Loading...
10-15-25 ESC TS Adopted MinutesMINUTES Environmental Stewardship Committee Tree Subcommittee Meeting Wednesday, October 15, 2025 - 6:00 PM City Hall, Commission Chamber 800 Seminole Road, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 Present: Daniele Giovannucci, ESC Member Bruce Andrews, ESC Member Amy Palmer, ESC Member Also Present: Abrielle Genest, Principal Planner (PP) 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT (5 MINS.) There were no public comments. 3. NEW BUSINESS A. 51 Beach Avenue TREE21-0012 Appeal Appeal of staff denial to use species not listed on the list of recommended species at 51 Beach Avenue. Daniele Giovannucci opened the hearing by explaining the process would begin with a staff presentation, followed by the applicant's overview, closing comments and rebuttals, and then deliberation and voting. City staff overview Abrielle Genest presented the staff report, explaining that the ESC Tree Subcommittee's role was to review the application for compliance with Chapter 23 (the tree code) and make a recommendation to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the appeal. Genest provided context for the property at 51 Beach Avenue, located north of the Ahern Street right-of-way, adjacent to the One Ocean hotel and lifeguard station. The property owner had submitted a building permit application in 2019 for a single-family residence, which was issued in January 2021. A tree removal permit application was subsequently submitted in March 2021, and after working with staff on a mitigation plan, the permit was issued in June 2021. The original mitigation plan approved the removal of all palm trees on the property and several in the right-of-way. The approved mitigation plan included planting 379 inches of palm trees to meet the required mitigation of approximately 170 inches. The approved species included Medjool date palm, cabbage palms, and mule palm - notably, the Medjool date palm and mule palm were not on the city's list of approved species but were administratively approved by staff in 2021. Environmental Stewardship Committee Tree Subcommittee October 15, 2025 Page 1 of 4 Bruce Andrews questioned whether the trees removed from the public right-of-way were approved for removal, which Genest confirmed. She also explained that mitigation for the right-of-way trees had been waived due to the property owner's contributions to the lifeguard station renovation work. Andrews further clarified that the mitigation ratios being applied were from the code in effect in 2021, prior to increased mitigation rates that went into effect later. Genest explained that in August 2025, the applicant requested credit for species not on the approved list. Staff denied this request, taking the stance that the ESC had put extensive work into creating the approved species list, and staff should adhere to it. The denied species were more tropical trees than those typically approved. Section 23-33 of the code states that replacement trees shall be selected from the approved list, which was created based on hardiness, disease and pest resistance, availability, and size variance. No mitigation credit will be approved for trees not on the list unless approved by the administrator. The applicant's requested species included ribbon palm (hardiness zone 9-11, cold hardy to 18-24T), King Alexander palm (zone 10-11, hardy to 25T), royal palm (zone 10-11, hardy to 28°17), and Mexican fan palm (which is actually on the approved list as Washingtonia palm). Andrews asked if the subcommittee's approval would allow the administrator to then approve the species, which Genest confirmed. Amy Palmer questioned why the original plan was approved with species not on the list, to which Genest responded she wasn't sure why the deviation was approved then, but today staff takes the stance of upholding the carefully thought -through list. Applicant Overview Gavin Cain, landscape architect with Marquis Latham Halback from St. Augustine, thanked the committee for their flexibility in rescheduling the meeting due to the recent birth of his child. He had been working with property owners Robin and Tabitha Sorensen since February 2019. Cain emphasized the Sorensen's were great neighbors who had transformed a derelict property into an architectural asset for the city. He detailed their collaboration with the city, including donating improvements in the right-of-way and contributing to the lifeguard station renovation, including donating schematic design services. Regarding the palm selection, Cain explained the original approval for mule and Medjool palms came from discussions with Brian Broedell. Mule palms are cold -hardy crosses between Pindo and Queen palms, while Medjool palms are similar to the approved Canary Island dates and Sylvesters. The clients desired a pinnate (feather -front) aesthetic rather than the palmate look of many approved species. Cain presented his professional rationale for the viability of the proposed palms, noting that Atlantic Beach had been reclassified from zone 9a to 9b in the 2023 USDA hardiness zone map update. He argued the specific site conditions - protected by a three-story house, the renovated lifeguard station, and an eight -story hotel, plus reflective heat from Environmental Stewardship Committee Tree Subcommittee October 15, 2025 Page 2 of 4 pavement and white structures - would create a microclimate approximately one zone warmer. He referenced his experience in Sarasota and a successful subtropical planting at a healthcare facility with similar protected conditions. The revised planting plan showed ribbon palms along the property line and in the right- of-way, King Alexander palms (as double -trunk specimens) near the front entrance, and royal palms in protected locations. Cain noted the property had very limited landscape space due to underground infrastructure and stormwater management requirements. Regarding the species not currently in the plan, Cain explained Chinese fan palms and foxtail palms were included in the appeal at the clients' request for consideration, though they hadn't made it into the final planting plan. He emphasized the clients had committed to maintaining all trees, including those in the right-of-way, and would replace any that died from cold damage. Palmer questioned why cabbage palms weren't considered, given that 36 were removed from the property. Cain responded it was an aesthetic preference - the clients found ribbon palms more attractive with their lacier fronds. Andrews noted he could understand how cabbage palms might not fit aesthetically with the more tropical species being proposed. Andrews performed calculations showing the property needed 180 inches of mitigation, with 135 inches coming from Washingtonias (on the approved list) and 48 inches from ribbon palms, totaling 183 inches. This meant they were meeting their mitigation requirement with just Washingtonias and ribbon palms, making the approval of King Alexander and royal palms unnecessary for mitigation purposes. Giovannucci suggested this simplified the decision, as it became primarily about approving ribbon palms for mitigation credit. Andrews expressed concerns about setting precedent and suggested the palm list needed revision given disease issues with Washingtonias (fusarium wilt) and Sylvesters. He noted the current list was somewhat random and inconsistent. Cain mentioned alternative species like Livistona nitida that might be more disease -resistant. Tree subcommittee deliberation and action During deliberation, Giovannucci commended staff for their thoroughness and increasing diligence in enforcement. He noted the key issue was the cold hardiness of the proposed species, particularly given that average temperatures for zone 9b could still include damaging cold snaps. Andrews expressed support for finding a solution that worked for the homeowner while not setting problematic precedent. He noted that once mitigation requirements were met with approved species, property owners could plant whatever they wished without it counting toward mitigation. Palmer remained concerned about consistency and precedent, questioning what would trigger acceptance of trees not on the list. Genest clarified that while she wasn't aware of many precedents, there had been a handful of administrative approvals over the years. Environmental Stewardship Committee Tree Subcommittee October 15, 2025 Page 3 of 4 MOTION: After extensive discussion clarifying the mitigation calculations and requirements, the motion was made to APPROVE the appeal with conditions, the condition being that only the ribbon palm be allowed to be used toward mitigation, and that the other [palms] that aren't on the list are not to be given credit toward mitigation." Motion: Bruce Andrews Second: Amy Palmer Andrews clarified during discussion that he wasn't opposing king palms and royal palms aesthetically, but their inches weren't needed to achieve the required mitigation, so there was no point in setting precedent. The committee confirmed that beyond meeting mitigation requirements, the property owners could plant any species they wished for aesthetic purposes or to meet minimum tree requirements, just not for mitigation credit. Planner Genest clarified that for a Certificate of Occupancy, the property would need to meet three requirements: the mitigation inches, the minimum number of trees on site, and the shade tree requirement. Trees not from the approved list could count toward the minimum number but not mitigation. Following the vote, Cain offered his expertise to help revise the city's palm list in the future, which staff indicated would be addressed after the current Chapter 23 revisions were completed. Daniele Giovannucci For Bruce Andrews (Moved By) For Amy Palmer (Seconded By) For Motion passed 3 to D. 4. ADJOURNMENT There being no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 7:24 p.m. Attest: 01 Amanda Askew, Neighborhoods Director Environmental Stewardship Committee Tree Subcommittee October 15, 2025 Page 4 of 4