Loading...
Item 8AAGENDA ITEM # 8A FEBRUARY 22, 2010 CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH CITY COMMISSION MEETING STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM: Request by Jerrold & Rosanna Dixon to appeal assessment and obtain a refund of $3,919.50 charged for unmet mitigation, assessed as condition of issuance of Tree Removal Permit #08-00100011. SUBMITTED BY: Erika Hall Sonya Doerr, AICP ~~ Principal Planner/Tree Administrator Community Development Director DATE: February 11, 2010 BACKGROUND: The property owners of a newly constructed home at 1730 Ocean Grove Drive have appealed tree mitigation assessed in accordance with the tree ordinance and have asked for a refund of the mitigation that was paid in order to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy, which would effectively exempt this one property from Chapter 23 of City Code. The Tree Conservation Board (TCB) approved a tree removal application in conjunction with the residential redevelopment of this lot on Apri19, 2008. A Tree Removal Permit was issued on April 10th for the removal of 119 inches from the interior zone and 55 inches from the exterior zone. The TCB assessed mitigation for 27.5 inches of hardwoods in accordance with the tree ordinance in effect at that time. The Tree Administrator received numerous complaints from adjacent property owners once tree removal began, and upon inspection, found sufficient evidence that clearing activity had exceeded the scope of the approved permit and was possibly encroaching upon adjacent properties. The TCB was advised at the April 23rd meeting that the applicant had been told to submit a revised tree survey and re-appear before the TCB to request amendment of the existing permit to account for the additional trees removed. The TCB heard from the Applicant and adjacent property owners and considered the revised tree survey at the May 14th and 28th meetings before voting to approve the applicant's new request to remove all trees as shown on the revised survey. A revised permit was issued on May 30, 2008 for the removal of 135 inches from the interior zone and 224 inches from the exterior zone with the TCB's revised assessment of 101.5 inches, with 94.5" required to be either oaks and/or hardwoods, per provisions of the tree ordinance. On December 28, 2009, the applicant applied to the Building Department for the Certificate of Occupancy (CO) for the new house, and was advised by the Tree Administrator that a landscape plan demonstrating accomplishment of the assessed mitigation had not been provided, and that the CO would not be released until that plan was reviewed and approved. The applicant indicated that time was critical as the property owners desired to complete the project before year end, and that he would have the landscape architect contact Staff directly. The landscape architect then called and reported that he had designed the landscape according to the parameters set by his clients, and not the mitigation requirements assessed by the TCB, which he claimed to be unaware of. Staff reiterated to both parties that the CO could not be released until a landscape plan sufficiently demonstrating compliance with the mitigation assessed by the TCB was received, reviewed, field- verified and approved. February 22, 2010 regular meeting AGENDA ITEM # 8A FEBRUARY 22, 2010 The landscape architect delivered an updated as-built landscape plan at 4:30 pm on December 29, 2009, and again advised that the landscaping was designed not to meet mitigation requirements but to compliment the architecture of the structure, per direction of his clients. As such, he indicated that he had provided a "conversion table" and requested that Staff find the mitigation sufficient on this basis. Staff reviewed the submitted as-built landscape plan in light of the mitigation assessed by the TCB. At the Applicant's request, Staff gave reasonable allowance for alternative hardwoods meeting minimum size requirements. Credit was also given for the Japanese Yew plantings, due in part to the University of Florida's Department of Environmental Horticulture recommendation of that particular tree as an "outstanding species" for this area. Credit was also given for the Italian Cypress plantings because of their large mature height and potential for providing screening and shading in the clustered configuration in which they had been planted. However, no allowance was given for the "shrubby, weak-wooded" or the potentially invasive species. These allowances resulted in a calculation of 33.5 inches in unmet mitigation, requiring a payment of $3,919.50 into the Tree Conservation Fund. On the afternoon of December 30, 2009, Staff presented the applicant with an evaluation of the as- built landscape plan in which the allowances as described above were credited to the required mitigation as set by the TCB as well as an invoice for payment of the remaining unmet mitigation into the Tree Conservation Fund. The applicant accepted this assessment as reasonable, presented payment to the Tree Conservation Fund, and was issued the CO by the Building Department. The Applicant has now requested a refund of the mitigation paid in order to obtain the CO, which again, would effectively exempt this property from the tree ordinance. RECOMMENDATION: Deny appeal and request for refund of $3,919.50 from the TCF. ATTACHMENTS: None. (All supporting documentation is maintained within the permit file.) BUDGET: Payment to the Tree Conservation Fund Account Number 112-0000-366.00-00. REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: February 22, 2010 regular meeting