3-17-Full AgendaCITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Tuesday / March 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 February 17, 2015 regular meeting of the Community
Development Board.
3. Old Business.
4. New Business.
A. 15-SAFR-1006 (PUBLIC HEARING)
Request for plat approval as required by Chapter 24, Article 4 of the Code of
Ordinances at RE# 177649-0000 (aka 201 Mayport Road).
5. Reports
A. Tree Protection Code Revisions Discussion (Part 3)
B. 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 10
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
February 17, 2015
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL.
The meeting was called to order at 6:04 pm. Chair Brea Paul asked that
public comment be limited to 5 minutes each since there were a large
number of public comment cards submitted. Mrs. Paul verified that all
board members are present, with the exception of Sylvia 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 January 20, 2015
Mr. Elmore motioned to approve the minutes of the January 20th meeting.
Mr. Stratton seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
3. OLD BUSINESS.
None.
4. NEW BUSINESS.
None.
5. REPORTS.
A. Cloister Condominiums Opening of South Gate
Staff Report
Mr. Hubsch introduced the item and stated the City Commission is
seeking a recommendation on this item from the Community
Development Board. He stated that this item is specifically about whether
or not the Cloister Condominiums should be allowed to open a gate at
Page 2 of 10
the south end of the property and utilize for egress of vehicular traffic. A
brief history of the property was given including Commission minutes
that approved the development with acknowledgment that the south
gate would be closed and only used for emergency services and that any
changes would have to be approved by the Commission.
An aerial of the property was presented and the proposed traffic pattern
was demonstrated as compared to the current traffic pattern. There are
some concerns that those leaving the Cloisters might go the wrong way
down Beach Avenue and that a “DO NOT ENTER” sign may be necessary.
The Cloisters have offered to put in signage including “RIGHT TURN ONLY”
signs. The possibility of making Club Drive a one way street has also been
discussed and may be something to consider. Regardless of conditions,
traffic would be reduced on 10th Street but increased on Club Drive.
Chief Deal wrote a memo regarding this item that is included in the
agenda packet. He stated that he did not see a public safety issue with
the current traffic pattern or the proposed traffic pattern. He did offer the
possible option to allow for vehicles to exit through both gates.
The Public Works Director has also reviewed the proposed plan and does
not think the proposed plan would be a problem.
Applicant Comment
Alen Gleit of the 10 10th Street Unit 32, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 stated
that the residents of the Cloisters have discussed this issue for many years
and that recently they voted to open the south gate and spend the
money necessary to automate the gate. He stated that they are aware of
potential safety issues by placing more traffic on Club Drive but that
safety issues on 10th Street are so severe that utilizing Club Drive for
exiting the property makes more sense.
Public Comment
Mrs. Paul opened the floor to public comment.
T.J. Street of 848 Ocean Blvd, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 stated that the
impacts on the small portion of Plaza between Ocean Blvd and East Coast
Drive would be immense because of its narrowness. He also referenced
current and former Police Chiefs’ comments about a lack of positives and
hoped that the board recommends denial.
David Reed of 812 Ocean Blvd, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 stated history has
shown this gate should be closed and why challenge that especially when
considering the street widths and lack of pedestrian paths along effected
streets and also hopes the board recommends denial.
Page 3 of 10
Linda Torres Reed of 812 Ocean Blvd, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 stated Club
Drive does not have a sidewalk that 10th Street does have so the
pedestrian danger would be increased and felt the opening of the gate
should be denied.
David Shields of 130 Club Drive, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 stated that he
doesn’t understand the logic of going against history and moving one
perceived problem to another area and hopes the board recommends
denial.
Robert Hines of 880 Beach Ave, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 stated he bought
his house because he knew the gate couldn’t be opened without
Commission approval and though hoping for recommended denial asked,
that if this were approved, where would the needed signage be placed.
Lulee Rady of 150 Club Drive, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 stated that she has
seen when the gate was open and that the traffic on Club Drive was bad
then and would only be worse today and asked that the board
recommend denial.
Ellis T. “E.T.” Fernandez of 890 Beach Ave, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 stated
that he would like to see a traffic study regarding this issue and also has
concerns for pedestrians and would like to see this item denied.
Meade Copland of 10 10th Street, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 stated that she
is on the board of the Cloisters described the issues at 10 th Street and
asked that we all be good neighbors and consider providing some relief
from the issues at 10th Street by recommending approval.
Harry Ulrich of 151 Club Drive, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 stated he
believed that the staff report and Chief Deal’s memo were incomplete
and that the Board has provisions to help make a decision which should
be to recommend denial.
