4-19-16-Agenda PacketCITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Tuesday / April 19, 2016 / 6:00 PM
Commission Chambers / 800 Seminole Road
1. Call to Order and Roll Call.
2. Approval of Minutes.
A. Draft minutes of the March 22, 2016 regular meeting of the Community Development
Board.
3. Old Business.
A. 16-ZVAR-33 (PUBLIC HEARING) (Chris Lambertson) WITHDRAWN
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to reduce the required eastern side
yard setback from 15 feet as required by Section 24-108(e)(3)(c) to 7.5 feet to allow a 3
unit townhouse building at Donner’s Subdivision part of Lot 15 (aka 125 Donner Road).
4. New Business.
A. 15-REZN-1065 (PUBLIC HEARING) (Selva Preserve)
Request for Special Planned Area (SPA) rezoning as permitted by Sections 24-116
through 24-126 to allow a maximum of 15 residential units. The property is currently
zoned Residential, Single Family (RS-1). The Future Land Use Designation is Residential
Low Density (RL).
5. Reports.
6. Adjournment.
All information related to the item(s) included in this agenda is available for review online at www.coab.us
and at the City of Atlantic Beach Building and Zoning Department, located at 800 Seminole Road, Atlantic
Beach, Florida 32233. 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. Please note that all meetings are live streamed
and videotaped. The video is available at www.coab.us.
If any person decides to appeal any decision made by the Community 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.
In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 286.26 of the Florida Statutes, persons
with disabilities needing special accommodations t o participate in this meeting should contact the City
not less than three (3) days prior to the date of this meeting at the address or phone number above.
Page 1 of 6
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
March 22, 2016
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL.
The meeting was called to order at 6:04 pm. Chair Paul verified that all
board members are present including both alternates. Also present were
Building and Zoning Director, Jeremy Hubsch; Planner, Derek Reeves and
representing the firm Lewis, Longman and Walker, Mrs. Brenna Durden.
Mrs. Paul welcomed the new City Attorney to her first meeting.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
A. Minutes of February 16, 2016
Mr. Elmore motioned to approve the minutes of the February 16th
meeting. Mr. Reichler seconded the motion. The motion carried
unanimously.
3. OLD BUSINESS. None.
4. NEW BUSINESS.
A. 16-ZVAR -45 (PUBLIC HEARING)
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to increase
the maximum distance for off-site parking from 400 feet as
required by Section 24-161(f)(2) to 1500 feet allowing for shared
parking agreements at Atlantic Beach Block 1 Lots 2, 4 and 6 (aka
303 Atlantic Boulevard).
Page 2 of 6
Staff Report
Mr. Hubsch introduced the item and explained that the end goal for the
applicant is to expand the restaurant structurally to accommodate 150
seats and provide full liquor service. The increase in the number of seats
requires an additional 13 parking spaces over what is provided today. The
site is already built out and does not have any additional space for more
parking. Rather than ask for a variance in the number of required spaces,
the applicant is looking to provide the additional parking through shared
parking agreements. However, since this property is located in the middle
of the Town Center and the Town Center is so popular, there are no sites
for shared parking agreements within 400 feet as required by code. The
applicant is therefore requesting to expand the distance allowed to up to
1500 feet to incorporate the lots he has contracted with.
Included in the applicants proposed plan is a valet service across the
street and two banks and two churches around the periphery of the Town
Center. The furthest lot is almost 1500 feet from the restaurant. The
closest lot actually provides the full number of spaces 24/7 while the
other lots do have some time restrictions. The proposed agreement is
with the Beaches Town Center Agency which also plans to provide shuttle
service to these lots at peak hours. Mr. Stratton asked if the
measurements to the lots were straight line or walking distance. Mr.
Hubsch stated that they are straight line which is a common method of
measurement in other parts of the code.
Mr. Elmore asked how the city has jurisdiction to grant parking
agreements outside city limits. Mrs. Durden stated that the shared
parking agreements are a private contract and that it important for the
city to recognized a signed contract and that it is up to property owners to
ensure that they are following all rules. Discussion ensued about who has
oversight over the agreement. Staff pointed out that the Beaches Town
Center Agency is the lessor on the proposed agreement which covers
both cities.
Mr. Stratton asked if there would be signage at the restaurant directing
people to the lots. Mr. Hubsch deferred to the applicant.
Applicant Comment
Al Mansur, 303 Atlantic Boulevard, Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233,
introduced himself as the owner of the business and also introduced Jay
Handline with the Beaches Town Center Agency. Mr. Mansur stated that
there will be a shuttle to the lots and deferred technical questions to Mr.
Handline. Mr. Mansur told the board that he also owns the Flying Iguana
restaurant across the street that uses the same valet service and that the
Page 3 of 6
valet is about to open up access to a new lot that will improve parking. He
also added that the shuttle service is also for employees as part of an
effort to get them to park on the outsides and free up parking.
Mr. Stratton asked how customers from other businesses would be
prohibited from parking at the designated lots. Mr. Handline stated that
they are shared lots but that they have other lots that they could open up
to if necessary. Mrs. Lanier stated that it seems that what is being
proposed is overkill compared the 13 spaces that are needed. Mrs.
Simmons asked for clarity on who holds the contracts and how signage
worked. Mr. Handline stated that when a property is time restricted that
there are signs up at the lot. Mrs. Lanier asked if Neptune Beach had a
reduction in parking requirements. Mr. Hubsch stated that they did have a
50 percent reduction, but that had been a topic of discussion lately.
Public Comment
Mrs. Paul opened the floor to public comment.
With no speakers, public comment was closed by Mrs. Paul.
Board Discussion
Mr. Elmore stated that this is an example of an outdated zoning code that
doesn’t address the current conditions where a lot of people bike and
walk to the Town Center which reduces the need for parking and as a
result is in favor of the variance. Mr. Stratton agreed. Mr. Parkes stated
that he also agrees and that if the restaurant is behind in then he sees no
problem because that is who would be hurt the most. Mr. Parkes added
that people walk much further than what is proposed at the St John’s
Town Center.
Mr. Elmore stated that he could see a reason for approval would be the
onerous effect of regulations since the Town Center was developed so
long ago and that an overlay shared by both jurisdictions could help these
issues. Mr. Handline said the overlay is a goal of the Beaches Town Center
Agency.
Motion
Mr. Parkes made a motion to approve the variance finding that
surrounding conditions or circumstances impacting the property
disparately from nearby properties, and that there are exceptional
circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as
compared to other properties in the area. Mr. Elmore seconded the
motion. The motion carried unanimously.
Page 4 of 6
Mrs. Simmons asked how item 4.C was being handled since it was
deferred by the applicant. Mrs. Durden recommended opening the public
hearing and public comment since it was advertised and allow anyone
here to speak and then to continue the item to a certain date.
B. 16-UBEX-41 (PUBLIC HEARING)
Request for a use-by-exception as permitted by Section 3-5, to
allow on-premises consumption of alcoholic beverages at a
restaurant within the Central Business District at 303 Atlantic
Boulevard.
Staff Report
Mr. Hubsch presented the item and explained that this is a use-by-
exception for Al’s Pizza to be able to sell liquor at their restaurant. The
previous item was just a variance to address the added parking needed as
part of the expansion and that the liquor sales require a separate
approval. The property is located within the Central Business District and
that they plan to expand to 150 seats and add full liquor sales. The code
requires liquor sales to be approved by the city. He then reminded them
that the code already has several provisions to ensure safety related to
alcohol sales.
Mr. Hubsch stated that this property is surrounded by other restaurants
with full liquor sales in both Atlantic Beach and Neptune Beach across the
street from this property. The nearest residential is approximately 130
feet to the north. He then added the building renovation and addition will
have to meet all city codes and be permitted and that parking was
addressed by the previous item. He then reminded the board that they
will be making a recommendation to the City Commission for the liquor
sales.
Mrs. Lanier stated that the board had basically approved this by
approving the previous item. Mr. Hubsch stated that it is a bit of a chicken
or the egg issue, but that both items must be done separately.
Applicant Comment
The applicant had no additional comments.
Public Comment
Mrs. Paul opened the floor to public comment.
With no speakers, public comment was closed by Mrs. Paul.
Page 5 of 6
Board Discussion
Mr. Patrick stated this is somewhat of a formality as the reasoning for the
expansion on the property and added use of liquor sales was discussed
under the previous item.
Motion
Mr. Patrick made a motion to recommend approval of the use-by-
exception to City Commission. Mrs. Simmons seconded the motion. The
motion carried unanimously.
C. 16-ZVAR -33 (PUBLIC HEARING)
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to reduce
the required eastern side yard setback form 15 feet as required
by Section 24-108(e)(3)(c) to 7.5 feet to allow a 3 unit townhouse
building at Donner’s Subdivision part of Lot 15 (aka 125 Donner
Road).
Mrs. Paul announced that the item had been deferred by the applicant
prior to the meeting, but since the item had been noticed that public
comment would be opened.
Public Comment
Mrs. Paul opened the floor to public comment.
Joyce Freeman, 334 Skate Road, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 stated that she
was the owner of the property to the east of this property and had some
concerns about what was being proposed. Mr. Hubsch stated that he
would speak with Mrs. Freeman after the meeting to answer her
concerns before the item comes back to the next meeting.
Mr. Reichler asked if he understood the situation correctly that this item
may not come back to the board. Mr. Hubsch stated that is true and that
the applicant is working with the City Attorney on a legal interpretation
that may result in a variance not being needed.
Chris Lambertson, 355 11th Street, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 stated that he
is the property owner of this item. Discussion ensued about the steps
going forward if the item is withdrawn. Mr. Lambertson then briefly
described what his plan was for the property.
With no additional speakers, Mrs. Paul stated that this item will be
continued at the April 19th meeting.
Page 6 of 6
5. REPORTS.
Mr. Hubsch announced that there would be an SPA rezoning item for the
Selva Preserve property coming before the board at the next meeting on
April 19th. This is a property to the south of the driving range of the
Country Club where they are proposing single family home development.
Staff is anticipating a lot of public comment. He reminded the board that
if they have any questions leading up to that meeting that they can talk
with staff. A brief discussion ensued about the documents that would be
provided.
6. ADJOURNMENT.
Mrs. Lanier motioned to adjourn the meeting. Mrs. Simmons seconded
the motion. The motion carried unanimously and the meeting was
adjourned at 7:07 pm.
_______________________________________
Brea Paul, Chair
_______________________________________
Attest
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM 4.B
CASE NO 16-REZN-1065
Request for Special Planned Area (SPA) rezoning as permitted by Sections 24-116
through 24-126 to allow a maximum of 15 residential units. The property is currently
zoned Residential, Single Family (RS-). The Future Land Use Designation is Residential
Low Density (RL).
LOCATION 11th Street and Linkside Drive
APPLICANT ROBERT HENDRICKS (SELVA PRESERVE LLC)
DATE APRIL 8, 2016
STAFF JEREMY HUBSCH, BUILDING AND ZONING DIRECTOR
STAFF COMMENTS
Background
The Selva Preserve property has a fairly complex recent history. It is 7.2 acres and has been designated
Residential Low Density (RL) on the City’s Future Land Use Map since 1990. In 2003, it was administratively
rezoned from Open Rural (OR) to Conservation (CON) when the City eliminated the Open Rural Zoning District
and converted all Open Rural zoned properties to Conservation. In May of 2008, it was rezoned from
Conservation to Residential, Single Family (RS-1) for the development of up to 16 single family homes. Then in
September of 2009, the property was combined with another formerly approved development (Selva Marina
Country Club PUD) through a joint venture to create a newly designed 114 unit development (See Exhibit 1).
That project was never constructed. Then in 2013, a new development team came forward to develop the Selva
Marina Country Club parcel. The Selva Preserve parcel was not included in that project and the owners of Selva
Preserve subsequently had the property rezoned back to Residential, Single Family (RS-1). (See exhibit 2)
That brings us to the present day, where the owners of Selva Preserve would like to develop a project that is
similar to the 16 unit development that was proposed in 2008. It is important to note that in 2008 the site was
simply rezoned from Conservation to RS-1. In order to construct that project, the property owners would have
had to first plat their property and then submit site development plans to the city. Those plans would have had
to meet all city code standards to move forward. Additionally, the project would have been required to meet
three conditions that were placed on the approval of the rezoning (See Exhibit 3). Those conditions are as
follows:
1). Stormwater management and site engineering plans for development pursuant to this
rezoning shall demonstrate that hydrologic functions of this site shall be enhanced.
2). In order to maintain wildlife habitat and to protect and enhance jurisdictional wetlands and their
functions, the areas of undisturbed natural buffer, substantially represented as Conservation Areas on the
Applicant's conceptual Site Plan, which is part of the application for rezoning, shall remain in a natural state,
Page 2 of 10
except for such activity as may be required to enhance, restore or create wetlands in accordance with
permitting and regulatory review by DEP, the USCOE and the SJRWMD, or to remove fallen trees and debris
in the process of restoring wetland, hydrologic and drainage functions. Any such activity shall be subject to
approval by the City's Director of Public Works. Such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld if the DEP,
USCOE and SJRWMD have authorized by permit, such work authorized above. A legally binding instrument,
with final boundaries established by the above regulatory agencies, and as substantially represented
as Conservation Areas in terms of depth and area on the Applicant's conceptual Site Plan shall be recorded
45 days prior to the commencement of any alteration or work in the Conservation Areas to ensure that
these areas remain undeveloped and in a natural state. The explicit intent of this Condition is that these
Conservation Areas shall remain in a natural wooded state and not later converted to landscaped lawns
Alteration of this area shall be limited only to that required as part of the wetland and stormwater
permitting process as well as the clearing of under-story vegetation that is less than four(4) feet in height,
fallen vegetative debris and dead trees, or trees that have been arborist certified to be dying or a danger to
property or persons. The Conservation Areas shall otherwise remain in their natural state in perpetuity,
pursuant to approved permits and easements of the SJRWMD and the recorded Final Subdivision Plat.
