03-20-00 v • AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF
TREE CONSERVATION BOARD
March 20, 2000
7:30 p.m.
City Hall Commission Chambers
1. Call to Order
2. Recognition of Visitors
3. Approval of Minutes of Meeting of March 6, 2000
4. Old Business
A. Tree Removal Applications
1) None
5. New Business
A. Tree Removal Applications
• 1) Lot 6, Block 160, Section H
2) 1875 Hickory Lane
3) 511 Levy Road
6. Reports and Announcements
7. Adjournment
• If any person decides to appeal any decision made by the Tree Conservation Board at the above meeting,
he will need a record of the proceedings,and for such purpose,may need to ensure that a verbatim record
of the proceedings is made,which record shall include the testimony of evidence upon which appeal is to
be based.
III MINUTESF
O
TREE CONSERVATION BOARD
MARCH 20,2000
A Regular Meeting of the Tree Conservation Board was held Monday, March 20, 2000, in the
Commission Chambers located at 800 Seminole Road. Present were Mae Jones, Chairperson,
Richard Bell, Eloise Koerber, and Camille Hunter. Also present were Building Official Don Ford
and Julie Brandt.
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Jones at 7:40 p.m.
3. Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of March 6,2000
A motion was made by Board Member Koerber, seconded by Board Member Bell and
unanimously carried to approve the Minutes of the Tree Conservation Board Meeting of
March 6,2000 as presented.
4. Old Business/Tree Removal Applications
• There was no Old Business.
5. New Business/Tree Removal Applications
1. Lot 6, Block 160, Section H. Janie Williams, Contractor for the property owner, Baird
Seymour, introduced herself and stated that Mr. Seymour wished to build a single family home on
the property for resale. Board Member Hunter stated that the tree survey application was not
drawn to scale and it was difficult to determine if certain trees were located within the interior or
exterior zones. Chairperson Jones explained the setback requirements to determine the zones,
and Board Member Bell stressed the importance of an accurate tree survey.
Discussion ensued and Chairperson Jones encouraged Ms. Williams to save as many pine trees at
the back of the property as possible since mitigation would be required for the pine trees removed
from the site. The Board pointed out that it would be to Ms. Williams' advantage to re-measure
and accurately locate the trees with respect to mitigation and re-submit the application..
A motion was made by Board Member Koerber, seconded by Board Member Bell and
unanimously carried to defer action on the application to allow the applicant to re-submit
the tree survey at the next regularly scheduled meeting.
2. 1875 Hickory Lane. Barbara Price, owner of the property, introduced herself to the
• Board. Mrs. Price explained that she wished to build an addition to her home for use by her
elderly parents.
• Minutes of Tree Conservation Board
March 20, 2000
Page 2—
Board Member Bell inquired as to why the 18" hickory tree located at the front of the house was
being removed. Mrs. Price stated that the drawing showing the proposed addition was drawn
incorrectly and the addition actually came out as far as the garage, which would put the southwest
corner of the addition too close to the tree. Mrs. Price indicated that the tree root mound would
be higher than the addition and cause drainage problems for the area. Mrs. Price also stated that
the sidewalk was shown incorrectly and would have to be reconfigured to come straight out from
the entryway.
Discussion of mitigation requirements ensued. Chairperson Jones stated that she had visited the
site and pointed out that several species of trees on the application had been misidentified and
she felt they should be correctly identified. Discussion of the 18" hickory tree ensued and the
question arose if it was located in the interior or exterior zone. It was pointed out that if it was
located in the interior zone it would not have to be mitigated. Board Member Bell indicated
that he had measured the tree and it was actually 19" in diameter.
The 12" oak on the north side of the property was discussed and the Board hoped that there was
some way it could be saved. Mrs. Price indicated that the architect felt the tree should be
• removed and the site graded to prevent drainage problems at the front of the house.
Board Member Bell expressed concern that removal of the 32" oak,the 12" oak and 18" hickory
trees would substantially impact the ambiance of the neighborhood. Chairperson Jones
concurred, and hoped that a significant size replacement tree could be placed in the front yard.
Mrs. Price stated that she would readdress this matter with the architect and come back in two
weeks..
A motion was made by Board Member Hunter,seconded by Board Member Koerber and
unanimously carried to defer action on the application until the next regularly scheduled
Board Meeting to allow the owner an opportunity to speak with her architect to see if the
32" and 12" oak trees and the 18" hickory tree could be saved.
3. 511 Levy Road. Jim Milligan, Contractor for Larry Walshaw, owner of the property,
introduced himself and distributed an exterior elevation plan for the property. The site plan
showing the location of the trees was displayed and Mr. Walshaw pointed out that 8" and 6" oak
trees (two trees) located in the upper right hand corner of the plan were not included on the
drawing.
Chairperson Jones noted that Mr. Milligan had submitted two different applications and inquired
as to which one was being addressed. Mr. Milligan stated that he would explain the two
applications, and indicated that the 8" tree would be preserved and the other taken out. He
• further stated that 56" of oak would be taken from the site and 28" put back in.
, .
