. In 2011 that ten year amortization period was extended to January 1st 2015 in order to be consistent with Neptune Beach’s amortization. One thing that was not contemplated at the time of that extension is the fact that the date for Jacksonville’s sign amortization for Mayport Road is 2018. Sign amortization is sometimes described as more of a postponement than a solution. The legal theory underpinning amortization is that the local government has placed the property owner on notice, and has provided sufficient time for the property owner to realize a return on his or her investment so as to avoid a deprivation of due process rights. Ultimately, amortization is a “balancing test” that weighs the private cost against the public gain. In doing research, it appears that ten years is generally accepted as a reasonable period to allow owners to realize the return on their initial sign investment. Numerous courts in Florida and across the country have upheld a municipality’s ability to regulate non-conforming signs through the amortization process. The code changes enacted in 2002 created situations where a sign would need to be replaced, such as: abandonment, weather damage, alteration of more than 25% of materials (see Exhibit 1 for full list). Since 2002, the amount of non-conforming signs in Atlantic Beach has been reduced from 79 to 54. In that same time period, 19 new free standing signs have been constructed that meet the eight foot height limits and all other sign codes. Twelve of these signs are on Atlantic Boulevard and seven are on Mayport Road. As you can see on the map in Exhibit 2, the majority of the new conforming signs on Atlantic Boulevard are between Sailfish Drive and Aquatic Drive. Thirteen of fifteen signs between Seminole Drive and the Town Center are non-conforming (Exhibit 3). On the Neptune Beach side of Atlantic Boulevard, there are only five non-conforming signs between Seminole and the Town Center. Given property values in this area and market demand, asking businesses to come into compliance may not be as difficult as it will be on Mayport Road. There are currently 29 nonconforming signs in the Atlantic Beach portion of Mayport Road. Staff was not able to determine how many non-conforming signs there are in the city of Jacksonville portion ofMayport Road. Based on visual analysis of the corridor, it is clear that the amount is substantial. The City of Jacksonville’s sign amortization for Mayport Road is not scheduled to occur until 2018. Staff Recommendations: Staff has several recommendations. The first is to sync amortization up with both Neptune Beach and Jacksonville. Neptune Beach extended theirs until the fall of 2014, while Jacksonville’s will not occur until 2018. This proposal means keeping the scheduled 2015 amortization for Atlantic Blvd, while extending Mayport Road’s until 2018 to match Jacksonville’s portion of the corridor. If businesses on both corridors are required to come into compliance by January, 1st 2015, it will greatly exhaust staff resources and time. By staggering the amortization, staff can focus on Atlantic Boulevard and then use that experience to work with businesses on the Mayport Corridor to prepare for 2018. There is also no denying that right now there is a major difference in terms of aesthetics , rent prices, and property values between Atlantic Boulevard and Mayport Road. As the gateway to the beach and Town Center, the commission may decide to hold Atlantic Boulevard to a higher standard than Mayport Road. In looking at how other municipalities have handled sign amortization, it was found that the use of incentive programs has greatly eased the contentiousness of the process and speed their removal up. Staff would like to ask for money in next year’s budget to create an incentive program for owners of non- conforming signs on Atlantic Boulevard. This program could help offset the costs of removal/alteration. Generally 50/50 matches are the standard for these types of programs. Staff estimates that roughly 8 of the 25 non-conforming signs on Atlantic Boulevard can be reduced by cutting the sign pole, 2 can be corrected by minor alterations, and 8 through major alterations. The remaining seven would likely need total replacement. Extending the amortization to 2018 for Mayport, would also give staff time to try to create an incentive program for non-conforming signs there and to start working proactively with businesses. There is the possibility of using future CDBG funds for a sign removal program. Additionally, the city may explore the creation of a CRA along the Mayport Road corridor, which would be another mechanism to fund an incentive program. Given the current market conditions, and lack of a long term redevelopment plan, staff believes it is in the best interest of all parties to delay amortization to 2018 for Mayport Road. Staff would also like to use this opportunity to consider making changes to the sign code that relate specifically to amortization. One of those is to create specific standards that would allow non-conforming signs to be granted a waiver. Currently, the code states that a waiver can be sought, but does not have established criteria for when one should be granted. Another possible change is to require that non- conforming signs come into compliance when a substantial redevelopment happens on a property. Currently the code only requires a sign come into compliance if there are any changes to the sign itself, but does not require it when any other improvements occur on a property. If amortization is extended to 2018 along Mayport Road, this provision would ensure more businesses come into compliance with sign codes prior to the deadline. BUDGET: None. RECOMMENDATION: Request that staff draft an ordinance that amends the existing sign code to extend amortization to 2018 for Mayport Road, establishes specific standards for the granting of waivers, and requires non-conforming signs to come into compliance when substantial renovat ions occur on a property. ATTACHMENTS: Existing non-conforming sign code. Maps of current non-conforming signs and new conforming signs. REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: _____________________________________________________