3). The above referenced Conservation Areas, along with any twenty-five (25) foot natural vegetative
upland buffer as required by Policy A.1.2.1 of the Comprehensive Plan shall be delineated and depicted
on the Final Subdivision Plat, which shall be approved and recorded in accordance with Section 24-206
of the Land Development Regulations prior to submittal of Construction Plans for any Subdivision
Improvements.
Current Proposal
In 2015 the property owners came to the City with a project proposal similar to what they had considered in
2008. Staff informed the applicants that the project as proposed would not be able to meet all codes, and
therefore could only be approved through the Special Planned Area District (SPA) process. The SPA district was
created in 2010 as a replacement for the City’s Planned Unit Development (PUD). Previously Planned Unit
Developments were only used for sites 10 acres or larger. The City’s current code has no minimum size for SPA’s
and they can be requested at either the City or property owner’s discretion per section 24-118. Chapter 24-116
describes SPA’s as, “The purpose of the special planned area district is to create a mechanism to establish a plan
of development or redevelopment for a site where the property owner and the community's interests cannot be
best served by the provisions of the conventional zoning districts, and where assurances and commitments are
necessary to protect the interests of both the property owner and the public, and also the unique qualities of
the City of Atlantic Beach which are expressed throughout this chapter and the comprehensive plan.”
Environmental Concerns
The current site is 7.2 acres, 3.64 of which acres are wetlands. The applicants are proposing to fill 1.74 acres of
wetlands on site and preserve the remaining 1.9 acres. When the applicants sought to rezone the property in
2008, an environmental assessment was completed. The City hired an environmental consultant, Steve Swann
with Applied Technology and Management (ATM) to conduct an independent analysis. In her 2008 staff report
(exhibit 4) to the CDB, then Community Development Director Sonya Doerr summarized the environmental
assessments stating, “Both reviews reached substantively the same findings, summarized as follows. The
canal along the east side of the site was created as a drainage canal, excavated in various stages from the
1940s through the 1960s prior to current environmental regulations. These canals were typically dug with a
drag-line or a backhoe. The excavated material was disposed of along the sides of the canal, resulting in
elevated berms along the edges of the canal. While such canals were effective at preventing flooding and
moving stormwater, the canals and berms altered the natural hydrology of the wetland systems. Fallen trees
and vegetative debris also naturally accumulated to impede drainage and degrade wetland functions.
The reports indicate that these significant alterations to natural systems have, over time, resulted in
Page 3 of 10
severe soil subsidence; have significantly drained wetland areas; and that the area is undergoing
transition from wetlands to uplands as indicated by the dominance of upland vegetative communities and soils
found on the site. The remaining wetland areas on the site are of a low quality, and not connected to other
offsite wetland systems, in part due to the impacts of surrounding development, which have interrupted
connections to other wetlands and surface water areas. ATM notes that, if designed properly, development of
the site may provide opportunities to enhance remaining wetland areas and improve hydrologic
functions.
The Applicant also provided a review for habitat and wildlife species, and reported that while there are
numerous species as would be expected on a 7-acre heavily-wooded coastal site, including raccoons,
opossum, armadillo, fox, turtles and a variety of birds, no species listed by the state or any federal agency as
threatened or endangered were observed.”
The City has once again contracted with Mr. Swann to conduct an independent environmenta l analysis of
the project (see Exhibit 5). Mr. Swann states in his analysis that he believes the conclusions of his 2008
report to still be valid. There is however, one significant change regarding the environmental aspect of the
project. In 2010, the City created Sections 24-270 through 24-272 (Protection of Wetland, Marsh, and
Waterway Resources) in the Land Development Regulations. The City was also going through an update of
the Comprehensive Plan at the time and subsequently added sections in the Comprehensive Plan to sync
up with Sections 24-270 and 24-272. According to minutes from a December 2009 CDB meeting, Sonya
Doerr stated that this was created to “address issues of the newly acquired conservation lands adjacent to
the Intercoastal Waterway.” In 2009, the City had acquired approximately 350 acres of marshland, which
was done primarily through a substantial donation.
This newly created section of the code contains strong language regarding the goal of protecting wetlands
on private property. Sec tion 24-270 states, “It is the express intent of the city that no net loss of
jurisdictional wetlands occur through any development action within the city. Any impacted wetlands on a
development site shall be replaced elsewhere on the same site or elsewhere within the City of Atlantic Beach
where replacement onsite is not possible to achieve reasonable use of the property. Where jurisdictional
wetlands have been damaged or degraded over time through previous development, storm events, improper
drainage runoff or other adverse activities, but where wetland vegetation and habitat still are predominant in
quantity on a proposed development site, all plans submitted for review or permitting shall demonstrate a
plan for mitigation, restoration, replacement, enhancement or recovery of jurisdictional wetlands in the
amount to be displaced by the proposed development.
The applicants are proposing to mitigate for the loss of the 1.74 acres on -site (as well as a .07 acre sliver
of wetlands immediately adjacent to the project) at the Greens Creek Mitigation Bank. This bank is
located between Green Cove Springs and Keystone Heights. This was done to satisfy the St. Johns Water
Management District and Army Corps of Engineers. However, the City still has the ability to en force its
own regulations regarding wetlands. In his report, Mr. Swann states, “The intent of the City that there be
no net loss of wetlands within the city is not met by the Selva Preserve development as proposed. However,
the City may still choose to enforce this local “no net loss” requirement, it will just not be related to the
mitigation required by the agencies. An option to consider is to require the developer to restore and enhance
the remaining poor quality jurisdictional wetlands onsite. Improvement of these remaining jurisdictional
wetlands would be beneficial with respect to providing ecological uplift and improved wetland habitat within
the City.”
As an alternative to the strict letter of the code, the applicants have submitted a “Tree Reforestation Plan”
(exhibit 6). The applicants have also submitted a “Tree Survey” (exhibit 7), which states that 95% of the trees
on site are “less desirable species”. The survey also claims that 76% of trees surveyed are “possible” to fail. It
should be noted that the tree survey was conducted by evaluating trees in small sectors throughout the site.
Page 4 of 10
This is essentially a random sample type of methodology. This sampling method led to the analysis of 64 trees
on site, which is considerably less than the total site.
The Tree Reforestation Plan proposes to plant 181 trees on site, consisting of species such as: Black Gum, Cypress,
Sweetbay Magnolia, Dahoun Holly, and Myrtle Leaf Holly. The plan states that the new trees will be a mix of 3, 7,
and 15 gallon sized trees at planting. A 15 gallon tree is generally around 1 inch caliper at planting. However, Section
23-33 (f) (1) (b) states that new trees shall be 2 inch caliper at planting for mitigation credit. The applicants will need
a much more robust reforestation plan in order to mitigate for trees that will be removed for this project.
Project Description
The applicants are proposing a maximum 15 lot single family gated subdivision on a private road. The entrance
will be off 11th Street between Sherman’s Creek and Linkside Drive. The private road will parallel Linkside Drive
going north. Lots will be oriented in a west to east configuration where the front yard will be located on the
private road and the rear yard will be towards Sherman’s Creek. The south and west sides of the development
will be fenced with a 6 foot fence and gates at the entrance. The east side of the development will be wetland
preservation area along Sherman’s Creek. Between the preservation area and the developable area of the lots
will be a berm/swale. Accessory structures and pools will be allowed.
Compatibility
Below is a table of the Future Land Use and Zoning of adjacent parcels:
Direction Future Land Use Category Zoning District
East Residential Low Residential Single Family, Large Lot (RS-L)
West Residential Low PUD
North Residential Low PUD
South Residential Low PUD
Development Standards
The table below outlines the development standards proposed by the applicants.
Lot and Building Requirements
Maximum Allowed Density Per Land Use 6 Units Per Acre
Proposed Density 2.81 Units Per Acre
Maximum Number of Units 15
Maximum Lot Coverage by Parcel 50 %
Minimum Lot Depth
Minimum Lot Width
100 Feet
60 Feet
Setbacks:
Front
Rear
Side
20 Feet
10 Feet
5 Feet
Maximum Building Height 35 Feet
Minimum Building Separation 10 Feet
Accessory Structure Setbacks
Rear
Side
5 Feet
5 Feet
Swimming Pool Setbacks
Rear
Side
5 Feet or 10 Feet from Top of Treatment Swale
5 Feet
Projections Into Required Yards
Front
Rear and Side
3 Feet
2 Feet, 1 Foot for Chimneys
Page 5 of 10
In addition to the above standards, the applicants are proposing to follow City codes for entry signage,
landscaping and tree removal.
Comprehensive Plan
Per Section 24-62.c.2, the Community Development Board shall “Indicate the relationship of the proposed
rezoning to the comprehensive plan for the city and provide a finding that the requested change in zoning is
consistent with the comprehensive plan.” Below are a few goals, objectives, and policies of the comprehensive
plan that are relevant to this project. Consistency with the comprehensive plan is one of the findings of fact
necessary for approval of the SPA.
Goal A.1
The City shall manage grow th and redevelopment in a manner, which results in a pattern of land uses that: 1)
encourages, creates and maintains a healthy and aesthetically pleasing built environment, 2) avoids
blighting influences, 3) preserves and enhances coastal, environmental, natural, historic and cultural
resources, 4) maintains the City’s distinct residential community character, 5) provides for reasonable public
safety and security from hazardous conditions associated with coastal locations, 6) that provides public
services and facilities in a timely and cost effective manner, and 7) that encourages energy efficiency and
the use of renewable energy resources.
Objecti ve A.1.1 Environmental Resources
Land development activities and project review procedures shall include requirements intended to protect
natural environmental features and improve the physical characteristics of the City so as to ensure the
conservation and protection of Environmentally Sensitive Areas, as defined by Policy D.3.2.8 of the Coastal
Conservation Element and any other natural resources including wetlands, wildlife habitats, estuarine systems,
and surface and groundw ater resources.
Policy A.1.1.1
Land Development within the City shall be permitted only where such development is compatible with
environmental limitations of the site and only when submitted plans demonstrate appropriate recognition of
topography, soil conditions, flooding conditions, trees, vegetation and other Environmentally Sensitive Areas,
including wetlands and coastal resources, and habitat protection of rare, endangered or threatened species
and areas of unique natural beauty.
Objecti ve A.1.2 Wetlands, Environmentally Sensitive Areas and Estuarine Environments
The City shall protect, conserve and enhance the natural functions of existing wetlands, marsh and estuarine
systems , and other Environmentally Sensitive Areas in order to maintain the quality and function of natural
systems and w ildlife habitats.
Policy A.1.2.1
The City shall protect natural wetlands and other Environmentally Sensitive Areas, as may be
identified by Map A-2 and Map A-4 of the Future Land Use Map Series or as may be identified by other
accepted environmental survey methodologies, and their functions from the adverse impacts of development
by maintaining the following required upland buffers between wetlands and adjacent development as set forth
herein and as also implemented through the Land Development Regulations.
(a) After the effective date of this plan amendment, a minimum natural vegetative upland buffer of fifty
(50) feet shall be required and maintained between developed areas and the intercoastal waterway (ICW)
regardless of any other regulatory agency requirement of a lesser distance. This requirement shall also apply to
the portions of tributaries, streams, or other water bodies connected to the Intracoastal Waterway. Such
portions of the ICW and these tributaries, streams, or other water bodies subject to this buffer requirement
Page 6 of 10
shall be established by the presence of a Mean High W ater Line of the adjacent tributary, stream or other water
body as established in accordance with Chapter 177.26, Florida Statutes, and such Mean High W ater Line shall
be depicted on all Site Plans, proposed development plans, and other documents submitted for review and
permitting. The fifty (50) foot upland buffer shall be measured from the St. Johns River W ater Management
District or Florida Department of Environmental Protection Wetland jurisdictional line.
In the case of other natural wetland areas, which may not be directly connected to Intracoastal related
streams or waterways as described above, but are part of the coastal marsh and estuarine system, a natural
vegetative upland buffer of twenty-five (25) feet shall be required and maintained between development and
adjacent wetlands. W here required, such buffer shall be measured from the jurisdictional wetland line as
established by the appropriate regulatory agency.
(d) W here remaining natural wetlands have been damaged or degraded over time through previous
development, storm events, improper drainage runoff or other adverse activities, but where wetland vegetation
and habitat still are predominant in quantity on a proposed development site, all plans submitted for review or
permitting shall demonstrate a plan for mitigation, restoration, enhancement or recovery of jurisdictional
wetlands. It is the express intent of the City that no net loss of jurisdictional wetlands occur through any
development action within the City. Any impacted wetlands on a development site shall be replaced elsewhere
on the same site or elsewhere within the City of Atlantic Beach. The City shall incorporate appropriation
provisions within the Land Development Regulations to further implement this policy.
Policy A.1.2.3
The City shall require that, as a condition of development approval, new construction projects provide
effective stormwater management, which avoids the contamination of Environmentally Sensitive Areas,
wetlands, marsh and estuarine environments in accordance with applicable water quality standards of the St.
Johns River Water Management District, the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES)
permit and Stormwater Management Plan and the Land Development Regulations, as may be amended.
Policy A.1.2.5
New development shall be subject to the stormwater regulations as set forth within the Land Development
Regulations, and post development conditions shall not discharge any increased level of stormwater run-off
into the City’s stormwater system.
Policy A.1.2.6 The City shall enforce all applicable wetland regulations, including those as set forth within
the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of this Plan, and shall continue to develop and
implement comprehensive strategies to provide for the effective protection of wetlands, marsh and estuarine
systems, and other Environmentally Sensitive Areas within and adjacent to the City.
Objecti ve A.1.3 Maintaining Residential Character
The City shall encourage future development and redevelopment, which 1) retains the exceptionally high
quality of life and the predominantly residential character of the City of Atlantic Beach, 2) provides for the
preservation and protection of the dense tree canopy, and 3) which provides for varied and diverse
recreational opportunities, including the preservation, acquisition and development of public access to the
beach, Intracoastal Waterway and other water-related resources, and which provides for and maintains energy
efficient land use patterns.
Objective A.1.5-Sound Development Patterns
The City shall maintain development patterns which 1) prevent blighting influences 2) foster diverse and stable
neighborhoods…4) provide proper locations for…energy efficient land use patterns, and 5) encourage healthy
and aesthetically pleasing living conditions.