• Minutes of Tree Conservation Board
March 20, 2000
Page 3—
Discussion ensued concerning what trees had been marked for removal and Mr. Milligan
indicated that his tree surveyor had marked any tree close to the 10" DBH requirement and some
9" trees had been marked because they were questionable. Board Member Bell stated that he had
noticed trees in the southwest corner area of the property sprayed red, which indicated removal,
but were actually to remain and were marked as such in blue on the plan. Mr. Milligan indicated
that they had been marked in error by the property owner and the ones marked with bright orange
would be taken out, not those marked in red. Board Member Bell expressed concern that the
mismarked trees could accidentally be removed. Mr. Milligan assured the Board this would not
happen. He also indicated that they would clean underbrush from the easement on the property
and maintain it.
Discussion ensued and Mr. Walshaw indicated that he had purchased the property from Mrs. John
B. Chandler, not Sandar. Mr. Milligan displayed a site plan for the Sandar property, which he
had previously mitigated, and pointed out its relationship to Mr. Walshaw's property.
Chairperson Jones repeated her inquiry concerning the submittal of two different applications.
Mr. Milligan provided background information concerning the Sandar mitigation and indicated
• that due to the hardships caused by the city stormwater retention and parking requirements, the
Board changed Sandar's mitigation requirement for the interior zone only from 10" and up on
pine trees to 16" and up. He requested that the same consideration be given to Mr. Walshaw
since his property was being impacted more than the Sandar property by the city code
requirements.
Mr. Milligan indicated that one of the applications reflected the city code requirements and the
other reflected use of the same requirements found in the exception previously granted to Sandar.
He stated that if this Board granted the same exception as granted Sandar, only 133" of tree
replacement would be required. He pointed out that Mr. Walshaw would be planting back
232", which would be more than that required by using the Sandar exception but below the city
code requirement.
Discussion ensued and Board Member Bell felt that everyone should be treated equally under the
ordinance and no exceptions should be granted. Totals for mitigation were taken and the Board
determined that 41" of oak, 30" of palm and 570" of pine were to be removed resulting in
300" of non-oak and 20" of oak to be mitigated. Mr. Milligan proposed to replace 232" of non-
oak and 28" of oak resulting in a shortage of 60" of tree replacement.
Mr. Milligan stated that he would like to increase the diameter of eighteen(18) sycamore trees
from four inch to six inch which would provide an additional 36". Mr. Milligan agreed to and
increase the size of the seven (7) bald cypress trees to five inches which would provide ten
• additional inches of tree replacement. The Board directed Mr. Milligan to mitigate the remaining
14" by saving several small trees under six inches in diameter on the property. Mr. Milligan
t
• Minutes of Tree Conservation Board
March 20, 2000
Page 4—
agreed to do so.
A motion was made Board Member Bell, seconded by Board Member Koerber and
unanimously carried to approve the application for the removal of 30" of palm, 570" of
pine and 41" of oak trees and to be mitigated on site with replacement of 300" of non-oak
and 20" of oak(the Board agreed to discount 1/2" of oak), and that the Building Official
issue a permit for the removal of the trees. Mr. Milligan was directed to provide an
amended plan reflecting the changes as discussed to the Building Department.
Chairperson Jones will sign off on the amended plans.
6. Reports and Announcements
Building Official Ford
Lots 4 and 5 - Mayport Industrial Park- Building Official Ford reported that the application
submitted by Conley and Wicker had been returned for more detail. He reported that a cursory
• review of the plan revealed that six trees had been left off of the plan. Building Official Ford
further stated that an application for three item variance had been submitted to the Community
Development Board, which would severely affect the site plan should the variance be denied. He
indicated that the application would be resubmitted after the Community Development Board
determination.
Monthly Report - Building Official Ford stated that he was now including a monthly report of
his activities in the Board packets and commented that David Lovette, the city's building
inspector, was a retired Building Official from Nassau County and also worked with the City of
Fernandina Beach to develop their tree ordinance. He further stated that Mr. Lovette would also
be inspecting to see if tree barricades had been installed properly.
Building Official Ford also requested that the Board Members call him before the meeting if they
had any questions concerning the applications.
Board Member Reports/Comments
The Board Members requested that the meeting packets be hand delivered since the packets
which had been mailed on the previous Wednesday were not received until Monday.
Tree Removal Application Form
• It was the consensus of the Board that a more extensive application form was required and they
requested that Building Official Ford draft a new form. The Board felt the definition of"tree
. .
.. ,
• Minutes of Tree Conservation Board
March 20, 2000
Page 5—
survey"needed to be modified and the accompanying diagram was too confusing. The Board
also felt that the setback requirements should be included on the form and on-site mitigation
indicated. Building Official Ford indicated that he would draft a new form.
Definition of a Tree
Chairperson Jones commented that a good definition for a tree was needed and Board Member
Hunter stated that she was still working on the request.
Pine Trees
Board Member Hunter felt that pine trees were not worth saving if construction occurred near
them. She pointed out that pine trees have shallow roots and the disturbed roots of a pine tree
rarely recovered and the tree usually died within three years. She felt the tree ordinance should
distinguish between pine trees and other types of trees.
7. Adjournment
• There being no further business or discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
I' LAA ' / 1
Ric i ar.:ell, Secretary
0