1730 Ocean Grove Drive TREE08-00100011 Staff Report 02.22.2010 rev1February 22, 2010 regular meeting
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
CITY COMMISSION MEETING
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM: Request by Jerrold & Rosanna Dixon to appeal charge of $3919.50 for unmet
mitigation that was assessed as condition of issuance of Tree Removal Permit #08-00100011.
SUBMITTED BY: Erika Hall
Principal Planner, Staff Liaison to Tree Conservation Board
DATE: February 10, 2010
BACKGROUND: The Tree Conservation Board unanimously voted to approve a tree removal
application in conjunction with residential redevelopment of the property located at 1730 Ocean
Grove Drive on April 9, 2008. The Board approved the removal of a total of 119 inches of regulated
trees from the interior zone where no mitigation is required. From the exterior zone, removal of 55
inches was approved, to be mitigated with 27.5 inches of hardwoods of the property owners’ choice.
The Tree Removal Permit was issued to Michael Altenbach, authorized agent for the property
owners on April 10, 2008. The permit contained documentation of the approval and the mitigation
assessment. Mr. Altenbach was also verbally advised of the mitigation criteria and procedures, and
provided with a copy of the relevant tree ordinance provisions pertaining to those criteria and
procedures as well as tree protection requirements during development
At the April 23, 2008 meeting of the Tree Conservation Board, the Tree Administrator reported that
she had received complaints that tree and vegetation removal had commenced and had exceeded the
scope of approval of the issued permit. Further, adjacent property owners reported that activity was
encroaching upon their properties. Upon inspection, the Staff found sufficient evidence to request
the applicant submit a revised survey and appear before the Tree Conservation Board to amend to
the existing permit.
The Tree Conservation Board heard from adjacent property owners and considered a revised tree
survey and a request to remove all trees from the property at their meetings on May 14 and May 28,
2008. The Board unanimously voted on May 28th to approve the removal of 135 inches from the
interior zone, with none of those trees being regulated and thus requiring no mitigation . From the
exterior zone, removal of 224 inches was approved, of which 201 inches were regulated and to be
mitigated by 101.5 inches, with 94.5 inches being either Oaks and/or other hardwoods. The Tree
Administrator issued a revised Tree Removal Permit to Mr. Altenbach on May 30, 2008, reflecting
the revised approvals and mitigation assessment,
On the morning of December 28, 2009, Mr. Altenbach applied to the Building Department for the
Certificate of Occupancy for the newly constructed residence on the subject property. Mr.
Altenbach was advised by the Tree Administrator that a landscape plan demonstrating assessed
mitigation had not been provided and that the Certificate of Occupancy would not be released until
the plan was reviewed and approved by Staff. Mr. Altenbach indicated that time was of the essence,
as the property owners desired to close out the project before year end, and that he would have the
landscape architect contact Staff. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Gary Crumley, LA, contacted Staff to
inquire as to the mitigation requirements. Mr. Crumley also indicated that he had designed the
landscape according to the parameters set by his clients, and not the mitigation requirements
assessed by the Tree Conservation Board which he claimed to be unaware of. Staff reiterated to Mr.
Crumley and Mr. Altenbach that the Certificate of Occupancy would not be released until a
February 22, 2010 regular meeting
landscape plan sufficiently demonstrating compliance with the mitigation assessed by the Tree
Board was received, reviewed, approved and field-verified by the Staff Liaison.
Mr. Crumley delivered an updated as-built landscape plan to the Staff Liaison at 4:30pm on
December 29, 2009. He reminded Staff that the landscape was designed not to meet mitigation
requirements but to compliment the architecture of the structure, per the directions of his clients. As
such, Mr. Crumley indicated that he had provided a “conversion table” and requested that Staff find
the mitigation sufficient on this basis. Tables of the trees planted and Mr. Crumley’s recommended
conversion, as shown on the submitted as-built landscape plan, are recreated below.
Staff reviewed the submitted as-built landscape plan in light of the mitigation assessed by the Tree
Conservation Board (described above) and applied the mitigation criteria in effect at the time of
permit issuance. Staff gave two substantial allowances, crediting 100% of the Japanese Yew and
50% of the Italian Cypress plantings to the hardwood requirement, even though these are not
hardwoods. Without these allowances, unmet mitigation would have been 92” rather than 33.5” and
the amount due to the Tree Conservation Fund would have been $10,764.00 rather than $3,919.50.
Re-created below is a table of Staff’s assessment of the landscape plan, as submitted to Mr.