Page 7 of 10
Policy A.1.5.5
Flexible regulatory methods shall be utilized to provide incentives for achieving environmental enhancement,
economical land development and energy efficient patters of land use that provide for an appropriate mix of
uses within the City.
Policy 1.5.8
The City shall permit residential development only in compliance with the residential density limitations as set
forth within the Land Development Regulations, and as designated on the Future Land Use Map in accordance
with the following table.
Objective A.1.6
The City shall preserve the sound structural condition and the diverse character of the built environment of the
City and shall encourage development programs and activities that are directed at infill development as well as
the conservation, redevelopment and re-use of existing structures and the preservation of and re-investment
in older neighborhoods.
Objective A.1.10
The City shall continue to maintain a development character which is compact in form, orderly in its land use
patter, and diversified in its makeup so as to ensure employment opportunities, affordable housing, a pleasant
living environment, and cost effective and energy efficient public services.
Objective A.1.11
The City shall provide for land use, development and redevelopment in an efficient manner, which supports the
land use designations as set forth within the 2010-2020 Future Land Use Map; which enforces the residential
densities and the limitations upon the type and intensity of uses, and which results in development appropriate
to the sensitive coastal location of the City, particularly with respect to the predominantly residential character
and small-town scale of the City.
Policy A.1.14.1
The City shall continue to maintain an energy efficient land use pattern and shall continue to promote the use of
transit and alternative methods of transportation that decrease reliance on the automobile.
Policy A.1.14.2
The City shall continue to encourage and develop the “walk-ability and bike-ability” of the City as a means to
promote the physical health of the City’s residents
Waivers
The applicants have submitted a project to the City that does not comply with several sections of the City’s
codes. As such, they are required to request a waiver for each specific code provision they are not able to meet.
These waivers can be approved or denied individually by the City Commission through the SPA zoning process.
Section 24-121 states, “The special planned area district should not be construed as a mechanism to diminish
the requirements set forth elsewhere within this chapter or other chapters of the City Code. Waivers to existing
development standards shall be approved by the city commission and only upon demonstration that an
alternative standard will provide a better development outcome with respect to the quality of design and
development form.”
The applicants are specifically requesting 7 waivers in their SPA Narrative. There is also one waiver the
applicants contend is not a waiver, that staff disagrees with (see waiver #8). Below are waivers requested by the
applicants and their justification for each waiver. The City’s Public Works Department is recommending denial
of waivers #4 and # 7. The Planning Department is recommending denial of waiver #8 for the reason that the
applicants have not sufficiently demonstrated a plan to mitigate, restore, or replace onsite wetlands.
Page 8 of 10
1. Per secti on 24-105, (d), (2), mini mum lot width, the RS-l zoning category calls for 75' wide lots. We
are requesting 60' wide lots, which is consistent with the surround ing developments, land use and zoning
2. Per section 24-105, (e), (2), minimum yard requirements, the secti on calls for 20' rear setback. We are
requesting 10' rear set back from the top of the swale of the proposed water treatment and disposa l,
berm and swale system in order to allow full utilization of the upland area and still maintain the
extensi ve rear preserve area, which in most cases exceed the 20' setback requirement. Publ ic Works
supports this request.
3. Per section 24-105, (e), (3), m in imum yard requirements, the sect ion calls for 7.5' side set back. We are
requesting 5 ' side set back.
4. Per secti on 24-252 (c), (I), concern ing having two separate access points when the development has
10 or more lots. Th i s project consists of a maximum of 15 lots wi thin a gated community. We
are asking that th i s requirement be waived in its entirety. The road with primary access at L 1 th Street
provides access to all homes with in the development with a cui de sac at the north for turnaround access
for emergency vehicles. The addition of a secondary access at the road stub off of Linkside Dri ve may
pose privacy and reduction i n vegetative buffers to h omes in Sel va Linksi de, without a significant
increase in safety and emergency access to Selva Preserve. Applicant seeks a waiver to bal ance the
need s of all residents concerned.
5. Per section 24-272 (c), (1), concerning a 50 ' wide buffer al ong water bodies. Only 4 lots at the southern
part of the property do not exceed this 50' buffer. The remaining l ots will have repl anted or preserved
areas between l ot and canal that exceed the 50' distance. 24-272 (d) (I) provides an exemption from this
requirement and states: "Man-made canals and stormwater facilities are n ot considered wetlands,
although in som e cases, man-made navigable canals connected to waters of the state are protected under
these provisions or by regulations of state or federal age ncies. Man-made canals and ponds clearly
excavated in uplands are n ot considered wetland s and are exempt from the wetland buffer
regulatio ns:' Sherman Creek Canal was a manmade excavated drainage canal to the intra-coastal
waterway compl eted in the early 1960's as evidenced by the historical photos prov ided with thi s
application. Waiver of this requirement for the 4 l ots affected clearly meet th is exemption.
6. Per section 24-272 (c), (2), concerning a 25' upl and buffer, the district has issued a permit taking into
account the fact that there is no 25' upland buffer. However, t here is a berm and swale system between
the house pad and the rear lot li n e to intercept sto rm runoff for treatment and disposal before
impacting the wetlands. Under SJR WMD rules, buffers cannot be provided or located adjacent to
proposed wetland i mpacts. Buffers are to protect presumed secondary impacts to the wetlands and
since the direct impacts are adjacent to the wetland, wetland buffers cannot not be provi ded. The
berm and swale system proposed i s in l i eu of the 25' upland buffer and authorized under section 24-
272(d)(4) which states: "Waivers from the requirement to provide and mainta in an upland buffer may
be requested in accordance with subsection 24-46(d) of this chapter, and where s uch waiver is
approved , a benn or swa le to retain and filter stormwater runoff from the l ot shall be created."
Applica n t has complied with such waiver requirements.
7. LDR Section 24-221 (b) requires a 4 ' sidewalk along the road. Since thi s i s a gated community of 12
proposed lots (to a maximu m of 15), with a potential link to a golf cart connection northward to the
ABCC, the sidewalk would not be needed and would cause a problem with t he gated entryway.
There is an additional waiver needed that the applicants did not list as a waiver in their SPA Narrative.
8. Section 24-272 (b) states, “Where the environmental assessment determines that natural jurisdictional
wetlands remaining on the site have been damaged or degraded over time through previous development,
storm events, improper drainage runoff or other adverse activities, but where wetland vegetation and habitat
are predominant in quantity on a proposed development site, all plans submitted for review or permitting shall
demonstrate a plan for restoration, enhancement, mitigation or recovery of remaining jurisdictional wetlands.
Restated, it is the express intent of the city that no net loss of jurisdictional wetlands occurs through any
development action within the city. Section 24-270 also states, “It is the express intent of the city that no net
loss of jurisdictional wetlands occur through any development action within the city. Any impacted wetlands on
Page 9 of 10
a development site shall be replaced elsewhere on the same site or elsewhere within the City of Atlantic Beach
where replacement onsite is not possible to achieve reasonable use of the property. Where jurisdictional
wetlands have been damaged or degraded over time through previous development, storm events, improper
drainage runoff or other adverse activities but where wetland vegetation and habitat still are predominant in
quantity on a proposed development site, all plans submitted for review or permitting shall demonstrate a plan
for mitigation, restoration, replacement, enhancement or recovery of jurisdictional wetlands in the amount to
be displaced by the proposed development.
The City’s Public Works Department contends that a waiver is needed for the filling of onsite wetlands. A
report from Public Works (Exhibit 8) states, “With regard to wetland impacts: Staff disagrees with the
Applicant’s contention that there is no net loss of wetlands as a result of this project, but this loss is waiverable.”
The City’s environmental consultant Steve Swann, also states in his report that the applicants do not meet the
code relating to wetland mitigation.
REQUIRED ACTION
The Community Development Board may consider a motion to recommend approval of the Selva Preserve
SPA (Application 16-REZN-1065) to the City Commission, a rezoning to Special Planned Area for lands described
within said application, approving the site development plan and adopting the application and supporting
documents, and all terms and conditions as set forth therein, subject to conditions enumerated, and provided
the following, or similar, findings of fact:
(1) The request for rezoning has been fully considered after public hearing with legal notice
duly published as required by law.
(2) The rezoning to Special Planned Area is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the
Future Land Use Designation of Residential, Low Density.
(3) The rezoning is consistent with the Land Development Regulations, specifically Division 6,
establishing standards for Special Planned Areas.
(4) The rezoning and the site development plan are consistent with the stated definition, intent
and purpose of Special Planned Areas.
(5) The zoning district classification of Special Planned Area, and the specific uses and special
conditions as set forth herein, are consistent and compatible with surrounding
development.
The Community Development Board may consider a motion to recommend denial of the Selva Preserve SPA
(Application 16-REZN-1065) to the City Commission, a rezoning to Special Planned Area for lands described
within said application, provided the following, or similar, findings of fact:
(1) The rezoning to Special Planned Area is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the
Future Land Use Designation of Residential Low Density because
_____________________________________________________________________.
(2) The rezoning is not consistent with the Land Development Regulations, specifically Division
6, establishing standards for Special Planned Areas because
___________________________________________________________________________.
Page 10 of 10
(3) The zoning district classification of Special Planned Area and the specific uses and special
conditions as set forth herein are not consistent or compatible with surrounding development because
________________________________________________________.
S%sLy'rI
JS
APPLICATION FOR ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
for
SPECIAL PLANNED AREA— or— PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
City of Atlantic Beach • 800 Seminole Road •Atlantic Beach,Florida 32233-5445
Phone: (904)247-5800 • FAX (904)247-5805 http://www.coab.us
Date September 24 , 2015 File No. Application No.
1. Applicant's Name Robert H . Hendricks
2. Applicant's Address 248 Levy Road, Atlantic Beach , FL 32233
3. Property Location 11th Street and Linkside Drive
4. Property Appraiser's Real Estate Number 17 2 0 2 7—010 0
5. Current Zoning Classification PUD 6. Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Designation
7. Requested Action Rezone to SPA
8. Size of Parcel 7 . 21 acres 9.Utility Provider City of Atl .Bch—Water;JEA—el ec .
10. Provide a textual narrative and a composite site plan, which demonstrates compliance with Article III, Division 6 of
the City of Atlantic Beach Zoning,Subdivision and Land Development Regulations. The narrative,and any requiredattachments, should concisely address each of the provisions and requirements of Section 24-120 and should be
provided in an order and format consistent with this Section. Please provide a cover page and a table of contents
identifying each attachment to the application.
11. The following items must be submitted with the application:a. List of adjacent property owners within 300 feet of the property including name, mailing address and Property
Appraiser's Real Estate number from most recently certified tax rolls. Address two (2) legal size envelopes to each
property owner on the list. Do not include a return address. Each envelope must contain proper postage. The order of
the envelopes must match the order in which the names appear on the list.
b. Proof of ownership(copy of deed or certificate by lawyer or abstract company or title company that verifies record owner
as above). If the applicant is not the owner, a letter of authorization from the owner(s) for applicant to represent the
owner for all purposes related to this application must be provided.
c. Required number of copies: five(5) Please submit ten(10)copies of any plans or attachments that are larger than 11 x
17 inches in size,or any other items that cannot be easily reproduced.
d. Application Fee.($500.00)
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ALL INFORMATION PROVIDED WITH THIS APPLICATION IS CORRECT:
Signature of owner(s r authorized person if owner's authorization form is attached:
Robert H . Hendricks
Printed or typed me(s INF 1
Signature(s): F - 1
ADDRESS AND CONTACT INFORMATION OF PERSON TO RECEIVE ALL CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING THIS
APPLICATION Name: ,tamps M.Talc'c'a s ..7. T.i)c`a c A G c n r-i a tr=.a , Inc _
Mailing Address: 1305 Cedar Street, Jacksonville, FL 32207
Phone: (904) 396-3060 FAX: (904) 396-3456 E-mail: JMLGATOR @BELLSOUTH .NET
Prepared by:
JoAnn Lee
Watson&Osborne Title Services,Inc.
Youte Vcdra Park Drive,Suite 101
ante Vedra Beach Florida 32082
c H:06T0395
Record and return to:
Selva Preserve,LLC
248-3 Levy Road
Atlantic Beach,Florida 32233
General Warranty Deed
Made this November 9,2006 A.D.By Kevin W.Bennett,as to an undivided 50%interest,and Ratio Y.Itani,as to an undivided
25%.interest,and Mohammed Y.Italy as to an undivided 25%interest,as tenants in common,whose address is:4429 Jiggerma_st
Avenue,Jacksonville,Florida 32277,hereinafter called the grantor,to Selva Preserve,LLC,a Florida limited liability company,
se address is: 248-3 Levy Road,Atlantic Beach,Florida 32233 ,hereinafter called the grantee:
whenever used herein the term"granter'and-grantee"include all the parties to rho inlrurnont and the heirs.Legal rep:esentanves and assigns of
individuals,and the successors and assigns of corporation))
Witnesseth,that the grantor,for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars,($10.00)and other valuable considerations,
receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged,hereby grants,bargains,sells,aliens,remises,releases,conveys'and confirms unto the grantee,
all that certain land situate in Duval County,Florida,viz:
See Attached Exhibit"A"
SAID PROPERTY IS NOT THE HOMESTEAD OF THE GRANTORS UNDER THE LAWS AND CONTITUTION OF
THE STATE OF FLORIDA.
Parcel Ill Number.172027-41100
Together with all the tenements,hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging or in anywise appertaining.
ro Have and to Hold, the sane in fee simple forever.
And the grantor hereby covenants with said grantee that the grantor is lawfully seized of said land in fee simple;that the grantor
has good right and lawful authority to sell and convey said land;that the grantor hereby fully warrants the title to said land and will defend
the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever; and that said land is free of all encumbrances except taxes accruing
subsequent to December 31,2006.
Di:FD Individual warranty Deed-Legal en Face
Closers'Choice
U
r
In Witness Whereof, the said grantor has signed and sealed these presents the day and year first above written.
Signed, sealed and delivered in our presence:
1Z Seat)
Kevin W.Bennett
esa Primcd Namc \! /1(! /e--•- Addles*: 4429 Jiggermast Avenue,Jacksonville,Florida 32277
Seal)
1 ----
ate . taut
witness Prin Name rrtnP rvJ I• t[1•! 111---------7 _Sell)
Mohammed Y.Item
Z. of Florida
County of St.Johns
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 9th day of November,2006,by Kevin W.Bennett,as to an undivided 50%interest, and Rafic Y. Stani, as to an undivided 25%interest,and Mohammed Y.I."' as to an undvided 25%interest,as tenants in
common,who is/are personally known to me or who has produced d' as identification.
Notary r • c
Prlat N a! A yl°rAt to --
My Commlraloo Eaplrut
1
p tManrrirr6"ielea
le iii °. .Vi.
y% #00354595 ors1
4' &rri.MOI:t ,
i
DECO Individual Warranty Decd-Legal on Face
Written Narrative
SPA Rezoning Application for
SELVA PRESERVE
Amended March 11, 2016
L PROJECT SUMMARY
Selva Preserve is a 7.21 acre site located north of 11` Street between the Sherman Creek
Canal and the Selva Linkside development and is currently zoned RS -1. Pursuant to
section 24 -117 of the Land Development Ordinances, a Special Planned Area ( "SPA ")
may be requested by the applicant or "may also be required by the city where a proposed
development or redevelopment project has unique characteristics, special environmental
or physical features such that a site development plan is needed as part of the review and
approval process. In this case, city staff have requested that the applicant rezone the
property from RS -1 to Special Planned Area (SPA) zoning district. Applicant believes
that the project will create a unique residential neighborhood consistent with the new
Atlantic Beach Country Club and adjacent neighborhoods. The project incorporates the
existing natural features of the property. The project will consist of a maximum of 15
single family lots within a gated community designed to protect the natural conservation
and preserve areas along the canal. There is a proposed pedestrian/golf cart link with the
adjacent golf course. The road, gate feature, perimeter fencing and common landscaping
will be privately owned and maintained by the Selva Preserve Home Owners
Association. 1.9 acres of preserved wetland on site will be preserved by Conservation
Easement in favor of the Selva Preserve HOA. The development project has received
ACOE and SJRWMD permits. Resubmittal to the ACOE was required due to the lapse of
the permit and is under review.
II. Land Use Designations and Zoning Districts
The current land use is low density residential which allows a density of 6 DU /AC for a
total of 43 dwelling units on the 7.21 acres. 1.9 acres of wetland will be preserved on the
property with 1.81 mitigated off site as well as reforested and enhanced on -site, allowing
for a total developable area of 5.31 acres. This will allow for 32 (31.86) DU /AC on this
property. The proposed SPA development of a maximum of 15 dwelling units is a 53%
reduction of the potential developable units on the property.
The current zoning is RS -1. This zoning allows for the densities called for in the SPA but
places no restrictions as to layout, density, road connections, etc. SPA zoning will
provide the city with information, including a site plan on the proposed development by
specifically defining the type of development, layout and imposed restrictions by other
regulatory agencies and the applicant itself. The SPA layout took into account the
topography of the site, its shape and its natural vegetation. The existing topography
slopes from west to east. The layout took advantage of the topography by allowing the
rear yards to continue to drain eastward through the wetlands to the existing man made
canal. The balance of the area drains into the existing retention system behind Selva
Linkside. The existing width of the property and the existing wetlands dictated the extent
of development and thus the layout of the project.
The proposed project is compatible with surrounding land uses and zoning.
Direction Land Use Zoning
East Low Density Residential Residential — Large Lots
South Low Density Residential Planned Unit Development
35' wide lots
West Low Density Residential Planned Unit Development
50' wide lots
North Golf Course /residential Planned Unit Development
55' to 60' lots
III. Permitted and Prohibited Uses
The following section lists the permitted uses for the Selva Preserve SPA.
Single family lots not to exceed 15 units.
Privately maintained gated roadway system.
Privately owned natural preservation area.
Privately maintained entryway and landscaping.
Accessory Structures on Individual Lots (rear yard only)
Detached garages
Pool cabana
6' high privately maintained perimeter fencing on west and south sides.
Temporary Sales and Construction Trailers.
IV. Development density
The development seeks a maximum of 15 dwelling units representing a density of 2.81
units per acre. This represents a 53% reduction below the maximum 6 DU /Ac allowed
by the land use category.
V. Development Standards
Development standards have been created to ensure contextual design elements. This
section describes the various types of development standards proposed for Selva
Preserve. The SPA development plan indicates 12 lots, gated roadway, and wetland
preserve areas. The intent of SPA zoning is to allow the applicant the flexibility to alter
the density upon customer demand, platting and tree issues, while maintaining a
maximum density of 15 units.
The developer is required to meet all portions of the COAB Land Development Code
LDC), unless stated within the following development standards text and waiver section
of the SPA requirements.
Maximum allowed density per land use 6 units /acre
Proposed density 2.81 units per acre
Maximum number of units 15 lots maximum
Lot Requirements:60' minimum lot width,
100' lot depth, 20' front setback, 5'
side setback, 10' rear setback.
Maximum Lot Coverage 50%
Maximum building height 35 feet
Entry Signage and Lighting In accordance with Section
17 -28 of the COAB LDC
Vehicular Access As shown on the site plan,
Access is off 11 Street
Landscaping Landscaping shall be in accordance
with the requirements of the current
Division 8 of Chapter 24 of the
COAB LDC.
Tree Removal Tree removal and mitigation shall be
in compliance with Chapter 23 of the
COAB LDC
Fencing 6' Perimeter fencing on the west and
South side.
Utilities All utilities shall be underground and
will be owned by the Utility
Company or COAB.
Construction All drainage discharges will comply
with the SJRWMD permit for
quantity and quality. NPDES
standards will be complied with
during construction via a permit and
installation of erosion control
facilities.
Wetland Preservation Existing intermittent wetlands on site
have been significantly affected due
to excavations and channelizing the
east side of the site. The project is
preserving approximately 1.9 acres
of wetlands while mitigating offsite
and providing replanting and
reforestation on -site for 1.81 acres of
impact. Under 24- 272(b) There is no
net loss of wetland
Flood Plain Management A CLOMR -F will be applied for
using the excess compensation
volume provided for by ABCC under
an existing recorded agreement. All
finish floor elevations range from 8.8
to 9.5 meeting development
standards. CLOMR -F will be
submitted to COAB prior to issuance
by COAB of site clearance or
building plans.
Projections into Required Yards:
Stoops, balconies, awnings, bay windows, and roof overhangs may encroach into the
required front yards, not to exceed 3 feet. Side and rear yards shall be measured from the
property line to the outside wall of the principal structure. Projections may occur within
the required side and rear yards, such as roof overhangs and bay windows, but shall not
exceed two feet. In addition, chimneys may project up to one foot into the side or rear
yard.
Swimming pools and hot tubs:
In- ground swimming pools and hot tubs are permitted. Pool enclosures should be located
only at the rear of the property and shall be no wider than the width of the principal
structure. The minimum side setbacks for pools, decks, and pool enclosures shall be
equal to the yard requirements of each residential lot. Pools that do not have a screen
enclosure shall have a minimum 5 foot setback from the rear property line. Pool cabanas
shall have a minimum 5 foot setback from the side yard line and 5 foot setback from the
rear property line. Will adhere to rear yard set back of a minimum of 10' from top of
treatment swale, per Public Works comments.
Accessory Structures:
Accessory detached garages shall comply with COAB LDC other than setbacks.
Detached garages shall be placed no closer than 5 feet from the side property line and no
closer than 5' from the rear property line.
Summary on No Net Loss:
Policy A.1.2.1.d of the Atlantic Beach Comprehensive Plan and Section 24 -270 of
the Land Development Regulations state, "It is the expressed intent of the City that no net
loss of jurisdictional wetlands occur through any development action within the City.
Any impacted wetlands on the development site shall be replaced elsewhere on the same
site or elsewhere within the City of Atlantic Beach ". The ACOE mitigation requirements
state that it is preferred that mitigation be done in an approved and permitted mitigation
bank to allow for larger contiguous areas of wetlands to be preserved, restored and /or
enhanced. On site mitigation of small areas of wetland provide much fewer long term
benefits than consolidating mitigation in areas that will remain undeveloped and rural in
perpetuity. This requirement came into effect by the passage of the 10 April 2008 EPA
Mitigation Rule (73 FR 19670). On this property, 1.9 acres of wetland was preserved,
while 1.81 acres required mitigation. This includes 1.74 acres on site and .07 acres that
was impacted on adjacent property'. Since there are no mitigation banks within the City,
and it is impossible to mitigate within the COAB as required by the ACOE and
SJRWMD, the mitigation of 1.81 acres was done outside the City in an approved
mitigation bank.
COAB LDR 24- 272(b) states: "Where jurisdictional wetlands have been damaged
or degraded over time through previous development, storm events, improper drainage
runoff or other adverse activities, but where wetland vegetation and habitat still are
predominant in quantity on a proposed development site, all plans submitted for review
or permitting shall demonstrate a plan for mitigation, restoration, replacement,
enhancement or recovery of jurisdictional wetlands in the amount to be displaced by
the proposed development." Applicant has submitted a reforestation and replanting
plan that restores, replaces and enhances the remaining forested wetlands to include
legacy trees that will expedite improvement and strengthen the wetland system onsite for
future generations. The plan is for a replanting of 100 trees / acre of the 1.81 acres
impacted wetland on site, or 181 trees of various sizes between 3 and 15 gallon trees.
With 1.9 acres preserved and 1.81 acres mitigated, restored or replaced under this LDR,
there is no net loss as a result of this project.
Applicant has submitted a Tree Condition Survey by Certified Arborist, Chuck
Lippe dated March 6, 2016. Mr. Lippe confirms that this site is a "damaged or degraded
site" as defined by this LDR, which affected the "intermittent wetlands" and trees. See
Lippe report page 7. Lippe has further opined that 95% of the trees on the site are less
desireable species that have lower wind resistance, moderate to poor decay resistance and
a relatively short life span. Lippe report page 9. While the overall condition of the fairly
young trees is average to good, the structure of the trees is degraded leaving 76% of the
trees will a possible likelihood of failure and only 8% unlikely to fail. Lippe report page
11. While offsite mitigation of wetlands impact was required by ACOE and SJRWMD
permits, the onsite preservation and Reforestation plan complies the expressed intent of
Policy A.1.2.1.d. and section 24 -270 and specifically 24- 272(b) of the LDR., such that
there is no net loss of wetland as a result of this proposed project.
1 Applicant's mitigation of 0.07 acres of wetland impact on adjacent property is required
by the Statewide Environmental Resource Program and the SJRWMD. Selva Preserve
is not physically touching the 0.07 acre area on the adjacent property. For the SJRWMD
permit, if a wetland is isolated and less than 0.5 acre in size, the Applicant must mitigate
for it, which has been done.
The following are the waivers or exemptions requested under SPA zoning:
1. Per section 24 -105, (d), (2), minimum lot width, the RS -1 zoning category
calls for 75' wide lots. We are requesting 60' wide lots, which is consistent
with the surrounding developments, land use and zoning.
2. Per section 24 -105, (e), (2), minimum yard requirements, the section calls for
20' rear set back. We are requesting 10' rear set back from the top of the
swale of the proposed water treatment and disposal, berm and swale system in
order to allow full utilization of the upland area and still maintain the
extensive rear preserve area, which in most cases exceed the 20' setback
requirement. Public Works supports this request.
3. Per section 24 -105, (e), (3), minimum yard requirements, the section calls for
7.5' side set back. We are requesting 5' side set back.
4. Per section 24 -252 (c), (1), concerning having two separate access points
when the development has 10 or more lots. This project consists of a
maximum of 15 lots within a gated community. We are asking that this
requirement be waived in its entirety. The road with primary access at 11
Street provides access to all homes within the development with a cul de sac
at the north for turnaround access for emergency vehicles. The addition of a
secondary access at the road stub off of Linkside Drive may pose privacy and
reduction in vegetative buffers to homes in Selva Linkside, without a
significant increase in safety and emergency access to Selva Preserve.
Applicant seeks a waiver to balance the needs of all residents concerned.
5. Per section 24 -272 (c), (1), concerning a 50' wide buffer along water bodies.
Only 4 lots at the southern part of the property do not exceed this 50' buffer.
The remaining lots will have replanted or preserved areas between lot and
canal that exceed the 50' distance. 24 -272 (d) (1) provides an exemption from
this requirement and states: "Man -made canals and stormwater facilities are
not considered wetlands, although in some cases, man -made navigable canals
connected to waters of the state are protected under these provisions or by
regulations of state or federal agencies. Man-made canals and ponds clearly
excavated in uplands are not considered wetlands and are exempt from the
wetland buffer regulations." Sherman Creek Canal was a manmade
excavated drainage canal to the intra - coastal waterway completed in the early
1960's as evidenced by the historical photos provided with this application.
Waiver of this requirement for the 4 lots affected clearly meet this exemption.
6. Per section 24 -272 (c), (2), concerning a 25' upland buffer, the district has
issued a permit taking into account the fact that there is no 25' upland buffer.
However, there is a berm and swale system between the house pad and the
rear lot line to intercept storm runoff for treatment and disposal before
impacting the wetlands. Under SJRWMD rules, buffers cannot be provided or
located adjacent to proposed wetland impacts. Buffers are to protect
presumed secondary impacts to the wetlands and since the direct impacts are
adjacent to the wetland, wetland buffers cannot not be provided. The berm
and swale system proposed is in lieu of the 25' upland buffer and authorized
under section 24- 272(d)(4) which states: "Waivers from the requirement to
provide and maintain an upland buffer may be requested in accordance with
subsection 24 -46(d) of this chapter, and where such waiver is approved, a
berm or swale to retain and filter stormwater runoff from the lot shall be
created." Applicant has complied with such waiver requirements.
7. LDR Section 24 -221 (b) requires a 4' sidewalk along the road. Since this is a
gated community of 12 proposed lots (to a maximum of 15), with a potential
link to a golf cart connection northward to the ABCC, the sidewalk would not
be needed and would cause a problem with the gated entryway.
