CITY OF SARASOTA MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE TREE ADVISORY COMMITTEE October 10, 2018 at 3:00 p.m. in the City Commission Chambers Members Present: Members Mary Fuerst, Michael Gilkey, Jr., Rob Patten, Trevor Falk (arrived at 3:15) Members Absent: Shawn Dressler, Chair Michael Halflants, Vice Chair Member Chris Gallagher City Staff Present: Mark Miller, Senior Arborist Don Ullom, Arborist Angela McLeod-Wilkins, Development Services I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Arborist Miller called the meeting to order at 3:15 p.m. Arborist Miller read the roll call and asked that the record reflect Chair Dressler informed staff that he would be unable to attend the meeting. Mr. Mladinich explained that someone would need to be nominated to Chair the meeting in the absence of both the Chair and Vice Chair. Member Fuerst nominated Member Patten to act as Chair for the meeting and Member Gilkey seconded the nomination. All were in favor. None were opposed. II. PLEDGE OF CONDUCT Arborist Miller read the Pledge of Conduct adopted by the City Commission ofSarasota. III. CITIZEN's INPUT 1. Jono Miller- - Mr. Miller requested to have backup material uploaded to the meetings online. Mr. Miller stated that Cabbage Palms cannot currently be used for mitigation and explained that Cabbage Palms do not lift pavers or driveways, can be planted in very small spaces and near buildings, are slow growing sO they will not outgrow the site, are the most wind resistant native tree and are flood and fire proof. Mr. Miller also stated that Cabbage Palms are excellent pollinators and are probably the most sustainable tree in the City. Mr. Miller suggested substituting 3 Cabbage Palms for 1 shade tree for tree mitigation. 2. Christina Shantz Ms. Shantz approached the TAC regarding mitigation. Ms. Shantz stated that she lost a tree to a fungus and due to the type, is unable to plantin that location on her property. Ms. Shantz stated that she received an email regarding the. Arbor Day tree giveaway and applied for a Red Maple tree. Ms. Shantz stated that she included information such as lot size and the exact location that she planned to plant the tree. Ms. Shantz stated that she was not expecting a mature tree but was also not Minutes of the' Tree Advisory Committee Meeting October 10, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in the City Commission Chambers 2 of 9 expecting the 2-foot stick" that she received. Ms. Shantz stated that she planted the tree and that now iti is 3 feet tall and has some leaves but noted that it will be a long time before the tree will be beneficial in terms of pollution, storm water, and shade. Ms. Shants stated that she would like to ask the City for increased mitigation flexibility in order for City residents to access unused mitigation funds and to relax the 1,000-foot restriction for planting on personal property. Ms. Shantz stated the minimum tree caliper size should be 2: inches. 3. Jude. Levy. Ms. Levy stated that there were: mature shade trees planted in the Downtown area and that years later they were removed due to development. Ms. Levy stated that the citizens would like to shade areas where people would like to be outdoors, such as the Farmers Market, and that palm trees cannot provide the appropriate shade for walkability. Ms. Levy stated that the technology exists to plant hardwood canopied trees in the Downtown Core and stressed that trees are important infrastructure. Ms. Levy suggested that people enjoy shopping and eating outdoors more in canopied locations. Ms. Levy suggested that trees should be a public amenity legislated and paid for by the City. 4. David Lough -Mr. Lough, Chair of the Open Space Committee of the Rosemary District Association, approached the TAC to inform the members that his committee 1s currently putting forth efforts to beautify the Rosemary District. Mr. Lough expressed that thel Rosemary Open Space Committee's work will intersect with the Prep Board and possibly the TAC and that the committee works very closely with the Walkability Group. 5. Renee Gluvna Ms. Gluvna stated that she completed and submitted a request for a tree on her property and that she used the City's website to research where mitigation trees have been planted. Ms. Gluvna stated that she clicked on 100 tree requests to see if a tree had been received and all stated that no tree had been received. Ms. Gluvna stated that she would like to know how many trees, if any, have been provided through the program to individuals or planted on City property and expressed her concern for the delay of planting trees in order to regrow the City's tree canopy. Ms. Gluvna stated that she would like to know from which sites trees were removed that required mitigation through the program, and that if no mitigation trees have been distributed, the reasons should be known. Member Patten asked Arborist Miller if the tree giveaway program is different from the tree mitigation program. Arborist Miller stated that there are two separate programs. Arborist Miller explained that the tree giveaway program is aj partnership with the. Arbor Day Foundation wherein the City! buy's trees from the foundation and usually has them mailed to the home of those who requested a tree, and that the trees are small because they are mailed. Arborist Miller