CITY OF SARASOTA MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE TREE ADVISORY COMMITTEE November 19, 2018 at 3:00 p.m. in the SRQ Media Studio Members Present: Michael Halflants, Chair Michael Gilkey, Jr., Vice Chair Members Mary Fuerst, Chris Gallagher, Rob Patten, Trevor Falk (arrived at 3:13 p.m.) Members Absent: All members were present. City Staff Present: Timothy Litchet, Directot of Development Services and Secretary to the Tree Advisory Committee Mark Miller, Senior Arborist Don Ullom, Arborist Joe Mladinich, Legal Counsel Angela McLcod-Wilkins, Development Services I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Meeting came to order at 3:00 p.m. Secretary Litchet read the roll call. Vice Chair Halflants informed all in attendance that Shawn Dressler had resigned as Chair to the Tree Advisory Committee and that it would be necessary to appoint a new Chair and a new Vice Chair to the Committee. Member Fuerst nominated Michael Halflants for Chair. The nomination was seconded by Member Gallagher. There were no other nominees and the votes were unanimous in favor of Michael Halflants for Chair. Member Fuerst nominated Michael Gilkey for Vice Chair. The nomination was seconded by Member Gallagher. There were no othet nominees and the votes were unanimous in favor of Michael Gilkey for Vice Chair. II. PLEDGE OF CONDUCT Chair Halflants teminded all in attendance to turn off their cells phones. Secretary Litchet read the Pledge of Conduct adopted by the City Commission of Sarasota. Minutes of the Meeting of the Tree Advisory Committee November 19, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in the SRQ Media Studio 2 of11 III. CITIZEN's INPUT 1. Lou Costa Mr. Costa stated that he has viewed the draft recommendations and that he is in favor of some of the recommendations. Mr. Costa also stated that some of the recommendations could be implemented with minor changes to the existing code. Mr. Costa stated that a change in the wording of Zoning Code Section VII-320(h) could create flexibility, which he stated was arguably the biggest problem for City residents. Mr. Costa suggested the formation of a sub-committee consisting of Mr. Litchet, Mr. Mladinich, and himself, to handle Item #1. Chair Halflants informed Mr. Costa that he can send his suggestions for edits to the draft recommendations by the TAC to be reviewed by the' TAC. Mr. Costa stated that he would send his recommendations and edits but requested communication from the TAC. Mr. Costa stated that the process requires 2-way communication. Chair Halflants explained that the' TAC: members check their emails and would review recommendations from Mr. Costa. Mr. Costa stated that he would send an item related to flexibility and an item related to purpose, for the' TAC's review. Member Patten asked if Mr. Costa could call a meeting with Secretary Litchet and Mr. Mladinich and share the information from that meeting at the next TAC: meeting. Secretary Litchet explained that he is willing to meet with Mr. Costa and Mr. Mladinich, but that the TAC is unable to appoint a sub-committee of any kind. Secretary Litchet stated that he is willing to speak with any member of the public regarding their thoughts related to the TAC. 2. Carl. Shoffstall - Mr. Shoffstall stated that he resides at 129 Tyler Drive on Lido Key and that he is the Chair of the CCNA as well as the Chair of the Parks, Recreation and Environmental Protection Board. Mr. Shoffstall stated that he has been receiving requests at CCNA meetings regarding the tree replacement fund and requests for acquiring trees for people in the neighborhood. Mr. Shoffstall requested an opportunity to appear on an agenda to give a 15 -minute presentation for the TAC as a citizen's committee as soon as possible. Member Patten and Member Fuerst stated that they are in favor of a 15-minute presentation from Mr. Shoffstall and his citizen's group. The TAC decided that that the presentation would appear on the agenda for the following TAC meeting. 3. Jono Miller Mr. Miller stated that the links that have been provided to the TAC meeting material are and helpful and he endorsed Mr. Shoffstall's request to provide a presentation at the next TAC meeting. Mr. Miller stated that the TAC recommendations that are based on data will provide the strongest finished product rather than recommendations based on opinions. Mr. Miller stated that he would like the TAC to have the data related to the following: the number of permits requested, the number of permits approved, the number of permit denials, the number of related complaints, whether staff feels those complaints are valid, types of fines that have been levied, monies received as a result of permitting fees, and other background data and analysis. Mr. Miller stated that he appreciated the proposal regarding