Loading...
03-22-21 Commission Workshops' 'u MINUTES Commission Workshop Meeting Monday, March 22, 2021 - 5:00 PM fiL y r Commission Chamber ATTENDANCE: Present: Ellen Glasser, Mayor- Seat 1 Bruce Bole, Commissioner- Seat 2 Michael Waters, Commissioner- Seat 3 Candace Kelly, Commissioner- Seat 4 Brittany Norris, Mayor Pro Tern/Commissioner- Seat 5 Also Present: Shane Corbin, City Manager(CM) Brenna Durden, City Attorney(CA) Donna Bartle, City Clerk(CC) CALL TO ORDER Mayor Glasser called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. 1. TOPICS - CHAPTER 23 PROTECTION OF TREES AND NATIVE VEGETATION A. Public Comment Stephen Fouraker expressed concerns regarding cutting down trees in COAB. He acknowledged the excellent work of the Environmental Stewardship Committee (ESC). Michael Kulik provided comments on the redline version of proposed updates on Section 23-21(2). He also commented on the City of Atlantic Beach Recommended Tree List, Shade Trees. Susanne Barker spoke about the importance of bringing awareness and education to the community regarding the tree canopy. Carole Schwartz explained what trees mean to her. She made suggestions on rules and regulations regarding trees. She commended the ESC. Jane Wytzka spoke about the loss of trees over the years within the City. She suggested the City monitor which trees are removed. She commended the ESC. Mayor Glasser closed the Courtesy of the Floor. Commission Workshop March 22,2021 B. Staff Presentation of proposed Chapter 23 updates Mayor Glasser requested PCDD Askew to report on input provided to the ESC, issues, and concerns that require further discussion. CM Corbin stated the Commission continues to hold a meeting regarding Chapter 23 updates to gain as much public input as possible. PCDD Askew presented a PowerPoint presentation of proposed changes (which is attached hereto and made part of this Official Record as ATTACHMENT A) PCDD Askew stated public input appears in favor of the changes to mitigation. She read a list of the recommendations made to this point. ATTACHMENT A - Presentation by PCDD Askew C. Commission Discussion - Q & A Commissioner Norris made the following recommendations/comments: categorizing the changes or expand the categories add an additional category for teardowns/redevelopments suggesting creative building ESC should not handle appeals add specific rules for a vacant undeveloped lot staff to work on revision in the attempt to expedite the deadline for the ESC unsure how to license all companies cutting down trees Commissioner Waters stated the importance of finding a balance for current residents loving and respecting the current trees and new residents not sharing the same opinions. Commissioner Bole reiterated the importance of property owner rights. He stated he would support a City approved certified Arborist to assist with enforcing the Code, and it would be of value to the residents. Commissioner Kelly stated the goal is to stop the teardowns of lots. She is in favor of the education outreach regarding this topic. Mayor Glasser stated the consensus of the Commission is to provide a stronger tree ordinance to preserve and protect the tree canopy. She stated the goal is to create a long- standing Ordinance to resist the appeal of future Commissions. She requested to compare the City of Neptune Beach Tree Code Ordinance in relation to the COAB. She stated this is a test of Home Rule, and further State regulation is a possibility. Also stated, she disagreed with Commissioner Norris regarding the ESC handling appeals. She stated, in her opinion, the ESC does not handle appeals, instead reviews the process of the permit. Commission Workshop March 22,2021 She stated further discussion should be had regarding additional categories regarding undeveloped properties and teardowns. Mayor Glasser asked the Commission if ESC could provide comments. Bruce Andrews, a member of ESC, commented on mitigation examples and the need for a strong Ordinance with equal balance. Dan Giovannucci, a member of ESC, commented on the intent of a strong ordinance. Mayor Glasser thanked the ESC. Further questions and discussion ensued regarding additional topics. Mayor Glasser emphasized the public to provide input and encouraged public interaction. She also suggested a Joint Workshop with the Commission and the ESC in the near future. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Glasser adjourned the meeting at 6:16 p.m. Attest: J l04171At.eL Donna L. Bartle, City Clerk Ellen Glasser, Mayor Date Approved: 7/1 /i Commission Workshop March 22,2021 ATTACHMENT A 3/22/21 Commission Workshop Minutes Chapter 23 Status Report February joint Commission and ESC meeting ESC tree subcommittee - 2 meetings since joint meeting Proposed Changes to Chapter 23 Recap of Issues with Current Code : Confusing i Difficult to Enforce Creates Loopholes Doesn't protect larger trees No incentives to keep larger trees K7A7x,9 cJ4 Comments from Commission/ESC/Community Code Comments Who Section 23-12 (2) Changed from city's community forest to Commission maritime forest 23-14 Add arborist to tree trust fund City suggested /ESC subcommittee does not agree with inclusion 23-14 (2) Three (3) year provision regarding Commission maintenance difficult to enforce. Added some clarifying language 23-21 (2) Requirements of State Statutes —Remove ESC tree exact language from Florida State Statutes. subcommittee Added general language that can be used if FSS is changed. 23-21 (2) Who & how enforcement will happen - Commission modify to refer to Section 1-11 — misdemeanor and 23-46 violation section Comments from Commission/ESC/Community Code Comments Who Section 23-23(b) Revise and clarified permit review ESC tree procedures subcommittee 23-23 Add back standards for review ESC tree d)(2)subcommittee 23-23 Add reconsideration of permit application ESC tree d)(3) decision subcommittee 23-25 Revise appeal procedures — to follow 24-49 ESC tree subcommittee 23-33 (b) Remove palm tree column and combine ESC tree with trees DBH less than 14 inches subcommittee 23-33 Add footnote to mitigation table ESC tree subcommittee Code Comments Who Section 23-34 Three (3) year provision regarding Commission maintenance difficult to enforce. Added some clarifying language and who/how enforcement 23-46 Violation section — clarify who and how — Commission add language regarding Section 1-11 — misdemeanor 23-52(c)(1) Change quorum requirement from majority ESC tree of members to half of currently filled seats subcommittee 23-52(g) Appeals section ESC tree subcommittee 23-41 Historic corridor — defined and add a map Commission Code Comments Who Section General Add consideration for builders Commission comment errors/unknowing homeowners and long time homeowners General New home construction and removal of Commission comment large # trees vs. small additions/remodels — mitigation and tree preservation credit 23- 33 (d) Proposed Changes ( Global Overview) Clean up definitions and language : Consistent terminology, add & remove definitions, clarify conflicting or unclear language, etc. i.e. "regulated" vs. "protected" Change which trees are considered regulated Change/clarify which trees receive preservation credit Increase the required mitigation Allow Tree Fund money to be spent on private property (front yards) Change appeals process Address mitigation for tree removal on undeveloped lots Add language addressing recent state legislation Regulated Trees Current Definition : Proposed Definition : (Remove a. A DBH of six (6) inches or more on 10k thrPsh^or ' residentially zoned property that will e a. All trees with a DBH of six (6) be removed two (2) years prior to or l; inches or more on residentiallytwo (2) years subsequent to Zoned ro ert construction valued at over ten p p y thousand dollars ($10,000.00); Confusing for public 4 Easier to follow and Difficult to track & enforce understand Creates loopholes ( remove Easier to enforce trees & wait two years) Eliminates loopholes Disproportionate results Will result in more Leaves many larger protected treeshardwoodsunprotected Preservation Credit Current Language for Pres . Proposed Change : Credit : Eliminate preservation credit, EXCEPT Existing onsite trees that are three that New Residential Development 3) inches DBH or greater and will receive a : which are neither protected nor 25% reduction in overall mitigation for transplanted may be utilized as every "designated maritime species" credit towards the assessed that is 14"+ dbh that is preserved, up mitigation, subject to the other to a 50% reduction or 40 inches conditions stated in this section, if whichever is less preserved onsite" Leftover" language from Creates incentive to preserve original Tree Code with large hardwoods during new buildable areas, etc. home construction Generally, results in all Would onlyapply to property unprotected trees receiving with an open permit for a new reservation credit p p home Required Mitigation 0 ESC Proposed Changes: Increase mitigation and create new categories CLASSIFICATION OF CATEGORY OF CLASSIFICATION OF REGULATED TREE PROPERTY Diameter at breast Diameter at breast height {DBHI less height (DBHI of Protected than fourteen (14) fourteen (14) inches Heritage Pairr-trcc_: inches and all palm or greater andt trees incluoing, palm trce5 Private parcels 1:12 1:1 1.5:1 21:1 Public