Submitted by: Selva Preserve LLC
March 11, 2016
Attachments to SPA Narrative:
1. Certified copies of the Easement and Flood Plain Compensation Agreement
between Applicant and Club (inures to the SMCC successors and assigns, ABCC)
2. Certified copy of drainage easement by ABCC to Sherman Canal
3. Certified copy of drainage easement from Applicant to driving range pond.
4. Letter from Taylor and White to Club concerning adherence to Flood Plain
Compensation agreement for Applicant
5. Historical photos
6. Lippe Tree Condition Survey
7. Carter Environmental Tree Forestation Plan
8. Addressed and stamped Envelopes for homeowners within 300 feet of project.
EXHIBIT 1
EXHIBIT 2
EXHIBIT 3
EXHIBIT 4
EXHIBIT 5
411 PABLO AVENUE
JACKSONVILLE BEACH, FL 32250-5540
TEL: 904-249-8009
FAX: 904-249-8007
www.appliedtm.com
Coastal, Environmental, Marine, and Water Resources Engineering
January 15, 2016
Mr. Doug Layton, PE
Public Works Director
City of Atlantic Beach
1200 Sandpiper Lane
Atlantic Beach, FL 32233
Re: Selva Preserve Wetlands Review
Dear Mr. Layton:
Per your request, we have reviewed the information pertaining to wetland impacts in the City’s October
31, 2015 request for additional information regarding the Selva Preserve development and the
consultant’s response to this RAI. As part of this effort, we revisited our evaluation of these wetlands we
made at the City’s request in 2008 and reviewed the current environmental resource permit and
supporting documentation for this project. Our review and comments are technical in nature relating to
the proposed wetland activities at the Selva Preserve project and are not legal opinion.
In 2008, our conclusions were that the onsite wetlands were of low quality and that the vegetative
community was in a transition phase that favors uplands. The historic drainage activities and berms on
this site have altered the onsite wetlands and severed or significantly altered connections that may have
existed to other wetlands or surface waters. This review also concluded that there are onsite opportunities
to enhance the wetlands by removing or breaching portions of the existing berms along Sherman Canal.
These enhancements could provide a more direct connection to the canal waters and restore the
hydrologic inputs and periodic inundation within the wetlands to a more natural regime. We believe these
conclusions are still valid.
We completed a cursory review of the current plan of development with respect to wetland impacts and
the responses from Selva Preserve’s consultants to the City’s request for additional information dated
October 31, 2015. I am generally in agreement with the responses to this letter and the following
comments are only related to items in the response where additional follow‐up may be desired by the
City for clarification:
Mitigation for Jurisdictional Wetland Impacts ‐ The St. Johns River Water Management District
(SJRWMD) and US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) have both issued permits for this development that
include offsite mitigation for the primary and secondary wetland impacts that will occur as part of this
development. Note that the USACE permit has expired and a renewal permit application has been
submitted by Selva Preserve. For project impacts to jurisdictional wetlands, the agencies now require
offsite mitigation in lieu of onsite mitigation if a mitigation bank is available for use. In this case, a
mitigation bank is available and they will require Selva Preserve to do their mitigation offsite.
Mr. Doug Layton, PE
January 15, 2016
Page 2 of 2
Sec. 24‐272(c)(2) – 25’ average minimum vegetative buffer is required between jurisdictional wetlands
and the development area – The developer states that they will not provide a 25’ buffer since the
development directly impacts immediately adjacent wetlands. Note that the proposed stormwater berm
in the rear of the proposed lots butts up directly to the edge of the fill area on most lots. The developer
indicates that they believe the buffer requirement is to protect adjacent wetlands from secondary impacts
and since direct impacts are immediately adjacent to the wetland, buffers cannot be provided. The
developer makes a reasonable argument regarding a 25’ buffer given that they will be mitigating (albeit
offsite) for direct and secondary wetland impacts. However, the City may still wish to require some
amount of buffer adjacent to jurisdictional wetlands.
Sec. 24‐272(b) – All plans submitted for review shall demonstrate a plan for restoration, enhancement,
mitigation or recovery of remaining jurisdictional wetlands. It is the express intent of the city is that no
net loss of jurisdictional wetlands occurs through any development action within the city – Mitigation
for jurisdictional wetland impacts will occur offsite as a requirement of SJRWMD and USACE. No onsite
mitigation or wetland creation is proposed. The intent of the City that there be no net loss of wetlands
within the city is not met by the Selva Preserve development as proposed. However, the City may still
choose to enforce this local “no net loss” requirement, it will just not be related to the mitigation required
by the agencies.
An option to consider is to require the developer to restore and enhance the remaining poor quality
jurisdictional wetlands onsite. Improvement of these remaining jurisdictional wetlands would be
beneficial with respect to providing ecological uplift and improved wetland habitat within the City.
One additional item of note is the 0.07 acre offsite jurisdictional wetland owned by Selva Linkside that will
be impacted by this development. Selva Preserve has proposed mitigation for this wetland, but it is not
owned by them. An agreement with Selva Linkside pertaining to this impact was not in the documentation
that was reviewed by ATM.
If you have any questions or would like to discuss this information in more detail, please do not hesitate
to call me.
Sincerely,
APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC.
Stephen C. Swann, P.E.
Vice President
SS/ph
cc: Jeremy Hubsch – COAB
EXHIBIT 6
1
Carter Environmental Services, LLC
Selva Preserve
Tree Reforestation Plan
March 10, 2016
The Selva Preserve residential development proposes preservation of two forested
wetland systems, totaling 1.81 acres with 1.74 on site and .07 acres of impact off -site.
Figure 1). The wetland consists of early successional vegetation, which generally
have a short lifespan and moderate to poor wind resistance. As part of mitigation for
wetland impacts, the applicant is proposing the enhancement of remaining forested
wetlands to more legacy trees. This plan proposes to expedite forest succession with
the legacy canopy trees and mid - canopy trees depending on location in the canopy
that there is need.
These enhancement areas will be planted with a mix of 3, 7 and 15 gallon legacy
canopy trees such as Black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), Cypress (Taxodium distchum.),
Sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana), and mid - canopy trees such as Dahoun Holly (Ilex
cassine) and Myrtle leaf Holly (Ilex myrtifolia). Trees will be planted at a density of
100 trees per acre, totaling 181 trees. This enhancement will expedite succession in
the system and produce a more desirable and established ecosystem for future
generations.
Further, we propose the preservation of 0.36 acres of upland spoil berms created by
the excavation of ditches within the 1.74 -acre wetland preservation area as well as
the preservation of a 0.15 ac. of wetland -cut ditch.
Page 1 of 1
1
1,11111111e4 m
5
y :e re« .
k kt t'riW
4 $ 44 ,.;4 At ',,,,- :,,- . ,.- ..,:
x.-`:-..:. z, i ,, ,. ,.
i ,„,„
re rid r 4
V , .4: , ,ale
l -
l , 1 - l
1
tio, ' ,.,' , :40 : ,ii. . ::: I
Ir. y
t
4.3
v.
4
1 Iii ,„; I':
t .
1 Legend
IIIIVProjectArea +1- 7.21 ac.
Wetland Impacts +/ 1.81 ac.
t
Remaining Wetland Area to be Reforested +/- 1.74 ac.
Upland Berm +/- 0.36 ac.
III Wetland -Cut Ditch +/- 0.15 ac.v
i
0 60 120
Feet
Sources: 2009 Duval County Aerial Photography e.
Information represented on this map is for planning"
purposes only.
U. RTER ENVIRONMENTAL
Reforestation PlanSERVICES, INC.
Street Selva PreserveStAugSt. Augustine, FL 32084
904 -540 -1786
wwwcarte envcom Project 5.08007 Duval County, FL Date: Mar 11 2016 Figure:1
EXHIBIT 7
Selva Preserve SPA Application – Public Works Comments
Applicant has submitted plans and documentation that address and satisfy PW comments and
concerns with regards to stormwater treatment and conveyance and flood plain compensation,
largely through agreements and grants of easement with the adjacent Atlantic Beach Country
Club.
With regard to wetland impacts: Staff disagrees with the Applicant’s contention that there is no
net loss of wetlands as a result of this project, but this loss is waiverable as discussed in LDR 24-
274 (d) (4). A waiver would require City Commission approval. In addition, applicant proposes
the Conservation Easement over the remaining 1.9 acres of wetland be held by the Selva
Preserve Home Owners Association. Staff opposes this assignment and instead proposes the
Conservation Easement be held by an organization such as the Public Trust Environmental Legal
Institute of North Florida or the North Florida Land Trust.
Since applicant’s Reforestation Plan proposes to mitigate / enhance the preserved wetlands
with 3, 7, and 15 gallon trees and shrubs (a 15 gallon tree is about 1” dbh), the plan to install
181 trees in 1.81 acres of preserved area (1 tree or shrub every 435 square feet) is inadequate.
Either the density of planting or an increase in the size of trees planted should be required (3”
or greater). Additionally, consideration should be give to requiring Live Oak or other upland
native trees in the berm areas within the preservation area. The Reforestation Plan should also
include removal of exotic or invasive plants and shrubs in the understory. Note: the wetland
map submitted for the Reforestation Plan does not match the Pre-Development map in the
Development Plan set, in that much of the areas it labels Upland Berm are, in fact, the outfall
ditch from the Linkside - ABCC pond and the north- south wetland cut ditch. It does not account
for the impacts of piping / filling the ditch to extend the outfall pipes, etc.
Tree mitigation: The applicant’s written narrative states that tree removal and mitigation shall
be in compliance with city Code Ch. 23. The landscape plans show that the developed areas of
the site will be clearcut, with loss of more than 10 maple trees of 20” to 30” diameter. While
clearcutting in wetland areas that must be filled for development is logical, some effort to
preserve trees in other areas requiring less fill should be made. The Tree Survey provided also
located one Live Oak meeting the Ch. 23 definition of a “Heritage Tree” (36” – Lot 8).
Unfortunately, that Live Oak is also shown as being removed on the Landscape Plan. Applicant
should be required to provide substantial mitigation in the form of new plantings on site, rather
than just paying into the Tree Mitigation Fund.
Requested waivers: Public Works has no issue with waivers 1, 2, 5 and 6.
Waiver 3 – Public Works Staff recommends that the 5’ setback proposed be restricted for lots 9
and 10 such that the setback is from the drainage easement line rather than the property line
to allow future access for maintenance of the stormwater pipes running between these two
lots.
Public Works Staff recommends Waiver 4 and 7 be disapproved
Waiver 4 - LDR Section 24-252 (c) (1) requires developments with more than 10 lots to have
two access points. Applicant requests to delete the requirement for second access point.
Public Works has recommended to the Developer that, rather than providing a full access, they
install a stabilized surface (turf block, grass pave or similar) to connect the existing paved
stubout on Linkside Drive to their roadway. A 10’ wide by 30’ (avg) stabilized surface in a
permanent easement for emergency access as discussed in the LDR would require no clearing
beyond that already proposed in the applicant’s plan.
Note: Applicants road also exceeds the City standard limit of 1000 feet for dead-end streets
(LDR Section 24-252 (j)), however with only 12 lots proposed, Staff recommends this 1100 (+/-)
cul de sac be approved.
Waiver 7 - LDR Section 24-221 (b) includes sidewalks as a required improvement for
subdivisions. City Standard is 4’ (minimum) sidewalk. The proposed connection to ABCC is not
shown on the plans.
EXHIBIT 8
Selva Preserve
Tree Survey
by
Chuck Lippi
ISA Board Certified Master Arborist #FLO501 B
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #443
Tree Risk Assessment Qualification (TRAQ)
and
Danny Lippi
ISA Certified Arborist FL6145A
Tree Risk Assessment Qualification (TRAQ)
Page 2 of 15 3/6/16
Selva Preserve
Introduction 3
Background 3
Assignment 3
Purpose and Use of the Report 3
Testing and Analysis 3
Data Collection 4
Tree Condition Rating 4
Observations 6
The Trees 6
The Site 7
Other Survey Results 7
Tree Health and Structural Condition 8
Tree Age /Size 11
Conclusions 11
Appendix A 12
Certification of Performance 15
Chuck Lippi, Advanced Tree Care, Inc.
Registered Consulting Arborist #443 Board Certified Master Arborist FL -0501 B
Page 3 of 15 3/6/16
Selva Preserve
Introduction
Background
We were asked by Ryan Carter of Carter Environmental Services, Inc. to perform
a tree condition survey of the approximately 7.21 -acre parcel known as Selva
Preserve. After walking the site and not distinguishing significant variation in the
tree species and sizes from one area of the parcel to another, we all agreed that
a randomized sample tree survey would provide an accurate profile of the tree
species, their sizes and their condition. We received approval to do the sample
survey on February 26, 2016 and we completed the survey in less than one day
on March 3, 2016. I was assisted with the survey by my partner, ISA Certified
Arborist Danny Lippi and Michael Spontak GIS Analyst /Project Scientist from
Carter Environmental Services, Inc.
Assignment
Our assignment was to locate and assess the current condition of trees equal to
or greater than 12 inches DBH located in ten 1/10 -acre sectors randomly
selected within the Selva Preserve but outside designated wetlands. See
Appendix A for the location of the ten 1/10 acre sectors. Broadleaf trees and pine
trees smaller than 12- inches DBH and all sabal palm trees (Sabel palmetto) were
not evaluated. We rarely evaluate sabal palm trees because they are generally
healthy and free of significant structural defects that might make them
hazardous. However, if we observe a diseased or structurally defective palm as
we walk through the area, we will note such palms. None were noted on this
survey.
Purpose and Use of the Report
This report is prepared for Carter Environmental Services, Inc. and their clients to
be used in its entirety.
Assumptions
A field examination of the site was made on March 3, 2016. Our observations
and conclusions are as of that date.
Testing and Analysis
Chuck Lippi, Advanced Tree Care, Inc.
