Alachua County Commission discusses commercial vehicles parking along roads, planned development policies, and tree protection

BY JENNIFER CABRERA

GAINESVILLE, Fla. – At their January 7 special meeting, the Alachua County Commission discussed commercial vehicle parking in County rights-of-way, policies relating to planned developments, and tree protection in developments.

Commercial vehicle parking

This item was placed on the agenda after complaints were received about commercial vehicles parking in the right-of-way, especially adjacent to residential properties. Principal Planner Chris Dawson showed pictures of SE 35th Street, where he said some of the parked trucks have expired tags. Complaints have also been received in the area near the NW 39th Avenue exit of I-75.

Dawson said the County’s codes are inconsistent about parking in rights-of-way; for example, the code prohibits all on-street parking in residential neighborhoods, which Dawson admitted is “perfectly normal in those kinds of contexts.” Also, cars and light trucks are not permitted to park in designated on-street parking spaces, and parking is not allowed on a public street to deliver goods or services to a business or residence. In some cases, the County has actually approved on-street parking places despite the fact that the code does not permit cars and light trucks to use those parking spaces. 

Dawson said, “In our code, we’re allowing people to create parking spaces on-street, but if we were enforcing our code, [we would] not allow people to actually park.”

Staff recommended revising the code to provide for marked on-street parking, prohibit parking of commercial vehicles on public streets, and provide for parking of commercial vehicles on public streets when delivering goods to a business or residence.

Large trucks can currently be parked on private property as long as they’re shielded from neighbors’ view or in an enclosed structure; they currently cannot be parked on a street. 

Commissioners generally supported allowing truckers to park on a street when they’re home for a few days, but they wanted to be able to cite or remove trucks that are parked for a longer period of time or that appear to be abandoned.

Assistant County Manager Missy Daniels said Sheriff’s Deputies can only enforce the no-parking rule if there is a “No Parking” sign. 

Commissioner Anna Prizzia made a motion to install “No Parking” signs in areas where there have been complaints about commercial vehicles “parking long-term and abandoning and/or using our rights-of-way as if it’s a parking lot.” Commissioner Ken Cornell seconded the motion, and Prizzia added a second piece to look into revising the County’s code to align it with statutes and allow for commercial vehicles to park on public streets when appropriate. 

Commissioner Mary Alford said she would like to hear from truckers about their challenges and how they’re solving the problem of where to park their trucks, along with information about how this is handled in other places. 

Dawson asked for clarification about whether the “No Parking” signs would apply to all vehicles, and Prizzia said her intention was that they would apply to commercial vehicles. 

The motion passed unanimously.

Traditional Neighborhood Development and Transit Oriented Development policies

Development Review Manager Christine Berish said the current code is too complicated and overly focused on how the land is used, as opposed to focusing on the timing of trips to and from the development. Staff also recommended expanding the definition of “minor changes”and delegating some authority to the Development Review Committee to reduce the approval time for developments. 

Another recommendation was to remove a requirement that mixed uses (residential and commercial) be stacked vertically, as long as both uses are in the development. Commissioners generally agreed with that but wanted to make sure that multi-story buildings were still required to maintain the density of the developments. 

Staff also recommended more flexibility in the timing of construction in phases and adopting a tiered system for drive-throughs in which some types of drive-throughs would be permitted in some areas but not others. 

A full list of recommended changes in shown in the slide below:

Cornell made a motion for staff to proceed with updates based on the recommendations, and Commissioner Marihelen Wheeler seconded the motion.

In response to a question from a commissioner, a staff member clarified that the design regulations for Traditional Neighborhood Developments and Transit Oriented Developments are the same, so all of the recommendations apply to both types of developments. 

In response to a question from a consultant about the importance of parking to end users, Prizzia said, “The point of a TND/TOD is to move away from single-occupancy-vehicle type traffic, right?… How are we as a community, as developers and companies, how are you all moving the needle on that conversation with the developers you’re working with? Because we have to move that needle. We have to get away from being an auto-centric country and an auto-centric community if we’re going to meet the goals that we need to meet on all kinds of fronts, from environmental to social to all the things that we’re trying to do with these developments… I think it’s incumbent upon all of us to be a part of that change we want to see in the world. And I’m not trying to push against the idea of what you’re saying about parking, but I do think that they have to realize that the point of building like this is to try to get more people out of their cars and onto buses and onto bikes and onto scooters and walking on their own two feet to the locations that they’re going.”

The motion passed unanimously.

Tree protection in developments

Growth Management Director Jeff Hays began his presentation with the motion made in the August 8 County Commission meeting: bring back recommendations for preserving the urban tree canopy, prioritizing the hierarchy of trees, amending dripline impact regulations, what other counties and cities do to monitor trees over time, and performing a tree inventory.

Hays said staff met with a group of consultants, and they said that requiring mitigation payments or replanting for any impact to a tree area becomes a disincentive to saving those trees; consultants also requested more flexibility in open space requirements so the best trees could become part of the open space.

Hays said a tree inventory would cost $110,000 to $600,000, but there are grants available for that kind of analysis, so staff recommended that the board give them approval to start applying for those grants. 

Staff recommended updates in the following areas:

Cornell said he wanted to do a tree inventory and said, “I think this is right in line with our Climate Action Plan, and everything I heard that day (at the Alachua County Climate Summit) was, we have to do this… Obviously, let’s apply for grants. But at the end of this budget cycle, if we don’t have that allocated, then I want staff to put that money aside so that we get this done… I think we spent $700-800,000 for that Climate Action Plan. This, to me, is a critical piece of the Climate Action Plan, and so I want to direct staff to move forward on that if you guys agree.”

Prizzia agreed with doing a tree inventory but said she was concerned about “competing priorities happening right now… What our code was trying to do is protect open space,… and then we also have protecting trees, which, in and of themselves are an entity, right? You know, a sentient being, but they’re part of a community. And when you take away their community, you’ll see, the tighter that you pull away from the ecosystem they were a part of, the less and less they survive.”

Prizzia was concerned about reducing the size of the trees that must be protected, from a 60-inch diameter to something lower, “because sometimes that may not be the best way to get the maximum protection of trees, and that may be our goal.” She preferred a “more nuanced policy that’s based on how we protect those trees.”

Cornell pointed out that only quality heritage trees of that size are automatically protected. Alford pointed out that the dripline changes would make it more likely that smaller trees are protected, but Cornell still wanted to reduce the diameter of protected trees from 60 inches to 45 inches. 

Prizzia said, “Why not just say ‘high quality specimen trees,’ period?… We would be leaning more on our arborists and our landscape professionals to be telling us which trees are the most important trees to be protected on that site… It’s not necessarily always about size, but it’s about size, quality, health, and also the species.”

Cornell made a motion to approve staff’s recommendations with the “additional wrinkle” that trees with a 45-inch diameter must be protected, but the wording will come back to the board before it’s adopted. Wheeler seconded the motion.

The motion passed unanimously.