Brian Hughes of 171 Club Drive, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 stated that he
views this would have an impact on a greater number of properties and
that a traffic study would be helpful and can see some potential options
but thinks the proposed plans should be denied.
Butch Toney of 895 Beach Ave, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 presented a
photo from 1990 of the front of his property that included the south gate
of the Cloisters and stated that his driveway presents a major issue
because it is blind to the gate of the Cloisters and hopes this is denied.
With no additional speakers, public comment was closed by Mrs. Paul.
Page 4 of 10
Board Discussion
Mr. Hansen declared that he has ex-parte communications with Mr. Toney
and Mr. Ulrich related to this project.
Mrs. Lanier asked about the conditions of the north gate and if it was
possible to rework that area for better access. Mr. Hubsch showed that it
was a sliding gate about 16 feet long and that parking and structures limit
abilities to redesign the gate.
Mr. Hansen pointed to lack of decisiveness from the current and former
Police Chiefs so when looking at the issue independently he sees that
there could be problems with accessing Club Drive because of
northbound Beach Avenue and the blind driveways. He also looked to
history and doesn’t see what has changed to justify the change.
Mr. Parkes stated that he thinks the issue is at 10th Street and that the
Cloisters should do something to address that and not look to make Club
Drive and Plaza worse.
Mr. Elmore stated that having egress from both sides would be beneficial
because traffic would go the way that is easiest and that those heading
south would use the south and those heading west would use the north.
He also agrees that there is an issue at 10th Street that needs to be
resolved. He added that multiple access points is a good design and that a
study would be helpful.
Mr. Hansen again pointed to history and the unknown reason as to why
the south gate was closed but felt there must have been a good reason.
Mr. Parkes stated that Atlantic Beach was a very different place in 1973
and what was then may not be now. Mr. Parkes then stated that having
multiple exits makes sense but doesn’t think the burden should be put on
Club Drive and the surrounding neighborhood.
Mrs. Paul asked the board to consider how they would act if this were a
new development.
Motion
Mr. Hansen motioned to recommend denial of the opening of the south
gate at the Cloister Condominium to the City Commission. Mr. Stratton
seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
B. Tree Protection Code Revisions Discussion
Staff Report
Mr. Hubsch introduced the item and stated that because of a concern in
the community about the recent loss in the tree canopy that he had done
Page 5 of 10
some analysis and presented findings to the City Commission at a prior
meeting. Based on that presentation, the Commission expressed interest
in making some revisions to the code. After a couple of discussions with
the Community Development Board, staff has come back with some
recommendations.
The City contracted out a study of the tree canopy and that report is
included in the agenda packet. The study looked at aerial photos from
2003 and 2014. The study did show a reduction in tree canopy and an
increase in impervious surface. A portion of that is likely due to
redevelopment of double lots into two single family homes. Mr. Stratton
asked if the Country Club was included. Mr. Hubsch stated that it was not.
Mrs. Paul asked if storms could be attributed to some of the canopy loss.
Mr. Hubsch stated that it was likely but could say how much. Mr. Elmore
added that the red bay blight may have also played a role.
Mr. Hubsch presented the staff recommendations. Current code allows
for a tree to be removed if there is no construction within 6 months of
removal. Staff recommends requiring a Tree Removal Permit for the
removal of any tree. The exceptions would remain intact such as diseased
or dying trees. An example of was presented of a large oak tree removed
legally without a permit.
Mr. Hubsch presented a second recommendation to redefine what a
“Protected Tree” is. Current code utilizes an interior/exterior zone where
each has different measurements. Included in this is that trees up to 20
inches can be given credit for preservation and then removed later with
no punishment. The staff recommendation would be to eliminate the
exterior/interior zone aspect and make all trees over a certain size
protected. This size would be in the 6-12 inch range. This would result in
less preservation credit and would have to plant more.
A third recommendation was presented to increase the mitigation for the
removal of oak trees to one inch planted for each inch removed. Included
in this is a requirement that a certain amount must be planted on site.
Mr. Hubsch presented a fourth recommendation to allow mitigation
credit for palm trees east of East Coast Drive and Seminole Road north of
East Coast Drive. Current code only allows palms to replace palms. This
would allow palms to replace anything except oaks.
A fifth recommendation was presented to continue to allow staff to
charge market rate per inch. In the past the city has matched the City of
Jacksonville’s rate which was $49.00 per inch but recently changed to
$113.00 per inch.
Page 6 of 10
Other updates related to trees are that the city is seeking Tree City USA
designation. The City is also working with the same person that did the
tree canopy study for an urban forestry grant. The City Manager is looking
at doing a tree nursery at the Public Works yard to provide trees that
could be planted in parks and in right-of-ways throughout the city. Staff
will also be working on brochures to help citizens understand the tree
code after any changes are made. Staff is also exploring options to do
plantings along Mayport Road through public private partnerships due to
the lack of right-of-way.