stated that with the program that Ms. Gluvna mentioned is available through the contractor registration website and that the program can present complications, such as the availability of trees, conflicts related to desired trees, unwillingness to sign the agreement, and conflicts related to planting in the right-of-way rather than on private property. Member Gilkey stated that when contractors are unable to plant on site or nearby they pay into the mitigation fund. Member Gilkey stated that he is in favor ofhaving mitigation fund monies available to the public to purchase 2-inch caliper mitigation trees to be installed by the contractor of their choice. Arborist Ullom stated that there has been some success with the program, specifically on the Flower streets area. Member Gilkey asked if planting trees in the right-of-way! is a substantial problem. Arborist Miller stated that some areas are more difficult to plant in than others. 6. Jonathan Mitchell - Mr. Mitchell apologized for removing two Cabbage Palm trees without a permit and stated that his Landscape Architect advised him not to remove the trees because it would be in Minutes of the Tree Advisory Committee Meeting October 10, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in the City Commission Chambers 3 of 9 violation of the code. Mr. Mitchell stated that he removed the trees due to the health of an adjacent oak tree that was being adversely affected by the cabbage palms growing into the tree, because the trunks of the palms where impairing motorists' views, and for aesthetic reasons. Mr. Mitchell stated that he has requested the identities of the neighbors who reported the violation and that he has not yet received their names. Mr. Mitchell stated that City employees interpret the term "nearby" differently than he and his attorney and Landscape Architect, and that he is requesting for common sense to be employed in this case. Member Patten clarified that Mr. Mitchell is currently in discussions with City staff regarding the violation and stated that, as an advisory board, the TAC would not involve themselves in the case. Mr. Mitchell stated that he would like the TAC to enable the City to exercise some discretion in such matters. Member Patten stated that the TAC is moving toward increased flexibility with the Tree Ordinance. 7. Lou Costa Mr. Costa stated that the Tree Ordinance requires reasonable flexibly and needs a strong appeals board made up of professionals, such as Landscape Architects. Mr. Costa stated that he has been waiting for three years to remove a Royal Palm and plant canopy trees. Mr. Costa stated that the current Tree Ordinance is focused on protecting the Downtown Core and neighborhoods with a lot of canopy coverage, and that an unintended consequence is a lack of flexibility for the barrier islands and the outlying mainland community. IV. RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS IN. ADDITION TO ITEMS 1 THROUGH 7 OF THE DUTIES OF THE TREE ADVISORY COMMITTEE. Member Patten explained that the TAC was given the responsibility of providing recommendations for seven questions as well as any miscellaneous items that would arise. Mr. Mladinich stated the items that the TAC would be discussing at the meeting and also took the opportunity to provide Member Patten's recommendations regarding the miscellaneous agenda item to the public via overhead projector and asked Arborist Ullom to distribute copies to the TAC members. Mr. Mladinich also stated that Member Patten had some thoughts regarding scheduling of future meetings which will be made available. Mr. Mladinich explained that the TAC could follow the order of the Agenda and did not need to address agenda item #8 at the current moment. Member Patten stated that the TAC would begin with item #8. There were no objections. Member Patten explained that his recommendation is relative to an urban forestry program and that he would like to discuss the recommendation first due to the absence of several TAC members as he believed no members were opposed. Member Patten read his recommendation: Recommend to the City Commission the creation of an Urban Forestry Program within the Planning Department that is responsible for developing a strategic URBAN FORESTRY PLAN for the City within 2 years that relies on community consensus and values to: Minutes of the' Tree Advisory Committee Meeting October 10, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in the City Commission Chambers 4 of 9 Develop a well-defined vision and set of measurable goals with citizen input Utilizes partnerships with University of Florida Extension, City ofTampa and others Plan is monitored every 5 years based on measurable criteria A: successful plan is measured by how well the values of the community are implemented in the plan The plan needs to be adequately funded and staffed. Funds from tree permits and mitigation fees could be used to greatly offset the cost. The Tree Committee highly recommends the City Commission invite Dr. Robert Northrop (University of Florida Coop. Ext.) to give a 30-minute presentation to the City Commission outlining an Urban Forestry Program for Sarasota and to show the residents what it would look like and how it works. Dr. Northrop was instrumental in assisting the City ofTampa in the establishment of their program. He is an