Registered Consulting Arborist #443 Board Certified Master Arborist FL -0501 B
Page 4 of 15 3/6/16
Selva Preserve
We performed a Level 2 Basic Assessment, which is a detailed visual inspection
of a tree and its surrounding site. The Level 2 Assessment includes a 360- degree
visual inspection from ground level on the tree and sound testing of the
accessible portions of the trunk with a rubber mallet to listen for tonal variations
that may indicate dead external tissue or internal hollows. The inspection was
done in accordance with ANSI A300 Standards on Tree Risk Assessment and the
companion publication Best Management Practices, Tree Risk Assessment.
Data Collection
Both empirical data as well as subjective data were gathered on each tree. Data
was collected on HanDBase, a data collection database application used on our
smartphones.
Empirical data included:
1. GPS assigned tree number and location
2. tree species
3. tree diameter (DBH)
The subjective data included:
1. health condition (excellent, good, fair, poor)
2. structural condition (excellent, good, fair, poor)
3. structural problems such as codominant leaders, dead branches, decay/
cavities, health problems such as decay fungi, sparse foliage, declining
4. tree condition rating
Tree Condition Rating
In order to quantify the overall condition of the trees we surveyed, we adapted
the risk rating rating system from the Tree Risk Assessment Procedures by
combing the following attributes:
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 Risk Assessment Part 9 Tree, Shrub, and
Other Woody Plant Management Standard Practices (Tree Risk Assessment a. Tree Structure
Assessment), 2011.
2 Thomas Smiley, Nelda Matheny and Sharon Lilly, Best Management Practices Tree Risk
Assessment, International Society of Arboriculture, Champaign, Illinois, 2011.
3 GPS measurements and data were collected and stored by Carter Environmental Services, Inc.
to be added to our tree condition data
Chuck Lippi, Advanced Tree Care, Inc.
Registered Consulting Arborist #443 Board Certified Master Arborist FL -0501 B
Page 5 of 15 3/6/16
Selva Preserve
1. tree health condition (excellent 4 points, good 3 points, fair 2 points, poor 1
point)
2. structural condition (excellent 4 points, good 3 points, fair 2 points, poor 1
point)
3. species rating (2 points for a desirable tree, and 1 point for a Tess desirable
tree)
4. likelihood of failure (unlikely 4 points, possible 3 points, probable 2 points and
imminent 1 point)
The Condition Assessment rating is a subjective measure of relative condition of
a tree based upon the four factors above. There are 14 possible points indicating
Trees per Sector
BEI
C, _D,11
fG 7i
B, 13
f A, 8
Figure 1 Each sector where trees were surveyed is indicated by a letter A through J followed by the
number of trees located in that sector.
Chuck Lippi, Advanced Tree Care, Inc.
Registered Consulting Arborist #443 Board Certified Master Arborist FL -0501 B
Page 6 of 15 3/6/16
Selva Preserve
Tree Species
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%I '0.0%
dr2' tia MPe fir reQaarago4ae \0.6-0 ce47
aJC a ` o a4 O moo\` cc oc
Lr a Pte Qr
to
Figure 2
a tree in the best condition and the lowest possible score is 4 indicating a tree in
poorest condition. See the Overall Condition Rating in Figure 6 on page 10.
Observations
The Trees
We evaluated 64 trees in the 10 random sectors. Sectors were assigned a letter
from A through J. The number of trees per sector varied from two trees to 13
trees (Figure 1). The trees were mostly Florida native species which include
slash pine (Pinus elliottii), sugarberry (Celtis laevigata), red maple (Acer rubrum)
and laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia) and smaller numbers of other species. Sixty
one of the 64 trees were species considered by most arborists to be lesser
species mainly because they are known to have moderate to poor wind
resistance, moderate to poor decay resistance and relatively short average
lifespans. These species are generally the first to populate a once - cleared site
and will eventually succumb to larger, longer -lived species such as Southern
magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora) and Southern live oak (Quercus virginiana) and
the sand live oak (Quercus geminata) unless the area is overgrown with invasive
species such as camphor (Cinnamomum camphora) and Chinaberry (Melia
Chuck Lippi, Advanced Tree Care, Inc.
Registered Consulting Arborist #443 Board Certified Master Arborist FL -0501 B
Page 7 of 15 3/6/16
Selva Preserve
azedarach) which are already found on the site. The distribution of the tree
species found is shown in Figure 2.
The Site
The site is a once cleared successional mesic forest site with intermittent
wetlands. Changes to the water table with the construction of nearby canals
appears to be causing root slippage and wind throw of trees in saturated areas
and possible subsidence and exposure of roots through the decomposition of
organic soil constituents where the water table has been lowered. Native vine
growth of poison ivy, wild grape, smilax and Virginia creeper are also overtopping
and suppressing a significant number of the trees on the site.
Other Survey Results
Tree Health Condition and Structural Condition
50
40
30
20
10
0
Good Fair Poor
Health Structure
Figure 3
Chuck Lippi, Advanced Tree Care, Inc.
Registered Consulting Arborist #443 Board Certified Master Arborist FL -0501 B
Page 8 of 15 3/6/16
Selva Preserve
Tree Health and Structural Condition
Each tree was also evaluated as to its overall health and structure. It is important
to understand that health and structure are two separate and independent
considerations. A tree can be healthy yet have poor and hazardous structure.
Live (green) trees can fail and sometimes do. Structurally sound trees sometimes
decline and die from poor health. Figure 3 shows both the health condition and
the structural condition of the trees surveyed. Tree health was slightly better than
tree structure but most trees surveyed were ranked as good. No trees were
ranked as excellent in either heath or structure.
Species Desirability
More Desirable _...._ ..___..
i
Species
5%
Less Desirable
Species
95%
Figure 4
Chuck Lippi, Advanced Tree Care, Inc.
Registered Consulting Arborist #443 Board Certified Master Arborist FL -0501 B
Page 9 of 15 3/6/16
Selva Preserve
Species Desirability
Trees were considered less desirable species if they had moderate to poor wind
resistance, moderate to poor decay resistance and a relatively short live span.
Ninety -five percent of the trees surveyed were in the less desirable species
category (Figure 4).
LIKELIHOOD OF FAILURE
probable unlikely
16%8%
possible
76%
Figure 5
Likelihood of Failure
The likelihood of failure is a methodology used in tree risk assessment as a
guideline:
Improbable: The tree or branch is not likely to fail during normal weather
conditions and may not fail in many severe weather conditions within the
specified time frame.
4 Julian A. Dunster, Thomas Smiley, Nelda Matheny and Sharon Lilly, 2013,Tree Risk
Assessment Manual, Champaign, Illinois: International Society of Arboriculture, pp 123 -126.
Chuck Lippi, Advanced Tree Care, Inc.
Registered Consulting Arborist #443 Board Certified Master Arborist FL -0501 B
Page 10 of 15 3/6/16
Selva Preserve
OVERALL CONDITION RATING
v,
30
m
Q
1512
1 3
i
A
4 5
0 2
6
8 9
0 0
10 a
11 12 13 14
CONDITION RATING
LOWER NUMBER MEANS POORER CONDITION)
Figure 6
Tree Sizes Based Upon Trunk Diameter
20
18
16
v 14
12
ar
10
8E
z 6
4
2
0
12 -14 15 -17 18 -20 21 -23 24 -26 27 -29 30 -32 33 -35 36 -
Tree Diameter Range (inches)
Figure 7
Chuck Lippi, Advanced Tree Care, Inc.
Registered Consulting Arborist #443 Board Certified Master Arborist FL -0501 B
Page 11 of 15 3/6/16
Selva Preserve
Possible: Failure could occur, but it is unlikely during normal weather
conditions within the specified time frame.
Probable: Failure may be expected under normal weather conditions within
the specified time frame.
Imminent: Failure has started or is most likely to occur in the near future
even if there is no significant wind or increased load.
Seventy six percent of the trees surveyed had a possible likelihood of failure and
only eight percent were unlikely to fail. See Figure 5.
Tree Age/Size
Examining the tree trunk diameters surveyed indicates the tree population on the
site is relatively young (Figure 7). A majority of the trees surveyed are between
12 inches and 20 inches DBH. And few are over 24 inches DBH. Although tree
trunk diameter will not give us a precise tree age, it is very indicative of the
relative young age of the tree population on the site.
Conclusions
The trees surveyed are young and in relatively good health and structural
condition. However, most of the trees have a short lifespan and are species that
have documented moderate to poor wind resistance and moderate to poor
ability to compartmentalize or resist decay. The site is rather unremarkable with
no notable specimen trees especially live oaks that leave the surveyor in awe
when he or she encounters them because of the live oak's massive size.
5 Dr. Mary Duryea and Eliana Kampf, Wind and Trees: Lessons Learned from Hurricanes,
University of Florida publication FOR 118, September, 2007, 17 pages.
6 Dr. Ed Gilman, Dr. Mary Duryea, Dr. Eliana Kampf, Dr. Traci Jo Partin, Dr. Astrid Delgado, Dr
Carol Lehtola, Assessing Damage and Restoring Trees After a Hurricane, University of
Florida Department of Environmental Horticulture Publication ENH1036, 2006, pp. 10 - 11.
Chuck Lippi, Advanced Tree Care, Inc.
Registered Consulting Arborist #443 Board Certified Master Arborist FL -0501 B
Page 12 of 15 3/6/16
Selva Preserve
Appendix A
k .,......--- - " -r--
t ,
WA
I
SIk 1 1L/l
t
r L : f
ii.• .
Illt
Jllc ^
ail 9C"ii
ei
r NCH 351 •a
rm.-. 'f
Legend L _ .
EJProject Area +/- 7.21 ac. .A. d
r
Tree Survey Points 9 y
1 4
F Sampling Plots 4. 11-
Ir\Ierillis ”0 75 150 i
Feet
I
Sources. ESRI Aenal Photography 1
Information represented on this maps for plannngi. osesonlY- ...
s
CARTER ENVIRONMENTAL Tree Assessment Plot Location MapSERVICES, INC.
7NAIdo6iraet Selva PreserveSLAugustine. EL 32084
904 - 1786
intw carte renv com Project 5.08007 Duval County FL Date: Mar 01 2016 Figure: 1
Chuck Lippi, Advanced Tree Care, Inc.
Registered Consulting Arborist #443 Board Certified Master Arborist FL -0501 B
Page 13 of 15 3/6/16
Selva Preserve
n
a2 Ail m . --1 - a51v 44f .a30
a8
0"1
O
u x a6 a5
00 a7
a9 vV F. 4;. , i[i
til
116 n
a-
a'4"`q. ;o '—i c
v
862 v.
al. 83
O B7, B6 O
0% n
88
8 e
B12 B10p
B15 814
O 0816 0818
D3 p2 D1 -
CC '
B19 Cl O '-
CO C40
OD4
ar" +..r d.-0 0 0
s 4jrt'C11 0 D6
0 C120C13 C16 D13 O D11
O
O E1
00
0 0E
ES0
a
E
Legend 0 E6
0 E8
EJ Project Area +/- 7.21 ac.o 0 0
0
Tree Survey Points
Sampling Plots
0 25 50
Feet
Sources ESRI Aerial Photography
Information represented on this map Is for planning
purposes only.
CARTER ENVIRONMENTAL Tree Assessment Plot Location Map - North n
St.
SERVICES, INC.
pV.St August
uStreet Selva Preserve
FL 32084
904 - 540 -1- 540 -f 78666
www carterenv com Project: 5.08007 Duval County, FL Date: Mar 04 2016 Figure: 1
Chuck Lippi, Advanced Tree Care, Inc.
Registered Consulting Arborist #443 Board Certified Master Arborist FL -0501 B
Page 14 of 15 3/6/16
Selva Preserve
aW Sw L
r
M1
1 J,a I I."
S'L' yj,. -
O
p o o l 1,
F O
F90
tr _ _H2 .
1'4
O 0
G4
if
0 H6 GS44.4 O 8 0 O t
0 p
G11 G G10
o O 00 o G13
G15
93
O E
I
G'° -13
o 60, O •
0
0 rJ
ID
Ip.. plc L
J1 3dv ?ic 5
r vy v.
tkolfr 7 YVi .
J5 silrc
Legend J7
OProject Area +/- 7,21 ac.40
adtr.
Tree Survey Points
Sampling Plots 1.1/2. 4 ..
vi
I.
Feet y .;"
Sources ESRI Aerial Photography 1.. 1377. -fre .
Information represented on this map is for planning
9
r `t'r 1 L -poses only S= S111F l/[ y1(SS(tpur
C.R FI R I.\\ IRO\MENTAL Tree Assessment Plot Location Map - SouthSERVICES, INC.
7Weldo Snee,t Selva Preserve
ugustine, FL 3208490A904-540-1786
w carterene Project: 5.08007 Duval County, FL Date: Mar 04 2016 Figure: 1
Chuck Lippi, Advanced Tree Care, Inc.
Registered Consulting Arborist #443 Board Certified Master Arborist FL -0501 B
Page 15 of 15 3/6/16
Selva Preserve
Certification of Performance
I, Chuck Lippi, certify that:
Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the
structural failure of a tree. Trees are living organisms that fail in ways we do
not fully understand. Conditions are often hidden within trees and below
ground. Arborists cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy, safe or
adequately protected under all circumstances or for a specified period of time.
Likewise, remedial, protective and mitigating treatments and
recommendations cannot be guaranteed.
I have no current or prospective interest in the vegetation or the property that
is the subject of this report and have no personal interest or bias with respect
to the party or parties involved.
I certify that all the statements made in this report are true, complete and
correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and are made in good faith.
The analysis, opinions and conclusions stated herein are my own and are
based on current scientific procedures and facts.
My analysis, opinions and conclusions were developed and this report has
been prepared according to commonly accepted arboricultural practices.
My compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined
conclusion that favors the cause of the client or any other party nor upon the
results of the assessment, the attainment of stipulated results or the
occurrence of any subsequent events.
There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that problems or
deficiencies of the plants or property in question may not arise in the future.
reserve the right to change my reports /opinions on the basis of new or
different evidence.
Loss or alteration of any part of this report invalidates the entire report.