Cabbage Palms, but that he does not believe it should be imposed in cases of Grand Trees. Mr. Miller stated that no data has been presented to the TAC to suggest that some areas of the City should be treated differently than others and suggested that, when possible, decisions should be made based on data. Mr. Miller stated that he has heard that the developers of the Mark are able to choose the types of trees that they want on their property and suggested that developers should be able to choose Minutes of the Meeting of the Tree Advisory Committee November 19, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in the SRQ Media Studio 3 of 11 the types of trees they prefer on their property, but that the City should decide what trees are planted on public property. 4. Patrick Gannon - Mr. Gannon stated that he is President of the Downtown Sarasota Condo Association. Mr. Gannon stated his appreciation for the TAC purpose oft reasonable flexibility but stated that he does not think that the TAC's purposes ofi improving air quality and controlling stormwater and funoff have been captured in the draft of recommendations. Mr. Gannon stated that he supported Mr. Miller's contention that recommendations should be based on data, and that he sent an email to the TAC on May 9th that requested facts be provided on actual or estimated costs of tree mitigation under the current and proposed Tree Ordinances. Mr. Gannon stated that per section 5(a) of the proposed Tree Ordinance, it would appear that costs to developers would be reduced by 50% due to the requirement of only a 2-inch caliper tree rather than a 4-inch caliper tree, and due to keeping the current sliding scale. Mr. Gannon also stated that in section 6(c) the full cost of the loss of benefits from small trees until the time that they are able to provide benefits such as air quality improvement and reduced stormwater and runoff, must be taken into account in order to determine what fees or mitigation is fair and reasonable. Mr. Gannon stated that developers who choose to remove and replace trees with small trees should compensate the City and therefore the residents, for the benefit lost during that time. Mr. Gannon questioned whether there is data to support the proposal of canopy tree replacement with 3 palm trees and stated that the analysis that he has reviewed stated a 20 to 1 to 30 to 1 feature benefit of canopy trees over palms trees. Member Patten asked Mr. Gannon if he could provide the data to the TAC members. Mr. Gannon stated that he would resend his May 9th email to the TAC members. 5. Jude Levy Ms. Levy stated that her last fight was to save the Black Olive trees on Main Street and that she realizes therei is another challenge. Ms. Levy stated that thereis a Pincer. Action against canopied street trees and stated that almost all of the latest developments are using large palm trees. Ms. Levy also stated that she did not realize that developers were able to choose the street trees adjacent to their projects and explained that without the shade, the City is not walkable or bikeable. Ms. Levy stated that 15 years ago the City! had research to support that people want to shop where there is shade and provided examples to support the idea of Pincer Action related to canopy street trees. 6. Jerry Blumberg- Mr. Blumberg stated that he did extensive landscaping 14 years ago which included 2 Shady Ladies at the front of his courtyard and stated that one of the trees was struck by lightning and had to be removed. Mr. Blumberg stated that he approached the City about removing the existing tree in order to plant two new trees that match and his request was denied. Mr. Blumberg explained that he has more landscaping at his single-family home than most condos and that he only wants to remove the healthy tree to plant matching trees because the remaining tree is no longer aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Blumberg stated that he would like permission to replace the trees. Member Patten explained that the TAC has discussed changes to the Tree Ordinance that would allow a City Arborist to make a determination about similar cases on site with a simplified permitting process. Member Gilkey explained that the TAC does not have the authority to make decisions about such cases. Member Patten explained that the TAC is an advisory board only. Member Gilkey stated that the current code does not give any leeway to aesthetics or shade and the TAC is taking that into consideration. Minutes of the Meeting of the Tree. Advisory Committee November 19, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in the SRQ Media Studio 4 of1 11 7. Vanessa Mason - Ms. Mason stated that she is on the Board for the Arlington Park Neighborhood Association, that she is a realtor as well as a broker associate, and that she was