Exh 8B
AGENDA ITEM 8B
WE EXPECT TO RECEIVE MR. SLAVIN' S
REPORT ON ~ FRIDAY, .TULY 9, AND IT WILL
BE DELNERED TO YOU AS SOON AS
IT IS RECEIVED .
. -.:
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBMITTED BY:
DATE:
BACKGROUND:
Proposed Tree Removal and Landscaping on right-of--way at
2400 Seminole Road
8
7 - ~z- 9q
George Worley II, Community Development Director C~G~
July 7, 1999
Mitchell McDaniel, of Today's Classic Homes, submitted an application to the Tree Conservation
Board proposing to remove a number of trees from the City right-of--way in front of 2400 Seminole Road.
Mr. McDaniel, acting on behalf of Mr. Taylor Glover, the property owner,
proposed to remove 17 trees larger than six inches in diameter and an unspecified number of smaller trees
to allow for the landscaping of the right-of--way in front of Mr. Glovers property.
The Board found the initial application packet incomplete and requested it be revised. Following
review of the revised submittal, the Board requested staff to obtain an opinion from the City Attorney as to
the authority of the Board to act upon such a request to remove trees on public property. The City
Attorney replied that the Board could not act upon an application by a private property owner to remove
trees on public property. An application by the City, as owner, or on behalf of the City, could be acted
upon by the Board.
Mr. McDaniel has requested to come before the City Commission to seek authorization to remove
the trees and install landscaping on public right-of--way in front of 2400 Seminole Road. If the City
Commission grants Mr. McDaniels authorization to remove the trees he can return to the Tree
Conservation Board for their determination of the required mitigation. Because the City is subject to the
provisions of the Tree Preservation Ordinance, and because many of the trees proposed for removal are
large enough to require mitigation, it may be appropriate for Mr. McDaniel to provide such mitigation by
replacing trees along the right-of--way or by payment into the Tree Mitigation Fund.
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Cover Letter and Landscape Plans
2) Fax to City Attorney
3) Reply from City Attorney
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
AGENDA ITEM NO.
City oFAtlantic Beach: Page 1
RI?: Purpose of tree removal on right-of--way .
Location: 2400 Seminole Road
To Whom it May Concern;
As of the last meeting the council has received the survey of the right away along 2400 Seminole Road
depicting the location of trees 6" or greater. Also highlighted are the trees we wish to remove. We also
provide the council with another set of our proposed landscaping drawing, which was in addition to the
larger set that was provided to the council four week ago at the first meeting in which we were on the
agenda.
The trees we wish to remove for the most part are all bay trees along with two pine trees. I understand the
councils ordinances and applicable codes regarding the mitigation and or payment into the fund for tree
removal. But, since we can not mitigate trees which are on the city right of way that leaves us with only
two options as far as I understand the codes.
• Remove said trees and re-plant with same species (hardwood /softwood/ patens etc.) with a ration of
at least 50% of the total diameter being removed or.
• Pay $82.50 an inch into the fund to remove without re-planting.
I ask the council to please review carefully the site ,which we believe offers itself to special
consideration. The reasons being:
1. The removal of trees is due mostly to the fact that all are under the power lines. Which has resulted
in the removal of the top two thirds of the trees, providing the City access to the power lines .This
has left us with avery un-slightly appearance of stunted growth along the right away. Which when we
landscape and clean up this area and remove the overgrowth of vines from these trees will not leave
much to work with but long stumps.
2. Another reason for the removal of these trees is our desire to beautify this section along Seminole
Road to enhance our property as many other homeowners have been granted the privilege to do. As
noted on the survey , we want to save as many of the trees (palms, and bays) that have survived this
onslaught of clear cutting from the city.
3. All along Seminole Road most of the trees along the right away and under power lines have been
removed. I would like the council to provide us with the same consideration without requiring us to
pay to the city fund for the removal of trees that are not only damaged but also would offer no
aesthetic appeal along the right of way ,once we go to the trouble and our own expense to landscape
and beautify this portion of Seminole Road.
Page 2
4. We are not opposed to replacing trees, and as I stated at the last meeting we would gladly do so
own our own property. But, the council stated that these trees in order to count towards
mitigation would have to be planted on the right ofway.lt seems very illogical to impose upon us
the replacement of these trees, and start the same problem over again, since the only area is
under or near the power lines. I would only hope that you would understand the dilemma we are
now facing. Would you want us to spend thousands of dollars re-planting trees along the right of
way ,only to have the city come along and cut them to gain access to the lines . We have already
spent hundreds of dollars trimming trees at the entry way of this home , only to have the city
come along and butcher the trees we so desperately wanted to preserve.
