3-17-15 - Minutes x
r
t
a
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
March 17, 2015
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL.
The meeting was called to order at 6:05 pm. Chair Paul verified that all
board members are present, with the exception of Mr. Stratton and Mrs.
Lanier. 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 February 17, 2015
Mr. Parkes motioned to approve the minutes of the February 17th
meeting. Mr. Hansen seconded the motion. The motion carried
unanimously.
3. OLD BUSINESS.
None.
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 Rd)
Staff Report
Mr. Hubsch introduced the item and reminded the board that the city
approved an SPA in the spring of 2014 for Beaches Habitat at 201
Mayport Road near the intersection of Mayport Road and Atlantic
Boulevard, which would feature up to 80 multi-family units. The
applicants, Beaches Habitat, are moving forward with the project and are
requesting plat approval for the development. Board members may be
familiar with the site as site prep work has been going on for some time.
Page 1 of 7
A site plan was shown comparing what was approved in the SPA and what
is to be platted. The only significant change is the removal of a couple of
buildings in the southwest corner of the development to accommodate a
stormwater facility. Initially they planned on utilizing the area under the
park for stormwater but issues arose that resulted in the plan change.
This change results in a net loss of residential units from 80 to 70.
This item is before the board for a recommendation of approval or denial
to the City Commission.
Mr. Elmore asked for clarification on why so much fill was added to the
site and expressed concerns about visual impacts. Staff responded that
the front doors will face Mayport Road so typical rear yard features such
as A/C units will be on the opposite side and that a 10 foot landscape
buffer will be provided along Mayport Road. This was ensured during the
SPA approval process to avoid negative impacts on Mayport Road.
Applicant Comment
Donna Rex, CEO of Beaches Habitat, responded to the concerns of Mr.
Elmore by stating that there will be walls to hide trash cans and A/C units.
The reason for the fill on property was because after the SPA was
approved, they learned that the information that they had been given
was incorrect and the site had to be reengineered. A short retaining wall
in addition to a fence and landscaping will be added along Mayport Road.
Public Comment
Mrs. Paul opened the floor to public comment. With no one wishing to
speak, public comment was closed.
Board Discussion
No further discussion occurred.
Motion
Mr. Parkes motioned to recommend approval of the replat of 201
Mayport Road to the City Commission. Mr. Hansen seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
5. REPORTS.
A. Tree Protection Code Revisions Discussion
Staff Report
Mr. Hubsch introduced the item and reminded the board of previous
discussions on the subject. It was explained that previously decided
recommendations by the board were presented to the City Commission
where they came to the following conclusions. The commission decided
to require a permit any time a protected tree is removed instead of the
Page 2 of 7
board's recommendation to tie removal to construction. Mrs. Simmons
asked if the commission's decisions were final. Mr. Hubsch responded
that this was an introduction and the code still needs to be presented
approved. Mr. Parkes expressed a concern of the cost of a permit if a
permit is required for the removal of any protected tree. Mr. Elmore
stated that he did not see the reason to require a permit for any tree
removal when the bulk of the issue is related to construction.
Mrs. Simmons asked if something could be done to address the removal
of trees that are invasive or cause harm to structures. Mr. Hubsch
responded that the code does allow for the removal of trees without
mitigation when they are causing damage or are an immediate threat. Mr.
Elmore asked if the code would clarify the invasive species list.
Mr. Hubsch continued with the commission decisions where they agreed
with the board to eliminate the interior and exterior zones while making
all trees six inches or more protected. The commission decided that it
would be best to charge market rate for Tree Fund mitigation and not do
the recommended $175 per inch.
Mr. Hubsch then began presenting the remaining items that the board
had not decided on at the previous meeting. The first possible code
change was as increase in the mitigation ratio from 1:2 to 1:1 for Live
Oaks and Coastal Oaks. The board was reminded that this was generally
agreed upon by the board at the previous meeting but needed further
detail on the exact species to be included. Mr. Parkes asked if it would be
possible to allow a bonus for doing plantings on site instead of paying into
the Tree Fund.
