Loading...
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