speaking from a buyer/seller perspective. Ms. Mason stated that the current tree ordinance affects both buyers and sellers and explained that most buyers she works with want to live downtown in and old, established neighborhood and want a new or newer house that includes a pool in their backyard. Ms. Mason explained that the #1 question she receives from buyers is whether or not the tree in the backyard can be removed. Ms. Mason stated that certain lots are more desirable if there are less trees and stated that that a property can be worth from $100,000 to $150,000 less because of too many trees in thel backyard. Ms. Mason stated that buyers tend to hold out for a house with less backyard trees and sellers become frustrated knowing that the backyard trees can cause their homes to sit on the market. Ms. Mason suggested that there should be a common sense, flexible Tree Ordinance with respect to pools and sundecks. Ms. Mason stated that, in her experience, both buyers and sellers are willing to pay into a tree replacement fund for the permission to remove trees. Ms. Mason also explained that she is in the process ofc contacting 14 residents ofArlington Park that requested a tree with the program and will be compiling the information and organizing a group. Member Patten questioned Secretary Litchet regarding the Tree Ordinance with respect to tree removal for the purpose ofl building a pool. Secretary Litchet stated that the current code states construction within the allowed setback areas can be a reason for tree removal for trees other than Grand Trees, but that the current code is also written to encourage the Director of Development and staff to determine if the improvement can be relocated to allow for preservation of a tree. Secretary Litchet explained the criteria for removal of Grand Trees is more stringent and requires that the tree makes 25% of the lot unbuildable and gives him a stronger ability to require redesigns. Secretary Litchet stated that determinations are made on a case by case basis and that many times the pool can be relocated but people still do not want the shade. Secretary Litchet stated that he will not allow a tree to be removed just because it will shade a pool. 8. Norman DuMaine - Mr. DuMaine stated that he is the President of the Homeowners' Association at Glen Oaks Estates and that there have been two issues at Glen Oaks Estates. First, Mr. DuMaine stated that private homeowners are unable to improve their landscaping due to the. restrictions of the current code, that it creates a lot of ill will, and that the restrictions work against thej philosophies of"right tree, right place" and increased flexibility. Mr. DuMaine also mentioned that, according to the website, none of the 100 public tree requests have been fulfilled and asked that it be investigated. Mr. DuMaine stated that he has reservations regarding the present draft recommendations related to flexibility and "right tree, right place" philosophy. Mr. DuMaine echoed the suggestion of a presentation by the public to discuss issues and concerns. Secretary Litchet stated that he has heard numerous times that there is map by which the public can request free trees from the City and that the requests are not being fulfilled. Secretary Litchet clarified that the map on the website was created for developers that may be required to provide mitigation trees and are unable to plant on their site and that, per the last amendment to the Tree Ordinance, the City has agreed to a new concept that allows developers who are unable to mitigate on the site they own, to plant the mitigation tree on private property within 1,000 feet of the removal site or the same neighborhood. SectetaryLitchet stated that the mapi in question was a registry created1 Iby stafft to connect developers with citizens that may want a tree and is separate from the City's mitigation fund which is spent on public property such as parks and rights-of-way. Secretary Litchet explained that there is nothingi in the resolution that allows him to authorize trees on private property, and that such a decision would be determined by the City Commission. Secretary Litchet stated that the mitigation fund is for public use and that the registry was only created for the purpose of giving developers and opportunity to mitigate offsite rather than paying into the mitigation fund. Minutes of the Meeting of the Tree. Advisory Committee November 19, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in the SRQ Media Studio 5 of 11 Mr. DuMaine stated that the website does not provide detailed information when making a public request for replacement trees and that a close analysis of mitigation funds should be requested. Member Patten asked for clarification from Secretary Litchet regarding mitigation for developers. Mr. Litchet clarified the hierarchy of mitigation preferences as the following: 1) mitigate onsite, 2) mitigate on nearby public land, 3) mitigate at a neighboring property, and 4) payi into the mitigation fund. Secretary Litchet explained that the City would prefer a tree be planted if at all possible, and if not, then the option to pay into the mitigation fund would be presented. Secretary Litchet stated that in the event of! payment into the mitigation fund, those monies are controlled by a specific resolution that states that funds will be used to increase trees on public lands. There was a discussion by the' Tree Advisory Committee related to the mitigation process. Vice Chair Gilkey explained that the contractors have relationships with the person who has the tree, not the person requesting the tree and stated that the liability involved with planting offsite on private property is a deterrent. Chair Halflants suggested that the mitigation protocol be updated, and that rather than planting offsite on nearby private property, the developer should pay into the mitigation fund and some of that money should go toward planting on private property. Ms. Mason suggested that the website registry has not been update or notated as to who has received trees. Member Patten agreed with Chair Halflants' suggestion regarding the City using some of the tree mitigation fund to plant trees on private property. Member Fuerst asked for clarification on how the mitigation fund resolution is worded. Sectetary Litchet stated that the resolution may be written broadly enough that he could grant authority for mitigation trees for the right-of- way, but that it does not allow money for the use of planting mitigation trees on private property. Secretary Litchet also stated that there was approximately $218,000 in the mitigation fund when the TAC was formed, and there was a request to have a street tree survey conducted. Mr. Litchet explained that the Parks and Recreation Department then discovered that the price for such a survey would cost around $250,000 and it was decided that the survey was not cost effective. Mr. Litchet stated that he has discussed the fund with Deputy City Manager, Marlon Brown, and the Director of Parks and Recreation, Jerry Fogle, and that Mr. Fogle is awaiting the TAC's recommendations, as he is aware that the TAC's long-term vision includes an Urban Forestry Program, and that the mitigation fund could be utilized to employ such a program. Chair Halflants questioned Secretary Litchet regarding monies for the. Arbor Day tree giveaway program. Secretary Litchet explained that he received permission from the City Commission to allocate $5,000 last year and $5,000 this year from the mitigation fund for the. Arbor Day tree giveaway program. Secretary Litchet explained that, from his perspective, administering such a fund requires parameters and that there are no current rules or regulations to guide him in providing trees for private property. Minutes of the Meeting of the Tree Advisory Committee November 19, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in the SRQ Media Studio 6 of 11 Member Patten stated that the TAC originally requested a tree survey but that they discovered, after speaking to Dr. Northrup from Tampa, that what they need is canopy survey which can be interpreted using aerial photos. IV. APPROVAL OF THE SEPTEMBER 27TH AND OCTOBER 10TH MEETING MINUTES Member Falk and Member Gallagher requested corrections to the September 27th meeting minutes. The September 27th meeting minutes were approved with corrections. The October 10th meeting minutes were approved as submitted. V. REVIEW BY LEGAL COUNSEL Mr. Mladinich explained that he has drafted a summary ofitems that gained consensus or near consensus by virtue of a vote after reviewing the Tree. Advisory Committee's duties and the meeting minutes. Mr. Mladinich added that the summary is certainly not indicative of everything the' Tree Advisory Committee has discussed and that he has also include some: items that are to be determined. Mr. Mladinich reminded the TAC that there will be times when it will require a simple majority vote to make decisions, that he does not feel that the TAC is near a draft ordinance, and that he understood per the last meeting that the Committee was aiming for draft recommendations rather than a coherent ordinance. Mr. Mladinich suggested that the TAC review the current code sections that correspond with their more concrete recommendations to gauge whether the current section requires only tweaking, ifit should be completely reworded, of ifit should be excluded. Mr. Mladinich reiterated that the draft is in the preliminary stage of development. Member Fuerst stated that she does not see where the TAC has provided flexibility for landscaping. Member Patten stated that he would like some guidance from staff and requested that staff draft a document that reflects what the TAC is trying to accomplish and that does not gut the current Tree Ordinance but allows flexibility. Member Patten expressed concern that the TAC will reach the end of the process and will not achieved the level of flexibility they desire without diminishing the current protections. Member Gallagher stated that the best the TAC can hope fori is to provide recommendations to the City Commission which they will then present to staff and noted that the TAC needs to present their intent with more clarity. Mr. Mladinich stated that the TAC: is not required to have a completed ordinance to present to the City Commission and that the recommendations by the TAC can be guiding principles for amendments. Mr. Mladinich stated that there has not been substantive conversation on enough of the ordinance to be close to a draft ordinance. Member Patten stated that a completed draft ordinance. is not appropriate at this point and that it would be helpful to obtain staffi input. Mr. Mladinich noted that the current ordinance does not allow for tree removal based on the desire to replace a tree with a better tree unless there is an issue with the existing tree and recommended that the TACreview the current criteria for removal. Mr. Mladinich also stated that! he senses a general agreement Minutes of the Meeting of the Tree Advisory Committee November 19, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in the SRQ Media Studio 7 of 11 by the TAC to create more flexibility with this type of situation, but that it has not been reflected in the draft recommendations thus far. Vice Chair Gilkey stated that he feels that the TAC is being forced into some of the questions in Mr. Mladinich' S drafted sommedhatom/guetont for the Committee. Mr. Mladinich stated that the TAC certainly has flexibility from the document. Member Gilkey noted that he has provided a formula for removal and then explained his formula. Chair Halflants stated that he has always believed it was the responsibility of the TAC to develop a draft ordinance rather than broad recommendations regarding increased flexibility because he is unsure what the staff and City Commission can do with such broad recommendations. Chair Halflants also noted that the TAC has not reached a point of developing useful recommendations and suggested that the members try a different process, specifically that each member would take a portion of the ordinance that they are very knowledgeable or passion about, develop specific recommendations regarding the topic chosen, and present to the Committee at the next meeting in order to provide topics on which to vote. The TAC briefly discussed the differences in the 4 categories: existing single family, existing development, new single family, and new development. Mr. Mladinich stated that there was a lot of discussion about the recommendations Vice Chair Gilkey made at the August 30th meeting regarding categories, but that the there was not consensus sO he was unsure how to incorporate that information into his draft, as the direction was unclear. Secretary Litchet stated that, as staff was meeting with the prior Chair to schedule meetings, staff suggested that they would be willing to analyze specific code sections based upon the 8 duties of the TAC and make recommendations that would be a bit more specific as to existing language. Secretary Litchet stated that his idea when he proposed the Tree Advisory Committee was to get some specific, interim changes to code language that would be helpful while larger ideas (an Urban Forestry Plan) are developed. Secretary Litchet stated that if the TAC does not come to some workable determinations quickly, the TAC will likely be involved in another year of public outcry while attempting to define and develop an Urban Forestry Plan. Secretary Litchet stated that if the TAC would find it to be helpful, staff can review the original resolution from the City Commission, note the various applicable code sections, and provide a spectrum of recommendations. Mr. Litchet stated that he was not proposing that staff control the process in any way, but that staff could provide some support to the directions chosen by the TAC. Secretary Litchet stated that the same offer was made to the prior chair, but that he was hesitant to accept staff assistance. Member Fuerst stated that she was in favor of both Chair Halflants' S new approach and receiving guidance from staff. Member Patten agreed. Vice Chair Gilkey stated that the previous Chair had taken many notes leading up to an eventual vote and asked the TACif anyone had passion of those notes. Secretary Litchet stated that staff would reach out to the previous chair to obtain the notes. Member Fuerst stated that she would like