Mr. Hubsch then mentioned a possible plan brought up by Commissioner
Hill at a City Commission meeting where properties could be given credit
for planting trees on neighboring properties or properties within a certain
distance if they cannot plant on site. This could also include right-of-ways.
Mr. Elmore pointed out that Public Works may have issues with plantings
in the right-of-ways due to utilities and other issues. Mr. Elmore then
asked what happens if the receiving property wants to remove the tree
later. After further discussion it was decided that such a provision was too
cumbersome to administer over time.
Mr. Hubsch continued his presentation and discussed the desire of the
commission to do more to preserve native trees. Some thoughts in this
included creating a list of preferred native species for planting. Mr. Elmore
agreed that a list would be beneficial in encouraging a diversified canopy
as long as it didn't require like for like replacement but maybe groupings.
Mr. Hubsch then addressed the outstanding topic of palm tree
replacement and replacement credit from the previous meeting. A list of
Page 3 of 7
preferred species would be created and those species would count for
mitigation credit. Additionally, there is the possibility for palms to replace
other types of trees though this would need to be limited in some way to
prevent only palms used for the mitigation of removed shade trees. He
then presented a list of palm species that have been known to grow in
the area. The list included; Cabbage Palm, Canary Island Date Palm,
European Fan Palm, Pindo Palm, Mexican Fan Palm, Windmill Palm,
California Fan Palm, Chinese Fan Palm, Queen Palm and Sylvester Date
Palm. Mr. Elmore recommended removing the Queen Palm from the list.
Mr. Parkes recommended removing the smaller palms like the European
Fan Palm, Chinese Fan Palm.
The final provision Mr. Hubsch presented would be to have requirements
on arborists and tree removal companies. This would include a list of
requirements for letters from arborists when they give an opinion on a
project and requirements from tree removal companies with penalties in
place. Mrs. Simmons asked if it could be required that a tree removal
permit be posted on the site where the public could see it.
Public Comment
Mrs. Paul opened the floor to public comment.
Chris Jorgensen of 92 West 3rd Street, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 stated that
he is opposed to the ordinance changes because it puts unnecessary
burdens on residents.
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. He stated that he
liked the specific lists for Atlantic Beach and felt that the permit costs
should be reduced if a permit is required on all tree removal as the
commission requested. He continued by recommending that special trees
of a certain size should be protected and require a permit anytime similar
to Neptune Beach. He also recommended a registry where residents
could request a tree planting and Tree Fund money could be used to plant
those trees near the properties where the money came from.
With no additional speakers, public comment was closed by Mrs. Paul.
Board Discussion
Mr. Parkes declared that he received an email from Mr. November. The
other board members also received that email or a paper copy.
Staff Recommendation 1 (Oak Mitigation Rate)
Page 4 of 7
Mr. Hubsch stated that the board generally agreed to mitigate the
removal of oak trees at a rate of 1:1 at the prior meeting but needed to
lock down the scientific names. Mr. Elmore expressed some regret of
mitigating at 1:1 for all oaks when 1:2 or 1:3 is common. He continued to
say that he could see 1:1 for oaks over 30 inches. Mrs. Simmons asked
about other oaks to add to the list. Mr. Elmore recommended consulting
an outside expert to consult on a list of species that grow in the city. Mrs.
Simmons asked for a list of trees that in between Heritage Trees and
normal smaller trees. Mrs. Simmons asked staff to consult with outside
experts to establish a list species and sizes of trees that are grand but not
necessarily heritage trees and report back at the next meeting.
Staff Recommendation 2 (Palm Mitigation Credit)
Mr. Hubsch outlined the provision that would allow a select list of palms
to be used for credit in mitigation including the mitigation of shade trees.
Mrs. Paul stated that she would like to see palms given more credit
because they are sometimes the more logical solution. Mr. Elmore stated
that he would like to see the limit as high as 40 inches allowed to replace
shade trees. Mrs. Simmons stated that she did not like the idea of an inch
for inch replacement of palms for hardwoods. Mr. Hubsch asked if instead
of just 40 inches allowed for replacement a provision be added for a
percentage of mitigation.