rights-of-way,2:1 2:1 12:1 3a 5er cr t5, etc. 2 Environmentally sensitive 2:1 2:1 1 a 3:1 areas Historic corridor 2:1 2:1 3:1 Inches to be mitigated = inches removed (ex. 1.5:1 is mitigation ratio of 1.5" to every 1" removed Requ i red Mitigation Examples from Real Permits Existing Code Proposed Code Total Mitigation Mitigation diameter Owed Planting Payment Owed Planting Payment Inches s" owed for 1"Example Example 1.5" owed for 1" Example Example Removed removed)removed) or or General Tree Plant three (3) Plant nine (9) 24" 12" 1,728 36"4" caliper 5,184 Removal 4 caliper oaks oaks r r' j hr mss = rr' • 1.io 44 -a il k •A e *,,,. t, r r. X3 X9 Required Mitigation Examples from Real Permits Existing Code Proposed Code Total Diameter Mitigation Planting Payment Mitigation Planting Payment Inches Owed Example Example Owed Example Example Removed Tear Down and Plant twenty Plant sixty six Development 212" 106"seven (27) 4" $15,246 262" 66) 4" caliper 37,728 of New Home caliper trees trees l X27 X66 414111 46 iiiiii di d AI iii i Ai' IL Ai IIIA iiiii Ai it.46Ail, AA Ai" ji, A iii A41.46 A iiii iiii Ail ja itiAii, aiii ajogiii A 46 46 iiiiliii 16 iii ariaiilk_ Ai 44 Jima.iiii iiiiiiiiii ai ii 446 iii A. A it iiiiaii iii. iiiiihaiAmmai Required Mit' ation Examples from Real Permits Existing Code Proposed Code Total Diameter Mitigation Owed Planting Example Payment Mitigation Owed Planting Example Payment Inches Removed Example Example New Home Built on Plant fifty four (54) Plant one hundred 540" 270"38,880 592.5" nineteen (119) 5" $85,320 Vacant Lot 5 caliper trees caliper trees ti,et. r1,, - X 54 y =. .r X 119 a .' tair\ , semL 9 NI Tree Fund Monies Used to plant trees within the city Trees must be planted on public property Proposed Change : Allow trees paid for by the Tree Fund to be planted on private property Only in front yards, or side yards on corner lots Encourage shade trees that impact public spaces. Often times utilities/powerlines prohibit planting in public right of ways Property owners would agree to maintain ( reduce city maintenance costs) t r 3 tip . 1 s-- l . p.. vc Appeals Process s Current Code : Generally, all appeals or request for relief from the code go to the City Commission On very limited occasions, appeals go the Tree Subcommittee (of the ESC) Existing code Proposed Change: All appeals or requests for relief would be heard by the Tree Subcommittee. Appeals of their decision would then go to the Community Development Board and further appeals to the City Commission. Tree Subcommittee is knowledgeable of and familiar with the tree code (existing & proposed) Undeveloped/Vacant Lots City Commission directed ESC & staff to address mitigation for lots that haven't been developed These lots are often overgrown with vegetation T.3a and treestomer 1 Higher than usual mitigation required when developed 5 Often not enough room on-site to replant the T required mitigation Proposed Change: Allow applicants to plant trees on private property within 1/ 4. mile radius 1. Still replenishes the tree canopy A} d 4km °, n 19 Provides flexibility to meet the required f :4 { mitigation d t..4 ONLY applies to lots that haven't had a structure in 20+ years Recent State Legislation Local Gov. cannot require a permit or mitigation for the removal of a tree on private property if the property owner obtains documentation from an arborist or landscape architect that the tree presents a danger to persons or property. Proposed Language : 2) Notwithstanding any provision in this Chapter to the contrary. the city may not require a notice. application. approval. permit, fee or mitigation for the pruning. trimming. or removal of a tree on residentially used property if the property owner obtains documentation from an arborist or a Florida licensed landscape architect that the tree presents a danger to persons or property. Documentation must be obtained by the property oy.vner prior to the tree removal and must note that the removal of the tree is necessary due to it presenting a danger to person or property. The documentation must be made available to the administrator within three (3 ) business days from the date of request. Falsification of such documentation is a serious offense that is subject to prosecution and may also be reported to the relevant certification body. Questions and Public Comments ? M s' ., fit $' a ti t ,I f ,, « s. 3 ,err`; t i ;. y a } trim " t 4, L, eST 4 ,,. w , V t• y 14. , y at E,.„ ry^ r'_" y'` _ 4.s x .n,bsy - megg h y;. t hil S' lo, - 016 4x ' A,. i. 1 l Y a 44, t ,, 3- ii 6 • y phi.14 i , l s. P` 4 4 as ~a off. 1!. il.i ..1... a il ..., dt t +' tl \\y am irr k.•, P es= 1.4 ` "'':.3 - . ! _1 Via„ um.. e .: