Loading...
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: _____________________________________________________