effective and straight forward speaker and appeared before the committee. Member Fuerst stated that she is in favor that the TAC recommends the creation of an urban forestry program and noted that she was not sure if the Planning Department would be best suited for such a program. Member Fuerst also stated that she is in favor of a board to make decisions on cases that require more teview. Member Falk stated that he is not convinced that the Planning Department would be the most appropriate placement for an urban forestry program and expressed concerns that such a program may overwhelm the Planning Department. Member Gilkey stated that he would like a less reactionary Tree Ordinance. Member Falk questioned who would develop the urban forestry program? Member Patten stated that the TAC would not develop an urban forestry program, but that the TAC would make a recommendation for an urban forestry program and the City Commission would decide where to place the program. Member Gilkey noted that the TAC should explain why they are in favor of an urban forestry program when the recommendation is made to the City Commission and questioned whether the TAC should speak to the financial impacts of such a program. Member Patten stated that the City Commission would make any decision regarding funding, but that it is his opinion that that the mitigation fund and permitting fees be used to offset the initial cost of an urban forestry program. Member Falk questioned if the TAC would change the way they are planning their recommendations if an urban forestry program fails to be adopted. Member Gilkey stated that the TAC will make the recommendation of an urban forestry plan in addition to providing recommendations related to the 7 questions. Member Falk stated that the TAC has mentioned the urban forestry plan multiple times as they have made recommendations but noted that the urban forestry program is not yet a reality and that it has the potential to be denied. Member Fuerst stated that the TACis required to make recommendations on items #1-7, but that the miscellaneous item provides a great deal of flexibility and that the TAC would not fulfill Minutes of the' Tree Advisory Committee Meeting October 10, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in the City Commission Chambers 5 of 9 its duty if they do not recommend an urban forestry program. Member Patten stated that the urban forestry program should be stated in the Letter of Transmittal. Member Patten stated that he is unable to make a motion but that another member could make ai motion if they thought it was appropriate. Member Gilkey stated that, though the Committee has quorum, several members are absent and that it would be more appropriate for motions of this type to be supported by all TAC members. Member Fuerst stated that she prefers to have the entire committee present when they speak on the reasons for recommending an urban forestry program. The TAC decided to postpone the conversation until the next meeting. Member Falk questioned how much the urban forestry plan should be shaped before recommendation. Member Gilkey stated that perhaps keeping the recommendation vague would be best. Member Patten agreed. Member Fuerst stated that she is in favor of having a board for cases that are contentious. Mr. Mladinich stated that what] Member Fuerst was suggesting is an appeals process. Member Fuerst agreed and stated that such a board would be best made up of Landscape Architects and Arborists. Member Falk questioned whether the appeals process would be conducted via a sitting board. Mr. Mladinich stated that it is possible and gave the example of the Board of Rules and Appeals. Mr. Mladinich stated that if the TAC decides they would like an appeals process, they can give a general recommendation and options can be provided by staff, such as a magistrate, or the recommendation could be made that a board be formed to handle those appeals. Member Falk asked Mr. Mladinich if they TAC would have to create criteria for appeals. Mr. Mladinich stated that the TAC does not need to create criteria and that staff can develop various options and present to the City Commission. Member Falk expressed concerns that developers may use an appeal process to find a way around the Tree Ordinance. Member Gilkey stated that there will always be unique situations and that an advisory board could be favorable but suggested that the criteria should be science- based sO that the health of the tree is a consideration. Mr. Mladinich clarified that appeals processes in other contexts within the City are not incredibly cumbersome or burdensome to appeal and that the forms are typically simple. Member Gilkey noted that once the TAC has addressed some of the current issues with the Tree Ordinance, there may be less demand for such appeals. Arborist Miller stated that a current appeals process does exists. Arborist Miller stated that an interested party must complete a form and pay a fee in the amount of $1,600 dollars which is nonrefundable, and that there is no guarantee that the appeal will be supported. Arborist Miller stated that he has never had anyone who wanted to appeal due to the cost. Member Patten suggested asking to have the fee reduced for appeals regarding trees. Mr. Mladinich stated that it could be investigated further. Member Fuerst stated