Altenbach on the afternoon of December 30, 2009:
TREE MITIGATION
TREE MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS:
REPLACE 101.5” OF HARDWOODS
TREES REMOVED BY PERMIT PRIOR TO 1-1-2009
REPLACEMENT TABLE
TREE VALUE QUANTITY TOTAL INCHES
WHITE BIRD 8” CAL 9 72”
JAP. YEW 6” CAL 9 54”
TABEBUIA 2.5” CAL 1 2.5”
IT. CYP. 3” CAL 3 9”
LOQUAT 2” CAL 1 2”
OLEANDER 2” CAL 6 12”
KUMQUAT 1.5” CAL 1 1.5”
CITRUS 1.5” CAL 3 4.5”
PALM VALUE QUANTITY TOTAL INCHES
QUEEN 16” CAL 6 96”
WASHINGTON 16” CAL 7 112”
CABBAGE 14” CAL 25 350”
PYGMY DATE 8” CAL 2 16”
CHINESE FAN 8” CAL 34 272”
REPLACE 101.5” OF SHADE TREES 4”/SHADE TREE EQUALS 26 TREES REQUIRED
2 QUEEN PALMS EQUAL ONE SHADE TREE 6/2 = 3
3 PALMS EQUAL ONE SHADE TREE 68/3 = 22
2 CITRUS EQUAL ONE SHADE TREE 4/2 = 2
3 OLEANDER EQUAL ONE SHADE TREE 6/3 = 2
4 BIRDS/JAP YEW EQUAL ONE SHADE TREE 18/4 = 4
1 TABEBUIA/LOQUAT EQUAL ONE SHADE TREE 1/1 = 1
34 PROPOSED TREE CREDITS PROVIDED
PROPOSED TREE CREDITS BASED ON TREE MATURITY AND RADIUS
BY GARY R. CRUMLEY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
February 22, 2010 regular meeting
PLANTINGS PER LANDSCAPE PLAN STAFF ASSESSMENT
BOTANICAL COMMON # DBH* CALC NATIVE NOTES ALLOWANCE CREDIT
TREE PERMIT # 08-00100011: 94.5” OAKS/HARDWOODS REQUIRED
Streilitzia
nicolai
White
Bird of
Paradise
9 8.00 72.00 NO “pseudopalm” (USDA) 0.00% 0.00
Podocarpus
macrophyllus
Japanese
Yew*
9 6.00 54.00 NO “outstanding tree” (UF/IFAS);
AB Recommended Tree List
(draft)
100.00% 54.00
Tabebuia
spp.
Trumpet
Tree
1 2.50 2.50 NO “outstanding tree” (UF/IFAS);
AB Recommended Tree List
(draft)
100.00% 2.50
Cupressus
sempervirens
Italian
Cypress*
3 3.00 9.00 NO not recommended tree;
known pests, infestation,
disease problems (UF/IFAS)
50.00% 4.50
Eriobotrya
japonica
Loquat 1 2.00 2.00 NO not recommended tree;
potential invasive (FLPPC)
0.00% 0.00
Nerium
Oleander
Oleander 6 2.00 12.00 NO “shrubby” trees; weak-
wooded; known pest,
infestation problems (UF/IFAS)
0.00% 0.00
Fortunella
Margarita
Kumquat 1 1.50 1.50 NO “shrubby” trees; weak-wooded
(UF/IFAS); less than min 2” dbh
0.00% 0.00
Variable
spp.
Citrus 3 1.50 4.50 ? “shrubby” trees; weak-wooded
(UF/IFAS); less than min 2” dbh
0.00% 0.00
* NOT A HARDWOOD SPECIES
SUBTOTAL 61.00
TREE PERMIT # 08-00100011: 7.0” PALMS/SOFTWOODS REQUIRED
Syagrus
romanzoffianum
Queen
Palm
6 16.00 96.00 NO 0.00% 0.00
Washingtonia
robusta
Washingt
on
Palm
7 16.00 112.00 NO 0.00% 0.00
Sabal
palmetto
Cabbage
Palm
25 14.00 350.00 YES 2.00% 7.00
Phoenix
roebelenii
Pygmy
Date Palm
2 8.00 16.00 NO 0.00% 0.00
Livistona
chinensis
Chinese
Fan
Palm
34 8.00 272.00 NO 0.00% 0.00
SUBTOTAL 7.00
TOTAL PLANTINGS (DBH*) REQUIRED TO MEET MITIGATION 101.50
TOTAL PLANTINGS CREDITED TOWARD MITIGATION 68.00
TOTAL UNMET MITIGATION 33.50
TREE CONSERVATION FUND / COST PER INCH 117.00
TREE CONSERVATION FUND / AMOUNT DUE PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CO $3,919.50
RECOMMENDATION: The City Commission may consider the following options.
1. Uphold mitigation assessment as set by the Tree Conservation Board with mitigation credit as
evaluated by Staff upon review of the as-built landscape plan provided by the property owners’
agent, and subsequent payment of $3,919.50 to the Tree Conservation Fund for unmet mitigation.
2. Uphold mitigation assessment as set by the Tree Conservation Board and revise mitigation credit
allowed by Staff to reflect strict application of the provisions of Chapter 23, Protection of Trees
and Native Vegetation, such that no hardwood credit is given for softwoods (Japanese Yew and
Italian Cypress) planted. The resultant mitigation credit would then be 9.50”, with 92.00”
remaining unmet, and thus requiring payment of an additional $6,844.50 (for a total of
$10,764.00) into the Tree Conservation Fund.
February 22, 2010 regular meeting
3. Uphold mitigation assessment as set by the Tree Conservation Board and revise mitigation credit
allowed by Staff to reflect strict application of the provisions of Chapter 23, Protection of Trees
and Native Vegetation, such that no hardwood credit is given for softwoods (Japanese Yew and
Italian Cypress) planted, but that credit will be allowed for those non-recommended and
potentially invasive hardwoods that meet the minimum size requirements (Oleander and Loquat)
planted. The resultant mitigation credit would then be 23.50”, with 78.00” remaining unmet, and
thus requiring payment of an additional $5206.50 (for a total of $9126.00) into the Tree
Conservation Fund.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Tree Conservation Board meeting minutes, March 26, 2008
B – Tree Conservation Board meeting minutes, April 9, 2008
C – Tree Removal Permit, TREE 08-00100011, April 10, 2008
D – Tree Conservation Board meeting minutes, April 23, 2008
E – Tree Conservation Board meeting minutes, May 14, 2008
F – Tree Conservation Board meeting minutes, May 28, 2008
G – Tree Removal Permit, TREE 08-00100011 (revised), May 30, 2008
BUDGET: Payment to the Tree Conservation Fund, Account Number 112-0000-366.00-00 per
above.
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: _________________