Public Comment
Mrs. Paul opened the floor to public comment.
John November of 647 Beach Ave, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 stated that he
is the representative speaking on behalf of Atlantic Beach Canopy, a
citizen group presenting their own recommendations. 1. Remove the
construction timeline exemption. 2. Define boundary tree rules. 3.
Increase mitigation ratio to 2:1. 4. Reduce protected tree size. 5. Update
market rate for tree fund mitigation. 6. Increase mitigation ratio 3:1 for
specimen trees. 7. Protect large/old trees. 8. Remove the interior/exterior
portion of the code. 9. Hire an independent arborist to assist with permit
review. 10. “Citizen Tree Watch” that allows public reporting of tree
removal. 11. Increase recognition of Heritage Trees.
Mike Robinson of 638 Camp Milton Lane, Jacksonville, FL 32220 stated
that he is a retired arborist that came at the request of ABC. In his
experience that many places do place additional restrictions on large
trees. He also felt that defined species lists would be helpful.
Bob Liggero of 389 12th St, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 stated he felt that
ordinance needed to be strengthened for the good of the community.
Amy Palmer of 374 Plaza, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 stated that she
supports a stronger ordinance and that recent examples show loopholes
in the current code.
With no additional speakers, public comment was closed by Mrs. Paul.
Board Discussion
Mrs. Lanier declared ex-parte communication with John November. All
members of the board declared email communication with several
members with ABC.
Mr. Elmore thought that before addressing staff recommendations that a
freeform discussion would be beneficial. He first said that
undergrounding utilities would do a lot to protect trees in the front yards
of properties. He also agreed with Mr. Robinson on the need to define
Page 7 of 10
tree species because, as an example, not all oaks are the same and that
some may preferred while not creating a monoculture. He continued to
say that he has concerns about a Citizen Watch and boundary tree
provisions due to overreaching government. He added that he would like
to see more done in reference to palm trees and especially sabal palms
since they are native and provide a lot of character to the area.
Mr. Parkes stated that he agrees with Mr. Elmore’s remarks about
property rights and doesn’t want to infringe on that. He stated that he
believes the biggest issue is mitigation during construction. He also stated
that the tree plantings by the city in the past have been poor and could
be improved. Mr. Elmore stated that he has an issue with trying to force
on site planting that cannot survive.
Mrs. Lanier agreed with the comments so far but wanted to look at the
need to define those special large trees while balancing property rights.
After further discussion, Mrs. Lanier suggested going through staff
recommendations as starting point.
Discussion ensued related to staff’s recommendation to extend the time
period around construction in requiring a tree removal permit. Mrs. Paul
stated that six months is short and that 12 to 18 months should be the
minimum. Mr. Parkes stated it may be best to provide an on demand
permit where you basically notify the city of any tree to be removed
without a fee. Mr. Elmore stated that 18 months would be good.
Discussion ensued about the need for the construction requirement at all.
Mr. Stratton stated that tree removal shouldn’t have to be tied to
construction for requiring a permit. Mr. Parkes stated that he didn’t want
to force permission for every tree and that it is construction that causes
the most tree loss and extending the timeframe would help prevent
people from working around the current timeframe.
Due to lengthy discussion related to the first recommendation, it was
decided to move on and work through the list backwards.
Staff Recommendation 5 (Tree Fund Mitigation Rate)
Mr. Hubsch stated that general consensus seems to be ok with the
$113.00 that the City of Jacksonville charges and then asked if the board
would like to discuss going hire as had been mentioned. Mrs. Paul stated
that she would see a higher rate. Mr. Elmore said that $175.00 per inch
would add a punitive aspect to it. Mr. Parkes stated he could see $200.00
per inch. Mrs. Lanier stated that she would be ok with $175.00 or higher.
Page 8 of 10
Motion
Mr. Hansen motioned to make the mitigation rate payable to the tree
fund $175.00 per caliper inch. Mr. Elmore seconded the motion. The
motion carried unanimously.
Staff Recommendation 4 (Replacement Credit for Palms)
Mr. Elmore stated that he thinks this should focus on native species and
not exotic. Mr. Stratton clarified that this would not allow a live oak to be
replaced with a palm but other species could be replaced with a palm.
Mr. Hubsch asked if other palm species should be included other than
sabal palms since these would be trees that are encouraged to be
planted. Mr. Elmore stated that a list should be beneficial.