that $1,600 is exorbitant. Arborist Miller stated that the appeals must be advertised and that iti is very costly to advertise. Member Patten stated that the appeal should be set up outside of the Zoning Code and stated that increased flexibility will decrease the number of issues with the Tree Ordinance. The TAC discussed the options for a new appeals process and implementing a less cumbersome review process prior to appeal. Minutes of the Tree Advisory Committee Meeting October 10, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in the City Commission Chambers 6 of 9 Member Patten stated that the TAC needs to redefine Grand Tree. Member Patten referred to Member Gilkey's idea of Champion Trees and suggested that the TAC review protections for those trees. Arborist Miller stated that another scenario is that he makes a site visit, asks the property owner to preserve a tree, and in order to do that the property owner must move the house away from the tree which could require a variance which would tesult in a $1,600 fee to the homeowner. Member Patten stated that the TAC does not agree with such a charge and would like a simpler solution. Member Gilkey stated that moving a structure to preserve a tree is different than removal of a tree. Arborist Miller explained that moving a structure is not in his code but in the Zoning Code. Member Patten suggested that the TAC make a request for the code to be reviewed to decrease the fee for moving a footprint. V. RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING WHETHER THE CURRENT FEES CHARGED FOR TREE REMOVAL AND FOR MITIGATION ARE FAIR AND REASONABLE AND IF THERE SHOULD BE A DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN SUCH CHARGES THAT ARE IMPOSED ON HOME OWNERS OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES AND ON OWNER/DEVELOPERS OF COMMERCIAL PROJECTS. Member Patten was under the impression that the TAC had previously dealt with this item. Member Gilkey stated that the discussion began at the last meeting, but that some members had issues with the item. Member Gilkey stated that he would prefer to have the entire TAC present for the continuation of a discussion regarding fair and reasonable fees. Member Patten stated that the topic would be postponed. VI. RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE PROPOSED CANOPY TREE ORDINANCE. Member Patten asked the TAC: if they would prefer to wait to have a discussion regarding the proposed Canopy Tree Ordinance until all members are present. The TAC members agreed that they would like to begin the discussion. Member Falk expressed concerns regarding the existing language ofthe Canopy Tree Ordinance as proposed by one of the City Commissioners and that it seemed like a penalty for those who may cause damage to a canopy tree in a specified canopy tree neighborhood. Member Falk stated that he had the impression that the TAC was in favor of the making the language more proactive rather than reactive. Member Fuerst explained designating canopy streets was part of updating the Tree Ordinance, but somehow was not given priority. Member Fuerst stated that Sarasota County has a Canopy Street designation which mentions that the neighborhood has to support such a designation, who can propose such a designation, and defines canopy roads and what can be included. Member Fuerst stated that an issue with a canopy road designation is the protection it provides the neighborhood, rather than the penalty, and noted that protections for such a road would be enforced which could prevent large trucks from using the roads and damaging trees. Minutes of the' Tree Advisory Committee Meeting October 10, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in the City Commission Chambers 7 of 9 Member Gilkey stated that the TAC should promote the idea of canopy roads and that there should be pruning standards to allow vehicles to utilize the roads. Member Gilkey stated that he is very much in favor of canopy roads but is unsure how to approach parking and traffic standards, which may be outside of the TAC's purview. Member Falk stated that he is a proponent for canopy tree designation though the canopy road language lacked guidance for homeowners regarding tree removal standards. Member Gilkey gave an example of the type of pruning that may be helpful for canopy roads. Member Patten stated that he supports the canopy street designation, but that he is not very familiar with the proposed ordinance. Member Patten stated that he was under the impression that homeowners on canopy streets should be considered for credits for what is done with trees in their side yard of backyard. Member Patten noted that he does not believe that the canopy road designation will solve the problem of large trucks traveling these roads. Member Patten requested that Arborist Miller provide a copy of Sarasota County's Canopy Tree Ordinance. Member Fuerst read from the original proposed tree change: To amend the Zoning Code to add a newy. section that would allow the Cily Commission, affer receiving rommendation from Public Works, Cily Engineer; and. Parks and Recreation, to designate certain local as canopy streets where requested by a meighborbood association and to allow for botb regulatory and informational signage to be posted in the right-ofway to caution vebicles and trucks. Mr. Mladinich