Agenda Item 8A- Tree Code RevisionsAGENDA ITEM:
SUBMITTED BY:
DATE:
BACKGROUND:
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
CITY COMMISSION MEETING
STAFF REPORT
Tree Code Revisions
Jeremy Hubsch /J!:J,}
Building and Zoning Director( Y(
February 24, 2015
AGENDA ITEM# SA
MARCH 23, 2015
A repoti on the Tree Code was given to the Commission in October of2014. The Commission
then tasked staff with making changes to improve the code. Staff then discussed the Tree Code
and presented possible changes to the code to the Community Development Board. The CDB
voted on 3 recommendations at their February 1 i 11 meeting, and have more 2 recommendations
to fine tune. The recommendations are:
1. Require a tree removal permit for the removal of any tree within 24 months of
construction with a value over $10,000 and that the removal of all trees in excess of 6
inches in diameter require an on demand tree removal permit. The motion canied
unanimously.
Staff recommended that the city require a tree removal permit any time a tree is removed.
The Community Development Board was not supportive of this recommendation. It was
pointed out that a resident may plant a tree in their yard, and then seek to remove that tree
a few years later. The board felt that it is not fair to require a property owner to mitigate
for the removal of a tree they may themselves have planted. The board generally agreed
that residents are doing a good job of maintaining the tree canopy. They believe that the
loss of the canopy can mostly be attributed to new development. Therefore, they choose
to recommend extending the tree permit requirement from 6 months to 24 months. This
means a tree permit would be needed whenever a tree is removed within 24 months
before or after of construction that exceeds $10,000.
Additionally, the board recommended that all trees removed must file an on demand
permit. An on demand permit would essentially be a tool for staff to track trees that were
removed. If a tree was removed, then 8 months later a property owner attempted to
obtain a building permit, staff would be able to require the property owner to
mitigate for the tree that they had already removed.
2. Eliminate the interior/exterior zone aspect of the code and have all trees 6 inches or more
in diameter be defined as private regulated trees. The motion canied unanimously.
Cunently, the tree code states that protected trees (private regulated trees) are all trees
that are 6 inches or larger in the "exterior zone" of a prope1iy. The exterior zone is
everywhere outside of the buildable area on a lot. All trees over 20 inches are protected in
the "interior zone", or buildable area of the lot. The logic behind this is that it should be
easier to preserve trees outside the buildable area on a lot. However, this provision allows
AGENDA ITEM# 8A
MARCH 23, 2015
trees up to 20 inches in the interior of the lot to be removed without any mitigation.
Additionally, trees up to 20 inches are given preservation credit for mitigation.
Hypothetically, a prope1iy owner can remove a 38 inch tree, get 19 inches of preservation
credit for maintaining a tree, and then later cut down the 19 inch tree that it got credit for
with no mitigation required (the 19 inch tree is not protected). There is also an argument
that if the city allows every 15 to 20 inch tree to be removed with no mitigation, the city's
future canopy will suffer.
One important thing to consider with this proposed change is it will also impact the
amount of preservation credit property owners get. The code currently only gives
preservation credit to trees that are not protected (less than 6" in exterior zone and less
than 20" in interior zone). If this section is changed to 6 inches, only trees below that
size will be given preservation credit. This means property owners will likely have to
mitigate more in the form of replacement or payment into the tree fund. This will
minimize the overall loss of trees on a prope1iy.
3. Make the mitigation rate payable to the tree fund $17 5. 00 per caliper inch. The motion
carried unanimously.
Atlantic Beach has used the same dollar figure that the City of Jacksonville uses for
payment into the tree fund. Up until recently that number was $49 an inch. The City of
Jacksonville recently changed this to $113 to more accurately reflect cmTent market
costs. The Community Development Board has recommended an even higher number of
$175 per inch.
There are two staff recommendations that the CDB would like refined before they vote to
recommend to the Commission.
