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: _____________________________________________________