I further certify that I am a member in good standing of the American Society of
Consulting Arborists (ASCA), the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) and
the Florida Urban Forestry Council and am an ISA Board Certified Master
Arborist FL -0501 B and an ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #443.
BORI?lM
ARBORIST r) AMER SOCIFT 41 ,j. C(INtiI LTING ARROII(TS
ISA
Chuck Lippi, Advanced Tree Care, Inc.
Registered Consulting Arborist #443 Board Certified Master Arborist FL -0501 B
0
o 0 aNa
a,
c.
m y
L O 00
Z d 0
ro
0-
2 a,a, o
0 0 C
O O 7
a Q O
v v N
U V Y
a a,a `1 ro Y
3)an 0 0
N Y -Y = a, irowrowmN
Z 2 a J o
Y03 CU N al CU
V A H t0 A A A 2 A
C a a/ CC N N C C ' C a,al C CU a, C C
C L L 2 c
U L a, O, >> c L 1 o a, Y,
0 a
0 u
a a
V
a u w u x u rn cO u io ro003
a/ C a, a, C C Ql
0
C a aaa22aaO0. ra a o yr 0.2 0- 0 o a a
Q m m Q U m Q ro ro m m Q m Q
a,ar 0 o a, a, o a, a a, a .-t a, - o o C1) J v - 0 CU v
u,c rO 3.. ro o c c ra 0- m o c a 5 a m a°m 3° c a ra a° c c
O
0 0 0 Z 0 Ln CC U< 0O Z U Q U Q 0-O Z U< 0O Z Z
Y Y Y Y Y
C C C C C
0 0 0 v a,0 0 v
H
V
f- H 0 V V V V ru Y V A 1 H V C V V V V
0 0 0 N 0) '-0 0va, a, a, a cis cu a a c v a v a,
c 3 c 3 3 o 0 o 0 c CO 0 u c c 0 O 0 0 0 0420
o 0 0 2 v a c c 3 3 0 v, c 0 c c
CO U 0 `0 - m ra O 0 m 0 ` m m ro m
m 0 0 N m m m m E m m U 0 m N m CO m m m
a o ` ,0 0 = 0 v - o 0 0 0 0 7 - o a 0 = 0 0 a o o r.
0 O 3° O 5 a ro a° ra o ro o ra a° -o c rO o\° n o O . m ra a° '5 a ro oo \° ro a°ra a° ro e.0
a v 0 E (a ,-'.7.,
a ra a a, o a o a> o a o 0 - > o ar o f ( 0 E (a a, o rO 0-1 a. 0 a, o CU 0 ut
O v1 CC o .--1 vi rr vi m u Q 0 ,-. 0 .-. O ,-. 0 .-. u 3 0 .. 0 .-1 v1 m rn cc o ,-. u Q 0 .-. o ,-.0 ,-. 0 .-I O
LL Q
C it
O a,I
z O O co O O O O O O o o N upOO0000miiQ1mLOOiLnO1O
C V1 9 -2i
u Q
a,Y `-0in
7
v v v v v v v v v a v v v v v v v v v a v v 2 4
0LI 'O701-i 'O 'O
9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 d 9 9 9 9va,ra r` ra ra ra 2 c, ro co ro ca O ro ra ra ra rO ra ro ro 0.) v
0-
N = 3 - 3 .- N - Ln .- 3 .- 3 - N = N = . = . - N - 3) 3) - 3) .- an .- N . - 3) ._ 3) . - N ._ 3) . -
wHa, a a a - a ` a, ` a a a al a a a
vs
a .- , a, a, . a, •.,..- v ` v v v a `CU
VI
N a a v v N CU a a, a, a, CU a, 0, vs a, CU a, a, 0 a, CU 0 N
1 'O .- 1 'O .-1 'O . 1 U .--I I U .- 1 U r. 'O .- 1 'O .-. 'O .-1 1 10 .--I 10 '. c. - 0 . 1 13 c. -0 v
0 U u
as a, a, a, 0, N 4) a, N a, a, a, N a, a, aJ N a, a, 0) 4J a,U lan
tfl OO 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 ro
L a, .- 9 9 m . 0.
7y 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o 2 0 0 0 0 0 G aY .- 0. a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a In
J w Cr no M n'1 n 1,, rn M M M rn N N 01 01 N 01 rn rn) rn 01
0. C
a W,
2 J o
0 o o o o a lo
O 0 0 O O 0 O O O O O 0 O O O 0 0 L
L0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O ua000a0enonaonaamnoatonono00
V rn l01 N N N rn rn M N M nl nl fn N ro no rn
L U TJ O O O O O O O o o U O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
0 O O ro F ro O O O O O O O t to O 0 O O O O O
y oa o0 on as m On no an m en 0. o0 no as m an
1 no no N N N M r0 M rn rn M M N N fn rn n'1 rn 01 rn
I
0 C.
raa,J
N
0) a, a, a, N a, O, N a, a, a, a,a, v a, a, a, a, a, 0 a,
a,
0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 a r0 0 0 0 0
To 00 00 on 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
a_
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
Q1 al V Q1 Q1 CU a, CO al a, a, O a, aJ cu cu a, al a, Q, a,
2 Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z CL Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z
N l0 n V1 Ln C 1 00 m M N L0 CO L0 01 n m N CO
QN t N r c. N e-1 1 I N 1 1 N
L L L L v L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L
N r0 N r0 r0 CC no ra 00 r0 03 ra a, ra 0 r0 r0 r0 r0 r0 r0 00
m V1 N N V1 al V1 VI N ul N N 9 to v1 Lo N N Ln V1 N v1
V a, a, U a, a a a a, a, a, a, 0 a a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a
O. C C C C 00 0 0 C C c C_c c 0 c c 0 c c c
N CL d d d
c
d a= a= d d rl Ln E. a_ a d a_ CL d CL 2
it
a,O O N C V1 LO 0o O1a. I N no In rn on 01 I H r. I N rn 0 co Q1
a a m m m m m m m m m m m m m
uo cr
0 0
N N
m al
L onCOCl-
ro
2 0) al al 0)0) al
c c c c c c
O O O 2 2 2
a a a a al a
v N U w
J al o GJ
Y U U U U 0) U
C o_ a, a a,Q 6 Q v c a ° a °1
U tA J WI O VI o 0 r 0 0
Y Y— Y —Y —Y—Y 7, Y
C r0 w ra w N w O w 0 al
cu 0
a)a)v
v 2 is v v a v
v P—p v p vcv0 >. To O v c ar
ro > rouucoOrntop,u N 0 u um E u Eccv2vv2ccv2cvV) a,
r>°0 0 O m 0 m O 0
m m 0) >.
0 ra m CO 0) m 0 0)
O O 0 ++ al CO _O 73 a+ al - O 4• al +-• al
CO CO
0 0
0- > 0 -5 a ro o 0) c ).9.a r0 0 5 a > a
O ° 0 U a U a 0 a 0-o °0 a 0°0 a 0 a
YC
al
H O V V V V V V V V V A V V V V V A V
o v
O
0) a) al 0) al al v al a) a) a) a) a)a) al v 0)
C L L L L L L L L C L L L L L L L
U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U3U2CCCCCCCCCCcCCCCCC
O Q O ra ra ra ra ra co O ra fa f0 fa 2 2 to 2 2
0 m m m m m m m CO 0 ` CO CO CO m m 0 ` 00 m m
0 a+ al 'O 0 0 0 0 0 U O U O O O O U O O O 1
5 a ro * ro* ra 3° ro o ro a° ra o ra *m a° ra o no a.. ro Y." M13 * ro *ro o * ° ro a° r0 a° ro o 0
E (o ra a al o v o v 0 v o v o 0) o v 0 v 0 v 0 v 0 v o v o v 0 v O v O v O v 0
ut CC U Q a .--1 O .-1 0 .-1 0 .--I 0 .-i 0 .-1 0 0 .--1 O .-I O .--1 0 .-1 0 .-1 O .-1 0 .-I 0 .-1 0 .--1 0 . - 1 O Q
Z X11ItV
r ti
O O O O O O O O O O O O O OQ1ti11c-I I 1 1 c-I I r1 O 31 O
Q .
a)O
v.
N O
0) `1]
7 c
N N Q/ al al al a) aJ CU 4J 0J Q1 al a) al al 0) Q) 4! N a ) al a/ aJ G Q
d 3 E E 0 d d a 3 3 E 0 3 d 3 3 d 3 0 3 d
O O O
o
v f` f` f0 r0 O O O O I9 r 2 O O O O f0 2 N N
ft,a) aJ 01 01 01 al 41 al al 0 ) — 4J N Q1 al al N Nr al 4! N al t_ >
v 13 '-I U . 'O .-1 'O .-1 'O .-1 'O .-1 1:3 .--I -0 .--I 'O .-I 'O .. U •-1 '0 .-1 'O .-1 'O .-1 a .--1 -0 '-I 'O r1 '0 .0 '0 .-1 'O .--1 c-1 13 O al6aUU
0 al 0) a) U al al al al a) N a) al al
dl
al N al 0) al al
U Ql
V1
1] E l] 1] 3 3 E 1] 1] 3 3 3 co 3 4 3 3 4 3 ro co O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o Q a
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a v,
rn M M M 01 01 r+1 ro M rn 01 M 01 N M M rn 01 0 M N N c
a 10
o
Y
O 0 O O 0 0 0 a U U 0 O 73 0 0 0 O v
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 c
O O p no F, O O O ra O O O O r O O O O O O O O U
a0 a DO no on 00 a0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 a0 00 00 OD
r+1 A rn N M r+ 01 N m no N r0 r'0 N M rn r.'1 01 r0 no r+1 rn
U O O O D O 0 0 o o o O Ts O U O 0 o o
O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0
03 GO 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o O O O
00 00 a0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 CO 00 00 00 00 a0 00 00 00
N N M r+1 M no M r0 M rn rn M M rn M M rrl 01 rn M r0 M
N al v a) al a) 0) a) a) al a) al a) al al al al a) al v al al
0
00 00 00 00 b0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
a! a) Ol a) al al al a) al a) a) a1 al al 0) al 0) al a) al al al
z z z Z Z z z Z Z z Z Z Z z z Z z z Z Z Z z
01 D a- r0 0) 01 O V1 rn r O N al 00 01 L r+1 Q1 a 1. 00 N
I r- I i I N N N 1 r-1 1 1 I I I I 1--1 1 0.