Mr. Stratton asked why the replacement of shade trees with palm trees
should be allowed when this whole discussion is to protect the tree
canopy. Mr. Elmore suggested that maybe it should require 3 palms
grouped together to equal a shade tree. Mr. Stratton asked if we should
wait to establish a list of palm species prior to making a motion. Mrs. Paul
asked staff to bring this item back with a list of species.
Staff Recommendation 3 (Definition of “Private Regulated Tree”)
Mrs. Paul clarified that this would remove the interior/exterior aspect of
the code and set one diameter definition of private regulated tree for the
whole lot. Mrs. Lanier asked if there is a scientific basis for establishing a
diameter. Mrs. Paul stated that there isn’t necessarily an industry
standard but that 6-8 inches is common.
Mr. Elmore stated that this would really have the most impact on
undeveloped lots since developed lots would already have a house in the
buildable area and there wouldn’t be many large diameter trees
remaining in the buildable area. Mr. Elmore felt that 6 inches is a good
diameter. Mr. Parkes agreed with this assessment but that he has some
concern that this would have a significant impact on a few properties and
could diminish their property value. Mrs. Paul stated that while this could
affect a few people more than others, that it would simplify the process
for staff and the public.
Motion
Mr. Elmore motioned to eliminate the interior/exterior zone aspect of the
code and have all trees 6 inches or more in diameter be defined as private
regulated trees. Mrs. Paul seconded the motion. The motion carried
unanimously.
Page 9 of 10
Mr. Elmore stated that something that needs to be looked at is the
conflict of tree preservation and stormwater retention requirements of
the city. When a tree can be preserved because its not in the footprint of
a new building it has to be removed to make stormwater swales. Mr.
Parkes agreed that this is a significant problem that the public may not
fully understand.
Staff Recommendation 2 (Increase Mitigation for Oaks)
Mrs. Paul asked if this would be just for live oaks. Mr. Parkes stated that
we may need to look at different species prior to a motion. Mr. Elmore
added that the coastal oak is a native species that could be included . Mrs.
Paul asked staff to bring this item back with a list of species.
Staff Recommendation 1 (Timeline for Tree Removal)
Mr. Stratton stated that based on the discussion earlier in the meeting it
seemed that full removal of the construction requirement for a tree
removal permit seemed unlikely, but that moving to 18 or 24 mo nths
seemed possible. Mr. Elmore expressed a concern about making the time
too long would make it hard for staff to track. Mr. Parkes suggested
requiring an on demand permit for all tree removal over 6 inches with no
fee. This would allow for easier tracking.
Motion
Mr. Stratton motioned to require a tree removal permit for the removal of
any tree within 24 months of construction with a value over $10,000 and
that the removal of all trees in excess of 6 inches in diameter require an
on demand tree removal permit. Mrs. Lanier seconded the motion. The
motion carried unanimously.
C. Sign Code Revisions Discussion
Motion
Mrs. Paul made a motion to table this discussion till next month’s
meeting. Mr. Stratton seconded the motion. The motion carried
unanimously.
Page 10 of 10
6. ADJOURNMENT.
Mrs. Paul motioned to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Stratton seconded the
motion. The motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at
9:28 pm.
_______________________________________
Brea Paul, Chair
_______________________________________
Attest
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM 4A
CASE NO 15-SAFR-1006
Request for Plat approval as required by Chapter 24, Article 4 of the Code of
Ordinances at RE# 177649-0000 (aka 201 Mayport Road and Oceangate).
LOCATION 201 MAYPORT ROAD
APPLICANT BEACHES HABITAT FOR HUMANITY
DATE MARCH 10, 2015
STAFF JEREMY HUBSCH, BUILDING AND ZONING DIRECTOR
STAFF COMMENTS
The 201 Mayport Special Planned Area (SPA) was approved by the City Commission in 2014. The site plan
and engineering of utilities have been reviewed and approved by the city. The developers are preparing to
begin construction on the residential component of the project. They are now seeking to plat the entire
project area which includes twenty residential buildings with 70 total units; as well as lots for a community
center, park and stormwater pond. The Plat Map submitted to the city matches the approved Special
Planned Area Master Development Plan Map with the exception of a loss of a few residential lots to
accommodate the stormwater pond, which is allowed by the SPA Text. The development will have ten units
fewer than the maximum that was allowed by the SPA Text.
Per Section 24-203(c) of the Land Development Regulations, “The Community Development Board shall
make a recommendation to the City Commission to approve the application, deny the application or
approve the application subject to the specific changes based on requirements of these land development
regulations, the comprehensive plan and other conditions which may be unique to the land encompassed
by the proposed plat.
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: _____________________________________________________