to take on the topic of the proposed Canopy Tree Ordinance. Chair Halflants stated that many times the TAC has discussions but does not reach a draft recommendation. Chair Halflants suggested that each member develop wording for their chosen topic, send recommendations by email before the next meeting sO they may be reviewed, and then review the Minutes of the Meeting of the Tree. Advisory Committee November 19, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in the SRQ Media Studio 8 of 11 information as a group and vote on recommendations at the next meeting. Chair Halflants noted that the Committee's recommendations can then be plugged into staff's recommendations for the January meeting. Vice Chair Gilkey stated that he would take on the topic of "Champion Trees" as well as specific mitigation recommendations. Member Patten presented his recommendations based on Mr. Mladinich' s drafted document and stated that he would take on the topic of the Urban Forestry Plan. Chair Halflants clarified that, for him, the Urban Forestry Plan is about establishing a plan for planting trees within the City rather than surveying. Chair Halflants stated that he would take on the topic of new development. Mr. Mladinich stated that he is most interested in the information that establishes differences and the reasons behind treating the 4 categories described differently. Vice Chair Gilkey explained that in a new development trees are removed to create space for the development while existing development removes trees for the purposes of maintenance and beautification. Mr. Mladinich stated that under some of the TAC's recommendations, a reason for removal was not required for the removal of most trees, with the exception of Grand Trees and "Champion Trees". Mr. Mladinich asked if the amount of mitigation required is the difference between single family properties and development Chair Halflants stated that fees would be different for single family homes versus development. Vice Chair Gilkey agreed. Member Patten explained the difference between development and single family homes related to protections in the Zoning Code and referenced the Bayside project as an example. Member Gallagher requested that caution is used when stating whether or not at item has consensus and that he does not want dissenting opinions to be glossed over of lost in the final draft of recommendations. Member Gallagher noted that the City Commission would be interested to know about such opinions and that it should be clear that, though the majority ofthe TAC may generally agtee on some things, there is also another perspective. Member Gallagher stated that no matter what the TAC develops, it will be imperfect and that the TAC will have to decide which imperfect option they would prefer. Mr. Mladinich stated that he would change the wording to ensure that Member Gallagher's opinion is not lost. Mr. Patten cautioned that changing the wording to reflect Member Gallagher's opinion on each item could create a false equivalency, but noted that Member Gallagher's philosophical direction should be made clear. Member Patten stated that a letter transmission that is given to the City Commission should state that there was a consistent vote against certain items due to philosophical differences. Member Gallagher stated that he approves ofs stating a 6-1 vote in those cases. Minutes of the Meeting of the Tree Advisory Committee November 19, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in the SRQ Media Studio 9 of 11 The TAC discussed the phrasing consensus" and how dissenting opinions should be conveyed to the City Commission. Mr. Mladinich stated that going forward the TAC should try to do more voting sO that opinions are clear. Member Gilkey stated that he would like to discuss any suggestions that Member Gallagher has to make the finished product something that Member Gallagher feels he can support. Member Gallagher stated that he does not see the facts to support all of the effort that goes into protecting a few trees and that there are many negative consequences that come from the Tree Ordinance. Mr. Gallagher provided the example of a friend of his who is currently dealing with tree issues and who would be hesitant to plant any more trees than required because once a tree is planted, he feels the City owns the tree. Chair Halflants asked if Member Gallagher's overall idea is that there would be maximum flexibility for existing single family homes and that for new developments, there would be a mechanism for developers to pay into a tree mitigation fund that would go toward lining the streets of the City with trees. Member Gallagher stated that his first preference would be to do away with a Tree Ordinance and that his second preference would be that everyone that pays for a permit for any project