recalled a Canopy Tree Ordinance for the City in 2016. Member Fuerst stated that the draft she was reading from was from 2017. Member Falk questioned whether the changes the TAC have decided on thus far would promote canopy roads and asked for clarification regarding whether a canopy tree ordinance would serve the purpose of protecting existing trees or planting new trees. Member Patten stated that the canopy tree ordinance would protect existing trees. Member Patten stated that the next area that trees could be negatively impacted is in the neighborhood near Ringling and Martin Luther King Boulevard. Member Patten stated that a Canopy Tree Ordinance may be able to protect some of the trees in that area. Member Patten asked if the City Commission is waiting to act on the Canopy Tree Ordinance until after the TAC provides recommendations. Mr. Mladinich stated that the Canopy Tree Ordinance was drafted but that he does not believe the ordinance passed. Mr. Mladinich requested that Arborist Miller provide a copy of Ordinance 16-5173 and asked if the TAC has reviewed this ordinance. Member Fuerst stated that her copy does not list an ordinance number. Member Falk suggested that the TAC draft their own ordinance rather than using the language oft the existing proposal. Member Fuerst stated that the ordinance has favorable ideas. Member Falk stated that there were some points of contention regarding the proposed Canopy Tree Minutes of the Tree Advisory Committee Meeting October 10, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in the City Commission Chambers 8 of 9 Ordinance, such as the size and definition of canopy trees. The TAC continued a discussion regarding canopy roads. Mr. Mladinich stated that he could provide a copy of Sarasota County's Ordinance and the last draft oft the City's at the next' Tree Advisory Committee Meeting. Member Patten: requested that Mr. Mladinich send the documents a few weeks prior to the meeting. Mr. Mladinich confirmed that he would send the documents before the next meeting. Member Patten also requested that Member Gilkey's previous recommendations were resent to the TAC members. Member Patten stated that he is in favor of Citizen Jono Miller's suggestion of substitution of3 Cabbage Palms for 1 canopy tree for mitigation and would like to make a recommendation, specifically for Cabbage Palm trees to be utilized in this way when the entire TAC: is present. Arborist Miller clarified that the City currently accepts Sabal Palm trees for mitigation, but that only properties on the barrier islands can mitigate for a canopy tree with a Sabal Palm. Member Patten is in favor of mitigation for canopy trees with Cabbage Palms in any area of the City. Arborist Miller informed Member Patten such information is noted in the Landscape Ordinance and he suggested duplicating that language in the Tree Ordinance. The TAC discussed mitigation of canopy trees with Cabbage Palm trees. There was consensus that three Cabbage Palm trees could be used for a percentage of mitigation ofl hardwood canopy trees. VII. DISCUSS NEXT UPCOMING TOPICS Member Patten reviewed his thoughts around the upcoming schedule. Mr. Mladinich stated that he could present a status update of the information he has obtained thus far at the November 19th meeting. Mr. Mladinich suggested that part of the next discussion can be how in depth the TAC would like to be in their recommendations and noted that the TAC has the option of providing individual recommendations for each item that are simple recommendations as opposed to a final, coherent ordinance. Mr. Mladinich explained that it is not uncommon for the City Commission to pick and choose recommendations and that changes the formula. Mr. Mladinich stated that energy may be better spent on developing simplified recommendations and suggested that the TAC discuss the items for which discussion has been postponed, as well as the preferred level of detail for developing recommendations at the November 19th meeting. Member Patten requested that staff provide comments to the TAC. Member Gilkey suggested that the TAC recommendations be more formalized before asking staff to provide comments. Arborist Miller stated that he will require a more complete set of recommendations before he can provide comments. Mr. Mladinich stated that, in his opinion, the TAC is not close to a holistic, completed ordinance. Mr. Mladinich explained that recommendations have been formulated regarding all of thei issues and that is sufficient, as the TAC has onlyl been asked to provide recommendations. Member Patten stated that he is in favor of providing recommendations rather than crafting a Minutes of the' Tree. Advisory Committee Meeting October 10, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in the City Commission Chambers 9 of 9 completed ordinance. Member Gilkey added that the recommendations provided by the TAC may lead to changes in the Tree Ordinance. The TAC discussed citizen input regarding the completed recommendations. VIII. DISCUSS NEXT MEETING DATE The date of the next meeting was confirmed for November 19th, 2018 at 3:00 p.m. The date of the following meeting was tentatively scheduled for December 12th, 2018 at 3:00 p.m. IX. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 5:10 p.m. 4 Rob Patten, Acting Chair Timpothylitchet, Secretary