Loading...
2-17-15 - Minutes lr 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 1 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 2 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 10th 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 3of10 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8of10 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 months 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 9of10 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 Page 10 of 10