5. Could we not mitigate the removal of these trees with planting a portion of hardwoods on the
property, safety situated away from the power lines, and plant palms on the right of way. I ask
this because as you know the palms along the right of way are the only trees that have not been
cut and damaged, because they do not reach a height that would interfere with the existing lines.
If we were to plant hardwoods again along the right of way ,not only would their height interfere
with the power lines but the canopy of hardwoods grow to a far greater diameter than palms and
soon we would be facing the same problem again.
I do hope we can resolve this situation and again I ask for your corporation and lenience in providing a
mutual agreement that is beneficial to aII. As mentioned at the last meeting that these trees belong to the
public of Atlantic Beach, might I also add that my client Mr. Taylor Glover is one of Atlantic Beaches
newest citizens and is very concerned in preserving one of that last pristine areas along this section of
Atlantic Beach and is very willing to work with the City ofAtlantic Beach in doing so.
Respectfully Submitt d
Mitchell L. McDaniel
JUN-~~-lyyy 1~:5bh' Fh'UI'1: ~=} (-J7~°-1J 1 u. ~ 1-r-r.~~v~
. ,l .
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
TREE RENfQVAL APPLICATION
X11 applications must be received by 5 P_M. on the NIONpAY prior to the sc#~eduled
meeting in order fo be placed on the age_gda for consideration, INCOMPLETE
APPLICATIONS ILL NOT BE PF~QCES E>?.
APPLICANT NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE
2. 2.`I O 0 ~ ~ IM- I,ty ~C~z`?~Pc.D ~ ~~1= ~-t 3- ~(~ ~j
ADDRESS OR LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED TREE REMOVAL
3. DESCRIBE PURPOSE OF TREE REMOVAL: S ~~ ~c-~~C,~. ~~1.
4. SPECIFY TREES PROPOSED FOR REMOVAL AS FOLLOWS:
NUMBER SPECIES DIAMETER (DBH) COND1T10N
A ~~ ~~
-~ ~/ t~l
5. TOTAL NUMBER OF TREES TO 8E REMOVED: I ~'7
6. TOTAL NUMBER OF INCHES OF TREES TO BE REMOVED: j
7. SPECIFY PROPOSED REPLACEMENT TREES AS FOLLOWS:
NUMBER SPECIES DIAMETER (DBN}
1 . 1' J
LV~
4
~ ~
--~
1~
1
I ~?
~ `
c-~
J UN-~~- lyy7 1~ ~ 5br h KUf9: ~4 (=5ki'+~ l U: 7 r 4~r~e~oe
. ~ .. .
8. ATTACH SITE PLAN iNDICATtNG THE FOLLOWING:
a) Site topography, including proposed grade changes
b) Existing and proposed buildings and ether improvements with dimensions and
required setbacks
c} Tree protection Zones as applicable
d} Location, DBH and species of all trees with a DBH of six inches or greater
e} Location, DBH and species of alt trees with DBH of less than six inches
proposed to be used for mitigation
~ Specify trees of unique or special character
g) Each tree proposed for removal clearly marked with a `X°
h) AIE existing and new trees proposed to be used for mitigation clearly marked
with brackets "(1°
t) Location of utilities, easements and material storage areas
r: c~ ~
9. ALL TREES pROPQSED FOR REMOVAL ~T BE CLEARLY MARKED ON SITE
8Y RED SURVEYORS R18BON. -- ALL j ~7,~~5 C..~ ~ i 'Z, ~2, S ~ ~~, !4 lZf~ i ?~
10. ALL EXISTING TREES PROPOSED 70 HE USED FOR MITIGATION MUST BE
CLEARLY MARKED ON SITE BY ~~ SURVEYORS RIt380N.
71. INCOMPLETE A PLICATIONS WjLL NOT 8E PROC SS, F~.
I HEREBY AGREE TO COMPLY V111TH ALL PROV1Si0NS OF CHAPTER 23, ARTICLE
II, TREE PROTECTION, AND ALL OTHER APPLICABLE CODES AND ORDINANCES
OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH:
G o~~sj 4
APPLICANTS SIGNATU DATE
~~
C
~-fj~
OWNER SIGNATURE DATE
APPROVED:
TREE CONSERVATION BOARD CHAIRMAN DATE
A ~ i
.o I
+Errr
1 ~~ ~~~.~ xt<' TY+tY &1Y
1 20' P:.W~ r
11' TNSH B4
._~
. ~I
~1_~ PALFa
Af
E
8' B>Y .