pays into a tree fund. Member Gallagher explained that the fund could be handled similar to the way the City handles the. Art Fee, that the whole city would benefit and the public canopy would be expanded. Chair Halflants stated that he does not: necessarily think that the Committee would vote against that idea, and that the TAC needs something in writing sO that they can vote as a group. Chair Halflants noted that it would not be politically tenable for the TAC to attempt to get rid of the Tree Ordinance altogether and that it is about finding a middle ground but stated that he definitely agrees that residents should be given maximum flexibility and that the TAC should find a mechanism to fund the tree mitigation fund sO that the City can have more trees on its streets. Chair Halflants stated that he hopes that Member Gallagher could propose some. language for the Committee to review. VI. 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. Chair Halflants stated that he would like to gain a better understanding of the current fees. Arborist Miller explained the current fees for tree removal and explained the differences between tree removal fees for residential property and commercial property. Arborist Miller also explained mitigation planting and payment options as well as thej price per inch of tree removed in lieu of mitigation. Mr. Mladinich requested that Arborist Miller send the fee resolution to all TAC members. Arborist Miller confirmed that he would send the information. Member Falk asked Arborist Miller about the typical size of a tree for a commercial development. Arborist Miller stated that most of those trees are between 12 inches and 20: inches. Arborist Ullom explained that if half of required mitigation is planted, fees can be paid into the mitigation fund for the remaining mitigation. Member Falk clarified that the fees are currently the same for residential and commercial and that moving forward, that will be addressed. Minutes of the Meeting of the Tree Advisory Committee November 19, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in the SRQ Media Studio 10 of 11 Vice Chair Gilkey stated that the permitting fees seem low for both residential and commercial properties. Member Patten stated that Arborist Miller gave a lengthy presentation at the Januaty 10th meeting and requested that Arborist Miller note whether the TAC: has addressed the issues raised at that meeting. Secretary Litchet stated that every resolution and every fee ordinance was provided to each member in their initial packets and recommended that the members review thej provided information. Mr. Mladinich stated that it would be beneficial for each member to take some time to read through the existing Tree Ordinance to gain knowledge related to the existing details and increase their understanding Member Fuerst stated that the information she has is confusing because there is more than one version of the Tree Ordinance. Mr. Mladinich stated that the Tree Ordinance can be found online at Municode. Secretary Litchet stated that the different ordinances were provided so that the TAC could see changes over time. Mr. Mladinich stated that he would email the latest version of the Tree Ordinance to the Committee. The TAC discussed topic assignments. Mr. Mladinich gave a summary of the assignments: Vice Chair Gilkey Categories for Protection and Mitigation Recommendations Member Fuerst - Canopy Road Designation Member Patten - Urban Fotestry Chair Halflants - New Development Member Falk - Undecided The TAC decided that they would have recommendations submitted to the TAC Liaison by December 10th. Mark Miller stated that he met with West Central Urban Forestry Group. Arborist Miller stated that he gave copies of the City of Sarasota's Tree Ordinance to approximately 40 members and gave them a deadline ofJanuary 2nd to provide suggestions. Chair Halflants suggested that Member Gallagher present his recommendations related to mitigation fees at the next meeting. Member Gallagher accepted. VII. RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE PROPOSED CANOPY TREE ORDINANCE. This Agenda item was not discussed. VIII. RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS IN ADDITION TO ITEMS 1 THROUGH 7 OF THE DUTIES OF THE TREE ADVISORY COMMITTEE. This Agenda item was not discussed Minutes of the Meeting of the Tree Advisory Committee November 19, 2018, at 3:00 p.m, in the SRQ Media Studio 11 of 11 IX. DISCUSS UPCOMING TOPICS TAC members will present assigned topics at the next meeting. X. DISCUSS NEXT MEETING DATE The date of the next meeting was confirmed for December 12, 2018 at 3:00 p.m. The date of following meeting was confirmed for January 30, 2019 at 3:00 p.m. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m. / Michael Halfants, Chair Timothy Litchet Secretary