Discussion turned to the list of approved palms that could be used for
mitigation credit. Mrs. Simmons expressed concern over the fact that
some species are not native and must be brought into the area. The list
was as follows with a consensus vote given for each species:
Cabbage Palm Approved
Canary Island Date Palm Approved
European Fan Palm Denied
Pindo Palm Approved
Mexican Fan Palm Approved
Windmill Palm Denied
California Fan Palm Denied
Chinese Fan Palm Denied
Queen Palm Denied
Sylvester Date Palm Approved
Page 5 of 7
Motion
Mr. Elmore motioned to approve the list of palm species, based on the
common name presented which is to be updated with the proper Latin
name, which can be used for mitigation credit. Mr. Parkes seconded the
motion. The motion carried 4-1 with Mrs. Simmons as the loan dissenter.
Motion
Mr. Elmore motioned to allow approved palms species to be used for the
mitigation of all trees up to 40 inches or 50 percent of total mitigation,
whichever is less. Mr. Parkes seconded the motion. The motion carried
unanimously.
General Discussion
Mrs. Simmons addressed some of the issues presented by Mr. November
on behalf of the Atlantic Beach Canopy group. After some discussion the
board decided to continue the position of not addressing boundary trees
as was suggested by the city attorney at a prior meeting. The board then
discussed the permitting process and ways to improve public knowledge.
It was decided that such conversations could be held later after any code
changes take effect since they were more administrative in nature.
Mrs. Simmons then asked why fruit trees had not been addressed in the
discussion up to this point. Mr. Elmore pointed out that most fruit trees
are not of significant size and are more of an understory tree and not
those regulated by the code.
B. Sign Code Revisions Discussion
Staff Report
Mr. Hubsch introduced the item and stated that a recommendation to the
City Commission is desired. In 2002, the city revised the sign code
reducing the height of freestanding signs to 8 feet. At the same time, sign
width was expanded to 12 feet. Existing signs were given 10 years to
come into conformance with these restrictions. This allows property
owners time to recoup their investment in their signs.
Subsequent revisions have moved the date to June 1, 2015. Attempts
were made to sync up with Neptune Beach and their similar code. It is
unclear what Neptune Beach is going to do. The City of Jacksonville has a
similar code for the Mayport corridor that is set to expire in 2018.
Since the initial code change in 2002, the number of nonconforming signs
has reduced from 79 to 54. The code provisions that require a
nonconforming sign to come into compliance were presented. Most of
the change is the result of new businesses.
Page 6 of 7
Staff recommends beginning enforcement on Atlantic Boulevard and
postponing Mayport Road until 2018 to sync up with the City of
Jacksonville. This would also assist staff with enforcement because of the
smaller work load and opportunity to develop a process. Staff also
recommends a grant program to assist property owners with costs.
Additionally, it may be beneficial to create a waiver process to allow
properties with unique circumstances to keep their sign. If it is desired to
extend the date for all signs, it would be helpful if an additional provision
were added that required nonconforming signs to be removed whenever
major changes are made to the property and not just the sign itself.
Board Discussion
Mrs. Simmons asked how the large signs with multiple tenants could be
effectively redesigned. Mr. Elmore stated that shopping centers typically
have a single sign for the overall shopping center and rely on storefront
signage for the smaller tenants.
Mr. Hansen asked about the effectiveness of monument signs over pole
signs and if the requirement would hurt businesses. Mr. Elmore
responded that with today's technology, signs are not a necessity. Mr.
Elmore then stated that he does not like see issues like these continue to
be put off and that action needs to occur in the whole city. Mr. Hansen
stated that he agrees but would like to see Mayport in line with
Jacksonville. Mr. Parkes agreed but felt both areas should be done at the
same time.
Motion
Mrs. Simmons motioned to recommend that enforcement of
nonconforming height sign regulations begin for Atlantic Boulevard on
June 1, 2015 and that the amortization period be extended for Mayport
Road to sync with the City of Jacksonville in November of 2018 to the City
Commission. Mrs. Paul seconded the motion. The motion carried
unanimously.
6. ADJOURNMENT.
Mrs. Paul motioned to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned
at 8:25 pm.
Brea Paul, Chair
Attest
Page 7 of 7