L L L 4J L L tea) L L L L L L L L v L L 0) 0)
ra CO CO 0 ra ra 00 O ro ro r0 ra 0 t0 r0 00 ra ca O 0 0
N N N al V1 N al V1 V1 V1 N Vf V1 VI U1 ai VI V1 @ J
a
ai ai ai
0
Y ai al a QS al a ai al v ai 0i n Di cu - E
O c 0 N O OcC 0 0 c 0 c C C c 00 c C O O O
a a E. 2 0 a a 2 a a a a a a a a 2 a a 0 O o
N N M
1-) I 1 1 1 Q LO 1\ 1-I I 1 N 1 Vr lO n Ol N
U U U U 0 U 0 U U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w w
tn
CU a,v tn
to Cr
o o
N O 0 0 O m
00 a al
c C C C C
N a) 00) )
c c c 00
v 0)a)al
Lu a o_a > >a > >ti
ro
2 a,a, a,a)0) 01 a) a) O,0)
Y C C C C C C C C C C
C O C O 2 j O O O O O O O
r0 i s a a ra • a u a a a 0. 0.a 6J
13w C w w a00) w co -0 w w w w w E o o
ut o u u u O) 'O u 0 0 'u u U u O 3 0 u 0)
O a, a 1-d a, O. a) 0 U,._ X a N C X 00_ al d` a a, d a, d N a` O X 0- O,VI
0 u
j In j tr j to a) y 7 O a, n 0 n 7 In 0 'n 0 'n 0 00 L a)O ai0
E c
ro—
0) 3 ra
c Y — Y — O) N Y-d . Y— Y— (
o
Y (0 Y - Y- C VI Y O
C N w a,w 10 w 4 c w 0 w 0)IF o w o w c ' a CO wa)u 0 v v E o 0 E o v v v v v 0 C o a v —
Z ' a 3 °L u 3 ° 3 ° ° n 3 °n 3 ° 3 ° 3 ° 3 ° 3 °aw
a,ai a,a,
A io a v v ro is v
N ' — ' al a) ' — ' — ' 0
t ro O > r0 >. L r0 L V > CO > CO > - o >- CO L CO
ar ro o ro ra 0 ro Ia 0 (a o o • O to aU0) E u 0) E u u 0) E t-u u E u E u u E u u Eca, n v ar v, a, c a, n C v v n v vi v v v
c as n
2 0`0` O in 0 0 `0` O i.0 0 vI 0 u, 0
co
O a+ a,1 a) a.+ a) a.+ a,a,o
5 a
a, '
5
a,
a
a.+ a, >
a '5
a) '
5 0
0.1 - ro 5 aN
0 0 '> 0.a> a '> a r0 0 '> 0.ro * 5 a '5 a ro Q0° ro a u a u 0. 0 0. 0o 1 u a 0° u a u a u a u a u a 0° u a
L-
W Y N a, Y a) Y N a) Y W Y a) Y a) Y a) Y Q Y d Y a) Y O)
V
U O o )0-0 U O )0-o 1-U U 1 U
fO (0 01 Y CO CO CO 00 00 Y r0 A
0
113 CO
0)
03 00
0)
03 00
0)
01 (0 00 00 CO CO 0) 03 (0QlmJO.1 CO a) m 0)a) co ,O, m a) m 0) m a) m J CO 0 01 m 01 m C01JoJJJ (o J J J J J J J
fim
O 0 m
flH >
ro V 13 U 0 > ro O 0 >
c C° '
a c a c u E c a c v v v c v E c v c v
N 0 10 (0 a,N 10 N a 0 o U (o
C C_ O _C O C _O to
c _ O C _ O C _ OC O c _ > O N
C _ ? C _ 7
E c E E c E E ?E c >. o > CO E c E c E c E c E c ( 20 E c E c> co m
O O 0 u 0 — 0 — 0 0 0 4-' 01 ++ 01 0 0 0 0 0 +• 0) 0 0 ++ OJ e,
o a: '0 0 0 c v 0 a 0 vc 0 '> a '> a 0 - 0 0 0 0 '0 0 - o 0 o '5 a o 0 0 0 '5 a 0
v 0 0 0 0— 0— 0 0— ro 0- (c 0- 0— 0— 0— 0— 0 0 a 0— 0 10 a
0 . U 3 u 3 U 3 U 3 U 3 u 3 0 a 0 a u 3u 3u 3u 3u 3u< u 3 0 3 0 a 0 a
u ,,u vr,1.0
m m CO CO CO CO 0, m oo CO oo a,n o _ il w
a 4
1.1- . 'L
0)1 O
W 0)a a1 N
3 0) a) .0 a, a, 0) a, O1 a) .0 a,01 a, a, a) a, 0)N -0 a,2 Qv °' , v'
a 0 2 0 a a 0 0 a 2 a 0 a 0 0 0 a 0 2 o o
a, ` u , N v , (0 .-f0 N V E VI N 10 f0 0 '- N (6 f ` r0 2 VI 2 to r0 y , N In (0 . ut t` o 0)
d 7/ VI ' 1 0) VI . _ VI . _ l- VI = N
VI
VI VI ._
ut H N VI ._ VI W WFalNa, ut 0) O) a) N a,
0
N a) al 0) Ol N 7, al of '2 N al
1)Q) a1 a) d a) a) al a)al N al a1 N a, a)0 0 E )
G
N e, U N N 'O N "O .--1 r-1 N - O N N N V H 'O ri 'O ei N - O N "O N 'O e, N N 'Q
V Ucu
r(5 0)
N a,0J O1 0) a) O1 a, 0) 0,a, 01 t
v1 0 Y _ Y _ Y _ O 0 Y u,N Y m a
vs
O C C C O` O O O C O O O O O O O C O Q 0"
a a 0 0 0 a a a 0. a 7 a a a a a a a 0 a Il J
m N V 7 N N m m m m m m m m m m C 01
a c
a r
J 0
Y
0 U T/0 0 a U 0 u
60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
w 000 CIO 00
0 w CO w w 00 w @ w m m w 00 000 000 a U
N m m m N N N N m N N N m m N m N m m r-1
U O U U O O U O U U
0 0 t_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1-0 1-
w 000 000 w 0 0 00
0 CO 000 0 w 0 0 4- w w CO w 00 w
N m m N m m m N m m N m m 4, N N N N m N
N N r, N N N I N N 1 N 1 e-1 N r, N r-1 N N N
O) a) al O1 a) a) 0) a)CU 01 01 O, 0, a) a, 0, 0)a1 0) a)
RI fa CO fa 03 CO la 03 03 CD 01 CO 03 CI3 03 f0 CO CO n3 fa
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
a, 01 a) 0) O, O, 0) O)O) 0) 0)0) 0) a) a) a) 01 0) a) O,
Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z
m 13 N 00 0 N U1 al N m Cr n m N N V N- m m
N 1- m r1 m m e-1 N r, r, N r, r-1 1-1 r-I r-I r-1 1-1 r, r"1
L 01 y Q) a a al al a 1-
C CC
VI J J a1 O)01 N 0,N C L CCOCLO1a
00 N a N 00 00 00 on 00 00 0 3 C
a 0 0 2
CO Ew < 2 m 2 t u m 2 2 vl In In 4111 I n e VI u
O m 01 OulLO00 r-1 r, 1--1 Q LA CT N to 0
0 m 1 cr tO
w w w w 11 LL 0 0 0 0 0 0 lD 2
ti
O 7 O
N O a
O
a 10a
m
2
c _
U
U
Ano
v
L
cc
m m
v 10
D o Q
lt a
CO o 1
tt
o
w Z m a
Z w 2wv+
w w
o CO 01
d vWo N U4
E
N 4fo O .QLmaOQ
a N
N d C
a
J o
u
cL
N
000b0
m
ti
towZ
wLCOcC
U
n
SUPPLEMENTARY DOCUMENTS
I
Taylor FE White,O
9556 Historic Kings Road S Suite 102
Civil sign & Consulting Engineers twills. Florida 5
t X904) 346 -06346 -0671 -f: (904) 346 -30-30511
www.TaylorandWhite.com
December 23, 2014
Mr. Rick Wood
Atlantic Beach Partner, LLC
414 Old Hard Road, Suite 502
Fleming Island, Florida 32003
RE: Atlantic Beach Country Club
100 -yr Flood Plain Compensatory Storage
Taylor & White, Inc. (T&W) Project No. 12210
Mr. Wood,
Pursuant to the Easement and Flood Plain Compensation Agreement ( "The Agreement ")
between Selva Marina Country Club, Inc., and Selva Preserve, LLC, please accept this letter as
adequate documentation that all of the requirements outlined within The Agreement have been
met. During the design and permitting of the development, Taylor & White, Inc., prepared the
Flood Plain Compensation calculations showing the existing flood plain storage and the
proposed flood plain storage across the development.
Due to historical flood issues across the existing Selva Marina golf course, additional treatment
basins were provided to better concentrate the flooding and to provide additional storage for the
100 -yr Flood Plain. In addition, there was an extra 30,000 cubic yards of Flood Plain
Compensation to be allocated to the future Selva Preserve development.
Based on the provided survey and topographical information, there was approximately 44,188
cubic yards of available storage within the 100 -yr Flood Plain throughout the existing golf
course. With the redesign of the development, the treatment basins, new stormwater ponds
and existing pond expansions, the proposed Atlantic Beach Country Club development will
provide approximately 96,276 cubic yards of storage within the 100 -yr Flood Plain. This
provides an excess of approximately 52,088 cubic yards of storage, of which 30,000 cubic yards
is allocated to the future Selva Preserve development.
Attached for your reference and file are copies of the existing and proposed 100 -yr Flood Plain
calculations.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to give me a call.
Sincerely,
Taylor & White, Inc.
7
D. G ynn Taylor, P.E.
President
T: \2012 \12210 Selva Marina Country Club \Memos Letters \Let of Compensatory Storage_Wood_12- 23- 14.docx
Atlantic Beach Country Club
Existing 100 -Yr. Flood Plain Calculations
AREA #1 = Flood Plain Storage provided within Golf Course
Volume Method used is the Half Method V = (A * L)12
A from EL = 7.0 - 6.0 =483849.8 ft ^2
100 -yr Floodzone EL.=7.0 ft V =120,962.45 cu.ft.
Average Existing Grade=6.5 ft
0.5 ft
A from EL = 6.0 - 5.0 =534662.0 ft ^2
100 -yr Floodzone EL.=7.0 ft V =400,996.50 cu.ft.
Average Existing Grade=5.5 ft
1.5 ft
A from EL = 5.0 - 4.0 =323830.7 ft^2
100 -yr Floodzone EL.=7.0 ft V =404,788.38 cu.ft.
Average Existing Grade=4.5 ft
2.5 ft
A from EL = 4.0 - Creek =25192.8 ft ^2
100 -yr Floodzone EL.=7.0 ft V =40,938.30 cu.ft.
Average Existing Grade=3.8 ft
3.3 ft
Total Volume Area #1 967,685.63 cu.ft.
35,840.21 cu.yd
AREA #2 = Floodplain storage within ponds
Pond Horseshoe #2 East -West (assume 4:1 side slopes)
Cumulative Cumulative
Description Elevation Area (AC)Volume Volume (AC -FT) Volume (CF)
TOB 6.00 1.46 0.71 0.71 30,960.05
Ex. Water Level 5.50 1.38 0.00 0.00
Bottom 1.00 0.61 0
Note: Volume available from Ex. Water Level to Top of Bank
Pond #3 North - South (assume 4:1 side slopes)
Cumulative Cumulative
Description Elevation Area (AC)Volume Volume (AC -FT) Volume (CF)
TOB 8.00 1.57 0.00 1.67 72,543.37
100 -yr Flood El.7.00 1.42 1.67 1.67
Ex. Water Level 5.75 1.24 0.00 0.00
Bottom 0.50 0.47 0
Note: Volume available from Ex. Water Level to 100 -yr Floodplain Elevation
Ex. Linkside SWMF - 1
Cumulative Cumulative
Description Elevation Area (AC)Volume Volume (AC -FT) Volume (CF)
TOB 7.00 1.08 2.80 2.80 121,902.66
Ex. Water Level 4.10 0.85 0.00 0.00
Bottom 0.10 0.53 0
Note: Volume available from Ex. Water Level to Top of Bank
Total Volume Area #2 225,406.08 cu.ft.
8,348.37 cu.yd
Total Volume Existing 1,193,091.71 cu.ft.
44,188.58 cu.yd
Atlantic Beach Country Club
Proposed 100 -Yr. Flood Plain Calculations
AREA #1 = Flood Plain Storage provided within Ponds
S WM F-4
Cumulative Cumulative
Description Elevation Area (AC)Volume Volume (AC -FT) Volume (CF)
TOB 7.50 4.19 9.32 406,088.10
100-y Flood El.7.00 3.76 4.67 9.32
Elevation 5.50 2.47 4.65 4.65
Normal Water Level 3.50 2.18 0.00 0.00
Bottom 3.00 1.02 0
Note: Volume available from Normal Water Level to 100-yr Floodplain Elevation
S WM F-6
Cumulative Cumulative
Description Elevation Area (AC)Volume Volume (AC -FT) Volume (CF)
TOB 9.75 0.96 0.83 36,192.23
100-yr Flood El.7.00 0.72 0.83 0.83
N WL 5.75 0.61 0.00 0.00
MAX BOTTOM 5.25 0.08 0
Note: Volume available from Normal Water Level to 100-yr Floodplain Elevation
Modified Linkside SWMF -1
Cumulative Cumulative
Description Elevation Area (AC)Volume Volume (AC -FT) Volume (CF)
100-yr Flood El.7.00 2.15 4.31 5.78 251,711.46
Control Elevation 4.89 194 0.75 1.46
Elevation 4.50 1.90 0.72 0.72
Normal Water Level 4.10 1.68 0.00 0.00
Bottom 7.50 1.00 0
Note: Volume available from Normal Water Level to 100-yr Floodplain Elevation
Total Volume Area #1 693,991.79 cu.ft.
25,703.40 cu.yd
Atlantic Beach Country Club
Proposed 100 -Yr. Flood Plain Calculations
AREA #2 = Floodplain storage within Golf Course Depressions
TB -7
Cumulative Cumulative
Description Elevati on Area (AC)Volume Volume (AC -FT) Volume (CF)
TOB 7.00 2.05 3.94 3.94 171,517.50
Bottom 4.50 1.10 0
Note: Volume available from Bottom of Basin to 100•yr Floodplain Elevation
TB-8
Cumulative Cumulative
Description Elevation Area (AC)Volume Volume (AC -FT) Volume (CF)
TOB 7.00 8.05 16.71 16.71 727,996.50
Bottom 4.50 5.32 0
Note: Volume available from Bottom of Basin to 100-yr Floodplain Elevation
TB -9
Cumulative Cumulative
Description Elevation Area (AC)Volume Volume (AC -FT) Volume (CF)
TOB 7.00 5.47 11.18 11.18 486,783.00
Bottom 4.50 3.47 0
Note: Volume available from Bottom of Basin to 100-yr Floodplain Elevation
TB -10
Cumulative Cumulative
Description Elevation Area (AC)Volume Volume (AC -FT) Volume (CF)
ELEVATION 7.00 1.02 1.98 1.98 86,031.00
Bottom 4.50 0.56 0
Note: Volume available from Bottom of Basin to 100-y Floodplain Elevation
TB -11
Cumulative Cumulative
Description Elevation Area (AC)Volume Volume (AC -FT) Volume (CF)
100-YR Floodplain 7.00 2.00 0.95 3.62 157,578.30
TOB 6.50 1.79 2.67 2.67
Bottom 4.50 0.88 0
Note: Volume available from Bottom of Basin to 100-y Floodplain Elevation
TB -12
Cumulative Cumulative
Description Elevation Area (AC)Volume Volume (AC -FT) Volume (CF)
100-YR Floodplain 7.00 2.00 0.95 3.70 160,954.20
TOB 6.50 1.78 2.75 2.75
Bottom 4.50 0.97 0
Note: Volume available from Bottom of Basin to 100-yr Floodplain Elevation
Total Volume Area #2 1,790,860.50 cu.ft.
66,328.17 cu.yd
Atlantic Beach Country Club
Proposed 100 -Yr. Rood Plain Calculations
AREA #3 = Flood Plain Storage provided within Golf Course
Volume Method used is the Half Method V= (A * L) /2
North of Main Drke
A from EL = 7.0 - 5.0 =78803.3 ft^2
100-yr Floodzone EL.=7.0 ft V=39401.66 cu.ft.
A\,erage Existing Grade=6.0 ft
1.0 ft
A from EL = 5.0 - Creek=23755.6 ftA2
100-yr Floodzone EL.=7.0 ft V=29694.5 cu.ft.
AA,erage Existing Grade=4.5 ft
2.5 ft
South of Main Drk,e
A from EL = 7.0 - 5.0 =17416.4 ft^2
100-yr Floodzone EL.=7.0 ft V=8708.2 cu.ft.
Po,erage Existing Grade=6.0 ft
1.0 ft
A from EL = 5.0 - Creek=29454.3 ftA2
100-yr Floodzone EL.=7.0 ft V=36817.875 cu.ft.
AN,erage Existing Grade=4.5 ft
2.5 ft
Total Volume Area #3 114,622.24 cu.ft.
4,245.27 cu.yd
Total Volume Proposed 2,599,474.53 cu.ft.
96,276.83 cu.yd
Total Volume Existing 1,193,091.71 cu.ft.
44,188.58 cu.yd
Total Excess Storage 1,406,382.82 cu.ft.
52,088.25 cu.yd
Additional Flood Plain Storage provided for Selva Preserve Development
1CompensatoryVolume Provided =810,000.00 cu.ft.
30,000.00 cu.yd
Total Excess Storage 596,382.82 cu.ft.
22,088.25 cu.yd