1. Strengthen Protection of Oaks.
Oaks are a treasured species by many in Atlantic Beach, and greatly contribute to the
character of the community. They are one of a few things that distinguish Atlantic Beach
from its neighboring beach communities. Staff is recommending that mitigation be
increased on oaks from 1 :2 to 1: 1. Currently if you remove an oak, you have to mitigate 1
inch for every two inches removed (same as other trees in Atlantic Beach). Strengthening
protection of oaks will not prevent their removal, but it will make it more cost prohibitive
to do so. The code also says that only new oaks can be used to replace removed oaks.
This means a prope1iy owner would need to mitigate 40 inches if they remove a 40 inch
oak. This is simply not physically feasible on many properties and would likely force the
prope1iy owner to pay into the tree fund. However, staff would like to ensure that some
mitigation is provided on site. Staff is also recommending that a certain percentage of
mitigation be provided on site in the form of replacement oaks (25%). If a prope1iy owner
removed a 40 inch oak, they would need to provide at least 1 0 inches of mitigation on
site. They could then pay the remainder into the tree fund.
AGENDA ITEM# SA
MARCH 23, 2015
The Community Development Board was generally in favor of increasing the mitigation
ratio to 1 : 1. However, they wanted to specifically limit this to protection of Live Oaks
and Coastal Oaks. The reason being that the two other prevalent oak species in Atlantic
Beach (Water Oaks and Laurel Oaks) have shorter life spans than other oaks, and are
more disease prone. The board decided to vote on this at their March 1 i 11 meeting.
2. Give replacement credit for palms. As the code is currently written, prope1iy owners are
only given replacement credit for palms when they are replacing removed palms. Palms
are native to the beach and are more salt tolerant than some other species. One impmiant
point to note is that oaks must be replaced by oaks, so prope1iy owners will not be able to
use palms to replace oaks. Staff would like the Community Development Board and
Commission to consider allowing palms to get replacement credit when replacing other
removed species. This could be a citywide provision, or one that is specifically
geographically related, such as all areas east of East Coast Drive and Seminole Drive
nmih of its terminus with East Coast Drive. The idea being that palms may thrive better
than other species in immediate proximity to the beach.
The board was generally suppmiive of this recommendation, but wanted to limit it only
to a select few palm species, primarily ones that are indigenous and of substantial size.
They also plan to address this at their March 1 i 11 meeting.
BUDGET: None.
RECOMMENDATION: Direct staff to draft an ordinance to amend Chapter 23 of the Land
Development Code (Protection of Trees and Native Vegetation) based on recommendations
ATTACHMENTS: Community Development Board Staff Report
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
AGENDA ITEM
STAFF
STAFF COMMENTS
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
STAFF REPORT
SB (TREE CODE REVISIONS)
JEREMY HUBSCH, BUILDING AND ZONING DIRECTOR
AGENDA IT EM# 8A
MARCJ-123, 2015
The City Commission as ked city sta ff to ana lyze the city's tree co de an d make recommendations for
improving t he code last fa ll. In October 2014, sta ff gave a presentation to th e comm ission abo ut the
tree code and ways it could be strengthe ned. Afte r further review of the code, below a r e proposed
recommendations fo r a mending Chapter 23 of t he Atl antic 13 each Code (P rotection of Tr ees and
Native Vegetation).
1. Am end Sections 23-21 and 23-22, which outline when a permit is needed. Currently a tree permit
is n eeded wh e n: new infill deve lopment occurs; where co nstruction ove r $10,000 occurs on a s ite;
and where undeveloped la nd is go in g to · be clea re d for future developme nt. Ther e are e ight
diffe r ent sce nario s where tree r emoval can be exempt from a requiring a tree r emoval permit. 1.
No dev elopment activity. 2. Emergency situation . 3. Safety hazard . 4·. Di seased or pest-infes ted
trees. 5. Noxious invasive trees. 6. Utility operations. 7. Surveyors/engineers. 8. City crews.
Staff is r eco mm ending that th e exemgtion related to deve lopment ac t ivity be removed. The way
th e code is currently written, peop le can remove a tree fo r a ny reason, so long as they arc not
conductin g any co nstruction on the ir home w ithin 6 months . Removing th is provi s ion would only
a ll ow peop le to r emove trees witho ut a permit if th ey had ca us e to do so . The burden of pr oof
wou ld then be on the owner to show that they ar e exempt from a perm it.