9'
8~ TxxRIPLE 64Y'
13' iN14 BAY `'`
IL
SEMI~IO~E
.~- ,
P~~ANT~c
~~' a ~
ct'~
~ n
~ _. _
FLDRIOP'
To: Alan Jensen, City Attorney
Fax: 246-9960
Pages: 2
Date: June 29, 1999
Alan,
During the last Tree Conservation Board meeting the Board asked me to request legal
clarification regarding their authority. They were reviewing a request by a private property owner
to remove trees on the city right-of--way in front of his property. Their questions are:
1) Does the Board have the authority to act upon requests by a private property
owner to remove trees located on the city right-of--way (see definition of Public Protected Tree,
attached), and impose mitigation for protected trees, and,
2) Does a private property owner have the right to remove non-protected, i.e. less
than six inches in diameter, trees from city right-of--way without a permit?
The Board has asked that I try to have an answer for them at their meeting of July 6th. Thank
you for your consideration. .
From the desk of...
George Worley, Director
Community Development
City of Atlantic Beach
(904) 247-5826
Fax (904) 247-5805
'HP OfficeJet Faz Log Report
Personal PrinterlFaa/Copier
Jun-29-99 09:53 AM
Identification Result a es Tvue Date Time oration Diagnostic
92469960 OK O1 Sent Jun-29 09:52A 00:00:27 002486030022
~~.o
~~
~
TeIe~hoae ('904) 246-2SQ0
ALAN JEhISEN ATTY ~e4 rei ~uu e~ ~~ i~=tee
ALAN C. JEL~TSEN
Attvrner at Law
93s ~~ ~a rasa
roc ot~~ 33ox 5oa57
i~so~ seams, Fb~aa 3~a-oas~
DATE:
TO:
COMPANY:
FAX NUiiriBER:
NUMBER OF PAGES:
FROM:
CLIENT/MATTER NO.:
George:
F~usmmile (904) 2Q6-996U
k'AX D~CEMQRANDUM
July 2, 1999 Time: IQ:~S fk~+"
George Worley II, City Planner
City of Atlantic Beach
(904) 247-5845
2 (including covet sheet)
ALAN C. JENSEN, ESQ.
Tzee Conservation Board
MESSAGE
You posed two questions in your Fax to me of June 29, 1.999, which I answer as follows:
1. ?~~ the Board have the authority to yet u n r ests by a privy rope
owner to remove frets located on the city right-of--way (see definition of Public Protected Tree,
attached) a<nd imoove miti~tio fnor protected trees?
Sincz Sec. 23-16 of the Atlantic Beach Code includes within the definition
of Protected Tree a private protected fete and a public protected tree, and the
latter is any tree located on ]ands owned by the City, which would include City
rights-off way, the City would have to request a permit to remove trees located on
the City right-off way. TYtezefore, in my opinion, the Board does not have the
authority to act upon requests by a private property ownex to remove t:.,es located
on the City right of way.
u ~; ~~
George 'V4Torley III
Page 2
~, g ~ ~ri ~ P pn~.~^Qr tLaz~ he right to remove non-t~mt~ie~ i e leS~
than sit inches in diameter trees from city right-of--way without a peztxtit?
No property owner has the right to remove any tree from pz~aperty owned
by another property owner, be it a private property owner ox the City. therefore,
in my opinion, a privatc property owner does mot have the right to remove noa-
protected trees from the City right-of way. If no permit is z'equiz~ed to xemove
non protected trees, then the private property owner must obtain the cansent of
the City prior to removing any such tree from the City tight-of-way.
I hope the above answers your questions. If you need any further information, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Alan
'The information coataiaed in flue facsimile message is attorney privileged attd confidential informative intended only fnr
the use of the uodividual ox enRty named above. Zf the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, ar the
employee ar ageat zesponaible to deliver it to the intended recipient, yon arc hereby motified that any d'tsaeminatiaa,
distribution or copying of this eommnnicaaoa is strictly prohibited. If you have received this catnmunication is error,
please immediately notify ua by telephone and zeturn the original message to us at tb.e above address via U.S. Foetal
Service. T3ank you.