2. Streng th en Protection of Oaks . Oaks a re a treasured species by many in Atl antic Beach, and grea tly
contribute to th e character of the community. They are one of a few th ings that di stingui sh
Atlantic Beach from its neigh boring beach communities. Staff is recommending that mitigation be
increased on oaks from 1:2 to 1:1. Cu rrently i f you remove a n oak, you have to mitigate 1 inch for
every two inches removed (same as other trees in Atlantic Beac h). Str engthening protectio n of
oaks will not prevent their remova l, but it wil l make it more cost p rohibitive to do so. The co de
a lso says that on ly new oaks ca n be use d to replace r emov e d oaks. Thi s me ans a property owner
woul d need to miti ga te 40 inches if they remove a 40 inch oak. This is simply not physica ll y
feasible on ma ny properties and wou ld likely force th e property owne r to pay into the tree fund.
Howev er, staff wou ld li ke to ensure that so me mitigation is provided on site. Staff is also
recommending that a ce rtain percentage of mitigation be provided on site in the fo rm of
replacement oaks (25%). If a property owner r emoved a 40 in ch oak, they would n eed to provid e
at leas t 10 inch es of mitigation on site. They cou ld th e n pay the r emainder into the t r ee fund.
AGENDA ITEM# 8A
MARCH 23, 2015
3. Change the definition of "private regulated tree". Currently, the tree code states that protected
trees (private regulated trees) are all trees that are 6 inches or larger in the "exterior zone" of a
property. The exterior zone is everywhere outside of the buildable area on a lot. All trees over 20
inches are protected in the "interior zone", or buildable area of the lot. The logic behind this is that
it should be easier to preserve trees outside the buildable area on a lot. However, this provision
allows trees up to 20 inches in the interior of the lot to be removed without any mitigation.
Additionally, trees up to 20 inches are given preservation credit for mitigation. Hypothetically, a
property owner can remove a 38 inch tree, get 19 inches of preservation credit for maintaining a
tree, and then later cut down the 19 inch tree that it got credit for with no mitigation required
(the 19 inch tree is not protected). There is also an argument that if the city allows every 15 to 20
inch tree to be removed with no mitigation, the city's future canopy will suffer. Staff is
recommending that the definition of "private regulated tree" be changed to all trees over a certain
size. Staff has no precise. scientific way to arrive at a recommended size. but would like the
Community Development Board and Commission to consider changing it to either 6. 8, or 10
inches.
One important thing to consider with this proposed change is it will also impact the amount of
preservation credit property owners get. The code currently only gives preservation credit to
trees that are not protected (less than 6" in exterior zone and less than 20" in interior zone). Ifthis
section is changed to either 6, 8, or 10 inches, only trees below that size will be given preservation
credit. This means property owners will likely have to mitigate more in the form of replacement or
payment into the tree fund. This will minimize the overall loss of trees on a property.
4. Give replacement credit for palms. As the code is currently written, property owners are only
given replacement credit for palms when they are replacing removed palms. Palms are native to
the beach and are more salt tolerant than some other species. One important point to note is that
oaks must be replaced by oaks, so property owners will not be able to use palms to replace oaks.
Staff would like the Community Development Board and Commission to consider allowing palms
to get replacement credit when replacing other removed species. This could be a citywide
provision, or one that is specifically geographically related, such as all areas east of East Coast
Drive and Seminole Drive north of its terminus with East Coast Drive. The idea being that palms
may thrive better than other species in immediate proximity to the beach.
5. Change the dollar amount required for mitigation. Atlantic Beach has used the same dollar figure
that the City of Jacksonville uses for payment into the tree fund. Up until recently that number was
$49 an inch. The City of Jacksonville recently changed this to $113 to more accurately reflect
current market costs. Staff will continue to follow the City of Iacksonville' s rates and charge $113.
unless directed otherwise by the City Commission.
Page 2 of 2